Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. Announces Response Submitted to BCEAO

Mar 12, 2014

Vancouver BC, March 12, 2014: Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. is pleased to announce that the Company has submitted a response to the letter from the Associate Deputy Minister and Executive Director of the BC Environmental Assessment Office (“EAO”), Doug Caul, dated January 24, 2014, regarding the opportunity for Pacific Booker to respond to the updated version of the September 20, 2012 Recommendations of the Executive Director report in regards to the Company’s application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate.

At the request of the Company, Klohn Crippen Berger (“KCB”) has prepared a report that clarifies the remaining concerns of the EAO regarding the Morrison Copper/Gold Project. This information should allow the EAO and the Ministers to make an informed decision with respect to supporting the EAO Conclusion that “EAO is satisfied that the Assessment process has adequately identified and addressed the potential adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of the proposed Project, having regard to the successful implementation of the conditions and the mitigation measures set out in Schedule B to the draft EA Certificate”.

The EAO’s January 24, 2014 letter outlines the key conclusions of the December 9, 2013 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. v. British Columbia (Environment), 2013 BCSC 2258. The important elements that apply to the Company in addressing the concerns underlying the negative recommendation include:
• The rejection “failed to comport with the requirements of procedural fairness”;
• Pacific Booker should not have been prevented from “learning at least the substance of the recommendations”;
• Stipulated that: On the reconsideration, Pacific Booker and the interveners will be entitled to be provided with the Executive Director’s recommendations, if any, to the Ministers, and will be entitled to provide a written response to the recommendations.

The EAO letter also outlines the substance of the key concerns underlying the negative recommendation, which are summarized as follows:
1. “The project design provides for end-stage mitigation rather than up-front prevention of metal leaching and acid rock drainage.”
2. “The project design is based on the unproven assumption that effluent to be discharged directly into Morrison Lake would be diffused by the behaviour of the Lake.”
3. “Provincial technical reviewers expressed significant concerns about whether the proposed measure (geomembrane liner of the 5 km2
4. “The project has the potential to result in significant long-term financial and environmental liabilities”. These aspects relate to the size of the reclamation bond and the proximity to valued fish resources.
5. “The project was opposed by Gitxsan and Gitanyow Nations and Lake Babine Nation”.

Furthermore, the Company recognizes that “the Executive Director was of the view that the Company should consider feasible design alternatives for its proposed mine”. It is the Company’s interpretation of this comment that the substance of this view is associated with the design alternative of placing potentially acid generating mine rock into the tailings storage facility (TSF) as opposed to infilling the open pit on mine closure.

In addition, the economic effects on the Province was raised as a concern as part of the Executive Director’s recommendations.
KCB believes that the Project design is protective of the environment and clarification of the rationale and the potential for environmental effects are presented within the report. To further support the assessment, three Technical Expert Opinions are included for lake modeling of water quality predictions, aquatic effects and geomembrane liners.

http://pacificbooker.com/news.htm