Table of Proponent Commitments - Canada.ca10.5 Mitigate residual effects of mining with respect to...

Prosperity Gold - Copper Project Table of Commitments

Sustainability Area/ Component Commitment Governance___________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 Policies

1.1 Develop and implement corporate policies (Policies) that will be made available on the Taseko website for reference during all phases of the Prosperity project. Current policies in place or under development comprise the Prosperity Sustainability framework and include: a) Environment Policy (in place); b) Health and Safety Policy (in place); c) Code of Ethics and Trading Restrictions (in place); d) First nations Long-term strategy for consultation and engagement (in place); e) Emergency Preparedness (under development) f) Responsible Resource Development (on-going development)

Taseko’s goal is to develop the mineral resource while making certain that the construction, operations and closure of Prosperity are handled in a sustainable manner, including the primary responsibility of contributing towards the maintenance of healthy lands, communities, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations. Moreover, Taseko is committed to ensuring the entire project makes a net positive contribution to sustainability over the long term.

1.2 Implement Prosperity’s Sustainability Framework through the life of the Prosperity project. 1.3 Ensure that responsible site management, employees and contractors are familiar with these Policies, and their actions at all times comply with them and relevant Acts, Regulations, permits, licenses, authorizations and approvals.

2.0 Consultation/ First Nations

2.1 Maintain an atmosphere of early, open, and full communication with First Nations on Company projects and programs in their asserted traditional territories,

Latest Update: September 9, 2009

Sustainability Area/ Component Commitment 2

2.2 Recognize the value and significance First Nations place on traditional, cultural and heritage knowledge and interest, 2.3 Promote the development of mutually beneficial partnerships with our First Nation neighbours, 2.4 Work with First Nation Governments to encourage the formation and development of locally owned businesses 2.5 Present opportunities for employment 2.6 Present opportunities for training and career advancement for employees, 2.7 Continual improvement in the protection of human health and responsible stewardship of the natural environment,

3.0 Consultation/Communities 3.1 Maintain an atmosphere of early, open, and full communication with local communities 3.2 Promote the development of mutually beneficial partnerships with local communities 3.3 Work with local communities to encourage the formation and development of locally owned businesses 3.4 Present opportunities for employment 3.5 Present opportunities for training and career advancement for employees, 3.6 Continual improvement in the protection of human health and responsible stewardship of the natural environment,

4.0 Sustainability Management Plan

4.1 Develop and implement an Environmental Management System (EMS) for Prosperity to encompass continual improvement in Sustainability and the protection of human health and stewardship of the natural environment. 4.2 Establish measureable sustainability goals and targets through the EMS which would include commitments agreed to with First Nations, local communities and regulatory agency representatives.

5.0 Contractors/External Forces

5.1 Require that Prosperity’s contractors or consultants comply with Prosperity Policies related to sustainability, environment, health and safety, training, and local employment and procurement.



Environmental Stewardship______________________________________________________________________ 6.0 Environmental Management System

6.1 Establish an environmental management system which will include Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) as an integral part of the project and provide guidance on all environmental aspects during all phases of the project. These convert the proposed environmental assessment mitigation measures and best management practices, as identified throughout the EIS and will also cover future permit or panel commitments, into actions that are intended to minimize and, where possible, eliminate negative environmental effects associated with the project. The EMPs presented in Volume 3 will be further developed and finalized prior to construction, where relevant and prior to operations in all cases.

a) Where required, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be used to implement the EMPs. 6.2 Maintain a proactive working relationship with appropriate Regulatory authorities in the development of EMPs. 6.3 Environmental and Engineering staff, and all Prosperity employees on site during all phases of mining will ensure that contractors and employees are fully aware of environmental requirements, will monitor compliance with EMPs and specific operating procedures, and report any incidents of non-compliance as required by regulation.

7.0 Acid Rock Drainage Prevention and Metal Leaching Control

7.1 Implement the mine materials handling plan described in the EA Application, Volume 3, Section number 9.2.3.

7.2 Ensure that potentially acid generating waste rock, overburden, tertiary basalt and tailings with criteria described in Table 9.3 is segregated and deposited in subaqueous disposal in the PAG waste rock disposal facility (tailings impoundment).

7.3 Submerge PAG waste rock before onset of ARD/ML.



8.0 Water Management 8.1 Finalize and implement the construction water management plan as described in Volume 3, section number 9.2.1 to ensure at a minimum, procedures and policies are followed with respect to site access, geotechnical stability, soils salvage, erosion control, vegetation, wildlife, cultural and heritage resources and emergency response.

a) Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) consistent with industry best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate environmental effects attributed to sediment as detailed in Volume 3, 9.2.11.

i) Designate at least one individual during active construction to ensure the ESCP is properly implemented. This individual will report to the senior engineer on site.

b) Ensure all necessary sediment and erosion control mitigation measures will be in place and operational prior to construction

8.2 Operate a compact closed system that contains all mine waters on the Prosperity site until approximately 27 years after the cessation of pit operations when the pit is flooded, and directs any surface drainage, sewage treatment plant, sediment or metal-laden water to the TSF during operations. 8.3 Implement the Tailings Impoundment Operation, Environmental Management Plan Elements as described in Volume 3, section 9.2.4.

a) Ensure seepage reduction provisions are in place to minimize seepage losses from the TSF. b) Install surveillance instrumentation in the tailings embankment and foundation during

construction and over the life of the project and monitor on a consistent basis. c) In the event of premature mine closure, the PAG waste would be excavated to a level below the

natural flood elevation of the TSF and left under water. 8.4 Develop and implement the Tailings Dam Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance (OMS) plan and ensure an annual Dam Safety Review is conducted as set out by the Canadian Dam Association (CDA) Guidelines and future Mines Act permit. 8.5 Continue to identify areas of high risk for erosion and sedimentation throughout the life of the project (planning and design, construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation) and implement general mitigation measures detailed in volume 3, section 9.2.11.1. 8.6 Monitor groundwater in wells situated downstream of the Main TSF Embankment, between the West Embankment and the Taseko River, and in the vicinity of the Pit. In particular, with respect to the west embankment, development and implementation of suitable monitoring within the first five years of the



project. Details of the monitoring program will be developed in consultation with MOE and MEMPR. On a regular basis, the results of such monitoring will be reported and discussed with the appropriate agencies. If necessary, as part of the mitigation measures listed in the EIA document, groundwater recovery wells will be installed in the same locations, with water being pumped to the TSF.

9.0 Fish Compensation 9.1 Finalize and execute the Fish and Fish Habitat Mitigation and Compensation Implementation Plan (“the Implementation Plan”), which provides technical details regarding the implementation of the proposed mitigation and compensation elements as well as their expected timeframe. 9.2 Develop and implement a monitoring program to verify the proper implementation of all compensation measures and a follow-up program to determine the accuracy of EA conclusions and the efficacy of the required measures as described in Volume 3, section 8.4. This program is to be developed and implemented in consultation with MOE and DFO. 9.3 Design follow-up programs to support or verify the predictions made concerning the likelihood of “no significant environmental effect”; aid in the detection of unanticipated environmental effects; and provide an assessment of the success of management programs and the possible need for adjustments through adaptive management should the results indicate the need. 9.4 Use an adaptive management process as necessary to incorporate contingency planning, management objectives, ongoing monitoring and commitment for achieving benchmark goals along specified timelines with regard to fish and fish habitat compensation plans.

10.0 Reclamation and Closure

10.1 Implement Reclamation, Temporary Closure and Decommissioning Plans as described in Volume 3, Section 9.4 and our response to the federal Panel’s supplemental information request 2.2 . 10.2 Implement the soil salvage plan described in Volume 3, section 9.3.3.1. 10.3 Implement reclamation practices that are consistent with the BC Mines Act and its Health, Safety and Reclamation Code. The conceptual reclamation practices and decommissioning plan described in the EIS provides a basis for detailed reclamation planning and bonding discussions that will be held with the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (MEMPR) at a later date as part of the permitting application.



10.4 Further develop reclamation and decommissioning plans, including progressive reclamation, in consultation with regulatory agencies, First Nations and local communities. At the end of mine operations, complete implementation of the approved closure plan. 10.5 Mitigate residual effects of mining with respect to recreation values, wildlife, wildlife habitat, at-risk plant communities and the habitat of species at risk through reclamation approaches as described in the decommissioning plan. 10.6 Remove the transmission line and reclaim the transmission line corridor when no longer required.

11.0 Protection of Ecological Values

11.1 Meet generic or any site-specific Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) that may be developed during Permitting through a combination of natural attenuation processes in the pit (precipitation of metals to the sediment) and treatment, if required, as detailed in Volume 5, section 2. 11.2 Implement Best Management Practices (BMP) and methods for constructing and upgrading the access road(s) and transmission line, and related stream crossings (Volume 3, Sections 6.7 and 6.8), 11.3 Execute mitigation measures for the reduction or elimination of construction related-sediment releases into fish-bearing and non fish-bearing habitats as detailed in Environmental Management Plans (Volume 3, Section 9). The measures will follow, where appropriate, the Standards and Best Practices for In-stream Works (MWLAP 2004) and DFO Operational Statements. 11.4 Monitor construction of the access road to ensure that wetland ecosystems are avoided wherever possible and environmental effects to wetland ecosystems are minimized through application of prescribed mitigation measures. Follow DFO Pacific Region’s “Maintenance of Riparian Vegetation in existing Rights of Way” Operational Statement and principles and practice in British Columbia Hydro’s Approved Works Practices or Managing Riparian Vegetation when maintaining the transmission line right-of –way. 11.5 Implement mitigation measures to minimize mine related environmental effects on wetland ecosystems. These mitigation measures will be primarily directed at protecting and conserving wetlands in close proximity to the mine footprint to minimize potential for incremental disturbance. Requirements are in 4 main areas: Avoid vegetation loss, minimize disturbance, mitigate against invasive species, and maintain natural drainage patterns (Volume 5, section 5.3.4). 11.6 Implement appropriate mitigation measures for wetland ecosystems on the transmission line to include incremental measures of timing construction to avoid activity until ground is frozen, transmission pole delivery to wetland areas completed by helicopter drop, minimize the area of excavation for pole foundations and area of footprint of the side cast material.



11.7 Utilize only native species for disturbances associated with the transmission corridor that fall within the grassland zones. 11.8 Implement the invasive plant management strategy as proposed in Volume 5, Appendix 5-5- K: Invasive Plant Management Strategy) and as discussed in Volume 3 section 9.2.12 11.9 Implement the mitigation measures for wildlife for all aspects of the project as described in Volume 5, section 6.4.1 and Table 6-67 (Mine), 6-68 (Transmission Line), and 6-69 (Access road). 11.10 Implement additional wildlife protection measures to apply to Project personnel travelling to and from the Project on workdays i.e.: firearms are prohibited at all times except when specifically authorized (e.g., wildlife monitor); no littering, no feeding of wildlife, no harassment of wildlife, no hunting and fishing on the project site. Project-related traffic is restricted to designated access roads and trails (including all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles). 11.11 Commit to the strict and rigorous implementation of mitigation measures, in concert with the BC Ministry of Environment and other agencies as appropriate, to eliminate or severely minimize the risk of direct mortality to grizzly bear (from all sources, see also Sections 6.1.2.1 and 6.3.4.8).

a) Taseko will work with the BC Ministry of Transportation to control mine related traffic speed along the section of Taseko Lake Road that is within known grizzly bear range.

11.12 Employ best management practices throughout all project phases and activities. In particular, prior to construction commencing, undertake appropriate measures to ensure that sensitive habitat features and wildlife values are identified and appropriate mitigative measures are implemented to avoid unnecessary adverse effects. 11.13 Record all project-related wildlife-vehicle collisions or near misses as described in Volume 5b in section 6.4.3.1. Review regularly by site environmental personnel and take appropriate action if necessary. 11.14 Implement the Vegetation and Wildlife Management Plan (Volume 3, Section 9 and mitigation measures Section 6.4.1) and Waste Management Program for dealing with potential human-bear conflicts. Protection of wildlife provisions detailed in the Transportation and Access Management Plan Volume 3 Section 9.2.2. 11.15 Identification and implementation of additional measures adequate to protect aquatic life as detailed in Volume 1, Table 20-1 of the Application. 11.16 Develop and implement a plan for achieving compensation for loss of wetland habitat including the productive capacity of the lake, recreation values, wildlife, wildlife habitat and the critical habitat of species at risk.



11.17 Develop policies and procedures and conduct public consultation and access planning for the transmission line ROW. 11.18 Identify and quantify project effects on wildlife and vegetation at a local level on a scale that would enable the identification of appropriate mitigation/compensation measures.

12.0 Monitoring 12.1 Implement the follow-up and monitoring plan described in Volume 3, Section 9 which elaborates a program for environmental effects monitoring and follow-up through construction, operation, closure and post-closure to verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment; and, determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

a) Develop and implement compliance monitoring programs to meet applicable provincial and federal permits, licenses and approvals.

12.2 Conduct the Follow-up and Monitoring programs summarized in Table 16-1, Volume 1 in nine specific disciplines from surface water to socio-economics through all mining phases. 12.3 Assess the suitability of reclaimed sites for wildlife use through trace element monitoring in vegetation. 12.4 Assess routine monitoring results for the various waste streams during operations to develop specific effluent treatments if needed. Instigate if monitoring results indicate effluent quality of specific waste streams is likely to contribute to exceedances post closure. 12.5 Continue ongoing discussions with MOE-ESD and undertake additional baseline sampling as necessary.

13.0 Air Emissions

13.1 Incorporate into project design, Best Available Technology that is Economically Achievable (BATEA) measures to reduce Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions wherever possible. Taseko is committed to working with MOE at the permitting stage to develop and implement an Air Quality and Emissions Monitoring and Management Plan (AQEMMP). The AQEMMP “template” provided by MOE in their May 25th 2009 memorandum to the EAO will form the basis for future permit level discussions. 13.2 Utilize effective dust suppression methods and CAC and GHG mitigation measures, including:



a) Install covered conveyor belt ore transport systems and housing of the rail loadout facilities to minimize fugitive particulate emissions,

b) Install a water suppression system at the discharge point of the coarse ore stockpile to reduce dust emissions

c) Install cost-effective dust control measures at the primary crusher truck dump to control dust emissions

d) Cover trucks used to transport concentrate to prevent loss of this material and ensure there is no tracking of any residual concentrate on route to the concentrate load-out facility.

e) Ensure posted speed limits are followed by all mine equipment. f) Ensure application of surface-binding chemicals or water on site roads and exposed surfaces as

appropriate. g) For vehicles, off-road construction, and mining equipment, best practices will include ensuring

equipment is properly tuned and maintained, and vehicle idling times reduced to a minimum. h) Optimize vehicle movements to minimize emission of GHGs i) Minimize disturbances and manage all land clearing to minimize burning

13.3 Develop and implement an Air quality and Dust control management plan as described in Volume 3, section 9.2.9. 13.4 Limit fugitive dust caused by wind erosion on the tailings by maintaining a water cover over the deposited materials as stipulated in the Operational Deposition Plan. Fugitive dust caused by wind erosion on the waste rock piles will be mitigated by progressive reclamation. 13.5 Prepare and execute a burn plan for vegetative debris consistent with the Open Burning Smoke Control Regulation (BC Reg. 145/93) prior to initiation of the construction and commissioning phase. 13.6 Develop and maintain an annual inventory of GHGs and CACs for both internal management and potential external reporting needs. 13.7 PM2.5 Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAQO’s), will be included as appropriate in the Prosperity Ambient Air monitoring program.

14.0 Adaptive Management 14.1 Incorporate adaptive management processes for this Project including contingency planning, management objectives, ongoing monitoring and the proponent’s commitment for achieving benchmark goals along specified timelines.



14.2 Implement corrective measures should unforeseen adverse effects arise during the life of the Project. Measures will be taken to correct these effects and prevent them from occurring in the future. The EMS is then updated and associated training programs enhanced to improve the level of environmental protection based on the results of these programs

Economic Contributions________________________________________________________________________ 15.0 Direct Employment

15.1 Implement hiring practices consistent with good business decisions and underlying principles of delivering maximum economic value and social benefit—locally, regionally and provincially. 15.2 Give local candidates preference where all things being equal, two candidates seek employment at Prosperity, and there is only one position available. A local employment candidate shall be defined as someone who lives in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. 15.3 Expand efforts to hire local First Nations candidates by ensuring employment opportunities are communicated. Undertake to inform local communities of the employment positions and opportunities available at Prosperity before expanding the search for potential employees beyond the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. 15.4 Establish policies to help potential candidates gain required standards and qualifications to ensure local people with motivation have the opportunity to be eligible for hiring and career advancement (see Training below).. 15.5 Encourage Taseko suppliers, contractors, and consultants to give local candidates preference.

16.0 Training

16.1 As appropriate promote “Mining: Your Future”, Taseko’s education and training initiative, to give motivated individuals the opportunity for gainful employment in the mining industry.

17.0 Business Opportunities

17.1 Develop policies on procurement of goods and services to build and operate the mine based on good business decisions and guided by a desire to deliver maximum economic value and social benefit—locally, regionally and provincially.



17.2 Cultivate an entrepreneurial spirit to develop lasting relationships with suppliers based on cost competitiveness, continuous innovation, service and productivity improvement, employee health and safety, and environment protection. 17.3 Encourage First Nations to form and develop locally owned businesses that provide supplies or services to Prosperity. 17.4 Ensure contractors share Taseko’s commitment to investing in local community success through their respective purchasing, hiring, contracting and logistical support practices.

Social Development____________________________________________________________________________ 18.0 Health and Safety

18.1 Implement a comprehensive health and safety program based on the current Taseko Policy that includes safety leadership by mine management, risk and harm reduction, safety management systems, safe work behaviour programs and continual improvement. 18.2 Establish at the commencement of development, an Occupational Health and Safety Committee. 18.3 Meet the obligations set out in the BC Mines Act (1996, updated to 2007) Regulation and appropriate sections of the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code, including the provision of support to contractors and contractors managers to comply with the Act when on-site. 18.4 Develop and implement a Transportation and Access Management Plan for the Prosperity Mine as described in Volume 3, section 9.2.2, to safely meet the needs of mine employees and contractors, local residents, and the general public.

a) Appoint safety and security personnel before construction. b) Provide transportation for workers to and from the mine site from strategic locations throughout

all phases of mine life. c) Develop and implement access control protocols to ensure employee and contractor safety and

to minimize social and environmental effects such as wildlife mortality related to the project. 19.0 Emergency Response

19.1 Continue to implement a risk management approach for the design, construction, operation and closure of the Prosperity Project.



a) Implement procedures and measures to address Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned events. Table 17-1 in Volume 1 summarizes these measures and Volume 9 provides detailed procedures.

19.2 Develop a full Mine Emergency Response Plan specific to Prosperity for any material risks identified before operations start. 19.3 Follow procedures for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous chemicals as dictated by the Material Handling and Waste Management Plan and used from construction through closure.

a) Manage all hazardous materials according to their Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and provide training for employees handling the chemicals in the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System.

19.4 Institute measures to ensure that fuel and lubricants do not escape to surrounding areas by: a) Equipping fuel systems with emergency fire safety valves and anti-siphon solenoid valves at

tanks, installing concrete grade slabs sloped to direct any spillage back into the containment, any precipitation or drips which fall within the containment will pass through an oil/water separator before discharge to the environment.

b) Implement the Spill Prevention and Response Plan to promote the prevention of the accidental release of harmful substances into the receiving environment and, in the event of a spill, to provide adequate information to guide the response crew to safely, efficiently and effectively respond to and clean-up a spill.

20.0 Cultural Heritage Resources

20.1 All project plans/drawings to identify areas of archaeological and cultural sensitivity that require protection and/or monitoring. 20.2 Implement archaeological resource management measures throughout the project area to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on identified resources and culturally sensitive areas as outlined in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts’ letter of 22 May 2009. The mitigation program, details of which will be specified in subsequent permit applications, will include:

a) Systematic excavation of 16 of the 79 archaeological sites identified within the mine footprint of which 6 are to be subject to intensive investigation;

b) A visual survey of the lake basin after draining and the gathering and analysis of palaeo-environmental data from the lake basin; and,

c) Lithic sourcing of representative samples.



20.3 Completion of the Archaeological Impact Assessment for the transmission line and a management plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Archaeology Branch prior to commencement of construction. 20.4 Completion of the Archaeological Impact Assessment of the proposed 2.8 kilometres of new road.


Prosperity Gold-Copper Project

Supplemental Report on Local Environmental Effects at the proposed Mine Site on Wildlife and Vegetation

Compiled by Taseko Mines Limited

September 2009

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................1 2. Introduction and Scope of Report...................................................................3

2.1. Background ............................................................................................3 2.2. Scope of Report......................................................................................3

3. Methods..........................................................................................................6 3.1. Wildlife ....................................................................................................6 3.2 Vegetation ..............................................................................................9

4. Results .........................................................................................................12 4.1. Wildlife ..................................................................................................12

4.1.1 William Court Case Wildlife Species....................................................12 4.1.2. Habitat Loss .......................................................................................15 4.1.3 Local Population Effects ......................................................................22

4.2. Vegetation ............................................................................................29 4.2.1 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government..29 4.2.2 Vegetation Loss...................................................................................38

References .........................................................................................................40

Taseko Mines Limited i September 2009

Figures Figure 1 - Regional and Local Study Areas (Wildlife and Vegetation)……………4

Taseko Mines Limited ii September 2009

Taseko Mines Limited iii September 2009

Tables

Table 1 - Williams Court Case Species – Effects Assessment Approach……….12 Table 2 - Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Moose Winter Feeding Habitat Capability………………………………..16 Table 3 - Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance:

Mule Deer Winter Shelter Habitat Capability…………………………….17 Table 4 - Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Fisher Natal Denning Habitat Capability…………………………………18 Table 5 - Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance:

Black Bear Denning Habitat Capability…………………………………...19 Table 6 - Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance:

Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability……………………………………………20 Table 7 - Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability…………………………………………….21 Table 8 - Local Population Effect Predictions for Twenty-two Wildlife Species…22 Table 9 - Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government:

Linkages to Vegetation Key Indicators Assessed in the EIS…………..29 Table 10 - Change in Area of Old Forest from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance……38 Table 11 - Change in Area of Vegetation Key Indicators from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Alpine and Parkland, Grasslands and Wetlands……………………………………………………………………39

1. Executive Summary

In January 2009 Taseko Mines Limited submitted a nine volume Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Application on the proposed Prosperity Gold-Copper Project to both a federal review Panel and the provincial Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). During the public review and comment period that followed, comments received from both the provincial government and the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG) indicated that additional assessment of project effects on wildlife and vegetation at the mine site was required to characterize predicted project effects on a more local/sub-regional scale. As a component of this assessment, additional wildlife and vegetation species shown to be of particular importance to the TNG were also considered. Working collaboratively with BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) officials, two new study areas, a local and a regional were established. The Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the William case was used as the Local Study Area and the combined areas of both the Taseko River and Big Creek Watersheds was chosen as a Regional Study Area. For a total of fifty-two vegetation species identified as important to the TNG the significance of any mine site area project effects were determined. Using the twenty-four wildlife species identified in the William case, linkages between these species and the effects assessment of the six key indicator wildlife species presented within the EIS were established. Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM) based habitat capability models were developed and utilized to establish new predictions of direct habitat loss from within the mine site area and these losses are expressed in the context of both the new study areas. No attempts to draw conclusions of significance were made. As a final step in this additional assessment, a list of 22 species of wildlife were identified by the BC MOE and utilizing both the habitat area data and available population density estimates, local population effects, expressed in terms of numbers of animals were predicted. Linkages between all fifty-two species of vegetation identified as being important to the TNG and the vegetation Key Indicators assessed in the EIS were established and the effects assessment completed based upon inferences drawn from the effects assessments completed within the EIS. Either no effects or no significant residual effects were predicted for all of the vegetation species considered.

Taseko Mines Limited 1 September 2009

Similarly for all the twenty-four wildlife species indentified as important in the William case linkages with the six wildlife Key Indicator species assessed in detail in the EIS were established and inferences on project effects for each species established. Using four species/life requisites that were both identified in the William case and assessed as Key Indicator species within the EIS , PEM wildlife habitat capability ratings tables were developed and area summaries of the change in habitat capability from baseline to maximum disturbance (as defined in the EIS) were generated for each of the modeled species. For moose winter feeding habitat no high capability habitat is affected and the loss of moderate and moderately high capability habitat is small (<3%) in the context of the Regional Study Area but higher (18.5% to 36.1%) in the context of the eastern Trapline Study Area. For mule deer winter shelter habitat almost no high capability habitat is affected and the loss of moderate and moderately high capability habitat is very small (<1%) in the Regional context and relatively small (6-7%) in the Local context. For Fisher natal denning habitat the loss of high and moderate capability habitat is small (<3%) in the regional context and significantly larger (10.7% to 24.1%) in the Local Study Area. For Black Bear denning habitat no high or moderately high capability habitat is affected and for Grizzly Bear habitat the project has almost no effect on the availability of moderate and higher capability habitat in the context of either study area. Local population effect predictions, expressed in terms of numbers of animals displaced were determined where possible. An estimated 1.7 sheep, 1.4 mule deer, 4.4 moose and as many as possibly 242 herons may be displaced as a result of mine site development and operation. No attempt was made to draw conclusions on the significance of these local effects was made as there was no quantitative context available for so doing. The detail and results of each assessment can be found throughout Tables 1 to 11 in this report. It is anticipated that as new information becomes available, either as a result of ongoing technical review and comment or as information presented before the upcoming federal Panel community meetings and hearings, this information can be further evaluated and changes made as appropriate.



2. Introduction and Scope of Report

2.1. Background In January 2009 Taseko submitted our EIS and on March 11, 2009 the Province of British Columbia accepted the EIS as complete. Beginning on March 26, 2009 a joint EAO and Federal Panel 60 day public comment period was held. During this period comments were received from both provincial regulatory agencies and First Nations to the effect that the EIS did not effectively assess project effects on all wildlife and vegetation species that are of importance to the Tsilhqot’in people and that the EIS assessment of significance didn’t characterize project effects on local/sub-regional wildlife populations and that this needed to be done in order that any residual project effects could be better understood. In considering these comments Taseko took into account the fact that In the Effects Prediction, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effects section of the approved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines (January 2009) direction was given to pay specific attention only to interactions between the Project and the 21 identified VECs (Section 1.0, page 39). Notwithstanding, that this was done, in consultation and collaboration with the Williams Lake office of the BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) Taseko and its consultants have undertaken additional work to further characterize project effects to address the above mentioned comments. This supplemental report provides the results of this additional analysis and work. While the body of this report was compiled by Taseko Mines Ltd., GIS, wildlife and vegetation experts from Stantec (formerly Jacques Whitford) undertook the technical analysis and drafted the methods and results aspects of the report.

2.2. Scope of Report For this assessment, local and regional study areas, were chosen to provide a more relevant and local context in which to evaluate and assess significance of effects. The Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the William case was utilized as a Local Study Area and the combined area of both the Taseko River and Big Creek Watersheds was chosen as a Regional Study Area. Both the Local and Regional Study Areas are shown on Figure 1.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

Ch i l c ot in R ive r

Tase

ko

R

iver

C H I L K O L A KE

F R A S E R R I V E R

Tat layokoLake

Ta se

ko L ake Road Segment

Chi lko

Rive r

TASEKORIVER

WATERSHED

BIG CREEKWATERSHED

Redstone

Riske Creek

Alexis Creek

Tatlayoko Lake

400000

400000

450000

450000

500000

500000

550000

550000

5650

000

5650

000

5700

000

5700

000

5750

000

5750

000

0 5 10 15 20Kilometres

Map Prepared by Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.

Data Sources:Province of British Columbia, Taseko Mines Ltd.Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83

Produced by: Steve ParkerVerified by: Tony DinneenDate: September 8, 2009

Rev #: 01

Figure 1Regional and Local Area Study

(Wildlife and Vegetation)

$

Spatial_data\Analysis\PEM_Analysis\MXDs\TASEKO_PEM_Study_Area.mxd

450 0

Roa

d

£¤20

Segm

ent

1:1,250,000

£¤20

Taseko Prosperity Mine SIte

Eastern Trap LineArea

(Local Study Area)

LEGENDExisting Access RoadProposed Prosperity Mine Access RoadRegional Study AreaMaximum Disturbance AreaEastern Trapline (Local Study Area)

!. City/TownHighwayRoadRiver (1:2mil)Lake (1:2mil)Tsilhqot'in Aboriginal Title AreaTsilhqot'in Aboriginal Rights Area

**Anaham is currently not represented by the TNG but forillustrative purposes included here in the TNG boundary.

In a May 2009 comment made while reviewing the EIS, the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG) listed some 52 plant species of importance to them and asked Taseko to comment on how they might be affected by the Project. In this report Taseko establishes linkages between those 52 species and those vegetation Key Indicators already assessed within the EIS and predicts effects significance for all 52 species. Using the wildlife species identified in the William case, similar linkages between these species and the wildlife assessment presented within the EIS were also established. Taking the assessment even further, Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM) based habitat capability models were utilized to develop new predictions of direct habitat loss from within the mine site area. In turn these losses, presented in the context of the two newly defined study areas, provide a meaningful context in which to assess effects at a local level. As a final step in this assessment a list of 22 species of wildlife were identified by the BC MOE and utilizing both the habitat area data and population density estimates or equivalent data, local population effects, expressed in terms of numbers of animals are predicted. For all the habitat area assessments two temporal scenarios are used for the prediction of potential mine site area effects on both wildlife and vegetation:

Baseline: Represents conditions prior to any Project-specific developments.

Maximum Disturbance: Represents the potential worst-case conditions (represented by the maximum disturbance footprint) that could occur during the construction and operations phases.

The analysis and results presented in this supplemental report build upon and complement the extensive work completed and reported in the EIS.


3. Methods

3.1. Wildlife

Three approaches were used to place predicted mine site area wildlife environmental effects into a more local context:

Development of a matrix that links species identified in the William case

with the wildlife effects assessment presented in the EIS

Predictions of direct habitat loss from the mine site area were placed into a more local context. Two study areas were chosen, the Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the William Court Case and a Regional Study Area as described in Section 2.2 and shown on Figure 1.

Predictions of local population effects for a suite of 22 wildlife species

These approaches are described in more detail below. William Case Wildlife Species Twenty-four species were identified in the William case as being of particular importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG). Six of these species (Moose, Mule Deer, California Bighorn Sheep, Grizzly Bear, Black Bear and Fisher) were identified as wildlife key indicators (KIs) and assessed in detail in the EIS. For the remaining seventeen species not identified as KIs, the assessment of mine site area effects is considered to be inferable from the results of the effects assessment for an appropriate “umbrella KI1” or for a KI that is related or similar in behaviour and habitat use pattern or for an appropriate vegetation (i.e., habitat type) KI. These linkages between non-KI species and KIs are presented in Table 1.

1 Sensu “umbrella species”—an umbrella species is a species with broad habitat and resource

requirements that can be managed to also provide habitats and resources for other species (Dunster and

Dunster 1996)


Habitat Loss Two methods were used to predict the direct mine site area loss of wildlife habitat:

Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM)-based habitat capability models Grizzly bear habitat capability and suitability mapping

These methods are described in more detail below. PEM-based Habitat Capability Models A list of the unique PEM ecosystem units in the two study areas was generated from the 1:20,000 PEM product created for the Williams Lake Timber Supply Area by Moon et al. (2008). PEM is an expert-based system that uses available digital spatial data and knowledge of ecological-landscape relationships to automate the generation of ecosystem maps, and is considered a useful alternative to Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) (Resources Inventory Committee 1999a). Moon et al. (2008) provides a detailed description of how the Williams Lake TSA PEM was generated and describes the ecosystem units identified. PEM wildlife habitat capability2 ratings tables were developed by Stantec wildlife experts based on the provincial protocol (i.e., Resources Inventory Committee 1999b) for the following wildlife species/life requisites:

Moose winter feeding habitat Mule deer winter shelter habitat Fisher natal denning habitat Black bear denning habitat

These four species/life requisites were selected because they are species identified in the William case and they are also key indicator species for which TEM-based habitat models were developed for the EIS. This was important because the wildlife habitat capability ratings for the PEM units were based on the TEM-based habitat models developed for the EIS. A six-class rating scheme was used for moose, mule deer and black bear (i.e., high, moderately high,

2 The PEM product does not include structural stage attributes; therefore, the wildlife habitat analysis is

based on habitat capability rather than suitability


moderate, low, very low and nil [as per RIC 1999]) and a four-class rating scheme was used for fisher (i.e., high, moderate, low and nil [as per RIC 1999]). The PEM list for the two study areas include five biogeoclimatic units that were not rated as part of the EIS: Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine zone (BAFA), Coastal Mountain-Heather Alpine zone (CMA) zone, Montane Spruce dry very cold subzone (MSdv), Engelmann Spruce–Subalpine Fir very cold very dry parkland subzone (ESSFxvp).and Engelmann Spruce–Subalpine Fir very cold very dry West Chilcotin variant (ESSFxv1). Ratings for these ecosystem units were developed based on the species accounts prepared for the EIS (Madrone Consultants Ltd. 1999). Area summaries of the change in habitat capability from baseline to maximum disturbance (as defined in the EIS) were generated for each of the modeled species (i.e., moose, mule deer, black bear and fisher). The area (footprint) of maximum disturbance within the newly defined Regional Study Area is 4997 ha. This includes 4410 ha associated with the mine site and 578 ha associated with the transmission line right-of-way. There is a 9 ha overlap between the mine site footprint and the transmission line right-of-way. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4.1.2 Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability and Suitability Mapping The grizzly bear habitat capability and suitability map products developed by the BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) for the Central Interior Ecoprovince were used as the basis for this analysis. Hamilton (2007) describes the development of these map products in detail. As BC MOE recommended that these map products be used in a regional assessment for grizzly bears, they are considered more applicable to the analysis described in this document than a PEM-based model based on ratings developed for the EIS. Two map layers were used in this analysis: habitat capability and average (weighted) habitat suitability. A six class rating scheme was used for both layers (i.e., high, moderately high, moderate, low, very low and nil [as per RIC 1999]). An area summary of the change in habitat capability and suitability from baseline to maximum disturbance (as defined in the EIS) were generated. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4.1.2.

Local Population Effects During their review of the EIS, the BC MOE requested that Taseko further characterize the local effect of the project, specifically with respect to number of


animals potentially directly or indirectly affected. BC MOE identified 22 species3 for which they wanted to see local effects assessed. Six of these species are species identified in the William case (i.e., moose, mule deer, California bighorn sheep, grizzly bear, black bear, and fisher). The objective of this analysis was to provide an estimate of the number of animals potentially affected and where possible to characterize the nature of any effects. The study areas used for this assessment were the Mine site Local Study Area and Transmission Line Local Study Area as defined in the EIS. This analysis used a relatively simple calculation to determine number of individual animals potentially affected: Area of habitat loss (ha) X species density (individuals/ha) = number of individuals potentially affected (directly or indirectly). The type and reliability of the data sources used in these calculations varied with the species under consideration. The data source for the habitat loss information was the EIS. The data sources for the species density information were varied and included estimates of carrying capacity and density developed by BC MOE Region 5 for specific species (e.g., mule deer), and information from the literature and/or other regions. In addition, for some species (e.g., Lewis’s woodpecker), information on home range size or territory size was used as a surrogate for density. All the data sources used in this analysis were determined in consultation with BC MOE. The results of this analysis and a summary of the data sources are presented in Section 4.1.3. 3.2 Vegetation Two approaches were used to assess predicted mine site area environmental effects on vegetation of importance to the TNG:

Development of a matrix that links plants species of importance to the TNG with the vegetation effects assessment presented in the EIS

Predictions of direct vegetation loss from the mine site area were made

and placed into a more local context as defined by two study areas, the Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the William case and a Regional Study Area consisting of the combined Taseko River and Big Creek Watersheds as described in Section 2.2 and shown on Figure 1.

These approaches are described in more detail below. Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government

3 The 21 wildlife Key Indicators (KIs) plus the bald eagle


In their May 25, 2009 comments on the EIS, the TNG provided Taseko with a list of 52 plant species of importance to the TNG and requested that Taseko further assess the effects of the Project on these plant species. A matrix was developed to indicate linkages between the plant species of importance to the TNG and the vegetation Key Indicators (KIs) assessed in detail in the EIS. Each plant species was linked to one or more vegetation KIs based on the species’ general ecological requirements (e.g., a species that grows in bogs is linked to the wetlands KI). In some cases, the linkage was very broad – for example, species associated with forests were linked to the KI old forest; however, that does not mean that they may not occur in younger forest stands as well. Having established clear linkages between each of the plant species and one or more vegetation KIs, the mine site area environmental effects on each species can be directly inferred from the effects assessments for those KIs as presented in the EIS. The results of this analysis and a summary of the data sources are presented in Section 4.2.1. Vegetation Loss Old Forest The 1:20,000 Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) spatial data from the Integrated Land Management Bureau’s (ILMB’s) Land and Resource Data Warehouse4 was used as basis for old forest analysis. Definitions of old forest for each of the biogeoclimatic units represented in the study areas were based on the ILMB’s Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Retention Order5. This methodology is consistent with the approach used for the old forest effects assessment in the EIS. Area summaries of the change in area of old forest from baseline to maximum disturbance (see definition in Section 2.2) were generated by leading tree species (i.e., Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and spruce) and are presented in Section 4.2.2. Alpine and Parkland, Wetlands and Grasslands As described for wildlife (Section 3.1), a unique PEM ecosystem unit list was generated for the two study areas from the PEM spatial data provided by the BC MOE (Moon et al. 2008). Alpine and parklands, wetlands, and grasslands

4 http://lrdw.ca/ 5 http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/policiesguidelinesandassessements/oldgrowth/index.html


http://lrdw.ca/

http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/policiesguidelinesandassessements/oldgrowth/index.html


ecosystem types were identified from this list based on PEM map codes and biogeoclimatic units. More specifically:

Alpine and parklands ecosystems were identified as any areas that fell within the BAFA, CMA, and Engelmann Spruce–Subalpine Fir very dry very cold parkland (ESSFxvp) biogeoclimatic units;

Wetland ecosystems were any units identified as non-forested meadow (ME), non-forested wetland (WE) and open water (OW) in the PEM (but excluding the BAFA, CMA and ESSFxvp)6; and

Grassland ecosystems were any areas that fell within the Bunchgrass very dry warm Alkali (BGxw2) biogeoclimatic unit except for those identified as ME, OW or non-productive brush (BR) in the PEM plus any units identified as grassland (GL) in the PEM in the Interior Douglas-Fir very dry mild (IDFxm), Interior Douglas-fir dry cool (IDFdk), MSdv, Montane Spruce very dry very cold (MSxv), and Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce very dry cold (SBPSxc) biogeoclimatic units.

Area summaries of the change in area of these ecosystem types from baseline to maximum disturbance (see definition in Section 2.2) were generated and are presented in Section 4.2.2.

6 This identification targeted non‐forested wetlands

4. Results

4.1. Wildlife

4.1.1 William Court Case Wildlife Species The linkages between the William court case wildlife species and the wildlife and vegetation KIs are presented in Table 1. The linkages presented in this table allow for inferences on project effects based on the findings of the EIS.

Table 1: William Court Case Species – Effects Assessment Approach

William Court Case Species

Selected as a Key Indicator

Occurrence in Project Area Effects Assessment Approach

Moose Yes Common Key Indicator (assessed in EIS)

Mule deer Yes Common Key Indicator (assessed in EIS)

Mountain goat ‐‐ Sporadic; record from Fish Creek Canyon, more numerous in the adjacent coast mountain ranges

Project effects on escape terrain inferable from effects assessment for prairie falcon (cliffs) (assessed in EIS)

California

bighorn sheep Yes

Present year‐round in eastern portion of Project area; common along the Fraser R., in particular at confluence of the Chilcotin and Fraser

Key Indicator (assessed in EIS)

Feral horses ‐‐

The Brittany Triangle, bounded on the west by the Chilko River, on the east by the Taseko River, and to the south by Nemaiah Valley and the South Chilcotin Mountains, holds the last major numbers of feral horses in the province (McCrory 2002). However, this area only marginally overlaps the mine site RSA (i.e., where the access road follows the Taseko River).

Qualitative assessment (assessed in EIS)






Grizzly bear Yes Present in the Project area, west of Big Cr.; current population estimate of the South Chilcotin Ranges population is 1047

Key Indicator (assessed in EIS)

Black bear Yes Present Key Indicator (assessed in EIS)

Wolf ‐‐ Present Project effects inferable from effects assessments for ungulates (prey base) and grizzly bear (assessed in EIS)

Cougar ‐‐ Present Project effects inferable from effects assessments for ungulates (prey base) and grizzly bear (assessed in EIS)

Canada lynx ‐‐ Present Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for old forest and black bear denning, moose winter shelter and mule deer winter shelter habitats (mature forest) (assessed in EIS)

Bobcat ‐‐ Possible Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for old forest and black bear denning, moose winter shelter and mule deer winter shelter habitats (mature forest) (assessed in EIS)

Wolverine ‐‐ Present; current population estimate of the South Chilcotin Ranges population unit is 458 Project effects inferable from effects assessments for ungulates (winter food source) and grizzly bear (assessed in EIS)

Fisher Yes Present Key Indicator (assessed in EIS)

American marten

‐‐ Present, apparently common Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for old forest and black bear denning, moose winter shelter and mule deer winter shelter habitats (mature forest) (assessed in EIS)

7 Hamilton 2008; a updated population estimate has recently been completed (July 2009) but not released yet 8 Lofroth and Ott 2007







Weasels9 ‐‐ Present Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for old forest and black bear denning, moose winter shelter and mule deer winter shelter habitats (mature forest) (assessed in EIS)

American mink ‐‐ Present Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for riparian ecosystems, old forest, and black bear denning, moose winter shelter and mule deer winter shelter habitats (mature forest) (assessed in EIS)

Snowshoe hare ‐‐ Present, common at times Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for moose and mule deer winter shelter and Barrow’s goldeneye nesting habitat (mature coniferous and mixedwood forest) (assessed in EIS)

Red squirrel ‐‐ Present, common Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for old forest, black bear denning, moose and mule deer winter shelter (mature forest) (assessed in EIS)

Northern flying squirrel

‐‐ Likely present Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for old forest and black bear denning, moose winter shelter and mule deer winter shelter habitats (mature forest) (assessed in EIS)

American beaver

‐‐ Present Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for wetlands and mallard breeding and feeding habitat (assessed in EIS)

Common muskrat

‐‐ Present Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for wetlands and mallard breeding and feeding habitat (assessed in EIS)

Northern river otter

‐‐ Present Project effects on habitat inferable from effects assessments for riparian ecosystems, wetlands and mallard breeding and feeding habitat (assessed in EIS)

Mice and voles ‐‐ Present, likely common and ubiquitous Qualitative assessment (assessed in EIS)

9 Short‐tailed (ermine) weasel and long‐tailed weasel

4.1.2. Habitat Loss As discussed in the EIS, the habitat loss predicted at maximum disturbance is a worst case scenario. The actual habitat loss will be less than predicted as only 52% of the “maximum disturbance area” used to determine the peak Project effect on habitat is likely to be physically disturbed. In considering the results of this assessment it is also important to note the differences between habitat capability and habitat suitability as per the Resources Inventory Committee (1999b): “Capability is defined as the ability of the habitat, under the optimal natural (seral) conditions for a species to provide its life requisites, irrespective of the current condition of the habitat. It is an estimate of the highest potential value of a particular habitat for a particular species and is useful in providing predictive scenarios for various habitat management options…Suitability is defined as the ability of the habitat in its current condition to provide the life requisites of a species. It is an estimate of how well current habitat conditions provide the specified life requisite(s) of the species being considered. The suitability of the land is frequently less than the capability because of unfavourable seral conditions.” Thus, the habitat capability of a landscape does not necessarily reflect current wildlife habitat use patterns. For example, a particular ecosystem unit may have high capability as mule deer winter shelter habitat but have low suitability as mule deer winter shelter habitat if it is currently a young forest rather than old forest and, as such is unlikely to be used by mule deer. PEM-based Habitat Capability Models The change in area of moose winter feeding habitat from baseline to maximum disturbance is presented in Table 2. No high capability habitat is affected by the Project . The loss of moderate and moderately high capability habitat is small in context of the Regional Study Area (<3%,) but large in context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area (18.5% and 36.1% respectively).


Table 2: Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Moose Winter Feeding Habitat Capability Regional Study Area Eastern Trapline Study Area

Habitat Capability

Class Area (ha)

at Baseline

Area (ha) at Maximum

Disturbance

Change in Area (ha) from

Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance

Percent Change in Area (%)

from Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance

Area (ha) at Baseline


Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance

High 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High

19,253 18,728 -525 -2.7 1,106 707 -399 -36.1

Moderate 41,326 40,854 -471 -1.1 1,211 987 -225 -18.5

Low 247,201 243,557 -3,644 -1.5 18,731 16,380 -2,351 -12.5

Very Low 111,457 111,225 -232 -0.2 7,427 7,406 -21 -0.3

Total Habitat

419,237 414,366 -4,872* -1.2 28,476 25,480 -2,996** -10.5

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as moose winter feeding habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Eastern Trapline study area (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as moose winter feeding habitat at baseline.



The change in area of mule deer winter shelter habitat from baseline to maximum disturbance is presented in Table 3. Almost no high capability habitat is affected by the Project. The loss of moderate and moderately high capability habitat is very small in context of the Regional Study Area (≤1% ) and relatively small in context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area (6 to 7%). Table 3: Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Mule Deer Winter Shelter Habitat Capability

Regional Study Area Eastern Trapline Study Area

Habitat Capability

Class Area (ha)

at Baseline


Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance



Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance

High 3,359 3,358 -1 - <0.1 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High

47,861 47,689 -172 -0.4 3 3 - <1 -7.1

Moderate 150,682 149,122 -1,560 -1.0 11,943 11,218 -725 -6.1

Low 185,221 182,641 -2,580 -1.4 14,225 12,385 -1,841 -12.9

Very Low 8,209 8,183 -26 -0.3 645 627 -19 -2.9

Total Habitat

395,332 390,994 -4,338* -1.1 26,817 24,232 -2,585** -9.6

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as mule deer winter shelter habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Eastern Trapline study area (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as mule deer winter shelter habitat at baseline

The change in area of fish natal denning habitat from baseline to maximum disturbance is presented in Table 4. The loss of high and moderate capability habitat is small in context of the Regional Study Area (<3%) but large in context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area (10.7% and 24.1% respectively). Table 4: Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Fisher Natal Denning Habitat Capability


Habitat Capability

Class Area (ha)

at Baseline


Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance



Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance

High 1468 1435 -33 -2.3 153 137 -16 -10.7

Moderate 79676 79072 -604 -0.8 986 748 -238 -24.1

Low 280075 276405 -3670 -1.3 19150 16839 -2312 -12.1

Total Habitat

361219 356911 -4308* -1.2 20289 17723 -2566** -12.6

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as fisher natal denning habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Eastern Trapline study area (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as fisher natal denning habitat at baseline


The change in area of black bear denning habitat from baseline to maximum disturbance is presented in Table 5. No high or moderately high capability habitat is affected. The loss of moderate capability habitat is small in context of the Regional Study Area (<2%) but large in context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area (22.9%). Table 5: Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Black Bear Denning Habitat Capability


Habitat Capability

Class Area (ha)

at Baseline


Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance



Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance

High 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High

0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderate 168,539 165,867 -2,673 -1.6 6,888 5,312 -1,575 -22.9

Low 151,369 149,972 -1,398 -0.9 12,393 11,503 -890 -7.2

Very Low 62,953 62,784 -169 -0.3 6,224 6,164 -60 -1.0

Total Habitat

382,862 378,622 -4,240* -1.1 25,505 22,979 -2,526** -9.9

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as black bear denning habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Eastern Trapline study area (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as black bear denning habitat at baseline


Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability and Suitability Mapping The change in grizzly bear habitat capability from baseline to maximum disturbance is presented in Table 6. The Project has almost no effect on the availability of moderate and higher capability habitat in context of either study area. Table 6: Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability


Habitat Capability

Class Area (ha)

at Baseline


Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance



Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance

High 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High

68 68 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderate 136,228 136,191 -37 - <0.1 19,281 19,281 0 0.0

Low 197,930 195,794 -2,137 -1.1 12,969 12,069 -900 -6.9

Very Low 142,097 139,659 -2,438 -1.7 9,393 7,344 -2,049 -21.8

Total Habitat

476,324 471,712 -4,612* -1.0 41,643 38,694 -2,949** -7.1

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as grizzly bear habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Eastern Trapline study area (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as grizzly bear habitat at baseline


The change in grizzly bear habitat suitability from baseline to maximum disturbance is presented in Table 7. No high or moderately high suitability habitat is affected. The loss of moderate suitability is very small in context of the Regional Study Area (<1%) but relatively large in context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area (14%). Table 7: Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability


Habitat Suitability

Class Area (ha)

at Baseline


Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance



Disturbance


Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Disturbance

High 5983 5983 0 0.0 426 426 0 0.0

Moderately High

28135 28135 0 0.0 1216 1216 0 0.0

Moderate 54799 54372 -426 -0.8 2659 2288 -371 -14.0

Low 135316 131243 -4073 -3.0 15193 12703 -2490 -16.4

Very Low 175487 175203 -284 -0.2 15494 15235 -259 -1.7

Total Habitat

399720 394936 -4783* -1.2 34989 31869 -3120** -8.9

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as grizzly bear habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance is slightly more than the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Eastern Trapline study area (i.e., 3118 ha) due to rounding error


4.1.3 Local Population Effects

The results of the local population effects predictions are presented in Table 8. No attempt was made to draw conclusions on the significance of these local effects as there was no qualitative context available for so doing.

Table 8: Local Population Effect Predictions for Twenty‐two Wildlife Species

Species Density Estimate/Home Range

Size/Territory Size10 Project

Component Area Lost at Maximum

Disturbance Area Permanently Lost Local Population Effect Duration Comments

Mine Site NA NA NA NA

California bighorn sheep

MU‐03 density estimate: 0.21 sheep/km2 (0.17‐0.26 sheep/km2)

MU‐02 density estimate:

0.14 sheep/km2 (0.10‐0.18 sheep/km2)

Combined density estimate:

0.18 sheep/km2 (0.14‐0.22 sheep/km2)

Transmission Line Area of sheep TLLSA: 940 ha (9.4 km2)

Nil 1.7 sheep displaced (range = 1.3‐2.1)

Temporary and intermittent: during construction and intermittent through life of the project (maintenance activities)

Displacement is due to sensory disturbance not direct habitat loss.

TLLSA is defined by a 1.5 km buffer on either side of the proposed transmission line alignment.

Mine Site ‐‐ Upland habitat: 845.1 ha (8.5 km2)

1.4 deer displaced (range 0.9‐2.0 deer)

Permanent

Mule deer

MU 5‐04 (mine site): density = 0.16 (range 0.11‐0.23)

Farwell UWR carrying capacity: 15.9‐21.0 deer/km2

Alkali UWR carrying capacity: 10.7‐15.8 deer/km2

Transmission Line

UWR: 239 ha (2.4 km2) of UWR: 65.5 ha (0.7 km2) (Farwell), 173.5 ha (1.7 km2) (Alkali)

Nil

Carrying capacity lost: 29.3‐41.6 deer (Farwell – 11.1‐14.7 deer, Alkali – 18.2‐26.9 deer)

Long term

Density derived from MOE population estimate for MU 5‐04. Possibly an under‐estimate.

10 Citations for information sources available upon request







Mine Site ‐‐

Upland: 845.1 ha

Wetlands: 403.5 ha

Combined: 1248.6 ha (12.5 km2)

4.4 moose displaced (winter)

Permanent

Moose Winter density = 0.35 moose/km2

Transmission Line

Wetland ecosystems: 46.6 ha (0.5 km2)

VRI: 763.2 ha (7.6 km2) (forested – all types and ages)

Total: 8.1 km2

Nil 2.8 moose displaced (winter)

Short to long term

Used same density estimate for length of RoW although east of Fraser River the density is lower (see Stalberg 2005).

Mine Site Pending Pending Pending Pending

Grizzly bear To be determined in consultation with BC MOE

Transmission Line Pending Pending Pending Pending

TML is working closely with the BC MOE to refine the assessment of the Project on grizzly bears

Mine Site ‐‐

Upland: 845.1 ha

Wetlands: 403.5 ha

Combined: 1248.6 ha (12.5 km2)

Unknown (as per BC MOE) Permanent

Black bear Unknown (as per BC MOE)

Transmission Line VRI: 174.4 ha (1.7 km2) (non‐pine leading mature and old forest)

Nil Unknown (as per BC MOE) Medium to long term

Black bears are not considered a conservation concern regionally (as per BC MOE)

Fisher Density: 7.9‐13.1 animals per 1000 km2

Mine Site ‐‐ Upland habitat: 845.1 ha (8.5 km2)

0.07‐0.12 fishers displaced Permanent Density is for habitat in general not natal denning







Transmission Line VRI: 174.4 ha (1.7 km2) (non‐pine leading mature and old forest)

Nil 0.01‐0.02 fishers displaced Long term

habitat specifically so area loss predicted by habitat suitability mapping is not applicable.

Mine Site NA NA NA NA American badger

Undetermined

Transmission Line Nil Nil None predicted ‐‐

No residual project effect is predicted (see EIS for details)


Townsend’s big‐eared bat

Density: 1 bat [individual]/126 ha (Santa Cruz Island, CA)

Transmission Line VRI: 123.8 ha (non‐pine leading mature and old forest)

Nil 1 bat displaced Long term

Low confidence in prediction. No appropriate information on density is available in the literature and the BC MOE does not have a regional population or density estimate for this species (or for density of colonies/km2 for this species).

Mine Site ‐‐ Wetland ecosystems: 403.5 ha

242.1 herons displaced Permanent Great blue heron (interior subspecies)

Territory size: 0.6 ha (freshwater marsh, Oregon)

Transmission Line Model: moderate and high feeding habitat: 176 ha

Nil 105.6 herons displaced Short to medium term

Very likely an over‐estimate. Herons have not been reported in such high numbers during any project‐related field surveys.


Pending (CWS) Permanent

Mallard Pending (CWS)

Transmission Line Wetland ecosystems: 46.6 ha

Nil Pending (CWS) Medium term

CWS will provide information to characterize the local project effect for mallards.







Mine Site ‐‐ Fish Lake area: 116.7 ha; Little Fish Lake area: 6.5 ha

Pending (CWS) Permanent Barrow’s goldeneye (western population)

Pending (CWS)

Transmission Line

Model: moderate nesting habitat: 1.3 ha

Wetland ecosystems: 46.6 ha

Nil Pending (CWS) Long term (nesting)

Medium term (wetlands)

CWS will provide information to characterize the local project effect for Barrow’s goldeneye.


4.7 home ranges Permanent

Sandhill crane

Home range: 85 ha in upper Michigan

Transmission Line

Model: moderate and high feeding habitat: 44.7 ha; moderate and high nesting habitat: 12.5 ha

Nil < 1 home range Short to medium term

CWS may be able to provide better regionally‐specific information to characterize the local project effect for sandhill cranes.


Long‐billed curlew

Nesting density: 0.7 pairs/100 ha to 3.4 pairs/100 ha (Chilcotin)

Transmission Line

Model: moderate and high nesting habitat: 29 ha

Grassland ecosystems in RoW: 88 ha

Nil

Model prediction: 0.2‐1.0 pairs displaced

Grasslands prediction: 0.6‐3.0 pairs displaced

Short to medium term

Direct habitat loss is relatively minor (pole placement)


Lewis’s woodpecker

Territory size: 1 to 6.1 ha/pair (Blue Mountains [OR/WA])

Transmission Line Model: moderate and high nesting habitat: 12 ha

Nil 2‐12 pairs displaced Long term

Estimate for entire region is only 10‐30 pairs (as per BC MOE) so this predicted local population effect is clearly an over‐estimate at the







upper end of the range.


Yellow‐breasted chat

Territory size: 0.2 to 5.64 ha, average 0.99 ha (Okanagan)

Transmission Line Nil moderate or high nesting habitat

Nil None predicted ‐‐

No residual project effect predicted is predicted (see EIS for details). Note that this species is considered very unlikely to breed in the Project area.


Sagebrush Brewer’s sparrow

Territory size: 0.1 ha (Washington); 0.52 ha (Idaho) Transmission Line

Model: moderate and high nesting habitat: 7.4 ha

Nil 14.2 to 74 territories Medium term

Over‐estimate. No birds were detected during bird surveys in the area. MOE does not have a regional population or density estimate.


Sharp‐tailed grouse (columbianus subspecies)

Home range: within 2.8 km of the lek (BC); 1.87 km2 (Idaho); males 1.7 km2 and females 3.6 km2 (Montana)

Transmission Line

Model: moderate and high feeding habitat: 63.1 ha; moderate and high nesting habitat: 31.4 ha

Nil < 1 home range Short to medium term

No lek sites known for Project area. BC MOE does not have a regional population or density estimate.

Prairie falcon Home range: known to travel 26 km from nest to feeding area

Mine Site

No overlap between any of the five buffered cliff complexes (including the known nest site) and the LSA

Nil None predicted ‐‐

No residual project effect is predicted (see EIS for details). Locations of prairie falcon nest sites in Region 5 are relatively well known.







Transmission Line NA NA NA NA Only one nest site has been identified in the Project area.

Mine Site ‐‐ Model: moderate feeding habitat: 146 ha

26.6 pairs displaced

2 territories Permanent

Short‐eared owl

Density: 1 pair/5.5 ha (Montana)

Territory size: 73.9 ha (Manitoba) Transmission Line

Model: moderate and high feeding habitat: 37.2 ha

Nil 6.8 pairs displaced

< 1 territory Short to medium term

Probable over‐estimate using the pair density estimate.


Flammulated owl

Home range: 2.2‐3.7 ha (BC)

Transmission Line Model: moderate and high nesting habitat: 17.4 ha

Nil 4.7‐7.9 home ranges (assumes no overlap)

Long term

Probable overestimate. BC MOE does not have a regional population or density estimate but this species is not common in the Region. The province’s breeding population is estimated to be 600‐750 pairs (van Woudenberg 1999).

Bald eagle Nest density: 9 active nests/100 km of shoreline (Nechako River)

Mine Site ‐‐

Fish Lake shoreline: 9.4 km; Little Fish Lake shoreline: 1.4 km)

Total: 10.8 km

1 active nest predicted based on shoreline length; spring 2009 site visit by BC MOE estimated 5‐10 active nests and 50‐100 birds feeding in the Project area

11

Permanent Shoreline length estimate includes islands

11 BC MOE 2009, unpublished data (R. Packham, J. Youds)








Transmission Line Riparian ecosystems: 123.8 ha

Nil Unknown Long term


Unknown Permanent

Amphibians Unknown12

Transmission Line Wetland ecosystems in RoW: 46.6 ha

Nil Unknown Short to medium term

Not all the wetland ecosystems predicted to occur within the RoW will be directly affected (lost).

12 No appropriate density estimate is available from the literature and the BC MOE does not have a regional density estimate to provide. Project‐related field data collected in 2006 was focused on species

inventory and presence/absence rather than the development of density estimates.

4.2. Vegetation

4.2.1 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government

The linkages between the 52 plants species of importance to the TNG and the vegetation KIs is presented in Table 9. This table also summarizes the findings of the effects assessments for each of the relevant vegetation species. Either no effects or no significant residual effects were predicted for all of the vegetation species considered.

Table 9: Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government – Linkages to Vegetation Key Indicators Assessed in the EIS

General Ecological Requirements Plant Species of Importance to Tsilhqot’in13

Biogeoclimatic Subzone14

Tsilhqot'in Name Common

Name Scientific

Name IDFdk

4 SBPSx

c MSxv ESSFxv

Habitat Approach

Assessment Results: Significance Prediction

from EIS

7ests’igwel Whitebark pine

Pinus albicaulis no no no yes Typically occurs near treeline on mountains

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for old forest and rare ecosystems

No effect predicted – there is no ESSFxv within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of the mine

7unqes Green alder Alnus tenuifolia yes yes yes yes Moist forests, streamsides, bogs and fens

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on wetlands or riparian ecosystems

ch’entSay Water birch Betula occidentalis

yes yes less no Occurs in moist draws and gullies

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on wetlands or riparian ecosystems

baWesdinin Oregon grape

Berberis aquifolium

yes no no no Dry forests and openings

Project effects inferable from effects assessment

No effect predicted – there is no IDFdk4 within the proposed

13 List taken verbatim from TNG comments received by Taseko Mines Ltd. on May 25, 2009 14 IDFdk4 = Interior Douglas‐Fir dry cool Chilcotin variant; SBPSxc = Sub‐Boreal Pine–Spruce very dry cold subzone; MSxv = Montane Spruce very dry very cold subzone; ESSFxv = Engelmann Spruce–Sub‐alpine Fir

very dry very cold subzone




Biogeoclimatic Subzone14 Habitat

Approach Assessment Results:

Significance Prediction from EIS Tsilhqot'in Name

Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4

SBPSxc

MSxv ESSFxv

for old forest maximum disturbance limit of the mine

-- Buckbrush Ceanothus sanguineus

yes yes less no Often occurs after fires

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands

No significant residual project effect on grasslands

xwes-mal, (‘thorn.round\berry’), xweschemal, xweschugh-dIg

Black hawthorn

Crataegus douglasii

yes yes yes less

Dry rocky slopes, shrub lands, open forests and burnt areas

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for old forest

No significant residual project effect on old forest

k’alatan, k’atatamal Silverberry15 Elaeagnus commutata

yes yes no no

Dry banks on warm aspects along rivers or draws



-- Bog laurel Kalmia microphylla

yes yes yes yes Grows in bogs Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands

No significant residual project effect on wetlands

xwes cho Devil's club Oplopanax horridus

no no yes yes

Very moist to wet nitrogen-rich sites, floodplain, seepage and stream-edge semi-open forests

Project effects inferable from effects assessments for old forest and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on old forest or riparian ecosystems

-- False box Paxistima myrsinites

yes yes yes infrequent

Dry forest areas, on forest edges or openings



15 Also known as wolf willow







Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4

SBPSxc

MSxv ESSFxv

lhin tenexwez (also R. lacustre) “dog gooseberry”

Black currant

Ribes hudsonianum

less less yes yes

Wet to moist woodlands, forests, stream banks



-- Wild gooseberry

Ribes irriguum16

yes yes yes yes Wet areas, edges of forests

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands


lhin tenexwez ‘dog gooseberry’

Swamp gooseberry

Ribes lacustre yes yes yes yes Moist woods and seepage areas

Project effects inferable from effects assessments for old forest, wetlands and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on old forest, wetlands or riparian ecosystems

ts’elhiq Dwarf raspberry

Rubus arcticus, and/or R. pubescens

less yes yes yes Moist woods



texaltsel Wild raspberry

Rubus idaeus yes yes yes no Moist rich forest openings



NitSan nibaxalyish ‘it takes away one’s Dress”

Blackcap Rubus leucodermis

yes yes less no

Dry forest openings, often on disturbed areas like clear-cuts


No significant residual project effect on wetlands and riparian ecosystems

16 Ribes irriguum is not listed in BC, perhaps R. divaricatum?







Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4

SBPSxc

MSxv ESSFxv

Dwarf/alpine willow

Salix arctica no no yes yes Grows in bogs, and at high elevation

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands (alpine)

No significant residual project effect on grasslands; there are no alpine areas within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of mine

chib (tchib) Red elderberry

Sambucus racemosa

only along creeks

only along creeks

yes in clearings

Moist to mesic meadows and forests, streambanks, disturbed areas



nelghes Dwarf mountain blueberry

Vaccinium caespitosum (?also V. myrtilloides)

yes yes yes yes Dry, sunny forest openings,



yanlhtSel Oval-leaved blueberry

Vaccinium ovalifolium

no no yes yes Common in moist forests



niselix Bog cranberry

Vaccinium oxycoccos

yes yes yes yes Grows in bogs Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands


nists’elIsh, ?isdzelIsh, niselix, or isdzElix

Lingonberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea

no only in bogs

only in bogs

yes Bogs, meadows Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands


xwes-chugh (Cirsium spp.; ‘big prickle/spine’)

Edible thistle Cirsium edule yes yes yes no

Often in fields and disturbed areas, also meadows, avalanche tracks and open forests









Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4

SBPSxc

MSxv ESSFxv

sunt’iny Spring beauty

Claytonia lanceolata

less less yes yes Moist meadows and upland grasslands



ax Spiny wood fern

Dryopteris expansa

less no yes yes Often grows on decaying wood in moist forests



7esghunsh Yellow glacier lily, beartooth

Erythronium grandiflorum

no no no yes

Moist to mesic meadows, edges of snow-melt, along streams and occasionally in open forests in the montane to alpine zones

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands (montane)

No effect predicted – there is no ESSFxv within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of the mine

7undziny Blueleaf wild strawberry

Fragaria virginiana

yes yes yes less Common forest plant as well as in open areas



sachen Tiger lily Lilium columbianum

yes yes yes yes Moist forest openings



7est’anchis (see also Rumex)

Wild celery, barestem lomatium

Lomatium nudicaule

yes only on warm slopes

no rarely

Dry rocky or grassy slopes, and open forest in the dry IDF


No significant residual project effect on grasslands; unlikely to be present within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of the mine







Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4

SBPSxc

MSxv ESSFxv

tl’etch’et nelhtsen (‘meadow fragrant’)

Field mint Mentha arvensis

yes yes yes less

Wet marshes, meadows, thickets, and stream and lake margins

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on riparian ecosystems

7est’anchis Sour dock17 Rumex acetosa ssp. alpestris

yes yes less no Often grows in fields and grazed areas

None (introduced species)

Non-invasive introduced species, unlikely to be affected by Project, may increase following project-related disturbance

? nistiny yaz chuZ “deer’s young?”

Mountain dandelion

Agoseris glauca var. dasycephala

yes yes yes yes

Grasslands and montane areas, often on scree slopes



tl’uWesen niZt’an (‘snake berry’)

Pacific anemone

Anemone multifida

yes yes yes yes Rocky outcrops, and warm, open areas



?tsachén ? Red columbine

Aquilegia formosa

yes yes yes yes Often grows in openings, and logging areas



-- Heart-leaved arnica

Arnica cordifolia

yes yes yes yes Common plant in conifer forests



17 Also known as green sorrel or garden sorrel







Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4

SBPSxc

MSxv ESSFxv

ts’elh niZt’an? False Solomon’s seal

Maianthemum racemosum

yes yes yes yes

Moist to mesic forests, streambanks, meadows and clearings



xilhday Yellow pond-lily

Nuphar polysepala

yes yes yes yes Grows in open water


No significant residual project effect on wetlands; any population associated with Fish Lake will be lost but this species is likely to re-establish on Prosperity Lake

-- Great mullein

Verbascum thapsus

yes yes no no Dry roadsides, gravel pits, fields and waste places


Invasive species, unlikely to be affected by Project, may increase following project-related disturbance

-- Mountain valerian

Valeriana sitchensis

no no yes yes Grows at higher elevations



sesdan (?’bear leaves’)

Death camus

Zygadenus venenosus

yes yes yes yes Edges of wetlands, in fens



tishbinlh Indian-hemp Apocynum cannabinum

yes yes less less Often grows on warm, gravelly slopes and banks



Timber milkvetch

Astragalus miser

yes yes less less Grows in forest openings and dry, sunny areas

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands and old forest

No significant residual project effect on grasslands or old forest







Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4

SBPSxc

MSxv ESSFxv

ts’utanchuny ya?elhdeZ

Paintbrush Castilleja miniata

yes yes yes yes Grows on moist soils, often close to creeks and rivers

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for riparian ecosystems


binek’en (‘you colour yourself with it’)

Strawberry-blite

Chenopodium capitatum

yes yes no no

Often grows in disturbed places like roadsides and fields



tlh’EgwElzEyx Giant wildrye grass

Leymus cinereus

yes yes no no More common in grasslands in valley bottoms

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands and old forest

No significant residual project effect on grasslands or old forest

-- Pineapple weed

Matricaria matricarioides

yes yes yes no

Grows on disturbed soils such as roadsides and grazed areas


Invasive species, unlikely to be affected by Project, may increase following project-related disturbance

-- Alfalfa Medicago sativa

yes yes less no Fields and roadsides


Agricultural plant, unlikely to be affected by Project, and may increase following project-related disturbance

tl’ekw’a, tl’eqw’a Reedgrass18 Phragmites australis

yes yes no no Grows on edges of marshes with open water



“takatlh’ulh” taqatl’ulh Pondweed

Potamogeton natans and other spp. of pondweed

yes yes yes yes

Grows in open water such as ponds and lake edges


No significant residual project effect on wetlands; any population associated with Fish Lake will be lost but

18 Also known as common reed





Biogeoclimatic Subzone14

Tsilhqot'in Name Common

Name Scientific

Name IDFdk

4 SBPSx

c MSxv ESSFxv

Habitat Approach

Assessment Results: Significance Prediction

from EIS

pondweeds are likely to re-establish on Prosperity Lake

gwelhts’i (‘it stings) Stinging nettle

Urtica dioica yes yes yes yes Grows on rich soils Project effects inferable from effects assessment for riparian ecosystems


dech-lizba Tree fungus -- yes yes yes yes Common in older forests of all types



7elhts’ibadzagh Mushrooms -- yes yes yes yes Common in all forested areas



4.2.2 Vegetation Loss As discussed for wildlife (Section 4.1.2), only 52% of the maximum disturbance area associated with the mine site will be directly disturbed by the mine development. Thus, the predictions of vegetation loss presented here are over-estimates of the actual direct loss. Old Forest The change in area of old forest from baseline to maximum disturbance is presented in Table 10. Pine-leading old forest is the most common type in both study areas. The potential loss of old forest is small (1.5%) in the context of the Regional Study Area but relatively large (20.2%) in the context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area. Most of this loss is predicted to be pine-leading old forest. Table 10: Change in Area of Old Forest from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance


Leading Tree Species Baseline

Area (ha)

Maximum Disturbance Area (ha)

Change in Area (ha)

from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance



Disturbance

Baseline Area (ha)



Baseline to Maximum

Disturbance



Douglas-fir 8,191 8,182 -10 -0.1 9 9 0 0.0

Lodgepole pine 94,502 93,110 -1,392 -1.5 6,789 5,571 -1,219 -18.0

Spruce 9,441 9,142 -299 -3.2 742 436 -306 -41.3

Total Old Forest

112,134 110,434 -1,700 -1.5 7,540 6,015 -1,525 -20.2


Note that these effect predictions do not account specifically for mountain pine beetle effects; although it can be assumed that the majority of pine-leading old forest stands in the region are already dead or will be beetle-killed in the next few years. Further, the VRI does not include recent logging activity. Thus, the area of intact old forest present at baseline and lost at maximum disturbance is over-estimated in this analysis. Alpine and Parkland, Wetlands and Grasslands The changes in area of alpine and parkland, wetland and grassland ecosystems from baseline to maximum disturbance are presented in Table 11. No alpine or parkland ecosystems are affected by the Project. The loss of grassland ecosystems is small in both the Regional and Eastern Trapline Study Areas (<1% and 2.5% respectively). The Project-related loss of wetlands is small (<2%) in the context of the Regional Study Area but relatively large (14.6%) in the context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area. Table 11: Change in Area of Vegetation Key Indicators from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Alpine and Parkland, Grasslands and Wetlands


Ecosystem Type Baseline

Area (ha)


Change in Area (ha)




Disturbance

Baseline Area (ha)


Change in Area (ha)




Disturbance

Alpine and Parkland

131,664 131,664 0 0.0 13,424 13,424 0 0.0

Grasslands 3,587 3,569 -18 -0.5 582 567 -15 -2.5

Wetlands 34,397 33,737 -660 -1.9 3,653 3,120 -533 -14.6


References

Dunster, J.A. and K.J. Dunster. 1996. Dictionary of Natural Resource Management. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.

Hamilton, A.N. 2007. Central Interior Ecoregional Assessment: Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability and Suitability Mapping. Unpublished report, BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC.

Hamilton, A.N. 2008. 2008 Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C.

Loforth, E.C. and P.K. Ott. 2007. Assessment of the Sustainability of Wolverine Harvest in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2193-2200

Madrone Consultants Ltd. 1999. Technical Report: Species-Habitat Models for Prosperity Project Area. Prepared for Taseko Mines Ltd., Vancouver, BC.

Moon, D.E., R.A. MacMillan, R. Coupé, and N. Phillips, 2008. Williams Lake TSA PEM Final Report. Contract report for BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Williams Lake, BC.

Resources Inventory Committee. 1999a. Standards for Predictive Ecosystem Mapping. Inventory Standard. Version 1.0. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Alternatives Task Force, Victoria, BC.

Resources Inventory Committee. 1999b. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards. Version 2.0. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. Victoria, BC.


Table of Proponent Commitments - Canada.ca10.5 Mitigate residual effects of mining with respect to...

Documents

Transcript of Table of Proponent Commitments - Canada.ca10.5 Mitigate residual effects of mining with respect to...