Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Newswire

Wilderness Committee - March 22, 2012

I am writing you today because we urgently need your support! On March 1, the Wilderness Committee was served with a Notice of Civil Claim by Taseko Mines Ltd. Taseko claimed that the Wilderness Committee defamed Taseko in our materials opposing Taseko’s proposed open pit copper and gold mine at Fish Lake.

Clearly we don’t agree. In fact, we think that this court action by Taseko Mines Ltd. aims at silencing us from speaking out in the debate over protecting the Fish Lake area from the company’s proposed New Prosperity Mine. We feel that this is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP.

So why are we just letting you know today about this SLAPP? In the last three weeks, we were busy preparing a response to their claim, and today, our lawyer Dan Burnett, filed defence papers with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

What Dan says in our defence: “What the Wilderness Committee is asking the courts to do in its filed Response to the Claim is uphold the Wilderness Committee’s right to free speech on this important environmental issue, dismiss the action and impose extra court costs upon Taseko for attempting to use the litigation process to silence critics.”

In the company’s Notice of Civil Claim, Taseko alleges that we had made a number of defamatory statements – including a claim that the company planned to use Little Fish Lake as a toxic tailings pond.

In fact, Taseko has published plans for its New Prosperity Mine that call for inundating Little Fish Lake under a massive toxic tailings pond that will wipe out a great deal of fish habitat and pollute a great deal of water.

That’s a plain fact that people must be allowed to write about and speak about without fear that court papers will arrive in the mail from some corporation that doesn’t want public debate threatening profits.

But there is more – much more. Taseko’s proposed New Prosperity Mine threatens the region’s grizzly bear population. The mine proposal is an affront to all those who care about human rights, given the strong stand the Tsilhqot’in First Nation has taken against the proposal.

So what are we going to do about Taseko’s court threat? We are going to speak out and write even more about how the proposed New Prosperity Mine must be stopped in order that the Fish Lake area can be protected and handed down to future generations.

We believe that this court threat of Taseko’s eats away at the very foundations of democracy and free speech that our society is based on. We have a duty to stand up to Taseko’s bullying.

Now, more than ever, we need your support. If you can give a donation towards our save Fish Lake campaign at this time I would very much appreciate it!

Together we can save Fish Lake and the surrounding area from Taseko Mines Ltd.

For the wild,

Joe Foy | National Campaign Director
Wilderness Committee

http://wildernesscommittee.org/blog/help_us_defend_free_speech_and_fish_lake

Wilderness Committee - January 26, 2012

On Monday, the federal government announced that they were accepting public comments for an Environmental Assessment for Taseko Mines Ltd’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine project. If that sounds familiar to you it is because just over a year ago Taseko’s first Prosperity Mine proposal was turned down by the same government process.

Taseko’s original proposal was to use Fish Lake as their tailings pond, where they would store toxic waste rock produced by mining operations. During the first assessment, the company was told they needed to find an alternative to this, because it would destroy Fish Lake. Taseko’s engineers offered Little Fish Lake as an alternate site for the tailings pond. However, eventually the toxins from the Little Fish Lake site would make their way downstream to Fish Lake. In fact, the review panel concluded that this “would result in greater long-term environmental risk.”

Despite this history, the new mine plan that Taseko is seeking approval for proposes turning Little Fish Lake in to a toxic tailings pond.

If you are confused as to why the company would return with a proposal that has already been deemed worse than the one that was just rejected, you are not alone. In fact the whole idea of turning a lake, especially a lake called Fish Lake, in to a dump site for toxic tailings probably seems like a crazy idea.

It’s not just that this proposal has already been rejected once; or that it will threaten tens of thousands of fish and pollute the headwaters of a river network that supports the world’s largest run of wild salmon; or that the locally blue-listed population of grizzly bears would be threatened by this project; or even that the Tsilhqot’in Nation, the area’s First Nations people, are strongly opposed to the project. The craziest thing about this project is that – if people like you and I don’t take this opportunity to speak up – there is a good chance that this mine will get built.

That is why I’m writing you today to ask you to take action. Please go to our website and use our letter writing tool to submit a comment to the Environmental Assessment!

Together, we can save Fish Lake. Again.

Sven Biggs | Outreach Director
Wilderness Committee

http://wildernesscommittee.org/sven/save_fish_lake_again

100 Mile House Free Press - Published: June 15, 2011

The Tsilhqot’in Nation is calling on the federal and provincial governments to reject Taseko Mines Ltd.’s new Prosperity project.

Last week, Taseko submitted the project description for a revised mine to Ottawa. However, it could be at least a year before the federal government reports back on its findings regarding the project.

The Conservative cabinet denied the company’s original proposal in November 2010, noting it would adversely impact fish and fish habitat, navigation and traditional use of the land and its resources by First Nations.

However, the company now states that due to high gold prices, it can save Fish Lake rather than destroying it and building a new lake nearby, a provision under the old plan.

According to the company’s New Prosperity website, it concludes, “New Prosperity retains all of its original designs from which ‘no adverse effects’ would result while directly addressing the concerns that emerged around the elimination of Fish Lake, which is no longer part of the development plan. It is for this reason that Taseko Mines Limited remains confident in a more favourable outcome to the 2011 federal government review process.”

The Tsilhqot’in Nation states that to date, there has been no consultation between themselves and the company regarding the new proposal.

“We got a copy of the plan only yesterday,” says Joe Alphonse, TNG Tribal chair and chief of Tl’etinqox (Anaham).

“True consultation is a company coming into our territory and meeting with us and seeing first and foremost can we work together. If the answer is yes, then we sit down and try to develop a plan that is mutually beneficial to all interest groups.

“These guys [Taseko] haven’t done that. They developed a plan then they come in and tell you take this or leave it.”

Brian Battison, vice-president of corporate affairs for Taseko Mines, disputes that comment, saying shortly after the federal government denied the project in November 2010, the company wrote to TNG requesting a meeting and to consult on a new plan.

“It was to talk to them about what the path forward might look like.”

Battison says Taseko was told the TNG was not interested.

He adds there has been a number of other attempts to engage the Tsilhqot’in Nation but to no avail.

“So far they told us they’re not interested. But, hopefully, when they get a chance to look through that [plan] and understand what we’re trying to do, there will be some interest and talking further with us. That’s our hope.”

After the project denial by the feds, Battison says the company wanted to discuss with TNG the three project options that might be possible moving forward.

“We wanted to explain to them that it was a possibility [one of the three projects]. It could be an option and explain to them why,” he says, adding discussions would not have been limited and that the consultation “would thoroughly examine the various options.”

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/100milefreepress/news/123880229.html

John Horgan - March 25, 2011

Don’t Let Premier Clark Overturn This Decision

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government rejected Taseko’s Prosperity Mine proposal because it didn’t meet environmental requirements, but that’s not good enough for Premier Clark. 

Ms. Clark’s Top Priority In Ottawa

Premier Clark surprised everyone when she used her first meeting with Prime Minister Harper to challenge his government’s decision to reject Prosperity Mine on environmental grounds.

She could have talked about provincial transfers to pay for health care and post-secondary education. She could have talked about how to ensure BC isn’t punished unfairly if BC voters turn down the HST. But she chose to fight for a plan to destroy a lake.

Four Small Steps to Save Fish Lake

You can help save Fish Lake (pictured here) from being drained and filled with an open pit gold/copper mine tailing pond.

1. Learn More
   Here is some background information prepared by a group opposed to the development.

2. Tell Premier Clark what you think.
   Click here to send a letter to Premier Clark and Minister Terry Lake. We’ve suggested some text for you. Please feel free to modify it and add to it, and speak in your own voice!

3. Tell Jack Layton, Stephen Harper and Michael Igantieff to stand strong.
   Click here to send a letter to the federal party leaders. We’ve suggested some text for you. Please feel free to modify it and add to it, and speak in your own voice!

4. Tell Your Friends.
   - Email this link to your friends and get them involved in the campaign!
   - Tweet and Share on Facebook - Click the Tweet and Like buttons below.

http://www.horganforbc.ca/save-fish-lake

MiningWatch Canada - March 4, 2011

Since the federal government’s refusal to approve its Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine project, Taseko Mines Ltd. has maintained that the project was not dead and that they would find a way to see it come back to life. Their press releases and communications have included comments about needing to better understand the concerns of First Nations and federal regulators – despite these being clearly and precisely detailed in numerous submissions to the review panel and in the panel’s final report. On February 21, 2011, Taseko announced it was submitting a new mine plan to the federal government that they believe will address the outstanding issues and save Fish Lake.

Could a modified mine plan really save Fish Lake?

Though the loss of Fish Lake (Teztan Biny) is not the only significant negative impact of Taseko’s proposed mine – it has been at the centre of the controversy over the project. Taseko says it now has a way to save the lake and have the mine go ahead. While the modified mine plan could save the physical structure of the lake it is highly unlikely that the ecological and cultural values of the lake could be preserved with the lake sitting in the middle of a mining site. From the limited information available it seems most likely that the lake would be squeezed between the tailings impoundment and the pit. For at least the full operational life of the mine it would be off limits to First Nations and the general public.

During the environmental assessment Taseko provided two alternatives that did not involve the draining of the lake. The federal review panel, was not convinced that even if these options were economically viable they would have much benefit for the environment or to First Nations. The panel concluded:

Mine Development Plan 2, with the tailings storage facility located upstream of Teztan Biny, would in time likely result in contamination of Teztan Biny. While Mine Development Plan 1 would preserve Teztan Biny, it would result in mine water discharge to another watershed and could also affect Teztan Biny if Taseko decided in the future to expand the open pit…

The Panel observes that the proximity of the open pit and associated mining facilities would be close enough to Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) to eliminate the intrinsic value of the area to First Nations even if another alternative were chosen. It appears to the Panel, therefore, that none of the alternative mine development plans examined would receive support from First Nations.

It is not clear what the next steps in the process will be. As a start the Canadian Environmental Agency will have to decide if it is going to restart an environmental assessment process in response to Taseko’s modified plan.

Links for Additional Information

Update with Background (PDF)

MiningWatch’s submissions to the review panel

Federal Panel Review

Provincial Environmental Assessment Website

First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining (FNWARM)

R.A.V.E.N Trust

West Coast Environmental Law

The Council of Canadians - February 22, 2011

CBC reports that, “Owners of B.C.’s controversial Prosperity mine have launched a second attempt to get the $1-billion project approved. The gold and copper mine near Williams Lake was opposed by First Nations and ultimately failed an environmental assessment… On Monday, Taseko Mines Ltd., of Vancouver, submitted a revised plan for the mine that addressed the major concern of both natives and officials — the proposed destruction of Fish Lake.”

 “The original proposal called for the lake to be drained and turned into a dump for toxic tailings from the mine, poisoning much of the watershed in which it lies. …The company said there was no alternative. Taseko’s new proposal now would preserve Fish Lake and all its aquatic life, the company said. What’s changed is the price of gold and copper, making it possible to pay for a more expensive solution to the waste problem, said CEO Russell Hallbauer.”

This confirms a January 25 report in the Williams Lake Tribune that Taseko was intending to submit a revised application. In that article, “(Taseko vice-president Brian Battison said,) ‘There were always alternate ways to build the project that would mean no impact to Fish Lake but none of them were economic.’ (But they can do it now) due to the current (significantly higher) price of copper and gold on the world market…”

In other words, a simple fluctuation in the price of a commodity and the resulting profit margin means that Taseko can propose the mine again, this time without destroying Fish Lake. This begs the question, what if Fish Lake had been permanently destroyed - as planned - only to see the price of copper and gold change six months later rendering that destruction unnecessary?

The Globe and Mail reports today that, “The company said in a statement it can now save Fish Lake… Such an effort would add $300-million to the…project.” This brings us to the planned destruction of Sandy Pond in Newfoundland. Using Sandy Pond as a tailings pond is said to cost $62 million; while a tailings containment area that would hold the mine’s waste separate from the water would cost $490 million. What if the price of nickel were to increase enough to cover the $428 million gap or even just significantly reduce it? Or what if the cost of protecting the lake were considered the cost of business for a corporation with billions in profits like Vale, rather than the current approach of a public subsidy (the giving away of a lake to a corporation for its private use) granted by the federal government?

It also needs to be highlighted that David Williams, president of the Friends of the Nemaiah Valley, recently wrote in the Williams Lake Tribune that, “It is no surprise that the Tsilhqot’in National Government, and many others, too, continue to oppose the very idea of Prosperity mine, whether it destroys Teztan Biny or not. However such a mine were to be developed, the impacts on the local ecosystem and Tsihqot’in culture and society would be devastating. …The central fact that continues to elude government, the corporate sector, and especially the mainstream media, is that aboriginal rights and the sovereignty issue that underlies them must be recognized. …If the mine, indeed any resource extraction, were to proceed without prior consultation and accommodation, and we believe even permission, from the First Nation on whose lands the resources are situated, an illegal act will have occurred.”

The CBC article today notes that, “There is no timeline for environmental approval (from the Harper government), but Taseko said it hoped the environmental assessment would only have to review the aspects of the proposal that have changed.”