The idea of a fish refuge has been kicking around for several years, and it's one of many tools that critics of the massive copper and gold prospect in Southwest Alaska are using to try to block the project or create stricter environmental rules prior to its development.
Today's Fisheries Board debate is the latest round in a battle that pits proponents of a potential multibillion-dollar mine against defenders of the state's richest salmon fishery. In recent years, the fight over Pebble has included lawsuits, ad wars, bills in the Legislature, hot debate in area villages and the state's most expensive ballot initiative campaign over stricter pollution rules.
Pebble's backers say the mine can coexist with the fishing while providing good-paying jobs to an economically deprived part of Alaska. The mine's opponents say too many people rely on the fishery to put it at risk by building one of the largest mines of its type in the world. The battle is escalating as Pebble comes closer to reality: The companies say they will publish a proposed development plan next year.
The proposed refuge includes the land that the Pebble prospect sits on, and the developers of the proposed mine say it could stymie their project and restrict other development in the region.
But the salmon runs of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers merit special protection, said Norman Van Vactor, one of the proposal's backers.
The stated purpose of the proposal before the Fisheries Board is to prevent impacts to fish from large-scale mining. It would allow fishing, hunting and trapping in the refuge, but mining companies might have to "modify their operations" if they affect fish habitat in a way that is not compatible with whatever protections the Legislature enacts.
SEEKING TRACTION
This isn't the first time the Board of Fisheries has reviewed the Bristol Bay fish refuge idea. Three years ago, Fritz Creek resident George Matz asked the board to support creating a smaller state refuge that also included the Pebble site.
In 2007, state Sen. Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, introduced legislation to create a Bristol Bay state refuge that included the mineral prospect. That triggered the Fisheries Board's vote to toss the Matz proposal, saying it was redundant. But no hearing was ever held on Stevens' bill and it died.
The new proposal for a Bristol Bay fish refuge is sponsored by five people who work for four Bristol Bay fishing businesses and the chief of the Dillingham-based Curyung Tribal Council.
Van Vactor, one of the sponsors, pointed out that the Fisheries Board itself cannot create a fish refuge. It can only ask state legislators to create one. Unlike some previous proposals that failed to get traction, the new proposal leaves the specifics of the refuge -- such as whether or how to restrict mining activities and its exact boundaries -- up to legislators.
"At end of the day, the Legislature can do what it wants," said Van Vactor, operations manager for Leader Creek Fisheries, a Naknek seafood processor.
REFUGE STATUS
So what would creating a state fish refuge mean?
The proposal doesn't specify what types of rules are needed, but it says the protected area should include the Kvichak and Nushagak river drainages, the land containing lakes and streams that feed into the rivers. The Pebble deposit straddles the headwaters of the two rivers.
Unlike many other types of state land, refuges are co-managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The department is responsible for issuing special permits for land and water-use activities in a refuge. Other land and water permits continue to be issued by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
It's unclear whether this refuge could stop Pebble.
How a state refuge is managed is determined by the legislation that establishes it, said Kerry Howard, who heads Fish and Game's Habitat Division.
For example, a number of state refuges allow oil and gas drilling but include special rules on how it can be done.
Under a 1972 state law, the Kvichak and Nushagak river drainages, as well as much of the Bristol Bay coastline, are off limits to oil and gas drilling unless the Legislature resolves that it won't harm the fishery.
The Pebble Partnership, a 50-50 joint venture between the London mining giant Anglo American and the Canadian explorer Northern Dynasty Minerals, has the state mining claims at the Pebble site. The partnership says the state might have to reimburse the mining companies if they aren't allowed to exercise their legal rights.
PRO AND CON
The Board of Fisheries plans to listen to public testimony on the refuge proposal at the Anchorage Hilton this morning and discuss it in the afternoon. The board chairman, Vince Webster of King Salmon, said Thursday he didn't know if today's hearing would result in a board vote this weekend.
So far, the Bristol Bay Borough, the Lake and Peninsula Borough, the Lake Iliamna fish and game advisory committee and the Pebble Partnership, the company developing the mine, have written letters opposing the proposed refuge.
More than 45 others, mostly individuals but also the Naknek/Kvichak, Nushagak, Togiak, Homer, Anchorage and Sitka fish and game advisory committees, several businesses, village Native corporations and environmental groups have written letters in support.
Find Elizabeth Bluemink online at adn.com/contact/ebluemink or call 257-4317.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.