Opinion

Dec. 23,  2009,   Editorial: Little can go a very long way

Economic recessions create a dangerous spiral. As profits decrease, jobs vanish and incomes shrink, belts are tightened to make up the difference. One of the areas strangled by budget tightening is support for charities and nonprofit organizations. But in tough economic times, the need for support services is at its greatest.

It’s a frustrating equation — needs increase while the financial ability to support them plummets.

But needs don’t have to go unmet, as our community has shown in several venues recently. One example shows the power of many doing a little versus a few doing a lot. A fundraiser for the family of Ivy Howland, a Kenai teen battling cancer, was happily quite successful. It wasn’t because of a few major donors, although the fundraiser did see some impressive acts of generosity. It was more a result of so many people helping out, from organizing the fundraiser to spreading the word about it, and people and businesses donating whatever they could. What those donations lacked in decimal places they made up for in quantity.

Additionally, Les Nelson, of Soldotna, is demonstrating the virtue of doing what you can, where you can. Through new friends and visits to the Philippines, he’s been touched by the plight of underprivileged kids lacking educations and the prospect of a job or a good life. Like many faced with a situation as large-scale and debilitating as childhood poverty, Nelson felt overwhelmed. There are three paths in that situation —ignore it, write a check for whatever can be spared and tell yourself anything more is out of your control, or roll up your sleeves and figure out what is in your control to do.

Nelson chose the latter. He’s an artist and graphic designer, and figured that’s what he has to offer, so he’s embarked on an effort to build an art school to train kids for careers in graphic design.

Such a grandiose gesture isn’t feasible for everyone, but the sentiment behind it is. Heavy financial support for worthy causes may not be within everyone’s means right now, but everyone has something they can offer. Perhaps a skill or service that can be used to further a noble aim, or a a donation of an item already owned or that can be made. If nothing else, time is a commodity always needed in fundraisers and nonprofit organizations.

Instead of lamenting that you can’t afford to give what you did last year, ask yourself —what can I do this year? The answer may be a smaller amount next to a dollar sign, or it could be something not monetary at all. Everyone has something of use —whether it’s skill at holding a hammer, a finesse for manning phone lines or simply time and the willingness to put it to use doing whatever is needed. It may only be a little this coming year, but it can go a long way.

Dec. 23,  2009,   Guest editorial: Healy coal belongs in mothballs

For years, many Alaskans have warned against firing up the Healy Clean Coal Plant for a host of reasons ranging from economic to environmental. Now it appears resource experts hired by the state to develop a 50-year power plan also have reached the same conclusion: bringing that boondoggle out of retirement could be another hugely expensive mistake.

Citing the significant risk of carbon pricing, Alaska’s consultants, Black and Veatch Corp., have made a clear recommendation that this plant should remain dormant. To us ratepayers especially, their assessment is reason enough to let it remain in mothballs.

The company recently released the draft of the Alaska Railbelt Regional Integrated Resource Plan. The final version will provide a plan for the state’s energy development over the next half century. In that draft, Black and Veatch noted that:

“Due to the operating cost risks associated with the possible enactment of CO2 legislation, Black and Veatch does not recommend that HCCP be included in the preferred resource plan at this time. HCCP is currently being held in mothball status: Black & Veatch recommends that this condition be maintained for the foreseeable future until such time as it becomes clear whether CO2 regulations are enacted and the resulting economic impact on the plant can be determined.”

Black and Veatch’s assessment is right on the mark. CO2 standards appear to be right around the corner. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are pollutants and thus subject to provisions of the Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection Agency ruled recently that greenhouse gases threaten public health. The Obama administration is free to initiate emission controls through regulation. Nationally there is much political backing for such a move.

The U.S. energy industry apparently confirms what Black & Veatch is saying. Although they had been expecting the EPA ruling for some time, since the announcement, spokesmen have warned that the industry should expect increasing uncertainty and higher costs, especially among large-scale coal burners, like cement manufacturers and power generators.

If wasting the public’s money isn’t reason enough for state officials to back away from re-opening the HCCP, there are plenty more good arguments focused on protecting the environment and public health.

We have an abundance of natural gas. Exploiting that resource requires only the political will to open the state’s savings account and build a pipeline. Beyond that, the $12.5 million the Alaska Senate approved from the Railbelt Energy Fund just to get the HCCP working would be better used instead to promote clean and renewable energy resources – wind, solar, tidal and geothermal – of which the state also has plenty.

Black and Veatch has something to say about these resources, too. They recommend continuing development of Southcentral Power Project (natural gas) and the Fire Island and Nikiski wind projects. In addition, the company advised moving forward with research into the Glacier Fork, Chakachamna and Susitna hydroelectric projects, at least until environmental, geotechnical and capital costs can be understood sufficiently to determine if they are viable.

The company noted further that wind, tidal and geothermal would “become commercially mature” during the 50-year life of the plan, providing Alaskans with stably priced power.

If tapping into these cleaner energy resources is to become a reality, Alaska must fully commit to their development and the sooner the better. That means rejecting wasteful spending on attempts to make a failed idea work. On the bright side, the Healy plant has lived up to its name. It’s the cleanest type of coal plant we can imagine — one that burns no coal at all. Now let’s put our money to good work.

Mike O’Meara is spokesman for the Homer Electric Association Members Forum.

Dec. 16,  2009,   Editorial: Legislature return to 90 days? Not so fast

State representatives responding to a survey say they are unhappy with the 90-day legislative session and are considering a move back to 120 days.

Sessions were shortened from 120 to 90 days by voters in 2006, as a way to cut ballooning costs of sessions and to force legislators to go about their business in a more effective time frame.

The reasons legislators give for preferring a longer session tug at the democratic heartstrings. Legislators don’t have time to communicate enough with their constituents. Some matters only get one hearing, which doesn’t allow for enough research, consideration or attention. In short, bills are passed in haste and residents don’t have enough say in what’s going on.

It sounds like the 90-day session is an affront to good public process, and that may well prove to be the case, but far more factors than just legislators’ preference need to be considered before any sort of change is made.

After all, ask a quorum of just kids if they think summer vacation should be longer and you’ll get a resounding yes. But their preference is hardly the only perspective that matters.

Voters should have a say in this, too, and should have all the pertinent information available before any decisions are made. For instance, how much money is being saved by 90-day sessions versus 120 days, including resultant special sessions that have happened under both time frames? Do constituents feel like they’re lacking access to legislators or are left out of the public process? What bills, specifically, can be shown to have suffered or have had negative consequences because of the shorter session?

Legislators are quick to point out they don’t have enough time to do their work yet they jump to conclusions about reversing a public vote. The 90-day session may well prove to be too short, but the Legislature shouldn’t take it upon itself to switch back to 120 days without further consideration.

Dec. 9,  2009,   Editorial: Iditarod on the trail of change

Competitive mushing is at a crossroads in Alaska.

Economic pressures make dog sled racing an increasingly costly sport. Mushers’ expenses have gone up with prices for fuel and transportation, food, gear and veterinary services. Costs of putting on races continue to climb, and are never balanced out by even the most diehard volunteers. Bowing to their own economic pressures, race sponsors continue to scale back support or drop out entirely, as seen locally with the Tustumena 200 Sled Dog Race’s attempts to attract new donors. On a larger scale, that phenomenon is taking a nearly $1 million shortfall toll on the 2010 Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race.

To compensate, the Iditarod will cut the purse yet again, now down to around $525,000. That’s hardly worth the time, trouble and expense for some mushers to even bother.

It seems the only thing that’s cheap in mushing today is the reputation the sport sometimes garners — with criticism over dog care and now attention to drug use with the Iditarod’s new policy to conduct random urine testing of mushers.

It’s a rough tradition, full of characters, colorful language and independent attitudes that often don’t fit the wholesome persona of athletes smiling from a Wheaties box.

That’s not to diminish the sport or the immense endurance, training, skill and athleticism it takes to succeed at competitive mushing. By and large, the poor reputation of mushers is unwarranted, since most mushers wouldn’t dream of jeopardizing dog care by using drugs or alcohol to the point of compromising their judgement or ability to function.

But it’s a tradition fitting of Alaska — independent, rough around the edges and not caring if others have a problem with that. Except competitive mushing needs to care what others think of it if it’s going to survive.

The sport simply isn’t sustainable without high-dollar sponsorships. It can either scale back to be home-grown and locally supported, with small races held out of the limelight of national public attention — and the corporate sponsorships that attention brings. Or, if the Iditarod, Yukon Quest and other big-name, big-budget races are to continue as they have, they need to polish their image to a shine that sponsors will want to reflect.

That means consistently and publicly enforcing policies against drug use, dog mistreatment, cheating and other black eyes the sport sometimes gives itself. It also means mushers hoping to take home a big purse or new truck in those races should support the policies and abide by them.

Mushers, race fans and race organizers can’t have it both ways. If they want races with big payouts and big spotlights, they need to get onboard with the big effort it takes to make that happen.

If they can’t stand their sport going the way of Wheaties, then find another path to run.

Dec. 9,  2009,   Guest Editorial: When ‘stupid is as stupid does’ hurts others

Is it just me, or does the gap between higher intelligence and primate-level stupidity seem to be widening?

Hear me out.

The world has always comprised a wide spectrum of personality, intelligence, common sense and compassion. Why some of us seem to wind up on the more generous side when it came to passing out positive human attributes is beyond my scope of understanding.

And while I’ve certainly done more than my fair share of stupid things so far in life, I feel at least far enough up the intelligence spectrum to weigh in on the chasm that continues to edge humans out to the extreme ends of mental discernment.

Given any set of variables, is it possible that just sitting someone from the lower end of the intelligence spectrum in front of a TV full of WWE, Jerry Springer and competitions gauging our intellectual abilities in relation to a fifth-grader merely dumbs them down even more? Really, what can we expect?

Stupidity alone is frightening enough. It’s bad enough to do it to yourself, but taking someone with you down your path of foolishness is something else. If you are foolish enough to imitate a World Wrestling move and do a head-butt drop on your trampoline at home, well — then I suppose that’s just Darwin’s theory at its finest.

The same goes for if you decide to bring a somewhat competent, though possibly equally as stupid — adult buddy over to join you in your fun. However, the whole equation changes when you factor in children.

Alaska State Troopers charged two men in Anchor Point in November with felony assault and reckless endangerment after they reportedly set fire to a 5-year-old boy’s head, causing second-degree burns on his face and head. Labeled by the two men allegedly responsible for the action as, “a practical joke gone wrong,” the lack of common sense, reason and any amount of compassion in regard to the young boy’s safety is remarkably disturbing.

If this chasm between stupidity and intelligence continues to widen, what kind of a society are we looking at in the future? What good does it do us to find the cure for cancer, make incredible gains in science and develop microtechnology that changes our world, if we still have idiots out there who think it would be funny to scare the crap out of a kindergartner because they are bored?

And, even if you excuse the “stupid” for their being somewhat less-fortunate on the brain-take at birth, doesn’t it become all too easy then, for the intelligent to oppress the stupid? Is that a bad thing? Wouldn’t we eventually move into “doing what’s best” for the stupid ones? And how would we even know which of us was stupid? Who would decide? What are the criteria?

You can tell someone they are black – or tall – but chances are, they’ve already figured that out. We have external measures for height, weight – and just about anything else you long to know about.

And while we have certain measures of intelligence that are arguably speculative and culture-specific at best, is that really a fair way to judge the smart from the stupid? What if you miss the cutoff by two points? Do you get to at least pick out your own clothes every day?

Apparently, for some of us, even that may be too much.

The problem with this kind of logic is that the stupid don’t know they’re stupid.

But can’t we at least keep them from setting each other on fire?

Sean Pearson is the editor of the Homer Tribune.

Dec. 9,  2009,   Guest Editorial: Support, expansion needed to make sure no neighbors go hungry

Thanksgiving is past and we had more than enough food on our plates. We enjoyed leftover turkey and dressing for a day or two. No one in my family was concerned if there would be a Thanksgiving dinner. We’ve always been fortunate to have enough food.

Through the Kenai Peninsula Food Bank and many of the agencies it serves, families who may have been concerned about Thanksgiving dinner were able to provide a turkey and trimmings on their tables. Seventy-one families received dinners directly from the food bank, plus 400 turkeys were distributed by member agencies. In addition, commodities boxes for a record 64 families were handed out in one day, Nov. 23.

For us involved in providing food to those in need, it is one sign that the hunger problem is growing on the Kenai Peninsula.

In the early days of our country, food availability was considered “feast or famine.” Today, famine and starvation are unknown in the United States. However, there is an increase in what is termed “food insecurity.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines this as not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle.

Food insecurity is a reality for those whose income is insufficient to pay the monthly bills and provide enough food to feed their families. For some people on the Kenai, it is an ongoing problem and has been for years, especially in winter. Recent job layoffs, salary reductions, illness, divorce and other problems have caused more of our neighbors to be confronted with a need for help. They may never have experienced this before.

The reasons are many but the problem is the same. The money doesn’t stretch far enough and groceries are the one item people can control and cut back on. The implications of inadequate food to families’ health and well-being may not be evident immediately. Eventually there will be problems. We as a community can keep that from happening.

The people of the Kenai Peninsula are well-known for their generosity. Churches, service organizations and individuals often step forward when they realize the need. The need is here and now. We must consider our good fortune and be willing to pass it on to help our neighbors.

The Kenai Peninsula Food Bank needs monetary or canned food donations of any amount, to provide for the increasing number of families seeking help. The number of new applicants for food has increased 40 percent since 2008. The Fireweed Dining Room provides an average of more than 1,750 lunches per month. The warehouse for the food bank will be expanded to make room for the additional food storage. Funding will be through a cost-share grant from the Rasmuson Foundation. We need public donations to meet the match.

Tonight, 800 million people throughout the world will go to bed hungry. If our community is successful in addressing the hunger issue, none will live here on the peninsula. No one deserves to be hungry.

Linda Griffiths is a member of the board of directors for the Kenai Peninsula Food Bank. For more information on the food bank’s Building to Nourish campaign, visit www.kpfoodbank.org/btn.

Dec. 2,  2009,   Editorial: Belugas need help, research not lawsuits

The National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced Tuesday a proposal to list more than 3,000 square miles of Cook Inlet as critical habitat for beluga whales, to protect the few hundred remaining whales that were listed as endangered in October 2008. Thus begins a public comment period extending through Jan. 31.

The whales have faced a sharp decline in numbers for decades, down to an estimated 300 to 400 whales, from approximately 1,300 in the 1980s. The original decline was thought to be caused by overharvesting, but the population hasn’t rebounded since hunting was restricted.

The state of Alaska opposes the Cook Inlet beluga whales’ endangered listing and the designation of critical habitat off Anchorage’s shore, and Gov. Sean Parnell followed the announcement Tuesday with one of his own — that he’s concerned about the potential economic impact the listing will have on development.

Shocker. (Sarcasm intended).

Environmental groups also followed the news Tuesday with announcements praising the proposal, and many pressing for further action.

Again, shocker. (And again, sarcasm intended).

What’s striking in the responses to the critical habitat proposal on the state’s side is its lack of comments and action showing true concern over the fate of the belugas. Again, not surprising, considering the state’s firm opposition to the listing of polar bears, and former Gov. Sarah Palin’s statement that she intended to have the state sue to overturn the belugas’ endangered designation.

The state doesn’t seem interested in much beyond how the critical habitat designation or endangered listing may impact economics in affecting the oil and gas industry and other development in Cook Inlet. That is a sad dereliction of the state’s duty to protect Alaska’s resources — be they oil and gas, the land and waters on which those developments happen, or the creatures that inhabit those areas.

On the environmentalists’ side, many of the comments show a lack of realization for how critical industry and development is to the economy, in the Cook Inlet region and to the entire state. Comments blaming the whales’ decline on industrial activities are especially telling. While noise pollution, ship traffic, construction, new development and pollution are generally believed to be contributing factors to the whale’s population woes, it has not yet been proven, specifically,  to what extent those activities are affecting the whales, nor to what extent limiting those activities will help the population rebound.

Take this excerpt from a press released issued Tuesday by the Center for Biological Diversity, which was the organization that threatened to sue to make the critical habitat proposal come about in the first place.

“Cook Inlet is the most populated and fastest-growing watershed in Alaska, and is subject to significant proposed offshore oil and gas development in beluga habitat. Additionally, the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, a billion-dollar boondoggle, will directly affect some of the whale’s most important habitat. Port expansion and a proposed giant coal mine and coal export dock would also destroy key beluga habitat. … ‘While today’s proposal is an important step toward protecting the Cook Inlet beluga, protections for the species remain far from complete. Critical habitat designation should be promptly finalized and expanded to include the lower Inlet. Moreover, the Fisheries Service needs to prepare a recovery plan and stop so freely handing out permits to industry allowing the beluga’s habitat to be developed and disturbed.’”

Here’s a truly shocking idea — the state and environmental groups should work together to figure out what is going to do the most good in protecting the whales and assisting their rebound.

Conduct joint studies, share information, or at the very least stop wasting resources and time threatening to sue and counter sue over the issue, and use them instead to come up with a scientifically sound strategy to effectively address the whales’ decline, with the joint goal of limiting industrial activity as little as possible.

Protecting beluga whales — as well as salmon and other factors of the Cook Inlet watershed — should be both sides’ goal, and so should preserving Alaska’s economy.

Dec. 2,  2009,  Guest Editorial: No more funding for Kenai Hydro projects

In Alaska’s critical endeavor to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, Alaskans deserve professional, carefully considered development of our renewable energy resources to ensure that the scope of any negative economic, social and environmental impacts closely justifies appreciable new energy production.

Since 2008, amidst enthusiasm to develop hydropower projects, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), and the Alaska Legislature have authorized Kenai Hydro LLC (KHL) to use over $1 million in very poorly directed public money to perform feasibility studies and federal pre-licensing activities for four hydropower dams KHL envisioned for Kenai River headwaters near Moose Pass and Cooper Landing.

KHL is a for-profit hydropower development consortium established in Delaware. Originally, KHL involved Homer Electric Association (HEA), Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), and enXco — a French-owned company. CIRI recently announced it would no longer be a KHL partner.

In October, KHL abandoned its proposed Ptarmigan and Crescent lakes dams, and relinquished Federal Energy Regulatory Commission preliminary permits for those projects due to negative financial and environmental feasibility findings. Yet despite growing public opposition and legitimate, widely held concerns over project impacts, feasibility and funding, including future construction costs, KHL obstinately pursues its project to dam Grant and Falls creeks.

In his October report to HEA’s board of directors, HEA General Manager Brad Janorschke acknowledged problems with the Grant/Falls hydropower dams: “… we are seeing economic challenges with both projects and their future will be dictated by the availability of grant funds for study work and, if licensed, grants to offset a portion of the capital costs.”

In obtaining authorization for upwards of $900,000 of our money for its Grant/Falls proposal, KHL optimistically portrayed the combined dams as a 5- to 7-megawatt project. HEA now concedes Grant/Falls is a 4.5-megawatt project, and to continue studies KHL needs even more public funding. Neither AEA nor the Legislature should authorize any more money for what remains such a highly speculative and only faintly conceptual project. Never mind KHL’s $27 million project construction cost estimate.

Ethan Schutt, CIRI’s Senior Vice President of Land and Energy Development, characterized KHL’s proposed hydropower dams, and CIRI’s decision to end its involvement in the projects, during an October Legislative Energy Committee Hearing in Anchorage: “Projects must be locally acceptable, as well as commercially viable. These projects don’t appear to be either.”

KHL’s proposed industrialization of Kenai River headwaters at Grant and Falls creeks would prove expensive, irreversible and wrong. At a minimum, KHL’s Grant/Falls dams and their attendant environmental impacts would depress the regional and local economies that depend so heavily on the hydrological and biological integrity of the Kenai River watershed, its world-class fisheries and its wildlands.

Expenditure of public money to develop and degrade such vital public resources, lacking any broad expressions of community and public support, and in return for only negligible new electrical power benefits, simply should not happen. As former Gov. Walter Hickel pointed out in columns published by the Anchorage Daily News earlier this year, Alaska’s Constitution requires rational development of our commonly owned natural resources to yield clear public benefits; resources must not be developed haphazardly or for the private benefit of multi-national corporations like enXco.

The Grant/Falls hydropower dams are also contrary to the vast body of protective and progressive public policy established around the Kenai River and its tributaries. Provisions of the Chugach Forest Plan, the Kenai Area Plan and the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan express clear policy intent that, at a very minimum, strongly discourages any new hydropower dams in the Kenai River watershed. Residents of the Kenai Peninsula and Southcentral Alaska will not soon forget that the Cooper Lake hydropower dam caused the extinction of Cooper Creek’s pacific salmon stocks and destroyed what was once one of the best rainbow trout fisheries in Alaska.

By ending its involvement in KHL’s ill-conceived hydropower proposals, CIRI fulfilled its corporate responsibility and affirmed its support for the value system held by most Alaskans.

KHL, including HEA’s management and board of directors, should follow CIRI’s excellent lead as soon as possible.

As a forestry technician, Mike Cooney, of Moose Pass, has been involved in natural resource management and planning in both the public and private sectors in Alaska since 1979.

Nov. 25,  2009,   Editorial: Remove roadblocks to highway upgrade

There are only two seasons in Alaska — winter and construction — so road projects can take a long time. It can take years for a project to be planned out, added to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program listing and work its way up the list in priority for funding.

But in terms of a project to rehabilitate a section of the Sterling Highway, from east of Sterling to the east entrance to Skilak Lake Road, the wait is getting excessive. The project is to re-pave the highway, widen the shoulders a bit, add some passing lanes and address the rising number of wildlife-vehicle collisions that occur on that stretch of road, because it’s a busy crossing for moose, caribou and bears.

The project has been nine years in the making. Part of that wait has been for a good cause — so a study could be done pinpointing the busiest animal crossings. But now that the data has been gathered, the problem becomes, what to do about it?

The Alaska Department of Transportation is in a standoff with the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge — which has to give approval for the project on refuge land — over how much wildlife mitigation needs to be done. Both sides say they’re working toward agreement, but as it stands now, nine months after the latest revised version of the study report came out, they’re nowhere near a compromise. The refuge recommends eight underpass wildlife crossing structures along the length of the project. DOT is so far proposing only one.

The Federal Highways Administration has said it doesn’t think the refuge’s recommendations are extravagant, so federal funding would likely come through for all the mitigation efforts. Yet DOT has an eye toward the rest of the STIP list and wants to divvy up the limited amount of federal transportation money the state gets toward other projects, as well.

There are always more projects needing funding than there is money to go around, and DOT will especially need to be conservative in planning projects once Congress overhauls the federal highways funding mechanism in the next year or so, which will result in less money for Alaska.

But this isn’t the project on which to scrimp. If agreement is reached soon and the project moves along, it can be funded under the current, higher level of federal reimbursement.

Traffic on the Sterling Highway is only going to increase, and so will wildlife collisions if something isn’t done. With the federal funding equation set to change, it will be much more difficult to adequately address these issues in the future, with less money available to do so. Let’s be proactive, and instead of fixing the road to “good enough” standards, let’s upgrade it so it protects drivers and wildlife well into the future. That way, instead of waiting for the project to get done, we’ll be waiting a long time before it needs to be redone.

Nov. 25,  2009,  Guest Editorial: River policy renovations — Borough revisits Habitat Protection Ordinance

The protection and sustainability of salmon habitat has been a long-term goal and need of the people of the Kenai Peninsula since long before the Kenai Peninsula Borough existed. To that end, the Kenai Watershed Forum received a grant from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to evaluate the effectiveness of the borough’s salmon stream Habitat Protection Ordinance.

The purpose of this borough law is to protect salmon habitat while also recognizing private-property rights. To fulfill our grant obligations, we agreed to document the history of the code, review the structure and content of the code, summarize code compliance and enforcement, and research permit activity.

The habitat protection code is often referred to as the 50-foot setback. Since its adoption in 1996, activities have been regulated within the “setback” of the Kenai River. In the year 2000, another 24 salmon-bearing streams were added to the setback code, using the same set of regulations as were in place for the Kenai River. Within the borough, there are over 1,000 known salmon streams, so it doesn’t cover all of them, but many of the well-known streams on the western side of the peninsula are on the list.

In addition to the 50-foot setback from the ordinary high waterline, the habitat protection code features a list of allowed uses, provisions for conditional-use permits, and grandfathering for structures and activities that were in the setback zone prior to 1996. The code is administered by borough staff at the Donald E. Gilman River Center.

In round numbers, the River Center has issued over 3,300 permits in 13 years. The majority of these permits have been for activities along the Kenai River. Of these 3,300 permits, 3,150 have been relatively straightforward, over-the-counter permits that do not require review of the planning commission. The remaining 150 were conditional-use permit requests that require a decision from the planning commission. Of those 150 requests, 85 percent were approved.

The beginning discussions of the ordinance review are starting to point to a number of “housekeeping” provisions that could improve the code, such as: provisions that allow for Americans With Disabilities Act access; reduction in the slopes that trigger additional setbacks; listing and defining allowable uses and activities, and more clear ties to other related sections of borough code.

A couple of key findings related to enforcement were also identified in the review. Most notably voluntary compliance and the desire of most landowners to comply with this section of borough code is very high. Most landowners want to do the right thing, and this code provides some guidance. However, the language of the code is often imprecise and subject to interpretation. This makes it challenging to evaluate if activities are in compliance, which in turn makes enforcement very difficult.

The related borough enforcement process and ordinance language are outdated and there is no written policy to guide the borough’s code compliance officer in enforcement situations. In analyzing the permits and known violations, the documentation of those cases that are out of compliance with the code is not very complete. Implementing better record keeping is something the River Center staff has already started to correct.

It is clear the borough has been relying on voluntary compliance as its single most effective method of enforcement. Since voluntary compliance to date is very high, this has been a positive. The records indicate 112 known cases of activities or uses that are out of compliance with the ordinance, eight cases are open and there is one case in which a fine was issued and collected. It is not clear where the remaining cases rest.

Currently, discussions have begun among members of the borough administration, assembly, planning commission and the Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board. While most of the housekeeping issues may quickly be addressed and remedied, much discussion is likely to occur on the larger issues of appropriate habitat buffer width, whether all anadromous streams should be protected, and how to enforce the code in a consistent and meaningful way.

Robert Ruffner is executive director of the Kenai Watershed Forum.

Nov. 18,  2009,  Editorial: Parnell owes president a better reception

Here we are in November, nosing up on Thanksgiving, the hallmark holiday of hearth, home and hospitality. It’s traditional this time of year to share whatever bounties we’ve been blessed with, act the kind host when presented with the opportunity to do so or be gracious in accepting the hospitality and generosity of others, if we need to be on the receiving end of the societal kindness equation.

In Alaska, we like to pride ourselves on upholding that unspoken standard of helping when needed, whether it’s responding to a phone call from a friend in the middle of the night to go butcher a moose, stopping to check on a motorist having car trouble when it’s below zero, or lending a back and shovel to a neighbor who can’t quite manage their driveway on their own.

As governor, Sean Parnell should uphold the standards Alaskans believe in, and put forth an honorable, respectful and hospitable face in representing the rest of us. He failed to do that during President Barack Obama’s visit to Elmendorf Air Force Base on Nov. 12.

Air Force One, carrying President Obama bound for a trip to Asia, stopped over in Alaska briefly to refuel Nov. 12. The president made a quick appearance, expressing gratitude and commitment to our men and women in the Armed Forces and their families.

Though the hangar was packed with people wanting to greet the president, the crowd did not include Parnell or any high-ranking representative of Alaska’s leadership. Some have excused absences — Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell was in Sitka speaking at the Alaska Law Enforcement Training Program graduation. Sen. Lisa Murkowski was on a trip to northwest Alaska. Parnell, however, was in town speaking to a contractors meeting in Anchorage.

The speaking engagement was a prior commitment, nd Obama’s visit had been rescheduled due to a delay, but neither are justifiable reasons for snubbing the president. Of all the valid reasons to reschedule an in-town speech, surely “I need to greet the President of the United States on behalf of Alaska” would count.

Nothing momentous would have come from Parnell being at Elmendorf. There were no policy decisions to be made, and likely no opportunity to engage the president in a discussion of the woes or strengths of Alaska. And Alaska is a red state, having voted overwhelmingly for John McCain in the last election. But none of that trumps the basic rules of hospitality the situation required. The president is the president — whether the state overall voted for him or not — and should be treated with the respect that office deserves.

Parnell should have been there. It’s his job to act as host for the state of Alaska, and maintain the standards of respect and good manners. As an Alaskan, you don’t see someone walk away from a car with its lights left on and not say anything. As a good host, you don’t stay rooted to the couch in front of the TV when guests show up for dinner. As our governor, you don’t ignore the president when he stops by our store, bearing good will for our troops and state.

Nov. 11,  2009,  Editorial: Finding positive action from an ugly situation

The shooting of a brown bear by the side of the Sterling Highway on Oct. 3 west of the Russian River Ferry was an unfortunate event for all involved. Foremost for the bear, obviously, but also for the people it affected.

It was unfortunate that the witnesses who had stopped to watch and photograph the bear, or who were just passing by, had to see it get killed in such a shocking manner. It was unfortunate for the law-enforcement personnel on the scene trying to keep people safe, yet who were included in witnesses’ anger that the shooting was allowed to proceed. It became unfortunate for those investigating the incident and dealing with the aftermath, amid a backdrop of the uproar the shooting caused.

It was also unfortunate for hunters in general, who are given a big, public black eye if anyone thinks what happened Oct. 3 constituted responsible, ethical hunting practices. Thankfully, those involved in the incident are in agreement that it was all-around unfortunate, including the shooter, himself.

When asked about the incident, Joseph Wicker showed the good sense and reasonability he may have lacked in the heat of the moment Oct. 3 by taking full responsibility for what happened. He didn’t question it, didn’t try to deny it, didn’t try to blame anyone else or wiggle out of responsibility in any way.

Even in the face of public outrage, rumors and very pointed comments made about him, Wicker owned up and apologized. That’s true contrition and that deserves a measure of respect, even if his actions Oct. 3 do not.

In the aftermath, there may be good to come of this situation. It has brought attention to a breakdown in communications between regulatory authorities and hunters. Wicker shot the bear in an area of highway covered by a federal rule restricting discharge of firearms within a quarter mile of either side of the road. However, Wicker said he wasn’t aware of the rule. Alaska State Troopers said even they weren’t aware of the rule. While it is the hunter’s responsibility to research all regulations in the area in which they hunt, a rule as basic and protective to public safety as not shooting in the vicinity of a busy stretch of highway should not be such a well-kept secret.

Following the shooting, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge posted signs along that stretch of highway identifying the no-discharge-of-firearms rule. The refuge says the signs going up and the shooting are unrelated, but the result is the same — it increases awareness. State and federal agencies should use this incident as impetus to consider how they communicate regulations to user groups and find a way to do so in a more effective, streamlined way. Yes, it’s the hunter’s responsibility to know the laws, but there’s no sense making it difficult for them to learn about them. It’s better to prevent unlawful activity than it is to deal with it after the fact.

This rule is one that won’t fade back to obscurity for a long time to come, and that’s a good thing.

It’s just too bad it had to take a situation this ugly to make that happen.

Nov. 4,  2009,  Editorial: Good to see democracy in action, even if only on a small scale

This year’s municipal election proves that you can fight city hall.

In Kenai, Soldotna and across the borough, residents spearheaded direct change in their government, spurred to action over decisions with which they were not happy.

In Kenai, residents voted to undo a city council move to rezone a portion of land along the Kenai Spur Highway, returning the parcels to Rural Residential 1. The vote likely isn’t the end of zoning issues in Kenai, or even in that area of Kenai, but it does send a strong message to the city and council that residents want a weighty voice in deciding how their neighborhoods will develop.

Soldotna saw a backlash over the city council’s decision to purchase land along Knight Drive for a cemetery site, instead of using a city-owned parcel near Redoubt Avenue that voters voiced their preference for in the previous year’s election. All four candidates who strongly favored the Redoubt site were voted into office, over candidates on the Knight Drive side of the issue. The new council members have wasted no time getting the ball rolling back toward the Redoubt site.

Boroughwide, voters reaffirmed their preference for term limits, keeping the limitation on assembly members’ length of service in place.

On one hand, it’s a bad sign to see the voter-initiative process being successful. If a majority of voters choose to support a stance through the initiative process, it shows their elected representatives were out of touch with the majority of their constituents. On the other hand, when government’s actions stray too far from the public’s wishes, ballot initiatives give voters a direct hand in steering policy back toward the course they prefer.

What was truly impressive about this year’s election was how many people felt strongly enough about public policies to speak up and get involved. Getting an initiative on a ballot, much less getting it to pass, is no small feat. It requires careful research and crafting of the text of the initiative, as well as all the time and effort involved in gathering signatures and promoting the issue to voters. Grass-roots efforts were ongoing across the borough to encourage residents to consider complex issues and take a stand for what they believed is right.

Disturbingly, few voters chose to honor the time and effort put in by all those who did get involved in this year’s election. Voter turnout across the borough was an abysmal 24.67 percent. There were pockets of higher involvement, like 60.8 percent turnout in the Kachemak Emergency Service Area, and 36.4 percent in Assembly District 9, on the southern peninsula. But overall, voter turnout cowered in the low 20s to teens.

With industry bailouts and continuing debate about health care reform, there’s been a lot of talk lately about the importance of capitalism and the role it’s played in making America a world leader. While there’s no doubt capitalism is a great economic system, it’s democracy that is America’s proudest heritage. Our system of elections and representation is what has driven the greatest achievements of this country, whether it be civil rights or women’s suffrage.

With Congress making billion-dollar, course-changing decisions, all the while with lobbyists exerting an increasingly inappropriate amount of corporate influence, citizens are left to feel like the national democratic process is further and further out of their hands.

It’s nice to see that, on a local level, at least, the democratic flame is still burning bright. It’s just too bad more people aren’t willing to help feed that fire.

Oct. 28,  2009,  Editorial: Aiming to answer shooting concerns

The passing weeks have done little to tamper the disgust several witnesses experienced in seeing a brown bear shot Oct. 3 alongside the Sterling Highway near the Russian River Ferry. A crowd of about 15 people had gathered to photograph the bear, creating a traffic hazard that drew Alaska State Troopers to the scene.

Two hunters dressed in camo and toting rifles also appeared, and shot the bear after it crossed the highway and headed up a slope to the trees. The shooting was viewed by troopers, stopped traffic and bystanders, including children

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the incident is still under investigation and isn’t releasing information about it. That does little to assuage the many concerns witnesses have voiced over the situation:

• Why did troopers allow the men to fire on this bear? Troopers said the hunters had a valid permit, they weren’t violating a Fish and Game regulation prohibiting shooting from on or across a roadway, and didn’t want to run afoul of the hunter harassment law. But the area is covered by a federal restriction that prohibits shooting within a quarter mile of the highway. True, troopers’ very busy job is to enforce state law, but they should have been aware of the federal restriction, just as the hunters should have been. Why didn’t they point it out? Especially in light of the dangers to public safety created by the shooting of the bear.

Bullets could have broken apart, ricocheted off rocks or gone astray, threatening people still standing around or waiting in stopped vehicles. And if the bear had decided to charge, which is a distinct possibility when wounded, there was no lack of people it could have gone after.

• Why is the investigation taking so long? Federal regulations prohibit shooting within a quarter mile of the highway. The hunters were reportedly barely a foot off the highway, well within a quarter mile.
• Why aren’t hunting and shooting regulations covering all peninsula jurisdictions — Fish and Game, State Parks, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and Chugach National Forest — presented in one place? Hunters are responsible for knowing what is and is not allowed in any given area, regardless of how confusing overlapping jurisdictions may be. But all agencies involved could make life a lot easier for hunters, enforcement officers and wildlife if they would put their heads together and collaborate on presenting the rules and regulations in one clear, efficient way.

This situation shouldn’t have happened in the first place. All parties involved need to make sure it never happens again.

Oct. 28,  2009,  Guest Editorial: Building a future for Watershed Forum

As a dynamic, nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining the health of Kenai Peninsula’s watersheds, the Kenai Watershed Forum is well-poised to serve the peninsula and the state of Alaska with increasing effectiveness, both today and far into the future.

To realize our full potential, we need to continue expanding and improving our programs and infrastructure. Embracing our mission to work together for healthy watersheds, we are launching a capital campaign to support the renovation of a building that will meet the growing needs of our organization for many years to come.

The Watershed Forum recently entered into a 30-year lease with the city of Soldotna to occupy a historic building located within a downtown Soldotna park at the confluence of Soldotna Creek and the Kenai River — a perfect location for our new home. The building, which is actually a 2,300-square-foot house, is one of the first permanent structures built in Soldotna, and has a unique history tied to the area homesteaders and the early highway crews. Locals might have heard this house referred to as the White House or the Soberg House.

The house was built by the Territorial Alaska Road Commission in 1955 for Ralph Soberg and his family. Soberg was the general foreman for the Alaska Road Commission in charge of the road construction projects in the 1950s. In the early 1980s, the state deeded the house, including 15 acres, to the city of Soldotna. Over the years the house has been used for city employees and park attendants. The house sat empty for many years until the city of Soldotna approached the KWF.

This building needs major renovations to provide for the needs of the KWF. In addition, the KWF Board of Directors has committed to incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards into each phase of the building. The LEED Green Building Rating System is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of a high-performance green building. There are currently only seven buildings LEED certified in the state of Alaska.

The Watershed Forum is now in a fundraising campaign to raise the necessary capital to renovate the building. We have currently raised nearly $60,000. Although that number is impressive, we are still a ways from our goal.

ConocoPhillips is our first Cornerstone Watershed Partner, contributing $25,000. Chevron is supporting this project with a gift of $7,000. Several local businesses are on board. Ryan Kapp from Edward Jones Investments has pledged $2,500. And countless others have pledged gifts to the Kenai Watershed Forum for this building project.

We anticipate breaking ground in the spring of 2010.

Josselyn O’Connor is project coordinator and membership and development director for the Kenai Watershed Forum. For more information, visit www.kenaiwatershed.org.

Oct. 14,  2009,  Editorial: Drive toward cleaner business

Lynden Transit is settling into its new home on the Sterling Highway in Soldotna, and is setting the bar for new ways of doing business.

The shipping company’s new terminal in Soldotna was built with an eye toward energy efficiency.

Everything about the facility is designed to conserve time, fuel, energy and, therefore, money. The layout is revamped so trucks don’t have to move around any more than absolutely necessary. Bay doors are redesigned so they don’t have to sit open, wasting heat. Yard lights operate on solar timers, and all lights throughout the building are energy-efficient fixtures.

A lot of it is a change in technology —switching to electricity-powered refrigeration units instead of diesel, buying electric forklifts, installing computer systems in trucks that can calculate the most efficient speed for gas mileage and the best routes to save time and fuel.

But underlying it all is a commitment to the attitude of energy efficiency. Recycling bins are numerous and well-used throughout the facility. Lights and heat are turned on judiciously. There’s a “no idling” policy in effect for both trucks and employee’s personal vehicles.

That attitude to embrace greener ways of doing business drives Lynden’s push toward making its entire operation more energy efficient. Lynden has realized the dirty little secret that eludes many other companies that are dragging their feet toward change — going green means saving money.

Lynden is a business with costs to cover and a profit margin to look out for. The company may want to do good by the environment for altruistic reasons, but it’s also interested in cutting fuel and energy costs and recognizes that eco-friendly strategies and technologies are a great way to do that.

We hope other businesses will follow Lynden’s lead and take a commitment to energy efficiency to heart. It just may go to their bank account, as well.

Oct. 14,  2009,  Guest Editorial: Bear shooting shows lack of hunting sportsmanship

To anyone like myself who has ever taken pride in being a hunter — in providing meat for the family table or in proving skill and courage — cases like the grizzly bear being shot along the Sterling Highway near the Russian River Ferry on Oct. 3 should be revolting. Typically, the meat is left to rot. Any “bragging” rights are pure fiction. And the amount of courage required wouldn’t do credit to a 2-year-old child. Yet, listen though you will for outrage by “hunter” organizations, the silence is deafening. The age-old concept of sportsmanship is all but dead.

As dead as yet another bear so foolish as to trust people.

Contrary to what one hears from many hunter organizations, the real enemy of our live-off-the-land heritage is not “bleeding-heart animal rights activists,” but “hunters” like this who lack any semblance of sportsmanship or respect for the rights of viewers.

The upper Kenai River is certainly not an ideal situation for bear viewing. Too many people without bear-savvy wander among the bears, all too often crowding in to get close-up photos. Yet, this is one of the few road-accessible places in North America where people have a significant chance of seeing a grizzly, especially one tolerant of human foibles. So this tiny area should be one of the last places where bears are “harvested.”

Sure, other bears will eventually replace this one. But will they be as tolerant of people? How many years will it take for the survivors to learn how to live peacefully among people? Will someone be mauled before they learn?

This victim is apparently one of the same bears which spent last summer catching salmon and snaring fish carcasses amid thousands of anglers and viewers without threatening anyone’s safety. Most of these bears are amazingly polite as they try to make a living in the same area where bears have been fishing for thousands of years — just the way we hope all bears will behave when forced into proximity to people.

Now, instead of this bear remaining alive for hundreds of thousands of people to enjoy year after year, its fur will adorn the wall of someone whose “courage and skill” evoke something less than admiration.

Ultimately, however, cases like this are less about slaughtering a trusting animal or about utter disregard for viewers, than they are about the cancer of divisiveness which we have collectively allowed to infect America, as though we had never learned one of warfare’s principle strategies: “Divide and conquer.”

It’s bad enough when a nation succumbs to the divisive machinations of foreign enemies; but even worse is when our own citizens do the enemy’s job for them. If there be truth to Lincoln’s words “United we stand, divided we fall,” then America is already teetering. Time to rebuild our cultural foundation by finding ways to re-unite with one another. Revitalizing mutual respect and consideration is a good place to start.

Steve Stringham is director of the Bear Viewing Association and the author of five books on Alaska’s wildlife. He earned his master of science degree at the University of Alaska studying moose, and his doctorate degree studying bears.

Oct. 7,  2009,  Editorial: Hunting for much better behavior

The interests and perspectives of hunters and wildlife watchers often clash, but it’s rare that they collide in so dramatic and disgusting a fashion as they did Saturday along the Seward Highway downstream of the Russian River Ferry.

Two hunters are reported to have shot and killed a male, subadult brown bear in full view of a crowd of onlookers — including children — that had been enjoying watching and photographing the bear in the Kenai River just moments before.

In the time it took the bear to climb up an embankment from the river, cross the highway and start running up the hill on the other side, the bear went from being a target of cameras to a target of rifles; a highlight of the day for a crowd of onlookers to a nightmarish scene they won’t soon be able to shake.

As the bear started up the hill, two men in camo and carrying rifles chased after it and shot it twice in the rear, an observer said. The report states that the bear rolled down the hill, flopping in a still-alive heap next to the road, where the men finished it off — all in full view of the crowd of horrified onlookers.

When done as it should be, hunting is not horrifying. It is not disgusting. It is not unethical. It is messy and uncomfortable for some to watch, but it is — or, at least, should be — a meaningful and utilitarian endeavor that instills more respect for the food we eat than shopping at a grocery store ever will.

What happened Saturday was not that kind of hunting.

Taking each facet of the incident individually, some arguments could be made to support what the men are reported to have done.

For one thing, the bear is a bear. Just because it was entertaining afternoon wildlife watchers doesn’t make it any less a wild animal that is permissible to hunt with the proper permit in the proper area during the proper time frame.

For another, hunters should be able to take advantage of an “easy” shot. If hunters luck into their prey with a minimal amount of effort, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take the kill, as long as it is lawful to do so.

There is debate over whether the men were on the road or not when they shot. The matter is under investigation. Fish and Game regulations prohibit shooting from on or across a road. A state statute also prohibits discharging firearms within a state highway right-of-way, and a federal dictate covering that section of highway prohibits firing within a quarter mile on either side of the road.

It sounds as though the kill violates those regulations. But even if is was legal, it was not right.

Yes, a bear is a bear, and it is valuable as prey for hunters every bit as much as it is entertainment for wildlife viewers. But there are appropriate ways to draw the line between hunting with cameras and hunting with bullets, and this was not it.

This killing was disrespectful to the onlookers, created a dangerous situation for the crowd with the possibility of a wounded bear on the loose and created the possibility of a dangerous situation for traffic if the bear, the hunters or the onlookers ended up on the road.

What’s more, it was disrespectful to the bear. Who knows what influence the people had on the bear’s behavior or its decision to cross the highway. Hunters may get lucky in the field, but they shouldn’t traffic on a situation like this, created or contributed to by people enjoying the bear for an entirely different reason. Especially not when the kill is carried out with, “You got a problem with that?” swagger.

Being disrespectful and unsafe does not honor the Alaska tradition of providing for oneself by the bounty and mercy of nature.

This killing wasn’t an honorable hunt. It was a disgrace.

Sept. 30,  2009,  Guest Editorial: Weeding out threats to salmon habitat

It’s hard to believe that a non-native grass, introduced to the Kenai Peninsula because of its useful properties, could wipe out salmon habitat. That’s precisely what’s happened, though, in salmon streams and wetlands from California to British Colombia when reed canary grass has gotten near them.

Reed canary grass was brought to the Kenai Peninsula for use as a soil stabilizer and as a forage crop. It is preferred by some hay farmers because of its ability to grow in wet, heavy soils where other grasses won’t grow. It has long been recommended for use in revegetation of roadsides and utility corridors because it spreads rapidly, forming a dense sod that prevents soil erosion.

It’s these very properties, though, that make reed canary grass such a threat to our wetland and stream ecosystems.  Reed canary grass thrives in many of the same habitats as our native bluejoint grass, which is commonly found along stream banks. One major difference between the two is that bluejoint is a clumping grass, while reed canary is a sod-forming grass. The distinction lies in how an individual plant grows. A bluejoint plant grows by adding new shoots around the perimeter to form an ever-larger clump (also called a hummock). Reed canary grass, like other sod-forming grasses, expands by sending out underground rhizomes. The rhizomes can extend for several feet underground, sending up new shoots at intervals along the way. Many individual plants form the tightly-knit network that we call sod.

For salmon streams, this is an important distinction. Bluejoint grass, which has been growing on the Kenai Peninsula for thousands of years, won’t grow into a stream channel. When the stream channel is narrow and the hummocks on either side of it are large, the hummocks will meet one another over the channel, allowing the stream to flow unimpeded beneath. Reed canary grass, on the other hand, sends its rhizomes into the soil under the stream and sends up shoots into the stream channel. As the grass fills in, the channel itself can widen out and become indistinct. This causes a number of problems for stream dwellers, and particularly for spawning salmon.

In 1999, 158 dead, pre-spawn cohos were found in an abandoned reed canary grass pasture in King County, Wash. Investigators determined that the fish had been trying to swim upstream through a grass-choked channel running through the field. During a high-water event, the stream fanned out into the pasture and the salmon, unable to find the main channel, became stranded in the field as the water receded. Because of the widespread habitat destruction caused by reed canary grass, Washington has classified it a class C noxious weed.

Some have suggested that because of our harsher climate, reed canary grass may not produce viable seed here and won’t spread beyond where it’s planted. Both these assertions have been proven false. To determine whether its seed was viable, the Alaska Plant Materials Center collected seed from 17 reed canary grass populations around the Kenai Peninsula and conducted germination trials.

The results showed an average germination rate of 83 percent, showing that reed canary grass does produce highly viable seed here. The Kenai Watershed Forum and the Kenai and Homer Soil and Water Conservation Districts have done extensive surveying and mapping of reed canary grass on the peninsula. Those efforts have shown a clear pattern of reed canary grass spreading downstream along our creeks and into undeveloped natural areas.

In order to address this growing threat, the Kenai Watershed Forum in 2008 began efforts to control reed canary grass near waterways. That work has continued this year, and progress is being made. You can help by keeping an eye out for this invasive grass and reporting it, especially where you see it near waterways. It’s becoming easier to spot now that fall is upon us because it stays green (with dried out, beige-colored seed heads) long after other plants have died back for the winter.

Contact Michelle Martin at Kenai Watershed Forum, 262-5469 or michelle@kenaiwatershed.org. More information on reed canary grass is available at www.kenaiwatershed.org.

Michelle Martin is the invasive species specialist at the Kenai Watershed Forum.

Sept. 23,  2009,  Guest Editorial: Drift River terminal could have been disaster

“History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.”

— Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

When Exxon spilled millions of gallons of crude in Prince William Sound, it immediately hired an army of spin doctors to rewrite history. One of Exxon’s paid scientists even claimed Prince William Sound was healthier than before the spill, despite pockets of oil remaining on countless beaches and the crash of the herring fishery, among other lasting impacts. Now, we’re seeing the very same historical shape-shifting with the Drift River Oil Terminal incident.

Chevron operates the Drift River Oil Terminal at the base of the Mount Redoubt volcano in Cook Inlet. When Mount Redoubt awoke in late 2008, Chevron refused to disclose how much oil remained in its storage tanks. Why? The Homeland Security Act — Al Qaeda apparently posed a greater threat to our fisheries then a simmering volcano. When Redoubt’s massive eruption on March 22 sent trees, mud and debris through the facility, Chevron finally revealed the truth: over 6 million gallons of oil remained perched above our salmon, cod and halibut fisheries.

Chevron knew the risks. The same scenario unfolded during the 1989-90 Redoubt eruption. They reinforced protective dikes, but as the Alaska Volcano Observatory noted, volcanic debris flows (“lahars”) are like “moving walls of cement,” and reinforced dikes can only do so much against the forces of nature. In fact, volcanic floods this year overtopped the dikes, showing the dikes had no safety margin for a slightly larger eruption.

Despite months of warning, there was no actionable plan in place to address a catastrophic spill from the facility. The spill plan required by laws passed after the Exxon Valdez didn’t address a 6 million gallon spill, and it didn’t even envision oil from the tank farm hitting open water. In what should have been a day, it took more than a week to activate a Unified Command to coordinate spill prevention and response. And most disturbingly, the initial response priorities were not to protect our invaluable fisheries, but instead to ensure the continued flow of oil.

Chevron also had no plan to address significant economic losses when the facility went offline. Aside from contractor layoffs and their debilitating effects on local families, Alaska lost up to $2 million a month in revenues while the facility remained closed, according to state figures.

Finally, Chevron repeatedly put workers in harm’s way at Drift River, and in some cases left them stranded on the ground while eruptions, lightening and lahars raged around the facility. Oil field work is dangerous enough, and the bravery of those who went back into Drift River at the peak of seismic activity was exceptional. Had Chevron truly been concerned about worker safety, it would have reconfigured the facility to bypass the tank farm prior to the latest eruption. That way, the size of the eruption would not have been a risk factor, operations would not have been so drastically disrupted, and fewer people would have been put at risk.

Chevron Corporation knew all this, but its only plan was to hunker down and hope for the best. Hoping for the best, however, is not a lesson we learned from the Exxon Valdez. So, we dodged a bullet at Drift River.  Yet to hear the corporate public relations machine recount the story, you would think the Drift River response was flawless. No oil spilled, no injuries. No harm, no foul. We appreciate all the incredible work done to help avoid a catastrophe, but whitewashing this incident may prevent us from learning from our mistakes and having better preparedness and worker safety in the future.

The fact remains the Drift River Oil Terminal incident stands out as the most significant breakdown in spill prevention and response in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. That breakdown put our fisherman, workers and countless families and businesses around Cook Inlet at extreme risk. Want proof? Go to www.inletkeeper.org, see our timeline of events and judge for yourself. And know that what we see in Cook Inlet will invariably unfold in Bristol Bay and the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas if we allow our governments and the corporations to push into those frontier areas.

Bob Shavelson is Executive Director of Cook Inletkeeper, a citizen-based nonprofit organization with offices in Homer and Anchorage that is dedicated to clean water and healthy salmon.

Sept. 16,  2009,  Editorial: Terminal debate

In a perfect world, every election would have a ballot packed with informed, reasonable candidates, seeking no other purpose than to serve the best interests of their community and its residents. Every eligible voter would go to the polls, evaluating incumbent candidates on their performance over their past term in office, and judging whether a new voice might better suit their hopes for the future.

And road construction would never result in traffic delays, and frost heaves would be fixed by a wave of a wand … .

It’s nice to dream, but in the debate over term limits, it’s more practical to consider the reality: We are lucky enough to have a representative, participatory type of government, but we don’t exercise that luxury as much as we should.

Those in favor of term limits are right that incumbency gives candidates an advantage in elections. The risk is that candidates are returned to their seats simply because their name has become familiar. This makes it difficult for new voices to be heard or new directions to be considered. A lack of new input and vision can result in government being stuck in old patterns, sluggish to respond to changing times.

On the other side, participatory government is about just that — participation. If an eligible resident wants to dedicate their time and effort through the typically thankless job of elected office, why shouldn’t they be allowed the opportunity to do so? Just because they’ve already slaved away for a few years shouldn’t deprive voters who are happy with their performance the chance to have them continue that service. The sad fact is that, in many local elections, if it weren’t for incumbents, there wouldn’t be anyone to vote for.

One side argues that term limits would ensure changing leadership, theorizing that new always means better. The other argues that term limits restricts their ability to vote for whomever they choose, and that experience would be tossed out, simply because it’s experienced.

In a perfect, theoretical world, there would always be plenty of quality candidates to step up when others step down, and in larger races, on a statewide and nationwide level, that’s more the case. But locally, realistically, that’s not always what happens. And even when a seat does draw a large pool of contenders, voters shouldn’t be limited on who they can vote for. If they prefer someone who’s already done the job, so be it.

Incumbency can be a blessing, but also a curse. If voters aren’t happy with an elected official, they can say so at the polls. It’s their perfect right to do so.

Sept. 16,  2009,  Guest Editorial: HEA prepared for coming cold

Winter in Alaska is a beautiful time of the year, but it also requires each of us to take some extra precautions. The snow and cold temperatures can be great for outdoor enthusiasts, but those same conditions can create problems in the event of a power outage.

Every fall, Homer Electric Association urges its members to take a moment to make sure their homes are prepared for the possibility of an extended power outage during the winter months. Now is a good time to revisit your family emergency plan and make sure you have proper supplies such as drinking water, first aid kits, warm blankets, battery powered radios and flashlights, and extra batteries on hand.

This year, in addition to the possibility of weather related outages, there is a concern about power interruptions due to a natural gas shortfall. The natural gas supply in Cook Inlet has been on a downward trend for many years and while a shortfall is not likely, it is a situation that we need to be prepared for.

Homer Electric currently has a power supply contract with Chugach Electric Association that calls for Chugach Electric to supply Homer Electric’s power needs through 2013. Over 90 percent of the power generated by Chugach Electric is fueled by natural gas.

In an effort to be proactive, Homer Electric has joined with Chugach Electric, Matanuska Electric Association, Municipal Light and Power (ML&P, Anchorage) and ENSTAR to make sure that in the event of a temporary gas shortfall, a plan is in place to deal with the situation.

It is important to point out that the utilities have worked together many times over the years to ensure that there is enough gas supply for power and heating needs. There are many tools available to system operators to manage a gas delivery issue, including diverting gas from the ConocoPhillips Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plant in Nikiski, increasing hydro power production at Bradley Lake, purchasing oil-generated power from Fairbanks, and discontinuing power sales to the Interior.

ML&P also has the ability to run some of its generating equipment on diesel and this may be used to “free” up some additional gas supplies. Running on diesel is more expensive than natural gas and all customers of Chugach Electric, including Homer Electric, and ML&P would share in the increased electric generation costs in order to get through the emergency.

If circumstances warrant such action, utilities may ask customers and members to take voluntary steps to reduce the demand on gas and electric systems. Encouraging and promoting energy conservation is always a priority of Homer Electric and in this case it would make even more sense to reduce consumption. Simple measures such as lowering the thermostat, turning down the setting on the water heater, turning off gas fireplaces, postponing doing laundry, and turning off all unnecessary lights and appliances would have a positive impact.

In the event the above steps were insufficient to deal with a gas delivery problem, a last resort would be intentional power interruptions. If this should occur, the outages would be of a short duration, approximately 20 minutes, for a pre-determined area. The outages would be “rolling outages”, so that the interruptions are shared equally by all customers in the Railbelt.

We do not anticipate that intentional outages will be necessary, but it is important to be ready in case those kinds of measures are needed.

In the coming months, we will be working with our partner utilities on a communications plan outlining energy conservation steps we will be encouraging customers to take this winter. These will be voluntary actions and for the most part will be the kind of conservation tools that are always good to use.

Being prepared for a possible gas shortage is basically the same as being ready for other emergencies, such as winter storms, that create power outages. By being proactive and working together, I am certain Homer Electric will be able to meet the needs of our members.

Bradley P. Janorschke is the General Manager for Homer Electric Association.

Sept. 9,  2009,  Guest Editorial: Bells tell the toll of effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

The date is 09-09-09. International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. At 9:09 a.m., all over the world, bells will ring nine times to signify the importance of not drinking alcohol during the entire nine months of pregnancy.

So, what is the significance? What’s the big deal about this disability of FASD? Let’s look at a few facts: Alaska has the highest known incidence of FASD in the United States. In the past 10 years, the Kenai Peninsula has diagnosed more individuals than any other community in Alaska. We are only touching the surface of the problem.

There is no safe amount of alcohol during pregnancy. Your grandmother or your doctor may tell you it’s OK to have a drink every once in a while when you are pregnant. It is not. Recent studies show that even low levels of alcohol exposure can cause significant damage in a developing fetus.

Brain damage from fetal alcohol exposure is permanent. Kids don’t grow out of it. The learning, behavior and sensory problems stay with people into adulthood. It makes it hard for people to find and keep jobs, stay out of jail, have healthy relationships, stay sober and stay safe. It’s hard to wrap our heads around the fact that this little drink I am having right now is going to impact someone for their entire lifespan.

You won’t recognize most people with FASD. Ninety percent of folks with fetal alcohol brain damage don’t have the facial features that are so recognizable. When a kid like that gets into school, he or she looks just like everyone else. It’s an invisible disability, so the child just gets in trouble because they can’t learn or behave or sit still. Then, that same kid gets older and hates school because it’s hard and acts out because they can’t figure out how to get it right. The child is frustrated and lacks self-esteem, gets in with the wrong crowd and gets into trouble because they’re vulnerable and gets talked into doing stuff and doesn’t have the critical brain wiring to make good choices.

To add to the problem, most of the adults with FASD in our community are not diagnosed. They are just viewed as the high-maintenance, low-functioning folks who are in and out of the revolving doors of treatment, incarceration, medical care, churches and social services, who can’t seem to get it together no matter what.

So, what are we, as a community doing about it? As I mentioned above, the Kenai Peninsula has diagnosed more people than any other Alaskan community. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have more people with FASD; it does mean that we have a very active, high-quality diagnostic team that has been trained through the University of Washington. We are pretty savvy around here about FASD. The central peninsula receives a lot of education on this disability.

Once we get people diagnosed, though, we have very little in the way of services for them. For the most part, these folks are absorbed into mainstream culture, where they experience repeated failures and are misunderstood by most they come in contact with.

It is our task, then, to create a system that encompasses these people and strives to meet their needs for safety and well-being. The field of FASD is struggling with this nationwide, and we do not yet have a good solution, but we have in view the long-term goals of keeping folks out of jail, out of the ER, out of treatment and in healthy, safe surroundings

FASD is a disability that costs our community in many ways. The prevention end costs a little bit. Mopping it up once it’s here costs quite a bit more. Prevention is vaporous and difficult to sell to the lawmakers and to you, the taxpayers. We often spend the best of our energy and resources extinguishing the fires already burning because we can see instantly where our money goes.

It is my prayer that we let wisdom prevail and take responsibility from the start by sounding the alarm that it is not OK to drink during pregnancy, and then to follow that through with healthy behaviors of our own that reflect our spoken philosophy.

On this 10th anniversary of International FASD Awareness Day, will you commit with me to do that? Tell someone today that alcohol and pregnancy do not mix. Then, by your own lifestyle, proclaim it to be true.

Vickie Tinker is the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder program coordinator at Frontier Community Services.

Aug. 26,  2009,  Editorial: Energizing ideas

Kenai Peninsula Borough Mayor Dave Carey gave a disquieting warning during testimony to a special Legislative Committee on Energy in Kenai recently: The borough could experience brownouts this winter, when peak electrical usage outpaces capacity in the coldest stretches of the season.

Though we are better off than some areas of the state, the borough isn’t immune to the increasingly harsh realities of energy in Alaska. Traditional sources of energy generation are getting more and more expensive, and less and less available.

According to the Department of Energy, Alaskans consume more energy per capita than anywhere else in country, due to the cold and dark of our winters. In response, the DOE is allocating $60,344,280 in federal stimulus funds to the state, slated for weatherization, a state energy program and an energy efficiency and conservation block grant program.

There is no end to the financial hardships of Alaskans struggling with energy costs. It is a drastic and growing burden, especially in rural areas, and it is tempting to help with such immediate and pressing needs. However, this one-time influx of money is a unique opportunity to advance some truly energizing ideas, projects that wouldn’t get off the ground within the state’s usual budget.

Money should be used to facilitate Alaska becoming a leader in research, development and utilization of alternative energy sources, such as geothermal and tidal.

Proposing development of those technologies is typically met with the same excuse: They don’t exist in an efficient, cost-beneficial form. Well, let’s work toward making them exist. Alaska has the infrastructure for industrial and technical research and development. We have the natural resources on which to focus those efforts. What we need is regulatory support and financial resources and incentives to make that research happen.

This money could set Alaska a giant step ahead in resolving our growing energy crisis. With some foresight, ingenuity and a commitment to the future of Alaska, this funding could help be the light at the end of our increasingly dark tunnel.

Aug. 19,  2009, Guest Editorial: Kenai Hydro projects disregard importance of streams

By Bob Baldwin, Friends of Cooper Landing

The Friends of Cooper Landing, Inc. strongly object to five high-impact, low-output, seasonal hydropower proposals approved by the Alaska Energy Authority under the Renewable Energy Grant Program. Kenai Hydro, LLC and shell companies without substance are using over $1.2 million dollars of public money to study how to industrialize the Kenai River and surrounding Chugach National Forest areas for private gain. Incredibly, Kenai Hydro is partly owned by Homer Electric Association and Cook Inlet Region Inc.

HEA management is well-known for flights of fancy. The Kenai Hydro proposals are speculative business ventures approved by the HEA Board of Directors. Strangely, the invasive hydro sites are not located within the HEA utility service area, but that of Chugach Electric Association. Crescent and Carter Lakes, Grant Lake and Creek, Falls Creek, Ptarmigan Lake and Creek, and Victor Creek have been proposed. An initial attempt to obtain a federal hydropower license for a Grant Lake dam and a Falls Creek diversion into Grant Lake is in progress. HEA, perhaps, but we were very surprised to also find CIRI involved in a scheme to degrade the Kenai River and its invaluable fisheries.

Some renewable energy technologies have great potential to offset conventional energy costs and related environmental impacts. However, all renewable energy projects requiring major public subsidies must be rational. Alaska must not be guided by romantic sentimental instinct, to support renewable energy proposals at any cost. Existing public policy, negative impacts and traditional values must be considered.

Kenai Hydro, LLC ownership has been traced through a pyramid of seven companies extending offshore to Paris, France. Grant applicants quickly realize the Alaska Energy Authority is a cash cow without competent program management. Major public policy mistakes have occurred, five of which now threaten the Kenai River. Attracting international attention is the predictable result of putting $125,000,000 of unaccountable renewable energy grant money on the street. A hyped HEA public relations campaign has attempted to excuse a stunning lack of Alaskan values. Basically this has become Kenai Hydro/HEA/CIRI versus the Kenai River.

The Kenai Hydro fiasco was put in motion by AEA, contrary to decades of rigorous public planning to protect the Kenai River, which Cooper Landing helped develop. Unfortunately, AEA has operated in a vacuum. Unaccountable grants represent free money. Funneling massive funding through shell companies makes it obvious that applicant substance, technical qualifications, and Alaska experience have not been considered.

Grant evaluations did not consider irreversible impacts of industrializing the Kenai River watershed, with dams, roads, tunnels, powerhouses and transmission lines. In addition to basic river ecology and hydrology, fish, wildlife, habitat and the natural setting are directly impacted. Also not considered were the negative economic impacts on our local communities and the entire Southcentral region. AEA has simply shoveled money out the door.

The Alaska Legislature did not properly instruct AEA about requirements and management of the renewable energy grant program. One of the worst public policy nightmares in our long memory has been created. FOCL requests immediate withdrawal of Kenai Hydro funding approvals. Performance of a broad, independent renewable energy program review should be accomplished before the Legislature reconvenes. AEA Kenai Hydro funding approvals stand at $1,284,320. The Kenai Hydro business plan apparently anticipates state grants of $20-30 million each to construct the five proposed dams. The need for corrective legislation is obvious.

The studies funded by current grants clearly aim to compromise natural flows in the Kenai River Watershed. Ironically, the Cooper Lake Dam precedent used as a positive example to promote these proposals, eliminated Cooper Creek as an important salmon and rainbow stream. One compromise becomes a precedent for others, and the impacts are cumulative. We cannot afford to degrade the Kenai River stream by stream.

It is further troubling to find enabling consultants organizing “technical working groups” composed of invited experts from state and federal resource agencies. The clear intent is to determine what compromises affecting the Kenai River resource agencies will accept. We strongly object to state and federal government agencies designing for-profit private studies, to circumvent protective public policy.

Years of protective planning effort involving our communities, and local, state and federal government agencies, does not allow additional dams in the Kenai River Watershed. The cumulative impacts of five additional dams will exceed a Kenai River tipping point. Changes of natural flows in the headwaters will change the natural ecology and health of the Kenai River. Are we going to condemn the Kenai River to a slow death like so many Outside streams? It is unacceptable to spend public money to degrade the Kenai River.

Bob Baldwin is president of the Friends of Cooper Landing, Inc.

Aug. 12,  2009, Guest Editorial: Chuitna coal strip mine is wrong project for Alaska

By Dwight Kramer, Kenai Area Fishermen’s Coalition

The Kenai Area Fishermen’s Coalition (KAFC), a group composed of scientists and concerned users of the streams, lakes and open waters of Cook Inlet, opposes development of PacRim Coal’s Chuitna coal strip mine project.

Our organization includes 10 fisheries biologists with more than 120 years of experience in all areas of research and management. We have no commercial interest, but we are greatly concerned about the threat to the continued health of Cook Inlet water quality and fish and game habitat posed by the proposed strip mine that PacRim, a Delaware-based corporation, wants to build in the Beluga Coal Fields 45 miles southwest of Anchorage.

The company is in the advanced stages of securing state and federal permits. They hold a lease on 20,571 acres thought to contain an estimated 1 billion metric tons of sub-bituminous coal. If granted permits, PacRim officials say they could excavate as much as 12 million metric tons of coal annually, enough to fill more than 116,500 railroad coal cars. Roughly speaking, that’s equivalent to a train stretching from Anchorage to Juneau and back again. If PacRim develops the entire lease area — which is likely once costly infrastructure is installed — this project could last 50 years or more and would strip over 30 square miles of important fish and game habitat in Upper Cook Inlet.

Once PacRim strips the coal from the site, it will rely on a 12-mile long conveyor to transport the coal to the shores of Cook Inlet, where a 2-mile-long dock would load cargo vessels destined for Asian markets. We have serious concerns about the specific impacts this project will likely have on Cook Inlet natural resources, including:

Strip mining through watersheds: The project site includes a vast expanse of undeveloped wetlands that support healthy populations of fish, wolves, moose, bear and other wildlife. Coursing through it are several active salmon spawning streams that feed the Chuitna River and support Upper Cook Inlet salmon populations. Strip mining and associated development will unravel the unique functions and values of this natural system, and threaten the valuable fish and game resources that rely on them.

Destroying salmon streams: As currently proposed, this would be the first project in Alaska allowed to mine directly through an active salmon spawning region. As a result, the Chuitna coal strip mine represents a monumental precedent in Alaska. Reclaiming salmon streams in the complex environment found in the Chuitna area would be virtually impossible; in fact, we are not aware of any successful reclamation projects involving salmon stream reconstruction in an environment similar to that found near Beluga and Tyonek
Polluting water: PacRim’s plans also call for dumping an average of 7 million gallons of polluted mine waste and runoff per day into the Chuitna River watershed and Upper Cook Inlet. That’s more than 2.5 billion gallons a year directly into salmon habitat. Because the Chuitna River is a relatively low-flow system, it’s highly likely these discharges will adversely affect fisheries in the area.

Risking oil spills: To ship the coal overseas, PacRim will rely on a major coal storage and export facility to support deep-draft vessels destined for Asia. This complex would not only be located in fish migration areas, but also in one of the most unforgiving navigational environments in the United States. As a result, there is a considerable risk of oil spills and other casualties.

Mercury contamination: Chuitna’s coal would be burned in Asian power plants and mercury from those plants would end up back here in Alaska. As many people know, the state of Alaska announced in 2007 — for the first time ever — elevated mercury levels in Alaska fish.

We believe the coal strip mine is a poor example of forward-thinking development, and one that will put at great risk sustainable fish populations that already support Cook Inlet’s thriving fish-based economy. Outside investors shipping Alaska coal to overseas markets won’t serve Alaskans. The expected tax revenues would be small, and because Usibelli Coal Mine now supplies all the coal Alaska burns, none of that coal would contribute to Alaska’s energy needs.

Dwight Kramer is chairman of the Kenai Area Fishermen’s Coalition. KAFC is a private angler group with nearly 200 members from throughout the Kenai Peninsula and Southcentral.

Aug. 5,  2009, Guest Editorial: Kids should get hooked on fishing
By the Kenai River Sportfishing Association

They live within driving distance of one of the world’s most amazing sportfishing rivers in the world, but that doesn’t mean that every Alaska kid gets to experience the Kenai River. That will change later this month when 160 kids join with honorary host Sen. Lisa Murkowski to participate in the Kenai River Sportfishing Association’s third annual Kenai River Jr. Classic. Youth from the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Kenai Peninsula, Hospice and military youth who have parents stationed at Fort Richardson Army Base will be treated to a day of silver salmon fishing Aug. 12.

“This event is all about developing the next generation of anglers,” said KRSA Executive Director Ricky Gease. “There is nothing more fulfilling than seeing a boat full of smiling kids on the river, many who have never caught a fish and likely wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to get out on the river.”

The Jr. Classic is part of a nationwide effort — Take Me Fishing — to encourage young people to learn about and enjoy fishing, and where better to do that than on the world famous Kenai River.

In addition to an afternoon of fishing, the kids, ages 8 to 16, will have hands-on learning opportunities prior to the event, coordinated through program partner Boys and Girls Clubs of the Kenai Peninsula. Students will learn about stream and fish ecology with speakers from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Kenai Watershed Forum, while representatives from the Alaska Boating Safety Program and U.S. Coast Guard will share boating and river safety tips.

They’ll also have a chance to visit the Fish and Game Mobile Aquatic Classroom, which will be on site during the Kenai River Jr. Classic event. Central Peninsula Hospital will loan life jackets to all of the participants through its SAFE KIDS program. Kids will receive a free lunch and go silver salmon fishing for three hours with professional Kenai River guides.

TriWEST Healthcare is a prime sponsor of this year’s event, which will be held at Harry Gaines Fish Camp. Another 40 boat sponsors and dozens of volunteers help make the Jr. Classic possible. Prizes for the largest fish will be awarded for the top three fish. Last year, Jr. Classic youth caught nearly 200 silver salmon and at least as many pinks. The action will likely be a little less furious, since its not a pink year.

Kenai River Sportfishing Association is a nonprofit, membership-based educational and conservation organization of sport anglers, conservationists and others whose primary goal is to preserve and improve salmon habitat while promoting responsible sportfishing on the Kenai River. Learn more at www.kenairiversportfishing.com.

Kathy Day is the public relations manager for the Kenai River Sportfishing Association.

July 29,  2009, Guest Editorial: Learning the highlights of Alaska
By the Kenai Watershed Forum

Photo courtesy of Kenai Watershed Forum. Samantha Fox and Megan Haserodt are summer interns for the Kenai Watershed Forum.

We came to Alaska from the Midwest with visions of the classic Alaska experience — fighting grizzly bears, sweeping fish out of the river with our bare hands, surviving in the backcountry with nothing but a hatchet, and catching glimpses of the northern lights.

The latter was quickly dispelled, once we realized we could barely see stars at “night.”  While we have had the opportunity to view bears (from a safe distance), catch a king on the Kenai and venture out into the backcountry, we will be returning to the Lower 48 with a more realistic vision of Alaska.

We weren’t entirely sure what to expect from the state, based on the few tales that leaked back home, and we were uncertain what a summer working at the Kenai Watershed Forum would hold.
Upon our arrival, we quickly began to learn the ropes. Our first few weeks were filled with lots of fieldwork and an attempt to figure out how to dress for a typical day in Alaska. On the days when we were out on the Kenai River measuring turbidity and wading out to check on research buoys, we learned that two layers of pants and a pair of dry waders were a good idea. However, there were days, such as when we discovered a rotting moose carcass caught on a buoy, when rubber gloves might have been smart, as well.

Other days, when we were repairing tarps that had been laid down to eradicate invasive reed canary grass, which chokes out salmon streams, we were torn between suffering from the heat of long sleeves or the swarms of mosquitoes. While some stories about Alaska have proven to be false, the size and number of mosquitoes have unfortunately not.

While most of our days have been spent out in the field, testing water quality on the Kenai, surveying culverts to determine if they are in good condition to allow salmon to swim through them, trapping in small tributaries for salmon, and monitoring stream flow in the local watershed, we’ve also quickly realized why the tourist season around here makes some locals groan. We even met one local who claimed that winter was his favorite season because he could get a front-row parking spot at Safeway.

However, we question whether this is truly worth it, based on some other more frigid and dark accounts of winter up here. And we thought 10 degrees Fahrenheit was cold back in Michigan.

Yet when we are fighting the crowds in Fred Meyer, where even the express lane is a 10-minute wait behind lines of people armed with fishing rods, coolers and bags of ice in hopes of that big catch, we begin to understand why winter might be a pleasant break.
Fortunately for us though, some of our research occurs at hours where the normal person is likely asleep (although from our 4 a.m. fishing trip, we realize that fishing around here doesn’t operate on a nine-to-five). In particular, our extensive hydrocarbon study had us, with the help of a little coffee and a trip to Sal’s Diner, out at the dock by 5 a.m. to take water samples at regular intervals until midnight, and up in a plane doing aerial boat counts from the mouth of the Kenai to Skilak Lake.

While we have been working hard and enjoying our experience with the watershed forum, we have also gotten a chance to explore some other areas on the peninsula. We learned that mountains can be a lot higher than they look when you try to scramble to the top, that coffee from the Spit Sisters is a great way to wake up from a rough night of camping on the Homer Spit, that Skyline Trail is worth it even when you get to the top and the view is just a cloud, and that we could make it to the top of Mount Marathon about three times as slow as the good runners. Overall, we have loved getting to know the peninsula and have enjoyed the local hospitality.

Samantha Fox and Megan Haserodt are summer interns for the Kenai Watershed Forum.

July 22,  2009, Guest Editorial: Medicare model is broken, don’t expand it
By Sen. Lisa Murkowski
Americans are looking to Congress and the White House to see whether lawmakers and the President will deliver on their promises to reform our health care system. As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), which is considering comprehensive health care reform legislation, I am committed to working with both my Republican and Democratic colleagues. However, our success will be measured by whether we craft a health care bill that reduces costs while providing affordable, comprehensive medical coverage that ensures continuous access to nurses, doctors, medical health services, and does not interfere with the ability of individuals to continue choosing the health care provider of their choice.

As Democrats unveil reform proposals that amount to a massive government intervention, let’s recall the 1965 Medicare law that created the first federally run insurance program for the elderly and the disabled. At that time, we made many of the same promises to the American people that we are making today. We pledged that when you are no longer able to work, Medicare will take care of you. Similarly today, we are touting a government-run health plan, modeled on Medicare, that would provide all Americans with guaranteed access to care and choice in providers.

In Alaska, doctors are turning away Medicare patients who are being forced to pay out-of-pocket for medical care or forgo care altogether. In Anchorage, where half our state’s population resides, only 13 out of 75 general practice doctors are accepting Medicare patients. What doctors and patients in Alaska have quickly learned is that Medicare’s low reimbursement rates and bureaucratic hassles are hurting patient choice and access to care.

Simply put, Medicare is broken and, unfortunately, the problem only seems to get worse. In fact, Medicare is quickly going bankrupt and will actually be insolvent by 2017. Somewhat predictably, Congress is trying to dramatically expand the soon-to-be bankrupt Medicare program without taking steps to fix or stabilize the underlying problems. I cannot support making a bad situation worse.

Unfortunately, the health care reform legislation being pushed in the Senate has not been “carefully crafted,” and we still don’t know how this legislation will be paid for.  Additional questions are also begging for answers. Should the government require all Americans to purchase health insurance or otherwise face monetary federal tax penalties? With the downturn in our economy, should we force employers to provide insurance for both full-time and part-time employees? This could result in employers lowering wages to pay for health care benefits and hiring contract employees instead of new employees to avoid the onerous burdens of health care costs. Will a new, government-run insurance program, modeled on the Medicare model, put more Americans at risk of limiting access to their doctors like the Medicare program has in Alaska?

Finally, and particularly in light of the massive debt the federal government continues to amass, how much will this reform cost and can we afford the price tag? The United States is already facing a debt of $1.8 trillion for this year alone. We don’t buy a car or purchase a home before we know the price and whether or not we can afford it. Preliminary estimates project the cost of the pending health care reform plan well in excess of $1 trillion. Shouldn’t we explain to Americans how we intend to pay for this?

The stakes are simply too high to rush a bill through Congress, particularly if the result is to expand a severely broken Medicare program and drive the nation trillions of dollars further into debt. The ‘reform’ currently being touted by the White House and congressional Democrats would deny millions of Americans their choice of a doctor and leave crucial health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats. This is not the kind of health care “reform” I would support nor is it a plan the nation can afford.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, one of the key panels involved in drafting comprehensive health care reform legislation.

July 15, 2009, Editorial: Palin’s leap to national spotlight leaves Alaskans in the dark

The initial shock of soon-to-be ex-Gov. Sarah Palin’s announcement that she will resign at the end of the month was quickly followed by one question — why?

That still hasn’t been answered, at least not in any fashion that makes her look responsible, credible or worthy of the office in the first place.

She’s going to write a book. Go on talk shows. Campaign for like-minded politicians across the country, continue to amass contributions to her SarahPAC fund, build a right-leaning coalition, and who knows what else — possibly become a TV commentator or make a bid for a presidential campaign. All the while continuing her lip service that she will serve the interests of Alaska on a national level.

Palin has suggested it is unfair to hold onto the governor’s position as a lame duck, since she’s doesn’t plan to run for re-election, and that Alaska would be better served with her in some other capacity, although she hasn’t specified what, exactly, she plans that to be.

It boils down to one thing — she quit.

Palin asked for Alaskans’ support and they gave it, entrusting her with the responsibility of running their government and putting Alaska first. They endorsed her campaign promises to create open government, cut egregious spending and root out corruption. In return, Palin owes voters four years of her time, where Alaska is her top priority.

Alaska voters were the ones who elevated her to a position where she could be seen by the national spotlight. And this is the thanks they get? She abandons her constituents for the bright lights and dollar signs of national fame?

Palin clearly has the potential for celebrity, fame and position on a national scale. And more power to her. She has every right to pursue those goals, and she’s right that she could be a powerful force for Alaska from outside the state, using her spotlight to shed light on Alaska’s issues, needs, strengths and challenges.

But all in due time. If she were making this move when her term were up and the duties she accepted were complete, then many more Alaskans would be wishing her well and patting her on the back, instead of wondering why she turned her back on them.

In that regard, at least, Palin leaving has a silver lining, since she clearly isn’t who voters thought they were electing in the first place.

July 1, 2009, Editorial: Mayor/manager issue bigger than Carey

It is difficult to see the proposal to change the Kenai Peninsula Borough from a strong mayor to manager form of administration as anything but a referendum on current borough Mayor Dave Carey, but it is important to do so.

No matter who introduced the measure — whether they’ve been a friend or foe of the current administration;  no matter when the activation date — during Carey’s term or after it; and no matter how the debate at the borough assembly is couched — in terms of limiting Carey’s powers, specifically, or in terms of the general effect on government, the issue will unavoidably be linked to Carey, simply because of timing.

That would be the case no matter who was at the helm when the proposal came up, or even if Carey’s administration had produced nothing but calm waters and smooth sailing, instead of churning up contentious issues over changes in borough personnel and funding to the school district and nonprofit organizations.

Nevertheless, if the measure does come before voters, they should not look at this proposal as a referendum on Carey — we already have that, it’s the mayoral election — and look at the issue in the larger sense, because the outcome of this vote likely will be with us longer than Carey or successive mayors will be.

The proposal is a classic, “then again” measure, with reasons why it could be a bad thing for the borough. Then again, there are reasons why it could be good.

Pros: The measure would better ensure that the borough has a quality, experienced, professional manager at the helm. Running borough administration is a complex, time-consuming and immensely important job. The assembly hiring a manager would be more about qualifications than residents electing a mayor, which can be influenced by personality and personal history in the area.

A manager would also remove some of the potential for favoritism that exists with a mayor, since a manager would be less likely to be swayed by loyalties to some constituents, issues or communities.

Government would still be representative. A manager would carry out the directives of the assembly, not set policy of his or her own accord.
A manager would promote consistency in administration. Rather than the potential for a changing cast of characters at the borough’s helm with each new mayor, a manager would be more likely to hire and retain personnel solely on the basis of qualifications, not personal relationships or loyalties.

The cons: Administration would become less local. Managers would stand a larger chance of being hired from outside the borough, rather than having a borough resident run government as the mayor. Administrative positions, likewise, stand a greater chance of being filled by newcomers to the borough.

That means there could be less historic knowledge and understanding of the borough at the helm of the administration. A manager could learn, but wouldn’t be as familiar with the area as someone from here would be.

Residents would have less say in their government. They could still elect — or not — assembly members, which in turn hire or fire the manager, but they would no longer have direct control over the head of the administration, as they do with a strong mayor. A manager would be beholden to the assembly for job security, rather than accountable directly to residents.

Voters should consider these points carefully and separately from their opinions of the current mayor. The ramifications will be with us longer than the authority of Carey, his supporters, or detractors will be.

June 24, 2009 , Guest Editorial: Having a field day for the Kenai

By Rhonda Orth, Kenai Watershed Forum

The Kenai Watershed Forum staff is hard to track down during the summer months. Every day the water quality, environmental scientist and intern staff split into teams and head out across the Kenai Peninsula to fulfill our mission of maintaining healthy watersheds. Summer 2009 looks to be the busiest field season yet, as we continue to dive into some substantial research and restoration projects.

Eradicating reed canary grass is a project that began in summer 2008. It is a non-native species that was intentionally planted on the peninsula to control erosion. The grass grows so well, even in the middle of rivers and streams, it can cause the channel to narrow or dam up completely. When this occurs in salmon streams, loss of fish habitat can occur, along with the creation of barriers to spawning and migration. The watershed forum’s initial work on eradicating reed canary grass began with tarping at Bing’s Landing in Sterling and Beaver Creek in Kenai. Those two sites will be closely monitored over the summer until 2011, when the eradication should be complete. This summer, the reed canary grass project is expanding to include three additional sites. This project requires a lot of mapping, site research and manpower.

In a similar vein, KWF will be organizing five community weed pulls over the next several months in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. In an effort to eliminate noxious and invasive weeds, we draw on the community to support our efforts in the weed war. Weed pullers are rewarded not only with a sense of accomplishment, but also with a weed warrior T-shirt and lunch. It’s a win-win situation for our natural environment and concerned community members. If you would like to be a 2009 weed warrior, check the KWF Web site for upcoming weed pull event details.

KWF has been collecting temperature data on streams for the past several summers. This spring has seen temperature logger placement in 27 locations across the peninsula, many in partnership with Cook InletKeeper. Temperature data will be collected all summer, in an attempt to establish a baseline temperature scale for local tributaries.

Another ongoing baseline data project is flow monitoring of streams. Flow monitoring is done year-round, although the monitoring frequency increases dramatically in the spring due to glacial and ice runoff raising the level and flow capacity of our streams.

Fish trapping is an important tool to restoring protected waters on the peninsula. A small fish trap is deployed in designated streams considered likely or probable to have resident salmon. Documentation of two or more salmon is enough to nominate a stream for inclusion in the anadromous waterways catalog. Twenty miles of stream have been added to protected status as a result of fish trapping to date, and this project will continue through summer 2010.

Dictionary.com defines turbid as “not clear or transparent because of stirred-up sediment or the like; clouded; opaque; obscured.” KWF began monitoring turbidity on the Kenai River in 2007. During the month of July, turbidity levels were measured at river Mile 8.5, near the Chinook sonar site. When preliminary data showed elevated turbidity associated with usage, further research was needed to evaluate the situation. During summer 2008, turbidity was monitored from mid-May through September. Hydrolabs, which take turbidity measurements every 15 minutes, were placed at two locations — river Mile 11.5, upstream of Eagle Rock, which is a high traffic/use area; and river Mile 23, near Swiftwater Park, which is a low traffic/use area.

Additionally, KWF staff went out on the river to document turbidity levels at two additional sites twice weekly. As summer 2009 marches forth, so does turbidity monitoring. Not only will the 2008 sites continue to be monitored and provide valuable data, but KWF will also add two additional sites in July and August to capture the most accurate picture possible of turbidity in the Kenai River.

One of the projects with the most longevity at KWF is agency baseline monitoring. This program encompasses the entire the Kenai River beginning at river Mile 82, the mouth of Kenai Lake, to the river mouth. Twice a year, in April and July, water samples are taken at 22 sites by a collection of approximately 20 agencies which partner with KWF to establish baseline criteria for this valuable resource. It was through this monitoring effort and a similar study completed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1990s that identified the hydrocarbon issue in the river.

Hydrocarbons in the Kenai River have been under the microscope of KWF since 2000. In 2006, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation listed the lower Kenai River on its biannual list of impaired waters, after it estimated up to 500 gallons of unburned gasoline a day was polluting the river during peak use times in July. As a result, in 2008 the Division of Natural Resources and Alaska Fish and Game required only newer, efficient engines could be used during July for 2008 through 2012, and then year-round starting in 2013.

Hydrocarbons were monitored at three sites during 2008 following the ban: river Mile 10.1, near Beaver Creek; river Mile 5, at Warren Ames Bridge; and river Mile 1.5, Kenai City Dock. The results of the testing were very positive. No samples exceeded water quality standards. Summer 2009 holds more water quality sampling for hydrocarbons by KWF in an effort to supply sufficient data to “de-list” the river from the impaired waters list.

A single road crossing with a bad culvert can prevent fish from reaching miles of habitat. Properly installed culverts are critical to the success of salmon breeding and survival. Assessing improperly installed culverts or improper-sized culverts is one mission of KWF fieldwork. Culverts are evaluated by how high the “perch” is at the inlets and outlets, the slope, the circumference and the water depth. This summer’s assessment fieldwork focus is on the Deep Creek, Anchor River and Stariski Creek watersheds.

Replacing culverts is a big undertaking, and summer 2009 is going to be our biggest year yet with culvert replacement projects. Eight culverts will be replaced across the peninsula, providing increased access to salmon habitat. New culverts will be seen in several communities —  three in Seward, two in Sterling, one in Ninilchik and one in Hope.

As you explore the peninsula this summer, keep an eye out for the bright blue jackets of the Kenai Watershed Forum. You are sure to see one of our research or restoration teams out working in the field to preserve the integrity of our Kenai Peninsula watersheds.

Rhonda Orth is the accounting and office manager for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. For more information, visit www.kenaiwatershed.org.

June 17, 2009  editorial: Assembly made learned decision

The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly made a wise choice in reinstating school funding that borough Mayor Dave Carey had attempted to cut.

Carey’s view on taxation and government is a good one — that, especially in trying financial times, it should be restricted to what’s necessary. But his idea in reducing funding below “the cap,” the amount the borough is allowed by the state to contribute to the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District — is shortsighted.

The saying that you have to spend money to make money holds true in several ways with education. Part of the reason local legislators were able to finally win the fight to correct the inequity of state education funding is because they could demonstrate that the local government was 100 percent behind its schools. The borough’s full funding of education was leveraged into more equitable state funding for KPBSD.

Now that the district is getting more money from the state, it’s raised the sentiment that the district doesn’t need as much money from the borough. Not so.

Continued full support of education will help on a statewide legislative level and is a crucial investment in the key to the future of the borough — its kids.

Scrimping on $3.5 million in education funding, as Carey wanted to do, would create negligible savings to property taxpayers, but could have a major impact on kids. It could provide for teachers, music classes, counselors or vocational education opportunities. The difficulty in debating education funding is the benefits of it can be intangible, which make them hard to quantify. Sometimes it’s an energetic young teacher that makes the difference in a student’s life. Sometimes it’s a shop program that finally engages a kid who is lost in the classroom. And many times, the results of those benefits can’t be gauged immediately.

How much money is enough for education? Those looking to pinch pennies can take the view that the district always has its hand out, no matter what its budget is, and that education funding is a black hole always hungry for more resources.

Rather, education funding should be seen as a no-risk investment opportunity in our future. The benefits may not be calculable in dollars and cents, but giving students every opportunity to success makes the best sense of all.

June 17, 2009  Guest editorial: HEA rates stable — for now

By Brad Janorschke
First, the good news. As of July 1, Homer Electric members will see a decrease in the base rate charged for energy. This rate is the major component of the blended rate members pay for electricity and includes the cost of operation and maintenance along with the fixed cost of purchased power for the cooperative. In a filing with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, HEA has requested a decrease in the base rate, from 13.545 cents a kilowatt hour to 13.296 cents a kilowatt hour. This decrease, although minimal, is the first decrease in the base rate since 2003.

Unfortunately, the base rate decrease is being offset by an upward adjustment in the wholesale power cost adjustment or WPCRA. The WPCRA is the second component of the blended rate and reflects primarily changes in the cost of natural gas Chugach Electric consumes producing power for HEA. The WPCRA for the third quarter is increasing from 3.970 cents per kilowatt hour to 4.439 cents per kilowatt hour.

Taken together, the two rate changes mean HEA members will see the blended rate change slightly, from 17.515 cents to 17.735 cents per kilowatt hour. The average member’s monthly bill will increase by $1.39 under the new rates.

HEA rates today are similar to what they were back in October of last year and significantly less than those seen in January 2009 when WPCRA adjustments pushed the rate over 21 cents a kilowatt hour. Unfortunately, fuel prices are beginning to edge upward again this summer and if the trend continues, electric rates are likely to increase later in the year.

This is a very difficult situation for Homer Electric and other Railbelt utilities because predicting and controlling the price of natural gas is out of our control. But while we can’t do much to influence natural gas commodity prices in the near term, there are two areas we can make a difference.

First, we are continuing to look at alternative power sources to reduce our dependence on natural gas. We are actively pursuing potential small hydro projects on the Kenai Peninsula. This summer, field work is being conducted at Grant Lake and Falls Creek near Moose Pass to determine the feasibility of a small hydro project that could produce five megawatts of power. The work is being supplemented by state grant money that has been set aside to study potential renewable energy projects. More information about these projects can be found on the project web site at www.kenaihydro.com.

Another avenue HEA was recently pursuing called for a pilot project to test a tidal power system in Kachemak Bay. Unfortunately, economic hurdles forced the company to indefinitely postpone the project. We will continue to keep abreast of tidal information and potential partnering possibilities in this area.

In addition to small hydro and tidal, there is a strong possibility of seeing wind power produced on the Kenai Peninsula in the near future. Kenai Winds, a private renewable energy company, has pending plans to install a wind farm in the Nikiski area in 2010. This power would be available to Homer Electric and be a valuable addition to our energy portfolio. We are also continuing to monitor met towers that are measuring wind potential at two different sites around the Kenai Peninsula.

The other step that we can all take is energy conservation. As the demand and cost for electricity increases, it is more important than ever to become energy efficient. Homer Electric will continue to offer its members advice and tips on how to use less energy. Our newsletter will always have a column, Wise Watts, devoted to sharing conservation news and information. We also plan to use the local media more aggressively to get out the word about energy conservation and what it can mean in both savings to individuals and overall benefits to the community. In addition, make sure to keep an eye on our Web site which is undergoing some major changes and will soon have a new look that will include energy conservation information.

We may not be able to control the price of fuel being used to generate electricity, but we can control the amount of energy we use and keep our electric bills as low as possible.
Homer Electric’s board, management, and staff are committed to energy conservation and developing alternative sources of power. I encourage each of our members to join us in this effort.

Brad Janorschke is the general manager of Homer Electric Association.

June 10, 2009  Guest editorial: Mapping project for good of all
By Stephen Stringham
Have you ever walked up to some stranger’s house and had them burst out of the door, screaming at you, accusing you of being a Nazi and an agent of the Anti-Christ? That’s approximately what has happened to some local residents recently as they walked from house to house gathering mapping data for the U.S. Census Bureau. Inciting such viciousness have been radio talk show hosts and their guests who revel in fanning the flames of public paranoia about Big Brother as means of furthering their own hidden agendas. The truth is far different.

Virtually every community in America gathers geographic information on real estate, including locations of houses and other buildings. Municipalities gather the information for safety and tax purposes. Utilities gather it for providing phone connections, electricity, natural gas, cable TV and other services.

Traditionally, address information has been stored on lists, first lists on paper, then lists on computers. Lists suffice for some purposes, but maps are better for others —  especially maps that code any spot on Earth by longitude, latitude and altitude. Using modern technology, coding is done by triangulating radio signals from any spot to three or more Global Positioning Satellites. Handheld computers that communicate with satellites are called GPS units. Coding this way is infinitely cheaper than conventional surveying, so long as you don’t need accuracy greater than plus or minus 10 feet.

One of many benefits of GPS mapping is helping visitors locate our homes and find the best route there quickly and easily. This is especially important in rural Alaska where many of us live on roads where house numbers or street signs are either absent or hard to read, especially at night or during blizzards. If the visitors are just delivering pizza, delays in finding your house just mean you’ll need to reheat dinner. But if the visitors are paramedics racing to save your kid from bleeding to death, a delay of 15 minutes could have dire consequences. Being able to find your location on a GPS screen, with the shortest, fastest route marked out automatically, could be of enormous benefit for emergency aid, food and package deliveries, and much more.

Better yet, in some regions (Outside for now, maybe here later), GPS units in vehicles can be wirelessly updated several times an hour with current traffic conditions. If the route to your home is blocked — e.g., by a traffic accident, highway construction or an avalanche — that could show up on the GPS unit and an alternate route plotted instantly, so that the ambulance doesn’t get stuck in traffic while your kid struggles for survival.

Benefits of GPS mapping are widely recognized by businesses and local governments across the country. Some have developed their own programs to collect GPS data (e.g., tied to their 911 system). But others may rely on the federal government, which is gathering such data nationwide in preparation for the 2010 census. Existing address lists and paper maps are littered with errors that need correction if each household is to be assured of receiving its census form next year.

Any personal information you put on a census form is, by law, confidential for the next several decades. However, census information can be used in a statistical way by government agencies and in some cases by the public. Furthermore, according to the grapevine, GPS address location info will be as open to the public as maps and address lists have always been.

Personally, I can’t see any justification for construing this as a neo-Nazi scheme or as Big Brother taking more control of our lives. On the contrary, it could be a big boon to all of us.

If you do not want a census worker to enter your property, add your phone number and name to your Keep Out or  No Trespassing signs. That way, a worker can call and ask permission to approach your home for a few minutes to map its location. Granted, Census workers have what you can think of as a de facto warrant to cross any land for this purpose. But no worker wants to offend you by barging in. So, please make it easy for them to do their job with minimal bother to you.

Whether or not you agree with address mapping, keep in mind that the folks gathering the data haven’t been possessed by Satan, contrary to some radio talk shows. Census mappers are just your neighbors who need a few weeks of work to survive the recession, while doing something they hope will benefit all of us. Please treat them as you would like to be treated.

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.

June 3, 2009  Guest editorial: The case of the Kenai River reds — Joe Slate brings adventures in Kenai Peninsula conspiracy, geology
By Alan Boraas
“Slate! Joe Slate, get in here!” my leather-lunged boss hollered from his office across the hall. It’s his version of voice mail.

“Slate,” he said as I appeared at his door, “A client just called from Sterling mumbling something about a problem with reds on the Kenai River. I know you’re no biologist, but you’re as close as I’ve got. Go see what the problem is.”

He’s right about me not being a biologist. I’m an investigator with Ace Detective Agency. We’re a small outfit out of Clam Gulch, mostly working on divorces, bogus energy audits, terrorist activities, that sort of thing. Biologist or not, I grabbed my trench coat and hat, hopped into my Corvair convertible, and headed toward Sterling.

On the way I wondered why anyone would have a problem with salmon at this time of year. I was in for a surprise.

Out in Sterling I finally found the turnoff and drove down a bumpy gravel road that led to a small place on the bank of the Kenai River. A weather-beaten plywood sign nailed to a tree said, “No Trespassing!” with a spray-painted signature of one Ira Wraight. I looked down at the slip of paper the boss had given me. It said the client was I. Wraight. I figured this must be the place.

Wraight turned out to be a stocky man with a powerful grip. We shook hands after he called off his pit bulls and I asked, “What kind of problem are you having with salmon?”

“Salmon!” Wraight roared, “I got no problem with salmon. It’s them infernal reds.”

“You’re not having a problem with red salmon?” I asked in my most investigative voice.

“Not red salmon, you idiot,” I. Wraight thundered, “red communists.”

“Red communists here on the Kenai Peninsula, but the cold war is over” I stammered unbelievingly.

“Follow me,” Wraight led me to the riverbank.

“See,” he said pointing to the bank.

All I saw was the river powerfully surging by.

“Now look over there,” he said defiantly, pointing across the river to the opposite bank. ”What do you think of that?”

Again I saw nothing but the flowing river.

“Sorry, Mr. Wraight, I don’t get it.”

“Let me spell it out for you,” said Wraight. “My river bank is eroding; I lost a foot just this fall. The other side is federal land. You don’t see any erosion over there, do you?” I looked over at the sand bar on the other side, but before I had a chance to speak, Wraight continued. “It’s obviously a communist plot to destroy private property along the Kenai River.”

It began to make sense. I had studied a little geology as an elective when I got my detective certificate through the A-1 Detective School down in the Bahamas. But they had never told me that erosional processes could be manipulated by communists intending to destroy private property. What if terrorists heard about this? I should have gone for the two-year program.

“What do you want me to do?” I asked.

“Find ’em and stop ’em,” Wraight bellowed.

I drove down the highway to the Isaac Walton Campground, where the Moose River flows into the Kenai. I sat on a picnic table in the deserted campground and stared at the flowing river while I contemplated the situation.

Where would communist insurgents hide in Sterling? Are they Cuban, Chinese, maybe Soviet-era Russians? Just then I heard a familiar voice.

“Why, if it isn’t Joe Slate.”

I spun around and there was the beautiful woman I had met in Cooper Landing a few weeks ago.
“Judy,” I stammered. “What are you doing here?”

“Oh, I come here a lot when it isn’t crowded,” she said. “It’s a good place to watch the river and sit and think. And what are you doing here?”

I told her the whole I. Wraight story about how his property was eroding away because of red communists intent on destroying private property.

“Joe,” she said. “Rivers have been eroding their banks for eons before Karl Marx was born.”

“Really?”

“Really.” She went on: “Look behind us.”

She turned and pointed to a low ridge that cuts through the campground.

“That little ridge is an entrenched meander terrace. That’s where the bank of the Kenai used to be; then it meandered toward the other side at the same time it cut the river channel deeper. There are hundreds of these meander terraces around here.”

“Have you ever walked up the Resurrection Trail?” she asked.

“Uh, no, actually I haven’t.” I mumbled. “It’s a little hard on my wingtips.”

“Well, even in your wingtips you could walk just a few hundred yards up the trail on the Cooper Landing end and you would cross several meander terraces that are who knows how old.”

“Have you ever driven through Soldotna?”

“Sure, hundreds of times.”

“Well then you know about the little ridge you go up on Binkley Street as you drive past the Safeway store on the way to the post office. That, too, is a meander terrace where the Kenai River used to be. It cuts right through town. You can see the same terrace on Kobuk Street by the sewage treatment plant. As she spoke, she took out a paper and pencil and drew diagrams explaining what she was talking about.

After she finished I studied the diagrams a long time. Deflated, I finally turned to speak, but she was gone. She had vanished as quietly as she had come.

As I drove through Soldotna on the way back to the office, I turned right onto Binkley Street, left onto Redoubt and left again on Kobuk Street. Sure enough, I went up and back down the meander terrace that marked an ancient bank of the Kenai River.

I wondered how I would explain this to I. Wraight. I decided I would just have to tell it to him straight. Rivers meander. His property on the outside of a meandering bend would continue to erode, and the federal land on the inside of the bend would continue to fill in. Maybe he would come to understand that nature does what nature does, and not everything is a conspiracy.

Alan Boraas is a professor of anthropology at Kenai Peninsula College Kenai River Campus. This column was originally published in the Peninsula Clarion on Nov. 21, 1986.

June 3, 2009  Editorial: New rules to bear in mind this season

They’re coming.

Early reports show sockeye salmon are making their way into the Kenai River and are about two weeks out from hitting the confluence of the Kenai and Russian rivers.

With the fish come their entourage — fishermen ready to line up shoulder to shoulder to ply the water with their lines. And bears, ready for an easy meal courtesy of careless fishermen, or flawed management strategies.

New regulations go into effect this year at the Russian, ending the “stop, chop and throw” program of past years  where anglers were encouraged to hack their fish carcasses up into small pieces at fish-cleaning tables along the banks and throw the pieces into fast-moving water.

As it turns out, the fish bits weren’t being flushed downstream as intended. Instead, they clogged up at certain spots, creating a tempting buffet for bears.

The changes this year mean anglers will either have to hike downstream to the confluence of the Kenai and Russian to dispose of their carcasses, or pack them home to be disposed of elsewhere. It’s more work, and managers are waiting to see how willing anglers will be to comply with the new rules.

If they know and care what’s good for them — and wildlife — they will. Strategies that avoid habituating bears to humans and the easy meals people can leave behind are worth the effort. It can be a trial and error process, as with “stop, chop and throw,” and anglers should be understanding and accepting of the new efforts recommended to protect them and bears at a historically dangerous spot.

May 27, 2009  Editorial: And still counting…

Photo courtesy of Rick Monyahan. A soldier has a moment of reflection at a Memorial Day service at Leif Hansen Memorial Park in Kenai on Monday.

The observation of Memorial Day on Monday is a prescient time to do what should be done every day: respecting the men and women of our armed forces.
Regardless of political affiliations or views on any particular war or military action, the men and women who willingly put their lives on the line to serve and protect are still as important a part of this country as the minutemen in whose honored, selfless tradition they follow.
Economic woes, politics, elections and simply the march of time have diverted the nation’s consciousness from the continuing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those with friends and family members in harm’s way never forget their bravery in the face of devastating consequences, and neither should we.
Consider:

• 679 U.S. service members have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
• 4,238 U.S. service members have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
• Less than 50 of those killed in Iraq have been from Alaska.
• 72.1 percent of the service members killed in Iraq were in the Army, 24.4 percent were Marines, 2.3 percent in the Navy and 1.2 percent in the Air Force.
• 30 percent of those killed in Iraq were ages 18 to 21. 25 percent were ages 25 to 30, 24.2 percent were ages 22 to 24, 11 percent were over age 35, and 9.7 percent were ages 31 to 35.
• Of the nearly 100 U.S. women service members killed in Iraq, 61 percent died in hostile action.
• Of the 3,901 servicemen killed in Iraq, 82 percent of the deaths were due to hostile action.
• Information from the Faces of the Fallen project of The Washington Post, updated Tuesday, March 26.

May 27, 2009 Guest Editorial: Yellow plastic good in 1 respect

What are the signs of spring that you look forward to in Alaska? Is it buds forming on trees? Songbirds returning? Maybe it’s the longer days or shorter nights (depending on how you look at it). Some folks see RVs and know that summer is on its way. Others look for sandhill cranes.

No matter what special reminders bring you the joy of spring, there is one sign of spring that bears special mention and a second glance: Bright yellow trash bags. As the symbol of community roadside cleanups, the yellow trash bags are perhaps a more important part of spring coming to Alaska than you may think.

The bags piled up on the sides of roads hold the remains of the winter, fall and previous summer that have been collected, stored and scattered. When the snow melts, we are left with garbage spread along the roads. Sometimes the garbage was carelessly thrown out of a window by a driver who couldn’t wait until they got to a proper place to dispose of their trash. Other times, it’s simply a case of people not realizing their hubcap flew off and rolled into the ditch by the side of the road. Regardless of how the litter got there, it’s there, and if it weren’t for the yellow trash bags, most of that litter would still be there.

Roadside litter can be a greater problem than simple aesthetics. Sure, it’s not pleasant to look at, but the hazards created by this litter are oftentimes overlooked until it’s too late. Roadside debris can clog storm drains and cause flooding. It can even clog culverts and create immense amounts of erosion and damage to very sensitive salmon habitat, a situation we experienced on the Kenai Spur Highway earlier this month. The areas surrounding yellow trash bags are much nicer to look at due to lack of garbage, but also create nicer habitat to ensure that our favorite signs of spring can continue to thrive.

Another aspect of yellow trash bags that is often overlooked is the fact that they represent community cleanup projects. This not only means that the community is being cleaned up, but also that the community is doing the cleaning. When a group of people pitch in, the results are there on the side of the road for you to see: Clean roadsides, full garbage bags and people walking, biking, skateboarding, rollerblading or running.

The Kenai Watershed Forum has worked on cleanup projects this spring with many different classes that wanted to help make their community a nicer place to live. The dedication of these students, as well as the myriad other people who volunteered to help with the community cleanup, is what makes this community so wonderful in the first place.

The poet Robert Frost, when writing of spring, said “nature’s first green is gold.” It’s safe to say that he wasn’t talking about golden trash bags on the side of the road, but one could say that the value of the yellow trash bags as a testament to dedicated community members and to a beautiful community is priceless.

As fishermen begin gearing up for the fishing season and greenhouses hold the promise of green and bountiful gardens, students are getting ready for a fun and exciting summer vacation. We will enjoy our summer in many different ways, and we will do it in a beautiful place — Alaska, which gives us so many gifts, such as budding trees, singing birds, and yellow trash bags on the sides of beautiful roads.

Dan Pascucci is the education coordinator at the Kenai Watershed Forum.

May 20, 2009 Editorial: Talk before it’s too late

Just what parents need, one more thing to worry about: Bad grades, bullies, strangers, orthodontics, teen sex, teen angst, violence in video games, college tuition prices, chicken pox/scarlet fever/MRSA/swine flu and, oh yeah, don’t forget drugs.

Drugs are bad. Right, Junior? Did they tell you that in school? Don’t do drugs. Here, now, grab your lunch bag/backpack/soccer cleats/gym clothes/science project/sleepover bag and get a move on, already, before we’re late.

If that’s all the conversation a parent ever has with their child about meth, it may already be too late. Because with meth, all it takes is once.

After just one use, 80 to 97 percent of people get hooked on meth, said Allison Biastock, project coordinator for the Alaska Meth Education Program. The younger the age of first use, the higher the chance of that person using meth again. The highest meth use age demographic in Alaska is already18- to 25-year-olds, and that age group is getting younger and younger, Biastock said.

It’s an uncomfortable topic to broach with kids, especially teenagers who can be reluctant to have an actual conversation about anything, much less drug use. It’s easy to assume the schools are covering it, or the Boys and Girls Club or the other youth programs that offer drug awareness and prevention education, or a combination of all of them. There’s the DARE program, after all, with experts coming into the class, a curriculum, “this is your brain on drugs” slide shows and all those other resources. What else needs to be said?

A lot. And it needs to be said often. Most drug awareness and prevention programs, like DARE, are general. While that’s worthwhile, they don’t focus specifically on meth, like Meth 360 presentations do, offered by the Alaska Meth Education Program. In Alaska, meth requires special attention because it is so powerfully addictive and, sadly, pervasive.

It can be in any community, in any neighborhood, among any demographic. Even if kids aren’t around it all the time, all it takes is one time for them to be hooked. That’s why parents need to talk to their kids about meth early and often, so if and when they are around it, they’ll know what it is, what it does, why they shouldn’t try it, and what they can say or do to avoid it.

But kids aren’t stupid. And the older they get, the more aware of their own budding genius they are. Which means they probably know more about meth than their parents, or at least think they do, and may not take seriously a drug conversation that’s limited to “meth is bad, don’t do meth.”

So parents need to go to school, as well. Learn about meth, its signs and symptoms, how it affects brain chemistry, what it does to a user and the myths, misconceptions and terminology. Even if your kid really does know it all and is prepared to so “no” if the time comes, keep the conversation going. If meth is an open, safe topic, kids are more likely to mention new things they’ve heard about it or if they think a friend may be in trouble.

It’s worth the time and effort. It’s worth the research. It’s worth the eye rolls or discomfort that may come from the conversation. It’s worth whatever it takes to keep kids from trying meth, not even once.

For more information, visit www.akmethed.com.

May 13, 2009 Editorial: No snap decisions in HEA’s new path

Homer Electric Association’s annual meeting Thursday in Homer drew a sizeable crowd of co-op members, and a deep pool of applicants turned out for the three open board of directors seats.

The co-op is sparking energetic interest and participation from across the peninsula. Ideally, that’s because peninsula residents realize HEA is at a crossroads, with its current natural gas contract nearing its end, and want to help steer the co-op’s future toward responsible, sustainable and renewable energy. Realistically, it probably has more to do with the fact that HEA’s current situation has resulted in increased rates. Hitting people in the pocketbook is a sure way to get their attention.

Hopefully, decisions about HEA’s future will be governed by both motivations, not one over the other. The continuing argument over the Healy coal plant is an example of the divisiveness HEA needs to avoid. One camp rails that all coal is bad, Healy is unfeasible and HEA shouldn’t touch it with a power pole.

The other side sees only the economic potential of Alaska’s vast stores of coal and turns a blind eye to the environmental harms coal produces.

HEA is conducting a study of its future energy-production options, and General Manager Brad Janorschke has said no decisions will be made until that’s complete. HEA has made a promising commitment toward increasing its use of renewable energy sources, but the fact is renewables won’t come online overnight, and something will need to make up the difference, whether it’s continued use of natural gas, or possibly coal.

What’s important now is to keep heads cool, options open and discussions moving forward. With a fresh new board and continuing interest from members to get this figured out, we stand a better chance than ever of finding a solution that’s as economic and eco-friendly as possible.

May 13, 2009 Guest column: Change in direction or clothes?

In 1837, Danish author Hans Christian Andersen published a satirical piece entitled “The Emperor’s New Clothes” that told an all-too-familiar tale of people sometimes not wanting to tell their superiors the truth.  Mr. Andersen invented a fictional ruler who was victimized by swindling transients who sold him a new suit of clothing that was, in fact, nonexistent.  So, although the emperor had been told by the tricky tailors that his was the finest suit in the land, no one around him wanted to admit that, as far as they could tell, the emperor had no clothes on at all.  But the more they looked and the more they thought about it, the more they were inclined to believe that maybe, just maybe, they were mistaken.

Mr. Andersen’s thesis holds true even today. While I was manager of a small FAA facility in Mobile, Ala., in 1989, we were visited by the then-FAA administrator, a retired admiral.  He was making the rounds of the country on a “listening tour” and wanted to pop in on us for a quick meet and greet.

We had not had the pleasure of making the admiral’s acquaintance prior to his sweeping in one morning, surrounded by an entourage of bureaucratic lackeys and yes-men. When he attempted to make small talk with us, I answered one of his questions by referring to a busy Air National Guard operation in nearby Gulfport, Miss. His response was totally off-the-wall and unexpected, as he implied having knowledge of the facility, but referred to it as “Tyndall AFB,” which was hundreds of miles east in Florida.

Wanting to make a good impression on the FAA’s top guy, my employees and I exchanged nervous glances, no one daring to correct this man who represented all power and knowledge of things avionic. Instead, we merely smiled, curtsied and murmured, “Yes, sir” and let it go at that. After a few minutes, the admiral left our facility no wiser than when he had arrived and still without the clothing of comprehension. One wonders how often the scenario was repeated as he continued his well-intentioned “fact-finding” national expedition.

Let’s fast forward to 2009. We have a newly elected emperor in Washington, who is spinning clothing for himself out of gold faster than you can say “Rumpelstiltskin.” We are the ones who are being fooled, as he is telling us that he is wearing no clothes, but we can see he is. Fully clothed.

Record numbers of voters, legal or otherwise, living or otherwise, poured to the polls last November. While record numbers voted for the Republican candidate, even more voted for the Democrat who would become our 44th President.

The anniversary of the first 100 days of his presidency passed with the usual fanfare, fawning praise and total lack of criticism because he is, well, the top guy. Isn’t he? And we can’t contradict our leader if he says that things are going smoothly. Can we?

The emperor has concentrated on “fixing” the banks and the U.S. auto industry. And the largely minority-based constituency who elected him are saying, “Yes, we’re pretty sure he’s doing a great job,” despite the fact that absolutely nothing has changed for them, except that they are among the unfortunate who may have lost their jobs, their homes and who face a bleak immediate future.

How about the Hispanic section of that constituency? Has anything been done for them? The blacks? The liberals? The same-sexers? The no-sexers? Hmmmm?

When one must gaze through smoke and mirrors to see the emperor, one cannot always tell what he is wearing, much less if he is wearing anything at all. And so we must continue to rely upon him to tell us. Can’t we?

Bill Gronvold is a freelance writer who lives in Kenai and Florida.

May 6, 2009 Editorial: Complaint against ethics complaints

There’s a simple way to show displeasure over the legal fund established for Gov. Sarah Palin’s defense against ethics complaints — don’t contribute to it.

Kim Chatman, of Eagle River, has taken her disapproval of the fund to an extreme, not to mention circular, level. She filed an ethics complaint in response to the establishment of a fund to defend Palin against ethics complaints.

Chatman charges that Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts. The Alaska Fund Trust was founded by a Palin supporter and friend to allow Palin supporters to help the governor pay legal fees associated with the dozen or so ethics complaints that have been lodged against her.

The fund’s name is misleading, and puts a shiny face of what has become a tarnish on the governor’s reputation — the accusation that she acts with her own interests first, disregarding the code of conduct for her office.

In battling the ethics complaints, which range from flying her kids to vice presidential campaign events on the state’s dime to the infamous Troopergate scandal, Palin is battling to clear away that stigma.

Just like Alaskans concerned with her conduct have every right to file ethics complaints, even as frivolous as the latest ones have become, Palin has every right to defend herself against them. And her supporters have every right to continue supporting her, whether it’s through campaign contributions, shelling out money for her book which is inevitably forthcoming, or donating to a legal defense fund.

The ethics complaints need to be addressed. Whether Palin does it out of her own pocket or with the help of her legion of supporters makes little difference. When the legal decisions are rendered, they will be based on the facts of the case, not who helped pay for the lawyers.

As long as the fund is set up properly and donations are disclosed, then it’s just another vehicle for Palin backers to keep on doing what they’re already doing — supporting the governor.

The argument could be made that the money could be better spent for the good of Alaska, perhaps by donating it to a food bank or sending it to a rural village to help with unbearably high fuel costs. But citizens are allowed to donate their money — or not — however they wish.

Don’t like it? Then don’t donate. But stop taking up more of the state’s time and resources with frivolous complaints.

May 6, 2009 Guest column: North Kenai can take care of itself

The Department of Homeland Security has closed traditional access to one of the best agate-collecting beaches in Alaska. It happens to be located below the refinery complex in North Kenai.

Apparently Homeland Security is concerned that terrorists posing as agate collectors might be a threat to America’s supply of domestic petroleum. Perhaps they are worried of a scenario something like this:

Anti-American terrorists training in the Middle East smuggle in XtraTuf boots and Carhartts and practice looking for agates in the desert sands. It’s all a diversion to take over an American fertilizer plant.

Then they sail to Cook Inlet on a ship they got on the cheap from the Somalis and row ashore on a cold spring day. No need to conceal their weapons — it’s North Kenai — they’d be more suspect if they didn’t carry a gun.

Onshore the highly trained terrorists go into agate mode — walk head down at a slow pace into the sun, each carrying a plastic grocery sack.

Suddenly, one says, “Hey, I found one.”

“Akmed you idiot,” the leader gives him a dope slap. “We’re only pretending to search for agates. Let me see that. Hmmm, pretty neat.”

After they all take a look they get back to business. They have an old map showing a large fertilizer plant on the bluff next to a small LNG plant. At a signal from their leader, the band of terrorists charge up the bluff, guns at the ready.

Of course, all they are going to find is a mothballed fertilizer plant once known as Agrium.

Homeland Security needn’t have worried. This is North Kenai, where the local militia types could easily handle anything terrorists could throw at them. There are probably more guns and ammunition stockpiled in the cabins of North Kenai than anywhere in Alaska — maybe in America.

The minute the terrorists stormed the bluff, the pickups of the ad hoc North Kenai militia would have descended on them and captured them. Of course, it’s easy to capture a hot-weather terrorist when it’s 35 degrees with a bone-chilling wind off the inlet.

Subsequent events might go this way:

“Why’d you want to take over our fertilizer plant?” the burly militia leader interrogates the terrorist leader.

“We read on the Internet you can make a bomb from fertilizer and we wanted to blow up an American government building,” the terrorist leader says defiantly.

“You’re a little late. Timmy already did that,” the militia leader says. “So why would you want to blow up a government building?”

“We hate the American government,” the terrorist leader says with distain.

“Hey, we do too,” the militia leader says. “Now they want to take our guns away.”

“You’re kidding,” the terrorist says in disbelief, clutching his weapon to his chest.

Finding common ground, the terrorists and militia relax and chat. Someone pops a Bud and after a little encouragement, the terrorists forego their anti-alcohol vow. After all, it’s freezing.

“So why’d they close the fertilizer plant?” The terrorist leader asks, wiping some froth from his mustache. “Everybody needs fertilizer.”

“A former governor tied the price of Alaskan natural gas to the price in Louisiana and it got too expensive to run the plant. So they shut down.”

“What’s that plant over there?” the terrorist asks, pointing next door.

“That makes LNG and ships most of it to Japan.”

“You close one plant putting hundreds of people out of work and next door gas from the same field is shipped to another country? I thought you didn’t want to be dependent on foreign oil?”

The militia leader looks chagrined, “We thought so too.”

“So why’d they close the agate beach access if there is only a small LNG facility operating?” asks the terrorist.

The militia guys look sheepishly at one another. One of them standing in back grunts, “Good question,” and tosses his empty beer can into the back of his pickup.

The terrorist who found the agate holds it out.

“Hey, you found one,” the militia leader says and slaps him on the back. “Cool. I know where there’s an even better agate beach. Want to collect some agates?”

“Sure, we don’t have anything better to do,” the terrorist leader says.

They all pile into the back of a couple of pickups and off they go — militia and terrorists,  joking, laughing, sharing beers and anti-government sentiment.

Alan Boraas is an anthropology professor at Kenai Peninsula College’s Kenai River Campus. This column first appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on May 1, 2009.

April 29, 2009 Editorial: Unwritten rules of the Board of Fish

Brent Johnson’s appointment to the Board of Fisheries was sunk ostensibly because it violated a list of “unwritten rules” governing the board’s makeup.

There should be Native representation on the board, some argued. And Johnson, a set-netter from Clam Gulch, would replace someone from Fairbanks, leaving the Interior without representation.

The cardinal sin his nomination represented, however, was that he’s a commercial fisherman, and that could upset the balance between sport and commercial interests on the board.

All true, and all valid points — although the hairsplitting involved in pigeonholing board members as being either in the “commercial” or “sport” camps in order to keep parity can be extensive and misleading, since they aren’t nominated as either, and their decisions in any given matter are (or at least should) be motivated by factors beyond their customary method of wetting a line or net.

To further complicate matters, there was a subtext to the violation of the unwritten commercial-sport rule — Johnson is a Cook Inlet commercial fisherman, and a loud advocate for it, in an area with considerable shoving over the balance between commercial and sport interests. Had he been commercial from Southeast, Bristol Bay or elsewhere, or not as active a proponent of it, his nomination may not have drawn as much opposition as it did, since there was no argument over whether Johnson was well-versed in fisheries issues or whether his character and intelligence were up to the task.

But the larger issue is the unwritten one. None of the factors cited in testimony against Johnson, and in many other controversial board appointments before him, are required considerations in choosing members for the Board of Fish or Board of Game.

The state statute that governs board membership simply calls for the governor to appoint on the basis of “interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the field of action of the board, and with a view to providing diversity of interest and points of view in the membership. The appointed members shall be residents of the state and shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence.”

“Diversity of interest and points of view” implies a number of things — rural vs. urban; commercial, sport and subsistence fishing — but specifies none. What is specified is that geographical location shouldn’t matter. Neither should ethnographic considerations. Yet all were used as ammunition for shooting Johnson’s nomination down.

The Board of Fish has a monumental, momentous and thankless job. Fishing issues in Alaska are as prickly as the hooks that ply our waters, and members are routinely lambasted for favoritism, shortsightedness and all-out ignorance. Sometimes rightly, sometimes not. Either way, it’s still a job that needs to be done, and done as well as possible.

There’s enough contention that comes when the board is at work. We don’t need controversy over members’ appointments further muddying the waters. If unwritten rules truly rule the day, the state should make them written.

If regional representation is desired, then make that part of the nomination requirement, although it would be a trick to fairly carve up the state in just seven seats. Requiring that a Native be on the board isn’t necessarily useful, since a Native member doesn’t automatically represent a subsistence or traditional viewpoint. Instead, if how you fish is the biggest sticking point, make that part of the requirement. Designate commercial, sport and subsistence representation.

The overwhelming goal of board members should be the protection and fair allocation of the resource, and a board member’s ability to make decisions with that as their priority shouldn’t be influenced by how they’ve worked or fished in the past.

But the truth of the matter is, people seem unwilling to let go of those labels when supporting or critiquing appointments to the board, and the decisions they make during their term.

It shouldn’t matter, but it inevitably does. So let’s get it out there. Make it official. Perhaps when we do, the unwritten rules won’t hijack so much of the conversation.

April 29, 2009  Guest column:Partnerships help spring flow smoothly

It’s the end of April and the changing of the seasons, the changes you notice, depend on your perspective.

Get those tires changed is one perspective my wife has. If you’re moving freight or in the construction world, you’re tuned in to weight restrictions imposed on roads as the frost moves out. If you’re farming or gardening, you’re prepping the ground and working with starts. Birders are starting to witness the arrival of our feathered seasonal visitors. If you’re fishing, the options are broadening. So much happens this time of year, much of which we notice and much more goes unnoticed.

This past week, Kenai Watershed Forum staff has been going through one of its spring rituals, focusing on water in the smaller creeks. As the snow melts off, the creeks come up. For example, Slikok Creek most likely reached its snowmelt peak a week ago and will steadily drop until fall rains. Monitoring these smaller creeks, in addition to the Kenai River, has been an ongoing effort of many of our supporting partners. In fact, between the time this article was drafted and the time it hits the press, the baseline water-quality monitoring program coordinated by KWF will have celebrated the completion of its 10th consecutive year of monitoring.

The baseline monitoring program came about because no one was systematically monitoring the water quality of the Kenai River and its key tributaries. Many individual agencies and organizations had a desire and even a written plan to carry out monitoring, but it was difficult for any one entity to fund and carry out the work. We have learned and corrected some important things as a result of this program.

The baseline monitoring program, like so much of what gets accomplished in working toward fulfilling KWF’s mission: “Working together for healthy watersheds on the Kenai Peninsula,” is successful only because we have good partners and individuals that believe in this work and the proactive, working-together approach. Partners like the city of Soldotna, which for 10 years has helped carry out this monitoring program, allowing the 14 member agencies to utilize its laboratory at the water treatment plant for training and analyzing water samples the city’s lab has the ability to evaluate. This program wouldn’t have been successful without the city’s support or the support of the other 13 partners that contribute time, money or personnel to this effort year in and year out.

Another springtime event for KWF staff is the Caring for the Kenai program finals, where students from across the peninsula annually submit ideas to better care for the environment or improve our area’s preparedness for a natural disaster. Congratulations are in order to this year’s winners, who did an outstanding job: Olivia Pfeifer, Mandee Jackson, Anton Krull, Matt Fellman, Cody Dutcher and Cody Warfield. It is also worth calling out an extra set of kudos to last year’s winner, Lincoln Wensley, who will be heading to Washington, D.C., in the upcoming month to receive the Presidential Environmental Youth Award. This program is another example of good working relationships and partnerships among Tesoro, Chevron and Sikorski Consulting.

Much of what we don’t notice in spring occurs out of our sight. For example, April is the time of year when juvenile salmon emerge from the gravel. These juveniles will be a major driver for our economy in future years, and strictly from an economic perspective, these emerging fish represent a multimillion-dollar investment. For many, it is much more than anything monetary, it is an important symbol of our place and why so many diverse partnerships exist to help care for our watersheds.

From the perspective of the Kenai Watershed Forum, it is necessary to work in partnerships to make meaningful progress in maintaining healthy rivers, creeks and watersheds. Everyone that enters into any partnership has work and a responsibility to make the partnership successful. As the seasons change, we will continue to look at issues facing the Kenai Peninsula from different perspectives, we always learn something new when we do. We will also continue to look for opportunities to work with others interested in supporting our mission.

Robert Ruffner is the executive director of the Kenai Watershed Forum.

April 22 , 2009  Guest column: Don’t get stuck missing school —
Immunization rule changes mean kids need proof of shots before fall

Even though it’s not quite summer, it’s not too early to prepare for next school year. In addition to the usual new notebooks and pencils, some elementary school students in Alaska will need immunizations before school starts this fall or by July 1 if they are attending child care. Children in kindergarten through sixth grade will need to show proof that they have received two varicella (chickenpox) vaccinations or that they already have had the disease. Children in preschool and Head Start or those attending child care who are not yet in elementary school will continue to need only one varicella vaccination.

Varicella is a contagious disease that usually occurs in childhood. Although many people think that it is not a serious illness, varicella can lead to severe skin infections, scars, pneumonia, brain damage and death. Serious disease complications are much more likely to occur in infants less than one year of age (too young to be vaccinated) and in unvaccinated children and adults who are older than 12. It is not possible to predict who will develop serious or even deadly complications from varicella infection. Persons who previously were completely healthy have been known to die as a result of this disease.

A single varicella vaccination is estimated to be effective for only 80 percent to 85 percent of children. This means that some persons who have received only one vaccination may remain unprotected. Approximately one-third of these vaccinated but unprotected children will experience moderate disease if they get chickenpox. A second varicella vaccination greatly reduces the risk of disease among these unprotected children and has been shown to be 100 percent effective against development of severe disease.

Varicella vaccination clinics are being held at Kenai Public Health Center, 630 Barnacle Way, Mondays and Wednesdays from 1:30 to 4:00, and at the Cottonwood Clinic in Soldotna on Thursday from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m.

To ensure children are protected against this disease, beginning July 1, verification that a child has already had varicella (or any other vaccine-preventable disease) will require confirmation by an Alaska-licensed physician (MD or DO), advanced nurse practitioner (ANP), or physician’s assistant (PA). These medical professionals must document this verification on an official state form that may be obtained from schools, healthcare providers or the Alaska Immunization Program Web site, www.epi.alaska.gov/immunize. Documentation of the history of varicella disease, signed by an Alaska-licensed MD, DO, ANP or PA and dated prior to July 1, 2009, will continue to be considered valid.

Children who have had varicella disease may still receive the vaccine. Unvaccinated children without an exemption will be excluded from attending school and school activities.
Reactions to varicella vaccination are uncommon and are usually limited to soreness and/or redness at the site of vaccination. The stronger, naturally circulating virus is more likely to re-emerge in adulthood as shingles than is the weakened virus used in the vaccine.

Also beginning July 1, school immunization regulations require that students who need a 10-year Td (tetanus/diphtheria) booster, typically at age 14 to 16, receive Tdap vaccine (tetanus/diphtheria/acellular pertussis). Outbreaks of pertussis, or whooping cough, are occurring in Alaska communities. This disease can be devastating to infants.

More information regarding the updated immunization requirements may be obtained at the Kenai Public Health Center, 335-3400, or by calling the Alaska Immunization Helpline, 269-8088 in Anchorage, or 888-430-4321 statewide.

Don’t wait – vaccinate!

Column submitted by Tami Marsters, R.N., a public health nurse with the Kenai Public Health Center, on behalf of the Alaska Immunization Program.