2-7 - Impact Assessment

Section 2.
7 Impact Assessment Page 389
2.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Overview of Approach
The Act defines the “Environment" as:
The components of the Earth, and includes:
1. Land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere
2. All organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and
3. The interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)
(Section 2(1)).
The Act defines “environmental effect”, in respect of a project, as:

d. Any change that the Project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause to a
listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as those terms
are defined in Subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act;
e. Any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on
i. Health and socio-economic conditions
ii. Physical and cultural heritage
iii. The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, and
iv. Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural
significance.
f. Any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment whether any such change or effect
occurs within or outside Canada.
The environmental assessment focuses on specific environmental components (called VECs) that are of
particular value or interest to regulators and other stakeholders. Environmental ecosystem components
typically are selected for assessment on the basis of regulatory issues and guidelines, consultation with
regulators and stakeholders, field reconnaissance, and professional judgement of the study team. Where
a VEC has various components that may interact in different manners with the Project, the environmental
assessment may consider the effects on individual Key Indicators (KIs), as well as VECs.
The term “impact” refers to the aspect of the Project infrastructure, action or activity that is likely to result
in an environmental effect on the environment.
The environmental assessment methods address both project–related and cumulative environmental
effects. Project-related environmental effects are changes to the biophysical or human environment that
are caused by a project or activity arising solely as a result of the proposed principal works and activities,
as defined by the scope of the Project. Cumulative environmental effects are changes to the biophysical
or human environment that are caused by an action associated with the Project under review, in
combination with other past, present and future projects and activities.
Project-related environmental effects and cumulative environmental effects are characterized
sequentially. The Project-specific environmental effect is discussed first, having regard to mitigation
New Prosperity September 2012

Environmental Impact Statement
Section 2.7 Impact Assessment Page 390
measures proposed in this EIS or developed subsequently as a result of the EA process that help to
reduce or avoid Project impacts that could result in this environmental effect. A cumulative environmental
effects screening is then conducted for any residual environmental effect to determine if there is potential
for a cumulative environmental effect as defined in CEA Act.
The significance of any residual adverse environmental effects for both project related and cumulative
effects is then assessed having regard to the CEAA Reference Guide: Determining Whether a Project is
Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects - The Requirements of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D213D286-
1&offset=2&toc=show). In addressing what might constitute a significant adverse effect the following
factors are considered: magnitude, likelihood, geographic extent, duration and frequency, reversibility,
ecological context, and likelihood.
More specifically, the environmental effects assessment approach used in this assessment involves the
following four steps.
1. Scoping of the overall assessment. This is discussed in Section 2.3.
2. Characterization of Project-related Environmental Effects. This is discussed in Section 2.7.1.1.
3. Characterization of Cumulative Environmental Effects. This is discussed in Section 2.7.1.4.
4. Assessment of Significance. This is discussed in Section 2.7.1.5

2.7.1 Approach to the Effects Prediction, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effects
2.7.1.1 Effects Prediction

This environmental assessment has been completed using a standard methodological framework to meet
the requirements of CEA Act and BCEAA. The environmental effects assessment method is based on a
structured approach that:
 Considers that mandatory and discretionary factors required under Section 16 of CEA Act
 Focuses on issues of greatest concern
 Affords consideration of all federal and provincial regulatory requirements for the assessment of
environmental effects
 Considers all issues raised by the public, aboriginal people, and public stakeholders, and
 Integrates engineering design and programs for mitigation and monitoring into a comprehensive
environmental planning process.
For the purpose of this environmental assessment, the term “environment” as defined by CEA Act means
the components of the Earth, and includes:
 Land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere
 All organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and
 The interacting natural systems that include components referred to in the first two bullets.
Characterization of Project-related Environmental Effects are assessed, including descriptions of how an

environmental effect will occur, mitigation and environmental protection measures proposed to reduce or
eliminate the environmental effect, and evaluation and characterization of the residual environmental
effects of the Project (i.e., environmental effects remaining after application of mitigation measures) on the
environment for each development phase.
Where possible, threshold criteria or standards were identified for each VEC, beyond which a residual
environmental effect would be considered adverse. In some cases, standards or thresholds were also
defined for specific effects for a VEC or KI.
Standards are recognized government or industry regulations or objectives for physical aspects such as
air quality, water quality, effluent release, or in-stream flows. Thresholds reflect the limits of an acceptable
state for an environmental component based on resource management objectives, community standards,
scientific literature, or ecological processes (e.g., desired states for fish or wildlife habitats or populations).
Where they exist and are applicable, guidelines are considered in the assessment of effects, keeping in
mind that while in some instances they may provide a helpful benchmark against which to consider the
significance of any residual adverse effects, by themselves they are often not determinative of a finding of
significance. By their very nature, guidelines often incorporate order of magnitude margins of safety, are
determined based on theoretical grounds, aspects of which are often contradicted and exceeded in the
natural environment and they often are developed in specific jurisdictions or with specific intended
application only then to be considered for general application.
Potential changes in a measurable parameter, KI, or VEC resulting from the Project and/or cumulative
environmental effects were evaluated against these standards or thresholds. Where possible, the
following characteristics for an environmental effect were described quantitatively to assist in the
assessment of the residual environmental effect. Where these residual environmental effects
characteristics could not be expressed quantitatively, at minimum, they were described using qualitative
terms.

2.7.1.2 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation, defined as changes in the temporal or spatial aspects of the Project and/or the means in which
the Project will be constructed, operated or decommissioned, over and above aspects of the Project
design are described throughout the EIS. Where possible, the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation
measure(s) was expressed in terms of the expected change in the measurable parameter(s) for the
environmental effect.

2.7.1.3 Compensation
Compensation for VECs other than for fish and fish habitat, as well as for wetland habitat and on wetlands
associated with migratory birds and species at risk, will be identified where adverse residual effects are
anticipated and are unavoidable. If compensation is proposed for a particular VEC, it will be identified in
association with each VEC in Sections 2.7.2, 2.7.3 and 2.7.4.
Effects on fish and fish habitat have been quantified in Section 2.7.2.5, including residual effects once
mitigation measures are implemented. Two Fish Habitat Compensation Plans have been developed, one
that characterizes habitat loss related to the Tailings Impoundment Area (TIA), and another that
characterizes habitat loss related to the balance of the MDP, excluding the TIA. Both compensation plans
will be finalized in consultation with regulatory agencies and be consistent with existing legislation and
policies. The extent to which fish population and fish habitat, the productive capacity of water bodies,
recreation values, wildlife, wildlife habitat and the habitat of species at risk values has been affected is
identified, including a discussion of how these effects are avoided, reduced or mitigated.
Effects on wildlife have been quantified in Section 2.7.2.8. Consistent with the Table of Commitments
from the previously reviewed Prosperity project, a Draft Habitat Compensation Reference Document
providing a framework to guide the development and implementation of a habitat compensation plan is
provided in the appendix to Section 2.7.2.8. As indicated in this framework document, while details
concerning scope and criteria governing any compensation plan can be developed in advance the
implementation of specific compensation, measures cannot meaningfully be implemented until the
decision to proceed with the Project is made, construction commenced and implementation of planned
mitigation measures has been completed and evaluated.

2.7.1.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment

Characterizations of Cumulative Environmental Effects of other projects and activities that overlap with
those of the Project are identified. An assessment of potential interactions is completed to determine if an
assessment of cumulative effects is required for that specific Project effect. Cumulative environmental
effects are only assessed if all three of the following conditions are met for the environmental effect under
consideration (CEAA Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide, 1999). A series of three
questions are used to screen cumulative environmental effects:
 The Project will result in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual environmental

effect on a component of the biophysical or human environment (i.e., Is there an environmental effect
that can be measured or that can reasonably be expected to occur?).
 The Project-specific residual environmental effect on that component does, or is likely to, act in a
cumulative fashion with the environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that
are likely to occur (i.e., Is there overlap of environmental effects–i.e., A cumulative environmental
effect?).
 There is a reasonable expectation that the Project’s contribution to cumulative environmental effects
will affect the viability or sustainability of the resource or value.
Project Inclusion List

A Project Inclusion List including all past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects (those that are
likely to occur), activities and actions with potential residual environmental effects that could overlap
spatially and temporally with the potential residual environmental project effects being assessed was
prepared. The inclusion list was developed through consultation with a wide variety of information
sources. Projects currently listed with the BC EAO and CEAA were evaluated for relevance to the New
Prosperity project, and where the potential existed for these projects to have some environmental
interaction (cumulative effect) with the Project, they were included in the Project Inclusion List.
Additional information sources consulted to determine existing and foreseeable projects included
municipal, regional, provincial and federal governmental agencies and other stakeholders (e.g.
developers and companies). The following organizations and agencies were contacted for information on
relevant projects near the Project area:
 City of Williams Lake
 Quesnel Community and Economic Development Corporation
 Cariboo Regional District
 BC EAO
 Ministry of Energy and Mines
 Front Counter BC, and
 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

In addition, a number of companies and businesses currently operating or with proposed projects within
the regional study areas (RSAs) were contacted or their websites were searched for additional information
to determine if potential cumulative effects existed. Table 2.7.1.4-1 contains the 22 projects and activities
determined to be relevant to the New Prosperity project. It summarizes the nature of the Project, the
proponent, project dates, and provides a current status according to available information. The location of
these projects within the RSAs is found on Figure 2.7.1.4-1. A project being on the list does not imply
there is a cumulative effect; rather, it indicates that the Project has sufficient merit for further review of its
effects relative to New Prosperity to be evaluated.
The results of the cumulative effects assessments are discussed for each VEC in Sections 2.7.2, 2.7.3
and 2.7.4.

Table 2.7.1.4 -1 Inclusion List
Company/ Major Start End

Project Project Footprint
Organizatio Component Date Date Project Description Status
Name Type Size
n s (yr) (yr)
Cariboo Gold Barkerville Mining Open pit, 2,463 ha The Cariboo Gold Quartz Project ("Gold Quartz") is situated within the Cariboo Gold Fields, a world-class producer of gold with a Terminated
Project Gold Mines mill, waste history of mining that dates back to the Cariboo gold rush of the 1860's. In excess of 2.5 million ounces of placer gold and over 1 /
Ltd storage million ounces of load gold has been produced from the region. The Gold Quartz is a proposed open pit mine on Cow Mountain Past
facility, within the Rainbow, Sanders and Pinkerton zones, which are centered on a large knoll on Cow Mountain. Project
access http://www.barkervillegold.com/s/Cariboo_Gold.asp
roads, power http://www.barkervillegold.com/s/Operations.asp
line right-of-
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_home_69.html
way,
diversion
ditches,
topsoil
stockpiles
Bonanza Barkerville Mining Exploration 2008 2013 78 ha The Bonanza Ledge deposit is on the southwest flank of Barkerville Mountain, about 2 km northwest of the Barkerville Historic Approval
Ledge Project Gold Mines and Drilling Town site. Based on the successes of these previous drill programs, the company has expanded its planned drilling program Under the
Ltd through to 2013. Initially the program will consist of 20,000 meters of diamond drilling to further explore at depth, along strike and BC Mines
within the Bonanza Ledge deposit area. Act
http://www.barkervillegold.com/s/Bonanza_Ledge.asp
Cariboo Noble Metal Mining Exploration 2005 Ongoing 10,950 ha The property is located approximately 21 kilometres north-northeast of the community of Likely, in the Cariboo Mining Division of Ongoing
Mineral Gold Group and Drilling British Columbia, Canada. The property consists of 22 four post located claims containing 388 units and 50 located two post Exploration
claims for a total of 438 units. The claims are contiguous and have not been surveyed.
http://aris.empr.gov.bc.ca/ArisReports/28443.PDF
QR Mine Barkerville Mining Underground 2007 2011 120 ha This project involves the reopening and expansion of a mine. Underground operations were suspended in February of 1998 and Past
Gold Mines mine milling was suspended in April after processing stockpiled ore. The initial operations on the QR Mine will develop the Northwest, Project
Ltd. West and Midwest Zones all defined and or developed by Kinross. Ongoing operations will develop the extension of the Midwest
Zone at depth, the North Zone and the balance of the QR Intrusive contact that has not to date been evaluated. The QR Mill is
rated to operate at 900 tonnes per day with feed from three zones
http://www.barkervillegold.com/i/pdf/reports/qrmine/qrmine_43101.pdf
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCatalogue/ExplorationinBC/Documents/2011/BCEx-
Mining2011_Thomp_Ok_Cariboo.pdf
Gold Creek Tiex Inc. Mining Exploration 2008 Ongoing 79,379 ha TIEX Inc.’s currently is focusing its exploration efforts on the Gold Creek Zone, located just north of the town of Likely, B. C., Ongoing
Project and Drilling where prospecting and some recently acquired historical data have demonstrated the presence of gold values. Exploration
http://www.tiexinc.com/r47.389.a367.shtml
http://www.tiexinc.com/p48.423.405.shtml
Spanish Spanish Mining Exploration 2007 Ongoing 170 The completion of a $13M financing in 2006 kick started an aggressive exploration campaign to build a larger NI43-101 compliant Past
Mountain Mountain and drilling mineral gold resource. A 135-hole drill program (30,000 m) was completed in 2006 with the results being compiled to guide an even more Project/
Gold Ltd. claim aggressive drill program for 2007. This project offers potential for a significant near-surface gold deposit, located near existing Ongoing
Construction units infrastructure and amenable to low cost open pit, bulk mining methods. Exploration
2014 2025
and totalling Projects NPV/IRR/Cashflow are highly leveraged to gold price.
operation 10,500
Preliminary Economic Assessment completed in 2010.
acres
(4,249 Feasibility Study underway.
ha) Project Description accepted by both Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessment Agency.
Projected timeline: construction in 2014 & production in 2015.


Name Type Size
n s (yr) (yr)
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?evaluation=63917&ForceNOC=Y
http://www.spanishmountaingold.com/s/SpanishMountain.asp?ReportID=486421
Mt. Polley Imperial Mining Open pits, 2005 2023 18,321 ha Mount Polley mine is located eight kilometres southwest of Likely and 100 kilometres (by road) northeast of Williams Lake, British Completed
Mine Metals processing Columbia. Mount Polley is an open pit copper/gold mine producing an average of 20,000 tonnes per day. Ongoing exploration at
Corporation plant, water Mount Polley in 2011 will continue to focus on defining underground higher grade mineralization, and further testing of the
supply, mineralized zones: Boundary, WX, C2 and Cariboo, which are in the vicinity of the Springer pit.
tailings pond http://www.imperialmetals.com/i/pdf/2012-imperial-metals-annual-information-form.pdf
and a power http://www.imperialmetals.com/s/MountPolley_new.asp
transmission
Map at: http://www.imperialmetals.com/i/pdf/zone-map-mount-polley-zone-map.pdf
line
Gibraltar Taseko Mining Open pit, 2006 2038 10,900 ha Gibraltar Mine has started construction for an upgrade and expansion of the concentrator facility to increase production from 60 to Started
Mine Mines Ltd. water supply, 180 million pounds of copper per year by 2012. In the Spring of 2011, construction commenced for Gibraltar Development Plan 3
(250) 684- tailings pond, (GDP3). GDP3 will include the construction of a 55,000 ton per day concentrator, which will initially have an installed capacity of
6365 power 30,000 ton per day, to complement the existing 55,000 ton per day facility currently in operation. Commissioning of the new
transmission concentrator is anticipated in Q4 2012.http://www.tasekomines.com/our-properties/gibraltar/current-status/88/
line,
processing
plant,
instream
diffuser
Upgrade and 2011 2012

expansion of
concentrator
facility
Horsefly Tiex Inc. Mining Exploration Ongoing 109,442 Located 150 km east-northeast of Williams Lake, British Columbia. Tiex identified at least five potential areas (Bullion, Viewland, Ongoing
and Drilling ha Magnetic, Horsefly Mountain, and Jamboree) of Au/Cu Porphyry targets. Exploration
http://www.tiexinc.com/g48.414.0.shtml#
Woodjam Gold Fields Mining Exploration Ongoing 56,150 ha Woodjam gold-copper-molybdenum property comprises the Woodjam North (42,343 ha) and the Woodjam South (13,827 ha) Ongoing
North/South Horsefly and Drilling properties. Both properties are a joint venture with Cariboo Rose Resources Ltd (40%) and have been optioned under separate Exploration
Exploration agreements to Gold Fields Ltd (NYSE:GFI). In 2010, Gold Fields completed the 3rd largest exploration drilling program in British
Corp. Columbia at Woodjam. The property is owned 60:40 by Fjordland Exploration Inc and Cariboo Rose Resources Ltd respectively
making up the Woodjam Joint Venture.On 28 May 2009 Gold Fields Horsefly Exploration Corp, a member of the Gold Fields Ltd.
group of companies, was awarded an option to earn an initial 51% interest in a portion of the property referred to as "Woodjam
North"
http://www.fjordlandex.com/woodjam_property.html
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCatalogue/ExplorationinBC/Documents/2011/BCEx-
Mining2011_Thomp_Ok_Cariboo.pdf
Tak (Moffat) Fjordland Mining Exploration Ongoing 55,654 ha The Tak properties consist of seven (Tak) gold-copper-molybdenum prospects located adjoining and southeast of the company's Ongoing
and Drilling Woodjam property, and adjacent to Newmont's new holdings. Capstone Mining Corp (TSX:CS) optioned the Tak properties and Exploration
can earn up to a 70% interest through $6 million of exploration expenditures by December 31, 2016.
http://www.fjordlandex.com/cariboo_properties.htm
Fox Happy Creek Mining Exploration Ongoing 13,790 ha The Fox property is located approximately 25 kilometres east of the former Boss Mountain molybdenum mine, and approximately Ongoing
Minerals Ltd. and Drilling 70 kilometres northeast of 100 Mile House in the south Cariboo region of British Columbia, Canada. The Company has had Exploration
excellent success in advancing the Fox tungsten-molybdenum property. It is now thought to be at the early stage of a significant
new tungsten discovery in western Canada.


Name Type Size
n s (yr) (yr)
http://www.happycreekminerals.com/s/Fox.asp?ReportID=177367
Lac La Hache GWR Mining Exploration Ongoing 5,000 ha The Lac La Hache Property is situated between producing mines at Imperial Metals' Mt. Polley Copper-Gold Mine and New Gold Ongoing
(Spout) Resources and Drilling Inc.'s New Afton Copper-Gold project (Teck-Cominco's legendary Afton mine), and is well-served by rail, road and power Exploration
Inc. infrastructure. Drilling of the Lac La Hache Property is ongoing.
http://www.gwrresources.com/s/LacLaHache.asp
Newton Amarc Mining Exploration 1972 Ongoing 4100 ha In 2009/2010, Amarc’s 14 hole exploration program at Newton confirmed mineralization from previous drilling and resulted in a Ongoing
Resources and Drilling bulk-tonnage gold-silver discovery. The Company's 2010/2011 drill program consisted of 28 widely spaced holes confirming the Resource
Ltd. Newton deposit and extended the size of the discovery zone. A 46 hole delineation drill program was completed in early 2012 Estimate
which along with 2009-2011 and historic drilling, formed the basis to determine the grade and extent of the main gold-silver zone.
A resource estimate is currently underway.
http://www.amarcresources.com/ahr/Newton.asp?ReportID=419336
http://www.highridgeresources.ca/i/pdf/highridge-ppt.pdf
Blackdome Sona Mining Past producer Late 1999 34,794 ha The Blackdome Gold Mine is a permitted mine and milling facility located in southwestern British Columbia, approximately 230 Past Project/
Mine Resources 1980’s kilometres north of Vancouver and 100 kilometres south of Williams Lake. Since acquiring the mine in 1995, Sona Resources Ongoing
Corp. Exploration (then Claimstaker Resources) has carried out geotechnical surveys, exploration drilling and small-scale mining. Exploration
On-going Project milestones
Preliminary assessment study of Blackdome and Elizabeth by Micon International
Review of inferred resource by SRK Consulting Inc.
Planning underway for exploration drilling of Giant and Redbird veins
http://www.sonaresources.com/properties/blackdome_bc/http://www.sonaresources.com/_resources/news/SONA_NR%2010_201
0.pdf
Taseko Project Galore Mining Exploration 2007 On-going Claims The Taseko Project is located south and west of Upper Taseko Lake, 160 km southwest of Williams Lake, BC. Galore Resources Ongoing -
(exploration) Resources and drilling encompas Inc. owns and has options to acquire 100% interest in mineral titles to over 48,000 ha of highly prospective exploration targets for Exploration
Inc. s 48,081 copper, molybdenum, gold and silver in the Taseko Lakes region, south of the New Prosperity Project site. The company is Only
ha currently conducting exploration at this point including airborne surveys of the whole property, ground geological
prospecting/sampling and 2400 m of planned drilling (June to September 2007 - all helicopter supported).
http://www.galoreresources.com/assets/downloads/galore_Project_Summary.pdf
map can be found at: http://www.galoreresources.com/Projects/Properties/
Pellaire Mine Galore Mining 73 km of road, 1936 Ongoing 3,882 ha Since the original discovery of gold-silver bearing quartz veins on the Pellaire property in 1936, the area immediately west of the Past Project/
Resources underground Lord River and Upper Taseko Lake has been continuously prospected and explored for precious metal vein deposits up to the Ongoing
Inc. mine (200 m 1950's and since that time for porphyry copper-molybdenum-gold deposits. Approximately 1270 tonnes of ore were extracted and Exploration
of raise, about 848 tonnes of ore were shipped to the Cominco smelter in Trail. The mine still had estimated reserves of 90 000 tonnes of
crosscut and
sub-drift slope)
0.79 oz./ton gold and has produced 2000 oz in 2002. It is currently considered a past producer.
http://minfile.gov.bc.ca/report.aspx?f=PDF&r=Minfile_Detail.rpt&minfilno=092O++045
Taylor Windfall Galore Mining Underground 1920s Ongoing Taylor Windfall mine property is included in Galore Resources Inc. Taseko Project’s exploration program. Mining for gold and Past Project/
Mine Resources Mine silver at the Taylor Windfall Mine started in the 1920s. Production records show that 555 tonnes of ore were mined in five years Ongoing
Inc. between 1932 and 1953. http://www.galoreresources.com/assets/downloads/galore_Project_Summary.pdf Exploration
Nazko Lava Lightweight Quarry Open pit 1996 Mine 405 ha The Project quarries a deposit of volcanic ash around the cone of an extinct volcano (open pit) 3 kilometres east of Fishpot Lake Ongoing
Quarry Advanced (mining) (year of current and about 10 km west of the village of Nazko.
Volcanic EA life http://minfile.gov.bc.ca/Summary.aspx?minfilno=093B++060
Aggregates certificate reserves
Inc. ) estimate
“Lava Inc.” Site d at 200
Brian C. mined years
since

Name Type Size
n s (yr) (yr)
Wear: 604- ~1990
852-2710
Ongoing
Diatomaceou Dialite Mining re- 2006 to ~2080 ~100 ha Dialite Industries Ltd. will establish a new business enterprise to extract diatomaceous earth, which is composed of fossilized
s Earth Industries establishmen 2009 skeletal remains of algae used for its high absorbency.
Mining Ltd. t and The Project involves the re-establishment of a processing facility in the former processing area at the site, rehabilitation of site
reopening of services and infrastructure, and re-opening of the mine. The mining involves diatomite production in winter months (~ 2 weeks per
former mine, year) using a loader and dump truck(s) to establish a production stockpile adjoining the processing facility and processing of
stock piling diatomite products year round. This earth can be processed to manufacture a range of absorbent products
and
processing
facility
Tsilhqot’in -Western Power The Ongoing NA The proposed Tsilhqot’in Power Development Project consists of: a 60 MW forest-based biomass-fired, thermal electric power Pre-
Power Biomass and Generatio proposed (Life of generating plant; associated wood fibre and log-chipping, sorting and handling facility and an approximately 70 km transmission application
Development n Tsilhqot’in Biomass line. The proposed power plant site is 85 km west of Williams Lake, BC, adjacent to Highway 20 (the Chilcotin Highway) at 51° 56’
Project -Tsilhqot'in Power plant 30- 03” north latitude and 122° 57’ 45” west longitude (UTM 5753775N 502598 E). The Project will include approximately 70 km of
National Development 40 years) 230-kV electric transmission line to connect the power plant with the BC Hydro provincial electric transmission grid. The proposed
Government Project power plant and transmission line would be outside of the municipality of Hanceville and within the CRD, and would include:
consists of A 60 MW (53 MW net basis) biomass-fired thermal electric generating plant
three main
Approximately 70 km of 230-kV transmission line
components;
a Log sorting yard and chipping area
forest-based Hog fuel storage and fuel conveyance system
biomass- Boiler ash disposal area
fired, thermal Office building and control room
electric
Ancillary equipment including equipment maintenance facility and diesel fuel storage for mobile equipment
power
generating http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_home_330.html
plant, log-
chipping and
wood
fibre fuel
handling and
sorting
facilities, and
a 230-kV
transmission
line.


Name Type Size
n s (yr) (yr)
Forestry -690361 BC Mountain Pine Beetle fiber and timber salvage and general forestry practices in the vicinity of the New Prosperity Mine develop Ongoing
(Licences) Limited pose the potential for increased road access to beetle-killed areas and other forest license areas. Standard Forest Practices Code
(Tl’esqox logging practices will be followed for all logging activities.
Band and
Esk’etemc
Band)
-BC Timber
Sales
-Community
Forests
(Likely –
Xatsull,Tsi
Del Del
Band, City of
Williams
Lake and
Williams
Lake Indian
Band)
-Esk’etemc
Indian Band
-Pioneer
Biomass
-West Fraser
Mills Ltd.
-Williams
Lake Indian
Band
-Tolko
Industries
-Tsilhqot’in
National
Government
-Ulkatcho
Indian Band

400000 600000 800000
Projects Selected for

CEA Inclusion
5900000
5900000
Cariboo
Gold Project
!
!!.
Bonanza LEGEND
Diatomaceous . Quesnel
!
Ledge Project
.
Nazko Lava Quarry !! Future Mining Project
Earth Mining !
Extension Project !
Caribou Mineral Gold >
! Future Power Project
N ! ! Past Mining Project
<
! Past/Present Mining Project
az
ko
! Present Mining Project
Itcha Ilgachuz QR Mine !

( Gibraltar_Loadout_Facility
City/Town
! GoldSpanish
Creek Project
Park !
.
! Existing Access Road
Ri
ve
Gibraltar ! Mountain (Exploration) Proposed Prosperity Mine Access Road

r
BC Hydro Transmission Line

! Copper Mine
97
£
¤ ! LAKE
EL Proposed Transmission Corridor (500m)
Expansion Mt. Polley U E S N Mine - Maximum Potential Disturbance Area
Nazko Lake Gibraltar Concentrate Copper Project
Q
Agricultural Land Reserve
!
. Park Loadout Facility !
(!.
Socio-Economic - Human Analysis RSA
Socio-Economic - Resource Analysis RSA
Horsefly
! !
.
Vegetation RSA
Terrestrial - Land Cover RSA
! Woodjam North/South
Ch
Williams Lake Lake (1:6mil)
o - Bella
ilc
tin
Tak (Moffat)
!
. !
. Protected Area
r 20
£
¤ !
ve 97
Fox
£
¤
Ri H wy
20
£
¤
C o o l aTsilhqot’in Power
!
r
! Lac La Hache (Spout)

Ri ve
!
.
oa
d > Development Project
!
Newton e Mountain
R
o
Ch
lk
ak
F R A S
il co
hi
L tin
C
Nuntsi
! ko
se Ri
Prov T ve
r
a
Park !
ko
.
100 Mile House
Ta s e
E R
!
.
!
.
Churn Creek
5700000
5700000
Protected Area
Homathko River- Taseko Prosperity
Mine Site Big
Tatlayoko Protected Area
C
$
R I V E
H
Ts'yl-os
IL
Creek 97
£
¤
KO
L o w e r Ta s e k o <
!
Lak e
Blackdome
Provincial
Provincial
1:1,350,000
Mine
R
Taseko Project - Galore

LAKE
U p p e r Ta s e k o
Park La ke Park
(Exploration) (Exploration)
! Taylor Windfall
! 0 10 20 30
! Spruce Lake !
.
Pellaire Recreation
Kilometres
Mine Project Area
Map Prepared By
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources:
Province of British Columbia, Taseko Mines Ltd.
Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83
Date: April 13,2012
400000 600000 800000

2.7.1.5 Determination of the Significance of Residual Effects

Assessment of Significance for any residual Project-related and cumulative adverse environmental effects
are determined. Under the CEAA Reference Guide: Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause
Significant Adverse Environmental Effects - The Requirements of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D213D286-1&offset=2&toc=show),
the environmental assessment must include a determination of the significance of environmental effects.
In order to address what might constitute a significant adverse environmental effect the following factors
are considered:
Direction: The ultimate long-term trend of the environmental effect (e.g., positive or adverse).
Magnitude: The amount of change in a measurable parameter or variable relative to baseline case (i.e.,
low, moderate, high).
Geographical Extent: The geographic area within which an environmental effect of a defined magnitude
occurs (site-specific, local, regional, provincial, national, international).
Frequency: The number of times during a project or a specific project phase that an environmental effect
may occur (i.e., once, sporadically, regular, continuous).
Duration: This is typically defined in terms of the period of time that is required until the VEC or KI returns
to its baseline condition or the environmental effect can no longer be measured or otherwise perceived
(i.e., short-term, medium-term, long-term, permanent).
Reversibility: The likelihood that a measurable parameter or KI will recover from an environmental effect
(i.e., reversible, irreversible).
Ecological or Socio-economic Context: The general characteristics of the area in which the Project is
located (i.e., undisturbed, disturbed, urban setting).
Likelihood: The likelihood or probability of occurrence of an environmental effect (e.g. high or low
probability).
For each effect evaluated, specific definitions of significance for effects is given and the determinations
also included a discussion of the prediction confidence based on:
 Scientific certainty relative to quantifying or estimating the environmental effect, including the quality
and/or quantity of data and the understanding of the effect mechanisms, and
 Scientific certainty relative to the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.
Residual effects are discussed for each VEC in Sections 2.7.2, 2.7.3 and 2.7.4.

2.7.1.6 Summary of Effects Assessment

The summary of the effects assessment is found in Section 2.11 which includes Table 2.11-1
summarizing the following key information:
 A concise summary of the Project’s beneficial and adverse effects
 A summary of mitigation and compensation measures
 A brief description of any potential residual effects
 A brief description of cumulative effects
 A determination of the significance of residual effects, and
 For those adverse effects found to be significant, a determination of whether the effect is likely to
occur.

2.7.2 Physical and Biological Environment
2.7.2.1 Geology and Geochemistry
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The EIS guidelines stipulate that “The EIS shall identify how the Project as proposed has changed from
the previous project proposal and whether changes will result in environmental effects on geology and
geochemistry” (Section 2.7.2.1 in the EIS Guidelines).
However, geology and geochemistry themselves are not Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). The
primary relationship between geology/geochemistry and the assessment of environmental effects is one
in which geochemical changes arising from excavation, processing, and disposal of geological materials
have the potential to cause changes to VECs (typically, VECs relating to water quality or affected by
water quality). For this reason, Section 2.7.2.1 Geology and Geochemistry has been structured in a
parallel manner to the equivalent section in the previous project proposal (Volume 3, Section 7: Acid Rock
Drainage and Metal Leaching, in the March 2009 EIS/Application).
In this document, the focus of Section 2.7.2.1 is both the assessment of the potential for metal leaching
(ML) and acid rock drainage (ARD) (together, ML/ARD) for the New Prosperity Project, and the related
prediction of site-wide water quality.
CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS PROJECT PROPOSAL

From the perspective of geology and geochemistry, the Project as proposed is different from the previous
project proposal only in the location of the Project components and the timing of construction of those
components. These changes have been described in Section 2.2.5 of this application, and are not
repeated here.
The greatest material change in the new project is the reconfiguration of the Project components within
the Mine Element such that Fish Lake is maintained. The effects of this reconfiguration on the process of
prediction of future site water quality are complex in both space and over time. As a result, this section
has been prepared to address the Project as a whole rather than to attempt to address only those
aspects that have changed from the previous proposal.

PROJECT SETTING AND GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

Figures showing the Project setting and the general arrangement of the mine site for the various periods
of the Project are provided in earlier sections of the application. For the purposes of Section 2.7.2.1, the
following figures are provided for ease of reference:
 Figure 2.7.2.1-1 provides an overview of the Fish Creek watershed, showing the ultimate outline of
the open pit
 Figure 2.7.2.1-2 provides the plan of arrangement at maximum disturbance (end of milling) Figure
2.7.2.1-3 provides the plan of arrangement for the post-closure period
 Figure 2.7.2.1-4 provides a long section of the Fish Creek valley through the post closure plan of
arrangement, and
 Figure 2.7.2.1-5 and Figure 2.7.2.1-6 provide the plan locations of the exploration drillholes that
defined the New Prosperity ore body and which provided the geological materials for the
geochemical testing which supports the ML/ARD assessment and related water quality predictions
which are the subject of Section 2.7.2.1.

Figure 2.7.2.1-1
Site Overview
LEGEND
Fish Creek watershed
Final open pit outline
Fish 5 and 20 m contours

Lake
100 m contours
Source:
Modified from ‘Taseko Mines
Limited, Prosperity Gold-Copper Project:
Reclamation and Closure Plan, Post-
Closure Arrangement”, file B17.dwg,
prepared by Knight Piesold Consulting
Ltd., dated Sept 18 2007.
Scale
0 500 1000 1500
Meters
N Map Prepared by: DBM
Data Sources:
Drawing B17.dwg, Sept.18/07,
Knight Piesold Consulting Ltd.
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig1.Site overview.ppt

PLAN OF ARRANGEMENT
FIGURE 2.7.2.1-2
POST-CLOSURE SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2.7.2.1-3
FIGURE 2.7.2.1-4
Figure 2.7.2.1-5
Drill Hole Locations
(1969-1994)
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Source:
Modified from equivalent figure in “Prosperity Gold-Copper Project, 1998 Geological Report” (Brommeland et al. 1998). N Map Prepared by: Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources: Prosperity Gold-Copper Project,

1998 Geological Report
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig7-5.DDH 1969-1994

Figure 2.7.2.1-6
Drill Hole Locations
(1996 to 1998)
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig7-6.DDH
1996-1998.ppt
GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
The following sections summarize the geological description prepared by Taseko (Appendix 3-5-A of the
March 2009 EIS/Application). Additional background information on the geology of the New Prosperity
deposit can be found in MINFILE (record 092O 041), Caira et al. (1995), and Brommeland et al. (1998).
REGIONAL SETTING
The New Prosperity Project is located within the western-most portion of the Intermontane Belt, about
50 km northeast of the Coast Plutonic Complex boundary. The surrounding area is underlain by poorly
exposed, late Palaeozoic to Cretaceous sedimentary and volcanic rocks which have been intruded by
plutons of mid Cretaceous to early Tertiary age. Sub-horizontal Miocene plateau basalts and non-marine
sedimentary rocks of the Chilcotin Group form a discontinuous and locally extensive post-mineral cover in
the immediate project area. The regional Yalakom Fault, which lies to the southwest of New Prosperity,
may have imparted some related structural controls which were important to the localization of
mineralization at the deposit (Figure 2.7.2.1-7).

Figure 2.7.2.1-7
Regional Geology
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig7. Regional Geology.ppt

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
The New Prosperity Gold-Copper deposit subcrops under a 5 to 65 m thick blanket of surficial cover at
the north end of Fish Lake.
Regional glaciation occurred most recently during the Wisconsinan (15,000 to 18,000 years before
present) during which time ice moved over the low lying and undulating surface of the West Fraser
Plateau in a northerly and northeasterly radial dispersal pattern (Talisman, 1997). The hummocky
topography resulting from this period of glaciation is typical of that produced by an ablating ice mass and
includes kames, eskers and kettles deposited on top of earlier lodgment till or basal till.
During Wisconsinan glaciation, ice movement in the vicinity of Fish Lake was from south to north (Caira
and Findlay, 1994). Recent alluvial activity has cut into, and deposited sediments on the older
Wisconsinan sediments. In the proposed pit area, 3 main types of glacially-derived overburden were
recognized glacial till, glaciofluvial material, and glaciolacustrine material.
Prior to the most recent glaciation, Chilcotin Group flood basalts were deposited regionally across over
25,000 km² in the interior plateau of south central British Columbia. In the immediate vicinity of the New
Prosperity deposit, flood basalts are sandwiched between the Wisconsinan sediments above and
underlying colluvial and lacustrine sediments.
In general, east of Fish Creek and north of Fish Lake the overburden consists predominantly of a patchy
and variably thick sequence of basal till that covers colluvium and bedrock. A prominent 750 m long esker
occurs on the east side of Fish Creek and extends south to within 250 m of the outlet of Fish Lake. The
west side of Fish Creek is underlain mainly by a thick sequence of basalt flows which can be observed in
cliffs outcropping along the bank of the creek. Overlying these basalt flows is an irregular cover of basal
till up to 22 m thick. In turn, the flows rest directly on bedrock or overlie a layer of colluvium which varies
irregularly in areal extent and is 8 to 70 m in thickness. The southern portion of the deposit, adjacent to
Fish Lake is covered by an extensive deposit of lake sediments (Figure 2.7.2.1-8).
Detailed geological logging of the overburden within the proposed pit indicates that there are four major
types of overburden present: glacial till, basalt flows, colluvium and glacial lacustrine sediments. This
overburden sequence consists mainly of basalt and glacial till with lesser colluvium and sediments. The
sequence varies from 0 to 65 m in thickness over the deposit, but is as thick as 155 m to the south of the
deposit near Fish Lake (Figure 2.7.2.1-9). The overburden level plans in Figure 2.7.2.1-10 through Figure
2.7.2.1-14 show the distribution of the four main overburden units laterally and with depth.
HOST ROCKS
The deposit is predominantly hosted in Cretaceous andesitic volcaniclastic and volcanic rocks which are
transitional to a sequence of sparsely mineralized, volcanically derived sedimentary rocks to the south
(Figure 2.7.2.1-15). The andesitic volcaniclastics are comprised of coarse-grained crystal tuff and ash tuff,
and thinly bedded tuff with lesser lapilli tuff. The upper eastern portion of the deposit is hosted by
subvolcanic units of crowded feldspar porphyritic andesite and thick feldspar and hornblende porphyritic
flows as shown in Table 2.7.2.1-1.

Figure 2.7.2.1-8
OVB Surficial Geology
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig8.OVB Surficial Geology.pptx

Source:
Modified from equivalent figure in “Prosperity Gold-Copper Project, 1998 Geological Report” (Brommeland et al. 1998).
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Data Source:
Prosperity Gold-Copper Project, 1998 Geological Map Prepared by:
Report
:
Figure 2.7.2.1-9
Produced by: DBM
Verified by: DBM Overburden Isopach
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig9.OVB Isopach.ppt

Figure 2.7.2.1-10
Overburden Level Plan
1567.5 m
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\\Fig7-10.OVB Level Plan 1567.5m

Figure 2.7.2.1-11
1522.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig11.OVB Level Plan 1522.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-12
1477.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig12.OVB.Level Plan 1477.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-13
1432.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig7-13.OVB Level Plan 1432.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-14
1387.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig14.OVB Level

Plan 1387.5m.pptx
Figure 2.7.2.1-15
Geology at the
Overburden Bedrock
Interface
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig15. Bedrock

Surface.pptx
Table 2.7.2.1-1 New Prosperity Project Geology Codes
QUATERNARY COVER
Pleistocene Glacial Till
511 TILB Basal Till

512 CLAYU Clay
513 SICLU Silt/Clay Mix
514 SILTU Silt
515 GRAVU Gravel
TERTIARY COVER
CENOZOIC Miocene to Pliocene Basalt Flows
520 BSLT Basalt

Colluvium
531 FANL Fanglomerate – Limonitic
532 FAN Fanglomerate
Glacial Lacustrine Sediments
541 GRAV Gravel
542 SICL Silt/Clay Mix
543 CLAY Clay
544 SILT Silt
LATE CRETACEOUS FISH LAKE INTRUSIVE COMPLEX
11 PMPD Post Mineralization Porphyritic Diorite

12 INBX Igneous Breccia
13 FP Feldspar Porphyry
14 QFP Quartz Feldspar Porphyry
FISH CREEK STOCK (QD)
15 QD3 Subporphyritic to Equigranular Quartz Diorite

16 QD2 Seriate Porphyritic Quartz Diorite
MESOZOIC 17 QD1 Heterogeneous Fine Porphyritic Quartz Diorite
CRETACEOUS SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
31 SEDS
Mudstone, Siltstone, Sandstone and Conglomerate
CRETACEOUS VOLCANIC ROCKS
25 SUBV Crowded Porphyritic Andesite
24 FLOW Porphyritic Andesite Flow
23 BEAT Laminated Andesite Tuff
22 DEBF Andesite Lapilli Tuff and Debris Flow
21 MAT Andesite Tuff (ash tuff)
21 FAXT Andesite Tuff (mainly crystal tuff)

In the western portion of the deposit, the multi-phase Fish Creek Stock has intruded into a thick sequence
of andesite flows which overlay volcaniclastic rocks. The steeply south-dipping, oval quartz diorite stock
which is approximately 265 m wide by 800 m long is surrounded by an east-west trending swarm of
subparallel quartz-feldspar porphyritic dikes which also dip steeply to the south. Together the stock and
dikes comprise the Late Cretaceous Fish Lake Intrusive Complex that is spatially and genetically related
to the deposit. Post mineralization (post-ore) porphyritic diorite occurs as narrow dikes that crosscut all
units within the deposit. They represent the final intrusive phase of the emplacement of the Fish Lake
Intrusive Complex.
Geology level plans shown in Figure 2.7.2.1-16 through Figure 2.7.2.1-18 show the plan distribution of the
deposit host rocks with depth. The cross-section shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-19 cuts the deposit on a
north-south axis shows the spatial relationship between the core of the intrusive complex and the
surrounding volcanic country rock. Figure 2.7.2.1-20 shows a section cutting the deposit east-west, or
roughly perpendicular to the regional structure that is manifested as the QD Fault and the East Fault in
the vicinity of the New Prosperity deposit.
VOLCANIC AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

Five volcanic units and one subvolcanic unit comprise the majority of the New Prosperity deposit host
rocks. Sorted by quantity within the proposed pit, they are porphyritic andesite flow, andesite crystal, ash
and lapilli tuff, and crowded porphyritic andesite. Andesite tuffs and flows are commonly interbedded.
The volcanic rocks present in the deposit area are not typical of the surrounding area and are likely of
limited regional extent. Similar volcanic rocks outcrop near the mouth of Fish Creek 3.5 km to the north
and they may correlate with those of the deposit.
A sparsely mineralized, volcanically-derived sedimentary unit occupies the upper south-southeast portion
of the deposit. Stratigraphically, these sediments although of a different facies, are considered to be the
lateral equivalent to the volcanic assemblage that outcrops near the mouth of Fish Creek.

Figure 2.7.2.1-16
Geology Level Plan
1402.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig16. Level Plan

1402.5m.pptx
Figure 2.7.2.1-17
Geology Level Plan
1207.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig17. Level Plan 1207.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-18
Geology Level Plan
997.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig18.Level Plan 997.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-19
Generalized Geological
Cross-Section 9900E
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig19.CrossSection 9900E.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-20
Generalized Geological
Cross-Section 10000N
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig20.CrossSection 10000N.pptx

FISH LAKE INTRUSIVE COMPLEX

The New Prosperity deposit is spatially and genetically related to the Fish Lake Intrusive Complex which
is comprised of the Fish Creek Stock, quartz feldspar and lesser feldspar porphyry dikes and
post-mineralization porphyritic diorite dikes.
The Fish Creek Stock is a hypabyssal lenticular east-west trending, steeply south-dipping body of
porphyritic quartz diorite that has intruded a thick sequence of volcanic rocks. It is composed of three
phases: the heterogeneous fine-grained porphyritic quartz diorite, seriate porphyritic quartz diorite, and
subporphyritic to equigranular quartz diorite units. These units are very similar in chemical composition,
but differ in textural characteristics. Contacts are commonly gradational with heterogeneous fine
porphyritic quartz diorite grading into seriate porphyritic quartz diorite and seriate porphyritic quartz diorite
grading into subporphyritic to equigranular quartz diorite over distances of several meters to tens of
meters. The heterogeneous fine porphyritic quartz diorite and seriate porphyritic quartz diorite units also
occur independently.
Quartz feldspar porphyry and feldspar porphyry dikes occur as an east-west trending, steeply south-
dipping swarm centered east of the Fish Creek Stock. The quartz feldspar porphyry units crosscut all of
the volcanic and sedimentary rocks identified in the deposit. The contemporaneity of the quartz feldspar
porphyry dikes and the Fish Creek Stock is suggested by the occurrence of some units of transitional
lithology, close to the border of the stock.
The entire suite of rocks (intrusive, volcanic and sedimentary) hosting the deposit is crosscut by a series
of barren, post-mineralization porphyritic diorite dikes. The post mineralization porphyritic diorite unit
comprises less than 1% of the deposit rocks.
STRUCTURE
Numerous faults were intersected in drill core throughout the deposit area. Faults are usually indicated by
strongly broken core, gouge, shear, cataclastic and rarely mylonitic textures. All of the aforementioned
features can occur across intervals of less than 1 cm to over 20 m. Utilizing all available data, two
predominant faults (the QD and East Faults) have been delineated.
The QD and East Faults are subparallel, strike north-south and dip steeply to the west, becoming near
vertical down-dip (Figure 2.7.2.1-20). They cut the central portion of the deposit and are approximately
230 m apart near surface and 330 m apart at depth. The western QD Fault trends approximately 355º and
has a steep westward dip of 82º to 86º. This fault marks the eastern boundary of the Fish Creek Stock.
The East Fault strikes approximately 360º and has a steep westward dip of 85º to 87º.
ALTERATION
Five main alteration styles have been identified at the New Prosperity deposit, potassium silicate,
propylitic, sericite-iron carbonate, phyllic and argillic. Alteration styles do not occur singularly in discrete
zones; they commonly overlap and/or overprint each other. However, one alteration style will typically
dominate in any given area, hence the naming of a zone specific to the dominant alteration style (Figure
2.7.2.1-21).

Figure 2.7.2.1-21
Alteration at the
Overburden Bedrock
Interface
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig21.Alt Surface.pptx

Potassium silicate alteration predominates within the deposit area forming a central east-west trending
ovoid zone intimately related to significant gold/copper mineralization (>0.20 g/Au t and >0.20% Cu). The
zone of potassium silicate alteration is surrounded by propylitically altered rocks that extend outward for
several hundred meters. Along the eastern margin of the deposit a discontinuous belt of phyllic alteration
is developed in proximity to the transition between the potassium silicate and propylitically altered rocks.
Late stage sericite-iron carbonate alteration forms irregular zones, particularly within the central zone of
potassium silicate alteration. Argillic alteration is localized along fault zones and overprints earlier
alteration assemblages, and has not been independently incorporated into the ML/ARD characterization
due to the small quantity present relative to the other four alteration types.
The sequence of alteration events at the New Prosperity deposit commenced with the emplacement of
the Fish Lake Intrusive Complex and the development of a hydrothermal convective cell. Concentric,
thermally controlled zones of potassium silicate enclosed by propylitic alteration developed within and
adjacent to the intrusive complex. At higher levels in the system a slightly later episode of phyllic
alteration occurred as a result of mixing between fluids of the hydrothermal cell and meteoric waters. This
phyllic alteration overprinted both potassium silicate and propylitic alteration in certain areas. Sericite-iron
carbonate and argillic alteration, the latest events in the alteration history, resulted from the migration of
late stage hydrothermal fluids and meteoric waters along structural features. This process led to the
formation of secondary mineral assemblages in the host rocks which overprint all other alteration styles.
Selected level plans which pertain to alteration are shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-22 through Figure 2.7.2.1-24.

Figure 2.7.2.1-22
Alteration Level Plan
1402.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig22.Alt Level Plan 1402.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-23
1207.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig23.Alt Level Plan 1207.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-24
997.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig7-24.Alt Level Plan 997.5m.pptx

MINERALIZATION
Gold-copper mineralization within the New Prosperity deposit is intimately related to potassium silicate
alteration and a later, superimposed sericite-iron carbonate alteration. This is particularly true within a
central, east-west trending ovoid zone that hosts the majority of the mineable reserve.
Chalcopyrite-pyrite mineralization and associated copper and gold concentrations are distributed
relatively evenly throughout the host volcanic and intrusive units in the deposit. A sedimentary unit which
is located in the upper south eastern part of the mineralized zone is sparsely mineralized. Post
mineralization porphyritic dikes are essentially barren.
Pyrite and chalcopyrite are the principal sulphide minerals and are accompanied by: minor amounts of
bornite and molybdenite, sparse tetrahedrite-tennantite, sphalerite and galena and rare
chalcocite-digenite, covellite, pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite, enargite and marcasite. Native gold generally
occurs as inclusions in and along microfractures with copper sulphides and pyrite. Pyrite to chalcopyrite
ratios throughout most of the proposed pit area range from 0.5:1 to 1:1 and rise to 3:1 or higher around
the periphery of the deposit which coincides with the propylitic and locally the phyllic alteration zones.
Sulphide minerals show the thoroughly dispersed mode of occurrence characteristic of porphyry copper
deposits. Sulphides occur in relatively equal concentrations as disseminations, blebs and aggregates in
mafic sites, as fracture fillings and as veinlets. Disseminated sulphide mineralization is marginally more
prevalent than veinlets in intrusive rocks while in volcanic rocks, the reverse was noted.
Gold and copper distribution throughout the deposit is presented on Figure 2.7.2.1-25 through Figure
2.7.2.1-27.

Figure 2.7.2.1-25
Au and Cu Grade Level
Plan 1402.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig25.Au&Cu Level Plan 1402.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-26
Plan 1207.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig26. Au&Cu Level Plan 1207.5m.pptx

Figure 2.7.2.1-27
Plan 997.5 m
LEGEND
830 Pit outline=
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig27.Au&Cu Level Plan 997.5m.pptx

GYPSUM AND ANHYDRITE

Anhydrite (CaSO4) and gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O), the major sulphate minerals in the deposit, occur below a
zone of broken and weakly weathered rock which is caused by the dissolution of gypsum.
MODE OF OCCURRRENCE
Colourless to orange and pale pink gypsum veins are generally a few millimeters wide but can range up
to several centimeters wide and be as closely-spaced as one veinlet per centimeter and in more densely
veined intervals, comprise over 5% of the rock.
Gypsum is most often observed healing microfractures and fractures. It also follows older, reactivated
sulphide and magnetite bearing veins/veinlets, sometimes incorporating minor wallrock sulphides. It
occurs as massive aggregates in the following veins: calcite with or without dolomite, quartz-carbonate
with or without sulphides, quartz with or without sulphides, and sulphide veins/veinlets. Gypsum is less
commonly seen infilling vugs in carbonate (dolomite-calcite with or without ankerite) vein breccia and
variably pseudomorphing anhydrite.
Purple anhydrite usually occurs as aggregates in various vein types; less commonly, it occurs as massive
veins up to 5 cm wide and as disseminated small grains identifiable only in thin section. Anhydrite rarely
occurs as: alteration patches with quartz, gypsum, biotite, chlorite, calcite and magnetite; as massive
blebs and lenses together with gypsum, quartz, calcite, magnetite, pyrite and chalcopyrite; and in vugs
with gypsum and chalcopyrite. Veins comprised of anhydrite are noted to contain, in order of decreasing
abundance, sulphides (chalcopyrite > pyrite >> molybdenite), quartz, dolomite, calcite, gypsum, magnetite
and hematite.
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION
Gypsum veinlets/veins are pervasive below a sharp upper border, labeled the “Gypsum Line”, which
marks the lower limit of gypsum dissolution by ground water. The Gypsum Line varies from 75 to 275 m
below the surface throughout the proposed pit and separates a near surface zone of broken rock from
more competent rock below.
In the northwestern portion of the deposit, gypsum occurs 100 to 110 m below surface (1340 m
elevation); in the southwestern portion, it is 200 to 275 m below surface (1250 to 1280 m elevation), the
Gypsum Line is relatively smooth and gradually deepens to the south.
In the central deposit area, the Gypsum Line is more irregular with a trough 330 m below surface (1130 m
elevation), proximal to the QD Fault in the southeast corner of the proposed pit. Less pronounced peaks
occur in the central proposed pit area where the Gypsum Line is only 75 to 100 m below surface.
In the eastern part of the deposit, the Gypsum Line becomes smoother and ranges from 150 m below the
surface in the northwest corner to 210 m below the surface (1260 to 1350 m elevation) in the southeast
corner.
Anhydrite’s distribution with respect to depth is determined by the temperature at which calcium sulphate
was precipitated from hydrothermal solutions. Anhydrite formed at high temperatures well below surface,
while gypsum formed at low temperatures at shallower depths. A late episode of gypsum veining
overprinted the entire deposit as the hydrothermal system cooled and collapsed (Brommeland et al.,
1998).
GEOLOGICAL MODEL
Taseko used a block model approach to modelling project geology and defining ore-grade mineralization,
with 20 m x 20 m x 15 m blocks on 15 m levels forming the basic structure of the model. The following
describes how the geology block model was coded.
GEOLOGICAL CONTROLS USED FOR DOMAIN DEFINITION

The geologic domains for the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Deposit Block Model were established by
considering the relationship of gold and copper mineralization to four key geologic parameters, alteration,
lithology, structure and the gypsum line. Individual models were created for each of these key parameters
which were then amalgamated to produce the final geologic/domain block model. A brief description of
each of these geologic parameters follows.
ALTERATION
Four types of alteration were considered during the construction of the alteration model: potassium
silicate, sericite-iron carbonate, propylitic and phyllic. An alteration solids model and an alteration block
model were created by the Project Geologists in a series of steps. First, the drillhole alteration data was
plotted in two orthogonal sets of cross-sectional views. Then the outlines of the 4 units were interpreted
using the original drill logs, core photos, and sawn core slabs for reference. The resulting polygons were
digitized and the mid-bench intersection of these cross sectional polygons was plotted in plan. Outlines of
the units were then interpreted in plan view using overlays of the drill data in this view to ensure that the
base information was honored. These plan view polygons were then digitized. A solid model of alteration
was created by extrapolating the bench polygons vertically 7.5 m above and below the mid-bench
elevation. The alteration block model was created by assigning each block the code of the dominant
alteration unit. The block model code and mineral assemblage associated with each alteration style is
presented in Table 2.7.2.1-2.
Table 2.7.2.1-2 Alteration Codes and Descriptions
Code Alteration Mineral Assemblage

Biotite and/or chlorite + pyrite + sericite + magnetite +
1000 Potassium Silicate
orthoclase + chalcopyrite
3000 Sericite-iron carbonate Sericite + iron carbonate + clay + hematite
5000 Propylitic Chlorite + calcite + pyrite
6000 Phyllic Quartz + sericite + pyrite
LITHOLOGY
Nine lithological types were considered during the construction of the lithology model (apart from
additional overburden types listed in Table 2.7.2.1-3. Gold-copper mineralization is present in all of these
lithologies, including some isolated occurrences in the otherwise barren post mineralization porphyritic
diorite dikes. A lithologic solid model and a lithologic block model were created in much the same way as

the alteration models described above. The block model codes and brief descriptions of each of the
lithological units are presented in Table 2.7.2.1-4.
Table 2.7.2.1-3 Overburden Codes
Block Model Group

Unit Description Group Description
Code Code
511 Basal Till
512 Clay
513 Silt / Clay Mix 51 Glacial Till
514 Silt
515 Gravel
520 Basalt 52 Basalt
531 Fanglomerate – Limonitic
53 Colluvium
532 Fanglomerate
541 Gravel
542 Silt / Clay Mix
54 Glacial Lacustrine Sediments
543 Clay
544 Silt
Table 2.7.2.1-4 Lithology Codes
Code Lithology Description

Post Mineral Porphyritic Diorite
110 Post mineralization porphyritic diorite dikes.
Dikes
140 Quartz Feldspar Porphyry Quartz feldspar porphyry dikes.
Includes fine porphyritic, seriate porphyritic and
170 Quartz Diorite
subporphyritic quartz diorite.
210 Andesite Crystal Tuff Coarse and fine grained andesite tuffs.
220 Andesite and Lapilli Tuff Lapilli tuffs and debris flows.
230 Bedded Andesite Tuff Very fine to fine-grained bedded crystal tuff.
240 Porphyritic Andesite Flow Porphyritic andesite flows.
250 Crowded Porphyritic Andesite Fine-grained crowded plagioclase porphyritic andesite.
310 Sedimentary unit Mudstone, siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate.
STRUCTURES AND THE GYPSUM LINE

Two local faults (QD and East Fault) were delineated with a reasonable level of confidence during the
construction of the lithologic model. The mid-bench intersections of these sub-vertical, essentially planar
faults were used to create three dimensional surfaces of these structural features. The “gypsum line” was
modelled by plotting the interpreted drillhole intersections of this feature in plan view and contouring them

to form a three dimensional surface. This formed an undulating, essentially sub-horizontal surface. The
intersection of the two faults and the gypsum line was used to sub-divide the deposit into six structural or
“geographic” domains (Figure 2.7.2.1-28), which were then modelled as solids. A domain/gypsum block
model was created from this solids model. Details are listed in Table 2.7.2.1-5.
Table 2.7.2.1-5 Geographic Domain Codes and Descriptions
Code Geographic Domain Description

1 West Zone Above the Gypsum Line The area west of the QD Fault and above the gypsum line.
The area bounded by the QD and East Faults and above
2 Central Zone Above the Gypsum Line
the gypsum line.
The area east of the East Fault and above the gypsum
3 East Zone Above the Gypsum Line
line.
4 West Zone Below the Gypsum Line The area west of the QD Fault and below the gypsum line.
The area bounded by the QD and East Faults and below
5 Central Zone Below the Gypsum Line
the gypsum line.
The area east of the East Fault and below the gypsum
6 East Zone Below the Gypsum Line
line.

Source:
Modified from equivalent
figure in “Prosperity Gold-Copper
Project, 1998 Geological Report”
(Brommeland et al. 1998).
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
N

Figure 2.7.2.1-28 Map Prepared by:
Produced by: DBM Conceptual Model of

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012 Geographical (Structural)
Rev #: 01
and Geologic Domains
\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig28 Conceptual Geol Model.ppt
COMBO CODE
Each block in the block model was assigned a unique value for each of alteration code, lithology code,
and domain code. These values were then combined into a single four-digit code (referred to as the
COMBO code) that defined the geological attributes of each block.
The COMBO code was combined by adding together the alteration, lithology, and domain codes for each
block to yield a single four digit number. Because the code for each geological attribute was a unique
order of magnitude, the COMBO code structure results in alteration indicated in the first digit, lithology in
the second and third digit, and domain in the fourth and final digit. For example, a potassic quartz diorite
in the West Zone below the gypsum line (Alteration= 1000, Lithology= 170, Domain= 4) would have a
COMBO code of 1174.
ABA BLOCK MODEL

Each block in the block model was assigned an ABA code to allow volumes of potentially acid generating
(PAG) and non-potentially acid generating (non-PAG) waste to be estimated for mine planning purposes.
Coding was carried out by Taseko geologists by carrying out the following steps:
 Plotting Phase 2 and Phase 3 ABA data on level plans representing the mid-bench elevation of every
bench (i.e. level plans at 15 m vertical intervals). The collection and interpretation of the ABA data
are described subsequently.
 Defining PAG / non-PAG polygons by interpolating between spatially representative ABA data points.
Interpretation was carried out manually, and the level plans immediately above and below were
reviewed to ensure that the interpretations were consistent vertically as well as laterally.
 PAG/ non-PAG polygons were digitized and the result was extruded upwards and downwards to
make three dimensional solids for each bench.
 The extruded solids, with the associated PAG / non-PAG designations, were then used to code each
block in the block model as either PAG (code = 1) or non-PAG (code = 2).
The block model was coded using a preliminary classification criteria that was adopted to allow mine
planning to proceed in advance on the completion of ML/ARD characterization. Based on experience with
other porphyry copper deposits, a provisional estimate of available neutralization potential (NP) was
made by subtracting 10 kg CaCO3 equiv./tonne from the NP value determined in laboratory tests to
deduct the portion of measured NP commonly derived from silicate minerals. This estimate of available
NP was then compared to acid potential (AP) values to arrive at a waste category classification, as
follows:
 Non-PAG: all material having (NP-10)/AP ≥ 2; and
 PAG: all material having (NP-10)/AP < 2.
The block model was then used to estimate tonnages of PAG and non-PAG waste that would be
produced as mining progresses. Subsequent ML/ARD characterization showed that the ‘NP-10’ value

underestimates actual available NP, indicating that the preliminary classification is conservative in that it
overestimates the tonnage of PAG waste. Details are discussed below.
GEOLOGICAL FEATURES RELEVANT TO ML/ARD CHARACTERIZATION

The following features of the geology are relevant to the ML/ARD characterization.
 The main rock types are quartz diorite intrusives, andesitic volcanics, and volcanically-derived
sediments
 Alteration is pervasive and rock mineralogy is dominated by alteration type. Economic mineralization
is largely hosted in a potassic core surrounded by propylitic host rock
 Pyrite and chalcopyrite are the principle sulphide minerals. These occur as disseminations, fracture-
fillings and sub-vertical veinlets
 Pyrite and chalcopyrite are accompanied by minor amounts of bornite and molybdenite; sparse
tetrahedrite-tennantite, sphalerite and galena; and rare chalcocite-digenite, covellite, pyrrhotite,
arsenopyrite and marcasite
 Potentially leachable elements include arsenic, antimony, copper, cadmium, molybdenum, lead and
zinc
 There is potential for preferential exposure of veinlet and fracture-fill sulphides during blasting
 Carbonate minerals are present and dolomite and calcite are the main minerals
 The dominant silicate minerals have low reactivity and are expected to contribute limited acid
consuming capacity at near neutral pH, and
 Calcium sulphate is a major alteration mineral. It can be expected to leach from exposed rock to
release dissolved sulphate.
ROCK AND OVERBURDEN CHARACTERIZATION

Taseko conducted vertical and angled diamond drilling on the New Prosperity deposit in several
campaigns between 1991 and 1997. Retrieved core was logged and split, and split samples were
submitted for elemental analyses by aqua regia digestion followed by ICP finish. Mercury analysis was
carried out by cold vapour atomic absorption (CVAA). Drill core was archived at the New Prosperity site,
and assay pulps were archived in Taseko’s warehouse in Port Kells, BC.
PHASE 1 STATIC TESTING

A metallurgical testing program was carried out at Lakefield Research in 1992/1993. Batch flotation tests
were carried out using 24 composite ore samples each collected from approximately 200 m of drill core
from a single drillhole. The central portion of the New Prosperity deposit was divided into eight blocks
(designated A through H- see Figure 2.7.2.1-29), and one sample was collected from the upper, middle,
and lower portions of each region. The composites were labelled according to sub-zone (blocks A to H),
depth within the deposit (U= upper, M= middle and L= lower) and the number of the drill hole from which
the sample was taken. Appendix 3-7-A of the March 2009 EIS/Application lists the sampled composite
intervals used.
Nine locked cycle flotation tests were performed to evaluate metallurgical conditions in different regions of
the deposit using feed prepared from the 24 individual drill hole ore composites. Three large ore
composites representing the upper, middle, and lower portions of the deposit were tested, as well as 6

smaller ore composites representing the west (blocks A, B, C, and D) and east (blocks E, F, G, and H)
zones for each of the three levels.
A parallel static testing program was carried out whereby elemental analyses and ABA tests were
performed on each of the 24 ore composites. ABA analyses were performed at Mineral Environments
Laboratories (Min-En) on the 24 ore composites and associated batch flotation tailings composites from
the individual drillholes, and on the nine larger locked cycle flotation tailings composites were prepared
from the eight samples within each of the U, M, and L depths (Phase 1 tailings testing is discussed
further).
ABA testing is reported to have been carried out according to the modified Sobek method- this is
assumed to be equivalent to the Modified ABA method (MEND, 1991). Elemental analyses were carried
out by Lakefield Research using ICP analysis (Hallam Knight Piésold, 1993; Watermark, 1997). The
digestion method is not known. Aqua regia digestion is assumed because it was commonly in use at that
time.

Figure 2.7.2.1-29
Phase 1 Metallurgical
Sample Locations
LEGEND
Scale as
indicated
N Map Prepared by: Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources: Unpublished drawing, Taskeko

project files, file ‘1993METDDH.dwg’
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig 29 Phase 1 Metallurgical Samples.ppt

PHASE 2 AND 3 STATIC TESTING

Taseko conducted over 33,000 elemental analyses and 343 ABA tests on core samples and assay
rejects of rock and overburden collected from within the 852 pit limits during drilling campaigns spanning
1991 through 1998. Figures 2.7.2.1-5 and 2.7.2.1-6 show the collar locations of all drillholes sampled for
ABA testing in Phase 2 and 3, and sample intervals and lithology are listed in Appendix 3-7-B of the
March 2009 EIS/Application. Cross sections showing ABA sample locations are provided in Appendix 3-
7-C of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Phase 2 ABA tests were conducted at Chemex Laboratories, North Vancouver (Watermark, 1997),
according to the EPA 600 procedure, also known as the Sobek method (Sobek et al., 1978).
Phase 3 ABA tests were carried out at Cominco Engineering Services Ltd., Vancouver, BC, using the
Modified ABA method (MEND, 1991).
PHASE 4 STATIC AND KINETIC TESTING

Taseko conducted 12 humidity cell tests, and nine column tests on a range of waste rock samples
collected from 1996 and 1997 drill core. Shake flask extractions, elemental analyses, and ABA tests were
performed on all kinetic test samples. Of the kinetic test samples, five were sourced from within the pit
limits, while seven were within the limits of the larger pit under consideration at the time.
The Phase 4 testing program was carried out by Cominco Engineering Services Limited (CESL)
according procedures recommended by Price (1997) under the direction of Watermark Consulting Inc.
Phase 4 kinetic testing was initiated in 1998 and continued into 2000. Samples were selected to cover a
range of materials that would be placed in the non-PAG dumps, with a focus on materials with NP/AP
ratios between one and three. A few samples with NP/AP ratios less than one were selected to inform
evaluations of inclusion of small pockets of PAG waste in the non-PAG dumps, of delays to onset of acid
generation for PAG material placed in the PAG disposal facility, of loadings from temporarily exposed
PAG rock in the PAG disposal facility prior to flooding, and of effects of PAG rock remaining in the
ultimate pit highwall. Figure 2.7.2.1-6 shows the collar locations of all drillholes sampled for Phase 4
testing, and sample intervals and characteristics are listed in Appendix 3-7-D of the March 2009
EIS/Application.
2006-2012 ROCK CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAMS

The Phase 5 static and kinetic testing program was started in 2006, and kinetic testing remained ongoing
at the time this report was prepared. Phase 5 was intended to gather the remaining necessary information
for completion of the ML/ARD assessment and for development of a water quality prediction for the New
Prosperity Project.

PHASE 5 STATIC TESTING

Archived assay pulps from 1991 through 1997 drilling programs were retrieved for a variety of tests.
 To assess soluble weathering products that had accumulated in the assay pulps, 32 shake flask
extractions (3:1 method, Price, 1997) were carried out. Sample intervals and material types are
catalogued in Appendix 3-7-E of the March 2009 EIS/Application, and collar locations are shown on
Figure 2.7.2.1-6.
 To evaluate leaching and ABA characteristics of the Chilcotin basalts (an important source of
construction rock), archived bags of core samples were retrieved from Taseko’s warehouse. Fines
that had accumulated in the bags were subjected to shake flask extractions, and ABA tests were
performed on core samples over 6 to 10 m composite intervals. Sample intervals are catalogued in
Appendix 3-7-F of the March 2009 EIS/Application, and collar locations are shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-
6.
 To evaluate whether PAG and non-PAG waste occurs in sufficiently-discrete zones that segregation
will be feasible, composite samples (approximately 6 m in length) were prepared from the archived
assay pulps for two drillholes and subjected to ABA tests. Composite samples were prepared from
the collar to the intersection of the drill trace with either the ore zone or the pit wall.
An additional 6 drillholes from the modelled non-PAG zone in the southwest portion of the pit were
evaluated in similar fashion, to test both whether segregation is feasible and whether the modelled non-
PAG characteristic of a large portion of the waste in the southwest portion of the pit was accurate.
Sample intervals are catalogued in Appendix 3-7-G of the March 2009 EIS/Application, and collar
locations are shown on Figures 2.7.2.1-5 and 2.7.2.1-6.
Selenium content was determined for the 68 samples from DDH 92-071 and DDH 92-082 which were
composited for evaluation of segregation as noted above. Mercury analyses were also carried out on the
same samples to confirm mercury concentrations.
 To evaluate the leaching properties of overburden materials, three 2007 test pit grab samples and
eight core samples from a single 2007 diamond drill hole were submitted for shake flask extraction
testing. Sample locations and logs are catalogued in Appendix 3-7-H of the March 2009
EIS/Application, and collar and test pit locations are shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-30.

Figure 2.7.2.1-30
Phase 5 Overburden
Sample Locations
LEGEND
830 Pit outline
DDH 2007-295
TP 7AT
2007 Test pit
TP 7AT
TP 7BT TP 7CT
Scale as
indicated
Source:

Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig7-30.Phase 5 Overburden Sample Locations.pptx

PHASE 5 KINETIC TESTING

Archived drill core from 1992, 1996, and 1997 was collected from the core storage facility at the New
Prosperity site. Materials targeted for collection included ore and stockpile grade ore, potassic waste, and
propylitic waste with elevated zinc content. Samples were collected by SRK in December 2006 with
assistance from Taseko staff.
The coded assay database was used to identify appropriate target intervals. It was expected that many
intervals would be missing due to disintegration of core racks and to previous retrieval of core for other
testing programs. The samples that were ultimately retrieved were selected based on actual intervals that
were available from within the target population at the time of collection.
Archived Chilcotin basalt core was retrieved from Taseko’s warehouse in September 2007. The sawn half
core from the entire length of DDH 96-224 had been stored in wooden bins, including the upper 94 m of
basalt core, with composite samples contained in large plastic bags each holding about 10 m intervals.
Table 2.7.2.1-6 lists the samples selected for kinetic testing, and drill collar locations are shown on
Figures 2.7.2.1-5 and 2.7.2.1-6.
Table 2.7.2.1-6 Core Intervals Collected for Phase 5 Kinetic Testing
HCT HOLE From To Interval

Sample ID Material Type
ID ID (m) (m) (m)
HC1 92-011 142.0 144.0 2.0 92-011 142-144 Stockpile Grade Ore
HC4 92-084 90.0 92.0 2.0 92-084 90-92 High Zn propylitic waste
HC6 92-024 150.0 152.0 2.0 92-024 150-153 Potassic waste
KM 1961 Master Comp
HC10 See Tailings section for source of feed Composite ore
1/2" Crush
KM 1961 Master Comp
HC11 See Tailings section for source of feed Composite ore
1/2" Crush
HC12 96-224 50 58 8 234170-24173 Comp. Chilcotin Basalt
HC13 96-224 86 94 8 234189-234192 Comp. Chilcotin Basalt
A composite sample of PAG rock was prepared for subaqueous rock column testing from the available
samples listed in Table 2.7.2.1-6. The composite was prepared using equal weights of PAG stockpile
grade ore and of each of two high zinc propylitic samples; Table 2.7.2.1-7 lists the intervals used to
prepare the PAG composite.

Table 2.7.2.1-7 Makeup of Subaqueous Rock Column Composite Sample
HCT HOLE From To Interval

Sample ID Material Type
ID ID (m) (m) (m)
HC1 92-011 142.0 144.0 2.0 92-011 142-144 Stockpile Ore
PHASE 5 LABORATORY METHODS

Mineralogical characterization was carried out on all samples gathered for Phase 5 humidity cell testing,
as well as on several archived samples from the Taseko geology collection. Locations and descriptions of
these samples are provided in Appendix 3-7-I of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Polished thin sections were examined by petrographic microscope and optical thin section descriptions
were prepared by Petrascience Consultants Inc. of Vancouver. Individual carbonate grains were identified
optically and carbonate mineral species were determined by election microprobe at the Department of
Earth and Ocean Sciences at UBC. Parallel samples were submitted to UBC for quantitative X-ray
diffraction analysis with Rietveld refinement (QXRD).
STATIC GEOCHEMICAL TESTING

During exploration, drill core was analyzed at a variety of laboratories for elemental content by aqua regia
digestion with ICP finish. Mercury analyses were carried out by cold vapour atomic absorption for drill
core collected from 1991 to 1997, but selenium was not included in the analytical suite. As part of Phase
5 ML/ARD characterization, a total of 68 samples were analyzed for selenium and mercury at Canadian
Environmental and Metallurgical Inc. (CEMI) in 2006 to assess whether elevated selenium was present
and to provide a set of modern mercury analyses.
ABA testing was carried out at CEMI according to the MEND (1991) method which includes paste pH,
sulphur speciation (total sulphur and sulphate sulphur), and Modified Neutralization Potential (NP).
Sulphide sulphur was estimated by difference. Carbonate NP was estimated by analyzing for Total
Inorganic Carbon (TIC).
LEACH EXTRACTIONS
Shake flask extractions (SFEs) were carried out on 32 archived assay pulps via a 24 hour extraction
using a 3:1 ratio of distilled water to solid (Price, 1997).
Twelve samples of overburden collected during drilling and test pitting programs in 2007 were also tested
using the method described above.
KINETIC TESTING
The thirteen humidity cell tests (HCTs) listed in Table 2.7.2.1-6 were carried out by CEMI according to the
method presented in MEND (1991) and recommended by Price (1997). HCTs consisted of plexiglass
columns loaded with 1.0 kg of crushed rock, and flushing was carried out by flood leach on a weekly
cycle. Cell operation consisted of an initial flush with 750 mL of deionized water, followed by weekly
flushing with 500 mL of deionized water.
Leachate analysis was initially conducted on a weekly/ biweekly schedule, as follows:
 pH, ORP, conductivity – weekly
 Sulphate, chloride, fluoride, acidity and alkalinity – biweekly, and
 Elements by ICP-MS – First flush, second week and then at two week intervals (i.e. 0, 2, 4, 6 etc.).
After 57 cycles (HC1 through HC9) and 47 cycles (HC10 and HC11), monitoring frequency was reduced
in January 2008 to the following schedule:
 pH, ORP, conductivity – biweekly
 Sulphate, fluoride, acidity and alkalinity – biweekly, and
 Elements by ICP-MS – every fourth weekly cycle.
Most cells were terminated in July 2011; only HC1, HC3, HC5 and HC8 remain in operation as of April
2012. Testing frequency for these four tests was reduced in to July 2011 to a long term monitoring
frequency consisting of:
 pH, conductivity – every fourth weekly cycle
 Sulphate, fluoride, acidity and alkalinity – every 12th weekly cycle, and
 Elements by ICP-MS – every 12th weekly cycle.
HC12 and HC13 were monitored on the initial schedule through 199 cycles (July 27, 2011), when both
tests were terminated.
SUBAQUEOUS ROCK COLUMN TESTS

Duplicate subaqueous rock columns (Sub WR A and Sub WR B) were constructed using 61 cm lengths of
17.14 cm diameter Plexiglass pipe. These columns were fitted with a perforated PVC disk and a nylon
mesh at the base, and charged with 3.90 kg of composite PAG sample, crushed to less than 12.7 mm
(1/2”). This mass of sample filled each column to a depth of 11 cm, and deionized water was added to
achieve a 30 cm depth of water over the sample surface. Monitoring ports were located in the base of the
column to sample porewater and in the side of the column to sample the water cover.
Because the available sample consisted of 1990s core, a series of initial flushing cycles were carried out
to remove stored weathering products. Each flushing cycle consisted of flooding the column with
deionized water, allowing it to equilibrate for 24 hours, and draining. This procedure was repeated 5 times
(until minimal change in leachate conductivity was observed between cycles) and the leachate was
composited and analyzed for metals and other parameters.
Column operation consisted of withdrawing only the minimum quantity of water required for analyses from
the bottom port and the side port. Water removed was made up by adding deionized water (up to 160 mL)
to the water cover on a weekly basis from week 1 through week 27, then on a biweekly basis from week
29 through week 211. The water cover was circulated to ensure oxygen concentrations did not become

depleted at the rock interface. Both subaqueous rock column tests were terminated after week 211 in July
2011.
Monitoring was conducted of both the overlying water cover and the sample porewater, via sampling
ports in the side and base of the column respectively. Water cover monitoring (side port) was limited to
immediately measureable parameters, and was carried out on the following schedule:
 pH, ORP, conductivity and dissolved oxygen (DO)– weekly (through week 27); biweekly (week 29
through week 211).
 Porewater monitoring (on samples drawn from the bottom port) was carried out on the following
schedule:
 pH, ORP, conductivity and dissolved oxygen (DO)– weekly (through week 27); biweekly (week 29
through week 211)
 Sulphate, acidity and alkalinity – biweekly for duration of testing
 Chloride and fluoride– biweekly (through week 27); then every fourth week (week 31 through week
211), and
 Metals by ICP-MS – biweekly (through week 27); then every fourth week (week 31 through week
211).
The subaqueous rock column tests were terminated following cycle 211 in July 2011.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

The mineralogical studies indicated that the dominant sulphide mineral in the rocks hosting the New
Prosperity deposit is pyrite, with lesser chalcopyrite and traces of digenite, covellite, enargite, sphalerite
and several occurrences of undetermined mixed Fe+Cu sulphide minerals (Appendix 3-7-J of the March
2009 EIS/Application). The abundance of primary sulphate minerals gypsum and anhydrite was found to
be up to 12.5 wt% of the samples evaluated by quantitative x-ray diffraction (QXRD).
The occurrence of sulphur in individual rock groups, as measured in Phase 2 and 3 ABA tests, is shown
on Figure 2.7.2.1-31. The late porphyritic diorite dikes (Unit PMPD) have uniformly low total sulphur
concentrations, with a high proportion of the sulphur present as sulphate. All other units display a wide
range of both total and sulphate sulphur content.
Results and summary statistics for Phase 2 and 3 ABA parameters for all rock types are presented in
Appendix 3-7-K of the March 2009 EIS/Application and results and statistics for elemental content for all
rock types are presented in Appendix 3-7-L of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Results of optical characterization of samples completed for this study (provided in Appendix 3-7-J of the
March 2009 EIS/Application) indicate several types of minerals capable of neutralizing acid to some
degree, including carbonates, potassium feldspar, biotite and sericite. QXRD results (Appendix 3-7-J of
the March 2009 EIS/Application) added several other silicates including actinolite, clinochlore, diopside,
kaolinite and vermiculite. The QXRD results indicated that the main carbonate minerals are calcite,
dolomite, ankerite and siderite. Rhodochrosite was not identified by QXRD.
Microprobe analyses (Appendix 3-7-M of the March 2009 EIS/Application) of 434 optically-selected
carbonate mineral grains from the New Prosperity deposit showed that the main types of carbonate were
calcite and dolomite, with minor ankerite and siderite (Figure 2.7.2.1-32). Manganese content was
minimal for all grains, with a maximum manganese content of 7% measured for a single grain.

As shown in, the majority of grains analyzed were calcite and dolomite. Calcite grains contained minimal
cations other than calcium, however dolomite grains contained minor iron component (up to 36 mole % as
iron carbonate). Although QXRD identified ankerite rather than dolomite, the technique cannot reliably
distinguish between the two forms. The majority of binary carbonate grains were correctly classified as
dolomite rather than ankerite because magnesium exceeds iron (Gribble and Hall, 1992). The
composition of these carbonates varies continuously from 13% to 30% Mg. As shown, one grain was iron
and magnesium carbonate that was classified as siderite but the composition is intermediate between
magnesite and siderite. Based on the results obtained, average compositions for calcite, the series
ankerite-dolomite, and siderite are shown in Table 2.7.2.1-8.

Table 2.7.2.1-8 Tally of Mineral Grain Composition as Determined by Microprobe Analyses
Stockpile
Grade
Alteration Potassic Potassic Propylitic Propylitic Propylitic Phyllic Phyllic Ore Ore
Rock Type Intrusive Volcanic Intrusive Volcanic Sedimentary Intrusive Volcanic
Mineral (Count) (Count) (Count) (Count) (Count) (Count) (Count) (Count) (Count)
Calcite 34 16 28 7 34 21 19 43 6
Ankerite 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Siderite 0 1 0 16 5 0 0 5 2
Dolomite 47 23 0 10 20 24 0 16 15
Rhodochrosite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total grains
analyzed 81 40 28 33 60 45 19 65 23

Figure 2.7.2.1-31
Sulphate Sulphur vs. Total
3 Sulphur for All Lithologies
LEGEND
2.5
2
DEBF
PMPD
QD
S (SO4) %
QFP
SEDS
1.5
BEAT
FAXT
SUBV
FLOW
S(T)% = S(SO4)%
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S (Total) %
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig31.SO4 vs. S-T.ppt

Low Grade Ore Ankerite
Figure 2.7.2.1-32
Mg
Carbonate Composition as
LGO Calcite
Determined by
Microprobe Analysis
LGO Dolomite
LEGEND
LGO Siderite
Ore Dolomite
Ore Calcite
Ore Siderite
Phyllic Intrusive Calcite
Phyllic Intrusive Dolomite
Phyllic Volcanic Calcite
Potassic Intrusive Calcite
Potassic Intrusive Dolomite
Potassic Volcanic Calcite
Potassic Volcanic Dolomite
Potassic Volcanic Siderite
Propyllitic Intrusive Calcite
Propyllitic Seds Ankerite
Propyllitic Seds Calcite
Propyllitic Seds Dolomite
Propyllitic Seds Siderite
Propyllitic Volcanic Calcite

Ca Fe+Mn
Propyllitic Volcanic Dolomite
Propyllitic Volcanic Siderite

Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

M:\1CT013.000_MLARD_Characterization\Mineralogy\Interpretation\[EPMA Carbonate PSA 767 May 9 2007_SRK.interp.ver02.xls] Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig32 EMPA Rock Carbonate Species.ppt

Table 2.7.2.1-9 Average Compositions of Carbonate Minerals in Mine Rock
Mineral Average Formula Formula Weight (g/mole)

Calcite Ca0.97Mg0.01Fe0.01Mn0.01CO3 100.2
Ankerite-Dolomite Ca1.09Mg0.66Fe0.24Mn0.01(CO3)2 193.8
Siderite Ca0.04Mg0.12Fe0.82Mn0.01CO3 111.2
The majority of silicate minerals are aluminosilicates. These provide limited buffering ability at higher pHs
due both to the release of aluminum during dissolution and to the resistant silicate crystal structure. The
buffering capacity provided by aluminosilicates below pH 5 is not effective in controlling concentrations of
copper in water and should be eliminated from calculations of potential for ARD. Only reactive
neutralization potential derived from calcium and magnesium carbonates should be considered in the
assessment of ARD potential.
Bulk neutralization potential values determined by the Sobek et al. (1978) and MEND (1991) methods is
expected to represent a combination of neutralization potential below pH 5 by aluminosilicates (NPSilicate)
and inorganic carbon contained in calcium and magnesium carbonate minerals (ICCa,Mg). This can be
represented by:
NP = NPSilicate + ICCa,Mg.
Several different types of calcium, magnesium and iron carbonate minerals are present at New
Prosperity, and total inorganic carbon (TIC) content of the rocks is not a reliable indicator of neutralization
potential available from calcium and magnesium carbonate minerals. TIC represents total carbonate
content:
TIC = ICFe,Mn + ICCa,Mg
The combination of QXRD data and microprobe-indicated carbonate mineral composition allows the
ICCa,Mg content to be evaluated, resulting in an estimate of NPSilicate (SRK, 2006). The following steps were
carried out:
1. The first step was to check that TIC indicated by chemical analysis corresponded to the
mineralogical distribution indicated by QXRD. TIC from mineralogy was calculated from:
TICmineralogy = 12Pcalcite/FWcalcite + 24Pankerite/FWankerite + 12Psiderite/FWsiderite
where P and FW are the proportions and formula weights of the indicated minerals. The formula
weights were calculated from the average formulas provided in Table 2.7.2.1-9. The proportion of
ankerite was assumed to represent the proportion of ankerite-dolomite. Comparison of analytical and
mineralogical TIC is provided in Figure 2.7.2.1-33. A reasonable correlation is indicated for the nine
samples tested with a tendency for QXRD to indicate higher carbonate content than the chemical
analysis at lower levels of carbonate. The results show that the mineralogical analyses are generally
consistent with bulk analytically-measured carbonate content. The subsequent calculations do not
require that TIC from mineralogy and chemical analysis be equivalent; however, the comparison
indicates that QXRD quantified carbonate content.
2. The second step was to use the mineralogical results to calculate the fraction of carbonate
associated with calcium and magnesium from the mineralogical results. This fraction (fCa,Mg) is
calculated from:

fCa,Mg = {∑(xCa,m + xMg,m)ICm}/TICmineralogy

where ICm is the carbonate content indicated by QXRD associated with each mineral (m) and xCa,m
and xMg,m are the mole proportions of calcium and magnesium in each mineral indicated by
microprobe (Table 2.7.2.1-9). For the nine samples tested, fCa,Mg varied from 17% to 98%. The low
proportion is for the sample containing siderite.
3. The fCa,Mg fractions obtained were then applied to the analytical TIC to estimate ICCa,Mg relative
to the laboratory-measured TIC.
4. Figure 2.7.2.1-34 shows ICCa,Mg (expressed as kg CaCO3/t) compared to bulk neutralization
potential. All nine samples showed good correspondence between ICCa,Mg and NP, indicating that
there is little to no contribution of NPSilicate to the bulk NP, and therefore that NP = ICCa,Mg.
In summary, the bulk laboratory measured NP can be used without adjustment as an estimate of the
neutralization potential that is available to consume acid under neutral pH weathering conditions.
Therefore, the provisional adoption of (NP-10) to represent available NP for waste scheduling
purposes is conservative.

Prosperity Figure 2.7.2.1-33
Comparison of QXRD-
Comparison of TIC Indicated by QXRD and from Analysis TIC and Analytical TIC
LEGEND
2.5
2.0
QXRD Mineralogy TIC (%)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Analytical TIC (%)
M:\1CT013.000_MLARD_Characterization\Mineralogy\Interpretation\[EPMA Carbonate PSA 767 May 9 2007_SRK.interp.ver02.xls]
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig 7-3 QXRD-TIC vs TIC.ppt

Figure 2.7.2.1-34
Prosperity Comparison of ICCa,Mg
and NP
Comparison of NP and ICCa,Mg Using Average Ca+Mg Carbonate Mineral
LEGEND
Characteristics
200
180
160 ICCa,Mg = 0.937*NP + 0.9833

R2 = 0.961
140
ICCa,Mg (kg CaCO3/t)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
NP (kg CaCO3/t)
M:\1CT013.000_MLARD_Characterization\Mineralogy\Interpretation\[EPMA Carbonate PSA 767 May 9 2007_SRK.interp.ver02.xls]
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig34 IC of Ca, Mg vs. NP.ppt

Summary statistics of elemental content by rock type for waste rock within the 852 pit are presented in
Appendix 3-7-L of the March 2009 EIS/Application. Median concentrations of selected heavy elements
are summarized in Table 2.7.2.1-10.
Median Cu concentrations are up to 13 times crustal average concentrations, with the three quartz diorite
phases (QD1, QD2, and QD3) having the highest median copper concentrations. The highest median Hg
concentrations also occur in quartz diorite, with QD3 having 18 times the crustal average Hg
concentration. Quartz diorite unit QD1 has the highest median As and Mo concentrations, with 72 and 18
times crustal average concentrations respectively.
Median Sb concentrations are uniformly greater than the crustal average, although several rock types
show median Sb concentrations of 1 ppm, which was the analytical limit of detection. The greatest Sb
median concentrations occurred in overburden, with OVBN having an Sb concentration of 55 times the
crustal average.
Cd, Mn, Pb and Zn were present close to or below crustal average concentrations in all waste rock types.

Table 2.7.2.1-10 Median Concentrations of Selected Heavy Elements
As Cd Cu Hg Mn Mo Pb Sb Zn
pp pp pp pp pp pp pp
Units m m m ppb ppm m m m m
Crustal 106
No. of Average1 1.8 0.16 68 85 0 1.2 13 0.2 76
Rock Sample
Type s Statistic
OVBN 5 Median 1 0.1 349 655 922 2 11 11 50
BSLT 137 Median 108 0.1 32 10 428 10 1 1 50
OVB2 83 Median 1 0.1 344 60 377 13 1 7 51
PMPD 1774 Median 1 0.1 25 115 380 2 7 1 45
FP 203 Median 1 0.1 188 103 142 2 19 6 16
QFP 4388 Median 10 0.1 312 260 134 8 9 6 24
1654 152
QD3 Median 8 0.1 642 0 225 2 7 1 29
QD2 2548 Median 3 0.1 637 280 191 10 4 1 25
QD1 819 Median 130 0.1 864 83 224 21 1 1 24
SEDS 585 Median 13 0.1 56 83 345 1 21 4 23
SUBV 7857 Median 1 0.1 490 165 194 6 6 1 25
FLOW 3281 Median 1 0.1 531 210 212 6 3 1 22
BEAT 322 Median 1 0.1 137 85 202 6 1 1 17
DEBF 211 Median 1 0.1 227 75 167 2 2 2 13
FAXT 10043 Median 1 0.1 352 90 177 12 1 1 18
NOTE:
Concentration of element in Earth’s crust as a whole, from Price (1997), Appendix 3.
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTING ASSESSMENT

ABA results by rock type for all Phase 2 and Phase 3 in-pit samples are shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-35, and
summary ABA statistics for individual rock types are presented in Appendix 3-7-K of the March 2009
EIS/Application. Results from Phase 5 are not shown as these samples were not used in coding the ABA
block model (which forms the basis for the mine plan). The results show that there is no correlation
between rock type and NP/AP characteristics, with most rock types exhibiting a wide range of NP and AP
values. The exceptions are the late porphyritic diorite (unit PMPD) and the Tertiary basalt (BSLT).
PMPD forms numerous post-mineralization dikes that cut the deposit and host rocks. PMPD had
moderate to high NP and low AP, which caused this unit to consistently have NP/AP values greater than
2.

Figure 2.7.2.1-36 shows the Phase 2 and Phase 3 ABA results by alteration type (unaltered overburden
results included for reference). Overall, there is no correlation between alteration type and NP/AP
characteristics, with all four main alteration types displaying a range of NP/AP values from <<1 to >2.
ABA results for ore samples from Phase 1, Phase 3, and Phase 5 metallurgical testing are shown on
Figure 2.7.2.1-37. NP/AP values range from 0.65 to 3, assuming pyrite is the only source of sulphide
sulphur. Since chalcopyrite is the dominant copper ore mineral, a portion of the sulphide sulphur will be
hosted by chalcopyrite.
The plot shows that all ore samples tested had NP greater than 20 kg CaCO3/t. The contained NP will
neutralize any acid produced over the planned duration of ore exposure in the pit and the ore stockpile.
Assay pulps from two 1992 drillholes and eight 1996/97 drillholes were composited and analyzed for ABA
parameters to test whether the scale of PAG/non-PAG variation was sufficiently large that waste could be
selectively and successfully managed by segregation of PAG material. The goal of segregation will be to
ensure that non-PAG waste rock contains negligible PAG rock and therefore will not generate ARD. Pulps
were composited over roughly 6 m intervals to approximate half pit bench heights. A secondary objective
of this testing was to evaluate whether test results matched the PAG/non-PAG classification that was
assigned during the ABA block modelling process.
The results of the continuous ABA analysis for each drill hole are shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-38, and lines
showing potential segregation criteria of NP/AP = 2 and NP/AP = 1.5 are shown for reference. Since all
1996/97 drillholes were oriented at a nominal 45º angle, a 6 m down-hole composite interval represents
approximately 4.25 m vertical thickness. 1992 drillholes were drilled vertically, and depth intervals
correspond directly to vertical thickness of rock.
Overall, the results show that segregation is a feasible waste management strategy for New Prosperity,
as the scale of variation in waste category (PAG or non-PAG) is generally manageable at the bench or
half bench scale. Operational bench scale classification will be more challenging in some areas than in
others- the vertical variability shown for DDH 92-071, and to a lesser extent DDH 92-082, on Figure
2.7.2.1-38 may mean that some non-PAG rock occurring in narrower widths will need to be disposed as
PAG if effective segregation cannot be achieved.
Drillholes 96-224 was chosen to evaluate the characteristics of the near surface Tertiary basalt. The zone
of elevated sulphur located 90 m down-hole was expected and is discussed further. The continuous ABA
testing suggests that this unit typically has low sulphide sulphur content and that zones of locally elevated
sulphur content occur at a sufficiently large scale that segregation could be carried out if required based
on operational monitoring results.
Drillholes 96- 219, -230, 97-235, -254, -256, -258 and -261 were chosen to test the ABA characteristics of
waste rock in the southwest portion of the pit. The ABA model predicts a disproportionate volume of the
non-PAG waste rock produced by the Project will be sourced from this zone, and it will be important to be
able to segregate appropriately in this portion of the pit.
Figure 2.7.2.1-39 shows an oblique view of the southwest portion of the pit, with the traces of the above-
mentioned drillholes plotted to show the extent of the modelled non-PAG rock in this area of the pit.

The results of the continuous ABA testing shown in Figure 2.7.2.1-38 for the drillholes in the southwest
portion of the pit show that the predicted non-PAG character of the rock is largely confirmed:
 DDH 96- 219 and 97-258 were modelled as non-PAG over the interval tested, with the end of the
tested interval coinciding with the intersection of the modelled PAG zone.
 The plot of DDH 97-235 results shows a single sample with NP/AP<1- this sample has very low
sulphide sulphur (<0.01%) and NP (6 kg CaCO3 equiv./tonne), and would be better classified as
‘inert’ in this context.
 DDH 97-256 shows higher sulphide sulphur content, and NP/AP values that transition from PAG to
non-PAG in the tested interval. This modelled classification is not correct for these samples. The end
of the tested interval coincides with the top of the modelled PAG zone, and the results for 97-256
show that, in some areas, there may be substantial uncertainty in the modelled location of the
PAG/non-PAG boundary.
 The end of the test interval for DDH 96-230, 97-254 and -261 also coincided with the entry of the drill
trace into the modelled PAG zone. Only a short section of modelled non-PAG rock was available in
96-230, which returned high NP/AP values except for the lowest composite tested. 96-254 returned a
section of NP/AP < 2 (coinciding with a higher sulphur zone) in the middle of the tested section,
however the base of the tested interval had NP/AP>2. Similarly, 97-261 had non-PAG NP/AP values
at the end of the tested interval adjacent to the modelled PAG zone, and returned a single, high
sulphur, low NP/AP interval near the mid-point of the tested section.
Overall, the continuous ABA testing results show that segregation is a feasible waste management
strategy and that operational monitoring will be necessary to ensure waste rock is appropriately classified
and managed.

300
Figure 2.7.2.1-35
NP vs. AP by Lithology
LEGEND
250
200 DEBF
PMPD
NP (kg CaCO3 equiv./tonne)
QD
QFP
SEDS
150 BEAT
FAXT
SUBV
FLOW
NP/AP = 1
100 NP/AP=2
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
AP (kg CaCO3 equiv./tonne)
Data Sources:
Produced by: DMB

Verified by: DMB
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig35 NP vs AP by Lithology.ppt

350
Figure 2.7.2.1-36
NP vs. AP by Alteration
300 Unit
LEGEND
250
NP (kg CaCO3 equiv./ tonne)
200
Potassic
Ser-Fe Carb
Propyllitic
150 Phyllic
OVB
NP/AP= 1
NP/AP= 2
100
50
-50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
AP (kg CaCO3 equiv./ tonne)
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig36 NP vs AP by Alteration Unit.ppt

Figure 2.7.2.1-37
100 Overburden NP vs. AP
LEGEND
90
80
70
NP (kg CaCO3 equiv. /t)
60
1993 Ore
1997 Ore
50 2007 Ore
NP/AP = 1
NP/AP = 2
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
AP (kg CaCO3 equiv. /t)
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig 37 NP vs AP- Ore.ppt

DDH 92-071 DDH 96-224 DDH 97-254
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
0 0 0
15 15
50
30 30
100 45 45 Figure 2.7.2.1-38

Start of interval depth (m)

60 60
Continuous NP/AP vs.
150
75 75
Depth
200 90 90
LEGEND
105 105
250
120 120 NP/AP
Sulphide Sulphur (%)
300 135 135
NP/AP = 1
150 150 NP/AP = 2
350
165 165
400 180 180
DDH 92-082 DDH 96-230 DDH 97-256 DDH 97-261
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 0 0
0
15 15 15
30 30 30
50
45 45 45

60 60 60
100 75 75 75
90 90 90
105 105 105

150
120 120 120
135 135 135

200
150 150 150
165 165 165
250
180 180 180
DDH 96-219 DDH 97-235 DDH 97-258
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
0 0 0
15 15
15
30 30
30 45 45
60 60
45
75 75
60 90 90
105 105
75
120 120
90 135 135
Data Sources:
150 150
105
165 165
Produced by: DBM
Verified by: DBM
120 180 180 Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig38 Continuous NPAP vs. Depth.ppt

Figure 2.7.2.1-39
Continuous NP/AP Drill
Traces
LEGEND
1996/1997 Hole ID,

drill collar, and drill
trace
92-082 1992 Hole ID and

drill collar
(approximate
location)
92-071
92-082
Note: Data Sources:
Figure shows oblique view of topography (green), 830 pit shell (brown), modeled PAG waste (red), and ore (pink). Non-PAG waste is not shown- Produced by: DBM
visible sections of drill traces cut modeled non-PAG waste. View looking southeast. Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig39 Continuous NPAP Traces.ppt

The composite samples from DDH 92-071 and DDH 92-082 which were submitted for continuous ABA
analysis were also tested for selenium content to evaluate whether selenium is likely to be elevated in the
New Prosperity host rocks. Mercury analyses were also conducted as a check against the original
exploration assays. Results of the selenium and mercury analysis are provided in Appendix 3-7-N of the
March 2009 EIS/Application.
Selenium concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 5 ppm, with a median concentration of 1.3 ppm, and appear
to be correlated with Cu and S content. Average crustal abundance of selenium for both basaltic and
granitic rock is 0.05 ppm (Price, 1997). The limited analysis described here indicates that the selenium
content of the New Prosperity host rocks is elevated and that leaching selenium from tailings and mine
rock may be a concern.
Phase 5 mercury analyses returned lower values than measured during analyses carried out in the 1990s
as part of exploration. All phases of Hg analyses were carried out using the Cold Vapour Atomic
Absorption technique, with detection limits around 5 ppb in the earlier testing, and no Phase 5 samples
below this concentration (minimum Phase 5 concentration of 15 ppb). The lower concentrations
measured in Phase 5 testing suggest that some of the mercury has volatilized and been lost during the
period of storage. The results do however confirm the validity of the mercury values contained in the
exploration assay database.
Phase 2 and Phase 3 ABA results for all overburden and Tertiary basalt samples tested are shown in
Figure 2.7.2.1-40. Samples of till, basalt, and conglomerate had low sulphur content and low
neutralization potential- these materials are classified as non-PAG (NP/AP > 2), will likely be nearly
geochemically inert when excavated, and will be good candidates for use as general construction
material. A summary of Phase 2 and Phase 3 overburden ABA testing results is included in Appendix 3-7-
O of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Four of four samples of limonitic conglomerate (Unit 531 (FANL)) were found to have elevated sulphide
sulphur content and to have acidic paste pH values. These samples were sourced from adjacent 2 m
intervals in a single drill hole (DDH 96-216, Figure 2.7.2.1-5). No other samples of FANL were subjected
to ABA testing, however the unit was easily identified geologically. Lateral and vertical distribution of
FANL have been estimated by Taseko geologists by correlating between drillholes based on the
geological description in the logs (in the same manner carried out for all other overburden units). For mine
planning purposes, it has been assumed that the entire volume of FANL will be classified as PAG and
that this volume will be placed in the PAG disposal facility. This assumption will need to be verified by
operational testing.
Leach extraction tests carried out on 11 overburden samples from 2007 returned uniformly neutral
leachates, with pH ranging from 7.15 to 7.94. Soluble sulphate ranged from 3 to 303 mg/kg, and while
soluble trace element load generally increased with soluble sulphate, correlations were poor. Complete
results of overburden leach extraction testing are presented in Appendix 3-7-P of the March 2009
EIS/Application.

90
Figure 2.7.2.1-40
Overburden NP vs. AP
80
LEGEND
70
60
NP (kg CaCO3 equiv./ tonne)
50 511 (Till)
520 (Basalt)
531 (FANL)
40
532 (FAN)
NP/AP= 1
30 NP/AP= 2
20
10
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
AP (kg CaCO3 equiv./ tonne)
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig40 NP vs AP – Overburden.ppt

Phase 5 ABA results discussed in the previous section showed the Tertiary basalt can have sulphide
sulphur concentrations up to 0.5% (compared to average basalt sulphide sulphur concentrations of
0.03%). Of the 14 drillholes from which Tertiary basalt samples were analyzed, the four highest sulphide
sulphur contents were measured from samples sourced from an 18 m interval (88-106 m) in DDH 96-224.
Outside of DDH 96-224, the maximum sulphide sulphur content in Tertiary basalt was measured to be
0.02%. Therefore, this unit is considered to be largely non-PAG, with the potential for rock with locally
elevated sulphide sulphur that will require segregation.
Phase 5 ABA results also showed that NP greatly exceeds TIC-NP for the Tertiary basalt analyzed from
DDH 96-224 (Figure 2.7.2.1-41).
Thirty-two 24 hour distilled water leach extractions were performed on assay pulps retrieve from storage.
Complete results of are presented in Appendix 3-7-Q of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Leachate for one sample of potassic intrusive (Sample 234029) had an acidic pH of 2.87, with leachable
Sb (1.5 mg/kg) and Hg (12 µg/kg), but low leachable sulphate (210 mg/kg) compared to other pulps
tested (median 1143 mg/kg). All other samples had neutral leachate pH ranging from 7.35 to 8.14 with a
wide range of leachable sulphate (24 to 5817 mg/kg). Soluble load of several elements were plotted
against pH and sulphate, with a positive correlation between Ni and sulphate being the only correlation
observed. Although pH conditions varied little, there was a generally at least a tenfold range of soluble
load for the elements examined.
In general, these tests provided little useful information on element leachability except to demonstrate the
solubility of sulphate due to dissolution of gypsum. Maximum concentrations of other ions were well below
expected solubilities of their respective secondary minerals.

Drillhole 96-224
BSLT- 14 to 106 m Figure 2.7.2.1-41
NP vs TIC-NP for Tertiary
Results from 2007 segregation assessment testing on assay pulps Basalt
LEGEND
50
45
40
35
NP (kg CaCO3 equiv/tonne)
30
DDH 96-224
25
NP= CO3-NP
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Carbonate NP (kg CaCO3 equiv/tonne)
N
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig41.NP vs. TIC-NP for Tertiary Basalt.ppt

KINETIC GEOCHEMICAL TESTING

Twelve humidity cell tests (HCTs) were carried out on samples of different rock units and alteration types.
Static characteristics of the individual samples tested are summarized in Table 2.7.2.1-11. Complete
tabular results and selected plots of Phase 4 HCT results are provided in Appendices 3-7-R and 3-7-S of
the March 2009 EIS/Application.
HCT K3 was carried out on sample that was intended to assess ‘worst case’ weathering characteristics of
Tertiary basalt. The sample had a slightly acidic paste pH (5.9) and displayed acidic leaching conditions
for the entire duration of testing. Additional samples of Tertiary basalt were tested as part of the Phase 5
program, and the Phase 4 and Phase 5 results are discussed together in the Phase 5 discussion below.
The other 11 Phase 4 HCTs remained pH neutral for the 77 week duration of testing. Leachate pH for
each cell varied within a stable range, with leachate from all cells ranging from 7.1 to 8.6 from the second
week on.
Phase 4 samples appear to have been selected specifically to target material with low sulphate sulphur
content. Sulphate release from HCTs K4 through K14 was correspondingly low, with leachate sulphate
concentrations well below the solubility of gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O). Typical release rates ranged from 1 to
7 mg/kg/wk for the period of stable release beginning around week 20.
Leachate concentrations for most trace elements were below the standard analytical detection level
throughout the testing period. A single round of low-level analyses was carried out in week 46, and the
resulting analytical data were used in determining source terms for the different alteration units. Both Cd
and Se concentrations were less than the low-level detection limits (Cd limit of detection= 0.00005 mg/L;
Se limit of detection = 0.001 mg/L), and several other trace elements had similarly low leachate
concentrations (e.g. Cr, Co, Ni, Ag). Where concentrations were below detectable levels, calculations of
release rates adopted the limit of detection as the leachate concentration. These calculated release rates
provide an upper bound estimate of the actual rates of release occurring within the test cells.
PHASE 4 COLUMN TESTS

Nine column leaching tests were carried out on samples of different rock units and alteration types. Static
characteristics of the individual samples tested are summarized in Table 2.7.2.1-12. Complete tabular
results and selected plots of Phase 4 column test results are provided in Appendices 3-7-T and 3-7-U of
Unsaturated columns containing between 23 to 33.5 kg of rock were operated for 543 days. Columns
were leached with 1 L of deionized water, with leaching cycles varying from 1 to 4 days for the first 60
days, then weekly for the duration of testing.
Leachate pH for all columns varied within a stable pH neutral range (7.5 to 8.3) for the duration of testing.
Sulphate production was lower in the initial 60 day period, then increased to maximum observed
concentrations before declining for the duration. All columns displayed the same trend, with maximum
sulphate concentrations for individual columns ranging from 142 to 383 mg/L. From around Day 270 on,
the rate of decrease in weekly sulphate concentration slowed, with sulphate concentrations appearing to
approach a steady state ranging from 36 to 183 mg/L. These concentrations are lower than would be
expected if equilibrium dissolution of gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) was occurring.

Concentrations of most trace elements were at or near the limit of detection for the analytical method
used for the duration of testing. Exceptions were Mn and Zn, with most leachates showing detectable Mn
(>0.005 mg/L) during the initial period of leaching extending to Day 130. The sericite-iron carbonate
altered QD1 in column K4 displayed the highest Mn concentration (0.268 mg/L) and the highest rate of
Mn leaching, with leachate Mn remaining above detection (0.005 mg/L) through Day 214.
Most columns leached zinc at concentrations above detection levels (0.005 mg/L) in the initial stages of
testing. By Day 116, leachate Zn concentrations in eight of nine columns had declined below 0.02 mg/L
and continued to decline for the duration of column testing. Column K10 (SUBV with phyllic alteration)
leached Zn at detectable concentrations over the duration of testing, with the highest observed zinc
concentration in all columns (0.096 mg/L) occurring in K10 on Day 116. Column K10 leachate zinc
concentration declined to 0.02 mg/L in the last round of monitoring carried out on Day 543. Zinc content
of K10 was the second highest of all columns (246 ppm), with only K12 having a higher initial zinc
concentration (262 ppm).
PHASE 5 RESULTS
Thirteen HCTs were carried out on samples of the rock units and alteration types catalogued in Table
2.7.2.1-6. Static characteristics of the individual samples tested are summarized in Table 2.7.2.1-13.
A duplicate subaqueous waste rock column test was carried out for a composite PAG rock sample
prepared from equal weights of the samples tested in HC1, HC4, and HC8. No static tests were
performed on the composite sample - Table 2.7.2.1-13 includes calculated average composite
characteristics for the subaqueous column test material.
Complete tabular results and selected plots are provided in Appendices 2.7.2.1-A through 2.7.2.1-D.
HOST ROCK
HCTs HC6, HC7 and HC8 tested potassic waste. Leachate from all three tests remained within a stable
neutral pH range for the duration of testing to date, with maximum observed pH of 8.45 in HC7 leachate
in week 12 and minimum observed pH of 6.83 in HC6 leachate in week 46.
The rock in HC6 and HC8 had initial S(SO4) contents of 0.79% and 0.9% respectively, and sulphate
release from these tests initially reflected the leaching of calcium sulphate minerals (gypsum
(CaSO4·2H2O) or anhydrite (CaSO4)). The rock in HC7 had an total sulphur content of 0.02%, and a
S(SO4) content of 0.01%, and low reported sulphate concentrations in HC7 leachate reflect the low total
sulphur content of the material being tested.

Table 2.7.2.1-11 Static Characteristics of Phase 4 Humidity Cell Test Samples
Rock Alteration
HCT HOLE ID From To Interval type Type PASTE S(T) S(SO4) AP NP NP/AP
(m) (m) (m) pH % % kg CaCO3/t
K3 96-224 94 104 10 BSLT - 5.9 0.35 0.09 8 21 2.5
Sericite- Iron
K4 96-224 156 166 10 QD1 Carbonate 8.0 2.27 0.03 70 -55 -0.8
Sericite- Iron
K5 96-224 198 202 4 FAXT Carbonate 8.1 1.53 0.02 47 41 0.9
K6 96-224 270 280 10 BEAT Propylitic 8.1 0.50 0.01 15 97 6.4
K7 96-225 102 104 2 BEAT Propylitic 8.2 1.07 <0.01 33 6 0.2
K8 96-225 194 204 10 FLOW Propylitic 8.4 1.87 0.04 57 99 1.7
K9 97-236 172 178 6 QFP Phyllic 8.2 4.09 0.04 127 119 0.9
K10 97-236 206 216 9.9 SUBV Phyllic 8.4 3.31 0.06 102 73 0.7
K11 97-237 150 159.8 9.8 FAXT Propylitic 8.6 1.58 0.02 49 22 0.5
K12 97-239 62 72 10 SUBV Phyllic 8.4 1.63 0.04 50 88 1.8
K13 97-251 170 180 10 SUBV Propylitic 8.8 0.83 0.03 25 52 2.1
K14 97-252 218 228 10 SUBV Propylitic 8.7 1.27 0.03 39 51 1.3

Table 2.7.2.1-12 Static Characteristics of Phase 4 Column Test Samples
Column Rock Alteration PASTE S NP/

Test HOLE ID From To Interval Mass Type Type pH S(T) (SO4) AP NP AP
(m) (m) (m) (kg) s.u. % % kg CaCO3/t

Sericite-
iron
K4 96-224 156 166 10 QD1 carbonate 8 2.27 0.03 70 -55 -0.8
Sericite-
iron
K5 96-224 198 202 4 9.5 FAXT carbonate 8 3.53 0.02 110 37 0.3
97-237 122 132 10 13.5
K10 97-236 206.1 216 9.9 23.5 SUBV Phyllic 8.4 2.93 0.05 90 85 0.9
97-236 226 236 10 10
K11 97-237 150 159.8 9.81 23.5 FAXT Propylitic 8.6 1.51 0.02 47 36 0.8
96-225 30 40 10 10
K12 97-239 62 72 10 19 SUBV Phyllic 8.4 1.78 0.04 54 98 1.8
97-236 226 236 10 10
K13 97-251 170 180 10 20 SUBV Propylitic 8.7 1.15 0.03 35 60 1.7
97-251 242 251.2 9.16 5
K14 97-252 218 228 10 20 SUBV Propylitic
97-251 242 251.2 9.16 10 8.7 1.74 0.03 53 61 1.1

Table 2.7.2.1-13 Static Characteristics of Phase 5 Kinetic Test Samples
Humidity Alteration Paste Fizz S S NP/

Cell ID Rock Type Type pH Test CO2 TIC-NP S(T) (SO4) (S2-) AP NP AP
s.u. % kg CaCO3/t % % % kg CaCO3/t
HC1 SUBV Phyllic 8.3 Slight 2.72 62 2.02 0.03 1.99 62 58 0.9
HC2 FAXT Potassic 8.2 Slight 0.76 17 1.73 1.57 0.16 5 22 4.5
HC3 FAXT Potassic 8.8 Slight 4.07 93 2.08 0.05 2.03 63 83 1.3
HC4 SUBV Propylitic 6.9 None 0.35 8 6.04 0.1 5.94 186 9 0.0
HC5 SUBV Propylitic 7.7 None 2.54 58 2.48 0.05 2.43 76 5 0.1
HC6 QFP Potassic 8.5 Slight 1.43 33 1 0.79 0.21 7 32 4.9
HC7 PMPD Potassic 9.2 Mod. 8.01 182 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.3 158 507
HC8 SUBV Potassic 8.4 Slight 1.02 23 2.7 0.9 1.8 56 26 0.5
HC9 FLOW Propylitic 9.1 Mod. 4.45 101 0.56 0.02 0.54 17 93 5.5
HC10, HC11 Ore Comp. - 8.15 Mod. 3.89 88 1.69 0.46 1.23 38 71 1.9
HC12 BSLT - 8.01 None 0.07 1.6 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.6 14 23
HC13 BSLT - 5.76 None <0.02 <0.5 0.47 0.25 0.22 7 19 2.7
Sub WR A,
B (average
of HC1,
HC4, HC8) - - - - 1.36 31 3.59 0.34 3.24 101 31 0.3
Trace element release for all three potassic HCTs was stable or declining as of June 2008. HC7 showed
the highest initial As release of all Phase 5 tests, with release rates ranging from 0.0015 to 0.0039
mg/kg/wk for the first 20 weeks of testing before declining to a range similar to HC6 and HC8. From week
50 onward, As release from all potassic tests was stable and ranged from 0.00001 to 0.0005 mg/kg/wk.
HCTs HC4, HC5 and HC9 are testing propylitic waste with elevated zinc content, with 678, 638, and 779
ppm Zn, respectively. For reference, the 99th percentile zinc content for all in-pit assay intervals to be 498
ppm, which demonstrates the anomalously high zinc content of the selected samples.
HC4 and HC5 had low NP/AP ratios (<0.05 and 0.1, respectively). HC4 leachate was pH neutral to
slightly acidic (pH 5.97 to 7) through week 43, transitioned from pH 6 to pH 3.4 by week 59, then declined
at a slower rate and established a stable range between 2.3 and 3.1 from week 70 onward. Zn release
from HC4 peaked in week 81, with a release rate of 6.2 mg/kg/wk, and ranged from 0.2 to 5.4 mg/kg/wk
for the duration of testing.
Release rates for other trace elements from HC4 increased as the cell became increasingly acidic. Al, As,
Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ag, and U also underwent orders-of-magnitude increases in release rates with
decreasing leachate pH. Pb release rates initially increased with release of other trace metals, but
appeared to stabilize in the range of 0.0003 to 0.002 mg/kg/wk from week 39 on. Notably, increases in
Sb, Se, Mo, and Hg release rates due to the development of increasingly acidic weathering conditions in
HC4 were in the range of a single order of magnitude.
HC5 leachate ranged from pH 5.53 to 6.89 through week 61, then declined to pH 2.8 in the most recent
results (week 277, April 2012). Neutral pH Zn release from HC5 peaked in week 9 at 0.24 mg/kg/wk, then
dropped to below 0.01 mg/kg/week. However, as HC5 has progressed toward acidic conditions, Zn
release rates increased to a maximum of 3 mg/kg/wk in the most recent results (week 277). Neutral pH
sulphate release from HC5 declined steadily from 75 mg/kg/wk to 13 mg/kg/wk, then increased as acidic
conditions developed to a maximum of 128 mg/kg/wk in the most recent results (week 277). Cd, Co, Pb
and Ni release followed a similar pattern to Zn release, with early peaks in release from weeks 5 to 15
mg/kg/wk followed by declines to a stable neutral pH range, then orders-of-magnitude increases in
release rates as acidic conditions developed. Mn release was higher than for other Phase 5 tests (0.6 to
1.8 mg/kg/wk from week 15 on) and remained within a stable range as the test transitioned from neutral
to acidic pH conditions.
In contrast, rock in HC9 had an NP/AP ratio of 5.5, and maintained pH neutral leachate (range 7.37 to
8.56) in testing through termination in July 2011 (week 241). Sulphate release rates were low (ranging
from initial rate of 27 mg/kg/wk to 0.0001 mg/kg/wk at termination) and reflect the low total (0.56%) and
sulphate (0.02%) sulphur content of the sample.
Release rates for Zn and other trace elements from HC9 were generally stable or declining over the
testing period, with release rates similar to other pH neutral Phase 5 tests.
ORE AND STOCKPILE GRADE ORE

Ore (HC10, HC11) and stockpile grade ore (HC1, HC2, HC3) humidity cell tests had neutral pH leachate
ranging from pH 6.95 to 8.0 over the duration of testing (231 weeks for HC2, HC10, HC11; 277 weeks as
of April 2012 for HC1 and HC3).
Sulphate release rates varied widely initially, and converged to a range between 5 and 45 mg/kg/week in
the latter stages of testing. HC2 had the highest sulphate sulphur (1.57%) content of all Phase 5 samples,
and the highest sulphate release rates (ranging from initial release of 909 mg/kg/wk in early testing to 45
mg/kg/wk in week 241). HC10 and HC11 (initial S(SO4)of 0.46%) had similar early sulphate release rates
to HC2, likely reflecting leaching of calcium sulphate minerals (gypsum or anhydrite), and a similar long
term trend of declining sulphate release, with a stable range of release rates between 5 and 15 mg/kg/wk
in the latter stages of testing. In contrast, the two samples with low initial sulphate content (HC1- 0.03%
S(SO4); HC3- 0.05% S(SO4)) displayed lower initial release rates of around 100 mg/kg/wk sulphate, and
then declined to to 4 to 15 mg/kg/wk sulphate (similar to HC10 and HC11). The trend of sulphate release
from HC1 and HC3 from weeks 57 through 277 suggests that sulphate release from these cells has
reached steady state due to depletion of the small amount of sulphate sulphur that was initially present.
Trace element release from ore samples was near the upper limit of release rates for pH neutral Phase 5
HCTs. In particular, Mo release from ore and stockpile grade ore HCTs was up to 100-fold higher than for
the highest producing propylitic or potassic sample tested, with a maximum Mo release of 0.23 mg/kg/wk
from HC11.
Overall, release rates for most parameters from ore and stockpile grade ore HCTs were declining or
within stable ranges.
TERTIARY BASALT
Tertiary basalt is expected to be an important construction material due to its high stratigraphic position
over the deposit and its anticipated favourable geochemical characteristics. A Phase 4 humidity cell test
(Cell K3, sulphide sulphur 0.26%- Table 2.7.2.1-11) was carried out for 77 weeks on a basalt sample from
the elevated sulphide sulphur interval from DDH 96-224. Despite having a NP/AP value of 2.5, the paste
pH was slightly acidic (pH 5.9), and acidic conditions developed almost immediately (initial pH 4.7,

minimum pH of 3.4 in week 21) and declined for roughly 30 weeks before gradually increasing to greater
than pH for at the time the test was halted at 77 weeks.
During initial Phase 5 review of previous test work, it was decided to confirm the K3 results by carrying
out another HCT on the similar, adjacent relatively elevated sulphide core interval from DDH 96-224. The
Phase 5 high sulfide, low carbonate Tertiary basalt was tested in HC13 (NP/AP= 2.7, paste pH 5.8,
0.22% sulphide sulfur, NP-TIC below detection (<0.5 kg CaCO3 equiv./ tonne)). An initial pH in HC13 of
4.0 increased to above pH 5 after 7 weeks, and varied within a stable range between pH 4.6 and 6.6
through termination following week 199.
Both acidic basalt cells released Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, and Zn at elevated rates relative to other rocks. Release
of Co, Cu, and Ni had declined to detection levels in K3 by week 77. In HC13, release rates for sulphate
and most elements declined over the middle and latter stages of testing, with release rates for many
elements declining by more than an order of magnitude.
A parallel sample of ‘typical’ Tertiary basalt was tested during Phase 5 for comparison (HC12 - 0.02%
sulphide sulphur, paste pH 8.0, NP/AP of 22.7). This sample had an initial pH of 6.5 which increased to
around 7.5 and remained in the range of 6.8 to 7.9 for the duration of testing. Sulphate release from
HC12 is the lowest of all Phase 5 samples tested, and release of most elements follows the same pattern.
Notably, release of silicon occurred at similar rates for the neutral basalt (HC12) and the acidic basalt
(HC13). This suggests weathering of silicates is occurring in a way that is not greatly accelerated by
acidic conditions in the range of pH 5 to 6. Aluminum release was correlated with pH, but is not clearly
correlated with release of silicon.
Phase 5 continuous ABA testing of basalt in DDH 96-224 (Section 7.3.3.5) found that measured NP
ranged from 12 to 27 kg CaCO3 equiv./tonne, but that TIC-NP was much lower (range 0 to 4.5 kg CaCO3
equiv./tonne). These results suggest a silicate source for measured NP in Tertiary basalt.
Based on the observed behaviour of K3 and HC13, it is likely that any basalt with elevated sulphide
sulphur (>0.1%) will generate acid conditions until the sulphide sulphur depletes. The majority of the
Tertiary basalt is expected to have low sulphide sulphur (<0.1%), and the HC12 behaviour indicates that
this rock will leach at low rates.

INTERPRETATION
Estimates of quantities of PAG and non-PAG waste rock are presently based on a provisional criterion of
(NP-10)/AP = 2, as discussed earlier. The provisional criterion was adopted based on waste
characteristics at other B.C. copper porphyries, and its use was necessary to allow mine planning to
proceed in advance of completion of ML/ARD predictions. The present state of New Prosperity ML/ARD
testing now allows an evaluation of a site specific criterion that defines PAG and non-PAG rock.
Data obtained from Phase 4 and Phase 5 humidity cells provide an indication of the site-specific criterion.
The relative rates of sulphide oxidation (represented by sulphate release) and carbonate dissolution
(represented by release of calcium and magnesium) can be used to estimate discrete sample NP/AP (or
more accurately ICCa,Mg/AP since the ratio corresponds to carbonate release) required to maintain neutral
drainage conditions. The method has been described elsewhere (for example, Day et al., 1997) and
involves calculation of molar normalized Ca+Mg release relative to sulphate.
There are several limitations of the method.
 Laboratory tests are performed on materials that are prepared using procedures that do not
necessarily simulate blasting in terms of exposure of minerals.
 Laboratory tests tend to accelerate the dissolution of carbonate minerals due to the use of high water
to solid ratios (Mattson, 2005). This effect diminishes as the oxidation rate increases and leaching of
carbonates occurs in response to acid generation.
 The resulting ICCa,Mg/AP is applicable to discrete samples, and therefore cannot be applied to large
scale rock mixture unless the rock mixture has uniform lithological and geochemical characteristics.
A further complication of the method at New Prosperity is the presence of calcium sulphate which masks
sulphide oxidation and carbonate depletion rates. To address this limitation, only those humidity cells with
less than 0.1% sulphate sulphur were considered in the evaluation. Cells producing acidic drainage were
also excluded, as the rate of buffering in these cells is insufficient to maintain neutral conditions. Twelve
tests had neutral drainage and sufficiently low sulphate sulphur content to allow the correlation between
sulphide content and sulphate release to be observed.
The average molar ratio of calcium+magnesium to sulphate release is shown compared to sulphate
release in Figure 2.7.2.1-42. The figure shows that the molar ratio is highest for the samples showing very
low sulphate release (correlated with low sulphide content). The ratio is lower for the one phyllic and two
stockpile grade ore samples showing relatively higher sulphate release rates. The ratios for two of these
three samples are between the theoretically predicted bounding ratios of 1 and 2 based on complete or
partial utilization of carbonate buffering capacity and indicate an ICCa,Mg/AP criterion of 1.5 or lower.
Overall, this interpretation of humidity cell release rates shows that as sulphate release rates increase,
the molar ratio falls between the theoretical limits (1 to 2) but the site specific criterion may lie between 1
and 1.5. The proposed ICCa,Mg/AP criterion for discrete sample classification is 1.5. ICCa,Mg is
approximately equal to NP for the New Prosperity host rocks.
Taseko has used a criterion of (NP-10)/AP < 2 to define PAG rock for planning purposes; this provides an
additional factor of safety to allow for uncertainties such as the possible preferential release of pyrite
along veins by blasting.

Figure 2.7.2.1-42
100 (Ca+Mg)/SO4 vs. SO4
LEGEND
(Ca+Mg)/SO4 (mol/mol)
10 (Ca+Mg)/S04 = 1
(Ca+Mg)/S04 = 2
Phyllic
Propyllitic
Sericitic
Low grade ore
High Zn Prop
1 Potassic
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25
SO4 release (mg/kg/wk)
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig42 Ca+Mg-SO4 vs SO4.ppt

DETERMINATION OF TIME TO ONSET OF ACIDIC CONDITIONS

The following section describes the method used to estimate the time taken for rock predicted to have
potential for ARD to actual generate acid. This has implications for management of the PAG waste rock in
the TMF and the influence of PAG open pit walls on pit water quality at closure. The current database
allows the time or delay to onset of ARD (tonset) to be evaluated for rock associated with the porphyry
mineralization. As indicated above, Tertiary basaltic rock has some PAG rock with relatively low levels of
sulphide minerals. Testwork indicates this rock becomes acidic under laboratory conditions upon
exposure to weathering.
tonset depends on both the availability of reactive neutralization potential (i.e. carbonate content as calcium
and magnesium, ICCa,Mg) and the rate at which reactive neutralization potential (RIC,Ca,Mg) is depleted:
tonset = ICCa,Mg/RIC,Ca,Mg
However, the rate at which carbonate is depleted is actually a function of the acid generation (sulphide
oxidation) rate (RS). In molar terms, the rate of carbonate depletion to sulphide depletion is the same as
the NP/AP criterion for PAG rock ({ICCa,Mg/AP}crit indicated in the previous section:
RIC,Ca,Mg/ RS = {ICCa,Mg/AP}crit
The humidity cell data indicated that rate of oxidation of sulphide is correlated with sulphide content of the
rock (Figure 2.7.2.1-43 - samples with high sulphate release and lower sulphide content contain gypsum).
Assuming a direct linear relationship between oxidation rate and sulphur content, then
RS = k.AP
where k is the slope of the line for those samples with low initial sulphate sulphur content. The non-zero
intercept is not included because if no sulphide is present then the rate of sulphide oxidation is zero.
When these three relationships are combined, the delay to onset is:
tonset = (ICCa.Mg/AP)/(k.{ICCa,Mg/AP}crit)
Therefore, the delay to onset is function of ICCa,Mg/AP of the sample, the overall rate of oxidation of
sulphide (k) and the effectiveness of NP utilization ({ICCa,Mg/AP}crit). Longer delays are indicated for rock
higher NP/AP assuming constant values for the two other factors.
A best estimate for tonset for PAG waste rock under site conditions was calculated using the average k
corrected for site temperature conditions using a scaling factor of 0.23 and ICCa,Mg/AP as follows.
 k = 1.65 x 10-5 week-1. This value represents the average slope of the relationship between sulphide-
S and rate of oxidation (see earlier relationship between sulphate release and sulphide content).
Since weathering at the site will occur under cooler conditions than the room temperature conditions
used for testing, this rate constant was reduced to 23% of the lab rates based on an Arrhenius
correction calculated for average site temperatures.
 {ICCa,Mg/AP}crit = 1.5.
To estimate the uncertainty in the estimate of tonset, a second set of constants was used (“worst case”).
 k = 2.22 x 10-5 week-1. This value represents the 95th percentile of the slope of the relationship
between sulphide-S and rate of oxidation.
 {ICCa,Mg/AP}crit = 2.0. This value represents the worst case for the utilization of buffering capacity.

The humidity cell tests allow an indication of the actual onset to be compared to calculated onset. Two
samples (HC4 and HC5) have generated acidic leachate. These samples had very low NP/AP (about
0.05) relative to the overall database. Acidic leachate was generated in 1 year and 3 years of the tests
starting, respectively whereas the calculated tonset was between 7 and 10 years depending on the
selection of inputs. The difference between calculated and observed tonset may be related to the age of the
core at the time of testing (more than 10 years). HC4 generated acid more rapidly and was the oldest
sample (16 years).
Using the ABA database from Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing, the distribution of measured NP/AP was
used to calculate the distribution of tonset for PAG rock (i.e. NP/AP<1.5).

Figure 2.7.2.1-43
HCT Sulphate Release
vs. Sulphide Sulphur
Content
400
LEGEND
350
Stable Sulphate Release Rate (mg/kg/wk) from HCT
300
Pot ('07)
250 Prop ('00)
Prop- High Zn ('07)
LGO ('07)
200
Ore ('07)
Phyllic ('00)
Ser- Fe Carb ('00)
150
Basalt ('00)
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sulphide Sulphur (%) in Sample
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
:\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig43 HCT SO4 release vs Sx content.ppt

A small proportion of porphyry mineralized rock (5%) is shown as becoming acidic within 38 years (which
corresponds to the maximum wall age of that portion of the pit wall below the final pit lake elevation). The
‘best estimate’ and ‘worst case’ fractions that are shown to be acidic after 38 years are similar- this shows
that the calculation is not particularly sensitive to the rate of sulphide oxidation for time frames on the
order of decades.
For the purpose of waste management, an estimate of acceptable exposure times is required since the
PAG waste rock is being submerged. It is preferable that the rock is not acidic prior to submergence
because it could contribute acidic leachate and leaching of acidic salts could contribute to the tailings
impoundment acid and metal load. The criterion is therefore that any acidity is neutralized internally by
interaction with the remaining alkalinity.
Taseko plans to submerge or encapsulate PAG rock within two years of placement in the PAG rock
storage facility. The calculated distribution of tonset indicates that little of the PAG rock will generate acidic
leachate in this time frame and acid that might be generated would be neutralized locally by reactive
minerals in adjacent PAG rock or by excess alkalinity in the tailings pond water or pore water.
Tertiary basalt is expected to comprise a very small proportion of the total PAG rock and the final pit
walls. Segregated PAG Tertiary basalt may become acidic before being submerged in the PAG facility but
any acidic water is expected to be neutralized by reaction with acid consuming minerals in the porphyry
waste rock and alkaline process water. Likewise the influence of the PAG Tertiary basalt on pit water
chemistry is expected to be minimal. These conclusions will be updated using data obtained by
operational pit monitoring.
DEPLETION OF TRACE ELEMENTS UNDER ACIDIC WEATHERING CONDITIONS

One challenge in ML/ARD prediction is extrapolating acidic elemental release rates from neutral pH
release rates measured in laboratory tests. This is necessary in cases such as New Prosperity where the
considerable NP in most PAG materials causes laboratory testing of PAG rock to remain pH neutral for
long durations.
One approach is to look to analogous cases where the transition from neutral to acidic weathering
conditions has been observed. A long term humidity cell testing waste rock with low sulphate sulphur from
Huckleberry Mines (SRK, 2002) displayed stable acidic release rates after a long period of stable neutral
pH weathering. Copper release rates increased by a factor of 680 and sulphate release increase by a
factor of 5 from neutral to acidic leaching conditions. The difference in factors reflects that solubility
controls limit copper release at near neutral pH but result in orders-of-magnitude increases as pH
decreases from near neutral to strongly acidic (pH<5). Assuming that copper is released from sulphide
minerals, actual copper release into oxidized forms may increase by the same factor as sulphate.
SRK considers this test to be a reasonable analog for New Prosperity. The copper and sulphate rate
increase factors have been adopted in extrapolating pH neutral release rates from New Prosperity HCTs
to estimate acidic release rates for elements and sulphate, respectively. The one exception is selenium,
for which no increase in release rate has been applied since selenium mobility is not expected to increase
under acidic conditions and may in fact become less mobile due to sorption of dominant selenite ions to
reactive mineral surfaces such as iron oxides (Day and Sexsmith, 2005).
Under acidic weathering conditions, rates of trace element leaching are sufficiently high that the trace
element content of weathering rock is depleted over time. Calculations were carried out to estimate the

time to deplete the trace element content of New Prosperity HCT samples. Calculations consisted of
increasing the observed neutral release rates by a factor of 680 (described above) and determining the
time required to leach the contained mass of each element.
Copper depletion times were calculated to be longer than for other trace elements due to the relatively
high copper content of the test samples. The average time to deplete copper from all waste rock humidity
cells was 16 years, with depletion of other trace elements generally occurring much faster.
For the purposes of estimating elemental loading for water quality predictions, it was assumed that a
given volume of rock would release all trace elements at acidic rates for a duration of 16 years and then
no further release would occur. This is a conservative approach, as depletion calculations indicate the
total contained mass of most elements would be leached in shorter time periods; for example, the
average depletion time of cadmium for all waste rock HCTs was three years.
SUBAQUEOUS WASTE ROCK COLUMNS

The duplicate saturated rock column tests were intended to evaluate leaching of PAG waste rock under
flooded conditions that will exist in the PAG rock storage facility or flooded pit walls at closure. The test
material had a calculated NP/AP of 0.3; however, there is considerable NP and TIC-NP and the delay to
onset of acidic conditions for this sample would be greater than any operational exposure period.
Therefore, the leachate from the columns provides an indication of the porewater chemistry that can be
expected in the PAG storage facility. Table 2.7.2.1-14 shows the worst case values for key parameters
observed in the column leachates.
Two hundred eleven weeks of data was collected and tests were terminated following sampling on July
27, 2011. Reproducibility between the two columns has been excellent, and the following discussion
relates to the results from both tests. Porewater is represented by leachate from the bottom ports. The
side ports sample the water cover, and were monitored for pH, conductivity, ORP and dissolved oxygen
(DO) only.
Porewater pH stabilized around pH 7 by week 8, and varied within a range of 6.2 to 7.9 for the duration of
testing; porewater pH at test termination was approximately pH 7.6. DO and ORP were substantially
reduced in the porewater relative to the water cover, and generally varied within a stable range.
Porewater chemistry was dominated by calcium and sulphate. Selenium and cadmium concentrations
were at or near detection levels. Initial manganese concentrations up to 1.4 mg/L were observed,
however these dropped below 0.8 mg/L by week 9 and continued to decline for the duration of testing
(final concentrations in week 211 were below 0.00004 mg/L). Concentrations of other parameters were
generally stable or declining.
Equilibrium modelling (MINTEQA2, Allison et al., 1991) of week 3 porewater from test Sub WR B
indicated that gypsum was near saturation (saturation index -0.13) and that rhodochrosite (MnCO3) and
tenorite (CuO) were undersaturated (SI of -0.86 and -2.8, respectively). Equilibrium concentrations of Cu
and Mn were modelled to be 0.09 and 1.91 mg/L respectively. Initial column porewater chemistry was
therefore likely controlled by gypsum equilibrium and kinetically limited dissolution of minerals hosting
most other parameters.

Table 2.7.2.1-14 Maximum Concentrations in Subaqueous Rock Column Leachate
pH Alkalinity
(min.) Sulphate Acidity (min.) F Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Mo Ni Se Zn
s.u. mg/L mg CaCO3/L mg CaCO3/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
6.22 1613 76 80 0.4 0.0015 0.019 28.1 0.0043 1.43 0.011 0.009 0.0037 0.015
SOURCE TERMS FOR SITE WATER CHEMISTRY PREDICTIONS

The following sections describe the methods by which source terms for chemical loadings from mine rock
were estimated for use as inputs to the site water and load balance. These predictions address metal
leaching and acid rock drainage effects and reflect predictions of dissolved concentrations and loads.
Total metal loadings are not included in these predictions. Table 2.7.2.1-15 shows the kinetic tests that
were used to develop the source terms.
Table 2.7.2.1-15 Test Results used in Defining Rock Source Terms
Rock Unit Phase 4 Phase 5 Cut-off date for Phase 5 results used
Humidity Cells Humidity Cells in water quality prediction
(1998- 2000) (2006-2012)
Potassic None HC6, HC7, HC8 April 2012
Sericite- Iron K4, K5 None n/a
carbonate
Propylitic K6, K7, K8, K11, K13, HC4, HC5, HC9 April 2012
K14
Phyllic K9, K10, K12 none n/a
Stockpile grade ore None HC1, HC2, HC3 April 2012
Ore None HC10, HC11 April 2012
Tertiary basalt K3 HC12, HC13 April 2012
NON-PAG WASTE ROCK STORAGE FACILITY

Chemical loading from the non-PAG stockpile and the Main Embankment were estimated based on
release rates from HCTs and scaled up to suit site conditions (SRK, 2006). Neutral pH release rates were
calculated for each alteration unit as follows:
1. Compile test results from neutral HCTs to produce average lab release rates for each alteration unit
(omit cells which have gone acid, as the release rates are elevated due to low pH and are not
representative of non-PAG). See Appendix 2.7.2.1-E for release rate compilation.
2. Scale lab rates to field rates (scaling factors: Arrhenius temperature correction (determined using the
average annual baseline temperature at New Prosperity: factor of 0.23); particle size correction
(factor of 0.2); contact correction (factor of 0.5) to account for incomplete flushing of secondary
weathering products).
3. Apply the field rates to tonnage of rock in non-PAG dump from mine schedule. Assume final tonnage
for duration of project- no reductions for only partially constructed dump in early years of schedule.
4. Check for gypsum equilibrium and adjust to reflect equilibrium control (set at 1800 mg/L sulphate and
700 mg/L Ca for modelling purposes, based roughly on equilibrium values from MINTEQA2
modelling of PAG porewater (modelled concentrations of 1616 mg/L sulphate and 652 mg/L Ca)
(Allison et al., 1991).
Non-PAG loadings report as a monthly load (annual load in (mg/year) distributed monthly based on
the average monthly runoff distribution) to the Open Pit and to the ME Pond 1 and ME Pond 2
seepage collection ponds as part of the material used to construct the Main Embankment. The only
consideration of concentrations is reduction of Ca and sulphate concentrations to reflect equilibration
with gypsum.
Table 2.7.2.1-16 Summary of Waste Tonnages
Description Alt Code Non-PAG PAG Total %PAG

6 6 6
tonnes x 10 tonnes x 10 tonnes x 10
Overburden (unconsolidated) - 60.0 12.0 72.0 17%
Overburden (basalt) - 31.7 - 31.7 0%
Unaltered - 0.3 - 0.3 0%

Potassic 1000 31.6 44.6 76.2 59%
Sericite- iron carbonate 3000 7.0 5.6 12.6 44%
Propylitic 5000 26.1 138.1 164.2 84%
Phyllic 6000 5.4 37.2 42.6 87%
Total 162 237 400 59%
NOTES: Tonnages estimated by Taseko using block models and the final pit shell.
-PAG defined as material having (NP-10)/AP < 2
SATURATED PAG WASTE ROCK SOURCE TERM

Taseko plans to operate the PAG waste storage facility such that PAG material is inundated within 2
years of placement. The predicted time to onset of acid leaching conditions is much longer, therefore
neutral pH release rates are appropriate for estimating loadings from PAG to porewater.
A combined PAG+Tailings porewater source term was derived using maximum observed concentrations
from all saturated PAG and saturated tailings columns, with Cu and Mn increased to equilibrium
concentrations with tenorite (CuO) and rhodochrosite (MnCO3) (MINTEQA2, Allison et al., 1991; SRK,
2006). The maximum column Cu concentration of 0.02 mg/L was increased to the modelled equilibrium
Cu concentration of 0.09 mg/L; the maximum column Mn concentration of 1.43 mg/L was increased to the
modelled equilibrium Mn concentration of 1.91 mg/L.

UNSATURATED PAG ROCK SOURCE TERM

Flushing from recently-placed PAG during the two-year exposure period was estimated using neutral
release rates for each alteration type from HCTs, scaled for temperature and surface area, but assuming
100% flushing (no contact correction) due to flooding of rock by tailings pond. Derivation of the
unsaturated PAG rock source term is described as follows:
1. Compile bulk composition of PAG (20% Potassic, 2% Ser-Fe Carbonate, 61% Propylitic, 17%
Phyllic-Table 2.7.2.1-16).
2. Using average neutral release rates calculated for each ALT type (as part of non-PAG dump
prediction), calculated a bulk weighted average neutral PAG release rate.
3. Correct rate for temperature (0.23 factor [heat release by oxidation is not expected to be significant])
and particle size (0.2 factor). Assume 100% flushing due to inundation, therefore no correction for
contact factor.
4. Apply bulk neutral PAG corrected release rate to exposed volume (estimate from exposed PAG
footprint area (from water balance) x 2 m exposed height (assumed based on discussions with
Knight Piésold).
5. All load assumed to report to tailings pond (conservative- will likely be inundated/ surrounded by
tailings, and soluble load will report to porewater).
ORE STOCKPILE SOURCE TERM

Stockpile grade ore samples tested in humidity cells HC1, HC2 and HC3 had NP/AP ratios of 0.9, 4.5 and
1.3, respectively. Based on the evaluation of the time delay to onset of acidic conditions, the material with
NP/AP of 0.9 would be expected to maintain neutral pH conditions for hundreds of years. Therefore, the
ore stockpile is expected to remain pH neutral over the 19-year period of operations.
Neutral pH release rates were calculated for ore in similar fashion to waste rock, as follows:
1. Compile test results from stockpile grade ore HCTs to produce an average lab release rates for
stockpile grade ore.
2. Scale lab rates to field rates (scaling factors: Arrhenius temperature correction (factor of 0.23),
particle size correction (factor of 0.2), contact correction (factor of 0.5) to account for incomplete
flushing of secondary weathering products).
3. Apply the field rates to estimated contained tonnage in the stockpile grade ore stockpile at its
maximum size.
4. Check for gypsum equilibrium and adjust to reflect equilibrium control (set at 1800 mg/L sulphate and
700 mg/L Ca for modelling purposes, based roughly on equilibrium values from MINTEQA2
modelling of PAG porewater (modelled concentrations of 1616 mg/L sulphate and 652 mg/L Ca)
(Allison et al., 1991).
5. Ore Stockpile loadings report as a monthly load (annual load (mg/year) distributed monthly) to Fish
Lake and to the Open Pit. For modelling purposes, it was assumed that infiltration into the foundation
of the ore stockpile was controlled by a liner, and that the liner directed water to the Open Pit. A
leakage allowance of 1% of infiltration was adopted, with leakage reporting to Fish Lake.

PLANT SITE SOURCE TERM

To allow for chemical loads generated by the plant site during operations (in addition to ore stockpile
loads), chemical release was estimated by assuming material equivalent to stockpile grade ore was
present over 50% of the plant area to a depth of 0.1 m. Plant site loadings were therefore calculated as
follows:
1. Adopt test results from stockpile grade ore HCTs to produce an average lab release rates for
stockpile grade ore in the plant site area.
3. Apply the field release rates to assumed mass of stockpile grade ore in the plant site area. No
reductions in calcium or sulphate load were applied to account for concentrations exceeding gypsum
solubility.
4. Annual loadings (mg/yr) were distributed monthly and modelled as reporting directly to the Mill during
the operational period and to Fish Lake at the end of operations.
CRUSHER PAD SOURCE TERM

To allow for chemical loads generated by the crusher pad (the area around the primary crusher) during
operations, chemical release was estimated by assuming material equivalent to stockpile grade ore was
present over 100% of the crusher pad area (estimated to be 20,000 m2) to a depth of 0.1 m. Crusher pad
loadings were therefore calculated as follows:
1. Adopt test results from stockpile grade ore HCTs to produce an average lab release rates for
stockpile grade ore in the plant site area.
3. Apply the field release rates to assumed mass of stockpile grade ore in the plant site area. No
reductions in calcium or sulphate load were applied to account for concentrations exceeding gypsum
solubility.
4. Annual loadings (mg/yr) were distributed monthly and modelled as reporting directly to Fish Lake.
ROAD CONSTRUCTION ROCK SOURCE TERM

To account for chemical loads generated by rock and overburden material used for road construction,
chemical release was estimated by assuming that 100% of road materials consisted of basalt (BSLT).
Loadings from mine roads were therefore calculated as follows:
1. Adopt test results from BSLT HCT (HC12) to produce an average lab release rates for typical BSLT.

3. Apply the field release rates to assumed mass of material required for road construction
(approximately 6 million tonnes). No reductions in calcium or sulphate load were applied to account
for concentrations exceeding gypsum solubility.
4. Annual loadings (mg/yr) were distributed monthly and modelled as reporting directly to Fish Lake and
to the Open Pit, with the total loading proportioned based on the areas (and therefore flows)
reporting to each component.
NON-PAG TERTIARY AND QUATERNARY OVERBURDEN AND ROCK STOCKPILES

Tertiary and Quaternary materials were tested in Phase 2 and Phase 3 for ABA properties, but no leach
extraction data was available. Initially, the background runoff quality (routine monitoring station W1) was
adopted as a proxy for overburden runoff quality.
As part of Phase 5 in Fall 2007, samples were collected from 3 test pits and one drill hole. These samples
were subjected to 3:1 shake flask extractions. Leachates were neutral to slightly alkaline, with generally
low extractable metal load. Elements that were present in somewhat elevated leachable quantities were
Cu (for most samples) and As, Mn, Mo, and Se for selected samples. Most of the samples with elevated
leachable loads were sourced from the drill hole (Figure 2.7.2.1-30) rather than the shallow test pits, with
the drill hole being located to target the underlying near-surface ore deposit.
LEACHING OF RESIDUAL BLASTING AGENTS

To account for nitrogen species loadings resulting from leaching of residual blasting agents, the following
steps were carried out:
1. Estimate the quantity of blasting residues per unit mass of rock (unconsolidated overburden was
assumed to require no blasting). For estimation purposes, explosives were assumed to consist of
100% ANFO. Residues were estimated based on powder factor of 0.28 kg ANFO/tonne of rock and
a loss factor of 1% (adopted based on review of Ferguson and Leask (1988) and Matts et al. (2007)).
2. Estimate annual ammonia and nitrate loadings for mine rock sources as follows:
a. Non-PAG waste rock leaching: total tonnage of Non-PAG waste rock was multiplied by the unit
mass of blasting residues, and leaching of the resulting residue mass was distributed evenly
over a 32 year period (16 years of production followed by 16 years of post-production release of
stored residues).
b. PAG waste rock leaching: total tonnage of PAG waste rock was multiplied by the unit mass of
blasting residues, and leaching of the resulting residue mass was distributed evenly over a 16
year period (16 years of production). One hundred percent of the mass of blasting residues in
PAG waste rock was assumed to report to the TSF Pond.
c. Ore Stockpile leaching: total tonnage of stockpiled ore was multiplied by the unit mass of
blasting residues, and leaching of the resulting residue mass was distributed as follows: 50% of
the residues were released evenly over the 16 year period of stockpile construction, with the
remaining 50% reporting to the mill in Year 17 through Year 20.
d. Ore leaching: for the first 16 years of mine life, the annual tonnage of mill throughput was
multiplied by the unit mass of blasting residues and the resulting mass of residues was
assumed to be leached and therefore report to the TSF with the tailings slurry. For years 17
through 20, leaching from ore was estimated as 100% of the remaining residues in stockpiled
ore as described above, and resulting loadings were assumed to report to the TSF.
e. Pit walls: for estimation purposes, the total mass of rock within 2 m of the final pit wall was
assumed to contain blasting residues. Leaching was estimated in a manner similar to that
adopted for the Non-PAG waste rock: the wall rock mass was multiplied by the unit mass of
blasting residues, and the resulting residue mass was released uniformly over a 32 year period
(16 years of production followed by 16 years of post-production release of stored residues).
MINE DUST
To account for geochemical loadings to Fish Lake from atmospheric deposition of mine-generated dust,
the following approach was taken:
1. Particulate loadings to Fish Lake were estimated as follows:
a. The average rate of dust deposition on the Fish Lake footprint was extracted from the results of
atmospheric dispersion modelling (described in Section 2.7.2.2).
b. Dust was assumed to be represented by three fractions:
i. Total particulate matter (TPM): Representative particle diameter of 10 μm; 100% of dust
occurs in this fraction.
ii. PM10: Representative particle diameter of 3.2 μm; 29% of dust occurs in this fraction.
iii. PM2.5: Representative particle diameter of 1 μm; 3% of dust occurs in this fraction.
c. The residence time of dust particles in a unit volume (1 cubic metre) of lake water was
estimated based on Stokes Law, using the representative diameters noted above to estimate
settling rates.
d. Total dust mass within a unit volume of lake water was estimated from deposition rates and
settling velocities.
e. Water column concentrations arising from dust particulate mass calculated in (d) were
estimated for a unit volume of water by assuming dust chemistry equivalent to 50% of dust
generated from pit operations and 50% of dust generated from haulage operations.
i. Pit operations: Dust chemistry assumed average waste rock and average ore at the life-
of-mine strip ratio of 0.85 waste rock to 1 ore (46% waste rock, 54% ore).
ii. Haulage operations: Dust chemistry assumed average Tertiary basalt chemistry (this is
considered conservative, as roads will be constructed from a combination of Tertiary
basalt and unconsolidated overburden.
2. Soluble loadings to Fish Lake were estimated as follows:
a. As above, the average rate of dust deposition on the Fish Lake footprint was extracted from the
results of atmospheric dispersion modelling.
b. Soluble load per unit mass of dust was estimated as follows:
i. To simplify calculations, it was assumed that dust mass was composed 50% of ore and
50% of Tertiary basalt.

ii. Soluble loads from the first cycle of humidity cell testing of ore (HC10, HC11) and basalt
(HC12) were normalized to surface area (mg soluble load/m2 of particle surface area).
iii. Surface area per unit mass of dust was estimated based on particle size fractions and
representative particle sizes described in (1) above for particulate loadings.
iv. Soluble loadings (mg/day) to the lake water column were estimated based on lake
surface area, dust mass deposition per unit area, and 100% of the soluble load
determined as described in (iii) above (lake area (m2) x dust deposition (mg/m2/day) x
equivalent dust surface area (m2/ mg) x soluble load (mg/m2)).
OPEN PIT CHARACTERIZATION

Pit development will take place in four phases, with the ultimate pit wall being exposed in the fourth and
final phase.
The mining schedule developed by Taseko is shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-45, and shows the timing of the
development of the Phase 4 pit wall. For the purposes of the pit water chemistry assessment, it was
assumed that the final pit wall for a given bench was entirely developed in the first year that Phase 4
mining occurred at that elevation.
A pit wall map was generated with the GEMS 6.1 software package using the final pit shell and the
alteration block model provided by Taseko (Figure 2.7.2.1-46). From the wall map, the exposed surface
area of each alteration unit was calculated in 5 m vertical increments (Figure 2.7.2.1-47). Volume and
tonnage of each alteration unit with elevation were calculated by applying a thickness of 2 m to the
calculated surface area (this represents over-blast and sub-grade placement), and by applying an in-situ
specific gravity of 2680 kg/m3 to the wall rock (Smyth, 2008, pers. comm.).
The open pit portion of the site-wide water and load balance was modelled in GoldSim. Element and
sulphate loads were modelled using the release rates for each alteration type and for Tertiary basalt.
Loadings from unconsolidated overburden exposed in the upper portions of the final pit wall were
conservatively assumed to occur at the release rates for Tertiary basalt. This series of model calculations
yielded an estimate of annual soluble load produced by exposed pit walls.
During the dewatering phase (Year 0 through Year 16), the model was set up to allow 50% of the load
generated each year to be flushed to the pit sump, and 50% to be stored. During dewatering, this flushed
load will report to the mill and subsequently to the TSF via tailings discharge. Pit groundwater inflows
were assigned an average chemistry from baseline monitoring of groundwater wells in the vicinity of the
pit.
Exposure of the final pit wall does not start until Year 6 of the schedule. For the purposes of
approximating pit water chemistry in these initial years, it was assumed that the full Year 6 wall was
exposed and contributing load from Year 1 through Year 6. For Year 7 through Year 16, the cumulative
rock mass exposed above the lowest exposed Phase 4 elevation was used to estimate the annual load
generated.
Beginning in Year 17, mining will be complete and the pit will be allowed to flood. During the flooding
phase, stored oxidation products in fractured rock in the pit walls will be dissolved by the rising pit lake
waters, and the effects of this dissolution process were modelled by adding the load released over time
as the pit fills starting in Year 17 based on the incremental mass of rock exposed at each time step. For
the period of filling (Year 17 through Year 47), 50% of the load generated by the pit walls above the water

elevation continued to be added to the pit lake, while the stored load continued to be released as the
walls flooded. This approach is considered conservative, as chemical loads to the pit lake will be
overestimated during the period. A storage factor of 50% was applied to the release rates to account for
incomplete flushing of weathering products within the wall rock and bench talus in the remaining highwall.
Pit filling is expected to span the period from Year 17 to Year 47, with the final pit lake surface elevation
controlled by the low point in the pit rim at 1440 m. At the time of initial surface discharge, the oldest
portion of the final pit wall above 1440 m will have been exposed for approximately 41 years.
ABA block modelling indicated that approximately 69% of the waste rock is PAG, and it is conservatively
assumed that the highwall contains PAG and non-PAG rock in the same proportions as the bulk waste
(Table 2.7.2.1-16). Estimates of time to onset of acidic conditions indicate that it is unlikely that significant
PAG material will generate acid during the 41 year period between exposure and flooding (Figure 2.7.2.1-
44), and therefore exposed wall rock below 1440 m is assumed to remain neutral during the period of
exposure.
To assess long term loads to the pit lake, PAG rock exposed in the highwall was modelled as generating
acidic runoff and related increased metal loads beginning in Year 45 (i.e. two years prior to the
establishment of the lake surface at 1440 m). Estimates of ‘time to onset’ of acidic conditions, together
with estimates of depletion of contained sulphides and metals, showed that a maximum of 3% of the PAG
rock would be acidic and leaching metals at peak rates at any given time, and that this maximum would
occur from schedule years 136 to 327. To maintain a conservative approach to prediction, the maximum
predicted amount of acidic PAG was assumed to be present in the walls from Year 45 onwards.
To account for increased loadings under acidic conditions, the neutral and acidic pH leachate
concentrations observed in humidity cell HC4 were used to develop scaling factors for each predicted
parameter. HC4 transitioned from early neutral pH conditions to later acidic pH conditions, with pH
dropping below pH 6 following week 43; average neutral pH release rates were calculated using results
from Week 5 through Week 43, and maximum release rates observed subsequent to Week 43 were
adopted as estimates of concentrations under acidic conditions.
SOURCE TERM FOR SITE WATER CHEMISTRY PREDICTIONS

Potassic, sericite- iron carbonate, propylitic, and phyllic alteration units were assigned the source terms
(as release rates in mg/kg/wk) derived for each unit in the waste rock assessment. A neutral pH release
rate and an acidic pH release rate were estimated for each alteration unit. Tertiary basalt and overburden
were treated in the same manner to estimate loading from each material type to the pit lake. Only neutral
pH release rates were estimated for Tertiary basalt and overburden (the Tertiary basalt source term was
developed as described under the ‘Road Construction Rock Source Term’ described previously, and the
background runoff chemistry (from baseline monitoring at Station W1) was applied to the pit wall
overburden).
As the open pit will be the furthest down gradient component of the mine site, development of a water
chemistry estimate required consideration of a number of load sources external to the pit itself. For this
reason, pit water chemistry estimates are discussed in with the overall site water and load balance.

Figure 2.7.2.1-44
Timing of Onset of Acid
Time to Acid Generation
Generation
by Percentile of All PAG Waste Rock
1200 LEGEND
1000
Time to onset of acid generation (years)
800
BEST ESTIMATE
WORST CASE
600
Max w all age (38 years)
at end of pit filling period
400
200
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentile
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig44.Timing of onset of acid generation.ppt

Figure 2.7.2.1-45
Timing of Final Pit Wall
Exposure
LEGEND
Year of exposure
of final pit wall by
bench
Data Sources: Pit sequencing by Taseko
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig45.Timing of Final Pit Wall Exposure.ppt

Figure 2.7.2.1-46
Map of Alteration Types
in Ultimate Pit Wall
LEGEND
potassic alteration
sericite- iron
carbonate alteration
propyllitic alteration
phyllic alteration
Tertiary basalt
Unconsolidated
overburden
Scale
0 100 200 300
meters
N
Data Sources: Pit shell and alteration block model by
Taseko
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig46.Map of Alteration Types in Ultimate Pit Wall.ppt

Maximum Exposed Wall Age (years) Figure 2.7.2.1-47
Pit Wall Age and Surface
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Area by Alteration Type
1600 1600 LEGEND
1500 1500
1400 1400
1300 1300
Potassic
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
Sericitic
1200 1200 Propyllitic
Phyllic
Ultimate lake level
1100 1100 Wall age
1000 1000
900 900
800 800
- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Surface Area Exposed (m^2)
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig47.Pit wall age and surface area by alteration type.ppt

TAILINGS CHARACTERIZATION
New Prosperity ore will be processed by crushing, grinding, and flotation to produce gold-copper
concentrates. An initial bulk sulphide flotation step will produce a rougher concentrate and rougher
tailings. Cleaning of the rougher concentrate will result in a final copper concentrate and a stream of
cleaner tailings. Flotation residues will be combined into a single bulk tailings stream for disposal in the
TSF. The main processing reagent of geochemical interest is lime, which regulates pH.
Taseko plans to place bulk tailings in a purpose-built impoundment in the upper Fish Creek valley. As
shown on Figure 2.7.2.1-2, the impoundment will require construction of embankments across the valley
(the Main Embankment and the South Embankment) and along a portion of the ridge that forms the
southwest boundary of the Fish Creek valley (the West Embankment).
Tails will be deposited by spigotting from the embankments. This process will develop a coarser-grained,
unsaturated tailings beach that slopes from the embankments to the opposite side of the TSF. The beach
will transition into a pond towards the southeast end side of the facility, and in closure outflow from this
pond will report to Lower Fish Creek via an engineered spillway in the Main Embankment. Tailings
seepage will report downgradient of all three embankments.
The following sections describe the tailings ML/ARD test work that was considered in the design of the
TSF and that informs water chemistry predictions for seepage and surface water leaving the TSF.
PREVIOUS TAILINGS CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAMS

Metallurgical test work on samples of New Prosperity ore was carried out by Lakefield Research Ltd.
under the supervision of Melis Engineering Ltd. in 1992 and 1993 (Hallam Knight Piésold, 1993; Melis,
1994; Watermark, 1997) as discussed for ore. A parallel program of ABA testing and elemental analysis
was carried out for both ore samples and flotation tailings residues from the metallurgical test work.
Twenty-four composite samples from up to 200 m intervals in individual diamond drillholes were subjected
to batch flotation tests. Vertical and lateral deposit-scale variability was tested by carrying out locked
cycle tests nine composites prepared from the eight individual drill hole composites from each of the
upper, middle, and lower zones of the deposit. The Phase 1 feed samples were composited as
catalogued in Appendix 3-7-AA of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
ABA tests on both feed and tailings samples were carried out by Min-En Laboratories, Vancouver, B.C.
Analytical methods are not known. Sulphur analysis included total and sulphate-sulphur determinations,
and AP is based on sulphide-sulphur calculated by difference. The Sobek method is assumed to have
been used for NP determination.
Min-En also conducted the elemental analyses of the feed samples, with major elements determined by
whole rock analysis and trace elements determined by ICP (digestion not specified- aqua regia
assumed). Elemental analyses of the locked cycle tailings samples were conducted by Saskatchewan
Research Council- methods are not known, but are assumed to be similar to those employed by Min En
for feed samples.
Taseko carried out a metallurgical testing program in July and August of 1997 at Lakefield Research
Limited. The program was overseen by Melis Engineering, and included locked cycle and pilot plant
testing on three composite ore samples representing the upper, middle and lower portions of the deposit.

Phase 3 pilot plant samples were composited from half core intervals that were retained after sawing core
lengthwise and shipping one half of the sawn core for analysis. Appendix 3-7-BB of the March 2009
EIS/Application lists the core intervals that comprised the upper (HCU), middle (HCM), and lower (HCL)
samples. ABA and elemental analysis were carried out on ore feed and tailings samples for each of the
pilot plant samples.
ABA tests on both feed and tailings samples were carried out by Lakefield Research Ltd. using a method
equivalent to the Modified ABA procedure (MEND, 1991). Elemental analyses of both feed and tailings
samples were conducted by Saskatchewan Research Council by ICP-MS (digestion not specified-
assumed to be aqua regia as it was commonly in use at the time).
2006-2008 TAILINGS CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM

Previous phases of testing had not characterized the kinetic weathering characteristics of New Prosperity
tailings. In order to produce tailings samples for kinetic testing, a program of sampling and batch flotation
was carried out.
Twenty-two ore grade intervals from nine 1991 and 1992 drillholes were collected from archived core
during the December 2006 sampling round described. These older ore grade intervals were collected
because no ore grade intervals from the more recent drilling were available due to having been
consumed in the Phase 3 metallurgical program.
Ore samples were shipped to G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. (G&T) of Kamloops B.C. Taseko reviewed
the available ore intervals and prepared compositing instructions to G&T to achieve a typical ore
composite. The core intervals selected for the composite and the recommended mass proportions of
each are listed in Appendix 3-7-CC of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
G&T prepared a single master composite ore sample using the proportions of available core listed in
Appendix 3-7-CC of the March 2009 EIS/Application. A split of this master composite was reserved for
kinetic testing. The remainder of the master ore composite was consumed in a series of batch flotation
tests carried out specifically to generate tailings for ML/ARD testing. The rougher and cleaner tails were
maintained as separate products, and the entire mass of residue was delivered to CEMI for further
testing.
MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Mineralogical analysis was conducted on separate cleaner and rougher tails that were produced from
bench-scale flotation tests. The rougher and cleaner scavenger tails were each subjected to mineralogical
analysis by optical microscopy, quantitative x-ray diffraction with Rietveld refinement (QXRD), and
determination of carbonate mineral species by electron microprobe, as described for rock samples earlier.
STATIC TESTING
ABA testing and elemental analysis were conducted by CEMI on separate cleaner and rougher tails, and
on the combined tailings product. ABA tests were carried out following the Modified ABA method (MEND,
1991) and elemental analyses were carried out by aqua regia digestion followed by ICP-MS finish.

TAILINGS KINETIC TESTING

All Phase 5 kinetic testing was carried out by CEMI.
Duplicate humidity cell tests (HC A and HC B) were carried out on combined tailings to provide
information on primary rates of release for tailings weathering products. The tailings HCTs were
constructed and operated according to the MEND tailings humidity cell testing protocol (MEND, 1991) for
a period of 229 weeks. One kilogram of tailings was tested in each of the humidity cells.
Duplicate unsaturated column leaching tests (Unsat Column A and Unsat Column B) were conducted to
provide a better understanding of how tailings in the unsaturated beach will weather, and what the
chemistry of infiltrating water will be. Columns were constructed of Plexiglas pipe with an inner diameter
of 10 cm and a length of 46 cm, and sample material was supported by a perforated PVC disk overlain by
nylon mesh. The duplicate columns were charged with 4.2 kg (dry weight) of combined tailings, which
resulted in a sample depth of 37 cm. Columns were operated in the vertical position by trickle leaching
with 230 to 500 mL of deionized water on a weekly cycle for a period of 229 weeks.
Duplicate saturated column leaching tests (Sub A and Sub B) were conducted to provide a better
understanding of the chemistry of tailings porewater and overlying pond water. Saturated tailings columns
were of identical construction to the saturated waste rock columns (17 cm diameter x 61 cm long
Plexiglass tubing with a PVC and nylon base). Monitoring ports were located in the base of the column
and in the side of the column to sample the water cover. The duplicate saturated columns were each
charged with 5 kg (dry weight) of tailings, for a total tailings depth of 16.5 cm.
The saturated columns were initially filled with deionized water to a height of 30 cm above the tailings
surface. Operation consisted of withdrawing only sufficient water for analyses from the bottom port and
the side port, and by making up for water lost by adding an appropriate amount of deionized water to the
water cover on a weekly basis. The water cover was circulated to ensure oxygen concentrations did not
become depleted at the tailings interface. The duration of testing was 227 weeks.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

The complete results of the optical microscopy investigation are provided in Appendix 3-7-J of the March
2009 EIS/Application.
Inspection of the cleaner tailings sample thin section (Sample 1961-02 Cu Cleaner) indicated pyrite,
quartz, white mica and carbonates as the major mineral constituents of the sample, with pyrite making up
approximately 25% of the sample by visual estimation. Pyrite grains were noted to be liberated and
subangular. Traces of chalcopyrite were noted as small (<50 µm) liberated grains. No other sulphide
minerals were identified. Gypsum was the only major non-sulphide host mineral reported, with a QXRD-
reported abundance of 1.8% by weight. The sample was noted to display moderate reaction with dilute
HCl.
Inspection of the rougher tailings sample thin section (Sample 1961-02 Cu Ro) indicated quartz, white
mica, feldspars, carbonates, and chlorite as the major mineral constituents of the sample. Pyrite and
chalcopyrite were noted as trace constituents, occurring as very fine (<50 µm) liberated grains, and a
single liberated hematite grain with a core of pyrite was observed. No other sulphide minerals were
identified. The sample was noted to display strong reaction with dilute HCl.
Results of tailings sample evaluation by quantitative X-ray diffraction with Rietveld refinement (QXRD) are
shown. The accuracy of the QXRD method is low for minerals which make up less than 1% of the sample.

However the technique is useful in defining the major mineral species present. The QXRD results
generally confirm the thin section observations, with the cleaner tailings sample reporting 22.7% pyrite.
Carbonate minerals identified in both samples consisted of calcite, dolomite, and ankerite with a
combined total of >8% by weight for both samples. A minor amount of siderite (0.5%) was noted in the
rougher tailings. The complete QXRD results can be found in the mineralogical characterization report in
Appendix 3-7-J of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Electron microprobe analysis (EMPA) results shed further light on the carbonate mineralogy of the tailings
samples. Fifteen grains in the cleaner tailings polished thin section were probed, with 13 being identified
as dolomite and two identified as calcite. Twenty-five grains in the rougher tailings polished thin section
were probed- 15 were determined to be dolomite, six were determined to be calcite, and four were
determined to be siderite. Figure 2.7.2.1-48 displays the EMPA results on a ternary diagram that shows
the range of carbonate minerals identified. The complete EMPA results can be found in Appendix 3-7-M
of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
ABA results for tailings from Phases 1, 3, and 5 had sulphide sulphur contents that ranged from 0.03 to
1.09%, and associated AP values between 0.9 and 34 kg CaCO3/tonne. Modified NP and Sobek NP
values ranged from 31 to 97 kg CaCO3/tonne. Appendix 3-7-DD contains complete ABA analyses for
Phase1, Phase 3, and Phase 5 tailings characterization, and results of all three phases of testing are
summarized in Table 2.7.2.1-17.
Total inorganic carbon (TIC) was measured in Phase 3 and Phase 5 testing only. Figure 2.7.2.1-49 shows
a plot of NP against TIC-NP. For all samples tested, TIC-NP exceeds NP, which indicates that some of
the carbonate minerals contain iron and manganese. These results show that it is appropriate to use NP
rather than TIC-NP as a measure of available neutralization potential, as was found for the deposit host
rocks.
Figure 2.7.2.1-50 shows a plot of tailings NP and AP for all three phases of testing. The following points
summarize key geochemical observations.
 Phase 1 batch flotation tailings display a wide range of NP values (31 to 97 kg CaCO3/t). The reflects
the nature of the source materials- individual drill hole composites from 24 different regions of the
deposit were tested.
 Phase 1 batch flotation tails have a lower median AP than other samples tested. This may reflect
poor performance of the batch cleaner stage, which would result in a higher percentage of pyrite
reporting to concentrate and a lower AP value in the resulting tails.
 Phase 1 locked cycle tails display a narrower range of NP values than the Phase 1 batch flotation
tails, however the median value is similar. This reflects the composite nature of the locked cycle
feed, and shows that Phase 1 batch and locked cycle NP values are consistent.
 Phase 1 locked cycle tails have a higher median AP than the Phase 1 batch flotation tails, possibly
reflecting higher pyrite removal in the locked cycle cleaner stage.
 Phase 3 locked cycle and pilot plant tests were conducted on splits of the same sample, however the
ABA results show that the two methods did not yield a geochemically uniform tailings product. The
pilot plant test conducted on the intermediate depth sample (PP6) had a NP/AP ratio of 1.5 (the
lowest of all samples tested).
 The single Phase 5 batch flotation tails sample had a higher NP/AP ratio than all Phase 3 tails and
most of the Phase 1 locked cycle tails. The Phase 5 sample had a NP of 60 kg CaCO3/t (slightly
above the median of Phase 1 and 3 locked cycle and pilot plant samples). However, similar to the
Phase 1 batch flotation tests, AP for the Phase 5 sample was lower than for most Phase 1 and
Phase 3 locked cycle/ pilot plant tails.
ABA tests were also carried out on the separate Phase 5 rougher and cleaner tails. Results are tabulated
in Table 7.21. The cleaner tails returned a sulphide sulphur content of 10.9% and a NP/AP ratio of 0.2,
indicating that the cleaner tails were PAG. The rougher tails returned a sulphide sulphur content of 0.15%
and an NP/AP ratio of 16.7, indicating that a separate rougher tailings product would be non-PAG.
Of the tailings tested, the characteristics of the Phase 3 pilot plant tails are considered to the best
approximation of the future mill tailings product. Based on NP/AP values of 3, 1.5, and 2.8 for the upper,
middle, and lower pilot plant tailings, respectively, it is expected that the bulk tailings will be non-PAG.

Mg Figure 2.7.2.1-48
EMPA Results for
Tailings Carbonates
LEGEND
Tailings Cleaner Calcite
Tailings Cleaner Dolomite
Tailings Rougher Calcite
Tailings Rougher Dolomite
Tailings Rougher Siderite
Ca Fe+Mn
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig48 EMPA Tails Carbonate Species

Figure 2.7.2.1-49
Tailings NP vs. TIC-NP
LEGEND
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig49.Tails NP vs. TIC-NP.ppt

Figure 2.7.2.1-50
Comparison of Tailings
120
NP to AP
LEGEND
100
80
Phase 1 Batch Flotation Tails

NP (kg CaCO3/t)
Phase 1 Locked Cycle Flotation Tails

Phase 3 Pilot Plant Flotation Tails
Phase 3 Locked Cycle Flotation Tails
60
Phase 5 Batch Flotation Tails
NP/AP=1
NP/AP=2
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
AP (kg CaCO3/t)
Data Sources:
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Rev #: 01
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig 50 Tails NP vs AP.ppt

Results of elemental analysis of Phase 1, Phase 3, and Phase 5 tailings are shown.
The Phase 1 locked cycle tailings contained 240 to 390 ppm copper. The Phase 3 pilot plant tailings
contained a narrower range of copper concentrations (280-310 ppm). The Phase 5 batch flotation tailings
had a higher copper concentration (364 ppm) than any of the Phase 1 or Phase 3 samples, possibly due
to partial oxidation of the drill core used as feed for Phase 5 testing.
As Phase 5 tailings were subjected to humidity cell and column testing, it is useful to compare Phase 5
elemental concentrations with those determined for the Phase 3 pilot plant tailings, as the pilot plant
tailings are considered the best approximation of tailings that will be produced by the full-scale plant. In
addition to having higher copper content, the Phase 5 tailings had higher Mn, Ni, Se, and Zn than all three
pilot plant tails, and Phase 5 Mo content was the same as the highest Mo content measured for Phase 3
tails. Phase 3 samples had Cd content below detection (0.5 ppm) while the Phase 5 sample had a Cd
content of 0.36 ppm, which was lower than the limit of detection for the Phase 3 testing.
Elements present in lower concentrations in the Phase 5 tails include B, Ba, Bi, Co, Cr, Ga, Hg, Th, Tl, U
and V. Other elements in Phase 5 samples were within the concentration ranges measured for Phase 3,
including As, Mo, Pb and Sb.
In summary, the Phase 5 tailings samples had higher concentrations of several elements and similar or
lower concentrations of several others when compared to Phase 3 pilot plant tailings. The Phase 5
tailings that are being tested in humidity cells and leaching columns are considered to be an acceptable
proxy for full scale tailings from the Project in terms of overall metal content.

Table 2.7.2.1-17 Summary of Tailings ABA Results
Sample ID Year Process Type Level Paste CO2 CaCO3 S(T) S (SO4) S (S2-) APa NPb Net NPc Fizz Test NP/ AP TIC-NP/ AP
pH % NP % % % (kg CaCO3/ t)
AL98 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.72 - 0.46 14 94 79 - 6.5 -
BL54 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.52 - 0.3 9 75 65 - 8.0 -
CL37 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.68 - 0.09 3 61 58 - 21.6 -
DL85 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.34 - 0.19 6 54 48 - 9.0 -
EL02 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.32 - 0.03 1 75 74 - 80.1 -
FL19 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.23 - 0.03 1 89 88 - 94.7 -
GL01 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.45 - 0.03 1 89 88 - 95.3 -
HL03 1993 Batch Lower - - - 0.53 - 0.07 2 60 57 - 27.2 -
AM13 1993 Batch Middle - - - 0.72 - 0.05 2 39 38 - 25.1 -
BM51 1993 Batch Middle - - - 0.78 - 0.5 16 70 54 - 4.5 -
CM48 1993 Batch Middle - - - 0.58 - 0.13 4 83 79 - 20.4 -
DM68 1993 Batch Middle - - - 1.32 - 0.46 14 33 18 - 2.3 -
EM26 1993 Batch Middle - - - 1.08 - 0.44 14 55 42 - 4.0 -
FM27 1993 Batch Middle - - - 0.75 - 0.11 3 58 54 - 16.8 -
GM31 1993 Batch Middle - - - 1.93 - 1.09 34 63 29 - 1.8 -
HM21 1993 Batch Middle - - - 1.03 - 0.17 5 78 73 - 14.7 -
AU76 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.51 - 0.37 12 31 19 - 2.7 -
BU22 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.15 - 0.1 3 66 63 - 21.0 -
CU88 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.62 - 0.18 6 54 48 - 9.6 -
DU80 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.54 - 0.32 10 70 60 - 7.0 -
EU07 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.27 - 0.17 5 85 80 - 16.0 -
FU12 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.2 - 0.05 2 63 62 - 40.4 -
GU28 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.34 - 0.13 4 97 92 - 23.8 -
HU14 1993 Batch Upper - - - 0.2 - 0.11 3 90 87 - 26.3 -
L2 1993 Locked cycle Lower - - - 0.87 - 0.54 17 71 54 - 4.2 -

Process S S Net Fizz NP/ TIC-NP/

Sample ID Year Type Level Paste CO2 CaCO3 S(T) (SO4) (S2-) APa NPb NP
c
Test AP AP
pH % NP % % % (kg CaCO3/ t)
M2 1993 Locked cycle Middle - - - 1.3 - 0.78 24 70 46 - 2.9 -
ABCD-M 1993 Locked cycle Middle - - - 1.16 - 0.54 17 71 54 - 4.2 -
EFGH-M 1993 Locked cycle Middle - - - 1.53 - 0.8 25 59 34 - 2.3 -
U15 1993 Locked cycle Upper - - - 1.03 - 0.84 26 69 43 - 2.6 -
ABCD-U 1993 Locked cycle Upper - - - 0.85 - 0.49 15 49 34 - 3.2 -
EFGH-U 1993 Locked cycle Upper - - - 0.97 - 0.73 23 68 45 - 3.0 -
PP7 1997 Pilot Plant Lower 8.29 3.0 67 1.17 0.63 0.49 15 43 27 Slight 2.8 4.4
PP6 1997 Pilot Plant Middle 7.84 2.8 63 1.83 0.60 0.092 29 44 15 Slight 1.5 2.2
PP8 1997 Pilot Plant Upper 8.04 3.7 83 1.02 0.20 0.61 19 57 38 Mod. 3.0 4.4
PP8 Duplicate 1997 Pilot Plant Upper 8.11 3.8 86 1.02 0.17 1 31 60 28 Mod. 1.9 2.7
Test 19 1997 Locked cycle Lower 7.93 2.8 62 1.19 0.83 0.46 14 55 40 Mod. 3.8 4.3
Test 20 1997 Locked cycle Middle 7.84 2.9 66 1.86 0.80 0.97 30 57 27 Mod. 1.9 2.2
Test 21 1997 Locked cycle Upper 7.72 3.5 80 1.45 0.33 0.91 28 61 33 Mod. 2.2 2.8
Test 21 Duplicate 1997 Locked cycle Upper 7.71 3.6 82 1.46 0.37 0.95 30 64 34 Mod. 2.1 2.7
Cleaner + Rougher
Tails Comp. 2007 Batch Mixed 7.95 4.0 92 0.64 0.30 0.34 11 60 49 Slight 5.6 8.6
KM1961-02 Cu Clr
Scav Tails 2007 Batch Mixed 7.85 3.6 82 11.02 0.10 10.92 341 71 -270 Slight 0.2 0.2
KM1961-02 Cu
Rougher Tails 2007 Batch Mixed 7.75 4.0 91 0.46 0.32 0.14 4 73 69 Slight 16.7 20.8
NOTES:
a. AP = Acid potential in tonnes CaCO3 equivalent per 1000 tonnes of material. AP is determined from calculated sulphide sulphur content: S(T) - S(SO4).
b. NP = Neutralization potential in tonnes CaCO3 equivalent per 1000 tonnes of material.
c. NET NP = NP - AP

Table 2.7.2.1-18 Summary of Rietveld XRD Results for Tailings Samples
Clinochlore
Plagioclase
Paragonite
K-feldspar
Muscovite
Magnetite
Dolomite
Kaolinite
Gypsum
Ankerite
Siderite
Calcite
Quartz
Pyrite
Total
Sample ID Description wt% wt% Wt% wt% wt% Wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt% wt%
1961-02 Cleaner
Cu Cleaner tailings 16.9 11.1 1.6 21 4.4 6.3 2.8 - 5.6 - 4.6 1.8 1.2 22.7 100.1
Rougher
1961-02 Cu Ro tailings 36.3 18.5 1.6 16.8 4.9 5.1 1.6 7.5 - 0.5 4.2 2.2 0.9 - 100.0

Table 2.7.2.1-19 Elemental Analyses of Tailings

Phase 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5
Cleaner + KM1961-02 KM1961-02
Sample ABCD- EFGH- ABCD- EFGH- ABCD- EFGH- Rougher Cu Clr Cu Rougher
ID L2 L L M2 M M U15 U U HCL HCM HCU Tails Scav Tails Tails
Test ID L2 L14 L15 M2 M13 M14 U15 U24 U25 PP7 PP6 PP8 - - -
Element Units
Ag ppm <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.20 0.96 0.19
As ppm 11 14 6.6 8.6 11 11 18 21 15 6.1 11 15 8 39 4.3
B ppm <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 32 43 25 3 3 2
Ba ppm - - - - - - - - - 470 400 360 62 33 64
Be ppm 2 2 2 <1 2 2 2 2 2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - - -
Bi ppm <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.17 1.66 0.08
Cd ppm <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.36 0.2 0.27
Co ppm 12 12 10 12 16 13 18 12 13 18 20 16 12 164 6
Cr ppm - - - - - - - - - 84 80 81 34 200 18
Cu ppm 340 240 390 300 300 360 360 250 320 310 280 290 364 480 325
Ga ppm 14 20 18 16 22 20 15 19 18 28 19 28 3 3.3 3.1
Hg ppb 440 1000 310 280 500 810 760 1200 450 350 390 420 202 332 225
Li ppm 7 12 7 8 11 11 7 11 13 19 18 26 - - -
Mn ppm - - - - - - - - - 230 210 260 278 305 285
Mo ppm 250 <4 7 9 <4 <4 25 <4 <4 24 16 12 24 94 35
Ni ppm 14 43 59 52 69 60 140 54 64 18 18 16 24 169 15
Pb ppm 59 11 <4 11 13 13 20 10 18 <1 <1 21 11 73 9.2
Sb ppm <4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 2.5 0.8 3.5 1.0 2.7 0.79
Se ppm - - - - - - - - - <0.5 0.7 <0.5 0.9 18 0.3
Sn ppm <0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - - -
Sr ppm - - - - - - - - - 420 370 320 97 89 99
Th ppm <0.05 3.5 3.5 2.2 3.5 3 2.1 3..5 3.5 3.9 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.5
Tl ppm - - - - - - - - - 0.9 <0.1 1.3 0.06 0.18 0.07
U ppm - - - - - - - - - 2.3 3.2 2.5 0.3 0.4 0.3
V ppm - 74 87 - 98 78 - 78 96 130 110 110 46 44 46
W ppm - <4 <4 - <4 <4 - <4 <4 <2 4 <2 <.1 0.3 <.1
Zn ppm - 60 30 - 52 52 - 55 82 34 39 72 106 83 92

KINETIC TESTING
Results of tailings kinetic testing are provided in Appendix 2.7.2.1-F and 2.7.2.1-G. The following sections
discuss the key geochemical features of the results.
Humidity cells HCA and HCB contain duplicate samples of Phase 5 tailings, and had been running for 66
weeks as of June 24, 2008. Cell leachates were initially around pH 7.5, and rose to a stable range around
pH 8 from week 20 on. Generally, the duplicate tailings humidity cells produced leachates with similar
chemistry over time.
Calcium and sulphate release were initially high (roughly 300 and 800 mg/kg/wk, respectively) due to
dissolution of gypsum and anhydrite, and declined over the period from week 13 to week 21 to much
lower stable rates (9.5 and 6.5 mg/kg/wk, respectively) that most likely reflect release of sulphur due to
sulphide oxidation and flushing of weathering products. Barium release increased beginning in week 19,
which is most likely related to the increased solubility of the sparingly soluble mineral barite (BaSO4) in
response to declining sulphate concentrations in the leachate.
Release of most other parameters was either flat or decreasing from week 40 on. An exception was
molybdenum, which showed an increase from around 0.005 mg/kg/wk in week 43 to around
0.016 mg/kg/wk in week 65.
Duplicate subaqueous columns containing bulk tailings composite (Subaqueous Column A and
Subaqueous Column B) were tested for 227 weeks. Monitoring of both the water cover (Sub A Side Port
and Sub B Side Port) and the tailings porewater (Sub A Bottom Port and Sub B Bottom Port) was carried
out.
The duplicate tests generally showed good reproducibility, however a weekend malfunction caused by
leaking tubing in a recirculating pump caused the water cover in Subaqueous Column B to drain between
week 43 and 45 monitoring. The problem was noticed the following Monday and the water cover was re-
established using deionized water. Laboratory staff reported that the surface tailings were disturbed by
pouring replacement water into the test column. The reproducibility of particularly the duplicate water
cover monitoring was understandably poor in subsequent weeks. Subaqueous Column A remained intact
and provided valid test results.
The initial pH of the water cover (Sub A Side Port, Sub B Side Port) was around 6.6, indicating that
equilibrium between the water cover and the tailings solids had not been achieved. From week 4 on,
water cover pH for both tests generally ranged between 7 and 8. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 6.5 to 11
mg/L over the test period, with typical values around 8 mg/L suggesting that the water cover was in
equilibrium with atmospheric oxygen.
Sulphate concentrations in the water cover increased gradually to around week 17, then remained within
a steady range of 376 to 503 mg/L between weeks 17 and 35, before beginning to decline. A similar
pattern was observed for calcium, suggesting initial increases were due to dissolution of gypsum or
anhydrite, with declining concentrations reflecting depletion of near-surface grains and depletion of the
resident load in the water column by removal of water for monitoring purposes and replacement with
deionized water.
Elemental concentrations in the water cover are generally stable (F, Al, Se) or decreasing in the manner
described for calcium and sulphate. Exceptions are barite and magnesium, for which steadily increasing
concentrations likely reflect dissolution of barite and magnesium-bearing carbonates as calcium and
sulphate concentrations decline.

Initial porewater pH values near pH 8 declining over the course of 15 weeks to pH 7, then ranged from a
minimum of pH 6.74 to a maximum of pH 7.59 from week 15 through week 65. Porewater appears to be
undersaturated with dissolved oxygen, with typical concentrations of 4 mg/L and a range of 2 to 6 mg/L.
Dissolved iron concentrations were between 0.4 and 3.9 mg/L over most of the testing period.
Sulphate and calcium concentrations were initially elevated (1400 to 1900 mg/L sulphate and 500 to 600
mg/L calcium) suggesting equilibrium dissolution of gypsum or anhydrite. However, sulphate
concentrations appear to begin to slowly decline around week 45 and continue to trend downward.
Calcium concentrations increase to 776 mg/L in week 43 before declining back to around 580 mg/L in
week 63.
The majority of parameters monitored are decreasing as testing progresses. Several parameters (F, Mo,
U, Mg, and Ca) had peak concentrations at some point during the testing period, with the more recent
data indicating a decrease in porewater concentrations with time. Several other parameters (Al, Ba, Cu,
Sr, Se) appear to have achieved stable porewater concentrations. Overall, the stable, declining, or
peaked concentration behaviours suggest that the reactivity of the tailings being tested is slowly declining
as the outer surfaces of the tailings particles weather.
Duplicate unsaturated columns containing bulk tailings composite (Unsat Column A and Unsat Column B)
have 229 weeks of data available. Monitoring of leachate has been carried out via a port in the base of
the column. Reproducibility in the duplicate column results has been high over the duration of testing to
date.
Leachate pH was between 7.55 and 8.14 over the test period. Sulphate has declined from initial leachate
concentrations of around 1900 mg/L to week 65 concentrations around 1350 mg/L. Calcium
concentrations were initially stable at around 550 mg/L, then increased over the course of several months
to around 700 mg/L before declining to around 630 mg/L in the later cycles. The increase in calcium
concentrations between weeks 27 and 53 was partially paralleled by an increase in sulphates
concentrations over this period, but differences between the trends of calcium and sulphate indicate that
gypsum and anhydrite were not the only sources of dissolved calcium.
The majority of other parameters are stable or decreasing. In particular, stable cobalt concentrations in
unsaturated column test leachate were higher than in other tailings tests (up to 0.0035 mg/L), with pyrite
being the suspected source of cobalt in leachate. The exceptions to the trend of stable or decreasing
concentrations were increasing barium and zinc concentrations during the later stages of testing. Barium
concentrations appear to have increased in response to declining sulphate concentrations and increased
dissolution of barite. Up to five-fold increases in zinc concentrations from weeks 43 to 65 do not appear to
be correlated with geochemical behaviour of other parameters; as leachate concentrations are within 10
times the lower detection limit of 0.001 mg/L, and as zinc is considered a ubiquitous contaminant in
laboratory environments, it is possible that the apparent trend of increasing zinc release is an artefact of
the testing procedure.
Column operating procedures entailed adding a sufficient quantity of water to obtain leachate for
analyses- actual volumes for addition were specified as a range and actual additions were left to the
technician’s judgement. This resulted in variable water additions over the duration of testing which need
to be considered when comparing leachate concentrations over time.

INTERPRETATION
The results of the mineralogical investigation showed that the tailings neutralization potential measured
through ABA testing is roughly equivalent to the neutralization potential attributable to
calcium+magnesium carbonates. Neutralization potential calculated from TIC measurements was found
to overestimate the available neutralization potential due to a proportion of iron and manganese in the
carbonate minerals.
Sulphate sulphur content of the tailings is variable and can be significant. Sulphur speciation will be
necessary when monitoring production tailings to arrive at accurate estimates of acid potential.
ABA testing on Phase 1 batch and locked cycle flotation tailings showed that nearly all samples tested
had NP/AP values greater than two. However, the Phase 3 locked cycle and pilot plant tailings samples
overall had lower NP/AP ratios than the Phase 1 samples, with the lowest measured NP/AP ratio of all
samples tested coming from the middle zone pilot plant tailings (sample PP6, NP/AP= 1.5).
On the basis of the static test results, the full scale New Prosperity tailings are expected to be non-PAG.
However, monitoring of the ABA characteristics of the bulk tailings product will be necessary to ensure
that full scale tailings conform to these expectations.
Humidity cell and unsaturated column testing on Phase 5 tailings show that runoff from exposed tailings
beaches will be dominated by leaching of gypsum. Metal leaching during the operational period would be
negligible, and at closure there will be no exposed tailings to contribute loadings to surface runoff.
The sub-aqueous column leach test on Phase 5 bulk tailings sample showed that leaching under these
conditions is negligible with the exception of minerals that are somewhat soluble in water. These minerals
include gypsum, fluorite and carbonates which are potentially sources of major ions (i.e. total dissolved
solids), fluoride and manganese. MINTEQA2 was used to evaluate the porewater leachate chemistry with
respect to these minerals. Leachates were close to saturation with respect to gypsum (saturation index -
0.067), calcite (-0.23), celestite (strontium sulphate, -0.21), and wulfenite (lead molybdate, 0.051), but
under-saturated with respect to fluorite (-0.99) and rhodochrosite (-0.83). Assuming that these minerals
are present, the stable leach column chemistry is a reasonable surrogate for seepage chemistry from the
area(s) of the impoundment used for disposal of tailings. Manganese concentrations may be higher than
indicated by the column test if rhodochrosite is present- although x-ray diffraction and electron microprobe
assessment of the Phase 5 tailings sample did not identify rhodochrosite as discrete mineral phase, other
carbonate minerals were found to contain trace amounts of manganese.
Table 2.7.2.1-20 Maximum Concentrations in Tailings Subaqueous Column Leachate
pH Alkalinity
(min.) Sulphate Acidity (min.) F Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Mo Ni Se Zn
s.u. mg/L mg CaCO3/L mg CaCO3/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
6.13 1886 26 69 0.4 0.0004 0.017 3.92 0.0022 0.6 0.12 0.01 0.0089 0.033
TAILINGS SOURCE TERMS FOR WATER CHEMISTRY PREDICTIONS

Initial saturated tailings porewater chemistry will be dominated by water entrained in the tailings pores
during tailings deposition. Once tailings are deposited, tailings porewater chemistry will evolve to a state
of equilibrium with the tailings solids. This equilibration will occur under conditions in which gas exchange

between the tailings porewater and the atmosphere cannot occur- the bulk of the tailings deposit can be
considered a closed system with respect to gas exchange. Dissolved oxygen will be depleted near the
surface of the tailings through oxidation of residual sulfide minerals, and dissolved carbon dioxide
concentrations in the tailings may be elevated above concentrations which would occur in an open
system.
To arrive at an estimate of tailings porewater chemistry that was appropriate for use in site wide water
and load balance modelling, the following iterative process was followed.
1. Results from saturated tailings column testing were evaluated to develop a preliminary source term.
For each parameter, concentrations corresponding to the 95th percentile value were determined.
These 95th percentile concentrations were then use as initial tailings porewater source term for the
GoldSim water and load balance model.
2. Initial estimates of concentrations in the TSF Pond were generated as outputs from the preliminary
GoldSim model run. These initial estimates of TSF Pond concentrations were adopted as the
tailings porewater concentration for a second GoldSim model run, and the model was run to
generate updated results for TSF Pond chemistry.
3. The modelled TSF Pond concentrations for the initial and subsequent GoldSim model runs were
compared and it was concluded that further iterations were not necessary as the outputs of both
model runs were similar.
4. To determine alkalinity, sulphate, aluminum, calcium, and manganese concentrations for the final
saturated tailings porewater source term, concentrations corresponding to equilibrium with the
following mineral phases were determined using the geochemical software package PHREEQC
(Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999):
 Alkalinity: equilibration with calcite (CaCO3), dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) and rhodochrosite (MnCO3);
 Aluminum: equilibration with amorphous aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3);
 Sulphate: equilibration with gypsum (CaSO4∙2H2O);
 Calcium: equilibration with calcite, dolomite and gypsum;
 Manganese: equilibration with rhodochrosite.
 Modelling conditions:
o Temperature = 5°C
o Charge balance using sulphate
o Open to atmosphere (PCO2 = 10-3.4 atm; PO2 = 10-0.68 atm)
Porphyry copper tailings porewater is often found to have dissolved concentrations of Cu, Mn, and Fe in
equilibrium with tenorite (CuO), rhodochrosite (MnCO3) and ferrihydrite (Fe2O3·0.5H2O). As discussed in
the previous section, equilibrium modelling of saturated tailings leachate indicated that the leachate was
undersaturated with respect to these minerals. To arrive at an estimate of full scale tailings porewater
chemistry, additional MINTEQA2 runs were carried out to determine equilibrium copper, manganese, and
iron concentrations.

Modelling was carried out starting with the leachate chemistry from the cycle that returned the lowest pH
(pH 6.87, Sub A Bottom Port 20070807). Tenorite, rhodochrosite, gypsum, ferrihydrite, and calcite were
allowed to equilibrate at fixed pH, and pCO2 was set to atmospheric partial pressure. As a separate
exercise, pCO2 was increased by an order of magnitude to evaluate sensitivity to variation in dissolved
CO2, and results of this sensitivity analysis indicated minimal change in predicted porewater chemistry.
Therefore, a source term tailings porewater chemistry was compiled using equilibrium copper and
manganese concentrations, and maximum values observed in column leachate for all other parameters
(minimum values for pH and alkalinity). This source term was used in estimating South and West
Embankment seepage chemistry.
Because PAG rock will be disposed in the central and eastern portion of the TSF, a combined tailings and
PAG rock porewater source term was developed to inform estimate of Main Embankment seepage
chemistry. A similar assessment to that described for saturated tailings porewater was carried out for
PAG waste rock porewater. The maximum values for parameters from all saturated rock and tailings
columns, along with equilibrium concentrations of copper and manganese, were adopted as the estimate
for a single ‘saturated PAG plus tailings porewater’ source term.
The combined source term was then used as an input to the site water chemistry prediction. The
combined ‘saturated tailings + PAG porewater’ source term is provided in Appendix 2.7.2.1-H.
UNSATURATED TAILINGS
A comparison of humidity cell and column test release rates showed that columns released weathering
products at a lower rate than humidity cells on both in terms of mass and with respect to flowpath length.
From this result, it is inferred that equilibrium conditions were developed within the columns and acted to
control the aqueous concentrations of weathering products.
Two separate unsaturated tailings source terms were developed. A beach runoff source term was
developed to allow estimates of loadings to the tailings pond via beach runoff. This ‘Beach Runoff’ source
term consists of the maximum concentrations observed from the unsaturated tailings columns, and is
considered to be conservative as the surface tailings are likely generate lower concentrations due to
exposure and repeated flushing.
A ‘Beach Infiltration’ source term was also developed using maximum observed concentrations from
unsaturated tailings columns as a basis. These maximum concentrations were then compared to a
compiled database of seepage chemistry from porphyry mines in BC to see if higher concentrations might
be expected (based on porphyry waste rock seepage (Day and Rees, 2006)). Where the database
concentrations exceed the New Prosperity column concentrations, the higher concentration from the
database was adopted as the estimate. As a result of this review, alkalinity in the ‘Beach Infiltration’
source term was decreased, and Al, Sb, As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Se and Zn concentrations were increased.
The two unsaturated tailings source terms are included in Appendix 2.7.2.1-H.
SITE WATER AND LOAD BALANCE

Estimates of chemical loadings from the various mine site components were combined with the site water
balance developed by Knight Piésold to generate an integrated water and load balance model for the

Project. This water and load balance model forms the basis for the estimates of site and discharge water
quality that have been used to assess the environmental impacts of the Project.
The water balance model was created using GoldSimTM software. GoldSim is a graphical, object-oriented
program for carrying out dynamic, probabilistic simulations of existing or proposed systems. The water
and load balance model for the New Prosperity Project includes Monte Carlo simulations to represent the
range of anticipated hydrological conditions at the mine site.
MODEL QUALITY ASSURANCE

A quality analysis of the water and load balance model for the New Prosperity Project was conducted,
including the following:
 The calculations of loading inflows and outflows and load balance structure were verified for
accuracy
 The assignments of loading inflows and outflows for each mine component were verified for
consistency with the water balance, project assumptions and changes occurring over the mine life
phases
 The behaviour of the calculated loads for each mine component was reviewed over the life of the
Project to verify that the changes expected to occur at each mine phase were accurately reflected in
the loadings, and
 The results of the water and load balance model were analysed to delineate the contributing factors
for key changes in water quality over time at each mine component.
MODEL INPUTS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The sources of information for the key inputs to the water and load balance model are provided in Table
2.7.2.1-21.
Table 2.7.2.1-21 Sources of Model Inputs
Model Input Basis of Input Input Provided By

Flow Rates, Storage New Prosperity GoldSim Water Knight Piésold
Volumes and Flow Regimes Balance Model
Background Runoff Average monthly concentrations from Triton Environmental
Concentrations Station W1 (Upper Fish Creek)
Background Groundwater Average annual concentrations from Knight Piésold
Concentrations sampling of four wells in proposed pit
area
Fish Lake Initial Average annual concentrations from Triton Environmental
Concentrations Fish Lake sampling program
conducted in July 2011
Precipitation Concentrations Zero concentrations and loadings N/A
Tailings Porewater Average annual porewater SRK Consulting
Concentrations concentrations as described in source
term section

Model Input Basis of Input Input Provided By

Tailings Consolidation Annual tailings porewater SRK Consulting
term section
Beach Runoff Annual beach runoff concentrations as SRK Consulting
Concentrations described in source term section
Beach Infiltration Annual beach infiltration SRK Consulting
term section
Unsaturated PAG Loadings Annual loadings from unsaturated SRK Consulting
in TSF PAG, as described source term
section
Ore Stockpile Loadings Annual loadings from Ore Stockpile, SRK Consulting
varied by year, as described source
term section
Non-PAG Stockpile Annual loadings from Non-PAG SRK Consulting
Loadings Stockpile, as described source term
section
Pit Wall loadings Calculated in GoldSim model from SRK Consulting
scale-up of laboratory release rates
source term section
Blast Losses Annual Ammonia and Nitrate loadings SRK Consulting
from blast losses, as described source
term section
Ore Loadings to Mill Annual loadings from ore processed in SRK Consulting
Mill, as source term section
Plant Site Loadings Annual loadings from plant site area SRK Consulting
runoff, source term section
Sewage Effluent Loadings Annual Ammonia and Phosphorous SRK Consulting
loadings from sewage effluent, source
term section
Crusher Pad Loadings Annual loadings from Crusher Pad SRK Consulting
runoff, source term section
Mine Site Roads Loadings Annual loadings from mine site roads SRK Consulting
runoff, as described source term
section
Dustfall Loadings to Fish Constant loadings associated with Taseko/ SRK
Lake – soluble soluble dustfall content, as described Consulting / Stantec
source term section
Dustfall Loadings to Fish Constant concentrations associated Taseko/ SRK
Lake – non-soluble with non-soluble dustfall content, as Consulting / Stantec
described in source term section
Sediment Scavenging from Monthly sediment scavenging load Triton Environmental
Fish Lake removal

Schematic representations of the main components of the water and load balance model are shown in
Figures 2.7.2.1-51 (Operations I) through 2.7.2.1-55 (Post-Closure). The figures include the main
components of the water and load balance model, along with the loading sources (inflows) and losses
(outflows) for each component. Table 2.7.2.1-21 provides a detailed outline of the inflows, outflows and
source terms applied for each component.

Pit Dewatering
Runoff/Infiltration Runoff/Infiltration
Runoff/Infiltration Figure 2.7.2.1- 51
Blast Losses Blast Losses Ore Load
Load Balance
Undisturbed Blast Losses
Undisturbed
Catchment Runoff
Schematic
Catchment Runoff Freshwater
Infiltration Plant Site Surface Flows Mill Operations I
Water in Concentrate
(Years 1-16)
Non‐PAG Ore
Stockpile Stockpile Grey Water LEGEND
Pit Dewatering
Consolidation Seepage
Excess to TSF
Tailings + Slurry Water

Undiverted Catchment Solid Lines:
Mill Reclaim
Undisturbed Catchment Runoff Runoff
Seepage surface water
Ditch Overflow
Overflow and
and Infiltration
Seepage Soil Stockpile Runoff flows

Infiltration
and Infiltration
Ditch Leakage
Groundwater Seepage Tailings Beach Runoff
Tailings Beach Infiltration

Dashed Lines:
Recirc. Trib1 Direct Pond Precipitation
ME subsurface
Pond1 Undisturbed Unsaturated PAG (incl. water flows
GW Catchment Runoff blast losses)
Recirc. Wells
Embankment Runoff Seepage
Fish Lake Pumpback TSF
Open Pit Blast Losses
ME
Seepage Pond2
Waste Rock Void Loss
Upper Fish Creek
Tailings Void Loss
Seepage Pumpback
Seepage Pond Evaporation
Mine Site Road Runoff
Direct Precipitation Undisturbed Catchment Runoff Seepage

Seepage Seepage
Undisturbed Catchment
Runoff Seepage Seepage
Groundwater Inflow Soil Stockpile Runoff

Pit Wall Runoff Direct Precipitation
Blast Losses Undisturbed Catchment Runoff
WE SE
Diverted Water NPAG Area Diverted Pond Pond
Evaporation
Mine Site Road Runoff Runoff
Reservoir
Crusher Pad Runoff
Undisturbed Catchment Runoff
Groundwater Inflow
Embankment Runoff
Dustfall
TSF East Area

Big
Lake Evaporation TSF South Area
Wasp
Onion
Lake
Sediment Scavenging Lake
Baseline Runoff Baseline Runoff
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
\\VAN-SVR0\Projects\01_SITES\Prosperity\1CT013.001_Revise_MLARD_Characterization\Reporting_Taseko-EIS_Section 2-7-2-1\Draft_July2012\040_Figures\Fig51-thru-55_Schematic_Water-and-Load_Balance
Excess to Open Pit
(no excess under average conditions)
Runoff/Infiltration Load Balance
Blast Losses Runoff/Infiltration Ore Load
Schematic
Undisturbed Undisturbed Blast Losses
Catchment Runoff Operations II
Catchment Runoff Freshwater
Infiltration Plant Site Surface Flows Mill (Years 17-20)
Water in Concentrate
Non‐PAG Ore LEGEND
Stockpile Stockpile
Grey Water
Solid Lines:
Tailings + Slurry Water

surface water
Mill Reclaim
Undisturbed Catchment Runoff Undiverted Runoff
Seepage flows
Ditch Overflow
Overflow and
and Infiltration
Seepage Soil Stockpile Runoff

Infiltration
and Infiltration
Ditch Leakage

Dashed Lines:
subsurface
Recirc. Trib1 ME
Pond Precipitation water flows
Pond1 Undisturbed Unsaturated PAG (incl.
GW Catchment Runoff blast losses)
Recirc. Wells
Embankment Runoff Seepage
Open Pit Fish Lake Pumpback TSF
Blast Losses
(Filling)
ME
Excess to Pond2
Open Pit
Upper Fish Creek
Tailings Void Loss
Seepage Pumpback
Seepage Pond Evaporation

Seepage Seepage

WE SE
Evaporation
Reservoir
Crusher Pad Runoff
Groundwater Inflow
Embankment Runoff
Dustfall
TSF East Area

Big
Wasp
Onion
Lake

Produced by: DBM
Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Pump to Open Pit\ at
Start of Closure Phase I
Runoff/Infiltration Load Balance
Blast Losses Runoff/Infiltration
Schematic
Undisturbed Undisturbed
Catchment Runoff Catchment Runoff Closure Phase I –
Mill Years 21 to 30
Surface Flow Plant Site
and Infiltration Removed
Ore
Non‐PAG
Stockpile LEGEND
Stockpile
Base
Ditch Overflow
Grey Water
and Infiltration
Solid Lines:
surface water
and Infiltration Undisturbed Catchment Runoff Undiverted Runoff
Ditch Leakage
Seepage flows
Overflow and
Seepage Soil Stockpile Runoff

Infiltration

Dashed Lines:
subsurface
Recirc. Trib1 Pond Precipitation water flows
ME
Pond1 Undisturbed
GW Catchment Runoff
Recirc. Wells
Embankment Runoff
Open Pit Excess to Fish Lake TSF
Blast Losses
(Filling) Open Pit
ME
Pond2 Pond Evaporation
Upper Fish Creek
Seepage
Direct Precipitation Undisturbed

Background
Catchment
RunoffRunoff Seepage
Seepage Seepage
Pump to Open Pit

WE SE
Evaporation
Reservoir Undisturbed
Crusher Pad Runoff
Catchment Runoff
Groundwater Inflow
Embankment
Runoff
TSF East Area

Big
Wasp
Onion
Lake

Produced by: DBM
Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Runoff/Infiltration Runoff/Infiltration Figure 2.7.2.1- 54
Runoff/Infiltration
Undisturbed Undisturbed Load Balance
Catchment Runoff Catchment Runoff Schematic
Closure Phase I I–
Surface Flow Mill
Plant Site Years 31 to 47
Ore
Non‐PAG
Stockpile LEGEND
Stockpile
Base
Ditch Overflow
Grey Water
and Infiltration
Consolidation Seepage Solid Lines:

surface water
Undisturbed
Background
Catchment
Runoff Runoff Undiverted Runoff, incl
flows
and Infiltration
Ditch Leakage
Seepage TSF East Area
Overflow and
Seepage
Infiltration
Soil Stockpile Runoff

Groundwater Seepage
Tailings Beach Runoff Dashed Lines:
Tailings Beach Infiltration subsurface
Recirc. Trib1 ME water flows
Pond Precipitation
Pond1 Undisturbed
GW
Catchment Runoff
Recirc. Wells
Open Pit Excess to Fish Lake Embankment Runoff TSF
(Filling) Open Pit
ME
Upper Fish Creek
Seepage

Seepage Seepage
Pump to Open Pit

WE SE
Diverted Water NPAG Area Pond Pond
Evaporation
Decommissioned
Mine Site Road Runoff Reservoir
Groundwater Inflow Undisturbed
Catchment Runoff
Embankment
Runoff
Big
Wasp
Onion
Lake

Produced by: DBM
Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Runoff/Infiltration Runoff/Infiltration
Runoff/Infiltration
Figure 2.7.2.1- 55
Undisturbed Undisturbed Load Balance
Catchment Runoff Catchment Runoff
Schematic
Surface Flow Mill Post-Closure
Plant Site
Ore
Non‐PAG
Stockpile LEGEND
Stockpile
Base
Ditch Overflow
Grey Water
and Infiltration
TSF Spillway Discharge Consolidation Seepage Solid Lines:

Undisturbed Catchment Runoff Undiverted Runoff, incl surface water
Seepage
and Infiltration
Ditch Leakage
TSF East Area flows
Overflow and
Seepage
Infiltration
Soil Stockpile Runoff

Groundwater
Seepage Tailings Beach Runoff
Dashed Lines:
Tailings Beach Infiltration subsurface
Recirc. Trib1 ME Pond Precipitation water flows
Pond1 Undisturbed
GW
Catchment Runoff
Recirc. Wells
Open Pit Excess to Fish Lake Embankment Runoff TSF
(Full) Open Pit
ME
Upper Fish Creek
Seepage
Mine Site Road Runoff Seepage
Direct Precipitation Undisturbed Catchment Runoff TSF Spillway Discharge

Seepage Seepage
Pump to Open Pit

WE SE
Evaporation Diverted Water NPAG Area
Decommissioned Pond Pond
Mine Site Road Runoff Reservoir
Groundwater Inflow
Background Runoff
Open Pit Discharge
Embankment Runoff
Lake Evaporation
Sediment Scavenging
Big
TSF South Area
Wasp
Onion
Lake
Lake
Produced by: DBM

Verified by: DBM
Date: July 2012
Table 2.7.2.1-21 Component Inputs, Outputs, and Source Terms
Component Inputs/Outputs Source Term

1. TSF Inflows
Septic Grey Water Background runoff concentrations + sewage
effluent N & P loadings
Consolidation Seepage Tailings consolidation concentrations
Runoff from East Catchment Background runoff concentrations
Runoff from Soil Stockpile(s) Background runoff concentrations
Tailings Beach Runoff Tailings beach runoff concentrations until
reclaimed; background concentrations thereafter
Tailings Beach Infiltration Tailings beach infiltration concentrations
Direct Precipitation on Pond Zero loading
Unsaturated PAG (to Operations II) Unsaturated PAG loadings; grows with time
based on exposed area
Blast losses associated with PAG (to end of Annual PAG blast loss loadings for Nitrate and
Operations I) Ammonia distributed monthly
Tailings Slurry Water (to end of Operations II) Concentration from Mill calculated by model
ME Pond 1 Pumpback (to end of Operations II) Concentration from ME Pond 1 calculated by
model
ME Pond 2 Pumpback (to end of Operations II) Concentration from ME Pond 2 calculated by
model
SE Pond Pumpback (to end of Operations II) Concentration from SE Pond calculated by model
WE Pond Pumpback (to end of Operations II) Concentration from WE Pond calculated by
model
Excess Water from Fish Lake (to end of Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
Operations I) model
Open Pit Dewatering (Pre-Production only) Concentration from Open Pit calculated by model
Outflows
Evaporation from Pond Zero loading
Waste Rock Void Losses (to end of Operations Concentration from TSF calculated by model
I)
Tailings Void Losses (to end of Operations II) Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Seepage to Main Embankment Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Seepage to Western Embankment Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Basin Seepage Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Reclaim Water to Mill (to end of Operations II) Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Excess Water to Open Pit (near end of Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Operations II under average hydrological
conditions)
Dewatering to Open Pit (during Closure I) Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Discharge to Trib1 (during Post-Closure) Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Discharge to Upper Fish Creek (during Post- Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Closure)
2. Tributary 1 Inflows
Diverted Water from east of Site Access Road Background runoff concentrations
Runoff from Undisturbed Catchment Background runoff concentrations
TSF ME Seepage bypassing seepage Combination of tailings porewater and tailings
collection system (arrival delayed 10 years) beach infiltration concentrations
Portion of TSF Basin Seepage (from Years 17 Combination of background groundwater and
to 50) tailings porewater concentrations based on delay


- 5% tailings porewater @ Year 17 to 100%
tailings porewater @ Year 50
Diverted Water from TSF Area (to end of Concentration from Diverted Runoff Reservoir
Closure I) calculated by model
TSF Discharge (during Post-Closure) Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Recirculation from Fish Lake Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
model
Outflows
Discharge to Fish Lake Concentration in Tributary 1 calculated by model
3. Upper Fish Inflows
Creek Runoff from Undisturbed Catchment Background runoff concentrations
TSF ME Seepage bypassing seepage Combination of tailings porewater and tailings
collection system (arrival delayed 10 years) beach infiltration concentrations
Portion of TSF Basin Seepage (from Years 17 Combination of background groundwater and
to 50) tailings porewater concentrations based on delay
- 5% tailings porewater @ Year 17 to 100%
tailings porewater @ Year 50
Diverted Water from TSF Area (to end of Concentration from Diverted Runoff Reservoir
Closure I) calculated by model
TSF Discharge (during Post-Closure) Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Recirculation from Fish Lake Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
model
Outflows
Discharge to Fish Lake Concentration from Upper Fish Creek calculated
by model
4. Fish Lake Inflows
Runoff from Soil Stockpile Background runoff concentrations
Diverted Water from Non-PAG Area Background runoff concentrations
Mine Site Road Runoff Total annual loading distributed monthly
Crusher Pad Runoff (to end of Operations II) Total annual loading distributed monthly
Groundwater Inflow Background groundwater concentrations
Ore Stockpile Infiltration bypassing liner Portion of loading from Ore Stockpile that
(arrival delayed 70 years) infiltrates to the foundation (45%) and escapes
liner (99% liner efficiency)
Plant Site Infiltration (arrival delayed 70 years) Portion of loading from Plant Site that infiltrates
to groundwater (45%)
Dustfall - Soluble (to end of Operations II) Constant loadings from soluble portion of dustfall
Dustfall – Particulate (to end of Operations II) Constant concentrations from particulate
component of dustfall
Plant Site Runoff during Closure and Post- Concentration from Plant Site calculated by
Closure model
Ore Stockpile Ditch Leakage (90% ditch Concentration from Ore Stockpile calculated by
efficiency) model
Discharge from Trib1 Concentration from Trib1 calculated by model
Discharge from Upper Fish Creek Concentration from Upper Fish Creek calculated
by model
Outflows
Lake Evaporation Zero loading
Seepage to Open Pit Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by


model
Discharge to Open Pit (starting at Operations Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
II) model
Excess Water to TSF (to end of Operations I) Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
model
Recirculation to Trib1 Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
model
Recirculation to Upper Fish Creek Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
model
Sediment Scavenging Monthly sediment scavenging loads removed
5. Open Pit Inflows
Mine Site Road Runoff Total annual loading distributed monthly
Open Pit Groundwater inflows Pit background groundwater concentrations
Pit Wall Runoff Annual pit wall loadings distributed monthly; Year
6 pit assumed to be in place in Year 1 of
Operations I
Blast losses from Pit Walls Annual pit wall blast loss loadings for Nitrate and
Ammonia distributed monthly
Non-PAG Stockpile infiltration (delayed 20 Portion of loading from Non-PAG Stockpile that
years) infiltrates to groundwater (45%)
Ore Stockpile infiltration captured by liner Portion of loading from Ore Stockpile that
(delayed 70 years) infiltrates to the foundation (45%) and is captured
by liner (99% liner efficiency)
Runoff from Ore Stockpile (based on 90% Concentration from Ore Stockpile calculated by
ditch efficiency) model
Runoff from Non-PAG Stockpile (100%) Concentration from Non-PAG Stockpile
calculated by model
Seepage from Fish Lake Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
model
Discharge from Fish Lake (starting at Concentration from Fish Lake calculated by
Operations II) model
Excess Water from TSF (near end of Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Operations II under average hydrological
conditions)
TSF Dewatering to Open Pit (during Closure I) Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Water Pumped from ME Pond 1 (starting at Concentration from ME Pond 1 calculated by
Closure I) model
Water Pumped from ME Pond 2 (starting at Concentration from ME Pond 2 calculated by
Closure I) model
Outflows
Lake Evaporation Zero loading
Pit Dewatering to TSF (Pre-Production only) Concentration from Open Pit calculated by model
Pit Dewatering to Mill (from Operations I to Concentration from Open Pit calculated by model
Year 17)
Discharge to Lower Fish Creek (Post-Closure) Concentration from Open Pit calculated by model
6. Ore Inflows
Stockpile Ore Stockpile Runoff and Infiltration Annual Ore Stockpile loadings (based on amount
of ore in stockpile) distributed monthly + SO4 and
Ca concentrations at gypsum saturation to Year
19; background runoff concentrations thereafter


Blast losses associated with Ore Stockpile (to Annual Ore Stockpile blast loss loadings for
end of Operations I) Nitrate and Ammonia distributed monthly
Outflows
Runoff to Open Pit (90% ditch efficiency) Concentration from Ore Stockpile calculated by
model
Ditch Leakage to Fish Lake Concentration from Ore Stockpile calculated by
model
Infiltration captured by liner to Open Pit (99% Portion of loading from Ore Stockpile that
liner efficiency) infiltrates to groundwater (45%) and is captured
by liner (99% liner efficiency)
Infiltration bypassing liner to Fish Lake Portion of loading from Ore Stockpile that
infiltrates to groundwater (45%) and escapes
liner (99% liner efficiency)
7. Non-PAG Inflows
Stockpile Non-PAG Stockpile Runoff and Infiltration Annual Non-PAG Stockpile loadings (based on
size of stockpile) distributed monthly + SO4 and
Ca concentrations at gypsum saturation
Blast losses associated with Non-PAG Percentage of annual Non-PAG blast loss
Stockpile (to end of Closure I) loadings for Nitrate and Ammonia
Outflows
Runoff to Open Pit Concentration from Non-PAG Stockpile
calculated by model
Infiltration to Open Pit Portion of loading from Non-PAG Stockpile that
infiltrates to groundwater (45%)
8. Crusher Inflows
Pad Crusher Pad Runoff (to end of Operations II) Annual Crusher Pad loadings distributed monthly
Outflows
Runoff to Fish Lake (to end of Operations II) Annual Crusher Pad loadings distributed monthly
9. Plant Site Inflows
Plant Site Runoff and Infiltration Annual Plant Site loadings distributed monthly
Outflows
Runoff to Mill (to end of Operations II) Concentration from Plant Site calculated by
model
Infiltration to Fish Lake Portion of flow that infiltrates to groundwater
(45%)
Overflow to Fish Lake (during Closure and Concentration from Plant Site calculated by
Post-Closure) model
10. Mine Inflows
Roads Mine Roads Runoff Annual Mine Roads loadings distributed monthly
Outflows
Runoff to Fish Lake Annual Mine Roads loadings to Fish Lake
distributed monthly
Runoff to Open Pit Annual Mine Roads loadings to Open Pit
distributed monthly
11. ME Pond 1 Inflows
Runoff from TSF Main Embankment Combination of Non-PAG loading and
background runoff concentrations based on
proportions of embankment constructed of Non-


PAG material and overburden
TSF ME Seepage Captured Combination of tailings porewater and tailings
beach infiltration concentrations
Blast losses associated with Non-PAG material Non-PAG blast loss loadings for Nitrate and
(to end of Closure I) Ammonia based on amount of Non-PAG material
in embankment
Water from Seepage Collection Wells Combination of embankment seepage (tailings
porewater/beach infiltration), background
groundwater and basin seepage (tailings
porewater) concentrations
Outflows
Pumpback to TSF (to end of Operations II) Concentration from ME Pond 1 calculated by
model
Pump to Open Pit (starting at Closure I) Concentration from ME Pond 1 calculated by
model
12. ME Pond 2 Inflows
Runoff from TSF Main Embankment Combination of Non-PAG loading and
background runoff concentrations based on
proportions of embankment constructed of Non-
PAG material and overburden
TSF ME Seepage Captured Combination of tailings porewater and tailings
Blast losses associated with Non-PAG material Non-PAG blast loss loadings for Nitrate and
(to end of Closure I) Ammonia based on amount of Non-PAG material
in embankment
Outflows
Pumpback to TSF (to end of Operations II) Concentration from ME Pond 2 calculated by
model
Pump to Open Pit (starting at Closure I) Concentration from ME Pond 2 calculated by
model
13. WE Pond Inflows
Runoff from TSF West Embankment Background runoff concentrations
TSF WE Seepage Captured Combination of tailings porewater and tailings
Outflows
Pumpback to TSF during Operations Concentration from WE Pond calculated by
model
Discharge to Big Onion Lake catchment Concentration from WE Pond calculated by
(starting at Closure I) model
14. SE Pond Inflows
Undisturbed Runoff from Catchment Background runoff concentrations
Runoff from TSF South Embankment Background runoff concentrations
TSF SE Seepage Captured Combination of tailings porewater and tailings
Outflows
Pumpback to TSF during Operations Concentration from SE Pond calculated by model
Discharge to Wasp Lake catchment (starting at Concentration from SE Pond calculated by model
Closure I)
15. Mill Inflows
Freshwater Assumed Fish Lake concentrations


Ore Load Mill ore loading (constant annual load)
Blast losses associated with Ore Annual ore blast loss loadings for Nitrate and
Ammonia
Open Pit Dewatering (Operations) Concentration from Open Pit calculated by model
Reclaim from TSF Concentration from TSF calculated by model
Plant Site Runoff (to end of Operations II) Concentration from Plant Site calculated by
model
Outflows
Tailings Slurry Water to TSF + Open Pit Concentration from Mill calculated by model
Dewatering during Pre-Production
Water Retained in Concentrate Concentration from Mill calculated by model
DESCRIPTION OF WATER AND LOAD BALANCE

The water and load balance is a mass balance model designed to track the flows and loadings throughout
the site and estimate concentrations of regulated parameters in site discharge. The water balance was
created by Knight Piésold using GoldSim software. The load balance was also created in GoldSim using
the Contaminant Transport module, and was combined with the load balance to generate the integrated
water and load balance model for the Project.
The inputs to the water and load balance model were estimated on a monthly basis. The model was run
on a daily time step to facilitate the numerical calculations carried out in GoldSim for hydrological
components of the water balance. As a consequence, the outputs from the model were generated on a
daily basis.
Chemical loadings were calculated for all inputs and outputs associated with each mine component.
Chemical mass was maintained with the exceptions noted in the previous description of source terms. In
particular, Ca, SO4, Fe, Cu and Mn masses were added to the tailings porewater source term to account
for expected dissolution of tailings minerals containing these parameters. Ca and SO4 masses were
removed from non-PAG and ore stockpile loadings to reflect control of respective concentrations by the
solubility product of gypsum. Additionally, sediment scavenging mass removals were included in the Fish
Lake model.
For each of the model components, a number of sources contribute chemical mass to the system. For
each source, a source term was identified to represent the expected chemical contributions. For surface
and groundwater entering the site, baseline water quality monitoring data were adopted. For all other
sources, source terms were developed from ML/ARD characterization testing, as described in the
preceding sections.
The water and load balance model included 36 chemical parameters. The parameters modelled were
primarily those that are federally or provincially regulated. The inputs consisted of dissolved parameters
for geochemical source terms, which are considered to be equivalent to total concentrations for modelling
purposes. Total concentrations were used as inputs for background surface water concentrations.

CALCULATIONS OF LOADINGS AND CONCENTRATIONS

Loadings into and out of the mine components were carried out in one of the following three methods.
 Chemical concentrations were multiplied by a flow rate as shown below. This method was applied for
runoff from undisturbed areas or areas with an overburden cover, groundwater inflows, direct
precipitation on ponds, sewage effluent, tailings pore water, consolidation seepage, beach runoff and
infiltration, freshwater to the mill, and calcium and sulphate for the ore and non-PAG stockpiles:
Total Load added to Pond ( L )   Inflows  Concentrat ion 

 Annual loading predictions were distributed monthly according to the average monthly runoff
distribution as estimated in the water balance derived by Knight Piésold. This applies to the non-PAG
and ore stockpiles, plant site, unsaturated PAG in the TSF, crusher pad and mine site roads,
 Annual loading predictions applied as constant loadings throughout the applicable mine phase. This
applies to the ore loadings to the mill and the nitrogen and phosphorous loadings from the sewage
effluent.
 Concentrations for each mine component were generated using the Goldsim Contaminant Transport
module based on the calculated loadings described above and the associated volumes predicted in
the water balance. The approach assumes complete mixing of flow and loads within a discrete mine
component.
CONDITIONS MODELLED
The water and load balance model was run under average hydrological conditions and using a Monte
Carlo simulation to represent the range of anticipated future hydrological conditions. Under average
conditions, average monthly precipitation and runoff were assumed to occur throughout all the phases of
the mine life. By isolating the influence of hydrology, the variations in loadings over time could be
evaluated from year to year to ensure the loadings behaved according to the changes occurring at each
phase of the mine life.
The results presented in this report were produced through Monte Carlo simulations. A large number of
iterations were performed where the hydrological parameters were varied on a monthly basis. This
methodology provides a range of water quality predictions under the influence of varying hydrological
conditions.
The following remediation measures were simulated in the water and load balance model:
 Reclamation of the tailings beaches at the end of Operations II.
 “Dewatering” the TSF, that is, pumping water from the TSF to the Open Pit (down to a minimum
required volume) at the end of milling (to accelerate the improvement of water quality in the TSF
anticipated at the end of milling).
 Termination of pumpback of water from the seepage collection ponds to the TSF at the end of
Operations II (to accelerate the improvement of water quality in the TSF). Water from the Main
Embankment seepage collection ponds was assumed to be pumped to the Open Pit from this point
forward.

 Collection of TSF seepage (both embankment and foundation seepage) in groundwater wells; flow
from these wells was assumed to be pumped to the Main Embankment seepage collection pond(s).
 Minimizing infiltration into the ore stockpile footprint through the use of a low-permeability base on
liner system.
 Remediation of the ore stockpile footprint once the stockpile is depleted.
ELEMENTS OF MODELLING PROCESS LEADING TO A CONSERVATIVE PREDICTION

The development of the site wide water and load balance was governed by the requirement to apply
conservative assumptions where specific information was deficient (Price, 1997). The following points
summarize the main prediction elements that provide a conservative prediction of site discharge water
quality.
 Source Term Derivation
o Maximum concentrations from laboratory test work were generally selected for the development
of source terms (initial elevated releases due to flushing in humidity cell tests were excluded).
o Where concentrations were below detection in geochemical data, detection levels were adopted
for the development of source terms. This represents an upper bound for observed
concentrations rather than a maximum observed value. For the background water quality source
term, which was derived from baseline water quality monitoring results, a value of half the
detection limit was substituted for those results that were reported as being less than detection.
o Where assumptions were required, the selection of model parameters was conservative. For
example, the Non-PAG stockpile was assumed to be in place and generating load at its
maximum ultimate capacity from the end of operations through post-closure.
 Pit Lake Water Quality Prediction
o From Years 1 to 6 it was assumed that the entire Year 6 final pit wall area was exposed and
generating chemical loadings.
o The permanent highwall was assumed to generate loadings under acidic conditions from Year
45 in perpetuity, whereas the leaching potential would be expected to decay over time.
Assuming unlimited leaching potential of the highwall in perpetuity provided an upper bound for
loadings to the pit, and was adopted as a conservative approach.
o No removal of load in the pit lake was accounted for during any time period. Experience at other
pit lakes indicates that mineral precipitation, biological processes, and scavenging of metals by
particulates followed by particulate settling can be responsible for removal of dissolved
elemental load from the water column in pit lakes (e.g. Martin et al., 2006).
 TSF Lake Water Quality Prediction
o Tailings consolidation was assumed to occur for approximately 80 years, with all expelled
porewater released to the TSF pond at porewater concentrations. In fact, a portion of the
expelled water would report to tailings seepage without increasing the overall seepage volumes.
As a consequence, the assumption that all consolidation seepage reports to the TSF pond
results in an overestimation of chemical loadings.
o No removal of mass from the TSF water column was modelled. Mineral precipitation, biological
processes, along with scavenging and settling of dissolved metals by particulates may
contribute to removal of mass from the water column.

RESULTS OF LOAD BALANCE MODEL

The results of the site water and load balance model for the New Prosperity Project include estimates of
future flow rates and water quality associated with all mine facilities. These results are provided for all
phases of the mine life cycle, under a range of anticipated hydrological conditions.
Results of the water balance modelling are discussed in Section 2.7.2.4. Water quality predictions are
provided in Appendices 2.7.2.1-I.1 through 2.7.2.1-I.14. Table 2.7.2.1-22 outlines the report location of
the water quality results for each mine component. Water quality results for Fish Lake and for other
surface water bodies outside of the mine site are discussed in Section 2.7.2.4.
Table 2.7.2.1-22 Key to Appendices Containing Water Quality Results
Appendix Component
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.1 Tailings Storage Facility
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.2 Tributary 1
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.3 Upper Fish Creek
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.4 Fish Lake
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.5 Open Pit
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.6 Ore Stockpile
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.7 Non-PAG Stockpile
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.8 Crusher Pad
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.9 Plant Site
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.10 Mine Site Roads
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.11 Main Embankment (ME) Seepage Pond 1
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.12 Main Embankment (ME) Seepage Pond 2
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.13 West Embankment (WE) Seepage Pond
Appendix 2.7.2.1- I.14 South Embankment (SE) Seepage Pond
Results for all 36 chemical parameters modelled are provided graphically for each location listed in Table
2.7.2.1-22, with one chemical parameter per figure. The charts provide the following statistical values of
the water quality predictions from the Monte Carlo simulations: mean, greatest result, least result, and 5th,
25th, 75th and 95th percentiles.
The statistics were computed on daily water quality predictions and represent the calculated statistics for
each day of all the model iterations. As an example, if the model was run for 100 iterations, the greatest
result on February 1, 2013 would be the maximum concentration predicted on that day from all 100
iterations. The line showing the greatest results joins together the greatest results from each day of all the
iterations. As a result, the lines representing the higher and lower statistical values do not represent a
scenario that would be expected to occur over time, but provide the upper and lower bounds of
predictions under varying hydrological conditions.

CONCLUSIONS
 The New Prosperity deposit is hosted by andesite flows and volcaniclastic rocks intruded by several
phases of quartz diorite intrusions and cut by a complex of quartz feldspar porphyry dikes.
 Pyrite and chalcopyrite are the principal sulphide minerals and are accompanied by: minor amounts
of bornite and molybdenite, sparse tetrahedrite-tennantite, sphalerite and galena and rare chalcocite-
digenite, covellite, pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite, enargite and marcasite.
 The deposit is dominated by potassic alteration (predominantly biotite) with internal zones of sericite-
iron carbonate alteration. The bulk of the surrounding host rock is characterized by propylitic
alteration (chlorite+calcite+ pyrite) with smaller zones of phyllic alteration (quartz+sericite+pyrite).
 Anhydrite and gypsum are ubiquitous below an upper leached zone that typically occurs at a depth
of 150 m below surface, but extends to greater than 300 m below surface in regions of higher
fracture density.
 The deposit is covered by a thick package of Tertiary glacial sediments, colluvium and basalt, and
Quaternary glacial sediments. A smaller portion of the Tertiary colluvium may have been sourced
from the paleo-surface of the mineralized bedrock and is considered PAG based on ABA
characteristics.
STATIC GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROCKS

A number of phases of static testing were carried out to characterize the variability of ARD potential and
metal content of the rocks. Interpretation of the results considered both rock and alteration type as a basis
for managing waste rock. The following were concluded by this study and by Taseko and its
subcontractors in previous studies.
 All rock and alteration types contain rock that ranges in ABA classification from PAG to non-PAG.
The exceptions are a late dike unit (PMPD) and a Tertiary basalt unit (BSLT) which have shown
minimal potential for acid generation.
 The average sulphide sulphur content of rock is near 2%. It is slightly lower in the intrusives
(intrusive unit average ranging from 1.1% to 2.63%) and greater in the volcanics (volcanic and
subvolcanic unit average ranging from 1.79% to 2.54%). Extreme sulphide sulphur concentrations
exceed 9%.
 Sulphate concentrations are highly variable but are several percent in rock below the zone leached
by meteoric waters.
 Assessment of neutralization potential and carbonate mineralogy indicates that modified
neutralization potential (NP) reflects the available neutralization potential associated with calcium
and magnesium carbonate minerals (ICCa,Mg).
 The ABA block model constructed by Taseko indicates that a large zone of non-PAG waste rock is
present peripheral to the ore in the southwest portion of the pit. Most of the waste adjacent to the
ore, and peripheral to the ore in the northwest side of the pit, is classified as PAG.
 Continuous sampling of core from 10 holes indicates that potential for ARD typically varies over the
scale of tens of meters with local zones of smaller scale variation between PAG and non-PAG rock.
This indicates that waste management by segregation of PAG and non-PAG rock is a practical
approach for the Project, and that operational monitoring will be important for appropriate waste
classification.
 Quaternary overburden is classified as non-PAG as a result of low sulphide sulphur content (up to
0.2%) and moderate NP (average 25 kg CaCO3 equiv./ tonne, up to 44 kg CaCO3 equiv./ tonne).

 Tertiary overburden is mostly classified as non-PAG, however, there is a limonitic colluvium unit
(FANL) that is classified as PAG based on limited testing. FANL samples subjected to ABA analysis
showed acidic paste pH values at the time of testing.
 Tertiary basalt typically has low sulphide content and low calcium and magnesium carbonate NP.
There are local zones of higher sulphide sulphur content (up to 0.5%) that will need to be managed
as PAG due to the low calcium and magnesium carbonate NP. Modified NP was found to
overestimate calcium + magnesium carbonate NP for the Tertiary basalt.
KINETIC GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROCKS

Two kinetic geochemical characterization programs (Phase 4 and Phase 5) consisting of laboratory
humidity cells and saturated column testing were designed to provide input into waste management
planning (geochemical criteria) and water chemistry predictions (source terms) to inform the overall
environmental impact assessment. The following were concluded:
 Sulphate release will be dominated by leaching of calcium sulphate (gypsum and anhydrite). To
evaluate sulphide oxidation rates, kinetic test results for samples with low initial sulphate content
were considered. Observed sulphide oxidation rates were low.
 Kinetic test results were used to develop a site-specific criterion for segregation of PAG and non-
PAG rock. The criterion is NP/AP = 1.5. For the purpose of waste management planning, Taseko
has used a much more conservative criterion of (NP-10)/AP = 2.
 The delay to onset of ARD in PAG rock was calculated based on kinetic test results. These
calculations showed that there will be a long delay (decades to centuries) before the majority of the
PAG rock transitions from neutral to acidic weathering conditions. Since Taseko plans to flood PAG
rock within 2 years of placement, it is expected that pH neutral weathering conditions will be
maintained within the PAG waste rock.
STATIC GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TAILINGS

Static tailings characterization occurred in two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 3). The following were
concluded:
 Static testing of samples of different ore types for Phase 1 indicated that a single bulk tailings
product would be non-PAG.
 Phase 3 locked cycle and pilot plant test tailings had lower NP-AP ratios than Phase 1 testing,
however ABA results confirmed the Phase 1 conclusion that a bulk tailings product would be non-
PAG.
 The lowest observed NP/AP ratio (NP/AP = 1.5) was measured for a Phase 3 pilot plant tailings
sample (PP6). Tailings with similar ABA characteristics are unlikely to develop acidic weathering
conditions, however monitoring will be necessary to verify that the operational tailings product has
ABA characteristics similar to the Phase 1 and Phase 3 samples.
KINETIC GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TAILINGS

Kinetic tailings characterization occurred in Phase 5. The following were concluded:
 Humidity cell testing on Phase 5 combined tailings composites indicated initial leaching and
depletion of calcium sulphate minerals, followed by stable sulphate release that reflects sulphide
oxidation rates in the HCTs.

 Initial elevated release of trace elements from HCTs likely reflects flushing of accumulated oxidation
products that were produced since the core was produced in 1992.
 Subaqueous column testing on Phase 5 combined tailings samples indicated that tailings disposed
underwater will leach low concentrations of most heavy metal ions. Leaching of sulphate and
manganese can be expected from dissolution of calcium sulphate and carbonates, and leaching of
fluoride can be expected dissolution of fluorine bearing minerals (possibly apatite, which was
identified in select thin sections).
 Unsaturated column testing on Phase 5 combined tailings samples indicated that unsaturated
tailings beaches will leach low concentrations of most heavy metal ions. Similar to the saturated
tailings column tests, leaching of sulphate and manganese can be expected from beached tails due
to dissolution of calcium sulphate and carbonates. Leaching of fluoride in the unsaturated columns
occurred at lower concentrations than in the saturated columns.
SITE WATER CHEMISTRY PREDICTIONS

Site water chemistry predictions for saturated and unsaturated tailings, non-PAG waste rock stockpiles,
unsaturated and saturated PAG waste rock, mine-generated dust, ore storage and handling facilities,
mine site roads, and the open pit were produced using a combination of scale-up of humidity cell and
column test results, thermodynamic calculations (for reliable mineralogical controls), and comparison with
monitoring data from other porphyry copper mines in British Columbia. The following were concluded:
 Leaching of sulphate from tailings, waste rock and wall rock will be controlled by calcium sulphate
dissolution.
 The effect of dilution is expected to be significant due to the large catchment area of the site.
 Tailings characterization showed that a single bulk tailings product is expected to be non-PAG.
 Tailings seepage will be pH neutral and is expected to contain sulphate, copper, and manganese
concentrations controlled by equilibrium dissolution and precipitation of gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O),
tenorite (CuO) and rhodochrosite (MnCO3).
 Subaqueous column testing on combined tailings samples indicated that tailings disposed
underwater will leach low concentrations of most heavy metal ions. Leaching of sulphate,
manganese and fluoride can be expected from dissolution of calcium sulphate, carbonates and
fluorine-bearing minerals such as apatite.
 Detailed management of surface water will be necessary to maintain appropriate levels of
geochemical loading to Fish Lake and its tributaries, and it may be necessary to carry out similar
detailed management of groundwater for the same purposes into the Post-Closure phase of the
Project.
 Pit flooding is expected to require decades following cessation of mining, with overflow to Lower Fish
Creek about 28 years after mining is complete.
 Pit water will remain pH neutral indefinitely, and pit water chemistry will be dominated by surface
inflow from Fish Lake, by discharge of collected TSF seepage, and by seepage from the non-PAG
waste rock storage facility. Loadings from the pit high wall are predicted to be lower than cumulative
loadings from these other sources.

ML/ARD PREDICTION AND PREVENTION PLAN

The ML/ARD Prediction and Prevention Plan (PPP) will be a requirement of the Mines Act Permit for the
New Prosperity Mine. The PPP recognizes that the ML/ARD assessments completed during the
certification and permitting phases need to be continued for mine construction and operations in the form
of confirmation of preliminary findings based on short-term testing, calibration of testwork results to site
conditions and ongoing monitoring to direct waste management activities. The PPP also recognizes that it
is not practical to completely evaluate all waste components and that monitoring and management plans
need to be in place to address potential for impacts due to ML/ARD. As a result of the specific activities
proposed for the mine, the PPP will need to contain the following components:
 A careful approach to monitoring and management of PAG and non-PAG waste rock, since effective
segregation of these materials is key to the success of the waste management strategy
 Calibration of whole rock ABA data to waste rock fines
 Conservative management criteria for Tertiary basalt and unconsolidated overburden since these
materials have limited characterization data at this stage
 Ongoing re-assessment of the mineralogical assumptions used to define management criteria for the
mine
 Monitoring and evaluation of seepage from tailings and non-PAG waste rock to verify geochemical
weathering is within the predicted range, and
 Monitoring and evaluation of pit walls and pit water chemistry to refine water chemistry predictions.
A draft of the New Prosperity ML/ARD PPP was developed for the previous project proposal was Volume
III, Section 9.2 of the March 2009 EIS/Application.

2.7.2.2 Atmospheric Environment

Atmospheric Resources has been selected as a VEC because of its intrinsic importance to the health and
well-being of humans, wildlife, vegetation, and other biota. For this EIS amendment, atmospheric
environment refers to the state of the atmosphere in the study area. The assessment excludes potential
effects that may occur within the mine site footprint. Given the mine site footprint has been substantially
reduced, and now excludes Fish Lake, effects that previously occurred on Fish Lake are now offsite, and
therefore included in the atmospheric environment. The Project activities and physical works for New
Prosperity are presented in Table 2.7.2.2-1. A detailed assessment of atmospheric environment key
indicators and measurable parameters outlined in the EIS Guidelines and listed in Table 2.7.2.2-2 has
been completed.
Scope of Assessment
This section outlines the scope of the assessment of potential environmental effects of the New
Prosperity Project on the atmospheric environment.
In the March 2009 EIS/Application, various analyses were completed to assess the potential effects of the
proposed Project on the atmospheric environment during the three main development phases: 1)
construction and commissioning; 2) operations; and 3) closure. It was stated that post-closure activities
associated with the Project were expected to have minimal potential effects on the atmospheric
environment.
Table 2.7.2.2-1 shows whether each activity or physical work has changed from the March 2009
EIS/Application. It also identifies if there are any regulatory changes related to project activities that have
potential effects on the atmospheric environment. Any project activities or physical works identified with a
“Y” in either the “project activities/physical works” or “regulatory changes” will be carried forward in this
exercise. Project activities or physical works identified with an “N” in both of these columns are not carried
forward in the atmospheric environment assessment and are greyed out.

Table 2.7.2.2-1 Project Scoping Table for Atmospheric Environment
Project Design
Requirements
Regulatory
Change in
Change in
Project
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Regulatory
Activities/ Comments/Rationale
Reference
Physical Works
Construction and Commissioning

Open Pit –
N N
Preproduction
Location and timing only
Criteria air Air emissions by wind erosion
contaminant
Non-PAG waste New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
Y Y and dustfall
stockpile Proposed National Air Quality Management System
regulatory
objectives (NAQMS)
Change in project boundary
PAG Stockpile Y N Still subaqueous in TSF; just TSF location changed
Location only
Criteria air Air emissions by wind erosion
contaminant
Overburden New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
Y Y and dustfall
Stockpile Proposed National Air Quality Management System
regulatory
objectives (NAQMS)
Criteria air Material process air emissions
contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
Primary Crusher N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
regulatory (NAQMS)
objectives Change in project boundary
Criteria air Material process air emissions
Overland
N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
conveyor
regulatory (NAQMS)
Criteria air Soil disruption air emissions
Fisheries contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
compensation Y Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
works construction regulatory (NAQMS)
Water
Management
Y N
Controls and
Operations
Construction
Y N
sediment control
Access road contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
construction and N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
upgrades regulatory (NAQMS)
Camp N Y Criteria air In mine site

Project Design
Requirements
Regulatory
Change in
Change in
Project
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Regulatory
Reference
Physical Works
construction contaminant Soil disruption air emissions

and dustfall New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
regulatory Proposed National Air Quality Management System
objectives (NAQMS)
Different areas related to moving of TSF, stockpiles,
Criteria air etc.
Site clearing contaminant Soil disruption air emissions
(clearing and Y Y and dustfall New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
grubbing) regulatory Proposed National Air Quality Management System
objectives (NAQMS)
Includes overburden removal
contaminant
Soils handling and New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
Y Y and dustfall
stockpiling Proposed National Air Quality Management System
regulatory
objectives (NAQMS)
Criteria air
Construction: contaminant New emissions; new location
plant site and N Y and dustfall New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
other facilities regulatory Change in project boundary
objectives
Lake dewatering Y N Only Little Fish Lake
Fish Lake Water
Y N Management of inflows and outflows
Management
Starter dam
Y Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
construction
regulatory (NAQMS)
Sourcing water
supplies (potable, Y N
process/TSF)
Site waste
N N
management
Clearing of contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
transmission line N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
ROW regulatory (NAQMS)
Construction/Instal contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
lation of N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
transmission line regulatory (NAQMS)

Project Design
Requirements
Regulatory
Change in
Change in
Project
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Regulatory
Reference
Physical Works
2 km more road with more and larger trucks

Criteria air Road dust agitation air emissions
contaminant
New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
Vehicular traffic Y Y and dustfall
objectives (NAQMS)
Concentrate load- New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
contaminant
out facility near
N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
Macalister
regulatory (NAQMS)
(upgrades to site)
Operations
Criteria air Rock disruption air emissions
Pit Production N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
regulatory (NAQMS)
Rock disruption air emissions
Criteria air New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
contaminant
Crushing and Proposed National Air Quality Management System
N Y and dustfall
conveyance (NAQMS)
regulatory
Dust collectors
Rock disruption air emissions
Criteria air New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
contaminant
Ore processing Proposed National Air Quality Management System
N Y and dustfall
and dewatering (NAQMS)
regulatory
Dustfall collectors
Location only
Criteria air CAC air emissions
Explosive contaminant
handling and Y Y and dustfall
storage regulatory Proposed National Air Quality Management System
objectives (NAQMS)
Location changed
Criteria air Wind erosion air emissions
contaminant
Tailing storage Y Y and dustfall
objectives (NAQMS)
Criteria air Location and timing only
Non-PAG waste contaminant Wind erosion air emissions
Y Y
stockpile and dustfall New B.C. PM2.5 objectives

Project Design
Requirements
Regulatory
Change in
Change in
Project
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Regulatory
Reference
Physical Works
objectives (NAQMS)
Still subaqueous in TSF; just TSF location changed
PAG Stockpile Y N
Combined with Non-PAG (i.e. location and timing)

contaminant
Overburden New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
Y Y and dustfall
Stockpile Proposed National Air Quality Management System
regulatory
objectives (NAQMS)
Location only
Ore Stockpile contaminant
management and Y Y and dustfall
processing regulatory Proposed National Air Quality Management System
objectives (NAQMS)
Potable and non-
N N
potable water use
Site drainage and
seepage Y N
management
Water
Management
Y N Includes management of flows in and out of Fish Lake
Controls and
Operation
Wastewater
treatment and
discharge N N
(sewage, site
water)
Water release
contingencies for
extended N N
shutdowns
(treatment)
Solid waste
N N
management
Maintenance and
N N
repairs
Criteria air Material Transport air emissions
Concentrate contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
transport and N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
handling regulatory (NAQMS)
Criteria air PAH NOx; within mine site only
Vehicle traffic Y Y
contaminant Road dust entrainment air emissions

Project Design
Requirements
Regulatory
Change in
Change in
Project
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Regulatory
Reference
Physical Works
and dustfall New B.C. PM2.5 objectives

objectives (NAQMS)
Transmission line contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
(includes N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
maintenance) regulatory (NAQMS)
Pit dewatering N N
Fisheries
Compensation Y N
works operations
Criteria air Material transport air emissions
Concentrate load- contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
out facility near N Y and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System
Macalister regulatory (NAQMS)
Closure
Water
Management
Y N
Controls and
Operation
Fisheries
Compensation Y N
Operations
Site drainage and
seepage Y N
management
Criteria air Location only
contaminant Rock disruption air emissions
Reclamation of
Y Y and dustfall New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
ore stockpile area
objectives (NAQMS)
Criteria air Location only
Reclamation of contaminant Rock disruption air emissions
Non-PAG waste Y Y and dustfall New B.C. PM2.5 objectives
rock stockpile regulatory Proposed National Air Quality Management System
objectives (NAQMS)
Tailing contaminant
impoundment Y Y and dustfall
reclamation regulatory Proposed National Air Quality Management System
objectives (NAQMS)
Pit lake and TSF Criteria air Rock disruption air emissions
Y Y
Lake filling contaminant New B.C. PM2.5 objectives

Project Design
Requirements
Regulatory
Change in
Change in
Project
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Regulatory
Reference
Physical Works
and dustfall Proposed National Air Quality Management System

regulatory (NAQMS)
objectives
Plant and contaminant
associated facility N Y and dustfall
removal regulatory Proposed National Air Quality Management System
objectives (NAQMS)
Road
N N
decommissioning
Transmission line
N N
decommissioning
Post-closure
Discharge of
tailing storage Y N
facility water
Discharge of pit
N N Into lower Fish Creek
lake water
Seepage
management and Y N
discharge
Ongoing
monitoring of Y N
reclamation
Interactions of Other Projects and Activities
Criteria air
Interaction of contaminant
Other Projects Y Y and dustfall Will involve update of Project Inclusion List
and Activities regulatory
objectives
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events
Criteria air
Accidents, contaminant Two new scenarios (land and water based) due to
Malfunctions and Y Y and dustfall Fish Lake; other A&Ms would not change–previous
Unplanned Events regulatory A&Ms would still apply
objectives
None of the changed project activities and physical works for New Prosperity, excepting the spatial
boundary changes, are key changes in project design. There are no substantial changes from the
emission inventory found in Appendix 4-2-C of the March 2009 EIS/Application. There are no new
atmospheric environment issues raised by the amended mine plan.
Regulatory Changes (since Prosperity)

A regulatory change, specifically new BC ambient air quality objectives (AAQO) for respirable particulate
matter (PM2.5), alters the effects assessment for the atmospheric environment. Additionally, a proposed
new framework for managing air quality recently introduced by the federal government may influence
mine operations in the future. The new AAQO for PM2.5 necessitates a re-analysis of the dispersion
modelling results consistent with the changes. The new federal framework warrants a review of what is
proposed, and a discussion on potential ramifications.
The BC’s recently adopted AAQOs for PM2.5.are 25 µg/m3 for a 24-hour averaging period (as a 98th
percentile value over one year) and 8 µg/m3 for the annual averaging period (BC HLS, 2009). BC has also
listed a planning goal of 6 µg/m3 for the annual averaging period. The status of this goal is uncertain given
recent changes in PM2.5 measurement methodologies and the uncertainty surrounding historical PM2.5
measurements. For the purposes of this assessment the new AAQO will be considered, and the planning
goal discounted.
In October 2010, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) released a collaborative
air quality management approach known as the Comprehensive Air Management System (since renamed
as the National Air Quality Management System or NAQMS). The aim of the NAQMS is to standardize a
patchwork of air quality regimes and practices across Canada (CAMS, 2010).
The NAQMS is composed of the following four elements:
i. Newly established Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), formerly known as Canada
Wide Standards (CWS)
ii. A national framework of six airsheds and a provision to delegate functional responsibility for air
zones within the six national airsheds to a multi-stakeholder air zone management team
iii. A series of four trigger levels based on measured air quality, and an outline of potential air zone
actions in response to pressures on air quality, and
iv. Base-Level Industrial Emission Requirements for facilities.
Initially, Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) will replace the current Canada Wide
Standards (CWS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground level ozone (O3). Subsequent standards
will be considered for other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
The NAQMS timeframe for development and implementation is stated as 2011-2015. The timeframe may
be overly ambitious as cross-country stakeholder engagement and geographical analysis of contextual
concerns has not been initiated, nor has health science research been disclosed.
The potential ramifications of the NAQMS for New Prosperity are uncertain given what is known at
present. Given that New Prosperity has committed to the implementation of BATEA and is in a relatively
pristine, remote region, the effect of the NAQMS should be minimal.
Changes as a Result of New Prosperity EIS Guidelines

As a result of the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines, there are no changes to the atmospheric environment
KIs and assessment requirements from the March 2009 EIS/Application. Potential effects on atmospheric
environment associated with the Project were assessed in the March 2009 EIS/Application using the
following two Key Indicators (KIs):

 Criteria air contaminants (CACs), and

 Greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Measurable parameters associated with each KI are summarized in Table 2.7.2.2-2. CACs were selected
as they are associated with human health effects and other effects in the receiving environment. They
may affect the intrinsic quality of life nearby. Human health and ecological effects are discussed in the
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (Section 2.7.3.3).
Table 2.7.2.2-2 Key Indicators and Measurable Parameters for Atmospheric Environment
Measurable Parameter (2009 Prosperity and 2012 New

Key Indicator
Prosperity)
Respirable particulate matter (PM2.5)
Inhalable particulate matter (PM10)
Total suspended particulate (TSP)
Dustfall a
Criteria air contaminants (CACs)
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX), including nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
Lead (Pb)
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Expressed as CO2e (carbon dioxide Methane (CH4)
equivalent)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
NOTE:
a
Dustfall is included because it is a result of airborne particulate matter deposition.
Key Changes and Issues

In Volume 4 (Section 2) of the March 2009 EIS/Application a full analysis of project-related GHGs
emissions is conducted as well as the effects of potential changes of climate on the Project. However, it is
not possible to attribute potential effects (be they local, regional, or global) to the GHG emissions from
any specific project. Thus, the effects of GHG emissions were not considered in the effects
characterization and subsequent sections of the March 2009 EIS/Application. Detailed rationale for the
selection of the KIs and justification for their inclusion in this assessment were provided in the March
2009 EIS/Application. It is not expected that the Project has any sensitivity to anticipated changes in
climate expected during the Project life. In any instance, the facility infrastructure is robust, and the risks
are well within the range that is normally absorbed by the proponent.
The key issues affecting the atmospheric environment reported in the March 2009 EIS/Application were
reviewed in the context of the New Prosperity Project mine plan. Physical works and activities identified
as having changed due to project design or regulatory requirements (as shown in Table 2.7.2.2-1 above)
have been carried forward and presented in Table 2.7.2.2-3 below. These include all the Project

activities/physical works that have changed in some way (previously identified as “Y” in Table 2.7.2.2-1),
as a result of the New Prosperity Project. The following criteria were used for the interaction ratings:
0. Effect on atmospheric environment is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to
significance conclusions), and there are no required changes to previously proposed mitigation
measures, and no additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel,
EIS Guidelines or other applicable regulation). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted.
1. Effect on atmospheric environment is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to
significance conclusions), but some re-evaluation of effect is required due to changes in project
design, proposed mitigation measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements have been
identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, EIS Guidelines, or other applicable regulations).
2. Effect on atmospheric environment is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.

Table 2.7.2.2-3 VEC Potential Environmental Effects Associated with New Prosperity (Effects
Scoping Matrix)
Increase
Increase
in GHGs
in CACs
General Category Project Activities/Physical Works

Construction of Load- Concentrate load-out facility near Macalister (upgrades to
1 0
out facility site)
Construction of Ore Primary crusher 1 0

Processing Overland conveyor 1 0
Infrastructure Construction: plant site and other facilities 1 0
Construction of Site Access road construction and upgrades 1 0
Utilities/Access Camp construction 1 0
Construction/Installation Clearing of transmission line ROW 1 0
of transmission line Construction/installation of transmission line 1 0
Fisheries compensation
Fisheries compensation works construction 0 0
works (construction)
Open pit – preproduction 1 0
Non-PAG waste stockpile 1 0
Overburden and Waste
PAG stockpile 1 0
Rock Management
Overburden stockpile 1 0
Soils handling and stockpiling 1 0
Site clearing (clearing
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1 0
and grubbing)
Site waste management 0 0
Water management controls and operations 0 0
Site waste Construction sediment control 0 0
management Lake dewatering 0 0
Fish Lake water management 0 0
Starter dam construction 1 0
Vehicular traffic Vehicular traffic 2 2
Water Sourcing and
Sourcing water supplies (potable, process/TSF) 0 0
Use
Concentrate load-out
Concentrate load-out facility near Macalister 1 0
facility near Macalister
Operations
Fisheries
Compensation works Fisheries compensation works operations 0 0
(operations)
Ore Extraction and Pit production 1 0
Stockpiling Explosive handling and storage 1 0

Increase
Increase
in GHGs
in CACs
Ore stockpile management and processing 1 0

Crushing and conveyance 1 0
Ore processing and dewatering 1 0
Maintenance and repairs 0 0
Concentrate transport and handling 1 0
Overburden and Waste
PAG Stockpile 0 0
Rock Management
Overburden stockpile 1 0
Site drainage and seepage management 0 0
Water Management controls and operation 0 0
Site Water Wastewater treatment and discharge (sewage, site water) 0 0
Management Water release contingencies for extended shutdowns
0 0
(treatment)
Pit dewatering 0 0
Solid waste
Solid waste management 0 0
management
Tailings Management Tailing storage 0 0
Vehicle traffic 2 2
Vehicle traffic
Transmission line (includes maintenance) 1 0
Water Sourcing and
Potable and non-potable water use 0 0
Use
Fisheries
Compensation Fisheries compensation operations 0 0
operations
Closure
Reclamation of ore stockpile area 1 0
Reclamation of non-PAG waste rock stockpile 1 0
Tailing impoundment reclamation 1 0
Reclamation
Plant and associated facility removal 0 0
Road decommissioning 0 0
Transmission line decommissioning 0 0
Water Management controls and operation 0 0
Site Water
Management
Pit lake and TSF lake filling 0 0
Post-Closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility water 0 0
Site Water
Discharge of pit lake water 0 0
Management
Seepage management and discharge 0 0

Increase
Increase
in GHGs
in CACs
Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of reclamation 0 0

Interaction of Other Projects and Activities 1 0
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events 1 0
The interactions indicated in grey shading in Table 2.7.2.2-3 are not carried forward in this assessment.
Based on past experience and professional judgment, the March 2009 EIS/Application determined that:
there would be no interaction; the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even
without mitigation; or the interaction would not be significant due to the application of codified
environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental
effects. This has not changed since the March 2009 EIS/Application. Details on the justification for this
rating are provided in the issues scoping section for each KI in the March 2009 EIS/Application (see
Volume 4 Section 2). These interactions are not discussed further in this assessment.
Project activities and physical works for the Prosperity project that were included as air emission sources
in the March 2009 EIS/Application are presented in Table 2.7.2.2-4. This table is a considerable
simplification of Table 2.7.2.2-3, as many project activities can fall into one emissions source. The New
Prosperity project activities and physical works are changed in some respects (Table 2.7.2.2-5):
Table 2.7.2.2-4 Summary of Project Activities and Physical Works Assessed included as Air
Emission Sources in the Prosperity EA
Project Phase
Emission Source Name
Construction Operations Closure
Land Clearing Burning 
Fugitives   
Mine Pit Area Heavy
Equipment
  
Fugitives 
Overburden Pile Heavy
Equipment
  
Heavy
Waste Rock Pile
Equipment
  
Heavy
Road between mine and plant
Equipment
  
Fugitives 
Plant site Heavy
Equipment
  
Heavy
Project Access Road
Equipment
  
Truck Dump Fugitives 

Project Phase
Heavy
Equipment
 
Heavy
Generators (Including 4 Units)
Equipment
 
NOTE:
Emission values for ‘Heavy Equipment’ are those produced by fuel combustion.
Table 2.7.2.2-5 Summary of Project Activities and Physical Works Changes as a Result of the
New Prosperity Project
Project Phase
Smaller area
Land Clearing Burning
cleared
Fugitives No change No change No change
Mine Pit Area Heavy
No change No change No change
Equipment
Fugitives New location
Overburden Pile Heavy
Longer haul Longer haul Longer haul
Equipment
Heavy
Waste Rock Pile Longer haul Longer haul Longer haul
Equipment
Heavy
Road between mine and plant No change No change No change
Equipment
Fugitives No change
Plant site Heavy
No change No change No change
Equipment
Heavy
Project Access Road No change No change No change
Equipment
Fugitives No change
Truck Dump Heavy
No change No change
Equipment
Heavy
Generators (Including 4 Units) No change No change
Equipment
NOTE:
Emission values for ‘Heavy Equipment’ are those produced by fuel combustion.
Of all of the Project activities and physical works that were included as air emission sources in the March
2009 EIS/Application, the only ones that changed are the locations of the overburden pile and the waste
rock pile. The new locations result in a longer haul distance (2-3 km per trip) and a slight relocation of the
source of fugitive emissions from the overburden pile. For land clearing burning there is a reduction in the
area cleared, and hence less clearing, grubbing, and burning.

The changed project activities and physical works for New Prosperity do not result in substantial changes
to CAC emission quantities and sources in any of the three main development phases. The previous
dispersion assessment assumptions are unchanged, and the results are still relevant. As a result the
dispersion assessment has not been re-done. However, regulatory and spatial boundary changes
necessitate a re-analysis of the previous predictions to produce new results consistent with the regulatory
and spatial changes.
The changed project activities and physical works for New Prosperity do not result in substantial changes
to GHG emissions in any of the three main development phases. There are no changes required to
previously proposed mitigation measures, and no additional regulatory requirements have been identified.
Temporal Boundary Changes

There are no substantive changes in the Project phase temporal boundaries for New Prosperity.
Therefore, the conclusions of the effects assessment for the atmospheric environment are not altered.
There are no changes required to previously proposed mitigation measures.
Spatial Boundary Changes

The change to the spatial boundary for New Prosperity alters the findings the effects assessment for the
atmospheric environment. Effects that previously occurred on the mine site are now offsite and therefore
included in the atmospheric environment. The Prosperity and New Prosperity mine disturbance
boundaries is presented in Figure 1 in Appendix 2.7.2.2-A. While the New Prosperity mine disturbance
boundary is generally smaller (e.g. it now excludes Fish Lake) in some areas it includes land previously
outside the Prosperity mine disturbance boundary (NW extremity and NE extremity). This necessitates a
re-analysis of the dispersion modelling results consistent with the changed spatial boundary.
Project Impact Assessment for Atmospheric Environment

Table 2.7.2.2-6 presents the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations associated with both the
2009 Prosperity and the 2012 New Prosperity Projects. The New Prosperity results take into account both
the regulatory changes and spatial boundary changes noted above.
Table 2.7.2.2-6 Maximum Predicted Ground-level Concentrations Associated with the 2009
Prosperity and 2012 New Prosperity Projects
Predicted Concentration (µg/m3)

Most Stringent
Averaging Operation Case Construction Case Regulatory
Substance
Period Objective /
New New Standard
Prosperity Prosperity
One-hour 198 184 133 153 400 b
NO2 24-hour 101 111 71 88 200 b
Annual 30 30 14 23 60 b

One-hour 1,465 1,216 524 877 14,300 a

CO
8-hour 627 1,037 232 424 5,500 a
24-hour 29 34 17 37 25 a
PM2.5
Annual -- 7.9 -- 12 8a
PM10 24-hour 234 438 311 595 50 a
24-hour 234 509 437 1,125 120 b
TSP
Annual 46 89 117 246 60b
One-hour 1.8 1.4 0.7 1.2 450 b
SO2 24-hour 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 150 b
Annual 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 25 a
24-hour 1.38E-02 1.76E-02 6.72E-03 1.34E-02 4a
Lead
Annual 1.69E-03 1.75E-03 1.19E-03 2.56E-03 2a
Dustfall 24-hour 20 92 57 154 NA
(mg/dm2/d) 30 day 9 24 23 49 1.7-2.9 c
NOTES:
Boldface font indicates predicted concentrations in excess of the most stringent regulatory objective / standard
a
BC Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport, Air Quality Objectives and Standards. 2009. Available at:
th
http://www.bcairquality.ca/reports/pdfs/aqotable.pdf. The PM2.5 24-hour average is based on 98 percentile value for one year.
b
Health Canada. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives. 2007.
Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/naaqo-onqaa/index-eng.php.
c
BC MOE 1979 Pollution Control Objectives for the Mining, Smelting, and Related Industries (BC MOE, 1979). The dustfall
objective is a daily rate, referenced to a 30-day sampling interval.
- - Indicates analysis not done for Prosperity report
NA Indicates that there is no applicable regulatory objective/standard.
Appendix 2.7.2.2-A contains 34 revised isopleth maps of CACs and dustfall that correspond to isopleth
maps presented in the March 2009 EIS/Application. The results are described below.
Depositions of acid facilitating compounds are the result of project emissions of nitrogen and sulphur
continuing compounds. Alberta Environment (AENV, 2009) has adopted a screening test to determine if
regional acid deposition modelling is required. The AENV screening methodology was to determine that
the contribution of project emissions of precursor nitrogen and sulphur containing compounds are well
below the threshold. Acid depositions of project emissions will not result in environmental issues.
Summary: Construction Phase Dispersion Modelling Results
For the construction phase of the Project, the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations for most
CACs occurs on the northern extremity of the mine disturbance boundary, similar to where they occurred
in the March 2009 EIS/Application. In a few instances the maxima have shifted to a location on the
northern shore of Fish Lake from a location on the northern extremity. This is true for the PM2.5, PM10,
TSP predictions (Figures 12 to 16) and the dustfall predictions (Figures 17 and 18). Note that, in
discussing the maxima, the land within the mine disturbance boundary is excluded from consideration
because this region is restricted to the general public. However, since the mine disturbance boundary has
been modified to exclude Fish Lake, values previously excluded from consideration are now reported.
For NO2, CO, SO2 and Pb the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations are less than the
applicable objective. For PM2.5, PM10, TSP and dustfall the maximum predicted ground-level
concentrations are greater than the applicable objectives or standards. In each instance, the area over

which the predicted exceedances occur is very small, but somewhat larger than in the March 2009
EIS/Application.
For the construction phase, the predicted CAC concentrations at the sensitive receptors, discussed in the
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (Section 2.7.3.3), will not change due to the new project
boundary. The longer haul roads will have insubstantial effects on the predictions. The sensitive receptors
and results are discussed in Appendix 4-2-E of the 2009 EIS/Application.
Summary: Operational Phase Dispersion Modelling Results

For the operational phase of the Project, the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations for most
CACs have shifted to a location on the northern shore of Fish Lake from a location on the northern
extremity of the mine disturbance boundary. In a few instances the maxima has remained on the northern
extremity of the mine disturbance boundary, similar to where they occurred in the March 2009
EIS/Application. Note that, in discussing the maxima, the land within the mine disturbance boundary is
excluded from consideration because this region is restricted to the general public. However, since the
mine disturbance area has been modified to exclude Fish Lake, values previously excluded from
consideration are now reported.
For NO2, CO, SO2 and Pb the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations are less than the
applicable objective. For PM2.5, PM10, TSP (Figures 29 to 33) and dustfall (Figures 34 to 35) the maximum
predicted ground-level concentrations are greater than the applicable objectives or standards. In each
instance, the area outside of the mine disturbance boundary over which exceedances of the objective
occurs is very small, but somewhat larger than in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
For the operational phase, the predicted CAC concentrations at the sensitive receptors discussed in the
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment will not change due to the new project boundary. The
longer haul roads and changes to the stockpile locations will have insubstantial effects on the predictions.
Atmospheric Environment Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures proposed in the March 2009 EIS/Application for atmospheric environment still
apply. Compensation has not been raised as an issue with respect to the atmospheric environment. The
primary mitigation measures that were implemented into the CAC emissions assumptions include:
 Using BATEA measures and best practices to reduce CAC emissions
 Meeting or exceeding relevant regulatory emissions standards for all mine equipment
 Installing covered conveyor belt ore transport systems and housing of the rail load-out facilities to
minimize fugitive particulate emissions
 Implementing effective dust suppression measures
 Following posted speed limits by all mine equipment
 Ensuring all mine equipment is properly tuned and maintained
 Reducing vehicle idling times
 Minimizing material transfers, and

 Covering of trucks used to transport concentrate.
Cumulative Effects Assessment

As described in Section 2.7.1, cumulative environmental effects were only assessed if all three of the
following conditions were met for the environmental effect:
 The Project results in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual environmental

effect on a component of the biophysical or human environment.
 The project-specific residual environmental effect does, or is likely to, act in a cumulative fashion with
the environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that are likely to occur.
The projects inclusion list (Table 2.7.1.4-1) identifies past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects
and activities that could interact cumulatively with the Project. The locations of each of the 22 projects
and activities are shown on Figure 2.7.1.4-1. As indicated in Table 2.7.1.4-1, eight of these project and
activities are new since 2009. In addition, there is more existing disturbance at baseline as the result of
logging (see Section 2.6.1). None of the eight new projects is likely to interact cumulatively with the
Project’s residual effects on the atmospheric environment. The Newton property exploration program is
located approximately 40 km north of New Prosperity. The air dispersion modelling for New Prosperity
has determined that the most pronounced effects of CACs are confined to very small areas along the
mine disturbance boundary. With 40 km between the two potential project areas there will be negligible
overlap of the Project effects from CAC emissions.
Regional sources of CACs include logging and forestry operations, forest fires, and vehicle emissions
from public highways and roads. Given the Project location, low concentrations of CACs are expected
year-round. Exceptions include periods where fire is present locally or long-range transportation is
affecting the region. The March 2009 EIS/Application revealed no CAC industrial sources present locally
at that time. As of 2012, no other major industrial project with a potential to emit CACs has been publicly
announced for the Project study area. Therefore, project effects on CACs were judged to not result in a
demonstrable overlap with similar effects from other projects or activities.
Determination of the Significance of Residual Effects

The assessment methodology for residual effect characterization and determination of significance is as
described in Section 2.7.1.5. The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for atmospheric
resources are summarized in Table 2.7.2.2-7.
In Subsection 2.1.2 of the March 2009 EIS/Application the criteria for the determination of significance are
discussed. Generally, this definition states that a receptor (e.g. resident population, sensitive vegetation)
capable of being negatively affected by the substance in question needs to be present at the location of
the maximum predicted concentrations (whether they exceed the Ambient Air Quality Objectives or AAQO
or not) for there to be determination of a significant effect. The AAQO are defined in Subsection 2.1.1.2. It
also states that a “determination of significance involves consideration of not only the substance and its
potential effects, but also the magnitude, extent, frequency, and duration of exposure.

Accounting for the generally conservative nature inherent in dispersion modelling exercises, and the
location and limited areas over which predicted concentrations are in exceedance of the objectives, it is
concluded that the residual project effects for all phases of the Project are not significant. While the
direction is adverse, in general the magnitude is moderate to low, local in extent, and reversible. The
duration and frequency for most activities is regular and medium term. Exceedances are expected to be
very rare, local, short in duration and reversible.
An analysis of the construction related emissions reveals that land clearing burning produces the majority
of CAC emissions (mainly particulate matter). There are also substantial fugitive emissions of particulate
matter from the mine pit area and overburden pile. Other sources that emit quantities of CACs are
insufficient to be of concern.
Particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10, TSP and dustfall) are predicted to exceed the applicable objectives or
standards. All of these exceedances occur at or very near the mine disturbance boundary. In each
instance, the area over which regulatory objective exceedances occur and lie outside of the mine
disturbance boundary is very small.
Table 2.7.2.2-7 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Criteria Air Contaminants
(CACs) for New Prosperity
Residual Effects Characterization
Reversibility
Significance
Geographic
Frequency
Magnitude
Direction
Duration
Extent
Proposed Mitigation
and Compensation
Activity Effect Measures
Increases
Site  Implement
to
preparation management
particulate
activities practices to reduce A M L R ST R N
matter
(vegetation smoke during brush
concentrati
removal) burning
ons
Increases
Constructio  Turn equipment off
to
n of Project when not in use
particulate
infrastructur  Ensure equipment is A M L F MT R N
matter
e and properly tuned and
concentrati
facilities maintained
ons
Power Increases
 Incorporate BATEA
supply for to
into project design
mine site particulate
wherever possible A M L C MT R N
construction matter
 Turn equipment off
(diesel concentrati
when not in use
generators) ons
Exhaust Increases into project design
emissions to A M L C MT R N
wherever possible
from mine particulate  Turn equipment off

Reversibility
Significance
Geographic
Frequency
Magnitude
Direction
Duration
Extent
Proposed Mitigation
and Compensation
fleet matter when not in use
vehicles concentrati  Ensure equipment is
and ons properly tuned and
equipment maintained
 Minimize vehicle idling
time
Pit and mine
site  Incorporate BATEA
developmen into project design
t, Increases wherever possible
overburden to  Turn equipment off
removal, particulate when not in use
A M S C MT R N
transport matter  Ensure equipment is
conveyer concentrati properly tuned and
systems, ons maintained
and waste  Minimize vehicle idling
rock stock time
piling
Operations
into project design
Exhaust Increases wherever possible
emissions to  Turn equipment off
from mine particulate when not in use
A M L C MT R N
fleet matter  Ensure equipment is
vehicles and concentrati properly tuned and
equipment ons maintained
time
Ore into project design
extraction, Increases wherever possible
crushing, to  Turn equipment off
transport particulate when not in use
A M S C MT R N
conveyer matter  Ensure equipment is
systems, concentrati properly tuned and
and ons maintained
processing  Minimize vehicle idling
time
Increases
to
 Minimize drop heights
Rock particulate
from conveyors and A L L C MT R N
stockpiling matter
trucks
concentrati
ons
Vehicular Increases  Turn equipment off
A L L C MT R N
traffic to when not in use

Reversibility
Significance
Geographic
Frequency
Magnitude
Direction
Duration
Extent
Proposed Mitigation
and Compensation
particulate  Follow posted speed
matter limits
concentrati  Ensure equipment is
ons properly tuned and
maintained
time
Closure
Increases
Removal of  Turn equipment off
to
Project when not in use
particulate
infrastructur  Ensure equipment is A L L F ST R N
matter
e and properly tuned and
concentrati
facilities maintained
ons
Increases
Operation of  Turn equipment off
to
construction when not in use
particulate
equipment  Ensure equipment is A L L F ST R N
matter
for mine site properly tuned and
concentrati
closure maintained
ons
Power Increases
supply for to
into project design
mine site particulate
wherever possible A L L F ST R N
closure matter
 Turn equipment off
(diesel concentrati
when not in use
generators) ons
KEY Geographic Frequency: Significance:
Extent: R Rare - Occurs Once S Significant
Direction: S Site-specific I Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at N Not Significant
P Positive L Local irregular intervals
N Neutral R Regional F Frequent - Occurs on a regular Prediction
A Adverse basis and at regular intervals Confidence:
Duration: C Continuous Based on scientific
Magnitude: ST: Short term information and
Defined for each KI MT: Medium Reversibility: statistical analysis,
individually. In general: Term R Reversible professional judgment
L Low–environmental LT: Long Term I Irreversible and effectiveness of
effect occurs that may or FF: Far Future or mitigation
may not be measurable, Permanent. Ecological Context: L Low level of
but is within the range of U Undisturbed: Area relatively or not confidence
natural variability. adversely affected by human activity M Moderate level of
M Moderate– D Developed: Area has been confidence
environmental effect substantially previously disturbed by H High level of
occurs, but is unlikely to human development or human confidence
pose a serious risk or development is still present
present a management N/A Not applicable.
challenge.

Reversibility
Significance
Geographic
Frequency
Magnitude
Direction
Duration
Extent
Proposed Mitigation
and Compensation
H High–environmental
effect is likely to pose a
serious risk or present a
management challenge.
Table 2.7.2.2-8 provides a concise summary of the effects assessment for atmospheric environment.
After considering the updated findings of the Project, mitigation measures, and cumulative residual effects
on the atmospheric environment, the overall significance determination for the New Prosperity Project,
(including all three major components: mine site, access road, transmission line) is unchanged from 2009.
The effect of the Project on the atmospheric environment is considered to be not significant.
Table 2.7.2.2-8 Summary of Effects Assessment for Atmospheric Environment
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
The New Prosperity Project has reduced the spatial boundary. The New Prosperity
Beneficial and Project has redesigned the mine site layout to include the conservation of Fish Lake.
Adverse Effects Otherwise The beneficial and adverse effects remain the same as predicted in the
Mitigation measures from the Prosperity Project for avoiding and/or mitigating
Mitigation and
potential environmental effects to atmospheric resources have been proposed for
Compensation
project-related activities, There are no compensation measures associated with the
Measures
atmospheric environment VEC
Potential The potential project residual effects for all phases of the Project are adverse in
Residual direction, moderate or low in magnitude, site-specific or local in extent and
Effects reversible. For most activities the duration is short or medium, and the frequency is

continuous or frequent. CAC concentrations above the objectives and/or standards

are expected to be very rare, local, short in duration and reversible.
Cumulative The overlaps with the air quality effects of other projects in the study area are
Effects insubstantial and therefore not significant.
Determination
of the The combined residual environmental effects of the Project on the condition of the
significance of atmospheric environment are predicted to be not significant.
residual effects
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects As no significant residual effects are predicted, there is no likelihood of occurrence.
found to be
significant
Additional Work
No additional work is recommended.
Follow-up and Monitoring

The development and maintenance of an annual inventory of CACs for both internal management and
potential external reporting is committed to by Taseko Mines Ltd. as a follow-up action. Also important is
the development and implementation of an air quality and dust control management plan, and a burn plan
for vegetative debris prior to initiation of the construction and commissioning phase.
Taseko Mines Ltd. also commits to establish an ambient air quality monitoring network to characterize the
effects of the Project on the atmospheric environment. The dispersion modelling predicts that particulate
matter (PM2.5, PM10, TSP and dustfall) may exceed the applicable objectives at or very near the mine
disturbance boundary adjacent to Fish Lake. While the area affected is very small, project effects in this
region are representative of worst case.
Taseko Mines Ltd. also commits to the establishment of one station in this region to measure both PM10
and dustfall. The PM10 measurements should be 24-hour average concentrations, taken midnight-to-
midnight on the National Air Pollution Surveillance program 6-day schedule. Dustfall should be collected
for monthly intervals coincident with the calendar month. It is further recommended that a second
identical station be established in a region nearby, but unaffected by mine emission sources. This station
will establish a baseline to which the other station measurements can be compared to differentiate
between Project and other regional and global influences.
To assist in the interpretation of these (and other) data, Taseko Mines Ltd. will commit to continue to
support the collection of meteorological data at the present location. This station continuously measures
temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and solar irradiance. This site is
regionally representative and the installation, data acquisition, and quality assurance is consistent with
best practices.

2.7.2.3 Acoustic Environment

This section identifies how the Project has changed from the previous project proposal and whether
changes would result in changes to the acoustic environment.
Scope of Assessment
The noise assessment in this EIS amendment was completed to support regulatory applications to
construct and operate the proposed Project. This section focuses on potential effects of noise on the
general public located outside the Project mine site area. It excludes potential effects that may occur
within the mine site footprint. Given the mine site footprint has been substantially reduced, and now
excludes Fish Lake, effects that previously occurred on the mine site are now offsite, and therefore
included in the acoustic environment. For potential noise effects on wildlife, refer to the Wildlife Section in
Section 2.7.2.8.
Similar to the March 2009 EIS/Application, this noise assessment focused on the activities that will
generate noise that may occur during different phases of the Project, including:
 Construction
 Operations, and
 Closure.
After closure of the Project, the acoustic environment is expected to return to the original ambient
conditions. As a result, post-closure is not considered further in this assessment.
The following Table 2.7.2.3-1 displays a listing of the Project Activities and Physical Works for New
Prosperity and whether each activity or physical work has changed from the original Prosperity
submission. Project activities or physical works that have noise effects, identified with a “Y” in either
Changes in Project Design or Changes in Regulatory Requirements will be carried forward for
assessment of the changes to effects on the acoustic environment. Project activities or physical works
that do not have any noise effects, or identified with an “N” in both of these columns are not carried
forward in this acoustic environment assessment, and are greyed out.

Table 2.7.2.3-1 Project Scoping Table
Change in Change in
Project
Project Regulatory
Activities/Physical Comments/Rationale
Design Requirements
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)

Open Pit – Preproduction N N
Non-PAG Waste Stockpile Y N
PAG Stockpile Y N
Overburden Stockpile Y N
Primary Crusher N N
Overland Conveyor N N
Fisheries Compensation N N
Works Construction
Water Management N N
Controls and Operations
Construction Sediment N N
Control
Access Road Construction
N N
and Upgrades
Camp Construction N N
Site Clearing (Clearing and Y N
Grubbing)
Soils Handling and Y N
Stockpiling
Construction: Plant Site N N
and Other Facilities
Lake Dewatering Y N No noise effect
Fish Lake Water Y N No noise effect
Management
Starter Dam Construction Y N
Sourcing Water Supplies Y N No noise effect
(Potable, Process/TSF)
Site Waste Management N N
Clearing of Transmission N N
Line ROW
Construction/Installation of N N
Transmission Line
Vehicular Traffic Y N
Concentrate Load-out
Facility near Macalister N N
(Upgrades to Site)
Operations

Change in Change in
Project
Project Regulatory
Design Requirements
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Pit Production N N
Crushing and Conveyance N N
Ore Processing and N N
Dewatering
Explosive Handling and Y N No noise effect
Storage
Tailing Storage Y N No noise effect
Non-PAG Waste Stockpile Y N
PAG Stockpile Y N
Ore Stockpile
Management and Y N
Processing
Potable and Non-potable N N
Water Use
Site Drainage and Y N No noise effect
Seepage Management
Water Management Y N No noise effect
Controls and Operation
Wastewater Treatment
and Discharge (Sewage, N N
Site Water)
Water Release
Contingencies for N N
Extended Shutdowns
(Treatment)
Solid Waste Management N N
Maintenance and Repairs N N
Concentrate Transport and N N
Handling
Vehicle Traffic Y N
Transmission Line N N
(Includes Maintenance)
Pit Dewatering N N
Fisheries Compensation Y N No noise effect
Works Operations
Concentrate Load-out N N
Facility near Macalister
Closure
Water Management Y N No noise effect

Change in Change in
Project
Project Regulatory
Design Requirements
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Fisheries Compensation Y N No noise effect

Operations
Site Drainage and Y N No noise effect
Seepage Management
Reclamation of ore Y N
Stockpile Area
Reclamation of Non-PAG Y N
Waste Rock Stockpile
Tailing Impoundment Y N
Reclamation
Pit Lake and TSF Lake Y N No noise effect
Filling
Plant and Associated N N
Facility Removal
Road Decommissioning N N
Transmission Line N N
Decommissioning
Post-Closure
Discharge of Tailing Y N No noise effect
Storage Facility Water
Discharge of Pit Lake N N
Water
Seepage Management Y N No noise effect
and Discharge
Ongoing Monitoring of Y N No noise effect
Reclamation
Interaction of Other Projects and Activities
Interaction of Other Y N No noise effect
Projects and Activities
Accidents, Malfunctions Y N No noise effect
and Unplanned Events

Regulatory Changes
Within British Columbia, there are no specific regulatory guidance documents for mining development that
relate to noise effects on the general public (i.e. human receptors and residential dwelling locations that
are located outside the Project mine site and not associated with the Project). However, the Noise Control
Best Practices Guideline (BC, 2009) by the BC Oil & Gas Commission (OGC) regulates noise emission
from the oil and gas sectors within the BC province.
The ERCB Noise Control Directive 38 was used as the noise guideline in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
As this study focuses on addressing potential noise effects of the Project on the general public in BC, the
BC OGC Noise Control Best Practices Guideline was used as guidance.
The OGC Noise Control Best Practices Guideline is similar to the ERCB Directive 038, which sets out the
outdoor noise limit Permissible Sound Levels (PSLs) for a receptor. A receptor is defined as for facilities
in remote areas where a receptor is not present, a PSL limit of 40 A-weighted decibels equivalent sound
level (dBA Leq) during night time period (22:00 to 7:00 hr) should be met at 1.5 kilometers (km) from the
facility boundary. During the day time period (7:00 to 22:00 hr), a PSL limit of 50 A-weighted decibels
equivalent sound level (dBA Leq) should be met at 1.5 kilometers (km) from the facility boundary. The
OSG Noise Control Best Practices Guideline and ERCB Directive 038 do not have a quantitative limit on
noise level at a receptor due to construction activities.
In a federal level Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) review, the Guidance for
Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise (April 2011) by Health Canada
should be considered in addition to the OGC guideline. Baseline sound level monitoring and the
percentage annoyance (%HA) indicator should be considered for the receptors. There is a broader
definition of receptor in the Health Canada guideline. Fish Lake can be considered as a passive
recreation areas. In the guideline, passive recreation areas is defined as an “outdoor grounds used for
hunting, fishing, teaching, etc.” The noise effects are considered during occupied periods, which are
assumed to be during the daytime period only.
The impact approach provided in the Health Canada guidelines measures increases in noise levels over
the baseline attributable to a project or development by daytime and nighttime equivalent noise level (Ld
and Ln respectively) descriptors and a whole day equivalent noise level descriptor (Leq24). Daytime is the
sixteen hour period from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM and nighttime is the eight hour period from 11:00 PM to
7:00 AM. Impulsive and tonal characteristics of source noise are accounted for as their presence can
increase potential effects.
The Health Canada guidelines consider the percentage of the exposed population that could be “highly
annoyed” by increased noise levels caused by projects. Impacts are considered to be of concern and
requiring mitigation where:
A source of noise may cause the percentage of the population that are Highly Annoyed (HA) by noise to
increase by 6.5% as determined by the function:

Or, the specified impact or impulse noise indicator (HCII) exceeds 75 dBA as determined by the function:
NOTES:
Leq24 is the 24-hour equivalent noise level calculated according to CAN/CSA-ISO1996-1:05; and
Ln is the night time average sound level according to CAN/CSA ISO1996-1:05.

None of the changed project activities and physical works for New Prosperity, excepting the spatial
boundary changes, is a key change. There are no new issues raised by the amended mine plan.
The key acoustic environment issue for the Project is the likelihood that the activities associated with the
Project will result in an increase to the existing acoustic environment during construction, operations, and
closure. In Section 3.1.1 of the March 2009 EIS/Application, a full summary of expected Project activities
that may affect ambient sound levels was provided.
The measurable parameter for the acoustic environment is the ambient sound level. Rationale for the
selection of ambient sound levels and justification for their inclusion in this assessment is provided in
Table 2.7.2.3-2. Ambient sound levels have been selected as a measurable parameter because of the
possibility that they will be affected as a result of Project activities.
Table 2.7.2.3-2 Noise Measurable Parameters
Rationale for Selection Linkage to EA

Measurable Guidelines, Other
Ambient Data for EA
Parameter Regulatory Drivers,
Policies and Programs
 Potential environmental  OGC Noise Control
effects on ambient Best Practices
sound levels due to Guideline (OGC As the location and
Project related activities 2009) environmental setting of
(construction,  ERCB Directive 38: the Project is considered
operations and closure) Noise Control remote, average night-
Ambient Sound  Increases to ambient Directive (ERCB, time ambient sound level
Levels sound levels directly 2007) of 35 dBA Leq(9)
affect quality of life for  Health Canada recommended by the
humans Guidance for OGC Noise Control Best
Evaluating Human Practice for remote rural
Health Impacts in areas has been used
Environmental
Assessment: Noise
Environmental noise is typically not steady and continuous, but constantly varies over time. To account
for the time-varying nature of environmental noise, a single number descriptor known as the energy
equivalent sound level (Leq) is used. The Leq value, expressed in dBA, is the energy-averaged, A-
weighted sound level for the complete period. It is defined as the steady, continuous sound level over a
specified time that has the same acoustic energy as the actual varying sound levels over the same time.

The unit for Leq is dBA (A-weighted decibels), which reflects the response of the human ear to different
sound frequencies. Periods commonly used for Leq measurements and criteria are daytime (07:00 to
22:00) and night-time (22:00 to 07:00). The daytime Leq is a 15-hour A-weighted energy equivalent sound
level, denoted as Leq(15). Similarly, the night-time Leq is a 9-hour A-weighted energy equivalent sound
level denoted as Leq(9). The same environmental noise description was used in the March 2009
EIS/Application.
Considering any of the physical works and activities with noise effects and identified as changed in
Project Design (previously identified as “Y”) from Table 2.7.2.3-1, the following Table 2.7.2.3-3 VEC
Project Effects Scoping (interaction) Matrix indicates a rating for each potential project effect using the
following interaction VEC Project Environmental Effect Rating Criteria:
0. Effect on VEC is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions),
and there are no required changes to previously proposed mitigation measures, and no additional
regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other applicable
regulation). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted.
but some re-evaluation of effect is required due to changes in project design, proposed mitigation
measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements have been identified.
2. Effect on VEC is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.
Table 2.7.2.3-3 VEC Potential Environmental Effects Associated with New Prosperity (Effects
Scoping Matrix)
Ambient Noise
Increase in
Level

Non-PAG waste stockpile 1
Overburden and Waste Rock PAG Stockpile 1
Management Overburden Stockpile 1
Soils handling and stockpiling 1
Site Clearing (Clearing and Grubbing) Site Clearing (Clearing and Grubbing) 1
Starter dam construction Starter dam construction 1
Vehicular Traffic Vehicular Traffic 1
Operations
Management
Overburden Stockpile 1
Vehicle traffic 1
Vehicle Traffic
Transmission line (includes maintenance) 0
Ore Extraction and Stockpiling Ore Stockpile management and processing 0

Ambient Noise
Increase in
Level
Closure
Reclamation of ore stockpile area 1
Reclamation Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock stockpile 1
Tailing impoundment reclamation 1

The changes in the timing of project activities for New Prosperity do not alter the conclusions of the
assessment of effects for the acoustic environment. There are no changes required to previously
proposed mitigation measures.

The changes to the spatial boundary for New Prosperity alter the conclusions of the assessment of
effects for the acoustic environment. Effects that previously occurred on the mine site are now offsite and
therefore included in the acoustic environment. This necessitates a re-analysis of the acoustic modelling
results consistent with the changed spatial boundary.
The OGC 1.5 km criteria boundary is measured at a distance of 1.5 km from the PDA. A local study area
(LSA) of 1.5 km from the boundaries of the mine site Maximum Disturbance Area or PDA has been
selected for this study. The LSA alignment coincides with the definition of OGC 1.5 km criteria boundary
from the Project boundary.
At distances greater than 4 km from the boundaries of the Project Maximum Disturbance Area (PDA), the
Project related noise effects would be expected to decrease to background level due to the geometrical
dissipation of sound energy with respect to distance. To cover all potential areas where noise from the
operations of the Project might have an effect, a regional study area (RSA) was defined by a rectangle 17
by 19 km in size centered on the Project. This RSA was chosen to encompass potential noise effects of
the Project.
Based on available information, there are no known permanent or seasonally occupied human dwellings
within the LSA. The RSA, LSA, PDA, and OGC 1.5 km criteria boundary are shown in Figure 2.7.2.3-1.

448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
5710000
5710000
5708000
5708000
5706000
5706000
5704000
5704000
5702000
5702000
5700000
5700000
5698000
5698000
5696000
5696000
5694000
5694000
5692000
5692000
5690000
5690000
5688000
5688000
448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
LEGEND
Mine Site Footprint 1:121,827

Local Study Area Elevation (m asl)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Reginal Study Area
Metres
Map Prepared By
Data Sources:
Taseko Mines Ltd. Figure 2.7.2.3-1
Noise Study Area
Produced By: LW
Verified By: JC
Date: April 16, 2012
Rev #: 01
File Name: Fig2.7.2.3-1_Study Area.srf

Effects Assessment Methodology for Acoustic Environment

The effects assessment methods for the acoustic environment will be the same as those used in the
March 2009 EIS/Application. The methods used to evaluate the noise effects were described fully in
Section 3.2.2 of Volume 4 in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Project activities and physical works for Prosperity that were included as noise emission sources in the
March 2009 EIS/Application are represented in Table 2.7.2.3-4. The applicable activity has the potential
to increase ambient sound levels are indicated with a checked mark.
Table 2.7.2.3-4 Summary of Project Activities and Physical Works Assessed included as Noise
Emission Sources in the Prosperity EA
Project Phase
Open pit   -
Non-PAG waste stockpile   
PAG stockpile   -
Overburden stockpile   
Primary crusher   -
Overland conveyor   -
Access road  - 
Camp construction  - -
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing)  - -
Soils handling and stockpiling  - -
Plant site and other facilities   
Starter dam construction  - -
Transmission line   
Vehicular traffic   
Ore stockpile management and processing -  -
Concentrate load-out facility near Macalister -  -
Concentrate transport and handling -  -
Reclamation of ore stockpile area - - 
Tailing impoundment reclamation - - 
NOTE:
“” indicates that the applicable activity has the potential to increase ambient sound levels
“-“ indicates not applicable
The changes in the New Prosperity project activities and physical works relative to the Prosperity project
are limited primarily to location of works. With respect to those that were included as noise sources in the
March 2009 EIS/Application, the effects of those changes are presented in Table 2.7.2.3-5. The changes
correspond with the information provided in Table 2.7.2.3-1. The grey-out area indicates activities and
physical works that are still represented in the acoustic assessment but remain unchanged when

compared to the March 2009 EIS/Application. The changes summarized in Table 2.7.2.3-5 are mainly
associated locations of the stockpiles and the new tailing locations. The new stockpile locations result in a
longer haul distance (2-3 km per trip). On the other hand, the decrease in project footprint results in the
reduction of land clearing area.
Table 2.7.2.3-5 Summary of Project Activities and Physical Works Changes as a Result of the
Project Phase
Project Activities with Noise Emission Sources
Open pit no change no change -
Non-PAG waste stockpile new location new location new location
PAG stockpile new location new location -
Overburden stockpile new location new location new location
Primary crusher no change no change -
Overland conveyor no change no change -
Access road no change - no change
Camp construction no change - -
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) reduced area - -
Soils handling and stockpiling new location - -
Plant site and other facilities no change no change no change
Starter dam construction new location - -
Transmission line no change no change no change
Vehicular traffic new volume new volume new volume
Ore stockpile management and processing - no change -
Concentrate transport and handling - no change -
Concentrate load-out facility near Macalister - no change -
Reclamation of ore stockpile area
- - new location
Tailing impoundment reclamation

- - new location
NOTE:
“-“ indicates not applicable
Change in Acoustic Environment Baseline Conditions

Data sources and fieldwork used for characterizing the acoustic environment baseline conditions have not
changed or been updated since the March 2009 EIS/Application. The baseline conditions or existing
acoustic environment for such remote rural areas is expected to be quiet and dominated by sounds of
nature (e.g., wind noise, vegetation rustling, bird chirping, etc.). The location of the mine site is remote
and the existing night-time acoustic environment (i.e. ambient conditions) is expected to be similar to the

average night-time ambient sound level for remote rural area established by the OGC Noise Control Best
Practices Guideline. An average daytime and night time ambient sound level of 45 dBA Leq(15) and 35
dBA Leq(9) respectively has been used for this study. The assumed baseline noise levels are average
sound levels that do not represent the seasonal and daily meteorological fluctuations. At locations along
or within Fish Lake, baseline levels will fluctuate with the influence of seasonal and daily meteorological
conditions. The baseline noise level at a lake shore on a calm winter day (frozen lake) will be quieter than
a summer windy day along the lake shore or on the lake (i.e. water waves).
Project Effects to the Acoustic Environment

The section addresses the residual effects of the Project during the three main development phases as a
result of the changed project activities and physical works identified in Tables 2.7.2.3-3 and 2.7.2.3-5. The
spatial boundary changes necessitate a re-analysis of these results consistent with the changes. In all
three phases, the assessment assumes that the mitigation and noise management measures have been
implemented.
Table 2.7.2.3-5 indicates change in vehicular traffic for the New Prosperity Project. The volume change is
not quantifiable at this point; however, the change is expected to be marginal and it is assumed that the
residual effects due to vehicular traffic will not change from the results presented in Section 3.4.2 of the
Magnitude was classified below based on the OGC guideline and the addition of Health Canada impact
indicator criteria. The noise limits are consistence with the ERCB Directive 038, which the classification in
the March 2009 EIS/Application was based on.
 An impact is considered low if noise effect is detectable but is within normal variability of ambient
conditions. For this criterion to hold during normal operations, the predicted noise level at 1.5 km from
the PDA must be less than or equal to 35 dBA Leq(9) during nighttime and 45 dBA Leq(15) during
daytime. The predicted %HA change at Fish Lake must be less than 6.5%.
 An impact is considered moderate if noise effect would cause an increase with regard to ambient
conditions but is within regulatory limits and objective. For the criterion to hold during normal
operations, the predicted noise level at 1.5 km from the PDA must be greater than 35 dBA Leq(9) but
less than or equal to 40 dBA Leq(9) during nighttime; and must be greater than 45 dBA Leq(15) but
less than or equal to 50 dBA Leq(15) during daytime. The predicted %HA change at Fish Lake must
be less than 6.5%.
 An impact is considered high if noise effect would result in an increase above regulatory limits. For
this criterion to hold during normal operations, the predicted noise level at 1.5 km from the PDA must
be greater than 40 dBA Leq(9) and 50 dBA Leq(15) during nighttime and daytime periods, respectively;
or the predicted %HA changes at Fish Lake is equal to or greater than 6.5%.
Construction Noise
Noise emission information associated with the construction phase of the Project is presented in Table 3-
5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application. Location of the changed project activities identified in Table 2.7.2.3-
5 has been revised in the acoustic model. Construction noise levels at a distance of 1.5 km from the PDA
(OGC 1.5 km boundary) were predicted. Figure 2.7.2.3-2 shows the predicted noise contour maps
resulting from construction phase activities during daytime period. The highest predicted sound level at a

distance of 1.5 km from the boundaries of the PDA is 47 dBA Leq(15) Day as compared to 45 dBA
predicted in the March 2009 EIS Application. However, there are no sensitive human dwelling locations
within the local study area.
The highest predicted sound level around Fish Lake is located in the northern tip of the lake. The
predicted level is 57 dBA Ld (16) Day. The construction noise annoyance indicator for the Fish Lake is
shown in the following table:
Table 2.7.2.3-6 Construction Noise Annoyance Indicators
Baseline Noise Predicted Cumulative Noise Baseline Project Amount HCII

Level Noise Level HA HA of
Level Change
Ld [dBA] Ln [dBA] Ld [dBA] Ld [dBA] Ln [dBA] [%] [%] [%] [dBA]
45 35 57 57 40 1.3 4.5 3.3 56
The HA change due to the construction activities is below the Health Canada target of 6.5% and the HCII
level of 56 dBA is below 75 dBA.
The duration of construction noise effects is medium term. The direction is adverse and the magnitude of
effect is moderate. The effect is reversible and is expected to cease immediately after construction.

448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
5710000
5710000
5708000
5708000
30
5706000
5706000
5704000
5704000
5702000
5702000
5700000
5700000
5698000
5698000
>55
5696000
5696000
5694000
5694000
5692000
5692000
5690000
5690000
5688000
5688000
448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
LEGEND

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Reginal Study Area
Noise Contour in dBA Metres
Map Prepared By
Data Sources:
Construction Noise Contour - Daytime
Produced By: LW
Verified By: JC
Rev #: 01
File Name: Fig2.7.2.3-2_Construction Daytime.srf

Project Operations Noise

Noise emission information associated with the operation phase of the Project is presented in Table 3-6
of the March 2009 EIS/Application. For a conservative estimate of the maximum disturbance during
normal operation, all applicable night-time sound sources were assumed to be operating simultaneously
and at peak power throughout the night-time periods. Similarly, all applicable daytime sound sources
were assumed to be operating simultaneously and at peak power throughout the daytime periods. Figure
2.7.2.3-3 and Figure 2.7.2.3-4 show the predicted noise contour maps resulting from normal Project
operations during daytime and night-time periods, respectively.
Table 2.7.2.3-6 summarizes the predicted sound level at 1.5 km from the PDA during daytime and night-
time periods. The predicted sound level during daytime is higher than night-time level because more
equipment will be operating at daytime than night-time as illustrated in Table 3-6 of the March 2009
EIS/Application. The results indicate that the maximum predicted sound level at 1.5 km from the
boundaries of the PDA is 42 dBA, 2 dB above the night-time PSLs during Project operations. However,
there is no receptor located within the LSA or along this 1.5 km boundary.
Table 2.7.2.3-7 Predicted Highest Sound Level along OSC 1.5 km criteria boundary during
Operations
Prosperity New Prosperity Permissible Sound Level

Meeting
Prediction a Prediction (PSL)
PSL
dBA Leq dBA Leq dBA Leq(15)
Daytime 43 45 50 Yes
Night time 38 42 40 No
NOTE:
a
March 2009 EIS/Application

448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
5710000
5710000
5708000
5708000
5706000
5706000
30
5704000
5704000
5702000
5702000
5700000
5700000
5698000
5698000
5696000
5696000
5694000
5694000
5692000
5692000
5690000
5690000
5688000
5688000
448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
LEGEND

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Reginal Study Area
Map Prepared By
Data Sources:
Operation Noise Contour - Daytime
Produced By: LW
Verified By: JC
Rev #: 01
File Name: Fig2.7.2.3-3_Operation Daytime.srf

448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
5710000
5710000
5708000
5708000
5706000
5706000
30
5704000
5704000
5702000
5702000
5700000
5700000
5698000
5698000
5696000
5696000
5694000
5694000
5692000
5692000
5690000
5690000
5688000
5688000
448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
LEGEND

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Reginal Study Area
Map Prepared By
Data Sources:
Operation Noise Contour - Nighttime
Produced By: LW
Verified By: JC
Rev #: 01
File Name: Fig2.7.2.3-4_Operation Nighttime.srf

The highest predicted sound level around Fish Lake is located in the northern tip of the lake.` The
predicted level is 56 dBA Ld (16) Day. The nighttime predict level is not applied here since Fish Lake as a
passive recreation area receptor is assume to be occupied during the daytime period only. The operation
noise annoyance indicator for the Fish Lake is shown in the following table:
Table 2.7.2.3-8 Operation Noise Annoyance Indicators
Baseline Noise Predicted Cumulative Noise Baseline Project Amount HCII2

Level Noise Level HA1 HA1 of
Level Change
45 35 56 56 40 1.3 4.1 2.8 55
The HA change due to the operation activities is below the Health Canada target of 6.5% and the HCII
level of 56 dBA is below 75 dBA.
The magnitude of effect is high, the direction is adverse. The duration of project operation noise effects is
long term and the effect is reversible and so is expected to cease immediately after the operation phase
of the Project site.
Closure Noise
Noise generating activities associated with the closure of the Project are expected to be of limited
duration, restricted to daytime hours and ending as the mine site and ancillary facilities are reclaimed.
Noise generating activities associated with closure of the mine site itself are anticipated to last
approximately 180 days. The typical noise outputs of machinery that will be used for Project closure are
listed in Table 3-8 of the March 2009 EIS/Application. In the table, equipment noise levels and the
anticipated number of daytime operating hours is presented.
Figure 2.7.2.3-5 shows the predicted noise contour maps resulting from closure phase activities during
daytime period. The highest predicted sound level resulting from closure related activities at a distance of
1.5 km from the PDA is 43 dBA Leq(15) during daytime as compared to 41 dBA predicted in the March
The highest predicted sound level around Fish Lake is located in the northern tip of the lake. The
predicted level is 53 dBA Ld (16) Day. The nighttime predict level is not applied here since Fish Lake as a
passive recreation area receptor is assume to be occupied during the daytime period only. The closure
noise annoyance indicator for the Fish Lake is shown in the following table:

Table 2.7.2.3-9 Closure Noise Annoyance Indicators
Baseline Noise Predicted Cumulative Noise Baseline Project Amount HCII2

Level Noise Level HA1 HA1 of
Level Change
45 35 53 53 40 0.7 2.7 2.0 52
The HA change due to the closure activities is below the Health Canada target of 6.5% and the HCII level
of 52 dBA is below 75 dBA.
However, there are no sensitive human dwelling locations within the local study area. The magnitude of
effect is low, the direction is adverse. The duration of closure noise effects is medium term and the effect
is reversible and so is expected to cease immediately after reclamation of the Project site.

448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
5710000
5710000
5708000
5708000
5706000
5706000
30
5704000
5704000
5702000
5702000
5700000
5700000
5698000
5698000
5696000
5696000
5694000
5694000
5692000
5692000
5690000
5690000
5688000
5688000
448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 464000 466000 468000 470000
LEGEND

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Reginal Study Area
Map Prepared By
Data Sources:
Closure Noise Contour - Daytime
Produced By: LW
Verified By: JC
Rev #: 01
File Name: Fig2.7.2.3-5_Closure Nighttime.srf

Blasting Noise
There is no change in residual effects due to blasting noise as presented in Section 3.4.3 of the March
Acoustic Environment Mitigation Measures

A number of Project design features and mitigation measures will be used to minimize Project effects on
the acoustic environment during various activities associated with the Project. There are no changes
required to previously proposed mitigation measures were presented in Section 3.3 of the March 2009
EIS/Application. They will be employed to address effects associated with increases to ambient sound
levels during Project construction, operations and closure.
A wide variety of methods for mitigating potential acoustic environmental effects have been proposed for
project-related activities. There are no compensation measures associated with the acoustic environment.
The mitigation and management measures for the construction and closure phases are:
 Schedule construction activities during daytime hours where practical
 Maintain equipment and provide effective mufflers on construction equipment, and
 Turn equipment off when not in use where practical.
The mitigation and management measures for the operational phase are:
 Most noise generating equipment will be housed inside buildings with insulation and metal cladding
for improved noise suppression
 Conveyors will be enclosed
 Appropriate mufflers will be installed on mining equipment, and
 Speed Limits will be enforced.

 The Project results in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual environmental

 The Project-specific residual environmental effect does, or is likely to, act in a cumulative fashion with

The Project inclusion list (Table 2.7.1.4-1) identifies past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects
activities are new since 2009.
At this time, there are no existing or planned industrial facilities within the RSA. As a result, there is a low
likelihood of overlap of noise effects with similar environmental effects from other existing or planned
developments in the area. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected during Project operations given
known past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities in the region.
Determination of Significance of Residual Effects

described in Section 2.7.1.5.
The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for ambient sound levels for New Prosperity are

Table 2.7.2.3-10 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Ambient Sound Levels for New Prosperity
Significance of
Reversibility
Geographic
Frequency
Magnitude
Direction
Residual
Duration
Effects
Extent
Activity Effect
Construction
 Operation of construction
equipment
 Temporary and permanent access
Increase in
road development
ambient sound Adverse Moderate Local Sporadic Medium-term Reversible Not Significant
 Construction of Project
levels
infrastructure and facilities
 Pit and mine site development,
overburden removal and waste
rock stock piling
Operation Increase in
Ore extraction, crushing, transport ambient sound Adverse High Local Continuous Long-term Reversible Not Significant
conveyor systems, and processing levels
Closure
 Operation of construction Increase in
equipment for mine closure ambient sound Adverse Low Local Sporadic Medium-term Reversible Not Significant
 Removal of Project infrastructure levels
and facilities

Mitigation and noise management measures such as those described in details in Section 3.3 of the
March 2009 EIS/Application will considerably minimize the environmental effects of noise during
construction, operation and closure. Given the Project design and noise mitigation measures described in
Section 3.3 of the March 2009 EIS/Application, as well as the absence of human dwelling within the LSA
and along the proposed access road, the overall residual effects of the construction, operation, and
closure phases on noise are predicted to be not significant. Traffic noise associated with Project-related
vehicle traffic will not result in substantive changes in existing acoustic environment along Highway 20 the
Taseko Lake and 4500 Roads.
Overall prediction accuracy depends on two factors: the accuracy of the acoustical source data and the
accuracy of the sound propagation model. The sound level data used in this assessment were based on
the Project design-basis sound level data from the engineering team. The ISO 9613 propagation
algorithms have a published accuracy of +/-3 dBA over source receiver distances between 100 and 1000
m. A similar degree of accuracy would be expected over the distances considered in this assessment.
This is considered an excellent degree of accuracy for an environmental noise model over such a large
distance. A 3 dBA increase or decrease in sound pressure levels (SPLs) would be imperceptible to
humans.
Additionally, the ISO 9613 model produces results representative of conservative meteorological
conditions favouring sound propagation (e.g., downwind and temperature inversion conditions). These
meteorological conditions have been described in detail in Section 3.2.3.2 and includes downwind and
temperature inverse conditions. The temperature (10°C) and relative humidity (70%) values were
conservatively selected as per ISO 9613 publication (ISO, 1993) because these two conditions minimize
atmospheric absorption of sound energy thereby enhancing sound propagation. As these conditions do
not occur all the time, the model predictions are conservative, and actual sound levels during other
climate conditions are expected to be less than indicated for much of the time. Based on these factors,
confidence is high that the model has not under-predicted noise levels.
Table 2.7.2.3-11 provides a concise summary of the effects assessment for the acoustic environment.
Given the Project design and noise mitigation measures described in Section 3.3 of the March 2009
EIS/Application, as well as the absence of human dwelling within the LSA and along the proposed access
road, the overall residual effects of the Project are predicted to be not significant.

Table 2.7.2.3-11 Summary of Effects Assessment for Acoustic Environment
Effects Assessment Concise Summary

The New Prosperity Project has reduced the spatial boundary. The beneficial and adverse effects
Beneficial and Adverse Effects
remain the same as predicted in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
A wide variety of methods for mitigating potential acoustic environmental effects have been proposed
for project-related activities. There is no compensation measures associated with the acoustic
environment. The mitigation and management measures for the construction and closure phases are:
 Schedule construction activities during daytime hours where practical
 Maintain equipment and provide effective mufflers on construction equipment
Mitigation and Compensation  Turn equipment off when not in use where practical
Measures The mitigation and management measures for the operational phase are:
 Most noise generating equipment will be housed inside buildings with insulation and metal cladding for
improved noise suppression
 Conveyors will be enclosed
 Appropriate mufflers will be installed on mining equipment
 Speed Limits will be enforced
Residual effects on the acoustic environment are predicted. See Table 2.7.2.3-6 for a full summary of
project residual effects. In summary, the potential residual effect has been predicted for all three
phases of the Project are listed as follows:
 Direction: Adverse
Potential Residual Effects  Magnitude: Moderate for construction phase / High for operational phase / Low for closure phase
 Frequency: Sporadic for construction and closure phase / Continuous for operation phase
 Duration: Medium-term for construction and closure phase / Long-term for operation phase
 Geographic Extent: Regional
 Reversibility: Reversible
The cumulative effects predicted in the 2009 assessment for the acoustic environment are low for the
Cumulative Effects construction, operation, and closure phase of the Project. The same cumulative effects are expected
to apply to the New Prosperity Project.
Determination of the significance of The combined residual environmental effects of the Project on the acoustic environment are predicted
residual effects to be not significant. This assessment is predicated on the implementation of proposed mitigation.
As no significant residual effects are predicted, there is no likelihood of occurrence. There is the
Likelihood of occurrence for adverse
possibility that the prediction of significant adverse effects is incorrect, whereby an adverse effect
Effects found to be significant
deemed to be not significant may have an adverse effect. The likelihood of this remains low.

Additional Work
No additional work is planned or anticipated. Short or long-term noise monitoring can be conducted at the
northern shore of Fish Lake to quantify the baseline and Project noise level if deemed necessary.

New Prosperity is committed to managing noise issues and to promptly respond to any noise complaint.
No follow up monitoring is planned or anticipated.

2.7.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity
A. HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

This section examines potential effects of the proposed Project on surface and groundwater quantity and
quality within the Project area. The aquatic components described in this section are impacted by, and
include:
x Water Management and the Operational Water Balance
x Effects on:
o Surface Water Quantity
o Surface Water Quality
o Groundwater Quantity, and
o Groundwater Quality.
Scope of Assessment
The scope of the assessment is only for changes relative to the Prosperity Project based on the New
Prosperity Mine Development Plan, the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines, or regulatory changes since the
The Project activities and Physical Works for New Prosperity are presented in Table 2.7.2.4A-1. This
table shows whether each activity or physical work has changed from the original Prosperity submission.
Project activities or physical works identified with a “Y” will be carried forward for assessment of the
changes to effects on hydrology and hydrogeology. Project activities or physical works identified with an
“N” are not carried forward in this hydrology and hydrogeology assessment, and have been greyed out. It
should be noted that changes to hydrology and hydrogeology are quantified only, and no significance
determination is made on these changes specifically. The rational for this approach related to these VECs
is as follows:
x Change to Hydrology – flow reductions (or increases) primarily affect Water Quality, Aquatic Ecology
and Fish/Fish Habitat. As such, the changes are quantified and then utilized by these related VECs in
assessing their potential effects.
x Change in Hydrogeology – flow changes are directly linked to hydrology changes, and the net change
to the hydrological regime is quantified and used as an input to the effects assessment for other
VECs (Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology, etc.). Changes to groundwater quality are quantified, and
are used as inputs to the changes in surface water quality. Hence, a significance determination is
done on the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology VECs, based on the groundwater quality change
input.

Table 2.7.2.4A-1 Project Components, Features and Activities Changed from Previous Project
Proposal
Project Work (Elements, Change from

Components, Features) Previous Project Comments
/ Activities Proposal (Y/N)
Open Pit – Pre-production N
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y Location and timing only
Still subaqueous in TSF, just TSF location

PAG Stockpile Y
change
Combined with Non-PAG (i.e. location and
Non-PAG Overburden Stockpile Y
timing)
Ore Stockpile Y Location only
This is considered in ‘Plant Site and other

Primary Crusher N
facilities’
Overland conveyor N
facilities’
Fisheries compensation works
Y Scope and Timing
construction
Water Management Controls and
Y
Operation
Construction sediment control Y
Access road construction and
N
upgrades
Camp construction N
facilities’
Different areas related to moving of TSF,
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) Y
stockpiles, etc…
Soils handling and stockpiling Y Includes overburden removal
Plant Site and other facilities N
Explosives Plant Y Location only
Lake dewatering Y Fish Lake retained
Fish Lake Water Management Y Management of inflows and outflows

Starter dam construction Y Location and volume of material


Sourcing water supplies (potable, Fresh water sources and routing only as a
Y
process and fresh) result of reconfigured stockpiles
Site waste management N
Clearing of transmission line ROW N
Construction/Installation of
N
transmission line
Additional haulage trucks and 2km of
Vehicular traffic Y added haulage road as a result of TSF
relocation.
Concentrate load-out facility near

N
Macalister (upgrades to site)
Operations
Pit production N
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) Y Area and relocation of TSF and stockpiles
Area, volume, and relocation of TSF and
Soils handling and stockpiling Y
stockpiles; revised soil stockpile locations
Crushing and conveyance N
Ore processing and dewatering N
Explosive handling & storage Y Location only

Tailing storage Y Location and embankments changed
PAG Stockpile Y
change
Overburden Stockpile Y
timing)
Ore Stockpile management and
Y Location only
processing
Potable and non-potable water use N
Site drainage and seepage Revised locations of TSF, stockpiles, waste

Y
management rock storage and retaining Fish Lake
Water Management Controls and Includes management of flows in and out

Y
Operation of Fish Lake
Wastewater treatment and discharge

N
(sewage, site water)


Water release contingencies for

N
extended shutdowns (treatment)
Solid waste management N

Maintenance and repairs N
Concentrate transport and handling N

Vehicle traffic Y added haulage road as a result of TSF
relocation.
Transmission line (includes
N
maintenance)
Pit dewatering N
Fisheries Compensation works
Y Scope and Timing
operations
N
Macalister
Closure
Water Management Controls and Revised location of TSF and waste rock
Y
Operation storage
Fisheries Compensation operations Y Scope and Timing
Site drainage and seepage Revised location of TSF and waste rock
Y
management storage
Reclamation of ore stockpile area Y Location only
Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock

Y Location only
stockpile
Tailings impoundment reclamation Y Location only
Revised location and management of

Pit lake, and TSF Lake filling Y
inflow/outflows in order to retain Fish Lake
Plant and associated facility removal
N
and reclamation
Road decommissioning N
Transmission line decommissioning N
Post-closure
Discharge of tailings storage facility Change in location of TSF and of
Y
water inflow/outflow to maintain Fish Lake


Discharge of pit lake water N Into Lower Fish Creek

Change in location of TSF and of
Seepage management and discharge Y
inflow/outflow to maintain Fish Lake
Change in location of TSF and of
Ongoing monitoring of reclamation Y
inflow/outflow to maintain Fish Lake
WATER MANAGEMENT
Project development occurs in discrete stages: construction, operations, closure, and post-closure. Each
stage has its own unique water management objectives and requirements. These are discussed in the
following sections. For the purposes of the water management plan presented here and the modelling of
water quality predictions in the closure phase, the closure period has been broken into two phases;
Closure Phase I and Closure Phase II. Closure Phase I starts with the cessation of tailings deposition in
the TSF and ends when water quality in the TSF is suitable for discharge to the inlets to Fish Lake. For
the purposes stated above the duration of this period has been assumed to be 10 years. Closure Phase II
starts with the discharge of the TSF to the inlets to Fish Lake and ends when the pit fills and discharges
to lower Fish Creek. Again, for the purposes stated above this period has been assumed to last 17 years,
based on the current pit filling model predictions. It should be clear to the reader from the project
description and this water management discussion that the project as proposed contains all of the water
management infrastructure to accommodate a transition from Closure Phase I to Closure Phase II at any
time, dependant on suitability of TSF water quality for discharge to the inlets to Fish Lake.
The water management plan has been broken down by time period to describe the water management
strategies and design elements during construction, operation, closure and post-closure for the New
Prosperity project. The activities for each time period include:
x Construction (Years -2 to -1):

o Construction activities will commence 2 years prior to mill start up and will include construction of
site access roads, the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) starter embankment, the plant site and
construction camp.
o The Starter Embankment will result in a reduction of Fish Creek Lake inflow catchment area of up
to 30 km2, which equates to less than 50% of the Fish Lake Drainage (68 km2), as shown on
Figure 2.7.2.4A-1.
o The Open Pit (OP) footprint will be stripped, and dewatering wells commence operation.
o Non-PAG waste rock will be used to construct the embankment, PAG waste rock will be stored in
the TSF storage basin, and the ore mined from the pit will be stored adjacent to the pit, in the ore
stockpile.
o The TSF is assumed to begin storing water 1 year prior to mill start up.
o Fish Lake outflow will be recirculated to the inlets of Fish Lake beginning in Year -1, in order to
support inlet spawning, with excess water being pumped to the TSF start-up pond.

x Operations (Years 1-16) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-2 to Figure 2.7.2.4A-4):

o TSF East (above road/diversion ditch) and TSF South catchments are diverted and pumped
around to Fish Lake inlets as required.
o TSF East (below road/diversion ditch) catchment contributes to the TSF pond – undiverted.
o Fish Lake outflow recirculation pumping to Fish Lake inlets continues.
o Excess Fish Lake outflow not required for supplemental flow to Fish Lake inlets is pumped to
TSF.
o OP dewatering sent to mill for use in ore processing.
o All TSF embankment seepage ponds pumped back to TSF.
o Groundwater depressurization wells and seepage recovery wells, located downstream of Main
Embankment seepage ponds will capture 60% of the lost seepage, and this water will be pumped
back to Main Embankment seepage ponds.
x Operations (Years 17-20) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-5):

o OP dewatering ceases and all mill process water is sourced from the TSF pond.
o Fish Lake outflow will continue to be recirculated by pumping it to the Fish Lake inlets.
o Excess Fish Lake outflow that is not required for the supplemental flow to the Fish Lake inlets is
directed to the OP.
o All TSF embankment seepage pond water continues to be pumped back to the TSF.
o Any overflow from the TSF is directed to the OP.
o Groundwater quality monitoring continues and any water from groundwater depressurization
wells and seepage recovery wells are pumped back to the Main Embankment seepage ponds.

FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-1
x Closure Phase I (Years 21 – 30 for purpose of water quality modelling) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-6):
o The TSF pond will be pumped down to a minimum volume and sent to the OP in the first year of
closure. The TSF pond will then fill naturally until it reaches the closure spillway elevation.
o The non-contact water from the TSF East and South catchments will continue to be diverted and
pumped around to Fish Lake inlets as required. Excess catchment flow will be sent to Wasp
Lake.
o Contact water from the TSF East catchment (below road/diversion ditch) will report to the TSF
pond.
directed to the OP.
o Any overflow from the TSF is directed to the OP.
o Pump back to the TSF from all embankment seepage ponds ceases. The Main Embankment
seepage pond water will be directed to the OP. The West Embankment seepage pond water will
be directed to Big Onion Lake. The South Embankment seepage pond water will be directed to
Wasp Lake.
o Water encountered in the groundwater depressurization and seepage recovery wells located
downstream of the Main Embankment will be pumped back to the Main Embankment seepage
ponds.
x Closure Phase II (Years 31 – 47 for purpose of water quality modelling) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-7):
o All of the water from the catchment east of the TSF will report to the TSF pond.
o The water from the catchment south of the TSF will report to Wasp Lake.
directed to the OP.
o The TSF overflow is routed to Fish Lake via the Fish Lake inlets.
o Any water from the groundwater depressurization and seepage recovery wells is pumped back to
the Main Embankment seepage ponds.
x Post-closure (Years 48 and onwards) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-8):

o Water starts to discharge from the OP to Lower Fish Creek.
o The TSF overflow is routed to Fish Lake via the Fish Lake inlets.
Excess Fish Lake outflow that is not required for the supplemental flow to the Fish Lake inlets is
directed to the OP.

FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-2
FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-3
FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-4
FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-5
FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-6
FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-7
FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-8
Numerous design elements were included to achieve the objectives of the site wide water management
plan. These design elements are identified and briefly described below:
x Cofferdams and pumping systems.
x Sediment and erosion control elements and “Industry Standard Practices”.

o Diversion ditches
o Runoff collection ditches
o Sediment control ponds
o Surface roughening
o Temporary seeding
o Sediment traps and sediment basins, and
o Mulching.
x Seepage collection (including groundwater monitoring and seepage interception wells) and recycle
ponds.
x Vertical depressurization wells around the Open Pit.

Details of the design basis for the key water management structures are included in KP report ‘New
Prosperity Gold-Copper Project – Water Management Plan, provided in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-B.
OPERATIONAL WATER BALANCE

General
An operational water balance was completed to aid in water management, estimate contingency
process/supernatant pond water requirements, and estimate when the TSF and Open Pit will begin to
overflow in closure and post-closure, respectively.
The water balance was completed in monthly time steps from January 1, 2012 (year -1) to January 1,
2112 (80 years following the end the mine life) using GoldSim®, a dynamic probabilistic simulation model
used extensively for mine site water management applications. GoldSim® permits inputs to be entered as
probability distributions (rather than discrete values), performs Monte Carlo simulations, tracks outputs
from those simulations and provides a graphic interface to facilitate the review and identification of
interactions between components. The water balance was based on the following assumptions and input
parameters:
x Hydrometeorological conditions
x Construction schedule
x Production schedule
x Water management plan
x Tailings, waste rock, and overburden properties
x Tailings consolidation
x Groundwater inflows
x Seepage, and

x Fisheries mitigation requirements.
The water balance was developed using the simplified schedule shown in Table 2.7.2.4A-2. The annual
production schedule was provided by Taseko and modified by KPL to provide monthly values of tailings,
waste rock, and overburden production. The production schedule is shown in Table 2.7.2.4A-3. A water
balance schematic was developed, based on the water management plan, and used as the framework for
the water balance model. The water balance schematic for operations is shown on Figure 2.7.2.4A-9.
Details of the assumptions and input parameters are provided below.
Table 2.7.2.4A-2 Water Balance Project Schedule
Phase Mine Life (yrs.) Details
Start of construction: TSF begins to accumulate water; Fish Lake

Construction -1 (FL) outflows recirculated to FL inlet tributaries as required;
outflows not required for FL recirculation are pumped to TSF.
Mill start up. FL outflow continues to be recirculated as needed

and remainder of outflow pumped to TSF. Open pit (OP)
1 dewatering sent to mill for use in ore processing; remainder of
reclaim water sourced from TSF pond. All TSF recoverable
seepage is recycled to TSF.
Operations
OP mining ceases; Ore stockpile processed through mill. OP
17 dewatering ceases, pit filling commences. FL outflow not required
for recirculation allowed to overflow to OP.
20 Last year of operations

TSF pond overflow is directed to OP filling. TSF South and West
embankment seepage recycle ceases. Main embankment
Closure Phase I 21
seepage ponds pumped to OP. FL outflow recirculation pumping
continues as needed; excess overflow to OP.
FL outflow recirculation continues. TSF pond overflow is directed

31* to FL via main inlet channels. Main embankment seepage ponds
Closure Phase II continue to be pumped to the OP.
47 OP filling complete
OP spills to Lower Fish Creek. TSF overflow directed to FL via the

48
Post-closure main inlet channels. FL outflow recirculation continues.
100 End of model simulation
NOTE:
1. *Subject to meeting water quality discharge criteria for the TSF pond.

Table 2.7.2.4A-3 Production Schedule
ORE TAILINGS PAG WASTE Non-PAG WASTE
PIT ORE STOCKPILE TOTAL ORE TAILINGS

PAG PAG Non-PAG Non-PAG
YEAR PIT TO MILL to to to to
WASTE ROCK OVERBURDEN WASTE ROCK OVERBURDEN
ORE STOCKPILE MILL MILL TAILINGS STORAGE
FACILITY
Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes
-2 0 0 0 0 303,000 0 76,000 3,514,000
-1 0 1,372,000 0 0 2,025,000 235,000 1,199,000 9,562,000
1 9,135,000 4,480,000 356,000 9,491,000 9,396,090 4,434,000 287,000 4,899,000 11,273,000
2 25,560,000 7,006,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 7,147,000 1,694,000 8,759,000 8,014,000
3 25,560,000 9,046,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 13,197,000 1,918,000 8,831,000 6,030,000
4 25,560,000 7,027,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 21,007,000 275,000 7,595,000 3,319,000
5 25,560,000 9,180,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 17,026,000 1,164,000 13,774,000 1,823,000
6 25,560,000 9,641,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 11,962,000 3,572,000 16,733,000 6,038,000
7 25,560,000 5,161,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 22,265,000 2,499,000 11,405,000 7,375,000
8 25,560,000 4,348,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 32,830,000 91,000 8,353,000 3,104,000
9 25,560,000 3,371,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 35,153,000 0 6,977,000 22,000
10 25,560,000 4,037,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 29,791,000 0 5,768,000 0
11 25,560,000 10,267,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 17,256,000 0 3,320,000 0
12 25,560,000 6,770,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 6,854,000 0 1,713,000 0
13 25,560,000 5,028,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 2,486,000 0 1,015,000 0
14 25,560,000 697,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 971,000 0 729,000 0
15 25,560,000 0 25,560,000 25,304,400 655,000 0 668,000 0
16 25,560,000 0 25,560,000 25,304,400 191,000 0 115,000 0
17 6,822,000 0 18,738,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 25,560,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 25,560,000 25,560,000 25,304,400 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 17,218,000 17,218,000 17,045,820 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 399,357,000 87,431,000 87,432,000 486,789,000 481,921,110 225,553,000 11,735,000 101,929,000 60,074,000

M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Data\Task 500 - Water Management\Water Balance\[New Prosperity WBM schematic_FS report_1] Fig schematic Print 26/06/2012 12:28 PM
Number Description
1 Open Pit direct precipitation and catchment runoff
2 Open Pit dewatering direct to mill
3 Open Pit groundwater inflows
4 TSF reclaim water
5 TSF catchment and beach runoff; direct precipitation on pond
6 TSF pond evaporation
6 5 7 Water trapped in tailings and PAG waste rock void spaces
10 8 Unrecoverable TSF seepage to Fish Lake inlets and/or Fish Lake
9 Tailings consolidation seepage
10 Water in slurry
11 Freshwater make-up
TAILINGS STORAGE 12 Fish Lake direct precipitation and catchment runoff
FACILITY
9 13 Fish Lake evaporation
14 Fish Lake outflow (potential recirculation to Fish Lake inlets
or TSF as required)
18 24 7 22 15 Fish Lake seepage to Open Pit
11 16 NAG waste rock storage area runoff
MILL 8 23 17 Unrecoverable NAG waste rock seepage
18 NAG waste rock direct precipitation
NAG WASTE 16 4 19 Unrecoverable ore stockpile seepage
ROCK AREA
20 Ore stockpile direct precipitation
21 Ore stockpile runoff
22 Recoverable TSF seepage in seepage ponds - recycled to TSF
17 20 23 Recoverable TSF seepage in groundwater
pumping wells - recycled to TSF via seepage ponds
13 12 24 Unrecoverable TSF seepage to Wasp Lake/Big Onion Lake
ORE 21
STOCKPILE
NOTES:
FISH LAKE 1. WATER BALANCE SCHEMATIC IS NOT DRAWN TO SCALE.
19 2. NAG = NON-ACID GENERATING
COLLECTION POND 15
1
14
17
OPEN PIT
3
TASEKO MINES LIMITED.
NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY

WATER BALANCE SCHEMATIC
DURING OPERATIONS
P/A NO. REF NO.

VA101-266/27 2
0 26JUN'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT ER GLS KJB
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D

FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-9 REV
0
Water Balance Assumptions and Input Parameters

Hydrometeorological Inputs
The base case mine site water balance model was developed using average estimated values for
precipitation and runoff, as presented in Table 2.7.2.4A-4.
The mean annual precipitation for the project site was assumed to be 445 mm for the lower areas in Fish
Creek (i.e. open pit, non-PAG pile, plant site , low grade ore stockpile and Fish Lake) and 527 mm for
upper reaches of the catchment (i.e. TSF area). The mean annual evaporation for the Project site was
estimated to be 471 mm at elevation 1450 m and the equivalent value at 1600 m corresponds to 452 mm.
Details of the determination of the average climatic conditions can be found in KP Hydrometeorology
Report (Appendix 4-4-D in the March 2009 EIS/Application). As a means of validation, the results of the
baseline watershed model developed for the Fish Creek catchment were compared to the above
estimates of annual precipitation and lake evaporation values. The baseline watershed model predicts a
mean annual precipitation value for elevation 1450 m ranging from 423 mm to 464 mm (Appendix
2.6.1.4B-A) and for elevation 1600 m, ranging from 465 mm to 510 mm. For mean annual potential
evapotranspiration (lake evaporation), the baseline watershed model predicts values of 470 mm and 442
mm, for elevations 1450 m and 1600 m, respectively. Hence, the predicted baseline watershed model
results are consistent with the regionally derived estimates presented in Appendix 4-4-D in the March
2009 EIS/Application. Therefore the values summarized in Table 2.7.2.4A-4 were assumed to be
representative of the project site climate conditions.
The derivation of the average monthly values for the Project site were based on the baseline watershed
model as described in Section 2.6.1.4A and Appendix 2.6.1.4B-A. According to the watershed model
results, the baseline mean annual unit runoff for the Fish Creek basin ranges from 3.44 L/s/km2 to 3.95
L/s/km2 (109 mm to 125 mm). The majority of the natural catchment area included in the water balance
model is located around Fish Lake, therefore the representative mean annual surface water runoff for this
catchment was assumed to be 120 mm for undisturbed areas within the water balance model. The
groundwater inputs to Fish Lake were based on the results of groundwater modelling completed by BGC
(Appendix 2.7.2.4A) as described later in this section.
Natural runoff values are not particularly applicable for mine disturbed areas because of the substantial
changes in runoff caused by altering the ground cover. Furthermore, they are also not particularly
applicable for modelling net inflows to water bodies resulting from direct precipitation and evaporation.
Most notably, natural runoff generally does not occur in the later summer periods of August and
September because soil moisture is low and evapotranspiration generally exceeds rainfall. However, in
disturbed areas where evapotranspiration is generally much lower, some runoff may occur, while for
water bodies there is a net loss due to evaporation exceeding rainfall. Therefore, for disturbed areas and
water bodies, the runoff was estimated on the basis of rainfall and snowmelt estimates, which were
correlated with the natural runoff estimates to ensure consistency. The disturbed area runoff estimates
were generated by applying appropriate runoff coefficients to rainfall/snowmelt values, while the water
body inflows were determined by subtracting evaporation from the rainfall/snowmelt values. All natural
catchments, i.e. undisturbed catchment contributing to Fish Lake, were modelled using the long-term
mean annual unit runoff of 120 mm.

Stochastic Inputs
The potential variability of surface water runoff was addressed by using a stochastic version of the water
balance model, which involved Monte Carlo type simulation techniques and the modelling of monthly
runoff parameters as probability distributions, rather than simply as mean values. The year-to-year
variability of monthly runoff was quantified using coefficient of variation (Cv) values, which were derived
from regional datasets. Table 2.7.2.4A-4 lists the monthly Cv values for runoff, along with the monthly
mean and corresponding standard deviation values. The monthly mean and standard deviation values
were used to develop monthly probability distributions, as required for a Monte Carlo simulation. The
Monte Carlo simulations were run with 1,000 iterations, enabling nearly every conceivable combination of
wet, dry and average months and years of runoff to be considered, with corresponding varying monthly
runoff values. The TSF pond volume was tracked for each month of each year. Each iteration resulted in
distributions of possible results for each month in each year, from which probabilities of occurrence were
assessed.

Table 2.7.2.4A-4 Summary of Hydrometeorological Estimates for Water Balance Modelling
Month
Parameter Statistic Annual
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rainfall
Mean (mm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.1 65.8 68.5 60.6 36.8 21.2 0.0 0.0 295
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Snowfall
Mean (mm) 47.4 29.0 18.4 26.4 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 10.4 36.9 50.1 232
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Total Precipitation
Mean (mm) 47.4 29.0 18.4 26.4 50.1 65.8 68.5 60.6 42.3 31.6 36.9 50.1 527
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Rainfall and Snowmelt

Mean (mm) 0.0 0.0 11.0 111.9 142.9 74.2 68.5 60.6 36.8 21.2 0.0 0.0 527
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Mean (mm) 0.1 0.1 0.6 16.8 51.7 16.9 8.9 6.0 6.5 10.1 1.8 0.3 120
Natural Surface Water

Coefficient of
Unit Runoff 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 -
Variation
(Elevation 1,600 m)
StDev (mm) 0.0 0.0 0.5 10.2 35.2 18.3 7.2 4.2 3.0 2.4 0.4 0.2 -
Lake/Pond Evaporation
Mean (mm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.8 108.6 100.5 104.1 69.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 452
(Elevation 1,600 m)
NOTES:
1. Precipitation and pond evaporation values are from the KP Hydrometeorology Report (VA101-266/1-2 Rev B), dated December 3, 2007 (Appendix 4-4-D of the March 2009
EIS/Application).
2. Coefficient of variation = standard deviation/mean.
3. The lake/pond rainfall and snowmelt values reflect both rainfall and snowmelt patterns, and the combined annual total is equal to the annual precipitation.
4. The natural unit runoff values are based on the baseline watershed model, which was calibrated to the measured streamflow data within the fish creek catchment.
5. The monthly coefficient of variation values for the natural unit runoff are based on the maximum from WSC regional streamflow records at Big Creek above Groundhog, Big Creek
below Graveyard, Lingfield Creek and Groundhog Creek.

Hydrologic Inputs
The runoff coefficients used for various components of the mine site include:
x TSF Pond – 100%
x TSF beach – 70%
x NAG Waste Storage Area – 50%
x Exposed PAG Waste Storage Area – 90%
x Open Pit – 90%, and
x Plant Site – 75%.
Groundwater Flows
Groundwater flows in the Fish Creek basin, for baseline and post-development conditions, were based on
groundwater modelling completed by BGC. Detailed results of the groundwater models are described in
Appendix 2.7.2.4A-A. Groundwater flows used in the water balance model were applicable to the Open
pit and Fish Lake. The following are the relevant groundwater flow rates, broken down by facility and/or
area for the different project phases:
x Fish Lake basin (entering and leaving the lake):

o Baseline groundwater inflow = 4.8 L/s
o Operational groundwater inflow = 4.7 L/s (Year 1) to 4.5 L/s (Year 21)
o Closure/post-closure groundwater inflow = 4.5 L/s
o Baseline groundwater seepage from lake = 2.3 (10-4) L/s
o Operational groundwater seepage from lake = 3.4 (10-4) L/s (Year 1) to 0.08 L/s (Year 21), and
o Closure/post-closure groundwater seepage from lake = 0.08 L/s L/s (Year 21) to 0.0 L/s (Year
48).
x Open Pit area (entering and leaving):

o Baseline groundwater inflow = 0 L/s
o Operational groundwater inflow (includes dewatering wells) = 0 L/s (Year -2) to 33.6 L/s (Year 17)
o Closure/post-closure groundwater inflow to pit lake = 33.6 L/s (Year 17) to 10.4 L/s (Year 48), and
o Operational/closure/post-closure groundwater seepage from open pit = 0 L/s.
TSF Embankment Seepage

Seepage from the TSF embankments (Main, South and West embankments) was estimated using the
finite element computer program SEEP/W from GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. completed as part of the
preliminary engineering design for the project.
The total TSF embankment seepage is estimated to be 10 L/s at the end of Year 1 (January 2014) and
increases to 55 L/s at Year 20. The seepage rates are assumed to increase linearly from start-up to the
end of operations in Year 20. The total embankment seepage leaving through the Main and South
embankments combined was assumed to be 10 L/s at the end of Year 1 increasing to 52 L/s at the end of
Year 20. The remaining 3 L/s at the end of Year 20 is assumed to be leaving through the West

embankment. Of the total seepage through the North and South embankments, 54% is assumed to be
through the Main and the remaining 46% through the South.
For each embankment (Main, South and West), the total seepage captured and recycled during
operations and closure is as follows:
x 65% of seepage through the embankments is assumed recovered in depressurization wells in the
embankments and collected in the seepage collection ponds and pumped back to the TSF during
operations and Closure Phase I.
x Of the remaining 35% that bypasses the embankment depressurization wells, 50% of this seepage is
assumed to be captured by the downstream seepage collection ponds.
x Main embankment groundwater pumping wells:

o In order to minimize the amount of TSF seepage contributing to Fish Lake, groundwater pumping
wells will be installed downstream of the seepage collection ponds. The wells are assumed to
capture approximately 60% of the seepage that may bypass the seepage collection ponds. The
captured seepage will be pumped back to the Main embankment seepage pond(s) in the long
term.
A flow chart of the TSF embankment and basin seepage components at during operations (Year 17) is
presented in Figure 2.7.2.4A-10.

M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Data\Task 500 ‐ Water Management\Water Balance\Inputs\SeepageFlowChart_operations_June 13 2012TSFSeepageOperations 26/06/2012
SEEPAGE FLOW PATHWAYS AT END OF OPERATIONS
50%
TSF
WE Seepage Pond 50% 65%
(1.05 L/s)
35% Western Ridge North/South Basin Seepage

Embankment Embankment (15 L/s)
7% 2% 1% 90%
54% 46%
Main Embankment South Embankment

(28.1 L/s) (23.9 L/s)
65% 35% 65% 35%
ME Recoverable ME Unrecoverable SE Recoverable SE Unrecoverable

Seepage Seepage Seepage Seepage
(9.75 L/s)
100%
50%
50%
50%
100% Delayed 9 years 50%
100%
ME Pond 2 ME Pond 1 Total SE Seepage Lost
SE Pond (19.8 L/s)
(11.57 L/s) (11.57 L/s 50% (4.2 L/s)
+ 3.6 L/s)
50%
100% 100%
60%
Total ME Seepage
Groundwater
Lost (5.98 L/s)
pumping wells
40%
60% 40%
Wasp Lake
Upper Fish Creek (4.5 L/s)
Trib 1 (1.44 L/s)
(0.96 L/s)
Big Onion Lake

(0.68 L/s)
Fish Lake Deep groundwater

(2.40 L/s) source
TSF SEEPAGE FLOW CHART FOR END OF YEAR OPERATIONS (YEAR 17)
FIGURE 2.7.2.4A-10
TSF Basin Seepage

TSF Basin Seepage was estimated using the project scale 3D groundwater flow model developed in
MODFLOW for the environmental effects assessment. Model development and calibration are discussed
in greater detail in Hydrogeology and is presented in full in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C.
x TSF basin footprint (leaving the facility):

o Beginning of operations (Year 1) = 0 L/s
o Year 17 = 15 L/s
o Year 21 = 9 L/s, and
o The groundwater flow rates from 0 to 15 L/s were assumed to grow linearly until Year 17. After
this point, the rate was assumed to decrease to 9 L/s once the TSF is full and overflowing from
the closure spillway.
Fish Lake Inflow Requirements

Approximately 50% of the upstream contributing catchment to Fish Lake will be cut off due the
development of the TSF, reducing the baseline catchment area of Fish Lake from approximately 68 km2
to 30 km2 during operations. In order to preserve inlet spawning habitat in Fish Lake, as well as mitigate
for the loss of outlet spawning due the Open Pit development, outflow from Fish Lake will be recirculated
to the inlet channels of the lake, beginning in construction and continuing in post-closure. The combined
total annual flow requirement for the Fish Lake inlets is approximately 10.8 Mm3, with the monthly flow
rates estimated as follows:
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly flow
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.59 0.75 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
(m3/s)
These flow requirements were determined by Triton and additional discussion is provided in Section
2.7.2.4B.
Water Balance Results

Detailed monthly and annual results of the water balance model are presented in full in the KP Water
Management Report, included as Appendix 2.7.2.4A-B. A summary of the results for the operation and
closure phases are described below.
Operations
Model results were used to determine the likelihood of having a surplus and/or deficit of water in the TSF,
as illustrated on Figure 2.7.2.4A-11. The figure presents the range of possible cumulative pond volumes
available in the TSF over the life of the mine, as defined by the 95th percentile values (5% chance of being
equalled or exceeded in any year). This range of volumes can also be thought of as the required active,
or “live”, storage capacity of the TSF pond for a reasonably large range of anticipated climatic conditions.

It is evident from these results that the 95th percentile monthly wet pond volumes are about twice as large
as the 95th percentile monthly dry pond volumes.
The system (including the TSF, Open Pit, Open Pit water pumped from Fish Lake outflows and
contributing catchments) is able to supply enough water to meet the process water mill requirements
throughout the mine life, for all scenarios.
PAG Waste Rock

The water balance model results indicate that the PAG waste rock to be stored in the TSF will maintain a
cover of water and/or tailings for the majority of the operational mine life and become completely
submerged in closure and post-closure. Figure 2.7.2.4A-12 illustrates the relative elevation of the PAG
waste rock as it is placed within the TSF compared to the total elevation of the material stored in the TSF,
which is comprised of tailings, water and waste rock, for the 95th percentile dry, median and 95th
percentile wet scenarios.
Closure
As of Year 21, tailings deposition to the TSF ceases and the TSF supernatant pond is to be drawn down
over Year 21 and pumped to the Open Pit. Any overflow from the TSF prior to Year 21 is directed to the
Open Pit. As of Year 22, the TSF is assumed to fill naturally until it reaches the closure overflow spillway
crest, at an assumed elevation of 1591.5 m in approximately Year 48 for average precipitation conditions.
The Open Pit begins filling in Year 17, when mining from the pit ceases. The TSF supernatant pond and
Open Pit pond volumes over the life of the mine are presented on Figure 2.7.2.4A-13 and Figure
2.7.2.4A-14, respectively, for the 95th percentile dry, median and 95th percentile wet scenarios. The Open
Pit is expected to take approximately 32 years to fill to capacity (Year 47), for average precipitation
conditions.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-11 Operations Water Balance Results

Figure 2.7.2.4A-12 PAG Water Balance Results

Figure 2.7.2.4A-13 Closure Water Balance Results - TSF

Figure 2.7.2.4A-14 Closure Water Balance Results – Open Pit

PROJECT EFFECTS
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The Projects effects to surface water streamflow are discussed in terms of changes in flow pathways and
watershed areas, annual flow volumes, lake level in Fish Lake and monthly flow distributions for the Fish
Creek watershed and the downstream watershed of Beece Creek.
The Project will result in a decrease in surface water streamflow in the local study area of Fish Creek and
Fish Lake during mine operations. This effect will occur continuously from construction thru closure. The
reclamation of the TSF and Open Pit to natural flow paths will lead to the re-establishment of baseline
flows or better contributing to Lower Fish Creek and Fish Lake in post-closure. For Beece Creek, the
Project will result in no change during operations and an increase to surface water streamflow in post-
closure. This effect will have no change to the contributing drainage area to Wasp Lake and Beece Creek
from construction to closure. In closure and post-closure, the watershed area of Wasp Lake will be
permanently increased from baseline conditions. The increase in surface water streamflow during closure
and post-closure is irreversible, although the change is minor compared to the mean annual runoff for
Beece Creek.
Climate change could also potentially have effects to the surface water streamflow with the increase in
extreme rainfall events and warmer temperatures. However, potential climate change effects have
already been accounted for in the conservative nature of the estimates associated with surface water
streamflow volumes. In addition, trends of regional stations indicate that the increases in precipitation and
temperature will not cause substantial changes to surface water streamflow volumes outside the natural
variability of systems in British Columbia, as described Appendix 2.7.2.4A-D.
CHANGES TO FLOW PATHWAYS AND WATERSHED AREAS

Diversion of water within and around the New Prosperity Project area will permanently alter the baseline
flow regime for the Fish Creek Watershed. Although the watershed area to contributing to Fish Lake will
decrease, the resulting inflows to the lake will increase due to recirculation pumping. A summary of the
watersheds diverted or affected by the Project area is presented in Table 2.7.2.4A-5.

Table 2.7.2.4A-5 Summary of Catchment Areas
Area (km2)
Catchments Closure Closure Post
Baseline Year -1 Year 5 Year 12 Year 19
Phase I Phase II Closure
TSF East catchment 0.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 0.0 0.0
TSF South catchment 0.0 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 0.0 0.0
TSF contributing catchment 0.0 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 0.0 0.0
Fish Lake contributing catchment 65.8 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 56.7 56.7
Plant Site 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0
Mine site facilities 0.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0
Lower Fish Creek Catchment at H4b 99.3 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 30.0 30.0
Wasp Lake Catchment 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 16.5 16.5
Beece Creek at H8c 221.9 221.9 221.9 221.9 221.9 221.9 234.5 234.5
NOTES:
1. The Lower Fish Creek subcatchment includes the area downstream of the mine footprint to the hydrology station H4b.
2
2. The contributing catchment area for Lower Fish Creek for baseline conditions at H4b 99.3 km .
2
3. The total contributing catchment is for Beece Creek at H8c for baseline conditions is 221.9 km .

ANNUAL FLOW VOLUME

The effects to annual flow volumes will focus on flow values near the confluence of Lower Fish Creek at
H4d and the Taseko River, inflows to Fish Lake from Upper Fish Creek (H17b) and at H8c on Beece
Creek. The previous section discussed the changes in flow paths and watershed areas due to the
development of the Project. A large portion of the natural runoff in Fish Creek and contributing to Fish
Lake will be impounded in the TSF or captured by the Project site drainage system. During operations,
with the reduction in contributing watershed area to Lower Fish Creek, the annual flow volumes are
expected to decrease in this drainage, whereas the annual flow contributing to Fish Lake will increase
due to recirculation pumping via the Fish Lake inlets. During operations, the annual flow volume in Beece
Creek is not expected to change.
The variability in the annual flow volumes through the mine life were based on the stochastic version of
the water balance model, as described in the Operational Water Balance section. The annual flow
volumes at H4d, H17b and H8c were tracked in the model and presented as probabilities of occurrence,
as defined by the 95th percentile values (5% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any year) to
illustrate the range of possible wet (95th percentile wet) and dry (95th percentile dry) year conditions over
the life of the mine,
Annual flow volumes based on the mean, wet and dry runoff for Lower Fish Creek for baseline conditions,
during operations and post-closure are presented in Table 2.7.2.4A-6. The average annual flow volumes
in Lower Fish Creek are expected to be reduced by approximately 76%, during operations and closure
and to return to near baseline conditions after decommissioning of the Project.

Table 2.7.2.4A-6 Lower Fish Creek Annual Flow Volumes (H4)
Annual flow volume Percent change

Phase Condition 3
(million m ) (%)
95th percentile dry 5.6 -
Baseline Mean 10.8 -
95th percentile wet 17.6 -
95th percentile dry 1.3 -77%
Operations and Closure

Mean 2.5 -76%
Phase I & II
95th percentile wet 4.1 -77%
95th percentile dry 4.9 -12%
Post closure Mean 10.9 1%
95th percentile wet 19.0 8%
Annual flow volumes based on the mean, wet and dry runoff for Upper Fish Creek for baseline conditions,
during operations and post-closure are presented in Table 2.7.2.4A-7. Based on average conditions, the
annual flow volumes in Upper Fish Creek are expected to increase by approximately 28%, during
operations and by 31% after decommissioning of the Project. The increase in annual flow during
operations and into post-closure is due to the recirculation of the Fish Lake outflow as a mitigation
measure to support lake inlet spawning, thereby increasing the channel capacity. In addition, in post-
closure the overflow from the TSF spillway will be routed through the Fish Lake inlet channels.

Table 2.7.2.4A-7 Fish Lake Inlet Annual Flow Volumes (H17b)

Phase Condition 3
(million m ) (%)
Baseline Mean 4.8 -
95th percentile dry 5.8 142%
Operations and
Mean 6.1 28%
Closure Phase I
Closure Phase II &

Mean 6.3 31%
Post closure
*Transition from Closure Phase I to Closure Phase II dependant on actual water quality.
The baseline and post-development annual flow volume based on the mean, wet and dry runoff for Beece
Creek at H8c is presented in Table 2.7.2.4A-8. The average annual flow volumes are not expected to
change during operations, and increase by 2.5% in post-closure. Due to the large size of the Beece
Creek watershed, the annual increase or decrease in flow volume due to the Project is considered minor.

Table 2.7.2.4A-8 Beece Creek Annual Flow Volumes (H8c)

Phase Condition
(million m3) (%)
Baseline Mean 92.3 -
Operations Mean 92.3 0%
95th percentile wet 153.6 0%
95th percentile dry 46.2 3.1%
Closure Phase I & II and

Mean 94.7 2.5%
Post closure
95th percentile wet 159.7 4.0%
*Transition from Closure Phase I to Closure Phase II dependant on actual water quality.
SEASONAL FLOW DISTRIBUTION

The assessment of the Project effects to the seasonal flow distribution were focused on station H4d on
Lower Fish Creek (located just upstream from the confluence with the Taseko River), station H17b on
Upper Fish Creek (located at the major tributary inlet to Fish Lake) and station H8c on Beece Creek.

Table 2.7.2.4A-9 Estimated Long-Term Project Area Monthly Flows for Baseline Conditions
Example Area
Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Drainage Basin (km2)
Upper Fish Creek 39.8 flow distribution 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 15% 42% 14% 8% 5% 6% 9% 2% 0.4% 100%
(H17b) avg. unit area flow (mm) 0.3 0.2 0.8 18.1 52.3 17.1 9.4 6.5 6.9 10.9 2.0 0.5 125
average flow (m3/s) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.78 0.26 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.16
Fish Creek 99.3 flow distribution 0.4% 0.3% 0.7% 13% 41% 16% 8% 5% 5% 8% 2% 0.6% 100%
(H4b) avg. unit area flow (mm) 0.4 0.3 0.8 14.1 44.2 17.4 8.6 5.3 5.8 9.0 2.6 0.6 109
average flow (m3/s) 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.54 1.64 0.67 0.32 0.20 0.22 0.33 0.10 0.02 0.34
Beece Creek 221.9 flow distribution 1% 1% 1% 3% 17% 26% 23% 15% 6% 4% 2% 1% 100%
(H8c) avg. unit area flow (mm) 4.2 4.2 4.2 12.7 72.2 110.4 97.7 63.7 25.5 17.0 8.5 4.2 425
average flow (m3/s) 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1 6.0 9.5 8.1 5.3 2.2 1.4 0.7 0.4 3.0
NOTES:
1. Annual runoff values calculated for Fish Creek (H4b & H17b) were based on the baseline watershed model.
2. Annual runoff value for Beece Creek (H8c) was estimated by multiplying the mean annual precipitation of 708 mm by the runoff coefficient of 0.6, from the baseline study.

The flow distribution for Upper and Lower Fish Creek were developed based on the baseline watershed
model, as summarized in Table 2.7.2.4A-9. There is also an indication of a slight dampening of peak
flows at H4d (downstream of Fish Lake), compared to H17b (upstream of Fish Lake) due to Fish Lake;
however, these effects were considered minimal, as the timing of the peak flows are fairly consistent at
both stations. For the purposes of this effects assessment, these flow distributions were adopted for the
Upper and Lower Fish Creek catchments for baseline conditions and during mine operations to provide a
more conservative estimate of monthly flow volumes and timing. The monthly flow distribution for Beece
Creek was based on the regional analysis presented in the KP Hydrometeorology Report (Appendix 4-4-
D in the March 2009 EIS/Application).
For Lower Fish Creek, the development of the Project will have the overall effect of reducing flows
through the year at H4d. In post-closure, the runoff regime of the Lower Fish Creek Catchment is altered
from baseline conditions due to approximately 6% of the surface area being comprised of the Pit Lake
and TSF Lake. The equivalent runoff entering Lower Fish Creek in post-closure was estimated by a water
balance that takes into account precipitation and evaporation losses from the Pit and TSF lakes.
For Upper Fish Creek, the development of the Project will have a positive effect by increasing the flows
beginning in operations and continuing into post-closure. The runoff contributing to Upper Fish Creek at
H17b in post-closure takes into account the overflow from the TSF, as well as a portion of the Fish Lake
outflow recirculation pumping, which is assumed to be routed through the Fish Lake inlets, prior to
entering Fish Lake. Approximately 50% of the TSF overflow and recirculation pumping will contribute to
Upper Fish Creek at H17b, as well as catchment runoff in post-closure. With the changes to annual flow
volumes as discussed in the previous section, the post-development monthly flows at H4d and H17b for
the mean, wet and dry runoff conditions during operations and post-closure are presented in Table
2.7.2.4A-10 and Table 2.7.2.4A-11, respectively.

Table 2.7.2.4A-10 Seasonal Flow Distributions for Lower Fish Creek
Phase Condition Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
95th percentile dry 0.005 0.017 0.012 0.003 0.110 0.271 0.011 0.024 0.032 0.078 0.218 0.062 0.070
Baseline (m3/s) Mean 0.024 0.017 0.012 0.029 0.533 1.689 0.639 0.324 0.200 0.219 0.340 0.095 0.343
95th percentile wet 0.052 0.017 0.012 0.070 1.169 3.849 2.040 0.875 0.467 0.406 0.481 0.133 0.798
Operations/Closure Phase I & II (m3/s) Mean 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.007 0.123 0.396 0.155 0.074 0.046 0.051 0.081 0.023 0.081
Post Closure (m3/s) Mean 0.066 0.068 0.054 0.090 0.634 1.662 0.538 0.328 0.196 0.171 0.297 0.097 0.350

Table 2.7.2.4A-11 Seasonal Flow Distributions for Upper Fish Creek
Baseline (m3/s) Mean 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.254 0.792 0.250 0.136 0.091 0.098 0.154 0.027 0.152
Operations/Closure Phase I & II (m3/s) Mean 0.140 0.155 0.126 0.145 0.194 0.458 0.417 0.136 0.146 0.136 0.146 0.135 0.195
Post Closure (m3/s) Mean 0.140 0.155 0.126 0.145 0.205 0.483 0.421 0.148 0.148 0.136 0.145 0.135 0.199

For Beece Creek, the development of the Project will have a positive effect by increasing the flows in
post-closure. There will be no change to flows during operations and closure. The baseline flow
distribution for Beece Creek at H8c is shown in Table 2.7.2.4A-9. The post-development flows during
operations, closure and post-closure are shown in Table 2.7.2.4A-12

Table 2.7.2.4A-12 Seasonal Flow Distributions for Beece Creek
Baseline (m3/s) Mean 0.35 0.38 0.35 0.36 1.06 6.06 8.91 8.12 5.31 2.10 1.41 0.69 2.93
Operations/Closure Phase I (m3/s) Mean 0.35 0.38 0.35 0.36 1.06 6.06 8.91 8.12 5.31 2.10 1.41 0.69 2.93
Closure Phase II/Post Closure (m3/s) Mean 0.39 0.41 0.37 0.39 1.17 6.27 9.49 7.95 5.35 2.11 1.51 0.72 3.01
NOTES:
1. The Beece Creek flow distribution from the baseline study was accepted for all stations within the Beece Creek watershed.
2. As of Closure Phase II, it was assumed that the TSF South catchment is directed through Wasp Lake before entering Beece Creek watershed.

FISH LAKE LEVEL CHANGES

The potential fluctuations in Fish Lake were assessed using a lake level model developed for baseline
and post-development conditions. A summary of the baseline and post-development model are described
below with a detailed letter included as Appendix 2.7.2.4A-A.
Baseline Lake Levels

The Fish Lake Level model was validated by comparing the calculated weir flows with the measured lake
outflows at H6b. The broad crested weir assumption reasonably predicts the outflows from Fish Lake as
shown on Figure 2.7.2.4A-15. The close agreement in timing and magnitude of the predicted and
measured Fish Lake outflows suggests that the Fish Lake Level model provides a reasonable tool for
modelling future scenarios.
Baseline Fish Lake levels were calculated for 2007 in order to estimate the natural range of lake level
fluctuations. These results indicate that the lake levels fluctuate within + 0.6 m and -0.2 m of the outlet
elevation of 1457.0 masl. The predicted maximum variation in lake levels for 2007 is approximately equal
to 0.8 m, ranging between 1457.6 masl and 1456.8 masl. The model predicts that the lake elevations fall
below the lake outlet elevation during the late summer months when lake evaporation exceeds the
inflows. This corresponds to zero measured flows at H6b in the late summer, as shown on Figure
2.7.2.4A-15.
Post Development Lake Levels

Flows in and out of Fish Lake will be controlled during operations resulting in moderated lake level
fluctuations. To determine if the lake level fluctuations during operations will be comparable to the
baseline conditions under similar metrological conditions, the post development water management
strategies were superimposed on the 2007 inflow data and used as the input to the post development
lake level model. Lake levels during post development were predicted to fluctuate approximately 0.8 m,
which is the same range as during baseline conditions. Therefore, the model results indicate that with the
planned water management strategies in place, lake level fluctuations can be maintained at close to
natural levels during operations, closure and post-closure phases.
.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-15 Fish Lake Level Fluctuation Model Calculated and Measures Outlet Flows

HYDROGEOLOGY
A number of Project activities will interact with the groundwater system. The effects of these activities on
groundwater quantity were assessed for the Fish Creek catchment area, the peripheral Big Onion Lake
catchment area and portions of the Beece Creek and Taseko River catchments. The project effects
assessment was conducted by simulating the effects of major mine facilities (i.e., the open pit, temporary
ore stockpile, waste rock stockpile, proposed surface water diversions and the tailings storage facility) on
groundwater elevations using a 3D numerical groundwater flow model, as discussed in the following
sections. Predicted project effects on groundwater flows to and from the Taseko River, Lower Fish Creek,
Fish Lake, Big Onion Lake, Little Onion Lake and Wasp Lake are included in these discussions, as they
contribute to the assessment of project effects related to groundwater quality and other VECs.
Effects Assessment Methodology

A 3D numerical model encompassing the key features identified in the conceptual model was constructed
and calibrated to pre-development hydrogeologic conditions. MODFLOW, an industry standard 3D finite
difference flow model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (Harbaugh et al., 2000; Harbaugh and
McDonald, 1996), was selected as the 3D numerical groundwater flow model. MODFLOW-SURFACT, a
proprietary code developed by Hydrogeologic Inc. (1996) was used to model the predevelopment and
operations phases of the mine. For closure and post closure conditions, MODFLOW 96 was used in order
to implement a pit lake filling package developed by Jones (2007, update 2010). Groundwater Vistas
(version 6.04; ESI, 2011), a graphical user interface, was used to develop the MODFLOW groundwater
flow models for the site. Inputs to the model include: 1) hydraulic parameters that control the flow of
groundwater within the model domain; and 2) areal properties and boundary conditions that control the
addition and removal of water to and from the model domain.
The model was run using six month stress periods to simulate seasonal trends in groundwater recharge
and evapotranspiration, hydraulic heads and creek flows. The division of stress periods was based on
precipitation patterns, and extended from May to October (i.e., summer) and November to April (i.e.,
winter). Continuous groundwater level monitoring data available from four wells during the period from
November 2009 through February 2012 (Appendix 2.6.1.4D-A) confirm the division of stress periods used
is appropriate. Further details on model geometry and the application of areal properties (i.e., recharge
and evaporation) and boundary conditions are documented in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C.
The model was calibrated to available baseline groundwater and stream flow data and then used to
simulate the effects of potentially large stresses (e.g., surface water diversions, pit dewatering,
construction and filling of the TSF, and flooding of the pit lake at closure) on the groundwater flow regime
(e.g., groundwater elevations, groundwater discharge as baseflow and groundwater inflow to lakes) for
operations, closure and post-closure project phases.
Model Calibration
Available piezometric, shut-in pressure and stream flow data for the modeled area were used for
calibration. Data taken from shut-in pressure tests in bedrock are considered to be less reliable due to the
expected slow equilibration time in low permeability bedrock. Limited seasonal groundwater elevation
data were available to calibrate to seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevation; therefore, calibration

statistics were calculated using mean annual hydraulic heads predicted by the model versus average
hydraulic heads measured in on site wells.
Simulated versus measured hydraulic heads for the calibrated model are provided in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-
C. A normalized root mean square (NRMS) of 10% is generally suggested as a guideline for the
maximum difference between simulated and measured data values (NBLM, 2006; MOE, 2012). The
NRMS of the calibration is 9.9% for piezometers only, and 11.8% considering piezometers and shut-in
pressure tests (Figure 2.7.2.4A-16). This was considered to be an adequate calibration given the regional
scale of the modelling.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-16 Simulated vs. Observed Hydraulic Head

Data from hydrology station H4 (which includes historical measurements from H4b, c and d) near the
confluence of Fish Creek with the Taseko River was used for calibration of predicted versus measured
stream flows in the modeled area. Predicted stream flows at the outlet of lower Fish Creek during the
summer and winter periods are approximately two times greater and two times less than what has been
measured, respectively (Table 2.7.2.4A-13).
The discrepancy between measured and simulated values is partially attributed to the chosen duration of
stress periods which capture precipitation and observed recharge patterns, but do not capture the multi-
modal character of the Fish Creek surface water system (Section 2.6.1.4). Simulated versus measured
stream flows for station H4b are provided in Table 2.7.2.4A-13.
On an average annual basis, the simulated flow is about 30% greater than the measured flow data
available for station H4b. This difference in predicted versus observed average annual stream flows was
considered adequate given the available stream flow data and the 6-month stress period applied during
the modeling.
It should be noted that the runoff rate assigned to each stream segment was computed assuming the
orographic effect in precipitation noted in Table 2.6.1.4D-1 for station M1 (Appendix 2.6.1.4B-A) and
using a runoff coefficient of 0.25 for Fish Creek watershed, 0.1 for plateau watersheds (e.g. Big Onion
Lake), and 0.6 for Beece Creek watershed (Table 2.6.1.4B-1). Comparison of average stream flow rates
simulated by the model for summer and winter periods with long-term average baseline flow rates
estimated by KP for lower Fish Creek at Station H4 (Table 2.6.1.4B-2) indicates better agreement than for
the measured data. Simulated average summer flow is greater than the long-term average by about 17%;
similarly, the simulated winter flow is less than the long-term average by about 22%, while on an average
annual basis, simulated flow is greater by about 8% than the estimated long term average stream flow at
Station H4b.
Table 2.7.2.4A-13 Average Measured, Estimated Long-Term and Simulated Stream Flows at
Station H4
Method Summer Period Winter Period Average Annual

(m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
Measured 0.37 0.27 0.32
Estimated Long-Term Average Baseline 0.60 0.18 0.39
Simulated 0.70 0.14 0.42
Baseline Conditions for Groundwater Quantity

As discussed in Section 2.6.1.4D, the interpreted pre-development water table mimics the surface
topography. Within the Fish Creek watershed, groundwater is interpreted to flow from topographically
higher regions towards lower lying areas in the center of the valley before discharging to Fish Creek.
Outside of the Fish Creek watershed, groundwater flow is directed towards discharge areas located at
lakes, and along the Taseko River and Beece Creek. Simulated pre-development water table elevation
contours generated by the calibrated model are presented on Figure 2.7.2.4A-17.

Predicted baseflow to Lower Fish Creek, downstream of the confluence with the proposed surface water
diversion, is 431 m3/d (4.9 L/s) and 1621 m3/d (18.8 L/s) during the summer and winter periods,
respectively. Predicted baseflow to the portion of the Taseko River simulated by the model is 537 m3/d
(6.2 L/s) and 1520 m3/d (17.6 L/s) during the summer and winter periods, respectively.
For the calibrated pre-development groundwater model, predicted annual average groundwater flows to
Fish Lake, Big Onion Lake, Little Onion Lake, and Wasp Lake for best estimate parameters are
summarized in Table 2.7.2.4A-14. Sensitivity simulations were conducted for the operational and closure
models to bracket potential variations in model parameters; results for baseline and sensitivity simulations
are presented in detail in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C.
Table 2.7.2.4A-14 Predicted Annual Average Groundwater Flows to Fish, Big Onion, Little Onion
and Wasp Lakes
Lake Groundwater Flow (m3/d)

Type Summer Winter
Fish Lake Groundwater Baseflow 446 493
Lakebed seepage 0 0
Big Onion Groundwater Baseflow 407 450
Lakebed seepage 0 0
Little Onion Groundwater Baseflow 68 65
Lakebed seepage 0 0
Wasp Groundwater Baseflow 92 73
Lakebed seepage 19 24
Assessment of Change in Groundwater Quantity

Construction Period
During the construction period, localized, nominal changes in groundwater elevation and flow direction
are anticipated in response to initial changes in groundwater recharge distribution due to construction, as
well as groundwater extractions from water supply wells for construction and potable purposes. These
changes in groundwater elevation and flow direction during the construction period will be localized
(within the project footprint) and minor compared to the predicted changes on groundwater elevation and
flows as a result of open pit dewatering and tailings storage (see below). It should be noted that effects
related to mine site development activities and construction of the tailings storage facility starter dam
were not explicitly considered in the numerical assessment, but were interpreted from results for larger
stresses applied to the model for operating conditions.
Activities during this phase of the project are not expected to affect baseflow to lower Fish Creek and the
Taseko River or groundwater inflow to Fish Lake, Wasp Lake, Big Onion Lake or Little Onion Lake.
Operations
During the operational phase of the project, the primary influences on the groundwater flow regime
include dewatering of the open pit and establishment of the tailings storage facility and related seepage
control measures. These measures are described in detail in Appendix 2.2.4-A (Preliminary Pit Slope

Design) and Appendix 2.2.4-D (Preliminary Design of the Tailings Storage Facility). The temporary
establishment of waste rock and soil stock piles and the associated changes in groundwater flow
directions and recharge patterns were evaluated on a scenario-by-scenario basis. Compared to the
primary influences on the groundwater flow regime, these impacts were determined to be small and
captured within the range of sensitivity simulations.
Base case simulated water table contours at the end of active open pit extraction activities (Year 17), in
the absence of seepage pumpback wells, are similar to simulated pre-development contours, except in
the area of the open pit and TSF (Figure 2.7.2.4A-18). For the case with seepage pumpback wells, the
wells are predicted to lower the groundwater table immediately downstream of the main embankment by
25 m (Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C).
Near the TSF, groundwater levels have risen on the order of 90 m to near 1589 masl, the TSF pond
elevation at the end of operations. Within the open pit area, the water table has been lowered
approximately 500 m to an elevation of 945 masl. The lowered water table and resultant cone of
depression is predicted to extend outside of the Fish Creek watershed and is predicted to shift the
location of the groundwater divide separating the Fish Creek and Taseko River watersheds approximately
100 m closer to the Taseko River (Figure 2.7.2.4A-18).

Wolftrap
Lake
Fish
Lake
Wasp
Lake
Little Onion
Lake
Taseko River
Big Onion Lake
1600
1400
1500
Results of the numerical simulations for the operational period predict that groundwater inflows to the
open pit will increase from approximately 1000 m3/d (11.6 L/s) in Year 1 to approximately 1800 m3/d
(21 L/s) in Year 17. Additional groundwater extraction from dewatering wells is predicted to increase from
approximately 1100 m3/d (13 L/s) in Year 1 to approximately 960 m3/d (11.1 L/s) in Year 17, (Figure
2.7.2.4A-19 and Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C). This total groundwater extraction from the system due to the open
pit (i.e. open pit inflow plus dewatering well flows) is predicted to be 1700 m3/day (24.6 L/s) in Year 1 to
2900 m3/day ( 44 L/s) in Year 17.
Groundwater captured by the pit dewatering system will be pumped directly to the mill and, ultimately, will
report to the tailings pond.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-19 Dewatering Wells Scenario: Predicted Groundwater Inflows to the Open Pit and Dewatering Wells

In response to nearby open pit dewatering, and the reduction in groundwater recharge due to mine site
development, the groundwater baseflow to Fish Lake decreases by about 8% and 10% for the summer
and winter periods. This decrease starts in about Year 5 of operations. Similarly, lakebed seepage of
water from Fish Lake is predicted to increase linearly from 0 m3/day in pre-development to about 15
m3/day in Year 17. Upstream of the open pit in the footprint of the TSF, the water table elevation is
predicted to increase relative to the pre-development simulation to near the level of the tailings pond at
the end of Year 17 (1584 masl).
In Year 1-2 of operations, the TSF pond rises to between 1539 and 1549 masl (Appendix 2.7.2.4A-B), the
associated rise in the water table starts to force groundwater through the western ridge at the low point
below the west embankment. This predicted increase in water table elevation results in the loss of a
portion of the groundwater divide separating the Fish Creek and Big Onion Lake watersheds. Solute
transport simulations (discussed below) indicate solute migration towards the west through the ridge (in
the absence of mitigation) would commence in about Year 8. Transport simulations show that the
establishment of groundwater seepage pumpback wells downstream of the Main embankment will also
serve to mitigate potential solute transport through the west ridge.
In the absence of main embankment seepage pumpback wells, and in spite of the rising groundwater
levels in the west ridge, inflow rates to Big Onion Lake are predicted to decrease nominally (3% average
annual) during operations for the winter period and remain unchanged for the summer period. Inflow rates
to Little Onion Lake are predicted to increase by 1% and 5% for the summer and winter periods
respectively.
Inflow rates to Wasp Lake are predicted to increase by 3 to 16% in summer and winter periods beginning
in Year 1 of operations due mainly to the rise in groundwater level associated with the adjacent TSF.
Lakebed seepage from Wasp Lake is predicted to decrease by 13 to 17% in summer and winter in
response to the rise in groundwater level.
By the end of operations (Year 17), baseflow to the Taseko River is predicted to increase/ decrease by
10/7% in the summer and winter periods. Baseflow to Lower Fish Creek is predicted to decrease by up to
41% during the winter period in Year 17. Potential effects to Beece Creek are considered in Appendix
2.7.2.4A-C.
The establishment of groundwater seepage interception wells downstream of the TSF main embankment
was modelled using a telescopically refined transport model. Simulations with seepage interception wells
show that the wells will lower the groundwater table immediately downstream of the main embankment to
about 1500 masl. These results are presented in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-B and discussed below.
Assessment of Seepage Potential – Operations

The loss of the groundwater divide that separates Fish Creek from Big Onion Lake creates the potential
for migration of seepage from the tailings facility into the Big Onion Lake catchment. The west
embankment is designed as a water retaining structure to minimize the potential for seepage through the
embankment. Seepage through the embankment will be mitigated using a low permeability till core and
cut-off keyed into the native till materials that blanket the Fish Creek basin. Filter drains and
depressurization wells incorporated in the dam will divert seepage into lined collection ponds for recycle
back to the water collection pond (KPL Design Report for Tailings Storage Facility – Appendix 2.2.4-C). A
groundwater seepage pumpback system will be incorporated as needed to intercept seepage upstream of
Fish Lake, Tributary 1 and Upper Fish Creek.

However, in order to assess the potential interactions of this seepage with down gradient aquatic
receptors during the operations phase of the project, a scoping level transient solute transport model was
developed using the Analysis of Contaminant Transport (ACT) modules in MODFLOW-SURFACT. The
solute transport model was used to evaluate groundwater flow paths originating from the TSF and to
bracket contaminant concentrations and arrival times at these potential receptors in the absence of
mitigation measures for use as inputs to significance determinations made for other VECs. The model
was also used to predict flows to potential groundwater seepage pumpback wells, changes to
groundwater baseflows and solute transport pathways for the implementation of a seepage interception
system.
An ideal, non-dispersive, non-reactive and non-retarded solute with a normalized source concentration of
1.0 was introduced at inflowing boundaries within the expanding footprint of the impoundment to illustrate
potential groundwater seepage pathways from the TSF. In this way, a conservative, quantitative
evaluation of potential contaminant concentrations for different chemical species or compounds of interest
can be made along the transport pathway (spatially and temporally) if the source concentration is known,
or can be predicted. In this case, the source material is considered to be the worst-case predicted tailings
pore water chemistry (refer to Sections 2.6.1.1 and 2.7.2.1 – Geology and Geochemistry).
Because the solute is defined to be ideal, non-reactive and non-retarded (i.e. effects due to mechanical
dispersion, chemical diffusion, sorption, and chemical reaction are not simulated and no solute mass is
lost to these mechanisms during transport), it will migrate at the average groundwater velocity. In this way
a conservative, first-order, quantitative estimate of flow path direction, migration time and concentration at
potential down gradient receiving environments can be made. Numerical model development and
boundary conditions are documented in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C.
Oxidation of sulphide minerals within the drawdown cone is expected to be limited largely to the blast-
affected zone near the pit wall interface. The EIS accounts for sulphide oxidation in the pit wall as part of
the pit lake water quality assessment. It is acknowledged that rock in the drawdown cone could be
oxidized but there are no known methods to quantify the effect. This will remain an uncertainty until
mining occurs which will need to be managed by monitoring and appropriate contingencies for water
quality in the pit.
Maximum vertical solute concentration at the end of Year 17 in absence of main embankment seepage
pumpback is plotted in Figure 2.7.2.4A-20. Results show that no solute is predicted to reach a surface
water receptor during the operational phase of the mine life. However, migration of solute beyond the
footprint of the TSF is shown to be possible along the axis of Fish Creek valley towards the Fish Lake
tributaries, west towards Big/Little Onion Lake and south towards Wasp Lake. Complete details of the
solute transport modeling are provided in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C; seepage potential during the closure and
post closure phases of the project is discussed in the following section.

Closure I-II and Post Closure

During the closure phases of the project, the primary influences on the groundwater flow regime include
the filling of the open pit (starting in Year 17), and the continued filling of the TSF (until Year 22). For the
purpose of the groundwater modelling assessment, closure I and II refer to Years 17 – 47 until the pit lake
is full. Post-closure refers to after Year 47 once the pit lake starts to discharge to Lower Fish Creek.
Similar to the operational scenario, the temporary establishment of waste rock and soil stock piles and the
associated changes in groundwater flow directions and recharge patterns were evaluated on a scenario-
by-scenario basis. Compared to the primary influences on the groundwater flow regime, these impacts
were determined to be small and captured within the range of sensitivity simulations for the closure
period.
In the absence of main embankment seepage pumpback, a plot of simulated water table contours in Year
100 (i.e., 83 years after the end of active pit dewatering) is provided on Figure 2.7.2.4A-21. As shown on
Figure 2.7.2.4A-21, predicted water table contours are similar to predicted pre-development contours
except in the area of the open Pit Lake and TSF.

Taseko River
Within the pit lake area, the predicted water table has risen to the elevation of the decant level of the lake
(assumed to be 1441 masl). The predicted location of the groundwater divide adjacent to the pit lake is
similar to that predicted for pre-development conditions. The predicted filling time of the pit lake of 30
years (i.e., Year 47) matches well with the predicted filling time from the site water balance of 28 years
(i.e. Year 44) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-22). The increase in groundwater elevation in the vicinity of the pit lake is
predicted to increase baseflow to lower Fish Creek downstream of the Pit Lake by approximately 45% in
the summer period and to decrease it by about 40% in the winter period.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-22 Predicted Pit Lake Stage

Predicted groundwater flows to and from the pit lake are plotted on Figure 2.7.2.4A-23. As shown,
groundwater inflow to the pit lake is predicted to decrease from approximately 1600 m3/d (18.5 L/s)
immediately after closure to a generally stable annual average of approximately 910 m3/d (10.5 L/s) in
Year 100. Groundwater flow (seepage) out of the pit lake14 is predicted to decrease from a maximum of
approximately 250 m3/d (2.9 L/s) in Year 18 to 0 m3/d (0 L/s) in year 47 (i.e. upon completion of pit lake
filling).
14
Seepage from the pit lake occurs to re-saturate low hydraulic conductivity pit wall rock dewatered by mining operations; overall,
groundwater flow directions in the vicinity of the open pit remain oriented towards the rising pit lake.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-23 Predicted Groundwater Flows to the Pit Lake

Effects on Groundwater Baseflow to Lakes without Seepage Pumpback

At the end of pit dewatering, groundwater baseflow into Fish Lake starts to increase in response to
recovering groundwater levels. Once the pit lake is full, groundwater baseflow into Fish Lake stabilizes at
an average annual rate of about 410 m3/day, slightly lower (10-15%) than pre-development conditions,
likely in response to local bifurcation of groundwater baseflow towards the adjacent pit lake. Similarly, as
the pit lake fills, lakebed seepage out of Fish Lake decreases back to pre-development conditions (0
m3/day) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-24).

Figure 2.7.2.4A-24 Predicted Groundwater Flows to Fish Lake

Predicted hydraulic heads near the Taseko River are generally unchanged during the closure period
relative to pre-development conditions except near the location of Big Onion and Little Onion Lakes. The
presence of the TSF has resulted in a regional rise in the water table in this area, leading to increased
groundwater inflow to these lakes. As a result, groundwater inflow to Big Onion Lake and Little Onion
Lake is predicted to be increased by an annual average of approximately 3% and 17%, respectively
(Figures 2.7.2.4A-25 and 2.7.2.4A-26). Increased discharge of groundwater to these lakes is predicted to
result in a decrease in annual average baseflow to the Taseko River of approximately 17% (Figure
2.7.2.4A-27) from this reach of the Taseko river catchment. The rise in water table elevation in the vicinity
of the TSF is predicted to cause a nominal increase in groundwater inflow to Wasp Lake of approximately
5% during the summer period and 14% during the winter period (Figure 2.7.2.4A-28). Lakebed seepage
out of Wasp Lake is predicted to decrease by an annual average of about 19%.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-25 Predicted Groundwater Flows to Big Onion Lake During Closure

Figure 2.7.2.4A-26 Predicted Groundwater Flows to Little Onion Lake During Closure

Figure 2.7.2.4A-27 Predicted Groundwater Flows to the Taseko River during Closure

Figure 2.7.2.4A-28 Predicted Groundwater Flows to Wasp Lake during Closure

In the footprint of the TSF, the maximum water table elevation is predicted to be near the ultimate level of
the tailings pond at 1590 masl, elevated above what was predicted in the pre-development simulation.
The increased water table elevation results in a portion of the groundwater divide separating the Fish
Creek watershed from the Big Onion Lake watershed and Taseko River along the western ridge
continuing to be lost, allowing groundwater to flow from the TSF region towards Big Onion Lake and
Taseko River. Average annual seepage to the underlying groundwater system is predicted to stabilize at
about 760 m3/day (8.8 L/s) once the TSF pond reaches the final elevation of 1590 masl. In the absence of
groundwater seepage pumpback wells, groundwater discharge into the TSF is predicted to stabilize at
about 110 m3/d (1.3 L/s) (Figure 2.7.2.4A-29).

Figure 2.7.2.4A-29 Predicted Groundwater Flow from TSF during Closure

Predicted changes in groundwater baseflow and groundwater inflow to lakes is summarized in Table
2.7.2.4A-15 for the operations and closure/post closure phases of the project in the absence of main
embankment groundwater seepage pumpback wells.

Table 2.7.2.4A-15 Summary of Predicted Baseflow and Groundwater Inflows to Lakes – In the Absence of Fish Lake Valley Seepage Pumpback Wells
Taseko River Lower Fish Creek Fish Lake Wasp Lake Big Onion Lake Little Onion Lake
Baseflow Baseflow
% as % of % as % of % % % %
GW Change Total GW Change Total GW Change GW Change GW Change GW Change
Baseflow in GW Stream Baseflow in GW Stream Baseflow in GW Baseflow in GW Baseflow in GW Baseflow in GW
m3/day1 Baseflow Flow2 m3/day1 Baseflow Flow2 m3/day1 Baseflow m3/day1 Baseflow m3/day1 Baseflow m3/day1 Baseflow
Baseline Conditions
Summer 527 N/A 0.01% 431 N/A 0.84% 446 N/A 92 N/A 407 N/A 68 N/A
Winter 1520 N/A 0.05% 1370 N/A 4.09% 493 N/A 73 N/A 450 N/A 65 N/A
Year 2 (Start of Mining and Milling)
Summer 593 13% N/A* 444 3% 0.86% 455 2% 89 -3% 411 1% 69 1%
Winter 1438 -5% N/A* 698 -49% 2.08% 502 2% 79 8% 448 0% 68 5%
Year 17 (End of Open Pit
Dewatering
Summer 580 10% N/A* 494 15% 0.96% 413 -7% 95 3% 407 0% 69 1%
Winter 1420 -7% N/A* 802 -41% 2.40% 450 -9% 85 16% 444 -1% 68 5%
Year 21 (End of Milling)
Summer 401 -24% N/A* 559 30% 1.08% 370 -17% 95 3% 417 2% 81 19%
Winter 1270 -16% N/A* 894 -35% 2.67% 385 -22% 81 11% 433 -4% 74 14%
Year 100
Summer 420 -20% N/A* 624 45% 1.21% 403 -10% 97 5% 430 6% 82 21%
Winter 1320 -13% N/A* 960 -30% 2.87% 419 -15% 83 14% 447 -1% 74 14%
NOTES:
1. Baseflow contributed to Taseko R from model extents
2. Seasonal average daily baseline flow at Regional Flow Station 08MA003 Taseko River at Outlet from Taseko Lakes (for period 1983-1998) calculated to be:
Summer (May through October)
Winter (November through April)
Refer to March 2009 WIS/ Application EIS: Appendix 4-4D, Table 4.4. Period of Record Streamflow Distributions.
3. Total Stream Flow used for calculation is the seasonal average daily baseline flow at Station H4; refer to Appendix 4.6.1.4B-A: Table 2
N/A Not applicable

N/A* Calculation result not available - % change in baseflow reporting to Taseko R as a result of changes in baseflow in west ridge is negligible (i.e. well within the accuracy of the streamflow measurement)

Assessment of Seepage Potential – Closure and Post-Closure

Results of the numerical groundwater flow simulations indicate that seepage from the TSF to the
underlying groundwater flow system is predicted to occur at an annual average rate of approximately
1,000 m3/d (11.6 L/s) in Year 1. The seepage rate is predicted to increase during operations and then
decline through time to a relatively constant rate of approximately 760 m3/d (8.8 L/s) by about Year 25 as
the regional water table rises in response to the presence of the pond (Figure 2.7.2.4A-29). Based on the
predicted configuration of the water table, three potential pathways for migration of seepage waters exist
(Figure 2.7.2.4A-30). These include:
x From the TSF through the center of Fish Lake Valley towards the open pit/open pit lake
x From the TSF through the adjacent western ridge, where the pre-development groundwater divide is
predicted to be lost, towards Big Onion Lake and the Taseko River, and
x From the TSF through the south embankment towards Wasp Lake.

The current mine plans call for primary TSF seepage mitigation measures in the form of cutoff ditches that
collect and divert seepage to control ponds and, as a secondary measure seepage interception wells
where seepage is found to bypass the ditches (Appendix 2.2.4-D).
For the base, case scenario, a telescopically refined or “zoomed in” flow and solute transport model
(TRM) was developed for the region shown on Figure 2.7.2.4A-30 in order to track the distribution and
concentration of any potential seepage migrating from the TSF along the three pathways noted above.
Once calibrated to match the regional base-case calibrated model, this zoomed in model was used to
evaluate groundwater inflows to the main embankment groundwater seepage pumpback wells and to
track seepage migration with and without the pumpback system. Results for both scenarios are presented
here.
All flow simulations were conducted using the Analysis of Contaminant Transport (ACT) modules in
MODFLOW-SURFACT. A detailed discussion of the transport model geometry and boundary conditions
used for the transport simulations is provided in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C.
Maximum vertical solute concentration at the end of active mining in Year 17 was previously shown in
Figure 2.7.2.4A-20. Results of the transport simulation at this point in time demonstrate that no solute is
predicted to reach a surface water receptor during the operational period at a concentration greater than
1% of the source concentration. Towards Fish Lake, groundwater concentrations of up to 70% pore water
chemistry are starting to migrate towards the tributaries but that the stronger concentration plume does
not reach the tributaries until about Year 50.
For the purposes of illustrating the potential migration pathways and timing of seepage derived from the
TSF, groundwater affected by seepage has been arbitrarily defined as groundwater with a solute
concentration of 1% of the source concentration (i.e., 1 % of the predicted tailings pore water chemistry);
assessment of the impact threshold or significance level to various receptors for an arbitrary pore water
component dissolved in groundwater is evaluated in other sections of this document.
As shown on Figure 2.7.2.4A-20, at the end of Year 17 seepage is predicted to occur beneath the
majority of the TSF, migrating a maximum of about 700 m downstream in the Fish Lake valley.
By Year 50, the area potentially affected by seepage from the TSF (in the absence of mitigation
measures) is predicted to be within approximately 800 m of Little Onion Lake and about 1200 m of Big
Onion Lake (Figure 2.7.2.4A-31). However, a solute concentration of 1% is predicted to have reached a
depression/gully that, in the model, intersects the water table to the northeast of the lake in approximately
Year 30. The gully could provide a direct pathway to Big Onion Lake at significantly increased transport
rates if it contains water year round. As such, a seepage collection pond will be constructed near the
downstream toe of the west TSF embankment and future hydrology investigations will be designed to
determine expected surface water and groundwater flow rates and seasonality in this area to support
design of this facility.
Predictive scenarios including groundwater seepage pumpback wells downstream of the main
embankment were also conducted and are described in detail in the following section.

In the absence of mitigation, seepage is predicted to first reach Wasp Lake in about Year 30, and to first
reach Big Onion Lake in Year 85. By year 100, seepage at concentrations up to 50% of source
concentration could be discharging to the northeastern portion of Wasp Lake, and seepage at
concentrations up to 2% could be discharging to the southern portion of the Big Onion lakeshore (Figure
2.7.2.4A-32.

Assessment of Groundwater Seepage Pumpback Mitigation, and Effects on Groundwater

Baseflow to Lakes with Main Embankment Seepage Pumpback
To assess the viability and effectiveness of groundwater seepage pumpback wells in the Fish Lake valley,
seepage interception wells were implemented into the TRM using drain boundaries. The drain elevation
of these wells was set near the bottom of the upper bedrock unit (approximately 100 m-bgl). Through
several iterations, the elevation of the drain boundaries and the number of seepage interception wells
were adjusted to minimize inflows into the wells while capturing the majority of main embankment
seepage.
Figure 2.7.2.4A-33 shows the predicted long term inflows to 10 seepage interception wells will be about
1400 m3/day (16 L/s), or about 140 m3/day (2 L/s) per well. This predicted flow rate per well is a practical
groundwater extraction rate for 152 mm diameter pumping wells completed in bedrock.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-33 Predicted Flow to Fish Lake Valley Groundwater Seepage Pumpback Wells

The seepage pumpback wells were implemented into the model simultaneously at the start of
construction, in reality these wells will be installed in stages based on groundwater monitoring
downstream of the TSF main embankment and the performance of individual wells.
Figures 2.7.2.4A-34. 2.7.2.4A-35, and 2.7.2.4A-36 show the predicted solute concentration at the end of
Year 17, 50 and 100 with the implementation of groundwater interception wells downstream of the Main
embankment.

Model results show that for the base case, 10 seepage pumpback wells extracting a total of 1400 m3/day
(16 L/s) downstream of the main embankment can effectively intercept seepage between the TSF and the
Fish Lake tributaries. Model results also show that as an indirect effect, these wells may also mitigate
seepage migration towards the west ridge and down-gradient Big Onion and Little Onion lakes system.
Towards Wasp Lake, the predicted solute concentration remains unchanged from the case without Main
embankment seepage pumpback wells.
Although transport modelling results presented here show that 100% seepage interception can be
achieved, for the purpose of base case water balance model, and base case water quality modeling, the
conservative assumption that the seepage pumpback system would only intercept 50% of the TSF
seepage was used. This is considered to be a reasonable recovery rate for interception wells in a
fractured bedrock system.
Using the TRM, changes in baseflows to Big Onion Lake, Little Onion Lake, Wasp Lake, and the portions
of Fish Lake and the Taseko River included in the TRM are summarized in Table 2.7.2.4A-16 for the case
with seepage pumpback wells located downstream of the main embankment. These results are
graphically compared to the changes in baseflow for the case without seepage pumpback wells and are
discussed below.

Table 2.7.2.4A-16 Summary of Predicted Baseflow and Groundwater Inflows to Lakes –With Fish Lake Valley Seepage Pumpback Wells
Taseko River Lower Fish Creek Fish Lake Wasp Lake Big Onion Lake Little Onion Lake
Baseflow Baseflow
% as % of % as % of % % % %
GW Change Total GW Change Total GW Change GW Change GW Change GW Change
Baseflow in GW Stream Baseflow in GW Stream Baseflow in GW Baseflow in GW Baseflow in GW Baseflow in GW
m3/day1 Baseflow Flow2 m3/day1 Baseflow Flow2 m3/day1 Baseflow m3/day1 Baseflow m3/day1 Baseflow m3/day1 Baseflow
Baseline Conditions
Summer 465 N/A 0.01% N/A N/A N/A 226 N/A 80 N/A 640 N/A 78 N/A
Winter 891 N/A 0.03% N/A N/A N/A 284 N/A 62 N/A 798 N/A 109 N/A
Year 2 (Start of Mining and Milling)
Summer 453 -3% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 226 0% 86 8% 632 -1% 85 9%
Winter 847 -5% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 283 0% 79 27% 774 -3% 117 7%
Year 17 (End of Open Pit
Dewatering
Summer 433 -7% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 228 1% 78 -3% 616 -4% 83 6%
Winter 826 -7% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 274 -4% 75 21% 752 -6% 114 5%
Year 21 (End of Milling)
Summer 433 -7% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 224 -1% 78 -3% 616 -4% 83 6%
Winter 825 -7% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 279 -2% 76 23% 752 -6% 114 5%
Year 100
Summer 433 -7% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 224 -1% 80 0% 614 -4% 83 6%
Winter 825 -7% N/A* N/A N/A N/A 279 -2% 77 24% 749 -6% 113 4%
NOTES:
1. Baseflow contributed to Taseko R from model extents
2. Seasonal average daily baseline flow at Regional Flow Station 08MA003 Taseko River at Outlet from Taseko Lakes (for period 1983-1998) calculated to be:
Refer to Appendix 4-4D, Table 4.4. Period of Record Streamflow Distributions.
3. Total Stream Flow used for calculation is the seasonal average daily baseline flow at Station H4b; refer to EA Section 4, Table 4-21, Flow distribution A1.
N/A Not applicable

N/A* Calculation result not available - % change in baseflow reporting to Taseko R as a result of changes in baseflow in west ridge is negligible (i.e. well within the accuracy of the streamflow measurement)

Changes in groundwater baseflows for the cases with and without Main Embankment seepage pumpback
wells for the Taseko River and for Fish Lake are shown in Figure 2.7.2.4A-37, for the portions of the water
bodies included in the TRM. Operation of the groundwater seepage pumpback system is predicted to
locally lower the groundwater table by about 25 m immediately downstream of the main embankment,
extending about 700 m towards Fish Lake. This will affect groundwater baseflows to the Fish Lake
tributaries in this area, however, with the implementation of re-circulation the changes in groundwater
baseflow are expected to be small. Results from the TRM show that groundwater baseflow into Fish Lake
remains relatively unchanged for the case with seepage pumpback wells. For the Taskeo River,
groundwater baseflows are predicted to decrease by about 7% annually.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-37 Predicted Changes in Groundwater Baseflow to the Taseko River and Fish
Lake for the Cases with and without Main Embankment Seepage Pumpback

Changes in groundwater baseflows for the cases with and without main embankment seepage pumpback
wells for the Big Onion and Little Onion Lake are shown in Figure 2.7.2.4A-38. Similar to the results from
the regional model, groundwater baseflow to Big Onion Lake is predicted to decrease by about 5% on an
annual average basis, while groundwater baseflow to Little Onion Lake is predicted to increase by about
5% on an annual average basis.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-38 Predicted Changes in Groundwater Baseflow to Big Onion and Little Onion

Changes in groundwater baseflows for Wasp Lake and for Lower Fish Creek are shown in Figure
2.7.2.4A-39. Lower Fish Creek is not included in the TRM model domain, but flow changes from the
regional model are shown here for completeness. Changes to groundwater baseflow into Wasp Lake are
predicted to increase for both scenarios by up to 24%. For Lower Fish Creek, the models predict a shift in
the annual distribution of groundwater baseflow.

Figure 2.7.2.4A-39 Predicted Changes in Groundwater Baseflow to the Taseko River and Fish

Model Sensitivity Simulations

To evaluate the effect uncertainties associated with natural variation in the distribution of materials and in
hydraulic conductivity and storage of geologic materials on the predicted transport concentrations and
migration times, sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate potential changes to the predicted rates of
seepage migration from the TSF towards Fish Lake, Wasp Lake, the Onion Lakes catchment and the
Taseko River for a reasonable range of input parameters. For each sensitivity simulation, a single
hydraulic parameter was modified to investigate its impact on simulation results. The following simulations
were conducted for the case with main embankment seepage interception wells:
x Hydraulic conductivity of all hydrogeologic units was decreased by a factor of 5 (i.e. one half order of
magnitude)
x Hydraulic conductivity of all hydrogeologic units was increased by a factor of 5
x Conductance of TSF river cells increased by a factor of 10
x Conductance of TSF river cells decreased by a factor of 10 Conductance of PAG river cells was
decreased by a factor of 100 (i.e. simulated as decrease in the PAG pile hydraulic conductivity which
could be achieved e.g. by interlayering with tails during material placement), and
x Dispersion was added to the transport process with assigned dispersivity values of 25 m (horizontal),
2.5 m (transverse) and 1 m (vertical).
Sensitivity simulation results are documented in Appendix 2.7.2.4A-C.
Mitigation
The following mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the Project effects on groundwater
elevations and baseflow:
x Diverting surface water into the open pit to create a pit lake will restore groundwater elevations to
near baseline groundwater conditions in the pit vicinity
x Incorporating primary seepage control measures in the design of the main, south and west
embankments of the TSF (e.g., low permeability till core and cut-off keyed into the native till,
embankment drains and seepage collection ponds)
x Deposition of tailings so as to create a beach along the TSF embankments that will force the
supernatant pond during operations, and the tailings lake during closure and post-closure away from
the embankment crest to mitigate seepage through the embankment, and
x Installing monitoring wells to evaluate groundwater quality downstream from the Main embankment
and operating vertical seepage interception wells downstream of the TSF Main Embankment as
needed to meet groundwater quality permit objectives upgradient of Fish Lake receiving environment
during operations and into closure.


It will be important to collect additional hydrogeologic data in the Fish Lake watershed and in the adjacent
Big Onion and Little Onion Lake systems, Wasp Lake, and Taseko River during future phases of the
project to increase confidence in the interpreted hydrogeologic conditions assumed for these areas.
Collection of this data could be accomplished as part of the drilling program to install groundwater
monitoring wells that will be necessary to meet compliance monitoring requirements for the project.
Installation of the compliance monitoring well network should proceed as soon as a project development
decision is made and the ultimate footprints are known for major mine structures (e.g., open pit extents,
ultimate downstream toe of tailings dam, etc.) such that baseline conditions in the new wells can be
established a minimum of one year prior to commencement of active mining activities.
In the absence of groundwater seepage pumpback wells, reversal of groundwater gradients along a
portion of the west ridge of the Fish Creek Valley system is predicted to occur in about year 8 of active
mining operations. A groundwater well network should be installed along this ridge and groundwater
elevation (and chemistry) in this area should be monitored (and sampled) on at least a quarterly basis for
deviation from baseline conditions during operations, closure and post-closure phases of the project to
assess the potential for seepage effects on ambient groundwater quality flowing towards the Big Onion
Lake watershed.
In the Fish Lake valley downstream of the main embankment, the assumed depths, flow rates and
locations of groundwater seepage pumpback wells should be verified by drilling site specific pumping
wells and conducting long term hydraulic tests.
Investigations that will permit design and construction of deep seepage recovery systems (e.g., seepage
pump back wells) should be completed during the project construction period.
An overall follow-up and/or monitoring program is discussed in Section 2.8.3.

B. WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY

This section will evaluate the potential effects to the water quality in the Local Study Area (LSA) as well
as the Regional Study Area. In addition, this section will evaluate the potential effects on the
phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in lakes and rivers of the LSA and RSA. The spatial
boundaries of the LSA and the RSA remain unchanged since the 2009 EIS submission.
Scope of Assessment
Prosperity Project on water quality and aquatic ecology. The scope of the assessment is restricted to
changes relative to the previously assessed project, as described in the New Prosperity Mine
Development Plan, the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines, or regulatory changes since the March 2009
EIS/Application.
The Project activities and Physical Works for New Prosperity are presented in Table 2.7.2.4B-1. This
table indicates whether each activity or physical work has changed from the original Prosperity
submission, and whether there are any VEC-specific applicable regulatory changes related to the Project
activity. Project activities or physical works identified with a “Y” under “Change from Previous Project” will
be carried forward in the water quality and aquatic ecology assessment. Project activities or physical
works identified with an “N” are not carried forward in this water quality and aquatic ecology assessment,
and are greyed out.
Table 2.7.2.4B-1 Project Components, Features and Activities Changed from Previous Project
Proposal


PAG Stockpile Y
change
Combined with Non-PAG (i.e., location and
timing)
Ore stockpile Y Location only

Primary crusher N
facilities’
Overland conveyor N
facilities’
Fisheries compensation works Scope and timing
Y
construction



Y
Operation
N
upgrades
Camp construction N
facilities’
stockpiles, etc.
Explosives plant Y Location only
Fish Lake retained

Lake dewatering Y
No lakes dewatered
Fish Lake water management Y Management of inflows and outflows

Y
N
transmission line
Additional haulage trucks and 2 km of
relocation.

N
Operations
Pit production N
Area, volume, and relocation of TSF and
Soils handling and stockpiling Y stockpiles; revised soil stockpile locations



PAG Stockpile Y
change
Combined with Non-PAG (i.e., location and
timing)
Ore Stockpile management and Location only
Y
processing
Site drainage and seepage

Y
management
Includes management of flows in and out
Water Management controls and of Fish Lake
Y
operation

N

N

Equipment maintenance and repairs N
Ore concentrate transport and
N
handling
Additional haulage trucks and 2 km of
relocation.
N
maintenance)
Pit dewatering N
Fisheries Compensation works Scope and Timing
Y
operations
N
Macalister
Closure
Y
Operation

Y
management


Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock Location only

Y
stockpile
Tailing impoundment reclamation Y

N
and reclamation
Post-closure
Discharge of tailings storage facility
Y
water
Discharge of Pit Lake water N Into Lower Fish Creek
Specific changes in the Mine Development Plan (MDP) that may impact water quality and aquatic ecology
within the study area include:
x Placement of the TSF upstream of Fish Lake;
x Maintenance of Fish Lake; and
x Long-term changes to the to the hydrological regime in the Fish Lake Watershed:
o Reduced natural discharge into Upper Fish Creek and Fish Lake Tributary 1, and
o Far future redirection of flow accumulated to the south of the TSF to Beece Creek drainage.
Refer to Water Management plan section 2.7.2.4A.
These important changes to the MDP are reflected in several changes in the New Prosperity EIS
guidelines. Some of the notable changes and updates in the EIS guidelines applicable to the Water
Quantity and Quality section of the EIS include:
x The need to identify and discuss how the updated Project description varies from the initial
description;
x The need to include water quality predictions for all water bodies that may be impacted as a result
of the new proposal;
x Consideration and discussion of contingency plans in the event that significant uncertainties or
risks arise from water quality modelling; and,

x A detailed discussion of the updated water management plan that addresses all Project
components and phases.
While the central focus of this document will be new and updated Project aspects, text from the original
EIS has been included to provide clarity and completeness to the new Impact Statement.

Applicable acts, policies, and guidelines related to the protection of water quality and aquatic ecology
include the following:
x Canadian Fisheries Act
x Metal Mine Effluent Regulation (MMER), including an amendment to Schedule 2
x Canadian Environment Assessment Act
x British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act
x British Columbia Environmental Management Act
x Fish-Stream Crossing Guidebook (MOF, 2002)
x Riparian Management Area Guidebook (MOF, 1995)
x Pacific Region Operational Statement Overhead Line Construction Version 2 (DFO, 2006)
x Model Class Screening Report—Embedded Culverts Project in Fish-bearing Streams on Forestry

Roads in British Columbia (DFO, 2005)
x Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat (DFO/MOELP, 1992)
Discharge of effluent from metal mines to receiving waters is regulated under the Fisheries Act, through
the MMER, which came into effect in 2002. Environment Canada administers MMER and associated
Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) programs that are required to assess effects of effluent
discharges on fish and fish habitat. Although monitoring programs under MMER will not be required
during the operations phase, given there are no plans for discharge of effluent until post-closure, it is
anticipated that an amendment to the MMER Schedule 2 (for the TSF) will be required for this Project.
Since Taseko’s previous EIS submission in 2009, no applicable changes have occurred to the Provincial
acts, regulations, and guidelines outlined above. Amendments have occurred with the Canadian Fisheries
Act; however, to the best of our understanding these changes should not affect the Project proposal as it
is described in Section 2.2.3.
Amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have made changes to the types and
situations in which an environmental assessment and comprehensive studies will occur. Additional
changes have been made to the roles and responsibilities of the governing agency and Minister,
however, it is not anticipated these changes will affect the water quantity and quality chapter of the EIS.
Amendments to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) since the previous EIS submission have
been made to clarify reporting requirements and authorities. For the purpose of this EIS, changes to the
MMER guidelines specific to the monitoring and reporting include:
x Schedule 5 para.1 – As defined in the MMER guidelines, fish tissue mercury concentrations that
exceed 0.5 μg/g compared to baseline will be will be considered an “effect on fish tissue”.

x Schedule 5 para.4 - Effluent and monitoring studies will consider inclusion of parameters in the
updated list.
x Schedule 5 para.17 - Comparison and correlation between biological and environmental effects
monitoring (EEM) will be completed.
x Schedule 5 Division 2 – Preparation and submission of interpretive reports will occur on a 24

month schedule.
x Schedule 5 Division 3 – Schedule and considerations of a final monitoring plan will be consistent
with Schedule 5 para. 23.

There have been no changes in the temporal boundaries for construction and commissioning, operations,
and closure and decommissioning phases between the previously assessed project and the New
Prosperity Project (see March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 2.1.4). The temporal boundaries
used for the New Prosperity assessment of potential Project effects on water quality and aquatic ecology
are:
x Baseline Scenario: represents water quality and aquatic ecology conditions prior to any Project-
specific developments. These baseline conditions incorporate the environmental effects of
existing human-caused disturbances (i.e., forest harvesting, road networks).
x Construction, Operations, Closure and Post-Closure Scenarios: represents conditions during

construction activities, operations and decommissioning/reclamation activities. Due to the integral
relationship between the water quality, aquatic ecology, and the water management plan, the
temporal boundaries for the Fish Lake water quality and ecology assessment are reflective of the
principal phases of the Project water management plan (Section 2.7.2.4a). This was done for two
reasons: firstly, the large majority of the potential residual effects are tied to phases in the water
management plan (i.e., TSF spilling, lake recirculation). Secondly, all models used to predict
water quality were tied to water balances that are divided into water management phases. For a
detailed description of the water management plan please see Section 2.7.2.4a. For the purposes
of the modelling of water quality predictions the timing of water management changes are
consistent with those detailed in the water management discussion in Section 2.7.2.4A. It will be
clear to the reader from the project description and the water management discussion that the
project as proposed contains the entire water management infrastructure to accommodate
changes in timing, flows, and pathways at any time in the life of the project, dependant on the
quality of source water.
Based upon the anticipated Project interactions assessment outlined in Table 2.7.2.4B-2 and the Project
schedule, the following activity categories have been identified as having the potential to affect water
quality and aquatic ecology:
x Fisheries Compensation (Construction, Operations, and Closure)
x Potentially Acid Generating (PAG) stockpile (Construction, Operations I, Operations II)
x Water Management Controls and Operations (All phases)

x Fish Lake Water Management (Construction, Operations I, Operations II, Closure I)
x Starter Dam Construction (Construction)
x Site Drainage and Seepage Management (All phases)
x Discharge of Tailings Storage Facility (Closure II), and
x Discharge of Pit Lake Water (Post-closure)

See Table 2.7.2.4B-2 for the changes to the study areas used, relative to the March 2009 EIS/Application.
There have been no changes to the study areas for the transmission line corridor and access road.
Table 2.7.2.4B-2 Mine Site Study Area Comparison

Mine Site Study Areas
Study Area
2009 Prosperity 2012 New Prosperity
Regional Encompasses most of the Fish Creek The study area is expected to include the
Study Area watershed, extending to the top of the bluffs indirect effects from seepage, groundwater
(RSA) on the east side of the Taseko Valley. The flow changes, and downstream effects.
mine site RSA is also the area of 1:20,000 Specifically it will evaluate the area of the
TEM mapping previously developed for the Beece Creek watershed downstream of
mine site. The mine site RSA had a total the proposed outlet from Wasp Lake,
area of 18,267 ha. including Big Onion and Little Onion lakes.
Aquatic effects are tracked downstream
from the mouth of Fish Creek into the
Taseko River.
Local Study A buffer of 500 m around the proposed mine The study area is expected to include the
Area (LSA) footprint, including the section of new road direct impacts from the proposed
required at the north end of the mine infrastructure construction and mine
footprint. This study area is expected to footprint. Specifically will evaluate the
include the maximum area that could be effects on Upper Fish Creek Watershed
indirectly affected by the Project as a result and Fish Lake resulting from the proposed
of dustfall and localized changes in drainage water management and mine development
patterns, and is also intended to plan.
accommodate any potential for future
changes to the mine footprint.
The mine site LSA had a total area of 4,812
ha.
Maximum A buffer of 100 m around the mine footprint. A buffer of 100 m around the proposed
Disturbance The mine site MDA had a total area of 4,419 mine footprint, to represent a “worst case”
Area (MDA) ha for development.
The MDA has a total area of 2,601 ha
Scope of Effects for Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology

Physical works and activities identified as having changed due to Project design or regulatory
requirements (Table 2.7.2.4B-1) have been brought forward to Table 2.7.2.4B-3 and given Project
environmental effects ratings. For clarity, these effects ratings have been divided into ratings for effects

onsite and effects that occur offsite. Onsite potential effects are those that may occur within the
immediate Project area (Fish Lake, Fish Creek, and Fish Lake Tributary 1). Offsite potential effects are
those that may occur downstream of the Project or in adjacent water bodies. The following criteria were
used for the interaction ratings:
0. Those interactions ranked as “0” (no interaction) and/or indicated in grey shading are not carried
forward in this assessment given the March 2009 EIS/Application determined potential interaction
would not result in a significant environmental effect even without mitigation. This assessment was
based on past experience and professional judgment and has not changed since the March 2009
EIS/Application. Consequently, these interactions are not discussed further in this assessment.
1. Activities ranked as “1” indicate that a potential interaction between the project and environment may
occur. However, based on past experience and professional judgment the interaction would not
result in a significant effect when appropriate environmental protection practices (Codes, Best
Management Practices etc.) are applied effectively. A discussion of the environmental management
plans, including mitigation and best management plans, specific to water quality and aquatic ecology
is included in section 2.8.1.
2. Those activities ranked as a “2” indicate that potential interactions could result in an environmental
effect of concern even with mitigation. Level 2 activities are considered further in the Environmental
Assessment (EA). In some instances, while a potential effect may be indicated by a “2” for a category
(e.g., change in surface water quality offsite) the application of a “2” does not apply to some aspects
of that category. For example, the limit of the downstream surface water quality effects is considered
down to the confluence of Fish Creek and the Taseko River. Downstream of this point any effects
resulting from the New Prosperity MDP would remain unchanged from the March 2009
EIS/Application are therefore beyond the scope of this assessment.

Table 2.7.2.4B-3 Water/Sediment Quality and Aquatic Ecology Potential Environmental Effects Associated with New Prosperity (Effects
Scoping Matrix)
Potential Environmental Effects
Change in Aquatic Ecology
Change in Lakes
Change in Streams
(Phytoplankton,
Surface (Periphyton &
Sediment Zooplankton,
Water Benthic
General Category Quality Benthic
Project Activities/Physical Works Quality Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Productivity)
Productivity)
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
Explosives Plant Explosives Plant 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fisheries compensation works Fisheries compensation works
1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0
(construction) construction
Non-PAG waste stockpile 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
PAG Stockpile 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
Overburden and Waste Rock
Non-PAG Overburden Stockpile 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Management
Ore Stockpile 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Soils handling and stockpiling 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Site clearing (clearing and
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
grubbing)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Operations
Construction sediment control 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Water Management Lake dewatering 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Fish Lake Water Management 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 0
Starter dam construction 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Vehicular traffic Vehicular traffic 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sourcing water supplies (potable,
Water Sourcing and Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
process/TSF)


Change in Lakes
Change in Streams
(Phytoplankton,
Water Benthic
Invertebrate
Productivity)
Productivity)
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
Operations
Fisheries Compensation works Fisheries Compensation works
1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
(operations) operations
Site Clearing (clearing and
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
grubbing)
Explosive handling and storage 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Ore Extraction and Stockpiling Ore Stockpile management and
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
processing
Non-PAG waste stockpile 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overburden and Waste Rock PAG Stockpile 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

Management Overburden Stockpile 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soils handling and stockpiling 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
management
Site Water Management
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Operation
Tailings Management Tailing storage 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
Vehicle traffic Vehicle traffic 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Closure
Fisheries Compensation works Fisheries Compensation works
1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0
(operations) operations
Reclamation Reclamation of ore stockpile area 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0


Change in Lakes
Change in Streams
(Phytoplankton,
Water Benthic
Invertebrate
Productivity)
Productivity)
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
stockpile
Tailing impoundment reclamation 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Operation
Site Water Management Site drainage and seepage
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
management
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Post-Closure
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Site Water Management water
Seepage management and discharge 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of reclamation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Interaction of Other Projects and Activities 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Notes:
0 = No interaction
1 = Interaction occurs; however, based on on past experience and professional judgment the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even without mitigation;
or interaction would not be significant due to application of codified environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects.
2 = Interaction may result in an environmental effect of concern even with mitigation; potential effects are considered further in the EIS

Potential Impact Assessment for Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology

As interpreted from the EIS Guidelines, the factors considered in the water quality and aquatic ecology
section of the EIS are those required under Section 16 of the CEAA.
x Environmental effects of the Project including environmental malfunctions and accidents and any
cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with
other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out (see Section 2.7);
x The significance of the environmental effects referred to above;
x Measures that are technically and economically feasible that would mitigate any significant
adverse effects of the Project (see Section 2.7.2);
x The need for and the requirements of any follow-up program in respect of the Project and the
capacity of renewable resources which are likely to be significantly affected by the Project to meet
the needs of the present and those of the future (see Sections 2.7.6 and 2.8.3).
Table 2.7.2.4B-1 identifies the changes that have been incorporated into the revised Project description.
As with the previous Project description, the revised Mine Development Plan (MDP) will limit development
to the Fish Creek watershed, re-use site water, and divert non-contact water around major installations.
Table 2.7.2.4B-3 identifies and classifies the potential effects associated with the MDP changes with a 0
to 2 scoring system.
Identified Valued Ecosystem Components

Valued Ecosystem components (VECs) for water quality and aquatic ecology have been defined for the
environmental assessment based on the Project Report Specifications (PRS) (BC EAO, 1998), the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines (March 2011), and a review of baseline information
collected within the area since 1992. These general VECs include:
x Water Quality
x Water Temperature
x Aquatic Ecology, including

o Phytoplankton
o Zooplankton
Based upon the activities and potential effects identified in 2.7.2.4B-3 and the general VECs specified in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines (March 2012) a refined list of potential effects
arising from interactions between the proposed Project activities and water quality were identified and are
considered in detail in this assessment.
x Changes in nutrient concentrations in waterbodies receiving contributions from TSF seepage

and/or other project related sources
x Changes in metals concentrations in waterbodies receiving contributions from TSF seepage

x Changes in sulphate concentrations in waterbodies receiving contributions from TSF seepage


x Changes in suspended sediment concentrations in waterbodies receiving contributions from

construction activities, operational activities, and/or particulate sources
x Changes in water temperature in waterbodies resulting from the proposed water management
plans and/or fisheries compensation plans
Similarly, the potential effects identified in Table 2.7.2.4B-3 and the aquatic ecology VEC were refined to
include:
x Changes in phytoplankton and zooplankton productivity and community composition

(productivity and composition)
These VECs were chosen because they are sensitive to Project effects and because they provide vital
links in sustaining healthy aquatic ecosystems. The assessment of Project effects on water quality and
aquatic ecology provides an indication of potential effects on aquatic organisms at the population and
community levels. Many aquatic organisms have known tolerances and responses to metals, nutrients,
and sediments typically associated with mining operations.
Predictions of potential project effects under routine construction, operations, closure, and post-closure
phases are informed by site water management plans (Section 2.7.2.4A) and predictions of the tailings
storage facility (TSF) source water concentration and seepage (Sections 2.7.2.4.A). Additionally,
consideration of water quality and aquatic ecology effects require that specific measurable parameters be
identified.
Waterbodies Evaluated
As is specified Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines (March 2012) a comprehensive list of
“key sites” was to be assessed in this EIS. Key sites were to include all waterbodies that may be affected
as a result of the proposed MDP. The comprehensive list of water quality sites and waterbodies is
detailed in Table 2.7.2.4B-4. Due to the large number of points considered it was necessary to divide
them into several different categories for the effects assessment. These sites were divided based upon
several factors. Firstly, they were divided into lotic systems (river) and lentic systems (lakes). Secondly,
they were divided based on their location within or beyond the Local Study Area (LSA). Based upon this
criterion the adjacent Lakes (Wasp, Big Onion, and Little Onion Lake) and adjacent creeks (Beece Creek,
Taseko River, and Lower Fish Creek) were sub-divided together. Thirdly, they were divided by the VECs
that were evaluated in the waterbodies within the LSA (see Table 2.7.2.4B-4 for details).
Table 2.7.2.4B-4 Waterbodies and VECs that were Assessed and Included in this EIS
Waterbody Nutrient Metals Sulphate Suspended Water Aquatic
concentration concentration concentration Sediments Temp. Ecology
Fish Lake - Effects Table 2.7.2.4B-24
Fish Lake 9 9 9 9 9
Fish Lake Tributaries - Effects Table 2.7.2.4B-25
Fish Lake Tributary 9 9 9 9 9 9

1

Upper Fish Creek 9 9 9 9 9 9

Pit Lake - Effects Table 2.7.2.4B-26
Pit Lake 9 9
Adjacent Lakes - Effects Table 2.7.2.4B-27
Wasp Lake 9 9 9 9
Big Onion Lake 9 9 9 9
Little Onion Lake 9 9 9 9
Adjacent Creeks and Rivers - Effects Table 2.7.2.4B-28
Beece Creek 9 9 9 9
Taseko River at 9 9 9 9
Beece Creek
Lower Fish Creek 9 9 9 9

Taseko River at 9 9 9 9
Fish Creek
Methodology
Baseline
Baseline conditions are summarized in Section 2.6.1.4. Overall, a large portion of the water quality and
aquatic ecology baseline information provided in the 2009 Prosperity EIS submission remains unchanged
(Appendix 5.2.A (2)). As a measure to complement the existing Fish Lake baseline information, seasonal
limnology studies were carried out and are documented in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-C.
Measurable Parameters
Measurable parameters were defined for the assessment of the potential effects of the New Prosperity
MDP on water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Given that water and sediment samples can be analyzed
for chemical characteristics and compared with guidelines, and biological samples can be analyzed for
taxonomic characteristics, the use of key indicators was not considered applicable.
Measurable parameters for water quality and aquatic ecology are summarized in Table 2.7.2.4B-5. In
general, measurable parameters for aquatic ecology reflect changes in abundance, diversity, or
community composition that link water or habitat quality with productive capacity of the systems (fish,
fisheries) or with potential issues of toxicity and bioaccumulation of metals (in fish, birds, wildlife). By
extension, these environmental effects are relevant to socio-economic VECs, including traditional,
recreational, and agricultural uses in the area.
Assessment of the measurable parameters often involves many conservative assumptions that may or
may not apply to the individual situation. For instance, the most sensitive organism may not be present in
the aquatic environment of interest, or the physio-chemical conditions in the water body may act to
reduce the bio-availability of the potentially harmful element. These site-specific factors can make a
significant difference to the observed effect on the measurable parameter. For this assessment, potential

risks are initially identified by using the generic water quality guidelines with toxicological concerns
assessed under prevailing site-specific conditions. In situations where no guideline concentrations exist,
predicted values are compared against the observed baseline concentrations (i.e., plus or minus).
Table 2.7.2.4B-5 Measurable Parameters for Potential Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology
Environmental Effects
Regulatory
Environmental Measurable guidelines, Baseline
Rationale for Selection
Effect (VEC) Parameter policies, and Data for EA
programs
Water quality Nutrient Potential Project effects of CCME Water 1992 to 1996
concentrations: increased nutrients in Fish Quality 1997 to 1998
Phosphorus Lake, Fish Creek and framework 2006
(P), Nitrogen tributaries BC Water quality 2011
(N), Carbon (C) guidelines
Water quality Metals levels Potential Project effects due BC Water quality 1992 to 1996
e.g., Copper to ARD and metal leaching guidelines 1997 to 1998
(Cu), Arsenic affecting Fish Cr. and CCME Water 2006
(As) groundwater discharges to Quality guidelines 2011
adjacent watersheds MMER Water
Potential bioaccumulation Quality guidelines
and adverse effects on
aquatic resources
Water quality Sulphate Potential Project effects BC Water quality 1992 to 1996
associated with tailings and guidelines 1997 to 1998
pit water quality CCME Water 2006
Potential effects on aquatic Quality guidelines 2011
biota MMER Water
Quality guidelines
Water Quality Temperature Potential Project effects 1992 to 1996
associated with changes in 1997 to 1998
hydrologic regime 2006
2011
Water Quality Total Potential effects due to PRS 1992 to 1996
Suspended reduced inflow to Fish Lake EIS Guidelines 1997 to 1998
Sediment Potential effects due to Sediment Quality 2006
Project activities Guidelines 2011
Aquatic Ecology – Productivity Potential changes to nutrient EIS Guidelines 1992 to 1996
Streams loadings and/or suspended 1997 to 1998
sediment levels may affect 2006
primary productivity in
2011
streams.
Aquatic Ecology – Productivity Potential changes to nutrient EIS Guidelines 1992 to 1996
Lakes loadings and/or suspended 1997 to 1998
primary productivity in lakes.
2011

Regulatory
Environmental Measurable guidelines, Baseline
Effect (VEC) Parameter policies, and Data for EA
programs
Aquatic Ecology – Community Changes to ambient water EIS Guidelines 1992 to 1996
Streams composition conditions and water quality 1997 to 1998
may affect the benthic and 2006
planktonic community
2011
structure in streams.
Aquatic Ecology – Community Changes to ambient EIS Guidelines 1992 to 1996
Lakes composition conditions and water quality 1997 to 1998
may affect the benthic and 2006
planktonic communities in
2011
lakes.
Effects Assessment Methodology

Potential environmental effects were assessed using the standard CEAA effects assessment guidance
presented in FEARO (1994). Potentially adverse residual effects were identified using the following
Project attributes:
x Direction – refers to whether the effect will provide positive benefit or adverse effect to the VEC
x Magnitude – refers to the severity of the effect
x Geographic extent – refers to the area over which the effect is expected to occur
x Duration – refers to how long an effect is expected to persist
x Frequency – refers to how frequently it is expected to occur
x Reversibility – refers to whether or not the effect is expected to be permanent
x Ecological context – refers to the level of previous disturbance in the area

These initial attributes were initially evaluated in the context of a preliminary effects matrix Table 2.7.2.4B-
6. In situations where the effects were determined to be not significant prior to mitigation, the potential
effects are assigned a “not significant” designation. In situations where the pre-mitigation potential for
significant effects exists, the significance of the effect is determined following the consideration of the
relevant proposed mitigation and adaptive management strategies.
In the event significant negative effects are anticipated following mitigation, the final step of the evaluation
process involves determining the likelihood of the effect occurrence. This process involves determining
the probability of occurrence and the scientific uncertainty. Generally, the probability of occurrence is
based upon professional judgement and previous project experience. Scientific uncertainty is determined
by a more quantitative approach and is based upon statistically derived confidence intervals.
Table 2.7.2.4B-6 Initial Effects Scoping Matrix

Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Ecological Effect
context significant
High Any Any Any Any Any Yes

Medium Any Any Residual Any Any

Low Any Any Long- Irreversible Fragile or
term, degraded
residual
Medium Regional Any Long- Reversible Undisturbed or No
or term, resilient
local short-term
Low Any Any Long- Irreversible Undisturbed or No
term, resilient
residual
Medium Local Isolated or Short-term Reversible Any No
periodic
Low Any Any Short-term Reversible Any
Nil Any Any Any Any Any No
Water Quality Models

The assessment methods used to determine potential Project effects on water quality are consistent with
those outlined in the New Prosperity EIS guidelines. In general this involves predictive mass balance
water quality modelling for all of the evaluated water bodies. These predictive models include source term
concentrations and volumes for major mine and natural components (i.e., groundwater, seepage, plant
site runoff), which were calculated on a daily or monthly basis, through the different phases of the Project.
Predictive water quality models have been used by investigators for decades to forecast changes in
aquatic environments. They accomplish their predictions by simplifying the system into discrete
components (i.e., inflows and outflows) that are gained, mixed and lost from a system in a predictable
way. In the absence of whole lake experiments and manipulations models represent the only tool to
evaluate potential future changes in water quality. For the New Prosperity EIS two different models were
employed. The first model was a comprehensive mass balance model used to predict water quality in
Fish Lake, Fish Lake Tributary 1, Fish Creek Reach 8, the proposed TSF Lake, and Pit Lake. This
approach utilized stochastically predicted daily discharge estimates, in conjunction with baseline and
predicted concentrations/loads. The specific Fish Lake model included additional considerations for
contributions from airborne particles. Additional in-lake chemical scavenging processes, and water
column stratification were included into the model to provide insight and predictive accuracy. The results
achieved from this modelling were used for two primary functions: Firstly, they represent quantitative
predictions that provide the basis for the assessment of the potential effects on water quality and aquatic
ecology. Secondly, they were used as a guidance tool to develop and inform the proposed monitoring
plan.
The second model was a detailed mixing point model utilized for water bodies and streams located
outside and downstream of the delineated maximum disturbance area. This approach utilized predicted
monthly discharge values as well as baseline and predicted water quality data (See Appendix 2.7.2.4B-G
for complete details). The results of all of the models were compared against baseline concentrations, as
well as the applicable provincial and federal guidelines where available, to determine the nature and
extent of any potential environment effect. Results are presented in both a tabulated and graphic form.
Where necessary, a description of contingency plans is presented to address uncertainties and risks
associated with predictions.

Complete details of the stochastic water quality model used to predict water quality in Fish Lake, Fish
Creek Reach 8, Fish Lake Tributary 1, TSF Lake, and Pit Lake can be found in Appendix 2.7.2.1-I.
Complete details of the water quality model used to predict water quality in Wasp Lake, Beece Creek,
Little Onion Lake, Big Onion Lake, Taseko River and Fish Creek downstream of the Project can be found
in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-G.
Note that both the stochastic water quality model used for predicting surface water quality changes in
Fish Lake and it’s inlet tributaries, as well as the mass balance water quality model used to predict
changes to surface water quality downstream of the project facilities (i.e. Wasp Lake, Beece Creek, Big &
Little Onion Lakes, lower Fish Creek and Taseko River) incorporated changes to groundwater quality in
their methods. Groundwater that may be affected by the project facilities was assumed to report to
surface waters, much the same way as was done for the 2009 EIS/Application. In this way, changes to
groundwater quality are captured in determining effects to surface water quality.
Model Summaries
Stochastic Water Quality Model

Mass Inputs
Mass inputs are a function of both discharges into the lake as well as elemental concentrations in the
water. Within the model the total amount of flux into the lake was calculated by summing the flux values
from the identified sources around the lake:
Where is the predicted source term concentration of source in mg/L, and is the predicted discharge
entering the lake from source in m3/month.
The Fish Lake water quality model was calculated on a daily basis for all Project and closure phases. To
capture the range of potential environmental conditions and variability the hydrologic inputs to the model
was run based upon an average year scenario as well as based on stochastic scenarios determined for
the water balance.
Mass Outputs
Unlike a typical lake, the outlet of the lake will be blocked and discharge water will be recirculated back
into either the TSF or the inlets as mitigation flow (see Appendix 2.7.2.4B-D). The recirculated mitigation
flow represents a large elemental output flux from the lake and is considered as a loss for the mass
balance calculations. However, this is a temporary loss and a large quantity of the mass will report back
to the lake a short time later; as a conservative factor, 100% of flux lost through recirculation is modelled
to return to the lake. A small amount of water is anticipated to be lost from the system via groundwater
seepage. However, this number represents (>0.002%) of the lowest predicted monthly inflows of 120,124

m3/month. The lake loses water via evaporation during the warmer months of the year; however this is
considered to be distilled water for the overall mass balance and hence is not an elemental mass output.
The methods for accounting for evaporative losses are discussed below. In the absence of effective
surface and groundwater discharges, the only elemental loss factor is a natural loss from the water
column to the lake sediments. Table 2.7.2.4B-7 summarizes the various elemental losses.
Table 2.7.2.4B-7 Data Sources for the Fish Lake Water Quality Model
Elemental Loss Quantity
Surface water N/A
Recirculated flow (Lake concentration * Volume) – temporary
Evaporation Considered to be negligible
Scavenging to the sediments Described in Technical Appendix 2.7.2.4B-B
Seepage from the Fish Lake basin Described in Section 2.7.2.4A
Sediment Scavenging (for Fish Lake)

In lake systems, sediment scavenging can be an important factor in the elemental budget. Within Fish
Lake, sediment scavenging values were measured from intact dated sediment cores (see Appendix
2.7.2.4B-B). To ensure permanently scavenged elements were accounted for in this analysis, only
elemental concentrations in sediments older than 50 years were considered. These measured values
were extrapolated across the depositional area (Estimated to be 550,000 m2–50% of the entire lake
basin) in Fish Lake to provide a whole lake average annual scavenging values. For the purpose of the
Fish Lake water quality model, the annual average scavenging rate was divided by 12 to provide an
average annual monthly scavenging rate for incorporation into the mass balance model. By using this
loss term we are assuming:
1. Scavenging rates are roughly equal month to month, and
2. Scavenging rates will remain stable over the course of the extended life of the Project.
In regard to the applicability of the first assumption, sedimentation rates are generally believed to exhibit
seasonal maximums during the productive summer period and seasonal minimums during the ice
covered winter/spring period. In this situation, average annual values were used because current
technology cannot accurately date sediments greater than 50 years old with more than yearly accuracy.
This assumption will be accurate on an annual basis and is therefore appropriate for the long-term
modelling conducted in this situation.
The second assumption in this analysis is considered to be a conservative one. Fish Lake sediments will
likely accumulate more sediment and scavenge more material during the construction and operational
phases of the Project. Some of this material is anticipated to come from airborne sources, such as dust,
while some additional material may come from terrestrial sources and in-lake productivity.

Evaporative Losses
Evapoconcentration/dilution was factored into the model in the manner described below.
Based on the watershed model detailed in Section 2.7.2.4A Fish Lake appears to receive approximately
55,000 m3 more water from direct precipitation than is lost to evaporation (see Table 2.7.2.4B-8). As
expected, during the summer months of July, August, September, and October, the lake exhibits a small
concentration factor resulting from excess evaporation. This is more than compensated for during the
cooler spring and fall months which are dominated by direct precipitation.
Table 2.7.2.4B-8 Predicted Evaporation and Direct Precipitation Values for Fish Lake
Anticipated Evaporation Anticipated Direct Net Evapoconcentration

Month
(m3/month) Precipitation (m3/month) Factor in Fish Lake
January 0 0 0
February 0 0 0
March 0 0 0
April 0 7,210 0.998
May 0 60,421 0.986
June 82,554 128,104 0.990
July 130,332 123,899 1.001
August 120,557 108,799 1.003
September 124,902 86,202 1.009
October 83,630 52,301 1.007
November 0 30,083 0.993
December 0 0 0
Total 541,975 597,019 0.987
Stratification Correction (for Fish Lake)

Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles obtained from Fish Lake at different periods of the year
suggest that the lake is thermally stratified on a seasonal basis (Appendices 2.7.2.4B-D and 2.7.2.4B-G).
Thermal stratification occurs when temperatures in the surface waters of a lake heat more rapidly than
the deeper waters of the basin. The resulting difference in density causes the cooler water to remain at or
near the bottom of the lake while the warmer, less dense water, floats to the surface. In lakes that
completely mix twice a year (dimictic), like Fish Lake, this difference in density will prevent mixing

between the surface and deeper waters which commonly leads to a greater difference of temperatures
and densities over the warmest part of the year. The technical term applied to the warm top level of this
stratification is epilimnion, while the deeper cold layer beneath is referred to as the hypolimnion. Dividing
these two layers is a narrow layer that is referred to as the thermocline or metalimnion
Once stratified, the conditions in the epilimnion and hypolimnion will diverge by numerous factors in
addition to temperature. The epilimnion will largely remain mixed and well oxygenated throughout the
stratification period, while the hypolimnion may exhibit lower oxygen concentrations. The epilimnion will
also provide the primary producers (algae and other plants) with greater access to solar radiation,
allowing primary producers to become established and proliferate. Of importance to water quality
modelling, stratification will have implications to the overall elemental concentrations in the epilimnion and
hypolimnion. For instance, nutrients in the epilimnion will be rapidly consumed by the primary producers
in the epilimnion. When these organisms senesce, they will sink through the epilimnion to the
hypolimnion, bringing the organically bound nutrients with them. In the hypolimnion a portion of these
organically bound nutrients may be re-mineralized while a portion will build up in the sediments. Due to
the stratification, the re-mineralized components cannot travel back to the epilimnion until the thermal
stratification breaks down in the fall. In this manner, elements can become differentially fractionated
between the epilimnion and hypolimnion. This downward flux of material can, over the period of
stratification, lead to an increased discrepancy between the epilimnetic and hypolimnetic concentrations
as the summer stratification period progresses.
To adjust for this stratification effect a simple correction factor was applied to the predicted Fish Lake
concentrations. This correction factor relied upon the Fish Lake epilimnion and hypolimnion data
presented in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-F (Appendix Tables C4-5, C4-7). Table 2.7.2.4B-9 lists the average,
chemical concentrations observed in the epilimnion and hypolimnion during stratification.
Table 2.7.2.4B-9 Mean Epilimnion and Hypolimnion Concentrations Observed in Fish Lake
Mean concentration in the Mean concentration in the
Element
epilimnion hypolimnion
Total Hardness 81 90.1000
Total Alkalinity 91.3 103.6000
Dissolved Chloride 0.8 0.7000
Dissolved Fluoride 0.1 0.0600
Dissolved Sulphate 1.6 0.7000
Almnonia-N 0.042 0.2060
Nitrate-N 0.097 0.0060
Nitrite-N 0.002 0.0020
Ortho-Phosphate 0.006 0.0980
Dissolved Phosphate 0.016 0.1070
Total Phosphate 0.025 0.1770
Total Aluminum 0.009 0.0110
Total Antimony 0.00016 Undefined
Total Arsenic 0.0003 0.0006
Total Cadmium Undefined 0.0049

Mean concentration in the Mean concentration in the

Element
epilimnion hypolimnion
Total Calcium 15.1 17.7000
Total Cobalt 0.0001 0.0003
Total Copper 0.0011 0.0008
Total Iron 0.14 1.6800
Total Lead 0.00134 0.0011
Total Magnesium 10.5 11.7000
Total Manganese 0.02 0.4100
Total Molybdenum 0.00029 0.0003
Total Nickel 0.002 0.0022
Total Potassium Undefined Undefined
Total Selenium Undefined Undefined
Total Silver 0.0002 0.0001
Total Sodium 6.5 7.1000
Total Strontium 0.048 0.0540
Total Titanium Undefined Undefined
Total Zinc 0.0027 0.0015
Source: Appendix 2.7.2.4B-F, Appendix Tables C4-5 and C4-7
Temperature profile data confirmed that the lake was stratified during the months of July and August at a
depth of approximately 6 m (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-D). No data were available for the month of September,
however, measurements gathered in mid-October confirmed the lake was isothermal and completely
mixed in October. For this analysis we estimated the lake could be stratified throughout the months of
July, August, and September. The remainder of the year the lake was considered to be unstratified and
completely mixed. Bathymetric data for the Fish Lake basin confirms that 582,000 m3 (13.2%) of total lake
water is contained within the hypolimnion (≥6 m) (Figure 2.7.2.4B 10).
To simulate the chemical evolution of the layers over the summer, we have assumed the minimum
observed values are representative of the July concentrations, the mean values are representative of the
August conditions, and the maximum values are representative of the September values. While all
elements will partition between the two layers differently, the overall material and elemental flux is
downward and would result in the hypolimnion becoming concentrated as the summer progressed.
Based upon this reasoning, August is representative of the mean elemental concentrations in the two
layers.

Thermocline at 6m
Figure 2.7.2.4B-1 Bathymetric Curve of the Fish Lake Basin
Based on the observed concentrations and the estimated volumes in the epilimnion and hypolimnion, the
total volume of each element in the respective layers and in the entire lake was calculated. Finally, the
overall percentage of each element in the respective layers was calculated (Table 2.7.2.4B-10).
Table 2.7.2.4B-10 Total Mass of Elements in Fish Lake (based upon a hypolimnion volume of
582,128 m3 a total lake volume of 4,400,000 m3 and mean observed concentrations)
Total mass Total mass Percentage in Percentage in
Element
epilimnion (kg) hypolimnion (kg) epilimnion hypolimnion
Total Hardness 309,247.63 52,449.73 85.50 14.50
Total Alkalinity 348,571.71 60,308.46 85.25 14.75
Dissolved Chloride 3,054.30 407.49 88.23 11.77
Dissolved Fluoride 381.79 34.93 91.62 8.38
Dissolved Sulphate 6,108.60 407.49 93.75 6.25
Ammonia-N 160.35 119.92 57.21 42.79
Nitrate-N 370.33 3.49 99.07 0.93
Nitrite-N 7.64 1.16 86.77 13.23
Ortho-Phosphate 22.91 57.05 28.65 71.35
Dissolved Phosphate 61.09 62.29 49.51 50.49
Total Phosphate 95.45 103.04 48.09 51.91
Total Aluminum 34.36 6.40 84.29 15.71
Total Antimony 86.80 13.20
Total Arsenic 1.15 0.35 76.63 23.37
Total Cadmium 86.80 13.20
Total Calcium 57,649.87 10,303.67 84.84 15.16
Total Cobalt 0.38 0.17 68.61 31.39

Total mass Total mass Percentage in Percentage in

Element
epilimnion (kg) hypolimnion (kg) epilimnion hypolimnion
Total Copper 4.20 0.47 90.02 9.98
Total Iron 534.50 977.98 35.34 64.66
Total Lead 5.12 0.63 88.97 11.03
Total Magnesium 40,087.66 6,810.90 85.48 14.52
Total Manganese 76.36 238.67 24.24 75.76
Total Molybdenum 1.11 0.16 87.57 12.43
Total Nickel 7.64 1.28 85.64 14.36
Total Potassium 86.80 13.20
Total Selenium 86.80 13.20
Total Silver 0.76 0.05 94.25 5.75
Total Sodium 24,816.17 4,133.11 85.72 14.28
Total Strontium 183.26 31.43 85.36 14.64
Total Titanium 86.80 13.20
Total Zinc 10.31 0.87 92.19 7.81
In situations where data was incomplete or missing the epilimnion and hypolimnion concentrations were
assumed to be equal and as a result the percentages are equal to the percentage of the total lake volume
each layer comprises.
Water quality predictions for Fish Lake assumed water was thoroughly mixed, a condition that is not met
during the months of July, August, and September. The predicted values for these months were
subsequently adjusted based on the observed baseline chemical concentrations in the lake. Firstly, the
total elemental volumes were calculated based on the predicted concentrations and the established lake
volume (4,400,000). The total calculated volumes were then redistributed to the epilimnion and
hypolimnion based on the baseline percentage distribution. With the elemental volumes redistributed,
adjusted concentrations were calculated based upon the volumes of the epilimnion and hypolimnion
(3,817,872 m3 and 582,128 m3 respectively).
These adjustments reflect the natural processes occurring in the lake to redistribute chemical elements
while the lake is stratified. See Table 2.7.2.4B-11 for details on the calculated percentages applied to the
July, August, and September data.
Table 2.7.2.4B-11 Elemental Fractionation Percentages Calculated with Baseline Epilimnetic and
Hypolimnetic Concentrations
July August September
Element Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentag Percentage
in in in in e in in
epilimnion hypolimnion epilimnion hypolimnion epilimnion hypolimnion
Total
Hardness 85.23 14.77 85.50 14.50 86.14 13.86
Total
Alkalinity 86.91 13.09 85.25 14.75 85.25 14.75


in in in in e in in
Dissolved
Chloride 82.41 17.59 88.23 11.77 90.36 9.64
Dissolved
Fluoride 81.39 18.61 91.62 8.38 98.29 1.71
Dissolved
Sulphate 84.90 15.10 93.75 6.25 97.04 2.96
Ammonia-N 92.19 7.81 57.21 42.79 59.56 40.44
Nitrate-N 89.74 10.26 99.07 0.93 99.63 0.37
Nitrite-N 86.77 13.23 86.77 13.23 81.39 18.61
Ortho-
Phosphate 86.77 13.23 28.65 71.35 27.36 72.64
Dissolved
Phosphate 95.83 4.17 49.51 50.49 44.46 55.54
Total
Phosphate 47.21 52.79 48.09 51.91 63.26 36.74
Total
Aluminum 86.77 13.23 84.29 15.71 72.23 27.77
Total
Antimony 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20
Total
Arsenic 76.63 23.37 76.63 23.37 80.39 19.61
Total
Cadmium 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20
Total
Calcium 84.57 15.43 84.84 15.16 85.65 14.35
Total
Cobalt 76.63 23.37 68.61 31.39 62.12 37.88
Total
Copper 88.73 11.27 90.02 9.98 84.79 15.21
Total Iron 58.93 41.07 35.34 64.66 35.49 64.51
Total Lead 87.60 12.40 88.97 11.03 91.09 8.91
Total
Magnesium 84.71 15.29 85.48 14.52 86.20 13.80


in in in in e in in
Total
Manganese 76.63 23.37 24.24 75.76 35.72 64.28
Total
Molybdenu
m 87.23 12.77 87.57 12.43 87.83 12.17
Total Nickel 77.54 22.46 85.64 14.36 87.23 12.77
Total
Potassium 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20
Total
Selenium 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20
Total Silver 80.39 19.61 94.25 5.75 96.72 3.28
Total
Sodium 85.87 14.13 85.72 14.28 85.77 14.23
Total
Strontium 83.10 16.90 85.36 14.64 85.68 14.32
Total
Titanium 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20 86.80 13.20
Total Zinc 81.39 18.61 92.19 7.81 96.84 3.16
Mixing Point Water Quality Model

KPL has prepared water mixing models for the surface water regime in the vicinity of the proposed
Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine using a similar approach to that used in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
The models have been used to quantify predicted changes in surface water quality downstream of the
Project. The modelled water quality sites in the Project area are shown on Figure 2.7.2.4B-1. Three lakes
were modelled: Wasp Lake, Big Onion Lake and Little Onion Lake. Mixing point BC1 is located on Beece
Creek after the confluence with runoff from Wasp Lake. The next mixing point, T1, is located on the
Taseko River immediately after the confluence with Beece Creek. Mixing point T2 is located on the
Taseko River immediately after the confluence with Big Onion Lake runoff. There are two mixing points
on Fish Creek. The first, FC1, is located at the top of the waterfall. It models the mixing of Pit Lake
seepage with Fish Creek. The second, FC2, is located immediately before the confluence of the Taseko
River. Mixing point T3 is located immediately after the confluence with Fish Creek.

445,000
450,000
455,000
460,000
465,000
470,000
LEGEND:
GENERAL
ò
>
5,710,000 5,710,000 !
( MIXING POINT
N
"
T3
5,705,000 !
( 5,705,000
FC2
!
(
Lo
we
FC1 rF
!
( ish
Cr
ee
k
OPEN WRMF
PIT
Fish
5,700,000 5,700,000
Lake
Ta
s
ek
oR
ive
r
T2
!
(
B
ig TSF
La On
ke ion
!
(
5,695,000 5,695,000
NOTES:
Li ! ( 1. BASE MAP: ESRI ONLINE.
ttl Wasp
KP FIGURE SAVED: M:\1\01\00266\27\A\GIS\Figs\WQMixingPointsR0.mxd; Sep 12, 2012 1:55:14 PM kkrauszova
e Lake
La On 2. COORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES.
ke i o COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 10N.
n !
(
T1 3. THIS FIGURE IS PRODUCED AT A NOMINAL SCALE OF 1:100,000
( BC1
! FOR 11x17 (TABLOID) PAPER. ACTUAL SCALE MAY DIFFER
ACCORDING TO CHANGES IN PRINTER SETTINGS OR
!
( PRINTED PAPER SIZE.
Beec
e Cree
k 4. TRIM CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 20 METRES.
5,690,000 5,690,000
500250 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Meters

SCALE
TASEKO MINES LIMITED

NEW PROSPERITY PROJECT
445,000
450,000
455,000
460,000
465,000
470,000
WQ MIXING POINTS
WATER QUALITY MIXING POINT
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-266/25 1
0 12SEP'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT CJ KK GLS KJB
FIGURE 2.7.2.4B-2
REV
REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 1.1 0
Assumptions
The water quality model was developed using a mass balance calculation approach in Excel to predict
monthly water quality for parameters (including physical water quality and total metals) at selected
locations within and downstream of the Project area. The mass balance method assumes incoming flows
are thoroughly mixed a short distance downstream of the confluence. All assumptions are listed in
Appendix 2.7.2.4B-G on the water quality model. Some important assumptions to note include the
following:
x Precipitation and evaporation are neutral inputs and outputs; the concentration of metals, physical
parameters and nutrients in precipitation and in evaporation are minor to the point they can be
considered to be zero for modeling.
x Summer is from May to October; winter is from November to April.
x Baseline water quality data below the limits of detection were applied to the model as background
concentrations equal to the detection limit. This is a conservative assumption as water quality
models commonly use 50% of the detection limit.
x TSF pore water impacts only the groundwater quality and not the flow rate.
x Catchment runoff water quality is assumed to contain the same parameter concentrations as the
baseline data for the respective mixing points.
x Catchment runoff water quality does not change over time.
Schedule
Predicted parameter concentrations were calculated at each mixing point on a monthly basis, starting at
the beginning of operations and ending in year 200. Parameter concentrations generally changed during
specific phases of the project and reached equilibrium within five years of each change, fluctuating with
seasonal variability only. Phases of the Project resulting in parameter changes include the following:
x Year 10: TSF pore water mixes with groundwater baseflow entering Wasp Lake; groundwater
contributions from the TSF pore water increase by a logarithmic arrival to the lake to a maximum
contribution of 50% at year 100.
x Year 20: the flow rates for the lakes change because of changing groundwater flow;
x Year 30: surface water seepage from the southeast and west seepage collection ponds enters
Wasp Lake and Big Onion Lake;
x Year 31: catchment runoff from the area south of the south embankment diverted into Wasp
Lake;
x Year 47: Pit Lake becomes full and begins to discharge to Upper Fish Creek;
x Year 50: TSF pore water mixes with groundwater baseflow and enters Big Onion Lake and Little
Onion Lake.

Parameters and Guidelines

The parameters investigated included a range of ions and metals and metalloids that could potentially
exceed guidelines and the parameter concentrations predicted in the model were compared to both
federal and provincial guidelines, using the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG) and the
British Columbian Water Quality Guidelines (BCWQG). Total concentrations and pH were not modelled;
however, total baseline concentrations were used as an input with the predicted dissolved components.
Predictions were evaluated against the CEQG and BCWQG to identify exceedances in the predicted
water quality of the undiluted tailings pore water, seepage collection ponds, and in Pit Lake to the
guidelines. These parameters include fluoride, sulphate, ammonia, aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, zinc, vanadium, lead, thallium, and
molybdenum.
In some cases, background water quality naturally exceeds guidelines for cadmium and vanadium due to
high method detection limits (MDL) and does not necessarily indicate true exceedances. At every
modelled point, the background concentrations of cadmium exceed both the CEQG and the BCWQG.
The hardness-dependent guideline in the Project area ranges from 0.00001 mg/L to 0.00005 mg/L (for
both CEQG and BCWQG) and the MDL is 0.0002 mg/L. Similarly, the BCWQG for vanadium is
0.006 mg/L and the MDL achievable by the laboratories before 1997 was 0.03 mg/L. After 1997, the MDL
was lowered to 0.001 mg/L by the laboratories due to improved methods, but most of the available
background data was collected prior to this.
Water Quality Results and Interpretation

Water quality modelling was undertaken for drainages within the proposed mine site, for surrounding
drainages that would ultimately receive seepage associated with the TSF, and / or for sites that would
receive discharge from the Pit Lake system once full (referred to hereafter as the mixing points). A
summary of the waterbodies considered in the modelling exercises is provided in Table 2.7.2.4B-12 and
shown in Figure 2.7.2.4B-1.
Table 2.7.2.4B-12 Waterbodies in the Project Area for which Water Quality Predictions were made
Location Waterbody
Fish Lake
Upper Fish Creek
Mine site
Tributary 1
Pit Lake (created post operations)
Lower Fish Creek roughly 2.5 km d/s of Pit Lake (FC1)
Lower Fish Creek u/s of the confluence with the Taseko River (FC2)
Mixing points - downstream of the mine site Taseko River d/s of the confluence with lower Fish Creek (T3)
Taseko River u/s of the confluence with the Big Onion Lake outlet (T2)
Taseko River u/s of the confluence with Beece Creek (T1)
Beece Creek u/s of the confluence with the Taseko (B1)
Mixing points - Southwest of the TSF Big Onion Lake
Little Onion Lake
Mixing point - south of the TSF Wasp Lake

A stochastic model (combining surficial total and dissolved seepage concentrations was used to predict
water quality at the mine site for Fish Lake, Upper Fish Creek, Tributary 1 and the Pit Lake. Predictions
for the Fish Lake system are presented for 5 different periods: Years 1 to 16, 17 to 20, 21 to 30, 31 to 47
and 47 to 100. Predictions for the Pit Lake are provided for Year 48+, reflective of when the lake is
expected to be full and starting to discharge to lower Fish Creek.
The stochastic model generated daily predictions on the basis of 100 daily iterations and provided
predicted values for the following:
x minimum, mean, median and maximum concentrations
x 5th percentile, 25th percentile 75th percentile, 95th percentile value

The minimum, average, and maximum predicted values were compiled and used to identify potential
effects on water quality for each operating period. The maximum values generated by the stochastic
model are the model outcomes arising from low probability, short duration events (unlikely to occur
overall). The average model values are most reflective of typical conditions expected in the mine site
waterbodies. The emphasis on analysis and discussion of maximum values in the following sections of
the document represent a conservative approach to characterizing the potential effects of changes to
water quality. The mixing point water quality data were modelled using predicted monthly discharge
values, along with baseline total metals and predicted water quality values. This model generated 5 th and
95th percentiles along with minimum, average and maximum values. These values were generated by
operating and closure periods. Similar to the Pit Lake, only the 48+ predictions for Lower Fish Creek
stations were considered, as this drainage will not discharge to the Taseko River until that time (once the
Pit Lake is full)
Data Interpretation
As a starting point for interpreting the data, the predicted values were compared with federal and
provincial water quality guidelines and published toxicity reference values (TRV) / ecological screening
values (ESV) for freshwater aquatic life. Information sources included:
x BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines (updated 2011)

o Applied the maximum and 30-day average guideline value
x Compendium of Working Water Quality Guidelines (updated 2006)
x Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Guidelines (updated
2011)
x TRV/ESV from multiple sources including but not limited to US EPA National Ambient Water
Quality Criteria; Suter and Tsao (1996)
An emphasis was placed on evaluating maximums first to characterize potential worst case scenarios.
It is important to note the predicted water quality data were evaluated without consideration for the
mitigating effects of water treatment, strategic diversions (depending on water quality) and other
mitigation measures that will be implemented during operations and closure as needed. Once again, this
reflects a conservative approach to characterizing potential effects associated with changes in water
quality.

Provincial and/or federal guideline values for fluoride, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver,
and zinc are calculated on the basis of hardness. Nitrite is calculated using chloride, ammonia using pH
and temperature, and aluminum using pH. A summary of the equations used to calculate guideline values
is provided in Table 2.7.2.4B-13.
Table 2.7.2.4B-13 Equations used to Calculate Guideline Values
Equations and ranges for calculating provincial and federal

Parameter
guidelines for the protection of aquatic life
e(1.209 - 2.426 (pH) + 0.286 K) where K = (pH)2 (BC)

Dissolved Al @ pH <6.5
5 ug/L if pH < 6.5 / 100 ug/L if pH ≥ 6.5 (CCME)
10 (0.86*log hardness-3.2) (BC and CCME)

Total cadmium
0.0001 mg/L @ hardness ≤30 mg/L to 0.0006 mg/L
(0.094(hardness)+2) (BC)
Total copper 0.04 (mean hardness) (BC 30 d avg)
e0.8545 [ln(hardness)]-1.465 * 0.2 μg/L (CCME)
e(1.273 ln (hardness) - 1.460) (BC max)
Total lead 3.31 + e(1.273 ln (mean hardness) - 4.704) (BC 30 d avg)
e1.273[ln(hardness)]-4.705 (CCME)
0.01102 hardness + 0.54 (BC max)

Total manganese
0.0044(hardness)+0.605 (BC 30 d avg)
0.025 mg/L @ hardness <60 mg/L

0.065 mg/L @ hardness >60 <120 mg/L
Total nickel 0.110 mg/L @ hardness >120 <160 mg/L
e0.76[ln(hardness)]+1.06 (CCME)
0.0001 mg/L maximum @ hardness <100 mg/L or 0.003 mg/L maximum

Total silver
@ hardness >100 mg/L
33 + 0.75 x (hardness-90) (BC max)

Total zinc
7.5 + 0.75 x (hardness-90) (BC 30 d avg)
Nitrite (mg/L) 0.06 mg/L maximum when chloride is <2 mg/L (BC)
Fluoride (mg/L) -51.73 + 92.57 log10 (hardness) and multiply by 0.01 (BC)
Ammonia (mg/L) Determined with in situ temperature and pH (BC)

Application of Federal and Provincial Guideline Values

Water quality guidelines are developed using chronic and/or acute toxicity data, with an emphasis on
values such as Lowest Observed Effects Levels (LOEL). Where chronic data are not available, the lowest
available LC50 concentrations are used. The guidelines typically include a safety factor applied to the
original toxicity data. For example, the province has applied a safety factor of 5 to the LOEL of 0.01 mg/L
selenium to establish the guideline value of 0.002 mg/L. Toxicity data are expressed in a variety of ways
and it is important to understand the terminology as it may relate to the nature of the tests being
undertaken for which toxicity data is reported. Examples of terms and data reported in the text are shown
and defined below:
x LC50 – the test concentration that results in the death of 50% of the test organisms. The time
period for the tests can be from hours to days depending on the design of the test. These types of
tests are referred to as bioassays.
x EC50 – the concentration eliciting a response in the organisms being tested. The response,
timeframes, and organisms used can be variable and the main purpose is to determine the levels
of a substance eliciting adverse responses.
x NOEL – no observed effects concentration, or, the lowest concentration of a test substance that
does not elicit a response.
x NAOEL – no adverse observed effects level or the lowest concentration of a substance that does
not elicit an adverse response.
Bioassays may also be “acute” where mortality is the measure, or “chronic” where longer-term exposures
are used to evaluate the adverse effects of substances. As discussed above, the aggregate toxicity data
for a particular substance is considered in establishing a guideline level. Normally, the lowest observed
effect level of the most sensitive organism is used and an application or uncertainty factor applied to
provide the “guideline” level. Consequently, it is important to note that an exceedence of a guideline value
does not always indicate an “effect” and it is important to consider the magnitude and duration of the
exceedence before concluding it will elicit an adverse effect. Applying the guideline levels are an
important first step in identifying the potential for an effect. Often the natural levels of a given parameter
may be higher than guidelines and where fish and other aquatic organisms function without adverse
effects. In these cases, guideline levels may default to the higher natural background concentrations, and
a procedure for establishing site-specific water quality objectives may be considered. Establishing site-
specific water quality or sediment quality objectives will provide a more accurate and defensible basis for
comparing and determining the potential for adverse effects in exposed organisms.
Comparison of Predicted Values with Guidelines and Standards
Upper Fish Creek, Tributary 1, Fish Lake, and the Pit Lake
A comparison of water quality predictions to guidelines by project phase is shown in Table 2.7.2.4B-14.
Note for those parameters affected by hardness (copper, cadmium, zinc) the baseline hardness for Fish
Lake and the tributaries baseline hardness values of 82 mg/L to 139 mg/L respectively were used to
calculate guideline values. The predicted hardness in the Pit Lake once full (518 mg/L) was used to
calculate the appropriate guideline values for that water body.

Table 2.7.2.4B-14 Comparison of Predicted Water Quality to Guidelines for Fish Lake, Trib 1, Upper Fish Creek and Pit Lake
Fish Lake Upper Fish Creek Trib 1

BC Water Quality CCME Water
Values Pit Lake
Guidelines (Working quality
(mg/L) Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years 48+
and Approved) guidelines
(1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100)
Aluminum
Min 0.057 0.048 0.051 0.056 0.058 0.0220 0.0232 0.0236 0.0258 0.0285 0.0220 0.0229 0.0231 0.0235 0.0238 0.450
Average 0.098 0.089 0.083 0.087 0.088 0.0855 0.0843 0.0848 0.0904 0.0911 0.0860 0.0851 0.0854 0.0895 0.0905 0.602 0.05 0.1 0.1
Max 0.140 0.127 0.110 0.116 0.116 0.184 0.184 0.186 0.172 0.175 0.184 0.185 0.187 0.188 0.188 0.727
Antimony
Min 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.020
Average 0.0008 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005 0.0009 0.0006 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005 0.0010 0.0006 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005 0.0009 0.025 0.02 -
Max 0.0027 0.0015 0.0006 0.0014 0.0013 0.0025 0.0014 0.0007 0.0025 0.0021 0.0025 0.0015 0.0008 0.0024 0.0021 0.029
Arsenic
Min 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 3.25E-08 1.30E-05 1.98E-05 3.37E-05 3.14E-05 3.08E-08 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.008
Average 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 0.0008 0.0010 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0009 0.0011 0.00052 0.00058 0.00060 0.00082 0.00105 0.010 0.005
Max 0.0014 0.0011 0.0012 0.0016 0.0016 0.0014 0.0012 0.0013 0.0023 0.0021 0.00141 0.00121 0.00140 0.00228 0.00208 0.012
Boron
Min 0.073 0.098 0.075 0.094 0.133 0.029 0.029 0.030 0.031 0.033 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.030 0.030 0.514 1.2 short term
Average 0.644 0.629 0.630 0.554 0.561 0.762 0.746 0.733 0.581 0.589 0.708 0.691 0.696 0.640 0.658 0.602 1.2
29 long term
Max 1.593 1.510 1.529 1.478 1.199 3.601 3.590 3.589 3.180 3.252 3.601 3.594 3.593 3.588 3.588 0.684
Cadmium
Min 0.0000716 0.0000704 0.0000705 0.0000699 0.0000724 0.000067 0.000068 0.000068 0.000073 0.000073 0.000067 0.000067 0.000068 0.000069 0.000069 0.000562
0.000028 (Fish Lake @ 82 hardness)
Average 0.0000978 0.0000935 0.0000850 0.0000895 0.0000929 0.000092 0.000091 0.000087 0.000092 0.000096 0.000093 0.000092 0.000088 0.000092 0.000095 0.000708 0.000044 (Upper Fish Creek and Trib 1 @
138.95 hardness)
Max 0.000135 0.000126 0.000102 0.000110 0.000114 0.000136 0.000127 0.000113 0.000127 0.000128 0.000136 0.000128 0.000114 0.000124 0.000124 0.000831
Cobalt
Min 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0045
0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0006 0.0054 0.004 (30 d avg)
Average -
0.110 (max)
Max 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 0.0010 0.0011 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0010 0.0066


Values Pit Lake
Guidelines (Working quality
(mg/L) 48+
Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years and Approved) guidelines
(1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100)
Copper
Min 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0011 0.0003 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011 0.0003 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0180
0.002 (Fish
0.0091 (Fish Lake) to Lake) 0.00313
Average 0.0025 0.0019 0.0012 0.0015 0.0028 0.0018 0.0017 0.0016 0.0019 0.0032 0.0018 0.0018 0.0017 0.0020 0.0031 0.0218 0.015 (Upper Fish (Upper Fish
Creek and Trib 1) Creek and Trib
1)
Max 0.0052 0.0037 0.0016 0.0048 0.0045 0.0043 0.0034 0.0024 0.0083 0.0076 0.0044 0.0034 0.0026 0.0082 0.0074 0.0272
Fluoride
Min 0.0526 0.0516 0.0514 0.0507 0.0539 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.051 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.314
Average 0.0840 0.0788 0.0746 0.0780 0.0803 0.081 0.079 0.076 0.079 0.082 0.081 0.079 0.076 0.079 0.082 0.376 >1.25 @ hardness 82 0.12
Max 0.124 0.105 0.0968 0.0996 0.105 0.124 0.106 0.102 0.101 0.106 0.124 0.107 0.102 0.102 0.107 0.431
Lithium
0.014 secondary
Min 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.013
chronic value
0.096 Final chronic

Average 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.013 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.015 -
value
Max 0.039 0.038 0.038 0.033 0.030 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.075 0.076 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.017 0.870 max value
Iron
Min 0.360 0.379 0.353 0.371 0.422 0.302 0.309 0.313 0.321 0.320 0.302 0.306 0.309 0.310 0.309 2.198
Average 0.572 0.610 0.625 0.732 0.803 0.604 0.662 0.697 0.792 0.870 0.596 0.668 0.711 0.809 0.884 3.158 1 (ttl) 0.35 (diss) 0.3
Max 0.979 0.998 1.035 1.148 1.174 1.820 1.964 1.557 1.551 1.535 1.535 1.621 1.665 1.696 1.829 3.754
Mercury
Min 0.0000006 0.0000001 4.24E-08 0.0000002 0.0000003 1.26E-10 0.00000007 0.00000011 0.00000018 0.00000017 1.19E-10 4.11E-08 6.67E-08 7.23E-08 6.80E-08 9.97E-05
0.00002 @ 0.5% MeHg 0.000026 (Hg)
Average 0.0000054 0.0000027 0.0000003 0.0000008 0.0000035 0.00000309 0.00000190 0.00000079 0.00000141 0.00000404 0.000003 0.000002 0.000001 0.000001 0.000004 0.000124 0.00000125 @ 8%
MeHg
0.000004
Max 0.0000158 0.0000095 0.0000010 0.0000067 0.0000061 0.0000140 0.00000870 0.00000165 0.0000128 0.0000110 0.000014 0.000009 0.000002 0.000013 0.000011 0.000145
(MeHg)
Selenium
Min 0.00028 0.00039 0.00041 0.00046 0.00055 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.008
Average 0.00058 0.00070 0.00074 0.00112 0.00313 0.0005 0.0007 0.0008 0.0013 0.0033 0.0006 0.0008 0.0009 0.0012 0.0030 0.010 0.002 0.001
Max 0.00116 0.00118 0.00144 0.00500 0.00466 0.0012 0.0013 0.0017 0.0087 0.0079 0.0013 0.0014 0.0018 0.0086 0.0078 0.011


Values Pit Lake
Guidelines (Working and quality
(mg/L) 48+
Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Approved) guidelines
(1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100)
Silver
Min 0.000044 0.000050 0.000041 0.000047 0.000058 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00014
0.0001 (max) / 0.00005 (30 d
avg) @ hardness <100
Average 0.000110 0.000109 0.000107 0.000101 0.000100 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00010 0.00010 0.00012 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00016 0.0001
0.003 (max) / 0.0015 (30 d

Max 0.000195 0.000187 0.000188 0.000184 0.000158 0.00039 0.00039 0.00039 0.00035 0.00036 0.00039 0.00039 0.00039 0.00039 0.00039 0.00017
avg) @ hardness >100
Sulphate
Min 2.78 5.60 6.03 9.89 14.9 1.000 3.24 3.81 5.45 5.20 1.0005 2.70 3.13 3.33 3.24 326 50 (alert)
Average 25.0 30.1 24.4 44.8 107 18.5 27.3 28.7 53.6 116 20.7 31.6 32.2 49.3 105 402 100 (max) -
Max 64.3 71.0 61.9 173 158 67.2 78.1 74.0 307 272 68.7 80.6 77.4 301 268 520 -
Thallium
Min 0.000128 0.000153 0.000147 0.000154 0.000280 0.00005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007
Average 0.000873 0.000864 0.000852 0.000779 0.000793 0.0011 0.0011 0.0010 0.0008 0.0008 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0008 0.0008
Max 0.00223 0.00200 0.00214 0.00184 0.00186 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0041 0.0040 0.0080 0.0079 0.0080 0.0079 0.0079 0.0009
Vanadium
Min 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.0072 0.0076 0.0073 0.0067 0.0072 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.020
0.006
(Ontario
0.02 (secondary
Average 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.024 water -
chronic value)
quality
objective)
Max 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.012 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.027
Zinc
Min 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.035
0.033 @
Average 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.043 hardness 0.03
≤90
Max 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.052

Comparison of Predicted Exceedances with Published Toxicity Data

As the guideline values typically reflect a factor of safety and are not always reflective of mitigating factors
outside of hardness (e.g., dissolved organic carbon, sulphide, sulphate) the predicted exceedances were
compared with toxicity data used and/or considered in developing the federal and/or provincial guideline
values (Table 2.7.2.4B-15). A variety of aquatic TRV / ESV, which are used to evaluate ecological risk,
were also used for comparison purposes where toxicity data were not specifically identified for use in
developing guidelines. A limited number of the predicted exceedances were greater than the toxicity data
used to establish guideline values.
Table 2.7.2.4B-15 Comparison of Predicted Values with Data used to Develop Provincial and/or
Federal Water Quality Guideline Values and TRV/ESV Values
Fish Lake Trib 1 Pit Lake

Upper Fish Cr Published toxicity data/TRV/ESV
Parameter range range range
range (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
LOEC <1.5 mg /L @ pH 8 (Freeman and

Everheart, 1971)
Neville (1985) NOEC 0.075 mg/L
0.048 to 0.022 to 0.450 to

Aluminum 0.022 to 0.186 US EPA TRV (1988) 0.087 mg/L
0.140 0.188 0.727
Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic
value 0.460 mg/L (aquatic plants)
value 1.9 mg/L (Daphnids)
US EPA TRV (1987) 0.03

Ecotox Threshold (Tier II) Values (EPA,
1996) 0.160 mg/L
0.0001 to 0.0001 to 0.020 to Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic
Antimony 0.0001 to 0.0025
0.00027 0.0025 0.029 value 0.610 mg/L (aquatic plants)
value 1.6 mg/L (fish)
LOEC (7d-LC50) for Gastrophyne
carolinensis of 0.3 mg/L
28-d LOEC 0.01 mg/L
28-d LC50 0.550 mg/L Rainbow Trout
(Birge et al., 1979)
Arsenic 0.0001 to 3.1E-0.8 to 0.008 to
3.2E-0.8 to 0.0023 D. magna LOEC 0.02 mg/L (BC)
0.0016 0.00228 0.012
No Observed Effect Concentration 0.01
mg/L
14-d EC50 0.05 mg/L (CCME)

48h-LC50 for D. magna 52.4 mg/L in 100
mg/L hardness MELP (1996)
(LOEL) of 12.3 mg/L (growth)
0.514 to Selenastrum capricornutum (BC)
Boron 0.073 to 1.59 0.029 to 3.6 0.029 to 3.6
0.684 (NOEC) 21d chronic Daphnia 13.1 mg/L
(in well water) (MELP, 1996)
(MELP, 1996) NOEC 12.4 mg/L (MELP,
1996)


range (mg/L) (mg/L)

Cadmium 0.00007 to 0.000067 to 0.000067 to 0.00056 to 48-h LC50 0.007 (Baird et al., 1991)
0.000135 0.000136 0.000136 0.00083
LOEL of 0.00017 mg/L for Daphnia
magna (CCME)
78-d growth EC50 0.046 mg/L (Seim et al.,
1984)
30-d 0.032 mg/L (LOEL) (McKim et al.,
1978)
30-d 0.01 mg/L (NOEL) (McKim et al.,
0.0008 to 0.0003 to 0.018 to 1978)
Copper 0.0003 to 0.0083
0.0052 0.0082 0.0272 6-h EC50 0.018 mg/L to 0.087 mg/L
(Wang et al., 2007)
24-h EC50 0.01 - 0.066 (Wang et al.,
2007)
0.002 mg/L minimum guideline (Demayo
and Taylor, 1981)
96-h LC50 3.5 mg/L(BC)
96-h LC50 3.6 mg/L (BC)

Iron 0.36 to 1.17 0.30 to 1.96 0.30 to 1.83 2.20 to 3.75
EC50 7.48 mg/L Daphnia (Billard and
Roubaud,1985)
NOEC 5.3 mg/L Daphnia (PESC,
1997/98)
0.014 mg/L secondary chronic value
0.002 to 0.001 to 0.013 to (Suter and Tsao 1996)
Lithium 0.001 to 0.084
0.039 0.084 0.017 0.260 secondary acute value (Suter and
Tsao 1996)
S. capricornutum 72-h EC50 0.075 mg/L
(Foe and Knight, Manuscript)
EC50 growth 0.012 mg/L to 5 mg/L
0.0003 to 0.0003 to 0.008 to (Rainbow Trout)
Selenium 0.0003 to 0.0087
0.005 0.0086 0.011
US EPA TRV (1999) 0.005
LOEL of 0.01 (BC) (MWLAP, 2001)

Hardness <100 mg/L (NOEL) 0.00006
mg/L
Hardness <100 mg/L (chronic) 0.0001
mg/L
Hardness <100 mg/L (acute) 0.00039
0.000044 to 0.00003 to 0.00014 to mg/L
Silver 0.00003 to 0.00039 Hardness >100 mg/L (chronic) 0.0029
0.000195 0.00039 0.00017
mg/L
NOEC (0.004 mg/L / 0.005 mg/L)
Ceriodaphnia (Weber et al., 1989)
7-d LC50 K2SO4 100 (BC)

2, 3, and 4 day LC0 (no effect) of 500,
Sulphate 2.78 to 173 1.0 to 307 1.0 to 301 326 to 521 100, 100, and 100 mg/L for Morone
saxitilus larvae (BC)
Fontinalis antipyretica EC50 (Chlorophyll a
and b) 400 mg/L


range (mg/L) (mg/L)
(Davies, 2006)
Birge (1978) 28-d LC50 0.170 mg/L for

Rainbow Trout
0.00013 to 0.00005 to 0.0007 to value 0.130 mg/L (Daphnids)
Thallium 0.00005 to 0.008
0.00223 0.008 0.009 10-d EC50 values of 0.033 mg/L, 0.0418
mg/L and 0.048 mg/L
LOEL values of 0.0084 mg/L, 0.0146
mg/L and 0.0167 mg/L
14-d LC50 0.008 mg/L (Brown and
Rattigan, 1979) (CCME / BC)
Pit Lake
x Predicted cadmium levels in the Pit Lake (0.00056 mg/L to 0.00083 mg/L) exceeded the 0.00017
mg/L for Daphnia magna derived by Biesinger and Christensen (1972). A safety factor of 10 was
applied to this value to derive the original CCME 1999 guideline of 0.000017 mg/L. The 48-h
LC50 value is an order of magnitude greater than the predicted maximum value.
x Predicted maximum iron levels in the Pit Lake (3.75 mg/L) slightly exceed the 3.5 mg/L LC50 for
Hyallela in soft water reported by (MOE, 2008). A safety factor of 10 was applied to this value to
derive the dissolved iron guideline value of 0.35 mg/L. Note the predicted hardness in the Pit
Lake (>500 mg/L) would be reflective of hard water conditions. The predicted value is 70% of the
NOEC.
x Predicted maximum selenium levels (0.011 mg/L) slightly exceed the 0.01 LOEL used by MWLAP
(2001) to establish the guideline value. A safety factor of 5 was applied to this LOEL to derive the
0.002 mg/L guideline.
x Predicted sulphate levels (326 mg/L to 521 mg/L) exceeded the 100 mg/L derived by Frahm
(1975), but not the reported 96-h LC50 concentrations for Hyalella in medium and hard water of
3,711 mg/L and 6,787 mg/L sulphate, respectively.
x Average and maximum Aluminum predictions exceed the 0.460 mg/L level identified by Suter and
Tsao (1996) but are half the LOEC level.
x Silver values exceed the 0.00012 mg/L TRV concentration derived by Suter and Tsao (1996) but
are below the 0.029 mg/L concentration (@ hardness>100 mg/L) used as part of the provincial
guideline development and the NOEC of 0.004 mg/L and 0.005 mg/L derived by Weber,
Fish Lake, Upper Fish Creek and Trib 1
x Predicted maximum sulphate levels (173 mg/L to 307) exceeded the 100 mg/L derived by Frahm
(1975), but not the reported 96-h LC50 concentrations for Hyalella in medium and hard water of
3,711 mg/L and 6,787 mg/L sulphate. The highest average predicted sulphate level is 116 mg/L
in upper Fish Creek in the post closure period. Davies (2006) conducted 21-day studies on the

toxicity of sulphate (as Na2SO4) to Fontinalis antipyretica using concentrations of 200 mg/L to
1,500 mg/L in soft water (19 mg/L) and medium hard water (105 mg/L), reporting effects on
Chlorophyll a and b first noted at 400 mg/L. Davies indicated the 2006 study indicated F.
antipyretica was more tolerant of sulphate than the BC Approved Water Quality guideline
suggested; noting the toxicity of 100 mg/L derived in the Frahm (1975) study was more likely due
to the potassium (K) than the sulphate. All predicted maximum sulphate concentrations in the
Fish Lake system were ≤310 mg/L and below the 400 mg/L level affecting chlorophyll levels
reported by Davies (2006)
x Average and maximum predicted aluminum values were above the 0.075 mg/L NOEC derived by
Neville (1985) for Rainbow Trout and the US EPA TRV of 0.087 mg/L. However, these values
were below the lowest chronic effects concentration identified by Suter and Tsao (1996) of 0.46
mg/L for aquatic plants and 1.9 mg/L for Daphnids.
x While maximum silver values exceed the 0.00012 mg/L TRV concentration derived by Suter and
Tsao (1996), average values are below. However, only maximum silver exceeds the 0.0001 mg/L
concentration for chronic effects @ hardness <100 mg/L derived by Davies & Goettl (1978).
Given the potential for exceedances of the Davies & Goettl (1978) LC50 value, the predicted
silver concentrations were further evaluated using the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) which is
discussed in more detail in this section.
x Maximum selenium in Upper Fish Creek and Trib 1 exceed the US EPA (1999) TRV of 0.005
mg/L, but are below the LOEL of 0.01 mg/L used to establish the provincial guideline value.
Average predicted values are ≤0.0033 mg/L and below the US EPA (1999) TRV of 0.005 mg/L.
x Maximum and selected average thallium concentrations are at or above the Brown and Rattigan
(1979) 14d-EC50 of 0.008 mg/L for Lemna minor (duckweed) except in Years 21-30 and 31-47 in
Fish Lake where the average concentrations are 0.000779 mg/L and 0.000793 mg/L. However,
these values were below the lowest chronic values generated for Daphnids and fish (0.130 mg/L
and 0.057 mg/L respectively) generated by Suter and Tsao (1996).
Assessment of Predicted Water Quality in the Fish Lake system using the Biotic Ligand Model
The Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) was applied to the predicted exceedances of copper, cadmium, and silver
for all phases of the Project (Years 1 to 17, 18 to 21, 22 to 30, and 31+).The BLM uses published toxicity
data for fish and invertebrate species including Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Daphnia magna,
D. pulex, and Ceriodaphnia dubia in combination with ambient water quality date (Table 2.7.2.4B-16) to
predict the toxicity of copper, silver, cadmium (and zinc) to aquatic life under a given set of conditions
(Table 2.7.2.4B-17). The BLM generates LC50 values for these metals in the context of the mitigating
effects of parameters like dissolved organic matter (DOM), hardness, sodium, sulphide and others on
metal toxicity. A combination of baseline data (e.g. dissolved organic carbon) and predicted
concentrations for the parameters shown in Table 2.7.2.4B-17 were used to run the BLM for this
assessment. Input data used to run the BLM are provided in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-E.

Table 2.7.2.4B-16 BLM Input Parameters and Limiting Ranges

Parameter Model Input Range
Temperature °C 10°C to 25°C
pH 4.9 to 9.2
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 0.05 mg/L to 29.65 mg/L
Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) 0.056 mg/L to 44.92 mg/L
Humic Acid Content (%) 10% to 60%
Calcium (Ca) 0.204 mg/L to 120.24 mg/L
Magnesium (Mg) 0.024 mg/L to 51.9 mg/L
Alkalinity 1.99 mg/L to 360 mg/L
Nitrate (NO3) 0.0013 mg/L to 1.65 mg/ L (predicted)
Sodium (Na) 0.16 mg/L to 236.9 mg/L
Potassium (K) 0.039 mg/L to 156 mg/L
Sulphate (SO4) 0.096 mg/L to 278.4 mg/L
Chloride (Cl-) 0.32 mg/L to 279.72 mg/L
Sulfide (SO2) 1E-10 mg/L (default value)
Note: DIC data not available, BLM uses alkalinity and pH to estimate DIC
None of the predicted maximum concentrations of copper, cadmium, and silver exceeded the LC50 values
generated with the BLM. A comparison of the lowest LC50 values generated by the model and the
maximum (and the highest modelled average) predicted concentrations of copper, cadmium and silver in
Fish Lake, Upper Fish Creek, and Tributary 1 is provided in Table 2.7.2.4B-17.
Table 2.7.2.4B-17 Lowest BLM LC50 values for dissolved copper, cadmium, and silver compared
with predicted average and mximum concentrations of copper, cadmium, and silver in Fish Lake
Dissolved cadmium LC50 values generated with BLM for Fish Lake
Most sensitive
Fish Lake (max) Fish Lake (avg) Predicted
test organism Predicted max
concentration
concentration
mol/L mg/L mol/L mg/L (highest average)
rainbow trout 1.93E-07 0.02168 0.000135 1.48E-07 0.01658 0.000098
Dissolved copper LC50 values generated with BLM for Fish Lake
Most sensitive
concentration
concentration
Daphnia pulex 3.73E-06 0.23709 0.0052 3.52E-06 0.22387 0.0028
Dissolved silver LC50 values generated with BLM for Fish Lake
Most sensitive
concentration
concentration
Daphnia magna 1.03E-08 0.00111 0.000195 9.87E-09 0.00106 0.00011

Dissolved cadmium LC50 values generated with BLM for Fish Lake @ 20°C
Most sensitive
concentration
concentration
rainbow trout 1.93E-07 0.02168 0.000135 1.48E-07 0.01658 0.000098
Dissolved copper LC50 values generated with BLM for Fish Lake @ 10°C
Most sensitive
concentration
concentration
Daphnia pulex 3.73E-06 0.23709 0.0052 3.52E-06 0.22387 0.0028
Dissolved silver LC50 values generated with BLM for Fish Lake @ 20°C
Most sensitive
concentration
concentration
Daphnia magna 1.03E-08 0.00111 0.000195 9.87E-09 0.00106 0.00011
Dissolved cadmium LC50 values generated with BLM for Trib 1

Most
sensitive test Fish Lake (max) Fish Lake (avg) Predicted
organism Predicted max
concentration
concentration
rainbow trout 1.99E-07 0.02237 0.00014 2.31E-07 0.02592 0.0001
Dissolved copper LC50 values generated with BLM for for Trib 1
Most
concentration
concentration
Daphnia pulex 3.86E-06 0.24535 0.008 3.59E-06 0.22788 0.003
Dissolved silver LC50 values generated with BLM for for for Trib 1
Most
concentration
concentration
Daphnia
1.04E-08 0.00112 0.00039 9.86E-09 0.00106 0.00012
magna

Mixing points - Beece Creek, Taseko River, Lower Fish Creek, Wasp, Little and Big Onion lakes
The predicted mixing point concentrations were evaluated using the same approach that was applied to
the Fish Lake system and Pit Lake. Predicted values were first compared with provincial and federal
guidelines. Tables 2.7.2.4B-18 through 2.7.2.4B-20 provide a comparison of predicted concentrations to
guidelines for those elements that exceed guidelines in one or more phases of the project. Where
exceedances were identified, the predicted values were compared with the toxicity data used to develop
the guidelines and / or published TRV / ESV (where appropriate).

Beece Creek and Taseko River
Table 2.7.2.4B-18 Comparison of Predicted Concentrations to Guidelines for Beece Creek and Taseko River
Beece Creek Taseko 1 Taseko 2 Taseko 3

Values BCWQG BCWQG CCME
Years Years
(mg/L) Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years 30d avg Max WQG
(48 - (48 -
(1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100)
100) 100)
Aluminum
Min 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.606 0.602 0.602 0.602 0.602 0.602
Average 0.066 0.068 0.073 0.115 0.116 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.05 0.1 0.1
Max 0.259 0.259 0.259 0.259 0.259 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66
Cadmium
Min 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025
0.00001 mg/L @ 25.1
Average 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000026 hardness and 0.000013 mg/L
@ 33.0 mg/L hardness
Max 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.0000250 0.0000250 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000028
Copper
Min 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016
0.00436
Average 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.002 to 0.002
0.0051
Max 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049
Iron
Min 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330
1 (ttl)
Average 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.079 0.079 0.739 0.746 0.741 0.741 0.810 0.739 0.746 0.741 0.739 0.741 0.738 0.745 0.739 0.738 0.743 - 0.35 0.3
(diss)
Max 0.207 0.207 0.208 0.208 0.208 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.238 1.233 1.233 1.233 1.233 1.239

Predicted exceedances of available guidelines at the Beece and Taseko mixing points are as follows:
x All aluminum predictions exceed the provincial 0.1 mg/L maximum guideline in the Taseko River
in all periods. Similarly, Beece Creek exceeds the maximum guideline (0.1 mg/L) in all periods.
with average values ranging from 0.066 mg/L to 0.116 mg/L
x All predicted cadmium values exceed the guidelines in Beece Creek and the Taseko River in all
periods
x Average and maximum copper exceeds the hardness based 30 day average and maximum
guideline values in the Taseko River in all operating periods, whereas predicted Beece Creek
concentrations are below the guidelines
x Iron exceeds the provincial and / or federal guidelines in the Taseko River in all operating periods,
whereas Beece Creek concentrations are below the guidelines
x Average (and maximum) silver exceed the 30 day average guideline value of 0.00005 mg/L @
hardness <100 mg/L
Lower Fish Creek
Table 2.7.2.4B-19 Comparison of Predicted Concentrations to Guidelines for Lower Fish

Creek
Fish Creek 1 Fish Creek 2
Values BCWQG 30d BCWQG CCME
(mg/L) avg Max WQG
Years (48 - 100)
Aluminum
Min 0.006 0.006
Average 0.291 0.291 0.05 0.1 0.1
Max 0.354 0.354
Arsenic
Min 0.0002 0.0002
Average 0.0047 0.0047 - 0.005 0.005
Max 0.0051 0.0051
Cadmium
Min 0.000023 0.000025
Average 0.000334 0.000340 0.000057
Max 0.000359 0.000359
Copper
Min 0.0007 0.0007
Average 0.0104 0.0104 0.0075 0.0196 0.004
Max 0.0118 0.0118


Values BCWQG 30d BCWQG CCME
(mg/L) avg Max WQG
Years (48 - 100)
Fluoride
Min 0.052 0.052

>2.62
Average 0.203 0.203 (calculated - 0.12
LC50)
Max 0.215 0.215
Iron
Min 0.096 0.096

1 (ttl) 0.35
Average 1.557 1.557 - 0.3
(diss)
Max 1.714 1.713
Mercury
Min 0.000010 0.000010

0.00002 @ 0.5% MeHg / 0.000026 (Hg) /
Average 0.000061 0.000061
0.00000125 @ 8% MeHg 0.000004 (MeHg)
Max 0.000065 0.000065
Selenium
Min 0.00050 0.00050
Average 0.00461 0.00461 0.002 - 0.001
Max 0.00483 0.00483
Silver
Min 0.00001 0.00001
Average 0.00010 0.00010 0.0015 0.003 0.0001
Max 0.00011 0.00011
Sulphate
Min 0.832 0.832
Average 180 180 50 (alert) / 100 (max) -
Max 217 217
Vanadium
0.0012 0.0017 0.006 mg/L (Ontario water

Min
quality objective)
Average 0.012 0.0121 -
0.02 mg/L (secondary chronic
0.0126 0.0126 value
Max

Wasp Lake, Little and Big Onion Lake
Table 2.7.2.4B-20 Comparison of Predicted Concentrations to Guidelines for Wasp Lake, Little and Big Onion Lake
Wasp Lake Little Onion Big Onion

Values BCWQG BCWQG
CCME WQG
(mg/L) Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years 30d avg Max
(1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100)
Aluminum
Min 0.011 0.018 0.019 0.036 0.036 0.018 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.015 0.050 0.052 0.063 0.074
Average 0.016 0.020 0.031 0.114 0.116 0.056 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.047 0.053 0.064 0.071 0.075 0.05 0.1 0.1
Max 0.020 0.020 0.191 0.237 0.190 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.054 0.055 0.069 0.076 0.076
Arsenic
Min 0.0002 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009 0.0009 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009 0.0011
Average 0.0005 0.0007 0.0010 0.0029 0.0030 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009 0.0010 0.0011 - 0.005 0.005
Max 0.0007 0.0007 0.0052 0.0064 0.0049 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0010 0.0012 0.0012
Beryllium
Min 0.0049 0.0073 0.0053 0.0033 0.0033 0.0018 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0025 0.0027
Average 0.0069 0.0078 0.0078 0.0042 0.0042 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0027 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027 0.0028 - 0.0053 -
Max 0.0080 0.0081 0.0082 0.0054 0.0045 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0028 0.0028 0.0029 0.0029 0.0028
Cadmium
Min 0.000025 0.000046 0.000066 0.000045 0.000044 0.000024 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000032 0.000033 0.000041 0.000041
0.000037 mg/L @ hardness 119.5 / 0.000142

Average 0.000041 0.000050 0.000293 0.000124 0.000122 0.000028 0.000028 0.000028 0.000028 0.000028 0.000032 0.000034 0.000042 0.000044 0.000048
mg/L @ hardness 542.6
Max 0.000050 0.000051 0.000389 0.000388 0.000191 0.000030 0.000030 0.000030 0.000030 0.000030 0.000034 0.000034 0.000046 0.000046 0.000052
Copper
Min 0.0010 0.0016 0.0017 0.0033 0.0033 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.0020 0.0027
0.00425 to 0.0132 to
Average 0.0015 0.0018 0.0028 0.0107 0.0108 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0019 0.0026 0.0028 0.00264 to 0.004
0.0307 0.0529
Max 0.0018 0.0018 0.0180 0.0223 0.0177 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0023 0.0030 0.0030
Fluoride
Min 0.092 0.152 0.145 0.077 0.077 0.102 0.102 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.116 0.120 0.119 0.118 0.123
>2.44
Average 0.140 0.162 0.166 0.129 0.128 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.124 0.125 0.123 0.123 0.124 (calculated - 0.12
LC50)
Max 0.165 0.167 0.194 0.216 0.165 0.120 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.127 0.127 0.125 0.125 0.124

Wasp Lake Little Onion Big Onion

Values BCWQG BCWQG
CCME WQG
(mg/L) Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years 30d avg Max
(1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100) (1 - 16) (17 - 20) (21 - 30) (31 - 47) (48 - 100)
Iron
Min 0.075 0.169 0.181 0.485 0.483 0.033 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.030 0.095 0.108 0.276 0.404
1 (ttl) 0.35
Average 0.139 0.185 0.353 1.652 1.685 0.076 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.091 0.102 0.263 0.379 0.429 - 0.3
(diss)
Max 0.183 0.196 2.824 3.514 2.796 0.088 0.088 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.105 0.105 0.327 0.454 0.454
Mercury
Min 0.0000099 0.0001549 0.0002203 0.0000254 0.0000299 0.0000098 0.0000100 0.0000100 0.0000100 0.0000100 0.0000099 0.0000114 0.0000115 0.0000126 0.0008300
0.00002 @ 0.5% MeHg / 0.000026 (Hg) /

Average 0.0000510 0.0001879 0.0003318 0.0000904 0.0004470 0.0000107 0.0000107 0.0000107 0.0000107 0.0000107 0.0000115 0.0000118 0.0000128 0.0005940 0.0008900
0.00000125 @ 8% MeHg 0.000004 (MeHg)
Max 0.0001692 0.0002356 0.0004279 0.0003596 0.0013255 0.0000111 0.0000112 0.0000112 0.0000112 0.0000112 0.0000120 0.0000120 0.0000134 0.0009380 0.0009380
Selenium
Min 0.0128 0.0245 0.0249 0.0230 0.0227 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0014 0.0015
Average 0.0221 0.0263 0.0310 0.0632 0.0620 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0013 0.0015 0.0016 0.002 - 0.001
Max 0.0266 0.0271 0.1053 0.1277 0.0948 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0016 0.0017 0.0017
Silver
Min 0.00010 0.00015 0.00012 0.00007 0.00007 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00006
Average 0.00014 0.00016 0.00016 0.00011 0.00011 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.00005 0.00005 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.0015 0.003 0.0001
Max 0.00016 0.00016 0.00017 0.00016 0.00013 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006
Sulphate
Min 1.16 4.24 5.26 81.8 81.2 5.88 6.33 6.33 6.33 6.33 6.65 7.30 9.20 44.3 58.4
Average 2.48 4.88 35.3 303 304 7.72 7.74 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.49 7.60 40.8 56.4 62.2 50 (alert) / 100 (max) -
Max 4.61 5.65 516 648 507 8.30 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.32 7.74 7.82 52.9 66.2 66.1

Comparison of Predicted Exceedances at the Mixing Points with Published Toxicity Data
Lower Fish Creek

A comparison of the Lower Fish Creek water quality predictions and the toxicity data used to establish
guideline values or published TRV / ESV values is provided in Table 2.7.2.4B-21. Average and maximum
predicted values exceeded the toxicity data and / or TRV / ESV values as follows:
x Although the predicted average and maximum aluminum values in Lower Fish Creek exceed the
TRV of 0.087 mg/L, they are below the Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value of 0.460 mg/L
for aquatic plants and 1.9 mg/L for Daphnids.
x Average and maximum predicted copper and cadmium exceed the toxicity data and / or
guidelines used to develop the CCME guideline values (0.00017 mg Cd/L LOEL for Daphnia
magna and 0.002 mg Cu/L respectively). Copper concentrations also exceeded the the 0.002
mg/L minimum guideline (Demayo and Taylor, 1981) used by the CCME and the 0.00607 mg/L
lowest chronic value for invertebrates (Suter and Tsao, 1996).
x Cadmium exceeded the 0.00015 mg/L lowest chronic level for Daphnids, but was below the
secondary chronic value for fish of 0.0017 mg/L, also noted by Suter and Tsao (1996).
x Sulphate levels exceed the Frahm (1975) level of 100 mg/L but were below the Davies (2006)
Fontinalis antipyretica EC50 (Chlorophyll a and b) of 400 mg/L.
Table 2.7.2.4B-21 Comparison of Toxicity Data used to establish guideline values or published
TRV / ESV values with predicted Lower Fish Creek exceedances
Toxicity data used to Toxicity reference values /

Values (mg/L) Fish Creek 1 Fish Creek 2
develop guideline benchmarks etc
US EPA TRV (1988) 0.087 mg/L
Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value 0.460 mg/L (aquatic
Aluminum 0.006 to 0.354 0.006 to 0.354
plants)
Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value 1.9 mg/L (Daphnids)
LOEL of 0.00017 mg/L for Daphnia magna (CCME)
0.000023 to 0.000025 to
Cadmium 48-h LC50 0.007 (Baird et Al. et al. 1991)
0.000359 0.000359
Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value 0.00015 mg/L

(Daphnids)
0.002 mg/L minimum guideline (Demayo and Taylor, 1981)

Copper 0.0007 to 0.0118 0.0007 to 0.0118
6-h EC50 0.018 mg/L to 0.087 mg/L (Wang et al 2007)

Toxicity data used to Toxicity reference values /

Values (mg/L) Fish Creek 1 Fish Creek 2
develop guideline benchmarks etc
30-d 0.032 mg/L (LOEL) (McKim et al. 1978)
7-d LC50 K2SO4 100 (BC)
2, 3, and 4 day LC0 (no effect) of 500, 100, 100, and 100 mg/L
Sulphate 0.832 to 217 0.832 to 217 for Morone saxitilus larvae (BC)
Fontinalis antipyretica EC50 (Chlorophyll a and b) 400 mg/L -

(Davies, 2006)
Beece Creek and Taseko River

A comparison of the Beece and Taseko predicted water quality and the toxicity data used to establish
guideline values or published TRV / ESV values is provided in Table 2.7.2.4B-22.
Selected aluminum concentrations also exceeded published TRV for 0.087 mg/L (US EPA, 1988) and
average and maximum aluminum levels in the Taseko River exceeded the Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest
chronic value of 0.460 mg/L for aquatic plants However predicted concentrations were below the 1.9 mg/L
for Daphnids. Beece Creek levels were below the lowest chronic value of 0.460 mg/L for aquatic plants.
Note thatAverage baseline total aluminum in the Taseko River ranged from 0.652 mg/L to 0.999 mg/L,
and maximum values ranged from 1.19 mg/L to 3.98 mg/L.
Copper levels were above the 0.002 mg/L concentration derived by (Demayo and Taylor, 1981), but were
below the 24-h EC50 0.01 - 0.066 reported by Wang et al., 2007 and the 30-d 0.01 mg/L (NOEL) reported
by McKim et al., 1978.

Table 2.7.2.4B-22 Comparison of toxicity data used to establish guideline values or published
TRV / ESV values with predicted water quality excedances at the Beece and Taseko River mixing
points
Beece Taseko Taseko Taseko

Parameter Published toxicity data/TRV/ESV (mg/L)
Creek River (T1) River (T2) River (T3)

Everheart, 1971)
0.011 to 0.606 to 0.606 to 0.602 to

Aluminum US EPA TRV (1988) 0.087 mg/L
0.259 1.664 1.664 1.658
Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value 0.460

mg/L (aquatic plants)
Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value 1.9

mg/L (Daphnids)
78-d growth EC50 0.046 mg/L (Seim et al., 1984)
30-d 0.032 mg/L (LOEL) (McKim et al., 1978)
30-d 0.01 mg/L (NOEL) (McKim et al., 1978)

0.0004 to 0.0016 to 0.0016 to 0.0016 to
Copper
0.0014 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049
6-h EC50 0.018 mg/L to 0.087 mg/L (Wang et al.,
2007)
24-h EC50 0.01 - 0.066 (Wang et al., 2007)
0.002 mg/L minimum guideline (Demayo and

Taylor, 1981)
Wasp Lake, Little and Big Onion Lakes

A comparison of the Wasp and Onion lakes predicted water quality and the toxicity data used to establish
guideline values or published TRV / ESV values is provided in Table 24 and summarized below:
x Aluminum exceeds the Neville (1985) NOEC of 0.075 mg/L and the US EPA TRV (1988) 0.087
mg/L in Wasp and Big Onion Lakes. Predicted aluminum levels in Wasp and Big Onion lakes are
below the Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value of 0.460 mg/L for aquatic plants and 1.9
mg/L for Daphnids
x Beryllium levels at Wasp Lake exceed the lowest chronic effect level of 0.0053 mg/L, which has
been adopted as the provincial working water quality guideline.
x Cadmium exceeds the LOEL of 0.00017 mg/L for Daphnia magna (CCME) and the Suter and
Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value 0.00015 mg/L (Daphnids), but is below the 0.0002 mg/L
secondary chronic value for aquatic plants

x Copper levels at Wasp exceed the 30-d 0.01 mg/L (NOEL) reported by McKim et al (1978) but
not the 30-d 0.032 mg/L (LOEL) (McKim et al., 1978). Copper levels at Big Onion exceed the
0.002 mg/L concentration derived by (Demayo and Taylor, 1981) only
x Mercury (selected maximums) exceeds the Inorganic mercury LOAEL of 0.00026 mg/L for
juvenile fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) in Wasp and Big Onion lakes
x Selenium levels in Wasp Lake exceeded the LOEL of 0.01 mg/L d (MWLAP, 2001) used to
establish the provincial guideline, but were below the lowest chronic values for aquatic plants
(0.100 mg/L) and fish (0.0883 mg/L) (Suter and Tsao, 1996)
x Maximum predicted sulphate exceeds the lowest LC50 value of 100 mg/L for Fontinalis derived
by Frahm (1975) and the no observable effect in chlorophyll levels to F. noemexicana at 500
mg/L sulphate in water of 160 mg/L as CaCO3 reported by Beak International Incorporated and
Michigan Technological University (1998)
x Silver in Wasp Lake exceeds the Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic value of 0.00012 mg/L
(Daphnids)
Table 2.7.2.4B-23 Comparison of toxicity data used to establish guideline values or published
TRV / ESV values with predicted water quality excedances at the Wasp and Onion Lake mixing
points
Published toxicity data/TRV/ESV

Parameter Wasp Lake Little Onion Lake Big Onion Lake
(mg/L)

Everheart, 1971)
US EPA TRV (1988) 0.087 mg/L

Aluminum 0.011 to 0.237 0.018 to 0.067 0.015 to 0.076
value 0.460 mg/L (aquatic plants)


Beryllium 0.0033 to 0.0082 0.0018 to 0.0034 0.0025 to 0.0029 value 100 mg/L (aquatic plants)


0.000025 to 0.000025 to
Cadmium 0.000024 to 0.00003 48-h LC50 0.007 (Baird et al., 1991)
0.000389 0.000052
LOEL of 0.00017 mg/L for Daphnia
magna (CCME)
78-d growth EC50 0.046 mg/L (Seim et
al., 1984)
Copper 0.001 to 0.0223 0.0006 to 0.0009 0.0007 to 0.003
30-d 0.032 mg/L (LOEL) (McKim et al.,
1978)


(mg/L)
30-d 0.01 mg/L (NOEL) (McKim et al.,

1978)
6-h EC50 0.018 mg/L to 0.087 mg/L
(Wang et al., 2007)
24-h EC50 0.01 - 0.066 (Wang et al.,
2007)
0.002 mg/L minimum guideline (Demayo
and Taylor, 1981)

value <0.00023 mg/L (fish)

0.00001 to Suter and Tsao (1996) lowest chronic

Mercury 0.00001 to 0.00043 0.00001 to 0.000938
0.0000112 value 0.0005 mg/L (aquatic plants)
Organic Hg LOAEL of 0.00004 mg/L, D.

magna, Biesinger et al. 1982
Inorganic Hg LOAEL of 0.00026 mg/L,

juvenile fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas)
S. capricornutum 72-h EC50 0.075 mg/L

(Foe and Knight, Manuscript)
EC50 growth 0.012 mg/L to 5 mg/L

(Rainbow Trout)
Selenium 0.0128 to 0.128 0.0005 to 0.0007 0.0005 to 0.0017
US EPA TRV (1999) 0.005
LOEL of 0.01 (BC) (MWLAP, 2001)
Hardness <100 mg/L (NOEL) 0.00006

mg/L
Hardness <100 mg/L (chronic) 0.0001

mg/L
Hardness <100 mg/L (acute) 0.00039

mg/L
Silver 0.00007to 0.00017 0.00004 to 0.00007 0.00004 to 0.00006
Hardness >100 mg/L (chronic) 0.0029

mg/L

NOEC (0.004 mg/L /0.005 mg/L)

Ceriodaphnia (Weber et al., 1989)
7-d LC50 K2SO4 100 (BC)

Sulphate 1.2 to 648 5.8 to 8.3 6.7 to 66 2, 3, and 4 day LC0 (no effect) of 500,
100, 100, and 100 mg/L for Morone
saxitilus larvae (BC)


(mg/L)
Fontinalis antipyretica EC50 (Chlorophyll

a and b) 400 mg/L - (Davies, 2006)
205 mg/L at 25 mg/L hardness to 3,711
mg/L at 100 mg/L hardness for Hyallela
(MOE, 2000)

Assessment of predicted water quality at the Mixing points using the BLM
The BLM was applied to maximum predicted cadmium, copper and silver exceedances at selected mixing
points (Beece, Lower Fish Creek, Taseko and Wasp). As a starting point, the model was run on the
highest predicted maximum concentrations at each of the mixing points. Thereafter, predicted averages
were evaluated for selected parameters. Using the maximums was considered a conservative approach
to evaluating the data. The predicted averages are considered more reflective of the conditions that will
occur. No cadmium, copper or silver guideline exceedances were noted in the Little and Big Onion
datasets, and as a result, those mixing points were not evaluated with the BLM. Similarly, silver
exceedances were only predicted at Wasp Lake and Lower Fish Creek. A combination of baseline and
predicted water quality data were used to run the BLM on the mixing points. Given the BLM temperature
restriction of ≥10°C, we used baseline pH and dissolved organic carbon values corresponding with
temperatures ≥10°C. In some cases, only total organic carbon (TOC) data were available, and these were
used to run the model. Predicted ambient conditions from the period the maximum value occurred were
used in the model.
Maximum predicted cadmium and silver were below the LC50 generated by the BLM. Cadmium levels
were ≥77 times lower than the LC50 generated by the model for Beece Creek and the Taseko River and
≥80 times lower at Lower Fish Creek. Silver levels were ≥6 times below the predicted LC50 values. It is
important to note the predicted concentrations for the mixing points are total concentrations (including
dissolved and particulate phases). The BLM predicts the LC50 for the dissolved (bioavailable) form of the
metals. In the context of the BLM, the predicted co0ncentations can be viewed as conservative estimates
of dissolved concentrations.
Maximum predicted cadmium and silver were below the LC50 generated by the BLM (Tables 25 and 26).
Cadmium levels were ≥77 times lower than the LC50 generated by the model for Beece Creek and the
Taseko River and ≥80 times lower at Lower Fish Creek. Silver levels were ≥6 times below the predicted
LC50 values. It is important to note the predicted concentrations for the mixing points are total
concentrations (including dissolved and particulate phases). The BLM predicts the LC50 for the dissolved
(bioavailable) form of the metals. In the context of the BLM, the predicted maximums can be viewed as
conservative estimates of dissolved concentrations.
Table 2.7.2.4B-24 BLM results for cadmium and silver at mixing points with predicted guideline
exceedances
Most sensitive
test organism
Dissolved cadmium LC50 values generated with BLM using predicted maximums
(identified with
BLM modeling)
Beece Taseko 1 Taseko 3
Predicted Predicted Predicted

mol/L mg/L max mol/L mg/L max mol/L mg/L max
1.82E- 1.96E-
1.76E-08 0.00197 0.000025 0.00204 0.000025 0.0022 0.0000285
rainbow trout 08 08
Wasp Fish Creek 1 Fish Creek 2


2.57E- 2.60E-
3.72E-07 0.0418 0.000389 0.0289 0.00036 0.03 0.00036
07 07
Dissolved silver LC50 values generated with BLM using predicted maximums
Wasp Fish Creek 1 Fish Creek 2

Daphnia magna
mol/L mg/L mol/L mg/L mol/L mg/L
max mg/L max mg/L max mg/L
9.70E- 9.56E-
1.04E-08 0.0011 0.00017 0.00105 0.00011 0.00103 0.00011
09 09
Maximum predicted copper levels were below the LC50 generated by the BLM for Wasp Lake, Lower Fish
Lake and one of two mixing points in the Taseko River (Tables 2.7.2.4B-25 and 26). The maximum
predicted copper concentration at Taseko 1 was 0.00489 mg/L, and the corresponding lowest LC50 (for
Daphnia pulex) was 0.0044 mg/L. The remaining LC50 values generated for Ceridaphnia and Daphnia
magna were 0.0086 mg/L and 0.006 mg/L respectively. Once again, it is important to note the BLM
predicts the dissolved concentrations and the mixing point model predicts total concentrations. As a
result, the predicted maximums may be considered overly conservative estimates of potential toxicity
relative to the BLM results. However, given the modeled exceedance of the LC50 copper value for
Ceriodaphnia using maximum predicted concentrations, modeling was also conducted on predicted
averages for the mixing points and these results are shown in Table 2.7.2.4B-26. Consistent with the
approach of modeling the maximums, the averages were modeled in the context of the concurrent
predicted average ambient conditions for the BLM input parameters (e.g. Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, SO4, alkalinity,
pH, temperature etc)

Table 2.7.2.4B-25 BLM results for maximum copper at mixing points with predicted guideline
exceedances
Dissolved copper LC50 values generated with BLM using predicted maximums
Taseko 1 Taseko 3 Wasp

Species
Daphnia pulex 6.89E-08 0.0044 1.42E-07 0.009 4.82E-06 0.3061
Daphnia
1.36E-07 0.0086 0.00489 2.67E-07 0.017 0.0049 7.74E-06 0.492 0.02227
magna
Ceriodahpnia 9.51E-08 0.006 1.92E-07 0.0122 6.10E-06 0.3875
Species Predicted Predicted

mol/L mg/L max mol/L mg/L max
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Daphnia pulex 3.14E-06 0.02 2.89E-06 0.18
Daphnia
5.35E-06 0.34 0.01181 4.82E-06 0.306 0.0118
magna
Ceriodahpnia 4.08E-06 0.26 3.72E-06 0.24
Maximum predicted copper levels were below the LC50 generated by the BLM for Wasp Lake, Lower
Fish Lake and one of two mixing points in the Taseko River. The maximum predicted copper
concentration at Taseko 1 was 0.00489 mg/L, and the corresponding lowest LC50 (for Daphnia pulex)
was 0.0044 mg/L. The remaining LC50 values generated for Ceridaphnia and Daphnia magna were
0.0086 mg/L and 0.006 mg/L respectively (Table X). Once again, it is important to note the BLM predicts
the dissolved concentrations and the mixing point model predicts total concentrations. As a result, the
predicted maximums may be considered overly conservative estimates of potential toxicity relative to the
BLM results. However, given the modeled exceedance of the LC50 copper value for Ceriodaphnia using
maximum predicted concentrations, modeling was also conducted on predicted averages for the mixing
points and these results are shown in Table 2.7.2.4B-26. . Consistent with the approach of modeling the
maximums, the averages were modeled in the context of the concurrent predicted average ambient
conditions for the BLM input parameters (e.g. Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, SO4, alkalinity, pH, temperature etc.). Note
that average cadmium values were modeled along with average copper values.
The analysis of the lowest average cadmium and copper concentrations (which are generally consistent
with lower hardness values) indicated no exceedances of the predicted LC50 values for these parameters
(Table 2.7.2.4B-26).

Table 2.7.2.4B-26 BLM results for average cadmium and copper at mixing points with
predicted guideline exceedances
Dissolved cadmium LC50 values generated with BLM (using predicted averages)
Most sensitive test

Beece Creek Predicte Taseko 1 Predicte Taseko 3 Predicte
species
d value d value d value
mol/L mg/L (mg/L) mol/L mg/L (mg/L) mol/L mg/L (mg/L)
1.31E 0.001 1.69E- 0.001 1.83E- 0.002

rainbow trout 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025
-08 5 08 9 08 1
Dissolved copper LC50 values generated with BLM (using
predicted averages)
Most sensitive test
species Taseko 1 Predicte Taseko 3 Predicte
d value d value
(mg/L) (mg/L)
mol/L mg/L mol/L mg/L
6.89E 0.004 1.42E- 0.009
Daphnia pulex
-08 4 07 0
1.36E 0.008 2.67E- 0.017
Daphnia magna 0.00029 0.00029
-07 6 07 0
9.49E 0.006 1.92E- 0.012
Ceriodahpnia
-08 0 07 2
Summary Discussion
The modelled water quality data for the mine site and mixing points were evaluated without consideration
for mitigation measures like water treatment and strategic flow diversions (as needed to protect or
maintain water quality) – reflecting a conservative approach to identifying potential effects. Water quality
guidelines were used as a first step to identify potential effects on water quality, followed by a more in
depth review using published toxicity data, ecological risk assessment values (TRV / ESV) and the Biotic
Ligand Model (BLM) for cadmium, copper and silver specifically. The BLM was first used to evaluate
maximum predicted concentrations, and was then used to investigate selected average cadmium and
copper concentrations where maximum levels indicated potential exceedances of the BLM LC50
predictions. Water quality guideline exceedances were noted for a variety of predicted average and
maximum concentrations. Predicted maximum concentrations in particular exceeded provincial and / or
federal guideline values for parameters like aluminum, cadmium, iron, sulphate, selenium and silver. As
indicated at the beginning of this section, (and especially with respect to the stochastic model for the Fish
Lake system) the maximum predicted values are not considered typical of the anticipated water quality
conditions in the project area. The predicted averages would be most reflective of anticipated conditions.
Our comparison of the predicted averages with toxicity data and ecological risk assessment values
presented in this document indicates the following:
x Pit and Wasp lakes show the widest range of parameters and predicted exceedances for the
modeled waterbodies, with the Pit Lake showing the highest average concentrations above
selected toxicity values overall
x Aluminum exceeds the guideline values in almost all of the modeled waterbodies (either as a 30
day average or maximum). However, exceedances of selected aluminum toxicity data were noted
for the mine site and the Taseko River but not in Beece Creek, Little Onion or Big Onion Lake
x Although the predicted averages often exceed the cadmium and copper guidelines, exccedances
of relevant toxicity data were only noted for the Pit Lake, Lower Fish Creek and Wasp Lake

x Mercury exceeded guideline values and selected toxicity data / ecological screening values at
Lower Fish Creek, Wasp Lake and Big Onion Lake
x Examples of average sulphate concentrations in excess of guidelines and selected toxicity data
(specifically the Frahm (1975) value of 100 mg/L) were noted for all of the mine site waterbodies
(Fish Lake, Upper Fish Creek, Trib 1 and the Pit Lake) as well as Lower Fish Creek and Wasp
Lake
x Predicted selenium concentrations are highest for Wasp Lake and Lower Fish Creek and exceed
the toxicity data used to develop the provincial guideline
x Average silver exceeds selected toxicity data and screening values at Wasp Lake only
x Average zinc exceeds selected toxicity data and screening values at Pit Lake only
Trophic Status Discussion (Fish Lake)

The main objective of Fish Lake Productivity model was to examine water quality changes, especially
productivity, in Fish Lake under the projected flow regime as described in the New Prosperity Mine
Project configuration (Taseko, 2011). This study employed two models: (1) the classic empirical model
developed by Vollenweider, which is retention time and load driven (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976); and, (2)
the “BATHTUB” model developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, USGS, which is
morphometric and process driven (Walker, 1986). Detailed descriptions of the Vollenweider and the
BATHTUB models’ underlying theories, program operations, model options, output variables, calibrations,
and application scenarios are provided in Fish Lake Productivity Model report (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A). The
two models were supplemented by GoldSim water quality iterations.
The trophic status of a lake is a measure of the degree of biological production within that lake. The
trophic status, a key component of water quality, is typically based on the concentration of algal biomass
(Clorophyll-a) in water samples. Lakes can be classified into one of four possible classes: oligotrophic,
mesotrophic, eutrophic, and hyper-eutrophic. An oligotrophic lake is a lake with low levels of nutrients
(often phosphorus and/or nitrogen) and low primary productivity while lakes with ample or excessive
nutrient supply are more productive, eutrophic lakes. Mesotrophic lakes are lakes that contain
intermediate or moderate level of biological productivity (i.e., greater than oligotrophic lake but less than
eutrophic lake). Fish Lake is a relatively small (111 ha), shallow (maximum depth of 12 m, mean depth of
4 m), dimictic, meso-eutrophic lake with a substantial amount of Phosphorous retained in the sediments.
Models showed that over 60% of the Phosphorous may be retained in the sediments (Kirchner and Dillon,
1975). The proposed 60% reduced inflow to Fish Lake was determined to increase hydraulic residence
time (HRT) in Fish Lake from the current 0.72 years to 1.81 years. However, the planned recirculation of
water from the outlet of Fish Lake back through the principal inlets will lower HRT to 1.05 years, and
minimize the effects of reduced flow on the ecology of the lake. In addition, the Proponent is committed
to maintaining Fish Lake water volume (lake water elevation) through the life of mine and beyond.
The results of the BATHTUB analysis are presented in Figures 15 to 28 and Tables 23 and 24 in Fish
Lake Productivity Model report (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A). As a general overview, representative figures
(Figure 2.7.2.4B-2 to Figure 2.7.2.4B-5) and tables (Table 2.7.2.4B-22 and Table 2.7.2.4B-23) are
presented here. For the prediction of water quality parameters (ortho-phosphate, TN, Carlson indices,
algal biomass [Chl a] and transparency), nutrient loadings during the four different Project phases were
conducted for the months of October to June, July, August, and September. BATHTUB iterations were

only performed for epilimnetic waters since Goldsim-predicted P concentrations showed that the
hypolimnetic waters were largely hyper-eutrophic during all Project phases. The Project phases
represented in the figures and tables are Baseline, Phase 1 (start of operations to end mining/milling -
Years 1 to 17), Phase 2 (Closure - Years 18 to 21), Phase 3 (Post-closure - Years 22 to 31) and Post-
closure 2 (Year 31 and beyond).
Model analyses based on total phosphorus and Chl a concentrations during the life of mine and beyond
indicate the trophic status of Fish Lake could change from the current baseline meso-eutrophic condition
to a more productive, eutrophic state during the life of mine and beyond (Table 2.7.2.4B-27, Figure
2.7.2.4B-3 to 6). However as is explained in the body of the report, the change would be gradual and
measurable so that monitoring and appropriate mitigation would allow the proponent to aintain water
quality to the current trophic state.
Table 2.7.2.4B-27 Summary of BATHTUB predicted Fish Lake TP concentrations during all
Project phases compared to lake trophic status
October to Trophic
Phase Parameters July August Sept
June Status
TP 26 Mesoeutrophic
Baseline
Chl a 2.3 Mesotrophic
1: Start operation TP 38.3 31.3 35 38.3 Eutrophic
to end mining/
milling (Yr 1 - 17) Chl a 19.9 16.3 18.2 19.9 Eutrophic
2: Closure TP 30.9 31.7 35.8 39.1 Eutrophic

(Yr 18 - 21) Chl a 16.1 16.5 18.7 20.3 Eutrophic
3: Post-closure 1 TP 30.1 30.9 35 37.9 Eutrophic
(Yr 22 - 31) Chl a 15.6 16.1 18.2 19.7 Eutrophic
4: Post-closure 2 TP 32.9 33.3 37.9 42 Eutrophic
(Yr 31 and
beyond) Chl a 17.2 17.4 19.7 21.7 Eutrophic
Wetzel (1975, 2001)

Figure 2.7.2.4B-3 Predicted Fish Lake phytoplankton biomass and total phosphorus
concentration under different nutrient loading scenarios – July
concentration under different nutrient loading scenarios – August

concentration under different nutrient loading scenarios – September
concentration under different nutrient loading scenarios – October to June

Furthermore, Carlson state indices (TSI; Carlson, 1977) were used to determine the trophic status of Fish
Lake during the different Project phases using predicted phosphorus from BATHTUB model iterations
(Table 23 in Fish Lake productivity model report (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A). The Carlson state index uses
algal biomass as the basis for the classification of biological productive in a lake. For trophic state
classification, the TSI employs a numerical trophic state index that incorporates most lakes in a scale of 0
to 100. The TSI number can be calculated from three closely related variables, chlorophyll-a
concentrations, Secchi depth, and total phosphorus. In general, lakes having TSI <40 are described as
oligotrophic, 41-50 as mesotrophic, 51-70 as eutrophic, and > 70 as hyper-eutrophic.
Apart from the baseline condition, Fish Lake in the course of the different Project phases generally
exceeded a TSI value of 50, a threshold above which lakes are considered to be eutrophic (Table
2.7.2.4B-28). The modelled results in comparison with the Carlson State Indices thus suggest that Fish
Lake may shift from the current mesoeutrophic state to a more productive eutrophic condition. This
outcome was the same during all Project phases. In general, the results of lake trophic status based on
TP and Chl a concentrations and Carlson state indices corroborate each other. A more productive Fish
Lake would result in algal proliferation with negative implications for overall water quality and lake
biodiversity. For example, toxic algae may develop, turbidity may increase, and anoxic conditions may be
exacerbated (Søndergaard et al., 2001). However the change would be gradual and measurable so that
monitoring and appropriate mitigation would allow the proponent to aintain water quality to the current
trophic state.
Table 2.7.2.4B-28 Carlson Trophic state classification of Fish Lake based on BATHTUB
model predicted P, Chlorophyll a, and Secchi depth
October to Trophic
Phase Carlson index July August Sept
June Status
TSI-P 51.1 51.1 51.1 51.1 Eutrophic
Baseline TSI-Chl a 38.9 38.9 38.9 38.9 Oligotrophic
TSI-Secchi 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 Mesotrophic
1:Start operation TSI-P 56.7 53.8 55.4 56.7 Eutrophic
to end mining/ TSI-Chl a 59.9 58.0 59.1 59.9 Eutrophic
milling
(Yr 1- 17) TSI-Secchi 52.6 50.2 51.5 52.6 Eutrophic
TSI-P 53.6 54 55.7 57 Eutrophic
2: Closure
TSI-Chl a 57.8 58.1 59.3 60.1 Eutrophic
(Yr 18 - 21)
TSI-Secchi 50.1 50.4 51.8 52.8 Eutrophic
TSI-P 53.2 53.6 55.4 56.5 Eutrophic
3: Post-closure 1
TSI-Chl a 57.6 57.8 59.1 59.8 Eutrophic
(Yr 22 - 31)
TSI-Secchi 49.7 50.1 51.5 52.4 Eutrophic
4: Post-closure 2 TSI-P 54.5 54.7 56.5 58 Eutrophic
(Yr 31 and TSI-Chl a 58.5 58.6 59.8 60.8 Eutrophic
beyond) TSI-Secchi 50.8 51.1 52.4 53.6 Eutrophic

In summary, the results of both the BATHTUB model iterations and Carlson indices indicate the trophic
state of Fish Lake may shift from meso-trophic to a more productive eutrophic state. The implications of
more P influx as a result of mine development and operations to Fish Lake water quality are discussed in
the Fish Lake productivity model report (Appendix 2. 7. 2. 4B-A) and include elevated noxious algal
(cyanobacteria) blooms, hypolimnetic oxygen depletion, and ultimately deterioration in water quality (cf.
Schindler, 1974, 1977; Edmondson, 1991, Ogbebo et al., 2009a, b). However the change would be
gradual and measurable so that monitoring and appropriate mitigation would allow the proponent to
aintain water quality to the current trophic state.
Consequently, a comprehensive monitoring program is recommended for Fish Lake during construction,
operations (life-of-mine), and beyond. A phosphorus concentration trigger or alert range based on current
Fish Lake water quality data was established following the recommendations of the Canadian Guidance
framework for the management of phosphorus in freshwater systems (see Figure 1 in CCME, 2004). The
trigger or alert phosphorus concentrations range for Fish Lake based on the lake’s baseline mean
Phosphorous concentration range of 15 to 42 ug/L is 22 to 63 ug/L. Should monitoring results suggests
the upper limit of the trigger concentrations range is reached or likely to be exceeded, several mitigation
or contingency measures should be implemented (see Fish Lake Productivity Model report, Appendix
2.7.2.4B-A). Some of the mitigation measures or techniques outlined in the report include the use of
artificial circulation (aeration), alum application for internal Phosphorous control, and constructed
wetlands or other water treatment to address elevated nutrients.
Water Temperature
Water temperature represents an important limnological parameter that will influence many aspects of the
aquatic environment. Within Fish Lake the recirculation of outlet water to the tributaries has the potential
to change the current thermal energy budget of the lake. A detailed account of the methodology and
results used to evaluate the potential effects of recirculating water on the lake and tributary temperatures
is included in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-D.
The results from the mixing model indicate that recirculation to the tributaries will result in increased
discharges and water temperatures during the ice covered period (Figure 2.7.2.4B-6 and 2.7.2.4B-7). The
elevated turbulence and surface water temperatures could maintain localized ice-free conditions at the
mouths of the tributaries. However, the pumping of previously insulated lake water through recirculation
pipes and channels could lead to a reduction in basin-wide temperatures.
During the spring and summer periods the mixing model predicts the temperature of recirculated water
would be lower than the observed baseline inlet temperatures. That difference in baseline temperatures
suggests that water temperatures in the tributaries warms earlier than that of the lake. Overall, a
reduction in tributary temperatures entering the lake during the spring would thereby reduce the thermal
energy entering the lake, and the anticipated lake temperatures.
During July, the predictions suggest it may be beneficial to recirculate water both from the surface water
(epilimnion) and bottom water (hypolimnion) to maintain suitably cool water for Rainbow Trout embryo
development. This strategy would mix water from each thermal layer to provide optimum temperature
ranges in inlet tributaries to optimize and support egg and embryo development as part of proposed
mitigation and compensation strategies. The target is a 50:50 mixture of epilimnion and hypolimnion
water during July equating to a total of approximately 440,000 m3 being required from each level. Over
the course of the month this would consume approximately 75% of the total hypolimnetic volume and

could result in a shrinking of the hypolimnion and an increase in thermocline depth. A change in the
thermal stratification of the lake could potentially lead to a variety of changes in the lake.
Figure 2.7.2.4B-7 Comparison of predicted Fish Creek reach 8 temperatures with the
observed baseline temperatures based upon recirculation containing 50% epilimnion water and
50% hypolimnion water in July

Figure 2.7.2.4B-8 Comparison of predicted Fish Lake Tributary 1 temperatures with the
observed baseline temperatures based upon recirculation containing 50% epilimnion water and
50% hypolimnion water in July
During July the predicted stream temperatures and densities are similar to the baseline temperatures at
the surface of the lake. This similarity in density would encourage complete mixing within the warmer top
layers of the lake. Alternatively, the cooler hypolimnion waters would have a higher density and would
therefore resist mixing. This difference in density could result in an increase the epilimnion volume as
compared with the hypolimnion as water will be removed from the hypolimnion for mixing and
recirculation to inlet tributaries.
The observed dissolved oxygen conditions in Fish Lake have been observed to be different between the
epilimnion and hypolimnion, with the exception of the period immediately following spring and fall turnover
periods the hypolimnion has lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen. By reducing the volume of water
in the hypolimnion and increasing the proportion of the lake that exists in the epilimnion, recirculation may
have positive benefits to the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the lake. Conversely, the reduction in
hypolimnetic volume could reduce the availability of cool water refuges during warm periods.
Another possible change as a result of a reduction in hypolimnion volume involves redox sensitive
sediment recycling. Generally speaking, redox sensitive elements such as iron can dissolve under
reducing electro-chemical conditions; by increasing the dissolved oxygen concentrations it is more likely
iron will remain in particulate form. The particulate iron in the sediments has been shown to effectively tie
up large concentrations of phosphorus (Froelich, 1988). When this iron is dissolved under anoxic
reducing conditions the phosphorus will be free to diffuse back into the surface water column and can
contribute to increased nutrient loads and primary productivity (Smolders and Roelofs, 1993). Artificial
hypolimnetic aeration has been used extensively in the short term to prevent eutrophication and maintain
aesthetics of lakes.

During the fall, the predicted end-of-pipe temperatures again increase above the baseline temperatures.
This could lead to an increase in thermal energy entering the lake, and potentially localized warming at
the outlets. Overall however, temperature changes due to flow mitigation are not expected to have an
ecologically meaningful effects given predicted average case scenario water temperatures remain within
4°C on either side of the baseline (Figure 2.7.2.4B-6 and Figure 2.7.2.4B-7) throughout the year. In reality
any predicted changes in the end-of-pipe water temperatures will likely equilibrate with the climatic
conditions of the period as it flows to the lake, reducing any difference prior to entering the lake.
Water Quality Mitigation – Fish Lake

Adaptive Management
As discussed in Section 2.8.3 Adaptive Management will be adopted for the Project and is considered a
useful and integral component of managing uncertainty while identifying and implementing corrective and
mitigation measures. The value of Adaptive Management as it pertains to water and sediment quality is
that it provides a recognizable and defensible framework which includes a description of the monitoring
programs to be implemented as well as a listing of conceptual mitigation measures for implementation
should monitoring indicate there is a need to implement mitigation.
Water quality predictions indicate some metals and sulphate will increase, with some exceeding
Provincial and Federal guidelines as seepage and discharges from the TSF commence. As the Project
proceeds, monitoring programs will be in place to gauge the accuracy of the predictions, and based on
the results of the monitoring, implement precautionary planning and/or mitigation where required.
Monitoring in itself does not mitigate but is the central and key component for determining if predictions
are accurate and if mitigation is needed. Because of uncertainty, it is not possible to predict exactly the
timing or concentration of these parameters, so monitoring is the tool available to confirm predictions. For
the example of water quality in Fish Lake tributaries, should monitoring show or suggest levels are
increasing, the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) will include an “alert” level which could reflect a
particular parameter is within X% of the guideline level. The alert level could be tied to increased
monitoring and an “action level” would be declared if the level were to approach Xi% of the guideline. The
action level would initiate corrective actions which might include treatment and/or pumping captured
seepage into the TSF. This scenario is presented in a conceptual context only but it is intended to
illustrate how an AMP could be implemented to address uncertainty and manage Project effects to design
or acceptable levels.
The concept of alert and action levels could be applied to but not necessarily limited to all of the following:
x Predicted water quality in Fish Lake and tributaries
x Success of habitat compensation programs
x Survival, growth, and health of fish in Fish Lake
x Fish Lake trophic status and capability of the lake to support and sustain the monoculture
population of Rainbow Trout
x Other Project components, not just those related to environmental receptors

Adaptive management is expected to be a valuable tool for monitoring Project effects and for making
adjustments in order to continuously improve and ensure the Project functions as predicted. AMPs have
been identified in concept only and their development will proceed with the permitting phase of the
Project. Monitoring programs developed will be part of adaptive management.
The planned mitigation measures for the New Prosperity Mine Project are listed in Table 2.7.2.4B-42.
Mitigation measures presented in this section are specifically designed for Fish Lake and adjacent water
bodies in the new Project regional area. The new Project design preserves Fish Lake and adjacent
aquatic habitat. Mitigation measures outlined here are developed and evaluated based on the potential
environmental effects (e.g., change in sediment concentrations).
Alert Levels and Action Levels

Proposed Mitigation
Proposed mitigation includes a variety of environmental management and best management plans that
are common to many natural resource development projects and as a result have been clearly described
and codified. These measures are clearly described in Section 2.8.1. In regard to water quality, some of
the plans that will be developed include:
x Vegetation management strategy to minimize the disturbance to riparian habitat
x Sediment and Erosion Control strategy that will deal with the overall Project and specific tasks
x Air Quality and Dust Control management strategy
x Explosive and Blasting management strategy
x Instream Work practices and management strategies specific to all instream works
x Concrete management plans for all works in or close to water (adherence to Code of Practice for
Concrete Batch plants if such plants will be used)
x Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching management and monitoring programs
x Dangerous and hazardous material storage and handling procedures
x Water Quality, Sediment Quality, and Aquatic Ecology monitoring framework

In addition to the standard best management practices that will be employed as a part of the New
Prosperity Project, several Project-specific strategies will be employed (Tables 2.7.2.4B-38 to 2.7.2.4B-
41)
x Managing water release

o Control timing of both Pit Lake and TSF water release
x Water temperature control

o Temperature manipulation through the multiport withdrawal
x Hypolimnetic aeration
x Water Treatment
o Known technologies
o Reverse Osmosis or Liming Plant – treating seepage or direct discharge from TSF
Proposed Monitoring Plan

Water Quality Alert Levels
There is always some degree of uncertainty when predicting effects, particularly decades into the future,
in a complex aquatic system. To address uncertainties regarding model predictions, water quality,
sediment quality, and aquatic biota in Fish Lake and other waterbodies in the regional study area will be
routinely monitored. Other studies planned as part of the monitoring program include ground water
quality, fish spawning, and tissue chemistry. These comprehensive plans detailed in Section 4.6.1 of the
new Prosperity EIS Report can provide real-time indications of water quality in Fish Lake. The planned
sampling program will be conducted during construction, operations, closure, and post-closure phases.
Results from the planned monitoring program will provide important feedback on the need for and efficacy
of mitigation measures. It should be noted that no monitoring plan was put in place for Fish Lake in the
previous EIS because the lake was to be used as tailings facility. The present monitoring program is an
improvement on the previous sampling program proposed in the previous EIS report. As part of the
conceptual Environmental Protection Plan and Environmental Management System presented in the
current EIS report Volume 2, Section 2.8.3, water and sediments quality alert levels were developed for
all metals in Fish Lake to complement the water quality objectives, criteria and/or guidelines. The
Canadian environmental quality guidelines values are numerical concentrations or narrative statements
designed for the most sensitive life stage of the most sensitive organism in freshwater ecosystem (CCME,
2011). Thus, the Canadian environmental quality guidelines may be over protective for waterbodies with
naturally elevated concentrations of metals (CCME, 2007), or in watersheds that are highly enriched in
heavy metals. Soils and vegetation on the New Prosperity Project area have been found to have naturally
elevated metal concentrations (see Section 2.6.1 - Impact Assessment, Soils) compared to non-
mineralized areas in the region. Some metals including iron were observed in Fish Lake to exceed the
CCME water quality guidelines (see the Summer 2011 limnology report in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-C).
Similarly, many of the metals in Fish Lake sediments including chromium, nickel, and mercury also
exceeded the interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQG, Summer 2011 limnology report in Appendix
2.7.2.4B-C).

Alert levels refers to a concentration or change identified from monitoring which can be used as an early
warning indicator of water quality deterioration that requires precautionary planning should the adverse
changes and levels continue. Should monitoring suggest levels are increasing and alert levels are being
reached, precautionary planning as identified in the AMP would be undertaken, and mitigation or
corrective measures (e.g., water treatment) could be implemented if considered necessary. For Fish
Lake, a review of the BC approved working water quality guidelines (Nagpal, 2006) and the Canadian
Council of the Ministers of the Environment water quality guidelines technical report showed no set alert
levels for water quality parameters except for sulphate (CCME, 2011) and phosphorus (Canadian
Guidance framework for the management of phosphorus in freshwater systems; see Figure 1 in CCME,
2004). Consequently, with the exception of sulphate and phosphorus, alert levels for water quality and
sediment quality were set as 20% above mean ambient baseline metal data. For practical reasons, it is
envisaged that setting the alert levels at 20% above baseline values allows time for the Proponent to put
in place mitigation measures before noticeable ecological effects. The alert levels will be refined once
site-specific water quality objectives have been determined. For both water quality and sediments quality
the alert levels were set using the summer 2011 sampling surveys data for Fish Lake.

Table 2.7.2.4B-29 Water quality alert levels determined for Fish Lake
Parameter units Water Quality Guideline - Maximum Alert levels†
WQ CCME CEQG BC WQG
Baseline
(mean)
Total suspended solids mg/L 1.25 NA 25 mg/L when background ≤250 mg/L 1.50
Fluoride mg/L 0.053 0.12 NA 0.06
Sulphate mg/L 9.8 NA 100 50
Ammonia-N mg/L 0.036 varies with temperature and pH varies with temperature and pH 0.043
Nitrate-N mg/L 0.021 NA 200 0.0252
Nitrite-N mg/L 0.004 NA 0.06 to 0.60 0.0048
for Cl 2 to >10 mg
Phosphorus-P total, mg/L 0.037 NA 0.005 to 0.015 inclusive 0.044
1 1
Aluminum, total mg/L 0.0095 0.05-0.1 0.05-0.1 0.0114
Antimony, total mg/L 0.000045 NA 0.02 (proposed Ontario guideline) 0.000054
Arsenic, total mg/L 0.000385 0.005 0.005 0.000462
Barium, total mg/L 0.002455 NA 5 (under ministry review) 0.002946
Beryllium, total mg/L <0.00001 NA 0.0053 (under ministry review, chronic criterion) 0.000012
Boron, total mg/L <0.05 NA NA 0.06
Cadmium, total mg/L 0.0000135 0.017-0.12 0.017-0.12 0.0000162
Chromium, total mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.001 0.0006
Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0000825 NA NA 0.000099
3 3
Copper, total mg/L 0.001095 0.002-0.004 0.002-0.004 0.001314
Iron, total mg/L 0.240 0.3 0.3 0.288
4 4
Lead, total mg/L 0.00001725 0.001-0.007 0.001-0.007 0.000021
Manganese, total mg/L 0.02335 NA NA 0.02802
Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.00016 0.073 NA 0.000192
5 5
Nickel, total mg/L 0.002955 0.25-0.15 0.025-0.015 0.003546
Selenium, total mg/L 0.00008 0.001 0.002 0.000096
Silver, total mg/L <0.000005 0.0001 0.0001 (hard ≤100) 0.003 (hard >100) 0.000006

Parameter units Water Quality Guideline - Maximum Alert levels†

WQ CCME CEQG BC WQG
Baseline
(mean)
Titanium, total mg/L 0.00083 NA 2 0.000996
Uranium, mg/L 0.000031 0.15 0.3 0.0000372
Vanadium, mg/L 0.0011 NA 0.006 0.00132
Zinc, total mg/L 0.002075 0.03 0.033 to 0.115 varies with hardness 0.00249
BCWQG-British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines.
CEQG-Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for the protection of freshwater life (CCME 2007).
Aluminium: pH<6.5 = 0.005 mg/L; pH>6.5 = 0.1mg/L.
Cadmium: total hardness 1 to 48.5 mg/L = 0.018 μg/L; total hardness 48.5 to 97 mg/L = 0.032 μg/L; total hardness >194 = 0.059 μg/L (Cadmium concentration =
100.86[log10(hardness)]-3.2 μg/L)
Copper: total hardness 1 to 120 mg/L = 2.76 μg/L; total hardness >180 = 4.0 μg/L. (Copper concentration = e0.8545[ln(hardness)]-1.465 * 0.2 μg/L)
Lead: total hardness 1 to 60 mg/L = 1 μg/L; total hardness >180 mg/L = 7 μg/L. (Lead concentration = e1.273[ln(hardness)]-4.705 μg/L)
Nickel: total hardness 1 to 60 mg/L = 25 μg/L; total hardness of 60 to 120 mg/L = 65 μg/L; total hardness of 120 to 180 mg/L = 110 μg/L; .total hardness >180 mg/L = 150 μg/L.
(Nickel concentration = e0.76[ln(hardness)]+1.06 μg/L)
† 20% above baseline, except sulphate which was set by BC MOE

Table 2.7.2.4B-30 Sediments quality alert levels determined for Fish Lake
Grand CCME BC Working Sediment Guidelines
Mean ISQG Least Effect Level (LEL) Probable Effects Level
Statio Statio Statio Statio Alert
Baselin (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (PEL)
Variables† n‡ n n n Level
e (mg/kg)
1 2 3 4 s
sedime
nt Data
Antimony, – – – 0.552
total 0.46 0.52 0.36 0.5 0.46
Arsenic, total 4.36 3.24 2.86 2.88 3.335 5.9 5.9 17 4.002
Cadmium, 0.6 0.6 3.5 0.1998
total 0.204 0.228 0.1 0.134 0.1665
Chromium, 37.3 37.3 90 50.4
total 37.6 46.8 35.2 48.4 42
Copper, total 32.78 41.7 28.64 33.52 34.16 35.7 35.7 197 40.99
Iron, total – 21,200 43,766 19020.
18400 14980 12002 18020 15850.5 6
Lead, total 3.28 3.1 2.26 2.78 2.855 35 35 91.3 3.426
Manganese, 140.8 – – – 249.19
total 278.4 212.2 4 199.2 207.66 2
Mercury, total 0.178 0.196 0.742 0.16 0.319 0.17 0.17 0.486 0.3828
Nickel, total 54.86 59.6 49.84 58.96 55.815 – 16 75 66.98
Selenium, – 5 – 1.34
total 0.9 1.6 0.86 1.12 1.12
Silver, total 0.104 0.126 0.094 0.12 0.111 – 0.5 – 0.1332
Zinc, total 66.8 65.8 46 63.6 60.55 123 123 315 72.66

Cumulative Effects Assessment for Water Quality

As described in Section 2.7.1, cumulative environmental effects are only assessed if all three of the
following conditions are met for the environmental effect:
x The Project results in a measurable, demonstrable, or reasonably-expected residual

environmental effect on a component of the environment;
x The Project-specific residual environmental effect does, or is likely to, act in a cumulative fashion
with the environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that are likely to occur;
and
x There is a reasonable expectation the Project’s contribution to cumulative environmental effects

The Project inclusion list (Table 2.7.1.4-1) identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects
and activities are shown on Figure 2.7.1.4-1. As indicated in Table 2.7.1.4-1, eight of these projects and
activities are new since 2009. Of the eight new projects, only one, the Newton property, is located west of
the Fraser River and, therefore, considered potentially able to interact cumulatively with the Project’s
residual effects on water quality.
For water quality, the first condition is met. Although there is an established conclusion by the Provincial
government and the previous panel of no significant adverse effect on the Taseko River, there is potential
for Project-specific residual effects on water quality within Fish Creek and Beece Creek watersheds. The
predicted residual effect on the water quality of the Taseko River for New Prosperity has remained similar
relative to the conclusions made in the 2009 EIS.
With respect to the second condition, while the Newton property constitutes an active exploration
program, there is no defined resource and it is unknown whether it will develop into a mining project. As
a result there is no reasonable expectation that the Project’s contribution to cumulative environmental
effects will affect the viability or sustainability of the resource or value.
Determination of Significant Residual Effects
Characterization of Residual Project Effects for Water Quality in Fish Lake

Determination of significance of potential Project residual effects on water quality in Fish Lake relied on:
x Baseline site-specific data compared with applicable guidelines;
x Water quality predictions compared with applicable guidelines;
x Fish Lake productivity model; and
x Professional judgement, applying the precautionary principle or approach.

The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for water quality changes for Fish Lake are
summarized in Table 2.7.2.4B-31.

Table 2.7.2.4B-31 Determination of significance of residual effects for water quality changes in Fish Lake

Significance ranking assumes effective implementation of the
adaptive management plan and actions If predetermined alert or
action levels are observed
Potential
Environmental Proposed and Potential Mitigation Measures/Compensation
Prediction Confidence
Geographical Extent
Effect: Water Measures
Ecological context
Quality Changes
in Fish Lake
Reversibility
Significance
Magnitude†
Frequency
Direction
Duration
Fish Lake Water Quality
High - Modelled
predictions
indicate an
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1)
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or open pit increase of
x Groundwater collection wells around TSF approximately
Nutrient x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing 28% through all
A S LT C R U N H
Concentrations x Eutrophication control using hypolimnetic aeration and/or flocculating phases. This is
agents anticipated to
x Maintenance of pump back to TSF without recirculation to fish habitat lead to an
until such time as the TSF water quality meets acceptable quality increase in
objectives. productivity and
trophic status.
Moderate -
Modelled
predictions
indicate an
increase of
many elements
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) above
Metal x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP guidelines.
x Groundwater collection wells around TSF A S LT C R U N M
Concentrations Literature and
x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing
biotic ligand
x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to fish habitat until
such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives. modelling
suggest all
increase will
remain at least
5.3 times LC50
values.
Moderate -
Modelled
predictions
indicate an
increase above
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) reported lowest
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP observed effects
x Groundwater collection wells around TSF levels. This is
Sulphate
x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing A believed to be S LT C R U N M
Concentrations
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF without recirculation to fish habitat overly
until such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives. conservative
based upon
differences
between
experimental
and site
conditions
Low – seasonal
differences are
predicted.
x Active temperature manipulation and adjustment via multiport withdrawal Differences are
Temperature N S LT F R U N M
for recirculation water
within the range
of natural
variability
KEY Geographic Extent: Reversibility: Significance:
S: Site-specific R: Reversible S: Significant
†
Alert – a level or change identified from monitoring that requires precautionary planning should the L: Local I: Irreversible N: Not Significant
adverse changes and levels continue. R: Regional
Ecological Context: Prediction Confidence:
Action – mitigation designed and planned as part Duration: U:Undisturbed: Area Based on scientific information and
of adaptive management would be implemented ST: Short term relatively or not adversely statistical analysis, professional
and would continue until the levels and and/or MT: Medium Term affected by human activity judgment, effective mitigation
changes return to manageable and acceptable LT: Long Term D:Developed: Area has been and adaptive management
levels. FF: Far Future or Permanent. substantially previously L: Low level of confidence
disturbed by human M: Moderate level of confidence
Direction: Frequency: development or human H High level of confidence
P: Positive R: Rare - Occurs Once development is still
N: Neutral I: Infrequent - Occurs present
A: Adverse sporadically at irregular N/A: Not applicable.
intervals
Magnitude: F: Frequent - Occurs on a
L: Low–environmental effect occurs that may or may not be measurable, but is within the range of regular basis and at regular
natural variability. intervals
M: Moderate–environmental effect occurs, but is unlikely to pose a serious risk or present a C: Continuous
H: High– environmental effect is likely to pose a serious risk or present a management challenge.

The water quality effects assessment is based on water quality modelling that considers hydrologic
inputs, chemical loadings and physio-chemical conditions. The hydrologic inputs and chemical loadings
are specific to the operational phases and activities associated with the Project. For many of the phases,
anticipated dates are close to the actual date on which they will occur; others (i.e., closure phase II) were
selected arbitrarily for modelling purposes.
The selection of the closure phase II period is an important one to the water quality assessment because
this phase coincides with TSF discharges being allowed to flow naturally into Fish Lake. For many
elements, this phase represents the period of maximum predicted concentrations. The actual timing of
closure phase II, and subsequent release of water from the TSF into Fish Lake, will actually occur when
water quality is deemed suitable.
The rationale for the significance determinations for Fish Lake are as follows:
x For nutrient concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is high
(residual effects are predicted; measurable increases to primary productivity are anticipated).
Based upon the implementation of adaptive management, if required, prior to the onset of
significant adverse effects, the subsequent predicted effects are not expected to pose a risk to
the sustainability of the Fish Lake ecosystem. This area is presently relatively undisturbed and
while the predicted effect is long-term it is reversible. With implementation of proposed mitigation,
frequent monitoring, and if required, adaptive management strategy, the conclusion is that the
environmental effects are not significant. This conclusion has a high degree of confidence
because, while measurable and negative in direction, any effects can be adaptively managed with
known technologies to ensure that they do not constitute a significant adverse effect.
x For metals concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is moderate
(residual effects are predicted, ecological effects are not anticipated to be measurable).
Evaluation of the predicted results against the relevant literature and site and predicted site
specific toxicity values, suggest that all of the predicted changes will be at a minimum 5.3 times
below LC50 values. This area is presently relatively undisturbed and while the predicted effect is
long-term it is reversible. Based upon the comprehensive evaluation of the predicted metal
concentration results, the implementation of mitigation, frequent monitoring, and if required,
adaptive management, the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant. This
conclusion has a moderate degree of confidence because modelling and site-specific
toxicological calculations inherently contain an aspect of uncertainty. However, in the event of
unpredicted effects appear imminent degraded water quality may be mitigated with known
treatment technologies to ensure that they do not constitute a significant adverse effect.
x For sulphate concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is moderate
(residual effects are predicted; ecological effects are not anticipated to be measurable).
Evaluation of the predicted results against the relevant literature toxicity values, suggest that the
predicted changes will be above the lowest observed effects levels for the most sensitive aquatic
organisms. However, based upon important differences between the experimental conditions and
Fish Lake (average hardness values of 19mg/L and 82 mg/L respectively) it is believed the
predicted sulphate concentrations would fall below the observable effects level (effects are not
anticipated to be measurable and will not pose a risk to the Fish Lake ecosystem). This area is
presently relatively undisturbed and while the predicted effect is long term, it is reversible. Based
upon the comprehensive evaluation of the predicted sulphate concentrations, the implementation
of the described mitigation measures, frequent monitoring, and, if required, adaptive

management, the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant. This conclusion
has a moderate degree of confidence because modelling and site specific toxicological
calculations inherently contain an aspect of uncertainty. However, in the event of unpredicted
effects appear imminent degraded water quality may be mitigated with known treatment
technologies to ensure that they do not constitute a significant adverse effect.
x For lake temperature, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is low (effects are
anticipated to be within the natural range of variability; ecological effects are not anticipated to be
measurable). This area is presently relatively undisturbed and while the predicted effect is long-
term it is reversible, with implementation of the described mitigation measures, the conclusion is
that the environmental effects are not significant because the effects will occur locally, be
reversible and will be neutral in direction.
Characterization of Residual Project Effects for Water Quality in Fish Lake Tributaries
Determination of significance of potential Project residual effects on water quality in Fish Lake Tributaries
relied on:
x Water quality predictions compared with applicable guidelines; and

The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for water quality changes for Fish Lake tributaries
are summarized in Table 2.7.2.4B-31.

Table 2.7.2.4B-31A Determination of significance of residual effects for water quality changes in Fish Lake tributaries

adaptive management plan and actions if predetermined alert or
Potential action levels are observed
Environmental
Proposed and Potential Mitigation Measures/Compensation
Effect: Water
Geographical Extent
Measures
Ecological context
Quality
Changes in Fish
Reversibility
Significance
Magnitude†
Lake Tributaries
Frequency
Direction
Duration
Fish Lake Tributaries Water Quality
High - Modelled
predictions
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) indicate an
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP increase. This
Nutrient x Groundwater collection wells around TSF A is anticipated to S LT C R U N H
Concentrations x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing
lead to an
x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to fish habitat until
increase of
such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives
instream
productivity
Moderate -
Modelled
predictions
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) indicate an
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP increase.
Metal x Groundwater collection wells around TSF Literature and
A S LT C R U N M
Concentrations x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing biotic ligand
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF without recirculation to fish habitat modelling
until such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives suggest all
increase will not
result in an
ecologically

measurable
effect
Moderate -
Modelled
predictions
indicate an
increase above
reported lowest
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) observed
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP effects levels.
Sulphate x Groundwater collection wells around TSF A This is believed S LT C R U N M
to be overly
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF without recirculation to fish habitat
conservative
until such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives
based upon
differences
between site
and
experimental
conditions
Low-Mitigation
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) and
Total x Limiting the disturbance of native materials and vegetation management
x Implementation of erosion and sediment control best management plans A strategies have S ST F R U N H
Suspended
(BMP)
Sediments been well
documented
x Dust control strategy (reclamation, vegetation control)
and tested.

Low- Model
predictions
suggest that
temperature can
x Active temperature manipulation and adjustment via multiport withdrawal P be optimized to S LT C R U N M
Temperature
for recirculation water
improve fish
spawning and
development
success
†
Alert – a level or change identified from L: Local I: Irreversible N: Not Significant
monitoring that requires precautionary R: Regional
planning should the adverse changes and Ecological Context: Prediction Confidence:
levels continue. Duration: U:Undisturbed: Area relatively or not Based on scientific information and statistical analysis,
ST: Short term adversely affected by human activity professional judgment, effective mitigation and adaptive
Action – mitigation designed and planned MT: Medium Term D:Developed: Area has been substantially management
as part LT: Long Term previously disturbed by human L: Low level of confidence
of adaptive management would be FF: Far Future or Permanent. development or human development is still M: Moderate level of confidence
implemented present H High level of confidence
and would continue until the levels and Frequency: N/A: Not applicable.
and/or R: Rare - Occurs Once
changes return to manageable and I: Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at irregular
acceptable intervals
levels. F: Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis and at
regular intervals
Direction: C: Continuous
P: Positive
N: Neutral
A: Adverse
Magnitude:
L: Low–environmental effect occurs that
may or may not be measurable, but is
within the range of natural variability.
M: Moderate–environmental effect occurs,
but is unlikely to pose a serious risk or
present a management challenge.
H: High– environmental effect is likely to
pose a serious risk or present a

The rationale for the significance determinations are as follows:
x For nutrient concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is high
(residual effects are predicted; measurable increases to primary productivity are anticipated).
Based upon the implementation of adaptive management, if required, prior to the onset of
significant adverse effects, the subsequent predicted effects are not expected to pose a risk to
the sustainability of the Fish Lake ecosystem. This area is presently relatively undisturbed and
while the predicted effect is long-term it is reversible. With implementation of proposed mitigation,
frequent monitoring, and if required, adaptive management strategy, the conclusion is that the
environmental effects are not significant. This conclusion has a high degree of confidence
because, while measurable and negative in direction, any effects can be adaptively managed with
known technologies to ensure that they do not constitute a significant adverse effect.
x For metals concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is moderate
(residual effects are predicted, ecological effects are not anticipated to be measurable).
Evaluation of the predicted results against the relevant literature and site and predicted site
specific toxicity values, suggest that all of the predicted changes will be at a minimum 2.6 times
below LC50 values. This area is presently relatively undisturbed and while the predicted effect is
long-term it is reversible. Based upon the comprehensive evaluation of the predicted metal
concentration results, the implementation of mitigation, frequent monitoring, and if required,
conclusion has a moderate degree of confidence because modelling and site specific
x For sulphate concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is moderate
(residual effects are predicted; ecological effects are not anticipated to be measurable).
Evaluation of the predicted results against the relevant literature toxicity values, suggest that the
predicted changes will be above the lowest observed effects levels for the most sensitive aquatic
organisms. However, based upon important differences between the experimental conditions
and Fish Lake it is believed the predicted sulphate concentrations would fall below the observable
effects level (effects are not anticipated to be measurable and will not pose a risk to the Fish Lake
ecosystem). This area is presently relatively undisturbed and while the predicted effect is long-
term it is reversible. Based upon the comprehensive evaluation of the predicted sulphate
concentrations, the implementation of the described mitigation measures, frequent monitoring,
and, if required, adaptive management, the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not
significant. This conclusion has a moderate degree of confidence because modelling and site
specific toxicological calculations inherently contain an aspect of uncertainty. However, in the
event of unpredicted effects appear imminent degraded water quality may be mitigated with
known treatment technologies to ensure that they do not constitute a significant adverse effect.
x For suspended sediment concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect
is low (effects are anticipated to be within the natural range of variability; ecological effects are
not anticipated to be measurable). The area is presently relatively undisturbed. The effect is
short-term and reversible. With implementation of the described mitigation and best management
practices (Section 2.8.1), the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant

because any potential effect would be local, effectively managed with well tested techniques,
short-term, and reversible.
x For tributary temperature, the anticipated direction of change is positive. The magnitude of the
significance of the residual effect is low (effects are anticipated to be within the natural range of
variability; ecological effects are not anticipated to be measurable). The area is presently
relatively undisturbed. The effect is long term and reversible. Overall, if lake recirculation is
operated effectively, the modelled predictions suggest that the temperatures in the tributaries can
be managed to improve spawning and development success by maintaining water temperatures
at optimal temperatures during important periods.
Characterization of Residual Project Effects for Water Quality in Pit Lake

Determination of significance of potential Project residual effects on water quality in Pit Lake relied on:

The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for water quality changes in adjacent streams are

Table 2.7.2.4B-32 Determination of significance of residual effects for water quality changes in Pit Lake

adaptive management plan and actions If predetermined alert or
action levels are observed
Potential
Geographical Extent
Effect: Water Measures
Ecological context
Quality Changes
in Fish Lake
Reversibility
Significance
Magnitude†
Frequency
Direction
Duration
Fish Lake Water Quality
High- Modelled
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) predictions
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF indicate an
Metal x Groundwater collection wells around TSF increase of
A S FF C R U N M
Concentrations x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing many elements
x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to fish habitat until above
such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives. guidelines and
effects levels.
High - Modelled
predictions
indicate a
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) increase above
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP reported lowest
Sulphate x Groundwater collection wells around TSF observed effects
A S FF C R U N M
Concentrations x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing levels. This is
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF without recirculation to fish habitat believed to be
until such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives. overly
conservative
based upon
differences

between
experimental
and site
conditions

†
regular intervals
C: Continuous
Direction:
P: Positive
N: Neutral
A: Adverse
Magnitude:

The water quality effects assessment is based on water quality modelling that considers hydrologic
inputs, chemical loadings and physio-chemical conditions. The hydrologic inputs and chemical loadings
are specific to the operational phases and activities associated with the Project. For Pit Lake only closure
phase II have been predictions have been made because prior to this the open pit will either be dry or
filling and will not contribute hydraulically or as fish habitat. As with the other modelling, the phase dates
may be dependent on resource estimates and hence close to the predicted dates or chosen arbitrarily for
modeling purposes.
Results from the water quality modelling suggest that Pit Lake will contain concentrations of metals and
sulphate that would be within the published effects levels. In the event that these predictions are correct it
will be necessary to adaptively management water quality prior to release downstream. It is important to
recognize that during the period of pit filling, fish access would be restricted and mitigation flow to the
tributaries would continue. Additionally, water would not be leaving the pit to downstream habitat in Fish
Creek. Adaptive management in this situation would likely involve water treatment as the pit is filling and
potentially as the pit is discharging downstream. Adaptive management strategies would have sufficient
time to bring the water quality in Pit Lake to an acceptable level prior to the discharge of water
downstream and/or the removal of fish migration barriers downstream of Fish Lake. Based upon this
anticipated requirement and deployment of adaptive management in Pit Lake Taseko will ensure that no
adverse significant effect will occur.
The rationale for the significance determinations for Pit Lake are as follows:
x For metals concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is high
(residual effects are predicted, ecological effects may or may not be measurable). Evaluation of
the predicted results against the relevant literature suggests that concentrations of several metals
will increase to concentrations within or above demonstrated effects levels. Presently relatively
undisturbed and while the predicted effect is long-term it is reversible. Based upon the
implementation of proposed mitigation, frequent monitoring, and if required, adaptive
management, the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant. This conclusion
has a moderate degree of confidence because modelling and site specific toxicological
calculations inherently contain an aspect of uncertainty. However, in the event of unpredicted
effects appear imminent degraded water quality may be mitigated with known treatment
technologies to ensure that they do not constitute a significant adverse effect.
x For sulphate concentrations, the magnitude of the significance of the residual effect is high
(residual effects are predicted; ecological effects may or may not be measurable). Evaluation of
the predicted results against the relevant literature suggests that concentrations of several metals
will increase to concentrations within or above demonstrated effects levels. This area is presently
relatively undisturbed and while the predicted effect is long-term it is reversible. Based upon the
implementation of the described mitigation measures, frequent monitoring, and, if required,
conclusion has a moderate degree of confidence because modelling and site specific
Characterization of Residual Project Effects for Water Quality in Adjacent Streams

Determination of significance of potential Project residual effects on water quality in adjacent streams
relied on:
The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for water quality changes in adjacent streams are

Table 2.7.2.4B-33 Determination of significance of residual effects for water quality changes in adjacent streams and rivers

Potential adaptive management plan and actions if predetermined alert or
Environmental action levels are observed
Effect: Water
Quality
Geographical Extent
Measures
Ecological context
Changes in
Adjacent
Reversibility
Significance
Streams and
Magnitude†
Frequency
Direction
Rivers
Duration
Water Quality in Adjacent Streams and Rivers (Lower Fish Creek, Beece Creek, Taseko River)

x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP Moderate -
x Groundwater collection wells around TSF Modelled
Nutrient
x Multiport water withdrawal for recirculation pump A predictions S LT C R U N M
Concentration
x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing indicate an
x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to fish habitat until increase.
such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives

x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP High - Modelled
Metal x Groundwater collection wells around TSF predictions
x Multiport water withdrawal for recirculation pump A S LT C R U N M
Concentrations indicate an
increase.
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF without recirculation to fish habitat
until such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objective


x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP Moderate -
x Groundwater collection wells around TSF Modelled
Sulphate
x Multiport water withdrawal for recirculation pump A predictions S LT C R U N M
Concentrations
x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing indicate an
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF without recirculation to fish habitat increase.
until such time as water quality meets acceptable quality objectives
†
regular intervals
P: Positive
N: Neutral
A: Adverse
Magnitude:

x For nutrient concentration, although the magnitude is moderate, the area is presently relatively
undisturbed, and the effect is continuous and long term, with implementation of the described
mitigation measures the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant because
the effect is site-specific and is reversible. Prior to the occurrence of a significant negative effect
adaptive management will be applied (as discussed earlier and in Section 2.8.3), effectively
preventing the effect from occurring.
x For metal concentrations, although the magnitude is high, the area is presently relatively
x For sulphate concentrations, although the magnitude is moderate, the area is presently relatively
Characterization of Residual Project Effects for Water Quality in Adjacent Lakes

Determination of significance of potential Project residual effects on water quality in adjacent lakes relied
on:
The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for water quality changes in adjacent lakes are

Table 2.7.2.4B-34 Determination of significance of residual effects for water quality changes in adjacent lakes

adaptive management plan and actions if predetermined alert or
Potential action levels are observed
Environmental
Effect: Water
Geographical Extent
Measures
Ecological context
quality changes
in adjacent
Reversibility
Significance
lakes
Magnitude†
Frequency
Direction
Duration
Water Quality in Adjacent Lakes (Wasp Lake, Little Onion Lake, and Big Onion Lake)
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) Moderate -

x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP Modelled
Nutrient x Groundwater collection wells around TSF A predictions S LT C R U N M
Concentration x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing
indicate an
x Maintenance of TSF pump back until such time as water quality meets
increase.
acceptable quality objectives

x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP High - Modelled
Metal x Groundwater collection wells around TSF predictions
A S LT C R U N M
Concentrations x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of ore processing indicate an
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF until such time as water quality increase.
meets acceptable quality objectives

x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) Moderate -

x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or OP Modelled
Sulphate x Groundwater collection wells around TSF A predictions S LT C R U N M
indicate an
x Maintenance of TSF pump back to TSF until such time as water quality
increase.
meets acceptable quality objectives

†
regular intervals
P: Positive
N: Neutral
A: Adverse
Magnitude:

x For nutrient concentration, although the magnitude is moderate, the area is presently relatively
x For metal concentrations, although the magnitude is high, the area is presently relatively
x For sulphate concentrations, although the magnitude is moderate, the area is presently relatively
Aquatic Ecology (Phytoplankton and Zooplankton)
Scope of Assessment – Aquatic Ecology

There is a potential for interactions between lake productivity (phytoplankton and zooplankton) and
Project works and activities (Table 2.7.2.4B-2). The key environmental effects of potential concern
considered in detail in the phytoplankton and zooplankton assessment include:
x Altered productivity of phytoplankton and zooplankton in Fish Lake resulting from decreased natural
inflow and altered water chemistry;
x Altered productivity of phytoplankton and zooplankton in Fish Lake as a result of sediment loading
from construction works; and,
x Altered productivity of phytoplankton and zooplankton in Fish Lake resulting from uncaptured TSF
seepage (altered water and sediment chemistry).
The following sections describe potential Project effects (main phases) on Fish Lake plankton
(phytoplankton and zooplankton) and planned mitigation and/or adaptive management measures.
Effects Assessment Methodology – Aquatic Ecology

The assessment methods adopted in this EIS to determine potential Project effects on aquatic ecology
(phytoplankton and zooplankton) are consistent with the EIS guidelines. Potential changes in aquatic

ecology resulting from the Project were predicted qualitatively and quantitatively considering available
baseline phytoplankton and zooplankton data, water chemistry predictions, physical forces (flow
diversions or additions), and Fish Lake model productivity predictions.
Two aspects are considered in assessing effects of the Project on aquatic ecology:
x Stream productivity (periphyton and benthic invertebrates)
x Lake productivity (phytoplankton and zooplankton)

The baseline and predicted water quality data for Fish Lake are compared with applicable Provincial and
Federal guidelines, where available, to determine the nature of environmental effects. Results are
presented in both a tabulated and graphic form (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-F). Furthermore, the potential Project
effects on aquatic ecology include the evaluation of baseline and predicted measures of phytoplankton
and zooplankton productivity. For phytoplankton, levels of chlorophyll a, the predominant photosynthetic
pigment found in all algae (Wetzel, 2001), was used as an indicator of biomass. This pigment is a
measure of primary production that enables comparison among sites and systems. Chlorophyll a
concentration provides a quantitative measure of the standing crop of phytoplankton, and offers a way to
compare primary production in different aquatic systems. Phytoplankton species composition and cell
numbers obtained in taxonomic studies are used to describe communities, as are taxon richness, the
Shannon Weiner diversity index, and an evenness index. Zooplankton community structure, species
abundance, taxon richness, diversity, evenness, and taxonomic composition were used to assess
environmental effects. Zooplanktons are important secondary producers and provide food for fish
(Mazumder, 1994; Vadstein et al., 1995). The smallest zooplankton (rotifers and protozoa) recycle
nutrients in the water column and often respond to nutrient enrichment. Larger zooplankton (the
crustacean Cladocera and Copepoda) are important food for forage fish species and larval stages of all
fish. Where necessary, a description of contingency plans is presented to address uncertainties and risks
associated with predictions.
Baseline Conditions – Aquatic Ecology

A detailed description of baseline surface water quality and aquatic ecology data are presented in Section
2.6.1.4 and Appendix 2.7.2.4B-G. No additional phytoplankton and zooplankton data were collected from
Fish Lake, the adjacent streams or adjacent lakes. Therefore, the baseline data reported for this
submission corresponds directly to that presented in the previous EIS submission.
Phytoplankton characteristics of Fish Lake were assessed in 1994, 1995, 1997, and 2006, through
measurements of community composition and chlorophyll a (Chl a). Chlorophyll a concentrations in Fish
Lake ranged from 0.70 to 5.03 μg/L, with values at the low to mid-range recorded for small lakes in the
Project area. As anticipated, chlorophyll a levels were higher at spring and autumn overturns than during
summer. Phytoplankton communities in Fish Lake were dominated by small flagellates in spring and early
summer and by blue-green algae later in the summer.
Zooplankton samples were collected in 1993, 1997, and 2006. No information is available about
equipment used or depths sampled prior to 1997, so these results are not included in comparisons
between lakes. In 1997 and 2006, a 12 cm diameter net with 60 μm mesh was hauled through the top 3
to 5 m of the water column. Fish Lake had the maximum taxon richness of lakes in the Project area, with
17 taxa identified. Protozoa was the predominant taxa in Fish Lake (81%), and several species of rotifers
were observed (8%). The 1997 samples from Fish Lake had a mean density of 124 organisms/L,
intermediate compared to other lakes in the Project area. The 2006 samples had a mean density of 3,500

organisms/L, with 30 taxa identified. Predominant taxa were the rotifer Conochilus (40%) and two species
of Daphnia (28%).
Fish Lake Trophic Status/Productivity Model - Current versus Predicted

While the old Prosperity Project configuration included the loss of Fish Lake, the New Prosperity Project
design preserves Fish Lake and the main inlet streams, which provide important spawning and feeding
habitat for resident adult fish. In support of this revised Project description, Triton Environmental
Consultants Ltd. (Triton) was retained in 2011 by Taseko to conduct additional water quality surveys,
develop limnological models to predict the potential effects of mine operations, develop a environmental
quality monitoring plan for the Project area, and if necessary, develop mitigation strategies for Fish Lake.
The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of Fish Lake have been detailed in numerous
reports as indicated above and the Fish Lake Productivity Model Report is provided as a technical
appendix (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A).
The primary objective of the modelling was to use nutrient balance and eutrophication response models
to understand how the expected reduction in stream flow rates, caused by the New Prosperity Mine
Project configuration, may affect nutrient cycling and fish population dynamics in Fish Lake. The ability to
predict the potential effect of mine operations on the water quality of Fish Lake provides an indication of
whether or not water quality may be of concern to aquatic organisms as a result of the Project. Modelling
capabilities help predict the environmental responses to mining activities as well as provide the data
needed to develop and implement effective mitigation measures to counteract reduced flows. The
anticipated changes to both the inlet and outlet flow rates of Fish Late may have implications for algal and
fish ecology and population structure in the lake. The reduced and recycled inflow has the potential to
alter the nutrient cycle of the lake. Understanding the potential changes to this system is essential for
ensuring the success of a whole-lake management plan. The principal objective of the modelling was to
determine the potential effects of reduced flow and potential uncaptured tailings seepage from
construction, operations, and through post-closure to the productivity of Fish Lake. The modelling was
based on the following:
1. A review of the scientific literature (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976; Volohonski et al., 1992; Brett and
Benjamin, 2008)
2. Reports on the ecology and habitat of wild Rainbow Trout monoculture lakes in the Cariboo-
Chilcotin region of British Columbia (Lirette and Chapman, 1993; Triton, 1997)
3. Fish and fish habitat studies of the Fish Lake watershed (Triton, 2011a)
4. Research into the effects of water withdrawal on northern lakes (Cott et al., 2008)
5. The professional knowledge, experience, and judgment of Triton’s team of water quality
specialists and fisheries biologists
This modelling employed two nutrient mass balance models:
x The classic empirical model developed by Vollenweider, which is retention time and load driven
(Vollenweider, 1975, 1976)
x The “BATHTUB” model developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, USGS, which is
morphometric and process driven (Walker, 1986)

Detailed descriptions of the Vollenweider Model and the BATHTUB models’ underlying theories, program
operations, model options, output variables, calibrations, and application scenarios are provided in Fish
Lake productivity model report (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A). The use of two models was to determine if
predictions from the two models corroborate each other and in the process, increase the reliability of Fish
Lake productivity predictions.
Mass balance models are practical tools in strategic planning aimed at predicting the effect of different
loading scenarios on the trophic status of a lake (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976; see review by Brett and
Benjamin, 2008). Although temporal variations in water quality cannot be described by these models,
changes between successive steady states can be (transient models, Bilaletdin et al., 2011).
Fish Lake is a shallow (maximum depth of 12 m, mean depth of 4 m) water body with a surface area of
111 ha.) The lake water thoroughly mixes twice a year (dimictic) and it could reasonably be classified as
a mesotrophic system based upon the observed baseline phosphorus concentrations. Models showed
that over 60% of the P budget in Fish Lake may be due to internal P regeneration (Kirchner and Dillon,
1975). The proposed 60% reduced inflow to Fish Lake was determined to increase hydraulic residence
time (HRT) in Fish Lake from the current 0.72 years to 1.81 years (Table 2.7.2.4B-35). However, the
planned recirculation of water from the outlet of Fish Lake back through the principal inlets will help
stabilize the Fish Lake HRT, and in the process minimize the effects of reduced flow on the ecology of the
lake. In fact, the HRT was determined to be 1.05 years with the recirculated flow.
Table 2.7.2.4B-35 Hydraulic residence time for Fish Lake under different flow regimes
Annual *HRT = Lake
Flow Regime Inflow Sources Lake Volume
Outflow Volume / Outflow
Baseline (current) Watershed + precipitation
4.44 x 106 m3 6.13 x 106 m3 0.72 years
flow = 6.13 x 106 m3
Flow reduced by Watershed + precipitation
4.44 x 106 m3 2.45 x 106 m3 1.81 years
60% = 2.45 x 106 m3
Watershed + precipitation
With recirculated + mitigation flows 4.44 x 106 m3 4.66 x 106 m3 1.05 years
flow
= 4.66 x 106 m3
*Brett and Benjamin (2008)
The results of both the BATHTUB models and Carlson indices (earlier discussed in Water Quality
Section) suggest that during the life of mine and beyond the trophic state of Fish Lake may shift from
being mesotrophic to a more productive eutrophic lake (see Fish Lake Productivity Model report Appendix
2.7.2.4B-A for details). However the change would be gradual and measurable so that monitoring and
appropriate mitigation would allow the proponent to aintain water quality to the current trophic state. The
implications of additional P influx as a result of mine development and operations to Fish Lake water
quality are discussed in the report may include elevated algae production, hypolimnetic oxygen depletion
and potential deterioration in water quality in the absence of monitoring and applied mitigation is reuired.
(cf. Schindler, 1974, 1977; Edmondson, 1991, Ogbebo et al., 2009a, b). Consequently, a comprehensive
monitoring program is recommended for Fish Lake during construction, operations (life-of-mine), and
beyond. A phosphorus concentration trigger or alert range based on current Fish Lake water quality data
was established following the recommendations of the Canadian Guidance framework for the
management of phosphorus in freshwater systems (see Figure 1 in CCME, 2004). The recommended
trigger ranges for Canadian lakes are classified according to 14 years of research by the Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on trophic status (Vollenweider and Kerekes, 1982),
as follows:
Canadian trigger ranges

Trophic Status
Total phosphorus (μg/L)
Ultra-oligotrophic <4
Oligotrophic 4-10
Mesotrophic 10-20
Meso-eutrophic 20-35
Eutrophic 35-100
Hyper-eutrophic >100
Based on the lake’s baseline mean P concentration range of 15 to 42 μg/L, the trigger or alert phosphorus
concentrations range for Fish Lake is 22 to 63 μg/L. The trigger range was based on the 50% increase
over in phosphorus concentrations above baseline level recommended by the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment (2004). Should monitoring results suggest the upper limit of the trigger range
is reached or likely to be exceeded, several mitigation or contingency measures would be implemented.
Some of the mitigation measures or techniques outlined in the Fish Lake Productivity Model report
(Appendix 2.4.2.4B-A) include the use of artificial circulation (aeration), alum application for internal P
control, and constructed wetlands or engineered water treatment to address elevated nutrients.
Effects Predictions – Phase-Specific Effects – Aquatic Ecology

As highlighted in Table 2.7.2.4B-3, some Project activities associated with open pit construction, fisheries
compensation works (constructions and operations), Fish Lake water management controls and
operation, and TSF starter dam construction (flooding of the upper Fish Creek drainage), will alter the
hydrologic conditions in Fish Lake. In addition, other activities such as seepage management and
discharge of TSF water have the potential to adversely affect the growth, abundance, and composition of
plankton communities. Many of the Project effects already described for Fish Lake water and sediment
quality are equally applicable to plankton communities. However, attempts are made to describe briefly
the three key elements identified with the Project construction, operations, and mine closure that may
potentially affect plankton population dynamics. They are reduced flow to Fish Lake, potential sediment
loading from construction activities, and TSF seepage chemistry.
Reduced Flow to Fish Lake

All proposed construction activities have the potential to cause short-term effects to water quality, and
plankton communities. One of the greatest of these would be the interception of approximately 60% of
Fish Lake inflow by the TSF. The reduction in average flows of Fish Creek upstream of Fish Lake will
result in increased hydraulic residence time (HRT). As described earlier in this section, an increased HRT
may provide relatively more time for phytoplankton to take up nutrients, both from external sources and
internally regeneration from lake sediment. The Fish Lake productivity model prediction indicates that
during the life of mine and beyond, there is the possibility of a shift in lake productivity from the current
meso-trophic to a eutrophic system (Nordin, 1985). Potential effects of eutrophication include increased
algal blooms, macrophyte growth, and periodic winter fish kills (Schindler, 2006).

Potential Sediment Loading from Construction Activities

The release of sediments or sediment-laden water to Fish Lake sediment during construction has the
potential to affect plankton and aquatic ecology. Apart from the obvious effect of reducing water clarity
and thus affecting primary productivity, considerable sediment loading may have an adverse effect on
some of the relatively sensitive benthos such as Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, or Plecoptera (EPT). See
Section 2.7.2.4C for further discussion on benthic invertebrates. Additional levels of metals and/or
nutrients in sediment-laden water may contribute to Fish Lake eutrophication.
Potential TSF Seepage

During mine operations, uncaptured tailings seepage may report to Fish Lake. Since TSF seepage may
contain elevated concentrations of metals, which can negatively affect downstream environments
including Fish Lake, efforts were undertaken to evaluate seepage chemistry. According to water quality
predictions, several of the parameters including aluminum, cadmium, iron, selenium, silver, and thallium
surpass the CCME guideline for the protection of aquatic life during all Project phases. Other elements
including aluminum, boron, and cadmium exceed the BCWQG during all Project phases. Specific details
of analytes and guidelines exceedances during the different phases of mining operation are presented in
Appendix 2.7.2.4B-F. In depth site specific details regarding how elevated concentrations of Copper,
Cadmium and Silver are included in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-E
The predicted shift in Fish Lake trophic status from a mesotrophic to eutrophic state may have an effect
on phytoplankton productivity and biomass. Specifically, increase in P concentrations in Fish Lake may
result in higher Chl a concentration, it also provides an indication of the status of a water body’s primary
productivity. In addition, Fish Lake’s phytoplankton community, which is largely dominated by small
flagellates in spring and early summer, may become overtaken by blue-green (cyanobacteria) blooms. As
for phytoplankton, an increase in nutrients, especially P, has the tendency to result in growth and
productivity of the zooplankton populations. Increased zooplankton may have a positive effect on fish in
the form of an increased food source.
Mitigation Measures – Aquatic Ecology

It should be noted that the mitigation measures recommended for the protection of water and sediment
quality equally apply to Fish Lake productivity. Detailed descriptions of proposed mitigation measures and
the adaptive management plan for Fish Lake and adjacent upper Fish Creek are described earlier in this
report. In this section, key mitigation measures are emphasized that are specifically designed to minimize
the potential Project effects on Fish Lake productivity.
Mitigation measures to address changes in flow to Fish Lake have been previously described for water
quality and sediment quality. Those measures will be implemented to maintain flow and as well as the
HRT. In addition, the Proponent is committed to ensuring a routine and intensive monitoring program is
implemented. Should there be any sign of water quality deterioration from monitoring, appropriate
mitigation measures and treatment will be implemented.
To minimize the introduction of sediment into Upper Fish Creek, Fish Lake, or other adjoining water
bodies during construction, the Proponent will develop and implement a surface sediment and erosion
control plan to prevent release of sediments or sediment-laden water. In addition, the Proponent is
committed to training work crews in the proper installation, use, and maintenance of sediment and

erosion control methods. The water quality program will be monitored during construction to ensure
compliance with BC Approved water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (TSS and
turbidity).
Residual Effects
Given the commitment by Taseko that prior to discharge, tailings pore water seepage and post-closure
discharge to Upper Fish Creek and Fish Lake will meet either generic WQG or site-specific water quality
objectives through natural attenuation and, if needed, water treatment options, the residual Project effects
are not expected to have significant ecological effects (see Tables 2.7.2.4B-36 and 2.7.2.4B-37). The
Proponent is also committed to implementing appropriate mitigation measures including recirculation of
water from Fish Lake outlet back into Fish Lake, and should the need arise, artificial aeration in Fish Lake
to control eutrophication (see Fish Lake Productivity Model report Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A for a detailed
description of these potential mitigation measures). With the application of the appropriate mitigation
measures and adaptive mitigation strategies for Fish Lake and adjacent upper Fish Creek, the extent of
residual adverse effects to plankton is expected to be low.
Cumulative Effects Assessment for Aquatic Ecology

x The Project results in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual environmental

effect on a component of the environment.
x The Project-specific residual environmental effect does, or is likely to, act in a cumulative fashion with
x There is a reasonable expectation that the Project’s contribution to cumulative environmental effects
activities are new since 2009. Of the eight new projects, only one, the Newton exploration program, is
located west of the Fraser River and, therefore, considered potentially able to interact cumulatively with
the Project’s residual effects on aquatic ecology. However, it should be noted that while the Newton
Project constitutes an active exploration program, there is no defined resource and the likelihood that it
will develop into a mining project is unknown.
In regard to cumulative assessment of aquatic ecology, the first condition is met: there is potential for
Project-specific residual effects in the Fish Creek and Beece Creek watersheds. However, the
combination of the relative unlikelihood of the development of the Newton Project and the spatial
separation of the two projects do not constitute a reasonable expectation of cumulative effects between
the projects. Therefore the predicted residual effects on the aquatic ecology resulting from cumulative
effects are not anticipated to be significant.

Determination of Significant Residual Effects- Aquatic Ecology in Fish Lake

Determination of significance of potential Project residual effects on aquatic ecology in Fish Lake relied
on:


Table 2.7.2.4B-36 Determination of significance of residual effects for changes in aquatic ecology (Fish Lake)

Significance ranking assumes effective implementation of
the adaptive management plan and actions if
predetermined alert or action levels are observed
Potential
Geographical Extent
Effect: to Measures
Ecological context
Aquatic
Ecology
Reversibility
Significance
Magnitude†
Frequency
Direction
Duration
Phytoplankton and zooplankton populations in Fish Lake
Moderate –
changes to
phytoplankton
and
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) zooplankton
abundance,
x Maintenance of stable water levels in Fish Lake
Changes in density, taxa
phytoplankton x Regulation of temperatures with multi-port water richness and
and withdrawal biomass.
zooplankton x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to fish A Mitigation S LT C R U N M
(productivity habitat until such time as water quality meets acceptable measures will
and quality objectives be
composition) implemented
x Eutrophication control via hypolimnetic aeration, alum when a priori
treatment, water treatment alert levels for
benthic
community
metrics are
reached.


†
Alert – a level or change identified L: Local I: Irreversible N: Not Significant
from monitoring that requires R: Regional
precautionary planning should the Ecological Context: Prediction Confidence:
adverse changes and levels continue. Duration: U:Undisturbed: Area relatively or not Based on scientific information and statistical analysis,
ST: Short term adversely affected by human activity professional judgment, effective mitigation and
Action – mitigation designed and MT: Medium Term D:Developed: Area has been adaptive management
planned as part of adaptive LT: Long Term substantially previously disturbed by L: Low level of confidence
management would be implemented FF: Far Future or Permanent. human development or human M: Moderate level of confidence
and would continue until the levels development is still present H High level of confidence
and and/or changes return to Frequency: N/A: Not applicable.
manageable and acceptable levels. R: Rare - Occurs Once
I: Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at
Direction: irregular intervals
P: Positive F: Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis
N: Neutral and at regular intervals
A: Adverse C: Continuous
Magnitude:
L: Low–environmental effect occurs
that may or may not be
measurable, but is within the range
of natural variability.
M: Moderate–environmental effect
occurs, but is unlikely to pose a
H: High– environmental effect is likely
to pose a serious risk or present a

The rationale for the significance determinations for Fish Lake and adjacent lakes aquatic ecology are as
follows:
x For changes in aquatic ecology (phytoplankton and zooplankton), the anticipated magnitude of effect
is moderate. These effects are anticipated to occur continuously over the long-term timeframe.
However, with the effective implementation of the proposed mitigation and adaptive management
plan, and considering that any effects will be site-specific and reversible, the effects are not
anticipated to be significant. Prior to the occurrence of a significant negative effect, adaptive
management will be applied (as discussed earlier and in section 2.8.3).
Determination of Significant Residual Effects- Aquatic Ecology in Adjacent Lakes

Determination of significance of potential Project residual effects on aquatic ecology in the adjacent lakes
relied on:


Table 2.7.2.4B-37 Determination of significance of residual effects for changes in aquatic ecology (adjacent lakes)

the adaptive management plan and actions if
predetermined alert or action levels are observed
Potential
Effect: to Measures
Geographical Extent
Ecological context
Aquatic
Ecology
Reversibility
Significance
Magnitude†
Frequency
Direction
Duration
Phytoplankton and zooplankton populations in adjacent water bodies
Moderate –
changes to
phytoplankton
and
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) zooplankton
Changes in x Maintenance of stable water levels in Fish Lake density, taxa
phytoplankton x Regulation of temperatures with multi-port water richness and
and withdrawal biomass.
A Mitigation L LT C R U N M
zooplankton x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to fish measures will
(productivity habitat until such time as water quality meets acceptable be
and quality objectives implemented
composition)
x Eutrophication control via hypolimnetic aeration, alum when a priori
treatment, water Treatment alert levels for
benthic
community
metrics are
reached.


†
adverse changes and levels continue. Duration: U:Undisturbed: Area relatively or not Based on scientific information and statistical analysis,
ST: Short term adversely affected by human activity professional judgment, effective mitigation and
Action – mitigation designed and MT: Medium Term D:Developed: Area has been adaptive management
planned as part of adaptive LT: Long Term substantially previously disturbed by L: Low level of confidence
management would be implemented FF: Far Future or Permanent. human development or human M: Moderate level of confidence
and and/or changes return to Frequency: N/A: Not applicable.
manageable and acceptable levels. R: Rare - Occurs Once
I: Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at
Direction: irregular intervals
P: Positive F: Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis
N: Neutral and at regular intervals
A: Adverse C: Continuous
Magnitude:
measurable, but is within the range
of natural variability.
H: High– environmental effect is likely
to pose a serious risk or present a

The rationale for the significance determinations for aquatic ecology in the adjacent lakes are as follows:
x For changes in aquatic ecology (phytoplankton and zooplankton), the anticipated magnitude of effect
is moderate. These effects are anticipated to occur continuously over the long-term timeframe.
However, with the effective implementation of the proposed mitigation and adaptive management
plan, and considering that any effects will be site-specific and reversible, the effects are not
anticipated to be significant. Prior to the occurrence of a significant negative effect, adaptive
management will be applied (as discussed earlier and in section 2.8.3).
Determination of the Prediction Confidence for Aquatic Ecology

The aquatic ecology effects assessment is largely based on predictive water quality and productivity
modelling that considers hydrologic inputs and chemical loadings. These hydrologic inputs are reflective
of the various phases of the Project. For many of the phases, anticipated dates are fairly close to the
actual date on which they will occur; other dates (i.e., closure phase II) were estimated for modelling
purposes.
The selection of the closure phase II period is important to the water quality assessment because this
coincides with the TSF being allowed to flow naturally into Fish Lake. In nearly all situations this period
exhibited the greatest aqueous elemental concentrations and therefore the greatest potential effect to
phytoplankton and zooplankton. The actual timing of closure phase II, and subsequent release of water
from the TSF Lake into Fish Lake, will actually occur when water quality is deemed suitable.
Summary of Effects Assessment – Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology

The anticipated effects identified through the water quality and aquatic ecology assessments are
summarized in Tables 2.7.2.4B-49 to 2.7.2.4B-55.

Table 2.7.2.4B-38 Summary of water quality effects assessment for Fish Lake
Effects
Concise Summary of Potential Project Effects on Fish Lake Water Quality
Assessment
Model predictions indicate an increase in metals during operational and post-closure
Beneficial and phases. These predictions result in several water quality guidelines being exceeded.
Adverse Effects Additionally, reduced flows to Fish Lake may affect nutrient recycling and contribute
to eutrophication.
To the extent possible, seepage water will be collected and pumped back into the
TSF. The Proponent has committed to ensuring water quality in Fish Lake will meet
either generic WQ guidelines or site-specific WQ objectives that may be developed.
Alert and action levels for water quality will be developed and through monitoring
outlined in the AMP will identify if levels are changing. If alert levels are observed
Mitigation and during monitoring, precautionary planning as identified in the AMP would be
Adaptive undertaken and mitigation implemented if considered necessary.
Management
Lake volume will be maintained with the installation of an outlet control structure and
Measures
the Proponent is committed to maintaining baseline water levels throughout the life of
mine and beyond. Additionally, water from the outlet will be recirculated to the inlets
to limit the expected change in the hydrologic residence period of the lake.
Water management infrastructure is in place allowing the bypassing of water from the
TSF directly to the pit post-operations in order to maintain water quality in Fish Lake
Water quality modelling indicates that several parameters may increase in
concentration which could affect the water quality in Fish Lake. Based on the
published water quality guidelines as well as the observed baseline concentrations,
Potential
several of these parameters may increase to levels that would be considered
Residual
significantly adverse if left unmitigated. In the event that monitoring indicates
Effects
predicted effects are accurate, mitigation in the form of active water treatment will be
implemented. No adverse residual effects are anticipated following the
implementation of the proposed adaptive management plan.
Currently, the area surrounding the lake is actively managed for forestry operations.
Cumulative To the best of our understanding no forestry operations are planned in the RSA in the
Effects foreseeable future. No adverse cumulative effects are anticipated if best management
practices are applied.
Determination
of the Based on monitoring and subsequent mitigation, if required, no significant residual
significance of adverse effects to Fish Lake water quality are anticipated.
residual effects
Likelihood of
occurrence for
With adaptive management, monitoring, and mitigation, the likelihood of significant
adverse effects
adverse effects is expected to be low.
found to be
significant

Table 2.7.2.4B-39 Summary of water quality effects assessment for Fish Lake tributaries
Effects Concise Summary of Potential Project Effects on Fish Lake Tributaries Water
Assessment Quality
Model predictions indicate an increase in metals during operational and post- closure
Beneficial and phases. These predictions result in several water quality guidelines being exceeded.
Additionally, recirculation of lake water into the tributaries will alter the current
Adverse Effects hydrologic and thermal regimes in the tributaries. These changes may adversely
affect water quality in the Fish Lake tributaries.
To the extent possible, seepage water will be contained and collected in wells located
downstream of the embankments. The Proponent has committed to ensuring that the
water quality in the Fish Lake tributaries will meet either generic WQ guidelines or
site-specific WQ objectives that may be developed. Alert and action levels for water
quality will be developed and, through monitoring outlined in the adaptive
management plan (AMP), will identify if water quality is changing. If alert levels are
Mitigation and observed during monitoring, precautionary planning as identified in the AMP would be
Adaptive undertaken and mitigation implemented if considered necessary.
Management
Water from Fish Lake outlet will be recirculated to the inlets to mitigate the effects of
Measures
the hydrologic changes. The temperature of this recirculated water will be closely
monitored and adjusted via a multi-depth intake in Fish Lake. To the extent possible
water temperatures in the tributaries during periods of recirculation will be kept close
to baseline.
Water management infrastructure is in place allowing the bypassing of water from the
TSF directly to the pit post-operations in order to maintain water quality in Fish Lake
Water quality modelling indicates that the concentrations of several parameters may
increase in the Fish Lake tributaries. Based on the published water quality guidelines
Potential as well as the observed baseline concentrations, several of these parameters may
Residual increase to levels that would be considered significantly adverse if left unmitigated. In
Effects the event that monitoring indicates predicted effects are accurate, mitigation in the
form of active water treatment will be implemented. No adverse residual effects are
anticipated following the implementation of the proposed adaptive management plan.
Determination
significance of adverse effects to the water quality in the Fish Lake tributaries are anticipated.
residual effects
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects
found to be
significant

Table 2.7.2.4B-40 Summary of water quality effects assessment in adjacent streams and rivers
Concise Summary of Potential Project Effects on Water Quality in Adjacent

Effects
Assessment
Streams and Rivers (Lower Fish Creek, Beece Creek, Taseko River, Chilcotin
River, and Fraser River)
Following pit filling (year 44), Lower Fish Creek will receive water from the TSF and
pit. Model predictions indicate an increase in several parameters within Lower Fish
Beneficial and Creek during the post-closure phase. Additionally, the new location of the TSF will be
closer to the neighbouring Beece Creek and at a slightly higher elevation. In the event
Adverse Effects that seepage water was to escape the TSF it may report to Beece Creek or the Onion
Lake system. These changes may result in water quality conditions being adversely
affected.
To the extent possible, seepage from the TSF will be collected in seepage collection
ponds and in groundwater wells. All seepage water collected will be pumped back
into the TSF or into the open pit, depending on the phase. The Proponent has
committed to ensuring that the water quality in the adjacent streams and rivers will
meet either generic WQ guidelines or site-specific WQ objectives that may be
Mitigation and developed. Alert and action levels for water quality will be developed and, through
Adaptive monitoring outlined in the adaptive management plan (AMP), will identify if levels are
Management changing. In the event that monitoring indicates predicted action levels are reached,
Measures mitigation in the form of active water treatment will be implemented. No adverse
residual effects are anticipated following the implementation of the proposed adaptive
management plan.
Water management infrastructure is in place to continue pumping TSF seepage
ponds to the TSF post-operations .
Water quality modelling indicates the concentration of several parameters may
increase in adjacent streams and rivers. Based on the published water quality
guidelines as well as the observed baseline concentrations, several of these
Potential
parameters may increase to levels that would be considered significantly adverse if
Residual
left unmitigated. In the event that monitoring indicates predicted effects are accurate,
Effects
mitigation in the form of active water treatment will be implemented. No adverse
residual effects are anticipated following the implementation of the proposed adaptive
management plan.
Determination
significance of adverse effects to the water quality in the adjacent streams and rivers are anticipated.
residual effects
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects
found to be
significant

Table 2.7.2.4B-41 Summary of water quality effects assessment in adjacent lakes
Effects Concise Summary of Potential Project Effects on Water Quality in Adjacent

Assessment Lakes (Wasp, Little Onion and Big Onion)
The New Prosperity Project has been redesigned to protect Fish Lake. To accomplish
this, the proposed TSF has been moved to a location 2 km upstream of Fish Lake.
The new location of the TSF is at a slightly higher elevation and situated close to
Beneficial and Wasp Lake. In the event that seepage water was to escape the TSF it could surface
Adverse Effects in the adjacent Wasp Lake or downslope into Little Onion or Big Onion Lake.
Generally speaking, this seepage could contribute elevated levels of nutrients,
metals, and sulphate to the water of these lakes and adversely affect aquatic
communities.
To the extent possible, seepage from the TSF will be collected in seepage collection
ponds and in groundwater wells. All seepage water collected will be pumped back
into the TSF or into the open pit, depending on the phase. The Proponent has
committed to ensuring that the water quality in the adjacent lakes will meet either
generic WQ guidelines or site-specific WQ objectives that may be developed. Alert
Mitigation and and action levels for water quality will be developed and through monitoring outlined
Adaptive in the adaptive management plan (AMP) will identify if levels are changing. If alert
Management levels are observed during monitoring, precautionary planning as identified in the
Measures AMP would be undertaken and mitigation implemented if considered necessary.
Mitigation measures may include construction of an active water quality treatment
plant.
Water management infrastructure is in place to continue pumping TSF seepage
ponds to the TSF post-operations .
Water quality modelling predicts that the concentration of several parameters may
increase in adjacent lakes. Based on the published water quality guidelines as well as
Potential the observed baseline concentrations, several of these parameters may increase to
Residual levels that would be considered significantly adverse if left unmitigated. In the event
Effects that monitoring indicates predicted effects are accurate, mitigation in the form of
active water treatment will be implemented. No adverse residual effects are
anticipated following the implementation of the proposed adaptive management plan.
Determination
significance of adverse effects to the water quality in the adjacent lakes are anticipated.
residual effects
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects
found to be
significant

Table 2.7.2.4B-42 Summary of effects assessment for aquatic ecology – lentic invertebrates
Effects
Concise Summary of potential effects to Aquatic Ecology - Lotic Invertebrates
Assessment
Model predictions show that the concentrations of several metals may become
elevated during operational and post-closure phases in lakes situated in the Project
Beneficial and
RSA. Other changes include reduced flow and shift to higher productivity. These
Adverse Effects
changes may adversely affect resident invertebrate and planktonic communities in the
adjacent lentic environments.
TSF. The Proponent has committed to ensuring that seepage reporting to Fish Lake
Mitigation and and other adjacent lakes will meet either generic WQ guidelines or site-specific WQ
Adaptive objectives that may be developed. Alert and action levels for benthic community
Management metrics will be developed and through monitoring outlined in the adaptive
Measures management plan (AMP) will identify if levels are changing. If alert levels are
observed during monitoring, mitigation may be implemented. Mitigation measures
may include construction of an active water quality treatment plant.
Water quality modelling predicts an increase of several parameters in Fish Lake and
other adjacent environments above water quality guidelines and baseline levels. The
Potential magnitude of these increases suggests adverse impacts to benthic invertebrate
Residual communities (abundance, taxa richness, diversity, biomass and taxonomic
Effects composition) could occur if left unmitigated. In the event monitoring indicates the
predicted effects are accurate, mitigation will be implemented to manage any adverse
effects.
Determination
significance of adverse effects to lentic invertebrates are anticipated.
residual effects
Likelihood of
occurrence for
With adaptive management, monitoring and mitigation the likelihood of significant
adverse effects
found to be
significant

Table 2.7.2.4B-43 Summary of effects assessment for aquatic ecology – lotic invertebrates
Effects
Concise Summary of potential effects to Aquatic Ecology - Lotic Invertebrates
Assessment
Model predictions show that the concentrations of several metals may become
elevated during operational and post-closure phases in lakes situated in the Project
Beneficial and
RSA. Other changes include changes to hydrologic patterns and a shift to higher
Adverse Effects
productivity. These changes may adversely affect resident invertebrate and
planktonic communities in the adjacent lotic environments.
TSF. The Proponent has committed to ensuring that seepage reporting to streams
Mitigation and and rivers in the Project RSA will meet either generic WQ guidelines or site-specific
Adaptive WQ objectives that may be developed. Alert and action levels for benthic community
Management metrics will be developed and through monitoring outlined in the adaptive
Measures management plan (AMP) will identify if levels are changing. If alert levels are
observed during monitoring, mitigation may be implemented. Mitigation measures
may include construction of an active water quality treatment plant.
Water quality modelling predicts that the concentration of several parameters may
become elevated in streams and rivers located in the Project RSA. Based on the
published water quality guidelines as well as the observed baseline concentrations,
Potential several of these parameters may increase to levels that would adversely impact
Residual benthic invertebrate abundance, taxa richness, diversity, biomass, and taxonomic
Effects composition if left unmitigated. In the event that monitoring suggests that these
predicted effects are accurate, adaptive management will be implemented. No
adverse residual effects are anticipated providing that proper mitigation, monitoring,
and adaptive management are employed.
Determination
significance of adverse effects to lotic invertebrates are anticipated.
residual effects
Likelihood of
occurrence for
With adaptive management, monitoring and mitigation the likelihood of significant
adverse effects
found to be
significant
Additional Work
To address uncertainties in model predictions regarding responses of aquatic organisms and the
Rainbow Trout population in Fish Lake to decreased inflow and seepage during operations and beyond, a
stringent phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic invertebrate sampling program, along with water and
sediment monitoring plan, will be put in place to monitor potential water quality changes in Fish Lake.
Follow-up Monitoring

A comprehensive monitoring program to evaluate change in the water/sediment quality and aquatic
ecology will be an integral part of the operations for the proposed mine, and will be detailed through the
permitting process. Table 2.7.2.4B-44 shows the planned monitoring in Fish Lake and adjacent
waterbodies.

Table 2.7.2.4B-44 An overview of planned water quality and aquatic ecology monitoring program
for the New Prosperity Project†
Sediment TSF
‡ quality Groundw post
Water Quality Fish
and ater closu
Phytoplan benthic re
kton and macro-
Location
zooplankto invertebr Spawni Morphom
n ate Groundw Water
Laborat ng etry and
Field communi ater qualit
ory survey tissue
ties quality¥ yЂ
s chemistry
sampling
Surface waters
Month
ly;
daily Month
U1-Fish Monthly Monthly - -
turbidi
Lake deep ly
ty and
weekl
y TSS
Month
ly;
daily Month
U2-Fish Monthly Monthly - -
turbidi
Lake deep ly
ty and Once a
weekl Once a
y TSS year,
year, July/
Month July/
ly; August
August
U3-Fish daily Month
Lake turbidi Monthly Monthly - -
ly
shallow ty and
weekl
y TSS
Month
ly;
U4-Fish daily Month
Lake turbidi Monthly Monthly - -
ly
shallow ty and
weekl
y TSS
Month
W1-Fish
ly; Quarterly
Creek at Once a Once a Once a
daily (constructi Month
inlet to Monthly Monthly year, year, year,
turbidi on and
Fish Lake, July/ May/Ju July/ ly
ty and operationa
upper Fish August neτ August
weekl l phases)
Creek
y TSS
T1-Fish Month
Quarterly
Lake ly; Once a Once a Once a
(constructi Month
Tributary 1 daily Monthly Monthly year, year, year,
on and
(upper turbidi July/ May/Ju July/ ly
operationa
Fish ty and August neτ August
l phases)
Creek) weekl

y TSS
Month
W2-Fish ly; Quarterly
Lake daily (constructi Month
outlet, turbidi Monthly Monthly - - - on and
ly
lower Fish ty and operationa
Creek weekl l phases)
y TSS
W5-
Taseko Month
River site ly;
Once a
(Taseko daily Month
Monthly Monthly - - year, -
River 250 turbidi
July/ ly
m ty and
August
upstream weekl
of Fish y TSS
Creek)
W6-
Taseko Month
River site ly;
Once a Once a
(Taseko daily Month
Monthly Monthly year, - year, -
River 530 turbidi
July/ July/ ly
m ty and
August August
downstrea weekl
m of Fish y TSS
Creek)
Month
W7-lower ly;
Once a
Fish Creek daily Month
year,
(upstream turbidi Monthly Monthly - - -
July/ ly
of ore ty and
August
body) weekl
y TSS
Month
W8-lower ly;
Once a
Fish Creek daily Month
year,
(downstrea turbidi Monthly Monthly - - -
July/ ly
m of ore ty and
August
body) weekl
y TSS
Groundwater monitoring wells
Four (4)
sentinel
wells will
be
Monthly
installed
(constructi Month
near - - - - - - on and
waster ly
operationa
rock
l phases)
dumps and
tailings
impoundm
ents
-†This program is expected to be implemented during construction, operations, and closure mine phase.
‡
- Monitoring program will follow the protocols, recommendations, and requirements outlined in the document Water
and Air Resource Protection Guidelines for Mine Proponents and Operators – Baseline Monitoring – 2011 (BC MOE,

2011) and will be compared with the appropriate water quality objectives or guidelines (BCWQG and CCME;
MWLAP, 2011; CCME, 2007).
-These investigations would be conducted seasonally with the exception of turbidity and TSS which will be conducted
daily and weekly, respectively, during the construction (and early operational) phase (BC MOE, 2011).
-¥Once there is discharge from the site, an EEM program compliant with MMER effluent and water monitoring
programs and Environmental Effects Monitoring will be undertaken.
τ
- Based on the previous Fish Creek spawner enumeration study (Triton, 1999, Appendix 5-3-D - previous Prosperity
EIS report).
-ЂMonitoring frequency will be based on results of previous monitoring phase.
-Dash=no sampling planned.

C. SEDIMENT QUALITY AND BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES
Scope of Assessment
This section examines potential effects of the proposed Project on sediment quality and benthic
invertebrates in Fish Lake and Fish Lake tributaries. For clarity, this section is sub-divided by water body:
x Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates in Fish Lake, and
x Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates in Fish Lake Tributaries (Fish Lake Inlet and Fish Lake
Tributary 1).
Sediment Quality
Sediment metal analysis is widely used as an indicator of environmental quality in baseline monitoring
and environmental effects assessments. Lake and streambed sediments are repositories for particulate
and dissolved fractions of metals, often with higher metal concentrations than in water (Horowitz, 1991).
When disturbed, metals in sediments can be resuspended into the water column. Bioavailable metals that
enter aquatic systems may cause acute or chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms (Hook and Fisher, 2001;
Grosell et al., 2006; Wilding and Maltby, 2006; Shaw et al., 2006), which can lead to altered community
structure. These changes can indirectly affect fish and other organisms in the aquatic food chain through
elimination of prey species or through bioaccumulation.
Benthic Invertebrate Communities

Benthic invertebrates have been used as indicators of water quality in government biomonitoring
programs in Canada (e.g., Environment Canada, 2002) and the United States (e.g., Barbour et al., 1999).
Benthic invertebrates were included in the Project Report Specifications (PRS) and the EIS Guidelines as
indicators of water quality because of their role as secondary producers, and their sensitivity to changes
in water quality and habitat characteristics. Many species have well understood responses to metals in
sediment, making them useful sentinels of changes related to mine operations.
Benthic invertebrates consume smaller animals and plants, aid in decomposition of organic material, and
are an important source of food for fish and other animals.
Changes in sediment quality and benthic invertebrate community composition, abundance, and
productivity in Fish Lake may result from the following components of the Project:
x Decreased inflows to the lake during construction and operations, and into post-closure as a result of
flow diversion and water use for the operating mine
x Dustfall and soil erosion associated with construction and operations, and
x Uncaptured tailings seepage from operations through post-closure, and tailings pond discharge post-
closure. Tailings seepage water quality is predicted to differ from that of baseline water quality.
The following sections summarize the assessments of the potential effects of the Project on Fish Lake
sediment and benthic invertebrates.

Effects Assessment Methodology for Fish Lake

The assessment methods used to determine the potential effects on sediment quality and benthic
invertebrates are consistent with those outlined in the EIS guidelines.
A quantitative approach to predicting future sediment conditions resulting from the Project was developed
using baseline data and the predicted dust fall values. Additionally, a qualitative assessment was
prepared using baseline conditions, the modified hydrological regime (i.e., flow diversions or additions),
and altered water chemistry that has the potential to induce changes. Results from the quantitative
assessment were compared against baseline sediment concentrations, as well as the applicable
Provincial and Federal sediment quality guidelines, to determine potential effects. Where necessary, a
description of contingency plans is presented to address uncertainties and risks associated with
predictions.
Changes in benthic invertebrate productivity (food supply) can have a direct effect on fish (abundance,
size, accumulation of metals in tissue), which can affect birds and wildlife that consume fish. Benthic
invertebrate abundance, taxonomic composition, and derived indices were used to assess changes in
aquatic ecosystems in Fish Lake.
Measurable Parameters for Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates

Measurable parameters and their rationale for selection are summarized in Table 2.7.2.4C-1
Metal levels, with supporting information on particle size and total organic carbon (TOC) analysis, are
used to quantify the potential effects of Project activities on sediment quality. Metals analyzed include
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc
(prescribed in the PRS and the EIS Guidelines; see Appendix 5-2-A of the previous EIS submission).
For ease of application, Federal and Provincial Regulatory authorities establish guidelines to protect
aquatic life from elevated elemental concentrations. Guidelines are established through toxicity testing on
a wide variety of aquatic organisms. Following testing, the eventual guideline concentrations are arrived
at to ensure that the most sensitive organism remains unharmed. Assessment of the measurable
parameters often involves many conservative assumptions that may or may not apply to the individual
situation. For instance, the most sensitive organism may not be present in the aquatic environment of
interest, or the physico-chemical conditions in the water body may act to reduce the bio-availability of the
potentially harmful element. These site-specific factors can be important considerations when considering
effects of specific parameters. Safety factors are often applied to the toxicity data used to establish the
guideline values, to provide an additional level of protection in real world situations.
For benthic invertebrates, abundance, taxon richness, diversity, evenness, and taxonomic composition
were the measurable parameters. The EPT index, or number of taxa belonging to the insect orders
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies, respectively), was also
used as an indicator of pollution-sensitive organisms; these are considered generally sensitive to
sediment and organic inputs and prefer well-oxygenated flowing waters with cobble and boulder
substrate.

Table 2.7.2.4C-1 Measurable Parameters for Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates
Regulatory
Environmental Measurable guidelines, Baseline Data
Effect (VEC) Parameter policies, and for EA
programs
Sediment Quality Metals Potential Project effects due to PRS 1992 to 1996
concentrations TSF seepage EIS Guidelines 1997 to 1998
Potential bioaccumulation and Sediment Quality 2006
adverse effects on benthic Guidelines 2011
invertebrates
Sediment Quality Nutrient loadings Potential effects associated with PRS 1992 to 1996
tailings seepage EIS Guidelines 1997 to 1998
Sediment Quality 2006
Guidelines 2011
Benthic Productivity Potential changes to nutrient EIS Guidelines 1992 to 1996
invertebrates loadings may affect population 1997 to 1998
Potential changes to suspended 2006
productivity
Benthic Community Potential changes to ambient EIS Guidelines 1992 to 1996
invertebrates composition conditions may affect community 1997 to 1998
Potential changes in contaminant 2006
loadings may affect community 2011
Baseline Conditions of Sediments and Benthic Invertebrates in Fish Lake

Baseline conditions for sediment quality, described in Section 2.6.1.4, include sediment quality data from
1997, 2011, and 2012. Refer to Section 2.6.1.4 for complete details. The baseline benthic invertebrate
community data are also described in Section 2.6.1.4. No additional invertebrates were collected from
Fish Lake, the adjacent streams, or adjacent lakes after 2006. Therefore, the baseline data for
invertebrates in this submission corresponds directly to that presented in the previous 2009 EIS
submission for the Prosperity project.
Baseline Sediment Quality

A general overview of the concentrations of metals in Fish, Little Fish, and Wasp lake sediments is
provided in Table 2.7.2.4C-2. The baseline results were compared with the following sediment quality
guidelines, criteria, and published studies:
x Table 2, Working Guidelines for the Sediments, Compendium of Working Water Quality Guidelines
for British Columbia, updated August 2006
x Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, 2002
x Contaminated Sites Regulation, Schedule 9, Generic Numerical Sediment Criteria for freshwater
sensitive (SedQCSS) and typical sites (SedQCTS), and
x Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) (Thompson et al., 2005).

It is important to note these guidelines are generally for total metal concentrations in sediment, and site-
specific sediment characteristics can affect the bioavailability of sediment contaminants. Thus, if sediment
concentrations appear high relative to the guidelines as above, an assessment of the bioavailable fraction
may be required to more accurately define the risk potential. The BC provincial working sediment quality
guidelines combine a variety of concentrations for parameters of interest including: interim sediment
quality guidelines (ISQG), no effect threshold, no effect level (NEL), minor adverse effects, lowest effect
level (LEL), probable effect level (PEL), and severe effect level (SEL). Definitions for these values are as
follows (CCME, 2002; Ontario Ministry of Environment, May 2008):
x ISQG: Generally reflective of threshold effect levels (TEL) which are the concentration below which
adverse biological effects are expected to occur rarely
x NEL: Concentration in sediment that does not affect fish or sediment-dwelling organisms; negligible
transfer of chemicals through the food chain, and no effect on water quality is expected
x LEL: Concentration that can be tolerated by the majority of sediment-dwelling organisms
x PEL: Concentration above which adverse effects are expected to occur frequently, and
x SEL: Concentration expected to be detrimental to the majority of sediment-dwelling organisms.
A total of seven metals exceeded the federal and/or provincial sediment quality guidelines (SQG):
antimony, chromium, copper, iron, mercury, nickel, and iron. Of these, antimony, chromium, copper, and
nickel exceeded the SQG in all waterbodies. Nickel showed exceedances of the LEL in all waterbodies,
and of the PEL in Little Fish Lake. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, selenium, and zinc were below
detection. The percent TOC in sampled waterbodies ranged from 14.4% (Fish Lake) to 30.1% (Wasp
Lake). Tabulated baseline data compared with the various guidelines and criteria are shown in Table
2.7.24C-2.
Table 2.7.2.4C-2 Summary of Metal and Organic Carbon Levels in Sediment of Fish, Little Fish,
and Wasp Lakes, 1997 and 2011
CSR
Lowes Sever
Little CCME and Probabl Schedul
Fish Fish t e
Fish Wasp BCSedimen e Effect e9–
Parameter Lake Lake Effect Effect
Lake 1997 t Quality Level Generic
1997 2011 1 Level level
1997 Guideline (PEL)3 Sedimen
(LEL)2 (SEL)4
t Criteria
Antimony 0.6 0.46 0.8 0.7 0.43 2.0 - 25 -
Arsenic 3.3 3.3 3.4 4 5.9 6.0 17 33 11 to 20

2.2 to
Cadmium 0.1 0.17 0.1 <0.5 0.6 0.6 3.5 9.0
4.2
56 to
Chromium 52 42 50 38 37.3 26 90 110
110
120 to
Copper 41 34.2 49 45 35.7 16 197 110
240
43,76
Iron 17,900 15,850 17,400 28,200 21,200 - - -
6
57 to
Lead 6 2.9 6 <20 35 / 30 31 112 110
110
Manganes
269 208 194 373 460 460 - 1,100 -
e

0.3 to
Mercury 0.11 0.319 0.106 0.018 0.170 0.15 0.486 1.3
0.58
Nickel 66 56 87 48 16 16 - 75 -
Selenium 1.46 1 1 1 5 - -
Silver 0.6 0.1 0.1 <1 0.5 1.0 - 2.2 -

200 to
Zinc 71 61 76 61 123 120 315 270
380
Uranium - 1.229 - - - 1.4 - - -
TOC (%) 16.5 14.4 16.9 30.1 - - - - -

Lake
4,438,00 4,438,00 133,00 1,611,00
volume - - - - -
0 0 0 0
(m3)
1
Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (CCME, 2002); ISQG = Interim Sediment and the BC
Working Sediment Quality Guidelines (2001)
1
LEL– Lowest effect level as listed in the BC Working Sediment Quality Guidelines (2001) or CNSC (Thompson et al., 2005)
3
PEL – Probable effect level as listed in the BC Working Sediment Quality Guidelines (2001)
4
SEL – Severe effects level as listed in the BC Working Sediment Quality Guidelines (2001)
Baseline Macroinvertebrate Data for Fish Lake

Benthic invertebrates were collected from several lakes in 1993, 1994, and 1997 using an Ekman dredge
sampler. Given the variation in sampling methods (number of replicates, sieve size, taxonomic levels,
inclusion of plankton forms) over the years, only the results for 1997 are presented (see Appendix H7 of
Appendix 5-2-A (v2) of the previous EIS for other benthic invertebrates data collected from Fish Lake), as
the PRS was followed for that program. Benthic invertebrate data from the 1997 sampling survey are
summarized in Table 2.7.2.4C-3.
Table 2.7.2.4C-3 Lake Benthos Characteristics, 1997 (Mean)
Lake Density (#/m2) Taxon Richness Diversity (H')1 Predominant taxa

Fish 71 1 0 Diptera
Little Fish 444 5 0.75 Diptera
Big Onion 676 9 1.52 Mollusca
Vick 347 6 0.79 Oligochaeta
Slim 71 3 0.90 Oligochaeta
Wasp 684 18 2.24 Diptera, Mollusca
Big 711 5 0.82 Diptera, Oligochaeta
Taseko 1,960 19 2.34 Diptera, Oligochaeta
NOTES:
n = 5, except Taseko Lake where n = 3
Samples were sieved at 0.5 mm, plankton organisms were excluded from the count.
1
Shannon Weiner diversity index

Abundance ranged from 71 to 1,960 organisms/m2, with the lowest in Fish and Slim lakes, and highest in
Taseko Lake. Taxon richness ranged from 1 to 19, with the lowest in Fish Lake and highest in Wasp and
Taseko lakes. Typical benthic organisms were predominant and included Diptera (chironomid larvae),
Oligochaeta (aquatic worms), and Mollusca (snails and clams).
Mean total abundance was high in 1993 (15,153 organisms/m2) with 14 taxa identified, but was more than
two orders of magnitude lower in 1997 (71 organisms/m2) with 1 taxon identified (Chironomus). The lower
values obtained in 1997 were due to differences in sampling and enumeration techniques and are not
considered related to environmental perturbance or quality degradation. The 1997 values underestimate
the density and diversity of benthic invertebrates, while the 1993 values include limnetic taxa such as
Copepoda and Cladocera, and therefore overestimate benthic invertebrate density, richness, and
diversity indices.
The Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies), or EPT taxa, are
generally indicators of good water and habitat quality (Barbour et al., 1999). In contrast, the presence of
large numbers of pollution-tolerant groups (oligochaetes or chironomids), may be indicative of pollution.
Overall, low richness of benthic macroinvertebrates may indicate impairment of aquatic ecosystem.
However, it should be noted low nutrients levels in some aquatic systems may be responsible for low
productivity and fewer benthic macroinvertebrates.
Potential Project Effects for Fish Lake –Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates
Multiple approaches were adopted to characterize potential effects on sediment quality and benthic
invertebrates, including comparing baseline sediment characteristics and water chemistry predictions to
applicable guidelines, evaluating the potential effects of reduced flow to Fish Lake on sediment quality,
and the Fish Lake productivity model (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A). One of the methods involved evaluating and
comparing the predicted water quality in Fish Lake for the different Project phases, from construction
through post-closure, using environmental quality guidelines and standards, where available, for the
protection of aquatic life. These included the BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines (updated 2011),
CCME Water Quality Guidelines (updated 2011), and Contaminated Sites Regulation - Generic
Numerical Water Standards (updated 2011).
Fish Lake productivity modelling was also conducted in order to evaluate how the proposed changes to
Fish Lake inflow and elemental loading will affect Fish Lake productivity or trophic status (Fish Lake
Productivity Model report, Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A). Briefly, the results of the productivity model showed with
recirculated flow, the trophic status of Fish Lake may potentially change from the current meso-eutrophic
status to a more productive eutrophic lake during the life of mine and beyond (see Figures 15 to 28 and
Tables 23 and 24 in Fish Lake Productivity Model report, Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A).
Sediment Quantity and Quality Modelling

Baseline sediment data in Fish Lake includes detailed sediment accumulation rates and total metal
concentrations (see Appendix 2.7.2.4B-B as well as Appendix 5-2-A V2 from the previous EIS). The
baseline sediment accumulation rate (SAR) for the lake was calculated as 0.0169 g/cm2 per year on an
average basis (Table 2.7.2.4C-4).

Table 2.7.2.4C-4 Sediment Accumulation Rate of Sediments, Calculated Using the Constant Rate
of Supply Model
Baseline Sediment Accumulation Rate

(SAR) (g/cm2 year)
Minimum Maximum Average STDEV
0.0131 0.0218 0.0169 0.0035
With the calculated sediment accumulation rate, the total baseline flux of sediments to the lake bottom
was calculated by assuming a total depositional area of 480,000 m2 (40% of the total lake area). In Fish
Lake the total baseline sediment flux to the bottom of Fish Lake was calculated to be 81,120 kg/year
(0.169 kg/year m2). Metals analysis carried out on this sediment provided the baseline metals
concentrations within these sediments and allowed for the calculation of the total metal flux being
scavenged to the lake bed (Table 2.7.2.4C-5).
Table 2.7.2.4C-5 Total Mass of Metals Scavenged to the Sediment of Fish Lake (Baseline)
Average
Fish Fish
of 1997 Baseline
Lake Lake
Parameter and 2011 Concentrations
1997 2011
values (mg/kg)
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Antimony 0.6 0.46 0.53 0.53

Aluminum 15,000 10,000 12,500 12,500
Arsenic 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.335
Barium 37.5 37.5
Beryllium 0.4 0.4
Bismuth 0.1 0.1 0.1
Cadmium 0.1 0.17 0.14 0.14
Calcium 9,940 8,020 9,000 9,000
Chromium 52 42 47 47
Cobalt 9.26 9.26
Copper 41 34.2 37.6 37.6
Iron 17,900 15,850 16,875 16,875
Lead 6 2.9 4.45 4.45
Lithium 5.10 5.10 5.10
Magnesium 5,710 4,910 5310 5,310
Manganese 269 208 238 238
Mercury 0.11 0.319 0.214 0.214
Molybdenum 1.40 1.40
Nickel 66 56 61 61
Phosphorus 752 752
Potassium 1,330 435 881 881

Silver 0.6 0.1 0.35 0.35

Sodium 880 354 617 617
Strontium 36.7 36.7
Thallium 0.055 0.055
Tin 0.295 0.295
Titanium 506 506
Vanadium 55.2 55.2
Zinc 71 61 66 66
Uranium - 1.23 1.23 1.23
TOC (%) 16.5 14.4 15.4 15.4
In order to develop a list of baseline sediment values it was necessary to consider and combine two
different baseline data sources. Where available, an average value between the 1997 and 2011 sediment
data was used as a baseline concentration. Sediment samples were gathered using an Eckman grab
sampler and, consequently, represent a composite of roughly the top 15 cm of Fish Lake sediment. In
situations where an average could not be calculated from 1997 and 2011 data, the values measured
during the 2011 sampling were used.
In addition to the deposition of materials and subsequent incorporation into sediment from natural
sources, dust generated around the Project area will contribute to the total sediment budget of the lake
during the operational phase. This Project-generated dust is predicted to contain elevated levels of
certain metals reflecting enriched concentrations from the surrounding geology. Predicted dust
concentrations are tabulated in Table 2.7.2.4C-5.
To assess the effects of this Project-related dust on the sediments of Fish Lake, total dust fall predictions
detailed in Section 2.7.2.2 (Atmospheric Environment) were combined with the baseline sedimentary
processes and concentrations. These dust fall measurements included predicted sediment accumulation
rates (g/m2) and predicted metals. Average dust fall predictions for Fish Lake are 56.94 g/m2 per year,
When this is extended over the entire surface of Fish Lake (1,110,000 m2), the estimated annual
deposition is 63,200 kg (Table 2.7.2.4C-6). The measured baseline sediment accumulation rate was 169
g/m2 per year in the depositional basin, which equates to approximately 73.08 g/m2, if it is assumed that
each square metre of lake contributes equally to the sedimentary basin. The sediment accumulation rates
from both the baseline measurements and dust fall predictions were combined in a weighted average
model to predict the anticipated mass loadings to sediment per annum.
Where equals the baseline concentrations multiplied by the volume (sediment
accumulation rate per year) at baseline and equals the dust fall metals
concentrations multiplied by the predicted dust fall volumes (see Table 2.7.2.4C-7 for example
calculations).

Table 2.7.2.4C-6 Estimated Sediment Contributions to Fish Lake
Dust fall contributions

2
g/m year 56.94
kg/year (whole lake) 63,203
Baseline contributions
2
g/m year 73.08
kg/year (whole lake) 81,120
Table 2.7.2.4C-7 Example Calculation of Resulting Sediment Chemistry
Baseline Dust fall Predicted

Element Concentration Volume Concentration Volume Chemistry
(%) (kg/year) (%) (kg/year) (%)
Aluminum 1.20 81,120 1.50 63,203 1.372
Calcium 0.99 81,120 1.75 63,203 1.325
Iron 1.69 81,120 3.38 63,203 2.428
The Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Technical Guidance Document (Environment Canada,
2012) recommends sediment monitoring be carried out using grab samplers that penetrate the sediments
between 10–15 cm, as was the case for the baseline sampling which employed a standard Eckman grab.
To remain consistent with the recommended EEM and previous baseline sampling, sediment quality
modelling predicted concentrations representative of the top 15 cm of sediment in the lake. This involved
calculating the anticipated sediment accumulation rate for the sediment column under both natural
baseline conditions as well as during the mine operation phase.
Dust fall predictions were made for the entire operational phase of the mine (16 years). For each one of
these 16 years it is predicted that a total of 144,323 kg of both natural sediment and dust fall will settle to
the lake bed. This sediment would be secondarily redistributed and “focussed” into the deepest 40% or
480.000 m2 of the lake basin (Blais and Kalff, 1995). Following redistribution this would equate to a
sediment accumulation rate of 301 g/m2 per year. Prior to mining, the measured baseline sediment
accumulation rate for the entire lake is 81,120 kg, or 169 g/m2 across the depositional basin of Fish Lake.
Based upon sediment aging carried out (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-B) it is estimated that the top 12 cm of
sediment is equal to approximately 50 years of sediment accumulation. Based upon this, the average
baseline sediment depth accumulation rate is 0.240 cm/year. When the additional sediment expected
from dustfall is considered, it would increase the sediment depth accumulation rate to 0.427 cm/year
(Table 2.7.2.4C-8)

Table 2.7.2.4C-8 Baseline and Predicted Sediment Depth Accumulation Rates in Fish Lake
Baseline Mining operations

Sediment Accumulation Rate
0.0169 0.0301
(g/cm2/year)
Sediment Accumulation Depth
0.240 0.427
(cm/year)
12 cm 14.99 cm
50 year Sediment
(Without New Prosperity (With New Prosperity
Accumulation Depth
Mine) Mine)
In total we predict that the 50 years following the initiation of mining at the site would contribute a total of
14.99 cm of sediment to the bottom of Fish Lake. Of this value, the 16 years of mine operations would
contribute 6.83 cm and the following 34 years would contribute 8.16 cm. Following this reasoning the
recommended 15 cm sampling penetration depth would roughly equal 50 years of deposition.
In regard to sediment quality values, all predictions are representative of a composite sample from the top
15 cm (previous 50 years) of sediment deposition. Sediments deposited prior or subsequent to the mining
operations are considered to have the volumes consistent with the sediment scavenging study (Appendix
2.7.2.4B-B) and concentrations consistent with the baseline concentrations observed in during the 1997
and 2011 sampling events. Sediments deposited during the active mining phase of the Project are
considered to have concentrations representative of the weighted average model described above. In this
manner yearly predictions were made through the life of the mine and beyond.
Model Assumptions
This model assumes the two components of the mixing model (baseline sediment production and dust
fall) completely mix in the sediment profile. It calculates concentrations as an average annual
concentration and does not take into account seasonal patterns of deposition. The model assumes that
autochthonous sediment production and accumulation rates will continue at the same rates as were
observed at baseline. Finally, the model assumes that all sediment reaching the lake bottom will remain
at the lake bottom and not be lost to the water column through dissolution or biotic uptake. This
assumption was considered and controlled for in sediment scavenging study (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-B),
however, it was not controlled for the dust fall contribution
Predicted Fish Lake Sediment Metal Concentrations

Sediment quality predictions were made for Fish Lake using baseline data, dust fall, and sediment inputs
during construction and operations. As indicated earlier in this report, Fish Lake sediment results were
compared with the CCME and provincial sediment quality guidelines (2001, 2006) and the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) (Thompson et al., 2005). Predicted exceedances of sediment quality
guidelines and criteria were noted for some metals shown in Table 2.7.2.4C-9.

Table 2.7.2.4C-9 Predicted Sediment Quality Exceedances Compared to Guidelines and Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Life
Maximum
Fish Lake Predicted Dust CSR CSR
Baseline + Sediment 1 2 Sched. Sched. TRV
Parameter ISQG PEL 5
Concentrations Concentrations 9 9 Value
(mg/kg) Fish Lake Sens.3 Typ.4
(mg/kg)
Antimony 0.53 1.75 9.8 17 64
Aluminum 12500 12500 14000
Arsenic 3.3 11.7 5.9 17 11 20 6
Barium 37.5 43.9 20
Beryllium 0.40 0.40
Bismuth 0.1 0.72
Cadmium 0.14 0.14 0.6 3.5 2.2 4.2 0.6
Calcium 9000 10100
Chromium 47 47.8 37.3 90 56 110 26
Cobalt 9.60 11.24
Copper 37.6 131 35.7 197 120 240 16
Iron 16900 19000 21,200 43,800
Lead 4.45 5.43 35 91.3 57 110 31
Lithium 5.10 5.10
Magnesium 5310 6740
Manganese 238 255 460 1100
Mercury 0.214 0.29 0.17 0.486 0.3 0.58
Molybdenum 1.41 3.16
Nickel 61 61 16 75 16
Phosphorus 753 753
Potassium 881 933
Silver 0.35 0.44 0.5 4.5
Sodium 617 667
Tin 0.30 0.68
Zinc 66 66 123 315 200 380 110
Uranium 1.23 1.26
Indicates sediment quality exceeded guideline under baseline conditions
Indicates the predicted sediment quality guideline was exceeded or exceedances
increased during modelling
1 ISQG: Interim sediment quality guidelines
2 PEL: Probable effect levels
3 Sensitive: Sensitive sediment means sediment at a site with sensitive aquatic habitat and for which sensitive sediment
management objectives apply
4 Typical: Typical sediment means sediment that is not sensitive sediment
5 TRV: Toxicity reference values are in units of micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) and milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) for organic
and inorganic constituents, respectively

Baseline values for chromium, copper, mercury, and nickel exceed ISQGs. Predicted maximum values for
chromium increase by less than 2% over baseline. The predicted maximum values for copper, mercury,
and arsenic increase in the model but still fall between the ISQG and PEL, indicating a 38% chance of an
adverse effect. Nickel is not predicted to change relative to baseline.
Effects of Water Management and Seepage on Fish Lake Sediment Quality and Benthic
Invertebrates
As highlighted in Table 2.7.2.4B-3, some Project activities associated with open pit construction, fish
habitat compensation (construction), Fish Lake water management controls, and TSF starter dam
construction (flooding of the upper Fish Creek drainage), will alter the hydrologic conditions in Fish Lake.
The TSF in the Upper Fish Creek valley starts approximately 2 km upstream of Fish Lake and will result in
reduced natural inflows to Fish Lake from construction through post-closure. A reduction in average flows
of Fish Creek upstream of Fish Lake will result in increased water or hydraulic residence time (HRT) in
Fish Lake from construction through post-closure (see Section 2.7.2.4.B Water Quality for a description of
HRT). An increased HRT may also result in the concentration of naturally occurring substances (i.e.,
nutrients, salts, and metals) in Fish Lake, with implications for water and sediment quality, and biota
(plankton and benthic invertebrates).
Similarly, an increased HRT as a result of reduced inflow, coupled with internal nutrient regeneration in
Fish Lake, may result in increased organic matter production (cf. Schindler, 2006). Increased organic
matter production with attendant sedimentation in Fish Lake could alter the sediment environment for
benthic organisms. Limnological profiling of Fish Lake indicates the lake undergoes thermal stratification
and hypolimnetic anoxia (low oxygen levels) during summer. For instance, thermal stratification with a
well-delineated thermocline (depth at which the rate of decrease of temperature with increase of depth is
the largest) from approximately 4 m to 7 m was evident in a recent (July 2011) Fish Lake water quality
survey. In that study, surface (<5 m) dissolved oxygen (DO) levels at two Fish Lake stations were within
the acceptable limits of 6.0 to 9.5 mg/L established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME, 2007) and the BC instantaneous minimum in the water column of 5 mg/L
(BCMOE,1997). In contrast, DO levels were below this guideline in the deeper waters of Fish Lake which
is related to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). This additional biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a
result of decomposition of organic matter and can adversely affect benthos.
Any uncaptured seepage reporting to Fish Lake during operations and beyond has the potential to affect
the aquatic environment. As presented in the water quality model earlier in Section 2.7.2.4.B and
Appendix 2.7.2.4B-F, changes in water chemistry could occur due to seepage water bypassing the
multiple seepage-recovery systems. A change in water chemistry could lead to elevation of the metal
concentrations in sediment, with implications for bottom-dwelling (benthos) organisms and for fish
contacting the sediment during spawning and egg incubation. Potential effects of increased sulphate and
other cations and anions in seepage discharges on benthic invertebrates may include impaired growth of
some of the more sensitive benthic organisms (i.e., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera)
although no significant adverse Project effects are anticipated with effective mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures – Sediment Quality

Mitigation measures designed to protect water quality in Fish Lake will also protect sediment quality and
aquatic communities, including fish. This section highlights potential effects and associated mitigation

measures specific to sediment quality and benthos. Descriptions of proposed mitigation measures and
adaptive mitigation strategies for Fish Lake and adjacent upper Fish Creek are described earlier in the
water quality section (Section 2.7.2.4.B). The proposed mitigation measures include but will not
necessarily be limited to the following:
x Recirculating water from the Fish Lake outlet back into lake via Upper Fish Creek and Tributary 1
x Comprehensive erosion and sediment control planning for all phases of the Project
x Dust management planning and control for all phases of the Project
x Managing expected or potentially acid generating waste rock during operations, and
x Ongoing re-vegetation of disturbed areas during operations and according to the closure and
reclamation plan.
Recirculation Strategies
To maintain appropriate flows into Fish Lake, the proposed Project configuration proposes to recirculate
outlet water leaving Fish Lake back into Fish Lake through the main inlet and tributary. This recirculation
will help limit the overall change in HRT of the lake as a result of the planned reduced flow. Under current
conditions, Fish Lake water residence time was estimated to be 0.72 years, while residence time was
determined to be 1.81 years with the planned reduced flow (no mitigation). With the recirculated flow, Fish
Lake HRT was determined to be 1.05. In essence, the potential effect of reduced flow to Fish Lake will be
partially mitigated by the recirculation of water during operation. In addition, the new water management
activities of the Project include the collection and utilization of surface water runoff upstream from the
open pit and downstream of the TSF to supply Fish Lake. Fish Lake volume will be maintained with the
installation of an outlet control structure and a commitment by the Proponent to maintain the baseline
levels through the life of mine and beyond. Even with the relative increase in HRT, the Fish Lake
productivity model showed there is a potential for change in trophic state from the mesotrophic to more
productive eutrophic state (see Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A).
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning

To limit the export of sediment to Upper Fish Creek and Fish Lake during construction and operation, a
Sediment Control and Surface Erosion Protection Plan will be developed and implemented to manage the
potential for sediment generation associated with construction work. This would be further supported by
ongoing re-vegetation of disturbed areas during operations and as part of the closure and reclamation
plan (Section 2.8.2). During construction, operations, and beyond (as needed) crews will be trained in
proper installation, use, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control methods.
Control of Acid Generating Materials

Mitigation measures to reduce metals generated in TSF water are built into the Project design and include
management of acid generating and potentially acid generating waste rock during operations (Section
2.7.2.1.) The chemical and biological processes within the TSF pond including solubility, precipitation,
and adsorption reactions are expected to result in settling of metals to sediment in the TSF. As well,
seepage from the TSF will be, to the greatest extent possible, collected in seepage collection ponds and

interception wells located downstream of the embankments. The water collected in these wells will be
recirculated back into the TSF. The Proponent has committed to ensuring water quality in Fish Lake will
meet either generic WQG or site-specific WQG that may be developed. Taseko is committed to
implementing seepage water treatment as a contingency measure to ensure suitable water quality in Fish
Lake and downstream water bodies.
Performance Monitoring
The Proponent will put in place water, plankton, sediment quality, and fish abundance and tissue
chemistry monitoring programs. The Proponent is committed to continuing the ongoing limnological and
water quality monitoring program for Fish Lake and adjacent creeks (Upper Fish Creek and Lower Fish
Creek). Several other monitoring sites in the vicinity of the plant site and the TSF main embankment are
planned. In addition, seepage quality will be monitored from the monitoring wells installed downstream of
the tailings embankment for dissolved and particulate metals, sulphate, and nutrients. A sediment-core
sampling survey can also be conducted in Fish Lake periodically throughout the life of mine (LOM). The
main objective of the monitoring program is to ensure the water quality of Fish Lake is adequate to
support Rainbow Trout and that appropriate treatment or mitigation measures function as intended.
Adaptive management will be implemented as a means of monitoring project effects and to provide the
basis for making changes to operations should they be considered necessary for minimizing or avoiding
effects on Fish Lake water quality and upper Fish Creek drainage (described earlier in Section 2.7.2.4.B).
Characterization of Fish Lake Residual Project Effects

The Proponent is committed to implementing appropriate mitigation measures including recirculation of
water from the Fish Lake outlet back into Fish Lake, and should the need arise, artificial aeration and
alum application in Fish Lake to control eutrophication. In addition, Taseko is committed to ensuring that
prior to discharge, tailings pore water seepage and post-closure discharge to Upper Fish Creek and Fish
Lake will meet either generic water quality guidelines (WQG) or site-specific WQG through natural
attenuation and, if needed, treatment options. However, it should be noted that even with the application
of the appropriate mitigation measures and adaptive mitigation strategies for Fish Lake and adjacent
upper Fish Creek, the potential exists for residual adverse effects to sediment quality.
Cumulative Effects Assessment for Fish Lake

As described in Section 2.7.1, cumulative environmental effects are only assessed if all three of the
following conditions are met for the environmental effect:
x The Project results in a measurable, demonstrable, or reasonably-expected residual environmental

effect on a component of the environment
the environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that are likely to occur, and

activities are new since 2009. Of the eight new projects, only one, the Newton property exploration
program, is located west of the Fraser River and, therefore, considered potentially able to interact
cumulatively with the Project’s residual effects on sediment quality, should it ever reach a production
decision. In regard to cumulative assessment to sediment quality, the first condition is met in that there is
potential for Project-specific residual effects on sediment quality in the Fish Creek and Beece Creek
watersheds. However, the sediment quality changes predicted for the New Prosperity mine site are all
restricted to the Fish Lake watershed. Consequently, there is no potential for a cumulative interaction on
sediment quality due to the large distance between the new Prosperity Project and the nearest proposed
project that may affect sediment quality and no reasonable expectation of cumulative effects between the
Projects.
Determination of the Prediction Confidence for Fish Lake

The sediment quality effects assessment is largely based on conservative predictive water quality
modelling and the use of maximum predicted values from that modelling that considers hydrologic inputs
and chemical loadings and these inputs are in respect of the various phases of the Project. For many of
the phases, anticipated dates are fairly close to the actual date on which they will occur; others (i.e.,
closure phase II) were estimated for modelling purposes.
The selection of the closure phase II period is important to the water and sediment quality assessment
because this coincides with the TSF being allowed to flow naturally into Fish Lake. In nearly all situations,
this period exhibited the greatest aqueous elemental concentrations and therefore the greatest potential
effect to sediment quality. The design for New Prosperity includes water management infrastructure that
allows the actual timing of closure phase II, and subsequent release of water from the TSF Lake into Fish
Lake, to occur when water quality is deemed suitable through monitoring as part of the adaptive
management program planned for the Project.
Determination of the Significance of Residual Effects for Fish Lake
The assessment methodology for the characterization of residual effects and determination of
significance is described in Section 2.7.1.5. The findings of the residual effects assessment for sediment
quality changes for Fish Lake are summarized in Table 2.7.2.4C-10. Nutrients, metals, and sulphate
concentrations in Fish Lake may become high in sediment during mine operation and through closure
phases. Although residual adverse effects to Fish Lake sediment quality are anticipated, it should be
emphasized that the sediment quality prediction models are conservative and results reflect a “worst-
case” scenario. In addition, the precautionary principle has been adopted to reflect uncertainties in
modelling and to provide an assessment that is plausible given the results of the modelling. To address
uncertainties in model predictions, a stringent monitoring program will be in place to monitor fugitive dust
fall, metals in fish tissue, rate of sediment deposition, and resulting sediment quality in Fish Lake. Results
from the monitoring program will provide important feedback on the need for and efficiency for mitigation
measures. Alert and action levels for sediment quality will be developed and through monitoring outlined
in the AMP will identify if levels are changing. If alert levels are observed during monitoring, precautionary
planning as identified in the AMP would be undertaken and mitigation implemented if considered
necessary. With these procedures in place, Taseko believes sediment levels of the parameters indicated
can be managed to ensure no significant impacts result from the Project.

A Conceptual Environmental Plan and Environmental Management System are presented in Section
2.8.1. Mitigation measures presented in this section are specifically designed for Fish Lake. As discussed
in Monitoring and Follow-up in Section 2.8.3 Adaptive Management will be adopted for the Project and is
considered a useful and integral component of managing uncertainty while identifying and implementing
corrective and mitigation measures.
Determination of significance of potential Project effects on sediment quality relied on:
x Baseline site-specific data compared with applicable guidelines and criteria for the protection of
aquatic life
x Water Quality predictions compared with applicable guidelines and criteria for the protection of
aquatic life
x Fish Lake productivity model, and

Table 2.7.2.4C-10 Determination of Significance of Residual Effects for Fish Lake Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates

Potential the adaptive management plan and actions if
Environmental predetermined alert or action levels are observed
Effect: Fish
Proposed and Potential Mitigation
Geographical Extent
Ecological context
Lake sediment Measures/Compensation Measures
quality and
Reversibility
Significance
Magnitude†
Frequency
Direction
Duration
benthic
invertebrate
community
Sediment Quality
x Limit sediment inputs to Fish Lake tributaries during
construction and operation by following the protocols and
recommendations outlined by DFO (1993); Moderate –
x Maintenance of stable water levels in Fish Lake Modelled
Nutrient x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or open pit A results predict S LT C R U N L
Concentrations x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of an increase in
ore processing nutrients (i.e.,
x Maintenance of TSF discharge directly to pit bypassing TP)
Fish Lake, and recirculation to fish habitat until such time
as TSF water quality meets acceptable quality objectives

x Limit sediment inputs to Fish Lake tributaries during Moderate -
construction and operation by following the protocols and Modelled
Metal
recommendations outlined by DFO (1993); A results predict S LT C R U N L
Concentrations
x Maintenance of stable water levels in Fish Lake an increase in
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or open pit metals
x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of

ore processing
x Maintenance of TSF discharge directly to pit bypassing
Fish Lake, and recirculation to fish habitat until such time

Moderate –
construction and operation by following the protocols and
Potential for
recommendations outlined by DFO (1993);
increased
Change in organic
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or open pit
Sedimentation A matter (OM) S LT C R U N L
Rate x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of production
ore processing and
x Maintenance of TSF discharge directly to pit bypassing sedimentation
Fish Lake, and recirculation to fish habitat until such time in Fish Lake
Benthic Invertebrates
x Limit sediment inputs to Fish Lake tributaries during Moderate –
construction and operation by following the protocols and Potential
recommendations outlined by DFO (1993); change in the
Changes in abundance,
invertebrate x Maintenance of stable water levels in Fish Lake
taxa richness,
community x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or open pit A diversity, and S LT C R U N L
structure x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end of composition
ore processing of Fish Lake
x Maintenance of TSF discharge directly to pit bypassing benthic
Fish Lake, and recirculation to fish habitat until such time invertebrate
as TSF water quality meets acceptable quality objectives community
x


†
adverse changes and levels Duration: U:Undisturbed: Area relatively or not Based on scientific information and statistical analysis,
continue. ST: Short term adversely affected by human activity professional judgement, effective mitigation and
MT: Medium Term D:Developed: Area has been adaptive management
Action – mitigation designed and LT: Long Term substantially previously disturbed by L: Low level of confidence
planned as part FF: Far Future or Permanent. human development or human M: Moderate level of confidence
of adaptive management would be development is still present H High level of confidence
implemented Frequency: N/A: Not applicable.
and would continue until the levels R: Rare - Occurs Once
and and/or I: Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at
changes return to manageable and irregular intervals
acceptable F: Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis
levels. and at regular intervals
C: Continuous
Direction:
P: Positive
N: Neutral
A: Adverse
Magnitude:
measurable, but is within the
range of natural variability.
H: High– environmental effect is
likely to pose a serious risk or
present a management
challenge.

Significance Determinations for Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates in Fish Lake
Taseko’s rationale for the conclusion that there is no significance adverse effect on Fish Lake sediment
quality and benthic invertebrates is as follows:
For sediment quality and benthic invertebrates, the effect is considered not significant because although
the area is relatively undisturbed, and the effect may be long term, the potential effect is gradual over a
number of years (allowing effective monitoring and the application of adaptive management). The
magnitude is moderate and potential effects will be site specific and reversible.
The prediction confidence is low because although conservative models are used, there is uncertainty as
to whether an adverse effect will occur, Limnological models are simplified abstractions of complex, multi-
compartmental aquatic ecosystems, and their performance is subject to some uncertainty. There is
always some degree of uncertainty when predicting effects, particularly decades into the future, in a
complex aquatic system. Consistent with the precautionary principle, to address uncertainties regarding
model predictions, water quality, sediment quality, and aquatic biota in Fish Lake will be routinely
monitored and adaptive management applied if required.
Effects Assessment Methods of Sediment Quality in Tributaries (Fish Lake Inlet and Tributary 1)
The assessment methods used to determine potential Project effects on sediment quality and benthic
invertebrates in Fish Lake tributaries (Fish Lake Inlet and Fish Lake Tributary 1) are consistent with those
outlined in the EIS guidelines and are similar to those adopted for Fish Lake. In addition, the
characterization of residual Project effects on Fish Lake tributaries’ sediment quality and benthic
invertebrates also followed the procedures earlier described for Fish Lake. In this section, only a brief
discussion of sediment and benthic invertebrates and predicted water quality exceedances data used in
the Project’s effects assessments are presented, followed by the determination of significance of residual
effects for Fish Lake tributaries with respect to sediment quality and benthic invertebrates.
Baseline Conditions of Sediments and Benthic Invertebrates in Tributaries

Baseline conditions for sediment quality in Fish Lake tributaries are described in Volume 5, Section 2.4 of
the previous Prosperity EIS submission. The baseline benthic invertebrate community data are described
in Section 2.61.4 of the EIS report. No additional sediment quality or invertebrates data have been
collected from Fish Lake creeks/tributaries since 2006. Therefore, the baseline data presented for this
submission corresponds directly to that presented in the previous EIS submission. Baseline sediment
chemistry data and benthic invertebrate composition and abundance were taken into consideration in the
determination of potential Project effects on Fish Lake tributaries.
Predicted Water Quality Exceedances in Fish Lake Tributaries

Another method employed in determining potential Project effects on Fish Lake tributaries’ sediment
quality and benthic invertebrates involved evaluating and comparing the predicted water quality data in
Fish Lake for the different Project phases, from construction through post-closure, using environmental
quality guidelines and standards, where available. These guidelines, which were developed for the
protection of aquatic life, included the British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines (updated
2011), and CCME Water Quality Guidelines (updated 2011). Detailed descriptions of predicted water

quality chemistry for Fish Lake tributaries are provided in Water Quality Modelling Report (Appendix
2.7.2.4B-F).
Potential Project Effects – Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates

Many of the potential Project effects outlined for Fish Lake are applicable to Fish Lake tributaries. The
potential effects of water management strategies and seepage on Fish Lake sediment quality and benthic
invertebrates apply to Fish Lake tributaries as well; therefore these are not discussed again in this
section.
Mitigation Measures – Fish Lake Tributaries

It should be noted that the mitigation measures recommended for the protection of water and sediment
quality in Fish Lake equally apply to Fish Lake tributaries (Fish Lake inlet and Tributary 1). These
measures have been discussed earlier in this section. However, a few of the key mitigation measures that
are specifically designed to minimize the potential Project effects on Fish Lake tributaries sediments and
benthos are emphasized here. Detailed description of proposed mitigation measures and adaptive
management strategies for Fish Lake and adjacent upper Fish Creek are described earlier in this section.
Mitigation measures to address changes in flow to Fish Lake and tributaries have been previously
described for water quality and sediment quality. Those measures will be implemented to maintain flow
and as well as the HRT. In addition, the Proponent is committed to ensuring that a routine and intensive
monitoring program is implemented. Should there be any sign of water quality deterioration as part of
monitoring, appropriate mitigation measures and treatment will be implemented.
To minimize the introduction of sediment into Upper Fish Creek, Fish Lake, or other adjoining water
bodies during construction, the Proponent will develop and implement a surface sediment and erosion
control plan to prevent release of sediments or sediment-laden water. In addition, the Proponent is
committed to training a work crew in the proper installation, use, and maintenance of sediment and
erosion control methods. The water quality program will be monitored during construction to ensure
compliance with BC Approved water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (TSS and
turbidity).
Determination of the Prediction Confidence for Sediment Quality in Fish Lake Tributaries
Similar to Fish Lake, the sediment quality effects assessment for Fish Lake tributaries is largely based on
predictive conservative water quality modelling and the use of maximum predicted values from that
modelling that considers hydrologic inputs and chemical loadings. These hydrologic inputs are in respect
of the various phases of the Project. For many of the phases, anticipated dates are fairly close to the
actual date on which they will occur; others (i.e., closure phase II) were estimated for modelling purposes.
Professional opinion is also relied upon in those instances and situations where no clear assessment can
be made on the basis of empirical data.
The selection of the closure phase II period is an important one to the water and sediment quality
assessment because this coincides with the TSF lake being allowed to flow naturally into Fish Lake. The
planned recirculation of Fish Lake water through the principal inlets (Fish Lake Inlet and Tributary 1)
means effects could be seen in the tributaries as well. In nearly all situations this period exhibited the

greatest aqueous elemental concentrations and therefore the greatest potential effect to sediment quality.
The design for New Prosperity includes water management infrastructure that allows the actual timing of
closure phase II, and subsequent release of water from the TSF Lake into Fish Lake, to occur when water
quality is deemed suitable.
Determination of the Significance of Residual Effects for Fish Lake Tributaries

The assessment methodology for the characterization of residual effects and determination of
significance is described in Section 2.7.1.5. The findings of the residual effects assessment for sediment
quality and benthic invertebrate abundance and composition for Fish Lake tributaries are summarized in
Table 2.7.2.4C-11. Nutrients, some metals, and sulphate concentrations in Fish Lake tributaries may
become high in sediment during mine operation and through closure phases. Although residual adverse
effects to Fish Lake tributaries sediment quality are anticipated, it should be emphasized that the
sediment quality prediction models are conservative and results reflect a “worst-case” scenario. In
addition, the precautionary principle has been adopted to reflect uncertainties in modelling and to provide
an assessment that is plausible given the results of the modelling. To address uncertainties in model
predictions, a stringent monitoring program will be in place to monitor fugitive dust fall, metals in fish
tissue, rate of sediment deposition, and resulting sediment quality in Fish Lake tributaries. Results from
the monitoring program will provide important feedback on the need for and efficiency of mitigation
measures. Alert and action levels for sediment quality will be developed and through monitoring outlined
in the AMP will identify if levels are changing. If alert levels are observed during monitoring, precautionary
planning as identified in the AMP would be undertaken and mitigation implemented if considered
necessary. With these procedures in place, Taseko believes sediment levels of the parameters indicated
can be managed to ensure no significant impacts result from the Project. A detailed conceptual
Environmental Protection Plan and Environmental Management System are presented in Section 2.8.3.
Determination of significance of potential Project effects on sediment quality in Fish Lake tributaries relied
on:
x Baseline site-specific data compared with applicable guidelines and criteria for the protection of
aquatic life
x Water quality predictions compared with applicable guidelines and criteria for the protection of aquatic
life
x Fish Lake productivity model, and

Table 2.7.2.4C-11 Determination of Significance of Residual Effects for Fish Lake Tributaries Sediment Quality and Benthic
Invertebrates

Potential the adaptive management plan and actions if
Environmental predetermined alert or action levels are observed
Effect: Fish
Lake Proposed and Potential Mitigation
Geographical Extent
Tributaries
Ecological context
Measures/Compensation Measures
sediment
quality and
Reversibility
Significance
benthic
Magnitude†
Frequency
invertebrate
Direction
Duration
community
Sediment Quality
construction and operation by following the protocols
and recommendations outlined by DFO (1993);
Moderate –
Modelled
tributaries
Nutrient results predict
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or open A S LT C R U N L
Concentrations an increase in
pit
nutrients (i.e.,
x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end TP)
of ore processing
x Maintenance of TSF pump back and recirculation to fish
habitat until such time as water quality meets acceptable
quality objectives


and recommendations outlined by DFO (1993) Moderate -
x Seepage collection and pump back to TSF and/or open Modelled
Metal
pit A results predict S LT C R U N L
Concentrations
x Partial draining and early reclamation of TSF at the end an increase in
of ore processing metals
x Maintenance of TSF pump back and recirculation to fish
habitat until such time as water quality meets acceptable
quality objectives
x Implementation of EMPs and BMPs (Section 2.8.1) Moderate –
x Limit sediment inputs to Fish Lake tributaries during Potential for
construction and operation by following the protocols increased
Change in and recommendations outlined by DFO (1993) organic
Sedimentation x Maintenance of stable water levels in Fish Lake A matter (OM) S LT C R U N L
Rate tributaries production
x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to and
fish habitat until such time as water quality meets sedimentation
acceptable quality objectives in Fish Lake
Benthic Invertebrates
Moderate –
Potential
change in the
and recommendations outlined by DFO (1993);
Changes in abundance,
invertebrate x Maintenance of stable water levels in Fish Lake taxa richness,
community tributaries A diversity, and S LT C R U N L
structure x Flow recirculation to offset hydrologic impacts composition
x Regulation of temperatures with multi-port water of Fish Lake
withdrawal benthic
x Maintenance of TSF pump back without recirculation to invertebrate
fish habitat until such time as water quality meets community
acceptable quality objectives
†
Alert – a level or change identified S: Site-specific R: Reversible S: Significant
from monitoring that requires L: Local I: Irreversible N: Not Significant
precautionary planning should the R: Regional
adverse changes and levels Ecological Context: Prediction Confidence:

continue. Duration: U:Undisturbed: Area relatively or not Based on scientific information and statistical analysis,
Action – mitigation designed and ST: Short term adversely affected by human activity professional judgement, effective mitigation and
planned as part MT: Medium Term D:Developed: Area has been adaptive management
of adaptive management would be LT: Long Term substantially previously disturbed by L: Low level of confidence
implemented FF: Far Future or Permanent. human development or human M: Moderate level of confidence
and and/or Frequency: N/A: Not applicable.
changes return to manageable and R: Rare - Occurs Once
acceptable I: Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at
levels. irregular intervals
F: Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis
Direction: and at regular intervals
P: Positive C: Continuous
N: Neutral
A: Adverse
Magnitude:
measurable, but is within the
range of natural variability.
H: High– environmental effect is
likely to pose a serious risk or
present a management
challenge.

Significance Determinations for Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates in Fish Lake
Tributaries
Taseko’s rationale for the conclusion that there is no significance adverse effect on sediment quality and
benthic invertebrates in Fish Lake tributaries is as follows:
For sediment quality and benthic invertebrates, the effect is considered not significant because although
the area is relatively undisturbed, and the effect may be long term, the potential effect is gradual over a
number of years (allowing effective monitoring and the application of adaptive management). The
magnitude is moderate, and potential effects will be site specific and reversible.
The prediction confidence is low because although conservative models are used, there is uncertainty as
to whether an adverse effect will occur. Limnological models are simplified abstractions of complex, multi-
compartmental aquatic ecosystems. Their performance is subject to some uncertainty. There is always
some degree of uncertainty when predicting effects, particularly decades into the future, in a complex
aquatic system. Consistent with the precautionary principle, to address uncertainties regarding model
predictions, water quality, sediment quality, and aquatic biota in Fish Lake will be routinely monitored and
adaptive management applied if required.

2.7.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat

The proposed Project will interact with fish and fish habitat within the Project area. This section evaluates
the potential effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat (stream, lake and riparian), productive capacity,
metal levels in fish tissues and the Fish Lake recreational fishery. Mitigation measures are described and
compensation plans to address the unavoidable harmful alteration or loss of fish habitat (HADD) are
outlined.
Scope of Assessment
This section summarizes the scope, guidance and approach to the assessment of the effects of the
Project on fish and fish habitat resources. Section 2.6.1.5 summarizes 1993–2012 baseline work as
required to meet 2012 policies, programs and regulations.
Project development and operation activities will affect fish and fish habitat in the Fish Creek drainage,
and may affect fish and fish habitat in the drainages along the Transmission Line Corridor and the access
road. As the Gibraltar Mine Concentrate Load-out Facility near Macalister is an existing facility, located a
considerable distance from any fish habitat, potential environmental effects at that facility are not
considered further in the assessment.
As with the March 2009 EIS/Application fish and fish habitat was selected as a Valued Ecosystem
Component (VEC) as various Project activities throughout the life of the Project in the mine site area will,
or in some instances may, directly or indirectly affect fish and fish habitat.
Scope of Project
Regulatory Changes (Since Prosperity)
Governance of Canadian fisheries resources, including protection of fish, fish habitats and the
management of fisheries resources is a shared responsibility through both federal and provincial
legislation, regulation, polices and resource management programs. Relevant acts, policies and
guidelines related to the protection of fish and fish habitat applicable to the March 2009 EIS/Application
and still applicable to the New Prosperity Project include the following:
x Fisheries Act of Canada
x Metal Mine Effluent Regulation (MMER)
x Species at Risk Act
x Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO, 1986)
x British Columbia Environmental Management Act
x Navigable Waters Protection Act
x Fish-Stream Crossing Guidebook (MOF, 2002)
x Resource Inventory Standards Committee 1:20,000 Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory (RIC, 2001)
x Fish-Stream Identification Guidebook (MOF, 1998)
x Riparian Management Area Guidebook (MOF, 1995)

x DFO Pacific Region Operational Statement Overhead Line Construction Version 3

(http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/os-eo/index-eng.htm)
x DFO Pacific Region Operational Statement Clear Span Bridges Version 3 (http://www.pac.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/habitat/os-eo/index-eng.htm)
x Model Class Screening Report—Embedded Culverts Project in Fish-bearing Streams on Forestry

Roads in British Columbia (DFO, 2005), and
x Guidelines for the Use of Explosives In or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky,
1998).
With the exception of the Minor Works and Waters amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act
which came into force in March 2009, all relevant acts, policies and guidelines remain unchanged since
the 2009 EIS Application.
Temporal Boundary Changes (Since Prosperity)

and closure and decommissioning phases between the previously assessed project and the New
Prosperity project (see March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 3.1.4). The temporal boundaries
used for the New Prosperity assessment of potential Project effects on fish and fish habitat includes:
x Baseline Scenario: Represents fish and fish habitat conditions prior to any Project-specific
developments. These baseline conditions incorporate the environmental effects of existing human-
caused disturbances (i.e., forest harvesting, road networks, etc.).
x Construction, Operations, Closure and Post Closure Scenarios: Represents conditions during
construction activities, operations and decommissioning/reclamation activities. Due to the integral
relationship between fish and fish habitat, water quality, aquatic ecology and the water management
plan - the temporal boundaries for the fish and fish habitat assessment are reflective of the principal
phases of the Project water management plan. This was done because the large majority of the
potential residual effects are tied to phases in the water management plan (i.e., Tailings Storage
Facility [TSF] spilling, lake-recirculation). For a detailed description of the water management plan
please see Section 2.7.2.4A.
Spatial Changes (Since Prosperity)

Table 2.7.2.5-1 provides a summary of the changes to the study area relative to the March 2009
EIS/Application. The Regional Study Area (RSA) (Figure 3-2, Volume 5 of the March 2009
EIS/Application) and the Local Study Area (LSA) for Fish and Fish Habitat remain the same as the
previously assessed project. There have been no changes to the study areas for the transmission line
corridor and access road as well.
For the purpose of this environmental assessment and to provide consistency with the 2009
EIS/Application, Lower Fish Creek is defined as all mainstem and tributary instream and riparian habitats
downstream from an impassable falls located at the Reach 3-4 break (Figure 2.7.2.5-1a). Middle Fish
Creek extends upstream from the falls at the Reach 3-4 break to the Fish Lake outlet (Reach 6). Upper
Fish Creek includes Fish Lake, Little Fish Lake and all instream and riparian habitat upstream from the
Fish Lake inlet (Reach 8). As all riparian, instream (ephemeral and perennial) and lake habitats upstream

from the falls at the Reach 3-4 break are specific to Rainbow Trout only (i.e., monoculture), Project effects
on Middle and Upper Fish Creek habitats are assessed collectively.
Instream habitat includes fish bearing (spawning, rearing, overwintering areas and migratory habitat),
non-fish bearing and/or ephemeral habitats which contribute to downstream productivity values. Lake
habitat consists of the aquatic portions of Fish and Little Fish lakes. Riparian habitat consists of a reserve
zone (RRZs; logging is prohibited) established around the perimeters of Fish and Little Fish lakes and
along both stream banks (mainstems and tributaries) and as defined in the Forests and Ranges
Protection Act (FRPA) for larger fish bearing streams (S1-S3). Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR) were
used to determine riparian buffer widths for smaller fish bearing streams (S4) and non–fish bearing
streams.
All life stages of Rainbow Trout found in the lakes and stream within Middle and Upper Fish Creek, are
considered geographically isolated from any lower watershed populations, based on the lack of
recruitment from the lower watershed.
For the purposes of this environmental assessment distinction was made between the TSF, which
includes embankments, beach, and supernatant pond, and the Tailings Impoundment Area (TIA), which
includes the interior beaches and supernatant pond only (Figure 2.7.2.5-1b). The latter is under the
jurisdiction of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulation (MMER Schedule 2). Project effects to fish and fish
habitat (and associated mitigation and compensation) associated with the MMER are separated from
those under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act section 35(2) which includes effects associated with the
embankments of the TSF.

Table 2.7.2.5-1 Mine Site Study Area Comparison

Study Area
Regional Encompasses water bodies and watersheds No change in the RSA for the New
Study Area beyond the LSA where the potential for Prosperity Project.
(RSA) environmental effects of the Project
development and activities can be assessed
in a wider context. It also provides a
suitable reference area for identifying and
assessing fish and fish habitat mitigation
and compensation options within the Project
area, and the potential for cumulative
effects. The RSA is the area within the
boundary of the MOE Management Unit 5-
4.
Local Study Encompasses the Fish Creek watershed No change in the LSA for the New
Area (LSA) including Fish Lake, Little Fish Lake and all Prosperity Project.
mainstem and tributary habitats down to
and including the confluence of Fish Creek
with the Taseko River; the Taseko River in
the vicinity of the Fish Creek confluence;
the lower Beece Creek drainage; and the
Taseko River in the vicinity of the
confluence of Beece Creek.
Maximum A buffer of 100 m on the mine footprint. A buffer of 100 m on the proposed mine
Disturbance The mine site MDA had a total area of footprint.
Area (MDA) 4,419 ha The MDA has a total area of 2,601 ha

0
1300

160
/(*(1'
ò
*(1(5$/
>
"
)
0
1700
NO FLOW
170
"
1600
1700
)
"
C CASCADE BARRIER
)
"
F FALLS
1700
FISH BEARING STREAM
1400

1700
1
)
)
1400
FISH REACH
00
17
y 2 reek
Lo
CONTINUOUS STREAM
1700
1700
w
INTERMITTENT STREAM
er
bu h C
)
)
Fis
0 EPHEMERAL STREAM
Tri Fis
0

tar
17
h
170 ROAD
0
le
0
Cr
0
17
dd
)
ee
) TRIM CONTOUR 100 M
0
Mi
0
1700

1700
17
k
TRIM CONTOUR 20 M
1700
"
)
F
1700
) ) Fish
C reek
LIDAR CONTOUR 5 M
)
) LAKE

1700
)

) MARSH/SWAMP
))

)
1800
)
))
LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA)
Middle Fish Creek
1700
)
"Tributary 1
e 1700
Lak
)
Fish utary 3
)
)

)
Trib e
ak 2 170
0
h L a ry
)
) is
F but
Tri
)
1700
1700 1700 1700
)"
170
)
150
) )C Tributary B2D 0
0
),6+
17
1700
00
/$.( 1700

1400
0 0
17
"
)
C
14
0
))
0
)
"
)
Fish Lake
)
Tributary 1

)
)
1600
14
0
Up
0
Upper Fish Creek
pe
1700
rF
Ta
Tributary 1
16
se
ish
)

0
ko
0
Cr
R
ee
ive
KP FIGURE SAVED: M:\1\01\00266\25\A\GIS\Figs\Prosperity_Fish_Reaches_LSA(60k).mxd; Aug 16, 2012 3:00:33 PM adinca
k
r
127(6
1. BASE MAP: GEO BC.
2. COORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES.

%, /$
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 10N.

* .
2 (
1600
1,
3. THIS FIGURE IS PRODUCED AT A NOMINAL SCALE OF 1:60,000

2
) FOR 11x17 (TABLOID) PAPER. ACTUAL SCALE MAY DIFFER

)
1

/,77/(),6+
16
0 0 /$.( PRINTED PAPER SIZE.
)
4. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 20 METRES (TRIM DATA) AND 5 METRES (LIDAR DATA).
)
190
0 18
1600
0 0
1600
20
1600
:$63

0 0
2200 /$.(
600 300 0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000 Meters
)
)
SCALE
1600
0
140 TASEKO MINES LIMITED
0
16
0
0
0
0
24
21
0
24
0 0 NEW PROSPERITY PROJECT
23
15
0
1500
0
00

LOCAL STUDY AREA, FISH DISTRIBUTION, AND
),6+',675,%87,21$1'5($&+%5($.6
2500
2300
REACH BREAKS IN THE FISH CREEK WATER SHED
,1),6+&5((.:$7(56+('
2200
23
00
26
0
0
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-266/25 -
0 07MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GIJ AMD CMB KJB
),*85(
REV
REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 2.7.2.5-1a 0
0
1300
450,000
455,000
460,000
465,000
160
LEGEND:
ò
GENERAL
>
"
)
0
1700
NO FLOW
170
"
1600
1700
)
"
C CASCADE BARRIER
)
"
F FALLS
1700
FISH BEARING STREAM
1400
5,705,000 5,705,000
1700
1
)
)
1400
FISH REACH
00
17
Lo
y 2 reek
CONTINUOUS STREAM
1700
1700
w
INTERMITTENT STREAM
er
bu h C
)
)
Fis
0 EPHEMERAL STREAM
Tri Fis
0
tar
1 17
h
170 ROAD
0
le
0
Cr
0
17
dd
)
ee
) TRIM CONTOUR 100 M
0
Mi
0
1700
1700
17
k
2 TRIM CONTOUR 20 M
1700
"
)
F
1700
Fish
) 3 ) C reek
3
)
)4
LIDAR CONTOUR 5 M
LAKE
1700
)
1
) MARSH/SWAMP
))
)
1800
)
4
))
2 LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA)
Middle Fish Creek
1700
)
"Tributary 1 MINE FACILITIES
e 3 1700
Lak TAILINGS PIPELINE
)
Fish utary 3
)
)
) RECLAIM PIPELINE FROM TSF
5 Trib e
ak 2 170
0 FISH LAKE RECIRCULATION PIPELINE
h L a ry
)2
) is
F but DITCH (NON-CONTACT WATER) & SITE ROAD
Tri DITCH (CONTACT WATER) & SITE ROAD
)6
1700
1 1700 1700 1700
)"
170
)
150
) )C Tributary B2D 0
0 EMBANKMENT
17
FISH 1700
00
SOIL STOCKPILE
LAKE 1700
5,700,000 5,700,000 TAILINGS BEACH
1400
SUPERNATANT POND
0 0
17 SEEPAGE CONTROL POND
OPEN PIT
"
)
C
14
0
1 ))
NON-PAG PILE
0
)
7 " FRESH WATER POND
)
Fish Lake
)
HISTORIC ORE STOCKPILE
Tributary 1
2
)
)
1600
14
0
Up
0
Upper Fish Creek
pe
1700
rF
Ta
Tributary 1
16
se
ish
KP FIGURE SAVED: M:\1\01\00266\25\A\GIS\Figs\Prosperity_Fish_Reaches_LSA(60k)_withMine.mxd; Aug 16, 2012 3:25:48 PM adinca
)
0
1
ko
0
Cr
R
ee
ive
k
r
NOTES:
1. BASE MAP: GEO BC.
2. COORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES.

BI LA
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 10N.

G K
O E
1600
NI
3. THIS FIGURE IS PRODUCED AT A NOMINAL SCALE OF 1:60,000

O
) FOR 11x17 (TABLOID) PAPER. ACTUAL SCALE MAY DIFFER

8
)
N

5,695,000 LITTLE FISH 5,695,000 PRINTED PAPER SIZE.
16
0 0 LAKE 9
)
4. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 20 METRES (TRIM DATA) AND 5 METRES (LIDAR DATA).
)
190
0 18
1600
0 0
1600
20
1600
WASP
0
10
0
2200 LAKE
600 300 0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000 Meters
)
)
SCALE
1600
0
140 TASEKO MINES LIMITED
0
16
0
0
0
0
24
21
0
24
0 0 NEW PROSPERITY PROJECT
23
15
0
1500
0
00
450,000
455,000
460,000
465,000
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SHOWING FISH
2500
2300
DISTRIBUTIONS AND REACHES
2200
23
00
26
0
0
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-266/25 -
0 07MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GIJ AMD CMB KJB REV
REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 2.7.2.5-1b
FIGURE 2.7.2.5-1 0
Table 2.7.2.5-2 lists the anticipated routine Project development and operational activities and identifies
(Y/N) any changes in those activities or regulatory requirements specific to fish and fish habitat that have
been effected since the original Prosperity EIS application. Project activities or physical works identified
with a “Y” in Change from Previous Project Proposal will be carried forward for assessment of the
changes to effects on fish and fish habitat. Project activities or physical works identified with an “N” in this
column are not carried forward in this fish and fish habitat assessment, and are greyed out.

Non-PAG waste stockpile Y x Location and timing change only
PAG Stockpile Y x Still subaqueous in TSF, location of

TSF has changed
Non-PAG Overburden Stockpile Y x Combined with Non-PAG (i.e.

location and timing)
Ore Stockpile Y x Change in location only
Primary Crusher N x This is considered in ‘Plant Site and

other facilities’
Overland conveyor N x This is considered in ‘Plant Site and

other facilities’
Fisheries compensation works x Change in scope, location and
Y
construction timing
Water Management Controls and x This is considered in ‘Water Quality
Y
Operation and Quantity’
Construction sediment control N
N
upgrades
Camp construction N x This is considered in ‘Plant Site and

other facilities’
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) Y x Different areas related to moving of

TSF, stockpiles, etc.


Soils handling and stockpiling Y x Includes overburden removal
Plant Site and other facilities Y x Change in location only
Explosives Plant Y x Change in location only
x Fish Lake retained

Lake dewatering Y
x Little Fish Lake still being
attenuated into TIA
Fish Lake Water Management Y x Management of inflows and

outflows
Starter dam construction Y x Location and volume of material
x Fresh water sources and routing

Y only as a result of reconfigured
process and fresh)
stockpiles
N
transmission line
x Additional haulage trucks and 2 km
Vehicular traffic Y of added haulage road as a result of
TSF relocation.

N
Operations
Pit production N
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) N
Soils handling and stockpiling Y x Area, volume, and relocation of TSF

and stockpiles only
Explosive handling & storage Y x Change in location only
Tailing storage Y x Location and embankments

changed


Non-PAG waste stockpile Y x Location and timing change only
PAG Stockpile Y x Still subaqueous in TSF, just TSF

location change
Overburden Stockpile Y x Combined with Non-PAG (i.e.

Y x Change in location only
processing

Y x Changes in locations only
management
Water Management Controls and x Management of flows in and out of

Y
Operation Fish Lake

N

N

x Additional haulage trucks and 2 km

Vehicle traffic Y of added haulage road as a result of
TSF relocation.
N
maintenance)
Pit dewatering N
Y x Scope and Timing
operations
N
Macalister
Closure
Y
Operation
Fisheries Compensation operations Y x Changes in location, scope, and

timing



Y x Changes in locations only
management
Reclamation of ore stockpile area Y x Changes in area and location only

Y x Changes in area and location only
stockpile
Tailing impoundment reclamation Y x Changes in area and location only
Pit lake, and TSF Lake filling Y x Changes in area and location only
N
and reclamation
Post-closure
Y x Changes in timing only
water
Discharge of pit lake water Y x Changes in timing only
Seepage management and
Y x Changes in timing only
discharge
Ongoing monitoring of reclamation Y x Changes in timing only

Interactions of Other Projects and Activities
Interaction of Other Projects and x Will Involve Update Of Project Inclusion
Y
Activities List
x Two new scenarios (land and water
Accidents, Malfunctions and based) due to retention of Fish Lake;
Y
Unplanned Events other A&Ms would not change–
previous A&Ms would still apply

Scope of Effects Assessment

Project activities identified as having changed due to Project design or regulatory requirements (Table
2.7.2.5-2) have been brought forward to Table 2.7.2.5-3 and rated according to predicted changes
associated with New Prosperity Project interactions and potential effects to fish and fish habitat. The
following criteria were used for the interaction ratings:
3. Effect on fish and fish habitat is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
conclusions), and there are no required changes to previously proposed mitigation measures, and no
additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, DFO, or other
applicable regulations). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted, but information is provided to
substantiate that the effect is likely to decrease or stay the same.
4. Effect on fish and fish habitat is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
conclusions), but some re-evaluation of effect is required due to changes in project design, proposed
mitigation measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO,
Panel, DFO, or other applicable regulations).
5. Effect on fish habitat is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.

Table 2.7.2.5-3 Fish and Fish Habitat Potential Environmental Effects Associated with the New Prosperity Project
lake habitat quality

quality or quantity
Loss/alteration of
Loss/alteration of
Loss/alteration of
instream habitat
riparian habitat
or quantity

Fisheries compensation works (construction) Fisheries compensation works construction 1 1 1
Non-PAG waste stockpile 1 1 1
PAG Stockpile 1 1 1
Overburden and Waste Rock Management
Overburden Stockpile 1 1 1
Soils handling and stockpiling 1 1 1
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1 1 1
Water Management Controls and Operations 1 1 1
Construction sediment control 0 0 0
Starter Dam Construction
Little Fish Lake attenuation 1 1 1
Fish Lake Water Management 1 1 1
Vehicular traffic Vehicular traffic 0 0 0
Operations
Fisheries Compensation works (operations) Fisheries Compensation works operations 1 1 1
Explosive handling and storage 0 0 0
Ore Extraction and Stockpiling
Ore Stockpile management and processing 1 1 1
Non-PAG waste stockpile 1 1 1
Overburden and Waste Rock Management PAG Stockpile 1 1 1
Overburden Stockpile 1 1 1
Site drainage and seepage management 1 1 1
Water Management Controls and Operation 1 1 1

lake habitat quality

quality or quantity
Loss/alteration of
Loss/alteration of
Loss/alteration of
instream habitat
riparian habitat
or quantity
Vehicle traffic Vehicle traffic 0 0 0

Closure
Fisheries Compensation operations Fisheries Compensation Operations 1 1 1
Reclamation of ore stockpile area 1 0 1
Reclamation Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock stockpile 1 0 1
Tailing impoundment reclamation 1 1 1
Water Management Controls and Operation 1 1 1
Site Water Management Site drainage and seepage management 1 1 1
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling 1 1 1
Post-closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility water 1 1 1
Seepage management and discharge 1 1 1
Ongoing monitoring of compensation and
Monitoring 1 1 1
reclamation plans
Interaction of Other Projects and Activities 1 1 1
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events 1 1 1

Based on past experience and professional judgment, the March 2009 EIS/Application determined that
there would be no interaction, the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even
without mitigation; or the interaction would not be significant due to application of codified environmental
protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects. This has
not changed since the March 2009 EIS/Application; details on the justification for this rating are provided
in the issues scoping section for each in the March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 3). These
interactions are not discussed further in this assessment.
Potential Effects
The following potential effects arising from interactions between routine Project activities and fish or fish
habitat considered in detail in this assessment include:
x Loss/alteration of instream habitat quality or quantity as a result of pit construction, fisheries

compensation works (constructions and operations), water management controls and operations,
starter dam construction, site drainage (erosion and sediment control during construction) and
seepage
x Loss/alteration of lake habitat quality and quantity as a result of the attenuation of Little Fish Lake
into the tailings impoundment area (TIA) and Fish Lake water management
x Loss/alteration of riparian habitat as a result pit construction, fisheries compensation works

(constructions and operations), water management controls and operations, starter dam
construction (flooding of the upper Fish Creek drainage, and
x Loss/alteration of fish populations in the Fish Creek drainage (Fish and Little Fish lakes).
Additional potential effects arising from interactions between routine activities of New Prosperity and fish
or fish habitat as described in the 2012 EIS Guidelines include: fish migration, productivity, metals in fish
tissues, blasting activities, and species at risk considerations.
The assessment of effects on fish and fish habitat considers aspects of environmental effects of the
Project on Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems (Section 2.7.2.4B), Hydrology (Section 2.7.2.4A), and
Vegetation conditions (Section 2.7.2.7). It also takes into account Best Management Practices (BMP) and
methods for constructing and upgrading the access road(s) and transmission line, related to stream
crossings, and commitments to environmental protection and management during construction and
operation as outlined in the Environmental Management Program (Section 2.8).
Information from the environmental effects assessment on fish and fish habitat was used to assess
potential effects on socioeconomic, cultural and human health (Section 2.7.3) and Aboriginal Interests
(Section 2.7.5).
Mitigation and Compensation

Mitigation measures to offset potential Project effects on Fish Lake Rainbow Trout populations and
instream habitat in tributaries to Fish Lake are included in each of the relevant sections below.

A Fish Habitat Compensation Plan, developed following the determination of environmental effects and
application of mitigation measures has been separated into two plans to address effects associated with
the Tailings Impoundment Area (TIA), which are under the jurisdiction of the Metal Mining Effluent
Regulation (MMER; Schedule 2), and those outside the TIA, which are under the jurisdiction of the
Fisheries Act. Along with the proposed mitigation, the compensation plans demonstrate that the Project
will result in “no net loss” of fish habitat.
Cumulative effects on fish and fish habitat were assessed and are presented in the following sections of
this EIS.
An assessment of the environmental effects of possible accidents and malfunctions on fish and fish
habitat and other biotic components was completed for the Project and is presented in Section 2.7.6.
Impact Assessment Methods

Measureable Parameters
Measurable parameters were selected to quantify potential Project and cumulative environmental effects
and to compare baseline conditions with conditions that are predicted to exist during the operations (life-
of-mine), closure and post-closure phases. The measurable parameters include:
x Rainbow Trout habitat expressed in terms of the area of available channel (m2), Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (USFWS, 1980), and flow duration in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
watershed (tributary and mainstem Reaches 4–6, 8 and 10; Figure 2.7.2.5-1a)
x lake habitat (shoal and pelagic expressed in terms of area [ha] as well as Habitat Evaluation
Procedure [USFWS, 1980]) in Little Fish Lake (Reach 9)
x riparian habitat based on Forest and Range Practices Act and Riparian Area Regulations
x The availability or aerial extent of salmonid rearing, overwintering and spawning habitat (m2) in
lower Fish Creek.
Potential Project effects were further divided into “Direct” and “Indirect” effects. Direct effects are
permanent disturbances associated with the Project infrastructure such as the pit and tailings
embankments. These include a stream or lake component as well as a riparian component. Indirect
effects are those associated with flow reduction on instream habitat for life-of-mine; flows will be restored
to historic levels during closure. There will be no indirect effects on riparian vegetation as sufficient flows
will be maintained to ensure riparian function.
Determination of Aquatic Habitat Quantity and Quality:

To assess both the quantity and quality of aquatic habitats directly and indirectly affected by the Project
three different approaches were applied:
1. Areal (m2): For instream habitat this was determined by multiplying the length of the impacted reach (m)
by the bank-full channel width (m) as provided in Triton (1999a). For lake habitat the surface area was
used.
2. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP): In order to assess the productive value of the stream and lake
habitats affected by the Project, the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) was applied. The HEP was

developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1980) and is a habitat-based approach and has
been widely used across North America for the assessment of environmental impacts of proposed
aquatic and terrestrial resource development projects. It is a structured approach that provides a means
of assessing both the quantity and quality of habitats by combining the area of various habitat types with
a habitat suitability index (HSI) for the various species and life history requirements (e.g., spawning).
The HSI value ranges between 0.0 (0% probability-of-use) and 1.0 (100% probability-of-use) and are
derived primarily from scientific literature. The value of the approach is that it produces a dimensionless
habitat unit which standardizes the relative importance of habitats with different physical characteristics
(i.e. riffle vs. pool vs. lake).
3. Stream Flow Duration: This assessment takes into account how many months per year a stream typically
flows and adjusts the effects accordingly. For example, ephemeral streams affected by the Project flow
only during spring thaw and storm events, and would therefore contribute to downstream productivity
only during those times. Similarly, effects on riparian vegetation would be adjusted accordingly to reflect
the number of months per year the particular stream is flowing.
Determination of Riparian Quantity and Quality:

Quantification of riparian effects was not required in the 2009 EIS/Application but was identified for
inclusion by the EIS Guidelines for the New Prosperity Project. The area of riparian vegetation predicted
to be affected by the Project was determined by multiplying the length of the stream directly impacted by
a riparian buffer or set-back width and doubling the result to account for both sides of the stream. For lake
habitat, the lake perimeter was multiplied by the buffer width. Impacts to the riparian vegetation were not
predicted for those stream reaches indirectly affected by the Project due to decreased flows (e.g., Lower
Fish Creek), as the vegetation will not be disturbed and sufficient flow will remain to ensure riparian
composition and function as per baseline conditions.
To determine an appropriate riparian buffer to apply to the directly affected habitats, the value and
functionality of the riparian zone was considered. Riparian vegetation serves several direct and indirect
functions for aquatic habitat. These include:
x Large Woody Debris (LWD) – provides habitat and influences morphology and channel process.
x Small Organic Debris (SOD) – includes leaf, needle, branch litter as well as terrestrial
invertebrates.
x Shade – reduces absorption of solar radiation which decreases summer temperatures.
x Bank Stability – Roots of vegetation play and essential role in the stability of stream banks.
x Allochthonous nutrient delivery from leaf litter and other organic inputs.
The distance from the stream where riparian vegetation can still be considered functional will be
dependent of several factors such as composition and height of the vegetation, size of the stream, slope
and aspect.
Within BC, there are two pieces of legislation that address riparian buffers: the Forest and Range
Practices Act (FRPA) and Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) of the Fish Protection Act. Each piece of
legislation has a different focus with FRPA governing the activities of forest and range licences in BC and
setting the requirements harvesting, road building and grazing, while the RAR is focused on development

near aquatic habitats. Although the RAR is not routinely applied in the Cariboo Region, it was considered
an appropriate means of determining riparian buffer widths for those reaches that otherwise would have
no buffer under FRPA.
Under FRPA, the Riparian Management Area (RMA) for streams is based on fish presence and channel
width (
Table 2.7.2.5-4). The RMA consists of a Riparian Reserve Zone (RRZ) immediately adjacent to both
sides of the stream and a Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) beyond the RRZ. In general, harvesting
within the RRZ is not permitted while there would be constraints to harvesting within the RMZ.
Table 2.7.2.5-4 Specified Minimum Riparian Management Area (RMA) Slope Distances for Stream
Riparian Classes (FRPA, 2012)
Riparian Class Fish Average Reserve Management Total Riparian

Bearing Channel Zone Zone Width (m) Management Width (m)
Width (m) Width (m)
S1 large rivers Yes > 100 0 100 100
S1 (except Yes > 20 50 20 70
large rivers)
S2 Yes >5<20 30 20 50
S3 Yes 1.5<5 20 20 40
S4 Yes <1.5 0 30 30
S5 No >3 0 30 30
S6 No <3 0 20 20
The FRPA also provides specifications for lake riparian zones (Table 2.7.2.5-5). Under this classification
system Little Fish Lake would be considered an L1 lake.
Table 2.7.2.5-5 Specified Minimum Riparian Management Area (RMA) Slope Distances for Lake
Riparian Classes (FRPA, 2004)
Riparian Class Reserve Zone Width Management Zone Total Riparian

(m) Width (m) Management Width (m)
L1* 10 0 10
L2 10 20 30
L3 0 30 30
L4 0 30 30

* L1 lakes less than 1000 ha have a 10 m reserve zone and a lakeshore management zone established by the district manager. L1
lakes greater than 1000 ha only have a lakeshore management zone.
For the effects assessment, FRPA RRZ widths were applied to all stream and lake habitats affected by
the Project since this defines the area where harvesting would not be permitted under any circumstance
and therefore defines the area of effect of the Project that would be beyond that which would be allowed
for other activities such as forestry. However, the RRZ for non-fish bearing streams is 0 m which does not
reflect the indirect contributions riparian vegetation in those sections make to downstream fish habitat.
For those reaches the RAR was applied.
The purpose of the RAR is to “establish directives to protect riparian areas from development so that the
areas can provide natural features, functions, and predictions that support fish life process” (Anonymous,
2007). The RAR provides tables to calculate Zones of Sensitivity (ZOS) for streams depending on the
features, functions, and condition of riparian areas. Factors such as riparian vegetation composition (i.e.
low cover vs. shrub vs. trees), aspect, slope, and channel type all factor into determination of ZOS width.
ZOS determination for large woody debris and bank stability are provided in Table 2.7.2.5-6, while Table
2.7.2.5-7 outlines ZOS determination associated with shade and litterfall/terrestrial insect inputs.
Table 2.7.2.5-6 Widths of the “zone of sensitivity” (ZOS) for large woody debris and bank stability
as specified under the Riparian Areas Regulations of the Fish Protection Act
Channel Type Low Cover Shrub Trees

3 times channel width to a 3 times channel width with a
3 times channel width to a
Riffle Pool maximum of 20 m minimum of 10 m to a maximum
maximum of 5 m
of 30 m
2 times channel width to a 2 times channel width with a
2 times channel width to a
Cascade-Pool maximum of 10 m minimum of 10 m to a maximum
maximum of 5 m
of 15 m
1 times channel width to a 1 times channel width to a 10 m

Step-Pool maximum of 10 m
maximum of 5 m
Table 2.7.2.5-7 Widths of the “zone of sensitivity” (ZOS) for shade and litterfall and terrestrial
impacts as specified under the Riparian Areas Regulations of the Fish Protection Act.
Vegetation Litterfall and Terrestrial

Shade ZOS
Type Impacts ZOS
Low Cover n/a 5m
2 times channel width to a 2 times channel width to a
Shrub
maximum of 5 m maximum of 10 m
3 times channel width to a 3 times channel width to a
Trees
maximum of 31 m maximum of 30 m
Based on the ZOS and vegetation classification determined from review of the baseline vegetation
mapping completed as part of this EIS submission (Section 2.6.1.7), the buffers for non-fish bearing

reaches were applied at 5 m for areas dominated by low cover and shrub and 10 m for areas dominated
by trees.
Instream and Riparian Habitats in Middle and Upper Fish Creek: Potential Effects and Proposed
Mitigation
Fish Migration
Flow contribution of Fish Creek to Taseko River discharge is greatest during the Fish Lake freshet period
(April – May; 5% - 12% contribution) but remains below 5% for the remainder of the year. As such
potential Project effects (water management – flow reductions) on fish migration in the Taseko River,
particularly anadromous salmon and Bull Trout, which occur in the fall, are predicted to be not significant,
and are not carried forward in this assessment. (For a detailed description of the water management plan
please see Section 2.6.1.4 and Section 2.7.2.4a).
Baseline discharge conditions in Lower Fish Creek (Reaches 1 – 3; downstream from impassable falls)
limit fish migration to and from the Taseko River mainstem and between reaches 1 – 3 to the freshet
period only (May – June). As previous studies (Triton 1999b) determined that trout, char and/or salmon
spawning does not occur in Lower Fish Creek (e. g., reaches 1 and 2 are dry during the salmon/char
spawning period), potential Project effects (water management-flow reduction) on fish migration habitat in
Lower Fish Creek are predicted to be not significant (based on professional judgement) and as such, are
not carried forward in this assessment.
Baseline discharge conditions in Middle and Upper Fish Creek (Reaches 4 – 10, Fish and Little Fish
lakes) provide inter-reach fish migratory habitat for Rainbow Trout. Potential Project activities (water
management resulting in reduced flow) will affect inter-reach fish migratory habitat through loss/alteration
of instream and lake habitats. As such, potential Project effects on instream, lake (and riparian) habitats
are carried forward in this assessment.
Species at Risk
There are no aquatic species at risk that occur within the Project area. As a result there will be no effects
on species at risk associated with the Project. As a result no further consideration is given to effects on
species at risk in this assessment.
Loss or Alteration of Instream and Riparian Habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
The scope of assessment for the loss or alteration of instream and riparian habitat in Middle and Upper
Fish Creek consists of Rainbow Trout lotic habitat only (i.e., excludes lake habitat) in mainstem and
tributary reaches upstream from the barrier at the Reach 3–4 break. The scope of this environmental
effects assessment considers all life stages of Rainbow Trout habitat requirements (spawning, migration,
rearing and overwintering) in these reaches.
Baseline: Instream and Riparian Habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek

A detailed review of baseline fish and fish habitat data associated with the Project is provided in Section
2.6.1.5. The following is a brief summary only presented for ease of comparison. A list of fish and fish
habitat studies conducted by Taseko between 1993 and 2012 is provided in Table 2.6.1.5-1 in the
baseline section.
The environmental effects assessment analyses for Middle and Upper Fish Creek Rainbow Trout
considers total instream spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat (measured in m2) in mainstem and
tributary reaches, determined as the product of channel width (bankful width) and reach length (measured
in linear metres). Physical habitat and fish presence sampling methods for the 1996 and 1997 programs
followed DFO standards of that time.
Middle and Upper Fish Creek contains a total of 159,071 m2 of instream habitat (Table 2.7.2.5-8). The
majority (70%; 110,663 m2) of which is non-fish bearing. Rainbow Trout occur in eight continuous
(perennial) reaches and one intermittent mainstem reach (Reach 8). Most of the fish-bearing habitat in
Middle and Upper Fish Creek (48,408 m2) occurs in mainstem Reach 5 (14,495 m2) and Reach 8 (16,139
m2). A total of 1,635,440 m2 of riparian stream habitat is contained within Middle and Upper Fish Creek. It
was estimated that approximately 12,300 m2 of spawning habitat is present in Middle and Upper Fish
Creek with 8,050 m2 occurring in reaches 5, 6, of Fish Creek while 4,250 m2 occurs in the lower 2 km of
Fish Creek Reach 8 and Reach 1 of Fish Lake Tributary 1 (see Section 2.6.1.5).
Within Middle and Upper Fish Creek, stream habitat that falls under the jurisdiction of the MMER (TIA
footprint) totals 20,262 m2 including 5,794 m2 of fish bearing and 14,468 m2 of non-fish bearing. This
includes portions of Fish Creek Reach 8, and 10 as well as portions of Fish Lake Tributary 1 (Reaches 2
and 3) and several ephemeral drainages. Riparian habitat within the TIA footprint associated with stream
effects totals 182,400 m2. It should be noted that Little Fish Lake (Fish Creek Reach 10) also occurs
within the proposed TIA footprint but potential project effects on lake habitat are discussed in the next
section.
Table 2.7.2.5-8 Baseline Conditions (Instream and Riparian Habitat) in Middle and Upper Fish
Creek
Bankful Channel MMER

Dimensions3 Riparian vs.
Fisheries
Buffer
Act (FA)
Fish Length Width Area Width
Reach Flow Type1 Status2 (m) (m) (m2) (m) Area (m2)
Mainstem
4 continuous FB 1,705 4.2 7,161 20 68,200 FA
5 continuous FB 3,221 4.5 14,495 20 128,840 FA
6 continuous FB 1,072 4.0 4,288 20 42,880 FA
8 intermittent FB 5,565 2.9 16,139 20 222,600 Both
Totals/Averages 11,563 3.9 42,082 20 462,520
Middle Fish Creek Tributary No. 2
1 continuous FB 328 1.6 525 20 13,120 FA


Fisheries
Buffer
Act (FA)
1 2 2 2
Reach Flow Type Status (m) (m) (m ) (m) Area (m )
2 continuous FB 154 1.5 231 20 6,160 FA
3 continuous FB 86 1.5 129 20 3,440 FA
3 continuous NFB 27 1.4 38 10 540 FA
4 continuous NFB 297 1.4 416 10 5,940 FA
4 intermittent NFB 3,483 1.2 4,180 10 69,660 FA
Tributaries intermittent NFB 1,167 1.2 1,400 10 23,340 FA
mainstem
tributaries ephemeral NFB 8,553 1.2 10,264 10 171,060 FA
Totals/Averages 14,095 1.4 17,183 14 293,260
Middle Fish Creek Tributary No. 1
ephemeral NFB 6,252 0.5 3,126 5 125,040 FA
Totals/Averages 6,252 0.5 3,126 5 125,040
Fish Lake Tributary No.1
1 continuous FB 1,761 2.5 4,403 20 70,440 FA
Trib B2D intermittent FB 400 1.9 760 20 16,000 FA
2 continuous NFB 118 2.7 319 10 2,360 FA
2 intermittent NFB 2,371 1.6 3,794 5 23,710 Both
3 ephemeral NFB 557 1.4 780 5 5,570 MMER
Totals/Averages 5,207 2.0 10,056 12 118,080
Fish lake Tributary No. 3
1 continuous FB 345 0.8 276 20 13,800 FA
2 intermittent NFB 658 1.6 1,053 10 13,160 FA
3 ephemeral NFB 1,079 1.2 1,295 10 21,580 FA
Totals/Averages 2,082 1.2 2,624 13 48,540
Upper Fish Creek Tributary No. 1
1 intermittent NFB 1,400 4.0 5,600 10 28,000 FA
1 ephemeral NFB 180 1.4 252 5 1,800 FA
Totals/Averages 1,580 2.7 5,852 8 29,800


Fisheries
Buffer
Act (FA)
1 2 2 2
Reach Flow Type Status (m) (m) (m ) (m) Area (m )
Ephemeral Streams
All (includes Both

reach 10) ephemeral NFB 55,820 1.4 78,148 5 558,200
Totals/Averages 55,820 1.4 78,148 5 558,200
Grand Totals 96,599 159,071 1,635,440

NOTES:
1
Ephemeral: ephemeral streams have well-defined, continuous channels but flow for only part of the year, usually in
spring, early summer and the autumn in interior watersheds. Seasonal streams accessible to fish are important
because they may provide overwinter shelter in coastal systems, and early spring spawning and rearing habitat in
both interior and coastal drainages.
Intermittent: intermittent streams do not dry up completely during seasonal periods of low rainfall, but retain water
in separated pools along the channel. Intermittent tributaries that contain water all winter, but are reduced to isolated
pools in summer, can support salmonids all year in both coastal and interior watersheds. These tributaries are
commonly used by coho salmon juveniles, trout and char (adapted from Fish Stream Identification Guidebook, MOF
1998).
2
FB: fish-bearing; NFB: non fish-bearing
3
Bankful channel width and area measurements reflect maximum values
SOURCE:
Modified from Appendix 5-3-A from the March 2009 EIS/Application. Fish Creek Fish and Fish Habitat Surveys
(summer 1996 and 1997)
The environmental effects assessment for Rainbow Trout instream habitat also considers differences
between the availability of habitat during spring (bankful stream flow) and late summer (critical stream
flow) periods (see Tables 2.6.1.5-3 and 2.6.1.5-4 in baseline report section).
Effects Assessment: Instream and Riparian Habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Project activities associated with open pit construction, water management, and starter dam construction
are expected to eliminate flows and the availability of Rainbow Trout habitat in portions of Middle and
Upper Fish Creek watershed. Collectively, mine facilities and operation, and diversion channels will
create a closed mine site which will restrict the local flow of water, thereby eliminating a proportion of
instream fish habitat availability in Middle and Upper Fish Creek watershed. The following section
provides a breakdown of project effects (direct and indirect) on instream habitat in Middle and Upper Fish
Creek for the MMER (TIA footprint) and those outside of the TIA (Fisheries Act; HADD).
Direct Effects (HADD)

Direct effect to fish bearing habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek outside of the TIA footprint will total
15,139 m2 of stream habitat including 12,367 m2 of fish-bearing stream and 2,772 m2 of non-fish bearing
habitat. This includes portions of Reaches 5 and 6 of Fish Creek where the proposed pit will be located,
and Reach 8 where a small portion (287 m) will be lost under the main embankment (Table 2.7.2.5-9).
None of the 4,250 m2 of spawning habitat upstream of Fish Lake will be directly affected by the Project.
Direct effects to non-fish bearing habitats include Middle Fish Creek Tributary 1, which will be affected by
the pit at the downstream end and the non-PAG waste pile at the upstream end. In addition, a small
portion of Fish Lake Tributary 1 will be lost under the tailings embankment. Lastly, 850 m2 of first order,
ephemeral stream channel is predicted to be affected by the south tailings embankment (Fish Creek
reach 10) and non-PAG waste pile (unnamed tributaries to Fish Creek reach 5 and Middle Fish Creek
Tributary 1). Table 2.7.2.5-9 also provides an estimate of the riparian losses associated with each stream
effect which total 199,170 m2.
Indirect Effects (Fisheries Act - HADD)
Indirect effects associated with the Project in Middle and Upper Fish Creek total 32,080 m2 of stream
habitat including 28,324 m2 of fish-bearing stream and 3,756 m2 of non-fish bearing stream. Indirect
effects are limited to Reach 4 and portions of Reach 5 of Fish Creek, located downstream from the pit,
and a portion of Reach 8 of Fish Creek and Reach 1 of Fish Lake Tributary 1, located downstream from
the tailings storage facility (TSF). All indirect effects to Fish Creek Reach 8 and Fish Lake Tributary 1 will
be mitigated through flow augmentation (discussed below). Lastly, indirect effects to non-fish bearing
habitats will include a portion of Middle Fish Creek Tributary 1 and Fish Lake Tributary 1 (Table 2.7.2.5-
10). As previously discussed there are no predicted riparian losses associated with indirect effects.
Direct Effects (MMER: Schedule 2)

Direct effects within Middle and Upper Fish Creek associated with the TIA footprint total 20,262 m2 of
stream habitat (Table 2.7.2.5-11) including 5,794 m2 of fish-bearing stream limited to a portion of Reach
8, and 14,468 m2 of non-fish bearing stream including portions of Reach 10 of Fish Creek, Reaches 2 and
3 of Fish Lake Tributary 1, and several first order, ephemeral tributaries. Table 2.7.2.5-11 also provides
an estimate of the riparian losses which total 182,400 m2.

Table 2.7.2.5-9 Predicted Direct Effects (Fisheries Act; non-MMER) of the New Prosperity Project on Fish and Fish Habitat in Middle and
Upper Fish Creek
Baseline Effect Area Buffer Length Riparian

Stream Reach Description of Effects Riparian Description
Area (m2) (m2) (m) (m) Effect (m2)
Fish bearing. Upper 50%
Riparian dominated by low
5 14,495 (1,611 m) of reach directly 7,247 20 1,611 64,420
cover/shrub
affected (Pit)
Fish bearing. Lower 40% of
Riparian consists of mix of
Middle and reach direct effect (Pit); upper
6 4,288 4,288 old forest (>10 m) and 20 1,072 42,880
Upper Fish 60% will have 100% loss of
shrub/wetland.
Creek flow (direct).
Fish bearing. Direct effects
Riparian consists of forest (<
8 16,139 limited to 287 m under TSF 832 20 287 11,480
10 m), shrub and wetland
embankment.
Totals 34,921 12,367 118,780
Riparian consists of mix of
Non-fish bearing. Lower 16%
old forest (>10 m) and
(976 m) directly affected by Pit;
shrub/low cover. Length
Middle Fish upper 6% (398 m) directly
All 3,126 895 includes directly affected 10 3,357 67,140
Creek affected by non-PAG pile.
sections (1790 m) as well as
Tributary 1 Tribs. (416 m) impacted by
stream between non-PAG
non-PAG also included.
and pit (1567 m).
Totals 3,126 895 67,140
Non-fish bearing. Section
Primarily low cover/shrub
Fish Lake 2 3,794 under TSF embankment (106 170 5 106 1,060
veg
Tributary 1 m).
Totals 3,794 170 1,060
Ephemeral, non-fish bearing
habitat. Includes Fish Creek
Primarily low cover/shrub
Ephemeral All 78,148 reach 10 (portion lost under 1,707 5 1,219 12,190
veg
Streams tailings dam 251 m), and Fish
Lake Trib 2 (968 m).
Totals 78,148 1,707 12,190
FB 34,921 12,367 118,780
Stream
NFB 85,068 2,772 80,390
Totals
Total 119,989 15,139 199,170

Table 2.7.2.5-10 Indirect Effects (Fisheries Act; non-MMER) of the New Prosperity Project on Fish
and Fish Habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Baseline Effect Area

Stream Reach Effect Description
Area (m2) (m2)
Fish bearing. Indirect effects through
a reduction of 90% of source flow ;
4 7,161 7,161
baseline flows will be restored
following pit infilling
Middle and Fish bearing. Lower 50% (1610 m)

Upper Fish 5 14,495 of reach will have indirect effect 7,247
Creek through flow reduction of 90%
Fish bearing. Lower 58% (3280 m)

8 16,139 will have indirect effect through 86% 9,513
flow reduction.
Totals 37,795 23,921
Non-fish bearing. 25% (1568 m) will
Middle Fish 3,126 have indirect effects associated with 784
Creek non-PAG pile (includes 2 tribs.).
Tributary 1
Totals 3,126 3,126
1 4,403 Fish bearing. 45% reduction in flow. 4,403
Non-fish bearing. 45% reduction in
Fish Lake 2 319 319
flow
Tributary 1 Non-fish bearing. Lower 70% (1658
2 3,794 2,653
m) will have 45% reduction in flow.
Totals 8,515 7,374
FB total 42,198 28,324
Stream Totals NFB Total 7,238 3,756
Grand Totals 49,437 32,080

Table 2.7.2.5-11 Predicted Direct Effects under Metal Mining Effluent Regulation (Schedule 2) of the New Prosperity Project on Fish and
Fish Habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Baseline Effect Riparian Length Riparian

Stream Reach Effect Description Riparian Description
Area (m2) Area (m2) Buffer (m) (m) Effect (m2)
Young forest (< 10 m),
Middle and Fish bearing. Lost under
8 16,139 5,794 shrub and wetland 20 1,998 79,920
Upper Fish TIA
dominated.
Creek
Totals 16,139 5,794 79,920
Non-fish bearing. Lost Primarily low
2 3,794 971 5 607 6,070
under TIA cover/shrub veg
Fish Lake Non-fish bearing. Lost Primarily low
Tributary 1 3 780 668 5 477 4,770
under TIA cover/shrub veg
Totals 4,573 1,639 10,840
Ephemeral, non-fish Wetland, shrub and
Ephemeral All 78,148 bearing habitat directly 12,829 young forest (< 10 m 5 9,164 91,640
Streams affected by TIA tall) dominated.
Totals 78,148 12,829 91,640
FB total 16,139 5,794 79,920
Stream NFB
82,721 14,468 102,480
Totals Total
Grand
98,860 20,262 182,400
Totals

Table 2.7.2.5-12 provides a summary of the predicted direct and indirect effects to stream and lake
habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek including riparian areas.
Table 2.7.2.5-12 Summary of Predicted Project Effects on Rainbow Trout Habitat in Middle and
Upper Fish Creek
Direct Effects Direct Effects Indirect Effects Total (m2)

Category
(HADD; m2) (MMER; m2) (HADD; m2)
Fish Bearing 12,367 5,794 28,324 46,485
Stream
Non-Fish Bearing 2,772 14,468 3,756 20,996
Stream
Stream Total 15,139 20,262 32,080 67,481
Riparian 199,170 182,400 0 381,570
Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)

The HEP approach was used to assess the productivity of the affected stream habitats in Middle and
Upper Fish Creek. Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) values for Rainbow Trout are summarized in Table
2.7.2.5-13. The HSI values shown here are estimates of probability-of-use and have been equally applied
to the productivity gains associated with the compensation elements. Details on the derivation of the HSI
values used are included in the detailed Fisheries Act and Metal Mining Effluent Regulation (MMER)
compensation plans (Appendix 2.7.2.5 A and B).
Table 2.7.2.5-13 Estimated Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) for Rainbow Trout by Life History
Stage within a Stream Habitat Type
Habitat Type Spawning Juvenile Adult Rearing Overwintering Production

Rearing
Pool 0.25 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
Riffle 1.0 0.75 0.25 0 0
Run 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0
Ephemeral 0 0.1 0 0 0.25
The percent habitat type composition for fish bearing and non-fish bearing (continuous and intermittent
flow) reaches was determined by Triton (1997). The percent habitat unit type composition was multiplied
by the total area (length (m) x width (m)) of each reach to provide an estimate (m2) of available pool, riffle,
run and ephemeral habitat types for each reach. The habitat type area (m2) was then multiplied by the
HSI value for the various life-history requisites of Rainbow Trout to determine Habitat Units (Table
2.7.2.5-14).

Table 2.7.2.5-14 Summary of Predicted Effects (Habitat Units) on Rainbow Trout Stream Habitat
in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
MMER HADD MMER Total

HADD Life History
Habitat Type Area HSI Value Habitat Habitat Habitat
Area (m2) Stage
(m2) Units Units Units
Spawning 0.25 3,742 1,189 4,931
Juv. Rearing 1 14,969 4,756 19,725
Pool 14,969 4,756 Adult Rearing 1 14,969 4,756 19,725
Overwintering 1 14,969 4,756 19,725
Production 0 0 0 0
Total 48,649 15,457 64,106
Spawning 1 7,845 1,082 8,927
Juv. Rearing 0.75 5,884 812 6.696
Riffle 7,845 1,082 Adult Rearing 0.25 1,961 271 2,232
Overwintering 0 0 0 0
Production 0 0 0 0
Total 15,690 2,165 17,855
Spawning 0.25 4,856 232 4,818
Juv. Rearing 0.5 9,711 464 10,175
Run 19,422 927 Adult Rearing 0.5 9,711 464 10,175
Overwintering 0.25 4,856 232 4,818
Production 0 0 0 0
Total 29,133 1,392 30,525
Spawning 0 0 0 0
Juv. Rearing 0.1 498 1,350 1,848
1
Ephemeral 4,983 13,497 Adult Rearing 0 0 0 0
Overwintering 0 0 0 0
Production 0.25 1,246 3,374 4,620
Total 1,744 4,724 6,468
Totals 47,219 20,262 95,216 23,738 118,954
1 2
Includes 1,597 m of steep cascade/step-pool habitat
A total of 118,954 stream habitat units in Middle and Upper Fish Creek will be affected by the Project. The
total MMER effect in habitat units will be 23,738 while the Fisheries Act (HADD) effect will be 95,216.
Stream Flow Duration

In regards to stream flow duration, the area of each affected reach was adjusted according to the number
of months per year the habitat is functional and available to fish. Based on historic and recent data, and
within the non-MMER effects area, Fish Creek Reach 1 is wetted 2 months/year (17%), Fish Creek Reach
8 is wetted a maximum of six months/per year (50%), and, all ephemeral reaches including Fish Creek

Reach 10 and Middle Fish Creek Tributary 1, a maximum of four months/year (33%). The remaining
reaches (Fish Creek 2-6, Fish Lake Tributary 1) are wetted a maximum of 12 months/year (100%)
Based on the annual duration of wetted channel area, the adjusted effects on stream habitats outside of
the TIA footprint (i.e., HADD) are estimated at 39,777 m2 (Table 2.7.2.5-15). Riparian effects adjusted by
stream flow duration are estimated at 140,279 m2.
Table 2.7.2.5-15 Summary of Predicted Non-MMER Effects on Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Stream Habitats Based on Stream Flow Duration
Waterbody Reach Stream Riparian Proportion Flow Flow

Effects Effects of Year Adjusted Adjusted
Area (m2) Area (m2) Channel is Aquatic Riparian
Wetted Effects Effects
Area (m2) Area (m2)
Fish Creek 4-6 25,943 107,300 1.0 25,943 107,300
Fish Creek 8 10,345 11,480 0.50 5,173 5,740
Ephemeral all 3,386 79,330 0.33 1,117 26,179
Streams
Fish Lake Trib. 1 all 7,544 1,060 1.0 7,544 1,060
Totals 47,218 199,170 39,777 140,279
1
Indirect effect only therefore no riparian effects anticipated.
Within the MMER effects area (i.e., TIA footprint) Reach 8 of Fish Creek is wetted a maximum of six
months/per year (50%), Reach 2 of Fish Lake Tributary 1 and Little Fish Lake, a maximum of year-round
(100%), and, all ephemeral reaches, a maximum of four months/year (33%).
Based on the annual duration of wetted channel area, the adjusted MMER effects on stream habitats in
Middle and Upper Fish Creek are estimated at 8,322 m2 (Table 2.7.2.5-16). The adjusted MMER effects
on riparian habitat are estimated at 76,845 m2.
Table 2.7.2.5-16 Summary of Predicted MMER Effects on Rainbow Trout Stream and Lake
Habitats Based on Stream Flow Duration
Waterbody Reach Steam Riparian Percent of Flow Flow

Effects Effects Year Adjusted Adjusted
Area (m2) Area (m2) Channel is Aquatic Riparian
Wetted Effects Effects Area
Area (m2) (m2)
Upper Fish Creek 8 5,794 79,920 0.5 2,897 38,960
Fish Lake Tributary 2 971 6,070 1.0 971 6,070
1 3 668 4,770 0.33 220 1,574
Ephemeral all 12,829 91,640 0.33 4,234 30,241
Streams
Totals 20,262 182,400 8,322 76,845

Table 2.7.2.5-17 summarizes and compares the results of the three different approaches used to
evaluate Project effects on stream and riparian habitats in Middle and Upper Fish Creek. For non-MMER
effects (HADD) the area of effect ranges from 47,219 m2 assuming year-round flow to 39,777 m2 when
seasonal flow conditions are taken into account. For MMER effects, the decrease in area from year-round
flow (20,262 m2) to seasonal flow (8,322 m2) highlights the fact that most of the affected stream habitat
associated with the TIA is ephemeral.
Table 2.7.2.5-17 Summary of Aquatic Effects of the New Prosperity Project on Middle and Upper
Fish Creek
Habitat Type Area (m2) HEP (Habitat Unit) Flow Duration (by % of year
channel is wetted; m2)
HADD MMER HADD MMER HADD MMER
Stream 47,219 20,262 95,216 23,738 39,777 8,322
Habitat
Riparian 199,170 182,400 n/a n/a 140,279 76,845

Habitat
Mitigation: Instream and Riparian Habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Fish Salvage
During the Construction and Commissioning phase, prior to any direct effects or flow reductions, a
comprehensive fish salvage plan which incorporates best practices will be implemented. This will mitigate
the effects of Project construction on fish in Middle and Upper Fish Creek.
Flow Augmentation
To maintain the Rainbow Trout spawning habitat found in Fish Creek Reach 8 and Fish Lake Tributary 1
and mitigate the indirect effects of flow reduction in those two areas as a result of the TSF, pumps will be
used to augment flows during the life of mine and closure (Figure 2.7.2.5-2). The pumps will operate year
round, including during the spawning and late summer low flow period which was determined to be from
mid-April to the end of August (Triton, 1997).
Flow augmentation volumes were calculated based on existing discharge information, channel
morphological data (Triton, 1999a), and available habitat suitability data. Specifically the water depths
required to accommodate: pre-spawn (7.5 cm – 15 cm; to allow for staging at the mouth of the creeks),
spawning (20 cm), and incubation and emergence (10 cm). Mitigative flow augmentation will be
adaptively managed to ensure that appropriate water depth, temperature, and dissolved oxygen levels for
the life stages are present. Specific details on the mitigative flows are provided in Fish Lake Mitigation
Flow Technical Appendix (Appendix 2.7.2.4B-D)

The resulting flow augmentation will mitigate the indirect effects anticipated for Reach 8 of Fish Creek and
Reach 1 of Fish Lake Tributary 1 downstream of the TSF. Reach 8 of Fish Creek downstream of the TSF
provides 9,513 m2 of seasonal Rainbow Trout habitat, primarily limited to spawning and rearing, which will
be indirectly affected by the Project through flow reduction. This reach is typically dry during the late
summer and winter (Triton, 1999a; Triton, 2012 in prep.) and as a result does not provide sustained
rearing or overwintering habitat. Therefore the augmentation will maintain flow during the period when it
would naturally be wetted, thus mitigating the Project effects. Further, the year round pumping will
enhance the system by providing overwintering habitat which would not normally be present. This
component and the associated habitat gains is discussed in detail in the Fisheries Act compensation plan
(Appendix 2.7.2.5-A).
Fish Lake Tributary 1 contains 7,374 m2 of Rainbow Trout habitat downstream from the TSF main
embankment, including 4,403 m2 of fish-bearing (includes 760 m2 in Trib B2D) and 2,972 m2 of non-fish
bearing stream. The fish-bearing section is typically wetted year-round and does provide limited
overwintering habitat (Triton, 2012 in prep.). The non-fish bearing section has seasonal flow. Flow
reductions within the system are expected to be less than that of Fish Creek Reach 8 due to the majority
of the tributaries to Fish Lake Tributary 1 remaining undisturbed. As a result, while flow augmentation is
planned to mitigate project effects during spring spawning and critical stream flow periods during summer,
natural flow via undisturbed tributaries should also help ensure the fish-bearing section remains wetted
through the winter. Further, flow augmentation through the winter will ensure overwintering habitat in Fish
Lake Tributary 1 is not adversely affected and is expected to result in an increase in habitat productivity
for the system. Flow augmentation beyond the natural hydrograph is discussed in the Fisheries Act
Compensation Plan. Post closure natural flow volumes will be restored to downstream habitats to enable
restoration of natural flow regimes and productive habitat use.
Mitigation in Fish Creek Reach 8 and Fish Lake Tributary 1 associated with flow augmentation will result
in a reduction in indirect effects of 16,887 m2 and 45,644 habitat units (Table 2.7.2.5-18). Habitat units
were calculated from Rainbow Trout HSI values as presented in Table 2.7.2.5-13. The breakdown of the
total habitat based on percent composition of pool, riffle and run is from Triton (1999a).
Compensation for the direct loss of instream habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek is provided for in the
Fisheries Act and MMER Compensation Plans (Appendices 2.7.2.5-A and 2.7.2.5-B, respectively).

Figure 2.7. 2.5-2.
Fish Lake tributary
Figure X-X flow
augmentation and
Figure Title
habitat enhancement
LEGEND
Produced by: SAXX

Verified by: DW
XX
Date: July
February XX, 2012
24, 2012
Table 2.7.2.5-18 Summary of Indirect Effects (m2 and Habitat Units) Mitigated through Flow
Augmentation in Fish Creek Reach 8 and Fish Lake Tributary 1
Areal (m2) Habitat Units

Waterbody
Pool Riffle Run Total Pool Riffle Run Total
Fish Creek
6,374 1,617 1,522 9,513 20,715 3,234 2,283 26,232
Reach 8
Fish Lake
4,435 1,178 1,761 7,374 14,414 2,356 2,642 19,412
Tributary 1
Total 10,809 2,795 3,283 16,887 35,129 5,590 4,925 45,644
Summary of Potential Project Effects Following Mitigation

Implementation of the proposed mitigation strategies will reduce the instream project effects under the
jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act by 16,887 m2 resulting in a total of 30,322 m2 which require compensation
(Table 2.7.2.5-19). Effects associated with the MMER will all be permanent effects and will remain at
20,262 m2 requiring compensation.
Table 2.7.2.5-19 Summary of Aquatic Effects of the New Prosperity Project on Middle and Upper
Fish Creek after Mitigation
Habitat Type Area (m2) HEP (Habitat Unit)

HADD MMER HADD MMER
Stream Habitat 47,219 20,262 95,216 23,738
Riparian Habitat 199,170 182,400 n/a n/a
Mitigation (Stream Habitat) 16,887 0 45,644 0
Mitigation (Riparian) 0 0 0 0
Total Stream Effects (following mitigation) 30,332 20,262 49,572 23,738
Total Riparian Effects (following mitigation) 199,170 182,400 n/a n/a
An overview of the proposed Fisheries Act and MMER compensation plans is provided at the end of this
section with the complete plans attached in Appendix 2.7.2.5-A and 2.7.2.5-B.

Lake Habitat (Aquatic and Riparian) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek: Potential Effects and
Proposed Mitigation
Blasting Activities
The potential for effects to fish and fish habitat as a result of blasting may occur during two project
phases: Construction and Commissioning (starter dam construction), and Operation (pit). DFO has
established guidelines for determining setback distances for blasting effects on fish due for pressure
(acoustic) effects as well as peak velocity. These formulas take into account the density and acoustic
impedance of the water and substrate on site as well as the predicted charge size. During construction
any explosive charges that may be required will be limited to 75 kg, which results in setbacks of 43 m
(pressure) and 131 m (peak velocity). A comprehensive fish salvage plan which incorporates best
practices will be implemented within the setback zones prior to starter dam construction and Little Fish
Lake attenuation. This will mitigate the potential for fish or ova mortality associated with blasting during
construction and commissioning. As such this potential effect is not considered further in this assessment.
During the operation phase, blasting will be limited to within the pit boundary and charge size is expected
to be a maximum of 630 kg and significantly less for wall control blasting within 20m of the final pit wall.
This results in setback distances of 125 m (pressure) and 379 m (peak velocity). At its closest point, Fish
Lake will be 373 m from the edge of the pit and there will be no instream fish habitat between the pit and
the Lake or downstream of the pit (due to flow reductions). As a result all fish habitat will be completely
outside the required setback for pressure effects.
Loss of Angling Opportunity

As the New Prosperity Project will retain Fish Lake and maintain access to the lake, all angling, First
Nation cultural and/or recreational opportunities will remain as per baseline conditions. As a result no
further consideration is given to loss of angling opportunity associated with the Project. However, to
mitigate the risk of a potential reduction in First Nation and/or recreational/angler use, consideration is
given to the development of road access to several regional lakes. Details on the development of road
access to lakes are provided later in this document.
Loss or Alteration of Lake Habitat (Aquatic and Riparian) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
The scope of assessment for the loss or alteration of lake and associated riparian habitat in Middle and
Upper Fish Creek considers Rainbow Trout lacustrine habitat (i.e., excludes instream habitat) in Little Fish
Lake. Lacustrine habitat consists of pelagic (>6 m depth) and shoal (littoral; <6 m depth) habitat types.
Project effects on lacustrine habitat in Fish Lake are not predicted.
Baseline: Lake Habitat (Aquatic and Riparian) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
2.6.1.5. The following is a brief summary presented for ease of comparison.

The environmental effects assessment for Middle and Upper Fish Creek Rainbow Trout considers
changes in the availability of total lake habitat due to Little Fish Lake inundation, physical habitat
disruption, water diversion and sourcing activities. Lake habitat and basic limnological surveys were
conducted in Fish Lake and potential compensation lakes between 1993 and 1998 (Appendix 5-3-E [Part
1 and 2], Appendix 5-3-H and Appendix 5-3-C in the March 2009 EIS/Application).
Fish Lake bathymetric surveys completed in the early to mid-1990s followed methods described in the
Draft Lake Survey Manual (MOELP, 1992). Subsequent lake habitat surveys (Appendix 5-3-C in the
March 2009 EIS/Application) including volume and area calculations for hardcopy (digital planimeter) and
digital maps (ArcInfo) followed methods described in Bathymetric Standards for Lake Inventories (RIC
1997). These studies enabled the determination of maximum depth, lake-bottom gradients, shoreline
development indices and amounts of shoal (<6 m depth) and pelagic areas. Detailed bathymetric surveys
were not conducted in Little Fish Lake; however, previous fish presence studies indicated that the lake is
100% shoal (<6 m depth) habitat (Appendix 5-3-E Part 1 and 2 in the March 2009 EIS/Application).
Fish Lake has a catchment area of 6,490 ha and a surface area of 111 ha, about 17 times larger than
Little Fish Lake (Table 2.7.2.5-20). Fish Lake has a maximum depth of 13 m, shoreline perimeter of 11.7
km and volume of 4.4 Mm3, about 33 times that of Little Fish Lake. Fish Lake contains 83.5 ha shoal
area, approximately 75% of total surface area.
Table 2.7.2.5-20 Baseline Conditions (Lakes Physical Habitat) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Property Fish Lake Little Fish Lake
Elevation (m) 1,457 1,527
Drainage area (ha) 6,490 1,470
Surface area (ha) 111 6.6
Volume (m3) 4,438,446 133,280
Shoreline perimeter (m) 11,756 1,300
Riparian Area (m2) 117,560 13,000
Shoal area (ha) 83.5 6.6
Maximum depth (m) 13 4.4
Mean depth (m) 4 2
Lake length (m) 2,050 560
Mean breadth (m) 541 118
Secchi depth (m) >10 4
Shoreline development Index2 3.15 1.43
No. of inlets 10 3
No. of outlets 1 1
No. of islands 5 0

Property Fish Lake Little Fish Lake
Perimeter of islands 1,700 n/a
Rainbow trout Population estimate 85,000 5,000

NOTES:
1
Shoreline Development Index (DL): is a comparative figure relating the shoreline perimeter (L) to the circumference of a circle
2
that has the same area (A) as the lake: DL = L(m)/2√πA(m )
SOURCES:
modified from Appendix 5-3-C. Lakes Physical Habitat; Riparian areas are determined as 10 m based on L1 classification (FRPA
2012); Rainbow Trout population estimates from Triton (1999b)
Effects Assessment: Lake Habitat (Aquatic and Riparian) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Lake habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek which will be affected as a result of the Project is limited to
Little Fish Lake which will be attenuated by the TSF (Table 2.7.2.5-21).
Table 2.7.2.5-21 Summary of Project Effects on Baseline Conditions (Lake Aquatic and Riparian
Habitat) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Shoreline Riparian
Total Total Volume Shoal Pelagic Perimeter Habitat
Area (ha) (x 106m3) Area (ha) Area (ha) (km) (m2)
Little Fish Lake 6.6 0.13 6.6 0.0 1.3 13,000
Total 6.6 0.13 6.6 0.0 1.3 13,000
The effect of the Project on the availability of Rainbow Trout lake habitat in upper Fish Creek will be
greatest beginning in year 1 when Little Fish Lake becomes attenuated by the TSF.

The habitat evaluation procedure has also been applied to lakes. Bradbury et al. (2001) developed
habitat suitability indices for Rainbow Trout rearing (fry, juveniles and adults) and spawning based on the
availability of littoral (< 2 m depth) habitat, substrate composition and presence/absence of submerged
and emergent aquatic vegetation (Table 2.7.2.5-22). This approach is used to estimate the habitat unit
loss associated with the incorporation of Little Fish Lake into the TIA and assumes:
1. Dominant silt/muck substrates
2. 50% of littoral area < 2 m and 50% >2 m
3. 50% of <2 m littoral has vegetation (half emergent and half submerged)

Table 2.7.2.5-22 Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) for Rainbow Trout by Life History Stage within a
Lake Habitat Type (from Bradbury et al. 1999)
Habitat Type Spawning Fry Rearing Juvenile Rearing Adult

<2 m depth with emergent
0.44 0.44 0.44 0.5
vegetation
<2 m depth with submerged
0.44 0.44 0.44 0.5
vegetation
<2 m depth with no vegetation 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
>2 m depth 0.17 0.5 0.5 0.5
Based on the above HSI values, Little Fish Lake provides about 118,140 of lake habitat units (Table
2.7.2.5-23). The majority (47%) of the lake habitat units occur at depths greater than two meters, followed
by depth less than two meters with no vegetation (28% of total).
Table 2.7.2.5-23 Summary of Predicted MMER Effects (Habitat Units) on Rainbow Trout Lake
Habitat (Little Fish Lake)
Affected Affected Habitat

Habitat Type Life History Stage HSI Value
Area (m2) Units
Spawning 0.44 3,630
<2 m depth with Young-of-the –year (fry) 0.44 3,630
8,250
emergent vegetation Juvenile 0.44 3,630
Adult 0.5 4,125
Total 15,015
Spawning 0.44 3,630
<2 m depth with Young-of-the –year (fry) 0.44 3,630
8,250
submerged vegetation Juvenile 0.44 3,630
Adult 0.5 4,125
Total 15,015
Spawning 0.5 8,250
<2 m depth with no Young-of-the –year (fry) 0.5 8,250
16,500
vegetation Juvenile 0.5 8,250
Adult 0.5 8,250
Total 33,000
Spawning 0.17 5,610
Young-of-the –year (fry) 0.5 16,500
>2 m depth 33,000
Juvenile 0.5 16,500
Adult 0.5 16,500
Total 55,110
Totals 66,000 118,140

Productive Capacity
The following is a brief discussion only summarizing the predicted changes to Fish Lake productive
capacity as a result of the Project. A more detailed discussion as well as the assessment methods and
complete results are provided in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A Effects Of Reduced Inflow On Fish Lake Trophic
Status Using The Mass Balance Approach.
In order to predict changes in productivity, two Phosphorus-based models, the classic Vollenweider mass
balance model for lake TP (Total Phosphorus) loading and retention (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976), and the
temporal steady state BATHTUB eutrophication response model (Walker, 1985; Nürnberg and LaZerte,
2001) were used as tools to predict the response of Fish Lake to the changes in flow regime and nutrient
loads (Dillon and Rigler, 1974). The Vollenweider model has been widely used to relate external P
loading to trophic state in temperate lakes (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976). The model requires inputs
including annual watershed P loading, lake surface area, mean depth of lake, and hydraulic residence
time. For this assessment, the Vollenweider model was used to predict the effect of current and
anticipated inflow regimes, and the effect of P loading, as a result of the Project configuration on the
trophic status of Fish Lake. The second model, BATHTUB, allows one to predict eutrophication-related
water quality conditions (expressed in terms of total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a,
transparency, algal biomass, and hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rate) as a result of change in flows and
nutrient loadings. Once predictions of TP were generated (Table 2.7.2.5-24), the Plante and Downing
(1993) equation was used to predict productivity (kg/ha/yr; Table 2.7.2.5-25).
Table 2.7.2.5-24 Summary of Predicted Fish Lake TP Concentrations (μg/L) during all Project
Phases
October
Phase July August Sept
to June
Baseline 26
1: Start operation to end mining/ milling (Yr 1- 17) 38.3 31.3 35 38.3
2: Closure (Yr 18-21) 30.9 31.7 35.8 39.1
3: Post-closure 1 (Yr 22-31) 30.1 30.9 35 37.9
4: Post-closure 2 (Yr 31 and beyond) 32.9 33.3 37.9 42
Table 2.7.2.5-25 Summary of Predicted Fish Lake Fish Productivity Estimates during all Project
Phases based on the Plante and Downing Model (1993)
October to Trophic
Phase July August Sept
June Status
Baseline 7.5† Mesotrophic
1: Start operation to end mining/
10.8 8.9 9.9 10.8 Eutrophic
milling (Yr 1- 17)
2: Closure (Yr 18-21) 8.8 9.0 10.1 11 Eutrophic
3: Post-closure 1 (Yr 22-31) 8.6 8.8 9.9 10.7 Eutrophic

4: Post-closure 2 (Yr 31 and

9.4 9.5 10.7 11.8 Eutrophic
beyond)
†
Based on median and maximum TP measurements from Fish Lake (1993 to 2011 water quality data,
Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A).
The model predictions show that during the life of mine and beyond the productivity of Fish Lake will be
slightly higher than that of the baseline. As a result, the trophic state of Fish Lake may shift from being
meso-trophic to a more highly productive eutrophic lake. The implications of more P influx as a result of
mine development and operations to Fish Lake water quality are discussed in Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A.
Metals in Fish Tissues
Potential Effects of Metals in Fish Tissue

As indicated previously in the 2009 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of 2009 (Environmental Impact
Statement/Application, Volume 5) for the Prosperity Gold-Copper Project, metal levels in fish can provide
information about the metals’ availability in water and sediment and the extent to which metals may be
up-taken by fish. Additionally, metal levels or tissue residue concentrations can also be used to evaluate
the potential risk to predators that may prey upon fish as part of their diet. This also includes humans
who may, and probably do, capture fish for recreational and/or consumptive purposes.
An understanding of background or baseline levels of metals in fish is an important starting point in
evaluating the potential effects of the New Prosperity Project. The status of fish tissue sampling and the
resultant levels are well described in the previous EIS (2009) as well as in section 2.6.1.4 of the current
EIS application for the New Prosperity Project.
Fish tissue samples of muscle and liver for Rainbow Trout were collected between 1993 and 1997 in the
Regional Study Area (RSA) and results of those analyses are presented in the Technical Data Report
(TDR, Appendix 5-2-A(v2)). Rainbow Trout are the most abundant species which could be affected by
the project and, in fact, are the only species that could be affected in Fish Lake and its tributaries.
Consequently, the significance of metal levels in tissues will focus on Rainbow Trout and the search for
relevant and published information reflected the monoculture population of Rainbow Trout in the study
area.
Given Fish Lake will be retained as part of the Project the principal focus for providing predictions of metal
levels in fish is on Rainbow Trout in Fish Lake. These fish have been described as being a recreational
fishing resource and some are taken for consumption and they also provide an important source of food
for surrounding wildlife.
Fish Tissue Sampling and Analysis – Baseline Review
Data for metals in fish tissues have been derived from fish collected over the period 1993 to 1997 and for
the purposes of this assessment include 39 from Fish Lake. Unlike the previous project, the New
Prosperity Project will retain Fish Lake with the intent of maintaining and sustaining the Rainbow Trout
population in the lake. Antimony (Sb), arsenic (AS), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), mercury
(Hg), nickel (Ni) and selenium (Se) were analyzed in liver and muscle and compared with BC tissue

guidelines (MOE, 2006). Only three of these elements, Pb, Hg and Se have tissue guidelines with those
for lead (0.8 ppm) and mercury (0.1 to 0.5 ppm) related to human consumption while the tissue guideline
for Se of 1 ppm is for the protection of aquatic life.
As indicated in Section 2.6.1.4 metal levels in liver and muscle from Rainbow Trout in Fish Lake, 35% of
muscle samples for mercury exceeded the lowest consumptive guideline level of 0.1 ppm while only one
fish exhibited 0.31 ppm and no measured levels were near or above the upper range of the consumptive
guideline of 0.5 ppm. For selenium 37% of muscle and 79% of liver samples exceeded the 1 ppm tissue
guideline. No liver or muscle samples exceeded the lead criterion of 0.8 ppm.
The BC Ministry of the Environment (BCMOE, 2011) has provided guidance on sampling and analytical
protocols for fish and these were not available at the time of the original sampling. The guidance
document also lists the parameters that should be analyzed as part of baseline programs and includes 31
parameters and their respective detection limits. Resulting data are to be provided as ug/g wet weight.
The guidance document also indicates the tissues collected should depend on the contaminant of
concern and should include muscle, liver and egg/ovary tissues where mercury and selenium are of
interest. Whole body composites are also acceptable where size may be a consideration.
Fish sampled as part of the previous Prosperity Project did not include analysis of egg or ovaries or whole
body residues. The liver and muscle samples collected, however, are considered adequate to provide an
adequate baseline to describe metal levels in these two tissues. In addition, the metals analyzed (Sb, As,
Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni and Se) comprise a number of those elements considered for analysis in the context of
mining. While copper and zinc were not measured in fish tissues a great deal of information is available
pertaining to their environmental behavior, chemistry and effects in fish. Measured sediments levels and
predictions for sediment and water quality will be used, in part, to provide predictions of tissue levels in
fish.
While metal levels in liver and muscle provide important data for these two tissues they do not provide an
indication of the total body burden a predator might be subject to when consuming an entire fish whereas
human consumers may be more selective. Consequently, the metals data in liver and muscle were used
to calculate a weighted average concentration. This was considered important because focusing only on
muscle or liver would tend to underestimate and overestimate exposures respectively.
Metals Selected for Predictions
Several metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc
were selected for fish tissue predictions in Fish Lake Rainbow Trout. These metals were selected after
reviewing the 2012 new Prosperity Project EIS guidelines, the BC MOE (2011) guidelines, Metal Mining
Effluent Regulations (MMER) Schedule 4 list of deleterious substances (MMER 2012), US EPA (2000)
report, and CCME (1999) protocol for the derivation of Tissue residue guidelines report. These metals are
typically associated with mining projects and are of concern to aquatic biota where mining projects are
undertaken.
The key criteria used in selecting parameters (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium and zinc) for Fish Lake tissue residue analyses for the new Prosperity Project included
the following:
1. Availability of baseline fish tissue, water chemistry, and sediment chemistry data for the
parameters of potential concern to fish (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium and zinc);

2. Metals considered to be of potential concern are those that are persistent in the environment with
known fish toxicity for which water quality guidelines exist (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc; BC MOE 2001);
3. The element has the potential to bioaccumulate and/or biomagnify in the aquatic food chain (i.e.,
mercury, CCME 1999); and,
4. The metals selected are of general environmental concern associated with mining projects and
include nutritionally essential elements such as Zn, Cu, Ni, Zn and Se as well non-essential
elements including Hg, Pb, Cr and Cd.
Predicting Metal Levels In Fish
The main objectives of this work were to:
x Compare baseline levels of selected metals (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc) in Fish Lake Rainbow Trout tissues to applicable guidelines,
where available;
x Predict fish tissue metal concentrations during the different Project phases (life of mine and
beyond) and compare those results with guidelines and other known work to determine if the
predictions are of concern to resident fish populations; and,
x Conduct an impact assessment of the residual effects of the predicted tissue levels and identify
mitigation measures to avoid and/or minimize any adverse impacts.
The previous EIS predicted metal levels in fish primarily by applying a bioconcentration factor (BCF) to
background levels in water although consideration of a dietary component was not estimated. The
bioaccumulation factor (BAF) refers to tissue levels derived from dietary and water exposures (McGeer et
al., 2003). As McGeer et al. (2003) pointed out these are simplified single-compartment models that are
used to predict tissue levels in biota from diet and environmental exposures.
Predicting metal levels in fish tissues is problematic given metals are persistent in the environment, there
are both essential and non-essential metals that can bioaccumulate, the physiology and biochemistry of
the metals in organisms can be different and bioavailability can be influenced by geochemistry and other
environmental variables (DeForest et al., 2007). Other factors that can influence tissue levels include the
chemical state of the metal. Mercury in its methylated form can, for example, biomagnify in the food chain
and can move across membranes such as the gill (Chapman et al., 2003). Inorganic forms of metals, by
comparison, do not biomagnify along aquatic food chains and for As and Pb biodilution occurs with
growth (Chen and Folt, 2000).
In predicting fish tissue levels for the New Prosperity Project sources of metals from both water exposure
and diet have been considered. It should be pointed out there are no specific set of BCF’s or BAF’s that
can be reliably applied to all situations because each situation is different. In addition, the fish species
resident to the subject area will also be different and so their tissue burdens will reflect those conditions
and it is unlikely the application of BAFs and/or BCFs from other areas would reliably or defensibly
estimate tissue levels. McGeer et al. (2003) stated that it is virtually impossible to derive a meaningful
BCF value for metals. The BCF model was developed for neutral and lipid-soluble organics not metals
and is the fundamental limitation of its application to metals. Regardless of these limitations BCF is a tool

used in this Project for evaluating the potential for increased accumulation of metals resulting from the
Project.
For developing an approach for estimating and predicting tissue levels for the New Prosperity Project the
following steps and activities were undertaken:
x Review of previous fish tissue data (1993 – 1997) collected as part of the project for suitability
and applicability for use in evaluating effects from the proposed New Prosperity Project;
x Calculation of weighted tissue burdens using liver and muscle data to provide surrogate levels
approximating those in a whole fish;
x Selected literature reviews of published information on the methods available to evaluate metal
accumulation in fish;
x Communications with active researchers on the applicability of BCFs and BAFs for predicting fish
tissue levels for a range of metals in Rainbow Trout reflective of predicted changes in water and
sediment quality
x Critical review of BCFs and BAFs reported in the literature and how, if at all, they would be
applied for the New Prosperity Project
Definitions
Bio- concentrations factor (BCF) for the purpose of this report is considered to be the ratio between the
metal concentration of the fish [M]fish and that of the water column [M]water. This ratio is normally used to
account for influxes of a contaminants into the body from direct contact with the water column (Adams et
al., 2000; Gobas and Morrison, 2000). In this instance it has also been assumed to account for the direct
contact contributions made by the water column, to prey species eaten by rainbow trout in Fish Lake.
Biota - sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) is the ratio between the metal concentration in an organism
[M]fish and that of the sediment [M]sediment. Often used in environmental risk assessments to predict tissue
concentrations for sediment dwelling organisms and fish (Gobas and Morrison, 2000). The BSAF has in
this instance been used to encompass all contributions of metals to fish tissue, originating from the
sediments (e.g. direct body contact and diet).
Where;
[M]fish = Concentration of metals in fish tissue (mg/kg).
[M]water = Concentration of metals in water column (mg/L).
[M]sediment = Concentration of metals in water column (mg/L).
Methodology
1. Using measured muscle and liver tissues concentrations whole body burdens were calculated
using known organ to body mass ratios of 1 : 58 (table 2). Copper and Zinc concentrations were
not measured during this baseline assessment.
2. Baseline and predicted metal concentrations of the sediment and water column were compiled.

Due to the complexity of the task several methodologies have been applied to get a better indication of
the potential future tissue burdens of the rainbow trout in Fish Lake.
Method 1 - McGeer (2003)

An analysis of available toxicity studies has been compiled to produce a linear-log regression model for
predicting fish tissue concentrations of some metals from a known water concentration (McGeer et al.,
2003). Slope and intercept values for the metals studied were derived and bio- concentrations factors
(BCF) were calculated for each of the metals using the average and 95th percentile water quality
predictions taken from the entire modeled period (1 – 200 years). These BCF’s were then used to predict
the mean and maximum whole body concentrations.
Method 2 – Stantec derivations used to predict fish tissue concentrations for use in the
determination of effects on Human Health.
A number of methods (specific to different metals) were used to determine the bio-concentration factors
and hence the mean and maximum whole body concentrations for use in the determination of effects on
human health. A detailed description of the calculations is included in Section 2.7.3.3 and the derived
metal concentrations are presented in Appendix 2.7.3.3-A.
Method 3 - Site specific BCF and BSAF, derived from measured baselines (incl. detection limit
values)
Baseline fish tissue, water and sediment concentration data were used to derive site specific BCF and
BSAF values. Detection limits were included in the calculation and to remain conservative were
considered to be the fish tissue concentration (Dr L. Lissemore, pers comms). A linear relationship
between the concentrations of fish tissues and the mean was also assumed, although it is known to be an
inverse relationship for the metal being evaluated (McGeer et al., 2003; DeForest et al., 2007).
These factors were then used to calculate tissue burden contributions from both water and sediment
assuming 100% contributions from each medium (BCF x [M]water = [M]fish; BSAF x [M]sediment = [M]fish. The
derived values were then combined in two ways to estimate future whole body concentrations;
a) Additive approach – The predicted tissue concentration is the sum of the contribution from each
of the exposure pathways. Considered to be the most conservative, estimated tissue
concentrations assumed 100% contributions from both water and sediment (100% + 100%).
b) Compound approach - The contributions made to whole body concentrations from sediment
and water were assumed to evenly divided. The calculated 100% contributions from each
medium were therefore scaled to 50%, before being summed to produce the estimate for the
whole body concentration.
Method 4 - Site specific BCF and BSAF, derived from measured baselines (excl. detection limit
values)
As for method 2, however detection limit values were removed from the calculation. Although reducing
significantly reducing the number of available data points. It was necessary to see if changes in detection
limits over time were causing discrepancies in the estimate tissue burdens. Again both additive and
compound approaches were used.

Table 2.7.2.5-25A below lists the results of the four methods of estimating fish tissue metal
concentrations.

Table 2.7.2.5-25A – Compiled fish tissue predictions made using four different methodologies. (mg/kg)
Baseline (incl. detection limits) Baseline (excl. detection limits)
1 2
McGeer Stantec Additive 3 Compound 4 Additive 5 Compound 6
Base Moderate Max Mean Max Moderate Max Moderate Max Moderate Max Moderate Highest
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Element line
Antimony 0.05 - - 0.0281 0.0525 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 - - - -
Arsenic 0.0499 - - 0.0414 0.0572 0.293 0.332 0.235 0.254 0.288 0.327 0.231 0.250
Cadmium 0.0277 0.373 0.404 0.0829 0.0943 0.197 0.212 0.112 0.120 0.210 0.225 0.120 0.127
Chromium 0.193 - - 0.0171 0.0505 0.345 0.539 0.270 0.368 0.096 0.151 0.076 0.103
Copper - 1.397 1.691 7.12 10.2 - - - - - - - -
Lead 0.0473 0.075 0.081 0.000038 0.000041 1.304 1.396 0.681 0.727 1.387 1.484 0.724 0.773
GL=0.8
Mercury 0.0927 - - 0.0021 0.0057 0.129 0.131 0.127 0.128 0.129 0.131 0.127 0.128
GL=0.1-0.5
Nickel 0.343 0.536 0.592 0.191 0.216 0.755 0.798 0.549 0.571 0.118 0.124 0.085 0.089
Selenium 0.156 - - 0.331 0.554 3.015 3.856 1.776 2.197 2.926 3.743 1.724 2.132
GL=1
Zinc - 31.481 37.414 8.55 1.01 - - - - - - - -
Notes
* Data requires further re-checking
1
Based on Method 1 (McGeer et al., 2003).
2
Based on Method 2 (Stantec methods used within Section 2.7.3.3).
3
Based on Method 3a.
4
Based on Method 3b.
5
Based on Method 4a.
6
Based on Method 4b.
7
Moderate and highest refer to the level of conservatism in the results presented.

Monitoring and adaptive management

It is important to note that conservative assumptions have been utilized for the metal concentrations in
water and sediment and while the methodologies used to predict metal concentrations in fish have
resulted in a range of results it can be seen that depending on the method, the predicted concentrations
for selenium, lead and mercury fall both below and above the guidelines for those metals. There is also a
wide range of predicted concentrations for the metals that do not have guidelines. It will be important to
develop and implement a fish monitoring program from the onset of operations at New Prosperity.
Sampling of resident rainbow trout and invertebrates (both benthic and pelagic) will provide a better view
of how metals are transmitted through the food web of Fish Lake. Whole body tissue burdens of rainbow
trout as well as their stomach contents should be measured. Adaptive management plans will be put in
place in order to monitor and improve upon metal uptake in fish if early measurements indicate that
corrective action is needed.
Mitigation: Lake Habitat (Aquatic and Riparian) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
The attenuation of Little Fish Lake into the TIA will occur as a result of the proposed mine, and there are
several options for the removal and subsequent relocation or disposal of the estimated 5,000 Little Fish
Lake Rainbow Trout. Taseko anticipates discussing possible options with regulatory agencies before it is
decided exactly what to do with the estimated 5,000 fish in Little Fish Lake.
Implementation of the Flow Augmentation, Habitat Enhancement and Barrier Removal compensation
element in Fish Lake tributaries (Fisheries Act Compensation Plan, Appendix 2.7.2.5-A), will mitigate the
potential indirect effects on spawning habitat in Reach 8 and Fish Lake Tributary 1. Flow augmentation
and retained habitat in Reach 8 and Fish Lake Tributary 1 will be capable of supporting a healthy
spawning population of Rainbow Trout. Implementation of this mitigation measure could also help to
maintain fishing opportunities (First Nation and recreational) in Fish Lake. Flow augmentation outside of
the spawning period is intended to compensate unavoidable losses to fish habitat. Habitat gains
associated with the implementation of this element outside of the spawning period are described in the
Fisheries Act Compensation Plan (Appendix 2.7.2.5-A). The mitigative benefits associated with
implementation of this compensation element are described here.
The primary objectives of this element, as they relate to mitigation, are to:
x Provide sufficient spawning habitat to exceed the MVP of Rainbow Trout defined as 3,800
spawning fish.
x Maintain or increase Rainbow Trout spawning and egg incubation flows (April to August)
throughout the majority of Reach 1 of Fish Lake Tributary 1 and Reach 8 of Fish Creek by
pumping (recirculating) Fish Lake water to a discharge point downstream from the main TSF
embankment.
Reed et al. (2003) estimated the MVP size for Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) to be 3,869 sexually
mature adults. This was considered a suitable MVP level for Fish Lake given that the spawner
enumeration study completed in 1997 counted a total of 14,471 spawners (Triton, 1999) and an MVP of
3,800 fish would therefore represent 25% of the existing spawning population.
The New Prosperity Mine Development plan will maintain all of the 4,250 m² of naturally occurring
spawning habitat upstream of Fish Lake and will also open up access to an additional 860 m² of spawning

habitat through barrier removal in Fish Lake Tributary 1 (see Appendix 2.7.2.5-A). The total existing
spawning habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek is estimated to be 12,300 m² which means that
approximately 42% of that baseline value will be available with the Project in place after mitigation.
The current estimate of fish population in Fish Lake is 85,000 individual Rainbow Trout including sub-
adults, juveniles, and adults. Of this total approximately 27,000 (31%) are adults and 15,000 of those are
spawners. Rainbow Trout spawners can be expected to utilize all 5,110 m2 of available spawning habitat
with the Project in place and this amount of habitat will support approximately 6,200 spawners.
If spawning habitat is considered to be the limiting factor for population of individuals, and assuming the
proportion of spawners to adult fish, juveniles, and sub-adults remains the same, then the total population
of fish in Fish Lake would eventually stabilize at 35,000 of which over 11,000 would be adult fish.
The biomass per hectare of Fish Lake is estimated to be 41.6 kg/ha. Using the current population
estimate of 85,000 fish and an area of 111 hectares for Fish Lake gives an average weight of 0.054 kg
per fish. The productivity of Fish Lake is predicted to remain within the range observed during the
baseline studies (see Appendix 2.7.2.4B-A) which, with a population of 35,000 individuals, will result in an
120% increase in average weight to 0.12 kg per fish. That weight gain would be proportional across all
age classes and result in the catch of larger individual fish. This is consistent with MFLNRO stated
objective of a fishery that supports larger fish and that would be more useful as a trophy or food source
(MOE, Benchmark Statement, 2008).
Implementation of this element will ensure there is suitable spawning habitat to exceed that required to
support the MVP for the Fish Lake Rainbow Trout population. Further, mitigative flow augmentation will
ensure critical rearing and spawning habitats remain wetted throughout the spawning, egg incubation,
and critical rearing periods.
Inlet vs. Outlet Spawners

During the 2009 review of the Prosperity project, questions were raised whether inlet spawners were
genetically distinct from outlet spawners as has been suggested for some Sockeye populations. These
questions are still considered relevant as the outlet to Fish Lake will be lost for the life-of-mine period and
would not become functional spawning habitat until infilling of the pit is complete. While inlet spawners
may be genetically distinct from outlet spawners in larger lakes/watersheds where each population is
geographically removed from the other, this is not likely the case with the Fish Lake stock where both
populations would undoubtedly co-mingle. DFO Comments on the Prosperity EIS (April 2009) quote
Hartman and Miles (2001): “provision of lake inlet or outlet spawning habitat which does not match the
genetic predisposition of the fish" may compromise the success of lake enhancement projects. The
proposed compensation element for the maintenance of genetic integrity of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout
proposes to enhance the inlet spawning tributaries. There are currently sufficient Rainbow Trout inlet
spawners in Fish Lake to exceed a minimal viable population. However, gamete collection could occur
from both the inlet and outlet areas (outlet spawners would continue to congregate at Fish Lake outlet at
the proposed flow control during the spawning period of May to June). Inlet and outlet gametes could be
incubated separately, the fry from which could be outplanted to the proposed recipient lakes. The Fish
Lake Rainbow Trout population would eventually comprise fish of inlet origin only (unless Fish Lake is
also stocked with lake outlet-produced fry from the Hanceville Hatchery).
Apart from the genetic predisposition of inlet-produced fry to migrate downstream to the lake and outlet-
produced fry to migrate upstream to the lake as noted by Hartman and Miles (2001), a preliminary review

of the literature did not produce any results that suggest that genetic differences between outlet and inlet
spawners would contribute to the genetic uniqueness or distinctness of the lake population as a whole.
Further, the primary source of Rainbow Trout gametes used for the BC Interior lakes stocking program
are from the Pennask Lake inlet stream (Pennask Creek), despite the presence of a large outlet spawning
population (50% of the spawning population; Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC website:
http://www.gofishbc.com/tips_articles/Pennask.htm). Lastly, the Fish Lake pilot gamete collection program
conducted in May 2010 by FFSBC used gravid Rainbow Trout from the lake inlet (Reach 8) and outlet
(Reaches 5 and 6) and there was no documented separation by egg/milt origin during the fertilization or
incubation periods, or during the subsequent releases of 5,018 fry into Slim Lake and 5,000 fry into Lake
6267 (summer and fall releases). As a result, both outplant lakes currently contain Fish Lake inlet and
outlet spawner genetics.
Therefore, if potential genetic differences between inlet and outlet populations are not considered
important to the BC Interior lakes stocking program or the Fish Lake gamete collection and outplanting
programs (completed by FFSBC), it is unlikely they would be considered important to the proposed
recipient lakes stocking program. As such, the removal of spawning habitats in lake-outlet reaches 5 and
6 should not be considered a factor that would compromise the genetic integrity of the Fish Lake
population. If it is determined that inlet and outlet spawners are required to maintain Fish Lake Rainbow
Trout genetic integrity, outlet spawners could be collected each spring, spawned and incubated
separately from inlet gametes, and outplanted to one of the recipient lakes.
Summary of Project Effects: Lake Habitat (Aquatic and Riparian) in Middle and Upper Fish Creek
Little Fish Lake will be attenuated into the TIA and as a result there will be compensation required for the
loss or alteration of lake habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek. This is provided for in the MMER
Compensation Plan (Appendix 2.7.2.5-B).
Implementation of the proposed mitigation strategies will reduce the instream project effects under the
jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act by 16,887 m2 resulting in a total of 30,322 m2 of habitat that requires
compensation.
Instream and Riparian Habitat in Lower Fish Creek: Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation
Project effects on Lower Fish Creek are essentially unchanged from those presented in the 2009
EIS/Application. New Prosperity will result in an a further 10% reduction (75% of baseline levels) to the
intermittent flow regime in Lower Fish Creek compared to 65% of baseline levels associated with the
previously proposed project. However, the previous assessment already determined a loss/alteration of
all available habitat (at bankful width) in Lower Fish Creek, and that has not changed with New
Prosperity. Although these effects have been previously assessed (and therefore beyond the scope of
this EIS), they have been presented again for completeness so that it is clear how effects to fish and fish
habitat were calculated.
Loss or Alteration of Instream and Riparian Habitat in Lower Fish Creek

The scope of assessment for the loss or alteration of instream and riparian habitat in Lower Fish Creek
consists of juvenile salmonids, in particular Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout and Bull Trout lotic habitat in
mainstem reaches downstream from the barrier at the Reach 3–4 break.

Baseline: Instream and Riparian Habitat in Lower Fish Creek

2.6.1.5. The following is a brief summary presented for ease of comparison.
As detailed in Volume 5 Section 3 of the March 2009 EIS/Application fish habitat in lower Fish Creek
provides limited and intermittent habitat for rearing juvenile Chinook Salmon, Steelhead (Rainbow) Trout
and Bull Trout. They were assessed because they are also potentially susceptible to environmental
effects of the Project and have different habitat requirements compared to Rainbow Trout populations.
Chinook salmon and Steelhead Trout also comprise important downstream recreational, Aboriginal and
commercial fisheries. Bull trout are a species of special concern (blue-listed) in British Columbia (BC
CDC, 2006).
Portions of lower Fish Creek affected by the Project consist of 16,371 m2 of available in-stream habitat
based on bankful channel dimensions, (Table 2.7.2.5-26). The amount of bankful habitat includes
approximately 6,080 m2 of pool, 4,915 m2 riffle and 5,375 m2 run type habitats (Baseline Report Section
2.6.1.5). During the low flow, late summer period, lower Fish Creeks provides 5,685 m2 of late summer,
critical stream flow habitat or about 33% of that during bankfull conditions.
Following spring freshet during the summer low flow period, Reach 1 and the lower section (50%) of
Reach 2 dry up completely precluding any immigration of fall-spawning species (e.g., salmon and char)
into Fish Creek from Taseko River. Reach 3 remains wetted year-round. As such, habitat in Lower Fish
Creek is not considered high quality based on temporal availability, associated loss of migratory,
spawning and egg incubation habitats, potential risk of fish stranding and increased mortality (predation,
desiccation). This is particularly relevant for juvenile Chinook which would have foraged into the lower
creek during spring high water conditions then become stranded following channel dewatering.”
Table 2.7.2.5-26 Summary of Baseline Stream Habitat Conditions in Lower Fish Creek
Bankful Channel
Riparian
Dimensions3
Fish
Reach Flow Type1 Buffer MMER vs.
Status2 Length Width Area Area
Width Fisheries
(m) (m) (m2) (m2)
(m) Act (FA)
Mainstem (Lower Fish Creek)
1 intermittent FB 744 7.2 5,357 30 44,640 FA
2 continuous FB 671 6.3 4,227 30 40,260 FA
3 continuous FB 1,212 5.6 6,787 30 72,720 FA
Totals 2,627 16,371 157,620

Effects Assessment: Instream and Riparian Habitat in Lower Fish Creek
Indirect Effects (Fisheries Act - HADD)

All 16,371 m2 of instream habitat in Lower Fish Creek will be altered as a result of the Project through flow
reductions. However, there will be no effects to riparian vegetation in the Lower Fish Creek watershed as
there will be no physical disturbance and the remaining 25% of baseline flows will ensure continued
riparian function. All effects to Lower Fish Creek watershed will be under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries
Act.

The HEP approach was used to assess the productivity of the affected habitats in Lower Fish Creek. The
procedure was completed for both Rainbow Trout and Chinook Salmon. HSI values for Rainbow Trout
are summarized in Table 2.7.2.5-22 while Chinook Salmon are summarized in Table 2.7.2.5-27. The HSI
values shown here are estimates of Chinook Salmon probability-of-use in Lower Fish Creek. However,
these estimates also consider known fish use in lower Fish Creek. For example, Chinook Salmon do not
spawn in Lower Fish Creek as reflected in Table 2.7.2.5-27 (i.e., nil probability-of-use) across all habitat
types. As these habitat types will typically support spawning Chinook to some extent (i.e., > 0.0
probability-of-use), potential productivity gains associated with implementation of the TLOC compensation
elements are predicted. Details on the derivation of the HSI values used are included in the detailed
Fisheries Act and Metal Mining Effluent Regulation (MMER) compensation plans found in Appendix
2.7.2.5- A and 2.7.2.5-B, respectively.
Table 2.7.2.5-27 Estimated Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) for Chinook Salmon in Lower Fish
Creek by Life History Stage within a Stream Habitat Type
Habitat Type Spawning Juvenile Adult Rearing Overwintering Production

Rearing
Pool 0 1.0 0 1.0 0
Riffle 0 0.75 0 0 0
Run 0 0.5 0 0.25 0
Ephemeral 0 0.1 0 0 0.25
Table 2.7.2.5-28 calculates the predicted effects (habitat units) on Chinook Salmon and Rainbow Trout in
Lower Fish Creek. Totals of 19,782 and 37,466 Chinook and Rainbow Trout habitat units are predicted to
be affected by the Project.

Table 2.7.2.5-28 Summary of Predicted Effects (Habitat Units) on Stream Habitat in Lower Fish
Creek
CH RB Total
Habitat Life History CH HSI RB HSI
Area (m2) Habitat Habitat Habitat
Type Stage Value Value
Units Units Units
Spawning 0 0.25 0 1,520 1,520
Juv. Rearing 1 1 6,079 6,079 12,158
Pool 6,079 Adult Rearing 0 1 0 6,079 6,079
Overwintering 1 1 6,079 6,079 12,158
Production 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12,158 19,757 31,915
Spawning 0 1 0 4,918 4,918
Juv. Rearing 0.75 0.75 3,689 3,689 7,377
Riffle 4,918 Adult Rearing 0 0.25 0 1,230 1,230
Overwintering 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3,689 9,837 13,525
Spawning 0 0.25 0 1,312 1,312
Juv. Rearing 0.5 0.5 2,624 2,624 5,248
Run 5,248 Adult Rearing 0 0.5 0 2,624 2,624
Overwintering 0.25 0.25 1,312 1,312 2,624
Total 3,936 7,872 11,808
Totals 21,194 19,782 37,466 57,248
Stream Flow Duration

In regards to stream flow duration, the area of each affected reach was adjusted according to the number
of months per year the habitat is functional and available to fish (i.e., wetted). Based on historic and
recent data, and within Lower Fish Creek, Reach 1 and the lower half of Reach 2 are wetted 2
months/year (17%) while the upper half of Reaches 2 and all of Reach 3 are wetted a maximum of 12
months/year (100%). Based on the annual duration of wetted channel area, the adjusted effects on
stream habitats in Lower Fish Creek are estimated at 11,925 m2.

Mitigation: Instream and Riparian Habitat in Lower Fish Creek
Fish Salvage
During the Construction and Commissioning phase, prior to any flow reductions, a comprehensive fish
salvage plan which incorporates best practices will be developed. The plan will be implemented as
required to mitigate the effects of flow reductions in Lower Fish Creek and potential fish stranding.
Summary of Potential Project Effects Following Mitigation

A total of 16,371 m2 of instream habitat will be affected by the Project in Lower Fish Creek. All effects are
considered indirect in that there will be no physical disturbance of habitat but rather alteration through
flow reduction. Effect will be temporary (life of mine) and fall under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act.
Compensation for the alteration of fish habitat in Lower Fish Creek is provided for in the Fisheries Act
Compensation Plan (Appendix 2.7.2.5-A).
Summary of Potential Effects Following Mitigation: Instream, Lake and Riparian

A summary of Project effects (Fisheries Act and MMER) for Lower, Middle, and Upper Fish Creek after
mitigation is shown in Table 2.7.2.5-29. The Fisheries Act and MMER totals represent the unavoidable
effects of the Project and are addressed by the Fisheries Act and Metal Mining Effluent Regulation
(MMER) Compensation Plans (Appendices 2.7.2.5-A and 2.7.2.5-B, respectively).
Table 2.7.2.5-29 Summary of Project Effects on Instream, Lake and Riparian Fish Habitat after
Mitigation
Habitat Loss Instream (m2) Lake (m2) Riparian (Stream

and Lake) (m2)
Fisheries Act – Direct Effects 15,139 0 199,170
Fisheries Act - Indirect Effects 31,5641 0 0
Fisheries Act Total 46,703 0 199,170
MMER – Direct Effects 20,262 66,000 195,4002
MMER – Indirect Effects 0 0 0
MMER Total 20,262 66,000 195,400
Totals 66,965 66,000 394,570
1 2 2
Includes 15,193 m associated with Middle and Upper Fish Creek and 16,371 m associated with Lower Fish Creek.
2 2 2
Includes 182,400 m associated with stream effects and 13,000 m associated with lake effects.
Details on the compensation planning and regulatory framework as well as overviews of each of the two
separate compensation plans are provided in the following section.

Residual Effects
Compensation
The principal changes compared with the previous project are retention of Fish Lake and the associated
opportunities for utilization for fishing and navigation and the removal of Prosperity Lake as a
compensation element. Administratively, the unavoidable losses of fish and fish habitat associated with
the construction and operation of a TIA will require the development of one habitat compensation plan for
MMER purposes and another plan for unavoidable HADD of fish habitat elsewhere within the Project
footprint. During the review and assessment of this project, specific details of the overall fish and fish
habitat compensation plan will be finalized in consultation with regulatory agencies. At this time it is
appropriate to provide the reader with an overview of Taseko’s current proposal for fish and fish habitat
compensation plans.
Compensation Planning
The purpose of Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (the Plan) is to demonstrate the feasibility and
scientific rationale for the successful compensation of unavoidable fish and fish habitat impacts
associated with the New Prosperity Project (the Project). As Middle and Upper Fish Creek habitats
affected by the Project support a monoculture of Rainbow Trout, the principal focus of compensation
planning will be on changes (losses) related to this species’ habitat, populations and use. Compensation
planning will also address loss of low value salmonid habitat in Lower Fish Creek.
Compensation Planning will be reflective of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Policy for the
Management of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986), as well as the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER;
Schedule 2) (Department of Justice, 2012). The EIS guidelines and DFO have explicitly indicated that the
compensation plan be presented separately in two documents: one associated with effects under the
jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act (i.e. those outside the TIA but including the embankments) and one
associated with effects under the jurisdiction of the MMER (i.e. TIA). In addition, consideration has also
been given to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO; formerly
Ministry of Environment, MOE) Benchmark Statement for fish, fish habitat, and fisheries of the Fish Lake
watershed (MOE, 2008a), and the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) as administered by
Transport Canada. Lastly, the needs of local First Nations and the public within and around the Project
were also considered.
Regulatory Framework and Policy for Fish Habitat Compensation Planning

This section outlines the legislative requirements and policies considered in developing the Fish Habitat
Compensation Plan. The regulatory setting as it relates to the overall Project is described in detail in the
EIS.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

DFO is responsible for the management of First Nation fisheries, commercial and recreational fisheries in
tidal waters, and salmon fisheries in non-tidal waters, and has the lead responsibility for fish habitat
protection under the federal Fisheries Act. Recent amendments to the Fisheries Act (April 2012) are not
expected to affect proponent requirements to compensate for the harmful alteration, disruption or

destruction of fish habitat” (HADD). Under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act any project or activity which
causes a HADD requires authorization from DFO. The federal Fisheries Act defines “fish habitats” as
those parts of the environment “on which fish depend, directly or indirectly, in order to carry out their life
processes” and defines “fish” to include all the life stages of “fish, shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals
and marine plants” (DFO, 1986). The Habitat Policy was developed pursuant to the Fisheries Act and
provides objective statements against which DFO can measure its performance in fish habitat
management (DFO, 1986). The Habitat Policy applies to all projects with the potential to “alter, disrupt or
destroy fish habitats”, and provides a framework within which these changes can be assessed.
Habitat Policy
The DFO long-term Habitat Policy objective is “to achieve an overall net gain of the productive capacity of
fish habitats” (DFO, 1986). To move toward this objective, three main goals are considered including
conservation, restoration, and fish habitat development (DFO, 1986). Conservation of fish habitat is the
first goal of the Habitat Policy which endeavours to “maintain the current productive capacity of fish
habitats supporting Canada’s fisheries resource, such that fish suitable for human consumption may be
produced” (DFO, 1986). Fish habitat conservation is implemented by using the guiding principle of “No
Net Loss” (NNL) of the productive capacity of habitats (DFO, 1986). The NNL principle is fundamental to
the habitat conservation goal where DFO strives to balance unavoidable habitat losses with habitat
replacement on a project-by-project basis (DFO, 1986).
The second goal of the Habitat Policy is fish habitat restoration: “rehabilitation of the productive capacity
of fish habitats in selected areas where economic or social benefits can be achieved through the fisheries
resource” (DFO, 1986). Restoration achieves the objectives of the Habitat Policy by increasing the
productive capacity of habitat through the restoration of damaged fish habitats.
The third goal of the Habitat Policy is fish habitat development: “improvement and creation of fish habitats
in selected areas where the production of fisheries resources can be increased for the social or economic
benefit of Canadians” (DFO, 1986). This goal can be achieved through increasing the productive capacity
of habitats by manipulating, creating or providing access to new spawning, rearing, and food producing
areas (DFO, 1986).
DFO’s preference under the Habitat Policy is to avoid HADD. However, if efforts to redesign or relocate
the Project are undertaken and residual impacts remain despite this mitigation, then compensation is
required (DFO, 1986). Compensation is defined in the Habitat Policy as:
“The replacement of natural habitat, increase in the productivity of existing habitat, or maintenance of fish
production by artificial means in circumstances dictated by social and economic conditions, where
mitigation techniques and other measures are not adequate to maintain habitats for Canada’s fisheries
resources” (DFO, 1986).
Where HADD is identified for the Project, habitat compensation under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act
will be used to achieve “no net loss” (NNL) of the productive capacity of fish habitat. DFO (1986) has
developed a hierarchy of preferences which provides guidance for compensation planning to achieve
NNL of productive capacity. Compensation planning for this Project acknowledges the DFO hierarchy of
preferences outlined below:
x Create or increase the productive capacity of like-for-like habitat in the same ecological unit at or
near the development site

x Create or increase the productive capacity of unlike habitat in the same ecological unit
x Create or increase the productive capacity of habitat in a different ecological unit, and
x As a last resort, use artificial production techniques to maintain a stock of fish, deferred
compensation or restoration of chemically contaminated sites.
Habitat “compensation elements” for the purposes of this document refer to the individual initiatives
identified to compensate for the loss of fish and fish habitat from this Project. These compensation
elements address the Habitat Policy objective of achieving an overall net gain of productive capacity by
following guidance established by the NNL principle and the hierarchy of preferences.
Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER)

The Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) was enacted in 2002 under the recommendation of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to Sections 34(2), 36(5), and 38(9) of the Fisheries Act. The
MMER was developed to regulate the deposit of mine tailings and other waste material produced during
mining operations into natural fish bearing waters; it is administered by Environment Canada.
Under Section 5(1), Authority to Deposit in Tailings Impoundment Areas (TIA):
“the owner or operator of a mine may deposit or permit the deposit of waste rock or an effluent that
contains any concentration of a deleterious substance and that is of any pH into a tailings impoundment
area that is either:
A. A water or place set out in Schedule 2, or
B. A disposal area that is confined by anthropogenic or natural structures or by both, other than a
disposal area that is, or is part of, a natural water body that is frequented by fish.”
Loss of fish habitat associated with the ponded area used for storage requires compensation which will
be in addition to the Fisheries Act compensation requirements for effects outside of the TIA. At the
request of DFO, MMER effects and associated compensation will be described in a separate
compensation plan (Appendix 2.7.2.5-B).
Section 27.1 of the MMER describes the purpose of a compensation plan is “to offset for the loss of fish
habitat resulting from the deposit of a deleterious substance into the tailings impoundment area” (TIA).
The compensation plan for the TIA must contain:
a. Description of the tailings impoundment area and the fish habitat affected by the deposit
b. A quantitative impact assessment of the deposit on the fish habitat
c. A description of the measures to be taken to offset the loss of fish habitat caused by the deposit
d. A description of the measures to be taken during the planning and implementation of the
compensation plan to mitigate any potential adverse effect on the fish habitat that could result from
the plan’s implementation
e. A description of the measures to be taken to monitor the plan’s implementation
f. A description of the measures to be taken to verify the extent to which the plan’s purpose has been
achieved

g. A description of the time schedule for the plan’s implementation, which time schedule shall provide
for the achievement of the plan’s purpose within a reasonable time, and
h. An estimate of the cost of implementing each element of the plan.
Additional Responsible Authorities (RA)

Transport Canada
Transport Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Act (TC, 1985) ensures the public right to safe and
unobstructed navigation of Canada’s waters. Navigable waters include all bodies of water that are
capable of being navigated by any type of floating vessel for transportation, recreation, or commerce. The
purpose of the NWPA is to minimize interference to navigation on navigable waters and intends to
ensures a balance between the public right to navigate and the need to build structures such as dams,
bridges, or docks.
The NWPA provides for the prohibition to build works in navigable waters, unless the works have been
approved by the Minister of Transport. In March 2009, amendments to Section 13 of the NWPA came into
force with a primary objective of streamlining the federal review process for works on navigable waters by
establishing classes of waters that are “minor” in nature and therefore not subject to application
requirements under the Act. Of the three specific classes of minor navigable waters incorporated into the
Act (Section 13) by means of the Minor Works and Waters Order, only minor navigable waters has
relevance to this Project. (The other two identified minor navigable waters are private lakes, and artificial
irrigation channels and drainage ditches).
Several mine infrastructure components identified in the new Project description, including the TSF, Fish
Lake outlet flow control structure, and the mine pit, will obstruct or otherwise have the potential to
adversely affect navigable waters in the upper Fish Creek watershed and Little Fish Lake. Reach 8 (main
TSF embankment) may be considered a minor navigable water and is not subject to NWPA approval (i.e.,
channel width is less than 3.0 m, average high-water level depth is less than 0.6 m, and there are three or
more natural obstacles). However, channel widths of Reach 6 (4.0 m, flow control structure) and Reach 5
(4.5 m, mine pit) suggest these sections may not be considered minor navigable waters and may
therefore be subject to provisions under the NWPA. Effects on navigable waters are addressed in Section
2.7.3.2.
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO)

The provincial government has primary responsibility for land and water use decisions on provincial
Crown lands and utilizes a variety of statutes to manage fish habitat and other environmental values.
Through delegated authority under the federal Fisheries Act, MFLNRO has responsibility for the
province’s non-anadromous freshwater fisheries which also include sea-run Steelhead, Cutthroat and
Dolly Varden. In this capacity, MFLNRO has the lead on freshwater fish governance, conservation, and
recreation. The licencing of freshwater recreational fishing is enabled under the Province’s Wildlife Act
MFLNRO is also responsible for providing input to DFO on provincial fishery values and fisheries
management planning in relation to commercial and recreational fisheries management decisions (MOE,
2007). MFLNRO advises DFO on fish habitat-related issues for freshwater fish, including water
management under the provincial Water Act, land use impacts related to forestry under the Forest and

Range Practices Act, and the management of riparian protection in urban areas under the Fish Protection
Act and Riparian Areas Regulations.
With respect to the Project, MFLNRO staff participated in addressing the adequacy of baseline data and
information, provided assistance in identifying a range of potential compensation opportunities to meet
the MFLNRO conservation and protection goals, and assisted in the development of the fish and fish
habitat compensation framework and plan review (MFLNRO Meeting in William Lake, December 2011).
The compensation measures introduced by this Plan are guided by the aims of the Freshwater Fisheries
Program Plan, the regional Small Lakes Management Strategy, and the MFLNRO Benchmark Statement
as detailed in the following sections. MFLNRO has indicated it will work with DFO to assist Taseko in the
development and implementation of this Plan.
Freshwater Fisheries Program Plan

One of the five corporate goals of the provincial government is to make “British Columbia’s fisheries
management the best, bar none” and, to achieve this goal, a comprehensive Freshwater Fisheries
Program Plan (FFPP) was developed. The Freshwater Fisheries Program is developed and delivered
through the Environmental Stewardship Division (ESD) and the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC
(FFSBC), a non-profit organization previously part of the MFLNRO. The ESD, while supported by the
other divisions within the MFLNRO, has the overall responsibility and ownership for the Freshwater
Fisheries Program (excerpt from MOE, 2007).
Under the mandate of the ESD, MFLNRO has developed a FFPP providing provincial guidance and
outlining the strategic direction for freshwater fisheries management in the province. The ESD is
responsible for administering the FFPP with support from FFSBC, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ecosystems
Branch, Parks and Protected Areas Branch, and the Regional Operations. The MFLNRO regional
operations provide the on-the-ground delivery of the FFPP and act as the main interface between
stakeholders and the agency. The regional operations also provide support to projects (e.g., restoration,
support to stewardship groups) and provide advice to agencies (excerpt from MOE, 2007).
Objectives of the FFPP pertaining to the Project are (MOE, 2008a):
x Conserve wild fish and their habitats, and
x Optimize recreational opportunities based on fishery resources.
Small Lakes Management Strategy

As part of its Regional Objectives, MFLNRO, Cariboo Region, has developed a Small Lakes Management
Strategy to “guide assessment and development of economically viable small lake fisheries for the region”
(MOE, 2008a). The goals of the Small Lake Management Strategy include (MOE, 2008a):
x Increase angler participation while ensuring the long-term sustainability of wild stocks
x Promote stocked lake fisheries
x Provide a diversity of opportunities to ensure quality of experience for all anglers
x Evaluate angler preferences for stocked lake fisheries

x Rationalize lake-specific management plans and stocking programs to reflect angler preference
and deliver reasonable return on investment, and
x Simplify fishery regulations.

The Small Lake Management Strategy has to date focused on lakes in the region which support, or are
capable of supporting, fisheries that contribute to the stability and diversity of the regional economy and
opportunities for First Nation fisheries (MOE, 2008a). The Fish Lake fishery contributes a small increment
to the regional economic benefit and as such has not yet been included in the Small Lake Management
Strategy. MFLNRO therefore produced a Benchmark Statement, specifically for the Prosperity Project, to
provide a regional objective statement for Fish and Little Fish lakes to be used for mitigation and
compensation planning (MOE, 2008a).
Benchmark Statement
In August 2008, MOE prepared a Benchmark Statement with regard to the fish, fish habitat, and fisheries
of Fish and Little Fish lakes in the Taseko watershed (MOE, 2008a). In recent discussions with MFLNRO
staff (December 19, 2011), it was determined that the general intent of the 2008 Benchmark Statement
was still relevant and therefore will continue to guide habitat compensation planning for the New
Prosperity Project with respect to MFLNRO objectives.
The Benchmark Statement recommends there should be a commitment to implement compensation
measures that are effective in augmenting MFLNRO fishery management initiatives, to provide enhanced
First Nations and public fishing opportunities in small lakes of the Chilko/Taseko watershed (MOE,
2008a). MFLNRO requires the compensation measures to be effective for at least the period of time that
either: the lake and fishery does not exist due to mining activities; or, replacement habitat is not fully
functional in delivery of a fishery (MOE, 2008a). The Benchmark Statement also communicates the
stewardship objectives of the MFLNRO (Cariboo Region) in respect to the fish, fish habitat, and fisheries
of Fish and Little Fish lakes. It also establishes the significance of the two lakes and their fisheries in a
regional context, and provides a point of reference for mitigation and compensation planning for this
Project.
The Benchmark Statement indicates that regional management initiatives for Fish and Little Fish lakes
and associated stream habitat should result in the following (MOE, 2008a):
x Maintenance of the genetic line exhibited in the trout population of the Fish Lake system
x Lake and stream environments of similar or better productive capacity for trout as provided by the
Fish Lake system now
x A healthy, self-sustaining trout population, and
x A trout fishery for First Nations and the public of at least similar character to what is supported by
Fish Lake under current conditions.
First Nations and Public Input

First Nations consultation is the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments with the
proponent involvement as part of the assessment process of major projects in BC. First Nations
participated along with MOE (now MFLNRO) in identifying potential areas suitable for habitat

compensation in the development of compensation elements during the environmental assessment for
the Prosperity Project. Some First Nations and stakeholder consultation has occurred as part of the
ongoing development of the Project, and it is anticipated further input on the compensation elements and
mitigation measures will be received from First Nations and the public as planning proceeds. This is
consistent with the MFLNRO’s guiding principle under its Freshwater Fisheries Program Plan that “First
Nations and stakeholder interests and preferences should be explicitly addressed in fisheries
management, restoration, and enhancement plans” (MOE, 2007), and the requirements of the EIS
Guidelines.
Elements of the Plans may be undertaken prior to initiation of construction activities to minimize potential
short-term temporal losses of habitat productive capacity between habitat losses from construction and
effective functionality of the habitat compensation. This will be a preferred strategy wherever it can be
achieved as it will provide confidence to Taseko and the Regulatory Agencies the habitat works are
functioning as planned.
Although the current project arrangement results in a notable reduction in effects to fish and fish habitat,
the detailed alternatives assessment as described in the EIS determined it would not be feasible to
relocate, redesign, or otherwise completely mitigate the Project so as to avoid a HADD. As a result
compensation plans have been developed.
In addition to these primary objectives, components of additional value that do not fit under the umbrella
of DFO’s Policy but which are of inherent value to the region are also being considered to address the
goals of the other RA’s. These include:
x Maintaining productive capacity of Fish Creek watershed habitat
x Maintaining genetic integrity of Fish Creek watershed Rainbow Trout, and
x Maintaining First Nation and recreational fishing opportunities.

Achieving No Net Loss for the scope and nature of the effects described earlier require more than one
compensation element and a number of these elements will need to be located outside of the local study
area (LSA). This is because there is not adequate area or resources on site which could accommodate
compensation projects of a scale to offset impacts. In addition, the following guiding principles will be
used to assess the adequacy of each compensation element:
x Quantitative and measurable over time
x Demonstrated technical feasibility based on experience and proven techniques as described in

manuals and guidelines
x Adequate funding for implementation, follow-up and monitoring for success, long-term
management and maintenance, and
x Feasible, practical and achievable.

In accordance with the EIS Guidelines development and implementation of compensation plans will
address the need to minimize time delays between loss of habitat productive capacity, any uncertainty in
the replacement habitats ability to function as intended and the extent to which compensation measures
are demonstrated to be biologically sound, reasonable and based upon practical and proven techniques.
Accordingly, the compensation plans will be finalized in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies
as required to comply with legislation and to achieve No Net Loss of the productive capacity of fish habitat
and in consideration of provincial goals and objectives and Aboriginal interests. Figure 2.7.2.5-3 shows

the locations of all identified mitigation sites and compensation elements for effects under the jurisdiction
of MMER and Fisheries Act.
Compensation Overview - Fisheries Act 35(2)

Direct and indirect effects of the Project outside of the TIA will result in the loss of 46,703 m2 of stream
habitat (following mitigation) equivalent to 106,720 stream habitat units (taking into account both Rainbow
Trout and Chinook Salmon). In addition, 199,170 m2 of riparian habitat will be lost. These unavoidable
losses will be compensated for by implementing compensation elements as outlined in the Fisheries Act
compensation plan (Appendix 2.7.2.5-A).
The Fisheries Act Compensation Plan addresses potential Project effects on fish and fish habitat
associated with the New Prosperity Project Description (February 2011) outside of the tailings
impoundment area (TIA). The Plan comprises elements located on- and off-site and as such will have
potential positive benefits for residents throughout the Chilcotin Plateau. The Plan is specific to Rainbow
Trout and other regionally important species (Steelhead Trout, Bull Trout, Sockeye Salmon, and Chinook
Salmon), and utilizes a combination of the first three levels of the preferences hierarchy described in the
Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO, 1986) to achieve no net loss of productive capacity.
The Plan differs from the 2009 version in that it contains a greater number and diversity of low risk,
technically feasible elements, as opposed to a single large element. This was allowed for through the
conservation of key ecological components of the Fish Creek watershed (in particular Fish Lake and
associate tributary spawning and rearing habitats) and an overall reduction in Project effects by 39%. The
strategy behind implementation of a variety of compensation element types and objectives for several
species and over a wider geographic area will maximize the overall likelihood of success and minimize
the risk associated with implementation of fewer elements over a smaller geographic area.
Elements of the plan include:
1. Enhancement of Fish Lake tributaries through barrier removal, habitat enhancement, and conversion of
seasonal habitat into perennial habitat;
2. Fish passage restoration at 15 road crossings in the region;
3. Upgrades to existing diversion structures in the Haines Creek and Elkin Creek watersheds;
4. Riparian reclamation.
Some key benefits of the plan include:
x The enhancement of Rainbow Trout habitat and distribution both within the Fish Creek watershed
and throughout the region
x Ensure sufficient spawning habitat is maintained to exceed the minimum viable population (MVP)
x An increase in the productivity of habitats that will also benefit Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout,
both of which maintain cultural, recreational, commercial, and ecological importance within the
region and provincially
x Elements that are consistent with the first, second and third levels of DFO’s hierarchy of
preferences for compensation habitat, and

x Timelines of implementation that will ensure the elements are constructed and that the goals of
each are achieved prior to the effects occurring.
Implementation of the Fisheries Act Compensation Plan elements will provide 307,546 m2 instream and
216,000 m2 riparian habitat resulting in compensation ratios of 6.6:1 and 1.1:1, respectively. The
proposed compensation plan therefore addresses the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction
(HADD) of fish habitat as a result of the Project outside of the TIA.
Compensation Overview - MMER Schedule 2 TIA

A separate compensation plan has also been developed to address Project effects associated with
Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER, 2002) to offset all adverse effects on fish
habitat associated with the tailings impoundment area (aquatic and interior beach areas; Appendix
2.7.2.5-B). Direct effects of the Project associated with the TIA will result in the loss of 20,262 m 2 of
Rainbow Trout stream habitat equivalent to 23,738 habitat units. The TIA will also result in the loss of
66,000 m2 Rainbow Trout lake habitat (Little Fish Lake), equivalent to 118,140 lake habitat units. These
unavoidable losses will be compensated for by implementing the Taseko Lake Off-Channel (TLOC)
compensation element shown in Figure 2.7.2.5-3 and outlined in detail in Appendix 2.7.2.5-B.
The TLOC habitat compensation element focuses on the creation of new instream and riparian habitat for
Rainbow/Steelhead as well as for Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout, all of which maintain cultural,
recreational, commercial, and ecological importance within the region and provincially. As the TLOC will
replace Rainbow Trout lake and stream habitat with Rainbow Trout (and other species) stream habitat
outside of the Fish Creek ecological unit, its implementation will be consistent with the third (3rd) level of
DFO’s hierarchy of preferences for compensation habitat (like-for-unlike in a different ecological unit).
Implementation of the TLOC addresses the requirements of Schedule 2 of the MMER and intends to
addresses the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction (HADD) of fish habitat as a result of the TIA.
The assessment and compensation for direct effects associated with other mine infrastructure
components and indirect downstream effects of the TIA embankment and water management activities
are also guided by federal legislation, as well as provincial legislation, acts, policies, plans, and strategies,
most notably:
x DFO Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat and the principle of No Net Loss of productive
capacity
x TC’s Navigable Waters Protection Act (1985), as it relates to the potential loss of the public right
to safe navigation in Little Fish Lake and upper Fish Creek, and
x MFLNRO, Benchmark Statement objectives (2008a) that requires the Project to maintain the
genetic integrity of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout and fishing opportunities (First Nation and
recreational).
The proposed MMER compensation plan will result in a gain of 20,939 m2 of instream habitat and
204,600 m2 of riparian habitat. This will result in compensation ratios of 2.01:1 and 2.0:1, respectively. In
addition approximately 5.47 ha of pool-type habitat will be created to off-set the loss of Little Fish Lake
(6.6 ha) resulting in a compensation ratio of 0.8:1. The MMER plan will therefore address the harmful
alteration, disruption, and destruction (HADD) of fish habitat as a result of the Project within the TIA

Combined, the Fisheries Act and MMER compensation plans will result in a net gain of 281,781 m2 of
stream habitat (gain of 5.2:1) and 221,430 m2 of riparian habitat (gain of 1.6:1) and therefore will ensure
that there is no net loss in productive capacity associated with the Project.
Components of Cultural, Regional and Provincial Value

In addition to the compensation elements associated with the Fisheries Act and MMER compensation
plans, several additional components have also been included that provide cultural, regional and
provincial value. These “additional value components” include:
x Re-Commissioning of the Hanceville Hatchery
x The stocking of two regional lakes with Fish Lake genetic stock, and
x Opening access to several regional lakes for public and First Nation’s fisheries.
An overview map showing the location of each of the compensation elements (Fisheries Act and MMER)
as well as the components of cultural, regional and provincial value is provided in Figure 2.7.2.5-3. Details
on each of the additional value components are provided below.

Figure 2.7.2.5-3
Overview map of proposed
compensation, mitigation,
Figure
and additional valueX-X
components
Figure Title
LEGEND
Cultural and Regional Value Components
Produced by:SA XX
Verified by: DW
XX
Date: July
February XX, 2012
24, 2012
1. Re-Commissioning of the Hanceville Hatchery

The location of the Hanceville Hatchery is shown in Figure 2.7.2.5-4.
Rationale and Objectives

The re-commissioning of the Hanceville Hatchery and fish culture activities will address MFLNRO
Benchmark Statement objectives and benefit the community as follows:
1. The facility will provide capacity for gamete incubation and fry rearing of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout,
and in association with fry outplanting to barren lakes will ensure the genetic integrity of that stock.
2. The facility will provide opportunities for First Nation and community employment, education, and
research within the region with potential community socioeconomic benefits and partnerships.
3. The facility may provide for the opportunity to outplant fry of Fish Lake origin to other fish bearing
and non-fish bearing lakes in the region in support of MFLNRO’s small lakes management planning,
to create or augment First Nation and recreational fisheries.
Fish culture is known to be technically feasible, biologically sound, and cost effective for the life of the
Project and beyond.
Element Description
The Hanceville Hatchery is located approximately 70 km west of Williams Lake on a 108 ha ranch owned
by the Province. The Hatchery is easily accessible from a gravel road system connected to Highway 20,
near Lee’s Corner. The Hatchery facilities were constructed about 25 years ago and consist of a simple
post and beam wooden building enclosing seven large fish rearing troughs, three vertical tray incubators,
and other fish culture equipment. This facility is currently not in use, but has the capacity to produce 1.6
million juvenile fish (80,000 fry/y times 20 years) during life-of-mine.
In 2008, Taseko retained the services of the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC (FFSBC) to review the
current condition of the existing MFNRO Hanceville Hatchery and other fish culture options to determine
the technical feasibility, benefits, and costs of producing Fish Lake gametes. The results of this
assessment are provided in a report titled: An Assessment of the Hanceville Hatchery as a Rainbow Trout
Fry Production Facility, Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC, June 20, 2008.
The water supply for the hatchery originates at a spring located about 300 m upstream of the hatchery.
Water is diverted from the spring pond into a collection box which then flows by gravity through a plastic
waterline to the hatchery facility. The spring water supply flows year round at approximately 2,800 L/min
and at a fairly consistent 11 to 15°C. All previously tested water quality characteristics have shown the
water supply to be suitable for fish culture needs. After passing through the hatchery, water is discharged
into an adjacent settling pond and then continues downstream via a ditch and creek toward the Chilcotin
River. Three nearby ranch operations may utilize this discharged water for irrigation purposes by
agreement with MFLNRO.
For the hatchery to be utilized, a number of key design features will need to be constructed as follows:
x Replacing the hatchery building to meet current building code including a new concrete floor,
upgraded site access and surrounding area
x Upgrading the electrical system to meet code requirements

x Upgrading the hatchery water source intake and protecting it from access by wildlife, cattle and
others
x Refurbishing, upgrading and installing new fish culture equipment as needed to meet new
regulations and make use of new technologies, and
x Providing for seasonal staff accommodation, including sewage management.
x Seasonal staff and supply requirements have been identified to run the hatchery facility.

Figure 2.7.2.5-4
FigureHatchery
Hanceville X-X
Figure Title
site Overview
LEGEND
Produced by: SAXX

Verified by:DW
XX
Date: July
February XX, 2012
24, 2012
The re-commissioning of the Hanceville Hatchery will require a number of statutory permits and
approvals. The Federal/Provincial Introductions and Transfers Committee must approve the culture and
movement of fish in British Columbia. Key elements of the planning and assessment for obtaining
approval to move gametes into a facility and to produce fish include at least a one-year full Schedule 2
fish health assessment.
As Fish Lake gametes have been successfully transferred to and incubated at the Clearwater Hatchery in
2010 and 2011, and released into Slim Lake and Lake 6267 those same years, the initial permitting
requirements have been addressed. Further permitting and fish health assessments, pursuant to Fish
Health Protection Regulations - Manual of Compliance, Miscellaneous Special Publication 31 (DFO,
1984) will be determined in consultation with DFO, MFLNRO, and associated agencies.
A fish health assessment was completed by the FFSBC laboratory in Nanaimo on both Fish Lake inlet
and outlet recently-spawned adults and newly-emerged fry. In summary, the results from the Fish Lake
health assessment detected the presence of enteric redmouth disease (ERM; Yersinia ruckeri), which is a
listed “pathogen of concern” under Schedule II of the Fish Health Protection Regulation. The detection of
a pathogen of concern will likely raise a concern with the Introductions and Transfers Committee. Despite
the detection of ERM in the Fish Lake Rainbow Trout sampled in 2008, 100% of samples (87 carcasses/
tissue and 37 ovarian fluid) collected in the 2010 broodstock capture program tested negative for ERM,
as well as IHNV, IPNV, VHSV and any filterable replicating agents (FFSBC, unpubl. File data 2010). As
such, discussions will need to occur with MFLNRO to determine the extent to which this pathogen is of
concern in their region. As well, Taseko Mines Ltd. will follow the application guidelines and advice from
FFSBC and MFLNRO.
The MFLNRO regulates the use of surface waters and the discharge of hatchery wastewater to the
environment. MFLNRO is licenced under the Water Act to use up to 1 cubic foot per minute (1,800 L/min)
of the total of 2,800 L/min spring water supply for fish culture purposes at the Hanceville Hatchery. As of
June 2008, this licence was held in good standing and available for continued hatchery use.
The reconstruction and upgrade of the Hanceville Hatchery will require adherence to, and inspection by,
the relevant local regional district and provincial health building and electrical authorities.
Follow-Up and Monitoring

Follow-up and monitoring of the re-commissioned Hanceville Hatchery will require, at a minimum:
x Annual fish health assessments, and
x Water quality and quantity daily monitoring.
Further (Pre-Implementation) Information Requirements

Further consultation will be required between Taseko Mines Ltd. and regulatory authorities regarding
stocking strategies, monitoring of recipient lakes and biological (e.g., growth rate and survival) and
chemical (e.g., water quality) standards and criteria.
As well, current cost estimates will be required for the hatchery purchase, infrastructure upgrades,
materials, construction equipment, and labour and operational costs (broodstock collection/egg-takes,
hatchery personnel, monitoring of recipient lakes)

2. Rainbow Trout Fry Outplanting (Fish Lake Origin) for Genetic Integrity
The location of genetic refugia lakes identified to date (Lake 6267 and Slim Lake) are shown in Figure
2.7.2.5-5a and -5b.

As with the Hanceville Hatchery mitigation measure, the rationale for Fish Lake fed fry outplanting to
recipient lakes to maintain the genetic integrity of that stock will address, in part, the relevant MNLNRO
Benchmark Statement objective. The primary objective for the implementation of this compensation
element will be to:
x Annually transfer and release into identified recipient lakes, healthy Fish Lake Rainbow Trout fry
produced at the Hanceville Hatchery.
Element Description
Although the New Project Design is predicted to maintain in excess of the minimal viable population of
Fish Lake Rainbow Trout throughout the life-of-mine and beyond, a recipient lake stocking program is still
required to provide survival assurances for the Fish Lake stock.
To assist with the implementation of this compensation element, MFLNRO provided Taseko Mines with a
list of 10 candidate lakes in the Chilcotin-Cariboo area (2008) as potentially suitable to provide genetic
refugia to sustain a representative portion of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout (Table 2.7.2.5-30). The lakes
identified on the list were subsequently evaluated for habitat suitability, absence/presence of fish species,
and connectivity to fish bearing waters. From that evaluation, six lakes were excluded from field
assessments (Koster Lake, Lake 20, Kondor Lake, Ducharme Lake, Unnamed Lake 00118TASR, and
Joyce Lake). Water quality and biotic field assessments (e.g., winter oxygen levels, invertebrate
production, and fish presence/absence) conducted on the remaining four lakes concluded that Lake 6267
was the most suitable candidate in which to sustain the genetic integrity of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout. Slim
Lake was later added as a recipient lake due to favourable characteristics and proximity to Fish Lake. As
both lakes have no self-sustaining capability due to the absence of inlets or outlets, an annual fry stocking
program using Fish Lake gametes from the re-commissioned Hanceville Hatchery will be required to
sustain the population. The number of fish outplanted to Lake 6267 (and other recipient lakes as/if
required by MFLNRO and FFSBC) would conform to the guidelines for ensuring the stock would
represent and maintain the genetic integrity of the Fish Lake stock.

Table 2.7.2.5-30 List of Candidate Lakes for Rainbow Trout Outplanting and Maintenance of Fish
Lake Genetic Line
Lake Area General Description

(Ha)
FFSBC Lakes, September 2010
Koster Lake 20 Rainbow Trout (RB) present, shallow, low dissolved oxygen (DO).
Not suitable.
Lake 6267 25 Stocked in 2010. Winter DO/chemistry in 2011. Assessed for
survival 2011.
Rosse Lake 49.8 Coarse fish present, high pH, low productivity. Not suitable.
Joyce Lake 53.2 Salmonids present. Not suitable
00118TASR 45.6 Low DO. Not suitable.
Ducharme 28.6 Connectivity to fish bearing water, low DO. Not suitable.
Lake #20 19.2 Connectivity to fish bearing water, low DO. Not suitable.
00849CHIR 15.1 Columbia Spotted Frog (listed amphibian species) present.
Kondor Lake 11.2 RB/Bull Trout present. Not suitable.
Other Potential Candidate Lakes
Slim Lake 29 Stocked in 2010. Winter DO/chemistry in 2011. Assessed for

survival 2011.
Nuntzi Lakes 275 Chain of 24 non-fish bearing lakes; relatively inaccessible (would
need existing road improvements; access seems to have improved
in past 15 years [Google earth]); good overwintering potential and
WQ; 6 lakes are sink holes, and 2 are alkali; rest have an area of
273 ha; the development of instream spawning and juvenile rearing
habitat will be critical (creek habitat) to be self-sustaining.
Vick Lake Too shallow; would require impounding the lake outlet to increase
depth and perimeter; Not suitable.
Lake 6267
Lake 6267 (Figure 2.7.2.5-5a) is at an elevation of 1,266 m and is located approximately 40 km northeast
from 100 Mile House in the Englemann Spruce/Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone (Cena, 2010). The lake
is accessed via the Canim-Hendrix road and the Boss Creek Forest Service road. Vehicle access to Lake
6267 is difficult as the road is grown over with willow and alder saplings and ends 350 m from the lake
(FFSBC unpubl. file data, 2011). The lake has a maximum depth of about 13 m with a perimeter of 4.1 km
and surface area of 25 ha. The lake is approximately 1,200 m in length and maximum width of 420 m. An
inventory of Lake 6267 (water quality, bathymetry, and fish assessment) determined that dissolved winter
oxygen levels would be sufficient for fish overwinter survival and the lake was barren of fish (ARC, 2000).
Approximately 5,000 Fish Lake origin fry (produced at the Clearwater Hatchery) were released into Lake
6267 in October 2010 and in late June 2011 (total 10,373 fry outplanted). A field assessment of the 2010
release was conducted in June 2011 (prior to the 2011 outplant) and concluded there was good
overwinter survival (FFSBC unpubl. file data, 2011). There are no historic records of fish presence or
stocking in Lake 6267 prior to 2010.

Slim Lake
Slim Lake (Figure 2.7.2.5-5b) is at an elevation of 1,347 m and is located about 7 km north of the Project
site. The lake has no inlets or outlets and is located in the upper Tête Angela Creek drainage. The lake
drainage is about 500 ha with a surface area of 28.7 ha and a volume of 1,611,000 m3. With a shoal area
of 13 ha, a maximum depth of 14 m and mean depth of 5.6 m, the potential for winterkill is not significant
(Hallam Knight Piesold Ltd., 1995).
This lake was stocked with Rainbow Trout in 1996 and 1998 and in 2004 and 2006. Slim Lake was also
stocked with 2000 AF3N (all female triploid) stock which are considered non-reproductive. In October
2010, approximately 5,018 Fish Lake origin fry (produced at the Clearwater Hatchery) were released into
Slim Lake. An overwinter survival assessment of that outplant has not been conducted, but several larger
Rainbow Trout (1+ kg) were captured by gillnet during a related study in 2011 (R. Whitehouse, Triton,
pers. comm., 2012).

Figure 2.7.2.5-5a
Rainbow Trout fry
Figure
outplanting andX-X
recipient
lake mitigation
Figure Title
measure Lake 6267
LEGEND
Produced by: SAXX

Verified by: DW
XX
Date: July
February XX, 2012
24, 2012
Figure 2.7. 2.5-5b.
Rainbow Trout fry
outplanting
FigureandX-X
recipient
lake mitigation measure
Figure Title
Slim Lake
LEGEND
Produced by:SA XX
Verified by: DW
XX
Date: July
February XX, 2012
24, 2012

It is proposed that stocking and monitoring of both lakes (Slim and 6267) continue through the life-of-
mine. Further, opportunities to enhance each lake to support a self-sustaining population should be
investigated.
A follow-up program will be developed and implemented to assess the accuracy of environmental effects
predictions and effectiveness of the lakes outplanting mitigation measure to ensure that the genetic
integrity of the Fish Lake stock is maintained until such time that Fish Lake is fully functioning (i.e.,
maintaining a self-sustaining population of Rainbow Trout without spawning flow augmentation in upper
Fish Creek watershed). The program would include annual assessments (fish health, growth rate, size-at-
age, population size, winterkill assessments) of Rainbow Trout populations in all recipient lakes.
Remedial or adaptive management measures would be applied (e.g., change in the number of outplants
as/if required to correspond with habitat capabilities, discontinuation of stocking a particular lake)
following any evaluation that determines a reduction in functionality of a recipient lake based on changes
to one or more pre-established measureable parameters.

The identification and stocking of additional recipient lakes to maintain the genetic integrity of Fish Lake
Rainbow Trout may be required, pending further discussion with MFLNRO and FFSBC.
The identification of additional recipient lakes and the development of strategies to meet MFLNRO
Benchmark Statement objective for the maintenance of First Nation and recreational fishing opportunities
will also require further discussion/consultation with regulatory authorities.. Based on the results of the
2010 Fish Lake broodstock/Clearwater Hatchery program, 262 gravid Rainbow Trout pairs (125,000 eyed
eggs) produced an estimated 114,000 fry (egg-to-fry survival rate of about 92%), slightly greater than the
current capacity of the Hanceville Hatchery. Should the current broodstock collection/outplant strategy
continue at Lake 6267 and Slim Lake (5,000 fry/y to each lake), about 100,000 fed fry of Fish Lake origin
would be available to outplant to other recipient lakes for genetic maintenance and/or fishing opportunity
purposes.
3. Development of Access Roads and Camping Facilities

Rainbow Trout fishing (recreational and Traditional Use) opportunities in Fish and Little Fish lakes will be
affected by mine development. While Little Fish Lake will be incorporated completely into the TSF design,
recreational angler and Traditional Use may be reduced in Fish Lake due to its close proximity to mining
operations, traffic, and noise. Although fishing opportunity in Fish Lake will still exist (i.e., Rainbow Trout
will still be present in Fish Lake during and following operations), it is uncertain whether angler effort (388
to 548 angler-days, 1993 to 1997 unpubl. file data) and Traditional Use would remain at pre-construction
levels for reasons noted above.

The implementation of this mitigation measure addresses MFLNRO Benchmark Statement objective for
the maintenance of First Nation and recreational fishing opportunities.

Element Description
Pursuant to MFLNRO Benchmark Statement objective, the Project-related loss of First Nation Traditional
Use and recreational fishing opportunity will need to be compensated. Transport Canada (TC) has also
specified that they will be looking for compensation for loss of safe boating opportunities. One potential
approach to address both is through upgrading existing roads or creation of new access roads to lakes
which currently support Rainbow Trout (either naturally occurring or stocked populations). As
recommended earlier, stocking of both Lake 6267 and Slim Lake with fry of Fish Lake origin could be
continued. Road access to both lakes is difficult; however, with probable minimal upgrades to existing
Forest Service roads (FSRs) and spur roads, as well as the construction of short sections (0.2 to 0.4 km)
of new road, both lakes could be made easily accessible (see Figures 2.7.2.5-5a and 2.7.2.5-5b).
However, it should be noted that further discussions with MFLNRO are required to confirm whether the
primary function of Lake 6267 and Slim Lake would be the maintenance of Fish Lake Rainbow Trout
population, and if improved road access and increased angling opportunities at these lakes would sustain
put-and-take fisheries.
Other potential road upgrades/new access road creation opportunities exist for the Eleven Sisters chain
of lakes located along the Taseko Lake Road (Figure 2.7.2.5-6). The chain consists of seven named and
four unnamed lakes with a total area of 280 ha. The chain is part of the Haines Creek watershed which is
over 50 km in length. Six of the lakes have previously been stocked with Rainbow Trout (Janice, Norma,
Lac Le Lièvre, Ruby, Roxanne, Pamela, and Pearl lakes) and one (Lac Le Lièvre) was also stocked with
eastern Brook Trout.
The upgrade/construction of access roads and camp sites at the Eleven Sisters Lakes could be
implemented independently or in association with the upgrading of the Haines Creek Diversion
infrastructure (See Fisheries Act Compensation Plan, Appendix 2.7.2.5-A).

To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed access roads and camping facilities , an angler interview
follow-up program for recreational angling and traditional use could be conducted throughout the life-of-
mine and early post-closure at Slim Lake, Lake 6267, Eleven Sisters Chain of Lakes, and unidentified
lakes, as a basis for adaptive management. Although recent discussions with MFLNRO (Williams Lake,
December 19 2011) indicated that this mitigation measure should aim to increase First Nation use and
recreational fishing opportunities, and not necessarily focus on catch success (CPUE), structured,
stratified creels surveys may not be required. However, a modified creel survey based, in part, on the
previous program described in the Baseline Conditions for Fish and Fish Habitat section of the
EIS/Application may be required to evaluate the success of the new compensation-related opportunities
provided at the relevant recipient lakes.
A modified creel program to determine the success of recreational angling and traditional use
opportunities at recipient lakes that were stocked (Fish Lake Rainbow Trout origin) and/or received
new/upgraded road access could be measured through angler awareness and angler effort interviews
during the life-of-mine and early post-closure. Should there be unexpected changes in the measurable
parameter values compared to baseline values, or existing values in adjacent, non-affected lakes with
similar use, adaptive management strategies (e.g., increase/decrease in stocking numbers or biomass,
signage showing stocked lakes, advertising in local newspapers) could be implemented as required.

Construction compliance monitoring will be conducted for new and upgraded access roads and camping
facilities for compensation lakes to ensure the roads are built to specification using appropriate standards
and guidance documents (e.g., Forests Practices Code of BC June 2002; Forest Road Engineering
Guidebook).

Further discussions with/between Taseko Mines Ltd. and appropriate regulatory authorities will be
required.

Figure 2.7. 2.5-6.
Eleven Sisters Lakes road
accessFigure X-X area
and recreational
compensation element
Figure Title
LEGEND
Produced by:SA XX
Verified by:SA
XX
Date: February XX, 2012
July 24, 2012
Achievement of Compensation Goals

Development of compensation plans consider the legislative requirements and policy outlined above, the
timeframes for compensation (Pre-Implementation, construction, operations, closure) and the inclusion of
other essential aspects of compensation planning (defined below) which together aim to present a
scientifically sound plan supported within the regulatory setting. Consultation with regulators is an
important aspect to the development and identification of compensation elements and it is recognized as
a critical path item for compensation planning.
Taseko has identified a number of potential compensation elements that, in aggregate, will achieve No
Net Loss. The nature of these compensation elements are summarized below and are located within the
local and regional study areas of the new Project. The ultimate selection and implementation of
compensation elements will reflect further discussions and consultation with appropriate regulatory
agencies.
The nature of the compensation elements are such that there will be additional benefits accrued that are
not necessarily limited to achieving No Net Loss of habitat productive capacity including:
x Maintaining the genetic integrity of Fish Lake rainbow trout
x Preserving heritage and archaeological values of islands and adjacent perimeter lands of Fish
Lake
x Maintaining recreational and First Nations’ fishing opportunities
x Maintaining navigation opportunities on Fish Lake, and
x Providing the potential for collaborative project development in the local and regional project
areas to benefit fish and compensate for habitat impacts.

The above discussion provides an overview of the proposed fish and fish habitat compensation as it
relates to the requirements under Schedule 2 of the MMER for a TIA and the HADD [Section 35(2)] of the
Fisheries Act. In addition to these regulatory provisions, details are also provided on the proposed
“additional value” components that are of cultural, regional and Provincial benefit. Taseko is prepared and
committed to working with Provincial agencies, First Nations, the public and other interested parties to
provide meaningful projects and initiatives for benefits beyond the strict requirements of the Fisheries Act.
For example, Taseko has met with personnel from MFLRNO to discuss regional issues and priorities that
Taseko could participate in the development and delivery of programs to improve fishing opportunities.
The underlying principles behind this assistance are articulated in the MFLRNO Benchmark Statement for
objectives pertaining to the management of rainbow trout fisheries in the region.
The Benchmark Statement also includes a commitment to implement compensation measures effective in
augmenting the MFLRNO’s fishery management objectives and provide enhanced First Nations and
public fishing opportunities in small lakes within the Chilko/Taseko watershed. Taseko recognizes it is in a
position to participate and perhaps manage some of these initiatives that will have broader benefits than
just those associated with the regulatory and Fisheries Act aspect of the compensation plans.
One of the five goals of the Provincial government is to make “British Columbia’s fisheries management
the best bar none” and to achieve this goal a comprehensive Freshwater Fisheries Program Plan (FFPP)
was developed. This program is delivered through the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC and Taseko
will assist and contribute to this program where it can.

It is anticipated that habitat compensation and mitigation elements will compensate for losses and
alteration of fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing habitat associated with the Project. Assuming that
substantial aspects of the Compensation Plan are successful, the residual environmental effects of the
Project on Lower, Middle and Upper Fish Creek instream habitat is not expected to be significant.
The residual environmental effects are predicted to be regional in geographic extent, permanent in
duration, with no requirement to be reversible. The implementation of compensation elements associated
with the loss of Rainbow Trout stream habitat can be initiated immediately, pending further baseline or
design requirements, to achieve temporal gains in productive capacity (i.e., compensation plan
implementation can begin pre-project construction) and to eliminate any potential temporal losses in
productivity.
Based on a review of the projects identified on the Inclusion List, none of past, present or reasonably-
foreseeable projects and activities in the RSA are expected to result in temporary or permanent losses of
instream fish habitat. No new projects that would cause a residual effect on Fish and Fish Habitat have
been identified since the 2009 EIS submission. Therefore, the environmental effects of the Project on
instream habitat in Lower, Middle, and Upper Fish Creek are not anticipated to act in a cumulative
manner with similar environmental effects from other projects or activities in the RSA.
As summarized in Table 2.7.2.5-29, the environmental effects of the Project on lake habitat will be
mitigated through the implementation of the compensation elements. Given the known types of past,
present and reasonably-foreseeable projects and activities in the RSA, it is not expected that other
projects and activities will result in spatial or temporal losses of lake habitat that will overlap with those
associated with the Project. Therefore, cumulative effects were not considered further in relation to losses
or changes in lake habitat availability in Middle and Upper Fish Creek.

Angling success and fishing experience while fishing for Rainbow Trout in Fish Lake may be affected by
Project activities (e.g., proximity to routine mine operations). While the opportunity to fish in Fish Lake will
remain throughout all phases of mine development the Cariboo-Chilcotin Region contains many lakes
offering similar remote fishing experience that are available should potential anglers chose not to fish at
Fish Lake. As details of the fish compensation plan are finalized, it is conceivable that should it be found
to be both desired and appropriate, specific additional fishing opportunities may be identified in
discussions with MFLNRO staff and First Nations.
Based on the range of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities, none are
expected to substantially alter recreational fishing in the region. As a result, the environmental effects of
the Project on recreational angling for rainbow trout are not anticipated to act in a cumulative manner with
other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the RSA.
Determination of the Significance of Environmental Effects

The assessment methodology for environmental effect characterization and determination of significance
is as described earlier in this document.
The findings of the Project effects assessment for fish and fish habitat for New Prosperity are summarized
in Table 2.7.2.5-31. The rationale for the residual effects significance determinations are as follows:
x For loss/alteration of instream habitat quality or quantity, the magnitude of the significance of the
residual effect is low (no residual effect is predicted; environmental effect occurs that may or may
not be measurable, but is within the range of natural variability and does not pose a serious risk
to the sustainability of the Fish Creek Watershed fish populations). The area is presently relatively
undisturbed. The effect is long term and irreversible. With implementation of the described
mitigation and compensation measures, the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not
significant because the effect is local, occurs once, and is neutral in direction.
x For loss/alteration of lake habitat quality and quantity, specifically Little Fish Lake, although the
area is presently relatively undisturbed and the effect is long term and irreversible, the magnitude
is low and with implementation of the described mitigation and compensation measures, the
conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant because the effect is site-specific,
occurs once, and is neutral in direction.
x For loss/alteration of riparian habitat, although the magnitude is high and the area is presently
relatively undisturbed and the effect is long-term, with implementation of the described mitigation
and compensation measures, the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant
because the effect is local, occurs once, and is neutral in direction.

Table 2.7.2.5-31 Determination of Significance of Residual Effects
Determination of Significance of
Residual Effects
Significance
Geographical
Reversibility
Potential Environmental Effect
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Duration/
Direction
Proposed Mitigation/Compensation Measures
Context
Extent
Maintenance of spawning and summer rearing flows in
tributaries to Fish Lake (Mitigation)
Loss/alteration of instream habitat quality Implementation of compensation; Application of Best N L L LT/R IR U N H
or quantity Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP 2004) during
construction to avoid/minimize bank erosion, excessive
run-off over disturbed land and downstream sedimentation
Maintenance of spawning and summer rearing flows in
tributaries to Fish Lake (Mitigation)
Loss/alteration of lake habitat quality and
quantity Implementation of compensation elements Application of N L S LT/R IR U N H
Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP 2004) during
construction to avoid/minimize bank erosion, excessive
run-off over disturbed land and downstream sedimentation
Implementation of compensation elements
Loss/alteration of riparian habitat Avoid vegetation loss; minimize disturbance N L L LT/R IR U N H
Maintain natural drainage patterns where practicable
Adaptive management program to monitor fish tissue
Increased metal concentration in Fish
uptake in relation to water and sediment metal A L L LT IR U N M
Tissue
concentrations and apply corrective actions if needed.
Frequency:
KEY R Rare - Occurs Once
I Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at irregular
Direction: intervals
P Positive – condition is improving compared to baseline Significance:
F Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis and at
N Neutral – no change compared to baseline Geographic Extent: S Significant
regular intervals
A Adverse – negative change compared to baseline S Site-specific – restricted to Project Footprint N Not Significant
C Continuous
L Local – effect occurs beyond footprint but within Local Study Area
Magnitude: R Regional – effect extends into the Regional Study Area Prediction Confidence:
Reversibility:
Defined for each potential effect individually. In general: Based on scientific information and
R Reversible
L Low–environmental effect occurs that may or may not Duration: statistical analysis, professional
I Irreversible
be measurable, but is within the range of natural ST: Short term – effects are measureable for days to months judgment and effectiveness of mitigation
variability. MT: Medium Term – effects are measurable from months to two years L Low level of confidence
Ecological Context:
M Moderate–environmental effect occurs, but is unlikely LT: Long Term – effects are measureable for > 2 years but not permanent M Moderate level of confidence
U Undisturbed: Area relatively or not adversely
to pose a serious risk to the sustainability of the Fish FF: Far Future or Permanent. H High level of confidence
affected by human activity
Creek watershed fish populations D Developed: Area has been substantially
H High–environmental effect is likely to pose a serious previously disturbed by human development or
risk to the sustainability of the Fish Creek watershed fish human development is still present
populations.
N/A Not applicable.

Table 2.7.2.5-32 provides a fish and fish habitat-specific summary of the effects assessment. In
consideration of the revised Mine Development Plan for the New Prosperity Project and implementation
of proposed mitigation measures and compensation elements, there are no residual effects on fish and
fish habitat as described in this document. Therefore the overall significance determination for the New
Prosperity Project is that the effect of the Project on the viability and sustainability of the Fish Creek
watershed fish and fish habitat resource is considered to be not significant.
Table 2.7.2.5-32 Summary of Effects Assessment for Fish and Fish Habitat
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
The New Prosperity Project redesigned mine site layout includes the conservation of
Fish Lake, several fish and non-fish bearing tributaries, sufficient spawning habitat to
Beneficial and
maintain a healthy viable population, and associated riparian habitat and a smaller
Adverse Effects
maximum disturbance area. This will reduce losses for all Project effects on fish and
fish habitat.
A wide variety of methods for avoiding and/or mitigating potential environmental
effects have been proposed for project-related activities.
The Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plans (MMER and Fisheries Act) will be
Mitigation and
finalized in consultation with appropriate regulatory authorities and will meet the NNL
Compensation
Policy Objective.
Measures
Successful implementation of the Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plans
together with mitigation measures will result in an overall net increase in the
productive capacity of fish habitat within the Regional Study Area.
Potential
The Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plans and mitigation measures will ensure
Residual
that there are no residual environmental effects on fish and fish habitat.
Effects
As there are no adverse residual effects predicted on fish and fish habitat as a result
Cumulative of implementation of the Compensation Plans and mitigation measures, any residual
Effects effects from past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects included in the
Inclusion List could not act in a cumulative manner with the New Prosperity Project.
Determination The combined residual environmental effects of the Project on the sustainability of
of the fish and fish habitat are predicted to be not significant. This assessment is
significance of predicated on the implementation of proposed mitigation measures and Habitat
residual effects Compensation Plans.
Likelihood of
As no significant residual effects are predicted, there is no likelihood of occurrence.
occurrence for
The proposed Compensation Plans and mitigation measures utilize proven
adverse effects
methodologies and provide an overall compensation ratio of 5.2:1 for aquatic habitat
found to be
and 1.6:1 for riparian. The likelihood of compensation plans not ensuring NNL is low.
significant
Additional Work
No additional work is proposed as part of this environmental assessment.


A brief outline of follow-up and monitoring associated with fish and fish habitat is presented in the
following sections, with additional details to be provided in the final Compensation Plans.
x To determine the accuracy of environmental effects predictions and the effectiveness of the proposed
compensation elements, a comprehensive follow-up program will be implemented. The follow-up
program will follow the CEAA guidelines and adhere to methods established in the Guidelines for
Instream and Off-channel Routine Effectiveness Evaluations (REE; FIA) (MoE, 2003) and will focus
on the biological effectiveness (e.g., seasonal use by fish species) and physical integrity of
constructed habitats. Routine effectiveness evaluations enable qualitative and quantitative
assessment (numeric ranking and variation estimates) of specific water quality, biological and
physical attributes associated with the measurable parameter.
x Remedial or adaptive measures will be applied immediately following any evaluation that determines
a material reduction in functionality or integrity of any biological or physical channel attribute as
specified in as-built design criteria and based on a quantitative trigger value.
x To ensure habitat compensation elements are constructed to design specifications, construction

environmental monitoring and supervision will be scheduled at regular intervals throughout the
construction period. The construction monitoring schedule will generally follow recommendations
described in Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004).
x A follow-up program and proposed compliance monitoring schedule to determine the accuracy of
Project effect predictions and the effectiveness and functionality of the proposed compensation
element has been described above (Routine Effectiveness Evaluations (REE; FIA, 2003 ). The
measurable parameters that will be assessed include but are not be limited to: assessments of pool
depth, areas and volumes.
x An angler interview and creel census follow-up program for recreational angling use in compensation
areas can be conducted periodically throughout the life-of-mine and closure phases, as a basis for
confirming the success of the compensation plan. The creel census methods and schedule would
likely be similar to previous programs as described above.
x Recreational angling opportunities will be measured (angler-days) during the life-of-mine. Should the
measurable parameter values decline significantly compared to baseline values, or existing values in
adjacent, non-affected lakes with similar use and catch rates, adaptive management strategies (e.g.,
increase/decrease in stocking numbers or biomass, signage showing stocked lakes, advertising in
local newspapers) will be considered for implementation..
x Monitoring of fish health, metal concentrations in tissue and fish productivity will be instituted to
provide data that will be used within an adaptive management program that will allow Taseko to
proactively react to any effects that require corrective actions.

2.7.2.6 Terrain and Soil

changes would result in changes to the environmental effects previously predicted for terrain and soils.
Assessment of terrain and soils is presented separately.
Terrain
A detailed assessment of baseline terrain stability as outlined in the EIS Guidelines has been completed,
and is presented in the subsections below.
Scope of Assessment
Prosperity Project on terrain. The scope of the assessment is only for changes from the Prosperity Project
based on the New Prosperity Mine Development Plan. Terrain is defined by Allaby and Allaby (1999) as
“an area of the ground with a particular physical character; an area or region with characteristic geology”.
For the purpose of this study, terrain includes landforms, surficial materials, material texture, surface
expression, slope and geomorphic processes (as defined by Howes and Kenk, 1997).
The Project Activities and Physical Works for New Prosperity are displayed in Table 2.7.2-6-1. Table
2.7.2.6-1 shows whether each activity or physical work has changed from the original Prosperity
submission. Project activities or physical works (rows in Table 2.7.2.6-1) identified with a “Y” in the Project
Activities/Physical Works will be carried forward in this assessment. Project activities or physical works
identified with an “N” are not carried forward in this terrain assessment, and are greyed out.

Table 2.7.2.6-1 Project Components, Features and Activities Changed from Previous Project
Proposal

/ Activities Proposal

Open Pit – Preproduction N
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y Location and timing changed
Still subaqueous in TSF; TSF location has
PAG Stockpile Y
changed
Non-PAG Overburden Stockpile Y Location changed
Ore Stockpile N
Primary Crusher N
Overland conveyor N
Fisheries compensation works Scope and timing; changes do not change
Y
construction effects to terrain from March 2009 EIS.
Water Management Controls and Scope and location; changes affect
Y
Operations surface and surface groundwater flows
Scope; changes affect surface and
surface groundwater flows
N
upgrades
Camp construction N
stockpiles, etc.
Plant site and other facilities N
Explosives Plant N
Lake dewatering Y Only Little Fish Lake
Management of inflows and outflows;
Fish Lake Water Management Y changes affect surface and shallow
groundwater flows
Starter dam construction Y Location
N
process and fresh)
N
transmission line
Vehicular traffic N


N
Operations
Pit Production N
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) N
Soils handling and stockpiling N
Explosive handling and storage N
Tailing storage Y Location changed
Still subaqueous in TSF but TSF location
PAG Stockpile Y
changed
timing)
Y Location only
processing
Site drainage and seepage Scope and location: changes affect
Y
management surface and surface groundwater flows
Includes management of flows in and out
Y of Fish Lake; changes affect surface and
Operation
surface groundwater flows
N
N
Vehicle traffic N
N
maintenance)
Pit dewatering N
Fisheries Compensation works Scope and timing; changes do not change
N
operations effects to terrain from March 2009 EIS.
N
Macalister
Closure
Y
Scope and timing; changes do not change
Fisheries Compensation Operations N
effects to terrain from March 2009 EIS.

Site drainage and seepage Scope and location; changes affect

Y
management surface and surface groundwater flows
Reclamation of ore stockpile area Y Location changed
Y Location changed
stockpile
Affect surface and surface groundwater
flows
Affect surface and surface groundwater
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling Y
flows
Plant and associated facility removal N
Post-closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility Affect surface and surface groundwater
Y
water flows
Discharge of pit lake water N
Seepage management and Affect surface and surface groundwater
Y
discharge flows
Terrain stability monitoring will be
Ongoing monitoring of reclamation Y conducted concurrently; change in
location

There have been no changes in federal or provincial regulations pertaining to terrain since the March
2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 4.1.1, Regulatory Setting for Terrain Resources). The
regulations that pertain to the New Prosperity Project as well as the Prosperity Project for terrain remain:
x BC Mines Act - Section 9.7.1 of the Mines Act addresses terrain issues and Section 10.1.4(g)
identifies terrain-related information that is required for the mine plan and reclamation program,
including baseline information requirements. Section 10.7.9 applies to terrain-related reclamation and
closure objectives. The Mines Act also outlines best management practices for mining activities and
outlines the risks to terrain stability. It also provides the necessary steps and information required in
the event of slope failures
x BC Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) - (FRPA) provides a legal framework and guiding
principles that govern best management practices which may be applicable for mitigating Project-
related effects on terrain resources. The main aspect of the FRPA that applies to the Project is the
assessment of potential landslide risks. Landslides, following timber removal and road construction,
can adversely affect human life and property, water, fish, soil, timber and visual values. In recognition
of this risk, the BC Forest Practices Code (the Code) established an elaborate system of professional
landslide hazard mapping, site assessment and road engineering procedures. Under the new FRPA,
the low tolerance for landslide risk continues; specifically the stated objective is the prevention of
landslides that will have a material adverse effect on resources and values. The FRPA indicates the
primary method of predicting the likelihood of landslides is to conduct geologic investigations of areas
proposed for development and complete assessments of the likelihood of post-harvest or road
construction related landslides. These investigations, referred to as Terrain Stability Field

Assessments (TSFAs), are used to modify and adjust preliminary harvesting and road construction
plans to reduce the potential for landslide activity. The general standard of practice for TSFAs is
outlined in the Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook (1995/1998).
EAO Certification Commitments

The commitments in the EAO Certificate relevant to terrain are commitments 16.1 and 16.2 to carry out
monitoring and follow-up in accordance with Volume 3 Section 9 of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Monitoring and follow-up actions for terrain stability discussed in Volume 3 Section 9 of the March 2009
EIS/Application were:
x To survey slopes greater than 60% prior to construction activities, and adjust the alignment of the
access road, transmission line and mine features to avoid unstable terrain where possible
x Install strain gauges or other monitoring equipment in areas of unstable terrain near the pit prior to
blasting, and
x Monitor areas of unstable terrain in areas of predicted groundwater increase.
All of the commitments are still relevant to New Prosperity, and as part of this EIS and the federal EA
process, we confirm our intention to implement those commitments, with no revision necessary, with the
exception of the commitments pertaining to the areas where terrain stability monitoring will be required on
the mine site (see Section 2.8.3 for suggested follow-up and monitoring).
The location and size of area with unstable terrain that requires stability monitoring is re-assessed under
the New Prosperity mine site LSA and groundwater models.
Prosperity Project Federal Review Panel Comments

The Prosperity Federal Review Panel (Panel) finding for terrain were to complete additional field studies
for terrain stability
x In areas of the transmission line right-of-way
x Areas of slope instability on the access road at the Tête Angela Creek crossing, and
x Within the mine site for areas of mapped instability.
Monitoring and mitigation activities recommended by the Panel for terrain were an investigation of the pit
wall stability prior to closure to minimize any post-closure stability problems, and development of a
revised emergency response plan before mine closure to address a possible embankment failure. These
recommendations will be incorporated in the detailed geotechnical study that will form part of the Mines
Act Permit Application when detailed engineering is available. The Panel recommendations were
incorporated into this assessment by updating follow-up and monitoring commitments.
Changes as a Result of the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines

There are no changes to the assessment as a result of New Prosperity EIS Guidelines; the Guidelines for
terrain remain unchanged, with the exception of the Panel recommendations.


The key issue for terrain has not changed from the Prosperity EIS. The key issue for terrain resources
associated with the Project is the potential for change or alteration of terrain stability resulting in increased
incidence of mass wasting events (such as debris flows, slumps, earth flows, and other forms of slope
instability) related to Project activities such as site clearing and contouring, road construction, trenching
and blasting, and development of infrastructure components (March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5,
Section 4.1.2, Key Issues for Terrain Resources).
The measurable parameters and key indicator for terrain have not changed since the Prosperity EIS; the
measurable parameters of the key indicator of terrain stability are:
x Evidence of mass wasting as noted by geomorphic processes, and
x Potentially unstable slopes as measured by slopes over 60%.
All potential effects to terrain stability as determined through the increased risk of mass wasting events
are re-assessed for this assessment.
Physical works and activities identified as changed as a result of the New Prosperity Project (Table
2.7.2.6-2 2.7.2.6-1), have been carried forward and given project environmental effects rating criteria.
The following interaction rating criteria were used:
Project Environmental Effect Rating Criteria:
0 Effect on terrain is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other applicable
regulation). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted
1 Effect on terrain is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions),
measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO or
Panel).
2. Effect on terrain is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.
Table 2.7.2.6-2 Potential Environmental Effects on Terrain Associated with New Prosperity
Increase in
Mass Wasting
Construction
Fisheries compensation Fisheries compensation (flow management) 0
Management Overburden Stockpile 1
Soils handling and stockpiling 1
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1
grubbing)

Increase in
Mass Wasting
Water Management Controls and Operations 1
Construction sediment control 1
Site waste management Lake dewatering 1
Fish Lake Water Management 1
Starter dam construction 1
Vehicular traffic Vehicular traffic 0
Water Sourcing and Use Sourcing water supplies (potable, process/TSF) 0
Operations
Fisheries Compensation works operations 0
(operations)
Explosive handling and storage 0
Ore Extraction and Stockpiling Ore Stockpile management and processing 0
Crushing and conveyance 0
PAG Stockpile 0
Management
Overburden Stockpile 0
Site drainage and seepage management 2
Site Water Management Water Management Controls and Operation 2
Pit dewatering 2
Tailings Management Tailing storage 2
Vehicle traffic Vehicle traffic 0
Fisheries Compensation operations Fisheries Compensation Operations 0
Closure
Reclamation of ore stockpile area 0
Reclamation Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock stockpile 0
Tailing impoundment reclamation 0
Water Management Controls and Operation 2
Site Water Management Site drainage and seepage management 2
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling 2
Post-Closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility water 2
Seepage management and discharge 2
Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of reclamation 0
Interaction of Other Projects and Activities 0
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events 1
The only Project activities being carried forward in the environmental assessment (rated as 2) for

increasing mass wasting are seepage management, pit dewatering, tailings storage and discharge of
tailings water, and water diversion which could affect unstable and potentially unstable slopes outside of
the mine footprint due to changes in surface groundwater. Two scenarios will be used: operations and
post-closure. The closure scenario is not assessed separately, as the groundwater levels will be in
transition between the operations and post-closure scenarios.
Project activities rated as 1 are those activities which were given ratings of ‘1’ or ‘2’ for the 2009
Prosperity EIS. Those activities that were rated ‘1’ (such as soil salvaging and stockpiling and overburden
and waste rock management activities) can be effectively managed through mine design or
environmental management measures, and that has not changed for the New Prosperity Project. Those
activities that were rated ‘2’ for the Prosperity EIS and are rated ‘1’ for the New Prosperity EIS include the
site clearing and construction activities; the activities are rated ‘1’ for the New Prosperity Project as they
have not changed since the March 2009 EIS/Application, which found the environmental effects of those
activities to be not significant. The change in the mine configuration and the size of the LSA will result in
changes in the locations of mitigations and monitoring for terrain stability; however, the changes in
monitoring locations do not result in changes to the significance of the effects, as the LSA has decreased
due to the smaller footprint, and fewer geohazards are intersected.
All other Project effects will result in no change to terrain stability (rated as 0), as the interaction of the
activity with terrain has already occurred during the previous mine phase (e.g. operations of fisheries
compensation works and overburden and waste rock management) or does not interact with terrain (e.g.
water sourcing and use and vehicular traffic).
Effects from blasting, road access and transmission line construction will not be carried forward in the
assessment as no anticipated changes in design have occurred from Prosperity to New Prosperity. The
previously described transmission line and blasting activities did intersect areas of unstable terrain, so the
same follow-up and monitoring and Panel recommendations for monitoring terrain stability related to
these activities will apply for the New Prosperity Project.

and closure and decommissioning phases between the Prosperity and New Prosperity Projects (see
March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 4.1.4). However, the closure phase for the New Prosperity
Project will be divided into two phases: phase I, which will last approximately 10 years following closure
(Years 21 to 30) when the Fish Lake catchment will continue to be isolated from mine water; and phase II
(Years 31-47), when the TSF will be allowed to begin to spill to Fish Lake Tributaries. The post-closure
phase is anticipated to begin in Year 48, when the Pit Lake will have reached maximum elevation and
begun to spill to Lower Fish Creek. Permanent groundwater interception and surface seepage ponds
below the main TSF embankment will continue to operate post-closure.
The effect on terrain stability of the changes in the phases of the closure period is discussed in the
assessment of groundwater changes on terrain stability.

Three study area boundaries are used for the terrain assessment: the RSA, the LSA and the mine
footprint. The mine footprint has changed for the New Prosperity Project, which results in changes to the

LSA, but not the RSA. The mine footprint (area of direct disturbance) has been altered to account for
mine plan changes and the preservation of Fish Lake. The LSA is still a 100 m buffer on the mine
footprint, but the area of the LSA has also changed due to the changes in the mine footprint. See Table
2.7.2.6-3 for more detail, and Figure 2.7.2.6-1 for study area boundaries.
Table 2.7.2.6-3 Study Area Comparison
Study Areas
VEC
Mine Footprint Mine Site LSA Mine Site RSA
Terrain The mine footprint includes Prosperity LSA: The RSA is the
all mine features where Mine site LSA contained the “TEM Mapping
ground will be directly “physical footprint of the mine site” area” or “TEM
disturbed, displaced, or that includes “all areas that are to extent” (March
buried. The mine footprint be physically altered as a result of 2009
does not account for any resource extraction and tailings EIS/Application
clearing where ground is left storage” (Prosperity EIS Volume 5, Vol. 5, Section
intact. This area is excluded Section 4.1.5, Spatial Boundaries). 4.1.5).
from the terrain stability The soils and terrain LSA is a 100 The RSA for soils
assessment and is m buffer on the physical footprint of and terrain has
addressed in the the mine site to account for small not changed from
geotechnical section of the changes to mine site feature the Prosperity
mine plan (Section 2.2.4). locations and construction clearing. EIS, and is
Size is 4407 ha. approximately
New Prosperity LSA: 18,267 ha
The LSA for terrain has changed
for New Prosperity; it has
decreased in size, due to the
smaller TSF and avoidance of Fish
Lake.
Using the smaller LSA of New
Prosperity relative to Prosperity will
result in decreased direct effects to
the soils and terrain. Size is 2967
ha.

456000 5720000 460000 5712000 464000 5708000 468000 5704000 472000 5700000 476000 5696000 480000
480000
±
5720000
452000
4760005688000
448000 5716000
472000
444000
5680000 468000
440000
5704000 444000 5700000 448000 5696000 452000 5692000 4560005688000 460000 5680000 464000
LEGEND: TASEKO MINES LIMITED

Soils RSA Roads
0 1 2 4 6 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
2012 Soils LSA Rivers
Lakes
Kilometers Soils Regional Study Area and Local Study Area
25th July 2012
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Kevin Poll Verified By: Tony Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
2.7.2.6-1 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163_054_Soils_RSA_LSA.mxd
Updates to Consultation on the Assessment for Terrain
There have been no updates to consultation for terrain since the March 2009 EIS/Application; however,
the Stswecem’c/Xgat’tem (Canoe Creek band) raised issues pertaining to terrain during the Panel
proceedings. They were as follows:
x Stswecem'c/Xgattcem (Canoe Creek Band) expressed concerns regarding terrain and soil instability,
erosion and sedimentation.
x Stswecem'c/Xgattcem (Canoe Creek Band) indicated that the baseline terrain mapping was not done
to sufficient scale, and suggested that 1:10,000 or 1:5,000 scale mapping be completed to adequately
assess effects. This concern will be addressed when detailed engineering (pole placement and
access) is available. These concerns have been addressed in Section 2.7.2.6 Mass Wasting Mitigation
Measures and in Section 2.7.2.6 Additional Work.
Project Impact Assessment for Terrain

There is one potential environmental effect identified for terrain, and that is the potential for increased
mass wasting to affect terrain stability.
Mass Wasting
Only project effects that have changed from the March 2009 EIS/Application have been carried forward
for assessment. The potential project effects on mass wasting for the Prosperity Project are described in
detail in the March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.3.1.3, Project Effects on Mass Wasting.
The Project activities that have changed due to design changes for the New Prosperity Project are
summarized from Table 2.7.2.6-2 and listed in Table 2.7.2.6-4. The Project activities that were re-
assessed were effects due to the site water management and tailings management. They are rated as
per the Project Environmental Effect Rating Criteria.

Table 2.7.2.6-4 Potential Environmental Effects on Terrain Associated with New Prosperity
Increase in
Mass Wasting
Operations
Pit dewatering 2
Tailings Management Tailings storage 2
Closure
Post-Closure
Effects Assessment Methods for Mass Wasting

The methods for effects assessment of mass wasting have not changed since the March 2009
EIS/Application. Baseline inventory statistics for evidence of existing mass wasting and slopes that are
susceptible to a mass wasting were calculated for the mine site LSA. This information was then used to
predict potential Project-related effects on mass wasting and to provide guidance on mitigation.
Changes in Baseline Conditions for Mass Wasting

Some 99.6% of the mine site LSA is characterized by low gradient slopes which show no evidence of
instability. Just under 0.5 percent of the entire mine site LSA shows any evidence of either instability or
steep slopes that may be susceptible to mass wasting (Table 2.7.2.6-5). The New Prosperity has a
reduced area of instability due to the removal of Fish Lake from the LSA. Approximately 13.0 ha, or 0.4%
of the total area contains terrain that exhibits evidence of potential rapid mass movements. Areas
exhibiting evidence of instability are concentrated at the northwest end of the LSA where debris slides
and rock falls have occurred on steep bedrock and colluvial slopes. These geohazard areas will be
encompassed by the open pit. Debris slides were also mapped on the north side of Little Fish Lake.
These geohazard areas will eventually be encompassed by the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF).
Slopes steeper than 60% (i.e., potentially unstable slopes) occupy 1.3 ha or 0.04% of the mine site (Table
2.7.2.6-5). These areas correspond with the unstable terrain located on the eastern margins of the mine
site (Figure 2.7.2.6-2).

Table 2.7.2.6-5 Summary of Areas Exhibiting Evidence of Instability within Individual Local Study
Areas
Prosperity LSA New Prosperity LSA

Area Percent of Area Percent of
Exhibiting Total Area Exhibiting Total Area
Evidence of Exhibiting Evidence of Exhibiting
Total Area Instability Evidence of Total Area Instability Evidence of
(ha) (ha) Instability (ha) (ha) Instability
Area of
Mapped
Instability 4,419.2 17.4 0.39 2,967.2 13.0 0.44
(rapid mass
movements)
Area of slopes
4,419.2 0.7 0.02 2,967.2 1.3 0.04
(>60%)

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Rapid Mass Movement Terrain Unit3 2012 Soils LSA Paved Road River
Rockfall Slope > 60% Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Gravel Road Lake
Debris Slide Rough Road Wetland 0 0.5 1 2 3 Potentially Unstable Slopes and
Slump Trail Mass Wasting Areas for the Mine Site
Debris Flow Kilometers Local Study Area and Regional Study Area
Undefined
25th July 2012
Slow Mass Movement
Slump Earthflow Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Kevin Poll Verified By: Tony Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia 2.7.2.6-2 REV
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163-029_slope_instability_minesite.mxd
Project Effects on Mass Wasting
The majority of the LSA consists of low gradient, stable terrain with a low likelihood of mass wasting. In
the few areas exhibiting evidence of unstable and potentially unstable terrain, the likelihood of Project
activities triggering mass wasting can be effectively minimized or eliminated through the implementation
of best management practices during construction and engineering, including the removal of unstable
materials, or simply by avoidance of high hazard areas.
Groundwater changes during the operations phase through to the post-closure phase may increase the
risk of failure for areas of potentially unstable and unstable terrain. Figure 2.7.2.6-3 and Figure 2.7.2.6-4
show the approximate locations and magnitude of groundwater changes in the LSA at operations and
post-closure, respectively. Pit dewatering at operations may increase the risk of failure in areas where
rapid mass movement or slow mass movement have been observed, particularly in coarse-textured soils.
The effect of dewatering is expected to last approximately 50 years after pit dewatering ceases (into the
post-closure period) while groundwater rebounds. Filling of the TSF is expected to increase groundwater
levels under the TSF and result in increased groundwater recharge to streams below the TSF; the risk of
mass wasting events increases in areas of mass movement within these increased groundwater recharge
areas, particularly in fine-textured soils.
Areas of observed mass movements around the pit are all within the pit boundary, and so will be removed
during operations, so there will be no residual effect of pit dewatering on mass wasting. Areas of
observed mass movements that may be affected by the TSF filling exist in the undulating terrain west of
the West Embankment, and in the southern end of the valley below the Main Embankment; these areas
are outside the mine footprint, and so may experience residual effects on mass wasting.

5712000 5708000 5704000 464000 5700000 5696000
460000
464000 5692000
456000
460000
452000
456000
5712000 5708000 5704000 452000 5696000 5692000
LEGEND:
Groundwater Model Extent Rapid Mass Movement Depth to Groundwater Paved Road
Predicted Groundwater Rockfall 0 to 1 Metre Gravel Road
Increase in Baseflow to Streams and Lakes Debris Slide
0 1 2 4 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
1 to 2 Metres Rough Road
Drawdown Due to Open Pit Dewatering Slump Groundwater Seepage Trail
Kilometers
Potential Groundwater Change
Reduction in Recharge Under Mine Stockpiles Debris Flow Project Features River and Mass Movement at Operations
and Infrastructure
Undefined Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Lake
Build-Up Beneath Tailings Storage Facility
Slow Mass Movement 25th July 2012
Slump Earthflow
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Tony Dinneen Verified By: Natalie Tashe Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
2.7.2.6-3 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163_094_Potential_Groundwater_Operations_MMovement.mxd
5712000 5708000 5704000 464000 5700000 5696000
460000
464000 5692000
456000
460000
452000
456000
5712000 5708000 5704000 452000 5696000 5692000

Groundwater Model Extent Rapid Mass Movement Project Features Paved Road
Predicted Increase in Groundwater Baseflow to Streams and Lakes Rockfall Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Gravel Road NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Predicted Groundwater Build-Up Beneath Tailings Storage Facility Debris Slide Rough Road
Depth to Groundwater Slump Trail
0 1 2 4 Post Closure Potential Groundwater Change
0 to 1 Metre Debris Flow River and Mass Movement
1 to 2 Metres Undefined Lake Kilometers
25th June 2012
Groundwater Seepage Slow Mass Movement
Slump Earthflow Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Tony Dinneen Verified By: Natalie Tashe Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia 2.7.2.6-4 REV
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163_096_Potential_Groundwater_PostClosure_MMovement.mxd
Mass Wasting Mitigation Measures
The mitigations proposed to reduce the potential for mass wasting events on the New Prosperity Project
are unchanged from those proposed for the Prosperity Project. The mitigations for terrain are described in
the March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 4.4.1, Summary of Mitigation for Terrain, and in
Section 4.1.3.1. For ease of reference the 2009 EIS/Application describes the following mitigation
strategies that can be used to avoid or reduce effects on terrain stability:
x If necessary, completing a detailed on-site terrain stability assessment in any areas identified as
unstable so that appropriate planning and mitigation measures can be undertaken prior to the
commencement of construction activities.
x If necessary, conducting further studies on potentially unstable areas with slopes greater than 60% in
gradient. This can be done by a combination of air photo analysis and hazard assessment and follow-
up detailed on-site assessments for areas confirmed to be unstable or potentially unstable.
x Minimizing the effect of construction and operations by locating the transmission line and access roads
on stable terrain, wherever possible.
While landslides are difficult to mitigate, pre-construction assessments will assist in developing measures
and engineering solutions that may reduce the probability of occurrence. Each site must be treated
individually as the physical conditions vary between sites. Potential mitigation measures include:
x Reducing surface disturbances through Project design such as avoidance of unstable and potentially
unstable terrain within the ROW and temporary work space or by reducing slope gradient through
grading, or by scaling off overhanging rock, diverting water from the slope face, etc.
x Installation of groundwater monitoring equipment to identify and measure subsurface water in areas of
suspected or known slope instability
x Stabilizing, restoring, and re-vegetating banks and slopes to increase stability and minimize the rates
of surface water run-off or ground-water infiltration
x Reduction of loads on upper slopes
x Minimize work during periods of heavy rainfall or intense snowmelt
x Reduction in construction activity that undercuts or overloads dangerous slopes, or that redirects the
flow of surface or ground-water
x Rip-rapping and/or diversion of streams that undercut potentially unstable slopes (note: effects on fish
habitat must be considered for any such modification)
x Increase holding strength of slope by pinning individual blocks, covering the slope with mesh or net, or
installing rock anchors or rock bolts on dense spacing
x Protect the site from the failure by constructing catchment structures such as basins, or protective
structures such as walls and embankments
x Reduce weight of potential slide mass (cutting off the head of the slide, or totally removing the
landslide), flattening the surface slope angle (“laying back” the slope face) through grading, preventing
water infiltration by controlling surface drainage, or reducing the accumulation of subsurface water by
installing sub-drains

x Replacing slide debris and especially the rupture surface with compacted fill
x Draining the slide mass
x Removing potential debris from site using grading or excavating procedures, or diverting water from
debris so that it cannot mobilize, by means of surface drains and/or subsurface galleries or sub-drains
x Diverting the flow away from the Project area using diversion barriers or channels, or providing
catchment structures to contain the landslide material
x Construction areas surrounding the pit and pit walls have signage up alerting of potential areas where
slope failure may occur and ensure areas are secured from ground crew access prior to blasting, and
x Shoreline reinforcement at post-closure for the Pit.
During pit and TSF filling, signage will be installed for any ground crews that may have access to areas
where mass wasting may occur as a result of changes in groundwater, such as pit edges, or areas of
groundwater seepage on slopes and near slopes with existing mass movements in the tailings facility.
Where safe and practical to do so, potentially unstable slope materials adjacent to areas of human activity
will be cleared away and the material used in mine site construction.


program, is located west of the Fraser River and, therefore, considered likely to interact cumulatively with
the Project’s residual effects on terrain if it should reach a production decision in the future. Climate
change and mountain pine beetle remain additional considerations for the Project that will potentially
interact with terrain stability by increasing the risk of mass wasting on existing unstable areas (see March
2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.4.4, Additional Considerations for Terrain). One of the
mechanisms by which mountain pine beetle may affect terrain stability is through increasing logging in the
area. The effect of these two factors, including increased logging, has not changed conclusions for the
amended terrain assessment for the New Prosperity Project.
For terrain, the first condition is met; that is, there are Project-specific residual effects on terrain. With
respect to the second condition, the one new potential future project since 2009, the Newton property
exploration program, may cause changes to groundwater, and in turn increase the potential for mass

wasting events should it ever become an operating mine. However, the groundwater changes predicted
for the New Prosperity mine site are all restricted to within 2 km of the mine footprint. Consequently, there
is no potential for a cumulative interaction on mass wasting due to the large distance between the new
Prosperity Project and the nearest proposed project that may affect groundwater. Thus, as was the case
for the March 2009 EIS/Application, with respect to the third condition, it is concluded that the Project’s
contribution to cumulative effects on terrain will not affect the viability of terrain in relation to stability.

described in Section 2.7.1.5; with the exception that the description of Project-related effects on terrain
resources are limited to direction, magnitude, and geographic extent. All mass wasting events are
considered to be irreversible.
Mass wasting events may be triggered due to changes in groundwater due to pit dewatering and the TSF
filling. All potential residual effects for terrain are effects of mass wasting due to groundwater increases
around the TSF in the LSA. Mass wasting has been recorded in the RSA, but only within sites identified to
the west and northwest of the TSF outside the area of groundwater changes.
There are no changes from the conclusions presented in the 2009 Application in the predicted residual or
cumulative effects of the New Prosperity Project on terrain. With the proposed mitigation and
environmental protection measures outlined in the March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5 Section 4.4,
together with the smaller footprint for the New Prosperity Project, the effect of the Project on terrain is
considered to be not significant. As defined, a significant effect on terrain occurs where mass wasting
events triggered from Project-related activities affect human habitation, infrastructure or
sensitive environments. The change in groundwater levels in the LSA and RSA will not result in an
increased area of unstable terrain although it may slightly increase the probability of a mass wasting
event. There are no human habitations, or infrastructure at risk within the areas identified for potential
groundwater changes with recorded mass movements and these areas are away from important features
such as Fish Lake.
The summary of effects to terrain for New Prosperity which account for mine design including a smaller
mine footprint the effects are summarized in Table 2.7.2.6-6.

Table 2.7.2.6-6 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Terrain for New Prosperity
Residual Effects
Characterization
Significance
Confidence
Prediction
Duration and
Reversibility
Project
Geographic
Frequency
Ecological
Magnitude
Direction
Context
Residual Proposed Mitigation Measures
Extent
Effects
Increase Unchanged from the Prosperity Project. See

in potential March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section
mass 4.4.1, Summary of Mitigation for Terrain.
wasting Mitigations to prevent mass wasting events are:
due to x Completing a detailed on-site terrain stability
changes in assessment in any areas identified as n
groundwat A M R I L N L
unstable prior to the commencement of a
er construction activities in each area.
x Conducting further studies on potentially
unstable areas with slopes greater than 60%
in gradient prior to construction on slopes.
x locating the transmission line on stable
terrain, wherever possible
KEY Geographic Extent:
Direction: S Site-specific: Effect of mass wasting is confined to a specific site
P Positive within the Local Study Area
N Neutral L Local: Effect of mass wasting is confined to the Local Study Area
A Adverse R Regional: Effect of mass wasting extends beyond the Local Study
U Uncertain Area
Magnitude: Ecological Context

L Low: Effect occurs and reduces the extent of terrain L Limited: Limited effect by human activity
instability D Developed: Substantial effect due to alteration by human
M -Medium: Effect occurs but does not increase the extent activity
of terrain instability
H High: Effect occurs and increases the extent of terrain Significance:
instability S Significant
N Not significant
Duration and Frequency
Prediction Confidence:
na Not applicable for terrain Based on scientific information and statistical analysis, professional
judgment and effectiveness of mitigation
Reversibility L Low level of confidence
I All effects on mass wasting are irreversible M Moderate level of confidence
H High level of confidence
As there is uncertainty in the predictions, follow-up and monitoring will need to be undertaken to
determine the extent, if any, to which groundwater changes influence terrain stability at the mine site. The
prediction confidence for project effects on mass wasting has not changed from the Prosperity EIS, as the
groundwater changes were still assessed qualitatively. The confidence in the baseline terrain data is
moderate as not all areas identified as areas of mass movement were ground-truthed, and classification
relied primarily on aerial photo interpretation. Prediction confidence is low and further follow-up is
recommended.

Summary of Effects
described in Section 2.7.1.5. The residual effect on terrain is mass wasting events may be triggered due
to surface groundwater changes around the TSF. A summary of the residual effects for terrain is found in
the March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5 Section 4.4, Summary of Effects on Terrain.
The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for terrain for New Prosperity are summarized in
Table 2.7.2.6-7.

Table 2.7.2.6-7 Summary of Effects Assessment for Terrain
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
The New Prosperity Project has redesigned the mine site layout to create a smaller
footprint, which is expected to reduce the area of interaction of the Project with
Beneficial and
unstable terrain. There are still potential adverse effects remaining due to pit
Adverse Effects
dewatering and subsequent groundwater recharge, and the permanent change in
groundwater levels associated with the TSF filling.
A number of mitigation and Project design measures will be employed to: 1)
Mitigation and minimize groundwater flows from the TSF towards Big Onion Lake; and 2) ensure
Compensation that the TSF and adjacent slopes are constructed to minimize the potential for mass
Measures wasting. The measures designed to control groundwater flows and ensure proper
slope construction of the reclaimed landscape are outlined in the Geotechnical
Stability Monitoring Plan and Tailings Impoundment Operating Plan.
Areas of observed mass movements may experience increased mass wasting due
Potential
to the changes in groundwater due to the TSF filling. These areas exist in the
Residual
undulating terrain west of the West Embankment, and in the southern end of the
Effects
valley below the Main Embankment.
Cumulative There were no cumulative effects predicted for the Prosperity Project, and there are
Effects still none predicted for the New Prosperity Project.
The potential residual effects on mass wasting due to the TSF filling are not
Determination
significant. The effect does not increase the area of unstable terrain, and the
of the
geographic extent of effects for mass wasting is limited to sites to the west and
significance of
northwest of the TSF where rapid mass movement events have been recorded at
residual effects
baseline.
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects No adverse effects on mass wasting were found to be significant.
found to be
significant
Additional Work
Additional terrain mapping may be conducted prior to construction. The commitments for additional work
for terrain are:
x As appropriate, terrain stability mapping will be conducted on the transmission right-of-way and
access road prior to construction, particularly in the Tete Angela Creek watershed
x As appropriate, detailed terrain stability mapping will be completed for areas mapped as unstable
within the mine footprint prior to construction, and
x A terrain stability assessment will be conducted on the pit walls during closure to identify any
mitigation or monitoring required to address terrain stability issues that may affect stability of the site,
or affect successful reclamation.

Follow up and monitoring activities for terrain described in the March 2009 EIS/Application in Volume 5,
Section 4.4.3, Follow-up and Monitoring for Terrain remain applicable to the New Prosperity Project.

There was one specific commitment incorporated in the EAO Certificate granted for the Prosperity Project
for monitoring for terrain:
x A geohazard specialist will monitor unstable or potentially unstable areas using strain gauges or other
terrain stability monitoring devices. Of particular concern is the commencement of pit development as
that is when detrimental vibrations to terrain stability can be most far reaching as blasting is occurring
at the ground surface. Monitor terrain stability in the area of unstable terrain where groundwater
increases are anticipated.
The location of unstable terrain where groundwater increases are anticipated has changed since the
Prosperity EIS; monitoring for terrain stability is required in the area of historical rapid mass movement
evidence to the west and northwest of the final location of the West Embankment, where groundwater
increases are anticipated when the TSF begins to fill in the early years of operations. Suggested
monitoring will consist of visual observation by a geohazard specialist (professional geologist or terrain
scientist) in areas where the consequence of a failure would be low; and with strain gauges, vibrating wire
piezometers or other appropriate monitoring equipment in areas where the consequences of a potential
failure merit.
Soils
A detailed assessment of the Project on baseline soil resources as outlined in the EIS Guidelines has
been completed.
Scope of Assessment
The assessment of the environmental effects of the New Prosperity Project on soils focuses on the direct
effects of the Project on soil distribution, quantity and quality. The scope of the assessment is only for
changes from the Prosperity Project based on the New Prosperity Mine Development Plan.
Other soils-related issues such as environmental effects on surface-water and ground-water hydrology,
including flooding hazards, are addressed in Section 2.7.4 – Impact Assessment for Aquatic Resources.
Additional information on measures to conserve and restore soils is provided in the mine plan including
geotechnical work and mine design is provided in Section 2.2.4 – mine plan and geotechnical design.
Erosion and sediment control are discussed in Section 2.8.1(h) – erosion and sediment control plan.
Further details on soil salvage, handling and replacement methods are presented in the Conceptual
Reclamation Plan (Section 2.8.2).
The Project Activities and Physical Works for New Prosperity are displayed in Table 2.7.2.6-8. This table
shows whether each activity or physical work has changed from the original Prosperity submission.
Project activities or physical works (rows in Table 2.7.2.6-8) identified with a “Y” in either the Project
Activities/Physical Works will be carried forward for assessment in the amendment. Project activities or
physical works identified with an “N” are not carried forward in this soils assessment, and are greyed out.

Proposal


Open Pit – Preproduction N
PAG Stockpile Y Still subaqueous in TSF; TSF location has
changed
Non-PAG Overburden Stockpile Y Location changed
Ore Stockpile N Interacts with soil, but project facility
unchanged from previous assessment
Primary Crusher N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Overland conveyor N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Fisheries compensation Y Scope and timing; changes do not change
effects to soils from March 2009 EIS.
Water Management Controls and Y Affect surface and surface groundwater
Operations flows
Construction sediment control Y Affect surface and surface groundwater
flows
Access road construction and N Interacts with soil, but project facility
upgrades unchanged from previous assessment
Camp construction N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) Y Different areas related to moving of TSF,
stockpiles, etc.
Plant site and other facilities N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Explosives Plant N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Lake dewatering Y Only Little Fish Lake
Fish Lake Water Management Y affect surface and surface groundwater
flows
Starter dam construction Y Location changed
Sourcing water supplies (potable, N
process and fresh)



Clearing of transmission line ROW N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Construction/Installation of N Interacts with soil, but project facility
transmission line unchanged from previous assessment.
Vehicular traffic N
Concentrate load-out facility near N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Macalister (upgrades to site) unchanged from previous assessment
Operations
Pit Production N
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Soils handling and stockpiling N Interacts with soil, but project facility
Crushing and conveyance Y Although no change in mine design, soils
surrounding Fish Lake may receive dust
on soil and were not previously assessed.
Explosive handling and storage N
Tailing storage Y Location changed
PAG Stockpile Y Still subaqueous in TSF but TSF location
changed
Overburden Stockpile Y Combined with Non-PAG (i.e. location and
timing)
Ore Stockpile management and Y
Location changed
processing
Site drainage and seepage Y Affects surface water and surface
management groundwater flows
Water Management Controls and Y Includes management of flows in and out
Operation of Fish Lake; affects surface water and
groundwater flows
Wastewater treatment and discharge N
Water release contingencies for N



Vehicle traffic Y PAH, NOx changed within the mine site
only; not assessed for soils.
From March 2009 EIS/Application,
Volume 5 Section 4.7.2: Acidifying
emissions (oxides of nitrogen and sulphur)
from diesel powered machinery and
equipment are in low enough
concentrations that they are not
considered part of the assessment. The
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are in
low enough concentrations based on air
modelling results (March 2009
EIS/Application Volume 4, Section 2) and
are naturally decomposed by soil
organisms that they are not considered
part of the assessment.
Transmission line (includes N
maintenance)
Pit dewatering N
Fisheries Compensation Y Scope and timing changed; changes do
not affect soils
Concentrate load-out facility near N
Macalister
Closure
Water Management Controls and Y Affects surface water and groundwater
Operation flows
Fisheries Compensation Operations Y Scope and timing changed; changes do
not affect soils
Site drainage and seepage Y Affects surface water and groundwater
management flows
Reclamation of ore stockpile area Y Location changed
Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock Y
Location changed
stockpile
Tailing impoundment reclamation Y Soil replacement for reclamation is a
mitigation for soils
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling Y Affects surface water and surface
groundwater flows


Plant and associated facility removal N

Post-closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility Y Affects surface water and surface
water groundwater flows
Seepage management and Y Affects surface water and surface
discharge groundwater flows
Ongoing monitoring of reclamation Y Soil replacement for reclamation is a
mitigation for soils

There have been no changes in federal or provincial regulations pertaining to soils since the March 2009
EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 4.5.1, Regulatory Setting). The regulations that pertain to the New
Prosperity Project as well as the Prosperity Project remain:
x BC Mines Act - Section 9.6.1 of the Mines Act addresses soil conservation. Section 10.1.4 (h)
identifies soil-related information that is required for the mine plan and reclamation program, including
baseline information requirements. Section 10.7.8 outlines reclamation standards for soils. The
regulations and associated appendices provide guidance on baseline data to gather for the
Environmental Assessment, recommendations on soil characterization, soil survey, mapping
standards, in addition to land capability, soil salvage and stockpile requirements.
x BC Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) – FRPA governs best management practices for the
management of soils that may be applicable for guiding Project activities. The objectives of soil
conservation under the British Columbia Government's new Forest and Range Practices Act are to
limit the extent of soil disturbance that negatively affects the physical, chemical, and biological
properties of the soil.
x Soil Disturbance Hazard Ratings for Compaction, Displacement, and Surface Soil Erosion (BCMOF,
1999). This guidebook, developed under the former Forest Practices Code and adopted under the
more current FRPA, was used as the basis to assess compaction and erosion.
A change in provincial guidelines (not statutory regulations) will be used for the soil contamination
assessment. The assessment of soil contamination due to deposition of metals used the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of the
Environment and Human Health for agricultural end land uses. The British Columbia Contaminated Sites

Regulation (BC CSR) soil quality guidelines for agricultural end land use was compared to the CCME
guidelines, and presented in an appendix (Appendix 5.4-N of the March 2009 EIS/Application). The
CCME guidelines were used for the Prosperity assessment, as they were the lowest (most conservative)
guidelines at that time.
The BC CSR agricultural guidelines have been updated since then (the latest update in May 2011), and
several of the parameter guideline limits have decreased below the level used for CCME (barium,
chromium, mercury and zinc) so the BC CSR guidelines will now be included in the assessment; again
taking the lower of CCME or BC CSR guidelines for each trace element of concern.
EAO Certification Commitments

Commitments in the EAO Certificate (16.1 and 16.2) relevant to soils agree to carry out monitoring and
follow-up in accordance with Volume 3 Section 9 of the March 2009 EIS/Application. All of the
commitments are still relevant to New Prosperity, and as part of this EIS and the federal EA process, we
confirm our intention to implement those commitments, with no revision necessary, with the exception of
those pertaining to metal deposition monitoring locations which have been updated (see Section 2.7.3.2
Human Health).
Prosperity Project Federal Review Panel Comments

The Panel suggestion for soils was to complete additional field studies to collect paired soil and
vegetation samples for trace element uptake baseline, to increase the confidence in predictions of risk
due to contamination.
The panel recommendation for soils was incorporated into this assessment by updating follow-up and
monitoring commitments.

There are no changes to the assessment as a result of New Prosperity EIS Guidelines; the Guidelines for
soils remain unchanged, with the exception of the panel recommendations described.

The key issues for soils have not changed from the Prosperity EIS.
The key issues for soils are:
x Changes in soil physical properties, and
x Changes in soil chemical properties.
Soil physical properties are estimated through admixing, compaction, rutting, erosion and soil loss. Soil
chemical changes are estimated through soil contamination or long-term stockpiling which can alter the
fertility of soils (see March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 4.5.2 Key Issues for Soils; Table
2.7.2.6-9).

For the Prosperity EIS, the key issues for soils were assessed using the key indicators reclamation
suitability and agricultural capability. Agricultural capability was used for the soils in the Agricultural Land
Reserve area along the transmission corridor (see March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.5.3
Selection of Key Indicators for Soils). Since the transmission corridor has not changed for the New
Prosperity Project, agricultural capability will not be included as a key indicator for the New Prosperity
assessment.
Table 2.7.2.6-9 Scope of Assessment Summary for Reclamation Suitability
Project Potential KIs Potentially

Component Effects Affected Pathways for Effects
Mine Site Change in Soil Reclamation Mining and removal of soils from site clearing and
Physical Suitability grubbing, which may result in admixing,
Properties compaction and rutting, erosion and soil loss
Changes in drainage patterns and groundwater
changes related to mining activities which may
result in soil moisture changes
Change in Soil Soil and Overburden Handling: Natural elevated
Chemical metals in some of the topsoil and elevated metals
Properties and sodicity in overburden which may result in soil
contamination
Metal deposition from mining activities during
construction and operation, which may result in soil
contamination
Long-term soil stockpiling which may result in
changes to soil fertility
Physical works and activities identified as changed as a result of the New Prosperity Project (Table
2.7.2.6-10) have been carried forward and given project environmental effects rating criteria. The
following interaction rating criteria were used:
KI Potential Effect Rating Criteria:
0 Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
conclusions), and there are no required changes to previously proposed mitigation measures, and
no additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other
applicable regulation). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted.
1 Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
mitigation measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the
EAO or Panel).
2 Effect related to KI is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.
o All KI potential effects listed as a “0” are not carried forward further in this assessment
o All KI potential effects listed as a “1” are described and related information/justification presented
in the Environmental Assessment, and

o All KI potential effects listed as a “2” are to be carried forward and re-assessed in the
Environmental Assessment.
Table 2.7.2.6-10 Potential Environmental Effects on Soils Associated with New Prosperity
Change in Soil
Change in soil
properties
properties
chemical
physical
Construction
Fisheries compensation Fisheries compensation 1 1
Overburden and Waste Rock PAG Stockpile 1 1
Management Overburden Stockpile 1 1
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1 1
1 0
Operations
Construction sediment control 1 0
Site waste management
Lake dewatering 1 0
Fish Lake Water Management 1 0
Starter dam construction 1 0
Vehicular traffic Vehicular traffic 0 0
Water Sourcing and Use 0 0
process/TSF)
Operations
Fisheries Compensation Fisheries Compensation 0 0
Explosive handling and storage 0 0
Ore Extraction and Stockpiling Ore Stockpile management and processing 1 2
PAG Stockpile 0 0
Management
Overburden Stockpile 0 0
Site Water Management Water Management Controls and Operation 2 0
Pit dewatering 2 0
Tailings Management Tailing storage 2 0
Vehicle traffic Vehicle traffic 1 0
Fisheries Compensation Fisheries Compensation 0 0
Closure

Change in Soil
Change in soil
properties
properties
chemical
physical

Reclamation 1 1
stockpile
Water Management Controls and Operation 2 0
Site Water Management Site drainage and seepage management 2 0
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling 2 0
Post-Closure
Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of reclamation 0 0
The Project effects being carried forward in the assessment (rated as 2) for soil physical properties are
related to changes in surface groundwater from seepage management, water diversions and pit
dewatering and pit infilling during operations and the two phases of post closure. These changes could
permanently alter soil moisture conditions outside of the mine site and result in soil productivity changes.
Project activities that could permanently alter soil chemical properties are related to dust deposition
related to crushing and conveyance and dust from waste rock stockpiles during operations (rated as 2).
Changes to soil chemistry due to changes in groundwater seepage are not assessed (i.e. the changes in
pH, redox states, etc.), as they are included as effects due to changes in soil moisture. Changes in
soil trace element composition due to groundwater seepage are not assessed under Section 2.7.2.6, but
are assessed indirectly in the assessment of groundwater solute concentration movement (see Section
2.7.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity, Hydrogeology and Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology subsections).
For this assessment the change in soils addresses intact soils surrounding Fish Lake, which was not
completed for the March 2009 EIS/Application. The predicted dust levels have not changed; however,
guideline levels for trace elements in soils have been changed provincially and thresholds for some
elements are now more sensitive. Project activities that generate dust during construction have been
ruled out of this assessment as the previous Prosperity assessment showed that the construction phase
is too short (less than 2 years) to have an effect on soil chemistry.
Activities rated as “1” are for mine features that have changed in position and size from the Prosperity
Project. New soil salvage, mitigation and monitoring will be required to account for mine plan changes,
but significance ratings will not change for Prosperity, and so are not applied.

Activities rated as “0” will result in no changes to soil physical or chemical properties. No changes to
agricultural capability are anticipated as agricultural land reserve land only occurred along the
transmission line, which remains unchanged and are not part of this assessment.

Temporal boundaries for soils are the same as those described for terrain. Changes in temporal
boundaries did not influence the way effects to measurable parameters for soils are quantified.

Study area boundaries for soils are the same as those described for terrain.
Updates to Consultation on the Assessment for Soils
x There have been no updates to consultation for terrain since the March 2009 EIS/Application;
however, issues were raised pertaining to soils during the Panel proceedings. The
Stswecem'c/Xgattcem (Canoe Creek Band) recommended that a soil erosion and sedimentation plan
for the transmission line corridor be established to ensure mitigation of effects in locations such as the
Fraser River crossing and other sensitive terrain/ecosystems along the transmission line corridor and
access roads.
x The Chilko and Nemiah Valley residents also expressed concerns about soil contamination;
contamination from mine activities and also dust deposition on the landscape.
These concerns are addressed in this Application in the assessment of effects to soils through dust
contamination, mitigations for soils, and in the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (Section 2.8.1(h)).
Project Impact Assessment for Soils

There are two potential environmental effects identified for soils: changes in soil chemical properties and
changes in soil physical properties. These environmental effects have the potential to alter soil
reclamation suitability, which is used as a metric to describe soil quality. Reclamation suitability is
assessed at the level of the soil map unit (SMU).
The measurable parameters for effects to soil reclamation suitability are admixing, compaction and
rutting, soil erosion, soil loss, soil moisture changes, soil contamination and soil fertility.
Soil Reclamation Suitability

Only project effects that have changed from the Prosperity Project have been carried forward for
assessment. The potential project effects on soil reclamation suitability for the Prosperity Project are
described in detail in the March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.7.2.4.
The Project effects that have changed due to the Project design changes for the New Prosperity Project
are listed in Table 2.7.2.6-11. All of the Project effects that will be re-assessed are effects due to the site

water management and tailings management. These are rated as per the Project Environmental Effect
Rating Criteria.
Table 2.7.2.6-11 Potential Environmental Effects Associated with New Prosperity
Change in Soil
Change in soil
properties
properties
chemical
physical
Operations
Ore Stockpile management and processing 2
Crushing and conveyance 2
Pit dewatering 2
Tailings Management Tailing storage 2
Closure and Decommissioning
Post-closure
Changes to soil properties from Project-related activities at the mine site can result in an overall change
to reclamation suitability. Changes in physical properties are likely wherever ground disturbance is
required, with the exception of soil moisture changes. Soil chemical changes are linked with long-term
topsoil storage and atmospheric deposition from mining activities or accidental spills (March 2009
EIS/Application, Volume 9, Section 2). Table 2.7.2.6-12 summarizes which Project activities being carried
forward will have an environmental effect on specific measurable parameters of soil properties.
The measurable parameters for soil reclamation suitability that are predicted to be affected by the Project
effects carried forward in Table 2.7.2.6-11 are shown in Table 2.7.2.6-12. There were no residual project
effects predicted for admixing, compaction, erosion or soil fertility for the Prosperity Project; this has not
changed for the New Prosperity Project, as the area of potential soil disturbance has decreased with the
smaller mine footprint. These measurable parameters apply to activities that were rated ‘1’ in Table
2.7.2.6-10, and are shaded grey in Table 2.7.2.6-12. The residual Project effects for soil reclamation
suitability were measured by soil loss, soil moisture changes and soil contamination.

Table 2.7.2.6-12 Potential Environmental Effects and Associated Parameters for Soil Properties

Measurable Parameters
Physical Chemical
Compaction and
Contamination1
Soil Moisture
Project Activities and Physical Works
Soil Erosion
Soil Fertility
Admixing
Soil Loss
Changes
Rutting
Soil
Operations
Ore Stockpile management and processing 9 9
Pit dewatering 9
Tailing storage 9 9
Closure and Decommissioning
Post-closure
NOTE:
1
Contamination associated with accidental spills along the access road is dealt with in Accidents and Malfunctions (Prosperity EIS,
Volume 9, Section 2).
Effects Assessment Methods for Reclamation Suitability

The effects assessment methods for reclamation suitability has not changed since the Prosperity EIS, see
March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 4.7.2.2, Effects Assessment Methods for Reclamation
Suitability for details.
The analytical techniques for the assessment of environment effects to reclamation suitability have not
changed from the Prosperity EIS, Volume 5, Section 4.7.2.2, with one exception:
x The thresholds for the effects to soil chemistry due to dust deposition include the agricultural
standards from the BC Contaminated Sites Regulation (B.C. Reg. 375/96) as well as the CCME
(1999). The BC CSR standards were not used for the Prosperity Project assessment since the CCME
(1999) standards were lower; changes to the Schedule 5 thresholds for the BC CSR (B.C. Reg.
375/96) standards resulted in the thresholds for barium, chromium, mercury and zinc being lower than
the CCME (1999) standards previously used (Table 2.7.2.6-13).

Table 2.7.2.6-13 Recommended Soil Quality Guidelines for Metal Concentrations
Metal Symbol CCME Standard BC CSR Standard

(ppm or mg/kg) (ppm or mg/kg)
Arsenic As 12 20
Barium Ba 750 400
Boron B 2 2
Cadmium Cd 1.4 2
Chromium Cr 64 60
Copper Cu 63 90
Lead Pb 70 150
Mercury Hg 6.6 0.6
Molybdenum Mo 5 5
Nickel Ni 50 150
Selenium Se 1 2
Zinc Zn 200 150
SOURCE:
CCME (1999) Soil Quality Guidelines for Agricultural Land Use
BC CSR (B.C. Reg. 375/96) Soil Quality Guidelines for Agricultural Land Use
The metal deposition is linked to the spatial locations provided in Figure 2.7.2.6-5, and within a deposition
model boundary (50 m grid spacing) applied over the north end of the mine site including Fish Lake and
the surrounding meadows.
For the March 2009 EIS/Application, total suspended particulates (TSP) was used to model the dust
effects on soils; however, TSP is overly conservative for effects to soils due to mine dust deposition, as
most of the TSP off the mine site will be local dust not generated by the mine. To model the potential
effects to Fish Lake, dust of size 2.5 microns or less was used instead, as dust particles of that size will
be small enough to be carried by wind from the ore crusher to Fish Lake and surrounding locations
(Farmer, 1993; Walker and Everett, 1987).
Data sources and fieldwork used for reclamation suitability assessment have not changed from the March
2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.7.2.2.

5704000 452000 5708000 456000
!
#
*
#
*
LEGEND:
Mine Site MDA

Deposition Grid
Soil Map Unit O1

HHERA Receptor Site
5708000
Northwest Corner of Mine Site
Trail
Paved Road
Rough Road
Gravel Road
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
Lake
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
River
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
452000
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
Wetland
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
5700000
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
460000
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
5704000
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
# ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! * ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !! ! ! ! !
0.5
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
1
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! !
North Shore of Fish Lake
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! #
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
Kilometers
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !!
!! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
2
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Camp Location
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163-058_hhera_receptor_sites.mxd
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
456000
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
3
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
5696000
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Liam Quan Verified By: Tony Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
464000
HHERA Receptors
5692000
31st July 2012
FIGURE 2.7.2.6-5
±
460000
5692000 464000 5696000

XXX
REV
Changes in Baseline Conditions for Soil Reclamation Suitability
The reclamation suitability ratings for the mine site soils did not change for the New Prosperity EIS.
Reclamation suitability ratings for the undisturbed mineral soil of the root zone (mineral soil above the C
horizon) on the mine site were determined using the methods outlined in Soil Quality Criteria Relative to
Disturbance and Reclamation (AAFRD, 1987) (see Table 2.7.2.6-14 and Table 2.7.2.6-15).
Table 2.7.2.6-14 Criteria for Evaluating the Suitability of Root Zone Material in the Eastern Slopes
Region
Rating/Property Good (G) Fair (F) Poor (P) Unsuitable (U)

1
Reaction (pH) 5–6.5 4–5; 6.5–7.5 3.5–4; 7.5–9 <3.5 and >9
2
Salinity (EC) (dS/m) <2 2–4 4–8 >8
3
Sodicity (SAR) <4 4–8 8–12 >123
2
Saturation (%) 30–60 20–30; 60–80 15–20; 80–100 <15 and >100
4 5 6 5 6 5 6
Coarse Fragments (% Vol) <30 ; <15 30–50 ; 15–30 50–70 ; 30–50 >705; >506
L, SiCL, SCL, CL, SiL, VFSL, Consolidated
Texture LS, S, Si, C, HC
SL, FSL, SC, SiC bedrock
very friable,
Moist Consistency Loose, firm very firm extremely firm
friable
CaC03 (%) <2 2–20 20–70 >70
NOTES:
1 pH values presented are most appropriate for trees, primarily conifers. 2 Limits may vary depending on plant species to be
used.
3 Materials characterized by an SAR of 12 to 20 may be rated poor if texture is sandy loam or coarser and saturation percent is
less than 100.
4 0.2 to 25 cm diameter fragments in the soil material.
5 Matrix texture (modal) finer than sandy loam.
6 Matrix texture (modal) sandy loam and coarser.
Table 2.7.2.6-15 Reclamation Suitability Ratings
Rating Soil Map Unit Description

No soils with a Good rating
Good were identified in the Mine None to slight limitations that can affect plant growth
Site Local Study Area.
Moderate to severe limitations; can be overcome by
Fair F1, F2, M1, M4
proper planning and good management
Fair to Poor L1, M3 Contains soils with fair and poor ratings
Severe soil limitations that make use questionable;
Poor M2
careful planning and very good management are required
Chemical or physical soil properties are so severe that
C1, C2, D1, FG1, FG2, FG3,
Unsuitable use in reclamation is not possible or economically
FG4, R1, WA, DL
feasible
Not Rated O1, O2 Organic soils are not rated in this system

A little less than one quarter of the area within the mine footprint was rated as fair for reclamation
suitability, a further 56% was rated as fair to poor and none was rated as poor (Table 2.7.2.6-16). A small
remainder of the area (approximately 6%) was mapped as having unsuitable soil materials for
reclamation purposes. Within this category, 46% of the area was mapped as water bodies (WA),
disturbed land (DL) or bedrock outcroppings (R1). Thus, only 95.4 ha (or 3.3%) of mineral topsoil within
the mine site footprint was deemed unsuitable for reclamation purposes. The main limiting factor for the
majority of Soil Map Units (SMUs) was coarse fragment content. Coarse fragment contents were
generally high and typically increased with depth.
Organic soils are useful as soil amendments but are not rated for reclamation suitability according to the
system employed (AAFRD, 1987), but all are considered suitable for use in blending with mineral soils as
a reclamation medium. Approximately 13.5% of the mine site area is covered by organic soil units up to
160 cm deep.
The distribution and extent of reclamation suitability classes are illustrated in Figure 2.7.2.6-6. The
reclamation suitability rating for each criterion for each soil plot is shown in Appendix 5-4-A of the March
Table 2.7.2.6-16 Soil Reclamation Suitability Areas and Percentage for the Mine Site LSA
Reclamation
Suitability Prosperity LSA New Prosperity LSA
Class Symbol Soil Map Unit(s) ha % ha %
Fair F F2, M1, M4 1,065.8 24.2 734.5 24.8
Fair-Poor F-P L1, M3 2,387.3 54.2 1,654.9 55.8
Organic O O1, O2, O3 594.2 13.5 400.8 13.5
C1, C2, D1, FG1, FG2, 359.8 8.2
177.0 6.0
Unsuitable U FG3, R1, WA, DL
Total 4,407.1 100.0 2,967.2 100.0

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Dominant Soil Reclamation Suitability 2012 Soils LSA Paved Road River
Fair Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Gravel Road Lake
Fair-Poor Rough Road Wetland
0 0.5 1 2 3 Soil Reclamation Suitability
Unsuitable (Bedrock or Water) Trail within the Mine Site
Organic Kilometers
25th Junel 2012
2.7.2.6-6 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163-030_reclamation_suitability_minesite.mxd
The changes in the baseline for the measurable parameters of soil reclamation suitability are described
below; see March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.7.2.4, Assessment of Soil Physical
Properties for a description of the soil compaction and soil erosion hazard keys. There has been no
change in the baseline for admixing from the March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.7.2.4,
Assessment of Soil Physical Properties.
Soil Compaction and Rutting

Each soil map unit was assigned a compaction or rutting rating (Table 2.7.2.6-17). Mineral soils were
given a compaction rating, whereas all organic soils were rated as at risk for rutting. The majority of the
mine site (71%) is rated as moderate risk for compaction for the top 30 cm of the soil profile (Table
2.7.2.6-18, Figure 2.7.2.6-7). The overall rating provides an indication of bare soil conditions, once
vegetation has been removed.
Table 2.7.2.6-17 Compaction and Rutting Risk by Soil Map Unit within the Mine Site
Compaction
Soil Map Unit Rating
C1 L
C2 M
D1 L
F2 L
FG1 L
FG2 L
FG3 L
L1 VH
M1 M
M3 M
M4 H
O1 Rutting
O2 Rutting
O3 Rutting
DL Not Rated
R1 Not Rated
WA Not Rated

Table 2.7.2.6-18 Compaction and Rutting Risk within the Mine Site
Prosperity Project New Prosperity Project

Compaction Risk Area (ha) Percent Area (ha) Percent
Low 164.8 3.7 93.7 3.2
Moderate 2,841.2 64.5 2,114.3 71.3
High 603.8 13.7 373.3 12.6
Very High 1.4 <0.1 0.7 <0.1
Prone to Rutting 594.2 13.5 304.8 10.3
Not Rated 201.7 4.6 80.4 2.7
Total 4,407.1 100.0 2,967.2 100.0

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Soil Compaction Risk (Dominant Soil) 2012 Soils LSA Paved Road River
Low Gravel Road Lake
0 0.5 1 2 3
Moderate Rough Road Wetland
Compaction and Rutting Risk
High Trail Kilometers for the Mine Site
Very High
Not Rated (Bedrock or Water)
25th July 2012
Prone to Rutting (Organic soils)
2.7.2.6-7 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163-031_soil_compaction.mxd
Soil Erosion Risk
The greatest risk of water erosion occurs for soils with long slopes where water can accelerate and move
a large amount of material, particularly on bare soils. Broken short slopes or very gentle slopes (<9%) do
not allow water flowing on the surface to gain large momentum, thus reducing the erosive power of water.
At this site, steeper slopes are often short or broken and gentler slopes are flat enough to reduce erosion.
This area is rated as moderate-to-low for precipitation factors, reducing the overall erosion risk of the
area. In addition, the high coarse fragment content of the soil helps control wind erosion. Over 70% of the
mine site is at low risk for soil erosion, and less than 1 percent is at high risk (Table 2.7.2.6-19; Figure
2.7.2.6-8). The risk of shoreline erosion for soils along the TSF will likely be low as the prevailing winds
are from the northwest and the undisturbed soils that will border the TSF will be on the sheltered side of
the TSF. Slopes are gentle in the area and soil erosion ratings are low. With water being adjacent to
these soils the erosion risk is anticipated to increase to a moderate erosion risk along the eastern
shoreline of the TSF.
Table 2.7.2.6-19 Erosion Hazard Rating for the Mine Site Local Study Area

Area Area
Soil Erosion Potential Percent Percent
(ha) (ha)
Not Rated1 725.7 16.5 413.0 13.9
Low 2,952.9 67.0 2,096.1 70.6
Moderate 654.6 14.9 384.8 13.0
High 3.7 0.1 3.9 0.1
Disturbed Area 70.2 1.6 69.4 2.3
Total 4,407.1 100.0 2,967.2 100.0
NOTES:
Ratings use BEC zone, terrain calls and soil map units to assess erosion hazard therefore no summary for each map unit can be
provided as they may have more than one rating value assigned.
1
Not Rated includes organic soils, water and exposed bedrock.

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

LEGEND:
Soil Erosion Hazard (Weighted Value) 2012 Soils LSA Paved Road River NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Low Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Gravel Road Lake
Moderate Rough Road Wetland 0 0.5 1 2 3 Baseline Soil Erosion Hazards - Mine Site
High Trail
Not Rated (Bedrock, Water, Organic Soils) Kilometers
Disturbed Area 25th July 2012
2.7.2.6-8 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163-040_soil_erosion_minesite.mxd
Soil Loss
Details of where soil stripping, salvage and replacement are to occur are outlined in Section 2.8.1(g), Soil
Salvage and Handling Plan.
Soil loss is estimated by comparing the total volume of topsoil at baseline conditions for the mine site
local study area and subtracting what will be salvaged; the remainder will comprise the total soil loss.
Each soil map unit was assigned a topsoil depth used to calculate the volume (Table 2.7.2.6-20).
Table 2.7.2.6-20 Soil Map Units and the Corresponding Topsoil Depths for the Mine Site
Soil Map Unit(s) Average Topsoil Depth (cm)
R1, WA, DL 0
D1, FG1, L1, M1 30
C1, C2, FG3, FG4 35
F1, M2 40
FG2, M3 45
M4 50
F2 80
O2 115
O1 160
The estimated amount of topsoil within the mine footprint at baseline is 17.2 Mm3 (Table 2.7.2.6-21). The
majority of the volume within the mine footprint comes from morainal soil map units (~ 10.5 Mm3) or
organic SMUs (6.0 Mm3). Approximately 0.7 Mm3 of topsoil is estimated for all of the remaining map units
combined and, of these, both the colluvial and glaciofluvial soil map units are considered unsuitable for
reclamation purposes.
Topsoil depths shown in Figure 2.7.2.6-9 include areas with soils rated as unsuitable for reclamation, and
soils that occur in areas of mass movement or steep slopes (>60%).

Table 2.7.2.6-21 Estimated Volumes of Topsoil for the Mine Site Local Study Area

3
Topsoil Layer Volume (m ) Volume (%) Volume (m3) Volume (%)
C1 2.31E+04 0.1 2.08E+04 0.1
C2 5.67E+04 0.2 5.09E+04 0.3
Total Colluvial 7.98E+04 0.3 7.17E+04 0.4
D1 5.03E+04 0.2 1.15E+03 <0.1
Total Residual 5.03E+04 0.2 1.15E+03 <0.1
F2 1.83E+05 0.7 1.76E+05 1.0
Total Fluvial 1.83E+05 0.7 1.76E+05 1.0
FG1 1.47E+04 0.1 1.48E+04 0.1
FG2 4.62E+05 1.9 2.98E+05 1.7
FG3 3.77E+04 0.2 1.17E+04 0.1
Total Glaciofluvial 5.15E+05 2.1 3.25E+05 1.9
L1 4.14E+03 0.0 2.20E+03 <0.1
Total Lacustrine 4.14E+03 0.0 2.20E+03 <0.1
M1 1.31E+06 5.3 7.11E+05 4.1
M3 1.07E+07 43.3 7.44E+06 43.3
M4 3.01E+06 12.2 2.38E+06 13.8
Total Morainal 1.50E+07 60.7 1.05E+07 61.2
O1 7.41E+06 29.9 5.02E+06 29.2
O2 1.49E+06 6.0 1.00E+06 5.8
O3 2.63E+03 0.0 2.08E+04 0.1
Total Organic 8.91E+06 35.9 5.09E+04 0.3
Total 2.48E+07 100.0 17.2E+06 100.0

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Topsoil Depth (cm) 45 2012 Soils LSA Paved Road River NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
0 0.5 1 2 3
160 40 Terrestrial Ecosystem Gravel Road Lake
Mapping Extent
115 35 Rough Road Kilometers Topsoil Depths for the Mine Site
80 30 Trail
50 0 25th July 2012
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Kevin Poll Verified By: Tony Dinneen, Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
2.7.2.6-9 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163-033_topsoil_depth_minesite.mxd
The total terrestrial area, or area with topsoil, in the mine site at baseline is 2885.6 ha – the area of the
LSA excluding water, bedrock and anthropogenic features.
Soil Contamination
Arsenic, copper, nickel, selenium and zinc were found to exceed recommended CCME (1999) guidelines
in some existing topsoil and subsoil samples in the Prosperity Project mine footprint (March 2009
EIS/Application Appendix 5-4-L). The naturally occurring elevated metals in the soil were not reflected in
the vegetation samples taken in 2006 and 2007 (March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 5 and
Appendices 5-5-C1 and 5-5-C2). Due to the lower BC CSR standard for chromium (60 mg/kg as of May
2011 compared to 64 mg/kg) additional locations now exceed guidelines in the New Prosperity Project at
baseline. All soil plots that exceed BC CSR or CCME guidelines at baseline are shown on Figure 2.7.2.6-
10.
The elevated metals in soils do not correlate well with plant metal exceedances at baseline conditions;
therefore, the elevated metals in the soil are not expected to limit the reclamation suitability of the soil.

5708000 460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
1700
0
0
17
16
456000
0 0
468000
1 70 0
17 00
1600 16
0
5692000
0
95-9 95-53
95-51
#$
+
.
!
*
95-11
#
*
95-52 96-10
!!
(
.
!
+
$
(
95-10
95-50
95-14 95-13 95-33 96-16
96-14
(
!
(
!
(
!
+
$
95-54
95-7
95-8
+
$
_!.
^
+
$
95-15 95-6
.
!
!
.
95-34
95-32 16
+*#
95-56
#
*
95-55
#
*
#
*
00
.
!
96-13
$
96-20 95-31
(
!
.
!
95-12 95-39 95-38
#$ 95-3 95-4
95-16
+ 96-17
#!. #
*
#
.*
*
*
+
$
95-21 96-23 96-21
"
)
!
(
!
#
*
95-17
+
$
(
!
95-20B
.
!
#
*
#
*
96-18 95-30 95-35
#
*
+
$
95-22 #
* 95-40 95-29
#
*
.
!
96-04 95-23
95-41
95-18
#
# *
#
*
.
!
95-28
452000
95-24 1 60 0
95-19 95-1
#
*
464000
95-42
(
!
95-25
1 600
(
!
96-06
(
!
95-27
0
5704000
160
1600
95-26 95-36
.
!
+
$
0 0
15
1300 1400
1 300
5688000
00
1300
14
14 0 0
1 400 14 00 13 0 0 00
14 0 0 1 300 13
5700000 452000 5696000 456000 5692000 460000 5688000

Elevated Metals #
* Cr, Ni $
+ As, Mo, Se 2012 Soils LSA River
.
! None #
* As, Cu +
$ As, Cu, Zn Paved Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
(
! Ni #
* As, Cr +
$ As, Cr, Ni Gravel Road
(
! Cu +
$ Cu, Ni, Se "
) Cr, Cu, Ni, Se Rough Road Kilometers Elevated Soil Metals Concentrations
(
! Cr +
$ Cr, Ni, Co _
^ As, Cu, Ni, Mo, Se Trail
(
! As +
$ Cr, Cu, Ni 25th July 2012
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: K. Poll Verified By: T. Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
2.7.2.6-10 XXX
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163_057_Soils_Metals.mxd
Project Effects to Reclamation Suitability
Soil Loss
No salvage will occur on approximately 734.3 ha, for a total soil loss volume of 3.5 Mm3 of soil (Table
2.7.2.6-22).
Table 2.7.2.6-22 Estimated Soil Loss Associated with Mine Site Development

Soil Area for Reclaimed Volume of Area Volume of Area
Landscape Soil (m3) (ha) Soil (m3) (ha)
Mine Site LSA 24,818,000 4407 17,201,200 2,967.2
Proposed Mine features (Volume 10,066,587 1,920.5
at Baseline) 12,784,726 2,022
Total volume of soil salvaged for 6,520,087 1,186.2
reclamation 5,778,300 979
Total area where no salvage
required 7,006,426 1,043 3,546,500 734.3
NOTES:
Areas of baseline disturbance, exposed bedrock and water have been factored out of soil loss and salvage volumes as those areas
do not have topsoil. Areas of topsoil that cannot be salvaged include those rated as unsuitable for reclamation, soil occurring in
areas of rapid mass movements, and slopes that are greater than 60% that pose a safety risk to ground operators. Soil loss from
handling cannot be estimated and is therefore not included in the assessment numbers. The loss associated with handling is
assumed to be minimal with proper mitigation. Total reclaimed landscape excludes permanent features and water areas and only
includes the area where soil replacement is necessary. Soil volume includes both mineral topsoil and Organic soil.
Project activities will result in a total loss of 22% of topsoil, and a total of 19% of the terrestrial land base,
from baseline relative to post-closure conditions for the mine site LSA (Table 2.7.2.6-23; Figure 2.7.2.6-
11). These losses cannot be recovered and are a residual effect from Project activities.

Table 2.7.2.6-23 Residual Project Effects Associated with Soil Loss
Percent
% Change
Baseline Change at
Post- Baseline Post-closure at Post-
Land Base Post-
closure Soil Volume Soil Loss for closure
(Mine Site closure
Project Loss of for Mine the Mine from
LSA–water from
Land Base Site LSA Site LSA Baseline
features) Baseline for
(ha) (Mm3) (Mm3) for Soil
(ha) Land Base
Loss
Loss
Prosperity 4,282.2 981.8 23 24.8 7.0 28.2
New 17.2
2,967.2 549.9 18.5 3.7 21.6
Prosperity
NOTE:
Total land base at baseline is (total area assessed) – (baseline water features). Post-closure land base loss is (Pit and TSF Lake
permanent seepage ponds) – (baseline water features remaining in LSA outside project footprint)
The loss of the terrestrial land base is due to the construction of the pit walls, Pit Lake, and the TSF.
Additional land base loss associated with the Project are permanent mine features that will be
decommissioned and reclaimed when water quality objectives are met (e.g. the water pumping wells,
main embankment seepage ponds); those areas were not factored into the terrestrial land base loss
calculations.

5704000 460000 5700000 464000 5696000
±
5704000
464000
456000
5692000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000 5692000

Soil Loss Area Road - Paved River
0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Soil Salvage Area Road - Gravel Lake
Soil Stockpile Road - Rough Kilometers Soil Loss at Closure
Trail
25th July 2012
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: L. Quan Verified By: T. Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
2.7.2.6-11 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Reclamation\MXD\123210163_071_Closure_Soil_Loss.mxd
Soil Moisture
For the operations phase of the Project, soil moisture changes will affect wetland soils, saturated soils
and upland soils. Wetland or peat soils will be affected by a decrease of 30 cm to 1 m in the water table.
The result is drier conditions that will allow peat to dry and oxidize, thereby influencing the type of
vegetation that can be supported. For water saturated soils, a change of greater than 1 m but less than 2
m decrease in the water table may be sufficiently long enough that vegetation adapted to fluctuating
water tables near the surface will be affected.
The soils that have formed under well drained conditions could experience the water table within the
rooting zone of plants, which is normally within the top 1.5 m of the surface. If the water table increases to
reach the rooting zone, then decreased oxygen diffusion in the soil could limit root growth of plants not
adapted to anaerobic conditions.
For the operations through post-closure phases of the Project, during pit dewatering and subsequent 50
year recharge, the potential exists for water table decreases in undisturbed soils east and west of the pit.
Site water diversion during operations will result in the potential for decreased soil moisture in wetland
soils around the plant site (soil table within 1 m of the surface; Figure 2.7.2.6-12); however, this effect will
cease at closure when site drainage is restored during reclamation of the ore stockpile and plant site
areas (Figure 2.7.2.6-13). Soil moisture may potentially increase in upland soils downstream of the TSF
seepage locations (areas where depth to groundwater not shown, implied depth is greater than 2 m;
Figure 2.7.2.6-12 and Figure 2.7.2.6-13). Increasing soil moisture around the TSF embankments may
result in new seepage sites and shifts in vegetation communities.
A residual Project effect is anticipated for soil moisture. The changes to soil moisture conditions will vary
throughout the life of the Project during dewatering at operations, and at closure with pit filling. The pit
dewater effect will last for at least 17 years, during active pit dewatering, and will likely extend into post-
closure as the water table will take approximately 50 years to rebound. That time is sufficiently long
enough to have an environmental effect on soil moisture and the associated ecological receptors such as
vegetation and wildlife habitat. The mounding in the water table and associated increase in groundwater
recharge to surrounding streams that will occur due to the filling of the TSF will be permanent. The exact
extent of the areas that will be affected cannot be quantified; they may extend up to a few hundred metres
into the RSA at the south tailings embankment, depending on the accuracy of the model, but are
anticipated to be localized (Section 2.7.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity, Hydrogeology).

5712000 5708000 5704000 464000 5700000 5696000
460000
464000 5692000
456000
460000
452000
456000
5712000 5708000 5704000 452000 5696000 5692000

Groundwater Model Extent Depth to Groundwater Paved Road
Gravel Road
0 1 2 4 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Predicted Groundwater 0 to 1 Metre
Increase in Baseflow to Streams and Lakes 1 to 2 Metres Rough Road
Kilometers
Drawdown Due to Open Pit Dewatering Groundwater Seepage Trail Potential Groundwater Change at Operations
Reduction in Recharge Under Mine Stockpiles Project Features River
and Infrastructure 25th July 2012
Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Lake
Build-Up Beneath Tailings Storage Facility
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Tony Dinneen Verified By: Natalie Tashe Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
2.7.2.6-12 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163_093_Potential_Groundwater_Operations.mxd
5712000 5708000 5704000 464000 5700000 5696000
460000
464000 5692000
456000
460000
452000
456000
5712000 5708000 5704000 452000 5696000 5692000

Groundwater Model Extent Project Features Paved Road
Predicted Increase in Groundwater Baseflow to Streams and Lakes Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Gravel Road NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Predicted Groundwater Build-Up Beneath Tailings Storage Facility Rough Road
Depth to Groundwater Trail 0 1 2 4 Post Closure Potential Groundwater
0 to 1 Metre River
1 to 2 Metres Lake Kilometers 25th July 2012
Groundwater Seepage Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Tony Dinneen Verified By: Natalie Tashe Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia 2.7.2.6-13 REV
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163_095_Potential_Groundwater_PostClosure.mxd
Soil Contamination
There will be no residual effect from ore extraction and processing on soil chemical properties. In the
Prosperity EIS, soil contamination from metal deposition that occurs outside the ground disturbance area
was assessed as having the potential to exceed critical thresholds for copper and molybdenum levels in
soils at the camp; however the models were based on TSP deposition volumes and over-estimated the
deposition of metals on the soils for 2007 dust deposition with new CCME and BC CSR thresholds), as
the metal speciation used was still that of the 2.5 micron ore dust fraction. When the 2.5 micron model
was run over the camp again for the New Prosperity Project, there were no potential changes in the metal
concentrations in the soils (Table 2.7.2.6-24). The deposition on the soils around Fish Lake also did not
result in soil metal concentrations increasing above guidelines. Some of the organic soils, which occur
around the north end of Fish Lake, already exceed guidelines at baseline.
Table 2.7.2.6-24 Soil Metal Concentrations at the Camp Based on the TSP Model and the PM2.5
Model
Site 96–10
Orthic Eutric Brunisol derived from Till
Ah horizon
Camp Location at Operations
Average Deposition Soil Concentration
Rate
Lowest of
CCME or BC
Final – CSR
TSP PM2.5 Baseline Final - TSP PM2.5 Guideline
Metal (mg/m2/yr) (mg/m2/yr) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Arsenic 5.5 0.03 2.23 4.1 2.23 12
Barium 19.0 0.09 63 69 63 400
Cadmium <0.1 <0.01 2 2 2 1.4
Chromium 37.0 0.17 23 35 23 60
Copper 772.1 3.6 32 289 32 63
Lead 1.5 <0.01 5 5 5 70
Mercury 0.13 <0.01 0.014 0.06 0.014 0.6
Molybdenum 13.0 0.06 4 8 4 5
Nickel 5.7 0.03 35 37 35 50
Selenium 0.8 <0.01 0.05 0.4 0.05 1
Zinc 9.0 <0.01 96 99 96 150
In order to confirm that the soil models are correct, the five locations shown on Figure 2.7.2.6-5 will still be
monitored for soil contamination and uptake of metals in vegetation (including around the camp and at the
north end of Fish Lake within the LSA) annually throughout operations.

Soil Reclamation Suitability Mitigation Measures
Mitigations for soil reclamation suitability have not changed from the March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume
5, Section 4.7.2.4, Assessment of Soil Physical Properties; 4.7.2.5, Assessment of Soil Chemical
Properties; and 4.7.2.8, Summary of Mitigation for Soil Reclamation Suitability. One, new mitigation has
been added for the TSF shoreline erosion since the 2009 EIS application (See Table 2.7.2.6-25). For
ease of reference the 2009 EIS/Application describes the following mitigation strategies that can be used
to avoid or reduce effects on soil reclamation suitability:
Construction Phase
The construction phase of the Project is when soils are most vulnerable and the following mitigation
measures could be employed to control detrimental effects:
x During construction traffic flow will be restricted until soils have been salvaged.
x In areas where no salvage is to occur and no proposed mine facilities will be developed, these areas
will be avoided by operation activities as needed to prevent soil degradation.
x The environmental supervisor overseeing soil salvage efforts at construction must be aware of ground
conditions that are unsuitable for soil handling (e.g., if conditions are too wet, activities may cause
unnecessary soil compaction and rutting).
x Control vehicle traffic by use of designated roads and trails. The control of vehicle traffic is particularly
important after vegetation has been removed and prior to soil being salvaged at the construction
phase.
x To reduce soil erosion during construction mitigation has been identified in the erosion and sediment
control plan (Section 2.8.1(h)). Mitigation in the plan includes location and types of silt fencing that is
required for the Project.
x The environmental supervisor on the ground should be aware of ground conditions that are not ideal
for soil handling and salvage. High winds, heavy rainfall conditions, rapid snow melt are conditions
where excessive soil erosion can occur and Project activities related to soil handling must be
assessed on a site specific and daily basis.
x Soil loss can be mitigated by ensuring skilled operators are on the ground that are able to identify
topsoil from subsoil.
x The environmental supervisor must provide guidance on stripping depths based on the topsoil depth
map of the mine site.
x Salvaging soils within the mine site disturbance area and removing them from Project activities
associated with high deposition rates such as the area surrounding the proposed open pit.
x Location of soil stockpiles should be in areas that are removed from Project activities that result in
metal deposition. Details of stockpile mitigation will be outlined in the soil salvage plan. (Section
2.8.1(g)).

Operations Phase
x No prescribed mitigation is required during the operations phase of the Project. Proper mitigation
during construction should be sufficient to maintain soil quality and quantity.
Closure Phase
x During reclamation efforts, the re-establishment of drainages during re-contouring is important to

reduce erosion. The site supervisor should be evaluating ground conditions and adjusting the final
grade contours to prevent rill or gully erosion from surface water runoff.
x The environmental supervisor on the ground should be aware of ground and weather conditions that
are not ideal for soil replacement. Soils will be vulnerable until vegetation has been re-established so
additional measures as outlined in the Conceptual Reclamation Plan (Section 2.8.2) will be followed.
x For the closure phase when soil in stockpiles is being redistributed, efforts must be taken to ensure the
redistributed soil has been contoured properly and no rutting is evident.
x If puddling and rutting are observed prior to seeding, recontouring or loosening of the soil may be
required to allow for proper drainage.
x Areas where subsoil compaction has occurred, such as roads and trails should be ripped and
loosened so that groundwater flow is not impeded, prior to topsoil replacement at reclamation.
x The re-establishment of drainages during recontouring is important to reduce erosion. The site
supervisor should be evaluating ground conditions and adjusting the final grade contours to prevent rill
or gully erosion from surface water.
x Prior to any revegetation efforts, some soil ripping may be required to create a suitable seed bed. The
effects of compaction manifest through the performance of vegetation growth, which will be monitored
to measure the success of reclamation efforts.
x An application of N, P, K fertilizer may be required after soil replacement to assist in revegetation

efforts. A 13-16-10 or 19-19-19 balanced fertilizer is generally acceptable for most soils.
Post-closure Phase
x No prescribed mitigation is required during the post-closure phase of the Project. Proper mitigation
during reclamation efforts should protect the majority of the soil resource.
Table 2.7.2.6-25 provides the cross-references to other sections of the March 2009 EIS/Application and
updated sections of the New Prosperity EIS where detailed mitigations for effects to soils are contained.
The mitigations for each Project phase are described in the March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5,
Section 4.8.1 Summary of Mitigation for Soil. The locations of soil erosion hazards in the post-closure
mine site that will require mitigation have changed due to the change in project footprint (see Figure
2.7.2.6-14).

Table 2.7.2.6-25 Mitigation Measures for Effects on Soil
Project Effect Description of Project Effect Mitigation Measures

Changes to Loss of soil physical quality due to Prosperity EIS, Volume 5 Section 4.7.2.4,
Physical admixing, compaction and rutting Assessment of Soil Physical Changes.
Properties during construction and operations Soil Salvage and Handling Plan (Section
activities 2.8.1(g)), including direct placement and
prompt progressive reclamation where
possible, stockpile design to prevent
anaerobic conditions, avoidance of wet
conditions during soil salvage, traffic
control during soil salvage and other
activities on the site to minimize soil
compaction
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(Section 2.8.1(h))
Soil Loss and erosion including Salvage and Handling Plan (Section
mechanical displacement during 2.8.1(g)
construction and operation Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(Section 2.8.1(h))
Shoreline erosion control as required on
the eastern TSF shoreline
Change in soil moisture status due to Prosperity EIS, Volume 5 Section 4.7.2.4,
changes in soil drainage regime or Assessment of Soil Physical Changes.
changes in water table depth
Changes to Changes in soil quality due to spills Section 2.7.6 Accidents and Malfunctions
Chemical and leaks of potential contaminants
Properties Soil Metal Deposition Prosperity EIS, Volume 5, Section
4.7.2.5, Assessment of Soil Chemical
Properties
Section 2.7.3.3: Human Health Risk
Assessment
Section 2.7.2.2: Atmospheric
Environment
Loss of soil fertility (includes Prosperity EIS, Volume 5, Section
biological changes) during storage in 4.7.2.5, Assessment of Soil Chemical
soil stockpiles Properties
Soil Salvage and Handling Plan (Section
2.8.1(g))

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Soil Erosion Hazard (Weighted Value) 2012 Soils LSA Paved Road River
Low Terrestrial Ecosystem Gravel Road Lake
0 0.5 1 2 3
Mapping Extent
Moderate Rough Road Wetland)
High Trail Kilometers Post Closure Soil Erosion Hazards - Mine Site
Not Rated (Bedrock, Water, Organic Soils)
Disturbed Area 25th July 2012
2.7.2.6-14 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\soils\MXD\123210163-097_soil_erosion_PC.mxd

the Project’s residual effects on soil if it should reach a production decision in the future. Climate change
and mountain pine beetle remain additional considerations for the Project that will potentially interact with
soils by increasing the risk of erosion on existing unstable areas, changing soil moisture regimes, and
creating soil compaction during mountain pine beetle forest harvesting (see March 2009 EIS/Application,
Volume 5, Section 4.8.4, Additional Considerations for Soils). The effect of these two factors has not
changed since the Prosperity EIS, and the conclusions for the amended soil assessment for the New
Prosperity Project have not changed.
For soils, the first condition is met; that is, there are Project-specific residual effects on soils. With respect
to the second condition, the primary mechanism whereby cumulative effects on soil chemical properties
can occur is through the interaction of multiple air sheds contributing air-based contaminants. The
cumulative effects assessment for the atmospheric environment for the March 2009 EIS/Application
(Volume 4, Section 2, Atmospheric Assessment) showed that the air sheds from current and proposed
projects did not overlap with this Project. The one new future project since 2009, the Newton property
exploration program, is within the boundaries of the New Prosperity air shed. Since there are negligible
concentrations of metals in the PM2.5 dust outside the immediate crusher facilities at New Prosperity
(Section 2.7.2.2 – Atmospheric Environment), there is no potential for a cumulative interaction with
respect to contaminant deposition on soils. The Newton property could also result in groundwater
changes if the project advanced to an operating mine; however, the groundwater changes predicted for
the New Prosperity mine site are all restricted to within 2 km of the mine footprint. Consequently, there is
no potential for a cumulative interaction on soil moisture due to the large distance between the New
Prosperity Project and the nearest proposed project that may affect groundwater, combined with the
limited extent of the groundwater effects due to the Project. Thus, as was the case for the March 2009
EIS/Application, with respect to the third condition, the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on soils
will not notably reduce the sustainability of the soil resource in the assessment area.


described in Section 2.7.1.5. There have been no changes to the environmental effects rating criteria for
soils from the Prosperity EIS. The definitions are provided in Table 2.7.2.6-26.
Table 2.7.2.6-26 Effects Characterization for Soils
Criterion Rating Description

Direction Positive Effect occurs on one or more soil property that results in an
increase in the reclamation suitability rating for a soil map unit
Neutral Effect occurs on one or more soil properties but the overall effect
on reclamation suitability is no net change in rating for a soil map
unit
Adverse Effects occur on one or more soil property that results in a
decrease in reclamation suitability rating for a soil map unit
Uncertain Trend of the effects on reclamation suitability are uncertain
Magnitude* Low Effect results in no net loss of the soil resource associated with a
Project component. Soil properties may be altered but this will
have no measurable effect on soil suitability for reclamation or soil
capability for agriculture
Moderate Effect results in less than 10% loss of the soil resource associated
with a Project component. Soil suitability for reclamation is
changed by one class
High Effect results in greater than 10% loss of the soil resource
associated with a Project component. Soil suitability for
reclamation is changed by two or more classes
Geographic Site-specific Effects are confined to a specific site within the Local Study Area
Extent Local Effects are confined to the Local Study Area
Regional Effects extend beyond the Local Study Area
Frequency One-time Effect occurs only once
Sporadic Effect occurs more than once but at unpredictable frequencies
Continuous Effect occurs on a continuous basis
Duration Short-term Effect is limited to <1 year
Medium-term Effect occurs >1 year but not beyond the life of the Project
Long-term Effect extends beyond the life of the Project
Reversibility Irreversible Effect is not reversible over time
Reversible Effect is reversible over time
Ecological Limited Limited effect by human activity
Context Disturbance
Developed Substantial effect due to alteration by human activity
NOTE:
*Thresholds for magnitude for soil loss are consistent with the thresholds used for forest productivity in the March 2009
Prosperity EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 5; however, soil resources were assessed at the scale of the LSA rather than the
RSA for forest productivity, as local effects to soil resources have the potential to affect the ability to reclaim the Project to
equivalent land capability.
There is no change in the 2009 conclusion of no significant effects for reclamation suitability for the
Project. The predicted Project effects on reclamation suitability have decreased for the New Prosperity
Project (see March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 4.7.2.7,).

The summary of project effects on reclamation suitability for the New Prosperity Project is shown in Table
2.7.2.6-27. Only project effects for measurable parameters carried forward for significance assessment
are shown. The measureable parameters that were carried through for assessment of effects to
reclamation suitability due to the Project were soil volume loss due to burial, flooding or erosion; loss of
terrestrial area and changes in soil moisture. Soil volume defined as lost due to burial or flooding is any
excess soil volume not required to meet reclamation objectives, and therefore buried under the TSF.
An environmental effect on soil reclamation suitability was considered to be significant if the aggregate of
the changes in soil physical and chemical properties was moderate or high magnitude (i.e. would alter soil
properties such that the soil would decrease a reclamation suitability rating), irreversible, extended
beyond the life of the Project and was at a regional scale. Each of the measurable parameters of soil
reclamation suitability was assessed separately for residual effects characterization, but the significant
rating was applied only to the key indicator of reclamation suitability.
A 22% loss of soil volume and a 19% loss of terrestrial area in the LSA is predicted. The effect to these
measurable parameters is high in magnitude and irreversible but site-specific, with the effect confined to
the project footprint. Soil erosion along the eastern shoreline of the TSF is another potential mechanism
of soil loss, but with erosion control measures implemented the contribution of soil erosion to the residual
effect on soil loss is predicted to be low magnitude, irreversible and site specific.
The residual environmental effects on soil loss are meaningful primarily as they relate to effects on post-
closure ecosystems and the capacity of the mine site area to sustain productive capability, wildlife habitat,
and traditional land and resource uses. The area is characterized as till with high coarse fragment content
interspersed with organic soils and inclusions of bedrock, fluvial, glacial fluvial and colluviums derived
soils. These soils are well represented within the LSA and these surficial materials occur in the RSA and
therefore the terrestrial area lost is not of rare soil types, Most importantly, over half the soil in the mine
site LSA is primarily fair to poor for reclamation suitability, and the area as a whole is not considered high
yielding soil for either agriculture or forestry. Soils that were rated as good for reclamation were
preferentially salvaged to maintain the best soil for reclamation to land with equivalent capability to
baseline.
When placed into context of the goals to achieve equivalent land capability on the post-closure mine site,
the physical changes due to losses of topsoil and the terrestrial land base are considered low magnitude,
reclamation is expected to restore baseline land use, local in extent (as erosion may occur outside of the
mine footprint but within the LSA) and irreversible.
The potential change in soil moisture for the New Prosperity Project is still of moderate magnitude and
extends just beyond the defined mine site LSA. Changes to soil moisture around the pit are expected to
recover over approximately 50 years once dewatering of the pit ceases, so some changes in soil moisture
are considered medium term and reversible. At post-closure the Pit and the TSF water bodies will be
permanent features on the landscape and therefore some soil moisture changes are considered
irreversible. A new equilibrium will be attained and will result in vegetation and wildlife habitat use
changes. If the drop in the water table dries out a wetland, it may allow for productive forests to establish.
Where the water table is increased, productive forest may be lost, but wetlands may be created and
monitoring will be required to determine whether soil moisture changes do result in changes in distribution
of ecosystems on the landscape, and future mitigation may be required.
The aggregate effect of the Project on reclamation suitability due to soil volume loss, terrestrial area loss
and soil moisture changes is therefore of moderate magnitude, of regional geographic extent, and
irreversible.

The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for soil reclamation suitability for New Prosperity
are summarized in Table 2.7.2.6-27.

Table 2.7.2.6-27 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Soils for New Prosperity
Residual Effects
Characterization
Significance
Confidence
Prediction
Duration and
Reversibility
Geographic
Frequency
Ecological
Magnitude
Direction
Context
Extent
Project Residual
Effects Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures
Soil loss due to x Shoreline reinforcement as required on eastern side of TSF
A L S O I L - M
shoreline erosion
Soil loss and loss x Soil Salvage and Handling Plan (Section 2.8.1(g), including direct
of terrestrial area placement and prompt progressive reclamation where possible,
stockpile design to prevent anaerobic conditions, avoidance of
wet conditions during soil salvage, traffic control during soil
salvage and other activities on the site to minimize soil
compaction A H L LT/O I L - M
x Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Section 2.8.1(h)); prevention
of soil loss.
x covered conveyor belt and covered transport trucks
x grinding ore in wet slurries to reduce metal dust emissions
Changes in soil None.
moisture due to L-
A M R LT/C R/I L -
groundwater M
changes
Sum of Effects to Reclamation Suitability A M R LT I L N M
KEY
Frequency
Direction O Once: Effect occurs only once
P Positive S Sporadic: Effect occurs more than once but at unpredictable frequencies.
N Neutral C Continuous: Effect occurs on a continuous basis Duration
A Adverse ST Short term: effect is limited to < 1 year
U Uncertain MT Medium term: effect occurs > 1 year but not beyond the life of the Project
LT Long term: effect extends beyond the life of the Project but is not permanent
Magnitude
L Low: Effect results in no net loss of the soil resource Reversibility
associated with a Project component. Soil properties may be altered but R Reversible: effect is reversible over time

Residual Effects
Characterization
Significance
Confidence
Prediction
Duration and
Reversibility
Geographic
Frequency
Ecological
Magnitude
Direction
Context
Extent
Project Residual
Effects Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures
this will have no measurable effect on soil suitability for reclamation I Irreversible: effect is not reversible over time
M Moderate: Effect results in less than 10% loss of the soil
resource associated with a Project component. Soil suitability for Ecological Context
reclamation is changed by one class L Limited: Limited effect by human activity
H High: Effect results in greater than 10% loss of the soil D Developed: Substantial effect due to alteration by human activity
resource associated with a Project component. Soil suitability for
reclamation is changed by two or more classes Significance
S Significant
Geographic Extent N Not significant
S Site-specific: effects are confined to a specific site within the
LSA Prediction Confidence:
L Local: effects are confined to the LSA Based on scientific information and statistical analysis, professional judgment and effectiveness of
R Regional: effects beyond the LSA mitigation
L Low level of confidence
M Moderate level of confidence
H High level of confidence

Table 2.7.2.6-28 presents a concise summary of effects assessment for soils. Considering the updated
findings of the Project, mitigation measures, and cumulative residual effects on soils presented in this
document, the overall significance determination for the New Prosperity Project, including all three major
components (mine site, access road, transmission line), is unchanged from 2009. That is, the effect of the
Project on the viability and sustainability of the soil resource is considered to be not significant.
There are no changes in effects prediction confidence from 2009 (Prosperity EIS Volume 5 Section
4.7.2.4 and 4.7.2.5). The overall confidence in predicting significant effects to reclamation suitability are
moderate for physical and chemical soil properties. Despite the overall moderate prediction confidence for
reclamation suitability certain measurable parameters will still require monitoring Lower confidence
applies to shoreline erosion along the TSF as the magnitude of erosion risk are conceptual at this design
level. Soil moisture changes are based on conceptual ground water models resulting in a qualitative soil
moisture assessment that will require monitoring.
Summary of Effects
The summary of residual effects on the soil resource is groundwater changes and soil erosion risk around
the TSF. A summary of the residual effects for soils is found in the March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5
Section 4.4, Summary of Effects on Soils. The summary of effects to the soils resource with all projects
components considered is addressed in Table 2.7.6-28.
Table 2.7.2.6-28 Summary of Effects Assessment for Soils
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
The beneficial changes to the residual effects for soils for the New Prosperity Project
are:
x A smaller residual effect for soil loss due to a smaller footprint
Beneficial and
Adverse Effects x No residual effect for soils due to soil contamination due to dust deposition
and no effects on the soil resource modeled around Fish Lake, where public
access is maintained.
Adverse project effects on soil loss, soil erosion and soil moisture remain.
Mitigation and
Compensation See Tables 2.7.2.6-25 and 2.7.2.6-27.
Measures
The New Prosperity Project has redesigned the mine site layout to create a smaller
footprint, which reduces the amount of soil loss and disturbance. There are still
potential adverse effects remaining due to pit dewatering and subsequent
groundwater recharge, and the permanent change in groundwater levels associated
with the pit dewatering, and TSF filling that affect soil moisture conditions outside the
Potential mine footprint.
Residual Potential changes in soil moisture status due to changes in groundwater cannot be
Effects effectively mitigated. These changes are closely linked to alterations of the terrain
and surficial geology; more specifically the dewatering of the open pit and the
creation of the TSF. At post-closure there will also be permanent alterations in soil
map units in the mine site footprint following reclamation. Soil loss and terrestrial
land base losses are estimated to be less than 30% of the mine site LSA. The
magnitude is considered to be high and irreversible; however, this is compensated

somewhat by it being a localized effect. Erosion risk is increased along the eastern
shoreline of the TSF and will result in low magnitude, site specific loss of soil.
Cumulative The prediction of no cumulative effects on soils has not changed for the New
Effects Prosperity Project.
With the proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures outlined in the
March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5 Section 4.8, Summary of Effects on Soils, the
effect of the Project on soils is considered to be not significant.
Determination
Follow-up and monitoring will be required to determine the extent, if any, to which
of the
groundwater changes will affect soil moisture.
significance of
residual effects Due to the discrepancy in the predicted effects for the Camp location using a TSP
model for the Prosperity Project and a PM2.5 model for the New Prosperity Project,
monitoring is still recommended at human health receptor locations to confirm the
prediction of no residual effects.
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects Adverse effects on soil the soil resource were found to be not significant.
found to be
significant
Additional Work
In accordance with the Panel recommendations, paired soil and vegetation trace element samples will be
collected from the terrain and soils LSA prior to construction to provide a more complete baseline,
particularly within the area of modeled dust deposition.

The follow-up and monitoring described in the March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Sections 4.7.2.4,
4.7.2.5, and 4.7.2.10 and Section 4.8.3 is still applicable, with the following exceptions:
x Erosion monitoring along the eastern side of the TSF where undisturbed soils are intersected.
x Monitoring for shifts in vegetation community and soil moisture changes will be in new sensitive
ecosystem locations outside the mine site disturbance area. In areas of groundwater decrease,
wetland ecosystems will be monitored. In areas of groundwater increases, sensitive vegetation
ecosystems on dry sites will be monitored. Vegetation surveys and soil moisture measurement will be
conducted through operations and for at least five years post-closure (i.e., until groundwater is
expected to reach a new equilibrium around the pit). Sensitive communities that should be the focus of
monitoring efforts are discussed in Section 2.7.2.6 - Vegetation Impact Assessment. Monitoring at
these sites will be for vegetation species composition, plant vigor and growth in addition to physical
properties of the soil.
x At least one more long-term soil monitoring site will be established at the north end of Fish Lake, in
addition to sites that were proposed for the March 2009 Prosperity EIS. These monitoring sites will be
established prior to construction activities, and sampling will continue until reclamation of the mine site
is complete.

2.7.2.7 Vegetation
changes would result in changes to the environmental effects previously predicted on vegetation. A
detailed assessment of vegetative key indicator (KI) communities and species groups outlined in the EIS
Guidelines and listed in Table 2.7.2.7-2 has been completed. Baseline vegetation data is presented in
section 2.6.1.7 of this report.
Scope of Assessment
Prosperity Project on vegetation resources. The assessment focusses only on changes relative to the
Prosperity Project based on the New Prosperity Mine Development Plan, and is completed in accordance
with the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines. Regulatory changes that have occurred since the March 2009
EIS/Application are included.
The Project activities and physical works for New Prosperity are presented in Table 2.7.2.7-1. This table
shows whether each activity or physical work has changed from the original Prosperity submission, and
whether there are any VEC-specific applicable regulatory changes related to the Project activity. Project
activities or physical works identified with a “Y” in either Changes in Project Design or Changes in
Regulatory Requirements will be carried forward for assessment of the changes to effects on vegetation.
Project activities or physical works identified with an “N” in both of these columns are not carried forward
in this vegetation assessment, and are greyed out.

Project Design
Requirements
Regulatory
Regulatory
Change in
Change in
Reference
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Project Activities/Physical
Comments/Rationale
Works

Open Pit – Preproduction N N
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y N Location and timing only
Still subaqueous in TSF; just
PAG Stockpile Y N
TSF location changed
Overburden Stockpile Y N Location only
Primary Crusher N N
Overland conveyor N N
Fisheries compensation Y N
Y N
Operations
Construction sediment control Y N

EIS Guidelines have updated

KIs from 2009 EIS. E.g.
Access road construction and EIS required to look at red and
N Y
upgrades Guidelines blue listed communities;
definitions of these have
changed.
Camp construction N N In mine site
Site clearing (clearing and EIS required to look at red and
Y Y
grubbing) Guidelines blue listed communities;
changed.
Soils handling and stockpiling Y N Includes overburden removal
Construction: plant site and other
N N Not emissions; not location
facilities
Lake dewatering Y N Only Little Fish Lake
Management of inflows and
Fish Lake Water Management Y N
outflows
Starter dam construction Y N
Y N
process/TSF)
Site waste management N N
EIS required to look at red and
Clearing of transmission line ROW N Y
Guidelines blue listed communities;
changed.
N N
transmission line
2km more road; more and
Vehicular traffic Y N
larger trucks.
N N
Operations
Pit Production N N
Crushing and conveyance N N
Ore processing and dewatering N N
Explosive handling and storage Y N Location only
Tailing storage Y N Location changed
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y N Location and timing only
PAG Stockpile Y N
Combined with Non-PAG (i.e.


Y N Location only
processing
Potable and non-potable water use N N
Y N
management
Water Management Controls and Includes management of flows
Y N
Operation in and out of Fish Lake
Wastewater treatment and
N N
discharge (sewage, site water)
N N
Solid waste management N N
Maintenance and repairs N N
Concentrate transport and
N N
handling
Vehicle traffic Y N PAH NOx; within mine site only
N N
maintenance)
Pit dewatering N N
Fisheries Compensation Y N
N N
Macalister
Closure
Y N
Operation
Fisheries Compensation Y N
Y N
management
Reclamation of ore stockpile area Y N Location only
Reclamation of Non-PAG waste
Y N Location only
rock stockpile
Tailing impoundment reclamation Y N
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling Y N
Plant and associated facility
N N
removal
Road decommissioning N N
Transmission line
N N
decommissioning
Post-closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility
Y N
water
Discharge of pit lake water N N Into lower Fish Creek
Seepage management and
Y N
discharge

Ongoing monitoring of reclamation Y N

Interaction of Other Projects and Will Involve Update Of Project
Y N
Activities Inclusion List
Two new scenarios (land and
water based) due to fish lake;
Accidents, Malfunctions and
Y N other A&Ms would not
Unplanned Events
change–previous A&Ms would
still apply

Statutes applicable to the March 2009 EIS/Application and still applicable to the New Prosperity Project
include:
x Federal Species at Risk Act
x BC Weed Control Act and Weed Control Regulation, and
x Mines Act Section 10 Permit for Reclamation Plan and Mine Plan.
The Weed Control Regulation has updates to July 21, 2011, and there have been changes to which
species are considered noxious provincially and regionally relative to the March 2009 EIS/Application.
See the Invasive Plant Strategy (Appendix 2.7.2.7-A) for a baseline update on weeds in the Project area.
The following guidance documents were used to inform the March 2009 EIS/Application, and are
considered in this assessment:
x Federal Wetland Policy
x BC Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA)
x Land Use Plans, and
x Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs).
Since the March 2009 EIS/Application, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Order (2011) was issued. It sets
legal direction for forestry activities under the FRPA with respect to key resource values identified by the
SRMPs. The general goals of these SRMPs were addressed in the March 2009 EIS/Application, although
the spatial boundaries established by the Order were not. Under Section 14(5) of the Mineral Tenures Act
these land use designations and objectives do not preclude approval of mining activities. As in the March
2009 EIS/Application, these land use designations and objectives will be used as guidance in the
vegetation assessment.

As a result of the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines, there are changes to the vegetation KIs and
assessment requirements from the March 2009 EIS/Application. They include:
x Forest capability was a vegetation KI in the March 2009 EIS/Application, but is not included in the
requirements for the vegetation assessment in the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines; as such, we will

not carry this KI forward in the New Prosperity vegetation assessment. See Section 2.8.2
(Reclamation) for discussion of forest capability in the New Prosperity Project.
x The EIS Guidelines require assessment of the potential effects of the Project on wetland habitat and
functions for wetlands in the Project area, with consideration of hydrology, biochemical cycling,
climate, and habitat for migratory birds, SARA-listed species, and COSEWIC-listed species. A
wetland functional assessment was not conducted as part of the March 2009 EIS/Application; effects
to wetland ecosystems in the March 2009 EIS/Application focussed on loss of wetland area only. The
baseline data for wetlands is updated below to reflect wetland function baseline conditions, and the
assessment of effects will address potential changes to wetland function.
x The March 2009 EIS/Application did not include assessment of traditional use/country food plants.
This potential effect was assessed in a supplemental submission (Taseko, 2009). Following the New
Prosperity EIS Guidelines, this assessment includes potential effects to country food plant species
identified as important to local and Aboriginal groups. See Section 2.7.3.3 (HHERA) for discussion of
risks to human health from consumption of country foods, including plants.
x The EIS Guidelines require documentation of ambient concentrations of trace elements in wetland
and upland vegetation to determine the potential for contamination of vegetation that may be
consumed by wildlife or people. As noted in Section 2.6.1.6 of this report, there are no updates to the
baseline conditions for trace elements in vegetation. Section 2.7.3.3 (HHERA) addresses vegetation
quality and country foods quality as related to consumption by wildlife and people.
x The EIS Guidelines require information on access for harvesting along transmission line corridor.
There are no changes to this relative to the March 2009 EIS/Application. Access for harvesting will be
addressed during the permitting phase of the Project.
x The EIS Guidelines require assessment of effects to red and blue listed plants and communities. The
BC CDC Red and Blue Lists have been updated since the March 2009 EIS/Application, therefore
baseline conditions and potential effects are updated to reflect current listings.
x The EIS Guidelines require information on whether the proposed corridor will be seeded and any
potential effects on range movement. As noted in Section 9.3 of volume 3 of the 2009 EIS, the
transmission corridor will be partly seeded and partly left to regenerate. Range movement along the
corridor is an agriculture and ranching resource use issue addressed in Section 5.3.3 of Volume 6 of
the 2009 EIS.
x The EIS Guidelines require identification of access requirements specific to timber harvesting
activities within the transmission corridor and identification of whether maintenance access routes will
be required. It is Taseko’s expectation that no new access roads are required, as suggested by
preliminary alignment work already completed. This will be confirmed at the permitting/final design
stage.

The key issues for vegetation resources from the March 2009 EIS/Application are also key issues for the
New Prosperity Project. As identified in Section 5.1.3 of Volume 5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application, the
key issues for vegetation resources associated with the Project include:
x Loss of vegetation due to the direct environmental effects of clearing and the indirect environmental
effects of Project activities (e.g., loss of plant species due to clearing)
x In areas where vegetation has not been lost, changes in abiotic conditions necessary for vegetation
development due to the direct environmental effects of ground disturbance and the indirect

environmental effects of changes to soil moisture or nutrient status (e.g., changes in drainage
patterns, water quality and quantity), and
x In areas where vegetation has not been lost, changes in the structure or composition of vegetation
communities due to the direct environmental effects of clearing and a variety of indirect environmental
effects occurring in edge areas adjacent to Project disturbance and areas of activity (e.g. dust
deposition, windthrow).
An additional key issue specific to wetlands was also identified based on the 2012 New Prosperity EIS
Guidelines, as follows:
x Change in wetland function, with consideration of hydrology, biochemical cycling, wildlife habitat for
migratory birds, SARA-listed species, COSEWIC-listed species, and climate.
As identified in Section 2.3.5 of this assessment, there are changes to the KIs for vegetation based on the
New Prosperity EIS Guidelines. Table 2.7.2.7-2 shows the measurable parameters of the key indicators
for vegetation resources for the March 2009 EIS/Application and New Prosperity Projects.
Table 2.7.2.7-2 Measurable Parameters
Key Indicator Measurable Parameters

Old forest Spatial extent (in hectares) of old forest Will also quantify the spatial extent (in
available at each phase of the Project hectares) of old forest in Old Growth
Management Areas
Wetland Spatial extent (area) and distribution of Will also consider wetland functions,
ecosystems wetland ecosystems including hydrological, biogeochemical
Conservation status of the wetland as climate, and habitat functions
determined by the BC CDC (i.e., British Habitat function includes consideration of
Columbia rank and listing status) habitat for migratory birds and SARA- or
Structural stage of forested wetlands COSEWIC-listed species.
Riparian Spatial extent (area) and distribution of No change
ecosystems riparian ecosystems.
Conservation status of the riparian
ecosystems as determined by the BC CDC
(i.e., British Columbia rank and listing status)
and, for
Structural stage of forested riparian
ecosystems
Grassland Spatial extent and distribution of grassland Also look at the area of grasslands within
ecosystems ecosystems at each phase of the Project Grassland Benchmark Areas
sensitivity ratings
Rare plants Number and distribution of mapped rare plant No change ( updated with current BC CDC
locations, listings)
Size of the population of rare plant species at
each site.
Rare plants rating (or listing) based on their
degree of rarity according to the provincial
rank of each species.
Ecological Spatial extent of mapped polygons containing No change ( updated with current BC CDC

Communities ecological communities of conservation listings)

of concern and, in the case of compound
Conservation polygons, the percentage representation of the
Concern ecological community within the polygon.
Conservation status of each ecological
community as determined by the BC CDC
(i.e., British Columbia rank and listing status)
Age of forested communities (mature and old
forest ecological communities are considered
to have higher conservation value than
younger stands)
Forest Spatial extent of productive forest land Excluded
capability Level of productivity measured using the Site
Index Biogeoclimatic Classification System
(SIBEC)
Country Food Old forest, Wetland ecosystems, Riparian In addition, will look at known distribution of
Plants ecosystems, Grassland ecosystems country food plants.
Area of direct vegetation loss in the mine site Ambient concentrations of trace elements in
area wetland and upland vegetation are
addressed in Sections 2.7.3.3 (HHERA)
and 2.6.4 (Aquatics).
requirements (Table 2.7.2.7-1) have been brought forward to Table 2.7.2.7-3 and given project
environmental effects ratings. The following criteria were used for the interaction ratings:
6. Effect on vegetation is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, EIS Guidelines or
other applicable regulations). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted, but information is
provided to substantiate that the effect is likely to decrease or stay the same.
7. Effect on vegetation is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
EAO, Panel, EIS Guidelines, or other applicable regulations).
8. Effect on vegetation is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.

Table 2.7.2.7-3 Vegetation Potential Environmental Effects Associated with New Prosperity (Effects Scoping Matrix)
community structure
Change in wetland
Change to abiotic
and composition
Vegetation Loss
Change in plant
conditions
function

Construction of Site Utilities/Access Access road construction and upgrades 1 0 0 0
Construction/Installation of transmission line Clearing of transmission line ROW 0 0 1 0
Fisheries compensation Fisheries compensation 0 0 0 0
Non-PAG waste stockpile 0 0 0 0
PAG Stockpile 0 0 0 0
Overburden and Waste Rock Management
Overburden Stockpile 0 0 0 0
Soils handling and stockpiling 0 0 0 0
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1 0 0 2
Water Management Controls and Operations 0 0 0 0
Construction sediment control 0 0 0 0
Site Waste Management Lake dewatering 0 0 0 0
Fish Lake Water Management 0 0 0 0
Starter dam construction 0 0 0 0
Vehicular traffic Vehicular traffic 0 0 0 0
Water Sourcing and Use Sourcing water supplies (potable, process/TSF) 0 0 0 0
Operations
Fisheries Compensation Fisheries Compensation 0 0 0 0
Explosive handling and storage 0 0 0 0
Ore Stockpile management and processing 0 0 0 0
Overburden and Waste Rock Management Non-PAG waste stockpile 0 0 0 0

community structure
Change in wetland
Change to abiotic
and composition
Vegetation Loss
Change in plant
conditions
function
Site drainage and seepage management 0 2 0 2
Water Management Controls and Operation 0 2 0 2
Tailings Management Tailing storage 0 0 0 0
Vehicle traffic Vehicle traffic 0 0 0 0
Closure
Fisheries Compensation Fisheries Compensation 0 0 0 0
Reclamation of ore stockpile area 0 0 0 0
Reclamation Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock stockpile 0 0 0 0
Tailing impoundment reclamation 0 0 0 0
Site Water Management Site drainage and seepage management 0 2 0 2
Pit lake and TSF Lake filling 0 2 0 2
Post-closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility water 0 2 0 2
Seepage management and discharge 0 2 0 2
Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of reclamation 0 0 0
Interaction of Other Projects and Activities 1 1 1 1
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events 0 0 0 0

there would be no interaction; the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even
without mitigation; or the interaction would not be significant due to application of codified environmental
protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects. These
activities generally occur within the mine site MDA; vegetation resources within this area are
conservatively assumed to be completely lost in the maximum disturbance scenario. As such, activities
within this area generally do not have the potential to substantively further affect vegetation resources. As
well, the key issues of changes to abiotic conditions and changes to plant structure and composition are
superseded in importance by the complete loss of vegetation in the mine site MDA. This has not changed
since the March 2009 EIS/Application; details on the justification for this rating are provided in the issues
scoping section for each KI in the March 2009 EIS/Application (see Volume 5 Section 5.3). These
The Project interactions where predicted effects are potentially greater for the New Prosperity Project
than the March 2009 EIS/Application (rated as 2 in the above table) require re-assessment. This includes
changes to wetland function due to clearing and grubbing for the mine site, which was not previously
assessed, and changes to abiotic conditions supporting vegetation. Changes to abiotic conditions relate
to potential changes in water conditions from site water management activities which could permanently
alter soil moisture and water quality conditions, thereby changing the abiotic conditions supporting plant
communities. These areas are identified in Section 2.7.2.6 (Soil Moisture).
It is important to note that although changes to abiotic conditions are potentially greater than before, this
is because these same areas were subject to complete vegetation loss in the Prosperity Project and are
now preserved, but have potential changes to their moisture regimes (abiotic conditions).
Interactions rated as “1” are due to:
x The redesign of the Mine giving a new, smaller, mine site maximum disturbance area (MDA).
x Interactions with potential for effects on KIs whose definitions have changed relative to the March
2009 EIS/Application due to the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines, BC CDC updates and consultation.
This includes rare plants, ecological communities of conservation concern, wetland ecosystems, and
country food plants.
Table 2.7.2.7-4 provides a summary rating the potential for each effect by KI. The potential changes to
abiotic conditions through seepage management, pit dewatering and water diversion are most important
for their potential effects to wetland function, and are discussed under the wetland ecosystem KI.
Vegetation loss is less for the New Prosperity Project than it was for the Prosperity Project due to the
redesign of the mine site, leading to a much smaller MDA and Project footprint.

Table 2.7.2.7-4 VEC - Key Indicator Project Effects Scoping Table
Potential Effect Vegetation Loss Change in abiotic Change in plant Change in

conditions community wetland
structure and function
composition
Effect Mechanism Access road Site water Clearing of Mine site

construction and management transmission line clearing and
upgrades, Mine site activities ROW grubbing
clearing and
grubbing
Key Indicator
Old forest 0 0 0 0
Wetland 0 2 1 2
Ecosystems
Riparian 0 0 0 0
Ecosystems
Grassland 0 0 0 0
Ecosystems
Rare Plants 1 0 0 0
Ecological 1 0 1 0
Communities of
Conservation
Concern
Country Food 1 0 1 0
Plants
0 = Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions), and there are no
required changes to previously proposed mitigation measures, and no additional regulatory requirements have been identified
(i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other applicable regulation).
1 = Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions), but some re-evaluation
of effect is required due to changes in project design, proposed mitigation measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements
have been identified.
2 = Effect related to KI is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.

and closure and decommissioning phases between the Prosperity and New Prosperity projects (see
March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 5.1.5). The temporal boundaries used for the New
Prosperity assessment of potential Project effects on vegetation KIs remain:
x Baseline Scenario: Represents vegetation conditions prior to any Project-specific developments.
The baseline conditions for vegetation incorporate the environmental effects of existing human-
caused disturbances (e.g., forest harvesting, road networks, other mine footprints etc.).
x Maximum Disturbance Scenario: Represents conditions during construction activities, operations
and decommissioning/reclamation activities. While recognizing that development, decommissioning
and reclamation will be progressive throughout the construction, operations and decommissioning
phases, the maximum disturbance scenario is used to represent the "worst case" (i.e., most

conservative) assessment of the environmental effects on vegetation resources, and is assigned at

20 years into the future. In the spatial analysis of the Maximum Disturbance Scenario, all vegetation
resources within the Maximum Disturbance Area (MDA) are considered lost. It is assumed that the
primary environmental effects on vegetation (direct vegetation loss from clearing) will be similar for
each phase, and that the results of reclamation (i.e., re-establishment of viable plant communities)
will not be fully manifest until the years following decommissioning.
x Post-closure Scenario: Represents conditions forecast 20 years into the future following closure
(i.e., completion of decommissioning and reclamation) of the mine. This scenario assumes
implementation of mitigation recommendations, with the exception of compensation, and all
components of the Reclamation Plan. In the spatial analysis of the Post-closure Scenario, areas
within the MDA on which there was no Project feature over the life of the Project are considered to
have recovered to an early seral stage of the pre-disturbance community, as no soil disturbance will
have occurred. Reclaimed ecosystems will be dominated by vegetation species used in reclamation
treatments for some time following closure. The degree to which post-closure ecosystems continue to
reflect reclamation treatments will be influenced by elevation, types of reclamation species used, and
the influence of adjacent vegetation communities. The closure and decommissioning phase for the
New Prosperity Project will be divided into two phases: Phase I, which will last approximately 10
years following closure (Years 21 to 30) when the Fish Lake catchment will continue to be isolated
from mine water; and phase II (Years 31-44), when the TSF will be allowed to begin to spill to Fish
Lake Tributaries. The post-closure phase is still anticipated to begin in Year 45, when the Pit Lake will
have reached maximum elevation and begun to spill to Lower Fish Creek. Permanent groundwater
interception and surface seepage ponds below the main TSF embankment will continue to operate
post-closure.

See Table 2.7.2.7-5 for the changes to the study areas, relative to the March 2009 EIS/Application. See
Figure 2.7.2.7-1 for a comparison of the mine site study areas for vegetation between the Prosperity and
New Prosperity Projects.


Study Area
Regional Encompasses most of the Fish Creek No changes
Study Area watershed, extending to the top of the bluffs
(RSA) on the east side of the Taseko Valley. The
mine site RSA is also the area of 1:20,000
TEM mapping previously developed for the
mine site.
The mine site RSA had a total area of
18,267 ha.
Local Study A buffer of 500 m on the proposed mine Still a buffer of 500 m on the maximum
Area (LSA) footprint, including the section of new road disturbance area, as defined below,
required at the north end of the mine reflecting the changes to the proposed
footprint. This study area is expected to footprint, including 2 km of new access
include the maximum area that could be road. This leads to small changes relative
indirectly affected by the Project as a result to the Prosperity LSA boundary at the
of dustfall, windfall and localized changes in north end of the study area directly east of
drainage patterns and is also intended to Wasp Lake.
accommodate any potential for future The mine site LSA has a total area of
changes to the mine footprint. 4,434 ha.
ha.
Disturbance The mine site MDA had a total area of footprint, to represent a “worst case” for
Area (MDA) 4,419 ha development.
The MDA has a total area of 2,601 ha

5720000 460000 5700000
Ra t
Ca b in
La ke s
Cre e k
5720000
V
ic
k
Cre Vick
ek
La ke
ho g
un d
Tete
Hill
Gro
Sli m
La ke
Cone
Hill
W o l f tr a p
La ke
er
iv
R
Fish
o
ek
La ke L i tt l e F i s h
La ke
Ta s
k
Big ee
Cr
La ke
sh
Fi
Lower
Was p
La ke
Creek
L i tt l e
On io n
Big La ke
Ve On io n
da n La ke
La ce
ke Bee
Cardiff Mountain
Ecological Reserve
440000
5680000
Lo w er
Ta s e k o
La ke
440000 5700000 460000 5680000
LEGEND:
Biogeoclimatic Units Interior Douglas Fir 2012 Vegetation LSA Gravel Road
BEC Zone Interior Mountian-heather Alpine 2009 Vegetation LSA Paved Road
Boreal Alatai Fescue Alpine Mountain Hemlock Maximum Disturbance Area River
0 2 4 8
Bunchgrass Montane Spruce Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Lake
Coastal Mountain-heather Alpine Ponderosa Pine
Vegetation Study Areas and Biogeoclimatic Zones
Kilometers
Coastal Western Hemlock Sub-boreal Pine - Spruce
20th August 2012
Englemann Spruce - Subalpine Fir Sub-boreal Spruce
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Liam Quan Verified By: Tony Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
Interior Cedar - Hemlock FIGURE 2.7.2.7-1 XXX
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_078_Veg_Study_Areas_BEC.mxd
Updates to the Assessment for Vegetation

Through the Panel process Taseko was provided with a list of plants of traditional importance to the
Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG). This information is used to define the Country Food Plants KI.
Methods for the assessment of effects on vegetation include the consideration of country food plants.
Project Impact Assessment for Vegetation

There are four potential environmental effects identified for vegetation, including vegetation loss, change
to abiotic conditions, changes to vegetation structure and composition, and change in wetland function.
Based on the above scoping, the applicable potential effects are assessed for each KI.
Old Forest
As outlined in Table 2.7.2.7-4, effects to old forest will be less for the New Prosperity Project than the
Prosperity Project. The CEAA Panel Report determined that effects to old forest were not significant.
Effects Assessment Methods for Old Forest

The effects assessment methods for old forest have not changed since the March 2009 EIS/Application,
and are described in Section 5.3.1.2 of Volume 5 of that report. This assessment will focus on the effect
of vegetation loss in the mine site due to clearing and grading, as the mine site MDA is the only Project
design change affecting old forest. The method used to assess the environmental effect of vegetation
loss on old forest is a spatial overlay analysis of the MDA on the VRI-based old forest baseline mapping.
The VRI-based old forest baseline mapping from the March 2009 EIS/Application has been updated for
recent disturbance, including recent cutblocks and impacts of mountain pine beetle reflected in 2011 VRI
data, to determine the area of old forest in the New Prosperity mine site RSA.
The results of this analysis are produced spatially and as a summary data table, and compared to the
results reported in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Change in Baseline Conditions for Old Forest

Baseline information on old forests has been compared to information available through Hectares BC and
the most recent (2011) version of the provincial Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) dataset to
determine the current extent of mountain pine beetle infestation and new cutblocks since the 2009
Prosperity EIS/Application.
The March 2009 EIS/Application noted several pockets of mountain pine beetle infestation in the mine
footprint, and anticipated that most of the mature and old pine in the mine site RSA would be killed by
mountain pine beetles within the near future. Current information shows that although the pine beetle
infestation has spread somewhat, the mine site RSA still contains intact pine stands. See Table 2.7.2.7-6
for a comparison of old forest in the mine site LSAs and RSAs at baseline for the Prosperity and New
Prosperity projects. Figure 2.7.2.7-2 shows the baseline distribution of old forest in the mine site LSA.

Table 2.7.2.7-6 Availability of Old Forest at Baseline–Mine Site
Prosperity Prosperity New New

BEC Mine Site Mine Site Prosperity Prosperity
Unit Leading Species RSA (ha) LSA (ha) RSA (ha) LSA (ha)
MSxv lodgepole pine 3002.1 489.3 2,430.4 727.5
spruce 535.7 190.9 503.1 257.5
SBPSxc poplar 33.1 0 33.1 0.0
Douglas-fir 6.8 0 6.8 0.0
lodgepole pine 2475.8 1026.6 2,143.9 445.0
spruce 140.2 44.6 132.8 49.1
Total (All) 6,194 1,751 5,250 1,479
Total (Non Pine) 716 235 676 307

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Old Forest Lead Species (VRI) 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
Lodgepole Pine Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Spruce Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Poplar Trail Kilometers Baseline Old Forest - Mine Site
Douglas Fir
Protected Area 24th July 2012
FIGURE 2.7.2.7-2 XXX
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_005_Veg_BL_Old_Forest.mxd
Spatial data on old growth management areas (OGMAs) defined under the Sustainable Resource
Management Plans, enabled by the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Order (CCLUO), was updated on April
31, 2009, and is shown on Figure 2.7.2.7-3. Table 2.7.2.7-7 summarizes the old forest and old growth
management areas within the mine site study areas. Although these OGMAs do not represent statutory
restrictions to Project activities (pursuant to Section 14(5) of the Mineral Tenures Act) this information is
used as guidance in this assessment; for example, reclamation planning addresses the land use
objectives of the CCLUO.

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

RMP Legal (Feature) High Value Wetlands for Moose OGMA Legal (Type) Paved Road River
Grizzly Bear Habitat L3/Select L1 Lakes PERM Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Buffered Trail Areas Lake Management Classes ROT Rough Road
Critical Habitat for Fish Lakeshore Management Classes TRANS Trail
Kilometers OGMA and RMP in the Vegetation MDA
Grassland Benchmark Area Scenic Areas Maximum Disturbance Area
24th July 2012
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Tony Dinneen Verified By: Liam Quan Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_026_OGMA_RMP.mxd
Table 2.7.2.7-7 Old Growth Management Areas for New Prosperity Mine Site
Study Old Forest OGMAs Old Forest within OGMAs

Area Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Percent of Old Forest (%) Percent of OGMA (%)
RSA 5,250.1 1,747.8 1,021.4 19.5 58.4
LSA 1,479.2 560.5 464.7 31.4 82.9
MDA 925.4 398.2 316.6 34.2 79.5
Potential Project Effects to Old Forest

The loss of old forest in the mine site is less than that predicted by the 2009 Prosperity EIS. The areal
extent of the loss of old forest is summarized in Table 2.7.2.7-8, and shown for operations in Figure
2.7.2.7-4 and at post-closure in Figure 2.7.2.7-5.

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Lodgepole Pine 2012 Vegetation LSA Gravel Road River
Spruce Maximum Disturbance Area Paved Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Poplar Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Kilometers Maximum Footprint Old Forest - Mine Site
Douglas Fir Trail
Disturbed Old Forest
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_076_Veg_OP_Old_Forest .mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000
LEGEND:
Post Closure Old Forest 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
Lead Species (VRI) Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Lodgepole Pine Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Spruce Trail Kilometers Post Closure Old Forest - Mine Site
Poplar
Douglas Fir 24th July 2012
Permanent Mine Feature
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Ryan Stohmann Verified By: Tony Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_091_Veg_PC_Old Forest.mxd
Table 2.7.2.7-8 Project Effects to Old Forest

Change at Post-
Area in Change at Maximum Area in Change at Maximum
closure Change at Post-closure
Lead Tree RSA at Disturbance RSA at Disturbance
BEC Unit (relative to (relative to baseline)
Species Baseline (relative to baseline) Baseline (relative to baseline)
baseline)
Area Area Percent Area Percent Area Area Percent Area Percent
(ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
MSxv 3,002.1 -533.3 -17.8 -3,002.1 -100.0 2,430.4 -463.8 -19.1 -2,430.4 -100.0
Lodgepole
SBPSxc 2,475.8 -705.5 -28.5 -2,475.8 -100.0 2,143.9 -274.5 -12.8 -2,143.9 -100.0
pine
Total Pl 5,477.9 -1,238.8 -22.6 -5,477.9 -100.0 4,574.2 -738.3 -16.1 -4,574.2 -100.0
MSxv 535.7 -192.8 -36.0 80.1 15.0 503.1 -145.9 -29.0 -112.4 -22.3
Spruce SBPSxc 140.2 -33.0 -23.5 -62.2 -44.4 132.8 -41.2 -31.0 -55.5 -41.8
Total Sx 676.0 -225.8 -33.4 17.8 2.6 636.0 -187.1 -29.4 -167.9 -26.4
MSxv 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Poplar SBPSxc 33.1 0.0 0.0 14.6 44.1 33.1 0.0 0.0 14.6 44.2
Total Ac 33.1 0.0 0.0 14.6 44.1 33.1 0.0 0.0 14.6 44.2
MSxv 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Douglas-fir SBPSxc 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Total Fd 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Trembling MSxv 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
aspen
SBPSxc 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.8 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.7 -
Total At 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.8 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.7 -
Total Old Growth Forest (All 6,194 -1,465 -24 -5,358 -87 5,250 -925 -18 -4,630 -74
Species)
Total Old Growth Forest (Non 716 -226 -32 119 17 676 -187 -28 -56 -8
Pine)

The Prosperity Project resulted in a predicted loss of 1,465 ha (24%) of old forest in the maximum
disturbance scenario, whereas the New Prosperity Project results in a predicted loss of 925 ha (18%) of
old forest in the maximum disturbance scenario. Since the March 2009 EIS/Application, 944 ha (15%) of
old forest has been removed from the RSA through logging and mountain pine beetle.
The Prosperity Project, in combination with mountain pine beetle, resulted in a predicted loss of 5,358 ha
(87%) of old forest in the maximum disturbance scenario, whereas the New Prosperity Project, in
combination with future mountain beetle, results in a predicted loss of 4727 ha (90%) of old forest in the
maximum disturbance scenario.
Project effects to old forest in the transmission line and access road are predicted to be the same as in
the March 2009 EIS/Application. See Sections 5.3.1.5 and 5.3.1.6 in Volume 5 of the Prosperity EIS for
the assessment of effects on old forest in these areas.
Wetland Ecosystems
As outlined in Table 2.7.2.7-9, the areal extent of wetland loss will be less for the New Prosperity Project
than the Prosperity Project. The effect of changes in wetland function has not previously been assessed,
and will be addressed fully below.
Effects Assessment Methods for Wetland Ecosystems

The effects assessment methods for Wetland Ecosystems described in Section 5.3.2.2 of Volume 5 of the
March 2009 EIS/Application are used in this assessment. This assessment will focus on the effects of
vegetation loss and changes to wetland function in the mine site due to clearing and grading, and water
management activities, as the mine site MDA is the only Project design change affecting wetland
ecosystems. The method used to assess the environmental effects of vegetation loss and changes to
wetland functions is a spatial overlay analysis of the MDA on the TEM-based baseline mapping. The
quantitative measurable parameter for both wetland loss and change to wetland function is spatial extent
(area) and distribution of wetland ecosystems. In addition, the qualitative measures of wetland function
include an assessment of the wetlands’ potential to provide the functions identified in the 2012 EIS
Guidelines associated with hydrology, biochemical cycling, climate, and habitat for migratory birds, SARA-
listed species, and COSEWIC-listed species. Following Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An
Overview of Approaches (Hanson et al., 2008), wetland functions were assessed on a landscape scale
based on wetland class and biophysical attributes, which were collected during initial ecosystem mapping
and wetland surveys. Appendix B in Hanson et al. (2008) is adapted from Jacques Whitford
Environmental Limited (JWEL) 2007 and provides a summary of functions according to wetland class.
Ecosystem mapping, wetland surveys, and wildlife habitat suitability data collected during field surveys for
the 2009 EIS/Application were analogous to a Level-2 rapid assessment method in terms of their survey
intensity (Hanson et al. 2008).
The results of the quantitative analysis are produced both spatially and as a summary data table. The
summary data table provides a comparison between the New Prosperity Mine Site and results reported in
Since ‘change in wetland function’ is a new key issue relative to the 2009 Prosperity EIS/Application, the
approach to assessing the significance of effects to wetland function must be defined. All of the
environmental effects rating criteria used for assessing the significance of effects described in sections

5.1.7.1 and 5.3.2.1 of Volume 5 of the 2009 EIS/Application will be used for assessing effects to wetland
function (including definitions of duration and magnitude for the wetland ecosystem KI).
Change in Baseline Conditions for Wetlands

Baseline wetland area summaries were provided in the March 2009 EIS/Application. They have been re-
summarized in Table 2.7.2.7-9 comparing the New Prosperity Project to the Prosperity Project. Figure
2.7.2.7-6 shows baseline distribution of wetlands in the mine site LSA.
Table 2.7.2.7-9 Baseline Wetland Ecosystems—Mine Site
New
TEM Mine Site Mine Site Mine Site
BEC Map Wetland RSA LSA LSA
Unit Code Class Structural Stage (ha) (ha) (ha)
MSxv BF Fen graminoid 539.4 160.0 179.0
OW Open Water aquatic 26.9 0.9 1.1
SH Swamp shrub 90.9 25.7 31.6
SH Swamp pole/sapling 26.4 2.5 3.0
SH Swamp young forest 25.4 17.5 18.0
SH Swamp mature forest 58.9 6.2 7.3
SH Swamp old forest 40.3 35.6 37.7
ST Swamp young forest 2.9 2.9 2.9
WM Shrub-carr shrub 48.6 35.5 32.0
WS Fen shrub 334.8 135.8 151.5
YL Open Water aquatic 3.0 0.8 0.2
na Marsh NA 6.7 0.2 0.8
na Swamp NA 1.5 0.0 0.0
SBPSxc BF Fen graminoid 203.6 58.9 24.4
DS Swamp shrub 3.7 2.7 2.7
OW Open Water aquatic 13.8 1.5 0.8
SH Swamp shrub 24.8 0.6 0.0
SH Swamp pole/sapling 2.5 0.3 0.1
SH Swamp young forest 16.8 12.6 11.1
SH Swamp mature forest 47.4 3.0 4.8
SH Swamp old forest 9.0 6.2 5.9
SM Swamp shrub 1.3 0.0 0.0
SM Swamp pole/sapling 6.3 0.0 0.0
SM Swamp young forest 10.3 0.0 0.0
SM Swamp mature forest 76.7 0.0 0.0
WM Shrub-carr shrub 124.0 61.9 54.1
WW Fen shrub 304.5 99.7 57.8
YL Open Water aquatic 15.6 14.9 0.0
na Marsh NA 2.1 0.0 0.0
na Swamp NA 3.2 0.0 0.0
Totals 2,071 686 627

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Wetland Class 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
Open Water Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Fen Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Marsh Trail Kilometers Baseline Wetland Ecosystems - Mine Site
Shrub-carr
Swamp
24th July 2012
Disturbed Wetland
Protected Area FIGURE 2.7.2.7-6 XXX
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_006_Veg_BL_Wetland.mxd
An assessment of baseline wetland functions was not provided as part of the March 2009 EIS/Application
and is provided here for the mine site study areas. Descriptions of the baseline hydrology, soils and
vegetation of the wetlands in the mine site study areas are included in Appendix 5-5-I of the March 2009
EIS/Application. Wetland function encompasses all the natural processes associated with wetlands,
including physical, chemical and biological functions, as well as the derivation of benefits these processes
may provide to humans (Lynch-Stewart et. al., 1996).
Wetland functions in the mine site were broadly categorized as follows:
x Hydrological
x Biogeochemical, and
x Habitat.
See below for descriptions of these functions and an evaluation of the functions provided by the wetlands
that occur in the mine site study areas.
Hydrological Function
Hydrological function is the capacity of a wetland to store, moderate, and release water in a watershed
(i.e., peak flow reduction, downstream erosion reduction, groundwater recharge, and baseflow
provision). Wetlands provide peak flow reduction by storing precipitation and surface flows from the
contributing watershed during major storm events and releasing this stored water gradually. A wetland’s
potential to perform this function is dependent on its size, the amount of water it can hold, the size and
elevation of its outlet channel(s) relative to its basin, and its position in the watershed (Hruby et. al.,
1999). When wetlands are situated in a floodplain and contain dense woody vegetation they can also
dissipate the energy of flood events and reduce the erosive force of peak flows. Groundwater recharge
can feed deep aquifers or supplement baseflows of streams depending on the groundwater elevations,
soil texture and infiltration rates.
The predominant wetland types within the mine site LSA are graminoid and shrubby fens. These fens
consist of the Water sedge – Beaked sedge fen ecosystem and the Willow-Scrub birch – Sedge fen
ecosystem, which together represent 66% of the wetlands within the New Prosperity mine site LSA (Table
2.7.2.7-9). The Water sedge – Beaked sedge fen ecosystem is characterized by seasonal inundation,
with areas of open water up to 40 cm deep in the spring which gradually dry completely by mid to late
summer. These fens are located within groundwater-fed depressions or along the margins of lakes,
ponds and streams. Peat is typically over 50cm deep. Based on their hydromorphic setting (i.e. basin
shape, size, inlet/outlet, and location in the landscape) including their proximity to surface water features
and tendency to seasonal flooding, as well as their organic soils, Water sedge – Beaked sedge
ecosystems have moderate potential to attenuate peak flows and slowly release them to recharge local or
deep groundwater, though they are not apt to reduce the energy or erosive forces of surface water flows
due to their graminoid vegetation structure. The Willow-Scrub birch – Sedge fen ecosystem is located in
groundwater-fed basins, gradual seepage slopes and pond, lake or stream margins. These shrub fens
occur on organic veneers within localized depressions. Depending on their individual hydromorphic
setting, shrub fens have moderate potential to attenuate peak flows and recharge local or deep
groundwater; for example shrub fens within basins have greater potential to perform these functions than
fens on groundwater-discharge areas on slopes. Due to their woody vegetation, they also have moderate
potential to reduce erosive forces of surface water flows.

Swamp ecosystems comprise 20% of the wetlands in the mine site LSA (Table 2.7.2.7-9). Three hybrid-
spruce dominated swamp ecosystems comprise the forested wetlands in the mine site LSA, including
Sxw-Horsetail-Crowberry, Swx-Horsetail-Glow moss, and Swx-Labrador tea-Willow (Table 2.7.2.7-9).
These ecosystems are located at wet toe slope positions and depressions, often adjacent to non-forested
wetlands or streams. Where these ecosystems occur adjacent to streams or other wetland classes, they
have high potential to reduce the erosive force of surface flows due to their hydromorphic setting and
treed vegetation structure. Swamps located in depressions have moderate potential to attenuate peak
flows. Where seepage water is continuously present, such as where these ecosystems occur at wet toe
positions, groundwater is expected to be discharging, rather than recharging.
Small amounts of Drummond’s willow-Sedge swamp occur within the mine site LSA, which represent the
only shrub-dominated swamp ecosystems (Table 2.7.2.7-9). It occurs along streamside locations on
fluvial deposits on level or slightly sloping terrain, typically at the toe of slopes. The Drummond’s willow-
Sedge swamp ecosystem has high potential to reduce peak flows and reduce the erosive force of such
flows based on its hydromorphic position adjacent to streams and woody vegetation structure. Coarse
fluvial soils drain imperfectly, but the ecosystem likely contributes to baseflows of adjacent stream
channels.
The single shrub-carr ecosystem, Grey-leaved willow-Glow moss shrub-carr, represents 14% of the
wetlands in the mine site LSA (Table 2.7.2.7-9). It is located in groundwater-fed basins where cold air is
the limiting-factor to tree establishment. This wetland is considered a transitional community often found
between fens and adjacent uplands. It is fed by seepage from upslope areas and soils can be saturated
in the early growing season, but surface water is not present. Based on its typical location on slopes and
within groundwater-fed basins, these wetlands are not well suited for storing substantial amounts of
surface water. Consequently, this ecosystem has low potential to attenuate peak flows or reduce erosive
forces of surface flows. The shrub-carr wetland class does have the potential to supplement base flows of
adjacent wetlands.
While the wetland classes within the mine site LSA have some potential to provide hydrological functions
such as peak flow attenuation, reduction of downstream erosion, and groundwater recharge (deep aquifer
or supplement to base flow), the opportunity to provide these functions is presently limited within this
watershed due to the existing conditions of land cover and land use upstream. The intact native
vegetation upstream increases both surface roughness and infiltration capability, reducing run-off
compared to watersheds with more impervious surfaces. Development within the watershed is limited,
leaving a high percentage of vegetation cover within the watershed to provide interception and
evapotranspiration of precipitation. At post-closure, the wetlands remaining outside the mine footprint will
have greater opportunity to provide these functions due to the increased development.
Biogeochemical Function
Biogeochemical function refers to the biological, geological and chemical processes and reactions that
govern the composition of the natural environment as it relates to the recycling chemistry between plants,
animals, the earth’s sediments and atmosphere. Wetland functions associated with biogeochemical
cycling typically pertain to the maintenance or improvement of water quality and regulation of global
climate through carbon capture and sequestration. Wetlands can improve water quality by removing
sediment, removing nutrients, and removing heavy metals and/or toxic organics. Their potential to
improve water quality in these three ways is dependent on their hydromorphic setting (i.e. basin shape,
size, inlet/outlet, and location in the landscape), vegetation structure, soils and hydroperiod (i.e., depth

and duration of inundation; Hruby et. al., 1999). Their potential to sequester carbon is dependent on rates
of primary productivity, export of organic carbon downstream, and rates of decomposition of organic
carbon. Indicators of biogeochemical function include vegetation type, degree of surface flow through the
wetland, and accumulation of peat.
The potential for wetlands within the mine site LSA to remove sediment is largely dependent on their
ability to reduce the velocity of surface flows and provide filtration by settling sediments. Attributes of
wetlands that provide the hydrological functions of attenuating peak flows and reducing the erosive force
of surface waters are the same as the attributes for improving water quality, namely, a basin that stores
peak flows and presence of dense, upright vegetation. The mechanisms of both functions are related: as
peak flow velocity is reduced, sediments are removed. Therefore, based on the discussion of attenuation
of peak flows and reduction of erosion above, the two fen ecosystems have a moderate potential to
improve water quality by removing sediment with the shrub-fen having the greater potential to provide this
function. The Drummond’s willow-Sedge swamp ecosystem and hybrid-spruce dominated swamp
wetlands that are adjacent to streams have high potential to improve water quality by detaining
sediments. Shrub-carr and hybrid-spruce dominated swamp wetlands that are situated on slopes or fed
by seeps, without sizeable basins to store water, have low potential to improve water quality by retaining
sediment.
Wetland potential to remove nutrients is dependent on their ability to remove sediment, as discussed
above, and also their hydroperiod (Hruby et. al., 1999). For example, when suspended sediments are
removed from the water column, the phosphorus adhered to sediments is also removed, then retained
and cycled within the wetland. Therefore a wetland’s potential for removing phosphorus parallels the
potential discussed above for removing sediment. Wetland potential for removing nitrogen is dependent
on cycles of nitrification (biological conversion of ammonium to nitrate nitrogen by bacteria) and
denitrification (the biological reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas by bacteria), which depend on wetland
hydroperiod (Hruby et. al., 1999). Wetlands with hydroperiods characterized by alternate wetting and
drying periods have the highest potential to remove nitrogen by supporting alternating oxic and anoxic
conditions. Wetlands that are permanently inundated are less capable of supporting these processes.
Among the wetlands in the mine site LSA with pronounced seasonal wetting and drying periods, both fen
and swamp ecosystems located adjacent to streams, wetlands, or open water features have the potential
to improve water quality by removing nitrogen. Since the swamps located adjacent to streams receive
surface water flows from higher in the watershed, they have high potential to provide this function. Since
the fens are more-often groundwater-fed with comparatively less surface water inputs, they have
moderate potential to provide this function.
Improvement of water quality by removing heavy metals and toxic organics occurs through adsorption to
soil particles and reaction with soil/water pH (Hruby et. al., 1999). Wetlands with clay soils or organic soils
have higher capability to adsorb metals than coarse textured mineral soils, while soils with low pH have
higher capability to precipitate metals than higher pH soils (Hruby et. al., 1999). Flooded wetlands that
support aerobic conditions also support the precipitation of toxic compounds. Uptake of metals by
vegetation is higher in wetlands with high cover of herbaceous emergent vegetation than in wetlands
dominated by floating aquatic or woody vegetation (Hruby et. al., 1999). Both fen ecosystems have high
potential to remove toxic metals due to their organic soils, moderately low pH, and high cover of emergent
vegetation. The flood-prone swamp ecosystems have moderate potential to improve water quality by
removing toxic metals due to their alternating flooded and aerobic conditions. The shrub carr and swamp
ecosystems that do not experience flooding and have less organic soil accumulation have low potential to
remove metals.

The fen and flood-prone swamp ecosystems have the potential to improve water quality by reducing
sediments, nutrients and metals; however, the opportunity to improve water quality is limited due to the
extent of intact vegetation within the watershed, notwithstanding recent logging and pine-killed stands.
Wetlands that are not directly affected by mining activities, which receive runoff in the post-closure
scenario, would have the opportunity to provide this function.
Peat accumulating wetlands have high potential to provide the biogeochemical function of carbon capture
and sequestration. The fen ecosystems with greater than 50 cm of sedge-peat provide long-term carbon
storage. Providing this biogeochemical function contributes to the global carbon balance and to the
regulation of global climate.
Habitat Function
Habitat function refers to the manner in which a wetland contributes to biological productivity and diversity
of various wetland-associated faunal and floral groups such as invertebrates, amphibians, fish, birds,
mammals, and rare plants. The potential for a wetland to provide food, shelter, breeding conditions, and
rest or refuge areas depends on the surface water hydrology, structural attributes of the vegetation, and
landscape ecology (Hruby et. al., 1999). For example, the hydroperiod and depth of water are important
factors for providing amphibian breeding habitat; the degree of tree canopy closure and ratio of open
water to vegetation cover is important to providing bird nesting and foraging habitat; and the connection to
adjacent uplands is important to providing movement corridors for mammals.
Aquatic invertebrate species generally benefit from permanent surface water, litter fall and woody debris
inputs, and aquatic vegetation (Hruby et. al., 1999). Among the wetlands in the mine site LSA, the Water
sedge – Beaked sedge fen ecosystem has areas of open water and aquatic vegetation present
throughout most of the year. Where these conditions persist, these ecosystems have the potential to
support higher diversity and abundance of aquatic invertebrates. The flood-prone swamp ecosystems
have the potential to provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates during flooded conditions. The other swamp
and shrub-carr ecosystems are not particularly well suited to support high aquatic invertebrate diversity or
abundance due to a lack of surface water presence.
Many native amphibians breed in wetlands and metamorphosed adults live and forage in adjacent
uplands, while others live in water year round. The eggs and larvae of amphibians are reliant on surface
water for their development. Emergent or shrubby vegetation provides cover from predators and a place
of attachment for amphibian egg masses. Low pH waters are less likely to support amphibian breeding
habitat. Where pH is sufficiently high, the seasonally flooded wetland ecosystems have the potential to
support amphibian breeding habitat. As discussed in Sections 2.6.1.8 and 2.7.2.8, wetlands in the mine
site LSA have the potential to provide breeding habitat for a SARA-listed amphibian species, Western
toad.
For a wetland to support native anadromous fish there must be surface water connection between the
wetland and fish migration channels. Vegetation structure can provide cover from predation and substrate
for invertebrates, which serve as a food source. Fen and swamp ecosystems that are connected by
surface water during seasonally flooded conditions to streams supporting anadromous (or resident) fish
have the potential to provide foraging and rearing habitat for fish. In addition, the potential for wetlands to
recharge groundwater that sustains baseflow in streams, or to improve water quality by reducing
sediment or metals, contributes to the health and maintenance of downstream fish habitat. (See Section
2.6.1.5 for further details about baseline fish habitat).

Nesting, foraging and staging habitat for wetland-associated migratory birds is characterized by such
attributes as relatively open canopy cover, access to open water, varied vegetation structure (i.e. areas of
well-interspersed trees, shrubs and emergent vegetation), presence of snags and proximity to larger
lakes or open fields (Hruby et. al., 1999). For example, the fen ecosystems have the potential to provide
foraging and nesting habitat for waterfowl due to their areas of open water, aquatic vegetation and
emergent vegetation; muddy portions of the fens provide foraging habitat for shorebird species; and, the
Drummond’s willow-Sedge swamp ecosystem has the potential to provide nesting habitat for migratory
birds that use riparian areas for this purpose. The structure of the hybrid spruce swamps with relatively
open tree canopy and lush herbaceous or graminoid ground cover has the potential to provide nesting
and foraging habitat for wetland-associated birds, particularly when located adjacent to open water
features. All of the wetland classes are within close proximity to a large lake and open fields, which
increases their potential to provide suitable foraging and staging habitat. Wetlands with the potential to
provide habitat for invertebrates and/or fish also have the potential to provide foraging habitat for
waterfowl due to the presence of these prey species. The wetlands ecosystems have the potential to
provide habitat for species of conservation concern known to occur within the RSA. See Section 6 of the
2009 EIS for further details about specific habitat suitability for these species of conservation concern.
Section 2.7.2.8 in this report provides an updated assessment of potential effects to wildlife.
Wetland-associated mammals such as Beaver, Muskrat, Mink, and Otter rely on exposed mud banks,
suitable vegetation species and structure, and adequate water depth for denning sites and foraging areas
(Hruby et. al., 1999). Bats forage over open water within wetlands. Wetland vegetation provides forage for
some species (e.g., Moose, Bear, Beaver), while invertebrates, fish, or amphibians supported by
wetlands provide prey for carnivores (e.g. mink, otter). The Drummond’s willow-Sedge swamp ecosystem
and flood prone swamps have the potential to provide foraging and denning sites for wetland-associated
large rodents. The Drummond’s willow-Sedge swamp ecosystem contains palatable species for beaver,
although it does not contain deep permanent water unless adjacent streams are impounded. The fen
wetlands and flood prone swamp ecosystems have the potential to provide foraging habitat for the
Fringed myotis, which is a provincially-listed species of conservation concern known to occur within the
RSA. Grizzly bears graze on sedge meadows and riparian wetlands, and are listed by COSEWIC as a
species of special concern.
In addition to providing habitat for wetland-associated faunal groups and wildlife species of conservation
concern, wetlands often support biodiversity by providing habitat for rare plant species or ecological
communities of conservation concern. In this instance, the New Prosperity mine site is not affecting any
wetland communities that are ecological communities of conservation concern. The Water sedge –
Beaked sedge fen is known to support the blue-listed plant rare plant species Ranunculus pedatifidus ssp
afinis. As shown in Table 2.7.2.7-18, three occurrences of Ranunculus pedatifidus spp afinis will be
affected as they occur within the New Prosperity mine site MDA.
Potential Project Effects on Wetland Ecosystems

Table 2.7.2.7-10 provides a comparison of the areal extent of Project effects on wetland ecosystems
between the two projects. See Figures 2.7.2.7-7 and 2.7.2.7-8 for the distribution of wetlands in the mine
site during operations and at post closure, respectively. While the Prosperity Project led to a loss of
approximately 404 ha of wetlands at post-closure, the New Prosperity leads to the loss of 311 ha of
wetlands at post-closure.

The Maximum Disturbance Scenario represents a highly conservative estimate of the potential impacts to
wetlands, where all wetlands within the MDA are lost, regardless of whether a project feature will actually
impact the area. The post-closure scenario assumes that any areas where there were no project features
in the maximum disturbance scenario will be wetlands at post closure, although in early seral stages. As
such, 96 ha of wetlands in the MDA are conservatively assumed to be impacted in the maximum
disturbance scenario, but as no features are actually planned for these wetlands, they are shown to
persist at post-closure.

Table 2.7.2.7-10 Project Effects to Wetland Ecosystems

RSA at Change at Maximum Change at Post- Change at Maximum
Baseline Change at Post-closure
Wetland Disturbance closure Disturbance
Wetland Ecosystem (relative to baseline)
Class (relative to baseline) (relative to baseline) (relative to baseline)
Area Area Percent Area Percent Area Percent Area Percent

(ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
Water sedge - Beaked sedge 743.0 -212.1 -28.6 -151.8 -20.4 -146.4 -19.7 -125.4 -16.9
Fen Willow - Scrub birch - Sedge 639.3 -226.4 -35.4 -123.7 19.4 -127.8 -20.0 -85.0 -13.3
Fen Total 1,382.4 -438.6 -31.7 -275.6 -19.9 -274.2 -19.8 -210.3 -15.2
Sxw - Horsetail – Crowberry 100.5 -19.0 -18.9 -20.2 -20.1 -73.2 -30.2 -51.2 -21.2
Sxw - Horsetail - Glow moss 94.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -14.5 -14.4 -11.9 -11.9
Sxw - Horsetail - Meadowrue 2.9 -2.9 -100.0 -0.9 -31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Swamp
Sxw - Labrador tea – Willow 3.7 -2.6 -70.3 -2.0 -54.1 -2.9 -100.0 -2.9 -100.0
Drummond's willow – Sedge 241.9 -77.7 -32.1 -27.8 -11.5 -2.7 -71.1 -2.1 -55.8
Swamp Total 443.6 -110.4 -24.9 -50.9 -11.5 -93.2 -21.0 -68.1 -15.4
Beaked sedge 0.0 0.0 0 2.5 - 0.0 - 0.0 -
Marsh Baltic Rush 0.0 0.0 0 0.6 - 0.0 - 0.0 -
Marsh Total 0.0 0.0 0 3.2 - 0.0 - 0.0 -
Grey-leaved willow - Glow moss 172.6 -92.2 -53.4 -67.5 -39.1 -38.0 -22.0 -31.8 -18.4
Shrub-
Carr Shrub-Carr Total 172.6 -92.2 -53.4 -67.5 -39.1 -38.0 -22.0 -31.8 -18.4
Open Water 59.3 -18.1 -30.5 -15.9 -26.8 -1.1 -1.8 -0.8 -1.3
TRIM Marsh 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other
TRIM Swamp 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Total 72.8 -18.1 -30.5 -15.9 -26.8 -1.1 -1.4 -0.8 -1.1
Wetland Total 2,071 -659 -32 -404 -19 -407 -20 -311 -15

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Undisturbed Wetland 2012 Vegetation LSA Gravel Road River
Disturbed Wetland Maximum Disturbance Area Paved Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Trail
Kilometers Maximum Footprint Wetland Ecosystems - Mine Site
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_073_Veg_OP_Wetland.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Wetland Class Disturbed Wetland 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
Open Water Protected Area Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Fen Permanent Mine Feature Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Marsh Trail Kilometers Post Closure Wetland Ecosystems - Mine Site
Shrub-carr
Swamp
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_092_Veg_PC_Wetland.mxd
The loss of 311 ha of wetlands at post-closure will be accompanied by the loss of wetland functions as
summarized in Table 2.7.2.7-11. In addition to vegetation loss through mine site clearing, changes to
wetland functions may occur in areas outside the mine site MDA due to water management activities.
Changes to groundwater elevations, surface water flows, or surface or groundwater chemistry could
affect wetland hydrological, biogeochemical and habitat functions. These potential changes to wetland
functions were not necessarily addressed in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Groundwater elevations at operations and post-closure are shown in Figures 2.7.2.6-12 and 2.7.2.6-13,
respectively. Where groundwater baseflow is increased, the capacity of these wetlands to attenuate flows
or recharge baseflows will be reduced. As discussed in Section 2.7.2.6, wetland or peat soils will be
affected by a water table decrease of 30 cm to 1 m. The resulting drier conditions will allow peat to dry
and oxidize, influencing the type of vegetation. For water saturated soils, a decrease in the water table of
greater than 1 m but less than 2 m may be sufficiently large that wetland vegetation adapted to fluctuating
water tables near the surface will be affected. The exact extent of wetlands that will be affected by soil
moisture changes cannot be determined, but is predicted to be confined to the vegetation mine site LSA
(extending up to a few hundred metres beyond the soils mine site LSA, which is a 100 m buffer
vegetation MDA).
Long term accumulations of metals or changes in acidity may affect the potential for wetlands to provide
the biogeochemical function of improving water quality by removing toxic metals or could affect wetlands’
potential to provide suitable habitat for certain wildlife species (see Section 2.7.3.3 and 2.7.2.8).
Table 2.7.2.7-11 Potential Project Effects to Wetland Functions
Wetland Functions Mechanism of Change

Lost due to site clearing
Peak Flow Attenuation Reduced due to raising groundwater table or flooding
Reduced due to sedimentation
Groundwater Recharge/ Lost due to site clearing
Hydrological
Baseflow Augmentation Reduced due to lowering of groundwater table
Downstream Erosion
Reduced due to raising groundwater table, sedimentation or
Reduction
flooding
Water Quality Improvement Reduced due to sedimentation, or nutrient loading, or
Biogeochemical
acidification
Carbon Sequestration Lost due to site clearing or lowering of groundwater table
Lost due to site clearing or lowering of groundwater table
Aquatic Invertebrates
Reduced due to accumulation of metals or acidification
AmphibiansA
Reduced due to acidification or accumulation of metals
Fish
Habitat Reduced due to accumulation of metals
BirdsA
Reduced due to accumulation of metals
MammalsA
Reduced due to accumulation of metals
Rare Plant SpeciesA Lost due to site clearing or lowering of groundwater table

A
Including potential or known habitat for species of conservation concern
Riparian Ecosystems
As outlined in Table 2.7.2.7-12, the areal extent of loss to riparian ecosystems will be less for the New
Prosperity Project than the Prosperity Project. With the reconfiguration of the mine site to preserve Fish
Lake less riparian area is disturbed by project features. The assessment of effects to riparian ecosystems
on fish and fish habitat are discussed in Section 2.7.2.5 (Fish and Fish Habitat) of this assessment.
Effects Assessment Methods for Riparian Ecosystems

The method used to evaluate potential effects to riparian ecosystems, described fully in Section 5.3.3.2 of
Volume 5 in the March 2009 EIS/Application, is a spatial overlay of the Project footprint on the baseline
mapping of riparian ecosystems. The results of this analysis are represented spatially and as a summary
table.
Change in Riparian Ecosystem Baseline Conditions

Data sources and fieldwork used for characterizing the riparian ecosystem baseline conditions have not
changed or been updated since the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Table 2.7.2.7-12 provides a comparison of the area of riparian ecosystems in the Prosperity and New
Prosperity Mine Site LSAs at baseline, recognizing that no changes are anticipated in the riparian
baseline conditions but the mine site LSA for New Prosperity has changed. Figure 2.7.2.7-9 shows the
baseline distribution of riparian ecosystems in the mine site LSA.

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Riparian 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
Riparian Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Riparian Edge Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road Marsh/Swamp
Disturbed Riparian Trail Kilometers Baseline Riparian Ecosystems - Mine Site
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_007_Veg_BL_Riparian.mxd
Table 2.7.2.7-12 Baseline Riparian Ecosystems—Mine Site
Biogeoclimatic Riparian Feature Mine Site Prosperity New

Unit RSA Mine Site Prosperity
LSA Mine Site
LSA
(ha) (ha) (ha)
TRIM rivers, marshes and swamps 734.9 224.8 232.4
MSxv 30 m buffer adjacent to wetland 1,113.9 426.1 473.9
ecosystems
TRIM rivers, marshes and swamps 515.8 121.6 75.1
SBPSxc 30 m buffer adjacent to wetland 766.4 275.5 142.4
ecosystems
Total 3,131 1,048 924
See Tables 5-36 and 5-37 of Volume 5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application for the baseline conditions of
riparian ecosystems in the transmission corridor and access road, which have not changed since the
Prosperity project.
Potential Project Effects to Riparian Ecosystems

Table 2.7.2.7-13 summarizes the differences in project effects on riparian ecosystems from the Prosperity
and New Prosperity Projects in the mine site. Figure 2.7.2.7-10 shows the maximum disturbance
scenario, and Figure 2.7.2.7-11 shows the post closure scenario, for riparian ecosystems in the mine site
LSA.

Table 2.7.2.7-13 Project Effects on Riparian Ecosystems—Mine Site
RSA at Change at Change at

Change at Post-
Baseline Maximum Maximum Change at Post-closure
closure
Riparian Type Disturbance Disturbance (relative to baseline)
(relative to baseline)
(relative to baseline) (relative to baseline)
(ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
TRIM rivers, marshes and
1,250.8 -321.0 -25.7 -126.8 -10.1 -165.1 -13.2 -100.1 -8.0
swamps
30 m buffer adjacent to wetland
1,880.4 -674.6 -35.9 -254.4 -13.5 -399.3 -21.1 -216.7 -11.5
ecosystemsA
Riparian Total 3,131 -996 -32 -353 -11 -564 -18 -317 -10
A. For both the 2009 Prosperity EIS and 2012 New Prosperity EIS, riparian buffers were put on Pit Lake and permanent water features (Diversion Ditches, Sed Ponds
and TSF Lake)

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Riparian 2012 Vegetation LSA Gravel Road River
Riparian Edge Maximum Disturbance Area Paved Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Disturbed Riparian Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road Marsh/Swamp
Trail Kilometers Operations Riparian Ecosystems - Mine Site
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_074_Veg_OP_Riparian.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Riparian 2012 Vegetation LSA Gravel Road River
Riparian Edge Maximum Disturbance Area Paved Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Disturbed Riparian Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road Marsh/Swamp
Post Closure Disturbance Trail Kilometers Post Closure Riparian Ecosystems - Mine Site
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_071_Veg_PC_Riparian.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Grassland 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
Grassland Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Grassland Edge Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Disturbed Grassland
Kilometers Baseline Grassland Ecosystems - Mine Site
Trail
Protected Area
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_008_Veg_BL_Grassland.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Grassland 2012 Vegetation LSA Gravel Road River
Grassland Edge Maximum Disturbance Area Paved Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Disturbed Grassland Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Kilometers Maximum Footprint Grassland Ecosystems - Mine Site
Trail
24th July 2012
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: L. Quan Verified By: Tony Dinneen Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_075_Veg_OP_Grassland.mxd
The New Prosperity maximum disturbance scenario will result in a loss of 564 ha (18%) of riparian
ecosystems from baseline conditions in the RSA, compared to the 996 ha (32%) loss due to the
Prosperity Project. The New Prosperity post-closure scenario will result in a loss of 317 ha (10%) of
riparian ecosystems from baseline conditions in the RSA, compared to the 353 ha (11%) loss due to the
Prosperity Project.
See Section 5.3.3.5 and 5.3.3.6 of Volume 5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application for assessment of effects
to riparian ecosystems in the transmission line and access road, as there have been no changes to
potential effects to this KI between the Prosperity and New Prosperity Projects.
Grassland Ecosystems
As outlined in Table 2.7.2.7-14 the areal extent of loss of grassland ecosystems will be less for the New
Prosperity Project than the Prosperity Project. The CEAA Panel Report found no significant effects to
grassland ecosystems from the Prosperity Project.
Effects Assessment Methods for Grassland Ecosystems

The method used to evaluate loss of grassland ecosystems, described fully in Section 5.3.4.2 of Volume
5 in the March 2009 EIS/Application, is a spatial overlay of the Project footprint on the grassland
ecosystem mapping at baseline. The results of this analysis are represented spatially and as a summary
table.

Change in Grassland Ecosystem Baseline Conditions

Table 2.7.2.7-14 provides a comparison of the area of grassland ecosystems in the Prosperity and New
Prosperity Mine Site LSAs at baseline, recognizing that no changes are anticipated in the grassland
baseline conditions, but the mine site LSA has changed for the New Prosperity Project relative to the
Prosperity Project. Figure 2.7.2.7-14 shows the baseline distribution of grasslands in the mine site LSA.
Table 2.7.2.7-14 Baseline Grassland Ecosystems—Mine Site
Prosperity New
TEM Map RSA Area LSA Area Prosperity
BEC Unit Code Ecosystem Description (ha) (ha) LSA (ha)
MSxv DT Dandelion–Timber oat-grass 1.2 1.2 1.2
JK Juniper–Kinnikinnick 2.6 1.7 0.4
WJ Bluebunch wheatgrass–Junegrass 10.7 0.0 0.0
SBPSxc DT Dandelion–Timber oat-grass 24.8 0.0 0.8
GA Grass–Large-leaved avens 4.1 0.0 0.0
JK Juniper–Kinnikinnick 357.8 11.7 9.6
Total 400 15 12

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000
LEGEND:
Grassland 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Grassland Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake
Grassland Edge Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road Kilometers Post Closure Grassland Ecosystems - Mine Site
Disturbed Grassland Trail
Protected Area 24th July 2012
Permanent Mine Feature
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_090_Veg_PC_Grassland.mxd
Since the March 2009 EIS/Application, the Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Order (2011) has established
spatial boundaries for Grassland Benchmark Areas. As shown on Figure 2.7.2.7-3, there are Grassland
Benchmark Areas (GBAs) within the MDA to the northwest of Fish Lake. The CCLUO says that forest
harvesting activities within these areas should aim to facilitate restoration of open grassland conditions.
The reclamation plan incorporates the land use objectives of the CCLUO where feasible.
Table 2.7.2.7-15 summarizes the grasslands and GBAs within the mine site study areas. Although these
GBAs do not represent statutory restrictions to Project activities, pursuant to Section 14(5) of the Mineral
Tenures Act, this information is used as guidance in reclamation planning.
Table 2.7.2.7-15 Grassland Benchmark Areas for New Prosperity Mine Site
Study Grassland GBAs Grassland Ecosystems within Grassland Benchmark Areas

Area Ecosystems
Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Percent of Grassland (%) Percent of GBAs (%)
RSA 399.9 649.8 215.8 54.0 33.2
LSA 12.0 92.8 2.3 20.4 2.5
MDA 3.7 69.4 1.6 43.2 2.3
See Tables 5-46 and 5-47 of Volume 5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application for the baseline conditions of
grassland ecosystems in the transmission corridor and access road, which have not changed since the
Prosperity project.
Potential Project Effects to Grassland Ecosystems

Table 2.7.2.7-16 summarizes the differences in project effects on grassland ecosystems from the
Prosperity and New Prosperity Projects. Figures 2.7.2.7-13 and 2.7.2.7-14 show the maximum
disturbance and post closure scenarios for grassland ecosystems in the mine site LSA, respectively.
Grassland ecosystems are divided into sensitivity groups from 1 to 4, as defined in Section 5.3.4.2 of the
2009 EIS, with 1 being the most sensitive and 4 having the lowest sensitivity to Project disturbance. As
shown in Table 2.7.2.7-16, only grasslands with sensitivities of 3 and 4 are found in the mine site RSA,
representing grasslands with moderate to low sensitivity that occur at middle to high elevations.

Table 2.7.2.7-16 Project Effects on Grassland Ecosystems—Mine Site
Grassland Ecosystem 2009 Prosperity 2012 New Prosperity

Change at
Area in Change at Change at Post-
Maximum Change at Post-
Modelling RSA at Maximum closure
Disturbance closure
Sensitivity TEM Map Baseline Disturbance (relative to
BEC Unit Site Series Name (relative to (relative to baseline)
Group Code (relative to baseline) baseline)
baseline)
(ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
4 MSxv JK Juniper–Kinnikinnick 2.6 -0.7 -26.92 -0.2 -7.69 -0.4 -16.6 -0.2 -6.1
4 MSxv WJ Bluebunch wheatgrass–Junegrass 10.7 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 SBPSxc DT Dandelion–Timber oat-grass 24.8 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 SBPSxc GA Grass–Large-leaved avens 4.1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 SBPSxc JK Juniper–Kinnikinnick 0.5 -0.5 -100 -0.5 -100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 SBPSxc JK Juniper–Kinnikinnick 357.3 -8.2 -2.29 -6.8 -1.9 -3.3 -0.9 -2.4 -0.7
Total area of Juniper-Kinnikinnick Grasslands 360.4 -9.4 -2.61 -7.5 -2.08 -3.7 -1.0 -2.6 -0.7
Total area of all grasslands 400 -9 -2 -8 -2 -4 -1 -3 -1

The New Prosperity mine site maximum disturbance scenario will result in a loss of 4 ha (1%) of
grassland ecosystems from baseline conditions in the RSA, compared to the 9 ha (2%) loss due to the
Prosperity Project. The New Prosperity post-closure scenario will result in a loss of 3 ha (1%) of grassland
ecosystems from baseline conditions in the RSA, compared to the 8 ha (2%) loss due to the Prosperity
Project. Refer to Sections 5.3.4.5 and 5.3.4.6 of Volume 5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application for
assessment of effects to grassland ecosystems along the transmission line and access road.
Rare Plants
As outlined in Table 2.7.2.7-18, the loss of rare plants will be less for the New Prosperity Project than the
Prosperity Project. As none of the rare plants identified in, or potentially occurring in, the Project study
area is listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the CEAA Panel Report did not discuss
rare plants.
Effects Assessment Methods for Rare Plants

The method used to evaluate the effects to rare plants, described fully in Section 5.3.5.2 of Volume 5 in
the March 2009 EIS/Application, is a spatial overlay of the Project footprint on the baseline mapping of
rare plant locations. The results of this analysis are represented spatially and as a summary table. The
EIS Guidelines include assessment of Red and Blue listed species following the BC Conservation Data
Centre (CDC) listings, so these listings are updated from the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Change in Rare Plant Baseline Conditions

The Vascular and Non-Vascular Plant Species List (Appendix 5-5-J of Volume 5 of the March 2009
EIS/Application) was compared against the current BC CDC (2012) listings for vascular and non-vascular
plants to determine if there have been any changes to the conservation status of the plant species
recorded in the Project area. No previously unlisted species is now considered rare. Of the four rare
plants reported in the Prosperity Project areas in the March 2009 EIS/Application, two previously on the
Blue List are no longer rare and one has been down-listed from Red to Blue, as summarized in Table
2.7.2.7-17. As in 2009, none of these species is listed by the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
Table 2.7.2.7-17 CDC Rare Plant Listing Update
Species 2009 CDC List 2012 CDC List Location

Arabis holboellii Blue -- Access Road
Drepanocladus longifolius Blue -- Mine Site
Ranunculus pedatifidus ssp afinis Blue Blue Mine Site
Schistidium heterophyllum Red Blue Mine Site
Because of the changes to the mine site LSA for New Prosperity, as well as the changes to the BC CDC
listings, there are now fewer occurrences of rare plants within the mine site LSA. See Table 2.7.2.7-18 for
a summary of rare plants in the Prosperity and New Prosperity mine site LSAs and MDAs following

current CDC listings (BC CDC, 2012). See Figure 2.7.2.7-15 for the baseline distribution of rare plants in
the mine site LSA.
Table 2.7.2.7-18 Rare Plant Occurrences within the Mine Site LSA
Rare Plant Species Plot BEC Unit Prosperity New Prosperity

Number Mine Site Mine Site
LSA MDA LSA MDA
Ranunculus pedatifidus ssp. affinis 108 SBPSxc Yes Yes Yes No
171 SBPSxc Yes Yes Yes Yes
190 SBPSxc Yes Yes Yes Yes
TRP102 SBPSxc Yes Yes Yes Yes
TRP108 SBPSxc Yes Yes No No
Schistidium heterophyllum TRP105 MSxv Yes Yes Yes Yes
Based on the changes to the BC CDC listings (Table 2.7.2.7-17), there are now no rare plants in the
access road, and there are still no rare plants in the transmission corridor.

5704000 460000 5700000 464000 5696000
TRP307
!
>
TRP306
!
>
456000
TRP301
!
>
I71
TRP102 TRP105
!
>
TRP110
!
>
!
>
!
>
TRP101
!
>
5704000
464000
TRP118 I90
TRP108
!
>
!
>
!
>
TRP119A
!
>
SITE NO Species I08
!
>
I08 Birdfoot Buttercup
TRP101 Drepanocladus longifolius
Drepanocladus longifolius,
TRP102
Birdfoot Buttercup
TRP105 Schistidium heterophyllum
TRP108 TRP114
Birdfoot Buttercup
!
>
TRP110 Birdfoot Buttercup
TRP114 Drepanocladus longifolius
452000
TRP118
Birdfoot Buttercup
TRP119A Drepanocladus longifolius
Ranunculus pedatifidus ssp.
TRP301 Affinis, Drepanocladus
longifolius
Ranunculus pedatifidus,
TRP306
Drepanocladus longifolius
Ranunculus pedatifidus ssp.
TRP307 Affinis, Drepanocladus
longifolius
452000 5696000 456000 5692000 460000

!
> Rare Plant Occurrence 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
Protected Area Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3 NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road
Kilometers Baseline Rare Plants - Mine Site
Trail
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_011_Veg_BL_Rare_Plants.mxd
Potential Project Effects to Rare Plants

As indicated by Figure 2.7.2.7-15, the New Prosperity Project has the potential to affect three
occurrences of birdfoot buttercup (Ranunculus pedatifidus ssp. affinis) and one occurrence of the blue
listed moss Schistidium heterophyllum.
Project effects on rare plants due to the New Prosperity Project are less than those predicted in the
March 2009 EIS/Application due to changes to the BC CDC listings and Project design.
Ecological Communities of Conservation Concern

As outlined in Table 2.7.2.7-20, effects to ecological communities of conservation concern will be less for
the New Prosperity Project than the Prosperity Project. The CEAA Panel Report found that ecological
communities of conservation concern were not raised as key issues during the panel review, and they
were therefore not discussed in the panel report.
Effects Assessment Methods for Ecological Communities of Conservation Concern

The method used to evaluate the effects to ecological communities of conservation concern, described
fully in Section 5.3.6.2 of Volume 5 in the March 2009 EIS/Application, is a spatial overlay of the Project
footprint on the baseline mapping of ecological communities of conservation concern. The results of this
analysis are represented spatially and as a summary table. The EIS Guidelines include assessment of
Red and Blue listed communities following the BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) listings, so these
listings are updated from the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Change in Ecological Community of Conservation Concern Baseline Conditions

Appendix 5-5-E and Tables 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13 in Volume 5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application present
all the ecological communities identified in the Project area. These communities were compared against
the current BC CDC listings for rare ecological communities to determine if there have been any changes
to the conservation status of the communities recorded in the Project area.
There have been no changes to the BC CDC listings for any of the communities identified in the mine site
LSA or the access road RSA. See Table 2.7.2.7-19 for a comparison of the area of ecological
communities of conservation concern in the Prosperity and New Prosperity Mine Site LSAs at baseline,
recognizing that no changes are anticipated in the baseline conditions, but the mine site LSA has
changed for the New Prosperity Project relative to the Prosperity Project. Figure 2.7.2.7-16 shows the
baseline distribution of ecological communities of conservation concern in the mine site LSA.

Table 2.7.2.7-19 Baseline Ecological Communities of Conservation Concern—Mine Site
TEM Structural Prosperity New

BEC Map Stage RSA Area LSA Area Prosperity
Unit Code Ecosystem Description (ha) (ha) LSA (ha)
MSxv LT Lodgepole pine / trapper’s tea/ 3 1.9 0.0 0.0
crowberry 4 173.1 0.0 0.0
5 36.2 6.7 6.7
6 131.0 0.0 0.0
SBPSxc SM Hybrid white spruce / 3 1.3 0.0 0.0
horsetails-western meadowrue 4 6.3 0.0 0.0
5 10.3 0.0 0.0
6 76.7 0.0 0.0
Total 436.9 6.7 6.7

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Rare Ecosystem BC Ranking 2012 Vegetation LSA Paved Road River
S1 - Provincial, Critically Imperiled Maximum Disturbance Area Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3
S2 - Provincial, Imperiled Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Rough Road Baseline Ecological Communities
S3 - Provincial, Vulnerable
Kilometers of Conservation Concern - Mine Site
Trail
S4 - Provincial, Apparently Secure
24th July 2012
Protected Area
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_009_Veg_BL_RareEcosystems.mxd
Table 2.7.2.7-20 summarizes the changes to the BC CDC listings in the transmission line RSA. Three of
the ecological communities of conservation concern within the transmission line RSA have been
downlisted: one from Red to Blue, and two from Blue to unlisted. The Baltic rush-common silverweed
community was erroneously omitted from the 2009 Prosperity EIS, and continues to be Red listed.
Table 2.7.2.7-20 Rare Ecosystem Listing Update
Map Rare Ecological BEC 2009 2012 Area in Area in

Code Community classification Transmission Transmission
Line RSA Line ROW
SS Hybrid white spruce - IDFxm/08 Red Blue 42.7 1.2
Prickly rose - Palmate
coltsfoot
DR Douglas-fir - Ricegrass - IDFxm/06 Blue _ 1.5 0.0
Step moss
DJ Douglas-fir - Rocky IDFdk4/03 Blue _ 23.2 0.3
Mountain juniper -
Saskatoon
RM Baltic Rush-Common IDFdk3/Wm07 Red Red 4.8 0.0
silverweed* IDFdk4/Wm07
*this community was unintentionally omitted from the list of rare ecosystems in 2009
Potential Project Effects to Ecological Communities of Conservation Concern

Effects to ecological communities of conservation concern within the mine site are less than those
reported in the 2009 Prosperity EIS due to the changes in the Project design at the mine site, decreasing
the area of disturbance.
Table 2.7.2.7-21 summarizes the differences in project effects on ecological communities of conservation
concern from the Prosperity and New Prosperity Projects in the mine site. Figure 2.7.2.7-17 shows the
distribution of ecological communities of conservation concern in the mine site RSA for the maximum
disturbance scenario.

Table 2.7.2.7-21 Project Effects on Ecological Communities of Conservation Concern—Mine Site
Rare Ecosystems 2009 Prosperity 2012 New Prosperity

RSA at
Relative Baseline Change at Maximum Change at Maximum
Conservation
TEM Disturbance Disturbance
Status
BEC Unit Map Site Series Name (relative to baseline) (relative to baseline)
Code Area Area Percent Area Percent
(ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
Lodgepole pine–Trappers
Red-listed (high) MSxv/05 LT 342.3 -6.7 -2.0 -4.4 -1.3
tea–Crowberry
Blue listed White spruce-horsetails-
SBPSxc/06 SM 94.6 0 0 0.0 0.0
(moderate) western meadowrue
Total 437 -7 -2 -4 -1
NOTE:
No post-closure scenario for ecological communities of conservation concern is provided because it is assumed that these ecosystem types cannot be reliably re-established
through reclamation treatments.

5720000 460000 5700000
Ra t
Ca b in
La ke s
Cre e k
5720000
V
ic
k
Cre Vick
ek
La ke
ho g
un d
Tete
Hill
Gro
Sli m
La ke
Cone
Hill
W o l f tr a p
La ke
er
iv
R
Fish
o
ek
La ke L i tt l e F i s h
La ke
Ta s
k
Big ee
Cr
La ke
sh
Fi
L owe r
Was p
La ke
C re ek
L i tt l e
On io n
Big La ke
Ve On io n
da n La ke
La ce
ke Bee
Cardiff Mountain
Ecological Reserve
440000
Lo w er
Ta s e k o
5680000
La ke
440000 5700000 460000 5680000

Rare Ecosystem BC Ranking 2012 Vegetation LSA Gravel Road River
0 2.5 5 10
S1 - Provincial, Critically Imperiled Maximum Disturbance Area Paved Road Lake NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
S2 - Provincial, Imperiled Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Kilometers
S3 - Provincial, Vulnerable Maximum Footprint Ecological Communities of Conservation Concern -
S4 - Provincial, Apparently Secure
Mine Site
24th July 2012
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Vegetation\MXD\123210163_089_Veg_Rare_Ecosystems.mxd
The New Prosperity maximum disturbance scenario will result in a loss of 4 ha (1%) of ecological
communities of conservation concern from baseline conditions in the RSA, compared to the 7 ha (2%)
loss due to the Prosperity Project.
As shown in Table 2.7.2.7-20, the transmission line ROW affects two of the communities with updated
listings by the BC CDC: the SS map code and the DJ map code. Both of these have been downlisted,
one from red listed to blue listed, the other from blue listed to unlisted. As such, effects to ecological
communities of conservation concern within the transmission corridor for the New Prosperity Project are
less than those predicted for the Prosperity Project.
Effects to ecological communities of conservation concern within the access road have not changed since
the March 2009 EIS/Application, and are summarized in Section 5.3.6.5 of Volume 5 of that report.
Country Food Plants

Country food plants were not addressed in the 2009 Prosperity EIS, but were considered in the
supplemental report entitled, “Local and Regional Environmental Effects on Wildlife and Vegetation
Resources of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government at the Proposed Mine Site” (Taseko,
2009). The 2012 New Prosperity EIS Guidelines include the assessment of potential effects of the Project
on vegetation species known to be important to Aboriginal groups, and specific country foods identified by
local and Aboriginal groups as being important. As such, they are included in this KI. As shown in Table
2.7.2.7-4, predicted effects to country food plants are anticipated through vegetation loss due to clearing
for the mine site and access road and through changes to plant community structure and composition
through clearing for the transmission line corridor
Effects Assessment Methods for Country Food Plants

The effects assessment methods for country food plants will be the same as those used in the 2009
Supplemental report. This includes:
x A matrix linking plant species of importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG) with the
vegetation effects assessment KIs presented in the March 2009 EIS/Application, and
x Predictions of direct vegetation loss from the mine site area.
In addition, effects are assessed by looking at known occurrences of country food plants in the Project
area.
Change in Country Food Plants Baseline Conditions

The Tsilhqot’in National Government provided a list of 52 important plant species. This list was compared
against the Master Plant List of all species recorded during surveys of the mine site, access road and
transmission corridor (Appendix 5-5-J of Volume 5 of the March 2009 EIS/Application) to determine which
of the country foods of importance to the TNG were identified in the Project area at baseline, as
summarized in Table 2.7.2.7-22. Eighteen of these species were found during vegetation surveys in
support of the 2009 Prosperity EIS. It is important to note that not reporting a species in the Project area
does not mean that it does not occur there.

Table 2.7.2.7-22 Country Food Plant Species
Species Common Name Mine Transmission Road

RSA Corridor
Agoseris glauca Mountain dandelion x x
Alnus tenuifolia (Alnus viridus) Greeb akder x
Anemone multifida Pacific anemone x x x
Aquilegia formosa Red columbine x x x
Arnica cordifolia Heart-leaved arnica x x x
Astragalus miser Timber milkvetch x x x
Castellija miniata Paintbrush x x
Eleagnus commutata Silverberry x
Fragaria virginiana Blueleaf wild strawberry x x x
Medicago sativa Alfalfa x x
Mentha arvensis Field mint x x
Nuphar polysepalum Yellow pond-lily x
Ribes hudsonianum Black currant x
Ribes lacustre Swamp gooseberry x x x
Rubus arcticus Dwarf raspberry x x x
Rubus idaeus Wild raspberry x x
Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf mountain blueberry x x x
Zygadenus venenosus Death camus x x
An “x” indicates the species was found within the given Project area.
Potential Project Effects to Country Food Plants

The potential effects to country foods were assessed in the 2009 Supplemental Report through linkages
to the KIs of old forest, wetland, riparian and grassland ecosystems. See Tables 2.7.2.7-8, 2.7.2.7-10,
2.7.2.7-13, and 2.7.2.7-16 for changes to project effects for these KIs since the March 2009
EIS/Application.
The potential effects to country foods were also assessed in the 2009 Supplemental Report by looking at
areas of direct vegetation loss by biogeoclimatic unit. See Table 2.7.2.7-23 for a comparison of the
Prosperity and New Prosperity Projects for changes to direct vegetation loss in the mine site. There have
been no changes in the areas of direct vegetation loss for the transmission line and access road between
the Prosperity and New Prosperity Projects.
Table 2.7.2.7-23 Project Effects on Country Foods through Direct Vegetation Loss—Mine Site

RSA at Change at Maximum Change at Maximum Change at Post
Biogeoclimatic Baseline Disturbance Disturbance Closure
Unit (relative to baseline) (relative to baseline) (relative to baseline)
Area Percent Percent Area Percent
(ha) Area (ha) (%) Area (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
SBPSxc 8,998 -2,414 -26.8 -494 -5.5 -442.5 -4.9
MSxv 9,258 -705 -7.6 -2044 -22.1 -155.9 -1.7
Total 18,267 -3,119 -17.1 -2,539 -13.9 -598 -3.3

NOTE:
The reclamation plan for 2009 Prosperity did not specify areas where traditional use plants would be incorporated, only the
intention to do so. As such a post-closure scenario is not presented for 2009 Prosperity.
The potential loss of country food plants is also considered by looking at known locations of country food
plant species. Table 2.7.2.7-24 summarizes the sites where country food plant species were recorded
during baseline field surveys, and determines where they fall relative to the 2009 and 2012 mine site
MDAs.
Table 2.7.2.7-24 Project Effects through Loss of Sites Supporting Country Food Plants—Mine
Site
2009 2012 New

Percent Baseline Survey Prosperity Prosperity
Common Name Scientific Name
Cover Site mine site mine site
MDA MDA
20 HINV26/TRP123 x x
Pacific anemone Anemone multifida
30 HRP27/TRP107
Red columbine Aquilegia formosa 3 HRP23 x x
Heart-leaved arnica Arnica cordifolia 20 HRP27/TRP107
20 HRP27/TRP107
Timber milkvetch Astragalus miser
NA HRP30/TRP109 x
5 HRP25/TRP102 x x
Paintbrush Castellija miniata 10 HRP33 x
NA HRP34 x x
5 HR21/TRP110 x
5 HRP25/TRP102 x x
20 HINV26/TRP123 x x
Blueleaf wild 20 HRP27/TRP107
Fragaria virginiana
strawberry NA HRP28/TRP111
NA HRP33 x
NA HRP34 x x
NA HRP36 x x
Yellow pond-lily Nuphar polysepalum NA HR21/TRP110 x
Swamp gooseberry Ribes lacustre 5 HRP36 x x
Dwarf raspberry Rubus arcticus NA HRP36 x x
20 HRP24/TRP102 x x
NA HRP28/TRP111
NA HRP31/TRP118 x
1 HRP32 x x
NA HRP33 x
Dwarf mountain Vaccinium NA HRP33 x
blueberry caespitosum NA HRP34 x x
An “x” indicates that the site occurs within the indicated MDA.

As shown in Table 2.7.2.7-24, the loss of sites recorded as supporting country food plants is roughly the
same for both Prosperity and New Prosperity as both lead to the potential loss of 17 occurrences of
country food species but at slightly different baseline survey sites, with slightly different species
composition.
Vegetation Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures proposed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.1 of the March 2009 EIS/Application for vegetation
resources and in the 2009 Supplemental Report all still apply. The reclamation plan will incorporate
country food/traditional use plants (Table 2.8.2.2-5). In addition, mitigation measures identified in the EAO
Assessment Report and Table of Commitments, summarized below, apply. Measures include a habitat
compensation plan which will compensate for any residual adverse effects following the implementation
and evaluation of mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures relating to vegetation resources on the mine site included in the EAO Assessment
Report and associated Table of Commitments for EAC M09-02 for the Prosperity Gold-Copper Project, as
issued January 14, 2010 were as follows:
x Mitigation measures to protect and conserve wetlands in close proximity to the mine footprint,
including minimizing disturbance, avoiding vegetation loss, mitigating against invasive species, and
maintaining natural drainage patterns (Commitment 12.2).
x Mitigation for the [previously] red-listed moss Schistidium heterophyllum includes movement of the
boulders on which the moss grows. [Note: this species is now blue-listed as of March 31, 2011.]
x Implement an invasive plant management plan (Commitment 12.6). Mitigate against invasive species
in the transmission line, access road, and mine site by implementing the Invasive Plant Strategy
(Appendix 2.7.2.7-A) as appropriate.
x Mitigate residual effects of mining with respect to wildlife habitat, at-risk plant communities, and the
habitat of species at risk through reclamation approach as described in the decommissioning plan
(Commitment 13.5).
x Employ BMP throughout all Project phases and activities. In particular, prior to construction
commencing, undertake all appropriate measures to ensure that sensitive habitat features are
identified and all appropriate mitigative measures are implemented to avoid adverse effects
(Commitment 14.1).
x Identify and quantify Project effects on vegetation at a local level on a scale that enables identification
of appropriate mitigation or compensation measures (Commitment 14.4).
x Assess the suitability of reclaimed sites for wildlife use through trace element monitoring in vegetation
(Commitment 16.3).
Taseko’s response to the previous Panel recommendations concerning mitigation measures related to
vegetation is detailed in Section 2.10 of this EIS. There are no additional mitigation measures considered
necessary or appropriate for New Prosperity in relation to vegetation resources.



and activities are shown on Figure 2.7.1.4-1. Of the projects and activities indicated in Table 2.7.1.4-1,
eight are new since 2009.
As identified in Section 5.1.6.2 of the March 2009 EIS/Application, the vegetation RSA (comprised of the
vegetation mine site RSA, transmission corridor RSA, and access road RSA) represents “the area within
which there is potential for cumulative environmental effects from the Project over time or in combination
with other projects.” The only project or activity identified in Table 2.7.1.4-1 and Figure 2.7.1.4-1 with
likely effects occurring within the vegetation RSA, and therefore with potential for cumulative
environmental effects, is logging.
For vegetation, the first two conditions are met; that is, there are Project-specific residual effects on
vegetation within the RSA, as summarized in Table 2.7.2.7-25, and these effects do, or are likely to,
interact cumulatively with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities, in particular
logging. In addition, natural disturbances such as mountain pine beetle and forest fire could contribute to
cumulative effects to vegetation. For example, since the March 2009 EIS/Application, 944 ha of old forest
has been removed from the mine site RSA through logging and mountain pine beetle impacts. This
agrees with the prediction presented in the 2009 EIS/Application that logging and mountain pine beetle
impacts would continue to affect vegetation resources in the RSA.
With respect to the third condition, the March 2009 EIS/Application and CEAA Panel Report concluded
that the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects would not affect the viability or sustainability of any
vegetation KI. The predicted residual effects on the vegetation KIs for New Prosperity have decreased
relative those presented in the March 2009 EIS/Application. As such, the Project’s contributions to
cumulative effects are similar to those presented in the March 2009 EIS/Application, as follows:
x The Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on old forest is extremely small relative to the losses
due to logging and mountain pine beetle.
x There is limited potential for cumulative effects on wetlands as logging targets forested ecosystem
types, and wetlands in the RSA are generally non-forested. For example, 84.2% of the mine site RSA
wetlands are non-forested.
x Forest harvesting activities are not expected to have substantive cumulative interactions with riparian
ecosystems, as provisions in the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation under the Forest and
Range Practices Act, are designed to avoid ecosystem loss and minimize indirect environmental
effects to riparian areas.
x Logging is not expected to contribute negatively to cumulative effects on grassland ecosystems;

positive effects are possible as forest harvesting within Grassland Benchmark Areas in the RSA will
facilitate restoration of open grassland conditions, following the land use objectives of the Cariboo
Chilcotin Land Use Plan (2011).

x Ranunculus pedatifidus spp. affinis is the only rare plant subject to residual Project effects. It is
associated with non-forested wetlands, and therefore unlikely to be subject to cumulative effects due
to logging activities.
x Residual Project effects to ecological communities of conservation concern are extremely small and
not expected to result in a measurable change in the availability of ecological communities of
conservation concern in the RSA. In addition, other reasonably foreseeable activities that could make
a substantive contribution to cumulative environmental effects on ecological communities of
conservation concern, such as logging, grazing, mountain pine beetle, or forest fires, are likely to
cause changes in structural stage and species composition, rather than direct changes to the areal
extent of these communities in the RSA.
x The Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on country food vegetation is extremely small relative
to the losses due to logging and mountain pine beetle to the associated KIs of old forest, wetland,
riparian and grassland ecosystems.
Based on the above, the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects is not anticipated to affect the viability
or sustainability of vegetation resources, and a comprehensive assessment of potential cumulative effects
to vegetation resources is not required.

described in Section 2.7.1.5. The environmental effects rating criteria for vegetation are the same as
those used in the 2009 EIS/Application (Sections 5.1.7 and 5.3). As in the Supplemental Report
magnitude of potential effects to country food plants is expressed in hectares.
The significance determination methods follow those used in the 2009 EIS/Application (Section 5.1.7.1).
The significance of a residual Project environmental effect was determined by considering the residual
Project environmental effect in the context of the sustainability of the KI within an appropriate ecological
context (e.g., the British Columbia range of a rare plant species). This evaluation was generally
qualitative—considerations include conservation status, range of the species or community, level of
disturbance, relevant thresholds if available and area-specific policies for land use and species
management.
A residual Project environmental effect was considered to be significant if it was:
x A moderate magnitude adverse environmental effect that was far future in duration (i.e. irreversible)
unless it was a local or site-specific in geographic extent
x A high magnitude adverse environmental effect that was far future in duration (i.e. irreversible) unless
it was site-specific in geographic extent, and
x A high magnitude adverse environmental effect that was medium or long-term in duration unless it
was local or site-specific in geographic extent.
Magnitudes for each KI, as defined in the 2009 EIS/Application and Supplemental Report, are

Table 2.7.2.7-25 Magnitude Definitions for Residual Effects by Vegetation KI
KI Low Magnitude Moderate Magnitude High Magnitude

Old forest <10% reduction in the 10-20% reduction in the >20% reduction in the
spatial extent of non-pine availability of non-pine old availability of non-pine old
old forest in the RSA forest in the RSA forest in the RSA
Wetland <1% reduction in the 1–5% reduction in the >5% reduction in the
ecosystems availability of wetland availability of wetland availability of wetland
ecosystems in the RSA ecosystems in the RSA ecosystems in the RSA
Riparian <5% reduction in the 5–10% reduction in the >10% reduction in the
Ecosystems availability of riparian availability of riparian availability of riparian
ecosystems in the RSA ecosystems in the RSA ecosystems in the RSA
Grassland <15% reduction in the 15-20% reduction in the >20% reduction in the
EcosystemsA spatial extent of grasslands spatial extent of grasslands spatial extent of grasslands
with sensitivity class 4 in with sensitivity class 4 in with sensitivity class 4 in
the RSA the RSA the RSA
Rare plantsB <1% loss of individuals 1–5% loss of entire >5% loss of entire
within a population of a population or all population or all
blue-listed species occurrences of a blue-listed occurrences of a blue-listed
species species
Ecological n/a <5% loss of area of red- >5% loss of area of red-
Communities listed community in the listed community in the
of RSA RSA
Conservation
ConcernC
Country Foods Magnitudes in the supplemental report (Taseko 2009) are defined by area (ha)
NOTES:
a) Only Sensitivity Class 4 Grasslands are potentially affected by the changes resulting from the New Prosperity Project.
b) Only blue-listed species are potentially affected by the changes resulting from New Prosperity Project.
c) Only red-listed ecological communities of conservation concern are potentially affected by the changes resulting from the New
Prosperity Project.
The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for vegetation for New Prosperity are summarized
in Table 2.7.2.7-26. The rationale for the significance determinations are as follows:
x For non-pine old growth forests, following KI-specific definitions from Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009
EIS/Application, the magnitude of potential effects is low, the area is presently relatively undisturbed
and the effect is long term and reversible. With implementation of the mitigation measures as detailed
in the March 2009 EIS/Application, the conclusion is that the environmental effect is not significant
because the effect is low magnitude, local, and reversible.
x For wetland ecosystems, following KI-specific definitions from Section 5.3.2.1 of the 2009
EIS/Application, the magnitude of potential effects is high, and the area is presently relatively
undisturbed. Potential effects associated with loss of wetlands and change in wetland functions are
long term in duration, and are reversible through implementation of the mitigation measures as
detailed in the March 2009 EIS/Application including, as necessary, the Habitat Compensation Plan.
The conclusion is therefore that the environmental effects are not significant.

x For riparian ecosystems, following KI-specific definitions from Section 5.3.3.1 of the 2009
EIS/Application, the magnitude is high and the area is presently relatively undisturbed. The potential
environmental effect is long term in duration, and reversible with implementation of the mitigation
measures as detailed in the March 2009 EIS/Application including the Fish and Fish Habitat
Compensation Plan and as necessary, the Habitat Compensation Plan. The conclusion is therefore
that the environmental effect is not significant.
x For grassland ecosystems, given that the potential effect is low magnitude, medium term, local and
reversible, the conclusion is that the environmental effect is not significant.
x For rare plants, given the moderate magnitude effect to the three occurrences of blue listed buttercup,
and the mitigation of transplanting the blue listed moss, and given that although any effect would be
far future or permanent and irreversible, the extent of the effect is local, confined to the LSA. As such,
the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant.
x For ecological communities of conservation concern, although the effect is far future or permanent
and irreversible, given that the magnitude is moderate and confined to one mapped polygon within
the MDA (i.e. site specific), the conclusion is that the environmental effects are not significant.
x For Project effects on country foods, the effects on the surrogate KIs of old forest, wetland, riparian
and grassland ecosystems are all considered not significant. With implementation of the mitigation
measures as detailed in the March 2009 EIS/Application, as well as inclusion of traditional use
species in the revegetation species list of the reclamation plan, the loss of 598 ha (3.3%) of
vegetation with the potential to support country food plants is considered not significant.

Table 2.7.2.7-26 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Vegetation for New Prosperity
Significance
Geographical
Reversibility
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Potential
Duration/
Direction
Context
Extent
Environmental Effect: Proposed Mitigation/Compensation Measures
Loss of Vegetation KI
Protect existing non-pine old and mature forest

Implement reforestation measures described in the Reclamation Plan. Low (Post-
closure loss of
Old Forest Remove any green felled or wind thrown spruce from the site to avoid build-up A 56 ha non- L LT/R R U N H
of spruce bark beetle populations pine old forest;
Notify MOFR of outbreaks of mountain pine beetle, do not remove “green 8%)
attack” trees from site except under MOFR direction
Avoid vegetation loss
Minimize disturbance
High (Post-
Mitigate against invasive species
Wetland Ecosystems A closure loss of L LT/R R U N M
Maintain natural drainage patterns 311 ha; 15%)
Develop a compensation plan following the draft Habitat Compensation
Framework
Avoid vegetation loss
Mitigate against invasive species Moderate(Post
Reduce windthrow risk -closure loss
Riparian Ecosystems A L LT/R RI U N H
Protect forest health of 317 ha;
Maintain natural drainage patterns 10%)
Develop a compensation plan following the draft Habitat Compensation
Framework, Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan
Avoid vegetation loss and site disturbance Low (Post-
MT/
Grassland Ecosystems Mitigate against invasive species by following the Invasive Plant Strategy A closure loss of L R U N H
R
(Appendix 2.7.2.7-K) 3 ha; 1%)
The blue-listed birdfoot buttercup occurs in wetland habitats; therefore, follow all (Loss of 3
mitigation measures for wetland and riparian ecosystems. occurrences of
Rare Plants A L FF/R I U N L
Avoid vegetation loss one blue-listed
Share locations of rare plants with other agencies species)

Mitigate against invasive species
Transplant boulders on which Schistidium heterophyllum occurs
Avoid vegetation loss Moderate
Minimize disturbance (Maximum
Ecological Communities Reduce windthrow risk disturbance
of Conservation A loss of 4 ha of S FF/R I U N H
Concern Mitigate against invasive species
red-listed
Protect forest health community; -
Maintain natural drainage patterns 1%)
Avoid vegetation loss Post-closure
Minimize disturbance loss of 598 ha MT/
Country Food Plants A L R U N M
Mitigate against invasive species (3.3%) of R
Incorporate traditional use species into reclamation (Table 2.8.2.2-5) vegetation
KEY Geographic Extent: Frequency: Significance:
S Site-specific; at one site in LSA R Rare - Occurs Once S Significant
Direction: L Local; at more than one site in LSA I Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at irregular intervals N Not Significant
P Positive R Regional; extending beyond LSA into F Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis and at regular
N Neutral RSA or broader area. intervals Prediction Confidence:
A Adverse C Continuous Based on scientific information and
Duration: statistical analysis, professional
Magnitude: ST: Short term; less than 1 year Reversibility: judgment and effectiveness of
Defined for each KI individually. In general: MT: Medium Term; greater than 1 year, R Reversible mitigation
L Low–environmental effect occurs that not beyond the life of the project I Irreversible L Low level of confidence
may or may not be measurable, but is LT: Long Term; lasts up to 10 years (140 M Moderate level of confidence
within the range of natural variability. to 250 years for old forest) following Ecological Context: H High level of confidence
M Moderate–environmental effect occurs, commencement of the post-closure U Undisturbed: Area relatively or not adversely affected by
but is unlikely to pose a serious risk or phase human activity
present a management challenge. FF: Far Future or Permanent; extends D Developed: Area has been substantially previously
H High–environmental effect is likely to greater than 10 years (250 years for disturbed by human development or human
pose a serious risk or present a old forest) beyond commencement of development is still present
management challenge. the post-closure phase. N/A Not applicable.

Table 2.7.2.7-27 provides a concise summary of the effects assessment for vegetation. Considering the
updated findings of the Project, mitigation measures, and cumulative residual effects on vegetation
presented in this document, the overall significance determination for the New Prosperity Project,
including all three major components (mine site, access road, transmission line), is unchanged from 2009.
That is, the effect of the Project on the viability and sustainability of the vegetation resource is considered
to be not significant.
Table 2.7.2.7-27 Summary of Effects Assessment for Vegetation
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
The New Prosperity Project has redesigned the mine site layout to include the
Beneficial and
conservation of Fish Lake and associated riparian habitat and a smaller maximum
Adverse Effects
disturbance area. This is expected to reduce vegetation loss for all vegetation KIs
effects have been proposed for project-related activities, include both KI specific and
Mitigation and general vegetation mitigation measures..
Compensation
Measures A draft Habitat Compensation Reference Document has been developed which
addresses any vegetation-related compensation requirements; see (Appendix
2.7.2.8-B).
Several residual effects on vegetation resources are predicted. See Table 2.7.2.7-25
for a summary of project residual effects to vegetation resources.
The Project is expected to have high magnitude residual effects on wetland and
riparian ecosystems; 311 ha (15%) wetland and 317 ha (10%) of riparian
Potential ecosystems within the RSA are expected to be lost at post-closure, prior to
Residual implementation of compensation measures. We predict a moderate magnitude
Effects residual effect on rare plants, with 3 occurrences of Ranunculus pedatifidus ssp.
affinis lost, but over 100 individuals of the species known to occur in the regional
area outside the LSA. A moderate magnitude residual effect is expected on
ecological communities of conservation concern, with 4 ha (1%) of red-listed
community lost.
Based on the screening for potential for cumulative effects above, the Project’s
Cumulative contribution to cumulative effects is not anticipated to affect the viability or
Effects sustainability of vegetation resources, and a comprehensive assessment of potential
cumulative effects to vegetation resources is not required.
Determination The combined residual environmental effect of the Project on the sustainability of the
of the vegetation resource is predicted to be not significant. This assessment is predicated
significance of on the implementation of proposed mitigation and the development of appropriate
residual effects compensation measures.
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects As no significant residual effects are predicted, there is no likelihood of occurrence.
found to be
significant

Additional Work
Follow-up and monitoring will be required to:
x Evaluate the extent of effects requiring compensation (if any), in particular in relation to predicted
high magnitude effects to wetland ecosystems.

2.7.2.8 Wildlife
This section describes the procedures undertaken to assess any potential environmental effects and
associated mitigation and compensation measures for wildlife resources within the region in regards to
the changes for the New Prosperity Project.
This section identifies how the Project has changed from the previous project proposal and whether those
changes would result in changes to the environmental effects previously predicted for wildlife. An
assessment of wildlife and wildlife habitat, as outlined in the EIS Guidelines, is included; see ‘Changes as
a Result of New Prosperity EIS Guidelines’ below.
Scope of Assessment
Prosperity Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The scope of the assessment is solely regarding
changes from the Prosperity Project based on the New Prosperity Mine Development Plan, and is
completed in accordance with the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines. Regulatory changes that have
occurred since the March 2009 EIS/Application are considered. The results of the assessment of Project
and cumulative effects on wildlife are summarized and the approach for mitigation, monitoring and follow-
up related to wildlife issues are presented.
The project activities and physical works for New Prosperity are presented in Table 2.7.2.8-1. This table
whether there are any applicable statutory regulatory changes related to the project activities. The
physical activities/physical works with a “Y” in either Changes in Project Design or Changes in Regulatory
Requirements are indicated in white in Table 2.7.2.8-1 and are carried forward as potential effect
mechanisms for consideration in the environmental effects scoping in the following section. Project
activities or physical works identified with an “N” in both of these columns are not carried forward in this
wildlife and wildlife habitat assessment, and are greyed out.
Table 2.7.2.8-1 Project Scoping Table for Wildlife
Change in Change in
Project
Project Regulatory Regulatory
Design Requirements Reference
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Additional species w/in
Project area listed under
Open Pit – Preproduction N Y SARA
federal SARA since the
Prosperity EIS (2009).
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y Y SARA Project area listed under
PAG Stockpile Y Y SARA Still subaqueous in TSF; just

Change in Change in
Project
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Location only
Overburden Stockpile Y Y SARA Project area listed under
Primary Crusher N N
Overland conveyor N N
Fisheries compensation Y Y SARA
Water Management Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
Controls and Operations federal SARA since the
Construction sediment Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
control federal SARA since the
Access road construction
N N
and upgrades
In mine site
Camp construction N Y SARA Project area listed under
Different areas related to
moving of TSF, stockpiles,
etc.
Site clearing (clearing
Y Y SARA Additional species w/in
and grubbing)
Includes overburden removal
Soils handling and Additional species w/in
Y Y SARA Project area listed under
stockpiling
Not emissions; not location
Construction: plant site
N Y SARA Additional species w/in
and other facilities

Change in Change in
Project
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Only Little Fish Lake
Lake dewatering Y Y SARA Project area listed under
Management of inflows and
outflows
Fish Lake Water Additional species w/in
Y Y SARA
Management Project area listed under
Starter dam construction Y Y SARA
Sourcing water supplies Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
(potable, process/TSF) federal SARA since the
Site waste management N N
Clearing of transmission Project area listed under
N Y SARA
line ROW federal SARA since the
Construction/Installation Project area listed under
N Y SARA
of transmission line federal SARA since the
2 km more road. Additional
species w/in Project area
Vehicular traffic N Y SARA listed under federal SARA
since the Prosperity EIS
(2009).
facility near Macalister N N
(upgrades to site)
Operations
Pit Production N Y SARA
Crushing and Additional species w/in

N Y SARA Project area listed under
conveyance

Change in Change in
Project
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Ore processing and Project area listed under
N Y SARA
dewatering federal SARA since the
Location only
Explosive handling and Additional species w/in
storage
Location changed
Tailing storage Y Y SARA Project area listed under
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y Y SARA Project area listed under
PAG Stockpile Y Y SARA Additional species w/in
Combined with Non-PAG
(i.e. location and timing)
Overburden Stockpile Y Y SARA Additional species w/in
Location only
Ore Stockpile Additional species w/in
management and Y Y SARA Project area listed under
processing federal SARA since the
Potable and non-potable
N N
water use
Site drainage and Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
seepage management federal SARA since the
Includes management of
Water Management
Y Y SARA flows in and out of Fish Lake

Change in Change in
Project
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Wastewater treatment
and discharge (sewage, N N
site water)
Water release
contingencies for
N N
extended shutdowns
(treatment)
Solid waste management N N
Maintenance and repairs N N
Concentrate transport
N N
and handling
PAH NOx; within mine site
only; additional trucks
Vehicle traffic Y Y SARA Additional species w/in
Transmission line Project area listed under
N Y SARA
(includes maintenance) federal SARA since the
Pit dewatering N N
Fisheries Compensation Y Y SARA
N N
Closure
Water Management Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
Controls and Operation federal SARA since the
Fisheries Compensation Y Y SARA
Site drainage and Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
seepage management federal SARA since the
Reclamation of ore Y Y SARA Location only

Change in Change in
Project
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
stockpile area Additional species w/in
Location only
Reclamation of Non-PAG Additional species w/in
waste rock stockpile
Tailing impoundment Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
reclamation federal SARA since the
Pit lake and TSF Lake Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
filling federal SARA since the
Plant and associated
N N
facility removal
Road decommissioning N N
Transmission line Project area listed under
N Y SARA
decommissioning federal SARA since the
Post-closure
Discharge of tailing Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
storage facility water federal SARA since the
Discharge of pit lake
N N Into lower Fish Creek
water
Seepage management Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
and discharge federal SARA since the
Ongoing monitoring of Project area listed under
Y Y SARA
reclamation federal SARA since the
Will involve update of Project
Inclusion List
Interaction of Other Additional species w/in
Y Y SARA
Projects and Activities Project area listed under

Change in Change in
Project
Works
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Two new scenarios (land and
water based) due to Fish
Lake; other A&Ms would not
change–previous A&Ms
Accidents, Malfunctions would still apply.
Y Y SARA
and Unplanned Events
The project descriptions for the activities listed above that have not changed since 2009 can be found in
Project Description and Scope, Volume 3, Sections 6 and 8, and Additional Requirements Pursuant to
CEAA, Volume 9, Section 2, of the March 2009 EIS/Application. Project activities and works that have
changed since the March 2009 EIS/Application are described in the New Prosperity Project Description
and Scope of Project (Taseko Mines Limited, 2011).

Statutes applicable to the March 2009 EIS/Application, as identified in Volume 5, Section 6.1.1, and still
applicable to the New Prosperity Project include:
x Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA)
x Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act
x BC Wildlife Act
x BC Weed Control Act
x BC Fisheries Act
x BC Mines Act, and
x BC Forest and Range Practices Act.
There have been four additional species designated as SARA Schedule 1 since the submission of the
March 2009 EIS/Application: band-tailed pigeon, common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher and rusty
blackbird. These species were previously identified at the provincial level as being species at risk and
were addressed within the March 2009 EIS/Application (Section 6.1.3.1, Table 6-4).
Additional guidance on interpretation of regulatory changes includes the federal Environmental Code of
Practice for Metal Mines (Environment Canada, 2009) containing recommended practices within a wildlife
context for environmental management including; waste management, access road planning, ambient
noise limitations for mining operations and additional phase-specific mining activities. The report
‘Addressing Species at Risk Act Considerations under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act for

Species under the Responsibility of the Minister responsible for Environment Canada and Parks Canada’
(SARA-CEAA Guidance Working Group, 2010) provides guidance on the integration of species at risk
considerations within the EIA process.

The scope of the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines focuses on aspects of the Project that have changed or
are new from the March 2009 EIS/Application. Based on the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines, this
assessment will:
x Identify how wildlife-related commitments, mitigation measures and recommendations that were
made as part of the 2009/2010 provincial and federal review (Report of the Federal Review Panel,
2010) were incorporated into the Project design.
x Identify how the Project has changed from the previous proposal and whether design updates will
result in alterations to the effects on wildlife key indicators.
x Propose a management strategy for potential human-bear conflicts.
x Propose a management strategy for potential human-wolf conflicts.
x Assess the potential effects of the Project on wetland habitat with specific consideration of migratory
birds, SARA-listed species and COSEWIC-listed species.
x Propose compensation measures for adverse residual effects on wildlife, wildlife habitat, and habitat
for species at risk.
x Address issues related to species at risk which are potentially affected by the Project, including any
species added to Schedule 1 of SARA and COSEWIC-listed species since the 2009/2010 review
(see Section 2.1.4).
x Re-evaluate potential effects for wildlife based on Project changes and cumulative effects including
any new information on reasonably-foreseeable projects or activities within the study areas (with a
particular focus on taxa of regional interest such as grizzly bears and waterfowl).

The critical project change related to wildlife for the New Prosperity Project is related to the redesign of
the mine site. The mine footprint has been retracted and redesigned to accommodate the preservation of
Fish Lake and surrounding riparian and wetland habitat.
The key issue for wildlife and wildlife habitat associated with the Project remains the potential for effects
on biodiversity at the species, community/ecosystem and landscape level.
The interaction of the Project with wildlife may result in four potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat
(March 2009 EIS/Application, Section 6.1.2):
x Effects on habitat availability—resulting from direct habitat loss or alteration, and/or indirect loss
or alteration from sensory disturbance (e.g., noise, human activity), and reduction of habitat patch
size (i.e., increased habitat fragmentation).

x Disruption of movement patterns—resulting from increased habitat/landscape fragmentation (e.g.,

increased density of access corridors, increased cleared area) or higher road use levels limiting daily
or seasonal wildlife travel.
x Increase in direct mortality risk—resulting from site development, vehicle collisions, transmission line
strikes, increased hunting/poaching, lethal control of problem wildlife, or reduction in secure habitat
availability due to habitat fragmentation.
x Reduction in wildlife health—resulting from contamination of air, soil, water or food sources
(vegetation, prey species) or changes in food source abundance/composition.
environmental effects ratings. The following interaction rating criteria were used to determine which of
these potential effect mechanisms are to be considered in further in the New Prosperity EIS:
and there are no required changes to previously proposed mitigation measures, and no additional
regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other applicable
measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO or
Panel).
2. Effect on VEC is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.

Table 2.7.2.8-2 Wildlife Potential Environmental Effects Associated with New Prosperity
direct mortality
wildlife health
Disruption of
Reduction in
alteration of
Increase in
movement
patterns
Loss or
habitat
risk
Project Activities/Physical Works

Open Pit – Preproduction 1 0 0 0
Fisheries compensation 1 0 0 0
Water Management Controls and Operations 0 0 0 0
Camp construction 0 0 0 0
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 1 0 0 0
Construction: plant site and other facilities 0 0 0 0
Lake dewatering 1 0 0 0
Fish Lake Water Management 0 0 0 1
Sourcing water supplies (potable, process/TSF) 0 0 0 0
Clearing of transmission line ROW 1 0 0 0
Construction/Installation of transmission line 1 0 0 0
Vehicular traffic 0 0 0 0
Operations
Pit Production 1 0 0 0
Crushing and conveyance 1 0 0 0
Ore processing and dewatering 1 0 0 0
Tailing storage 0 0 0 0
Ore Stockpile management and processing 1 0 0 0
Vehicle traffic 0 0 1 0
Transmission line (includes maintenance) 0 0 1 0

direct mortality
wildlife health
Disruption of
Reduction in
alteration of
Increase in
movement
patterns
Loss or
habitat
risk
Project Activities/Physical Works
Fisheries Compensation 0 0 0 0
Closure
Fisheries Compensation 0 0 0 0
Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock stockpile 0 0 0 0
Transmission line decommissioning 0 0 0 0
Post-closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility water 0 0 0 1
Ongoing monitoring of reclamation 0 0 0 0
Interaction of Other Projects and Activities 0 0 0 0
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events 0 0 0 1
The physical activities/physical works indicated in grey shading in Table 2.7.2.8-2 are not carried forward
in this assessment. Based on past experience and professional judgment, the March 2009
EIS/Application determined that either there would be no interaction; the interaction would not result in a
significant environmental effect, even without mitigation; or the interaction would not be significant due to
application of codified environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the
predicted environmental effects. The justifications for these determinations are provided for each Project
component in the key issues section of the March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6.1.2). These
Interactions rated as “1” in Table 2.7.2.8-2 are a result of location changes of Project features due to the
redesign of the mine giving a new, smaller mine site Maximum Disturbance Area. This will be addressed
for potential effects on wildlife habitat availability and reduction in wildlife health.
Interactions rated as “2” in Table 2.7.2.8-2 are for Project interactions where predicted effects are
potentially greater for the New Prosperity Project than the March 2009 EIS/Application (rated as 2 in the
table above), and therefore require re-assessment. This includes water management activities with the
potential to affect wildlife health.
The interaction of the New Prosperity Project within the regional context with other previous, active and
planned projects and activities is provided below within the cumulative effects assessment.

There are no expected changes to the potential accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events previously
assessed and provided in the March 2009 EIS/Application Section 6.1.2 and Table 6-1. These included;
fuel/chemical spill, failure or major leakage from tailings or reclaim pipeline, concentrate haul spill, road
culvert failure, excessive water in TSF and loss of power to TSF seepage recovery (March 2009
EIS/Application, Volume 9, Section 2.2.2). Two of which were identified as potential environmental effects
on wildlife; fuel/chemical spill on land and/or water and concentrate spill on land and/or water. With
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, no long-term adverse effects are expected.
Table 2.7.2.8-3 lists all the wildlife key indicators considered previously (March 2009 EIS/Application,
Volume 5, Section 6.3) and indicates the potential for each effect and summarizes the mechanisms for
each effect. The interaction rating criteria for this scoping exercise are provided below:
0. Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other
applicable regulation). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted.
1. Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
conclusions), but some re-evaluation of effect is required due to changes in project design,
proposed mitigation measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e.,
from the EAO or Panel).
2. Effect related to a KI is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.
Table 2.7.2.8-3 Wildlife Key Indicator Scoping Table
Disruption of Reduction in
Loss or alteration of Increased direct
Potential Effect movement wildlife
habitat mortality risk
patterns health
Fish compensation Site clearing (due Vehicular traffic; Fish Lake
works, site clearing, lake to direct loss of transmission line water
dewatering, clearing of habitat); various management;
Effect transmission line ROW, construction and site drainage
Mechanisms construction/installation operations and seepage
(from Table of transmission line (due activities (due to management;
2.7.2.8-2) to direct loss of habitat); sensory discharge of
various construction and disturbance) TSF water
operations activities (due
to sensory disturbance)
Key Indicator or Wildlife Group (identical to the March 2009 EIS/Application)
California Bighorn
0 0 0 0
Sheep
Mule Deer 1 0 0 0
Moose 1 0 0 2
Grizzly Bear 1 0 1 2
Black Bear 1 0 0 2

Fisher 1 0 0 0
American Badger 0 0 0 0
Townsend's Big-
0 0 0 0
eared Bat
Great Blue Heron 1 0 0 2
Mallard 1 0 0 2
Barrow's
1 0 0 2
Goldeneye
Sandhill Crane 0 0 0 0
Long-billed
0 0 0 0
Curlew
Lewis's
0 0 0 0
Woodpecker
Yellow-breasted
0 0 0 0
Chat
Sagebrush
0 0 0 0
Brewer's Sparrow
Sharp-tailed
0 0 0 0
Grouse
Prairie Falcon 1 0 0 0
Short-eared Owl 1 0 0 0
Flammulated Owl 0 0 0 0
Amphibians 1 0 0 2
The species indicated in white in Table 2.7.2.8-3 are carried forward as key indicators of potential effect
effects for consideration in this assessment. The rationale for not carrying the other key indicators in grey
is provided in Table 2.7.2.8-4.
Table 2.7.2.8-4 Wildlife Key Indicators Not Assessed Further
Reference
Key Indicators Comments
Prosperity (2009)
California Bighorn Sheep Potential effects from the new mine site Volume 5, Section 6.3.1
layout will not affect these species because
American Badger Volume 5, Section 6.3.7
they are unlikely to utilize the mine site. The
only potential effect identified previously was
Townsend's Big-eared Bat Volume 5, Section 6.3.8
changes to habitat availability within the
Lewis's Woodpecker transmission line ROW. Volume 5, Section 6.3.14

Reference
Key Indicators Comments
Prosperity (2009)
Yellow-breasted Chat Volume 5, Section 6.3.15
Sagebrush Brewer's Sparrow Volume 5, Section 6.3.16
Flammulated Owl Volume 5, Section 6.3.20

Potential effects from the new mine site
Sandhill Crane Volume 5, Section 6.3.12
layout will not affect these species because
they are unlikely to utilize the mine site. The
Long-billed Curlew two potential effects identified previously were Volume 5, Section 6.3.13
changes to habitat availability and direct
mortality risk within the transmission line
Sharp-tailed Grouse ROW. Volume 5, Section 6.3.17
Of the 47 listed vertebrate wildlife species at risk identified as occurring within the Prosperity Project area,
all are still considered to have the potential to occur within the New Prosperity Project area, based on
current available information. Fifteen of these were selected as KIs for the Prosperity Project, and will be
used as KIs in this assessment. For those wildlife species not selected as KIs but considered likely to
interact with the Prosperity Project, the assessment of Project effects was either addressed directly but
qualitatively; or not specifically addressed, but inferable from the results of the effects assessment for an
umbrella KI15, for a KI that is related or similar in behaviour and habitat use pattern, or for an appropriate
vegetation KI (e.g., old forest, wetlands). These linkages are presented in Table 6-4 of the March 2009
EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 6. This approach will also be used for this assessment.

and decommissioning and post-closure phases between the Prosperity and New Prosperity projects (see
March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 6.1.4). The three temporal boundaries used for the New
Prosperity assessment of potential Project effects on the wildlife KIs remain:
x Baseline Scenario: Represents conditions prior to any Project-specific developments. The effects of
existing human-caused disturbances are reflected in the baseline conditions. Baseline conditions for
this assessment are generally the same as set as for the March 2009 EIS/Application; however, with
respect to the comparison of the effects of Prosperity and New Prosperity on wildlife habitat in the
mine site regional study area, the wildlife habitat analyses have been updated to incorporate new
forest loss from logging and mountain pine beetle kill (see Section 2.6.1.8).
x Maximum Disturbance Scenario: Represents the potential worst-case conditions that could occur
during the construction and operations phases of the Project. It is recognized that development and
reclamation will be progressive and that traffic volumes will fluctuate somewhat over the construction
and operations periods; however, the maximum disturbance scenario is used to provide a
conservative assessment of the effects on wildlife (i.e., worst case). Further, this scenario assumes
that the primary effects on wildlife (direct and indirect habitat loss, and mortality risk) will be similar
15
Sensu “umbrella species” – an umbrella species is a species with broad habitat and resource requirements that can be managed
to also provide habitats and resources for other species (Dunster and Dunster 1996)

for construction and operations activities. The only exception is the transmission line, for which
construction and operations are considered separately with respect to direct mortality risk.
x Post-closure Scenario: Represents conditions following the decommissioning and closure phases.
Specifically for the mine site, this scenario assumes Pit Lake is filled to the predicted capacity, and
that all mitigation measures and the Conceptual Reclamation and Decommissioning Plan have been
implemented. The closure phase for the New Prosperity Project will be divided into two phases:
Phase I, which will last approximately 10 years following closure when the Fish Lake catchment will
continue to be isolated from mine water; and Phase II, when the TSF overflow is directed to open pit
filling. The post-closure phase begins when the Pit Lake has reached maximum elevation and begun
to spill to lower Fish Creek. Permanent groundwater interception and surface seepage ponds below
the main TSF embankment will continue to operate post-closure.

The spatial boundaries for wildlife were described for each project component and key indicator in the
Prosperity EIS (Volume 5, Section 6.1.5 and in each KI subsection within Section 6.3). Only two spatial
boundaries for wildlife have changed for New Prosperity: the maximum disturbance area (MDA) for the
mine site and the grizzly bear regional study area (RSA) for the core secure habitat, linear feature density
and cumulative effects analyses.
The wildlife MDA is the same as the 2012 vegetation mine site local study area (LSA), except that the
boundary has been modified to exclude Fish Lake and Wasp Lake which will not be physically disturbed
(Figure 2.7.2.8-1). This is consistent with the approach used in 2009. The total area of the 2012 wildlife
MDA is 4372.9 ha. The mine site LSA was not re-delineated for this assessment for two reasons: 1) the
2012 wildlife MDA is generally located within the 2009 LSA boundary (Figure 2.7.2.8-1); and 2) project
effects are characterized and assessed relative to the RSA not the LSA. The mine site RSA has not
changed.
The grizzly bear RSA for the core secure habitat, linear feature density and cumulative effects analyses
was delineated based on a combination of the South Chilcotin Grizzly Bear Population Unit boundary and
the boundaries of the Taseko River and Big Creek watersheds (Figure 2.7.2.8-2). The total area of the
grizzly bear RSA is 6971 km2.
The areas of effective habitat available for each measurable parameter in the mine site RSA were
determined for New Prosperity and Prosperity, based on the MDAs for both projects and relative to
current baseline conditions (i.e. with new forest loss considered), and then compared to identify
differences. In cases where the 2012 wildlife MDA results in less available effective habitat compared to
the 2009 wildlife MDA, an assessment is conducted to quantify and characterize the effect. The
assessment is based upon the methods used in the March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section
6.2.2.5).
Post-closure wildlife habitat conditions are discussed with respect to the effects assessment based on the
information presented in the Conceptual Reclamation and Decommissioning Plan (Section 2.8.2).
Information on post-closure wildlife habitat capability is the focus of this discussion for any key indicators
identified for detail assessment. The methods for determining post-closure wildlife habitat capability are
described in Section 2.8.2.

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
2009 Wildlife MDA Gravel Road Lake
0 0.5 1 2 3
Comparison of Prosperity and
2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Wetland
Kilometers New Prosperity Study Areas for Wildlife
Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Trail
15th August 2012
Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Liam Quan Verified By: Colleen Bryden. Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia REV
FIGURE 2.7.2.8-1 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-072_wildlife_study_area_comparison.mxd
350000 375000 400000 425000 450000 475000 500000 525000 550000 575000
±
£
¤ 20
£
¤ 20
Ch il co ti n -
B el l a C oo l a Hw y
5750000
5750000
O C
ILK
R iver
CH To w y d k i n H
Lake IL
C OT
IN
R IVE
R
d
oa Big Creek
R Ecological Reserve
ke Junction
La k
ee Sheep Range
Cr
F
Prov. Park
RASER
o
sek
Ta
Nunsti F le t c h e r B ig
Brittany ee
k La ke
o
Cr
ek
N u n sti s
Ta
Provincial Park
Haines
5725000
5725000
Te
Nuntzi Elkin
te
Ange
la
eek
K lo a k u t
k
Ga
Cr
e
sp
C re
Lake e
El ki n g Cr
Do
ar
L a ke
ek
R IV E
Cr e e
B ig
k
4500 R
Ve d a n Tete Angela Bambrick
L a ke
oa
Vedan
R
d
Mtn. k
ek re e
re C
C
Cardiff Mtn. Churn Creek
Ecological
K onni L
ak
e Reserve
Big Creek Gaspard
Provincial Park
5700000
5700000
n
Lake
ur
o un d h o g
h
C
r
Plitz
G
Peak
Nemiah
Big Creek
CH
Was p
Lak e
IL
Provincial
Ts'yl-os
KO
Provincial Park Nadila Park
Low er
Ta s e k o L a k e
Gunn Valley Beece Creek
LA
5675000
5675000
KE
Rainbow
Upper Big Creek
Tchaikazan Taseko
Spruce Lake
Protected Area
5650000
5650000
Edmond Lord River
350000 375000 400000 425000 450000 475000 500000 525000 550000 575000

BC Hydro Transmission Line Grizzly Bear Regional Study Area
Highway Wildlife Maximum Disturbance Area 0 5 10 20 30
Road Grizzly Bear Regional Study Area for
Kilometers Core Secure Habitat, Linear Feature Density and
River Cumulative Effects Analyses
Lake
15th August 2012
Landscape Unit
Protected Area Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: S Parker Verified By: Colleen Bryden. Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia 2.7.2.8-2 REV
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-100_grizzly_bear_regional_study_area.mxd
Updates to the Wildlife Assessment

Following the submission of the March 2009 EIS/Application, additional information and analysis was
provided in response to requests from the Panel in regards to potential project effects on wildlife and
vegetation species included within the William Case at the local and sub-regional scale. The
Supplemental Report (Taseko Mines Limited, 2009) was undertaken to address these considerations.
Findings from the Supplemental Report are discussed in the next section and under ’Project Impact
Assessment for Wildlife’ below.
William Case Wildlife Species

Twenty-four species were identified in the William Case as being of particular importance to the
Tsilhqot’in National Government. Six of these species (moose, mule deer, California bighorn sheep,
grizzly bear, black bear and fisher) have been identified as wildlife KIs and were assessed for the New
Prosperity EIS. For the remaining 18 species not identified as KIs, the assessment for potential effects of
the mine site area for New Prosperity is considered to be inferable from the results of the effects
assessment for an appropriate umbrella KI or for an appropriate vegetation (i.e., habitat type) KI. These
linkages between non-KI species and KIs were presented in the Supplemental Report (Section 3.1.1,
Table 2). No significant residual effects were predicted for any of the 24 William Case species in the
Supplemental Report (Section 3.1.2, Table 3). As the amount of available habitat has increased for most
species with the redesign of the mine footprint, the potential for residual effects is expected to remain not
significant. For two of the species (mule deer and moose), the predicted loss of habitat has increased,
this is discussed under ’Project Impact Assessment for Wildlife’ below.
Project Impact Assessment for Wildlife

There are four potential environmental effects identified for wildlife, including loss or alteration of habitat,
disruption of movement patterns, increased direct mortality risk, and reduction in wildlife health. Loss or
alteration of habitat and reduction in wildlife health are assessed for the KIs indicated through the above
scoping. As indicated in the above scoping, the other potential effects will likely be less for New
Prosperity than for Prosperity, and there are no relevant regulatory changes. Discussion is provided to
substantiate this.
Loss or Alteration of Habitat

Eleven key indicators identified in Table 2.7.2.8-3 are carried forward to the assessment of Project effects
on loss or alteration of habitat: mule deer, moose, grizzly bear, black bear, fisher, great blue heron,
mallard, Barrow’s goldeneye, prairie falcon, short-eared owl and amphibians. Waterfowl were also
considered for this effect based on the outcome of the review of the March 2009 EIS/Application,
particularly with respect to comments received from Environment Canada.
Effects Assessment Methods for Loss or Alteration of Habitat

The New Prosperity Project assessment uses the same measurable parameters for quantifying loss or
alteration of habitat as the Prosperity Project (March 2009 EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 6.2.2.5).

These measurable parameters are: area of effective16 winter feeding and winter shelter habitat for mule
deer and moose; area of effective natal denning habitat for fisher; area of effective denning (hibernation)
habitat for black bear; area of effective spring, summer and fall feeding habitat for grizzly bear; and area
of effective nesting and/or feeding habitat for the bird key indicators. The amphibian and waterfowl habitat
assessments used the amount of wetland habitat as their measurable parameters.
Change in Baseline Conditions for Habitat

In general, the assessment for the New Prosperity Project uses the same baseline wildlife conditions as
the Prosperity EIS (2009). However, as described in Section 2.6.1.8, with respect to the comparison of
the effects of Prosperity and New Prosperity on wildlife habitat in the mine site regional study area, the
wildlife habitat analyses have been updated to better reflect conditions in 2012 by incorporating new
forest loss (i.e. new logging and areas of greater than 50 percent mountain pine beetle kill17). For the
purposes of this assessment, the areas of new forest loss are assumed to be non-effective18 habitat for all
wildlife, although in reality these early seral habitats may be used by a number of species (e.g., moose,
grizzly bear).
Extent of Loss or Alteration of Habitat

For most KIs with TEM-based habitat models, the amount of effective habitat available in the RSA at
maximum disturbance increases with the 2012 wildlife MDA when compared to the 2009 wildlife MDA
(Table 2.7.2.8-5). The increases range from 8 ha (3.6%) for mule deer winter feeding habitat to 231 ha
(15.6%) for grizzly bear summer feeding habitat (Table 2.7.2.8-5). Thus, further assessment is not
required—given the residual adverse effect has decreased with New Prosperity, the findings of the March
2009 EIS/Application with respect to these KIs is unchanged (i.e. there is no significant effect of the
Project on their habitat; Volume 5, Section 6.3). However, given the concerns expressed during the
review of the Prosperity Project with respect to project-related effects on grizzly bear habitat, this KI is
discussed further under the ‘Detailed Assessment’ below.
In two cases, the amount of effective habitat available in the RSA at maximum disturbance decreases
with the 2012 wildlife MDA when compared to the 2009 wildlife MDA: mule deer winter shelter habitat and
moose winter feeding habitat (Table 2.7.2.8-5). These two cases are discussed further under the
‘Detailed Assessment’ below.
For the two remaining KIs that use non-TEM habitat models, the amount of habitat available in the RSA at
maximum disturbance either is the same (Prairie falcon) or increases (amphibians) with the 2012 wildlife
MDA when compared to the 2009 wildlife MDA. More specifically for the Prairie falcon, as in the March
2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6.3.18), there is no overlap of the wildlife MDA with potential
falcon nesting habitat (i.e. the cliffs to the west of the wildlife MDA, above the Taseko River). For
amphibians, the area of wetlands directly affected by New Prosperity is less than that directly affected by
Prosperity (see Section 2.7.2.7). Thus, further assessment is not required—the findings of the March
2009 EIS/Application related to amphibian habitat are unchanged (i.e. there is no significant effect;
Volume 5, Section 6.3.21).
16
‘Effective habitat’ is habitat with a suitability rating of moderate or higher
17
See Section 2.7.2.7 (Vegetation) for further details
18
‘Non-effective habitat’ is habitat with a suitability rating of low to nil

Environment Canada focused on project-related effects on wetlands and waterfowl during the review of
the March 2009 EIS/Application. Given their concerns, the effect of New Prosperity on waterfowl habitat
(wetlands) is addressed under the ‘Detailed Assessment’ below.

Table 2.7.2.8-5 Comparison of Habitat Availability in Regional Study Area at Maximum Disturbance between Prosperity and New
Prosperity for Key Indicators with TEM-based Habitat Models
New Prosperity (2012) MDA Prosperity (2009) MDA Difference in

available effective
Available Available
Measurable habitat between
Key Indicators effective habitat effective habitat Vol. 5, Sec. 6.3, Figure
Parameter Figure New Prosperity &
(ha) in RSA at (ha) in RSA at and Section
Reference Prosperity
maximum maximum Reference
disturbance* disturbance* ha %
Winter feeding 221.9 Fig. 2.7.2.8-3 213.8 Fig. 6-4, Sec. 6.3.2 8.1 3.8
Mule deer
Winter shelter 1578.6 Fig. 2.7.2.8-4 1762.8 Fig. 6-5, Sec. 6.3.2 -184.2 -10.4
Winter feeding 437.5 Fig. 2.7.2.8-5 449.5 Fig. 6-9, Sec. 6.3.3 -12.0 -2.7
Moose
Winter shelter 3571.3 Fig. 2.7.2.8-6 3401.2 Fig. 6-10, Sec. 6.3.3 170.1 5.0
Spring feeding 329.2 Fig. 2.7.2.8-7 284.5 Fig. 6-17, Sec. 6.3.4 44.7 15.7
Grizzly bear Summer feeding 1395.3 Fig. 2.7.2.8-8 1159.3 Fig. 6-18, Sec. 6.3.4 235.8 20.4
Fall feeding 735.0 Fig. 2.7.2.8-9 696.3 Fig. 6-19, Sec. 6.3.4 38.7 5.6
Black bear Denning 1853.2 Fig. 2.7.2.8-10 1642.2 Fig. 6-23, Sec. 6.3.5 211.0 12.8
Fisher Natal denning 212.7 Fig. 2.7.2.8-11 203.6 Fig. 6-25, Sec. 6.3.6 9.1 4.5
Great blue heron Feeding 107.2 Fig. 2.7.2.8-12 78.3 Fig. 6-30, Sec. 6.3.9 28.9 36.9
Mallard Feeding 146.5 Fig. 2.7.2.8-13 106.5 Fig. 6-33, Sec. 6.3.10 40.0 37.6
Barrow’s goldeneye Nesting 150.4 Fig. 2.7.2.8-14 19.7 Fig. 6-38, Sec. 6.3.11 130.7 663.4
Short-eared owl Feeding 190.3 Fig. 2.7.2.8-15 155.4 Fig. 6-50, Sec. 6.3.19 34.9 22.5
NOTES: * Includes updated logging and mountain pine beetle kill effects

460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Deer Winter Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
Habitat Suitability Class 2009 Wildlife MDA Gravel Road Lake
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Mule Deer Winter Feeding Habitat
Moderately High Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Trail Kilometers Availability in Mine Site Local Study Area
Moderate
at Baseline
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
Nil FIGURE 2.7.2.8-3 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-012_BL_deer_feeding_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Deer Winter Shelter - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Mule Deer Winter Shelter Habitat
Moderate at Baseline
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
Nil FIGURE 2.7.2.8-4 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-013_BL_deer_shelter_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Moose Winter Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Moose Winter Feeding Habitat
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
Nil Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: Liam Quan Verified By: Colleen Bryden. Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia FIGURE 2.7.2.8-5 REV
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-014_BL_moose_feeding_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Moose Winter Shelter - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Moose Winter Shelter Habitat
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-015_BL_moose_shelter_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Grizzly Bear Spring Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Grizzly Bear Spring Feeding
Moderately High Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Trail Kilometers Habitat Availability in Mine Site Local Study Area
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-016_BL_grizzly_spring_feeding_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Grizzly Bear Summer Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Grizzly Bear Summer Feeding
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-017_BL_grizzly_summer_feeding_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Grizzly Bear Fall Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Grizzly Bear Fall Feeding
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-018_BL_grizzly_fall_feeding_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Black Bear Denning - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
0 0.5 1 2 3
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Potential Black Bear Denning (Hibernation) Habitat
Low
15th August 2012
Very Low
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-019_BL_black_bear_denning_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Fisher Natal Denning - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
Habitat Suitability Class 2009 Wildlife MDA Gravel Road Lake 0 0.5 1 2 3
Potential Fisher Natal Denning Habitat
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road
Kilometers Availability in Mine Site Local Study Area
Moderate Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Extent Trail at Baseline
Low
15th August 2012
Nil
FIGURE 2.7.2.8-11 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-020_BL_fisher_denning_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Blue Heron Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
Potential Great Blue Heron Feeding Habitat
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road Availability in Mine Site Local Study Area
Kilometers
Low
15th August 2012
Nil
FIGURE 2.7.2.8-12 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-021_BL_heron_feeding_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Mallard Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
Potential Mallard Feeding Habitat Availability
High 2009 Wildlife Mine Site LSA Rough Road in Mine Site Local Study Area
Kilometers
Low
15th August 2012
Nil
FIGURE 2.7.2.8-13 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-022_BL_mallard_feeding_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Goldeneye Nesting - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
Potential Barrow's Goldeneye Nesting Habitat
Kilometers
Low
15th August 2012
Nil
FIGURE 2.7.2.8-14 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-024_BL_goldeneye_nesting_minesite.mxd
460000 5704000 464000 5696000 468000
468000
±
456000
5692000
5704000
464000
452000
5700000 456000 5696000 460000

Shorteared Owl Feeding - 2012 Wildlife MDA Paved Road River
Potential Short-eared Owl Feeding Habitat
Kilometers
Low
15th August 2012
Nil
FIGURE 2.7.2.8-15 0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-025_BL_shorteared_owl_feeding_minesite.mxd
Post-Closure Assessment
The end land use objectives for the Conceptual Reclamation and Decommissioning Plan (Section 2.8.2)
are the key drivers for determining what the post-closure wildlife habitat conditions will be. The plan has
three main objectives, one of which is specific to wildlife: to re-establish a productive land use that is of
value for wildlife, while providing opportunities for First Nations use for traditional purposes and other
resource users for trapping, grazing and recreation, and mitigating the residual effects of the mine
(Section 2.8.2). Reclamation at the mine site will focus on the establishment of: forest and shrub lands for
wildlife, that may also be suitable for plant gathering; fisheries habitat, that may also be suitable for
fishing; wetland and riparian habitat for waterfowl, amphibians and mammals, that may also be suitable
for hunting and trapping; and, open forage areas for wildlife that may also be suitable for plant gathering
and/or grazing (Section 2.8.2). Key species for which habitat capability is specifically targeted on the New
Prosperity reclamation landscape are: great blue heron, Barrow’s goldeneye, mallard, amphibians, short-
eared owl, fisher, mule deer, moose, black bear, and grizzly bear. General reclamation practices and
specific techniques to improve site suitability for wildlife are described in detail in Section 2.8.2.
An area summary of the wildlife habitat capability within the post-closure mine footprint for the New
Prosperity Project is presented in Table 2.8.2-2. The area within the footprint with no wildlife habitat
capability is 647 ha at post-closure due to the presence of the deep water and water-related infrastructure
(Table 2.8.2-2). Outside these areas, the majority (64.1 percent) of the post-closure mine footprint will be
upland habitat with moderate to moderately high capability for six of the key reclamation species (Table
2.7.8-2).
Detailed Assessment
For the two KIs (mule deer and moose) for which habitat loss increased with the New Prosperity Project
(see Table 2.7.2.8-6), the following detailed assessment was conducted. In addition, given the findings of
the review panel and comments received during the review process, grizzly bear and waterfowl are also
addressed in detail.
Mule Deer
Due to pit walls and the creation of water bodies in the pit and TSF at closure, there is a permanent loss
of 469 ha of upland habitat19; this is 376 ha less than the 845 ha loss that was predicted in the March
2009 EIS/Application for the Prosperity Project.
At maximum disturbance during operations, mule deer winter feeding habitat availability in the mine site
RSA is similar between 2012 New Prosperity and the 2009 Prosperity project (Table 2.7.2.8-5). There is
a 42.1 percent (1145.9 ha) reduction in the availability of effective winter shelter habitat in the mine site
RSA at maximum disturbance during operations with the 2012 New Prosperity wildlife MDA (Table
2.7.2.8-6). This is 10.4 percent higher than predicted in the March 2009 EIS/Application and 6.8 percent
higher than predicted using the 2009 wildlife MDA with the current baseline conditions (Table 2.7.2.8-6).
As in the 2009 Prosperity Project, the reduction in winter shelter habitat is due almost entirely to direct
habitat loss, with some decrease in habitat value also associated with sensory disturbance around the
mine site.
19
That is non-aquatic and non-wetland (as defined in Prosperity EIS, Volume 5, Section 5.4.2) habitat

Although the 2012 wildlife MDA is smaller than the 2009 wildlife MDA, the predicted loss of winter shelter
habitat is greater because: 1) Fish Lake and the surrounding area that is no longer part of the 2012
wildlife MDA does not have any effective winter shelter habitat so there is no gain (Figure 2.8.2.7-4); 2)
parts of the 2012 wildlife MDA that extend beyond the 2009 wildlife MDA include areas of effective winter
shelter habitat (Figure 2.8.2.7-4); and, 3) the large area of new forest loss (from logging), which is
primarily in the northern half of the mine site RSA, reduces the overall availability of effective winter
shelter habitat (so that the project-related loss in a regional context is greater as well).
Table 2.7.2.8-6 Project-related Changes in Mule Deer Winter Shelter and Moose Winter Feeding
Habitat Availability in the Regional Study Area at Maximum Disturbance
Available Available Change in Percent

Key Indicator / Project habitat habitat (ha) Area (ha) Change (%)
Baseline
Measurable Design (ha) in in RSA at from baseline from baseline
Version
Parameter Year RSA at maximum to maximum to maximum
baseline disturbance disturbance disturbance
March 2009
2009* 3058.4 2088.4 -970.0 -31.7
Mule Deer EIS/Application
Effective Updated with
2009 2724.5 1762.8** -961.7 -35.3
Winter Shelter new forest loss
Habitat Updated with
2012 2724.5 1578.6** -1145.9 -42.1
new forest loss
March 2009
Moose 2009* 646.9 457.8 -189.1 -29.2
EIS/Application
Effective
Updated with
Winter 2009 638.6 449.5** -189.1 -29.6
new forest loss
Feeding
Habitat Updated with
2012 638.6 437.5** -201.1 -31.5
new forest loss
NOTE:
* Values presented in this row are from the March 2009 EIS/Application; ** Values from Table 2.7.2.8-5
Mule deer are one of the key reclamation species (Section 2.8.2). The majority (64 percent) of the post-
closure mine footprint will fall within a wildlife capability category that includes mule deer (Table 2.8.2-2).
The upland habitat capability for mule deer ranges from moderate to moderately high (Table 2.8.2-2),
depending on the post-mine ecosystem units.
This area has not been identified as regionally important mule deer winter range (e.g., there are no mule
deer Ungulate Winter Range polygons designated within the RSA; see March 2009 EIS/Application
Volume 5, Sections 6.3.2.3 and 6.3.2.4). The habitat loss predicted at maximum disturbance is a worst
case scenario. The actual habitat loss will be less than predicted as only 44.0 percent (1922.2 ha; see
Section 2.8.2, Table 2.8.2-1) of the 2012 wildlife MDA is likely to be physically disturbed. Lastly, although
there will be some permanent loss of potential winter habitat capability (i.e. upland habitat) at post-
closure, the area affected is much less than predicted for the Prosperity Project.

With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (e.g., minimization of clearing area), the
residual loss of habitat is predicted to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the mule deer
population in Region 520.
Additional analyses related to the effect of the Project on mule deer habitat are presented later in this
section (under ‘Habitat Loss from Supplemental Report’).
Moose
Due to pit walls and the creation of water bodies in the pit and TSF at closure, there is a permanent loss
of 469 ha of upland habitat and 311 ha of wetland habitat; this is less than the loss predicted in the March
2009 EIS/Application for the Prosperity Project.
At maximum disturbance during operations, moose winter shelter habitat availability in the mine site RSA
is similar between 2012 New Prosperity and the 2009 Prosperity project (Table 2.7.2.8-5). There is a 31.5
percent (201.1 ha) reduction in the availability of effective winter feeding habitat in the mine site RSA at
maximum disturbance during operations with the 2012 New Prosperity wildlife MDA (Table 2.7.2.8-6)
compared to the 2009 Prosperity MDA. This is 2.3 percent higher than predicted in the March 2009
EIS/Application for the Prosperity Project and 1.9 percent higher than predicted using the 2009 wildlife
MDA with the current baseline conditions (Table 2.7.2.8-6). As in 2009, the reduction in winter feeding
habitat is due almost entirely to direct habitat loss, with some decrease in habitat value also associated
with sensory disturbance around the mine site.
Although there is some effective winter feeding habitat in the part of upper Fish Creek that is now outside
the wildlife MDA, the 2012 wildlife MDA extends into effective winter feeding habitat, primarily in
association with a large, moderate suitability cutblock in the southeast corner of the 2012 wildlife MDA
(Figure 2.7.2.8-5). It is this change that results in the small increase in the residual adverse effect.
Moose are one of the key reclamation species (Section 2.8.2). The majority (64.1 percent) of the post-
closure mine footprint will fall within a wildlife capability category that includes moose. The upland habitat
capability for moose ranges from low to moderately high (Table 2.8.2-2), depending on the post-mine
ecosystem units.
This area has not been identified as regionally important moose winter range (e.g., no wetlands identified
as suitable moose winter habitat are located within the mine site LSA, and there are only a few small
wetlands of moderate suitability in the extreme north end of the mine site RSA; see March 2009
EIS/Application Volume 5, Section 6.3.3.4). Further, as discussed for mule deer, the actual direct loss of
habitat will be somewhat less than predicted as less than half of the mine footprint is likely to be
physically disturbed. Also, the amount of moose winter feeding habitat available in the mine site RSA
under current baseline conditions is underestimated as the new forest loss area is assumed to have nil
value for moose, which is unlikely to be true in reality, so the relative loss in the context of the RSA (31.5
percent, Table 2.7.2.8-6) is likely less than predicted. Lastly, although there will be some permanent loss
of potential winter feeding habitat (i.e. wetlands and upland habitat) at post-closure, the area affected is
less than predicted for the Prosperity Project.
20
In the absence of prescribed thresholds and standards, the significance of the Project’s effects on mule deer habitat is determined
qualitatively as described for wildlife in general in the March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6.1.7). The context for
determining significance for mule deer is the sustainability of the Region 5 population.

With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (e.g., minimization of clearing area), the
residual loss of habitat is predicted to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the moose
population in Region 521.
Additional analyses related to the effect of the Project on moose habitat are presented later in this section
(under ‘Habitat Loss from Supplemental Report’).
Grizzly Bear
There is greater availability of effective grizzly bear habitat in the mine site RSA at maximum disturbance
with the 2012 New Prosperity wildlife MDA compared to the 2009 Prosperity project’s wildlife MDA (Table
2.7.2.8-5). Thus, further assessment is not required given the residual adverse effect has decreased with
New Prosperity, the findings of the March 2009 EIS/Application with respect to grizzly bear habitat is
unchanged (i.e. there is no significant effect; Volume 5, Section 6.3.4.4). However, given the concerns
expressed during the federal review of the Prosperity Project with respect to project-related effects on
grizzly bear habitat, this effect is discussed further here.
The increase from the 2009 to the 2012 MDA’s in effective grizzly bear habitat availability ranges from
38.7 ha (5.6%) for fall feeding habitat to 235.8 ha (20.4%) for summer feeding habitat (Table 2.7.2.8-5).
The increase is a result of the removal of Fish Lake and its surrounding area from the 2012 wildlife MDA.
This area contains a moderate amount of spring and fall habitat and a large amount of summer feeding
habitat (see Figures 2.7.2.8-7 to 2.7.2.8-9). The suitability of a portion of this habitat will, however, be
reduced during the life of the mine due to sensory disturbance effects.
In the March 2009 EIS/Application a larger RSA was used to put the mine site Project effects on grizzly
bear habitat in a regional context more appropriate to this species (Volume 5, Section 6.3.4.4). The
mapping for this larger RSA was based on remote sensing and the model used a typical habitat suitability
rating scheme applied to the broad vegetation classes defined for that product. During the Prosperity
review process the provincial regulators indicated they were not satisfied with this approach. They
suggested three alternate study areas and provided a better grizzly bear habitat mapping product22 to use
for additional analysis of the effect of the Prosperity Project on grizzly bear habitat. This additional
analysis was presented in the Supplemental Report. An update of the Supplemental Report assessment
for grizzly bear habitat using the 2012 wildlife MDA is provided later in this section.
Grizzly bear are one of the key reclamation species (Section 2.8.2). The majority (65.4 percent) of the
post-closure mine footprint will fall within a wildlife capability category that includes grizzly bear; the
habitat capability for grizzly bear within that category ranges from low to moderately high (Table 2.8.2-2),
depending on the post-mine ecosystem units. Similar to moose, there is a permanent loss of 469 ha of
upland habitat and 311 ha of wetland habitat at post-closure, some of which may have had grizzly bear
habitat capability, but in both cases this is less than the loss predicted in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Considering the effects of the mine and transmission line development together with respect to the RSA,
the residual loss of grizzly bear feeding habitat at maximum disturbance is a relatively small portion of
that available; however, there is some permanent loss of potential feeding habitat at post-closure. As
21
In the absence of prescribed thresholds and standards, the significance of the Project’s effects on moose habitat is determined
qualitatively as described for wildlife in general in the March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6.1.7). The context for
determining significance for moose is the sustainability of the Region 5 population.
22
Specifically, broad ecosystem inventory (BEI) based grizzly bear habitat suitability and capability mapping developed for the
Central Interior Ecoregion (Hamilton, 2007)

discussed for the mule deer and moose above, the actual direct loss of habitat will be less than predicted
as less than half of the 2012 wildlife MDA is likely to be physically disturbed.
The South Chilcotin Ranges Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU) is designated as threatened by the
Province (BC MFLNRO, 2012) and is the subject of ongoing research (e.g., Apps, 2010). A recovery plan
will be developed for this GBPU (T. Hamilton, pers. comm., July 2012). Most of the concern is focussed
on the southern and eastern portions of the GBPU. The New Prosperity Project is located in the
northwestern quadrant of the GBPU. New information suggest that this portion of the GBPU is doing
“pretty good” relative to the rest of the GBPU and has been identified as a source for dispersal of
individuals to these other areas (T. Hamilton, pers. comm., July 2012). The Project appears to be at the
edge of the higher value/less developed habitat in this quadrant (best illustrated in the figures presented
for core secure habitat and linear feature density under ‘Increased Direct Mortality Risk’ and habitat
availability under ‘Cumulative Effects Assessment’).
The effect characterization and determination of significance were not considered to have changed from
the findings presented in the March 2009 EIS/Application. That is, with the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures (e.g., minimization of clearing area, reforestation of reclaimed areas,
avoidance of non-pine forest types and wetlands), the residual loss of grizzly bear feeding habitat is
predicted to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU23.
Additional analyses related to the effects of the Project on grizzly bear habitat and habitat use patterns,
including consideration of local and seasonal effects, alternate regional contexts, and cumulative effects,
are presented later in this section (under ‘Habitat Loss from Supplemental Report’, ‘Local Population
Effects from Supplemental Report’ and ‘Cumulative Effects Assessment’).
Waterfowl
Waterfowl as a group was not assessed for the March 2009 EIS/Application, although two waterfowl
species (Mallard and Barrow’s goldeneye) were assessed as key indicators. As discussed above, given
the focus on waterfowl and wetlands by Environment Canada during the review of the March 2009
EIS/Application, the effect of New Prosperity on waterfowl is discussed in more detail here.
A key difference between the Prosperity and New Prosperity projects with respect to waterfowl is that the
loss of wetland area is less in New Prosperity. The New Prosperity Project results in the permanent loss
of 311 ha of wetlands at post-closure; this is 93 ha less than what was predicted in the March 2009
EIS/Application (404 ha). A detailed discussion of the effects of New Prosperity on wetlands and wetland
function, including a discussion of its role as wildlife habitat, is provided in Section 2.7.2.7 (Vegetation).
Although not necessarily representative of waterfowl as a group, habitat availability in the mine site RSA
is greater for mallard and Barrow’s goldeneye with the 2012 New Prosperity wildlife MDA compared to the
2009 Prosperity wildlife MDA (Table 2.7.2.8-7).
Two waterfowl (mallard and Barrow’s goldeneye) and one wader (great blue heron) are key reclamation
species (Section 2.8.2). A small portion (2.3 percent) of the post-closure mine footprint will be reclaimed
as wetland habitat; however, the capability of these areas is considered to be low for mallard and great
blue heron (Table 2.8.2.-2)24.
23
In the absence of prescribed thresholds and standards, the significance of the Project’s effects on grizzly bear habitat is
determined qualitatively as described for wildlife in general in the March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6.1.7). The
context for determining significance for grizzly bear is the sustainability of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU.
24
The reclamation objective for Barrow’s goldeneye is terrestrial (nesting habitat) rather than aquatic (feeding habitat)

The significance of the Project’s effects on waterfowl habitat is directly related to the findings presented
for wetland ecosystems and function in Section 2.7.2.7 (Vegetation). That assessment concluded that
there was no significant effect of New Prosperity on wetlands.
Disruption of Movement Patterns

No key indicators identified in Table 2.7.2.8-3 are carried forward to the assessment of Project effects on
movement patterns. Disruption of daily and seasonal wildlife movement patterns can occur as the result
of increased habitat fragmentation from habitat loss and linear feature creation or as the result of
increased traffic volumes on existing roads. The potential for the Project to affect movement patterns of
the KIs was assessed previously and considered not to be of concern (see March 2009 EIS/Application,
Volume 5, Section 6.3). Further, the findings of the Federal Panel were that “given the location of the
proposed mine site, mule deer would likely still disperse around the mine site to continue their migration”
(Panel Review, Section 6.7.5).
With the revised mine plan, the potential for disruption of movement patterns for wildlife will be reduced
relative to the original mine plan. That is, physical impediments to movement through the LSA will be less
because of the decrease in the extent of the TSF. It is now possible for wildlife to physically move across
the valley between the open pit and the TSF, although sensory disturbance from adjacent operations and
the TSF access road may still reduce wildlife use of this area. Prior to construction Taseko will undertake
a survey to identify potential wildlife crossing locations along the TSF access road to assess options for
inclusion into the road design (ie. crossing structures) or in the Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan
(such as signage or employee training and awareness). This action will also help maintain grizzly bear
access to otherwise undisturbed spring habitat in the LSA (e.g., around Fish Lake inlet); an issue
discussed in more detail under the ‘Local Population Effects from Supplemental Report’ section.
Increased Direct Mortality Risk

Only one key indicator, grizzly bear, was identified in Table 2.7.2.8-3 for carrying forward to the
assessment of Project effects on direct mortality risk.
Change in Baseline Conditions

As described above, new information suggests that the portion of the GBPU in which the New Prosperity
Project is located appears to be doing better relative to the rest of the GBPU. The RSA is mostly within
Management Unit 5-4 with a small portion in Management Unit 5-3. These management units have the
highest grizzly bear densities in the GBPU, 14 and 22 bears per 1000 km2, respectively. There is more
logging and associated road development now in the RSA than in 2009 so likely more human access and
potential for human-bear conflicts. However, there have been no recorded grizzly bear kills in the RSA
since the three animal control kills reported in the March 2009 EIS/Application (BC MOE, unpublished
data). The GBPU remains closed to grizzly bear hunting.
Effects Assessment Methods for Increased Direct Mortality Risk

Two approaches are used to assess the effects of New Prosperity on grizzly bear mortality risk: core
secure habitat analysis and linear feature density analysis. These analyses are described in detail below.

Core Secure Habitat Analysis

Core secure habitat is defined as useable habitat within a species’ range minus the habitat with reduced
security due to human-caused disturbance, and that is of a size (area) that meets or exceeds species-
specific minimum habitat patch requirements. In general, larger habitat patches are presumed to be more
secure than smaller habitat patches, primarily related to distance from human access and the associated
mortality risks. The core secure habitat analysis approach was based on that recommended by the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC, 1994) and used in previous assessments of human
developments on grizzly bears (e.g., Gibeau et al., 1996; Parks Canada, 1997). The analysis conducted
for New Prosperity differs in five ways from the analysis conducted for the original EIS: updated
disturbance spatial data compiled in 2012 (including information on forest roads and cutblocks [current to
June 5, 2012], see Appendix 2.7.2.8-C for details), different RSA (the ‘grizzly bear RSA’, see Figure
2.7.2.8-2), different habitat mapping base (Provincial BEI-based mapping [see above]), different buffer
widths (see below), and inclusion of more disturbance feature types (see below).
Specifically, the analysis involves the following steps:
x Identification of useable habitat—useable habitat was defined as any grizzly bear habitat in the
grizzly bear RSA rated as high to very low for suitability.
x Identification and buffering of disturbance features25—Low use26 roads (e.g., secondary roads),
transmission lines and seismic lines were buffered by 500 m27. The few high use28 roads (e.g.
Taseko Lake/Whitewater Road) were buffered by 800 m. The mine footprint was buffered by 800 m
at the pit end and by 500 m at the TSF end. Any habitat within these disturbance buffers was
classified as ‘non-core secure habitat’.
x Application of the disturbance buffers to habitat database and analysis of patch size distribution of
useable habitat—this step was applied to the baseline and maximum disturbance scenarios, and
changes to the patch size distribution were determined and assessed relative to the minimum habitat
patch size requirements. The minimum habitat patch size requirement for grizzly bears is typically
defined as 10 km2 (Gibeau et al., 1996).
The assumptions required to run the core secure habitat analysis result is a relatively conservative
estimate of core secure habitat availability. First, the identification of linear features as high and low use
was generally subjective, and based on local knowledge—with the exception of the proposed access
road, no specific information on road use levels was available. Some linear features considered high use
may not actually be so, or may not always be so year-round, and some low use features may be “high
use” at times. Also any habitat within the high use disturbance buffer was considered to be non-habitat,
when in fact, a variety of factors (e.g., habitat type) may influence the usefulness of this zone as core
secure habitat.
25
For the Prosperity Project only high use disturbance features were used in the core secure habitat analysis and they were
buffered by 800 m (March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 6.2.2.5)
26
For linear features, ‘low use’ was conceptually defined as 10 or less vehicles passes per day
27
The low use buffer for the Prosperity Project was 400 m; a 500-m buffer has been endorsed by the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Committee (1998) and is the standard for grizzly bear core secure habitat analyses (e.g., Wakkinen and Kasworm, 1997; Proctor
et a.,l 2008) and was used for this update
28
For linear features, ‘high use’ was conceptually defined as > 10 vehicles passes per day

Linear Feature Density Analysis

Linear feature density can be used to infer mortality risk for hunted species such as deer, moose and
bears. The density (km/km2) of linear features (e.g., roads, trails) at baseline and at maximum disturbance
was calculated for 16 analysis units within the grizzly bear RSA. The analysis units were defined by
landscape unit boundaries. An open road density threshold of 0.6 km/km2 is typically cited for grizzly
bears.
At maximum disturbance, the only project-related linear feature included in the analysis is the
transmission line right-of-way. Consistent with the March 2009 EIS/Application, new roads developed
within the mine footprint (i.e., TSF access road, mine access road) were not included because access to
these roads will be controlled (gated) at maximum disturbance. Further, a ground-truthing survey
conducted in 2010 concluded that no new road construction is required to access the transmission line
right-of-way.
The linear feature density analysis conducted for New Prosperity differs in three ways from the analysis
conducted for the original EIS for the Prosperity Project: updated disturbance spatial data (as for core
secure habitat [see Appendix 2.7.2.8-C]), different RSA (the ‘grizzly bear RSA’, see Figure 2.7.2.8-2), and
different analysis units29.
Extent of Increased Direct Mortality Risk

The mine creates a large opening and the transmission line contributes 46.3 km of right-of-way to the
grizzly bear RSA, but in a regional context the availability of core secure habitat for grizzly bears is not
substantially affected—the area of core secure habitat within the largest patch size category declines by
1.6 percent at maximum disturbance (Table 2.7.2.8-7, Figure 2.7.2.8-16). This is almost identical to the
prediction for the previous Prosperity Project (1.7 percent, Volume 5, Section 6.3.4.4). Most of the
reduction is due to the mine site being considered nil value as habitat rather than incremental
fragmentation due to the transmission line (see Figure 2.7.2.8-16).
Linear feature density exceeds the 0.6 km/km2 at baseline in four of the analysis units (Table 2.7.2.8-8,
Figure 2.7.2.8-17). Three of these units are crossed by the transmission line. Not surprisingly, linear
feature density is lowest in the provincial parks that overlap the RSA (Figure 2.7.2.8-17). Linear feature
density increases by 1.3 percent in the RSA at maximum disturbance (Table 2.7.2.8-8). Increases in the
three units crossed by the transmission line range from 1.1 to 2.8 percent (Table 2.7.2.8-8). This is of
similar magnitude to the prediction in the March 2009 EIS/Application for the Prosperity Project (1.5
percent, Volume 5, Section 6.3.4.5). This prediction does not factor in any road closure, regeneration or
decommissioning that might occur in the RSA between baseline and maximum disturbance.
The potential effect of the New Prosperity Project on grizzly bear mortality risk is no different than what
was predicted for the Prosperity Project (Volume 5, Section 6.3.4.5). That is, the finding that the Project
effect is not significant hinges on the definition of significant. i.e. on a fine line between one versus more
than one death30 and is contingent on: strict enforcement of mitigation measures related to traffic; and, a
zero tolerance policy toward problem bear incidents and a non-lethal approach to resolving any incidents
should they develop that clearly minimize the possibility of bear-human encounters. Road mortality along
29
The linear feature density analysis for the Prosperity Project used watershed groups as the analysis units
30
A high magnitude effect is considered significant, where a high magnitude effect is defined as ‘more than one grizzly bear is killed
during the life of the Project as a result of collisions with Project-related traffic (March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section
6.3.4.5)

the access route and poaching due to increased public access along the transmission line were identified
as concerns in the Report of the Federal Review Panel (see Panel Review, Section 6.7.1). In response to
the Panel Review, Taseko has 1) updated and expanded the cumulative effects assessment for grizzly
bear, with a focus on mortality risk; and 2) committed to new migration measures under an overarching
Grizzly Bear Mortality Reduction Plan. The findings of the cumulative effects assessment and further
detail on the plan are presented under ‘Cumulative Effects Assessment’.
Table 2.7.2.8-7 Project-related Changes in Grizzly Bear Core Secure Habitat in the Regional Study
Area at Maximum Disturbance
Area (ha) within Change in Area (ha) Percent Change (%)

Area (ha) within RSA at from baseline to from baseline to
Patch Size
RSA at baseline maximum maximum maximum
disturbance disturbance disturbance
< 1km2 2,844 3,067 223 7.9
1-5 km2 9,465 9,612 147 1.6
>5-10 km2 6,052 7,093 1,042 17.2
>10 km2 305,728 300,861 -4,867 -1.6
Non-habitat 362,400 365,855 3,455 1.0
Water 10,571 10,571 0 0

425000 450000 475000 500000 425000 450000 475000 500000
± ±
£
¤ 20 £
¤ 20
C h il c o t in -
C h il c o t in - B e l l a C o o la Hw y
B e l l a C o o la Hw y
5750000
5750000
5750000
5750000
O C
O IL K
R ive r
IL K C CH To w yd k i n H
R iv er
CH To w y d k i n H L a ke IL
L a ke IL C OT
C OT IN
IN
d ad Big Creek
oa Big Creek Ro Ecological Reserve
ke
ke La k
La k ee
ee Cr
Cr o
o sek
sek Ta
Ta i Nunsti Fl e t ch e r Bi g
Brittany Nunsti Fl e t ch e r B g Brittany ee
k
La ke
o
ee
k
La ke Cr
o
Cr
ek
N u ns t i s
ek
N u ns t i s Ta
Ta Provincial Park
Provincial Park
Haines
5725000
5725000
Haines
5725000
5725000
Te
Te
Nuntzi Elkin
te
Nuntzi Elkin
te
A ng e
A nge la
la
ee k
eek
Kl o a ku t
Cr
Kl o a k u t
Cr e
Cr
L a ke
Cr e
Lake El k i n
El k i n
ek
Lak e
ek
Lak e
B ig
B ig
45 00 R
45 00 R
Tete Angela
Ve d a n Tete Angela Bambrick
Ve d a n Bambrick Lak e
oa d
Lak e Vedan
oa d
Vedan Mtn.
Mtn. ek
ek re
re C
C Cardiff M tn.
Cardiff M tn. Ec ological
Ec ological
Res erve
Big Creek Ga sp a r d K on n i L
ak
e Res erve
Big Creek Ga sp a r
5700000
5700000
e L a ke
ak
K on n i L
5700000
5700000
L a ke
oundh o g
oundh o g
r
Plitz
G
r
Plitz Peak
G
Nemiah Peak Nemiah
Big Creek
CH
Big Creek
CH
W a sp
W a sp L a ke
IL
L a ke
IL
Provincial
Ts'yl-os
KO
Provincial
Ts'yl-os
KO
Provincial Park Nadila

Park
Low er
Low er Ta se ko L a ke
Ta se k o L a ke
Beece Creek Gunn Valley Beece Creek

Gunn Valley
LA
LA
5675000
5675000
5675000
5675000
KE
KE
Rainbow Rainbow
Upper Big Creek Upper Big Creek
Tchaikazan Tchaikazan Taseko

Taseko
Spruce Lake
Spruce Lake
Protected Area
5650000
5650000
Protected Area
5650000
5650000
Lord River Edmond Lord River
Edmond
BASELINE MAXIMUM DISTURBANCE

425000 450000 475000 500000 425000 450000 475000 500000

BC Hydro Transmission Line Wildlife Maximum Disturbance Area Patch Size
Highway Study Area < 1 km² 0 5 10 20 30
Road Grizzly Bear Core Secure Habitat
1-5 km² in the Regional Study Area
River 5-10 km² Kilometers
at Baseline and Maximum Disturbance
Lake > 10km²
Landscape Unit 14th August 2012
Non Habitat
Protected Area Water Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: R Stohmann Verified By: Colleen Bryden. Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia FIGURE 2.7.2.8-16 REV
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-101_Grizzly_core_security_MBO.mxd
Table 2.7.2.8-8 Project-related Changes in Linear Feature Density in the Regional Study Area at
Maximum Disturbance
Linear Feature Linear Feature Density Percent Change from

Landscape Unit Density (km/km2) (km/km2) at Maximum Baseline to Maximum
at Baseline Disturbance Disturbance
Bambrick* 1.17** 1.20** 2.6
Beece Creek 0.23 0.23 0
Big Creek 1.27** 1.27** 0
Brittany 0.44 0.44 0
Edmond 0.00 0.00 0
Gunn Valley 0.24 0.24 0
Haines* 1.36** 1.40** 2.9
Lord River <0.01 <0.01 0
Nadila 0.20 0.20 0
Nemiah 0.52 0.52 0
Nuntzi Elkin 0.30 0.30 0
Rainbow <0.01 <0.01 0
Taseko 0.33 0.33 0
Tchaikazan 0.13 0.13 0
Tete Angela* 0.97** 0.98** 1.1
Upper Big Creek 0.14 0.14 0
Entire RSA 0.50* 0.50*** 1.3
NOTE:
2
* Intersected by transmission line corridor 0.4957 ** Linear feature density exceeds 0.6 km/km threshold, *** Value of percent
change. Value of per 0.5023

350000 375000 400000 425000 450000 475000 500000 525000 550000 575000
±
£
¤ 20
£
¤ 20
Chi lco ti n -
B e ll a C o o l a Hw y
5750000
5750000
O C
IL K
R iv er
CH To w y d k i n H
L a ke IL
C OT
IN
R IVE
R
d
oa Big Creek
ke Junction
La k
ee Sheep Range
Cr
FR
Prov. Park
Brittany o
sek
ASER
Ta i
Fl e t ch e r Bg
0.44 km/km2 Nunsti
ee
k
La ke
o
Cr
ek
N u n s ti s
Ta
Provincial Park
Haines 1.4 km/km2

5725000
5725000
Nuntzi Elkin
Te
0.3 km/km2
te
A nge
la
re ek
Kl o a ku t
ek
Ga
C
Cr e
L a ke sp e
El k i n g Cr
Do
ar
ek
Lak e
R IVE R
Tete Angela C re e
B ig
k
2
Ve d a n 0.98 km/km 2
Bambrick 1.2 km/km
Lak e
Vedan
Mtn. k
ek re e
re C
C Big Creek
Cardiff M tn. Churn Creek
Ec ological
K o nn i L
ak
e Res erve
1.27 km/km2 Ga sp a r d
Provincial Park
5700000
5700000
n
L a ke
ur
o u nd h o g
h
C
r
Plitz
G
0.52 km/km2
Peak
Nemiah
Big Creek
CH
W a sp
L a ke
IL
Provincial
Ts'yl-os
KO
2
Provincial Park 0.2 km/km Park
Low er
Ta se ko L a ke
Nadila
Rainbow Beece Creek
0.24 km/km 2 0.23 km/km2
LA
5675000
5675000
Gunn Valley
KE
2 0.14 km/km2
0 km/km
Upper Big Creek
Tchaikazan Taseko
0.13 km/km2 0.33 km/km2
Spruce Lake
Protected Area
5650000
5650000
Lord River
0 km/km 2 0 km/km 2
Edmond
350000 375000 400000 425000 450000 475000 500000 525000 550000 575000

BC Hydro Transmission Line Wildlife Maximum Disturbance Area Linear Feature Density
Lowest Density NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
Highway Study Area 0 5 10 20 30
Road Linear Feature Density
River Kilometers in the Regional Study Area at Maximum Disturbance
Lake
14th August 2012
Landscape Unit Highest Density
Protected Area Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: R Stohmann Verified By: Colleen Bryden. Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia FIGURE 2.7.2.8-17 REV
0
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-102_Grizzly_LinearDensity_MBO.mxd
Reduction in Wildlife Health

Effects to wildlife health can occur through a variety of pathways including contamination of air, soil, water
or food resources or alterations in food source abundance or composition. The potential for the Project to
affect the health of the key indicators was assessed previously and considered to be not significant for
any wildlife species (see March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5, Section 6.3).
Concerns related to the post-closure water quality within Fish Lake that could potentially affect wildlife
health have been identified for the New Prosperity Project (see Section 2.7.3.3). Therefore, assessment
of these water quality changes is required to determine the potential effect on wildlife health.
Wildlife Groups and Species Selected for Assessment

Table 2.7.2.8-9 presents the rationale for the selection of the species to be included in a qualitative
wildlife health assessment for the New Prosperity Project. The rationale for wildlife species selection acts
as the aspect of risk assessment for characterizing realistic exposures (e.g., if there is no exposure, then
there is no risk). Thus, rationale for their selection is based upon presence/abundance of the species in
the area, observed use of Fish Lake (or associated water bodies), life history characteristics that
predispose the species to elevated metal exposures (e.g., aquatic diet, egg-laying) and whether the
species is concurrently assessed in the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) (see Section 2.7.3.3). Six
wildlife groups, consisting of eleven species (including seven KIs) are carried forward to the assessment
of Project effects on wildlife health (Table 2.7.2.8-3). Some wildlife groups will also be included in the
ERA (see Section 2.7.3.3), but the species representing the wildlife group may differ. The wildlife selected
for this wildlife health assessment were chosen based on their association with the aquatic environment
and so represent those species which may be at risk of health effects as a result of mine-related changes
to water quality.
Table 2.7.2.8-9 Rationale for Selection of Wildlife Species for Inclusion in the Assessment of
Project Effects on Wildlife Health
Included in
Wildlife Representative
Wildlife Health Rationale for Selection
Group Species
Assessment?
Ungulates Moose Yes x Present year round, common in spring/summer
x Habitat includes wetlands with browse species
(e.g., around Fish Lake, alluvial flats along
Taseko River)
x Observed feeding at Fish Lake
x Feeds on aquatic plants, metals can be taken
up by plants and become available to moose
(e.g., copper, cadmium)
x Included in ERA (Section 2.7.3.3)
Small n/a No x Little to no reliance on aquatic food web
Mammals x Cinereus shrew and snowshoe hare are
included in ERA (Section 2.7.3.3)
Carnivores Grizzly bear Yes x Both species observed at proposed mine site
Black bear and near Fish Lake
x Large home ranges
x Feed on spawning rainbow trout in Fish Creek
x Included in ERA (Section 2.7.3.3)

Included in
Wildlife Representative
Wildlife Health Rationale for Selection
Group Species
Assessment?
Song Birds Red-winged Yes x Uses wetlands for nesting and foraging
blackbird x Not included in ERA
Raptors and Bald eagle Yes x Eagles regularly feed on fish in Fish Lake in
Owls the spring, move to salmon streams in the fall
x Oviparous, so susceptible to selenium-related
deformities and developmental and
reproductive effects
x Short-eared owl included in ERA (Section
2.7.3.3)
Game Birds n/a No x Uplands game species
x No aquatic food web reliance
x Willow ptarmigan included in ERA (Section
2.7.3.3)
Waterfowl Great blue Yes x Waterfowl present on Fish Lake, breeding
and waders heron evidence; observed feeding in Fish Lake
Mallard x Heron consumes fish (higher trophic level)
x Waterfowl species are herbivorous, but can be
Barrow’s
exposed to metals in aquatic plants,
goldeneye
invertebrates and water
x Oviparous so susceptible to selenium-related
x Canada goose included in ERA (Section
2.7.3.3)
Amphibians Western toad Yes x Productive amphibian habitat and individuals
Columbia observed in Fish Lake, along Fish Creek, and
spotted frog at the inlet and outlet of Fish Lake
x Physiology and life cycles create susceptible
conditions to health and reproductive effects
related to water quality
x Oviparous so susceptible to selenium-related
x Not included in ERA
Parameters of Potential Concern for Wildlife

The selection of parameters of potential concern (POPC) was based on predicted water quality in Fish
Lake, Upper Fish Creek, and an unnamed tributary of Fish Lake (Tributary 1). Predicted exceedences in
BC water quality guidelines (BC WQGs) for protection of aquatic biota for each parameter were
summarized by month for each mine phase, which was then used to help identify which months
predispose wildlife to highest concentrations of metals and linking these periods of greatest concern to
the actual seasonal habitat use patterns of wildlife in the mine site LSA. Canadian drinking water quality
guidelines (CDWG) were used to further screen the predicted water quality data, particularly in regards to
potential health implications for mammals, where exposure is predominantly through a drinking water
exposure pathway.
Based on the water quality assessment (Section 2.7.2.4), three parameters of interest were consistently
identified in Fish Lake, Fish Lake Tributary 1 and Upper Fish Creek for consideration in the wildlife health

assessment. These include cadmium, selenium and sulphate. Additionally, copper was also considered,
but only in Upper Fish Creek. These parameters were of interest because their concentrations were
predicted to be elevated relative to background, and this elevation was attributable to the Project. As well,
some of these parameters can bioaccumulate in aquatic food webs (e.g., cadmium, selenium; Furness
1996; Janz et al. 2010) and all of these parameters are known to have at least some harmful effects to
wildlife at high concentrations.
Wildlife Health Assessment Results

Ungulates (Moose)
Moose are typically forest-dwellers, foraging on shrubs and young trees. It has been estimated that an
adult moose may require up to 19 kg of food each day (Shackleton, 1999). In spring and summer, in
addition to leaves and shoots, moose will feed, sometimes heavily, on emergent and floating vegetation in
swamps, ponds, and along lake margins (Shackleton, 1999). By late summer and fall, moose return to
preferential feeding on terrestrial species (Shackleton, 1999). When consuming aquatic vegetation,
moose often feed with their heads completely submerged, suggesting that water ingestion may be an
important sulfate exposure pathway.
Moose are present in the project area year round, occurring more commonly in spring and summer, and
have been observed feeding at Fish Lake. Metals concentrations in water were compared to CDWGs
since the dominant exposure pathway for this species will be through direct consumption of water. Of the
identified parameters of interest for Fish Lake (sulfate, cadmium, and selenium) all were predicted to
occur at concentrations well below CDWGs, even at maximum predicted concentrations. There are no
anticipated effects to moose health based on the following rationale:
x The CCME DWGs for sulfate (for livestock) are currently 1,000 mg/L, with some effects however,
observed in cattle at 583 mg/L (Meays and Nordin, 2011). Sulfate concentrations in Fish Lake are
only predicted to reach 170 mg/L in maximum scenarios during closure II, 3 times below the level at
which effects have been observed and >5 times lower than the DWG.
x Cadmium is naturally elevated in Fish Lake and predicted to remain elevated under all mine phases
post-development which may result in increased plant uptake, particularly in aquatic plants
submerged in Fish Lake and along its periphery; however, this potential elevated cadmium in aquatic
plants is extremely local and the large home ranges of moose and other ungulates relying on aquatic
plants preclude consistent exposure. Therefore, health risks through this food web pathway are not
anticipated. Concentrations of cadmium in water and sediment will be monitored to confirm
predictions.
x There is a narrow range between nutritionally optimal selenium concentrations and potentially toxic
levels for vertebrates (NRC, 1989 in Orr et al., 2006). However, the thresholds for toxicity to
mammals are considerably higher than those for egg-laying species such as birds and fish (US DOI,
1998). In aquatic ecosystems, selenium is readily taken up by aquatic algae and macrophytes, and
aquatic plants are generally thought to be the primary pathway by which organo-selenides enter
aquatic food webs (reviewed in Orr et al., 2006). Concentrations projected in Fish Lake are within the
range of waterborne concentrations (low μg/L) that have been observed to bioaccumulate in the food
chain, and as such, moose feeding heavily on aquatic plants in the spring and summer may be
vulnerable to increased selenium exposure; however, moose have large home ranges and any
selenium elevations in plants would be local in nature. With expected exposure to be sporadic and

localized, in combination with selenium exhibiting low toxicity to mammals in general, it is unlikely that
this potential increase in selenium exposure would result in any change in moose health.
Carnivores (Grizzly Bear and Black Bear)

As omnivores, grizzly bears consume a variety of plant and animal species. The bulk of their diet is
composed of plant material, with green vegetation predominating in spring and early summer and berries
predominating in late summer and early fall (Hatler et al., 2008). Riparian areas are identified as some of
their most important foraging habitat (Hatler et al., 2008). Grizzly bears also consume fish, almost always
in areas where they are readily available and in high concentration (i.e., spawning areas along
watercourses). In the project area, grizzly bears are known to feed on the rainbow trout that spawn in Fish
Creek in the spring.
While black bear are largely a forest-dwelling species, foraging occurs in many other habitat types,
including riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, and natural and man-made clearings (Hatler et al., 2008).
Black bears have also been observed both at the proposed mine site and near Fish Lake. In areas where
fish spawn (e.g. rainbow trout in Fish Creek), black bears may eat little else for a period of several weeks
(Hatler et, al., 2008) and thus, may be similarly exposed to these potentially bioaccumulating metals.
Cadmium and selenium exceed WQGs in the early spring in at least one phase of mine operation, and
cadmium exceeds WQGs in background. These metals may be of concern due to their bioaccumulation
potential; however, there is no fish tissue guide. Grizzly bears foraging in the project area would be
exposed to cadmium, with or without the Project, and selenium, while consuming spawning fish in Fish
Creek during the spring. For selenium, typically mammals have a high tolerance to this metal and do not
exhibit deleterious effects unless extremely high exposure occurs. Cadmium and selenium concentrations
will be monitored in water, sediments and fish tissue through on-going monitoring programs.
As with moose, it is not anticipated that bears that have large home ranges will have appreciable and
consistent exposure to any elevations of metals in plants. Thus, this exposure pathway is not considered
further. For bears, the dominant exposure pathway will be through drinking the water. All parameters of
interest have maximum concentrations well below the CDWG in Fish Creek, and this waterbody is
unlikely a significant source of drinking water for bears that have large home ranges and only seasonally
utilize the mine area and the riparian areas along Fish Creek. Overall, no health effects are anticipated for
bears as it relates to project-related water quality changes.
Songbirds (Red-winged Blackbird)

Red-winged blackbirds nest in marshy and upland habitats (Yasukawa and Searcy, 1995). While their
preference is for large freshwater marshes, they will also nest in small patches of marsh in ditches, hay
fields, and urban and suburban habitats. Western Canadian populations of red-winged blackbirds
generally begin their southward migration in late August/September and return between mid-February
and mid-May (Yasukawa and Searcy, 1995). In the breeding season (April/May to late July), red-winged
blackbirds consume primarily insects (Yasukawa and Searcy, 1995). Red-winged blackbirds use the
wetlands in the study area for both nesting and foraging. Parameters of interest for this species include;
sulfate, cadmium, and selenium.
x There is very little information available on the effects of sulfate exposure on birds. For red-winged
blackbirds, time spent foraging in the aquatic environment represents a possible exposure pathway,

but the importance of this pathway is unknown. However, as this species is unlikely to consume large
quantities of water, even at maximum predicted concentrations health effects to red winged
blackbirds are unlikely due to sulphate exposure.
x Dietary cadmium levels in terrestrial birds result in increased metallothionein production (Yamamura
and Suzuki, 1984), changes in iron, zinc, and calcium metabolism (Freeland and Cousins, 1973), and
egg shell thinning (Leach et al., 1979); however, these effects were observed at concentrations that
would not be expected to occur in the New Prosperity Project area. Further, cadmium does not
appear to be effectively transferred to eggs, as egg concentrations are typically very low (Burger and
Gochfeld, 1991), and terrestrial birds generally exhibit cadmium concentrations that are several
orders of magnitude lower than those observed in apparently healthy seabirds (Furness, 1996 in
Beyer, 1996). Therefore, it is not anticipated that cadmium will have an adverse effect on the health of
red-winged blackbirds using Fish Lake or surrounding waterbodies for nesting.
x As an oviparous species, red-winged blackbirds are susceptible to selenium-related deformities and

developmental and reproductive effects. Egg-laying vertebrates have the lowest known thresholds for
reproductive toxicity (US DOI, 1998). Selenium concentrations in water are predicted to be
consistently elevated with the greatest result during closure showing concentrations between 0.003
mg/L and 0.004 mg/L. However, under mean scenarios the result is consistently below 0.003 mg/L,
and least result is consistently below the WQG 0.002 mg/L. Monitoring of water selenium
concentrations will be conducted to confirm predictions.
Raptors and Owls (Bald Eagle)

In the project area, large numbers of bald eagles have been observed feeding on fish in Fish Lake in the
spring. Bald eagles will also consume waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion (Buehler, 2000). Because
they are at a higher trophic level than insectivorous species (e.g. red-winged blackbirds), contaminant
bioaccumulation puts them at greater risk of selenium-related effects. Potential effects to sulphate and
cadmium exposure on bald eagles are also discussed.
As noted for red-winged blackbirds, there is very little information available on the effects of sulphate
exposure in birds, including bald eagles or any other raptor; however, because of their hunting methods,
eagles are less likely to ingest water, and thus it is unlikely that this species will suffer negative effects as
a consequence of sulphate exposure.
The effects of cadmium exposure on terrestrial birds were discussed for red-winged blackbirds. Since
bald eagles occupy a high relatively high trophic position, a combination of a high level of contamination
in the environment and significant bioaccumulation in prey (both invertebrates and fish) would be required
to cause any level of food chain amplification to this species (Furness, 1996). Given the relatively low
concentrations that are predicted to occur in the study area, this seems an unlikely scenario. Further, as
noted above, cadmium does not appear to be effectively transferred to eggs (Burger and Gochfeld, 1991).
Thus, it is not anticipated that cadmium will have an adverse effect on the health of bald eagles foraging
for fish in Fish Lake or Fish Creek.
As an oviparous species, bald eagles also have increased susceptibility to selenium-related deformities
and developmental and reproductive effects. Unlike red-winged blackbirds, however, bald eagles are
piscivorous, thus placing them at a higher trophic level, and possibly at greater risk than other bird
species. Bald eagles are also long-lived, sometime reaching ages from 15 to 20 years, making them
susceptible to age-related accumulation of some metals, as well. For eagles, exposure would be

expected to be exclusively dietary, and the fact that dietary exposures have not been considered in water
quality guideline derivation has been recognized as a data gap (Hamilton, 2004). Bald eagles (and other
piscivorous species) generally consume the entire fish, including the internal organs, which often contain
much higher contaminant concentrations than the muscle tissue used to assess human health risks
(Hinck et al., 2009). For bald eagles, a No Effect Hazard Concentration of 4.0 μg/g in food was calculated
based on a No Adverse Effects Level and the estimated food ingestion rate (Hinck et al., 2009); Selenium
concentrations in fish tissue are predicted to be below 4.0 μg/g (Refer to Section 2.7.2.5). Water,
sediment and fish tissue concentrations will be monitored for selenium to confirm predictions.
Waterfowl and Waders (Great Blue Heron, Mallard, and Barrow’s Goldeneye)
Great blue herons typically exist at a higher trophic level than mallards and Barrow’s goldeneye due to
their consumption of fish. The waterfowl species exist at lower trophic levels so are exposed to metals
through their consumption of aquatic plants (algae), invertebrates and water. Despite their varied diets
and habitat use, these bird species have been grouped together in the wildlife health assessment
because of the similar effects predicted. All three species have been observed at Fish Lake.
Some waterfowl species are long-lived, they return to the same geographic area each year, and feed
mainly on aquatic invertebrates; therefore, they are susceptible to bioaccumulation of persistent
contaminants, such as cadmium and selenium. Repeated use of foraging and breeding habitats that
contain elevated contaminant levels may result in elevated levels in individuals over time.
While elevated selenium levels in adult waterfowl are not known to lead to health effects, they can lead to
reproductive effects. The females transfer some of their selenium burden to their eggs (to the albumin);
the selenium is taken up by the developing chicks (Janz et al., 2010), resulting in decreased growth rates
of newly hatched chicks (Fairbrother et al., 1994) and mortality (Williams et al., 1989). While deformities
can occur in birds as a result of high selenium levels, impaired egg hatchability is a more sensitive
endpoint, so will likely occur first at lower selenium concentrations (Skorupa, 1999). Defects in American
Dipper and Harlequin Duck young, related to selenium exposure has been documented by Wayland et al.
(2006, 2007), although defects in these species have not been noted in southeast British Columbia,
despite elevated selenium concentrations in water (Harding et al., 2005). Selenium concentrations in
water are predicted to be consistently elevated with the greatest result during closure showing
concentrations between 0.003 mg/L and 0.004 mg/L. However, under mean scenarios the result is
consistently below 0.003 mg/L, and least result is consistently below the WQG 0.002 mg/L. These
concentrations are well below those associated with bird defects, thus no health effects are anticipated for
waterfowl resulting from mine-related selenium increases to Fish Lake and associated wetlands. Since
health risks could develop at higher concentration, on-going monitoring of water and sediment selenium
concentrations will be conducted to confirm predictions.
The cadmium effect is on the individual itself (Vermeer and Castilla, 1991, noted for seabirds consuming
molluscs), as cadmium is not transferred to the eggs (Furness, 1996). High cadmium levels in the diet of
various duck species have resulted in altered avoidance behaviour (Heinz et al., 1983), suppression of
egg production (White and Finley, 1978), damage to testis function (White et al., 1978), anemia (Cain et
al., 1983), and reduced liver mass and increased kidney and adrenal mass (Di Giulio and Scanlon, 1985).
While cadmium levels in food have not been modeled for the Project, the studies quoted were done using
diet concentrations that would be considerably higher than expected for this project. Therefore, it is not
anticipated that cadmium will have an adverse effect on health of the waders or waterfowl in Fish Lake or
surrounding waterbodies.

Amphibians (Western Toad and Columbia Spotted Frog)

Amphibians can be exposed to aquatic contaminants through direct uptake from water (e.g., skin, eggs,
and ingestion), ingestion of metals in soils and sediments, or from their diet, which can have implications
to overall health, reproduction and survival. Additionally, elevated concentrations of some metals (e.g.,
zinc) in the aquatic environment can have direct and negative consequences to amphibian reproduction,
specifically sperm motility and possibly, egg fertilization success (Christensen et al., 2004). Of the
amphibian species known or expected to occur in the mine area, none are typically associated with fast-
flowing stream environments. There is considerable habitat use (including breeding for some species)
noted for amphibians primarily along the shoreline of Fish Lake, therefore the health assessment for
amphibians as it pertains to elevations in metals within aquatic habitats will be restricted to Fish Lake. For
this project the parameters of potential interest for amphibians are sulphate and selenium.
Elevated sulphate concentrations can have a negative effect on amphibian health; however, sulphate
concentrations causing effects are extremely high. The sulphate guideline is actually based on three
species, namely an invertebrate, a plant and fish. Treefrog tadpoles were exposed to elevated sulphate
concentrations, with resultant LOEC values of 1,925 mg/L for both survival and growth endpoints at water
hardness of 80 mg/L (Elphick et al., 2011). Highest sulphate concentrations are not predicted to exceed
170 mg/L (under the maximum scenarios in closure II) and thus, are not expected to have negative
effects on amphibian health.
Selenium has the potential to bioaccumulate in invertebrates, where it can then become available to
amphibians through their consumption of this prey (Roe et al., 2005; Hopkins et al., 2006). Once an adult
amphibian has been exposed to selenium, this metal can be maternally transferred to the eggs (Hopkins
et al., 2006), where it can become harmful to developing embryos and tadpoles. Very few studies
examine toxic effects of selenium on amphibians, and these studies generally involve complex mixtures.
However, results suggest elevated selenium is associated with decreased hatching success and
increased incidence of craniofacial malformations in hatchlings (Hopkins et al., 2006). Selenium
concentrations are not predicted to exceed 0.0049 mg/L (under the maximum scenario in closure II), nor
exceed WQGs in any other mine phase in Fish Lake. Therefore, elevated selenium is not expected to
have negative effects on amphibian health.
Summary of Effects on Wildlife Health

Parameters of potential concern (based on BC WQG exceedences) were fairly similar among
waterbodies. Sulphate, cadmium and selenium were identified as POPCs in Fish Lake, Fish Lake
Tributary 1 and Upper Fish Creek, and copper was identified as an additional POPC in Upper Fish Creek
only. Therefore, these four parameters were considered in the wildlife health assessment.
Each wildlife group has different habitat use patterns, diets and metal sensitivities, thus their exposure
(e.g., drinking water for mammals) and subsequent health risks are highly variable. The potential for
health risks (or lack thereof) in the various wildlife species groups are summarized below:
x The dominant exposure pathways for moose (and other ungulates) are direct drinking water and
consumption of aquatic vegetation. Due to all predicted metal concentrations being well below DWGs,
and the large home range of moose (relative to the local nature of metal uptake in plants around Fish
Lake), moose are not expected to experience any significant health effects resulting from elevated
concentrations of sulphate, cadmium or selenium.

x Bears consume riparian vegetation and fish in the study area, and may be predisposed to elevated
cadmium and selenium due to the propensity of these metals to bioaccumulate in food webs. As with
moose, bears have large home ranges and should not be impacted by any accumulation of these
metals in plants. In terms of fish accumulation, while bioaccumulation can occur for some metals
(e.g., cadmium) no fish tissue consumption guidelines exist and predicted fish tissue concentrations
are below those at which cause adverse effects. Therefore, no significant health effects are expected
for bears as a result of potentially elevated exposure to sulphate, cadmium, copper and selenium.
Fish tissue concentrations will be a component of on-going monitoring programs.
x Birds associated with aquatic habitats, including songbirds (red-winged blackbird), raptors (bald
eagle), waders (great blue heron) and waterfowl (mallard, Barrow’s goldeneye) may have potential
negative effects to reproductive health through elevated exposure to selenium (through diet and
bioaccumulation) during closure II mine phase. On-going monitoring of water, sediment and fish
tissue will be conducted to ensure concentrations are maintained below those which may have
adverse effects in birds. No other POPCs are expected to have negative impacts to bird health.
x Amphibians (western toad, Columbia spotted frog) in the study area during closure II mine phase are
not expected to be affected by selenium based on predicted levels. Elevated sulphate concentrations
during all post-development mine phases are expected to be lower than toxicity threshold values for
amphibians and therefore sulphate is not expected to have negative effects on amphibian health.
Mitigation measures for wildlife health were identified in the wildlife section of the March 2009
EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6.4.1). No new mitigation measures specific to wildlife health are
proposed for the New Prosperity Project. However, the mitigation measures identified for water quality in
Section 2.7.2.4 will be indirectly applicable to wildlife health.
In conclusion, the primary concerns for wildlife health are selenium for wetland- or lake-associated birds
and amphibians, and sulphate for amphibians. For all mine phases, the residual effect on wildlife health is
considered to be adverse, low magnitude, local and irreversible. No significant effects on wildlife health
are predicted in any phase as a result of project-related water quality changes. This conclusion is
substantiated by the ERA (Section 2.7.3.3) which found no negative health impacts for wildlife.
Prediction confidence is low because of the conservative nature of the water quality predictions and
limited and varying evidence of effects (see Section 2.7.2.4), and lack of site-specific characterization of
selenium trophodynamics and uncertainties behind plant uptake (all metals), as well as water to fish/bird
ratios (for selenium particularly) and lack of evidence/research in selenium uptake and effects in
amphibians. However, the wildlife health assessment is likely conservative as the POPCs were mainly
evaluated using BC WQGs for the Protection of Aquatic Life. The wildlife species selected for this
assessment are associated with aquatic environments for some part of their life cycle but are not actually
aquatic, with exception of the larval stages of the amphibians. The BC WQGs for aquatic life are more
stringent than the Canadian drinking water guidelines (Health Canada, 2010), which may be more
relevant to these mainly terrestrial species. At no time do predicted water quality concentrations in any of
the modeled water bodies, in any mine phase, or under any scenario, exceed these drinking water
guidelines (Section 2.7.3.3).
As selenium can be harmful to oviparous species and can bioaccumulate, this parameter will be
monitored in water, sediment and fish to foreshadow any potential reproductive impacts to birds and
amphibians (see Section 2.7.2.4).

Local Population Effects from Supplemental Report

Predictions of local population effects resulting from the permanent loss of habitat associated with
Prosperity Project were provided in the Supplemental Report (Section 3.1.1) for 11 species selected by
the Province. The analysis utilized a relatively simple calculation to determine number of individual
animals potentially affected (Supplemental Report, Section 2.3.1) on an annual basis:
Area of habitat loss (ha) x species density (individuals/ha) = number of individuals potentially affected
(directly or indirectly).
Using the same methods and ‘species density’ values, Table 2.7.2.8-10 compares the local population
effects of New Prosperity and Prosperity. As expected because of the smaller footprint of New Prosperity,
the predicted effect on local populations is less. New information on species density has become
available since the Supplemental Report for two species, grizzly bear and waterfowl. This information has
been incorporated into Table 2.7.2.8-10.
Development at the outlet of Fish Lake will displace animals that typically use this area for feeding on
spawning trout in the spring. The two species most likely to be affected are grizzly bear and bald eagle
(Table 2.7.2.8-10). Trout are still expected to spawn at the inlet to Fish Lake (Section 2.7.2.5) so it is
possible that bears and eagles may shift their spring activity to this area. Assuming this is likely to occur
over time, Taseko will restrict project-related activities, which would be limited to those related to water
management and monitoring, near the inlet to Fish Lake during the spring in order to minimize
disturbance to any grizzly bear or eagles using this area and to minimize the risk of bear-human
encounters. Measures identified under the ‘Disruption of Movement Patterns’ section related to the TSF
access road will also be important in maintaining opportunities for wildlife to use this area.

Table 2.7.2.8-10 Local Population Effect Predictions for Wildlife Species in Reference to Mine Site: Comparison between Prosperity and
New Prosperity
Density Prosperity (2009) New Prosperity (2012)

Key Estimate/Home Area Local Area Local Direction of
Comments
Indicator Range Size/Territory Permanently Population Permanently Population Change
a
Size Lost Effect (Annual) Lost Effect (Annual)
MU 5-4 (mine 1.4 deer 0.7 deer Effect less

Density derived from MOE
Mule site): density = Upland: 845.1 displaced Upland: 469 displaced with New
population estimate for MU 5-4.
deer 0.16 deer/km2 ha (8.5 km2) (range 0.9- ha (4.7 km2) (range 0.5- Prosperity
Possibly an underestimate.
(range 0.11-0.23) 2.0) 1.1) MDA
Upland: 845.1 Upland: 469
ha ha
Effect less
Wetlands: 4.4 Moose Wetlands: 311 2.7 moose
Winter density = with New
Moose 403.5 ha displaced ha displaced
0.35 moose/km2 Prosperity
Combined: (winter) Combined: (winter)
MDA
1248.6 ha 780 ha (7.8
(12.5 km2) km2)
This prediction is related to
habitat loss, not seasonal
opportunities for feeding on fish.
Grizzly bears are observed in
the Fish Lake outlet area,
particularly during May and June
Upland: 845.1 Upland: 469 when spawning trout are
MU 5-4: density = ha ha Effect available. It is possible these
14 bears per
Wetlands: Wetlands: 311 similar with individuals would be displaced
Grizzly 1000 km2 (T. 0.2 bears 0.1 bears
403.5 ha ha New as a result of New Prosperity
bear Hamilton, pers. displaced displaced
Combined: Combined: Prosperity mining activities, at least for the
comm., July
1248.6 ha 780 ha (7.8 MDA life of the mine. However, bear-
2012)
(12.5 km2) km2) fishing opportunities may persist
during the life of the mine as
trout will continue to spawn at
the inlet to Fish Lake. Project-
related activity in this area will be
minimized during the spring (see
text).


Comments
a
Upland: 845.1 Upland: 469

ha ha
Effect less
Wetlands: Wetlands: 311
Black Unknown (as per Not with New
403.5 ha ha Unknown
bear BC MOE) determined Prosperity
Combined: Combined: MDA
1248.6 ha 780 ha (7.8
(12.5 km2) km2)
Effect
Density: 7.9-13.1 Upland 0.07-0.12 0.04-0.06 similar with
Upland: 469
Fisher animals per 1000 habitat: 845.1 fishers fishers New
ha (4.7 km2)
km2 ha (8.5 km2) displaced displaced Prosperity
MDA
Effect less Very likely an over-estimate.
Great Territory size: 0.6
Wetlands: 242.1 herons Wetlands: 311 186.6 herons with New Herons have not been reported
blue ha (freshwater
403.5 ha displaced ha displaced Prosperity in such high numbers during any
heron marsh, Oregon)
MDA project-related field surveys.
Potential loss
Mallard of 123 IBPs, Retention of
Wetlands: Wetlands: 311
Indicated 52 of which Fish Lake is Not species-specific. Calculation
403.5 ha Fish ha Effect less
Breeding Pair are directly estimated to is or waterfowl in general using
Lake area: with New
(IBP)b density by related to Little Fish reduce the IBP method from CWS (see
Barrow’s 116.7 ha; Little Prosperity
wetland type (see removal of Lake area: 6.5 potential loss Breault, 2009 and Stantec,
goldeney Fish Lake MDA
Breault, 2009) Fish Lake ha of IBPs by 2010)
e area: 6.5 ha
(Stantec, 42%
2010).
Density: 1
pair/5.5 ha Model: Model:
26.6 pairs 19 pairs Effect less
Short- (Montana) Moderate Moderate
displaced displaced with New Probable over-estimate using
eared feeding feeding
Territory size: Prosperity the pair density estimate.
owl habitat: 146 2 Territories habitat: 105 1.4 territories
73.9 ha MDA
ha ha
(Manitoba)
Bald Nest density: 9 Fish Lake 1 active nest Little Fish No more than Effect Shoreline length estimate


Comments
a
eagle active nests/100 shoreline: 9.4 predicted Lake 1 active nest similar with includes islands. This prediction
km of shoreline km; Little Fish based on shoreline: 1.4 based on New is related to loss of nesting
(Nechako River) Lake shoreline km shoreline Prosperity habitat, not seasonal
shoreline: 1.4 length; spring length MDA opportunities for feeding on fish.
km 2009 site visit It is likely that there would a
Total 10.8 km by BC MOE reduction in eagle activity in the
estimate 5-10 Fish Lake outlet area as a result
active nests of New Prosperity mining
and 50-100 activities, at least for the life of
birds feeding the mine. However, fish-feeding
in the Project may persist during the life of the
area c mine as trout will continue to
spawn at the inlet to Fish Lake.
Project-related activity in this
area will be minimized during the
spring (see text).
Effect less
Amphibia Wetlands: Wetlands: 311 with New
Unknown d Unknown Unknown
n 403.5 ha ha Prosperity
MDA
NOTE:
a b
Citations for information sources available upon request; Indicated Breeding Pair is defined as a 1) a lone female, 2) a lone male, 3) a male/female pair and/or 4) a group of two
c d
males (Paquette and Ankney, 1996); BC MOE 2009, unpublished data (R. Packham, J. Youds); No appropriate density estimate is available from the literature and the BC MOE
does not have a regional density estimate to provide. Project-related field data collected in 2006 was focused on species inventory and presence/absence rather that the
development of density estimates.

Habitat Loss from Supplemental Report
The Supplemental Report provided additional analysis related to the effect of Prosperity on wildlife habitat
suitability and capability for five species and three study areas identified by the Province31. This additional
work was to provide further context with which to evaluate and assess potential habitat loss for species of
importance identified in the William Case. Using the same methods (Supplemental Report, Section 2.3),
Table 2.7.2.8-11 compares the availability of habitat at maximum disturbance for the 2012 wildlife MDA
and the 2009 wildlife MDA. The area values for Prosperity come directly from the Supplemental Report.
New forest loss was not incorporated into this analysis.
The differences between the two MDAs vary as to whether there is more or less habitat available with the
2012 wildlife MDA, but in general the actual differences are very small (less than 1 percent) (Table
2.7.2.8-11). There were only two cases where the difference was more than 1 percent: moose winter
feeding habitat (4.5 percent increase in effective habitat availability with 2012 wildlife MDA) and fisher
natal denning habitat (4.7 percent increase in effective habitat availability with 2012 wildlife MDA), both
within the Eastern Trapline Study Area (Table 2.7.2.8-11). Thus, further assessment is not required—the
findings of the Supplemental Report with respect to these species is unchanged (i.e. there is no
significant effect; Section 3.1.3).
Table 2.7.2.8-11 Comparison of Habitat Availability at Maximum Disturbance between Prosperity

and New Prosperity for Supplemental Report Study Areas
New Prosperity Prosperity Difference in

(2012) (2009) Available habitat Supplemental
Key Measurable between New Report (2009),
Available Available
Indicator Parameter Habitat (ha) at Prosperity (2012) & Section 3.1.3
Habitat (ha)
Maximum at Maximum Prosperity (2009) Reference
Disturbance* Disturbance* ha %
Regional Study Area
Mule deer Winter shelter 200,139 200,169 -30 0 Table 5
Moose Winter feeding 59,725 59,582 143 0.2 Table 4
Habitat capability 136,296 136,259 37 0 Table 8
Grizzly bear
Habitat suitability 88,481 88,490 -9 0 Table 9
Black bear Denning 165,746 165,867 -121 -0.1 Table 7
Fisher Natal denning 80,792 80,507 285 0.5 Table 6
Rights and Title Study Area (SBPSxc and MSxv only)
Mule deer Winter shelter 28,743 28,841 -98 -0.3 Table 5
Habitat capability 125,289 125,289 0 0 Table 8
Grizzly bear
Habitat suitability 58,714 58,727 -13 0 Table 9
Black bear Denning 87,206 87,178 28 0 Table 7
31
The Eastern Trapline Area, as defined in the William Case, was chosen as a local study area in which to evaluate project effects;
the combined area of both the Taseko River and Big Creek Watersheds was chosen as an ecologically-based regional study
area; and the Rights and Title Study Area, as defined in the William Case and including the Eastern Trapline Area, was chosen as
a relevant area with which to evaluate significance of effects.

New Prosperity Prosperity Difference in

(2012) (2009) Available habitat Supplemental
Key Measurable Available Available between New Report (2009),
Indicator Parameter Prosperity (2012) & Section 3.1.3
Habitat (ha) at Habitat (ha)
Prosperity (2009) Reference
Maximum at Maximum
Disturbance* Disturbance* ha %
Fisher Natal denning 15,025 14,982 43 0.3 Table 6
Eastern Trapline Study Area
Mule deer Winter shelter 11,123 11,221 -98 -0.9 Table 5
Habitat Capability 19,281 19,281 0 0 Table 8
Grizzly bear
Habitat Suitability 3,919 3,930 -11 -0.3 Table 9
Black bear Denning 5,339 5,312 27 0.5 Table 7
Fisher Natal denning 927 885 42 4.7 Table 6
NOTE:
* Areas are for ‘effective habitat’, that is habitat rated moderate or higher for suitability or capability
Wildlife Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures for minimizing the potential effects of the New Prosperity Project on wildlife and
wildlife habitat include: 1) all the wildlife-specific commitments from the Prosperity Project EAO Certificate
Table of Commitments; 2) all wildlife-related mitigation measures for the Project as described in the
March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6.4.1, Tables 6-67 [mine], 6-68 [transmission line]32 and
6-69 [access road]); and 3) new wildlife mitigation measures identified specifically for New Prosperity
mine site activities (this section of the New Prosperity EIS as noted in Table 2.7.2.8-12). All wildlife
mitigation measures will be compiled in the Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan (Section 2.8.1).
Table 2.7.2.8-12 presents a summary of the mitigation measures applicable to the mine site; presented
here as a subset of the committed measures applicable to the New Prosperity Project as a whole. All
mitigation measures will be detailed following project approval and will be finalized in consultation with
regulatory agencies.
32
Additional mitigation measures were identified in 2010 for sections of the transmission line that are unable to avoid passing
through high value wildlife areas: narrowing the right-of-way; promoting the development of old growth forest to offset the area
removed for the transmission line; advancing the development of cavity trees using fungal inoculation (to replace wildlife trees lost
during clearing); vegetation management to reduce sight lines along the transmission line right-of-way; and erecting nest/den
boxes.

Table 2.7.2.8-12 Wildlife Mitigation Measures Applicable to New Prosperity Mine Site Activities
Resource Project Phase* Mitigation Measure Primary Reference

General
Site clearing area will be minimized.
Minimization of the site clearing area can be
achieved by carefully considering (and clearly
delineating) clearing boundaries, so that the
cleared areas are practical, in that they
comfortably allow for the construction and
placement of facilities and Project components,
but are not excessive. In practice, this may
result in the retention of patches or strips of
intact vegetation cover within the Project
footprint (e.g., between the camp and the plant).
Even if small, these patches will have benefits
to wildlife and wildlife habitat (e.g., landscape
connectivity through “stepping stones”, seed
sources for post-closure re-establishment of
vegetation cover) and should be protected from
further disturbance during the life of the mine
Site clearing will avoid non-pine forests of any
age wherever possible
Mitigation measures for other VECs/KIs are
applicable: old forest; wetland ecosystems;
riparian ecosystems; fish habitat; aquatic
ecosystems
In addition, the following EMPs (Section 2.8.1) Prosperity EIS Volume
Wildlife C&C, O
are applicable: Access Management Plan, Air 5, Section 6.4.1
and Noise Management Plan, Water
Management Plan
Prior to and during site clearing for mine site
facilities (e.g., camp, parking lot, processing
plant), any wildlife habitat features (e.g., mineral
licks, dens, nest trees, snags, rock outcrops,
small ponds/seepages) that are identified will be
evaluated for potential mitigation measures
(e.g., avoidance). Identification of these features
will occur as they are encountered (either by
boundary flagging crew or clearing crew).
Retain actual or potential wildlife trees (i.e.,
dead or dying trees and snags, and living or
dead deciduous trees) wherever possible and
safe to do so (as per provincial guidelines)
Best practice is adherence to region-specific
breeding bird timing windows for site clearing
and any subsequent vegetation management
activities. An alternative to this best practice is
searching for and flagging off nest sites in
advance of vegetation clearing. Timing window
dates and any alternatives to best practice
should be confirmed in consultation with BC


MFLNRO Region 5 staff.
Wildlife protection measures to apply to project
personnel travelling to and from Project
including prohibition of firearms, no littering, no
Prosperity EIS Volume
Wildlife C&C,O, D, PC feeding or harassment of wildlife, no hunting or
5, Section 6.4.1
fishing on the Project site and project-related
traffic restricted to designated access roads and
trails (including vehicles and snowmobiles).
Wildlife mortality on roads will be minimized
through driver training, road maintenance,
Wildlife C&C, O, D, PC following posted speed limits and where
5, Section 6.4.1
possible, using radios to notify others of wildlife
on the road
Taseko will evaluate the feasibility of fencing,
fully or partially (depending on size and
accessibility), mine site water features with
compromised water quality
Mitigation measures that may minimize or Prosperity EIS Volume
Wildlife C&C, O, D, PC eliminate adverse Project effects on wildlife 5, Section 6.4.1
health are included in the assessments for a
number of other VECs, principally: Human
Health and Terrestrial Ecological Risk
Assessment and Water Quality and Aquatic
Ecology
Sections of the Conceptual Reclamation and
New Prosperity EIS,
Wildlife PC Decommissioning Plan that pertain to the
Section 2.8.2
reclamation of wildlife habitat
Best practice is adherence to region-specific
breeding bird timing windows for site clearing
and any subsequent vegetation management
activities. An alternative to this best practice is
Migratory Prosperity EIS Volume
C&C searching for and flagging off nest sites in
Birds 5, Section 6.4.1
advance of vegetation clearing. Timing window
dates and any alternatives to best practice
should be confirmed in consultation with BC
MFLNRO Region 5 staff.
Prior to construction Taseko will undertake a

survey to identify potential wildlife crossing
New Prosperity EIS,
Movement locations along the TSF access road to evaluate
Section 2.7.2.8
options for road design or additional
environmental management plan elements.


Taseko will evaluate the feasibility of fencing,
fully or partially (depending on size and
accessibility), mine site water features with
compromised water quality
Mitigation measures that may minimize or
eliminate adverse Project effects on wildlife
Adverse Prosperity EIS Volume
C&C, O, D, PC health are included in the assessments for a
health effects 5, Section 6.4.1
number of other VECs: Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment and Water Quality
and Quantity
In addition, the following EMPs (Section 2.8.1)
are applicable: Air and Noise Management
Plan, Water Management Plan
Species-specific
No species specific mitigation measures
proposed for mule deer habitat. However, the
Mule deer C&C, O, D, PC general wildlife mitigation measures listed
5, Section 6.3.2.4
above and those identified for other KIs (e.g. old
forest) are applicable.
No species-specific mitigation measures are
proposed for moose habitat. However, the
Moose C&C, O, D, PC general wildlife mitigation measures listed
5, Section 6.3.3.4
above, and those identified for other KIs (e.g.,
old forest, wetlands) are applicable.
C&C, O, D, PC General wildlife mitigation measures listed

above and those identified for other KIs (e.g. old
5, Section 6.3.4.4
forest) are applicable
Taseko will provide Bear Aware and Bear

Safety information and training for all Project
personnel
Taseko will develop a problem wildlife
prevention and response plan as part of the
Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan
Taseko will only employ non-lethal deterrent Prosperity EIS Volume
C&C, O, D methods in the unlikely event a problem bear 5, Section 6.4.1
situation develops, unless otherwise instructed,
Grizzly bear and fully supported, by BC MOE
All waste that may be an attractant to bears
(e.g., food waste) will be handled in accordance
with strict permit conditions (yet to be
determined) that will minimize the potential for
garbage-related bear-human conflicts
Taseko will restrict project-related activities,

which would be related to water management
C&C, O, D, PC and monitoring, near the inlet to Fish Lake
New Prosperity EIS,
during the spring in order to minimize
Section 2.7.2.8
disturbance to any grizzly bear using this area
and to minimize the risk of bear-human
encounters.


Develop and implement the mitigation measures
that fall under the overarching Grizzly Bear
Mortality Risk Reduction Plan
General wildlife mitigation measures listed

C&C, O, D, PC above and those identified for other KIs (e.g. old
5, Section 6.3.4.5
forest) are applicable
Avoid site clearing of moderate or higher quality
denning habitat in mid-winter to reduce the risk
of destroying or disturbing active dens
Should clearing of moderate or higher quality Prosperity EIS Volume
C&C, O denning habitat occur in the winter, conduct a 5, Section 6.4.1
pre-clearing den survey to identify bear dens
within the proposed mine site. Any identified
dens will be clearly marked with a 50m setback
and avoided until bears have left the area.
Taseko will provide Bear Aware and Bear
Black bear Safety information and training for all Project
personnel
Taseko will develop a problem wildlife
prevention and response plan as part of the
Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan
Taseko will only employ non-lethal deterrent Prosperity EIS Volume
C&C, O, D methods in the unlikely event a problem bear 5, Section 6.4.1
situation develops, unless otherwise instructed,
and fully supported, by BC MOE
All waste that may be an attractant to bears
(e.g., food waste) will be handled in accordance
with strict permit conditions (yet to be
determined) that eliminate the potential for bear
management concerns
Wolves will be specifically included in the
problem wildlife prevention and response plan
listed above under grizzly and black bears New Prosperity EIS,
Wolf
Wolves will be included in any wildlife Section 2.7.2.8
awareness training and safety messaging where
relevant
No species-specific mitigation measures
proposed. General wildlife mitigation measures Prosperity EIS Volume
Fisher C&C, O, D, PC
listed above and those identified for other KIs 5, Section 6.3.6.4
(e.g., old forest) are applicable.
Taseko will restrict project-related activities,
which would be related to water management
New Prosperity EIS,
Bald eagle C&C, O, D and monitoring, near the inlet to Fish Lake
Section 2.7.2.8
during the spring in order to minimize
disturbance to any eagles using this area.
Great blue C&C, O, D, PC No specific heron mitigation measures are Prosperity EIS Volume


heron proposed; however, the general wildlife 5, Section 6.3.9.4
mitigation measures listed above, and those
identified for other KIs (e.g., wetlands,
grasslands) are applicable.
No mallard-specific mitigation measures are
C&C, O, D, PC proposed; however, the general wildlife
Mallard mitigation measures listed above, and those
5, Section 6.3.10.4
identified for other KIs (e.g., wetlands) are
applicable.
General wildlife mitigation measures listed
C&C, O, D, PC above, and those identified for other KIs (e.g.,
5, Section 6.4.1
Barrow’s old forest, wetlands) are applicable.
goldeneye Minimize loss or alteration of Barrow’s New Prosperity Project
C&C goldeneye nesting habitat by retaining wildlife Description
trees where possible. Appendix B
proposed for prairie falcon habitat. This is based
on the current understanding of the Project
which requires no use of aircraft during any
Prairie falcon C&C, O, D, PC phase of mine development. However, if it
5, Section 6.3.18.4
became necessary to use aircraft, a no-fly zone
around the “nesting cliff” and a 500 m minimum
altitude over any other cliffs would be
implemented.
proposed; however, the general wildlife
Short-eared Prosperity EIS Volume
C&C, O, D, PC mitigation measures listed above, and those
owl 5, Section 6.3.19.4
identified for other KIs (e.g., grasslands) are
applicable.
proposed for amphibian habitat; however, the
Amphibians C&C, O, D, PC general wildlife mitigation measures listed
5, Section 6.3.21.4
above, and those identified for other KIs (e.g.,
wetlands) are applicable.
NOTE:
*
C&C: Construction and Commissioning, O: Operations, C: Closure, D: Decommissioning, PC: Post-
closure;
A draft Habitat Compensation Reference Document was developed in 2010 in response to concerns
raised by provincial and federal regulators, particularly regarding wetland loss. This document will be
revisited in 2012 in light of advances in provincial and federal direction on habitat compensation and the
differences between New Prosperity and Prosperity, particularly with respect to the magnitude of habitat
loss and alteration. Taseko will consult with the provincial and federal regulators and other interested
parties on the further development of this document.

the Project’s residual effects on wildlife if it should reach a production decision. None of these projects
occur within the mine site RSA. In addition, there is more forest loss at baseline as the result of logging
and mountain pine beetle kill (refer to the Vegetation Cumulative Effects Assessment in Section 2.7.2.7)
and these effects, particularly logging, are likely to continue in the future.
As described in Section 2.7.1, cumulative effects were only assessed if all three of the following
conditions were met:
x Project results in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual environmental effect

on a component of the biophysical or human environment
x Project-specific residual environmental effect does, or is likely to, act in a cumulative fashion with the
environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that are likely to occur, and
The cumulative effects assessment is presented in two parts: wildlife in general and grizzly bear
specifically.
Wildlife in General
For wildlife in general, the first two conditions listed above are met; that is, there are Project-related
residual effects on wildlife and these effects do, or are likely to, interact cumulatively with past, present
and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities, particularly logging. In addition, natural disturbances
such as mountain pine beetle and forest fires could contribute to cumulative effects on wildlife.
With respect to the third condition, the March 2009 EIS/Application concluded the Project’s contribution to
cumulative effects would not affect the viability or sustainability of the wildlife KIs. The predicted residual
effects on wildlife KIs for New Prosperity have decreased for habitat loss and alteration and disruption of
movement patterns; remained the same for mortality risk; and moderately increased for reduction in
wildlife health, relative to 2009 predictions. The increased residual effect on wildlife health is unlikely,
however, to act in a cumulative fashion with any known future projects. This statement is supported by
the ERA (Section 2.7.3.3). In conclusion, the Project’s contributions to cumulative effects are similar to
those presented in the March 2009 EIS/Application and are not anticipated to affect the viability or
sustainability of the wildlife resources. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of potential cumulative
effects to wildlife resources, other than grizzly bear, is not required.
Grizzly Bear
Introduction

For grizzly bear, the first two conditions listed above are met; that is, there are Project-related residual
effects on grizzly bear and these effects do, or are likely to, interact cumulatively with past, present and
reasonably foreseeable projects and activities, particularly the creation of new linear features. With
respect to the third condition, the March 2009 EIS/Application concluded that the Prosperity Project’s
contribution to cumulative effects would not affect the viability or sustainability of the South Chilcotin
Ranges GBPU. However, the Panel concluded that the Prosperity Project, in combination with past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future projects (particularly logging) would result in a significant
adverse cumulative effect on grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin region. In recognition of this concern, the
cumulative effects assessment for New Prosperity begins with the assumption that the third condition
applies, that is, there is a reasonable expectation that the Project’s contribution to cumulative
environmental effects will affect the viability or sustainability of grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin Ranges
GBPU, and, as such, a comprehensive assessment of potential cumulative effects is required. This
comprehensive assessment is presented below.
Assessment
Within the grizzly bear RSA (Figure 2.7.2.8-2) there has been extensive logging and road development,
primarily in the northeastern section. Other past or ongoing activities in the RSA include ranching in the
northeastern section, underground mining in the southern portion, mine exploration, community
development, and hunting, fishing and recreation.
There are two potential future activities identified on the project inclusion list (Table 2.7.1.4-1) that are
within the grizzly bear RSA: the Taseko Project exploration program (which includes the Taylor Windfall
mine property) and the Pellaire Mine exploration program. Both of these projects are located in the
southern portion of the RSA. There will also be more logging and associated road development, located
entirely in the northeastern portion of the RSA.
The BC Ministry of Environment has identified multiple threats to achieving recovery in the South
Chilcotin Ranges GBPU including motorized access, livestock conflict, human-bear conflict and habitat
loss, alteration, fragmentation and alienation. Based on a follow-up discussion with the Province, two key
issues (mortality risk and habitat loss, alteration, fragmentation and alienation) and eight key issue
parameters (habitat availability, core secure habitat, linear feature density, hunter access, traffic volume,
road-killed ungulates, hunter kill, livestock conflict, and human-bear conflict) were identified for use in the
assessment of the New Prosperity Project’s incremental contribution to direct, indirect and cumulative
effects on grizzly bears. Each key issue parameter is each characterized with respect to their current
extent (baseline) and predicted magnitude at maximum disturbance and future case using the best
available information. In some cases, these characterizations are qualitative rather than quantitative. The
following sections provide the characterizations for each of the parameters.

Habitat Availability
At baseline there are 118,898 ha of effective (i.e., moderate and higher suitability) grizzly bear habitat in
the RSA33 (Table 2.7.2.8-13, Figure 2.7.2.8-18). This is 17.1 percent of the RSA. At maximum
disturbance, the direct effect of the proposed project decreases the area of effective habitat in the RSA by
less than 0.5 percent (Table 2.7.2.8-13). Only moderate to very low suitability habitat is affected by the
New Prosperity Project (Figure 2.7.2.8-18).
As described earlier, the New Prosperity Project appears to at the edge of the higher value/less
developed habitat in the northwestern quadrant of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU (see Figures
2.7.2.8-16 to 2.7.2.8-18). A considerable portion of the RSA is within protected areas and these areas are
less developed than other portions of the RSA (e.g., see Figure 2.7.2.8-17). There are three provincial
parks that overlap the RSA: Big Creek Provincial Park, Ts’yl-os Provincial Park and Nuntsi Provincial
Park. In addition, the ‘Brittany Triangle’, an area of conservation interest (Craighead and McCrory, 2011)
is located in the north end of the RSA between the Chilko and Taseko Rivers. The New Prosperity Project
does not overlap with any of these areas.
No spatial (footprint) data is available for the two exploration programs although the actual footprints of
these activities are predicted to be relatively small (e.g., access trails and drill pads. Some of which
coincides with past underground mining operations. One project is located in the north end of the Lord
River Landscape Unit and the other project is located at the north end of the Taseko Landscape Unit (see
Figure 2.7.2.8-2 for landscape unit locations within the RSA). Pending, proposed and planned cutblocks
(as identified in the IMAP forest tenure data, see Appendix 2.7.2.8-C) were included in the future case
scenario for habitat availability. The total area of these cutblocks is 9,522 ha (1.5 percent of the grizzly
bear RSA) and they are located in the northeastern section of the RSA (Haines, Tete Angela, Bambrick,
Big Creek, and Upper Big Creek landscape units, see Figure 2.7.2.8-18).
At future case the decrease in the area of effective habitat in the RSA is the same as that predicted for
maximum disturbance due to New Prosperity(Table 2.7.2.8-13). Most of the future logging occurs in areas
of low to very low suitability for grizzly bears in the northeastern portion of the RSA (Figure 2.7.2.8-18).
There are only 430 ha of future logging that affects habitat rated moderate or moderately high for grizzly
bear suitability. For this assessment, within these future cutblocks moderately high areas were
downgraded to moderate and the moderate areas retained their value. This was based on the assumption
that logged areas would still have some value as grizzly bear foraging habitat. In the RSA, the direct
effect of future development decreases the area of moderately high suitability habitat in the RSA by 1.1
percent, and the area of moderate suitability habitat by less than 0.5 percent (Table 2.7.2.8-13).
Additional loss will occur in association with the proposed mining exploration programs. The actual
footprints of these activities are predicted to be relatively small (e.g., access trails and drill pads) but they
may occur over a wide area and the programs are located in a less developed portion of the RSA that has
higher grizzly bear capability than the northeastern portion (Hamilton, 2007).
33
The base map is the BEI-based grizzly bear habitat suitability mapping developed for the Central Interior Ecoregion. Date sources
for the baseline disturbance spatial layer are described in Appendix 2.7.2.8-C. Existing cutblocks, roads and post-2006 forest fire
polygons were included in this habitat availability analysis. Habitats rated as high and moderately high suitability that fell within
existing cutblocks and post-2006 burned areas were downgraded to moderate (assumption being that some grizzly bear forage
would still be available and that older burns had already been incorporated into the Provincial map product).

Table 2.7.2.8-13 Cumulative Effects on Grizzly Bear Habitat Availability in the Regional Study
Area
Area (ha) Change from Change from

Habitat Area (ha) Baseline to Maximum Area (ha) Baseline to
Available at
Suitability Available at Disturbance Available at Future Case
Maximum
Class Baseline Future Case*
Disturbance ha % ha %
High 8,638 8,638 0 0.0 8,638 0 0.0

Moderately
30,430 30,430 0 0.0 30.093 -337 -1.1
high
Moderate 79,830 79,400 -430 -0.5 79,737 -93 -0.1
Total 118,898 118,468 -430 -0.4 118,468 -430 -0.4

NOTE:
*Future case includes the New Prosperity Project plus 9,522 ha of future logging

425000 450000 475000 500000
±
425000 450000 475000 500000
±
£
¤ 20 £
¤ 20
C hi l c ot in - C h i lc o t in -
B e l l a C o o la Hw y B e l l a Co o l a Hw y
5750000
5750000
5750000
5750000
O C O C
IL K IL K
R iv e r
R i v er
CH To w yd k i n H CH To w yd k i n H
L a ke IL L a ke IL
C OT C OT
IN I N
ad Bi g C re e k oa
d Bi g C re e k
Ro Eco l og i ca l R e se rv e R Eco l og i ca l R e se rv e
ke ke
La k La k
ee ee
Cr Cr
o o
se k sek
Ta i Ta ig
Nun sti Fl e tc h e r Bg Nun sti Fl e tc h e r B
Brittany ek L a ke
Brittany ee
k
L a ke
o
C re Cr
ek
ek
N u ns ti N u n sti s
T as Ta
Provincial Park Provincial Park
Haines Haines
5725000
5725000
5725000
5725000
Te
Te
te
te
Nuntzi Elkin Nuntzi Elkin
A n ge A ng e
la la
re e k
ee k
K lo a ku t K lo a ku t
Cr
C
Cre
C re
El ki n L a ke El ki n
L a ke
ek
ek
L a ke L a ke
B ig
B ig
4500 R
4500 R
Ve d a n Tete Angela Bambrick Ve d a n Tete Angela Bambrick
Lak e Lak e
oad
oad
Ve da n Ve da n
Mtn . Mtn .
ek ek
re C
re
C
Cardif f Mt n. Cardif f Mt n.
Ecological Ecological
L a
k e
Reserve
Big Creek G a sp a r d
L ak
e
Res erv e
Big Creek G a sp a r d
5700000
5700000
K o nni K o nn i
5700000
5700000
L a ke L a ke
o u n dh o g ou nd h o g
r
r
Pl itz Pl itz
G
G
Pe a k Pe a k
Nemiah Nemiah
Big Cre ek Big Cre ek
CH
CH
Wa s p Wa s p
Lak e Lak e
IL
IL
Provincial Provincial
Ts'yl- os Ts'yl- os
KO
KO

Low er Low er
Ta s e ko L a ke Ta s e ko L a ke
Gunn Valley Beece Creek Gunn Valley Beece Creek

LA
LA
5675000
5675000
5675000
5675000
KE
KE
Rainbow Rainbow
Upper Big Creek Upper Big Creek
Tchaikazan Taseko Tchaikazan Taseko
Spruce Lake Spruce Lake
Protected Area Protected Area

5650000
5650000
5650000
5650000
Edmond Lord River Edmond Lord River
BASELINE FUTURE
425000 450000 475000 500000 425000 450000 475000 500000
LEGEND:
Highway Future Cutblock Habitat Suitability
Road Wildlife Maximum Disturbance Area High NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
0 5 10 20 30
River Study Area Moderately High Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability
Lake Moderate in the Regional Study Area
Kilometers
Landscape Unit Low at Baseline and Future Case
Protected Area Very Low
20th August 2012
Nil
Water Datum: NAD 83 Zone 10 Drawn By: R Stohmann Verified By: Colleen Bryden. Data Sources: Taseko Mines Limited, Stantec, Province of British Columbia
Path: U:\123210163\gis\figures\Wildlife\MXD\123210163-103_Grizzly_Suitability.mxd
FIGURE 2.7.2.8-18 REV
0
Linear Feature Density

The methods and the predicted project effect on linear feature density at maximum disturbance are
presented earlier under the ‘Project Impact Assessment for Wildlife’ (see Table 2.7.2.8-8). To be
consistent, this analysis used the same transmission line route as was presented in the March 2009
EIS/Application for the Prosperity. Since 2009, Taseko has conducted analyses related to the detailed
routing of the transmission line within the 500m corridor; 2010 field observations and analyses included
vegetation, wildlife and archaeology)34, forest cover spatial data, and the location of buffered features
(e.g., raptor nests, bear dens), but also reflect constraints due to engineering, access, viewscapes, and
the location of private property. Proposed routes will also attempt to coincide with existing disturbance
(roads and cutblocks) as much as possible and existing roads were ground-truthed in 2010 to confirm
accessibility. Further refinement of this routing will include avoiding the creation of linkages between
logging road networks. Taseko has further committed to access management planning with regulatory
agencies, First Nations, private land owners and other industry to take advantage of equipment on site
during transmission line construction to decommission access where possible. These approaches are
intended to reduce grizzly bear mortality risk by reducing the amount of new access and avoiding the
expansion of the existing access networks (see ‘Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Effects on Grizzly
Bear’ [below]).
None of the other future projects known for the grizzly bear RSA (logging and mining exploration) are
linear developments but they will require creation of roads and trails. Spatial data for linear features is
incomplete for the future case; however, an increase in linear feature density is anticipated. The logging
roads will be created in a portion of the RSA that is already over the 0.6 km/km2 threshold for linear
feature density (i.e., the northeastern portion, see Figure 2.7.2.8-17). The exploration trails will be created
in parts of the RSA that have low existing linear feature density (Lord River and Taseko landscape units,
less than 0.01 and 0.33 km/km2 respectively, see Table 2.7.2.8-8). The majority of these exploration-
related access features will likely be temporary but reclamation and decommissioning will take some time
before they are no longer useable by motorized vehicles.
The summary of the cumulative effects assessment for linear feature density is presented in Table
2.7.2.8-14.
Core Secure Habitat

The methods and the predicted project effect on core secure habitat at maximum disturbance are
presented earlier under the ‘Project Impact Assessment for Wildlife’ (see Table 2.7.2.8-7). The analysis
for this parameter is closely linked to the linear feature density analysis (see above). Minimizing the
creation of new access will help maintain core secure habitat integrity.
At future case an increase in linear feature density is anticipated (see above). There will be indirect
effects associated with these new linear features that could reduce the availability of core secure habitat;
however, the majority of the logging road development is in the northeastern portion of the RSA where
34
In 2010 Taseko Mines Limited engaged consultants to conduct a survey of the 500-m transmission line corridor. The goal of this
work was to identify a transmission line alignment that minimizes adverse effects on sensitive resources and the creation of new
access. This work was conducted from April to July. With respect to wildlife, the assessment included: overflights to of the entire
corridor to identify features such as stick nest; intensive foot surveys along the entire length of the transmission line corridor
focused on identification of rare or key indicator species, and important wildlife features (e.g., wildlife trees); and targeted surveys
(call/playback surveys for northern goshawk and red-tailed hawk along the entire route; badger burrow searches and in the
grasslands near the Fraser River; and call surveys for amphibians).

core secure habitat is already greatly reduced (see Figure 2.7.2.8-16). Indirect effects will be the main
mechanism for loss of core secure habitat in the future case. The only future project likely to result in a
long-term increase in non-habitat area is the New Prosperity Project. The other activities (logging and
mining exploration) will have direct effects on grizzly bear habitat but cutblocks are still considered habitat
in the definition applied to the core secure habitat analysis and the footprints of the exploration programs
are predicted to be small and revegetated within a relatively short time frame (e.g., grass-seeded at
minimum).
The summary of the cumulative effects assessment for core secure habitat is presented in Table 2.7.2.8-
14. Core secure habitat is presented as both a parameter related to habitat loss and fragmentation and as
a parameter related to mortality risk.
Hunter Access
This parameter is directly related to linear feature density and hunting regulations. The annual unreported
mortality rate for the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU as a whole is 0.8% (Austin et al., 2004). The rate of
unreported human-caused grizzly bear mortalities is believed to be positively correlated with hunter
density (Austin et al. 2004). The grizzly bear RSA is primarily within Management Unit 5-4 with small area
in Management Unit 5-3 as well. There is hunting season for a variety of species in these management
units including mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, black bear, wolf, grouse and waterfowl. No changes
to these conditions in the RSA are anticipated in the future.
The summary of the cumulative effects assessment for human access is presented in Table 2.7.2.8-14.
Traffic Volume
Provincially, the reported grizzly bear mortality rate due to vehicle and train collisions was 0.9% for the
period from 1978 to 200335 (Austin and Wrenshall, 2004).
The only sections of the New Prosperity access route that grizzly bears might encounter are the 4500
Road and a portion of the Taseko Lake/Whitewater Road. There is no quantitative baseline data for these
road sections or for any other roads in the RSA. Excluding project-related traffic, the primary users of the
Taseko/Whitewater Road are residents, the logging industry, hunters, and anglers (March 2009
EIS/Application, Volume 6, Section 3). Daily traffic volume is likely highly variable, perhaps in the order of
50 vehicles per day under typical conditions (March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 6, Section 3). The
4500 Road has a much lower traffic volume
At maximum disturbance and future case an increase in traffic volume is anticipated. The New Prosperity
Project will likely result in a 3-fold increase in traffic volume along the 4500 Road and Taseko
Lake/Whitewater Road36. Although the bear habitat value is generally low in this area there is evidence of
grizzly bear activity along the 4500 Road (T. Hamilton, pers. comm., July 2012) and road mortality along
the access route was identified as a concern in the Report of the Federal Review Panel (see Panel
Review, Section 6.7.1). Future logging and mining exploration will also increase traffic volume in the
35
This rate calculation also included reported grizzly bear mortalities of unknown origin, of which some may be natural deaths
(Austin and Wrenshall, 2004)
36
The only changes in traffic volumes from the Prosperity Project are within the mine site, as there will now be vehicle movements
between the pit and TSF day and night. The mortality risk potential along this access road was discussed under ‘Disruption of
Movement Patterns’.

grizzly bear RSA both through creation of new roads and trails and increased volume on existing roads
(e.g., it is likely that some of the traffic associated with these projects will use the Taseko
Lake/Whitewater Road).
The summary of the cumulative effects assessment for traffic volume is presented in Table 2.7.2.8-14.
Vehicle-killed Ungulates
This parameter is related to traffic volume. The Province does not collect data on wildlife road mortalities
along the Taseko Lake/Whitewater Road (P. Dielman, pers. comm., August 2012). The BC Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure’s Wildlife Accidents Reporting System database does not include site-
specific information that would allow any information for the access route to be extracted. It is assumed,
however, that there are ungulates killed along the road at baseline and that this will continue to occur
through all assessment phases, including future case, and will fluctuate according to seasonal and annual
variations in wildlife movements and traffic volumes.
The summary of the cumulative effects assessment for road-killed ungulates is presented in Table
2.7.2.8-14.
Hunter Kills, Livestock Conflict, and Human-bear Conflict

As noted for hunter access, the annual unreported mortality rate for the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU as
a whole is 0.8% (Austin et al. 2004). From 1980 to present there have been 24 reported grizzly bear kills
in the RSA. Sixteen were hunter kills (from 1980 to 1998). Since the hunt was closed in 1999 there have
been seven kills—four illegal and three animal control. The last recorded grizzly bear kill in the RSA was
in 2007. The Province is actively managing the mortality risks to individual bears in the southern Coast
Ranges grizzly bear range, focused on areas south of the RSA.
In the future case, logging and the New Prosperity Project are most likely to contribute to human-bear
conflict rather than livestock conflict. Hunter kills is not considered to be a factor in the future case.
The summary of the cumulative effects assessments for these three parameters (hunter kills, livestock
conflict and human-bear conflict) is presented in Table 2.7.2.8-14.

Table 2.7.2.8-14 Cumulative Effects Assessment Summary for Grizzly Bear in the Regional Study Area
Key Issue Maximum

Key Issue Baseline Future Case Mitigation Measures
Parameter Disturbance
Available effective habitat reduced
by < 0.5 percent as a result of the
direct effects of logging and the
New Prosperity Project; New Proponent: Conceptual
Available effective Prosperity Project directly affects Reclamation and
habitat reduced by 430 ha of moderate suitability Decommissioning Plan (Section
118,898 ha of 2.8.2)
Habitat < 0.5 percent as a habitat, future logging reduces 337
effective habitat
availability result of the direct ha of moderately high suitability to Other: Provincial management
available
effects of the New moderate suitability; additional loss strategy for South Chilcotin
Prosperity Project will occur in association with mining Ranges GBPU; regional land use
exploration, these disturbances are planning
Habitat loss, predicted to have small footprints
alteration, spread over a wide area in a less
fragmentation, developed portion of the RSA
and alienation Quantitative assessment not
possible; predicted to be an Proponent: Mitigation measures
1.6 percent increase in linear feature density under the Grizzly Bear Mortality
decreased in core (see below) which could reduce Risk Reduction Plan; Conceptual
305,778 ha of core habitat in largest availability of core secure habitat Reclamation and
Core secure secure habitat in patch size category but most logging roads will be Decommissioning Plan (Section
habitat largest patch size due to the direct created in an area where core 2.8.2)
category (> 10 km2) and indirect effects secure habitat availability is already Other: Provincial management
of the New greatly reduced; only future project strategy for South Chilcotin
Prosperity Project likely to result in a long-term Ranges GBPU; regional land use
increase in non-habitat area is the planning

Key Issue Maximum

2
0.50 km/km ; 1.3%
increase over
baseline (Table Proponent: Access management
2.7.2.8-8) due to Linear feature density predicted to planning with other parties, and
transmission line increase in association with logging mitigation measures under the
right-of-way; this and proposed mining exploration
Linear feature 0.50 km/km2 (Table Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk
projection does not (see text); this projection does not Reduction Plan
density 2.7.2.8-8)
factor in any road factor in any road closure,
closure, regeneration and decommissioning Other: Provincial management
regeneration or that might occur in the RSA strategy for South Chilcotin
decommissioning Ranges GBPU
occurring in the
RSA
Core secure
As above As above As above As above
habitat
Hunting assumed to
continue as per
baseline conditions,
Hunting for a variety Hunting assumed to continue as Proponent: Access planning with
likely to be an
Mortality Risk of species occurs in per baseline conditions, likely to be other parties, and mitigation
increase in hunter
the RSA; annual an increase in hunter access in measures under the Grizzly Bear
access in some
unreported mortality some portion of the RSA due to Mortality Risk Reduction Plan;
portion of the RSA
rate for South transmission line right-of-way and Vegetation and Wildlife
Hunter access due to transmission
Chilcotin Ranges logging road and exploration trail Management Plan (general
line right-of-way
GBPU is 0.8%, this development which may increase restrictions for the mine site on
which may increase
rate positively the potential for unreported bear public access and use of firearms,
the potential for
correlated with mortalities; the mine site area will see March 2009 EIS/Application,
unreported bear
hunter density be a no hunting zone Volume 5, Section 6.4.1)
mortalities; the mine
site area will be a
no hunting zone
No quantitative data;
likely highly variable,
Traffic volume perhaps 50 vehicles Proponent: Mitigation measures
(Taseko per day under typical Increased Increased both through creation of under the Grizzly Bear Mortality
Lake/Whitewater conditions on Taseko especially along the new roads and trails and increased Risk Reduction Plan; Access
Road and 4500 Lake/Whitewater 4500 Road volume on existing roads Management Plan
Road) Road; volume on Other: unknown
4500 Road is much
lower

Key Issue Maximum

Road-killed Likely to be an Proponent: Mitigation measures
ungulates increase due to under the Grizzly Bear Mortality
No data available for Increased both through creation of
(Taseko additional traffic Risk Reduction Plan; Access
these roads but new roads and trails and increased
Lake/Whitewater volume associated Management Plan
assumed to occur volume on existing roads
Road and 4500 with New Prosperity
Road) Project Other: unknown
Proponent: None, although the

Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk
Closed to grizzly Reduction Plan would be
bear hunting Assumed to remain applicable if hunting season was
Unknown but assumed to remain
Hunter kills since1999, 16 hunter closed to grizzly opened again during the life of the
closed to grizzly bear hunting
kills from 1980 to bear hunting mine
1998
Other: Provincial grizzly bear
harvest management planning
Known to occur; 5
illegal kills and 3 Proponent: Mitigation measures
Potential to occur, no known under the Grizzly Bear Mortality
animal control kills Potential to occur,
reasonably foreseeable activities Risk Reduction Plan
Livestock conflict since 1980 project unlikely to
that would contribute incrementally
(circumstances contribute Other: ongoing actions by the
to this potential
unknown); none Province
since 2007
Known to occur; 5 Proponent: Mitigation measures
illegal kills and 3 under the Grizzly Bear Mortality
Potential to occur, new access and Risk Reduction Plan; Vegetation
animal control kills Potential to occur,
Human-bear other future human activities (e.g., and Wildlife Management Plan
since 1980 project may
conflict mining exploration) may increase (e.g., garbage management)
(circumstances contribute
this potential
unknown); none Other: ongoing actions by the
since 2007 Province

Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Effects on Grizzly Bears

Proponent
Taseko’s key mitigation measures for minimizing cumulative effects on grizzly bears fall under an
overarching Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Plan. This plan combines elements from the existing
New Prosperity EMPs with new elements intended to be applied in a regional context in cooperation with
regulatory agencies, other industrial operators, First Nations, land owners and local stakeholders. The
plan has three main components: linear feature density, road mortality and education and awareness:
x Access Planning:
o No net increase in linear feature density in the grizzly bear RSA by refining transmission line
routes to avoiding undisturbed land as well as avoiding connectivity between roads.
o Identifying possibilities of restoring, reclaiming and de activating features intersecting the
transmission line right of way through access management planning in partnership with
regulatory agencies, First Nations, landowners and other stakeholders.
o Work with other parties to explore ways to minimize the impacts of roads (for example seasonal
road closures) as well as modify priority areas for example reducing line of sight,
decommissioning of roads, roll-back to impede ATV access.
o Taseko will be supporting the Province’s grizzly bear monitoring program for the GBPU to include
the project area and obtain better population data from which the province can base
management decisions and the company can assess effectiveness of policies and procedures.
The access plan and other mitigation measures will be open to revision when new information
becomes available through research on grizzly bear use of right-of-ways in the South Chilcotin
Ranges GBPU as well as grizzly bear sightings in the area and observations of potential
concerns.
x Education and Awareness:
o Working with others to develop an education and awareness program geared towards the general
public, ranchers and land owners in the region that the tourism, forest and mining industries can
participate in and support.
o Educating the public and increasing bear awareness and safety preventing negative bear
encounters, promoting BC’s observe and report program, and offering conference presentations
on the topic.
x Road Mortality:
o Zero tolerance for grizzly bears road mortalities through road restrictions such as speeds and
communication, and working with other parties to improve wildlife awareness and safe road
use in the area.
Each component will include a suite of mitigation measures, an implementation plan and a monitoring
plan. Taseko has developed a draft framework for the plan (Table 2.7.2.8-15). This framework is intended
as the foundation for engaging in discussion with regulatory agencies, other industrial operators, First
Nations and local stakeholders. Taseko is cognizant of the Province’s intention to develop a recovery plan
for the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU, and is committed to supporting that process and suggests this
plan could be the basis for some elements of that strategy, particularly for areas with multiple land users.
Taseko’s target is to develop a detailed Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Plan within 6 months of
approval and a decision to proceed with project development.

Table 2.7.2.8-15 Draft Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Plan Framework
Sub-
Component component Guiding Principles Example Elements
s
No net increase in linear feature density Taseko will continue to refine the transmission line route in order to
in the grizzly bear RSA minimize the creation of new disturbance by paralleling or overlapping
existing disturbance (e.g., cutblocks). Where the transmission line right-of-
way crosses cutblocks the routing will avoid intersecting spur roads and
trails in order to not connect adjacent road networks.
Taseko will work with regulators, First Nations, landowners and other
stakeholders to develop an access management strategy for the
transmission line corridor area within the grizzly bear RSA , including
Mitigation possible road closures and decommissioning of access, making use of
Measures equipment on site during transmission line construction.
Taseko will identify opportunities to restore, reclaim or decommission
existing linear features that intersect the proposed transmission line right-
of-way.
Taseko will work with other industrial operators and regulatory agencies to
identify priority areas within the grizzly bear RSA for linear feature
management and removal activities (e.g., measures to reduce line of sight,
Linear feature decommissioning of roads, roll-back to impede ATV access).
density For mitigation measures applicable to
property and infrastructure under the
control of Taseko implementation
monitoring will be conducted as part of
Implementati To be developed based on above working efforts with other parties
the overall EMP.
on Plan
For mitigation measure and initiatives
that are regional in scope Taseko. will
work with regulatory agencies to identify
implementation mechanisms.
Assess the effectiveness of mitigation Evaluate the effectiveness of access controls through site inspections in
Monitoring measures and incorporate an adaptive combination with other monitoring programs on the transmission line (such
Plan management approach as invasive weed monitoring programs)
The plan will be a living document Contribute to the MoE’s research on the grizzly bear population through
Other subject to revision and refinement and radio-colloring and/or DNA testing to determine use of the landscape,
new information becomes available including the right-of-way, in the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU

Sub-
s
No increase in wildlife road mortalities New Prosperity Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan (e.g., minimizing
in the grizzly bear RSA attractants allow roadsides, carcass removal, signage at wildlife-road
Zero tolerance for grizzly bear road interaction hot spots)
mortalities New Prosperity Traffic Management Plan (speed restrictions, radio
communication)
Mitigation
measures Taseko will work with other industrial operators and regulatory agencies to
develop a coordinated approach to removal of road-killed wildlife from the
road corridor.
Taseko will work with other industrial operators and regulatory agencies to
develop a coordinated approach to fostering wildlife awareness and safe
road use on the Taseko Lake/Whitewater Road.
For mitigation measures applicable to
property and infrastructure under the
control of Taseko, implementation
the overall EMP.
Road Mortality on plan
that are regional in scope Taseko will
Maintain records of all wildlife mortalities (and causes) on property and
infrastructure under the control of Taseko.
Maintain records of all grizzly bear sightings on property and infrastructure
Assess the effectiveness of mitigation under the control of Taseko. Evaluate observations for potential concerns
Monitoring
measures and incorporate an adaptive related to road mortality risk.
plan
management approach
Initiate development of a wildlife mortalities database for the Taseko
Lake/Whitewater Road
Annual reporting
The plan will be a living document Contribute to the MoE’s Grizzly bear population monitoring in the
subject to revision and refinement and northeastern portion of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU by radio
Other
new information becomes available collaring/DNA testing to enhance knowledge of grizzly bear population
trends and movements

Sub-
s
Public understanding and awareness of New Prosperity Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan (e.g., Bear
conservation issues related to the South Aware and bear safety, problem bear prevention and non-lethal
Chilcotin Ranges GBPU intervention)
Zero tolerance for human-caused Work with regulators and First Nations to develop a public education and
grizzly bear mortalities awareness initiative that supports ongoing dialogue and information
Mitigation
sharing regarding the South Chilcotin GBPU more broadly. Reducing and
measures
eliminating avoidable mortalities of grizzly bears will be a key message and
will address livestock conflicts, human-bear conflicts, and hunter access
issues.
Taseko will support and promote the Province’s observe and report
program.
Education and For mitigation measures applicable to
Awareness property and infrastructure under the
control of Taseko, implementation
the overall EMP.
on plan
that are regional in scope Taseko will
Maintain records of all grizzly bear sightings on property and infrastructure
Assess the effectiveness of mitigation under the control of Taseko Evaluate observations for potential concerns
Monitoring
measures and incorporate an adaptive related to livestock or human conflicts.
plan
management approach
Annual Reporting
The plan will be a living document
Other subject to revision and refinement and Local and regional outreach
new information becomes available

In addition to the Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Plan, the following plans are applicable to
minimizing cumulative effects to grizzly bears:
x Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan (Section 2.8.1)
x Conceptual Reclamation and Decommissioning Plan (Section 2.8.2), and
x Access Management Plan (Section 2.8.1).
Other
The southern portion of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU is part of an ongoing research on grizzly bear
population abundance, distribution, and connectivity in the southern Coast Ranges (Apps, 2010). The
Province is actively managing the mortality risks to individual bears in the southern Coast Ranges grizzly
bear range, focused primarily on areas well south of the RSA. Future actions include the development of
a recovery plan for the GBPU. In addition, regional land use planning processes (e.g., Cariboo-Chilcotin
Land Use Plan) include considerations for grizzly bear in the region. There are also programs applied
more broadly across the Province (e.g., Bear Aware).
Summary
The March 2009 EIS/Application concluded that the Prosperity Project’s contribution to cumulative effects
would not affect the viability or sustainability of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU; however, the previous
Federal Panel concluded that the Prosperity Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future projects (particularly logging) would result in a significant adverse cumulative effect on
grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin region. In recognition of this concern, a comprehensive assessment of
potential cumulative effects, that considers the multiple threats to recovery of this GBPU, has been
completed for the New Prosperity Project. Two key issues (mortality risk and habitat loss, alteration,
fragmentation and alienation) and eight key issue parameters (habitat availability, core secure habitat,
linear feature density, hunter access, traffic volume, road-killed ungulates, hunter kill, livestock conflict,
and human-bear conflict) were identified for use in the assessment of the New Prosperity Project’s
incremental contribution to direct, indirect and cumulative effects on grizzly bears. This assessment finds
the following:
x There are presumed to be existing significant cumulative effects on grizzly bear mortality risk and
habitat availability in the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU. This is consistent with its status as a
threatened GBPU.
x The grizzly bear RSA is located in the northwestern quadrant of the GBPU. This portion of the GBPU
appears to be doing better than the rest of the GBPU and has been identified as a source for
dispersal of individuals.
x New Prosperity Project is in the lower capability portion of the RSA.
x New Prosperity Project is in the more developed northeastern portion of the RSA.
x Future logging occurs only in the northeastern portion of the RSA.
x Future mining exploration occurs in the less developed, higher capability southern portion of the
RSA.

x Habitat availability at future case: Available effective habitat reduced by less than 0.5 percent as a
result of the direct effects of logging and the New Prosperity Project; New Prosperity Project directly
affects 430 ha of moderate suitability habitat, future logging reduces 337 ha of moderately high
suitability to moderate suitability; additional loss will occur in association with mining exploration,
these disturbances are predicted to have small footprints spread over a wide area in a less
developed portion of the RSA.
x Core secure habitat: Quantitative assessment not possible; predicted to be an increase in linear
feature density (see below) which could reduce availability of core secure habitat but most logging
roads will be created in an area where core secure habitat availability is already greatly reduced;
only future project likely to result in a long-term increase in non-habitat area is the New Prosperity
Project.
x Linear feature density at future case: Linear feature density predicted to increase in association with
logging and proposed mining exploration (see text); this projection does not factor in any road
closure, regeneration and decommissioning that might occur in the RSA.
x Hunter access at future case: Hunting assumed to continue as per baseline conditions, likely to be
an increase in hunter access in some portion of the RSA due to transmission line right-of-way and
logging road and exploration trail development which may increase the potential for unreported bear
mortalities; the mine site area will be a no hunting zone.
x Traffic volume at future case: Increased both through creation of new roads and trails and increased
volume on existing roads.
x Road-killed ungulates at future case: Increased both through creation of new roads and trails and
increased volume on existing roads.
x Hunter kill at future case: Unknown but assumed to remain closed to grizzly bear hunting.
x Livestock conflict at future case: Potential to occur, no known reasonably foreseeable activities that
would contribute incrementally to this potential.
x Human-bear conflict at future case: Potential to occur, new access and other future human activities
(e.g., mining exploration) may increase this potential.
x New Prosperity’s main contributions to an incremental effect on grizzly bear mortality risk are
increased traffic volume and the creation of the transmission line right-of-way.
In conclusion, given the relatively small effect of the New Prosperity Project in the context of the grizzly
bear RSA, the Project’s location in the more developed and lower capability portion of the northwestern
quadrant of the GBPU, the better state of this portion of the GBPU relative to other portions to the south
and east, and the commitments in New Prosperity under the Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Plan,
the New Prosperity Project’s incremental contribution to future cumulative effects is predicted to be not
significant with respect to the sustainability of the GBPU. Confidence in this prediction is further enhanced
with the addition of specific mitigation and compensation measures identified by Taseko in the Grizzly
Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Plan.


The general approach to residual effect characterization and determination of significance is as described
in Section 2.7.1.5. The significance determination methods for wildlife follow those used in the March
2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6) and have been referenced where applicable elsewhere in this
section (e.g., mule deer, moose and grizzly bear habitat loss; linear feature density).
The findings of the project residual effects assessment for wildlife for New Prosperity are summarized in
Table 2.7.2.8-16 for the following effects:
x Loss or alteration of habitat in the mine site and along the transmission line
x Increased direct mortality risk associated with the transmission line and along the access road, and
x Reduction in health risk associated with the mine site.
There is no quantitative means of combining these environmental effects. However, a qualitative

assessment of the combined project effect on the sustainability of wildlife in Region 5, and the province
as whole, where applicable (i.e., species with relatively limited distributions that include the project area),
is possible. The following points were considered in the assessment of the combined project effect:
x While many species in Region 5 are widespread regionally and elsewhere in the province (e.g.,
moose, mule deer), there are species that are at the limits of their range or that are part of small
populations (e.g., long-billed curlew, flammulated owl), or are part of population units that are
considered a conservation concern (e.g., grizzly bear) or are a subspecies or species of
conservation concern (e.g., prairie falcon, fisher).
x Largest loss of habitat area and the area of permanent habitat loss occurs in the mine site area.
x There is high value spring habitat in the Fish Lake area that is being used by grizzly bears and bald
eagles. There is the potential for displacement of these individuals from the Fish Lake area during
the life of the mine. Tasekohas identified mitigation measures intended to minimize this effect.
x The project effect on the grasslands, where the greatest number of species of conservation concern
occurs in Region 5, is relatively minor.
x While increased mortality risk along the access road and transmission line is relatively minor for most
species, there are uncertainties for many bird species, and the consequences of mortality risk are
high for grizzly bears.
x The project effect on mortality risk will be largely reversed at post-closure.
x Loss of habitat may increase direct mortality risk associated with the transmission line for hunted
species by decreasing the availability of security cover, although this is not predicted to measurably
increase the overall effect of the Project on the sustainability of wildlife in Region 5.
x The effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures is contingent upon successful

implementation, and varies with the KI and type of effect being mitigated. The effectiveness of some
mitigation measures (e.g., reclamation) may not be discernible until well into the future.
x No significant residual effects on any KIs were identified for any effect/phase combination.
x No significant project-related incremental contributions to residual cumulative effects on any KI were

identified for any effect/phase combination.

In conclusion, with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the combined residual effect
of the New Prosperity Project on the sustainability of wildlife in Region 5 is predicted to be not significant.
Further, the incremental contribution of the combined residual effect of the New Prosperity Project to
regional cumulative effects is also predicted to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of
wildlife in Region 5.
With respect to grizzly bears specifically, there are presumed to be existing significant cumulative effects
on mortality risk and habitat availability in the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU. This is consistent with its
status as a threatened GBPU. However, given the relatively small effect of the New Prosperity Project in
the context of the RSA, the Project’s location in the more developed and lower capability portion of the
northwestern quadrant of the GBPU, the better state of this portion of the GBPU relative to other portions
to the south and east, and the new mitigation measures and commitments by Taseko under the Grizzly
Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Framework, the Project’s incremental contribution to future cumulative
effects is predicted to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the GBPU.
Prediction confidence was moderate for the Prosperity Project (March 2009 EIS/Application, Volume 5
Section 6.1.6). Prediction confidence for the New Prosperity Project is low to moderate (Table 2.7.2.8-15).
The low confidence is for the wildlife health assessment predictions and is related to the uncertainties
associated with the water quality predictions.
Table 2.7.2.8-17 provides a concise summary of the effects assessment for wildlife.

Table 2.7.2.8-16 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Wildlife for New Prosperity
Significance
Potential
Confidence
Geographic
Proposed
Prediction
Reversibilit
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Environmental Recommended Follow-up and
Duration/
Direction
Mitigation/Compensation
Context
Effect Monitoring
Extent
Measures
y
Loss or alteration of habitat
Construction,
operations and See March 2009 EIS/Application, N M R LT R D N M
decommissioning Volume 5, Section 6.4.1 and See March 2009 EIS/Application),
Wildlife Mitigation Measures and Volume 5, Section 6.4.3 and Follow-up
Post-closure N M R LT/P R/I D N M
Cumulative Effects Assessment and Monitoring (this section)
Residual effect for (this section) N M R LT/P R/I D N M
all phases
Increased direct mortality risk
Construction,
operations and See March 2009 EIS/Application, N M R LT R D N M
decommissioning Volume 5, Section 6.4.1 and See March 2009 EIS/Application),
Wildlife Mitigation Measures and Volume 5, Section 6.4.3 and Follow-up
Post-closure N L R LT R D N M
Cumulative Effects Assessment and Monitoring (this section)
Residual effect for (this section) N M R LT R D N M
all phases
Reduction in wildlife health
Construction,
operations and See March 2009 EIS/Application, N L L ST I U N L See March 2009 EIS/Application),
decommissioning Volume 5, Section 6.4.1; Wildlife Volume 5, Section 6.4.3; Follow-up and
Post-closure Mitigation Measures (this N L L LT I U N L Monitoring (this section); and Section
Residual effect for section); and Section 2.7.2.4 2.7.2.4
N L L LT I U N L
all phases
Combined residual effect
Construction, See March 2009 EIS/Application, See March 2009 EIS/Application),
operations and Volume 5, Section 6.4.1; Wildlife N L-M R LT R/I D N L-M Volume 5, Section 6.4.3; Follow-up and
decommissioning Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (this section); and Section

Post-closure Cumulative Effects Assessment N L-M R LT/P R/I D N L-M 2.7.2.4

(this section); and Section 2.7.2.4
Residual effect for
all phases N M R LT/P R/I D N L-M
KEY Magnitude: Geographic Extent: Reversibility:
NA = not applicable Qualitative assessment: S Site-specific: effect(s) on wildlife confined to single small area R Reversible: effect(s) reversible with
within LSA reclamation and/or over time
Direction: L Low: definition varies depending on I Irreversible: effect(s) permanent and cannot
the effect, but general definition is “no L Local: effect(s) on wildlife occurs within LSA be reversed with reclamation and/or over time
P Positive: measurable
effect moves condition in a measurable effect(s) on sustainability
positive direction relative to of wildlife resource within the Ecological Context:
R Regional: effect(s) on wildlife occurs within or beyond RSA
baseline RSA” U Undisturbed—area relatively unaffected, or
M Medium: definition varies depending not adversely affected, by human activity
Duration:
N Negative: measurable on the effect, but general definition is D Developed—area substantially previously
effect moves condition in “measurable effect(s) but unlikely to disturbed by human activity, or human activity
negative direction relative pose a serious risk to sustainability of ST Short-term: effect(s) limited to no more than one annual is still present
to baseline wildlife resource within the RSA” cycle within the life history of an individual (≤ 1 year)
H High: definition varies depending on
Significance:
-- Neutral: condition has the effect, but general definition is MT Medium-term: effect(s) last for part or all of the average life
“measurable effect(s) that will likely span of an individual; actual number of years is KI-specific S Significant
returned to baseline (for N Not Significant
affect the sustainability of the wildlife
post-closure scenario only)
resource within the RSA”
LT Long-term: effect(s) last beyond individual life spans and will
Quantitative assessment: affect multiple generations; actual number of years is KI-specific Prediction Confidence:
Expressed as a quantity. Units of Based on literature review, data analysis,
expression vary depending on the professional judgment and effectiveness of
P Effect(s) permanent (i.e., irreversible)
measurable parameter, but, typically mitigation
for wildlife the unit is hectares. In L Low: not confident in prediction, could vary
addition the quantity may be considerably
expressed as a percent change
M Medium: confident in prediction, moderate
variability
H High: confident in prediction, low variability

Table 2.7.2.8-17 Summary of Effects Assessment for Wildlife

The New Prosperity Project has redesigned the mine site layout to include
the conservation of Fish Lake and associated riparian habitat. This is
Beneficial and Adverse expected to reduce the potential for adverse effects on wildlife habitat and
Effects movement but increase the potential for adverse effects on wildlife health
(from changes to water quality), relative to the Prosperity Project. The
potential for adverse effects on mortality risk remains the same.
Mitigation measures for minimizing the potential effects of the New
Prosperity Project on wildlife include: 1) all the wildlife-specific commitments
from the Prosperity Project EAO Certificate Table of Commitments; 2) all
wildlife-related mitigation measures for the Project as described in the March
2009 EIS/Application; and 3) new wildlife mitigation measures identified
specifically for New Prosperity mine site activities (Table 2.7.2.8-12). In
addition, the following plans are applicable to wildlife:
New measures and commitments under the overarching Grizzly Bear
Mitigation and Mortality Risk Reduction Plan
Compensation Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan
Measures Conceptual Reclamation and Decommissioning Plan
Access Management Plan
Air and Noise Management Plan, and
Water Management Plan.
A draft Habitat Compensation Reference Document was developed in 2010.
This document will be revisited in 2012. Taseko will consult with the
provincial and federal regulators and other interested parties on its further
development.
The predicted residual effects on wildlife KIs for New Prosperity have
Potential Residual decreased for habitat loss and alteration and disruption of movement
Effects patterns; remained the same for mortality risk; and increased for reduction in
wildlife health, relative to 2009 predictions.
Wildlife in general: No significant cumulative effects are predicted and the
New Prosperity Project’s incremental contribution to future cumulative
effects is predicted to be not significant.
Grizzly bear: There were presumed to be existing significant cumulative
effects on grizzly bear mortality risk and habitat availability in the South
Chilcotin Ranges GBPU; however, given the relatively small effect of the
Cumulative Effects New Prosperity Project in the context of the RSA, the Project’s location in
the more developed and lower capability portion of the northwestern
quadrant of the GBPU, the better state of this portion of the GBPU relative to
other portions to the south and east, and the new mitigation measures and
commitments under the Grizzly Bear Mortality Risk Reduction Plan, the
Project’s incremental contribution to future cumulative effects is predicted to
be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the GBPU.
No significant residual effects are predicted for wildlife. Confidence in this
Determination of the prediction ranges from low (wildlife health) to moderate (all other effects).
significance of residual Confidence in the prediction of no significant residual effect for grizzly bear
effects is increased with the additional mitigation measures proposed for New
Prosperity.
Likelihood of Not applicable. No significant residual effects are predicted for wildlife. But
occurrence for adverse see above for grizzly bear.


effects found to be
significant
Additional Work

Follow-up and monitoring programs for wildlife are described in the March 2009 EIS/Application in
Volume 5, Section 6.4.3. These programs remain applicable to the New Prosperity Project. Additional
follow-up and monitoring programs identified specifically for the New Prosperity Project are described
below.
Follow-up Programs
Follow-up programs are intended to evaluate whether mitigation measures are effective. The follow-up
program proposed for wildlife is:
x Taseko will contribute to the Province’s ongoing grizzly bear population research program in the
South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU with the intent to expand the program to include population
monitoring and research on grizzly bear response to disturbance and range expansion in the
northeastern portion of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU.
Monitoring Programs
As was the case for the Prosperity Project, no compliance monitoring programs specific to wildlife are
proposed. However, a number of monitoring programs identified for other VECs or a part of other
management plans have implications for wildlife. These include: ground and surface water quality
monitoring (e.g., selenium, cadmium, sulphates), metal concentrations monitoring in soils, surface water,
vegetation and fish tissue; reclamation monitoring, and invasive species monitoring.

2.7.3 Socio-Economics, Culture and Human Health
The EIS Guidelines state that this EIS shall:
x Identify how the Project as proposed has changed from the previous project proposal
x Identify whether changes will result in changes to the environmental effects previously predicted
x Demonstrate a rationale for that conclusion that environmental effects remain as identified in the
previous project proposal, and
x Clearly identify which social, economic and cultural issues relate to changes the Project is likely to
cause in the environment.
Specific consideration was to be given to the following sub-sections:
x Community services, infrastructure and population
x Effects on resource uses
x Navigable waters, and
x Human health
In reference to Community Services, Infrastructure and Population, the labour markets effects that give
rise to changes in these parameters are the same for New Prosperity as they were for the March 2009
EIS/Application. Baseline conditions today are substantively similar to the 2007-2009 period. The
previous Panel did not find any significant adverse effects on socio-economic issues. For these reasons,
and specifically in consideration of the absence of the potential for significant adverse effects associated
with the Project itself or cumulatively with other similar projects, Community Services, Infrastructure and
Population is not assessed further as a valued component.
This section will evaluate change in the three remaining sub-components noted above and will not assess
economic issues, social issues and health services wherein all of which were assessed for the Prosperity
Project and reported in the March 2009 EIS/Application.
For information related to Aboriginal rights, the reader is referred to Sections 2.5.1, 2.6.4. and 2.7.5.

2.7.3.1 Effects on Resource Uses
Scope of Assessment
Prosperity Project on resource uses. It focuses on changes relative to the Prosperity Project based on the
New Prosperity MDP.
For effects on resource uses, the EIS is to address changes to the environmental effects previously
predicted on resource uses, and more specifically how the Project as proposed addresses significant
adverse effects determined in the previous review.
The previous review found that the Project would not result in a significant adverse effect on the following
resource uses:
x Forestry
x Ranching and grazing along the transmission corridor
x Hunting in the region
x Trapping in the region
x Tourism, and
x Recreation (including fishing).
Significant adverse effects, however, were deemed to exist for individuals, including the owners of
Taseko Lake Lodge, Sonny Lulua trapline and for individuals grazing cattle at the meadows near Fish
Lake.
The EIS Guidelines direct an assessment of the following key indicators:
x Land use
x Fishing
x Outdoor recreation and tourism
x Hunting, trapping and guiding
x Forestry, and
x Specific consideration for Taseko Lake Lodge, Sonny Lulua trapline and individuals grazing cattle at
the meadows at Fish Lake.
Each of these indicators is evaluated for changes in previously predicted effects due to changes in the
environment resulting from the Project. A comparison of the spatial disturbances of the current and
previous mine footprints is made and observations offered about changes to baseline conditions and
project effects since the previous review was conducted in 2010. Mitigation is identified and conclusions
about significant residual project effects made.
Changes to major project components for New Prosperity are presented in Table 2.7.2.7-1. As resource
uses are affected primarily by the alienation of the Crown land base from multiple uses, it is the maximum

disturbance area (MDA) that is of interest to the assessment of effects on resource users. The reduction
of the MDA, the retention of Fish Lake and alteration of fisheries compensation would have implications
for the construction, operations and closure components but not post-closure. Post-closure is therefore
not carried forward in this assessment.

Table 2.7.3.1-1 Project Components Changed from Previous Project Proposal
Change from
Project Component Previous Project Comments
Proposal
Maximum disturbance area reduced in
Construction and Commissioning Y
size
Maximum disturbance area reduced in
size
Operations Y
Fish Lake retained
Fisheries compensation operations
Closure Y Fisheries compensation operations
Post closure N
Regulatory Setting
The management, use and protection of resources considered in this section are subject to numerous
legislative, statutory and policy instruments, primarily at the provincial level in relation to Crown land and
resources. Major pieces of legislation are as follows:
x General–Land Act
x Forestry, Range, Public Recreation–Forest Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, Range Act
x Mining–Mineral Tenures Act, Mines Act
x Agriculture–Agriculture Land Reserve Act
x Tourism–Tourism Act, and
x Trapping and Guide Outfitting–Wildlife Act.
The acts are the primary authority for issuing tenures to government, its agencies and private-sector
companies for the use and development of Crown land and resources. While the acts discuss how
licensees may use Crown land, most do not spell out remedies for situations where multiple users of the
same land are in conflict. Generally speaking, for new project developments that might result in effects to
one or more existing licensees, those remedies are negotiated and agreed upon by the licensees
themselves in cooperation with the appropriate government ministries, often at the regional or local level.
In the Project setting, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP) and associated Chilcotin and
Williams Lake Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs) are higher level plans that broadly
define land use zones, establish objectives that guide management of natural resources, and outline
strategies for achieving those objectives. The implications of the CCLUP and SRMPs are discussed in
greater detail in the Land Use section of this chapter.
Key Issues for Resource Uses

The Project is expected to interact with the several resource values during construction, operations and
closure. These interactions would vary among the resource uses in terms of magnitude and direction

(e.g., beneficial or adverse effect), but are generally related to changes in the value of accessible
resources. Once construction activities commence, access to the MDA would be subject to Section 1.3 of
the Mines Act.
The project components that are expected to change resource values are summarized in Table 2.7.3.1-2.
The following interaction rating criteria were used:
0. Effect on resource use is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other applicable
1. Effect on resource use is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
conclusions), but some re-evaluation of effect is required due to changes in project design, baseline
conditions or proposed mitigation measures.
Table 2.7.3.1-2 Potential Environmental Effects on Resource Use Associated with New Prosperity
Change in
General Category Project Activities/Physical Works Resource
Values
Construction All, including fisheries compensation 1
Operations All, including fisheries compensation 1
Closure All 0
Post closure All 0
Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events 0
Construction and operations are assessed further because of their association with the alienation from
the land base.
Interactions with other existing and possible future mine development in the region were considered for
cumulative effects, but were not found to be potentially significant. Similarly, accidents and malfunctions
would not create incremental effects on other resource uses.
Key Indicators
Key indicators and measurable parameters used to quantify change in land and resource use are similar
to those presented in the March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 6, Section 5.1.3, Table 5-3). These are

Table 2.7.3.1-3 Key Indicators for Resource Uses and Measurable Parameters
KI Measurable Parameters
Land Use Objectives x Land use zones in the mine site
x Tenures in the mine site
x Restrictions in land uses pursuant to a higher level land use plan
Forestry x Productive forest land base
x Site productivity
x Contribution to AAC
Agriculture/ Ranching x Tenures in the mine site
Fishing x Tenures (angling territories) in the mine site
x Use levels
x Harvest levels
x Expenditures
Hunting x Tenures (i.e., guiding territories) in the mine site
x Use levels
x Harvest levels
x Expenditures
Public Recreation x Key activities (e.g., kayaking, canoeing)
x Features
x Use levels
x Expenditures
Tourism x Tenures (i.e., commercial recreation) in the mine site
x Key activities
x Use levels
x Expenditure
Trapping x Tenures (i.e., trap lines) in the mine site
x Harvest
x Revenues
Temporal Boundaries
Project effects on resource uses would occur immediately following the commencement of Project
construction and the establishment of controls on access to the mine site. It is expected that existing,
non-compatible tenures would be modified to align with the Project boundaries, and that these changes
would persist for the life of the Project or longer. The effect on the availability and quality of a specific
resource would also commence during construction and, for some parameters, may increase during
operations. Post-closure, effects on land access and resource availability and quality are expected to
diminish.
Spatial Boundaries
The LSA is the area within which Project effects can be predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy
and confidence, and where effects are likely to be most concentrated. Since resource uses are often
closely connected to the land base, its resources or its attributes, the effects are closely associated with
the Project footprint. As potentially significant effects on the transmission right-of-way, roads and load out
are not anticipated, the Project footprint in this assessment is the mine site as measured by the MDA.

The RSA is a broader area within which, depending on conditions, Project effects may be more wide
reaching. Effects may occur because of the displacement of activities to other locals (e.g., hunters shift to
another area) or because of some interdependency to the management of the regional land base or
resource. While this assessment presents updated baseline information for the LSA and the RSA, the
assessment of potential effects is focused on the LSA, where the Federal Panel Review found significant
adverse effects.
The LSA and RSA boundaries are summarized in Table 2.7.3.1-4 and the LSA is illustrated in Figure
2.7.3.1-1.
Table 2.7.3.1-4 Summary of Spatial Boundary Definitions
Key Indicator LSA RSA

Previous Project New Previous Project New Prosperity
Assessment Prosperity Assessment
Land Use Objectives Project footprint MDA Williams Lake Williams Lake
all components Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Area
Forestry Project footprint MDA Williams Lake Williams Lake
all components Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Area
Agriculture/Ranching Project footprint MDA Cariboo Regional Cariboo Regional
all components District (areas K & E) District (areas K & E)
Fishing Project footprint MDA Cariboo Regional Cariboo Regional
all components District District
Hunting and Trapping Project footprint MDA Management Units Management Units
all components 5-2 to 5-5, 5-12 to 5- 5-2 to 5-5, 5-12 to 5-
14 14
Public Recreation Project footprint MDA Cariboo Regional Cariboo Regional
Tourism Project footprint MDA Cariboo Regional Cariboo Regional
NOTE:
MDA – Maximum Disturbance Area
Environmental Effects Rating Criteria for Assessing Effects Significance

Project effects on resource uses are characterized using seven criteria: direction, magnitude, geographic
extent, frequency, duration, reversibility and socio-economic context. Where possible, quantitative
measures are used to characterize each effect on resource use. Where quantitative measures could not
be used, the qualitative categories used are as defined in Table 2.7.3.1-12.

455000 460000 465000
5705000
5705000
5700000
5700000
5695000
5695000
5690000
5690000
455000 460000 465000
MDA's for The 2012 New Prosperity &

The 2009 Prosperity Project - Figure 2.7.3.1-1
MDA 2012
MDA 2009
Lakes
Rivers
Smaller Rivers
-
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Date: 2012-08-16
Kilometers Data Sources:
0 1 2 3 4 5 Province of British Columbia, Taseko Mines Ltd.
1:50,000 Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83
This assessment has updated the baseline and the effects assessment from the previous project
assessment with guidance from a review of the recommendations by the province (BC EAO, 2009) and
the panel (Federal Review Panel, 2010) as to key indicators and effects. The new Project Description and
designed mitigation was also reviewed.
A GIS analysis of Crown land values and interests within the proposed mine’s MDA was undertaken in
April, 2012. The other Project components, including the transmission right-of-way, roads and load out,
were not assessed. The GIS results are summarized in Table 2.7.3.1-5, with data presented in sections
that follow, where relevant.
Telephone interviews and discussions were undertaken with eight key informants to determine changes
in baseline conditions and potential effects in comparison to the previous project assessment.
Land Use
For Land Use, the guidelines direct the EIS to:
x Compare current and forecasted land tenure and land uses within the proposed MDA, and
x Determine ancillary land uses/site developments that would be placed on Crown land and that are not
covered by the permits, licenses or approvals issued by the province.
With respect to the second bullet, for all ancillary uses and site developments associated with the Project
on provincial Crown land, the appropriate approvals would be obtained before undertaking the activity.
For uses/developments that may occur in the absences of the Project, such as public recreation, the
matter is addressed in the context of the other resource valued components assessed in this section.
Indicators for land use include land ownership, land management objectives as expressed in land use
plans, and tenures issued on the Crown land base. The Project could potentially affect either the
obligations contained in tenures or the province’s ability to deliver on land use objectives.
The inventory of resource tenures in the MDA is summarized in Table 2.7.3.1-5. Compared to the
previous project assessment, the land base overlap of the New Prosperity MDA is reduced by some
1,818 ha., consequently the magnitude of the land use effect is either unaffected or reduced in
magnitude. The table summarizes tenure types that allow use or access for several KIs, such as timber
harvesting, grazing, guide outfitting and trapping. In these instances, the Project’s effect on land use is
addressed in the effects assessment of the respective value.
The MDA is within an area subject to the CCLUP. The CCLUP provides the framework for managing
Crown land and resources in a manner that:
“addresses long-term concerns around sustaining the region’s economy: access to timber
for the local forest industry, certainty for the mining, ranching and tourism industries, and
job security. It sustains the region’s environment by permanently protecting the natural
landscapes that make the Cariboo unique. Secure access to resources provides
economic and social stability and increased opportunities for growth and investment
throughout the region” (ILMB, 2007).

Table 2.7.3.1-5 MDA GIS Summary Table
Previous New
Category Resource/Interest Difference
Project Prosperity
MDA Total Area (ha) 4,419 2601 1,818

Ownership Crown 4,419 2601 1,818
Water
Licences Water licences–points of diversion 0 0 0
Agricultural Forage crops–improvement practices feasible 46 11 35
Capability Forage crops–improvement practices not
feasible 4,373 1407 2,966
No capability for arable culture or permanent
pasture 0 520 -520
Organic soils 0 664 -664
Range Number of range grazing licences (E01) 2 2 0
Trapping Area of provincially known trap lines 4,419 2601 1,818
Tourism Number of existing tourism facilities (count) 0 0 0
Recreation and tourism–features (count) 1 0 1
Recreation and tourism–travel routes (50 m
buffer) 33 0 33
Visual landscape inventory–retention 47 16 31
Visual landscape inventory–partial retention 1,333 435 898
Visual landscape inventory–modification 3 0 3
Visual landscape inventory–not visually
sensitive 111 0 111
Visual landscape inventory–N/A 2,925 2151 775
Guide
Outfitting Area of G/O Territories 4,419 2601 1,818
Land Act Number of Land Act tenure applications 0 0 0
Tenures Number of Land Act tenures 4 2 2
Forest Productive forest land base (PFLB) 3,525 2158 1,367
Inventory Age Class 1 (0–20) 952 20 933
Age Class 2 (20–40) 90 0 90
Age Class 3 (40–60) 24 28 -3
Age Class 4 (60–80) 1,738 1058 679
Age Class 5 (80–100) 3 0 3
Age Class 6 (100–120) 48 8 40
Age Class 7 (120–140) 27 0 27
Age Class 8 (140–250) 1,536 967 569
Age Class 9 (>250) 0 0 0
Site index good (>22) 0 0 0

Previous New
Category Resource/Interest Difference
Project Prosperity
Site index medium (15–22) 1 0 1

Site index poor (<=15) 4,418 2080 2,338
Recreation Roaded modified 301 81 220
Opportunity Roaded natural 0 0 0
Spectrum
Semi-primitive motorized 947 280 667
Semi-primitive non-Motorized 414 407 8
Unclassified 2,757 1834 923
Timber Supply
Areas Williams Lake TSA 4,419 2601 1,818
Forest
Tenures
(length, km) Road permits 4 1 2
Licence to cut 551 612 -61

Forest Service road 0 1 -1
Mineral Mineral claims and titles–minerals 93 13 80
Claims and Mineral claims and titles–placer 0 0 0
Titles
MinFile–developed prospect 1 1 0
MinFile–showing 0 0 0
Following completion of the CCLUP, lower level planning (SRMP) was completed to identify plan
objectives. The MDA is within the Chilcotin SMRP planning area. The plan sets legal direction under the
Forest and Range Practices Act for commercial forestry activities. The MDA (in the absence of the
Project) would remain available for a broad range of land uses (i.e. it is not proposed for protected area
status). Forest companies, in developing their Forest Stewardship Plan are required to adhere to the
SRMP’s prescriptions. Broadly, the plan defines three zones, expressed in terms of rate-of-harvest.
These are:
x No Harvest Zone: This zone is designated to conserve special ecological and cultural values.
Protection of those values is paramount and encompasses the maintenance of natural processes
such as endemic levels of natural disturbance.
x Extended Harvest Zone: The extended harvest zone requires higher levels of stand retention to
protect sensitive habitats, species, provide connectivity among land units and visual quality
objectives.
x Harvest in One Rotation: Non-timber values are adequately represented or protected given general
management prescriptions.
Other tenure holders on the land base, such as a mineral tenure holder, are not bound by this legal
requirement but they do provide stewardship guidance (Hoffos, 2012, pers. comm.)37
37 A discussion of the plan may be found at http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/williamslake/cariboo_chilcotin/index.html#finalLUOR

Forest lands that have the “one-rotation” management prescription that are reclaimed to forest post-
closure is comparable to industrial timber production with slightly extended regeneration delay.
The distribution of the MDA among the three zones is summarized in Table 2.7.3.1-6 for the previous
mine site and the current MDA. The Project would create the greatest divergence with expressed land
management prescriptions with respect to the “no-harvest” and “extended harvest” strategies. Land in the
“no harvest” prescription (by implication, land with special values) is reduced from 320 ha to 185 ha.
Table 2.7.3.1-6 Distribution of Project Footprint in SRMP Land Units (hectares)
Harvest prescription Previous

Project New
Assessment Prosperity
No harvest 320 185
Extended harvest 1670 932
Harvest within one rotation 2430 1,484
Total footprint 4419 2,601
Post closure, reclamation of the MDA to native forest cover where practical to do so mitigates the
Project’s long term impact. It is also noted that government is considering relaxing some constraints to
timber harvesting to offset the expected drop in allowable harvest following liquidation of the beetle killed
volume (MFLNRO, 2012).
The previous project assessment found the Project’s effect on Land Use to be not significant because of
its small effect of relatively limited duration and it did not operate cumulatively to affect the viability or
sustainability of the values the land use plans are intended to manage. Given that the New Prosperity
mine concept has lower magnitude effect on the land it is concluded that the Project’s effect on Land Use
is not significant.
Forestry
The EISG directs the EIS to identify the effect of the Project footprint on forestry in terms of:
x Values and targets identified in regional and local resource management plans for the project area
such as local and landscape affects to the CCLUP and the Community Forest.
x How all phases of the Project will affect both current and future forest resources and uses.
x How the assessment will include a determination of current and future forest resources and activities
in the project area. These operations will be quantified to the extent practicable to provide a measure
of the scale of activities.
The Project’s implications to the CCLUP were addressed in the Land Use section above.
In the absence of the Project, the commercial stands available for harvest in the MDA would probably be
harvested by companies operating in the general area. However, as discussed above, the commercial
value of the timber on the MDA is low, because of low site productivity, and may have been further
impaired by mountain pine beetle damage.

The Project has the immediate effect of increasing harvest volume and the associated economic activity
when the footprint is cleared. A site survey is required to determine how much merchantable volume
might be made available. This would be a beneficial effect to the regional forest industry.
Subsequently, while the Project is operating there is a reduction in the forest land base that contributes to
the Williams Lake AAC determination. The reduction in AAC due to the land base withdrawal is estimated
at 4,000 m3/yr., or 0.07% of the William Lake TSA’s AAC of 5.7 million cubic metres (or 0.14% of the pre-
uplift AAC). Post-closure, site reclamation will return a large proportion of the footprint to productive forest
status.
The Federal Panel did not find any significant effects on forestry in their review of the previous project.
However, it did recommend TML consider relocating the transmission line to avoid effects on the
Esketemc Community Forest. This recommendation is discussed and measures proposed in Section 2.10
of this application.
The Project’s effect on the forest industry is relatively short in duration and low in magnitude in the
regional context, while accommodation of the interests of the Esketemc Community Forest is a
commitment by TML. For these reasons, the residual effects of the Project on forestry are determined to
be not significant.
Fishing
The guidelines direct the EIS to provide an assessment of the effects of all phases of the Project on the
commercial, recreational, and/or cultural lake and stream fisheries affected by the Project, and present
mitigation and/or compensation plans. The assessment will provide results of visitor and creel surveys
conducted to examine lake and streams use, catch success and evaluate the importance of the lake and
streams in a local, regional and provincial context. (EIS Guidelines, 2012)
Project effects would be less substantial than in the previous project assessment because Fish Lake
would be preserved as would the opportunities to continue sport fishing. Fishers would not have to shift
their effort to other lakes in the region, although those affected by the proximity to the MDA may wish to
do so. Overall sport fishing activity in the RSA (Cariboo Chilcotin) would not be affected. There is no
commercial recreation tenure in the MDA and thus no effects on guided fishing are anticipated.
With the preservation of Fish Lake and implementation of a new fisheries compensation plan, and other
mitigation measures, the opportunities for recreational fishing would be preserved at Fish Lake and the
Project would not result in significant adverse effects on either local or regional sport fishing. The BC EAO
and the Federal Panel did not find any significant effects on sport fishing in their respective reviews of the
previous project, which included the loss of Fish Lake. The reduction in overall effects from the previous
project and commitment to fish compensation programs gives us a high degree of confidence in this
conclusion.
The cultural aspects of fishing, and the implications for First Nations, are specifically addressed in Section
2.7.5 of this application.

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

The guidelines state that in assessing potential effects on outdoor recreation and tourism, the EIS should:
x Identify commercial recreation tenures and activities affected by the Project
x Identify areas that have high wilderness recreational value affected by the Project
x Assess the importance of the areas affected, relative to regional use by residents and visitors, and
x Provide an estimate of the value of recreation and tourism in both the project area and in the broader
area, and assess the effect of the Project on park and recreation features and on tourism and
recreation opportunities (EIS Guidelines, 2012).
Spatial interactions between the Project and key recreation indicators are reduced at the MDA, when
compared to the previous project, as seen in Table 2.7.3.1-5. The province’s Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum (ROS) shows the MDA to be a combination of semi-primitive and roaded resource land, with no
primitive lands. The MDA was not identified as a critical tourism and recreation area in the Cariboo-
Chilcotin Land Use Plan and was not identified as a backcountry area in the Chilcotin Sustainable
Resource Management Plan (MNRO, 2007). The available information, in combination with low use levels
and lack of recreational features other than sport fishing at Fish Lake, do not demonstrate the existence
of “high wilderness recreation values” at the MDA.
The construction and operation of the mine would have a positive effect on accommodation, food,
beverage and miscellaneous services such as rentals due to business travel in the RSA (Williams Lake)
and the LSA. Road improvements and the potential for increased mine-related business could result in
increased revenues for operators in the LSA.
Overall, the adverse effects on recreation and tourism in the LSA and RSA by the Project would be minor.
There may be some displacement of visitors to Fish Lake, but substitute experiences are available at
other lakes in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, notably Chaunigan and Vedan. There is reasonable expectation for
increased use of Fish Lake as a recreation site due to improved road conditions to the site. The use of the
Bootjack recreation site saw increased use from fishers once the road was improved to handle ore trucks
at the nearby Mt. Polley mine (Cheverie, 2012, pers. comm.). The tourism industry as a whole would
benefit from increased hospitality spending by the mine and its contractors.
Mitigation proposed in the wildlife assessment and fisheries compensation plan would offset potential
losses of recreation and tourism opportunities at the MDA. The no fishing and hunting policy for
employees while residing in the on-site camp would help with controlled use of recreation sites and areas,
while mitigation options being considered under the Fisheries Compensation Plan include more and
better recreation site access than is now the case.
With the proposed mitigation, opportunities for public recreation and tourism within the LSA are not
expected to change. The Project may displace some recreation activity by boaters and hikers, but based
on discussions with government agencies and some user groups, use levels are very low and there is
believed to be ample capacity at other recreation sites and parks in the LSA.
The Project is not expected to alter the opportunities for engaging in a quality recreation or tourism
experience in the LSA or the RSA, or adversely affect values. Therefore, effects would not be significant.

It is recognized that the Project could affect one commercial recreation tenure that has part of its licence
area within the MDA (Table 2.7.3.1-7). The licensee is doing business as Taseko Lake Outfitters.38 The
guidelines request that specific attention be given to effects on the operation of Taseko Lake Outfitters’
“ecotourism” business. This operation consists of a guide outfitting component, for which the federal
Panel did not find any adverse effects, and a ecotourism component, which the panel concluded “would
likely not be able to continue” (Review Panel, 2010, page v). It is not clear to TML the panels’ basis for
reaching the conclusion that the ecotourism business would be able to continue, or whether it was
consistent with CEAAs policy for determining significant adverse effects. In any case we have set out
below some further analysis of the effects and proposed mitigation measures.
Taseko Lake Outfitter’s Commercial Recreation licence area within the MDA is 748 hectares (Figure
2.7.3.1-2), which represents 0.58% of its total licence area of 128,078 hectares. The licence area is
almost entirely south of the MDA, and there are no satellite camps or base camps near the mine site.
However, the main lodge is within five kilometers and the owners state that the area is frequently used for
client day trips on horseback or cross country skiing as part of their ecotourism business. The majority of
the licence area is too remote for day trips so, according to the owner, the proportional use is significantly
higher near the MDA. (Reuter 2012, pers. comm.)
A provincial ministry estimate of the total number of user days for the all licensees near the MDA is
approximately 1000 with total revenues of roughly $76,000 annually. Although there is no public
information it is assumed that the numbers of user days and revenues attributable to Taseko Lake
Outfitters is less than these amounts and the proportion directly dependent on the MDA lower still. It is
also unknown what proportion of Taseko Lake Outfitters’ business is attributable to ecotourism vs. guide
outfitting or other sources of revenue so it is not possible at this time to determine what affect construction
and operation of the mine will have on their ecotourism business.
Table 2.7.3.1-7 Commercial Recreation Tenures in the MDA
Total Tenure Area in MDA

Tenure % of Intensive
Licensee Tenured Activity
Area Hectares Use
(ha) Total Sites
Pack trips, hiking, wildlife viewing, x-
Reuter 128,078 748 0.58% 0
country skiing
38 One of the owners of Taseko Lake Outfitters is also a licensed guide outfitter. The implications for guide outfitting are discussed
in the next section on Hunting and Guiding. The discussion here is limited to ecotourism operations, which are permitted through
the Land Act (commercial recreation policy) as distinct from guide outfitting licences and guiding territory certificates issued under
the Wildlife Act.

430000 445000 460000 475000 490000 505000
5745000
5745000
500905
5730000
5730000
500490 500959
500901
5715000
5715000
500949
5700000
5700000
500951
500947
5685000
5685000
5670000
5670000
500922
5655000
5655000
500905 500509
5640000
5640000
100623
200693
5625000
5625000
430000 445000 460000 475000 490000 505000
The Project in Relation to Guide Outfitter Areas

Figure 2.7.3.1-2
Mine Footprint
Guide Outfitters Overlapping MDA
Guide Outfitter Areas
Lakes
Rivers
Secondary Roads
-
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Date: 2012-08-20
Data Sources:
0 10 20 30 Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83
Kilometers
1:350,000
Discussions with Taseko Lake Outfitters are focusing on determining potential losses and remedies in
both the short and long term. All licensees must report annually to MLNRO use levels associated with the
licence of occupation and remit day fees accordingly. This information, though confidential and not
reported publicly, is a matter of record, and could be used to quantify potential losses. The scope of
potential losses would be limited to ecotourism revenues (the Panel had already concluded that no
adverse effects were anticipated for guide outfitting operations) and to the MDA. These losses could be
linked to the MDA and associated with the ecotourism business.
Mitigation discussions will take into account the province’s Commercial Recreation Policy under which the
licensee obtained his licence of occupation. The licence gives general permission to the company to
operate on extensive areas of Crown land for a specific purpose. Commercial recreation tenures usually
do not convey exclusive rights to extensive areas of Crown land. Even though the licence of occupation
exists on part of the MDA, the Province may and will issue commercial tenures to other operators for the
same land, as had occurred at the MDA where multiple Crown tenures spatially overlap. Generally,
licences of occupation and temporary use permits administered by the provincial government include
provisions permitting the termination of contracts due to public interest or if the government requires the
land for their own use, without compensation. The province does issue other tenures for what it considers
higher and better uses of the land base. These potential uses are articulated and mapped in both the
Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan and the Chilcotin Sustainable Resource Management Plan. The latter
did not assign backcountry recreation status to the MDA and moreover ensured access for mineral
exploration and potential development (MNRO, 2007). The issuance of all Crown tenures are made in
consideration of the spirit and intent of both plans and do not confer exclusive use by any licensee. unless
expressly provided.
It is Taseko Mines intention to discuss mitigation/compensation that is fair and reasonable in the context
of verifiable losses in the case that the mine is approved and built. This commitment is made in section
2.10 of this assessment. Therefore, no significant residual effects on the company’s ecotourism business
are anticipated.
Hunting and Guiding

The EIS Guidelines direct Taseko to provide an assessment of the effects of all phases of the Project on
hunting and guiding, including:
x Identify the number of guiding territories affected by the Project and describe the nature of the effect
in terms of the specific guiding area affected
x Assess the importance of the areas affected relative to overall area of guiding territories and, to the
extent possible, quantify the effect on guide outfitters
x Propose mitigation measures for diminished wildlife and wilderness values of the guide outfitter
territories, where appropriate, and
x Identify potential effects on recreational hunting opportunities in the immediate and adjacent areas.
(EISG, 2012).
The MDA would overlap with four registered guide-outfitters territories (Figure 2.7.3.1-3). The 2,601 ha
affected by the mine footprint represents between 0% and 2.2% of any one individual territory. (Table

2.7.3.1-8). The previous project assessment estimated total guide outfitter revenues in the LSA to be
approximately $2 million. The increase in guided hunters for the 2008 season has likely increased these
revenues over 2005 but activity levels nevertheless remain within the range of annual variations going
back to 1996.
Table 2.7.3.1-8 Guide Territories in the MDA
Guide-Outfitter Tenure Area (ha) Area within MDA (ha) % Within MDA
Lancaster 290,138.1 0.2 0.0%
Reuter 152,174.5 670.6 0.4%
Hoessl 57,417.5 1284.2 2.2%
Emmelkamp 85,525.0 646.4 0.8%

445000 460000 475000 490000
5700000
5700000
Fish
Lake
5685000
5685000
Upper
Taseko Lake
5670000
5670000
5655000
5655000
5640000
5640000
5625000
5625000
445000 460000 475000 490000
The Project in Relation to Reuter's Commercial

Recreation License of Occupation and Guide Outfitter Area
Figure 2.7.3.1-3
Mine Footprint
Siegfried Reuter Guide Outfitter Area
Siegfried Reuter License of Occupation
Lakes
Rivers
Secondary Roads
- Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Date: 2012-08-20
Data Sources:
0 5 10 15 20 Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83
Kilometers 1:260,000
Hunting and guiding are undertaken in the area and thus would be affected by the mine construction and
operation of the mine components. Once the mine permit is issued, a no-hunting ban would be instituted
around the MDA for human safety reasons. For resident hunters, the loss of the MDA as a no-hunting
zone represents a negligible part of the hunting area in the RSA and hunting pressure would shift to
adjacent areas. Three guide outfitters would lose access to part of their registered territories, but in all
cases this loss is minimal in proportion to each licence area. Wildlife studies show that the mine area is
not high value winter range so overall the effect on populations of key target species such as moose and
Mule deer in the area surrounding the mine would be minimal.
Proposed wildlife mitigation would minimize potentially adverse effects on the populations of target
species and opportunities for hunting. A hunting ban for mine employees during the construction and
operations phases of the mine would avoid any related increase in hunting pressure in the LSA.
With the mitigation strategies, the effect on wildlife habitat and populations is expected to be low and
extend only to the LSA. The land area lost to the no-hunting zone at the MDA and the contribution of the
MDA area to big game harvest is considered minor and it is unlikely the MFLNRO would reduce quotas
and issue fewer tags for limited entry hunts. Resident hunters and guided non-resident hunters would
have to make small spatial adjustments to their hunting behaviour to avoid the no-hunting zone. Given the
proposed Project design and mitigation measures, and the limited spatial extent of effects on recreational
and guided hunting, the Project would not result in significant negative effects on hunting.
Trapping
The EIS Guidelines direct Taseko to provide an assessment of the effects of all phases of the Project on
trapping, including:
x Identify the number of trapping territories affected by the Project and describe the nature of the effect
in terms of the specific trapping area affected
x Assess the importance of the areas affected relative to overall area of trapping territories and, to the
extent possible, quantify the effect on trappers, and
x Propose mitigation measures for diminished wildlife and wilderness values of the trapping territories,
where appropriate.
As seen in Table 2.7.3.1-9, two trapping areas are affected by the mine site. The MDA area would occupy
an area of 1,722 ha within the Nemaiah (trap line TR0504T004) trap line area, down from 2,782 hectares
in the previous project description and 879 ha within the Gutfructht’s trap line (trap line TR0504T005),
which represents a slight increase from 758 ha. Licensees access to the MDA would be subject to section
1.3 of the Mines Act. These traplines are illustrated in Figure 2.7.3.1-4.
Table 2.7.3.1-9 Trap Lines Located in the MDA
Licensee Residency Tenure Area Area within % Within

Trap Line ID
(ha) MDA (ha) MDA
Nemiah Band/Sonny
TR0504T003 Nemiah Valley 44,865.26 1,722.5 3.84%
Lulua
TR0504T005 Heidi Gutfrucht Williams Lake 55,926.03 878.9 1.57%

445000 460000 475000 490000
TR0504T009 TR0504T012
TR0504T008
5715000
5715000
TR0504T007
TR0504T003
5700000
5700000
TR0504T005
TR0504T099
5685000
5685000
TR0504T002
TR0504T003
5670000
5670000
TR0504T001
TR0504T003
TR0332T008
5655000
5655000
CLOSED
445000 460000 475000 490000
The Project in Relation to Registered Traplines

Figure 2.7.3.1-4
Mine Site Footprint
Traplines Impacted By Mine Site Footprint
Registered BC Traplines
Lakes
Rivers_250K
Access Road
Proposed Access Road
Secondary Roads
-1:200,000
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Date: 2012-08-20
Kilometers Data Sources:
0 5 10 20 Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83
While the area from the MDA would be lost for trap lines and fur-bearing habitat, the wildlife assessment
from March 2009 EIS/Application (Volume 5, Section 6) examined Fisher as a leading indicator species
for all fur-bearers, while general comments on other small fur-bearers were also offered. The overall
conclusions were that significant effects on furbearers in the LSA and RSA were not anticipated.
Mitigation specific to wildlife habitat and outlined in the previous project assessment (Volume 5, Section
6) would minimize potentially adverse effects on the populations of target species and opportunities for
trapping of fur-bearing animals. Restrictions on hunting for mine employees during the construction and
operation phases of the mine would also avoid any related increase in hunting pressure on fur-bearing
populations in the LSA.
The previous Panel concluded that the Project would not result in a significant adverse effect on trapping
in the region, but would result in a significant adverse effect on the Xeni Gwet’in (Nemiah Band)/Sonny
Lulua trapline that would be most affected by the mine site footprint. It is not clear to TML the previous
panel’s basis for reaching this conclusion or whether it was in keeping with CEAAs policy for determining
significant adverse effects. Notwithstanding this point we will briefly discuss below the related impacts.
The previous Panel’s recommendation on this subject is addressed in Section 2.10,
The effects on the two trap lines at the mine site would experience the loss of a portion of their trap line
when construction starts. The average harvest value of licensees is well below $500. Negative effects on
trapping in the MDA would occur during construction and continue until mine closure when site
reclamation for fur bearer habitat would be restored.
The potential for cumulative effects on trapping due to an overlap with similar effects from other projects
is low. The fur-bearers currently trapped in the LSA inhabit localized home ranges that have a low
likelihood of overlapping with other projects during the lifetime of the proposed mine.
The MDA and associated buffer area represents a small portion of both the habitat and the harvest of fur-
bearers among the two licensees, although some minor effects are anticipated. The Project’s contribution
to residual and cumulative effects on trapping activities is expected to be not significant.
Grazing
The EIS Guidelines did not give specific direction with respect to an assessment of effects on agriculture
but indicated that particular attention be paid to the effects on the users of the meadows within the Fish
Creek watershed due to the loss of grazing land, as an issue in the prior panel report. The panel
otherwise did not find any significant adverse effects on agriculture in the LSA or the RSA.
The main agricultural activity in the Central Cariboo and Chilcotin is beef cattle production with
contributions also made by dairy, sheep, game farming, horse, poultry, horticultural crops and forage
production. The number of farms in the region dropped slightly between 2001 and 2006 although the total
area farmed increased. The number of cattle and calves, and other livestock populations, remained
relatively constant during this period (BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2008). Data from the 2011
Census of Agriculture is not yet available to confirm trends since 2006, but anecdotally the industry
remains unchanged since the previous project assessment.
Cattle ranches are highly dependent on Crown range, which is managed by the Ministry of Forests and
Natural Resource Operations. Animal Units Months, the measure by which grazing tenures are issued,
are fully utilized in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Forest District (Armes, 2012 pers. comm.).
As noted in Table 2.7.3.1-10, the MDA has no agricultural land reserve designation and little agricultural
capability, as only 11 hectares are considered suitable for improvement practices. Agricultural Capability
is a classification based on soil and climatic characteristics only and does not denote whether agricultural
activity is actually occurring. The Vegetation assessment (Section 2.7.2.7) shows no grasslands present
but there are areas of marshland and meadows. Given low agricultural capability, the absence of
improvement practices and the absence of grasslands, the Project would have no effect on agriculture
activity in the region.
Table 2.7.3.1-10 Agricultural Capability within Project Components
Area (ha) Previous New

Difference
Project Prosperity
Agricultural land reserve 0 0 0
Agricultural capability
Forage crops–improvement practices feasible 46 11 35
Forage crops–improvement practices not feasible 4,373 1407 2,966
No capability for arable culture or permanent pasture 0 520 -520
Organic soils 0 664 -664
Range Tenures
Number of range grazing licences 2 2 0
Number of range grazing permits 0 0 0
Number of range non replaceable grazing permits 0 0 0
Number of range hay cutting licences 0 0 0
The previous Panel concluded that the proposed mine site would result in a locally significant adverse
effect on the users of the meadows within the Teztan Yeqox (Fish Creek) watershed due to the loss of
grazing lands. It is not clear to TML how the previous panel reached this conclusion or whether it is in
keeping with CEAAs policy on determining significant adverse effects.
Some effects on range activity are anticipated. The MDA would have a minor effect on overall regional
forage availability, although grazing does occur with the proposed MDA. The two grazing licences
affected are shown in Table 2.7.3.1-11. In the case of licence RAN076872 the area affected is just over 1
hectare out of a total tenure area of 20,832 hectares. There would be no effects on this licence by the
Project.
The other licence, RAN076752, has 1853.2 hectares or 12.3% of its licence area in the MDA (Figure
2.7.3.1-5). This licensee is allowed to graze in the area between Fish Lake and Wolftrack Lake between
July 16 and October 31, plus from November 1 to December 31 during active guiding.
The Xeni Gewt'in rancher referred to in the panel report does not have a registered range agreement with
the Ministry of Forests and Natural Resource Operations and is believed to have approximately 30
cattle/calf pairs in the Fish Lake and Onion Lake area.
The licensee and the Xeni Gewt'in rancher who are grazing their animals at the meadows at Fish Lake
would have to alter their grazing patterns. The MDA is within the Bullion Range Unit and incremental
AUMs are limited for cattle but there is more flexibility for repositioning horses (Armes, 2012, pers.
comm.).

Table 2.7.3.1-11 Range Tenures in the MDA
Authorized Grazable Tenure Area within

% Within
File ID Licence Type Forage Area MDA
MDA
(AUM) (ha) (ha)
RAN0768 Grazing
72 Licence 316 20,382.2 1.3 0.0%
RAN0767 Grazing
52 Licence n/a 15,033.0 1853.2 12.3%
TML will work with the Ministry, the one licensee and the First Nations’ rancher who use the meadows in
the MDA to access replacement forage elsewhere in the area, or discuss mitigation/ compensation for
lost productivity if the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is unable to offer
replacement opportunities. According to the Ministry, the range licensee is grazing horses and not cattle
and there are opportunities for repositioning these animals. Therefore, compensation will not be required
for this licensee.
Although the project would have an adverse effect on the one range licensee and one first nations
rancher by removing some productive range within the MDA, this would be minimal in relation to overall
range and forage availability, it is reversible after closure and is not overall expected to give rise to a
significant adverse effect.

455000 460000 465000
5710000
5710000
5705000
5705000
5700000
5700000
5695000
5695000
5690000
5690000
455000 460000 465000
The Project in Relation to Grazing Licenses

Figure 2.7.3.1-5
Mine Footprint
Grazing Licenses
Siegfied Reuter Grazing License
Wetlands
Lakes
Grasslands
Access Road
Proposed Access Road
Secondary Roads
- 1:75,000
Map Prepared by
Forest Tenure Cut Blocks Rivers Taseko Mines Ltd.
Date: 2012-08-20
Data Sources:
0 1 2 3 4 5 Province of British Columbia, Taseko Mines Ltd.
Kilometers Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83
Summary of Effects on Resource Uses

A summary of Project and residual effects on resources uses are presented in 2.7.3.1-12. Cumulative
project effects were not assessed because no potentially significant effects were identified during
scoping.

Table 2.7.3.1-12 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Resource Uses for New Prosperity
Socio-economic
Geographical
Reversibility
Significance
Confidence
Frequency
Magnitude
Prediction
Duration/
Direction
Context
Extent
Resource Use Proposed Mitigation/Compensation Measures
Potential to re-designate old growth management areas

Land Use N L R LT/C R U N H
elsewhere in the forest district.
Minimize forest disturbance, reclaim to forest as soon as site is
Forestry N L R LT/O R U N H
available.
Fishing Fisheries compensation plan, retention of Fish Lake. P L L LT/C R U N M
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Fisheries compensation plan, retention of Fish Lake. N L L LT/C R U N H
Hunting and Guiding Wildlife mitigation (Section 2.7.2.8). A L L LT/C R U N H
Trapping Wildlife mitigation (Section 2.7.2.8). A L L LT/C R U N H
Agriculture (Grazing) Work with government to identify alternative forage areas. A L L LT/C R U N H
Direction: Geographic Extent: Frequency: Significance:
P Positive L MDA O Occurs once S Significant
N Neutral R Regional: Cariboo Regional District or C Continuous N Not Significant
A Adverse related administrative boundaries.
Reversibility: Prediction Confidence:
Magnitude: Duration: R Reversible Based on scientific information and
L Low: Will not materially decrease use ST Short term: One year or season I Irreversible statistical analysis, professional
levels or regional economic values. of operation. judgment and effectiveness of
M Moderate: Will decrease use levels or MT Medium Term: Extends into a Socio-economic Context: mitigation
regional economic values, but effects business or resource planning cycle (1 U Undisturbed: Area relatively or not adversely affected by L Low level of confidence
can be managed without financial loss to to 5 years) human activity M Moderate level of confidence
industry. LT Long Term: Extends beyond a D Developed: Area has been substantially previously H High level of confidence
H High: Will decrease use levels or business or resource cycle (greater disturbed by human development or human development
regional economic values, and industry than 5 years). is still present
will experience financial loss and
financial viability.

2.7.3.2 Navigable Waters
SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
This section outlines the scope of the assessment of potential effects of the New Prosperity Project on
Navigable Waters. The assessment focusses only on changes relative to the Prosperity Project based on
the New Prosperity Mine Development Plan, and is completed in accordance with the New Prosperity EIS
Guidelines. Regulatory changes that have occurred since the March 2009 EIS/Application are
considered.
Navigable waters are defined as any body of water capable of being navigated by any type of floating
vessel for the purpose of transportation, recreation or commerce (Transport Canada, 2010). Navigable
Waters has been selected as a VEC because Project activities have the potential to interfere with the
public’s right to navigate. This assessment describes potential Project effects as well as mitigation
measures taken at the planning stage to avoid or reduce effects to Navigable Waters.
whether there are any VEC-specific applicable regulatory changes related to the project activity. Project
activities or physical works identified with a “Y” will be carried forward for assessment of the changes to
effects on navigable waters. Project activities or physical works identified with an “N” are not carried
forward in this assessment, and are greyed out.
Proposal


PAG Stockpile Y
change
timing)
Ore Stockpile Y Location only

Primary Crusher N
facilities’



Overland conveyor N
facilities’
Fisheries compensation works
Y Scope and Timing
construction
Y
Operation
N
upgrades
Camp construction N
facilities’
stockpiles, etc…
Explosives Plant Y Location only
Lake dewatering Y Fish Lake retained
Fish Lake Water Management Y Management of inflows and outflows

Y
N
transmission line
relocation.

N
Operations
Pit production N
Soils handling and stockpiling Y Area, volume, and relocation of TSF and


stockpiles; revised soil stockpile locations


PAG Stockpile Y
change
timing)
Y Location only
processing

Y
management

Y

N

N


relocation.
N
maintenance)
Pit dewatering N
Y Scope and Timing
operations
N
Macalister


Closure
Y
Operation

Y
management

Y Location only
stockpile

N
and reclamation
Post-closure
Y
water
Regulatory Changes (Since Prosperity)

Since the March 2009 EIS/Application, amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act came into
force in March 2009 as part of the federal government's initiative to accelerate major resource and
infrastructure projects. These amendments streamline the federal review process by establishing classes
of waters and works (projects) that do not require an Application or Approval through the NWPP because
they are "minor" in nature. These amendments are considered in this assessment.
The New Prosperity EIS Guidelines require assessment of potential effects of the Project on navigable
waters and this assessment will:

x Identify any Project components, including a description of any activities that may affect waterways
and water bodies and that fall outside the scope of the Minor Works and Water Order. For those
components and activities that meet the Order, no NWPA approvals are required
x Describe any ancillary and temporary works (e.g., cofferdams, detours, fencing, temporary bridges,
or bridge replacements along existing and proposed road alignments) including, where appropriate
approximate dimensions
x Describe the anticipated direct and indirect effects on the waterways and water bodies, including, but
not limited to, changes in water level and flow
x Provide information on current and/or historic usage of all waterways and water bodies that will be
directly affected by the Project, including current Aboriginal uses, where available
x Describe the manner in which the tailings impoundment area may affect downstream surface water
flows and water levels in all water bodies that could be impacted, and how this may impact
navigation, and
x Provide hydrology studies to determine if water levels in all water bodies that could be impacted will
remain unaffected; and describe how affected navigation will be restored.
Regulatory/Policy Setting
The Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) protects the public’s right to navigate, and regulates the
construction of works that may infringe on this right. The NWPA is administered by Transport Canada and
applies to all navigable waters in Canada. It requires that formal approval from Transport Canada be
obtained prior to the construction of works in navigable waters: this includes construction of dams or
overhead cables. Formal approval is issued by a Navigable Waters Protection Program officer on behalf
of the Federal Minister of Transport.
In March 2009, amendments to Section 13 of the NWPA came into force and established classes of
waters that are “minor” in nature and therefore not subject to application requirements under the Act.
Transport Canada has established five navigable water characteristics; average depth, average width,
channel slope, sinuosity ratio and frequency of natural obstacles to be used in determining whether or not
a particular navigable water meets the definition of a minor navigable water. If a section of navigable
water is classified as minor, an application for approval under the NWPA is not required for any work on
that section.
Several mine infrastructure components including the TSF main embankment, Fish Lake outlet flow
control structure and the open pit will obstruct or adversely affect navigable waters in the upper Fish
Creek watershed and Little Fish Lake. Reach 8 (main TSF embankment) is considered a minor navigable
water and would not be subject to NWPA approval (i.e. channel width is less than 3.0 m, average high-
water level depth is less than 0.6m, and there are three or more natural obstacles). Although the channel
widths of reach 6 (4.0 m) where the flow control structure will be situated and reach 5 (4.5m) where the pit
is situated exceed the established width characteristic, their sinuosity characteristics and the frequent
occurrence of natural obstacles (i.e. beaver dams) suggests that these reaches of the Fish Creek
watershed may also be considered minor navigable waters. In the absence of clear guidelines/experience
determining whether or not a particular waterway is minor, for the purposes of this assessment, it is
assumed that works associated with the pit and flow control structure and the effects on Little Fish Lake

will be subject to application requirements under the Act and are therefore considered further in this
assessment.
Baseline Conditions
Data sources and fieldwork used for characterizing navigable waters baseline conditions have not
changed or been updated since the March 2009 EIS/Application. As detailed in Volume 6 Section 7
(Navigable Waters) of the March 2009 EIS/Application the Project includes the construction of a 125 km
transmission line which will cross the Fraser River, Big Creek and approximately 125 unnamed small
creeks and water bodies. The March 2009 EIS/Application included information on the attributes of
waterways and water bodies that would be potentially directly affected, the direct and indirect effects of
Project components on waterways and water bodies and the current and/or historic use of directly
affected waterways and water bodies. As reported, the 142 m wide Fraser River, the 20 m wide Big
Creek, and the approximately 125 smaller stream crossings would be within the 30-80 m wide
transmission line right-of-way and the transmission line would not directly affect navigable waters as the
line would span all crossing sites. For the Fraser River crossing it was noted that during the final design
phase, the crossing would need to be reviewed by Transport Canada to determine if lighting or marking of
transmission line structures would be required to meet safety standards. As the proposed New Prosperity
Project does not involve any changes to the proposed transmission line right-of-way and as both
Transport Canada and the previous Panel offered no comment or reached any findings or conclusions
regarding environmental effects of the proposed transmission line on the waterways that would be directly
affected it is not considered further in this assessment.
Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake are water bodies and portions of Fish Creek is a waterway at the proposed
mine site that will be directly affected by the proposed Project. In the March 2009 EIS/Application,
information concerning the bathymetry, characteristics and current and historical use of Fish Lake and the
depth, width, in-stream flow and substrate characteristics of Fish Creek is presented. In addition to this
information, during the previous Panel hearings as discussed in Section 2.6.2.2 the Tsilhqot’in First
Nation provided anecdotal evidence describing recreation, fishing and navigation activities they currently
undertake at both Fish and Little Fish Lake. The physical interference with navigation and the potential
change in the public’s use of and navigation on Fish Creek and lakes are discussed below.
Potential Effects
The key issue underlying the assessment of Navigable Waters is compliance with the NWPA (concerning
navigational safety and right-of-way) as it applies to all navigable waterways within the Project area.
The two potential effects (and their associated indirect effects) identified for this assessment include:
1. Physical Interference with navigation:
x Resulting from the construction and operation of the TSF
x Resulting from any associated activities (e.g., water management, blasting, alteration of stream
bed), and
x Resulting from any ancillary and temporary works (e.g., outflow flow structure, cofferdams,
fencing).

2. Change in the public’s use of and right to navigate on Fish Creek and the lake(s):
x Including the effect of the Project on traditional use, sport and recreational activities at Fish and
Little Fish Lake.
Table 2.7.3.2-2 shows the measurable parameters used to facilitate the assessment of potential effects
on navigable waters used in this assessment.
Potential Measurable Parameters

Effects
2012 New Prosperity
Physical Spatial extent (in length) of stream lost or damaged and thus unsuitable for navigation at each
Interference phase of the Project
with The spatial extent (in hectares) of lake area unsuitable for navigation.
navigation
Use of and Extent (duration) of time right to navigate is affected.
Right to
Navigate
Table 2.7.3.2-3 provides a summary of how potential effects may result from interactions between Project
activities and Navigable Waters. Physical works and activities identified as having changed due to Project
design or regulatory requirements (Table 2.7.3.2-1) have been brought forward to Table 2.7.3.2-3 and
given project effects ratings. The following criteria were used for the interaction ratings:
0. Effect on navigable waters is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, EIS Guidelines or
other applicable regulations). Therefore, no further assessment is warranted, but information is
provided to substantiate that the effect is likely to decrease or stay the same.
1. Effect on navigable waters is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance
EAO, Panel, EIS Guidelines, or other applicable regulations).
2. Effect on navigable waters is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.

Table 2.7.3.2-3 Navigable Waters Potential Effects Associated with New Prosperity (Effects
Scoping Matrix)
Physical Interference
Use of and Right to

Navigate

PAG Stockpile 0 0
1 0
Operations
Construction sediment controls 0 0
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 0 0
Lake dewatering 1 1
Fish Lake Water Management 1 0
Starter Dam Construction 0 0
0 0
process/TSF)
Vehicular Traffic 0 0
Operations
Explosive handling and storage 0 0
Tailing storage 0 0
PAG Stockpile 0 0
Ore Stockpile management and processing 0 0
Fisheries Compensation works operations 0 1
Closure
Fisheries Compensation works Operations 0 1
0 0
stockpile

Use of and Right to

Navigate
Pit Lake and TSF Lake filling 0 1

Post-closure
The potential effect interactions indicated in grey shading in Table 2.7.3.2-3 are not carried forward in this
assessment. Interactions rated as “1” are due to:
x The redesign of the Mine giving a new, smaller, mine site layout and maximum disturbance area
(MDA).
EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
The assessment of effects to navigable waters involved review of available baseline information, the
transcripts from the previous Panel hearings and the Panel Report. The potential effects identified were:
x Physical interference with navigation
x Change in the public’s use of and right to navigate
Characterization of Significant Effects

Terms that will be used to characterize the significance of effects are provided in Table 2.7.3.2-4 below:
Table 2.7.3.2-4 Characterization Criteria for Significance of Effects on Navigable Waters
Criterion Description
Direction Positive: Condition is improving compared to baseline use of Navigable Waters
Neutral: No change compared to baseline use of Navigable Waters
Adverse: Negative change compared to baseline use of Navigable Waters
Magnitude Low: Measurable effects to use of Navigable Waters anticipated in low use areas
Moderate: Measurable effects to use of Navigable Waters in moderate-used
areas
High: Measurable effects to use of Navigable Waters in high-use areas

Geographical Extent Site-specific: Effects restricted to area within the MDA

Local: Effects extend beyond the Project footprint but remain within the local
study area
Regional: Effects extend into the regional study area
Frequency Once: Effect occurs once
Sporadic: Effect occurs sporadically at irregular intervals throughout construction
or operation of the Project
Regularly: Effect occurs on a regular basis and at regular intervals throughout
the Project
Continuously: Effect occurs continuously
Duration Short-term: Effects are measurable for days to months
Medium-term: Effects are measurable for months to 2 years
Long-term: Effects are measurable for > 2 years but are not permanent
Permanent: Effects are permanent
Reversibility Reversible: Effects will cease during or after the Project is complete
Irreversible: Effects will persist after the life of the Project
Likelihood is considered if there is a finding of a significant adverse effect. A high probability of

occurrence would be considered likely while a low probability of occurrence would be considered unlikely
Standards or Thresholds for Determining Significance

For the purposes of this assessment, an effect is significant if there are long-term effects on navigational
use of the local study area for a large proportion of the area and users
Ancillary and Temporary Works and Activities
The mine site will be constructed over a 2-year period and the mine will operate for a total of 20 years.
Once the mine ceases operation there will be an estimated 27 year closure period during which the pit will
fill with water before discharging to Fish Creek. While details of the works and activities associated with
the project are provided in Sections 2.2.3 through 2.2.6 a summary of those ancillary and temporary
works and activities that will potentially interfere with navigation and potential changes to the public’s use
of and right to navigate on Fish Creek, Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake is provided here.
The outlet of Fish Lake is located on the north-east corner of the lake approximately 300 m upstream of
the proposed ultimate open pit rim. Fish Creek currently flows through the area to be developed for the
open pit, shown on the general arrangement of the New Prosperity site on Figure 2.7.3.2-1. Starting in
construction, the water flowing out of Fish Lake will be managed on site to provide a safe working
environment within the open pit. In the initial stages of the construction period, two coffer dams will be
placed across Fish Creek, at the north end of Fish Lake near the natural outlet as part of outlet control
structure defined as the Fish Lake Flood Control Dam (FCD).The general location of the Fish Lake outlet
and location of the coffer dams is shown on Figure 2.7.3.2-1, and the cofferdam locations and dimensions
are presented in the plan and section on Figures 2.7.3.2-2 and 2.7.3.2-3 respectively. Additional technical
details regarding the FCD is found in Section 2.7.2.4A and Appendix 2.2.5-A. The location of the FCD

cofferdams has been optimized to avoid impacts on Fish Lake and nearby archeological sites while
maintaining a buffer zone between the FCD and the open pit.
The location of the TSF embankments and footprint are as shown in Figure 2.7.3.2-1. While information
concerning the design and an assessment of the environmental effects associated with this facility are
discussed elsewhere in this EIS, it is clear that the loss of Little Fish Lake will permanently interfere with
the public’s right to use and navigate the lake. On the other hand it is equally clear that with New
Prosperity, the permanent loss of Fish Lake has now been avoided, and with implementation of planned
mitigation measures, interference with navigation and the public right to navigate Fish Lake will not be
unnecessarily interfered with.
The water management plan for the New Prosperity Project is described in detail in Section 2.7.2.4-A as
well as Appendix 2.7.2.4A-B. None of the water management activities associated with the Project impact
navigation and/or access to Fish Lake but the FCD will eliminate the Fish Lake outflow until pit operations
are complete.

FIGURE 2.7.3.2-1
FISH LAKE CONTROL DAM PLAN
FIGURE 2.7.3.2-2
FISH LAKE CONTROL DAM
TYPICAL SECTION
FIGURE 2.7.3.2-3
Potential Effects
The environmental effects resulting from changes to water quantity and the loss of or damage to stream
and lake habitat are discussed and assessed fully elsewhere in this EIS and therefore will not be
considered further here. For convenience of the reader, those aspects of the results of these
assessments that may help the reader appreciate the limited degree to which there is physical
interference to navigation or to the public’s use of and right to navigate are summarized here.
Detailed discussion and assessment of Project related environmental effects on surface water hydrology
are found in Section 2.7.2.4A. Lake levels in Fish Lake during Operations Phase I will be maintained at a
constant level and during Operations Phase II, Closure, and Post-Closure, the maximum post-
development lake level fluctuations are predicted to be somewhat less than the maximum fluctuation
estimated for baseline (i.e. without the Project) conditions and are approximately equal to 0.5 m (Section
2.7.4A).
For Beece Creek, it is predicted that there will be no change to flows during Operations and there will be
a positive effect as a result of a predicted slight increase in closure and post-closure flows. Lower Fish
Creek flow rates will be reduced by approximately (76%) during operations and closure before returning
to approximate baseline conditions post-closure. For Upper Fish Creek, the development of the Project
will have a positive effect by increasing the flows from baseline conditions beginning in operations (28%)
and continuing into post-closure (31%). The increase in annual flow during operations is due to the
recirculation of the Fish Lake outflow as a mitigation measure to support lake inlet spawning and rearing
habitat, thereby increasing the channel capacity. In addition, in post-closure the overflow from the TSF
spillway will be routed through the Fish Lake inlet channels.
Detailed discussion and assessment of Project related environmental effects on stream and lake habitat
is found in Section 2.7.2.5. Little Fish Lake (6.6 ha) is accessible at present only via a poor quality
seasonal trail off the Beece Creek Road and via a deactivated exploration trail from the 4500 Road. As
the mine development proceeds, at approximately Year 1, Little Fish Lake will form part of the TSF and
no longer be navigable. This site specific, one time permanent loss cannot be avoided but as the Project
proceeds through closure and post-closure phases, the opportunity to navigate on two much larger new
bodies of water (TSF and Pit Lake) will be created. A review of all available sources of information,
including the transcripts from the previous Panel Report, indicates that while First Nations have gone and
continue to go to Fish Lake and opportunistically to Little Fish Lake to fish, historically Little Fish Lake was
used by individuals while occupying the now abandoned cabin sites.
The construction and operation of a TSF will result in the unavoidable loss of Little Fish Lake and thus
create a permanent but site specific interference with navigation on that water body. The outlet control
structures and coffer dams in portions of Fish Creek and the water management operations and
structures will result in long term (>2 years) but site specific and reversible interference with navigation on
portions of Fish Creek. On the other hand the ability to navigation portions of Fish Creek upstream of the
inlet to Fish Lake will be enhanced due to water management operations and the implementation of fish
and fish habitat flow mitigation measures. Access to Fish Lake will be provided and maintained and lake
water levels will not materially change throughout the life of the Project. Thus there will be no physical
interference with navigation on Fish Lake. The proposed access route to Fish Lake, along the 4500 road
and the proposed route through the active mine site will be an improvement from the existing and often
impassible canyon access route.

Mitigation
With planned water management strategies in place (Appendix 2.7.2.4A-A) throughout all phases of the
Project there will be no interference with navigation on Fish Lake as the surface water level of the lake will
be maintained within the range of natural variation predicted to occur under baseline conditions..
Change in the Public’s Right to Navigate

Potential Effects
With the revised mine development for New Prosperity, Fish Lake is preserved, including the island which
Transport Canada noted during the panel review as being an important site for First Nations. Access
through the mine site plant site and administration area, managed in accordance with the Health, Safety
and Reclamation Code of BC under the BC Mines Act, can enable boating and fishing activities during
operations as well as at closure. At closure, additional navigation opportunities will be available with the
inclusion of the TSF pond and the pit lake in the closure plan, expanding the opportunities for the public to
exercise their right to navigate for future generations within the Fish Creek watershed beyond what it
currently provides today.
The construction and operation of a TSF will result in the unavoidable loss of Little Fish Lake and thus
create a permanent but site specific loss of the public’s right to navigate on that water body. The outlet
control structures and coffer dams in portions of Fish Creek below Fish Lake will result in long term (>2
years) but site specific and reversible interference with the public’s right to navigate on those portions of
Fish Creek. Although it is considered to be a minor waterway and thus not subject to approval under
NWPA, the public’s right to navigate on portions of Fish Creek upstream of the inlet to Fish Lake will be
enhanced due to water management operations and the implementation of fish and fish habitat flow
mitigation measures.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures will be used to ensure that the public and First Nations are aware of construction and
mining operation activities in the area and protection zones (no-go areas) will be identified and
communicated if required. Mitigation measures will include:
x Provide and maintain an access road and a boat launch for the controlled passage of First Nations
and the public by vehicle to the shores of Fish Lake
x Install and maintain warning signs at appropriate locations advising of work in progress, hazards
ahead etc.
x Provide additional recreational and First Nation access points to the TSF and Pit Lakes at
appropriate times post-closure, and
x Access to other lakes as part of Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan.
Conclusion
For the purposes of this assessment, an effect is significant if there are long-term effects on navigational
use of the local study area for a large proportion of the area and users.

Concerning physical interference to navigation, with New Prosperity, Fish Lake is retained, water levels in
the lake will be maintained within the range of baseline levels and mitigation measures to ensure safety
and access are proposed. There will be no change to the right to navigate and no significant effect. Coffer
dams placed in portions of Fish Creek are adverse and long term but are reversible, one time, low in
magnitude (low use area), and site specific. There is no significant effect. The loss of Little Fish Lake is
adverse, irreversible and long term but low in magnitude (low use area) and site specific. There is no
significant effect.
With respect to the use of and right to navigate on Fish Lake, apart from the route taken to access Fish
Lake with New Prosperity there is no change from baseline and no significant effect. The effects in Fish
Creek are positive in some reaches and adverse in others, of low magnitude, local, regular and long term
and there is no significant effect. At the end of the Project flows will be restored to baseline levels for the
entire creek. The effects on Little Fish Lake are adverse, low in magnitude, site specific, permanent and
irreversible and thus are not significant. Two new lakes, Pit Lake (approximately 150 ha) and TSF Lake
(approximately 400 ha), will be created at the end of the Project.
In summary there are no significant effects on navigable waters arising from the Project.

2.7.3.3 Human Health

This section identifies how the Project has changed from the previous project proposal and whether these
changes would result in changes to the environmental effects previously predicted on human health and
ecological risks. A detailed assessment of potential human health and ecological risks associated with
baseline conditions as outlined in the EIS Guidelines and listed in Table 2.7.3.3-2 has been completed. A
description of the human receptors, recreational activities and the location where these activities are
expected to occur were considered in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) and
are detailed in Appendix 6-6-A (Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Baseline Report) that
forms part of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
Scope of Assessment
Prosperity Project on human health and ecological risks. The assessment focusses only on changes
relative to the Prosperity Project based on the New Prosperity Mine Development Plan, and is completed
in accordance with the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines. Regulatory changes that have occurred since the
March 2009 EIS/Application are considered. A survey of country food consumption specific to the local
and regional study areas is not available at present. As a result, credible sources of information were
reviewed to estimate conservative consumption patterns in the area (Rescan 2006, Richardson, 1997). It
should be noted that within the HHERA, the assessment of potential environmental effects is based on an
assessment of the changes in metal concentrations in environmental media between pre-development
baseline conditions and predicted conditions during the operations, closure and post-closure phases of
the development. The assumptions regarding country food consumption rates will not be changed
between baseline and the other phases of the project. It is the relative change in exposures and risks that
occur between baseline, operations, closure and post-closure conditions that is used to determine the
overall environmental effects of the project.
shows whether each activity or physical work has changed from the original Prosperity submission,
whether there are any HHERA-specific applicable regulatory changes related to the project activity and
whether the activity or physical work would alter human and terrestrial receptor exposure assumptions
from those of the original submission. Project activities or physical works identified with a “Y” in either
Changes in Project Design, Changes in Regulatory Requirements, or Changes in HHERA Exposure
Assumptions will be carried forward for assessment of the changes to effects on humans and/or terrestrial
receptors. Project activities or physical works identified with an “N” in all three of these columns are not
carried forward in this HHERA, and are greyed out.

Change in Change in
Project Change in
Regulatory HHERA
Activities/Physical Project Comments/Rationale
Requirements Exposure
Works Design (Y/N)
(Y/N) Assumptions

Open Pit – Preproduction N N N
Changes in location
and timing will not
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y N N alter HHERA
exposure
assumptions
Changes in location
will not alter HHERA
PAG stockpile Y N N
exposure
assumptions
Changes in the
location will not alter
Overburden stockpile Y N N
HHERA exposure
assumptions
Primary crusher N N N
Overland conveyor N N N
Fish Lake would be a
Fisheries compensation Y N Y source of potential
exposure
Fish Lake would be a
Water management
Y N Y source of potential
controls and operations
exposure
Changes will not alter
Construction sediment
Y N N HHERA exposure
control
assumptions
Access road construction
N N N
and upgrades
Camp construction N N N
grubbing)
assumptions
Soils handling and
stockpiling
assumptions
Construction: plant site
N N N
and other facilities
HHERA exposure
Lake dewatering Y N Y assumptions shift to
Fish Lake
Fish Lake water Y N Y Fish Lake will be a

Change in Change in
Project Change in
Regulatory HHERA
Works Design (Y/N)
(Y/N) Assumptions
Management source of potential
exposures for HHERA
Starter dam construction Y N N HHERA exposure
assumptions
Sourcing water supplies
(potable, process/TSF)
assumptions
Site waste management N N N
Clearing of transmission
N N N
line ROW
Construction/Installation
N N N
of transmission line
Vehicular traffic Y N N HHERA exposure
assumptions
facility near Macalister N N N
(upgrades to site)
Operations
Pit production N N N
Crushing and conveyance N N N
Ore processing and
N N N
dewatering
Explosive handling and
storage
assumptions
Fish Lake will be a
source of potential
Tailing storage Y N Y
exposures for the
HHERA
Non-PAG waste stockpile Y N N HHERA exposure
assumptions
PAG stockpile Y N N HHERA exposure
assumptions
Overburden stockpile Y N N HHERA exposure
assumptions
Ore stockpile Changes will not alter
management and Y N N HHERA exposure
processing assumptions

Change in Change in
Project Change in
Regulatory HHERA
Works Design (Y/N)
(Y/N) Assumptions
Potable and non-potable

N N N
water use
Fish Lake will be a
Site drainage and source of potential
Y N Y
seepage management exposures for the
HHERA
Fish Lake will be a
Water management source of potential
Y N Y
controls and operation exposures for the
HHERA
Wastewater treatment and
discharge (sewage, site N N N
water)
Water release
contingencies for
N N N
extended shutdowns
(treatment)
Solid waste management N N N
Maintenance and repairs N N N
Concentrate transport and
N N N
handling
Vehicle traffic Y N N HHERA exposure
assumptions
Transmission line
N N N
(includes maintenance)
Pit dewatering N N N
Fish Lake will be a
source of potential
Fisheries compensation Y N Y
exposures for the
HHERA
N N N
Closure
Fish Lake will be a
Water management source of potential
Y N Y
controls and operation exposures for the
HHERA
Fish Lake will be a
source of potential
Fisheries compensation Y N Y
exposures for the
HHERA
Site drainage and Fish Lake will be a
Y N Y
seepage management source of potential

Change in Change in
Project Change in
Regulatory HHERA
Works Design (Y/N)
(Y/N) Assumptions
exposures for the
HHERA
Reclamation of ore
stockpile area
assumptions
Reclamation of Non-PAG
waste rock stockpile
assumptions
Fish Lake will be a
Tailing impoundment source of potential
Y N Y
reclamation exposures for the
HHERA
Fish Lake will be a
Pit lake and TSF Lake source of potential
Y N Y
filling exposures for the
HHERA
Plant and associated
N N N
facility removal
Road decommissioning N N N
Transmission line
N N N
decommissioning
Post-closure
Fish Lake will be a
Discharge of tailing source of potential
Y N Y
storage facility water exposures for the
HHERA
Fish Lake will be a
Discharge of pit lake source of potential
N N Y
water exposures for the
HHERA
Fish Lake will be a
Seepage management source of potential
Y N Y
and discharge exposures for the
HHERA
Fish Lake will be a
Ongoing monitoring of source of potential
Y N Y
reclamation exposures for the
HHERA
Interaction of Other Will Involve Update Of
Y N N
Projects and Activities Project Inclusion List
Accidents, Malfunctions Y N N Two new scenarios
and Unplanned Events (land and water

Change in Change in
Project Change in
Regulatory HHERA
Works Design (Y/N)
(Y/N) Assumptions
(A&Ms) based) due to fish
lake; other A&Ms
would not change–
previous A&Ms would
still apply

There have been no changes in federal or provincial regulations pertaining to the HHERA since the
original Prosperity EIS submission (Volume 6, Section 6.1.1). The regulations that pertained to the
HHERA component of the Prosperity EIS also pertain to the HHERA component of the New Prosperity
EIS.

As a result of the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines, there are changes to the HHERA KIs and assessment
requirements from the March 2009 EIS/Application. They include:
x Risks to human health from effects on water supply and quality for local residents and communities
relating to both drinking water and recreational use (Fish Lake) and for drinking water at the mine
site, taking into account potential health risks from discharges, if any
x Effects of the project on air quality around the mine site including worker camps, and in the broader
study area where human receptors may be present (Fish Lake) and potential human health risks
from proposed air emissions and dust generated at the mine site and by traffic related to the mine;
x Accepted standards or guidelines for protection of human health for the CACs
x Effect of noise duration and character due to project activities during all phases of the Project life
cycle and evaluation of the severity of predicted changes in noise levels and how they might affect
human health, including for users of Fish Lake, the impacts of blasting activities on human receptors
x Mitigative measures and monitoring of air quality, water quality, noise and country foods, as
appropriate
x Noise impacts on Aboriginal cultural and spiritual activities in the Project area and Fish Lake in
particular shall be identified and assessed; standards/guidelines for noise and blasting shall be
referenced
x Risks to human health from current and post-closure consumption of country foods (fish, wildlife,
plants, traditional medicines etc.) by Aboriginal groups and any potential stakeholders in the Project
area who may be exposed to:
o Pesticides/herbicides
o Seepage/runoff or effluent
o Metal contaminated soil and dust
o Contaminated vegetation
o Metal levels in fish in all watersheds within the Project area
x Collection of baseline data on metals in tissues of wild game, with data assessed for risks to human
health

x Identification of the most sensitive human receptors, particularly those that are the most susceptible
to potential changes in air quality, drinking water and recreational water quality, noise and chemical
contaminants in country foods, and
x Quantification of the human health risks from contaminated country foods, taking into account
Aboriginal people as a special sub-population with unique consumption patterns and risk
sensitivities.

The key issues for the HHERA from the March 2009 EIS/Application are also key issues for the New
Prosperity Project. As identified in Section 6.2.1 of Volume 6 of the March 2009 EIS/Application, the Key
issues for the HHERA associated with the Project include:
x Changes in air quality in relation to human health
x Changes in water quality in relation to human health
x Country food quality in relation to human health
x Identification of reasonable country food consumption estimates, and
x Changes in chemical concentrations in the environment (soil, sediment, surface water and
vegetation) in relation to terrestrial ecological receptors.
As identified in section 2.3.5 of this assessment, there are changes to the KIs for the HHERA based on
the New Prosperity EIS Guidelines. Table 2.7.3.3-2 shows the measurable parameters of the key
indicators for the HHERA for the March 2009 EIS/Application and New Prosperity Projects.
Key Indicator Measurable Parameters

Air quality 24-hour and annual average concentrations 24-hour and annual average concentrations
related to of metals, CACs and HAPs in air. of metals, CACs and HAPs in air.
human health
Water quality Metal concentrations in Lower Fish Creek, Metals concentrations in Fish Lake and Fish
related to Taseko River and other watershed Lake water shed in addition to Lower Fish
human health components Creek and Taseko River
Country foods Metal concentrations in vegetation and game Metal concentrations in vegetation and
quality related from regional area and fish tissue from Lower game from regional area and fish tissue
to human Fish Creek from Lower Fish Creek with the addition of
health fish tissue from Fish Lake.
Country food Estimates of country food consumption was Estimates of country food consumption was
consumption based on information of regional based on information of regional
rates consumption patterns consumption patterns
Soil quality Metal concentrations in soil Metal concentrations in soil
Vegetation Metal concentrations in vegetation in the LSA Metal concentrations in vegetation in the
quality LSA

environmental effects ratings. The following criteria were used for the interaction ratings:
2. Potential effects on human health or terrestrial ecological receptors are likely to decrease or stay the
same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions), and there are no required changes to previously
proposed mitigation measures, and no additional regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e.,
from the EAO, Panel, EIS Guidelines or other applicable regulations). Therefore, no further
assessment is warranted, but information is provided to substantiate that the effect is likely to
decrease or stay the same.
3. Potential effects on human health or terrestrial ecological receptors are likely to decrease or stay the
same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions), but some re-evaluation of the potential effects is
required due to changes in project design, proposed mitigation measures, and/or additional
regulatory requirements have been identified (i.e., from the EAO, Panel, EIS Guidelines, or other
applicable regulations).
4. Potential effects on human health or terrestrial ecological receptors are likely to increase; therefore,
further assessment is warranted.
Table 2.7.3.3-3 HHERA Potential Environmental Effects Associated with New Prosperity (Effects
Scoping Matrix)
Country Food Quality
Terrestrial Ecological
Surface water & Soil
Human Health Air
Human Health
Quality
Quality
Effects

Construction of Site Access road construction and 0
0 0 0
Utilities/Access upgrades
Construction/installation of 0
Clearing of transmission line ROW 0 0 0
transmission line
Fisheries compensation) Fisheries compensation 0 0 0 0
Overburden and waste rock PAG stockpile 0 0 0 0
management Overburden stockpile 0 0 0 0
Site clearing (clearing and 0
Site clearing (clearing and grubbing) 0 0 0
grubbing)
Water management controls and 0
0 0 0
operations
Site waste management
Lake dewatering 0 0 0 0

Human Health Air
Human Health
Quality
Quality
Effects
Fish Lake water management 0 0 0 0

Vehicular traffic Vehicular traffic 0 0 0 0
Sourcing water supplies (potable, 0
Water sourcing and Use 0 0 0
process/TSF)
Operations
Ore extraction and stockpiling Ore stockpile management and 0
0 0 0
processing
Overburden and waste rock
PAG stockpile 0 0 0 0
management
Overburden stockpile 0 0 0 0
Site drainage and seepage 0
0 1 0
management
Site water management
0 0 0
operation
Tailings management Tailings storage 0 0 0 0
Vehicle traffic Vehicle traffic 0 0 0 0
Closure
Reclamation of Non-PAG waste rock 0
Reclamation 0 0 0
stockpile
0 0 0
operation
Site Water Management Site drainage and seepage 0
0 0 0
management
Post-closure
Discharge of tailing storage facility 0
0 1 1
Site water management water
Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of reclamation 0 0 0
Interaction of other projects and activities

Human Health Air
Human Health
Quality
Quality
Effects
Interaction of other projects and activities 0 0 0 0

Accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events
Accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events 0 0 0 0
there would be no interaction, the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even
without mitigation, or the interaction would not be significant due to the application of codified
environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental
effects. This has not changed since the March 2009 EIS/Application; details on the justification for this
rating are provided in the issues scoping section for each KI in the March 2009 EIS/Application (see
Volume 6 section 6.2). These interactions are not discussed further in this assessment.

The evaluation presented in Table 2.7.3.3-3 shows that none of the listed activities are expected to
results in effects that are greater for the New Prosperity Project than the original Prosperity Project.
Interactions rated as “1” are due to:
x The retention of Fish Lake and the Fish Lake watershed as undisturbed lands that will be open to
recreational activities, and
x The retention of Fish Lake as fish habitat.
Table 2.7.3.3-4 provides a summary rating the potential effect for each KI. The potential changes to metal
deposition to soil and surface water are the most important for their potential effects on human health,
country food quality and terrestrial receptors.
Table 2.7.3.3-4 VEC Key Indicator Project Effects Scoping Table
Potential Effect Human Health Human Health Country Food Terrestrial

Air Quality Surface water & Quality Ecological
Soil Quality Effects
Effect Mechanism Air quality in the Deposition of Alterations metal Deposition of
vicinity of Fish metals to soil & concentrations in metals to soil
Lake surface water in country foods & surface
the vicinity of Fish (game, fish water in the
Lake vegetation) in the vicinity of Fish
vicinity of Fish Lake Lake
Key Indicator
Air quality 1 0 0 1
Water quality 0 1 1 1
Country foods quality 0 0 1 0
Soil quality 0 1 1 1
Vegetation quality 0 0 1 1
0 = Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions), and there are no
required changes to previously proposed mitigation measures, and no additional regulatory requirements have been identified
(i.e., from the EAO, Panel, or other applicable regulation).
1 = Effect related to KI is likely to decrease or stay the same (i.e., no changes to significance conclusions), but some re-evaluation
of effect is required due to changes in project design, proposed mitigation measures, and/or additional regulatory requirements
have been identified.
2 = Effect related to KI is likely to increase; therefore, further assessment is warranted.

The temporal boundaries for the HHERA component of the New Prosperity Project have not changed
from those considered in the HHERA for the Prosperity Project and encompass baseline, construction,
operation, closure and post-closure conditions.


The spatial boundaries for the LSA for the New Prosperity Project remain essentially unchanged from the
original Prosperity submission. However, the land-use patterns within the LSA have changed and now
encompass an undisturbed area around Fish Lake. Potential exposures to dust and contaminants in the
Fish Lake area have been considered for human and ecological receptors that may be in the Fish Lake
area during all phases of the mine life, including post-closure. See Table 2.7.3.3-5 for changes to the
study areas used, relative to the March 2009 EIS/Application.

Study Area
Regional Encompassed most of the Fish Creek No changes
Study Area watershed, extending to the top of the bluffs
(RSA) on the east side of the Taseko Valley. The
mine site RSA is also the area of 1:20,000
TEM mapping previously developed for the
mine site.
The mine site RSA had a total area of
18,267 ha.
Local Study A buffer of 500 m on the proposed mine A buffer of 500 m on the proposed mine
Area (LSA) footprint, including the section of new road footprint is retained. This leads to small
required at the north end of the mine changes relative to the Prosperity LSA
footprint. This study area was expected to boundary at the north end of the study
include the maximum area that could be area directly east of Wasp Lake, reflecting
indirectly affected by the Project as a result the changes to the proposed footprint.
of dustfall, windfall and localized changes in The mine site LSA has a total area of
drainage patterns and was also intended to 4,434 ha.
accommodate any potential for future
changes to the mine footprint.
ha.
Disturbance The mine site MDA had a total area of footprint, to represent a “worst case” for
Area (MDA) 4,419 ha development.
The mine site MDA has a total area of
2,601 ha
Updates to Consultation on the Assessment for the HHERA

Through the original 2009 Panel process, Taseko was provided with a list of plants of traditional
importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG). This information is used to define the Country
Food Plants KI.
Updates to the assessment method for vegetation due to consultation since the submission of the March
2009 EIS/Application include the consideration of country food plants.

Project Impact Assessment for HHERA

There are five potential environmental effects identified for the HHERA including changes in air, soil,
surface water and country food quality and effects on terrestrial ecosystem receptors. These are
discussed below. A description of the human receptors, recreational activities and the location where
these activities are expected to occur were considered in the HHERA and are detailed in Appendix 6-6-A
(Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Baseline Report) that forms part of the March 2009
EIS/Application.
Soils Around Fish Lake

Aerial deposition modeling was re-evaluated to provide estimates of dust and metal loading to soil in the
vicinity of Fish Lake. The details of the re-evaluation are provided in the Air Quality Assessment section of
this submission. This reassessment focused on the area of highest predicted deposition and metal
accumulation in the soil at the north end of Fish Lake (associated with soil map unit O1) (see Section
2.7.2.2). The metal loadings to soil were estimated following a predicted 20 years of operation (1 year of
construction and 19 years of mine operation). The predicted total increases in metal concentrations for
the polygons associated with Soil Map Unit 01 (SMU-01) are provided in Appendix 2.7.3.3-A. In addition,
the minimum, average and maximum predicted increase are shown at the bottom of the table in Appendix
2.7.3.3-A. The predicted increases are based on the assumption that metal accumulation occurs in the
top 5 cm of soil and that there is no loss of metal from this layer over time.
The maximum predicted increases in metal concentrations were used to calculate the predicted increases
in metal concentrations in soil that would occur over the 20-year mine life (1 year of construction and 19
years of operation). The final predicted concentration for each of the metals is shown in Table 2.7.3.3-6.
The CCME soil quality guidelines for residential/parkland use (which are the applicable guidelines for
parks and wilderness settings), are also provided. Baseline and 20-year predicted concentrations for the
majority of the metals are below their respective CCME soil quality guidelines. The human health
component of the CCME residential/parkland soil quality guidelines are based on the assumption that a
toddler and an adult would have access to the soil 365 days per year, a situation which over-estimates
the potential exposure frequency that could reasonably be expected to occur in the vicinity of Fish Lake.
Therefore, since the predicted maximum metal concentrations for the majority of the metals would not be
considered to be a concern in a residential setting, it is reasonable to conclude that the metal
concentrations predicted to be present in post-closure soils would not represent a potential concern for
people who may use the Fish Lake area. The baseline concentrations of arsenic, copper, nickel and
selenium exceed their respective CCME soil quality guideline values. The data provided in Table 2.7.3.3-
6 show that the predicted maximum increases in the concentrations of these metals over baseline
concentrations, range from a minimum increase of 0.005% for nickel to a maximum increase of 0.65% for
copper, indicating that post-closure, the levels of these metals in the soil in the vicinity of Fish Lake will
not differ from what currently exists prior to development.

Table 2.7.3.3-6 Changes in Soil Quality at Worst Case Site (North Shore of Fish Lake) as a Result
of Project Activities to Assess Human Health Risk
CCME Soil
Maximum
Total Quality
Baseline Predicted
Concentration % Increase Guideline for
Metal Concentration Increase after
after 20 Years over Baseline Residential/
(mg/kg) 20 Years
(mg/kg) Parkland
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Antimony 0.97000 0.00040 0.97040 0.0409 20
Arsenic 99.90000 0.00313 99.90313 0.0031 12
Barium 249.00000 0.01088 249.01088 0.0044 500
Cadmium 1.00000 0.00002 1.00002 0.0015 10
Chromium 63.00000 0.02122 63.02122 0.0337 64
Cobalt 22.00000 0.00298 22.00298 0.0136 50
Copper 68.00000 0.44263 68.44263 0.6509 63
Lead 4.00000 0.00085 4.00085 0.0213 140
Mercury 0.09500 0.00008 0.09508 0.0802 6.6
Molybdenum 2.00000 0.00743 2.00743 0.3713 10
Nickel 66.00000 0.00327 66.00327 0.0050 50
Selenium 1.20000 0.00046 1.20046 0.0384 1
Silver 0.20000 0.00008 0.20008 0.0419 20
Zinc 63.00000 0.00008 63.00008 0.0001 200
Deposition over a 20-year period is not expected to result in measureable increases in metal
concentrations in the soil in the Fish Lake area over the life of the mine. For the majority of the metals
listed, 20-year soil concentrations are below the applicable CCME soil quality guidelines and thus, would
not represent a potential concern for human health or ecological receptors. Several metals, arsenic,
copper, nickel and selenium are present in baseline soils at concentrations that exceed their respective
CCME guidelines. A metal for which the baseline or background concentration exceeds its respective
CCME guideline is not concidered to be an environmental concern because the local enviornment
(human and ecological) is considered to have adapted to the elevated presence of the metal. An increase
in the concentration of said metal, as a result of human activitiy, does require assessment to determine
whether the predicited increase represents a incremental increase in exposures above baseline
conditions. Based on deposition rates calculated by the air dispersion modeling, it has been determined
that the concentrations of these metals are not expected to increase above the baseline concentrations in
the soils on the north shore of Fish Lake or in the soils surrounding Fish Lake. Therefore, the increases in
concentrations of these metals in the soil around Fish Lake that are predicted to result from 20 years of
operations at the facility, would not be expected to represent a potential concern for human or ecological
receptors in the vicintiy of Fish Lake.
The HHERA for the Prosperity Project assessed direct contact exposures to metals in soils (ingestion of
soil, dermal contact with soil and inhalation of soil particles re-entrained in the air column were considered
for human, and direct contact with soil for plants and animals) in the LSA. These were found to not be a

concern for human health or ecological receptors based on the fact that metal concentrations in the soil
were either below their respective CCME criterion or the concentrations in post-closure soils were not
different than baseline conditions. A description of the human receptors, recreational activities and the
location where these activities are expected to occur considered in the Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment (HHERA) are detailed in Appendix 6-6-A (Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Baseline Report) that forms part of the March 2009 EIS/Application.
The reworked air deposition modelling completed for the New Prosperity Project is based on the worst-
case deposition in the vicinity of Fish Lake. The results of this new assessment are similar to those of the
original HHERA. Metal concentrations in soil in the vicinity of Fish Lake are not expected to increase
above baseline conditions and thus, direct exposures to metals in soils would not be a concern for
humans or terrestrial ecological receptors (wildlife and vegetation) in the vicinity of Fish Lake.
The terrestrial ecological receptors (wildlife and plants) considered in the HHERA for the original
Prosperity Project were carried over to the HHERA for the New Prosperity Project. The finding that even
under worst-case assumptions, metals concentrations in soil would not be expected to increase above
baseline, means that the conclusions of the previous risk assessment remain valid for the New Prosperity
Project as well. Therefore, the post-closure concentrations of metals in the soils do not represent health
concerns for terrestrial animal receptors in the LSA in the vicinity of Fish Lake and beyond.
The initial HHERA did identify potential concerns for plants associated with the levels of boron and copper
reported in soils. It should be noted that boron, which was identified as exceeding a soil quality guideline
in the 2009 EIS/Application, has not been carried forward as a metal of concern in the current
submission. The soil screening criterion for boron (2 mg/kg) used in the original submission represents a
hot-water extractable value that is set to protect certain crop species and is appropriate for use in an
agricultural setting. In the baseline assessment, the reported boron concentrations represent total boron
and therefore, the comparison of these concentrations to the CCME soil quality guideline, while
conservative, is inappropriate for evaluating potential environmental concerns related to boron in soil. The
CCME does not provide soil quality guidelines for total boron. In the absence of guidelines for total boron
from CCME or the Province of British Columbia, screening values for total boron (120 mg/kg) developed
by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE, 2011) were used to re-evaluate potential human and
ecological concerns related to boron levels in the soil. The mean and 95th percentile concentrations of
boron in soil, reported in the 2009 EIS/Application were 8.9 mg/kg and 23 mg/kg respectively. Both
concentrations are well below the OMOE criteria for total boron, and thus, boron would not be considered
to represent a potential concern for humans of terrestrial receptors.
A summary of the expected changes in soil quality for copper and the associated increase in predicted
Phytotoxicity Hazard Quotients (HQs) is provided in Table 2.7.3.3-7 The results show that metal
deposition to soil after 20 years of operation will not appreciably increase the HQ above that predicted for
baseline conditions. Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that metal deposition to soil, under worst-
case conditions in the vicinity of Fish Lake, will not represent a health concern for vegetation in the area.

Table 2.7.3.3-7 Changes in Soil Quality at Worst Case Site (North Shore of Fish Lake) as a Result
of Project Activities to Assess Ecological Risk
Baseline Predicted
Phytotoxicity
Metal Soil Soil
Benchmark (mg/kg)
Concentration HQ Concentration HQ
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Copper 225 68 0.302222 68.44263 0.304189
Water Quality in Fish Lake

Daily variations in mean metal concentrations in Upper Fish Creek (UFC), Fish Lake (FL) and Tributary 1
(Trib1) have been estimated for the years 2010 through 2112. These data can be found in the Water
Quality Assessment (Section 2.7.2.4). The daily mean concentrations have been used to calculate yearly-
averaged mean concentrations for each of the metals of concern. The yearly-averaged mean
concentrations were calculated as the average mean concentration for each year that daily estimates
were available. The yearly summary data for the three locations, UFC, FL and Trib1, are provided in
Appendix 2.7.3.3-A. For each of the three locations, separate tables are provided that list the Canadian
Drinking Water Guidelines (CDWG) and the Livestock Water Guidelines (LWG) to facilitate the
assessment of potential effects for human and terrestrial ecological receptors. A summary, comparing the
maximum predicted yearly-averaged mean metal concentrations with the CDWG and LWG is provided in
Table 2.7.3.3-8.
The CDWG are set to protect human health in situations where water is used as source of domestic
potable water where people are assumed to consume the water daily on a year-round basis. This
situation would not be expected to exist in the vicinity of Fish Lake. The area around Fish Lake is
expected to be used for recreational purposes and therefore, it is unlikely that people in the area would
consume water from FL, UFC and/or Trib1 with the frequency assumed in the derivation of the CDWG.
Therefore, the use of the CDWG as the basis for identifying potential concerns for human health is a
conservative approach that would tend to over-estimate potential risks. Review of the CDWG tables for
FL, UFC and Trib1 in Appendix A shows that the yearly-averaged daily mean concentrations are well
below the CDWG for each of the metals. Therefore, surface water quality in UFC, FL and Trib1 would be
acceptable as a source of potable water and thus, the predicted metals concentrations do not pose a
potential concern for human health.
To evaluate whether predicted changes in surface water quality in FL, UFC and Trib1 would represent
potential concerns for terrestrial ecological receptors, the yearly-averaged mean concentrations were
compared to the LWG. Although the LWG are typically applied in evaluating groundwater quality, they
apply equally to surface water, where surface water is used as a source of water for livestock. The LWG
are protective of livestock health (both mammal and fowl), and as such provide an appropriate means of
evaluating potential concerns for terrestrial ecological receptors associated with surface water quality in
FL, UFC and Trib1. The data provided in Table 2.7.3.3-8 show that the maximum predicted yearly-
averaged mean metal concentrations in surface water are below the LWG and thus, the predicted metals
concentrations in UFC, FL and Trib1 do not pose a potential concern for the health of terrestrial ecological
receptors.

The change in footprint for the New Prosperity Project to retain Fish Lake and the Fish Lake watershed
shifts the focus of the water quality component of the HHERA (drinking water sources for human health
and fish and fish habitat for ecological receptors) from Lower Fish Creek and the Taseko River to Fish
Lake. Given that the post-closure water quality in Fish Lake is to meet both the CDWG and LWG, the
change in project design would not be expected to alter the conclusions of the HHERA. Water quality in
Fish Lake, upper Fish Creek and Tributary 1 in the Fish Lake watershed is not expected to be a concern
for human health of ecological receptors.

Table 2.7.3.3-8 Predicted Maximum Yearly-Averaged Mean Metal Concentations in Surface Water Resulting from Project Activities
Antimon Arseni Bariu Berylliu Cadmiu Chromiu Cobal Coppe Mercur Molybdenu Nicke Seleniu
Compound Lead Silver Zinc
y c m m m m t r y m l m
CDWG 0.001
0.006 0.01 1 0.004 0.005 0.05 0.004 1 0.01 0.001 0.25 0.1 0.01 5
(mg/L) 5
LWG (mg/l) - 0.025 - 0.1 0.08 0.05 1 0.3 0.1 0.003 0.05 1 0.05 - 0.05
Maximum Predicted Yearly-Averaged Mean Concentrations (mg/L)

0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.004
FL 0.0013 0.0011 0.0082 0.0022 0.0001 0.0003 0.0032 0.0000 0.0136 0.0033
5 5 8 1 9
0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.005
UFC 0.0011 0.0012 0.0080 0.0021 0.0001 0.0007 0.0036 0.0000 0.0094 0.0036
3 5 9 1 3
0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.005
Trib1 0.0010 0.0011 0.0076 0.0021 0.0001 0.0007 0.0034 0.0000 0.0103 0.0032
3 5 9 1 2

Country Foods Quality

The original HHERA evaluated the potential risks associated with the consumption of country foods
collected from the RSA. Although changes in the development footprint mean that people will have
opportunities to collect country foods (wildlife and vegetation) from the undisturbed area around Fish
Lake, the underlying assumptions regarding country food consumption patterns and rates will remain
unchanged. The country food consumption rates for meat, vegetation and fish that were used in the
original baseline assessment have not been changed in this assessment. The country food consumption
rates used in the baseline assessment are documented in Appendix 6-6-A of the March 2009
EIS/Application. It should be noted that the current assessment of potential effects is based on an
evaluation of the incremental increase in metals loadings to environmental media (soil, surface water,
vegetation and country foods) that is predicted to occur as a result of operations at the facility. The
relationship between metals concentrations in soil and direct exposures to metals is directly proportional
to the changes in metals levels in the soil. For example, a 10% increase in the concentration of a metal in
soil would lead to a 10% increase in the predicted human exposure to metals in that soil, provided that
the activity patterns that govern receptor exposures remain the same. Similar relationships exist between
changes in metals levels in soil and changes in metals levels in vegetation and country foods. This
relative relationship has been used to estimate potential effects for human and terrestrial ecological
receptors for the New Prosperity Project.
The retention of Fish Lake and environs as an undisturbed area means that the potential now exists for
people and terrestrial ecological receptors (animals and plants) to be present in the vicinity of Fish Lake
during operations and post-closure. The exposure pathways for human receptors (toddlers and adults)
considered in the baseline assessment (soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of soil particulate and
the consumption of country foods, vegetation and surface water) (see Appendix 6-6A of the 2009
EIS/Application) would remain unchanged with the new mine footprint. To assess the potential changes in
exposures and possible alterations in the conclusions of the HHERA, this assessment considers the
incremental increase in exposures that could occur as a result of changes in environmental loading. The
evaluation of potential environmental effects is based on the predicted incremental increase in exposures
that may occur as a result of facility operations. Thus, while it is benefical that the country food
consumption rates be as representative as possible, so that important food items are not missed, it is not
essential that detailed knowledge of consumption rates specific to the immediate vicinity be used. The
assessment of incremental changes in exposure requires that exactly the same mutli-media exposures be
assessed for baseline and post-closure conditions. Thus, limitations in knowledge relating to local country
food consumption rates will not affect the ability of the assessment to identify incremental changes in
potential exposures. This approach has the advantage of not requiring precise estimates of the local
country food consumption patterns to determine potential changes in exposure from baseline conditions.
Refinements to the country food consumption rates that could be made to reflect local consumption
patterns would apply equally to the baseline and effects assessments. Incorporating such refinements
would not alter the ratios between baseline and post-closure exposure estimates from what is presented
in the current assessment. As a result, differences in the potential risks associated with country food
consumption that might exist between the Prosperity and New Prosperity projects will be related strictly to
potential differences in metal concentrations in the country foods considered in the assessment. The
original assessment considered consumption of vegetation, willow ptarmigan, muskrat and moose; fish
consumption was also considered and is discussed below. As noted above, metal loading to soil following
20 years of operation are not predicted to be measurably different from baseline conditions. As a result,

metals levels in tissue would not differ from those used in the Prosperity Project HHERA to estimate the
risks associated with the consumption of country foods.
In reviewing the predicted post-closure metals concentrations in soil in the vicinity of Fish Lake, the
greatest increase in concentration was noted for copper, where the concentration after 20 years was
estimated to be 0.65% higher than the copper concentration in soil in the vicinity of Fish Lake under
baseline conditions. To provide a worst-case estimate of changes in exposures for people and ecological
receptors that may result from the change in project footprint, this 0.65% increase in metal concentration
was assumed to apply to all the metals considered as COCs in the original Prosperity submission. Using
this approach, it is possible to provide a wosrt-case estimate of potential increases HQs above baseline
conditions that would be associated with the consumption of country foods following 20 years of operation
of the New Prosperity Project. Table 2.7.3.3-9 summarizes the country food consumption HQs for
baseline conditions (using the mean and 95th percentile metal concentrations in country foods measured
in the original baseline study) and the predicted HQs for country food consumption after 20 years of
operation for the toddler and adult receptors. The HQs at 20 years of operation have been calculated by
multiplying the baseline HQs (for the mean and 95th percentile) by a factor 1.0065 to reflect the predicted
0.65% increase in metal concentrations in soil in the vicinity of Fish Lake. The data show that even when
the HQs are increased by 0.65% for the toddler and adult receptors, the consumption of country food
does not alter the potential health risks above what would be predicted for a baseline condition.
It must be stressed that the HQ values provided below represent the worst-case potential increases.
Given that, for the majority of the metals, the predicted concentrations in soil following 20 years of
operation represent increases of less tha 0.1%, the HQ values would be lower than those presented in
the table. Based on these results, it is reasonable to conclude that the development plan for the New
Prosperity Project will not alter the conclusions of the original HHERA.
The HHERA for the Prosperity Project identified potential cancer risks that exceeded the risk acceptability
benchmark of 10-5 (one additional cancer per 100,000 population) associated with arsenic exposure for
people who may consume moose taken from the LSA (Volume 6; Section 6). The elevated cancer risks
were noted for both the baseline and operations conditions and showed that the cancer risks associated
with the consumption of moose were actually lower post-closure than for baseline conditions. Given that
arsenic concentrations are not predicted to increase measurably beyond baseline, predicted cancer risks
for arsenic associated with the consumption of moose would not change from those presented in the
original report, and the conclusion that these cancer risks would be no different than those for others in
British Columbia eating food from their grocery stores, would not change. Therefore, the proposed
change in project footprint to retain Fish Lake will not change the original conclusion.

Table 2.7.3.3-9 Predicted Hazard Quotients for Toddlers and Adults Consuming Country Foods in the Local Study Area Assuming a
Conservative 0.65% Increase in Modelled Concentrations1
Hazard Quotients (non-carcinogenic risk)

Toddler Adult
Metal Baseline At 20 years of Operation 2
Baseline At 20 years of Operation2
95th 95th 95th
Mean Mean Mean Mean 95th Percentile
Percentile Percentile Percentile
Vegetation
Arsenic 0.0200 -- 0.0201 -- 0.0090 -- 0.0091 --
Chromium (Total) 0.1090 -- 0.1097 -- 3.39E-05 -- 3.41E-05 --
Copper 0.0220 -- 0.0221 -- 0.0100 -- 0.0101 --
Willow Ptarmigan
Arsenic 0.0030 0.0080 0.0030 0.0081 0.0020 0.0040 0.0020 0.0040
Chromium (Total) 0.0090 0.0440 0.0091 0.0443 0.0050 0.0240 0.0050 0.0242
Copper 0.0060 0.0120 0.0060 0.0121 0.0030 0.0060 0.0030 0.0060
Muskrat
Arsenic 0.0010 0.0030 0.0010 0.0030 0.0010 0.0020 0.0010 0.0020
Chromium (Total) 0.0030 0.0170 0.0030 0.0171 0.0020 0.0100 0.0020 0.0101
Copper 0.0020 0.0050 0.0020 0.0050 0.0010 0.0030 0.0010 0.0030
Moose
Arsenic 0.0450 0.1160 0.0453 0.1168 0.0250 0.0630 0.0252 0.0634
Chromium (Total) 0.1250 0.6200 0.1258 0.6240 0.0680 0.3380 0.0684 0.3402
Copper 0.0780 0.1690 0.0785 0.1701 0.0420 0.0920 0.0423 0.0926
NOTES:
1. Shaded cells indicate an exceedance of the associated government benchmark value.
2. HQ values at 20 years of operation have been calculated based on the predicted 0.65% increase in metal concentrations in soil

Consumption of Fish from Fish Lake

The HHERA completed for the Prosperity Project submission, evaluated potential risks associated with
the consumption of fish collected from Lower Fish Creek. The retention of Fish Lake in the New
Prosperity submission necessitated consideration of the consumption of fish taken from the Fish Lake
watershed (Fish Lake, Upper Fish Creek and Tributary 1) rather than Lower Fish Creek. The original 2009
EIS/Application evaluated potential human health risks associated with fish consumption for four metals
of concern including arsenic, chromium, copper and selenium (Appendix 6-6-A of the 2009
EIS/Application). The human health risks associated with exposure to these metals through the
consumption of fish taken from Fish Lake, Upper Fish Creek and Tributary 1 have been evaluated for the
New Prosperity Project. In addition to these four metals, mercury has been included in the current
assessment.
The yearly-averaged mean concentrations discussed above (Water Quality in Fish Lake) and presented
in Appendix 2.7.3.3-A have been used to estimate yearly-averaged metal concentrations in fish tissue for
fish in FL, UFC , Trib1 and Pit Lake. Metal concentrations in fish tissue were estimated using the following
equation (US EPA, 1999):
Equation 1:
Where:
Parameter Description Units

mg COC/kg wet tissue Estimate metal concentration in fish – whole body mg/kg
mg COC/ L water Yearly-averaged mean concentration in surface water mg/L
BCF Bioconcentration Factor unitless
Estimated metal concentrations in fish tissue for FL, UFC, Trib1 and Pit Lake are presented in Appendix
2.7.3.3-A. These data have been calculated for each of the years for which estimated water quality data
were available. The Fish Tissue Concentration tables provided in Appendix 2.7.3.3-A list the BCFs used
to estimate metal loadings for each of the metals of concern at the top of the table. In addition, the
maximum estimated concentration of each metal in fish tissue is provided at the bottom of the each table.
These maximum concentrations are summarized in Table 2.7.3.3-10. The maximum predicted
concentration of each metal is shown in Bold Type.
Table 2.7.3.3-10 Estimated Maximum Metal Concentrations in Fish Tissue (Whole Body)
Maximum Predicted Concentration in Fish Tissue (mg/kg wet weight)

Location
Arsenic Chromium Copper Mercury Selenium
Fish Lake 5.72E-02 5.05E-02 1.02E+01 5.66E-03 5.54E-01
Upper Fish Creek 6.20E-02 1.34E-01 1.14E+01 3.58E-03 6.05E-01
Tributary 1 5.74E-02 1.34E-01 1.08E+01 3.99E-03 5.50E-01
Pit Lake 5.72E-02 5.05E-02 1.02E+01 5.66E-03 5.54E-01

In estimating potential exposures to metals through fish consumption, it has been assumed that people
taking fish from the Fish Lake watershed would have equal access to locations throughout the watershed
and that fish could be taken from anywhere across the watershed. In order to provide a conservative
estimate of potential exposures, the maximum predicted metal levels in fish tissue from across the
watershed have been used to estimate exposures. The yearly-averaged daily exposure to metals as a
result of eating fish taken from the Fish Lake watershed have been calculated for toddlers and adults as
shown in Equation 2:
Equation 2:
Where:
EDI Estimated yearly-averaged daily intake mg/kg-day
CFT Concentration in Fish Tissue (wet weight) mg/kg
CR Fish Consumption Rate kg/day
CF Consumption Frequency days/year
BW Body Weight kg
Exposures to metals through fish consumption have been estimated for toddlers and adult receptors
using the same yearly-averaged daily fish consumption rates (43 g/day for a toddler and 100 g per day for
an adult) and the same number of assumed days of consumption of fish taken from the study area (60
days per year) that were used in the original 2009 EIS/Application (Appendix 6-6-A of the 2009
submission). Estimated exposures to metals in fish tissue for the toddler and adult receptors are provided
in Table 2.7.3.3-11.
Table 2.7.3.3-11 Estimated Daily Intake of Metals from Fish Consumption
Body
CFT CR CF Days/Year EDI
Metal Weight
mg/kg kg/day dyas/year kg mg/kg-day
Toddler
Arsenic 6.20E-02 0.043 60 365 16.5 2.66E-05
Chromium 1.34E-01 0.043 60 365 16.5 5.73E-05
Copper 1.14E+01 0.043 60 365 16.5 4.88E-03
Mercury 5.66E-03 0.043 60 365 16.5 2.43E-06
Selenium 6.05E-01 0.043 60 365 16.5 2.59E-04
Adult
Arsenic 6.20E-02 0.1 60 365 70.7 1.44E-05
Chromium 1.34E-01 0.1 60 365 70.7 3.11E-05
Copper 1.14E+01 0.1 60 365 70.7 2.65E-03
Mercury 5.66E-03 0.1 60 365 70.7 1.32E-06

Selenium 6.05E-01 0.1 60 365 70.7 1.41E-04
These EDI values have been used to calculate the potential non-cancer risks associated with the
consumption of fish from the Fisk Lake watershed for the toddler and adult receptors as shown in
Equation 3. The HQs calculated for toddler and adult receptors are shown in Table 2.7.3.3-12.
Equation 3:
Where:
HQ Hazard Quotient unitless
EDI Estimated daily intake mg/kg-day
TRV Toxicity Reference Value mg/kg-day
Table 2.7.3.3-12 Hazard Quotients for Non-Carcinogens Ingested from Fish Taken from the Fish
Lake Watershed
EDI TRV HQ
Metal
mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Unitless
Toddler
Arsenic 2.66E-05 0.0003 8.85E-02
Chromium 5.73E-05 0.001 5.73E-02
Copper 4.88E-03 0.03 1.63E-01
Mercury 2.43E-06 0.0003 8.09E-03
Selenium 2.59E-04 0.005 5.18E-02
Adult
Arsenic 1.44E-05 0.1 1.44E-04
Chromium 3.11E-05 0.1 3.11E-04
Copper 2.65E-03 0.1 2.65E-02
Mercury 1.32E-06 0.1 1.32E-05
Selenium 1.41E-04 0.1 1.41E-03
The HQs associated with exposure to the metals of concern that could result from the ingestion of fish
from the Fish Lake Watershed for the toddler and adult receptors are below the hazard acceptability
benchmark of 0.2 established by Health Canada. It should be noted that the estimated metal
concentrations in fish tissue presented above represent total metal loading to whole fish (muscle, liver
and skeleton) and not fish muscle which is typically what is consumed by humans. Thus, the exposure
and risk estimates presented above are likely to over-estimate both exposures and the associated risks.

Given that the HQs for both toddlers and adults are below the acceptable exposure limits established by
Health Canada, it is reasonable to conclude that the potential human exposures and health risks
associated with the consumption of fish from the Fish Lake watershed would not represent a potential
concern for human health.
The original HHERA also evaluated the potential incremental increase in life-time cancer risk associated
with exposure to arsenic through the consumption of fish and concluded that the life-time cancer risk
could be as high as 4.0 x 10-4 which is above the cancer risk acceptability benchmark of 10-5 established
by Health Canada. However, the original submission concluded that fish consumption from Lower Fish
Creek was likely to be over-estimated and that actual risks could be lower. Mean and 95th percentile
baseline arsenic concentrations measured in whole fish tissue (muscle and liver) in 2009 were 0.046
mg/kg wet weight and 0.11 mg/kg wet weight respectively (see Table 6-10 in Appendix 6-6-A of the 2009
EIS/Application). The evaluation of potential cancer risks considers exposures that occur over a number
of years rather than those that may occur over a single given year as is done when evaluating potential
risks associated with exposures to non-carcinogenic compounds. Therefore, to properly evaluate the
potential cancer risks associated with exposures to arsenic in fish in the Fish Lake watershed, the mean,
or 95th percentile concentration of the yearly-averaged concentrations for the 100 year time-frame for
which predicted water quality data are available. Mean, 95th percentile and maximum estimated arsenic
concentrations in fish tissue for FL, UFC, Trib1 and Pit Lake as well as the mean, 95th percentile and
maximum arsenic concentrations measured in fish tissue (liver and muscle) from samples collected
across the Local Study Area during the baseline investigations, are provided in Table 2.7.3.3-13.
Table 2.7.3.3-13 Comparison between Predicted and Measured Arsenic Concentrations in Fish
Tissue
Predicted Arsenic Concentration in Fish Tissue

(mg/kg wet weight)
Location
Mean 95th Percentile Maximum
Fish Lake 4.14E-02 5.67E-02 5.72E-02

Upper Fish Creek 4.39E-02 6.16E-02 6.20E-02
Tributary 1 4.24E-02 5.70E-02 5.74E-02
Pit Lake 4.14E-02 5.67E-02 5.72E-02
2009 Baseline Measures Arsenic Levels in Fish

Tissue
(mg/kg wet weight)
Local Study Area 4.60E-02 1.10E-01 4.60E-01
The data in Table 2.7.3.3-13 show that the predicted levels of arsenic in fish tissue from fish taken from
Fish Lake, Upper Fish Creek, Tributary 1 or Pit Lake would not be higher than the arsenic concentrations
measured in fish collected from the Local Study Area as part of the baseline investigation. Based on this it
is reasonable to conclude that the potential cancer risks associated with exposures to arsenic through the

consumption of fish during the operation or after closure of the facility will not differ from that which
currently exists in the area.
Based on these results, it can be concluded that the proposed changes in the mine development plan
would not alter the conclusions related to the potential human health effects associated with fish
consumption.
Air Quality in the Vicinity of Fish Lake

The HHERA completed for the Prosperity project submission evaluated the potential risks associated with
changes in air quality and the levels of Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs) for the Nemiah Valley, the
closest community to the proposed development. The New Prosperity Project includes the retention of the
Fish Lake watershed as an undisturbed area that will be used for recreational puposes. This change in
project design necessitated a re-evaluation of air quality in the immediate vicinity of the planned
development. Table 2.7.3.3-14 provides a summary of predicted air concentrations for the CACs in the
vicinity of Fish Lake and in the Nemiah Valley. The data show that for the majority of the CACs (Dustfall
(DF), NO2, CO, SO2 and lead (Pb)) predicted concentrations are well below the established provincial or
national air quality criteria. The data also show that particulate concentrations in the Nemiah Valley would
be below their respective regulatory standard or objective. For these CACs, the change in project footprint
would not result in health concerns related to inhalation exposures for human or ecological receptors.
The maximum 24-hour concentration of particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) is marginally higher than
the regulatory objective of 25 μg/m3 in both the construction and operation phases of the project.
Information in the 2009 submission predicted that exceeedances of the TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 guideline
would occur on a relatively frequent basis in the areas close to the mine boundary. The change in mine
site boundary will increase recreational access to areas close to mine operations above what was
assumed in the original submission. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the exceedances of the TSP,
PM10 and PM2.5 24-hour guidelines could occur on a relatively frequent basis. However, review of the air
dispersion isopleths (Appendix 4-2-B Figure 15 and Appendix 4-2-b Figure 32) shows that these
exceedances are localized on the north shore of Fish Lake in the immediate vicinity of the site boundary
and that over the majority of the the undisturbed area around Fish Lake, predicted maximum PM2.5
concentrations are well below the established criteria. Thus, exposure to PM2.5 is unlikely to be a concern
for human or ecological receptors. Similar results are seen for particulate matter < 10 microns PM10
(Appendix 4-2-B Figure 14 and Appendix 4-2-B Figure 31). Therefore, PM10 is unlikely to represent a
potential concern for human or ecological receptors. It must be stressed that these concentrations
represent maximum or worst-case conditions and are not expected to occur on a continual basis over the
life of the operation. Therefore, particulate matter is not expected to be a concern for human or ecological
receptors in the Fish Lake area on an occasional basis.
Table 2.7.3.3-14 Maximum Predicted CAC Concentrations at Fish Lake and Nemiah Valley
throughout the Project
Substance Averaging Lowest Maximum Predicted Concentration at Maximum Predicted Concentration at
3 3
Period Regulatory Fish Lake (μg/m ) Nemiah Valley (μg/m )
Objective or Background Construction Operation Background Construction Operation
Standard Alone Alone Alone Alone
PM2.5 24-hour 25a 15d 7.0 37 34 7.0 0.080 0.27

PM10 24-hour 50a 25d 18.5 595 438 18.5 0.73 2.4
TSP 24-hour 120b 18.5 57.1 357 18.5 0.73 2.4
Annual 60b 18.5 22.7 62.2 18.5 0.03 0.08
DF (mg/dm2/d) 30 day 1.7–2.9 c 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.04
NO2 1-hour 400b 26.8 104 171 26.8 13.2 20.5
b
24-hour 200 17.1 49.8 96.8 17.1 1.9 4.1
b
Annual 60 17.1 8.8 20.3 17.1 0.1 0.1
CO 1-hour 14,300a NV 179 882 NV 6.5 14.9
8-hour 5,500a NV 99.1 495 NV 3.3 7.7
SO2 1-hour 450a NV 0.27 0.98 NV 0.0 0.00
24-hour 150b NV 0.068 0.26 NV 0.0 0.00
Annual 25a NV 0.011 0.022 NV 0.0 0.00
Pb 24-hour 4a NV 0.0023 0.012 NV 0.000049 0.00016
Annual 2a NV NV 0.0000017 0.0000036
NOTES:
NV: no value
DF: dustfall
Exceeds air quality objective
a BC MOE Air Quality Objectives and Standards (BC MOE, 2009). Available at: http://www.bcairquality.ca/reports/pdfs/aqotable.pdf
b National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (Health Canada, 2007). Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/naaqo-
onqaa/index-eng.php
c Pollution Control Objectives for the Mining, Smelting, and Related Industries (BC MOE, 1979). The Dustfall Objective (DF) is a
daily rate, referenced to a 30 day sampling interval.
d National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Matter (Health Canada, 1998). Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-
semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/air/naaqo-onqaa/particulate_matter_matieres_particulaires/summary-
sommaire/98ehd220.pdf
Consideration for Pesticide and Herbicide Use

There is the potential for pesticides and/or herbicides to be used during the construction, operation and
closure phases of the project. The storage, application and disposal of these chemicals will be managed
in accordance with the requirements stipulated by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and
the Province of British Columbia. These regulations have been established to protect human and
environmental health in situations where it is necessary to apply these materials in an environmental
setting. Adherence to these regulatory requirements will limit the potential effects of these materials to
what is considered acceptable by regulatory agencies. Therefore, the use of pesticides and/or herbicides
will not pose a risk to human health or the environment beyond what would be deemed acceptable by
regulatory agencies that govern the use of these materials.
Baseline Conditions for Effects

The baseline conditions for the New Prosperity Project have not changed from those that applied to the
original Prosperity Project.

Mitigation Measures
The original HHERA for the Prosperity Project noted that mitigation measures to address issues related to
the release of air contaminants, soil loading of metals and discharge of Pit Lake and Tailings Storage
Facility water into the Fish Lake and surrounding watersheds would adequately address concerns
identified in the HHERA and that no additional mitigative measures, specific to the HHERA would be
required. This recommendation has not changed with the New Properity Project.

effect on a component of the biophysical or human environment
with the environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that are likely to occur,
and
and activities are shown on Figure 2.7.1.4-1. As indicated in Table 2.7.1.4-1, eight of these projects and
activities are new since 2009. In addition, there is more existing disturbance at baseline as the result of
logging (see Section 2.7.2.7). Of the eight new potential projects, only one, the Newton Mountain
exploration property, is located west of the Fraser River and, therefore, considered to have the potential
to interact cumulatively with the Project’s residual effects on human health and terrestrial ecological
receptors if it should reach a production decision in the future.
For human health and terrestrial ecological receptors, the first condition is met; that is, there are Project-
specific residual effects on this VEC. However, these effects are unlikely to interact cumulatively with
past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities. With respect to the third condition, in the
March 2009 EIS/Application it was concluded that the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects would
not affect human health conditions in a regional context.

described in Section 2.7.1.5.
The findings of the Project residual effects assessment for the HHERA for the New Prosperity Project are
summarized in Table 2.7.3.3-15. As noted in the discussions provided above, the change in the
development plan between the Prosperity and New Prosperity projects is not expected to alter the
conclusions of the HHERA. Considering the updated findings related to the Project, mitigation measures,
and cumulative residual effects on human health presented in this document, the overall significance
determination for the New Prosperity Project, including all three major components (mine site, access
road, and transmission line), is unchanged from 2009. The conclusion that the Project would not be
expected to have a significant effect on human or ecological health in the area remains unchanged. That
is, the effect of the Project on human health conditions in a regional context is considered to be not
significant.
.The rationale for the significance determinations are as follows:
x For Air Quality, the magnitude of a potential effect on air quality that would affect human health or
terrestrial ecological receptors is low. Although particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10, TSP and dustfall) are
predicted to exceed applicable objectives or standards, these exceedances occur at or very near the
mine site (north shore of Fish Lake), and the areas where these exceedances may occur are very
small. As a result, the areas of potential adverse effect represent a very small percentage of the area
that people who use Fish Lake would be expected to occupy. Therefore, the effects are considered
to be not significant.
x For Water Quality, the magnitude of potential effects on water quality, when considered as a source
of drinking water that would affect human health or terrestrial ecological receptors, is low and the
effect is far future or permanent and irreversible; with implementation of the mitigation measures as
detailed in the March 2009 EIS/Application, the conclusion is that the environmental effect is not
significant because the metal concentrations do not exceed either the CDWG or the LWG.
x For Country Foods, the magnitude of a potential effect on country food quality (metal concentrations
in country foods), is low, and the effect is far future or permanent and irreversible, with
implementation of the mitigation measures as detailed in the March 2009 EIS/Application; the
conclusion is that the environmental effect is not significant because the effect represents no
appreciable increase over baseline conditions.
x For soil, the magnitude of a potential effect on soil quality is low, and the effect is far future or
permanent and irreversible; with implementation of the mitigation measures as detailed in the March
2009 EIS/Application, the conclusion is that the environmental effect is not significant because the
effect represents no appreciable increase over baseline conditions.
x For vegetation, the magnitude of a potential effct on vegetation quality (metals concentrations in
vegetation), is low, and the effect is far future or permanent and irreversible; with implementation of
the mitigation measures as detailed in the March 2009 EIS/Application, the conclusion is that the
environmental effect is not significant because the effect represents no appreciable increase over
baseline conditions.
The confidence in the predictions of human and ecological exposures and the associated risks is high
given the confidence in the predictions in changes to metals concentrations in soil and water across the
study area. Also conservative toxicity reference values have been used to ensure that, if anything,
potential risks for human and ecological receptors are over-estimated. In addition, the HHERA has been
conducted using conservative country food consumption rates for humans and ingestion rates for
ecological receptors. It should be noted that within the HHERA, the assessment of potential
environmental effects is based on an assessment of the changes in metal concentrations in
environmental media between pre-development baseline conditions and predicted metal concentrations
in environmental media during the operations, closure and post-closure phases of the development. The
assumptions regarding country food consumption rates do not change between the baseline and the
other phases of the project. It is the relative change in exposures and risks that occur between baseline,
operations, closure and post-closure conditions that is used to determine the overall environmental
effects of the project.
The baseline assessment conducted for the 2009 EIS submission quantitatively assessed the potential
effects of metals in soil for wildlife and avian species including:

x Soil invertebrates
x Plants
x Moose (Alces americanus)
x Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)
x Snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus)
x Cinerus shrew (Sorex cinereus)
x Canada goose (Branta Canadensis)
x Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), and
x Willow ptarmigan (lagopus lagopus).
Hazard quotients (risk estimates) for all mammals and avian species were less than one (1.0) for baseline
conditions. The estimates of metal accumulation in soil during the operation, closure and post-closure
phases of the Project show no appreciable increase in metal levels in soils as a result of Project activities.
Given that metal concentrations in soil post-closure would not differ measurably from baseline conditions,
it can be concluded that project activities will not adversely affect terrestrial ecological receptors.
The maximum predicted increases in metals concentrations was seen for copper. The deposition
modelling data predicted a maximum increase in copper levels as high as 0.65% from baseline, which
was localized in the area on the north shore of Fish Lake. Such an increase will not alter the potential
effects on vegetation in the area. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that project activities will not
adversely affect terrestrial vegetation receptors.

Table 2.7.3.3-15 Project Residual Effects Assessment Summary for Human Health for New Prosperity
Significance
Geographical
Reversibility
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Potential
Duration/
Direction
Context
Extent
Environmental Effect: Proposed Mitigation/Compensation Measures
Human Health KI
Air quality Mitigation measures proposed to maintain air quality and limit dust Low (Post-closure -
will provide the necessary protection for human health and terrestrial N limited potential for L ST/L R U N H
ecological receptors dust migration)
Water quality Low (Post-closure –
Mitigation measures proposed to maintain water quality in the Fish drinking water
Lake watershed will provide necessary protection for human health N quality essentially L FF/L I U N H
and terrestrial ecological receptors. unchanged from
baseline conditions)
Country foods quality Low (Post-closure
Mitigation measures proposed to maintain air and water quality and
soil quality
limit dust migration by other disciplines will provide the necessary N L FF/L I U N H
unchanged from
protection for country food quality
Soil quality Low (Post-closure
Mitigation measures proposed to maintain air quality and limit dust
soil quality
will provide the necessary protection for human health and terrestrial N L FF/L I U N H
unchanged from
ecological receptors
Vegetation quality Low (Post-closure
Mitigation measures proposed to maintain air quality and limit dust
soil quality
will provide the necessary protection for human health and terrestrial N L FF/L I U N H
unchanged from
ecological receptors


S Site-specific R Rare - Occurs Once S Significant
Direction: L Local I Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at irregular intervals N Not Significant
P Positive R Regional F Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis and at regular
N Neutral intervals Prediction Confidence:
A Adverse Duration: C Continuous Based on scientific information and
ST: Short term statistical analysis, professional
Magnitude: MT: Medium Term Reversibility: judgment and effectiveness of
Defined for each KI individually. In general: LT: Long Term R Reversible mitigation
L Low–environmental effect occurs that FF: Far Future or Permanent. I Irreversible L Low level of confidence
may or may not be measurable, but is M Moderate level of confidence
within the range of natural variability. Ecological Context: H High level of confidence
M Moderate–environmental effect occurs, U Undisturbed: Area relatively or not adversely
but is unlikely to pose a serious risk or affected by human activity
present a management challenge. D Developed: Area has been substantially previously
H High–environmental effect is likely to disturbed by human development or human
pose a serious risk or present a development is still present
management challenge. N/A Not applicable.

Table 2.7.3.3-16 presents a concise summary of the effects assessment for human health.
Considering the updated findings of the Project, mitigation measures, and cumulative residual effects on
human health presented in this document, the overall significance determination for the New Prosperity
Project, including all three major components (mine site, access road, transmission line), is unchanged
from 2009. That is, the effect of the Project on human health conditions in a regional context is
considered to be not significant.
Table 2.7.3.3-16 Summary of Effects Assessment for Human Health
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
Beneficial and conservation of Fish Lake and associated riparian habitat and a smaller MDA. This is
adverse effects expected to reduce the loss of areas where country foods can be obtained in the
area.
Mitigation and effects have been proposed for project-related activities. These activities will be
compensation protective of human health and terrestrial ecological receptors. No HHERA-specific
measures mitigation measures are required, nor have compensation measures, specific to the
HHERA, been proposed.
Residual effects related to human health and terrestrial ecological receptors are
Potential
expected to be low. A summary of the anticipated effects is provided in Table
residual effects
2.7.3.3-12.
The cumulative effects predicted in the 2009 assessment for human health and
terrestrial ecological receptors are expected to still apply to the New Prosperity
Cumulative
Project. The incremental contribution of the combined cumulative environmental
effects
effect in the LSA and RSA, including the Prosperity Project with respect to human
health and terrestrial ecological receptors, are predicted to be not significant.
Determination The combined residual environmental effects of the Project on human health and
of the terrestrial ecological receptors are predicted to be not significant. This assessment is
significance of predicated on the implementation of proposed mitigation and the development of
residual effects appropriate compensation measures.
Likelihood of
occurrence for
There is the possibility that the prediction of significant adverse effects is incorrect,
adverse effects
whereby an adverse effect deemed to be not significant may have an adverse effect.
found to be
The likelihood of this remains low.
significant
Additional Work
Given the proximity of Fish Lake to the New Prosperity Project, and the potential human health concerns
associated with the consumption of fish identified in the Prosperity and New Prosperity HHERAs, it is
recommended that biota sampling in Fish Lake be conducted to provide potential exposure estimates that
better reflect local conditions.

Follow-up Monitoring
The recommendations for follow-up monitoring for human and ecological health are not expected to differ
from the recommendations contained in the HHERA prepared for the original Prosperity Project with the
following exception:
x Although chemical changes in air, water, and soil quality in the vicinity of Fish Lake are expected to
be minor in nature throughout the life of the projects, it is recommended that the monitoring
programs planned for 2, 5 10 and 15 years include sampling of soil, water, sediment, vegetation and
fish tissue from Fish Lake and the vicinity.
This will provide the information necessary to confirm the conservative nature of the predictions contained
in the risk assessment.

2.7.3.4 Project Benefits
Gross Domestic Product

The Project will produce a range of beneficial economic effects as detailed in Appendix 2.7.3.4-A and
summarized in this section. The effects will start with the commencement of construction activities. The
beneficial effects include its contribution to economic growth (gross domestic product), and increases to
employment, incomes and government revenue. These beneficial effects will be evident locally, across
BC, and nationally.39
The Project’s contribution to British Columbia’s economy is measured by the increase in goods and
services sourced provincially as a consequence of building and operating the mine. Over its construction
and operating phases the Project will add a total of $11 billion dollars to the provincial economy. The
annual contribution in each year is substantial, generally exceeding $500 million of “new” production, as
summarized in Figure 2.7.3.4-1.
Figure 2.7.3.4-1 Contribution to Gross Domestic Product

Employment
The Project is expected to support a total of 57,000 person years of employment in BC summed over the
construction and operating periods. On a yearly basis, the peak employment is in the second year of
construction and the first years of operations (Figure 2.7.3.4-2). Best efforts will be made to qualify and
hire as many local persons as practical. The expected tight labour market in BC will temper these efforts,
39
The quantitative estimates of beneficial economic effects for British Columbia are from Centre for Spatial Economics (2011). The
economic effects reported for the William Lake area are derived by applying “multipliers” whose specific values are reported in BC
Stats (2008a, 2008b). Project data and coefficients for government revenue are from BC Stats (2008b). Economic impacts at the
national level are not reported.

and the Project will likely draw persons to the province seeking improved economic opportunities. It is
estimated that the Project will add 5,400 persons to the BC population.
Direct employment peaks at about 1,000 person years in year two of construction. During operations the
on-site labour force exceeds 400 persons most years. Those working directly for the mine will be
encouraged to live in the region. Spending by the Project on goods and services, as well as purchases by
its workforce stimulates additional spending and employment in the Williams Lake area. This local “spin-
off” employment totals 6,200 person-years over the term of the Project, and averages nearly 300 full time
equivalent jobs annually. It is shown in Figure 2.7.3.4-2 as the gap between Direct employment and
William Lake total employment. The “spin-off” employment stimulated by the Project in the rest of BC is
substantial, as shown in the figure.
Figure 2.7.3.4-2 Total Employment BC and Williams Lake Local Area
Employment Income
The Project’s beneficial effect can also be measured in wages and salaries paid. The aggregate dollar
values of the payments to labour are shown in Figure 2.7.3.4-3. The pattern is similar to the profile of
man-years of employment, with a peak in the construction phase, and relatively steady annual value over
most of the operations phase. Note however that the Williams Lake area receives a higher proportion of
the total payment. This is because the relatively higher annual wages (over $110,000/year on average)
paid to direct employees, who will likely choose to live in the region, is much higher than the average
wage earned provincially for work related to the Project (i.e. average BC earnings in 2009 was $43,500)
(BC Stats and Statistic Canada, 2009).

The industries (excluding Mining and Construction industries) whose outputs will be substantially
increased because of the Project include: Government Services, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Finance
and Real Estate, Professional Scientific and Management Services, and Transportation. Government
services outputs increase largely in response to the increase in provincial population. The in-migrants will
require health, education and government services.
Figure 2.7.3.4-3 Wages and Salaries Paid
Government Revenues
The Project will pay taxes to the three levels of government. The taxes directly levied on the Project
include the provincial Minerals Tax and various corporate taxes. Individuals will also remit personal
income tax to Canada and BC. An estimate of the annual tax payments is presented in Figure 2.7.3.4-4.
Over the life of the Project, the total taxes paid are approximately $2 billion. Corporate taxes amount to
55% of the tax revenue, mineral tax 35% and personal income tax 10%. Approximately $1.2 billion
accrues to BC and local government and the remainder to Canada.

Figure 2.7.3.4-4 Payments to Government
There are public values and benefits generated by New Prosperity that reach far beyond just the taxes
directly levied on the Project itself. The development of New Prosperity will act as a significant long term
economic stimulus to the Cariboo-Chilcotin Region, British Columbia, and Canada as a whole.
Specifically it is estimated the construction and operation of the New Prosperity over the period 2013 to
2036 will result in the following:
x A direct expenditure for construction and sustaining capital by Taseko Mines in excess of $1.5 billion
x Generate production revenues in excess of $11.0 billion.
x Increase employment in BC by 71,000
x An increase in Real GDP of $11.0 billion
x The GDP increase on a per capita basis is $2,200
x Consumer spending will increase in BC by $9 billion
x Residential investment expenditure increase by $786 million
x Non-residential construction investment increases by $1.03 billion
x Investment in machinery and equipment (by others) increases by $1.38 billion
x The population of BC rises by 5,400
x Disposable income per household in BC rises $1,157

x Federal government revenues rise by $4.30 billion, and
x Provincial government revenues rise by $5.52 billion.
All scenarios are detailed further in Table 2.7.3.4-1.

Table 2.7.3.4-1 Economic Benefits Data

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Project Year -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Indicator Project Life
GNP ($000) $ 11,138,965 $ 329,494 $ 594,799 $ 234,629 $ 669,459 $ 648,433 $ 667,107 $ 591,547 $ 569,321 $ 635,370 $ 555,129 $ 511,924 $ 468,432 $ 478,362 $ 552,347 $ 494,166 $ 553,524 $ 636,317 $ 707,077 $ 467,315 $ 289,575 $ 289,575 $ 195,064
Employment (person years)
Direct 9103 500 1000 866 342 386 402 420 417 421 440 456 445 457 394 372 328 338 307 239 212 207 154
William Lake 15293 840 1680 1455 575 648 675 706 701 707 739 766 748 768 662 625 551 568 516 402 356 348 259
Total BC 56701 3114 6229 5394 2130 2404 2504 2616 2597 2622 2741 2840 2772 2847 2454 2317 2043 2105 1912 1489 1321 1289 959
Wages and Salaries ($000)
Direct $ 792,855 $ 33,865 $ 61,132 $ 27,284 $ 42,060 $ 40,436 $ 38,609 $ 43,548 $ 40,899 $ 41,346 $ 43,273 $ 44,540 $ 41,700 $ 44,920 $ 35,127 $ 32,405 $ 29,823 $ 32,185 $ 30,045 $ 25,104 $ 23,799 $ 23,990 $ 16,765
William Lake $ 666,263 $ 36,596 $ 73,192 $ 63,384 $ 25,032 $ 28,252 $ 29,423 $ 30,740 $ 30,521 $ 30,814 $ 32,204 $ 33,375 $ 32,570 $ 33,449 $ 28,837 $ 27,227 $ 24,007 $ 24,739 $ 22,470 $ 17,493 $ 15,517 $ 15,151 $ 11,272
Total BC $ 2,470,261 $ 135,684 $ 271,368 $ 235,005 $ 92,808 $ 104,748 $ 109,090 $ 113,974 $ 113,160 $ 114,246 $ 119,402 $ 123,744 $ 120,759 $ 124,015 $ 106,919 $ 100,949 $ 89,009 $ 91,722 $ 83,310 $ 64,857 $ 57,530 $ 56,173 $ 41,791
Government Revenue
BC
Mineral Tax $ 687,981 $ - $ - $ 3,061 $ 9,858 $ 9,169 $ 36,131 $ 45,304 $ 43,147 $ 52,913 $ 39,454 $ 33,141 $ 29,636 $ 29,957 $ 45,113 $ 39,018 $ 48,806 $ 58,528 $ 68,131 $ 40,417 $ 18,577 $ 18,583 $ 19,036
Corporate Tax $ 426,402 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 22,925 $ 29,705 $ 27,807 $ 33,864 $ 25,657 $ 22,100 $ 18,289 $ 19,379 $ 28,482 $ 24,757 $ 31,578 $ 38,989 $ 44,837 $ 26,288 $ 11,795 $ 11,959 $ 7,990
Personal Income Tax $ 73,292 $ 3,130 $ 5,651 $ 2,522 $ 3,888 $ 3,738 $ 3,569 $ 4,026 $ 3,781 $ 3,822 $ 4,000 $ 4,117 $ 3,855 $ 4,152 $ 3,247 $ 2,995 $ 2,757 $ 2,975 $ 2,777 $ 2,321 $ 2,200 $ 2,218 $ 1,550
Canada
Corporate Tax $ 639,602 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34,388 $ 44,558 $ 41,711 $ 50,796 $ 38,485 $ 33,150 $ 27,433 $ 29,069 $ 42,724 $ 37,136 $ 47,367 $ 58,484 $ 67,255 $ 39,431 $ 17,693 $ 17,938 $ 11,984
Personal Income Tax $ 109,937 $ 4,696 $ 8,477 $ 3,783 $ 5,832 $ 5,607 $ 5,353 $ 6,038 $ 5,671 $ 5,733 $ 6,000 $ 6,176 $ 5,782 $ 6,229 $ 4,871 $ 4,493 $ 4,135 $ 4,463 $ 4,166 $ 3,481 $ 3,300 $ 3,327 $ 2,325

2.7.4 Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources

The act and guidelines require consideration of how the Project may cause changes to the environment
that in turn affect "physical and cultural heritage”. That term is not defined in the act and the specific
meaning does not appear to have been clarified in any prior panel decisions or judicial consideration to
date. CEAA has a 1996 "Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources” but the guide
itself clearly documents its limitations. In particular, it states:
As the practice of environmental assessment (EA) evolves, it will be necessary to update and
revise both the RA Guide and the individual reference guides. These guides should be seen as
“evolving documents” rather than as static textual materials.
The Guide goes on to state:

For the purpose of this guide, a cultural heritage resource is a human work or a place that gives
evidence of human activity or has spiritual or cultural meaning, and that has historic value.
Cultural heritage resources are distinguished from other resources by virtue of the historic value
placed on them through their association with an aspect(s) of human history. This interpretation of
cultural resources can be applied to a wide range of resources, including, cultural landscapes and
landscape features, archaeological sites, structures, engineering works, artifacts and associated
records.
Examples of Cultural Heritage Resources
x Historical monuments, structures, buildings or groups of buildings (e.g. Halifax Citadel in

Nova Scotia; Bethune-Thompson House in Ontario; Quebec City's walls and fortifications;
Christ Church Cathedral in New Brunswick; Parliament Buildings in Ottawa)
x Archaeological sites (e.g. Port-aux-Choix in Newfoundland; Archaeological sites along the

Chilkoot Trail in British Columbia; Wanuskewin Heritage Park in Saskatchewan)
x Cultural landscapes (e.g. Stanley Park in British Columbia; the Percé Rock in Gaspé; urban
cultural landscape of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia)
x Paleontological sites (e.g. Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta; Burgess Shale of Yoho
National Park), and
x Underwater sites (e.g. Shipwreck sites in Red Bay, Labrador and in Fathom Five, Ontario).
Although the Act identifies “physical and cultural heritage” as a component of the definition of
"environmental effect" distinct from "any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological,
paleontological or architectural significance”, or “the current use of lands and resources for traditional
purposes by aboriginal person”, in practice, there can be overlap between these. In fact, even the CEAA
Guide referenced above (which titled only in relation to Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources”
appears to conflate these and states:

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that consideration must be given to
cultural heritage resources in federal environmental assessments. The Act specifically refers to
“physical and cultural heritage” in the definition of “environmental effect”:
“any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effects of such
change..., on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use of lands and resources for
traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, or on any structure, site or thing that is of
historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance”
(Section 2(1)).
Recognizing the lack of complete clarity on this point, this section will deal with archaeological resources
as noted in the EIS Guidelines (2.7.4.1). Further, Section 2.7.5 deals with potential impacts on physical
and cultural heritage resources of interest to First Nations and with the current use of lands and resources
for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons.

2.7.4.1 Archaeology
Overall, the Project as proposed will result in a significant reduction (84%) in the number of
archaeological sites potentially affected as compared to the previously proposed project.
For the previously proposed project, given the quantity of sites and variety of site types identified during
the AIA, a scientific low, moderate, and high significance ranking system was developed for the purpose
of developing a mitigation plan. Thirty-nine (49%) of the archaeological sites identified were assessed as
having a low scientific value and as these site types were considered to be widespread and well-
represented throughout the region and the amount of scientific data that could be obtained from such
sites was considered negligible, the provincial Archeology Branch recommended that no further work at
these sites be undertaken.
Twenty-nine (37%) of the archaeological sites identified within the mine footprint were assessed as
having a moderate scientific value and eleven (14%) were assessed as having high scientific value. As
outlined in Section 24.0 of the Table of Commitments, if the previously proposed project were to proceed
Taseko was required to implement archaeological resource management measures throughout the
Project area to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on identified resources and culturally sensitive areas as
outlined in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts’ letter of 22 May 2009. The mitigation program,
details of which would have been specified in subsequent permit applications, was to include but not be
limited to:
x Systematic excavation of 16 of the 79 archaeological sites identified within the mine footprint of which
6 are to be subject to intensive investigation
x Survey of the lake basin after draining and the gathering and analysis of palaeo-environmental data
from the lake basin, and
x Lithic sourcing.
With the currently proposed project and its modified mine development plan, all but four (EiRv-34, EiRv-
33, EiRv-29 and EiRv-30) of the thirty-nine low scientific value sites and all but one (EiRv-18) of the
twenty-nine archaeological sites having a moderate scientific value have been avoided and therefore will
no longer be disturbed or lost (Figure 2.7.4.1-1). All five sites are located within the area of the proposed
pit development and thus cannot be avoided. The four sites assessed as having low scientific value were
found to contain lithics, all of which have already been recovered and preserved. The one moderate value
site was found to contain formed tools which have already been recovered and preserved is located in the
vicinity of the proposed pit and cannot be avoided. It was not one of the sites recommended for further
systematic data recovery by the provincial Archaeology Branch and, hence, no further mitigation
measures are proposed.
Three (EiRv-5, EiRv-37 and EiRv-3) of the eleven sites assessed as having high scientific value remain
within the Maximum Disturbance Area (MDA) of the proposed mine development plan leaving the
remaining eight sites totally outside the area and thus they will no longer be disturbed or lost. Two of the
sites remaining within the MDA, EiRv-37 and EiRv-3, will not be directly impacted or disturbed by any
clearing or grubbing or the placement of permanent structures but rather they form part of the buffer
areas round mine features that may be subject to potential indirect effects associated with mine activities;
EiRv-5 is within close proximity to proposed water management infrastructure and its location will be
considered during detailed design of the infrastructure in order to ensure avoidance of the site. Special

monitoring and mitigation measures, such as the clear marking of boundaries around each of these three
sites, are included in the Cultural and Heritage Protection Plan (Section 2.8.1) and will be implemented to
help ensure that they will not be disturbed throughout all phases of mine development activity. Final
details of this and any other such measure will form part of an Impact Management Plan approved by the
Archaeology Branch and attached to all subsequent permits and authorizations.

5700000 455000 460000 465000
5700000
Ta
se
5695000
5695000
ko
Ri
ve
r
5690000
5690000
455000 460000 465000
Mine Components and Archaeological Sites

2012 New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project Maximum Disturbance Area
-
Archaeological Sites
Mine Components
Buffered Zone
Boundary of TUS/East of Taseko R. 1:56,000
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources:
0 1.25 2.5 5 Province of British Columbia, Taseko Mines Ltd.
Kilometers
*Source: Terra Archaeology Ltd
2.7.5 Aboriginal Interests

The EIS guidelines direct Taseko to identify how the Project as proposed has changed from the previous
project proposal and whether these changes will result in environmental effects that could adversely
impact potential or established Aboriginal rights or title. Project changes from the previous proposal are
identified in Section 2.2.3, environmental effects are presented in Section 2.7.2, and the impact on
potential or established Aboriginal rights or title is summarized in Section 2.7.5.2 below.
Section 2.7.5 will consider how such changes might impact upon aboriginal interests that are within the
scope of the panel’s mandate.40
This effects analysis has drawn from the extensive information gained through oral and written
submissions to the previous panel during community hearings, the conclusions of the previous panel in
their report, and the information reviewed during the prior panel review including: the transcripts from
William case, the two cultural/heritage studies commissioned by Taseko in the 1990s (Ehrhart-English
1994 and 1993). Despite Taseko’s best efforts to communicate directly with First Nations on the New
Prosperity Project as described in Section 2.5.1.1 of this document, new information on aboriginal
interests relative to the redesign of the proposed mine site area has been obtained only through letters
from the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG), or their legal counsel, directed to either Taseko or the
Federal Government as documented in Section 2.5.1.1, or the public statements that the TNG or elected
representatives within the TNG have made. Recent Tsilhqot’in concerns focus on the new project’s
proposal for preservation of Fish Lake, and continued loss of Little Fish Lake and adjacent areas in the
watershed.
In describing key issues or concerns raised by Aboriginal groups, Taseko has provided a listing of the
issues raised during consultations on the previous Project as well as concerns identified in recent
correspondence for First Nation on New Prosperity in Section 2.5.1. Responses to the issues from the
previous Project are provided in Volume 8, Section 6, Table 6.2 through 6.14 and in the previous Project’s
panel review transcripts. Key issues or concerns raised since the previous panel review are listed in
Section 2.5.1, and Section 2.7.5.3 provides a listing of the Tsilhqot’in National Government’s (TNG’s)
publicized ’10 facts why resubmitted Prosperity Mine Proposal cannot be approved” including our
responses. In describing how the Project addresses the findings of the previous panel regarding
significant adverse impacts to potential or established Aboriginal rights or title, discussion is provided in
Section 2.7.5.2. Where relevant, new mitigation measures proposed for New Prosperity are described
throughout Section 2.7.5. Note that the proposed changes and mitigation measures are not necessarily
considered adequate by all First Nations and as such, issues should not be considered as being resolved
between the company and the aboriginal groups.
40
For the purposes of Sections 2.7.5.1 and 2.7.5.2 below, we use the terminology of the original panel related to the findings of
significant adverse effects on aboriginal rights and title interests or other aboriginal interests. For reasons noted in Section 2.5, we
believe that this is not the appropriate mode of analysis for the present panel, having regard to its mandate, and as such our
assessment in the sections regarding the impact of the Project on such matters is undertaken in accordance with the structure
contemplated by the panel terms of reference and the EIS guidelines. More specifically, any assessment of environmental effects
related to use of lands by aboriginal persons for traditional purposes (which results from change to the environment) is assessed
using the CEAAA policy for assessing the significance of potential adverse effects. Any matters which do not fall within the above
category, but are instead aboriginal rights and title issues, are not assessed under that policy, but the potential impact on such
rights is identified, and any mitigation or accommodation measures are noted. In any case where an aboriginal interest appears to
fall within both of these categories, comments and assessments are made in relation to each test.

Section 2.7.5 of the EIS further specifically requests that Taseko provide:
x Specific issues and concerns raised by Aboriginal groups to date in relation to the Project - These
are summarized in Table 2.5.1.1-2 and further detailed in Table 2.7.5-1 below, and discussed
throughout this entire Section 2.7.5. It is expected that the panel review process will provide
opportunities for aboriginal groups or individuals to provide further comment or clarification if Table
2.7.5-1 misrepresents their issues of concern.
x Any potential impacts that the Project may have on potential or established Aboriginal rights or title
and the measures to prevent or mitigate these potential impacts- this is discussed in Section 2.7.5.2.
x Resolution of issues and concerns raised by Aboriginal peoples - Issues raised and addressed in the
previous EA are summarized in Section 2.5.1, concerns relative to previous findings of no significant
adverse effect are discussed in Section 2.7.5.1 and alterations to the Project and any new mitigation
measures to resolve Aboriginal interests for which the previous panel found significant adverse
effects are described in Section 2.7.5.2.
x Any potential social and/or economic impacts or benefits to Aboriginal groups that may arise as a
result of the Project - this is provided in Section 2.7.5.4.
x Any potential effects on current uses of land and resources by Aboriginal groups for traditional
purposes including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping, cultural and other traditional uses of
the land (e.g. collection of medicinal plants, use of sacred sites) - This is discussed in Section
2.7.5.2.
x Measures to avoid, mitigate, or accommodate effects on the current use of lands and resources for
traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples - This is discussed in Section 2.7.5.2.
x Any effects of alterations to access into the area on Aboriginal groups - This is discussed in Sections
2.7.5.1 and 2.7.5.2.
x Any effects of the Project on heritage and archaeological resources in the Project area that are of
importance or concern to Aboriginal groups - This is discussed in Section 2.7.5.1 and 2.7.5.2.
x The residual impacts of any effects identified above on potential or established Aboriginal rights and
title - This is discussed in Section 2.7.5.2.
In order to provide a logical structure to Section 2.7.5 while meeting the specific requirements of the
Guidelines, Taseko has assembled the requested information related to Aboriginal interests in the
following four subsections:
2.7.5.1 Interests identified in the original panel report for which no significant adverse impact was found
but require further consideration in light of the proposed project changes
2.7.5.2 Interests identified in the original panel report that were subject to a finding of significant adverse
effect
2.7.5.3 Additional aboriginal interests identified since the time of the original panel report and not
otherwise covered by 2.7.5.1 or 2.7.5.2 above, and
2.7.5.4 Potential social and economic impacts to aboriginal groups.

Table 2.7.5-1 Effects Tracking Table and Aboriginal Issues of Concern
Potential Issue of Concern Potential Potential Response and Mitigation/ Accommodation

Effect Linkage to Linkage to Measures
Current Use Asserted or
of Lands and Established
Resources Aboriginal
Rights or
Title
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
A reduction in New Prosperity still Impact on Aboriginal • The MDA with New Prosperity is 2601
habitat in the results in loss of ability to hunt right to hectares, a 41% reduction in potential,
watershed habitat in the or trap in this hunt/trap worse case disturbance compared to the
watershed previous project.
watershed.
• Access to the Fish Lake area during mine
operations is provided to enable small
mammal trapping by First Nations in the
Fish Lake and surrounding riparian and
meadow areas.
• As stated in Section 2.7.5, Taseko is open
to discussing opportunities for improving
access to other areas in the territory where
access is currently limited, if desired, for
aboriginal hunting or trapping by
incorporating such planning in the habitat
compensation planning or access
management planning processes proposed.
Atmospheric Dust and the air Perception of • The Project is not anticipated to have an
Discharge carry pollutants that effect on effect on drinking water quality or be of
will be absorbed by human health concern to human health as drinking water
quality is essentially unchanged from
the plants and be
baseline conditions (Section 2.7.3.3).
ingested by animals • The effect of soil loading to wildlife through
and result in tainted direct contact and ingestion, and


Rights or
Title
home country foods subsequent human ingestion of such wildlife
was evaluated for arsenic, chromium, and
copper. Metal loading to soil following 20
years of operation are not predicted to be
measurably different from baseline
conditions. As a result, potential risk to
humans from consumption of vegetation,
willow ptarmigan, muskrat, and moose
indicated that the health risk would be no
different from baseline conditions, even
after mining activity (Section 2.7.3.3).
Monitoring will be conducted to confirm
predictions on soil and vegetation loadings
(Section 2.8.3 and 2.7.3.3.).
• Air monitoring will be conducted to confirm
predictions and a number of monitoring and
mitigation measures for the protection of the
atmospheric environment will be
implemented (Section 2.8.3 and 2.7.2.2).
• An overview of the Air Quality and Noise
Management Plan that will be implemented
and the mitigation measures for minimizing
dust is provided in Section 2.8.1. The
details of this plan will be finalized during
the BC Waste Discharge permitting process
[air emissions] with input and review from
regulators, public and First Nations.
• In accordance with Taseko’s Aboriginal
Policy and TSM, Taseko will be supporting
and encouraging Aboriginal involvement in
environmental monitoring, closure planning
and reclamation and other environmental
activities that may be of interest to them,


Rights or
Title
which would assist with mistrust of science
and/or monitoring programs.
A reduction in There be a net loss Ability to hunt Aboriginal • Development of the mine site and TSF will
habitat in the of habitat for wildlife or trap in this right to result in the direct loss of harvesting of deer,
watershed (such as grizzly watershed; hunt/trap moose, grouse and squirrel in portions of
reduced the Fish Lake watershed until post-closure.
bear) due to Project
abundance • Section 2.7.2.8 addresses issues for the
development and and diversity area potentially affected by the mine site
the travel corridors of wildlife in and includes a summary of the amount and
for animals (like adjacent type of wildlife habitat potentially impacted
mule deer) will areas by the development.
potentially be • Many species have widespread habitat
affected. regionally (e.g., moose, mule deer, black
bear) and habitat values on the mine site
are predicted to increase post-closure. The
Project effect on the grasslands, where the
greatest species of conservation concern
exist, is minimal.
• While trails exist and bear, deer and moose
travel through the area, the potential for the
Project to affect movement patterns was
assessed previously and considered to be
not of a concern. With the revised mine
plan, the potential for disruption of
movement patterns for wildlife in general is
reduced relative to the original mine plan
due to the decrease in TSF footprint. It is
now possible for wildlife to physically move
between the open pit and TSF, although
sensory disturbance from adjacent


Rights or
Title
operations and the TSF access road will still
reduce wildlife use of this area.
• Section 2.8.2 provides an overview of
proposed reclamation practices to re-
establish wildlife habitat for use by key
species. Detailed reclamation planning will
be developed during the Mines Act
permitting process.
• Measures to minimize impacts on
vegetation and wildlife habitat are referred
to in Section 2.7.2.7 and 2.7.2.8, and will be
developed into a Vegetation and Wildlife
Management Plan for which an overview is
provided in Section 2.8.1.
• A habitat compensation framework
document is provided in Section 2.9.
Increased The Project and its Impact on Aboriginal • Taseko is prepared to work with its
human development will abundance right to employees and contractors, and First
presence in increase local and diversity hunt/trap Nations to design and implement
the area hunting, specifically of wildlife for appropriate mitigation measures, such as
by employees, and hunting or the no-hunting/ no-fishing policy for its
contractors who will trapping in employees and contractors while they are
come and live in the this and on their work rotation, as described in in
local area surrounding Section 2.8.1 and Section 2.9.
watersheds
Increased Animal abundance Perception of Aboriginal • With the no-hunting zone encompassing the
human and diversity will be impact on right to mine site area, an issue of wildlife being
presence in affected by mortality abundance hunt, trap chased to the edge of the pit and falling in is
the area (falling in to the mine and diversity not anticipated. At post-closure and with the

Rights or
Title
pit, being killed on of wildlife for return of hunting to the area, the pit will be
the roads) hunting and filled with water and the upper pit edge
trapping in reclaimed, which will contribute to the
the area improved long-term safety of the pit area for
wildlife use.
• Speed limits on site will be implemented for
safety and to minimize road incidents with
wildlife (Section 2.8.1 and Section 2.9).
• Road incidents involving grizzly bear will be
tracked (see Section 2.8.3 and 2.7.2.8).
• Taseko has committed to working with local
First Nations on access management
planning, to decommission roads during
transmission line construction, where
possible, in attempt to reduce vehicle and
ATV access in general in the area.
• Roads will be decommissioned during mine
site reclamation at closure phase to limit
accessibility to the general public.
Noise/ Concerned that Perception of • To limit disruption to wildlife a mitigation

Sensory explosives will impact on measure proposed in the Air Quality and
Disturbance disrupt the current abundance Noise Management Plan is to optimize
affecting and diversity blasting practices to reduce noise and dust.
wildlife
Animal of wildlife for (See Section 2.7.2 and Table 2.7.2.3-8 for a
Distribution hunting and concise summary of measures in
trapping in construction and operations phases).
the area


Rights or
Title
A reduction in The mine is going to Impact on Aboriginal • Access to portions of the Fish Lake
habitat in the be located on their ability to trap right to trap watershed would be restricted during mine
watershed south-eastern trap in this operations.
watershed • Access to the Fish Lake area during mine
line.
operations is provided to enable small
mammal trapping by First Nations in the
Fish Lake and surrounding riparian and
meadow areas
• Mitigation specific to wildlife habitat (Section
2.7.2.8) would minimize potentially adverse
effects on the populations of target species
and opportunities for trapping of fur-bearing
animals.
• As stated in Section 2.7.5, Taseko is open
to discussing opportunities for improving
access to other areas in the territory where
access is currently limited, if desired, for
aboriginal hunting or trapping by
incorporating such planning in the habitat
compensation planning or access
management planning processes proposed.
• The reclamation objective is to return the
land to wildlife habitat as described in
Section 2.8.2.
A reduction in Trappers will not be Impact of lost • The EIS identifies trapping and guiding
habitat in the compensated for revenue for territories affected by the Project (Section
watershed losses on the trap inability to 2.7.3.1), identifies potential impacts to
trap in the hunting, trapping and guiding opportunities
line as a result of the watershed in the immediate and adjacent areas and
Project being proposes mitigation measures to reduce
developed. and eliminate negative effects.


Rights or
Title
• The two trap lines at the mine site would
experience the loss of a portion of their trap
line when construction starts (3.8% of
Nemiah’s tenure area and less than 2% of
the Gutfrucht area). The average harvest
value of licensees is well below $500.
Negative effects on trapping in the MDA
would occur during construction and
continue until mine closure when site
reclamation for fur bearer habitat would be
restored.
• The MDA and associated buffer area
represents a small portion of both the
habitat and the harvest of fur-bearers
among the two licensees, although some
minor effects are anticipated. The Project’s
contribution to residual and cumulative
effects on trapping activities is expected to
be not significant.
• Generally speaking, for new project
developments that might result in effects to
one or more existing licensees, those
remedies are negotiated and agreed upon
by the licensees themselves in cooperation
with the appropriate government ministries,
often at the regional or local level. For
Taseko’s part, mitigation specific to wildlife
habitat and outlined in the previous project
assessment (Volume 5, Section 6) and in
this EIS (Section 2.7.2.8) would minimize
potentially adverse effects on the
populations of target species and
opportunities for trapping of fur-bearing


Rights or
Title
animals.
Perception that Perception of • The Project is not anticipated to have an

Air and/or contamination will contamination effect on drinking water quality or be of
Effluent affect use of the on human concern to human health as drinking water
Discharge health will quality is essentially unchanged from
watershed. result in need baseline conditions (Section 2.7.3.3).
to hunt and • The effect of soil loading to wildlife through
trap direct contact and ingestion, and
elsewhere subsequent human ingestion of such wildlife
was evaluated for arsenic, chromium, and
copper. Metal loading to soil following 20
years of operation are not predicted to be
measurably different from baseline
conditions. As a result, potential risk to
humans from consumption of vegetation,
willow ptarmigan, muskrat, and moose
indicated that the health risk would be no
different from baseline conditions, even
after mining activity (Section 2.7.3.3).
Monitoring will be conducted to confirm
predictions on soil and vegetation loadings
(Section 2.8.3 and 2.7.3.3.).
• Air monitoring will be conducted to confirm
predictions (Section 2.8.3) and will be
planned in detail at permitting, and a
number of monitoring and mitigation
measures for the protection of the
atmospheric environment will be
implemented (Section2.8.3 and 2.7.2)
• An overview of the Air Quality and Noise
Management Plan that will be implemented


Rights or
Title
and the mitigation measures for minimizing
dust is provided in Section 2.8.1. The
details of this plan will be finalized during
the Waste Discharge [air emissions]
permitting process with input and review
from regulators, public and First Nations.
Fish and Fish Habitat

A reduction in New Prosperity still Loss of ability Aboriginal • Disturbance of fish-bearing habitat is
fish habitat in results in loss of to fish in that right to fish significantly reduced in New Prosperity
the watershed Little Fish Lake. location relative to the previous project. The 111
hectare Fish Lake is the more sustainable
fish-bearing water body in the watershed
compared to the 6 hectare Little Fish Lake,
which is shallow and subject to winterkill.
• The cultural effects of the proposed project
with the loss of stream habitat and Little
Fish lake will be felt by the Xeni Gwet’in and
Yunesit’in,
operations is provided to enable First
Nations fishing.
• To compensate for the loss of Little Fish


Rights or
Title
Lake, Taseko is committed to designing
acceptable fish habitat compensation plans,
as per federal authorization / approval. The
plan will include an implementation plan to
construct the habitat and a monitoring and
follow-up program to gauge the success of
the constructed habitat.
• First Nations input to the Fish
Compensation Plans will ensure
compensation of satisfaction to the
Tsilhqot’in, such as: improved access to
other lakes for aboriginal use if desired,
improved rearing and spawning habitat in
other lakes or the Taseko River.
A reduction in The impacts on fish Impact on Aboriginal • The fish habitat mitigation and
fish habitat in habitat in the area ability to right to fish compensation associated with New
the watershed will reduce catch desired Prosperity includes maintaining the genetic
volume of fish integrity of rainbow trout in Fish Lake and
opportunities for
from the the overall net increase in the productive
First Nations. location capacity of fish habitat (Section 2.7.2.5).
operations is provided to enable First
Nations fishing.
• Sufficient spawning habitat is preserved to
sustain Fish Lake for fishing opportunities
for future generations.
• Fish size is predicted to increase in Fish
Lake.


Rights or
Title
Onsite Fish living in the Perception of • There are many examples of situations
contamination tailings ponds will contamination where fish living in both tailings and
post-closure not be suitable for affecting seepage ponds of existing mines are known
eating. human health to be fit for human consumption (e.g. Trojan
Pond at Highland Valley Copper and the
reclaim pond at Gibraltar Mine).
• Tissue testing of fish in tailings ponds at
operating copper mines has been done, and
metal accumulation in tissue does not affect
suitability for consumption (Gibraltar Mine).
• Monitoring of fish health and fish tissue will
be conducted (Section 2.7.3.3 and Section
2.8.3)
A reduction in Risk of mine Perception of Aboriginal • Any future expansion of mining operations
fish habitat in expansion on Fish loss of ability right to fish into fish habitat will require Federal
the watershed Lake. to fish in the assessment and authorization, for which
future at that further aboriginal consultation and public
location input would be required.
A loss of a The genetic line of Perception of • The proposed Fish Compensation Plan
unique fish existing trout loss of unique includes measures designed to ensure that


Rights or
Title
species/variety population that fish the genetic line of the rainbow trout in the
exists today will not watershed will be maintained.
be maintained.
Offsite Pollution from the Perception of Aboriginal • During operations, surface water will not be
contamination mine effluent loss of ability right to fish discharged from the mine site.
drainage system to fish salmon • No adverse residual effects are anticipated
might devastate the and sturgeon for water quality offsite and salmon in the
salmon and sturgeon Taseko River following the implementation
within the Chilko and of proposed mitigation measures and water
Taseko River management plans (Section 2.7.2.4).
system. • Monitoring of water quality and
environmental effects, including fish health
and fish tissue, will confirm predictions
before there are discharges from the site at
closure (Section 2.7.3.3 and Section 2.8.3).
Reduction in Fish compensation Perception of Aboriginal • First Nations input to the Fish
fish plan may include reduced right to fish Compensation Plans will ensure
abundance or increased access to fishing compensation of satisfaction to the
opportunities opportunities Tsilhqot’in, such as: improved access to
fishing lakes further
in the area in other areas other lakes for aboriginal use if and where
increasing in the territory desired.
competition for fish • First Nations participation in access
and decrease the planning, as proposed in this EIS, would


Rights or
Title
harvest. assist with over-fishing and over-hunting
issues in the area.
Reduction in The loss of outlet Loss of ability Aboriginal • The cultural effects of the proposed project
fish habitat in spawning habitat to fish in that right to fish will be felt by the Xeni Gwet’in and
the watershed and populations will location Yunesit’in due to the loss of stream habitat
eliminate this source impacting and Little Fish Lake.
and abundance of abundance of • A series of mitigation and compensation
fish for First Nation fish in a strategies are proposed to offset the fish
harvest during harvest population and angling losses of Fish Creek
operations. and Little Fish Lake.
A reduction in Fish might be larger Loss of ability Aboriginal • Fish Lake is productive, with numerous,
fish habitat in but less numerous to catch right to fish small fish.
the watershed than those currently desired • During previous panel hearings for the
in Fish Lake and that volume of fish Prosperity Project, Tsilhqot’in frequently
it would take spoke of Fish Lake providing opportunities
substantially more for fishing for teaching youth due to ease of
time and effort to catching, rather than large volumes of fish
catch the same for sustenance.
amount of food. • Sufficient spawning habitat is preserved in
New Prosperity to have a sustainable fish
population in the Lake; with spawning
habitat reduced, fish numbers are predicted


Rights or
Title
to be such that individual fish size will be
larger and that would be more useful as a
trophy or food source (Appendix 2.7.2.5-A).
As a result, the fishing experience will be
altered in this way only.
Offsite Fish might be Perception of • Taseko will implement a baseline data

contamination contaminated from contamination collection program to characterize the
the nearby mining on human surface and groundwater quality of Big
activities, including health will Onion Lake prior to construction (Section
Big Onion Lake as a result in need 2.9). Monitoring of these locations will
result of seepage to fish continue throughout life of mine (Section
from the tailings elsewhere 2.8.3). If any changes in water quality are
storage facility, noted, when compared to baseline
which would also conditions, management practices will be
lead to avoidance of evaluated and corrective measures taken. If
that lake. required, contingency measures such as
water treatment will be put into effect to
continue to protect the water quality in Big
Onion Lake.
Offsite Concerns about the Perception of Aboriginal • No impact on the Taseko River is predicted
contamination water temperature in loss of ability right to fish from this project.
the Taseko River to fish salmon
being affected and


Rights or
Title
affecting the salmon.
A reduction in Concern that if Fish Loss of Aboriginal • In the new plan, Fish Lake will be retained.
fish habitat in Lake was not abundance of right to fish • Access to the Fish Lake area during mine
the watershed available there fish or fishing operations is provided.
would be increased opportunities • First Nations input to the Fish
competition for in the territory Compensation Plans will ensure
resources in other compensation of satisfaction to the
lakes. Tsilhqot’in, such as: improved access to
• First Nations participation in access
planning, as proposed in this EIS, would
assist with over-fishing and over-hunting
issues in the area.
Offsite Perception that Perception of Aboriginal • During operations, surface water will not be
contamination contamination will loss of ability right to fish discharged from the mine site. Effects of
affect the use of to fish salmon clean water diversions around the site into
Fish Creek, Wasp Lake and Beece Creek
Taseko River.
are predicted to be not significant for water
quality and aquatic ecosystems. Seepage
water, either directly discharged to the
Taseko River or moving with groundwater to
Big Onion Lake were modeled and the
changes in water quality are predicted to be
not significant.
• Post-closure discharge of pit water to lower
Fish Creek is predicted to result in moderate
changes in water quality throughout the
lower reaches of the stream; however,


Rights or
Title
changes in water quality of the Taseko River
downstream of Fish Creek are predicted to
be not significant. Monitoring of water
quality and environmental effects, including
fish health and fish tissue, will be initiated
post-closure to confirm predictions once
there are discharges from the site.
Water Quality, Lakes and Waterways
Onsite and Groundwater/surface • The monitoring and follow-up programs for

offsite water interaction will surface water and groundwater are
contamination not be monitored, or designed to detect any deviation from
monitored long baseline conditions and ARD predictions.
enough, when the Long-term monitoring will include surface
operation period of water, seepage and hydrogeologic data
the mine from a network of groundwater wells
discontinues. installed along the length of the west tailings
embankment.
• Monitoring will be ongoing during all phases
of the mine and is expected to continue into
post-closure until such time as predictions
are validated and results are satisfactory to
regulatory agencies. Details of monitoring


Rights or
Title
requirements including locations,
parameters and reporting will be determined
at permitting.
Onsite and Whether or not there • At post-closure, Taseko recognizes there is

offsite is going to be water uncertainty inherent in the mass balance
contamination treatment and who model used to predict pit water quality, but
will maintain it long- is confident that if there are any
term. exceedances of water quality guidelines,
both the opportunity and the technology are
available to adequately address them. If
necessary, there are treatment options
available that are feasible using current
technology. The need for treatment will be
assessed through monitoring programs
during operations and closure to assess the
actual geochemical performance of the
Project (to calibrate the water quality
prediction to site data) and during the 31
years required for the pit to fill. Data from
these monitoring programs will remove a
large amount of uncertainty contained in the
current prediction about metal loads
generated by the different waste sources.


Rights or
Title
• Additional mitigation, such as treatment of
groundwater that contains porewater
seeping through the western embankment
and moving toward Big Onion Lake, would
be based on monitoring results and
implemented if actual groundwater quality
exceeds the conservative predictions made
(see Section 2.8.3).
Onsite How ARD is going to • Mine material segregation and handling

contamination be managed, and procedures are described in the Acid Rock
what the risks are if Drainage and Metal Leaching section
water levels in the (Section 2.7.2.1, and Volume 3, Section 7 of
pond drop after the 2009 EIS/Application), as well as in the
closure. Mine Materials Handling Environmental
Management Plan and the conceptual
Tailings Impoundment Operating Plan
(Section 2.8.1).
• Water balances were completed in order to
estimate the annual water surplus or deficit
at the TSF. Annual site water balances were
based on average precipitation conditions,
for the year prior to start-up, the 20 years of
operation, and post-closure.
• As of Year 21, tailings deposition to the TSF
ceases and the TSF supernatant pond is
assumed to fill naturally until it reaches the
closure overflow spillway crest, at an
assumed elevation of 1591 m and overflows
into the open pit. The TSF supernatant pond
volumes / closure water balance results are
presented in Figure 2.7.2.4A-12 and Table


Rights or
Title
2.7.2.4A-5 for the median scenario.
• Post-closure requirements will include an
annual inspection of the TSF and an on-
going evaluation of water quality, flow rates
and instrumentation records to confirm
design assumptions for closure.
Onsite Whether or not toxic Z • Cyanide is not used in the process for New
contamination chemicals will be Prosperity.
used (i.e. Cyanide), • Metals, such as mercury and arsenic, are
parameters that were measured in water,
and concerns about
soil and vegetation baseline studies and
metals such as would be included as parameters in
Mercury and Arsenic monitoring and follow-up programs, details
. of which would be determined at permitting.


Rights or
Title
Offsite Effects on aquifers • The monitoring and follow-up program
contamination and springs, long- includes long-term monitoring of
term. hydrogeologic data from a network of
groundwater wells.
• Monitoring will be ongoing during all phases
of the mine and will continue into post-
closure until such time as predictions are
validated and results are satisfactory to
regulatory agencies. Details of such
monitoring programs are described in
Section 2.8.3 and will be further developed
at permitting.
• If necessary, there are mitigation and
treatment options available that are feasible
using current technology.
Offsite Prevention of • During operations, pit dewatering will result

contamination groundwater in groundwater elevations in the vicinity of
impacts, and the the pit to be decreased. Post-closure,
blasting effects on groundwater elevations will be increased in
the pit walls and the the vicinity of the pit by channeling surface
seepage loss from water from the TSF into the open pit to
the pit. create a pit lake.
• Section 2.7.2.1 describes the predicted


Rights or
Title
containment of water, including
groundwater, within the Fish Creek basin
post-closure.
Vegetation
Loss of plant New Prosperity still Loss of ability Aboriginal • The MDA with New Prosperity is 2601
communities results in loss of to gather in right to hectares, a 41% reduction in potential, worst
portions of Fish the Fish gather case disturbance compared to the previous
Creek watershed Creek project.
watershed • Based on the Ehrhart-English mapping,
significantly less Saskatoon, gooseberry,
raspberry, soopalallie thimbleberry and
laborador tea are impacted by the new MDA
(Tables 2.7.5-3 and 2.7.5-4 provide a
comparison). Lily pad harvesting is
identified as occurring almost entirely in the
Fish Lake area, and is now preserved in the
new MDA.
• The Fish Lake and some of the surrounding
meadow area will be accessible to First
Nations during mining.
• There is little change to the impact on
balsam, cottonwood, blueberry, strawberry
and crowberry; and these species will be
included in the reclamation planning for
mine disturbances.
• The reclamation objective is wildlife habitat,
and that supports other uses such as
traditional gathering.
• Taseko is open to discussing with the
Tsilhqot’in additional mitigation measures of
interest to Aboriginal people, such as


Rights or
Title
providing or improving access to other areas
in the territory for harvesting and gathering
as part of the New Prosperity Habitat
Compensation Plan, involvement in plant
species choices for reclamation planning for
the mine site and possible use after mining
for plant harvesting or gathering, or through
the access management planning process
proposed, that would increase opportunities
for plant harvesting or gathering for
Aboriginal people.
Air Discharge Impact of dust and Perception of • As the area surrounding the Project is used
contamination on effect on for hunting and fishing, trapping, and
soils on medicinal human health recreation, there has been attention paid to
plants, berries, and potential risks posed to traditional and
wildlife food sources. recreational users of the area.
• The Project is not anticipated to cause
adverse effects to medicinal plants, berries,
and wildlife food sources resulting from
dust.
• As described in Section 2.7.2.6 there is little
predicted change in the final metal soil
concentrations or water concentration in the
LSA, and uptake to wild game and fish is
expected to be negligible.
• Risk predictions do not change from
baseline to post-closure, thus effects of
Project activities on the metal
concentrations in country foods and fish are
predicted to be not significant.


Rights or
Title
A cumulative As a result of logging Loss of ability Aboriginal • The new MDA results in less hectares of
reduction in and land disturbance to gather in right to disturbance and as a result, areas for plant
land for increased in the the Fish gather gathering of species of interest to First
gathering and region, First Nations Creek Nations are less impacted than with the
harvesting would rely more watershed, previously proposed project.
heavily on the plants and • Based on the Ehrhart-English mapping,
and berries growing cumulative significantly less Saskatoon, gooseberry,
in the Fish Lake effect in raspberry, soopalallie thimbleberry and
area, as this area territory laborador tea are impacted by the new MDA
was considered one (Tables 2.7.5-3 and 2.7.5-4 provide a
of the few remaining comparison). Lily pad harvesting is
pristine areas east of identified as occurring almost entirely in the
the Taseko River Fish Lake area, and is now preserved in the
new MDA.
• The Fish Lake and some of the surrounding
meadow area will be accessible to First
Nations.
• There is little change to the impact on
balsam, cottonwood, blueberry, strawberry
and crowberry; these species will be
included in the reclamation planning for
mine disturbances.
• Taseko is open to discussing with the
Tsilhqot’in additional mitigation measures of


Rights or
Title
interest to Aboriginal people, such as
providing or improving access to other areas
in the territory for harvesting and gathering
as part of the New Prosperity Habitat
Compensation Plan, involvement in plant
species choices for reclamation planning for
the mine site and possible use after mining
for plant harvesting or gathering, or access
management planning process proposed,
that would increase opportunities for plant
harvesting or gathering for Aboriginal
people.
• First Nations participation in access
planning, as proposed in this EIS, could
assist with cumulative impact issues arising
from development and increasing human
presence in the area.
Loss of plant Would end the use Loss of ability Aboriginal See response above
communities of the Fish Lake to gather in right to
watershed as a Fish Creek gather
cultural hub for Watershed
gathering, such as
Labrador tea, soap,
Saskatoon and
blueberries, plants
and medicines like
hellebore wild
potatoes, pine
mushrooms, pine
pitch.


Rights or
Title
Atmosphere
Increased Concern that noise • Noise mitigation measures are described in
Noise and lights will be Volume 4, Section 3 of the 2009 EIS/
seen and heard from Application, in Section 2.7.2.3 of this EIS,
Nemiah. and in the Air and Noise Environmental
Management Plan in Section 2.8.1.
• With the absence of human dwellings within
the LSA and along the proposed access
road, the overall residual effect of the
Project is predicted to be not significant.
Traffic noise associated with Project-related
vehicle traffic will result in insignificant
changes in existing acoustic environment
along highway 20, Taseko Lake Road and
4500 Road.
• Mitigation measures to address effects from
artificial lighting will be considered during
the permitting stage and measures deemed
to be effective incorporated into the design
of the facilities.
Effects on the Land as a Result of Accidents

Hazards Concern about • Reclamation and decommissioning will be
created on the hazards and risks conducted in accordance with the Health,
land such as the open pit Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in
after closure to British Columbia. At post-closure the pit will
people and animals, be filled with water and the upper pit edge
contribution of the reclaimed, which will contribute to the
Project on global improved long-term safety of the pit area for
warming and wildlife and people.
impacts on glacial • Natural environmental issues or events such


Rights or
Title
fields, effects on the as seismic activity have been considered in
Project and the design of the project. Dams have been
infrastructure from designed according to Canadian Dam
earthquakes. Association Guidelines. Movement
monitoring is described in the Geotechnical
Stability Monitoring Plan in Volume 3,
Section 9.
• The science of climate change has not been
advanced to the point where a clear cause
and effect relationship can be established
between specific or even provincial and
national emissions, and subtle changes in
global climate. As such, the incremental
contribution of GHG emissions from the
Project cannot be linked to specific changes
in global climate or local glaciers. Although
the Project effects on climate are assumed
to be not significant, mitigation measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be
implemented as provided in the overview of
the Air and Noise Management Plan.
Hazards Concerns about • The Transportation and Access Plan will
created on the motor vehicle outline the procedures for assigning project
land accidents / spillage transportation routes, speed limits and
access limits. Employees and contractors
and not having an
will be trained on such plans and
action plan. procedures to avoid the occurrence of
incidents.
• The Emergency Response Plan will be
designed similar to Taseko’s Gibraltar Mine
ERP and include Spill Emergency
Response Procedures for responding to any
incident which results in an environmental


Rights or
Title
spill on or off the property will be identified in
this Response Plan.
• Taseko is committed to Towards
Sustainable Mining (Mining Association of
Canada), which contains a Crisis
Management module for preparation of
emergencies.

Potential Concern Potential Potential

Effects Linkage to Linkage to
Cultural Asserted or
Heritage Established
Aboriginal
Rights or Title Response and Mitigation/ Accommodation Measures
SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Disturbance of Cultural Heritage Sites
Alteration of Collection and Loss of ability • The mine site and transmission corridor have
archaeology distribution of First to retain and archaeological and cultural heritage values for both
sites Nations cultural, burial protect items the Tsilhqot’in and the Upper Secwepemc.
and other of historical • An Archaeological Impact Assessment was
archaeological sites is and cultural completed in accordance with Section 3.5 of the
a concern. importance British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment
guidelines for the mine site.
• The proposed New Prosperity Project footprint
(MDA) avoids 86% of the identified protected
archaeological sites and therefore they will not be
lost or disturbed. Of the twelve sites that still remain
within the MDA, five are located in the area of the pit
and can’t be avoided and the remainder lie within the
buffer zone and will not be directly impacted or
disturbed.
• Taseko will complete the required AIA for the site
access road area prior to construction and in
accordance with direction from the Ministry of
FLRNO responsible for the Heritage Conservation
Act.
• Taseko has initiated and will complete the required
AIA along the final alignment of the transmission
line.
• A Cultural and Heritage Protection Plan with chance-
find procedures will be developed prior to
construction, an overview of which is provided in
Section 2.8.1. As part of the alteration permitting
process prior to construction for disturbance of any
known sites, the Ministry of FLNRO will be
conducting consultation with Aboriginal groups.


Aboriginal
Alteration of Concern was Loss of ability • With the new MDA, Fish Lake is preserved, thereby
spiritual/ expressed about to protect protecting the island and its cultural sites
cultural sites cremation sites on the sites of
island in the middle of historical and
Fish Lake. cultural
importance
Alteration of The loss of a heritage Loss of ability • With the new MDA, Fish Lake is preserved, thereby
archaeology site and to protect protecting the island and its cultural sites and the
sites/ archaeological burial sites of numerous known archaeological sites in the vicinity
ground around Fish historical and of the lake.
Alteration of Lake. Concerns cultural • There are still portions of the Fish Lake watershed,
spiritual/ regarding ancestors importance referred to by Tsilhqot’in as Nabas, which will be lost
cultural sites homestead sites in to the TSF and related infrastructure, due to the loss
Nabas area. of Little Fish Lake.
Reduction in The lack of access is Loss of ability • With the new MDA, Fish Lake will be retained as will
land available going to impact the to teach and access to Fish Lake.
for current use traditional way of life. share
information
for traditional with youth
purposes
Presence and Operation of a Mine Causing Socio-Economic Impacts


Aboriginal
Other Concern that the Mine • As stated in Section 2.7.5, Taseko remains open to
will have social discussing further mitigation measures that may
impacts on people, resolve outstanding issues for Aboriginal people,
such as increased such as: Supporting community social programs for
drug and alcohol employees, spouses and families
abuse and higher
crime due to money
from the mine in the
community.
other No assurance of long- • Taseko recognizes the concern of community

term community sustainability.
benefits and • Commitments from Taseko regarding Community
environment Interests and Benefits are described in Volume 8 of
protection for them to the previous 2009 EIS/Application and in Section
approve of 2.7.5 of this EIS, and include:
development on their o Employment opportunities
land. o Benefits Agreements with Taseko for
employment, contracting and/or education and
training components
• First Nations could benefit from Resource Revenue
Sharing agreements with the provincial government.
• There are legal, regulatory obligations to ensure
Taseko’s commitment to ongoing protection of the
environment during the entire life cycle of the mine.
• Protection of the environment is in Taseko’s
Environmental Policy and part of their corporate
philosophy.
• Taseko has a proven track record of environmental
protection as demonstrated at their Gibraltar Mine.


Aboriginal
Tourism business • As stated in Section 2.7.5, Taseko remains open to
potential would be discussing and supporting business plans that may
ruined be impacted by or benefit from the mining operation.
other There is concern • Taseko is committed to hiring local, and promoting
regarding the high employment of First Nations candidates by
unemployment rate communicating opportunities with community
(80%) in their employment coordinators as it is currently doing at its
communities but they Gibraltar Mine.
will not have access • As stated in Section 2.7.5, a Benefits Agreement with
to jobs at the mine. Taseko could contain employment, education and
training, and/or contracting components.
other Lack of training • As stated in Section 2.7.5, a Benefits Agreement

opportunities for with Taseko could contain employment, education
employment at the and training, and/or contracting components.
mine
Concern that there is • Taseko acknowledges the issues regarding internal

a lack of ownership in governance and related challenges facing First
First Nations Nations communities.
• As stated in Section 2.7.5, a Benefits Agreement
communities but with Taseko could contain employment, education
plenty of poverty, and training, and/or contracting components.
inadequate education,
and poor government
fiscal control of First
Nation spending.


Aboriginal
Concerns on how • The reclamation objective for the Project is a return
Taseko will to wildlife habitat that also supports other traditional
compensate for uses such as gathering and fishing.
• As stated in Section 2.7.5, Taseko remains open to
destruction of sites for discussing further mitigation measures that may
fishing, hunting, and resolve outstanding issues for Aboriginal people,
gathering medicines. such as: building new or improving existing access
to harvesting and hunting areas within the territory to
compensate for the loss of opportunity in the Fish
Lake watershed during mining.
• Financial compensation could come in the form of a
Resource Revenue Sharing agreement with the
provincial government.
Concern that the • Taseko is committed to hiring locally. A local

favourable jobs would employment candidate shall be defined as someone
go to non-local who lives in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region.
residents;
No impact • As described in Section 2.7.5, Taseko is willing to

agreements or work with First Nations to develop Benefit
accommodation Agreements that is agreeable to both parties.
agreements


Aboriginal
Concern that the mine • Commodity prices are expected to cycle and were
might not be considered in the assessment of alternatives for
economical and close mine design. Since this is a polymetalic deposit,
drops in copper price would be buffered with rises in
during periods of low gold price and vice versa. Sensitivity studies of
commodity prices. commodity prices and the effects on the viability of
the mine have been performed and the economics of
this deposit held up robustly even with large drops in
copper and gold prices.

Potential Other Issues of

Effect Concern Response and Mitigation/ Accommodation Measure
EA PROCESS AND CONSULTATION
Concern that
• While this is a government to government issue, Taseko has implemented an
consultation and
Aboriginal Policy, in accordance with the TSM Guiding Principles, to engage with
accommodation by
Aboriginal Peoples to develop open and effective relationships throughout the mining
the Crown is not
lifecycle, including: early, timely and culturally appropriate engagement with Aboriginal
adequate
peoples, including within the environmental assessment process, to ensure their
interests in a project and its potential impacts are understood
• An overview of Taseko’s aboriginal engagement and consultation strategy is provided

in Section 2.5.1.1.
Lack of funds for • While this is a government to government issue, Taseko has in the past, and continues
participation in EA to, provide funding to support First Nations’ capacity building to promote understanding
process
of the Project.
• Some funding details are provided in consultation records in Appendices to Section

2.5.1; however, other funding agreements are confidential.
Concern that First
• This is not specifically addressed in this EIS; however, the EA process and timelines
Nations will be put
are described on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s website and in
into the position of
regulations.
having to make a
quick decision
regarding the
Project.
Concern that the • This is not an issue addressed in this EIS, but an internal First Nations’ governance
Chiefs, not issue.
community
members, will be the
decision makers.

Concern that legal • This is an issue addressed in this EIS, internal governance decision for First Nations.
counsel needs to be
present to protect
Rights and Title.
Concern about lack • Discussion has come in the form of offers to meet to review the project, Open Houses
of discussion on to review the EIS application, and review panel hearings in the community.
impact • Further accommodation discussions are for government to government meetings.
recommendations,
mitigation, and
compensation for
any of these losses

2.7.5.1 Aboriginal interests identified in the original panel report for which no significant adverse
impact was found, but which require further consideration in light of the proposed project
changes
There were a number of aboriginal interests considered in the original panel process for which the panel
did not find the Project would have significant adverse effects. Some of those related to established or
asserted aboriginal rights or title, and some of them related to potential impacts on use of land by
aboriginal people for traditional purposes as well as effects on heritage and archaeological resources.
Of these findings, many are not affected in any way by the proposed redesign of the Project (for example
impacts of the proposed power line on aboriginal hunting in that area); however, there were some such
findings for which the conclusions were based on aspects of the Project design which have changed, and
for which further consideration is warranted.
The following aboriginal interests are discussed in detail in various subsections of Section 2.7.2 but the
findings of the previous panel, changes in effect as a result of alterations to the Project, and any new
mitigation measures are summarized here:
x Vegetation
x Wildlife
x Atmospheric Environment and Human Health
x Acoustic Effects and Impacts on Residents
x Water Quality and Quantity and Impact on Off-Site Fisheries, and
x Archaeology and Alteration of Sites
Vegetation
Issues of Concern and Findings on the Previous Project

The Tsilhqot’in expressed the concern that the construction and operation of the previous Prosperity
project would end the use of the Fish Lake and the Fish Creek watershed area for gathering purposes.
Concerns raised by the participants in the original panel review focused largely on issues related to loss
of old growth forest habitats, effects of invasive plants on grasslands, loss of wetland and riparian
habitats, and loss of plants of importance to First Nations.
The original panel concluded that the previous project would not result in a significant adverse effect on
old growth forest or grassland ecosystems, and that although the Project would result in adverse impacts
to wetlands and riparian habitat, implementation of a wildlife compensation plan for the loss of wetland
and riparian habitats would be an important component for offsetting the effects. The Panel further
concluded the Project would not result in a significant adverse cumulative effect on vegetation.

Results from Alterations to the Project

Section 2.7.2.7 summarizes the effects of New Prosperity on vegetation VECs and KIs, and the species
of interest to First Nations. The overall vegetation loss and effects to ecological communities of
conservation concern and rare plants within the mine site are less those reported in the 2009 Prosperity
EIS due to the changes in the Project design at the mine site and the decreased area of disturbance.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures proposed in the 2009 EIS and committed to through the EAO process and
summarized in Table 2.7.2.7-26 remain relevant to the 2012 New Prosperity project. There are no new
mitigation measures proposed for vegetation associated with New Prosperity.
Wildlife

For the previous project, the Tsilhqot’in expressed concern at the loss of habitat for wildlife, wildlife health
and mortality, and these potential impacts on animal abundance and diversity for hunting and trapping.
The original panel, which focused its attention on effects on mule deer migration and ungulate winter
habitat, increased accessibility to the land, and issues surrounding the wildlife habitat compensation plan
to address effects on wetlands and riparian habitats, concluded no significant adverse effects on mule
deer, moose and, provided a wildlife habitat compensation plan is developed and implemented, on
migratory birds. The original Panel also concluded that disruption of mule deer movement patterns was
not of concern given the location of the proposed mine site, mule deer would likely still disperse around
the mine site to continue their migration. The Panel further concluded the Project would not result in a
significant adverse cumulative effect on deer, moose, and other wildlife, with the exception of the South
Chilcotin grizzly bear population (refer to Section 2.7.2.8 for a discussion on grizzly bear).

Section 2.7.2.8 summarizes the effects of New Prosperity on wildlife VECs and KIs, and the species of
interest to First Nations. With the reduction in land disturbance associated with New Prosperity relative to
the previous project, the amount of habitat affected either did not materially change or was reduced for all
species/KIs/KI groups. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the residual loss of
habitat is predicted to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the deer and moose
populations.
With regards to wildlife travel routes, the potential for movement disruption for species such as mule deer
will be further reduced in New prosperity in comparison to the previous project due to improvements in
the design of the mine site; for example, it is likely that mule deer and other mammals will be able to
move along the north-west to south-east axis of the Mine site between the open pit and TSF.
With adherence to best practices and identified mitigation measures, the mortality risk will be reduced and
there is an expected reduction in direct mortality as the total area requiring clearing at the mine site will be
reduced.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures proposed in the 2009 EIS and committed to through the EAO process and referred
to in Table 2.7.2.8-16 remain relevant to the 2012 New Prosperity project. Additional mitigation measures
for New Prosperity relevant to grizzly bear are provided in Section 2.7.2.8.
Atmospheric Environment and Human Health

Concern with regard to the previous Prosperity Project and air contaminants was expressed by the
Tsilhqot’in; specifically, that dust and other air pollutants would be adsorbed by animals and plants
impacting country foods and human health. The previous panel concluded that emissions of particulate
matter from the Project would not result in significant adverse effect. The Panel further concluded that the
Project would not result in a significant adverse effect on human health from consuming fish, moose meat
and drinking water.

Section 2.7.2.2 summarizes the effects of New Prosperity on Atmospheric Environment and Section
2.7.3.3 on Human Health.
Considering the conservative nature inherent in the air contaminant dispersion modelling, and the location
and limited areas over which predicted concentrations are in exceedance of the objectives and/or
standards, it is concluded that the residual project effects for all phases of the Project are not significant.
The duration and frequency for most activities is regular and medium term; however, concentrations
above the objectives and/or standards are expected to be very rare, local, short in duration and
reversible.
The data show that for the majority of the CACs, predicted concentrations are well below their established
air quality criteria. The data also show that particulate concentrations in the Nemaiah Valley would be
below their respective regulatory standard or objective. For these CACs, the change in project footprint
would not result in health concerns related to inhalation exposures for human or ecological receptors.
With regards to human health, the changes in the development plan between the Prosperity and New
Prosperity projects is not expected to alter the conclusions of the human health assessment.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures proposed in the 2009 EIS and committed to through the EAO process remain
relevant to the 2012 New Prosperity project and include: Implement management practices to reduce
smoke during brush burning and incorporating BATEA into project design wherever possible. Other
mitigation measures are listed in Table 2.7.2.2-7.
The original HHERA noted that mitigation measures to address issues of the release of air contaminants,
soil loading of metals and discharge of Pit Lake and TSF water into the Fish Lake and surrounding
watersheds would adequately address concerns identified in the HHERA and that no additional mitigative

measures, specific to the HHERA would be required. This recommendation has not changed with the
New Properity project.
Acoustic Environment and Impact on Residents
Findings on the Previous Project

Concern with regard to the previous Prosperity Project was expressed by the Tsilhqot’in that noise and
light will be seen and heard from Nemiah. The previous Panel concluded that light pollution from the
Project would not result in a significant adverse effect.

Section 2.7.2.3 summarizes the effects of New Prosperity on the Acoustic Environment. The changes are
mainly associated with locations of the stockpiles and the new tailing locations. The new stockpile
locations result in a longer haul distance (2-3 km per trip); however, the decrease in project footprint
results in the reduction of land clearing area. There is no change in residual effects due to blasting noise.
There is a marginal change in vehicular traffic internal to the mine site for the New Prosperity Project; and
it is expected that the conclusions with respect to residual effects due to vehicular traffic will not change
from those in the previous EA.
Mitigation measures
A number of Project design features and mitigation measures proposed in the 2009 EIS and committed to
through the EAO process (summarized in Table 2.7.2.3-11) remain relevant to the 2012 New Prosperity
project. There are no new mitigation measures associated with New Prosperity.
Water Quality and Quantity and Impact on Off-Site Fisheries

Groundwater seepage effects on aquifers and springs, the Taseko River and salmon were concerns
expressed by the Tsilhqot’in on the previous project. The previous panel concluded that the Project would
not result in a significant adverse effect on surface water quality or fish health in the Taseko River. The
Panel further concluded that seepage from the tailings storage facility would not result in a significant
adverse effect on water quality in Big Onion Lake. The panel further concluded that the Project would not
result in a significant adverse cumulative effect on surface water and groundwater.

Section 2.7.2.4 summarizes the effects of New Prosperity on Water Quality and Quantity.

Mitigation Measures
to in Section 2.7.2.4 remain relevant to the 2012 New Prosperity project. New mitigation measures for
New Prosperity are as proposed in Section 2.7.2.4.
Archaeology and Alteration of Sites

First Nations have expressed concern with regard to the disturbance of heritage and archaeological sites,
the lack of preservation of sites under BC law, and lack of First Nations ownership of artifacts found. The
previous panel concluded that, provided the recommendation identified by the Panel is implemented, the
Project would not result in a significant adverse effect on physical heritage and sites of archaeological
importance.

Section 2.7.4.1 summarizes the effects of New Prosperity on Archaeological resources.
Twenty-nine of the archaeological sites identified within the previous mine footprint were assessed as
having a moderate scientific value and eleven were assessed as having high scientific value. With the
currently proposed project and its modified mine development plan, all but four of the thirty-nine low
scientific value sites and all but one of the twenty-nine archaeological sites having a moderate scientific
value have been avoided and therefore will no longer be disturbed or lost. All five sites are located within
the area of the proposed pit development and thus cannot be avoided. The four sites assessed as having
low scientific value were found to contain lithics, all of which have already been recovered and preserved.
Mitigation Measures
The one moderate value site found to contain formed tools which have already been recovered and
preserved is located in the vicinity of the proposed pit and cannot be avoided. It was not one of the sites
recommended for further systematic data recovery by the provincial Archaeology Branch and, no
additional mitigation measures are proposed.
Special monitoring and mitigation measures, such as the clear marking of boundaries around each of
these three sites, are included in the Cultural and Heritage Protection Plan (Section 2.8.1) and will be
implemented to help ensure that they will not be disturbed throughout all phases of mine development
activity.
A chance-find procedure has been developed by a professional archaeologist for Taseko and
opportunities for input to this procedure have been offered to First Nations. Taseko remains committed to
discussing any additional mitigation measures if they express interest doing so.

2.7.5.2 Aboriginal concerns identified in the original panel report that were subject to a finding of
significant adverse effect41
The original panel found the following significant adverse effects in the previously proposed Prosperity
Project in relation to aboriginal interests:
x Tsilhqot’in Nation’s current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes (including the local
effect on the Xeni Gwet’in and cultural heritage resources
o Current use of land and resources for traditional purposes, and
o Cultural heritage resources.
x Potential or Established Rights and Title

o Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal rights as defined in the William Case
o Potential Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Right to Fish in Fish Lake and Surrounding Area
o Secwepemc Aboriginal Rights
o Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title claims, and
o Secwepemc title claims
These subsections will consider how and to what extent the modifications to project design and/or
additional or updated mitigation measures address these findings.
41
It is not in all cases clear how or to what extent the previous panel applied the CEAA Reference Guide for determining significant
adverse effects when reaching these conclusions, although it stated in Section 4.2 that it intended to do so. For example, the
panel found a “locally significant” adverse effect on the users of meadows, but it is not clear how that decision was appropriate to
reach when relevant policy requires consideration of geographic extent as one of the factors for determining whether the Project
as a whole will have a significant adverse effect. Similarly, the panel at times referred to some aspects the CEAA policy (e.g. high
magnitude and irreversible effects on navigation) to support a finding of significant adverse effect, without commenting on other
factors that may have also had relevance and which may have mitigated against such a conclusion (geographic extent, duration
and frequency and ecological context). Finally, the panel made findings regarding significance of adverse effects in respect of
asserted or established aboriginal rights and title even though such matters do not fall within the definition of “environmental
effect” under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act but rather relate to the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate, which
must be assessed under a different methodology prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
For the purposes of the EIS, Taseko is, as required by the Guidelines, providing information in respect of each of these findings by
the prior panel but Taseko does so without prejudice to its position that the present panel must consider and expressly apply the
objective test for determination of significance of adverse effects as set out in that Guide in relation to “environmental effects”, and
that it is not to apply that test to consideration of aboriginal rights and title and the Crown’s duty to consult.

Tsilhqot’in Nation’s Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes and Cultural Heritage
Resources
Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes

Findings on Previous Project
The Tsilhqot’in have expressed how the land and resources of the Fish Lake and Fish Creek watershed
areas are still being used by the Tsilhqot’in for traditional purposes. Information was submitted during the
original panel review on the previous project regarding the number of Tsilhqot’in members who continued
to use the area of the proposed mine site for activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering of berries,
plants and medicines. Loss of access to the area during construction and operations was a concern, as
was the perception of contamination even after closure and reclamation.
The Tsilhqot’in stated that different areas are used in their territory depending on the season and the
subsistence resources available to support their current use activities, and that many of the resources in
these areas may be under increasing pressure from other activities such as forestry, grazing and private
land ownership.
The previous panel determined that the loss of the Fish Lake and Fish Creek watershed areas for current
use activities would be irreversible, of high magnitude and have a long-term effect on the Tsilhqot’in.
Relative to Aboriginal interests and current use for traditional purposes, the previous panel concluded the
previous project would have a significant adverse effect on fish and fish habitat in the watershed,
navigation (assumed to be connected to fishing).
The results of altering the mine development plan on current use for traditional purposes are discussed
below under the headings: fishing, hunting and trapping, plant gathering, and other uses. Where possible,
comparisons between the 2009 and 2012 mine development areas (MDA) are provided using the current
use for traditional purposes mapping in the Ehrhart-English study (Appendix 2.6.4-B).42 Cumulative
effects and conclusions on impact on current use for traditional purposes is provided at the end of this
section.
Fishing
Section 2.6.4 of this EIS provides a summary of current use of the proposed mine site area, including that
Fish Lake is used by the Tsilhqot’in as a reserve food supply in the event of poor salmon runs. During the
panel hearings for the previous project, many of the Tsilhqot’in indicated that they had gone, and continue
to go, to Fish Lake to fish. While fishing for food purposes in Fish Lake was identified as an important
activity, it was stated to be strongly connected to other cultural practices that occurred there, such as
gatherings of Elders and youth and recreation. The Tsilhqot’in noted that they used other lakes in the
region for fishing as well, and expressed the concern that if Fish Lake was not available there would be
increased competition for resources in those other lakes.
42
A Traditional Use submission was made by the Tsilhqot’in during the panel hearings on the previous project and it included results
from a 2001 traditional use study to supplement the Ehrhart-English study; however, the geographic area for the 2001 study was
large and the greatest level of detail for traditional use locations relative to the proposed mine site remains in the Ehrhart-English
study, hence mapping from the latter was used for this analysis.

Based on traditional use information, it is understood that a portion of the Tsilhqot’in First Nations total
annual fishing activities comes from lake fishing, though the bulk of their annual catch likely comes from
salmon fishing. The loss of Fish Lake and its inlet and outlet spawning habitat and populations in the
previously proposed project would have eliminated one of the lake fishing sources, and their ability to
navigate for the purposes of fishing on this lake.
Results from Alteration to the Project

The effects of the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat, as well as mitigation strategies are provided in
Section 2.7.2.5. The New Prosperity mine development plan includes the preservation of Fish Lake
resulting in maintaining fishing opportunities, and navigation for fishing, for current and future generations.
New Prosperity enables access to Fish Lake during all mine phases.
Figure 2.7.5-1 and 2.7.5-2 illustrate the change in the MDA between the 2012 New Prosperity proposal
and the 2009 project. While the loss of stream habitat and Little Fish Lake still occurs with New
Prosperity, the new mine development plan retains 55% of the fish bearing and non-fish bearing streams
and 94% of the lake habitat compared to the previous project. Opportunities to navigate for fishing in Fish
Lake are retained through all phases of mining.
The previous Prosperity Project included a new lake above the TSF to compensation for the loss of
fishing in the watershed. A compensation plan for New Prosperity will be different given that Fish Lake will
not be lost. Compensation elements being investigated to offset the stream and Little Fish Lake losses in
the watershed are those currently known to be of interest to locals, including First Nations, for increasing
fishing opportunities in the region, including creating new habitat for spawning and rearing, and restoring
habitat.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation and compensation measures for the 2012 New Prosperity project are summarized in Section
2.7.2.5, with a concise summary in Table 2.7.2.5-30.
Taseko is open to discussing with the Tsilhqot’in elements of Fish Compensation Plans that are of
interest to Aboriginal people in the territory that improve fish populations, habitat, and opportunities for
fishing.

o
455000 460000 465000
sek
Ta
5705000
5705000
L
ow
er
Fish Cre Tete

ek
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Big
Ta
se
Onion
ko
Lak e
Ri
L i t t le F is h
ve
5695000
5695000
r
Lak e
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Fishing Areas*

2009 Prosperity Gold-Copper Project Maximum Disturbance Area
2009 Maximum Disturbance Area

Boundary of TUS/East of Taseko R.
-1:60,000
Middle-Aged People's Fishing Areas
Young People's Fishing Areas Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Elders' Fishing Areas Data Sources:

Figure 2.7.5-1
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 *Source: “The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake
Kilometers Study Area: Ethnography” by C. L. Ehrhart -English; 1994
o
455000 460000 465000
sek
Ta
5705000
5705000
L
ow
er
Fish Cr e Tete
ek
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Big
Ta
Onion
se
Lak e
ko
Ri
L i t t le F is h
ve
5695000
5695000
Lak e
r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Fishing Areas*


Middle-Aged People's Fishing Areas
-
1:60,000
Young People's Fishing Areas
Map Prepared by
Elders' Fishing Areas Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-2
Hunting and Trapping

Section 2.6.4 of this EIS provides a summary of current use of the proposed mine site area for hunting.
Hunters in the Tsilhqot’in communities indicated that the area surrounding Fish Lake and in Fish Creek
watershed were excellent hunting and trapping territories. Species known to be of interest to the
Tsilhqot’in from the Williams case, including grizzly bear, are referred to in the wildlife assessment
provided in Section 2.7.2.8.

Land disturbance proposed for New Prosperity is less than that proposed for the previous project. As a
result, habitat losses associated with New Prosperity are either materially unchanged or reduced with
New Prosperity. Grizzly bear habitat impacted by the 2012 New Prosperity MDA is less than that
predicated to be impacted by the previous proposal.
As a result of less hectares being proposed for disturbance in the New Prosperity project relative to the
2009 proposal, less impact on local wildlife populations is expected, which is relevant to those species
historically targeted for trapping in the Fish Lake watershed. Figure 2.7.5-3, 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the
hunting and trapping areas east of the Taseko River impacted by the previous 2009 project’s MDA in
comparison to the 2012 New Prosperity MDA. With the preservation of the Fish Lake area, trapping areas
for all species assessed by Ehrhart-English are less impacted; with the exception of the cougar trapping
area which is thought to be limited to an area immediately downstream of Little Fish Lake both the 2009
and 2012 MDA’s encompass the location (Table 2.7.5-2). Marten, coyote, beaver and muskrat trapping
areas are substantially less affected in the 2012 MDA. Likewise, hunting areas for all species assessed
are less impacted, with the exception of squirrel whose hunting area blankets both the 2012 and 2009
project MDAs (Table 2.7.5-3).
Table 2.7.5-2 Comparison of 2009 and 2012 Mine Development Areas (MDA) for Trapping Areas
Identified by Ehrhart-English
Total ha of Total ha Total ha

% of % of
Activities of of
Activities Activities
within TUS Activities Activities
Trapping Areas Impacted Impacted
/East of within within
by 2009 by 2012
Taseko R. 2009 2012
MDA MDA
Bdry MDA MDA
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) 537.3 263.4 49.0 23.5 4.4
Beaver (Castor canadensis) 989.0 446.1 45.1 318.9 32.2
Coyote (Canis latrans) 3767.5 1474.1 39.1 1773.7 47.1
Marten (Martes americana) 364.9 308.6 84.6 199.1 54.6
Lynx (Lynx canadensis) 2261.3 1624.2 71.8 1251.7 55.4
Weasel (Mustela sp.) 1996.4 1474.1 73.8 1121.1 56.2
Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) 1921.3 1422.9 74.1 1120.1 58.3
Rabbit (Lepus americanus) 489.0 404.0 82.6 298.4 61.0

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 106.5 77.8 73.1 84.4 79.2

Fisher (Martes pennanti) 106.5 77.8 73.1 84.4 79.2
Bobcat (Lynx rufus) 35.1 28.7 81.8 34.1 97.2
Cougar (Felis concolor) 24.3 24.3 100.0 24.3 100.0
Table 2.7.5-3 Comparison of 2009 and 2012 Mine Development Areas (MDA) for Hunting Areas
Total ha of Total ha
% of % of
Activities Total ha of of
Activities Activities
within TUS Activities Activities
Hunting Areas Impacted Impacted
/East of within within
by 2009 by 2012
Taseko R. 2009 MDA 2012
MDA MDA
Bdry MDA
All Ages' Geese (many species) 601.8 61.4 10.2 0.0 0.0
All Ages' Goat (Oreamnos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
americanus)
All Ages' Groundhog (Marmota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
caligata)
All Ages' Grouse (many species) 3123.9 558.8 17.9 241.7 7.7
All Ages' Deer (Odocoileus 12823.6 3918.1 30.6 2281.0 17.8
hemionus)
All Ages' Moose (Alces alces) 12401.3 3906.1 31.5 2269.7 18.3
All Ages' Squirrel (Tamiasciurus 74.4 74.4 100.0 74.4 100.0
hudsonicus)
Middle Aged Peoples' Hunting 11374.6 3773.5 33.2 2216.6 19.5
Young Peoples' Hunting 8782.2 3258.3 37.1 1830.0 20.8
Elders' Hunting 6767.5 2318.3 34.3 1468.4 21.7
As a result of the reduction in hectares proposed for disturbance, the area to be designated as a no-
hunting zone in accordance with the Health, Safety and Reclamation Act of BC is reduced from that
required with the previous project design. Access to Fish Lake will be provided during construction and
operations, enabling opportunities for trapping in the immediate area of Fish Lake and the adjacent
meadows during all phases of mining.
No potential residual effects are expected related to change in wildlife habitat with implementation of
associated mitigation and compensation measures.
Section 2.7.3.1 summarizes the effects on resources users, including trapping and the trap line held by
Nemiah Band/Sonny Lulua. While there is no significant adverse effect on furbearers in the LSA or RSA,
there will be local effects on trapping in the MDA during construction and continue until mine closure
when reclamation for fur-bearer habitat is restored. As noted in Section 2.7.3.1, the average harvest of

licensees is well below $500; approximately 4% of the Nemiah/Sonny Lulua trapline is within the 2012
MDA.
Mitigation Measures
to in Table 2.7.2.8-16 for wildlife remain relevant to New Prosperity. Negotiations with the Nemiah Band
licenses may find a suitable solution to the local effects on the trapline.
Taseko is open to discussing with the Tsilhqot’in additional mitigation measures, as part of the New
Prosperity Habitat Compensation Plan that enhance wildlife and waterfowl habitat, and improve
abundance and diversity of wildlife species that are of interest to Aboriginal people.

sek
455000 460000 465000
Ta
5705000
5705000
Lo
w
er
Fish Cre
ek Tete
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Ta
Big
s ek
Onion
oR
Lak e
L i t t le F is h
ive
5695000
5695000
Lak e
r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Trapping Areas*

-
2009 Maximum Disturbance Area Weasel
Boundary of TUS/East of Taseko R Squirrel
Muskrat Rabbit
Beaver Fisher and Wolverine
Coyote Bobcat
1:60,000
Marten Cougar
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Lynx
Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-3
0 1.25 2.5 5 *Source: "The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake
Kilometers Study Area: Ethnography" by C.L. Ehrhart-English, 1994
sek
455000 460000 465000
Ta
5705000
5705000
Lo
w
er
Fish Cre
ek Tete
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Ta
Big
s ek
Onion
oR
Lak e
L i t t le F is h
ive
5695000
5695000
Lak e
r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Trapping Areas*

-
2012 Maximum Disturbance Area Weasel
Boundary of TUS/East of Taseko R Squirrel
Muskrat Rabbit
Beaver Fisher and Wolverine
Coyote Bobcat
1:60,000
Marten Cougar
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Lynx
Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-4
0 1.25 2.5 5 *Source: "The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake
Kilometers Study Area: Ethnography" by C.L. Ehrhart-English, 1994
o
sek
455000 460000 465000
Ta
5705000
5705000
L
ow
er
Fish Cre
ek
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Big
Ta
Onion
se
Lak e
ko
Riv
L i t t le F is h
5695000
5695000
e
Lak e
r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Hunting Areas - All Ages*


Geese
Grouse
Deer
Moose
-
1:60,000
Goat Squirrel
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Groundhog
Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-5
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 *Source: " The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake
Kilometers Study Area: Ethnography" by C. L. Ehrhart-English, 1994
o
sek
455000 460000 465000
Ta
5705000
5705000
L
ow
er
Fish Cre
ek
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Big
Ta
Onion
se
Lak e
ko
Riv
L i t t le F is h
5695000
5695000
Lak e
er
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Hunting Areas - All Ages*


Geese
Deer
Grouse
Moose
-
1:60,000
Goat Squirrel
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Groundhog
Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-6
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 *Source: " The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake
Kilometers Study Area: Ethnography" by C. L. Ehrhart-English, 1994
Plant Gathering
Section 2.6.4 of this EIS provides a summary of current use of the proposed mine site area for plant
gathering. During the course of the public hearing for the previous project, the Tsilhqot’in Nation provided
specific information on how the Project would impact on gathering and harvesting as a result of:
x Displacement of the Tsilhqot’in people from the area around Fish Lake, Little Fish Lake, and Fish
Creek watershed during mine construction, operation and decommissioning, the permanent loss of
the area, and
x Tsilhqot’in avoidance of areas due to perceptions of contamination.
Project effects on vegetation may impact First Nations both through loss of vegetation species of interest
or value and through the loss or alteration of vegetation communities that provide species of
interest/value.
In the Fish Lake area, many Tsilhqot’in members, especially members from the Xeni Gwet’in (Nemiah
Band) confirmed the use of the Fish Creek watershed for plant gathering, including:
x Berry picking (blueberries, chokecherries, crowberries, frog berries, huckleberries, raspberries,

saskatoon berries, soap berries, strawberries)
x Medicine gathering (Indian Hellebore, pine pitch, dark willow, scrub birch or dwarf birch, alder,
juniper and aspen, Fireweed root), and
x Other harvesting (balsam fir, bear tooth, kinnikinnick, Labrador tea, pine mushrooms, wild onion and
wild potatoes).
Some of the species identified are very common (e.g., lodgepole pine, which is used for cambium
stripping and firewood, and balsam fir, used for medicine). A few of the species noted to be of interest in
the do occur in the MDA but are associated with specific habitat types that are minimally impacted by the
Project; for instance Allium cernuum (nodding onion) is found in some of the grassland associations
locally common on the west facing bluffs above the Taseko River where only 12 hectares of the 400
hectares will be disturbed from mine construction and operations. A variety of berry species were also
noted in the Ehrhart-English study; several of these species were included in sampling for baseline
vegetation metals through the previous project, and will be part of the ongoing reclamation and monitoring
programs.

Project effects to old forest, wetlands and grasslands in the mine site are less than those predicted by the
2009 Prosperity EIS. Table 2.7.2.8-120 summarizes that the overall vegetation loss is less due to the
New Prosperity Project than in the previous Prosperity Project; the effects to country foods are generally
less than those predicted for the Prosperity Project.
Figures 2.7.5-7, 8, 9, and 10 illustrate berry picking and harvesting sites within the MDA for the 2012 New
Prosperity and 2009 Prosperity projects. There are less hectares proposed for disturbance with New

Prosperity and as a result, areas for plant gathering species of interest to First Nations are less impacted
than with the previous project.
Based on the Ehrhart-English mapping, significantly less Saskatoon, gooseberry, raspberry, soopalallie
thimbleberry and laborador tea are impacted by the new MDA (Tables 2.7.5-4 and 2.7.5-5). Lily pad
harvesting is identified as occurring almost entirely in the Fish Lake area, and is preserved in the new
MDA. There is little change to the impact on balsam, cottonwood, blueberry, strawberry and crowberry;
these species will be includ in the reclamation planning for mine disturbances.
Table 2.7.5-4 Comparison of 2009 and 2012 Mine Development Areas (MDA) for Harvesting Areas
Total ha % of
Total ha % of
Total ha of of Activitie
of Activities
Activities within Activitie s
Harvesting Areas Activities Impacted
TUS /East of s within Impacted
within by 2009
Taseko R. Bdry 2012 by 2012
2009 MDA MDA
MDA MDA
Wild Onion (Allium cernuum) 855.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mountain Potato (Claytonia 110.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
lanceolata)
Willow (Cornus stolonifera) 330.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Aspen (Populus tremuloides) 507.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Juniper (Juniperus communis) 145.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pine (Pinus albicaulis) 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wild Rhubarb (Heracleum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
lanatum)
Bear Tooth (Erythronium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
grandiflorum)
Lily Pad (Nuphar polysepalum) 29.4 18.9 64.3 1.1 3.7
Labrador Tea (Ledum 136.3 102.0 74.8 70.1 51.4
glandulosum)
Balsam (Veratrum viride) 179.7 151.6 84.4 125.8 70.0
Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 118.3 86.5 73.1 86.2 72.9

Table 2.7.5-5 Comparison of 2009 and 2012 Mine Development Areas (MDA) for Berry Picking
Areas Identified by Ehrhart-English
Total ha % of Total ha % of
Total ha of of Activitie of Activitie
Activities within Activities s Activities s
Berry Picking Areas
TUS _East of within Impacted within Impacted
Taseko R. Bdry 2009 by 2009 2012 by 2012
MDA MDA MDA MDA
Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) 519.4 60.3 11.6 0.0 0.0
Gooseberry (Ribes irreguum) 703.0 122.5 17.4 0.0 0.0
Huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Raspberry (Rubus idacus) 1267.4 190.4 15.0 61.6 4.9
Soopalallie (Shepherdia 2155.3 755.2 35.0 445.0 20.6
canadensis)
Kinnickinnick (Aretostaphylos 81.5 29.4 36.1 28.5 35.0
uva-ursi)
Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) 520.6 378.9 72.8 237.7 45.7
Blueberry (Vaccinium 758.0 469.8 62.0 437.3 57.7
myrtilloides)
Strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) 513.3 349.6 68.1 319.6 62.3
Crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) 288.8 281.9 97.6 265.1 91.8
Mitigation Measures
The New Prosperity Project has redesigned the mine site layout to include the conservation of Fish Lake
and associated wetland habitat and a smaller maximum disturbance area. A wide variety of methods for
avoiding and/or mitigating potential environmental effects have been proposed for project-related
activities. Mitigation measures proposed in the 2009 EIS and committed to through the EAO process and
referred to in Section 2.7.2.7 remain relevant to New Prosperity.
Taseko is open to discussing with the Tsilhqot’in additional mitigation measures of interest to Aboriginal
people, such as providing or improving access to other areas in the territory for harvesting and gathering,
or, as part of the New Prosperity Habitat Compensation Plan, installing infrastructure for managing water,
cattle or horses, as a form of biodiversity offsetting that would increase opportunities for plant harvesting
or gathering for Aboriginal people.

o
455000 460000 465000
sek
Ta
5705000
5705000
Lo
w
er
Fish Cre Tete

ek
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Ta
Big
s ek
Onion
Lak e
oR
L i t t le F is h
ive
5695000
5695000
Lak e
r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Berry Picking Areas*


Saskatoon
Soopalallie
Kinnickinnick
Thimbleberry
-
1:60,000
Gooseberry Blueberry
Huckleberry Strawberry
Map Prepared by
Taseko Mines Ltd.
Raspberry Crowberry Data Sources:

*Source: “The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake

Figure 2.7.5-7
0 1.25 2.5 5
o
455000 460000 465000
sek
Ta
5705000
5705000
Lo
w
er
Fish Cre Tete

ek
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Ta
Big
s ek
Onion
Lak e
oR
L i t t le F is h
ive
5695000
5695000
Lak e
r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Berry Picking Areas*


Saskatoon
Soopalallie
Kinnickinnick
Thimbleberry
-
1:60,000
Gooseberry Blueberry
Map Prepared by
Huckleberry Strawberry Taseko Mines Ltd.
Raspberry Crowberry Data Sources:


Figure 2.7.5-8
0 1.25 2.5 5
se
455000 460000 465000
Ta
5705000
5705000
L
ow
er
Fish Cr e Tete
ek
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Big
Onion
Ta
Lak e
se
ko
L i t t le F is h
Ri
5695000
5695000
Lak e
ve
r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Harvesting Areas*

2009 Maximum Disturbance Area Pine

Wild Onion
Mountain Potato
Wild Rhubarb
Bear Tooth
Lily Pad
-
Willow Labrador Tea 1:60,000
Aspen Balsam
Map Prepared by
Juniper Cottonwood Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources:

Figure 2.7.5-9
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
se
455000 460000 465000
Ta
5705000
5705000
L
ow
er
Fish Cr e Tete
ek
Hill
F is h
5700000
5700000
Lak e
Big
Onion
Ta
Lak e
se
L i t t le F is h
ko
5695000
5695000
Lak e
Riv
e r
L i t t le
Onion
Lak e
Wasp
Lak e
Wolft rap
Lak e
B
ee
ce
C
re
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Harvesting Areas*

-
2012 Maximum Disturbance Area Pine
Boundary of TUS/East of Taseko R. Wild Rhubarb
Wild Onion Bear Tooth
Mountain Potato Lily Pad
1:60,000
Willow Labrador Tea
Aspen Balsam
Map Prepared by
Juniper Cottonwood Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-10
Other Uses
The Fish Lake watershed is utilized by the Tsilhqot’in for other purposes that may or may not fall within
the meaning of traditional use under the Act, but in the interest of completeness those activities are
discussed below. These uses include: camping, recreation, teachings, gatherings and occupation while
ranching and haying.

Meadows and campsites used around Fish Lake previously within in the 2009 MDA, are now preserved in
the 2012 MDA as illustrated on Figure 2.7.5-11 and 2.7.5-12,respectively. Known camp sites and water
use sites in the vicinity of Little Fish Lake remain within the 2012 MDA (Table 2.7.5-6). While the current
Fish Lake camp site, previously a BC Forest Service recreation site, at the northwest end of Fish Lake is
not within the 2012 MDA, access to this site will be removed and access will be developed on the
northeast side of Fish Lake to enable use, including navigation. Use of the area for recreation, teachings
and gatherings will be modified with New Prosperity in light of adjacent mine operation activities and local
effects on noise and aesthetic values.
With New Prosperity, there would still be a loss of cabins near Little Fish Lake, and uses associated with
those cabins; although occupation of the cabins and uses associated with the cabin occupation, such as
haying, has not occurred in over 20 years43.
Table 2.7.5-6 Comparison of 2009 and 2012 Mine Development Areas (MDA) for Camping and
Watering Areas Identified by Ehrhart-English
Total # within
Total # within Total # within 2012
TUS/East of Taseko
2009 MDA MDA
R. Bdry
Occasional Camp 16 4 2
Yearly Use Camp 28 10 6
Water Source 3 1 1
Mitigation Measures
With access to Fish Lake preserved through all phases of mining, opportunities for gathering, teaching
can be maintained; while the experience may be altered from the traditional gatherings previously
conducted on site, there may be other opportunities provided for teaching and engaging youth in with
regards to environmental management and monitoring.
Taseko is open to discussing with the Tsilhqot’in the option of providing or improving access to a
recreation site in their territory as a form of compensation for modifying the use the Fish Lake area; a
measure that can be integrated into the Fish Compensation Plans.
43
While cabins were noted to be in disrepair for years leading up to 2009, some reconstruction has been observed to have occurred
during late summer months of 2009. Recent occupation of the area has not been documented.

Taseko remains open to discussing with the Tsilhqot’in or the Williams family their interest in moving the
cabins currently at Little Fish Lake to another site as part of plan to enhance the value of such a site for
purposes of occupancy, recreation, or gathering.

o
455000 460000 465000
sek
Ta
5705000
5705000
#
* L
ow
er
Fish Cre Tete

ek ##
**
Hill
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
F is h
5700000
5700000
#
*k e
La
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*#
#
* #**
*#
Ta
s
Big
ek
Onion
oR
4
Lak e
*# *#*#*
ive
#
L i t t le F is h
r
5695000
5695000
*L#
# *a k e
##
**
L i t t le
Onion
4 #
*
Lak e #
*
Wasp ##
** #
*#*#
* #
*
Lak e #
*
#
*
Wolft rap
#
* Lak e
#
* #
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
* * Bee
# 4
#
* #
* #
* ce
#
* #
*
#
* C
#
*
re
#
*
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
#
*
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Camps & Water Sources*

#
*
Occasional Camp
- 1:60,000
#
* Yearly Use Camp
Map Prepared by
Water Source
Taseko Mines Ltd.
4 Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-11
0 1.25 2.5 5 *Source: “The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake
o
455000 460000 465000
sek
Ta
5705000
5705000
#
* L
ow
er
Fish Cre Tete

ek ##
**
Hill
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
F is h
5700000
5700000
#
*k e
La
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*#
#
* #**
*#
Ta
Big
s
ek
Onion
4
oR
Lak e
*#
# *#*#*
ive
L i t t le F is h
5695000
5695000
*L#
# *a k e
r
##
**
L i t t le
Onion
4 #
*
Lak e #
*
Wasp ##
** #
*#*#
* #
*
Lak e #
*
#
*
Wolft rap
#
* Lak e
#
* #
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
* * Bee
# 4
#
* #
* #
* ce
#
* #
*
#
* C
#
*
re
#
*
5690000
5690000
ek
Lower
Ta s e k o
Lak e
#
*
455000 460000 465000
First Nation Traditional Use - Camps & Water Sources*

#
*
Occasional Camp
- 1:60,000
#
* Yearly Use Camp
4 Water Source Map Prepared by

Taseko Mines Ltd.
Data Sources:
Figure 2.7.5-12
0 1.25 2.5 5 *Source: “The Heritage Significance of the Fish Lake


effect on a component of the biophysical or human environment (i.e., is there an environmental effect
with the environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that are likely to occur
(i.e., is there overlap of environmental effects–i.e., a cumulative environmental effect?).
As described in Section 2.7.1.4 a Project Inclusion List (Table 2.7.1.4 -1) describing all past, present and
reasonably foreseeable projects with potential residual environmental effects that could overlap spatially
and temporally with the potential residual environmental Project effects being assessed was prepared.
The location of each of the 22 projects and activities identified is shown on Figure 2.7.1.4 – 1.
As shown in Table 2.7.5-7 for each of the current use for traditional purposes indicators assessed the
Project is predicted to have some measurable residual effect following the implementation of planned
mitigation measures. In turn, however, for each Project residual effect, either due to spatial or temporal
separation, no mechanism for interaction was found to exist for any of the potential residual
environmental effects potentially arising from the 22 projects and activities assessed. Consequently it was
concluded that the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects would not affect either the viability or
sustainability of the land and resource upon which current use for traditional purposes relies. Accordingly
it was concluded that the Project would not have any significant cumulative effect on current use for
traditional purposes.

Table 2.7.5-7 Indicator and Potential Project Effects
Reasonable
Mechanism
Indicator for expectation
for
Potential Current Use Measurable Project
Measurable Interaction
Environmental for Residual contribution will
Parameter/Effect with other
Effect Traditional Effect (Y/N) effect viability
Projects
Purposes or sustainability
(Y/N)
of resource
Effect on Fish Fishing Spatial Extent of Y N N
and Fish loss
Habitat
Effect on Hunting and Spatial Extent of Y N N
Wildlife Trapping loss
Effect on Plant Spatial Extent of Y N N
Vegetation Gathering loss
Presence of a Other Uses – Spatial Extent of Y N N
Mine camping, loss
recreation,
teachings,
gatherings
Conclusions on Impact on Current Use for Traditional Purposes

effects is assessed having regard to the CEAA Reference Guide: Determining Whether A Project is Likely
to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects - The Requirements of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D213D286-
1&offset=2&toc=show).The assessment methodology applied is as detailed in Section 2.7.1.5. The
conclusions concerning the significance of any residual adverse environmental effects are as shown in
Table 2.7.5-8 below.
For Project effects on aboriginal use for fishing, as affected by project effects on fish and fish habitat and
access, the magnitude is permanent but site specific with the loss of Little Fish Lake. With the
implementation of mitigation measures and reclamation, the conclusion is that the effects are not
significant because the effects are site specific, of low magnitude, and with the implementation of fish
compensation, neutral in direction
For Project effects on aboriginal use for hunting and trapping, as affected by project effects on wildlife and
access, the magnitude is low and the effect is short term, with implementation of the mitigation measures
and reclamation, the conclusion is that the effects are not significant because the effects are local, occur
once and are reversible.
For Project effects on aboriginal use for plant gathering, as affected by effects on vegetation, including
country foods, and access, although the magnitude is low and the effect is medium term, with

implementation of the mitigation measures and reclamation, the conclusion is that the effects are not
significant because the effects are local, occur once and are reversible.
For Project effects on other aboriginal uses as affected by access, the magnitude is low and the effect is
medium term, with implementation of the mitigation measures and reclamation, the conclusion is that the
effects are not significant because the effects are local, occur once and are reversible.

Table 2.7.5-8 Determination of Significance of Residual Effects on Current Use of Lands and Resources
Residual Effects
Significance
Current
Potential Proposed
Geographical
Reversibility
Use of
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Duration/
Direction
Environmental Mitigation/Compensation
Context
Extent
Lands and
Effect Measures
Resources
Fishing Mine design preserves Fish

Lake and fishery
Protection of water quality and
salmon fisheries through a one
watershed project design with
zero discharge during
operations
Mitigation measures as L – Salmon fisheries sites are
Effect on Fish unaffected by the Project. Fish
specified in Sections 2.7.2.4
and Fish Lake remains accessible to
and 2.7.2.5
Habitat – provide back-up food source if
Implementation of water
loss of Little required is unaffected; loss of 6 FF/
management plan, including N S I U N H
Fish Lake, ha Little Fish Lake and some C
sediment and erosion control
proximate area, fish-bearing streams providing
measures
and associated seasonal fishing; fish
Application of reclamation compensation plans results in
fishing
practices to restoration NNL
disturbed aquatic systems.
Implementation of Fish
Compensation Plans to
enhance fish and fish habitat,
and fishing opportunities in the
region.

Residual Effects
Significance
Current
Potential Proposed
Geographical
Reversibility
Use of
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Duration/
Direction
Context
Extent
Lands and
Effect Measures
Resources
Hunting Implement Vegetation and

Effect on
and Wildlife mitigation measures as
Wildlife –
Trapping specified in 2.7.2.7 and 2.7.2.8.
loss of habitat,
Implement Wildlife and
loss of access Vegetation Management Plan M – No residual effects on
to areas as outlined in 2.8.1 wildlife are predicted, as
disturbed by A summarized in table 2.7.2.8-11 L ST R U N H
Apply reclamation practices to
mine and 12; access lost to 2,539 ha
restore land capability and land
components during mining operations.
use.
such as TSF,
Develop and implement a
plant site and
compensation plan following
pit plus other
the Habitat Compensation
infrastructure
Framework
Effect on Plant Implement Vegetation
Vegetation - Gathering mitigation measures as
loss of plant specified in 2.7.2.7.
communities, Implement Wildlife and M – Residual effects on
loss of access Vegetation Management Plan vegetation are summarized in
to areas as outlined in 2.8.1 to minimize Table 2.7.2.7-26; maximum
A L MT R U N M
disturbed by disturbance and vegetation disturbance loss of country
mine loss, and mitigating against food plants is 2,539 ha
components invasive species.
such as TSF, Maintain natural drainage
plant site and patterns.
pit plus other Apply reclamation practices to

Residual Effects
Significance
Current
Potential Proposed
Geographical
Reversibility
Use of
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Duration/
Direction
Context
Extent
Lands and
Effect Measures
Resources
infrastructure restore land capability and land

use.
Develop and implement a
compensation plan following
the draft Habitat Compensation
Framework
Presence of Other Uses Enable access to Fish Lake
Mine – during all phases of mining
loss of access If of interest to the Tsilhqot’in,
M – access to 2,539 hectares
to components elements can be included in
lost during mining; 82% of
covered by Fish or Habitat Compensation N L ST R U N H
seasonal and yearly camp
TSF, plant site plans that relate to improving
sites retained
and pit plus access to other sites of interest
other in the territory to offset
infrastructure temporary loss of access

Residual Effects
Significance
Current
Potential Proposed
Geographical
Reversibility
Use of
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Duration/
Direction
Context
Extent
Lands and
Effect Measures
Resources

S Site-specific R Rare - Occurs Once S Significant
Direction: L Local I Infrequent - Occurs sporadically at irregular intervals N Not Significant
P Positive R Regional F Frequent - Occurs on a regular basis and at regular intervals
N Neutral C Continuous Prediction Confidence:
A Adverse Duration: Based on scientific
ST: Short term Reversibility: information and statistical
Magnitude: MT: Medium Term R Reversible analysis, professional
Defined for each use individually. In general: LT: Long Term I Irreversible judgment and
L Low–environmental effect occurs that may FF: Far Future or Permanent. effectiveness of mitigation
or may not be measurable, but is within Ecological Context: L Low level of confidence
the range of natural variability. U Undisturbed: Area relatively or not adversely affected by human M Moderate level of
M Moderate–environmental effect occurs, activity confidence
but is unlikely to pose a serious risk or D Developed: Area has been substantially previously disturbed by H High level of confidence
present a management challenge. human development or human development is still present
H High–environmental effect is likely to pose N/A Not applicable.
a serious risk or present a management
challenge.

Table 2.7.5.-9 provides a concise summary of the effects assessment for Current Use for Traditional
Purposes
Table 2.7.5-9 Summary of Effects Assessment for Current Use for Traditional Purposes
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
conservation of Fish Lake and associated riparian habitat and a smaller maximum
Beneficial and disturbance area. This is expected to reduce impacts on fish and fish habitat as wells
Adverse Effects as reduce restrictions on fishing opportunities, reduce vegetation loss for plant
gathering and harvesting, and reduce wildlife habitat losses as well as reduce
restrictions on hunting and trapping.
effects have been proposed for project-related activities, include both KI specific and
general fish habitat, water, vegetation and wildlife mitigation measures.
Mitigation and Environmental Management Plans are to be developed for water management, and
Compensation vegetation and wildlife management, including invasive weed management strategy
Measures and measures for reducing animal-human interaction.
Implementation of Habitat Compensation and Fish Compensation Plans are
proposed.
Reclamation measures include consideration of species of interest to the Tsilhqot’in.
The predicted residual effects on current use for traditional purposes for New
Potential
Prosperity have decreased relative to 2009. Residual effects from the permanent
Residual
loss of habitat within the mine development area can be offset with compensation
Effects
plans.
Twenty-two past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects were identified and
assessed for potential cumulative effects with residual effects of the Project. In light
Cumulative
of the lack of development proposed for the asserted Tsilhqot’in territory, it is
Effects
concluded that the viability or sustainability of the land and resources on which
current use for traditional purposes rely would not be affected.
of the land and resources is predicted to be not significant. This assessment is predicated
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects
found to be
significant
Table 2.7.5-9 presents the summary of effects assessment for current use for traditional purposes.
Considering the updated findings of the Project, including the preservation of Fish Lake, the reduced

impact on total hectares of water and land, including fish and fish habitat, vegetation, wildlife habitat, plus
with fish and habitat compensation, and the continued commitments for environmental management,
reclamation and monitoring, and cumulative residual effects on current use presented in this document,
the overall significance determination for the New Prosperity Project, including all three major
components (mine site, access road, transmission line), is changed from 2009. That is, the effect of the
Project on the viability and sustainability of the current use for traditional purposes is considered to be not
significant.
Cultural Heritage Resources

Section 2.6.4 of this EIS provides a summary of cultural heritage values as previously indicated through
consultation with the Tsilhqot’in. Known physical archaeological resources are summarized in Section
2.6.3.1.
During the original panel review for the previous project, the Tsilhqot’in stated that the Fish Lake area had
substantial cultural value. Since the landscape itself would be substantially altered by the Project even
after closure and reclamation, the panel determined that the spiritual and cultural connection to the Fish
Lake area for the Tsilhqot’in would likely be irreversibly lost.
The Tsilhqot’in indicated that there are cremation sites, burial sites and pit houses in the area of the
proposed mine site, particularly on the island in Fish Lake, and that there was uncertainty regarding
whether sites with no physical evidence were identified. The participants in the hearings for the previous
project stated that this island was a site of spiritual power where present-day and past generations of
Tsilhqot'in conducted ceremonies to receive their spiritual powers. In addition to this, the Tsilhqot’in noted
the presence of a cache pit and a pit house on the island as evidence of the island’s historic and cultural
importance.
The previous panel determined that the loss of the Fish Lake and Fish Creek watershed areas for cultural
and spiritual practices would be irreversible, of high magnitude and have a long-term effect on the
Tsilhqot’in. It further concluded a significant adverse effect on navigation, given the use of Fish Lake by
First Nations.

The 2012 New Prosperity MDA preserves Fish Lake, and the immediate vicinity where archaeological
resources are the most abundant. Archaeological resources preserved are summarized in Sections 2.7.4.
The 2012 New Prosperity MDA also preserves the island in Fish Lake, which is of significant cultural and
historical value to First Nations, and preserves the ability for First Nations to navigate to the island.
In the 2012 MDA, there portions of the Fish Lake watershed, referred to by Tsilhqot’in as Nabas, are still
lost to the TSF and related infrastructure. Physical features with cultural values in Naba include the
cabins near Little Fish Lake.
Mitigation Measures

Access to Fish Lake, and the island, will be maintained during all phases of mining.


effect on a component of the biophysical or human environment (i.e., is there an environmental effect
with the environmental effects of other past or future projects and activities that are likely to occur
(i.e., is there overlap of environmental effects–i.e., a cumulative environmental effect?).
As described in Section 2.7.1.4 a Project Inclusion List (Table 2.7.1.4 -1) describing all past, present and
reasonably foreseeable projects with potential residual environmental effects that could overlap spatially
and temporally with the potential residual environmental Project effects being assessed was prepared.
The location of each of the 22 projects and activities identified is shown on Figure 2.7.1.4 – 1.
As shown in Table 2.7.5-10, the Project is predicted to have some measurable residual effect following
the implementation of planned mitigation measures. In turn however, due to spatial separation, no
mechanism for interaction was found to exist for any of the potential residual environmental effects
potentially arising from the 22 projects and activities assessed. Consequently it was concluded that the
Project contribution to cumulative effects would not affect either the viability or sustainability of physical
cultural or archaeological resources; accordingly it was concluded that the Project would not have any
significant cumulative effect on cultural heritage.
Table 2.7.5-10 Indicators and Potential Project Effects
Reasonable
Mechanism expectation
Potential for Project
Indicator for Measurable
Environmental Measurable Interaction contribution
Cultural Residual
Effect Parameter/Effect with other will effect
Heritage Effect (Y/N)
Projects viability or
(Y/N) sustainability
of resource
Presence of a Physical Spatial Extent of Y N N
Mine cultural loss
resources;
archaeological
resources

Conclusion on the Impact on Cultural Heritage Resources
effects is assessed having regard to the CEAA Reference Guide: Determining Whether A Project is Likely
to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects - The Requirements of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D213D286-
1&offset=2&toc=show).The assessment methodology applied is as detailed in Section 2.7.1.5. The
conclusions concerning the significance of any residual adverse environmental effects are as shown in
Table 2.7.5-11 below.
For Project effects on cultural heritage as affected by disturbance or access, the magnitude is low but
permanent and irreversible; however, in light of the characterization of the heritage resources actually
impacted and the limited number in a site-specific area, the conclusion is that the effects are not
significant.

Table 2.7.5-11 Determination of Significance of Residual Effects on Cultural Heritage Resources
Determination of
Significance of
Significance
Residual Effects
Geographical
Reversibility
Proposed Mitigation/Compensation Measures
Frequency
Magnitude
Ecological
Duration/
Direction
Cultural Heritage resources
Context
Extent
L–
85% of
known
archae
ological
Preservation of Fish Lake including the island sites
Access to Fish Lake and the island during all retaine
phases of mining d; loss
F
Preservation of archeological resources in the of
Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources A S F/ I U N H
vicinity of Fish Lake, as identified in Section 2.7.4 cabin
C
Mitigation Plan to avoid disturbance of and
archaeological sites within MDA as specified in campin
Section 2.8.1 g areas
in the
vicinity
of Little
Fish
Lake


S Site-specific R Rare - Occurs S Significant
Direction: L Local Once N Not Significant
P Positive R Regional I Infrequent -
N Neutral Occurs Prediction Confidence:
A Adverse Duration: sporadically at Based on scientific information
ST: Short term irregular and statistical analysis,
Magnitude: MT: Medium Term intervals professional judgment and
Defined for each individually. In general: LT: Long Term F Frequent - effectiveness of mitigation
L Low–environmental effect occurs that may or may not be FF: Far Future or Permanent. Occurs on a L Low level of confidence
measurable, but is within the range of natural variability. regular basis M Moderate level of confidence
M Moderate–environmental effect occurs, but is unlikely to and at regular H High level of confidence
pose a serious risk or present a management challenge. intervals
H High–environmental effect is likely to pose a serious risk C Continuous
or present a management challenge.
Reversibility:
R Reversible
I Irreversible
Ecological
Context:
U Undisturbed:
Area relatively
or not
adversely
affected by
human activity
D Developed:
Area has been
substantially
previously
disturbed by
human
development or
human
development is
still present
N/A Not
applicable.

Table 2.7.5-12 provides a concise summary of the effects assessment for Cultural Heritage
Table 2.7.5-12 Summary of Effects Assessment for Cultural Heritage
Effects
Concise Summary
Assessment
Beneficial and
conservation of Fish Lake and archaeological resources in the vicinity, as well as the
Adverse Effects
Fish Lake island. This is expected to reduce impacts on cultural heritage.
Mitigation and
Compensation Mitigation measures include implementation of an Archaeological Management Plan.
Measures
The predicted residual effects on cultural heritage for New Prosperity have
Potential
decreased relative to 2009. Residual effects include the loss of cabins in the vicinity
Residual
of Little Fish Lake.
Effects
Twenty-two past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects were identified and

assessed for potential cumulative effects with residual effects of the Project. In light
Cumulative
of the lack of development proposed for the asserted Tsilhqot’in territory, it is
Effects
concluded that the viability or sustainability of cultural heritage rely would not be
affected.
of the land and resources is predicted to be not significant. This assessment is predicated
Likelihood of
occurrence for
adverse effects
found to be
significant
Table 2.7.5-12 presents the summary of effects assessment for cultural heritage. Considering the
updated findings of the Project, mitigation measures, reduced impact on archaeological resources as
summarized in Section 2.7.4., and cumulative residual effects on cultural heritage presented in this
document, the overall significance determination for the New Prosperity Project, including all three major
components (mine site, access road, transmission line), is changed from 2009. That is, the effect of the
Project on the viability and sustainability of cultural heritage is considered to be not significant.

Potential or Established Rights and Title
Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Rights as Defined in the William Case

The mine site would be located in the area known as the Claim Area in Tsilhqot’in Nation vs. British
Columbia, 2007 SCBC 1700 (the William case). In that case, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
found that the Tsilhqot’in have a right to hunt and trap birds and animals throughout the Claim Area, to
trade in skins and pelts, and capture and use horses for transportation and work. These findings of
aboriginal rights were recently upheld by the BC Court of Appeal in William v. British Columbia 2012
BCCA 285.
During the course of the public hearing for the previous project, the Tsilhqot’in Nation provided specific
information on how the Project would infringe on its established or potential Aboriginal rights, including:
x Loss of access to key cultural hunting and trapping areas in Fish Creek watershed and the
surrounding areas, including Fish Creek watershed Dzelh (Anvil Mountain), Nadilin Yex (mouth of
the Taseko River at the north end of Taseko Lake), Gwetex Natel?as (Red Mountain), Cheetah
Meadows, Jidizay Biny (Big Onion Lake) and Bisqox (Beece Creek)
x Impacts on the populations and habitats of birds, wildlife, fish and plants that support the exercise of
Tsilhqot’in rights, such as wild horses, deer, moose, grizzly bears and migratory birds
x Displacement of the Tsilhqot’in people from the area during mine construction, operation and
decommissioning for decades and eventual permanent displacement from these same areas due to
the permanent loss of lakes, streams and wetlands, and
x Tsilhqot’in avoidance of areas due to perceived concerns about ongoing contamination.
The original panel noted that the established Tsilhqot’in rights to hunt and trap in the mine site area would
be directly affected as they would no longer be able to exercise those rights until after the mine closed
and the land was reclaimed. Even then, the restored landscape would be permanently altered. The
Tsilhqot’in also stated that they would likely not use the area to exercise their Aboriginal rights due to the
perception of contamination. The original panel determined that the effect of the Project on the
established Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal rights would be irreversible.
The original panel has also considered Taseko’s proposed mitigation measures including the
establishment of a no hunting zone for the Project area. The Panel stated that this proposed mitigation
would limit the ability of First Nations to practice their established Aboriginal right to hunt and trap in the
Project area and may impact their Aboriginal rights to hunt and trap in other areas within the territory due
to increased pressures on wildlife populations elsewhere.

As previously discussed in Sections 2.7.2.8 Wildlife, and Aboriginal Interests Sections 2.7.5.1 b.Wildlife,
and 2.7.5.2 a. Current Use for Traditional Purposes, relative to the previous project reviewed in 2009,
New Prosperity results in less hectares proposed for disturbance, a reduced impact on wildlife habitat, a

reduced area to which hunting restrictions apply during mine construction and operations, and increased
access to trapping areas in the vicinity of Fish Lake during all phases of mining.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures proposed to minimize or eliminate the residual Project effects on wildlife are
many, but include the wildlife and wildlife habitat mitigation measures in Section 2.7.2.8. Wildlife and
Vegetation Management as described in Section 2.8.1 Environmental Management Plans, reclamation as
described in 2.8.2 Reclamation and Closure and commitments for a Habitat Compensation Plan.
Conclusions
As a result of the reduced impact on the wildlife habitat and with the mitigation measures, and the
continued commitments for environmental management, reclamation and monitoring, the conclusion of
effects of New Prosperity on the established Tsilhqot’in rights as defined by the William case for New
Prosperity is Low.
The Potential Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Right to Fish in Fish Lake and Surrounding Area
Although in the William decision the court did not make a finding regarding a Tsilhqot’in right to fish, the
Tsilhqot’in assert an aboriginal right to fish in Fish Lake and surrounding area. The panel for the previous
project concluded that the adverse effects on this asserted Aboriginal right would be significant as Fish
Lake and its fishery would be destroyed and replaced with a waste rock storage area, and therefore the
right to fish in Fish Lake could no longer be exercised.

The mine development plan for New Prosperity preserves Fish Lake, which represents the most
significant fishing area within the watershed. As previously discussed in Sections 2.7.2.5 Fish and Fish
Habitat, and Aboriginal Interests Sections 2.7.5.2 a. New Prosperity also results in less overall
disturbance of aquatic systems and fish habitat in the Fish Lake watershed. While there would be a loss
of ability to fish in Little Fish Lake, that is a minor impact as compared to the loss of Fish Lake given that
Little Fish Lake is smaller, shallow, and subject to winter kill.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures proposed to minimize or eliminate the residual Project effects on access, fishing,
fish and fish habitat in the watershed are many, but include the fish and fish habitat mitigation measures
in Section 2.7.2.5, water quality and quantity mitigation measures in Section 2.7.2.4, and Water
Management Plan measures in 2.8.1.

Conclusions
As a result of the preservation of Fish Lake, reduced impact on the fish and fish habitat in the watershed,
and with the mitigation measures and fish habitat compensation, and the continued commitments for
environmental management, reclamation and monitoring, the conclusion of effects of New Prosperity on
the potential Tsilhqot’in right as to fish is Low.
Secwepemc Aboriginal Rights

Based on Taseko’s review of its consultation records and hearing transcripts from the previous panel
review, the Project effects on the potential Aboriginal rights of the Secwepemc arise primarily in regards
to the proposed transmission line. Should Secewepemc First Nations assert Aboriginal rights in the mine
site area, where components of the Project have changed since the last panel review, the mitigation
measures employed in order to address impacts on Tsilhqot’in aboriginal rights for hunting, gathering and
fishing in Section 2.7.5 would be relevant. All components, features and activities associated with the
transmission line are the same as those described in the previously assessed project. During the public
hearings for the previous project, the Secwepemc Nation indicated that the proposed transmission line
would negatively affect its Aboriginal rights to hunt, harvest plants, fish and could potentially negatively
affect areas of cultural importance to the Secwepemc.
The panel for the previous project found that while the effects of the transmission line on the Secwepemc
may be long-term and potentially irreversible, the centreline for the transmission line had not yet been
chosen and the potential effects from the transmission line could be minimized. The previous panel
therefore concluded that, provided the planned mitigation to avoid construction in sensitive locations
would be applied in cooperation with the Secwepemc, the Project would not result in a significant adverse
effect on established or potential Secwepemc rights.
The mitigation measures proposed to minimize or eliminate the effects of the transmission line on the
potential Aboriginal rights of the Secwepemc include those previously committed to in the Prosperity
project:
x Finalize the alignment such that it minimizes disturbance in wetland ecosystems and other sensitive
habitat: avoids important wildlife features and known archaeological or cultural sites; and, utilizes to
the extent possible existing clearings and roads
x Develop an access plan in consultation with First Nations, regulatory agencies and stakeholders
x Construct during weather windows to minimize disturbance to wildlife, grazing cattle and grassland
ecosystems, and
x Utilize existing roads to access the transmission line corridor during construction.
Taseko is open to working with both Secwepemc and Tsilhqot’in First Nations in finalizing the alignment
of the transmission line post-environmental assessment as part of preparing for permitting. As a result of
these mitigation measures, the effects of New Prosperity on potential Secwepemc Aboriginal rights is Low

Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Title Claims

Aboriginal title is an interest in land. It includes the right to determine the use to which land is put. In order
for land to be subject to aboriginal title it must have been the subject of regular and exclusive occupation
by First Nations people at the time of assertion of British sovereignty (1846 in BC). Seasonal or periodic
use of land for the exercise of aboriginal rights is not enough to meet the test for aboriginal title.
At the time of the original panel hearing, judgment had been issued at the trial level by the BC Supreme
Court in the William case. In that decision, Justice Vickers expressed a non-binding advisory opinion that
he believed the Tsilhqot’in had met the requirements to establish title in almost 1/2 of the “Claim Area” but
concluded that he did not have the ability to issue a declaration to this effect on the basis that the
pleadings had been brought forward by the Tsilhqot’in on an “all or nothing basis”. In any case, the area
to which he indicated he would have found title did not include the area of the proposed prosperity
project. He stated at paragraph 893 of the judgment: "I am not able to find that any portion of the Eastern
Trapline Territory was occupied at the time of sovereignty assertion to the extent necessary to ground a
finding of Tsilhqot'in Aboriginal title."
The decision was appealed by all parties and in June 2012 the BC Court of Appeal rendered its decision.
The Court of Appeal did not disturb Justice Vicker’s findings that the Tsilhqot’in had not satisfied the test
for aboriginal title in relation to the Eastern Trapline territory (which is where the Project is located). The
Court of Appeal did however note that even in respect of the portions of “Claim Area” (where Justice
Vickers indicated he would have found aboriginal title if the case had been pleaded differently), it
disagreed with Justice Vicker’s approach to assessing title and stated:
[215] Except in respect of a few specific sites, the evidence did not establish regular presence on
or intensive occupation of particular tracts of land within the Claim Area. There were no
permanent village sites, though there was evidence of encampments and wintering sites,
including groupings of pit houses. Even among these, the evidence did not strongly point to
occupation of particular sites in the period around 1846 except in three or four cases.
…
[219] I also agree with the defendants that a territorial claim for Aboriginal title does not meet the
tests in Delgamuukw and in Marshall; Bernard. Further, as I will attempt to explain, I do not see a
broad territorial claim as fitting within the purposes behind s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or
the rationale for the common law’s recognition of Aboriginal title. Finally, I see broad territorial
claims to title as antithetical to the goal of reconciliation, which demands that, so far as possible,
the traditional rights of First Nations be fully respected without placing unnecessary limitations on
the sovereignty of the Crown or on the aspirations of all Canadians, Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal.
At the same time, the Court of Appeal did not modify Justice’s Vickers resulting order in any way, and it
left open the possibility for the Tsilhqot’in to return to court to attempt to prove aboriginal title in particular
areas. The court stated:
[241] I do not doubt that there are specific sites within the Claim Area that may be of particular
significance to the Tsilhqot’in and on which they traditionally had a regular presence. As I have

already indicated, this litigation was not structured so as to identify such specific sites as
candidates for Aboriginal title. The Tsilhqot’in should be entitled to pursue title claims to specific
sites notwithstanding that the plaintiff’s territorial claim has been dismissed. Accordingly, I would
also uphold the trial judge’s declaration that his dismissal of the title claim does not preclude new
claims asserting title to lands within Tachelach’ed and the Trapline Territory.:
If aboriginal title were found to exist in relation to the proposed mine site, then the development of the
New Prosperity project would constitute an infringement of aboriginal title, particularly during the period
up to and until mine closure. Any such infringement would therefore need to be justified by the Crown,
having regard to principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Delgamuukw v. British
Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 then Chief Justice Lamer stated:
165 The general principles governing justification laid down in Sparrow, and embellished by Gladstone,
operate with respect to infringements of aboriginal title. In the wake of Gladstone, the range of legislative
objectives that can justify the infringement of aboriginal title is fairly broad. Most of these objectives can
be traced to the reconciliation of the prior occupation of North America by aboriginal peoples with the
assertion of Crown sovereignty, which entails the recognition that “distinctive aboriginal societies exist
within, and are a part of, a broader social, political and economic community” (at para. 73). In my opinion,
the development of agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power, the general economic
development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the
building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of
objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal
title. Whether a particular measure or government act can be explained by reference to one of those
objectives, however, is ultimately a question of fact that will have to be examined on a case-by-case
basis.
The assessment as to whether the Crown had met all the tests relevant for justification would be one for
the Crown to make, not the panel. That assessment would be undertaken in accordance with principles
spelled out in Delgamuukw and related case law. It would not be the subject of the same analysis that
applies to assessing whether a project would have significant adverse environmental effects for
environmental assessment purposes
Secwepemc Aboriginal Title Claims

The Secwepemc nation and member bands claim aboriginal title to areas that would be impacted by the
proposed transmission line. No finding of Secwepemc title has been established by any court.
The previous review panel did not make any findings related to the asserted title claim of the Secwepemc
nation generally. However, it did find that the Project would have a direct effect on the aboriginal title
claims of the Esketemc (Alkali Lake Band) and the Stswecem’s/Xgat’tem (Canoe Creek Band) as the
transmission line would reduce the availability of land for selection during the treaty process. Ultimately,
the previous panel concluded that depending on the size of the land settlement through the treaty
process, the Project may result in a significant adverse effect on any such title that could be granted to
the Esketemc (Alkali Lake Band) and the Stswecem'c/Xgat’tem (Canoe Creek Band).
In making these findings, the panel did not identify any specific information concerning the exclusive
occupancy of particular areas as of 1846 (the relevant legal test). Further, the panel did not explain why it
was commenting on the aboriginal title claims of two Secepemc nation bands when Mr. Justice Vickers

held in the William case that any such rights would be held at the nation level and not that of individual
bands. Finally, the previous panel did not indicate the basis upon which a reduction in land available for
treaty negotiations would constitute a direct effect on a title claim.
To the extent that the transmission will exist on Crown lands that could potentially meet the test for
aboriginal title (something which has not been proven to date, and recognizing that aboriginal title is not
synonymous with the entire claimed traditional territory of a first nation) then the Project could impact on
asserted aboriginal title. The extent of such impact would depend on the degree to which the transmission
line limited the Secwepemc right to otherwise determine the use of any title land, during the period of time
that the powerline remains in place and before decommissioning. Any such impact on asserted aboriginal
title would need to be assessed by the Crown, using the Haida analysis, including the balancing of
interests that this test requires. Ultimately, the Crown would need to satisfy itself that the honor of the
Crown has been met in relation to any such decision.

2.7.5.3 Additional aboriginal issues or concerns identified since the time of the original panel report
and not otherwise covered by 2.7.5.1 and 2.7.5.2 above
Tsilhqot’in concerns, as stated in media and correspondence to Taseko and government agencies, focus
on the new project’s proposal for preservation of Fish Lake and continued loss of other areas in the Fish
Creek watershed, referred to as Nabas. Section 2.5.1.1 (Engagement and Consultation) of this EIS
summarizes efforts made to engage First Nations since December 2010.
Tsilhqot’in National Government issues of concern have been widely publicized in the form of a document
titled “Ten Facts Why Resubmitted Prosperity Mine Proposal Cannot Be Approved”. In the following
section the “ten facts” are numbered and stated individually in italics and followed by a brief summary of
how the Company has been responding to these issues. The italicized portions are taken verbatim
directly from the Xeni Gwetin website www.xenigwetin.com at http://protectfishlake.ca/letters/2012-
05/tsilqot-in-confident-that-new-panel-s-work-will-result-in-rejection-of-new-prosperity-mine.php.
1. “The CEAA review panel process was very different from the BC EAO rubber-stamp decision. Its
report found immitigable, devastating impacts to the local fish stocks and endangered grizzly
populations, and to the existing and future rights of the Tsilhqot'in and its youth. Then Environment
Minister Jim Prentice described the report's findings as "scathing" and "probably the most
condemning I have ever read."
Both the CEAA process and the BCEAO process found significant adverse environmental effects
from the original Prosperity proposal although the Province found that those effects were justified
by the positive effects on social and economic consideration. The New Prosperity proposal
addresses the significant effects found in both Provincial and Federal EA. Refer to Sections
2.7.2.8 and 2.7.2.5 for details.
2. “The company knows its new option is worse than its first plan. TML's V.P. Corporate Affairs, Brian
Battison, was clear in his Mar. 22, 2010, opening presentation to the CEAA hearings, when he stated:
"Developing Prosperity means draining Fish Lake. We wish it were otherwise. We searched hard for a
different way. A way to retain the lake and have the mine. But there is no viable alternative. The lake
and the deposit sit side by side. It is not possible to have one without the loss of the other."
The statement in the first sentence is not true. The New Prosperity mine development plan is
significantly different than the original Prosperity proposal in that it preserves Fish Lake in its
current location. Mr. Battison’s statement refers to the viability of alternatives at the time. The
New Prosperity plan that will undergo this Environmental Assessment was not a viable alternative
based on long term copper and gold prices at the time that the original Prosperity plan was
submitted. When Taseko submitted the New Prosperity plan the long term price of copper and
gold had risen to levels which now make it feasible, or viable, to absorb the additional cost of
relocating the tailings pond and installing ground water control systems. Long term prices of
commodities are determined through a “street consensus” which takes the mean of the
projections provided by dozens of established banks and analysts.
3. “The point was emphasised by TML's VP of engineering, Scott Jones, who stated: "What happens to
the water quality in Fish Lake, if you try and preserve that body of water with the tailings facility right
up against it, is that over time the water quality in Fish Lake will become equivalent to the water
quality in the pore water of the tailings facility, particularly when it's close."
This statement is incorrect. Mr. Jones statement does not refer to the New Prosperity mine
development plan. He was explaining one of the reasons why, in the original Prosperity proposal
where the tailings facility was located immediately adjacent to Fish Lake, the company proposed
to drain the lake rather than attempt to maintain it. The New Prosperity mine development plan
relocates the tailings facility two kilometers upstream of Fish Lake specifically in order to provide
the ability to control water quality in the remaining spawning habitat and in the lake. Subsequent
testing and modelling have shown that this is an effective solution.
4. “This proposal does not address the issues that led to the rejection of the first bid last year. Fish Lake
will be affected by the toxic waste and eventually die, and it will be surrounded by a massive open pit
mine and related infrastructure for decades. The Tsilhqot'in people will not have access to their
spiritual place, and the area will never be returned to the current pristine state.”
This statement contains several points that are not true. 1. The New Prosperity proposal does
address the issues that were determined to be significant adverse environmental effects in the
previous environmental assessment. 2. The tailings storage facility does not contain “toxic waste”.
As a result of moving the tailings storage facility two kilometers upstream, utilization of currently
proven technology allows Fish Lake water quality to be maintained with no significant adverse
environmental effect. 3. With the new configuration of the New Prosperity mine development plan,
the Tsilhqot’in people will have access to Fish Lake during the all phases of mining from mine
development, to active mining, and finally closure. 4. Although it is not realistic to return the
immediate area of the mine into its original configuration, modern progressive reclamation
methods allow for the capability of the land to be recovered relatively quickly after mine closure.
5. “It is not even new. It is "Mine Development Plan 2." TML states on page 20 of its project submission:
"Option 2 is the basis for the New Prosperity design …The concepts that lead to the configuration of
MDP Option 2 have been utilized to develop the project description currently being proposed."
This statement is correct. As responded to under point number 2 above, the MDP 2 option was
not viable at the time of the original Prosperity project environmental assessments.
6. “This option was looked at and rejected last year by the company, Environment Canada and the
CEAA review panel. For example, page 65 of the review report states: "The Panel agrees with the
observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would
result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative."
The statement that the CEAA review panel and Environment Canada rejected the option is
untrue, rather they were commenting on relative risk between alternatives. “Long-term
environmental risk” is a technical term. In the original Prosperity proposal a new lake was built
upstream of the tailings pond to compensate for the loss of Fish Lake. Technically therefore there
was no risk at all to Fish Lake as it no longer existed. By preserving Fish Lake an element of risk
is introduced and the New Prosperity EIS addresses those risks. MDP Option 2, which is the
basis for the New Prosperity project proposal, was deemed not viable by the company in the
original Prosperity EIS as a result of the economic conditions at that time, not due to technical or
environmental risk factors.

7. “The new $300 million in proposed spending is to cover the costs of relocating mine waste a little
further away. There is nothing in the 'new' plan to mitigate all the environmental impacts identified in
the previous assessment. TML states in its economic statement: "The new development design,
predicated on higher long term prices for both copper and gold, would result in a direct increase in
capital costs of $200 million to purchase additional mining equipment to relocate the tailings dam and
to move the mine waste around Fish Lake to new locations. This redesign also adds $100 million in
direct extra operating costs over the 20-year mine life to accomplish that task." In fact, this new
spending is actually $37 million less than the company said last year it would have to spend just to go
with the option that it and the review panel agreed would be worse for the environment.”
This statement is not true. The new plan addresses the mitigation of the environmental impacts
identified in the previous assessment.
8. “The federal government is required under the Constitution to protect First Nations, which have been
found to be under serious threat in this case, and is internationally committed to do so under the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These duties are every bit as clear
regarding this resubmitted proposal.”
We believe that the federal government is fully aware of its constitutional obligations to aboriginal
groups, and in particular its obligations to consult and accommodate where appropriate in respect
of impacts on established or potential aboriginal rights and title. The information provided in the
EIS as it relates to aboriginal groups is intended to assist the federal government in meeting such
duties, as per the EIS Guidelines and panel terms of reference.
9. “Approving this mine would show the Environmental Assessment process is meaningless, and would
demonstrate that governments are ignoring their obligations - as the Assembly of First Nations
national chiefs-in-assembly made this crystal clear this summer in their resolution of support for the
Tsilhqot'in.”
This is a statement of position or opinion and not a comment related to any environmental effects
of the Project.
10. “The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this project since it was first raised in
1995. It soundly rejected it again last year. It has no reason to support it now. Nor does Environment
Canada, which, as the CEAA report noted last year, also found option 2 to be worse than the original
bid.”
The statements that “the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this project
since it was first raised in 1995” and “soundly rejected it again last year” are untrue. Nor did the
CEAA report at any time find “Option 2 to be worse than the original bid”. This project has been
under study for many years and there has been substantial correspondence around it but, for
DFO, it always comes down to whether Taseko has developed an acceptable plan regarding fish
and fish habitat that the agencies can support to government, not a rejection of the Project itself.
This message from both Provincial and Federal government agencies has been consistent. The
following quotes are provided to illustrate this:

x “Since 1993 we have remained willing to review plans that would avoid or mitigate the
impacts on these valuable fisheries resources.” Louis Tousignant, Director General,
Pacific Region, DFO, October 7, 1996 letter to John Allan, Deputy Minister, MELP, BC.
x “I believe that everyone concerned is aware that DFO has always been prepared to rejoin
the provincial Fish Lake Project Review Committee that was struck to review Taseko’s
Prosperity mine proposal. DFO’s participation in a joint review, though, has always been
dependent on there being the potential to preserve Fish Lake and to adequately
compensate for lost fish habitat of Fish Creek, thereby preserving the fisheries
resources.” Fred J. Mifflin, Minister, DFO, June 6, 1997 letter to Cathy McGregor,
Minister, MELP, BC.
x “Under both federal and provincial legislation, the decisions regarding the acceptability of
these projects are not in the hands of government staff but are left to elected officials who
must, in an open and accountable manner, weight the potential benefits and costs of a
project in determining whether it is, on balance, beneficial in the public interest.” John
Allen, Deputy Minister, MELP, August 15, 1996 letter to Louis Tousignant, Director
General, Pacific Region, DFO.
Over many years Taseko has diligently worked with government agencies, technical experts,
communities, and First Nations to find acceptable solutions to the complexities inherent in
construction and operation of a mine at the Prosperity deposit. The original Prosperity project
introduced the concept of a man-made lake of similar size and productivity as Fish Lake as
compensation and mitigation for that loss. This approach was found to be acceptable by the
Province but was turned down by the federal government. Worldwide economic conditions
have changed to the point that a different and preferred proposal, New Prosperity, has
become a viable alternative and Taseko is submitting that for review by the Environmental
Assessment processes.

2.7.5.4 Potential Effect on Socioeconomic Conditions
Potential Adverse Social or Economic Effects Caused by Changes to the Environment

As noted previously, the panel’s mandate related to adverse social or economic effects is limited, by
virtue of the definition of "environmental effects" in the act, to any changes to socioeconomic conditions
resulting from a change to the biophysical environment, and not as a result of the Project generally.
In the previous panel process, the panel's report addressed social and economic conditions generally and
did not in all cases indicate precisely whether or how such matters being assessed for changes resulting
from a change to the biophysical environment. In any case, the following is a summary of the social and
economic implications of the Project on aboriginal groups, as described by the prior panel. This
information is provided at present for the purposes of transparency but should not be taken as
acceptance by Taseko that all such matters fall within this panel’s mandate under its terms of reference
and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Socio-economic issues raised by First Nations during the review of the previous project included:
x Economic impact of store-bought food from the avoidance of country foods due to perceived
contamination
x Increased costs for travelling to other locations for harvesting and hunting
x Impact on their ability to develop a tourism business
x Impact on women faced with new challenges in their roles in the family due to inequities in
employment or separation from family, and
x Increased wealth lead to drugs and alcohol.
The previous panel made no conclusions on the socio-economic effects of the Project on aboriginal
people other than the statement: Given the reliance on traditional foods and the communities’
commitment to improved health and traditional well-being, the previous panel determined that the
Project’s impacts on the physical and mental health of the Tsilhqot’in communities would be long term,
and that since the landscape itself would be substantially altered by the Project even after closure and
reclamation, the spiritual and cultural connection to the Fish Lake area would likely be irreversibly lost.
The socio-economic environment indicates that the New Prosperity project would create new employment
opportunities, including direct and indirect employment, available to members of both Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal communities. Project expenditures on payroll will generate business activity through household
spending. Purchasing of goods and services will generate business activity. For Aboriginal Communities,
individuals, families or households, employment and the income generated through business activity
provides quality of life, a sense of personal security and has a symbolic value which contributes to a
person’s own self-image and their status within their community. This contributes to the sustainability and
long-term health and overall well-being of Aboriginal communities.
Taseko does not anticipate the Project will have any different socioeconomic impacts on First Nations,
and that most of the socioeconomic impacts on aboriginal people would be similar to the impacts on
others within the region.

None of the changes to the Project design in New Prosperity would have any impact on the above
matters. More specifically, no significant adverse impacts are likely to occur in relation to aboriginal
people in terms of changes to socioeconomic conditions resulting from changes to the environment.
Taseko remains open to discussing with the Tsilhqot’in mitigation measures that may resolve outstanding
issues for Aboriginal people, such as:
x Supporting community social programs for employees, spouses and families
x Building new or improving existing access to harvesting and hunting areas within the territory to
compensate for the loss of opportunity in the Little Fish Lake area
x Discussing and supporting business plans that may be impacted by or benefit from the mining
operation.
Potential Social or Economic Benefits

This information is not required for the purposes of assessing the potential significant adverse effects of a
project, but rather is included for the purposes of potentially helping government consider whether the
Project may be considered justified, even if a significant adverse environmental effect is found. For this
reason, there is no need for discussion of benefits to be limited to those benefits that are channeled
through a change to the environment. This section will therefore summarize the economic and social
benefits of the Project as they may benefit aboriginal groups.
Economic benefits of the proposed Project would include the following:
x An average of approximately 375 person years of employment annually during construction (2 years)
and operations (20 years)
x Jobs provided by the Proponent would be high-paying, averaging over $110,000 per year plus
benefits
x During operations, the proposed Project’s annual payroll is expected to be approximately $32 million,
with $29 million paid locally
x Indirect employment and incomes increases as a result of the procurement of goods and services for
the proposed Project from local and regional suppliers, and
x Spending benefits over the life of the Project.
This economic activity would benefit a region that has above-average unemployment relative to the rest
of the province. The Cariboo-Chilcotin Region is one of the most forest product dependent regions of the
province and impacts of the mountain pine beetle have been severe. The proposed Project would help
diversify the economic base and create new opportunities for contractors and suppliers, including First
Nations. Direct benefits would flow to different communities within the region for the anticipated 22 years.
The development of New Prosperity will act as a significant long term economic stimulus to the Region,
including in the aboriginal communities of the Chilcotin. Benefits would also accrue to the future
generation as a consequence of community development.

Revenue Sharing with the Province

For aboriginal groups interested in concluding a revenue sharing agreement with the provincial
government, a portion of the provincial mineral tax generated by the Project during its period of operation
will be shared with them. Since the 2009 review of the Prosperity Project, the BC Provincial Government
has signed two Economic and Development Agreements (ECDAs) with aboriginal groups for revenue
sharing, wherein which up to 37.5% of the provincial mineral tax paid by the mine would be transferred to
the group that indicate a desire to see the mining project proceed. Revenue sharing represents a direct
tangible and significant benefit in a form that can be put to a wide range of uses as determined by
aboriginals themselves and could potentially include the creation of a community development fund, the
financial resources needed to help with the teaching and preservation of language and culture, education
and training opportunities, scholarships, resource stewardship and other priority areas of interest.
Benefits Agreement with Taseko

During the original panel review for the previous project, a number of participants commented on the fact
that Taseko had not entered into a Benefit Agreement with aboriginal groups. Early in the review process,
Taseko had raised the subject of Benefit Agreements with the Tsilhqot’in National Government and
Taseko is of the understanding that the position of the Tsilhqot’in National Government continues to be
that they do not wish to have such a discussion until after the environmental assessment process is
concluded.
It is the philosophy of Taseko that working in a positive and responsible manner with local communities
will provide the maximum mutual benefit. In order to be consistent and to build long term relationships it is
important to establish Principles and Guidelines at the outset of the Project for directing the way Taseko
intends to do business long into the future. Key components of a benefit agreement could include matters
relating to employment, contracting, and/or education and training, as discussed below.
Employment
During the public hearing, the original panel repeatedly documented that the average annual income in
the Tsilhqot’in and Secwepemc communities was extremely low, and that those on income assistance
received approximately $200 per month. Ms. Titi Kunkel reported that within the Cariboo region,
Aboriginal people living on reserves faced higher than average unemployment. Of the 9,000 Aboriginal
peoples in the Cariboo region, approximately 2,600 were reported to not be in the labour force. The on-
reserve female population was stated to be about 991, of which more than 30% were reported to be
unemployed.
As identified in Section 2.7.3.4, annual wages paid to direct employees on average are $110,000/year.
Achieving employment as a result of the Project could include either direct employment or employment
with contractors and suppliers.
Taseko’s hiring practices shall be consistent with the goal of delivering maximum economic value and
social benefit—locally, regionally and provincially. Creating a safe, healthy and productive work
environment is a top priority. Taseko’s success will be highly dependent on those working on site and
their ability to conduct their responsibilities with care and efficiency.
Taseko’s first preference is to hire locally. A local employment candidate shall be defined as someone
who lives in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. A special effort will be made to hire local Aboriginal candidates

by ensuring employment opportunities are communicated. We will undertake to inform local communities
of the employment positions and opportunities available at Prosperity before expanding the search for
potential employees beyond the Cariboo-Chilcotin region.
Since candidates will be required to meet certain standards commensurate with the employment position
in order to be successful, efforts will be made to ensure local people with motivation have the opportunity
for training to be eligible for hiring and career advancement (see Training below).
If two candidates with similar qualifications seek employment at Prosperity, but there is only one position
available, the local candidate will be given preference. Taseko will encourage our suppliers, contractors,
and consultants to do the same.
Whatever the area of activity and whatever the degree of responsibility, employees are expected to act in
a manner that will enhance TKO’s reputation for honesty, integrity and the faithful performance of
undertakings and obligations.
Contracting
In the procurement of goods and services to build and operate the mine, Taseko’s decisions will be
guided by their desire to deliver maximum economic value and social benefit—locally, regionally and
provincially.
Taseko believes that their success as a company is tied to the success of the local communities in which
they invest and operate.
Taseko cultivates an entrepreneurial spirit which is reflected in their procurement practices. Their
approach is to develop lasting relationships with suppliers based on cost competitiveness, continuous
innovation, service and productivity improvement, employee health and safety, and environment
protection. Taseko will work with Aboriginal groups and individuals to encourage the formation and
development of locally owned businesses that provide supplies or services to Prosperity. Taseko expects
their contractors to share their commitment to investing in local community success through their
respective purchasing, hiring, contracting and logistical support practices.
Education and Training

Taseko recognizes that not all Aboriginal individuals who are eager to work will have the experience or
the qualifications necessary to work. To underscore the company’s commitment to maximize local
benefits and give first preference to local hires, Taseko will set in place policies to help potential
candidates gain required qualifications. Furthermore, through Taseko’s education and training initiatives,
the company will ensure that motivated individuals have the opportunity for further training for career
advancement.
Patt Larcombe, on behalf of the Tsilhqot’in National Government, indicated that First Nation employment
in the mining sector remained low, with Aboriginals people typically employed in low-paying jobs, despite
improvement in training and skill opportunities and development in recent years. A properly qualified and
trained workforce is essential to a safe and productive workplace. The health, safety and productivity of
workers are linked to the care and conduct exercised by fellow employees. The more training and
experience an employee gains, the greater their degree of care, safe conduct and efficiency in their
performance.

With respect to aboriginal education and training programs, Taseko is actively seeking partnerships with
aboriginal groups and education institutes to develop regional training programs to support individuals
interested in careers in mining and the industry. Taseko will continue to investigate regional training
programs that:
x Assist the company in meeting its current and future employment needs
x Help address the projected shortage of local skilled workers that Taseko will need in the coming
years
x Create local awareness of opportunities and skill requirements in the mining industry, and
x Demonstrate corporate commitment to maximizing local employment opportunity.
Specific targets and tasks of the training initiatives:
x Increase the hiring of local people in all departments at Taseko’s operations without compromising
their need to hire the best available talent
x Increase the number of high school graduates in the region to move on to formal education and
training for a career in mining to specifically fill employment needs at Taseko’s operations
x Elevate college-level student interest in mining by increasing the focus on mining at the local
colleges, and
x Increase local college and high school career counselors’ awareness of the specific career areas
that are challenging for the mining industry to fill, such as instrumentation, heavy duty mechanics,
engineering.

Training programs will be developed with the general population of the Cariboo-Chilcotin in mind;
however, special effort will be made to communicate these opportunities to aboriginal communities and
individuals. This effort can result in a significant benefit to both Taseko and aboriginal communities since
there are 14 aboriginal communities located in the Cariboo-Chilcotin within 300 km of the Prosperity site.
Taseko believes that, following training, there is a higher likelihood of aboriginal people staying within the
region to work and raise families in contrast to non-aboriginal people who statistically are more mobile
from community to community or Province to Province.
Taseko is committed to ensure that aboriginal youth be made aware of opportunities in their operations.
The education and training program will be communicated by:
x Conducting evening presentations in rural and aboriginal communities for students, parents and
interested individuals
x Making presentations in community schools
x creating an employment and training website that will include job descriptions and education
requirements
x Advertising opportunities at open houses and events in the local and community newspapers and
radio
x Providing a career counselling to work with individuals on a one-on-one basis to formulate a training
and career strategy, research all sources of funding, and
x Meeting regularly with aboriginal leadership, economic development personnel and education
administrators.

2.7.6 Accidents and Malfunctions

The following section of the EIS describes potential accidents and malfunctions that might occur during the life
of the Project. The primary objectives of this section were to determine the potential range of environmental
effects that might occur in the unlikely event of an accident or malfunction, as well as to identify:
x The procedures that will be put in place by Taseko to minimize or avoid the potential for these events to
occur
x The range of measures that are likely to be employed by Taseko to initially contain and respond to
different types of accidents and malfunctions
x Additional measures that would be employed by Taseko to further contain and clean-up any accidental
spills or releases
x Techniques that would be used by Taseko to rehabilitate affected areas or compensate for these effects,
and
x Follow-up and monitoring programs that would be implemented by Taseko should certain types of
accidents and malfunctions occur during the life of the Project.
Regulatory Requirements and Guidelines

In relation to accidents and malfunctions, the CEAA states that “every screening or comprehensive study of a
project and every mediation or assessment by a review panel shall include a consideration of the following
factors:
a. The environmental effects of the Project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents
that may occur in connection with the Project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to
result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out,
and
b. The significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a)”.
The EIS requires:
x Identification of the probability of potential accidents and malfunctions related to the Project, including an
explanation of how those events were identified, potential consequences (including the potential
environmental effects), the worst case scenarios and impacts
x A description of the sensitivity of receptors in the Project area to potential accidents and malfunctions
x An explanation of the potential magnitude of an accident and/or malfunction, including the quantity,
mechanism, rate, form and characteristics of the contaminants and other materials likely to be released
into the environment during the malfunction and/or accidental event
x Identification of the capabilities, resources and equipment available to safely respond to any accidents
and malfunctions, and
x A description of the planned response such as communication between stakeholders, and alerting and
warning personnel working on the mine site. The EIS will also describe the contingency, clean-up or

restoration work that would be required immediately following or in the long-term after the postulated
malfunctions and accidents.
The assessment of the environmental effects of potential accidents and malfunctions shall include, but is not
limited to those considerations associated with the following project activities or eventualities:
x Waste management and disposal (solid and liquid)
x Transportation of construction materials and Project personnel if changed from previously assessed
project
x Handling and use of chemicals on-site
x Evaluation of worst case scenarios (e.g. tailings impoundment structural failure, accidental explosion,
earthquake, or landslide into the tailings impoundment)
x Premature closure of the Project during any phase
x Controlled and uncontrolled discharges to surface water and groundwater (e.g. seepage loss reporting to
surface water via groundwater, and
x Any other Project component or system that has the potential, through accident or malfunction, to
adversely affect the natural environment.
APPROACH
Determination of Potential Accidents and Malfunctions
To focus the assessment of potential accidents and malfunctions, the following three step process was
followed to develop a suite of scenarios that were then assessed by each of the environmental disciplines:
1. Potential accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events that might occur during the life of the New
Prosperity Mine were identified using historical performance data for other similar projects (Appendix 9-2-
A from the March 2009 EIS/Application). These events included potential risks to the environment, as well
as health and safety risks for workers. Using this list of events, a suite of possible events involving
releases of chemicals, effluents and other products that might be perceived to pollute or contaminate land
or water resources was identified. Given the minor nature of atmospheric emissions associated with the
Project and the types of chemicals and products that will be used in the concentrate process, no
accidental events involving releases of emissions were considered further in this assessment. However,
effects on the atmospheric environment from some accidental events were considered.
2. The possible accidents and malfunctions were then screened in terms of whether they could possibly
result in a release to the environment based on the proposed Project design.
3. For each remaining event, one or more scenarios were developed that described how the event could
potentially result in a release to the environment. For example, two scenarios were developed for a diesel
fuel spill; one on land and one directly into a watercourse as a result of a highway accident. Each event
that was selected was considered worst-case, so that the greatest possible impact was considered for
each potential event.

Seven types of accidents, malfunctions or unplanned events, while unlikely to occur during the life of the New
Prosperity Project, were considered in this EIS as required by the EIS guidelines. Details on these accidental
events are provided in Table 2.7.6-1.
The process of conducting site investigations, design, review, construction, operations, closure and monitoring
of a TSF in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, is well established and has been for many decades.
Qualified third-party engineering firms are required to conduct site investigations and develop designs to meet
or exceed the guidelines set out by the Canadian Dam Association (CDA) and the International Commission
on Large Dams (ICOLD). The authorization to construct and operate a TSF in BC is provided by the Ministry
of Energy and Mines (MEM), which conduct their own review of the site investigations and design of a TSF.
Furthermore, the MEM require regular third-party reviews of the design and operation of TSFs; yet another
layer of regulatory oversight to review the safety of a TSF. With the design of a TSF by a qualified third-party
engineer and strong regulatory oversight, the likelihood of a structural failure of a TSF embankment under
these conditions is extremely remote. This rational was used to exclude the structural failure of the TSF
embankment dams as a potential accident and malfunction.
The non-PAG stockpile and the ore stockpile will be constructed to meet stability criteria set forth by the BC
MEM. As part of the design, the material properties of the foundation materials are characterized, and weak
materials are removed prior to placement of the rock in the stockpiles. Run-of-mine rock stockpiles are
inherently stable, especially when the foundation conditions are understood and prepared appropriately. The
final design of the stockpiles will have slopes less than the angle-of-repose, expected to be 2:1. Details of the
preliminary design of the stockpiles can be found in Appendix 2.2.4-B. Through the selection process of
identifying potential accidents and malfunctions to include in the EIS, the structural failure of the non-PAG
stockpile and ore stockpile were excluded, as the probability is considered too low.
Premature closure is considered in a number of sections throughout the EIS, including Section 2.2.5, Section
2.7.2.4.2 and Section 2.8.2. Premature closure is not considered a potential accident and malfunction, but
rather a planned condition that could potentially occur that must be considered for in the design of the mine.
The above-mentioned sections require that contingency and/or mitigation plans be identified to address this
potential planned condition. All accidents and malfunctions that were identified are truly unplanned events that
could potentially occur. For these reasons, it was not included as a potential accident and malfunction that
must be evaluated.

Table 2.7.6-1 Description of Possible Accident and Malfunction Scenarios
Risk Events – Potential Effect Mitigation Monitoring/ Residual Effects

Description of Preventative Measures Emergency Response Clean-up
Possible Scenario
1.a Fuel Spill – Land: Localized impacts to x Ensure proper construction and maintenance of site access x Conduct initial response and x Activate spill handling procedures including x Implement soil and
Loaded fuel (gas or soil roads by MOT, including regular inspection of guard rails on notification (mine supervisor, fuel containment, soil clean-up, reporting and groundwater monitoring
diesel) truck over-turns bridges and berms/concrete abutments on roads adjacent to PEP, RCMP) as per emergency soil disposal as identified in spill contingency procedures to assess
on dry land along main water courses that prevent over-turning and/or capture load response plan. PEP would plans requirement for additional soil
access road loss coordinate additional external x Complete reporting and disposal procedures clean-up and disposal
x Enforce speed limits by all mine traffic on roads notification x Mobilizing hydro-vacuuming units as x Ensure successful re-
x Ensure qualified trucking/hauling contractors with appropriate x Activate emergency response appropriate vegetation and weed control as
driver training, radio contact capabilities vehicle maintenance groups required
plan, clean-up kits, and an emergency response plan x No residual effect
1.b Fuel Spill – Water: Release of petroleum x Provide haul monitoring and supervision, and a driver x As above, and include DFO in x Assess feasibility of containment and clean- x Implement water quality and
Loaded fuel (gas or products to water feedback plan emergency contacts up based on water body and flow rates. soil monitoring procedures to
diesel) truck over-turns body /ways affecting x Maintain and implement appropriate emergency response and x Initiate immediate monitoring Activate spill handling procedures including: assess any short and long
and releases load into water quality, aquatic spill contingency training, equipment, materials and and assessment procedures diverting fuel away from water; absorbent term effects on water quality
water body, such as a) habitat degradation procedures at the site to limit the consequences of such spills booming; pumpback to tanker/ alternate and habitat, and mitigation
low flowing tributary to by prompt containment and clean up actions storage unit, and soil clean-up as identified in requirements
Taseko River or b) high spill contingency plans x Monitoring would include
flowing Chilcotin River x Complete reporting and disposal procedures benthic invertebrate
community surveys, collecting
mortalities, and comparing with
data from control sites
upstream
x A specific monitoring program
for amphibians and their
habitat would be considered in
some circumstances
x No residual effects
2. Failure or major Release of tailings x Install pressure and flow monitoring systems with auto x Conduct initial response and x If internal, activate containment, clean-up, x No residual effect if release
leakage from tailings or and/or reclaim shutdown notification (mine supervisor, and reporting and disposal procedures as contained internally
reclaim pipeline (process) water to x Situate pipelines in locations that ensure any accidental on-scene coordinator) as per appropriate x If release outside TSF
the environment releases of tailings or mine water flow into the, concentrator, emergency response plan x If release is outside containment of the TSF, containment occurs, short term
affecting downstream the TSF or secondary containment x Shut-down source of spill by implement water quality and soil monitoring effects would be addressed by
aquatic habitat and x Ensure proper construction and maintenance of tailings implementing emergency shut- procedures as appropriate to assess effects cleanup activities
water quality delivery and reclaim water systems to maintain closed and down procedures and mitigation required for longer term effects x Residual effects anticipated to
contained system x Activate emergency response on water quality and habitat be minimal
x Install secondary containment in the form of ditches, berms groups
and emergency tailings containment ponds to capture and x Assess if spill of tailings/reclaim
contain tailings in the event of a pipeline break to ensure that water is internal (likely) or would
in the event of an equipment failure all material would be have external effects
contained and there would not be a release to the receiving x Notify PEP and/or MOE and/or
environment DFO in accordance with
x Conduct routine inspections of tailings delivery, reclaim water, Emergency Response Plan
and monitoring systems
x Maintain and implement appropriate emergency response and
spill contingency training, equipment, materials and
procedures at the site to limit the consequences of such
releases by prompt containment and clean up actions
x Ensure proper tailings line inspection training and supervision


Description of Preventative Measures Emergency Response Clean-up
Possible Scenario
3. a Concentrate haul Release of x Ensure proper construction and maintenance of site access x Conduct initial response and x Assess integrity (leakage) of container x Implement soil and
spill – Land: Loaded concentrate to dry roads by MOT, including regular inspection of guard rails on notification (mine supervisor, x Assess feasibility of diverting any surface groundwater monitoring
truck overturns on dry landscape. bridges and berms/concrete abutments on roads adjacent to PEP, RCMP, MOE, and water away from truck/load procedures to assess
land along main access water courses that prevent over-turning and/or capture load adjacent land owners) as per x Activate containment/clean-up procedures, requirement for additional soil
road. loss emergency response plan reporting and disposal as identified in spill clean-up and disposal
x Enforce speed limits by all mine traffic on roads x Activate emergency response contingency plans. x No residual effect.
x •Ensure qualified trucking/hauling contractors with appropriate groups x Complete reporting and disposal procedures.
3. b Concentrate haul Release of driver training, radio contact capabilities vehicle maintenance x As above, and include DFO in x Assess integrity (leakage) of container. x If release is into a fast-moving
spill – Water: Loaded concentrate to water plan, clean-up kits, and an emergency response plan emergency contacts Assess feasibility of containment and clean- body of water and loss of
truck over-turns and body affecting water x Provide haul monitoring and supervision, and a driver x Initiate immediate monitoring up based on water body and flow rates. concentrate is suspected,
releases load into quality, aquatic feedback plan and assessment procedures as Assess feasibility of diverting water away implement water quality,
water body via bridge, habitat degradation. x Concentrate containers will be designed such that there is no appropriate from truck/load habitat and fish monitoring
ditch or culvert crossing wind loss x Provide containment of spill in x In low flow water body, activate procedures as appropriate to
to either a) low flowing x Maintain and implement appropriate emergency response and transport container, stop source containment/clean-up procedures, reporting assess short and long term
tributary to Taseko spill contingency training, equipment, materials and if safe and possible, cover and disposal as identified in spill contingency effects and mitigation required
River or b) high flowing procedures at the site to limit the consequences of such spills spilled material to protect from plans x Riparian habitat cleared to
Chilcotin River by prompt containment and clean up actions rainfall, prevent egress of spilled x Complete reporting and disposal procedures facilitate the cleanup would be
material from vicinity restored as required.
x Some level of residual effect
would be expected
4. Road culvert failure: In the event of a road x Ensure regular road maintenance x Conduct initial response and x Activate sediment and erosion control x Implement water quality
Blocked culvert across failure, there is the x Design and install culverts to accommodate frequent extreme notification (mine supervisor, contingency plans. monitoring procedures as
Taseko Lake Road potential for sediment storm events, and include engineered debris gates in front of PEP, MOE, MOT, RCMP) as x Re-establish culvert using best management appropriate to assess effects
causes ponding above from the road erosion culverts per emergency response plan practices for erosion control and mitigation required for
the road, bank erosion, to be released into x Conduct appropriate monitoring of the condition of culvert and x If sufficient water is ponded longer term effects on water
and increased the receiving debris traps (if present) above the road as a result of quality, terrain stability, soil,
sedimentation release environment affecting x Assess culvert condition during and after storm events blockage, notification of and habitat
into Fish Creek or downstream water immediate downstream or x No residual impacts would be
Taseko Rivers. quality and aquatic adjacent residents may be expected
habitat degradation. required.
x Activate emergency response
groups, including mine site
contractors for remediation
x Unblock culvert or provide
bypass to relieve stored water
x Develop action plan to reinstate
culvert, flow and normal access


Description of Possible Preventative Measures Emergency Response Clean-up
Scenario
5. Excessive water in TSF Minimal environmental x Conduct annual reviews by an engineer of tailings x Conduct an initial response and x Implement the water treatment x No residual effect if excess is into
due to storm events have effect if containment is hydrological model, operation/ construction of the notification (mine supervisor). contingency plan the pit, pump back system would
the potential to affect maintained. If release tailings complex, and water balances based on site x If water quality is suitable for release to return water to tailings under normal
downstream aquatic is necessary, potential collected meteorological data the environment, and release is operating conditions
habitat and water quality if for Increased x Ensure all dams are built to maintain annual necessary, notify MOE for authorization x If release is into the downstream
excess water results in off- sedimentation and flow volumes of tailings release as well as the maximum x If water quality is not suitable, the tailings environment, Implement water
spec volumes being rates to downstream potential storm events while maintaining a design water may be bypassed to the open pit quality, bioassay, habitat and fish
discharged to environment watercourses freeboard criterion for temporary containment monitoring procedures as
x Ensure upstream diversion structures for fresh water x It is unlikely that water of unsuitable appropriate to assess effects and
can accommodate maximum storm events with quality would be released to downstream mitigation required for longer term
safeguards in place to minimize blockage environments; however, if it is, conduct effects. Short term impacts may be
x Maintain a water treatment contingency plan initial response and notification (mine possible
x Ongoing monitoring of TSF water levels, freeboard supervisor, PEP, MOE, DFO) as per
and TSF integrity to reduce risks emergency response plan, including
downstream users; activate emergency
response groups; and, initiate immediate
monitoring and assessment procedures
6. Loss of power to TSF Downstream water x Conduct annual reviews by an accredited consultant x Conduct initial response and notification x Implement spill contingency plans x No residual effect if pond sizing for
seepage recovery: Due to quality and aquatic of tailings hydrological model, operation/ (mine supervisor) storm events and/or outages of
storm event, tailings habitat alteration could construction of tailings complex, and water balances x Initiate immediate assessment of power/equipment failure is
seepage overflows from arise if water is based on site collected meteorological data potential health and safety effects sufficient; or if back-up diesel
the seepage collection discharged to the x Ensure sufficient reserve capacity in the pond to x It is possible that water of unsuitable pumping system is available,
ponds and into the Fish environment. hold excessive run-off and seepage to withstand quality would be released to downstream thereby preventing a release.
Lake inlets storm events for the number of days recommended environments; if it is, conduct initial x If release is into the downstream
by hydrological model response and notification (mine environment, implement water
x Provide access to backup (diesel) power generation supervisor, PEP, MOE, DFO) as per quality, bioassay, habitat and fish
and pumping capacity including regular emergency response plan, including monitoring procedures as
maintenance and testing downstream users; activate emergency appropriate to assess effects and
response groups; and, initiate immediate mitigation required for longer term
monitoring and assessment procedures effects. Some residual effect would
be expected
7. Storm event in excess Human safety issues x Flood control dams at the outlet of Fish Lake would x Fish Lake pumping system would x Dewater open pit to TSF, if required, x Monitor stability of Fish Lake Flood
of the design event for the may arise as water manage the design event, and pumping systems commence near the start of the storm prior to resumption of mining Control Dams
Fish Lake Flood Control flows to the pit. Storm would divert flows around the pit to lower fish creek, event. activities. x No residual impacts would be
Dams has the potential to water from Fish Lake providing further management of the storm event. x Open pit operations would be temporarily expected.
affect pit operations would not impact suspended, with ore being fed from the
downstream water ore stockpile, thereby removing
quality and aquatic personnel and equipment from the pit.
habitat any differently x Additional portable pumping capacity
than a storm event may be brought in to convey flood waters
under baseline around pit.
conditions.

Identification of Potential Interactions with Valued Ecosystem Components

For each scenario, each discipline conducted a preliminary screening to determine if the scenario was
likely to affect the Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) and/or Key Indicators (KIs) for that discipline.
Potential interactions between the VECs for the Project and the seven potential accidents, malfunctions
and unplanned events were assessed using the same ranking system as used for Project environmental
effects for the VEC. Interactions between the VECs and the seven potential accident and malfunction
events are summarized in Table 2.7.6-2. Based on the screening of potential interactions with the various
VECs it was determined that neither Noise nor Socio Economic Issues had the potential to be affected by
accidents and malfunctions. Noise would be generated during any clean-up events but they would be
localized and short-term and therefore are considered not significant.

Table 2.7.6-2 Interaction of Project Related Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events with the Environment
Human Health and

Water Quality and
Aquatic Ecology
Traditional Land
Terrain Stability
Ecological Risk
Non-Traditional
Hydrology and
Hydrogeology
Fish and Fish

Atmospheric
Archaeology
Vegetation
Land Use
Wildlife
Habitat
Project Activities/
Soil
Use
Project Description Reference for Activity
Physical Works
1a. Fuel Spill— Loaded (50,000 Ls) fuel (gas or diesel) truck 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
Land upset on dry land along main access road
1a. Fuel Spill— Loaded (50,000 Ls) fuel (gas or diesel) truck 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Water upset and release of load into water body,
such as a) low flowing tributary to Taseko
River or b) high flowing Chilcotin River
2. Pipeline Failure Release of tailings and/or reclaim (process) 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
water to the environment affecting
downstream aquatic habitat and water
quality
3a. Concentrate Loaded truck (40 tonnes) of concentrate 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Spill—Land upset on dry land along main access road
3b. Concentrate Loaded (40 tonnes) truck upset and release 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Spill—Water of concentrate load into water body from
bridge across or along road adjacent to
either a) low flowing tributary to Taseko River
or b) high flowing Chilcotin River
4. Road culvert Blocked culvert across Taseko Lake Road 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1
failure causing ponding above the road, bank
erosion, and increased sedimentation
release into Fish Creek or Taseko Rivers

Water Quality and

Aquatic Ecology
Traditional Land
Terrain Stability
Non-Traditional
and Ecological
Hydrology and
Hydrogeology
Human Health
Fish and Fish
Atmospheric
Archaeology
Vegetation
Land Use
Wildlife
Habitat
Project Activities/
Soil
Use
Project Description Reference for Activity
Physical Works
5. Excessive water Dam construction delay combined with storm 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

in TSF events
6. Loss of Power to Due to storm event, tailings seepage 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TSF Seepage overflow into the inlets of Fish Lake
Recovery
7. Storm Event in A larger-than-designed flood event 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Excess of Fish overtopping the Fish Lake Flood Control
Lake FCD design Dams, directing flood waters to the open pit,
thereby affecting pit operations.
NOTES:
Project-Environment Interactions
0 = No interaction
1 = Interaction occurs; however, based on past experience and professional judgment the interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect, even without mitigation;
or interaction would not be significant due to application of codified environmental protection practices that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects
2 = Interaction could result in an environmental effect of concern even with mitigation; the potential environmental effects are considered further in environmental assessment

Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects

For interactions that were ranked as “2”, potential environmental effects of the accident, malfunction or
unplanned event on the VEC or KI were assessed in a similar fashion to Project environmental effects.
Specifically, for each environmental effect resulting from the accident or malfunction, the potential
environmental effects were assessed as follows:
x To ensure that the assessment was conservative, each discipline framed the potential scenario so as
to maximize the potential environmental effect of the VEC or KI. This could include selection of a
product that is most harmful to the VEC or KI, as well as the specific time of year and location of the
event.
x The mechanisms through which the accident, malfunction or unplanned event could result in an
environmental effect on the VEC or KI were described.
x The Project design measures that would minimize the risk of the accident or malfunction, as well as
emergency response measures and other mitigation measures that would help minimize the
environmental effect were described.
x The potential residual environmental effect, taking into account the emergency response by Taseko,
was described or quantified using the measurable parameter(s) and other effect characterization
terms, as necessary.
x The significance of the predicted effect or change was evaluated using the same significance criteria
for the VEC or KI as for Project environmental effects.
x If required, any follow-up and/or monitoring program that might be required if this event occurred as
described.
FUEL SPILL ON LAND

Description of the Possible Event
There is a low probability that during the life of the Project a fuel truck could overturn along the main
access road during transport of fuel (gasoline or diesel) to the mine site, thereby releasing fuel onto land.
Nonetheless the impacts and potential responses are considered here as required by the EIS guidelines.
For the purpose of considering this scenario, a fuels spill of up to 50,000 Ls (~10,000 IGals) of gasoline or
diesel fuel was assumed to occur on dry land along the main access road during daylight hours.
Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of a Fuel Spill on Land

To minimize the potential for fuel spills onto land, Taseko will implement the following suite of measures in
cooperation with the Ministry of Transportation (MOT), contractors and subcontractors and other road
users:
x Ensure proper construction and maintenance of access roads by MOT and Taseko, including
installation and regular inspection of guard rails on bridges and berms/concrete abutments on roads
adjacent to water courses that prevent overturning and/or capture load loss
x Enforce speed limits for all mine traffic on roads

x Ensure trucking/hauling contractors have appropriate driver training and radio contact capabilities,
engage in appropriate vehicle maintenance and carry appropriately sized emergency clean-up kits
x Provide haul monitoring and supervision and a driver feedback plan, and
x Ensure appropriate emergency response and spill contingency training and knowledge, maintenance
of equipment, materials and procedures to limit the consequences of such spills by prompt
containment and clean up actions.
If the preventive measures did not prevent an accident, an emergency response protocol would
immediately be initiated.
Taseko Emergency Response Approach for Fuel Spills on Land

If all precautionary and preventative measures did not prevent a land-based fuel spill, an emergency
response protocol would be initiated that involves:
x Notification of all agencies and responders (mine supervisor, Provincial Emergency Program [PEP],
RCMP) as per the emergency response plan
x Activation of spill handling procedures including assessing feasibility of containment and clean-up
x Implementation of spill handling procedures including: diverting fuel away from water; deployment of
absorbent booming; pumpback fuel to a tanker/alternate storage unit as quickly as possible, and
soil/environmental clean-up as identified in spill contingency plans, and
x Completion of reporting and disposal procedures.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between a land-based fuel spill and VECs (Table 2.7.6-
2), the VECs that are most likely to be detrimentally affected are:
x Hydrology and Hydrogeology (groundwater flow rate and groundwater quality)
x Soils
x Wildlife
x Human and Ecological Health, and
x Traditional Land Use.
Interactions with all remaining VECs, apart from terrain stability that was ranked as a “0”, were ranked as
“1” for reasons described below.
Atmospheric: Under calm conditions the area within which CACs would disperse in the event of a spill
would be limited (less than 1 km3) and short-term (4–8 hours). Under windy conditions the time to for
dissipation would be significantly reduced. As a result, atmospheric concerns associated with a fuel spill
are low.

Water quality and fish and fish habitat: The extent of a spill on land would not likely result in direct spillage
into a watercourse or water body. In addition, initial spill containment methods and subsequent spill clean-
up measures would help minimize the potential for seepage of fuel into watercourses or water bodies (as
these would be key areas to protect).
Vegetation: A spill would largely occur on a disturbed area within the road right-of-way where sensitive
vegetation KIs are not likely to occur.
Archaeology: Potential land disturbances that are part of the spill response program would likely be
restricted to a small area in the direct vicinity of the road right-of-way (i.e., an already disturbed area); as
a result, the potential to affect archaeological sites would be low. In addition, if fuel did spread beyond the
road right-of-way (ROW), land disturbances associated with the spill response program would be
minimized until an archaeologist has determined that artifacts and sites would not be disturbed by clean-
up activities.
Human Health Risk Assessment: The potential human and ecological health effects from a fuel spill on
land would be dependent on effects to soil and groundwater and, in turn, their effects on terrestrial biota
that occur in the immediate area (e.g., plants, soil invertebrates, burrowing animals). Effects on
groundwater, soil and wildlife are assessed elsewhere in the EIS. Based on these assessments, it is
expected that proposed mitigation and emergency response measures, including active spill handling
procedures, would be sufficient to avoid any long term effects. As a result, it is also unlikely that there
would be long term human and ecological health effects.
Non-traditional land use (including forestry, mining, range, trapping and tourism): In the event of a spill
licensees would continue to abide by their license agreements with the province or, in the event that a
spill interacted with their activities, negotiate work-arounds at the operational level. Non-licensee
activities, including public recreation, hunting and fishing, would be expected to respond in a similar
fashion. Users would avoid a spill area and avail themselves of substitute routes or use areas.
Commercial and public users of Crown land already adapt, both spatially and temporally, to changes
brought about by forest harvesting, fires, pestilence, community development and industrial development.
In this context, a land fuel spill is unlikely to induce changes in measurable parameters that are
distinguishable from the base case.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology

The effects of a 50,000 L fuel spill on groundwater underlying a spill area could be locally significant
depending on the rate and quantity of fuel that infiltrates into the subsurface, as well as the type of fuel
spilled. Certain components of diesel and gasoline fuels (e.g. benzene) are comparatively soluble and
can migrate as dissolved contaminants in groundwater for several tens to hundreds of metres, and
sometimes further if conditions are appropriate. The rate of contaminant migration, total distance and
concentrations of the various fuel-derived contaminants in the groundwater would depend to a large
degree on a spill site hydrogeology (soil type, topography, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock,
soil/rock permeability, geochemical environment, etc.).

Initial spill response typically begins in the first several hours following a spill, or sometimes days
depending on the time and location of a spill, and would typically recover a substantial portion of the
spilled fuel. Recovery is done by, for instance, deploying spill containment or absorbent materials and
mobilizing hydro-vacuuming units to a spill site to recover free phase fuels. Subsequent source removal
excavations would likely occur over the next several weeks to remove soils with free phase fuel in the
pore space. It is possible that, even after remediation, soil and groundwater containing residual gasoline
or diesel contamination could remain in an area (e.g., worst case free-phase fuel penetrates into a locally
important fractured bedrock aquifer). This residual fuel can persist in the subsurface for years to decades,
or longer if conditions permit. As a result, environmental monitoring and possibly ongoing remediation and
treatment could be required.
Post-emergency response techniques commonly used for spills of this nature would quickly provide
containment of groundwater via excavation, dewatering sumps and on-site treatment, thereby limiting the
distance and magnitude of impacts in the vicinity of a spill.
Given mitigation and emergency response measures, residual effects of a spill on hydrology and
hydrogeology would be short term, reversible, sporadic in frequency and site specific. The overall rating
of the residual effect is not significant as groundwater quality can be re-established within a short time
line.
Soil
A fuel spill has the potential to affect soil quality due to contamination. The amount of contamination and
the mitigation required would depend on the physical state of the soil and clean-up response time. The
physical state of the soil, including soil texture, bulk density, cation exchange capacity, organic matter
content and depth to restricting layers, influences the amount and depth of fuel that is absorbed into the
environment. For instance, the depth of fuel absorption would be greater in sandy soils versus soils that
have a higher clay or organic matter content. The response time is critical because the longer the
response time, the more fuel that would be released and dispersed into the environment.
For any type of spill event, the first priority is to control the fuel leakage at the source and recover as
much of a spill as possible. The contaminated soil would be dug out as soon as possible and taken to an
approved facility for remediation.
For agricultural lands, the soil that is used to replace the contaminated soil must be of equivalent
agricultural capability as the site prior to the contamination. Stakeholder input would be required. The soil
must be from the same region to prevent introduction of new pests or invasive plants to the agricultural
area. The method of soil placement is also critical to prevent further degradation of the soil. If subsoil and
topsoil need to be replaced, minimizing admixing of the two soil types is essential as is reducing
compaction and erosion.
Given mitigation and emergency response measures, residual effects of a spill on soil quality would be
short term, reversible, sporadic in frequency and site-specific for the land event. The magnitude is
considered low if the aerial extent of soil contamination is remediated and equivalent land capability is
returned. The overall rating of the residual effect is not significant as prior land uses can be re-established
within a one year timeline.
A land based spill would be confined to the vicinity in which a spill occurred; as a result, the mitigation
would likely be able to be applied readily. The probability of a spill occurring in agricultural areas is low as
those lands intersect less than 10% of the access road.

In the event of an accidental spill of fuel oil or diesel, the following monitoring progress would be
undertaken:
x Ensure successful revegetation of remediated sites occurs within a growing season
x Where fill or topsoil has been used, ensure that weed control is implemented. Seeds of invasive
plants may have been harbored in the replaced soil or invasive plants may have revegetated the site
due to bare soil conditions at time of fill replacement
x Further soil amendments such as organic matter incorporation could be required to aid in re-
establishing agricultural land capability in agricultural areas. Stakeholder input would be required, and
x For soil that is remediated in situ due to low concentrations of fuel contamination, ongoing monitoring
would be required to ensure complete remediation. (i.e., minimum two years of monitoring).
Wildlife
The interaction between wildlife and a land-based fuel spill is ranked as a “1” for most wildlife because a
spill would largely occur on an already disturbed area within the road ROW and the areal extent of a spill
would be small relative to the habitat requirements of most wildlife. Further, larger, more mobile wildlife
could readily avoid a spill area. For soil invertebrates and other smaller, less mobile wildlife (e.g.,
burrowing animals); however, the interaction is ranked as a “2”. The assessment of this wildlife interaction
is addressed under the human health and ecological risk assessment. Impacts would be expected to be
short duration and very localized. Post emergency response would mitigate the risks beyond any directly
impacted spill area.
Traditional Land Use

It is unlikely there would be any effects to traditional land use under this spill scenario. The impacts to soil
would be localized. Short-term minor impacts to traditional land use are possible in the immediate vicinity
while access restrictions are in place. Emergency response and post-emergency response would address
the risk to human health and the environment. No impacts to VECs associated with traditional land use
would be anticipated. Standard site restoration techniques used in these circumstances would be
sufficient. No ongoing monitoring post-clean up would be required.
FUEL SPILL IN WATER

Description of the Possible Event
There is a low probability that during the life of the Project that a fuel truck could overturn along the main
access road during transport of fuel (gasoline or diesel) to the mine site and release all or part of its load
into a watercourse or water body. Nonetheless the impacts and potential responses are considered here
as required by the EIS guidelines.
For the purpose of considering this scenario, it was assumed that up to 50,000 Ls of fuel (gas or diesel)
was released from a truck into a watercourse such as a low flowing tributary to Taseko River or a high
flowing watercourse such as the Chilcotin River. A spill is assumed to occur during daylight hours.

Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of a Fuel Spill in Water

To minimize the potential for fuel spills into a watercourse or water body, Taseko will implement the
following suite of measures in cooperation with the MOT, contractors and subcontractors and other road
users:
x Ensure proper construction and maintenance of access roads by MOT and Taseko, including
x Enforce speed limits for all mine traffic on roads
x Ensure trucking/hauling contractors have appropriate driver training, radio contact capabilities,
x Provide haul monitoring and supervision and a driver feedback plan, and
x Ensure appropriate emergency response and spill contingency training and knowledge, maintenance
of equipment, materials and procedures to limit the consequences of such spills by prompt
containment and clean up actions.
Taseko Emergency Response Approach for Fuel Spills in Water

In the event of a spill, an emergency response protocol would be initiated that involves:
x Notification of all agencies and responders (mine supervisor, PEP, RCMP) as per the emergency
response plan
x Activation of spill handling procedures including assessing feasibility of containment and clean-up
based on water body and flow rates
x Implementation of spill handling procedures including: diverting fuel away from water; deployment of
absorbent booming; pumpback fuel to a tanker/alternate storage unit as quickly as possible, and
soil/environmental clean-up as identified in spill contingency plans, and
If the release was into a fast-moving body of water, water quality, habitat and fish monitoring procedures
would be implemented to assess short- and long-term effects and the required mitigation.


Based on the screening of potential interactions between a water-based fuel spill and VECs (Table 2.7.6-
2), the VECs that would most likely be detrimentally affected are:
x Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology
x Fish and Fish Habitat
x Wildlife
x Human and Ecological Health, and
Atmospheric: It is expected that a spill would result in a very localized release of CACs and therefore
potential atmospheric effects are expected to be low.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology: The volume of spilled material is not likely to affect surface water or ground
water flow. As most streams and ponds are groundwater discharge zones, a spill would not affect ground
water quality either.
Archaeology: Potential land disturbances as part of the spill response program would likely be restricted
to a small area in the direct vicinity of the road right-of-way (i.e., an already disturbed area); as a result,
the potential to affect archaeological sites would be low.
Soil: The risk of soil contamination along the riverbanks and soil disturbance during clean-up operations is
low. For a water spill event, soil contamination could occur along the riverbanks and the dilution and
dispersion resulting from a spill being in water would make it difficult to assess the amount of soil
contamination that could occur. Soil would likely be disturbed during spill response and clean-up
operations. However, the areal extent of disturbed soil would be expected to be localized. Remediation
efforts outlined in the land spill scenario could also be applied, if necessary, to a water spill scenario to
help restore pre-spill conditions. Interactions with hydrology and hydrogeology were ranked as 1 as the
booms used to collect fuel are hydrophobic and therefore do not remove much water from the stream.
Furthermore, as surface water bodies are typically groundwater discharge areas, little interaction with
groundwater would occur.
Vegetation: Petroleum fuel products such as gasoline and diesel have the capacity to chemically burn
vegetation and to disrupt nutrient cycling processes. Effects vary depending on length of exposure, time
of year (dormancy) and the characteristics of the plant species affected.
In the event of a fuel spill from a fully loaded fuel truck into water, the release of as much as 50,000 Ls of
gasoline or diesel fuel has the potential to cause adverse environmental effects to vegetation in wetland

or riparian ecosystems. The magnitude and extent of these effects would vary depending on whether or
not the receiving water body were slow moving or stagnant (e.g., wetland or back channel of a river or
creek), or fast moving (e.g., Taseko or Chilcotin rivers).
In fast moving river currents, gas and diesel fuels would be diluted, emulsified by the action of the moving
water and rapidly transported downstream. The turbulent action of a flowing river or stream would be
expected to separate diesel into fine droplets that are then suspended in the water column and eventually
adhere to particulates in the water and settle out, which rarely leads to appreciable contamination as most
natural environments have microbes that break down diesel in one to two months. More acute effects
could occur in slower moving backwater areas where riparian vegetation could come into sustained
contact with fuels. Generally speaking, because of the dispersion of fuel in a fast moving system
combined with dilution and evaporation, it is not anticipated that substantial amounts of fuel would enter
soil substrates on the banks of the river or stream and effects to riparian vegetation are expected to be
localized.
The effects of a spill into a fast flowing river are not easily contained, but it is expected that fuels would be
dissipated by the action of the moving water. A fuel spill into a slower moving system provides better
opportunities for containment and clean-up, and assuming mitigation measures are implemented
promptly and effectively, the effects of this scenario would be minimized. In either situation, some residual
adverse environmental effects to vegetation are predicted to occur but, assuming implementation of
prescribed mitigation measures; the effects would be expected to be adverse, localized, short term and
reversible over time and not considered significant.
Non-traditional land: A fuel spill in water is unlikely to affect measurable parameters for commercial
activity (e.g. forestry, range, trapping, guide outfitting) even without mitigation while tourism and public
recreation (including hunting and fishing) are primarily lake and land-based activities where a spill would
not interfere or where a spill area could be avoided until conditions are normalized.
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems

The risk of fuel spills into water bodies along the access roads are minimized through Project design,
mitigations and emergency responses. With these precautions in place, and given that the proportion of
road near or over water is very low, the probability of such an event occurring is considered to be very
low. However, should such an event occur, it could have short-term effects on water quality and could
lead to sublethal or lethal effects on sensitive species of aquatic organisms.
Literature on the effects of fuel spills in streams and rivers indicates both short and long-term effects on
benthic invertebrate communities (Lytle and Peckarsky, 2001; Crunkilton and Duchrow, 1990; Pontasch
and Brusven, 1988; Miller and Stout, 1986). For example, Lytle and Peckarsky (2001) documented
benthic invertebrate community responses to a 26,500 L diesel fuel spill into a small stream in New York,
including immediate impacts on benthic invertebrate communities throughout the 12 km study area.
Substantially lower abundance (90% lower) and taxon richness (50% lower) were measured immediately
and three months after the spill in impact areas 5 km downstream of the spill compared to reference
areas. After one year, abundance levels had recovered, in part by recolonization by upstream
invertebrates, but taxon richness and other differences in community structure were still apparent.
It is likely that a spill within the Project area would result in similar effects. The worst case scenario is of a
fully loaded fuel truck overturning and releasing its entire 50,000 L load into a slow flowing tributary of the

Taseko River or a faster flowing river such as the Chilcotin River during the late summer low flow period.
General considerations for this scenario include:
x A slow rather than immediate release of the entire 50,000 L
x Retention of some fuel constituents in periphyton and shoreline substrates
x Physical processes, such as volatilization and dilution of fuel, in addition to spill cleanup, that would
reduce the volume of fuel actually released to the water
x Differences in behaviour of gasoline (quick volatilization) and the denser diesel fuel (slower
volatilization and weathering), resulting in longer persistence of diesel in the aquatic environment
x Quick volatilization of toxic constituents such as BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and
toluenes), and
x Slower weathering (up to several years) of toxic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Most of the fuel product would remain on the water surface, where it would be exposed to rapid
volatilization and dilution downstream. Toxic components such as BTEX would volatilize quickly but while
present in water could have acute effects. Surface-dwelling organisms would be the most exposed to the
fuel. Longer term effects and chronic contamination would be associated with the PAHs, which would
accumulate in depositional areas downstream, take up to several years to degrade and involve exposure
of benthic organisms to the compounds.
Among the tributaries of the Taseko River crossed by the access road, Tête Angela Creek would be
considered the most sensitive location for such an accident, given the relatively short distance of
approximately 4 km between the road crossing and the Taseko River. Assuming that summer low flows in
Tête Angela Creek are similar to flows in Fish Creek (0.03 m3/s), the volume of fuel released (50 m3)
could be large in relation to stream flow, although instantaneous release of the entire volume would not
be expected. As a result, effects on water quality and acute effects on aquatic life could extend through
the 4 km of stream down to the Taseko River, and perhaps beyond. In addition, PAHs would likely settle
in slow flowing depositional areas of Tête Angela Creek and possibly in the Taseko River. With freshet
and other high flow events in the stream, PAHs in the sediment would be redistributed downstream over
time. Benthic invertebrates from upstream would likely recolonize the area within one year. Thus a short-
term, high magnitude and local to regional effect could result from such a fuel spill.
For the fast-flowing Chilcotin River, a fuel spill at the crossing near Hanceville during the late summer low
flow period would result in rapid transport of fuel downstream, also with rapid dilution and volatilization.
Although the higher volume of water in a larger watercourse would provide dilution, and reduce the
magnitude of any acute effects on aquatic life, this volume and velocity would move the fuel downstream
further and faster than in a small stream. Low concentrations of contaminants would be transported
longer distances (e.g., several kilometres). Benthic invertebrates from upstream would likely recolonize
the area within one year. Thus, a short-term, medium to high magnitude and regional effect could result
from such a fuel spill.
The geographic extent and magnitude of the environmental effects of a fuel spill to water could
be significant. However, the temporal effects can be reduced and managed with the application
of a well-defined emergency response plan, complemented by additional mitigation and
compensation measures as identified in follow-up and monitoring plans.

For either scenario, residual effects would be anticipated, although they would be considered not
significant, given that the benthic community would recover much of its productivity within one year.
Follow-up water quality, sediment, and biota monitoring would be conducted to assess short- and long-
term effects and to identify any additional mitigations required. Analysis of PAH in sediment from
downstream depositional habitat would be useful in determining geographic extent of the effect and in
monitoring improvement over time. This would be conducted in conjunction with a benthic invertebrate
community survey to assess biological responses.
A fuel spill of 50,000 L could have different effects on fish and fish habitat, depending on the
size and flow rate of the receiving water body, the weather conditions during and immediately
after a spill and any fire suppression chemicals used to prevent the spilled fuel from igniting.
For example, in a larger, faster moving water body, spilled fuels could be substantially diluted
and moved several kilometers downstream. Some acute effects could be expected in a spill
area, such as localized areas of sediment contamination, and in downstream, slower moving
reaches.
In a smaller, slow moving stream, direct fish and invertebrate mortality could be expected along
with more widespread and likely higher levels of sediment contamination than spills to a larger
system. Heavy rainfall immediately following a fuel spill would help dilute concentrations and
ideally reduce subsequent sediment contamination, but could carry spilled product farther
downstream than on a dry day. Fire suppressants, like CHEMGUARD, which contain ethylene
glycol, could have their own effects on fish in spill-affected areas depending on the size and
flows of the receiving water body.
Characterizing the potential effects on water and sediment quality would begin during the cleanup phase
and would include the following:
x Identifying the downstream limit of fuel migration
x Collecting mortalities (e.g., fish and amphibians)
x Characterizing habitats in spill-affected areas, and
x Analysis of water and sediment samples for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes (BTEX),
polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), volatile hydrocarbons (VH), volatile petroleum hydrocarbons
(VPH) and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH).
Mitigation and clean up measures to protect fish and fish habitat would begin with containing a
spill, both at the source and at accessible downstream locations. Sediment removal would likely
be required at a spill site and could also be required at accessible downstream areas.
Water quality monitoring would continue until the concentrations of BTEX and PAH dropped to
BC approved and working water quality guideline levels. Sediment quality monitoring would be
conducted on an ongoing basis in clean up areas, until the combination of field observations
and sampling data demonstrated the contaminated sediments were successfully removed, or
remaining sediments were consistent with the BC working sediment quality guidelines.
Sediment monitoring would continue in other areas affected by a spill, like machine inaccessible
locations, to confirm the natural attenuation of PAH and BTEX.
Fish and fish habitat monitoring programs would help determine how long it takes for fish to
return to a spill-affected area, as well as the changes in species diversity and abundance in
spill-affected areas over time. The data from spill-affected reaches would be compared with
data collected from one or more control sites upstream of a spill site. If upstream reaches were
inaccessible, control sites in nearby drainages of similar size, and providing similar habitats,
would be chosen for comparison with spill-affected reaches.
The residual effects of a fuel spill could include the temporary loss of fish and benthic
invertebrates and localized areas of sediment contamination in spill affected reaches.
Depending on sediment concentrations of parameters of concern like PAH, this could adversely
affect invertebrates, which are in direct contact with the sediment and pore water. Fish feeding
on invertebrates in these areas could also be adversely affected, again depending on the
contaminant levels in the sediments and invertebrates. The potential for adverse effects would
be determined as part of the sediment monitoring program. Adverse effects could persist until
the sediments are covered or re-distributed through channel processes, or until natural
attenuation results in lower concentration of the parameters of concern.
The geographic extent and magnitude of the environmental effects of a fuel spill to water could
be significant. However, the temporal effects can be reduced and managed with the application
of a well-defined emergency response plan, complemented by additional mitigation and
compensation measures as identified in a follow-up and monitoring plan. It is anticipated the
effects would be temporary (zero to four years) and reversible.
Wildlife
The assessment of an in-water fuel spill in water event on wildlife is directly related to the effects of such
a spill on water quality and aquatic ecosystems, fish and fish habitat, and human health and ecological
risk assessment.
Wildlife as a whole is addressed in the human health and ecological risk assessment section, while
strictly aquatic organisms (fish, benthic invertebrates) are addressed in the other two sections.
The mechanisms for environmental effects associated with a fuel spill include chemical changes to the
water and sediment quality resulting in biological damage to stream biota and aquatic and semi-aquatic
wildlife habitat, sensory disturbance (odour), and possible health effects as the result of ingestion or direct
contact with the fuel.
The mitigation measures described in general for this event (Table 2.7.6-1) and specifically for fish and
fish habitat, water quality and aquatic ecosystems, and human health and ecological risk assessment
(e.g., containment, sediment removal) minimize the effects of a spill on wildlife.
The geographic extent and magnitude of any environmental effect on aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife
and wildlife habitat depends on a variety of factors (e.g., fuel type, size and flow rate of receiving
environment, weather conditions, success and type of response). The residual effects of a fuel spill

could include the loss or displacement of fish, amphibians and benthic invertebrates, disruption
of stream habitat, localized areas of sediment contamination and general avoidance of the
affected area by wildlife. Depending on sediment concentrations of parameters of concern (e.g.,
PAH) there could be adverse effects on benthic invertebrates. In turn, fish and other animals
(e.g., waterfowl) feeding on invertebrates in these areas could also be adversely affected.
It is anticipated that the residual environmental effect of a fuel spill into water would be
temporary (zero to four years) and reversible. This residual effect could be significant; however,
the magnitude and duration of the effect can be reduced and managed with the application of a
well-defined emergency response plan, complemented by additional mitigation and
compensation measures.
Monitoring and follow-up programs for water quality, sediment, biota, and fish and fish habitat would be
conducted to assess the short- and long-term effects of a spill, and to identify any additional mitigations
required. A specific monitoring program for amphibians and amphibian habitat would be considered in
some circumstances (e.g., spill into lentic environment). However, in general, the monitoring and follow-
up programs proposed for fish and fish habitat and water quality and aquatic ecosystems are considered
adequate to address wildlife concerns. No long term impact is anticipated.
Human Health and Ecological Risk
Potential effects of an in-water fuel release on ecological and human health would be dependent on the
physical parameters of the water body (e.g., stream flow rate, depth, width). Acute effects to ecological
health could occur if wildlife and avian species were to come into contact with the hydrocarbon free-
product. No acute health effects would be expected for humans given that the water bodies in the area
are not used as potable water sources.
Downstream ecological effects are possible given that these water bodies are used as a source of
drinking water by terrestrial and avian wildlife species. Potential effects would be dependent on the
dilution of the hydrocarbons in the waterway as this affects the concentration of hydrocarbons that a
species would be exposed to.
Free-product recovery from water bodies should be completed to the best of the ability of the emergency
response team; its success would be highly dependent on stream velocity and weather conditions at the
time. Water samples would be collected immediately from the source area of a spill. These measures
detailed in Table 2.7.6-1 would ensure the protection of human and ecological health.
Overall, there would be a potential for acute (short-term) effects to both terrestrial and avian species in
the event of a fuel spill to water. Depending on the volume of the fuel spilled and the physical
characteristics of the receiving water body, there is the potential that effects on aquatic resources and the
concentration of hydrocarbons in the water could have residual effect on fish tissue (for consumption).
In the event of an accidental spill of fuel oil or diesel, the follow-up and monitoring steps detailed in Table
2.7.6-1 would be sufficient for the protection of human and ecological health. Depending on the
magnitude of a spill this would include the implementation of water quality, and potentially sediment
quality, monitoring in the affected water body. Assuming contaminant concentrations remain below
conservative risk-based water quality objectives then there would not be a risk to either ecological or
human health.
As a result, it is expected that effects of a water-based fuel spill on ecological health and human health
would be not significant.

Traditional Land Use

There is a potential risk to traditional land use in the event of a spill to water. These risks and the
response measures to address the release are the same as those described in the previous sections. It is
anticipated that the impacts would be short duration and pose little long term risk to human health or the
environment associated with traditional land use.
FAILURE OR MAJOR LEAKAGE FROM TAILINGS OR RECLAIM PIPELINES

Scenario Description
There is a low probability over the life of the Project that the tailings or reclaim pipelines could develop a
major leak or fail thereby releasing tailings or reclaim (process) water to the environment. Nonetheless
the impacts and potential responses are considered here as required by the EIS guidelines.
The Project has been designed in such a way that should such an event occur, any released tailing or
process water would be restricted to the mill site, TSF, tailings/reclaim pipeline containment ditches, or
the TSF seepage collection ponds / ditches. As a result, no release of tailings or mine water to area
watercourses would occur.
For the purpose of considering this scenario, a release of tailings and/or reclaim (process) water from the
normal operating condition (i.e. within the closed pipelines) and into the secondary containment systems
(i.e. ditches, ponds, mill site and TSF) has been assumed, and further that this release has the potential
to affect hydrology and hydrogeology as well as downstream aquatic habitat and water quality.
Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of a Failure or Major Leakage from Tailings or Reclaim
Pipelines
Preventative measures to mitigate effects related to the tailings or reclaim pipelines include the following:
x Situate pipelines in locations that ensure any accidental releases of tailings or reclaim water flow
into the concentrator, TSF, tailings/reclaim containment ditches, or the TSF seepage collection
ponds/ditches
x Ensure proper construction and maintenance of tailings delivery and reclaim systems to maintain
a closed system
x For the tailings/reclaim lines between the concentrator and the TSF, place them within ditches to
capture and contain tailings/reclaim water in the event of a pipeline break to ensure full secondary
containment
x For the tailings line along the embankment crests, place them on the internal crest line, so that
tailings from a spill would be contained within the TSF
x Ensure proper tailings/reclaim line inspection training and supervision
x Conduct routine inspections of tailings delivery and reclaim systems, and
x Maintain spill response procedures and implement appropriate emergency response.

Taseko Emergency Response Approach for a Failure or Major Leakage from Tailings or Reclaim
Pipelines
If all precautions and preventative measures did not prevent a failure or major leakage from the tailings or
reclaim pipeline, an emergency response protocol would be initiated that involves:
x Conducting an initial response and notification (mine supervisor, on-scene coordinator) as per
emergency response plan
x Shutting down source of spill (tailings/reclaim water) by implementing emergency shut-down

procedures
x Activating the emergency response groups
x Assessing if a spill of tailings/reclaim water is internal (likely) or would have external effects, and
x Notify the PEP office and the Ministry of Environment (MOE) as precautionary measure even if
internal.
In the unlikely event that there is an external discharge of tailings or reclaim water beyond the TSF or
concentrator, DFO would be notified (in addition to PEP and MOE), and monitoring and assessment
procedures would be immediately initiated.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between VECs and a failure or major leakage from
tailings or reclaim pipelines (Table 2.7.6-2), no VECs are likely to be detrimentally affected. Interactions
with all remaining VECs, apart from soil, fish and fish habitat and archaeology, which were ranked as a
“0”, were ranked as “1” for reasons described below.
Atmospheric Environment: A release of tailings water could result in the generation of some particulates,
however, it is not expected to result in a substantial release of evaporates.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology: A spill would not affect stream flow due to containment within the
secondary structures, and is not likely to affect groundwater flow or quality. The locations for tailings to
possibly reach the environment as a result of a spill would be from the pipeline corridor between the plant
site and the TSF, as well as from each of the Main, South and West Embankments. Should this occur in
the pipeline corridor between the plant site and the TSF, tailings and reclaim water would ultimately be
intercepted by containment ditches which the pipelines are located within, directing it to the concentrator
where it can be recovered and placed back in the TSF. Tailings downstream of the three embankments
would ultimately be captured by the collection ditches and ponds, where it could be recovered and placed
back into the TSF. The water component of the tailings would be primarily surface drainage to the
concentrator or seepage collection ponds, leaving very little water to reach the groundwater system.
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology: A spill would interact with other sources of contact water that reports
to the secondary containment ditches and ponds, thereby remaining separated from the non-contact

surface water and aquatic environment. As such, there would be no off-site contact between spilled
tailings/reclaim water and the natural aquatic environment.
Terrain Stability, Vegetation and Wildlife: Effects on these VECs would be minimal as a result of spill
response measures and codified environmental protection practices. The Environmental Management
Plan has measures that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects from a
pipeline failure. Measures specific to reducing soil contamination include ditches and berms to contain the
leakage from the pipeline, and diversion of a spill towards the concentrator, TSF and seepage collection
ponds. Also, the mine site will have topsoil stockpiled away from contamination sources.
Human Health and Ecological Risk: A rupture or major leakage from the tailings or a reclaim pipeline
would result in the release of tailings and/or reclaim (process) water to the environment. Effects on water
quality are not expected because the release would be restricted to the secondary containment systems.
If a leak occurred to soil, it is unlikely that the concentrations of metals would be high enough to pose an
acute (short-term) risk to either human or ecological health. This is based on the qualitative
understanding that acute toxicity requires exposure to very high concentrations of metals in soil. In
addition, the soil in the affected area would be remediated in a short period of time.
Traditional Land Use: There is a low potential risk to traditional land use in the event of a tailings release
as a release would most certainly occur within the mine footprint. These risks, and the response
measures to address the release, are the same as those described in the previous sections. It is
anticipated that any impacts would be short duration and pose little long term risk to human health or the
Non-traditional Land Use: Commercial land users have access to large license areas for extended
periods of time. Public users have access to a Crown land base that offers opportunities for multiple,
substitute locations and experiences. A major leakage is unlikely to affect measurable parameters for
commercial activity (e.g. forestry, range, trapping, guide outfitting) even without mitigation while tourism
and public recreation (including hunting and fishing) are primarily lake and land-based activities where a
leakage would not interfere or where a spill area could be avoided until conditions are normalized. While
we are mindful of the potential adverse effects on downstream aquatic habitat and the sport fishery, we
also recognize the preponderance of lake fishing, and alternative river sites, in the Regional Study Area
(RSA) and the opportunities that would continue to exist should a leakage occur.
CONCENTRATE HAUL SPILL ON LAND

There is a low probability that during the course of the Project a concentrate truck could upset on dry land
thereby releasing concentrate to the dry landscape. Nonetheless the impacts and potential responses are
considered here as required by the EIS guidelines.
For the purpose of considering this scenario a loaded truck (40 tonnes) upset along the main access road
has been assumed.
Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of a Concentrate Spill on Land

Preventative measures to mitigate effects related to land-based concentrate haul spill are similar to those
outlined for mitigating fuel spills. These include:
x Ensuring proper construction and maintenance of access roads by MOT and Taseko, including
x Enforcing speed limits for all mine traffic on roads
x Ensuring trucking/hauling contractors have appropriate driver training, radio contact capabilities,
x Providing haul monitoring and supervision and a driver feedback plan, and
x Ensuring appropriate emergency response and spill contingency training and knowledge,
maintenance of equipment, materials and procedures to limit the consequences of such spills by
prompt containment and clean up actions.
In addition, Project concentrate containers will be designed such that there is no wind loss (i.e., sealed
hard covers). However, in the event of a truck upset, it is assumed that concentrate could be released
from the container and be spilled onto the land surface.
Taseko Emergency Response Approach for a Concentrate Spill on Land

As per above, the emergency response approach for a land-based concentrate haul spill are similar to
those outline for fuel spills. These include:
response plan.
x Notify MOE and (adjacent) land owners.
x If the driver is not injured, the driver would notify Taseko and request assistance. The driver would
then implement initial and immediate containment activities using on-board containment equipment.
x Activate emergency response groups.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between a land based concentrate haul spill and VECs
(Table 2.7.6-2), the VECs that are most likely to be detrimentally affected are: Wildlife.
Interactions with all remaining VECs, apart from water and aquatic ecosystems, fish and fish habitat and
terrain stability, which were ranked as a “0”, were ranked as “1” for reasons described below.

Atmospheric Environment: It is expected that a spill would result in a very localized release of
particulates. Additional particulates could be generated during clean-up activities.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology: Small quantities of concentrate could be washed into a watercourse or
water body (e.g., during a rain storm), but effects would be highly localized.
Soil and Vegetation: The areal extent of a spill would be very small and clean-up activities are expected
to remove spilled concentrate within a short period (days). Rehabilitation of the site would help restore
soil and vegetation and, eventually, wildlife use.
Archaeology: Potential land disturbances as part of a spill response program would likely be restricted to
a small area in the direct vicinity of the road right-of-way (i.e., an already disturbed area) as a result,
potential to affect archaeological sites would be low. In addition, if concentrate did spread beyond the
road ROW, land disturbances as part of a spill response program would be minimized until an
archaeologist had determined that artefacts and sites would not be disturbed by clean-up activities.
Human Health Risk Assessment: The potential human and ecological health effects from a concentrate
spill on land would be dependent on the aerial extent of effects on soil and groundwater. Although ore
concentrate contains elevated concentrations of metals (e.g., copper), it would likely not result in acute
(short-term exposure) chemical effects on ecological or human health. This is based on the qualitative
understanding that acute toxicity requires exposure to very high concentrations of metals in soil. In
addition, the soil in the affected area would be cleaned-up in a short period of time and thus humans and
terrestrial ecological receptors would experience limited exposure to these elevated metal concentrations.
If through soil monitoring (Table 2.7.6-1), concentrations of metals in soils and vegetation were elevated
over background concentrations, Taseko would undertake a risk assessment to ascertain if the levels
were of a sufficient concentration to pose a potential risk.
Traditional Land Use: There is a low potential risk to traditional land use in the event of a tailings release
as the release would most certainly occur within the mine footprint. These risks, and the response
measures to address the release, are the same as those described in the previous sections. It is
anticipated that any impacts would be short duration and pose little long term risk to human health or the
Non-traditional Land Use (including forestry, mining, range, trapping and tourism): These activities are
licensed for commercial use and managed by government over large land areas and for extended periods
of time. Similarly, public recreation, including hunting and fishing, has access to a Crown land base that
offers opportunities for multiple, substitute locations and experiences for enjoying those activities. A
concentrate spill on land would be a site specific event with short-term effects once preventative and
emergency response measures are considered. We would not expect measurable parameters to be
adversely affected. Licensees would continue to abide by their license agreements with the province and
at the very worst would negotiate work-arounds at the operational level where a spill happened to interact
with those activities. Public recreation, hunting and fishing activity would also be expected to respond in a

similar fashion. Users would avoid a spill area and avail themselves of substitute routes or use areas.
Commercial and public users of Crown land already adapt, both spatially and temporally, to changes
brought about by forest harvesting, fires, pestilence, community development and industrial development.
In this context, a land concentrate spill is unlikely to induce changes in measurable parameters that are
distinguishable from the base case.
Wildlife
The interaction with a land-based concentrate spill is ranked as a “1” for most wildlife, since a spill would
largely occur on an already disturbed area within the road right-of-way, the areal extent of a spill would be
small relative to the habitat requirements of most wildlife, and clean-up activities would be expected to
remove any spilled concentrate within a short period (days). Further, larger, more mobile wildlife could
readily avoid a spill area.
CONCENTRATE HAUL SPILL IN WATER

There is a low probability that during the course of the Project a concentrate truck could overturn and
release its load into a water body. Such a release could affect water quality and result in aquatic habitat
degradation. Nonetheless the impacts and potential responses are considered here as required by the
EIS guidelines.
For the purpose of considering this scenario a loaded truck (40 tonnes) upset with concentrate released
from a bridge or along a road that is adjacent to either: a) a low flowing tributary to Taseko River; or b)
high flowing Chilcotin River has been assumed.
Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of a Concentrate Spill in Water

Preventative measures to mitigate effects related to an in water concentrate haul spill are similar to those
outlined for mitigating fuel spills. These include:
x Ensuring proper construction and maintenance of access roads by MOT and Taseko, including
adjacent to water courses that prevent overturning and/or capture load loss. This could also include
design features such as the use of berms or concrete abutments on roads to prevent trucks from
over-turning, and to help contain load loss. Maintenance plans would include routine inspections of
signage condition, bridges, ditches, culverts and running surfaces to identify potential driving hazards
x Enforcing speed limits for all mine traffic on roads
x Ensuring trucking/hauling contractors conduct and record regular vehicle maintenance, have
Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) training, radio contact capabilities, spill response training
and response kits, personal protective equipment and copies of the Project emergency response
communication protocols and plans
x Ensuring trucking/hauling contractors have appropriate driver training, radio contact capabilities,

x Providing haul monitoring and supervision and a driver feedback plan, and
x Ensuring appropriate emergency response and spill contingency training and knowledge,
maintenance of equipment, materials and procedures to limit the consequences of such spills by
prompt containment and clean up actions.
In addition, Project concentrate containers will be designed such that there is no wind loss (i.e., tarpaulin
covered trailers). However, in the event of a truck upset on a bridge or adjacent to a watercourse, it is
likely that concentrate would be released from the trailer and that concentrate could be spilled into the
water body or watercourse.
Taseko Emergency Response Approach for a Concentrate Spill in Water
As per above, the emergency response approach for an in water concentrate haul spill are similar to
those outline for fuel spills. These include:
response plan
x Activation of spill handling procedures including assessing feasibility of containment, diverting of

water away from truck/load and clean-up based on water body and flow rates, and
x Initiate immediate monitoring and assessment procedures.
In addition to the above, because the assumed spill is in water DFO would be notified and water quality,
habitat and fish monitoring procedures would be implemented to assess short- and long-term effects and
mitigation required.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between an in water based concentrate haul spill and
VECs (Table 2.7.6-2), the VECs that are most likely to be detrimentally affected are:
x Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems
x Fish and Fish Habitat
x Wildlife
x Human Health and Ecological Risk, and
Atmospheric Environment: Expected that a spill would result in a much localized release of particulates.
Additional particulates would be generated during clean-up activities.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology: The volume of spilled material is not likely to affect surface water or ground
water flow. As most streams and ponds are groundwater discharge zones, a spill would not affect ground
water quality either.
Soil and Vegetation: The areal extent of a spill would be very small and clean-up activities would be
expected to remove spilled concentrate within a short period (days). Rehabilitation of the site would help
restore soils and vegetation and, eventually, wildlife use.
Archaeology: Potential disturbances would likely be restricted to a small area in the direct vicinity of the
road right-of-way (i.e., an already disturbed area); as a result, potential to affect archaeological sites
would be low. In addition, if concentrate did spread beyond the road ROW, disturbances of land and
riparian areas would be minimized until an archaeologist had determined that artefacts and sites would
not be disturbed by clean-up activities.
Traditional Land Use: Impacts would be expected to be temporary and in the immediate vicinity of a spill.
Effects to water quality are possible which could result in restrictions on cattle watering from the impacted
water body until the concentrate source is removed by emergency and post-emergency cleanup activities.
Notification to the nearby ranchers would be sufficient during this period.
Non-traditional Land Use: Commercial land users have access to large license areas for extended
periods of time. Public users have access to a Crown land base that offers opportunities for multiple,
substitute locations and experiences. A concentrate spill in water would be unlikely to affect measurable
parameters for commercial activity (e.g. forestry, range, trapping, guide outfitting) even without mitigation
while tourism and public recreation (including hunting and fishing) are primarily lake and land-based
activities where any spill would not be expected to interfere or where a spill area could be avoided until
conditions are normalized. While we are mindful of the potential adverse effects on downstream aquatic
habitat and the sport fishery, we also recognize the preponderance of lake fishing, and alternative river
sites, in the RSA and the opportunities that would continue to exist should a spill occur.
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems

In the event that a fully loaded concentrate truck overturns and released its load into either a slow-flowing
tributary of the Taseko River or a faster flowing river such as the Taseko or Chilcotin, the released
concentrate could affect water quality and, through that mechanism, could affect aquatic organisms,
including mortality of sensitive species.
There are no mitigations specific to water quality, although spill clean-up measures would be related to
containment and removal of concentrate in addition to any vehicle fuels. The emergency response for a
tributary would be to divert the watercourse around a spill area, and remove the concentrate using an
excavator and vacuum truck where possible. Alternative or larger scale strategies would be needed for
the Chilcotin River.
Similar to fuel spills, there is be a very low probability of such an event, given that the proportion of road
near or over water is very low, However, such an event could have residual environmental effects.

Since ore concentrate has the consistency of sand, the immediate effect of a spill would be localized
smothering of benthic habitat. However, because of the high levels of copper and other metals, and its
fine texture, metals could start leaching into the water quickly. In addition, in the fast-flowing Chilcotin
River, the concentrate could be moved downstream in the current. As a result, there could be acute
effects downstream of a spill, and potentially longer term chronic effects downstream. Elevated copper
levels in water and physical smothering of habitat could lead to lower abundance of benthic organisms
and loss of sensitive species (lower biodiversity). Productivity in the affected area would be reinstated
through recolonization from upstream, in as little as one year (depending on success of the clean-up).
Among the tributaries of the Taseko River crossed by the access road, Tête Angela Creek would be
considered a worst case location for such an accident, given the relatively short distance of approximately
4 km between the road crossing and the Taseko River. During summer, the affected area could be
isolated by redirecting stream flows around it, allowing machine access for the clean-up. With a quick
response, it might be possible to limit the effects to Tête Angela Creek, with some transport of dissolved
copper into the Taseko River. However, clean-up efforts would be more challenging during high flow
(spring freshet), and movement of copper downstream into the Taseko River would be expected. Thus a
short-term, high magnitude and local to regional effect could result from such a concentrate spill.
For a spill at the crossing of the fast flow Chilcotin River, the same physical smothering effects would
occur in the immediate vicinity of a spill. However dissolved copper and particulate concentrate would be
transported further downstream before clean-up could be completed, and the clean-up would be
exacerbated by the volume and velocity of water. As a result, several kilometres of river habitat could be
affected by the released. The area would be colonized by benthic organisms from upstream areas,
although, depending on success of the remediation, effects could last for several years. Thus, a short to
medium duration, high magnitude and regional effect could result from such a fuel spill, which would
eventually be reversible. Such an event would not be considered significant, given that the benthic
community would recover much of its productivity within a few years.
Follow-up water quality, sediment, biota monitoring would be conducted to assess short- and long-term
effects and to identify any additional mitigations required. Analysis of metals in water and sediment from
downstream areas would be useful in determining geographic extent of the effect and in monitoring
changes over time. This would be conducted in conjunction with a benthic invertebrate community survey
to assess biological responses.

A spill of concentrate to a large, fast moving river would likely result in the quick and widespread
distribution of concentrate in a downstream direction. Some elevation in turbidity and total suspended
solids (TSS) would occur until containment and diversion measures were in place.
A spill to a smaller, slower moving watercourse would likely result in localized smothering of bed material,
with the gradual movement of concentrate downstream until containment and diversion measures were in
place. Given the 24.55% copper in the concentrate, localized areas of elevated copper levels in sediment
might also result from a spill. Turbidity and TSS would be expected to increase in a smaller receiving
water body until containment and diversion measures were implemented.
Elevated TSS can affect behaviour and cause physiological stress in fish. For example, (Noggle, 1978)
reported 45% reduced feeding rates for Coho at 100 mg/L and cessation of feeding at 300 mg/L (Berg

and Northcote, 1985). Physiological stress and behavioural changes have been observed at 53.5 mg/L
(Berg, 1993).
The BC working sediment quality guidelines for copper are 35.7 ppm (threshold effect level [TEL]) and
197 ppm (probable effect level [PEL]). The TEL is the concentration below which adverse effects are
rarely expected to occur, whereas the PEL is the concentration above which adverse effects are
frequently expected to occur. Sediment copper levels resulting from concentrate spills above the TEL
could have some adverse effects on aquatic life. Roman et al. (2007) reported a predicted No Effect
Concentration (PNEC) for sediment of 3.3 to 47.1 mg copper/dry wt for five invertebrate species
(Gammarus pulex, Lumbriculus variegates, Hyalella azteca, Chironomus Riparius and Tubifex tubifex)
Roman et al. (2007) also identified median LC50 copper concentrations of 151 to 327 mg/kg dry wt.
Characterizing the potential effects on water and sediment quality would begin during the cleanup phase
with in situ and analytical sample collection. In situ parameters would include pH, turbidity, total dissolved
solids and conductivity. Analytical parameters would emphasize total and dissolved metals in water, and
metals and pH in sediments.
TSS and turbidity monitoring would continue until these parameters reached background levels in the
receiving water body (e.g., upstream from a spill site) or were consistent with the BC Approved water
quality guidelines (2006) In situ and analytical sample collection would also continue until pH, metals and
any other parameters of interest reached background levels, BC approved and working water and
sediment quality guidelines (2006) or site-specific objectives agreed to by MOE.
Mitigation measures to limits impact on fish habitat would emphasize the physical removal of any spilled
concentrate from accessible riparian and instream habitats. Instream habitats covered in spilled
concentrate, or containing contaminated sediments resulting from a spill, would have to be physically
restored (e.g., new pools excavated, or new spawning substrate added. Riparian habitat cleared to
facilitate cleanup efforts would have to be replanted, with follow up monitoring programs to ensure the
success of riparian restoration programs.
Residual effects of a concentrate spill to water could occur in areas that could not be accessed for
cleanup, or where spilled concentrate has accumulated and resulted in elevated copper in sediments.
This could result in localized areas causing sub-lethal effects on aquatic invertebrates, as they are in
direct contact with sediment and would also be exposed to copper in pore water. These localized areas
would remain a potential exposure route until the sediments were eroded and washed downstream, or
were covered through natural sediment accumulation processes.
The residual effects could be significant on a temporal and spatial basis (0–4 years) and reversible with
the appropriate mitigation plans to be implemented during spill clean-up and from a follow-up and
monitoring program.
Wildlife
The assessment of a concentrate spill in water event on wildlife is directly related to the effects of such a
spill on water quality and aquatic ecosystems, fish and fish habitat, and human health and ecological risk
assessment. The results of these assessments are summarized in brief in this section. Wildlife as a whole
is addressed in the human health and ecological risk assessment, while strictly aquatic organisms (fish,
benthic invertebrates) are addressed in the other two sections.

The mechanisms for environmental effects associated with such an event include physical smothering of
stream biota and stream and riparian habitat, physiological changes in fish behaviour and stress levels
due to elevated TSS and turbidity, and the potential adverse (lethal and sublethal) effect of elevated
copper levels on aquatic organisms.
There are no wildlife-specific mitigation measures. The mitigation measures described in general for this
event (Table 2.7.6-1) and for fish and fish habitat, water quality and aquatic ecosystems, and human
health and ecological risk assessment specifically would be applicable (e.g., removal of spilled
concentrate, stream habitat restoration, temporary stream diversion).
The geographic extent and magnitude of the environmental effect on aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife
and wildlife habitat depends on a variety of factors (e.g., size and flow rate of receiving environment,
weather conditions, success and type of response). The residual effects of a concentrate spill could
include the loss or displacement of fish, amphibians and benthic invertebrates, reduced diversity of
stream biota (through loss of sensitive species), destruction of stream habitat, localized areas of sediment
contamination and general avoidance of the affected area by wildlife. Elevated copper levels in surface
water are unlikely to be high enough to pose a potential acute risk to terrestrial wildlife consuming the
water, or alter fish tissue copper levels over time.
It is anticipated the residual environmental effect of a concentrate spill into water would be
temporary (zero to four years) and reversible. This residual effect could be significant. However,
the magnitude and duration of the effect can be reduced and managed with the application of a
well-defined emergency response plan, complemented by additional mitigation and
compensation measures.
Water quality, TSS, turbidity, sediment, habitat restoration, and biota monitoring and follow-up programs
would be conducted to assess the short- and long-term effects of this type of spill, and to identify any
additional mitigations required. However, in general, the monitoring and follow-up programs proposed for
fish and fish habitat and water quality and aquatic ecosystems are considered adequate to address
wildlife concerns.
Human Health and Ecological Risk

If the concentrate was spilled into a water body, there would be a potential increase in surface water
metal concentrations. It is unlikely that the resulting concentrations would be high enough to pose a
potential acute risk to terrestrial wildlife consuming the water, or even if humans were in the area hunting
and were to drink water from the affected water body. This is based on the qualitative understanding that
acute toxicity requires exposure to very high concentrations of metals in water.
Given the assumption that such a spill would result in 40 tonnes of concentrate being deposited into the
water body, it is not known how this would alter fish body burden concentrations over the long-term.
Therefore, chronic effects to human and ecological health could not be quantitatively predicted.
Clean-up procedures would be similar to those described above for leakage of tailings or reclaim pipeline
to water and are detailed in Table 2.7.6-1. If possible, containment and clean-up of concentrate in the
water body would be conducted and potentially consideration of diverting water away from truck / load
would occur.
Overall, it is unlikely that there would be an acute effect to either terrestrial or avian species in the event
of a concentrate spill to water. Depending on the volume spilled and the physical characteristics of the

receiving water body, there is a potential that effects on aquatic resources and the concentration of
metals in the water could have a long-term residual effect on fish tissue (for consumption) and drinking
water in the area.
In the event of an accidental spill of concentrate to water, the follow-up and monitoring steps detailed in
Table 2.7.6-1 would be sufficient for the protection of human and ecological health. Depending on the
magnitude of a spill this would include the implementation of water quality, and potentially sediment
quality, monitoring in the affected water body. If metal concentrations remain below conservative risk-
based water and/or sediment quality objectives then there would be no significant risk to ecosystems or
human health.
If through monitoring, concentrations of metals in water and/or fish were elevated over background
concentrations, Taseko would undertake a risk assessment to ascertain if the levels were of a sufficient
concentration to pose a potential risk.
ROAD CULVERT FAILURE

There is a low probability that during the life of the Project a road culvert could fail resulting in bank
erosion and increased sedimentation that could affect downstream water quality and aquatic habitat.
Nonetheless the impacts and potential responses are considered here as required by the EIS guidelines.
For the purpose of evaluating this scenario, it was assumed that a culvert across Taseko Lake Road was
blocked, causing ponding above the road, bank erosion, and increased sedimentation release into Upper
Fish Creek and Taseko Rivers.
Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of a Road Culvert Failure

To minimize the potential for a road culvert failure that could result in bank erosion and increased
sedimentation, Taseko will implement the following suite of measures:
x Ensure regular road maintenance
x Design and install culverts to accommodate frequent extreme storm events, and include engineered
debris gates in front of culverts
x Conduct monitoring of the condition of culvert and debris traps (if present), and
x Assess culvert condition during and after storm events.

Taseko Emergency Response Approach for a Road Culvert Failure

If all precautionary and preventative measures did not prevent a road culvert failure, an emergency

x Conduct initial response and notification (mine supervisor, PEP, MOE, MOT, RCMP) as per
emergency response plan
x Activate emergency response groups, including mine site contractors for remediation, and
x If sufficient water is ponded above the road as a result of the blockage, notification of immediate
downstream or adjacent residents could be required.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between a road culvert and VECs (Table 2.7.6-2), the
VECs that are most likely to be detrimentally affected are: Terrain Stability and Soil.
Interactions with all remaining VECs, apart from human health and ecological risk that was ranked as a
“0”, were ranked as “1” for reasons described below.
Atmospheric Environment: It is expected that some particulates could be generated during clean-up
activities.
Hydrology and hydrogeology: Any flooding associated with a blocked culvert would not result in
substantial changes to surface hydrology or hydrogeology outside of the immediate area of the blockage.
Water Quality, Aquatic Ecology and Fish and Fish Habitat: Effects are expected to be low given that the
area of any effect would be highly localized. In addition, effects on these VECs would be minimized
through spill response measures and codified environmental protection practices (Section 2.8.1:
Environmental Management Plans) that are known to effectively mitigate the predicted environmental
effects.
Vegetation, Wildlife, Traditional Use and Non-traditional Land Use: While localized effects could occur,
these effects would only affect a small area and would only persist for days after the culvert blockage is
remedied.
Archaeology: Potential disturbances would likely be restricted to a small area in the direct vicinity of the
road right-of-way (i.e., an already disturbed area); as a result, potential to affect archaeological sites
would be low. In addition, land disturbance during restoration of the culvert would be minimized until an
archaeologist had determined that artefacts and sites would not be disturbed by clean-up activities.

Terrain Stability and Soil

The potential for road culvert failure can happen due to unpredicted events such as heavy rainfall or rapid
snowmelt. The likelihood of such a failure occurring is low due to the relatively subdued nature of the
topography coupled with preventative measures including:
x Regular road maintenance
x Appropriate sizing of culverts (design stage)
x Monitoring of debris traps and culvert condition
x Assessing culvert condition during and after storm events, and
x Regular maintenance.
However, terrain stability could become compromised when preventative measures are unable to prevent
ponded water above the road as a result of a culvert blockage or damage. The ponded water can cause
increased pore pressure in the sediment resulting in a change in natural terrain stability upslope from the
road.
Areas where culverts are required often are associated with incised landscape features including gullies,
seepage areas and natural drainages including creeks and rivers. In this scenario the area is near Fish
Creek and Taseko River. These areas inherently have slope conditions and geomorphic processes that
could make them predisposed or at risk of mass wasting.
The most effective way to mitigate the effects of mass wasting is in proper road design. Detailed terrain
assessments prior to road construction allow for the identification of material type, stratigraphy, depth to
bedrock, slopes, topography and locations of hazardous terrain. This information allows for the proper
design of roads including appropriate culvert size, and if possible, the avoidance of hazardous terrain.
Once the road is constructed preventative measures as outlined above further reduce the probability and
scale of a mass wasting event.
In the event of a road culvert failure, re-establishing terrain stability is one of the first requirements to
protect human safety, water supplies, water quality, fish habitat, and re-establish landscape aesthetics,
vegetation and recreational use of the area. For this reason, the timely response in the event of a road
culvert failure is to act on stabilizing the terrain.
The Mines Act is very explicit in the mitigation measures to be followed in the event of a mass wasting
event. These mitigation measures also are effective in the event of road culvert failures. The measures
include:
1. Restorative activities would be designed and implemented by a qualified person to minimize further
mass wasting events such as landslides, channelized debris or mud flow, and gully bank
destabilization.
2. Mitigation measures that would be implemented after a road culvert failure has occurred to address
terrain stability include:
x Stabilize any disturbed areas, and
x Ensure a geotechnical engineer prepares a terrain remediation plan in a timely manner (e.g.,
within 30 days).
If a mass wasting event does occur due to compromised terrain stability, which in this scenario could
result from failure of a road culvert resulting in bank erosion, a residual effect is anticipated. With

preventative mitigation, the likelihood of a mass wasting event is minimal. However, with unforeseen
storm events, a change in terrain stability can occur within hours to days. If mass wasting did occur, there
could be changes from baseline conditions. The change is non-reversible, sporadic in frequency and is
site specific. The magnitude is considered low if the area of terrain stability is not increased and
stabilization efforts are effective.
The changes to terrain stability are permanent, but a new equilibrium for terrain stability can be
established and allow for the previous land use to occur. Modifications to road design may be required,
but overall rating of the effect is not significant as prior land uses can be re-established quickly.
In the event that an event such as a road culvert failure occurs follow-up and monitoring would be
appropriate to:
1. Determine whether the preventative and mitigation measures employed have achieved terrain
stability
2. Check for renewed erosion or instability (frequency of monitoring program would depend on
effectiveness of mitigation), and
3. Inspect revegetation progress (effectiveness would be visible within one growing season, if not
deemed successful, additional inspections could be required).
EXCESSIVE WATER IN TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY

There is a low probability that during the life of the mine storm events could result in excessive water in
the TSF. Nonetheless the impacts and potential responses are considered here as required by the EIS
guidelines.
If this situation resulted in off-spec volumes of water discharged into the environment there could be an
effect on downstream aquatic habitat and water quality.
Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of Excessive Water in TSF

To minimize the potential for excessive water in the TSF resulting in off-spec volumes of water being
discharged to the environment, Taseko will implement the following suite of measures:
x Conduct annual reviews by an accredited consultant of tailings hydrological model,

operation/construction of the tailings complex, and water balances based on site collected
meteorological data
x Ensure all dams are built to maintain annual volumes of tailings release as well as the maximum
potential storm events while maintaining a design freeboard criterion
x Ensure upstream diversion structures for fresh water accommodate maximum storm events with
safeguards in place to minimize blockage, and
If the preventive measures did not prevent ongoing accumulation of water in the TSF, an emergency
response protocol would immediately be initiated.

Taseko Emergency Response Approach for Excessive Water in Tailings Storage Facility
If all precautionary and preventative measures did not prevent excessive water in the TSF, an emergency
x Conduct an initial response and notification (mine supervisor, MOE)
x Conduct monitoring of TSF to ensure containment is maintained
x If discharge is necessary to maintain integrity of TSF, initiate MOE notification process and implement
next phase of emergency response plan, and
x If water quality is suitable to release to the environment, then by-pass to downstream environment
into Fish Creek. If water quality is not suitable, the tailings water should be bypassed to the open pit,
which could require some short-term rescheduling of mining sequences.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between excessive water in the TSF and VECs (Table
2.7.6-2), none of the VECs are likely to be detrimentally affected. For ten VECs the effect of this event
was ranked as a “0” and, therefore, was scoped out of this assessment. Interactions with the two
remaining VECs were ranked as “1” for reasons described below.
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology: Under the most likely scenario, excess water would remain contained
within the TSF and no impacts would occur to human health or the environment. However, considering
the case where an emergency discharge from the TSF containing excess water is necessary to maintain
structural integrity of the TSF, short duration water quality impacts are possible. Dilution of tailings water
by the large inflow necessary to cause this issue to arise is expected to reduce concentrations of
contaminants of concern in the discharge. With notification to applicable agencies, regulating the
discharge rate and limiting the duration of the discharge is expected to result in no detrimental impact to
the receiving waters and their biota.
Fish and Fish Habitat: The impact to fish and fish habitat is expected to be minimal, as described above.
LOSS OF POWER TO TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY SEEPAGE RECOVERY

There is a low probability that during the life of the mine a storm event could result in loss of power
resulting in a temporary loss of the ability to reclaim seepage from the TSF seepage collection ponds and
the potential to overflow into the inlets to Fish Lake.

Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of Loss of Power to Tailings Storage Facility Seepage
Recovery
To minimize the potential for a loss of power to TSF seepage recovery Taseko will implement the
following suite of measures”
x Conduct annual reviews by an accredited consultant of tailings hydrological model,

operation/construction of tailings complex, and water balances based on site collected meteorological
data
x Ensure sufficient reserve capacity in the pond to hold excessive run-off and seepage to withstand
storm events for the number of days recommended by hydrological model, and
x Access to backup (diesel) power generation and pumps.
Taseko Emergency Response Approach for Loss of Power to Tailings Storage Facility Seepage
Recovery
If all precautionary and preventative measures did not prevent a loss of power to TSF seepage recovery,
an emergency response protocol would be initiated that involves:
x Conduct initial response and notification (mine supervisor, MOE), and
x Initiate immediate assessment of potential health and safety effects.
In the possible event that unsuitable water is released to downstream environments an initial response
and notification (mine supervisor, PEP, MOE, DFO) would be initiated as per the emergency response
plan, including notification of downstream users; activation of emergency response groups; and initiation
of monitoring and assessment procedures.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between a loss of power to TSF seepage recovery and
VECs (Table 2.7.6-2), none of the VECs are likely to be detrimentally affected. Details of preventative
measures that deal with stability and potential erosion are addressed in the mine design plan.
Any excessive water should be contained in retention ponds and collection ditches, therefore 10
interactions have all been ranked as “0”. Interactions with the two remaining VECs were ranked as “1” for
reasons described below:
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology: Under most conditions, the loss of power would be temporary and
existing containment in the TSF and seepage collection ponds would be sufficient to maintain a closed
system. In the unlikely event that power is not restored and emergency power and pumping cannot
maintain containment, there is the potential for a release to the environment to occur. While the quality of
this water is expected to be satisfactory, as a result of the significant dilution provided by a large rainfall
event or snow melt, it would be necessary to monitor the quality of the water and evaluate the conditions
further. If impacts were determined to be possible, a high priority would be placed on reinstatement of the
containment.
Fish and Fish Habitat: The impact to fish and fish habitat would be expected to be minimal, as any
release of water under these circumstances would have dilute concentrations of metals and nutrients, and
would be of a short duration, preventing water quality effects on fish in the receiving waters.
STORM EVENT IN EXCESS OF THE DESIGN EVENT FOR THE FISH LAKE FLOOD CONTROL
DAMS
There is a low probability that during the life of the mine a storm event in excess of the design event for
the Fish Lake Control Dams could result in water being released from Fish Lake into the pit, thereby
potentially affecting pit operations. Nonetheless the impacts and potential responses are considered here
as required by the EIS guidelines.
Project Design Measures to Minimize Risk of a Storm Event exceeding the Fish Lake Flood
Control Dams
To minimize the potential for a storm event exceeding the Fish Lake Flood Control dams and potentially
affecting pit operations, Taseko will implement the following suite of measures:
x Conduct annual reviews by an accredited consultant of hydrological modelling and water balances
based on site collected meteorological data
x Ensure sufficient pumping capacity in the pond to manage a greater flood event through pumping of
the excess water around the pit to Fish Creek
x Observe the weather closely and increase pumping for the Lake prior to an anticipated event in order
to increase storm storage capacity, and
x Access to backup (diesel) power generation and pumps to increase temporary pumping capacity.
Taseko Emergency Response Approach for a Storm Event exceeding the Fish Lake Flood Control
Dams
If all precautionary and preventative measures did not prevent a storm event from exceeding the Fish
Lake Flood Control dams, an emergency response protocol would be initiated that involves:
x Conduct initial response and notification (mine supervisor, MOE), and

x Initiate immediate assessment of potential health and safety effects.
In the possible event that water is released to downstream environments an initial response and
notification (mine supervisor, PEP, MOE, DFO) would be initiated as per the emergency response plan,
including notification of downstream users; activation of emergency response groups; and initiation of
monitoring and assessment procedures.

Based on the screening of potential interactions between a storm event exceeding the Fish Lake Flood
Control Dam and VECs (Table 2.7.6-2), none of the VECs are likely to be detrimentally affected. Details
of preventative measures that deal with stability and potential erosion are addressed in the mine design
plan.
Any excessive water should be contained in retention ponds and collection ditches, therefore 11
interactions have all been ranked as “0”. Interactions with the one remaining VEC were ranked as “1” for
reasons described below:
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology: The Fish Lake Flood Control Dams are designed to contain a 1:200
year return period storm event. With a mine life of only 20 years, the probability is already low that this
event would occur in the mine life stated. Regardless, should a storm event exceed this threshold, the
excess water would be pumped around the pit to Fish Creek. This management of the water would allow
for flows in the creek to increase temporarily. Since there are substantial operational and closure flow
reductions in Lower Fish Creek due to the mine plan, this temporary pumping of the excess flood water in
Fish Lake would likely restore creek flows closer to baseline values while the pumps are operating.

2.7.7 Effects of the Environment on the Project

The definition of an “environmental effect” under CEAA includes any change to the Project that may be
caused by the environment.
A significant effect on the Project is considered to be one that results in:
x Damage to site infrastructure (e.g. tailings storage facility, transmission line, waste storage sites) that
may result in risk to public health and safety, and
x A long-term interruption in service.
Minor effects are considered to be ones that result in:

x Significant alterations to the construction schedule
x Increased operating or maintenance costs, and
x A short-term interruption in service.
The Application considers the following types of natural environmental issues or events that could have
an effect on the Project:
x Extreme weather (severe rainstorms, snow storms, wind, drought), and the potential of climate
change to increase rainfall
x Forest fires and the potential amplifying effect of Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB), and
x Seismic activity.
Details of a number of planning, design, construction, and management strategies intended to minimize
the potential environmental effects of the environment on the Project are described throughout the EIS. A
summary of these considerations is provided below. Should an accident, malfunction, or unplanned event
occur as a result of effects of the environment on the Project, procedures set forth in the Environmental
Management Plans, as well as Operations, Maintenance and Surveillance Manuals that will be developed
as part of the permitting process, will be implemented to protect workers and the public in the vicinity of
the Project.
EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS

Severe Rainstorms
The extreme daily rainfall for the area is 34.3 mm (July 1964). Catastrophic rainstorms could cause
accumulation of several centimetres of precipitation in a 24-hour period, resulting in several million cubic
metres of water being rapidly added to the catchment. Severe rainstorms and related surface runoff could
trigger debris flows on any overly steep slopes in the mine area and access corridor.
Mitigations for such an event include:
x The TSF will be designed to contain the Inflow Design Flood (IDF) volume from a 72-hour storm
event, defined as 2/3 between the 1/1000 flood and the Probable Maximum Flood (meeting the Dam
Classification design criteria, as defined by the Canadian Dam Association “Dam Safety Guidelines”,
2007). In addition, this IDF event is considered sufficient to manage any net increases in precipitation
due to climate change.

x Newly constructed water management structures (ditches, ponds, etc.) will be designed to manage a
return-period event longer than the duration of the mine operation (>20 years). The effect of climate
change on the duration curves will be evaluated and the new values applied to the design of the
water management structures.
x The proponent will work with the lease holder and Ministry of Highways as necessary to address the
impact of severe rainstorms on existing small bridges and culverts.
x Two flood control structures will be constructed at the outlet of Fish Lake, so that the 1:1000 year, 24-
hour event can be managed in Fish Lake. Under the worst case assumption that the Fish Lake
pumping system is not operating during such an event, the lake level could fluctuate as much as 3.4
metres under this return period event. Excess water from such an event could be directed via the
pumping system to lower Fish Creek. Extreme precipitation events that exceed the 1:1000 year, 24-
hour return period event would overtop the flood control dams and spill to the open pit. Under
extreme precipitation events, open pit operations would cease until such time as excess water is
managed appropriately.
Snow Storms
Extreme daily snowfall for the area is 42.7 mm (December 1968). High levels of snowfall could impede
the movement of mobile equipment on the access road and at the mine site. Related problems could
include reduced traction by vehicles and reduced visibility during snowstorms. Fog could also reduce
visibility at the mine site. Buildings exposed to large accumulations of snow could experience structural
damage, or collapse.
Mitigations for snowstorms include:
x As appropriate, building designs will follow Part 4 of the Building Code.
x The proponent will work with the lease holder and Ministry of Highways to remove excess snow from
existing roadways and will remove excess snow from active mining areas as necessary. The mine
production fleet will include appropriate equipment to clear snow.
x Crushed aggregate will be produced to spread on the roads for improved traction.
x Storm-related visibility issues at the mine site will be addressed with the development of operating
protocols to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow during periods of reduced visibility.
x Cable stands will be utilized, where necessary, to elevate pit equipment electrical cable from snow
and ice.
x Buildings will be designed to meet building code requirements to withstand roof loading from snow
and associated rain (based on the 1 in 50 year ground snow load).
Wind
High-velocity winds could create large waves in the tailings pond and damage buildings and power lines.
Mitigations include:
x Buildings will be designed per Part 4 of the Building Code.
x The TSF will be developed with significant tailings beaches (about 1000 m wide from the dam crest to
pond), thereby keeping any waves a long distance from the embankments. Furthermore, under full
flood storage conditions for the IDF event, the TSF filling schedule has been developed to maintain a
minimum 1-m wave-run-up protection above the supernatant pond.

Drought
A significant reduction in the accumulated annual rain and snowfall would: reduce the runoff entering the
mine site area, thereby having less water available for mine operations. Drought conditions in the Post-
Closure period will mean less water entering the tailings management structures and the open pit,
thereby decreasing the release of water from the pit area to lower Fish Creek. For increased risk of forest
fires, see the section below.
Mitigations include:
x The TSF operating pond is designed to have a minimum pond volume with an operating
buffer under average conditions. Modelling of consecutive dry years indicates that there will
still be enough water to operate the mine, as it is designed.
x Water will not be released into the receiving environment from the mine site until the post closure
period, currently estimated to begin at Year 48 of the mine life. Water quality monitoring anticipated to
be conducted throughout the life of the mine will provide opportunities to develop and implement
appropriate treatment strategies prior to release if necessary.
FOREST FIRES
The primary effects of a fire in the mine site area would be a loss of infrastructure (process plant, mill,
accommodations buildings) and operating delays. Depending on the size of the crossing and the severity
of the fire, damage or loss of bridges along the access corridor caused by a fire could restrict road access
to the mine site from half a day up to two weeks. Extensive dead timber due to the MPB could increase
the risk and intensity of fire.
x Fire-fighting equipment will exist as part of the Health and Safety system for the mine. This
equipment, as well as employee awareness training to assist the prevention of forest fires, will
minimize the potential for forest fires to affect the Project.
x A safety plan will be developed that describes appropriate procedures and protocols to effectively
deal with hazards including hazard evaluation, appropriate control procedures and protocols,
personal protective equipment to be used, air and water monitoring protocols and specifications,
confined space entry procedures, and detailed fire-fighting procedures.
x Personnel not involved in containing a fire from work areas or camps will be gathered at muster
stations and evacuated.
x Water pumps and fire-fighting equipment will be strategically located around the mine site.
x Vegetation that could be fuel for fire will be removed from around mine infrastructure.
x Backup generators at the mine site will have enough power capacity to operate essential equipment
around the sites in case of transmission line loss.
SEISMIC ACTIVITY (EARTHQUAKES)

A review of historical earthquake records and regional tectonics indicates that the Project site is situated
in a region of moderate seismic hazard (Appendix 2.2.4-B). Nonetheless all Project components could
potentially be affected by a seismic event, and the appropriate codes such as Part 4 of the Building Code
will be implemented in the design.
Of all the structures the tailings embankment has the potential for being most affected and for having
the greatest impact if it failed. The design and construction of TSF embankments will be done per

Canadian Dam Association’s “Dam Safety Guidelines” 2007. Embankment dams will be designed to
safely withstand seismic ground motions from the maximum design earthquake, defined according to
the Dam Classification and based on the criteria specified by the Canadian Dam Association’s Dam
Safety Guidelines. For all TSF embankments, the maximum design earthquake is defined as the 1 in
5000 year earthquake with a mean peak acceleration of 0.44 g and design earthquake magnitude of
7.5.

2.7.8 Capacity of Renewable Resources

The issue of the Project’s impacts on renewable resources was assessed in detail throughout Section
2.7. The physical renewable resources assessed were the atmospheric environment and surface and
ground water. For the biotic environment the assessed were water quality and aquatic ecology, fish and
fish habitat, soils, vegetation, and wildlife. After consideration of the Project’s design, the best
management practices that would be employed, and the project-specific mitigations developed where
needed, the determination for all renewable resources is that the Project will not have significant effects.
While the measure for significance is specific to each resource, generically significance is determined by
a regulatory standard or a threshold based on community values or management objectives. None of the
Project’s residual effects exceeded these standards or thresholds and were therefore determined to be
not significant. Section 2.7 contains assessment details supporting the conclusions of the Project not
having significant effects on the capacity of renewable resources.
In addition to the assessment of physical renewable resources and the biotic environment, Section 2.7
also assesses Project specific and cumulative effects on Resource Uses for the following: land use
objectives; forestry; agriculture and ranching; fishing; hunting; public recreation; tourism; and trapping. No
significant negative effects by the Project were determined. For some the effect was positive.


2-7 - Impact Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2-7 - Impact Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 2.

7 Impact Assessment Page 389

2.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The Act defines “environmental effect”, in respect of a project, as:

New Prosperity September 2012

New Prosperity September 2012

2.7.1.1 Effects Prediction

 Focuses on issues of greatest concern

 Land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere

 All organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and

Characterization of Project-related Environmental Effects are assessed, including descriptions of how an

New Prosperity September 2012

2.7.1.2 Mitigation Measures

New Prosperity September 2012

New Prosperity September 2012

2.7.1.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment

 The Project will result in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual environmental

Project Inclusion List

 City of Williams Lake

 Quesnel Community and Economic Development Corporation

 Cariboo Regional District

 Ministry of Energy and Mines

 Front Counter BC, and

 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

New Prosperity September 2012

New Prosperity September 2012

Table 2.7.1.4 -1 Inclusion List

Company/ Major Start End

New Prosperity September 2012

Company/ Major Start End

Upgrade and 2011 2012

New Prosperity September 2012

Company/ Major Start End

Company/ Major Start End

New Prosperity September 2012

Company/ Major Start End

New Prosperity September 2012

Projects Selected for

! Present Mining Project

Itcha Ilgachuz QR Mine !

Gibraltar ! Mountain (Exploration) Proposed Prosperity Mine Access Road

BC Hydro Transmission Line

! Lac La Hache (Spout)

Taseko Project - Galore

Date: April 13,2012

400000 600000 800000

2.7.1.5 Determination of the Significance of Residual Effects

 Scientific certainty relative to the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

New Prosperity September 2012

2.7.1.6 Summary of Effects Assessment

 A concise summary of the Project’s beneficial and adverse effects

 A summary of mitigation and compensation measures

 A brief description of any potential residual effects

 A brief description of cumulative effects

 A determination of the significance of residual effects, and

New Prosperity September 2012

2.7.2 Physical and Biological Environment

2.7.2.1 Geology and Geochemistry

CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS PROJECT PROPOSAL

New Prosperity September 2012

PROJECT SETTING AND GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

New Prosperity September 2012

Fish Creek watershed

Final open pit outline