June 20, 2013 Dr. Bill Ross, Panel Chair New Prosperity Gold ...

Ta Vancouver,
Taseko Mines Limited
ta 15thkoiiilnes.com
Floor; BC 1040\‘6E West 4111 Georgia St.
June 20, 2013
Dr. Bill Ross, Panel Chair
New Prosperity Gold-Copper Federal Review Panel
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3
Re: Additional Information Requested by the Tsilhqot’in National Government
Dear Mr. Ross:
This letter is in response to yourJune l3~~ letter requesting two additional reports.
Specific to “The letter noted on page 6, Information Issue 4 (ElS 2.6.1.4 — Water Quality and Quantity /
Appendix 2.6.1.4B A)”, the requested information is attached to this letter and is also posted as CEAR
#1126 for the previous Prosperity Project.
Specific to “The companion study that assessed Rainbow Trout spawning habitat suitability in Reach 8 of
Upper fish Creek” noted on page 13, Information Issue 19 (ElS 2.6.1.5 Fish and Fish Habitat)”, the
“companion study” was referred to on page 310 of the 2012 ElS submission and in Appendix 2.6.1.5-A
Rainbow Trout Distribution in Selected Fish Creek and fish Lake Tributaries. The “companion study” was
a field survey conducted on August 17, 2011 in Upper Fish Creek; a summary of this survey is attached to
this letter. Note that the attached is not in formal report format but rather a summary of field notes
collected. This information was considered by Triton Environmental to supplement data collected in July
for the writing of their final report, which is Appendix 2.6.1.5-A dated November 2011.
We trust that the Panel and the TNG will find this information sufficient to address this request for
additional information.
Sincerely,
LIMITED
Katherine Gizikoff
Director, Environment and Governmental Affairs
Brian Battison, Taseko VP Corporate Affairs
Tsilhqot’in National Government

Upper Fish Creek Survey
Crew BR and RT
Wx cloudy with showers
Air temp 14 °
Water Temp 18 °
The objective of the survey was to collect habitat suitability data at flow that approximated those
that will be experienced post project. These flows will be reduced from current values due to the
placement of a tailings storage facility upstream of Fish Lake. The flow levels expected are:
May - 0.15 m3/s to 0.43 m3/s June – 0.04 m3/s to 0.13 m3/s. A survey conducted by Triton
on July 24 indicated that flow levels were at or above the upper limits of post project flows.
Field work was scheduled to take place later to capture the lower bounds of the future flows.
The survey was initiated on August17, 2011. When the crew arrived at Upper Fish Creek the
discharge was 0. The channel showed indications of a recent and rapid flow recession. Algae
mats on the dewatered riffles were wetted and grasses within dry channel area were still at
repose. It is unclear how recently the flow recession had occurred but based on our observation
it appeared to be in the range of days. It is also not clear why flow recession would have been
as rapid as seemed to occur.
A habitat assessment was undertaken to document the habitat strata in Upper fish Creek in the
area downstream of the proposed tailings dam. The stream was walked from the mouth for a
lineal distance of 1.95 km upstream based on GPS tracking from the mouth, which was estimated
to be approximately 3-4 km of stream length. Habitat units were defined by distance upstream
along with substrate within the units. Arial extents of potential spawning areas were estimated.
Although there was no flow the channel was wetted in sections that were contained within riffle
units that provided tailwater controls for the wetted sections. These sections were classified as
pool/glide on the survey sheet but are likely primarily glides when continuous flows are present.
Repeating sections of riffle and pool/glide would describe the overall stream morphology of
upper fish creek (see attached spreadsheet). The riffles were comprised on small and large
cobbles with some small boulders. A few of the riffles had some gravels but the smaller
substrate fraction was generally absent. Riffle gradients varied from 1 to 4 %. Most of the riffles
were completely dewatered although some were wetted to depths of 5 cm. Some riffles were
short < 2 m in length and functioned as weirs providing local hydraulic control, while some
riffles exceeded 30 m in length. The pools controlled by the riffles could be classified in three
different substrate types. Lower pool/glides had primarily cobble boulder beds with overlying
fines, some small pockets of gravel were observed but the area was limited. The mid survey area
had smaller substrates and this is the area where the majority of the spawning potential was
noted. The stream section located between 900m and 1.2 km from the mouth had areas of good
spawning gravel and evidence of active spawning within these areas. Rainbow trout fry were
also observed in this area although in low numbers.

Upstream of this section the pools/glides had primarily silty bottoms, with limited spawning
potential.
Several relic beaver dams were located along the channel. They appear to have been abandoned
for several years but still pose passage problems. Redds and fry were located above the beaver
dams suggesting spring freshette provides options for upstream passage. These could include
bypass flows. These potential bypass flows may not be present post project and may exacerbate
passage impacts.
The observed spawning sites were located in what would be glide habitat. In the largest area at
km 1.03 to 1.15 gravels were distributed downstream of a pool/glide below a riffle. Downstream
of the pool the channel became constricted that resulted in localize velocity increases. The
gravels there appeared to have had a heady concentration of spawners based on the disturbance
noted. There does not appear to be much gravel recruitment to upper Fish Creek. What is there
is maintained through the riffle/glide morphology of the system. Even with lower flows
hydraulic conditions could be manipulated to provide the necessary spawning requirements.
Provided there is no new recruitment of beavers perhaps the existing relic dams could be
removed modified to mitigate the loss of high bypass flows.
Photos

Photo 2 typical cobble boulder riffle
Photo 1 Pool between riffles

Photo 3 Relic Beaver Dam
Photo 4 Large Relic Beaver Dam > m high

Photo Main spawning location gravels are present upstream and through the channel narrowing
providing up to 100 m² of spawning habitat No flow at time of survey August 17, 2011
Prepared for:
Taseko Mines Limited
1020 – 800 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 2V6
Prepared by:
Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd.
1326 McGill Rd.
Kamloops, BC
V2C 6N6

Habitat Assessment of Upper Fish Creek August 17, 2011
Wx Cldy with showers Air Temp 15 ° Water Temp 18 °
Crew BR RT
Started survey 0:900 hours
Location Habitat Unit Substrate
Spawning
area m² Comments
Mouth 0
1 0‐45
Lake
backwater Cobble Boulder interspaced with fines
2 45 ‐50 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble No flow in Creek
3 50‐67 Pool/Glide Cobble dominant substrate, limited gravels
Pool at time of visit downstream
riffle impounds water
4 67‐70 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble No flow through rifle
5 70‐76 Pool/Glide Cobble dominant substrate, limited gravels
6 76‐85
cobble/bldr
riffle Large and small cobble some small boulder No flow through riffle
7 85‐122 Pool/Glide
Sands and some gravels (5²), with scattered
boulders 5
Pockets of potential spawning
gravels 5 m²
8 122‐141
cobble/bldr
riffle
Large and small cobble some small boulder
9 141‐157 Pool/Glide
Sands and some gravels (5 m²) , with scattered
boulders 5
10 157‐159 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
11 159‐170 Pool/Glide Cobbles with some fines
12 170‐174 Cobble Riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders (1 m width)
Pockets of potential spawning
gravels 5 m²
no spawning gravel noted. Location
of staff gauge 0.08 pool backwatered
from DS weir
13 174‐184 Pool/Glide Cobbles with some fines

Location Habitat Unit Substrate
Spawning
area m²
Comments
14 184‐208 Cobble riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders channel width 1m
15 208‐215
Split channel
cobble riffles
(2) Large and small cobbles
16 215‐230 Pool/Glide Cobbles with some fines
17 230‐232 Cobble riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders
18 232‐241 Pool/Glide cobble and large boulder with covering fines
19 241‐276 Cobble riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders
20 276‐300 Pool/Glide
Fines and small gravel some spawning
potential with appropriate velocities (5 m²) 5
21 300‐305 Cobble riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders
22 305‐322 Pool/Glide
Fines and small gravel some spawning
potential with appropriate velocities (5‐7 m²) 7
23 322‐331 Cobble riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders
24 331‐347 Pool/Glide
Fines and small gravel some spawning
potential with appropriate velocities (5‐10 m²) 10
25 347‐373 Cobble riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders deposit of gravels at upstream end
of riffle could be used for spawning with
appropriate flows.
26 373‐380 Pool/Glide Cobbles and fines
27 380‐382 Cobble riffle
Large and small cobble with some small
boulders
28 382‐391 Pool/Glide Cobbles and fines
29 391‐397 Cobble riffle Large and small cobble

Location Habitat Unit Substrate
Spawning
area m²
30 377 Beaver dam Relic dam 60 cm high veg growing on top
Fine sediments overlaying cobble boulder
31 377‐411 Pool/Glide vegetated with grasses
32 411‐438 Cobble riffle Large and small cobble
33 438‐447 Pool/Glide cobble boulder with fines
34 447‐483 Cobble riffle Large and small cobble
35 483 Beaver Dam Relic dam 70 cm high
36 483‐513 Pool Dry pond above relic beaver dam
37 513 Beaver dam Relic keeping flows out of downstream pond
38 513‐551 Pool/Glide cobbles fines
39 551‐573 Cobble riffle Large and small cobble
40 573 Beaver dam 60 cm high looks like barrier
Predominantly fines with some cobbles at
41 573‐600 Beaver pond upstream end
42 600‐608 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
43 608‐614 Pool/Glide cobbles fines
Cobles with some lateral gravel pockets (1‐2
44 614‐618 Cobble Riffle m²) 2
45 618‐621 Pool/Glide cobbles fines
46 621‐625 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
47 625‐634 Pool/Glide cobbles and some gravels 3m² 3
48 634‐644 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
49 644‐676 Pool/Glide cobbles and some gravels 5m² 5
Large and small cobble heavily matted with
50 676‐685 Cobble Riffle algae
51 685‐700 Pool/Glide cobbles and fines
52 700‐703 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
Long
53 703‐772 Pool/glide cobbles and fines no spawning gravel found
Comments

Location Habitat Unit Substrate
Spawning
area m²
54 772‐780 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
55 780‐800 Pool/Glide cobbles and fines
56 800‐806 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
57 806‐829 Pool/Glide cobbles and fines
58 829‐838 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
59 838‐905 Pool/Glide Cobble Boulder fines
No defined
60 905‐920 channel channel definition lost flows through grasses
61 920‐925 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
spawning gravels present (50 m ²) depth 20 ‐
62 925‐955 Pool/Glide 30 cm 50
63 955‐960 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
spawning gravels present (5 m ²) depth 20 ‐30
64 960‐978 Pool/Glide cm
65 978‐981 Cobble Riffle cobble gravel
spawning gravels present (20 m ²) depth 20 ‐
66 981‐995 Pool/Glide 30 cm 20
67 995‐1.03 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
68 1.03‐1.15‐ Pool/Glide Sands gravels 100m² spawning gravels 100
69 1.15 ‐1.20 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
70 1.20‐1.28 Pool/Glide fines
71 1.28‐1.32 Pool/Glide fines channel has instream vegetation grasses
72 1.32‐1.35 Cobble Riffle Cobbles and small boulders 3‐4% gradient
73 1.35‐1.39 Pool/Glide cobble and fines
74 1.39‐1.42 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
75 1.42 Beaver Dam Relic dam 1 m high looks like barrier
Comments
saw rainbow trout fry in riffle 5 cm
water depth ‐ no flow
gravels on inside of meander bend
and tail out of larger pool redds
present

Location Habitat Unit Substrate
76 1.42‐1.49 Pool/Glide fines
Spawning
area m²
77 1.49‐1.62 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
78 1.62‐1.67 Pool/Glide fines
79 1.67‐1.69 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
80 1.69‐1.72 Pool/Glide cobbles and fines
81 1.72‐1.73 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
82 1.73‐1.81 Pool/Glide fines braided area of channels
83 1.81‐1.82 Cobble Riffle Large and small cobble
Meandering silty channel with side channels
84 1.82‐1.95 Pool/Glide and grassy banks
End of survey 212
Comments
Saw fry so fish can get above beaver
dam likely at high flows

Suite 1400 - 750 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 2T8
File No.:VA101-266/9-A.01
Cont. No.:VA09-01164 Tel: 604.685.0543
Fax: 604.685.0147
www.knightpiesold.com
August 18, 2009
Mr. Roderick Bell-Irving
Manager, Environmental Assessment
Taseko Mines Limited
Suite 300 - 905 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1L6
Dear Rod,
Re:
Potential for Flow Losses in Fish Creek
Concerns have been raised by various parties that a substantial amount of flow in Fish Creek may be
going to ground and not resurfacing further downstream, thereby suggesting that the subsurface flows are
instead being conveyed to neighbouring basins and water courses, most notably the Taseko River. This
idea of a possible interbasin transfer of flows is based on some of the Fish Creek annual unit hydrograph
plots presented in Appendix C of the Prosperity Project Hydrometeorology Report (Ref. No. VA101-
00266/01-2, Dec. 3, 2007), which indicate substantial differences in unit area flows for different points on
Fish Creek. For example, Figure C9 (shown in Appendix A of this letter), which presents unit flows for
1993 for Fish Creek stations H2, H3, and H4b, indicates that unit flows drop substantially between
stations H2 and H3, and then only recover slightly between stations H3 and H4b, thereby demonstrating a
net loss of unit flow between stations H2 and H4b. The locations of the stations, as well as other stations
for which reasonable amounts of data are also available, are shown on Figure 1. The full descriptive
names of these stations are as follows:
• Station H17 - Fish Creek upstream of Fish Lake
• Station H2 - Fish Creek at the outlet of Fish Lake
• Station H3 - Fish Creek upstream of the ore body
• Station H6 - Fish Creek downstream of the ore body, and
• Station H4 - Fish Creek upstream of the Taseko River.
Please note that stations on Figure 1 that have the same number but different letter suffix are essentially
located in same place. The letter simply indicates that the gauge was re-installed at some point.
In an effort to assess the validity of interbasin groundwater flow supposition, all the available hydrology
data were carefully examined, and it has been concluded that the surface flow loss pattern suggested by
Figure C9 is almost certainly an artifact of data error. This conclusion is based on the following
information:
1. A review of all the figures in Appendix C of the hydrometeorology report indicates that there are no
consistent patterns of relative unit flows. In years 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1997 there appears to be a
net gain of unit flow between stations H2 and H4b, while for years 1993 and 1998 there appears to be
a net loss, and in 1995 the unit flow was reasonably constant (except for clearly anomalous flows in
November and December).

2. A comparison of discharge measurements that were manually recorded at different locations on the
same date also fails to indicate a consistent pattern of surface flow loss. The discharge
measurements recorded in the 1990s are summarized in Table 1 and those recorded in the 2000s
are in Table 2. Corresponding plots of unit runoff trends are shown on Figures 2 and 3. When
viewing these data please keep in mind that the 2000 data are likely more accurate than the 1990
data.
The key points that come to mind when viewing these Tables and Figures are as follows:
Table 1 and Figure 2 – The data are inconclusive. There does not appear to be any strong indication
of a substantial loss of flow to ground that is available to feed a neighbouring basin.
• H2 to H3 - There are no consistent trends. Stations H2 and H3 are located very close together
and should have very similar unit runoff, as they appear to do on the dates corresponding to the
largest measured flows (4/7/1992 and 5/13/1994). For the remaining three dates when flows are
concurrently measured at both sites the measurements indicate that the unit runoff essentially
doubles as one progresses downstream, which is physically impossible unless there was massive
seepage from the lake that was surfacing immediately downstream of the outlet, which is very
unlikely. This pattern is most likely an artifact of flow measurement error.
• H3 to H6 - Once again the trends are not consistent. Two dates show a substantial decrease in
flows, while the third date shows a minor increase. Overall, there appears to be a decrease in
flows.
• H6 to H4b - There are only two dates with concurrent measurements. In both instances there
appears to be an increase in flows.
Table 2 and Figure 3 - Overall, there appear to be higher unit flows at station H17b than at all stations
downstream of Fish Lake, although trends between stations H17b and H6b appear to be confounded
by the attenuating effect of the lake. There appears to be an increasing trend of unit flows between
stations H6b and H4c. The latter pattern is generally consistent with the pattern detected in the 1990
flow data.
• H17b to H6b - Four dates indicate decreasing unit flows and three dates indicate increasing unit
flows. The decreasing trends are substantially stronger and all occur in May, while the increasing
trends all occur in June. This pattern is fairly consistent with the expected attenuating effect of
Fish Lake.
• H6b to H4c - There is generally a trend of increasing unit flows in 2006, except during the very
lowest flow periods when there appears to be a slight decreasing trend, although differences in
the low flows are likely within the measurement error. In 2007, flows at the two sites appear to be
very similar.
3. Figure 4 presents the unit runoff hydrographs for stations H17b, H6b, and H4c, for the most complete
and reliable year of record available, which is 2007. This figure suggests that annual unit flows are
very similar at H6b and H4c, but that H17b has substantially higher runoff. This pattern is consistent
with the higher average basin elevation of H17b and correspondingly the expected
enhanced precipitation during the winter months and reduced evapotranspiration during the summer
months.
To conclude, there is no compelling hydrologic evidence to support the idea that Fish Creek is losing a
substantial amount of surface flow to groundwater that is being conveyed to neighbouring drainages.
2 of 3 VA09-01164
August 18, 2009

TABLE 1
TASEKO MINES LIMITED
PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
FISH CREEK MEASURED UNIT DISCHARGES (l/s/km 2 ) 1992-1996
Date Year Month Day H2 H3 H6 H4b
4/7/1992 1992 4 7 14.7 13.6 10.4
4/8/1992 1992 4 8 10.4
6/15/1992 1992 6 15 0.4 0.7
6/16/1992 1992 6 16 0.8
9/2/1992 1992 9 2 0.2
9/2/1992 1992 9 2 0.1
9/3/1992 1992 9 3 1.9
10/17/1992 1992 10 17 0.0
11/25/1992 1992 11 25 0.2
2/1/1993 1993 2 1 0.1 0.0 0.1
4/28/1993 1993 4 28 0.5 1.0 0.6
5/1/1993 1993 5 1 1.8
6/16/1993 1993 6 16 2.0
6/19/1993 1993 6 19 1.3
8/26/1993 1993 8 26 0.4 0.8
8/27/1993 1993 8 27 1.4
8/29/1993 1993 8 29 1.1
5/13/1994 1994 5 13 12.5 12.2
5/15/1994 1994 5 15 9.8 16.2
8/22/1994 1994 8 22 0.0
8/28/1994 1994 8 22 0.2
8/31/1994 1994 8 31 0.9
6/17/1995 1995 6 17 0.4
6/19/1995 1995 6 19 1.1
4/15/1996 1996 4 15 14.6
4/17/1996 1996 4 17 18.8
6/27/1996 1996 6 27 21.9
7/8/1996 1996 7 8 4.2
7/9/1996 1996 7 9 3.2 3.5
10/4/1996 1996 10 4 0.2 0.3
M:\1\01\00266\09\A\Data\Hydrology\Ratings_2006 - 2008\Measured Flow compare\1990s flows\[Gaugings Compare - 1990_VM.xls]Tab 1 - Summary H2H3H6H4b
Print Aug/18/09 14:51:51
NOTE:
1. DATASETS WITH CONCURRENT DISCHARGES AT TWO OR MORE SITES ARE INDICATED WITH SHADING.
0 05AUG'09 ISSUED FOR LETTER VA09-01164 JGC CB JGC
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D

TABLE 2
TASEKO MINES LIMITED
PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
FISH CREEK MEASURED UNIT DISCHARGES (l/s/km 2 ) 2006-2008
Date Year Month Day H17b H6b H4c
5/9/2006 2006 5 9 4.1
5/9/2006 2006 5 9 4.0
5/10/2006 2006 5 10 3.1
5/10/2006 2006 5 10 3.3
5/23/2006 2006 5 23 1.8 1.1 2.0
5/23/2006 2006 5 23 1.9 1.1 1.9
6/6/2006 2006 6 6 3.2
6/6/2006 2006 6 6 3.6
6/7/2006 2006 6 7 2.6 3.2
6/7/2006 2006 6 7 2.6 3.0
6/20/2006 2006 6 20 2.3 0.9 1.6
6/20/2006 2006 6 20 2.3 0.8 1.5
7/4/2006 2006 7 4 0.0
7/5/2006 2006 7 5 0.2 0.1
7/5/2006 2006 7 5 0.1
7/18/2006 2006 7 18 0.1 0.0
7/18/2006 2006 7 18 0.1 0.0
10/2/2006 2006 10 2 0.0 0.0
10/2/2006 2006 10 2 0.0 0.0
10/17/2006 2006 10 17 0.0
5/14/2007 2007 5 14 42.1 36.6 37.4
5/14/2007 2007 5 14 45.3 36.3 35.4
5/14/2007 2007 5 14 35.2
5/14/2007 2007 5 14 31.9
5/31/2007 2007 5 31 10.2 8.4 10.0
5/31/2007 2007 5 31 10.7 9.3 10.3
6/14/2007 2007 6 14 7.1 8.3 8.3
6/14/2007 2007 6 14 6.9 8.2 7.8
6/25/2007 2007 6 25 3.2 3.3
6/25/2007 2007 6 25 3.1 3.7
6/26/2007 2007 6 26 3.14
6/26/2007 2007 6 26 3.13
11/15/2007 2007 11 15 0.54
9/19/2008 2008 9 19 0.02
M:\1\01\00266\09\A\Data\Hydrology\Ratings_2006 - 2008\Measured Flow compare\2000s flows\[Gaugings Compare - 2000s.xls]Tab 2 - Summary H17b H6B H4C
Print Aug/18/09 14:51:51
NOTE:
1. DATASETS WITH CONCURRENT DISCHARGES AT TWO OR MORE SITES ARE INDICATED WITH SHADING.
0 05AUG'09 ISSUED FOR LETTER VA09-01164 JGC CB JGC
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D

M:\1\01\00266\09\A\Data\Hydrology\Ratings_2006 - 2008\Measured Flow compare\1990s flows\/Gaugings Compare - 1990_VM/Figure 2
8/18/2009 2:56 PM
18
Flow Measurement - Unit Discharge (l/s/km 2 )
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4/7/1992
5/13/1994
4/28/1993
6/15/1992
8/26/1993
2/1/1993
7/9/1996
5/15/1994
H2 H3 H6 H4b
Gauging Station
TASEKO MINES LTD.
NOTES:
1. COMPARATIVE PLOTS ARE PROVIDED FOR DISCHARGE VALUES MEASURED ON THE SAME DAY. MEASUREMENTS AT
DIFFERENT LOCATIONS WERE NOT TAKEN AT IDENTICAL TIMES, SO SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE UNIT RUNOFF
VALUES MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO DAILY FLUCTUATIONS IN THE STREAMFLOW PATTERNS.
H2 - Fish Creek at outlet of Fish Lake
H3 - Fish Creek upstream of the orebody
H6 - Fish Creek downstream of the orebody
H4b - Fish Creek near the Taseko River
PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
UNIT RUNOFF IN FISH CREEK
MOVING DOWNSTREAM FROM H2 to H3 to H6 to H4b
1992-1996 MEASUREMENTS
0 01AUG'09 ISSUED FOR LETTER JGC CB JGC
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
P/A NO.
VA101-266/9
FIGURE 2
REF NO.
VA09-01164
REV
0

M:\1\01\00266\09\A\Data\Hydrology\Ratings_2006 - 2008\Measured Flow compare\2000s flows\/Gaugings Compare - 2000s/Figure 3
8/18/2009 2:52 PM
45
5/14/2007
40
Flow Measurement - Unit Discharge (l/s/km 2 )
35
30
25
20
15
10
5/31/2007
H17 - Fish Creek upstream of Fish Lake
H6b - Fish Creek downstream of the orebody
H4c - Fish Creek near the Taseko River
5
0
6/25/2007
6/7/2006
6/20/2006
5/23/2006
6/14/2007
H17b H6b H4c
Gauging Station
TASEKO MINES LTD.
10/2/2006
7/18/2006
7/5/2006
NOTES:
1. COMPARATIVE PLOTS ARE PROVIDED FOR DISCHARGE VALUES MEASURED ON THE SAME DAY.
MEASUREMENTS AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS WERE NOT TAKEN AT IDENTICAL TIMES, SO SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCES IN THE UNIT RUNOFF VALUES MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO DAILY FLUCTUATIONS IN THE
STREAMFLOW PATTERNS.
PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
UNIT RUNOFF IN FISH CREEK
MOVING DOWNSTREAM FROM H17b to H6b to H4c
2006-2008 MEASUREMENTS
P/A NO.
VA101-266/9
REF NO.
VA09-01164
0 01AUG'09 ISSUED FOR LETTER JGC CB JGC
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE 3
REV
0

M:\1\01\00266\09\A\Data\Hydrology\Ratings_2006 - 2008\Unit Runoff Comparison Chart\Unit Runoff Comparison Chart.xls
Print 8/18/2009 2:53 PM
80
Station H17b
70
Station H6b
Station H4c
60
Unit Runoff (l/s/km 2 )
50
40
30
20
10
0
03/09/07 04/28/07 06/17/07 08/06/07 09/25/07 11/14/07 01/03/08
TASEKO MINES LTD.
PROSPERITY PROJECT
2007 UNIT RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH
H17B, H6B & H4C
0 AUG06'09 ISSUED FOR LETTER CMB JGC JGC
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
P/A NO.
VA101-266/9
FIGURE 4
REF. NO.
VA09-01164
REV
0

APPENDIX A
FIGURE C9 – MEAN MONTHLY UNIT HYDROGRAPHS:
FISH CREEK (H2, H3 & H4B) VS. BIG CREEK (08MB006)
(1 Page)
VA09-01164
August 18, 2009

M:\1\01\00266\01\A\Data\EA 2007\Hydrology\KP 2007 Hydromet Report\[App C plots (1).xls]Fig C9
Print 8/18/2009 1:45 PM
Rev'd April 19/07
30
H2
25
H3
H4b
08MB006
20
Unit Flow (l/s/km2)
15
10
5
0
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Year - 1993
TASEKO MINES LIMITED
PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
MEAN MONTHLY UNIT HYDROGRAPHS
FISH CREEK (H2, H3 & H4b) vs. BIG CREEK (08MB006)
Rev A - Issued in Draft
Knight Piésold
C O N S U L T I N G
PROJECT / ASSIGNMENT NO.
VA101-266/1
FIGURE C9
REF NO.
2
REV.
A