Opinions

Jenkins column emblematic of Pebble supporters' desperation

Bristol Bay salmon have been in the spotlight, and rightly so.

First, we learned that Americans love to eat salmon more than ever before, with most of the wild catch coming from Alaska. Then, Alaska job numbers showed that jobs for commercial fishing grew last year to a level not seen since 2000, with salmon comprising 98 percent of the harvesting jobs for Bristol Bay. Last month, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game released its extraordinary sockeye forecast for Bristol Bay's 2015 season. In it, the agency estimates that nearly 54 million salmon will return to the rivers of Bristol Bay next summer.

This all occurred after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency came to Alaska this summer to receive public input on protection of Bristol Bay. After 60 days of public comments, 99 percent of the 650,000 comments supported EPA's action to protect Bristol Bay.

The Pebble mine has also been in the news a lot lately, in light of the above certainly, but also as a result of three lawsuits brought by the Pebble Partnership. These are desperate attempts to derail or delay the protections Alaskans have requested for Bristol Bay. A column by Paul Jenkins (ADN, Dec. 13) typifies that desperation. Jenkins grossly overemphasized the implications of a recent decision by Judge Holland to issue an injunction to the EPA to temporarily halt its 404(c) work under the Clean Water Act. The court was unpersuaded that Pebble was likely to succeed on its contentions with respect to the "coalition" and "scientists," contrary to Jenkins' outlandish assertion, among others, that there is no way a rational person could call the advisory committees fair or balanced.

The court, however, was persuaded Pebble had raised a question serious enough to justify litigation with respect to the "assessment team." The court ordered Pebble to amend its complaint, apparently because its four Washington, D.C. and New York City lawyers, plus one from Anchorage, wrote a 138-page claim so confusing that it required rewriting. The court also ordered the defendants to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court will decide the merits of the amended complaint in 2015.

As for the separate question of the science, it, for example, cannot be seriously disputed that sulfuric acid will result at Pebble mine without safeguards. Pebble will require a dam to hold back the toxic tailings lake. However, the Mount Polley dam failure in British Columbia, along with other dam failures in the U.S. and around the world, provide persuasive evidence that the danger of a dam failure is real and poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the Bristol Bay fishery. Even assuming a properly functioning mine, Pebble will result in the destruction of between 24 and 94 miles of salmon streams and their tributaries from the mine pit, waste rock piles, and tailings storage facilities under the minimum and maximum mine footprints. In its proposed determination EPA set the bar at 5 miles of salmon stream loss, which to many people in Bristol Bay is still too much to trade.

If it had its way, Pebble would have you believe that the EPA secretly colluded with "anti-mine" conspirators to fix the chemical equation for sulfuric acid, the Mount Polley dam failure, and the salmon stream loss that will result from Pebble. Pebble Partnership only wants science that will demonstrate the value of the minerals in the ground, not science that calls out the risks. With all the indicators for how well Bristol Bay is doing (54 million of them, to be exact), it seems like a no-brainer that this fishery would be protected from mining interests. However, Pebble Partnership, its lawyers and their supporters, including some of our elected leaders, are determined to play a high risk game with our salmon and jobs, which are not theirs to gamble.

ADVERTISEMENT

We know that Pebble mine poses an unacceptable risk of harm to our fishery. The disastrous spill at Mount Polley mine in Canada did nothing to dissuade our concerns. Even without a major failure, we know our markets would suffer from the mere existence of sulfuric acid, ammonium nitrate (blasting), and cyanide in the heart of Bristol Bay.

Alaskans have spoken on this issue repeatedly. Besides supporting EPA's proposed protections, we voted overwhelmingly to further protect Bristol Bay from Pebble mine on Nov. 4 through a ballot measure. Throughout nearly a decade of studies, lawsuits, hearings and comment periods, we have turned out and spoken up. We're not letting up on this issue because it's important and we're overwhelmingly in agreement: Pebble has no place in Bristol Bay. Now we hope to see a final decision from EPA as soon as we can.

To our state and national elected leaders, please help us safeguard Bristol Bay's 14,000 fish-based jobs and a salmon-centered way of life. Please do not jeopardize an EPA process that was created for good reasons and works well.

Citizens, thank you for looking at the facts and supporting protections for this place.

Joe Faith is a commercial and subsistence fisherman, and attorney, from Dillingham.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

ADVERTISEMENT