AN OP ED:
Voters Should Consider
Prop. 1 Effect on Sitka
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the fourth in a series of commentaries for and against Ballot Measure 1 that the Sentinel will run prior to the Nov. 6 election.
By DAVE HARDY
Proposition 1 sets fish habitat permit standards that most projects cannot meet.
F&G “shall ensure water quality and water temperature, instream flows, efficient upstream and downstream passage of fish, habitat dependent connections between anadromous habitat including surface-groundwater connections, stream, river and lake bank stability, aquatic habitat diversity, productivity , stability and function, riparian areas that support fish and wildlife habitat, etc.” (Election Pamphlet, P.68).
A Nelson Logging Road foot-slope culvert on a small Starrigavan tributary fails most of these. The current road upgrade from Halibut Point Road to the shooting range includes two bridges, multiple culverts, road fill that buries substantial riparian habitat, ditches that intercept and divert natural flows, etc. Each water crossing requires a separate written determination/permit.
Prop. 1 buries F&G in paperwork. Legal findings, determinations, assessments, public notices, draft and final EISs, requests for reconsideration, etc. are summarized on P. 64, para. 2. Applicants must provide all information necessary for F&G to prepare environmental impact statements for major permits.
A draft EIS identifies potential adverse effects “on anadromous fish habitat and other fish and wildlife,” reviews mitigation options, lists “possible alternatives or mitigation measures,” etc. The final includes “mandatory and enforceable permit conditions and mitigation measures,” and documents “the reasons for the decision and the basis for concluding” that statutory requirements have been met, and may require a performance bond.
These legal mandates optimize the ability of interveners to challenge F&G approvals, while preventing major emergency backhoe work to remove flood debris from a blocked SJ hatchery intake, or refill around a washed out Sawmill Creek Road bridge abutment. Fish hatcheries must have water, and Prop. 1 precludes timely, efficient permitting.
Mitigation options are limited to “scientifically proven, peer reviewed and accepted measures” (p.70). “Restoring, establishing, enhancing, or preserving another water body, other portions of the same water body or land” is not allowed (p.74). F&G must deny a culvert or other application that cannot be mitigated to meet Prop. 1 standards, and shall “restore the affected anadromous fish habitat” (p.74). If F&G denied Nelson Logging Road permits, would F&G have to remove the non-compliant road?
Prop. 1 would take effect 90 days after passage, and require multiple regulations. Regulation development could take at least two years, and implementation of the new regulations and criteria additional years (p.64). F&G would implement Prop. 1 before most regulations, definitions, public information, agency procedures, etc. were in place.
In Sitka, Prop 1 would apply to Blue Lake and Green Lake, cross drainages under Sitka’s roads, Indian River, Starrigavan, Sawmill, Granite, Cascade, No-Name, Heart and Thimbleberry lakes and creek, Medvejie, Swan Lake and its inlet streams Wrinkleneck and Duck Creek, and other named and unnamed water-bodies and riparian areas. When the Blue Lake water line is shut down, the city activates the backup Indian River water intake, which sometimes requires instream work.
The Granite Creek borrow pit causes adverse instream effects including water quality and habitat changes from sediment and other pollutants, blasting, and borrow removal, and could easily be shut down. The city’s overburden and stump disposal area in McGraw’s old shot-rock pit is filling up; presumably a new location will be needed.
F&G may recover fees equal to the cost of permitting, and assess penalties up to $10,000/day for Class A misdemeanor violations. For Prop. 1 to be effective, F&G would need to increase enforcement efforts, actively seek out violators, and prosecute offenders.
Few Alaskans will appreciate paying for a convoluted, expensive permit process that ultimately tells them “no”. We won’t know the details until regulations are in place, but The Salmon Paperwork Initiative should protect substantially more fish and wildlife habitat, primarily through permit denials. Although Prop. 1 framers adopted the ballot initiative process to side-step the legislature, Alaska’s Constitution Article XI, Section 6 says that in two years the Legislature can repeal/replace it. Passage would mean two years of permitting turmoil and frustration for F&G and applicants, followed by a big question-mark.
I’m voting against it.
–––––––
Dave Hardy lives in Sitka, and for 17 years he was the ADF&G Sitka Area Habitat Biologist responsible for Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof Islands and the Gulf coast up to Cape Suckling.
House Race
Dear Editor: Wisdom must be soft-spoken. Strength must be gentle. Persuasion must be respectful. Intelligence must be humble. Ability must be steady. Certainty must be qualified. Directness must be tempered. Circumspection must be honest. Pride must be suspect. Experience must be apt. Desire must be absent. Focus must be adaptable. These are some of the elements of character we must see in a candidate.
Think about our candidates for state house in these terms. Who fits? Clearly, the incumbent has long ago passed the learning curve. The challenger would use up much of his time in office before realizing that he needs practice in the virtues we must have.
John Welsh, Sitka
Alyse Galvin
Dear Editor: We all know that Alaska is ground zero for climate change. As a lifelong Sitkan, I know what that means for coastal Alaska. The climate change threat pervades everything around us: the salmon that countless families depend on for a living, the deer we subsist on, and the old growth forests we walk through with our grandchildren.
Alyse Galvin understands this threat. But more importantly, she has a plan to tackle climate change while also developing new, sustainable jobs in our state.
It’s true; Don Young has been in Congress longer than anyone else. He also has been ignoring the single greatest threat to Alaska longer than anyone else.
Throughout my long life in Alaska I have watched as politicians have bowed to the needs of special interests while hurting our fisheries and subsistence hunters. I have also watched a strong, grassroots movement coalesce around Alyse Galvin. They must see what I do: an independent leader from a new era that will champion the issues regular Alaskans care about. They see a leader that will ensure that their grandchildren can enjoy and benefit from the outdoors in the same way they have.
As a lifelong Southeast Alaskan, I urge you to vote for Alyse Galvin for U.S. Congress.
Larry Calvin, Sitka
Medical Bill Help
Dear Editor: Several years ago, I suffered a devastating heart problem that required treatment at Sitka Community Hospital. Nine months later, I was ambushed by an astronomical medical bill that I was unprepared for and could not pay. Though I had received no statements, the bill was being passed on to a collections agency. I felt threatened and alarmed.
Do I begin attempting to make the minimum payments on this bill, or do I buy groceries? Even without the medical bill, my grocery list was, and is, more of a wish list. I know I was not the only one who received an unexpected bill, and I cannot help but wonder at others’ fates.
After an initial panic, I examined the bill closely, going through the technical and obscure language. I saw that Medicaid should have taken responsibility for the payments, but could not contact the institution to advocate for myself. The phone would just ring and ring until the connection was terminated.
My attempts to negotiate with the hospital went unanswered.
I called other elected officials. I got no response at all.
When I called Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins’ office, the story was different. My call was answered. He and his staff followed up again and again.
He and his staffer connected me with the chief Medicaid officer for our region and petitioned on my behalf. Kreiss-Tomkins helped me navigate the bureaucracy and get the medical bill taken care of within a month.
When I learned the bill was resolved, I wept with relief.
I was both surprised and grateful for such courtesy and efficiency from a political representative.
I’m still not fully healed from my heart condition, but I do everything I can to give back to this community. I tend to the Orthodox Cemetery, planting flowers and helping with landscaping. Making Sitka a better place to live is important to me, and I can see that it is important to Kreiss-Tomkins as well.
Kreiss-Tomkins is an effective leader who comes through for Sitkans in vulnerable positions. He respects and values the elders of our community. An easy way to judge the character of a man is to observe how they treat the powerless.
I have never before written a letter to the editor. But I feel the need to share my experience as people are deciding how to cast their votes. Kreiss-Tomkins has the experience and desire to help constituents on a personal level. I have not found these traits in any other political figure.
I am so grateful Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins was our state representative when I had nowhere else to turn.
We need him back in office this next term.
Patti McKinney, Sitka
Upcoming Election
Dear Editor: Mike Dunleavy, candidate for governor of Alaska, wants to add a 12.5 percent royalty tax on all seafood caught in Alaska. He thinks this is a logical next step from oil royalty taxes and that commercial fishing operations are in some way comparable to oil companies.
This is absurd.
Most commercial fishing operations are small family businesses that have nowhere near the profit margins nor stability of massive oil companies. How is taking 12.5 percent of the earnings of fisheries in anyway a positive move for Alaskans?
People work hard – some even lose their lives – in their quest to make a living from the sea. A 12.5 percent tax will place an outsized burden on Southeast Alaska and its families.
Richard Wein has committed his support to Mike Dunleavy.
Luckily, we have a representative who will make sure ill-conceived ideas like Dunleavy’s are challenged. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins has always stood up for Southeast Alaska and its fishermen, including earning the endorsement of United Fishermen of Alaska multiple times.
With a Dunleavy administration that could lead to devastating policies to commercial fishermen, ferry system, and other services important to coastal Alaska that Dunleavy has a record of attacking. We need Kreiss-Tomkins’ leadership in the Alaska House of Representatives now more than ever. The Bipartisan Coalition he is a part of is a firewall for policies championed by a Railbelt, anti-commercial fishing governor like Dunleavy.
Please vote on Nov. 6. Vote against Dunleavy for governor. Vote for Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins for State House. Vote in support of Southeast fishermen.
Monica Eastham, Sitka
Ballot Measure 1
Dear Editor: My name is Lauren Mitchell and here is what I have to say!
Although I haven’t been a member of the community of Sitka as long as some, I feel more at home here than anywhere else in the past 14 years. I’ve found my calling as a tenderman, bought property, and found my passion in catching, hunting, and harvesting the natural bounty this state provides. The community, the lifestyle, the sense of belonging I feel in this incredible place – all of it is intrinsically tied to salmon. I am voting YES on 1 because this measure represents my career, my lifelihood, and the community I chose to live in.
Everything I love about Alaska can be found in this measure. It works to protect habitat for our wild salmon populations and the future generations of fishermen, tendermen, and subsistence harvesters that they will sustain. It creates an opportunity for Alaskan voices to be heard in the permitting process. Our voices should be on the same level as the multinational corporations that would seek to harm our resources for short-term monetary gain. Ballot Measure One establishes science-based standards for habitat protection, prioritizing scientific facts over the whims of politicians. It is a step towards ensuring that we don’t irreparably harm these habitats and the essential fish populations that they support.
Between now and Nov. 6, Alaskans have a choice. Do we want to take a chance on change, and update antiquated laws that were written almost 60 years ago, when Alaska became a state dependent on boom-bust resource extraction cycles? Or do we want to live in fear of the ‘‘unintended consequences’’ of this measure? If we don’t take action the future of our fish is certain. The multinational corporations behind the opposition to this ballot measure (including Exxon, Hecla Mining, ConocoPhillips and BP) are stoking doubt and divisions, along with the fear of the unknown in our communities. But we are Alaskans – we are pioneers! The backbone of this state is made up of indigenous communities who have withstood thousands of years of hardship and remain resilient, as well as us newer arrivals who have braved the weather, the remoteness, and the high costs of living because we LOVE THIS LIFE.
We do not want to follow the paths of California, Washington, Oregon, Scotland, Norway, or other places who have developed their lands and waters and seen their salmon runs go extinct as a result. We are looking towards the future of Alaska, a future characterized by sustainable communities, responsible development, and healthy people who still rely on wild salmon to nourish themselves and their lifestyles.
I choose the future of salmon over making short-term millions. I choose the future of salmon over deceitful misinformation campaigns. I choose the future of salmon over fear, doubt and uncertainty. I choose to take a chance on protecting salmon habitat, a chance that the Alaska Legislature will have the opportunity to review, change, or scrap entirely in two years. The decisions we make now may not stand the test of time if the Legislature decides to weaken this ballot measure after it becomes law – but it does show our elected leaders where Alaskans stand. I stand with a sustainable, prosperous future for Alaska, and the salmon we all depend on – and that is why I am voting YES ON 1.
Lauren Mitchell, Sitka
