Salmon initiative public hearings underway across the state

Public hearings on the contentious general election salmon initiative that are required by state law are underway statewide, chaired by Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott. Sessions have already been held in Juneau, Kotzebue, Nome, Anchorage and Sitka.

Hearings are planned for Fairbanks Sept. 24, in Bethel Sept. 25 and in Dillingham Sept. 29. A statewide teleconference call-in hearing is planned Oct. 13.

The Anchorage hearing drew 150 people Sept. 18, most of them speaking against the initiative, which would set up a new state permitting system for projects affecting streams and waterbodies. A small crowd clustered outside Anchorage’s Legislative Information Office on Benson Blvd. waving “No on 1” signs for passers-by.

Hearings in Bethel and Dillingham are expected to show more support for the initiative given the opposition in those communities to the proposed Pebble mine, which basically prompted the salmon initiative.

Fishing and tribal groups, backed by environmental organizations based in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and wealthy individuals, mainly tech millionaires, secured sufficient voter signatures on petitions in late 2017 and early 2018 to get the proposal on the November election ballot.

It was challenged legally by the state of Alaska but the state Supreme Court approved a modified version that will appear on the November ballot.

At the Anchorage hearing Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, a fisheries scientist formerly with the state Dept. of Fish and Game and now with the Tanana Chiefs’ Yukon River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, said the initiative would basically strengthen a state habitat permit system that protects salmon streams, but is too weak.

“Under the current law, the commissioner (of Fish and Game) shall issue a fish habitat permit (to a developer) unless the plans and specifications (of the project) are insufficient for the proper protection of fish and game. However, there is no definition of what the proper protection of fish and game means,” Quinn-Davidson said at the hearing.

“That means that the current law does not provide the certainty or accountability in the system to ensure that the law will be applied consistently and without political influence,” she said.

To solve this, the ballot measure provides a set of enforceable, science-based stanards for development around salmon streams, requiring things like adequate water in streams, fish passage and clean water that wild salmon need, while also requiring mining companies to pay for cleanup of long-term damage to salmon streams.

Opponents to the initiative also spoke in Anchorage, saying a complex new two-tier permitting system established through the initiative would add significant delays to construction near waterways including state highway projects.

The current habitat permit process is working and doesn’t need changing, opponents said.

“Increasing the uncertainty and adding additional, unnecessary regulatory burdens to community and resource development projects across Alaskan with little or no added benefit to salmon habitat is not sound policy,” said Marleanna Hall, executive director of the Resource Development Council, an Anchorage-based pro-development group.

“The idea that our fish habitat is not protected is very misleading. Alaska has some of the best-managed fisheries in the world, and each one of us has a stake in maintaining that reputation,” Hall said.

Jim Jansen, an Alaska business leader, said in separate comments that, “The initiative would make it extremely expensive and difficult for any type of development or community project. Whether it’s building a mine, repairing or building roads, developing and oil field on the North Slope, this initiative would be a major permitting impediment.”

Backers of the initiative said many objections are overstated and that kinks in a new permitting system can be worked out in regulations. The main intent is to elevate the status of the fish habitat permit, now a lower-level authorization, in the state’s regulatory procedures.

One other concern voiced by opponents, however, is that the initiative would classify all water bodies in Alaska as de facto anadromous (salmon-bearing), and falling under the new permit procedure, unless a developer can show there are no salmon present, which would be an expensive process.

Currently the Department of Fish and Game maintains a catalogue of salmon-bearing streams and water bodies which is updated annual. The initiative backers say the catalogue actually lists about half of the anadromous streams in the state, however, and that the field work needed to add streams to the list adds costs to the state budget.

State agencies are providing information at the hearings as to what impacts they foresee on operations.

In its comments the Dept. of Fish and Game said the initiative would not stop development projects, but that the new procedure would, “lengthen the Fish Habitat permit process (now streamlined) and may, in certain cases, lead to permit denials.” The department also said, “the current permitting process effectively protects anadromous fish habitat.”

The Department of Environmental Conservation, in its comments, said that its review of wastewater discharges to streams, through a current permit system, would be affected. One impact is that “mixing zones” would not be allowed for discharges because the initiative would classify all streams as anadromous unless proven otherwise.

Current state regulations do not allow mixing zones for discharges to anadromous fish streams, so the ban would apply to most Alaska water bodies, not just some, if the initiative passes.

Mixing zones are a specified area around a discharge pipe where the effluent is mixed with natural water, diluting any harmful effects. They are commonly allowed for small community sewer and wastewater plants and fish processing plants.

If a mixing zone is not allowed a municipality or industrial operator could have to remove pollutants from discharges to the point that it matches the natural water quality in the stream. For most of Alaska the required water quality is a that the water be fit for human consumption.

The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities said the inititiative would affect its programs to construct roads and airports that require bridges, culverts, roadway embankment protection, such as riprap armoring, and temporary and permanent stream realignments.

There would be increased costs in building, because to expedite projects the DOTPF may have to, “simply design for fish passage everywhere,” on projects, because all streams and waterbodies would be presumed to be anadromous.

“Structures designed to adequately pass fish are significantly more expensive to design, construct and maintain,” the DOTPF said its comments.