KHNS - Haines

When people talk about Alaska’s reliance on imported food, they nearly always cite the same number: 95%.

The figure has been around for decades – appearing again and again in executive orders, media reports, state-commissioned analyses and speeches. But food systems experts can’t trace the number back to a verifiable, data backed source – or crunch it themselves.

“I think it is a very useful thing to just note that it is made up,” said Rachel Lord, policy director at the Alaska Food Policy Council, a Homer based nonprofit.

That’s not to say the figure is totally off base. It’s well established by now that the vast majority of food Alaskans purchase is imported from elsewhere. And Lord is among those who have said 95% is a reasonable ballpark estimate.

But uncertainty around the figure underscores the complex nature of tracking whether Alaska is becoming less dependent on imports over time – even as the Dunleavy administration seeks to push the state in that direction.

“How do we know if we’re succeeding, if we don’t actually have any metrics?” said Lord, who also spoke to the challenge in a recent High Country News article.

Glaring red flags

So where did the 95% figure come from? A web of reports and academic papers point in a few different directions.

A 2023 report prepared for Dunleavy, for instance, says the figure hasn’t been “substantiated, nor updated” since a journal mention in 1987. Another paper, published in 2010, says it dates back to the 1970s – and also nods to uncertainty around its precision.

“In 1977 it was estimated that 95 percent of food in Alaska is imported, despite our seemingly large number of avid gardeners, hunters, and fishers,” the paper says. “This figure has been used by many sources since then but research to verify it only began recently.”

A third report, published in 2014, attributes the statistic to speeches made by two different people, one in 1977 – and the other in 1998.

Original source aside, the figure has a few glaring red flags, said Mike Jones, a food systems economist at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

“Our biggest warning with something like this 95% statistic is that there are no units attached,” he said. “Is it 95% of the dollars we spend on food? Is it 95% of the weight of the food we have? Is it 95% of the calories of the food that we have?”

On top of that, it’s almost never framed consistently. In many instances, people will say 95% of Alaska’s total food supply is imported. But that doesn’t account for the significant role that hunting, fishing, farming and foraging play in local food systems.

“It’s [95% of] purchased food,” Lord said. “In rural Alaska, and a lot of communities, a huge amount of food eaten is subsistence, wild foods.”

Still, the figure abounds. As recently as March of this year, the Dunleavy administration included it in a video caption on Facebook, in which the governor announced his plan to create a Department of Agriculture.

“Alaska imports 95% of its food, but we don’t have to,” the caption reads. 

A data challenge

As Jones sees it, the figure seems to have been repeated so often, for so long, it’s become conventional wisdom. But he’s not convinced it should stay that way.

“I think we search for numbers in describing the scope of a problem. And it’s appropriate to look for numbers,” he said. “I think if we’re using a number, then it’s important that it definitely comes from a verifiable source.”

So why isn’t there a verifiable source? The short answer is that it’s a complex math problem that’s made more difficult by major data gaps around both imports, and locally sourced food.

The point of doing that math would be to pinpoint a figure that would help track progress over time. But for the time being, Jones said, it might be better to rely on adjectives, as opposed to percentages.

“I tried very hard to use publicly available, particularly federal statistics, to be able to infer that for the state. And I found it to be a very, very difficult exercise.”

A spokesperson for the governor’s office nodded to Dunleavy’s plan to create an agriculture department as a potential solution.

“An additional benefit of the Department is that it will be able to facilitate collecting more detailed data that will allow for more precise, Alaska-specific food system measurements moving forward,” Deputy Press Secretary Grant Robinson wrote in an email.

Lord, of the Alaska Food Policy Council, said her organization is working on a grant-funded database with the same goal.

Lessons from Vermont

The challenge isn’t isolated to Alaska. David Conner is an economist with the University of Vermont who led the state’s efforts to count local food.

Conner and his team relied on some of the same datasets Jones has worked with. But he also built on that data by reaching out to grocery stores, schools, hospitals, distributors and more to get a sense of how much local food they purchased in the previous year.

From there, the researchers did their best to avoid counting any sale twice, and asked important questions like – is beer food?

“We have a fairly vibrant local brewery scene,” Conner said. “Do we count that?”

There’s also the reality that many agricultural products aren’t ultimately consumed by humans – or consumed locally. Like hay, which is used for livestock. The same is true in Alaska, where hatchery activity and floraculture – namely, peonies – make up for a substantial chunk of the agricultural production.

Back in Vermont, the researchers ultimately estimated that the state had likely surpassed its own goal to ensure local food accounts for 10% of total consumption.

Still, they wrote, “local food consumption estimates such as ours should not be taken at face value to the large data gaps.”

It all underscores that Alaska isn’t alone in importing the vast majority of its purchased food. That’s the case given that different areas are better suited to different crops – and that the U.S. food system hinges on long and winding supply chains. It’s true even in states with booming agriculture sectors.

“In many, many cases, food-producing regions are also the most food insecure, because the food is grown for export markets, not for local consumption,” Conner said.

Jones, with the University of Alaska, said it’s a good thing that Alaskans can access foods grown really far away. It’s necessary from both a nutrition and financial standpoint.

“I’m sure you could grow a mango in a Conex in Alaska. But nobody is trying to buy a $100 mango,” he said.

Still, many states think very hard about boosting local food production – and for good reason, Jones and Conner said. Doing so is good for the planet and yields fresher food.

“Maybe more importantly, when you buy locally grown food, the money tends to circulate more times in the economy and generate more wealth and more income before it leaves,” Conner said. “So it can really be an instrument of economic development.

A controversial mineral exploration project near Haines is again changing hands, just one year after the last shakeup.

Vizsla Copper Corp. said Thursday that it’s purchasing the Palmer Project from American Pacific Mining Corp. The project is a zinc, copper, gold, silver and barite exploration site that sits about 14 miles upstream from the Native village of Klukwan.

The new owner said it prides itself on its commitment to working with communities to earn local support – and that it will take the same approach in the Chilkat Valley.

“For us it’s a very straightforward job: Win community and First Nations and government support. And get in and drill some spectacular holes come summer next year,” Vizsla CEO Craig Parry said in a pre-recorded video posted on Thursday.

But as one local tribe sees it, that’s not in the cards.

“I seriously do not believe there is any opportunity to gain community support,” Chilkat Indian Village President Kimberley Strong said in an interview following the announcement.

The deal means Vizsla will acquire 100% of the project along with the project’s long-time local operator, Constantine Metal Resources. Vizsla noted in a statement that it will need to raise $25 million from investors to move forward with exploration.

American Pacific, for its part, will walk away with $15 million in Vizsla stock rather than cash.

The company could also net an additional $15 million, in either cash or shares, on two conditions. First, Vizsla would have to find that the project could yield a certain quantity of minerals. Second, the project would have to become a commercial mine.

American Pacific has been involved in the project since 2022 and became its sole owner at this time last year when DOWA Metals and Mining sold its majority stake. Then, this spring, American Pacific confirmed that it, too, planned to step back from Palmer.

The America Pacific Mining and Vizsla lauded the project as an exciting prospect, particularly amid the Trump administration’s embrace of mining in Alaska and the surging demand for critical minerals.

“The U.S. administration aside, you’ve seen a complete 180 degree turnaround from governments around the world,” Parry said.

He said that’s happening as countries recognize that the global transition away from fossil-based energy – and toward greener technology – will require these minerals.

Still, he emphasized that the project, which has been under exploration for nearly two decades, has a long road ahead.

“It’s crucial to highlight that this is a long way from being a mining project,” Parry said. “And there’s a lot of stages you have to go through to get there, so we’re many, many years away from that.”

The project has long fueled local debate over what a mine would mean for the Chilkat Valley. While some say it would boost the local economy, others contend it’s not worth risking impacts to the Chilkat watershed.

Parry, of Vizsla, acknowledged that the mining industry needs to do a better job of seeking and acting on community feedback. But he says his company has made that a priority, including on its Panuco Project, a silver and gold exploration site in Western Mexico.

“We’ve demonstrated that not only do we listen, but we act on what we hear from communities and First Nations groups and look to work in partnership with those guys,” he said.

The Chilkat Indian Village of Klukwan has opposed the project out of concern that it would contaminate the Chilkat River, which supports runs of all five species of pacific salmon.

Strong, the tribe’s president, said that concern will stand regardless of ownership. She is skeptical about any mining companies that claim to prioritize engagement with tribes, particularly given her experiences with the companies that have already had a hand in the local project.

“The moment we sit down with them, it’s considered engaging with the tribe,” she said. “They’ll come and listen, but they’ll still do whatever they want.”

Just off Main Street in Haines, a large field sits in the shadow of Mount Ripinski.

For a few years, the land sat empty. Local Liz Landes would look at it and think: “Why isn’t that full of food?”

Now it is. Or at least, it was in September, during a tour of the property at the tail end of the harvest season.

After pulling on her rubber rain gear in the high tunnel, Landes walked into a downpour and weaved through rows of kale, herbs, pumpkins and sunflowers. She pointed out black and red currants, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, asparagus and fava beans she said were “desperately ready to harvest.”

“We’ve already surpassed 1,000 pounds for the season,” Landes said. “And honestly, we could easily have another 1,000 more with what’s still left to harvest.”

Local farmers rented the site until 2021. But then it sat unused until a new venture, known as Henderson Farm, started up before the 2024 growing season. The effort is funded by a Portland-based nonprofit called Ecotrust and fueled by the work of volunteers and local contractors, including Landes.

The farm is a bright spot for the local food system and southeast Alaska, both of which rely heavily on food that’s shipped in from incredibly far away. That process results in less fresh, less nutritious produce, Landes said, and it leads to extraordinary amounts of waste.

As she sees it, nothing encourages cutting down on waste more than toiling in the soil week after week. She points to some healthy-looking purple cabbages, which she says require a lot of time – and effort – to grow.

“I’m gonna use every freaking leaf of every cabbage that I harvest,” Landes said. “And the pieces that I can’t are gonna go into compost to make my cabbages next year.”

This year was the farm’s first full season. As of early November, seeds planted on about three quarters of an acre had yielded more than 2,800 pounds of food and counting. Landes says there will be greens to glean through the first snowfall.

None of the produce is sold. It’s all shared throughout the community, either in exchange for work or for free.

A significant chunk goes to the farm’s volunteers and contractors. But it also goes to the local senior center, a food pantry in Klukwan, a food hub in Mosquito Lake, and other community groups – like volunteer firefighters.

Helping distribute the food is one of the best parts of the job, Landes said.

“Generally, I get to go around and be the little vegetable fairy and say, ‘Thank you for the time that you give to other people, here’s a bag of peas,'” she said.

The operation is far from easy. But the farm is in somewhat of a sweet spot when compared to other parts of the Chilkat Valley and Southeast more broadly.

Taken together, the property’s workable soil, Alaska’s long summer days, and Haines’ relatively dry and warm climate are a big help.

“It’s not perfect,” she said. But “in many, many ways, the daylight itself here, with the right distribution of rain, does the work for you.”

Looking ahead to next year, Landes said she wants to continue recruiting more volunteers and potentially expand the growing area to a full acre. She also has a more specific, personal goal: making an all-Alaska gumbo.

That will hinge in part on how her okra – which grows well in hot, dry conditions – does next year.

Haines and Skagway have joined communities across Alaska that are doing what they can to support the more than one thousand people displaced by ex-Typhoon Halong last month.

Skagway’s donation drive is focused on clothing and gear, as opposed to food. Residents have until the end of the day on Wednesday to drop items from a long list at the Dahl Memorial Clinic, the local health care facility. Donations will be handled by nonprofits in Anchorage.

“The items that they’re looking for are clothes of any sort, preferably new, sleeping bags and pillows and hygiene items like toothbrushes and things of that nature,” said Albert Wall, the clinic’s executive director.

Wall emphasized that people should bring items that are either new or gently used – and clean. Other acceptable donations include air mattresses, duffle bags, cell phone chargers and crafting supplies.

“We’ve had a pretty good response so far,” Wall said.

In Haines, meanwhile, the Chilkoot Indian Association initially asked the community to drop off traditional, harvested foods. But council President James Hart says they will accept any food donations, as long as they’re shelf stable and not expired.

“The preference would be something that you harvested,” he said. “But we shouldn’t be pushing anything away.”

On Monday, at the tribe’s downtown office, there were several boxes of canned goods, including sockeye salmon, homemade applesauce, highbush cranberry juice and hooligan oil.

Soon, there will also be three cases of canned seal meat. Hart, along with locals Zack James and Nels Lynch, harvested the seal in late October to contribute to the effort.

Hart said he knows first-hand how important it is to help when communities are struck by disaster, referring to the 2020 atmospheric river event in Haines that triggered widespread destruction and a fatal landslide.

“I know how much we pulled together as a community, and how much outside help we received, so having the opportunity to give back in that way is special,” he said.

“My heart goes out to all those folks and the challenges they’re going to be going through,” Hart added. “They just went through a whole harvest season, and I’d assume all of that has been lost. That’s so hard to hear and think about and even fathom.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is halting a contract that makes it possible for the federal agency to accurately monitor for potential tsunamis in Alaska – and quickly warn at-risk communities.

The Alaska Earthquake Center for decades has collected data from seismology stations across the state and directly fed the information to NOAA’s National Tsunami Center, in Palmer. If the data indicates an earthquake that could lead to a tsunami, the Tsunami Center sends out a warning message within minutes.

Or at least that’s how it worked historically, including on Thursday morning, when an earthquake struck between Seward and Homer.

But that’s about to change. In late September, the federal agency advised the Alaska Earthquake Center that it does not have funding available for that work.

“We are anticipating direct data feeds to stop in mid-November,” said Mike West, the Alaska State Seismologist and director of the Alaska Earthquake Center, which is part of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute.

The news comes amid the Trump administration’s effort to dramatically slash federal spending – including by proposed cuts to key weather and climate programs within NOAA.

West said the change is a big deal. NOAA’s National Weather Service holds the federal responsibility for tsunami warnings, and has historically been a primary supporter of seismic data collection in Alaska. But the agency doesn’t actually collect much of that data itself.

“Without this contract,” West said, “they lose data from dozens and dozens of sites all around the state, and specifically – or maybe more urgently – a handful of sites out in the Aleutians and the Bering that have been there for decades specifically for this purpose.”

The potential fallout isn’t isolated to Alaska. West provided an example: the 1946 tsunami that originated near the Aleutians, and killed more than 150 people in Hawaii.

“The tsunami threats from Alaska are not just an Alaska problem,” West said.

The contract was supposed to re-start October 1. But after funding did not arrive as expected, West reached out to the agency on Sept. 23. A NOAA official advised him via email a week later that the agency did not have the budget to support the long-standing contract.

West said the Earthquake Center is grappling with the situation but that its NOAA data feeds and tsunami-specific work will wind down in November.

“We are not going to continue operating those stations in the Aleutians that are entirely NOAA supported,” he said. “We’re not going to just keep doing it.”

NOAA did not respond to a request for comment. NOAA Tsunami Warning Coordinator David Snider declined to comment for this story.

A state plan to build a new ferry terminal north of Juneau is hard to justify on its financial merits but could pose long-term benefits, including more flexible regional travel and a boost to the mining industry.

That’s the conclusion of an economic analysis released by the Alaska Department of Transportation in mid-October. It weighs the agency’s plan to shorten the ferry route between Juneau, Haines and Skagway by routing passengers through a new terminal located 40 miles outside the capital city.

For months, local officials and members of a key advisory board have called on the state to provide an economic analysis or feasibility study of how the project might help – or hurt – travelers. At least so far, they’re unimpressed with the resulting document.

“It’s not convincing me,” said Haines Mayor Tom Morphet. “And it’s certainly not, even in their own words, a slam dunk.”

Bob Horchover of the Alaska Marine Highway Oversight Board echoed that point during a meeting last week. He said the analysis, which was first reported by the Juneau Independent, read “like a timeshare brochure.”

“I don’t think it was realistic, and I’m not sure where they got some of their numbers,” he said.

Report calls proposed terminal “a strategic investment”

At issue is the so-called Cascade Point ferry terminal project. The state says it’s been working on the idea for several years. But DOT recently kickstarted the effort by signing a $28 million contract for the first phase of the project.

The site is located on land owned by Goldbelt, Inc., a Juneau-based Alaska Native Corporation. News of the initial contract was welcomed by Canadian mining company Grande Portage, which plans to develop an ore terminal at the site – in partnership with Goldbelt.

DOT, for its part, argues the project would reduce operating costs and ease passenger travel by moving the ferry terminal significantly closer to Haines and Skagway, shortening the ferry route.

The new economic analysis assesses those claims plus concerns raised by critics. It was written by a contractor, Ed King, who formerly served as chief economist and economic advisor for the state of Alaska.

On the whole, the report acknowledges that the project’s “extensive capital costs” are “difficult to justify based on savings alone.” Still, it paints a picture of the so-called Cascade Point ferry terminal as a project with more pros than cons – especially in the long term.

“In conclusion, although the Cascade Point Ferry Terminal presents challenges as an independent initiative,” the report reads, “it may prove valuable as a strategic investment that facilitates resource development and improves access to the Capital.”

A skeptical ferry board 

That framing drew sharp criticism from members of the Alaska Marine Highway Oversight Board during a meeting last week.

Board Chair Wanetta Ayers said it seems like the analysis aims to “build a case for Cascade Point,” as opposed to evaluating it against alternative options.

“I don’t believe it makes a strong case, certainly from a customer service standpoint, and very marginally from an economic standpoint, that the project is justifiable,” Ayers added in a follow-up interview.

That’s concerning, she said, given that dollars are already being allocated to it — and that there’s a long list of other ferry-related projects in desperate need of funding. The nearly 45-page report explores potential impacts from the terminal, which would shorten the ferry ride between Juneau, Haines and Skagway.

The analysis acknowledges that the terminal would create new infrastructure and maintenance responsibilities for the state. It also finds that “construction costs are unlikely to be recovered in a meaningful timeline without additional changes.”

Another con is that passengers would have to make up for the shorter ferry route by traveling 28 more miles outside Juneau. That would make regional travel more expensive, given extra gas, vehicle wear and tear, and ferry fares that would stay the same.

Goldbelt has committed to running a bus service to transport passengers between Cascade Point and Juneau. But uncertainty remains about the reliability and cost of that shuttle for those traveling without a vehicle – and about what the longer drive would mean for those who do bring a car.

“My guess – and obviously, I’m not an economist – is that for the average user, it’s not a clear cut win, to put it most lightly,” said Morphet, the Haines mayor. “And certainly, to a lot of people, I think would be a loss” of access.

DOT spokesperson Danielle Tessen did not directly address those concerns during an interview Wednesday morning. She said shortening the ferry route ultimately comes down to saving money for the chronically underfunded ferry system.

“That is what we’re focused on, is creating these shortened ferry distances, because that’s how we’re able to continue reducing the cost of operations,” Tessen said.

Cascade Point “not an on-its-own project,” DOT says 

The analysis concludes that the new terminal would reduce planet-warming emissions and operating costs. Shorter ferry runs would result in “modest reliability gains” and an estimated 5% bump in ridership, it says.

But the real value comes from other long-term factors.

“Cascade Point, and this terminal, it’s not an on-its-own project,” said Tessen, of DOT. “And what I mean by that is, there is a bigger plan.”

That bigger plan has two main prongs. The first is another DOT effort, known as the Chilkat Connector Feasibility Study, which has also faced fierce opposition in the Upper Lynn Canal.

The agency is assessing what it would take to build a road aimed at easing travel between Skagway, Haines and Juneau. Cascade Point, the analysis notes, would be a “foundational” component of that effort.

The second prong is regional economic development by way of mining. The analysis says the new terminal would serve as a major boon for Grande Portage Resources’ proposed New Amalga Gold Project, which would likely use Cascade Point as its logistical base.

Morphet took issue with that logic.

“It’s kind of based on this trickle-down view of the economy, that if there’s commercial or industrial development at Cascade Point, there’s a greater benefit to the public,” he said.

“But is there a greater benefit to the traveling public?” he added. “That’s what this question is about: transportation.”

Horchover, the operations board member, echoed that point.

“I don’t know exactly what the motivation is, but it sure isn’t for the good of the Alaska Marine Highway service,” he said. “That’s my two cents.”

The board has previously raised concerns that the Cascade Point planning process deviated from the ferry system’s long-range planning process. During last week’s meeting, the board voted to write a so-called “corrective action” letter to the agency and state legislature saying as much.

The state announced on Wednesday that it is soliciting public comment on phase one of the project through Nov. 28.