MaureenThe development of Pebble Mine in southeast Alaska has been a heated issue for years. Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), a marriage of two mining companies based in Canada and London, wish to develop an enormous mineral mining operation in Southeast Alaska near the waters of Bristol Bay. The mine could uncover nearly a trillion dollars in valuable resources as well as provide jobs for some of the regions locals; yet many Alaskan citizens, native leaders, and politicians oppose the mine whole heartedly. The proposed Pebble mine project would be the largest open pit mine in the world, big enough to fit every other mine in Alaska inside several times (Lempinen). This massive development would span over 150 square miles of raw, swamp-like tundra, home to many populations of diverse wildlife.
Even though PLP claims to be devoted to protecting this region, many fear that such a large development in such a sensitive area could be catastrophic. According to Brian Hauser with the nature conservancy, “The Pebble Mine project is exploratory in nature”. The unique setting of southeast Alaska will pose challenges that are new to hopeful developers; the success of existing mine operations are unable to serve as reliable evidence that pebble will be safe. Although Pebble Mine could provide economic benefits for Alaska, the development of Pebble will cause environmental damage that outweighs these benefits, because it would disrupt the spawning grounds of an enormous fish population, pose risk of introducing toxic waste to the areas groundwater, and create massive toxic containment lakes in a seismically active area that would require management for years after the mine ceases to operate.
Bristol Bay currently supports the largest remaining wild salmon habitat in the world. Pebble Mine supporters continue to assert that the mine will pose little threat to these fish; however the infrastructure required to open the project will physically disrupt these habitats in significant ways. Salmon populations relay on complex networks of streams that allow them to navigate from one place to another throughout their life cycle. Proposed structures such as bridges, culverts, dams, and a 104 mile access road will disrupt water flow, creating areas that are too shallow or too fast for fish to pass. According to an article by William Hauser with the nature conservancy, “The road may require as many as 120 crossings of streams ranging from small and intermittent to large perennial rivers” (Hauser). This would potentially block salmon populations from accessing areas used for breeding or resting.
What is significant is that the local fish may not be able to recover from these changes. “Each fish population in a particular stream is uniquely adapted to maximize survival in that stream” (Hauser). It is unlikely that such a disruption could take place without adversely affecting these salmon populations. While Pebble claims that these structures will be designed to have minimal effect on fish passage, similar structures in Alaska do not set a great track record. Hauser’s article cites data from several areas such as Matsu Valley, Kenai Peninsula, and Tongass National Forest rating anywhere from 44 to 83% of culverts located on streams inadequate for salmon and trout passage.
Disruption of water flow is not the only risk to this incredibly valuable natural resource. Water flowing through the rich deposits of iron sulfide in the area (caused by rain, snowfall, flooding, etc.) can cause the formation of sulfuric acid, leading to a phenomenon called “acid rock drainage”. Environmental chemist Dr. Kendra Zamzow, who has done extensive water studies around Bristol Bay, explains this event further, “The acid dissolves metals in the rock like copper, zinc, nickel, and lead. Acid and metals are washed downstream in to clean watersheds where aquatic plants and animals are exposed”. The reason this is such a potential issue for fish is that many of the minerals located in the area are highly toxic to fish, particularly copper, one of the abundant minerals that drew PLP to the region. Zamzow explains that even a small amount of copper, “Can impair a salmon’s ability to smell – its ability to recognize mates, to recognize prey or predators (…) compromise a fish’s brains function and disrupt its sense of direction, which could reduce its ability to navigate upstream and spawn” (Zamzow.) Clearly, the mine poses a considerable risk to this natural resource.
In 2011 the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Arctic Division held a four day meeting in Dillingham Alaska. Attendants included scientists, PLP executives, fisherman, policy makers, and Alaska Native Leaders wishing to discuss the risks and benefits of Pebble (Lempinen). One of the main issues brought to the table by the areas locals, as well as scientists, was the issue of water pollution and its potential effect to the salmon (and people) in the region. When executive director of PLP, John Shively, was asked by an audience member how the partnership planned to manage the interaction of groundwater with toxic surface water “Shively offered no specifics,” saying only, “’It’s an excellent question, we certainly realize, and our studies have shown, that transfer does take place… how we’ll mange that will be part of our ultimate plan’” (Lempinen). Unfortunately, (for Pebble) this was not a satisfying answer for many of those who make their home and their living in and around the waters threatened by the operation. In fact, over 70% of Bristol Bay Native Corporation shareholders oppose the mine entirely (Lempinen).
Rain and snowfall are not the only natural forces that may trigger the mingling of ground and surface water. The proposed mine would be located only 125 miles from Alaska’s biggest source of seismic activity, coined “The Alaska Aleutian Megathrust”. According to Dr. Bretwood Higman, this border between the North American and Pacific plates is responsible for some of the biggest earthquakes in history. This means that the 740 foot dam responsible for withholding a 20 square mile lake of mining waste would have to withstand years and years of repetitive seismic attack. According Higman, at least five magnitude 6-7 earthquakes a year.
Though the mine is only estimated to operate over 100 years, that 100 years of waste will remain forever. This means managing an extremely dangerous source of potential pollution for years to come. Dr. Robert Moran, in a report on the water quality issues surrounding Pebble Mine, states “Mine operations use tremendous amounts of chemicals- explosives, fuels, oils, greases, antifreeze, water treatment chemicals, herbicides, pesticides, and road deicing compounds- that may be released into local surface and groundwater”. To make matters worse, Pebble would be located dangerously close to the Lake Clark fault line. “The location of the Lake Clark fault relative to Pebble is unknown. Two USGS publications differ in where they map the fault, but both suggest it may run within 5 miles of Pebble” (Higman).
The Pebble Mine controversy is more than just a battle between two profitable industries (mining and fishing). The copper and other minerals sought by Pebble Mine aren’t going anywhere; there is no reason to employ dangerous experimental operations in order to bring them to the surface. The salmon however, are more than just a resource to be sought after by man. They are a rare and crucial part of an ecosystem that may never recover from the physical and chemical threats the mine would pose. Speaking from a biological perspective, 100 years’ worth of resources for man is a drop in the pool; the possible eradication of an entire species is huge. A species that, speaking economically, acts as a valuable resource, nourishing mankind by providing food and industry. Endangering one resource in search of another is a step backwards. In order to move forward, developers must consider the larger picture, a step that Pebble Mine has failed to take.
Works Cited
Fischer, Evan. (2012). The Environmental Impact of Alaska’s Pebble Mine Project. Retrieved from
Hauser, William. (2008). Road Construction: Potential Fisheries Impacts. Retrieved from
Higman, Bretwood. (2008). Seismic Risk at the Pebble Mine. Retrieved from
Lempinen, Edward. (2011). Proposed Pebble Mine Has Alaskan Community Focused on Critical Science
and Policy Issues. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org
Moran, Robert. (2007). Water Related Impacts at the Pebble Mine. Retrieved from
Zamzow, Kendra. (2007). Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching at the Pebble Prospect. Retrieved from
Filed under: Uncategorized
