New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project

Federal Review Panel

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor, Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3, Tel: 1-866-582-1884 NewProsperityReview@ceaa.gc.ca

November 26, 2012

Ms. Katherine Gizikoff Director, Environment and Government Affairs Taseko Mines Limited 15th Floor, 1040 West Georgia St. Vancouver, BC V6E 4H1 Sent by e-mail: Subject:
<email address removed>

Request for Information Cumulative Effects Assessments New Prosperity GoldCopper Mine Project Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Ms. Gizikoff: On September 27, 2012, the Federal Review Panel (the Panel) confirmed that it had received the environmental impact statement (EIS) from Taseko Mines Ltd. and initiated the 45-day public comment period on the EIS which ended on November 11, 2012. The Panel is currently completing its review of the EIS and considering all comments received on the EIS from the various participants. However, the Panel has identified a major deficiency as explained in this letter. This deficiency relates to the approach used by Taseko to assess the cumulative environmental effects. The approach excludes a number of valued ecosystem components (VEC) and key indicators from the cumulative effects assessments. Given the importance of this deficiency, the Panel is submitting this information request in advance of other information requests which will be submitted by December 11, 2012. The Panel is of the view that this information as well as responses to the forthcoming requests are required for the Panel to determine if the EIS is sufficient to proceed to public hearing. Once all the requested information is submitted, the Panel will determine whether there is a need to provide a 15-day public comment period based on the additional information provided, or to proceed to scheduling the public hearing. Please note that the time required by Taseko to respond to any information requested by the Panel is not included in the timeline remaining for the Panel to complete its review.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Livain Michaud, Panel Manager at 613-948-1359 or at NewProsperityReview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca.

Sincerely,

<original signed by>

Bill Ross Chair

cc:

Mr. Brian Battison, Taseko Mines Limited

Attach.

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca Registry number 63928

Information Request

IR 1 Cumulative Effects Assessment References: CEAA 2012; EIS Guidelines, Section 2.7.1.4; EIS, Section 2.8.3 Rationale: Subsection 19(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) requires a cumulative effects assessment to be completed for the Project: 19. (1) The environmental assessment of a designated project must take into account the following factors: (a) the environmental effects of the designated project, including any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out; (b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a). (emphasis added) Accordingly, the EIS Guidelines (p. 34) state that The Proponent shall identify and assess likely cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects or activities Taseko is instructed in the Guidelines to consult the Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide for further direction in this matter. The Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide provides the following guidance: A CEA, for a single project under regulatory review, should fundamentally do the following: 1. Determine if the project will have an effect on a VEC. 2. If such an effect can be demonstrated, determine if the incremental effect acts cumulatively with the effects of other actions, either past, existing or future. 3. Determine if the effect of the project, in combination with the other effects, may cause a significant change now or in the future in the characteristics of the VEC after the application of mitigation for that project. In Section 2.7.1.4 of the EIS (p. 395), the Proponent identifies three conditions that were applied to determine whether or not a cumulative effects assessment would be completed. The project will result in a measurable, demonstrable or reasonably-expected residual environmental effect on a component of the biophysical or human environment (i.e., is there an environmental effect that can reasonably be expected to occur?). The project-specific residual environmental effect on that component does, or is likely to, act in a cumulative fashion with the environmental effects of other past or future projects

2 and activities that are likely to occur (i.e., Is there overlap of environmental effects i.e., A cumulative environmental effect?). There is a reasonable expectation that the Projects contribution to cumulative environmental effects will affect the viability or sustainability of the resource or value. The first two conditions applied by Taseko are in accordance with the cumulative effects assessment requirements under the Act. The Proponents third condition is not a requirement of the Act nor does it represent the directions provided in the EIS Guidelines or guidance documents. In the Panels opinion, by applying the third condition, many VECs or key indicators for which a cumulative effects assessment is required by the Act have been excluded. Information Requested: The Panel requests that Taseko complete additional cumulative effects assessments for all those VECs and key indicators that were excluded in Tasekos cumulative effects assessments but for which: 1. there was a residual adverse project effect identified; and 2. the effects of other projects and activities act cumulatively. As part of this additional assessment, Taseko should assess the cumulative effects of past forest harvesting activities that have contributed to effects that may be caused by the Project on VECs or key indicators.