Category: Alaska News

See why baking less at home is becoming more popular. Smaller batches reduce waste and make homemade treats easier to enjoy.The post Home bakers trim recipes to match shrinking households appeared first on Food Drink Life.

(Photo by Dulcey Lima via Unsplash)

From working out to spending time with loved ones, seven in ten Americans feel they don’t do “enough” each day, according to new research. A survey of 2,000 U.S. adults found that for some, this stems from a lack of…

These 17 nostalgic recipes bring meatloaf, cornbread, casseroles, ribs, meatballs, baked beans, old-school sides, and simple desserts back into the family dinner rotation for another well-earned turn.The post 17 nostalgic recipes that make Grandma ask for the recipe card appeared…

Pumpkin season goes far beyond pie. These 13 recipes cover flaky turnovers, cream cheese muffins, rich cakes, bars, waffles, soup, and even a savory salmon bowl for a full range of fall cooking.The post 13 pumpkin recipes that made my…

Local governments across Alaska have long taxed raw materials that are extracted locally but sold elsewhere. Haines could be next. 

In October, voters will weigh in on whether the borough should implement something called a severance tax, which would apply to exports including timber, gravel and mineral ore. Supporters of the proposition hope to ensure the community gets some financial benefit from ongoing or future export activities. 

The idea is to tap new sources of tax revenue and, at least in theory, shift some of the burden off locals. Proponents say that’s particularly urgent as costs rise and financial support from the state wanes. 

“If we tax all activities at a low or moderate level, we don’t have to really carry the financial responsibilities, the burden, exclusively on residents’ properties,” said assembly member Eben Sargent.

Raw material exports are subject to sales tax where they’re purchased but not where they originate. Aside from a potential boost in industry-related jobs, some say that means local communities don’t really stand to benefit.

“If you’re selling to a smelter in Asia, I don’t understand who pays what tariff, or import duty, or otherwise. But it certainly doesn’t benefit the locality here,” said assembly member Kevin Forster. 

A severance tax, the idea goes, could change that. 

“You’re severing a natural resource from the land, right? So once you take it out, it won’t come back, it won’t be there for future generations to do something with,” said Alaska Municipal League executive director Nils Andreassen.

“Revenue that comes from that severance is meant to build up or support a community or economy,” he added.  

Critics of the tax have raised concerns about targeting certain industries and making Haines a less attractive place to do business. 

Assembly member Mark Smith ultimately voted against sending the issue to voters in June. Despite a range of tweaks to make the tax more workable for industry, he said during an assembly meeting that he thinks it’s unconstitutional to tax things that people sell on private property.

“I spoke earlier and said this is as close to anything that I would be aligned with,” Smith said. “But I’m not going to vote for this.”

The rest of the assembly did vote in favor of adding the proposition to the ballot. 

Of the three categories of raw materials the tax would apply to, gravel is currently the only one being exported from the borough. Timber used to be, and it could be again. 

Oregon-based Northwest Forest Products Inc. won a contract years ago to carry out the so-called Baby Brown sale. The harvest hasn’t begun, but the sale would be the area’s largest in decades, and it would result in timber exports overseas.  

Ore isn’t currently being exported either. But that would change if the Palmer Project, the mineral exploration site north of town, went into development. 

“The mining one is a long-term play that just sort of establishes an expectation that if the mining occurs within the Haines Borough, it will be done on terms that benefit the Haines Borough financially,” Sargent said. 

Exporters would be taxed $5 for every thousand board feet of timber, and $0.15 per ton of sand, gravel or other rock. Both were largely based on Yakutat’s severance tax, while the general framework was adopted in part from Kodiak’s. 

Sargent said the assembly ultimately dropped the gravel rate slightly lower than Yakutat’s to ensure Haines’ current gravel export activity would remain competitive in the broader market. 

The ore-related provision is more complicated and emulates a severance tax in the Northwest Arctic Borough, which is home to the Red Dog Mine. 

The measure would impose a 4.5% tax on a mine’s gross production value. 

But it also offers the industry an alternative. Rather than paying the tax, they could negotiate a separate payment – referred to as a Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILOT agreement – with the borough. That would likewise have to be approved by voters. 

The assembly went back and forth on the idea but decided to include both the tax and the alternative payment structure to give the borough some leverage in potential negotiations. 

“Where the assembly netted out was that no matter what ultimate tax structure you might end up under, you’re going to get the best deal for the community if you start from a negotiating point of having a tax on the books,” Sargent said. 

The mining industry has opposed severance taxes on the grounds that they cause significant uncertainty for existing and future mines. 

But the industry has been more supportive of negotiating separate payments. That’s because those payments mean mining companies have a clearer idea of what they’ll owe long-term – and that they can be tweaked to accommodate both the mine and the community. 

Forster said it’s important to get something on the books sooner rather than later, especially because the Palmer Project recently changed hands.

“If the town’s going to do something to prepare itself,” he said, “the time is nigh.” 

As he sees it, the ballot question isn’t a matter of whether there should be a mine – or other industrial activity – in Haines. It’s more about how the community would or wouldn’t benefit if a large project came through.   

“If you put 50 people in a room and ask them to espouse how they feel about a mine in the valley, it gets real contentious, right?” he said. 

“If you just ask the question: if there’s going to be major industrial development in this valley, do we want to see the least harm and the most benefit? Then all of a sudden, I think everyone’s on the same team,” he added. 

Early voting for the municipal election starts Sept. 21. Election day is Oct. 6.

The post A target on industry, or a financial boon? Haines considers tax on timber, gravel and ore exports appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

KHNS and the Chilkat Valley News are collaborating on candidate coverage for this year’s election season. Interviews with individual candidates for Haines and Skagway will be broadcast on KHNS, and available to listen, read, (or watch!) on our websites. Tune in weekday mornings starting Monday, September 14th, at 7:07am (after Alaska Morning News) for candidate interviews.

We are also hosting forums for Haines and Skagway! The first is with the Haines Planning Commission candidates Tuesday, September 15, 6:30pm at Mosquito Lake School. This will be in-person and recorded for broadcast on KHNS later in the week.

The Skagway Assembly candidate forum will be Monday, September 21, 6:30pm and broadcast live on KHNS.

Then the Haines Assembly candidates will be on Friday, September 25, 6:30pm in the Chilkat Center lobby and broadcast live on KHNS.

Haines mayoral candidates Jan Hill and Doug Olerud are not able to appear on the stage at the same time, so they’ve each been sent a list of questions and we’ll post those answers when we get them.

The post 2026 candidate forums and interviews appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

Front-runner candidates for Alaska’s sole U.S. House of Representatives seat expressed strong support for the fishing industry and coastal communities at a debate in Kodiak over the weekend. 

Incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Nick Begich III and independent challenger Bill Hill took very similar positions on issues including fisheries bycatch, declining fish stocks and representation in federal fisheries management, but there were some differences. 

Begich touted his legislative record in his first two-year term as beneficial to Alaska fisheries, while Hill said his personal history as a lifelong fisherman in Bristol Bay is advantageous for representing Alaska in Congress.

Begich, a technology entrepreneur and business executive, garnered 44.6% of the vote in the primary election, while Hill, a former school superintendent and commercial fisherman, received 32.5% of the vote. Third and fourth place finishers in Alaska’s ranked choice general election include Eric Hafner — a registered Democrat serving a federal prison sentence in New York – with 3.8% of the vote, and Libertarian Jim McDermott of Fairbanks with 1.2%. 

The winner of the November election will serve a two-year term as one of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Begich promoted his legislative record as a freshman in the Republican-controlled U.S. House. This spring, six bills he sponsored passed Congress to become law — a tie with another Arizona lawmaker for most bills passed as a freshman — but none of those bills directly address fisheries issues.

“I have passed more legislation than any freshman on record,” Begich said. “And those are good Alaska bills — they are bills that unlock lands for Alaskans, and they are bills that, in many cases, we’ve been working to achieve for decades.”

Hill repeatedly referenced his experience growing up subsistence and commercial fishing in Bristol Bay. “I raised three of my kids on my fishing boat, and understand the importance that state, national and international politics play in what happens on our back decks with our children, what happens in the income that we can take home, what taxation does to us, what tariffs do to us,” he said. “I’ve lived a life of fish.”

Bycatch

Several debate questions focused on bycatch, the accidental harvest of nontargeted fish. Bycatch has raised public concern around Alaska’s industrial trawl fleet, which has many vessels harbored in Kodiak, where the debate took place. 

Both candidates said they support broader representation on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which oversees fishing policy in federal waters, including bycatch regulations. 

Begich said he supports increasing representation for subsistence, sport fishers and small commercial operators, as well as large operators, in council decisions. He pointed to a bill he introduced, the Bycatch Reduction Act, which would require the council to implement gear performance standards to reduce bycatch, to make investments in fishing gear and fisheries research and to increase monitoring and reporting from the industry and the council, among others. 

“We need transparency — more transparency for folks who may have conflicts of interest that currently serve on the NPFMC,” Begich said. He also expressed support for a chum bycatch limit established by the council this year for the Bering Sea pollock fishery.

Hill said he supports bycatch limits to protect salmon runs, and additional seats representing subsistence and tribal groups. 

“Subsistence is sacred, and the very first thing that needs to happen, and I think you hear it from across the state — this is why there’s such a loud outcry — is because some of our subsistence users have not been able to access their resource, which is more than just protein, for quite a few years now,” he said. 

In a question about Congress’ role in reducing bycatch, debate moderators noted all fisheries produce some bycatch harvest and said “a goal of zero bycatch isn’t reasonable.”

But both candidates pushed back on that framing and said that zero bycatch should be the ultimate goal. 

The industrial trawl fleet, particularly boats that target pollock, has been the focus of public criticism because it contributes substantially to the state’s bycatch numbers for species including juvenile halibut, cod and salmon returning to spawning grounds throughout Alaska.

Begich said he agreed that every fishery produces some level of bycatch and it’s up to the council to manage each complex fishery. But he said the goal should be “aggressive.” 

“I do think the goal should be zero. It’s going to be a long road to get there. But we also have to recognize that in every single fishery, whether it be subsistence, sport, small commercial or large commercial, they have a bycatch responsibility as well,” Begich said.

Hill said the goal should be zero bycatch. “We need to work towards that. We need to work towards a very low-threshold for our trawling industry, especially the out-of-state corporate trawlers,” he said. 

And Hill expressed confidence that the trawl industry would be able to meet required limits. 

“My perspective is when you set something out for industry to accomplish, they always find a way, and we’ve seen over and over again that our trawl fleet has met the standards that are being set for them. So, can we get to 0%? That would be everybody’s desire, but should we be working towards it? Yes, we should be,” Hill said. “But those who are bad actors, you’ve got to leave the fishery.”

When asked about the primary causes of king and chum salmon run declines, Begich responded it was “largely bycatch related.”

“You look at the Yukon, you look at the Kuskokwim — those runs are way down. We’re seeing some recovery in chums. I think that the cap that we put in with NPFMC is sort of that initial shot saying, ‘Hey, we’re going to be managing these more carefully,’” Begich said. “But I think that historical bycatch is the root cause.”

Hill said he agreed, and added that climate change driven factors are affecting Alaska’s salmon runs. “Climate change is a real thing, and we need to start mitigating for that,” he said. “But yes, we need to end bycatch.” 

Processing and protecting Alaska’s fisheries

Both candidates said they would support investments in building the workforce in fishing and processing sectors, as well as more visas for hiring international workers in processing.

In a lightning round of questions, the candidates agreed on every issue. They supported science-based fisheries management, more investment in research and engaging with a wide range of fisheries interest groups prior to introducing new legislation or policies. They also agreed that rural and tribal communities should have more say in decisions affecting fish. 

When asked how they would ensure the economic value of federally-managed fisheries would not come at the expense of Alaska communities, Begich said he supports labeling rules for farmed vs. wild-caught fish.

“Alaska seafood is competing with penned fish and farmed fish, and the end consumer doesn’t know it,” Begich said. “And so, when you’re buying an Alaska seafood product, we need to make sure that it’s labeled Alaska. That’s transparent because it gives us the best price for our product and it reduces some of the pressure on our fisheries.”

Hill said he would support more investment in in-state seafood processing to diversify processors to which fishing fleets can sell their harvests. “More processing in our state that’s not a consolidated, vertically integrated type of processing,” he said. “And we need to make sure that we’re legislating to make sure that farmed fishing does not come to our seas and that we keep them off for as long as we possibly can.”

Geopolitics

Both candidates expressed support for tariffs on international seafood to protect Alaska markets.

Hill also condemned the U.S. war in Iran for driving high costs of fuel and affecting fisheries. 

“The Iran war is a terrible, terrible thing in terms of how it’s impacted our industry,” he said. “The fuel costs I paid this summer were $2 per gallon more than last year, and they were already high. And then we start talking about things like food and groceries, and the things that allow our crews to do good work for us while we’re fishing hard.”

Begich has expressed support for the Trump administration’s military action against Iran, and voted against a war powers resolution that passed Congress in June calling on President Donald Trump to remove armed forces against Iran, unless authorized by Congress or a declaration of war.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Everyone debating the Alaska LNG project assumes the developer wants what it says it wants: to build an 800-mile natural gas pipeline.

But look at Glenfarne’s deeds instead of its words, and a different possibility emerges. Glenfarne may actually be waiting to see if things work out with the pipeline because it now has an essentially guaranteed moneymaker in the form of a project to import LNG into Cook Inlet for local needs.

Consider the company’s position. Glenfarne paid $10 million and promised to fund the pipeline project’s development in return for 75 percent of the entity that holds the permits, the right-of-way, and a quarter-billion dollars worth of state-funded development work on the only federally-permitted LNG export project on the U.S. Pacific Coast.

In the energy industry, $10 million is sofa-cushion money. It’s not the price of an asset, it’s the price of an option on an asset. And a leaked draft of the state’s own review suggests there’s a highly favorable exit clause for Glenfarne: if Alaska ever wants to get that 75 percent back — to build the project itself or hand it over to a more credible developer — Glenfarne would name the asking price.

Then there’s what Glenfarne has done with its own money — not buying pipe for the gasline, which it promised to order and didn’t, but building an LNG import terminal in Cook Inlet with Enstar, the Southcentral gas utility, locked up as an exclusive customer. Cook Inlet gas is running low and Southcentral will need imported gas soon, pipeline or no pipeline. Imports are the one sure thing in this entire picture. And Glenfarne’s in the catbird seat.

And here’s the rub. The first phase of the pipeline, which Glenfarne now estimates to cost $13 billion to $17 billion, is meant to serve that same Southcentral market before any gas is exported. So Glenfarne is building a relatively cheap, near-term way to supply the Cook Inlet market while asking Alaska to subsidize a $13-billion-plus way to supply the same customers. Once you own a cheap solution to a hungry local market, why rush to build an expensive one and compete with yourself?

The booster answer has been that imports are merely a bridge until the pipeline is ready. But that gets the incentive backwards. A bridge you own, earning money the moment it opens, serving captive customers with no ready alternative, is not a reason to hurry toward a $50-billion megaproject. It’s a reason to relax and see what unfolds.

Now add the politics. To get the Legislature to yes on tax incentives, Glenfarne and the governor promised nearly anything, up to and including a $250 million Fairbanks spur to build political support in the Interior. Yet when the Legislature assembled a bill this year that gave Glenfarne what it said it needed — a big property tax break and an income-tax exemption — the deal collapsed. By several legislators’ accounts, Hilcorp, which controls the North Slope gas the pipeline would carry, leaned on Glenfarne to kill it over the income tax provision in the bill. The governor called that “bullshit.” Either way, the pipeline project is stalled while the LNG import project proceeds.

Put the pieces together and a coherent strategy appears. Build the import terminal, the sure thing, and start making money while Hilcorp and the Legislature duel over income taxes.

Meantime, hold onto your bargain-basement 75 percent stake in the pipeline project like the option it is. If the economics of that project ever come together, either build it yourself or sell out to someone big enough to wrangle Hilcorp and the Legislature into settling their differences. If the pipeline never goes, you’re not exposed, and you make money on LNG imports as far out as the eye can see.

We don’t know Glenfarne’s true intentions, of course. But the incentives all point the same way: the developer’s least risky and most profitable path is not to build the pipeline. It’s to build the LNG import facility, cash the checks, and wait.

That should change how Alaska reads every “almost there” and every new demand for additional concessions: the state may well be negotiating with a company who’s playing a waiting game rather than trying to build a pipeline any time soon. Trying to rush a deal with a counterparty who doesn’t need one is like pushing string.

Glenfarne has arranged its affairs so it can afford to wait. By deferring the pipeline question to next year, a new legislature, and a new governor, the Legislature has responded with precisely the right message: Alaska can wait, too.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

This story was originally published in the Anchorage Press. Subscribe here.

The world’s largest mining company is back in Alaska.

More than a decade after abandoning a search for coal in the western Arctic, Australia-based BHP quietly staked new mineral claims this summer in a remote part of Southcentral Alaska — with an eye for copper.

The company, which owns huge iron, coal and copper mines around the world, also conducted sampling and aerial surveys in Alaska in recent months, a BHP spokesperson told the Anchorage Press.

The project is still in the earliest stages of exploration, likely many years if not decades away from becoming an active mine. Most claims that mining companies stake never actually get developed; a subsidiary of a different mining giant, Rio Tinto, abandoned claims in 2013 in the same area that BHP is now showing interest, according to state records.

But BHP’s foray into Alaska is still notable given the company’s deep pockets and global reach, and as the latest example of the mining industry’s surging interest in the state.

Unlike the small, cash-strapped companies that do much of the claim-staking and early-stage exploration work in Alaska, BHP has the financial horsepower and expertise to turn a prospect into a mine.

“They are not going to farm it out to anyone if they find what they’re hoping to find,” said Dave Szumigala, a state mineral exploration geologist with decades of industry experience. “They’ve got the resources to take it all the way through development.”

BHP’s interest in Alaska comes amid high commodity prices, increased global demand for metals like copper and an intense push by the Trump administration to spur resource development in the state.

The company’s return to the state also reflects an uptick in new mining claims across Alaska, and it could contribute to a backlog in the Dunleavy administration’s processing of those claims.

The number of claims staked this year statewide is on track to double from last year, according to Steve Buckley, head of the mining section at the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

Buckley’s team, which reviews and approves state mining claims, has reported a backlog of more than 10,000 claims this summer. The department has transferred three employees — more than doubling typical capacity — to help work through the backlog, Buckley said.

“It’s unprecedented,” he added.

Buckley declined to comment on BHP’s claims because they are still pending review. But he said large new claim blocks make up “a good portion” of the state’s backlog, which could take months for officials to clear.

State land managers have not yet reviewed and approved BHP’s claims, meaning they don’t appear on the state’s public mining claims database.

But documents filed with the state recorder’s office show that BHP staked dozens of claims across thousands of acres in the heart of the Alaska Range at the beginning of the summer.

Many of the claims appear to be deep in the mountains near the northern edge of Lake Clark National Park and the upper reaches of the Skwentna River, a tributary of the Susitna River, about 100 miles west of Anchorage and the state’s road system.

Szumigala called that region “very prospective” for massive, low-grade copper concentrations known as porphyry deposits.

He also noted that BHP’s interest in the area could draw more investment from other companies. Small exploration firms often stake claims next to majors, he said.

“One way juniors will get investment in their company is to say, ‘Well, we staked right next to BHP’s property,” Szumigala said.

BHP confirmed that it’s assessing the area’s copper potential.

“Through the summer months we commenced non-disturbing studies as part of a first, early-stage exploration program to better understand the area’s geology and resource potential,” the company said in a statement provided to the Anchorage Press. “As we advance this work, we are meeting with local stakeholders to learn more about the region.”

BHP has not applied for permits to conduct more intensive exploratory work like drilling.

“Exploration is inherently a long-term process,” the company said, noting that “the vast majority of exploration programs do not advance beyond the early stages.”

BHP has met with representatives from the region’s Alaska Native corporation, CIRI, to review maps and discuss cultural training, a CIRI spokesperson said.

Environmental groups, meanwhile, say they’re working to ensure that new mining in the state doesn’t come at the cost of public lands and wildlife.

The broad uptick in state mining claims is a “real cause for concern, especially when DNR can’t even keep up with them,” said Mary Catharine Martin, communications director at the conservation organization SalmonState, using an acronym for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

In an email, Martin cited four principles about development espoused by the late Alaska governor Jay Hammond.

“Do Alaskans want it? Does it pay its own way? Is it environmentally sound? Does it meet our constitutional mandate to manage our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans?” Martin said.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.