Latest Buckhorn Mt. Mine Proposal Threatens Water and Senior Water Rights

News Release October 27, 2005

Almost six years after the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) pulled the plug on a contentious open-pit, cyanide-leach gold mine in the Okanogan Highlands, the State has released the draft review of a new plan to mine gold on Buckhorn Mountain. Although the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) presents a plan using three underground shafts instead of the original large open-pit to get at the gold ore, it still predicts a permanent shift in the way water flows off the mountain, adversely affecting senior water rights.

"The new proposal is similar to past proposals in that it would still permanently alter water flows off Buckhorn Mountain and harm senior water rights owners," states David Kliegman, director of the Okanogan Highlands Alliance. "The mining company should not be allowed to disrupt our lives again with a new proposal with the same predicted impacts that were rejected in the past."

Since the mine was rejected by the PCHB on January 19, 2000, the region has been under a severe drought, and the mining company has been informed water is a serious problem. In an August 11, 2003 letter Ecology told the Crown Resources,

"The availability of water in Washington State is a serious problem. Much of the water in our state has already been appropriated. The competition for water has escalated with our state's increasing population, conflicting water policy issues, and grave declines in salmon and other fish populations. With the many demands on the state's water resources, a favorable permit decision is not always possible."

Other criticisms of the new mine plan include the tailings impoundment expansion that would build a dam on existing jello-like tailings instead of the more stable downstream method, increasing the potential for failure.

"Most of the technical literature rates upstream-type tailings dam construction as the least expensive, but most risky method of dam construction," states David Chambers, Center for Science in Public Participation. "I don't believe that upstream-type construction should be used at the Kinross mill location because of seismic safety risk, and because there are safer, but more expensive, dam construction alternatives available."

Furthermore, most of the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIS would actually improve the mining company's private land, rather than offset the harm done to public resources.

The US Forest Service had withdrawn from the EIS process after the Department of Interior awarded a land patent to 154 acres on Buckhorn Mountain for $770, transferring ownership from public to private.

"The Forest Service still has decisions to make that could affect the ultimate outcome of the mine proposal and still has a responsibility to the public to fully disclose potential impacts of entire project," states Mike Petersen Executive Director of the Lands Council in Spokane Washington. "Abdicating their responsibility by piece-mealing the impacts is unacceptable."

Crown Resources of Denver, Colorado, who submitted the new plan, was purchased by Kinross Gold Corp of Toronto Canada. The sale has been held up since 2004 by the Securities and Exchange Commission because of problems concerning Kinross the purchase of Echo Bay.

Contacts: David Kliegman, Okanogan Highlands Alliance: 509-485-336
Mike Petersen, The Lands Council: 509-838-4912
David Chambers, Center for Science in Public Participation: 406-585-9854