From our collaborating partner “Living on Earth,” public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by managing producer Jenni Doering with Jon O’Donnell, ecologist for the Arctic Inventory and Monitoring Network at the National Park Service.

The rapid climate change happening to our planet is often invisible. 

Think of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, or heat waves across the globe.

But in the far north of Alaska some changes are impossible not to see. 

That’s because dozens of crystal-clear streams in the Brooks Range are turning a cloudy orange.

A 2024 paper published in the Nature journal Communications: Earth and Environment connects the change to rapidly thawing permafrost that appears to be releasing metals like iron into these streams. 

Lead author Jon O’Donnell is an ecologist for the Arctic Inventory and Monitoring Network at the National Park Service. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

JENNI DOERING: So when did you first notice that the streams in Alaska’s Brooks Range looked rusty? And what was your reaction?

JON O’DONNELL: So we were monitoring a site in Kobach Valley National Park, on the Akillik River. And we had been collecting samples there, water samples and biological samples, like fish and bugs. That was in 2017. And when we went back in August of 2018, for a site visit, we noticed that the stream had turned orange. And this was surprising to us. And so you know, we were accessing this site in a small helicopter. And you know, my initial thoughts were, this is kind of an important thing to document. But I kind of thought it was maybe just anomalous, or a case study, where you know, this might just be a one-off thing, but it’d be a good story. So we should do a good job, collect all the samples that we need to collect. So we grabbed water samples, and we collected fish and bugs. And then, when we went back out in 2019, we were flying around the region, and we noticed that there were more streams than we had previously noticed, had turned orange. And that was kind of when I started to think that this might be a bigger issue than this anomalous one stream in Kobach valley, that it may be a bigger issue. And at that point, we started trying to compile observations from across the Brooks Range.

DOERING: So you mentioned that you did some water sampling. And you were finding these minerals in the water samples. What kinds of minerals have you been collecting? 

O’DONNELL: Yeah, so we collect water samples from these orange streams, and then nearby clear water streams. And we measure the same suite of chemicals on all of them. So the orange in the stream, that is a reflection of iron. And so those are iron particulates, it makes the stream very turbid or filled with particles. And then those particles often get deposited on the stream bed, and so they blanket the rocks and the sediments in the bottom of the stream. But in addition to the iron, we see that these orange streams are more acidic, so they have a lower pH than, than clear water streams. And there’s a whole range of trace metals that are potentially toxic, both in terms of drinking water and for life that are living in these streams. And so examples of those trace metals that we’ve seen are like zinc and copper and arsenic and cadmium and a range of others that are elevated in concentration in the orange streams.

DOERING: So what do you think is going on here? What do we know about what might be causing this change in the streams and rivers?

O’DONNELL: All of our observations point towards climate and permafrost thaw as a driver of this change. The reasons for that are one, the timing. So we’ve documented over 70 streams and rivers that have changed in the very recent past here, so in the last 10, 10- 5 years. And this is a period of time where the climate has warmed dramatically in the Arctic. There’s also evidence that in these specific watersheds, the climate has warmed past the point where permafrost can stay cold and stay frozen. And so we know that permafrost is thawing in this region. And when permafrost thaws, that changes the hydrology of these watersheds. So you can imagine these mineral deposits being contained in what is essentially a freezer. And as the permafrost thaws, that’s kind of like shifting them to a refrigerator. And so now things can melt, ice can melt, water can flow. And so what we’re seeing is that we think groundwater is flowing through these soils and mineral deposits, where permafrost has thawed. And that is creating this chemical reaction that’s releasing all these metals and acid into the streams. 

DOERING: Why are these metals and chemicals concerning? What effects could they have on wildlife and people in the area?

O’DONNELL: Right now we’re working to try to determine if these concentrations of metals have exceeded EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, thresholds for both aquatic life and for drinking water. And so we don’t have a definitive answer on that yet. At the concentrations, we know that this would affect taste of drinking water, so it might be more metallic. But one of our concerns is that these metals will be accumulated from the base of the foodweb through like algae and macroinvertebrates or bugs that live in the bed of the stream, up into fish, you know, similar to what people have shown with like mercury that can bio accumulate and magnify within a food web, and then it gets into fish and then into people if they eat the fish. So we’re concerned because these metals can be toxic both to the aquatic life, but into the people that might rely on the fish as part of their diet. And the stream where we were monitoring, and it changed from clear water to orange, when we first went there, and when it was a clear water stream, it had a really healthy fish population. So lots of small Dolly Varden. And these little resident fish, called slimy sculpin, there was just a lot of them. When we went back after the stream changed color, and it had turned orange, there were no fish. All the fish were gone. We did the exact same protocol for sampling, and the fish had disappeared. And the macroinvertebrate insects, the bugs that reside in the bed of the stream, their numbers declined dramatically with this change. So our thought probably is that the fish migrated out of this river to a better habitat. But there’s also a chance that they were impacted by this bio accumulation of metals up through the food web. And so this was just one instance, where we’ve measured this, we’re continuing our work now to try to figure out really, how are these fish being affected, but our initial thought is that the fish just left, the stream turned orange, and it was not a good habitat for them anymore.

DOERING: It’s amazing how rapidly these changes seem to have happened. I mean, it’s, you know, one year to the next, you notice these really rapid, significant changes, which is rare often when we’re studying what’s happening with climate change. How extensive is this issue in Alaska and beyond?

O’DONNELL: These observations that we have sort of span from the lower Noatak River Basin, in the West, all the way to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the east. So it’s a you know, over 1000 kilometers. We’ve also been getting reports of observations from other areas in Alaska. So the North Slope, north of the Brooks Range, the Yukon River Basin to the south. So these are all watersheds and regions that are in permafrost zones. And so it’s possible that permafrost thaw is driving these observations elsewhere. There is some evidence in the literature for this kind of thing to be happening in non-permafrost regions, such as in the Alps, and in the Andes, in South America, where you have mountain glaciers, and when these glaciers melt, you expose minerals and rocks. And so similar process, except in these other regions, we’re talking about glaciers melting, as opposed to permafrost thawing.

DOERING: You know, this era that we’re living in is often called the Anthropocene, the age that’s shaped by humans. And it sounds like in this case, we’re changing geological processes. I mean, climate change is changing so many different geological processes, but it’s even changing the way that minerals are coming out of the soil.

O’DONNELL: Yeah, and I would say that the Arctic, because it’s so remote, and because of some of the unique features of the Arctic, it’s changing at a faster pace than other regions, like temperate and tropical regions and the globe as a whole. You know, I think the latest evidence shows that the Arctic is warming about four times faster than the Earth as a whole. And because of that, and because of the permafrost, and because of how much carbon and other things are stored in the soils up here, there’s potential for really rapid change, and really dramatic alteration of ecosystems up here that you don’t necessarily see in other parts of the planet. And so yes, the fact that there are these anthropogenic warming effects that are driving climate change in the Arctic and permafrost thaw, and ultimately, this release of mineral compounds, trace metals into streams, that’s a really unique set of factors that we wouldn’t necessarily have foreseen when thinking about climate change in the Arctic.

DOERING: Jon, what is it like to be studying this and seeing these changes as a scientist?

O’DONNELL: Yeah, so I’ve been working in Alaska now for over 20 years. And I view my job as an ecologist, is basically to document the changes that are occurring. And I’ve worked on a number of different types of studies related to wildfire, permafrost thaw and carbon cycling, things like that in the Arctic. This is by far the most surprising set of observations that I’ve been a part of in my time up here. And I think that it is shocking in terms of how fast it’s happening and the spatial scale at which it’s happening. As somebody who has documented these changes for over 20 years, I’ve become somewhat used to or maybe desensitized from some of the more dramatic things going on. When I sent this paper to my parents who live on the east coast in Philadelphia, they responded by saying that they were depressed and saddened by what they were seeing. And because I’m so used to just functioning as a scientist, I maybe separate my emotional responses from some of these dramatic things that are happening up here. But talking to the public and talking to my family and friends, I’ve kind of been forced to realize that there’s this emotional response that people have to wilderness and to nature, and to places like national parks that people love to go and visit, and when they see them undergoing this sort of change, it’s upsetting. 

An Anchorage Superior Court judge has ruled that opponents of Alaska’s ranked choice election system violated state campaign finance laws in their effort to gather signatures for a repeal ballot measure.

In a 54-page order, Judge Laura Hartz upheld almost all fines issued in January by the state’s campaign finance regulator and concluded that Alaska’s “true source” disclosure laws apply to ballot measures. 

Those laws state that if a nonprofit contributes to a political campaign, it must reveal the names of its donors, the true source of the money.

Hartz said one fine, levied for the misreporting of $2,358 in cash contributions, may not have been warranted and remanded the issue back to state regulators.

That was a small aspect of the overall case, which involved more than $94,000 in fines levied by the Alaska Public Offices Commission against groups and individuals who backed a ballot measure that seeks to eliminate both ranked choice voting and the state’s open primary, which places all candidates — regardless of party — into a single election for each office.

The repeal measure is slated for the November general election. A separate lawsuit has challenged the signature-gathering process used to put it on the ballot. 

Preliminary orders in that case, including one issued Friday, have been in favor of allowing the repeal measure to go forward. A trial on the issue is scheduled to begin Monday.

Hartz’s 54-page order did not touch on that case, only the matter of the fines. 

The Alaska Public Offices Commission, which regulates campaign spending in the state, concluded last year that Art Mathias, an opponent of ranked choice voting, contributed $90,000 to the Ranked Choice Education Association, an organization incorporated as a church in Washington state.

RCEA then gave money to Alaskans for Honest Elections, which campaigned in favor of the repeal measure.

Members of the Public Offices Commission concluded that was a violation of state campaign laws that forbid donations in the name of another person and require nonprofits to list their donors if they pass money to a political campaign.

Some ranked choice opponents appealed the fines, as did Alaskans for Better Elections, a pro-ranked choice group that sought larger fines. The Alaska Department of Law, representing the commission, sought to uphold the commission’s decision.

Hartz ruled almost entirely against both appellants, finding that only one fine — involving the handling of cash donations gathered at campaign events — may not have been warranted. 

She sent that issue back to the Public Offices Commission for further consideration.

In 2020, Alaskans passed Ballot Measure 2, which included ranked choice voting, the open primary and a law stating that nonprofits that donate to a political campaign must disclose who gave them the money, revealing its “true source.”

That law didn’t directly address ballot measures, but Hartz said that ballot measures are included in the law because of an older law that forbids donations in the name of another person or group.

Her order said in part, “the court concludes that true source reporting requirements do apply to contributions in support of a ballot initiative when the contribution is passed from the true source through an intermediary to an initiative sponsor.”

Using that conclusion, Hartz upheld most of the commission’s actions.

“Because RCEA derives its funds from ‘contributions, donations, dues, or gifts,’ RCEA is an intermediary and not, by definition, the true source of a contribution,” she wrote.

Hartz rejected arguments suggesting that the First Amendment gives donors a right to privacy, thus negating the “true source” law.

“There is no constitutional right to make anonymous contributions for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election,” she wrote. “There is likewise no right to contribute through an intermediary or in the name of another, and the court declines to create such a right.”

Supporters of the ranked choice repeal suggested they might face threats, harassment or reprisals for their donations and support, but in her ruling, Hartz said that they failed to show “any evidence of a ‘reasonable probability’” that would happen.

Friday’s order is unlikely to be the final word on the matter. Appellants could request a review from the Alaska Supreme Court. 

In addition, since the initial filing against Alaskans for Honest Elections, supporters of ranked choice voting have filed additional complaints alleging further problems.

Meghan Tabacek stepped off the narrow path of the Black Bear Trail in Juneau and pointed to a U-shaped bend in Montana Creek where loose dirt and tree roots jut out over the water.

“If this all were to erode out and cut under the bank, then our whole trail could collapse,” she said. “At first glance, this looks pretty subtle and pretty far away from the trail. But give it like, three or four big storm cycles, and that could really get eaten away.”

Tabacek is the executive director of Trail Mix, Inc., a local non-profit that spends each summer clearing brush, downed trees and — occasionally — landslide debris, on trails managed by the City and Borough of Juneau, the state and the Forest Service.

But mostly, her crews work to strengthen trails against the rain that pummels Southeast Alaska. 

“We’re used to mud,” Tabacek said. “Mud is our bread and butter.” 

What they’re not used to is the intensity of the mud, the erosion and the wash-outs that are wreaking havoc on trails as human-caused climate change makes rainstorms more extreme. Typically, Tabacek says, trails have a lifespan of 10 to 20 years before they need major maintenance. But that’s changing now. 

“The time from when we build a trail or do a refurbishment of a trail to the time it needs touch-ups and fixings is shortening,” Tabacek said. “We’re having to do a lot of maintenance that isn’t technically planned.”

Warmer air holds more moisture. So as greenhouse gas pollution drives up global temperatures, rainy Southeast Alaska is becoming even rainier. According to Juneau’s Climate Change report, Juneau’s average annual precipitation has increased 20 inches in the last century. And a lot of that rain is coming down in atmospheric rivers — periods of heavy, prolonged rainfall that are often accompanied by high winds. 

An atmospheric river in December 2020 brought record-breaking rain that caused flooding and mudslides across Juneau. It also washed out local trails like the Blackerby Ridge Trail, which took weeks to clear and repair. 

Then another storm in 2021 blew down enormous trees that made some trails impassable, like the Herbert Glacier Trail. Tabacek recalls chainsawing and hauling out hundreds of downed trees. 

“Those trees would have dropped at some point anyway. But when we have these big storms and big wind events, then they’ll drop at once,” Tabacek said. “So we’ve been seeing some of these things that we have to react to more frequently.”

Storms may become more frequent over time, but Southeast Alaska’s trail system has always taken a beating. James King, who was the executive director when Trail Mix got started back in the 1990s, says he remembers cleaning up frequent landslides on the city-owned Perseverance Trail. 

That trail was closed just this spring because of landslides.

Like a lot of trails in Alaska, Perseverance was created from an old mining road. Those routes were built to get to resources as fast as possible — not for longevity or climate resilience. 

“They go up narrow canyons. They’re going along creeks,” said King, referring to routes which make trails vulnerable to threats like landslides and erosion. “Some of these trails just aren’t in the right spot.”

Now King is the director of Recreations, Lands and Minerals for the Tongass and Chucagh National Forests. In the Tongass, the Forest Service manages nearly 1,000 miles of trails for nearly 3 million annual visitors.

Even without climate change, upkeep on some of these trails has been disrupted as federal funding fluctuated over the years. But right now the agency is relatively flush. And as they work on a new iteration of the Tongass forest plan, climate change and tourism are some of the most pressing priorities. 

“So rerouting, rethinking how we get people through these places and how we build infrastructure that’s more resilient, that reduces that long term maintenance? That’s a big goal of ours,” King said. 

Building trails with climate resilience in mind might mean putting in larger bridges that can handle larger floods. It might also mean laying down gravel paths to weigh down the soil and stop water from pooling or rerouting trails so they’re less vulnerable to erosion.

Those improvements tend to make trails more accessible for hikers of all abilities too. 

Just down the Black Bear Trail, crews are building up a new fortified abutment for a lopsided wooden bridge. The bridge itself is in good condition, but it falls short of one bank and slumps into the mud. Erosion caused it to collapse. 

“You see trail damage like this, and it’s just like a line of dollar signs floating down the water,” Tabacek said. 

On a sunny spring day, the creek below the bridge is running low and the forest undergrowth is full of fresh fans of Skunk Cabbage and Fiddlehead Ferns. 

“We get a couple weeks of rain and then it gets sunny for two days and everything goes ‘poof,’ she said.