skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Joel Reynolds’s Blog

EPA Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment Generates Widespread Applause, Intensifies Opposition to Pebble Mine

Joel Reynolds

Posted July 25, 2012 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

If the proposed Pebble Mine has a best friend, it is silence.

That’s why the Pebble Limited Partnership – the consortium of foreign mining giants behind the uniquely destructive mega-mine planned for the Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska – hates the Watershed Assessment prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and released by the agency in draft for public comment last May.

Yesterday, the public comment period closed, and the numbers thus far are bad news for the mining partnership -- and very good news for everyone else.  Of an estimated 204,000 comments received by EPA so far, 200,000 support EPA’s assessment and urge regulatory action to stop the Pebble Mine.  Only 4,000 comments urge EPA to stay away.  Stated another way, 98% support EPA’s engagement and a mere 2% do not. And this isn’t even the final tally.

That’s as close to a unanimous endorsement as will ever be found in the world of public policy.  And the reason is clear:

As EPA’s scientific review found, the Pebble Mine would devastate the region – its wild salmon fishery, its people, its communities, and its economy.  Even if the project were to function perfectly according to permits – an assumption contrary to the experience of every large-scale copper mine anywhere in the world ever – it would cause irreparable harm to what is generally acknowledged to be the most productive wild salmon fishery in the world.

No wonder the opposition in the region exceeds 80% -- and no wonder the public comments on EPA’s draft assessment so overwhelmingly endorse EPA’s involvement.

NRDC submitted extensive comments on the assessment, supported by a wide array of environmental and conservation organizations and business representatives.  The range and diversity of organizations and individuals weighing in to support EPA can be found on EPA’s website here.

PBS Frontline also ran a Pebble Mine segment on Tuesday evening, called  Alaska Gold – an hour-long documentary that portrays, in the words of former Alaska Senate President Rick Halford, what is the “biggest environmental fight of this century for Alaska.” Frontline shows the extraordinary natural resources of Bristol Bay, meets the people who will be affected most if the mine is ever approved and built, and delves into why the region is fighting so hard against it.

Notably, Pebble Partnership representatives, including its CEO and VP for Environmental Permitting, proved once again to be their own worst enemies.  They repeatedly expressed their unbridled confidence in the capacity of technology – yet unidentified and never proven, if indeed it exists except in their highly compensated imaginations – to (1) contain the projected 10 billion tons of contaminated mining waste forever; and (2) enable construction of one of the world’s largest copper mines at the headwaters of a wild salmon ecosystem without harming the fish.

Does anyone really believe them?  Is there any basis at all to support their limitless confidence in technology to protect a resource that everyone – even Pebble’s CEO and VP for Environmental Planning – agree that we cannot afford to lose?

The battle against the Pebble Mine is one of the most important conservation issues of our time. It’s a battle we have to win.  NRDC is committed for as long as it takes.

Take action now to stop the Pebble Mine.

Thumbnail image for Ketchum Iliamna.jpg

Share | | |

Comments

Jamie FriedlandJul 25 2012 06:36 PM

The PBS documentary has a lot of great information, but its attempt at objectivity could misinform viewers. Frontline tries to balance scientists’ expert findings with mining executives’ baseless opinions to the contrary. If the scientists’ findings are factual, and the industry statements are at best corporate hopes (and at worst propaganda), it is misleading to give the two statements equal airtime and portray them as equivalent differences in opinion.

This is a classic example of the “bias of balance,” in which journalists trying too hard to retain balance do so at the expense of accuracy. Artificially balancing an unsupported opinion with a fact-based scientific reality is not objective reporting, it’s its own form of bias. It misrepresents the situation. The statement “pebble mine is risky” is not an opinion, it’s a fact: risks can be minimized, but no amount of planning and technology can completely extinguish so massive risks. With so much at stake for the people, fishery, and future of Bristol Bay, Pebble Mine is just not worth the risk.

Linda SJul 25 2012 09:15 PM

Hasn't our ignorance inflicted enough damage to this planet? I want a safe and clean environment for my grandchildren. They have plenty of challenges in their future already.

MARCO MJul 27 2012 01:04 AM

THE ALASKAN PEOPLE DESERVE A BREAK FROM CORPORATION THAT DESTROY THE PRISTINE ALASKAN WATER & SALMON,LAST TIME WITH EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL THEY DESTROY THE LIFE OF MANY FISHERMEN,MONEY WILL GO ANYWHERE,BUT THE CONTAMINATED WATER WILL STAY IN ALASKA.MONEY LOSE VALUE-WATER NEVER LOSE VALUE.COPPER&GOLD ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT ALASKA IS.

burk youngJul 28 2012 08:16 PM

Alaskan
You got to kidding. A lake of acid a hole lot of humans for a copper mine?
a mine where the salmon start life. Now that just plain craze.

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Joel Reynolds’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In