TŜILHQOT’IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Taseko Mines’ Draft Environmental Impact Statement proves issues are not being addressed
CEAA slams document for missing information, inaccuracies, confusing format and poor work
Williams Lake BC (July 17, 2012): A scathing government review of Taseko Mines Limited’s draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its second attempt to get approval for its New Prosperity Mine is further proof that the company has no clear plan for this project, the Tsilhqot’in National Government said today.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) has responded to the draft EIS with nearly 250 comments over 40 pages listing omissions, mistakes, poor figures and shoddy formatting that makes the draft EIS impossible to properly assess. The scathing response slams the draft EIS for being so incomplete on several "aspects that are central to the environmental assessment" that it was not possible to even review those sections. Other deficiencies include complete failure to address critical First Nations' concerns, assess impacts on Aboriginal rights, or consider impacts on First Nations of the certain destruction of Little Fish Lake and the Nabas region.
“This comes as no surprise to us,” said Tsilhqot’in Nation Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse. “We have said all along that there was no way this plan could work. They should be embarrassed that they handed in a document like this – they are making a mockery out of the entire Environmental Assessment process as well as all other Mining Companies. They should be penalized for such flippant actions.”
“Taseko Mines Ltd. had 18 months to develop its new EIS. This is the same company that stated over and over during the original hearings that its preferred plan was environmentally superior to the other two options; that the mine could not be built without destroying Teztan Biny and then changed its tune as soon as that original plan was emphatically rejected by the Federal Government. This explains to us why they could not develop a respectable new EIS,” said Xeni Gwet’in Chief Baptiste.
Chief Baptiste added: “It is an insult to all involved that the company would present such a poorly developed and researched partial document.”
“That this is the best they could come with up with after 18 months of claiming they had all the answers simply reinforces our position from the start that this whole re-bid was a waste of everyone’s time and resources and should never have been allowed to proceed.”
The CEAA review of the company’s EIS can be viewed on the public record at http://ceaa.gc.ca/050/
Media Contacts:
Chief Marilyn Baptiste: 250-267-1401 (cell) 250-394-7023 (alternate)
Chief Joe Alphonse: 250-305-8282 (cell) 250-394-4212 (alternate)
Attachment - Sample comments (page numbers of table enclosed with federal comments):
There is substantial information missing from this draft EIS. [1] The quality of all figures provided in the draft EIS is very poor. [1] Key tables are referred to in the text but are not included in the Table of Contents and were not located in the document. [1]
Overall, there are information gaps on traditional knowledge, archaeological sites, and cultural and spiritual aspects. There is no substantive discussion regarding cultural resources and ceremonial sites. [1]
The draft EIS has not addressed all previously identified potential impacts to Aboriginal potential and established rights and conclusions and therefore does not include adequate information as requested by the EIS guidelines [1]
Please note that concerns have been expressed by First Nations with respect to New Prosperity, many of which are included in this document, that are still applicable concerns in this environmental assessment (e.g. Little Fish lake and Nabas area). [3]
There is insufficient information regarding proposed measures to control and collect seepage from the TSF [Tailings Storage Facility]. Until this information has been provided, the federal government will not be in a position to complete its assessment of proposed measures to control and collect seepage from the TSF. As a esult, we will not be able to complete the assessment of the potential impacts of the project on water quality in pper Fish Creek, Fish Lake, Wasp Lake and Beech Creek. [4]
It appears that no drilling has been completed to investigate the geotechnical characteristics and foundation conditions at the proposed seepage collection ponds at the TSF embankment dams. [5]
Geotechnical drilling in the area of the Tailings Storage Facility, Non-PAG Stockpile and Ore Stockpile is considered inadequate for condemnation drilling purposes. [6] It appears that no drilling has been completed within central and southern portion of the Non-PAG Stockpile and within the northern portion of the Ore Stockpile. [6]
The requirement from the EIS Guidelines to consider community and Aboriginal traditional knowledge in conducting the environmental assessment does not appear to have been considered. [7]
As required by the EIS guidelines, the draft EIS lacks information on the assessment of potential impacts from the Project to all potential or established Aboriginal rights or title. [8]
The draft EIS did not include fish habitat compensation plans. Without having fish habitat compensation plans available for review the Agency is unable to provide any advice on whether the plans contain sufficient details consistent with the EIS Guidelines. [24]
Please provide dietary data as indicated in Health Canada's letter of information deficiencies submitted to the Federal Review Panel on May 25, 2009 for the original Prosperity project. A dietary survey of people in the area was suggested by the proponent in the Prosperity EIS. However, the New Prosperity EIS does not contain information on a dietary survey. Without this information, there is no assurance that the foods included and consumption rates of those foods are representative of the First Nations that harvest country foods in the project area. [36]
Post closure risk estimates for consuming arsenic in fish exceed the acceptable thresholds identified and exceed those for the baseline scenario. [36]
Does not mention loss of Little Fish Lake (beyond the reduction of impact on archaeological sites) nor Nabas. [38]
There is no mention of loss of right to fish in Little Fish Lake and potential impacts over time to Fish Lake which is an identified concern for the TNG. [38] The EIS fails to address the potential impacts of the Project on the potential or established Aboriginal rights and title as required by the EIS Guidelines … [39]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.