Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative (2018)

Elections in Alaska, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 7
• Early voting: Oct. 22 - Nov. 5
• Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • Governor • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Environment and Natural resources
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Alaska measuresAlaska Ballot Measure 1Submit

Alaska Ballot Measure 1, the Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative, was on the ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to establish new requirements and a new permitting process for any projects affecting bodies of water related to the activity and habitat of salmon, steelhead or other anadromous fish, and to prohibit any projects or activity determined to cause significant and unrestorable damage to such fish habitats.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to establish new requirements and a new permitting process for any projects affecting bodies of water related to the activity and habitat of salmon, steelhead or other anadromous fish, and to prohibit any projects or activity determined to cause significant and unrestorable damage to such fish habitats.

Election results

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		103,836	37.68%
No		171,711	62.32%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would this measure have changed?

Ballot Measure 1 was designed to establish new requirements and a new process for permit applications, permit application reviews, and the granting of permits for any projects or activities affecting bodies of water related to the activity of anadromous fish. Anadromous fish—such as salmon and steelhead—are fish that spawn in freshwater but spend most of their adult lives in salt water, returning to freshwater to spawn. The measure would have established requirements, procedures, duties, penalties, definitions, and other details.

Going into the election, Alaska fish and game code required the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to protect bodies of water important to anadromous fish. Going into the election, a permit was required for any hydraulic, log-dragging, or excavating project or any project that would change, block, or pollute a specified body of water. The department required a permit for "any activity or project that is conducted below the ordinary high water mark of an anadromous stream." The Department of Fish and Game estimated that about 19,000 streams, rivers, and lakes were included in the catalog of protected water bodies. The department also estimated that this amounted to less than half of the streams, rivers, and lakes used by anadromous fish. Among other additions and changes to state statutes, this measure would have repealed and replaced section 16.05.871.

Support and opposition to Measure 1

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to support this initiative: Yes for Salmon—Yes on 1 and Stand for Salmon. The Yes for Salmon—Yes on 1 committee had reported a total of $1.9 million in contributions including cash and in-kind services. The Stand for Salmon committee had not reported any contributions or expenditures. The largest donor to the support campaign was The Alaska Center, which gave $833,124 mostly in in-kind services."

One committee was registered to oppose this initiative: Stand for Alaska—Vote No on 1. The committee reported a total of $11.6 million in contributions including cash and in-kind services. The largest donor was oil and gas company Conoco Phillips, which gave $1.4 million, combined, in cash and in-kind contributions.

Supreme Court changes to the measure

On August 8, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that some provisions in the measure needed to be removed before the measure could be placed on the ballot. In their decision, the justices wrote, "We conclude that the initiative would encroach on the discretion over allocation decisions delegated to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game by the legislature and that the initiative as written therefore effects an unconstitutional appropriation. But we conclude that the problematic sections may be severed from the remainder of the initiative. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the superior court and remand for the superior court to direct the Lieutenant Governor to sever the offending provisions but place the remainder of the initiative on the ballot." To read more about the litigation surrounding Ballot Measure 1 and to see what provisions were removed from the initiative text, click here.

How did this measure get on the ballot?

Citizens of Alaska may initiate legislation through the process of indirect initiative. In Alaska, successful petitions are first presented to the Alaska State Legislature. If the measure (or an equivalent piece of legislation) is not adopted, the measure will be placed before voters. Ballot Measure 1 was certified for the ballot on May 13, 2018, since the legislature adjourned without passing House Bill 199, a piece of legislation similar to the initiative. Read more about HB 199 here.

Initiative design

Ballot Measure 1 was designed to establish new requirements and a new process for permit applications, permit application reviews, and the granting of permits for any projects or activities affecting bodies of water related to the activity of anadromous fish. Anadromous fish—such as salmon and steelhead—are fish that spawn in freshwater but spend most of their adult lives in salt water, returning to freshwater to spawn. The initiative was designed to establish requirements, procedures, duties, penalties, definitions, and other details. The complete details of this initiative can be found in the full text of the initiative. Click here to read the full text. On August 8, 2018, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure was unconstitutional and needed to be removed. A summary of the initiative's requirements can be expanded below:

Permit requirements: Provisions related to anadromous fish habitat permits

The measure would have required anadromous fish habitat permits for persons seeking to use, change, or pollute anadromous fish habitats. The measure would have defined anadromous fish habitat as water bodies and adjacent riparian areas—wetlands and banks near rivers and streams—that contribute to the spawning, rearing, migration, or overwintering of anadromous fish.

The measure was designed to establish a process for applying for a permit and require the Alaska Department of Fish and Game commissioner to categorize the proposed activity or development as requiring a minor anadromous habitat permit or a major anadromous habitat permit. Under the measure, a major permit would have been required for any project or activity that was determined by the commissioner to have the potential for significant adverse effects on anadromous fish or anadromous fish habitats. A minor permit could be granted for any project or activity not determined to have the potential for such an effect.

Under the measure, the commissioner would have needed to give public notice of any determination made by the commissioner with regard to an anadromous habitat permit application and any interested person could submit a request to the commissioner to reconsider the determination of significance and the kind of permit required for the project.

Under the original text of the measure, no permit could have been granted for any activity determined to (a) cause substantial damage to anadromous fish habitats, (b) fail to ensure protection of fish and wildlife, (c) store or dispose of mining waste that could harm anadromous fish habitats, (d) replace or supplement, fully or partially, wild fish populations with populations dependent on hatcheries, (e) withdraw water from anadromous fish habitats, and (f) drain and relocate a stream or river if the relocation would harm the anadromous fish habitats. All of these provisions were removed following the Supreme Court ruling.

Minor permits: Permits for minor projects determined to have little or no adverse effects

Under the initiative, the commissioner could have granted a minor permit for projects or changes determined to not have the potential for significant adverse effects on anadromous fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was designed to allow the commissioner to establish a general permit for minor activities that applies to an entire designated area, including any required conditions or regulations. The measure was designed so that anyone could also make a request for a general minor permit.

Major permits: Permits for major projects determined to have significant effects

The process for major permits would have been as follows:

• The commissioner, upon a determination of the potential for significant effects drafts a major permit to include a summary of the proposed projects or actions; alterations and mitigations to prevent adverse effects on fish habitats, including required actions for mitigation; estimations for the extent of adverse effects and how long they would last; and a performance bond amount to be paid by the applicant if all required mitigation and restoration requirements of the permit.
• The permit draft is made available for public comment for 30 days.
• Following the public commentary period, the commissioner makes a final determination about whether or not the significant effects could be prevented, adequately mitigated, or restored within a reasonable time.
• Requests for reconsideration of the final permit determination are submitted to the commissioner.

Under the original text of the measure, no permit could have been granted for a project that, according to the standards set out in the initiative, was determined to cause significant damage to a fish habitat.The Supreme Court ruled on August 8, 2018, that this provision of the measure needed to be removed.

Enforcement and determination of protected areas: Provisions related to enforcement and determining areas the measure would cover

Ballot Measure 1 was designed to task the Alaska Department of Fish and Game commissioner to specify covered fish habitat areas through regulations. Without such regulatory specification, the initiative would have required the commissioner to presume that the protections and permit requirements apply to all naturally occurring bodies of water that are connected to specified protected areas or to ocean water. The initiative would have allowed the commissioner to establish regulatory exceptions for activities that cause minimal or insignificant changes to fish habitats. Measure 1 would have allowed an individual to request a site-specific determination as to whether a body of water is covered under the protections and permit requirements of the initiative.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title of the initiative was as follows:

“

An act providing for the protection of wild salmon and fish and wildlife habitat.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary of the initiative was as follows:

“

This act would amend Alaska’s fish habitat permitting law. The act would require the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to apply new standards to permitting activities and development projects that have the potential to harm fish habitat. The act would exempt existing projects, operations, or facilities that have received all state and federal permits until a new permit is needed. The act would create fish and wildlife habitatprotection standards. The standards would address water quality, temperature, streamflow, and more. The act defines “anadromous fish habitat.” The act would allow ADF&G to apply the law to all habitat in Alaska that directly or indirectly supports salmon or other anadromous fish. The act would provide for three types of permits for development in anadromous fish habitat. ADF&G could issue a general permit—a single permit that applies to many people—for certain activities. For other activities that require a permit, the act would establish a two-track permitting system. Minor permits would be issued for activities that have little impact on fish habitat. Major permits would be issued for projects that have the potential to cause significant adverse effects on fish habitat. The act defines “significant adverse effects.” The act would require ADF&G to avoid or minimize adverse effects through mitigation measures and permit conditions. It would provide public notice on all permits and a chance to comment on major permits. The act would also require ADF&G to deny a permit if, among other things, the proposed activity would cause substantial damage to fish habitat. The act would create criteria, timeframes, and an appeals process for the permits by interested persons. The act would allow ADF&G to respond to specified conduct with tickets, civil fines, or criminal penalties. The act would repeal two current statutes. One is regarding mitigation from a dam. The other is regarding criminal penalties that are addressed elsewhere. Should this initiative become law?

”

Full text

To read the full text of the measure, click here.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Alaska Lieutenant Governor wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 8, and the FRE is 60. The word count for the ballot title is 14, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 10, and the FRE is 49. The word count for the ballot summary is 316, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 24 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Yes for Salmon - Yes on 1 led the campaign in support of this initiative.

Mike Wood, owner of a commercial setnet business; Brian Kraft, owner of two fishing lodges; and Gayla Hoseth, second chief of the Curyung Tribal Council in Dillingham; sponsored the initiative's filing.

Supporters

The following officials, businesses, and organizations have endorsed Stand for Salmon or have otherwise indicated their support for Measure 1:

Officials and individuals Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Begich 58 retired state and federal agency scientists and managers who describe themselves as having "considerable experience in salmon biology, habitat, and management in Alaska" Businesses and organizations Our Revolution The Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay 58 Degrees North Double Haul Fly Fishing Alaska Alpine Adventures Alaska Backcountry Outfitter Alaska Colorectal Surgery, P.C. Alaska Ecological Resource Services Alaska Fly Fishinng Goods Alaska Kenai Fishing for Fun Alaska Nature Guides Alaska Sea to Shore Alaska Sea to Shore Alaska Wild Harvest Alaska Wild Wind Adventure Alaska Wildland Adventures Alaskanist Stories Alpaca Raft Amalga Distillery Andrew's Provisions Antler's Inn Arctic River Guide Service Backcountry Bike and Ski Barney's Sports Chalet Barroness Home Chef Bear Paw Seafood and Smokehouse Bear Trail Lodge Black Bear Coffeehouse Blue Summit Wealth Management Brewer's Fly Fishing Tours Bristol Bay Economic Development Association Bristol Bay Welding Brown Slough B+B Cannons Kusko Creations Captain Ju Ju's Food Truck Captain Xans LLC/ Bucko Chichagof Natural Goods Chugach Adventures Chugach Farms Chugach Outdoor Center Coal Point Seafood Company Compass Rose Quilting Cooper Landing Fishing Guide Crooked Fence Farm Crystal Creek Lodge Damon Images Dancing Leaf Gallery David McFadden Designer and Maker Delani Zipline Tours Denali Arts & Glass Studio Denali Backcountry Guides Denali Brewing Company Denali Cannabis Cache Denali Fly Fishing Guides Denali Mountain Morning Hostel Denali Mountain Works Denali View Raft Adventures DogPaddle Designs NOLS Alaska Earthsong Lodge Fall Line Fisheries LLC Farthest North Films Fish 'Em LLC Fish People Fisherman's Daughter Salmon Fly Water Travel Frigate Adventure Travel Frigate Travel Global Food Collaborative, LLC Grace Ridge Brewing Gray Light Sportfishing Haines Packing Co. Hammer Down Guide Service Harris Creek Construction, LLC Heather's Choice Heirloom Rustic Ales Herbert Cecil Inc Hochmuth Enterprises LLC Interior Trails Island Espresso Inc J's Ound LLC Johnson Diesel K Street Convenience Store Kantishna Air Taxi Keen Eye Anglers Kenai Creative Kenai River Fly Fishing Kenai River Tours Kennicott Wilderness Guides King Salmon Associates Knik Caneoers and Kayakers Kodiak Island Expeditions Kodiak Print Masters Kuskokwim Wilderness Adventure Lakeview Outfitters Lawrie Enterprises Lester Brothers Inc LFS Marine - Kenai Lularoe/ Posh Magic Man DJ Service Magnum LLC Mahay's Jet Boat Adventures Mako's Water Taxi LLC Marms & Meeks McCarthy River Tours McGarry Marine Consultants Meander In MShaginoff Art Naknek Engine Sales and Service Naknek Seafood Nathaniel Wilder Photography Ninilchik Charters Njord Seafood Restaurant Oceanside Farms Old Sourdough Studio One Love Kennels Palmer Downtown Deli Paper Gold Publishing Q Media Raven About Alaska! Richard Walker Welding Roe Hard Guide Service Rollman Family Salmon LLC Ross Henshaw LLC Sailing Saint Tattoo Salmon Sisters Sandrhyme Jewelry Sarah M Histand (SMH) Training Schoolhouse Fish Co Scooter Bumz Seabright Seafoods Seasons on the Fly Lodge, Bristol Bay Sense of Place Press Shoreline Wild Salmon Shwak Magazine Sitka Local Foods Network Skyline Lodge Slack Tide Gallery Soul Mate Salmon Sourdough Dru's Gifts and Gold Spearfish Research, LLC Squid Acres Kennel Stone Squared Productions Su Salmon Co Susitna Sled and Kayak Sustina River Trading Company Taku River Reds Team Zappa Tenakee Logging Company The Gypsy Fish Company The Salmon Spot The Stoney Moose The Tiding B&B The Wild Salmon Co Tidy Up Alaska Tim Grams Photography Tonglen Boarding Kennel Tonglen Lake Lodge Traverse Alaska Turkey Red, Palmer Alaska Two Sisters Bakery Watzituya Net Co West Hair Studio Wild on the Fly Wilderness Essential Wildfish Cannery Willbros Salmon Co Tribal groups Bristol Bay Native Association Yukon River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Chickaloon Village Traditional Council Curyung Tribal Council Yukon River Intertribal Watershed Council Hydaburg Cooperative Association Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission Levelock Village Council Native Village of Eklutna Nondalton Tribal Council Norton Bay Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Organized Village of Kake Native Village of Kwigillingok Organized Village of Kasaan Seldovia Village Tribe Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak Tanana Chiefs Conference

Arguments

The Yes for Salmon campaign website featured the following argument:

“

Alaska’s tens of thousands of miles of pristine rivers, streams and wetlands nurture the best salmon on Earth. But those watersheds won’t stay great without our help. We need to update our salmon habitat protection laws to make sure our wild salmon spawning and rearing grounds stay intact as the state grows. So far, we’ve gotten lucky. Despite a vague law protecting salmon habitat, Alaska has avoided any catastrophic project or disaster on a salmon stream big enough to wipe out a major salmon run. But the legal provision is so ambiguous that is vulnerable to political interference -- whereby pet projects could be legally permitted despite good science and common sense saying they shouldn’t. It’s time to be clear on what responsible development means -- especially around salmon streams. That’s what “Yes on Salmon’ ballot initiative is all about.

”

Mike Wood, Brian Kraft, and Gayla Hoseth, the initiative's primary sponsors, wrote:

“

The current standard, written at statehood, requires the Fish and Game commissioner to approve a project unless it's found "… insufficient for the proper protection of fish and game." That's vague enough that the state could, with a straight face, contemplate the Chuitna coal project, which would've wiped out more than 13 miles of salmon streams in the Chuitna River, and the Pebble proposal, which would place a giant tailings pond at the headwaters of Alaska's most lucrative salmon fishery. And the Susitna dam proposal, a state-led project that has consumed over $200 million the last few years, would completely block fish passage on the state's fourth-largest king salmon producing river. The updates to Title 16 we are proposing would also allow more public input on development and its approval processes, and give all of us certainty about the protection of salmon as the state grows and develops. We know a lot of miners, oil industry workers and loggers. We're not interested in putting them out of work. We are interested in making sure all of us, including our kids and grandkids, will have a wealth of healthy streams left to fish.

”

Stand for Salmon campaign director, Ryan Schryver, said, "To all Alaskans: we hear you and there is a solution. The Yes for Salmon ballot initiative will give you a voice in protecting our precious salmon while encouraging a thriving economy for all Alaskans. And we are only one of thousands of Alaskan organizations, tribes, businesses and individuals supporting the initiative."

Phil Brma, a former fish biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said, “We have long needed a strong course correction. We need updated development standards that balance the sustainability of our world-class salmon streams with responsible resource development. If the Legislature cannot solve this problem, it’s time to put the issue in front of voters.”

Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation CEO Norman Van Vactor said the board supports the measure because they want to protect the interests of commercial, sport, and subsistence fishing in Bristol Bay. Van Vactor said, "BBEDC’s mission is to promote economy – sustainable, renewable economy in our region, and it’s only appropriate that we did what we did," Van Vactor said. "Is it worth it to step back, take a second look, make sure that scientific studies are done and are solid, and that all the safeguards necessary are taken before a project should proceed? Absolutely. Then again, at the end of the day we’re not in the business necessarily of getting to ‘yes,’ because if a project is going to create undue harm, then maybe it shouldn’t happen.”

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay wrote, "It’s time that we bring our state’s salmon habitat permitting laws up to the same high level of robustness, accountability and sophistication as our fishery management laws – some of the best in the world. If we don’t then we jeopardize Alaska’s single-largest private sector employer which generates on average $5 billion in annual economic output for our state. Right now, we only have one of the bookends in placer. Ballot Measure 1 is a chance to secure the other bookend, providing economic stability and prosperity for Alaskans."

Opposition

Stand for Alaska-Vote No on One led the campaign in opposition to this initiative.

Opponents

• Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Dunleavy

The following organizations, businesses, and individuals were listed as members of the coalition opposing this initiative by the Stand for Alaska campaign or otherwise indicated their opposition to the measure:

Organizations and businesses 1-Call Alaska 49th Freight 574 Symmetry 907 Livestock Accessible Homes Inc. ACH Consulting LLC Admiralty Tours & Transport LLC Airgas Air Liquide Airswift Airport Equipment Rentals Alaska AFL-CIO Alaska Aggregate Products Alaska Alliance for Cruise Travel Alaska Bankers Association Alaska Basic Industries Alaska BlueHarvest Seafoods Alaska Business Monthly Alaska Chamber Alaska Construction Admin Solutions Alaska Crane Alaska Digital Connections LLC Alaska Drilling and Completions Alaska Earth Sciences, Inc. Alaska Enterprise Solutions, Inc. Alaska Expediting Alaska Fishing with Mark Glassmaker, Inc. Alaska Forest Association Alaska Frontier Constructors Alaska Geological Society Alaska Healthcare Strategies Alaska Independent Power Producers Association Alaska Industrial Hardware Alaska International Marketing Alaska Land Status, Inc. Alaska Laundry Alaska Marine Lines Alaska Minerals Inc. Alaska Miners Association Alaska Native Village Corporation Association Alaska Oil and Gas Association Alaska Petroleum Joint Craft Council Alaska Photobooth Company Alaska Process Industry Careers Consortium Alaska Ready Construction Alaska Remote Sensing Alaska Roteq Corporation Alaska Seafood Company Alaska Soil Recycling Alaska Specialty Equipment Alaska Sport Fishing Association Alaska Supply Chain International Alaska Support Industry Alliance Alaskan Sweet Vapes LLC. Alaska Telecom Association Alaska Tent & Tarp Alaska Textiles Alaska Trucking Association Alaska West Express Alaska Wins Alaskan Lights Lodging Alcan Electrical & Engineering, Inc. Aleut Corporation AllPro Alaska Toyota Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Amak Towing American Exploration & Mining Association Americans for Prosperity- Alaska Amerikanuak, Alaska, LLC Amity's Bread Anchorage Alehouse Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Anchorage Republican Women's Club Anchorage Sand & Gravel ANCSA Regional Association Andeavor Andy's Floors & More LLC Arctic Catering & Support Services Arctic Consulting LLC Arctic Controls Arctic Foundations Inc. Alaska Industrial Battery Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Arktis, LLC Aspen Endodontics Aspen Hotels of Alaska Associated General Contractors of Alaska ASRC Energy Services Audio Video Installation and Design (AVID) Aurora Geosciences LTD Avalon Development Corp. AXYS LLC B & C Automation Systems, LLC Back Up and Running Chiropractic, LLC Baileys Rent-All Barrick Gold USA BC Excavating Beacon Occupational Health Beadiva Beadventures Bear Mountain Wholesale Bell Development Bering Marine Corporation Bidarka, LLC Big Mac Inc. Big Ray's Alaska, Inc. Bilista Holding, LLC BINW of Alaska, LLC BlueCrest Blueprint Alaska Bogart Mining Bolding's Enterprises BoreTide Chiropractic Boretide Construction Borell Consulting Services LLC BP Alaska Brady Design, LLC Brice Companies Brilliant Media Strategies Brooks Camp Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation Brooks Range Supply Bryce Erickson Consulting BS Gold Ventures BSI Commercial Real Estate Building and Construction Trades Council of South Central Alaska C&R Pipe and Steel Inc. Caelus Energy Alaska Calista Corporation Campwater Industries LLC Captain Creek Builders LLC Carlile Catahoula Enterprises Chena Hot Springs Resort Chicken Gold Co. Chugach Alaska Corporation Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce Clark-Wiltz Partnership Coastal Enterprises Coastal Helicopters Coeur Alaska - Kensington Mine Coldfoot Environmental Services Inc. Colville CONAM Construction Company Confluence Strategies, Inc. Connect Solutions LLC ConocoPhillips Alaska Constantine North Inc. Constellation Mining Company Construction Machinery Industrial, LLC Consumer Energy Alliance Alaska Coogan Construction Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Cooley Tax + Accounting, Inc. Council of Alaska Producers Core Geoscience Craig Taylor Equipment Credit Card Systems of Alaska Crowley Fuels Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska Cruz Companies Data Center, LLC Davis Block and Concrete Davis Constructors & Engineers, Inc. Deadhorse Aviation Center, LLC Delta Constructors Delta Fuel Industries LLC Delta Leasing Delta P Pump and Equipment, LLC Delta Western Petroleum Denali Asphalt Denali Chamber of Commerce Denali Drilling Denali Group Denali Industrial Supply Denali Peonies Denali Universal Services Diamond Willow Financial Dittman Research Dollar Rent a Car of Fairbanks Donlin Gold LLC DOWL Doyon, Limited Eagle River Alehouse Earth Products and Equipment LLC East Mackey Lake Cabins LLC Ed Fogels and Associates E.D. Industries LLC EEIS Consulting Engineers, Inc. Egli Air Haul EMC Engineering LLC Energy & Resource Economics ENSTAR Natural Gas Company Equipment Source, Inc. Eric W. Cole Trucking Escape Salon and Spa Excel Construction Exclusive Paving ExxonMobil F Robert Bell & Associates F & W Construction Company, Inc. Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation Fairbanks Materials Inc. Fairway Market Fairweather, LLC Fireweed Strategies First National Bank Alaska First Things First Alaska Foundation Fisheye Consulting Fitzpatrick Communications Flavin Photography Fluor Florcraft Flowline Alaska Focus on Alaska Foundex Pacific, Inc. Fountainhead Development Inc. Fortymile Mining District Fox Mining Frontier Building Products Co. Frontier Supply Company Fugro Geoservices Inc. Fuse & Traverse LLC Gail Phillips Productions GBA Assaying & Refining GBR Oilfield Services GCI GeoQuest, Inc. Giamante LLC Glacier Oil and Gas Corporation Global Diving and Salvage Golden Alaska Excavating, LLC Goldorado LLC Good Faith Consulting Granite Construction Grayling Construction Gray Services Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce Greater Palmer Chamber of Commerce Great Northwest, Inc. Groundhogs LLC H2T Mine Engineering Halliburton Hall Quality Homes Hanson Surveying & Mapping, LLC Harry Gaines Kenai River Fishing Hawk Consultants, LLC Hawley Resource Group Inc. Hayden Electric Motors, Inc. Heatherdale Resources LTD Heatsource Mechanical Hecla Greens Creek Mining Co. Hilcorp, Alaska LLC Holland America Line Honolulu Prospect Hump Island Oyster Company Huna Totem Corporation Hutchings Auto Group LLC Hutchings Trucks Hyak Mining Company ICE Services, Inc Icy Strait Point IMIG Audio / Video Industrial Hoists, LLC Interior Alaska Roofing InterShelter Inc. IUOE Local 302 J.P. Tangen, Attorney at Law Jade North, LLC Jeffress & Associates Judy Patrick Photography Juneau 1, LLC Juneau Chamber of Commerce K.Jardell Company Kallander & Associates Kane, Inc. Kenai Chamber of Commerce Kenai Magic Lodge Kenai Peninsula Republican Women Kenai River Raven Lodge Ken Brady Construction Company, Inc. Kennedy & Co. LLC Kinross Fort Knox Kizer Energy Klebs Mechanical Inc. Knik Construction Koch Sound Koncor Forest Products Koniag Kuukpik Corporation L & M Auto Shop LLC Laborers' Local 341 Laborers' Local 942 Latitude61 Technologies Law Office of Bradly A. Carlson, LLC LeaderUP, LLC LeMay Engineering & Consulting Little Red Services Living Deliberately Lounsbury & Associates, Inc. Lynden M-Alaska Construction M-W Drilling, Inc. MAP Consulting Marble Construction Mark K. Johnson, Attorney at Law Mass Excavation, Inc. Matson Matthias Consulting MatSu Business Alliance McDowell Group, Inc. Michelle Toohey Enterprises Million's Consulting Millrock Resources Inc. MKH Associates, Inc. Mobile Concrete and Grout of Alaska Montana Creek Campground Motion & Flow Control Products, Inc. Motion Industries MSI Communications Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc. NANA Regional Corporation Nanook Mining Company, LLC National Electrical Contractors Association Nature Boys, LLC Navitas Alaska NB Tweet & Sons NC Machinery Neeser Construction, Inc. North Pacific Maritime Northern Air Cargo Northern Air Maintenance Services Northern Aviation Services Northern Construction Inc. Northern Energy Services, LLC Northern Industrial Training Northern Maritime Logistics Northern Solutions LLC Northrim Bank North Star Equipment Services Northstar Helicopters Northstar Stevedoring Equipment North Slope Borough Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly Northwood Homes, Inc NOVAGOLD NW Consulting Olgoonik Construction Services On-line Exploration Services, Inc. Owl Ridge Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. Oxford Assaying and Refining P.A.S. Services Palmer Alehouse Pan-American Industrial Commercial Enterprise Pacific Seafood Processors Association Parker, Smith & Feek Paul & Co. Pebble Partnership Perkins Coie LLP Petro Marine Services Petroleum Equipment & Services, Inc. Petroleum News Petro Star Petrotechnical Resources of Alaska Pinnacle Construction, Inc. Pipefitters Local 375 Plumber and Steamfitters Union Local 367 Polar Mining Inc. Price Gregory International PRL Logistics ProComm Alaska, LLC Puget Sound Pipe and Supply Co. QA Services, Inc Quality & Assurance, LLC Quintillion Rain Proof Roofing RA Kreig & Associates Red Box Refuse, LLC Red Diamond Mining Company Red Eagle Lodge Redpath Mining Reeve Air Alaska Reeves Amodio, LLC Reformed Publications Resource Data, Inc. Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. RISQ Consulting Rockwell Automation Rosie Creek Enterprises, LLC ROTAK Helicopters Rotating Services, LLC RSA Engineering Inc. Ryan Air Safway Services Saltchuk Alaska Scandawgs Gear Works Schweizer Real Estate Investments Seagull's Roost Campground LLC Sealaska Security Aviation Sedor, Wendlandt, Evans & Fillipi LLC Seekins Ford Lincoln Ship Avenue, LLC Shoreside Petroleum Siemens SOAR Solutions Soloy Helicopters SolstenXP Inc. Sourdough Express South Central Timber Dev., Inc. Southeast Conference Southeast Stevedoring SPAN Alaska Specialized Transport & Rigging, LLC Spenard Builders Supply Spickler Insurance Agency LLC Spruce Enterprises SSS Commercial Real Estate Stallion Rockies Ltd. Stampede Excursions SteelFab Stevens Exploration Management Corp. STG Incorporated Stickler Construction Company Stoel Rives, LLC Stonegate Storage Storio Self Storage Strands Salon Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo, LLC Summit Logistics Sunshine Promotions, LLC Superior Machine & Welding Survey Point Holdings Susitna Recreational Camps Taiga Mining Company Teamsters Local 959 Teck Alaska TEMSCO Helicopters The Associated General Contractors of Alaska The Back Eddy, LLC The Cannery Lodge The Carter Company The Castle Mountain Group, Inc. The Cross Enterprises The Gathering Place, LLC The Hair Force The Surveyors Exchange Think Office, LLC Third Eye Photography Thompson & Company Thomas L Brice Consulting LLC Thrifty Car Rental of Fairbanks Thrive Creative + Communications TLC Properties Tom Mortensen Associates, LLC Totem Equipment and Supply, Inc. Tower Hill Mines Transportation Institute Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. Trilogy Metals Inc Tubular Solutions Alaska, Inc. Turnagain Marine Construction Tutka, LLC Tyler Rental, Inc. Tyonek Native Corporation Ucore Rare Metals, Inc. Udelhoven UMV Express DMV Solutions Uqaqti Consulting, LLC Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Valdez Creek Mining Valley General Energy Services Valley Sawmill Walsh Sheppard Wasilla Chamber of Commerce Weir Minerals Western Peterbilt Westward Fishing Company White Pass & Yukon Route Railway Winchester Alaska Work Zone LLP World Class Mining Yuit Communications LLC Zane Drilling Zipay Services, LLC Individuals Randy Bates, former Division Director of Habitat for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Ed Fogels, former Deputy Commissioner and former Director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting in the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Kerry Howard, former Division Director of Habitat with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Thomas E. Irwin, former Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Bill Jeffress, former Director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Doug Vincent Lang, former Director of Wildlife Conservation at the Dept. of Fish and Game Bob Loeffler, former Director of Land, Mining and Water at the Dept. of Natural Resources Ginny Litchfield, former Habitat Division Area Manager for the Dept. of Fish and Game Bill Morris, former Division of Habitat Regional Supervisor for the Dept. of Fish and Game Slim Morstad, former Area Management Biologist for Naknek and Kvichak for the Dept. of Fish and Game Marty K. Rutherford, former commissioner of the Dept. of Natural Resources

Arguments

The Stand for Alaska website featured the following argument:

“

Alaska is recognized as a world leader in responsible fish and habitat management. Alaska has numerous policies, acts and regulations that have been updated over the years and work together to protect fish habitat. Stand for Alaska believes the initiative is a misguided attempt to improve salmon habitat protections that will have serious unintended consequences for Alaska and Alaskans. The proposed initiative would make the development of roads, wastewater treatment plants, dams, ports and other infrastructure nearly impossible or cost prohibitive, particularly in rural Alaska. Tens of thousands of Alaskans work in community and resource development, construction and other industries impacted by the proposed regulations. High operating costs and abandoned projects would cost Alaskans jobs. All projects on private property, from building a bridge over a creek to withdrawing river rock, would require a permit. Existing oil and gas infrastructure and hardrock mines would have been difficult, if not impossible to permit if this initiative had been in place when they were developed. The initiative will cause delays, add cost and potentially prevent future projects. The initiative would slow down or stop completely new or existing projects that generate income for state government and the Alaska Permanent Fund. [The initiative] challenges the rights of Native corporations to determine how they develop their land and resources.

”

Sophie Minich, the president and CEO of the regional Native corporation CIRI, and Rex A. Rock, Sr., president and CEO of Arctic Slope Regional Corp., wrote:

“

Existing laws and regulations are working and this initiative is a disproportionate response to a problem that does not exist. [...] If this initiative becomes law, revenues from Red Dog mine, Alpine oilfield, the proposed Donlin mine, timber harvests, and other responsible resource development on ANCSA lands would be directly affected. To date, the revenue shared with all Alaska Native regional and village corporations from development on our lands has exceeded $3 billion. We cannot have anti-development interests, many of which are funded by outside entities, dictating how we run our state, and locking up our lands. We have responsibly developed our communities and resources for millennia while co-existing with our salmon and other wildlife. Alaska Native people already stand for salmon. We respectfully ask that you stand with us in not signing this initiative.

”

Vice President and general counsel to Sealaska Corp, Jaeleen Kookesh, said, “We’re all for protecting salmon, but this thing is over the top.”

Jim Jansen, chairman of Lynden Inc., a freight shipping company, said:

“

I doubt that there is anyone in Alaska that wants to protect salmon more than me. Transporting salmon, by aircraft, barges and trucks is a major part of our business, and sport fishing is my favorite pastime. The “Stand for Salmon” 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 an oilfield on the North Slope, or building a home, this initiative would be a major permitting impediment.

”

Genevieve Schok Jr., a management employee of Flowline Alaska, Inc. wrote the following in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

“

Ballot Measure 1 imposes new regulations that would jeopardize not only new development projects, but also existing ones. And it’s not just mining and oil development. We’re talking about critical, local infrastructure upgrades that are badly needed in many communities. Roads, dams, wastewater treatment facilities and airports, just to name a few, all require many permits. Whether we’re building, repairing or replacing an existing structure, Ballot Measure 1 will make necessary infrastructure projects cost prohibitive or impossible.

”

Tom Barrett, president of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company said, "If the fish habitat initiative becomes law, it will hinder and prevent Alyeska from obtaining permits needed to perform work crucial to [he Trans-Alaska Pipeline System]’s safe and reliable operations in a timely way. We care deeply about Alaska’s salmon and environment; we are passionate about sustaining safe, reliable TAPS operations, and its daily contribution to the Alaska economy, long into the future. I ask you to vote No on Ballot Measure 1."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Alaska ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to support this initiative: Yes for Salmon—Yes on 1 and Stand for Salmon. The Yes for Salmon—Yes on 1 committee had reported a total of $1.9 million in contributions including cash and in-kind services. The Stand for Salmon committee had not reported any contributions or expenditures. The largest donor to the support campaign was The Alaska Center, which gave $833,124 mostly in in-kind services."

One committee was registered to oppose this initiative: Stand for Alaska—Vote No on 1. The committee reported a total of $11.6 million in contributions including cash and in-kind services. The largest donor was oil and gas company Conoco Phillips, which gave $1.4 million, combined, in cash and in-kind contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$800,451.49	$1,118,584.68	$1,919,036.17	$800,451.49	$1,919,036.17
Oppose	$10,366,035.96	$1,195,854.32	$11,561,890.28	$10,366,035.96	$11,561,890.28
Total	$11,166,487.45	$2,314,439.00	$13,480,926.45	$11,166,487.45	$13,480,926.45

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Ballot Measure 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes for Salmon—Yes on 1	$800,451.49	$1,118,584.68	$1,919,036.17	$800,451.49	$1,919,036.17
Total	$800,451.49	$1,118,584.68	$1,919,036.17	$800,451.49	$1,919,036.17

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
The Alaska Center	$109,268.97	$723,854.98	$833,123.95
Wild Salmon Center	$215,000.00	$66,144.00	$281,144.00
New Venture Fund	$0.00	$263,317.98	$263,317.98
John Childs	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
Cook Inletkeeper	$0.00	$154,090.00	$154,090.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Ballot Measure 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Stand for Alaska	$10,366,035.96	$1,195,854.32	$11,561,890.28	$10,366,035.96	$11,561,890.28
Total	$10,366,035.96	$1,195,854.32	$11,561,890.28	$10,366,035.96	$11,561,890.28

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Opposition

• Anchorage Daily News: "Imposing an overreaching system of regulation such as the one proposed by Ballot Measure 1 won't help fish, and it will hurt our state's recovering economy. Looking behind the bumper sticker slogans, the truth is clear: we can "Stand for Salmon" and "Stand for Alaska" by maintaining the existing permitting system. When Alaskans vote Nov. 6, we should vote no on Ballot Measure 1."

Background

Fish protections in Alaska

Natural resources are addressed in Article 8 of the Alaska Constitution. The constitution requires that "fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses." The constitution also states that "wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use."

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game was established by the state's first legislature in 1959—which was the year Alaska gained statehood—and is responsible for regulating wild fish and game, as well as fisheries. The department is a cabinet-level agency run by a commissioner who reports to the governor. In 1959, the Alaska Territorial Fishery Service became the Department of Fish and Game.

In 1966, Alaska Statute 16.05.870 was enacted to require the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to designate and track water bodies important to anadromous fish. This led to the Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) and its associated Anadromous Waters Atlas. Nominations can be made to add currently unprotected water bodies to the AWC. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the catalog and atlas “contain over 19,000 streams, rivers or lakes around the state which have been specified as being important for the spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fish. Based upon thorough surveys of a few drainages it is believed that this number represents less than 50% of the streams, rivers and lakes actually used by anadromous species. It is estimated that at least an additional 20,000 or more anadromous water bodies have not been identified or specified under AS 16.05.871(a).”

Under section 16.05.871, Alaska Fish and Game code requires written permission "to construct a hydraulic project, or use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow or bed of a specified river, lake, or stream, or to use wheeled, tracked, or excavating equipment or log-dragging equipment in the bed of a specified river, lake, or stream." Permission is not granted if the commissioner finds that the details of the proposed project are "insufficient for the proper protection of fish and game." The department processes requests through permit applications processed by the Habitat Division of the Department of Fish and Game. An applicant can apply for either a Fish Habitat Permit or a Special Area Permit—which are required for locations such as refuges, sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas. The department requires a permit for "any activity or project that is conducted below the ordinary high water mark of an anadromous stream." Among other additions and changes to state statutes, this measure would have repealed and replaced section 16.05.871.

Control shifted between departments

In 2003, Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) transferred some of the duties and authorities of the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game—including the categorizing and protecting of water bodies important to anadromous fish—to a deputy commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources through Executive Order No. 107. The language from AS 16.05.870 governing permits for projects affecting waters important to anadromous fish was moved to AS 41.14.870. In 2008, however, Gov. Sarah Palin (R) transferred the duties and authorities regarding anadromous fish protections and permits back to the commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game through Executive Order No. 114, creating section 16.05.871 of the Alaska Statutes, which governs permissions for activity that affects bodies of water categorized within the Anadromous Waters Catalog. In 2007, a citizen initiative was circulated that was designed to—among other things—return the control of fish and fish habitats back to the Department of Fish and Game. It was one of several initiatives related to mining, fish habitat preservation, and permits circulated that year. Proponents of the initiative argued that putting the process under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources allowed for more development and resulted in less conservation of fish habitats.

Federal fish protections

There are federal laws related to water used by anadromous fish and international treaties and commissions related to them as well. Below are some of the regulations, programs, and agencies related to anadromous fish.

• The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act was approved by Congress in October 1965 to "authorize the Secretary of the Interior to initiate with the several States a cooperative program for the conservation, development, and enhancement of the Nation's anadromous fish, and for other purposes." The law allowed federal contributions to projects related to preserving anadromous fish. The law has since been amended more than a dozen times, most recently by Public Law 107-372 in 2002.

• The U.S. is part of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), “an international inter-governmental organization established by the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean. The Convention was signed on February 11, 1992, and took effect on February 16, 1993. The member countries are Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and the United States of America.” The primary goal of the NPAFC is "to promote the conservation of anadromous stocks in the international waters of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas." To read more about the NPAFC, click here.

Notable mining projects in Alaska

Pebble mine

A proposed gold and copper mine in Alaska, by the Pebble Partnership, would be located 120 miles northeast of Dillingham, Alaska, near a large salmon run in Bristol Bay. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Bristol Bay watershed supports the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world (46% of the average global population of sockeye salmon) and produces all five species of Pacific salmon: sockeye, coho, Chinook, chum, and pink. The EPA further writes that, for natives, "Salmon are integral to the entire way of life in these cultures as subsistence food and as the foundation for their language, spirituality, and social structure. These cultures have a strong connection to the landscape and its resources. In the Bristol Bay watershed, this connection has been maintained for at least the past 4,000 years and is in part due to and responsible for the continued pristine condition of the region's landscape and biological resources." In 2014, after many years of studies were conducted, resulting in the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, which examined three different sizes of mines and determined they pose significant risks to the fishery, the EPA preemptively blocked mining at the site. However, in 2017, the EPA allowed the Pebble Partnership to move forward in the application process for constructing the mine. Tim Bristol, executive director of Salmon State, a group opposing the Pebble mining proposal said, "What they’re proposing right now is about four times what the EPA thought would be an acceptable level of risk." Tom Collier, CEO of Pebble Partnership, said in an interview that he could not guarantee that a spill would not happen, but that his models show that a potential spill could impact up to 30 miles downstream. Collier also said that any spill would not have a negative impact on salmon in the watershed and that the spills would be diluted by the water.

In June 2018, Alaska Governor Bill Walker wrote a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers asking them to stop the Pebble Mine Project environmental review. Walker wrote, "The PLP (Pebble Limited Partnership) has yet to demonstrate to us or the Alaska public that they have proposed a feasible and realistic project. Without, at minimum a preliminary economic assessment, but preferably a pre-feasibility study, the corps will be unable to take a hard look at all the reasonable alternatives in the draft EIS. Given the unique characteristics of the region, the mine proposed by Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) must be held to an extraordinarily high standard." Tom Collier, CEO of Pebble Partnership, said in response to the letter that "We find it incredibly disappointing that the governor’s request to suspend the NEPA process is nearly identical to that brought forward by the anti-Alaska, anti-development Natural Resources Defense Council. We expect this type of stall tactic from ENGOs opposed to any kind of development but not from the Governor of Alaska and especially when the project is on Alaska land. Frankly, the governor does not make a compelling case to suspend the NEPA process."

Donlin Gold Project

The Barrick Gold and NovaGold Resources proposed gold mine at the Donlin Gold Project, located at Donlin Creek 227 miles west of Anchorage and 10 miles from the village of Crooked Creek on the Kuskokwim River, was granted an environmental clearance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on April 30, 2018.

Related measures

2014

The Alaska Bristol Bay Mining Ban Question, Ballot Measure 4 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Alaska as an initiated state statute, where it was approved. The measure was designed to give the legislature the power to prohibit mining projects in Bristol Bay if legislators determine the activity to be harmful to wild salmon within the fisheries reserve. The approval of Ballot Measure 4 added large-scale metallic mines to the list of actions that require legislative approval in the Bristol Bay reserve. Additionally, it expanded the area of application from just state-controlled waters to "the entire drainage." The provision also applied to state- and federally owned land, as well as that owned by private entities. The initiative was officially called "Bristol Bay Forever" by proponents. In the Lake and Peninsula Borough of Southwest Alaska, voters approved a local ballot measure to ban open-pit mining in the watershed of Bristol Bay. The 2014 statewide initiative sought to allow state voters to have a say on the issue. To read more about Ballot Measure 4 of 2014, click here.

2008

In 2008, a similar ballot measure, also known as Measure 4, was put before voters. This initiative would have prohibited a mining operation from releasing toxic pollutants into water that would adversely affect human health or the life cycle of salmon. It would have also prohibited a mining operation from storing mining waste that could release sulfuric acid, acids, dissolved metals, or other toxic pollutants that could adversely affect water that is used by humans or by salmon. It was particularly directed at the Pebble Mine located in the Bristol Bay watershed. Voters rejected the measure by a vote of 56.4 to 43.6 percent.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

The state process

In Alaska, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Alaska also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equal to 7 percent of the vote in the last general election must be collected in each of three-fourths of the 40 state House districts. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 365 days from the date the lieutenant governor issues petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering. Signatures must be submitted 365 days after the lieutenant governor issued petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering or before the legislative session begins, whichever comes first.

The requirements to get an indirectly initiated state statute certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 32,127 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was January 16, 2018, or 365 days after the lieutenant governor prepared petitions, whichever comes first.

In Alaska, when enough signatures are verified for an initiative, the initiative is not certified for the ballot until after "a legislative session has convened and adjourned." This gives the Legislature a timeframe to consider the proposal or similar legislation. The initiative is void when “an act of the legislature that is substantially the same as the proposed law was enacted after the petition had been filed, and before the date of the election," according to state law. Otherwise, the initiative is certified to appear on the ballot for the first statewide election 120 days after the legislature's adjournment.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Scott Kohlhaas and Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $196,101.31 was spent to collect the 32,127 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.10.

Details about this initiative/referendum

On September 12, 2017, Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott (D) rejected the application for this initiative as unconstitutional. According to Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Bakalar, who advised Lt. Gov. Mallott to reject the application, the initiative would interfere with the state legislature's power to allocate salmon habitat resources. Petitioners appealed Mallott's decision to the Alaska Third District Court.

On October 9, 2017, Judge Mark Rindner overruled the lieutenant governor's decision, allowing petitions to collect signatures. Judge Rindner said, "[the initiative] does not explicitly favor any particular use of anadromous fish habitat between recreational fishing, kayaking, commercial fishing, hatcheries, mining, pipeline or dams; it only concerns itself with the condition of the water." On October 20, 2017, the state appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.

In November 2017, the initiative sponsor, Brian Kraft, left his position on the Stand for Salmon ballot committee. He stated that he needed to spend the time he was devoting to the initiative to business and family. He also said that his opinion on the initiative had not changed. He was replaced in early December by Stephanie Quinn-Davidson.

On February 16, 2018, the Alaska division of elections reported that 41,999—or 89.36 percent—of the 47,000 signatures submitted were valid. Since 32,127 needed to be valid for the initiative to make the ballot, this qualified the measure to appear before voters. Since the legislature did not pass House Bill 199 before it adjourned on May 13, 2018, the initiative was on the ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.

The proposal in the legislature

A previous bill, House Bill 199 (HB 199), was designed to establish licensing procedures and rules for major and minor projects that would affect the habitats of anadromous fish was reintroduced in 2018 as a version of equivalent legislation that, if approved, could preclude an election on this initiative. It was revived by the leadership of the state House, which, as of January 30, 2018, was effectively controlled by a Democrats because of a coalition between the 16 Democrats, three of the 21 Republicans, and both independent representatives.

A revised version of House Bill 199 was introduced in early April 2018 with less strict mitigation requirements and changes that would not require as many bodies of water to be considered as anadromous fish habitats. The proponents of the Stand for Salmon initiative said that the new version of HB 199 does not do enough to protect salmon habitats. Stand for Salmon Director Ryan Schryver said, “While we don’t support the bill in its current version, we will continue to work with legislative leaders to update the law and fix the fundamental problems with salmon habitat protections in our state." Meanwhile, the new version drew opposition from the Alaska Support Industry and Americans for Prosperity Alaska for being too restrictive of development and harmful to the economy. House Bill 199 was not passed before the Alaska Legislature adjourned on May 13, 2018.

Senate Majority Leader Peter Micciche (R), said, “These solutions have to be to problems that actually exist. The Senate majority doesn‘t recognize, at this point, that there‘s a gap.” Republicans controlled the state Senate by a 13-6 majority as of January 30, 2018.

Lawsuit

Stand for Salmon v. Mallot

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the initiative makes an appropriation of a state asset as prohibited by Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution
Court: Filed in Alaska Third District Court; appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; appealed to the supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed, but the remainder of the measure could appear on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Stand for Salmon	Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott and the State of Alaska
Plaintiff argument: The initiative updates permit regulations and does not eliminate the possibility of development or make an appropriation; rather it simply ensures that development is done in a way that doesn't damage fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was written to apply equally to all projects and permit applicants.	Defendant argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's prohibition against initiatives that "dedicate revenues, [or] make or repeal appropriations" by preventing the state from allowing development of any waterways and, thereby, appropriating the state assets of fish and fish habitats.

  Source: Alaska Department of Law Press Release

Stand for Salmon sued when Mallot rejected the initiative as unconstitutional. Mallot said that the initiative violated Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution, which prohibits initiatives from dedicating revenue or making appropriations. On October 9, 2017, Alaska Third District Court Judge Mark Rindner ruled in favor of Stand for Salmon and ordered that the group be allowed to collect signatures. Judge Rindner said, "[the initiative] does not explicitly favor any particular use of anadromous fish habitat between recreational fishing, kayaking, commercial fishing, hatcheries, mining, pipeline or dams; it only concerns itself with the condition of the water."

On October 20, 2017, the state appealed the ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. The department of law's press release announcing the appeal said, "the case presents a single question of constitutional law, namely the scope of the Legislature’s power to allocate state assets among competing uses and the limits of the initiative process. The State’s legal opinion is that 17FSH2 [the initiative]—which revises permitting standards for activities that affect anadromous fish habitat—unconstitutionally infringes on the Legislature’s discretion to decide how to allocate that habitat among competing uses, thereby making it an impermissible appropriation by initiative." The state's legal brief argued, “the measure precludes the use of even a single waterway for a major development project. Because waters and fish are state assets, only the legislature has authority to choose between conservation and development.”

Stand for Salmon argued, "the initiative proposes simple updates to Alaska's 61-year-old fish habitat permitting law by establishing clear guidelines that would bring certainty and stability to the permitting process, protecting wild salmon habitat and promoting responsible resource development in a growing and changing Alaska."

A Supreme Court hearing was held on April 26, 2018.

Supreme Court ruling

On August 8, 2018, the court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed. In their decision, the justices wrote "We conclude that the initiative would encroach on the discretion over allocation decisions delegated to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game by the legislature and that the initiative as written therefore effects an unconstitutional appropriation. But we conclude that the problematic sections may be severed from the remainder of the initiative. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the superior court and remand for the superior court to direct the Lieutenant Governor to sever the offending provisions but place the remainder of the initiative on the ballot." To read the full ruling, click here.

Opponents of the measure, Stand for Alaska, wrote, “Even with today’s changes, this measure still replaces our science-based habitat management system with untested regulations that will result in job loss and kill current and future, vital projects. Stand for Alaska remains strongly opposed to the misguided measure that threatens our jobs, communities and way of life.”

Initiative proponents, Stand for Salmon, wrote on Twitter, "While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court removed the strongest salmon protections in Measure 1, voters will still have a chance to vastly improve habitat protections and public accountability this fall with a vote #Yeson1. It would be a win for Alaska's way of life!"

Language that was ordered to be removed is shown below in struck-through text:

Proposed AS 16.05.885(e): The commissioner may issue a major permit to an applicant only if: (1) the public notice period required under (c) of this section is complete; (2) any permit conditions and mitigation measures under AS 16.05.887 are mandatory and enforceable; (3) the activity, as authorized by the written permit determination, will not cause substantial damage to anadromous fish habitat under AS 16.05.877(b); (4) the applicant, if required, provides the bond required by (g) of this section; and (5) a request for reconsideration of the commissioner’s final assessment and written determination under (d) of this section is not timely received under AS 16.05.889. 68 Proposed AS 16.05.887(a): The commissioner shall prevent or minimize significant adverse effects to anadromous fish habitat. The commissioner shall require a permittee under AS 16.05.885 to implement the permitted activity in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects to anadromous fish habitat or, if significant adverse effects cannot be avoided, to mitigate significant adverse effects to fish and wildlife including anadromous fish habitat under (b) of this section. Notwithstanding (b) of this section, an anadromous fish habitat permit may not be granted for an activity that will: (1) cause substantial damage to anadromous fish habitat under AS 16.05.877(b); (2) fail to ensure the proper protection of fish and wildlife; (3) store or dispose of mining waste, including overburden, waste rock, and tailings in a way that could result in the release or discharge of sulfuric acid, other acids, dissolved metals, toxic pollutants, or other compounds that will adversely affect, directly or indirectly, anadromous fish habitat, fish, or wildlife species that depend on anadromous fish habitat; (4) replace or supplement, in full or in part, a wild fish population with a hatchery-dependent fish population; (5) withdraw water from anadromous fish habitat in an amount that will adversely affect anadromous fish habitat, fish, or wildlife species; or (6) dewater and relocate a stream or river if the relocation does not provide for fish passage or will adversely affect anadromous fish habitat, fish, or wildlife species.

Ballot Measure 1 full text

The full text of the initiative is displayed below. It does not account for changes ordered by the Supreme Court in their August 8, 2018, ruling.

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Environment on the ballot
• Natural resources on the ballot

Alaska

• Alaska ballot measures
• Alaska ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Alaska Elections Division website

Support

• Yes for Salmon website
• Stand for Salmon Facebook

Opposition

• Stand for Alaska website
• Stand for Alaska Facebook
• Stand for Alaska Twitter