Comments Needed On Pebble Project Draft EIS
June 2019 by Scott Harn
The US Army Corps of Engineers’ Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska comes in at over 1,400 pages.
If you do not have the time to read the entire document, I would suggest starting with the Executive Summary that begins on page 80.
Scientists with the Army Corps appear to have done a very thorough job, taking into consideration runoff, geology, above ground and underground waters, cultural resources, fisheries, access, areas of disturbance and more.
The Pebble Project scaled down their proposal to garner support and further minimize impacts. The Army Corps estimates the amount of disturbed habitat for the seven species of fish at less than four acres during mine operation with a net loss of less than 1.5 acres post closure for Chinook and Coho salmon, while other species will see their habitat slightly increased. The Pebble Project has proposed two huge, triple-lined tailings ponds with multiple layers of engineered berms to eliminate the risk of any contamination to the environment.
After reviewing the documents, it appears the Pebble Project and the Bristol Bay watershed can coexist without significant environmental consequences. The plan has been so thoroughly vetted that Iliamna Natives Limited have flipped from naysayers to supporters and are offering to provide a transportation corridor across their lands to support the operation and construction of the proposed Pebble mine.
It’s estimated 3,000 high-paying jobs will be created at the Pebble Project, and it will support more than 16,000 American jobs while contributing $2.4 billion in gross domestic product annually according to a study by IHS Global. Jobs at the mine site are projected at $109,500 salary per year, which is more than double the state average.
Public comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted through June 29, 2019, and we encourage all of readers to weigh in.
You can review the Draft EIS and submit your comments through the online portal at pebbleprojecteis.com. (There is a “Public Comments” tab at the top when you are ready to submit comments.)
Comments may also be emailed to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Comments may be mailed to:
US Army Corps of Engineers
645 G St. Suite 100-921
Anchorage, AK 99501
The very way it was done at the time didn’t give one much confidence in the objectivity and honesty of the BLM study.
NOI or POO for small backhoe
• Oregon proposed withdrawal
• Backdoor Wild Lands order
• PLP reports on latest dredge lawsuit
• Massive lands bill avoided
• No cap and trade for now
• RS-2477 rights affirmed
King’s letter is a blow to the EPA’s contention that outside technical experts supported its plan to push a drainage pipe through debris covering the entrance to the Gold King Mine…
SB 765...would tax suction gold dredgers by charging a $50 annual fee for in-state dredgers and a whopping $2,500 fee for out-of-state dredgers for each county where the miner intends to dredge.
• Battle continues in Oregon
• Stop annexation in Southern California
• EPA ignores Supreme Court ruling with new Idaho permit
• Alaska sues Feds to restore access rights
• California dredgers await next big court date
The Bawl Mill • Legislative and Regulatory Update • Ask The Experts - Can you provide information on gold in Ghana? • Ask The Experts - Geophysics and gold deposits • Ask The Experts - Do these items qualify as mechanized equipment? • Ask The Experts - EPA Method 6020 testing • Ask The Experts - New detector or stick with the old? • The Value of Old Patches • A 'Rare' Opportunity for America • Tips for Cleaning Gold Nuggets • How Long Does It Take to Find and Recover An Ounce of Gold? • Gold Prospecting for Better or Worse: In A Tight Spot • Detecting Wet Ground Yields More Fun Than Gold • Over The Divide: Jim Straight, 1930-2019 • Beach Mining for Placer Gold • Reno's 1872 Time Capsule Includes Gold Rush Lore • Melman on Gold & Silver • Mining Stock Quotes and Mineral & Metal Prices