Hello News Group 11Hello News Group Please see the message below which was sent today to 86 Liberal, 80 NDP and 79 Green Party Candidates in BC. If you want to be removed from our lists, please send us an email with remove in the subject line. Hello Candidates In an effort to understand where the rejection decision came from, we reviewed the 4,301 pages obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (requested through Hunter Litigation). Pages were withheld under Section 13 (Policy advice or recommendations) and Section 14 (Legal advice). Please note that the bold formatting has been added for emphasis. After an early morning phone call to advise PBM of the decision, we received this email: Dated: October 1, 2012 at 11:06am From: Minister Terry Lake To: Erik Tornquist ccd to: Derek Sturko; Chris Hamilton; Minister Rich Coleman Subject: RE: Proposed Copper/Gold Mine Project--Signed original to follow by mail. Message: Rejection letter attached Immediately after the Information Bulletin (the governments news release) was released, this email was sent to the Working Group members (the individuals involved in reviewing the data) and others: Dated: October 1, 2012 at 2:09pm From: Nicole Vinette, Project Assessment Officer, EAO To: Working Group ccd to: Chris Hamilton & Nataliya Matsko Subject: Proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project - Ministerial Decision re: EA Certificate Message: Dear Working Group members--As you are aware, on August 21, 2012, the EAO referred the proposed Morrison Project to Terry Lake and Rich Coleman for a decision on whether to issue an environmental assessment certificate. At 2pm today, Ministers announced their decision to refuse to issue an environmental assessment certificate for the proposed Morrison Mine. For more information about the decision, the following documents will be posted on EAOs website shortly at (link provided). On behalf of Chris Hamilton, the Executive Project Director for the environmental assessment of the proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project, I would like to thank you for the years of time, effort, information and analysis you provided to EAO in support of the environmental assessment of this project. After the news was received, this interesting exchange was documented between Chris Schell of FLNR and Greg Tamblyn, Greg Tamblyn, RPBio, MOE Environmental Impact Assessment Dated: October 3, 2012 at 3:03pm From: Greg Tamblyn To: Chris Schell Subject: FW Mine project denied due to unacceptable risks Message: FYI (link to cbc news article bc-mine-project-denied-certificate) Dated: October 3, 2012 at 3:51pm From: Chris Schell To: Troy Larden, Karen Diemert Subject: FW Mine project denied due to unacceptable risks Message: The recommendation report (Morrison copper/Gold Mine Project Recommendation of the Executive Director dated sept 2012) is actually quite an interesting read. 95% of the report describes in great detail how the EAO is satisfied that there will be no significant adverse effects of the project, should mitigation work. Then the final 2 pages, the recommendations section, comes out of nowhere and recommends a "no". This final section is worth a quick read. On October 31, 2012, following the Companys news release announcing that a Response to Ministry of Environment was sent to Terry Lake and posted on the PBM website (at: https://www.pacificbooker.com/pdf/121030L-MorrisonEACRejectionResponse.pdf ), the following exchange of emails was documented between Dave Nikolejsin, Greg Leake, Karla Kennedy, Marlene Cochrane, Chris Hamilton, John Mazure, Greg Tamblyn, Jennifer McGuire, Ian Sharpe and Mark P Love Dated: October 31, 2012 at 1:24pm From: Colleen Mycroft To: Dave Nikolejsin ccd to: Greg Leake, Karla Kennedy, Marlene Cochrane Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project Message: This came in to the EAO Info today (Forwarded Eriks email with the Rejection Response letter attached) Dated: October 31, 2012 at 1:41pm From: Dave Nikolejsin To: Chris Hamilton & John Mazure Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project Message: (no words in email) Dated: October 31, 2012 at 3:13 pm From: Chris Hamilton To: Kim Bellefontaine Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project Message: fyi Dated: October 31, 2012 at 3:46pm From: Kim Bellefontaine To: Chris Hamilton ccd to: Greg Tamblyn Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project Message: So what does this mean? This says they dont agree. Are they asking for the decision to be reversed? Are they going to court? Dated: October 31, 2012 at 3:56pm From: Chris Hamilton To: Kim Bellefontaine Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project Message: Not a clue. They just put out a news release to the same effect and Derek has been talking to Vaughn Palmer. I suspect EAO, MOE and MEM should be having a bit of a strategy session. Dated: October 31, 2012 at 4:52pm From: Kim Bellefontaine To: Chris Hamilton ccd to: Greg Tamblyn Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Proposed Morrison Copper/Gold Mine Project Message: Thanks for letting us know the latest. I dont know what next steps should be. Dated: November 1, 2012 at 10:35am From: Greg Tamblyn To: Jennifer McGuire ccd to: Ian Sharpe and Mark P Love Subject: Morrison Mine update Message: Hi Jennifer, Pacific Booker Minerals, the proponent for the proposed Morrison Copper-Gold Project, distributed a press release yesterday. This may reignite media attention on this story. Chris Hamilton, the Executive Project Director from the EAO, has suggested that it may be worthwhile for MOE, MEM and the EAO to put together a strategy related to dealing with the media. Will you be the coordinator for MOEs input to a spokesperson? After the judgement from the BC Supreme Court was received, this exchange was documented between Chris Hamilton, Kim Bellefontaine and Greg Tamblyn Dated: December 9 at 11:39am From: Chris Hamilton To: Kim Bellefontaine & Greg Tamblyn Subject: Morrison Message: The decision came out today. The judge basically said to re-refer it, but let PBM tell the Ministers what they think of a potential no. (words removed under S13--Policy advice or recommendations) Dated: December 30, 2013 at 10:38am From: Chris Hamilton To: Al Hoffman, Kim Bellefontaine, Diane Howe Subject: Pacific Booker response Message: Hi all. On the long chance that any if you are in the office this week, EAO is trying to finalize a letter in response to the court decision. We have a few statements about provincial MLARD policy and liabilities. Here is one paragraph in particular I hope can be fact checked. I recall Kim saying largest bond is currently in the 50-60M range (Equity Silver?). Any help greatly appreciated. I think the letter needs to go to Dave N by the end of week. Here is the paragraph. The project design creates enormous long-term financial and environmental liabilities. The environmental liabilities include the contamination of a fragile ecosystem that is known to be home to a genetically unique population of sockeye salmon. The magnitude of the financial liabilities is reflected in the dramatic and unprecedented value of the potential reclamation bond. The Ministry of Energy Mines has estimated the reclamation bond would be $300 million. No previous reclamation bond in the history of the Province has exceeded $50 million. Dated: December 30, 2013 at 8:19pm From: Kim Bellefontaine To: Chris Hamilton Subject: Re: Pacific Booker response Message: (words removed under S13--Policy advice or recommendations) Dated: December 30, 2013 at 8:42pm From: Chris Hamilton To: Kim Bellefontaine Message: Thanks for checking Kim. Things get interesting. The letter in response to the court decision referred to above was not received by PBM. After 30 days, we announced 30 day period for the BC Government to challenge the December 9, 2013 BC Supreme Court decision had ended without challenge from the BC Government. This was the beginning of the Reconsideration process. This exchange was documented between Chris Hamilton and members of the Working Group. (Please note that the court judgement did not indicate that the Working Group should be involved in the redo of the decision.) Dated: March 12, 2014 at 11:24am From: Chris Hamilton To: Working Group Subject: Re: Morrison Copper Gold Message: As you are aware on December 9, 2013 the BC Supreme Court quashed the October 2012 decision of the Ministers declining to issue an environmental assessment certificate for the proposed Morrison Copper Gold Mine Project. The court found that the proponent Pacific Booker should have had the opportunity to provide a response to the September 20, 2012 recommendation of the Executive Director of the EAO against issuance of a certificate. The court ordered that the matter should be remitted back to the EAO to allow for that opportunity of response by Pacific Booker. The EAO has established a process with the proponent Pacific Booker and the First Nations intervenors to govern this remittal process. The process is described in the letter of January 24th from the EAO to Pacific Booker and the Lake Babine and Gitxsan First Nations, which some minor modifications to timelines as set out in subsequent correspondence with is also attached. (link provided for 2 documents). As you can see, the timelines anticipated that Pacific Booker would provide its response to the Executive Directors recommendations by March 10th, following which members of the Working Group would have an opportunity to comment on any material received from Pacific Booker. Pacific Booker has now provided our office with its response to the Executive Directors negative recommendation. In accordance with the courts direction, members of the Working Group now have the opportunity of comment on the report provided by Pacific Booker by way of response to the Executive Directors negative recommendation. Without placing restrictions on input, I note it would be helpful if members of the Working Group could focus on the implications of Pacific Booker's response, if any, for the risk/benefit factors highlighted by the Executive Director at page 32 of his September 20, 2012 recommendation. The factors that led to a negative recommendation in the September 2012 are also highlighted in the attached correspondence. (more text follows with deadlines and responses) Dated: March 12, 2014 at 11:59am From: Greg Tamblyn To: Jennifer McGuire Subject: Re: Morrison Copper Gold Message: Jennifer - As a key member of the Morrison working group (much of the just justification to turn down this project by the EAO was extracted from my assessment letter), I will need to respond to this request from the EAO. The timing for this could not be worse. I believe the response will take 3-5 days of my time. Given my current work load, I will need to drop something. Dated: April 11, 2014 at 9:23am From: Kim Bellefontaine To: Sara Bose ccd to: Diane Howe, Nathaniel Amann-Blake Subject: RE: Morrison Project - Pacific Bookers Response to Exec Directors Recommendations Message: Hi Sara, I spoke with Nathaniel this morning; the path forward on Morrison is a little bit unclear as the EAO has no method in which to conduct additional analysis at this point. I am currently reviewing the information submitted by PBM. On first glance there is not much new information. My thoughts are to prepare a high level review to the EAO and compare to our previous conclusions. I expect that this will be shared with the Proponent and also with Ministers, Diane, Al and David will be able to review the memo before it goes out. I have suggested one possible change to the paragraph below. I am not sure if that sentence is needed at this point (but I dont feel strongly either way) This was expected to be the decision phase of the Reconsideration process. This exchange was documented between Chris Hamilton, Kim Bellefontaine, Greg Tamblyn and others. Dated: July 9, 2014 at 4:36pm From: Chris Hamilton To: Kim Bellefontaine and Greg Tamblyn Subject: Morrison - confidential Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Message: Hi Kim and Greg We briefing our Ministers yesterday on Morrison and provided them all the comments and submissions. I don't think they have fully landed on the final decision, but further assessment seems to be an option. With this in mind, I'm trying to scope out what further assessment will look like and want to try some ideas out on you. We have very little experience in the realm of "further assessment" with the only other example being the Garibaldi at Squamish (GAS) (further discussion follows on this subject) I envision the same process here. The key is to set out what we want the proponent to collect. I think we can accept their conclusions on heritage, economic, social and health and many of the environmental conclusions, but the main outstanding concerns relate to: (list of 9 items around water, waste rock disposal, TSF, lake behaviour) Those are the top of mind for me. The question is how can we increase the database of information in order to complete better models of effects so that uncertainty can be reduced. The details of these programs can be worked out in the SAIR (Please note that as far as we can find out, the only time an SAIR has been required was for a gravel pit in Squamish.) Dated: July 16, 2014 at 3:16pm From: Chris Hamilton To: Sarah Bevan, (JAG) Subject: RE: Morrison dates Attached: Sept 20 2012_Draft Clarification Requested by MTL_Morrison_Reasons and Recommendation_FINAL.pdf; Penultimate Morrison_Recommendations_20Aug12_FINAL.doc Message: Hmm, I recall the first PBM knew about the no was a phone call on Oct 1, a Monday. Could you be thinking about the two versions of the recommendations? One was dated Aug 21, the date of the referral and then Minister Lake had asked for changes to that doc, so the second was dated Sep 20. Could that be it? Dated: July 17, 2014 at 9:44am From: David P Morel To: Michelle Carr ccd to: Chris Hamilton; Doug Caul Subject: RE: Morrison s. 17 and reasons letter Message: Thanks for the opportunity to comment. In track changes are a few suggestions. In general, I think we need to target the Section 17 order to provision of additional information about the lake to mitigate risk on salmon. I have not had an opportunity to discuss and review this with Dave or the Minister. Dated: July 25, 2014 at 3:52pm From: Chris Hamilton To: Doug Caul ccd to: Michelle Carr; Jennifer Lewthwaite; Elsie Belfry; Lori A Watson Subject: revised Morrison materials Attached: Morrison Sect 17 Order_2014July...25 (clean).doc; Morrison Sect 17 Order_2014July_25.doc; 104386_Draft_Minister_Decision_letter)uly 25 (track).docx; 104386_Draft_Minister_Decision_Letter_July 25 (clean).docx Message: Hi Doug As requested. There is a clean and a track change version of both the order and the letter. To make it easy, here are the main changes (in addition to the other editorial changes you asked for). The conclusion is much more clear I believe, and the FN section in the order is also better and should give a sense we are not handing over consultation to the proponent. We consult: they go talk about their project. There is still more to come.