Who's Driving the Bus on the Homer Harbor Expansion?
As Homer awaits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ release of the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment, more questions are being raised about who is in the driver's seat for the increasingly under-the-radar permitting process for the Homer Harbor expansion. Last month, the agency announced it had submitted an application under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for certification from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation that any discharge from the expansion will comply with the Act and Alaska Water Quality Standards.
The problem is that the Corps, not the City of Homer, is submitting the application. While an application for certification is typically submitted by the project proponent (in this case the City), there does not appear to be any legal authority or even precedent for a situation in which the applicant for a state permit is the same entity that is overseeing the federal permitting process, raising questions about whether the Corps has a conflict of interest.
This has caused some to speculate that, due to pressure from Senator Dan Sullivan, who was involved in changing the process by which Alaskan harbors can be developed, allowing them to proceed without meeting the standard cost-benefit analysis, it is the federal government that is pushing on the Harbor Expansion Project despite the lack of sufficient environmental and economic analysis in the Feasibility Report/Environmental Assessment and making all the decisions. According to George Matz with the Kachemak Bay Birders Association regarding an e-mail Sullivan sent out to potential voters in Homer where he took credit for the Expansion Project:
I am not sure where Senator Sullivan got the authority to speak for Homer and advance the harbor project to approval. Since Homer area residents will be paying part of the construction costs of this project, the go-ahead should be our decision. Neither the Corps, HDR, nor Senator Sullivan should be preempting local decisions or state authority (e.g., the Critical Habitat Areas status). But given that the Corps has not responded to the draft comments or even made the comments available to the public, it appears that the public process has fallen apart.
When asked about the lack of public process in the Feasibility Report, Homer City Council members have been heard to state that “that whole process is out of our Hands.” However, it seems the City is still very much in the game. In August, Mayor Rachel Lord, the City’s consultants, and other representatives of the City virtually attended a Command Validation Milestone meeting with the Corps to review the draft Feasibility Report, public comments, and the recommended plan, and to discuss the project and path forward. Similarly, the City Council recently approved funding for the second phase of theconsultant contract on this project to help the City develop the financial and local service facility plans needed to move the project forward.
Maybe the Council needs to step in to ensure better accountability to the public, who were left out of the discussion. For example, the Corps has been asked repeatedly when it will release the now almost 3 weeks overdue Feasibility Report/Environmental Assessment to the public. The Corp’s scheduled November issuance of the Report means time for public comment on the next draft is running out fast. The Corp has also been asked under what authority it is acting like the proponent of a project by applying for the water quality certification, while serving as the regulatory agency of the same project. So far the response to both of these and other questions has been …crickets.
Maybe the City needs to step in on behalf of Homer residents and re-establish itself as the actual proponent of this project. That way we might finally get some answers. Also, due to the conflict of interest, the City should ask the Corps to rescind or withdraw the Certification permit application , which the Corps didn’t discuss the City or its consultants prior to submitting. If the Corps won’t rescind, they should extend the public notice to allow the City to share the information with the public so we have time to review it and submit comments.
You can submit comments or request a public hearing on the request for Water Quality Certification by Oct. 26, on the DEC website at https://dec.alaska.gov/commish/public-notices/ or email to the DEC email address: DEC-401Cert@alaska.gov with the subject line referencing Public Notice Reference Number: ER-PN-26-02 v1.0.
Comment on the Harbor Expansion Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment
The DIFREA is available for review at: http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/Reports-and-Studies/. (To access the report on this site, expand the Civil Works tab under “Documents Available for Public Review.”)
To access the report on this site, expand the Civil Works tab under “Documents Available for Public Review.” The public and agency comment period ends June 22, 2026. Comments must be submitted to the Corps Public Affairs Office through email at: public.affairs3@usace.army.mil.
The Homer Harbor Expansion Must Analyze Impacts of Climate Change
As part of the process for potential environmental and social impacts and costs and benefits of expanding the Homer the Kachemak Bay Watershed Collaborative proposes the “Climate Change Impacts” (CCI) Alternative for the Corps to consider in the range of alternatives. This alternative includes the fact that the increasing impacts of climate change on the marine and freshwater ecosystems in the Kachemak Bay Watershed are unavoidable and therefore, any impacts to such ecosystem from expansion, change of location or other alterations of the Harbor must be mitigated so that they do not exacerbate the impacts of climate change.
Potential impacts of large-scale industry related to the harbor expansion on the fresh water and marine ecosystems health of Kachemak Bay and greater Homer including:
Invasive species from ballast water;
Water, air and noise pollution and carbon emissions from barges, tankers, cruise ships and new industries;
Impacts to water quality from boat work on the spit;
Potential filling of wetlands to accommodate storage of smaller vessels or to dispose of dredge spoils;
Increased carbon emissions resulting in higher fresh and marine water temperatures which are harmful to fish and marine mammals.
In order to mitigate the above and other impacts, the CCI Alternative should include the following actions:
1) The Adaptation actions included in the City of Homer's 2009 Climate Action Plan including:
○ Developing management plans specific to Port & Harbor facilities on the Homer Spit (construction, maintenance, dredging, etc.) that take into account climate change impacts;
○ Taking climate change into consideration in all long-range planning efforts (e.g., transportation, land use, Homer Spit, emergency management, economic development);
○ To date, efforts to reduce emissions from Harbor and Port operations have been the conversion to LED lights and to gas heating.
2) Update the City of Homer Adaption Action Plan as part of development of the KBWC Watershed Resiliency Plan;
3) Analyze how the City might lead in the “greening” of American ports by upgrading, modernizing, and decarbonizing its port infrastructure and operations, as outlined in the White House’s Ocean Climate Action Plan;
4) The scope of the environmental impacts of the expansion and how it could exacerbate climate impacts must address both the marine and freshwater ecosystems of the entire watershed;
5) Analyze how the expansion will be consistent with President Bidens “America the Beautiful Initiative to offset climate impacts on fish and wildlife habitat by preserving 30 percent of the Nation’s federal lands by 2030;
6) Analyze How the expansion will be consistent with the 6th IPCC Report which states if global warming is to be kept below 1.5 degrees C., how any new emissions of greenhouse gasses must be offset by equivalent removals from the atmosphere and achieving carbon neutrality before 2050;
7) Analyze how the Expansion will be consistent with President Biden’s multiple directives to apply principals of environmental justice, use of traditional knowledge and engage in government-to-government consultation related to Alaska Native tribal communities and governments.
The Homer Harbor Expansion Ecosystem Working Group
The City of Homer is in the process of analyzing several different alternatives of expanding the Homer Harbor and assessing the environmental impacts of doing so. As part of the Homer Harbor Expansion the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) established the Ecosystem Working Group (ESWG) to discuss the environmental impacts and analysis of the expansion Project and which KBWC is a member of.
The predominate focus of the ESWG is to discuss USACE environmental activities and potential monitoring, survey, mitigation etc and the type of project features, activities and operations the Study alternatives are anticipated to include; i.e., harbor infrastructure.
A tentatively selected plan will be decided by the Study project delivery team (USACE, City of Homer, and HDR). The TSP will focus on the content of the Draft Study Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Analysis, which is planned for release in the fall of 2025, when the public and other agencies have an opportunity to review the draft report and provide comment to USACE before the report is finalized.
The ESWG also focuses on the development process for a study ecological model and environmental/cultural fieldwork that were originally conceptualized during a workshop in April 2024. The goal for the ecological model which will eventually be certified, is to incorporate the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science’s Kelp Model, HDR’s Sediment study and Water Current Circulation Model as inputs. The ecological model
The ESWG also focuses on environmental/cultural fieldwork, focusing on areas within the direct Study footprint including providing input for identifying potential species observer on footage from underwater camera surveys. Fieldwork was.
ESWG members have also discussed providing potential recommendations for environmental studies, monitoring, mitigations, etc, that could be implemented to inform the environmental impacts during the design through post-construction of a construction alternative. The recommendations included: type of recommendation (mitigation, study, survey, monitoring, etc); general timeframe it would be implemented (i.e., during design, post-construction); frequency or timing considerations of implementation (if applicable); the recommendation; and what the recommendation will address/its purpose. These recommendations will be reviewed and considered for the potential and practicality of implementation under Study alternatives.
KBWC will continue to participate in the ESWG to determine when the public will be able to review and comment on the Study Draft Study Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Analysis.
