With a tip of the hat to the ‘Pebble Fatigue Syndrome’ (people’s level of attention and motivation to act dropping as a function of time), I’m happy to remain a member of the chorus of voices insisting that the Pebble Mine project is STILL simply the wrong mine in the wrong place.
The risks of the project have been detailed, with increasing ‘disaster scenario’ flourish over the years, by a number of groups, probably none better than SaveBristolBay.org; the image above is taken from the What’s At Risk section of their site, the core and preeminent issue being the sockeye and king salmon fisheries anchored in the region.
If by this time you’re still looking to learn more about the issue, start here on the Save Bristol Bay site and dig through their resources. (Of course they’re approaching the issue from a certain bias, as all of do when we assess any issue in life, though for the most part they’re pretty damned solid when it comes to the watershed science behind their arguments.)
Comment on the Pebble Mine Draft EIS Open 1 March – 30 May
The call to action is now focused on the public comment period for the Pebble Project Draft EIS (environmental impact statement), which opened on the 1st of March and runs through the 30th of May. Head to the comment portal below, and throw your two cents in today.
The EIS is a behemoth of a document, and all sorts of interpretations are being offered up as to what’s actually in it, which of course are all over the map in terms of being accurate and reflective of what’s actually written. Some helpful links for those who have an itch to see the facts:
Pebble Project EIS Documents (for download).
Pebble Project EIS Public Comment Portal.
Perhaps in Hindsight, the Pebble-CWA 404(c) Maneuver Was a Bad Call
Count me among those who believe the mine is such a terrible idea from a watershed perspective that it’ll never be finally permitted and brought to fruition.
That said, back in 2014 before Pebble had submitted its initial EIS, when the EPA Region 10 invoked application of Section 404(c) of the CWA, in essence prohibiting the formal process of even submitting an EIS and moving through the earliest review steps, the controversial action was deemed a glorious win by many, and a violation of due process (for lack of a better term) by others.
Litigation was inevitable (it’s nothing short of insane to argue otherwise), and the parties jousted until May 2017; here’s a fairly succinct summary of the process (skip down to the Legal Challenges: EPA Action section).
Had the EIS process been allowed to run its course now five years ago, the project would very likely have been dead and buried by now. Like a zombie refusing to die, it’s still alive, and it’s time to grind through the hoops and put it down for good.
Take 5 minutes and go comment today.
