Historical Alaska environmental information, 1954-2015

---

This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

---

State environmental policy
U.S. environmental policy
Endangered species policy
State endangered species
Federal land policy
Environmental terms

The historical environmental information below applies to prior years. For more current information regarding environmental policy in Alaska, see this article.

Land ownership

See also: Federal land policy and Federal land ownership by state

The federal government owned between 635 million and 640 million acres of land in 2012 (about 28 percent) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Around 52 percent of federally owned acres were in 12 Western states—including Alaska, 61 percent of which was federally owned. In contrast, the federal government owned 4 percent of land in the other 38 states. Federal land policy is designed to manage minerals, oil and gas resources, timber, wildlife and fish, and other natural resources found on federal land. Land management policies are highly debated for their economic, environmental and social impacts. Additionally, the size of the federal estate and the acquisition of more federal land are major issues.

Alaska is in the northwest extremity of North America, far removed from the lower 48 states. The amount of federal land owned in the state is greater than the entire land mass of Texas. According to the Congressional Research Service, the state of Alaska has a total acreage of 365.48 million acres. Of that total, 61.79 percent, or 225.84 million acres, belongs to the federal government. From 1990 to 2010, the federal government decreased its ownership of land in Alaska by 19.82 million acres. The federal government owns between 635 million to 640 million acres nationwide, or 28 percent of the estimated 2.27 billion acres in the nation. 139.63 million acres in Alaska are not owned by the federal government, which works out to an average of 189.94 acres per capita for the state's 735,132 residents.

The following table lists federal land ownership in Alaska and another Western state with high federal land ownership, Utah. The chart also lists federal land ownership data for Connecticut, as a comparison.

Federal land ownership in Alaska and other states by agency
State
Agency	Alaska		Utah		Connecticut
	Acres owned	Percentage owned	Acres owned	Percentage owned	Acres owned	Percentage owned
U.S. Forest Service	21,956,250	9.72%	8,207,415	23.43%	24	0.28%
U.S. National Park Service	52,620,514	23.30%	2,097,106	5.99%	5,719	66.83%
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	76,626,272	33.93%	107,885	0.31%	1,206	14.09%
U.S. Bureau of Land Management	72,958,757	32.30%	22,854,937	65.24%	0	0.00%
U.S. Department of Defense	1,686,371	0.75%	1,766,260	5.04%	1,608	18.79%
Total federal land	225,848,164	100%	35,033,603	100%	8,557	100.00%
Source: Congressional Research Service, "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data"

Land usage

Federal lands and Indian reservations in the state of Alaska by government agency (click on the image to enlarge)

Recreation

National parks in Alaska

Alaska has 23 National Park Service units, two national monuments, two national forests, 48 wilderness areas and one national conservation area. A study by the U.S. National Park Service found that 2.58 million visitors attended Alaska's national parks and monuments and generated $1.14 million in visitor spending in 2013.

State recreation lands

Alaska has four state parks. The table below contains a list of all state parks in Alaska.

State parks in Alaska
State park name
Chugach State Park
Denali State Park
Kachemak Bay State Park
Wood-Tikchik State Park

Economic activity on federal lands

Oil and gas activity

See also: BLM oil and gas leases by state

Private mining companies, including oil and natural gas companies, can apply for leases from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to explore and produce energy on federal land. The company seeking a lease must nominate the land for oil and gas exploration to the BLM, which evaluates and approves the lease. The BLM state offices make leasing decisions based on their land use plans, which contain information on the land's resources and the potential environmental impact of oil or gas exploration. If federal lands are approved for leasing, the BLM requires an application from the company containing information on how the exploration, drilling and production will be conducted. Afterward, the BLM will produce an environmental analysis and a list of requirements before work on the land can begin. The agency also inspects the companies' drilling and producing on the leased lands.

In 2013, there were 47,427 active leases covering 36.09 million acres of federal land nationwide. Of that total, 222 leases (0.47 percent of all leases), covering 1.598 million acres (4.43 percent of all leased land in 2013), were in Alaska. In 2013, out of 3,770 new drilling leases approved nationwide by the BLM for oil and gas exploration, 10 leases (0.002 percent) were in Alaska.

The table below shows how Alaska compares with other oil-producing states in relation to oil and gas permits on BLM-managed lands.

Oil and gas leasing on BLM lands by state
State	Active permits on BLM lands (FY 2013)	Total acres under lease (FY 2013)	State percentage of total permits	State percentage of total acres
Alaska	222	1,598,395	0.47%	4.43%
Utah	3,574	3,821,792	7.54%	10.59%
Nevada	1,881	3,732,390	3.97%	10.34%
Colorado	4,963	3,915,506	10.46%	10.85%
Wyoming	16,209	11,232,643	34.18%	31.12%
Total United States	47,427 permits	36,092,482 acres	-	-
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Oil and Gas Statistics"

Grazing permits

See also: Grazing permits on federal land

Sheep grazing on BLM lands in Worland, Wyoming in 1940

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages livestock grazing on 155 million acres of its public lands. Nationally, the BLM oversees about 18,000 permits and leases that allow ranchers to graze their livestock, mostly sheep and cows, on BLM-managed lands. The permits and leases overseen by the BLM are valid for 10 years and the fees are based on the number of animals the rancher has on the land. To track these animals the BLM created what are called Animal Unit Months (AUMs), or "the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats for a month." Since 1954, grazing on public lands has declined, from 18.2 million AUMs to 7.9 million AUMs in 2013. Holding a grazing permit requires the applicant to own or control the property used for grazing. The applicant may also offer other privately owned property used for grazing by submitting a separate application. The terms and conditions in a grazing permit control how livestock must be used on BLM lands.

Grazing on BLM lands in Alaska (March 2011)
BLM land (acres)	Grazing allotments	Grazing permits	Animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock use
72,958,757	15	N/A	N/A
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management

The table compares the grazing permits in the 10 states in the nation where permits are issued.

Grazing on BLM lands (March 2011)
State	BLM land (acres)	Grazing allotments	Grazing permits	Animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock use
Alaska	72,958,757	15	N/A	N/A
Arizona	12,203,495	824	759	659,990
California	15,306,243	699	572	525,000
Colorado	8,332,001	2,500	1,500	N/A
Idaho	11,610,111	N/A	199	832,000
Nevada	47,805,923	745	635	1,100,000
Oregon	16,134,191	N/A	753	960,288
South Dakota	274,437	504	N/A	73,800
Utah	22,854,937	1,410	1,462	1,300,000
Washington	429,156	N/A	266 (leases)	32,976
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Payments in lieu of taxes

See also: Payments in lieu of taxes

Since local governments cannot collect taxes on federally owned property, the U.S. Department of the Interior issues payments to local governments to replace lost property tax revenue from federal land. The payments, known as "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILTs), are typically used for funding services such as fire departments, police protection, school construction and roads.

The table below shows PILTs for Alaska compared to neighboring states between 2011 and 2013.

Total PILTs for Alaska and neighboring states
State	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013	State's percentage of 2013 total
Alaska	$25,490,863	$26,894,462	$26,458,503	6.59%
Utah	$34,659,277	$36,038,626	$35,391,052	8.81%
Nevada	$22,942,298	$23,917,845	$23,331,913	5.81%
Colorado	$27,022,334	$27,724,576	$31,986,266	7.96%
Wyoming	$25,656,797	$25,315,295	$25,340,612	6.31%
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior

Legislation and regulation

Federal laws

Clean Air Act

The federal Clean Air Act requires each state to meet federal standards for air pollution. Under the act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees national air quality standards aimed at limiting pollutants from chemical plants, steel mills, utilities, and industrial factories. Individual states can enact stricter air standards if they choose, though each state must adhere to the EPA's minimum pollution standards. States implement federal air standards through a state implementation plan (SIP), which must be approved by the EPA.

Clean Water Act

The federal Clean Water Act is meant to address and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological status of the waters of the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates water pollution sources and provides financial assistance to states and municipalities for water quality programs.

According to research done by The New York Times using annual averages from 2004 to 2007, Alaska had 139 facilities that were regulated annually by the Clean Water Act. An average of 33.5 facilities violated the act annually from 2004 to 2007 in Alaska, and the EPA enforced the act an average of 6.9 times a year in the state. This information, published by the Times in 2009, was the most recent information on the subject as of October 2014.

The table below shows how Alaska compared to neighboring states in The New York Times study, including the number of regulated facilities, facility violations, and the annual average of enforcement actions against regulated facilities between 2004 and 2007.

New York Times Clean Water Act study, 2004-2007
State	Number of facilities regulated	Facility violations	Annual average enforcement actions
Alaska	139	33.5	6.9
Utah	119.8	53.5	3.3
Nevada	91.3	5.2	5.2
California	2161	579.5	142.5
Wyoming	1,627.50	6.30	27.00
Source: The New York Times, "Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record"

Endangered Species Act

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides for the identification, listing, and protection of both threatened and endangered species and their habitats. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the law was designed to prevent the extinction of vulnerable plant and animal species through the development of recovery plans and the protection of critical habitats. ESA administration and enforcement are the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Federally listed species in Alaska

There were 18 endangered and threatened animal and plant species believed to or known to occur in Alaska as of July 2015 as listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). There is a discrepancy between the species listed by the FWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), however. The FWS had not listed the North Pacific right whale as endangered as of July 2015, but both NOAA and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have listed the whale as endangered. The North Pacific right whale is included in the table below, bringing the total of endangered animal species to 17 species.

The table below lists the endangered and threatened animal species believed to or known to occur in the state. When an animal species has the word "Entire" after its name, that species will be found all throughout the state.

Endangered animal species in Alaska
Status	Species
Endangered	Albatross, short-tailed Entire (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus)
Threatened	Bear, polar Entire (Ursus maritimus)
Threatened	Bison, wood Entire (Bison bison athabascae)
Endangered	Curlew, Eskimo Entire (Numenius borealis)
Threatened	Eider, spectacled Entire (Somateria fischeri)
Threatened	Eider, Steller's AK breeding pop. (Polysticta stelleri)
Threatened	Otter, Northern Sea Southwest Alaska DPS (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Endangered	Sea lion, Steller Western DPS (Eumetopias jubatus)
Endangered	Sea turtle, leatherback Entire (Dermochelys coriacea)
Threatened	sturgeon, green Southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris)
Endangered	Whale, beluga Cook Inlet DPS (Delphinapterus leucas)
Endangered	Whale, blue Entire (Balaenoptera musculus)
Endangered	Whale, bowhead Entire (Balaena mysticetus)
Endangered	Whale, finback Entire (Balaenoptera physalus)
Endangered	Whale, humpback Entire (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Endangered	Whale, North Pacific right* (Eubalaena japonica)
Endangered	Whale, sperm Entire (Physeter catodon (=macrocephalus))
*As of July 2015, the North Pacific right whale was listed on NOAA's website, but not the FWS website. Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and threatened species in Alaska" National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica)"

The table below lists the one endangered plant species believed to or known to occur in the state.

Endangered plant species in Alaska
Status	Species
Endangered	Fern, Aleutian shield (Polystichum aleuticum)
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and threatened species in Alaska"

State listed species in Alaska

An adult blue whale

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game maintains a state list of endangered species. Species are considered endangered under Alaska law if their numbers have dwindled to the extent that "its continued existence is threatened." As of July 2015, the Alaska Endangered Species List includes two birds (the Eskimo Curlew and short-tailed Albatross) and three marine mammals (humpback whales, blue whales and right whales). These species are also listed as endangered on the federal Endangered Species List. Under Alaska law, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game preserves the habitats of all endangered fish or wildlife species in Alaska.

Enforcement

See also: Enforcement at the EPA

Alaska is part of the EPA's Region 10, which includes Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

The EPA enforces federal standards on air, water and hazardous chemicals. The EPA can engage in its own administrative action against private industries, or it can bring civil and/or criminal lawsuits against them. The goal of environmental law enforcement is usually the collection of penalties and fines for violations of laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In 2013, the EPA estimated that 31.9 million pounds of pollution, which includes air pollution, water contaminants, and hazardous chemicals, were "reduced, treated or eliminated" and 45.8 million cubic yards of soil and water were cleaned in Region 10. Additionally, 174 enforcement cases were initiated, and 177 enforcement cases were concluded in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2012, the EPA collected $252 million in criminal fines and civil penalties from the private sector nationwide. In fiscal year 2013, the EPA collected $1.1 billion in criminal fines and civil penalties from the private sector nationwide, primarily due to the $1 billion settlement from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill along the Gulf Coast in 2010. The EPA only publishes nationwide data and does not provide state or region-specific information on the amount of fines and penalties it collects during a fiscal year.

Mercury and air toxics standards

See also: Mercury and air toxics standards

The EPA on mercury capture systems

The EPA enforces mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), which are national limits on mercury, chromium, nickel, arsenic and acidic gases from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Power plants are required to have certain technologies to limit these pollutants. In December 2011, the EPA issued greater restrictions on the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants produced by power plants. As of 2014, approximately 580 power plants, including 1,400 oil- and coal-fired electric-generating units, fell under the federal rule. The EPA has claimed that power plants account for 50 percent of mercury emissions, 75 percent of acidic gases and around 20 to 60 percent of toxic metal emissions in the United States. All coal- and oil-fired power plants with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater are subject to the standards.

In 2014, the EPA released a study examining the economic, environmental, and health impacts of the MATS standards nationwide. Other organizations have released their own analyses about the effects of the MATS standards. Below is a summary of the studies on MATS and their effects as of November 2014.

EPA study
In 2014, the EPA reported that its MATS rule would prevent roughly 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks nationwide. The agency also anticipated between $37 billion and $90 billion in "improved air quality benefits" annually. For the rule's cost, the EPA estimated that annual compliance fees for coal- and oil-fired power plants would reach $9.6 billion.

NERA study
A 2012 study published by NERA Economic Consulting, a global consultancy group, reported that annual compliance costs in the electricity sector would total $10 billion in 2015 and nearly $100 billion cumulatively up through 2034. The same study found that the net impact of the MATS rule in 2015 would be the income equivalent of 180,000 fewer jobs. This net impact took into account the job gains associated with the building and refitting of power plants with new technology.

Superfund sites

The EPA established the Superfund program as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.The Superfund program focuses on uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites nationwide. The EPA inspects waste sites and establishes cleanup plans for them. The federal government can compel the private entities responsible for a waste site to clean the site or face penalties. If the federal government cleans a waste site, it can force the responsible party to reimburse the EPA or other federal agencies for the cleanup's cost. Superfund sites include oil refineries, smelting facilities, mines and other industrial areas. As of October 2014, there were 1,322 Superfund sites nationwide. A total of 75 Superfund sites reside in Region 10, with an average of 18.75 sites per state. There were six Superfund sites in Alaska as of October 2014.

Economic impact

EPA studies
The Environmental Protection Agency publishes studies to evaluate the impact and benefits of its policies. Other studies may dispute the agency's findings or state the costs of its policies.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent federal agency, the Superfund program received an average of almost $1.2 billion annually in appropriated funds between the years 1981 and 2009, adjusted for inflation. The GAO estimated that the trust fund of the Superfund program decreased from $5 billion in 1997 to $137 million in 2009. The Superfund program received an additional $600 million in federal funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the stimulus bill.

In March 2011, the EPA claimed that the agency's Superfund program produced economic benefits nationwide. Because Superfund sites are added and removed from a prioritized list on a regular basis, the total number of Superfund sites since the program's inception in 1980 is unknown. Based on a selective study of 373 Superfund sites cleaned up since the program's inception, the EPA estimated these economic benefits include the creation of 2,240 private businesses, $32.6 billion in annual sales from new businesses, 70,144 jobs and $4.9 billion in annual employment income.

Other studies were published detailing the costs associated with the Superfund program. According to the Property and Environment Research Center, a free market-oriented policy group based in Montana, the EPA spent over $35 billion on the Superfund program between 1980 and 2005.

Environmental impact

In a March 2011 study, the EPA claimed that the Superfund program results in healthier environments surrounding former waste sites. The study analyzed the program's health and ecological benefits and focused on former landfills, mining areas and abandoned dumps that were cleaned up and renovated. As of January 2009, out of the approximately 500 former Superfund sites used for the study, roughly 10 percent became recreational or commercial sites. Other former Superfund sites in the study became wetlands, meadows, streams, scenic trails, parks, and habitats for plants and animals.

Carbon emissions

See also: Climate change, Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse gas emissions by state

In 2011, Alaska ranked 38th in CO₂ emissions. Alaska's emissions have steadily risen between 1990 and 2005, when the state's emissions peaked at 48 million metric tons of CO₂. Beginning in 2005, Alaska’s emissions declined steadily before reaching 38 million metric tons of CO₂ in 2011. A plurality (44 percent) of the state's emissions came from the industrial sector while 36.4 percent of emissions were from the transportation sector. The residential, electric power and commercial sectors accounted for the remainder.

Carbon dioxide emissions in Alaska (in million metric tons). Data was compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Carbon dioxide emissions in Alaska by sector

State laws

Alaska's environmental regulations are adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation when general authority is given by Alaska legislature to deal with environmental issues. The state's major regulations covering environmental conservation can be found in Title 18 of the Alaska Statutes. This title contains the state's regulations on air quality, solid waste management, fuel requirements for motor vehicles, water quality standards and more.

Enforcement

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is responsible for enforcing environmental policy in Alaska. It runs various programs in the areas of air and water quality, spill prevention and response, drinking water quality and waste management. Below is a list of the department's major environmental programs:

• The Division of Air Quality is responsible for controlling and mitigating air pollution throughout the state. It partners with local governments to implement air quality standards, which attempt to reduce automotive emissions, carbon monoxide from large industrial facilities and the pollution emitted from wood burning. The division is also responsible for issuing air permits to private industries emitting air pollutants.
• The Division of Water is responsible for water quality standards. The division establishes standards for clean water, regulates large facilities that discharge water pollutants into navigable waters like rivers and wetlands, manages municipal grants and other financial assistance to wastewater treatment facilities, monitors water sources of quality and trains and certifies operators of wastewater and water systems.
• The Division of Spill Prevention and Response manages the spills of oil and hazardous substances into the state's land, waters and air. The division's prevention programs involve state regulators inspecting facilities for proper spill prevention techniques, while its response programs primarily involve containing and cleaning up contaminated sites.

Historical budget information

The table below shows the total expenditures on the environment and natural resources in Alaska and in other states.

Total state natural resource expenditures by state
State	Department/Division	FY 2013	FY 2012	FY 2011
Alaska	Environmental Conservation	$83,600,200	$79,788,101	$77,521,600
Utah	Environmental Quality; Natural Resources; School Trust Lands	$242,464,000	$257,089,400	$256,874,300
Nevada	Conservation and Natural Resources	$108,179,079	$110,190,488	$109,356,174
California	Environmental Protection Agency; Natural Resources	$6,801,000,000	$6,537,000,000	$6,793,000,000
Wyoming*	Natural Resources; Environmental Quality; Game and Fish; State Lands; Wildlife and Natural Resources Board	$535,628,226*	$480,519,507*	-
*This denotes a biennium state budget's figures. Sources: Alaska Office of Management and Budget, Utah Governor's Office of Management and Budget, Nevada State Legislature - Fiscal Analysis Division, California Department of Finance, Wyoming State Legislature

Major groups

Below is a list of environmental advocacy organizations in Alaska.

• Alaska Coalition
• Alaska Center for the Environment
• Alaska Community Action on Toxics
• Alaska Conservation Foundation
• Alaska Conservation Voters
• Alaska Wildlife Alliance
• Nature Conservancy - Alaska Chapter
• Sierra Club - Alaska Chapter
• Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

Ballot measures

Voting on the Environment
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local environment Local GMO Local fracking

Below is a list of ballot measures relating to environmental issues in Alaska.

• Alaska Oil Tax Cuts Veto Referendum, Ballot Measure 1 (August 2014)
• Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative (2018)

• Alaska Ballot Proposition 5, Bottle Deposit Refund Initiative (1978)
• Alaska Pollution Zone Act (2008)
• Alaska Coastal Management Question, Ballot Measure 2 (August 2012)
• Alaska Bristol Bay Mining Ban, Ballot Measure 4 (2014)
• Alaska Measure 4, Water Standards at New Metallic Mineral Mines Initiative (August 2008)
• Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative (2018)

• Alaska Measure 4, Water Standards at New Metallic Mineral Mines Initiative (August 2008)

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term "Alaska+Environmental+Policy"

Alaska Environmental News Feed

See also

• Environmental policy in Alaska
• Environmental policy in the United States
• Energy policy in the United States
• Energy policy in Alaska
• Federal land ownership by state
• BLM oil and gas leases by state
• Payments in lieu of taxes

External links

• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
• Alaska Department of Natural Resources
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox