rdims-#7893095-v17-written submission - new …

Transport Canada’s Submission to the Review Panel For the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project July 19, 2013

Transport Canada 1

Review Panel Submission for the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Transport Canada (TC) is responsible for federal transportation policies and programs. We work to ensure that air, marine, road and rail transportation are safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible. With respect to the Project, TC applies the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), which is designed to protect the common law public right of navigation. The NWPA applies to all navigable waterways in Canada, both inland and coastal waters, extending out 12 nautical miles offshore. This Written Submission presents TC’s views on the Project and its environmental effects as they relate to our mandate, based on the information currently available. We summarize our 12 Findings in Section 5.0. While we note that the Project may affect navigable waterways, we have not been able to determine whether the proponent’s predictions on significance of potential negative effects are reasonable.

To determine impacts, TC would need to review information not detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement, the Supplemental Information Request #51 response, or the materials on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry. We would need:

• specific locations of works;

• technical details for temporary, ancillary, or fish habitat compensation works;

• information on current navigational use for Little Fish lake, Fish Creek Reaches 6 and 10, Beece Creek, and other potentially impacted waterways; and,

• information from Aboriginal groups and the public on how the Project will affect navigation and, by extension, how this may affect Aboriginal groups’ ability to exercise their potential or established rights.

Transport Canada 2


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 TRANSPORT CANADA’S MANDATE ................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 COMPONENTS OF INTEREST ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 NWPA REGULATORY PROCESS FOR APPROVALS ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 5, 6 AND 10 ........................................................ 6

2.4 MINOR WORKS AND WATERS (NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT) ORDER ................................................................... 8

2.5 NWPA REGULATORY PROCESS FOR A PROCLAMATION OF EXEMPTION BY THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL UNDER SECTION 23 ......... 8

3.0 TRANSPORT CANADA’S ROLE IN THE REVIEW OF THE NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER MINE PROJECT ........ 10

4.0 ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 12

4.1.1 Navigability of Waterways: technical information ................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Current use of Waterways for Navigation ................................................................................................. 12

4.2 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1 Deposition of Tailings into Little Fish Lake ................................................................................................ 13

4.2.2 Main Embankment .................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.3 Upstream cofferdam, South TSF Embankment cofferdam and South Embankment ................................ 16

4.3 TRANSMISSION LINE CROSSINGS ............................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.1 Fraser River Crossing ................................................................................................................................. 19

4.3.2 Big Creek Crossing ..................................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.3 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

4.4 FISH LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DAMS DOWNSTREAM OF FISH LAKE, ACROSS FISH CREEK.......................................................... 20

4.5 FISH HABITAT COMPENSATION PLAN STRUCTURES ON ELKIN CREEK ................................................................................. 22

4.6 FISH HABITAT COMPENSATION PLAN STRUCTURES ON HAINES CREEK .............................................................................. 24

4.7 OTHER FISH HABITAT COMPENSATION PLAN STRUCTURES OR TEMPORARY/ANCILLARY WORKS ............................................ 26

4.8 IMPACTS FROM CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE ON BEECE CREEK ....................................................................................... 26

5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 27

6.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 29

APPENDIX 1: NAVIGATION ON LITTLE FISH LAKE - TSILHQOT’IN MEMBERS USING YANAH BINY, SEPTEMBER 28,

2011 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX 2: MINOR WORKS AND WATERS (NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT) ORDER ............................ 31

Transport Canada 3


Transport Canada’s Written Submission to the Federal Review Panel for the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project

1.0 Introduction Taseko Mines Limited (Taseko) is proposing to construct, operate and decommission the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project (the Project), located 125 kilometers southwest of Williams Lake, British Columbia. The Project consists of an open pit mine development that includes a 70,000 tonne per day concentrator facility with an average annual production of 108 million pounds of copper and 247,000 ounces of gold production over a 20-year mine life. Transport Canada (TC) is participating in the environmental assessment of the Project as a federal authority pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012) because the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), which falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, applies to the Project. TC is registered as an Interested Party and is providing expert advice to the Review Panel (RP) on matters within its mandate. This submission summarizes the department’s views on the Project and its environmental effects as they relate to the department’s mandate. It presents TC’s review of the potential environmental effects of the Project and provides information and Findings to the RP as they relate to the department’s expertise and mandate on the following subjects:

• Navigation and navigability of waterways;

• Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes;

• Mitigation measures; and,

• Monitoring and follow-up.

The analysis and findings within this submission are based on: information provided by Taseko within its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); additional information provided by Taseko throughout the EIS review process and in response to Transport Canada comments; documents submitted by the public and Aboriginal groups to the Government of Canada and the RP; and information obtained during the 2009/2010 Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project (2009 Prosperity) RP process. If any new information, relevant to TC’s mandate is brought forward during the RP public hearing, the views expressed in this submission may be amended accordingly. The objectives of the submission are to:

• identify components of the Project that are relevant to TC’s mandate;

Transport Canada 4


• highlight TC’s regulatory requirements with respect to the Project;

• comment, where it relates to TC’s mandate, on the analysis of potential environmental effects provided in the EIS review process; and,

• provide feedback on any EIS conclusions that fall within TC’s mandate.

2.0 Transport Canada’s Mandate TC is responsible for federal transportation policies and programs. It seeks to ensure that air, marine, road and rail transportation are safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible. In order to implement its mandate, TC administers a number of acts and regulations, conducts reviews, and issues approvals for works that may affect transportation. With respect to the Project, TC’s mandate falls under the NWPA. The NWPA is designed to protect the common law public right of navigation and applies to all navigable waterways in Canada, both inland and coastal waters, extending out 12 nautical miles offshore. The Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP) of TC is responsible for administering the NWPA. In order to minimize the impact to navigation, the NWPP ensures that works constructed in navigable waterways are reviewed and regulated. TC performs the following regulatory and administrative activities relevant to this Project:

• facilitates the Governor in Council Proclamation (GiC) of exemption process for deposition of materials into a navigable water;

• approves works built in, on, over, under, through or across navigable water in Canada prior to construction of work(s); and,

• ensures appropriate safety measures are taken for navigation during the construction and operation phases of a regulated work through terms and conditions of NWPA approval.

Section 2 of the NWPA defines that a “work” includes “any man-made structure, device or thing, whether temporary or permanent, that may interfere with navigation; and any dumping of fill in any navigable water, or any excavation of materials from the bed of any navigable water, that may interfere with navigation.” Section 2 of the NWPA defines that “navigable water” includes “a canal and any other body of water created or altered as a result of the construction of any work.”

Transport Canada 5


TC also uses an administrative definition for “navigable waters” which describes all bodies of water that are capable of being navigated by any type of floating vessel for transportation, recreation or commerce. 2.1 Components of Interest In consideration of the information provided by Taseko in its EIS, as part of the EIS review process and in response to TC comments (both in the current New Prosperity and the former 2009 Prosperity reviews), the following approvals pursuant to the NWPA may be required:

• a GiC Proclamation of Exemption under section 23 for Little Fish Lake for the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF)

• two approvals under section 5 for proposed transmission line crossings;

• approvals under section 5 for two cofferdams between Fish Lake and the open pit;

• approvals under section 5 (or as necessary, a Proclamation of Exemption under s.23) for the South Embankment and potentially one or more cofferdams upstream of the TSF; and,

• approvals under section 5 or 6 and 10 for proposed Fish Habitat Compensation Plan structures or structure upgrades.

2.2 Regulatory Requirements

In order to comply with the regulatory requirements of the NWPA, Taseko will need to submit an application to Transport Canada for approval. It is recommended that this application be submitted concurrent with its EIS submission to ensure service standards can be met. The submission requirements are:

• Area map that clearly shows the location of the Project.

• Detailed top/plan view of the works (with dimensions).

• Detailed side/profile view of the works (with dimensions); the ordinary high water mark must be included on these plans.

• Details of any anchoring systems, if applicable.

• Photographs of the site of the work and surrounding area.

• The completed signed application form, including location in latitude and longitude, technical details of the waterway where the work is to be placed (depth, width, etc).

Transport Canada 6


• Section 23 application package, including the information (Rationale Evidence) outlined in the “Proclamation of Exemption process pursuant to section 23 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the New Prosperity Project” document attached to TC’s August 9, 2012 letter (see CEAR Document #394).

• Detailed design of the TSF, with complete dimensioned drawings (plan and profile views) of the main and south embankments, methods of construction, and location.

• Detailed design of the cofferdams between Fish Lake and the open pit and upstream of the TSF, with complete dimensioned drawings (plan and profile views), methods of construction and location.

• Detailed design of proposed works in Elkin Creek and Haines Creek with complete dimensioned drawings (plan and profile views), methods of construction, and location.

NWPA approvals may be issued after a decision statement is issued to Taseko by the Minister of the Environment, the federal Crown is satisfied that it has consulted Aboriginal groups adequately, and all other requirements under the NWPA are complete. Taseko previously engaged TC on requirements of the NWPA for the transmission line component of the 2009/2010 Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine proposal. TC received the applications for the transmission line crossings over the Fraser River and Big Creek from the proponent during the 2009/2010 Prosperity review, including the detailed design. TC will work with Taseko to mitigate, as necessary, interference to navigation that the components listed (in section 2.1 of this submission) may have. TC will ensure that all NWPA requirements are addressed within the approval process, and before issuing these potential approvals. TC advised Taseko on August 9, 2012 and February 14, 2013 of the section 23 requirements under the NWPA for the deposition of tailings into Little Fish Lake during TSF construction. The Proclamation of Exemption is issued only after the Minister of the Environment has issued a decision statement. 2.3 NWPA Regulatory Process for Approvals Issued Under Sections 5, 6 and 10 Subsection 5(1) of the NWPA requires an approval from the Minister of Transport before a work can be built or placed in, on, over, under, through, or across any navigable water. An approval may be issued in accordance with subsection 5(2) for a work that substantially interferes with navigation. Subsection 5(2) of the NWPA states:

Transport Canada 7


If the Minister considers that the work would substantially interfere with navigation, the Minister may impose any terms and conditions on the approval that the Minister considers appropriate, including requiring that construction of the work be started within six months and finished within three years of the day on which approval is granted or within any other period that the Minister may fix.

An approval may be issued in accordance with subsection 5(3) for a work that interferes other than substantially with navigation. Subsection 5(3) of the NWPA states:

If the Minister considers that the work would interfere, other than substantially, with navigation, the Minister may impose any terms and conditions on the approval that the Minister considers appropriate, including requiring that construction of the work be started and finished within the period fixed by the Minister.

Substantial interference means that the proposed work will significantly alter the way that vessels pass down a navigable waterway or may make passage dangerous to the public. Transport Canada can apply appropriate terms and conditions to approvals pursuant to either subsection 5(2) or subsection 5(3) in order to protect and maintain the public’s right to navigate. The regulatory processes for subsections 5 and 10 approvals differ. Before issuing a subsection 5(2) approval, TC will direct the local authority, company or individual to deposit all plans in the local land registry, land titles office or any other place specified by the department; and to provide notice of the proposed construction and the deposit of the plans by advertising in the Canada Gazette and in one or more newspapers that are published in or near the place where the work is to be constructed. Prior to issuing a subsection 5(3) approval, TC may direct the local authority, company or individual to deposit the plans in the local land registry, land titles office or any other place specified by the department; and to provide notice of the proposed construction and the deposit of the plans as the department considers appropriate. The regulatory process for both subsections 5(2) and 5(3) provides the public and stakeholders with an opportunity to express any comment on a proposed work for 30 days from the date of the last advertisement. The NWPP will consider all comments and concerns received within the comment period when determining the appropriate terms and conditions to be included in the approval. Subsection 10(2) of the NWPA provides that an approval from TC is required before an existing lawful work can be altered. Subsection 10(2) of the NWPA states: Any lawful work may be altered if plans of the proposed alteration are deposited with and approved by the Minister; and in the opinion

Transport Canada 8


of the Minister, interference with navigation is not increased by the alteration.

There is no specific requirement to provide public notice of works that fall under subsection 10(2) of the NWPA. Subsection 6(4) provides a means for the Minister of Transport to make lawful a work for which construction has already commenced:

The Minister may, subject to deposit and notice as in the case of a proposed work, approve a work, its site and the plans for it and impose any terms and conditions on the approval that the Minister considers appropriate after the start of its construction. The approval has the same effect as if it was given before the start of construction.

2.4 Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order

The Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order (MWWO) assists industry professionals by outlining the criteria and methodology required in order to assess waters that may fall under the classes of minor navigable waters established in the Order (see Appendix 2). If waterways are deemed to be minor navigable waters, the works being considered are exempt from the NWPA application process. The criteria established in the Order are meant to be applied to waterways that are subject to a proposed ‘work’ under sections 5, 6, and 10. The criteria must be fully met in order for the navigable water to be considered “minor” under the provisions of the Act. The Order may also be applied to waterways subject to the proposed placement of the TSF as it would assist TC in determining navigability and the proponent with information regarding current and potential use. Works placed on any of these classes of minor navigable waters contrary to the established criteria will be subject to an application for approval and to the enforcement provisions of the NWPA. 2.5 NWPA Regulatory Process for a Proclamation of Exemption by the Governor in Council under Section 23 Sections 21 and 22 of the NWPA prohibit throwing and depositing of material that is liable to interfere with navigation (e.g. sawdust, edging, slabs, bark) or that is likely to sink (e.g. stone, gravel, earth, cinders, ashes) where there are not at least 20 fathoms (approximately 36.6 meters) of water depth at all times.

Transport Canada 9


Section 23 of the NWPA provides that the Governor in Council, when it is shown to its satisfaction that the public interest would not be injuriously affected, may, by proclamation, declare any rivers, streams or waters in respect of which section 22 of the NWPA apply, or any parts thereof, exempt in whole or in part from the operation of section 22. For example, in order to deposit tailings into a lake that is considered navigable, or to proceed with any undertaking that would allow the depositing of tailings such as dewatering a lake, it is necessary for the proponent to first obtain a Proclamation of Exemption by the Governor in Council under section 23 of the NWPA. Sections 21, 22 and 23 state:

21. No person shall throw or deposit or cause, suffer or permit to be thrown or deposited any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or like rubbish of any description whatever that is liable to interfere with navigation in any water, any part of which is navigable or that flows into any navigable water. 22. No person shall throw or deposit or cause, suffer or permit to be thrown or deposited any stone, gravel, earth, cinders, ashes or other material or rubbish that is liable to sink to the bottom in any water, any part of which is navigable or that flows into any navigable water, where there are not at least twenty fathoms of water at all times, but nothing in this section shall be construed so as to permit the throwing or depositing of any substance in any part of a navigable water where that throwing or depositing is prohibited by or under any other Act. 23. The Governor in Council, when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that the public interest would not be injuriously affected thereby, may, by proclamation, declare any rivers, streams or waters in respect of which sections 21 and 22 apply, or any parts thereof, exempt in whole or in part from the operation of those sections, and may revoke the proclamation.

TC administers the submission process to the Governor in Council for the Proclamation of Exemption. However, it is the responsibility of the proponent seeking to engage in Prohibited Activities to show to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that the public interest would not be injuriously affected by exempting the waters in question from the application of sections 21 and 22 of the NWPA. To obtain a Proclamation of Exemption under section 23 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) from the Governor in Council, the proponent must provide the information listed in CEAR Document #394 (called “rationale evidence”), and any further information that TC may require, in order to proceed with administering the submission to the Governor in Council for issuance of a Proclamation of Exemption. The Rationale

Transport Canada 10


Evidence must also include the proponents’ rationale, which demonstrates that the public interest would not be injuriously affected by exempting the navigable lake from section 22 of the NWPA with the granting of a Proclamation of Exemption under section 23 of the NWPA. From the date of the federal environmental assessment decision, the Proclamation of Exemption timeline is approximately 9-12 months, including the Governor in Council process.

3.0 Transport Canada’s Role in the Review of the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project Taseko is required to apply for a Governor in Council Proclamation of Exemption (under section 23 of the NWPA) for the proposed deposition of tailings into Little Fish Lake as a portion of the TSF because TC has determined that Little Fish Lake is navigable or flows into a navigable water. It is also expected that applications will be required under the NWPA for the proposed cofferdams on Middle Fish Creek and Upper Fish Creek, and for proposed Fish Habitat Compensation Plan structures or modification of structures on Haines Creek and Elkin Creek. These water bodies may be considered by TC to be navigable at the locations of the works and, accordingly, may not be subject to the MWWO. TC received applications for the proposed transmission line crossings over the Fraser River and Big Creek during the 2009 Prosperity review. The Proclamation of Exemption process and the issuance of approvals require TC to participate in the environmental assessment of the Project as a Federal Authority under the CEAA, 2012 and provide its expertise on navigation. Navigation is considered to be included within “health and socio-economic conditions,” found in the definition of “environmental effect” under subsection 2(1) of the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and in section 5 of CEAA, 2012. The RP has requested in its letter of June 21, 2013 that TC provide the department’s views on the Project and its environmental effects as they relate to the department’s mandate during the public hearing process. TC also participated in the review of the draft EIS of the Project and provided comments to Taseko regarding supplemental information required for the noted components of the Project and the potential impacts on navigation. Taseko’s assessment of the Project effects to navigable waters, which begins on p.1176 in Section 2.7.3.2 of the EIS, lists ‘physical interference with navigation’ as one effect to be identified and assessed. This effect can be considered a direct effect in some cases and an indirect effect in others; direct effects would not be included in the overall environmental assessment conclusion.

Transport Canada 11


‘Change in the public’s use of and right to navigate’ is a second potential effect that can be considered ‘indirect’ and therefore part of the environmental assessment. ‘Change in the public’s use for navigation’ can potentially refer to direct as well as indirect effects. Because only indirect effects are considered under CEAA and CEAA, 2012, it is necessary to distinguish between the two, identifying which Project components and activities are directly and which are indirectly affecting the public’s use of waterways and water bodies for the purpose of navigation.

4.0 Analysis TC has reviewed the available information and has identified that there may be concerns related to the department’s mandate with respect to navigation, and more precisely, regarding the Project’s effects on navigation on Fish Creek, Little Fish Lake and Beece Creek. Project components may affect additional navigable waterways; however, the department is seeking more information before these waterways can be identified. Also, effects relating to certain components of the Project on navigation have been difficult to determine, given the limited information on current navigational use by Aboriginal groups and the public. In order to understand the potential effects of Project components on navigation, TC must determine if the affected waterways are navigable for the purposes of the NWPA. To make a determination of navigability, TC requires specific waterway information such as the exact location on the waterway where a work will be placed (‘technical’ information). It is important to note that as the proponent would be familiar with activities and uses of the waterways at the Project location, TC expects that the proponent would gather the information needed to determine impacts to navigation. Some waterways may be navigable technically, but may or may not be used for navigation purposes. TC must review information on the current and/or potential use of the waterway for navigation by the public and by Aboriginal groups in order to determine the Project’s potential impacts to navigation and, by extension, how this may adversely impact Aboriginal groups’ ability to exercise potential or established Aboriginal rights. When these aspects are understood, appropriate mitigation may be considered. Section 4 of this document provides a brief overview of TC’s assessment of the impact of the Project on navigation to the extent possible with the information provided. However, to date, TC has been unable to reach final conclusions on the degree to which the Project will affect navigation because the information on Project component-waterway interactions and current waterway navigation has not been provided.

Transport Canada 12


4.1 General Observations

4.1.1 Navigability of Waterways: technical information While p. 51-11 to 51-12 of Supplemental Information Request (SIR) response 51 provides information on current depth, width and in-stream flow in Fish Creek and its main tributaries, TC requires this information at the location of specific Project components and current and potential navigational use in order to confirm navigability of the Creek at specific Project component locations. Based on the information submitted in SIR 51 for Reaches 1-5 and 8, TC accepts the proponent’s application of the Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order (MWWO). However, neither the EIS nor the SIR 51 response contains sufficient Project component-waterway information to determine navigability and potential impact to navigation for Reaches 6 and 10, on which cofferdams are proposed. Information still required includes measurements and photos at the location of the works. Information on depth, width, in-stream flow, location and current and potential navigational use for Elkin and Haines Creeks will also be necessary to determine impacts of temporary, ancillary, or fish habitat compensation works.

TC Finding #1: In order for TC to provide advice to the Panel on the potential indirect effects of Project components on navigation, the department requires details from Taseko regarding current depth, width, in-stream flow, and location on all waterways within the Fish Creek watershed where works are planned, other than Reaches 1-5 and 8 (including Fish Habitat Compensation Plan works, temporary construction works, and any others).

4.1.2 Current use of Waterways for Navigation

TC requires information on how a waterway is currently navigated in order to determine the potential impact to navigation. SIR response 51 presents statements, but not enough information to make TC confident that impacted waterways such as Little Fish Lake, Fish Creek, and Beece Creek have been studied for current use specifically. On p.5-47 of the 2009 Prosperity EIS document, Taseko mentioned that “there is occasional use of Fish Creek for kayaking;” however, TC requires more information regarding what this statement was based on, how current the information is, and specifically what portion of Fish Creek it refers to. Section 2.7.3.2 of the 2012 EIS document (page 1182) mentions that First Nations continue to go to Little Fish Lake to fish. TC could not find information on whether fishing was carried out while navigating, or from a stationary boat or the shore.

Transport Canada 13


The 2012 EIS discusses the studies and information gathered on the use of Fish Lake but not on the current use of Little Fish Lake.

According to the SIR 51 response, the 1995-1997 study was focused primarily on Fish Lake. The response does not state whether this study, containing data which is not current, would give reliable information on Little Fish Lake which has limited recreational road access. Technical and use information related to navigable waters and navigation changes over the years, and it is important to have an understanding of current use to determine effects. This response does not give TC confidence that this study, nor the available information in the 2009 EIS, gave appropriate focus on Little Fish Lake.

In addition, the 2006-2007 study that is referenced in the SIR51a-ii response appears to focus on Fish Lake (p.51-17). The 2009 Prosperity EIS document also speaks about this data, which provides a comparison of boats enumerated on the Region 5 Chilko Circuit lakes, and points to Figure 7.7 on p.7-8 of that document. However, Figure 7.7 is missing from that document and from the CEAR. TC would like to review this original table, since p.51-17 of SIR 51a-ii discusses that 2006-2007 survey and the table showing the data would be another source of information on the lakes that were studied, including Little Fish Lake. TC has reviewed the 2009/2010 project file information as well as documents within the current Project review and is not aware of any additional information on navigation within the Fish Creek watershed apart from information on Fish Lake. Further, the information that is presented on Little Fish Lake is specifically about fishing and does not clarify whether navigation is involved, since fishing is sometimes possible from shore. There does not appear to be any further information regarding potential impacts to kayaking on Fish Creek specifically.

TC Finding #2: There is insufficient information on the extent to which navigation takes place on waterways impacted by the Project to allow for the assessment of the potential indirect effects of the Project on navigation.

4.2 Tailings Storage Facility

4.2.1 Deposition of Tailings into Little Fish Lake

Taseko proposes to build the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) in the upper Fish Creek valley, in an area that encompasses Little Fish Lake and portions of Fish Creek. Potentially-Acid Generating waste rock and its overburden will be placed in a designated area located within the TSF. Appendix 2.2.4-D of the EIS describes the tailings delivery process: tailings from the milling process will be delivered to the TSF from the plant site via tailings pipelines, which are arranged to allow efficient use of the

Transport Canada 14


available TSF capacity. The use of two or more tailings pipelines will provide the ability for uninterrupted tailings deposition. As the tailings level increases through the life of the mine, a tailings pumping system will be required to distribute tailings around the TSF. The objective is to discharge the tailings slurry along the embankment crest in order to create tailings beaches to provide additional seepage control and maintain the surface pond, remote from the embankments. References: Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Section 2.2.3 – Project Description

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Section 2.7.3.2 - Impact Assessment – Navigable Waters

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Appendix 2.2.4 B – Waste Dumps and Stockpiles – Preliminary Design

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Appendix 2.2.4 D – Report on the Preliminary Design of the Tailings Storage Facility

Taseko Prosperity Gold-Copper Project, November 1995, Appendix 5-3-F – Sport Fishery Statistics from Fish Lake, British Columbia - June-October 1995

Supplemental Information Request 51 Response, June 2013

Taseko’s Conclusion: Taseko states on page 1178 of the EIS that “..it is clear that the loss of Little Fish Lake will permanently interfere with the public’s right to use and navigate the lake.” With respect to current use of the lake, Taseko mentions on p.1182 that “a review of all available sources of information, including the transcripts from the previous Panel Report, indicates that…First Nations have gone and continue to go to Fish Lake and opportunistically to Little Fish Lake to fish.” Taseko also mentions that Little Fish Lake was historically used by individuals while occupying cabin sites that are now abandoned. Page 51-16 of the SIR 51 a-ii Response states that “there is no evidence of the use of watercraft in Little Fish Lake.” Taseko states on page 1182, Section 2.7.3.2 of the EIS that:

“…the construction and operation of a TSF will result in the unavoidable loss of Little Fish Lake and thus create a permanent but site specific interference with navigation on that water body. The outlet control structures and cofferdams in portions of Fish Creek and the water management operations and structures will result in long term (>2 years) but site specific and reversible interference with navigation on portions of Fish Creek. On the other hand the ability to navigation

Transport Canada 15


[sic] portions of Fish Creek upstream of the inlet to Fish Lake will be enhanced due to water management operations and the implementation of fish and fish habitat flow mitigation measures.”

Taseko’s overall conclusion on the potential effect of the loss of Little Fish Lake is that there is no significant effect on navigation. Taseko assessed the impact by looking at two effects: physical interference with navigation and change in the public’s use of and right to navigate. Concerning ‘physical interference with navigation’, the Proponent asserts that the loss of Little Fish Lake is adverse, irreversible and long term but low in magnitude (low use area) and site specific. With respect to the ‘use of and right to navigate’, the effects with respect to Little Fish Lake are adverse, low in magnitude, site specific, permanent and irreversible and thus are not significant (p.1184, Section 2.7.3.2, September 2012). As mentioned above, Taseko assesses the effect of the TSF as a whole on navigation on portions of Upper Fish Creek as long-term, site specific and reversible. TC’s Conclusion: The development of the TSF requires permanently removing all opportunity for navigation on Little Fish Lake and portions of Fish Creek from the public, since the lake will be infilled with tailings. Conclusions on the impact to navigation must be based on comprehensive information regarding current navigational use. Neither the 2009 Prosperity Project EIS and associated review record, the Project EIS, nor the SIR 51 response, demonstrates that comprehensive or reliable information on navigation on Little Fish Lake or Reach 10 of Upper Fish Creek exists. The reference to fishing in Little Fish Lake and use by individuals while occupying now abandoned cabin sites does not sufficiently illustrate the extent to which Little Fish Lake is used specifically for navigation. As well, the reference in the 2009 Prosperity EIS to kayaking on Fish Creek does not specify the locations on Fish Creek where kayaking occurs. TC is sufficiently satisfied however, from onsite visits and existing information, that Little Fish Lake is currently used for navigation. See Appendix 1 for photographs of navigation on Little Fish Lake from TC’s library (Tsilhqot’in members using Yanah Biny, or Little Fish Lake). However, TC does not have information regarding the frequency or types of navigation currently occurring on the lake, and this information has not been found within the EIS or the available body of evidence. As discussed in Section 3.1 General Observations, the assessment of impacts to navigation can be achieved only once navigation information for the area has been collected and presented. Therefore, based on the information available, TC disagrees that the proponent can conclude that there are no significant effects on navigable waters arising from the Project based in part on those effects being low in magnitude

Transport Canada 16


(low use area). It is TC’s opinion that conclusions can only be drawn once the Proponent has presented sufficient baseline information on navigation in the Fish Creek watershed. TC’s Finding #2 above outlines the department’s need for information on the current navigational use of Little Fish Lake and the portion of Upper Fish Creek above Little Fish Lake, in the specific case of the Tailings Storage Facility, in order that TC can advise the Panel regarding the significance of the indirect effect of the loss of the lake and Creek on navigation. Due to the need for more information regarding current navigational use of Little Fish Lake and Reach 10 of Fish Creek, the mitigation measures presented on page 1183 of the 2012 EIS will need to be revisited and revised where appropriate once information on navigational use has been obtained. In light of this, the general information presented on mitigating indirect effects will require more detail. TC Finding #3: Once more information is provided on navigational use (further to Finding #2 above), mitigation for indirect effects to navigation may need to be revisited. TC Finding #4: Further detail is required on how the infilling of Little Fish Lake might affect the ability of Aboriginal groups to navigate in this area and within the Fish Creek Watershed, particularly as it relates to the exercise of a potential or established Aboriginal right. TC Finding #5: If the infilling of Little Fish Lake is expected to have an adverse impact on Aboriginal groups’ ability to exercise their potential or established Aboriginal rights while navigating on Little Fish Lake and within the Fish Creek watershed, then further detail would be required on the proposed measures for mitigation or accommodation.

4.2.2 Main Embankment

The Main Embankment of the TSF may be captured within the s.23 Proclamation of Exemption process; TC will need to confirm navigational use at the outlet to Little Fish Lake (Reach 8 at that particular location) to capture any impact of this work to navigation. SIR response 51 presents photos (Figures 51A-11, 51A-12 and 51A-13) that indicate further exploration of potential navigational use at this location is necessary, as in TC Finding #2 above.

4.2.3 Upstream cofferdam, South TSF Embankment cofferdam and South Embankment

The EIS uses various terms to describe works associated with the South Embankment: “upstream cofferdam,” “South TSF embankment cofferdam,” and “South Embankment.”

Transport Canada 17


These works are described in various sections and Appendices of the EIS. For example, Section 2.2.3 of the EIS mentions that the South Embankment will begin construction after the Main Embankment beginning in Year 1 of operations, so as to confine tailings at the south end of the Fish Creek catchment. Page 28 of Appendix 2.7.2.4 A-B Water Management Report also describes that: “Water management during construction of the TSF, Open Pit and associated facilities will consist of the following:

• A cofferdam and pumping system will be required to dewater the embankment footprint during construction. An upstream cofferdam will be constructed to prevent runoff from the upstream catchment from disrupting construction activities.”

Page 11 of Appendix 2.7.2.4 A-B Water Management Report mentions that the “main and south TSF embankment cofferdams will be designed to provide storage of runoff from the 1 in 10 year 24 hour precipitation event with a 1 m freeboard allowance.”

References: Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Section 2.7.3.2 - Impact Assessment – Navigable Waters Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Section 2.2.3 – Project Description Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Appendix 2.7.2.4 A-B - Water Management Report Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Appendix 2.2.4 D – Report on the Preliminary Design of the Tailings Storage Facility Taseko’s Conclusion: On p. 1178 in Section 2.7.3.2 (Impact Assessment - Navigable Waters), Taseko notes that none of the water management activities associated with the Project will impact navigation and/or access to Fish Lake. Page 1182 describes that “the cofferdams in portions of Fish Creek and the water management operations and structures will result in long term (>2 years) but site specific and reversible interference with navigation on portions of Fish Creek.” It also mentions that the opportunity to navigate on two much larger new bodies of water (TSF and Pit Lake) will be created. Page 1184 concludes that cofferdams placed in portions of Fish Creek are adverse and long term but are reversible, one time, low in magnitude (low use area), and site specific. There is no significant effect.

Transport Canada 18


TC’s Conclusion: It is unclear if the south TSF embankment cofferdam is the same structure as the south embankment. If they are different structures, it is unclear whether the cofferdam mentioned is temporary (e.g. during construction of the south embankment). If these two structures are separate, they may each require an approval pursuant to the NWPA since it is possible that the waterway on which they will be placed (Reach 10 of Fish Creek) could be deemed navigable. As mentioned in Section 3.1.1 above, further information from the Proponent is required in order to determine navigability of Reach 10. In Section 3.7.3 – Construction (Year–1), Appendix 2.7.2.4 A-B of the EIS, Taseko notes that “a cofferdam and pumping system will be required to dewater the embankment footprint during construction. An upstream cofferdam will be constructed to prevent runoff from the upstream catchment.” It is unclear if the upstream cofferdam is the same as the one required with a pumping system to dewater the embankment footprint during construction. Likewise, it is unclear whether either of these is the same as the south TSF embankment cofferdam, or where they are located. Temporary cofferdams located on navigable waterways may require approvals pursuant to NWPA if they impact navigation. TC was unable to find further detail or clarification elsewhere in the EIS regarding the upstream cofferdam and the south TSF embankment cofferdam (if they are temporary and separate from the south embankment), such as how they will be constructed, on which waterways they will be situated, their location or placement on those waterways, and their life-span. This information, along with information on current use of the waterways, would be necessary to inform TC’s assessment of the impact of these works on navigation, as well as the department’s regulatory decision and determination of the terms and conditions of the approval, if required. TC’s Finding #2 above outlines in more detail the need to understand the current navigational use of Little Fish Lake and the portion of Upper Fish Creek above Little Fish Lake, in the specific case of the Tailings Storage Facility, in order to determine potential impacts to navigation. TC Finding #6: Clarification is required on the number, location and permanency of the structures associated with the TSF.

TC Finding #7: Further information is needed on whether the works associated with the TSF meet the MWWO criteria (see Appendix 2 for MWWO criteria).

Transport Canada 19


4.3 Transmission Line Crossings According to Taseko’s 2009 EIS, the Project includes a 125 km long, 230 kV power transmission line to the BC Transmission Corporation (BCTC) transmission corridor in the vicinity of Dog Creek. Within the 3 km wide route, a 500 m wide corridor has been determined within which the centerline of the eventual 30 to 80 m wide right-of-way will be selected. The transmission line will consist of wood or fiberglass pole H-Frame pole structures similar to standard BCTC/BC Hydro designs with average spans of 225 m. BCTC is responsible for providing a basic transmission extension. BCTC shall construct to BCTC standards, own, operate, and maintain the basic transmission extension. Taseko will build a 230 kV substation at the mine site. References: Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Section 2.7.3.2 - Impact Assessment – Navigable Waters

Taseko’s Prosperity Project EIS/Application, March 2009, Volume 3, Ch.6.11 – Project Description and Scope of Project - Transmission Line

Taseko’s Prosperity Project EIS/Application, March 2009, Volume 6, Ch.7 – Navigable Waters

Review of the EIS and Additional Documentation – Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine - Technical Analysis Submitted by TC, April 16, 2010

4.3.1 Fraser River Crossing

The actual Fraser River crossing is in the magnitude of 710 m and represents minimal design and construction difficulties. Sites on either side of the river will have restricted vehicular construction access. PoIes on either side were established to align for a perpendicular crossing at sites suitable for construction.

4.3.2 Big Creek Crossing

The transmission line passes Mons Lake and eventually crosses over Big Creek almost perpendicularly.

4.3.3 Analysis

Taseko’s Conclusion: Taseko concludes within s.2.7.3.2 of the EIS that the transmission line would not directly affect navigable waters as the line would span all crossing sites. Taseko notes that during the final design phase, the Fraser River crossing would need to be reviewed by TC to determine if lighting or marking of transmission line structures would be required to meet safety standards.

Transport Canada 20


TC’s Conclusion: In TC’s April 2010 Technical Analysis submitted to the Prosperity Mine Review Panel, the department noted that off-site construction of the transmission line crossings over Big Creek and the Fraser River could interfere with navigation. This statement and the conclusions drawn by TC in 2010 have not changed since the design of the transmission line for the New Prosperity Project remains the same as for the Prosperity Project proposal. In the information supplied by Taseko during the 2009-2010 review, placement of the transmission lines over navigable waterways are considered ‘other than substantial’ interference. Experience with this type of work demonstrates that if appropriate design work is conducted and a full understanding of waterway user needs is known, the works can be easily mitigated. Provided there is enough vertical clearance between the lowest part of the lines and the seasonal high water of the subject waterways, it is possible to mitigate interferences to navigation during the design phase of the Project. 4.4 Fish Lake Flood Control dams downstream of Fish Lake, across Fish Creek According to EIS Appendix 2.2.5-A, two Flood Control Dams (FCDs) are required to manage Fish Lake levels during times of high inflows to Fish Lake. Two dams that form a barrier to water will be constructed at the northwest end of Fish Lake. They are to be situated approximately 100 m downstream of the Fish Lake outlet and 200 m upstream of the ultimate open pit rim. The EIS also refers to the placement of two cofferdams in the initial stages of construction period across Fish Creek, at the north end of Fish Lake. These would be located near the natural outlet as part of outlet control structure defined as the Fish Lake Flood Control Dam. References: Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Section 2.7.3.2 - Impact Assessment – Navigable Waters

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Appendix 2.2.5 A – Conceptual Design of Fish Lake Flood Control Dams

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012, Appendix 2.7.2.4 A-B – Water Management Report

Taseko’s Conclusion: Section 2.7.3.2 of the EIS concludes that the outlet control structures and cofferdams in portions of Fish Creek and the water management operations and structures will result in long term (>2 years) but site specific and reversible interference with navigation on portions of Fish Creek. However, the ability to navigate portions of Fish Creek upstream

Transport Canada 21


of the inlet to Fish Lake will be enhanced due to water management operations and the implementation of fish and fish habitat flow mitigation measures. Taseko concludes that concerning physical interference to navigation, cofferdams placed in portions of Fish Creek are adverse and long term but are reversible, one time, low in magnitude (low use area), and site specific. There is no significant effect. On page 1184, the EIS concludes: “with respect to the use of and right to navigate (or in other words, the impact on use for navigational purposes), the effects in Fish Creek are positive in some reaches and adverse in others, of low magnitude, local, regular and long term and there is no significant effect. At the end of the Project flows will be restored to baseline levels for the entire creek.” TC’s Conclusion: The EIS Guidelines (p.56) state that the proponent should identify any Project components, including a description of any activities, that may affect waterways and that fall outside the scope of the MWWO. As the EIS (p.1172-1173) states that the flow control structure and associated works on this portion of Fish Creek may be subject to NWPA approvals, TC will require the information referenced in Findings #1 and #2 above from the Proponent in order to advise the Panel of any conclusions related to this portion of the proposed Project and its potential effects. As referenced in Finding #1 above, the NWPP requires specific waterway information for the exact location on the waterway where a work will be placed in order to make a determination on navigability. While the EIS includes plan and section drawings, further detail as to the placement of the cofferdams on the landscape (in relation to waterways) is needed. For example, the resolution of Figure 2.7.3.2-2 is not high enough for TC to see exact location of the cofferdams on the waterways. Taseko referenced Section 2.7.2.4A as containing additional technical details regarding the FCD; however, no additional details could be found there. Figure 51A-1 in SIR 51 provides a good representation of the distance of the cofferdams from the open pit and Fish Lake; however, it does not clearly show the physical nature of Fish Creek at that location. An overlay of the cofferdam on a photo of Fish Creek, for example, would provide a clear representation. TC assumes that the FCD would be located on Reach 6 of Fish Creek. Reach 6 does not fit the MWWO parameters (i.e. Table 51 A-1 lists Reach 6 as having an average full bank channel width of 4m and an average wetted width of 2.9m, which appear to exceed the average width at the high-water level of 1.2m; see section 11(1)(a) of the Order in Appendix 2). There was some indication in the 2009 Prosperity EIS of kayaking on Fish Creek and navigation could occur on Reach 6 via kayak, canoe, etc. Since Reach 6 does not fit the MWWO parameters, information on current and potential

Transport Canada 22


navigational use is required in order to determine the level of impact associated with the interference to navigation. Further, the EIS states on p.1177 that “In the initial stages of the construction period, two cofferdams will be placed across Fish Creek, at the north end of Fish Lake near the natural outlet as part of outlet control structure defined as the Fish Lake Flood Control Dam (FCD).” TC is unclear whether these two cofferdams are temporary or whether they form a portion of the Fish Lake Flood Control Dams. It is unclear in portions of the EIS whether the titles “cofferdam” and “flood control dam” are used interchangeably or whether they are intended to refer to different structures. If the two cofferdams are temporary and are proposed in addition to the FCDs, TC will also need the information specific to these structures in order to understand potential impacts to navigation. TC is unable to conclude whether Taseko’s predictions regarding significance of potential negative effects on navigation are reasonable due to the information missing from the EIS regarding navigational use and technical detail, outlined in TC Findings #1 and #2 in Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 above, and the requirement for clarification on the location and nature of the proposed dams.

TC Finding #8: In order to fully assess the potential indirect effects of the various cofferdams and Flood Control Dams proposed for Fish Creek downstream of Fish Lake, more information is required on: 1. the proposed structures and the terminology used; 2. the location of the cofferdam(s) and a photo to show the physical nature of Fish Creek at those locations; 3. the use of Fish Creek for navigation at those particular locations (as mentioned in TC’s earlier Finding #2); and, 4. the impacts of the works on navigation as they relate to the exercise of potential or established Aboriginal rights and measures to mitigate or accommodate for any adverse impacts. 4.5 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Structures on Elkin Creek Section 2.7.2.5 (p. 888, Compensation Overview - Fisheries Act 35(2)) and Appendix 2.7.2.5-A (p. 37, Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan) of the EIS describe elements of the Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan, including upgrades to the existing diversion structure, construction of a containment berm(s) in upper Elkin Creek, and bank stabilization in lower Elkin Creek. References: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s EIS Guidelines for the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project, March 2012

Transport Canada 23


Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012 - Section 2.7.2.5 - Fish & Fish Habitat

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012 - Appendix 2.7.2.5-A, Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (August 2012)

Supplemental Information Request 51 Response, June 2013 Taseko’s Conclusion: On page 1183, Section 2.7.3.2 (Navigable Waters) of the EIS, no conclusion was made on the navigability of Elkin Creek, the nature of the work (i.e. minor or not after the application of the MWWO) being proposed on Elkin Creek, and/or the potential indirect effects to navigation of the Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan work proposed on Elkin Creek. On page 51-3, Supplemental Information Request 51 response, Taseko notes that “the proposed mine will have little impact on waterways and water bodies with respect to navigation. Creeks and streams that would be affected by the project are not navigable.” TC’s Conclusion: In Section 2.7.3.2 (Navigable Waters), page 56 of the EIS Guidelines, it is states that the EIS “will describe any ancillary and temporary works (e.g., cofferdams, detours, fencing, temporary bridges, or bridge replacements along existing and proposed road alignments) including, where available, approximate dimensions.” Within section 3.4 of the Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan, a “containment berm” is mentioned, as well as a “protective set-back berm” (p.37). It is unclear whether the terms ‘set-back berms” and “containment berms” are used interchangeably. Section 2.7.3.2 (Navigable Waters) of the EIS, under the heading “Ancillary and Temporary Works and Activities” (p. 1177), there is no mention of Elkin Creek, nor its diversion structure upgrade as described in Appendix 2.7.2.5 A. Neither does it mention whether this creek is potentially navigable or whether the works would potentially require approvals pursuant to the NWPA. SIR 51a-i requested information and an assessment of the impacts on the waterways and water bodies in relation to interference to navigation. The SIR 51 response did not explore information relating to the potential impact of some of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan ancillary/temporary works (captured in the 2012 EIS). Without information on the fish and fish habitat compensation work to be carried out on Elkin Creek and associated waterways details, TC cannot draw conclusions on the assessment of potential direct and indirect effects to navigation and/or navigability on

Transport Canada 24


Elkin Creek. Potential upgrades to any existing NWPA-approved structure(s) in the Elkin Creek watershed, as well as works on navigable sections of Elkin Creek which may not be previously NWPA-approved, may require a regulatory approval. Therefore, the above information would be integral to assessing these works for potential effects to navigation. TC has some indication that portions of the waterway, where the department previously approved structures, may be navigable. Further details on the proposed works would enable the appropriate questions to be asked regarding navigational use. TC Finding #9: In relation to Fish Habitat Compensation structures on Elkin Creek, information is required on the characterization and navigability of Elkin Creek, and an assessment, including an assessment against MWWO criteria, of the navigational impacts on Elkin Creek. 4.6 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Structures on Haines Creek Section 2.7.2.5 (p. 888, Compensation Overview - Fisheries Act 35(2)) and Appendix 2.7.2.5-A (Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan) of the EIS mention that elements of the Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan include upgrades to the existing diversion structure in the Haines Creek watershed. In addition, Appendix 2.7.2.5-A mentions the replacement or restoration of existing berms, or the construction of new berms as required to prevent substantial seepage losses which occurs at several locations along the diversion channel and upstream from the Taseko Lake Road culvert crossing. The replacement of the twin Haines Creek culverts on Taseko Lake Road by one single-span bottomless culvert with an open bottom structure (OBS) is also proposed. References: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s EIS Guidelines for the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project, March 2012

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012 - Section 2.7.2.5 - Fish & Fish Habitat

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012 - Appendix 2.7.2.5-A, Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (August 2012)


Transport Canada 25


Taseko’s Conclusion: On page 1183 of Section 2.7.3.2 (Navigable Waters) of the EIS, no conclusions were made on the navigability of Haines Creek, the nature of the work(s) being proposed on Haines Creek (i.e. minor or not after application of the MWWO), or the potential indirect effects of the proposed Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan work on navigation on Haines Creek. On page 51-3 of SIR 5 response, Taseko notes that “the proposed mine will have little impact on waterways and water bodies with respect to navigation. Creeks and streams that would be affected by the project are not navigable.” TC’s Conclusion: In Section 2.7.3.2 (Navigable Waters), page 56 of the EIS Guidelines, it is stated that the EIS “will describe any ancillary and temporary works (e.g., cofferdams, detours, fencing, temporary bridges, or bridge replacements along existing and proposed road alignments) including, where available, approximate dimensions.” Section 2.7.2.5 (p. 888, Compensation Overview - Fisheries Act 35(2)) and Appendix 2.7.2.5-A (Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan) of the EIS mention that elements of the Fish and Fish Habitat Compensation Plan include upgrades to the existing diversion structure in the Haines Creek watershed. In Section 2.7.3.2 of the EIS (Navigable Waters), there is no mention of Haines Creek, nor its diversion structure upgrade (i.e. replacement of twin culverts by one single-span bottomless culvert) and berm (i.e. replacement/restoration of existing berms or construction of new berms) as described. Nor is there any mention of whether this creek is potentially navigable or whether the works would potentially require approval pursuant to the NWPA. SIR 51a-i requested information and an assessment of the impacts on the waterways and water bodies in relation to interference to navigation. The Response did not explore information relating the potential impact of some of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan ancillary/temporary works (captured in the 2012 EIS) to Haines Creek. Without information on the fish and fish habitat compensation work to be carried out on Haines Creek and associated waterway details, TC cannot draw conclusions on the assessment of potential direct and indirect effects to navigation and/or navigability on Haines Creek. TC Finding #10: In relation to Fish Habitat Compensation structures on Haines Creek, information is required on the characterization and navigability of Haines Creek, and an assessment, including an assessment against MWWO criteria, of the navigational impacts on Haines Creek.

Transport Canada 26


4.7 Other Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Structures or Temporary/Ancillary Works TC would like to note that other Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Structures on other waterways, that may require TC regulatory approval, would need to be assessed for potential impacts to navigation. TC Finding #11: In relation to any other Fish Habitat Compensation structures, information is required on the characterization of the work and the waterway, its navigational use (per Finding #2), as well as an assessment, including an assessment against MWWO criteria, of the navigational impacts. 4.8 Impacts from closure and post-closure on Beece Creek The EIS states on page 623 that: “For Beece Creek, the Project will result in no change during operations and an increase to surface water streamflow in postclosure. This effect will have no change to the contributing drainage area to Wasp Lake and Beece Creek from construction to closure. In closure and post-closure, the watershed area of Wasp Lake will be permanently increased from baseline conditions. The increase in surface water streamflow during closure and post-closure is irreversible, although the change is minor compared to the mean annual runoff for Beece Creek.” References: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s EIS Guidelines for the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project, March 2012

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012 – Section 2.7.2.4 (Impact Assessment – Water Quality and Quantity)

Taseko’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project EIS, September 2012 – Appendix 2.7.2.4 A-C (Numerical Hydrogeologic Analysis)


Taseko’s Conclusion: On page 623 of Section 2.7.2.4 in the EIS, Taseko notes that, with respect to Beece Creek, “the Project will result in no change during operations and an increase to surface water streamflow in postclosure. This effect will have no change to the contributing drainage area to Beece Creek from construction to closure. In closure and post-closure, the watershed area of Wasp Lake will be permanently increased from baseline conditions. The increase in surface water streamflow during closure and post-closure is irreversible, although the change is minor compared to the mean annual runoff for Beece Creek.”

Transport Canada 27


On page 627 of Section 2.7.2.4 in the EIS, Taseko notes that “the average annual flow volumes are not expected to change during operations, and increase by 2.5% in post-closure. Due to the large size of the Beece Creek watershed, the annual increase or decrease in flow volume due to the Project is considered minor.” Taseko concludes that "for Beece Creek, the development of the Project will have a positive effect by increasing the flows in post-closure. There will be no change to flows during operations and closure” (p.633, Section 2.7.2.4). TC’s Conclusion: Increases in flows are not necessarily a positive development from a navigation perspective. More information regarding how the waterway is used would help determine whether any impact to navigation would be considered positive or negative in this case. TC Finding #12: Information is required on the current and navigational use of Beece Creek.

5.0 Summary of Findings 4.1 General Observations 4.1.1 Navigability of Waterways: technical information Finding #1: In order for TC to provide advice to the Panel on the potential indirect effects of Project components on navigation, the department requires details from Taseko regarding current depth, width, in-stream flow, and location on all waterways within the Fish Creek watershed where works are planned, other than Reaches 1-5 and 8 (including Fish Habitat Compensation Plan works, temporary construction works, and any others). 4.1.2 Current use of Waterways for Navigation Finding #2: There is insufficient information on the extent to which navigation takes place on waterways impacted by the Project to allow for the assessment of the potential indirect effects of the Project on navigation.

4.2 Tailings Storage Facility 4.2.1 Deposition of Tailings into Little Fish Lake Finding #3: Once more information is provided on navigational use (further to Finding #2 above), mitigation for indirect effects to navigation may need to be revisited.

Transport Canada 28


Finding #4: Further detail is required on how the infilling of Little Fish Lake might affect the ability of Aboriginal groups to navigate in this area and within the Fish Creek Watershed, particularly as it relates to the exercise of a potential or established Aboriginal right. Finding #5: If the infilling of Little Fish Lake is expected to have an adverse impact on Aboriginal groups’ ability to exercise their potential or established Aboriginal rights while navigating on Little Fish Lake and within the Fish Creek watershed, then further detail would be required on the proposed measures for mitigation or accommodation. 4.2.3 Upstream cofferdam, South TSF Embankment cofferdam and South Embankment Finding #6: Clarification is required on the number, location and permanency of the structures associated with the TSF. Finding #7: Further information is required on whether the works associated with the TSF meet the MWWO criteria (see Appendix 2 for MWWO criteria). 4.4 Fish Lake Flood Control dams downstream of Fish Lake, across Fish Creek Finding #8: In order to fully assess the potential indirect effects of the various cofferdams and Flood Control Dams proposed for Fish Creek downstream of Fish Lake, more information is required on: 1. the proposed structures and the terminology used; 2. the location of the cofferdam(s) and a photo to show the physical nature of Fish Creek at those locations; 3. the use of Fish Creek for navigation at those particular locations (as mentioned in TC’s earlier Finding #2); and, 4. the impacts of the works on navigation as they relate to the exercise of potential or established Aboriginal rights and measures to mitigate or accommodate for any adverse impacts. 4.5 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Structures on Elkin Creek Finding #9: In relation to Fish Habitat Compensation structures on Elkin Creek, information is required on the characterization and navigability of Elkin Creek, and an assessment, including an assessment against MWWO criteria, of the navigational impacts on Elkin Creek.

Transport Canada 29


4.6 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Structures on Haines Creek Finding #10: In relation to Fish Habitat Compensation structures on Haines Creek, information is required on the characterization and navigability of Haines Creek, and an assessment, including an assessment against MWWO criteria, of the navigational impacts on Haines Creek. 4.7 Other Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Structures or Temporary/Ancillary Works Finding #11: In relation to any other Fish Habitat Compensation structures, information is required on the characterization of the work and the waterway, its navigational use (per Finding #2), as well as an assessment, including an assessment against MWWO criteria, of the navigational impacts. Section 4.8 Impacts from closure and post-closure on Beece Creek Finding #12: Information is required on the current and navigational use of Beece Creek.

6.0 Conclusion This document highlights that there are a number of components of the proposed New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project that fall within TC’s mandate, specifically:

• the proposed deposition of tailings into Little Fish Lake as a portion of the Tailings Storage Facility,

• transmission line crossings over the Fraser River and Big Creek, and the proposed cofferdams on Middle and Upper Fish Creek, and,

• the proposed Fish Habitat Compensation Plan structures or modifications of structures on Haines and Elkin Creeks.

TC anticipates working with Taseko to ensure any impacts to navigation posed by the Project are reviewed and minimized through appropriate mitigation measures. However, at this time TC is unable to provide an assessment of the conclusions drawn in the 2012 EIS for the reasons discussed in the sections above. Should TC receive additional technical details of all planned works and appropriate navigational use information for the impacted waterways, the department may be in the position to present its views on the Project and its potential effects on navigation, to the Review Panel.

Transport Canada 30


Appendix 1: Navigation on Little Fish Lake - Tsilhqot’in members using Yanah Biny, September 28, 2011

Transport Canada 31


Appendix 2: Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pursuant to

subsection 13(1) (see footnote d) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (see footnote e), hereby makes the annexed Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order.

Ottawa, April 22, 2009

JOHN BAIRD

Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

MINOR WORKS AND WATERS

(NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT) ORDER

INTERPRETATION

Definitions 1. The following definitions apply in this Order.

“Act” « Loi » “Act” means the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

“berm”

« berme » “berm” means a temporary earth-filled structure

serving as a work platform or vehicle access to

permit the construction of works in navigable

waters.

“charted navigable

waters”

« plan d’eau navigable cartographié »

“charted navigable waters” means navigable waters

for which navigation charts are produced by the

Canadian Hydrographic Service.

“dock”

« petit quai » “dock” includes a wharf, a pier and a jetty.

“high-water mark”

« laisse des hautes eaux »

“high-water mark” means the mark left on the

landscape by the highest level reached by navigable

waters that has been maintained for a sufficient

period to leave the mark on the landscape.

“navigation channel”

« chenal de navigation »

“navigation channel” means a charted channel, a

buoyed channel or a channel that, based on local

knowledge, exists for navigation purposes.

EROSION PROTECTION WORKS

Definitions 2. (1) The following definitions apply in this section.

“erosion protection

works”

« ouvrages de protection contre l’érosion »

“erosion protection works” means shoreline-

stabilization, riprap or bank-protection works.

“groyne or spur”

« épi ou éperon » “groyne or spur” means a structure built out from

the bank of navigable waters in a direction

transverse to the current in order to prevent erosion

of the bank.

“riprap”

« enrochement » “riprap” means a layer of stones or rocks placed

irregularly on a slope or a bank of navigable waters

in order to protect it against scouring or erosion.

“shoreline

stabilization”

« stabilisation des

“shoreline stabilization” means stones, rocks,

concrete, tree trunks or other materials placed in

order to protect the shores of navigable waters from

WATSONG

Typewritten Text

rives » erosion.

Class established (2) Erosion protection works are established as a class

of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act

if

(a) the works are integrated with and parallel to the existing or natural shoreline or bank;

(b) the base of the works is 5 m or less from the high-water mark;

(c) the vertical to horizontal slope of the works from the navigable waters is greater than 33%;

(d) the works are not associated with an existing or proposed structure, including a bridge, a boom, a dam or a road, across the navigable waters; and

(e) the works do not include groynes or spurs or other devices to deflect the current.

Terms and conditions

— during construction

or placement

(3) The following terms and conditions are imposed during the construction or placement of the works:

(a) vessels shall be allowed safe access through the work site at all times, and shall be assisted as necessary; and

(b) if the works are in, on or under a river, a stream, a

creek or similar navigable waters of a width set out in

column 1 of the table to this subsection, signs stating

“Warning — Construction Ahead” and “Attention —

Travaux de construction” that are legible from at least

50 m shall be in place, upstream and downstream from

the work site, at the minimum distance set out in

column 2.

TABLE

Item

Column 1

Width of navigable waters

Column 2

Minimum distance

1. Less than 10 m 25 m

2. 10 m or more but less than 20 m 50 m


4. 50 m or more 200 m

DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES

Class established 3. Docks and boathouses are established as a class of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act if

(a) the works are at least 5 m from the adjacent property boundaries and property line extensions;

(b) the works are at least 10 m from any dock, boathouse

or other structure that is fully or partially in, on or over the navigable waters;

(c) the extremity of the works that is furthest from the

land is at least 30 m away from any navigation channel;

(d) the works do not extend further in, on or over the navigable waters than any adjacent docks;

(e) the works are not associated with any other proposed works, such as launch ramps, breakwaters, landfill, dredging and marinas; and

(f) the works are not used for float planes or other aircraft equipped with floats.

WINTER CROSSINGS


“crossing”

« traversée » “crossing” means a temporary bridge, ice bridge or

similar structure intended to facilitate the movement of

vehicles and equipment.

“ice breaker”

« brise-glace » “ice breaker” means a vessel specially designed and

constructed for the purpose of navigating through ice.

Class established (2) Crossings built or placed on, over or across navigable

waters that are frozen to such an extent that navigating by

a vessel other than an ice breaker is not possible are

established as a class of works for the purposes of

subsection 5.1(1) of the Act.

Terms and

conditions

(3) The following terms and conditions are imposed:

(a) before spring break-up commences, all parts of the

works, including piers, abutments, log fills and debris,

shall be completely removed from the navigable waters,

including the area from the waters’ edge to the high-

water mark; and

(b) before the navigable waters are thawed to such an extent that navigating by a vessel other than an ice

breaker is possible, the bed of the navigable waters shall

be restored to its natural contours if the works disturbed

it.

AERIAL CABLES — POWER AND COMMUNICATION

Class established 5. (1) Aerial cables that consist only of power lines and

communication cables, and the associated structures and

equipment, are established as a class of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act if

(a) the width of the navigable waters that the cables are over or across is less than 15 m when measured from the

high-water mark on one side to the high-water mark on the other side of the waters;

(b) the works meet the design and construction

requirements of Overhead Systems, CAN/CSA-C22.3 No. 1-06, as amended from time to time;

(c) the works are more than 1 000 m from any lake or

tidal waters;

(d) the works are not over or across charted navigable waters;

(e) the works are not over or across a canal that is accessible to the public; and

(f) the works do not include towers or poles within the navigable waters, including within the area from the

waters’ edge to the high-water mark.

Terms and

conditions —

during construction

or placement


(a) if the works are over or across a river, a stream, a

creek or similar navigable waters, signs stating “Warning

– Construction Ahead” and “Attention – Travaux de

construction” that are legible from at least 50 m shall be

in place 50 m upstream and downstream from the work site;

(b) vessels shall be allowed safe access through the work site at all times, and shall be assisted as necessary;

(c) any cables intended to be part of the works, and any temporary cables, that do not meet the design and

construction requirements of the standard referred to in

paragraph (1)(b) shall not be left unattended or unsupervised; and

(d) any temporarily submerged cables that are not lying

on the bed of the navigable waters shall not be left

unattended or unsupervised.

Term and condition

— maintenance

and operation

(3) A term and condition is that the works shall be

maintained and operated in accordance with the

requirements of the standard referred to in paragraph

(1)(b).

SUBMARINE CABLES — POWER AND COMMUNICATION

Class established 6. Submarine cables that consist only of power lines and

communication cables are established as a class of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act if

(a) the works lie on or under the natural contours of the bed of the navigable waters;

(b) the works are more than 10 m from any dock or boat

launch;

(c) the works are not in or under charted navigable waters; and

(d) the works are not across the entrance to any port, including any marina or yacht club.

PIPELINE CROSSINGS

Class established 7. (1) Pipelines that are buried beneath the bed of

navigable waters are established as a class of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act unless

(a) the works are regulated under the National Energy Board Act;

(b) the works are under charted navigable waters;

(c) the works require the placement of temporary cables

not lying on the bed of the waters, to facilitate the

construction, placement, testing, alteration or repair of

the works; or

(d) the width of the waters at the crossing location exceeds 50 m.

Terms and

conditions —

during construction

or placement


(a) vessels shall be allowed safe access through the work site at all times, and shall be assisted as necessary; and

(b) if the works — unless they are directionally drilled

pipelines — are under a river, a stream, a creek or similar

navigable waters of a width set out in column 1 of the

table to this subsection, signs stating “Warning —

Construction Ahead” and “Attention — Travaux de

construction” that are legible from at least 50 m shall be

in place, upstream and downstream from the work site, at

the minimum distance set out in column 2.

TABLE

Item

Column 1

Width of navigable waters

Column 2

Minimum distance

1. Less than 10 m 25 m



4. 50 m or more 200 m

Term and condition —

on completion of

construction

(3) A term and condition is that the bed of the

navigable waters shall be restored to its natural

contours on completion of the construction of the

works.

WATER INTAKES


“crib”

« encoffrement » “crib” means pieces of timber affixed together to

form bays or cells that are filled with stones or

concrete.

“headpond”

« bassin d’amont » “headpond” means a reservoir of water created by

the construction of a dam or weir.

“weir”

« déversoir »

“weir” means a low dam or barrier that raises the

level or diverts the flow of navigable waters.

Class established (2) Water intakes are established as a class of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act if

(a) the intake pipe is less than 10 cm in diameter and lies on the bed of the navigable waters;

(b) the intake end of the works is

(i) in waters more than 2.5 m in depth, in the case of uncharted navigable waters, or

(ii) in waters less than 0.5 m, according to chart datum, in the case of charted navigable waters;

(c) the works are more than 50 m from a navigation channel;

(d) the works do not include a crib or other intake structure, such as an anchor, a collar or a weight,

that extends more than 50 cm above the bed of the navigable waters; and

(e) the works are not associated with a dam, a weir

or a headpond, including a proposed dam, weir or

headpond.

Term and condition (3) A term and condition is that no floating pipes

shall be left unattended or unsupervised during the

construction or placement of the works.

DREDGING

Class established 9. (1) Dredging is established as a class of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act if

(a) the works consist of regular maintenance around

docks, retaining walls, marina basins or other

structures;

(b) the works and associated marine equipment are more than 30 m from a navigation channel;

(c) all dredged materials are disposed of

(i) above the high-water mark, or

(ii) in waters where the disposal is authorized by

or under an Act of Parliament and where there are

more than 20 fathoms (36.576 m) of water at all times;

(d) no suction dredging that includes any floating or submerged pipes is used;

(e) the works have no cables that cross on, over or through any portion of the navigable waters; and

(f) the works do not include blasting.

Terms and conditions (2) The following terms and conditions are imposed:

(a) if the works are in charted navigable waters, before commencing the works, the owner shall

request the Canadian Coast Guard to issue a Notice to Shipping; and

(b) vessels shall be allowed safe access through the work site at all times, and shall be assisted as

necessary.

TEMPORARY WORKS

Class established 10. (1) Temporary works that are required for the

construction or placement of works of a class

established by any of sections 2 to 9 are established as

a class of works for the purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act unless the temporary works

(a) are roads, bridges, dams, cofferdams, berms or booms;

(b) change the course of the navigation channel in the navigable waters;

(c) cross more than halfway from one side of the navigable waters to the other side; or

(d) are in, on, over, under, through or across a navigation channel.

Terms and conditions —

during construction or

placement

(2) The following terms and conditions are imposed

during the construction or placement of the temporary works:

(a) vessels shall be allowed safe access through the work site at all times, and shall be assisted as necessary;

(b) in the case of temporary works that are on, over

or across navigable waters, the temporary works

shall, from dusk to dawn and during periods of

restricted visibility, be marked with yellow flashing lights that are

(i) located on the end of the works furthest from

the nearest bank or shore of the waters, if the works are not more than 3 m in length,

(ii) located on each end of the works, if the works

are more than 3 m in length but not more than 30 m in length, or

(iii) located on each end of the works and on any

other location on the works so that the lights are

spaced not more than 30 m apart, if the works are more than 30 m in length; and

(c) in the case of temporary works that are in or

through navigable waters, the temporary works shall

be marked with cautionary buoys that meet the

requirements of the Private Buoy Regulations, are lighted from dusk to dawn and during periods of restricted visibility, and are

(i) located on the end of the works furthest from

the nearest bank or shore of the waters, if the works are not more than 3 m in length,

(ii) located on each end of the works, if the works

are more than 3 m in length but not more than 30

m in length, or

(iii) located on each end of the works and on any

other location on the works so that the buoys are

spaced not more than 30 m apart, if the works are

more than 30 m in length.

Term and condition —

on completion of

construction or

placement

(3) The following terms and conditions are imposed

on completion of the construction or placement of the

other works for which the temporary works were required:

(a) the temporary works shall be completely removed; and

(b) if the temporary works disturbed the bed of the

navigable waters, it shall be restored to its natural

contours.

MINOR NAVIGABLE WATERS


“natural obstacle” “natural obstacle” means a natural physical

« obstacle naturel » obstruction in navigable waters, such as a beaver

dam, a deadfall, a steep drop or thick vegetation,

that prevents the passage of a vessel.

“high-water level”

« laisse des hautes eaux »

“high-water level” means the level at which

navigable waters begin to overflow their natural

banks.

“sections of navigable

waters”

« sections des eaux navigables »

“sections of navigable waters” means 200 m long

sections of navigable waters.

Class established —

width or depth of

navigable waters

(2) Sections of navigable waters are established as a

class of navigable waters for the purposes of subsection

5.1(1) of the Act if

(a) the average width of the navigable waters measured at the high-water level is less than 1.20 m; or

(b) the average depth of the navigable waters measured at the high-water level is less than

0.30 m.

Class established —

width of navigable

waters and other

criteria

(3) Sections of navigable waters are established as a


5.1(1) of the Act if the average width of the navigable

waters measured at the high-water level is 1.20 m or more but not more than 3.00 m and

(a) the average depth of the navigable waters measured at the high-water level is 0.30 m or more

but not more than 0.60 m;

(b) the slope of the navigable waters measured at

the high-water level is greater than 4%;

(c) the sinuosity ratio is greater than 2; or

(d) there are more than two natural obstacles in the

navigable waters, at least one of which is upstream

and another of which is downstream from the

midpoint of the centre line of the navigable waters.

Slope and sinuosity

ratio

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3),

(a) the slope of the navigable waters is the differential elevation of the water surface from the

upstream end of the centre line of the navigable waters to the downstream end of that line; and

(b) the sinuosity ratio is the ratio of the length of the centre line of the navigable waters to the length of a

straight line that starts and ends at the same points

as the centre line.

Term and condition (5) With respect to any work built or placed in, on,

over, under, through or across navigable waters of a

class established by subsection (2) or (3), a term and

condition is that the midpoint of the work shall be built

or placed 100 m from each end of navigable waters of

that class.

Non-application (6) Subsection (5) does not apply to

(a) works of a class established by any of sections 2 to 10; or

(b) temporary works that are required for the

construction or placement of a work that meets the

term and condition referred to in that subsection,

unless the temporary works

(i) are roads, bridges, dams, cofferdams, berms or booms,

(ii) change the course of the navigation channel in the navigable waters, or

(iii) cross more than halfway from one side of the navigable waters to the other side, or

(iv) are in, on, over, under, through or across a

navigation channel.

ARTIFICIAL IRRIGATION CHANNELS AND DRAINAGE

DITCHES

Class established 12. Artificial irrigation channels and drainage

ditches, other than ones created or built in whole or in

part from a natural body of water, that have an

average width of less than 3.00 m are established as a


5.1(1) of the Act.

PRIVATE LAKES

Class established 13. Lakes that are 5 hectares or less in area are

established as a class of navigable waters for the

purposes of subsection 5.1(1) of the Act if

(a) one person, other than Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, is the registered owner of all of the land abutting the lake;

(b) there are no navigable waters that enter into or exit from the lake;

(c) there is no current or past public access to the lake; and

(d) there are no easements or servitudes that allow

access to the lake.

COMING INTO FORCE

Date of coming into

force

14. This Order comes into force 30 days after the

day on which it is published in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

[19-1-o]

CURRICULUM VITAE

GINA AITCHISON

Transport Canada, 800 Burrard St. Vancouver, BC V6Z 2J8

EDUCATION

Capilano College, North Vancouver, BC

Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Environmental Science and Management 2005

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

BSc Global Resource Systems 2004

Majors: Environmental Science, European Studies

RELATED EXPERIENCE

Transport Canada, Vancouver, BC

Senior Environmental Officer Dec 2011-Present

• Manage environmental assessment for Transport Canada (TC) on a variety of major Designated and

Transitional project reviews under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012)

and the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).

• Worked with the department on CEAA, 2012 implementation and guidance.

• Assist with Aboriginal consultation on several major mining projects.

Transport Canada, Ottawa, ON

Environmental Assessment Officer Aug 2010 – Dec 2011

• Provided guidance, support and assistance in environmental assessment issues and processes to

Ontario and Atlantic Regions as Portfolio Manager.

• Provided advice to senior management on complex environmental assessment issues such as scoping

for international crossing projects.

• Represented TC on an intergovernmental advisory committee for the Major Projects Management

Office evaluation.

• Interpreted the CEAA as it applies to TC and provided comments on various guidance and interest

publications being drafted by other government departments and bodies, such as the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency and the United Nations.

• Contributed to the management of TC’s environmental assessment role in the proposed international

rail tunnel crossing project from Detroit, USA to Windsor, Canada.

Transport Canada, Vancouver, BC Oct 2006-May 2007;

Environmental Officer Sept 2007-July 2010

• Completed Environmental Assessments as Responsible Authority and Federal Environmental

Assessment Coordinator under the CEAA; determined the environmental impacts of the proposed

project and identified appropriate mitigation measures through working with a multidisciplinary team.

• Consulted with First Nations throughout the federal environmental assessment process.

• Environmental Awareness and Environmental Management Coordinator; developed and delivered

environmental projects that engaged the TC community in greening operations and encouraged

environmental consciousness.

Gina Aitchison Page 2

Health Canada, Burnaby, BC

Safe Environments Specialist June 2007-Sept 2007

• Provided expert federal advice during federal and harmonised environmental assessments on many

types of projects, such as wind farm, independent power, transmission line and water system projects.

• Worked with a multidisciplinary team during harmonized environmental assessments in British

Columbia, including expert federal departments as well as provincial experts, consultants, and others.

• Worked closely with First Nations to ensure an informed environmental assessment.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Vancouver, BC

Junior Policy Analyst Mar-Sept 2006

• Assisted with various steps in Comprehensive Study reviews.

• Assisted Senior Program Officers in the facilitation of community engagement processes with BC First

Nations during the environmental assessment review of proposed projects.

• Played a supporting role during the development of environmental assessment chapters in draft

Treaties through the BC Treaty Process.

• Engaged in Aboriginal capacity-building through participation in the First Nations Environmental

Assessment Technical Working Group.

Environmental Youth Alliance, Vancouver, BC

Urban Agriculture Specialist Jan-Mar 2006

• Integrated and analyzed scientific and anecdotal information related to food security issues in

Vancouver and engaged with youth in the community to create a summary document that presented

key information about food security to the public.

• Demonstrated the ability to plan, organize and implement a project by developing a tour for delegates

attending the United Nations World Urban Forum that showcased urban agriculture in Vancouver, and

by producing a self-guided walking tour map of significant examples of urban agriculture in Vancouver.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Burnaby, BC

Primary Inspector (under Plant Protection Act) June-Nov 2005

• Worked with a team completing Primary Inspection duties to fulfill the Plant Protection Act.

• Monitored for Chrysanthemum White Rust, Sudden Oak Death, Gypsy Moth, and Japanese Beetle

under the CFIA's plant protection programs.

• Integrated and summarized the scientific results of pest and plant disease surveys such as

Chrysanthemum White Rust and Sudden Oak Death in order to present key information to the public

regarding plant health.

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Youth Extreme, Vancouver, BC

Volunteer Leader 2000-2002

• Engaged with inner-city First Nations youth in the Vancouver community as a leader during weekly

outings, activities, and weekend excursions. These young people had the opportunity to engage with

mentors and a number of them entered university as a result.

Gina Aitchison Page 3

INTEGRATED AND SUMMARIZED LANGUAGES

English – native language

French – intermediate proficiency

AWARDS

Team Appreciation Award, TC Ontario Region June 2011

Appreciation for TC Pacific Region Environmental Awareness Program Oct 2008

MEMBERSHIPS

Professional Agrologist with the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists (BCIA) - President, Vancouver Branch

RELEVANT TRAINING/COURSES

Working Effectively with Aboriginal Peoples workshop

Screenings under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Consulting Aboriginal Groups in Environmental Assessment

Involving Aboriginal Peoples

Developing and Implementing an Environmental Management System

1

Curriculum Vitae

John Mackie

Navigable Waters Protection Officer

Navigable Waters Protection Program

Transport Canada

620-800 Burrard Street

Vancouver BC

Professional Experience

Transport Canada – Navigable Waters Protection Program Vancouver, British Columbia Navigable Waters Protection Officer.

• Currently employed with Transport Canada as a Navigable Waters Protection

Officer administering the Navigable Waters Protection Act (the Act). Responsibilities include; review of applications for ‘works’ on navigable waterways and making recommendations to the Manager.

• Management of major projects captured within the Major Project Management

Office (MPMO) initiative of primarily natural resource based projects, such as; pipelines (crude oil and LNG), metal mines, large scale wind turbine and hydro electric generating facilities (Dams).

• Represent departmental interests in legal consultation duties with First Nations

during environmental review and then lead consultation activities during the regulatory activities.

• Oversee the review of most of the large infrastructure bridges within the Metro

Vancouver area including the Golden Ears Bridge, the Canada Line Bridge and the current construction of the Port Mann Bridge.

• Work with local governments in an effort to assist them with development of local government official community plans. .

Canadian Coast Guard February 1991 – January 1997 Victoria British Columbia CCG Fleet Second and Third officer.

1992 – 1997 (second and third officer)

• Third Officer / Second Officer aboard Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) vessels.

January 1997 to Present

2

Canadian Coast Guard June - September 1996

Kelowna British Columbia

Coxswain, Fast Rescue Craft.

• Supervised a temporary CCG station in Kelowna British Columbia as Coxswain.

.

Canadian Coast Guard December 1981 – September 1991 Victoria British Columbia

Ship’s Crew.

• Responsibilities included supervising personnel, ensuring all tools and deck

appliances were maintained in good order, assisting the deck officers in loading

and unloading of cargo and that work on deck was conducted in a safe efficient

manner.

Education Camosun College September 1991 to February 1992 Victoria British Columbia September 1994 to February 1995 Watch Keeping Mate Certificate

rdims-#7893095-v17-written submission - new …

Documents