The action came at the end of a day of testimony. Proponents of the mine argued that existing state and federal regulations would protect the world's largest wild sockeye salmon run, while opponents questioned whether those regulations were sufficient and if rules would be properly enforced by all agencies.

"What harm is there in asking for additional protection when we all know that so many projects around the world have caused so much environmental harm, even in the face of regulations and statues that provided at the time, to everybody's belief, adequate safeguards?" said Karl Johnston, vice chair of the fisheries board.

Some 79 people testified before the board at the Anchorage Hilton. Speakers included Pebble Partnership Chief Executive Officer John Shively, as well as fisheries scientists, Bristol Bay-area residents who said they are concerned the mine will harm the fishery, and others who feared that a refuge would harm the region's economic potential.

A number of Bristol Bay residents expressed concern that a refuge would adversely affect their subsistence lifestyle and any potential economic development in their region.

"One of our concerns is that we have limited economic opportunities," said Eddie Angason of the King Salmon Tribe. "And with this proposed refuge, we don't know if it's going to stop any type of development that may or may not exist today."

Pebble's Shively said in written testimony to the board that the proposal would potentially have significant impact that could preclude the region or the state from knowing the full economic opportunity that the Pebble project could represent.

Shively said the demand for the minerals at Pebbles is growing worldwide.

"We believe that the public should know the full opportunity presented by potential development of the Pebble project before closing the door on this and other future developments that could have great importance to future generations of Bristol Bay residents and their communities," he said in written testimony.

Former Alaska State Senate President Rick Halford said he has never opposed a mining project in 40 years in Alaska.

"I always worked to try to maximize the resources and in defense of mining interests, (but) this project is different," he said. "The corporations we are talking about are the Exxons of the mineral industry. They can take the maximum and leave the minimum."

Rep. Bryce Edgman, D-Dillingham, said the large-scale mining permitting process in Alaska never contemplated having to decide whether one world-class resource should come at the expense of another.

"The Bristol Bay watershed should not be a Petri dish to determine whether the experiment of putting one of the world's largest mines smack dab next to the last great salmon fishery on the planet Earth can work or not work," he said.

Edgmon said he felt the state fisheries board was making it clear to legislators that they wanted "the highest level safeguards to be in place before any large-scale industrial development, such as Pebble, takes place near the Bristol Bay watershed.

Norman Van Vactor, operations manager for Leader Creek Fisheries, and a co-author of the refuge proposal, said he felt the intent of the board's action was to raise the standards of protection for regional habitat and for the Bristol Bay salmon fishery.

"Participants in the Bristol Bay fishery, businesses and fishermen alike, and most importantly the residents of Bristol Bay, have a vested interest in ensuring that our salmon habitat is not adversely affected by future incompatible development," he told the board.

Margaret Bauman can be reached at margie.bauman.@alaskajournal.com.