Connect with us

Alaska

What’s happening to Alaska’s glaciers and how it could impact your trip

Published

on

What’s happening to Alaska’s glaciers and how it could impact your trip


play

Climate change is drastically impacting the world around us, including the way people travel and the destinations themselves. “Green Travel” is a seven-part series delving into how climate change is transforming the landscape of travel. If you’d like to contribute to our future reporting and share your experience as a source, you can click here to fill out this quick form.

When travelers visit Alaska, they often want to see glaciers. 

Advertisement

And it’s the perfect place for those.  

The Last Frontier is home to the most glaciers in the U.S. There are roughly 27,000 glaciers across the state, covering an area of about 80,000 square kilometers, according to Louis Sass, an Anchorage-based glaciologist with the Alaska Science Center U.S. Geological Survey.  

“That’s about the same amount of area as the state of South Carolina or Lake Superior,” he said. 

That’s huge, yet not as big as it used to be. 

Advertisement

“Globally, most glaciers are melting and thinning and retreating much faster now than they were, say, prior to about the year 2000,” Sass said.  

Here’s what that means for travelers hoping to see glaciers in Alaska and elsewhere. 

What causes melting of glaciers? 

It’s natural for glaciers to melt. 

“You can really just think of a glacier as a huge conveyor belt that takes snow and ice from up high, where it can’t melt, down to low elevations where it’s a lot warmer and it does melt.” 

Advertisement

It’s the rate of melting and thinning that’s shifted dramatically. 

Research published in July in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature Communications, found the rates of glacier area shrinkage in Alaska’s Juneau icefield were five times faster from 2015 to 2019 than from 1948 to 1979. 

A National Park Service report on Alaska’s glaciers noted glaciers within Alaska national parks shrank 8% between the 1950s and early 2000s and glacier-covered area across the state decreased by 13% between 1985 and 2020.

Advertisement

“These systems are under threat,” said Brice Esplin, Director of Sustainable Tourism and Partnerships at Leave No Trace. “Climate change is affecting them.” 

While Sass did not identify climate change by name, noting he’s not a climate scientist, he said glaciers are very sensitive to inputs like temperature and precipitation. 

“Temperature has kind of a double whammy, because air temperature can change the phase of the precipitation, so more of the precipitation that falls out of the sky can actually be rain instead of snow. And rain tends to run off the glacier and not add to the glacier mass,” he said.  

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Northwest Climate Hub notes Alaska is “warming at two to three times the rate of the global average.”

National parks ask us to Leave No Trace: Here’s what that actually means

Advertisement

What is happening to the glaciers in Alaska? 

“Some glaciers are advancing, but the vast majority of them are shrinking, and at Kenai Fjords (National Park), you can just see that right up close and personal,” Peter Christian, chief spokesperson for Public Affairs for the National Park Service’s Alaska region, said last year during USA TODAY’s more than yearlong national park series. 

An area of the park where that’s especially pronounced is Exit Glacier. 

“It literally is changing yearly. If you went back from one year to the next, you could see how far the glacier has continued to retreat up into the mountains,” he said, noting that the Park Service has signs set up along the trail to the glacier, marking the changes.

Matanuska Glacier, about 100 miles from Anchorage, is another example. 

Advertisement

“It’s only retreated a little bit. It’s actually very close to where it was even 120 years ago, but it has thinned a lot, and it’s actually really easy to see that thinning,” Sass said. “The ice is just sort of deflated as it loses mass and it melts.”

Matanuska Glacier is the state’s largest glacier accessible by road, according to Alaska’s official travel arm, Travel Alaska, but Sass said it used to be even easier to reach. 

“There’s all these sort of little melt puddles right along the edge of the glacier that are getting bigger and bigger and harder to cross, and there’s more and more mud to try to get out to the ice,” he said. “It used to be, on Matanuska Glacier, you basically walked from the parking lot onto clean, white ice.” 

He added that many tidewater glaciers have also been impacted. 

“So even big cruise ships that are trying to take passengers up to see calving glaciers, they have to go further up the inlet to actually be able to see a calving glacier,” he said. “Places that used to have a really good view of a glacier sometimes don’t have a good view anymore, and so it gets generally more and more challenging to get to those places where you can kind of experience the same level of glacier.” 

Advertisement

Where can you see a glacier? 

From Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, home of the most glaciers of any national park, to Mendenhall Glacier, which is protected by the U.S. Forest Service, there are so many places to see glaciers in Alaska. 

They can also be found in Glacier National Park in Montana, Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, Mount Rainier National Park in Washington, and elsewhere around the West and the world. 

“It’s important for people to see these amazing natural systems, because they create that appreciation, that love and that connection of nature and for the in the future,” Esplin said. 

Advertisement

He encourages travelers to experience glaciers close to home, when possible. 

“We have one glacier in my state in Great Basin National Park, and it’s shrinking rapidly. It probably won’t last the next 20 years,” he said. “Right now, that’s a short drive for me to go see a glacier, appreciate it before it’s gone.” 

But he also understands the desire to behold glaciers far away, having recently visited Alaska himself and seen a handful of glaciers over several weeks. 

“We want to think about really making sure that we’re choosing sustainable methods to visit these these areas,” he said. “If we did have to use airline fuel and burn that carbon to get up there, at least we’re staying for longer.”  

What to know before visiting a glacier 

Advertisement

“There have to be hundreds, if not thousands of opportunities up here in Alaska to see glaciers,” Sass said, encouraging people to “go see a glacier in a way that makes sense for them.” 

That may be appreciating them from afar by land, air or sea or getting up close with a guided tour.  

“We don’t expect people to hover above the ground and never interact with the natural world around us,” Esplin said. “It’s all a balancing act, a balancing act of humans being a part of nature, but also not destroying it entirely.”  

For travelers who want to get up close, Esplin shared these Leave No Trace-based tips: 

  • Plan ahead and prepare: “Usually that includes booking a guide service. It’s never recommended for anyone without sufficient training or expertise to go out on glaciers, as they’re constantly moving. They have crevasses, snow bridges and moulins. They’re usually (in) pretty remote environments as well, so that that safety aspect is one of the most important parts of interacting with glaciers.” 
  • Be mindful of where you tread. “We can affect the vegetation on the sides and really promote erosion in areas if we’re not utilizing trails or durable surfaces to get on and off that glacier. 
  • Pack out all waste, including food waste and human waste “so that it’s not being left behind to pollute that water source, that special place.” 
  • Remember wildlife. “They use (glaciers) to travel in between places… Even though you feel like you might be on an isolated world, wildlife can still be out there.” 

Contributing: Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 



Source link

Advertisement

Alaska

Climate Change Is Helping an Invasive Predator Wreak Havoc on Iconic Alaskan Fish

Published

on

Climate Change Is Helping an Invasive Predator Wreak Havoc on Iconic Alaskan Fish


WILLOW, Alaska—Corey Ercolani pulled a northern pike from a gillnet and slit its belly with a knife. Inside its guts lay fresh evidence of a growing biological crime: a dead juvenile salmon. A coho, or silver salmon, to be exact. A technician with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Ercolani had set the net […]



Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s whale-strike risk is growing while regulators keep studying the obvious

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s whale-strike risk is growing while regulators keep studying the obvious


Dr. Pam Tuomi examines the eye of a deceased fin whale during a necropsy performed in Seward, Alaska, on June 20, 2026. (NOAA Fisheries Permit #24359, Kaiti Grant / Alaska SeaLife Center)

The recent strike and killing of a pregnant fin whale by a cruise ship in the Gulf of Alaska tragically highlights decades of inaction by the federal government and shipping industry to enact reasonable measures to reduce this risk. Such whale protection measures include vessel speed reductions, or VSRs, to 10 knots or less and bow watches posted in designated whale habitat. A voluntary vessel speed reduction off California has reportedly reduced ship-whale strikes by half, while also reducing underwater noise, fuel use and harmful stack emissions.

While technological options to detect and avoid whales, such as thermal imaging infrared cameras, forward-looking sonar, sonic pingers and passive acoustic monitoring, are useful, the best way to reduce the risk of ship-whale strikes is slower speed and a posted bow watch.

Similar to speed limits for cars in school zones when children are present, ship speed reductions give both a ship crew and whales more time to detect each other and avoid a collision. They also reduce the risk of more serious or fatal injuries if a collision occurs.

We know that the number of whales actually observed killed by ships is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of total mortalities. To be detected, usually a struck whale must remain pinned across the bow of a ship and carried into port. Studies have estimated that whale mortalities unobserved offshore compared with those observed are anywhere from 7-to-1 to 25-to-1. Given the thousands of whales and ships overlapping in Alaska waters each year, it is more than likely that hundreds of whales have been struck and killed here.

Advertisement

It is important for the public to know the record of failure by government and industry to reduce this risk.

Beginning in 2009, I proposed to the incoming Obama administration that it enact greater protections for Unimak Pass in the eastern Aleutians and Bering Strait, including ship-whale strike reduction measures. I reiterated this specific ship-whale strike reduction request in 2013, 2018, 2021 and 2022. Each time, the federal administration declined to act.

Additionally, in 2022, I proposed directly to the Prince William Sound tanker owners that they enact voluntary speed reductions to reduce the risk of whale strikes. These huge oil tankers steam year-round directly across the paths of hundreds of whales. In June 2009, the Exxon tanker Kodiak entered Valdez with a dead humpback whale stuck on its bow.

I then proposed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the PWS Regional Citizens Advisory Council that they press the tanker owners to adopt voluntary whale protection measures.

NOAA convened an informative technical workshop on the issue but declined to take any action, presenting a flawed assessment of the risk. In response to a formal scientific integrity complaint I filed with the agency, the NOAA National Appeals Office directed its Alaska staff to provide a supplemental assessment of the ship-whale strike risk in PWS that corrected some, but not all, of its previous flawed assessment. The agency continued to decline to take any action.

Advertisement

In July 2024, the PWSRCAC sent a letter to tanker owners asking them to consider adopting a speed reduction in PWS, which the tanker owners declined the following month, saying they would only “follow the guidance, direction, and regulations provided by NOAA/NMFS on this matter.”

In March 2023, two organizations I am associated with, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and The Ocean Foundation, submitted a proposed rulemaking to NOAA asking the agency to adopt a nationwide protocol to reduce whale strikes by ships

The petition proposes that the agency designate critical whale safety zones in all U.S. waters in which ships would be required to slow to 10 knots during the day, 8 knots in low visibility, such as nighttime, fog or heavy weather, and post bow watches to detect whales ahead. Neither the Biden nor the Trump administration responded to the petition, the latter saying earlier this year only that “NMFS is still considering the 2023 petition.”

After two suspected ship strikes on whales in Icy Strait in August 2024, I urged the Cruise Lines International Association with its 59 member companies, to adopt voluntary speed reductions and other whale-strike reduction measures in critical Alaska whale habitats. The cruise ship association ignored the request.

Again in February of this year, I urged the Cruise Lines International Association and NOAA to enter into a memorandum of agreement specifically to reduce the risk of whale strikes this summer in Alaska. In a Feb. 20 email, the cruise association responded: “In addition to specialized training for crew, cruise lines have agreed to the voluntary slowdown of vessels in sensitive areas or when marine life is observed/present. Cruise lines also use methods and technologies such as bow-positioned observers and online monitoring and reporting apps to carefully navigate in ways that are respectful and protective of marine mammals.”

Advertisement

When I pressed them for details on these vague, questionable assertions and reiterated our proposed memorandum of agreement between the Cruise Lines International Association and NOAA, the cruise association went silent. Later that month, NOAA’s Alaska regional director responded to the proposal: “Here in Alaska, we continue to engage with the cruise industry to reduce the risk of vessel strikes (e.g., encouraging the use of Whale Alert). Due to reduced capacity we’re quite limited in our ability to do more proactive work with the cruise industry at this time.”

After the fin whale was struck and killed by the Ovation of the Seas in the Gulf of Alaska last month, I again pressed NOAA and the Cruise Lines International Association to enter into a memorandum of agreement to reduce such risk, suggesting that important whale safety zones in Alaska waters that need strategic vessel speed reductions include at least Icy Strait, Prince William Sound, Resurrection Bay/Kenai Fjords, Unimak Pass and Bering Strait.

The cruise association has yet to respond, and NOAA’s regional director said simply that they are reviewing the situation and potential next steps.

Tragically, there is still no commitment by the shipping industry or government to address this issue in Alaska. While these same ship owners participate in voluntary whale-strike reduction measures elsewhere, they refuse to do so here in Alaska.

As these ship owners remain unwilling to remedy this voluntarily in Alaska, it is time that NOAA adopt our 2023 proposed rulemaking requiring them to reduce this risk to whales here in Alaska and across the nation.

Advertisement

Alaska whales, who share their ocean home with us terrestrial primates on ships, deserve nothing less.

Rick Steiner is a marine conservation biologist in Anchorage, former marine professor at the University of Alaska and board chair of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska, Trump Administration Settle Biden-Era Oil, Gas Plan Case

Published

on

Alaska, Trump Administration Settle Biden-Era Oil, Gas Plan Case


Alaska agreed to settle with the Interior Department on Monday over a Biden-era plan aimed at restricting drilling and leasing, a deal that could expand the state’s oil and gas development.

The state and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority in consolidated cases agreed to drop the suit if Interior offered a written admission that its approval of the Biden-era plan was flawed and violated the 2017 Tax Act.

The 2024 plan included restrictions such as protecting more than 1 million acres of coastal plains. According to the proposed agreement, that move eliminated interest in a Jan. 6, 2025 …



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending