The General Investigation considers alternative approaches and designs to address the challenges identified in Homer Port and Harbor, including a no-build option. Over the course of the study, the US Army Corps of Engineers refines the design alternatives based on an array of data including fleet demand analysis, current oceanic and climate conditions, environmental assessments, geotechnical investigations, and ship simulation modeling.

Community input is considered throughout the study, as public feedback is crucial to ensuring the outcomes align with Homer’s needs. The study is also guided by a Project Charter adopted by Homer City Council to ensure alignment with local priorities.

For each design alternative, a range of potential impacts associated with changes to the harbor are evaluated, including:

• Potential impacts on the local community and infrastructure such as roads, traffic, and the electrical grid
• Economic opportunities and risks
• Construction and maintenance costs
• Potential environmental impacts on marine resources
• Potential impacts on other uses of the Homer Spit such as tourism and recreation

Finally, the General Investigation evaluates whether the benefits of the project justify federal investment in construction.

For years, demand for moorage in Homer’s Small Boat Harbor has far exceeded the harbor’s capacity. An expansion would support a robust future for Homer’s maritime community, including navigational safety and regional connectivity.  

Harbor staff have creatively utilized the current harbor float systems to accommodate as much demand as possible, but significant challenges remain:

• Large vessels: 40 vessels (86 to 180 feet) use the System 5 transient float and must raft three deep due to limited space.
• Small vessels: 1,400 small vessels are accommodated in just 900 stalls and 5,000 linear feet of transient side-tie moorage, requiring hot berthing and rafting. Despite these creative solutions, a significant waitlist for small vessel space persists.

Maximizing use of the current float systems in this way comes at a cost: safety concerns and navigational hazards in narrowed travel lanes, accelerated wear on harbor infrastructure, vessel damages and delays, and persistent unmet demand from Homer’s fishing fleet and maritime community.

No. While the study is looking at how the harbor could accommodate more and larger boats,  the Homer Spit is not set up to receive large container ships. Container ships and large cruise ships are not a priority determined by the Study Charter.

A robust environmental review process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is required prior to the start of any construction. A NEPA document (e.g., environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement) will be developed to analyze the proposed design alternatives and any associated environmental impacts.

The General Investigation (GI) is an important first step to determine how the overcrowding issue could be addressed, along with identifying changes that could allow the harbor to accommodate future demand. The GI alone will not solve the current problem of the harbor’s overcrowding; addressing this challenge will take several years.  

USACE General Investigation studies typically take about 3 years to complete. However, two factors have extended the timeline for the Homer Harbor Expansion study, and we now expect it to take about 5 years total, likely finishing in 2027.

What caused the delay?

Funding gap:  The study experienced a temporary slowdown due to a federal funding gap for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. All USACE new start general investigation studies (GIs) that received funding through a FY 2023 congressional appropriation faced the same issue–the process for securing continuation funding in 2024 was unclear at first, and no funding for FY24 was initially included. This has been resolved, and the study is now fully funded through the first quarter of 2026.

Expanded requirements: USACE policy changes now require all feasibility studies to include more detailed work than before. USACE leadership have required that this study complete additional geotechnical investigations and ship simulations to manage risks that can greatly affect construction costs. Additionally, all studies moving forward will be required to reach 35% design maturity (previously only 15% was required). This additional scope naturally adds time to the process.

At this point, it is too soon to speculate on possible construction schedules, costs, or harbor design options. Completing the current feasibility study is an important step, but the study alone will not result in any short-term harbor construction, nor does it indicate certainty that a harbor expansion will be pursued. The study will evaluate the opportunity, and the results will guide next steps. 

The study will take approximately 5 years to complete, with a final USACE report and recommendation anticipated in late 2027. The next opportunity for public comment will be after the release of the draft feasibility report, projected for May 2026. Your feedback continues to be important to ensure the study’s outcome aligns with the community’s needs. Stay involved by joining our mailing list to hear about the latest updates and share your input! 

There is a cost-sharing agreement between the City of Homer and USACE. Each entity is expected to pay 50 percent of the total cost, which is presently $4.2M. Half of the City’s contribution has been funded by the State of Alaska. 

Residents, local elected officials, City staff, business leaders, a local Environmental Stakeholders Working Group and harbor user groups have been and will continue to be involved through education and engagement opportunities. Additionally, the State of Alaska is supporting the study through a funding match to the City. The City has contracted HDR to be their owner representative.

No, a preferred design alternative has not been selected for the harbor expansion. Since evaluating and screening design alternatives identified at the public design charette in May 2023, the project development team has been incrementally refining the alternatives under consideration based on data collected. The study is currently assessing the design requirements, costs, and benefits to determine feasibility for each alternative, and addressing the environmental considerations of building that basin. More work remains before a preferred alternative can be recommended.

Yes, this was considered and evaluated as both a standalone alternative (Alternative 4) and a measure that could be implemented with other alternatives.

As a standalone alternative, excavation to increase available fleet space within the current harbor’s footprint would not provide enough acreage to meet the study’s needs or objectives, and the currently installed infrastructure would need to be removed and replaced at an excessive cost to the City. Additionally, the existing harbor does not address the needs of larger vessels, including deeper draft and improved safety for ingress and egress. Creating a deeper draft within the current footprint also raises significant concerns regarding the stability of existing breakwaters.

A similar alternative was assessed in a previous study, but it did not provide the overall benefits required to advance the project. Furthermore, uplands property is a valuable economic driver for the City and the sustainability of the community’s maritime economy. Uplands are used for harbor patron parking, shipping and receiving, lease revenue, and industry support for the fleet. An alternative that requires excavation and removal of current uplands would have adverse economic consequences while not fully addressing fleet needs.

To minimize the footprint of a new harbor basin, an expansion of the current harbor basin was also considered as a measure in combination with other alternatives. This would pose the same issues as a standalone alternative, while not significantly reducing the size of the new harbor basin’s footprint and the associated potential impacts on the environment.

Alternatives with exclusively floating breakwaters were not carried forward due to the typical wave conditions/characteristics of Kachemak Bay. A floating breakwater would need to be excessively large to create a tranquil harbor. The 17-mile-long stretch from the Homer Spit to the head of the Bay is problematic for constructability and cost, as well as the potential environmental footprint. Alternatives carried forward may include floating breakwater as part of the harbor structure (less exposed areas). The type of structure(s) such as floating breakwater, rock breakwater, sheet pile wall, etc. used to create the various alternatives harbor configuration has not been determined at this time.