1) Sign the Petition

Homer residents have repeatedly voiced strong support for better protections for wetlands and waters within the limits of the City. Now those areas are threatened by the Trump administration’s efforts to gut the ability of the Army Corp of Engineers which typically implements federal Clean Water Act protections over wetlands, rivers and marine waters. The Homer City Council now as a chance to step in to fill in the gaps left by federal regulatory roll-backs through by updated the City’s Planning Code. Let’s tell the Council that we want let our wetlands and watersheds fall through the cracks sign the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society petition requesting regulations that protect these areas.

2) Comment on the Public Review Draft for the Changes to the Planning Code

There is less than one month remaining before the Rule 21 changes comment period deadline of May 15, 2026. Here are some resources to help you review the proposed updated code:

a. How to Navigate the Public Review Draft of the Revised Code – March 2026 – 3.2 MB
A step-by-step guide to help you understand the structure of the draft code and quickly find topics of interest.

2. Public Review Draft Revised Code (Full) – March 2026 – 2 MB
   The complete proposed Title 21 code presented in a clean format without tracked changes.

3. Public Review Draft Revised Code (Full – Redline Version) – April 2026 – 2.3 MB
   The full draft code with edits visible, showing proposed changes from the existing code.

d. Proposed Table of Allowable Uses by District – March 2026
A consolidated table showing proposed permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses across all zoning districts.

5. Proposed Table of Dimensional and Intensity Standards – March 2026
   A summary of proposed development standards, including setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, and other key metrics by district.

6. Proposed Updated Zoning Map – March 2026
   A map showing the proposed zoning districts across Homer, reflecting how the updated code would apply geographically.

Note: All documents are available for review via hard copy at the Homer City Hall (491 E. Pioneer Avenue) and the Homer Library (500 Hazel Avenue).

Here’s how to share your comments, questions, and suggestions by May 15, 2026.

• Download the comment form here.

• Contact the project team: Ryan Foster, City of Homer City Planner, at rfoster@ci.homer.ak.us and Shelly Wade, Agnew::Beck Consultant Project Manager at shelly@agnewbeck.com.

3) Comment on the Proposed Bradly Lake Hydro-Power Extension

Earth Day is also a way to celebrate the transition to green energy. At the same time, if we must transition to alternative energy, there is no need to ignore the human and environmental impacts such sources may have. The Alaska Energy Authority is moving towards applying for an amendment to the Bradly Lake Hydro-Power project to construct a diversion at in Dixon Creek. Because the Dixen Creek diversion would impact flows, and the fish and wildlife that rely on this ecosystem, it is imperative that the DAA and supporting documentation analyzes existing baseline data and the impacts of the proposed licensing amendment on instream flows, connectivity, fish and wildlife productivity, hydrologically connected groundwater, and water quality to understand how the ecosystem will respond to the proposed project in light of climate change impacts. We can have clean energy and healthy aquatic habitat too.

Comments on the DAA can be submitted up through May 13 through the FERC docket for at: eLibrary | General search(reference docket no. P-8221-123). Because the FERC process can be somewhat cumbersome and complicated, as an alternative, you can send your comments to: Jennifer.Gut@KleinschmidtGroup.com.

Take the Alaska Energy Authority, for example, which has submitted a draft application for an amendment to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (DAA). The proposed amendment would allow AEA to divert flows from Dixon Creek in order to raise Bradley Lake’s normal maximum operating elevation by 16 feet. Together, these two components would increase the Bradley Lake Project’s power output by approximately 38 percent.

Although AEA claims to have worked with numerous state and federal resource agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, interested Tribes and regional corporations, and concerned citizens to inform the DAA and supporting Study Plans as well as potential protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures that AEA is proposing, none of these documents so much as mentions the term “climate change” much less the impacts of rapid changes on aquatic species or the project itself.

DAA and supporting study plans are completely devoid of any reference to impending climate changes because the consultants working with AEA have concluded that such climate forecasting is “out of the scope” of the proposed project. This seems like an odd justification when the license amendment will alter flows in Dixon Creek over the next several decades potentially exacerbating the impacts of projected higher temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen, and turbidity on fish and wildlife habitat in the Creek. Unfortunately, AEA has no idea what these impacts might be because neither the Aquatic Resources nor the Wildlife Habitat Evaluation reports conducted in support of the Expansion includes any information on whether the Creek includes such habitat. This is regardless of the fact that the greatly reduced snowpack in the Kachemak Bay watershed during 2024 and 25 is just one illustration of a rapidly changing climate and streamflow impacts from the receding Dixon Glacier.

Loss of flows in Dixon Creek can also affect groundwater, which directly affects Salmon because it is critical for adequate stream flow, stream temperatures, and stream nutrients. Approximately half of summer stream flow originates from underground seeps and springs, which are cooler than ambient stream water in summer and warmer in winter, providing important thermal refugia for salmonids. According to a study conducted by the University of Alaska on impacts of rapidly decreasing glaciers in Kachemak Bay and submarine groundwater discharge on the marine environment, groundwater from glacial melt is critically important for critical for “numerical simulations of groundwater flow, tidal pumping and chemical reactions and transport.”

In addition, Bradly Lake already carries heavy glacial flour increasing sediment pulses from glacial meltwater coming from Nuka Glacier. Increased flows into the Lake coming from the retreating Dixon Glacier, therefore, could have significant impacts on salmon in the Martin River below the Lake. In addition to slowed growth in smolts from cold water, this increased turbidity and bedload movement can smother eggs and reduce oxygen flow in redds, degrade spawning gravels, resulting in reduced egg survival, and reduce juvenile feeding efficiency.

Ironically, while the Bradly Lake Expansion proposal seems to rely heavily on the impacts of climate change on the Dixon Glacier because of increased flows, it completely fails to analyze those impacts, ignoring analysis of how rapidly increasing temperatures and reduced snowpack will affect the Glacier’s ability to continue to provide increased flows to Bradly Lake for power production purposes. Neither the DAA nor any of the supporting studies provides any information on how long the Dixon Glacier might last before it is gone, and Dixon Creek will no longer provide flows to Bradly Lake. This would not only affect hydropower production, but also aquatic habitat.

Because the Dixon Creek diversion would impact flows, and the fish and wildlife that rely on this ecosystem, it is imperative that the DAA and supporting documentation analyzes existing baseline data and the impacts of the proposed licensing amendment on instream flows, connectivity, fish and wildlife productivity, hydrologically connected groundwater, and water quality to understand how the ecosystem will respond to the proposed project in light of climate change impacts. We can have clean energy and healthy aquatic habitats too.

Comments on the DAA can be submitted up through May 13 through the FERC docket at: eLibrary | General search(reference docket no. P-8221-123).

The primary purpose of the fly-in was to educate lawmakers about the need for the State’s mining industry to begin paying its fair share of the environmental and economic costs of mining to help relieve Alaska’s growing budget crisis. The state’s current tax structure was drafted in 1913, long before statehood, and has not been updated since 1955, when the government was attempting to incentivize a mining industry composed of individual prospectors and small mines – a foregone era that crafted mining policy that is completely politically, economically, and technologically incompatible with the present day.

According to a report commissioned by the Alaska Conservation Fund and prepared by AKWA-DC, LLC, “[t]oday, when Alaska’s large-scale hardrock mining industry is controlled by multinational, multibillion-dollar corporations, this tax structure is woefully out of date.”[1] As if huge profits from pulling minerals out of the ground weren’t enough to incentivize mining corporations, they are also taking advantage of a host of subsidies under the Alaska Minerals License Tax. Operators, for example, are still taxed on royalties on the operator’s net rather than gross income, meaning that deductions can reduce this tax burden to almost nothing, particularly in the more remote regions of the state where operating expenses can be high.

In addition, large mining projects often funnel profits out of the state, contravening Alaska’s Constitution, which requires that the state’s natural resources be developed for the maximum use consistent with the public interest and rural communities, which often see none of the benefits of these projects while being the most likely to be impacted by mining development, including catastrophic mining spill events.

Finally, there are the environmental costs. According to the Report, these include the “potential impacts from large mining projects on other Alaska industries—chief among them fishing, subsistence, and tourism—could be catastrophic, and the state cannot bear the economic burden of any resulting industry crash” and “[r]eclamation estimates are chronically lower than the costs necessary to restore habitat, often resulting in additional costs passed on to the taxpayer.”[2]

With Alaska on the verge of economic collapse, the “state is risking heavily investing in an industry with a net negative economic and environmental impact….”[3]

Another reason to reform Alaska’s mining taxation is a lack of oversight and outright corruption at the federal level.

The Trump administration is not only making it easier for the extraction industry to avoid paying royalties that compensate taxpayers for polluting public lands and waters but also implementing taxpayer-funded investments to prop up mining companies themselves. Under Trump’s second term, his administration has gone even further than abusive public land management practices to satisfy extraction interests by breaking with traditional Republican orthodoxy and making direct taxpayer-financed investments in private mining companies. This snapping up of stakes in mining and minerals processing companies, federal interventions include an $8.9 billion purchase of Intel Corp stock, a $400 million investment in rare earths miner MP Materials, with more to come. Because such investments are political, they are naturally taking place without congressional approval at an extraordinary pace, raising important ethical, governance, and environmental concerns.

These largely under-the-radar policies take place without public disclosure and focus on highly speculative companies with little transparency into how they are chosen. Combined with lax regulation and weak oversight, this lack of visibility paves the way for resource exploitation and unprecedented profits for major mining corporations.

Department of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, for example, recently issued permits for the mining industry’s long-sought-after Ambler Road that would cross 200 miles of pristine Alaska wilderness and subsistence use areas. Canadian mining company Trilogy Metals not only benefits from the controversial project in order to gain access to copper-rich projects in the Ambler Mining District, but it also made about $8.7 million in profit by exercising stock options during the immediate share price spike after the October 6 announcement that the Pentagon would purchase nearly $36 million in company stock. This sent the company’s shares above $10 per share, up from 57 cents before Trump’s election.

Meanwhile, the impacts of mining industry favoritism on subsistence-based communities are increasing. Emily Murray, a traditional elder living in the Native Village of Elim and President of the Norton Bay Watershed Council, said in a recent Letter to the Editor in the Nome Nugget:

Our fresh, clean water will begin to become contaminated with chemicals when mining begins. Clean water not only allows our wild greens & berries to grow, but sustains the fish & animals we live on. As seen around the world, indigenous people are being dispossessed of their land by mining on or near their traditional lands. Mining companies promise they will ‘repair’ the water even better than they found it. Habitats can & will be destroyed by extensive mining. Young people who study science know that you cannot ‘repair’ clean water. They know that minute bugs exist only in clean, healthy rivers & streams.

Can the Alaska State legislature step in to fill in the chasm of mining regulatory reform so badly needed to reverse the regulatory rollbacks and corruption at the federal level? Maybe. Of all places, our Ruby red state, which has a MAGA in the Governor’s office, also has the distinction of being the only state in the country to use ranked-choice voting. This process ensures candidates are elected by a majority of voters rather than the closed primary system, which allows a small minority to elect fringe candidates with extreme ideologies. In part due to Alaska’s voting process, we also have the distinction of being the only state with a bipartisan coalition in both houses of the legislature.

Does this mean there is hope for mining tax reform in Alaska? We’ll see when Mr. Shepherd returns to Juneau during next year’s legislative season when a bill to reform the state’s mining tax laws will be introduced.

[1] Hardrock Mining Taxation in Alaska, A Historical, Economic, and Political Analysis, Executive Summary (December 2025)(Mining Taxation in Alaska).

[2]Ibid.

[3]Ibid.

A Place for the Birds – The Legacy of Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge explores the early history of Fairbanks, Alaska, and a family of dairy farmers who, for sixty years, met the needs of the growing community while serving as a haven for migratory waterfowl. Arriving by steamship from Nome, the Creamer family settled in Fairbanks in 1904, just two years after the gold mining town sprang up on the banks of the Chena River. Starting with three cows, the dairy expanded in size and capacity. At the same time, the farm became a social hub, with barn dances and school tours, offering a front-row seat to the cacophony of Sandhill Cranes, Canada and Snow Geese, and ducks drawn to the melt ponds and spent grain. In the late 1960s, the farm fell on hard times, but rather than see the 247 acres of fields and forests succumb to development, the Fairbanks community raised money for a down payment through donations and bake sales. Their timely intervention allowed the State of Alaska to secure the funds to purchase the fields, incorporate an additional 1,700 acres of State lands, and designate the farm as a Migratory Waterfowl Refuge under the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Jessica Shepherd holds a BA in Environmental Biology from the University of Colorado Boulder, an MA in Northern Studies from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and an MFA in Creative Writing, non-fiction, from the University of Alaska Anchorage. In addition to a 30-year career as a science writer and educator, and research manager with the State of Alaska, she has published essays in 49 Writers, Alaska Women Speak, Humans of the World, Sad Girls Club, and Hip Pocket Press.

Illustrator Mark D. Ross is a a life-long artist and naturalist residing in Alaska’s Interior, Mark has shared his artwork and discoveries across mediums: in person, print, and radio, spanning a 35-year career as an environmental educator with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. Mark’s field sketchbook, Creamer’s Sounds and Sights is available for purchase.

Get your copy of A Place for the Birds through Amazon.com, Barnes and Nobel, or request it through your favorite independent book store!

You know, somebody has to be alert all the time. We must watch Congress daily. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is in such a precarious position right now, politically. All some people can see in these lands is oil, which means money, which translates into greed.

~ Margaret Murie in conversation with Terry Tempest Williams, circa 1996.

The tiny Cessna 185, loaded with field gear, threaded through the White Mountains north of Fairbanks, Alaska. Above a sparsely wooded slope, Pilot Mike Vivian tilted the plane and pointed out a large brown bear in a clearing below, the first I had ever seen. There was no point in talking over the engine’s growl, and I just nodded with enthusiasm. We continued north above stunted black spruce until the Yukon River came into view. At some point, we crossed an invisible boundary into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mike banked right, and we followed the wide river northeast until we reached the mouth of the Porcupine River, one of the Yukon’s larger tributaries. Observing its braiding, snaking channel below us, I had the impression of a land as old as time, unspoiled by human progress.

The year was 1993. I had driven up from Arizona for a seasonal job with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. New to Alaska, I was keen to see the arctic and experience first-hand this remote and storied wilderness.

When the Porcupine River narrowed into a canyon below us, Mike eased back on the throttle and began to descend. He flew low, watching the river until he spotted a red Zodiac pulled up on shore. We made out two people climbing the steep bank, working their way toward a peregrine nest near the top of the bluff. They waved in recognition, and Mike waggled the wings in reply before making a tight U-turn and heading back downriver a few miles where he brought the plane in for a rugged landing on a long sandbar. The engine died, and Mike popped open his door.

“This is it. I’ll drop you here with your gear. The crew should be along soon.”

I climbed out, relayed equipment from the plane to a clearing above the beach, and held up a hand in farewell as Mike roared off. The engine’s whine remained long after the plane became a pinpoint and vanished, until only a great quiet remained. I looked around, taking in the small pile of camping gear, a shotgun for bears, the crumbling canyon walls, and the swollen river. I had never been so completely alone. A thrill of pleasure laced with trepidation ran through me.

Within the quiet, wind stirred the grass. A Savannah sparrow flushed, giving me a start. Insects droned—bees, mosquitoes, a brilliant blue dragonfly. The cloudy Porcupine River, laden with silt, shushed in her banks. I climbed the bluff to gain perspective and took in a mosaic of low spruce, alders, and grasses, and the ragged Brooks Range beyond. A trail ran along the bank, and I followed it upstream until I saw scat tufted with fur. Wolf. Realization dawned, along with a prick of unease—this trail was not man-made. I headed back to my provisions (and the shotgun), pulled out an apple, and sat down to take in the solitude and wait for my ride.

True to Mike’s words, the Zodiac rounded a bend about an hour later and made for the shore where I sat. Fran Mauer, a biologist with the Arctic Refuge, and Frank Keim, a volunteer with years of experience on the river, pulled the boat ashore and came over to introduce themselves.

“Ready to get to work?” Fran asked. He was a slight man with thinning hair under a red climbing helmet. Dressed in tan pants and shirt, and leather boots scuffed with wear, his manner was friendly yet professional.

“I am!” I answered, then handed my backpack and gun to Frank, who had already busied himself tying down the fat dry bag of food I’d brought along.

“There should be a nest on the far side,” Fran gestured, and pointed a short distance downriver to an area of whitewash where the adults often perched.

Tying up the Zodiac, we climbed the bluff while two peregrine falcons swooped above us, calling out a resonating “kee-kee-kee”. They were not happy with us. From the grassy top of the bluff, Frank worked his way down to the nest – a sheltered cavity in the rock face.

Between eighteen and twenty-eight days old, the chicks glared at us, hissing, gray and pink mouths open wide in alarm. They still had their downy feathers, but spiky brown wing and tail feathers were coming in. Frank handed the first chick up to me and I gripped the warm bundle with both hands, carefully avoiding his beak and needle-sharp claws. I could feel his heart thrum against my palm. His eyes were wells of black with blue pupils, and I had the uncanny sense he could see into my soul. Then I handed the chick to Fran for banding and reached down to Frank for the next one.

The Porcupine River winds with a lazy sinuosity at four or five miles an hour through the Arctic Refuge. Two expanses of canyon walls, called the Upper and Lower Ramparts, provide the highest concentration of peregrine nests. This is where we focused our search as part of a study that had been ongoing since 1979.

Peregrines are crow-sized falcons. Their slender wings are designed for remarkable speed and agility. Clocked at speeds of 240 miles per hour during dives, they are stealthy hunters. They may climb several hundred feet into the air to observe the river below with their keen eyesight. Then, prey spotted, they fold their wings and hurtle earthward, striking their target and often recovering from the dive in time to snatch the stunned bird before it hits the water. Their free fall makes an eerie sound, like a tiny meteorite whistling toward Earth.

As with most hawk species, female peregrines are larger than the males. Adults have slate-blue wings and dark-gray backs, creamy bellies with horizontal barring, and a distinctive black hood and sideburns on white cheeks.

Peregrines, along with other raptors including the American bald eagle, suffered dramatic population declines in the 1960s and ’70s due to the use of organochlorine pesticides like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Used extensively for pest management on crops in the United States and Mexico, the pesticides accumulated in the animals’ bodies in greater concentrations as they worked their way up the food chain. Peregrines primarily eat smaller birds, like pigeons, which ingested DDT in the grains they consumed. High DDT levels resulted in the formation of thin eggshells which were easily crushed during incubation.

In 1970, both the American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum, and the Arctic peregrine, Falco peregrinus tundrius, were listed on the federal register as endangered. Only the Peale’s peregrine population, Falco peregrinus pealei, remained stable. Being coastal birds, Peale’s don’t generally migrate and were not exposed to high toxin levels. DDT was banned nationwide in 1972, paving the way for a peregrine falcon comeback.

Fran explained, as he handed up a second chick, that the peregrines on the Porcupine were now recovering. The more favorable nest sites were all occupied, and younger birds without an established claim to a nest made do with more exposed sites. That summer, the survey tallied 30 nesting adults, and 49 chicks banded, plus a half dozen subadults.

Peregrine nests are rudimentary, consisting of a hollow within a rocky cliff or an abandoned stick nest left by an eagle or hawk. Devoid of down or soft grasses, they contain the bloodied bones and feathers of small birds the parents bring for their young. Each nest typically holds two or three chicks and sometimes as many as five.

Ever watchful of the parents who circled just overhead, we handled each chick only briefly before returning them to the nest with a silver band bearing a unique number. These bands, if collected from a dead or captured bird, would provide the year and location of their birth. Birds banded on the Porcupine River have been recovered in North Carolina, Florida, Mexico, Brazil, and as far south as Argentina. It’s fitting that the name peregrine, from the Latin Peregrinus, means “foreigner” or “traveler.”

We made camp as the sun hugged the horizon. It was after ten o’clock, but this far north, in July, the sun never sets. Downriver from a peregrine nest, we were close enough to observe the birds yet far enough away not to disturb them. We watched them hunt cliff swallows, which also nest along the Ramparts. One swallow, in desperation, dove below the water’s surface to avoid capture. The peregrine, waiting on the wing, swooped down and snatched it up after it resurfaced for the third or fourth time. I couldn’t help but think of his tiny bones littering the peregrine’s nest.

Back on the river the next morning, we sat on the Zodiac and drifted, listening and watching for peregrine. There was minimal boat traffic, never more than two or three boats a day. That morning, we’d met a German couple as we prepared to break camp, and later, drifted past them as they sat naked in their tent. Most of the boats we saw were operated by state or federal employees, and Fran and Frank introduced me to everyone we met. There was camaraderie among these people who devoted their careers to wildlife and wild rivers.

We banded chicks from two or three nests per day, depending on how difficult they were to reach. Sometimes we climbed the steep slope, and Fran, in his helmet and leather gloves, rappelled a few yards down, then handed up the chicks to Frank and me to band. At other times, the nests were easy to approach, and we squatted nearby with our banding equipment.

On the river, we were treated to sightings of Pacific loons, their long, silver necks gleaming in the sunlight. The sound from the boat motor flushed them up and they flew away from us, low across the water, in twos or threes. We also startled large flocks of Canada geese. These were molting birds, unable to fly until their wing feathers grew back. Vulnerable to predation, they vocalized their alarm and hurried awkwardly toward the shore where they hid among the sedges, water churning around them.

On the third evening, as we motored toward camp after our final nest of the day, Fran pointed out a black bear sow and her yearling cub swimming across the river up ahead. Another cub, already on shore, called impatiently for her and scampered back and forth. The sow hauled herself from the water, shook the moisture from her head and shoulders in a great spray, and ambled into the brush to join her cub. The second cub made its way onto shore and ran bawling to her, throwing a worried look in our direction. We were now within a hundred yards, idling the boat engine. This cub was a cinnamon black bear, the only one I’ve ever seen. His coat was red-brown with a golden cast, evident even with water streaming off. Together the bears moved into the willows, dissolving into the tree line as we motored past.

On the last night of the trip, as we readied our campsite, the drone of an engine caught our attention. It was another Fish and Wildlife Service pilot, Roger Kaye, here to retrieve me. But rather than expecting me to pack for the return flight, his door opened, and a sleeping bag thudded to the ground, followed by a tent. We helped him secure the plane, built up the fire, and added more noodles to the pot.

Late into the evening, as the fire popped and sent sparks into a sky that would not grow dark for several more weeks, the men talked. New to Alaska and to this way of life, I took it all in, appreciating the opportunity to hear their perspectives.

Roger, smoking a cigar that drifted a pleasant tobacco smell my way, talked about the Arctic Refuge as if it were, like the peregrines, on the threatened and endangered list.

I didn’t understand. “How could anywhere be wilder than this?” I asked him, gesturing to imply the river and the Arctic plain beyond.

“The wilderness isn’t what it used to be,” he said, prodding the fire with a stick. “Transmission towers are going up, along with dozens of new airstrips, and now, with aerial images, you can plan out everything before you ever leave home. It takes the adventure out of traveling in the Arctic. We’re losing what it means to be wild.”

“People don’t want true wilderness. They want safe adventure. If they get into trouble, they can use a satellite phone to call for help. And in ten years, or twenty, we may lose even that watered-down version of wilderness. The oil companies are pushing to open the Refuge to oil development. If they get their way, there will be roads, and pipelines, and pump stations the length of the coastal plain.” Fran added.

“The tundra is fragile,” Roger continued, speaking in earnest now, willing me to understand. “It doesn’t heal in ten years or a hundred. Any development footprint we leave here will irreparably change this place.”

I considered this. What I had thought of as a protected wilderness was, in fact, threatened. The battle to keep it wild and undeveloped might protect this pristine corner of Alaska for a time. Yet one act of Congress could bring about a change that would forever alter the health and continuity of this landscape.

The following summer, in 1994, I moved to Alaska permanently and returned again to the Porcupine River to band peregrines. That year, the Fish and Wildlife Service removed Arctic peregrine falcons from the endangered species list due to their rebounding population. In 1999, I cheered the additional delisting of the American peregrine falcon. We had done right by them in removing toxins from their wintering grounds. But would we continue to do right by keeping their nesting environment and the rest of the Arctic Refuge intact?

Now, 33 years and half a lifetime later, the Trump administration is paving the way for oil drilling lease sales that would open the entire 1.56-million-acre Coastal Plain, which makes up the northern edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If he has his way, four sales mandated by his “One Big Beautiful Bill” would parcel off in tracts of at least 400,000 acres to drilling, road construction, miles of pipeline, tailing ponds, and man-camps.

Unfortunately, protection for the Coastal Plain was not included in the 1980 wilderness bill, leaving Congress to decide its fate, and in 2017, during the first Trump administration, Congress authorized opening the area to oil leasing.

One can only hope this auction will fall as flat as the 2021 lease sale which yielded no bids by major oil companies. The lack of interest was due to low oil prices and the high cost of developing such remote fields, and to public outcry, and the uncertainty of lease validity under constantly shifting political will. The only bids came from the State-sponsored Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, and one small oil company, which later withdrew its bid. But putting virgin land, some would say, hallowed grounds, on the auction block is Trump’s way of thumbing his nose at environmentalists who value wilderness even when they may never personally set foot there.

No drilling, other than one test well, has occurred on the Arctic Refuge, despite decades of political wrangling. The findings have never been made public, and interest by oil moguls has been lukewarm. And yet the push for drilling continues to drive lawsuits by the Gwich’in people of northeastern Alaska and Canada. Their connection to this land is utterly integral to their spiritual and cultural identity.

“It is easy for people to understand the intimate connection between a mother and child. This may be the easiest way for people to understand the Gwich’in connection to the Porcupine Caribou herd. It feeds our heart, mind, body, and the soul of the Gwich’in Nation and has done so for millennia.”

~ Chief Dana Tizya-Tramm

The Porcupine Caribou Herd, which is in sharp decline, calves on the Coastal Plains. The population count was 143,000 as of July 4, 2025, down from 218,000 during the 2017 photo census. This decline is due, in part, to the freeze-thaw of snow during the winter months as the climate continues to warm. Brief periods of above-freezing temperatures encase the lichens that make up the bulk of their winter diet in ice. Meanwhile, Trump’s push to open the Coastal Plains to oil and gas flies in the face of climate science which indicates that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average.

For now, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains timeless, feral, windswept – free from all trace of modern man, save for the occasional overflight of an airplane, departing after disgorging a small party of river rafters. There are no roads, no communication towers, no pipelines, just an expanse of wilderness from horizon to horizon, with an abundance of wildlife, and a small enclave of tenacious Native people who are integral to this challenging landscape.

But change will come, with or without oil development. As summer temperatures approach 90 degrees and, despite the full embrace of darkness, winter temperatures breach freezing, tundra fires will increase, the ice lining summer ponds will melt, allowing the water to percolate away, oceans will rise and consume the shoreline. Still, the caribou will wander, birds will arrive each spring, and Natives will adapt as best they can, given the chance.

I think my main thought is this: that perhaps Man is going to be overwhelmed by his own cleverness; that he may even destroy himself by this same cleverness; and I firmly believe that one of the very few hopes left for Man is the preservation of the wilderness we now have left; and the greatest reservoir of that medicine for mankind lies here in Alaska.

~ Margaret Murie speaking before the Alaska Humanities Forum, 1990.

Due to warming waters which impacts salmon early on in their life cycles, and commercial fishing bycatch, chinook numbers have been declining in Alaska for a decade. Then, in 2021, chum populations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim rivers nosedived and have continued to decline ever since, prompting state and federal fishery managers to close chum fishing in those rivers. Each year, the closures have affected more than 2,500 households in a region that relies heavily on chum for subsistence. When chum numbers crashed, High Country News reported that Linda Behnken, the executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, stated, “the dwindling salmon numbers in the Yukon-Kuskokwim area are a climate justice issue.⁠”

Climate justice, however, is a completely foreign term to the Trump administration. Instead of taking action to address the alarming loss of Alaska’s salmon tradition, for example, Trump through a series of executive orders and regulatory rollbacks, has used the power of the executive office to reverse protections for the State’s water and subsistence resources on a vast scale.

In order to achieve it’s goals, the administration has conveniently denied the existence of climate change. This is despite the fact that as emissions stemming from burning of fossil fuels continue to rise, according to the European Union’s Earth observation service Copernicus, 2024 was the first year that average global temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and the Arctic has been the warmest on record over the past 10 years. As part of it’s climate denial, the Trump administration has discarded the Federal Trust responsibility to protect the subsistence resources upon which Alaska Native Tribes rely.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s campaign to exploit Alaska’s natural resources has prompted a kind of feeding frenzy by resource exploitation groups and political leaders who are rushing to get a piece of the action. The Transition Report submitted to the incoming Trump administration by Governor Michael Dunleavy, for example, included a host of measures designed to give the state access to resources and limit environmental analysis or permitting requirements. One of these measures was a request to roll back federal protections of fish habitat and Native Alaskan fishing rights by simply turning over ownership of key salmon rivers running through federal lands such as national parks and national monuments, , instead of going through the legitimate, fact-based process for determining the State’s jurisdiction over such waterbodies.

Because state law requires that subsistence fishing be open to all Alaska citizens, giving the state complete jurisdiction over these waters would eliminate the Rural Subsistence Preference (RSP) under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Because the RSP that rural residents receive a priority when subsistence fishing, in not only protects Alaska Native Fishing rights but it puts less pressure on rapidly depleting salmon populations by simply allowing less people to fish on federal rivers, Nevertheless, the Dunleavy administration’s request prompted the Trump administration to include language in section xxi of the Unleashing Alaska Executive order to transfer regulatory authority over such waters to the State.

Similarly, in May 2025, the Safari Club, a nationwide recreational hunting and fishing lobbying group, filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to amend the regulations governing the Federal Subsistence Management Program, the Office of Subsistence Management, and the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB). The petition asks the agencies to reduce the FSB’s seats to only those held by federal agency heads (who are political appointees) and to eliminate all public seats, including the three Tribally nominated seats recently added to the Board.

As in the case of the Dunleavy Administration’s federal lands water grab, because the petition also asks the secretaries to order the FSB to defer to the State of Alaska in setting regulations, this would effectively eliminate the RSP because the Alaska Supreme Court has determined the priority to be unconstitutional under the state constitution, and the State of Alaska cannot legally implement it.

As a result, the petition caused alarm with the Alaska Federation of Natives. According to the Anchorage Beacon, “[i]n a message to members, it called the new proposal ‘a serious threat and a major step backward’ in fish and game management” within Alaska.

The Safari Club has also joined with the Dunleavy Administration’s attacks on the Katie John precedent that confirmed the RSP and that the definition of “public lands” with regard to ANILCA includes those navigable waters in which the United States has an interest by virtue of the Reserved Water Rights Doctrine. After the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed its original decision in Katie John and the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by the state, the Safari Club has been working with the state and the Trump administration to come in through the back door, undermining federal subsistence protections not just on the Kuskokwim but on rivers throughout Alaska.

Alaskans need to stand up to the Trump’s efforts to trod on tribal fishing rights and decimate salmon and those who are taking advantage of such policies for political gain.

Please Submit Comments:

To ensure it considers all aspects of a potential new decision, the Department of the Interior has requested scoping comments on the Safari Club’s petition for rulemaking.

Comments are due by March 30, 2026, and can be submitted by email to

subsistence@ios.doi.gov or through www.regulations.gov, docket number DOI-2025-0170.

Also, DOI will be holding Tribal Consultation sessions on this review with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations state-wide, in-person and virtually, on March 10 and 17, 2026, at 1:30 - 3:30 p.m.

⁠

At their meeting in Bellevue, Washington, last Thursday, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC.) declined to consider a proposal to reduce daily halibut limits from two to one fish for Alaska’s unguided recreational halibut fishery. Instead, referring to the proposal as a domestic allocation issue, the IPHC deferred the decision to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC).

According to Jon Kurland, one of three U.S. Commissioners who sit on the IPHC and serves as the Alaska Regional Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, the issue was “arguably not appropriate for debate [by] Commission, which is a forum between the United States and Canada.”

Scientists report that halibut populations have been in deep decline in both numbers and fish size since the early 2000s. This decline has affected recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishers in Alaska, the Northwest, and Canada. Len Seymour, who has been fishing Alaskan waters for 50 years, stated that 2025, “was the most grim I’ve ever seen it, frankly, last summer, as far as a halibut fishery.” The impacts of this decline from the expanding unguided sector of halibut fishermen, particularly from unguided rental boats, led to the proposal before the IPHC.

Alaskan fishermen and lawmakers, however, pushed for the decision to be made only by Alaskan fisheries. U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) welcomed the decision. Sullivan said the proposed change would have directly affected the livelihoods of Alaska’s halibut fishermen, particularly recreational and subsistence harvesters, and emphasized that the IPHC lacks jurisdiction to make such a change.

Members of the Alaska State Legislature similarly argued that the proposal falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. In a letter sent to the NOAA Fisheries branch prior to the meeting, they said domestic allocation decisions should be made by the NPFMC, not an international commission. The letter states “[t]he proposed reduction in the unguided recreational bag limit does not address an objective for regulatory change and would solely affect Alaska anglers who rely on Pacific halibut as a vital food source and for recreational opportunities…” . The Alaska Legislature went further than just jurisdictional concerns and stated the change would be “inconsistent with established domestic allocation policy and would disproportionately impact Alaskans without a clear conservation justification tied to broader management goals.”

The NPFMC is not required to decide on unguided recreational sector Halibut limits, but the topic will likely continue to come up. Some disagree with the Commission’s decision and believe that it is time that recreational halibut fishers do their part. Gale Vick, with 20 years of work experience with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the Alaska Board of Fisheries, and the International Pacific Halibut Commission on halibut issues, says, “The halibut sports sector should bear some burden of halibut conservation but not more than the commercial sector. Like with salmon, we all have to be part of rebuilding halibut stocks. The licensed charter and unguided halibut sports sector’s biggest impact is on near-shore and nurseries. While licensed charter has faced scrutiny for years, unguided sports has not. Enumeration of halibut in all sectors is a challenge and contributes to uncertainty in assessing halibut health. Commercial bycatch of halibut in the trawl sector remains the most egregious problem but near-shore depletion should be second.”

In fact, during the same meeting that included the recreational harvest discussion, the Commission established a take limitof 29.3 million pounds of halibut for U.S. and Canadian commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen, 19.3 million pounds of which were for commercial harvest - the lowest in over 100 years. Also, according to sources with knowledge of the discussions, during tense side meetings between Trump administration officials and Canadian representatives, the U.S. delegation, through threats of tariffs and other economic sanctions, forced Canada to accept further limits on British Columbia’s share of the halibut harvest.

One issue with wetlands and watercourse protection in Homer is that proposed wetland development and fill requests are currently analyzed and permitted exclusively by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps’ ability, however, to protect these waters from development is expected to be severely limited by the Trump Administration’s proposal to weaken the Waters of the United States rule, which would essentially gut the application of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The Proposed Rule would limit jurisdictional waters determinations to a two-part definition: First, that the adjacent water body is a water of the United States, i.e., one that abuts a traditional navigable water through a relatively permanent, standing, or continuous flowing waterbody, and second, that any wetland in question has a continuous surface connection with that water at least during the wet season, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps):

Regulatory Impact Analysis indicates that, under the proposed WOTUS [Waters of the United States] definition, only 19% of wetlands mapped in the National Wetlands Inventory would fall within Clean Water Act jurisdiction …Waters that will no longer be considered jurisdictional (under the new WOTUS definition) include many types of wetlands (e.g., geographically isolated, permafrost-dominated, and mosaic wetlands) and streams (those with intermittent or ephemeral flows).^[1]

According to a Report commissioned by the Center for Biological Diversity, this “clearly puts the species that depend on streams and wetlands at risk and would fall short of the goal of the Clean Water Act - to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”^[2]

The good news is that Alaska’s Home Rule framework allows the State’s local governments to adopt their own wetlands and watershed-related regulations (e.g., setbacks, land-use zoning, habitat buffers, conservation programs) that can be stricter than federal/state requirements, such as the CWA.

Homer’s Zoning Code, however, is largely devoid of regulations for development setbacks or areas where building is prohibited on or around wetlands or watercourses. Unlike Homer’s Code, other municipalities have a regulatory structure designed to protect wetlands, rivers, and streams. The goals of the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan (AWMP) for example, are to: 1) Identify and provide protection for wetlands that support essential ecological and hydrological functions; 2) Ensure that development in wetlands minimizes water quality degradation and maintains wetland hydrologic functions; 3) Provides a balance between protection of higher value sites and the development of lower value areas; 4) Protect the basic natural functions served by coastal marshes, freshwater marshes and wetlands; and 5) Prevent public liabilities associated with the development of these areas.^[3]

Under the AWMP, developers must therefore comply with both federal permitting requirements and local municipal rules, provided such rules do not directly conflict with federal and State law. Anchorage has also mapped its wetlands and classified them into 3 types: A and B require Corps permitting, while C is suitable for development without a Corps permit. Also, setbacks are required for water bodies, drainage ways, riparian edges, and wetlands. Such local policies can focus on protections to local ecological priorities (e.g., salmon habitat buffers, floodplain restrictions).^[4]

According to Janette Keiser, former Head of the City of Homer Planning Department, the AWMP is a means for municipalities to fill gaps in current federal law by focusing “on freshwater wetlands not associated with navigable waters.”^[5]

Keiser says the Plan could be applied in Homer to conduct wetlands mapping & assessment based on the fact that the “City of Homer has, or has access to, sufficient GIS mapping resources to identify the City’s wetlands… [and the] City has sufficient resources, mapping and staffing, to classify wetlands, using a system similar to the MOA [Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Anchorage and the Corps.]…”^[6]

Similarly, Homer could require buffers and setbacks from watercourses or wetlands based on the flow characteristics of the watercourse or the wetland’s classification. Keizer says that “Applicants should be required to show these buffers and setbacks on proposed plats.”^[7]

These standards could be implemented by having the City’s planning staff manage the administrative elements, such as mapping, conducting application intake and review, issuing permits, and providing public information about the value of wetlands and watersheds. To this end, Planning would consult with Public Works, which would provide technical advice on mapping, plat reviews, applicable Best Management Practices, ground truthing, and/or Inspections, and provide Public information about mitigation measures.

The proposed changes to the City of Homer’s zoning code present a real opportunity to fill in the gaps left by the federal government’s current backtracking on protection of watersheds and wetlands, which could have implications not only for protecting fish and wildlife habitat but also for the prevention of natural hazards such as flooding and landslides and property damage. It’s just a question of political will. The incorporation of such protection must occur during the scoping phase of the proposed changes, before environmental constraints are labeled as administrative burdens rather than critical planning measures. Such assertiveness would keep the conversation away from tilting toward “streamlining” that erodes protection.

^[1] Siobhan Fennessy, Ph.D., PWS, Biodiversity and Species Implications of Changes in Federal Protection for Wetlands and Streams, with Emphasis on Alaska, p. 1 (December 30, 2025) (Changes in Federal Protections).

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] See Janette Keiser, PE Wetlands Management – Comparing Homer with Muni. of Anchorage, p. 1 (January 16, 2026).

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Ibid p. 6.

^[7] Ibid.

Now, with computers and corporate websites that are the primary means of managing online payments for blogs and newsletters, the process takes about 6 months. When we decided to begin transitioning from free subscriptions for the Shepherd Alaska blog by providing a donation option, at first, we were pleased to find that a corporate site sets all that up for you simply by creating a donation link to the blog.

The problem lies primarily in their claim that “protecting client security is extremely important to us.” But in protecting our security, they have concocted a highly dysfunctional process that serves as a barricade to setting up donations. On the bright side (sort of), over the next 6 months, after multiple chats and phone conversations with AI and two different groups of tech support, we learned several new Gen-Z terms such as “two-factor-authentication,” “two-factor-authentication by-pass,” “authenticator app,” “account recovery,” and “identity confirmation.” Moreover, we finally managed to set up the donation button on the blog, and it actually works!

We apologize to those who have attempted to donate in the past and were frustrated by the complex technology. If you would like to donate to the blog, please click the hard-fought “Upgrade to Paid” button at the bottom of any post and complete the credit card payment form. It really works this time!

The work session consisted primarily of a slide presentation by the Planning Team made up of the Agnew-Beck Consultants and the City Planning Department. The Team described a watercourse as “any natural or artificial stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, canal, conduit, culvert, drain, waterway, gully, ravine or wash, in and including any adjacent area that is subject to inundation from overflow or floodwater.” A wetland is an “area of land that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.”

The Planning Team noted that there are currently no requirements under the Code for development setbacks or areas where building is prohibited on or around wetlands or watercourses. Unlike Homer’s Code, other municipalities have some regulatory structures designed to protect wetlands, rivers, and streams. Anchorage, for example, has mapped its wetlands and then classified them into 3 types: where A or B require permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, while C is suitable for development without a Corps permit. Also, setbacks are required for water bodies, drainage ways, riparian edges, and wetlands.

Unlike development provisions for the scoping process in previous work sessions, during the January 7 session, the Team did not recommend changes and instead chose to ask the Commission members present if there was a need for such regulation. In the past, the Team has said that the “City lacks accurate data to guide wetland and watercourse management. The basis for all wetland regulations via zoning requires a clear wetland boundary. Without that data or a clear way to create it, staff would have no way to evaluate a development proposal/land use application.”^[1]

In an effort to offset the lack of maps that could apply to wetlands and stream regulations, the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society (KBCS) and other members of the public have submitted ideas for mapping of sensitive environmental areas, protecting watersheds from overdevelopment, and preventing flooding and landslide hazards.^[2]According to KBCS’s Vice President, Penelope Haas, “You can always criticize maps for not being accurate enough. The alternatives are either to ignore that there are any limitations – the staff proposal, or to require burdensome hiring of engineers, hydrologists, etc., the latter likely being appropriate for a CUP or PUD application in mapped sensitive areas, just as we do with requirements for traffic analysis.” Haas also noted that “Maps are very helpful rules of thumb that mitigate a lot of bureaucracy and expense while helping protect folks from the impacts of poor planning and helping protect some of the valuable green spaces around Homer.” The Commission members present at the Work Session largely supported strengthening protections for wetlands. Commissioner Heath Smith mentioned the need for examples of where the code framework has failed.

Another problem with wetlands and water course protection in Homer is the fact that proposed wetland development and fill requests are currently analyzed and permitted exclusively by the Army Corps of Engineers whose ability to protect wetlands and waters from development is expected to be severely limited by the Trump Administration’s proposal to weaken the Waters of the United States rule which would largely gut the application of Clean Water Act (CWA). Alaska’s Home Rule framework allows local governments to adopt their own wetlands and watershed-related regulations (e.g., setbacks, land-use zoning, habitat buffers, conservation programs) which are stricter than federal/state requirements.

Under the Municipality of Anchorage’s Wetlands Management Plan, for example, developers must comply with both federal permitting requirements and local municipal rules as long as such rules do not directly conflict with federal and state law. Such local policies can focus on protections to local ecological priorities (e.g., salmon habitat buffers, floodplain restrictions).

During the Work Session, the Planning Team also presented on Steep Slopes and Bluffs. Unlike for wetlands and watersheds, the current Code has some regulatory framework for Steep Slopes and bluffs that limits development activity and structures in areas affected by slopes, bluffs, ravines, and the coastal edge. Similarly, during the meeting, City planning staff referred to mapping tools that can be used to identify steep slopes, etc that may need extra protections. These tools include Steep Slope Overlay, Wetlands Mapper, and Calculator, which consists of an in-house GIS mapping tool that allows staff to view parcels affected by steep slopes, stream drainages, and wetlands.

Regarding the steep slopes issue, the need for changes to the code was mixed among the commissioners, with some strongly advocating for strengthening the code due to the increased level of development occurring in such areas and the need for public safety related to landslides.

According to former head of the City’s Public Works department, Jane Keiser during the public testimony portion of the Work Session, “The number of examples where the code as failed us in both wetlands, water drainages and steep slopes, are too numerous to mention here” and she offered to draft a list of such examples that she will submit in her next set of comments to the Commission and City Council. These sentiments are echoed by a large percentage of people surveyed at an Open House the City held in November, who called for a better definition of wetlands and peatlands, creation of stronger management standards, improved oversight, monitoring, and environmental review, and closer review of development near steep slopes and bluffs.

Regardless of the issues with the current Code, Keiser remains enthusiastic about the current process. “I was encouraged by the discussions the Planning Commission had about these issues. It was obvious they were concerned about many of the same things I am concerned about – protection of wetlands, development on steep slopes, and more. I’m really looking forward to the next iteration of proposed Title 21 revisions.”

There is still time for the public to participate in the Homer City Code update process. First, the Planning Commission decided to schedule another PC work session on January 21 from 4-6:30pm followed by another with the City Council on January 26. During these future work sessions, the Planning Team has suggested that the Commission/Council go over the public review process draft, comment collection and next steps toward adoption. The launch of the Public Review Draft of the Code is tentatively for late January or early Feb.

^[1] City of Homer, Homer Title 21 Update p. 7 (November 2025) (Title 21 Update)

^[2] KBCS, PROMOTING OPEN SPACE IN HOMER (2025)(Promoting Open Space)

Zoning codes determine how land is used and set rules for property functions within a municipality. Effective zoning aligns with the comprehensive plan’s vision for future land use. A well-crafted code equips the Planning Commission and staff to regulate development, protect and enhance the community, and clearly communicate requirements to residents, builders, developers, and businesses.

Open House

In November, the City sponsored an Open House on the code, which included the following topics:

• Open House Posters: here

• Open House Presentation Slides: here

• Homer News Story: here

• If you missed the in-person event, or if you attended but have more to say, you

can visit the Virtual Open House to share your comments, questions, and feedback on the proposed changes.

The Virtual Open House is open through January 16, 2026.

Planning Commission Title 21-Focused Work Sessions

From December 2025 through January 2026, the Planning Commission is holding a series of work sessions to address specific code changes. Some of the concerns raised by public comments and testimony during these work sessions focus on meetings the Planning Team (PT) has had with builders, developers, realtors, and business owners before the scoping process began, resulting in proposed amendments to the code that are heavily weighted in favor of development, while so far, despite significant public feedback on these issues, there have been little to no proposed changes regarding protection of wetlands, watersheds and open space.

The slide presentation for the first work session on December 3, which focused on “District Consolidation/Simplifying Zoning Districts,” featured the statement “More Housing in More Places” and “Making Housing Easier to Build in Homer” but did not include a discussion of how more development would impact watersheds, open space & wetlands.^[1]

The slide presentation for the next work session on December 17, 2025, focused on the “Development Process” and “improving zoning code means making approval processes simpler.”^[2] This included reducing approval times for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) by limiting CUP requirements to only those developments with the most significant community and environmental impacts. The PT suggested that this will give the Planning Commission more time to focus on other priorities, though these have not been clearly defined. As part of this work session titled “Administrative Adjustments,” the PT also proposed transferring authority for minor permitting decisions from the Planning Commission to staff.

The final work Session on January 7, 2026, will focus on “Natural Hazards and Features (Wetlands and Watercourses).”^[3] The PT recommendations under this section of the code consist of citing the current code provision, but no recommendations for specific changes to protect open space, wetlands, or watersheds within or affected by the City.^[4]The PT suggests that the reason for the lack of such recommendations is that, among other things, the “basis for all wetland regulations via zoning requires a clear wetland boundary. Without that data or a clear way to create it, staff would have no way to evaluate a development proposal/land use application.”^[5] This is regardless of the fact that the Kachemak Bay Watershed Council and other members of the public have repeatedly submitted changes for protecting open space and integrating mapping of sensitive environmental areas, protecting watersheds from overdevelopment, and preventing flooding and landslides hazards.^[6]

Another factor in the management of wetlands and watersheds looming on the horizon is the Trump Administration’sannouncement last month to revise the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS) which would largely gut the Clean Water Act (CWA). The WOTUS Rule determines which waters – e.g., rivers, streams, and wetlands – are subject to CWA protections. Because the Army Corps of Engineers is the agency responsible for issuing permits for development within City Boundaries that will impact wetlands, and the Corps jurisdiction will be drastically limited by the expected rollback of the WOTUS rule, some members of the public are encouraging the city to take over that jurisdiction. To this end, wetland regulations could be created using a clear wetland boundary already established by KBCS in Promoting Open Space pages 3-11 on integrating digital mapping of sensitive Environments into the Code.

Submit Comments on the Draft Rules

Even after the completion of the Planning Commission work sessions, the public can submit comments to the City Council when the public review draft of Title 21 of the Code is released (anticipated late January 2026).

Other Ways to Contribute Your Input

Submit a virtual comment card here to share your ideas or

Contact the Planning Team:

City Planner, Ryan Foster, 907-299-8529, rfoster@ci.homer.ak.us

Project Manager, Shelly Wade, 907-242-5326, shelly@agnewbeck.com

^[1] City of Homer, Homer Title 21 Update - The City of Homer is revising its zoning policies, found in Title 21 of the City Code, p. 4-5 (November 2025) (Title 21 Update).

^[2] Title 21 Update p. 6.

^[3] Ibid p. 7.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] See, e.g. KBCS PROMOTING OPEN SPACE IN HOMER (2025)(Promoting Open Space).

The City sponsored an Open House on the code changes last month, which included the following topics:

• Open House Posters: here

• Open House Presentation Slides: here

• Homer News Story: here

• If you missed the in-person event, or if you attended but have more to say, you can visit the Virtual Open House to share your comments, questions, and feedback on the proposed changes. The Virtual Open House is open through January 16, 2026.

Before the open house, the Planning Team met with builders, developers, realtors, and business owners, which is why the proposed code changes already include pro-development language. Now it’s time for your voice to be heard!

Planning Commission Title 21-Focused Work Sessions

From December 2025 through January 2026, the Planning Commission will hold a series of meetings on the proposed code changes. These meetings are crucial for public input because they offer your best opportunity to influence the process before the draft code is written, after which it will be harder to make changes.

Below are the work session dates, topics, and links to the City’s website for information on how to join and submit comments.

• Work Session #1: December 3, 2025

  • Time: 4-6:20 pm Work Session ahead of Regular Meeting

  • Focus: Housing and District Changes

  • Learn More: View the agenda packet and video of the work session here.

• Work Session #2: December 17, 2025

  • Time: 5-8 pm Planning Commission Work Session

  • Focus: Development Process (includes conditional use permits and administrative flexibility).

• To reduce approval times and provide greater predictability for developers, this change would limit CUP requirements to only those developments with the most significant community impacts. The Planning Team suggests this will give the Planning Commission more time to focus on other priorities, though these have not been clearly defined. CUPs would be reserved for specific uses.

• Learn More:Click here to view the calendar with connectivity information and instructions to submit comments.

• Work Session #3: January 7, 2026

  • Time: 4-6:20 pm Work Session ahead of Regular Meeting

  • Focus: Environmental Features (slopes, wetlands, etc.)

    • While the planning team’s proposals seek to increase development, there are currently no recommendations in the Code amendments to protect open space, wetlands, or watersheds within or affected by the City. It is vital for the public to attend this meeting and advocate for these community values.

  • Learn More: Click here to view the calendar with connectivity information and instructions to submit comments.

Other Ways to Contribute Your Input

• Submit a virtual comment card here to share your ideas.

• Contact the team:

  • City Planner, Ryan Foster, 907-299-8529, rfoster@ci.homer.ak.us

  • Project Manager, Shelly Wade, 907-242-5326, shelly@agnewbeck.com

Submit Comments on the Draft Rules

Finally, you can review and share your comments when the public review draft of the Title 21 Code is released (anticipated late January 2026).

~ Dunning-Kruger

Recently, I asked my Generation Z son what he thought of the term “woke.” He said it is overused, misrepresented, and not a term his generation feels comfortable with. His reply surprised me, because I consider him to be very woke by my definition of the word. I think a large part of this is because the far-right pundits have created confusion about the interpretation of “woke.” Both left and right have used the word to weaponize their political views, and it no longer holds one definition or meaning. He does support the concept of woke and the use of pronouns. Being from the Baby Boomer generation, I am a little more hesitant. However, personally I like Who/Me, or something more neutral like They/Us.

Gen Z is widely considered one of the most socially conscious generations, actively advocating for causes such as climate change initiatives, racial equity, LGBTQ rights, and mental health awareness. However, this does not mean they universally embrace the “woke” label. Many Gen Z individuals view “woke” as a muddled and often meaningless buzzword that has been appropriated by the political right as a pejorative insult to dismiss progressive viewpoints. Due to its shifting meaning, many are unsure whether it has positive or negative connotations.

My own thinking is that I like the word “woke.” It reveals a lot about a person. One small word says a lot about our present understanding of reality, our relationship with ourselves, society at large, and the greater environment. Its core meaning provides a positive message about our spiritual and social consciousness, our understanding of science, and the intimate relationship we have with our environment. If it happens to rattle the far-right propagandists and MAGA enthusiasts, so much the better.

The original meaning of “woke” means to be alert to social injustices, particularly systemic racism and discrimination. Originally used in the Black community to emphasize vigilance against racial threats, the term has evolved into a much broader term that covers a spectrum of open minded, democratic and liberal views. Like the yard signs say: hope, kindness, equality, peace, justice, science, respect, diversity, and love.

According to this, woke embodies fundamental concepts like compassion and fairness for those less fortunate, a level playing field so we can all thrive together as a community, tolerance for people and ways that are different from us, and simple kindness and caring for others.

But Trumpism, a combination of Monarchism and Fascism, has come to America. It’s appalling, shocking, and overwhelming to watch and listen to. And if it has not impacted you directly yet, it will. I think those folks who voted for Trump had legitimate reasons, but I just have to ask, what were they thinking? Or were they thinking? If Trump is pushing an “anti-woke” agenda, what does that mean? Why is woke now a bad word? Perhaps we should be concerned about someone who is anti-woke. If you can’t see beyond the black and white of him or her, then you live in a very small, shallow, and un-colorful world.

In less than twelve months, our new president has unleased so much turmoil— the reckless gutting of government agencies and firing thousands of dedicated public servants; attacks on our treasured public lands; attacks on institutions of higher learning; illegal arrests and deportations; alienating global allies; the dismantling of civil society and basic values of human decency; indictments, shameless bullying and illegal harassment of anyone he disagrees with; eliminating checks and balances from government institutions so he has the power to sidestep the law and do whatever he wants; formulating fake peace treaties (Gaza); and attacking other nations he doesn’t like (Venezuela, Iran).

A friend of mine, Ernie Atencio, wrote, “Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) only has three letters, but it has become a four-letter word in this administration, and it is being systematically scrubbed from even the most obscure corners of the federal government.” Given the people Trump nominated for his cabinet and key federal positions, anti-woke sets the stage for sexual harassment, misogyny, hate speech, racism, anti-intellectual and anti-science ideologies, narcissism, and disregard for common decency and American values. These are the people running our country now. For all their flag-waving and America-first rhetoric, I honestly feel these ultra-conservative ideologues are unraveling the foundational fabric of our country and our society. They are literally the opposite of patriotic. They don’t seem to care about the values that hold us together as a country while protecting vulnerable populations, and instead are trying to tear us apart.

Woke ideology appears to be fostered by the effects higher learning have on opening the mind to broader realities and critical thinking. The anti-woke tribe tends to fear people in society who opt for a higher education and critical thinking. Look what the Trump Administration did to the US Dept of Education and the attack on institutes for higher education who dared to disagree with their policies and oppose the administration’s anti-DEI policies. Moreover, the current administration is doing everything it can to reverse environmental, laws, regulations and attack governmental institutions established to protect public lands and the environment. This so the very wealthy corporations can continue to exploit these precious resources.

Here is another aspect of being woke we should consider. While “woke” in its social sense implies an awareness of social, political realities that others might ignore, it should also include a spiritual awakening in terms of “awakened” or “conscious” refers to a profound internal shift, often involving a realization of interconnectedness, the dissolution of the ego, and a connection to a greater reality or the divine.

If truly embraced, woke-ness could actually lead to a more peaceful and harmonious world. How is that something to be against?

So now I leave it up to you, how you define “woke.”

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

~ Aristotle

Donate Here

December darkness has wrapped around us with a cold grip. Single digits and not enough snow to make it worth going outside for anything beyond starting the car or bringing in more firewood. I count the days until Solstice (nine) when we begin to gain back the light I so long for. To pass the days until sunlight and snow make their reappearance, I have a charming new excuse to curl up with a book or take a nap.

We have a new cat, you see. A small, plump tuxedo female. Her black and white coat is short and thick, and she purrs when I run my hand down her back and up her tail, but she doesn’t like me to pick her up. She does like to sit in the window overlooking the yard, making guttural sounds at the squirrels and birds, desperate on these short days to make use of the bird feeder. And she has made herself the boss of the dogs so that they give her a wide berth when she sashays up the stairs, jumps on the bed (which used to be their special place), and joins me for a cuddle.

We acquired Musette (which means little bagpipes in French) by way of our friend David, who lives in Anchorage. He had been caring for her since his ex-wife entered a memory care facility after a stroke. The plan was for a short-term stay (he’s not a cat person), but after 18 months, it became clear that the cat wasn’t going to return to her owner, and Hal, in town for a work trip, had a moment of weakness. He called me to see if we might take the cat. I didn’t hesitate. “Of course!”

I grew up with cats and with a grandmother who had a soft spot for strays. We always had one or two felines twining around our ankles and kneading our laps as we read or watched Gunsmoke. I continued with cats as an adult, even in college housing, and moved with them from Arizona to Alaska. My last cat, Catkin, another tuxedo but with seven toes on each front paw, abandoned us several years ago for neighbors Dave and Melisse, where she lives still, content and rightly spoiled.

In that time, there have been puppies, and ducks, and chickens, and now there are just the two dogs, who were quite content to live in a cat-free home. Imagine Arlie’s surprise when he was chided for treeing this intruder on top of the refrigerator. Imagine trembling Tavish, wanting so much to lie down in his favorite spot next to Hal in his study, but at the risk of encountering that being who doubles in size and hisses whenever he moves in her direction.

This is a cat who will not suffer fools. Or dogs. If I was at first concerned that she would live her days upstairs under the bed, I need not have been. She goes where she pleases, when she pleases, expecting lowly canine subjects to make way, which they do, claws skittering on the floor in their haste. They still own the couch and dog beds. And so far, she hasn’t deigned to put her dainty muzzle in their sloppy food bowl, but there’s time yet.

Cats are, of course, keenly aware of human emotions. They show great compassion and affection to the humans they favor, and great contempt for those they do not. Musette has taken to me, head butting me with lavish affection, and fitting herself into the curve of my body with a deeply contented purr. She follows me from room to room in our small cabin, making her presence known with meows befitting her name when she wants a morsel of food or just some companionship.

With Hal, the human who brought her home and to whom she owes a debt of gratitude, not so much. He’s a dog person, through and through, and cats sense that. She might rub his leg, or sit in his lap for a moment of appreciation, but it’s me she’s got at her beck and call, and we’re both delighted with that arrangement. I didn’t know I needed a cat in my life until I held this one in my arms.

Musette gives me every excuse to eschew the news coming out of Washington, and every reason to settle into my favorite chair to read, what else, one of the books in The Dali Lama’s Cat series by David Michie. In this, she’s giving me something invaluable in return for a full bowl of kibble and a scoop of tuna. She’s giving me the gift of present moment awareness by drawing me into her catdome, where no other way of life exists.

The Native Villages of Teller, Brevig Mission, and Mary’s Igloo, and their partner organizations, have consistently opposed Graphite One’s permitting process, conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, due to potential impacts on community health, subsistence, water, and cultural resources. And in recent weeks, that opposition has been mounting. On November 21, the Native Village of Brevig Mission Traditional Council and Village Corporation, and the City of Brevig Mission, unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the Mine. Then, the day before Thanksgiving, representatives from the City of Brevig Mission, the Brevig Mission Traditional Council, and the Native Corporation traveled across the ice-covered Grantly Harbor to meet with their counterparts in Teller to discuss further the impacts of the Mine. At the meeting, the Teller Tri-Entities and the Mary’s Igloo Traditional Council adopted more resolutions opposing the Mine and launched a comment-writing campaign for members of the public who attended. Then, on the following Friday, the three Tribes, along with the Norton Bay Watershed Council, submitted voluminous comments to the Corp, adding to a growing stack from other organizations and community members that point out multiple flaws in the Mine’s permitting process.

These flaws arise primarily out of the Corps’ obligation under the Clean Water Act to fully study the impacts of the Mine on the Imuruk Basin, an area that is almost as much water as it is dry land and is known as one of the most biologically productive and culturally rich regions in North America.^[1]

The Tribes are primarily concerned that the agency is fast-tracking the application under the federal Fast-41 process,^[2] and, ignoring proper analysis of environmental impacts in order to implement Trump administration executive orders favoring industrial extraction over protecting subsistence and cultural resources.^[3]

A major component of the Tribes’ argument is that, to encourage the Corp to limit analysis of the Mine’s impacts, Graphite One has arbitrarily underestimated the potential impacts. Specifically, out of over 15,000 acres of land and waters within the Mine’s study area, Graphite One has estimated that the total extent of permanent impacts to wetlands and other waters would be a mere 414.68 acres and that only 2.21 acres of that are “jurisdictional” requiring analysis before the permit is issued under the Clean Water Act.^[4]

The awkwardness of such low balling, however, is illustrated by a Jurisdictional Determination Report created by the consulting firm hired by the mining company to support its claim which concludes that the total extent of permanent impacts to wetlands and other waters would actually be 5,931.4 acres and the total jurisdictional waters would be 581.0 acres, greatly exceeding Graphite One’s estimated impacts.^[5] In addition, while the Clean Water Act may limit environmental analysis to rivers, streams and wetlands that come under its jurisdiction, the National Environmental Policy Act requires the Corp to analyze impacts on dry land as well and therefore the entire 15,000 acres of the study area.

That the Corp appears to have bought into the ridiculously low levels of impacts of over a one mile wide mine and an over 17 mile access road as illustrated by an e-mail to the Nome Nugget newspaper sent by Graphite One Senior Vice President Kevin Trophy which states “after reviewing our project plan, the Army Corps of Engineers determined our project will not impact enough wetlands to necessitate an EIS…Given the very small wetlands footprint, the Corps made the initial decision to schedule the project as an Environmental Assessment (EA)…” thereby conveniently avoiding a complete analysis of impacts and a much reduced timeline for permitting.

To understand how this came about, one must first go back over the past decade or so, when a series of republican administrations’ primary tool for dismantling the Clean Water Act has been to drastically limit its scope.^[6] Although Congress defined “navigable waters“ under the Act broadly to simply mean “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), starting in 2001, a succession of U.S. Supreme Court opinions concluded that Congress’ use of the term “navigable waters,” somehow indicated an intent to restrict protections to only those waterways (including wetlands related to such waters) that have been traditionally navigable and ignored its previous finding that the term “navigable” was not that relevant to which waters were covered by the Act.

With 174 million acres of wetlands, more than three million lakes, and more coastland than the lower 48 combined, no other state has more to lose from weakening the definition of what can be covered by the Clean Water Act. Regardless, following last year’s decisions in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the Supreme Court cut back the application of the Act by restricting what can be considered WOTUS, the Trump Administration announced yet another rewrite of the Rule.

While the Administration claims to be implementing the decision in Sackett, in reality, the new Rule takes restrictions on the Act even further and would eliminate protection for the vast majority of wetlands throughout the Western U.S. and Alaska by excluding any wetland that does not have a continuous, visible surface connection to a navigable water. This would be the most restrictive reading of the Clean Water Act ever, pushing protections back to before they were even in place.

Because the Corp is one of two federal agencies that is directly involved in drafting the latest proposed Rule, it makes one wonder whether Graphite One’s outlandishly low estimate for the Mine, is because they have been working with the Corp to apply the highly restrictive definition of the draft Rule to such impacts even before it is finalized. This might explain why the mining company’s impact estimates differ even under the federal Fast-41 process and Trump administration executive orders that favor industrial extraction activities over proper environmental analysis of impacts on water and subsistence resources.

Either way, it is clear that the proposed Rule and the environmental impacts issue for the Graphite One Mine are linked and that the ultimate decision will come down from higher up, which will not be a good outcome for the local communities affected by the Mine.

Please Provide Comments on the Proposed WOTUS Rule

Public comments can be submitted on the proposed rule via Regulations.gov to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0322. The 45-day comment period closes on January 5, 2026.

^[1] See generally, William Oquillick, People of the Kauwerak; Harold S. Shepherd, Return to Ekeunicks’s Time – Defending Waters and Tradition in the Arctic, pp. 63-88 (iUniverse, October 2024)(Return to Ekeunicks’s Time ).

^[2] U.S. Department of Interior, Trump Administration Adds Key Mining Projects to FAST-41 Effort Aims to Expedite Critical Minerals and Secure Domestic Supply (April 18, 2025).

^[3] See e.g., Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, Executive Order (March 20, 2025).

^[4] Public Notice of Application for Permit - REFERENCE NUMBER: POA-2018-00210 – Graphite Creek at 2 (September 30, 2025)(Notice).

^[5] Graphite Creek Project, Jurisdictional Determination Report Graphite One (Alaska), Inc. p. 42-43, Table 8 (August 25) (HDR JDR).

^[6] Shepherd pp. 190 – 95.

Each Monday, starting at 9:00 am, dozens of Homer Community Food Pantry volunteers pull into the parking lot at the Homer United Methodist Church and begin pulling boxes of donated and purchased produce from a walk-in freezer, hauling milk crates of canned and dry goods down the stairs from the storage area, and setting up tables in long rows. For the next three hours, they sort and arrange, breaking briefly for a shared meal prepared in the church kitchen. At noon, they throw open the doors to welcome the hungry.

By this time, a line has formed. Regulars visit among themselves, with those who come early aware that the variety diminishes quickly once the limited items are gone. In all, as many as 170 households come through each Monday to fill a bag or box, up from an average of 140 families just a year ago.

Some enjoy the camaraderie of a Monday afternoon among friends, spending precious dollars for a taxi and their one opportunity to socialize each week. Others hunch their shoulders and endure the wait, undoubtedly wishing they could be anywhere but here. Each has a story that led them here – job loss, a spouse taken by cancer, or grandkids to raise.

I weave through them, greeting those I know, as I carry donated clothing items, books, or camping supplies to add to a pile of free goods they can select from. The camping supplies go fast because, in addition to hunger, Homer has a homeless problem.

I know most of these folks, too. Outside of the Pantry, I see them on the street hitching a ride, or clustered near the library under the shelter of spruce trees in the rain. When I don’t see them for a while, I worry.

This is what compassion looks like. The volunteers who work all week long to pick up soon to expire milk, bruised or overstocked fruit, past their best-if-used-by frozen meat, and last week’s bakery goods from the grocery stores. Imperfect, but perfectly usable. Then there are the donations, like Two Sisters Bakery, which delivers 100 loaves of bread each Monday so we can hand them out in brown paper bags while they’re still warm. And the fishermen, cattlemen, gardeners, farmers, and restaurants, too numerous to name, who drop off fish, burger, potatoes, carrots, lettuce, and tomatoes. The local schools hold canned food drives, and the restaurants, breweries, Porcupine Theater, and bars host fundraisers. And where would we be without the donors who write checks to feed the poor? Or the potters who make bowls for our annual Empty Bowl fundraiser, and the kitchens who provide so many wonderful soups to fill those bowls? Every donation is crucial.

There’s more. Each Monday and Thursday, a group of delightful volunteers work in the church kitchen (thank God for the United Methodist Church) to prepare sandwiches, soups, bread pudding, mini pizzas, wraps, and ready-to-eat dinners that stock the Free Fridge outside the church. Every morning, and again in the late afternoon, the fridge is filled with good, wholesome food. Throughout the day, taxis and cars pull up, and people arrive on foot as the fridge slowly empties. The need never diminishes.

A small survey conducted on Monday of this week by Homer Food Pantry Volunteers indicated that the clients who participated in the survey receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, but this month, the benefits were delayed, reduced, or both. All confirmed that assistance, especially in the form of food, was quite important to them.

By any economic metric, the United States is among the wealthiest nations on Earth. In terms of food, America produces or imports, on average, 4,000 calories per person per day – double the daily caloric requirement, based on USDA data.

And yet, 42 million Americans receive SNAP benefits, including 66,471 Alaskans. Amid the yo-yo of directives during the six-week government shutdown coming from the Trump administration and Federal judges, a hold on SNAP benefits beginning the first of November put 12% of American families at risk of hunger and showed us what lack of compassion looks like on a massive scale. Why? Because the administration wants to further reduce aid by eliminating supplemental healthcare benefits for millions of Americans.

To qualify for SNAP, recipients must have less than $3,000 in the bank and an income that does not exceed 130% of the federal poverty level. For perspective, a family of four in Homer with one adult working a full-time job at $16 an hour as a baker, hotel housekeeper, or fisheries technician (based on current job postings), grossing $2,560 a month, and paying $1,400 in rent and utilities (well below the $1,900 average for a two-bedroom rental according to Zillow), would qualify for $945 in SNAP benefits a month. For some perspective, our household of two spends, on average, $1,200 a month on food, despite a large garden and a freezer full of salmon. Couple a 25% inflation rate on food since January of 2020 with child care costs that can run $1,600 a month per child, and it’s no wonder Homer has a difficult time attracting and keeping entry-level employees.

Food banks across the country are doing their best to meet the widening gap, but it’s an uphill battle. Already contending with a $500 million cut by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, another $1 billion cut to schools and food banks to purchase food from local farmers, and the influx of thousands of displaced Federal workers, and you have a disaster in the making with hunger as a political tool.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Senator Josh Hawley, R., Missouri, wrote in a guest essay in the New York Times,

“America is a great and wealthy nation, and our most important wealth is our generosity of spirit. We help those in need. We provide for the widow and the orphan. Love of neighbor is part of who we are. The Scripture’s injunction to “remember the poor” is a principal Americans have lived by. It’s time Congress does the same.”

As part of a renewed push to confirm ownership of land that Alaska’s government says became state property at statehood, the Defense Team made similar trips on other rivers within federal parks and preserves throughout the summer in hopes of ultimately settling the ownership of thousands of miles of Alaska riverbeds, plus millions of acres beneath the surface of lakes.

According to Nathaniel Herz of the Northern Journal, “for more than a half-century, Alaska land managers have been fighting successive federal administrations through the courts as well as lengthy administrative processes — battling what they describe as an unwillingness to negotiate from officials of both political parties at the U.S. Department of the Interior, the federal land management agency.”

In addition to the belief that the federal government should not be interfering in Alaska’s business, DNR officials also express a sense of elitism about being Alaskan. According to Jim Walker, the Public Access Team’s chief, decisions about how to manage Alaska’s navigable waterways, “should be made by Alaskans, and not made in Washington by folks who don’t appreciate and haven’t experienced this place.”

This is why the Defense Team sees itself as warriors in a battle to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach. Walker describes the team members as “hard chargers“ willing to tough it out in the wilderness, using drones, data loggers, flow meters, and notebooks to prove navigability on contested rivers one by one.

When visiting the Necons River, the Team’s unwavering loyalty to State’s rights is palpable. More than four decades ago, the federal government determined that the Necons was non-navigable, and hasn’t changed its position since then. According to Jon Fuller, a consulting hydrologist assisting the Team, “It’s astounding the federal government is wasting everyone’s money fighting this.” More to the point, Opsahl, the state attorney, exclaimed about the Necon “[i]f this isn’t fucking navigable, I don’t know what is.”

Such enthusiasm for water sovereignty among Alaska officials stems from the claim that the U.S. Constitution and federal law grant the State of Alaska exclusive rights to navigable waters and submerged lands within its borders. This argument is based primarily on a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Nation River inside the Yukon Charlie National Park and Preserve, did not qualify as “public land” and the National Park Service, therefore, did not have the authority to prohibit specific activity of the River found within the preserve. In reference to the Sturgeon decision, Walker says “[a]s has been said repeatedly, in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and elsewhere: Alaska is different.”

Yet, while it is generally considered that if a stream is determined to be navigable, the State has jurisdiction over the “bed and banks,” the one nagging question about the State’s claim to complete control of the rivers that the Access Team is studying is the fact that each one is located on federal land. In such cases, therefore, the Supreme Court has consistently rejected complete ownership of water by either the federal or State governments, and state claims of ownership generally do not justify interference with valid federal rights to the uses of that water.

Nevertheless, shortly after the Sturgeon decision, Governor Dunleavey called the plaintiff, John Sturgeon, “a hero” and then announced that, “I am asserting the state’s control of the navigable waters and submerged lands we received at statehood, and our right to manage them in Alaskans’ best interests.” For the highly litigious Dunleavy administration, such an assertion has meant the filing of a fleet of quiet title actions on key rivers throughout the state, sponsoring legislation, and applying the State’s rights rhetoric to support its claim that the State owns all submerged lands within its boundaries.

And while the State has had some wins, including control of land beneath the Stikine River in Southeast Alaska, the Knik River outside Anchorage, and multiple forks of the gold-bearing Fortymile River in the Interior, it lost a case for control of the Mendenhall River. The others are still in court, moving into the discovery and trial phases. Such cases can take a long time to work their way through the courts because the questions about navigability are fact-intensive and will likely go to trial, which is why the work on the ground conducted by the Defense team is so expensive.

At the center of this dispute is a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Katie John line of cases, which says that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act established the Subsistence Priority for the benefit of rural Alaskans on federal lands. Not only does the decision therefore protect the fishing rights of Alaska Native communities, but it also helps mitigate dwindling salmon runs by restricting the right to fish for them in federal rivers and streams to only those communities. In fact, it is for this reason that Alaska tribal communities are mortified at the prospect of the state obtaining control over rivers running through federal lands.

This is why, in September 2025, Tribes throughout Alaska celebrated the Ninth Circuit’s reaffirmation of its prior decision in Katie John by upholding the rural preference in a lawsuit between the state and federal governments over fishing in the Kuskokwim River – a decision that the State has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another reason for the Defense Team’s stepped-up work is that, among other resource-exploitation incentives, President Donald Trump’s Unleashing Alaska Executive Order (EO) directs the Secretary of the Interior to review lands and make recommendations on which waterways should be “restored” to the State.

In fact. Taking advantage of this language in the Unleashing EO, Jim Walker and other State officials recently met with the Trump administration to obtain the Department of the Interior’s agreement to relinquish jurisdiction over rivers throughout the State, rather than having to prove ownership one at a time. According to Walker, “[i]nstead of going through and giving minute details about every mile of these rivers, we talk, rather, about our methodology and why it’s so sound. “

Under the Trump administration, which is known for its dislike of vast national parks and monuments in Alaska, which previous democratic administrations created,^[1] there is little doubt that the State will get its wish. If the federal government gives into the State on the navigability question, combined with a likely victory for the State at the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kuskokwim Litigation, this would further threaten the Katie John precedent and be a significant blow to Native Fishing rights and to the protection of salmon in rivers running through federal lands throughout the State.

^[1] Harold Shepherd, Return to Ekeunick’s Time, Defending Waters and Tradition in the Arctic, p. 155, (October 2024).

Graphite One, a Canadian-based mining company, is applying for a federal permit for a 23,680-acre, year-round open-pit mine in Alaska’s remote Kigluaik Mountains. Access to what is likely the largest graphite deposit in the United States will require the construction of a 17.3-mile-long road cutting across salmon streams and archaeological sites, and water withdrawals from over a dozen streams, further jeopardizing already low numbers of chum and pink salmon returns at the exact time climate change is warming Arctic streams.

Critically, the outcome of the federal permitting phase for Graphite One will establish a precedent throughout Alaska for sacrificing sacred places and subsistence resources in exchange for mineral extraction. In the rush to mine graphite and other precious minerals, the analysis of the impacts of mining and other development activities is being fast-tracked, with little input from or regard for the Native communities most directly impacted.

Please use this sample letter to create your own comments and submit to the Army Corps of Engineers using the address provided:

Subject: Public Comment POA-2018-00210

Send to: Gregory.j.mazer@usace.army.mil

Dear Mr. Mazer,

I am writing to submit a public comment regarding Permit Application POA-2018-00210 for the proposed Graphite One open-pit graphite mine in the Kigluaik Mountains of Alaska.

I am deeply concerned about the potential environmental, cultural, and public health impacts this project poses to the region, particularly to the Alaska Native Tribal communities of Mary’s Igloo, Brevig Mission, and Teller, which are located near the proposed site and along the Kougarok Road, the intended haul route.

I am also concerned that the application is being fast-tracked under the Federal Fast-41 process, with the Trump administration’s executive orders favoring industrial extraction activities over proper environmental analysis of impacts on water and subsistence resources. Similarly, while the Army Corps of Engineers appears to have been communicating with Graphite One about the permit application no-such communication has occurred with regards to the application or jurisdictional determination regarding the application of the Waters of the U.S. Rule. Given these concerns, I respectfully request the following actions:

1. Extension of the public comment period from 30 days to at least 120 days, to ensure that all affected communities and Tribal governments have adequate time to review the project materials and provide input.

2. A full Environmental Impact Statement in lieu of the currently proposed Environmental Assessment, due to the scale, duration, and potential risks of the project.

3. A public hearing conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the region, to allow community members, Tribal representatives, and local organizations to formally express their concerns and have them included in the public record.

4. Ensure meaningful tribal consultation and the inclusion of the Federally recognized Native Villages of Mary’s Igloo, Teller, and Brevig Mission as Cooperating Agencies in the permitting process

Each of the Tribes has officially expressed opposition to this project. Their positions reflect the deep concern many residents share about potential harm to subsistence resources, water quality, and the long-term well-being of the land and people.

This project has far-reaching implications for the environment, for local and Tribal sovereignty, and for the future health of rural Alaskan communities. I urge the Corps to take these concerns seriously and to ensure that this process remains transparent, inclusive, and accountable.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.

But the current government shutdown is different. The Center for American Progress reports that the Trump Administration fired or bought out 20% of Park Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service employees, and 29,000 employees have been furloughed by the government shutdown, about half the remaining workforce. In addition, for the first time in history, the President of the United States has clearly shown that he has nothing but contempt for a large percentage of the American people - specifically those who didn’t vote for him. According to an October 1 article in the New Republic, in what “appears to be yet another petty, retributive move against states and senators that Trump considers to be his enemy” he vowed to remove almost $8 billion in green transition funding from those “that voted against him in 2024 and is represented by two Democrats in the Senate (where the shutdown fight just happens to be stuck).”

At the beginning of the month, Trump posted on social media that he would meet with White House aides to “determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut…” This action to reduce employees across the government beyond those typically furloughed (and only for Democrats), led Senator Chris Van Hollen, D-Md, to accuse the President of engaging in “mafia-style blackmail with his threats ultimately harming the American people.”

Similarly, Trump is using the shutdown to dismantle environmental regulatory standards, and resource extraction continues. Right after the shutdown began, for example, the President reversed a Biden Administration order to ban the Ambler Road in Western Alaska and then ordered the BLM to move forward with the project within 30 days.

Likewise, the Army Corps of Engineers’ Fast-Track permitting process for the Graphite One mine, located in the biologically rich Imuruk Basin on the Seward Peninsula, and which has so far completely omitted input from affected Alaska Native communities, has not skipped a beat despite the shutdown as the agency rushes to permit the mine. The Corps, which released the public notice for the mine’s permit application just before the shutdown, plans to stay on track with the rushed permitting schedule, providing the public a mere 30 days to comment on the application and limit environmental analysis of the impacts of the mine so that they can issue the permit in a record time of less than a year.

The irony in the administration’s endorsement of Graphite One is that the ore will be used to produce lithium batteries for electric cars as part of the green energy transition, something the Trump administration has consistently referred to as a conspiracy created by democrats and a waste of money. At the start of the government shutdown, for example, Office of Management and Budget Director and Project 2025 author Russ Vought, announced on X that OMB is cutting nearly “$8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda.”[3]

Unfortunately, we can no longer rely on Congress to do something about Trump’s vengeful and illegal actions. While the majority of the public blames Trump and the republicans in power for the shutdown, the republicans have long since given up any attempt to comply with their political mandate to protect the public or the environment from Trump.

At the same time, by holding out for mere table scraps such as Medicare funding, Democrats in Congress may be losing an opportunity to turn the tide against autocracy. According to political commentator Jamelle Bouie, rather than focusing solely on the Medicare issue, we should not accept to a budget deal that permits the administration to continue refusing to honor funding for programs already appropriated by Congress, unilaterally gutting federal programs, illegally redirecting funds, and making unauthorized and secretive expenditures. Bouie said Democrats should “agree to a budget deal that will include some guarantees or mechanisms that can prevent the administration from doing that. That’s simple, easy to understand. No government money for a president who doesn’t obey the law. And it puts the onus on the Republicans who run the government, who have the White House, who have been looking the other way on this stuff.

While the shutdown is devastating to federal programs and workers, communities, and others, it may provide another opportunity for us to save our country. According to Mike Littwin in an opinion piece in the Colorado Sun, Democrats, “it isn’t enough to debate policy. The shutdown needs to be a call to arms (figuratively, of course) against Trump, authoritarianism, and a nonstop assault on the Constitution…It’s time to fight. Long past time. If not now, as the millennia-old call to action warns, when?”

Hope to see you at the nationwide No Kings (2) Rallies this Saturday, October 18.

[1] American Rivers Fact Sheet, Government Shutdown Puts Rivers at Risk.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Meclom Ferguson, Trump Cuts Funding to 16 Blue States That Didn’t Vote for Him Amid the shutdown fight, Donald Trump is increasing pressure on states with two Democratic senators. (Oct. 1, 2025).

Below is an announcement on how folks can support disaster relief in the region.

Here are more ways to help.