Alaska Bristol Bay Mining Ban, Ballot Measure 4 (2014)

Ballot Measure 4 Type Initiated state statute Origin Citizens Topic Business regulation Status Approved a

2014 measures August 19 Ballot Measure 1 d November 4 Ballot Measure 2 a Ballot Measure 3 a Ballot Measure 4 a Endorsements • Full text Advertisements • Polls Expenditures Local measures

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 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.

Election results

Below are the official, certified election results:

Alaska Ballot Measure 4
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		180,490	65.94%
No		93,212	34.06%

Election results via: Alaska Division of Elections

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title of this measure read as follows:

“

Ballot Measure No. 4 - 12BBAY An Act Providing for Protection of Bristol Bay Wild Salmon and Waters Within or Flowing Into the Existing 1972 Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve

”

Ballot summary

The full ballot summary read as follows:

“

This bill would require the legislature to approve future large-scale metallic sulfide mines in the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve (BBFR) by passing a law. The law would have to find that any proposed mine would not endanger the BBFR fishery. The approval would be in addition to any other required permits or authorizations. The bill defines “large-scale metallic sulfide mining operation” as “a specific mining proposal to extract metals, including gold and copper, from sulfide-bearing rock and that would directly disturb 640 or more acres of land.” The bill lets the Department of Natural Resources adopt regulations. The bill would make findings. The bill’s findings would be that the legislature found the BBFR important by creating it in 1972; that the bill’s protections are necessary; that protecting the waters and wild salmon of the BBFR is of statewide interest based on the region’s fisheries, economic benefits, cultural heritage, and unique wild salmon resources; and that metallic sulfide mining may harm these interests because mines can produce toxins and pollutants. The bill intends the legislature to approve any large-scale metallic sulfide mine in the BBFR or which could adversely affect its watershed. The bill would apply only to large-scale metallic sulfide mines in the BBFR that lack all required permits, licenses, or approvals before the bill’s effective date. Should this initiative become law?

”

Full initiative text

The full initiative text read as follows:

Bristol Bay Forever” Initiative A BILL BY INITIATIVE

FOR AN ACT PROVIDING FOR PROTECTION OF BRISTOL BAY WID SLAMON AND WATERS WITHIN OR FLOWING INTO THE EXISTING 1972 BRISTOL BAY FISHERIES RESERVE

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Alaska:

Section 1. AS 38.05, is amended by adding a new section to read:

Sec. 38.05.142. Legislative approval required for certain large scale mines. (a) In addition to permits and authorizations otherwise required by law, a final authorization must be obtained from the legislature for a large-scale metallic sulfide mining operation located within the watershed of the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve designated in AS 38.05.140(f). This authorization shall take the form of a duly enacted law finding that the proposed large-scale metallic sulfide mining operation will not constitute danger to the fishery within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve.

(b) The commissioner may adopt regulations under AS 44.62 to implement this section.

(c) In this section, “large-scale metallic sulfide mining operation” means a specific mining proposal to extract metals, including gold and copper, from sulfide-bearing rock and that would directly disturb 640 or more acres of land.

Section 2. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a section to read:

The People of Alaska find as follows:

(1) In 1972, the Alaska Legislature recognized the statewide importance of this region by establishing the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve to protect the salmon fisheries of the region by requiring legislative approval of permits to develop oil and gas leases within the Reserve;

(2) Given the recognized statewide importance of the Reserve, and given the potential of metallic sulfide mining to adversely affect and pollute the waters of the Reserve the people of Alaska believe that certain large scale mining projects must live up to the same standards that have been applied to oil and gas development within the Reserve since 1972;

(3) The Bristol Bay region of Alaska, including its multiple rivers, lakes, and streams, is a wild salmon producing region of statewide interest because the various fisheries in that region (a) feed and employ residents from across the state; (b) provide important statewide economic benefits; (c) produce one-third of the world’s wild sockeye salmon supply.

(4) For thousands of years, the wild salmon of the Bristol Bay watersheds have sustained the subsistence and cultural lifestyles of Alaska Natives in many parts of Alaska;

(5) The wild salmon of Bristol Bay and its watersheds also support vital and growing sport and commercial fishing industries which provide important statewide economic benefits;

(6) The genetic diversity of the distinct salmon populations in the region is one of the primary reasons the wild salmon of the region are resilient and have remained abundant. Accordingly, each individual salmon population is an integral and irreplaceable part of the overall resource;

(7) As wild salmon resources decline worldwide, the value to Alaska of Bristol Bay’s wild salmon resources continues to grow. The increasing value of this extraordinary and unique resource to all citizens of Alaska warrants additional protective measures for the wild salmon in the waters that drain into the waters of the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve;

(8) Metallic sulfide mining has the potential to adversely affect salmon resources because the byproducts of such mining can adversely alter the chemistry of waters inhabited by salmon during their lives and can have very serious consequences on the survival of individual salmon populations, subspecies and species. Accordingly, it is a matter of statewide public interest to ensure that the world’s greatest wild salmon producing watersheds are protected from pollution and toxic materials and particularly effects uniquely associated with large-scale metallic sulfide mining.

(9) The protective measures of this Act are reasonably based on the need to safeguard the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. The facts, evidence and reasoning upon which the Alaska Legislature based its creation of the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve in 1972 also support the need for the protective measures of this Act; and

(10) It is the intent of this Act to require legislative approval of any large-scale metallic sulfide mining operation within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve, or which has the potential to adversely affect any anadromous waters within the reserve.

Section 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:

AS 38.05.142, as enacted by section 2 of this Act, applies only to large-scale metallic sulfide mining operations that have not received all necessary authorizations, licenses, permits, or approved plans of operation before the effective date of this Act. The legislative action required in AS 38.05.142(a) does not apply to an existing mining operation in the state or a mine that does not affect the watershed described in AS 38.05.142(a).

Section 4. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:

It is the intention of the people of Alaska that the provisions of AS 38.05.142, as enacted, are independent and severable, and if any provision of AS 38.05.142 shall be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of AS 38.05.142 shall not be affected and shall be given effect to the fullest extent possible.

Section 5. Effective Date. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:

This Act takes effect 90 days after enactment.

Background

The Bristol Bay Fisheries reserve, an area of approximately 36,000 square miles located in the southeastern part of Alaska, was established by the state legislature in 1972 due to concerns regarding the development of gas and oil in the area. Previously, the reserve required legislative approval only for oil and gas facilities built in the waters. As of 2014, this provision had never been employed. 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.

In 2008, a similar ballot measure, also known as Measure 4, was put before voters. This initiative sought to stem the discharge of toxic materials from large metallic mineral mines in Alaska. It was particularly directed at the Pebble Mine, which was located in the Bristol Bay watershed. Voters turned down the measure by a vote of 56.4 to 43.6 percent.

Support

The campaign in support of the initiative was led by the organization Bristol Bay Forever.

Supporters

• Christina Salmon, initiative sponsor
• Anders Gustafson, executive director of the Renewable Resources Coalition

Arguments

On the Bristol Bay Forever website, supporters listed three reasons for voters to protect the Bristol Bay area and vote "yes" on Ballot Measure 4. The reasons were as follows:

“	10,000 Jobs are linked to sockeye salmon production from Bristol Bay. Annual economic impact to Alaska is estimated to be between $318 and $578 million. 31 million sockeye salmon spawn in Bristol Bay each year. That’s one-third of the world’s supply.	”
—Bristol Bay Forever

• Bobby Andrew, Yup’ik spokesman, said, "The commercial fishing industry is against it, the tourism industry is against it and the Native People within the region are totally against the project because without clean water and salmon in the region we won’t be able to survive. The basis of our whole diet is salmon."

Campaign contributions

One committee—Yes! Yes! Yes! on 2, 3, and 4—was registered to support all three measures on the November 2014 ballot in Alaska. The committee reported $125,000 in contributions and expenditures. All of the committee's funds were provided by the Progressive Kick Independent Expenditures, which was located in Oakland, California.

Opposition

Opponents

• Deantha Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Miners Association
• Richard Hughes, mining engineer/consultant
• Alaska Miners Association

Arguments

The Alaska Miners Association put together a presentation in opposition to Ballot Measure 4. The group said Ballot Measure 4:

“	Creates uncertainty and politicizes our scientific permitting process Sets undefined and unclear standards: what does “has the potential to adversely affect” mean? Sets bad precedent and provides avenue for this type of action to creep to other locations and projects in Alaska Imposes additional burden on Legislature and permitting agencies with no added benefit Jeopardizes investment, development, and Alaska’s economy Begs the question – does Alaska support responsible resource development?	”
—Alaska Miners Association

The group further explained that voters should vote "no" on the measure for the following reasons:

“	Alaska’s permitting process should be scientific, not political BM4 does not reconcile with Alaska’s Constitution Discourages investment and stifles Alaska’s economy These issues are much too complex to discuss via citizen initiatives	”
—Alaska Miners Association

Reports and analyses

Environmental Protection Agency

A map of the Bristol Bay watershed, including the Pebble Mine location.

EPA Mine Scenario Assessments (Table 1) Parameter Pebble 0.25 Pebble 2.0 Pebble 6.0 Miles of streams lost 24 miles 55 miles 94 miles Miles of adverse streamflow 9.3 miles 17 miles 33 miles Miles of streams toxic to fish 0 miles 14.9 miles 21.1 - 35.4 miles Miles of streams toxic to invertebrates 13 miles 24.9 - 38.5 miles 37.3 - 51 miles Wetlands reduction 1,200 acres 3,000 acres 4,900 acres Ponds and lakes reduction 100 acres 230 acres 450 acres

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an assessment related to the “many but not all” impacts on salmonoid-related ecosystems that would be caused by the Pebble Mine. The EPA analyzed three possible ore production scenarios: (1) 0.25 billion tons produced over two decades; (2) 2.0 billion tons produced over two decades; and (3) 6.5 billion tons produced over two decades. The mining site’s claim-holder estimated that 11 billion tons could be produced over two decades. This estimation was not included in the EPA’s assessment. Table 1 is a limited selection from the administration's published findings.

Table 1 does not take into account “indirect affects” reported by the EPA, such as reduced food resources, reduced winter fish habitat, less suitable waters for spawning and rearing and seasonal water temperature modifications. The EPA also reported a wide range of potential mining-related infrastructure failures, including, but not limited to, tailings dams leaking or bursting, chemical concentrate spill into streams or wetlands, diesel pipeline spill, culvert failure, truck accidents and post-mine site abandonment leaks. The mine's ecological footprint would have direct and indirect local effects on brown bears, wolves, bald eagles and other wildlife that consume salmon, as well as the aquatic and terrestrial nutrient cycles.

There are two indigenous salmon-based societies in the watershed, the Yup’ik and the Dena’ina. Salmon are an important foundation for both tribes’ metabolic and social reproduction, as salmon play a role as a major food source and in their languages, religions and cultures. According to the EPA, the mine would likely force tribal fishing and hunting practices to change in response to the mine’s ecological footprint. The mine could severely damage the salmon population, causing a decline in a tribe’s nutrition and health.

To read the executive summary, see here.

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Alaska ballot measures, 2014

Opposition

• The Daily News-Miner said,

“	Mining opponents are hoping that negative sentiment toward the Pebble project will carry Ballot Measure 4 into law. That shouldn’t happen, because though the intentions of the initiative’s authors are good, the result is a measure that would create a dangerous precedent if passed, subjecting resource development projects to an unhelpful and political process after all meaningful hurdles have been cleared. Alaska voters would be wise to reject Ballot Measure 4.	”
—Daily News-Miner

• The Juneau Empire said,

“	Ballot Measure 4 is overkill, and we believe Alaskans should oppose it because of its potential to harm future projects that are not Pebble Mine. Ballot Measure 4, if approved by voters, would require large-scale mining projects within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve to first be approved by the Alaska Legislature in law. The Empire is firmly opposed to Pebble Mine. Under normal circumstances, we support any measure to block its development. It is the wrong type of mine in the wrong place. However, Ballot Measure 4 is overkill, and it has the potential to harm good projects not yet envisioned.	”
—Juneau Empire

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

The following poll was not directly related to Measure 4. The poll, conducted by Benenson Strategy Group, asked voters about their views on the mining plan. "Support," in this context, meant to oppose the mine, whereas "oppose" meant to support the mining plan.

Alaska Measure 4 (2014)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Benenson Strategy Group 5/13/2014 - 5/15/2014	62%	33%	5%	+/-4.0	600
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014

Hughes vs. Treadwell et al.

In January 2013, Richard Hughes, a mining engineer, filed a lawsuit against the initiative's certification by Lt. Gov Mead Treadwell (R) in the Alaska Fourth Judicial District. The Alaska Miners Association and the Council of Alaska Producers joined as plaintiffs. Hughes and plaintiffs argued that the initiative would, according to the court's summary, "(1) enact local or special legislation in violation of article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution; (2) violate separation of powers under article XII, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution; and (3) appropriate state assets in violation of article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution." Judge Paul Lyle ruled against all three points made by Hughes. However, Hughes appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued their order on June 23, 2014. The court affirmed the superior court ruling made by Judge Paul Lyle.

Matt Singer, a lawyer for Hughes, said they were disappointed. He noted, "[T]he decision reflects the court's evolving preference for refraining from pre-election review."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

Supporters of the initiative effort were required to submit 30,169 valid signatures by the January 9, 2014, deadline. Supporters successfully turned in 30,210 valid signatures, thereby securing a place on the ballot for the initiative.

2014 ballot placement

All four measures set to appear on the state ballot in 2014 were originally slated to appear on the August 19 primary ballot. However, only one, a veto referendum, was on the primary ballot. The three others, including Ballot Measure 4, were scheduled to appear on the November 4 general election ballot. The 2014 legislative session began on January 21, 2014, and was scheduled to conclude on April 20, 2014. Instead, it ended on April 25, 2014, five days after its scheduled conclusion. Because lawmakers couldn't agree on an education bill, the 2014 session surpassed its deadline. Since legislators failed to end the session on time, the three initiated state statutes were pushed from the August primary ballot to the general one in November, as Alaska law mandates at least 120 days separate the end of the legislative session and Election Day for initiatives. Voter turnout for general elections has historically been greater than that of the primaries. Therefore, more residents might have cast votes on this issue than if the question appeared on the primary ballot.

See also

Suggest a link

• Alaska 2014 ballot measures
• 2014 ballot measures
• Alaska Initiative Law
• Alaska signature requirements

External links

Support

• Bristol Bay Forever
• Bristol Bay Forever Facebook
• Bristol Bay Forever Twitter