ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN

FY2017-2021

PRODUCT OF THE

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee

OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

December 2016
i

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

December 9, 2016

Members of Congress:

I am pleased to forward the second five-year Arctic Research Plan produced by the Interagency 

Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC). Covering the period 2017-2021, the plan is one of 

IARPC’s responsibilities described in the Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. § 

4108). 

The Arctic environment is undergoing rapid transitions as air temperatures increase, sea ice and 

land ice diminish, terrestrial snow cover declines, and permafrost warms and thaws. These 

physical changes have tremendous implications for marine and terrestrial ecosystems, human 

health and well-being, national security, transportation, and economic development in the Arctic 

and beyond. The United States, the other Arctic nations, and those non-Arctic nations with 

substantial Arctic research activities need strong, coordinated research efforts to understand and 

forecast changes in the Arctic.

Responding to this need, ten Federal agencies, departments, and offices collaborated to develop 

this plan, which calls for strong interagency communication, coordination, and collaboration 

within the framework of the National Science and Technology Council. The IARPC staff also 

consulted with collaborators in the State of Alaska, local communities, indigenous organizations, 

non-governmental organizations, and the academic community to ensure that the interests and 

needs of all stakeholders are addressed appropriately in this research plan.

Toward that end, and in furtherance of goals developed by the U.S. Arctic Research 

Commission, this plan focuses on those research activities that would be substantially enhanced 

by multi-agency collaboration. Many important investigations outside the scope of this plan will 

continue to be conducted within individual agencies or through other interagency collaborations.

I appreciate your support as this Administration works to ensure that the Nation’s research 

efforts in the Arctic are broadly coordinated across the full spectrum of Federal agencies and 

interests.

Sincerely,

John P. Holdren

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
ii

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

4201 WILSON BOULEVARD

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230

OFFICE OF THE

DIRECTOR

December, 2016

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:

As required by 15 U.S.C. §4108, I am pleased to transmit this 2017-2021 plan of the U.S. Interagency Arctic 

Research Policy Committee (IARPC) that enhances and strengthens the U. S. federal Arctic research enterprise. 

Development of this 5-year plan entailed consultations with 14 federal agencies, the State of Alaska, local and 

indigenous organizations, the academic community and the broader public. The plan is broad in scope, but even so, 

does not represent the full breath of the US Government research on the Arctic. Each agency will continue to 

support additional research activities to meet its respective mission.

The changing Arctic presents challenges and opportunities for society both in the Arctic and globally. A 

diminishing sea ice cover is transforming ecosystems and altering subsistence activities as well as circumstances for 

commercial shipping, resource extraction and tourism. Glacial melt is contributing to sea level rise that can impact 

extensive coastal infrastructure and populations around the world. Thawing permafrost is impacting northern 

infrastructure and has potentially significant implications for the global carbon cycle. Changes in Arctic snow and 

ice covers may be linked to changing weather patterns in the lower latitudes of the northern hemisphere. The ability 

to understand and predict the future course of such changes is vital to the economy and security of the U.S. as an 

Arctic nation. 

This plan builds on the experience with the successful format of the 2013-2017 IARPC 5-year plan. The focus is on 

priority Arctic research areas best addressed though interagency partnerships to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. 

The approach to the plan is purposefully dynamic in order to keep pace with observed changes. In particular, 

performance elements of the plan are intended to cover the next two years. Towards the end of that period, IARPC 

will make adjustments to respond to new knowledge and emergent needs. 

Concurrently, IARPC will also continue to develop themes and ideas that arose during development of this plan. 

For example, IARPC wishes to engage northern communities more fully in all stages of research endeavors to 

identify and co-produce much needed knowledge to inform real-world issues such as coastal resilience and socioeconomic trajectories. IARPC will also explore strengthening the linkage between Arctic research and Science, 

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics education in order to excite and motivate students and the future STEM 

workforce both in Arctic communities and throughout our nation.

I wish to acknowledge the contributions of all involved in producing this plan and, as Chair of IARPC, look forward 

to leading its successful and productive implementation in the years ahead. 

Sincerely,

France A. Córdova

Director
iii

About the National Science and Technology Council

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the Executive Branch 

coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research 

and development (R&D) enterprise. One of the NSTC’s primary objectives is establishing clear national 

goals for Federal science and technology investments. The NSTC prepares R&D packages aimed at 

accomplishing multiple national goals. The NSTC’s work is organized under five committees: Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability; Homeland and National Security; Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics (STEM) Education; Science; and Technology. Each of these committees oversees 

subcommittees and working groups that are focused on different aspects of science and technology. More 

information is available at www.WhiteHouse.gov/ostp/nstc.

About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and 

Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP’s responsibilities include advising the 

President in policy formulation and budget development on questions in which science and technology 

are important elements; articulating the President’s science and technology policy and programs; and 

fostering strong partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, and the scientific communities 

in industry and academia. The Director of OSTP also serves as Assistant to the President for Science and 

Technology and manages the NSTC. More information is available at www.WhiteHouse.gov/ostp.

About the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee

The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA) Public Law 98-373, July 31, 1984, as amended by Public 

Law 101-609, November 16, 1990, provides for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national

research needs and objectives in the Arctic. The ARPA establishes a U.S. Arctic Research Commission 

(USARC) and an Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to help implement the Act. IARPC 

was formally created by Executive Order 12501. Its activities have been coordinated by the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), with the Director of the NSF as chair. On July 22, 2010, President Obama issued 

a memorandum for the Director of the OSTP making NSTC responsible for the IARPC with the director of 

the NSF remaining as the chair of the committee.

About this Document

This report was developed by the IARPC which reports to the NSTC Committee on the Environment, 

Natural Resources and Sustainability (CENRS). This report is published by OSTP.

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 stipulations below, it may be distributed and copied with acknowledgement to OSTP. 

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 identified in the image credits or to OSTP if no provider is identified.

Printed in the United States of America, 2016.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

iv

Report prepared by

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

INTER-AGENCY ARCTIC RESEARCH POLICY COMITTEE

National Science and Technology Council

Chair

John P. Holdren

Assistant to the President for Science 

and Technology, and Director, 

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Staff

Afua Bruce

Executive Director

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability

Chairs

Thomas Burke

Assistant Administrator for Research and 

Development, and Science Advisor

Environmental Protection Agency

Tamara Dickinson

Principal Assistant Director 

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Kathryn Sullivan

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, and Administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Department of Commerce 

Staff

Lisa Matthews

Executive Secretary

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and 

Sustainability

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee

Chair

France A. Córdova

Director 

National Science Foundation

Staff

Martin O. Jeffries

Assistant Director for Polar Sciences, and 

Executive Director, Interagency Arctic Research

Policy Committee

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Sara Bowden

Executive Secretary

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

v

MEMBERS

France Córdova National Science Foundation (NSF) (Chair)

Ann Bartuska Department of Agriculture (USDA)

David Kennedy Department of Commerce (DOC)

Stephen Welby Department of Defense (DOD)

Gary Geernaert Department of Energy (DOE)

Peter Schmeissner Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Seth Stodder Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Bill Brown Department of the Interior (DOI)

Judith Garber Department of State (DOS)

James Jenkins Department of Transportation (DOT)

Robert Kavlock Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Rebecca Lent Marine Mammal Commission (MMC)

Ellen Stofan National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Ali Zaidi Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Tamara Dickinson Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

Kirk Johnson Smithsonian Institution (SI)

Acknowledgements

IARPC would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Federal writing team, and thank them for their 

extensive outreach to Federal agencies, particularly in Alaska, as well as soliciting input from the State of 

Alaska, and local, Indigenous and academic collaborators. The writing team is Rebecca Anderson (USGS), 

Guillermo Auad (BOEM), Andrew Balser (USACE), Joe Casas (NASA), Roberto Delgado (NIMH), John G. 

Dennis (NPS), Scott Harper (ONR), Tom Hennessy (CDC), Amy Holman (NOAA), Martin O. Jeffries (OSTP), 

Benjamin Jones (USGS), Renu Joseph (DOE), Eric Kasischke (NASA), Rachel Loehman (USGS), Jeremy T. 

Mathis (NOAA), Allison McComiskey (NOAA), Diane McKnight (NSF), Walter N. Meier (NASA), April Melvin 

(AAAS-EPA), Sue Moore (NOAA), Candace Nachman (NOAA), Cheryl Rosa (USARC), Sandy Starkweather 

(NOAA), Simon Stephenson (NSF), Jason J. Taylor (BLM Alaska), Vanessa von Biela (USGS), Charles E. Webb 

(NASA), Ashley Williamson (DOE), and Wm. J. Wiseman, Jr. (NSF). IARPC also thanks Kip Rithner for her 

careful editing of the Plan. IARPC would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the Arctic Research 

Consortium of the United States (ARCUS) for its help in organizing two scoping workshops with IARPC 

outside collaborators, and their role in supporting the IARPC Secretariat. IARPC would like to thank the 

current IARPC Executive Director, Martin Jeffries, and two former Executive Directors, Simon Stephenson 

and Michael Kuperberg, who have contributed to shaping this plan; the IARPC Senior Scientist, Sandy 

Starkweather, for leading the development of this plan; and the IARPC Secretariat: Sara Bowden, Jessica 

Rohde and Meredith LaValley for their continued support of the IARPC effort. Finally, IARPC would like to 

express its appreciation to NSF for its financial support and to NOAA for its in-kind support of the IARPC 

Secretariat.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................3

Research Goal 1: Enhance Understanding of Health Determinants and Improve the Well-being of Arctic 

Residents.......................................................................................................................................................8

Research Goal 2: Advance Process and System Understanding of the Changing Arctic Atmospheric 

Composition and Dynamics and the Resulting Changes to Surface Energy Budgets .................................14

Research Goal 3: Enhance Understanding and Improve Predictions of the Changing Arctic Sea Ice Cover

....................................................................................................................................................................19

Research Goal 4: Increase Understanding of the Structure and Function of Arctic Marine Ecosystems and 

Their Role in the Climate System and Advance Predictive Capabilities......................................................24

Research Goal 5: Understand and Project the Mass Balance of Glaciers, Ice Caps, and the Greenland Ice 

Sheet and Their Consequences for Sea Level Rise......................................................................................29

Research Goal 6: Advance Understanding of Processes Controlling Permafrost Dynamics and the Impacts 

on Ecosystems, Infrastructure, and Climate Feedbacks.............................................................................33

Research Goal 7: Advance an Integrated, Landscape-scale Understanding of Arctic Terrestrial and 

Freshwater Ecosystems and the Potential for Future Change ...................................................................39

Research Goal 8: Strengthen Coastal Community Resilience and Advance Stewardship of Coastal Natural 

and Cultural Resources by Engaging in Research Related to the Interconnections of People, Natural, and 

Built Environments......................................................................................................................................43

Research Goal 9: Enhance Frameworks for Environmental Intelligence Gathering, Interpretation, and 

Application toward Decision Support.........................................................................................................48

Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................................................55

Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................................................................56

Appendix 3 ..................................................................................................................................................58

References ..................................................................................................................................................60

Abbreviations..............................................................................................................................................71
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

1

Executive Summary

The United States is an Arctic nation—Americans depend on the Arctic for biodiversity and climate 

regulation and for natural resources. America’s Arctic—Alaska—is at the forefront of rapid climate, 

environmental, and socio-economic changes that are testing the resilience and sustainability of 

communities and ecosystems. Research to increase fundamental understanding of these changes is 

needed to inform sound, science-based decision- and policy-making and to develop appropriate 

solutions for Alaska and the Arctic region as a whole.

Created by an Act of Congress1in 1984, and since 2010 a subcommittee of the National Science and 

Technology Council (NSTC) in the Executive Office of the President, the Interagency Arctic Research 

Policy Committee (IARPC) plays a critical role in advancing scientific knowledge and understanding of the 

changing Arctic and its impacts far beyond the boundaries of the Arctic. Comprising 14 Federal agencies, 

offices, and departments, IARPC is responsible for the implementation of a 5-year Arctic Research Plan in 

consultation with the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, the Governor of the State of Alaska, residents of 

the Arctic, the private sector, and public interest groups.

This 5-year plan—Arctic Research Plan FY2017-2021—has nine goals:

Enhance understanding of health determinants and improve the well-being of Arctic 

residents;

Advance process and system understanding of the changing Arctic atmospheric composition 

and dynamics and the resulting changes to surface energy budgets;

Enhance understanding and improve predictions of the changing Arctic sea ice cover;

Increase understanding of the structure and function of Arctic marine ecosystems and their 

role in the climate system and advance predictive capabilities;

Understand and project the mass balance of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland Ice Sheet,

and their consequences for sea level rise;

Advance understanding of processes controlling permafrost dynamics and the impacts on 

ecosystems, infrastructure, and climate feedbacks;

Advance an integrated, landscape-scale understanding of Arctic terrestrial and freshwater 

ecosystems and the potential for future change;

Strengthen coastal community resilience and advance stewardship of coastal natural and 

cultural resources by engaging in research related to the interconnections of people, natural 

and built environments; and

Enhance frameworks for environmental intelligence gathering, interpretation, and 

application toward decision support.

 

1

The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA), Public Law 98-373, July 31, 1984, as amended by Public Law 101-609, 

November 16, 1990, provides for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national research needs and objectives in the 

Arctic. The ARPA establishes an Arctic Research Commission and an Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to 

help implement the Act.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

2

Each Goal is associated with Research Objectives—specific actions intended to benefit from 

coordinated, multi-agency, and possibly international research efforts, which are themselves associated 

with Performance Elements—tasks with concrete, measurable outcomes that demonstrate progress 

made toward satisfying the Research Objectives.

The Plan’s nine Goals have a total of 34 Research Objectives and 123 Performance Elements. As with its 

predecessor—Arctic Research Plan FY2013-2017—this plan does not attempt to cover all Arctic research 

supported by the Federal Government. Rather, it addresses key topics for which an interagency approach 

is most likely to accelerate progress.

Consistent with U.S. Arctic Region Policy2 and the National Strategy for the Arctic Region,

3

the Goals 

support U.S. policy across a range of scales, from Arctic people and communities to the global scale. The 

policy drivers for the Plan are:

Enhance the well-being of Arctic residents;

Advance stewardship of the Arctic environment;

Strengthen national and regional security; and

Improve understanding of the Arctic as a component of planet Earth.

The research conducted to implement these goals and support these policy drivers will be guided by four 

strategies: (1) support for basic and applied disciplinary research and broader systems-level, researchbased modelling and synthesis; (2) sustainment of measurements supporting long-term observations 

and understanding of the Arctic System and mechanisms to provide timely and efficient access to data; 

(3) inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge holders and northern residents versed in Local Knowledge as 

generators of and collaborators in research; and (4) international collaboration that strengthens

research, provides opportunities for improved research access to the Arctic, and makes the most 

effective use of costly infrastructure and logistics.

Implementation will take advantage of the collaborative infrastructure—IARPC Collaborations4—

developed to implement Arctic Research Plan FY2013-2017. IARPC Collaborations is a platform for the 

research community to share information, generate ideas, and report on performance elements and 

thus advance toward achieving Research Objectives. Collaboration Teams responsible for each of the 

Goals include members from Federal agencies as well as outside partners such as the State of Alaska, 

Alaska Native organizations and communities, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, 

and the private sector. IARPC Collaborations is open to any member of the research or stakeholder 

community who wishes to advance scientific knowledge of the Arctic.

 

2

 National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 66, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD 25: Arctic Region Policy, The

White House, Washington DC, 2009

3

 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, The White House, Washington DC, 2013

4

 IARPC Collaborations: www.iarpccollaborations.org
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

3

Introduction

The Arctic and IARPC

The Arctic region touches the lives of all Americans.

5 Whether Alaska is home, an inspiring destination, 

or a vital source of economic prosperity and energy security, the only state in the Union with Arctic 

territory affects every U.S. citizen. Further, rapid environmental change is being observed throughout the 

Arctic, impacting the global system, with consequences for national interests and people around the 

world.

Created by Congress6 and now a subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in 

the Executive Office of the President, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) plays a 

critical role in advancing scientific knowledge and understanding of the changing Arctic through research 

planning. IARPC exercises this role through coordination across 14 Federal agencies7 and collaboration 

with outside collaborators through its implementation structure—IARPC Collaborations.

8 Never has 

there been a better time and greater need for such strategic collaboration.

Since July 2010, when President Obama signed the Presidential Memorandum making the IARPC a 

subcommittee of the NSTC,9 numerous dramatic environmental events have astonished Arctic observers. 

These include record-breaking warm air temperatures and end-of-summer minimum sea ice extent, 

extreme melting events on the Greenland ice sheet, and severe wildfire activity.

Changing long-term trends in the Arctic are also important. For example, annual minimum and maximum 

sea ice extents are decreasing at rates of 13.4 percent and 2.6 percent per decade, respectively, with 

many implications. One consequence of sea ice retreat is that Arctic coastal communities become more 

vulnerable to increasing ocean-surface wave heights, storm surges and inundation, and to coastal 

erosion accelerated by warming permafrost.

The consequences of sea ice retreat exemplify a system of interactions and feedbacks that amplify Arctic 

warming. These interactions and feedbacks indicate a need to understand the individual components of 

the Arctic System—the atmosphere, sea ice, marine, glacier, permafrost, terrestrial and freshwater 

ecosystems—at the same time as they urge an understanding of how the system operates as a whole, 

 

5

About 30 percent of Alaska lies within the Arctic Circle, making the United States one of eight Arctic nations. To increase 

public understanding of this fact—and to draw connections between Alaska, the wider Arctic, and the rest of the country—the 

U.S. Department of State blog, “Our Arctic Nation,” is devoted to describing the connections between the Arctic and each of the 

50 states in the Nation during the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council (spring 2015-2017). www.medium.com/our-arcticnation/welcome-to-our-arctic-nation-2d33796c63e8#.5dxqtfymd

6

Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA), Public Law 98-373, July 31, 1984, as amended by Public Law 101-609, 

November 16, 1990

7

See Appendix 1.

8

Through IARPC Collaborations, scientists share their work and team up to solve difficult problems. 

www.iarpccollaborations.org

9

“Executive Order: Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic.” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,

January 21, 2015 www.WhiteHouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/21/executive-order-enhancing-coordination-nationalefforts-arctic
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

4

in the context of the global system, to advance holistic understanding and support science-based policy 

decisions.

A complete understanding of the Arctic System must include the human component. Incorporating the 

complex human role in emerging Arctic research questions was a key recommendation of the National 

Academy of Sciences’ report, The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions,10 which, at 

the request of IARPC, looked 10 to 20 years into the future of Arctic research to make inquiry more 

targeted and effective. The role of people is also reflected in the growing need for social science in Arctic 

research, as recommended by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) in its Report on the Goals 

and Objectives for Arctic Research 2015-2016.

11

These recommendations are reflected in the complexity of the efforts described in this document, 

particularly where issues are tightly linked at the nexus of natural and human systems. For example, 

improved understanding of atmospheric processes and their impact on surface heating is linked to an 

improved understanding of cryospheric change. These, in turn, are linked to questions about the wellbeing of Arctic communities. For example, how will thawing permafrost impact infrastructure supplying 

fresh drinking water, or sea ice retreat and sea level rise affect the viability of coastal communities?

Community responses to these stressors may in turn impact the future state of other components of the 

system, such as ecosystems or economies. Similar examples underscore the complex and linked 

relationship between the Arctic system and the global system.

The linked nature of these research domains inherently requires an Arctic System approach to research 

planning: one that views questions holistically in the context of interacting, interrelated, or 

interdependent components forming a complex whole. Support for decision-making in this context of 

the Arctic System requires frameworks for generating integrated environmental knowledge—

Environmental Intelligence—that is timely, reliable, and suitable for the decisions at hand.

IARPC Arctic Research Plan 2017-2021

Policy Drivers 

This document, Arctic Research Plan 2017-2021 (hereafter “the Plan”), identifies critical areas where the 

U.S. Arctic research enterprise supports U.S. policy from community to global scales. The four policy 

drivers for the Plan are:

Enhance the well-being of Arctic residents (Well-being). Knowledge will inform local, state, and 

national policies to address a range of goals including health, economic development, and the 

cultural vibrancy of Indigenous peoples and other Arctic residents;

Advance stewardship of the Arctic environment (Stewardship). Results will provide the necessary 

knowledge to understand the functioning of the terrestrial and marine environments, and 

anticipate globally-driven changes as well as evaluate the potential impact of local actions;

Strengthen national and regional security (Security). Efforts will include work to improve shorterterm environmental prediction capability and longer-term projections of the future state of the 

Arctic region to ensure security and emergency response agencies have skillful forecasts of 

 

10

 Available for download on the IARPC Collaborations website: www.iarpccollaborations.org/about

11

 “Report on the Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2015-2016” www.arctic.gov/reports_goals.html
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

5

operational environments and the tools necessary to operate safely and effectively in the Arctic 

over the long term;

Improve understanding of the Arctic as a component of planet Earth (Arctic-Global Systems). 

IARPC research will inform the important role of the Arctic in the global system, such as the ways 

the changing cryosphere impacts sea level, the global carbon and radiation budgets, and 

weather systems.

These policy drivers support the Nation’s Arctic Region Policy12 and its implementation through the 

National Strategy for the Arctic Region (NSAR).13

Research Goals

The Plan describes nine Research Goals, broad topics identified by IARPC as points where the 

interagency approach can accelerate progress. Six Goals represent components of the Arctic System and 

build upon the work of the previous IARPC Plan.14 Two holistic Goals integrate understanding of 

components of the Arctic System to address the increasing complexity of research for understanding 

health determinants, and strengthening coastal resilience. The final Goal, environmental intelligence, 

supports the other eight and advances tools and approaches for informed decision-making.

The Research Goals are:

Enhance understanding of health determinants and improve the well-being of Arctic residents;

Advance process and system understanding of the changing Arctic atmospheric composition 

and dynamics and the resulting changes to surface energy budgets;

Enhance understanding and improve predictions of the changing Arctic sea ice cover;

Increase understanding of the structure and function of Arctic marine ecosystems and their role

in the climate system and advance predictive capabilities;

Understand and project the mass balance of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland Ice Sheet, and 

their consequences for sea level rise;

Advance understanding of processes controlling permafrost dynamics and the impacts on 

ecosystems, infrastructure, and climate feedbacks;

Advance an integrated, landscape-scale understanding of Arctic terrestrial and freshwater 

ecosystems and the potential for future change;

Strengthen coastal community resilience and advance stewardship of coastal natural and 

cultural resources by engaging in research related to the interconnections of people, natural and 

built environments; and

 

12 National Security Presidential Directive-66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive-25, January 2009

13 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Office of the President of the United States, May 2013 

www.WhiteHouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf

14 Arctic Research Plan: FY2013–2017 www.iarpccollaborations.org/plan/index.html
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

6

Enhance frameworks for environmental intelligence gathering, interpretation, and application 

toward decision support.

Each Research Goal is supported by Research Objectives—specific actions that benefit from 

coordinated, multi-agency research efforts conducted in collaboration with local, regional, academic,

and international collaborators; and Performance Elements—tasks with concrete, measurable outcomes 

that demonstrate progress toward satisfying the Research Objectives. Performance Elements each list a 

Lead Agency—the IARPC member agency responsible for coordinating the implementation of the task 

and reporting on progress—and Supporting Agencies—which assist the Lead Agency and whose 

research contributes to the implementation and reporting.15 In many cases, agencies listed against 

Performance Elements are funding relevant work that is being conducted by academia or outside 

partners. Some Performance Elements have only one agency (e.g., 3.1.3 is a NASA-only project), but 

they generate data that are broadly catalytic or they represent valuable seed efforts with the potential 

for growing interagency engagement.

Implementation

This Plan builds upon its predecessor, Arctic Research Plan FY13-17, whose successes are highlighted in 

the IARPC biennial report.16 In addition, for this Plan IARPC developed high-level strategies to guide 

implementation. They are to: (1) support a portfolio of basic and applied disciplinary research, and 

broader systems-level, research-based modelling and synthesis; (2) sustain measurements supporting 

long-term observations and understanding of the Arctic System, and mechanisms to provide timely and 

efficient access to data; (3) include Indigenous Knowledge17 holders and northern residents versed in 

Local Knowledge18 as generators of and collaborators in research; and (4) strengthen international 

collaboration in research, provide opportunities for improved research access to the Arctic, and make 

the most effective use of costly infrastructure and logistics.

This Plan’s successful implementation will depend on the collaborative infrastructure, IARPC 

Collaborations,

19 which was created to carry out the previous plan and which was a noted 

accomplishment of the period. Collaboration teams include representatives from relevant Federal 

agencies that comprise IARPC, as well as outside collaborators from state and local governments, 

 

15

 Agencies are listed following standard usage guidelines: Federal departments appear first, followed by agencies in 

alphabetical order. Thus, the order of partner departments and agencies should not be construed to indicate priority.

16 “Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee 2015 Biennial Report.” Committee on Environment,

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, National Science and Technology Council, Office of Science and Technology, Office of the 

President www.WhiteHouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc/committees/cenrs/iarpc

17 Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is here defined as a systematic way of thinking applied to phenomena across biological, physical, 

cultural, and spiritual systems. It includes insights based on evidence acquired through direct and long-term experiences and 

extensive and multigenerational observations, lessons, and skills. IK has developed over millennia and continues in a living 

process, including knowledge acquired today and in the future, and it is passed on from generation to generation (ICC-Alaska. 

2015).

18 Local Knowledge (LK) is here defined as knowledge tied to a place and acquired via experience and observation. Unlike IK, it 

does not require a multi-generational accumulation of knowledge.

19

 See Appendix 2.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

7

academic institutions, non-government organizations (NGOs), and community members. People from 

these diverse backgrounds all work together to enact the Performance Elements. 

Implementation of Performance Elements in this Plan is focused on the period 2017-2018, with some 

exceptions for projects and programs to which agencies have made commitments that extend beyond 

2018. As new opportunities or needs for observations, understanding, and responses arise, IARPC will 

add Performance Elements.

As with its predecessor, this Plan does not attempt to address all Arctic research supported by the 

Federal Government or recommended by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.

20 Many important singleagency efforts are not included because of this plan’s emphasis on interagency collaboration. 

Additionally, other interagency bodies such as the National Ocean Council (NOC), the NSTC 

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST), and the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP) cover other critical Arctic research topics and interagency coordination, e.g., ocean 

acidification. The Arctic Executive Steering Committee (AESC) is responsible for coordinating all Federal 

Government activities in the Arctic, and for the implementation of the NSAR. Some efforts with 

potentially relevant research components, such as renewable energy, are currently being organized 

under AESC; as specific research needs are identified, their coordination may be adopted by IARPC. 

Efforts arising from this Plan contribute to the implementation of the NSAR, particularly the Responsible 

Arctic Region Stewardship line of effort.

The urgency of Arctic change and complexity of Arctic research compel innovative means for advancing 

understanding. In the last five years, IARPC has built a successful network of collaborators through a 

creative implementation strategy, which complements interagency coordination with outside 

collaboration. This Plan aims to capitalize upon the strength of that growing network to advance 

knowledge and decision support for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

 

20

 See Appendix 3.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

8

Research Goal 1: Enhance Understanding of Health Determinants and 

Improve the Well-being of Arctic Residents

Arctic societies are known for their historic capacity for adaptation and resilience. But, northern 

residents are now facing an unprecedented combination of climate and environmental change, new 

opportunities for commercial and industrial development, and social and economic transformations

(Arctic Human Development Report 2004; Arctic Human Development Report II 2014). Such changes 

present significant challenges and opportunities. For example, the rapidly changing environment in the 

Arctic poses new risks to food, water, and energy security with implications for the health and well-being 

of Arctic residents. This is an opportunity for Federal agencies to work collaboratively with Arctic 

residents on research to foster adaptation and mitigation strategies to meet emerging needs.

State, local, and tribal authorities—and community members themselves—may be confronted with 

critical choices based on anticipated threats: stronger and more frequent storms, increasing coastal 

erosion, thawing permafrost, changing marine mammal and bird migration patterns, ocean acidification,

sea level rise, changes in local vegetation due to warmer temperatures, and increased fires. Further, 

many Arctic populations are also experiencing heritage and language loss, shifting economies,

population migration, mental illness, and high rates of suicide. Arctic residents need reliable and timely 

data and innovative research approaches to make knowledge-based decisions that consider the 

immediate and future impacts on existing infrastructure and community services, human health, 

subsistence activities, cultural and linguistic vitality, and overall food security.

A coordinated, evidence-based, government-wide plan can help support and strengthen the capacity of 

Arctic residents to adapt and respond to new challenges. Consistent with recommendations from the 

Alaska Arctic Policy Commission (AAPC 2015) and Indigenous organizations such as the Inuit Circumpolar 

Council (ICC Arctic Policy 2016), efforts are being made to use Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and/or Local 

Knowledge (LK) in community-based research and to use multiple knowledge systems to inform 

management, health, and environmental decisions.

The following Research Objectives reflect this integrated approach to Federal research commitments 

directly related to the Well-being policy driver, with implications for Stewardship and Security drivers as 

well. The determinants of health and well-being are wide-ranging, and it is beyond the scope of this Plan 

to catalog all of the research, programs, or services related to the health of Arctic residents. Instead, the 

Health and Well-being Goal is focused mainly on Federally-funded research activities that feature 

interagency collaborations and that are expected to produce tangible results during the time-span of this 

Plan. There are many excellent examples of ongoing health research that do not fit these criteria and are 

not included herein.

Research Objective 1.1. Support integrative approaches to human health that recognize the 

connections among people, wildlife, the environment, and climate.

Rationale: The circumpolar North is vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change. A “One Health” 

approach to these vulnerabilities recognizes that human health, animal health, and ecosystem health are 

inextricably linked. This is particularly true in subsistence communities, where a One Health approach 

can link networks of diverse knowledge holders and transdisciplinary specialists to advance 

understanding of complex climate-associated health risks and to provide community-based strategies for 

early identification and mitigation of health risks in humans, animals, and the environment (Ruscio et al. 

2015).
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

9

Performance Element 1.1.1: In collaboration with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 

(ANTHC), advance and support a regional One Health approach for assessing interactions at the Arctic 

human-animal-environment interface to enhance understanding of, and response to, the 

complexities of climate change for Arctic residents.

Lead Agencies: DOI (FWS), HHS (CDC), EPA, NOAA, USDA (NIFA)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (USGS), DOS, NASA

Performance Element 1.1.2: In collaboration with the ANTHC, support community-based monitoring 

and IK and LK by maintaining and strengthening the Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network to 

help describe connections between climate change, environmental impacts, and health effects.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM, FWS), EPA

Supporting Agencies: NOAA, NSF

Performance Element 1.1.3: In coordination with the ANTHC, use the Alaska Native Maternal 

Organics Monitoring Study (MOM) to monitor the spatial distribution, contaminant levels, and 

biological effects in species having body burdens of human caused Persistent Organic Pollutants21

(POPs) at or above levels of concern; and improve understanding of the adverse effects of POPs on 

human populations, especially on child development.

Lead Agencies: HHS (CDC), EPA

Supporting Agency: NOAA

Performance Element 1.1.4: Increase understanding of how both natural climate change and the 

effects of human activities are affecting the ecosystem by documenting observations of changing sea 

ice conditions, with implications for development and subsistence. Efforts like Arctic Crashes: 

Humans, Animals in a Rapidly-Changing World and Northern Alaska Sea Ice Project Jukebox are 

examples of contributions to this performance element.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA, USDA (NIFA), NSF, SI

Supporting Agency: DOI (NPS)

Performance Element 1.1.5: Together with the ANTHC, State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

and the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), support the Rural Alaska Monitoring Program (RAMP), a 

community-based environmental monitoring network in Alaska Native communities to collect 

samples and data on zoonotic pathogens, mercury, and organic contaminants in land and sea 

mammals used for subsistence. Test marine bivalves for contaminants, mercury, and the toxins 

responsible for paralytic and amnestic shellfish poisoning; test mosquitos for the agent of tularemia; 

and test community water for cyanobacterial toxins.

Lead Agencies: DOI (FWS), HHS (CDC), NOAA, EPA

Research Objective 1.2. Promote research, sustainable development, and community resilience to 

address health disparities associated with underlying social determinants of health and well-being.

 

21

 POPs are hazardous organic chemical compounds that are resistant to biodegradation and thus remain in the environment 

for a long time, adversely affecting human health.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

10

Rationale: Health is influenced by a wide range of social, economic, and ecological factors; indeed, 

there is a clear link between the social determinants of health and health inequalities (Reading and Wien 

2009). Hence, it is important to understand social-ecological systems and how they influence the health 

and well-being of individuals and communities.

Performance Element 1.2.1: In collaboration with the ANTHC and the State of Alaska, support 

development of Arctic Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) innovations and characterize the health 

consequences associated with decreased access to in-home water and sanitation services.

Lead Agencies: HHS (CDC, IHS), USDA, EPA, USARC

Supporting Agency: DOS

Performance Element 1.2.2: Together with the ANTHC, the Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation, the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, and Bristol Bay Health Corporation, support 

research on the health impacts of poor indoor air quality, especially in children. Support source 

testing and technologies to improve indoor air quality.

Lead Agencies: HHS (CDC, IHS), HUD, EPA

Performance Element 1.2.3: Support educating and connecting Arctic residents with museum 

collections and archival materials to improve community mental health and well-being through 

efforts such as The Health of Heritage.

Lead Agencies: Department of Education, NOAA, LC, SI

Supporting Agencies: DOI (NPS), NSF

Performance Element 1.2.4: Through efforts like the Arctic-FROST22 Research Coordination Network, 

synthesize knowledge on sustainable development among Arctic communities; develop a state-ofthe-art understanding of social-ecological systems in the Arctic context; and amass case studies of 

best practices that support well-being and sustainable development across the Arctic. Deliverables 

will include coordinated educational activities, presentations, and validation of research results 

through researcher/community workshops and educational initiatives that involve youth, Indigenous 

scholars, early career scientists, and members of underrepresented groups.

Lead Agency: NSF

Research Objective 1.3. Promote food, water, and energy security in rural/remote Arctic regions.

Rationale: Significant disparities exist between Arctic and non-Arctic residents related to the availability 

and affordability of traditional and non-traditional foods; the quality and quantity of water available (and 

its related health benefits); and the cost and options for energy production, conservation, and use 

(especially for residential home heating).

Performance Element 1.3.1: In collaboration with the State of Alaska, coordinate investigations and 

reporting on food security in the Arctic, to include shifting patterns of food consumption, the safety 

of subsistence foods, and successful adaptation strategies being employed by northern residents.

 

22 Arctic Frontiers Of Sustainability: Resources, Societies, Environments and Development in the Changing North
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

11

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM)

Supporting Agencies: NOAA, NSF

Performance Element 1.3.2: In collaboration with the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) and the Alaska Rural Water and Sanitation Working Group, support the ADEC 

“Alaska Water and Sewer Challenge” and provide input and support for the Conference on Water 

Innovations for Healthy Arctic Homes (WIHAH) and its resultant research activities and 

recommendations.

Lead Agencies: HHS (CDC, IHS), USDA, EPA, USARC

Supporting Agency: DOS

Performance Element 1.3.3: Together with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the Cold Climate 

Housing Research Center (CCHRC), and UAF, promote research on renewable, efficient, and 

sustainable (resource, maintenance, and cost) energy systems, including microgrid technology 

development and application in remote Arctic communities via USARC’s Arctic Renewable Energy 

Working Group activities.

Lead Agency: USARC

Research Objective 1.4. Document the prevalence and nature of violence against Alaska Native 

women and youth; evaluate the effectiveness of Federal, State, Tribal, and local responses to violence 

against Alaska Native women and youth; and propose recommendations to improve the effectiveness of 

such responses.

Rationale: Victims of psychological aggression, physical violence, sexual violence, and stalking 

experience severe and negative health and social consequences, including poorer physical and mental 

health and lower employment status. Further, evidence suggests that Arctic Indigenous populations are 

disproportionately impacted (e.g., Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada 2006). Because there is a dearth of 

scientific research regarding victimization experiences of Alaska Native women, the USARC’s Report on 

the Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research (2015-2016) identified domestic violence in the Arctic as an 

area of concern. Hence, accurate, comprehensive, and current information on the incidence, prevalence, 

and nature of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking in Alaska Native villages is needed 

to improve societal understanding of the programmatic, service, and policy needs of victims and to 

educate policy makers and the public about this pervasive threat to the health and well-being of Alaska 

Native women.

Performance Element 1.4.1: Together with the American Indian Development Associates (AIDA) and 

RTI International, conduct a National Baseline Study (NBS), also referred to as the Tribal Study of 

Public Safety and Public Health Issues Facing American Indian and Alaska Native Women, to assess 

Alaska Native women’s experiences with violence and victimization, health and wellness, community 

crime, service needs, and help-seeking behaviors and outcomes. The NBS will produce a deeper 

understanding of public safety issues, quantify the magnitude of violence and victimization, provide 

accurate data to develop prevention and intervention strategies, and evaluate the response to 

violence by all levels of government.

Lead Agencies: DOJ (NIJ, OVW)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

12

Performance Element 1.4.2: Together with the State of Alaska Department of Public Safety and the 

University of Alaska Anchorage, examine the contributions Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO) make 

to their rural communities and the criminal justice responses to violence committed against Alaska 

Native women. Evaluate and document the impact that the Alaska VPSO initiative is having on the 

investigation and prosecution of those who commit acts of sexual and domestic violence against 

Alaska Native women in rural communities, and determine the applicability of the VPSO model to 

other tribal communities in the United States.

Lead Agencies: DOJ (NIJ, OVW)

Supporting Agency: NSF

Performance Element 1.4.3: Together with the AIDA, determine effective methods to assess exposure 

to violence and victimization among Alaska Native youth, ultimately to improve their health and wellbeing. Develop and test a survey instrument and different administration modes that can effectively 

evaluate exposure to violence and victimization and determine the feasibility of using these 

procedures in tribal communities.

Lead Agencies: DOJ (NIJ, OJJDP, OVC)

Research Objective 1.5. Increase understanding of mental health, substance abuse, and well-being 

for Alaskan youth; and support programs that address those impacts and strengthen youth resilience.

Rationale: Increasing evidence suggests that childhood trauma can lead to serious health problems that 

last into adulthood and limit individuals from reaching their full potential. Research regarding mental 

health, substance abuse, and well-being in Arctic and sub-Arctic communities can strengthen youth 

resilience and support individual achievement, leading to improved health outcomes.

Performance Element 1.5.1: Increase knowledge and the evidence base for effective communitydetermined approaches that contribute to the health and well-being of children and youth as they 

move into adulthood. Efforts like Native Youth Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and 

Development (I-LEAD) and Generation Indigenous are examples of contributions to this performance 

element.

Lead Agencies: Department of Education, DOI (BIE), HHS (ACF), USDA (NIFA)

Performance Element 1.5.2: Support tribal behavioral health programs and collaborative research 

hubs to prevent and reduce suicidal behavior and substance abuse and to reduce the burden of 

suicide and promote resilience among Alaska Native youth. The research hubs are intended to 

increase the reach and research base for effective, culturally relevant, preventive interventions that 

will increase resilience and reduce suicide in Alaska Native communities.

Lead Agencies: HHS (CDC, NIH, NIMH, NIMHD), USARC

Supporting Agencies: DOS, NSF

Performance Element 1.5.3: Conduct surveys to document and report on adverse childhood 

experiences (ACEs) in Alaska children, including among American Indian and Alaska Native children.

Lead Agencies: HHS (CDC), DOC (Census Bureau), HHS (HRSA)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

13

Research Objective 1.6. Support the reduction of occupational safety and health (OSH) hazards in 

the Arctic, particularly in the commercial fishing, water, and air transportation industries as well as for 

those workers exposed to occupational hazards from climate change impacts.

Rationale: Historically, Alaska has had a very high work-related fatality rate associated with its unique 

composition of industries and work settings. Recognizing that occupational safety and health hazards 

vary across industries and work settings in the Arctic, it is vital to establish a regional focus to advance 

understanding of OSH hazards and effective interventions needed for this unique state.

Performance Element 1.6.1: Together with the State of Alaska, document and describe occupational 

risks using epidemiologic surveillance.

Lead Agencies: DHS (USCG), DOL (OSHA), HHS (CDC), FAA, NTSB, 

Performance Element 1.6.2: Together with the State of Alaska, conduct prevention-oriented research 

addressing fatal and nonfatal injuries and illnesses in high-risk worker populations.

Lead Agencies: DHS (USCG), DOL (OSHA), HHS (CDC), FAA, NTSB, 

Research Objective 1.7. Improve the quality, efficiency, effectiveness, and value of health care 

delivery in the Arctic.

Rationale: Arctic health systems have a unique set of challenges to contend with and many health 

disparities in the access to, cost of, and quality of care exist between people in a given nation’s Arctic 

regions and their larger, non-Arctic population. Hence, accurate and reliable data are critical to the 

development of more effective health care delivery approaches.

Performance Element 1.7.1: In collaboration with the ANTHC, promote research on how telemedicine

applications can improve health care delivery and patient outcomes.

Lead Agency: HHS (AHRQ)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

14

Research Goal 2: Advance Process and System Understanding of the 

Changing Arctic Atmospheric Composition and Dynamics and the 

Resulting Changes to Surface Energy Budgets

Over the industrial period, Arctic surface air temperature has increased more rapidly than in other parts 

of the globe due to a complex interplay of processes—a phenomenon called “Arctic Amplification” 

(Serreze and Barry 2011). Mechanisms and feedbacks governing atmosphere-surface heat exchange (i.e.,

meridional [north-south] heat transport and radiative forcing23), coupled with changing surface 

properties, drive this enhanced warming. Conversely, changes in Arctic conditions may impact circulation 

that changes weather and climate patterns over the Northern Hemisphere (Cohen et al. 2014) and 

beyond.

To address all IARPC policy drivers, IARPC collaboration teams must advance an integrated understanding 

of atmospheric processes as well as the resulting radiative forcing in the Arctic. The Arctic atmosphere is 

linked through large-scale circulation with global weather and climate systems (Arctic-Global System). 

Regionally, atmospheric processes drive changing weather patterns and influence sea ice amounts and 

distribution, knowledge of which is critical for managing emergency response and law enforcement 

efforts (Security). These changing weather patterns and sea ice distributions, along with changes in 

precipitation, snow cover, and permafrost melting, affect terrestrial ecosystems and other environmental 

conditions that alter subsistence systems and how Arctic residents interact with their environment. 

Further, changes in the environment have led to increased wildfire activity in the Arctic and at lower 

latitudes, causing air quality problems (Well-being) for Arctic residents (Kasischke et al. 2010).

The atmosphere links with many of the interdependent components of the Arctic climate system—the 

ocean and marine ecosystems, sea ice, land surface and permafrost, and terrestrial ecosystems. 

Accordingly, the Atmosphere Goal is linked to several other Goals that focus on these systems and with 

Environmental Intelligence. The interface between each of these climate sub-systems and the 

atmosphere can be measured by the surface energy budget (heat and radiation) and fluxes of moisture, 

aerosol, and gases (Bourassa et al. 2013). Characterizing these energy and mass fluxes across the Arctic is 

essential for understanding the future state of Arctic weather and climate. But a paucity of detailed 

observations of each of these atmospheric constituents over the different Arctic surface types precludes 

definitive, empirically-based understanding of the trends and variability in heat and mass fluxes over 

different domains and seasons and of the various radiative forcing mechanisms that control this 

variability.

Atmospheric constituents that drive radiative forcing—aerosols, clouds, and gases—affect the radiation 

and energy budget in the Arctic differently than at lower latitudes due to unique surface, atmospheric 

stability, and solar intensity states. Aerosols can change the Arctic radiation balance through direct 

radiative forcing of the atmosphere (Quinn et al. 2008), through aerosol-cloud indirect effects (e.g., de

Boer et al. 2013), or by lowering the albedo of (typically) bright Arctic surfaces after deposition of black 

carbon or other absorbing species, potentially hastening snow and ice melt (Flanner et al. 2007). The 

abundance of aerosols and some gases (e.g., ozone) in the Arctic are affected by transport and removal 

processes between source regions at lower latitudes and the Arctic. Improving quantitative 

 

23 The change in radiative fluxes in the atmosphere resulting from a perturbation by atmospheric constituents such as clouds, 

aerosols, and gases.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

15

understanding of these processes at lower latitudes and within the Arctic is key to improving 

predictability of Arctic climate forcing (AMAP 2015; Arnold et al. 2016).

Due to seasonally low sun angles and high surface albedos and the absence of solar radiation during the 

polar night, Arctic clouds have a limited ability to cool the surface by reflecting solar energy, but cloud 

infrared radiation significantly warms the surface (Intrieri et al. 2002). As a result, the net annual cloud 

radiative forcing at the Arctic surface is positive (a warming), opposite to the global cloud radiative 

effect. The Arctic cloud radiative forcing and its seasonal variability plays a critical role in modulating the 

surface energy budget and thereby affects the state of sea ice, ice sheets, permafrost, and snow cover 

(Kwok and Untersteiner 2011). Cloud forcing is dictated by lifetime, physical properties, and 

precipitation, which are governed by complex interactions between local- and large-scale processes 

involving dynamics, moisture supply, and aerosol influences on cloud nucleation (Garrett and Zhao 

2006). The greatest challenge for those studying Arctic clouds currently is in understanding and 

representing the controls on cloud phase (Shupe 2011; Morrison et al. 2012).

In addition to cloud and aerosol influences on radiative forcing, Arctic carbon stores have the potential 

to greatly impact future climate states. The Arctic contains vast amounts of sequestered carbon in 

permafrost and marine hydrates, with an uncertain potential for CO2, methane, and other releases into 

the atmosphere (AMAP 2015). Methane has a global warming potential (GWP) 28 times that of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) per molecule, averaged over a 20-year period: though the atmospheric lifetime of methane 

is about a decade, that of CO2 is several hundred years. When considering methane’s 12-year 

atmospheric lifetime, its GWP increases to 84 times that of carbon dioxide over 20 years (IPCC, 2014). 

Understanding current methane emissions and potential scenarios under a warmer Arctic is imperative. 

Many global circulation models overlook carbon feedback loops from Arctic tundra; carbon release from 

thawing and decomposing tundra could, in turn, further accelerate carbon release—a scenario known as 

the Permafrost Carbon Feedback. Observations and recent analyses indicate that warming has not led to 

significant methane release from the permafrost (Sweeney et al. 2016); but the distribution of 

measurements precludes a definitive determination of methane sources and their strengths.

The Atmosphere Goal focuses on advancing observational systems of atmospheric constituents and 

surface energy fluxes, synthesizing existing and planned observations and models for better process 

understanding, and working within IARPC Collaborations to enhance knowledge of how the Arctic 

atmosphere and other parts of the climate system interface to produce the observed Arctic amplification 

and the corresponding observed changes in surface air temperature and sea ice loss. The team will draw 

from a range of surface-based observational systems maintained by multiple agencies including the longterm National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Barrow, Alaska Observatory, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) and Micro-Pulse 

Lidar (MPL) networks, and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) facilities on the North Slope of Alaska, 

among others. Sub-orbital measurements from manned and unmanned aircraft will be exploited 

whenever possible, and support for enhancing and providing uniformity in both surface-based and suborbital observations will be pursued. The satellite contributions to this effort include top-of-atmosphere 

energy balance measurements from instruments such as Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System 

(CERES), vertical distributions of aerosols and clouds from space-based lidar such as Cloud-Aerosol Lidar 

and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO), and aerosol amount and type mapping, mainly 

over smoke and pollution source regions in the sub-Arctic from Moderate-resolution Imaging 

SpectroRadiometer (MODIS), Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR), Ozone Monitoring 

Instrument (OMI), and Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), which, when combined with 

aerosol transport modeling, provide constraints on the flux of aerosols to the polar region.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

16

Research Objective 2.1. Advance understanding of Arctic atmospheric processes and their 

integrated impact on the surface energy budget.

Rationale: The surface energy budget represents a critical coupling of the atmosphere to other subsystems in the Arctic System (e.g., ocean, sea ice, and permafrost). Closing the surface energy budget 

over different surface cover types would represent a significant improvement in understanding 

atmospheric drivers of climate change in the Arctic, and the response of the integrated system to 

external forcers. Individual observing networks currently have inadequate coverage for closing the 

budget, but expanding measurement capabilities through external collaborations along with better 

coordination of available information sources can improve characterization, understanding, and 

modeling of this system.

Performance Element 2.1.1: Support planning, preparation, and implementation for the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of the Arctic Climate (MOSAiC), including deployment 

of the DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) mobile atmospheric measurement facility 

and other coupled measurements on the drifting German icebreaker, RV Polarstern, designed to fill 

observational gaps of radiation and heat fluxes and atmospheric constituents in the Arctic interior 

over open ocean and sea ice domains.

Lead Agencies: DOE, NSF

Supporting Agencies: NOAA, DOD (ONR)

Performance Element 2.1.2: Improve uniformity and accessibility of surface radiative and heat flux 

information from satellite retrievals and airborne and ground-based measurements to quantify 

spatial variability of the surface energy budget over land, ice, and open ocean environments in the 

Arctic. Augment efforts through IARPC Collaborations to integrate surface radiative and heat flux 

measurements with cryospheric process understanding and modeling efforts.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOE, NASA, NSF

Research Objective 2.2. Improve understanding of the composition of the Arctic atmosphere

(moisture, clouds, precipitation, aerosols, and gases) and their net radiative effects and impact on Arctic 

climate.

Rationale: Changes in chemistry, moisture, and atmospheric state drive radiative forcing through a 

complex set of processes and interactions (Morrison, et al. 2012; de Boer et al. 2012). Long-term, 

continuous measurements at the surface are necessary to monitor trends in atmospheric composition, 

but must be complemented by in situ aerial measurements to provide process-level understanding and 

to fill observational gaps over regions and domains (e.g., sea ice and open ocean) that are not accessible 

from fixed site locations. Information describing the vertical structure of atmospheric constituents is 

critical to determining how and when the different constituents interact and their radiative effects.

Measurements to gain such information are achievable through manned and unmanned aircraft 

programs, ground-based observations, and satellites.

Performance Element 2.2.1: Maintain and enhance support for fixed ground sites that contribute to 

long-term observations of Arctic atmospheric components using in situ and remote sensing 

measurements of atmospheric state parameters, gases, aerosols, and clouds (e.g., the DOE ARM sites 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

17

at Barrow and Oliktok, the NOAA Global Monitoring Division Barrow Observatory, and NASA

AERONET measurements). Improve uniformity in the suite of measurements and data products 

across sites to provide “network” information for increased physical understanding and 

representation of the Arctic climate system through International Arctic Systems for Observing the 

Atmosphere (IASOA) Working Groups and other integrative data and analysis efforts.

Lead Agencies: DOE, NOAA

Supporting Agencies: NASA, NSF

Performance Element 2.2.2: Continue support for and planning and analysis of past and potential 

future aircraft missions (e.g., NASA Atmospheric Tomography Mission—AToM—and air Pollution in 

the Arctic: Climate, Environment, and Societies—PACES24) that contribute observations of 

atmospheric composition and relevant processes such as transport, deposition, and radiation.

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOE, NOAA, NSF

Performance Element 2.2.3: Improve vertical and regional characterization of atmospheric gases, 

aerosol, and cloud properties through the use of existing, long-term data sets (e.g., the DOE ARM 

archive, the NOAA Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change—NDACC), 

together with new measurements, in underrepresented Arctic regions. Develop a better 

understanding of the representative nature of fixed sites by describing the range of conditions that 

exist across the Arctic through synthesis activities such as IASOA working groups.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOE, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 2.2.4: In collaboration with efforts described under the Permafrost Goal, 

support observation syntheses of atmospheric carbon to provide better process understanding of the 

relationships between warming and soil carbon release in the Arctic. Integrate atmospheric 

measurements with related observations and modeling of land surface and environmental 

parameters to advance this process understanding.

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOE, NSF

Research Objective 2.3. Improve understanding of the processes that control the formation, 

longevity, precipitation, and physical properties of Arctic clouds; the spatio-temporal distributions of 

aerosol types; and Arctic cloud and aerosol modulation of the surface radiation budget.

Rationale: Arctic clouds are governed by complex interactions between local- and large-scale processes 

that involve dynamics, moisture supply, and aerosol influences on nucleation. Aerosol populations follow 

a distinct seasonal pattern in the Arctic, but with spatio-temporal variability, that is not adequately 

characterized. Each of these variables is influenced by the location (e.g., along a particular transport 

pathway) and surface cover (e.g., open leads in sea ice) over which clouds form and where aerosols are 

 

24

 A joint initiative of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry 

(IGAC) project
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

18

produced or removed from the atmosphere. Of particular interest, due to the associated radiative 

forcing potential, is the opportunity to understand and represent the controls on cloud phase, which 

feed back onto cloud longevity, radiative properties, precipitation, and the horizontal and vertical 

distribution of different aerosol types across the Arctic.

Performance Element 2.3.1: Support and synthesize multi-platform observations of cloud and aerosol 

properties from surface, airborne, and space-borne instruments (integrated with models as 

appropriate) to describe the physical and radiative characteristics of cloud and aerosol over a range of 

spatio-temporal scales and over a range of Arctic land cover domains.

Lead Agency: DOE

Supporting Agencies: NOAA, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 2.3.2: Support integrated observational and modeling studies of atmospheric 

processes and their relationship to land cover that will increase understanding of the characteristics, 

evolution, and radiative properties of Arctic clouds and their interactions with aerosol, leading to 

advancement in representing clouds in models at many scales.

Lead Agency: DOE

Supporting Agencies: NOAA, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 2.3.3: In collaboration with efforts described under the Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Goal, understand the impacts of Arctic and Boreal Forest wildfires on emissions, distributions, 

weather, and climate impacts of biomass burning plumes through improved use of emissions 

databases and chemical transport modeling. Gain better understanding of deposition processes 

through studies and better characterization of the spatial (horizontal and vertical) distribution of 

biomass burning aerosol, especially in the Arctic interior over sea ice.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agency: DOE

Performance Element 2.3.4: In collaboration with efforts described under the Environmental 

Intelligence Goal, support evaluation of reanalyses and their ability to represent Arctic clouds and 

controlling parameters with fidelity using satellite, aircraft, and ground-based observations.

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agencies: NOAA, NSF
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

19

Research Goal 3: Enhance Understanding and Improve Predictions of the 

Changing Arctic Sea Ice Cover

Arctic sea ice is a geophysical phenomenon within a socio-ecological system, and as such it provides a 

variety of services (Eicken et al. 2009). They are: regulating services, e.g., the impact of sea ice on the 

surface energy budget plays a vital role in regulating the global climate; provisioning services, e.g., sea 

ice yields food for communities that harvest marine mammals for which the ice is a habitat; cultural 

services, i.e., non-material benefits of a cultural, spiritual, and educational nature contributing to the 

daily life of communities; and supporting services, e.g., micro-organisms, although not harvested directly, 

are an important component of a food web that sustains marine mammals and fish. Viewed from this 

geophysical/socio-ecological perspective, enhancing understanding and improving predictions of the 

changing sea ice cover will benefit from cooperation between sea ice researchers and numerous 

potential collaborators, including northern residents, who have particular Local and Indigenous 

Knowledge of the ice.

The Arctic sea ice cover is changing dramatically. The end-of-summer minimum sea ice extent (areal 

coverage) and the end-of-winter maximum sea ice extent have decreased by 40 percent and 9 percent, 

respectively, over the course of the satellite passive microwave observation period 1979-2015 (Fetterer 

et al. 2002, updated daily). The age and thickness distributions of the ice cover are also decreasing as the 

area of seasonal ice increases at the expense of the older, thicker perennial ice (Kwok and Rothrock 

2009; Perovich et al. 2015). The resultant decrease in sea ice volume contributes to an increase in 

observed ice drift speeds (Kwok et al. 2013), and is likely responsible for higher deformation and ridging 

rates (Zhang et al. 2012). Pressure ridges are the thickest sea ice features and result from collisions 

between moving ice floes.

As the sea ice changes, there are many environmental and socio-ecological consequences. They include: 

direct effects on marine ecosystems and northern communities (Harwood et al. 2015; Kedra et al. 2015; 

Pearce et al. 2015; Ray et al. 2016; Tremblay et al. 2015), and indirect effects on terrestrial ecosystems 

(Bhatt et al. 2013); increasing ocean surface wave height, storm surge intensity, and coastal erosion and 

inundation (Overeem et al. 2015; Vermaire et al. 2014; Thomson and Rogers 2014) that threaten 

habitats, northern communities, and civil and defense infrastructure (Gibbs and Richmond 2015); rising 

sea surface temperatures (Timmermans and Proshutinsky 2015) and ocean primary production (Frey et 

al. 2015); a reduction in the earth's reflectivity, accounting for about 25 percent of the warming due to

increasing atmospheric CO2 (Pistone et al., 2014); and tropospheric warming, which is amplifying global 

warming in the Arctic (Serreze and Barry 2011), and might be weakening the jet stream and contributing 

to more extreme weather in mid-latitude regions (e.g., Francis et al. 2014).

The changing sea ice cover, particularly the decreasing minimum extent and associated increase in the 

area of summer open water, is opening the region to increased ship traffic for cargo and tourism (e.g., 

Stephenson and Smith, 2015) and extraction of natural resources such as oil and gas, minerals, and fish

(e.g., National Petroleum Council, 2015). In turn, growth in such activities has implications for homeland 

and national security such as search and rescue policy, oil spill preparedness and response, and domain 

awareness. Current model projections of sea ice extent show that a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean at the 

end of summer is a distinct possibility later this century, although there remains considerable 

uncertainty as to when that will happen (e.g., Stroeve et al. 2012). Agencies responsible for emergency 

response and security have documented the need for capabilities that are informed by science (USCG 

2013; DOD 2013; U.S. Navy 2014).
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

20

During the period of consistent satellite passive microwave observations (1979-present), most numerical 

models have projected a slower rate of ice loss than the observed rate, with the best-performing models 

typically including more sophisticated ice processes (e.g., Stroeve et al. 2012). Enhancing understanding 

and improving predictions of the changing sea ice cover over a range of spatial and temporal scales 

(hourly, daily, weekly, seasonal, annual, decadal) requires research that addresses the physical properties 

and processes of the ice itself (e.g., ice thickness, topography, and strength; ice motion and deformation; 

distribution and properties of snow on ice; and melt pond characteristics). These sea ice characteristics, 

in turn, are strongly influenced by the atmosphere above and the ocean below the ice. Consequently, it 

is necessary to take a systems approach that accounts for atmospheric and oceanographic conditions 

and processes and examines the interactions and feedbacks among the sea ice, atmosphere, and ocean.

The Sea Ice Goal focuses on ice and ocean conditions and processes. Progress in the implementation of 

the Sea Ice Goal will also contribute to and benefit from research undertaken under the Atmosphere, 

Marine Ecosystems, Coastal, and Environmental Intelligence Goals. The Sea Ice Goal, and its broader 

connections to these other components of the Arctic environmental system, also addresses the call for 

policy-driven research that meets fundamental regional and national needs. For example, the changes 

that are occurring in the Arctic sea ice cover affect the well-being of Arctic residents (Well-being), the 

functioning of the marine environment (Stewardship), regional and national security (Security), and 

potentially regions far beyond the Arctic (Arctic-Global System).

Research Objective 3.1. Conduct coordinated/integrated atmosphere-ice-ocean observations and 

research to understand the processes that determine the spatial and temporal variation of the thickness, 

extent, and volume of sea ice and their effects on atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions and feedbacks over 

multiple time scales (hourly, daily, weekly, seasonal, inter-annual, decadal).

Rationale: Sea ice thickness, extent, and volume are key descriptors of the state of the sea ice cover 

and products of complex interactions and feedbacks in the coupled atmosphere-ice-ocean system. 

Understanding this system, including the influence of ice on the atmosphere and the ocean, requires a 

spectrum of coincident observations from a variety of platforms: spaceborne, airborne (manned and 

unmanned aircraft), surface (ice camps, research vessels, ice-based buoys), and sub-surface (submarines, 

unmanned underwater vehicles, under-ice profilers and floats, moorings). No single agency operates all 

of these platforms, nor supports all of the research necessary to understand sea ice thickness, extent 

and volume over a range of spatial and temporal scales. IARPC Collaborations will be a forum for 

coordination and integration of atmosphere-ice-ocean observations and process studies, and the data 

analysis and synthesis necessary to understand the state of the sea ice.

Performance Element 3.1.1: Support investigator-driven observations and process studies of the pack 

ice (e.g., ice thickness distribution, topography/surface roughness and strength; ice motion and 

deformation; snow depth distribution and melt pond characteristics; surface albedo and energy 

balance) and landfast ice (e.g., extent, stability, and break-up).

Lead Agencies: NASA, NSF 

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOI (BOEM), NOAA

Performance Element 3.1.2: Continue to support the U.S. Interagency Arctic Buoy Program (US IABP) 

to provide meteorological, ice, and oceanographic data for research purposes and to meet real-time 

operational requirements. US IABP, coordinated by the National Ice Center and the Polar Science 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

21

Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, contributes to the International Arctic 

Buoy Programme.

Lead Agencies: DHS (USCG), DOD (Navy), NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), NASA

Performance Element 3.1.3: Continue Operation IceBridge (OIB) to measure sea ice freeboard and 

thickness and to measure the depth of snow on the ice in late winter 2017, 2018, and 2019 in the 

western Arctic Ocean.

Lead Agency: NASA

Performance Element 3.1.4: Launch (1) the NOAA/NASA Joint Polar Satellite System in 2017 to 

enhance understanding of the sea ice age/thickness, ice concentration, ice surface temperatures, 

snow cover, and snow water equivalent; and (2) the NASA Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite 2

(ICESat-2) in 2018 to estimate sea ice thickness over the entire Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas, and in 

conjunction with the overlapping OIB mission, validate the satellite measurements and the 

algorithms that convert those measurements into sea ice thickness.

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NASA

Performance Element 3.1.5: Use multiple remote sensing data sets to: (1) investigate sea ice 

properties and processes and atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions; and (2) develop algorithms for 

automated ice edge detection and delineation of the marginal ice zone, landfast ice extent, ice 

classification (e.g., age/type of ice, melt ponds, floe size), and ice motion and deformation.

Lead Agency: DOD (ONR)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 3.1.6: Develop and deploy new technologies that enable persistent data 

collection on a variety of environmental variables using mobile platforms and sensors operating 

above, on, in, and under the Arctic sea ice cover to support a framework of observations that will 

improve forecasting and prediction of sea ice. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Arctic Mobile 

Observing System (AMOS) project (FY17-FY21) is an example of a contribution to this performance 

element.

Lead Agency: DOD (ONR)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 3.1.7: Investigate Arctic Ocean processes, interactions and feedbacks that 

affect the dynamics and thermodynamics of the sea ice cover, including ocean circulation and 

stratification, turbulence and mixing, horizontal and vertical heat transport, and freshwater transport 

and storage. The ONR Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA) project (FY16-FY20) is an 

example of a contribution to this Performance Element.

Lead Agency: DOD (ONR)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA, NASA, NSF
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

22

Research Objective 3.2. Improve models for understanding sea ice processes and for enhanced 

forecasting and prediction of sea ice behavior at a range of spatial and temporal scales.

Rationale: Numerical models are essential tools that complement observations for understanding sea 

ice processes (e.g., motion and deformation of the ice cover, ice topography and snow depth, and melt 

ponds that influence the ice thickness distribution). Process models and understanding, in turn, inform 

the representation of sea ice processes and air-ice-ocean interactions: in large-scale coupled models

such as operational models that focus on providing forecasts at short time scales (hourly, daily, weekly); 

and in Arctic System models used for research to predict the state of the ice over long time scales 

(seasonal, annual, decadal). No single agency is responsible for sea ice process modeling, operational 

forecasting, and Arctic System modeling, so IARPC Collaborations offers a forum for bringing together 

multiple agencies and the sea ice research community. IARPC’s implementation structure supports 

cooperation in improving sea ice process models and large-scale model physics to quantify uncertainty 

and enhance prediction capability at a range of spatial and temporal scales.

Performance Element 3.2.1: Support investigator-driven modeling studies designed to understand 

and parameterize key sea ice properties and processes, including ice thickness distribution, 

topography, and strength; ice motion, deformation and mechanics; snow depth distribution and melt 

pond characteristics; surface albedo and energy balance; and biogeochemistry.

Lead Agencies: DOD (ONR), NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOE, DOI (BOEM), NOAA, NASA

Performance Element 3.2.2: Enhance operational sea ice forecasting and research-oriented 

prediction capabilities through improvements to model physics (explicit and parameterized); 

initialization techniques; assimilation of observations, including newly available and future data 

sources such as VIIRS, AMSR2, CryoSat-2, SMOS, and ICESat-2; model evaluation and verification; 

evaluation of model skill, post-processing techniques and forecast guidance tools used in operational 

forecasts and decision support.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOD (NRL), DOD (ONR), DOE, DOI (BOEM), NASA, NSF

Research Objective 3.3. Support collaborative networks of researchers and stakeholders, including 

northern residents, to advance knowledge, understanding, and prediction of the sea ice system.

Rationale: Sea ice research is a diverse field of inquiry. It occurs across multiple spatial and temporal 

scales, from individual ice crystals and brine pockets to ice floes to ocean basins, and from minutes to 

years to decades. Sea ice researchers represent many disciplines (e.g., mathematics, physics, 

geosciences, biological sciences) and use multiple tools and methods (e.g., laboratory investigations, in 

situ and remote observations, process studies, computer models). The sea ice research community is 

distributed across multiple sectors (e.g., academe, government, NGOs, private sector) and countries. 

Collaborative networks will harness such diversity by fostering cooperation and coordination across 

disciplinary, organizational, and geographic boundaries to advance knowledge, understanding, and 

prediction of the sea ice system.

Performance Element 3.3.1: Support the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Sea Ice 

Action Team to synthesize the results of multiple agencies’ and other stakeholders’ investments in sea 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

23

ice observations and process studies and communicate results, information, and the societal 

implications of sea ice change to broader audiences.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agency: DOD (ONR)

Performance Element 3.3.2: Support a collaborative network of scientists and stakeholders to 

advance research on sea ice predictability and prediction at a variety of time and space scales and 

communicate new knowledge, understanding, and tools to broader audiences.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOE, NOAA, NASA
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

24

Research Goal 4: Increase Understanding of the Structure and Function 

of Arctic Marine Ecosystems and Their Role in the Climate System and 

Advance Predictive Capabilities

In the changing Arctic, improved understanding of marine ecosystem structure and function offers many 

benefits and is needed to address several IARPC policy drivers. For example, improved ecosystem 

understanding increases certainty for decision makers charged with environmental stewardship

(Stewardship). Understanding also advances current predictive modeling capabilities, which better 

inform management actions and local communities charged with protecting Arctic marine species and 

their availability for subsistence hunters (Stewardship, Well-being). Arctic marine ecosystems appear to 

be in rapid transition due to the dramatic thinning and loss of sea ice over several decades (Stroeve et al. 

2012; Post et al. 2013; Renner et al. 2014; Grebmeier and Maslowski 2014). Understanding these 

changes and their role in the climate system is crucial to improve the understanding of the Arctic marine 

ecosystems role as a component of planet Earth (Arctic-Global Systems), and cooperation between 

marine ecosystems researchers and numerous potential collaborators, including northern residents and 

industry participants, who have particular Local and Indigenous Knowledge of the ecosystems.

Changes in location and timing of seasonal sea ice can have profound and varied effects on pelagic and 

benthic production, a result of adjusting the transfer of energy from primary producers at the sea 

surface to the benthos (Bluhm and Gradinger 2008; Moore and Stabeno 2015). A broad ecosystem shift 

from a benthic- to a pelagic-dominated Arctic marine ecosystem is anticipated at all trophic levels 

(Grebmeier et al. 2012; Moore et al. 2014), ultimately impacting human communities (Huntington 2009). 

Marine ecosystems shifts have already begun in the Arctic with observed changes in species distributions 

of invertebrates (Richman and Lovvorn 2003), fish (Rand and Logerwell 2011), and mammals (Clarke et 

al. 2013), as well as changes in the size and growth rates of individual animals (von Biela et al. 2011) and 

the potential for increased gene flow among and between species (Kelly et al. 2010).

The loss of sea ice affects the ability of ice-dependent marine mammals to rest, forage, reproduce, and 

rear young on ice (Laidre et al. 2015, and references therein) and will change their availability to 

subsistence hunters. Walrus herds hauled out on land in 7 of the last 9 years, i.e., 2007 to 2015 (C. Jay, 

personal communication) when the ice edge receded beyond the continental shelf during the autumn 

ice-minimum (Jay et al. 2012). These events have considerable consequences for population trajectory 

stemming from increased mortality risks on land (Fay and Kelly 1980; Udevitz et al. 2013). Reduced sea 

ice has also been associated with limited foraging, declining body condition, and reduced reproduction 

of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea (Rode et al. 2014), as well as impacts to polar bears’ major 

prey—ringed seals—which are threatened by diminishing sea ice (Kelly et al. 2010; Sundqvist et al. 2012; 

Iacozza and Ferguson 2014).

Impacts of sea ice loss on whales and ice-dependent seals are less clear (Moore and Huntington 2008; 

Silber et al. 2016), as are the effects of these changes on Indigenous communities that depend on 

predictable access to such species (Metcalf and Robards 2008).

Feedback processes (e.g., bio-physical relationships) play a fundamental role in the functioning of Arctic 

ecosystems. Many of these processes are nonlinear in nature, making it difficult to conceptualize or 

quantify them and therefore to contrast their impact against other feedbacks (Wiese et al. 2013). 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

25

Some biotic responses will be difficult to link to physical influences as Arctic food webs are characterized 

by slow turnover times. Nonetheless, large responses are anticipated given the lower resilience and 

greater sensitivity to perturbations of Arctic ecosystems—as compared with subarctic (Whitehouse et al. 

2014).

The following Research Objectives summarize the next steps while aiming to integrate environmental 

information through interdisciplinary research and state-of-the-science modeling approaches.

Interagency collaborations are required to address the marine ecosystem Objectives as several agencies 

have complementary and overlapping jurisdictions and knowledge in the marine realm.

Research Objective 4.1. Increase knowledge on the distribution and abundance of Arctic marine 

species across all trophic levels and scales, including an improved understanding of the formation and 

maintenance of biological hotspots and proximate causes of shifts in range.

Rationale: An improved understanding of current species’ distribution and abundance relative to 

historical patterns and ongoing changes is a crucial need for decision-making about commercial 

activities, developing effective plans for conservation, and ensuring that these species remain available 

for the nutritional and cultural needs of northern coastal Indigenous communities. This effort will benefit 

from interagency collaboration because of multi-agency jurisdiction of Arctic marine species and the 

need for agencies to consider impacts to marine resources when planning and authorizing activities in 

the Arctic. Many of these projects are conducted in collaboration with State, tribal, and Indigenous 

entities.

Performance Element 4.1.1: Continue distribution and abundance surveys of Arctic marine species, 

for example, concurrent monitoring of polar bears and their ice seal prey.

Lead Agencies: DOI (FWS), NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM, USGS), MMC

Performance Element 4.1.2: Continue studies to document Arctic marine species biodiversity (e.g. 

Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observation Network—AMBON—and programs that monitor loss of sea 

ice) and habitat use in the Arctic. Ensure datasets will be available through open access data portals.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM, FWS), NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), MMC, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 4.1.3: Assess winter distributions of key Arctic species, via passive acoustic 

sampling and satellite tagging for marine mammals to include further development of autonomous, 

unmanned surface and underwater vehicles equipped with sensors capable of recording marine 

mammal vocalizations. 

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (FWS, USGS), MMC

Research Objective 4.2. Improve understanding of basic life history of Arctic marine species to 

support multi-agency decision-making.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

26

Rationale: Life history data are fundamental to understanding existing relationships in ecosystems, 

potential feedback loops, and anticipating biological responses. This effort will benefit from engaging

with Indigenous subsistence communities through co-management agreements and community 

meetings because biological sampling of organisms harvested by subsistence hunters provides efficient 

and cost-effective access to information that might not be otherwise available to several Federal 

agencies. Many of these projects are conducted in collaboration with State agencies and 

nongovernmental collaborators.

Performance Element 4.2.1: Assess feeding ecology of Arctic species and fill seasonal data gaps. One 

such project will identify walrus prey based on an innovative approach using molecular markers.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM, USGS), NOAA

Supporting Agencies: MMC, NSF

Performance Element 4.2.2: Determine basic life history information on age and growth rates of key 

links in the food web.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (USGS), NSF

Performance Element 4.2.3: Assess the value of recent interdisciplinary programs and data synthesis 

efforts to guide management decisions and allocation of resources.

Lead Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOI (BOEM), USARC

Supporting Agencies: DOI (FWS), NOAA, MMC, NASA

Research Objective 4.3. Advance the understanding of how climate-related changes, biophysical 

interactions, and feedbacks at different scales in the marine ecosystems impact Arctic marine resources 

and human communities that depend on them.

Rationale: Predictive, mechanistic relationships linking climate and biological responses will be 

central to understanding future scenarios and provide decision makers with the best available 

information. Interdisciplinary research is needed to understand the ways in which key marine species 

may respond to climate-related changes, such as loss of sea ice. Actions supporting this Objective will 

build a portfolio of integrated “climate-ready” management actions, tools, and approaches.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

27

Performance Element 4.3.1: Continue Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO)25 sampling in regions 

1-5 and make data publicly available through upload of metadata to the Earth Observing 

Laboratory/DBO data portal.

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM, FWS), NASA

Performance Element 4.3.2: Continue DBO coordination activities including annual workshops, via 

participation in the Pacific Arctic Group (PAG), and produce the first Pacific Arctic Regional Marine 

Assessment (PARMA) in 2018.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOI (BOEM), NASA, NSF

Performance Element 4.3.3: Build connections between DBO and existing community-based 

observation programs and encourage data sharing. For example, the DBO Implementation Plan 

discusses fostering connections to existing community-based observation programs in an effort to link 

offshore observations of biological change to local observations and IK.

26

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agency: DOI (BOEM)

Performance Element 4.3.4: Continue research and make simultaneous observations of biological, 

chemical, and physical variables to examine linkages among marine species, oceanographic and sea 

ice conditions, and climate change to understand the mechanisms that affect performance and 

distribution. Quantify feedbacks and interactions of bottom-up and top-down processes that regulate 

production. One such project involves investigating the links between bivalve growth and sea ice 

extent. Several projects require the integration of IK (e.g., the Walrus Adaptability and Long-term 

Responses: Using multi-proxy data to project Sustainability, or WALRUS, an NSF-BOEM partnership).

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOI (FWS, USGS), NASA, USARCPerformance Element 4.3.5:

Implement the Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science27 and prepare 

Regional Action Plans for Aleutian Islands and High Arctic Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs).

Lead Agency: NOAA

Performance Element 4.3.6: Conduct numerical simulations using coupled models to evaluate 

feedbacks across disciplines and systems.

 

25 See www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo for more information about the DBO and the location of the regions.

26 See the decadal DBO Implementation Plan (2015-2024) for more information at 

http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/uploads/cms/documents/iarpc-dbo-ct-_-dbo-10-year-implementationplan-version1.pdf

27 Through ecosystem-based fishery management, Alaska Regional Action Plans will provide tools for addressing climate-driven 

changes to the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and High Arctic LMEs, reducing unintended outcomes of management actions and 

balancing emergent tradeoffs under climate change. See www.afsc.noaa.gov/news/Regional_action_plan_Bering_Sea.htm for 

more information.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

28

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOI (BOEM)

Performance Element 4.3.7: Continue development, testing, and runs of prognostic models that use 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios in a regional context to explore current 

understanding of biophysical interactions and feedbacks, such as perturbations across several 

modeled food webs from the subarctic to the Arctic to estimate relative ecosystem sensitivities and 

rates of change. Ongoing efforts in the Bering Sea (i.e., ACLIM) will serve as a pilot program to 

consider an ensemble approach of multiple model outputs to better understand the impacts of 

climate change on Arctic LMEs.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOI (USGS), NSF
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

29

Research Goal 5: Understand and Project the Mass Balance of Glaciers, 

Ice Caps, and the Greenland Ice Sheet and Their Consequences for Sea 

Level Rise

Global mean sea level is estimated to have risen by 1.2 to 1.9 mm per year over the 20th century and 

that rate rose to 3.0 ± 0.7 mm per year between 1993 and 2010 (Hay et al. 2015). For the period 2003-

2009, roughly 25 percent of the observed sea level rise appears to be due to surface mass imbalance of 

glaciers, excluding those of coastal Greenland and Antarctica (Gardner et al. 2013). This is similar to the 

contribution from ice sheets, of which roughly two-thirds is derived from Greenland Ice Sheet mass loss 

(Shepherd et al. 2012).

The increase in the net rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet and other Arctic glaciers and ice 

caps (land ice) stems from warmer air temperatures that escalate melting on ice surfaces, and warmer 

ocean temperatures that increase calving of icebergs from marine-terminating glaciers. These forcings 

also modulate the dynamics of the ice, whose motion is governed by gravity and the constraints of 

surrounding topography. Although significant progress has been made in describing the current state of 

land ice, key questions remain about the specific processes that add and remove ice in the Arctic System, 

particularly regarding the interactions of the ice with the atmosphere and ocean. Given the rapidity with 

which the Arctic is seen to be warming, much may be learned about the future state of Arctic land ice by 

studying ongoing processes active in subarctic glacier systems.

As land ice and associated icebergs melt, the resultant effects include: contributions of freshwater and 

nutrients to the coastal zone with direct effects on marine ecosystems (Wadham et al. 2016) and coastal 

currents (Marsh et al. 2010); increasing storm-induced flooding associated with the rising sea levels 

(Tebaldi et al. 2012); reduced deep water formation in the ocean with consequences for climate (Weijer 

et al. 2012); and altered wind fields on various scales.

These effects, particularly those involving sea level rise and altered coastal currents, have regional and 

global implications. Regionally, the altered coastal currents will impact transport processes, such as spill 

response and search and rescue operations. Globally, coastal infrastructure, such as municipal gravity-fed 

sewage systems, subways, ports, military installations, roads, buildings, and property can be damaged by 

storm surge. 

Present estimates of land ice loss rates and sea level rise rates involve large error bars, indicating the 

need for expanded observation and improved process understanding to allow enhanced modeling and 

projection over a variety of spatial and temporal scales. These processes are strongly influenced by the 

atmosphere above, the adjacent or underlying ocean, and the solid earth below the ice. Consequently, it 

is necessary to take a systems approach that accounts for atmospheric, oceanographic, and solid earth 

conditions and processes and that examines the interactions and feedbacks among these components.

The Land Ice and Sea Level Goal focuses on land ice conditions and processes and their consequences. 

Progress in the implementation of this Goal will also contribute to and benefit from research linkages to 

other aspects of this Plan. This Goal also addresses the call for policy-driven research that meets 

fundamental regional and national needs. For example, the changes that are occurring in the Arctic land 

ice cover affect the well-being of Arctic residents, the functioning of the marine environment, regional 

and national security, and impact and depend upon processes occurring far beyond the Arctic.

Research Objective 5.1. Coordinate and integrate observations to improve understanding of the 

processes controlling the mass balance of Arctic land ice.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

30

Rationale: Observations of land ice variability and its interactions with the adjacent atmosphere and 

ocean are necessary to identify the patterns that result from underlying processes, which is the ultimate 

aim for understanding the system. These observations require the deployment and maintenance of 

spaceborne, airborne (manned and unmanned aircraft), surface (ice camps, research vessels, ice-based 

buoys), and sub-surface (unmanned underwater vehicles, under-ice profilers and floats, moorings) 

platforms. No single agency operates all these platforms, nor supports all the research necessary to 

understand land ice variability and its contribution to sea level rise. IARPC Collaborations will facilitate 

coordination and integration of atmosphere-land ice-ocean observations and process studies and the 

data analysis and synthesis necessary to understand the processes controlling mass balance variability 

and its consequences. The research activities coordinated to address this Objective also provide the 

foundation needed for addressing Objectives within the Environmental Intelligence Goal.

Performance Element 5.1.1: Maintain support for aircraft and satellite missions that contribute to 

long-term observations of land ice, including:

Continue to operate Landsat-8 to monitor changes in the areal extents of Arctic and subArctic glaciers using multispectral imaging to delineate glacier boundaries;

Prepare for the launch of ICESat-2, which will use laser altimetry to infer surface elevation 

change over Arctic glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland Ice Sheet; 

Continue OIB to ensure adequate overlap with ICESat-2 and allow cross-calibration of the 

altimetry measurements; 

In partnership with the German Aerospace Center (DLR), prepare for the FY 2018 launch of 

the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On (GRACE-FO), to continue 

measurements of the earth’s gravity field that have been used to infer ice mass loss from 

Arctic glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland Ice Sheet;

In partnership with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), continue to develop the 

NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) mission, to measure time-varying 

displacements of ice-covered surfaces to infer ice flow and extent in Arctic glaciers, ice caps, 

and the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agency: DOI (USGS)

Performance Element 5.1.2: Enable the collection of ground-based observations and associated 

aircraft measurements documenting variability of land ice on a variety of spatial and temporal scales,

including:

(1) Support the collection and analysis of observations from networks, such as the Greenland 

Ice Sheet Monitoring Network (GLISN) to improve estimation of the earth’s structure under 

Greenland, analysis of deformation within the ice sheet and at its calving margins, and 

information about glacier dynamics and subglacial geology; 

(2) Support the collection and analysis of observations from the Oceans Melting Greenland 

(OMG) mission to determine how marine glaciers react to the presence of warm, salty 

Atlantic water;
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

31

(3) Support the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Benchmark Glaciers Program in Alaska (Gulkana 

and Wolverine glaciers), which will allow direct comparison of mass balance records from 

different parts of North America to better understand the response of glaciers to climate 

changes.

(4) Support the collection and analysis of observations from the Ice2O project in Alaska, which 

seeks to understand linkages between changes in snowcover and glacier volume and 

freshwater delivery to the ocean, including impacts on near-shore habitats, coastal currents, 

marine ecosystems, and local tourism and recreation industries.

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (USGS), NOAA, NSF

Performance Element 5.1.3: Support investigator-driven studies of land ice process studies across the 

Arctic, including ocean-glacier interactions, surface and subglacial hydrology, surface mass balance, 

local surface melt and refreezing, firn densification, glacial isostatic adjustment, iceberg melting, 

surface energy budget, and related observations. 

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOI (USGS), NOAA, NASA

Performance Element 5.1.4: Enhance national and international communication and collaboration 

concerning land ice state and processes, for example, through support of the activities of the SEARCH 

Land Ice Action Team.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agency: NASA

Research Objective 5.2. Improve numerical models to enhance projection of ice loss from Arctic 

land ice and the consequent impact on global sea level and to better understand the predictability of 

these processes.

Rationale: Numerical and analytical models synthesize understanding derived from observations and 

process studies. They inform the design of future observations and process studies and enable 

quantitative projections over various time scales. The IARPC Collaborations will be a forum for 

cooperation on the improvement of land ice dynamics and mass balance process models and for 

facilitating the improvement of large-scale model physics to enhance predictive capability at a range of 

spatial and temporal scales relevant to the missions of the participating agencies. The research activities 

coordinated to address this Objective also provide the foundation needed for addressing Objectives 

within the Environmental Intelligence Goal.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

32

Performance Element 5.2.1: Enable the development and assessment of ice sheet models, both as 

stand-alone models and within the context of earth system models, including:

(1) Continue to develop the Ice Sheet System Model (ISSM), a massively parallelized, multipurpose finite-element framework to model the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet in 

the near future and inform future sea level rise projections;

(2) Continue to develop the Community Ice Sheet Model (CISM), a next-generation ice sheet 

model that serves as the ice dynamics component of the Community Earth System Model 

(CESM), one of the first global climate models to include coupled, dynamic ice sheets;

(3) Continue to develop ice sheet models within mission-oriented modeling frameworks, such 

as the Accelerated Climate Modeling for Energy (ACME) project, which will apply an 

advanced climate and earth system model to investigate the challenges posed by the 

interactions of climate change and societal energy requirements;

(4) Support the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6) to improve 

projections of sea level via simulations of the evolution of the Greenland Ice Sheet under a 

changing climate;

(5) Continue to develop and to deploy the Land Ice Verification and Validation (LIVV) Toolkit for 

the robust evaluation of continental-scale ice sheet models.

Lead Agencies: NASA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOE

Performance Element 5.2.2: Develop data sets to be used as boundary and forcing functions for ice 

sheet, ice cap, and glacier models, including improving regional reanalyses focused on the greater 

Arctic, improving global reanalysis systems in ways that are relevant to the Arctic, and promoting joint 

observation-modeling-reanalysis-forecasting activities.

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOD (NRL, ONR), NOAA, NSF

Performance Element 5.2.3: Support investigator-driven modeling projects designed to understand 

and parameterize important land ice processes, including studies of mélange rheologies and 

dynamics, wet and dry firn processes, meltwater infiltration and refreezing, interactions between the 

glacier front and subglacial outflow plumes, and basal sliding laws.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOE, DOI (USGS), NASA
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

33

Research Goal 6: Advance Understanding of Processes Controlling 

Permafrost Dynamics and the Impacts on Ecosystems, Infrastructure, 

and Climate Feedbacks

Permafrost evolution, degradation, and properties influence terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in Arctic 

and boreal regions (Bowden et al. 2012; Hinzman et al. 2005; Shur and Jorgenson 2007), impact 

infrastructure and economies (Walker and Peirce 2015; Larsen et al. 2008), affect human health (Arctic 

Climate Impact Assessment 2004), and alter global climate via the permafrost carbon feedback (Koven et 

al. 2015; Schuur et al. 2015). These effects are germane to all of the policy drivers in this Plan: Wellbeing, Stewardship, Security, and Arctic-Global System. Understanding permafrost processes and their 

dynamic linkages with natural and social systems is important for advancing U.S. policy interests for the 

2017-2021 planning period and beyond.

Improved understanding of permafrost dynamics requires an interdisciplinary approach linking biotic, 

abiotic, and social disciplines in order to consider relevant impacts at local to global scales. Permafrost is 

a fundamental component of the cryosphere in the northern hemisphere, affecting about 24 percent of 

the terrestrial landscape (Brown et al 1998). Permafrost is defined as ground that remains at or below 

0°C for at least two consecutive years (Van Everdingen 1998). Four zones describe the lateral extent of 

permafrost regions: continuous (90-100 percent), discontinuous (50-90 percent), sporadic discontinuous 

(10-50 percent), and isolated discontinuous (< 10 percent). Permafrost zones extend across 80 percent of 

Alaska. Continuous and discontinuous permafrost underlie 32 percent and 31 percent of the state, 

respectively, while sporadic permafrost underlies about 8 percent of the state, and isolated

discontinuous perfmafrost, an additional 10 percent (Jorgenson et al. 2008). Interactions between 

climate, topography, hydrology, and ecology operating over long time scales regulate permafrost 

presence and stability (Shur and Jorgenson 2007). Due to these interactions, permafrost may persist in 

regions with a mean annual air temperature (MAAT) above 0°C and it may degrade in regions with a 

MAAT below -10°C (Jorgenson et al. 2010). Since permafrost dynamics are highly integral and influential 

to Arctic ecosystem processes, an enhanced understanding requires a multi-disciplinary approach that

accounts for component couplings.

Permafrost warming, degradation, and thaw subsidence can have significant implications for ecosystems, 

infrastructure, and climate at local, regional, and global scales (Jorgenson et al. 2001; Nelson et al. 2001; 

Schuur et al. 2008). In general, permafrost in Alaska has warmed between 0.3°C and 6°C since ground 

temperature measurements began between the 1950s and 1980s (Romanovsky et al. 2010; Romanovsky 

et al. 2012). Warming and thawing of near-surface permafrost may lead to widespread terrain instability 

in ice-rich permafrost regions in the Arctic (Jorgenson et al. 2006; Lantz and Kokeli 2008; Gooseff et al. 

2009; Balser et al. 2014; Jones et al. 2015; Liljedahl et al. 2016). Such land surface changes can impact 

vegetation, hydrology, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and soil carbon dynamics (Grosse et al. 2011; 

Jorgenson et al. 2013; Kokelj et al. 2015; O’Donnell et al. 2011; Schuur et al. 2008; Vonk et al. 2015). 

Thawing permafrost also interacts with changes to physical ocean conditions (sea level, storm strength 

and frequency, and sea ice cover) to influence coastal erosion, which can impact both ecosystems and 

infrastructure.

The extent and dynamics of permafrost and permafrost-related landscape features remain poorly 

mapped and modeled at sufficient resolution to predict impacts of climate change along a spectrum of 

spatial scales, which is essential for adequate understanding driving informed Arctic and global policy. 

Permafrost properties are linked in complex but quantifiable ways with terrain and ecosystem 

characteristics (Balser et al. 2015; Jorgenson et al. 2014; Mishra and Riley 2015; Pastick et al. 2014), 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

34

hydrologic processes and biogeochemistry (Abbott et al. 2014; Hinzman et al. 2006; Walker and Hudson 

2003) and disturbance regimes (Gooseff et al. 2009; Mack et al. 2011; Viereck 1973). Because

permafrost is a subsurface property, development of geospatial datasets suitable for modeling and 

scaling typically requires a well-coordinated combination of extensive field work and remote sensing 

analyses (Cable et al. 2016; Balser et al. 2014; Pastick et al. 2013). Rigorous examination of linkages 

among disciplines provides the foundation for effective modeling efforts designed to represent 

permafrost dynamics in local to global systems, to estimate the spatial distribution of permafrost 

degradation modes (Balser and Jones 2015; Olefeldt 2015; Jones et al. 2015), and to assess the 

vulnerability of permafrost carbon to quantify potential carbon release to the atmosphere (Schuur et al. 

2015; Schuur et al. 2008).

Meeting the Permafrost Goal will require strategic and diligently executed cooperation among Federal 

agencies with complementary capabilities, programs, and expertise. No single agency can adequately 

address the gaps in scientific understanding of permafrost dynamics in a changing climate and the 

required improvements in empirical and modeling research to inform sound Federal policy. Additionally, 

collaboration with Indigenous organizations and State of Alaska Agencies could further strengthen 

knowledge exchange and data collection and could inform decisions. Successful development and 

distribution of actionable knowledge and data will come from linking specific, existing research and 

management programs housed within laboratories and agencies, as well as promoting and sustaining 

larger community initiatives and groups (such as NSF’s SEARCH Permafrost Action Team and associated 

Permafrost Carbon Network), which foster synthesis studies across disciplines, provide regular meetings 

for sharing updates and results, and offer a forum for introduction of new ideas to the larger community.

Finally, there is a need for stable, long-term observation networks coordinated across interdisciplinary 

research efforts and multi-agency approaches.

Research Objective 6.1. Improve understanding of how climate, physiography, terrain conditions, 

vegetation, and patterns of disturbance interact to control permafrost dynamics.

Rationale: Permafrost distribution and degradation are controlled by complex interactions among 

physical and biological factors that are heterogeneous across the landscape and are only partially 

understood. Warmer air temperatures are increasing permafrost temperature and thaw in many areas, 

changing hydrology, and influencing vegetation composition. Fire and thermokarst disturbances also 

affect thaw and may lead to more abrupt landscape changes. Permafrost thaw will likely increase risks to 

critical infrastructure in the Arctic, especially in the discontinuous permafrost zone, and will pose new 

challenges for residents, while contributing to ecosystem and global climate shifts. Through enhanced 

monitoring and research focused on improved understanding of the controls on permafrost dynamics, 

composition and distribution, anticipated environmental change and infrastructure damages due to 

thawing permafrost may be better quantified, thereby reducing risks locally and globally.

Performance Element 6.1.1: Continue to conduct and coordinate monitoring and modeling of 

permafrost temperature across a wide range of terrain units and climatic zones and to use obtained 

data to refine relationships between the ground thermal regime of shallow and deep permafrost and 

terrain properties.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, DOI (NPS, USGS), USDA (NRCS), NOAA, NASA
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

35

Performance Element 6.1.2: Conduct field-based research that examines and quantifies relationships 

among surface topography, vegetation composition, hydrology, disturbance effects (including fire and 

thermokarst), and geophysical processes in permafrost soils to feed directly into models, decision 

support tools, and predictive analyses.

Lead Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOI (NPS, USGS), NASA

Performance Element 6.1.3: Support field-based research to improve understanding of how changes 

to Arctic lake and river ecosystems affect permafrost stability, water availability, and habitat 

provision, with a particular focus on wintertime ice regimes.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS, USGS), NASA

Performance Element 6.1.4: Integrate field, laboratory, and remote sensing information to map local, 

regional, and global permafrost-influenced landscape dynamics and their impact on vegetation, 

hydrology, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and soil carbon dynamics in the Arctic. Develop 

spatially-explicit decision support systems and predictive tools.

Lead Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, DOI (BLM)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (FWS, NPS, USGS), NOAA, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 6.1.5: Support activities, including the SEARCH Permafrost Action Team, to 

foster continued efforts to link multi-agency investments while expanding empirical datasets and 

synthesizing information that will inform the development of an updated permafrost ground ice 

content map for Alaska.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS), NOAA, NASA

Research Objective 6.2. Improve and expand understanding of how warming and thawing of 

permafrost influence the vulnerability of soil carbon, including the potential release of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere.

Rationale: Permafrost contains vast quantities of earth’s soil organic carbon stocks—twice as much as 

the current atmospheric pool, which may be decomposed and released as greenhouse gases (including 

CO2 and CH4) when permafrost soils thaw. This carbon increases atmospheric greenhouse gas 

concentrations and contributes to further warming, with regional and global climate impacts. The 

amount of carbon that could be released from thawing permafrost is dependent on multiple factors, and 

remains very difficult to quantify, yet is an essential consideration across multiple scales for projecting

future climate change. Improved understanding of the vulnerability of permafrost carbon to 

decomposition and the potential magnitude of carbon release will improve both empirical and modeling 

efforts designed to identify and quantify how permafrost thaw will impact climate, ecosystems, and 

society.

Performance Element 6.2.1: Support field-based research and monitoring focused on quantifying the 

key processes controlling soil carbon cycling at northern latitudes and potential carbon release to the 

atmosphere, including temperature and hydrological effects.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

36

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS, USGS), NASA

Performance Element 6.2.2: Support research to improve scaling methods for estimating CO2 and CH4

emissions from the permafrost region (including that which is conducted by the SEARCH Permafrost 

Action Team) to link multi-agency investments in soil carbon research that culminates in synthesis 

publications.

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, NOAA, NASA

Performance Element 6.2.3: Utilize empirical, multi-scale approaches to make spatially-explicit 

estimates of vulnerability of permafrost carbon and release of both CO2 and CH4.

Lead Agency: DOE

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOI (USGS), NASA

Performance Element 6.2.4: Utilize empirical, multi-scale approaches to make spatially explicit 

estimates of the potential extent and modes of abrupt permafrost thaw, including thermokarst and 

cryogenic landslides, and of the downstream effects of these events on microbial processes and 

carbon fluxes.

Lead Agency: DOD (USACE)

Supporting Agency: DOI (USGS), NSF

Performance Element 6.2.5: Better understand the rate of subsea permafrost degradation and its 

role in methane gas hydrate decomposition and feedbacks to the climate system. Develop estimates 

of contributions to atmospheric carbon from subsea permafrost sources at present and under future 

scenarios.

Lead Agency: DOI (USGS)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA, NSF

Research Objective 6.3. In collaboration with efforts described under the Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Goal, continue to improve integration of empirically measured permafrost processes into models that 

predict how climate change, hydrology, and ecosystem shifts and disturbances interact within terrestrial 

and freshwater aquatic systems to impact permafrost evolution, degradation, and feedbacks from local 

landscapes to the circum-Arctic.

Rationale: The ability to estimate circumpolar impacts of permafrost thaw and to predict changes to 

ecosystem structure and function across regions is central to predicting global change. At present, the 

ability to estimate these impacts is severely hampered by limitations in modeling and scaling capabilities 

for permafrost processes across diverse landscapes. The complex, multi-factorial nature of permafrost 

processes within the context of ecosystems drives the need for linking empirical measurements with 

model functions and parameters to benchmark the models. Improved predictive accuracy and 

understanding of permafrost/ecosystem process dynamics will directly enhance the ability to predict 

global climate shifts and anticipated shifts in ecosystem structure and function from local to continental 

scales.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

37

Performance Element 6.3.1: Conduct field-based research and monitoring needed to improve 

understanding of the linkages between key terrestrial ecosystem processes and permafrost properties 

and to incorporate empirical information into modeling efforts at various scales.

Lead Agencies: DOE, DOI (FWS), NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOI (BLM, NPS, USGS), USDA (USFS), NASA

Performance Element 6.3.2: Carry out research to quantify and integrate across scales, the effects of 

warming permafrost on ecosystem processing related with disturbance regimes, including fire, 

thermokarst, and landscape changes.

Lead Agency: DOI (FWS, USGS), NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOI (BLM, NPS), USDA (USFS), NASA

Performance Element 6.3.3: Facilitate and harmonize the production of key geospatial datasets from 

extensive field measurements, remotely-sensed, and other data sources needed for model 

initialization, calibration, and validation. Organize and host workshops to enable this activity across 

agencies engaged in data development with attention to data congruity and scalability.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BLM, FWS), NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, DOI (NPS), NSF

Performance Element 6.3.4: Support continued development of robust modeling tools and 

approaches to integrate models of ecosystem processes at various scales since permafrost dynamics 

are integral to these processes and vice-versa. Facilitate this activity through workshops that foster 

interagency information exchange, engagement, and data development with attention to data 

congruity and scalability to produce products accessible to multiple agencies.

Lead Agency: DOE

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOI (BLM, NPS), NOAA, NASA, NSF

Research Objective 6.4. Determine how warming and thawing permafrost impacts infrastructure 

and human health.

Rationale: Thawing of ice-rich permafrost and melting of massive ground ice bodies causes terrain 

subsidence. This subsidence can result in extensive and costly damage to critical infrastructure and 

create new risks for northern residents. Across much of the Arctic where transportation infrastructure is 

not duplicated, damages could cut off easy access to communities. Permafrost warming and thaw can 

also impact human health through release of dissolved organic carbon or biological and chemical 

contaminants into drinking water supplies, through disruption of sewage collection and disposal 

systems, and through alteration of water drainage patterns in communities.

Performance Element 6.4.1: Survey Federal research agencies and non-Federal partners/stakeholders 

on their use of tools, methods, and means to monitor changes in landscape conditions due to 

changes in permafrost with a focus on hazards to infrastructure and health. Develop, enhance, and 

update “Best Practices” guides for mitigation of impacts to building foundations and other 

infrastructure.

Lead Agency: DOI (BLM)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

38

Supporting Agencies: DOD (OSD, USACE), DOI (BIA), HHS, Denali Commission, EPA

Performance Element 6.4.2: In collaboration with relevant Indigenous organizations, survey local 

communities and regional agencies—those which maintain infrastructure and monitor health—on 

the impacts of warming and thawing permafrost. Integrate these responses within a document 

characterizing and summarizing overall impacts of warming and thawing permafrost.

Lead Agencies: DOD (OSD), Denali Commission

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOI (BLM), HHS, NOAA, EPA
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

39

Research Goal 7: Advance an Integrated, Landscape-scale Understanding 

of Arctic Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems and the Potential for 

Future Change

Arctic terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems are rapidly changing in response to a variety of forcing 

factors, including a changing climate, alterations in natural disturbance regimes, and human-caused 

perturbations (Bernhardt et al. 2011; Bunn and Goetz 2006; Chapin et al. 2010; Epstein et al. 2010; Hill 

and Henry 2011; Johnstone et al. 2010; Jorgenson et al. 2010; Kim et al. 2012; Myers-Smith et al. 2006, 

2011). In turn, these environmental changes are altering a number of important goods, services, and 

other contributions Arctic ecosystems provide to society, including critical plant and animal populations 

and their habitats, biotic resources essential to subsistence lifestyles and cultures, and feedbacks to 

regional and global climate systems (Joly et al. 2006; Kofinas et al. 2010; Noel et al. 2004; Tape et al. 

2016). Of particular interest are the broader impacts of ongoing changes to the natural fire regime 

(Higuera et al. 2008; Jones et al. 2013; Kasischke et al. 2010; Kelly et al. 2013), the potential feedback of 

these changes to climate (Kasischke and Hoy 2012; Mack et al. 2011; Randerson et al. 2006; Rocha et al. 

2012), and impacts on the health and well-being of Arctic residents (Yue et al. 2015). Continuing 

investment to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of changes to terrestrial and 

freshwater ecosystems provides needed information for all four IARPC policy drivers, as they are a key 

component of the Arctic environment (Stewardship and Security), provide important feedbacks to the 

climate (Arctic-Global System), and provide key ecosystem services that contribute to the health and 

well-being of Arctic residents (Well-being).

A wide range of ongoing research, inventory, and monitoring activities across Federal agencies in the 

Arctic focuses on understanding how ecosystems and humans are responding to recent environmental 

changes. In many cases these activities are being carried out to address priority management needs. 

Understanding how the growing extent and intensity of environmental changes will impact Arctic 

ecosystems and societies requires continued and expanded research in three areas: 

(1) Understanding of and ability to model feedbacks and interactions among causes of 

environmental change and the responses of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, particularly 

hydrologic, permafrost, and disturbance dynamics;

(2) Knowledge of how changes to ecosystems alter animal and plant populations and subsistence 

opportunities;

(3) Evaluation of the effects of changing fire regimes on rural and urban communities and 

atmospheric carbon budgets and other climate feedbacks.

The Terrestrial Ecosystems Goal will facilitate the improvement of important process modeling activities 

currently being supported by a range of Federal agencies through its focus on research that includes 

long-term monitoring activities, collection and analysis of field-based observations for specific projects, 

and creation of geospatial data products, especially from airborne and spaceborne remote sensing data. 

These agencies are also conducting critical monitoring and research activities to understand the impacts 

of ecosystem changes to ecosystem services.

The three Research Objectives for this Goal and the Performance Elements identified for them provide a 

framework for coordinating Federally sponsored research and monitoring activities. The Performance 

Elements are based upon extensive, longer-term research, inventory, and monitoring activities 

supported by Department of the Interior bureaus (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, USGS, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs), U.S. Department of Agriculture bureaus 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

40

(U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service), NSF, and a number of shorter-term 

research activities sponsored by these and other Federal agencies (DOD, DOE, NASA). The Performance 

Elements also incorporate opportunities for coordination, integration, and synthesis of research across 

agencies, including activities to support the Arctic Council, the Department of Energy’s Next Generation 

Ecosystem Experiment-Arctic (NGEE), the Department of the Interior’s Alaska Climate Science Center, 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), and North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI), the Joint Fire 

Science Program’s Alaska Fire Science Consortium, NASA’s Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment

(ABoVE), NOAA’s Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP), and NSF’s SEARCH 

Permafrost Action Team. This latter group of projects and programs include significant interactions with 

key State of Alaska agencies, including the Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Game. From 

an international perspective, research and monitoring activities that address the Terrestrial Ecosystems

Goal are being coordinated through the activities of the Arctic Council as well as agreements between 

U.S. and Canadian Federal agencies.

Research Objective 7.1. Improve understanding of and ability to model feedbacks and interactions 

among the large-scale processes causing change (climate, natural disturbances, and human-caused 

perturbations) and the responses of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.

Rationale: This Objective will focus on continuing and expanding observations, monitoring, and 

research to understand how variations in climate, disturbances, and human-caused perturbations are 

causing changes to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. These scientific activities not only focus on 

landscape-scale composition, structure, and function, but also on flora, fauna, permafrost, and 

hydrology dynamics, and above- and below-ground carbon reservoirs. This research is also directed 

toward understanding how changes to ecosystems induce feedbacks to climate and disturbance regimes. 

Together, this group of activities provides the basis for improving regional and global scale ecological and 

earth science models, as well as coupled climate-ecosystem models that incorporate key disturbance 

processes, in particular wildland fire. The research activities that would be coordinated to address this 

Objective also provide the foundation needed for addressing the other Objectives within the Permafrost 

Goal.

Performance Element 7.1.1: Carry out and synthesize results from field-based research and 

monitoring needed to improve understanding of important ecosystem processes and feedbacks, 

including their responses to environmental changes.

Lead Agencies: DOI (FWS, USGS), NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOE, DOI (BLM, NPS), USDA (NRCS, USFS), NASA

Performance Element 7.1.2: Carry out and synthesize research on and monitoring of the disturbance 

processes responsible for changes to key landscapes, including fire, warming permafrost, insects and 

pathogens, and human activities.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BLM), NASA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOE, DOI (FWS, NPS, USGS), USDA (USFS)

Performance Element 7.1.3: Facilitate and harmonize the production, integration, and distribution of 

key geospatial datasets from remotely-sensed and other data sources that are needed for monitoring 

key ecosystem processes and landscape changes and for model initialization, calibration, and 

validation.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

41

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOE, DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS, USGS)

Performance Element 7.1.4: Improve existing and develop advanced models for integrating climate, 

disturbance, above- and below-ground dynamics and interactions and feedbacks to characterize and 

predict Arctic landscape and ecosystem change.

Lead Agency: DOE, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS, USGS), NASA

Research Objective 7.2. Advance understanding of how changes to ecosystems alter animal and 

plant populations and their habitats and subsistence activities that depend on them.

Rationale: Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems are important for subsistence and the culture of Arctic 

residents. These ecosystems provide key habitats for a number of plant species, and resident and 

migratory fish and terrestrial animal species unique to Arctic regions. These species and their ecosystems 

also provide the basis for important subsistence activities that are central to the lifestyles and well-being 

of many northern residents, especially Indigenous communities. This Objective will focus on continuing 

and expanding the science programs needed to understand how changes to terrestrial and freshwater 

ecosystems are influencing plant, fish, and terrestrial animal populations and habitats, and how these 

changes impact human uses of these resources. The activities for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Goal need to 

include engagement of key stakeholder groups in order to incorporate IK and LK. The research activities 

coordinated to address this Objective also provide the foundation needed for addressing Objectives 

within the Health and Well-being Goal.

Performance Element 7.2.1: Coordinate the development of maps from remotely-sensed data and 

synthesize available data to document changing plant, fish, and terrestrial animal populations and 

their habitats.

Lead Agencies: DOI (FWS, USGS)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BLM, NPS), NASA

Performance Element 7.2.2: Compare trends in aquatic and terrestrial animal populations and 

movements with changing patterns of vegetation cover, lake, pond, and wetland extent and 

characteristics to determine whether and how shifting habitats are influencing animal behaviors and 

population dynamics.

Lead Agency: DOI (FWS)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BLM, NPS, USGS), NASA, NSF

Performance Element 7.2.3: Incorporate scientific observations and the perspectives of IK and/or LK 

knowledge holders into assessments of how changing Arctic ecosystems, flora, and fauna are 

affecting important subsistence activities, lifestyles, and well-being of northern residents.

Lead Agency: DOI (FWS)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BIA, BLM, NPS, USGS), NASA
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

42

Research Objective 7.3. Evaluate how changes in fire activity are impacting rural and urban 

communities, atmospheric emissions and carbon budgets, and other feedbacks to climate.

Rationale: Fire is a primary disturbance agent for terrestrial ecosystems in northern regions and is 

included as a critical cause of landscape change for the scientific activities covered in Objectives 7.1 and 

7.2. In addition, the effects of changes in timing, size, area burned, and intensity of fires are impacting 

rural and urban communities throughout much of the North. Fires can cause loss of life and property, 

negatively impact air quality, and alter availability of subsistence resources. Shifts in fire regimes may 

also influence terrestrial and atmospheric carbon dynamics, with the potential to impact climate at 

regional and global scales. The Performance Elements that are part of this Objective would continue 

activities that are part of ongoing IARPC Collaborations. The research activities coordinated to address 

this Objective also provide the foundation needed for addressing Objectives within the Atmosphere

Goal.

Performance Element 7.3.1: Evaluate how changing fire regimes have and are likely to impact 

northern communities, via impacts to infrastructure, health, and subsistence opportunities.

Lead Agency: DOI (BLM)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BIA, FWS, NPS, USGS), USDA (USFS), NASA, NSF

Performance Element 7.3.2: Coordinate research on the observations, geospatial dataset generation, 

and model improvement needed to estimate emissions from wildland fires and the potential for 

those emissions to affect atmospheric carbon budgets and climate feedbacks.

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS, USGS), USDA (USFS), NSF
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

43

Research Goal 8: Strengthen Coastal Community Resilience and Advance 

Stewardship of Coastal Natural and Cultural Resources by Engaging in 

Research Related to the Interconnections of People, Natural, and Built 

Environments

For a number of reasons, research on Arctic coastal areas is particularly complex and cross-cutting.

Coastal areas comprise the nexus of marine, terrestrial, and freshwater systems and are home to the 

majority of Arctic human communities. Arctic coastlines are already experiencing climate change 

impacts such as flooding and coastal erosion, including some of the highest shoreline erosion rates in the 

United States: most of Alaska’s northern coast is retreating at rates of more than 1m per year (Gibbs and 

Richmond 2015).

Many issues specific to the Arctic coastal zone are related to human coastal communities: culture, food 

security, safety, increased commercial activity, infrastructure, biodiversity, and physical and biological 

processes. To provide the critical knowledge required to navigate decision-making and to inform policy 

regarding this distinctive geography, research on the interconnections between Arctic people and their 

natural and built coastal environments is necessary. Thus, Arctic coastal areas offer rich research 

opportunities at the confluence of social, engineering, and biological and physical sciences. 

Understanding gained from the research will advance Well-being, Stewardship, and Security in the 

region.

Already, research coordination among multiple groups is taking place from local to international scales, 

and the Coastal Goal builds on and strengthens that work. Under the U.S. Chairmanship of the Arctic 

Council, the Federal government has been leading an international effort with multiple collaborators, 

including groups that represent Indigenous coastal communities, to build a framework for resilience to 

rapid changes in the Arctic. Research into coastal physical processes, coastal inundation, and improved 

mapping data will support the work of the Denali Commission, which is working with the Arctic Executive 

Steering Committee Community Resilience Working Group to facilitate relocation of coastal villages,

necessitated by considerable coastal erosion and increased storm surges in Alaska. Phenology and 

biodiversity monitoring and modeling research will strengthen scenarios to help identify future research 

and monitoring needs undertaken by State-Federal partnerships such as NSSI. The Alaska Climate 

Change Executive Roundtable (ACCER), which regularly discusses the role of science in understanding the 

ecological impacts of climate change to the built environment, will benefit from research into physical 

coastal processes and enhanced observational data. Additionally, LCCs in Arctic coastal areas are actively 

engaging communities in research by convening workshops to learn about issues impacting their 

landscapes and to support community-based monitoring.

All steps of research—developing priorities and deliverables, designing projects, conducting research, 

disseminating results, and collaborating on deliverables—benefit from engaging community members. 

Collaboration and engagement enable meaningful research among community members, IK holders, LK 

holders, and interagency researchers. The process of sharing research results with communities using 

approaches compatible with the needs and wants of the community is a critical aspect of building 

community engagement.

Research Objective 8.1. Engage coastal communities in research to advance knowledge on cultural, 

safety, and infrastructure issues for coastal communities.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

44

Rationale: More information is needed to develop the strategies necessary for coastal communities to 

adapt to environmental, social, and economic changes in the coming years and decades. The majority of 

people in the U.S. Arctic live in coastal areas where resources traditionally have been available 

throughout the seasons; as a result, planning and providing research findings on the sustainable 

economic development of coastal areas in a time of rapid change is an area of crucial focus. When 

engaging in research in Arctic coastal areas, it is informative, productive, and respectful to work with 

community members, IK holders, and LK holders, throughout the project—i.e., from project conception

to communication of results. Coastal areas are also poised to participate in community-based monitoring 

programs that enable people to report changes and other information to researchers and to participate 

in research about the places where they live. Further, due to rapidly changing climate, physical, and 

biotic systems in Arctic coastal areas, efforts to document cultural artifacts and create tools to assist with 

modeling for planning, protect-in-place strategies, and emergency response become crucial activities 

that must be addressed in a timely fashion.

Performance Element 8.1.1: Engage coastal community members in research by seeking cooperative 

opportunities between community members, IK holders, and/or LK holders, and researchers in 

knowledge co-production research processes. Employ IK and/or LK to jointly conceive of and plan 

research activities and to report research results back to communities.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BLM, BOEM, FWS), EPA, NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DHS, DOI (NPS, USGS)

Performance Element 8.1.2: Engage coastal community members in research by supporting 

community-based monitoring focused on measuring physical and biotic information by strengthening 

initiatives led by groups such as the Arctic-focused LCCs, BOEM, NOAA, and FWS.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM, FWS), NOAA

Supporting Agency: NSF

Performance Element 8.1.3: Support economic development research for the sustainable 

development of resilient communities. For example, create comprehensive economic planning 

strategies by DOC Economic Development Administration (EDA) planning grantees in Alaska coastal 

communities.

Lead Agency: DOC (EDA)

Supporting Agency: NSF

Performance Element 8.1.4: Investigate and protect cultural resources through research to identify 

and document archaeological sites in high-risk, rapidly eroding Arctic coastal areas.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BLM, NPS)

Supporting Agency: NSF

Performance Element 8.1.5: Advance the understanding of storm surge and saline inundation 

impacts on infrastructure and human safety. Multiagency partners include the Alaska Department of 

Geological and Geophysical Surveys and the ACCER.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

45

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agency: DOD (USACE)

Research Objective 8.2. Advance knowledge of ecosystems and environmental health in coastal 

areas by monitoring trends and modeling biological processes.

Rationale: Monitoring species status and trends and increasing understanding of biological processes 

advances natural resources stewardship and thus helps maintain biodiversity in Arctic coastal areas. 

Understanding mechanisms and conditions of coastal invasive species and wildlife disease creates 

options for management. Informed hunt, harvest, and conservation management is beneficial to 

advancing stewardship of natural resources.

Performance Element 8.2.1: Monitor and conduct studies to understand trends, processes, and 

biotic-abiotic feedback loops affecting the distribution, abundance, and ecology of coastal species in 

relation to food security, biodiversity, and ecosystems through projects such as the Arctic Council

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna working group Coastal Biodiversity Monitoring Programme.

Lead Agencies: DOI (BOEM, USGS), NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS), MMC

Performance Element 8.2.2: Develop ecological modeling capabilities to understand issues related to 

the coastal Arctic. Develop online eco-informatics tools such as Coastal Biodiversity Risk Analysis Tool 

(CBRAT) for Arctic coastal areas to deliver, at a regional scale, predicted relative vulnerability of 

coastal species and ecosystems to climate change, including temperature increases, sea level rise, and 

ocean acidification.

Lead Agency: EPA

Performance Element 8.2.3: Continue to develop a general Arctic-wide wildlife response model that 

relates to species-specific models of Arctic coastal organisms.

Lead Agency: DOI (USGS)

Performance Element 8.2.4: Understand and monitor processes to manage and mitigate potential 

and realized threats from coastal invasive species, biotoxicoses, and wildlife diseases by leveraging 

research under initiatives and programs such as One Health, the DBO network, AMBON, and Aerial 

Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) work.

Lead Agencies: HHS, NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM, FWS, USGS), MMC
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

46

Performance Element 8.2.5: Conduct research that informs changes in wildlife hunt, harvest, and 

conservation management such as the Arctic-related LCC-funded moose sightability correction factor 

model development effort.

Lead Agency: DOI (FWS)

Supporting Agency: NOAA

Performance Element 8.2.6: Improve knowledge of phenology in relation to coastal climate and plant 

and animal life to better understand issues related to mismatches between prey, predators, hunters, 

and gatherers in the context of and in collaboration with Arctic coastal communities. This element 

includes a Western Alaska LCC-funded project on subsistence berry availability.

Lead Agencies: DOI (FWS, USGS)

Supporting Agency: NSF

Research Objective 8.3. Advance knowledge of the physical coastal processes impacting natural and 

built environments.

Rationale: Changes in climate are affecting physical coastal processes, with potential significant threats 

to infrastructure, food security, and biodiversity. Coastal erosion is leading to property and habitat loss, 

threatening the existence of coastal communities in their current physical locations. Increased storm 

surge and inundation of low-lying areas imperil some coastal communities. Changes to hydrology affect 

availability of freshwater, as well as food sources such as fish. Changes in the timing of physical 

conditions (e.g. sea ice loss, precipitation, water temperature) and biological conditions (e.g. plankton 

blooms, prey migration) are creating mismatches between prey, predators, and hunters, affecting both 

wildlife and humans.

Performance Element 8.3.1: Improve understanding of coastal erosion and deposition, including 

related geomorphic changes due to permafrost degradation, reduced sea ice extent, storm surge, 

increased wave action, and sea level rise. This Element includes work by the USGS Coastal and Marine 

Geology Program, USGS Alaska Science Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and others.

Lead Agencies: DOD (USACE), DOI (USGS)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BOEM), NOAA, NSF

Performance Element 8.3.2: Increase understanding of coastal freshwater hydrologic changes in 

rivers, lakes, snow, and permafrost through projects such as the Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN)

soil moisture and temperature site monitoring.

Lead Agencies: DOI (USGS), NOAA, USDA (NRCS)

Supporting Agencies: DOI (BLM, BOEM, NPS), NASA, NSF

Research Objective 8.4. Improve observations, mapping, and charting to support research across 

the coastal interface.

Rationale: To support the decisions community, State, and Federal governments need to make from 

local to international levels, robust environmental intelligence on past conditions, current trends, and 

future projections is imperative. Thus, accurate observations, mapping, and charting data must be 

available for modeling and analysis across the entire coastal area. To support data collection, new 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

47

sensors and technologies are needed for observations year-round in Arctic coastal conditions and 

geographies.

Performance Element 8.4.1: Update the National Spatial Reference System in the Arctic to enable 

integration of baseline geospatial datasets in coastal areas to support research and predictive 

capabilities across the coastal interface.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agency: DOD (NGA)

Performance Element 8.4.2: Develop new sensor technologies and data collection and application 

methods specific to understanding and characterizing relationships within coastal systems across all 

seasons for natural resource, community, and emergency response planning and management. For 

example, support implementation of an integrated coastal and near-coastal water level sensor 

network, including developing and piloting sensor technologies for use in year-round water level 

observations.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DOI (NPS, FWS)

Performance Element 8.4.3: Produce modeled tidal predictions for the U.S. Arctic. Involve 

multiagency collaborators, including Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS) representatives.

Lead Agency: NOAA
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

48

Research Goal 9: Enhance Frameworks for Environmental Intelligence 

Gathering, Interpretation, and Application toward Decision Support

To adequately support decision-making in the face of unprecedented change in the Arctic, the United 

States and its international partners need improved scientific data collection and stewardship, 

understanding, and environmental predictions. This challenge requires frameworks for generating 

Environmental Intelligence: integrated environmental knowledge that is timely, reliable and suitable for 

the decisions at hand.

Developing suitable Environmental Intelligence frameworks requires the integration of two distinct 

aspects of research. The first concerns the end-to-end integration of research across the linked and 

iterative steps of problem identification, environmental observing, understanding, prediction, and 

decision support. For example, safe marine transit through Arctic waters requires engagement with 

operators to understand the details of their information needs, such as high resolution sea ice forecasts. 

To produce these forecasts, sparse yet detailed observations of sea ice from drifting ice buoys, 

community-based observers, and other in situ observations must be synthesized with broad, lowresolution satellite observations. Synthesized observations must then be assimilated into forecast 

models, which subsequently must be tested and validated through efforts like observational process 

studies—feeding back into an iterative cycle of improved observing and modeling capabilities.

The second aspect of Environmental Intelligence requires integration of research across the components 

of the Arctic System, as most decision-making contexts require a holistic view. Building on the example

in the previous paragraph, research is needed to inform how gridded estimates of sea ice thickness are 

interdependent with weather systems and ocean currents. With its emphasis on understanding the 

interconnected nature of the Arctic, IK presents a model for Arctic System integration.

Interagency collaboration is ideal for making progress on both end-to-end and Arctic System integration, 

because capacities and mission mandates to provide decision support tend to be distributed across 

many institutions and independently sponsored work. For example, NOAA and the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) sponsor many Alaska-based programs directly concerned with research for stakeholder

engagement and decision support, such as ACCAP, AOOS and FWS’s LCCs. These agencies and others like 

NSF, DOE, and NASA also support sustained observing of the Arctic environments; DOE, NSF, NASA, ONR,

and NOAA all contribute to models for improved predictions and projections, and many agencies support 

data centers that contribute comprehensive data stewardship for valuable Arctic data products. The 

Arctic Domain Awareness Center (ADAC), sponsored by DHS, bridges between research and operations 

to improve maritime domain awareness in support of the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USGC) mission. IARPC 

Collaborations will serve as a valuable forum for sharing practices and linking capabilities across IARPC 

agencies and outside collaborators.

While these efforts in the Arctic provide a solid foundation of knowledge and expertise, the 

Environmental Intelligence Goal addresses key areas for interagency progress. The sparseness of 

observational coverage and limited year-round environmental intelligence gathering have hobbled 

efforts to fully understand the impacts of changing environmental conditions on global processes as well 

as weather patterns, ecosystems, economic development, and safety. Interagency collaboration can 

leverage sparse observing assets and propel enhancements through the development of autonomous 

technologies (Research Objective 9.1). Modeling is a vital tool to advance system integration, to capture 

feedbacks within the systems, and to extend current understanding into the future. Progress is needed 

on how Arctic-specific processes and feedbacks are represented in models (Research Objective 9.2). 

Further, Arctic modeling can benefit from global and regional improvements to things like model 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

49

resolution, as well as from comparative assessments, including quantified uncertainties among models 

(Research Objective 9.3). Arctic data stewardship, sharing, and access is evolving from systems where 

data are discovered in data catalogues and downloaded to the local machines of users, to a system of 

distributed data nodes with visualization and collaboration platform capabilities made to enable 

interoperability. Interagency collaboration is needed to understand the connection between these 

distributed nodes and work toward common visions (Research Objective 9.4) for exchanging and 

integrating data, in particular across disciplines. Finally, the practices of and frameworks for exchanging 

knowledge between researchers and stakeholders are in an exciting and dynamic growth period, yet few 

organizations have the capacity or mandate to adequately address the needs. IARPC Collaborations can 

serve as a valuable forum for advancing dialog on engagement research, decision support, and science 

communications (Research Objective 9.5) and feedback critical areas for progress (e.g. specific data 

needs) to the other Research Objectives in this Goal.

Improvements within and across each of these areas will improve the ability to understand, 

communicate about, and support decisions in response to the impacts of Arctic change. These efforts, 

across the scales from community to global at which IARPC agencies engage, support each policy driver

of this plan (Well-being, Stewardship, Security, Arctic-Global Systems).

Research Objective 9.1. Enhance multi-agency and outside collaborators participation in new and 

existing activities to improve best practices, coordination, and synthesis of Arctic observations toward a 

fully integrated interagency U.S. Arctic Observing Network (U.S. AON).

Rationale: U.S. Arctic observational systems have advanced considerably in their coordination since the 

International Polar Year and many efforts can be considered regional or thematic building blocks toward 

a U.S. AON. Sustaining support for and enhancing multi-agency participation in these activities is vital, as 

is fostering the formation of new efforts. Further, there remains considerable work to forge connections 

across these typically disciplinary efforts toward a system of observations. In addition to coordinating 

Federal agency efforts, the U.S. AON will foster coordination with collaborators in the State of Alaska, 

community-based observing networks, and collaborate with international agencies and organizations to 

develop a pan-Arctic picture of change. To advance a U.S. AON, evolving these existing capabilities and 

advancing the utilization of next generation technologies is a multi-agency effort. Interagency 

collaboration can leverage sparse observing assets and propel the development of the next generation 

observing system. For example, in the past five years, technology development has surged. Gliders and 

floats that can measure horizontal and vertical properties of the ocean as well as conduct sea floor 

mapping have advanced to a level where they can be effectively deployed in the ice-covered Arctic basin. 

Autonomous surface vehicles and unmanned aircraft are now capable of long duration, autonomous 

missions, which can make millions of measurements of atmospheric and water properties, including 

pollutants, in previously inaccessible areas. When combined with fixed observational platforms, such as 

moorings, atmospheric monitoring facilities, and community-based observers, these systems can form 

the foundation of an integrated pan-Arctic observing network.

Performance Element 9.1.1: Coordinate U.S. agency and outside collaborators support for and 

participation in the international Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) process.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DHS (USCG), DOD (ONR), DOE, NASA, NSF
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

50

Performance Element 9.1.2: Work with the research community and other stakeholders to develop 

the concept of multi-agency research coordination networks to advance observational science and 

promote broad synthesis within thematic research communities. These networks would use a nested 

observing framework (satellite to ground observations) and include innovative and autonomous 

observing technologies suited to high latitude operations and community based observing.

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOE, NASA

Research Objective 9.2. Advance understanding of the Arctic System by using global and regional 

models with detailed Arctic processes to understand feedbacks and interactions within the components 

of the Arctic system and with the climate system as a whole.

Rationale: The Arctic environment is a complex system with many interacting components. The 

interdependencies in these components lead to positive and negative feedbacks. Variations in any one 

component will drive changes in the others, in ways that are not always obvious or well-understood. 

These variations include feedbacks between the Arctic and global system through cryosphere change

and also feedbacks between cryospheric change and the local physical and biogeochemical responses 

that result in rapid changes within the Arctic region itself. For instance, amplified warming in the Arctic 

can influence mid-latitude weather patterns, but the underlying mechanisms of this relationship are not 

yet clear. The application of comprehensive, integrated global and regional earth system models will be 

needed to understand the interdependencies of the Arctic System and its relationship with the global 

earth system as a whole. Investments by DOE, NOAA, NASA, ONR and NSF in global and regional models, 

as well as efforts by interagency working groups such as the Climate Variability and Predictability 

(CLIVAR) Working Groups and U.S. Global Change Research activities can be leveraged as appropriate.

Performance Element 9.2.1: Support and coordinate research to advance understanding of the 

connections between the Arctic and mid-latitude weather patterns and vice-versa.

Lead Agencies: DOE, NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), NASA

Performance Element 9.2.2: Support and coordinate research to enhance the understanding of 

connections between Arctic and global ocean circulation.

Lead Agencies: DOE, NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), NASA

Performance Element 9.2.3: Enhance understanding of processes and their interactions and 

feedbacks within the Arctic System itself, including the complex relationships between the ocean, sea 

ice, land, and atmosphere; impacts of snow on ice; interactions between Arctic clouds and aerosols;

effects of thermal forcing of sea ice; changes in ocean stratification; stratosphere-troposphere 

interactions; and radiative exchanges of energy throughout the system.

Lead Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOE, NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agency: NASA

Performance Element 9.2.4: Conduct a survey and identify investigator-driven modeling projects 

designed to understand important local and global Arctic System feedbacks.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

51

Lead Agency: NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOE, NOAA, NASA

Research Objective 9.3. Enhance climate prediction capabilities for the Arctic System from subseasonal to decadal timescales and climate projection capabilities up to centennial timescales by 

focusing on improving earth system models and their interactions, and assessing the strengths and 

weaknesses of the various coupled regional Arctic and earth system models by conducting 

intercomparison and model evaluations.

Rationale: Regional and global earth system models are mathematical representations of scientific 

understanding of the interrelated feedbacks and processes in the earth. As new process models are 

developed based on understanding from new observations, they need to be incorporated into earth 

system models for a holistic representation of the feedbacks within the earth system. These models need 

to be evaluated against observations and compared against each other, to verify their veracity across a 

wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Climate modeling centers funded by different U.S. and 

international agencies are working on increasing the resolution and complexity of regional and global 

earth System models. Enhancements relevant to the Arctic include variable resolution models with 

higher resolution focused mainly on the Arctic, improved representation of ice-sheets, more realistic 

aerosol-cloud interactions, complex biogeochemical processes related to permafrost evolution and 

degradation, better ocean-ice and ice-snow process, to name a few. As part of the next phase of the 

Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), many of these models will be evaluated against 

observations and compared with each other. In addition, many agencies are supporting and developing 

capabilities for assimilation of observations and for prediction. Assimilation and reanalyses activities 

merge observations and earth system models and these can be used in validating and increasing 

scientific understanding of how well climate models perform, characterizing uncertainty in these models, 

while also guiding the next set of Arctic observations. 

Performance Element 9.3.1: Support the configuration and the initial development of a global 

variable resolution model with very high resolution in the Arctic that will allow high-resolution 

interactions within the Arctic System and interactions between the Arctic and mid-latitudes.

Lead Agency: DOE

Supporting Agency: NSF

Performance Element 9.3.2: Support model development activities in global earth system models 

focusing on increased resolution, better coupling techniques, and inclusion of new process models in 

the Arctic for improved predictions, projections, and better representation of extreme events. In 

addition to developing models for CMIP6, this will include routine global ocean data assimilation 

capabilities linked to Global Ocean Observing System observations.

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NASA, NSF

Supporting Agency: DOE

Performance Element 9.3.3: Foster interactions between the Arctic Testbed and Environmental 

Modeling Center’s weather modeling efforts to facilitate the improvement of model guidance at 

higher latitudes.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agency: DOD (ONR)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

52

Performance Element 9.3.4: Support model development of Regional Arctic System Models focusing 

on improved resolution, better coupling, inclusion of new process models, and better assimilation 

techniques for improved seasonal predictions.

Lead Agency: DOD (ONR)

Supporting Agencies: DOE, NSF

Performance Element 9.3.5: Support Systematic Improvements to Reanalyses of the Arctic (SIRTA) to 

address the need for improved models of Arctic weather, sea ice, glaciers, ecosystems, and other 

components of the Arctic System.

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOE, NSF

Performance Element 9.3.6: Coordinate and support the ISMIP6 efforts in the U.S. by integrating icesheet models into coupled climate and earth system models to both: (1) improve sea level projections 

due to changes in the cryosphere; and (2) enhance scientific understanding of the cryosphere in a 

changing climate.

Lead Agency: NASA

Supporting Agencies: DOE, NOAA, NSF

Research Objective 9.4. Enhance availability, discoverability, understanding, and interoperability of 

Arctic data and tools across Federal data centers.

Rationale: Many IARPC agencies invest in data stewardship and sponsor cyberinfrastructure projects 

toward improved tools and tool kits for data discovery, access, visualization, fusion, collaboration, and 

more. These centers, projects, and tools are a cornerstone of research advancement and decision 

support, yet there is significant progress needed to identify and link key assets, particularly across 

disciplinary boundaries, starting at project inception. IARPC Collaborations can serve as an on-going 

forum for encouraging data sharing and accessibility regionally, nationally and through serving as a hub 

for international coordination. International efforts are underway to advance models that describe 

existing capabilities and how they relate to one another, for example the “Mapping the Arctic Data 

Ecosystem” project coordinated by the International Arctic Science Committee-SAON (IASC-SAON) Arctic 

Data Committee in collaboration with EU—PolarNet, Group on Earth Observations (GEO), Global Earth 

Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), Pan-Arctic Options Project, Fram Centre (Norway), and others. 

In addition to tools for mapping capabilities, agencies would benefit from a shared vision for how data 

centers and tools could move toward greater interoperability. Such interoperability will enhance decision 

support and situational awareness efforts such as the Climate Resilience Toolkit (CRT), the Arctic 

Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA), the Arctic Collaborative Environment (ACE),

and the ADAC’s Arctic Information Fusion Capability. These activities are inherently tied to and benefit 

from the activities coordinated under Research Objective 9.5.

Performance Element 9.4.1: Advance system models of U.S. observing inventories and data centers 

to further understanding of these capacities so that informed, optimal, strategic decisions and design, 

and spending plans can be made.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: NASA, NSF
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

53

Performance Element 9.4.2: Promote a nationally and internationally interoperable Arctic data 

sharing system that will facilitate data discovery, access, usage in many contexts, and long-term 

preservation, building off the efforts of NSF’s Arctic Data Center, the AOOS Regional Data Assembly 

Center and the Alaska Data Integration Working Group (ADIWG).

Lead Agencies: DOI (BLM, BOEM), NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOE, DOI (USGS), NOAA, NASA

Performance Element 9.4.3: Enhance the timely availability, diversity of content, and inclusion of 

international contributions to the Arctic data sets and resilience tools within the Arctic Theme for the 

Climate Data Initiative (CDI) and CRT.

Lead Agencies: DOI, NOAA, NASA, NSF

Performance Element 9.4.4: Advance agile situational awareness and decision support for Arctic 

operators through efforts like ADAC's Arctic Information Fusion Capability28, ERMA, and NASA ACE

project.

Lead Agency: DHS

Supporting Agencies: DOE, NOAA, NASA

Performance Element 9.4.5: Update baseline mapping and charting across the Arctic, including 

additional charting in Arctic waters, updates to baseline topographic mapping and supporting data, 

and updating high resolution imagery-derived elevation data repeated coverage. Multiagency 

partners include Alaska Mapping Executive Committee, Alaska Geospatial Council, and Arctic-related 

LCCs.

Lead Agencies: DOI (USGS), NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (NGA), DOI (BLM, FWS, NPS)

Research Objective 9.5. Advance research, tools, and strategies to improve the accessibility and 

relevance of Arctic science for decision support.

Rationale: It is well accepted that effective knowledge exchange for decision support occurs through 

sustained activities between researchers and decision makers where key issues and indicators can be 

jointly identified and analyzed, ideally from the time of project inception. This collaboration supports a 

co-production of new knowledge that is clearly relevant and easily accessible for stakeholders. The 

efforts described in this Research Objective support and influence practices within the other Research 

Objectives of Environmental Intelligence. Many Federally funded organizations listed in the introduction 

include sponsorships to convene regional forums and conduct research to advance dialog, identify 

decision needs, and support relevant knowledge development. These activities draw together research 

communities, operators and other stakeholders to support decision-making around issue-specific foci 

(e.g., ocean acidification, integrated water level observations, emergency response) or geographic areas 

(e.g., western Alaska, North Slope). The interagency platform can serve to share best practices and 

enhance coordination of existing capabilities.

 

28 ADAC is a university recipient of DHS funding under a cooperative agreement. ADAC conducts research relevant to 

enhancing maritime domain awareness for the Arctic environment based on DHS mission-relevancy.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

54

Performance Element 9.5.1: Advance coordination among Federally-funded research programs that 

provide decision support to Arctic stakeholders.

Lead Agency: NOAA

Supporting Agencies: DHS, DOI (BLM, FWS)

Performance Element 9.5.2: Advance policy-relevant science communication through efforts like the 

annual Arctic Report Card,

29 the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS), and 

SEARCH.

Lead Agencies: NOAA, NSF

Supporting Agencies: DOD (ONR), DOI (BOEM), NASA

 

29 The Arctic Report Card has been issued annually since 2006. It is a timely and peer-reviewed source for clear, reliable and 

concise environmental information on the current state of different components of the Arctic environmental system relative to

historical records.www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

55

Appendix 1

IARPC Agencies

National Science Foundation (Chair)

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Homeland Security

Department of the Interior

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Environmental Protection Agency

Marine Mammal Commission

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Smithsonian Institution
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

56

Appendix 2

Implementing the IARPC Arctic Research Plan FY2017-2021 

with IARPC Collaborations

IARPC Collaborations is the primary structure for implementing the Plan. Membership is open to anyone 

who can contribute to efforts to implement the Plan, and thus it serves as a mechanism for bringing 

together Federal government program managers, the research community, and other stakeholders to 

accelerate the pace of Arctic research. 

To implement the Plan, IARPC Collaborations will be organized into nine thematic Collaboration Teams, 

each corresponding to one of the nine Research Goals in the Plan. Each team will be co-chaired by a 

Federal program manager and a co-chair from a different Federal agency or a non-federal partner. 

Collaboration teams will meet virtually on a regular basis to discuss updates to Performance Elements 

and share information relevant to accomplishing research objectives. 

The IARPC Collaborations website at www.iarpccollaborations.org is the primary tool that IARPC 

Collaborations members use to communicate and collaborate between team meetings. It was designed 

to support implementation of the IARPC Arctic Research Plan FY2013-2017. The website serves dual 

purposes as both a content driven dialogue system and a project management and tracking system. 

Content driven dialogue system. In order to share information, generate ideas, and form 

opportunities for collaboration, IARPC Collaborations members log into the member space of the 

website and post updates, documents, and events related to their or their organizations’

research or Arctic-related activities. These posts are permanently archived on and available to 

any member of IARPC Collaborations through the website. Open dialogue is encouraged through 

the comment section available on every post and “@tagging” system which allows interaction 

with any specific website member.

A project management and tracking system. Through event and document posting, the website 

serves as the platform for organizing collaboration team meetings and delivering meeting 

information to team members. The performance element database section of the website keeps 

a record of specific actions taken on Performance Elements as well as information on people, 

agencies, collaboration teams, and deadlines involved. Team leaders and website administrators 

can enter actions on Performance Elements directly into the database, while any member can 

submit an action to a performance element by commenting or posting. The database can be 

exported into a report format for annual and biennial reporting. 

The IARPC Collaborations, collaboration teams, and the website are open to anyone who can contribute 

to IARPC’s efforts to implement the Plan. Request an account by entering your contact information and 

a brief explanation of your background and interest in Arctic research at 

http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/request-account.html

Each fall team leaders will produce summary accomplishment reports for IARPC Principals and in 

support of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Additionally, the secretariat will produce a 

biannual report summarizing accomplishments by policy driver in order to better understand how the 

various efforts in the plan relate to each other in the context of the policy drivers.

Collaboration Team leaders will develop annual implementation plans which focus on Research 

Objectives and Performance Elements to be accomplished in the upcoming year. Their plans will include 

meeting schedules with specific references to how the meetings support plan implementation.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

57

Collaboration Team leads will coordinate their scheduling in order to promote coordination between 

teams pursuing related activities. For example, several teams may coordinate their meetings and 

activities around the cross-cutting theme of food security or the carbon budget.

The IARPC secretariat will host annual meetings of team leaders to support inter-team coordination. At 

this time, team leaders will explore overlapping Research Objectives and Performance Elements and 

pursue a joint course of action around related activities. 

Regular Federal-only meetings will be arranged for agency representatives to explore collaborations to 

address cross-cutting issues for which multiple agencies are responsible.

The IARPC Staff Group and Principals will continually examine how well IARPC is addressing research 

Goals and Objectives in support of the policy drivers and how well the policy drivers are providing a 

framework for integration across the plan. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

58

Appendix 3

How USARC Goals Inform the IARPC Arctic Research Plan FY2017-2021

The Arctic Research Policy Act (ARPA) establishes the relationship between IARPC and USARC and calls 

for IARPC to build a 5-Year Arctic Research Plan (hereafter the Plan) “in consultation with the 

Commission, the Governor of the State of Alaska, the residents of the Arctic, the private sector, and 

public interest groups.” In accordance with ARPA, the biennial USARC Goals and Objectives Report 

(hereafter the Report) provides key input in developing this Plan. This appendix to the 2017-2021 Plan 

summarizes the IARPC response to the USARC Goals Report 2015-2016, and provides an explanation for 

occasional divergence from it. While the structure and purpose of the two documents are distinct, 

connections to the Report are found at all levels in the Plan. It is important to note that, while the 

Report looks broadly at how Federally-sponsored research could address emerging and persistent 

needs, the IARPC Plan is only focused on topics requiring interagency collaboration. Specifically, this 

means that Arctic research topics addressed by individual federal agencies are not included in the Plan.

The six goals in the USARC Report are:

Arctic Environmental Change;

Arctic Human Health;

Arctic Natural Resources;

The Arctic “Built Environment”;

Arctic Cultures and Community Resilience;

International Scientific Cooperation.

The structure of the IARPC Plan is tiered, and begins with Policy Drivers and Implementation Strategies. 

The Policy Drivers of Well-being, Stewardship, Security, and Arctic-Global Systems are high-level and 

capture the scope of all six of USARC’s goals. The Plan’s Implementation Strategies address how IARPC 

will coordinate research, and again, the USARC goals are reflected in these principles. The principles 

include integration of basic and applied research, and that Arctic research should be conducted in 

collaboration with indigenous and international partners.

The IAPRC Plan has nine Research Goals. Each reflect a topic that the USARC Report considers important. 

In some cases, the Report identifies a research objective that is not reflected in the IARPC Plan. There 

are two fundamental explanations for this. The first is when other federal interagency work is already 

addressing an issue identified by USARC; IARPC sought a non-duplicative and exclusive Plan. For 

example, the Report highlights the important issue of ocean acidification in the Arctic, which is covered 

by the interagency Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST). And the Report stresses the 

importance of research into oil pollution prevention and response in Arctic waters, which is addressed 

by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR). The second occurs 

when there are limited Federal activities addressing a topic recommended by the Commission, or it is 

the remit of a single agency. For example, the Report identifies topics, like socio-economic research 

focused on the North, yet there are limited Federally-funded efforts to coordinate across agencies. In 

other cases, like renewable energy, there is significant Federal work, but interagency efforts have only 

recently been initiated and will take more time to develop concrete objectives.

Here are several examples where the Plan clearly reflects USARC recommendations: 

The Plan reflects the Report’s emphasis on efforts to enhance research on Arctic environmental change 

(USARC Goal 1) in multiple ways, and examples include: (1) a focus on ecosystem interactions among 

marine trophic levels and their impacts on human communities; (2) interagency efforts to understand 

the warming-induced degradation of permafrost and other components of the cryosphere such as 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

59

glaciers and sea ice; and (3) research to understand how change in fire activity is impacting rural and 

urban communities and atmospheric emissions.

Additionally, USARC calls for greater support of scientific monitoring and improved modeling of the 

Arctic System along with improved data sharing and integration (USARC Goal 1). The Plan responds 

vigorously through its Research Goal on Environmental Intelligence, which emphasizes systems research 

and the need to integrate observations, data sharing and modeling across all areas of foundational 

science in support of improving scientific understanding of Arctic environmental change. 

The Plan’s responsiveness to the USARC’s emphasis on human health (USARC Goal 2) can be seen in 

IARPC’s Research Goal on human health and well-being through its support for (1) research seeking to 

explore the interconnections between human health and the natural environment; (2) community 

monitoring of environmental impacts associated with climate change on health, and research to 

increase understanding and surveillance of diseases, especially climate sensitive diseases; (3) efforts 

surrounding health-care education, water quality and sanitation innovations, improving indoor airquality, and by supporting residents to become involved in health care processes; (4) research on 

violence against Alaskan Native women and children; and (5) efforts to improve effectiveness of 

responses, support health care delivery across the Arctic through methods like telemedicine.

Some emerging work in the Plan relates to Report recommendations towards the “built environment” 

(USARC Goal 4) and community resilience (USARC Goal 5). New efforts under the Permafrost and Coastal 

Research Goals consider the impacts of permafrost degradation and coastal erosion on infrastructure.

Issues related to community resilience are woven directly into the Health and Well-being Research Goal, 

for example research on the resilience of Alaskan Youth, and are present in community-based research 

approaches organized under the Coastal Research Goal.

Although the Plan spans a five-year period, Performance Elements are designed to be completed within 

two years and new Performance Elements will be designed to take their place. With this “living 

document” structure, IARPC hopes, through collaboration with partners like USARC, to grow the Plan’s 

focus on socio-economic research and renewable energy in the next two years. IARPC enjoys a beneficial 

partnership with USARC and looks forward to their next Report.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

60

References

Abbott, B. W., J. R. Larouche, J. B. Jones Jr., W. B. Bowden, and A. W. Balser. 2014. “Elevated Dissolved Organic 

Carbon Biodegradability from Thawing and Collapsing Permafrost.” Journal of Geophysical Research: 

Biogeosciences, 119. doi:10.1002/2014JG002678.

ACIA Secretariat and Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research. 2005. “Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate 

Impact Assessment.” New York: University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Alaska Arctic Policy Commission. 2015. “Final Report of Alaska Arctic Policy Commission.” Alaska Arctic Policy 

Commission. www.akarctic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AAPC_final_report_lowres.pdf.

AMAP. 2015. “AMAP Assessment 2015: Black Carbon and Ozone as Arctic Climate Forcers.” Arctic Monitoring and 

Assessment Programme (AMAP). Oslo, Norway. http://www.amap.no.

Arnold, S. R., K. S. Law, C. A. Brock, J. L. Thomas, S. M. Starkweather, K. von Salzen, A. Stohl, S. Sharma, M. T. Lund, 

M. G. Flanner, T. Petäjä, H. Tanimoto, J. Gamble, J. E. Dibb, M. Melamed, N. Johnson, M. Fidel, V. P. 

Tynkkynen, and A. Baklanov. 2016. “Arctic Air Pollution: Challenges and Opportunities for the Next 

Decade.” Elementa Science Anthology 4. doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000104.

Balser, A. W., and J. B. Jones. 2015. “Drivers and Estimates of Terrain Suitability for Active Layer Detachment Slides 

and Retrogressive Thaw Slumps in the Brooks Range and Foothills of Northwest Alaska, USA.” Journal of 

Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, in review.

Balser, A. W., J. B. Jones, and M. T. Jorgenson. 2015. Relationship of Permafrost Cryofacies, Surface and Subsurface 

Terrain Conditions in the Brooks Range and Foothills of Northern Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Fairbanks, AK. 

Balser, A. W., J. B. Jones, and R. Gens. 2014. “Timing of Retrogressive Thaw Slump Initiation in the Noatak Basin, 

Northwest Alaska, USA.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 119 (May): 1106-1120. 

doi:10.1002/2013JF002889.

Bernhardt, E. L., T. N. Hollingsworth, and F. S. Chapin, III. 2011. “Fire Severity Mediates Climate-driven Shifts in 

Understorey Community Composition of Black Spruce Stands of Interior Alaska.” Journal of Vegetation 

Science 22: 32–44. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01231.x.

Bhatt, U. S., D. A. Walker, M. K. Raynolds, P. A. Bieniek, H. E. Epstein, J. C. Comiso, J. E. Pinzon, C. J. Tucker, and I. V.

Polyakov. 2013. “Recent Declines in Warming and Vegetation Greening Trends over Pan-Arctic Tundra.” 

Remote Sensing 5: 4229-4254. doi:10.3390/rs5094229.

Bluhm, B. A., and R. Gradinger. 2008. “Regional Variability in Food Availability for Arctic Marine Mammals.” 

Ecological Applications 18, no. 2: 77-96. doi: 10.1890/06-0562.1

Bourassa, M. A., S. T. Gille, C. Bitz, D. Carlson, I. Cerovecki, C. A. Clayson, M. F. Cronin, W. M. Drennan, C. W. Fairall, 

R. N. Hoffman, G. Magnusdottir, R. T. Pinker, I. A. Renfrew, M. Serreze, K. Speer, L. D. Talley, and G. A. 

Wick. 2013. “High-Latitude Ocean and Sea Ice Surface Fluxes: Challenges for Climate Research.” Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society 94: 402-423. doi: 10.1175/bams-d-11-00244.1.

Bowden, W., J. R. Larouche, A. R. Pearce, B. T. Crosby, K. Krieger, M. B. Flinn, J. Kampman, M. N. Gooseff, S. E. 

Godsey, J. B. Jones, B. W. Abbott, M. T. Jorgenson, G. W. Kling, M. Mack, E. A. G. Schuur, A. F. Baron, and 

E. B. Rastetter. 2012. “An Integrated Assessment of the Influences of Upland Thermal-Erosional Features 

on Landscape Structure and Function in the Foothills of the Brooks Range Alaska.” International 

Contributions 1. Salekhard, Russia: The Northern Publisher.

Brown, J., O. J. Ferrians, J. A. Heginbottom, and E. S. Melnikov. 1998, revised February 2001. “Circum-Arctic Map of 

Permafrost and Ground Ice Conditions.” National Snow and Ice Data Center. Boulder, Colorado.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

61

Bunn, A. G., and S. J. Goetz. 2006. “Trends in Satellite-observed Circumpolar Photosynthetic Activity from 1982 to 

2003: the Influence of Seasonality, Cover Type, and Vegetation Density.” Earth Interact 10: 1–19. 

doi:10.1175/EI190.1.

Cable, W. L., V. E. Romanovsky, and M. T. Jorgenson. 2016. “Scaling-up Permafrost Thermal Measurements in 

Western Alaska using an Ecotype Approach” The Cryosphere Discussions. doi:10.5194/tc-2016-30.

Chapin, F. S. III, A. D. McGuire, R. W. Ruess, T. N. Hollingsworth, M. C. Mack, J. F. Johnstone, E. S. Kasischke, E. S. 

Euskirchen, J. B. Jones, M. T. Jorgenson, K. Kielland, G. P. Kofinas, J. Yarie, and D. L. Taylor. 2010. 

“Resilience to Climate Change in Alaska’s Boreal Forest.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 1360-

1370. doi:10.1139/X10-074.

Clarke, J., K. Stafford, S. E. Moore, B. Rone, L. Aerts, and J. Crance. 2013. “Subarctic Cetaceans in the Southern 

Chukchi Sea: Evidence of Recovery or Response to a Changing Ecosystem.” Oceanography 26 (April): 136-

149. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2013.81.

Cohen, J., J. A. Screen, J. C. Furtado, M. Barlow, D. Whittleston, D. Coumou, J. Francis, K. Dethloff, D. Entekhabi, J. 

Overland, and J. Jones. 2014. “Recent Arctic Amplification and Extreme Mid-latitude Weather.” Nature 

Geoscience 7: 627-637. doi:10.1038/NGEO2234.

Coyle, K. O., B. Konar, A. Blanchard, R. C. Highsmith, J. Carroll, M. Carroll, S. G. Denisenko, and B. I. Sirenko. 2007. 

“Potential Effects of Temperature on the Benthic Infaunal Community on the Southeastern Bering Sea 

Shelf: Possible Impacts of Climate Change.” Deep Sea Research Part II 54: 2885–2905. 

doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.08.025.

de Boer, G., W. Chapman, J. Kay, B. Medeiros, M. D. Shupe, S. Vavrus, and J. E. Walsh. 2014. “A Characterization of 

the Arctic Atmosphere in CCSM4.” Journal of Climate 25: 2676-2695. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00228.1.

de Boer, G., T. Hashino, G. J. Tripoli, and E. W. Eloranta 2013. “A Numerical Study of Aerosol Influence on Ice 

Nucleation via the Immersion Mode in Mixed-Phase Stratiform Clouds.” Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Physics 13: 1733-1749. doi:10.5194/acp-13-1733-2013.

Department of Defense. 2013. “Arctic Strategy.” Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf.

Eicken, H., A. L. Lovecraft, and M. L. Druckenmiller. 2009. “Sea-ice System Services: A Framework to Help Identify 

and Meet Information Needs Relevant for Arctic Observing Networks.” Arctic 62: 119-138. 

www.seaice.alaska.edu/gi/publications/druckenmiller/Eicken2009Arctic.pdf. 

Einarsson, N., J. N. Larsen, A. Nilsson, and O. R. Young. 2004. “Arctic Human Development Report.” Akureyri: 

Stefansson Arctic Institute. www.oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/51.

Epstein, H. E., M. K. Raynolds, D. A. Walker, U. S. Bhatt, C. J. Tucker, and J. E. Pinzon. 2010. “Dynamics of 

Aboveground Phytomass of the Circumpolar Arctic Tundra During the Past Three Decades.” Environmental 

Research Letters 7, no. 1: Article no. 015506. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015506.

Fay, F. H., and B. P. Kelly. 1980. “Mass Natural Mortality of Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) at St. Lawrence Island, 

Bering Sea, Autumn 1978.” Arctic 33: 226-245. 

Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, W. Meier, and M. Savoie. 2002. “Sea Ice Index.” National Snow and Ice Data Center. 

Boulder, Colorado.

Flanner, M. G., C. S. Zender, J. T. Randerson, and P. J. Rasch. 2007. “Present Day Climate Forcing and Response 

from Black Carbon in Snow.” Journal of Geophysical Research 112 D11202. doi:10.1029/2006JD008003.

Francis, J., S. J. Vavrus, and Q. Tang. 2014. “Rapid Arctic Warming and Mid-Latitude Weather Patterns: Are they 

Connected? State of the Climate in 2013.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 96: 136-137. 

doi:10.1175/2014BAMSStateoftheClimate.1.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

62

Frey, K., J. C. Comiso, L. W. Cooper, R. R. Gradinger, J. M. Grebmeier, and J. E. Tremblay. 2015. “Ocean Primary 

Productivity.” Arctic Report Card: Update for 2015, Tracking Recent Environmental Changes. 

www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_ice.html.

Gardner, A. S., G. Moholdt, J. G. Cogley, B. Wouters, A. A. Arendt, J. Wahr, E. Berthier, R. Hock, W. T. Pfeffer, G. 

Kaser, S. R. M. Ligtenberg, T. Bolch, M. J. Sharp, J. O. Hagen, M. R. van den Broeke, and F. Paule. 2013. “A 

Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise: 2003 to 2009.” Science 340 6134: 852-857. 

doi:10.1126/science.1234532.

Garrett, T. J., and C. Zhao. 2006. “Increased Arctic Cloud Longwave Emissivity Associated with Pollution from Midlatitudes.” Nature 440. doi:10.1038/nature04636.

Gibbs, A. E., and B. M. Richmond. 2015. “National Assessment of Shoreline Change—Historical Shoreline Change 

along the North Coast of Alaska, U.S.–Canadian Border to Icy Cape.” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2015–1048 96. doi:10.3133/ofr20151048.

Gooseff, M., A. Balser, W. Bowden, and J. Jones. 2009. “Effects of Hillslope Thermokarst in Northern Alaska.” Eos, 

Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 90 (April): 29-31. www.mdpi.com/2072-

4292/5/6/2813/htm.

Grebmeier, J. M. 2012. “Shifting Patterns of Life in the Pacific Arctic and Sub-Arctic Seas.” Annual Review of Marine 

Science 4: 63–78. doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-120710-100926.

Grebmeier, J. M., and W. Maslowski. 2014. The Pacific Arctic Region: Ecosystem Status and Trends in a Rapidly 

Changing Environment. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8863-2_1.

Grebmeier, J. M., J. E. Overland, S. E. Moore, E. V. Farley, E. C. Carmack, L. W. Cooper, K. E. Frey, J. H. Helle, F. A. 

McLaughlin, and S. L. McNutt. 2006. “A Major Ecosystem Shift in the Northern Bering Sea.” Science 311: 

1461–1464. doi:10.1126/science.1121365.

Grosse, G., J. Harden, M. Turetsky, A. D. McGuire, P. Camill, C. Tarnocai, S. Frolking, E. A. G. Schuur, T. Jorgenson, S. 

Marchenko, V. Romanovsky, K. P. Wickland, N. French, M. Waldrop, L. Bourgeau-Chavez, and R. G. Striegl. 

2011. “Vulnerability of High-latitude Soil Organic Carbon in North America to Disturbance.” Journal of 

Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 116, G00K06. doi:10.1029/2010JG001507.

Harwood, L. A., T. G. Smith, J. C. George, S. J. Sandstrom, W. Walkusz, and G. J. Divoky. 2015. “Change in the 

Beaufort Sea Ecosystem: Diverging Trends in Body Condition and/or Production in Five Marine Vertebrate 

Species.” Progress in Oceanography 136: 263-273. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.003.

Hay, C. C., E. Morrow, R. E. Kopp, and J. X. Mitrovica, 2015. “Probabilistic Reanalysis of Twentieth-century Sea-level 

Rise.” Nature 517: 481-484, doi:10.1038/nature14093.

Higuera, P. E., L.B. Brubaker, P.M. Anderson, T.A. Brown, A.T. Kennedy, F.S. Hu, and J. Chave. 2008. “Frequent Fires 

in Ancient Shrub Tundra: Implications of Paleorecords for Arctic Environmental Change.” PLoS ONE 3 

e0001744. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001744.

Hill, G. B., and G. H. R. Henry. 2011. “Responses of High Arctic Wet Sedge Tundra to Climate Warming Since 1980.” 

Global Change Biology 17: 276–87. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02244.x.

Hinzman, L. D., N. D. Bettez, W. R. Bolton, F. S. Chapin, M. B. Dyurgerov, C. L. Fastie, B. Griffith, R. D. Hollister, A. 

Hope, H. P. Huntington, A. M. Jensen, G. J. Jia, T. Jorgenson, D. L. Kane, D. R. Klein, G. Kofinas, A. H. Lynch, 

A. H. Lloyd, A. D. McGuire, F. E. Nelson, W. C. Oechel, T. E. Osterkamp, C. H. Racine, V. E. Romanovsky, R. 

S. Stone, D. A. Stow, M. Sturm, C. E. Tweedie, G. L. Vourlitis, M. D. Walker, D. A. Walker, P. J. Webber, J. 

M. Welker, K. S. Winker, and K. Yoshikawa. 2005. "Evidence and Implications of Recent Climate Change in 

Northern Alaska and Other Arctic Regions." Climatic Change 72, no. 3: 251-298. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-

5352-2.

Hinzman, L. D., W. R. Bolton, K. Petrone, J. Jones, K. Yoshikawa, and J. P. McNamara. "Permafrost Degradation and 

Effects on Watershed Chemistry and Hydrology" (Paper presented at American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, San Francisco, California, 2006). 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

63

Huntington, H. P. 2009. “A Preliminary Assessment of Threats to Arctic Marine Mammals and Their Conservation in 

the Coming Decades.” Marine Policy 33, no. 1: 77-82. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.04.003.

Iacozza, J., and S. H. Ferguson. 2014. “Spatio-temporal Variability of Snow Over Sea Ice in Western Hudson Bay, 

with Reference to Ringed Seal Pup Survival.” Polar Biology 37: 817-832. doi:10.1007/s00300-014-1484-z

Intrieri, J. M., C. W. Fairall, M. D. Shupe, P. O. G. Persson, E. L. Andreas, P. S. Guest, and R. E. Moritz. 2002. "An 

Annual Cycle of Arctic Surface Cloud Forcing at SHEBA." Journal of Geophysical Research 107, no. C10: 

8039. doi:10.1029/2000JC00439.

ICC. 2016. Inuit Arctic Policy. Alaska: Inuit Circumpolar Council. iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Inuit-Arctic-Policy-June02_FINAL.pdf.

ICC-Alaska. 2015. “Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to Assess the Arctic from an Inuit

Perspective.” Technical Report. Anchorage, AK. 

IPCC. 2014. “Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” R. K. Pachauri and L. A. Meyer 

(eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

Jay, C., A. Fischbach, and A. Kochnev. 2012. "Walrus Areas of Use in the Chukchi Sea During Sparse Sea Ice Cover." 

Inter-Research Marine Ecology Progress Series 468: 1–13. doi:10.3354/meps10057.

Johnstone, J. F., F. S. Chapin, III, T. N. Hollingsworth, M. C. Mack, V. Romanovsky, and M. Turetsky. 2010. “Fire, 

Climate Change, and Forest Resilience in Interior Alaska.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 1302-

1312. doi:10.1139/X10-061.

Joly, K., C. Nellemann, and I. Vistnes. 2006. “A Reevaluation of Caribou Distribution Near an Oilfield Road on 

Alaska' s North Slope.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 866–869. doi:10.2193/0091-

7648(2006)34[870:RTJEAA]2.0.CO;2.

Jones, B. M., G. Grosse, C. D. Arp, E. Miller, L. Liu, D. J. Hayes, and C. F. Larsen. 2015. “Recent Arctic Tundra Fire 

Initiates Widespread Thermokarst Development.” Scientific Reports 5.doi:10.1038/srep15865.

Jones, B. M., A. L. Breen, B. V. Gaglioti, D. H. Mann, A. V. Rocha, G. Grosse, C. D. Arp, M. L. Kunz, and D. A. Walker. 

2013. “Identification of Unrecognized Tundra Fire Events on the North Slope of Alaska.” Journal of 

Geophysical Research 118. doi:10.1002/jgrg.20113.

Jorgenson, M. T., J. Harden, M. Kanevskiy, J. O’Donnell, K. Wickland,, S. Ewing, K. Manies, Q. Zhuang, Y. Shur, R. 

Striegl, and J. Koch. 2013. “Reorganization of Vegetation, Hydrology and Soil Carbon after Permafrost 

Degradation across Heterogeneous Boreal Landscapes.” Environmental Research Letters 8, no. 3: 035017. 

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035017.

Jorgenson, M. T., M. Kanevskiy, Y. Shur, J. Grunblatt, C. Ping, and G. Michaelson. 2014. "Permafrost Database 

Development, Characterization, and Mapping for Northern Alaska." Report U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. 

Jorgenson, M. T., C. H. Racine, J. C. Walters, and T. E. Osterkamp. 2001. “Permafrost Degradation and Ecological 

Changes Associated with a Warming Climate in Central Alaska.” Climate Change 48, no. 4: 551–579. 

doi:10.1023/A:1005667424292.

Jorgenson, M. T., V. Romanovsky, J. Harden, Y. Shur, J. O’Donnell, E. A. G. Schuur, M. Kanevskiy, and S. Marchenko. 

2010. “Resilience and Vulnerability of Permafrost to Climate Change.” Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 40, no. 7: 1219–1236. doi:10.1139/X10-060.

Jorgenson, M. T., Y. Shur, and E. R. Pullman. 2006. “Abrupt Increase in Permafrost Degradation in Arctic Alaska.” 

Geophyical Research Letters 33, no. 2. doi:10.1029/2005GL024960.

Jorgenson, T., K. Yoshikawa, M. Kanevskiy, Y. Shur, V. Romanovsky, S. Marchenko, G. Grosse, J. Brown, and B. 

Jones. 2008. “Permafrost Characteristics of Alaska: Ninth International Conference on Permafrost.”

University of Alaska Fairbanks. 183–184. Fairbanks, Alaska. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

64

Kasischke, E. S., D. L. Verbyla, T. S. Rupp, A. D. McGuire, K. A. Murphy, R. Jandt, J. L. Barnes, E. E. Hoy, P. A. Duffy, 

M. Calef, and M. R. Turetsky. 2010. “Alaska's Changing Fire Regime - Implications for the Vulnerability of 

its Boreal Forests.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 1313-1324. doi:10.1139/X10-098.

Kasischke, E. S., and E. E. Hoy. 2012. “Controls on Carbon Consumption during Alaskan Wildland Fires.” Global 

Change Biology 18: 685-699. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02573.x.

Kedra, M., C. Moritz, E. Choy, C. David, R. Degen, S. Duerksen, I. Ellingsen, B. Górska, J. Grebmeier, D. Kirievskaya, 

D. van Oevelen, K. Piwosz, A. Samuelsen, and J. Węsławski. 2015. “Status and Trends in the Structure of 

Arctic Benthic Food Webs.” Polar Research 34: 23755, doi:10.3402/polar.v34.23775.

Kelly, B. P., J. L. Bengtson, P. L. Boveng, M. F. Cameron, S. P. Dahle, J. K. Jansen, E. A. Logerwell, J. E. Overland, C. L. 

Sabine, G. T. Waring, and J. M. Wilder. 2010. “Status Review of the Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida).” U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-212. 

Kelly, R., M. L. Chipman, P.E. Higuera, I. Stefanova, L.B. Brubaker, and F. Sheng Hua. 2013. “Recent Burning of 

Boreal Forests Exceeds Fire Regime Limits of the Past 10,000 Years.” PNAS 32: 13055–13060. 

doi:10.1073/pnas.1305069110.

Kim, Y. J.S. Kimball, K. Zhang, and K. C. McDonald. 2012. “Satellite Detection of Increasing Northern Hemisphere 

Non-frozen Seasons from 1979 to 2008: Implications for regional vegetation growth.” Remote Sensing of 

Environment 121, 472-487. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.02.014

Kofinas, G. P., F. S. Chapin III, S. Burn-Silver, J. I. Schmidt, N. L. Fresco, K. Kielland, S. Martin, A. Springsteen, and T. 

S. Rupp. 2010. “Resilience of Athabascan Subsistence Systems to Interior Alaska's Changing Climate.” 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 1347-1359. doi:10.1139/X10-108.

Kokelj, S. V., J. Tunnicliffe, D. Lacelle, T. C. Lantz, K. S. Chin, and R. Fraser. 2015. “Increased Precipitation Drives 

Mega Slump Development and Destabilization of Ice-rich Permafrost Terrain, Northwestern Canada.” 

Global and Planetary Change 129: 56–68. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.02.008.

Koven, C. D., E. A. G. Schuur, C. Schadel, T. J. Bohn, E. J. Burke, G. Chen, X. Chen, P. Ciais, G. Grosse, J. W. Harden, D. 

J. Hayes, G. Hugelius, E. E. Jafarov, G. Krinner, P. Kuhry, D. M. Lawrence, A. H. MacDougall, S. S. 

Marchenko, A. D. McGuire, S. M. Natali, D. J. Nicolsky, D. Olefeldt, S. Peng, V. E. Romanovsky, K. M. 

Schaefer, J. Strauss, C. C. Treat, and M. Turetsky. 2015. “A Simplified, Data-constrained Approach to 

Estimate the Permafrost Carbon-climate Feedback.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society aMathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 373. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0423.

Kwok, R., and D. Rothrock. 2009. “Decline in Arctic Sea Ice Thickness From Submarine and ICESat Records: 1958–

2008.” Geophysical Research Letters 36. doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

Kwok, R., and N. Untersteiner. 2011. "The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice." Physics Today 64: 36-41. 

doi:10.1063/1.3580491.

Kwok, R., G. Spreen, and S. Pang. 2013. “Arctic Sea Ice Circulation and Drift Speed: Decadal Trends and Ocean 

Currents.” Journal of Geophysical Research 118: 2408-2425. doi:10.1002/jgrc.20191.

Laidre, K. L., H. Stern, K. M. Kovacs, L. Lowry, S. E. Moore, E. V. Regehr, S. H. Ferguson, O. Wiig, P. Boveng, R. P. 

Angliss, E. W. Born, D. Litovka, L. Quakenbush, C. Lydersen, D. Vongraven, and F. Ugarte. 2015. "Arctic 

Marine Mammal Population Status, Sea Ice Habitat Loss, and Conservation Recommendations for the 21st 

Century." Conservation Biology 29, no. 3: 724-737. doi:10.1111/cobi.12474.

Lantz, T. C., and S. V. Kokelj. 2008. “Increasing rates of Retrogressive Thaw Slump Activity in the Mackenzie Delta 

Region, N.W.T., Canada.” Geophysical Research Letters 35, no. 6. doi:10.1029/2007GL032433.

Larsen, J. N., and G. Fondahl. 2014. “Arctic Human Development Report II: Regional Processes and Global 

Linkages.” Denmark: Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk. doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-567.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

65

Larsen, P. H., S. Goldsmith, O. Smith, M. L. Wilson, K. Strzepek, P. Chinowsky, and B. Saylor. 2008. "Estimating 

Future Costs for Alaska Public Infrastructure at Risk from Climate Change." Global Environmental ChangeHuman and Policy Dimensions 18, no. 3: 442-457. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.005.

Li, W. K. W., F. A. McLaughlin, C. Lovejo, and E. C. Carmack. 2009. "Smallest Algae Thrive as the Arctic Ocean 

Freshens." Science 326: 539. doi:10.1126/science.1179798.

Liljedahl, A. K., J. Boike, R. P. Daanen, A. N. Fedorov, G. V. Frost, G. Grosse, L.D. Hinzman, Y. Iijima, J. C. Jorgensen, 

N. Matveyeva, and M. Necsoiu. 2016. “Pan-Arctic Ice-wedge Degradation in Warming Permafrost and its 

Influence on Tundra Hydrology.” Nature Geoscience 9: 312-318. doi:10.1038/NGEO2674. 

Mack, M. C., M. S. Bret-Harte, T. N. Hollingsworth, R. R. Jandt, E. A. G. Schuur, G. R. Shaver, and D. L. Verbyla. 2011. 

"Carbon Loss from an Unprecedented Arctic Tundra Wildfire." Nature 475, no. 7357: 489-492. 

doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0490.

Marsh, R., D. Desbruyeres, J. L. Bamber, B. A. de Cuevas, A. C. Coward, and Y. Aksenov. 2010. “Short-term Impacts 

of Enhanced Greenland Freshwater Fluxes in an Eddy-permitting Ocean Model.” Ocean Science 6: 749–

760, doi:10.5194/os-6-749-2010.

Matsuno, K., A. Yamaguchi, T. Hirawake, and I. Imai. 2011. "Year-to-year Changes of the Mesozooplankton 

Community in the Chukchi Sea during Summers of 1991, 1992 and 2007, 2008." Polar Biology 34: 1349–

1360. doi:10.1007/s00300-011-0988-z.

Mecklenburg, C. W., D. L. Stein, B. A. Sheiko, N. V. Chernova, T. A. Mecklenburg, and B. A. Holladay. 2007. "RussianAmerican Long-Term Census of the Arctic: Benthic Fishes Trawled in the Chukchi Sea and Bering Strait, 

August 2004." Northwestern Naturalist 88: 168–187. doi:10.1898/1051-

1733(2007)88[168:RLCOTA]2.0.CO;2.

Metcalf, V., and M. Robards. 2008. “Sustaining a Healthy Human-Walrus Relationship in a Dynamic Environment: 

Challenged for Comanagement.” 2008. Ecological Applications 18, no. 2: 148-156. doi:10.1890/06-0642.1.

Mishra, U., and W. J. Riley. 2015. “Scaling Impacts on Environmental Controls and Spatial Heterogeneity of Soil 

Organic Carbon Stocks.” Biogeosciences 12: 3993-4004. doi:10.5194/bg-12-3993-2015.

Moore, S. E., J. M. Grebmeier, and J. R. Davies. 2003. "Gray Whale Distribution Relative to Forage Habitat in the 

Northern Bering Sea : current conditions and retrospective summary." Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 

734–742. doi:10.1139/Z03-043.

Moore, S. E., and H. P. Huntington. 2008. “Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change: Impacts and Resilience.” 

Ecological Applications 18, no. 2: 157-165. doi:10.1890/06-0571.1.

Moore, S. E., E. Logerwell, L. Eisner, E. V. Jr. Farley, L. A. Harwood, K. Kuletz, J. Lovvorn, J. R. Murphy, and L. T. 

Quakenbush. 2014. "Marine Fishes, Birds and Mammals as Sentinels of Ecosystem Variability and 

Reorganization in the Pacific Arctic Region." In The Pacific Arctic Region: Ecosystem Status and Trends in a 

Rapidly Changing Environment, eds. J.M. Grebmeier and W. Maslowsik, 337-392. Dordrecht: Springer 

Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8863-2_11.

Moore, S. E., and P. J. Stabeno. 2015. “Synthesis of Arctic Research (SOAR) in Marine Ecosystems of the Pacific 

Arctic” Progress in Oceanography 60. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.017.

Morrison, H., G. de Boer, G. Feingold, J. Harrington, M. D. Shupe, and K. Sulia. 2012. "Resilience of Persistent Arctic 

Mixed-phase Clouds." Nature Geoscience 5: 11-17. doi:10.1038/ngeo1332.

Mueter, F. J., and M. A. Litzow. 2008. "Sea Ice Retreat Alters the Biogeography of the Bering Sea Continental Shelf." 

Ecological Applications 18: 309–320. doi:10.1890/07-0564.1.

Myers-Smith, I. H., B. C. Forbes, M. Wilmking, M. Hallinger, T. Lantz, D. Blok, K. D. Tape, M. Macias-Fauria, U. SassKlaassen, E. Lévesque, S. Boudreau, P. Ropars, L. Hermanutz, A. Trant, L. Siegwart Collier, S. Weijers, J. 

Rozema, S. A. Rayback, N. M. Schmidt, G. Schaepman-Strub, S. Wipf, C. Rixen, C. B. Ménard, S. Venn, S. 

Goetz, L. Andreu-Hayles, S. Elmendorf, V. Ravolainen, J. Welker, P. Grogan, H. E Epstein, and D. S. Hik. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

66

2011. “Shrub Expansion in Tundra Ecosystems: Dynamics, Impacts and Research Priorities.” Environmental 

Research Letters 6:4 article no. 045509. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/045509.

Myers-Smith, I. H., B. K. Arnesen, R. M. Thompson, and F. Stuart Chapin III. 2006. “Cumulative Impacts on Alaskan 

Arctic Tundra of a Quarter Century of Road Dust.” Ecoscience 13: 503-510. doi:10.2980/1195-

6860(2006)13[503:CIOAAT]2.0.CO;2.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. “Definitions of Ethnoecological Research Terms.” Local 

Fisheries Knowledge (LFK) Project. NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service. 

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/lfkproject/02_c.definitions.htm.

National Petroleum Council. 2015. "Arctic Potential: Realizing the Promise of the U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas

Resources." National Petroleum Council. Washington, DC. npcarcticpotentialreport.org/pdf/ARExecutive_Summary-Final.pdf

Nelson, F. E., O. A. Anisimov, and N. I. Shiklomanov. 2001. “Subsidence Risk from Thawing Permafrost.” Nature 

410. no. 6831: 889–890. doi:10.1038/35073746.

Niebauer, H., V. Alexande, and S. M. Henrichs. 1995. "A Time-Series Study of Spring Bloom at the Bering Sea Ice 

Edge I. Physical Processes, Chlorophyll and Nutrient Chemistry." Continental Shelf Research 15: 1859–

1877. doi: 10.1016/0278-4343(94)00097-7.

Noel, L. E., K. R. Parker, and M. A. Cronin. 2004. “Caribou Distribution near an Oilfield Road on Alaska's North 

Slope, 1978–2001.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 757–771. 

http://www.academia.edu/19115003/A_Reevaluation_of_Caribou_Distribution_Near_an_Oilfield_Road_

on_Alaskas_North_Slope. 

Nordic Council of Ministers. 2015. “Arctic Human Development Report: Regional Processes and Global Linkages.” 

Nordic Council of Ministers. Copenhagen, Denmark. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/tn2014-567.

O’Donnell, J. A., M. T. Jorgenson, J. W. Harden, A. D. McGuire, M. Z. Kanevskiy, and K. P. Wickland. 2011. “The 

Effects of Permafrost Thaw on Soil Hydrologic, Thermal, and Carbon Dynamics in an Alaskan Peatland, 

Ecosystems.” Ecosystems 15, no. 2: 213–229. doi:10.1007/s10021-011-9504-0.

Olefeldt, D. submitted 2015. "Thermokarst Terrain: Circum Arctic Distribution and Soil Carbon Vulnerability." 

Nature Geoscience.

Overeem, I., R. S. Anderson, C. W. Wobus, G. Clow, F. E. Urban, and N. Matell. 2015. “Sea Ice Loss Enhances Wave 

Action at the Arctic Coast.” Geophysical Research Letters 38. doi:10.1029/2011GL048681.

Pastick, N. J., M. T. Jorgenson, B. K. Wylie, B. J. Minsley, L. Ji, M. A. Walvoord, B. D. Smith, J. D. Abraham, and J. R. 

Rose. 2013. "Extending Airborne Electromagnetic Surveys for Regional Active Layer and Permafrost 

Mapping with Remote Sensing and Ancillary Data, Yukon Flats Ecoregion, Central Alaska." Permafrost and 

Periglacial Processes 24, no. 3: 184-199. doi:10.1002/ppp.1775.

Pastick, N. J., M. T. Jorgenson, B. K. Wylie, J. R. Rose, M. Rigge, and M. A. Walvoord. 2014. "Spatial Variability and 

Landscape Controls of Near-surface Permafrost within the Alaskan Yukon River Basin." Journal of 

Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 119, no. 6: 1244-1265. doi: 10.1002/2013JG002594.

Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. 2006. “National Strategy to Prevent Abuse in Inuit Communities and Sharing 

Knowledge, Sharing Wisdom.” Ottawa, Canada.

wwwpauktuutit.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/assets/InuitStrategy_e.pdf

Pearce, T., J. Ford, A. C. Willox, and B. Smit. 2015. “Inuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Subsistence 

Hunting and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Canadian Arctic.” Arctic 68, no. 2: 233-245. 

doi:10.14430/arctic4475.

Perovich, D. K., W. Meier, M. Tschudi, S. Farrell, S. Gerland, and S. Hendricks. 2015. “Sea Ice.” Arctic Report Card: 

Update for 2015, Tracking Recent Environmental Changes. www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_ice.html
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

67

Perrette, M., A. Yool, G. D. Quartly, and E. E. Popova. 2011. "Near-ubiquity of Ice-edge Blooms in the Arctic." 

Biogeosciences 8: 515–524. doi:10.5194/bg-8-515-2011.

Pistone, K., I. Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan. 2014. "Observational Determination of Albedo Decrease Caused by 

Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America 11. doi/10.1073/pnas.1318201111.

Post, E., U. S. Bhatt, C. M. Bitz, J. F. Brodie, T. L. Fulton, M. Hebblewhite, J. Kerby, S. J. Kutz, and I.

Walker. 2013. “Ecological Consequences of Sea-Ice Decline.” Science 341: 519-524. 

doi:10.1126/science.123522.

Quinn, P. K., T. S. Bates, E. Baum, N. Doubleday, A. M. Fiore, M. Flanner, A. Fridlind, T. J. Garrett , D. Koch, S. 

Menon, D. Shindell, A. Stohl, and S. G. Warren. 2008. “Short-lived Pollutants in the Arctic: Their Climate 

Impact and Possible Mitigation Strategies.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8: 1723-1735. 

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/1723/2008/.

Rand, K. M., and E. A. Logerwell. 2011. "The First Demersal Trawl Survey of Benthic Fish and Invertebrates in the 

Beaufort Sea since the Late 1970s." Polar Biology 34: 475–488. doi:10.1007/s00300-010-0900-2.

Randerson, J. T., H. Liu, M. G. Flanner, S. D. Chambers, Y. Jin, P. G. Hess, G. Pfister, M. C. Mack, K. K. Treseder, L. R. 

Welp, F. S. Chapin, J. W. Harden, M. L. Goulden, E. Lyons, J. C. Neff, E. A. G. Schuur, and C. S. Zender. 2006. 

“The Impact of Boreal Forest Fire on Climate Warming.” Science 314: 1130-1132. 

doi:10.1126/science.1132075.

Ray, C. G., G. L. Hufford, J. E. Overland, I. Krupnik, J. McCormick-Ray, K. Frey, and E. Labunski. 2016. “Decadal 

Bering Sea Seascape Change: Consequences for Pacific Walruses and Indigenous Hunters.” Ecological 

Applications 26: 24-41. doi:10.1890/15-0430.1.

Reading, C .L., and F. Wien. 2009. “Health Inequalities and Social Determinants of Aboriginal Peoples' Health.” 

National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Prince George, British Columbia. 

http://ahrnets.ca/files/2011/02/NCCAH-Loppie-Wien_Report.pdf. 

Reid, P. C., D. G. Johns, M. Edwards, M. Starr, M. Poulin, and P. Snoeijs. 2007. “A Biological Consequence of 

Reducing Arctic Ice Cover: Arrival of the Pacific Diatom Neodenticula Seminae in the North Atlantic for the 

First Time in 800 000 Years.” Global Change Biology 13: 1910–1921. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2486.2007.01413.x.

Richman, S., and J. Lovvorn. 2003. “Effects of Clam Species Dominance on Nutrient and Energy Acquisition by 

Spectacled Eiders in the Bering Sea.” Inter-Research Marine Ecology Progress Series 261: 283–297. 

doi:10.3354/meps261283.

Rocha, A. V., M. M. Loranty, P. E. Higuera, M. C. Mack, F. Sheng Hu, B. M. Jones, A. L. Breen, E. B. Rastetter, S. J. 

Goetz, and G. R. Shaver. 2012. “The Footprint of Alaskan Tundra Fires during the Past Half-century: 

Implications for Surface Properties and Radiative Forcing.” Environmental Research Letters 7, no. 4. 

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044039.

Rode, K. D., E. V. Regehr, D. C. Douglas, G. Durner, A. E. Derocher, G. W. Thiemann, and S. M. Budge. 2014. 

"Variation in the Response of an Arctic Top Predator Experiencing Habitat Loss: Feeding and Reproductive 

Ecology of Two Polar Bear Populations." Global Change Biology 20: 76–88. doi:10.1111/gcb.12339.

Romanovsky, V. E., S. L. Smith, and H. H. Christiansen. 2010. “Permafrost Thermal State in the Polar Northern 

Hemisphere during the International Polar Year 2007–2009: a Synthesis.” Permafrost Periglacial Processes

21, no. 2: 106–116. doi:10.1002/ppp.689.

Romanvosky, V. E., S. L. Smith, H. H. Christiansen, N. I. Shiklomanov, D. A. Streletskiy, D. S. Drozdov, N. G. 

Oberman, A. L. Kholodov, and S. S. Marchenko. 2012. “2012: Permafrost.” Arctic Report Card 2012.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

68

Ruscio, B. A., M. Brubaker, J. Glasser, W. Hueston, and T. W. Hennessy. 2015. "One Health: A Strategy for 

Resilience in a Changing Arctic." International Journal of Circumpolar Health 74: 27913.

www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/ijch/article/view/27913.

Schur, Y. L., and M. T. Jorgenson. 2007. “Patterns of Permafrost Formation and Degradation in Relation to Climate 

and Ecosystems.” Permafrost Periglacial Processes 18, no. 1: 7-19. doi: 10.1002/ppp.582.

Schuur, E. A. G., J. Bockheim, J. G. Canadell, E. Euskirchen, C. B. Field, S. V. Goryachkin, S. Hagemann, P. Kuhry, P. 

M. Lafleur, H. Lee, G. Mazhitova, F. E. Nelson, A. Rinke, V. E. Romanovsky, N. Shiklomanov, C. Tarnocai, S. 

Venevsky, J. G.. Vogel, and S. A. Zimov. 2008. “Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: 

Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle.” BioScience 58, no. 8: 701–714. doi:10.1641/B580807.

Schuur, E. A. G., A. D. McGuire, C. Schädel, G. Grosse, J. W. Harden, D. J. Hayes, G. Hugelius, C. D. Koven, P. Kuhry, 

D. M. Lawrence, S. M. Natali, D. Olefeldt, V. E. Romanovsky, K. Schaefer, M. R. Turetsky, C. C. Treat, and J. 

E. Vonk. 2015. "Climate Change and the Permafrost Carbon Feedback." Nature 520, no. 7546: 171-179. 

doi:10.1038/nature14338.

Serreze, M., and R. G. Barry. 2011. "Processes and Impacts of Arctic Amplification: A Research Synthesis." Global 

and Planetary Change 77: 85-96. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.03.004. 

Shepherd, A., E. R. Ivins, A. Geruo, V. R. Barletta, M. J. Bentley, S. Bettadpur, K. Briggs, D. H. Bromwich, R. Forsberg, 

N. Galin, M. Horwath, S. Jacobs, I. Joughin, M. A. King, J. T. M. Lenaerts, J. Li, S. R. F. Litgenberg, A. 

Luckman, A. B. Luthcke, M. McMillan, R. Meister, G. Milne, J. Mougino, A. Muir, J. P. Nicolas, J. Paden, A. J. 

Payne, H. Pritchard, E. Rignot, H. Rott,, L. S. Sorenson, T. A. Scambos, B. Scheuchl, E. J. O. Schrama, B. 

Smith, A. V. Sundal, J. H. van Angelen, W. J. Van de Berg, M. R. van den Broeke, D. G. Vaughan, I. 

Velicogna, J. Wahr, P. L. Whitehouse, D. J. Wingham, D. Yi, D. Young, and H. J. Zwally. 2012. “A Reconciled 

Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance.” Science 30, no. 338: 1183-1189; doi:10.1126/science.1228102.

Shupe, M. D. 2011. "Clouds at Arctic Atmospheric Observatories, Part II: Thermodynamic Phase Characteristics."

Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 50: 645-661. doi:10.1175/2010JAMC2468.1.

Shur, Y . L., and M. T. Jorgensen. 2007. "Patterns of Permafrost Formation and Degradation in Relation to Climate 

and Ecosystems." Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 18: 7-19. doi10.1002/ppp.582.

Silber, G.K., M. Lettrich, and P.O. Thomas (eds.). 2016. “Report of a Workshop on Best Approaches and Needs for 

Projecting Marine Mammal Distributions in a Changing Climate.” (Technical Memorandum, 2016). U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA. Santa Cruz, California.

Stephenson, S. R., and L. C. Smith. 2015. "Influence of Climate Model Variability on Projected Arctic Shipping 

Futures." Earth's Future 3: 331-343. doi:10.1002/2015EF000317.

Stolarski, J. T. "Growth and Energetic Condition of Dolly Varden Char in Coastal Arctic Waters." (Ph.D. Diss., 2015,

Univ. Alaska Fairbanks).

Stroeve, J., V. Kattsov, A. Barrett, M. Serreze, T. Pavlova, M. Holland, and W. N. Meier. 2012. “Trends in Arctic Sea 

Ice Extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and Observations.” Geophysical Research Letters 39. 

doi:10.1029/2012GL052676.

Sundqvist, L., T. Harkonen, C. J. Svensson, and K. C. Harding. 2012. “Linking Climate Trends to Population Dynamics 

in the Baltic Ringed Seal: Impacts of Historical and Future Winter Temperatures.” Ambio 41 no. 8: 865-

872. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0334-x

Sweeney, C., E. Dlugokencky, C. E. Miller, S. Wofsy, A. Karion, S. Dinardo, R. Y.-W. Chang, J. B. Miller, L. Bruhwiler, 

A. M. Crotwell, T. Newberger, K. McKain, R. S. Stone, S. E. Wolter, P. E. Lang, and P. Tans. 2016: “No 

Significant Increase in Long-term CH4 Emissions in North Slope of Alaska Despite Significant Increase in Air 

Temperature.” Geophysical. Research Letters. doi:10.1002/2016GL069292.

Tape, K.D., D. D. Gustine, R. W. Ruess, L. G. Adams, and J. A. Clark. 2016. “Range Expansion of Moose in Arctic 

Alaska Linked to Warming and Increased Shrub Habitat” PLoS ONE 11: e0152636. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152636.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

69

Tebaldi, C., B. H. Strauss, and C. S. Zervas. 2012. “Modelling Sea Level Rise Impacts on Storm Surges Along US 

Coasts.” Environmental Research Letters 7: 1-11. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014032.

Thomson, J., and W. E. Rogers. 2014. “Swell and Sea in the Emerging Arctic Ocean.” Geophysical Research Letters 

41: 3136–3140. doi:10.1002/2014GL059983.

Timmermans, M. L., and A. Proshutinsky. 2015. Sea Surface Temperature. “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2015, 

Tracking Recent Environmental Changes.” www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_ice.html.

Tremblay, J. É., D. Robert, D. E. Varela, C. Lovejoy, G. Darnis, R. J. Nelson, and A. R. Sastri. 2012. "Current State and 

Trends in Canadian Arctic Marine Ecosystems: I. Primary Production." Climate Change 115: 161–178. 

doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0496-3.

Tremblay, J. É., L. G. Anderson, P. Matrai, P. Coupel, S. Bélanger, C. Michel, and M. Reigstad. 2015. “Global and 

Regional Drivers of Nutrient Supply, Primary Production and CO2 Drawdown in the Changing Arctic 

Ocean.” Progress in Oceanography 139: 171-196. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.08.009.

U.S. Navy. 2014. “U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap, 2014-2030.” U.S. Navy. Washington, DC.

www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf. 

Udevitz, M.S., R. L. Taylor, J. L. Garlich-Miller, L. T. Quakenbush, and J. A. Snyder. 2013. "Potential Population-level 

Effects of Increased Haulout-related Mortality of Pacific Walrus Calves." Polar Biology 36: 291–298. 

doi:10.1007/s00300-012-1259-3.

U.S. Arctic Research Commission. 2015. “Report on the Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2015-2016.” USA: 

US Arctic Research Commission. https://storage.googleapis.com/arcticgovstatic/publications/goals/usarc_goals_2015-2016.pdf. 

United States Coast Guard. 2013. “Arctic Strategy.” Washington, DC: United States Coast Guard. 

www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/docs/cg_arctic_strategy.pdf.

Van Everdingen, R. O. 1998, revised 2005. “Multi-Language Glossary of Permafrost and Related Ground-Ice Terms 

in Chinese, English, French, German, Icelandic, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, and 

Swedish.” International Permafrost Association Terminology Working Group.

http://globalcryospherewatch.org/reference/glossary_docs/Glossary_of_Permafrost_and_GroundIce_IPA_2005.pdf. 

Vermaire, J. C., M. F. J. Pisaric, J. R. Thienpont, C. J. Courtney Mustaphi, S. V. Kokelj, and J. P. Smol. 2014. “Arctic 

Climate Warming and Sea Ice Declines Lead to Increased Storm Surge Activity.” Geophysical Research 

Letters 39. doi:10.1002/grl.50191. 

Viereck, L. "Ecological Effects of River Flooding and Forest Fires on Permafrost in the Taiga of Alaska." 1973. (Paper 

presented at Permafrost: The North American Contribution to the Second International Conference.

Yakutsk, USSR). 

von Biela, V. R., C. E. Zimmerman, and L. L. Moulton. 2011. "Long-term Increases in Young-of-the-year Growth of 

Arctic Cisco Coregonus Autumnalis and Environmental Influences." Journal of Fish Biology 78: 39–56. 

doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02832.x.

Vonk, J. E., S. E. Tank, W. B. Bowden, I. Laurion, W. F. Vincent, P. Alekseychik, M. Amyot, M. F. Billet, J. Canário, R. 

M. Cory, B. N. Deshpande, M. Helbig, M. Jammet, J. Karlsson, J. Larouche, G. MacMillan, M. Rautio, K. M. 

Walter Anthony, K. P. and Wickland. 2015. “Reviews and Syntheses: Effects of Permafrost Thaw on Arctic 

Aquatic Ecosystems.” Biogeosciences 12, no. 23: 7129–7167. doi:10.5194/bg-12-7129-2015.

Wadham, J. L., J. Hawkings, J. Telling, D. Chandler, J. Alcock, E. Lawson, P. Kaur, E. A. Bagshaw, M. Tranter, A. 

Tedstone, and P. Nienow. 2016. “Sources, Cycling and Export of Nitrogen on the Greenland Ice Sheet” 

(Discussion paper under review for the journal Biogeosciences, 2016). doi:10.5194/bg-2015-484.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

70

Walker D. A., and J. L. Peirce. 2015. “Rapid Arctic Transitions Due to Infrastructure and Climate (RATIC): A 

Contribution to ICARP III.” Alaska Geobotany Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

www.geobotany.uaf.edu/library/pubs/WalkerDAed2015-RATICWhitePaper-ICARPIII.pdf.

Walker, H. J., and P. F. Hudson. 2003. "Hydrologic and Geomorphic Processes in the Colville River Delta, Alaska." 

Geomorphology 56, no. 3-4: 291-303. doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(03)00157-0.

Weijer, W., M. E. Maltrud, M. W. Hecht, H. A. Dijkstra, and M. A. Kliphuis. 2012. “Response of the Atlantic Ocean 

Circulation to Greenland Ice Sheet Melting in a Strongly-eddying Ocean Model.” Geophysical Research 

Letters 39. doi:10.1029/2012GL051611.

Whitehouse, G.A., K. Aydin, T. E. Essington, and G. L. Jr. Hunt. 2014. “A Trophic Mass Balance Model of the Eastern 

Chukchi Sea with Comparisons to other High-latitude Systems.” Polar Biology 37: 911-939. 

doi:10.1007/s00300-014-1490-1.

Wiese, F. K., R. Merrick, G. Auad, D. Williams, P. Stabeno, and B. Kelly. Strawman Conceptual Ecosystem Model for 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas: Discussion White paper. In “Developing a Conceptual Model of the Arctic

Marine Ecosystem” (Paper presented at professional workshop, Washington, D.C., April 30 – May 2, 

2013). www.nprb.org/assets/images/uploads/ArcticConceptualModelingReport_final_lowres.pdf.

Yue, X., L. J. Mickley, J. A. Logan, R. C. Hudman, M. V. Martin, and R. M. Yantosca. 2015. "Impact of 2050 Climate 

Change on North American Wildfire: Consequences for Ozone Air Quality." Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Physics 15: 10033-10055. doi:10.5194/acp-15-10033-2015.

Zhang, J., R. Lindsay, A. Schweiger, and I. Rigor. 2012. “Recent Changes in the Dynamic Properties of Declining 

Arctic Sea Ice: A Model Study.” Geophysical Research Letters 39. doi:10.1029/2012GL053545.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

71

Abbreviations

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science

AAPC Alaska Arctic Policy Commission

ABoVE Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment

ACCAP Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy

ACCER

ACE

Alaska Climate Change Executive Roundtable

Arctic Collaborative Environment

ACEs Adverse Childhood Experiences

ACF Administration for Children and Families

ACLIM

ACME

ADAC

Alaska Climate change Integrated Modeling project

Accelerated Climate Modeling for Energy

The Arctic Domain Awareness Center

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

ADIWG Alaska Data Integration Working Group

AEA Alaska Energy Authority

AERONET Aerosol Robotic Network

AESC Arctic Executive Steering Committee

AFC Alaska Fire Consortium or Alaska Fisheries Center

AHRQ

AIDA

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

American Indian Development Associates

AIFC Arctic Information Fusion Capability

ALCC Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative

AMAP

AMBON

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme

Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observation Network

AMOS Arctic Mobile Observing System

AMSR2 Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2

ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

AOOS Alaska Ocean Observing System

Arctic-FROST Arctic Frontiers of Sustainability

ARM

ARPA

Atmospheric Radiation Measurement

Arctic Research and Policy Act

ASAMM Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

72

ASR Atmospheric Systems Research

AToM Atmospheric Tomography Mission

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BIE Bureau of Indian Education

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

CALIOP

CALIPSO

Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization

Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation

CBRAT Coastal Biodiversity Risk Analysis Tool

CCHRC Cold Climate Housing Research Center

CDC

CDI

CENRS

CERES

CESM

CISM

Centers for Disease Control

Climate Data Initiative

Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability

Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System

Community Earth System Model

Community Ice Sheet Model

CLIVAR Climate Variability and Predictability

CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

CRREL

CRT

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

Climate Resilience Toolkit

DBO Distributed Biological Observatory

DHS

DLR

Department of Homeland Security

German Aerospace Center

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ

DOL

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

DOS Department of State

DOT Department of Transportation

EDA Economic Development Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

73

ERMA Environmental Response Management Application

ESRL Earth System Research Laboratory

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GEO Group on Earth Observations

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems

GLISN Greenland Ice Sheet Monitoring Network

GRACE-FO Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On

GWP Global Warming Potential

HHS Health and Human Services

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration

HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

IARPC Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee

IASC International Arctic Science Committee

IASOA International Arctic System for Observing the Atmosphere

ICC Inuit Circumpolar Council

ICESat-2

IGAC

Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite 2

International Global Atmospheric Chemistry

IHS Indian Health Services

IK Indigenous Knowledge

I-LEAD

IPCC

Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and Development

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISMIP6 Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6

ISRO

ISSM

Indian Space Research Organization

Ice Sheet System Model

LC Library of Congress

LCCs Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LK Local Knowledge

LEO

LIVV

Local Environmental Observer

Land Ice Verification and Validation

LMEs Large Marine Ecosystems

MAAT Mean Annual Air Temperature

MMC Marine Mammal Commission
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

74

MISR

MODIS

Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer

Moderate-resolution Imaging SpectroRadiometer

MOM Alaska Native Maternal Organics Monitoring Study

MOSAiC

MPL

Multi-disciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate

Micro-Pulse Lidar

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NBS

NCHS

National Baseline Study

National Center for Health Statistics

NDACC Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

NGEE-Arctic Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment-Arctic

NGOs Non-governmental Organizations

NIC National Ice Center

NIFA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIJ National Institute of Justice

NIMH National Institute on Mental Health

NIMHD National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities

NIOSH

NISAR

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOC National Ocean Council

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRL Naval Research Laboratory

NSAR National Strategy for the Arctic Region

NSF National Science Foundation

NSSI North Slope Science Initiative

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NWS National Weather Service

OAR Ocean and Atmospheric Research
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

75

OIB Operation IceBridge

OJJDP

OMG

OMI

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Oceans Melting Greenland

Ozone Monitoring Instrument

ONR Office of Naval Research

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OSH Occupational Safety and Health

OSHA

OSTP

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Office of Science and Technology Policy

OVC Office for Victims of Crime

OVW Office on Violence Against Women

PACES air Pollution in the Arctic: Climate, Environment, and Societies

PAG Pacific Arctic Group

PARMA Pacific Arctic Regional Marine Assessment

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants

RAMP Rural Alaska Monitoring Program

RTI International Formerly Research Triangle Institute

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

SAON Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar

SCAN Soil Climate Analysis Network

SEARCH Study of Environmental Arctic Change

SI Smithsonian Institutes

SIRTA Systematic Improvements to Reanalysis of the Arctic

SMOS Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity

SNOTEL Snow Telemetry

SODA Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic

SOST Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks

US AON U.S. Arctic Observing Network

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USARC U.S. Arctic Research Commission

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN FY2017-2021

76

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS

US IABP

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Interagency Arctic Buoy Program

VIIRS Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite

VPSO

WALRUS

Village Public Safety Officers

Walrus Adaptability and Long-term Responses

WASH Arctic Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WIHAH Water Innovations for Healthy Arctic Homes
77