Can mining and salmon co-exist? That debate is being heard in Anchorage this week over the proposed Pebble Mine project.
The Pebble Limited Partnership is holding another round of scientific review panels overseen by The Keystone Center. The non-profit has recruited scientists from all over the United States, who are volunteering their expertise to scrutinize Pebble’s research.
“Most resource companies would not subject themselves to this kind of review,” says Todd Bryan, a mediator for The Keystone Center. Bryan says the amount of data collected and available for both public and independent review is astounding.
This week, scientists will discuss parts of a 27,000 page report called an “Environmental Baseline Document.” On Tuesday, panelists looked at Pebble’s fishery research, which critics have questioned. In fact one University of Washington professor has already withdrawn from the review process, calling it flawed.
But Bryan says The Keystone Center has a 35-year track record for impartiality and objectivity -- and says there are many layers of checks and balances built in its scientific review process.
“Our reputation depends on that independence,” said Bryan. “So if we were to somehow compromise that, it would probably destroy the organizations’ credibility in anything else we would work on.”
Bryan says the same holds true for the scientists enlisted to vet Pebble’s research.
“They’re not people that are going lie for us, which is what the opposition indicates. These people have their reputations at stake, and they’re not going to damage those reputations on our behalf,” said John Shively, CEO of the Pebble Partnership.
Critics like former state senator Rick Halford welcome more scientific studies, but Halford questions whether there can ever be enough research for Pebble to make a convincing case to him.
“Salmon are a miracle in everything that they do,” says Halford. “They feed everything from the land, from the tiny micro organisms, all the way up to the brown bear. And it shouldn’t be risked without certainty. I’m afraid certainty is something we won’t see. I don’t believe the science is there, or will get there in my lifetime.”
Pebble is out to prove otherwise.
“We have the most science that has ever been done on any project, particularly on a mining project, anywhere in the world,” said Shively, who hopes the panel discussions will point to gaps in research that will help protect habitat for the salmon and other wildlife that could potentially be affected by development.
During Tuesday’s review of Pebble’s fishery science, opponents of the mine say the data collected thus far, despite the millions that have been spent, is lacking and doesn’t account for the genetic diversity of Bristol Bay Salmon.
“Salmon are like a big stock portfolio,” says Carol Ann Woody, a fisheries researcher and consultant who has worked for opponents of the mine. “We have salmon that are very, very different from each other, even though they may be the same species. And it’s that diversity that has sustained the system for thousands of years.”
Woody also questions Pebble’s decision to change the way it counts fish. She says Pebble doesn’t have the data to show where salmon spawn in the area where the mine would be developed.
Pebble says it changed its methodology to get a better understanding of how to protect salmon throughout their life cycle. Also, Pebble says the number of salmon that return to spawn are determined by outside influences, not conditions on the spawning grounds.
But one of the expert panelists, Hal Geiger, agrees with critics about the need for more escapement data.
“One suggestion I would have is that they do a radio tagging study. It’s a very expensive thing to do, but they could put radio tags in these fish and then track them all the way through the system, and we could see which ones end up in the mine area. In the end, Alaskans are going to be asked to make trade-offs between minerals and salmon.”
Pebble has promised to consider the panelists’ input.
“If they think we’ve missed something big, or there’s a different way we might look at a piece of science or a different methodology that makes sense, that could have an influence on us,” says Shively. The Pebble CEO says sharing its research and gathering input will lead to a better and safer project.
“You need to understand what’s there in order to understand the impacts you might have, when you go to engineer the project and begin to decide what to monitor,” said Shively.
It remains to be seen if the fish counting debate raised at the forum in Anchorage will lead to a new line of research. In the meantime, the scientific review continues on Wednesday with the focus shifting to the marine ecosystem in Cook Inlet, where a port would be needed for the mine. Keystone panelists will also look at research on the Bristol Bay area’s socioeconomics. On Thursday, attention will turn to the region’s culture and subsistence lifestyle.
The review process is being held at the University of Alaska Campus and the Consortium Library, starting at 8:30 a.m.
The panel discussions are being streamed on the Internet at:
Also, the Environmental Baseline Document is posted on Pebble Research website:
http://www.pebbleresearch.com/ebd/
