file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mckeagep/My%20Documents/Prosperity/mar/mar%2015/mining%20watch.htm

From: on behalf of Panel Registry [CEAA] Subject: FW: MiningWatch submission to. Prosperity Panel Attachments: MW March 12 Panel Submission.pdf; ATT409392.htm

From: Ramsey Hart [mailto:ramsey@miningwatch.ca] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:37 AM To: Spagnuolo,Colette [CEAA] Subject: MiningWatch submission to. Prosperity Panel Dear Ms. Spagnuolo, Please find attached MiningWatch Canada's latest submission to the Prosperity Panel. I would like to request an opportunity to present to the panel during the general hearings later this month. I would also like to request that our specialists have opportunities to speak during the Social Impacts and Fisheries special topic hearings in April. Joan Kuyek will present during the soci-economic section.We are currently looking for a new contractor to assist us with the aquatic impact issues and would will submit a name to you as soon as possible. I would appreciate confirmation of the above requests and receipt of the attached PDF document. Regards, Ramsey HartCanada Program CoordinatorMiningWatch Canada End Corporate Impunity Legislate AccountabilitySupport Bill C-300 www.miningwatch.ca email: ramsey@miningwatch.catel: 613.569.3439 / fax: 613-569-5138

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mckeagep/My%20Documents/Prosperity/mar/mar%2015/mining%20watch.htm [3/15/2010 3:08:29 PM]

1

Taseko Minesʼ Proposed Gold-Copper Mine and the

Destruction of the Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Watershed

Submission to the Federal Environmental Assessment Panel

March 12, 2010 MiningWatch Canada is a pan-Canadian initiative supported by environmental, social justice, Aboriginal, and labour organisations from across the country. We provide public interest response to the threats to public health, water and air quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and community interests posed by irresponsible mineral policies and practices in Canada and around the world. Over MiningWatch’s ten years of history we have participated in a variety of federal and provincial environmental assessments including the Kemess North Review Panel. We also participate in a number of multi-stakeholder initiatives with federal and provincial governments, and the mining industry. In this submission we will argue that Taseko’s proposal to put an open pit gold-copper mine in the Fish Creek Watershed will have significant environmental impacts, create unacceptable long-term risks to the environment, create un-addressed negative social impacts and liabilities, and contradict stated commitments to charting a new course in aboriginal relations. For these reasons, , we strongly urge the panel to recommend to the Minister of Environment that the project not proceed as proposed. We have reached this conclusion based on our review of the proponent’s EIS, and critiques by independent experts we and others have contracted to evaluate the EIS. MiningWatch contracted technical reviews of social impacts and the fish habitat compensation plan. The latter was previously submitted but is appended here with the review of social impacts for convenience of the panel. Significant Environmental Effects and Un-examined Risks This project, if approved, would generate a number of significant impacts and additional risks to the local and regional environment. Our submission will focus on the negative effects this project would have on local and downstream waters, and the ecosystems they support. We fully appreciate that there will also be impacts to terrestrial wildlife and ecoystems from the hydro corridor and mine site, however, given our limited resources and knowing that others are addressing the important issues of Grizzly and other wildlife habitat we have focussed our view on the water. The fact that this project would have direct impacts on the aquatic life of Fish Creek, Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and Nabas (Little Fish Lake) is undeniable and was confirmed in the BC EAO’s final

2

recommendations. The Tsilhqot’in have clearly expressed the importance of these lakes through their submissions to the panel, through the eloquent film Blue Gold which I expect the panel has or will see, and through their actions of holding ceremonies and community events on the shores of the lakes. The Tsilhqot’in’s traditional knowledge tells us that for a very long time the lakes have served as an important food source, especially so when salmon runs were low. I have watched young children delight and pulling pan-sized fish from the lakes and share them with their families. The significance of the area to the Tsilhqotin, of course goes beyond the fish. The proponent’s EIS documents tell us that the area has been used for 5,500 years for a wide variety of uses (Vol 1: 12-2). Today the remains of pit houses on the island are just one indication of the history that the area holds. Personally, I was dumbfounded with how the EIS dismisses the historical significance of the area, suggestion without any supporting evidence that it may be no more or less unique than other lakes in the region – as if that was justification of destroying it. Of course it is not just the indigenous people who have a connection to this place, many non-native fisherman have also enjoyed the angling and beautiful surroundings of the area and the Taseko Lodge depends on the area for its backcountry operations. Since confederation Canadians have had a law in place to protect our fish and the waters they live in. The Fisheries Act is one of our oldest pieces of legislation – and the countries first environmental legislation. The destruction of Teztan Biny, Nabas and Fish Creek can only be considered legal thanks to a last minute addition to the Act’s regulations for the mining industry that were created in 2002. Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations was added, without the extensive consultation other aspects of the regulations received. It was introduced to reclassify lakes that mining operations had been illegally using as tailing dumps, in order to grandfather them in to compliance. Since 2006, this loophole has been used by mining companies to add new water bodies to Schedule 2 - reclassifying them as Tailings Impoundment Areas and removing the protections of the Act. If this project proceeds, it risks further entrenching this controversial and irresponsible practice. Our concerns regarding the destruction of lakes as tailings dumps were validated by Canadians across the country when the CBC’s the National aired a story on the practice it solicited over 800 comments to the online version of the story1 – the vast majority expressing shock and at times outrage at the practice. In 2007, the Kemess North environmental assessment panel refused Northgate Minerals’ application to destroy Amazay (Duncan Lake) for its tailings impoundment. The panel found that the project, as proposed, was not in the public interest and that “Key adverse effects include the loss of a natural lake with important spiritual values for Aboriginal people, and the creation of a long-term legacy of environmental management obligations at the minesite to protect downstream water quality and public safety.”2 I will discuss long-term legacy issues of Taseko’s proposal in a moment. The proponent uses its proposed fish habitat compensation as a justification for the destruction of the watershed. The Tsilhqot’in and others have rejected the notion that an artificial lake would re-create the spiritual, cultural and ecological values inherent to the existing lakes. The impossibility of re-creating or even compensating for whole lakes was also expressed by DFO Manager J. Johansen in a report on mining, habitat management and compensation in the north: 1 Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites, Terry Milewski. June 2008. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/condemned-lakes.html 2 Kemess North Joint Review Panel Report, September 17, 2007.

3

Consideration of compensation for whole ecosystems is certainly beyond the scope of any assessment process or habitat biologist’s expertise. Even with a very comprehensive habitat inventory and fish utilizations study it would likely be impossible to recreate a lake ecosystem with all of the associated interactions and contributions to the surrounding environment. 3

The concept of compensation as applied by the proponent and by DFO is a very narrow view of complex ecosystems. Not only does it ignore the social and spiritual values of the lake and its immediate area but it ignores all of the ecological services or “natural capital” values that are provided by the streams and lakes above and beyond the provision of fish habitat. Environment Canada has been developing a framework for incorporating the values of ecological goods and services into decision making. According to this framework other factors that should be included in decisions, such as the one before you, include goods such as medicinal plants, timber, drinking water, and of course minerals as well as services such as water storage and flood control; erosion control; recreation and tourism; psychological health; spiritual; educational and heritage4. While the proponent’s EA considers some of these factors there has been no effort to quantify their value in order to compare it with the reported value of the project. Admittedly economic valuation of some of these services is complicated, if not impossible, but there are methods are established for many of them. Those that can not be quantified must still be given adequate consideration. Notwithstanding our concerns for the concept of destroying diverse and healthy lakes and attempting to replace them with an impoundment, MiningWatch contracted Dr. David Levy to review the proponent’s fish habitat compensation plan. He evaluated its technical merits and likelihood of achieving the guiding principle of fish habitat management in Canada “No Net Loss”5. Dr. Levy’s findings are attached in full to this submission. They include his conclusion that that there is little reason to have faith in the success of the compensation plan based on past experience and the inadequacies of the proposed plan. Several studies, and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development have shown that a majority of DFO approved compensation projects are either not effective, or cannot be shown to be effective. These in large part are projects that are substantially less complex than replacing whole lake ecosystems. Regarding the specifics of the proposed “Prosperity Lake” Dr. Levy concludes that due to an overall loss of the most productive habitat – the littoral or near shore zone – there will be a net loss of productive habitat. In order to stand any kind of a chance at achieving no net loss, the compensation lake would have to be 4 to 5 times as large as what is being proposed.

3 Commentary on the Management of Fish Habitat in Northern Canada: Information Requirements and Policy Considerations Regarding Diamond, Oil Sands and Placer Mining. Sc. Samis, I.K. Birtweell and N.Y. Khan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005. 4 Proposed Analytical Framework for Decisions Involving Ecological Goods & Services, presentation by Louis G. Leigh, Environment Canada. Nov 30, 2009.

5 The Department of fisheries and Oceans Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat, 2.2.1 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/habitat/policies-politique/operating-operation/fhm-policy/page03_e.asp#2.2.1

4

The impacts that Taseko’s proposal would have on the upper Fish Creek watershed , Teztan Biny and Nabas are immediately apparent given they will be entirely replaced by the mine footprint. Less certain are the impacts the project could have on downstream waters. Within the EIS the potential for impacts on downstream aquatic communities is consistently minimized or completely ignored. The only recognition of downstream impacts to fish habitat within the EIS is the inevitable reduction of flow to fish creek during the construction and operation phases. (An impact which was not included in the calculation of required compensation.) There is no discussion of toxic effects of the mine sites effluent on downstream aquatic habitats. Ignoring this common issue at most metal mines in Canada is justified by highly questionable assumptions. The first assumption is that the site will operate a closed loop water system with no discharges to the environment. This is the same commitment that Taseko made at its Gibraltar mine, however, it has since had to apply for a permit to discharge mine effluent to the Fraser River. In a review of the proponent’s hydrology modelling Stratus Consulting6 found fundamental flaws in the collection and use of data for the site water balance. Given recent history and the poor quality of the water balance we have little confidence in the assumption that no discharge will occur during operation. Oother assumptions are that the proponent has accurately predicted the water quality from the tailings facility and pit, and that any water quality problems that develop will be fully dealt with through adaptive management. We have little faith in the proponent’s ability to accurately predict the quality of the final effluent coming off the mine site during or after operation. Predicting mine water quality and the potential of acid mine drainage is a challenging an uncertain task when using even the best science. A literature review conducted for the US Fish and Wildlife Service noted “much uncertainty remains in the ability of scientists and engineers to predict the ultimate drainage quality years in the future, as many complex variables influence acid generation and neutralization”. A 2002 article in Southwest Hydrology stated that “Pit lakes are science experiments with largely unknown outcomes, launched into the future for perpetual management by the trustees of the lakes.” 7 Given the inherent uncertainties in predicting the water quality of mine drainage, great care and the best available science should be used when assessing potential environmental impacts. Unfortunately, a review by Dr. Kevin Moran8, found serious deficiencies and fatal flaws in the EIS’s water quality predictions, showing that best practices have not been applied in Taseko’s EIS. A 2007 review of environmental effects monitoring conducted by operating metal mines in Canada found that, on average, the mines have significant negative effects on downstream fish habitat9. Given this result from the industry’s own data we cannot accept the proponents suggestion that adaptive management and following best practices will suffice to address problems with water quality if and when they occur.

6 Comments on the Taseko Mines Ltd. Hydrometeorology Plan for the Proposed Prosperity Copper-Gold Project. Stratus Consulting. Nov. 2009. 7 Dealing with the Legacy of Mine Pit Lakes. Southwest Hydrology. H. Kempton Sept/Oct 2002 8 Prosperity Project – Preliminary Review of Predicted Minesite Water Chemistry and Water Movement in the Environmental Impact Statement / Application. Kevin A. Moran, Minesite Drainage Assessment Group. May 2009. 9 National Assessment of Phase 1 Data from the Metal Mining Environmental Effects Monitoring Program. R.B. Lowell, C. Tessier, S.L. Walker, A. Willsie, M. Bowerman, and D.Gautron. National EEM Office of Environment Canada. Dec. 2007.

5

The sensitivity of aquatic communities to mine drainage is well documented (the aforementioned report for USFWS cites over 60 studies). Downstream of the proposed mine site, Lower Fish Creek and the Taseko River host important species such as Chinook salmon, steelhead and the blue-listed bull trout. When the inherent difficulties of predicting water quality from mine sites is combined with the methodological flaws found in the water balance and water quality predictions identified by independent experts– we must insist that a more thorough review of downstream impacts on fish be conducted. Our concerns about the fish habitat compensation plan and the potential for downstream impacts on sensitive fisheries will be elaborated on in a future submission and presentation during the topic specific hearings to be held in April. Social Impacts and Liabilities The impacts identified above, and others, are justified by the proponent, and accepted by the BCEAO based on the economic potential of the project. The economic picture painted by the EIS is in our view, too narrowly framed and overly optimistic. According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act an EIS must consider the economic and social consequences stemming from environmental effects. This limitation means that many important factors relating to social impacts might not be considered. In the present case, however, the panel has also been asked in its Terms of Reference to provide guidance on the justifiability of the project given a determination of significant environmental impacts. It is not clear what criteria should be used to asses justifiability, but we presume it will largely be based on some form of cost benefit analysis. We recommend that this analysis include sustainability criteria such as those used in the panel reviews for Voisey’s Bay or Kemess North. Much has been made about the potential of the mine to “save” Williams Lake, providing needed jobs and investment for the next thirty or so years. Certainly there will be an increase in jobs in the region however the security, the individuals who will fill the jobs, and the net benefits to the community have not been fully assessed. In the attached submission and during the special topic hearings, Dr. Joan Kuyek will elaborate on our concerns about the unaddressed social impacts that are likely to occur if the project proceeds. Williams Lake and the surrounding area have a rich diversity of natural and human resources on which to draw. There are many opportunities to build on truly sustainable activities based around renewable resources and services that will not have to come at such a high cost to the environment, to the First Nations communities and to the most sensitive populations within he Williams Lake community. Taseko’s proposal should be reviewed in light of the Williams Lake Sustainability Declaration10, which begins:

We are proud to be part of a community as rich in natural amenities, economic opportunities, and social possibilities as Williams Lake, and to be working on behalf of a future in which our economy, environment, society and governance are integrated in

10 City of Williams Lake Sustainability Declaration, Signed by Mayor and Councilors in Nov. 2009 http://www.imagineourfuture.ca/tiny_mce_uploads/Draft_Sustianability_Declaration.pdf

6

ways that foster vibrant communities, strong economies and healthy ecosystems. To that end, we commit ourselves to creating the conditions necessary for a sustainable future. By seeking innovative and flexible solutions to the challenges that confront us, by sharing our knowledge, and by coordinating our actions, we strive to attain the following sustainability principles:

• Reduce our contribution to the progressive build-up of materials (and their associated wastes) that are extracted from the Earth’s Crust

• Reduce our contribution to the progressive build-up of synthetic materials produced by society;

• Reduce our contribution to the ongoing physical degradation of nature; and • Reduce our contribution to conditions that undermine people’s ability to meet

their basic needs.

What About Our New Relationship with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples? The Canadian, British Colombian and Williams Lake governments have all made commitments to finding new positive, mutually beneficial was of relating to the aboriginal communities with whom we share this land. This intention is expressed in a number of public statements such as those below.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Residential School Apology, June 2008. 11 There is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential schools system to ever again prevail.

You have been working on recovering from this experience for a long time and in a very real sense, we are now joining you on this journey.

The government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly. We are sorry……

A cornerstone of the settlement agreement is the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission….

It will be a positive step in forging a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians, a relationship based on the knowledge of our shared history, a respect for each other and a desire to move forward together with a renewed understanding that strong families, strong communities and vibrant cultures and traditions will contribute to a stronger Canada for all of us.

March 2009 Speech from the Throne 12

We are a country with an Aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our

11 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080611/harper_text_080611 12 http://www.speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1388

7

Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.

British Columbia Government: The New Relationship13

We are all here to stay. We agree to a new government-to-government relationship based on respect, recognition and accommodation of aboriginal title and rights. Our shared vision includes respect for our respective laws and responsibilities. Through this new relationship, we commit to reconciliation of Aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdictions. We agree to establish processes and institutions for shared decision-making about the land and resources and for revenue and benefit sharing, recognizing, as has been determined in court decisions, that the right to aboriginal title “in its full form”, including the inherent right for the community to make decisions as to the use of the land and therefore the right to have a political structure for making those decisions, is constitutionally guaranteed by Section 35. These inherent rights flow from First Nations’ historical and sacred relationship with their territories. Williams Lake: Imagine our Future, Partnering with First Nations14 Any and all plans must be generated by the people who call a place home. The ICSP and OCP cannot move forward without embracing our local First Nations' people, particularly the T'exelcemc and Xat'sull bands. Sustainability means that the best possible future is attainable for all people in a community. This process is committed to working with local First Nations on creating a path to a better shared future.

Clearly all these statements call for a respect for the rights, interests and land of aboriginal Canadians. The proposal to put a highly damaging open pit mine in the heart of the Tsilhqot’in nation against their consistent and repeated objections, is a direct affront to the above commitments. The affected nations have submitted overwhelming evidence of their interests to the project area, and of how it could affect them. I think it best to let their words speak for themselves and not try to interpret or summarise their concerns here. The Tsilhqot’in and Secwempec people have had to fight long and hard to maintain their lands and culture. There are opportunities for those of us in the settler cultures to learn from their perseverance, their connection to the land and their desire to maintain a healthy environment for future generations. In order to learn these valuable lessons we must first learn to listen, and we must do all we can to support them in the renaissance of their cultures. When visiting Teztan Biny with members of the Xeni Gwet’in the enthusiasm the members showed for exploring the islands and pit houses was contagious. It gave me great hope that this community will be successful in their efforts to recover from past challenges and find a new path forward. They and other Tsilhqot’in and Secwempec communites have made great strides in improving their chances of

13 http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/newrelationship/down/new_relationship.pdf 14http://www.imagineourfuture.ca/tiny_mce_uploads/documents/Draft_Oct09_Sustianability_Declaration_2_-_REVISED.DOC

8

maintaining their language and cultural practices. Reducing the prevalence of addictions, returning to traditional celebrations, and uniting to defend their territories. What place does the destruction of Teztan Biny have in this process of reconciliation, recovery and celebration of our joint histories and joint future? Clearly the answer is that there is not place for it at all. I urge the panel to recognise the significant impacts and risks to the environment that this proposal will create. I urge you to examine this project in the view of sustainability, social justice and meeting our commitments to finding a new relationship with Canada’s aboriginal communities. This project, while providing jobs and economic stimulus to the region, cannot be justified. The costs are too high. I urge you to recommend to the Minister that the project not proceed.

Review of the Prosperity Mine Aquatic Impact Assessment

Prepared for:

MiningWatch Canada Suite 508, City Centre Building

250 City Centre Avenue Ottawa, Ontario

K1R 6K7

Prepared by:

Dr. David A. Levy, R.P.Bio. Levy Research Services Ltd.

315 Lonsdale Ave. North Vancouver, B.C.

V7M 2G3

November, 2009

i

Executive Summary The application by Taseko Mines Ltd. to develop the Prosperity Project would severely affect fisheries and aquatic habitats in the Fish Creek watershed. A Tailings Disposal Facility and the mine pit would eliminate Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake in Upper Fish Creek and stream habitats in Middle Fish Creek. An artificial lake, Prosperity Lake, is proposed as compensation for the elimination of Fish Lake. This compensation proposal is inadequate and does not account for differences in littoral habitat area between Fish and Prosperity Lakes, time lags in artificial lake functionality, inherently lower trout production in Prosperity Lake and predicted reduction in Prosperity Lake productivity over time. When these factors are considered, the compensation ratio (compensation habitat: affected habitat) is 0.23:1, suggesting that Prosperity Lake would need to be 4-5 times larger than proposed to meet the “no net loss” principle of the DFO Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. Further, the Fisheries Compensation Plan does not address the loss of rainbow trout stream habitats in Middle Fish Creek.

ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................1

2. Aquatic Habitat Alterations................................................................................2

3. Fisheries and Aquatic Impact Assessment .......................................................5 Hydrology ...................................................................................................5 Water Quality .............................................................................................6 Fisheries.....................................................................................................7

4. Fisheries Compensation Proposal ..................................................................10

5. Effectiveness of Fisheries Habitat Compensation in Canada .........................13 6. Critique of the Prosperity Fisheries Compensation Proposal ..........................15

7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................20

8. References .....................................................................................................21

Page

1

1. Introduction

MiningWatch Canada has a mandate to ensure that mining ventures in Canada and elsewhere are carried out responsibly and in the best public interest. The organization scrutinizes new projects to ensure that relevant environmental regulations are enforced and that projects are designed with minimal environmental impacts. MiningWatch is presently evaluating the Prosperity Project that has been proposed by Taseko Mines Ltd. as a copper-gold mine located 125 km from Williams Lake, BC. The proposed project will be subject to public review in 2009 under a harmonized Federal/Provincial environmental review process. The Prosperity Project, if pursued, would profoundly alter aquatic ecosystems in the vicinity of the project. A Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) would be created that would inundate Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake. An artificial lake, Prosperity Lake, would be constructed along the southern margin of the TSF to compensate for rainbow trout habitat losses. Flows from the Fish Creek watershed would be diverted into Prosperity Lake and from there downstream into Wasp Lake, Beece Creek and the Taseko River. Middle Fish Creek stream habitats would be permanently lost and replaced by the TSF and the mining pit. The compensation plans that address these impacts must satisfy the DFO No Net Loss criteria and provide assurance that fish habitats will be successfully compensated. This report was prepared for MiningWatch to review the aquatic components of the Prosperity Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that deal specifically with immediate impacts at the mine site. Downstream impacts, particularly in regards water quality impacts related to acid rock drainage and metal leaching, are also highly relevant for fisheries impact assessment and are being addressed by other investigators. Sections of the EIS that were analyzed include chapters and appendices related to the Project Description, the Physical and Biotic Environments, and the Fisheries Compensation Plan. The report begins with a description of the proposed aquatic habitat alterations and then considers the fisheries and aquatic impact assessment. Next, the proposed Fisheries Compensation Plan is summarized. Canadian experience with the implementation of fisheries compensation is reviewed in reference to reports authored by DFO habitat managers. The report concludes with a critique of the proposed Fisheries Compensation Plan.

2

2. Aquatic Habitat Alterations The proposed project would involve the re-routing of surface flows and the impoundment of Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake aquatic habitats (Figure 1) to form a Tailings Storage Facility (TSF). Prosperity Lake would be situated to the east of Wasp Lake and south of the TSF and would be constructed by building a water retention dam and filled via a 10.8 km headwater channel and spring snowmelt runoff.

Figure 1. Aquatic habitats in, and adjacent to, the Fish Creek watershed. A system of headwater channels would be constructed along the eastern side of the site in the Upper Fish Creek watershed. The headwater channel system would consist of both south and north flowing channels. The north flowing channel would connect with Lower Fish Creek to maintain partial flow in the lower watershed. These flows would represent 35% of present flows. The south flowing channel would connect to a Headwater Channel Retention Pond (Figure 2) southeast of Prosperity Lake. This water would be regulated and diverted into Prosperity Lake via an engineered spawning channel. From Prosperity Lake, the water would flow into Wasp Lake and from there to Beece Creek over the life of the operation. Post-closure, the water from Prosperity Lake would be diverted to the TSF and then to the open pit (Figure 3). Once the open pit filled (up to 27 years post-closure) water flows would be re-established to Lower Fish Creek.

Fish Lake

Pit

Little Fish Lake

Upper Fish Creek

Lower Fish Creek

Wasp Lake

Taseko River

Fish Creek Watershed

3

Figure 2. Prosperity Lake water inflows and outflows during operations.

Prosperity Lake

TSF Lake

Wasp Lake

Headwater Channel

Headwater Channel Retention Pond

4

Figure 2. Reclamation plan layout and longitudinal section at post-closure abandonment.

TSF Lake

Prosperity Lake

Pit Lake

5

3. Fisheries and Aquatic Impact Assessment

Hydrology Fish Creek and its tributaries are characterized by high spring flows due to snowmelt and rainfall combined with snowmelt. Low flows occur in late summer/early fall and winter. Most smaller creeks are frozen over for extended periods during the winter. Project-related water diversions would permanently alter the baseline hydrology of the Fish Creek watershed. These changes include the complete removal of Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake. There would be an estimated 65% decrease in surface water streamflow during the operating period in the Fish Creek watershed, following a 72% decrease in watershed area. The annual flow into Lower Fish Creek would be 1.25 Mm3 over the life of the mine. After closure, flows would be re-routed from Prosperity Lake into TSF Lake and from there to Pit Lake. After Pit Lake has filled, baseline flow conditions would be re-established in Lower Fish Creek. In Beece Creek, there would be an increase in streamflow during operations (3.8%), reflecting a 14% increase in watershed area. After closure the proponent predicts that there would be a small decrease in watershed area (-1.4%) and only minor streamflow changes from baseline. A Headwater Channel of 10.8 km (Figure 2) would be designed to have bi-directional flow capability and would direct water either north into Lower Fish Creek, or south into Prosperity and Wasp Lakes. About 2.3 Mm3 per year would be directed into Prosperity Lake. An Optional Diversion Channel would allow the mine to divert water either north or south, depending on operational requirements. The Headwater Channel would reduce the Fish Creek catchment area by up to 29 km2, about one third of the entire Fish Creek drainage (94.1 km2). Proposed mitigation measures for effects on hydrology include:

• Water diversion channel that during operations diverts 1.25 Mm3

annually to Lower Fish Creek;

• Restoration of flows in Lower Fish Creek post closure. This would be undertaken by constructing a spillway in the Main Embankment crest of the TSF to allow the TSF supernatant pond to overflow and contribute to the surface water runoff to Lower Fish Creek via the open pit.

The EIS concludes that, with the proposed mitigation measures, the effect of the Project on Fish Creek surface water hydrology, and groundwater quantity is predicted to be adverse until the post-closure period when flows are re-established in Lower Fish Creek. This flow re-establishment would involve a time lag of up to 27 years as the pit fills up and reaches full pool.

6

Water Quality Water quality parameters in Prosperity Lake were addressed via modeling, with parameter values compared to sampling site “W1” upstream of Fish Lake, several adjacent lakes (Wasp, Fish, Little Fish, Slim and Vick), and BC as well as Canadian water quality guidelines. The following parameters were evaluated:

• Total dissolved solids • pH • Hardness • Overwintering dissolve oxygen • Chloride • Fluoride • Sulphate • Nitrate • Nitrite • Ammonia • Phosphorus • Nitrogen to phosphorus ratio • 27 different metals in their total and dissolved forms

All metals were predicted to be below their respective guideline with the exception of total and dissolved iron and total cadmium. Total iron was well above the water quality guidelines, and the high concentration was attributed to the fact that iron is naturally present in high concentrations in the Fish Lake watershed. Likewise total cadmium was predicted to be elevated above water quality guidelines. Nevertheless the predicted concentration was 3.1 times lower than the “lowest observed effect level” for Daphnia magna, reducing concern about cadmium toxicity for rainbow trout. A mercury model was used to predict mercury levels in rainbow trout following Prosperity Lake impoundment and potential mercury mobilization during Prosperity Lake creation. The model suggested that mercury levels in Prosperity Lake would be similar to those presently existing in Fish Lake. Prosperity Lake fish were predicted to be safe for consumption by humans and wildlife. The water quality assessment predicted insignificant effects from post-closure diversions into Fish Creek, Wasp Lake and Beece Creek, and from TSF seepage water either directly to the Taskeo River or moving with groundwater to Big Onion Lake. Post-closure discharge of pit water was predicted to result in moderate magnitude water quality changes in lower Fish Creek and low magnitude changes in the Taseko River downstream. The need for treatment of this contaminated water would be assessed via monitoring programs during operations and the 27 years of pit filling during closure. The EIS states that current technologies are capable of achieving the necessary load reductions to meet water quality guidelines.

7

Fisheries The majority of the Local Study Area (brown line on Figure 3) is comprised of the Fish Lake watershed which contains a monoculture population of rainbow trout with about 85,000 resident in Fish Lake and 5,000 in Little Fish Lake. The trout utilize about 6.4 km of associated inlet and outlet streams for spawning and seasonal juvenile rearing. Annual angler fishing effort, measured as part of the environmental assessment, ranged from 388 to 548 angler-days with a total annual harvest of 4100 – 4900 rainbow trout ranging in size from 20 to 34 cm. Fisheries assessment indicated that the Fish Lake rainbow trout population consisted of 36,000 juveniles, 22,000 sub-adults, and 27,000 adults. During the development of the project, BC MOE agreed with Taseko that the estimated upper limit for the Fish Lake trout population of 85,000 would suffice for fisheries compensation planning purposes. In the Upper and Middle Fish Creek stream habitat, rainbow trout were roughly estimated as 74,000 fish, the majority of which (96%) are young-of-the-year (age 0+ years). Ages 2+ and 3+ rainbow trout were most abundant in mainstem Reach 5 (Figure 3). Collectively, Reaches 5 and 6 supported the majority (75%) of rainbow trout stream production in the Fish Creek watershed. The total Fish Lake and Fish Creek rainbow trout population was estimated at 165,000 individuals, of which 85,000 resided in Fish Lake and 80,000 resided in Fish Creek. The Fish Lake population consisted of age classes 0+ to 6+ fish. Based on the: 1) Fish Lake population estimate, 2) mean fish weight by life-stage (juvenile, sub-adult and adult fish), and 3) Fish Lake surface area, rainbow production in Fish Lake was estimated at 24.1 kg/ha/y. Fish and fish habitat conditions along the Taseko Lake and 4500 Road, as well as the 2.8 km mine access road, were evaluated during a survey of road stream crossing sites between July 16-21, 2006. A total of 64 sites were assessed. Proposed construction activities, including dewatering of Fish Lake, starter dam construction and water diversion around the Project site would result in fish habitat destruction via the loss of Fish Lake and the eventual inundation of Little Fish Lake. Reduction of downstream flows together with the loss of mainstem, tributary and riparian habitats would adversely affect rainbow trout populations in Fish Creek. The main fisheries impacts of concern include:

• Elimination of Fish and Little Fish Lakes as a result of mine construction activities;

• Loss or alteration of in-stream habitat in Fish Creek as a result of mine operations water management;

• Elimination of First Nations fish harvesting opportunities in Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake;

• Elimination of Fish Lake recreational angling opportunities.

8

Figure 3. Fish sampling reaches 1-10 in the Fish Creek Watershed.

The main fisheries impacts are associated with water flow diversions, physical disturbance of fish habitats, site clearing and preparation for project development. The impacts of the Project on rainbow trout in-stream habitat in middle and upper Fish Creek would be greatest during the pre-construction and construction phases. Project activities associated with pre-construction, construction and operation phases, including Fish Lake dewatering, TSF starter dam construction and water

1

23

4

5

67

8

9 10

Fish Lake

Wasp Lake

Little Fish Lake

9

diversion, would be expected to eliminate flows and rainbow trout habitat. Collectively, mine facilities and operation, and the headwater diversion channel would create a closed mine site which would restrict the local flow of water, thereby eliminating a large proportion of stream and lake fish habitat in the Middle and Upper Fish Creek watershed. Of the 47,600 m2 of fish-bearing in-stream habitat that would be affected in Fish Creek, 34,800 m2 (73%) would be permanently lost when portions of Reach 5, all of Reaches 6 and 8, and 2 Fish Lake tributaries become part of the Tailings Storage Facility or Pit after closure. Thus, a total of 34,800 m2 of fish-bearing and 53,400 m2 of non fish-bearing habitat would be permanently lost as part of Project activities. This amount includes 9,160 m2 of spawning habitat and 29,100 m2 of fish-bearing habitat during the critical low flow period. These habitat alterations would occur during the life of the mine as a result of upstream water diversion and Project dewatering activities. An estimate of Fish Lake productive capacity showed that Fish Lake had higher than average productivity (TDS 130 mg/l), capable of supporting a substantial standing crop of trout (85,000 fish, approximately 700 fish/ha). Stream habitats in the Fish Lake system are also productive. Stream habitats below Fish Lake, and above the falls (Reaches 4-6 on Figure 3), were estimated by BC MOE to produce 18,000+ one year old rainbow trout or equivalents.

10

4. Fisheries Compensation Proposal The overall goal of fisheries compensation is to provide lake and stream habitats of similar or better productive capacity for trout as provided by the Fish Lake system now, and a trout fishery of at least similar character to what is supported by Fish Lake under current conditions. BC MOE requires that the compensation measures be effective for at least the period of time that the fishery is eliminated due to mining activities or that replacement habitat is not fully functional to support a fishery. The rationale for constructing Prosperity Lake is to re-establish a lake and stream ecosystem to replace the Fish Lake complex (like-for-like under the habitat policy). Proposed compensation for the loss of Fish Lake would be accomplished via creation of Prosperity Lake and the Headwater Channel Retention Pond (HCRP -Figure 4).The HCRP would be non fish-bearing, but is predicted to contribute nutrients and organic materials to downstream fish habitats. Prosperity Lake would be a 113 ha water body formed upslope of the south embankment of the Tailings Storage Facility (Figure 4). Six existing rainbow trout lake creation projects constructed in the end pits of coal mines in Alberta (Hartman and Miles 2001) are considerably smaller than the proposed Prosperity Lake, covering areas between 6-16 ha. Prosperity Lake would consist of 49 ha of shoal habitat and 64 ha of pelagic area: 43% shoal and 57% pelagic. The shoal habitat (also called littoral area) is defined as the area between the lake outline and the 6 m (20 foot) contour lines. Approximately 2 km of inlet stream would be complexed to provide spawning habitat for about 50 pairs of rainbow trout and summer rearing habitat for approximately 30,000 fry (Figure 4). Instream and lake habitats would be designed to support a managed population of 20,000-25,000 fish in Prosperity Lake. The lake is predicted to have a rainbow trout productivity level of approximately 15 kg/ha/y, based on the results of the Primary Productivity model in the EIS. Prosperity Lake would replace 49 ha or about 54% of the affected Fish and Little Fish lakes littoral habitats (90.1 ha) and 64 ha (a greater than twofold increase) of the affected pelagic habitats. The fish compensation plan states:

“Although there will be a decrease in shoal habitat, Prosperity Lake will have sufficient shoal areas and water quality to support the target fish population to maintain the genetic composition of rainbow trout from the upper watershed.”

There are time lags involved in proposed compensation project development. The proponent states that a temporal reduction in fish productivity from one to four years is predicted to occur as design capacity is reached in the various compensation elements. It would take at least 2 years to fill Prosperity Lake after land clearing activities have been completed. Prior to the first freshet, the area

11

Figure 4. Upper: Location of engineered spawning channel that would inflow into Prosperity Lake. Lower: Spawning channel details.

Headwater Channel Retention Pond

Prosperity Lake

Wasp Lake

12

that would be flooded by about 50% of the volume of the lake would be stripped of vegetation and soil. Prior to the second freshet, the full area to be flooded by Prosperity Lake would be stripped of vegetation and soil. There would be a further time lag of about 4 years between stocking of rainbow fry, and their recruitment to the fishery at age 4+. During year one, several candidate lakes in the Chilcotin would be stocked with mature and immature rainbow trout salvaged from Fish and Little Fish lakes and in-stream habitats. The fish would be salvaged prior to lake dewatering activities during the pre-construction period. Fish culture activities are proposed as an important component of the proposed compensation plan to maintain the genetic integrity of Fish Lake rainbow trout. The BC MOE Hanceville Hatchery was identified as one of several possible sites for rainbow hatchery production. Rainbow hatchery fry additions into Prosperity Lake would be required until such time as monitoring demonstrated that the constructed lake and the associated spawning channel provides a suitable replacement fishery for Fish Lake. A letter from Dr. Eric Taylor, UBC to Dr. Tom Watson, Triton on June 27, 2008 provides the results of DNA testing of Fish Lake rainbow trout and comparison with 54 other populations. Fish Lake rainbow trout are not genetically distinctive within the context of a large number of BC populations. They are considered “typical” in terms of their close phylogenetic affinity to other interior BC populations. In addition to hatchery outplants to Prosperity Lake, back-up gene pools of Fish Lake rainbows would also be maintained via annual outplants to Slim, Blue and Koster Lakes and Lake 6267 at an individual lake size of about 3000 fish. The EIS draws the following overall conclusions about the fish compensation plan:

“However, as environmental effects will be mitigated or compensated for, there will be no adverse combined environmental effects of the Project on rainbow trout or habitat in middle and upper Fish Creek…In general, the Project effects after implementation of the Compensation Plan will result in an increase of lake habitat within the Fish Creek watershed, and a decrease of stream habitat.”

This conclusion is further evaluated in Section 6.

13

5. Effectiveness of Fisheries Habitat Compensation in Canada

Since the release of the DFO Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat in 1986, there have been many hundreds of fisheries compensation projects in Canada and there is a large amount of experience with policy implementation. This section of the report considers several studies which have retrospectively analyzed the successes and failures of the DFO policy. The BC MOE fisheries program goal - to conserve wild fish and their habitat - includes protection, maintenance and restoration management activities. Those activities related to fish stocks are classed as mitigation, and those associated with habitat restoration or enhancement are classed as compensation. The DFO Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat is a cornerstone for salmon habitat protection in Canada, and is a major driver during the environmental assessment of mining projects and other industrial developments. The “No Net Loss” (NNL) principle guides the policy and seeks to balance unavoidable habitat losses with habitat replacement in order to prevent reductions to Canada's fisheries resources. One of the metrics under this principle is “productive capacity” which has been defined by DFO as:

“The maximum natural capability of habitats to produce healthy fish, safe for human consumption, or to support or produce aquatic organisms upon which fish depend.”

Evaluations of net gain or net loss in productive capacity are central to the evaluation of the acceptability of a project. Where projects have adverse impacts on productive capacity, proponents are required to undertake mitigation to alleviate such impacts. Mitigation has been defined by DFO as actions taken during the planning, design, construction and operation of works to compensate for potential adverse effects on the productive capacity of fish habitats. Fisheries mitigation procedures are integral components of mining projects that identify, design and construct compensation projects to meet NNL criteria. Retrospective studies have been carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of Canadian fish habitat compensation projects in achieving the conservation goal of no net loss of productive capacity. Harper and Quigley (2005A) evaluated 103 projects and found that only 64% of the projects were determined to have achieved NNL. In another study, determinations of NNL could only be made for 17 out of 84 HADD (harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat) authorizations as a result of poor proponent compliance with monitoring requirements (Harper and Quigley 2005B). At 16 habitat compensation sites where habitat productivity was measured, 63% of the projects resulted in net losses in habitat productivity (Quigley and Harper 2006). These projects were characterized by mean compensation ratios of 0.7:1, indicating a failure to achieve NNL. Increasing compensation ratio requirements to 2:1 was insufficient to achieve NNL for all projects, suggesting that the ability to replicate ecosystem

14

function is clearly limited. Where there is a time lag between development activities and compensation actions, it is necessary to increase compensation ratios to account for the time lags. Delaying compensation actions while incurring losses early in a project increases the levels of compensation required. In these circumstances, compensation ratio values of 2:1 or higher may be necessary to ensure the achievement of NNL (Minns 2006). It is evident that Canada has had a mixed track record with achieving NNL. It cannot be assumed that mining project mitigation and compensation projects will function as designed. To be conservative, it is necessary to apply a compensation ratio of 2:1 (minimum) and where practical, to develop compensation projects in advance of mining activities. Post-project effectiveness surveys are also required at regular intervals after project completion to ensure that mitigation projects are fully functional. Where they do not, then alternate approaches will be required. In view of the uncertainty of many fisheries mitigation projects to achieve NNL, contingency plans are required to predetermine responses to mitigation projects which don’t function as intended.

15

6. Critique of the Prosperity Fisheries Compensation Proposal This section of the report provides a critical analysis of the proposed fisheries compensation plan. In particular, it evaluates the following statements in the EIS:

“In regards to the productive capacity in the Fish Lake system, the plan provides for on-site like for like compensation of lake habitat with the development of Prosperity Lake, the Headwater Channel and the Headwater Channel Retention Pond. In general, the project effects after implementation of the Compensation Plan will result in an increase of lake habitat within the Fish Creek watershed, and a decrease in stream habitat. After closure, the policy objective of net gain will be met….”

From a fisheries perspective, there are a number of reasons why Prosperity Lake does not adequately compensate for the loss of Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake. They include:

• Inadequate compensation for littoral habitats; • No compensation to account for time lags in artificial lake functionality; • Inherently lower trout production in Prosperity Lake; and • Predicted reduction in Prosperity Lake productivity over time.

The critique also considers the uncompensated net decrease in stream habitat in Middle and Upper Fish Creek as a consequence of project activities. Inadequate compensation for littoral habitats Much higher aquatic productivity occurs in littoral (also called shoal) habitats in lakes than pelagic habitats. This occurs because of the growth of rooted aquatic plants and associated periphyton (algae that grows on plants and the bottom), tight nutrient and organic carbon recycling and strong light penetration. Rainbow trout productivity is higher in littoral habitats, reflecting the higher biological production, compared to the pelagic zone. These differences are reflected by the BC MOE Small Lake Stocking Model that is referenced in the EIS:

“Shoal area is considered to be ten times more productive than deep water areas in terms of carrying capacity for fish stocking.”

During the environmental review for the Kemess Project, DFO suggested the use of a compensation ratio (compensation area:impacted area) for littoral areas of 2:1 to reflect the higher productivity of littoral areas of Amazay Lake. Comparison of littoral habitat areas in Prosperity and Fish/Little Fish Lakes (Table 1) shows that Prosperity is relatively deeper lake than Fish, and has more of its area as pelagic habitat. Fish and Prosperity Lakes are comprised of 77% and 43% littoral habitat respectively.

16

Table 1. Comparison of Fish Lake/Little Fish Lake and Prosperity Lake littoral areas and rainbow trout productivity. Parameter Impacted Compensation Fish

Lake Little Fish Lake

Total Prosperity Lake

Lake Area (ha) 111 6.6 117.6 113 Littoral Area (ha) 83.5 6.6 90.1 49 Pelagic Area (ha) 27.5 - 27.5 64 % littoral 75% 100% 77% 43% Rainbow Trout Population 85,000 5,000 90,000 20,000 – 25,000

(managed population) Spawning and Rearing Habitat (km) 6.4 6.4 2

(spawning channel) Fish Production (kg/ha/yr) 24.1 24.1 24.1 15 (primary

productivity model) Fish Production (kg/yr) 2675 159 2834 1695

The EIS states:

“There has been a deliberate decision to construct Prosperity Lake with less shoal habitat than Fish Lake so as to influence a change in fish size distribution. The deeper waters of Prosperity Lake combined with a lesser proportion of spawning habitat are expected to produce larger fish. While overall fish biomass per unit area is predicted to be less in Prosperity Lake than Fish Lake, the trout population is anticipated to produce a better angling experience and facilitate achieving regional objectives for fisheries enhancement.”

The predicted outcome of larger fish in the deeper waters of Prosperity Lake is questionable. Prosperity Lake is proposed as a monoculture population of rainbow trout and there would be no forage fish available in the pelagic zone to promote faster fish growth. Rainbow trout production in Prosperity Lake would more likely depend on littoral zone habitat capacity which is greatly reduced compared to Fish/Little Fish Lake. To evaluate the relative productivity of the 2 lakes, Lake Production Units (LPUs) were assigned a value of 2/ha for littoral areas and 1/ha for pelagic areas. Fish/Little Fish and Prosperity Lakes have values of 208 LPUs and 162 LPUs respectively. This reflects a compensation ratio of 0.78:1, leaving out other considerations.

17

No compensation to account for time lags in artificial lake functionality There are a number of time lags involved before Prosperity Lake would equilibrate and function as rainbow trout habitat. Shoreline vegetation stripping and land clearing will take place over 2 years, with the lake reaching full pool after 2 years of runoff. Thereafter stocking of juvenile rainbow from a fish culture facility would commence. There would also be an unknown time lag as the littoral zone aquatic community develops over a number of years. The hatchery fish would likely recruit into the fishery at Age 4, reflecting a 3-year fish growth time lag. Between lake construction, filling, littoral zone development and growth of hatchery fry there would be a minimum time lag of 6 years before Prosperity Lake functionality was fully established. The compensation ratios needed to offset timing effects of losses and gains to achieve no net loss of productive capacity of fish habitat were evaluated by Minns (2006). As reviewed on page 14, compensation ratios of 2:1 or higher may be necessary to ensure attainment of NNL when time lags occur. Inherently lower trout production in Prosperity Lake Lower trout production in Prosperity Lake, compared to Fish Lake, is documented in the EIS. Table 1 indicates lower production rates in Prosperity compared to Fish, 15 vs. 24.1 kg/ha/y respectively. On an annual basis, Fish/Little Fish produces 2834 kg rainbow trout/y compared to predicted production in Prosperity of 1695 kg/y. This is a ratio of 0.6: 1. There would also be differences in rainbow trout population size (Table 1). Fish and Little Fish Lakes support 90,000 trout (all age classes) whereas the managed rainbow population in Prosperity would number 20,000 – 25,000. There would also be large discrepancies in rainbow trout spawning and rearing habitat: 6.4 km adjacent to Fish Lake compared to 2 km in the proposed spawning channel adjacent to Prosperity Lake. Predicted reduction in Prosperity Lake productivity over time Although Prosperity Lake is considered a “lake” it is actually a reservoir according to the following definition:

“A natural or artificial pond or lake used for the storage and regulation of water.”

Experience has shown that reservoir productivity fluctuates over time. Following the creation of a reservoir there is a 5-year duration “trophic upsurge” due to land-based nutrient contributions creating a boom phase when productivity is

18

high. After about 5 years, the reservoir goes into a transition phase which is then followed by a bust phase and eventually a post-phase where nutrients, productivity, and fish production are very low (Figure 5).

Figure 5. A schematic production time series for a north temperate reservoir following impoundment. Source: Stockner et al. (2000). If/when Prosperity Lake is constructed, it will likely become meso-eutrophic (i.e. moderately productive) in the short-term (1-5 years post-impoundment). Thereafter productivity will decrease down to potentially low levels. It is difficult to predict the magnitude of the productivity decrease, making it challenging to specify the lake habitat compensation implications. Nevertheless, this effect necessitates a conservative approach to habitat compensation planning. Stream habitat decreases A total of 73% (34,800 m2) of fish-bearing in-stream habitat in Fish Creek will be permanently lost when portions of Reach 5, all of Reaches 6 and 8, and 2 Fish Lake tributaries (Figure 3) become part of the Tailings Storage Facility or Pit. Reaches 5 and 6 are the most productive stream habitats for rainbow trout in the Fish Lake watershed, accounting for about 75% of the population. The EIS does not propose compensation to offset stream habitat loss in the productive Middle and Upper Reaches of the Fish Creek Watershed. This is inconsistent with the NNL principle of the DFO Habitat Management Policy.

19

Following closure, the Pit would fill up over a 27 year period and flows would be re-established to Lower Fish Creek. However this flow re-establishment would not benefit Middle and Upper Fish Creek which would be transformed irreversibly into TSF Lake and Pit Lake. This filling period for the Pit after closure also introduces another time lag during which adverse effects due to flow reduction would continue to occur in Lower Fish Creek.

20

7. Conclusions Table 2 summarizes the relative impact of the above fisheries considerations on habitat compensation ratios. Where there is uncertainty i.e. reduced productivity over time, the factor is removed from the comparison. The comparison suggests that the compensation ratio for the proposed lake component of the project would be 0.23: 1. These values represent the product of the columns in Table 2. This implies that a compensation lake for Fish Lake would need to be 4-5 times larger than the proposed Prosperity Lake to achieve NNL. Table 2. Effect of different biological production elements on compensation ratios represented by Prosperity Lake.

Prosperity Lake Fish LakeLittoral habitat compensation 0.78 1 Time lags 0.5 1 Rainbow trout production 0.6 1 Reduced biological productivity over time ? 1 Combined 0.23 1

The stream habitats in Middle and Upper Fish Creek would be permanently destroyed by the mine development. They represent a net loss to the ecosystem and compensation strategies are not included in the EIS. Habitat losses include 34,800 m2 of fish-bearing habitat encompassing Reaches 5 and 6 which are the most productive stream habitats for Fish Creek rainbow trout, accounting for about 75% of rainbow trout population in Lower and Middle Fish Creek. The precautionary principle is an approach to uncertainty, and provides for action to avoid serious or irreversible environmental harm in advance of scientific certainty of such harm (Cooney 2004). This principle needs to be adopted as a key feature of decision-making around the Prosperity Mine and its impacts on fish habitats adjacent to the proposed mine site and downstream in the Taseko and Chilko Rivers.

21

8. References Cooney, R. 2004. The Precautionary Principle in Biodiversity Conservation and

Natural Resource Management: An issues paper for policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. IUCN, Gland http://www.bitsandbytes.ca/resources/PrecautionaryPrincipleissuespaper.pdf

Harper, D.J. and J.T. Quigley. 2005A. A comparison of the areal extent of fish

habitat gains and losses associated with selected compensation projects in Canada. Fisheries 30: 18-25.

Harper, D.J. and J.T. Quigley. 2005B. No net loss of fish habitat: a review and

analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Env. Mgmt. 36: 343-355. Hartman, G. and M. Miles. 2001. Assessment of techniques for rainbow trout

transplanting and habitat management in British Columbia. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2562.

Quigley, J.T. and D.J. Harper. 2006. Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation

in Canada in achieving no net loss. Env. Mgmt. 37: 351-366. Isaac, S. 2005. Protecting fish/protecting mines. What is the real job of the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. MiningWatch Canada. 25p. Minns, C.K. 2006. Compensation ratios needed to offset timing effects of losses

and gains and achieve no net loss of productive capacity of fish habitat. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 1172-1182.

Stockner, J.G., E. Rydin and P. Hyenstrand. 2000. Cultural oligotrophication:

causes and consequences for fisheries resources. Fisheries 25: 7-14.

1

1

CommentsofMiningWatchCanadaontheSocio‐EconomicEffectsoftheProsperityMine

PreparedbyJoanKuyek,D.S.W.

March5,2010

Executive Summary

Thesocio‐economicandenvironmentalimpactsoftheProsperityMinewillfalloverwhelminglyontheTsilhqot’inandtheSecwepemcNations:theysayitwilldestroytheirculture.Thebeneficiariesdonotlivewithintheenvironmentalfootprintofthemine,buttheywillprofitfromit.Thebenefits,almostentirelyeconomic,willaccruetoTasekoanditsmajorshareholders,inminingtaxestotheprovincialgovernmentandtothelocalworkerswhofindemploymentatthemine.Itisunlikelythattheminewillgeneratemuchinfederalandprovincialincometaxes,municipalrevenuesornewemployment.Thisisamarginalmineandmayfaceprotractedshut‐downifcopperorgoldpricesdecline,theexchangeratevariesfromcompanyprojections,orfuelcostssoar.Atmineclosure,itwillallbeover.

ThePanelmustcommissionitsownreviewofTaseko’sclaimsaboutminebenefits.

Thesituationisstarkandfamiliar;itismoderncolonialism:taketheresourcesfromindigenousterritoryagainsttheirwillforthepotentialbenefitofthesettlersociety.

TherearealreadymanyinitiativesintheCariboo‐ChilcotinwhichprovideopportunitiesforCommunityEconomicDevelopment–sustainabledevelopmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwhilebuildingopportunitiesandwell‐beingforfuturegenerations.ThereisnoreasontosacrificetheinterestsoftheTsilhqot’inandtheSecwepemcforthismine.Withgovernmentinvestment,amuchmorediverseandhealthyeconomycanbebuiltbythecitizensoftheCariboo‐ChilcotinRegionworkingtogether.

Withencouragementtotheexistingwidevarietyofrenewableenergyprojects,horselogging,woodfibreinitiatives,sustainableagriculture,specialtyranchingandfoodactivities,andtheartsandheritagesector,therequiredjobsandlivelihoodscanbecreated;someofthesearelistedinthisreport.Theirrealizationismadedifficultwhenlocalandprovincialattentionisfocusedongettingasinglehigh‐wageemployertosolvetheregion’sproblems.

TheCEAAgivestheMinisterreasonablediscretiontopermitaminewithsignificantenvironmentaleffectsifitis“justifiedunderthecircumstances”.ThePanelisinstructedtoprovideinformationwithrespecttothe‘justifiability”oftheproject.Sincejustificationisusuallyforsocio‐economicorpoliticalreasons,thisinstructionconsiderablywidenstheambitofthefederalreview.Wetakethepositionthatthisanalysisrequiresanevaluationoftheprojectthroughthelensofsustainabledevelopment.WesuggestthatthecriteriatoassesssustainabilitydevelopedbytheKemessNorthPanelbeusedtodothis.

2

2

ThePanelappearstohaveachoiceofscopingthe“justifiability”informationnarrowlyorbroadly,butthechoiceofthestudyareahastobeconsistent.MiningWatchCanadatakesthepositionthatjusticerequiresthattheLocalStudyAreaforthesocio‐economiccostbenefitanalysisofthemineshouldberestrictedtotheenvironmentalfootprintofthemine.

EvenforthelargerCariboo‐Chilcotinregion,thesocio‐economicanalysispresentedbytheCompanyintheEISpresentsabiasedandinaccuratepictureofthemine’seconomicbenefits,anddoesnotconsidereffectsonvulnerablepopulations‐bothindigenousandnon‐indigenous‐,theabilityofhealthandsocialservicestocopewithimpacts,andahostofotherconsiderations.Ouranalysisindicatesthattheseeffectswillbesubstantial,notonlyontheFirstNations,butalsofornon‐indigenouspeoplesinWilliamsLakeandtherestoftheregion.Intheeventoflengthyshutdownsandpost‐closure,becausetheminewillhavecreatedaseriousdependencyproblem,adetailedplanandfollow‐upmeasurestocopewithitslossmustbeinplacenow.

ContentsExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................................................1

Contents...........................................................................................................................................................2

A.WhichSocio‐EconomicEffectsareadmissable? ......................................................................................3

B.Thescopeofanalysisfor“informationrequiredwithrespecttojustifiability”mustbeconsistent....4

C.Howshouldsocio‐economicimpactsbeanalyzedandevaluatedinthisReview?................................5

D.Theprincipleofsustainabledevelopmentasabasisforassessing“justifiability”................................6

E.Whatarethecomponentsofaproperanalysisoftheproposedmine’scontributiontosustainabledevelopment? .................................................................................................................................................7

1.Acomprehensivecost‐benefitanalysisofthemine’seffectsonsustainabledevelopment. ...........7

4.Priorinformedconsentofthemostaffectedpopulation....................................................................8

3.Anindependentanalysis–commissionedbythePanel‐ofthelong‐termviabilityofthemine, ..9

4.Assurancethattheregion(ortheenvironmentally‐affectedarea)willhavethecapacitytocopewiththeimpactsofthemineonthepopulation....................................................................................10

5.AHumanHealthEcologicalRiskAssessment(HHERA)thataddressestheWHODeterminantsofHealth.........................................................................................................................................................13

6.Developmentofanappropriatefollow‐upandmonitoringprogramforsocio‐economiceffects.14

7.Aplanfordealingwiththesocio‐economiceffectsofmineclosure................................................14

F.Evaluatingthepurposeandneedforthemineagainstothereconomicalternatives.........................15

3

3

A. Which Socio-Economic Effects are admissable?

Whichsocio‐economic(human)impactsandbenefitsareadmissibleinevaluatingtheProsperityMineproposal?Thisisaproblemfortheaffectedcommunities,thepublic,theproponentandthePanel.

Sincethisisastand‐alonefederalreview,theTermsofReferenceappeartorestricttheconsiderationofimpactsonhumanstothosethatareclearlyrelatedto"environmentaleffects".TherequirementforthePaneltolookatsocio‐economicimpactsoftheProjectisfoundintheCEAAct,Section2(1)“anychangethattheprojectmaycauseintheenvironment,includinganyeffectofanysuchchangeonhealthandsocio‐economicconditions,onphysicalandculturalheritage,onthecurrentuseoflandsandresourcesfortraditionalpurposesbyaboriginalpersons,oronanystructure,siteorthingthatisofhistorical,archaeological,paleontologicalorarchitecturalsignificance...”1

However,theCEAAalsogivesdiscretiontotheMinister(withtheResponsibleAuthority)toallowaProjectwithsignificantenvironmentaleffectstoproceed,ifitis“justifiedunderthecircumstances”.ThemeaningofthisphraseisnotdefinedintheAct,regulationsorinjurisprudence.TheTermsofReferenceforthePanelstate:"ThePanelshallconsiderandprovideconclusionsonthesignificanceoftheenvironmentaleffectsoftheProject.Where,takingintoaccounttheimplementationofanymitigationmeasures,theProjectislikelytocausesignificantadverseeffects,thepanelshouldalsoensurethatinformationrequiredwithrespecttothejustifiabilityofanysignificantadverseeffectsisobtained.”

ThisPanelhastheunenviabletaskofdeterminingwhatinformationwouldbeneededfortheMinistertoexercisehisreasonablediscretiontodetermineiftheProjectis“justifiedunderthecircumstances.”Inthecaseofthismine,mostoftheinformationwillbesocio‐economicorpoliticalinnature,notenvironmental.

Thisquestionof“justifiability”considerablywidenstheambitofdiscussionaboutsocio‐economiccostsandbenefits.

TheBCEAOfoundthattheminewouldresultin“asignificantadverseeffectwithrespecttofishandfishhabitat”2.OnJanuary14,2010,BCEnvironmentMinisterBarryPennerandBCEnergy,MinesandPetroleumResourcesMinisterBlairLekstrommadethedecisiontogranttheBCenvironmentalassessment(EA)certificateonthebasisthattheprojectwas“justifiedunderthecircumstances”.Thecircumstanceswerethe“economicbenefits”totheRegionandthe“contributiontocommunitydevelopment”.3Thereappeartobenoreportsfrommunicipal,provincialorfederalgovernmentsoneitherthefederalorprovincialEAregistriesthatexplicitlyexaminetheclaimsofTasekoregardingeconomicbenefitsandcontributionstocommunitydevelopment.TheSocio‐EconomicWorkingGroupthatwassupposedtodiscusstheseissuesneverevenmet.4TheneedforaPanelanalysisofthecompany’seconomicassertionsappearstohavebeenoverwhelmedbythedemandsofananalysisoftheenvironmentalimpactsfromthemine.

4

4

LiketheBCEAO,thePanelhasnowheard,bothfromTasekoandfromthepublic,averitabledelugeofopinionandinformation–largelyunsubstantiated‐abouttheeconomicbenefitsofthemineforbusiness,theprovince,thefederalgovernment,andespeciallyforthelabourforceofWilliamsLake.TheseintervenorsurgethePaneltofindthatanydestructiveimpactsfromtheminecanbejustifiedandareindeednecessary,becauseofthesehoped‐foreconomicbenefits.

However,noneoftheseminesupporterswillbedirectlyaffectedbytheenvironmentalimpactsofthemine.Theyarespeakingtothepotentialsocio‐economicbenefitsfortheirfamily,theirbusiness,forWilliamsLakeandtheRegion.Ontheotherhand,TheTsilhqot'inandtheSecwepemcandsomeotherruralpeopleslivingamongthemwillsufferenormoushumanimpactsdirectlyrelatedtothemine'senvironmentalfootprint.Theywillloseawatershed;livewithatwokilometrediameterpitholeandaTailingsStorageFacility(TSF)designedtohold831milliontonnesoftoxictailingsand858milliontonnesofpotentiallyacid‐generatingwasterock.Theywilllivewiththetraffic,thedustandnoise.TheFirstNationssaytheircultureandwayoflifewillbedamagedirreparably.ThePanelhasheardfromelders,youth,indeed,allthemembersoftheFirstNationsaboutthehugeimpacttheminewillhaveonthem,andongenerationstocome.

Thesituationisstarkandfamiliar;itismoderncolonialism:taketheresourcesfromindigenousterritoryagainsttheirwillforthebenefitofthesettlersociety.

B. The scope of analysis for “information required with respect to justifiability” must be consistent. ThePanelappearstohaveachoiceofscopingtheinformationnarrowlyorbroadly,butthechoiceofthestudyareahastobeconsistent.Forexample,thepanelcannotlimitthediscussionofsocio‐economiceffectstotheenvironmentalfootprintoftheProjectwhenitisassessinghumancosts,butexpandthediscussiontotheRegion,theprovince,etc.whenitisassessingeconomicbenefits.

1)IfthePanellimitsitsanalysistosocio‐economicbenefitsandcostsastheydirectlyrelatetotheenvironmentalfootprintofthemine

ThisapproachrestrictsthediscussiontotheeffectsontheFirstNationsandthenon‐indigenouspeoplewholiveintheareaofthemineanditsinfrastructure.Allinformationabouttheeconomicandsocialbenefits/impactsofthemineforthosenotaffectedbythemine’senvironmentalfootprintwouldbecomeirrelevanttotheanalysis,includingtheeconomicbenefitsforWilliamsLake.

2)IfthePanelextendsitsanalysisofsocio‐economicimpactsandbenefitstoWilliamsLake,theCariboo‐Chilcotin,businessinterests,theprovince,thefederalgovernment,etc.

Thisapproachwillrequireaformofmultipleaccountsanalysisofthebenefitsandcostsforeachoftheactors,fromtheFirstNationswhichareclearlyintheenvironmentalfootprint,totheneighbouringcities/townslikeWilliamsLake,totheRegionandsoon.Otherwise,“justifiability”maybedeterminedbasedonun‐examinedandunreasonableconjectureaboutsocio‐economicbenefitstopeoplesandinstitutionswhowillnotbetouchedbythemine’senvironmentalimpacts.

5

5

Certainly,thePanelcannotundertakethisexercisebyrelyingsolelyontheself‐interestedreportsandemotionalappealsputforwardbytheminingindustry,TasekoandthebusinesscommunityinWilliamsLake.MiningWatchCanadaundertookahighlydetailed100pagecritiqueoftheTasekoSocio‐EconomicEISduringtheConformanceReview,andweknowthattheTasekoanalysiscannotberelieduponinassessingsocio‐economicimpactsofthemineatanylevel.

Inourreview,wepointedoutmanydeficienciesanderrorsintheEIS:thatthesocio‐economicassessmentdidnotaddressrequirementsintheGuidelinestousetheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)determinantsofhealth;didnothingtoassesstheeffectsofthemineonvulnerablepopulations,didnoresearchtoassessthecapacityofsocialandhealthservicestomeetneedsofanincreasedpopulation;didnotrealisticallyassessrealeconomiccostsandbenefits;andrefusedtodealwithsocio‐economicproblemsatclosure.Further,theboundariesoftheLocalStudyAreaandRegionalStudyareawerefrequentlyvariedtosuittheProponent’sinterests;particularlytoobscuretheimpactonFirstNationsa.

TheLocalStudyareathatwaschosenforthestudyofsocio‐economicimpactsishuge,andincludesWilliamsLake,ruralareasandcommunitiesincludingelectoralareasDEFJandK.

Taseko’sresponsetomostoftheMiningWatchcritiquehasbeeneithertosaythattheGuidelinesdidnotrequiretheirconsultantstoundertakemoredetailedanalysis,orcompletelytoignoreourcomments.Ourwell‐foundedconcernsallremainunanswered.

C. How should socio-economic impacts be analyzed and evaluated in this Review?

1)Ifitisdeterminedthatsocio‐economiceffectsshouldberestrictedtothosematterswhereaclearlinkcanbemadebetweenenvironmentaleffectsandsocio‐economiceffects,thentheanalysiswouldberestricted–bothforcostsandbenefits–tothemineandinfrastructurefootprintarea.

Amongtheadmissiblesocio‐economiceffectsshouldbethefollowing.Itisacknowledgedthatmostoftheseeffectsarenotmeasurableindollars,butitdoesnotmakethemanylesssignificant.

• Thedepletionofnaturalcapital(cleanwater,forests,arableland,cleanair,etc.),balancedagainstanyrevenuesandusefulinfrastructurereceivedintheaffectedcommunitiesfromgovernmentandindustry.Forexample,accountingfortheenormoussubsidyfromtheaffectedFirstNationforthedestructionoftheFishCreekwatershedforanopenpit,wasterockdisposal,

aEISVolumeSix:3.1.5SpatialBoundariesstates:“TheLSAistheareawithintheProjectwhereeffectscanbepredictedwithareasonabledegreeofaccuracyandconfidenceandwhereeffectsarelikelytobemostconcentrated.”TheLocalStudyareathathasbeenchosenforthestudyofsocio‐economicimpactsishuge,andincludesWilliamsLake,ruralareasandcommunitiesincludingelectoralareasDEFJandK.TheminesiteislocatedinelectoralareaKwithelectoralareaJontheothersideofTasekoLakes.ThisLSAwaschosenbecauseitconformstohowcensusdataisorganized.TheRSAistheentireCaribooRegionalDistrict.However,forthefivepageculturalheritagediscussioninVolumeSix,adifferentLSAischosen.“ThestudyareasforFirstNationsculturalheritageissuesdonotconformtotheRegionalDistrictpoliticalboundariesabovenoted.”Forthisreason,“theLSAforFirstNationsisdescribedastheassertedtraditionalterritoriesoftheTsilhqot’inNationandtheRSAincorporatestheassertedtraditionalterritoriesoftheUpperSecwepemcNation.”ThishastheeffectofmakingtheLSAforthesocialandeconomicissuessectionsnon‐comparablewiththeFirstNationsculturalheritagesection,andthereforemakingthesocio‐economicimpactsontheTsilhqot’inandSewepemcalmostinvisible.

6

6

campfacilitiesandatailingsimpoundment.Thecompanyhasalsobeensubsidizedthroughtheuseofsurface“Crownland”(landofAboriginaluse)onwhichthemineanditsinfrastructurearelocated–25,823hectares‐foronlythecostofthemininglease.TheTsilhqot’inFirstNationwillalsoloseasubstantialstandofoldgrowthsprucetotheopenpit.

• thelossincountryfoodstotheFirstNationsandotherlocalpeople(hunting,trapping,farmingandranching,fish,gathering,gardening,non‐timberforestproductssuchasmushrooms,berriesandmedicines,migratoryducksandgeese)

• theeffectsofnoise,toxins,dustfromtheminesiteandroadsonhealth,foodsupplyandpeaceofmind

• theculturalimpactsonFirstNationspeople,includingrelocation,dispersal,classdifferences,governanceandrights

• effectsonBandCouncilandfamilylabourandfunctioninginthefaceoftheseimpacts

• increaseinyouthalienationand/oryouthemployment

• increase/decreaseinrequirementsforunpaidandpaidcare‐giversupport,

• increase/decreaseindrugandalcoholaddiction

• lostorincreasedopportunitycostsforalternativeeconomicdevelopmentinthemine’sfootprintarea,includingtrapping,gardening,ranching,trapping,fishing,tourism

• riskofpotentialaccidents

Or

b)Wheretheclearlinkbetweensocio‐economiceffectsandenvironmentaleffectsisdeemednottobenecessary;

thenananalysisofthesocio‐economicimpactsandbenefitscouldandshouldincludeallthosematterslistedabove,aswellasthemattersdiscussedinVolumeSixoftheEIS,andtherequestsfromintervenorstoconsiderthepossiblebenefitsoftheminetothelargercommunityoutsidetheminefootprint.SuchareviewwouldalsohavetolookatthepoliticalimplicationsforBCandCanadaoftreatingtheinterestsofaffectedFirstNationsasexternalitiesintheassessmentofthemine.

D. The principle of sustainable development as a basis for assessing “justifiability”

Sustainabledevelopmentisafundamentalobjectiveofthefederalenvironmentalassessmentprocess.TheCanadiangovernmentadoptstheBruntlandCommissiondefinition:"Sustainabledevelopmentisdevelopmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds."5AccordingtoBruntland,theideacontainswithinittwokeyconcepts:“theconceptof'needs',inparticulartheessentialneedsoftheworld'spoor,towhichoverridingpriorityshouldbegiven;andtheideaoflimitationstotheenvironment'sabilitytomeetpresentandfutureneeds.”6

TheGuidelinesforthisEnvironmentalReviewgivehighprioritytosustainabledevelopmentstating:...Aprojectthatissupportiveofsustainabledevelopmentmuststrivetointegratetheobjectiveofnetecological,economicandsocialbenefitstosocietyintheplanninganddecision‐makingprocessandmustincorporatecitizenparticipation....Theproject,includingitsalternativemeans,musttakeintoaccount

7

7

therelationsandinteractionsamongthevariouscomponentsoftheecosystemsandmeetingtheneedsofthepopulation.TheproponentmustincludeintheEISconsiderationoftheextenttowhichtheProjectcontributestosustainabledevelopment.

Indetermining“justifiability”,therefore,thePanelmusthaveregardtosustainabledevelopment.ItisnotoftenthatPanelshavetodealwiththisissue,asmostProjectshavebeenfound“tohavenosignificantenvironmentaleffectsthatcannotbemitigated”.Recently,however,theextensiveKemessNorthEAprocessprovidedaspecificanddirectlyapplicableexampleofincorporatingsustainabilitycriteriaintoaminingprojectanalysis.Theanalysisincorporatedcultural,spiritual,social,economicandenvironmentalcriteria7:

1. EnvironmentalStewardship–Istheenvironmentadequatelyprotectedthroughallphasesofdevelopment,construction,andoperation,aswellasthroughthelegacypost‐closurephase?

2. EconomicBenefitsandCosts–DoestheprojectprovideneteconomicbenefitstothepeopleofBritishColumbiaandCanada?

3. SocialandCulturalBenefitsandCosts–DoestheProjectcontributetocommunityandsocialwell‐beingofallpotentiallyaffectedpeople?Isitcompatiblewiththeirculturalinterestsandaspirations?

4. FairDistributionofBenefitsandCosts–Arethebenefitsandcostsofdevelopmentfairlydistributedamongpotentiallyaffectedpeopleandinterests?

5. PresentversusFutureGenerations–DoestheProjectsucceedinprovidingeconomicandsocialbenefitsnowwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstobenefitfromtheenvironmentandnaturalresourcesintheminesitearea?

Wesuggestthatthesecriteriabeadoptedinassessing“justifiability”fortheProsperityMine.

E. What are the components of a proper analysis of the proposed mine’s contribution to sustainable development?

1. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the mine’s effects on sustainable development. Wesuggestthattheonlywayseriouslytoanalyzethecontributionoftheminetosustainabledevelopmentistoundertakeathoroughanalysisshowingthepossiblebenefitsandcostsforcomparablestudyareas.Althoughsomeofthisdatawillhavetobepresentedqualitatively,itshouldbegivenequalweighttocurrency‐basedinformation.TheLSAforthisanalysisshouldberestrictedtothosepeopleswithintheminefootprint,andtheRSAtotheCariboo‐Chilcotin.

Asolidcost‐benefitanalysisofthemineforthepurposeofsustainabledevelopmentand“justifiability”wouldinclude:

• naturalcapitalcostssuchastheprovisionofwaterfortheprojectatnocost,thegrantingoftheentireFishCreekwatershed,includingFishLakeandsurfaceusage,

• anindependentanalysisofTaseko’seconomicbenefitclaims;actualrevenuesfromtaxationandroyalties,i.e.,lesscostoftaxincentives,reducedhydrorates,etc.;notstatutoryrates.

• greenhousegasemissions

• acomparisonofdisparitiesofcosts/benefitstotheFirstNationsaffectedandtheoutsideinterests

8

8

• ananalysisofthelost/increasedopportunitycoststoresourceusersandsmallbusinesses,

• thelossofcountryfoods

• lossanddamageofAboriginalculture

• coststomunicipalandothergovernmentsforincreasedroadmaintenance,increasedinfrastructure,etc

• ananalysisofthecoststothepublicofprovidingincreasedsocialservices,healthcareprogramsandofdealingwithpotentiallyincreasedviolence.Whatwillhappentotheincreasedservicesintheeventofclosure?

• Agenderanalysisofthemine’slikelyimpacts,asaproxyforvulnerablepopulationsotherthanFirstNations

• AnalysisofthepotentialnegativeimpactsofheightenedincomedisparityintheLSAandRSA,suchashousingcrisesandaddictions

• AnalysisoftheconsequencesofthelossofmineincomesandcontractsintheLSAandRSApostclosure,orintheeventofeconomicallyinducedshut‐downs

• Analysisofwhathappenswhenlocalbusinessesshifttheirfocustosupplyingtheminefromtheircurrentfocuses:whatwillhappentotheircurrentcustomers?Wherewillthesebusinessesgetcredittoshifttheirfocus?Whathappenstothemwhentheconstructionperiodends?Whentheminecloseseitherduringabustorattheendofitslife?Whatwillhappenwhentheirworkersgotoworkatthemine?

2. Prior informed consent of the most affected population

TherewillbenumerousimpactsontheTsilhqot’inandtheSecwepemcnationswhoseterritoryistheminefootprint.From1993on,theseFirstNationshaveassertedtheiroppositiontoanyminedevelopmentthatwilldestroyFishLake(TeztanBiny),becausetheybelievethatanysuchdevelopmentwillirreversiblydamagetheircultures,theireconomiesandtheirwayoflife.Theirperspectivemustberespected.

Theproponentarguesthathehasengagedin“consultation”withFirstNationsabouttheProject,andlistseveryphonecallandmeetinginlaboriousdetailinthereportfromTasekototheBCEAO“FirstNationsConsultationReport,August2,2009”andintheEISVol.6,Appendix8‐2‐A.Itmustberememberedthatthisanalysisandthelistarefromthepointofviewoftheproponent,whohad–since1993‐thedesire,resourcesandstafftoendlesslypursuetheaffectedFirstNations.Ontheothersideofthesephonecallsandmeetings,wereFirstNationswithfewavailableresources;whodidnotwantthemineifitwasgoingtodestroyTeztanBiny;whoweretrappedintoprocessestheydidnotauthor;andwhowouldhavepreferredtogetonwiththeirotherresponsibilities‐likedealingwiththeserioussocio‐economicissuesintheircommunities.Thisisnotconsultation,itisanaggressiveformofunilateralcommunication.

Wesubmitthattherewillbeseriouscultural,economicandpoliticalimplicationsforBritishColumbiaandCanadaresultingfromacavaliertreatmentoftheFirstNations’oppositiontoaminethatwouldinevitablydestroyTeztanBiny.Thedebateovertheminehasalreadyfuelledstronganti‐FirstNationssentimentsintheRegion.Acrossthecountry,peoplehavemobilizedtopreventthedestructionofwatershedsforminewastedumps,tosupportassertionofFirstNationstitle,andtheratificationofthe

9

9

DeclarationoftheRightsofIndigenousPeople.InBritishColumbia,FirstNationsarekeenlywatchingthisEA,seeingitasalitmustestofthegoodfaithoftheCanadianandBCgovernments.Theseconcernsallformpartofthe“circumstances”thatwillorwillnot“justify”approvingaprojectwithsignificantenvironmentaleffects,andsofallsunderthePanel’spurview.

3. An independent analysis – commissioned by the Panel - of the long-term viability of the mine,whichmayaffectitsabilitytodeliverthebenefitspromisedoverthelong‐term,anditsabilitytodeliveronmitigationcommitments.

Prosperityisalowgrademine.Mineralresourcesaregoldat0.41g/tandcopperat0.24%;mineralreservesonlydifferslightlywithgoldat0.43g/tandcopperat0.22%.Thegoldisdispersedthroughoutthemineandcannotberetrievedwithoutminingthecopper,andtherearehighsmelterpenaltiesforantimony,arsenicandmercuryintheore.Inaddition,theReturnonInvestmenthasbeencalculatedona“beforetaxbasis”,andisonly10%8.AccordingtotheDecember2009TechnicalReport,theROIismostsensitivetotheexchangerate,followedbytheoperatingcostsandmetalprices.9

Itshouldbenotedthat,althoughtheresourceestimateswereundertakenpreviouslybyindependentconsultants,theupdatedeconomicevaluationfortheminewasdirectedbyScottJones10,whoisVice‐PresidentofEngineeringforTaseko,andnotan“independentqualifiedperson”asrequiredbyNationalInstrument43‐101.b

TheDecember2009TechnicalReportcapitalandoperatingcostsarebasedonpre‐taxcalculations(aswereallearlierTechnicalReports).ClearlythismeansthatTasekodoesnotexpecttopayenoughprovincialorfederalincometaxtomakeadifferencetotheirbottomline.TheTechnicalReportstates:

“18.10Taxes

Theeconomicmodelwasrunonabeforetaxbasis.BCminingtaxeswereestimatedandincludedinthecashflowmodel.TheprojectwillalsobesubjecttoFederalandProvincialincometaxesbuttheseratesarenotfixedanditisbelievedthattaxplanningmethodswillbeavailabletominimizetheeffectonprojecteconomics”.11

“Taxes.

NoallowancehasbeenmadeforFederalandProvincialincometax.TheonlytaxescalculatedinthisanalysisarewithrespecttoB.C.MineralTaxes.NoallowancehasbeenmadeforGSTorprovincialsalestax”.12

TheTechnicalReportassumesthatTasekowillnothavetoborrowmoneytobuildtheminenortosustainit.13Anumberofothercostshavealsonotbeenincludedinthecapitalcostanalysisincluding:environmental,archaeologicalandecologicalconsiderations‐otherthanthoseincorporatedinthecurrentdesign;costsforacquisitionofrights‐of‐way;thecostofproducinganyenvironmentalimpactstatementandobtainingenvironmentalpermitsandapprovalsfromlocalornationalauthorities;financingchargesandinterestduringconstruction;currencyexchangefluctuationsafterSeptemberbNationalInstrument43‐101reads:“5.3IndependentTechnicalReport(1)Subjecttosubsection(2),atechnicalreportrequiredunderanyofthefollowingprovisionsofthisInstrumentmustbepreparedbyorunderthesupervisionofaqualifiedpersonthatis,atthedateofthetechnicalreport,independentoftheissuer...”

10

10

1,2009;allcostsassociatedwithweatherinterruptionofconstructionoperations;constructionreclamationcosts.14Contingencycostsarenotincluded.ThereisalsonothingincludedforFirstNationscompensation,orpossibleImpactBenefitAgreementspayouts.

TheReportstatesthattheminewillhave463employeesbetweenyears10‐25.AsDr.ShafferhaspointedoutintheFriendsoftheNemiahValleysubmission15,theemploymentfigures(andtheincometaxesthatarepaidbyemployees)donottakeintoaccounttheeffectsofworkerstransferringfromjobselsewhere.

Ifoneconsidersthattheminewilllastatthemost33years,willirreversiblyaltertheFishCreekwatershed,islikelytoseriouslydamagethecultureandwayoflifeoftheTsilhqot’inandSewepemc,thenitisveryimportanttobesurethattheeconomicsoftheprojectarerigorouslyreviewed.ItshouldalsobenotedthattheBCEAOfoundthatthe33yearprojectionwas“notsufficientlycertaintoproceed”,andtherefore,proceededonthebasisofatwentyyearminelife.

WeaskthePaneltoensurethattheeconomicsoftheminearereviewedbyindependentconsultantsinordertoevaluatethecompany’sclaimsregardinglong‐termeconomicbenefitstogovernments,andthepeopleoftheRegion.

4. Assurance that the region (or the environmentally-affected area) will have the capacity to cope with the impacts of the mine on the population.

“Justasanaturalecosystemsystemcanbedamagedordestroyed,socialsystemscanalsobedamagedordestroyedifkeycomponentsareunderminedorremoved.Itisveryimportanttoknow,throughresearch,wherethethresholdslieandwhattheconsequencesofcrossingthemmightbe...Incaseswheretheimpactsareasyetuncertainorunknown,theprecautionaryprinciplemustapply....Itmaybepossibleforacommunitytosurvive,redefineitselfandrecoverifathresholdiscrossed.However,if,asinthecaseoftheInnuofLabrador,thresholdsarecrossedagainandagain,recoverymaynolongerbepossible.”16

ThepicturethatemergesfromdataontheChilcotinisofaregionalreadyinsocio‐culturaltrouble,andunabletoraisetheresourcesitneedstodealwiththesocialandeconomicissuesitcurrentlyfaces.Thisdoesnotgiveconfidencethatitwillhavetheresiliencytobeabletocopewithatleastfouryearsofseriousdisruptionanddislocationthatwillbecausedbythemineconstructionanddevelopment.

TheSocialIssuessectionoftheEISisremarkablenotforwhatitincludes,butforwhatitleavesoutoftheanalysis.

Evenforthenon‐nativecommunity,therewillbequestionsabouttheabilityoftheRegiontocopewithmajorchangesintheworkforceoccasionedbythemine.TheEISstated:

“...thehealthandothersocio‐communityindicatorsintheCariboo‐Chilcotinrankpoorlyagainsttheother78localhealthareasoftheprovince.Whileallsixindicesfallwellbelowthemedian,educationconcernsandchildrenatriskareareasofnotableconcern.Economichardshipisafunctionofhighlevels

11

11

ofincomeassistanceandlowincomelevelsintheregion.Thecrimeindexrankisattributabletohighlevelsofseriouscrime,particularlyamongjuveniles.Crimeratesareincreasingintheregionatatimewhenprovincialratesaredeclining.Educationconcernsresultfromhighdropoutrates,andlowprovincialtestscores.Theregion’schildrenandyouthatriskscoresalsoranklowasaresultofacombinationoftheabovefactors,highlevelsofincomeassistance,pooreducationalattainment,above‐averagecrimeratesandunemployment.”17

InApril2008,theCityofWilliamsLakereleasedthePhaseOneAssessmentReportoftheCommunityVitalityInitiative.TheInitiativemeasuresacommunity’squalityoflife,andwastheresultofaconsultationwith80residentsand55papersubmissions.ItcomparedWilliamsLaketosixothercommunitiesofcomparablesizeacrosstheprovincethathadtakenthesurvey.RespondentswereaskediftheyagreedwithanumberofstatementsabouttheQualityofLifeintheircommunity.Theparticipantsinthesurveywereworriedaboutsafety,crimeandhomelessness.18

SomeofthecommentsfromtheEIS19whichrevealexistingstressontheregionsservicesarequotedbelow:

“AlmostallextendedandcommunitycarefacilitiesarelocatedinWilliamsLake.TherearecurrentlywaitinglistsforbedsinbothDeniHouseandtheCaribooLodge,althoughwaitinglistscanbecommoninothercommunities.”

“TheCRDhasnofireservicesinElectoralAreasKandEduetothesmallpopulation(theProjectislocatedinK)Itisunlikelythatserviceswouldbeestablishedwiththedevelopmentofthemineinthisareaunlessthepopulationgrewsubstantially”.

“TheAlexisCreekAmbulancestationservicestheareafromRiskeCreektoTatlaLakeandcoverstheareasouthtoNemiah.Thestationhasoneambulanceandsevenstaff(fourfull‐timeandthreepart‐time).Becauseofthesizeofthearea,traveltimestocertaincommunitiesareverylong.Aswithmanysmallcommunitiesaroundtheprovince,AlexisCreekhasexperiencedperiodicinterruptionsinserviceduetoashortageofparamedicsoncall.ThishasresultedincoveragebeingprovidedbyWilliamsLake(CBCNewsAugust2006).”

“HealthstatusindicatorssuchaslifeexpectancyatbirthintheLSAtendtobebelownormsforIHAandtheprovince...TheCariboo‐Chilcotinhasaslightlylowerlifeexpectancybutsubstantiallyhigherlowbirthweightlevelsandstandardizedmortalityratios,whencomparedtotheentireIHAregion.”

“...accesstodoctorsisconsiderablylowerthanIHA(1900peoplepergeneralpractitioner,vs.1160)”.

“Therecruitmentandretentionofhealthcareprofessionalscontinuestobeaconcernthatwillincreaseinthefutureasexistingstaffretire.ManyprofessionalsandserviceprovidersarereluctanttocometotheregionfromsouthwestBritishColumbia.”

“Althoughprogramsandservicesareavailabletodealwithmostsocialandhealthproblems,thisdoesnotmeanthathealthmeasuresandsocialproblemsareatlevelsthecommunityiswillingtoaccept.An

12

12

ongoingdisputebetweentheCityofWilliamsLakeandIHAoverdrugandalcoholtreatmentisanexampleofhowgapsinthecurrentsystemarecreatingexternalcosts.”

“Anotherexampleisthelossofon‐reserveaddictioncounsellors,whointhepastusedtoprovidedirectaccesstoassistanceforthosememberswithaddictionproblems.”

TheHealthofFirstNationspeopleisevenworse.

TheEISprovidessomeverydisturbinginformationaboutthehealthofthemostvulnerablepopulationintheRSA,andaboutthecapacityofthesocialfabricintheaffectedFirstNationcommunitiestobeabletoabsorbthechangescausedbythemine.

“TheInteriorHealthAuthorityhasstatedthatAboriginalpeopleintheInteriordonotenjoythesamelevelofhealthasthesurrounding,non‐Aboriginalpopulation(InteriorHealthAuthority,ND)...However,RegisteredIndianscontinuedtohaveshorterlifeexpectancy,andgapscontinuedtobeseenbetweenmalesandfemalesaswellasbetweenonandoffreservepopulations.”(Appendix4‐C.2)

Amongotherfindingsarethefollowing:Lifeexpectancy:71.4yearsascomparedto79.9fortheotherpopulationintheCariboo;infantmortality8.7%to4.7%;mortalityrates(per10,000):88.2to68.9;postneonatalmortality:5.4to1.9;homesupportutilization(whichindicatesitsavailabilitymorethananythingelse):143to2674.”

Theproperidentificationofsocio‐economicimpactsrequiresananalysisofvulnerablepopulations(women,youth,FirstNationsandtheservicesonwhichtheydepend),anddoingananalysisofinformalsupportsandofthesocialfabricinthecommunitiesthatenablevulnerablepeopletosurvive.

Genderanalysishasbecomeakeypartofmostrecentenvironmentalassessmentsforresourceextractionprojects(Diavik,MackenzieValley,Voisey’sBayandothers).TheneedforspecificgenderanalysisfortheProsperityMinecanbeseeninthegreatdiscrepancybetweentheincomesandearningsofwomenandmenintheCaribooRegioninthe2006census:Medianearnings:men:$35,624;women$16,684;Medianearningsforfull‐timeemploymentmen:$53,499;women$32,279;Medianincomefromallsources:men$31,594,women$17,279.However,innoneoftheSectionsoftheEISisthereanyanalysisofthebaselineconditionsforwomen,ofpossiblecumulativeeffectsongenderbalanceandrelations,orofthepossiblemitigationmeasurestoaddresstheseeffects.

Itisprettyclearthat,atleastforthefirstfewyears,lowincomerentersintheregionwillbefacedwithavacancyrateoflessthanzero20,escalatingrentsandover‐crowding.MostofthesewillbesingleparentwomenandAboriginalpeople,butthepressurewillextendtolowwageearnersacrosstheregion.Eventuallymoreaccommodationwillbebuilt,andtrailerparkshastilythrownup(withalltheregulatoryhasslesthatentails)butthatwilltakeyears,andafter2013,whenconstruction,theMPVharvestandMt.Polleystarttowinddown,theownersofthoseunitswillonceagainfaceadramaticdropinmarketvalue.

13

13

ThroughouttheSEIA,Tasekoplacesitsfaithin“theefficienciesofthemarket”toadjust.Tasekoproposesonlythefollowingmitigationmeasures:pressureonlocalcommunitiestoanticipateandfindhousing;landlordswillbetoldthatmorepotentialtenantsarecoming;andahousingplacementservicewillbesetupfornewemployees.Noneofthesewilldoanythingtoincreasethehousingsupply.Infact,experienceshowsthatitcantakeyearsforservicestocatchupwithneeds,ifindeed,theyeverdo.

IntheEIS,althoughthereisacursorymentionofthemanyorganizationsthatmakeup“thecommunityandpublichealthservices”(orofthe“socialservices”),forresidentsintheRSAandLSA,thereisnoanalysiswhatsoeveroftheagencies’fragilityandstrengths,whotheyserveanddon’tserve,wheretheirfundingandstaffcomefrom,noroftheircapacitytoadapt.ThediscussionofHealthandCommunityImpactsisrestrictedtothemedicalsystem,andalistofagencies.

Thetimingoftheconstructionperiodfortheminewillworsenthesituation.

Assumingthatthemineisallowedtoproceed,thereareseriousquestionsaboutthetimingoftheconstructionperiod.Theproponentanticipatesthatthemineconstructionperiodwilllast25monthsandwilltakeplacefrom2010‐2012.Unfortunately,thisperiodcoincideswiththepeakharvestoflogsdamagedbytheMountainPineBeetle(MPB)–whichisexpectedtolastuntil2013.(Vol.6,5.2.2.)ItwillalsooverlapwiththeexpansionprojectatGibraltarMineandwiththeharvestoftimberfromthetransmissionlinerightofwayandtheminesite.ItwouldbeanappropriatemitigationmeasuretodelaytheconstructionperioduntilaftertheGibraltarexpansioniscompleteandtheMPBharvesthaswounddown,sothattherewillbemoreavailablelocallabourandlesstrafficonthehighways.ThiswouldalsocoincidewiththeclosureofMt.PolleyMinein2013.

5. A Human Health Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) that addresses the WHO Determinants of Health.21

ThePanelGuidelinesexplicitlyaskedthattheWHOSocialDeterminantsofHealthbeaddressed,buttheywereignoredbyTaseko.“ThissectionoftheEISmustdescribethecurrenthealthprofilesofthecommunitieslikelytobeaffectedbytheProject.TheEISmustexaminetheaspectsofhumanhealththataredefinedbytheWorldHealthOrganization,andincludeconsiderationofphysicalhealthandwell‐beingandassociatedemotional,social,cultural,andeconomicaspects.TheEISmustprovideinformationonpopulationhealthofthecommunitiesintheregionalstudyarea.AdescriptionofcommunityandpublichealthservicesavailabletotheresidentsofcommunitiesandtoAboriginalpeopleintheregionalstudyareamustalsobeincluded.”(Emphasisadded)

IgnoringtheGuidelinesdirectiontoconsidertheWHODeterminantsofHealth,theProponenthasonlydoneaHumanHealthRiskAssessmentbasedonchemicaltoxicityofcountryfoods.Thereisnoanalysisof“emotional,social,cultural,andeconomicaspects”.Nothingissaidaboutsocialservices,ortheinfrastructure–the“socialfabric”‐thatsupportsfamilylife.Thereisnothingaboutthecapacityandresiliencyofdaycareandyouthservices,familyviolenceprograms,women’sservices,anddrugandalcoholprograms,ormentalhealthprograms.

TheRiskAnalysismodelitselfisfraughtwithunidentifiedassumptions.Riskassessmentsoftoxinsaremathematicalexercises,basedonwelloveronehundreddifferentassumptions.Achangeinanyoneof

14

14

theseassumptionscanhaveadramaticeffectontheriskestimate.Themodellinghasnotbeen“ground‐truthed”withtestingofhumanoranimaltissuetoseeifthemodellingmakessenseintherealworld.Oftenkeyinformationneededforanadequateassessmentofeffectsismissing.IntheHHERA,forexample,therehasbeennocollectionofchemicalinformationinwildlifetissuesuchasmoose,muskratandwillowptarmigan,insufficientinformationofberrymetalconcentrations;andthe“consumptionpatternsoftraditionalfoodsintheareaisnotknown”.(Vol.6,6.3.1.)

TherewasnoAboriginalconsultationavailabletotheProponentindevelopingtheHHERA,andasaresultkeyinformationismissing:theamountofwildmedicines,plants,berries,meatandfishconsumedbyFirstNations,forexample.

6. Development of an appropriate follow-up and monitoring program for socio-economic effects.

TheFollow‐upandMonitoringProgramforsocio‐economiceffectsdoesnotmeettherequirementsintheGuidelines,ofCEAASections16and38oroftheCEAAOperationalPolicyStatement.22

Givenalltheuncertaintiesintheproponent’sanalysisofsocio‐economiceffects,thesignificanceofthisprojecttotheTsilhqot’inandSecwepemcpeoples,anditspotentialtoseriouslydamagethesocialandeconomicfabricofthearea,acarefulplantovalidateallthepredictionsandassumptionsinthebaselineandeffectsassessmentsatregularintervalsthroughouttheprojectmustbedevelopedattheEnvironmentalAssessmentstage.MonitoringfortheFollow‐upprogrammustbeaparticipatory,inclusiveandtransparentprocessthatinvolvestheFirstNations,andvulnerablepopulationsinallthelocalcommunities.ThisplanshouldbespelledoutattheEAstage,asrequiredintheOperationalPolicyStatement.23

However,theonlyFollow‐upprogramscontemplatedinVolume6are:

1)OtherResourcesUsers:complianceforcommitmentsmade(outsidetheEAprocess)(Table5‐19)

2)Transportation:implementationofthetrafficmanagementstrategy(Table3‐17)

3)CommunityServices:“TasekowillapprisetheLSAcommunitiesasneededofmajorchangesinitsworkforcelevel,orothereventsthatmaytriggeracommunityresponse,hencecommunity’sneedtoanticipateandplanaresponse.”(Table3‐17)

4)FirstNationsculturalandheritage:“TMLtodevelopandimplementaviablemechanismforthemonitoringofimpactsandtheimplementationoffollow‐upprocedures.”(Table3‐17)

7. A plan for dealing with the socio-economic effects of mine closure

Taseko’sanalysisofpost‐closuresocio‐economicimpactsisincontradictiontoanumberofextensivestudiesoftheimpactsofmineclosureonminingcommunities.

TheElliotLakeTrackingStudy,themostextensiveofitskind,foundthat“Theeffortsatfindingnewdirectionsthatdidoccurwereoftenbesetbypoliticaldivisionandalackofopennessandcommunity

15

15

solidarity...InboomtimesatElliotLakethedominantvaluesfittedeasilywithanincreasinglyhighlevelofconsumerismandanindividualizationofsocialandenvironmentalproblems.Butwiththemasslayoffsofthe1990sandtheacutecrisisfacingElliotLake’sdevelopment,itbecameincreasinglyapparentthatneitherthesedominanteconomicandsocialvaluesnorthelegacyoftop‐down,company‐towndemocracycouldholdthecommunitytogetherunderstress.”(Leadbeater,1998)24

Whenamajorminecloses,themine/millinfrastructureandtheotherover‐sizedbuildingsbecomealiabilityinsteadofanassetinthefaceoflostrevenuesfromtaxes;theregionalgovernmentsandclose‐bycommunitiesarefacedwithalossofpopulationandrevenuefromtaxes;andthecostsofprovidingserviceseitherremainthesameastheywereduringtheminelifeoractuallyincrease.

PeterPeck,authorofanimportantreportcalledMiningforClosure,publishedbytheUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramin2005,25definesthisconceptas:“integratedmineplanningwhereamineclosureplanshouldbeanintegralpartofaprojectlifecycleandbedesignedtoensurethat:

1. Futurepublichealthandsafetyarenotcompromised;

2. Environmentalandresourcesarenotsubjecttophysicalandchemicaldeterioration;

3. Theafter‐useofthesiteisbeneficialandsustainableinthelongterm;

4. Anyadversesocio‐economicimpactsareminimized;

5. Andallsocio‐economicbenefitsaremaximized.“26

Unfortunately,Taseko’sEISdealsverylittlewiththesocio‐economicandhealtheffectsoftheProjectatclosure.IntheEconomicIssuessection,Table2‐1‐ProjectinteractionwithEconomicIssues‐“post‐closure”isshownas“notsignificant”‐althoughitisatthattimethattheRSAwillbetryingtocopewithjobloss,multiplierlossandlong‐termcareandmaintenanceoftheminesite.In2.1.3Temporalboundaries,itstates:“theonsetofconstructionwillbringaburstofemployment,incomeandgovernment‐relatedactivity...economicindicatorsareexpectedtodeclineasconstructionnearscompletion,butthenincreasetoasteadystateastheminereachesitspeakoperatingcapacity.Duringtheclosureandpost‐closurephases,alldirecteconomiceffectsareexpectedtoceaserapidly.”

IntheSocialIssuessection,theonlyreferencetoclosureisthefollowing:“Therelativelysharpincreaseinpopulationatstart‐upandthedeclineastheminewindsdownmaycreatestressasthereisrelativelyhighrateofchange”.(3.3.1.4)

IntheHealthandCommunityServicessection,thereisthefollowing:4.1.2“ThegreatesteffectsareexpectedtooccurduringtheProjectconstructionandoperationswhenemploymentlevelsareattheirpeak....theclosureandpost‐closurephaseswillinvolveveryfewworkersthereforeisunlikelythatthedemandforserviceswillbesubstantiallydifferentfrombasecaseconditions.”

NomitigationisproposedbyTaseko.

F. Evaluating the purpose and need for the mine against other economic alternatives

TasekodescribestheneedfortheProjectas:

16

16

“ThepurposeoftheprojectistoutilizetheprovenmineralreserveoftheProsperitydeposittocreatevalueandopportunityforthepeopleofBritishColumbiaandCanada,andfortheshareholdersofTaseko.TheprojectisneededforsustainingtheeconomicandsocialhealthofBritishColumbiacommunities.”

SevenQuestionsforSustainability‐a2002MinesMineralsandSustainableDevelopment(MMSD)Project(anindustrydrivenanalysis)hadthistosay:

“Ifthereisafundamentalquestionunderneathallothers,itisthequestionofwhethersociety—ortheworld—“needs”anygivenprojectoroperation.Asignificantdebatehasemergedregardingwhatwouldconstituteafullneedsassessment.Thedebateencompassesminingandmineralsbutalsocoversallotherinterventionsinthenaturalenvironmentaswell—dams,irrigationprojects,highways,pipelinesandevenurbanexpansion.

Thequestionarisesbecauseofgrowingconcernthatcurrenthumanactivityisunderminingthecapacityoffuturegenerationstomeetitsneeds.Thisconcernisacentraldriverofthesustainability/sustainabledevelopmentsetofconceptsandtheissueisverysimple:whydosomethingthatisunderminingthecapacityoffuturegenerations?

Inmarketeconomies,governmentsaccepttheproponent’sfeasibilitystudyalongwiththeirwillingnesstoinvestasademonstrationofneed.Iftheproponentbelievesthatamarketexistsfortheproduct,needisestablished.Foritspart,theproponentwillconsiderexistingandprojecteddemandandsupply(asreflectedincommodityprice)andusethatvaluetoascertainproject/operationprofitability.Theassessmentoffinancialfeasibilityandprofitabilityisconfidentialandnotopentopublicscrutinyinordertoprotectthecompetitivepositionoftheproponent.

Overthelastseveraldecades,abroadsensehasemergedthatsuchmarket‐drivendecision‐makingmaynotalwaysleadtosatisfactoryresultsintermsoftheresultinghumanandecologicalimplications...However,suchasensebegssomefundamentalquestionsincluding:(1)how,inpractice,shouldaneedsassessmentthatimprovesonthecurrentapproachbeundertaken?(2)Whoseneedsshoulddrivetheassessment?and(3)whoshouldbethejudge?Theseareprofoundquestionsofpublicpolicyforwhichtherearenosimpleorwidelyacceptedanswers.”27

Miningprojectsarenotoriousforthecreationofan“IntrusiveRentier”syndromeinthecommunitiesandregionswheretheyarelocated.ThistermisusedbyPolèse&Shearmur(2006)28todescribeanobservedeffectinregionsdominatedbyasmallnumberofhighlycapitalized(andhighwage)employers.

Thisstudy,basedonaworkshopconductedin2001,andpublishedbyTheCanadianInstituteforResearchonRegionalDevelopment,focusedontheprospectsof“peripheralregions”–remoteorresourceregions.Theregionsallsharedcommonattributes:lowpopulationdensities,theabsenceofanurbancentre,anddistancefrommajormarkets.Wherethesecommunitieshadamajorhighwage,highlycapitalizedemployer(suchasmine,smelterorpapermill),theyfacedseriousproblemsattractingpeopletofilllowerwagejobs,andattractinginvestmentinsmallandmediumsizedenterprises.

17

17

Oftenthesehigherwagesareassociatedwithloweroccupationrates‐sinceitisproblematicforsmallandmediumsizedenterprisesandcommunityorganizationstostartupinahighwageenvironment.Asaresult,theIntrusiveRentiersyndromeischaracterizedbyaheighteneddisparityinincomesandwealthbetweenthosewhohaveandthosewhohavenot,acreationofdependencyonasingleemployer,thedestructionofalternativeemployments,creationofaboomandbusteconomy,andincreaseddomesticviolence.29

TheChilcotinregionisalreadydependentontheforestindustry,andtheProsperityMinewilllikelyreplacetheforestindustryasan‘IntrusiveRentier”.TheBCEAOreportstates:“theCariboo‐ChilcotinRegionisoneofthemostforestdependentregionsoftheprovince”.TheEISstatesinVolume6,2.2.3.“MorethanonethirdoftheRSAandLSAlabourforcesareengagedinprimaryormanufacturingactivities,versus21%oftheprovinciallabourforce....highlevelsoftradeandtechnicalworkersandlowerlevelsof‘whitecollar’andserviceindustryworkers...unemployment“consideredunacceptablyhigh”amongFirstNations.”

Theextenttowhichtheminewillperpetuateandexacerbatethissituationhasnotbeenexamined.

Thereareotherlong‐termalternativecommunityeconomicdevelopmentpathsthatcouldbepursuedfortheRegion,providingsatisfyingworkandincome.

WithintheWilliamsLakearea,therearealreadymanyinitiativesforsustainableformsofsocio‐economicdevelopmentunderwaythatcouldbesupportedandexpandedtoprovidetogethermorethanequivalentlivelihoodsandjobs:

• TheTsilhqot’inPowerCorporationplantocreatebio‐energyfrombeetle‐killedwood.The TNG along with partner Western Biomass Power Corporation have completed a detailed engineering study and fiber supply analysis for a 60 MW Tsilhqot’in Power Project, proposed to be built approximately 70 kms west of Williams Lake. The plant could employ as many as 200 people.

• Expansionofloghomeproduction.“In2006,theloghomebuildingindustryintheCariboo‐Chilcotinin2006employsanestimated561people,bothdirectlyandindirectly,andprovidedfor$18.9millioninincome.Theindustrygeneratedmorethan$1.7millionannuallyinprovincialrevenuesand$2.1millionannuallyinfederalgovernmentrevenues.”30

• Developmentofcommunityforestsc,horseloggingd

c News Release, October 13, 2009. “Community Forests Supports Cariboo Jobs, Recreation” downloaded from http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009FOR0069-000473.htm

dCaribooHorseLoggersAssociationP.O.Box6051,WilliamsLake,BCV2G3W2Ph:(604)992‐3624Fax:(604)747‐4488TheCaribooHorseLoggersAssociation(CHLA),wasfoundedinQuesnelin1984topromotehorselogginginterestswithintheCaribooForestRegionandthroughouttheprovince.Thenon‐profitorganizationhashelpeddevelopmodels,strategies,andnetworksforbothecologically‐soundforestmanagementandpermanent,meaningfuljobcreation.TheCHLAhasalsobeenabletodemonstratesomeworkablesolutionsandprovidecommongroundinprovinciallandusedebates.

18

18

• Anagriculturecentreprovidingbusinessdevelopment,education,extensionservicesanddistributionandmarketingservicesbasedonthe260farmsintheSouthCaribooand900moreinthegreaterCariboo‐Chilcotinregione.

• Increasedandvariedmarketgardensandranches,farmers’marketsandcommunitysharedagriculture(CSA),locally‐ownedspecialtycheeseanddairies.TheGrowersCooperativeoftheCariboo‐ChilcotinandtheCaribooGrowersMarketprovidelocally‐grownfoods,includingchickenandbeef,fruitsandvegetables,preserves,driedfood,andfrozenfoods.

• Productionofhousingcomponentsfromtimberfibref

• Windandsolarfarmsg

• Thehempprojectcurrentlyintheresearchstageh

• Tourismdevelopmentbasedonthesportfishery,Aboriginalinterests,feralhorseviewing,hikingandotherformsofeco‐tourism

• Developmentoflocalmusic,arts,crafts,heritagebusinessesi

• Investmentinhealthcare,developmentofassistedlivinghousingandhomecare

• DevelopmentofaNon‐TimberForestProductsIndustryj

• Developmentoflocalspecialtybeers

SustainableDevelopmentmeansconsideringcommunity‐basedstrategiesandecologicallysoundpractices,andrespectingtheinformaleconomythatexistsinallresource‐dependentcommunitiesinB.C.Itmeanslookingatwherethedollarsleakoutofthecommunityandregionandwheretheycanbecapturedandretainedforcommunitybenefit.Althoughtakenindividuallyonlyafewoftheseeconomicactivitiesprovidethesamenumberofjobsasthemine,takentogetherandadequatelysupportedtheyfarexceedit.Further,theyaregoodworks,thathealtheearth,returnmoneytothelocalcommunitiesandcreateopportunitiesforfuturegenerationstoliveandworkintheregion.

BritishColumbiahasawealthofCommunityEconomicDevelopmentexpertisetodrawon;thereisnoreasonablecausetosacrificetheinterestsoftheTsilhqot’inandtheSecwepemcforthismine.Withgovernmentinvestment,amuchmorediverseandhealthyeconomycanbebuiltbythecitizensoftheCariboo‐ChilcotinRegionworkingtogether.

eStonefieldConsulting,March10,2009.AgricultureEnterpriseDevelopmentCentreFeasibilityStudyfCariboo‐ChilcotinBeetleActionCoalitiongBCCitizensforPublicPowerh100MileAdvisoryCommitteefortheIndustrialHempProjectiCCBAC:http://c‐cbac.com/Documents/proposals/06‐09‐20%20Arts%20and%20Culture%20RFQ.pdfjForestInvestmentAccount/ForestScienceProgram.“Non‐timberForestProducts–CanTimberandNon‐timberProductsbemanagedcompatibly?”October2007.http://www.fia‐fsp.ca/d‐TruckLoggerArticle‐Oct2007.pdf

19

19

Endnotes1CEAA,section2(1)2ExecutiveDirector,BCEAO,“RecommendationsoftheExecutiveDirector”,December17,20093ExecutiveDirector,op.cit,pages21‐23.4EIS,VolumeSix,2.1.6.1“WhileaSocio‐economicworkinggroupoffivegovernmentrepresentativeswasproposed,itwasneverformallyestablishedandhasnotconvenedtodate”,and5.1.7.1.“inApril2007,asocio‐economicworkinggroupoffivegovernmentrepresentativeswasproposedbytheTWGbutitwasneverestablishedandnevermet.”5OurCommonFuture,ReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment,WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment,1987.PublishedasAnnextoGeneralAssemblydocumentA/42/427,DevelopmentandInternationalCo‐operation:EnvironmentAugust2,1987.6ibid7KemessNorthCopper‐GoldMineProjectJointReviewPanelReport,2007.8Jones,Scott.Technicalreportonthe344milliontonneincreaseinmineralreservesattheprosperitygold‐copperproject.BritishColumbia,Canada.December17,2009.page153.9Jones.Opcit,page155.10Jones.Op.Cit.Page12.11Jones.Op.cit.Page13212Jones.Op.cit.Page153,13Jones.Opcit.Page153.14Jones.Op.cit.Page13915Shaffer,MartinandAssociates.BenefitsandCostsoftheProsperityGold‐CopperMine.FriendsoftheNemiahValley.16http://www.mveirb.nt.ca/upload/ref_library/SEIA_paper.pdf,page11.17EISVolumeSix,C.3Socio‐CommunityConditions18WhenaskedhowtheyfeltWilliamsLakeratedinresponsetothefollowingquestions,manyfewerpeopleinWilliamsLakecouldagreewiththestatementthaninothercities:

A2.Homelessnessisnotaproblemhere.InWLonly15%agreed;intheothercitiesanaverageof65%agreed,foradifferenceof‐77%

A6.Thecommunityisasafeplacetolive.InWLonly44%agreed;intheothercitiesanaverageof81%agreed,foradifferenceof‐45%

A7.Car,home,andbusinessbreak‐insarenotabigprobleminthecommunity.InWLonly10%agreed;intheothercitiesanaverage64%agreedforadifferenceof84%

A8.Womenconsideritsafetowalkalonedowntownatnight.InWLonly20%agreed;intheothercitiesanaverageof70%agreed,foradifferenceof‐50%

A9.Thereareeffective&successfulcrisisinterventionprogramssuchascrisislinesandaffordablecounsellingservices.InWL,only54%agreed,intheothercitiesanaverageof57%agreed,foradifferenceof‐3%.

C7.Thereareenoughdoctors,nurses,andotherhealthprofessionals.InWLonly20%agreed;inothercities37%agreedforadifferenceof‐17%

C9.Thecommunitydealswithdrugandalcoholissueswitheffectiveandaccessibleeducation,counsellingandinterventionprograms.InWL,only28%agreed;intheothercommunities,41%agreedforadifferenceof‐23%

19fromVolume4,Appendices4‐Ato4‐Candthemaintext20Vol6,Table3‐8.

20

20

21In2005,TheWorldHealthOrganizationestablishedaCommissionontheSocialDeterminantsofHealth21inresponsetoincreasedworld‐wideconcernaboutgrowinginequitiesintheworld.TheReportoftheCommissionwaspublishedinAugust2008.

“Thesocialdeterminantsofhealtharetheconditionsinwhichpeopleareborn,grow,live,workandage,includingthehealthsystem.Thesecircumstancesareshapedbythedistributionofmoney,powerandresourcesatglobal,nationalandlocallevels,whicharethemselvesinfluencedbypolicychoices.Thesocialdeterminantsofhealtharemostlyresponsibleforhealthinequities‐theunfairandavoidabledifferencesinhealthstatusseenwithinandbetweencountries...

...Theseinequitiesinhealth,avoidablehealthinequalities,arisebecauseofthecircumstancesinwhichpeoplegrow,live,work,andage,andthesystemsputinplacetodealwithillness.Theconditionsinwhichpeopleliveanddieare,inturn,shapedbypolitical,social,andeconomicforces.”TheExecutiveSummaryofthisimportantreportstates:“TheCommission’sworkembodiesanewapproachtodevelopment.Healthandhealthequitymaynotbetheaimofallsocialpoliciesbuttheywillbeafundamentalresult.Takethecentralpolicyimportancegiventoeconomicgrowth:Economicgrowthiswithoutquestionimportant,particularlyforpoorcountries,asitgivestheopportunitytoprovideresourcestoinvestinimprovementofthelivesoftheirpopulation.Butgrowthbyitself,withoutappropriatesocialpoliciestoensurereasonablefairnessinthewayitsbenefitsaredistributed,bringslittlebenefittohealthequity.”22CEAA,OperationalPolicyStatement.Follow‐upProgramsundertheCanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAct,October2002,Update:November2007.23CEAA.Op.cit.“TimingofBaselineDataCollectionandProgramDesign...Thefollow‐upprogramshouldbefullydesignedandareliablebaselineestablishedduringtheenvironmentalassessmentphaseoftheproject.”24Leadbeater,David,quotedinKuyek,J.andCoumans,C.NoRockUnturned:RevitalizingtheEconomiesofMiningDependentCommunities.MiningWatchCanada,2003,page1225http://www.envsec.org/26http://www.cen‐rce.org/eng/caucuses/mining/docs/05_06_08_unep_study_closure_abandoned_mines.pdf27SevenStepstoSustainability,Page22.28Polèse,MarioandRichardShearmur.2003.ThePeripheryintheKnowledgeEconomy:theSpatialDynamicsoftheCanadianEconomyandtheFutureoftheNon‐MetropolitanRegionsinQuebecandtheAtlanticProvinces.TheCanadianInstituteforResearchonRegionalDevelopment.29Foraliteraturereviewandmoredetaileddiscussionofthissubject,see:Kuyek,JandCoumans,C.NoRockUnturned:RevitalizingtheEconomiesofMiningDependentCommunities,MiningWatchCanada,2003.30WestcoastCEDConsulting.Cariboo‐ChilcotinLogBuildingSectorStrategy,FinalReport,July2006,pagev.