Juneau Empire file. (Michael Penn | Juneau Empire)

Juneau Empire file. (Michael Penn | Juneau Empire)

Analysis: Minor permits under Ballot Measure 1

Up for a vote Nov. 6, Ballot Measure 1 would put development on fish habitat into one of three tiers. Minor permits would be allowed for a things like private docks and temporary water use.

Ballot Measure 1, up for a vote during the statewide election Nov. 6, provides three tracks for development projects on salmon habitat in Alaska.

Some projects are minor, some major, and others can received what’s called a general permit for common activities done by many people.

Proponents have said that responsible development won’t face undue permitting hurdles. Opponents have said even routine projects like road widening would screech to a halt.

In a three-part series, the Empire is taking a look at how Ballot Measure 1 changes Alaska law. After talking with measure proponents, opponents and habitat managers, we’re trying to provide voters with an unbiased look at the permitting process for everything from an ATV crossing, to a personal dock or a massive mine.

An article in Sunday’s newspaper looked at general permits, which apply to things like skiff launches, stream crossing and recreational suction dredging in certain locations — everyday activities which a large number of people do with a minimal effect to habitat.

[Analysis: How Ballot Measure 1 could affect everyday activities]

An article in Thursday’s paper will look at what will be required of major Fish Habitat Permits under Ballot Measure 1.

So, what type of development could receive a minor permit?

The difference between a major and minor permit comes down to what Ballot Measure 1 calls “significant adverse effects” to fish habitat (more on that below). Minor permits could apply to things like personal docks, temporary water use permits and boat ramp maintenance.

Right now, anyone building on fish habitat has to apply for a Fish Habitat Permit. The measure doesn’t change that. Permits are approved or denied by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Habitat Division, which has three offices around the state.

Approval or denial hinges on whether or not it can provide for the “proper protection of fish and game.” (That phrase here refers to wildlife, not the state agency.) Ballot Measure 1 doesn’t change this.

What it does change is the definition of proper protection. Current law doesn’t specify what proper protection means. Habitat biologists have so far defined proper protection using their expertise. Ballot Measure 1 outlines fish protection in legal language. That section (which would appear as AS 16.05.867 under the measure) is vague enough to allow managers some latitude.

Basically, it codifies into law how development would be allowed to permanently change anadromous fish habitat (habitat for fish, like salmon, that live in both salt and freshwater).

Things like water quality and temperature would have to stay largely intact before and after building occurs. Stream flow, fish passage, bank and bed stability and habitat diversity — anyone building would have to ensure that those could be completely restored in a reasonable timeframe under Ballot Measure 1.

This differs from current practice. Habitat managers sometimes alter or divert streams permanently if they believe the work won’t harm fish populations. A stream could be rerouted around a project, or fish habitat could be added somewhere off-site to make up for the loss of habitat.

Both major and minor permits would have to meet this bar. If they can’t, that doesn’t mean a permit will be denied, but developers would be required to take a few extra steps to help avoid harming habitat.

The difference between major and minor Fish Habitat Permits comes down to what projects pose “significant adverse effects.”

About a half page of the 8-page measure defines what’s significant. If a project impairs or degrades any habitat characteristics listed under the “proper protection” section, that’s significant. Interfering with spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fish, or increases in fish death at any life stage — all these are considered significant adverse effects under Ballot Measure 1.

Anything at risk of significantly changing fish habitat would receive more scrutiny, both from the public and government agencies, under a major permitting track. Minor permits would also receive their own public comment period, something required of major, minor and general permits.


• Contact reporter Kevin Gullufsen at 523-2228 and kgullufsen@juneauempire.com. Follow him on Twitter at @KevinGullufsen.


More in Home

Rep. Sarah Vance, a Homer Republican, discusses a bill she sponsored requiring age verification to visit pornography websites while Rep. Andrew Gray, an Anchorage Democrat who added an amendment prohibiting children under 14 from having social media accounts, listens during a House floor session Friday. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire)
House passes bill banning kids under 14 from social media, requiring age verification for porn sites

Key provisions of proposal comes from legislators at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

The Boney Courthouse building in Anchorage holds the Alaska Supreme Court chambers. (Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska tribal health consortiums are legally immune in many cases, state Supreme Court says

The Alaska Supreme Court overturned a 20-year-old precedent Friday by ruling that… Continue reading

One of about 80 participants in the annual Slush Cup tries to cross a 100-foot-long pond during the final day of the season at Eaglecrest Ski Area on April 7. (Eaglecrest Ski Area photo)
Season full of ups and downs ends about average for Eaglecrest Ski Area

Fewer season passes sold, but more out-of-state visitors and foreign workers help weather storms.

Lily Hope (right) teaches a student how to weave Ravenstail on the Youth Pride Robe project. (Photo courtesy of Lily Hope)
A historically big show-and-tell for small Ravenstail robes

About 40 child-sized robes to be featured in weavers’ gathering, dance and presentations Tuesday.

The Ward Lake Recreation Area in the Tongass National Forest. (U.S. Forest Service photo)
Neighbors: Public input sought as Tongass begins revising 25-year-old forest plan

Initial phase focuses on listening, informing, and gathering feedback.

High school students in Juneau attend a chemistry class in 2016. (Michael Penn / Juneau Empire file photo)
JDHS ranks fourth, TMHS fifth among 64 Alaska high schools in U.S. News and World Report survey

HomeBRIDGE ranks 41st, YDHS not ranked in nationwide assessment of more than 24,000 schools.

Low clouds hang over Kodiak’s St. Paul Harbor on Oct. 3, 2022. Kodiak is a hub for commercial fishing, an industry with an economic impact in Alaska of $6 billion a year in 2021 and 2022, according to a new report commissioned by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. (Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Report portrays mixed picture of Alaska’s huge seafood industry

Overall economic value rising, but employment is declining and recent price collapses are worrisome.

Sen. Bert Stedman chairs a Senate Finance Committee meeting in 2023. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska Senate panel approves state spending plan with smaller dividend than House proposed

Senate proposal closes $270 million gap in House plan, but further negotiations are expected in May.

Most Read