Ballot Measure 1 is a reasonable approach to fish management

I've always considered living in Alaska special. While I grew up in a big city, I fell in love with the outdoors as a biology major, and was thrilled to land a job with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Better yet, I treasured the opportunity, along with my husband, to have raised our two kids — now in their 20s — surrounded by world-class outdoor recreational opportunities and an appreciation for being able to catch and eat wild salmon amid incredibly beautiful surroundings.

I spent 19 years as field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Anchorage Field Office, where we evaluated how proposed water projects could impact our state's fish and wildlife, and how to best mitigate those impacts. I also oversaw the service's fish habitat restoration projects throughout Southcentral and Western Alaska. From that vantage point, I see Ballot Measure 1 as a balanced, reasonable and responsible approach to protect wild salmon and their habitats, while supporting sustainable job opportunities for all Alaskans.

The Alaska Departments of Fish and Game and Environmental Conservation, along with other federal agencies, were typically a partner in those project reviews I mentioned. But over the years, the state's involvement shrunk, as state budgets shrunk. Meanwhile, the need for close scrutiny for large projects in fish habitat has grown with the increased scale of recent projects.

Ballot Measure 1 will right-size state involvement in developments around Alaska. Its tiered system ensures projects meeting specific scientific criteria would not need a permit and would proceed as they now do. Others would require either minor or major habitat permits depending on established standards. It would also allow general permits for similar activities that would not cause significant adverse effects and where such effects can be avoided by certain conditions and stipulations. This is similar to the general permit process for wetlands developments in Anchorage that has been effectively implemented by the municipality during the past few decades.

Ballot Measure 1 will rightfully shift the greatest onus to the developers whose proposals would cause the greatest impacts to our anadromous habitats. It provides an opportunity for public input on those very large, high-impact projects. Also important, Measure 1 will require a realistic performance bond to restore habitats where permittees are not in compliance with required permit conditions and stipulations.

Let's look at habitat impacts and restoration. The cost and feasibility of restoration is steep. From 2011-2016, one program, the National Fish Habitat Partnership and its partners, invested nearly $14 million in habitat restoration projects just in Bristol Bay, the Mat-Su and the Kenai. Fish habitat restoration in the Copper River delta, Buskin River watershed and Kenai Peninsula is being funded with over $22 million of Exxon Valdez oil spill funding for fiscal 2015-22. While significant, available funds only address some current restoration needs, for example, about 20 percent of blocked crossings on the Kenai. In the Mat-Su, over $6 million was required from FY 2005-13 to address about 20 percent of blocked salmon streams. These projects primarily restore relatively small sections of stream banks, replace poorly designed culverts blocking fish and remove other barriers to upstream fish passage. None involve major mining projects or other extensive habitat alterations from one single project.

We do not even know if it is ecologically feasible to restore salmon habitats that are strip-mined or undergo major changes across a larger area. Look at the billions of dollars that have been spent — with little success — on salmon restoration in the Pacific Northwest. Once the habitat is gone, populations are gone.

Given the high stakes, the state's estimated $2.75 million cost for implementing Ballot Measure 1 would be a shrewd, proactive investment. That money will be spent on biologists, managers and engineers to conduct the careful analyses, determine needed conditions, and develop the permits for major projects.

Those analyses will protect the thousands of rural residents for whom salmon is a primary, reliable, affordable and nutritious food source. Implementing Ballot Measure 1 will safeguard more than 30,000 jobs that directly depend on Alaska's fisheries — our largest private sector employer. And it's insurance for the $1.4 billion in fishing recreation economy that's driven by outside visitors to Alaska. It ensures the continued place for our salmon resources in the culture and lifestyles of nearly all Alaskans — including our children. Salmon are a renewable resource — as long as we take care of their habitats. That is what Ballot Measure 1 will do, and that is why I encourage you to help pass it by voting yes on Nov. 6.

Ann Rappoport is a 39-year Alaska resident, retired after a 33-year career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska, including 19 years as field supervisor for the Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office.

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.