After a year of debate and millions spent on the campaign, Alaska voters will decide Stand for Salmon measure

An emotionally charged initiative to increase protections for salmon and other fish will go before Alaska voters Tuesday, having survived a challenge before the Alaska Supreme Court and strong opposition from industry-led opponents.

Ballot Measure 1, commonly called Stand for Salmon, would create new steps before the Alaska Department of Fish and Game can issue permits for activity affecting anadromous fish habitat — streams or other waters where ocean-dwelling fish like salmon return to spawn.

Amid key changes — some described in a one-page summary of the measure in the state election pamphlet — the measure would:

• Mandate public notice before any such permit can be issued.

• Require public comment periods before permits for major projects — those that could have "significant adverse effects" on fish habitat — can be issued.

• Presume certain water bodies in Alaska are anadromous, unless known otherwise.

• Require Fish and Game to set requirements to reduce or minimize "significant adverse effects" on the habitat.

• Allow anyone to appeal a decision to issue a permit.

Advocates on both sides argue the measure will endanger projects big and small — from the Pebble mineral prospect in Southwest Alaska to a parking lot near a creek — or allow for balanced development while protecting fish, fishermen and corporations.

"The big picture is this will hurt the economy, jobs, communities and private property owners, and it doesn't fix the low salmon returns Alaska has seen because those problems are in the ocean," said Kati Capozzi, campaign manager for opposition group Stand for Alaska-Vote No on One.

"That message is pure hyperbole," said Ryan Schryver with the Stand for Salmon campaign. "They say you won't be able to hunt and fish, and permit regular activities, and that couldn't be further from the truth."

The ballot measure

The Alaska Supreme Court in August, addressing the state's argument that the measure was unconstitutional, struck portions that would illegally allocate Alaska waters to fish at the exclusion of mining or other opportunities.

But the remaining language — what voters are weighing — would still be "significantly more restrictive" than existing state law, the court said. 

The eight-page measure would affect operations at five state agencies, according to a statement from the agencies addressing frequently asked questions.

It would add $3 million annually in state administrative costs, and require at least a dozen new employees to handle new litigation and regulation.

It would not stop development in Alaska, the agency statement, updated Oct. 24, says.

But the measure could delay construction, such as for bridges and roads managed by the Alaska Department of Transportation. The hold-ups could jeopardize federal funding for transportation projects, the summary says. New restrictions could result in project designs that are less safe than currently allowed.

Lance Trasky, a former regional supervisor in Fish and Game's habitat division who retired from the state in 2003, said he supports the measure partly because it sets clear guidelines for managing fish habitat, removing politics from permitting practices that can change with each new governor and their appointees.

Currently, only a permit applicant can appeal a permitting decision, he said.

"Say your neighbor wants to permit a project and you're a salmon fisherman who thinks it will destroy habitat," Trasky said. "Well, you can't appeal. But actually, you won't even know to appeal because there's no public notice."

Jackie Timothy, who runs Fish and Game's regional habitat division in Juneau, described the current permitting process as extremely thorough and effective at protecting salmon habitat. Biologists work closely with applicants early on to reduce impacts.

"We work with them very, very hard to try to help them meet their objectives for whatever their development is, while also meeting our objective, which is to protect the resources and fish habitat," she said.

People complain Fish and Game isn't transparent, but technical reports and other documents are posted online, she said. Also, the Juneau office has thousands of publicly available reports of field visits in the region that helped lead to biologists' recommendations, she said. They're full of monitoring results and data, and explanations of how biologists reached conclusions.

"Nobody looks at this stuff, but there are a whole lot of people out there that seem to think we don't do a good job," she said.

She said projects, even small ones like a tiny culvert, have opportunities for public comment. A fish-habitat permit is usually a small part of a project that triggers public review in other areas, such as under the federal environmental permitting process known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or through state processes, she said.

"I guarantee you every single time someone wants to do something on state land or federal land, there is a NEPA component or there is a public notice requirement (through the state)," she said.

Starting last October, supporters of the measure gathered 42,000 eligible signatures.

Corporate giants such as ExxonMobil and mining company Barrick Gold have powered the opposition group Stand for Alaska with six-figure donations.

More than $10 million spent

Stand for Alaska has outraised pro-measure forces, spending $10.2 million on ads, signs and other efforts as of late October.

The Stand for Salmon side has raised and spent at least $2.3 million.

Some donations to the Stand for Salmon effort have come from out-of-state organizations that don't disclose the "true source" of their money, Stand for Alaska has asserted in a complaint before the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

That includes more than $200,000 from the New Venture Fund of Washington, D.C. The opposition group argues such donations illegally prevent Alaskans from knowing who is behind the measure.

Stand for Salmon has maintained it has taken every step to be transparent and follow state law.

APOC staff has until Friday to issue a report weighing in on the allegations. The commission would make the final call, possibly before the election if it decides to call a special meeting, said Tom Lucas, APOC's campaign disclosure coordinator.

Supporters say the measure will protect salmon from major projects such as the Pebble mineral prospect. Healthy Alaska rivers will also protect thousands of fishing and tourism jobs while helping counter oceanic threats to salmon, they say.

Stand for Alaska campaign manager Capozzi said that, at the least, the measure will bring project permitting delays and more litigation to a system that adequately protects anadromous fish. Alaska's economy, with the nation's highest unemployment, will continue struggling.

"The best-case scenario (if Ballot Measure 1 passes) is we continue down this sluggish path Alaska has been on" economically, Capozzi said.

The uncertainty over the measure was illustrated Oct. 11. Mark Hamilton, executive vice president of external affairs for Pebble Limited Partnership, told the Greater Juneau Chamber of Commerce that Pebble "would probably do OK" if the measure passes, according to the Juneau Empire.

He said the prospective mine is already undergoing a rigorous review led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

But Hamilton, who opposes the measure, said he fears it will stop other routine projects like, say, a church parking lot expansion.

Mike Heatwole, a Pebble spokesman, told a reporter later that Hamilton was trying to point out that Ballot Measure 1 would have far-reaching impacts beyond the mine.

"Our project would clearly be impacted by BM1 – permitting new mines would likely be impossible and existing mines would likely be shut down when they have to renew their permits or attempt to expand existing operations," Heatwole said.