Sound Off is a public forum. Articles are selected from letters to the editor or may be written specifically for this feature. Today, Maury Island resident Nat Clarke argues that Glacier Northwest’s plans to open a gravel mine on the island represent a threat to the entire region’s environment.

As something that has been in and out of the news for years, many voters may find it hard to view Glacier Northwest’s proposed gravel mine on Maury Island as a pressing issue this election.

It may also be hard for some to believe that a project that has come so far could still represent an environmental threat. More importantly, it must be hard for residents of the greater Puget Sound region to believe that they could be affected if the gravel mine is constructed.

Unfortunately, these assumptions could not be further from the truth.

Before we head to the polls, let us review the facts of Glacier’s proposed mining operation, and what you as a voter can do about it.

Glacier owns a site on southern Maury Island that is bordered by the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve, a state conservation area that is important to both Chinook salmon and Orca whales.

The site has been severely contaminated with both lead and arsenic from the Asarco copper smelting plant that formerly operated near Point Defiance.

The arsenic levels alone at the site are 20 times the accepted state and federal pollution control laws, and qualify the site to be considered for an EPA superfund cleanup project.

Glacier plans to mine 193 acres of this 235-acre site, taking over 70 million tons of sand and gravel, lowering most of the site to a few feet about sea level, and excavating to within 15 feet of Maury Island’s sole source aquifer.

The aquifer provides drinking water to more than 1,100 island residents, who have no alternative water source available.

In the excavation process, Glacier will filter out contaminated soils, and, rather than removing these soils, they plan to concentrate them on the site into a 271,000-cubic-yard landfill.

For comparison, 271,000 cubic yards is more than one and a half times the size of Boeing’s Everett Plant, which is the world’s largest building by volume.

This giant mound of tainted dirt will be located at the bottom of the mining depression, at the base of a 100-yard slope, only yards above the sole source aquifer and yards away from the aquatic reserve.

The site is also on top of an active fault.

In summary, Glacier plans to create one of the largest toxic waste dumps in the state immediately next to the coast and directly on top of an aquifer in an area that is naturally prone to both earthquakes and landslides.

This could potentially put contaminants into drinking water and protected marine ecosystems.

After years of opposition, Glacier has only one remaining hurdle preventing them from mining. The company must obtain a lease to the state-owned tidelands at the site from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Without a lease from the DNR, Glacier cannot build a barging dock necessary for mining, and the project would be halted.

The decision within the DNR ultimately falls into the hands of its chairperson, the Public Land Commissioner, Doug Sutherland.

Commissioner Sutherland, who is up for re-election, has done a number of things to assist Glacier, like adding an exemption into the current aquatic reserve plan for Glacier’s Maury Island dock.

He has also received nearly $3,000 in campaign contributions from Glacier Northwest for this election.

His opponent, Peter Goldmark, is very concerned with a mine on Maury Island.

Goldmark has made it clear that protecting and restoring Puget Sound is a priority for him, and he includes not permitting the gravel mine as a part of that effort.

In a region where we are spending billions of dollars to restore our waters, we cannot stand by and let another piece of their coast be destroyed.

It is not in our best interest to allow a massive gravel mine and toxic landfill to be built in a place that presents a threat to both humans and wildlife.

Elections such as this one, in which our votes have such an immediate impact on an issue, are few and far between. If we do not take action now, the fault will be ours.

It may seem like a distant problem to some, but I guarantee that if another dead zone is created, this time in orca habitat, we will all care about it.

It is time for us to act, not react — to take a stand and say that we will not let our Sound be degraded; not in Hood Canal, not in our rivers, and not on Maury Island.

I urge you to vote to protect Puget Sound by electing a Public Lands commissioner who actually cares about public lands.

Before we can save Puget Sound, we must first put an end to its destruction.