Fisheries Presentation to The CEAA Panel On the Prosperity Project April 27, 2010

20+20=20+20= 4040

By: Richard Holmes MSc. RPBio. QEP

WildWild SalmonSalmon PolicyPolicy (Photo by Peter Essick) ConservationConservation UnitsUnits

sockeye-lake 218 sockeye-river 24 chinook 68† coho 43 chum 38† pink-even 13 pink-odd 19

Sub-total 423 FishFish SpeciesSpecies KnownKnown toto InhabitInhabit TasekoTaseko RiverRiver

¾ BullBull TroutTrout ¾ DollyDolly VardenVarden ¾ LongnoseLongnose SuckerSucker ¾ MountainMountain WhitefishWhitefish ¾ RainbowRainbow TroutTrout ¾ SockeyeSockeye SalmonSalmon ¾ ChinookChinook SalmonSalmon ¾ SteelheadSteelhead ¾ WhitefishWhitefish (General)(General)

TasekoTaseko RiverRiver SockeyeSockeye EscapementEscapement 19491949--20092009 ¾¾ EscapementEscapement == thosethose returningreturning toto spawnspawn ¾¾ 19631963 == 31,66731,667 ¾¾ 19881988 == 11,13811,138 ¾¾ 2009=2009= 4040 ¾¾ Sorry,Sorry, butbut II’’mm notnot convincedconvinced whatsoeverwhatsoever thatthat thingsthings areare simplysimply goinggoing toto bebe okok inin thethe TasekoTaseko RiverRiver watershedwatershed shouldshould thisthis minemine bebe grantedgranted approvalapproval toto proceedproceed

Lake Sockeye CUs in Pacific/Yukon

218 CUs

• notable diversity: NC CC, NVI, SFj

Diversity = Production Lake Sockeye CUs in Pacific/Yukon

218 CUs

• notable diversity: NC CC, NVI, SFj

Diversity = Production Year Population Peak of Spawn Total Males Females Jacks

1948 Taseko Lake 0000 1949 Taseko Lake 100 62 38 0 1950 Taseko Lake 500 250 250 0 1951 Taseko Lake 500 250 250 0 1952 Taseko Lake Sep 6-9 3647 1715 1932 0 1953 Taseko Lake Aug 30-Sep 4 4422 1447 2975 0 1954 Taseko Lake 3500 1750 1750 0 1955 Taseko Lake Aug 31-Sep 4 4400 1584 2816 0 1956 Taseko Lake Aug 26-29 1995 647 1347 1 1957 Taseko Lake Aug 28-Sep 1 3667 1466 2181 20 1958 Taseko Lake Sep 3-6 7538 3199 4314 25 1959 Taseko Lake 16410 7175 9145 90 1960 Taseko Lake Aug 31-Sep 15 2726 1118 1608 0 1961 Taseko Lake 80 40 40 0 1962 Taseko Lake Aug 27-29 657 320 329 8 1963 Taseko Lake Aug 25-28 31667 14080 17554 33 1964 Taseko Lake Aug 27-Sep 3 433 189 244 0 1965 Taseko Lake 0000 1966 Taseko Lake Aug 28-Sep 1 353 160 193 0 1967 Taseko Lake Aug 25-28 5700 2550 3150 0 1968 Taseko Lake 0000 1969 Taseko Lake 0000 1970 Taseko Lake 0000 1971 Taseko Lake Aug 30-Sep 1 10500 4830 5670 0 1972 Taseko Lake Aug 30-Sep 3 2287 959 1326 2 1973 Taseko Lake 0000 1974 Taseko Lake 0000 1975 Taseko Lake Aug 29-Sep 2 4394 2443 1951 0 1976 Taseko Lake Mid Sep 634 255 375 4 1977 Taseko Lake 0000 1979 Taseko Lake 0000 1980 Taseko Lake Mid Sep 679 290 389 0 1983 Taseko Lake Sep 5-10 1630 702 928 0 1984 Taseko Lake Sep 8-12 2771 1141 1630 0 1985 Taseko Lake 0000 1987 Taseko Lake Sep 8-12 3592 1834 1737 21 1988 Taseko Lake Sep 8-12 11138 4845 6293 0 1989 Taseko Lake Sep 8-12 65 19 46 0 1992 Taseko Lake 970 230 740 0 1994 Taseko Lake 270 170 100 0 1995 Taseko Lake 1840 773 1067 0 1996 Taseko Lake 1470 690 780 0 1997 Taseko Lake 325 195 130 0 1998 Taseko Lake Early Sep. 400 120 280 0 1999 Taseko Lake 1160 592 568 0 2000 Taseko Lake 3000 1262 1738 0 2001 Taseko Lake 1000 353 647 0 2002 Taseko Lake 1300 570 730 0 2003 Taseko Lake 380 225 155 0 2004 Taseko Lake 320 71 249 0 2005 Taseko Lake 520 260 260 0 2006 Taseko Lake 2140 757 1383 0 2007 Taseko Lake 233 148 85 0 2008 Taseko Lake 60 39 21 0 2009 Taseko Lake 40 20 20 0 Aerial Counts of Steelhead on the and Population estimates for years 1964 and 1972-2004

Year Day Total Population Estimate Count Chilko System

1964 6 May 31 136 149 1972 26 May 200 880 960 1973 28 May 299 1316 1435 1974 24 May 141 620 677 1975 28 May 121 532 581 1976 21 May 213 937 1022 1977 25 May 103 453 494 1978 28 May 240 1056 1152 1979 25 May 149 656 715 1980 21 May 186 818 893 1981 25 May 122 537 586 1982 28 May 195 858 936 1983 13 May 319 1404 1531 1984 18 May 236 1038 1133 1985 30 May 656 2886 3149 1986 22 May 415 1826 1992 1987 21 May 485 2134 2328 1988 24 May 488 2147 2342 1989 23 May 127 559 610 1990 23 May 84 370 403 1991 22 May 97 427 466 1992 20 May 113 497 542 1993 25 May 322 1417 1546 1994 20-May 191 840 917 1995 25-May 173 761 830 1996 5-Jun 108 475 518 1996 25-May 103 453 494 1997 22-May 286 1258 1373 1998 12-May 49 216 235 1998 19-May 140 616 672 1998 26-May 65 286 312 1999 14-May 27 119 130 1999 21-May 80 352 384 1999 28-May 155 682 744 1999 4-Jun 80 352 384 2000 18-May 107 471 514 2000 24-May 154 678 739 2000 30-May 77 339 370 2001 17-May 108 475 518 2001 22-May 213 937 1022 2001 25-May 262 1153 1258 2001 29-May 184 810 883 2002 16-May 97 427 466 2002 23-May 205 902 984 2002 27-May 232 1021 1114 2002 31-May 194 854 931 2002 10-Jun 87 383 418 2003 12-May 63 277 302 2003 18-May 169 744 811 2003 23-May 191 840 917 2003 29-May 147 647 706 2004 9-May 20 88 96 2004 17-May 39 172 187 2004 24-May 53 233 254 2004 28-May 16 70 77 2005 6-May 44 194 211 2005 13-May 79 348 379 2005 20-May 80 352 384 2005 27-May 49 216 235 2006 8-May 12 53 58 2006 18-May 84 370 403 2006 25-May 115 506 552 2006 30-May 73 321 350 2007 12-May 11 48 53 2007 18-May 29 128 139 2007 24-May 78 343 374 2007 30-May 66 290 317 2008 15-May 12 53 58 2008 22-May 27 119 130 2008 30-May 33 145 158 2008 5-Jun 17 75 82 2009 14-May 22 97 106 2009 21-May 38 167 182 2009 28-May 68.0 299 326 2009 4-Jun 73.0 321 350 2009 11-Jun 15 66 72 Slide 1: Good morning (afternoon). My name is Richard Holmes and I am a Registered Professional Biologist in the Province of . I have been working on fisheries related projects in the Cariboo/Chilcotin for 30 years with a primary focus on salmon. I own a small environmental consulting company based in Likely and I also manage a research station there for the University of Northern British Columbia. My consulting work has allowed me to work with First Nations, the Canadian government, the Province of British Columbia, regional districts, cities, universities, non governmental organizations, industry….including the mining and forest industries, ranchers and individuals. I advise people that I don’t really work for them, but that I work for the fish. I’d like to thank the Panel Chair and the Panel members for providing us all with this forum to speak on this project with its high negative impacts to the lakes, streams and rivers in the Chilko and watersheds. And once again I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the sockeye salmon and the other fish species that will be impacted should this project be granted approval. This title slide photo on the right shows 3 members of our Xeni Gwet’in Fisheries Crew on the shores of Taseko Lake taking a break from fish habitat assessments conducted in the area in 2007.We have worked extensively with the Xeni Gwet’in in recent years on numerous fisheries and watershed projects. Aside from these assessments we provide and undertake with the communities watershed restoration work as well.

Slide 2: The Elders, Chiefs, Councilors and people of the Chilcotin Nation have presented their concerns to you over the last several weeks and strongly voiced their opposition to this project. In reviewing the records of this hearing process, one can easily sense their anger over the lack of respect shown to Teztan Biny and the Taseko and Chilko River watersheds, including the fish that inhabit this lake and great river system. We have a lot in common and I share their anger as a fisheries biologist.

In my presentation to you on April 13th at Anaham I let it be known that a cloud of doubt surrounds the Environmental Impact Assessment provided by Taseko Mines Ltd. This is not solely a concern of mine, but shared by many professionals in a variety of fields. Of particular concern to me at the time of my last presentation was the obvious lack of agreement among professionals relating to the potential for acid rock drainage to impact the Taseko River and ultimately the Chilko and water quality and resident fish stocks. The Taseko Mines Ltd. proposal has drawn considerable attention from Stratus Consulting Ltd. as can be gathered from the documentation on the Canadian Environmental Assessment website and by their presence here at the hearings and this is indeed a concern. Not that they are here to present and defend their findings, rather we should all be concerned that this mine plan is poised to negatively impact the headwaters of a great tributary of the Fraser River, one of the greatest salmon rivers in the world.

Slide 3: The mine consultants themselves have stated that they cannot guarantee with 100% confidence that there will be no negative effects to the fish and fish habitat of the Taseko River. The Williams Lake Tribune recently presented the following:

George Doward asked Taseko whether it can guarantee there would be no pollution and no damage to the fishery up and down Taseko River. “The word ‘guarantee’ maybe means many things to many people, but from my perspective, I can say this: that part of the mine’s permitting process requires that Taseko post a bond,” said Rod Bell-Irving, Taseko’s manager of environmental project development. “And that’s a bond in dollar terms a substantial financial guarantee that is held by government and retained by government in order to ensure that the mine is developed and operated according to our plan and our commitments.”

Bell-Irving added there are also sanctions that government holds over the mine that if Taseko fails to live up to any one or all of the obligations Taseko has committed to — including to not pollute the Taseko River and not to discharge water from the site until about 45 years after the mine commences operation — the provincial government has the ability to essentially lift Taseko’s license and “shut the place down.”

Slide 4: I really don’t hold much faith in the Provincial government’s ability to “shut the place down” as quoted by Mr. Bell Irving. In fact in all of 2009, the Provincial government collected a total of $1.1 million in fines for environmental infractions in the whole Province of which $400 k was for one infraction that killed an estimated half a million fish. It would appear to me that the fines certainly don’t pay for the crimes.

The photo shows Rocky Quilt our crew chief holding up a bull trout from Beece Creek. These fish will be impacted by this mine plan. Bull trout are listed in BC as a species of special concern. They can grow to be 10 kg in size and love cold clear water as can evidenced by this photo. A BC Ministry of Environment website states: “Slow growth and late maturity can mean a recovery period as long as 20 years”. Additionally the site goes on to say “Because bull trout are extremely sensitive to habitat disturbance, habitat protection is a key component of conservation”.

Rather admirable website quotes from a Ministry that has fully supported this project through the BCEA process prior to all of the information being submitted to this Panel and this related federal review. Perhaps one environmental assessment process would suffice in the future, however I would hope that it not be based solely on the BCEA.

Slide 5: Getting back to the recent Williams Lake Tribune article quoting Mr. Bell Irving:

He said the provincial government would use the mine bond to address any remediation measures or put in place appropriate measures if there was a discharge.

“Our science, our mine planning and our confidence is there to say that it’s not going to happen,” Bell-Irving said. “That’s not a guarantee, but I would submit that, with all of those measures and constraints that are imposed on us by regulatory bodies, that’s as close to a guarantee as you’ll ever get.” I gather they believe they can deal with this through “adaptive management”. A trendy term in risk management that suggests “we could see it coming but we’re not sure at the moment how we are going to deal with this future problem, but don’t worry we can take care of it”. This watershed is far too important to risk manage. This photo shows Rocky Quilt and Norman William creating an intake to a large side channel on the Taseko River to provide off channel rearing habitat which is in short supply on this river. The Chilcotin people are directly involved in fish habitat enhancement activities in their watersheds.

Slide 6: I have no intention of expanding on my presentation from April 13th that focused primarily on the economic value of the sockeye salmon from the Chilko River watershed. In summary, I presented a case for long term sustainable growth utilizing Chilko River sockeye salmon where the equivalent $5 billion economy touted by the mine could be matched in 55 years, over and over and over again into perpetuity and not simply for 20 years. I also went on to say that you can’t have both. What I would like to present to you today is a brief overview of salmon and its importance to the Chilcotin people, the Fisheries and Oceans Wild Salmon Policy, and an update on the sockeye salmon that reside in the Taseko River drainage and their status. I do not intend to take up too much of your time however I do believe the state of the sockeye salmon returns to the Taseko River watershed and the state of steelhead in the system deserves to be presented to you today, and indeed presented to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Unfortunately, we have a federal department that has been tasked with providing a Wild Salmon Policy intended to address the downward trends in wild salmon returns, and yet this same federal department has opened the door to allow this mine plan to be presented and reviewed. Not an enviable political position to be in. This photo shows a downstream view of the side channel with the Taseko River in the background.

Slide 7: The Chilcotin people have been fishing salmon since time immemorial. Spend some time in late August and early September in the Chilcotin and you will see this annual family and community undertaking in such places as Farwell Canyon on the Chilcotin River and Henry’s Crossing on the Chilko River. Salmon are a part of them, and they are a part of salmon.

You can well imagine the importance of this species to them as their very survival through a long and cold Chilcotin winter depended in a great way on how many salmon were stored. You could say perhaps they were worshipped and held in very high regard. Indeed I would suggest that the very reason for their existence in villages along the Chilko and Taseko River watersheds was because of salmon. In reviewing a recent report produced for the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council I noted that upwards of 600-900 lbs per year was historically consumed by individuals. Salmon, especially sockeye are held in very high regard by the Chilcotin people to this very day. In a survey conducted in 2006 in the Nemiah Valley, it was found that residents still rely on fish for their diet at least twice per week.

This photo shows Darren Setah as a teenager in 2007 learning the ropes from the older members of our field crew.

Slide 8: Next to allowing enough salmon to reach the spawning beds for propagation purposes, the First Nation right to harvest salmon for food, ceremonial and cultural purposes is ranked second in management priorities to any other uses such as the commercial and sport fishery. This First Nation right to fish has not even been achievable in the Upper Fraser River in recent years due to a sharp decline in salmon stocks from the Fraser River. As a reminder, the 2009 sockeye escapement into the Fraser River was approximately 10% of predicted estimates.

More precisely, out of an estimated 10.5 million return expected for the Fraser River, an escapement of 1.5 million was realized. Of that 10.5 run size, 4.2 million were expected from the Chilko River and the final spawning escapement was determined to be around 271,000.

This photo shows a drying rack at Jim and Dinah Lulua’s fish camp at Henry’s Crossing in 2007. You can see roe, sides and whole fish hanging to dry. This will be transported back to their place in the Nemiah Valley and stored in a shed beside their home for consumption over the winter.

Slide 9: Mines historically in British Columbia have had a difficult time coexisting with First Nations and salmon, and once again the issue is before us. Historically the mining industry has left it scars on watersheds throughout this great Province of ours.

Many would say that the technology and regulations today would prevent that from ever happening again. I question this logic as we seem ever intent on creating more risk as we are blinded by the assurances of technology. As we sit here today and debate this important issue, tailings ponds throughout the world are failing including some in Canada. I believe this is what we can expect to see at Teztan Biny should the mine plan be approved.

This photo shows our fisheries crew at Choelquoit Lake installing minnow traps as part of a lake survey.

Slide 10: It should be noted that the Chilcotin people are involved in salmon projects annually both through Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other funding sources such as the Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Fraser Salmon and Watershed Program and the British Columbia Capacity Initiative. First Nations people value salmon a great deal.

The Tsilhqot’in National Government also plays a provincial and international role by sitting on fishery committees to provide management advice on this natural resource. The Xeni Gwet’in First Nation hosts a Chilko River Watershed Roundtable that includes local business and resort owners to discuss and collaborate on watershed issues that enhance the salmon resource. These people care and it is reflected in their actions. We are all continually being watched by others and our actions speak volumes about what we value.

The Roundtable’s next objective is to initiate ecosystem based planning in the Xeni Gwet’in Caretaker Area (XGCA). This new planning design has been implemented in the Great Bear Rainforest and supported by the Provincial government where they have provided $75 million dollars to implement this initiative. The Chilcotin people should expect nothing less for a similar initiative in the Chilcotin. This photo shows crew chief Rocky Quilt and Darren Setah working on a lake survey of Konni Lake in the Nemiah Valley.

Slide 11: The Canadian Wild Salmon Policy was developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada over a five year period and implementation began in 2008. I am ever hopeful that this policy will be meaningful and provide some hope in saving this wild icon of the Pacific. In an effort to accurately describe the policy I have copied the following from their website: “It will usher in a significant new approach to the conservation of one of Canada’s most valuable and cherished resources – wild Pacific salmon. Its adoption represents Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s commitment to maintain healthy and diverse populations of salmon that will support sustainable fisheries now, and meet the needs of future generations”.

More importantly it goes on to state: “The policy places conservation of salmon and their habitats as the first priority for resource management. It gives tangible effect to this principle by committing to safeguard the genetic diversity of wild salmon, and maintain habitat and ecosystem integrity. The policy also considers the values that the harvesting of Pacific salmon provide to people. It reflects a management framework that will provide care and respect for the resource and its ecosystem, and for the people who rely on it for food and spiritual needs, for recreation, and for their livelihood”.

Slide 12: Of key importance to this policy is the creation of conservation units and each salmon species is represented. A conservation unit is described as “Groups of wild salmon living in an area sufficiently isolated from other groups that, if extirpated, that area is very unlikely to be recolonized naturally within an acceptable time frame.” pg. 38 WSP

In British Columbia there are a total of 423 conservation units spread among the 5 species of Pacific salmon. Of these, sockeye are divided into two groups, one of which is river type and a second which is lake type. The Taseko Lake sockeye are a unique conservation unit categorized as lake type sockeye and there are 218 of these units in British Columbia.

As can be seen on this map (page 21 of Riddell document) they are a very isolated conservation unit with their closest sockeye unit located in the Chilko Lake area.

But will all of this Wild Salmon Policy issue really mean anything on the decision pending for this project? We can only wait and see.

Slide 13: Here are the fish species known to inhabit the Taseko River. As stated earlier, bull trout are listed in British Columbia as a species of concern.

Steelhead are also doing poorly and I have a spreadsheet that I believe will be of interest. This is data from the BC Ministry of Environment showing Chilcotin River steelhead estimates from 1964 to 2009. This would be information from both the Taseko and Chilko Rivers.

From a high of 3149 in 1985 to the 2009 estimate of 72 in 2009. Not a pretty picture at all.

Slide 14: The Taseko River is by no means an easy system to assess from a fishery perspective. The lakes and river are milky in colour and visible observations are extremely difficult. I have personally worked in this watershed and the water clarity is a challenge.

My inquiries relating to assessment of coho and Chinook in the watershed resulted in a response of “not assessed. We have looked occasionally at counts of the rollers in the mint chocolate milk”.

I have recently contacted the Ministry of Environment regarding spawning estimates of steelhead, rainbow trout and bull trout and received the following “We do not do spawning estimates on the Taseko River. It is too turbid. We do some fry and parr density analysis. We did some radio tagging to try and link the Taseko to the Chilko but the estimates would be weak.

However population estimates are undertaken for some fish species in the watershed…..at least for sockeye. Currently, in the case of sockeye a “dead pitch” is undertaken with the number of carcasses counted and the final tally expanded to reflect the carcass count as 5% of the total.

This is a photo of the outlet of Taseko Lake.

Slide 15: Let’s now take a quick look at the escapement numbers provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for from 1949 to 2009. As can be seen from the spreadsheet the run has had some great years historically, with a total of 31,667 in 1963, 11,138 as recently as 1988 however as we scroll down the spreadsheet we can see a disturbing trend. In 2009 the estimated escapement was 40….yes that’s right 40….20 females and 20 males.

What will happen next to this struggling salmon stock? This unique conservation unit of lake type sockeye salmon is on the verge of disappearing and here we have a mining company trying to convince us that things will be just fine and not to worry. Sorry, but I’m not convinced whatsoever that things are simply going to be ok in the Taseko River watershed should this mine be granted approval to proceed.

Slide 16: How can we effectively protect, manage and monitor the fish stocks of the Taseko River when we don’t have a very good idea of what is there. It would seem rather difficult to me, however we had better get a grasp on this sometime in the very near future as this pristine watershed may never be the same again. In spite of Taseko Mines Ltd. stating they cannot guarantee the health of the Taseko River watershed from their potential development, they don’t seem to be providing much information on its fishery resource.

They can’t guarantee their Prosperity mine operation will not have a negative impact on the Taseko River yet we are not provided with a plan to mitigate or compensate for this. Once again I realize this is termed “adaptive management” and we’ll get to that when the time comes……much like the mine life of 33 years rather than 20 years. I guess we’ll get to that when the time comes as well.

It goes without saying that the Honorable Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Gail Shea will be instrumental in deciding the outcome of this environmental assessment. I am assuming she will be made aware of this stock’s status by DFO personnel here today, but I feel the message is important enough to present to the Panel as a First Nations concern as well.

Photo of Taseko Lake

Slide 17: Furthermore, of concern to myself is what happens if the mine plan does get approved and the need for additional permitting is required to address their expanding needs. I would not normally bring this up as the hearings relate to the immediate issue of the mine plan however future planning and adaptive management seem to be rather catchy terms around this project.

I realize this may be slightly off topic, but please stay with me for a moment while I state my concerns. Two local examples come to mind, one of which involves Taseko Mines Ltd. at their Gibraltar Mine location. Both of these examples could easily be termed ”adaptive management”, and neither does anything to enhance the well being of salmon in their respective watersheds.

In the case of Taseko Mines Ltd. at their Gibraltar Mine site, and mentioned earlier in this presentation, they have recently been successful in a permit application that allows them to dump effluent into the Fraser River.

This photo shows Taseko Lake looking south.

Slide 18: Secondly the Mt Polley project is located approximately 1 hour east of Williams Lake. Their original mine plan approval was based on the following condition from the BC government “Permits issued under the Waste Management Act or Water Act shall include the following conditions and expectations: The Waste Management Permit will not authorize a discharge from the tailings pond or pits to the receiving environment. Imperial Metals has committed to maximum recycle of tailings and pit water, evaporation enhancing techniques and, if necessary, raising the tailings pond berm height to maintain an allowable freeboard to achieve a negative balance in the tailings pond…” Today we await the results of their new application to the Provincial government to release effluent from their tailings pond into Hazeltine Creek known to provide habitat to Interior Fraser River coho which are designated as endangered by COSEWIC .

Does adaptive management always equate to negative impacts to the fishery resource in the Fraser River and its tributaries? Probably.

This sort of permitting or “adaptive management” will eventually result in further cumulative impacts to this west coast icon, the salmon. The permitting process is generally a reflection of what happens to the immediate receiving environment, and with a 2009 population of 40 sockeye, I rather doubt that Taseko Mines Ltd. will be enhancing the well being of this stock that is currently on the edge of extirpation. Indeed their future permit applications may be the final blow that eliminates this salmon species from the Taseko River watershed ……should the mine plan be approved. This is a photo of Chilko Lake looking south.

Slide 19: The current situation regarding the site hydrology, that has yet to be resolved, and the resultant contamination of the Taseko River relating to this mine plan is unacceptable.

Additionally, Taseko Mines’ own admission that the health of the Taseko River watershed is not guaranteed, leaves me with no alternative than to believe that the mine plan will result in contaminant delivery to the Taseko River and ultimately result in irreversible harm to the sockeye salmon and other species that inhabit this wild and pristine river system.

I can understand them admitting this inadequacy based on the status of tailings ponds at the Alberta tar sands where the best mining and oil and gas technology in the world has failed to contain the effluent and 11 million litres a day are leaking. This issue has recently been the subject of a complaint submitted to NAFTA on April 14, 2010. There are a number of people in this room, if not all, including myself, who are not against mining whatsoever, but this mine plan is simply not good enough to protect the fishery resource of the Taseko and Chilko River watersheds. As I have suggested before, the Chilcotin people and the sockeye salmon they are so reliant on, deserve more.

Slide 20: This mine plan has not been approved by the Tsilhqot’in National Government and it does absolutely nothing to enhance the lives of the Chilcotin people aside from some token employment opportunities and suggested tax sharing, nor will the sockeye and other stocks that reside within the Taseko River watershed be enhanced. Indeed, this mine proposal is poised to fracture a First Nations culture based in part on the sockeye sub culture of this great watershed, with complete disregard for their desire to simply be left alone and have an opportunity to determine their own destiny.

In closing I’d like to thank the Panel for hearing my story and my concerns relating to the fish residing in the Taseko River. In my opinion, this unique conservation unit of Pacific salmon totaling 40 individuals or 20 pairs in 2009 will not survive the life of this mine should it be provided approval to proceed.

I ask the Panel to think long term on this project far beyond the 20 to 33 years of projected operation. This is not an easy decision for anyone to make, however the long term economic, environmental and social benefits far outweigh the short term view of this mine plan.

Thank you once again for your time.