The Final Impact Statement Executive Summary is a document and study conducted within Glacier Bay National Park. It asses the total impact to the ecosystem by the disturbance of marine vessels. This document sets the requirements for all vessels entering the Park, and how many can enter every day.
The F.I.S lists 6 alternatives to the current quotas and requirements. I will only highlight two of them here. Alternatives 4 and 6 will be in discussion throughout this entry, and be referred to as 4 and 6.
So, you can understand the comparison between the two and the current regulations, this first bit will define each alternative and the current standard.
Alternative Four: Environmentally Preferred Alternative, is out of all the options the most suitable one for protection of marine life and ecosystems. The vessel quota would be reduced across all vessel classifications, it would end the use of seasonal entries, and reduce seasonal-use days for cruise ships and tour and charter vessels. In the months of June through August the quotas would be cut 33% for both cruise ships and seasonal entries. There would be a 17% reduction for charter vessels, and a 12 % reductions for private daily quotas. This would equal 92 entries for cruise ships, 2 entries daily for tours, 5 daily entries for charters, and 22 entries for private vessels. Dundas Bay, on the outside of the park, would be permanently closed to cruise and tour vessels; while drastically limiting charters. There would be a changing in permitting as well, it would read “Permits shall be issued to a designated individual for a specific vessel over a specific period of time” (F.I.S 22). Making the individual and not the vessel responsible for following regulations. The vessel operating speed would decrease. Any vessel over 262 feet would have to travel less than 13 knots. Vessels less than 262 feet would have a limit of 20 knots, unless traveling in whale designated waters. There would be specific designated cruise ship routes and limitations on destinations for cruise ships as well. There would be a mandatory .25-mile distance between motorized vessels and harbor seals hauled out on ice in Johns Hopkins year around.
Alternative Six: The NPS Preferred Alternative. This alternative is the one preferred by the National Park Service. The daily quotas for vessels would stay the same as the current limits. The daily quotas for cruise ships would be 2 per day, 3 per day for tours, and 6 per day for charters. There would be a daily quota of 25 for private vessels. This option would factor in extra day use permits increasing the possibility of day use quotas for cruise ships during heavy use. Dundas Bay would remain closed year around to cruises, while allowing one tour a day. The season for cruise ships would increase for by two months, May-September. The vessel speed regulations would change as well, it would change how vessel speed is measured and speed limit in temporary whale waters. The speed would be measured by “through the water” (F.I.S 30), vessels over or equal to 262 feet would be restricted to 13 knots, and 20 knots for those less than 262 feet. The restrictions on cruise vessel destinations would be lifted somewhat, it would add two more places.
Under the current guidelines only 2 cruise vessels can enter Glacier Bay daily, no permits for private vessels in Bartlett cove or tied to public docks, all vessels no matter the length can operate at 20 knots, and vessel routes or destinations are not limited.
An environmental impact statement is an important document. It basically lays out how humans are impacting the ecosystem they are participating in. There are wide range of impact statements and you can comb though the Department of Ecology’s webpage to see what actions need an E.I.S, but this document is specific to vessels. We know, from this project, that 90% of GLB’s visitors come via water, never setting foot on land. One large cruise ship alone will carry in 3,000 visitors at its max. So, understanding exactly what is being harmed and how we can mitigate those harmful effects should be a top priority. Although, as you can see, the park service chooses the one with larger amounts of visitors, as they chose the alternative with the most cruise ship entries.
There are many negative effects of vessel noise. Large cruise ships traveling at high speed emits a great sound in the water. “The ‘natural soundscape’ is what the Park Service calls natural sounds in the absence of human-caused sound. The Park Service considers the natural soundscape as a resource similar to air or water” (F.I.S 32). The Park Service is concerned for this loss of soundscape because it markets the parks as untouched wilderness, the place you go to hear only the noise of the forest. It isn’t quite as sublime if you can hear the roar of diesel engines blasting across those mountains you want to climb.
The concern I see, more than humans not being able to experience a particular feeling of sublimness, is the fact that marine life can become disturbed by large amounts of noise. “Placing speed limits on vessels is one of the main methods the Park Service uses to reduce the risk of vessels colliding with marine life” (F.I.S. 23). Marine Mammals, except the Orca, rely on sound to navigate and become aware of their surroundings. If a humpback whale is saturated with vessel noise they start to lose energy intake. Most wild animals have a tight energy budget to work with. If a humpback is trying to avoid large amounts of vessels it could use energy stores, or it could cause humpback to stop feeding resulting in no energy intake. “Animals subject to repeated disturbances might have lower energy reserves and consequentially lower reproduction and/or survival” (F.I.S. 38).
Some of the other effects of high vessel use include: lower air quality, risk of oil or gas spill, vessel collision with whales, moderate effects to marine birds and raptors, marine fishes’ disturbance, and some erosion of shoreline.
Marine birds like the Harlequin Duck, water fowl, or Marbled Murrelets can be very sensitive to vessel disturbance and will decrease in population at heavily visited areas. This could result in local population declines.
Another notable cause for concern is the additive effect on harbor seals from vessel traffic when combined with the other factors causing declining numbers in Glacier Bay and Southeast Alaska. “Glacier Bay supports one of the largest concentrations of harbor seals in Alaska, yet populations have declined dramatically over the last 10 years” (F.I.S. 39). It’s a wonder that the Park Service choose the alternative with the most cruise ship entries, over the environmentally preferred one, although it repeats that visitor experience is one of the Parks primary priorities. The true priorities show at the end of the document when it talks about the 100-yard buffer zone in viewing Stellar Sealion haul outs. As of now there is 100 yards but vessels regularly disturb the endangered species by encroaching to close. It was suggested that there be a larger buffer zone and the Glacier Bay response was “This increase would, however, detract from visitor’s ability to see the haul-out” (F.I.S. 52). I find this response unacceptable, and points to the greater issues at Glacier Bay. A park cannot advertise itself as an exploration and scientific inquiry and completely disregard what science tells them about the marine animals who live and inhabit the area. We are just visitors, they rely on Glacier Bay to survive.