A science and policy review concludes that mining risks to salmon habitat have been underestimated across the Pacific Northwest, including Alaska and British Columbia.
The report discusses the limitations on governance of mining operations and calls for greater transparency to prevent future damages.
The study was written by 23 scientists and policy analysts and published July 1 in the peer-reviewed journal “Science Advances.”
“Despite impact assessments that are intended to evaluate risk and inform mitigation, mines continue to harm salmonid-bearing watersheds via pathways such as toxic contaminants, stream channel burial and flow regime alteration,” the authors wrote. “The body of knowledge presented here supports the notion that the risks and impacts of mining have been underestimated across the watersheds of northwestern North America.”
Lead author Chris Sergeant said it is the first peer-reviewed paper that synthesizes North American mining risks to salmon using data from scientific studies, mining companies, government agencies and news reports. There are nearly 4,000 mines — from small-scale placer to major hard rock mines — in the paper’s region of focus, which stretches from the Columbia River in Oregon north through British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and Alaska.
“There was a lot of scattered information about mining and salmon and how mining has the potential to impact salmon populations. We never saw a definitive comprehensive source of information in one place,” said Sergeant, who lived in Juneau for 10 years and now works as a research scientist at the University of Montana Flathead Lake Bio Station.
The authors discuss how some mining policies do not accurately account for a mine’s cumulative ecological impacts or the effects of climate change on mining operations.
One of the paper’s takeaways is that there has been little scientific analysis comparing observed impacts with predictions made during permitting and environmental assessments. Sergeant said the authors originally wanted to do a systematic before-and-after analysis but such a study wasn’t feasible due to a lack of robust public data.
“We couldn’t do it — because either the data are not available, or they’re reported over some time frame that isn’t helpful, or … even if the data are available, they aren’t statistically robust,” Sergeant said.
The authors said they knew of only one paper that draws comparisons between predicted and observed environmental impacts among North American mines.
That study, conducted by the nonprofit Earthworks, found that out of 25 hard rock mines, 16 “exhibited poorer water quality than predicted in the environmental impact statements, representing clear failures in water quality mitigation.”
Sergeant acknowledged that Alaska’s mine permitting system is “extensive” but said “the case we make in the paper is even though there are the governance structures in place, we still see accidents happen fairly frequently.”
One example the authors cite is Red Dog Mine in northwestern Alaska, where unforeseen permafrost thaw in 2020 caused a backup in the mine’s water treatment system and forced facility upgrades costing millions of dollars.
A first step toward preventing accidents and mitigating impacts, Sergeant said, is greater transparency.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources spokesperson Lorraine Henry, said in a written statement: Alaska’s permitting system is “justifiably robust to ensure any resources development is responsibly conducted.”
“DNR works with numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Conservation as well as Fish and Game to oversee mineral activities on every project phase,” she said. “From the time people are exploring for deposits, through the phase of producing at a mine, to ensuring sites are properly closed and the environment is reclaimed, to post-closure monitoring, state of Alaska professionals are keeping mines designed and operating to avoid, minimize, and mitigate significant environmental impacts.”
Such measures include “caring for any potential loss of fish habitat,” ensuring that state water quality standards are met, monitoring surrounding ecosystems and reviewing compliance and environmental data associated with major mine authorizations every five years, Henry said.
Beyond the scope of the “Science Advances” paper is the economic impact of mining — a topic addressed by a separate report published earlier this year by two researchers at the University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER).
That paper’s authors, ISER research professors Bob Loeffler and Brett Watson, wrote that in the state’s more economically diverse regions, including Southeast, a new mine “will bring a significant addition of high-paying jobs and important local government tax revenues.”
Reader Comments(0)