Arctic sea ice—its presence or absence and year-to-year changes in extent, duration, and thickness—in conjunction with increasing ocean temperatures and ocean acidification, affects a number of marine ecosystems and their inhabitants, including marine mammals, the distribution of marine Alaska fish and their food sources.³⁷

Arctic Sea Ice Continues to Change

Since the early 1980s, annual average arctic sea ice extent has decreased between 3.5% and 4.1% per decade, and September sea ice extent, which is the annual minimum extent, has decreased between 10.7% and 15.9% per decade. As the climate continues to warm, it is likely that there will be a sea ice-free Arctic during the summer within this century.^37,46

Sea ice provides an important surface for algal production and growth in marine ecosystems during spring. This production beneath the sea ice is an important source of carbon for pelagic (mid- to upper-water column) grazers, such as copepods and krill, and for benthic (lower-water) detritivores, such as clams and worms that feed on dead, organic material.^47,48 In turn, the abundance of these animals provides food for higher trophic-level organisms such as fish, birds, and mammals in regional marine ecosystems. The presence or absence of sea ice affects the transfer of heat, water temperature, and nutrient transport, as well as other processes (such as the breakdown or transformation of organic matter into its simplest inorganic forms) that affect ecosystem productivity.⁴⁹ In the Arctic, higher-level organisms such as Arctic cod,¹⁷ polar bears, and walruses^50,51,52,53 are dependent upon sea ice for foraging, reproduction, and resting and are directly affected by sea ice loss and thinning (Box 26.1).

Ocean Acidification

The oceans are becoming more acidic (known as ocean acidification) in an emerging global problem that will intensify with continued carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions (Ch. 9: Oceans, KM 1 and 2). Ocean acidification negatively affects organisms such as corals, crustaceans, crabs, mollusks, and other calcium carbonate-dependent organisms such as pteropods (free-swimming pelagic sea snails and sea slugs), the latter being an important part of the food web in Alaska waters. Some studies in the nutrient-rich regions have found that food supply may play a role in determining the resistance of some organisms to ocean acidification.⁵⁴

Changes in ocean chemistry and increased corrosiveness are exacerbated by sea ice melt, respiration of organic matter, upwelling, and glacial runoff and riverine inputs, thus making the high-latitude North Pacific and the western Arctic Ocean (and especially the continental shelves of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas; see Figure 26.3) particularly vulnerable to the effects of ocean acidification. Also, more ice-free water will indirectly allow for greater uptake of atmospheric CO₂.^18,55,56 More recent research suggests that corrosive conditions have been expanding deeper into the Arctic Basin over the last several decades.⁵⁷ The annual average aragonite saturation state (a metric used to assess ocean acidification) for the Beaufort Sea surface waters likely crossed the saturation horizon near 2001),¹⁸ meaning that the Beaufort Sea is undersaturated (lacking sufficient concentrations of aragonite) most of the year—a condition that limits the ability of many marine species to form shells or skeletons (Figure 26.3). Under the higher scenario (RCP8.5), the Chukchi Sea is projected to first cross this threshold around 2030 and then remain under the threshold after the early 2040s, and the Bering Sea will likely cross and remain under the threshold around 2065 (Figure 26.3).¹⁸

Through lab experiments, ocean acidification has been shown to affect the growth, survival, sensory abilities, and behavior of some species, especially species of importance to Alaska, such as Tanner and red king crab and pink salmon.^{58,59,60,61,62} Studies indicate flatfish, such as the northern rock sole, are sensitive to lowered pH (lower pH equates to higher acidity), while walleye pollock have not shown adverse effects on growth or survival.^63,64 Pteropods play a critically important role in the Alaska water food web and have been shown to be particularly susceptible to ocean acidification. The effect of ocean acidification on pteropods manifests itself as severe shell dissolution, impaired growth, and also reduced survival.^65,66 More importantly, these effects are observed in the natural environment, making pteropods one of the most susceptible indicators for ocean acidification.^65,67,68 The effects observed in pteropods can be interpreted as the early-warning signal of the impacts of ocean acidification on the ecosystem integrity, linking pteropod effects to higher trophic levels, in particular fish (such as pink salmon, sole, and herring) that are feeding on pteropods. However, the impacts on these food webs are highly uncertain^69,70,71 but can be more detrimental in the high-latitudinal ecosystems with fewer species and shorter food chains.^67,68

Alaska Fishes

More than 600 fish species have been found in Alaska waters,⁷² and Alaska’s industrial fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea are among the most productive and valuable in the world, with an estimated average of $5.9 billion of total economic activity in 2013–2014 (in 2013–2014 dollars).^73,74 Climate effects on Alaska’s marine ecosystems are of considerable economic interest because of their impacts on the commercial harvests from the Northeast Pacific and subsistence fisheries for salmon, char, whitefishes, and ciscos in the Arctic and on these species or others elsewhere in the state.

The distribution of many ocean fish species is shifting northward as the ranges of warmer-water species expand and colder-water species contract in response to rising ocean temperatures (Ch. 9: Oceans, KM 2), with the confirmed presence of 20 new species and 59 range changes in the last 15 years in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.¹⁷ In the Bering Sea, Alaska pollock, snow crab, and Pacific halibut have generally shifted away from the coast and farther from shore since the early 1980s.⁷⁵ These changes reflect possible northward shifts in species distributions, particularly in the Bering Strait region.⁷⁶

Marine ecosystem food webs are also being affected by climate change. Changes in sea ice cover and transport of warmer seawater and drifting organisms (such as plankton, bacteria, and marine algae) may be impacting how surface ocean waters interact with the bottom ocean waters, especially over the shallow northern Bering and Chukchi Sea shelves. As relatively larger organisms (such as zooplankton, which are very tiny marine animals in the water column) become more abundant, they are able to efficiently graze on the smaller plant organisms (such as phytoplankton—microscopic marine plants) and reduce the amount of food supplied to the bottom sediments. This in turn can impact benthic animals that are important prey to marine mammals, such as walrus, gray whales, and bearded seals.^77,78,79 A switch from benthic (lower) to pelagic (upper) marine ecosystem activities that link organisms and their environment, in combination with warmer temperatures, may result in this northern shelf region changing from a benthic-dominated to a pelagic-dominated marine ecosystem (Figure 26.4) and becoming a hotspot of invasion, expansion, and increased abundance of fish species such as pollock and Pacific salmon.⁷⁹ The changing conditions confer physiological and competitive benefits to species favoring warmer water conditions, such as saffron cod, and potential negative impacts to Arctic cod populations, a keystone species in Chukchi and Beaufort Seas food webs.¹⁷

Changes in climate-related events are likely to affect management actions and economic drivers, including fisheries, in complex ways.⁸⁰ An example is the recent heat wave in the Gulf of Alaska, which led to an inability of the fishery to harvest the Pacific cod quota in 2016 and 2017 and to an approximately 80% reduction in the allowable quota in 2018.⁸¹ These reductions are having significant impacts on Alaska fishing communities and led the governor of Alaska to ask the Federal Government to declare a fisheries disaster. Events such as these are requiring the use of multiple, alternative models to appropriately characterize uncertainty in future population trends and fishery harvests.⁸² The need to address uncertainty is especially true for the Eastern Bering Sea pollock fishery, which is one of the largest in the United States.⁸³ While most scientists agree that walleye pollock populations in the eastern Bering Sea are likely to decrease in a warming climate,^{84,85,86,87,88} these effects can be mitigated to some extent by adopting alternative fish harvest strategies,⁸⁹ and economic losses may be partially offset by increased pollock prices.⁹⁰

As temperatures increase across the Alaska landscape, physical and biological changes are also occurring throughout Alaska’s terrestrial ecosystems. Degradation of permafrost (soil at or below the freezing point of water [32°F] for two or more years) is expected to continue, with associated impacts to infrastructure,⁹¹ river and stream discharge,⁹² water quality,^93,94 and fish and wildlife habitat. Wildfires and temperature increases have caused changes in forest types from coniferous to deciduous in interior Alaska, and these changes are projected to continue with increased future warming and fire.^95,96 In tundra ecosystems, temperature increases have allowed an increase of shrub-dominated lands.^97,98 With the late-summer sea ice edge located farther north than it used to be, storms produce larger waves and cause more coastal erosion.¹⁹ In addition, ice that does form is very thin and easily broken up, giving waves more access to the coastline.⁹⁹ A significant increase in the number of coastal erosion events has been observed as the protective sea ice embankment is no longer present during the fall months.¹⁰⁰ In addition, glaciers continue to diminish, and associated runoff influences other terrestrial ecosystems.¹⁰¹

Permafrost

About half of Alaska is underlain by permafrost—an essential geographic quality that affects landscape patterns and processes,¹⁰² and construction in the Arctic depends on the ability of permafrost to remain frozen. Since the 1970s, Arctic and boreal regions in Alaska have experienced rapid rates of warming and thawing of permafrost,^{103,104,105,106} with spatial modeling¹⁰⁷ projecting that near-surface permafrost will likely disappear on 16% to 24% of the landscape by the end of the 21st century.¹⁰⁸ Confidence in these estimates is higher than for those in the Third National Climate Assessment¹⁰⁹ due to more field sample sites, higher resolution imagery for mapping, and advanced geographic modeling techniques.

Permafrost degradation impacts society in both tangible and intangible ways. Physical impacts of thawing permafrost include unsafe food storage and preservation (Box 26.2), decreased bearing capacities of building and pipeline foundations, damage to road surfaces, deterioration of reservoirs and impoundments that rely on permafrost for wastewater containment, reduced operation of ice and snow roads in winter, and damage to linear infrastructure (such as roads and power lines) from landslides.²⁰ As permafrost thaws, the ground sinks (known as subsidence), causing damage to buildings, roads, and other infrastructure;^110,111,112 these impacts to structures and facilities are likely to increase in the future.⁹¹ In addition to physical impacts, thawing permafrost has important societal impacts that cannot be quantified. The loss of cultural heritage for Alaska’s Indigenous people includes the loss of archaeological sites, structures, and objects, as well as traditional cultural properties, which affects their ability to connect to their ancestors and their past.¹¹³

Wildfire

The annual area burned by wildfires in Alaska varies greatly year-to-year, but the frequency of big fire years (larger than 2 million acres) has been increasing—with three out of the top four fire years (in terms of acres burned) in Alaska occurring since the year 2000.¹¹⁴ As a result, the vegetation of forested interior Alaska now has less acreage of older spruce forest and more of post-fire early successional vegetation, birch, and aspen than it did prior to 1990.⁹⁵ This change favors shrub-adapted wildlife species such as moose but also destroys the slow-growing lichens and associated high-quality winter range that caribou prefer, though the effects of fire-driven habitat changes to caribou population dynamics are uncertain.²³ Some rural communities, however, have adapted to these vegetation changes by designing small-scale programs that enhance moose browsing (feeding on leaves, twigs, or tree branches) or developing biofuel infrastructure integrated with fire prevention tactics.^115,116 In addition to range expansion due to changes in wildfire, shrubs have been increasing in density and height in tundra environments due to increasing temperatures,⁹⁸ with shrub expansion in tundra ecosystems being observed across the North American Arctic.^117,118 Shrub-adapted wildlife species such as moose and snowshoe hares, and in some cases beaver, have followed the expansion of shrubs and are now common in parts of Arctic Alaska and Canada, where they were previously rare or absent.^24,119,120 The area burned by wildfires may increase further under a warming climate.²⁵ Projections of burned area for 2006–2100 are estimated at 98 million acres under a lower scenario (RCP4.5) and 120 million acres under a higher scenario (RCP8.5).

Coastal and River Erosion

Flooding and erosion of coastal and river areas affect over 87% of the Alaska Native communities,^{121,122,123,124,125} with some coastal areas being threatened due to changes in sea ice and increased storm intensity as a result of climate change.^122,126 Offshore and landfast sea ice is forming later in the season, which allows coastal storm waves to build while leaving beaches unprotected from wave action.^{99,126,127,128,129} Rates of erosion vary throughout the state, with the highest rates measured on the Arctic coastline at more than 59 feet per year (Figure 26.5).¹⁹ For context, one study noted that rates of coastal erosion may have varied from location to location but could have been more than 100 feet per year at the Canning River between Camden Bay and Prudhoe Bay.¹³⁰ Other researchers have come up with different rates along the Alaska Arctic coast.¹⁹ Longer sea ice-free seasons, higher ground temperatures, and relative sea level rise are expected to worsen flooding and accelerate erosion in many regions, leading to the loss of terrestrial habitat and cultural resources, and requiring entire communities, such as Kivalina in northwestern Alaska (Ch. 1: Overview, Figure 1.18),¹³¹ to relocate to safer terrain.^19,122,123

Many Alaska communities that are not located on the coast are adjacent to large rivers, where riverine erosion is a serious problem,¹²³ with some communities (for example, Minto in 1969 and Eagle in 2009) having to relocate housing and other infrastructure due to erosion and associated flooding. Erosion rates vary, but conservative rates for the Ninglick River at Newtok range from 36 feet per year (west/downstream) to 83 feet per year (east/upstream), although actual observations by Newtok residents indicate a potential rate as high as 110 feet per year.¹³² This has required the residents of Newtok to move to the new site of Mertarvik, about 9 miles away.¹³³

In both coastal and river communities, various types of infrastructure and cultural resources are being threatened. A number of adaptation measures are being pursued or proposed^134,135 that include relocation, the construction of rock walls, the use of sandbags, and the placement of various forms of riprap, which may only slow or displace the erosion process and in some cases be maladaptive.^100,123

Glacier Change

Glaciers continue to melt in Alaska, with an estimated loss of 75 ± 11 gigatons (Gt) of ice volume per year from 1994 to 2013,^136,137 70% of which is coming from land-terminating glaciers; this rate is nearly double the 1962–2006 rate.¹³⁸ Several new modeling studies suggest that the measured rates of Alaska ice loss are likely to increase in coming decades,^{139,140,141,142} with the potential to alter streamflow along the Gulf of Alaska¹⁴³ and to change Gulf of Alaska nearshore food webs.¹⁴⁴

Melting glaciers are likely to produce uncertainties for hydrologic power generation,²² which is an important resource in Alaska.^145,146 In the short term, melting glaciers can increase hydropower capacity by increasing downstream flow; however, with continued melting there will likely be less meltwater for the future. This may be offset by an increase in precipitation in Alaska,⁴⁵ although an increase in precipitation does not necessarily lead to increases in catchment runoff (Ch. 24: Northwest, KM 3; Ch. 25: Southwest, KM 5).¹⁴⁷

The influence of climate change on human health in Alaska can be traced to three sources: direct exposures, indirect effects, and social or psychological disruption. Each of these will have different manifestations for Alaskans when compared to residents elsewhere in the United States.

Direct Exposures

In general, even with a warming climate, Alaska is not expected to experience the extremes of heat and humidity found at lower latitudes; however, rising temperatures do pose a risk. Air conditioning in homes is rare in Alaska, so relief is seldom available for at-risk persons to escape high temperatures or from smoke exposure due to wildfires, assuming proper filters are not installed.

Winter travel has long been a key feature of subsistence food gathering activities for rural Alaska communities. Higher winter temperatures and shorter durations of ice seasons may delay or disrupt usual patterns of ice formation on rivers, lakes, and the ocean. For hunters and other travelers, this increases the risk of falling through the ice, having unplanned trip extensions, or attempting dangerous routes, leading to exposure injury, deaths, or drowning (Box 26.3).^26,148 Community search and rescue workers experience similar risks in searching for missing travelers, extending the threat across communities. Adaptation strategies being promoted include improved communication about local ice and water conditions, increasing use of survival suits and personal floatation devices,¹⁴⁹ and the use of personal locator beacons and messaging devices that can alert responders to a traveler at risk or provide reassurance and avoid unneeded search and rescue operations in high-risk conditions.¹⁵⁰

Extreme weather events such as major storms, floods, and heavy rain events have all occurred in Alaska with resulting threats to human health.^153,154 For coastal areas, the damage from late-fall or winter storms is likely to be compounded by a lack of sea ice cover, high tides, and rising sea levels, which can increase structural damage to tank farms, homes, and buildings and can threaten loss of life from flooding. Such events can damage vital water and sanitation systems in several ways, including saltwater intrusion of drinking water sources, loss of power leading to freezing and damage to water and sewer systems, or disruptions to community septic drain fields and water distribution systems. These events would all reduce access to water/sewer services, leading to an increased risk of water-related infectious diseases.¹⁵⁵ Similar events threaten communities on rivers, where flooding due to increased glacial melt or heavy rains can cause extensive structural damage and loss of life. It is uncertain if climate warming will increase severe mid-winter ice jam events or reduce their hazards due to more gradual melting of ice with earlier spring thaws.¹⁵⁶ Improved real-time observations and river breakup forecasts are now available for use by decision-makers to help prepare in advance of potential flood events; such systems could help communities reduce the negative effects of seasonal flooding.¹⁵⁷

Climate-driven increases in air pollution in Alaska are primarily linked to the increases in wildfire frequency and intensity. Wildfires, however, threaten individual safety in adjacent communities and pose risks downwind from smoke inhalation, particularly for children and persons with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular conditions (Ch. 13: Air Quality, KM 2; Ch. 14: Human Health, KM 1).^10,158 Adaptations to protect persons at risk from wildfire exposure include using community air quality indices linked to recommendations for specific groups, educating people about outdoor activities and use of masks, and creating a “clean room” using high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) dust filters or air conditioning.¹⁵⁹ It is also likely that there will be an increased risk of respiratory allergies related to longer and more intense seasonal pollen blooms and mold counts (Ch. 13: Air Quality, KM 3).¹⁶⁰ Public reporting of pollen counts conducted in Anchorage and Fairbanks¹⁶¹ is used to advise allergy sufferers of increasing risks and is linked to recommendations to avoid exposure and reduce symptoms. Increased respiratory symptoms have also been reported in communities that are experiencing increased windblown dust. Adaptations include dust suppression, improving indoor air quality, and use of masks.

Indirect Effects

Climate change has indirect effects on human health in Alaska through changes to water, air, and soil and through ecosystem changes affecting the range and concentration of disease-spreading animals and food security, especially in rural communities (Ch. 14: Human Health, KM 1). These changes can result in positive and negative health effects; many are site specific, and documentation is highly dependent on availability of monitoring or reporting data.

In-home water and sanitation services are a fundamental contributor to health, and the absence of such services in 15% of rural Alaska homes is associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal, respiratory, and skin infections.^155,162,163 Climate-related environmental changes that can affect access to water and sanitation services have been well-documented.¹⁵⁴ These changes include loss of surface water through drainage of tundra ponds, lower source-water quality through increased riverbank erosion due to permafrost thaw or saltwater intrusion in coastal communities, and increased coastal erosion or storm surge leading to wastewater treatment system damage.¹⁶⁴ Permafrost thawing poses a threat to centralized water and wastewater distribution systems that need stable foundations to maintain system integrity. More flexible service connections have been used to reduce damage from movement caused by permafrost thawing.¹⁶⁵ People cope with water shortages by use of rainwater catchment or other untreated water sources, reuse of water used for clothes or personal hygiene, or rationing of water to prioritize drinking and cooking. Such practices, however, could lead to increased risk of waterborne infectious diseases or increased spread of person-to-person infections through decreased hygiene. Increased silt or organic material in source water can quickly clog filters, increasing costs of water treatment. This can result in reduced filtration effectiveness and increased exposure to waterborne pathogens, such as Giardia intestinalis.¹⁶⁵ The state of Alaska is funding development and testing of decentralized water and sanitation systems that use in-home treatment, water reuse, and other efficiencies that may be an alternative in homes without existing services or if centralized systems fail.¹⁶⁶

Changes in insect and arthropod ranges due to climate change have raised human health concerns, such as the documented increase in venomous insect stings in Alaska.^167,168 Tick-borne human illnesses are uncommon in Alaska, but new reports of ticks on domestic dogs without travel exposure outside Alaska raise concerns about tick range extension into Alaska and the potential for introduction of new pathogens.¹⁶⁹ Several human infectious diseases could potentially expand in a changing Alaska climate. For example, climate change may allow some parasites to survive longer periods, provide an increase in the annual reproduction cycles of some disease-carrying insects and pests (vectors), or allow infected host animal species to survive winters in larger numbers, all increasing the opportunity for transmission of infection to humans.¹⁷⁰ However, some of these diseases are rare, and detecting increases is hampered by Alaska’s small population, limited access to diagnostic testing, and the absence of surveillance for some human illness (for example, toxoplasmosis, an infection caused by a parasite). Foodborne pathogens, including parasites, have been identified as likely to increase due to increased temperature changes and increasing exposure.^171,172 In Alaska, disruption of ice cellars from thawing permafrost and coastal erosion has raised concerns about food spoilage or infectious outbreaks, but documented human illness events are lacking. Likewise, the documented northward range expansion of beavers has been postulated to increase the threat of waterborne Giardia infections in humans; however, human Giardia illness reports have been stable in Alaska and show no increasing regional trends.¹⁷³ Emerging infectious threats led to the formation of an Alaska One Health Group, which meets quarterly to combine perspectives from human, animal, and environmental health and uses new data generated from the Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network.^6,174 A new rural monitoring program has been developed for tribal community settings to include collection of data on infectious threats from food, animals, and water.¹⁷⁵

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) produce toxins that can harm wildlife and pose a health risk to humans through consumption of contaminated shellfish. Because phytoplankton growth is increased in part by higher water temperatures, risks for HAB-related illnesses, including paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), may increase with climate change. PSP is a long-recognized, untreatable, and potentially fatal illness caused by a potent neurotoxin in shellfish. PSP illnesses are considered a public health emergency. Two approaches are being used to reduce PSP in Alaska. First, because recreational shellfish harvesting is very popular in Alaska (see Ch. 24: Northwest, KM 2 and 4 and Figure 24.7), some communities have begun to monitor for PSP toxins among shellfish at locations used for noncommercial harvests using a “catch, hold, and test” approach, which, if coupled with reliable testing methods, could provide a strategy to reduce risk and maintain these important local harvests.¹⁷⁶ The second adaptation approach uses local water temperature data to predict the risk of HAB growth in Kachemak Bay. The effectiveness of these methods for reducing human health risk has not been established.⁷

An example of climate-associated disease emergence and response is the 2004 outbreak of acute gastroenteritis that was associated with consumption of raw farmed oysters contaminated by the bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus. This is a well-recognized threat in warmer coastal waters of North America but was previously unreported in Alaska. However, in 2004, surface water temperatures above shellfish beds had warmed enough to support V. parahaemolyticus growth. This warming was part of a documented long-term warming trend, and the outbreak is indicative of a northward range extension of this pathogen by about 600 miles.¹⁷⁷ In response to the outbreak, the State of Alaska developed a control plan that includes water temperature monitoring around commercial oyster beds and uses threshold-based responses to reduce health risks from this pathogen.¹⁷⁶ Fortunately, V. parahaemolyticus contamination has not become a major health threat. Alaska has averaged only three reported cases per year since the first outbreak, and many of these are traceable to non-Alaska shellfish; however, the projected rise in sea surface temperatures in Alaska will favor increased Vibrio growth and seasonal range expansion with an increased risk of human exposure and illness.^178,179

Psychological and Social Effects

Climate change is a common concern among Alaskans and is associated with feelings of depression and uncertainty about the potential changes to communities, subsistence foods, culture, and traditional knowledge and the potential of relocation from long-established traditional sites.¹²² These uncertainties and threats have effects on mental health and on family and community relationships and may lead to unhealthy responses such as substance abuse and self-harm.¹⁸⁰ This is especially true of Indigenous peoples, who have a deep connection to their home areas, often described as sense of place.^{181,182,183,184} Over generations, Indigenous communities have developed extensive knowledge about their areas and the plants and animals with which they share an ecosystem.¹⁸⁵ As the effects of climate change are felt in the landscape, many Alaska Natives feel a sense of personal loss as the familiar has become unpredictable and sometimes strange.¹²⁵ This uncertainty has also reduced traditional camping activities that strengthen community ties. Damage or loss to cultural sites and properties is also a great concern, reducing the sense of cultural continuity in one’s place along with information about living and adapting there. In the context of many other social, technological, economic, and cultural changes affecting Indigenous communities, the continuation of traditional activities in traditional places can be a bedrock of stability. When this, too, is threatened, a wider sense of environmental security is at risk.¹²⁵ Community relocation or the movement of persons away from climate-threatened areas can have intergenerational effects through loss of cultural connections and adverse childhood experiences leading to poorer health outcomes. The Alaskans most vulnerable to these climate-related changes are those who are most dependent on subsistence foods, the poor, the very young, the elderly, and those with existing health conditions that require ongoing care, that limit mobility, or that reduce capacity to accommodate changes in diet, family support, or stress.¹¹

Alaska’s climate is changing rapidly, with far-reaching effects throughout the state, including in its Indigenous communities. Alaska’s rural communities are predominantly inhabited by Indigenous peoples, with some of them disproportionately vulnerable to socioeconomic and environmental change; however, they also have rich cultural traditions of resilience and adaptation.^{109,125,134,186,187,188} The impacts of climate change are likely to affect all aspects of Alaska Native societies, from nutrition, infrastructure (see Key Message 2), economics, and health consequences to language, education, and the communities themselves. Most of these impacts are also experienced in other rural, predominantly nonnative communities in Alaska and are therefore covered in other sections of this chapter.

Subsistence Activities

Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering provide hundreds of pounds of food per person per year in many Alaska Native villages.^189,190 Producing, preparing, sharing, and consuming these foods provide a wealth of nutritional, spiritual, cultural, social, and economic benefits. Traditional foods are widely shared within and between communities and are a way of strengthening social ties.^191,192,193 Climate change is altering the physical setting in which these subsistence activities are conducted.^15,182 Examples include

• reducing the presence of shore-fast ice used as a platform to hunt seals¹⁹⁴ or butcher whales,¹⁹⁵

• reducing the availability of suitable ice conditions for hunting seals and walrus (Figure 26.6),²⁸ and

• exacerbating the risks of winter travel due to increasing areas of thin ice and large fractures within the sea ice (commonly referred to as “leads”) as well as water on rivers.^26,27,196

However, climate change is also providing more opportunity to hunt from boats late in the fall season or earlier in spring.¹²⁵ Increasing temperatures affect animal distribution and can alter the availability of subsistence resources, often making hunting and fishing harder but sometimes providing new opportunities, such as fall whaling on St. Lawrence Island.¹⁹⁷ Shellfish populations, an important subsistence and commercial resource along the Alaska coast, have been declining for more than 20 years throughout coastal Alaska, with ocean warming and ocean acidification (Ch. 9: Oceans) contributing to the decline (see Key Message 1). Warm temperatures and increased humidity are also affecting ice cellars used traditionally to store food (as noted earlier in this chapter), thereby making it harder to air-dry meat and fish on outdoor racks, causing food contamination.^131,198 Some communities have found new storage methods or have changed to an increasingly Western diet. Subsistence foods decrease the costs of feeding a family compared to purchased foods, which in rural Alaska are almost twice the cost of those in Anchorage.^199,200 One net result of all these changes is an overall decrease in food security for residents of rural Alaska Native communities (Ch. 10: Ag & Rural, KM 4).²⁹

Thawing permafrost in the boreal forest has accelerated land and riverbank erosion (see Key Message 2). Subsistence harvesters have expressed concern that less precipitation is resulting in rivers becoming shallower and lakes drying.¹⁵ The increasingly dynamic nature of interior river characteristics has contributed to more challenging boat navigability and less dependable locations for fish wheel and net sets. These climate-induced environmental changes also occur in the context of other regulatory, social, administrative, legal, and economic constraints, which affect the ways that climate change impacts manifest themselves in specific locations.²⁰¹ As the environment changes, overall well-being can also suffer from the sense of dislocation and from losing the spiritual and cultural benefits of providing and sharing traditional foods, as these activities do much to tie communities together.^202,203,204

Adaptation Actions

In the midst of negative impacts from climate change, Alaska Native communities display remarkable capacity for response and adaptation (Ch. 15: Tribes, KM 3).^29,125,205 Sometimes, adaptation means expanding networks for sharing of foods and ideas, as has been seen in the Kuskokwim River area;²⁰⁶ applying Indigenous evidence and approaches to habitat protection;²⁷ or giving communities more say in identifying priorities for action and directing available funds for community needs and action-oriented science.¹²⁵ A clear example is the community of Shaktoolik’s initiative to build a community-driven, mile-long and seven-foot-high berm made out of driftwood and gravel to protect itself from flooding and erosion during storm episodes.²⁰⁷ As storms increase in frequency and intensity,¹²⁶ some builders in Gambell, Alaska, are considering efficient house designs that avoid exposure to prevailing winds and piling up of snow at the doors.^208,209 While some of these initiatives are part of statewide efforts to address common threats from climate change,²¹⁰ at other times communities have been able to take advantage of new opportunities, such as expanding networks for sharing of foods and ideas,²⁰⁶ fishing for new species,²¹¹ or applying Indigenous knowledge and frameworks to habitat protection and ecosystem management.²⁷ Further effort is warranted both on cataloging community response to climate-related changes in the environment and on enhancing the transfer of knowledge among rural communities on innovative and effective adaptations.²¹²

Climate change in Alaska has caused regionally disparate economic effects. The infrastructure and community relocation costs, along with potential adverse effects on fisheries, accrue predominantly to rural communities. While both urban and rural communities benefit from reduced space heating costs, the urban communities bear few of the costs and risks. The profound and diverse climate-driven changes in Alaska’s physical environment and ecosystems generate economic impacts through their effects on environmental services. These services include positive benefits directly from ecosystems (for example, food, water, and other resources), as well as services provided directly from the physical environment (for example, temperature moderation, stable ground for supporting infrastructure, and smooth surface for overland transportation).²¹³ Some of these effects are relatively assured and in some cases are already occurring. Other impacts are highly uncertain, due to their dependence on the structure of global and regional economies and future human alterations to the environment¹¹² decades into the future, but they could be large.

Infrastructure

Threats to infrastructure in Alaska from coastal and riparian erosion caused by the combination of rising sea levels, thawing permafrost, reduced sea ice, and fall storms are well known.^214,215 A study published in 2008 projected that the cost (for 2008–2030) associated with early reconstruction and replacement of public infrastructure (roads, public buildings, airports, and rail lines) caused by damage from these threats was estimated to be between $3.6 and $6.1 billion (in 2008 dollars).²⁰ Assuming the 2.85% annual real interest rate used in these studies, the cost translates to an average of $250 to $420 million per year (in 2015 dollars). A more recent study estimated a somewhat smaller annual cost of $110–$270 million between 2015 and 2060 for maintenance and repair costs to mitigate or remediate damage to public infrastructure from climate warming (in 2015 dollars, discounted 3%) under the lower scenario (RCP4.5) and higher scenario (RCP8.5), respectively.^11,91 Projecting these costs to the end of the century, cumulative effects amounted to $3.7 billion under the lower scenario (RCP4.5) to $4.5 billion under the higher scenario (RCP8.5) for reactive repair and replacement, but $2.0 to $2.5 billion for proactive adaptation costs, depending on the climate change scenario¹¹ (in 2015 dollars, discounted 3%). The lower cost assumes that funding will be available for maintenance and repair before facilities require replacement, which is not guaranteed.^216,217 Both studies excluded losses to commercial and industrial buildings and private homes.

Coastal and riverine erosion and flooding in some cases will require that entire communities, or portions of communities, relocate to safer terrain. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified erosion threats to 31 communities requiring partial or complete relocation.¹²³ Relocation costs for seven vulnerable communities identified in a 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office study ranged from $80 to $200 million per community (dollar year not reported).^122,218 Beyond financial cost, additional challenges of relocation involve legal and policy obstacles, as well as deep cultural ties to landscape and place. Construction of rock walls, use of sandbags and riprap,²¹⁹ and replacement infrastructure for communities that are partially relocated¹²³ represent additional costs, as would loss of productivity and income from lack of access to utilities and drinking water and temporary displacement of residents when water and sewer lines rupture.^220,221,222

Ice Road Transportation

In rural Alaska, where surface transportation infrastructure is extremely limited, snow and ice offer a low-cost alternative for moving people, goods, and heavy industrial equipment. As the climate warms, the resulting shorter and milder cold season reduces the season length for ice road use, increases the risk of travel on river ice, and increases the wear and tear on snow machines. Loss of overland winter transportation raises costs for extractive industries (such as oil extraction and logging) and rural Alaska households. A 2004 report estimated the cost of ice roads on the North Slope of Alaska at $100,000 per mile, versus as much as $2 million per mile for a gravel road (in 2003 dollars; $127,000 per mile for ice roads and $2.5 million for gravel in 2015 dollars).²²³ Costs of foregone economic activity¹⁰³ and increased risk of winter travel are more difficult to quantify.²²⁴

Marine Vessel Traffic

Reduced seasonal ice has been associated with increased marine traffic in the U.S. maritime Arctic.²²⁵ A longer ice-free shipping season could reduce the cost of shipping ore from the Red Dog mine and other mines in the region,^154,226 as well as increase certainty of shipping production facilities and equipment to North Slope oil fields. Adverse navigability effects of reduced river discharge²²⁷ could offset beneficial effects of an extended ice-free shipping season on the cost of barge service to communities in western and northern Alaska.

Northward progression of the late-summer sea ice edge creates opportunities for increased vessel traffic of various types (including cargo and tanker ships, tour boats, and government vessels, including military)²²⁶ to pass through the Bering Strait to or from the Northern Sea Route, the Northwest Passage,²²⁸ and, by mid-century, directly across the Arctic Ocean.^229,230 As the Arctic Ocean opens, the Bering Strait will have increased strategic importance.²³¹ Lack of deep-water ports, vessel services, search and rescue operations, environmental response capabilities, and icebreaking capacity will impede expansion of vessel traffic.^{225,226,230,232,233} Significant effects are likely several decades away, and new transarctic shipping will likely have little economic effects within Alaska in the near term but would bring environmental risks to fisheries and subsistence resources.²³⁴ New oil and gas exploration and development in new areas within the U.S. economic zone are unlikely, as the Arctic Ocean waters that are not already accessible are generally off the U.S. continental shelf.

Wildfire Costs

Increasing incidence of wildfire near inhabited areas leads to a wide array of costs, including firefighting costs, health and safety impacts, property damage, insurance losses, and higher costs of fire insurance (Figure 26.7).²³⁵ In addition, tourism businesses may experience short-term losses as visitors avoid recently burned areas. A recent estimate projected an increase in wildfire suppression costs of $25 million more per year (in 2015 dollars, 3% discount rate) under the lower scenario (RCP4.5) above the 2002–2013 annual average by the end of the century.²¹ The cost could be higher if the footprint of human settlement expands and the geographic area designated for active fire suppression expands accordingly. Property damage from wildfires will likely increase as the number of large fire years increases. The Millers Reach Fire in 1996 destroyed 454 structures, including 200 homes in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with an estimated total cost of $80 million (in 1996 dollars; $120 million in 2015 dollars).²³⁶ A subsequent fire in 2015 in the same general area destroyed another 55 homes and heavily damaged 44 other structures.²³⁷

Heating Costs

Increasing winter temperatures have reduced the demand for energy and associated costs to provide space heating for Alaska homes, businesses, and governments. Heating degree days (a measure of the energy required to heat homes and other buildings) have declined substantially in most parts of the state as compared to mid-20th century levels, including 5% in Sitka, 6% in Fairbanks and Nome, and up to 8% in Anchorage and Utqiaġvik (formerly known as Barrow; Figure 26.8).²³⁸

Unlike in other regions of the United States, increased cooling degree days (a measure of the energy required to cool homes and other buildings) from warmer summer temperatures provide only a small offset to the beneficial effect of lower heating costs. Applying 2017 retail fuel prices to data on energy use for space heating for Alaska regions, annual expenditures for space heating in Alaska are estimated at about $1 billion (in 2015 dollars).^239,240 Future energy prices are highly uncertain, but the figures suggest that every 1% decline in heating degree days could yield $10 million of annual savings in heating costs.

Alaska and its adjacent Arctic areas are experiencing some of the largest climate changes in the United States (Ch. 2: Climate, KM 7).¹⁴ As such, residents, governments, and industry must prepare for and adapt to the changing climate and associated environmental changes if the most severe impacts are to be avoided.^187,188,241

Adaptation is often defined as an adjustment in human systems to a new or changing environment that exploits beneficial opportunities or moderates negative effects²⁴² and is an iterative, ongoing process that involves assessment and redirection as needed (Ch. 28: Adaptation).²⁴³ Efforts to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change in Alaska can reduce costs associated with the impacts of climate change,^20,91 generate social and economic opportunities,^244,245 and improve livelihood security.^{125,246,247,248} Vulnerability analyses of Alaska communities indicate adaptation as a key element to address high vulnerabilities to biophysical impacts of climate change ²⁴⁹ and ocean acidification.²⁵⁰

Key elements of successful adaptation in Alaska include coordinated consideration of both environmental and social conditions¹³⁴ and careful attention to local context; there is no “one-size-fits-all” strategy.^187,188,251 Enhanced communication, coordination, knowledge sharing, and collaboration are important components of adaptation in Alaska. This includes between communities, among scientists and communities, and across government bodies at the tribal, community, borough, state, and national levels.^{251,252,253,254,255,256,257} Building adaptation solutions in partnership with local knowledge is vital for ensuring that adaptations meet local needs and priorities.^{254,258,259,260,261}

A range of adaptations to changing climate and related environmental conditions are underway in Alaska, and others have been proposed as potential actions.¹³⁵ These adaptations involve human health and poverty alleviation,^136,188 livelihood security,¹²⁵ ecosystem management,²⁶² new construction designs for housing,²⁶³ and a host of other options.¹³⁵ Some of these measures reduce vulnerability and risk, while others involve more systemic institutional transformation.^255,260

At the federal level, there are several key motivations for Arctic Strategies created by various U.S. Government agencies, including 1) recognizing the need to adapt to a changing climate, 2) identifying critical research gaps, 3) creating a vision for regional resilience, and 4) acknowledging the need to safeguard national security under changing environmental conditions.^264,265,266

Climate change action plans and vulnerability assessments have been completed by several municipalities in Alaska.¹³⁵ Formal tribal adaptation planning and preliminary planning activities such as workshops, trainings, webinars, monitoring, and vulnerability assessments have been conducted throughout the state. As of this writing, three climate adaptation plans have been completed and three additional projects are underway to produce climate adaptation plans (Figure 26.9).⁸ The Bureau of Indian Affairs awarded eight Climate Resilience Program Awards for adaptation planning between 2013 and 2019.⁸ Research has identified 31 adaptation planning-related trainings (2012–2017) and 43 meetings, workshops, and summits (1998–2017).⁸ The state-funded Alaska Climate Change Impact Mitigation Program provides funding for hazard mitigation planning, including climate-related hazards such as flooding, coastal erosion, and permafrost thaw.^8,135

In contrast to planning and research, action in response to climate change involves active implementation of plans, changes in policy, protocol, or standard operating procedures, as well as direct reaction to hazards.¹³⁵ In the wildfire management and response sector in Alaska, adaptations include establishment of new suppression crew training, evolution of tools used to suppress fire, change in the statutory start date of fire season, and the implementation of community wildfire protection plans.¹³⁵

Several communities in Alaska face immediate threats from climate-related environmental changes, the most severe of which is erosion and coastal inundation related to permafrost thaw and lack of sea ice during fall and winter storms.^122,267 Short-term disaster risk management, such as shoreline revetment, is thus part of adaptation in Alaska.²⁴² Longer-term planning and village relocation efforts are also underway in two villages but face significant hurdles.^268,269

Creating decision support tools, establishing climate services and knowledge networks, and providing data sharing and social media have been proposed as additional methods for adapting to the effects of climate change in Alaska.^{219,270,271,272,273} Tools that can identify and evaluate policy options under a range of scenarios of future conditions are particularly beneficial in the Arctic, including Alaska.^274,275

Examples of decision support tools in the state include the Historical Sea Ice Atlas and the SNAP (Scenarios Network for Alaska + Arctic Planning) climate-outlook community charts²⁷⁶ of projected temperature and precipitation for each community in Alaska. Periodically evaluating decision support tools helps to ensure their usefulness to stakeholders in practical decision contexts.²⁷⁷

The use of technology can facilitate the creation and expansion of knowledge networks through events such as webinars^278,279 and social media, such as the newly established AdaptAlaska.org portal and the Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network that connects people through information, both locally and internationally.⁶ Data sharing can be accomplished with online tools such as portals and data hubs; however, the isolated nature of remote, rural communities in Alaska constrains internet connectivity. In addition, technological solutions alone are insufficient to fully meet the information needs of rural communities in the region.^253,271

A range of climate adaptation guidebooks exist that focus on climate adaptation planning in Alaska and neighboring Canada, which faces related adaptation challenges.¹³⁴ These guidebooks have been created by universities, governments, and nongovernmental organizations for a range of audiences, including rural Native Alaska communities, local governments, and state governments. Consistent across the majority of the guidebooks are key phases in the adaptation planning process that include building partnerships and networks of stakeholders; conducting vulnerability and risk assessments; establishing priorities, options, and an implementation plan and evaluation metrics; implementing the preferred option; and conducting ongoing monitoring and adjustment of activities (Ch. 28: Adaptation).¹³⁴