canadian environmental assessment agency agence … · break roughly 10:30-ish. we will resume at...
TRANSCRIPT
NEW PROSPERITY GOLD COPPER MINE PROJECT
FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY
AGENCE CANADIENNE D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONMENTALE
HEARING HELD AT
CARIBOO MEMORIAL RECREATION COMPLEX
GIBRALTAR ROOM,
525 Proctor Street
Williams Lake, British Columbia
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Volume 9
FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL
Bill Ross
Ron Smyth
George Kupfer
International Reporting Inc.
41-5450 Canotek Road,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 9G2
www.irri.net
1-800-899-0006
(ii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIERES
PAGE
Opening remarks by Panel Chair 3
Presentation by Taseko 8
Questions by the Panel 72
Presentation by Dr. Nancy Turner 81
Questions by Taseko 98
Questions by the Panel 109
Presentation by Andrew Robinson 115
Presentation by Dr. Sue Senger 158
Questions by Taseko 179
Presentation by Don MacKinnon 187
Questions by Taseko 202
Questions by the Panel 203
Presentation by Ken Dunsworth 206
Questions by the Panel 223
Presentation by Dr. Tanmay Praharaj 225
Questions by the Panel 243
Reponse by Taseko 251
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Williams Lake, British Columbia
--- Opening ceremonies
--- Upon commencing at 9:11 a.m.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to day six of the
topic-specific sessions of the public hearing
regarding Taseko Mines' proposed New Prosperity
gold copper mine.
I would like to thank the town
of Williams Lake and members of the Secwepemc
First Nation within whose traditional territory we
are holding this hearing today. I would also like
to thank the Tsilhqot'in drummers for their
opening ceremony.
I'm Bill Ross. On my right is
George Kupfer, on my left is Ron Smyth.
Secretariat members identified by name tags over
to my right, to your left, will be able to assist
you with logistical or process-related questions
you might have.
I would like to recap a few
housekeeping items again this morning. As a
reminder, please use the south entrance on the
Seventh Avenue to the Gibraltar room as the main
access to the hearing. All other doors are for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
emergencies and access to washrooms only.
We need to keep all doorways
clear to comply with fire code regulations. In
the event of an emergency, the lights above will
flash or I will make an announcement over the
microphone. In the event of a fire, please vacate
the building in a calm manner.
In the event of a medical
emergency, let Secretariat and staff from the
complex know immediately. First aid supplies and
attendants are available through the complex.
The purpose of the hearing --
the purpose of the topic-specific hearing sessions
is to provide an opportunity for experts to
possess specialized knowledge or expertise to
present to the panel the results of their review
of the potential effects of the proposed project.
Sessions are also designed to
allow an opportunity to assess technical aspects
of the project and to provide opportunities for
Taseko to explain the project and to respond to
concerns and questions raised by other
participants.
I would like to stress that,
although anyone may attend the topic-specific
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
hearing sessions and observe the proceedings, only
those presenting a technical review of the project
and who have registered in advance as an
interested party may present or ask questions at
these sessions.
Today we will focus on the
terrestrial environment. The information to be
discussed at this session will include wildlife,
wetlands, vegetation and cumulative effects
assessment.
The agenda is available to be
picked up at the entrance, but we will start off
with Taseko, we will then turn to Environment
Canada, we will then turn to Nancy Turner on
behalf of the -- Dr. Nancy Turner on behalf of the
Tsilhqot'in National Government, Dr. Sue Senger
representing the St'at'mc government services, Don
McKinnon, friends of Nemaiah Valley, Ken
Dunsworth, Fish Lake Alliance. We will also have
Dr. Jonieh Bhattaracharyya from Environment Canada
who will present on an alternatives to waste mine
disposal.
Dr. Bhattaracharyya was
originally scheduled for tomorrow, but has agreed
to present today given the number of presenters we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
have tomorrow -- more precisely, given the large
number of presenters we have tomorrow.
The agenda may change and we
ask presenters to be flexible.
Once we've heard from all of
the presenters, we will provide an opportunity for
Taseko to respond to the information presented.
We will sit until noon with a
break roughly 10:30-ish. We will resume at 1:00
and continue till about 5:00 with breaks
as necessary. We will resume tomorrow morning at
8:00, not 9:00. 8:00 tomorrow morning.
And I repeat my requests to any
presenters who will be here tomorrow, that we will
be tighter than usual with respect to time and so
please help us and respect other speakers
tomorrow.
Please turn off the ringers on
your cell phone, and pagers and filming and
photography are allowed only with my prior
approval.
If there are any questions, I
would be happy to entertain them. If not, I think
we're ready to start.
And I guess, Taseko, you are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
on first -- sorry, I erred. Dr. Turner is before
Environment Canada.
Mr. Gustafson.
MR. GUSTAFSON: Good morning,
panel. Just a couple of quick things. First with
respect to the change in the schedule to have --
and I didn't catch his name, Dr. Bhattaracharyya.
CHAIRMAN ROSS:
Bhattaracharyya, I believe.
MR. GUSTAFSON: We are not
prepared at this time, at least to cross-examine
him today. But if he's available tomorrow, we're
certainly happy to have him proceed with his
presentation today.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: We'll make
every effort to the accommodate that. That means
squeezing in one more thing tomorrow, but we'll do
it.
MR. GUSTAFSON: I understand.
This morning's presentation
will be given by Catherine Gizikoff, you already
have her biographical information. She was
assisted by a team from Stantec with respect to
the preparation of the presentation as well as the
information contained in the EIS. I won't take up
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
your time to go through the list and introduce
them all. The Panel has brief summaries of their
biographical information. And I understand that
it will be posted and available to others as well.
So with that, I'll turn it over
to Ms. Gizikoff.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you.
Ms. Gizikoff, go right ahead.
PRESENTATION BY TASEKO:
MS. GIZIKOFF: My name is
Catherine Gizikoff. I'm the director of
Environmental and Government Affairs for Taseko.
And I have been with Taseko in Williams Lake for
six years.
I have a bachelors degree in
agricultural science from UBC and range and
wildlife management. And a master's degree in
resource management science also from UBC.
This morning I will be talking
about the terrestrial aspects of the New
Prosperity project.
The terrestrial environment
covers physical and biological components,
specifically soils, vegetation and wildlife. The
Provincial and Federal review for the previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
project concluded no significant adverse effect on
soils and terrain, vegetation and wildlife with
the exception of grizzly bear.
The 2010 panel review concluded
in consideration of past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future activities, including forestry
and ranching. The project would result in
significant adverse affect on the South Chilcotin
grizzly bear population. New Prosperity addresses
this grizzly bear concern, and I will speak to
this today.
In designing New Prosperity, we
were responsive to the Federal review findings, we
followed the EIS guidelines, we reviewed past and
recent consultation records, including discussions
with the grizzly bear experts with the province
that managed the resource. And with the re-design
of the mine site, we assessed the significance of
environmental effects according to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act and its policies
considering the magnitude, geographical extent,
duration, frequency, reversibility and ecological
context of the effect.
This image illustrates the mine
development area for the previously reviewed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
project. Taseko River is on the left, Little Fish
Lake and Fish Lake can be seen as water bodies
within the shaded area. And the water body at the
bottom left outside of the area is Wasp Lake. The
mine development area footprint was roughly 4400
hectares.
With the New Prosperity mine
design, the tailing storage facility is located 2
kilometers upstream from Fish Lake.
For the terrestrial components
that previously had a determination of no adverse
effects, nothing has been materially changed or
affects or reduced.
Wetlands located in the
immediate vicinity of Fish Lake are preserved,
which have values to a multitude of species,
including grizzly bear. And there are lower
potential impacts on rare plants and communities
of concern, which I'll illustrate in a moment.
Overall there is less
terrestrial landscape disturbed. And in mine
development areas, approximately 2600 hectares of
which the footprint of the mine components is
roughly 1900.
The change in the mine design
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
has not resulted in a change to the conclusions of
effect for soils and terrain. This image
illustrates the areas of steeper slopes, those
that are greater than 60 percent. They're
highlighted in yellow on the left.
As in the previous project,
the terrain of the New Prosperity mine site is
generally low gradient. Just over 1 hectare of
the mine site has sloped steeper than 60 percent,
and they remain within the pit area as a previous
project.
The soils handling plant has
been updated for the new mine site layout. More
than 94 percent of the area in the mine area has
suitable soil for reclamation. There are adequate
soils for salvage stockpiling and replacement.
Considering there is no
significant adverse environmental effect with
regards to soils and terrain found in the previous
assessment, the fact that New Prosperity has a
smaller footprint and that the same mitigation
measures and commitments applied in 2009 are also
applied in the current proposal.
The EIS conclusions for soils
and terrain remain the same as for the previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
project, there are no significant adverse
environmental effects.
With regards to vegetation,
there are six key indicators that were assessed
for direct or indirect loss or change in
composition in the previous project. All were
found to have no significant adverse affect in
previous project and they included grasslands, old
forest, wetlands, riparian areas, rare plants, and
communities of concern.
A seventh key indicator was
assessed for New Prosperity. That was country
foods.
A report on species of interest
to First Nations was produced by Taseko in
September 2009 linking 52 species to the other 6
key indicators in the project area. Such as
arnica and mushrooms within the old forest, pond
lily within the wetlands, giant wild rye in the
grasslands, and stinging nettle in the riparian
areas, et cetera.
This information enabled us to
infer the affects on country foods through the
assessment of the other key indicators.
The mine site is in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
sub-boreal pine spruce and Montane spruce
biogeoclimatic zones. Old forest ecosystems in
the area are primarily pine leading stands
susceptible to mountain pine beetle infestations.
Old forest provides habitat for a diversity of
species, including migratory birds and species of
interest to First Nations, and hence reforestation
will be part of the reclamation plan.
The mount of old forest in the
New Prosperity footprint is less than the previous
project where there were no significant
environmental adverse affects.
Wetlands in the mine site study
area mainly consistent of fends and herbaceous
meadows. Fends have a standing water with hedges
or shrubs. And meadows having more curved flowers
and grasses. Herbaceous meadows are less common
in the fends in the mine site footprint. Closely
associated with the wetlands are the riparian
ecosystems, mainly consisting of scattered trees
and a well-developed shrub land.
There are no significant
adverse affects found during the previous project
review for prosperity. New Prosperity disturbs 23
percent less wetlands and 10 percent less riparian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
areas.
For both riparian areas and
wetlands, Tazeco proposes to conduct
pre-construction surveys during detailed design to
maximize avoidance and compensate for residual
effects.
This image illustrates the mine
development area and the wetlands in the regional
study area. This is the area that is preserved
compared to the previous project.
That's the area near Fish Lake
that the wetlands and riparian areas have been
preserved compared to the previous mine
development footprint.
None of the potentially
affected wetlands in the mine site area are
provincially listed ecological communities of
concern, red or blue listed.
This image illustrates the mine
development area as well as the footprint for the
actual mine components. And it shows that none of
the rare plants -- sorry, pardon me -- none of the
rare plants identified in the mine site are listed
on Schedule 1 of the Specious At Risk Act.
Because of the changes to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
mine site for New Prosperity, as well as the
changes to the BC Conservation Data Centre
listings for rare specious, there are now fewer
occurrences of plants within the mine site, mine
development area since the previous review. And
referring to these ones in here that are now
avoided.
New Prosperity has the
potential to effect three occurrences of blue
listed birds foot buttercup. This is reduced from
seven occurrences in the previous project.
New Prosperity will still
affect one occurrence of the blue-listed moss,
schistidium heterophyllum. And that is located
for interest -- that one is right here. That was
the bolder pile that was shown a few slides ago,
if anyone is wondering what that is.
Regardless of this being blue
listed, now rather than red, Taseko remains
committed to transplanting this blue listed
specious as per our commitment made during the
previous review.
There is also one red listed
community of concern in the mine site area,
lodgepole pine, trapper's tea, crowberry
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
community. And it's impacted less than the
previous project.
Taseko remains committed to
conduct pre-construction surveys to more finally
delineate this community with the intention of
avoiding even more where intact areas are
possible.
This image is of the grasslands
down at the Fraser River.
There are virtually no
grasslands within the mine site area. But they
are an important consideration for the
transmission line.
The transmission line has not
changed from the previous project, and no
significant adverse environmental effects on
grasslands were found during the previous review.
Commitments have been made to
minimize disturbance in the grasslands during
transmission line construction by avoiding
sensitive areas, for example, the badger dens.
And as past director of the
Grasslands Conservation Council of BC, I'm acutely
aware of the need to avoid disturbance on the
grasslands, and ensure weed control measures are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
implemented. Such as keeping any equipment clean
and free -- weed free, followed up by monitoring.
The grasslands in this area,
fortunately, are also managed by responsible
owners that implement grazing practices suitable
for these sensitive ecosystems. The Gang Ranch on
the west, and Douglas Lake Cattle Company on the
east.
There are numerous mitigation
measures committed to for the transmission line
that remain applied to New Prosperity. And
considerations for final alignment were developed
to protect, not just the grasslands, but wetlands,
riparian areas, sensitive wildlife features, and
location of interest to First Nations for current
use or heritage.
Considering there is no
significant adverse affect with regard to
vegetation found in the previous assessment, and
the fact that New Prosperity has a smaller
footprint and that the same mitigation measures
and commitments apply to the previous project are
also applied in New Prosperity, the conclusions
for vegetation remain the same as for the previous
project. There are no significant adverse
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
environmental effects.
There are 21 wildlife key
indicators considered for New Prosperity; 10 of
which were not found in the proposed mine site
area, but rather their habitat is limited to the
transmission line. No significant effects on
wildlife health are predicted in any phase as a
result of the project-related water quality
changes. Habitat for the key indicators in the
mine site is mapped and is provided in the EIS.
For all specious, the reduced
mine development area resulted in either no
material change or substantially reduced impact on
habitat. And I'll go through a couple of
examples.
First, barrows goldeneye. It
is dependent on having both upland and aquatic
habitat. The New Prosperity Mine development area
preserves more habitat in the vicinity of Fish
Lake than the previous project, and that's
highlighted right in this area right in here; the
green and yellow colour is the more suitable
habitat.
The vicinity near the lake also
has the highest heron and mallard feeding habitat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
in the mine site area. This is a grizzly bear
summer feeding suitability map. And it
illustrates a mosaic of very low, low to moderate
levels, as indicated by the difference of yellow
and greens and browns.
To refer back to Mr. McCrory's
presentation yesterday, as well as Mr. Hamilton's
submission from the Province, there is higher
value habitat map. It's a matter of scale, and we
didn't overlook it. And I think what Mr. McCrory
was referring to, particularly, and it's hard to
see on this image here on the screen, but he's
referring to the spawning areas above Fish Lake.
And it is a matter of looking at a landscape scale
rather than zooming in, but it is mapped as such.
The habitat suitability for
grizzly bear on the proposed mine site was
assessed in accordance with Provincial standards
using terrestrial ecosystem mapping and resource
inventory committee methodology and other sources
that are listed in the EIS.
Regardless, there is less
habitat impacted in New Prosperity with the
preservation of these meadows and riparian areas
surrounding the spawning habitat of Fish Lake.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
And grizzly bear will be a target specious for
both the reclamation plan and the habitat
compensation plan.
While the project would result
in a relatively small loss of habitat confirmed in
the previous panel review, there was concern about
the project effects in combination with other
activities, such as logging and ranching. In
particular, it's the risk of mortalities from
human-bear interaction.
While forestry may be on the
decline as stated in the Province's midterm timber
supply report, it's the past activities that have
resulted in the status of the South Tsilhqot'in
grizzly bear population unit being identified as
threatened by the province.
In B.C., the grizzly bear are
not a sterile listed specious.
As we discussed yesterday,
there is no coordinated effort for recovery.
In re-designing the project,
new mitigation measures for grizzly bear were
proposed. Measures that have the potential to
positively benefit the grizzly bear population.
I put this image up here, of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
the paved road specifically for Mr. McCrory. But
I think Mr. McManus clarified how we envisioned
the road -- or we don't have any current plans to
pave the road.
With regards to the increased
risk from the mine, camps or traffic on the Taseko
Lake Road, Taseko has developed a grizzly bear
mortality risk reduction plan. There are numerous
mitigation measures in this plan, and they are
listed in our Supplemental Information Request 38.
In addition, in that response,
there are references provided to case studies or
reports confirming their success elsewhere.
In addition to this framework,
we have three new mitigation measures proposed.
One is to work with First Nations and regulators
to develop -- sorry, to work First Nations and the
Province to contribute to the Province grizzly
bear population monitoring program, to enhance
knowledge of grizzly bear population trends, and
movements in the unit.
A bear population monitoring
program, including DNA sampling, such as the
Province has more on-the-ground data to determine
effects and monitor trends. This is not only of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
value to us during construction and operations,
but a value to the Province to assist them with
their initiatives, such as keeping that area
hunting closed for bear, if necessary. And I know
that's a pressure that they are facing.
Secondly, to work with First
Nations and regulators to develop a public
education and awareness initiative that supports
ongoing dialogue regarding grizzly bear. A
program that's of particular value to address a
human-bear interaction and conflict that occurs
with the ranchers, such as at calving time, or
with landowners and recreationists in general.
There is no initiative such as this currently in
place.
And further, Taseko will work
with First Nations regulators, land owners, and
stake owners to develop an access management
strategy for the transition line corridor, and
utilize our staff resources and technical
expertise to identify roads and trails for
deactivation during transmission line
construction.
Access management requires
facilitation, planning and permitting. We
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
understand the challenges. I have been involved
in the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery
Program. And I have been involved in access plans
in the Alberta foothills, and a coordinator
resource management plans in Southern BC.
Regardless of the challenges,
this is a valuable mitigation measure that can
help address many concerns unrelated to the
project, such as moose hunting and traffic impact
on traditional use areas.
I just would like to add a few
additional comments about grizzly bear and mining.
This is a reclaimed area in the Hinton area -- a
reclaimed site in the Hinton area.
And taken from a recent Tec
sustainability report off their website they
state:
"We have restored and improved some
areas of habitat. Research over the
past decade that has shown that grizzly
bears whose home ranges includes mined
lands, have been partially reclaimed are
healthier, better fed and more
reproductive than bears in nearby
non-mined areas."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
I think the Panel might have an
image in front of them that isn't showing up on
the screen. We had a technical glitch in loading
the PowerPoint presentation. And is it an image
of just of haul roads and active pit and gold
mines.
But my point that I was
attempting to make with that slide is that with
regards to roads, again, at Cardinal River, they
have posted maximum speed limits and wildlife
warning signs, and have radio communications to
alert employees, and bear aware programs for all
employees and contractors. In 30 years, there
have been no grizzly bear mortalities due to
mining or hauling activities.
There are numerous other
examples throughout BC. In the Northern coal
block in Quintet and the southeast coal block I'm
sure in the Alfred area as well. Mine operations
that have existed and are existing in areas of
high grizzly bear populations or habitat.
We have to remember that safety
is also of utmost importance to the mining
industry. And conflict with bears is a top
priority to protect their employees and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
contractors, as well as to understand wildlife
concerns and minimize their impact to wildlife and
wildlife habitat.
Going back to our access
management. This image illustrates our
transmission line that goes through areas of high
road density in the grizzly bear population. And
that's indicated by the higher -- more orange and
yellow area up in here. And this is consistent
with the image that Mr. McCrory put up yesterday
as well. I think he was referring to that as the
zone of extinction.
Access and poaching or just
human-bear interaction causing death was
consistently raised as a concern during the last
review.
Mr. McCrory provided to us the
numbers yesterday for illegal kills and
conservation officer kills from human-bear
interaction.
Access was identified as a
concern, but never followed up on after the
caribou Tsilhqot'in land use plan.
With regards to access
planning, Taseko has started to prepare for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
next step by outlining a process document to
discuss with First Nations and regulators.
Just to illustrate what we're
looking at, because it was also referenced that
the transmission line was 500 meters wide, I
thought I would put this image up. This is
actually of Gibraltar's hydro line.
The poles are not going to be
quite the same as what's proposed for New
Prosperity, but the width of the transmission line
is the same. Roughly around 50 meters wide, and
this illustrates well the vegetation understory.
This image also is not too
clear on the screen, but it is image taken by
helicopter a few years ago of the plateau area
where the transmission line would run across.
And you can see the extent at
that time of logging as a response to the mountain
pine beetle infestation. And even with the
regrowth that's occurring in some of these
newer -- sorry, older clear cuts here, can you
still make out the trails and roads that still
exist through some of these areas.
Just another note too. For the
transmission line, that we have committed to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
utilize whatever existing disturbance possible
clear cuts in the roads in our final alignment.
With regards to
decommissioning, we know how to do this. As an
industry, we certainly do enough exploration and
exploration reclamation to understand the issues
associated with increasing access, and therefore
we know how to reclaim and pull back debris in
attempt to minimize ATV traffic.
In conclusions for wildlife,
considering there is no significant environmental
effect with regards to wildlife in the previous
assessment, with the exception of grizzly bear,
and the fact that New Prosperity has a smaller
footprint, and that habitat losses are either
comparable or smaller, and that the same
mitigation measures and commitments are applied in
the new project that were applied in the previous
project.
And in addition we have new
mitigation measures for grizzly bear as well as
habitat compensation. The conclusions for
wildlife is that there are no significant adverse
environmental effect.
I have spoken a fair bit about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
mitigation measures, and being carried over from
the previous project. And mitigation measures are
captured in the environmental management plans and
programs that will be developed upon mine project
approval.
And they will be developed
under the umbrella of environmental management
system specifically to enable us to refine
procedures, train employees, monitor and have
senior management review of a performance for
continual improvement.
There are 14 environmental
management plans listed in the EIS. And some of
them specifically have interest to the terrestrial
component in a vegetation and wildlife management
plan, which includes the control of invasive
weeds.
The reclamation requirements in
B.C. are identified in the health, safety, and
reclamation code for mines in B.C. under the mines
act.
The objectives for the New
Prosperity site is in addition to providing for
stable land forms and prevent erosion is to
establish productive land use that is of value for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
wildlife as well as providing opportunities for
First Nations use and traditional purposes, and
other resource uses, such as trapping, grazing,
and recreation.
The mining industry in B.C. has
substantial experience in reclamation to wildlife
and grazing use. Generally in the southern
interior, it's a combination of both. This arises
in the mixture of open landscapes with rocky out
crops and shrubbery, and forested islands or
corridors.
Bull moose, now closed, is an
excellent example of recontouring and
reestablishing water drainages. Species of
specific interest for First Nations use be
included in the final reclamation.
With regards to reforestation,
this is just a photograph of Gibraltar's onsite
nursery. This is common at mainline sites to have
their own facility or have a contracted-out
facility nearby.
With wetted areas, ponds and
whatnot, mining in B.C. has experienced a habitat
restoration and creation towards the goals of
waterfowl, breeding habitat for amphibians,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
riparian areas for browse and ungulates.
The BC mining industry is
innovative and it's good at sharing technical
information. The BC Technical and Research
Committee on Reclamation originated in the 1970s
and is a collaboration of industry, government and
universities.
In September 2012, the
Gibraltar mine received the metal mine reclamation
award from the BC Technical -- TRCR in recognition
of its large scale reclamation project and
progressive reclamation research. It's very
common, if not, always consistent for operating
mines to have on-site research programs going on
at the beginning of construction.
Taseko will be responsible for
all environmental monitoring and reclamation
programs until all conditions of the mine, Mines
Act Coded permits have been fulfilled and Taseko
has been released from its obligations.
As per the EIS guidelines and
consistent with our commitment and our BC
certificate, we have completed our first draft of
the habitat compensation plan. We look forward to
discussing this with others.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
Through planning and
implementation of this habitat compensation plan,
Taseko aims to fully mitigate project-related
residual adverse affects to regional and local
wildlife populations of migratory birds by
addressing wetland and riparian function, species
at risk, grizzly bear, and species of importance
to First Nations, many of which are related to
wetlands and riparian areas.
To be effective, the habitat
compensation plan must be developed in
collaboration with First Nations and stakeholders,
as well also Federal and provincial regulatory
agencies.
Taseko has initiated their
engagement of potential groups for suggestion of
compensation elements, such as First Nations,
organizations like the sportsman's club and Ducks
Unlimited, and Cattleman's Association. And other
groups that have established tables.
And we've been compiling ideas
and elements for a compensation plan, including
potential fencing of meadows and riparian areas
that may be impacted by horses or cattle. At
particular interest to migratory birds and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
amphibians. Areas that are in close proximity to
the mine site for restoring riparian and
wetlands -- or wetlands and riparian areas across
the plateau that have high moose value, such as
indicated on the provincial mapping base.
And participating perhaps in
existing projects on water management planning,
such as at San Jose watershed that has a multitude
of partners already and facilitated by the Fraser
Basin Council. And.
Closer to Williams Lake, there
are potential projects with First Nations that
have identified cultural use and heritage sites
with habitat values that are being impacted by
recreation and development.
And of course we have Puntzi
Creek project, which was not initiated
specifically for prosperity, but there are
numerous values associated with the Puntzi project
for fish habitat improvement, benefits to resource
users, agricultural benefits, and of course
there's the pelicans.
We do know how to do this. We
have experience with these projects and we are
open to discussing additional mitigation measures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
as part of the habitat compensation plan that
enhance waterfowl and wildlife habitat, and
improving abundance and diversity of plant
wildlife species that are of interest to
aboriginal people.
In addition to the laws,
regulations, and codes of ethics, our company is
guided by environmental policy, aboriginal policy,
and you heard -- I'll speak the other day towards
sustainable mining.
In addition, there are over a
hundred commitments in our BC certificate.
Commitments to ongoing consultation with a variety
of aboriginal groups, stakeholders, landowners and
regulatory agencies during final design and
permitting.
Some of those may consider
those commitments benchmark, but there are -- the
ones that are general goals are captured in our
policies that we have demonstrated our commitment
to. The majority of them are actually related to
permitting and picked up by either Ministry of
Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations or
the Ministry of Mines under the Mines Act.
In conclusion, we have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
responded to the previous concerns, we've
preserved more habitat, we've provided new
mitigation measures for grizzly bear, which are
consistent with recovery programs used elsewhere.
We have fulfilled the requirements of the EIS
guidelines and met the test of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. The EIS conclusion
on terrestrial components has no significant
adverse effect.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you,
Ms. Gizikoff.
We're ready for questioning
now.
Sorry, yes, you're welcome to
flee over there.
First, any questions by
Government of Canada?
Second, any questions by First
Nations interested parties? Mr. LaPlante -- oh,
sorry, Mr. Nelson. I was sure I saw Mr. LaPlante
put his hand up, but Mr. Nelson, go right ahead.
MR. LA PLANTE: I just have one
quick question. Thank you for the presentation,
Ms. Gizikoff. My question relates to monitoring.
I think I understood you to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
say that the company would be responsible for
monitoring until all the conditions under its Mine
Act permit had been fulfilled. And I was
wondering if there were the need for pumping or
water treatment in perpetuity has raised by a
number of the regulators and interested parties.
Do you anticipate Taseko's
responsibility and liability would extend in
perpetuity as well for monitoring of effects?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Yes.
PUBLIC SPEAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Mr. LaPlante?
MR. LA PLANTE: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
I have a couple of questions,
one -- there's kind of two -- two different
subjects; one is on wetlands and the other on
moose. I'll start with the wetlands.
I'm wondering -- and thank
you, Ms. Gizikoff, for the presentation. I'm
wondering how many hectares of wetlands were to be
destroyed in the old proposal? How many hectares?
Is that number handy?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Yes. One
moment, please, with regards to wetlands. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
loss of wetlands in the old proposal was 404, with
the new proposal it's 311.
MR. LA PLANTE: And I think you
said it would be fair to say three-quarters of the
wetlands are still to be destroyed by the project,
roughly?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I think I
mentioned that -- in my presentation, that 23
percent less wetlands are disturbed with New
Prosperity.
MR. LA PLANTE: Yeah, I didn't
catch that.
My next question is: Have you
modeled the impacts of the recirculation proposal
on the functioning of those wetlands that are
retained?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Mr. LaPlante, I
believe we did do that. And I'm sorry, we did do
that. I believe that's a response to one of our
IR's that is in front of the panel.
MR. LA PLANTE: Would you be
able to specify that so we can find that?
MS. GIZIKOFF: We'll look that
up and bring that back to you, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: I'm assuming we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
will bring it back means fairly soon. Thank you.
MR. LA PLANTE: My follow-up
question to that: Are you aware of any
recirculation projects of this size and magnitude
that have been successful before? As in, you
know, we've learned yesterday that there are no
lake recirculations of this size and magnitude
that have ever been done.
And I'm wondering if in a
similar vein, has this ever been done of this size
and magnitude with wetlands? If so, what examples
that we could look to?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Mr. LaPlante, I
say your name first to make sure the mic comes on.
I think that was discussed
yesterday with regard to the lake that there was
no case studies or examples.
But with regards to wetlands,
we didn't specifically look at recirculation
projects for the purposes of wetland function.
There may be some out there, because Ducks
Unlimited has a very large record of water and
wetlands management that involves both holding
back water and potentially recirculating. But we
haven't investigated that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
MR. LA PLANTE: And that wasn't
important to know before today? I'm curious why
we don't have that information before us.
MR. JONES: Scott Jones,
J-O-N-E-S.
Mr. LaPlante, your question
was did we think that was important?
MR. LA PLANTE: I guess I think
that there's a difference between lake function
and wetlands function. And I'm curious, you are
making the claim that everything is rosy.
But I haven't seen any proof
that this could be done for wetlands of this size
and magnitude. So I'm looking where are there
examples where something of this magnitude has
been done before. And I would like -- if there
aren't any, then we should know that as well.
MR. JONES: I think we
clarified we didn't bring forward any case studies
of recirculating of this magnitude. And I think
we also said that we incorporated the effects of
that in -- on wetlands and we're coming back to
that with the IR that we responded to.
MR. LA PLANTE: And I believe
that was IR Number 31. Mr. Pearse shared that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
with me.
I'm going to move on for now to
moose habitat.
Can you confirm that this
project negatively effects moose habitat.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Our conclusion
in the EIS was there was no significant adverse
environmental affects on this habitat.
MR. LA PLANTE: But is there an
effect on this habitat, whether or not it's
significant in your opinion.
MS. GIZIKOFF: I think that was
stated in the EIS.
MR. LA PLANTE: Thank you.
And is the Proponent aware
that new information, since the last review and
since the last panel hearing and the
determinations made in that review, have been
released by the province that are indicating
significant declines in moose population, in game
management zone 5-D, is this something the company
is aware of?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Yes, we are.
Actually we just got the final record for that,
Mr. LaPlante. And we're very pleased to see that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
the findings of that study helped justify even
further our access decommissioning plan for the
transmission line. We hope that will be of great
benefit to the moose as well as the grizzly bear.
MR. LA PLANTE: And has TML
conducted an affects assessment of the project on
cumulative effects to moose populations using
these updated numbers that I believe were released
a year ago?
MS. GIZIKOFF: We only received
the final report last night, Mr. LaPlante. If the
data was available a year ago, that is new to me.
Let me confer with my group here.
I can confirm that we only
received the final report last night and a draft
about two weeks ago.
MR. LA PLANTE: Thank you. And
so I guess you had not received that information.
I believe there were estimates done from surveys a
year ago. So this is something new to the
company?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Yes. But the
survey that was done is based on population. It
was a population evaluation, if I'm correct. Our
approach in the EIS for Prosperity and New
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
Prosperity is habitat based.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Could I
interject for a moment?
I would like to be certain that
the two of you are talking about the same document
and that we can understand what document you're
talking about. So perhaps we could have some
clarification of that, please.
MR. LA PLANTE: I would be
happy to provide that to the Panel. I believe
there were -- in 2012, there were survey results
done by the Province that, you know, I believe the
numbers that came back from those results were a
total population decrease in five years of 51
percent of the moose in game management zone 5-D,
bulls were 50 percent, cows were 47 percent,
calves were 64 percent. And that is not new
information. And I'm surprised that the company
wasn't aware of that.
Now, I believe -- and correct
me if I'm wrong, there is a recent report
released. It was done by a biologist as a result
of this decline to look into the potential causes
of that decline.
So that's new. But the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
numbers are not new. And I believe that was an
information request made by the Panel to FLNRO.
And I'm not sure if I missed it. I don't know if
they shared that with yourselves. You know,
that's not new information.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: The main reason
I was asking is I didn't know whether you were
referring to that document, which we of course
immediately posted on the registry, or whether
there was something else, which I gather now there
are two documents, one of which is the population
survey and the other which is the follow-up to it.
MR. LA PLANTE: That's my
understanding.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: So I want to be
sure we're still on the same page, Ms. Gizikoff.
MS. GIZIKOFF: I believe the
population survey that you're speaking of that's a
year old done by Larry Davis for Big Creek.
MR. LA PLANTE: Yes.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Yes.
I was speaking of the one that
just came out that's a compilation of all the
information that's more recent. Which is more an
interpretation of the causes of that moose
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
decline.
Whereas, Larry Davis' was just
numbers, which had very little interpretation as
to cause and effect.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: : Thank you
for that clarification. I'm back out now.
MR. LA PLANTE: I have a
follow-up question based on that. When were you
aware of the Larry Davis one?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I think probably
about two weeks ago, as I earlier mentioned when
we received the draft of the compiled report. We
noticed that there was reference to Larry Davis'
work in that document. But, again, that's -- was
population information and our approach was
habitat based.
MR. LA PLANTE: Regardless,
that information has not been incorporated into
your cumulative effects then; is that a fair
statement?
MS. GIZIKOFF: In terms of
mitigation measures, it has been incorporated into
our effects assessment because our mitigation
measures are most appropriate to address the
concerns found in that report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
MR. LA PLANTE: That doesn't
answer my question. I'm asking whether that
information was included in the assessment of
impacts of cumulative effects.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Well, the report
was population based so we didn't include it. No.
MR. LA PLANTE: Thank you.
And my final question is: In
what year is the transmission line to be
decommissioned?
Is my second to last question.
Sorry.
MS. GIZIKOFF: I believe the
EIS states that the transmission line will be
decommissioned when it's no longer required for
New Prosperity, subject to us fulfilling all our
reclamation and decommissioning obligations.
MR. LA PLANTE: And when do you
envision that to occur?
MS. GIZIKOFF: That's going to
depend on a variety of factors that we can't
answer that right now, Mr. LaPlante.
MR. LA PLANTE: Is there a date
that's in the EIS?
MS. GIZIKOFF: No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
MR. LA PLANTE: And so would it
be consistent with pumping water forever, that you
would need power forever?
MR. JONES: Mr. LaPlante, yes,
in order to pump, we would need power. There's
still opportunities to investigate the quantity of
power and what that source of power may be.
MR. LA PLANTE: And if it was
of sufficient quantity, then is it reasonable to
say that that power line would never be
decommissioned?
MR. JONES: I don't think
that's safe to say.
MR. LA PLANTE: Sorry, I don't
understand.
MR. JONES: You asked me would
it be safe to say the power line will never be
decommissioned. I think what you are asking me --
MR. LA PLANTE: If you needed
the power, I assume, then, that you would need
that power line to provide power for the pumping,
that is you are proposing forever.
MR. JONES: And the requirement
for the transmission line would depend on the
quantity of power that you require. So I guess
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
what I'm saying is that there are alternatives to
the transmission line depending on the nature of
the power that's required at the site.
MR. LA PLANTE: And you haven't
looked at this at all? Would you not say that's
an important aspect of the project to know when
the power line can be decommissioned? And you are
here today and you don't have that answer?
MR. JONES: Excuse me, we have
looked at that. We haven't included it as part of
the body of the EIS.
MR. LA PLANTE: So you've
looked at it. So you have an answer?
MR. JONES: I don't have a
final answer. We've looked at options for
generating power at site that may meet the
requirements for pumping. But nothing that is
finalized.
MR. LA PLANTE: Can give us a
draft sense of where you're at?
MR. JONES: Sorry. A draft
sense?
MR. LA PLANTE: Yeah. You said
you've looked at it, but you're not -- it's not
final. So what are -- what should we expect? I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
think this is the hearing on terrestrial effects.
Whether and when you can decommission that power
line has a significant impact on your mitigation
plans, habitat compensation, access management.
And I think we deserve an answer today.
MR. JONES: I don't have a
document or study or a report I can give you,
Mr. LaPlante. We have considered it, we have
discussed it. But I don't have a deliverable from
that.
MR. LA PLANTE: We can't even
get a sense of whether you would need that power
line or not to run the pumps?
Let's say the upper bound was,
what, 8,000 meters per minute. Would you need the
power line to run pumps at that rate, and a water
treatment plant possibly?
MR. JONES: It's impossible to
guess at this point, Mr. LaPlante. And there are
alternatives from transmission line to power
generation, diesel generation. I can't guess.
MR. LA PLANTE: Thank you,
Mr. McManus.
I guess Mr. Chairman, I think
it's pretty frustrating for us, I think that is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
something we deserve to know, is when a power line
is being actually proposed to be decommissioned.
And I don't know if that's an undertaking we could
ask the company to provide that answer before next
week, but that's something that I would certainly
request. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Mr. Gustafson.
MR. GUSTAFSON: Mr. Chairman,
with respect, I think we don't need the continued
speeches following the questions or as prefaces to
the question. I think the answer is pretty clear,
that it would be irresponsible to try to guess
what the future will hold in 20 or 30 years.
I don't think the company is in
a position to undertake to provide a definitive
study and design for the decommissioning when its
evidence is pretty clear, that that is something
that will evolve over the course of the operations
and will be designed to meet the requirements upon
closing.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you,
Mr. Gustafson.
Any further questions from --
please. Okay. Any further questions first from
TNG?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
Then I move on to interested
party organizations, please.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: My name is
Jonaki Bhattacharyya. I may be registered as an
interested party individual, but I think I was
switched to be affiliated with friends of Nemaiah
Valley in terms of the presentation. So I'm not
sure where I'm listed now in your registration
materials.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for the presentation. I just had a couple of
questions regarding the bear habitat issues in
your presentation.
You were referencing
Mr. McCrory's information from yesterday. And you
mentioned that you understood his characterization
of crucial wetland habitat for bears to be
primarily the spawning channels upstream of Fish
Lake that are now with the New Prosperity
proposal, not part of the mine impact area.
I'm just hoping you can
clarify, though. Is there wetlands downstream of
Fish Lake that serves as bear habitat?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Yes. I'm sorry
if that was not clear. But I was referring to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
area that was preserved compared to the previous
project.
Yes, there is suitable bear
habitat upstream and downstream.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Okay. And
so did you understand Mr. McCrory's reference to
crucial bear habitat to refer to the wetlands both
upstream, but also the wetlands downstream of Fish
Lake that is still slated for impact?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I did. What I
was attempting to refer to was our generalized
comments made in the EIS about the area having low
habitat suitability for grizzly bear, and both
Mr. McCrory and Mr. Hamilton's comments that that
statement, it doesn't capture some of the isolated
areas that are of higher value, both upstream and
downstream of Fish Lake.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Thank you.
My second question is just
regarding the -- I'm wondering regarding bear
behavior. You mentioned that bears would be able
to access that area, the spawning channels
upstream of Fish Lake that have now been
preserved.
Do you have any studies,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
either of bear behavior and travel patterns, in
the Fish Lake area right now that would suggest
that they will successfully be able to navigate
their way around the pit and the impoundment area
to that bubble in the middle, that is where the
pumps are preserving spawning channels?
I'm asking because we can -- as
we all know, in terms of wildlife behavior, it's
hard to convince the animals and the plants that
we have for them when we ask them to change their
patterns.
Do you have any studies in
terms of the travel routes currently used by
bears?
MS. BRYDEN: Hi, Colleen
Bryden. I will ask you to restate the question.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: So we were
talking about bear habitat downstream of Fish Lake
being destroyed, but upstream the spawning
channels -- the New Prosperity proposals being
preserved to some extent, though they will be
pumped.
So I'm wondering whether there
are any studies to tell us where the current
travel routes of bears are that would indicate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
that they will successfully be able to get to
those preserved spawning channels? Do we have any
indication of how they currently move through the
area?
MS. BRYDEN: That's a little
bit different from what I understood the first
time around, but I'm speaking to that as well. I
think you did ask whether bears -- if there is
evidence of bears feeding -- that might feed in
disturbed areas, for example, or near human
activity, for example.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: No. I'm
sorry. I should clarify. I'm asking whether we
have studies that indicate their travel routes and
behavior in the Fish Lake region that could
indicate for us that they will successfully be
able to access and choose to access those areas
that you are preserving upstream?
MS. BRYDEN: There is no
specific studies that have looked at site specific
bear movement patterns in the area. Although
you'll be familiar with Wayne McCrory's work.
And he has identified a marked
trail along the shore of Fish Lake and up into the
upper Fish Creek. So that's an indication of bear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
movement in the area.
They are known to feed around
Fish Lake, as we've heard from several sources.
So they access the spawning areas exactly. How
they are coming in, it's not well known. I mean
they use a trail, probably not their only access
route. Bears are wide ranging and opportunistic.
What we have proposed during
the operations of the mine is that to facilitate
or help bears access these areas during the
spawning season, so spring, early summer, the area
at the inlet now where the fish would be spawning
would be -- human access to that area would be
controlled.
And this is the access of mine
personnel doing water management and things like
that. So that area would be controlled with
respect to human use. And this is to encourage,
if you will, bear use of the area.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Thank you
for that.
And just one more
clarification question for me. That marked trail
that you mentioned that is a common travel route
that the bears use, could you clarify for me
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
whether that is on the side of Fish Lake that is
still to be the impacted and that bubble that map
that you provided, the west side or the east side
of Fish Lake?
MS. BRYDEN: It's on the east
side of Fish Lake.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: And is that
the side that is still close to the impact zone
for the New Prosperity mine.
MR. KUPFER: Well, it's kind of
a dumbbell shaped footprint, if you'll remember.
So the pit at one end and the tailings facility at
the other end. And the road, connecting road. So
the marked trail is along that side.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: The side
that is still in the impact zone.
MR. KUPFER: Yes, I see what
you mean. Yes. Adjacent to the access road.
MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Other
registered party organizations?
MS. EDWARDS: Hello there. My
name is Michelle Edwards, E-D-W-A-R-D-S. I am the
chief of the St'at'imc Cichiatin (ph) Community
and the Stad'ium Nation. I'm also a director of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
the St'at'imc government services.
I want to thank you for your
presentation, gave me a little bit of an idea on
what the impacts are going to be in this
territory, and, you know, will eventually get into
my territory.
But when you're talking -- and
you said several times that there is no
significant adverse environmental impacts. And
just maybe elaborate on that a little bit and
maybe let me know what an insignificant adverse
environmental impact is, knowing that the First
Nations people all across Canada and the --
actually the states that really rely on the
environment. So any kind of impact will
definitely impact on our way of life; we depend on
land and wildlife first.
I feel I need to speak for the
wildlife. If we don't have them, it starts
impacting us practicing our way of life. So maybe
if you can let me know what an "insignificant
adverse environmental impact" is compared to your
no significant adverse environmental impact.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
When we say "no significant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
adverse environmental effect," we're referring to
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its
policies and the various factors to consider to
determine the affect. It's not meant as any
disrespect to an individual who might feel
otherwise of the effect.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you,
Ms. Edwards.
And I apologize for skipping
over a component that I should have dealt with
first, which was other First Nations interested
parties, and I would have captured you at that
point.
So let me back up a little bit.
Are there other First Nations
interested parties who wish to speak now?
Other interested party
organizations?
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Gizikoff, for your
presentation. I thought it was very informative.
In your professional opinion,
the trail, the corridor that the grizzlies
travel -- and I'm sure walked --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Excuse me. I
should remember, but I've forgotten your name.
Would you identify yourself for the court
reporter.
MR. WILLIAMS: David Williams,
and that's with an "S".
And it's Friends of the Nemaiah
Valley.
Ms. Gizikoff, the travel
corridor that we have, I'm sure, both walked many
times, is it your professional opinion that that
will be impacted by the new mine development?
You know, it goes up the east
side of Fish Lake and then follows around the
south end and then straight through to Little Fish
Lake, pretty much, and through wetlands and along
the creek.
To what extent do you think
that will be impacted?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I haven't walked
it. I've only ridden on horse through it.
But the area that would be
impacted would be the area that is under the
footprint of the mine components as shown on the
mine development area there, from just about Wasp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
Lake there down Little Fish Lake to Fish Creek --
or to, sorry, to Fish Lake, roughly about -- that
distance might be about halfway.
Also, on the other end of Fish
Lake, I've never noticed the trail mostly because
of past disturbance with the camp site and the
road. So I can't comment on the impact of any
historic or frequently used grizzly bear trail on
that side.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think
they mostly use the road, judging by the sign I
see.
So I think it's safe to say it
would be fairly heavily impacted. They would
probably want to change the route.
Apart from that, Mr. McCrory
yesterday mentioned the western toad. Have you
considered that? I believe it's an endangered
species.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Western toad is
a special concern. It's not endangered. We have
considered it. I believe there is an IR
specifically with regard -- it speaks to western
toad.
Would you like the number of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
that?
MR. WILLIAMS: That will be
interesting. Thank you.
MS. GIZIKOFF: I will get
somebody to look that up for.
As well, we have considered it
further in mitigation measures, especially in
response to information that local people provide
or Mr. McCrory. But we have previously considered
special infrastructure that we could potentially
include when we get to final design, like special
culverts, and salvage, and some barriers to assist
with their migration and travel to avoid impact?
MR. WILLIAMS: You have
observed them in the area, though?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I believe our
surveys have observed them in the area. I think
that's documented in the area as well. I will get
that for you.
MR. WILLIAMS: One other
question to do with the transmission line. It
looks as if it's probably going to being there in
perpetuity. Okay. That's all I have, thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you,
Mr. Williams.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
Other interested party
organizations? Please.
MR. MONROE: Good morning,
Mr. Chair. It's Keith Monroe, Council of
Canadians. I don't know whether you remember me
or not.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: I had guessed
Monroe, but I wasn't confident.
MR. MONROE: Thank you,
Ms. Gizikoff, for your presentation. It raised a
number of questions and clarification in my mine.
A number of them have been answered so I don't
have that many left.
But I guess the first one is
clarify -- going back to your first couple of
slides in your presentation, you were talking
about I guess -- I think it was referred to as a
significant reduction in the mine development
area.
And I'm trying to get my mind
around that. As far as I understand the
components of mine development would be the same
size, the tailing storage facility, the pit,
roads, whatever else.
So what was the process to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
come up with that reduction in the mine
development area?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I believe
there's two parts of that answer.
One is the waste rock storage
area is smaller, and this new design than it was
previously. Just a design difference and location
difference enables that.
But I was speaking also about
the maximum disturbance boundary in which the
components actually sit because of the lay of it
that the maximum disturbance boundary is smaller
with New Prosperity compared to the previous
project. And that (muffled) is when disturbance
boundary encompasses a bit of a buffer around
those (muffled) mine components.
MR. MONROE: So did that buffer
change? That is actually what I was interested
in, was that disturbance buffer. I know it's been
changed in the vicinity of Wasp Lake. And that
wouldn't be explained by any change in the waste
rock storage area size.
MS. BRYDEN: The buffer didn't
change. But one thing to remember down in the
Wasp area in the previous project, there was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
Prosperity Lake. That is a piece of
infrastructure, if you will, that is not included
in the New Prosperity plan.
MR. MONROE: Also Prosperity
Lake was in that area that is now -- okay. I
wasn't aware of that. Thank you.
Okay. You mentioned -- another
question to change the focus here. You mentioned
in your talk about enhanced reforestation, but not
really any details provided. I'm curious about
that. Two questions on that.
One is, what does enhanced
does reforestation mean? And what areas would be
involved with that?
MS. GIZIKOFF: If I said the
phrase enhanced reforestation, I fumbled.
The areas would be enhanced
with reforestation, would likely be what I meant.
To just distinguish between
those large open grassy areas, which are sometimes
seen on older mines, less modern mines that are
just seeded, to now incorporating diversity of
native shrubs and trees species, either broadly or
in islands, to create wildlife corridors through
the landscape. So that type of reforestation as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
opposed to -- I didn't mean enhanced.
MR. MONROE: Enhanced
revegetation including an aspect of forest is that
what you are --
MS. GIZIKOFF: Correct. For a
diversity on the landscape as opposed to a
monoculture of herbaceous species.
MR. MONROE: Fair enough.
What would the plans be for
revegetation or reforestation for the transmission
line?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I think that is
described in the EIS. But just to reiterate, the
transmission line would be naturally growing,
there would be tree clearing where necessary,
where we aren't able to make use of existing clear
cuts and roads.
So there would tree clearing,
minimal clearing or disturbance in wetlands or
riparian areas that we have to cross.
So there would be no
revegetation required. Rather, just where poles
were sighted and there's disturbance, there would
be seeding immediately around those sites to
ensure that we control invasive weeds.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
MR. MONROE: So there isn't
really any clearing of the transmission line as
part of the plan, then?
MS. GIZIKOFF: The image that I
showed for Gibraltar's transmission line, that's
all natural growth. That wasn't planted. There
might have been some disturbed areas years ago
that was seeded.
MR. MONROE: You're plan for
the transmission line location I understand was to
take advantage of existing logged areas as much as
possible. I would assume that some of those had
been reforested.
Would you be able to establish
a transmission line without disturbing that
reforestation?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Whether it was
cleared previously or we clear it, we would have
to manage tree height on the transmission line to
avoid impact with the operation of the line,
maintenance of the line.
Tree -- conifer trees,
deciduous trees or shrubs to a certain height
would be accommodated.
MR. MONROE: So is there any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
standards for reforestation when you decommission
that line?
MS. GIZIKOFF: If there are
going to be standards, they will be specified in
our statutory rights of right-away, licence of
occupation that we will be obtained from the
Ministry of Forest Lands and Natural Resource
operations.
During permitting, we will
have to submit an environmental management plan
for that transmission line, and closure will be an
aspect that we will have to write to and would be
reviewed with the regulatory agency in
consultation with First Nations.
MR. MONROE: Thank you.
I just have one more question,
and it relates to some of the previous discussion
over adverse affects and significance or
insignificance then. If you just bear with me. I
would like to read a section of the EIS relating
to moose and selenium. And it is page 1101.
And it says:
"Concentrations projected at Fish Lake
are within the range of waterborne
concentrations that have been observed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
to bioaccumulate in the food chain. And
as such, moose feeding heavily on
aquatic plants in the spring and summer
may be vulnerable to increased to
selenium exposure."
I guess my question is: That's
viewed by Taseko as an insignificant adverse
affect?
MS. GIZIKOFF: The statement
that you just read with regards to the potential
affect on moose, that effect is uncertain.
We have committed to
monitoring, I believe that's outlined also in that
section to confirm and monitor wildlife health and
selenium concentrations in the vegetation.
But in terms of significance
of effect, moose are wide-ranging species and they
would not be consuming only this vegetation. So
it would be a local effect that we would assume
would not have an effect on population or even an
individual. But, again, that would be part of the
monitoring.
MR. MONROE: Okay. Thanks.
One final question relating to
that, a follow-up I guess. I'm not that familiar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
with bioaccumulation of selenium, but can it go
one step -- potentially go one step further up the
food chain and into humans?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I won't answer
that question today. We have our human health
person coming tonight and he'll be part of the
presentation tomorrow.
MR. MONROE: Fair enough.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you,
Mr. Monroe.
Any other interested party
organizations?
MS. KENDALL: Thanks. I would
like to acknowledge the Secwepemc people on which
territory we are sitting today, the Tsilhqot'in,
whose territory we are talking about.
Just a couple things to --
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Excuse me.
MS. KENDALL: Oh, my name is
Sarah Kendall. Sorry.
Some are clarifications and
some are just confirming what you meant.
When you talked about
transporting of a blue-listed community, what does
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
that mean and how are you going to transport that
community from the affected area to where?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Just confirming
my understanding with my team.
It's not a community, it's a
species, the moss. And it grows on those boulders
that -- I flipped through it rather quickly, but
it was on one of the slides there. And the
intent -- plan is to -- prior to construction is
to move those boulders to locations further
upstream in Fish Creek that have similar
ecological characteristics as to where it's grown.
I think -- speaking personally
here, but I think that's going to be quite an
exciting opportunity to study that. We'd likely
transport it to a few locations and likely a
terrific graduate student (muffled). I'll leave
that for now.
MS. KENDALL: So it's kind of
an experiment?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Absolutely. In
this location, it would be considered an
experiment, and a terrific research opportunity.
MS. KENDALL: Aside from
reducing the amount of grizzly bear -- the wetland
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
that many species, including grizzly bears, need
by under one-quarter of its former proposal, the
amount that would be destroyed, what else do you
tangibly plan on changing in terms of the
protecting the grizzly bears affected by the mine
site, outside of education at large for the
population, but actually in terms of protecting
the population of grizzly bears?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Our IR 38 and
SIR 38 responses, those information requests,
outline all the mitigation measures that are
associated with our mortality risk reduction
framework. And those -- most of those are very
specific to the population in and around the mine
site, the access road and the camp.
MS. KENDALL: There's none that
you can mention briefly here? Those mitigation
procedures? Because, as a lay person, I don't
understand what the real change in terms of
protecting the bears is.
MS. GIZIKOFF: I can read a few
more from the IR, if you would like.
MS. KENDALL: Sure, seems
relevant.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
Ms. Gizikoff, if you are just going to read from
the IR, I think it might be better just to refer
to the IR. The Panel has reviewed that
extensively. And so if the answer is an IR, then
identifying that would deal with the question.
MS. KENDALL: Okay. Just the
last thing in terms of the animals in the area.
Do you think that the populations of animals in
your mine site are irrelevant to an environmental
assessment?
MS. GIZIKOFF: No.
MS. KENDALL: There was some
confusion, as I heard a number of times, that you
weren't considering population whatsoever, you
were only considering habitat.
When you say that you work
with -- planning to work with First Nations to
develop a lot of -- on a number of points you said
you will continue to work with First Nations to do
the rehabilitation, or continue the monitoring
processes, who you do mean when the local First
Nations have already said no to the project? Who
are you proposing to? Specifically, not just
Natives.
MS. GIZIKOFF: The EIS outlines
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
Taseko's long-term engagement strategy. Our door
remains open to consulting with First Nations,
both Secwepemc and Tsilhqot'in, First Nations.
Upon project approval, it would be our hope that
the First Nations leadership would be willing to
engage.
MS. KENDALL: Do you think it's
appropriate to put it your plan as a confirmed
piece of information that you will work with First
Nations when you don't have confirmation from
actual people, representatives, or entire nations
themselves? Do you think that's responsible?
CHAIRMAN ROSS: I'm not sure
that's really a question. And so could we move
on?
MS. KENDALL: Okay. I think
I'll just leave it at that unless you would like
to outline in any more detail how you are
following aboriginal policies. I don't understand
what that means.
MS. GIZIKOFF: We can speak to
that tomorrow, if you would like to repeat the
question to human environment.
MS. KENDALL: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
Ms. Kendall.
Any other interested party
organizations?
Any interested party
individuals?
Don't turn to Taseko now for
other reasons.
QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL:
MR. KUPFER: Thank you for your
presentation.
I notice in reviewing the
first hearing and also some of the material in the
second hearing, that the people in Secwepemc in
particular had a number of concerns with respect
to the transmission line. And they challenged
some of your conclusions about no significant
effect for them.
And also seemed to be a
stalemate coming to understanding on the location
of the transmission line. Could you please
update -- well, two questions I guess. There was
this agreement, interpretation of impact. And
second, there seemed to be disagreement on
location of the transmission line.
Could you update us on those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
two, please?
MS. GIZIKOFF: With regards to
disagreement on impact, I believe the challenge is
similar to what we've heard over the last several
days about determination of significant adverse
affects, using the criteria of magnitude and
extent versus impact on an individual or group of
individuals where in isolation their values have
great meaning to them.
We have committed to
considering a multitude of things in the final
alignment of the transmission line to minimize
impact. One of those things is to consider areas
that -- important traditional use or areas of
cultural heritage.
We hope that we can establish
working group with St'at'mc, Canoe Creek, and as
well as Silketeen communities, like Toosey, to get
that information from them so that we could
consider that in a fine alignment.
With regards to a stalemate on
location -- was that the second question? Are you
remembering referring to the community forest in
particular?
MR. KUPFER: Yes, I gather that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
was part of the issues.
MS. GIZIKOFF: On the broader
issue, we looked at a variety of alternative
routes for the transmission line going back to the
1990s. And that's how we arose at this one, while
there was a variety of factors considering, and
discussions that took place in the working groups.
With regards to specifically
the schedule in the forest, which I recall from
the previous review, was of great concern to Scet
(ph).
Since we -- since the Panel
review, we have had discussions with Alkali
Resources, their chief forester, their managing
forester, to look at opportunities to align the
transmission line through areas of existing
disturbance within their forest.
We came to a sort of tentative
conclusion that that would be possible, rather
than going south of the community forest as
recommended by the Panel at that time because
going south puts us into grasslands which have
very high values as well.
Now, that discussion with
Alkali Resources, I'll put a caveat there, that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
that was not with leadership of the Sket. That
was just more of a plan.
We also had the understanding
with Alkali Resources that if Sket community
forest is a area-based tenure, and there may be
opportunities for Secwepemc (ph) to have
discussions with the Province, to mitigate any
losses from the transmission line, forest losses,
as well as maybe mitigate effects -- other effects
that they have incurred on the forest from the
establishment of old growth forest and ungulate
winter ranges.
MR. KUPFER: So to some extent
it's not resolved yet?
MS. GIZIKOFF: No.
MR. KUPFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Following from
that, certainly one of the considerable concerns
that has been expressed both at the Prosperity
hearing and at this one, is access. And I think
your phrase was we know how to decommission.
I know for decades people have
expressed concerns about controlling access. And
so have you got some supporting evidence, some
studies about the effectiveness of the kind of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
decommissioning measures that you would use at
suitable places along the transmission line?
Something that would convince the Panel that you
know how to decommission, and that the
decommissioning is effective at controlling
access? I challenge.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Can you please
clarify the question. Are you seeking information
that confirms Taseko knows how to do this or that
the access measures that we are -- access
measurements that we were proposing are effective?
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Very much the
later.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Sorry for the
delay. I'm getting advice from all sides.
I think the best answer is that
there is evidence of how these measures that we
are proposing would be effective. We don't have
it at our fingertips. We could compile that if
that is something that the Panel would find
useful.
The access management is a
controversial topic, and there are many studies
out there indicating that gates and what not don't
work. We're aware of that too.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
But in some areas, like
national forest, in grizzly bear habitat there's
also documentation very effective results from
access management as well.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: The Panel would
like to receive such evidence, if you are willing
to provide it. Shall I use the magic word of
undertaking? Thank you.
Let me revert to moose. And
let me deal not with project effects on moose, but
with the cumulative effects on moose. And I guess
in some parts of the cumulative effects literature
one is told to think like a moose in order to do a
cumulative effects assessment on moose.
And if I think like a moose,
then I guess I might be concerned with the
substantial population prop in that area.
Can you help me to better
understand your view of the cumulative effects on
moose?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Based on the
most recent information compiled that Mr. LaPlante
was referring to, the drop in moose populations,
it's been a very important topic and hot topic in
the region in recent months, if not the last
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
couple of years. But the drop that they're
experiencing in populations in that report -- that
it's not habitat results, but it is a result of
increased hunting.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Why has there
been an increase in hunting in that area in the
last decade or two?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I believe it's
access.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Which gets back
to human activities and cumulative effects. So --
MS. GIZIKOFF: Correct.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: So would you
think that the cumulative effects on moose -- I
must admit I didn't have the numbers off my head,
but Mr. LaPlante used some numbers in the order of
50 percent decline. Might have been 60, might
have been 47 or something. I don't think it
matters there. Seems like a big decline to me.
So if you were doing the
cumulative effects assessment for moose today,
would you reach a different conclusion about the
significance of that cumulative effect?
MS. GIZIKOFF: No. I think the
mountain pine beetle infestation for which logging
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
has followed, has had an effect on moose.
And associated with that and
with the access has had an effect on increased
hunting and the population on moose. I do not
believe the project acts cumulatively to that
extent that it would have an impact or a
significant affect on moose.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Let me pose
the same question for a very different key
indicator: Old growth forest. Let's -- to focus
the attention away from mountain pine beetle, let
me ask solely about non-pine, old growth forest.
Could you give me some kind of
an idea about Taseko's position on the cumulative
effects on old growth forest of harvesting, I
guess primarily harvesting and the mine?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Since the
mountain pine beetle epidemic, and increased
harvesting rates over the last 10 to 20 years,
harvesting has focused on the pine, pine
(muffled).
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Okay. But I'm
confused. My intent was to look at harvesting on
non-pine forests. And so my suspicion is that
there's been a bunch of forest harvesting since
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
1970 or 1980 or whatever, at least some of which
was of non-pine old growth forest. I don't know
how much, but I would have thought that that plus
the little tiny bit that you identified has
happened since 2009, plus the amount that the
project would remove, that's the cumulative
effects. So can up help me there?
MS. GIZIKOFF: I can't. I
think what I was intending to imply was that in
recent years harvesting has been following pine.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: : True.
MS. GIZIKOFF: So the effect on
the non-pine stance has been less than what is
traditionally occurring and is allowed by the
provincial government there are standards. I
think there's numbers by how much old forest
should be harvested in the land use planning
process.
But in recent years, there's
been less effect on the non-pine stance than would
normally have occurred because of the non-pine
beetle.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you.
We're done with questioning now. At this time,
I'll call a break and we'll return in 15 minutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
And we will turn to the next presentation, which
I'm sure I can find as Dr. Nancy Turner.
--- Recessed at 10:55 a.m.
--- Upon resuming at 11:15 a.m.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Ladies and
gentlemen, we are ready to get started.
The next presentation is by
Nancy Turner, on behalf of the Tsilhqot'in
National Government. It's my understanding that
Dr. Turner is on the phone.
DR. TURNER: Hello.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you very
much. We can hear you. Please go ahead.
PRESENTATION BY DR. NANCY TURNER:
DR. TURNER: Thank you very
much. I believe that Mr. Nelson is going to set
up the PowerPoint presentation for me.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: He's done it.
DR. TURNER: That's great and
now the slides are numbered, so I will just
mention the number of slides that I'm talking
from.
I guess the title is up there
and I'm going to be talking about Težtan Biny or
Fish Lake and the surrounding areas as a cultural
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
keystone place for the Tsilhqot'in Nation.
First of all, I would really
like to thank the review panel for the opportunity
to present to you especially from a distance by
phone. I really appreciate this opportunity.
I want to thank the
Tsilhqot'in National Government, and others listed
on the acknowledgements there. There is a full
report that has been submitted and -- sorry, I
just want to go back and -- I guess, I had an
introduction slide, but that must've gotten left
out.
This is my -- what I will run
through and try to be as prompt as possible
because I know that you are running behind
schedule, but these are the areas that I hope to
cover.
So just a little bit on my
background, and my CV is filed in my written
submission, but I have a Ph.D., in Botany and I've
been working in the areas of Ethnobotany and
Ethnoecology for over 40 years learning from
knowledgeable plant specialists, and indigenous
experts all around British Columbia.
I've worked with the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
Tsilhqot'in people for over -- for many years,
since the late 1980s, and I served as an expert
witness in the BC Supreme Court of Canada,
Tsilhqot'in Nation first BC case.
The rest will be in my CV.
So the study of Ethnoecology,
which is one of my areas of great interest is
purely a study of situated knowledge, the
knowledge of place, and that is a part of -- a
major part of traditional ecological knowledge
that every group of indigenous peoples around the
world who live in particular territories hold.
So the knowledge of place is
respected in peoples' origin stories and other
narratives, in their every day conversations and
in their -- their names for plants and animals
that are familiar to them; in geographical place
names; the things that they do in particular
places and in their art, and also in their
proprietorship and stewardship.
Also, it's been widely
recognized and there is a growing literature in
this area of what are called "Social Ecological
Systems", there's a recognition that there are
inextricable linkages between ecological and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
social systems around the world and that many of
the processes that impact ecological systems also
impact cultural systems. And so we have
biological diversity and that is paralleled by
cultural diversity, which can be thought of as the
wide diversity and array of human cultures and
language groups around the world.
And now people are talking more
widely about biocultural diversity and actually
cultural diversity is eroding even faster than the
biological diversity in the world if you use
languages as an indicator of that, so there are a
lot of references that will be in my written
report.
And we'll go onto Slide 7.
Thank you, Jay.
We started thinking about these
linkages between social and ecological systems a
number of years ago in regard to the work that I
do, and one of the areas that we used metaphorical
parallels between these two systems. One of them
that we published about, Ann Garibaldi and myself,
is on cultural keystone species that are a
metaphorical parallel concept to ecological
keystone species.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
And we've published a paper in
Ecology and Society about this notion and it's
since been referenced and used in many situations
around the world to highlight the cultural --
particular species.
And, in fact, right now I'm
working with the coauthors listed here on Slide 8,
on a manuscript on this notion of cultural
keystone places and we hope -- we just finished
putting the finishing touches on it, and hope to
submit it in the next two weeks to the same
journal, Ecology and Society.
And the next slide, Slide 9.
So we've propose the definition
of the "cultural keystone place" as:
"A given site or location with high
cultural salience for one or more groups
of people in which place or * have
played in the past an exceptional role
in a peoples' cultural identity as
reflected in their day-to-day living,
food production and other resource-based
activities, land and resource
management, language, story, history and
social and ceremonial practices."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
The next slide. It -- it just
highlights a little bit about what the "cultural
keystone place" idea is about. It's a relative
concept, so it's applicable over a range of time
and geographical and social scale. So at a world
scale, we could point to the UNESCO Bio-Research
or the World Heritage Sites, but within a society
-- within a given group, like an indigenous
peoples, there's usually a number of places within
their territories that are identified widely as
being very, very important to them.
The next slide please, Slide
11.
A number of criteria -- we've
listed 10 criterias that will help to identify or
assess cultural keystone places, and I'm going to
just go through each of these in regards to the
Tsilhqot'in and the Fish Lake area.
I would like to propose that at
the Težtan Biny, Y'anah Biny and Nabas areas and
the connections between them are, indeed, a
cultural keystone place according to the criteria
that we've laid out.
The next slide, 12, no, 13.
Sorry.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
So Težtan Biny and the
surrounding areas, that's a cultural keystone
place. First of all, agreements within a cultural
group about the importance of a place, that would
be the first criteria and I would say for this
area, the Xeni Gwet'in and the other Tsilhqot'in
people, they have identified this area as having
major importance to their life-ways and culture,
and many of these criteria are supported by the
previous Environmental Assessment Report of 2010.
So here is a quotation:
"During the public hearing the Panel
heard extensive information on the deep
ancestral connection that the Xeni
Gwet'in had to Težtan Biny and Y'anah
Biny and Nabas, page 92 of that Panel
report and the names of the places occur
widely in language and discourse within
a group. And, again, Težtan Biny and
the surrounding area have -- all have
names, the creeks and the areas around
there have their own names and they're
widely used, widely known in
Tsilhqot'in language and they frequently
have discourse and conversations and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
stories."
There is a high intensity and
frequency of use and that is one of the other
criteria. So, again, I'll just quote from the
Federal Review Panel of 2010:
"Over the course of the public hearing,
the Panel heard a substantial volume of
information regarding how much of the
Tsilhqot'in population continue to use
the practice area for activities, such
as hunting, fishing, gathering of
berries, plants and medicines, as well
as for various cultural and spiritual
ceremonies and activities."
The next slide please.
Usually, cultural keystone
places are reflected adversity of the uses,
meaning many different resources are harvested
there and many practices carried out so, again,
that fits with this area.
The Tsilhqot'in have
participated in a wide range of cultural practices
at Težtan Biny and surrounding areas, fishing,
hunting, trapping, berry picking, harvesting
materials and medicines, grazing horses and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
cattle, camping, storytelling, training children
and youth.
And that's from the Federal
Review Panel Report.
The next slide.
There's usually a long
antiquity of use, a history of use, going back
over generations and that again is the case here
with this area. There are deep ancestral
connections and just to quote from the Federal
Review Panel:
"Tsilhqot'in use of the area has been
found to predate contact with Europeans.
First Nations have continued to occupy
and use the project area for traditional
purposes since pre-European contacts."
Next slide.
Often there is very careful
management of cultural keystone places. People
are not just harvesting and using resources, but
they are also applying different methods and
techniques for sustaining of resources and
promoting their productivity and quality.
And, again, that range of
management practices is evident by the Tsilhqot'in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
people for this area from selective and partial
harvesting of tree bark to the way they cut the
hay and allow it to grow, fish that have been
transplanted in the waterways of that area and in
the Tsilhqot'in territory, in their -- and, again,
this is a practice that goes way back, and other
practices as well to sustain the resources that
have taken place in this particular area.
The next slide.
We're on Slide 19. Again, for
uniqueness, this area has qualities that are not
found in any other part of Tsilhqot'in
territories, as far as I can understand.
This is -- and, again, the
Federal Review Panel explicitly acknowledged the
uniqueness of this area in a number of places in
its report, quote:
"In the Panel's view the ability to
practice these activities in one
location, together with the cultural
spiritual values and the archaeological
importance of the area, contributed to
the special value of this area for the
Tsilhqot'in.
The cultural importance and spiritual
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
value of the Težtan Biny area could not
be replaced or mitigated."
That is from the Federal Review
Panel Report of 2010.
The next slide.
Also quote:
"The Panel notes that while the
Tsilhqot'in may utilize other areas in
their territory to support their current
use activities, these areas may not
necessarily have the same connection
expressed for the Težtan Biny, Fish Lake
and Nabas areas. The Panel is convinced
that these areas are unique and of
special significance to the
Tsilhqot'in."
Slide 21.
Also often cultural keystone
places reflect high levels of ecological
diversity. Many different plants and animal
species are found in those areas and are
maintained, as I said, through management
practices that are sustainable.
So these areas usually have
wide diversity of habitat and many of them are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
culturally important, as foods, materials and
medicines, and so forth. And, indeed, in this
area there is a complex of lakes, creeks,
wetlands, meadows, and grasslands that are
particularly productive.
The next slide.
And just to list some of the
unique biological characteristics, there's
genetically distinct Rainbow Trout in that
watershed and a widely recognized consistent
Sockeye run, as well as other species that are
culturally relevant. The area is very rich in
game, moose, is and forth.
There's a population of
Grizzlies classified by the Province as
"threatened" and many other key species.
The next slide.
Just in terms of plant species,
there are over 50 from that area that were
identified by the Tsilhqot'in National Government
as having cultural importance, everything from
aquatic species, like the yellow pond Lily to
different kinds of berries and root vegetables.
The next slide, 24.
Cultural keystone places often
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
have a very strong role in trade and cultural
exchange. Again, this area serves also a social
meeting ground for Tsilhqot'in families who
continue to exchange many food items and many
other products, as well as ideas and knowledge,
stories and ceremonial events.
The next slide.
And, finally, there's a strong
role of cultural keystone places in cultural
protocols in the ways that knowledge is shared and
transmitted across generations and in the
performance of different ceremonies and rituals
that have helped people to sustain themselves and
their life ways and their land.
So, again, the Federal Review
Panel, the Panel heard from many, many of the
communities that Težtan Biny was identified as an
important teaching environment, that many trips
are made to the area to teach the Tsilhqot'in
language and cultural practices to Tsilhqot'in
youth.
The next slide.
And the Panel also reported on
testimony from many Tsilhqot'in about the
importance of this area for cultural gatherings,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
quote:
"... how adults would work with
the youth to teach values, culture and language."
And family and social
gatherings including camping trips fishing trips
and recreational use were also identified.
The next slide.
It's notable, that one of the
key Tsilhqot'in stories of the Little Dog, the
ancient transformer being and his two sons is
partially set right in this area. And I think
that's quite significant -- significant and
Linda Smith, of the Tsilhqot'in Nation talks about
how the mountains all around, he was told by her
mother and other elders, were considered long ago
to be an ancient peoples who are still very much
alive and still greatly respected, just like
Mount Toba. It's these mountains have their own
agency and they are able to influence the lives of
humans, and so as Linda said, there were many --
there were numerous ceremonies done in the area.
Next slide.
So I would just like to point
out that for these 10 criteria, these different
criteria are interrelated. And in our paper we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
proposed a scale to assess each of the strengths
of each of these criteria in assessing, overall,
the cultural keystone places from 0 to 5, the
lowest to highest agreement, respectively, based
on the consensus of the people in the group who
would consider it as a potential cultural keystone
place.
So just to reiterate:
Cultural keystone places are
universally important for a communities identity,
health and wellbeing.
The next slide.
So, again, in our definition, I
think there's no question that Težtan Biny and the
adjacent areas, including Y'anah Biny and the
Nabas meadows area, constitute a cultural keystone
place, a place of unique and special significance
for the Xeni Gwet'in and Tsilhqot'in people.
The next slide.
And so, in that the proposed
New Prosperity Mine would -- which would cover a
substantial portion of the Fish Lake watershed,
and would destroy Y'anah Biny, Težtan Biny and
beyond, and the Nabas meadows regions, would
change the character of Težtan Biny and the entire
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
surrounding areas, permanently and irreversibly.
And this is especially true in the context of the
other impacts that these areas have been facing
from the logging and the Mountain Pine Beetle
infestations, and so we have to think about this
impacts being cumulative.
And seeing the effects of large
mines in other parts of British Columbia through
pretty -- they have changed the structure of the
landscape, very, very substantially.
The next slide.
And these are so that the
proposed development would definitely impact the
Tsilhqot'in peoples' self-determination; their
ability to have a real voice in their future; it
would endanger their ability to sustain their
cultural identities and life ways; it would
imperil their indigenous food systems, which are
also generally very healthy and anteriorly help
people to maintain their wellbeing; it would
impact their ability to sustain their communities
and to educate the next generation in the
Tsilhqot'in life ways; it would impact their
ability for environmental stewardships; and, it
would preclude future opportunities for them for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
their own self-determined economic development.
The next slide.
So, in conclusion, I'm just
quoting again from the Federal Review Panel
Report, quote:
"While there are other areas where some
activities, such as hunting, trapping
and gathering of plants and berries
could occur, the availability of such
areas has been reduced due to logging,
rafting and private land ownership in
the area. In the Panel's view the
ability to practice these activities in
one location together with the cultural
and spiritual values and the
archeological importance of Težtan Biny
Fish Lake area contributed to the
special value of this area for the
Tsilhqot'in.
And that concludes my report.
And thank you very much for listening.
That's the last slide, 33.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you very
much, Dr. Turner.
At this point, I will turn to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
-- let me pause and think -- well, I remember, the
Government of Canada first.
Are there any questions for
Dr. Turner by the Government of Canada? Seeing
none.
Any questions for Dr. Turner,
of other First Nations' interested parties?
Seeing none.
Any questions for Dr. Turner
from interested party organizations? Seeing none.
Questions from interested party
individuals? Seeing none.
Taseko?
Mr. Gustavson?
QUESTIONS BY TASEKO:
MR. GUSTAVSON: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Turner, just so you know
who I am, since we haven't had an opportunity to
meet, I am the legal counsel for Taseko. I have a
few questions which you'll be pleased to know are
more of a clarification variety, rather than a
cross-examination.
DR. TURNER: Thank you.
MR. GUSTAVSON: I was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
interested in your concept of the cultural
keystone place.
And can you tell me when that
concept was developed, please?
DR. TURNER: Well, I made a
presentation last -- excuse me -- at the Society
for Ethnobiology meetings in May of 2012, at
Denver in Colorado, and at the same time,
unbeknownst to me, my friend and colleague,
Dan LeDuke, from the University of Montreal, has
published a paper with his colleagues in the Cree
community proposing cultural keystone places as a
concept and that was sometime earlier, but I
hadn't seen that paper until we were corresponding
about something else and we both realized that we
both had come up simultaneously with this idea.
And I've been talking about it
with my colleagues for quite a long time, several
years. One of my students, she had a (muffled)
wrote about it in his masters thesis which was --
was about a year ago.
So the four of us decided to
get together and write up this paper that we've
been working on now for about a year.
MR. GUSTAVSON: So am I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
correct, then, in my understanding, that the
concept of the cultural keystone place with the 10
parameters was not something that you utilized
with respect to your analysis of the previous
application?
DR. TURNER: I don't
understand. I didn't actually give a presentation
for the previous -- for the previous hearings.
MR. GUSTAVSON: All right.
That's my mistake, then.
So you did do an analysis of
the previous application and compare it to the
current one?
DR. TURNER: I've looked at
both, so I -- I did look over the papers for the
previous application at the times that the
hearings were going on, but I didn't actually give
any presentation myself.
MR. GUSTAVSON: Would it be --
DR. TURNER: And I'm generally
aware of some of the changes that have been made
to Težtan Biny Fish Lake was originally proposed
as the tailings pond area and it's now -- it's --
and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that
it will remain, but the water will be artificially
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
recycled within that system and that Little Fish
Lake, the area around Little Fish Lake and a part
of Fish Creek and the Nabas area will be also
taken for the tailings pond now.
MR. GUSTAVSON: I see. Okay.
Can I ask you, Dr. Turner,
whether the concept of the cultural keystone place
is something -- I think you said that it's used
around the world now --
DR. TURNER: Uh-huh.
MR. GUSTAFSON: -- and what I'm
getting to now, is whether it has application
strictly with respect to aboriginal peoples or
whether it is used more broadly for other cultural
groups.
DR. TURNER: Actually, what I
said that was being applied and published about
more widely was our original concept of cultural
keystone species, and in answer to your question I
would say that cultural keystone species, the
concept, could be applied for any group of people
but often indigenous peoples who have resided in
one area for a long period of time and have built
up knowledge of that place, will have special
species that are actually indigenous to their
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
particular areas.
But, for example, we talked
about in that paper, the concept of bison being a
cultural keystone species for the Plains First
Peoples or The People of the Wild Rice, the
Menominee, who are named after wild rice in the
Minnesota area, and that would be a cultural
keystone species for that group of people.
MR. GUSTAVSON: Thank you.
Dr. Turner, are you familiar
with the CEAA policy entitled "Assessing
Environmental Affects on Physical and Cultural
Heritage Resources"?
DR. TURNER: No, I'm not
really.
MR. GUSTAVSON: How about the
policy on --
DR. TURNER: Excuse me. Excuse
me?
MR. GUSTAVSON: Yeah?
DR. TURNER: Could you say what
that is again? CEAA?
MR. GUSTAVSON: Yeah, The
Canadian Environmental Assessment Authority, or
Agency.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
DR. TURNER: Yes, I -- I'm
generally familiar with it. I'm not familiar with
the individual -- well, let's just say that I
haven't read it recently.
MR. GUSTAVSON: So I would I
take it, then, if I asked you about CEAA's policy
on assessing cumulative effects under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, that
you would give me the same answer?
DR. TURNER: Yes, I would, yes.
MR. GUSTAVSON: So is it a fair
inference, Dr. Turner, that the development of
your "cultural keystone place" parameters was not
done with specific reference to those CEAA
policies?
DR. TURNER: No, it was not.
MR. GUSTAVSON: Dr. Turner, you
mentioned that you conducted a number of
interviews with respect to First Nations people.
Can you give me some idea of
how many people you spoke to in the Tsilhqot'in
community?
DR. TURNER: Over the years
probably about 20 from different communities
around the Tsilhqot'in area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
MR. GUSTAVSON: And in
preparing your presentation for this hearing, I'm
wondering if -- sorry, did you speak -- sorry, did
you seek out and speak to any members of that
community who might be in support of this project?
DR. TURNER: No, I did not.
MR. GUSTAVSON: Perhaps, one
final question. If I understood you correctly,
you indicated that the concept of ecological
keystone places is a relative one?
DR. TURNER: Yes. Yes.
Cultural keystone places, yes.
MR. GUSTAVSON: Are you
familiar with the judgment issued by Mr. Justice
Vickers of the BC Supreme Court of Canada with
respect to arguments of the Tsilhqot'in related to
asserted rights in the area?
DR. TURNER: I've read that --
the decision, but sometime ago.
MR. GUSTAVSON: Well, what I
was going to ask you, and it may be unfair, since
it's been sometime since you've read it, but did
the -- did that judgment speak about other areas
that -- in which the Tsilhqot'in -- well, let me
put the question this way:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
Did the judgment address other
areas that would meet the parameters that you've
laid out for cultural keystone places within the
Tsilhqot'in traditional territory?
DR. TURNER: I can't say that I
would be able to answer that. I don't know. I,
myself, I have thought about, you know, in terms
of what I know about Tsilhqot'in territory and I
think there are other places that have
qualifications but each one is unique, as I said
in my presentation, and this area seems to me,
from everything that I understand, as being
unique, and unlike any other Tsilhqot'in
territory.
MR. GUSTAVSON: All right.
Thank you very much, Dr. Turner. I appreciate
your responses to my questions.
DR. TURNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you, Mr.
Gustavson.
Anything else from Taseko?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you. It's
Catherine Gizikoff here.
I just would like to ask the
question as to if there's any knowledge as to when
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
the fish were transplanted into the Fish Creek
watershed?
DR. TURNER: I should be more
careful in my wording. I've heard that from a
number of the Tsilhqot'in people that there was a
practice of bringing fish from one lake to
another, but I don't have specific knowledge of
people doing that in Fish Lake. It's a tad more
of a general management practice that I've heard
about on several occasions.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
DR. TURNER: And excuse me,
that would have been in the past generations. So
that's a time of probably in the early 1900s, is
the time reference that I had understood from the
evidence that I heard.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
With regards to the species and
the 50 species that you referred to, are any of
these species unique to the Fish Creek watershed?
DR. TURNER: All of them are
found elsewhere Tsilhqot'in territories, as far as
I know. But it's also very important to note that
just a species alone can vary greatly across it's
range and there are recognize varieties of a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
number of these plants, including like the
Saskatoon Berry and others, the Silk Berry, and
some of them good tasting and of fine quality and
some of them produce poorer quality.
So this area is known for the
high quality of the plants that it -- that are
found there and the good taste of the berries and
the high productivity of the berries.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
Can you please confirm your
understanding of the fish species in the
Fish Creek watershed?
DR. TURNER: Just one second.
Excuse me.
Well, as far as I understand,
there is a species of trout that is -- a variety
that is unique to that area, to Fish Lake and, I
guess, the other waterways in that area, possibly
in Little Fish Lake. I'm not sure. It's
distinct, a genetically Rainbow Trout, and there's
a distinctive Sockeye run that is unique to that
area and also seven others, like the Chinook,
there's Bull Trout and Mountain White Fish and
White Sucker Fish, and I don't know the other
fish, actually, not being a fish specialist.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you. One
other question.
What is your definition,
please, of "community consensus"?
DR. TURNER: I have to think
about that a little bit.
In my understanding from my
work on the (inaudible) Scientific Panel and my
work with other First Nations, there's usually a
lot of discussion in the community about plans and
decision-making and often leadership are involved.
But usually individuals within
the community aren't consulted about that decision
and we -- and, as far as I understand it, the
decision tends to be a consensus rather than a
vote of, you know, 50 percent or more and so, Do
we do this, but it's more discussing it and then
coming to a group consensus about what should be
done and a lot of care being taken not to go ahead
until everyone is -- is okay with that decision.
MS. GIZIKOFF: One final
question, then: Did you get consensus on your
analysis?
THE WITNESS: No, not
necessarily. I proposed -- I was asked to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
describe this concept and in a report, but it's
not something that I have actually directly
consulted people about. It's an idea that I'm
proposing.
MR. JONES: Ms. Turner,
Scott Jones, here.
I've just found that you have
an annual report on your website that says that
part of what you do is:
"Providing expert Ethnobotanical advice
and research for several First Nations'
groups involved in legal action
regarding aboriginal rights and tile."
And my question is: Do you
advise the TNG on the -- in that regard?
DR. TURNER: No.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Okay. Thank
you, Taseko.
Colleagues? Ron?
QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL:
MR. SMYTH: Dr. Turner, it's
Ron Smyth speaking.
DR. TURNER: Yes, hello.
MR. SMYTHE: Your conclusion is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
that the mine occurs in what you define as a "CKP"
and we all know that underneath part of this area
is a large ore body.
So my question to you is: From
your analysis, can you see any scenario in which
this ore body could be exploited?
DR. TURNER: I'm no expert in
mining, so I don't know what is possible and I
don't know how close the minerals are to the
surface. So I would have to answer you, for the
time being at least until our technology improves,
that I don't see a way that it could be done
without destroying that area.
MR. SMYTH: Thank you.
MR. KUPFER: George Kupfer,
here, Dr. Turner.
DR. TURNER: Yes?
MR. KUPFER: Thank you for your
presentation.
This is similar to what my
colleague has raised to you. Is there a
possibility that a special area could be affected
to a small degree and still keep the
characteristics that you have listed? Like is
there a bit of a adjustment factor that you may
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
have noticed with other groups or other places,
conceptually I guess, I'm asking?
Could you --
DR. TURNER: Everything is
relevant and the impacts are in degrees and
scales, according to space and time so, if the
mine were to go ahead as set forth, obviously, the
place that is left would be changed irrevocably,
as well as the actual destruction of the area
where the mine footprint is.
Whether people would be able to
go on and use it to the same extent, it would be
up to them. But I think it would be very
difficult to carry on all the activities that they
have been undertaking in that place in half
measure. But as you say, things could change over
time and so...
So people are -- can be quite
resilient and can adapt and change but there comes
a time, a threshold or whatever, when the
resilience is lost and that is the same with
ecosystems, as well as cultural systems, when
there is just too much change and the entire
system is just -- it's destroyed and there's
always a danger of that happening. We know that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
there is a lot of changes that people have gone
through already and so to preserve their life
ways, I think all kinds of measures have to be
taken to help support that. And the -- it seems
like a special area that if it was destroyed it
would have the significant impact on the peoples'
ability to live the culture that they have chosen
for themselves, as far as I can understand.
MR. KUPFER: Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Dr. Turner,
Bill Ross.
DR. TURNER: Yes?
CHAIRMAN ROSS: I have three
questions for you from the abstract to the
specific.
I was not sure when you talked
about the 10 criteria for a keystone -- sorry -- a
cultural keystone place, whether all 10 of the
criteria must be met or whether most of them must
be met. What -- can you help me there?
DR. TURNER: Well, as I said,
this is a concept that is relative and so it's not
your -- it's not either it's the cultural keystone
place or it's not. It's a degree of keystones, if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
you like. So that places that have really high
level of cultural keystoneness would have -- would
fit all 10 criteria and also have very high values
important for each one of them.
So, as I say, each one would be
relevant but there may not be the story
developments about a place that go back in history
and so if that is one of the criteria, then, it
would get a lower value than one where there is an
origin story, for example, about a place.
So it's kind of all relative,
but, again, what we did in our paper, we selected
three different areas that each of us (muffled)
had proposed as cultural keystone places based on
their work and we set out a table where we gave
them these different values for each of those 10
criteria from 0 to 5, and all of them scored
fairly highly in the 43 out of 50 scale. And so,
I would say that this area would be also scored
above that range.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: In terms of the
scoring, you said that the scale system would be
based on the consensus of people in the group who
would consider it a potential CKP?
DR. TURNER: Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Now, why would
you focus on the people who would consider it a
potential CKP?
DR. TURNER: Well, they are the
one who are the most familiar with the place and
they are the ones who would consider it a cultural
keystone place, so they would be the most familiar
with the degree for the which those criteria apply
to a different place, at least that's my
reasoning.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you for
that. That helps.
Lastly, a rather different
level of question.
What should the Panel
understand from Težtan Biny being a cultural
keystone place?
DR. TURNER: Well, I guess the
conclusion is that if this place is destroyed it
would have a significant impact on the Tsilhqot'in
people and their ability to carry out their
culture into the future.
CHAIRMAN ROSS: Thank you for
that. Thank you for being succinct and we will
move on. Again, thank you, Dr. Turner.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
For those of us here, we're
going to have the a break for lunch now and well
return at 1 o'clock.
DR. TURNER: Thank you very
much to all of you for listening.
--- Recessed at 12:01 p.m.
--- Upon resuming at 1:00 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Good
afternoon, I think we're ready to proceed. So
without further adieu, Environment Canada.
MR. WRIGHT: Stephen Wright,
Environment Canada. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman
and Panel members. I won't bore you with another
overview of our mandate. I'm just going to
introduce our Environment Canada team who are
going to present on wildlife.
To my far left is Ms. Coral
deShield, who is the head of program planning and
co-ordination for Canadian Wildlife Services in
Yukon Region. And to my immediate left is Mr.
Andrew Robinson, who is the senior environmental
assessment officer with Canadian Wildlife Service.
And with that I'll turn it over
to Andrew to make his presentation.
PRESENTATION BY ANDREW ROBINSON:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
MR. ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman,
members of the Panel, Elders, Chiefs, ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Andrew Robinson, spelled
A-N-D-R-E-W, R-O-B-I-N-S-O-N. I'm an
environmental assessment officer specializing in
migratory birds and species at risk. It is on
these that I will be presenting on today.
My presentation covers three
areas, legislation plans and policies, and
Environment Canada's impact analysis and
recommendations in relation to migratory birds and
species at risk. I will speak briefly on
legislation and plans and policies, those that are
discussed today are specifically relevant to the
project.
Firstly, the Migratory Birds
Convention Act, which I'll refer to as the MBCA
here on in. Environment Canada's responsible for
administering the MBCA which implements a 1916
migratory birds convention between Canada and the
United States by protecting and conserving
migratory birds, it's populations and as
individuals and their nests.
One aspect of the MBCA I will
touch on later on in the presentation relates to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
incidental take. I will mention it now briefly
which is the inadvertent harming, killing,
disturbance or destruction of migratory birds,
nests and eggs.
The other key piece of
legislation that Environment Canada administers
and that is relevant to the project is the Species
at Risk Act, the purpose -- which I'll refer to as
the SARA here on in. The purposes of the SARA are
to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated
or becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery
of wildlife, species that are extirpated,
endangered, or threatened as a result of human
activity and to manage species of special concerns
to prevent them from becoming endangered or
threatened.
Key aspects of the SARA include
the formal recognition of Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, referred to as
COSEWIC. Schedule 1, which refers to those
species that are identified as extirpated,
endangered or threatened or of special concern or
data deficient. The act includes various
protection measures for species, their residences
and critical habitat and it also requires or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
includes recovery strategy and action plans that
include the identification of critical habitat.
Key message here is that both
the NBCA and SARA apply to the project. A key
plan that applies to the project is what is
referred to as Bird Conservation Region Plan 10.
Briefly, Environment Canada led the development of
all bird conservation strategies in each of
Canada's bird conservation regions by drafting new
strategies and integrating new and existing
strategies into an old bird framework. These
integrated old bird conservation strategies will
serve as a basis for implementing bird
conservation in Canada. And will also guide
Canadian support for conveying work in other
countries important to Canada's migrant birds.
Of note, over 25 percent of BCR
10 priority species -- and I will get into
priority species later on in this presentation --
are associated with wetlands, almost 25 percent of
water bodies, and 15 percent with riparian
habitat. In regards to wetlands, BCR 10 is
utilized by priority species from all bird groups,
specifically land birds, for which there are four
species; water birds, for which there are five
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
species; waterfowl, for which there are eight
species and shorebirds, for which there are two.
And the next slide is a
depiction of BCR 10 within which New Prosperity is
located. This BCR region, bird conservation
region, is referred to as the Northern Rockies
BCR. It is 44 million hectares in extent, one of
the most ecologically diverse regions in Canada.
There are over 230 species that regularly breed
within this region. Of interest, land birds
dominate the priority species list, although
approximately half of all water birds, waterfowl
and shorebirds in BCR 10 have been identified as
priority species.
A key policy that applies to
this project is the Federal Wetland Policy on
Wetland Conservation. I will refer to the Federal
Wetland Policy on Wetland Conservation as the FPWC
-- actually, I think I'll refer to it as the
wetland policy here on in. The objective of the
wetland policy is to promote the conservation of
Canada's wetlands to sustain their ecological and
socio economic functions now and into the future.
It commits all federal departments to the goal of
no net loss of wetland functions, federal lands
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
and waters and areas of affected by the limitation
of federal programs where the continuing loss or
degradation of wetlands has reached critical
levels and where federal activities affected by
wetlands designated as ecologically or
socioeconomically important to a region.
I will again get a little bit
more into this further into the presentation, but
I did want to make mention in how the wetland
policy differs somewhat to the CEAA in terms of
it's application. So specifically the CEAA
applies thresholds to assess adverse environmental
effects, whereas the wetland policy objective is
one of no net loss.
Here on in for the remainder of
the presentation I'm speaking on Environment
Canada's analysis of the New Prosperity EIS and
information provided in the information and
supplemental EIS.
As mentioned the NBCA applies
to the project.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Mr.
Robinson, you said "the prosperity"?
MR. ROBINSON: New Prosperity.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: New. Okay.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
I thought you must have intended...
MR. ROBINSON: I may refer at
some point to the Prosperity, and I'll do my
utmost to be clear on that.
So, as I was mentioning, the
NBCA and the migratory birds regulations apply to
the project. The inadvertent harming, killing,
disturbance or destruction of migrator bird's
nests and eggs is known and referred to as
"incidental take." There currently are no
permitting authorizations or there is no measures
available under the NBR to allow for or permit for
incidental take. And on that basis, Environment
Canada has developed guidance available on the web
that we encourage Proponents to refers to in their
project planning so as to minimize and avoid
potential harm to migratory birds, their eggs and
their nests as they plan their projects and
implement their projects. So a key piece of
advice is this: Searches for active migratory
birds nests for the purposes of protecting such
nests from project activities and complex habitats
such as those the project would overlap carries an
associates risk of harm and is generally
discouraged.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
So our key messages here are to
encourage Taseko Mines Limited to review our
web-based advice and develop risk management plans
in regard to incidental take.
With respect to species at
risk, Environment Canada's advice remains somewhat
the same as from the Prosperity proposal. We have
provided advice for the New Prosperity in relation
to a number of different areas, including updates
to Schedule 1 and species assessed or reassessed
by COSEWIC, recovery planning processes which
include in some cases processes relating to the
identification of critical habitat. Not unusual,
not un-anticipated there are species at risk
occurrences in the project area, for example on
the Proponent's side (unintelligible) and we heard
earlier, western toad.
Environment Canada in it's
review of the EIS has provided advice around a
number of different plant species, including rusty
cord(ph) moss, alkaline windermere moss, and white
bark pine, all of which are endangered or
threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA. And we've heard
briefly from Taseko Mines Ltd. today on American
badger and so as an update to our earlier advice,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
we advise if there is the possibility for the
identification of critical habitat for American
badger. It's range overlaps with the project with
not specifically a mine, but the transmission
line. And that process does include a process for
the identification of critical habitat.
I say that -- what motivates me
to say that is simply to bring awareness to the
matter. It's not to suggest that there is an
issue per se. What we would advise is that the
provincial government has posted it's recovery
plan, it's publicly available information. It
identifies it's range; it identifies the threats
to the species. And so, we would advise Taseko
Mines Ltd. to refer to that information in terms
of it's project.
Similarly, a whitebark pine.
In review of the information presented by Taseko
Mines Ltd. we were not able to find any -- there
no evidence of occurrences of whitebark pine.
This is an endangered plant that suffers from
blister rust, it's in decline, precipitously.
There is a recovery strategy planning process
underway. That does include a process to identify
critical habitat. Again, I present this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
information as raising awareness and it is
something that is worthy of consideration in the
event this project moves forward.
The next slide is taken from
Taseko Mines Ltd.'s EIS. It depicts the MDA and
wetland baseline conditions. And just to refresh
everybody's mind on what a wetland is, I'm going
to give you a definition. Bear with me. This is
taken from Wetlands of British Columbia, MacKenzie
and Ryan, and it defines wetlands as:
"Areas where soils are water
saturated for a sufficient
length of time such that
excess water and resulting low
soil oxygen levels are
principal determinates of
vegetation and soil
development and have a
relative abundance of
hydrophytes, which are
moisture-loving plants, and
the vegetation community.
and/or soils featuring hydric,
which are water-saturated.
characters."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
Certainly, and true to the bird conservation
region, the Chilcotin-Cariboo, fens predominate
and this is true for the project area. Other
wetlands found in lesser amounts include marsh and
swamp and shrub.
The following map also taken
from TML's, EIS is a depiction of the MDA and
what's described by Taseko as a worst-case
scenario assigned at 20 years into the future. So
on the map what you see within the MDA are those
wetlands that would be assumed to be lost.
The following two slides are
simply photographs taken of areas between Fish
Lake, Teztan Biny and Little Fish Lake and Wasp
Lake. Little Fish Lake also referred to as
(Native word) and Wasp Lake. The photograph on
the left depicts a sedge meadow with a water body
in the distance. To the right is a sedge fen,
rather on the left, and a sedge fen transitioning
into a shrub carr on the right. These are located
between Fish Lake and little Fish Lake.
And in the following slide what
you see on the left is fringing community, I'd
look upon that as fen at Wasp Lake and to the
right again fringing community at Fish Lake.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
And just to give you a sense of
the bird community it's again anticipated what
we've seen from the baseline work by Taseko and in
our own visits of the area, such species as
Townsend's Warbler and Northern Harrier, Northern
Flicker, Ruffed Grouse, Wilson's Warbler,
Goldeneye, (unintelligible) Ring-necked Duck,
Mallard, Canada Goose, Common Loon, Wilson's
Snipe, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Red-tailed Hawk, Belted
Kingfisher, Spotted Sandpiper -- I don't want you
to write this all down -- there are many more, and
just being a little descriptive here, a sub-set of
these species are priority species under BCR Plan
10.
Consistent with the EIS
guidelines, Taseko Mines Ltd. has undertaken an
assessment of potential impacts to wetlands and
the functions they provide to migratory birds and
species as risk. TML has advised that baseline
loss worse case would be 407 hectares of wetland
and 564 hectares of riparian habitat within the
project mine site local study area. Post closure,
TML advises that the residual effect would be 311
hectares of wetland habitat and 317 hectares of
riparian habitat.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
In it's review of the EIS,
Environment Canada recommend the development of a
habitat compensation plan to address residual
effects, adverse effects to wetland and riparian
habitats that support migratory birds and species
at risk. The Proponent, TML, submitted a draft
Habitat Compensation Plan under information
request No. 32. Environment Canada has reviewed
the HCP -- I'll refer to the habitat compensation
plan as the HPC -- and it provide in our view an
appropriate foundation for finalizing compensation
details.
Above and beyond what's
provided in the HCP -- well, actually, in some
cases it's referenced to -- but certainly beyond
the development and operation and reclamation of
the pit and TSF, we advise there will be a need to
assess potential impacts toward the management
strategies, as well as potential zones of
influence effects arising from noise, light and
other potential sources in relation to wetlands
and the functions they provide to migratory birds
and species at risk.
The HCP correctly identifies
measures to address impact associated with the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
proposed transmission line, and similarly, to
address potential impacts to riparian habitat in
all areas of the project.
Briefly, perhaps, in reverse
order, key elements of Habitat Compensation Plan
include in relation to the wetland policy it's no
net loss provisions, science-based objectives and
outcomes, compensation projects that are nodular
based and therefore repeatable, compensation
ratios, geographic and temporal scopes and the
need to monitor, mitigate, to address areas of
uncertainty. Again, the wetland policy applies to
area of federal jurisdiction. All wetlands in
those areas that support migratory birds and
species at risk are subject to the HCP, as the
project is located in the Canadian and mountain
joint venture delivery area, which is a subset of
the BCR Region 10.
Areas that need clarification
in our view, and I'm just to be brief on this,
include such things as which part of the species
to look at in the context of habitat compensation.
The draft HCP does provide some and we would
submit that there could be others added based in
review of the BCR 10 plan. Not a criticism, more
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
providing for consideration to a broader suite of
species. Being clear on the compensation ratio,
being clear on which wetland types and functions
could be replaced through enhancement or
restoration, and that it's important to note that
any water quality impacts arising from the project
could not be considered for habitat compensation
under the HCP. Water quality impacts relate to
legislation administered by Environment Canada for
which there are prohibitions. And so this is not
a matter -- it does not fall within the scope of a
habitat compensation plan.
In summary, and these were
submitted as part of our submission to the Panel,
but I'll read them out again for completeness.
Environment Canada recommends that the Proponent
is advised to avoid engaging in potentially
destructive activities. In order to achieve that
objective, the Proponent is advised to develop and
implement management plan that effectively avoids
or minimizes the risk, detrimental effects to
migratory birds, their nests and eggs.
The Proponent should continue
to track the status of species as assessed by
COSEWIC and those listed under Schedule 1 of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
Species at Risk Act and refine project management
plans to ensure appropriate protective measures
are taken. In this regard, the Proponent should
consult with the appropriate jurisdictions
involved and Species at Risk Recovery Plan in
processes relative to the project including the
identification of critical habitat.
Environment Canada recommends
that submission of the final Habitat Compensation
Plan be made a commitment under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act of 2012, that in
completing the final Habitat Compensation Plan the
Proponent consult with Environment Canada in
relation to migratory birds and species at risk,
and that the final Habitat Compensation Plan be
submitted no later than 3 months prior to
construction should the project proceed and that
this be made a commitment also under the CEAA,
2012.
In conjunction with
pre-construction and operations wetland
monitoring, the Proponent conduct migratory birds
and species at risk pre-construction and
operations monitoring to assess potential changes
in the function. The Proponent should consult
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
with Environment Canada on the duration of
pre-conceived monitoring in relation to migratory
birds and species at risk.
Any temporary or permanent
changes in wetland structure and composition not
related to predicted losses associated with the
pit and TSF and defined as extending over and
beyond an ecologically-relevant period -- and I
submit in the order of five years -- that change
or impaired function supporting migratory birds
and/or species at risk be addressed in the Habitat
Compensation Plan. So I'm going to give you a
brief example of what I mean by that. So for
example, in this slide we have wetland that would
be permanently lost as a consequence of the
tailing storage facility and here in relation to
pit. One concern that we have is that based on
the water management strategies proposed, for
example, wetlands in this area, the hydro geology
of the wetlands of this area could be impacted
over time which, in turn, could affect the
functions they provide to migratory birds and
species at risk. This is something that could
play out over a number of years and so what we
submit is that monitoring of those wetlands to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
assess change over time is appropriate, and should
change be identified, that that be a component of
the Habitat Compensation Plan.
To their credit, Taseko Mines
Ltd. has made reference to this in their draft
habitat compensation plan. I just wish to be
clear here to the Panel that wetland loss doesn't
necessarily mean simply physical, direct loss.
The change can happen over time due to changes the
hydro geology and that, in turn, can have effect
on the functions they provide to migratory birds
and species at risk. It warrants monitoring and
evaluation over time and a commitment made to
address those effects should they come about under
the HCP.
And that concludes my
presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to
present.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you
Mr. Robinson.
MR. WRIGHT: We move to
questions for Mr. Robinson at this time, then.
What we have is for later on. I knew there were
two of these things.
So, first, other Government of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
Canada folks, any questions for Environment
Canada?
Any First Nations interested
parties have questions?
Mr. Laplante?
MR. LAPLANTE: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Sorry. I missed a portion of your
presentation, but I'd had two questions before I
came any way. My first question is, is a
compensation plan required because there are
adverse impact to the habitat?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
MR. LAPLANTE: Okay. Thank
you. And the second is, in your impact analysis,
have you incorporated the information provided by
NRCan or Environment Canada with regards to
potential increased seepage from the tailings
impoundment into the wetlands, for example, or the
water quality of the recirculation and the
seepage? I'd like to understand better is that
information part of your analysis or was your
analysis done purely based on the information that
the company provided?
MR. ROBINSON: No, it does
reflect information provided by NRCan and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
Environment Canada, and I just want to be really
clear here to help answer your question, that in
relation -- if the question relates to the habitat
compensation plan then matters relating to seepage
and water quality is not something that can be
addressed by the habitat compensation plan.
MR. LAPLANTE: Yeah. To be
clear, that's purely the physical imprint of the
tailings pond, not the quality of the wetland down
stream of the tailings pond. That's my
understanding.
MR. ROBINSON: Can you repeat
that?
MR. LAPLANTE: My understanding
is that the compensation would be for the physical
footprint of the mine but not for potential
degradation of wetlands downstream of the tailings
pond.
MR. ROBINSON: Whether changes
in hydro geology to downstream wetlands as a
consequence of the TSF, the pit, water management
strategies, our recommendation is that they are
subject to the habitat compensation plan, so if
there were changes to downstream wetlands affected
by such things as seepage, again, not relating to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
water quality, that impair functions provided to
support migratory birds and species at risk, we
recommend it's subject to the HCP.
MR. LAPLANTE: For the Panel
and as well as myself -- I don't know if I missed
this, so if you spoke about this I'm happy to not
get an answer and sit down -- but what would be
some of the potential, kind of like, impacts from
the seepage or water quality that would affect
species at risk or migratory birds? So what are
some of the factors you would be looking to or the
parameters of concern that you would be looking at
given there may be an impact from this facility?
I'll give an example, I'm wondering sedimentation,
loss of certain plant species. I guess it's a
probing question because I'm wondering what the
issues are for those wetlands downstream?
MR. ROBINSON: So, the --
what's important to remember is that there's a
baseline condition that supports a suite of birds
and species at risk --
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Mr.
Robinson, could you get a little closer to the
microphone. Thank you.
MR. ROBINSON: So there's a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
baseline context, and so -- and that's information
that's presently available and that we recommended
additional information be developed in a baseline
context pre-construction so you have an
understanding of your baseline condition. If
there are events such as sedimentation or alike
that change wetland morphology or functioning, and
that is identified in monitoring, then it is a
question of looking at the indicator species that
are identified in the plan to determine what those
effects are, and which would then in turn guide
appropriate compensation mitigation action.
MR. LAPLANTE: Okay. So it's
based on the monitoring that the compensation is
determined or is -- I'm confused about what the
issues are now or predicted to be. Is that
influencing the compensation or down the road
after Environment Canada has analyzed what the
actual impacts are that you would decide the
compensation?
MR. ROBINSON: I think I'm
getting a better sense of where you're coming from
now. What I would say is, for example, if you
have a sedge fen that is PT, it's got a lot of
sedge, grasses -- a wetland expert would kill me
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
for saying that, but any way -- and water flow
is -- hydrology is changed successfully that the
wetland, for example, dries up. That's going to
have a consequence to potentially breed waterfowl
that make use of those wetlands. And so through
monitoring and making measurements against the
baseline, one can determine the change, the rate
of change, the extent of change, and the
consequent effect upon the birds that are subject
to the HCP.
MR. LAPLANTE: That answers it.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Any other
First Nations interested parties? Any interested
party organizations with questions for Environment
Canada?
Mr. Munro?
MR. MUNRO: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Just have a couple of simple lay
person's questions again. I guess the first
relates to your summary recommendation, and I have
a quote of part of it here. I couldn't get it all
down, but you said that you recommended that the
Proponent avoid engaging in destructive or
disruptive activities, and I was wondering how
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
they would develop and operate this mine and
comply with that recommendation?
MR. ROBINSON: As I was reading
that recommendation, context is everything. So I
apologize for the confusion. That particular
recommendation relates to the matter of incidental
take which is the harming of birds, their nests or
eggs. So really what we're referring to there is
the breeding bird season. Because there's a
prohibition that relates to that, Environment
Canada has developed advice to guide Proponents to
ensure that they're know compliance with the NBCA.
MR. MUNRO: Okay. So the
actual operation or construction of the mine, the
potential disruption or damage caused by that is
not considered incidental take, have I got that
right?
MR. ROBINSON: Well, let's use
an example. If the Proponent is able to, for
example, clear vegetation outside of the breeding
bird season, then there is no, the risk to
breeding birds is not there.
MR. MUNRO: Okay. Thank you.
I just have one other question. I was wondering
if you had done an assessment of the potential
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
impact on migratory birds and species at risk from
the Pit Lake and the tailings storage facility
over time and considering those as being
potentially toxic water bodies and what may look
attractive to some of these species that we're
concerned about?
MR. ROBINSON: I just want to
understand your question. You're asking have we
evaluated the potential changes in water quality
and the harm that could be posed to migratory
birds and species at risk of the area?
MR. MUNRO: I understood from
your presentation that your assessment was
focussing on wetland habitat loss; and maybe I
missed it, but I was wondering about assessment of
impact from the mine components, the Pit Lake, and
the tailings storage facility?
MR. ROBINSON: There's a number
of ways of looking at that question. One is that
where there are anticipated effects that warrant
potential mitigation or action that there would be
monitoring that coincide to evaluate what the
risks are, what the outcomes are, and from that
identify appropriate mitigation.
There's also best management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
practices available and so, for example, for
mining and blasting activities, there are
published setbacks around heron (muffled) for
example, that are available and so there is --
it's a combination of best management practices
and in some cases possibly monitoring and
mitigation to get at, I think, the kind of things
that you're thinking there.
MR. MUNRO: Okay. So am I safe
in assuming that that actual assessment hasn't
been done then, of what we would predict the
impact to be of this specific mining proposal from
those facilities?
MR. ROBINSON: I think I need
some clarity here because we haven't reviewed the
EIS. Is the question in relation to potential
harm that birds that might make use of the pit and
the tailings storage facility?
MR. MUNRO: Yes, that's a
significant component of the question. The other
thing I was wondering about was species at risk,
you know, and I guess the one that comes to mind
might be the western toad or something. You hear
all the time about problems with migratory birds
and tailings facilities, for example, and I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
understand at some point in time the Pit Lake
water quality could be in question too. I wonder
about the, I guess, the impacts of the toxicity on
their potential use of those facilities?
MR. ROBINSON: I think we had a
swing at that one. Firstly, I think it's
important not to confuse, you know, this is a
metal mining tailings impoundment and so in terms
of toxicology and toxic effects versus other kind
of tailings impoundments, one has to be mindful
and be clear about what we're talking about. If
it's deemed there's a risk it due to water
quality, then that's subject to, can be subject
to, on a project-by-project basis, monitoring to
determine if there are effects or not.
MR. MUNRO: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Any other --
yes, ma'am?
MS. RANGER: My name is Maggie
Ranker with an "R" and I'm affiliated with the
Fish Lake Alliance. I have a question. I'm
wondering who does the monitoring of the
assessment?
MR. ROBINSON: Could you
clarify for me which monitoring you're referring
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
142
to?
MS. RANGER: You spoke about on
going assessing of the wetlands, and I'm just
wondering does the environment of the Canadian
environment do that assessing or does the company?
MR. ROBINSON: Understood.
That would be the responsibility of Taseko Mines
Ltd.
MS. RANGER: Who does that
follow up to them? Do they have report to the
Canadian environment?
MR. ROBINSON: Under a habitat
compensation plan, there are a number of
regulatory agencies and other possible
participants or interests that could look at
follow up reports, yes.
MS. RANGER: So do you ensure
me and my grandchildren that there will be an
ongoing assessment from Canadian government?
MR. ROBINSON: What I can
advise is that should the project proceed and
should there be a habitat compensation plan and
our recommendations are followed through in
relation to monitoring effects to wetlands that we
would be one agency that reviews those reports.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
MS. RANGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Any other
interested party organizations?
Ma'am, come forward, identify
yourself and pose your question, please.
I am getting anxious about the
time for future presenters, so if we could be a
little expeditions that would be appreciated.
MS. RICKY: Hi. I'm Deborah
Ricky(ph), and I'm from the Fish Lake Alliance.
I'm just wondering, these projects are they looked
at a whole throughout the province or project by
project as far as impact on the environment and
the birds? Do you guys get --
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can
you come closer to the microphone.
MS. RICKY: As far as an
overall impact over the province, over the
species, all these migratory animals, birds, are
these taken into effect as a whole or project by
project? Is it all broken up or are these looked
at -- am I clear?
MR. ROBINSON: I think I
understand your question. Environment Canada
monitors and manages migratory birds as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
populations and as individuals. So, an
environmental assessment projects are looked at as
a project but there's also a requirement and
consideration given to potential cumulative
effects in relation to that project, including in
relation to migratory birds and species at risk.
MS. RICKY: Is that for all
projects, not necessarily mine projects, but any
sort of industry? Do you guys get information
based on any industry that is going to affect
animal habitat, bird habitat, any habitat? As a
whole, in other words, all these different
projects that are going ahead, mine projects,
other projects, do you guys say, Okay, you know
what, this is going on here, this is going on
here, that's proposed there, there's all these
different, is it all looked at as a whole as well
as piece by piece?
MR. ROBINSON: It's looked
at -- it's looked at as a whole. I mean, under
the CEAA, the project will be looked at on the
basis of the adverse effects from the project but
it will also be looked at in the context of what
you're describing, which is cumulative effect. So
it's on an individual basis, the project that is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
the purview of the CEAA, and also in combination
with other projects in that way.
MS. RICKY: On this project
your baseline context for your wetlands, do you
get that information, like have you arrived at
some conclusion on your on or do you rely just at
this point on what the Proponent has given for the
baseline?
MR. ROBINSON: We rely on
information provided by Taseko Mines Ltd., as
they've provided it in their EIS.
MS. RICKY: If this goes ahead,
do you still rely on that or does Environment
Canada go in and double check the work, basically?
MR. ROBINSON: I would suggest
that it's both. Environment Canada has data and
where it's applicable to a project or situation,
then we'll certainly make use of it, and this is a
development and so it's the Proponent's
responsibility to generate that baseline and
ongoing data as well, in particular.
MS. RICKY: Okay. So if they
are given the go ahead, what happens? Do you go
with they've given you?
MR. ROBINSON: In large part,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
yes. We do have some information. For example,
in the previous panel, we submitted a report that
was an analysis of the waterfowl values of the
regional study area that was intended to assist
and support Taseko Mines' evaluation of waterfowl
breeding values within the project area. So
that's an example of the kind of data that
Environment Canada can bring to bear when
participating in a project review like this.
MS. RICKY: You were satisfied
then that the information you were given was
thorough and correct and done properly? The
reason I'm asking is because there was another
person, I think it was Mr. McCrory that called in
by phone here the other day and he found that the
information that the Proponent had given him for
baseline studies was not very good. It wasn't
reliable. Some of their samples were outdated or
mishandled, so I'm just wondering how we would
know what the integrity of the baseline studies
would be.
MR. ROBINSON: I think it's
fair to say we have no reason to believe that the
data collected by Taseko Mines Ltd. is not
sufficient for the environmental assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
147
MS. RICKY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Any other
interested party organizations?
Interested party individuals?
Mr. Nakada?
MR. NAKADA: Thank you for
remembering. I'll make it really short. I just
need to be clear, there's going to be no net loss
of wetlands like at -- the wetlands indicated that
was going to be lost end at Nabas and at Little
Fish Lake? It's all going to be compensated?
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you
for the question.
Mr. Robinson?
MR. ROBINSON: That's a fair
statement. We don't have technology nor the
capability to recreate a number of the habitats
found within the project area. Fen wetlands are
peat based and can take generations to develop.
At the same time, our role is and our mandate
relates to migratory birds and species at risk.
And while there are challenges, we are confident
that the birds displaced, that would be displaced,
can be compensated for through restoration and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
enhancement-type activities. In other words, the
gentleman is absolutely correct. We can't
recreate what is located in Nabas and associated
with Fish Lake and little Fish Lake or Wasp Lake,
at the same time, the population supported there
can be managed in a way through compensation
initiatives.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Taseko?
Questions for Environment Canada?
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation. I understood it
and it was apparent, I think, that you understood
our draft plan and the responses that we had to
our information requests.
I've just a couple brief
questions. Is Environment Canada familiar with
the commitment in Taseko's B.C. Environmental
Assessment Certificate?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
MS. GIZIKOFF: With regards to
clarification of priority species, you recommended
that Taseko meet with Environment Canada and other
regulatory agencies, I assume that would be the
provincial government as well. Would Environment
Canada result with First Nations on those priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
species or invite them to the table? I assume
there's an opportunity for input there as well?
MS. DESHIELD: Consultation is
a big word, of course, and at this point in this
complex process that involves the federal
government and activities by the Proponent.
Generally speaking, we'd be very keen to see
processes that involve First Nations and allow for
those discussion to take place.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: I'm sorry.
Just for the court reporter, that's Ms. deShield
as I recall.
MS. DESHIELD: Sorry about
that. Yes. Coral deShield, Environment Canada.
MS. GIZIKOFF: With your
recommendation I think the panel consider a
commitment under CEAA 2012 for ensuring following
up of the plan, I might have the wording wrong
there, but would it be appropriate for such a
commitment to be directed to the regulatory agency
in the province for which we have permitting
obligations going forward who are going to be
responsible for the reclamation -- ensuring that
the reclamation of the mine site is done by Taseko
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
and the transmission line, like the Ministry of
Mines, perhaps. Would that be part of that,
perhaps, commitment?
MR. ROBINSON: I'm going to
have to ask to you ask that question again because
you lost me.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Sorry about
that. It was with regards to your recommendation
that the Panel recommend a commitment so that this
habitat compensation plan would be legally
binding. If the wording was such, it is
theoretical that the Panel could recommend in the
commitment or the recommendation that the Ministry
of Mines include a requirement for a habitat
compensation plan should project go through
permitting so that you have a provincial
regulatory body overseeing this for the period of
mine operations and closure?
MR. ROBINSON: I don't believe
that we're in a position to answer that question.
MS. GIZIKOFF: That's okay. It
was just a thought. One final one, since we've
been engaging a variety of groups in the region
about habitat compensation elements we could
consider, quite a few have come across our desk.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
There's the odd one that has shorter-term benefits
and it might be related to those that involve
fencing or something like that. Your comment
about zones of influence arising from noise and
light which also would be shorter term, perhaps,
20, 30 years, would Environment Canada consider a
diversity of elements in the plan that had
different duration lengths or longevity?
MR. ROBINSON: It's an
interesting question, and I'm trying to think of a
situation in the real world how that might work.
So, for example, we certainly look to compensation
for functions that arise not through direct loss,
but through such things as you're describing, and
to be clear, I gave some examples and that's the
starting point. Just to be clear. We look
operationally at five years plus as being a --
pardon me, five years less as being temporary
effect and it probably isn't fair to ask the
Proponents to go out and seek compensation
opportunities effects of that duration. I speak
in general terms when I say that. If there is an
effect that is of longer duration, then it seems
to me that the kinds of things that Environment
Canada thinks about in the habitat compensation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
plan are developed and implemented intend to be
something that's in perpetuity. So I'm trying to
imagine a compensation project that would only
last 15 or 20 years. I suppose it's possible but
I haven't come across it.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you for
responding. I have other technical questions I'll
save for when we have the opportunity to meet with
Environment Canada.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you,
Ms. Gizikoff.
George?
QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL:
MR. KUPFER: I think there was
one question left hanging a while back. The
company monitors species and many other things,
what happens at the point that -- let's say some
migrating birds under SARA land in the tailings
facility and die. Is the company beholden to
report that and then what happens, in terms of
your department or is that out of your
department's purview?
MR. ROBINSON: Where there are
potential infractions or contraventions of the
NBCA, for example, those are assessed on a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
case-by-case basis. Environment Canada has an
enforcement and compliance policy, it's on the
web, it's there and available. And so that's how
it's -- generally, that's the beginning point.
That's how it's looked at.
MR. KUPFER: Do I take it then
the company reports it and then you consider it
and respond? And it might be a range of responses
depending what happened, whether there was any
negligence involved or whether there was weather
or -- I mean, we know the province next door has
some really big issues with birds landing on
various company's facilities and dying.
MR. ROBINSON: Understood. The
reason I'm, how shall I say, being methodical here
is because this is an area that is not my
expertise, and I want to treat it with extreme
caution. I think in general terms what you're
saying is reasonable, that it's potential
infractions are looked at in a case-by-case basis
in line with the department's enforcement and
compliance policy.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Let me ask
about the Species At Risk Act, if there are a
number of prohibitions for threatened and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
endangered species in the Species at Risk Act;
there are responsibilities with respect to the
critical habitat that you say may well be soon
defined in this area. Do you have any authority
to deal with any of those things? You not
personally, but Environment Canada? Again, it's
legal question, it's the same question as Ms.
Gizikoff asked. I'm asking because I want it
understand your responsibilities because we want
to write a report that is consistent with
legislation and so on.
MR. ROBINSON: I say this to my
colleagues that it's pretty straightforward. I
hope I'm not too far off when I say that. The
prohibitions that relates to individuals and the
residences --
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: And the
critical habitat.
MR. ROBINSON: One step at a
time.
-- on provincial Crown land
apply to aquatic species defined under the
Fisheries Act, aquatic species defined under the
Species at Risk Act and migratory birds. They can
apply to other species by order in council. For
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
critical habitat on provincial Crown land, it is
the, the protection is of the purview of the
jurisdiction to effectively protect critical
habitat. It can be done federally by order of
council.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I
would offer, if you would like, a fulsome answer
to that question and that we commit to doing an
undertaking because we don't have the expertise at
this table to answer that.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: We've asked
Environment Canada has responded, so I don't think
we need to go further. I always like to try to
understand this in detail and get as many ideas as
I can. That's fine. I'm going to switch to the
Migratory Birds Convention Act, and I may be
asking some similar questions. Let me cut to the
most simple one I think, and again, it's one Ms.
Gizikoff asked. You recommended submission of a
habitat compensation plan, my question is to whom?
MR. ROBINSON: We recommended a
habitat compensation plan be developed and
implemented by Taseko Mines Ltd., and to which we
have, amongst other jurisdictions, particular
interest. So, the habitat compensation plan is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
broad and covers areas that do not relate to our
mandate specifically, but those components that
do, that's where our interest lies.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Would you be
in a position -- you might not want to answer but
I'm going to ask any way -- would you be in a
position to approve that plan or those aspects of
that plan that come under your jurisdiction?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you.
Now, I can't help it, incidental take. Let me try
to describe what I heard you tell me today about
incidental take, and I wasn't familiar with this
before. Incidental take is prohibited but you
recommend people not look, so is this a don't ask,
don't tell kind of circumstance? I'm sure your
answer will be no, but I mean, is moral suasion
your best argument, your best authority here or is
there something else? To pick your response to
George's question, should you encounter evidence
of incidental take then you'll have to figure out
what to do with it?
MR. ROBINSON: I'm going to try
and provide a little context here. We're
certainly not ducking anything. We have a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
responsibility to administer an implement the NBCA
and the regulations. There is a strict liability
prohibition. That means that responsibility falls
upon, in this case, Taseko Mines Ltd. to ensure
it's in compliance with that law. We can't permit
them or anybody harming, destroying birds, nests
and eggs. The advice around active nest searches
is this: Other than in very, very simple habitat
times like your mowed lawn, it is very, very
difficult to find active nests. So if you were to
go out, let's say into a forest habitat and look
for nests under an active nest search program, you
will find only a small proportion likely of all
nests out there; such that it is very likely that
you would, should you proceed to clear in the
breeding bird season, to harm nests that you did
not found. Therefore, we recommend against it and
the web-based advice provides a little bit more
depth on that.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: That's
helpful. Thank you. The Panel is done. Thank
you very much for your presentation and responses
to the many questions, and at this time I'm going
to move on to Dr. Sue Senger with the St'at'imc
Government Services.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
PRESENTATION BY DR. SUE SENGER:
DR. SENGER: Good afternoon. I
would like to thank the panel for this opportunity
to speak today and to thank the Chilcotin for
their hospitality for while I've been here. I'm
going to be speaking today on sustaining St'at'imc
values through grizzly bear management and the
effect of the New Prosperity proposal on those
values.
My name is Dr. Sue Senger. I
did my Masters degree at UBC in plant science, my
doctorate is from Simon Fraser in biology and I
have graduate-level training in landscape ecology,
conservation biology and public policy analysis.
I'm a double-registered
professional, both biology and(muffled) in the
province of British Columbia. And I'm currently
contracted as environmental lead for St'at'imc
government services and Chief Michelle Edwards is
with me today, she's a director of St'at'imc
Government Services.
What I'd like to do is provide
you with introduction to some of the work we've
been doing, talk about St'at'imc values on the
landscape and how we've come to use grizzly bear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
159
as an umbrella species and then I'll switch my
focus specifically to the threatened grizzly bear
populations in southwest British Columbia. I want
to share the lesson we've learned working with a
threat unit, provide you with updated mortality
information on the south Chilcotin, and I want to
look at the time lags between landscape impact and
when those registered population level changes and
then I'll talk about the cumulative effects of
this proposal.
I moved to Lillooet in 1995. I
began working on grizzly bears there in 1999 and
it was somewhere around 2002 when Larry Kasper,
who was the natural resources coordinator for
Lillooet Tribal Council, and Tony Hamilton, who is
the large carnivore specialist for Ministry of
Environment and myself sat down and decided we
needed more information on the grizzly bears in
our area, and we started with sighting records.
That led into a historic project where we
collected information on the historic impacts for
these populations of bears, but most specifically
around B.C. hydro impact. And by 2004, we
realized we needed more data and so we initiated
the grizzly bear collaring project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
The first collars went out in
2005 in Stein-Nahatlatch, and then collars in
south Chilcotin by 2006. We continue to have
varying numbers of collars out since that point.
We've used out data to work on best management
practices and develop strategies for conflict
reduction, and most recently now my focus has been
at the policy level. So trying to create
guidelines around how we'll achieve recovery.
What I'll present today is a
blend of science and St'at'imc knowledge and we
use our collared bear data to look at how the
bears are using habitat and moving and what foods
they're eating and compare that to the information
we get from other sources.
So the St'at'imc are
inseparable from their land. They have a draft
land use plan done in 2004, and there's a quote on
the screen from that document, it states:
"The St'at'imc have lived
Upon the land since time began.
Our history is written upon the
land. Our history is passed on
from generation to generation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161
through the stories and legends."
And that's directly from the
St'at'imc Elders. The elders identify key
environmental elements, including water, grizzly
bear, fish, and meal deer and these are the
components of the plan which fall under my mandate
as environment lead for St'at'imc Government
Services. And we at St'at'imc Government Services
are in the process of updating this plan to
current levels.
If you're lucky enough to speak
to a St'at'imc Elder, they might tell you one of
more than a dozen stories regarding grizzly bears.
One that's most important to the work I'm doing is
around how grizzly bear taught the people to eat
and it was first told me by a St'at'imc Elder from
(Native being spoken) many years ago now. And the
story is how the people watched the grizzly bear
digging in the meadow, and the bear dug up bulbs
and ate those; it dug up the shoots and ate
shoots. But when it dug nodding onions, it put
them off to the side and continued to dig. And
sometime later the grizzly bear came back to eat
the nodding onions. And it turns out, if you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
162
leave nodding onions in the sun to dry, they're
sweeter than if you eat them right away. So the
St'at'imc Elders used this as an example for how
watching the animals taught them the seasonal,
timing, the type of plants to eat and how to
prepare them.
If we look carefully at the
grizzly bear diet and that of the people, we see a
tremendous overlap between these two things: It's
the same plants; the same roots and berries; the
same medicine plants like arnica or signing
nettle; the same fish; same deer and undulate
species; and most importantly, the same water.
So there's a strong emphasis on
the importance of water in riparian and how in
order to have clean water you have to have a
connected and functioning ecosystem. And so we
use grizzly bear then as an umbrella species a
covers many of these values and say that if we
have grizzly bear in the landscape, then we know
we have a certain level of ecosystem function.
If we use our collared grizzly
bear data to create a seasonal food model, which
we did, you look at that compared to the
traditional diet it of the St'at'imc. Again,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
there's tremendous overlap. I've provided six
examples here. So three are spring plants
including Spring Beauty, Indian Rhubarb, which is
called(Native word), and the summer berries,
Saskatoon and Soopolallie, and the fall berries of
huckleberry or (Native word). So these are strong
plants in terms of current use by St'at'imc and
they're very important grizzly bear foods.
Another example comes from the
traditional plant list used for the Douglas Fish
Compensation Work Program. Chief Don Harris of
(Native being spoken) provided us this list and
when we scan down it, 12 out of 14 of the plants
are grizzly bear foods. And the two I'm not sure
of, Cascara and Beaked hazelnut, it's more about I
don't know whether the bears even have access to
those. So those have to be investigated but the
other 12 are clearly grizzly bear foods.
So this brings us to the
concept if grizzly bear populations are threatened
then the landscape that supports the St'at'imc
culture is threatened. If grizzly bears are not
thriving then how can the people thrive when they
depend on the same things?
Why do we think the grizzly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
bear are threatened? If you look at the British
Columbia grizzly bear population unit map, it
divides the province into 57 or 58 population
units. Those are classified as being viable or
threatened. Threatened is one in which there's
fewer grizzly bears than the habitat can support.
There's also area of
extrication in the province. That means grizzly
bears used to live there. They've been killed off
by people, and once they're gone, we have a
tremendous high hard time introducing them again.
In fact it's not been done. We have not
successfully reintroduced bears to an extirpated
area. If we add the St'at'imc territory to this
map in yellow, you can see in the southwest corner
of the British Columbia. It covers four of the
threatened population units, it represents eleven
St'at'imc communities. If we zoom in to that part
of the map, the St'at'imc territory boundary is
now in red. You can see that it crosses the South
Chilcotin GBPU, the Squamish Lillooet, Garibaldi
Pit and Stein-Nahatlatch, with only the fifth unit
north cascades being outside of St'at'imc
territory. If we fade that boundary and now look
at the population estimates for these units, north
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
cascade comes in at 6; Garibaldi Pit at 2; at 24;
SL at 59; and the much larger south Chilcotin unit
comes in at 203 animals.
It's clear from the map the
further north you go in British Columbia, the
stronger the population is for grizzly bears. I
think it's equally clear and I would be surprised
if anybody in the room said 2 and 6 are adequate
numbers considered to population. It's clear that
those population units require extreme effort if
they will ever be recovered. And unfortunately
the information I need to report to you today is
that at 24 animals, Stein-Nahatlatch is now
critically threatened and should be considered
endangered as well.
What I want to show you is what
happens when those 3 southern units extirpate.
Unless we change our direction and increase or
efforts on grizzly bear recovery, the line of
grizzly bear occupation will cut to halfway
through St'at'imc territory. Clearly that is not
an acceptable result for a community that uses the
grizzly bear as an umbrella species. This is
potentially going to happen or could happen within
the next 10 to 15 years, that's how critical the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
166
situation is. So that places more emphasis and
significance on the entire south Chilcotin
population as a critical source of animals for
supporting recovery in the rest of the southwest
British Columbia.
This outlook led the St'at'imc
Chiefs Council to pass a resolution for recovery
that was done in March of 2011. That resolution
is included as an appendix to my written
statement. But in brief, the quote is from that
resolution. It states:
"The undersigned St'at'imc
Chiefs declare that grizzly
bear population recovery will be
a primary focus such that in
seven generations, grizzly bear
populations will be healthy and
will occupy their traditional
range for time immemorial."
The key phrase, "will occupy
their traditional range" holds our feet to the
fire. We need to make sure that grizzly bear
continue to exist throughout St'at'imc territory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
167
and not simply in half of it.
The resolution enshrines five
key steps which we will use to try and achieve
recovery; these include access management, human
bear and livestock bear conflict reduction,
habitat protection and managing landscape skill
forage supply.
What I'd like to do now is
switch and focus specifically on these threatened
units and provide updated information on
Stein-Nahatlatch.
The provincial population
estimate for Stein-Nahatlatch is 24 animals, and
the genetics show them to be highly related. They
are so related, we have trouble building families
trees.
So normally with genetics you
can determine parentage and in Stein-Nahatlatch,
we need extreme efforts to understand who is
parent and who is offspring.
Since, 2006 we've recorded six
dead grizzly bear females, two of those happened
in 2012. That's four breeding adults lost. So
the split is three natural and three human-caused
mortalities, regardless of the source, six out of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
24 animals is a spectacular loss in a small
population. And you can't argue that cub
production is compensating for these losses. Our
evidence so far suggests we have reduced sub
survivorship. We've seen females lose part or all
of their litters, creating gaps in production. We
also have little evidence of recruitment and
that's where some adult change and become breeding
adults. We have one female whose more than 10
years old yet to produce a litter. We don't have
explanations for what is going on, but it's very
clear when dealing with a small number of animals,
in this case we think perhaps we have four
breeding animals left, that everything, every
single animal count and our chances of success are
getting weaker. Therefore we urgently need
resources to implement recovery strategies and
this has to go at above and beyond anything that's
been done right now. The stats quo has not
worked.
So what lessons from
Stein-Nahatlatch can we apply to the South
Chilcotin unit? First and foremost, the existing
legislation did not prevent this decline so having
a set of proposals based on acts and regulations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
is not of much comfort. It didn't work in
Stein-Nahatlatch. It's not likely to work in the
South Chilcotin either.
We knows those chronic lack of
funding for recover efforts and enforcement and
almost no funding for proactive measures. While
all of us know we need to do access management and
human conflict reduction and all of these things,
trying to make it happen is a significant
challenge. We know that we must protect existing
females in these small populations and that means
we have to know where the females are. In some
cases it means we should defer development in
order to protect those females so reproduction can
occur.
And lastly, what we've learned
in this last year with the loss of two of our
breeding females, that individual bears can
entirely change our probability of success.
Losing those females has made it incredibly
difficult now for us to look forward to a
successful result.
What do we know about the South
Chilcotin unit by comparison? The South Chilcotin
unit is much larger and stronger than the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
Stein-Nahatlatch, it has better habitat
opportunities. We still have a strong probability
of recovering this unit. There's more breeding
females, more secure habitat when there's access
to salmon. There is some current evidence of
genetic flow between South Chilcotin and the
Squamish Lillooet, and that's critically important
to maintain. So we need to reestablish the
connections between these populations to reverse
some of the issues we face with small breeding
groups. We also know through fewer grizzly bears
in the southeast portion within the St'at'imc
territory than further north. So again, the
further north you go the stronger the unit is. So
that create issues. None of these things mean
that we can continue to add impact into the South
Chilcotin unit and expect we can maintain a
successful trajectory for recovery.
What are some of the impacts?
Human-caused mortality in the South Chilcotin unit
is extremely high. We have since April 2012 which
is when the provincial population estimate was
released, there have been five additional
human-caused mortalities in that time alone. We
were shocked by this. If we look at the mortality
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
171
table for South Chilcotin starting from 2006
forward, the total is 14 human-caused mortalities
and it's strongly male biased. Those 14
mortalities break down into five human-bear
conflicts, five livestock-bear conflicts, two
poaching cases, and two cases of mistaken ID which
is where a black bear hunter has killed a grizzly
bear by mistake.
On top of these known
mortalities, we estimate typically a two percent
per year illegal unreported and that's evidence to
support this for the South Chilcotin unit. The
large component of livestock conflicts leads us to
believe two percent is a very reasonable estimate
on top of these known mortalities.
The message is there is this
high, existing mortality rate in the population
unit before you add any further impacts or risks
to these bears. We are already very concerned
about what's happening in this unit. It's
important to remember that when we talk about
things like landscape level change that those
changes do not instantaneously report through to
population level responses. So the 203 bear
estimate for the unit doesn't fully reflect impact
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
172
from the recent mortalities in 2012. It doesn't
reflect the habitat loss and fragmentation that
that's happened over the last 5 to 10 years.
Doesn't reflect climate change in terms of what
we're seeing on the landscape. This includes
changes to the seasonal distribution of food and
changes to the release of spring habitat from
snow.
The recent decline in moose is
not reflected in that population number and nor
are changes in access, recreation or industry.
How can I say that? It's actually pretty
elementary, because bears rarely drop dead because
somebody cuts down a forest or builds a road. In
fact, what we see happens is that the landscape
changes impact whether a bear can find enough food
or not. It impacts whether the bear finds a mate.
Or whether it can avoid dominant individuals or
avoid conflict with humans or successfully raise
offspring. And from a population perspective, the
most important bullet is the last one, whether
those offspring survive and become breeding adults
themselves. So we have this time lag anywhere
from four to eight years before we go through this
cycle to say have the bears been able to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
173
successfully reproduce? That's the point at which
we can say those issues have been addressed at a
population level.
So populations respond much
more slowly to landscape change than individuals
do. And in small threatened populations, extra
caution is warranted because each one of these
reproducing adults is incredibly important to the
trajectory for success.
We know that individual bears
are at risk. This is a landscape picture showing
the St'at'imc territory in red. It shows a
25-kilometre buffer on the St'at'imc territory in
purple and the red dots at the bottom of the
screen are hourly GPS locations from a male
grizzly bear that was collared near (muffled)
2006. He was collared over here and throughout
the season he moved all the way out the Bridge
River through the head waters of the Lourdes and
Tajikistan Rivers and back again in one season.
Clearly he didn't cross the Fish Lake footprint.
However, if we had a collared grizzly bear up in
Relay or Paradise or Mud there's a high
probability a male bear from that location could
cross that footprint. And our concerns are that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
174
if bears from our weaker side of the unit were
killed at Fish Lake or anywhere near it, we would
lose that breeding animal from our effort here in
south.
I'd like to point out the
location of Fish Lake which is there, relative to
this nice, big block of un-roaded wilderness. Our
concerns are around what happens when the level of
human use through this area increases the way we
think it's going to and what does that mean for
bears trying to move through the unit, either east
and west or north and south in order to maintain
genetic flow. Our concerns around increased
mortality from bears that move northwest, and the
loss of any individuals up in the stronger part of
the South Chilcotin. If bear populations don't
have enough pressure to cause dispersal, we're not
going to see bears moving southeast at all.
We don't have a good map in the
province for showing you how the density of the
bears changes across these threatened units. The
best I could come up with for today is to use the
provincial population estimate broken down by
management unit, which was provided by Tony
Hamilton. What I've graphed is the density of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
grizzly bears per thousand square kilometres and
what you see in this diagram is where it's red and
orange there's less than six grizzly bears per
1,000 square kilometre. That's an incredibly low
density of grizzly bears. As you move up through
the units, we hit this block in the South
Chilcotin. It shows as a uniform block. We know
it not to be true, but, again, this is based on
management units. That increases between six and
12 grizzly bears per thousand square kilometres.
And just to give you an
understanding of why those numbers are so poor,
this is the table from Tony's population density
map for the province and you see number of 20, 30,
40, bears per thousand square kilometres. Clearly
the densities in the southwest British Columbia
are very low and we have reason to be concerned.
So I worry whether so much emphasis placed on the
number of 203 animals. It's a really big unit.
It is in fact not evenly distributed across that
unit and we have small groups of breeding females
in the South Chilcotin which are just as critical
and threatened as the bears down in
Stein-Nahatlatch.
This information begs the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
176
question whether these areas were traditionally
low density and perhaps we're chasing ghosts. And
I have to argue emphatically. Our evidence
suggest otherwise. So we know that in 1910 there
were 30 guide outfitters operating out of Lillooet
at that time. This photograph is one of the most
famous ones, W.C. Manson, showing off a prized
grizzly bear trophy. We have numerous trophy
photographs from that era demonstrating the
numbers of bears. The Hudson Bay Company did a
phenomenal amount of business from southwest
British Columbia in grizzly bear pelts; and, in
fact, the Hudson Bay trail falls on the genetic
break for Stein-Nahatlatch.
In 1956, the tenth largest
grizzly bear in the world at that time was taken
out of the Bridge River System in St'at'imc
territory. So we know the bears were large and
viable. However, the hydro electric facility
caused the loss of the salmon run through the
Bridge River system and into Tyat Creek which
affected the South Chilcotin population numbers.
And in the 40's and 50's, we
know sheep and cattle ranching expanded throughout
the South Chilcotin unit and I can go on decade by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
177
decade talking about the impact that people have
had on those populations why we're in the state
ear in today. So the numbers were much stronger
in the past than now.
That brings us to the New
Prosperity proposal which limit opportunities for
recovery. It creates incremental access and human
use of the area and mortality risk for grizzly
bear. There is a road existing in Fish Lake, I
was on it in July of 2012. There's parts of that
road you can barely pass two pick up trucks on.
It's a very different road when it's a mining
operation with vehicle movement and people moving
back and forth between the camps and the busyness
of this mine development. The impact of this mine
come over top of the existing threat in the units.
The substantial human-bear and livestock-bear
conflict, the rapid landscape change which has yet
to register as positive or negative impact. Over
top of the recent moose decline which we know
grizzly bears feed on moose calves as a pray
source. And most importantly over top of the
declines in the unit south of the South Chilcotin
in Stein-Nahatlatch where we need recovery and the
influence of that population.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
178
The proposal weakens the
critical source area that we need to support
recovery and failure to recover the southeast
portion threatens the viability of the St'at'imc
culture.
So this brings us full circle
back to grizzly bears as un umbrella species. The
bears represent the health of the ecosystem and
the bear populations are failing. That means we
have concern the ecosystems are failing. The
St'at'imc are committed to recovering grizzly bear
populations throughout traditional range. The
location and uncertainty associated with
mitigating incremental impacts from the proposal
stand against recovery objectives.
The risk of being wrong in this
case of failing to mitigate the cumulative impact
will undermine the St'at'imc culture. I want to
thank the Panel for their time today.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you,
Dr. Senger. Any questions for Dr. Senger from
Government of Canada?
Any questions for Dr. Senger
from First Nations interested parties?
Any questions for Dr. Senger
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
179
from interested party organizations?
Any questions from Dr. Senger
from interested party individuals?
Taseko?
QUESTIONS BY TASEKO:
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
Thank you for that presentation. You had a slide
up illustrating result of some radio collaring, I
think one male and his range. Thank you. That
information is very valuable.
I was wondering if you knew
anything about some of the studies done, I forget
which mine it was in Hinton area, but a similar
thing, they had radio collared bears and they
could see the seasonal pattern of use from which
they could better understand the various movements
over the year.
MS. SENGER: I don't know which
study you're referring to but we can do that with
the collar data.
MS. GIZIKOFF: We heard
yesterday from Mr. McCrory about the risks of
using radio collars, and I had always been under
the impression this kind of information was very
valuable; have you in countered in any of your
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
180
work any risk to radio collaring like that? I
forget the compound or whatever he indicated. I
think maybe the tranquillizer I'm not sure.
MS. SENGER: Yes, we have a
memorandum of understanding with the Foothills
Research Institute in Alberta. I work closely
with Gordon Stenhouse who has produced a paper
showing that there are effects of the use
of(unintelligible)on grizzly bears when we collar
them.
Yes, there are risks to
individuals when we collar and it is a very hard
decision because we're talking about a handful of
very threatened bears.
The flip side of not collaring
them is we don't have the information to protect
their habitats or adjust management or make good
decisions. And so what we end up doing is trying
to collar them and mitigate the risk as best we
can.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you. If
you could suggest additional approaches to
population monitoring, do you have any suggestions
if there was resources to do so.
DR. SENGER: I think we have to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
181
have baseline pre-development data for the area
and really good data. My objections to your
mitigation plan would come to the fact it's not
based on data so you don't know what you're
managing for and in my world that's very
difficult. I need information on which to base my
decisions. And so baseline data full scale DNA
monitoring properly fitting into the provincial
picture is what is required as minimum to
understand what is going on.
I was downstream of Fish Lake
last year. I was on the riparian area less than
20 minutes before I was on current grizzly bear
signs, fresh tracks, fresh digs, you will displace
bears and my question is what's going to happen to
those individuals.
MS. GIZIKOFF: So by DNA
sampling, that is the hair on the wire?
MS. SENGER: Yes.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Are you familiar
with the proposal for the mine site with regards
to the roads, that there's only 2.8 kilometres of
road being built for the mine. I think the
picture you showed where core samples, that is the
Fish Lake Road, not part of the project area, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
we are proposing a camp and that we have policy
that we've committed to for employees and
contractors while on shift to not travel outside
the project area, no firearms, no hunting no
fishing while there. Sorry. I guess you're
nodding. Thank you.
MS. SENGER: I am familiar with
it. My item protection when I looked at it was
your projections of success are very optimistic.
I've been working in these threatened units for
more than 10 years and it's extremely difficult to
achieve the result you're claiming. It takes one
person to kill a bear and we've seen it happen
over and over again and it's frustrating. Your
mitigation strategies are interesting, I think
they're optimistic.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Do you have any
explanation, I think I asked Mr. McCrory this
yesterday of why there is the reluctance for the
province to implement a recovery program.
MS. SENGER: I can't speak for
the province.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
MR. KUPFER: A quick follow up
to that last statement. Is there any prospect of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
183
recovery program in the area you work in?
MS. SENGER: We will create a
recovery program.
MR. KUPFER: You're not doing
anything now with the government?
MS. SENGER: It's not entirely
true. I'm involved in helping to write the
recovery plan. I work on contract to the
government periodically.
MR. KUPFER: Not operating now?
MS. SENGER: There is no
operational recovery plan right now. No.
MR. KUPFER: In your area?
MS. SENGER: Anywhere. There
is no operational -- not true. Southeast British
Columbia, Dr. Proctor's operating. He has a
recovery plan submitted to the province.
MR. KUPFER: Thank you for
that.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: I shouldn't
say if, because you just told me you were working
on a recovery plan. In a recovery plan for
grizzly bear in this area, what are the most
important measures to take to augment the
population?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
MS. SENGER: Augmentation is a
very specific term.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Well,
substitute if you prefer.
MS. SENGER: Then I ask you to
rephrase the question. Augmentation is a very
specific process whereby we would move bears into
a unit to recover genetics or age structure.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Let me
rephrase, then. What are the most important
measures to help the grizzly bear population?
MS. SENGER: The immediate
concern is mortality. Mortality risk is what is
killing us, no pun intended. We can't keep losing
bears. If we don't protect the bears we have
right now, we have nothing for the future. If
they extirpate, we're in a very serious situation
where we may not be able to sustain or reintroduce
bears. Maintaining the existing bears is
critically important. So that's reducing conflict
on all levels. Access management is critically
important.
I've heard statements
repeatedly, I've only been here for about a day,
around bears dying on roads. That's not the issue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
in terms of vehicle impact. It's very rare for a
bear to get hit by a car. When you look at the
mortality data and it's on my to-do list to do a
full-scale spacial analysis of that, but my best
guess is most of those mortalities are within 250
metres of a road. So roads don't kill bears
directly, but because there's a road there, bears
die. And that's part of our issue. And that has
been seen across North America, when road density
increases, bear populations decline.
Again, the five key elements
are in the resolution, so when the St'at'imc
Chiefs produced that resolution they set the
ground work for the recovery plan.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you
very much Dr. Senger and Chief Bra --
MS. SENGER: Chief Michelle
Edwards.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: I'm sorry.
Chief Michelle.
Our next speaker is Don
MacKinnon, Friends of the Nemaiah Valley. Why
don't we have a break before we start. 15
minutes.
--- Recess taken at 2:48 p.m.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
186
--- Upon resuming at 3:02 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Good
afternoon, ladies and gentleman. We are about to
reconvene. Perhaps we have reconvened. The next
speaker is Don MacKinnon on behalf the Friends of
the Nemaiah Valley.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. MacKinnon
asked me to make a brief introduction. Don
MacKinnon was educated as a geo technical engineer
in Alberta in the early eighties graduating with a
degree in civil engineering in 1980 and a master's
in engineering in 1984.
Don has worked as a
professional geo technical engineer in Alberta,
Ontario and B.C. for over 30 years. During this
time he's been involved in all aspects of the road
construction including design and maintenance of
forest roads in B.C., ground surface resource
roads in Alberta and paved roads and highways in
Ontario, Alberta and B.C.
Don was the geo technical
engineer of record for sections of the island
highway on Vancouver Island that included hydro
geological assessments, terrain evaluation using
air photo interpretation, road corridor evaluation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
and pavement design.
Don has worked with
municipalities of Yakult and Tofino on Vancouver
Island in the capacity of public works
superintendent and for Saddle Hills County in
Northern Alberta as director of engineering for
the past 10 years. In this capacity he was
responsible for annual road maintenance programs,
budget preparation and formulating and executing
new road construction projects.
Don, over to you.
PRESENTATION BY DON MACKINNON:
DON MACKINNON: Good afternoon,
and I thank you for the opportunity to make a
presentation here. Just to set the context of
what I'm going to talk about, I'd like to just
mention the word "cost." And I have a very big
respect for the environmental impact assessment
process which is both expensive to the Proponents
but identifies all of the potential impacts and
costs of projects, some of which we've seen
excellent presentations on which are very
difficult to nail down.
I was asked to answer the
question about the cost of the road system. And I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
188
am in a bit of a quandary because I recognize that
there are competing values in terms of an access
road and the associated costs. On one hand, I've
heard that opening up access for the mine and
making a really nice road might provide unimpeded
access to hunters.
I've heard the aspects of
keeping the speed bumps and the existing low
quality standard roads intact so that it limits
the speed and the impact for potential people.
So it's with all due respect
that I'm hoping the information I have to present
will find it's way to be used by your Panel and by
the Proponents in some way.
When I think of road access, as
a civil engineer, I think in safety, and I also
think of serviceability and I think about roads
and transportation corridors. I guess I wanted to
pose a hypothetical question to the people in the
room: Has anyone ever seen the impact of a
heavily loaded truck falling through the surface
of the road, or causing rutting that makes it very
difficult to control your steering? And these are
aspects that were brought to my attention because
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
189
I was contacted because it was made apparent to me
that there were no costs associated with improving
the public road system to accommodate the
transport of this mine ore. These are 15 loads of
mine concentrate that are 40 tons in capacity and
size running each day year round.
My task, and this is part of --
one of the tools that I used was Google Earth and
looking at the existing road system to try and
quantify how that system might have to be improved
in order for it to be serviceable and safe for the
continued year-round transport of this mine ore.
In looking at the initial
environmental impact statement, there was comments
that referred to the forest roads south of Lee's
Corner as being all weather roads. So knowing
that when the frost comes out of the ground the
road becomes beings very soft and in a lot of
places road bans are imposed to limit the amount
of load that the axles put on the road surface.
That's done in a way to preserve the road
structure, to preserve the road that is going to
be used by many different stakeholders, and it's
too preserve the value of that infrastructure
because you can really destroy a road quickly with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
190
these heavily-loaded vehicles.
When I say it's hard on the
road, if there are ruts that are caused, sometimes
during a snow melt condition, water will run down
the ruts and result in significant erosion issues.
Tying the idea of cost to human
factors, the cost of someone coming around a
corner and running head-on into a loaded truck is
something that is very hard to predict. The
concept of cost is difficult to quantify. In the
initial environmental impact statement it talked
about the road system and being, as I mentioned,
an all weather logging road and it also talked
about along highway 20 between Williams Lake and
Lee's Corner as being subjected to annual road
bans up to 70 per cent, and people might have
recall that during those periods of time you see
the little signs up that say 70 percent or axle
restrictions. And the same people that monitor
the weight of trucks at the weigh scales are
charged with the responsibility of taking trucks
off the road that are going to damage the public
infrastructure.
So the cost of this project is
really the cost to the people who aren't paying
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
191
for it, perhaps the cost to the public who would
be in charge of maintaining and upgrading these
road systems.
I've made the bold assumption
that the road system would be maintained to a
standard where maintenance cost would be
manageable and it would be a safe road and wide
enough to accommodate two vehicles and it would be
built proactively before the hauling of mine
concentrate, so that the maintenance costs would
be manageable and there wouldn't be interruption
in production as the mine concentrate is being
hauled to McAllister.
One other part that's relevant,
I think, to this discussion is I referred to the
environmental impact statement that talked about
the Chilcotin land use plan that we talked about,
a plan for allowing enhanced, integrated and
special resource development, and that implied to
me that the provincial government was responsible,
to some degree, to provide a road system for the
extraction of resources.
So I'm not sure why the costs
associated with upgrading roads weren't included,
but I got some indication when the environmental
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
192
impact statement talked about carrying out
reconnoissance of the road system in November of
2006 and making a statement no sections were
identified that would require upgrading in the
Prosperity road.
So for the purposes of this
road review, a B-train truck has 7 or 8 axel
assemblies. There would be 15 of these travelling
a day and the public road system, which consists
of 88 kilometres of paved road from Williams Lake
down to Lee's Corner and 89 kilometres of forest
road would have to sustain the operation and the
passage of these mine trucks for the period of the
life of mine, 20, 30 years.
This is a photograph of what
the road that's called 4500 road looked like at
the time I did my assessment, which was in August
of 2012, and the picture doesn't do it justice,
but the road is heavily rutted and the conclusion
I came to was that some of the transportation of
drilling equipment was carried out during the
spring time, and that those heavily-loaded
vehicles rutted up the road fairly heavily.
What became apparent when I
drove the road from Williams Lake down to Fish
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
193
Lake was that there was, number one, a shortage of
gravel sources. The road doesn't appear to have
much gravel.
I talked to a fellow named
George who has been involved in road maintenance
in the area and he mentioned that the road system
has evolved from a gravel cart trail into a series
of road networks to a bunch of road improvements
carried out in these locations. It crosses
terrain that has bogs, high water tables and silt
and soils, all of which are very frost
susceptible.
So I looked at the road system
for the Prosperity Mine which, at this point, had
been relocated to avoid the (Native word)reserve,
and I didn't include an assessment of the road
system from Williams Lake up to McAllister which
is where the ore is ultimately going. So my costs
that I generated were for that section south of
Williams lake.
The improvements to the forest
road that I looked at was improving road drainage
to increasing ditches and culverts and increasing
the strength of the road so heavy loads could be
transported through the spring, or early March to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
194
mid-March, and I looked at improvements to the
paved highway 20 which would have required a
pavement overlay over certain sections of the
existing road structure. I also looked at annual
maintenance cost that would be required to grad
the road, assuming that it would be a gravel
sanded road, put liquid calcium on the road
surface to manage dust, clear vegetation so
visibility was ensured around corners and snow
removal.
I didn't look in detail at any
potential bridge improvement they Chilcotin River
crossing because that is beyond my capability as a
geo technical engineer, but I have friends that
gave me costs associated with having to upgrade
that bridge to accommodate these heavy trucks. I
looked at a road width of 7 metres at the top and
ditching on the side, which is a practical minimum
in a lot of cases, and the reason I'm providing
this answer and providing with a caveat, is it's
useful because the road system designed by the,
mine it's a very short section but they would have
hired a geo technical engineer to look at the
local conditions and provided a pavement design
similar to what I provided. So those can be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
195
pro-rated back as information to see if it was
advisable to upgrade the road what it would cost.
The point of this exercise is
just to show the potential magnitude of the costs.
So I assumed, consistent with highway design
practice, that there would be 300 millimetre or 12
inches thick of a one inch sized crushed gravel
overlying 2 feet or 600 millilitres of pit gravel,
that that would comprise a road surface that would
be able to sustain these heavy loads through the
spring thaw.
I looked at areas where
culverts would be required and ditches. So the
improvements to the forestry standard road, which
as 89 kilometres long, the drainage would require
an expenditure of $0.6 million, and it shows up
there in the 42 kilometres of ditching, 47
culverts, some arched culverts and a 6 meter long
bridge and the road structure to put gravel on the
existing road would be around $21.2 million
requiring three year's worth of construction for a
cost of 12 workers.
In order to develop those costs
estimate I contacted one of the B.C. road builder
contractors who wanted to remain un-named because
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
196
he really likes to support the mining industry,
and so he went through and figured it out as a
contract cost. So these are reasonable numbers.
Looking at the improvements to
the paved highway 20, when I drove it I noticed
that there was some ongoing overlays being placed
back in August of 2012, and for whatever reason
there were sections of the road already showing
signs of distress, and I've just shown these
aren't pictures off of highway 20, but they're the
kind of things you would see in pavement that is
being damaged by the types of loads that are
driving across it.
So there were two sections that
were in poor shape in August of 2012 from 39
kilometres to 42 kilometres south of Williams
Lake, and when I say bad condition you would be
able to feel the wash board. You would be able to
see cracking on the roads and you would feel the
ruts steering you one way or the other. And
another section from 54 kilometres to 70
kilometres south of Williams Lake.
So using Ministry of
Transportation infrastructure construction cost
estimating guides, those overlays, if they were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
197
undertaken, would cost $4.45 million. Looking at
the maintenance cost, which I understand the Xeni
Gwet'in does for Taseko Mine, and they can
probably correct me because I didn't speak with
them about their actual operating costs, but
assuming two graders would be operating year round
to shape the road surface, remove washboard, fill
pot holes and maintain ditches and vegetation
would amount to $0.38 million and a liquid calcium
application done each year, and I was alerted to
the fact that calcium is already applied to the
road. The cost of applying that calcium would be
$0.34 million.
To answer the question -- and
now another aspect of pavement maintenance which
is cost effective right now is currently being
done south of Williams Lake is sealing the cracks
in the pavement surface which keeps the water out
of the pavement structure and is very cost
effective.
I assume over the 20 year
period of operating the mine a 20 kilometre
section of highway 20 would be crack sealed each
year and that that 20 kilometre section would be
rotated through the entire road so it would be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
198
preventive maintenance type of cost.
In total, and I tried to find
pictures of what a B-train truck would look like,
so forgive me if those don't accurately show, but
these are two B-train trucks with the axel and you
can see if it was loaded with 40 tons of aggregate
you wouldn't want to be in the way of one of these
things and you'd want to be able to get out of the
way and you could see during the spring time when
the frost is coming out of the ground how these
could really tear up a road. Recognizing that
there's cost of putting access in, the initial
cost of upgrading this, both the section of gravel
road and the paved road, would amount to $26.2
million and annual road maintenance of $0.8
million per year.
I felt it was important to the
public to be aware that these kinds of costs may
be required to support the project and I guess
similarly we might pose the same question about
the cost of advancing the required power lines
because it's not clear who pays for that.
As I am an optimist I was
hopeful this information could found to be useful
by you, the review panel, just to help quantify
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
199
one potential cost of this project.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you
very much Mr. MacKinnon. We'll turn to questions.
Government of Canada, questions? Any First
Nations interested parties. Mr. LaPlante.
MR. LAPLANTE: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon.
I have a question about the
safety of the existing road. In your professional
opinion would that road be safe as it exists today
if it were to have haul traffic as well as
passenger traffic, say going in opposite
directions? Maybe you're not an expert, but
within your ability to make that judgment.
MR. MACKINNON: It is within my
ability to make that judgment. I would say that
given the size of these loads and given the
existing condition of the road, it wouldn't be
safe.
I can draw attention to the
fact there are a number of fairly sharp corners
where visibility is restricted, and it takes a
long distance for these types of loaded trucks to
slow down and to stop. So if confronted with
somebody who thought they were out in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
200
wilderness they probably wouldn't be able to react
and the first instinct would be to head for the
ditch.
So there's a number of
certainties, and I've seen the impact of heavy
trucks during spring thaw conditions, and it's
very easy to lose control of the vehicle. So in
the spring conditions if there were ruts out in a
remote area and there's no road signs posting
there's a danger, it could be very easy to roll a
vehicle.
MR. LAPLANTE: Thank you. I
drive that road often enough and I'm trying to
imagine how much bigger 7 metres minimum would be.
What's the existing width? Just to get a sense of
when you're driving on that road how much bigger
would an improved road look like?
MR. MACKINNON: The section
that pops into my mind is when entering the Xeni
G'wetin reserve there is a location and it looked
like there was a gate installed and there's a
narrowing where there's two concrete pillars on
either side of the road. That is about 5 metres
wide. So 7 metres for the most part up on the
plateau, that road is probably between 6 and a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
201
half and 7 metres already.
In contrast the 4500 road that
goes down to Fish Lake is 5 metres wide.
MR. LAPLANTE: Thank you. My
final question, I'm curious about -- and maybe I
know you'll know this, the sections near the
Fraser River there's two hills and on the west
side there's a number of switch backs and then the
same year the Chilcotin River, is it just crack
sealing there or what would it mean to drive those
switch backs with haul traffic? Would that
require possible road widening there as well or
are those ready to handle mine haul traffic?
MR. MACKINNON: I'm not sure
the exact section you're talking about. It's very
difficult to negotiate switch backs if you're an
inexperienced driver and certainly if confronted
with a loaded vehicle and you panic it's even
worse. Add to that a skiff of ice and you're off
the road.
MR. LAPLANTE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Any other
First Nations interested parties? Do any
interested party organizations have questions?
Any interested party individuals have questions?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
202
Taseko.
QUESTIONS BY TASEKO:
MR. JONES: Mr. MacKinnon, do
you know who is responsible for the maintenance of
the Taseko Lake Road, not the 4500 Road?
DON MACKINNON: Well, I believe
Taseko Mine. The reason that I mention that is in
a geo technical report that was reporting some
coring report results, it talked about Taseko Mine
being responsible for maintaining it. Maybe that
was just during the time that the geo technical
investigation was being done. It's a bit of a
gray zone for me and that's a concern about
maintaining road boundaries, is who is responsible
and how do you get something fixed if there is a
problem?
MR. JONES: Do you know the
projected provincial government revenues from this
project?
DON MACKINNON: I read in the
environmental impact statement I think it was $808
million. I'm not sure of the current estimate,
but I guess part of the way I phrased that was if
the province is looking at this as a project to
develop it's resources what should be looked at is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
203
how does this bear up with some of the other
projects that are also developing it's resources?
MR. JONES: Do you know what
the logging traffic was on that road during peak
logging, say 10 years ago, any idea what it might
have been?
DON MACKINNON: In all honesty,
no. I can only guess it was probably one truck
every day at the very most.
MR. JONES: I just wanted to
clarify the picture that you showed, you did
stipulate that was the 4500 Road, not Taseko Lakes
Road?
DON MACKINNON: That's right.
It was just the 4500.
MR. JONES: I think that's all
the questions I have.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you,
Mr. Jones.
QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL:
MR. KUPFER: The road as you
drove it as you assessed it, was it ready to
accept traffic that might be involved in the
construction of the mine, construction of the
camp? I'm not sure what the order exactly would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
204
be, is that road ready for that, or does it
require a considerable amount of work?
MR. MACKINNON: I would say for
a good portion of it on what would be called the
plateau I would say it's probably ready because
it's very good conditions up there. It's well
maintained and graded. I think the Xeni G'wetin
does a very nice job of maintaining it. There was
a calcium application and the road surface was
tight. At the time that I drove it there was some
concern about the road going through the (Native
word) reserve which was a change and if I can
point out, this is perhaps a bit hard to see, but
this is the Chilcotin River and here is Lee's
Corner and this is where on highway 20 it heads up
to Williams Lake.
This is the (Native word)
reserve and this is where there's a road crossing
that comes across here and it comes up this
section of road here and bypasses the reserve.
That section that runs through all those switch
backs is a low volume road. It's never seen the
kind of traffic that would be seen by these
trucks. I don't think it's been fully evaluated
and it's built over top of old landslides.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
205
So there would be requirement
to look at the stability of that road and the
surfacing of that road and because it hasn't seen
very much traffic, I would be questioning that
because it hasn't -- I think it's seen local
traffic but I could be wrong.
I think most traffic that goes
through on to the Taseko Road goes through the
(Native word) and it doesn't bypass it.
MR. KUPFER: The proposal is to
bypass it, correct?
MR. MACKINNON: That's right.
MR. KUPFER: This is probably
not a question for you. Was it your understanding
that this had been agreed to?
MR. MACKINNON: That was my
understanding, because the road map changed and
the environmental impact statement changed it.
MR. KUPFER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: The panel
has no further questions. Thank you so much for
your presentation.
The next speaker is Ken
Dunsworth on behalf of Fish Lake Alliance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
206
PRESENTATION BY KEN DUNSWORTH:
MR. DUNSWORTH: Thank you.
First, I did give you a submission, so late in the
day. And I have to apologize for that. You need
to read the bottom slide first and then the upper
slide. It's a test to make sure everyone was
awake. I'm just lying about that.
I made a mistake and there's no
easy way of getting out from that mistake. So as
I go through the presentation please look at the
bottom slide and then move to the top. Basically
I'm going to do a little bit of a preamble, talk
about the intention of the presentation, talk a
little about bio diversity and habitat and the
ecological functions or services and the habitat
which leads into the connectivity of the habitat
and maintenance of bio diversity.
I want to talk about grizzly
bears as a management indicator and look at some
aspects of mitigation and I want to do that by
talking about the Bella Coola Valley experience
with grizzly bears and the devastating flood we
had in 2010.
So I want to talk about the
effect of ecosystems functions and services and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
207
habitat change, and pose the question what have we
learned in a summary with some conclusions.
The presentation provide a
glimpse into the bio diversity, habitat and the
evolutionary relationships of life. It should be
realized that all the component ecological parts
or functions are not understood. Habitat lost has
the greatest influence on habitat thresholds. So
management indicators need to be chosen to
determine the functioning health of an ecosystem
and the associated services, habitat that is
provided. The intent is to touch upon the
symbiotic relationship of the plant and animal
community and their habitats, their
inter-connectedness and inter-dependence.
It also touches on maintaining
the health of functioning ecosystems and ecosystem
services in the form of habitats. This is an
example in the story of the Bella Coola grizzly
bear. The intention to is to point out how big a
risk this project is because the collective suite
of mitigative ideas, although comprehensive, are
both hypothesis and different to implement. We
can never hope to replicate multiple ecosystem
services concurrently, therefore mitigate habitat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
208
requirements at either the landscape or the patch
scale and of the cumulative effect combined with
climate change are unknown.
Biological diversity is the
kind to the maintenance of the world as we know
it. What is bio diversity? Biological diversity
or bio diversity is the full variety of life,
including all the evolutionary and functional
processes and services. Here is an example of
evolutionary relationship of life. The diagram
should be taken as the latest version of the
current understanding showing those relationships.
Bio diversity levels need to be represented at 3
levels in any given landscape for ecosystem,
species and genes.
So landscape structure and
processes and scale are key processes operating at
different scales and structure in a landscape
pattern. Species respond to landscape changes at
a scale consistent with their site and trophic
levels.
Habitat is a suite of abiotic
and biotic resources in an organism's environment
which the organism uses to meet it's requirements
or energy, nutrients, shelter, security and social
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
209
partners. The effects of additional habitat
destruction on extinction -- and there's a little
graph that shows the more habitat that is
currently or already destroyed the great issue is
the effect of additional destruction on species
extinction.
Units on Y axis represent the
change in extinction rates in proportion of sites
permanently destroyed. Ecological functions,
serves as a habitat component. Species richness
is a function of colonization and extinction
processes limited by habitat isolation and size
and that's part of the island bio geographic
theory.
Habitat fragments reflect the
rapid changes, that's thresholds, reflecting the
critical amount of habitat that occurs in the
size, number and shape of habitat patches across
the landscape. That's part of the percolation
theory.
So, again, another graph,
critical levels of habitat. There are critical
levels of habitat proportion where fragmentation,
and in this case, local extinction risk, becomes
beings high and connectivity, which is local
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
210
colonization, becomes low producing a rapid
increase in global species extinction.
So connectivity threshold by
species for poor dispersers appear to be impacted
more detrimentally than are good dispersers by
threshold and habitat amount. So they require a
greater aggregation at lower levels of habitat
loss.
Because the critical
connectivity threshold varies by species relative
to their perception of the landscape, a single
connectivity threshold for an entire community is
very unlikely.
I have a couple pictures there
because I wanted to look at the micro instead of
macro. We've been talking about grizzly bears. I
wanted to go a little different than that.
Grizzly bears have a home range of 1,500 square
kilometres, verses a patch in a deciduous forest
which can be very small. And you notice on the
one picture on the left we're looking at a
two-dimensional plain.
We look at(unintelligible)in
the centre surrounded by a number of other
species. When you take and cut that vertically
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
211
and view it again you get a 3 dimensional picture
where a 3D world is revealed. So the dead leaves
piled loosely at the top provide a dry area of
living space. A few centimetres deeper in the
denser, moisture litter amid piles of earth worm
fecal matter are scattered more spring tails and
might and deeper still we will have the soil and
two earth worms. That is kind of a micro scale.
Aldo Leopold, in 1953 said, "To
keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution
of intelligent tinkering."
Habitat loss is the single most
significant factor effecting species decline.
Habitat amount thresholds occur at both the stand
and landscape levels.
Plant and animal communities
and functioning ecosystems. In communities there
are little players and big players and the biggest
players of all are the key stone or focal species.
As the name implies the removal of the key stone
species causes a substantial part of the community
to change drastically. So, the biggest players
are not about size, but about ecosystem function.
Ha squirrel eats a cone seed at
the top of a tree. It scurries down and digs a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
212
hole at the base of the tree and defecates. An
enzyme that went through the squirrel's digestive
tract is buried in the roots of the tree and
inoculates the tree which aids in the dissolution
of nutrients.
Grizzly bears are one of the
focal or keystone species used as an indicator in
ecosystem health and services. The grizzly bear's
life requisites depend on various ecosystems
performing a variety of functions and/or services
consistently at different times or seasons of the
year, thus capturing many different species
habitat requirements.
A grizzly's home range occurs
from a high elevation to low land and includes
alpine tundra and avalanche tracks, grass and
sedge-dominated eco systems and wetland and
riparian, inclusive of fish habitat.
The key question is when
recovery of grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin
grizzly bear population unit is the objective do
we want to take the risk with grizzlies begin
their representation of ecosystem function and
services or given the historical loss of their
range?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
213
We talk about mitigation.
There is an inherent un-reliability in even
mitigation measures and the accumulated effects of
each ecological disturbance to the point that some
impacts can not be mitigated. As suggested in the
MOE report, scientific analysis and opinion states
that there is a lot of uncertainty as to whether
Fish Lake water quality can be maintained, which
all life is dependant upon.
The EIS concluded that the
project potential incurs two adverse effect on
wildlife, one on a habitat and the other on
wildlife health. And mitigation design is an
imperfect science.
We've already heard about the
impacts on the wetlands through prolonged drying
resulting from the draw drawn of the ground water
table. We've also heard about the birds, the
aquatic habitats, and it also song birds and water
fowl that may have potential negative effects on
the health, which is stated in page 1,106 of the
EIS.
There are concerns regarding
habitat analysis altering the potential for easy
seasonal movement from mountains where denning's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
214
likely occurring for grizzly bears, out to the
wetland which appear to be valuable spring forage
habitat.
So, again, a hypothetical
extinction threshold is a graph that I show here
and it's population size versus habitat amount and
there's a threshold, and we're talking about that
threshold with respect to accumulated impacts.
I'd like to talk about the
Bella Coola story as an example. With Bella Coola
I want it understood it may well the only European
community in existence for over a hundred years
that had a stable or growing grizzly bear
population in North America.
So for over 10 thousand years
the First Nations and over a hundred years the
European residents of Bella Coola have been living
with grizzlies. The population was recently
estimated at approximately 90 bears.
There is a special relationship
between salmon and grizzly bears which is
precarious and critical for developing fat
reserves for grizzly bear survival of the denning
winter period.
In 2010, the one in 300 years,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
215
is what they're calling it, the one in 300 year
flood occurred in September. This was at the end
of the pink and Chinook spawning and in the middle
of Coho runs for which grizzly bear depend on to
develop their fat reserves for stasis and survival
the winter denning period.
All the spawners and carcasses
as were washed out to sea. The runs of fish were
devastated to the point that there was no out
migration the following spring. There were
grizzlies on top of people and people on top of
grizzlies each struggling to secure enough storage
for the coming winter. The impact after the flood
resulted in mortality of 42 grizzlies. The
population was approximately 90 grizzlies. Then
close to 50 percent of the bears were removed from
the ecosystem within the Bella Coola valley.
We need to ask ourselves can we
mitigate multiple ecosystem functions and services
concurrently or simultaneously; for example,
fires, our human dependance on fish and wildlife
for sustenance or water quality or big picture
ecological functions like climate change? Not all
impact can be mitigated as ecosystem connections
and functions or services are not all known, nor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
216
the interactions understood. Just as the saying
goes, that all the separate parts can never be
equal to or greater than the whole.
I've got shown up here some bio
geo climatic maps of British Columbia and one is a
current map and the other is a predicted bio geo
climatic plan. And the maps indicate that if we
do not curb the current rate of climate change the
Okanagan Valley climates may occur as far as the
Northwest Territories by the turn of the century.
Winter warming over the last century in British
Columbia in some places is as much as 3 to 3.5
degrees and that was put together by the British
Columbia museum and the University of Victoria.
So the effect of ecosystem functions and services
and habitat change.
Climate change, for example and
the very significant weather events created can
turn our conversation and management programs
upside down in an instant, likely preventing
localized recovery.
Some lakes, as is the case with
the Fish Lake, naturally exceeds existing B.C.
water quality guidelines according to scientific
reporting, indicating that ecosystem functions and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
217
services provided are in a delicate state of
balance at this time naturally.
Scientific opinion in the
report indicates that there is a substantially
greater risk of irreversible damage to the Fish
Lake ecosystem and wildlife use of the system due
to poor water quality given habitat change.
Within the grizzly bear Klinaklii, Homathko and
South Chilcotin population units only the
northwest corner of the quadrant appears to be
healthy. The northeast quadrant of the south
Chilcotin GPU needs to act as the dispersal source
for the recovery of the grizzlies to the east and
particularly the south as per the stated
objectives, and those are provincial objectives.
What have we learned? The
Bella Coola story indicates that accumulated
impact of past economic activity such as closed
canopy plantation forests that have no herb or
shrub layer which translate to food for wildlife
species, or commercial and sport fisheries,
agriculture and urban development, coupled with
the components of climatic change have had a
profound effect and far reaching affect for both
grizzlies and other wildlife species and on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
218
ecosystem their function and the services that
they provide.
Some conclusions. Wildlife
vulnerability to habitat change, given the
variation in species density across a geographic
range indicates that the ability of the New
Prosperity project to maintain the ecological
integrity of the Fish Lake ecosystem and avoid the
project effects on other neighbouring receiving
environments, points to a high degree of
uncertainty.
That was taken right out of the
MOE's report. The spatial effects of habitat loss
in land indicates with dispersed habitat, the
occupancy remaining in habitat declines with the
habitat loss, necessitating a greater habitat and
requirement for species persistence in such
landscapes. In other words, simulation modelling
demonstrates fragmentation threshold.
Spatial modelling shows that in
landscapes with dispersed habitat the occupancy
remaining the habitat declines with habitat loss
necessitating a greater habitat amount required
for species persistence in such landscapes. Time
lags occur between landscape change and species
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
219
response, therefore the result of habitat loss and
fragmentation are unlikely to appear until some
un-determined and possibly long time after
disturbance. This is often referred to as the
"extinction debt".
One populations becomes small,
such as was earlier talking about with the 6
grizzly base, factors external to changes in
habitat quantity and quality in effect drive
population toward extinction; including
environmental, genetic and demographic factors.
As the scientific report states, there also exists
a high degree of uncertainty as to the potential
for indirect adverse effects to wildlife, health,
local population effect and habitats in these
areas.
The scientific report also
concluded two indirect adverse effects on
wildlife, one on habitat and the other on wildlife
health. There is inherent un-reliability in each
mitigation measure to the point that some impacts
can not be mitigated and the cumulative impacts
may well be very significant, likely preventing
localized recovery.
I want to thank the Panel for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
220
it's persistence in what must have been a very
long week and for allowing me this time for
presentation.
I'll take any questions.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you,
Mr. Dunsworth. Questions from the government of
the Canada? Questions from First Nations
interested parties? Questions from interested
party organizations? Questions from interested
party individuals?
MR. BIRCHWATER: Sage
Birchwater with Fish Lake Alliance. You mentioned
the decline in the grizzlies in Bella Coola and
something about the genetic sink moving eastward
of the bear population. Can you explain what
impact that would have on the Central Chilcotin
there?
MR. DUNSWORTH: Bella Coola has
long been considered a sink for grizzly bears. So
when Stephane Himmer(ph) did his study of collared
bears -- we were getting collared bears from as
far as the Klinaklii, up Northern Tweedsmere above
Anaham Lake. East of Anaham Lake they were all
coming down into the Bella Coola valley for their
fall fishing. In the Bella Coola Valley there has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
221
been a shoot, shovel and berry program by a number
of locals who dispatch anywhere between nine and
eleven grizzly bears every year. And they've been
dispatching the grizzly bears since I've been
there in 1980. So we had a growing and expanding
population of bears.
Recently the fishing has not
been so good in Bella Coola, especially since the
flood, and we've been noticing populations towards
Chilko Lake increasing and so we suspect that
Bella Coola may no longer be a sink, that those
bears may no longer be coming to fish but may, in
fact, be going to other places, particularly since
the salmon runs of the sockeye miraculously
appeared, and a lot of those systems had sockeye
salmon.
Where it didn't happen north
of(unintelligible)lake. That would be on the
central coast of British Columbia.
So we may not be a sink. So
whether we're able to get a handle on how we
manage our populations in the valley will be
whether it's increasing or starts to be automatic
decline.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
222
interested party organizations? Ma'am, come
forward, please. Did we have someone at the back
who was an interested party organization? Then
I'm going to move on to interested party
individuals.
MS. CADDY: My name's Sharon
Caddy, and I'm just a person who lives here and
has for years. In your research and experience
with bears do you know many surveys or research
has been done specifically on the effects of noise
and change and humans and noise specifically and
have there been any in your experience? What
effect do those have on wildlife in general but
bears in particular?
MR. DUNSWORTH: I have been
involved in mapping grizzly bear habitat and
mountain goat (unintelligible) I can say to your
question, yes, with respect to mountain goats
there is a direct effect from helicopters or
planes or noise of machines on mountain goats.
My understanding with bears is
there is an immediate impact but they tend to get
used to the noise and, in fact, when you look at
certain grizzly bear populations where males will
kill and eat the cubs, females will actively seek
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
223
human company.
I'm not saying they like to be
with humans, that's not what I'm saying. I'm
saying if they're closer to humans the male bears
are further away and so it's a less of an impact
on their cubs, so they tend to get used to the
noise.
MS. CADDY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Ma'am,
before you flee could you repeat your name. We
didn't get it correctly.
MS. CADDY: Sharon Caddy.
C-A-D-D-Y.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Any other
interested party individual? Taseko.
MR. JONES: No questions.
QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL:
MR. KUPFER: There are a few
places where you quote things and maybe I should
know where they are, but I'm not sure. So number
24 is scientific opinion in the report and
indicates there is substantially greater risk;
which report, please?
MR. DUNSWORTH: It was the
Ministry of the Environment's report to you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
224
MR. KUPFER: From the 16th or
19th?
MR. DUNSWORTH: That is
correct.
MR. KUPFER: There is another
place where you quote directly, maybe it came from
the same place?
MR. DUNSWORTH: All quotes are
from the same report.
MR. KUPFER: Thank you.
MR. DUNSWORTH: My graphs are
from a different report.
MR. KUPFER: Thank you. I have
to ask this: It sounds impossible to me, shoot,
shovel and berry and the bears increased, the
image I got is they're dispatched.
MR. DUNSWORTH: The bears are
dispatched but the actual population, because
Bella Coola is considered a sink, move into the
valley from the interior because of the fish
availability, so the population continues to be
the same, or actually increases, but the local
population may be decreasing, may be increasing,
but the overall population's increasing because of
the movement of the bears into the valley.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
225
MR. KUPFER: Thank you.
MR. DUNSWORTH: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you
Mr. Dunsworth. The Panel has no further questions
for you and we thank you for your presentation.
The next speaker is Dr. Tanmay
Praharaj, and his colleague Stephen Wright from
Environment Canada. This is a presentation that
was originally intended for tomorrow, but because
of the very heavy load tomorrow it has been moved
to today and we thank Environment Canada for being
able to make that adjustment.
MR. WRIGHT: Steven Wright,
Environment Canada and good afternoon again, Mr.
Chair, Panel members.
This is Environment Canada's
final presentation on alternative assessment. The
Environment Canada teams consistent of the Mr.
Phil Wong, who introduced the other day, and
presenting today is Dr. Tanmay Praharaj and he's
the senior program engineer with our mine and
processing division.
PRESENTATION BY DR. TANMAY PRAHARAJ:
DR. PRAHARAJ: Good afternoon
Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, Elders,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
226
Chiefs, ladies and gentleman.
My name is Tanmay Praharaj. My
first name is Tanmay, spelled T-A-N-M-A-Y. And my
last name is spelled P-R-A-H-A-R-A-J. I'm with
the mining and processing division of Environment
Canada. I'll be speaking to you about the
assessment of alternatives to mine waste disposal
today.
First I will start with a short
introduction to the metal mining effluent
regulations which I'll refer to as MMER. MMER are
regulations under the Fisheries Act. They apply
to metal mines and milling facilities with an
effluent flow rate of more than 50 cubic metres
per day. The MMER prescribe conditions on the
deposit of deleterious substances, including
effluent and mine waste in waters frequented by
fish.
Currently the regulations apply
to about 110 metal mines and milling facilities
across Canada. Under the regulations a natural
water body that is frequented by fish can only be
used for mine waste disposal if the regulations
are amended to add the water body to schedule 2 of
the relations. The schedule 2 provision exists
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
227
because at some sites disposal of mine waste in
water bodies may be the preferred disposal option
for managing pollution and reducing the long term
environmental risk.
If a Proponent is proposing the
use of a fish frequented water body for mine waste
disposal, Environment Canada requires that the
Proponent undertake an assessment of alternatives
for mine waste disposal. This assessment needs to
consider the environment, technical and socio
economic aspects of each alternative assessed. It
needs to objectively and rigorously consider all
available options for mine waste disposal, and it
need to assess all aspect of each mine waste
disposal alternative throughout the project life
cycle from construction to operations.
Environment Canada strongly
recommends this assessment be carried out in
accordance with the guidelines for the assessment
of the alternatives from mine waste disposal which
was published by Environment Canada in 2011.
The first step in this process
is to identify all potential alternatives to mine
waste disposal and to pre-screen them to determine
options that are not viable. The remaining
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
228
alternatives undergo a detailed analysis using
multiple accounts analysis, which I'm going to
refer to as MAA.
MAA is a decision making tool
that allows incorporation of input from ranges of
disciplines and stakeholders. It provides means
by which the evaluators can objectively consider
diverse inputs and select the most suitable
alternative by weighing the relative benefits and
costs of each alternative. It facilitates
decision making in a transparent and reproducible
manner. Under the multiple accounts analysis to
assess the alternatives the Proponent needs to
identify the accounts or broad assessment
categories, environmental, technical, socio
economic and project economics.
The need to identify
sub-accounts for each account; for example, for
environmental accounts there could be sub-accounts
related to potential aquatic impact and the need
to identify indicators for each sub-account. The
indicators are things that will be measured or
estimated, they're used to quantify the benefits
and costs to the extent practically possible. The
indicators need to be clear and understandable.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
229
A weighting is assigned to each
account, sub-account and indicators to reflect the
relative importance of each. Environment Canada
recommends that the Proponent consult with First
Nations and stakeholders during the development of
multiple accounts assessment and the assignment of
weighting. This provides opportunity to identify
issues important to First Nations and
stakeholders.
The relative importance placed
by stakeholders on each component of the MAA can
then be considered in developing the weighting.
Once the MAA ledger is established and weighting
assigned, scores are assessed on each indicator in
the ledger, followed by the calculation of ranking
of the alternatives. A final outcome is a
quantified ranking of the alternatives.
Now I will move on to a summary
of the Proponent's assessment of alternatives for
mine waste disposal.
The Proponent conducted a
pre-screening of alternatives. The Proponent's
pre-screening of potential alternatives identified
15 alternatives for disposal of tailings and
potential acid generating waste rock.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
230
The pre-screening identified
two potential viable disposal alternatives and
corresponding mine development plans. Environment
Canada accepts the Proponent's conclusion.
The two mine development plans
are MDP T2 with the TSF in Fish Creek South, which
I'm going to refer to this as Option 2 in my
presentation. The other mine development plan was
MDP T6 with a TSF in Tête Angela Creek. I'm going
to refer to this in my presentation as Option 6.
Each mine development plan
represents a conceptual design for the mine site
as a whole, including disposal of tailings and
waste rock, as well as key site infrastructure.
I'm going to skip this slide
and explain this in this figure. This is a figure
showing Option 2 and the different components of
this plan. As you can see, this is the location
of the TSF.
The tailings storage facility
is located in the Upper Fish Creek. It will be
have three embankments, the main embankment, the
south embankment and the west embankment. The
total length is about 7 kilometres. The maximum
height is about 120 metres. The total overall
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
231
footprint of the TSF is 13 million square metres.
In order to be able to use this
location to construct the TSF the Proponent would
need two natural water bodies that frequented by
fish which are Little Fish Lake and the portions
of Upper Fish Lake would need to be added to scale
2.
Under this mine development
plan the low grade or stockpile, the non-PAG waste
rock and overburden would be located northeast of
the open pit and the mining facility east of the
open pit. This is a figure that shows Option 6
and the different components. The TSF under this
option would be located in the Upper Tête Angela
Creek and there are two embankments with the total
length of about 6.2 kilometres and maximum height
of 120 metres.
There are two water bodies
which are frequented by fish at this location,
which are portions of the Tête Angela Creek and
the head water lake. In order for the Proponent
to use this TSF these two water bodies to be
needed to be added to stage 2 of the MMER.
Under this mine development
plan, the location of the non-PAG waste rock
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
232
overburden and the mill would be located north of
the open pit. The Proponent conducted a detailed
assessment of the two MDP using the approach
following Environment Canada's guidelines.
Option 2 was given a higher by
the Proponent and the Proponent identified this as
the preferred option. In doing so, the Proponent
concluded that Option 2 would limit direct impact
to a single watershed, whereas Option 6 would have
direct impact to three watersheds. This is a
quote which says concentrating the effects of the
project into a single watershed allows for greater
control and containment of the mine water and
waste by limiting the number of pathways to the
greater receiving environment and lessening the
overall environmental liability upon mine closure.
The Proponent concluded that
Option 2 would provide an additional measure of
protection providing redundancy in mitigation to
minimize or eliminate the possibility of mine
water migrating to the Taseko River. And this is
because of the location of the open pit between a
TSF and the Taseko River.
The Proponent states Option 6
would not have such redundancy since TSF would be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
233
in a different watershed than the open pit. The
Proponent also concluded that Option 2 would
result in relatively lesser impacts to permanent
fish bearing and ephemeral streams, open water
areas and downstream fish habitat as a result of
flow reduction.
Now I will move on to the
summary of Environment Canada's analysis of the
Proponent's assessment of the alternatives.
Environment Canada analyzed the Proponent's
detailed assessment of Options 2 and 6. In doing
so Environment Canada was mindful of the fact that
one of the stated goals of the project is to
preserve Fish Lake.
Environment Canada's analysis
focussed on the potential impacts of the both
options on water quality in Fish Lake and other
water bodies outside the Fish Lake watershed such
as Wasp Lake, Beece Creek, Big Onion Lake and
Taseko River. And Environment Canada also
reviewed the Proponent's multiple(unintelligible)
analysts.
In the context of the potential
impact on water quality in Fish Lake the EIS
identifies water quality as a valued ecosystem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
234
component, where the concentrations of metals,
nutrients and sulphates are specified as valued
ecosystem components for Fish Lake.
Environment Canada has
previously made a presentation on water quality
where it has expressed concerns about the
potential for impacts on water quality in Fish
Lake associated with the project as proposed which
is implementing Option 2. Environment Canada is
also of the view that the Proponent may have
under-estimated the potential impacts of Option 2
on water quality in Fish Lake. Environment
Canada's concerns are due to seepage from the TSF,
the recirculation of water in Fish Lake and the
uncertainty related to contingency plan for water
treatment.
Environment Canada believes
that Option 2 may not be as protective of water
quality in Fish Lake as assumed by the Proponent.
Environment Canada is also of the view that Option
6 would be more protective of the water quality in
Fish Lake relating to Option 2.
In the context of the potential
impact on water quality in other water bodies,
this is a quote from the Proponent's assessment of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
235
alternatives:
"A significant distinguishing
factor favouring Fish Creek
South[Option 2] is the ability
to limit direct impacts to a
single watershed.
Concentrating the effect
of the project into a single
watershed allows for greater
control and containment of mine
water and waste by limiting
the number of pathways to the
greater receiving environment and
lessening the overall
environmental liability upon
mine closure."
Environment Canada has concerns
about the potential impacts on water quality in
other watershed related to Option 2, specifically,
related to potential impact on water quality in
Wasp Lake and Big Onion Lake and Environment
Canada believes the Proponent has under-estimated
the potential impact on water quality in these
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
236
lakes as well as in the Taseko River. Therefore,
Environment Canada is of the view that Option 2
would not be as protective of the water quality in
these other watersheds as assumed by the
Proponent.
As I indicated earlier,
Environment Canada undertook a review of the
Proponent's multiple accounts analysis. The
Proponent conducted an assessment of Options 2 and
6 based on indicators grouped under environmental
account, project economics account, socio economic
account and technical account.
The Proponent calculated the
merit ratings for each option. Option 2 had a
merit rating of 4 out of 6 and Option 6 had a
rating of 3.7 out of 6.
Environment Canada notes that
44 of the 75 indicators had the same scores
assigned to both options. For 17 indicators the
scores between Option 2 and 6 differed by only
one. So based on the scores of 61 of the 75 end
indicators, the two options are almost
indistinguishable, therefore, the difference in
the final merit ratings is based almost entirely
on the score result assigned to just 14 of the 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
237
indicators used in the MMA.
Keeping this sensitivity in
mind, Environment Canada reviewed technical merit
and methodological basis for scores that were
assigned to the indicators by the Proponent.
Based on this review, Environment Canada
questioned the scores for 11 indicators based on
the review of the technical merit, and 4
indicators based on review of the methodological
basis.
Here is an example of the
technical merit of the scores. For the
indicator's ability to limit impact to the Taseko
River, the Proponent assigned a score of 5 for
Option 2 and a score of 2 for Option 6. For
Option 2 there are other potential impacts to the
watershed that are close to the Taseko River, for
example, Big Onion Lake flows into the Taseko
River over a distance of less than one kilometre,
and Wasp Lake flows into the Taseko River by Beece
Creek over a distance of about 6 kilometres. In
comparison to that for Option 6 the TSF is 17
kilometres downstream to Taseko River via the Tête
Angela Creek and about 10 kilometres downstream to
Taseko River via Vick Lake.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
238
The TSF is closer to the Taseko
River for Option 2 than Option 6. Environment
Canada does not consider a score of 5 for Option 2
for this indicator to be appropriate. By giving
Option 2 such a high score the Proponent has
over-emphasized the redundancy and mitigation
measures provided by the ability to capture
surface drainage and seepage in the open pit and
discounted the potential for Option 2 to have
impacts on water quality in Wasp Lake and Big
Onion Lake. Based on this analysis, Environment
Canada would assign an equal score for both
options.
Environment Canada also
reviewed the methodological basis for the scores
for different indicators. In most cases
Environment Canada noted that the Proponent
defined appropriate scoring scales. However,
Environment Canada is of the view that the scoring
scales for the following indicators have not been
appropriately defined to be effective in
distinguishing between the two options, and these
are the 4 indicators.
This is an example of a review
of the methodological basis for the scores. For
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
239
the indicator mine development footprint the
Proponent's scoring scale ranges from one, which
is the worst case scenario representing greater
than 3 thousand hectares footprint and 6 which is
the best case scenario representing less than 1
thousand hectares of mine development footprint.
Now the mine development
footprint for Option 2 and the 6 are 1,600
hectares and 1,319 respectively, which is a
difference of less than 300 and yet the
Proponent's increment used in the scale is 500
hectares. Based on the scoring scale the
Proponent assigned a score of 4 to Option 2 and a
score of 5 to Option 6. Given that the difference
in the foot print of the two is less than the
footprint on the scoring scale and the use of the
scoring scale based on increments of something
closer to 200 hectares for calculation of the
revised merit rate, Environment Canada would have
assigned a score of two to Option 2 and 4 to
Option 6.
Based on this analysis
Environment Canada calculated revised ratings for
2 and 6 based on revised scores for only 15
indicators. I would note here the calculations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
240
used the Proponent assigned weightings for
accounts, sub-accounts and indicators; in other
words, we did not change any of the weightings.
This table is a summary showing
the comparison of the Proponent's merit rating to
Environment Canada's rating with the revision to
the score. For option T2 and T6 the Proponent's
merit ratings were between 4 and 3.7 respectively.
The merit ratings for Options 2 and 6 came out to
be 3.78 and 3.72 respectively.
So the differences between the
merit ratings calculated by the Proponent and by
Environment Canada are small taking into account
the uncertainties and assumptions in the accounts
process. Environment Canada's guidelines for the
assessment of the alternative recommends the
Proponent to consult with First Nations and
stakeholders at several steps through the
assessment process.
One of the key steps in the
consultation process is to speak and incorporate
First Nations and stakeholder's input in the
development of the weighting in order to manage
the subjectivity inherent in all decision making.
Environment Canada notes that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
241
the Proponent has briefly discussed the weightings
in the EIS, however, there is no evidence that
there is any discussion of the process that was
used to assign the weightings and there is no
evidence that any stakeholder or Aboriginal groups
were consulted in assigning the weightings or any
third party experts outside of Proponent's
immediate team of technical consultants were
consulted.
In summary, Environment Canada
has analyzed the assessment of the alternatives
with emphasize on the two MDP's assessed in detail
by the Proponent, and those are MDP2 and 6. In
the context of the potential water quality impacts
Environment Canada notes the Proponent's stated
intent to protect Fish Lake and limit direct
effects of the project to a single watershed.
Environment Canada notes that
the most important difference between the two in
terms of their potential environmental impact is
their ability to, or potential, to impact water
quality in the downstream environment and in
adjacent watersheds.
Environment Canada is of the
view that Option 2 has a greater potential to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
242
impact water quality in Fish Lake relative to
Option 6, this is because Option 6 would not have
any mine waste disposal or other mine
infrastructure located upstream of Fish Lake.
Environment Canada is of the view Option 2 has
potential to have more impact on watershed than
otherwise anticipated by the Proponent.
Environment Canada examined the
MAA in terms of the selection of indicators,
assigned scores and methodology used by the
Proponent. Environment Canada recognizes the
closeness of the resulting merit ratings for the
two alternatives, along with the subjectivity of
the assigned, however, provisions made by the
Proponent to consult Aboriginal groups and
stakeholders during the conduct of the MAA are not
evident.
With this I conclude.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you.
Just because there are two others of you I want to
be sure, nothing else right now. Thank you.
Indeed nothing from Environment Canada. Thank you
very much.
First, any questions from other
Government of Canada agencies? Any questions from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
243
First Nations interested parties? Any questions
from interested party organizations? Any
questions from interested party individuals?
Taseko.
MR. GUSTAFSON: We will have
questions for Dr. Praharaj, but we would like to
address those questions to him tomorrow as we
haven't had a chance to prepare.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Sorry, I had
been advised of that and it escaped my mind.
We'll make every effort to accommodate that, but
we are frightened of the load we have tomorrow.
We'll do our best.
QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL:
MR. KUPFER: Thank you for your
very interesting presentation. We were aware of
some of these comments in our reading and other
correspondence and communication.
The proposal and the statement
and the observations seem to me to lead to an
obvious question: What would you like to see the
Proponent do with these observations since they've
already invested considerable time and research
and study in promoting Option 2? Is this merely
to -- sorry, I'll leave it to you to propose. I'm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
244
not going to --
DR. PRAHARAJ: In my capacity
I'm not here to state which is our preferred
option. What we would like to see is more
consultations with First Nations and stakeholders
and incorporation of their feedback into the
development of the multiple accounts analysis and
this is what our guidelines states. Because there
is so much subjectivity with the weighting. So
it's difficult for us to review and approve
multiple accounts analysis when there it's missing
that key input from First Nations and
stakeholders.
So what I'm trying to do here
is compare the two options and present findings of
our analysis and demonstrate that Option 6 does
have, according to Environment Canada, an
environmental advantage with respect to water
quality relating to Option 2.
MR. KUPFER: Maybe I could be
more direct; what is the central message that
you're giving to us as a panel in this regard?
DR. PRAHARAJ: The central
message is the need for input of First Nations and
stakeholders into the development of multiple
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
245
accounts analysis in order to come up with an
option that would be acceptable as an option that
you can say is definitely the best option from
environmental, technical, socioeconomic and
economic aspects.
MR. KUPFER: Thank you.
MR. SMYTH: Thank you for your
presentation. A point of clarification, the area
that you reported for Option 2, you reported 13
million square metres, where did that come from?
DR. PRAHARAJ: This is in the
EIS. I can refer you to the exact pages. In the
assessment of alternatives document prepared by
Knight Piesold, you should look at page 10 of 74.
So there is a description of each of the
alternatives that were screened in those 15
alternatives, and for T2 Fish Creek South there is
a description of the different features and that's
where it's stated. It says the overall footprint
of the TSF would be 13.0 million square metres.
MR. SMYTH: Thank you. Maybe
Taseko can comment on this later but I keep
reading 12 square kilometres in documents, so
maybe you can clarify that tomorrow.
In your study when you looked
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
246
at Option 6, just for clarification, did you
consider engineering aspects or seepage aspects or
impacts on lake in Tête Angela Creek?
DR. PRAHARAJ: Yes, because
seepage is an indicator under the analysis that
has been used by the Proponent, one of the key
questions we had when reviewing this document was
to how do you compare? We have so much
information about option T2, so much geological
information for the proposed location for option
T2, we're looking to compare that to option T6, we
could -- and this is documented in our written
submission, we found limited information, limited
geological data for option T6 and those data are
mostly around the embankment where the proposed
embankment will be. And also because we knew that
basalt is so extensive at option T2 at the
proposed location, it could potentially impact the
seepage from the TSF.
We are looking for similar
information for option T6 whether basalt is as
extensive. What we found is that the basalt is
not as extensive at TSF location, at the Tête
Angela Creek relative to the Fish Creek South
location.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
247
So we did look at that and in
our written submission we have provided that
information to support that.
MR. SMYTH: Thank you. I any
we'll leave that for the Proponent tomorrow to
explain their analysis a little bit letter in
their response. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: You went
through the multiple accounts analysis carried out
by Taseko. You added some Environment Canada
judgments about changing some of the values and
one of the scales at least, but you did not tweak
any weightings, is that your standard practice in
reviewing multiple accounts analysis?
DR. PRAHARAJ: Our MAA, or
Environment Canada's guideline, we suggest the
weightings for the accounts and they have, for
environmental account we suggest 6 and for socio
economic and technical accounts we suggest 3 and
for economic accounts we suggest 1.5 as the
weightings. For the weightings for the
sub-accounts and indicators we recommend that the
Proponent undertake consultancies with First
Nations and stakeholders to come to a consensus as
to what would be the best, what would make the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
248
best sense for that.
So we don't require weighting
for sub-accounts. We only prescribe for the
accounts under multiple accounts analysis.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: That's very
helpful. I'm going to present an entirely
hypothetical unfolding of things, suppose the
Panel finishes this here, writes the report, the
Government of Canada says go ahead, it's all
right, then you folks have a responsibility to
deal with the MMER changes that would be
necessary. Under those circumstances would this
multiple accounts analysis be adequate or would
you require the further consultation and
determination of weightings?
DR. PRAHARAJ: Should the
project proceed?
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: That's what
I was getting at.
DR. PRAHARAJ: Should the
project proceed, I'll tell the standard procedure,
Environment Canada will prepare a regulatory
analysis and that would be prepared. There will a
consultation specific to the MMER schedule 2
process, which is different from the Crown
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
249
consultation, and this is where -- and there will
be a need for fish habitat compensation plan.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: A need?
DR. PRAHARAJ: Fish habitat
compensation plan, and this is where Environment
Canada will be working with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Once that is prepared and
submitted to the Minister of the Environment and
the Minister of the DFO and once they approve it,
it goes to the final decision to GIC,
Governor-in-Council. So it's GIC that makes the
final decision, not the department. The
government that makes the final decision whether
this will be allowed or not. In our regulatory
impact analysis what we document is what the
Proponent is proposing in the assessment of
alternatives. We'll document what consultancies
have taken place, the outcome of them, what kind
of concerns have been raised and the cost benefit
analysis for the option.
So all that will be pulled
together in the EIS and then submitted for the
final approval and it's the GIC that makes the
final decision on that. Environment Canada leaves
the process of preparing the regulatory impact
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
250
statement analysis.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: In your
experience with past MMER regulatory changes for
new metal mines, have you come across other
circumstances where there is an apparent, I'm
trying to use your words here, an apparent lack of
consultation to determine a consensus on the
weightings? What is the consequence of that
within that process we just described?
DR. PRAHARAJ: Because weight
has so much subjectivity and because it influences
the final merit rating so much, if different
people had different weightings then they could
come up with different outcomes of the same
process.
So this is where -- this is
exactly why, in our guidance document we recommend
that there needs to be broader discussions with
First Nations and stakeholders to come up with the
best weighting for the different sub-accounts and
indicators. I can't recollect -- well, during a
review of the recent mining projects we have had
situations during the(unintelligible) meetings
concerns were raised about certain weighting being
applied to certain sub-accounts and through
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
251
further consultations this was handled.
I can think of one project in
B.C. where we had discussions about the weighting
that was used in the MAA.
MR. WRIGHT: I'll add to that.
As mentioned at the beginning, the guidelines were
published in 2011 so there is very limited
experience with that.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: That's very
helpful Dr. Praharaj, Mr. Wright. So in that case
I think we're done.
Thank you so much for your
helpful presentation. And as I recall if I can
find the schedule here, the next item is Taseko's
response to information presented in this session.
MR. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. We will have a short closing
presentation. So we'll ask Ms. Gizikoff to move
to the presentation table and she'll be joined by
various representatives, each of whom will have is
a specific topic to address.
RESPONSE BY TASEKO:
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you.
We'll tag team a little bit here and move the
microphone around.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
252
MR. JONES: I just want to
touch on the transmission line de-commissioning a
little bit because it seemed to be important this
morning and maybe this will provide clarity. I'd
like to point out we've taken a conservative
approach in putting forward a project that will
work using today's technology, but not one that
contains detail around optimizing things in
future, in 20 years, and there's a reason for that
and Mr. Gustafson mentioned that. It's impossible
to know exactly what the requirements of the
project could be in 20 years, but where we
recognize uncertainty like the need to continue
recycling of water post closure we said let's make
sure we can do that.
So we put a proposal forward
that does that. Similarly with the water
treatment possibility, we committed to doing that.
If these types of measures are required, which is
in the future, we would use the most appropriate,
efficient, cost effective, environmentally
friendly technology available at the time. But,
again, what we put forward is proof of concept.
So that's that uncertainty 120
years out that makes it impossible to say exactly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
253
what the power requirements may be. Those could
range from nothing, I don't think we can stand
behind that at this point. There's too much
uncertainty to say we won't need to recycle, but
it could be nothing. It could be just recycling.
It could be water treatment. So try and say how
much power we need, pretty tough.
If all we had to do was recycle
we could do that with a portable generator. We're
talking about 1,300 kilowatts. To run the mill,
we're talking 126 megawatts. Whatever is required
later is going to be less than what the mill
requires.
I think maybe the most
important thing is regardless of the timing of the
de-commissioning of the transmission line, Taseko
remains responsible for all commitments associated
with that, from the adaptive management plan to
the components of the habitat compensation plan
that are specific to the transmission line and the
reclamation of that.
So I hope that adds some
clarity around that. And I was going to add one
point while talking about infrastructure and it
was to clarify that the Taseko Lake Road from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
254
Hanceville to the turn off to the 4500 Road is a
provincial road under the purview of the Ministry
of Highways.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you. I'd
like to follow up that with a little bit more
information about the transmission line. There
are concerns raised with regard to the
transmission line, and I just wanted to bring
everyone's attention to the numerous mitigation
measures incorporated into your B.C. environmental
assessment certificate, schedule A, mitigation
measure, and schedule B commitment. Those haven't
changed with this new project, the revised
project, and Taseko is committed to
pre-construction surveys to maximized our
opportunities for avoidance on sensitive features,
construct within timing windows for a variety of
species, design the mine using best available
technology, and minimize risk to migratory birds
as well as avoiding perching birds on the pole
within the grass to avoid risk to small animals.
Those are just examples.
Another item raised was with
regard to the unresolved issues around alignment
with the Esketemc community forest. But I think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
255
in general the Esketemc has concerns about the
routing, and I expect we'll be speaking about this
within the community later. I don't see
representatives of them here, I saw on the record.
We have started some
pre-construction local investigations along the
route in 2010 as per our commitment and that
includes badger den surveys, nest surveys and
archeology and offers were extended to Esketemc
participate, but I understand due to the timing
and the yet unannounced decision on the project at
that time the leadership chose not to accept or
offer to engage.
Regardless, we did include
First Nations as technicians in the work as best
as we could to share information about what we
were doing and get involvement.
We have offered to establish a
working group with Esketemc specific on the
transmission line topic and there has been a
letter exchange between Taseko and Esketemc,
mostly between legal counsel, as per Esketemc's
wishes, and that's on the record. That's been
occurring over the last year and a half, two years
and consultation effort with Esketemc to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
256
potentially establish a dialogue or a working
group is ongoing with, I believe, Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency is attempting to
assist.
We look forward to more
discussion in the community.
MS. TASHE: My name is Natalie,
Tashe. I'm a reclamation specialist with Stantec
Consulting. There are a number of points I wanted
--
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Ms. Tashe,
could you spell your last name please?
MS. TASHE: For sure.
T-A-S-H-E. My apologies. There are a number of
points brought up today that are somewhat related
to reclamation and I'll bring up the topic of the
transmission line.
Sometimes it's hard when people
read words to visualize what we're dealing with,
and in terms of reclamation specifically. In the
EIS the transmission line is classified as not
permanent to be reclaimed. There are a number of
features in the mine plan where we say what is
permanent and not permanent, and just to be clear,
the transmission line is classified to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
257
reclaimed, not permanent.
And also when dealing with what
we need to reclaim there's very little to reclaim
with the transmission line. It crosses a number
of wetlands, range lands, grass lands and forests,
and in the forested area that's where the
maintenance needs to be done and it's pruning and
not any ground disturbance or tree removal. And I
just wanted to make sure that was clear today,
that we don't have to do active planting in the
forested areas, because we're just doing pruning
and not removal.
That plays into access. I know
access has come into a lot of the decisions
regarding wildlife and knowing that in those
forested areas there's not new access created is
very important to know. Furthermore, we wanted to
comment on Dr. Nancy Turner's talk. We're
grateful she gave her talk and she brought the
topic of cultural key stone species and places.
That's very important to note. And in the current
reclamation plan of the EIS, we recognize the
importance of key cultural species.
We have a section dedicated to
the Williams case species and ways of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
258
incorporating medicinal and culturally important
plant species and creating planting regimes that
will restore ecosystems that allow the key
important wild life species listed to return to
the landscape post closure.
So that information is
contained in the reclamation, and we wanted to
acknowledge that the papers she was citing, the
2004 Garabaldi and Turner was talking about the
importance of cultural key stone species and
restoration, which we were familiar with and made
steps to incorporate in the current EIS.
The third point I wanted to
talk about, and this is what the Panel brought up,
was on the access and the effectiveness of
reclamation in controlling access, particularly to
assist recovery of wildlife species of grizzlies
and moose.
In that regard that's a few
points to make. We acknowledge the fact that the
panel would like additional literature on what
reclamation has been done, what works and doesn't
work. The point I also wanted to make, and this
ties into Ms. Gizikoff's talk today, she said that
Taseko is familiar with linear access reclamation,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
259
and working with a number of mines. What makes
someone familiar or good at it is having the
professionals with the competence to do the work
on the ground and also the operators. People
don't realize that we have to work with operators
with the yellow machines to make this happen and
having that team that has that experience and has
done the work before is over half the battle
because we're dealing with words on paper and
trying to make it real.
You might get it right on paper
but how it looks on the ground has to work to be
effective.
I wanted to talk of what is
currently happening in B.C. mines. As a
reclamation specialist that works on a number of
mines, linear access control related to
reclamation is a very important topic, and it's
now become part of our conditions for notice of
work, for exploration and for mines, permits, to
include and report on linear access control
related to mine development. It could be for
conveyors, pipelines, roads, power lines, all of
those linear features, and where we have a
particular dedicated reclamation plan for access
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
260
control, whether temporary and/or permanent, and
having biannual or annual reporting to the
Ministry of Energy and Mines and Natural Gas.
That is the trend that we're
seeing with a lot of it. It might not just be for
moose specifically, but for Cariboo and other
species vulnerable to linear access.
I just wanted to make those
points clear of what the trend is in B.C. mines
and approval of what we're doing for linear
access.
On that note, I was going to
pass it to Bill who will provide more information
on the wildlife aspects.
MR. HARPER: My name is William
Harper. I'm a wildlife biologist with Stantec
Consulting.
I have a few remarks with
respect the moose population report discussed
earlier this morning. It's titled, "A
Re-evaluation of Trends in Moose Populations in
the Cariboo Region, 1985 to 2012" by R. Scott
McNay and others dated July the 26th, 2013.
This report states that
evidence of a moose population decline is strong
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
enough to warrant changes in management of moose
in the Cariboo region. The report further states
that we consider the most plausible deductive
explanation for moose population decline as an
increase in the vulnerability of moose to human
cause, and others sources of mortality associated
with mountain pine beetle epidemic.
While acknowledging that more
work is required to better understand the causes
of the decline, the findings of this report to
date suggest that one of the changes that may work
to reduce or reverse the current decline of moose
is to reduce vulnerability of moose cows and
calves through strategic reduction in
accessibility.
This management recommendation
for moose is compatible with the objective of
Taseko Mines Ltd.'s habitat compensation plan
related to grizzly bear conservation through
reduction of linear features, density and thereby
human access and associated mortality risk.
MS. MUNDY: My name is Jennifer
Mundy, M-U-N-D-Y. I'm a vegetation ecologist.
The question came up this morning of whether
Taseko assessed impacts of the recirculation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
262
proposal on the function of wetlands and whether
there are examples of recirculation projects of a
similar scale that maintained wetland function.
The brief answer to both of these is yes.
With regard to this I would
like to discuss a couple of things. First I would
like to touch on how --
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Could you
slow down please, even I can't follow that.
MS. MUNDY: Okay. Looking at
the recirculation and the assessment of
recirculation and about the success of other
recirculation projects on maintaining wetland
functions; firstly, in assessing the indirect
effects of wetlands we looked at two effected
pathways, changes to water quality and changes to
water quantity.
In terms of water quality as
indicated in IR37 a wildlife health assessment was
done regarding potential effects to
wetland-dependent species from changes to water
quality through seepage. No significant effect
was found in this assessment.
A commitment was made to water
quality monitoring with provisions for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
263
adaptive management as required. In terms of
water quantity in both the EIS and IR31 Taseko
looked at potential changes predicted to near
surface ground water at operations in post
closure. This identified potential changes to
wetlands around and below the pit associated with
pit de-watering during operations. Because of
this, the water table north of the open pit will
be lower during operations.
So, in addition to wetlands
directly impacted by the project, Taseko
identifies 69 hectares of wetlands with the
potential for changes due to this indirect effect
and proposed pre-construction wetland functions
surveys and subsequent monitoring to determine the
actual effect to wetland ecosystems and functions
within this area.
In terms of large scale
projects modifying hydro logical regimes, this
issue can be viewed from a couple of different
directions. There is a large body of literature
on wetland restoration, creation and enhancement,
including results of monitoring. This is
particularly well developed in the United States
because of the history of requirements for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
264
compensatory mitigation.
For example, there have been
initiatives in the San Francisco Bay and Florida
everglade areas with efforts to focus on restoring
large areas of the wetland where the water regime
had been altered by past human activities such as
drainage and dyking programs.
So those restorations of hydro
logical regimes have been done and monitored to
show how those losses have been compensated for.
And then I have experience working on several long
term wetland monitoring programs in Alberta in the
oil sands and Northern Ontario for mining programs
where there were predicted effects to wetland from
ground water draw down necessitating the need for
on going monitoring programs; this included
looking at hydrology, vegetation and wildlife
indicators to detect potential impact to these
wetlands from ground water draw down.
The programs I've been involved
with have been going on for 8 to 10 years and have
not yet identified substantial changes to the
wetland functions because of this draw down.
MS. GIZIKOFF: Thank you. I'm
cognizant of the time so I will attempt to make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
265
two more brief comments. First is the idea that
moving that blue listed moss as an experiment. I
just wanted to explain why I find it interesting.
This moss is a new blue listed species meaning it
is of special concern. There have been numerous
other locations in the province it's now been
located.
I think this is an opportunity
to learn from this should those other locations as
well potentially become impacted. This is a good
opportunity. Location or transportation is not
something that we're required to do
regulation-wise because it is blue listed, but the
industry is interested in seeking opportunities
for research as well as learning.
With regards to water quality
and birds, I just wanted to make a couple notes
that the water quality in the Gibraltar TSF and in
other coppers mines in the southern interior of
B.C. are monitored and not toxic to fish. Fish
tissue sampling at Gibraltar shows that fish are
not contaminated. Highland Valley Copper holds a
fish derby every year in their tailings ponds.
The tailings storage facility
proposed is not predicted to be a threat to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
266
migratory birds and the tailings storage facility
is not in any way comparable to what happened with
respect to oil sand projects. There are examples
of migratory bird use in mining areas and ponds
with no apparent effects and at Gibraltar we've
seen mallards on the Gibraltar seepage pond, loons
on the tailings pond and cranes on the tailings
beach and the closest mine to us that has done a
significant amount of research is Highland Valley
Copper with their research and monitoring work
done by professional biologist Rick Halley, over
the past 10 years and his papers are available on
the TRCR web site. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: If I could
make a couple of comments it would be helpful.
I think the questions that we
posed to Environment Canada about birds and
tailings ponds were not intended to hint that your
tailings ponds were the same as the ones in the
oil sands. We were probing the regulatory
authority of Environment Canada, as you were as
well. For certainty for you and others, that was
our intent.
The second one is a personal
preference, when you give us this additional
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
267
information on the ability to control access we
would very much appreciate it if it was succinct
and focussed rather than voluminous, just a
preference. You're done? Thank you. You're free
to return to your seat and, in fact -- we have Mr.
LaPlante who apparently wants to say something.
MR. LAPLANTE: Two procedural
points, and I thought it'd be fair to give it now
rather than off line. I believe there's been a
report submitted today from TNG, an expert report
related to human health and I wanted to give a
heads up to the Proponent that I hope that is on
the registry and that expert witness will be
presenting in Nemaiah, and it's expected next
Thursday. So you may want to let your folks know
that. I know they may be here tomorrow.
And, second to that, I will be
presenting on the moose question, and I'm raising
this now because it was brought up in the final
statement there in Nemaiah as well and those were
related directly to right's issues, which is why
the community chose to conduct that in the
community, as well as the fact that tomorrow's
agenda was packed. So thank you.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
268
Mr. LaPlante. I want to clarify first, do we know
if the report is now posted on the registry? She
says no it's not. It will be soon.
MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, Mr.
Chairman, that's a point I wish to address as to
whether it's appropriate to accept and post that
right now. We have a program laid out. These are
the topic specific portions of this hearing and
for TNG to take it upon themselves to introduce an
expert on some topic - I'm not sure what it is -
at a later stage, when we won't have appropriate
people on hand to deal with it, strikes me as
being completely off side the Panel's rules.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Mr. LaPlante
has indicated it relates to traditional use and
that seems appropriate in a community to me, but
let's seek some advice from him on what the report
is actually about.
MR. NELSON: We're tagging out
at this point - it's Jay Nelson - now that the
lawyers are involved. The presentation in Xeni
Gwet'in will be by health specialists looking at
the contaminant risk from soil exposure. It's a
presentation that the community is wanting to
hear. He's worked with the community on that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
269
That's why it's scheduled for Xeni Gwet'in.
My understanding of the process
is that reports are to be filed 7 days before the
presentation. It will be 7 days. Taseko will
have plenty of opportunity to review and question
him on his report at that time. I can't help but
notice that Taseko is proposing to submit pretty
substantial information in support of it's water
quality predictions fairly late in the process,
information we've been asking for since May. It's
become obvious over the course of the last few
days it is critically important to your mandate.
We're not going to have that for several days
still.
I think this is a much more
appropriate use of the Panel's process. They had
7 days to prepare for that presentation.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Thank you,
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Gustafson.
MR. GUSTAFSON: It seems to me
the nature of the report is something that would
be appropriate for tomorrow's session. I haven't
seen the report so I don't really know, but based
on the description Mr. Nelson just gave it strikes
me that that would have been an appropriate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
270
opportunity to deal with an expert report like
that.
It is extremely difficult for
us to be able to assume that we'll be able to
bring in an expert in time to review this report
and attend in the community sessions to help us in
addressing any issues that may arise with respect
to that report.
MR. NELSON: If it helps my
friend, the report is only 13 pages long. We can
attempt to make accommodations for an expert to
ask questions by phone. We've known for days. We
were advised by the Panel several days ago
tomorrow's presentations were full and people were
going to have to reduce to half the size. So we
didn't see much extra room tomorrow for the
presentation.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: As an
observation, in between the time we started this
discussion and now it was posted. It is CEAR-815.
Mr. Gustafson.
MR. GUSTAFSON: I guess I will
reiterate my objection. I think this is highly
prejudicial and unfair in this process to attempt,
at this late, stage to introduce an expert report,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
271
and the schedule has been laid out for many months
well-known to all parties and every opportunity
has been afforded to the TNG to bring this forward
in a timely fashion.
I see no reason why it should
be allowed at this late stage.
CHAIRPERSON ROSS: Before the
Panel contemplates this matter, any other
interested parties that would be inclined to offer
us advice on how we should proceed? Hearing none,
the Panel will deliberate and respond to Mr.
Gustafson first thing tomorrow morning.
Which leads me to my closing
remarks. The usual remarks are thanking all
presenters for their submissions. Tomorrow we
will start at 8 o'clock. We will be challenged in
terms of time, so we will push presenters to stick
to very careful time limits and we will manage to
get through tomorrow.
I think the next item on the
agenda is a closing ceremony by the Chilcotin
drummers.
--- Closing ceremony.
--- All the foregoing non-English words, when
spellings not provided, are represented
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
272
phonetically.
--- Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at
5:19 p.m., to resume at 8:00 a.m., on
Thursday, August 1st, 2013.
******************
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
273
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, COURTNEY MIDDLETON, a certified Court Reporter
in the Province of Ontario, hereby certify the
foregoing pages to be an accurate transcription of
my notes to the best of my skill and ability.
Je, Courtney Middleton, un sténographe officiel
dans la province de l'Ontario, certifie que les
pages ci-hautes sont une transcription conforme de
mes notes au meilleur de mes capacités.
Courtney Middleton,
Courtney Middleton, CSR, RPR
Certified Court Reporter.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
274
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, SANDRA BRERETON, a certified Court Reporter in
the Province of Ontario, hereby certify the
foregoing pages to be an accurate transcription of
my notes to the best of my skill and ability.
Je, Sandra Brereton, un sténographe officiel dans
la province de l'Ontario, certifie que les pages
ci-hautes sont une transcription conforme de mes
notes au meilleur de mes capacités.
Sandra Brereton,
Sandra Brereton, CSR, RPR
Certified Court Reporter.