Pebble and fish, not one or the other

In 2008, I was asked to lead the newly formed Pebble Partnership. I made it clear to the project’s two partners, Anglo American and Northern Dynasty, that if they were looking for a mine cheerleader, they were talking to the wrong guy. Like most Alaskans, I had questions about Pebble, but I also believed strongly in the permitting process. A controversial project like Pebble is exactly why we have a regulatory process for fully evaluating projects.

I took the job with the understanding that, if Pebble posed too great of a risk to the Bristol Bay salmon fishery, I would have to say that. Both companies accepted my terms because everyone knew Pebble had to coexist with the fishery. To see if the project could meet that goal, one of my first hires was Ken Taylor, the former director of the Division of Habitat for the Department of Fish and Game who also had spent time in the Bristol Bay region.

Ken led an exceptionally talented environmental team whose care for their work was, and remains, top-tier. Their consultants studied fish, water, a plethora of other issues and coordinated closely with the engineering team to produce mine plans designed to protect the environment.

I had the opportunity to visit often with the stakeholders of the region, including those who opposed the project. I visited with elders who were very worried about the future of their communities because the young people were leaving in search of better opportunities. Our work with the elders of the region remains among the high points of my time with Pebble. We progressed from an initial meeting full of fear and suspicion to later meetings full of constructive conversations.

I witnessed the transformation of our local staff as they grew in confidence and expertise from the jobs at Pebble. I watched one young man from Nondalton grow from a driller’s helper to a fully credentialed driller running his own rig with a crew staffed with his two brothers. I knew the importance of jobs for rural residents and the economic benefits the project could bring to the area from my time with NANA working on the Red Dog Mine.

After serving six years as the project’s CEO, I had seen the science and knew we could develop a mine that would not harm the fishery, but we had to get into the federal environmental review process. We accomplished that goal by filing a plan that was smaller than originally envisioned, with many additional environmental safeguards.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has published the final Environmental Impact Statement for Pebble. It was thorough and its conclusions are clear. In the EIS, the Corps’ professional military and civilian staff (not political appointees) and their independent consultant found that the proposed mine would not have a measurable impact on returning salmon to Bristol Bay, nor would it result in long-term changes to the health of the subsistence or commercial fishery in Bristol Bay. Alaskans now have a federal review that says a mine can be done responsibly at the Pebble deposit.

The EIS further states Pebble would have substantial positive impacts on the communities closest to the mine. It would provide year-round employment, revenue to the local government, and help drive down the cost of goods through a new transportation corridor.

Certainly, there is opposition to Pebble. Some of it comes from the usual Outside interest groups who oppose all resource development projects in Alaska. They employ fearmongering and misinformation to scare people, using absurd claims such as the notion that we will destroy the entire fishery and ecology of Bristol Bay – an area the size of the state of Ohio. They attempt to terrify people by claiming we will use cyanide and mercury – neither of which are part of our processing.  Our opponents often cite EPA’s faulty analysis of a fantasy mine the agency concocted that bears no resemblance to the mine plan we submitted to the Corps.

Some of the opposition comes from the Bristol Bay region, but that opposition is centered in Dillingham, a community with many economic opportunities more than 100 miles from the project.

Interestingly, the most support for Pebble comes from people living closest to the project because they have seen how jobs associated with the project can improve the lives of people living in the Iliamna Lake region and have been reassured by the findings of the EIS.

I hope more Alaskans will study the conclusions of the EIS to see how we protect the fishery and what Pebble could mean for Alaska’s future. At a time when Alaska’s economy is faltering and our fiscal situation is on life support, Pebble can be part of the solution to both of these problems.

John Shively is the chairman of the Pebble Partnership’s board of directors.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.