Category: Alaska News

Post Content

Alaskans collected more than 1.5 million pounds of marine debris last year in organized community cleanups involving nearly 1,700 people in total, a new report says.

The report, issued Wednesday by Ocean Conservancy, Alaska Sea Grant and the Sitka Sound Science Center, summarizes beach trash cleanups conducted in 2025 in more than two dozen coastal communities or regions. Sites ranged from the Inupiat village of Wales that is about 55 miles from Russia’s mainland in the northwest to Prince of Wales Island at the southern tip of the Southeast panhandle.

“This report gives us an opportunity to better understand the scale of the marine debris problem in Alaska and highlight the incredible efforts happening in communities across the state,” Kristina Tirman, Ocean Conservancy’s Arctic marine debris manager, said in a statement. “Ocean Conservancy is pleased to support and amplify the work of the organizations and Tribes who have been leading this work to protect Alaska’s coastlines and communities.” 

Although there is no comparable annual report that was compiled in past years, according to Ocean Conservancy, an earlier report found that over 3 million pounds of beach debris had been collected from 2006 to 2014 in various cleanups done in different communities.

Fishing-related materials like pieces of netting, line and buoys dominated Alaska’s collected marine debris in past years, according to a report released by Ocean Conservancy last year.

That appears to be the case still.

In the Pribilof Island community of St. Paul, for example, over 90% of the 25,888 pounds of marine debris collected last year consisted of fishing net and line material, according to data provided by Ocean Conservancy.

In addition to supporting community cleanups, Ocean Conservancy contributed to an Alaska Marine Debris Action Plan issued last year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Alaska has about 66,000 miles of coastline, including islands, inlets, coves, fjords and other features, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. That is more than the rest of all other states combined, and most of it is remote and difficult for people to reach. Additionally, much of the marine debris littering Alaska’s shores comes from distant sources. All that makes beach cleanup much more difficult in Alaska than in other states.

Those challenges were cited by Alaska lawmakers, who unanimously passed a measure, Senate Joint Resolution 20, urging additional federal funding to support marine debris removal. The non-binding resolution also calls for better federal and state coordination with coastal communities, tribes, nonprofits and other entities.

The problems associated with marine debris include ingestion and entanglements by birds, fish and marine mammals and interference with fishing and recreation and hazards for mariners, said the resolution, which won final passage on May 19. The problem “is particularly acute in the state because of the state’s rugged shoreline, ocean currents that concentrate debris in remote locations, and ocean dependent coastal communities,” the resolution says.

The approved resolution is now headed to Gov. Mike Dunleavy for a signature, which is voluntary but not necessary, before being transmitted to Alaska’s congressional delegation.

Editor’s note: this story has been updated to clarify that joint resolutions don’t require a governor’s signature to pass.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

The Lutak Dock redesign project is in limbo after a meeting borough manager Alekka Fullerton described as a “huge step back.” 

Borough staff say they’re ready to submit a “white paper,” a document that explains to the federal agency funding much of the project what the new dock design, selected in April, will entail. As a condition of $20 million funding from MARAD, the Federal Maritime Administration, the agency must sign off on the project.

Borough staff released a draft of that white paper this week, and at a special meeting Tuesday night the assembly was scheduled to vote on sending it to MARAD. 

After a two-hour meeting in which members of the assembly and members of the public at times shouted back and forth at each other across the room, the assembly failed to either approve or reject sending the white paper to Washington, D.C.

Assembly members Craig Loomis and Eben Sargent voted against sending it, and assembly members Mark Smith, Cheryl Stickler, and Gabe Thomas voted in favor. That meant neither side of the resolution reached the required four votes to pass. 

Any vote from assembly member Kevin Forster would’ve broken the deadlock, either adding a fourth vote to the yes side, or making it a 3-3 tie, sending the decision to the mayor. Forster was not present at the meeting, and Smith referred to him as “conspicuously missing,” noting that Forster voted with him, Stickler, and Thomas in the April dock selection decision. Forster said Wednesday he was on a trip planned in December and had notified the mayor of his absence. 

After the vote, Fullerton initially said she would go forward with sending the white paper as written. “The purpose of bringing this to light and bringing this to this meeting was so the community could see the white paper and that the community could know how we were going to move forward. My understanding is I will continue to go forward irrespective of the failure of the resolution to reach four (votes).”

That followed assembly members arguing, in lieu of a four-vote majority on the white paper issue, the only solid guidance to the manager was the assembly’s prior vote selecting a dock design. That vote, they said, authorized the manager to take steps to pursue the chosen dock design. 

“That was the will of the assembly that continues to be the will of the assembly,” Stickler said. 

But Wednesday afternoon, Fullerton said her position during the meeting, of moving forward despite the deadlock, “feels bad and is not how I want to go forward.”

“I don’t know what the next step is as I sit here,” Fullerton said, adding that the topic would “certainly come up” at Tuesday’s assembly meeting. 

Fullerton may choose how to proceed with the white paper without another assembly vote. “My gut is to always be open and talk about things and try to be on the same page,” Fullerton said, about her rationale for seeking an assembly vote on the white paper decision. “But it backfired last night, and in twenty-twenty hindsight I probably should’ve just sent it to MARAD and told the assembly after, which is a shame.”

Despite cautious optimism in recent months, Tuesday’s meeting suggested the community has not moved past the rampant mistrust that has plagued past years of the dock process. It was apparent in the tenor of the debate — so much so that at the end of the meeting mayor Tom Morphet felt the need to implore participants to “peacefully and civilly leave this meeting and come back Tuesday with a kind and respectful attitude towards all.” 

At the same time, Morphet’s effort to end the meeting included a decision to not let Fullerton speak during a portion of the meeting before adjournment reserved for assembly comments. 

Fullerton said she was angry she wasn’t allowed to speak and would’ve tried to move the room away from some of the conflict. “If I were allowed to speak, that’s what I was going to try to do — I think we need to have a conversation about it,” she said. “I feel like people got reentrenched in their positions. I think it was handled very poorly.”

The distrust was also apparent in the substance of the debate.

The two no votes from Sargent and Loomis stemmed from concerns that the process was being mishandled.

Sargent said the design selection was “based on multiple pieces of information that proved to be incorrect,” including information about permitting for the design that was selected, and that the physical size of that design “was likely overstated.” 

Sargent said he didn’t believe, given estimated permitting times and lead times to order materials , that the scheduled 2027 start to construction would be possible.

Sargent also raised the topic of mining, which has haunted dock debate for years. At least one local conservation group has argued that old iterations of the dock rebuild plans were designed to accommodate ore shipments, either out of the Yukon or from a potential mine in the upper valley. 

Multiple assembly members in the past year have said the new dock will not be used to ship ore. Current assembly member Gabe Thomas has twice said he intends to introduce legislation banning ore shipments across the dock, but that hasn’t happened.

Sargent asked Fullerton Tuesday if she had had any conversations with federal agencies about ore shipments over the new dock, signalling the mine debate may still be part of the dock conversation. 

Morphet moved the conversation away from the topic before Fullerton answered. But Fullerton said Wednesday ore shipment hasn’t been brought up “in any way” by borough staff in discussions with federal agencies. 

Loomis took aim at the assembly and borough staff’s handling of the Section 106 process with the Chilkat Indian Village — a legally mandated consultation between the federal government and the tribal government regarding the dock’s impact on historic and contemporary cultural resources. 

Fullerton and the borough’s permitting consultants say they have confirmation from MARAD that the Section 106 consultation has been completed. Chilkat Indian Village tribal council president Kimberley Strong, however, spoke during Tuesday’s public comment, saying that “from (the Chilkat Indian Village’s) perspective and from what we understand the law to be, the 106 is not complete until your project is complete.” 

“There is a permit out there that we have no control over,” Loomis said. “It’s the 106 and it’s people that have lived here a heck of a lot longer than us. (The Chilkat Indian Village) has a right to do what they’re doing, and I’m behind them 100%.” 

Loomis and Sargent took heavy criticism for their statements. Stickler, and Fullerton last week, said Sargent, by questioning the dock design choice, is violating principles of good government. 

“We passed as a body (dock design) option one,” Stickler told Sargent. “Even if the vote doesn’t go my way or your way, that’s how the vote went. At this point it’s time to move on.” 

Borough consulting engineer Paul Wallis agreed with Stickler’s statement, telling Sargent

 “not everyone gets a trophy here. This isn’t YMCA tee ball. But the whole community can still win, so I encourage you to stay the course.” Wallis later apologized for the tee ball analogy.

Public commenters also spoke out against Sargent, Loomis, and others who advocated against proceeding with the borough’s selected dock design, calling them “obstructionist.” 

New information

Amid the conflict, the meeting did provide some new clarity on how the process will work moving forward. 

One of the main concerns right now is a time constraint: Fullerton and borough consultants have repeatedly said the borough must finish permitting for the dock before it can sign a grant agreement, securing the $20 million of federal funding currently dedicated to the dock. That grant agreement must be signed by September 2027, or else the funding will likely disappear, borough officials have said. 

At Tuesday’s meeting, borough consultant Robin Reich, a permitting expert, reiterated that some of the required permits must go through a process estimated to take nine months. Complicating things is the fact that the nine-month clock cannot until the borough reaches a 35% design level, Reich said. That 35% design is currently scheduled to be completed by consultants Moffatt & Nichol in August. 

But even that information doesn’t seem certain. At a June 1 meeting, Wallis told Moffatt & Nichol permitting specialist Margaret Shwertner he believed the nine-month clock referred to the timeline for the longest permitting tasks, start to finish. Shwertner disagreed, saying she believed the nine-months referred to the timeline for submitting permitting to MARAD, after which the agency would take further time to review the permit. 

The permitting process “has changed so much lately,” Shwertner said. “It’s so up in the air…. permitting is a lot of back and forth with the agencies so it can vary a little bit.” 

Nevertheless, Reich, the other permitting expert, said Tuesday she was “very confident” the permitting would be completed in time to meet the grant agreement deadline next September. 

There’s also the lingering question of how the assembly handles votes going forward when neither side meets the four-vote threshold to pass. The issue has come up a number of times in 2026, including with votes on a severance tax, a plastic bag ban, and a heliport permit, and the absences have come from multiple assembly members. 

“We have these really important votes that require four, and having less than a full assembly — it has proven to be a problem with this assembly, and it has never been a problem previously,” Fullerton said. 

The post Dock meeting leaves Lutak Dock project in limbo appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

Last week’s assembly meeting delivered a certain poetic justice for those who want plastic shopping bags in town. 

The Haines Borough Assembly decided against a stricter plastic bag regulation, but only after hearing one last installment in weeks of public debate on the issue.

And while one generally expects the unexpected at assembly meetings, it might be a first, that the two sides of this debate opened in rhyme and verse. 

Opening the discussion was Haines Friends of Recycling board chair Melissa Aronson, who read a poem titled “My Life as a Plastic Bag,” discussing the path of a plastic bag from oil pipeline to litter. 

Rusty Compass owner Lee Robinson followed with what he said was a “lighthearted” contribution to the conversation: an AI-generated-on-the-spot poem that closed with the line, “from ground to gadget, a story so fine / from oil to plastic, a triumph divine.”

Like the unusual debate, the way the issue arrived at the assembly was somewhat convoluted: The assembly first passed legislation in 2018 intending to ban “single-use, non-compostable plastic shopping bags.” But the bags never disappeared, and in recent weeks many argued the Olerud’s bags could be reused for other purposes — as trash bags, for instance — and were therefore not covered by the ban. 

In response, the assembly’s commerce committee drafted new wording for the ban that would more definitively prohibit the plastic shopping bags. 

In spite of what the weeks of discussion might suggest, many said the plastic bag issue was not actually a top priority — including both Aronson and Robinson. 

Aronson said she felt it was important to weigh in, given what she saw as the negative impact of plastic pollution on the valley, but said she was far more focused on other local recycling projects, like Friends of Recycling’s new facility on Third Avenue.  

Robinson, for his part, said he attended the assembly meeting to follow a completely different issue. He decided to speak up on the plastic bags while there because of what he felt it said about broader questions about local governance. 

That was a consistent theme: the issue seemed to have just as much symbolic power as perceived on-the-ground impact. 

“I think it’s a small thing, and of course I don’t like seeing Rusty Compass cups floating around town,” Robinson said this week. “But I’m not in favor of ratcheting up government regulation in our small town.” 

A number of others were with Robinson, saying the litter problem would be better addressed with “personal responsibility,” rather than new restrictions. 

Assembly member Cheryl Stickler called the ban an “example of government overreach,” and Olerud’s part-owner Doug Olerud said it would “punish the responsible majority for the carelessness of the few.” 

Olerud also argued that when taking the entire production chain into account, thin plastic bags had no more environmental impact than popular alternatives. Plus, he said after the meeting, 

On the other end of things was assembly member Eben Sargent, who said the issue was a matter of enforcing government legislation and procedures in general beyond just the specific legislation at hand. 

“I’m sure all the business owners in this community are well aware of the process to change code when we don’t feel like our code is well serving us, and that’s to get the assembly or a board to suggest an ordinance, and then build support for that ordinance, and walk it through the steps,” Sargent said. “That step was not taken. A path of noncompliance was taken.”

“I thought this could have been resolved with a letter from the manager with enforcement of our existing ordinance,” he added. 

Then there was framing of the bag ban as an issue of accessibility, and respect for elders. 

“As people age and their abilities become more and more limited, honor, honor them,” Stickler said, forcefully repeating the word honor for emphasis. “Preserve the dignity of allowing them to carry out groceries in a bag with handles.”

Assembly member Craig Loomis had a counterpoint, saying he’d vote for the ban out of respect for the other end of the spectrum — the town’s youth.

The original 2018 ordinance had been an initiative from Haines’ then sixth-grade class. One of those sixth graders, Camelia Bell, now an environmental science student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, testified in favor of the ban last week. 

“I’m in favor of this just because of what Ms. Bell said,” Loomis said. “I’m tired of selling this planet to old people, when we got a young generation that wants to save this place, and we’re gonna tell them no? I’m going to give her a yes.” 

Loomis and Sargent ended up being the two votes in favor of tightening the ban. 

Out of the wide-ranging conversation, there may actually be common ground on the actual issue at hand. 

Key stakeholders said they’d be willing to work toward some middle ground, including Olerud and Aronson. After the meeting, Aronson proposed a borough initiative to give out or sell reusable shopping bags that might also appeal to tourists. 

“The overregulation question, it’s all a matter of philosophy,” she said. “That’s why I’d like to propose moving forward with something that would be positive, like these organic cloth bags.” 

“Rather than getting into an adversarial situation, if all the different stakeholders can work together, we can come to a positive solution,” Aronson said. 

Meanwhile, Moosehorn Laundry owner Taylor Ashton said she’d be willing to give out reusable bags in lieu of a ban, and potentially help ship plastic bags to out-of-town facilities where they could be recycled.

Preserving the plastic bag status quo might also be a business boon for some stores: Olerud said after the meeting that paper bags would be four times as expensive as the plastic bags currently used. 

Even so, and even with seemingly an allowance in borough policy for plastic bags, the IGA across Main Street looks like it will continue offering only paper. 

IGA manager Kevin Shove said the store got rid of plastic bags on Earth Day around 20 years ago because of concerns about litter. “If you got people to not litter it wouldn’t be a problem,” Shove said. “But that’s how it is, and it was unsightly, and it’s been that way ever since.”

The post Assembly rejects plastic bag ban appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

The Upper Lynn Canal is home to one of the best foraging resources for healthy eating: mushrooms. People are often surprised to learn that mushrooms are a nutrient-dense superfood, providing high levels of protein, potassium, riboflavin, niacin, and vitamins B and D, with very little fat. It is important to cook all mushrooms, both wild and cultivated. Heat breaks down the chitinous cell walls, making them easier to digest and their nutrients easier to absorb. 

Cooked mushrooms, especially some wild species, provide a savory, meat-like flavor.

Similar to how human skin produces vitamin D from sunlight, placing mushrooms in the sun before cooking increases their vitamin D content. Mushrooms contain ergosterol, which is converted to vitamin D when exposed to UV light, supporting bone and immune health. Our focus will be on two genera: morels (Morchella) and early morels (Verpa), the first edible mushrooms of the season.

Beware that these are not beginner species. Several look-alikes, including another spring fungus, the false morel (Gyromitra esculenta), are deadly. The hooded false morel (Gyromitra infula ), more common in the late summer and fall, also is poisonous. To the trained eye, these species differ. However, they have been confused by amateur mushroom hunters. Be sure to consult guidebooks, mushroom websites or with one of our local mushroom experts.

In the Interior and the Yukon — a few years after wildfires — morels fruit abundantly. Here, where forest fires are uncommon, our species, the gray morel (Morchella tomentosa), does not. It is found in unburned coniferous forests and along roads in the upper valley. The early morel (Verpa bohemica) though, is more common and widespread. Look for them under or near cottonwoods. 

Both species need to be cleaned, as their convoluted caps can hide soil and insects. Brushing is preferred to preserve texture and flavor. If a water rinse is used, it should be brief and done immediately before cooking to prevent the mushrooms from becoming waterlogged.

Pan-frying is my favorite way to prepare morels. Slice each one in half, and if you did soak or wash them, dry sauté (using no oil or butter) on high heat to evaporate the moisture. Then add oil (I prefer avocado oil), reduce the heat, stir and cook until the morels turn brown. At this point, you can add garlic, spices (fresh thyme, no salt seasoning, etc.), and continue to fry and stir. When they are almost ready to serve, add butter for flavor, although they are plenty tasty on their own. Adding butter too early can result in burning. Morels are prized for their intensely earthy and nutty flavor. Pair with steamed wild cucumber (Streptopus amplexifolius), salmon and a red wine such as a bordeaux or pinot noir.

Morels must be thoroughly cooked because they contain small amounts of hydrazine, which can cause gastrointestinal distress when eaten uncooked or undercooked. Cooking breaks down the toxin. It is best to first try a small amount, as some people may have an adverse reaction.

Finally, do not eat a mushroom if you are not 100% sure of your identification. When in doubt, throw it out.

Judy Hall Jacobson has lived in the Chilkat Valley for 27 years and in Southeast Alaska for 40. She is the author of “Native Plants of Southeast Alaska and Mushrooms and other Fungi of Alaska.” She enjoys gardening, fishing and foraging, wilderness exploration and music in her spare time. 

The post Eating Well in the Chilkat Valley: Mushroom season appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

Buck Spender of Sweat, Florida, always considered himself in the ‘spirit of the pioneers’: “I love sunsets, Westerns, fishing, that stuff,” Spender said, “But I always dreamed of going West, like the pioneers. Maybe up to the new territory of Alaska. So that’s when I bought this RV. Just like the pioneers.”

The recreational vehicle that Spender bought was on 80-foot 2025 Boeing Road Whale, despite the fact that he had never driven anything bigger than a Honda Civic before. “It was the biggest,” he said proudly. “I’m a little surprised they let me drive it off the lot. But I only crushed two sedans. Florida has a three-sedan law.”

The 2025 model has satellite TV, Starlink, four push-outs, three push-ins, leather couches, a walk-in bathtub with spa jets, full kitchen, wine cellar and integrated AI assistant named Hal 9000. “It’s basically a Conestoga wagon.” 

Soon Spender was on his way: “From Florida, across the Appalachians and the Midwest. Almost got rolled over by the wind in Kansas. But the Whale prevailed, like any good horse.”

“There were other RVs on the road of course, but my Whale was the biggest by at least twenty feet. We rolled inexorably westward, like on the Oregon Trail, crossing the Mississippi, following the sunset. Gas stations scattered across the prairie like buffalo. Buffalo chicken, mmm. Wildfire smoke in the southwest like the smoke from one-horse towns with names like Tombstone and Shotgun. Phoenix. I think my RV was the biggest building in Tombstone.

“I drove her over the Rockies, up Highway 1 and into British Columbia. He patted the side of the Whale. “Now we’re in the Last Frontier and I feel like I’m the first to see this untouched wilderness and experience it like our forefathers did.”

The Whale’s many appliances whirred in agreement and a monotone voice spoke from a glowing red console. “Howdy, Sheriff. You are completely correct. Let’s git on down to the watering hole.”

Mr. Spender looked a bit embarrassed, “I asked Hal to call me sheriff.”

The post Haines Herring: RV’er First to Discover Alaska appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

The Trump administration has denied Alaska’s request for a larger federal cost share for disaster recovery efforts following devastation wrought by the remnants of Typhoon Halong in Western Alaska last fall. 

In a May 31 denial letter, a senior official with the Federal Emergency Management Agency denied the state’s appeal for a 90% federal cost reimbursement for the first three months following the disaster, saying the request for additional funding was “not warranted.”

The denial leaves the federal government covering 75%, and the state covering the remaining 25% of disaster recovery costs, putting Alaska on the hook for tens of millions of dollars. 

Gov. Mike Dunleavy claimed the federal government would fully reimburse the state for the first 90 days of immediate disaster relief and recovery efforts, when President Trump signed a federal disaster declaration in October. 

But FEMA denied the request for full reimbursement in December. The state appealed  and requested a 90% federal cost reimbursement, and that request was again denied on May 31.

Officials with Dunleavy’s office did not comment on the decision on Tuesday or Wednesday. 

In the letter, the FEMA official said the department will continue to monitor the costs and could consider a 90% federal cost share if the costs run up to a certain level established by federal law. 

Jeremy Zidek, public information officer with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, which oversees the state’s disaster response, said by email Tuesday the 75% federal cost share is standard. He said that reimbursement rate will be for all past and future disaster recovery costs related to the storm.

“After the denial of the state’s 90/10 request the state is still in a good position to address all 2025 West Coast Storm related funding requirements which are eligible for state disaster recovery programs and to fund the federal cost share,” he said.

There is not yet a full cost estimate for the Western Alaska storm disaster, including ex-Typhoon Halong. In February, the division’s director, Bryan Fisher, told lawmakers the latest FEMA assessment at that time was $125 million.

Further rebuilding and repair efforts in Western Alaska are underway this summer. An estimated 1,200 people are still displaced from the region, according to KYUK Public Media in Bethel. A coalition of tribal leaders from across the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta told visiting federal policymakers with the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs last month that beyond immediate infrastructure repairs, severe erosion and environmental contamination are affecting communities. They also raised concerns with the federal disaster response system, from delayed payments to a patchwork response. The hardest-hit villages of Kipnuk and Kwigillingok have voted to relocate, but funding and timelines are uncertain.

Since the storms, FEMA reports approving $47 million in individual and household assistance, including nearly $9.5 million in housing aid, and over $5 million in public assistance grants. 

On the state side, the Alaska Legislature allocated additional disaster relief funding, including funding to be used in case of a  FEMA denial.

This spring, lawmakers approved an additional $75 million for the Western Alaska storm response in an unusually high supplemental budget. 

Lawmakers also appropriated $35 million in the state’s Disaster Relief Fund for the next fiscal year in the case the Trump administration denied the appeal. That brings the fund to a total of nearly $73 million for addressing a number of disasters throughout Alaska this past year, Zidek said, with the largest portion going to the Western Alaska storm recovery. 

“We anticipate this amount will be sufficient to address funding of the state disaster recovery grants and our federal cost share obligations,” Zidek said.

But House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, said in a phone interview Tuesday that he expects further unanticipated disaster recovery costs this year. “From a budgeting standpoint in the Legislature, I will not be surprised to see a supplemental budget request,” he said.

Edgmon said unfortunately, the FEMA denial was an “expected outcome.” 

“(The governor) was optimistic that we might be able to get 100% reimbursement from FEMA. I think that optimism was fairly short-lived, based on FEMA’s comments, and you know their concerns about the amount of money, working with other states, and the like,” he said. “The general understanding was that it was probably going to be a 75-25 split.”

Edgmon said while the cost of the disaster recovery is still uncertain, legislators will address the state’s funding needs as they come in, acknowledging the huge regional recovery effort. 

“It’s pretty hard to know what the actual cost is going to be leading up to at some point in the future, and we hope as soon as possible relocation of at least two communities in the Y-K Delta,” he said.

Edgmon said the displacement has been painful for those communities, and he’s hopeful the state will continue partnering with FEMA in the disaster recovery effort and eventual relocation of communities.

“There was a real effort to get FEMA to engage as much as possible, to fund as much as possible. Certainly, we want to be able to provide for the relocation of communities, which is going to be a very large price tag involved in that, when that time arrives, and we just need to continue doing everything we possibly can to get people back in their homes,” he said. 

Alaska’s federal delegation reinforces support for storm affected region

Alaska’s congressional delegation weighed in Tuesday, with spokespeople for U.S. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan saying in statements that both senators are committed to advocating for the communities hit by the Western Alaska storms. 

Murkowski and Sullivan supported the state’s appeal and said they were active in urging FEMA and the Trump administration to fully support the disaster relief effort.

Joe Plesha, communications director for Murkowski, said that the senator had reached out personally to Markwayne Mullin, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, to advocate for the state’s appeal for a 90-10 split.

“While that appeal was unsuccessful, she will continue looking for opportunities to secure federal assistance and administrative flexibility to help Western Alaska and survivors of Typhoon Halong,” he said.

Plesha noted Murkowski chaired the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs’ two-day field hearings last month, to hear from storm affected residents. “She is focused on working with local, state, tribal, and federal partners to establish a nimbler system so that communities can not only recover quicker but establish the infrastructure and support systems to become more resilient,” he said.

Devyn Shae, a spokesperson for Sullivan said the senator supports residents in their “long journey of rebuilding.”

“Alaskans are incredibly resilient, but ensuring the communities hit by Typhoon Halong have the resources they need to fully recover remains a top priority for Senator Sullivan,” Shae said. “The senator and his team are reviewing FEMA’s decision and will continue working alongside state and local partners to support ongoing recovery efforts.”

A tribal casino near Eaglecrest Ski Area that’s been discussed for many years is open, but its operator is taking something of a gamble by hoping it can prevail if the state challenges the legality of the establishment.

A “soft opening” of the Two Coppers Casino began this week, with the facility featuring 100 slot-style electronic machines (one of which wasn’t functioning), said Chalyee Éesh Richard Peterson, president of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, in an interview shortly after the casino opened at 2 p.m. Wednesday. Construction is still ongoing and some amenities such as running water are lacking, so the target official grand opening date is July 1.

“We’re really excited about this,” he said. “It’s an opportunity, an expression of our sovereignty, but also I think it’s a great economic opportunity for not only the tribe, but for people who want to work here.”

The casino is scheduled to be open until 9 p.m. Wednesday and at times to be determined in the coming days leading up to the official opening, with the regular operating hours still being determined, Peterson said. A shuttle to the casino that circulates via downtown, since cruise passengers are envisioned as a major portion of the customers, is set to begin operating this week.

Peterson also acknowledged concerns (and stigmas) some people have raised about casinos, and noted that for now alcohol isn’t being served and “we’re going to have some really strict guidelines that if we see people that are probably spending too much time here, they’re going to be asked not to.”

A more existential issue is the casino’s legal status, which was put into doubt last September. The Trump administration reversed a Biden-era ruling by the U.S. Department of the Interior cited by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) when it authorized an amended gaming ordinance adopted by the tribe in October of 2024.

Peterson said even without that ruling it appears a previously approved ordinance for the casino appears to be legally valid. However, the Trump administration’s reversal was prompted by a similar gaming facility the Native Village of Eklutna opened in January of 2025, with the state of Alaska filing a lawsuit in February of that year to shut down the casino. But that facility continues to operate and Peterson said he believes his tribe will prevail if a similar challenge is filed against Two Coppers Casino.

“I feel fairly secure,” he said. “If they challenge it that’s their choice. That doesn’t mean I agree that they have a legal ground to stand on and that they’ll win.”

Sam Curtis, a spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law, stated in an email Wednesday afternoon “the State of Alaska is aware of the Two Coopers Casino opening and is closely monitoring the situation.”

“The U.S. Department of Interior has recently reversed a legal opinion issued by the Biden Administration that had been used to authorize tribal gaming in Alaska, directing all relevant federal agencies to follow a legal opinion that had been (in) place since 1993 and to revisit any gaming-related decisions made under that Biden-era opinion,” he wrote. “The State is deferring to the federal government as that review process plays out.”

Two Coppers Casino is a Class II gaming establishment, which can offer slot-like machines where payouts come from a pool of competing players (much like bingo), non-house-banked card games, bingo and pull-tabs. Games like poker, blackjack and traditional slot machines are not allowed.

The machines were somewhat unfamiliar to a handful of initial gamblers who visited the casino when it opened Wednesday afternoon.

“Just put money in and watch it spin,” said Deborah Picken, a Hoonah resident sitting next to her uncle, Herman Davis, a Sitka resident, at one row of machines. She said the visit to the casino was sparked by family members taking Davis to Las Vegas last year because that was one of the items on his bucket list.

“He ended up winning $800 by the time we left Las Vegas,” she said. “When he heard about this from my daughter last night he got excited and said ‘I want to check it out,’ so here we are.”

Annette Ulmer, a Juneau resident who said she has gambled in numerous tribal casinos elsewhere, said the new establishment compares favorably to those.

“I love it. I think it’s something that’s been needed for a while,” she said.

The casino is on a 220-acre site about a mile from Eaglecrest that is owned by the heirs of an Angoon man who obtained it in a land swap with the U.S. Forest Service in 2002. Tlingit and Haida has been leasing 20 of those acres since 2015.

Speculation has existed for many years about the site on Fish Creek Road about four miles from the Glacier Highway turnoff to Eaglecrest. A 2016 blog post by journalist Craig Medred headlined “Alaska’s first Indian gambling casino appears to be in the works” stated Tlingit and Haida had adopted a federal gaming ordinance, but denied “it has any plan to build a casino in Juneau at this time.”

But Tlingit and Haida began clearing trees from the land in 2018 for purposes tribal officials did not elaborate on publicly. Fireworks sales leading up to the Fourth of July occurred on the property during some subsequent years, with gaming establishment plans confirmed when construction began at the site last summer.

This story was originally published by the Juneau Independent.

The post Tlingit and Haida opens Two Coppers Casino after years-long effort, but its legal status isn’t a sure bet appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.