Residential Heating in 

Remote Arctic Villages:

Research Needs

A Report from the Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group

January 20, 2016 – Anchorage, Alaska

WORKSHOP SERIES REPORT 1

United States Arctic Research Commission

Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group
Contents

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1

RESIDENTIAL HEATING NEEDS ..................................................................... 3

Residential Heating in Remote Communities: Data Gaps........................ 3

Heat-Related Needs by Stakeholder Group................................................... 4

RESEARCH NEEDS AND PRIORITIES........................................................... 5

General Priorities/Data Collection Needs....................................................... 5

General Priorities/Research Questions............................................................ 5

Policy Priorities/Research Questions................................................................ 5

Coordination Priorities/Research Questions................................................. 6

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................... 7

About This Report

The information in this report refects the views and opinions of workshop participants, not those of the US Arctic Research Commission, the Arctic Renewable 

Energy Working Group or any of the organizations afliated with this working 

group. It is provided as a public service with the understanding that the USARC 

makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information. USARC Web pages and this 

report do not endorse any commercial providers or their products.

Acronyms

ACEP – Alaska Center for Energy and Power

AEA – Alaska Energy Authority

AHFC - Alaska Housing Finance Corporation

ANTHC – Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

AREWG – Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group

AVEC – Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative

BSNC – Bering Strait Native Corporation

CCHRC - Cold Climate Housing Research Center

ISER – Institute of Social and Economic Research

USARC – United States Arctic Research Commission

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group and workshop participants that generously donated their time and thoughts.

COVER PHOTO: Power Plant, Anaktuvuk Pass, 

Alaska. Photo by USARC
1

A 2008 publication by the Institute of Social and Economic 

Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska Anchorage, 

reports that 79% of households in rural Alaska depend on 

diesel fuel to heat their homes, with the other 21% using 

wood, natural gas, propane, coal, or solar power.1 The same 

report indicated that rural residents in the lowest income 

bracket spend 47% (median value) of their annual earnings 

on home heat compared to 8.7% for the same income 

groups in Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city.1

Although the global price of oil has fallen in 2016, heating 

and electrical costs for remote Alaskan villages remain 

high due to the nominal rigidity of the market/industry, 

fxed expenses of transporting fuel to the villages (by air 

or barge), the infrequency of fuel delivery, the cost of bulk 

fuel storage, and the high cost of operating and maintaining isolated and remote systems. These factors also lead to 

wide variation in the cost of fuel in Alaskan communities. 

For example, the January 2016 Alaska Fuel Price Report2

indicated that communities in the western region of 

Alaska pay an average of $5.66 per gallon for heating fuel, 

as compared to under $4.00 per gallon in rural Alaskan 

communities in the Northern, Southeast, and Gulf Coast 

regions (Table 1). Even within regions, prices vary greatly, 

with communities in Interior Alaska paying prices ranging 

from $2.32 to $12.00 per gallon.2

The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) regulates the 

price of many home utilities—phone, water and wastewater, natural gas, refuse, and electricity. However, the cost of 

home heating fuel oil is unregulated.3

Introduction

While this lack of regulation may play a part in the price variation of heating fuel, a more signifcant factor is the remote 

and isolated nature of many Alaskan communities, most of 

which are located of the road system and are accessible 

only by waterways (when not blocked by ice) or by air. This 

remoteness signifcantly increases the cost of fuel, as the 

expense of delivering fuel to the community is passed on 

to the customer. When accounting for distribution costs, a 

2010 study by ISER4 found no evidence of excessive charges 

by fuel distributors in the western region of Alaska, where 

fuel prices are highest. Rather, most of the variation in 

fuel prices appears to be due to discrepancies in the retail 

price-setting practices at the community level.4 Suggested 

reasons for this include diferences in the cost of debt for 

bulk fuel loans; collection approaches for operations and 

maintenance costs; the level of implementation of safety 

and environmental compliance; fuel sales operation hours; 

and the level of local mark-up practices to collect revenues.

In addition to the high and unstable cost of heating fuel, 

Alaskan villages are often challenged by limited access to a 

stable and trained workforce to operate and maintain the 

utility and heating systems on which the village depends. 

A stable governance to administer heating programs can 

also pose challenges. 

In Arctic communities, where temperatures can plummet 

far below freezing, home heating is a critical utility that can 

be difcult and expensive to maintain.

1 Saylor, B., S. Haley, and N. Szymoniak. 2008. Estimated Household Costs for Home Energy Use. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of 

Alaska Anchorage, Note 1, 10 pp., http://www/iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/webnote/LLFuelcostupdatefnal.pdf.

2 Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current Community Conditions, January 2016, https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/4/pub/Fuel_Price_Report_

Jan.2016.pdf.

3 The RCA regulates the oil and gas pipeline carriers that operate within the state.

4 Szymoniak, N. G. Fay, A. Villalobos-Melendez, J. Charon, and M. Smith. 2010. Components of Alaska Fuel Costs: An Analysis of the Market Factors and 

Characteristics that Infuence Rural Fuel Prices. University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska 

State Legislature, Senate Finance Committee, 77 pp.

Gulf Coast Interior Northern Northwest Southeast Southwest Western

High $6.05 $12.00 $2.50 $7.21 $4.65 $7.36 $7.32

Low $2.35 $2.32 $1.40 $3.16 $2.85 $2.75 $4.12

Average $3.44 $5.05 $1.79 $5.23 $3.43 $4.98 $5.66

TABLE 1. RETAIL HEATING FUEL PRICES PER GALLON ACROSS REGIONS OF ALASKA2
2

The Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group (AREWG), 

coordinated by the US Arctic Research Commission 

(USARC), promotes research on renewable and efcient 

energy systems in remote Arctic communities. Formed 

in 2015, this working group benefts Arctic communities 

by identifying and addressing critical research needs in 

renewable energy and energy efciency. Further information on this working group can be found at https://arctic.

gov/arewg/index.html. 

AREWG’s initial eforts have focused on the home heating 

needs of remote Alaskan villages. To begin addressing this 

issue, the frst of three heat-specifc workshops was held on 

January 20, 2016. The aim of this initial workshop was to 

identify data gaps and research needs related to how 

heat is used in villages in order to better understand 

how renewable energy systems, energy efciencies, 

and education and/or policy level eforts might best 

address heating needs for remote communities. Future 

workshops will focus on implementation of research 

recommendations (November 2016) and evaluation 

of eforts (2017).

Participants in the workshop included representatives from 

the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Alaska Center for Energy 

and Power (ACEP), Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 

(AHFC), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), 

Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), Renewable 

Energy Alaska Project (REAP), ISER, and USARC. 

FIGURE 1. Village heating infrastructure, Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska. Photo by USARC

Several workshop participants noted that this was the frst 

meeting focused solely on heat solutions for remote communities, and many felt this was highly responsive to the 

needs of rural residents.

David Lockard (AEA)

Devany Plentovich (AEA)

Neil McMahon (AEA)

Scott Waterman (AHFC)

Eric Hanssen (ANTHC)

Tashina Duttle (ANTHC)

Meera Kohler (AVEC)

Steve Gilbert (AVEC)

Rob Bensin (BSNC)

Brian Hirsch (Deer Stone Consulting)

Steve Colt (ISER)

Gwen Holdmann (UAF/ACEP)

Marc Mueller-Stofels (UAF/ACEP)

Cheryl Rosa (USARC)

Carrie Eischens (USARC)

Workshop Attendees
3

Residential Heating Needs

Residential Heating in Remote Communities: Data Gaps

In some communities, basic information such as the number of buildings and their size, use/function, and occupancy is not easily accessible given the logistics of reaching 

remote Alaskan villages.

Additional barriers to data collection discussed at the 

workshop include the practice of fuel tank sharing among 

public (non-residential) buildings, making it difcult to 

judge the efciency of individual buildings on fuel usage 

alone. Additionally, few heating fuel meters are currently 

in use in rural communities. Without these “microdata”, 

neighbor-to-neighbor comparisons of heating fuel usage 

are impossible, making difcult rough estimates of comparative home efciency.

The AHFC has done a large amount of efciency and weatherization work in the villages, but needs still exist. The Cold 

Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC; www.cchrc.org) 

has worked with tribes and housing authorities to design 

and build new cost-efective and energy efcient homes 

across the state. Additionally, CCHRC has performed 

extensive research and demonstration of weatherization 

and building envelope retroft strategies that have been 

efective in reducing energy use. While new home construction has been inspired by CCHRC’s work, there continues to be a lack of cost-efective energy efcient housing 

in rural Alaska.

5 The Alaska Energy Authority’s Power Cost Equalization program provides economic assistance to communities and residents of rural electric 

utilities where the cost of electricity can be three to fve times higher 

than for customers in more urban areas of the state. For more information on this program go to http://www. akenergyauthority.org/Programs/PCE.

The meeting began with a review of the status quo with 

respect to heating in remote Alaskan villages (with a focus 

on the Arctic as defned by the Arctic Research and Policy 

Act: https://arctic.gov/maps.html). Little data are available 

on home heating in rural Alaska. The attendees determined 

that there is a fundamental need to know the amount of 

fuel that is being used for home heating in the villages. 

Researchers and energy specialists do not have the quantitative “top-down” information required to fully understand 

heating fuel delivery to service sites, how the utility is 

administered, or the efciency of heating fuel use.

The amount of fuel delivered to villages by suppliers (for 

heat and other uses) is not publicly disclosed, and most 

suppliers are unwilling to share this information. Total fuel 

delivery can be estimated but is subject to speculation 

and may not accurately refect actual use. While this level 

of data may be obtained with permission of, for example, 

village councils/communities, the efort would likely group 

commercial and residential fuel supplies as one, not solving the data gap for fuel used for home heating.

Community-wide fuel usage can sometimes be determined 

from the bulk fuel tanks, specifcally in communities participating in the state’s Power Cost Equalization program.5

Again, these data sets are not residentially specifc and do 

not provide the household heat energy usage information 

needed by researchers (averages and outliers). Meeting 

participants also emphasized that until the dimensions of 

the problem (i.e., amount of fuel/energy for home heating 

that is needed) are known, it is difcult to generate feasible and economic solutions to reduce fossil fuel usage for 

home heating. To accurately model the cost savings and 

efciency generated by any potential improvements from 

new technology, renewable energy sources, or energy 

efciency implementations, reliable baseline data at the 

household scale are needed along with the temporal/seasonal scale of heating needs.

The Challenges

SHORT-TERM: Collect heat-related data to inform 

users and utility operators on heat use and efciency 

(e.g., low cost/no cost behavioral changes that reduce 

fuel use, program efectiveness measures).

MID-TERM: Retroft outdated energy infrastructure, 

learn which factors afect energy usage other than 

behavior, provide sufcient maintenance of infrastructure, etc.

LONG-TERM: Develop new building designs and 

construction methods that are energy efcient on 

a life-cycle basis and that incorporate renewable 

energy sources.
4

Another barrier to village-level energy efciency and use 

of renewables is the lack of traditional project fnancing 

and poor understanding of energy project fnancing intricacies. Communities are often unaware of loans programs 

that may allow them to develop and implement infrastructure improvements to reduce their dependence on 

diesel fuel for heat. This may also involve a lack of awareness surrounding the loan process, loan qualifcation, 

credit history requirements, and steps they could take to 

improve loan eligibility.

6 Reasonable cost was estimated at this workshop as <10% of median 

home income.

Difculties with project fnancing are not restricted to 

Alaska’s remote villages, but they are exacerbated in poor 

communities in Alaska and elsewhere. In Alaska, technical 

assistance funds are provided to assist communities with 

this problem, but options are limited. Assistance is often 

available only to rare small businesses or agricultural 

projects, and even then often covers only approximately 

25% of the project cost. Improving technical assistance 

for fnancing energy projects aimed at small municipal 

and tribal governments, local native corporations, and 

residents would dramatically increase the ability of these 

communities to make economically sound choices for their 

future energy use.

Heat-Related Needs by Stakeholder Group

OPERATOR NEEDS (power utilities)

• Cost efective and efcient energy storage systems

• Trained and accountable operations and maintenance 

workforce (consider incentive systems)

• Information on available energy efciency upgrades/

programs/behaviors

• Heat utility availability – reimagining heat as a service

• Energy and maintenance management services

• Simple and straightforward systems

• Network of educated/well-trained operators

• Heat recovery systems services provider (possible 

overlap with water and sanitation service providers)

AGENCY/REGULATORY/GOVERNING BODY NEEDS 

(state/federal/local)

• Policies that infuence behavior (carbon tax?)

• Information needed to develop “forward looking” 

(strategic, future) policies

• Policy alignment (of new and existing policies)

• Funding opportunities for solutions

INVESTOR NEEDS

• Minimize risk

• Return on investment (long and short term)

• Debt minimization

• Regionalized service (or larger) cooperative model 

approaches—economies of scale

• Maximize proft

INDUSTRY NEEDS

• Dependable consumer base/schedule

• Customers with the ability to pay

• Incentives to share data

• Regulation of distribution monopoly

Workshop participants created a list of heat-related needs 

for specifc user groups in Alaska.

RURAL RESIDENT NEEDS

• The ability to heat ones’ home at reasonable cost6

• Energy pricing/cost stability

• Fuel source available year round

• Homeowner options to monitor usage of heating fuel

• Systems that are simple and easily maintained, preferably 

by the homeowner or village-level maintenance worker

• Access to skilled repair/maintenance services at the 

village level

• Training and understanding of heating systems by local 

residents/home owners (resulting in a sense of ownership and improved functionality of system)

• Information on available energy efciency upgrades 

programs/behaviors

• Minimize pollution from heat production so that air and 

water quality are not compromised

• Jobs and economic improvements: jobs and local money 

kept in the community leading to increased economic 

independence

• Education about holistic house functionality

• Local/regional energy champion(s) and a network of 

energy educators (remote villages can share knowledge)

• Creation of a path to augment “economies of scale”

• Long-term vision of where the State of Alaska is going 

with respect to building design and energy code (will this 

vision accommodate district heating system options?)
5

General Priorities/Data Collection Needs

Research Needs and Priorities

• Basic data on rural infrastructure and buildings: a well 

organized, centralized data set of basic community 

information, would help in heat-use modeling. Ideally, 

this would include community name, the number of 

buildings in the community, owner of the building (resident, city, tribal, corporations, business), and their size, 

spacing and use/function, and current heating method. 

This information will inform cost estimates.

• Data review of “heat technology” research trials

General Priorities/Research Questions

• How would a reduction in energy subsidies impact 

communities?

• At what point do small, of the road system communities 

become non-viable under this scenario? 

• Is the “district heating” model feasible in Alaska (Figure 2)? 

How can a centralized district heating distribution system 

be implemented?

• Would increased use of multi-family housing increase 

the viability of district heating systems? Is this something 

that would be socially acceptable in communities?

• How have other countries (especially Arctic) approached 

this model?

• What are the challenges to local implementation of 

energy efciency projects in rural Alaska?

• What are the barriers to behavior changes to implement 

efciencies?

• What organizational/capacity barriers exist?

• What opportunities are there for sewage, food waste, fsh 

processing waste to be used as heat through small scale 

anaerobic digestion in rural communities? Is it feasible in 

rural Alaska, especially in Arctic and sub-Arctic locales?

• What is the potential for methane as a fuel in Alaska?

• How can we best leverage existing situations (i.e., with 

electrical distribution system infrastructure) to become 

more “energy secure”?

• What new technology provides the best options for 

energy storage in remote Alaska given our knowledge of 

conditions under which they would be used?

• How can we minimize risk to private investors in order to 

augment the installation of renewables in remote Alaska?

• What makes a “secure investment” and is it possible to 

move towards this in remote Alaska?

• How do we best reach and take advantage of an “economies of scale” approach to renewables in small, remote 

Alaskan villages?

Policy Priorities/Research Questions

• What is the role of policy on heating in rural communities?

• What are other international Arctic communities 

doing with respect to energy and renewables policy? 

Could alternative approaches used elsewhere work 

in rural Alaska?

• What is the best approach to prioritization and strategic 

planning in order to better inform renewable energy 

policy?

• Which policies infuence behavior with respect to energy 

efciency?

• Compile and collect basic data at the individual residential home level—how much of what kind of fuel is 

being used to heat homes where? (important to include 

metered vs. unmetered homes in this analysis)

• Fuel metering data on homes (and potentially commercial buildings)

• Data on use of home heating appliances 
6

“District heating” refers to a heat distribution system that 

generates heat in a centralized location for residential and/

or commercial heating requirements such as space or water 

heating. After generation, the heat is distributed to the customer via a network of insulated pipes through which pressurized hot water or steam is transported. Usually the pipes 

are installed underground but there are also systems with 

over-ground pipes. While earlier district heating systems 

were powered by fossil fuels, these systems are increasingly 

using renewable energy sources such as geothermal, biomass, solar and wind as their source of power generation.

District heating fueled by renewable resources has long been 

used in Europe to provide heating to small isolated communities as well as urban areas. In Iceland, 90% of households 

are connected to a district heating system fueled by geothermal resources.7 In contrast, renewable energy district heating has only recently begun to be implemented in North America. Drake Landing 

in Alberta, Canada, provides an example 

of a small (52 homes) community using 

solar energy to supply space and water 

heating throughout the year via a district 

heating system.8 Seasonal and short-term 

thermal storage allow solar energy to be 

collected and stored during the summer 

that is then used for space heating during 

the winter months.

In Alaska, several renewable energy district heating projects 

are being considered. Currently, a feasibility study is underway for a geothermal district heating system in Akutan, and a 

biomass fueled district heating system is being constructed 

in Galena. A small biomass fueled district heating loop is 

already operating in Gulkana and numerous diesel heat 

recovery loops are operating throughout rural Alaska where 

cooling water from the diesel generators is captured and 

routed to surrounding buildings.

7 Mims, C. 2008. One hot island: Iceland’s renewable geothermal power. 

Scientifc American, http://www.scientifcamerican.com/article/iceland-geothermal-power

8 http://www.dlsc.ca/index.htm

What is District Heating?

FIGURE 2. Solar seasonal storage and district loop.

Image from http://www.dlsc.ca/how.htm

Coordination Priorities/Research Questions

and regions have implemented their own building 

standards, are these working? How far advanced are the 

building standards from state standards?

• What new approaches to energy and maintenance management services might be efective in remote communities (especially given the State of Alaska’s fscal situation 

in 2016)?

• How could a “network of energy educators” be created to:

> Provide information on whole house functionality?

> Provide information on what is working in other local 

villages/information sharing?

• How do other international Arctic communities approach 

the administration of energy systems (both renewable 

and non-renewable)? Could alternative approaches used 

elsewhere work in rural Alaska?

• How can we increase opportunities to enhance public-private partnerships? (In which the community and 

private enterprise are in a win-win situation)?

• How do we provide more accurate information on energy 

efciency upgrades/programs/behaviors to both villages 

and consumers so better choices can be made?

• What is Alaska’s long term vision on renewable energy 

and energy efciency? (especially with respect to building design and energy code). Some Alaskan communities 
7

The US Arctic Research Commission coordinates the Arctic 

Renewable Energy Working Group to promote research on 

renewable and efcient energy systems in remote Arctic 

communities. Initial working group eforts are being concentrated on the heating needs of isolated Alaskan villages 

with the development of a heat-related research plan for 

rural Alaska, focused on reducing heating oil consumption, increasing energy efciency, and the integration of 

renewable energy.

Given the State of Alaska’s 2016 fscal climate and the lack of 

funding to the Renewable Energy Fund in the most recent 

state budget, identifcation and prioritization of data gaps 

and energy research needs is paramount.

 At an initial workshop held in January 2016, our aim was 

to identify data gaps related to how heat is used in villages 

in order to better understand how renewable energy 

systems, energy efciencies, as well as education and 

policy level eforts might best address heating needs for 

remote communities.

Conclusion and Next Steps

How Do We Address These Needs and Research Questions?

Throughout our discussions, the need for capacity-building as it relates to the operation of energy 

efcient and heating utilities in remote, rural villages 

was a reoccurring theme. Within a community, capacity 

is needed to envision, fund, organize, and execute projects 

such as a renewable energy project or utility. In Alaska, 

village-level capacity is highly variable and depends on 

strong community leadership and the experience and 

training of skilled individuals.

Human Capacity

Efcient management and operation of a community utility 

requires a trained and stable workforce. In small, remote villages that depend on a subsistence economy, such a workforce may be more difcult to secure and sustain than in 

more populated urban areas. While training opportunities 

may be available to educate new employees, turnover rates 

for operator positions are high as families leave villages 

for more lucrative positions, or employees take extended 

FIGURE 3. The CCHRC demonstration home in Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska. Photo by USARC
8

leave in order to take part in traditional subsistence activities. As a result, village utilities generally require “backup 

operators” who understand the technical aspects of the 

utility and can step in when the lead operator is absent. In 

some small communities, fnding two individuals with the 

desire and aptitude for these positions is challenging.

Financial Capacity

Infrastructure for renewable energy projects and utility 

operations in remote villages require a signifcant initial 

capital investment, followed by ongoing investment to 

maintain operations and management. Utility customer 

billing (user fees) is one source of income that ideally 

would cover the operations, maintenance, and management portion of the cost, but rarely do remote villages 

have the ability to cover the full costs of administering and 

maintaining a local utility. Nor do remote villages generally 

have the signifcant start-up funds needed to purchase the 

initial infrastructure, such as wind turbines or solar panels. 

As a result, communities must apply for grants or loans to 

cover these types of expenses. To be eligible for these type 

of fnancial assistance programs, communities must show 

they are credit-worthy in a cash economy paradigm. This 

poses a signifcant challenge given that many villages in 

remote Alaska are based on a subsistence economy which 

residents consider to be central to their way of life and 

important to their health and well-being. Rural and tribal 

communities would beneft from a clear path, and proper 

assistance, to secure funding opportunities for renewable 

energy projects and utility operations.

Capacity-Building Assistance Opportunities

Within the state of Alaska, there are several programs that 

provide assistance with the human and fnancial capacity 

issues facing utility management in rural communities. A few 

examples that may be applied to heat-related utilities follow:

The state of Alaska’s Department of Commerce, Community, 

and Economic Development runs the Rural Utilities Business 

Advisor (RUBA) program with the aim of increasing the managerial and fnancial capacity of rural water and wastewater 

providers. This program ofers capacity-building assistance 

and provides management training classes to rural utility 

operators throughout the state. This training may also be 

useful in operating renewable energy systems/utilities.

The Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative (ARUC), coordinated 

by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, assists communities with customer billing and with hiring and training 

local operators (and backup operators) that work towards 

professional certifcation. The ARUC is a statewide program 

that partners with communities to manage, operate, and 

maintain their water/sewer systems. This type of model could 

perhaps be expanded and applied to renewable energy and 

heating utilities.

The Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group is focusing 

on fnding solutions for remote Arctic communities with 

respect to:

• New options for home heating and electricity aimed at 

increasing energy efciency/use of renewable energy 

and reducing heating oil consumption

• Promote data standardization and sharing of renewable 

energy metrics

• Storage of energy produced by renewables, with particular focus on improved battery technology

• Indirect community benefts of renewable and efcient 

energy use that do not get fgured into typical renewable 

energy cost/beneft analyses 

• Increasing potential for industry investment in remote 

renewable energy projects (decreasing uncertainty by 

identifying and mitigating risk)

Most of these topics are related to heat. The Arctic 

Renewable Energy Working Group will use its expertise, the 

information generated by the workshop, and subsequent 

follow up workshops, to move forward on these objectives 

to develop a heat-related research plan. Future eforts in 

this workshop series will address the issue of village-level 

capacity and determine implementation, funding, and 

evaluation strategies for heat-related research needs.

Additional information on the 

Arctic Renewable Energy Working 

Group (AREWG) can be found at 

https://arctic.gov/arewg/index.html
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

This document is a work of the United States government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. 

§105). Subject to the stipulation below, it may be distributed and copied with acknowledgment to 

the US Arctic Research Commission. Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved 

by the original copyright holders or their assignees and are used here under the government’s license 

and by permission. Requests to use any images must be made to the provider identifed in the image 

credits or to the US Arctic Research Commission if no provider is identifed.

BACK COVER PHOTO: Kotzebue, Alaska. 

Photo by USARC
www.arctic.gov

Printed in the United States of America

September 2016