Taseko Mines New Prosperity Waste and Stockpile Preliminary Design

TASEKO MINES LIMITED
NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILES

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PREPARED FOR:
Taseko Mines Ltd.
15th Floor - 1040 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 4H1
PREPARED BY:
Knight Pisold Ltd.
Suite 1400 750 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 2T8 Canada
p. +1.604.685.0543 f. +1.604.685.0147
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
Knight Pisold
CONSULTING
www.k n i g h t p i e s o l d .com
August 2, 2012

WASTE AND STOCKPILES PRELIMINARY DESIGN
(REF. NO. VA101-266/27-4)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The preliminary design for safe, secure management of waste, ore and topsoil stockpiles for the proposed
New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project has been prepared by Knight Pisold Ltd. The quantities and
classification of waste materials is based on the Taseko Mines Limited mine development plan and open
pit production schedule. The temporary facilities for storage of topsoil, organic material and stockpile ore
are described. The waste management feasibility designs include the storage capacity, layout and
preliminary staged design for each waste dump and storage pile. A summary of the additional work
requirements to support subsequent detailed design of the waste dumps and storage piles is identified.
The waste materials to be managed are primarily from the open pit mining operation. The waste
management strategy for material from the open pit is divided into two key groups based on the potential
reactivity of the material. The two types of material are the potentially acid generating (PAG) material and
the non-potentially acid generating (Non-PAG) material. The management of stockpiled ore and topsoil
from all areas of site disturbance are also included in this study. The materials therefore have been
broken down into the following four material types:
Non-potentially acid generating overburden and waste rock (Non-PAG overburden and Non-PAG
waste rock)
Potentially acid generating overburden and waste rock (PAG overburden and PAG waste rock)
Stockpiled ore (Ore Stockpile), and
Topsoil and organic material.
The temporary storage of topsoil and organic material is required to ensure sufficient material is available
for reclamation at mine closure. The temporary stockpiling of ore in the Ore Stockpile is required to
balance the open pit production with the plant site ore milling, and to allow mine operation flexibility.
Waste from the open pit is to be managed in permanent surface facilities for safe and secure long term
disposal. The PAG waste facility is located within the tailings storage facility to allow for progressive
encapsulation within the tailings mass and to facilitate long term sub-aqueous disposal. The Non-PAG
waste will preferentially be used for tailings embankment construction. All remaining Non-PAG waste will
disposed in a surface storage facility. Drainage from the Non-PAG waste facility will be collected in water
collection ponds for controlled management.
I of I
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012

WASTE AND STOCKPILES
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
(REF. NO. VA101-266/27-4)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. i
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ iii
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2
SCOPE OF REPORT ................................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 2.0 - SITE CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................. 3
2.1
PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING .................................................................................................... 3
2.2
CLIMATE AND HYDROMETEOROLOGY ................................................................................ 3
2.2.1 Precipitation and Evaporation....................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Runoff ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.3 Storm Events ................................................................................................................ 4
2.3
SEISMICITY .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Seismic Hazard ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3.2 Design Earthquake ....................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 3.0 - GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 6
3.1
DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL UNITS ............................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Quaternary Overburden Soils ....................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Tertiary Basalt Flows .................................................................................................... 7
3.1.3 Tertiary Sediments ....................................................................................................... 7
3.1.4 Sedimentary Rocks ...................................................................................................... 8
3.2
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 8
SECTION 4.0 - WASTE STORAGE AND STOCKPILE DESIGN................................................................. 9
4.1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.2
DESIGN BASIS ......................................................................................................................... 9
4.3
LOCATION AND DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 10
4.3.1 Topsoil Stockpiles....................................................................................................... 10
4.3.2 Ore Stockpile .............................................................................................................. 10
4.3.3 Non-PAG Waste ......................................................................................................... 11
4.3.4 PAG Waste ................................................................................................................. 12
4.4
TOPSOIL MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL OPERATIONS .................................................. 12
i of iii
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.4.1 Management Practices for Soil Stripping and Salvage .............................................. 12

4.4.2 Management Practices for Soil Stockpiles ................................................................. 13
WASTE PILE STABILITY ........................................................................................................ 13
4.5.1 Waste Pile Stability Rating Scheme ........................................................................... 13
4.5.2 Waste Pile Stability Analyses ..................................................................................... 14
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ..................................................................................... 14
RECLAMATION ....................................................................................................................... 15
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ....................................... 16
SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 17

SECTION 6.0 - CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 18
TABLES
Table 2.1 Rev 0
Table 2.2 Rev 0
Table 4.1 Rev 0
Table 4.2 Rev 0
Table 4.3 Rev 0
Table 4.4 Rev 0
Table 4.5 Rev 0
Table 4.6 Rev 0
Table 4.7 Rev 0
Table 4.8 Rev 0
Table 4.9 Rev 0
Summary of Hydrometeorological Estimates

Summary of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Design Basis Summary
Annual Mill Feed, Stockpile and Waste Production Schedule
Waste and Stockpiles Storage Summary
Volumes of Proposed Soil Stockpiles
Annual Storage of Ore in Stockpile
Annual Storage in the Non-PAG Waste Rock Dump
Limit Equilibrium Analysis of Ore Stockpile
Limit Equilibrium Analysis of Non-PAG Waste Rock Dump
Waste and Stockpiles Stability Rating Summary
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Rev 0

Figure 1.2 Rev 0
Figure 2.1 Rev 0
Figure 3.1 Rev 0
Figure 4.1 Rev 0
Figure 4.2 Rev 0
Figure 4.3 Rev 0
Figure 4.4 Rev 0
Figure 4.5 Rev 0
Figure 4.6 Rev 0
Figure 4.7 Rev 0
Project Location Map

General Arrangement
Regional Tectonics and Historical Seismicity
Site Investigation History
Waste Storage Area Total Volume Summary
Typical Stockpile Slope Configurations
General Arrangement End of Year 1
General Arrangement End of Year 20 (Ultimate)
General Arrangement Final Reclamation
ii of iii
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Selected Tables from The Investigation and Design Manual Interim Guidelines (BC
MWRPRC, 1991)
List of Knight Pisold Ltd. Reports
Selected Site Investigation Logs
Depth-Area-Capacity
Slope Stability Analysis
iii of iii
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
ABBREVIATIONS
DSR
Dump Stability Rating
IDF
Intensity Duration Frequency
KPL
Knight Pisold Limited
MSC
Metrological Service of Canada
MWRPRC
Mine Waste Rock Pile Research Committee
Non-PAG
Non-Potentially Acid Generating
PAG
Potentially Acid Generating
TSF
Tailings Storage Facility
TML
Taseko Mines Limited
WSA
Waste Storage Area
i of i
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012

WASTE AND STOCKPILES
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
(REF. NO. VA101-266/27-4)
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
1.1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project is a large gold-copper deposit located in the Chilcotin region of
British Columbia, approximately 125 km south-west of the City of Williams Lake, as shown on Figure 1.1.
The Prosperity deposit is approximately 1,500 metres long, up to 800 metres wide, and extends to a
depth of over 800 metres below surface. The maximum depth of the proposed open pit is approximately
600 m. The deposit will be mined over a period of 16 years using conventional open pit methods, after
which the milling of ore stockpiled during the open pit operation will continue for the remainder of the mine
life (approximately 4 years), resulting in a total mine life of 20 years. Ore will be milled over the mine life
at a nominal 70,000 tonnes/day. This Waste and Stockpiles Preliminary Design report updates the
previous Knight Pisold Ltd. report Waste and Stockpiles Feasibility Design issued in May 2010
(Ref. No. VA101-266/12-2). The major change between the earlier report and this study is a redesign of
the Tailings Storage Facility, a redesign of all topsoil stockpiles and a new location and design for both
the Ore Stockpile, and the Non-Potentially Acid Generating (Non-PAG) Waste Rock Dump.
The mining of the New Prosperity Project ore deposit will generate waste rock. This report describes how
the waste rock will be managed in an environmentally safe and secure long term manner. The two key
waste management facilities are the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) which will have sufficient capacity to
store 482 million tonnes of tailings (approximately 344 million m3 at an average dry density of 1.4 t/m3)
and 237 million tonnes of Potential Acid Generating (PAG) waste rock and overburden. The Non-PAG
waste rock and overburden that is not used in embankment construction will be stored in a surface waste
dump. This Non-PAG dump is located in the Waste Storage Area (WSA). The WSA is located to the
east and northeast of the Open Pit, between the Open Pit and the plant site.
During mine operations approximately 87 million tonnes of ore will be stored in a temporary Ore Stockpile
within the Waste Storage Area, located between the Open Pit and the plant site. This stockpiled ore will
be milled during the latter part of the mine life.
The temporary storage of topsoil reclaimed during the construction of mine facilities is required to ensure
sufficient reclamation medium is available for mine closure. The topsoil recovered during construction will
be stockpiled at select locations close to the material source. The topsoil stockpiles are comparatively
low and flat with gently sloped faces.
A general arrangement showing the ultimate layout of the mine site is shown on Figure 1.2.
1 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
1.2
SCOPE OF REPORT
This report summarizes the conditions and design for geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects of the
topsoil stockpiles, Waste Storage Area (WSA), the PAG waste pile, and the Ore Stockpile. Specific
aspects addressed in this report include the following:
Site characteristics including physiographic setting, climate, hydrometeorology and seismicity
Geotechnical conditions at the Waste Storage Area
Layout and design of the topsoil stockpiles
Layout and design of the Non-PAG waste pile
Layout and design of the PAG waste pile within the TSF
Layout and design of the Ore Stockpile
Dump stability rating classification (BC MWRPRC, 1991)
Surface water management, including the Water Collection Ponds and sediment control measures,
and
Reclamation and closure.
2 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
SECTION 2.0 - SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.1
PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING
The New Prosperity Project is located within the westernmost portion of the Intermontane belt at the
boundary between the Intermontane and Coast morphologic belts. This area is underlain by poorly
exposed, Late Palaeozoic to Cretaceous lithotectonic assemblages that have been intruded by plutons of
Mid-Cretaceous to Early Tertiary age. The most important structural feature in the region is the Yalakom
Fault, a southeast trending and steeply dipping structure, 4 km south of the Prosperity deposit.
The ground surface is relatively gently sloping terrain, with numerous small swamps both along the valley
bottom and along the shallow slopes. These swampy areas indicate the presence of relatively low
permeability surficial materials. Much of the remaining area is forested with very little underbrush.
2.2
CLIMATE AND HYDROMETEOROLOGY
Detailed site hydrometeorology is presented in the draft KPL Hydrometeorology Report

(VA101-266/1-02, December 2007). Additional work has been completed since this report was issued;
the updated information is included in a letter issued in response to comments and questions from
Environment Canada during the Environmental Assessment process (KPL, November 2009). The
following sections summarise information presented in the Hydrometeorology Report.
2.2.1
Precipitation and Evaporation

Long-term estimates of precipitation were made by correlating relatively short-term site values
with longer-term data from Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) stations operated by
Environment Canada. Five regional stations considered to be reasonably relevant to the project
site were identified, from which the stations Big Creek and Alexis Creek Tautri Creek' were
chosen on the basis of proximity, elevation, and period of record, as the most suitable for
assessing precipitation patterns. The mean annual precipitation for the Project site was
estimated to be 527 mm at elevation of 1,600 m.
Lake evaporation estimates for the project area were based on data from the MSC Highland
Valley BCCL station, which has a similar elevation and temperature regime as the site, and is the
closest regional station with evaporation data. The mean annual evaporation for the Project site
was estimated to be 452 mm at an elevation of 1,600 masl. A summary of estimated long-term
average annual and monthly precipitation, as well as evaporation can be found in Table 2.1.
2.2.2
Runoff
Runoff patterns in the project area are dictated by the combined effects of rainfall and snowmelt,
and the hydrologic condition of the ground cover, which affects evapotranspiration and infiltration.
The most effective means of determining runoff patterns for undisturbed areas is to use
measured flow data. A number of stream flow gauging stations have been operated in the project
area, but the gauge that is most relevant to the current project configurations is the gauge in
Lower Fish Creek, station H4d and H17b. An assessment of the data from this gauge, along with
3 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
concurrent and long-term regional data, resulted in a long-term mean annual unit runoff estimate
of 120 mm for natural areas, as indicated in Table 2.1. Monthly coefficients of variation are also
provided, which reflect the inter-annual variability of monthly runoff. These values are based on
the maximum monthly values from a number of long-term regional streamflow records (KPL,
November 2009) and are relatively high, consistent with the long-term regional streamflow
patterns. The estimated long-term average annual and monthly distributions of rainfall/snowmelt
and evaporation are provided in Table 2.1.
Natural runoff values are not applicable for mine disturbed areas due to the potential changes in
runoff caused by alterations in ground cover. They are also not applicable for modelling net
inflows to water bodies resulting from direct precipitation and evaporation. Notably, natural runoff
generally does not occur in the later summer periods of August and September because soil
moisture is low and evapotranspiration generally exceeds rainfall. However, as
evapotranspiration is generally much lower in disturbed areas, some runoff may occur, while for
water bodies there is a net loss due to evaporation exceeding rainfall. Therefore, for disturbed
areas and water bodies the runoff was estimated on the basis of rainfall and snowmelt estimates,
which were correlated with the natural runoff estimates to ensure consistency. The disturbed
area runoff estimates were generated by applying appropriate runoff coefficients to
rainfall/snowmelt values, while the water body inflows were determined by subtracting
evaporation from the rainfall/snowmelt values.
A runoff coefficient of 0.5 was selected for waste rock to reflect the expectation that runoff would
be higher from the Non-PAG waste rock than from natural basins (where the runoff coefficient is
approximately 0.2) because of lower evapotranspiration losses due to the rapid infiltration of rain
and snowmelt and the lack of vegetation.
2.2.3
Storm Events
The storm event precipitation values for a selection of return periods are presented. The curves
were largely generated from data in the Rainfall Frequency Atlas for Canada (RFAC), with the
estimates for the 24 hour events including consideration of the maximum daily precipitation
values from the selected regional Atmospheric and Environmental Service stations and the site
Stations M1 and M2.
Relevant 24 hour storm events are:
1:10 year
54 mm
1:25 year
64 mm, and
1:200 year
84 mm.
2.3
SEISMICITY
2.3.1
Seismic Hazard
The Prosperity project site is situated in the north-eastern edge of the Coast Mountains where the
level of historical seismic activity is low. There is no evidence of potential seismic activity along
4 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
the nearby Yalakom fault system and its related features (Pacific Geoscience Centre, 1998). The
maximum earthquake magnitude for the potential seismic source regions of the Coast Mountains
and Cascades is estimated to be in the range of 7.5 to 7.7 (Adams and Halchuk, 2003).
Figure 2.1 shows the regional tectonics and historical seismicity.
There has been much debate in recent years concerning the possibility of a large interplate
earthquake of Magnitude 8 or 9 along the Cascadia subduction zone. Such an event would likely
be located over 300 km west of the project site, and therefore the amplitude of ground motions
experienced at the site would be low due to attenuation over such a large distance (peak ground
accelerations would likely be less than 0.05g).
Review of historical earthquake records and regional tectonics indicates that the Prosperity
Project site is situated in a region of moderate seismic hazard. To provide seismic ground motion
parameters for design of the Ore Stockpile, waste dumps and topsoil stockpiles a probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis has been carried out using the database of Natural Resources Canada.
The results are summarized in Table 2.2 showing the earthquake return period, probability of
exceedance (for a 20 year design operating life) and the median peak ground acceleration. The
mean average peak acceleration is used for the seismic stability analysis; this is consistent with
the TSF embankments. For geotechnical structures such as dams it is recommended that the
mean average peak acceleration be used for design (Canadian Dam Association Dam Safety
Guidelines, 2007). The mean average peak acceleration is typically 20 percent greater than the
median value. Estimated mean average values of peak ground acceleration are included on
Table 2.2.
2.3.2
Design Earthquake
The design earthquake has been selected from the results of a probabilistic hazard evaluation.
The return period for the design earthquake is recommended by the BC Mine Waste Rock Pile
Research Committee (1991) as the earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years
(with a corresponding return period of 475 years). For design of the WSA, Ore Stockpile and
topsoil stockpiles the design earthquake has been taken as the 1 in 475 year return period event.
The probability of exceedance for this event is only 4% for a 20 year operating period (including a
pre-production year). For a return period of 475 years, the corresponding mean average peak
acceleration is 0.17g. A conservative design earthquake magnitude of 7.0 has been selected
based on a review of regional tectonics, potential seismic source zones in the region (as defined
by Adams and Halchuk, 2003) and historical seismicity. Limited deformation of the WSA and
stockpiles is acceptable under seismic loading from the design earthquake, provided their overall
stability and integrity is maintained.
5 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
SECTION 3.0 - GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

3.1
DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL UNITS
This section presents an overview of the geotechnical conditions encountered in Fish Creek Valley, with
emphasis on the Waste Storage Area (WSA). The regional geological information in the vicinity of the
WSA is derived from interpretation of KPL site investigation data within the TSF, plant site and crusher,
and open pit areas, as well as from TML geological maps. A detailed description of the geological units
and site investigations is presented in the KPL reports:
Waste Storage Area Geotechnical Feasibility Report (Ref. No. 11173/16-4, Feb 25, 1999)
Report on Plant and Crusher Site Foundation Investigations (Ref. No. 1738/3, Jan 11, 1995)
2009 Geotechnical Site Investigation Factual Data Report (Ref. No. VA101-266/10-1, Jan 28, 2010),
and
Draft 2012 Geotechnical Site Investigation Factual Data Report (Ref. No. VA101-266/56-1, July
2012).
The geotechnical site investigations included test pitting, geotechnical drilling, standard penetration
testing of the overburden soils, laboratory testing of recovered core and bulk soil samples, point load
testing of rock samples, in situ permeability testing, and geophysical surveys. The locations of site
investigations and the waste management facilities are shown on Figure 3.1.
In general the WSA is underlain by the following four main geological units (in chronological order from
youngest to oldest):
Quaternary Overburden Soils
Tertiary Basalt Flows
Tertiary Sediments, and
Sedimentary Rocks (Late Triassic to Cretaceous).
These units with their typical geotechnical characteristics are described in the following section.
3.1.1
Quaternary Overburden Soils

Much of the WSA is blanketed by Quaternary age, surficial glacial deposits that are variable in
composition, but typically contain a silt to sandy silt matrix with some gravel to boulder size
material and trace to some clay. This glacial till is typically thicker in the valley floors than on the
slopes. The valley slopes typically have a thin mantel of till overlying the Tertiary basalts. The
glacial till unit typically ranges in thickness from 2 to 10 m, but deposits have been encountered to
depths of 27 m (in topographic lows). This glacial till is typically stiff to very stiff.
The glacial till is primarily non-stratified except for rare, thin sandy and lacustrine seams
interpreted to be localized features. The pockets of sand and gravel with limited fines content
encountered in the drillholes and test pits are typically very dense, well graded material with low
permeability.
6 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
The glacial till deposits will form a barrier against infiltration into the underlying geologic units. In
situ testing of the till units completed in 1996 and 2012 calculated an average permeability of
approximately 1 x 10-6 cm/s.
In addition to the glacial till, the following materials are present on the site: lacustrine deposits,
recent lake bottom sediments, numerous shallow small swamps with characteristic accumulations
of peat material predominantly along the valley bottoms and adjacent to Fish Lake.
3.1.2
Tertiary Basalt Flows

Tertiary basalt flows are found at depths from 10m to 80m below ground surface in the Open Pit
and Waste Storage Area. This geologic unit is characterized by the numerous sub horizontal
flows of both vesicular and non-vesicular basalt. A sequence of volcanic basalt flows, ranging in
thickness from approximately 10 to 30 m, has been identified in the WSA. Isolated outcrops of
basalt are observed within the side slopes of the valley surrounding Fish Lake. One notable
outcrop, along the western side of the proposed open pit, is up to 140m in thickness. Many of the
basalt flows are underlain or intercalated with lacustrine deposits and possess quenched,
vesicular textures along flow boundaries. Higher up along the ridge of the WSA (to the north of
the proposed location of the Ore Stockpile), the basalt flows are themselves overlain by a
sandstone layer (drillhole 94-137, 94-138). The basalt unit is likely composed of numerous,
discontinuous tongues of individual flows, which are difficult to correlate.
Point load test values on the basalt flows indicate a wide range of compressive strengths from
very weak (~5 MPa) to extremely strong (>250 MPa). This range in compressive strengths
reflects the vesicular nature of the basalt flows. Massive (non-vesicular) flows yielded strength
values from 50 MPa to greater than 250 MPa, indicating strong to extremely strong intact rock.
Point load tests in the vesicular basalt correlated to compressive strengths in the 2 MPa to
50 MPa range, indicating extremely weak to medium strong intact rock. However, the testing
procedure in highly vesicular sections may yield misleading results due to the small cavities
distributed throughout the formation of this rock type.
The in situ permeability measured in the basalt unit show a wide variability from 1 x 10-7 cm/s in
competent massive rock to 1 x 10-4 cm/s in fractured vesicular flow tops. This variability has an
impact on the groundwater regime as groundwater flow will be confined to the sub-horizontal,
high permeability layers bounded by competent rock and overlying glacial till.
3.1.3
Tertiary Sediments
The basalt flows are often interlayered with very dense clastic sedimentary units, generally less
than 10 m thick. The sedimentary units consist of a well graded sands and gravels, with horizons
of lacustrine sediments. The Tertiary sedimentary unit was not encountered in any of the drill
holes located in the Waste Storage Area. However, the Tertiary sediments have been observed
in drill holes in the open pit area.
7 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
3.1.4
Sedimentary Rocks
Mudstones and conglomerates of Upper Triassic to Cretaceous age underlie the Tertiary basalt
and Tertiary basalt sequence and form the basement rock on the west side of Fish Creek Valley.
This unit was not encountered in any of the drill holes in the Waste Storage Area due to the
thickness of the overlying units, although conglomerate layers were encountered in the open pit
area.
This geologic unit consists primarily of competent, medium strong to strong conglomerates with
sheared graphitic argillites and lesser sandstones and mudstones. The intact compressive rock
strength is between 40 to 100 MPa. The argillite unit is characterized by highly fractured rock
containing gouge and breccia zones and frequent slickensided surfaces. Coarse grained,
heterolithic, conglomerates have been encountered beneath the argillite.
3.2
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
The interpreted baseline groundwater conditions are based on piezometric levels in standpipes located
throughout the study area, in addition to shut-in pressure tests performed during previous drilling
investigations. A general groundwater flow regime within the Fish Creek basin can be characterized by
the following conditions:
Recharge along the topographic highs, such as the west ridge and the overall gradient is north toward
Taseko River. Supporting evidence includes a downward pressure gradient in drillhole 96-198,
located on the ridge, and overall water levels along the ridge that are 45 to 90 m higher than
observed levels in the Fish Creek valley.
Recharge from the west ridge and southern topographic highs flow into the basin along confined
aquifers. The surficial tills, zones of relatively low permeability rock (the basalt flows and sedimentary
rocks), and the fine grained lacustrine units act as aquitards. These aquitards confine the basin flow
along coarser grained sediments, contact zones between the rock and soil units, and within the
relatively high permeability fractured bedrock sections. The WSA will have little impact on the local
groundwater regime as the mantle of glacial till greatly reduces infiltration to the underlying aquifers.
Artesian pressures exist in low lying areas, while the water table is found at greater depths below
ground surface along ridges. A groundwater divide is present in the area along the ridge tops of the
western edge of the Fish Creek watershed. The divide hydraulically separates the Fish Creek
watershed from the Taseko River up to the confluence of the Taseko River and Lower Fish Creek.
Only minor fluctuations were observed in the groundwater wells with measurements taken over
several years. Well water level elevations in the Fish Creek valley range from 1,454 to 1,497 m. The
highest of these is located on the east side of the valley and the lowest near Fish Creek in the centre
of the valley, indicating westward moving groundwater flow in the valley. On the west ridge, well
water elevations range from 1,514 to 1,582 m (both in drillhole 96-195). The highest water elevations
are measured in the central and southern parts of the ridge with the lowest elevations to the north,
indicating flow towards the north. In addition, these elevations are much higher than those in the Fish
Creek valley, indicating flow into the valley is hydraulically confined on the east and west, and
confirming the hydraulic divide mentioned above.
8 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
SECTION 4.0 - WASTE STORAGE AND STOCKPILE DESIGN

4.1
INTRODUCTION
All waste generated by open pit operations is to be stored in an environmentally sound, safe and secure
manner in permanent storage facilities. A waste characterization program has been completed to predict
the reactivity of waste rock and overburden materials from the open pit. A total of approximately
881 million tonnes of waste material will be produced over the mine life. The waste characterization
program has determined that it will be comprised of:
482 million tonnes of Non-PAG tailings
327 million tonnes of waste rock of which:
o 226 million tonnes (69%) is PAG
o 102 million tonnes (31%) is Non-PAG
72 million tonnes of waste overburden of which:
o 12 million tonnes (17%) is PAG, and
o 60 million tonnes (83%) Non-PAG.
In addition to the waste material a temporary stockpile for ore and a number of topsoil stockpiles will be
developed. The stockpiles will be managed in an environmentally sound, safe and secure manner at
engineered storage sites.
The tailings and PAG waste will be deposited in the TSF. The majority of Non-PAG waste rock and
overburden will be used for the construction of the TSF embankment. The remaining Non-PAG waste will
be disposed of in a surface waste dump located in the Waste Storage Area (WSA). The Non-PAG dump
is located directly northeast of the Open Pit. A conceptual summary of the total waste storage volumes
and location is presented on Figure 4.1.
4.2
DESIGN BASIS
The waste rock and overburden will be stored in two locations. The Non-PAG waste rock and Non-PAG
waste overburden will be placed in a surface dump located in the WSA. The PAG waste rock and PAG
overburden will be placed in a designated area located within the TSF. The PAG and Non-PAG waste
dumps will be designed to remain stable under both static and seismic conditions. A summary of the
design basis for the WSA is presented in Table 4.1.
The TSF has been designed to permanently store tailings, PAG waste rock and PAG overburden. There
is potential for a limited volume of PAG waste material to be selectively incorporated into the TSF
embankment construction during the early years of operations. This PAG waste may be incorporated into
the upstream shell zone of the Main Embankment for construction of the starter embankment. A
summary of the annual mine production schedule is presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.3 presents the
staged allocation of Non-PAG waste between embankment construction and the Waste Storage Area
along with the PAG waste and stockpile ore production.
9 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
4.3
LOCATION AND DESIGN
Storage piles and waste dumps have been designed to manage the following materials:
Topsoil
Non-PAG waste rock and overburden
PAG waste rock and overburden, and
Ore Stockpile.
The location and configuration of the topsoil, waste dumps and Ore Stockpile are presented on the overall
site general arrangement plan shown on Figure 1.2. A general arrangement of the overall site
development is shown for Year 1, Year 3, Year 16 and Year 20 on Figures 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6
respectively.
The topsoil stockpiles, PAG and Non-PAG waste dumps and Ore Stockpile are described in the following
sections.
4.3.1
Topsoil Stockpiles
Topsoil will be stripped during development of the plant site, the open pit, and the TSF. The
topsoil will be managed separately from overburden material and placed in stockpiles for use in
reclamation activities. The topsoil stockpiles are estimated to peak at a total of approximately
5 Mm3 and will generally be located within 2 kilometres of the material source. The location of the
various topsoil stockpiles is shown on the general arrangement plan on Figure 1.2, and the size
and volumes of the stockpiles are summarized in Table 4.4. The total potential capacity of the
soil stockpiles includes a contingency to allow for additional organic materials and to facilitate
flexibility in soil stockpile management.
The topsoil stockpiles will be limited to a maximum of 15 m height and constructed as wrap
around dumps in an ascending sequence. This construction method is used to improve overall
stability as each constructed lift will act as a buttress for the toe of the next lift. In addition, the
topsoil stockpile will be constructed such that the overall slope angle will average 22 degrees
(2.5H:1V). These flat overall topsoil stockpile slopes will minimize the risk of slope instability,
reduce erosion potential, and improve the suitability for vegetation growth. Figure 4.2 shows the
typical slope configuration for the topsoil stockpiles.
4.3.2
Ore Stockpile
The Ore Stockpile will be located to the east of the Open Pit and will expand progressively over
the initial mine life. The stockpiled ore will continuously vary over the mine life with a peak of
approximately 87 million tonnes (32 million m3). The stockpiled ore will be milled during the later
part of the mine life.
The Ore Stockpile will be developed in a series of 15m lifts up to a final stockpile height of
approximately 90 m. The Ore Stockpile will have a bench face angle of 38 and an inter-ramp
angle of 20. The footprint of the Ore Stockpile will be stripped, grubbed and unsuitable materials
10 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
removed prior to construction. The excavated topsoil will be stockpiled and used in reclamation
work at the end of the life cycle of the mine. A typical slope configuration for the Ore Stockpile is
shown on Figure 4.2. A Depth-Area-Capacity relationship has been developed and is shown in
Appendix D. Table 4.5 presents on an annual basis the volume of ore and the maximum height
of the Ore Stockpile.
Diversion ditches will be required upstream of the Ore Stockpile to minimize the contact of runoff
water with the ore. The collection of seepage and surface runoff from the base of the stockpile
ore will be achieved by ditch drainage to a seepage collection pond located in a topographic low
point at the north end of the WSA. Details of the surface water management strategy are
described in following sections.
4.3.3
Non-PAG Waste
The primary use of Non-PAG waste rock is in the construction of the TSF embankments, where it
will provide the majority of the fill material for the Main and West TSF embankments. Non-PAG
waste that is either unsuitable for use as a construction material or in excess of the construction
material requirements will be placed in a surface dump. The Non-PAG surface dump is located
immediately north of the Ore Stockpile, to the north-east of the Open Pit.
The construction of the Non-PAG Waste Rock Dump is similar to that of the Ore Stockpile, in that
it will be constructed in series of 15m lifts, up to a peak dump height of approximately 105 m
achieved by Year 8. The Non-PAG Waste Dump will be excavated for construction materials
from Year 8 until closure (as not enough waste materials are being produced during these stages
from mine operations to provide the required construction materials for the TSF embankments),
and for materials to provide a waste rock base layer for reclamation of the tailings beaches, until
a final dump height of approximately 90 m has been achieved by Year 20 (closure) after resloping
for reclamation.
The peak volume of this Non-PAG Waste Dump is approximately 53 million m3 (100 million
tonnes), while the final dump volume is approximately 34 million m3 (64 million tonnes). A bench
face angle of 38 and an inter-ramp angle of 29 have been adopted for this preliminary design.
The footprint of the dump will be excavated to an average depth of 0.5m and the ground surface
re-contoured to provide a more stable construction base. A typical slope configuration (including
final overall slope after reclamation) is shown on Figure 4.2.
A Depth-Area-Capacity relationship has been developed for the Non-PAG Waste Rock Dump and
is shown in Appendix D. The annual variations in height, peak height and volume of the NonPAG Waste Rock Dump are shown in Table 4.6.
Seepage collection will be achieved via a combination of natural drainage and constructed
drainage ditches to direct water to a water collection pond for recycle to the TSF or the process.
Further details of the surface water management strategy are described in the following sections.
11 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
The Non-PAG Waste Dump is to be reclaimed after closure by grading the slopes to a 2H:1V or
flatter face and applying and seeding a growth medium approximately 0.5 m thick.
4.3.4
PAG Waste
A total of 237 Mt of PAG waste rock and overburden will be placed within the TSF in a sidehill fill
arrangement along the eastern slopes of Fish Creek Valley. The dump will be operated to
maintain approximately 500 m minimum separation between the PAG waste pile and the TSF
embankments. This separation will allow development of a tailings beach between the TSF
embankments and the PAG waste dump. The continuous tailings deposit will provide a low
permeability transition zone between the coarse, permeable PAG waste rock and the TSF
embankment. This low permeability tailings zone will function to control seepage and reduce
hydraulic gradients at the tailings embankment. The crest of the PAG waste dump will be
covered with tailings and submerged by the supernatant pond in the later years of the mine life
when stockpiled ore is being milled after open pit mining is complete.
The PAG storage area build sequence is based upon the mine production schedule. It will be
developed with a similar rate of rise as the tailings. The on-going maximum elevation of the PAG
waste rock and overburden dump will be maintained at an elevation above the flood level of the
TSF supernatant pond. The dump crest will be maintained several metres higher than the tailings
and supernatant pond to provide a dry, stable surface for efficient truck traffic and dump
operations. At closure, the PAG waste will be submerged by tailings and the TSF supernatant
pond. Based on the present mining schedule, four years of tailings deposition will occur after final
placement of PAG materials.
Three Depth-Area-Capacity relationships have been developed for the PAG waste dump. The
production of PAG waste material is not constant and peaks around year 8. Hence the area of
the PAG waste dump does not increase at a regular rate. The Depth-Area-Capacity relationship
curves are divided into 5 year sections, the three curves are included in Appendix D.
4.4
TOPSOIL MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL OPERATIONS
Initial construction and on-going development of mine facilities will require that topsoil and organic
material be salvaged from select areas of ground disturbance. Soil salvaging and stockpiling operations
will require a variety of management practices to ensure that soils are handled and stored properly during
all phases of the mine development. Soil management practices to be carried out for soil stripping,
salvage and stockpiling are summarized below:
4.4.1
Management Practices for Soil Stripping and Salvage
Wet conditions will be avoided when possible during soil salvage operations.
Excessive traffic will be avoided during the salvage process to minimize admixing,
compaction and rutting.
Traffic will be confined to established routes to avoid unnecessary compaction of soil in
undisturbed areas.
12 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012

4.4.2
Management Practices for Soil Stockpiles
4.5
Erosion control measures will be implemented.
Soil will be stockpiled in locations to minimize the possibility of further disturbance.

Stockpile locations will, where possible, be located a sufficient distance away from operations
to protect soils from contamination.
Protective ditches around stockpiles will be constructed where practical.
Erosion will be managed by limiting the height and slope of stockpiles. Erosion control
measures will be implemented including prompt vegetation establishment on topsoil
stockpiles to reduce exposure of bare soil.
Where possible stockpiles will be oriented to reduce wind erosion and located to reduce wind
exposure.
Table 4.4 lists the potential capacity of the proposed topsoil stockpiles at a height of 15 m.
The locations of these stockpiles are shown on Fig 1.2.
WASTE PILE STABILITY
Stability analyses were conducted to determine the factors of safety for the given slope geometry of the
respective storage dumps. These results are compared against the Dump Stability Rating (DSR) scheme
from the Investigation and Design Manual Interim Guidelines (BC MWRPRC, 1991).
4.5.1
Waste Pile Stability Rating Scheme

The Investigation and Design Manual Interim Guidelines (BC MWRPRC, 1991) provides
recommendations for stability assessment of mine waste piles. These guidelines include a Dump
Stability Rating (DSR) scheme. The DSR system provides a semi-quantitative method for
assessing the relative potential of dump stability and recommends the appropriate level of dump
investigation and design. This is based on individual point ratings for each of the main factors
affecting dump stability. Each factor is given a point rating based on qualitative and/or
quantitative descriptions accounting for the possible range of conditions. An overall DSR is
calculated as the sum of the individual ratings for each of the various factors. Copies of Table 5.1
Dump Stability Rating Scheme and Table 5.2 Dump Stability Classes and Recommended Level
of Effort from the waste dump research committee guidelines are included in Appendix A.
The dump rating guidelines were used to classify the waste and stockpiles at the New Prosperity
Project. A summary of the results are presented in Table 4.9. The Ore Stockpile and Non-PAG
Waste Dump are classified as Class II, Low Hazard. The PAG Waste Dump has been
conservatively considered as a Class III, Moderate Hazard dump. The PAG dump classification
is due to the periods of waste placement onto the tailings. The Moderate Hazard classification
recommends that additional site investigations, including laboratory testing and a detailed stability
analysis be completed for the next level of detailed design.
In general, the dump stability classification indicates that a basic stability analysis is required. In
accordance with provincial guidelines (BC MWRPRC, 1991) and standard industry practice, the
13 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
minimum acceptable factor of safety for waste dumps under static conditions is 1.3 for short-term
operating conditions and 1.5 after reclamation and abandonment. A factor of safety under
seismic conditions of less than 1.0 may be acceptable provided that calculated deformations
resulting from seismic loading are not significant. The BC Mine Waste Rock Pile Research
Committee (MWRPRC) interim guidelines for design factor of safety are presented in Appendix A
(Table 6.4).
4.5.2
Waste Pile Stability Analyses

Slope stability analyses for the Ore Stockpile and the Non-PAG Waste Dump for each year of
construction were undertaken. The critical slope failure and factors of safety at Year -1 (startup)
and Years 14 to 16 (peak stockpile volume) respectively are shown in Appendix E. The
respective factors of safety are 1.8 and 2.6. These factors of safety are acceptable under the
conditions laid out in the DSR scheme outlined above. As the Ore Stockpile will be depleted after
completion of mine work and, as such, the factor of safety of 1.5 for structures after reclamation
and abandonment does not apply here and only the minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for short-term
operating conditions is applicable. A summary factor of safety for the Ore Stockpile on an annual
basis is displayed in Table 4.7.
The slope stability factor of safety for the Non-PAG Waste Dump at Year -2 (pre-production),
Year 8 (peak dump volume) and Year 20 (closure) are shown in Appendix E. The respective
factors of safety for these analyses are 1.7, 1.6 and 1.6. These factors are acceptable under the
conditions laid out in the DSR scheme (see above). The final factor of safety of 1.6 at closure is
in excess of the minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for structures after reclamation and abandonment
and is thus acceptable, all factors of safety are in excess of the minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for
short-term operating conditions. A summary of the stability analyses conducted for the Non-PAG
Dump on an annual basis is presented in Table 4.8.
4.6
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
The following are generally recommended methods of construction and operation to ensure on going
stability and performance of the WSA. These methods may be updated and revised, as necessary,
based on field observations and performance monitoring during the initial stages of waste and stockpile
construction.
Pre-Production
Establish Best Management Practices to control runoff.
Construct water collection ponds.
Construct diversion and runoff collection ditches where required.
Clear and grub vegetated areas prior to placement of waste materials.
Operations
Waste materials will be transported from the pit using haul trucks. The material may be end dumped
over the face or spread by dozers over the crest of the waste dump.
14 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
4.7
Trial sections may be constructed in the field during the initial stages of development to monitor waste
pile stability and foundation performance. The various waste materials may be sampled for
characterization and for durability testwork to confirm the design parameters.
Waste rock material shall be end dumped over the crest to allow for maximum segregation of the
coarser material at the base of each bench. For overburden materials, end dumping short of the
crest and dozing over may be required.
RECLAMATION
Reclamation of the Non-PAG waste dump and Ore Stockpile footprint will be required for mine closure.
As much as practical the reclamation will be carried out concurrent with mine operations. It is anticipated
the Non-PAG waste dump reclamation will begin in the latter half of the mine life, when the waste pile
reaches its final configuration and sectors become inactive. Reclamation of the Ore Stockpile footprint
will take place post mine closure as the stockpiled ore is milled and the footprint is exposed. Reclamation
will be conducted in conjunction with on-going environmental monitoring to ensure that sediment control
and water quality objectives are met. A general arrangement of the ultimate mine at closure and after
reclamation is shown on Figure 4.7, including the location and configuration of the final WSA.
The closure and reclamation of the Non-PAG waste rock and overburden dump will be required to meet
end land use goals. The closure of the Non-PAG waste dump will include the resloping of the dump face,
to a 2H:1V or flatter slope, to facilitate the placement of soil and revegetation and to allow for water
breaks. The final waste dump bench crests will be rounded and the faces resloped to improve the longterm erosion stability of the waste piles. A final cover will consist of a 0.5 m thick layer of suitable topsoil
and revegetated with indigenous grasses, shrubs or trees. The revegetation of the Non-PAG waste piles
is an important part of the overall site reclamation plan. Reclamation will be conducted in conjunction
with on-going geotechnical and environmental monitoring to ensure that slope stability, sediment control
and water quality objectives are met.
The ultimate PAG waste pile will be fully contained and buried within the ultimate TSF at closure. No
reclamation activates will be required on the PAG waste pile at closure. A description of the reclamation
activities at the TSF is provided in the KP report Preliminary Design of the Tailings Storage Facility
(VA101-266/27-3).
The topsoil stockpiles will be depleted during reclamation, typical uses of the topsoil may include:
The roads and decommissioned water management structures will be reclaimed through replacement
of windrowed soil.
If required to facilitate revegetation the overburden dump, Non-PAG waste rock dump, plant site,
conveyor line, and tailings embankments will be reclaimed through placement of 0.5 m of salvaged
and stockpiled soil in one lift. Where required, soil may be scarified prior to seeding if the surface
becomes compacted due to truck or equipment traffic.
Portions of the tailings beach requiring capping to enhance vegetation growth and reduce effects from
wind erosion will receive a single 0.5 m lift of soil, with the exception of a proposed 100 m wide zone
on the beach area measured from the high water mark. Soil replacement is not planned for this zone
to prevent erosion of the soil capping material along the shoreline. Establishment of riparian and
shoreline vegetation is expected to be successful without soil capping.
15 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
During the closure phase of the project, soil will be placed on the beach surface after tailings
deposition ends to prevent dust formation.
The closure of the topsoil stockpiles will include contouring the footprint of the topsoil stockpile to blend
with the natural ground and promote natural drainage and the area will be seeded.
On-going monitoring of the Non-PAG waste dump will be required after mine closure. The requirements
for on-going monitoring of the Non-PAG waste dump will be less extensive than required during
operations. The design of the final monitoring program will be developed over the mine life as experience
is gained during the waste pile construction and operation. On-going monitoring will be defined in the
closure design for the waste dumps. The preliminary closure requirements for the WSA are expected to
include:
On-going monitoring of surface and groundwater quality and flow rates
Regular periodic inspection of the waste piles, and
Deformation monitoring as required.
4.8
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
A system of small ditches for diverting runoff around the waste dumps will assist with water management
and waste dump operations. The collection of seepage from the toe of the waste dumps will be required.
Contact water from seepage and runoff from the waste piles will be directed to water collection ponds for
transfer into the TSF. Surface runoff from the flat dump crest will be permitted to infiltrate the waste piles
and naturally drain downgradient into the water collection ponds. A diversion ditch will be constructed
upstream of the WSA to divert non-contact water around the Non-PAG and Ore Stockpile and into a
natural watercourse, this will minimize the volume of contact of water.
The water collection ponds for the WSA will be developed at the lowest point of the WSA. Diversion
ditches will direct water to the water collection ponds, the water collected in the water collection ponds will
be used in the mill circuit or pumped into the TSF, as required. The waste piles will reduce peak pumping
requirements at the water collection ponds by attenuating the flow and regulating the discharge from the
toe. After closure, the open pit will ultimately collect drainage from the WSA.
16 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES

Adams, J. and Halchuk, S., (2003), Fourth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada: Values for over
650 Canadian localities intended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada, Geological
Survey of Canada, Open File 4459.
British Columbia Mine Waste Rock Pile Research Committee (May, 1991), Mined Rock and Overburden
Piles Investigation and Design Manual, Interim Guidelines
Canadian Dam Association, (2007), Dam Safety Guidelines.
Pacific Geoscience Centre, Sidney, B.C., (1998), Personal communication with Mr Graham Greenaway
P.Eng. of Knight Pisold Ltd.
Knight Pisold Ltd., Waste Storage Area Geotechnical Feasibility Report, February 1999 (Ref. No.
11173/16-4).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Waste and Stockpiles Feasibility Design, May 2010 (Ref. No. VA101-266/12-2)
Leps, T.M., (1970), Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill. J.Soil Mech. Foundation Div. ASCE. Vol.
96, No. SM4, July.
U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, (1986), Dump Stability Performance Objectives and
Evaluation Standards.
17 of 18
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
August 2, 2012
TABLE 2.1
WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILES PRELIMINARY DESIGN
SUMMARY OF HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL ESTIMATES
Print Jul/31/12 15:42:02
Parameter
Month
Statistic
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Rainfall
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Mean (mm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.1
65.8
68.5
60.6
36.8
21.2
0.0
0.0
295
Snowfall
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Mean (mm)
47.4
29.0
18.4
26.4
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
10.4
36.9
50.1
232
Total Precipitation
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Mean (mm)
47.4
29.0
18.4
26.4
50.1
65.8
68.5
60.6
42.3
31.6
36.9
50.1
527
Rainfall and Snowmelt

(Elevation 1,600 m)
Mean (mm)
0.0
0.0
11.0
111.9
142.9
74.2
68.5
60.6
36.8
21.2
0.0
0.0
527
Mean (mm)
0.1
0.1
0.6
16.8
51.7
16.9
8.9
6.0
6.5
10.1
1.8
0.3
120
Coefficient of
Variation
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.6
StDev (mm)
0.0
0.0
0.5
10.2
35.2
18.3
7.2
4.2
3.0
2.4
0.4
0.2
Mean (mm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
68.8
108.6
100.5
104.1
69.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
452
Natural Surface Water

Unit Runoff
(Elevation 1,600 m)
Lake/Pond Evaporation
(Elevation 1,600 m)
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 2.1 Rev 0 - Summary of Hydrometerological Estimates.xlsx]Table 3.1
NOTES:
1. PRECIPITATION AND POND EVAPORATION VALUES ARE FROM THE KP HYDROMETEROLOGY REPORT (VA101-266/1-2 REV B), DATED DECEMBER 3, 2007.
2. COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION = STANDARD DEVIATION / MEAN
3. THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION VALUES FOR TOTAL PRECIPITATION WERE BASED ON THE REGIONAL AVERAGE FROM THE MSC CLIMATE RECORDS FROM BIG CREEK AND TATLAYOKO LAKE.
4. THE LAKE/POND RAINFALL AND SNOWMELT VALUES REFLECT BOTH RAINFALL AND SNOWMELT PATTERNS, AND THE COMBINED ANNUAL TOTAL IS EQUAL TO THE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION.
5. THE NATURAL UNIT RUNOFF VALUES ARE BASED ON THE BASELINE WATERSHED MODEL,WHICH WAS CALIBRATED TO MEASURED STREAMFLOW DATA WITHIN THE FISH CREEK CATCHMENT.
6. THE MONTHLY COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION VALUES FOR THE NATURAL UNIT RUNOFF ARE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM FROM WSC REGIONAL STREAMFLOW RECORDS AT BIG CREEK ABOVE GROUNDHOG, BIG CREEK BELOW
GRAVEYARD, LINGFIELD CREEK AND GROUNDHOG CREEK.
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE
ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

DESCRIPTION
ER
PREP'D
JGC
CHK'D
GLS
APP'D
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
Print Jul/31/12 15:41:56
Return
Probability of
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
Period
(Years)
Exceedance1
(%)
Median PGA2,3
(g)
Estimated Mean PGA3,4

(g)
100
475
1,000
18%
4%
2%
0.06
0.14
0.19
0.07
0.17
0.23
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 2.2 Rev 0 - Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard.xls]Table 2.2
NOTES:
1. PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CALCULATED FOR A DESIGN LIFE OF 20 YEARS.
2. PEAK GROUND ACCELERATIONS OBTAINED FROM THE SEISMIC HAZARD DATABASE OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA.
3. PEAK GROUND ACCELERATIONS ARE FOR "VERY DENSE/SOFT ROCK" (SITE CLASS C), AS DEFINED BY
THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF CANADA (2005).
4. MEAN PGA VALUES ESTIMATED AS 1.2 X MEDIAN VALUES.
A0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
HF
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
TABLE 4.1
DESIGN BASIS SUMMARY
Print Aug/01/12 18:42
ITEM
Project Location
Mine Production
Stockpile Ore
Non-Acid Generating (NonAG) Waste
Potential Acid Generating

(PAG) Waste
Stability Rating Scheme
Seismic Criteria
DESIGN CRITERIA
Stability Criteria
Water Management
Closure Criteria
125 km southwest of Williams Lake, BC. Elevation 1500 m.

Total ore milled = 486.8 million tonnes (Mt)
Throughput= 70,000 tpd
Mine Life =20 years
Produced from years 1 to 14 and stored stockpile near the crusher.
Total stockpile ore is 87.4 million tonnes (Mt), at variable rate
Stockpile ore will be processed through mill on an on-going basis bulk processing during Years 17 to 20.
Produced from years 1 to 16 and stored in Waste Storage Area and used for embankment construction.
Total Non-PAG Waste production is 162 million tonnes (Mt) (overburden and waste rock), at variable rate
Waste Storage Area = 67.4 million tonnes (Mt)
TSF Embankments = 94.6 million tonnes (Mt) (based on spoil factors of 5% for Waste Rock and 30% for Overburden)
Produced from years 1 to 16 and stored in Reactive Waste Storage Area within tailings facility.
Total PAG waste production is 237 Mt (overburden and waste rock), at variable annual rate.
Waste Storage Area = 237 million tonnes (Mt)
TSF Starter Shell Embankment = 2.6 million tonnes (Mt)
As defined by Waste Rock and Overburden Piles Design Manual Interim Guidelines (BC Mine Waste Rock Pile Research
Committee)
Design Earthquake: 1/475 year event
Magnitude = 7.0
Peak ground acceleration = 0.17g (Mean hazard value)
The minimum acceptable factors of safety for each case considered are as follows (BC Mine Waste Rock Pile
Reasearch):
During construction
1.3
Long term (at closure)
1.5
Seismic
Acceptable deformations
Surface water and any infiltration will collect into the Water Collection Pond. This water will be used in the mill circuit or
pumped back into the TSF impoundment
Diversion ditches constructed upstream as required to minimize contact with ore.
Final crests of waste piles to be rounded to provide long term stability.
Final Dump Slopes will be graded to 2H:1V or flatter and will include suitable measures to prevent erosion from surface
runoff. The final slopes will be covered with 0.5m of topsoil on approved overburden substrate. The topsoil cover will be
revegetated with indigenous grasses, shrubs or trees.
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.1 Rev 0 - Design Basis.xls]WSA
0
31JUL'12
REV
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
HF
GLS
PREP'D
CHK'D
APP'D
TABLE 4.2
ANNUAL MILL FEED, STOCKPILE AND WASTE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
Print 31/Jul/12 15:41:41
ORE
YEAR
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TOTALS
PIT TO MILL
PIT TO STOCKPILE
STOCKPILE TO
MILL
TOTAL ORE TO
MILL
TAILINGS
TO TAILINGS
STORAGE FACILITY
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
0
0
9,135,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
6,822,000
0
0
0
399,357,000
0
1,372,000
4,480,000
7,006,000
9,046,000
7,027,000
9,180,000
9,641,000
5,161,000
4,348,000
3,371,000
4,037,000
10,267,000
6,770,000
5,028,000
697,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
87,431,000
0
0
356,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,738,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
17,218,000
87,432,000
0
0
9,491,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
25,560,000
17,218,000
486,789,000
0
0
9,396,090
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
25,304,400
17,045,820
481,921,110
303,000
2,025,000
4,434,000
7,147,000
13,197,000
21,007,000
17,026,000
11,962,000
22,265,000
32,830,000
35,153,000
29,791,000
17,256,000
6,854,000
2,486,000
971,000
655,000
191,000
0
0
0
0
225,553,000
0
235,000
287,000
1,694,000
1,918,000
275,000
1,164,000
3,572,000
2,499,000
91,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,735,000
76,000
1,199,000
4,899,000
8,759,000
8,831,000
7,595,000
13,774,000
16,733,000
11,405,000
8,353,000
6,977,000
5,768,000
3,320,000
1,713,000
1,015,000
729,000
668,000
115,000
0
0
0
0
101,929,000
3,514,000
9,562,000
11,273,000
8,014,000
6,030,000
3,319,000
1,823,000
6,038,000
7,375,000
3,104,000
22,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,074,000
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.2 Rev 0 - Production Schedule.xlsx]Table B - Annual Production
NOTES:
1. PRODUCTION SCHEDULE PROVIDED BY TASEKO MINES LIMITED (MAR 22, 2010).
2. ANNUAL TONNAGES PROVIDED BY TASEKO INCLUDES ORE FROM STOCKPILE AND OPEN PIT.
3. CONCENTRATE ASSUMED TO BE 1% (BY MASS) OF ORE TO THE MILL (TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH KEITH MERRIAM, MAR. 24/10).
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JDC
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
GLS
APP'D
PAG WASTE
PAG WASTE
PAG
ROCK
OVERBURDEN
Non-PAG WASTE
Non-PAG WASTE
Non-PAG
ROCK
OVERBURDEN
TABLE 4.3
WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILES STORAGE SUMMARY
Print 31/Jul/12 15:41:27
YEAR
PAG WASTE
(tonnes)
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TOTAL
Stockpile
303,000
2,563,000
7,284,000
16,125,000
31,240,000
52,522,000
70,712,000
86,246,000
111,010,000
143,931,000
179,084,000
208,875,000
226,131,000
232,985,000
235,471,000
236,442,000
237,097,000
237,288,000
237,288,000
237,288,000
237,288,000
237,288,000
237,288,000
Non-PAG WASTE
(tonnes)
Stockpile
3,524,900
3,920,300
14,912,500
26,780,500
38,250,300
45,278,100
57,639,900
76,768,300
91,629,700
97,280,500
97,918,300
98,471,700
96,210,500
94,011,500
90,960,900
87,465,000
83,754,500
79,335,300
74,649,900
72,261,000
69,833,700
67,368,000
67,368,000
Embankment
65,100
10,430,700
15,610,500
20,515,500
23,906,700
27,792,900
31,028,100
34,670,700
38,589,300
44,395,500
50,756,700
55,971,300
61,552,500
65,464,500
69,530,100
73,755,000
78,133,500
82,667,700
87,353,100
89,742,000
92,169,300
94,635,000
94,635,000
STOCKPILE ORE
(tonnes)
Stockpile
0
1,372,000
5,496,000
12,502,000
21,548,000
28,575,000
37,755,000
47,396,000
52,557,000
56,905,000
60,276,000
64,313,000
74,580,000
81,350,000
86,378,000
87,075,000
87,075,000
87,075,000
68,337,000
42,777,000
17,217,000
0
87,075,000
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.3 Rev 0 - Waste Storage Summary.xls]Table 4.3
NOTES:
1. WASTE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE PROVIDED BY TASEKO MINES LIMITED (MAR 22, 2010).
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
TABLE 4.4
WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILE PRELIMINARY DESIGN
VOLUMES OF PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILES
31/07/2012 15:41
3
Soil Stockpile ID
SSP #1
Height of Stockpile (m)

15
Volume of Stockpile (m )
425,000
SSP #2
15
2,583,000
SSP #3
15
1,751,000
SSP #4
15
468,000
SSP #5
15
1,920,000
Location of Soil Stockpile

North of Wasp Lake
South of centrepoint of South TSF
Embankment, East of Wasp Lake
East of Reclaim Pipeline and Haul Road, along
top of TSF Supernatant Pond
North of Northeastern end of Main TSF
Embankment
East of NAG Waste Rock Dump, at
Northeastern corner of Ore Stockpile
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.4 Rev 0 - Volumes of Soil Stockpiles.xlsx]Table 4.4 - SSP Volumes
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
TABLE 4.5
ANNUAL STORAGE OF ORE IN STOCKPILE
Print Aug/03/12 14:42:31
YEAR
STOCKPILE ORE
cubic metres (m3)
ELEVATION
metres
STOCKPILE HEIGHT
metres
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
503,000
2,144,000
4,710,000
8,023,000
10,597,000
13,960,000
17,492,000
19,383,000
20,976,000
22,211,000
23,690,000
27,451,000
29,931,000
31,773,000
32,028,000
32,028,000
32,028,000
25,164,000
15,801,000
6,438,000
0
1480
1500
1505
1510
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1540
1545
1550
1555
1560
1565
1570
1570
1570
1550
1530
1515
1480
0.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
70.0
50.0
35.0
0.0
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.5 Rev 0 Annual Storage of Ore in Stockpile.xlsx]Table 4.5
NOTES:
2. ELEVATIONS AND DAC CURVE CALCULATED FROM DATA IN APPENDIX D
DEPTH-AREA-CAPACITY RELATIONSHIP FOR ORE STOCKPILE.
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
TABLE 4.6
ANNUAL STORAGE IN THE NON-PAG WASTE ROCK DUMP
Print Aug/03/12 14:45:06
YEAR
NON-PAG WASTE
cubic metres (m3)
ELEVATION
metres
DUMP HEIGHT
metres
Existing Conditions
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
1,954,056
2,453,378
8,477,056
14,754,311
20,757,011
24,383,667
30,608,911
40,444,856
48,221,578
51,130,056
51,359,178
51,561,911
50,355,244
49,203,478
47,625,911
45,825,111
43,917,011
41,654,444
39,258,778
38,037,611
36,797,244
35,537,678
1520
1550
1555
1570
1575
1585
1590
1595
1615
1620
1625
1625
1625
1625
1625
1625
1625
1620
1620
1615
1615
1610
1610
0
30.0
35.0
50.0
55.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
100.0
100.0
95.0
95.0
90.0
90.0
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.6 Rev 0 Annual Storage of NPAG Waste Rock Dump.xlsx]Table 4.6
NOTES:
2. ELEVATIONS AND DAC CURVE CALCULATED FROM DATA IN APPENDIX D
DEPTH-AREA-CAPACITY RELATIONSHIP NON-PAG WASTE ROCK DUMP.
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
HF
CHK'D
GLS
APP'D
TABLE 4.7
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF ORE STOCKPILE
Print Aug/02/2012 10:13:01
Ore Stockpile - = 25 kN/m
Year
From El.
(m)
To El.
(m)
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1480
1500
1506
1511
1518
1522
1528
1535
1538
1541
1544
1547
1555
1562
1567
1568
1568
1568
1550
1531
1515
Factor of Safety
1.836
2.581
2.505
2.501
2.615
2.575
2.573
2.616
2.598
2.597
2.596
2.598
2.590
2.594
2.592
2.592
2.592
2.616
2.574
2.495
Minimum
Required FOS
(CASE A)(5)
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.7 Rev 0 - Summary
of Ore Stockpile LEM Analyses.xlsx]Table 4.7
NOTES:
1. NORMAL STRESS OVER SHEAR STRESS MODEL APPLIED TO STOCKPILED ORE (APPENDIX D-11).
2. LEPS, T.M. (1970), REVIEW OF SHEARING STRENGTH OF ROCKFILL, JOURNAL OF THE SOIL
MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS DIVISION, VOL. 96, PP 1159 - 1170. (ADAPTED FOR METRIC)
3. HIGH DENSITY, WELL GRADED, STRONG PARTICLES MODEL APPLIED TO STOCKPILED ORE
4. FACTORS OF SAFETY PRESENTED WERE CALCULATED USING THE MORGENSTERN-PRICE
METHOD USING GEO-SLOPE GEOSTUDIO 2007 SLOPE/W
5. MINIMUM FACTORS OF SAFETY DERIVED FROM APPENDIX A-4 (TABLE 6.4, INVESTIGATION AND
DESIGN MANUAL INTERIM GUIDELINES, BC MWRPRC, 1991) (1.3 FOR SHORT-TERM OPERATING
CONDITIONS; 1.5 FOR LONG-TERM, OR POST-CLOSURE CONDITIONS)
0
31JUL'12
REV
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
GIJ
KJB
PREP'D
CHK'D
APP'D
TABLE 4.8
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF NON-PAG WASTE ROCK DUMP
Print Aug/02/2012 10:13:07
Non-PAG Waste Rock - = 19 kN/m
Year
From El.
(m)
To El.
(m)
Factor of Safety
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
1563
1569
1577
1583
1587
1594
1608
1620
1627
1628
1627
1625
1622
1619
1616
1613
1610
1607
1603
1602
1600
1598
1.684
1.673
1.658
1.644
1.644
1.621
1.597
1.580
1.566
1.566
1.567
1.568
1.577
1.583
1.586
1.589
1.590
1.601
1.610
1.611
1.616
1.616
Min. Required
FOS (CASE A)(5)
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.500
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.8 Rev 0 Summary of NPAG Waste Dump LEM Analyses.xlsx]Table 4.8
NOTES:
1. NORMAL STRESS OVER SHEAR STRESS MODEL APPLIED TO NON-PAG WASTE ROCK
2. LEPS, T.M. (1970), REVIEW OF SHEARING STRENGTH OF ROCKFILL, JOURNAL OF THE SOIL
MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS DIVISION, VOL. 96, PP 1159 - 1170. (ADAPTED FOR METRIC)
3. LOW DENSITY, POORLY GRADED WEAK PARTICLES MODEL APPLIED TO NPAG WASTE ROCK
4. FACTORS OF SAFETY PRESENTED WERE CALCULATED USING THE MORGENSTERN-PRICE
METHOD USING GEO-SLOPE GEOSTUDIO 2007 SLOPE/W
5. MINIMUM FACTORS OF SAFETY DERIVED FROM APPENDIX A-4 (TABLE 6.4, INVESTIGATION AND
DESIGN MANUAL INTERIM GUIDELINES, BC MWRPRC, 1991) (1.3 FOR SHORT-TERM OPERATING
CONDITIONS; 1.5 FOR LONG-TERM, OR POST-CLOSURE CONDITIONS)
0
31JUL'12
REV
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
GIJ
KJB
PREP'
CHK'D
APP'D
TABLE 4.9
NEW PROSPERITY COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILES STABILITY RATING SUMMARY
Print 08/02/12 10:13
Point Rating(1)
Key Factors Affecting Stability(1)
Non-PAG Waste Pile
PAG Waste Pile
Ore Stockpile
Typical Topsoil Stockpile
Condition
Point Rating
Condition
Point Rating
Condition
Point Rating
Condition
Point Rating
Dump Height
50 - 100m
50
50 - 100 m
50
50 - 100m
50
< 50 m
Dump Volume
Large
100
Large
100
Medium
50
Small
Moderate
50
Steep
100
Moderate
50
Moderate
50
Flat
Dump Slope
Foundation Slope
Flat
Flat
Flat
Degree of Confinement
Moderately
Confined
50
Moderately
Confined
50
Moderately
Confined
50
Moderately
Confined
50
Foundation Type
Intermediate
100
Intermediate
100
Intermediate
100
Intermediate
100
Dump Material Quality
Moderate
100
Moderate
100
Moderate
100
Poor
200
Method of Construction
Favorable
Unfavorable
200
Favorable
Favorable
Intermediate
100
Unfavorable
200
Intermediate
100
Intermediate
100
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow
Moderate
50
Moderate
50
Moderate
50
Moderate
50
Piezometric & Climatic Conditions

Dumping Rate
Seismicity
DUMP STABILITY RATING
Dump Stability Class
600
950
550
Class
Failure Hazard
Class
Failure Hazard
Class
Failure Hazard
Class
Failure Hazard
II
Low
III
Moderate
II
Low
II
Low
(2)
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Tables\[Table 4.9 Rev 0 - Waste Dump Rating Scheme.xls]Table 4.9
NOTES:
1. DUMP STABILITY RATING AFTER DUMP STABILITY RATING SCHEME IN INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN MANUAL INTERIM GUIDELINES (BC MINE 1991)
2. DUMP STABILITY CLASS AND FAILURE HAZARD AFTER DUMP STABILITY CLASSES AND RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF EFFORT IN INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN MANUAL INTERIM GUIDELINES (BC MINE 1991)
0
31JUL'12
REV
DATE

DESCRIPTION
550
JEF
HF
KJB
PREP'D
CHK'D
APP'D
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Figures\[Fig 4.1 Rev 0 - Total Volume Summary.xls]Figure 4.1
Print 03/08/2012 2:51 PM
Ore Stockpile
87.1 Mtonnes
NAG Waste
94.6 Mtonnes
TAILINGS
481.9 Mtonnes
PAG Waste
237.3 Mtonnes
NAG or PAG Waste

NPAG Waste
pile
Stage 2 embankment outline
67.4 Mtonnes

NOTES:

WASTE STORAGE AREA
TOTAL VOLUME SUMMARY
P/A NO.
VA101-266/27
0
31JUL'12
REV
DATE
ISSUED WITH REPORT

DESCRIPTION
JEF
HF
KJB
PREP'D
CHK'D
APP'D
FIGURE 4.1
REF. NO.
REV
APPENDIX A
SELECTED TABLES FROM THE INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN MANUAL
INTERIM GUIDELINES (BC MWRPRC, 1991)
(Pages A-1 to A-4)
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
67.
TABLE 5.1
DUMP STABILITY RATING SCHEME
KEY FACTORS AFFECTlNG

STABlUrY
DUMP CONFIGUFWTION
DUMP HEIGHT
Small
Medium
Larae
DUMP VOLUME
DUMP SLOPE
Moderate
Flat
Steep
Flat
FOUNDATION SLOPE
POINT
RATING
0
50
100
RANGE OF CONDITIONS OR DESCRIPTION

< 50m
50m - loom
100m - 200m
< 1 million BCM's
1 50 million BCM's
> 50 million BCM's
> 350
< lo0
lo0 - 25'
25'
steep
Extreme
DEGREE OF CONFINEMENT
- 32'
> 32O
-Concave slope in plan or section
-Valley or Cross-Valley fill, toe butressed against
opposite valley wall
-Incised gullies which can be used to limit foundation
slope during development
-Natural benches or terraces on slope
-Even slopes, limited natural topographic diversity
-Heaped, Sidehill or broad Valley or Cross-Valley fills
-Convex slope in plan or section
-Sidehill or Ridge Crest fill with no toe confinement
-No gullies or benches to assist development
-Foundation materials as strong or stronger than dump materials
-Not subject to adverse pore pressures
-No adverse geologic structure
-Intermediate between competent and weak
k
Moderately
Unconfined
FOUNDATION TYPE
Competent
Intermediate I-soils gain strength with consolidation

-Adverse pore pressures dissipate if loading rate controlled
-Limited bearing capacity, soft soils
-Subject to adverse pore pressure generation upon loading
Weak
-Adverse groundwater conditions, springs or seeps
-Strength sensitive to shear strain. potentially liquefiable
High
-Strong, durable
-Less than about 10% fines
-Moderately strong, variable durability
-10 to 25% fines
Poor
I-predominantly weak rocks of low durability
1-~reaterthan about 25% fines. overburden
DUMP MATERIAL Q U A W
I
I
continued:.
A-1 of 4
68.
TABLE 5.1 (Continued)

DUMP STABlLllY RATING SCHEME
KEY FACTORS AFFECTING
STABIUTY
M E M O D OF CONSTRUCTION
. .
Favourable
Mixed
Unfavourable
I
PlQOMETRlC AND CLIMATIC

CONDITIONS
Favourable
Intermediate
Unfavourable
DUMPING RATE
Slow
Moderate
High
SEISMICITY
Low
Moderate
High
RANGE OF CONDITIONS OR DESCRIPTION

-Thin lifts (c25m thick), wide platforms
-Dumping along contours
-Ascending construction
-Wrap-arounds or terraces
-Moderately thick lifts (25m 50m)
-Mixed construction methods
-Thick lifts (> 50m), narrow platform (sliver fill)
-Dumping down the fall line of the slope
-Descending construction
-Low piezometric pressures, no seepage in foundation
-Development of phreatic surface within dump unlikely
-Limited precipitation
-Minimal infiltration into dump
-No snow or ice layers in dump or foundation
-Moderate piezometric pressures, some seeps in foundation
-Umited development of phreatic surface in dump possible
-Moderate precipitation
-High infiltration into dump
-Discontinuous snow or ice lenses or layers in dump
-High piezometric
pressures, springs in foundation
A1
-High precipitation
-Significant potential for development of phreatic surface
or perched water tables in dump
-Continuous layers or lenses of snow or ice in dump or
foundation
-< 25 BCM's per lineal metre of crest per day
-Crest advancement rate < 0.1 m per day
-25 200 BCM's per lineal metre of crest per day
-Crest advancement rate 0.1 m 1.Om per day
-> 200 BCM's per lineal metre of crest per day
-Crest advancement > 1.Om per day
Seismic Risk Zones 0 and 1
Seismic Risk Zones 2 and 3
Seismic Risk Zones 4 or higher
MAXIMUM POSSIBLE DUMP STABILITY RATING:
A-2 of 4
POINT
RATING
0
100
200
100
200
0
100
200
0
50
100
TABLE 5.2
DUMP STABILITY CLASSES AND
RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF EFFORT
DUMP
STABILTTY
CLASS
FAILURE HAZARD
. .
..
Negligible
II
Low
111
Moderate
IV
High
RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF EFFORT

FOR INVESTIGATION, DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
-Basic site reconnaissance, baseline documentation
-Minimal lab testing
-Routine check of stability, possibly using charts
-Minimal restrictions on construction
-Visual monitoring only
-Thorough site investigation
-Test pits, sampling may be required
-Limited lab index testing
-Stability may or may not influence design
-Basic stability analysis required
-Limited restrictions on construction
-Routine visual and instrument monitoring
-Detailed, phased site investigation
-Test pits required, drilling or other subsurface
investigations may be required
-Undisturbed samples may be required
-Detailed lab testlng, including index properties,
shear strength and durability likely required
-Stability influences and may control design
-Detailed stability analysis, possibly including
parametric studies, required
-Stage 1
I detailed design report may be required for
approvallpermitting
-Moderate restrictions on construction (eg. limiting
loading rate, lift thickness, material quality, etc.)
-Detailed instrument monitoring to confirm design,
document behaviour and establish loading limits
-Detailed, phased site investigation
-Test pits, and possibly trenches, required
-Drilling, and possible other subsurface investigations
probably required
-Undisturbed sampling probably required
-Detailed lab testing, including index properties,
shear strength and durability testlng probably required
-Stability considerations paramount.
-Detailed stability analyses, probably including
parametric studies and full evaluation of alternatives
probably required
-Stage 1
I detailed design report probably required for
approvallpermitting
-Severe restrictions on construction (eg. limiting
loading rates, lift thickness, material quality, etc.)
-Detailed instrument monitoring to confirm design,
document behaviour and establish loading limits
A-3 of 4
RANGE OF
DUMP RATING
(DSR)
< 300
300-600
600-1 200
> 1200
TABLE 6.4
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR MINIMUM DESIGN FACTOR OF SAFETY
'
SUGGESTED MINIMUM DESIGN

VALUES FOR FACTOR OF SAFETY
CASE B
CASE A
STABILITY CONDITION
... .
STABILITY OF DUMP SURFACE
-Short Term (during construction)
-Long Term (reclamation abandonment)
1.O
1.O
1.2
1.1
OVERALL STABILITY (DEEP SEATED STABILITY)

-Short Term (static)
1.3
-Long Term (static)
- 1.5
1.S
-Pseudo-Static (earthquake) 2
1.1
- 1.3
1.1
- 1.3
1.3
1.O
CASE A:
-Low level of confidence in critical analysis parameters
-Possibly unconservative interpretation of conditions, assumptions
-Severe consequences of failure
-Simplified stability analysis method (charts, simplified method of slices)
-Stability analysis method poorly simulates physical conditions
-Poor understanding of potential failure mechanism@)
CASE B:
-High level of confidence in critical analysis parameters
-Conservative interpretation of conditions, assumptions
-Minimal consequences of failure
-Rigorous stability analysis method
-Stability analysis method simulates physical conditions well
-High level of confidence in critical failure mechanism@)
NOTES: 1. A range of suggested minimum design values are given to reflect different levels of
confidence in understanding site conditions, material parameters, consequences of
instability, and other factors.
2. Where pseudo-static analyses, based on peak ground accelerations which have a
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, yield F.O.S. < 1.O, dynamic analysis of
stress-strain response, and comparison of results with stress-strain characteristics

of dump materials is recommended.
A-4 of 4
APPENDIX B
LIST OF KNIGHT PISOLD LTD. REPORTS
(Pages B-1 to B-3)
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012

PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
WASTE AND STOCKPILES FEASIBILITY DESIGN
(REF. NO. VA101-266/27-4)
APPENDIX B - LIST OF KNIGHT PISOLD LTD. REPORTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Knight Pisold Ltd., June 29, 2012, Water Management Report (Ref. No. VA101-266/27-2)
Knight Pisold Ltd., August, 2012, Tailings Storage Facility Preliminary Design (Ref. No. VA101266/27-3)
Knight Pisold Ltd., July 10, 2012, Preliminary Pit Slope Design (Ref. No. VA101-266/27-1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., August, 2012, 2012 Geotechnical Site Investigation Factual Data Report
(Ref. No. VA101-266/26-1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., May 26, 2010, Waste and Stockpiles Feasibility Design (Ref. No. VA101266/12-2)
Knight Pisold Ltd., January 22, 2010, 2009 Geotechnical Site Investigation Program Factual
Data Report (Ref. No. VA101-266/10-1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., March 13, 2009, Report on Tailings Storage Facility Seepage Assessment
(Ref. No. VA101-266/8-1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., July 7, 2008, Bulk Earthworks Information Report (Ref. No. VA101-266/7-1,
Rev. 1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., September 26, 2007, Report on Feasibility Design of the 70,000 Tonnes Per
Day Tailings Storage Facility (Ref. No. VA101-266/2-1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., September 21, 2007, 2007 Feasibility Pit Slope Design (Ref. No. VA101266/2-2)
Knight Pisold Ltd., July 3, 2007, Prosperity Gold-Copper Project Fisheries Compensation
Options Assessment (Ref. No. VA101-266/1-5, Rev. A)
Knight Pisold Ltd., January 10, 2000, DRAFT Hydrogeology Report (Ref. No. 11173/13-3, Rev.
A)
Knight Pisold Ltd., December 13, 1999, 70,000 Tonne Per Day Scoping Study Costs (Ref. No.
9/2873)
Knight Pisold Ltd., June 8, 1999, 60,000 Tonne Per Day Scoping Study Costs (Ref. No. 9/1574)
Knight Pisold Ltd., June 8, 1999, 90,000 Tonne Per Day Scoping Study Costs (Ref. No. 9/1573)
Knight Pisold Ltd., May 17, 1999, Report on the Conceptual Cost-Optimized Design for the
Tailings Storage Facility (Ref. No. 11173/17-1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., April 26, 1999, Feasibility Design of the Open Pit (Ref. No. 10173/12-2)
Knight Pisold Ltd., April 20, 1999, Hydrometeorology Report (Ref. No. 11173/13-8)
Knight Pisold Ltd., March 31, 1999, Project Water Management Report (Ref. No. 11173/13-4)
Knight Pisold Ltd., March 9, 1999, Report on Feasibility Design of the Tailings Storage Facility
(Ref. No. 11173/16-3)
Knight Pisold Ltd., February 25, 1999, Waste Storage Area Geotechnical Feasibility Report (Ref.
No. 11173/16-4)
B-1 of 3
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Knight Pisold Ltd., February 1, 1999, Feasibility Design of Fisheries Compensation Scheme
(Ref. No. 10173/16-5)
Knight Pisold Ltd., January 22, 1999. Report on Geotechnical Parameters for the Plant Site
Foundation Design (Ref. No. 10173/16-2)
Knight Pisold Ltd., January 21, 1999. Construction Material Investigation (Ref. No. 10173/16-1)
Knight Pisold Ltd., November 30, 1998. Project Risk Assessment (Ref. No. 10173/13-2)
Knight Pisold Ltd., November 13, 1998. Construction Materials Investigation (Ref. No. 10173/121)
Knight Pisold Ltd., June 3, 1998. 1998 Groundwater Well Evaluation Report (Ref. No. 10173/114)
Knight Pisold Ltd., January 16, 1998. Draft Hydrometeorology Report (Ref. No. 10173/11-2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., December 12, 1997. 1997 Groundwater Well Evaluation Report (Ref. No.
10173/11-3).
Knight Pisold Ltd., December 3, 1997. Environmental Monitoring Protocol for Hydrology and
Hydrometeorology Data Collection. Volumes I and II (Ref. No. 10173/11-1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Oct. 24, 1997. Draft Hydrometeorology Report (Ref. No. 10173/11-2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., June 24, 1997. Draft. Environmental Monitoring Protocol. (Ref. No. 10173/111).
Knight Pisold Ltd., June 6, 1997. Draft. 1996 Open Pit Geotechnical Investigation (Ref. No.
1731A/7).
Knight Pisold Ltd., April 30, 1997. Report on Technical Review of Hydrological and Meteorological
Work by Hallam Knight Pisold Ltd. (Ref. No. 1731A/13).
Knight Pisold Ltd., April 9, 1997. Draft. Overview Geotechnical Evaluation of Proposed Fisheries
Compensation (Ref. No. 1731A/5).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan. 27, 1997. Draft. Hydrometeorology Report (Ref. No. 1731A/12).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan. 27, 1997. Draft. Conceptual Design of Tailings Management Options 2
and 5 for 90,000 TPD Mill Throughput (Ref. No. 1731A/3).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan. 10, 1997. Draft. 1996 Geotechnical Site Investigation for Tailings
Management Options 2 and 5 (Ref. No. 1731A/4).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan. 10, 1997. Draft. Conceptual Design of Proposed Fisheries Compensation
Plans (Ref. No. 1731A/6).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Oct. 30, 1996. Draft. Conceptual Design of Cost Estimation of Tailings
Management Options (Ref. No. 1731A/1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Oct. 30, 1996. Open Pit Design Considerations to Allow Partial Preservation of
Fish Lake (Ref. No. 1731A/2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Sept. 16, 1996. Open Pit Design Considerations to Allow Fish Lake to be
Maintained (Ref. No. 1739/1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan. 11, 1995. Report on Plant and Crusher Site Foundation Investigations
(Ref. No. 1738/3).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan. 18, 1995. Report on 1994 Open Pit Investigation (Ref. No. 1738/2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan. 5, 1995. 1994 Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation for
Proposed Tailings Storage Facility (Ref. No. 1738/1).
B-2 of 3
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Knight Pisold Ltd., Feb. 10, 1994. Report on Materials for Embankment Construction and
Concrete Aggregate (Ref. No. 1737/2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., May 13, 1994. Site Geotechnical Considerations and Design of Tailings
Storage Facility (Ref. No. 1737/1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., March, 1994. Open Pit Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigations (Ref. No.
1736/2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., March, 1994. Report on Open Pit Design (Ref. No. 1736/1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., May, 1993. Report on Evaluation of Tailings Storage Alternatives (Ref. No.
1733/2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., March, 1993. Report on Influence of Geotechnical Factors on Bulk Density
(Ref. No. 1734/1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Jan., 1993. Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Ref. No.
1733/1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., May, 1992.
Report on Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigations
(Ref. No. 1732/2).
Knight Pisold Ltd., April, 1992. Sampling and Handling Guidelines for Determination of
Groundwater Quality (Ref. No. 1732/1).
Knight Pisold Ltd., Aug., 1991. Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Ref. No. 1731/1).
B-3 of 3
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
APPENDIX C
SELECTED SITE INVESTIGATION LOGS
(Pages C-1 to C-69)
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
C-1 of 69
C-2 of 69
C-3 of 69
C-4 of 69
C-5 of 69
C-6 of 69
C-7 of 69
C-8 of 69
C-9 of 69
C-10 of 69
C-11 of 69
C-12 of 69
C-13 of 69
C-14 of 69
C-15 of 69
C-16 of 69
C-17 of 69
C-18 of 69
C-19 of 69
C-20 of 69
C-21 of 69
C-22 of 69
C-23 of 69
C-24 of 69
C-25 of 69
C-26 of 69
C-27 of 69
C-28 of 69
C-29 of 69
C-30 of 69
C-31 of 69
C-32 of 69
C-33 of 69
C-34 of 69
C-35 of 69
C-36 of 69
C-37 of 69
C-38 of 69
C-39 of 69
C-40 of 69
C-41 of 69
C-42 of 69
C-43 of 69
C-44 of 69
C-45 of 69
C-46 of 69
C-47 of 69
C-48 of 69
C-49 of 69
C-50 of 69
C-51 of 69
C-52 of 69
C-53 of 69
C-54 of 69
C-55 of 69
C-56 of 69
C-57 of 69
C-58 of 69
C-59 of 69
C-60 of 69
C-61 of 69
C-62 of 69
C-63 of 69
C-64 of 69
C-65 of 69
C-66 of 69
C-67 of 69
C-68 of 69
C-69 of 69
APPENDIX D
DEPTH-AREA-CAPACITY
(Pages D-1 to D-11)
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
APPENDIX D-1
DEPTH-AREA-CAPACITY RELATIONSHIP FOR ORE STOCKPILE
Print Aug/03/12 15:30:04
El.
(m)
1480
1485
1490
1495
1495
1500
1505
1510
1510
1515
1520
1525
1525
1530
1535
1540
1540
1545
1550
1555
1555
1560
1565
1570
1570
1575
1580
1585
1585
1590
1595
1600
1600
1605
1610
1615
Elevation
Difference
(m)
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Average Contour Area Method

Volume
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
3
3
3
6
(m )
(m )
(m x 10 )
0
0
0.000
799
799
0.001
50,352
51,150
0.051
188,486
239,636
0.240
44,522
318,248
513,362
0.513
1,184,829
1,698,191
1.698
2,389,740
4,087,931
4.088
104,359
2,779,016
6,762,588
6.763
2,803,285
9,565,873
9.566
2,898,534
12,464,407
12.464
131,654
2,851,728
15,184,481
15.184
2,712,049
17,896,530
17.897
2,688,837
20,585,367
20.585
140,838
2,522,019
22,966,548
22.967
2,329,869
25,296,417
25.296
2,246,337
27,542,754
27.543
146,975
2,009,969
29,405,748
29.406
1,777,599
31,183,348
31.183
1,693,720
32,877,068
32.877
131,035
1,483,031
34,229,064
34.229
1,276,595
35,505,659
35.506
1,202,766
36,708,424
36.708
114,228
1,019,004
37,613,201
37.613
839,580
38,452,780
38.453
776,033
39,228,814
39.229
97,171
619,686
39,751,329
39.751
467,723
40,219,052
40.219
414,607
40,633,659
40.634
Surface Area
2
(m )
0.0
319.6
19821.1
55573.4
17809.0
71725.8
402205.9
553690.1
41743.7
557916.1
563398.0
596015.5
52661.4
544675.5
540144.1
535390.6
56335.2
473417.0
458530.6
440004.2
58790.1
363983.6
347056.2
330432.0
52414.2
262780.4
247857.7
233248.5
45691.1
174353.1
161478.8
148934.5
38868.2
98940.0
88149.2
77693.6
(ha)
0.000
0.032
1.982
5.557
1.781
7.173
40.221
55.369
4.174
55.792
56.340
59.602
5.266
54.468
54.014
53.539
5.634
47.342
45.853
44.000
5.879
36.398
34.706
33.043
5.241
26.278
24.786
23.325
4.569
17.435
16.148
14.893
3.887
9.894
8.815
7.769
Volume
3
(m )
0
533
37,762
180,973
44,522
317,390
1,072,967
2,379,674
104,359
2,779,009
2,803,274
2,898,151
131,654
2,850,764
2,712,041
2,688,828
140,838
2,520,431
2,329,770
2,246,178
146,975
2,006,968
1,777,432
1,693,550
131,035
1,479,806
1,276,413
1,202,581
114,228
1,015,440
839,374
775,822
97,171
615,441
467,463
414,332
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\[Appendix D-1 Rev A - Ore Stockpile DAC Relationship.xlsx.xlsm]Data
Notes:
1. Areas and Elevations obtained from AutoCAD drawing of preliminary Ore Stockpile design, supplied by Taseko Mines Ltd., 24th Nov 2011
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
Modified Prismoidal
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
3
3
6
(m )
(m x 10 )
0
0.000
533
0.001
38,295
0.038
219,268
0.219
492,135
0.492
1,565,103
1.565
3,944,777
3.945
6,619,426
6.619
9,422,700
9.423
12,320,852
12.321
15,039,963
15.040
17,752,004
17.752
20,440,832
20.441
22,820,425
22.820
25,150,195
25.150
27,396,373
27.396
29,256,365
29.256
31,033,797
31.034
32,727,347
32.727
34,076,118
34.076
35,352,531
35.353
36,555,112
36.555
37,456,324
37.456
38,295,698
38.296
39,071,520
39.072
39,589,790
39.590
40,057,254
40.057
40,471,586
40.472
Volume
3
(m )
0
0
35,165
225,295
44,522
523,067
1,241,137
3,723,733
104,359
5,291,471
5,581,254
5,679,206
131,654
5,820,226
5,524,770
5,401,071
140,838
5,258,539
4,812,649
4,579,239
146,975
4,304,218
3,738,325
3,471,067
131,035
3,219,274
2,715,685
2,479,099
114,228
2,258,675
1,820,233
1,615,338
97,171
1,426,928
1,054,739
882,051
Simpson's Method
Cumulative
Volume
3
(m )
0
0
35,165
225,295
513,710
1,466,433
4,237,443
6,653,544
9,818,697
12,332,751
15,507,270
17,857,520
20,908,341
22,975,222
25,720,989
27,554,461
29,878,232
31,292,786
33,349,299
34,381,024
36,064,985
36,860,124
38,209,432
38,680,357
39,824,770
40,010,114
40,879,509
40,892,165
Cumulative
Volume
3
6
(m x 10 )
0.000
0.000
0.035
0.225
0.514
1.466
4.237
6.654
9.819
12.333
15.507
17.858
20.908
22.975
25.721
27.554
29.878
31.293
33.349
34.381
36.065
36.860
38.209
38.680
39.825
40.010
40.880
40.892
Notes
Bench
Bench
Bench
Bench
Bench
Bench
Bench
Bench
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\Appendix D-2 Rev A - Ore Stockpile DAC Curve
Print 03/08/20123:30 PM
Area (ha)
1620
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1600
Elevation (m)
1580
1560
1540
1520
1500
1480
Tailings - Elevation
10
15
20
25
Capacity (m3 x 106)
Area - Elevation
30
35
40
45
TASEKO MINES LTD.
Notes:
1. Areas and Elevations obtained from AutoCAD drawing of preliminary Ore Stockpile design supplied by Taseko
Mines Ltd, 24th Nov 2011
2. Volumes obtained from calculations conducted in Appendix D-1 Depth-Area-Capacity Relationship for the Ore
Stockpile

ORE STOCKPILE
DEPTH-AREA-CAPACITY CURVE
P / A NO.
VA101-00266/27
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
REF NO.
4
REV.
0
APPENDIX D-2
APPENDIX D-3
DEPTH-AREA-CAPACITY RELATIONSHIP FOR THE NON-PAG WASTE ROCK DUMP
Print 03-Aug-12 15:30:39

Volume
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
Area
Elevation
Difference
(m)
(m)
(m )
(ha)
(m )
(m )
(m x 10 )
(m )
(m )
(m x 10 )
(m )
(m )
(m x 10 )
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
1560
1565
1570
1575
1580
1585
1590
1595
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1,467
0.147
3,668
3,668
0.004
2,445
2,445
0.002
13,676
1.368
37,858
41,526
0.042
32,704
35,150
0.035
32,575
32,575
0.033
24,890
2.489
96,415
137,942
0.138
95,027
130,177
0.130
135,102
135,102
0.135
44,513
4.451
173,509
311,450
0.311
171,149
301,326
0.301
262,917
295,492
0.295
85,551
8.555
325,161
636,611
0.637
319,624
620,950
0.621
480,824
615,925
0.616
171,404
17.140
642,388
1,279,000
1.279
630,083
1,251,033
1.251
930,204
1,225,696
1.226
283,475
28.348
1,137,198
2,416,197
2.416
1,125,513
2,376,546
2.377
1,757,737
2,373,663
2.374
456,279
45.628
1,849,385
4,265,583
4.266
1,832,330
4,208,876
4.209
2,935,972
4,161,668
4.162
568,147
56.815
2,561,066
6,826,649
6.827
2,555,961
6,764,836
6.765
4,461,231
6,834,894
6.835
677,430
67.743
3,113,944
9,940,593
9.941
3,109,941
9,874,778
9.875
5,677,165
9,838,833
9.839
825,658
82.566
3,757,719
13,698,312
13.698
3,751,614
13,626,392
13.626
6,839,210
13,674,104
13.674
907,937
90.794
4,333,985
18,032,298
18.032
4,332,357
17,958,749
17.959
8,146,662
17,985,495
17.985
885,972
88.597
4,484,772
22,517,070
22.517
4,484,660
22,443,409
22.443
8,905,628
22,579,731
22.580
843,284
84.328
4,323,140
26,840,210
26.840
4,322,700
26,766,110
26.766
8,825,182
26,810,677
26.811
801,095
80.110
4,110,947
30,951,157
30.951
4,110,496
30,876,606
30.877
8,433,670
31,013,401
31.013
759,408
75.941
3,901,259
34,852,416
34.852
3,900,795
34,777,401
34.777
8,011,789
34,822,467
34.822
718,222
71.822
3,694,075
38,546,491
38.546
3,693,596
38,470,998
38.471
7,594,917
38,608,317
38.608
677,536
67.754
3,489,394
42,035,885
42.036
3,488,900
41,959,898
41.960
7,183,052
42,005,518
42.006
637,351
63.735
3,287,217
45,323,103
45.323
3,286,706
45,246,603
45.247
6,776,194
45,384,512
45.385
597,667
59.767
3,087,545
48,410,647
48.411
3,087,013
48,333,616
48.334
6,374,345
48,379,863
48.380
558,483
55.848
2,890,376
51,301,023
51.301
2,889,822
51,223,439
51.223
5,977,503
51,362,015
51.362
519,801
51.980
2,695,711
53,996,734
53.997
2,695,132
53,918,571
53.919
5,585,669
53,965,532
53.966
481,737
48.174
2,503,844
56,500,578
56.501
2,503,241
56,421,812
56.422
5,199,039
56,561,054
56.561
5
5
444,421
407,867
44.442
40.787
2,315,393
2,130,718
58,815,970
60,946,689
58.816
60.947
2,314,766
2,130,065
58,736,578
60,866,643
58.737
60.867
4,818,613
4,445,476
58,784,145
61,006,530
58.784
61.007
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\[Appendix D-3 Rev A - Non-PAG Depth-Area-Capacity Relationship.xlsx]Table 4.5
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
Volume
Simpson's Method
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
El.
Volume
Modified Prismoidal
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\Appendix D-4 Rev A - Non-PAG DAC Curve 'Figure 4.4'
1660
100
90
80
70
Area (Ha)
50
60
40
30
Print 03/08/2012 3:30 PM
20
10
1640
Elevation (masl)
1620
1600
1580
1560
1540
1520
10
Volume vs Elevation
20
30
40
50
60
70
Volume (m3 x 106)
Area vs Elevation
Notes:
1. Areas and Elevations calculated from C3D model of NPAG Dump
2. Volumes obtained from calculations conducted in Appendix D-3 Depth-Area-Capacity Relationship for the NPAG
Waste Dump


NON-PAG WASTE ROCK DUMP
P / A NO.
VA101-00266/27
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
REF NO.
4
REV.
0
APPENDIX D-4
APPENDIX D-5
DEPTH-AREA-CAPACITY RELATIONSHIP FOR THE PAG WASTE DUMP - YEAR 3
03/08/2012 15:30
El.
Elevation
Difference
(m)
Area
2
(m )
(m )
Volume
(m3 x 106)
155,881
0.156
0.472
488,500
488,500
0.489
0.950
791,667
791,667
0.792
1,598,860
1.599
1,137,500
1,626,000
1.626
810,925
2,409,784
2.410
1,458,333
2,250,000
2.250
934,164
3,343,949
3.344
1,764,583
3,390,583
3.391
4.408
1,045,902
4,389,851
4.390
1,966,667
4,216,667
4.217
5.839
1,420,200
5,810,051
5.810
2,402,083
5,792,667
5.793
(m )
15,600
1.56
50,000
164,000
164,000
0.164
155,881
77,500
7.75
318,750
482,750
0.483
316,249
472,130
115,000
11.5
481,250
964,000
0.964
478,177
950,307
145,000
14.5
650,000
1,614,000
1.614
648,553
180,000
18
812,500
2,426,500
2.427
193,750
19.375
934,375
3,360,875
3.361
225,000
22.5
1,046,875
4,407,750
347,500
34.75
1,431,250
5,839,000
650,000
65
2,493,750
8,332,750
8.333
2,454,605
8,264,656
8.265
3,775,000
7,991,667
7.992
1,420,000
2,020,000
142
202
5,175,000
8,600,000
13,507,750
22,107,750
13.508
22.108
5,051,215
8,556,059
13,315,871
21,871,930
13.316
21.872
7,279,167
13,916,667
13,071,833
21,908,333
13.072
21.908
NOTE:
31JUL'12
DATE
5
5
1. DAC CURVE BASED ON MODIFIED PRISMOIDAL METHOD

0
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\[Appendix D-5 -D-7- D-9 Rev A - PAG Waste Dump DAC Relationships.xlsx]Year 3
REV
Cumulative
Volume
(m )
(ha)
Volume
(m )
(m )
Simpson's Method
Cumulative
Volume
(m x 10 )
(m x 10 )
Modified Prismoidal
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
(m )
(m)
1495
1500
1505
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550

Volume
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume

DESCRIPTION
DR
GIJ
KJB
PREP'D
CHK'D
APP'D
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4WasteRockDumpsandOreStockpile\Rev0\Appendices\AppendixD\AppendixD6D8D10RevAPAGWasteDumpDACCurvesAppendixD6
03/08/20123:31PM
Area(ha)
200
150
100
50
1550
1540
Elevation(m)
1530
1520
1510
1500
1490
0
10
Volume(m3 x106)
15
20
TASEKO MINES LTD.
VolumevsElevation
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
DR
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
AreavsElevation
KJB
APP'D

PAG WASTE DUMP - YEAR 3
P / A NO.
VA101-00266/27
REF NO.
4
APPENDIX D-6
REV.
0
APPENDIX D-7
03/08/2012 15:30
El.
Elevation
Difference
(m)
(m)
1550
1555
1560
1565
1568

Volume
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
Area
2
(m )
(m )
(ha)
(m )
(m x 10 )
Volume
3
(m )
Modified Prismoidal
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
3
(m )
DATE
Cumulative
Volume
(m x 10 )
(m )
(m )
(m3 x 106)
2,880,000
288
3,200,000
320
15,200,000
15,200,000
15.200
15,192,978
15,192,978
15.193
3,392,000
339.2
16,480,000
31,680,000
31.680
16,477,669
31,670,647
31.671
31,786,667
31,786,667
31.787
5
3
3,520,000
3,600,000
352
360
17,280,000
10,680,000
48,960,000
59,640,000
48.960
59.640
17,279,012
10,679,775
48,949,659
59,629,435
48.950
59.629
33,813,333
21,072,000
33,813,333
52,858,667
33.813
52.859
NOTE:
31JUL'12
Volume

0
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Appendices\Appendix D\[Appendix D-5 -D-7- D-9 Rev A - PAG Waste Dump DAC Relationships.xlsx]Year 8
REV
Simpson's Method
Cumulative
Volume

DESCRIPTION
DR
GIJ
KJB
PREP'D
CHK'D
APP'D
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\Appendix D-6 - D-8 - D-10 Rev A - PAG Waste Dump DAC CurvesAppendix D-8
03/08/20123:31PM
420
350
280
10
20
Area(ha)
210
140
70
30
40
50
60
1570
1568
1566
1564
Elevation(m)
1562
1560
1558
1556
1554
1552
1550
1548
Volume(m3 x106)
TASEKO MINES LTD.

VolumevsElevation
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
DR
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
AreavsElevation
KJB
APP'D

P / A NO.
VA101-00266/27
REF NO.
4
APPENDIX D-8
REV.
0
APPENDIX D9
03/08/2012 15:30
El.
Elevation
Difference
(m)
(m)
1568
1570
1575
1580
1582

Volume
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
Area
(m2)
(m3 )
(ha)
(m3 )
(m3 x 106)
Volume
(m3 )
Modified Prismoidal
Cumulative
Cumulative
Volume
Volume
(m3 )
DATE
(m3 x 106)
3,120,000
312
3,200,000
320
6,320,000
6,320,000
6.320
6,319,831
6,319,831
6.320
0.000
3,360,000
336
16,400,000
22,720,000
22.720
16,398,374
22,718,205
22.718
32,133,333
32,133,333
32.133
5
2
3,520,000
3,600,000
352
360
17,200,000
7,120,000
39,920,000
47,040,000
39.920
47.040
17,198,449
7,119,850
39,916,654
47,036,505
39.917
47.037
33,600,000
14,026,667
33,600,000
46,160,000
33.600
46.160
NOTE:
31JUL'12
(m3 )

0
(m3 )
Cumulative
Volume
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\[Appendix D-5 -D-7- D-9 Rev A - PAG Waste Dump DAC Relationships.xlsx]Year 13
REV
(m3 x 106)
Volume
Simpson's Method
Cumulative
Volume

DESCRIPTION
DR
GIJ
KJB
PREP'D
CHK'D
APP'D
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\Appendix D-6 - D-8 - D-10 Rev A - PAG Waste Dump DAC CurvesAppendix D-1003/08/20123:31 PM
400
360
320
280
240
10
15
20
Area(ha)
200
160
120
80
40
25
30
35
40
45
50
1584
1582
1580
Elevation(m)
1578
1576
1574
1572
1570
1568
1566
Volume(m3 x106)
VolumevsElevation
AreavsElevation
TASEKO MINES LTD.


0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
DR
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
P / A NO.
VA101-00266/27
REF NO.
4
APPENDIX D-10
REV.
0
APPENDIX D-11
TYPICAL SHEAR STRENGTH OF ROCKFILL (LEPS, 1970)
Print Aug/03/2012 15:31:27
Normal Stress
(kPa)
Low Density Poorly

Graded
Weak particles
Average rockfill
3.4
24.1
41.4
82.7
275.8
482.6
689.5
1,103.2
4,826.3
6,894.8
52.0
46.3
44.7
42.6
39.1
37.4
36.4
35.0
30.7
29.6
57.2
51.5
49.9
47.9
44.3
42.7
41.6
40.2
35.9
34.9
Friction Angle ()
High Density
Well Graded
Strong particles
62.2
56.5
54.9
52.9
49.3
47.7
46.7
45.3
41.0
39.9
Angular sand
Ottawa sand
Low Density Poorly

Graded
Weak particles
Average rockfill
37.5
36.2
35.4
34.3
-
34.1
32.7
30.3
-
4.4
25.2
40.9
76.2
224.1
369.6
508.3
773.0
2863.4
3921.7
5.4
30.3
49.1
91.4
269.3
445.0
612.8
933.8
3494.9
4802.8
Shear Stress (kPa)

High Density
Well Graded
Strong particles
Angular sand
Ottawa sand
211.6
353.5
490.0
753.2
-
28.0
53.1
161.2
-
6.5
36.4
58.9
109.3
321.1
530.5
730.6
1114.1
4189.7
5768.3
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix D\[Appendix D-11 Rev A - Typical Shear Strength of Rockfill (Leps, 1970).xlsx]Table 4.14
NOTE:
1. Leps, T.M. (1970), Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 96, pp 1159 - 1170.
Graph 2: Normal Stress vs.Shear Stress

(after Leps, 1970)
Graph 1: Shear Strength of Rockfill

(after Leps, 1970)
65
4000
Upper Bound
Average
60
3500
Lower Bound
3000
Ottawa Sand
55
Shear Stress (kPa)
Friction Angle, (deg)
Angular Sand
50
45
40
35
30
2000
1500
Upper Bound
1000
Average
Lower Bound
500
10
100
1 000
Normal Stress, n (kPa)
REV
2500
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
10 000
Angular Sand
Ottawa Sand
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Normal Stress (kPa)
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
Thousands
APPENDIX E
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
(Pages E-1 to E-5)
VA101-266/27-4
Rev 0
August 2, 2012
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix E\Appendix E-1 - E-2 Rev A - Ore Stockpile LEM AnalysisAPPENDIX E-1
Print 03/08/2012 3:27 PM
Year -1 - Startup
FOS = 1.836
1.52
1.51
1.836
1.50
Ore Stockpile
1.49
1.47
1.46
Bedrock
1.45
1.44
1.43
1.42
Elevation (x 1000)
1.48
Glacial Till
1.41
-100
-80
Glacial Till
Ore Stockpile
-60
-40
= 22 kN/m3
= 25 kN/m3
-20
20
= 36
Shear/Normal Stress Function
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
1.40
240
Distance
NOTES:
1. Normal Stress over Shear Stress model applied to Stockpiled Ore
2. Leps, T.M. (1970), Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 96, pp 1159 - 1170. (Adapted for Metric) WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILES PRELIMINARY DESIGN
LEM ANALYSIS OF ORE STOCKPILE AT YEAR -1
3. High Density, Well Graded, Strong Particles model applied to Ore Stockpile (see Table 4.14 - Typical Shear Strength of Rockfill (Leps, 1970))
(STARTUP)
4. All LEM calculations conducted using the Morgenstern-Price method through Geostudio SLOPE/W 2007
PROJECT / ASSIGNMENT NO.
REF NO.
VA101-266/27
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
APPENDIX E-1
REV.
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix E\Appendix E-1 - E-2 Rev A - Ore Stockpile LEM AnalysisAPPENDIX E-2
Print 03/08/2012 3:27 PM
Year 14-16
(Peak Stockpile Volume)
2 . 59 2
1.59
1.58
FOS = 2.592
1.57
1.56
1.55
1.54
Ore Stockpile
1.53
1.52
1.50
Glacial Till
1.49
1.48
1.47
Bedrock
1.46
1.45
1.44
Elevation (x 1000)
1.51
1.43
1.42
1.41
1.40
-100
-50
Glacial Til
Ore Stockpile
= 22 kN/m3
= 25 kN/m3
50
100
= 36
Shear/Normal Stress Function
150
200
250
300
350
1.39
450
400
Distance
Notes:
1. Normal Stress over Shear Stress model applied to Stockpiled Ore
2. Leps, T.M. (1970), Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 96, pp 1159 - 1170. (Adapted for Metric) WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILES PRELIMINARY DESIGN
LEM ANALYSIS OF ORE STOCKPILE DURING YEARS 143. High Density, Well Graded, Strong Particles model applied to Ore Stockpile (see Table 4.14 - Typical Shear Strength of Rockfill (Leps, 1970))
16 (PEAK STOCKPILE Volume)
4. All LEM calculations conducted using the Morgenstern-Price method through Geostudio SLOPE/W 2007
REF NO.
VA101-266/27
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D
APPENDIX E-2
REV.
M:\1\01\00266\27\A\Report\4 - Waste Rock Dumps and Ore Stockpile\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix E\Appendix E-3 - E-4 - E-5 Rev A - NPAG Waste Dump LEM AnalysesAPPENDIX E-3
Print 03/08/2012 3:28 PM
Year -2 - Pre-Production
1.64
FOS = 1.684
1.62
1.60
1.58
1 . 6 84
1.56
NAG Waste Rock
1.54
Glacial Till
Elevation (x 1000)
1.52
1.50
Bedrock
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1.36
500
Distance
= 22 kN/m3
Glacial Til
3
Non-PAG Waste Roc = 19 kN/m
= 36
Normal Stress over Shear Stress
Notes:
1. Normal Stress over Shear Stress model applied to Non-PAG Waste Rock (Appendix D-11)
2. Leps, T.M. (1970), Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol.
96, pp 1159 - 1170. (Adapted for Metric)
3. Low Density, Poorly Graded Weak Particles model applied to Non-PAG Waste Rock (Appendix D-11)
4. All LEM calculations conducted using Morgenstern-Price method using Geostudio SLOPE/W 2007
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D


LEM ANALYSIS OF NON-PAG WASTE ROCK DUMP AT
YEAR -2 (PRE-PRODUCTION)
VA101-266/27
APPENDIX E-3
REF NO.
REV.
Year 8 - Peak Dump Volume
Print 03/08/2012 3:28 PM
1 . 5 66
FOS = 1.566
1.64
1.62
1.60
1.58
NAG Waste Rock
1.56
1.54
Glacial Till
Elevation (x 1000)
1.52
1.50
Bedrock
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1.36
500
Distance
= 22 kN/m3
Glacial Til
3
= 36
Notes:
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D


YEAR 8 (PEAK DUMP VOLUME)
VA101-266/27
APPENDIX E-4
REF NO.
REV.
Print 03/08/2012 3:28 PM
Year 20 - Closure
1.64
FOS = 1.616
1 . 6
1.62
1 6
1.60
1.58
NAG Waste Rock
1.56
1.54
Glacial Till
Elevation (x 1000)
1.52
1.50
Bedrock
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1.36
500
Distance
= 22 kN/m3
Glacial Til
3
= 36
Notes:
0
REV
31JUL'12
DATE

DESCRIPTION
JEF
PREP'D
GIJ
CHK'D
KJB
APP'D


YEAR 20 (CLOSURE)
VA101-266/27
APPENDIX E-5
REF NO.
REV.

Taseko Mines New Prosperity Waste and Stockpile Preliminary Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taseko Mines New Prosperity Waste and Stockpile Preliminary Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TASEKO MINES LIMITED

NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER PROJECT

WASTE DUMPS AND STOCKPILES

TASEKO MINES LIMITED

TASEKO MINES LIMITED

4.4.1 Management Practices for Soil Stripping and Salvage .............................................. 12

SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 17

Summary of Hydrometeorological Estimates

Figure 1.1 Rev 0

Project Location Map

Dump Stability Rating

Intensity Duration Frequency

Knight Pisold Limited

Metrological Service of Canada

Mine Waste Rock Pile Research Committee

Non-Potentially Acid Generating

Potentially Acid Generating

Tailings Storage Facility

Taseko Mines Limited

Waste Storage Area

TASEKO MINES LIMITED

SECTION 2.0 - SITE CHARACTERISTICS

CLIMATE AND HYDROMETEOROLOGY

Detailed site hydrometeorology is presented in the draft KPL Hydrometeorology Report

Precipitation and Evaporation

SECTION 3.0 - GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL UNITS

Quaternary Overburden Soils

Tertiary Basalt Flows

SECTION 4.0 - WASTE STORAGE AND STOCKPILE DESIGN

LOCATION AND DESIGN

TOPSOIL MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL OPERATIONS

Management Practices for Soil Stripping and Salvage

Management Practices for Soil Stockpiles

Erosion control measures will be implemented.

Soil will be stockpiled in locations to minimize the possibility of further disturbance.

WASTE PILE STABILITY

Waste Pile Stability Rating Scheme

Waste Pile Stability Analyses

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES

Rainfall and Snowmelt

Natural Surface Water

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

Estimated Mean PGA3,4

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

Non-Acid Generating (NonAG) Waste

Potential Acid Generating

125 km southwest of Williams Lake, BC. Elevation 1500 m.

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

Height of Stockpile (m)

Location of Soil Stockpile

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

Ore Stockpile - = 25 kN/m

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4

Non-PAG Waste Rock - = 19 kN/m

ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-266/27-4