Guest editorial: Where the heart is?

One fact underlies much of what has gone on during the first 50 years of statehood — most Alaskans are not from here. While in rural Alaska the population is largely Native and native-born, for urban Alaska almost 80 percent of my generation were born somewhere else.

We were the adventuresome generation that came north in the decades just before and after statehood, ready to “try it for a while,” but with no intention of staying forever. In casual conversation we asked, “Where are you from?” And we answered whichever state we emigrated from.

We became absorbed in the wonder of Alaska. Soon the camper gave way to a rental, and the part-time seasonal job gave way to full-time employment. We got married and had children and upgraded, if we were lucky, to a job with benefits, home ownership and cars that actually started in winter. Time flew.

Then came that fateful phone call. Mom called from several time zones away. After the kids talked to the grandmother they knew as a voice on the phone, she said something like, “Dad’s not doing so well, and we sure miss the grandchildren. When are you coming home?”

At that moment the question, “Where are you from?” became a more profound question of identity, family and soul: Where’s home? Some were just here for money or power and leaving was easy. Others left reluctantly. But many stayed and we became a conflicted generation.

On one hand we loved Alaska — we hiked, camped, skied, built businesses and careers and voted. But gnawing at our hearts was an obligation to family and the subconscious bond, if environmental philosopher Paul Shepard is right, to the place we lived in late childhood just before adolescence turned our thoughts to the opposite sex. Late childhood is known to be a time of increasing independence from parents, but, Shepard suggests, that dependence is replaced by a bond to the natural place of that time in our lives. The bond is exemplified by the fort in the woods, or the wildest place we can find at age 12, where the curriculum is the light, the sounds and smells of the landscape that structure the mind and provide comfort, context and understanding for the rest of our lives.

Some of us managed to transfer that place to Alaska, but it took decades. Now our children are the ones who built their fort in the woods, and it was Alaska woods. They have Alaska subconsciously embedded in their psyche. Unlike most of us, they are from here, but they too are conflicted.

That’s because we have tragically brought them up to be successful according to an Outside standard. “You’re a good student, you should go to Stanford,” some high school teacher told them, and so they did. The forces of popular culture define success in terms of New York, Washington or Los Angeles and those left behind are the implied losers. As one student editorial writer put it several years ago in the Northern Light student newspaper: “We don’t go to UAA because we want to, we go because we have to.” Second best — or at least the perception of it.

So the 50 years of statehood has resulted in an older generation conflicted by the question of, “Where’s home?” and a second generation asking, “Why stay?”
Many have resolved these personal conflicts, but many have not. It will take another 50 years to fully acknowledge that the answers lie all around us. The generation being born now will, despite globalization and Hollywood, need to think of home, identity and sanity in terms of the circumpolar north.

With luck and purpose, 50 years from now the third and emerging fourth generations after Alaska statehood will have built a culture of the North guided by Native tradition expressed in history, science, sport, art, music, literature and poetry that embraces the place for what it is. They, and we, must recognize that our destiny is as Northern people in a Northern land with an unparalleled landscape and a wealth of sustainable energy upon which a sustainable, and therefore sovereign and equitable, society can be built.

As for now — we need to make decisions that will allow future generations of Alaskans to create the great Northern society we have not.

Alan Boraas is a professor of anthropology at Kenai Peninsula College. This column first appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on Jan. 10.

Editorial — Speak truth to power?

Hikes in energy costs over the past year have been a rude awakening on the central Kenai Peninsula to the fact that abundant, cheap energy is a luxury, not a right, and certainly not a guarantee. The peninsula, like most of the country, had it good for a long time, and so was able to put off the difficult discussions and decisions about power generation that other countries have been struggling with.

Not any longer.

The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors made a good decision Feb. 10 to initiate a power supply study before committing to buying electricity from the Healy coal project.

The goal of the independent study is to provide the board with a cost-benefit analysis of possible power generation sources, including natural gas, coal and various renewable energies. “The study will consider all factors involved in power production, including possible future fuel costs, regulatory issues, reliability, and most importantly, the impact it will have on the rates paid by our members,” said board president Debbie Debnam.

Now is the time to wean our dependence off fossil fuels for power generation. Regardless of where one stands on the environmental issues of burning oil, natural gas and coal for fuel, the financial ramifications of doing so can’t be ignored. On the peninsula, it stares us in the face with each electric bill and heating bill.

Fossil fuels come with a cost —and it’s a rising one. Not only are supplies of natural gas and oil dwindling, the price of relying on them for our main power source is rising. Switching to coal would put us on the same path down the road.

There’s no time like the present to change that path. Our hope is this study prompts the HEA board to commit to developing renewable sources of energy. It will mean more money up front, but that investment will pay off when electric rates aren’t so shackled to fossil fuels. That’s the kind of “green” movement everyone can get behind.

Guest editorial: Where the heart is?

One fact underlies much of what has gone on during the first 50 years of statehood — most Alaskans are not from here. While in rural Alaska the population is largely Native and native-born, for urban Alaska almost 80 percent of my generation were born somewhere else.

We were the adventuresome generation that came north in the decades just before and after statehood, ready to “try it for a while,” but with no intention of staying forever. In casual conversation we asked, “Where are you from?” And we answered whichever state we emigrated from.

We became absorbed in the wonder of Alaska. Soon the camper gave way to a rental, and the part-time seasonal job gave way to full-time employment. We got married and had children and upgraded, if we were lucky, to a job with benefits, home ownership and cars that actually started in winter. Time flew.

Then came that fateful phone call. Mom called from several time zones away. After the kids talked to the grandmother they knew as a voice on the phone, she said something like, “Dad’s not doing so well, and we sure miss the grandchildren. When are you coming home?”

At that moment the question, “Where are you from?” became a more profound question of identity, family and soul: Where’s home? Some were just here for money or power and leaving was easy. Others left reluctantly. But many stayed and we became a conflicted generation.

On one hand we loved Alaska — we hiked, camped, skied, built businesses and careers and voted. But gnawing at our hearts was an obligation to family and the subconscious bond, if environmental philosopher Paul Shepard is right, to the place we lived in late childhood just before adolescence turned our thoughts to the opposite sex. Late childhood is known to be a time of increasing independence from parents, but, Shepard suggests, that dependence is replaced by a bond to the natural place of that time in our lives. The bond is exemplified by the fort in the woods, or the wildest place we can find at age 12, where the curriculum is the light, the sounds and smells of the landscape that structure the mind and provide comfort, context and understanding for the rest of our lives.

Some of us managed to transfer that place to Alaska, but it took decades. Now our children are the ones who built their fort in the woods, and it was Alaska woods. They have Alaska subconsciously embedded in their psyche. Unlike most of us, they are from here, but they too are conflicted.

That’s because we have tragically brought them up to be successful according to an Outside standard. “You’re a good student, you should go to Stanford,” some high school teacher told them, and so they did. The forces of popular culture define success in terms of New York, Washington or Los Angeles and those left behind are the implied losers. As one student editorial writer put it several years ago in the Northern Light student newspaper: “We don’t go to UAA because we want to, we go because we have to.” Second best — or at least the perception of it.

So the 50 years of statehood has resulted in an older generation conflicted by the question of, “Where’s home?” and a second generation asking, “Why stay?”
Many have resolved these personal conflicts, but many have not. It will take another 50 years to fully acknowledge that the answers lie all around us. The generation being born now will, despite globalization and Hollywood, need to think of home, identity and sanity in terms of the circumpolar north.

With luck and purpose, 50 years from now the third and emerging fourth generations after Alaska statehood will have built a culture of the North guided by Native tradition expressed in history, science, sport, art, music, literature and poetry that embraces the place for what it is. They, and we, must recognize that our destiny is as Northern people in a Northern land with an unparalleled landscape and a wealth of sustainable energy upon which a sustainable, and therefore sovereign and equitable, society can be built.

As for now — we need to make decisions that will allow future generations of Alaskans to create the great Northern society we have not.

Alan Boraas is a professor of anthropology at Kenai Peninsula College. This column first appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on Jan. 10.

Editorial — Speak truth to power?

Hikes in energy costs over the past year have been a rude awakening on the central Kenai Peninsula to the fact that abundant, cheap energy is a luxury, not a right, and certainly not a guarantee. The peninsula, like most of the country, had it good for a long time, and so was able to put off the difficult discussions and decisions about power generation that other countries have been struggling with.

Not any longer.

The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors made a good decision Feb. 10 to initiate a power supply study before committing to buying electricity from the Healy coal project.

The goal of the independent study is to provide the board with a cost-benefit analysis of possible power generation sources, including natural gas, coal and various renewable energies. “The study will consider all factors involved in power production, including possible future fuel costs, regulatory issues, reliability, and most importantly, the impact it will have on the rates paid by our members,” said board president Debbie Debnam.

Now is the time to wean our dependence off fossil fuels for power generation. Regardless of where one stands on the environmental issues of burning oil, natural gas and coal for fuel, the financial ramifications of doing so can’t be ignored. On the peninsula, it stares us in the face with each electric bill and heating bill.

Fossil fuels come with a cost —and it’s a rising one. Not only are supplies of natural gas and oil dwindling, the price of relying on them for our main power source is rising. Switching to coal would put us on the same path down the road.

There’s no time like the present to change that path. Our hope is this study prompts the HEA board to commit to developing renewable sources of energy. It will mean more money up front, but that investment will pay off when electric rates aren’t so shackled to fossil fuels. That’s the kind of “green” movement everyone can get behind.

Guest editorial: Joint effort needed to study belugas now, before it’s too late

Should belugas be protected as an endangered species? This is really several questions in one:

Do belugas warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act? Definitely. The population has little chance of long-term survival unless its size can be increased and kept above 1,000 whales.

Wouldn’t the problem disappear as soon as the last beluga dies? Wouldn’t we save a fortune and years of trouble by covertly killing all the remaining belugas? No! That’s like saying the way to way to cure liver disease is by cutting out your liver. That kind of “cure” can be worse than the disease.

Don’t fall for the myth that ecological disruptions lack economic and social consequences. Perhaps the best-known marine example is impacts to commercial fishing when sea otter numbers crashed along the central Pacific coast. Without their predation on sea urchins, the urchins did so much damage to kelp forests that fish dependent on these forests crashed. A “balance” between predator and prey numbers is vital to the health of an ecosystem.

Hasn’t the decline in belugas actually helped fishermen? We don’t know. Granted, belugas compete with salmon for herring prey; and belugas eat salmon. But whether those losses outweigh benefits provided by belugas is still impossible to say. Ecological impacts of changing beluga numbers are largely unknown, despite decades of requests by biologists for funding to study this.

Failure of governments to provide adequate support hasn’t made the problem go away; it’s just gotten worse and more expensive to cure. Had we been working on this full steam for the past two decades, we’d have solid answers in hand and have been able to innovate minimal-cost technologies for keeping human impacts within tolerable limits.

Unfortunately, local and state governments waited to the 11th hour and their feet are still dragging. With every passing month, chances of success fall and potential costs rise.

Would the benefits of protection outweigh the costs? Cost-benefit ratios vary from person to person, and community to community, depending on who reaps the benefits vs. who pays the costs. Some costs could be felt very quickly, for instance if beluga protection were to preclude mining coal on the western side of Cook Inlet or require installation of more thorough treatment of sewage and other effluents from Anchorage. However, until we know a lot more about how our activities impact belugas, we will have little basis for identifying needed protections, much less for evaluating their costs.

It’s time to pull our collective heads out of the sand and quickly ramp up studies of beluga ecology and of how we humans impact them. The sooner we have this information, the more effectively and efficiently we can identify and implement protective measures that meet beluga needs with minimal economic and social impact.

What steps should we take? Identify legal requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other relevant statutes, court decisions and agency regulations.

We all know what a nightmare government red tape can be. This is partly a consequence of antiquated methods of educating ourselves about legalities. Invaluable aid has been provided by uploading legal information onto the Web where it is accessible to search engines. But even with that assistance, some laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, are so convoluted that major sections defy logical analysis – a job I once attempted as an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Reading statutory law is just a first step. We also need to review case law and agency regulations. Some “laws” need to be clarified and/or made more user-friendly. It’s not enough to have the information available. You’ll never find the information you need unless you know enough to ask the right questions and how to interpret the answers. So-called “expert systems” employing artificial intelligence — way beyond that in search engines — could be of great assistance, and save folks a fortune in legal fees.

Business functions best in a climate where legal gray areas are minimized as much as possible so that we can anticipate with fair reliability which of our actions would be judged legal vs. illegal (as well as which conservation measures would be effective vs. ineffective). This may require being very proactive, perhaps in revising the MMPA.

For each municipality, business or other entity to tackle these challenges individually would be intolerably expensive. A far cheaper alternative is to do much of it collectively. For example, the Kenai Peninsula Borough might solicit donations from local industries and small businesses as matching funds for federal and state grants. Think of it as an economic stimulus package for Southcentral Alaska.

Every million dollars saved is another million dollars earned — tax free.

Dr. Stephen Stringham earned his master of science degree at the University of Alaska studying moose, and his doctorate degree studying bears. He is the author of five books on Alaska’s wildlife.

Guest editorial: Joint effort needed to study belugas now, before it’s too late

Should belugas be protected as an endangered species? This is really several questions in one:

Do belugas warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act? Definitely. The population has little chance of long-term survival unless its size can be increased and kept above 1,000 whales.

Wouldn’t the problem disappear as soon as the last beluga dies? Wouldn’t we save a fortune and years of trouble by covertly killing all the remaining belugas? No! That’s like saying the way to way to cure liver disease is by cutting out your liver. That kind of “cure” can be worse than the disease.

Don’t fall for the myth that ecological disruptions lack economic and social consequences. Perhaps the best-known marine example is impacts to commercial fishing when sea otter numbers crashed along the central Pacific coast. Without their predation on sea urchins, the urchins did so much damage to kelp forests that fish dependent on these forests crashed. A “balance” between predator and prey numbers is vital to the health of an ecosystem.

Hasn’t the decline in belugas actually helped fishermen? We don’t know. Granted, belugas compete with salmon for herring prey; and belugas eat salmon. But whether those losses outweigh benefits provided by belugas is still impossible to say. Ecological impacts of changing beluga numbers are largely unknown, despite decades of requests by biologists for funding to study this.

Failure of governments to provide adequate support hasn’t made the problem go away; it’s just gotten worse and more expensive to cure. Had we been working on this full steam for the past two decades, we’d have solid answers in hand and have been able to innovate minimal-cost technologies for keeping human impacts within tolerable limits.

Unfortunately, local and state governments waited to the 11th hour and their feet are still dragging. With every passing month, chances of success fall and potential costs rise.

Would the benefits of protection outweigh the costs? Cost-benefit ratios vary from person to person, and community to community, depending on who reaps the benefits vs. who pays the costs. Some costs could be felt very quickly, for instance if beluga protection were to preclude mining coal on the western side of Cook Inlet or require installation of more thorough treatment of sewage and other effluents from Anchorage. However, until we know a lot more about how our activities impact belugas, we will have little basis for identifying needed protections, much less for evaluating their costs.

It’s time to pull our collective heads out of the sand and quickly ramp up studies of beluga ecology and of how we humans impact them. The sooner we have this information, the more effectively and efficiently we can identify and implement protective measures that meet beluga needs with minimal economic and social impact.

What steps should we take? Identify legal requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other relevant statutes, court decisions and agency regulations.

We all know what a nightmare government red tape can be. This is partly a consequence of antiquated methods of educating ourselves about legalities. Invaluable aid has been provided by uploading legal information onto the Web where it is accessible to search engines. But even with that assistance, some laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, are so convoluted that major sections defy logical analysis – a job I once attempted as an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Reading statutory law is just a first step. We also need to review case law and agency regulations. Some “laws” need to be clarified and/or made more user-friendly. It’s not enough to have the information available. You’ll never find the information you need unless you know enough to ask the right questions and how to interpret the answers. So-called “expert systems” employing artificial intelligence — way beyond that in search engines — could be of great assistance, and save folks a fortune in legal fees.

Business functions best in a climate where legal gray areas are minimized as much as possible so that we can anticipate with fair reliability which of our actions would be judged legal vs. illegal (as well as which conservation measures would be effective vs. ineffective). This may require being very proactive, perhaps in revising the MMPA.

For each municipality, business or other entity to tackle these challenges individually would be intolerably expensive. A far cheaper alternative is to do much of it collectively. For example, the Kenai Peninsula Borough might solicit donations from local industries and small businesses as matching funds for federal and state grants. Think of it as an economic stimulus package for Southcentral Alaska.

Every million dollars saved is another million dollars earned — tax free.

Dr. Stephen Stringham earned his master of science degree at the University of Alaska studying moose, and his doctorate degree studying bears. He is the author of five books on Alaska’s wildlife.

Editorial: Image is everything in lead-up to hydro

For Kenai Hydro, the Homer Electric Association partnership that’s pursuing hydroelectric projects in the Moose Pass area, image is just about everything when it comes to gaining public support.

That’s why invoking the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute is a powerful sign. It’s an independent, well-respected organization that certifies certain hydropower projects as “low-impact,” meaning they meet stringent criteria meant to ensure protection of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and historic interests.

Kenai Hydro has included the LIHI logo in its presentations and started off saying it intended to apply for certification for its projects. At recent meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, however, they’ve said they’re not eligible because the LIHI doesn’t certify new projects built after 1998. But they still use the logo and say they’ll follow the LIHI’s guidelines to create low-impact projects.

The change caused some raised eyebrows. In Cooper Landing, a resident requested that Kenai Hydro stop using LIHI’s logo because it creates the false impression that the organization has some involvement or association with the group, with is not true. In Moose Pass, Bruce Jaffa said he’s concerned that Kenai Hydro didn’t get all this straightened out before they started telling the public about it.

“I think it was a little wishful thinking that they could include that,” he said. “When you see a drastic change like that early on it gives you some reason to wonder why it wasn’t caught earlier.”

Fred Ayer, executive director of the LIHI, said he hasn’t been contacted by HEA or Kenai Hydro and that, “If they are using our logo, they are using it without our permission and in a way that certainly could confuse stakeholders.”

Ayer said the group’s focus is dams, and it does not support the construction of new dams, which is why it doesn’t certify new hydro dams built after 1998 — the year before LIHI was formed. But it is considering new, nondam technology for hydro and plans to create criteria for certifying new facilities. Kenai Hydro is planning dam structures.

If Kenai Hydro’s mistake in being ineligible for LIHI certification was a simple oversight, that’s one thing. But to know they don’t qualify and still use the LIHI image gives the impression of an association that doesn’t exist. It’s laudable and responsible for Kenai Hydro to want to follow the low-impact criteria, but without the LIHI having a say in whether they’re actually following it or not negates the whole purpose of the certification. Who is Kenai Hydro to say its creating low-impact projects along the lines of LIHI, without an impartial viewer checking to verify the claim?

Facts, figures, schematics and all the technical data that will come from environmental and design research will matter most to regulators in deciding whether to grant approval to build the projects — whether it’s one or all four, the way they’re envisioned now or in some revised state.

That information will matter to folks keeping close tabs on the development of the projects, too, but in this early stage of the process, when first impressions can lead to knee-jerk reactions of support or opposition, appearance reigns supreme.

Kenai Hydro needs to show it’s concerned about the environment it’s looking to alter and that it cares about protecting fish and wildlife habitat, recreational uses and scenic beauty. Maybe not as much as area residents do, because playing the “I hike up there once a year” card won’t win any credibility with locals, but at least enough to make people believe they’ll do what they can to minimize impacts from the projects.

Kenai Hydro’s desire to be low-impact is important and following the guidelines of the LIHI of its own accord is admirable, but to use the group’s name and logo to lend credibility to its projects, when in fact there is no association, just plain looks bad.

And that’s the wrong image to create.

Guest editorial: America’s responsibility, opportunity as an Arctic nation

Although many in the Lower 48 did not pay much attention, the White House recently released an important new policy statement dealing with an area of the world that is close to the hearts of many Alaskans — the Arctic.

The Arctic Policy 2009 calls for enhanced security, increased environmental protection, sustainable energy development, international scientific cooperation and greater involvement of indigenous people in the Arctic. U.S. Arctic Policy was last updated in 1994, but the Arctic is vastly different today than it was 15 years ago. The administration’s updated Arctic policy recognizes the United States as an Arctic nation — thanks to Alaska’s geographic location — and details new objectives, priorities and needs for the region.

Climate change and the environmental changes that come with it are occurring at an unprecedented rate in the Arctic. The polar ice cap is melting and areas that have never been accessible to energy development, shipping, and tourism have been opening up during the summer, leading some to predict that one day in the near future the fabled Northwest Passage, connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, might be a regular shipping route. This is an intriguing prospect for Alaskans.

A more accessible Arctic Ocean will require enhanced environmental protection in order to protect the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem. We must find the balance to allow for reasonable development of our vast natural resources while maintaining strong protections for the environment. Maritime activities relating to the transportation of goods, oil and gas, tourism and research will surely increase as marine access to the Arctic Ocean increases. Marine transportation through an ice-diminished Arctic has the potential to reduce shipping routes by thousands of miles, thereby greatly increasing the amount of maritime traffic just off our shores.

The distance through the Northern Sea Route reduces the Hamburg to Yokahama voyage by almost 5,000 miles. Recognizing that there will be increased activity in this area represents perhaps the greatest challenge and need for international cooperation. This is action that needs to be taken now, not after a major maritime disaster occurs.

The Arctic, however, isn’t just about responsibility — it offers opportunity, as well. We in Alaska know we have many of the resources that hold the key to bringing down the cost of energy in this country and reducing our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. Recently, the United States Geological Survey estimated that the Alaskan Arctic might contain more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 221 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in its undiscovered reserves.

There is also tremendous opportunity for Alaska to be even more of a leader in international scientific research. Some of the best scientific minds are already working in Alaska in our universities and in the field on climate and Arctic research.

While energy production in the Arctic is vital, we must not forget about Alaska’s first peoples of the North: the Inupiat, Athabascan and Yupik. The dramatic changes that are occurring may have a profound impact on our environment and their traditional way of life. Preserving the culture, languages and subsistence lifestyle of these Alaskans must remain paramount in our endeavors. That is why they must be involved in the political, legal and scientific decision-making to ensure that their voice, as the residents of the Arctic, will be heard.

When Russia planted a flag on the sea floor beneath the North Pole in 2007, seeking to claim almost half of the Arctic, it sent a strong message to Alaskans and the rest of the world. While the United States is working to map our own extended continental shelf, the best way to secure international recognition of our claim is by ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea. We cannot dispute other claims that might overlap with ours until we do. This intense interest in claiming Arctic territory is primarily driven by the quest for Arctic resources. Until recently, the resources of the Arctic were deemed to be too difficult and expensive to develop, but the region is now being explored and developed at an unprecedented rate.

Alaska and the United States must prepare for a melting Arctic and the international implications that brings. Our neighbors, Canada and Russia, are continuing to move forward with their claims and the development of their offshore energy resources and shipping routes. It is crucial to Alaska that the United States engage in multilateral discussions to establish strong international agreements to manage activities in the Arctic. If the U.S. is going to be a leader in this vital region, it is time to step up to the plate. Congress and the executive branch need to work together to implement this new presidential directive and give the Arctic the attention it deserves.

Sen. Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, hosted the eighth Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians in Fairbanks in August.

Guest editorial:Habitat partnership puts focuses on fish

Kenai Peninsula Fish Habitat Partnership is a conservation partnership developing on the Kenai Peninsula. This partnership is working with the National Fish Habitat Action Plan to protect, restore and enhance our area’s fish and aquatic communities.

KPFHP is one of several partnerships developed concurrently with the National Fish Habitat Plan, designed to raise awareness of fish initiatives, assign priorities and generate annual congressional support to improve aquatic habitat. National Fish Habitat Action Plan is all about locally driven efforts that build private and public partnerships to improve fish habitat. Fish Habitat Action Plan partnerships are self-identified, self-organized and self-directed communities of interest formed around geographic areas, keystone species or system types.

These partnerships are nonregulatory and voluntary; locally and regionally based; driven by grassroots partners; focused on protection, restoration and enhancement in key watersheds; science-based; linked nationally; sustainable and accountable; and nonallocative.

The KPFHP began with a letter from the National Fish Habitat Action Plan Board accepting our request to be considered a regional partner. Since that time, an ad hoc committee representing various interests has come together to begin working on a strategic plan addressing the needs of fish habitat across a “region.” The group has conducted several public outreach meetings across the Kenai Peninsula and will continue to seek input throughout the development of the strategic plan. Developing this plan under the guidance provided by the National Fish Habitat Action Plan is our first step in being accepted as a regional partner. We anticipate this process continuing through May of 2009 and will be updated regularly under the strategic plan section of the Web site, http://office.kenaiwatershed.org/KPFHP.

Working to protect fish habitat on the Kenai Peninsula should be a goal all interests could and should support.

Editorial: Image is everything in lead-up to hydro

For Kenai Hydro, the Homer Electric Association partnership that’s pursuing hydroelectric projects in the Moose Pass area, image is just about everything when it comes to gaining public support.

That’s why invoking the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute is a powerful sign. It’s an independent, well-respected organization that certifies certain hydropower projects as “low-impact,” meaning they meet stringent criteria meant to ensure protection of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and historic interests.

Kenai Hydro has included the LIHI logo in its presentations and started off saying it intended to apply for certification for its projects. At recent meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, however, they’ve said they’re not eligible because the LIHI doesn’t certify new projects built after 1998. But they still use the logo and say they’ll follow the LIHI’s guidelines to create low-impact projects.

The change caused some raised eyebrows. In Cooper Landing, a resident requested that Kenai Hydro stop using LIHI’s logo because it creates the false impression that the organization has some involvement or association with the group, with is not true. In Moose Pass, Bruce Jaffa said he’s concerned that Kenai Hydro didn’t get all this straightened out before they started telling the public about it.

“I think it was a little wishful thinking that they could include that,” he said. “When you see a drastic change like that early on it gives you some reason to wonder why it wasn’t caught earlier.”

Fred Ayer, executive director of the LIHI, said he hasn’t been contacted by HEA or Kenai Hydro and that, “If they are using our logo, they are using it without our permission and in a way that certainly could confuse stakeholders.”

Ayer said the group’s focus is dams, and it does not support the construction of new dams, which is why it doesn’t certify new hydro dams built after 1998 — the year before LIHI was formed. But it is considering new, nondam technology for hydro and plans to create criteria for certifying new facilities. Kenai Hydro is planning dam structures.

If Kenai Hydro’s mistake in being ineligible for LIHI certification was a simple oversight, that’s one thing. But to know they don’t qualify and still use the LIHI image gives the impression of an association that doesn’t exist. It’s laudable and responsible for Kenai Hydro to want to follow the low-impact criteria, but without the LIHI having a say in whether they’re actually following it or not negates the whole purpose of the certification. Who is Kenai Hydro to say its creating low-impact projects along the lines of LIHI, without an impartial viewer checking to verify the claim?

Facts, figures, schematics and all the technical data that will come from environmental and design research will matter most to regulators in deciding whether to grant approval to build the projects — whether it’s one or all four, the way they’re envisioned now or in some revised state.

That information will matter to folks keeping close tabs on the development of the projects, too, but in this early stage of the process, when first impressions can lead to knee-jerk reactions of support or opposition, appearance reigns supreme.

Kenai Hydro needs to show it’s concerned about the environment it’s looking to alter and that it cares about protecting fish and wildlife habitat, recreational uses and scenic beauty. Maybe not as much as area residents do, because playing the “I hike up there once a year” card won’t win any credibility with locals, but at least enough to make people believe they’ll do what they can to minimize impacts from the projects.

Kenai Hydro’s desire to be low-impact is important and following the guidelines of the LIHI of its own accord is admirable, but to use the group’s name and logo to lend credibility to its projects, when in fact there is no association, just plain looks bad.

And that’s the wrong image to create.

Guest editorial: America’s responsibility, opportunity as an Arctic nation

Although many in the Lower 48 did not pay much attention, the White House recently released an important new policy statement dealing with an area of the world that is close to the hearts of many Alaskans — the Arctic.

The Arctic Policy 2009 calls for enhanced security, increased environmental protection, sustainable energy development, international scientific cooperation and greater involvement of indigenous people in the Arctic. U.S. Arctic Policy was last updated in 1994, but the Arctic is vastly different today than it was 15 years ago. The administration’s updated Arctic policy recognizes the United States as an Arctic nation — thanks to Alaska’s geographic location — and details new objectives, priorities and needs for the region.

Climate change and the environmental changes that come with it are occurring at an unprecedented rate in the Arctic. The polar ice cap is melting and areas that have never been accessible to energy development, shipping, and tourism have been opening up during the summer, leading some to predict that one day in the near future the fabled Northwest Passage, connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, might be a regular shipping route. This is an intriguing prospect for Alaskans.

A more accessible Arctic Ocean will require enhanced environmental protection in order to protect the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem. We must find the balance to allow for reasonable development of our vast natural resources while maintaining strong protections for the environment. Maritime activities relating to the transportation of goods, oil and gas, tourism and research will surely increase as marine access to the Arctic Ocean increases. Marine transportation through an ice-diminished Arctic has the potential to reduce shipping routes by thousands of miles, thereby greatly increasing the amount of maritime traffic just off our shores.

The distance through the Northern Sea Route reduces the Hamburg to Yokahama voyage by almost 5,000 miles. Recognizing that there will be increased activity in this area represents perhaps the greatest challenge and need for international cooperation. This is action that needs to be taken now, not after a major maritime disaster occurs.

The Arctic, however, isn’t just about responsibility — it offers opportunity, as well. We in Alaska know we have many of the resources that hold the key to bringing down the cost of energy in this country and reducing our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. Recently, the United States Geological Survey estimated that the Alaskan Arctic might contain more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 221 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in its undiscovered reserves.

There is also tremendous opportunity for Alaska to be even more of a leader in international scientific research. Some of the best scientific minds are already working in Alaska in our universities and in the field on climate and Arctic research.

While energy production in the Arctic is vital, we must not forget about Alaska’s first peoples of the North: the Inupiat, Athabascan and Yupik. The dramatic changes that are occurring may have a profound impact on our environment and their traditional way of life. Preserving the culture, languages and subsistence lifestyle of these Alaskans must remain paramount in our endeavors. That is why they must be involved in the political, legal and scientific decision-making to ensure that their voice, as the residents of the Arctic, will be heard.

When Russia planted a flag on the sea floor beneath the North Pole in 2007, seeking to claim almost half of the Arctic, it sent a strong message to Alaskans and the rest of the world. While the United States is working to map our own extended continental shelf, the best way to secure international recognition of our claim is by ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea. We cannot dispute other claims that might overlap with ours until we do. This intense interest in claiming Arctic territory is primarily driven by the quest for Arctic resources. Until recently, the resources of the Arctic were deemed to be too difficult and expensive to develop, but the region is now being explored and developed at an unprecedented rate.

Alaska and the United States must prepare for a melting Arctic and the international implications that brings. Our neighbors, Canada and Russia, are continuing to move forward with their claims and the development of their offshore energy resources and shipping routes. It is crucial to Alaska that the United States engage in multilateral discussions to establish strong international agreements to manage activities in the Arctic. If the U.S. is going to be a leader in this vital region, it is time to step up to the plate. Congress and the executive branch need to work together to implement this new presidential directive and give the Arctic the attention it deserves.

Sen. Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, hosted the eighth Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians in Fairbanks in August.

Guest editorial:Habitat partnership puts focuses on fish

Kenai Peninsula Fish Habitat Partnership is a conservation partnership developing on the Kenai Peninsula. This partnership is working with the National Fish Habitat Action Plan to protect, restore and enhance our area’s fish and aquatic communities.

KPFHP is one of several partnerships developed concurrently with the National Fish Habitat Plan, designed to raise awareness of fish initiatives, assign priorities and generate annual congressional support to improve aquatic habitat. National Fish Habitat Action Plan is all about locally driven efforts that build private and public partnerships to improve fish habitat. Fish Habitat Action Plan partnerships are self-identified, self-organized and self-directed communities of interest formed around geographic areas, keystone species or system types.

These partnerships are nonregulatory and voluntary; locally and regionally based; driven by grassroots partners; focused on protection, restoration and enhancement in key watersheds; science-based; linked nationally; sustainable and accountable; and nonallocative.

The KPFHP began with a letter from the National Fish Habitat Action Plan Board accepting our request to be considered a regional partner. Since that time, an ad hoc committee representing various interests has come together to begin working on a strategic plan addressing the needs of fish habitat across a “region.” The group has conducted several public outreach meetings across the Kenai Peninsula and will continue to seek input throughout the development of the strategic plan. Developing this plan under the guidance provided by the National Fish Habitat Action Plan is our first step in being accepted as a regional partner. We anticipate this process continuing through May of 2009 and will be updated regularly under the strategic plan section of the Web site, http://office.kenaiwatershed.org/KPFHP.

Working to protect fish habitat on the Kenai Peninsula should be a goal all interests could and should support.