FEBRUARY 2013

Executive Office of the President

National Science and Technology Council

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN:

F Y2013–2017
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 enterprise. A primary objective of the NSTC is establishing clear national goals 

for Federal science and technology investments. The NSTC prepares research and development 

strategies that are coordinated across Federal agencies to form investment packages aimed at 

accomplishing multiple national goals. The work of the NSTC is organized under five committees: 

Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability; Homeland and National Security; Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education; Science; and Technology. Each of these 

committees oversees subcommittees and working groups focused on different aspects of science 

and technology. More information is avail-able at http://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 

http://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 an Arctic Research Commission (ARC) 

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 the NSTC responsible for the IARPC with the Director 

of the NSF remaining as chair of the committee.

About this Document

This report was developed by the IARPC which reports to the NSTC Committee on 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 acknowledgment 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, 2012.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 

February 2013 

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: 

I am pleased to forward the five-year Arctic research plan produced by the Interagency 

Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC). Creation of this plan is one of IARPC’s 

responsibilities described in the Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. § 4108). 

Fourteen 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, nongovernmental organizations, and the academic community to ensure that the interests and needs 

of all stakeholders are addressed appropriately in this research plan. 

The Arctic environment is undergoing rapid transition as sea and land ice diminish, with 

tremendous implications for natural environments, human well-being, national security, 

transportation, and economic development. The United States and the other Arctic nations 

require strong, coordinated research efforts to understand and forecast changes in the Arctic.

Toward that end, and in furtherance of goals developed by the 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 

OFFICE OF THE 

DIRECTOR

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

4201 WILSON BOULEVARD 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230

February 2013

The Arctic region faces growing economic, environmental, and cultural challenges, heightening the need for 

coordinated research across institutional and national borders. Notably, the Arctic's central role in environmental 

change makes this region a critical target for research as scientists work to understand the feedback mechanisms 

influencing global climate—and as policymakers and businesses consider opportunities while minimizing human 

and environmental costs.

To address these challenges and opportunities, and as required by 15 U.S.C. § 4108, the U.S. Interagency Arctic 

Research Policy Committee (IARPC)—representing 13 Federal agencies, departments, and offices—has crafted 

this FY 2013-2017 Arctic Research Plan. The plan provides a blueprint for effective Federal coordination of 

Arctic research for the next half-decade and positions the United States to remain a global leader in Arctic 

stewardship for many years to come. 

This national policy for Arctic research consists of seven overlapping research areas:

1. Sea ice and marine ecosystems

2. Terrestrial ice and ecosystems

3. Atmospheric studies of surface heat, energy, and mass balances

4. Observing systems

5. Regional climate models

6. Adaptation tools for sustaining communities

7. Human health

Each of these research areas poses unique challenges to scientists, but together they promise profound insights into 

the physical, biological, and human dimensions of the region-insights that will inform decision-makers and guide 

the Nation as we work to mitigate and adapt to rapidly changing conditions in Arctic communities and around the 

world.

Importantly, this plan was developed through a coordinated interagency effort that included inputs from Alaskan 

and other Arctic residents and indigenous leaders. Its implementation will similarly involve a full array of 

governmental and non-governmental contributors, with the shared goal of developing accurate and understandable 

science-based information of value to a wide range of users. The plan calls for collaboration across institutional 

boundaries. This collaboration will be enhanced by leveraging resources, such as the recently launched state-of-theart research vessel SIKULIAQ, which will support and inform the Arctic research community for the next 30 years.

As chair of the IARPC and Director of the National Science Foundation, which has major responsibilities for 

funding Arctic research, I am committed to working in partnership with our sister agencies and others who are 

collectively pursuing this important Arctic agenda as a means of achieving a sustainable and secure future for all 

people around the globe. I thank all of those individuals and groups who have contributed to the completion of this 

plan and encourage its rapid adoption and implementation.

Sincerely,

Subra Suresh

Director

★ v ★

Table of Contents 

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

2. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

3. Research Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1 Understand sea-ice processes, ecosystem processes, ecosystem services, and climate 

feedbacks in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the contiguous Arctic Ocean . . . 11

3.2 Understand terrestrial ice processes, ecosystem processes, ecosystem services, 

and climate feedbacks in the Arctic 23

3.3 Understand atmospheric surface heat, energy, and mass balances . . . . . . . 34

3.4 Integrate and continue to deploy a national Arctic observing system and promote 

international cooperation to create a circumpolar observing system 43

3.5 Integrate Arctic regional models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.6 Assess strengths and vulnerabilities of Arctic communities to impacts of 

climate change and develop adaptation strategies and tools to maximize 

sustainability, well-being, and cultural and linguistic heritage . . . . . . . . . 61

3.7 Understand factors that affect human health in the Arctic, including infectious 

and non-communicable diseases, environmental contamination, climate change, 

and behavioral and mental health disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4. Research Infrastructure 79

5. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

★ 1 ★

Chapter 1:Executive Summary

There is broad scientific consensus that rapid changes in global climate are altering ice and snow cover 

and affecting Arctic ecosystems, indigenous societies, and natural resources. Research is needed to 

increase fundamental understanding of these challenges and inform development of sound, sciencebased solutions.

The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) is charged with developing five-year plans 

for Federally sponsored research in the Arctic region. For 2013 to 2017, the IARPC, which consists of 

representatives from 14 Federal agencies, departments, and offices, has identified seven research areas 

that will inform national policy and benefit significantly from close interagency coordination. They are:

1. Sea ice and marine ecosystems;

2. Terrestrial ice and ecosystems;

3. Atmospheric studies of surface heat, energy, and mass balances;

4. Observing systems;

5. Regional climate models;

6. Adaptation tools for sustaining communities; and

7. Human health.

These research areas do not encompass all Federal Arctic research activities that will occur over the next 

five years. Many important investigations outside the scope of this plan will continue to be conducted 

within individual agencies or through other interagency collaborations. 

Sea ice and marine ecosystems

Arctic marine ecosystems—driven largely by large-scale changes in sea ice—are moving to new states 

with the potential for short-term surprises. Over the next five years, the IARPC agencies—including the 

Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of the Interior (DOI), National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), and National Science Foundation (NSF)—will increase capacity to study such rapid changes 

through the following activities:

1. Develop a framework of observations and modeling to support forecasting of sea-ice extent

on seasonal to annual scales for operational and research needs;

2. Identify and study sites in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the contiguous Arctic Ocean

where climate feedbacks are active;

3. Complete deployment of a Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) in the Arctic Ocean to

create long-term data sets on biological, physical, and chemical variability and ecosystem

response; and

4. Develop integrated ecosystem-processes research in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas region.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 2 ★

Terrestrial ice and ecosystems

Ongoing changes in the terrestrial Arctic environment that result from climate change are expected 

to lead to further changes in global climate, or climate “feedbacks,” and affect the ability of local 

communities to adapt. The IARPC has identified the following five priority activities to understand 

such climate feedbacks and terrestrial ecosystem processeses to be coordinated collaboratively by 

the DOE, DOI, NASA, NSF, and Smithsonian Institution (SI): 

1. Perform glacial-process studies targeting specific dynamic ranges;

2. Coordinate and integrate efforts, including information delivery, that contribute to terrestrial

ecosystem research;

3. Identify and study key sites where climate feedbacks are active, including permafrost, snow,

hydrates, glaciers, and ice;

4. Investigate the frequency and severity of wildland fires in the Arctic and understand their

impacts on vegetation and wildlife; and

5. Conduct socio-economic research to understand ecosystem services as the Arctic tundra

changes with increased warming to inform plans for protecting, managing, and adapting to a

fragile and changing Arctic environment.

Atmospheric studies of surface heat, energy, and mass balances

Variability in surface-air temperatures—from year-to-year or longer—tends to be larger in the Arctic 

than in other parts of the globe. Compared with those at low latitudes, atmospheric processes in the 

Arctic are influenced by unique features—such as polar night, high reflectivity of snow and ice cover, and 

atmospheric stability—that influence the degree to which aerosols and clouds warm or cool the region. 

Scientific uncertainties about these unique features must be clarified in order to more fully understand 

the Arctic atmosphere and its processes. 

Coordinated remote-sensing and in-situ observations, improved representation of atmospheric 

processes in models, quantification of uncertainty in model outputs, and long-term observational 

data sets will be critical to addressing scientific uncertainties. DOE, NASA, NOAA, and NSF will 

collaborate on three activities to support this research area:

1. Improve understanding of short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) and their role in Arctic amplification through satellite observations, long-term in-situ observations, and improved modeling;

2. Improve understanding of processes controlling formation, longevity, and physical properties

of Arctic clouds, including the effects of—and sensitivities to—aerosols; and

3. Develop an integrated understanding of Arctic atmospheric processes, their impact on the

surface-energy budget, and their linkages with oceanic, terrestrial, and cryospheric systems

through improved satellite capabilities, ground-based observations, and representations of

Arctic systems in climate and weather-prediction models.
y

★ 3 ★

Observing systems

Arctic change is occurring on multiple spatial and temporal scales. Over the next five years, the DOE, 

DOI, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, NOAA, NSF, Office of Naval Research (DOD-ONR), 

and United States Coast Guard (DHS-USGC) will focus on nine activities to maintain and strengthen 

an integrated national and international Arctic observing system to obtain data and information from 

multiple scales:

1. Facilitate observing-system design for the Arctic;

2. Assess local-resident priorities with respect to climate;

3. Combine in-situ and remotely sensed observation of sea ice with local community and

traditional knowledge;

4. Conduct long-term monitoring of key outlet glaciers and tidewater glaciers;

5. Monitor the biological and physical state of the Arctic marine environment;

6. Assess the effects of clouds and atmospheric constituents on surface radiation balance;

7. Assess the impact of terrestrial warming and permafrost thawing on the carbon cycle;

8. Improve data access; and

9. Engage indigenous observers and communities in monitoring environmental parameters.

Regional climate models

Models of Earth’s climate are mathematical tools for understanding current climate processes and 

projecting future climate variability and change. Improved models of the Arctic region will enhance 

scientific understanding of processes occurring today, improve the accuracy of projections of future 

change, guide the design of more effective Arctic field-research campaigns, and support better-informed 

decision making.

The DOE, NOAA, DOI, and NSF will integrate modeling and process-science research through seven 

activities to improve modeling of Arctic systems and processes:

1. Inventory existing Federal Arctic modeling activities;

2. Encourage coordination to better represent Arctic processes in Earth-system models;

3. Build Arctic-region models to couple with regional and global approaches;

4. Develop models of Arctic land ice mass loss, connections to ocean and atmospheric variability,

and implications for sea level;

5. Increase Arctic-model resolution to improve prediction and inform future research and

observations;

6. Use model-derived insights to inform process research and vice versa; and

7. Improve understanding of the principle drivers and uncertainties of Arctic climate changes

through model validation and verification.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 4 ★

Adaptation tools for sustaining communities

Arctic residents are adapting to new conditions created by rapid environmental change and 

diverse socio-economic stressors. Over the next five years, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

DOI, Department of State (DOS), EPA, NOAA, NSF, and the SI will assess the resilience and 

vulnerabilities of Arctic communities to the impacts of climate change. That assessment will help 

provide residents, community leaders, and policy makers with the knowledge needed to develop 

sound strategies for successful adaptation. The effort will focus on four activities:

1. In collaboration with local communities, develop methods for assessing community sustainability and resilience and determine the efficacy of current adaptation strategies and means

for identifying unintended positive and negative outcomes;

2. Identify current vulnerabilities of Arctic communities and ecosystems to climate change and

explore the interaction of climate vulnerabilities with socio-economic and other stressors;

3. Develop projections of future climate scenarios and demographic conditions to forecast potential strengths and weaknesses of Arctic human and ecological systems; and

4. Design new research, education, and outreach tools and processes to assist Arctic communities

in language and heritage preservation and in cultural revitalization efforts.

Human health

Arctic indigenous peoples have shorter life expectancies and greater infant mortality rates than their 

respective national populations. In addition to higher death rates for unintentional injury and suicide, 

native peoples experience a high prevalence of both infectious diseases and health impacts associated 

with exposures to environmental pollutants, rapid economic change, and climate change. 

IARPC human-health research activities planned for the next five years reflect the priorities of both the 

Arctic Research Commission Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2009-2010 and the 2011 Arctic Health 

Ministers meeting held in Nuuk, Greenland. The Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (HHS-CDC), EPA, Indian Health Services (HHS-IHS), National Institutes of 

Health (HHS-NIH), and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will focus on four activity areas:

1. Continue to expand circumpolar surveillance and research for infectious, non-communicable

diseases, trauma, injury, sanitation services, and indoor air quality to help prevent morbidity

and mortality;

2. Continue interagency collaboration to monitor the impacts of climate change and environmental contaminants on human health and wildlife;

3. Continue to support investigator-initiated research in major health priority areas such as mental

health including substance abuse and suicide, obesity, diabetes, and cancer; and

4. Continue to engage indigenous communities and tribal groups in research activities and

projects in the Arctic.
★ 5 ★

Chapter 2: Introduction and Background

Lead authors:

Brendan P. Kelly, Office of Science and Technology Policy

C. Nikoosh Carlo, National Science Foundation

Introduction

Meeting the Nation’s economic, scientific, and environmental needs in the Arctic requires research across 

diverse disciplines and the involvement of multiple Federal agencies. The Interagency Arctic Research 

Policy Committee (IARPC), which consists of principals from 14 agencies, departments, and offices across 

the Federal government, is charged with developing five-year plans for federally sponsored research in 

(and about) the Arctic region (Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984; Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984). 

Federal agencies that participate in the IARPC have diverse roles in carrying out the National Arctic 

Research Policy, which is articulated in National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive 25. It mandates that—with respect to research—the IARPC will:

• Meet national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region;

• Protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources;

• Ensure environmentally sustainable natural resource management and economic development

in the region;

• Strengthen institutional cooperation among the eight Arctic nations (the United States, Canada, 

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and Sweden);

• Involve the Arctic’s indigenous communities in decisions that affect them; and

• Enhance scientific monitoring of and research on local, regional, and global environmental

issues.

To ensure that these policy objectives are informed by the best possible science, this plan sets seven 

priority research areas for the next five years that stand to benefit significantly from close 

interagency collaboration. This plan does not include all Arctic research activities occurring across the 

Federal government—many important investigations will continue to be conducted within individual 

agencies or through other interagency collaborations. Individual agencies have described their own 

Arctic research priorities in a series of recent reports including:

The U.S. Arctic Research Commission’s Report on Goals & Objectives for Arctic Research 2009 – 2010 

(http://www.arctic.gov/publications/2009-10_usarc_goals.html); 

The U. S. Navy’s Arctic Road Map (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.

pdf&AD=ADA516591); 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Arctic Vision and Strategy

(http://www.arctic. noaa.gov/docs/NOAAArctic_V_S_2011.pdf); 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 6 ★

The U.S. Geological Survey’s (Department of the Interior) An Evaluation of the Science Needs to 

Inform Decisions on Outer Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska 

(http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1370/pdf/circ1370.pdf); and 

The Changing Conditions in the Arctic section of the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans/objectives).

This five-year plan also does not describe the considerable important and complementary Arctic 

research being conducted outside of the Federal government—by academic, state, tribal, and 

non-governmental researchers. 

Under the auspices of the Arctic Council1, Federal agencies also pursue Arctic research through 

work-ing groups and ad hoc task forces. This collaborative work focuses on a wide range of issues, 

including climate change, indigenous land use, and communications technology. 

Successful implementation of this five-year research plan will require close coordination with all 

of the above listed efforts, the State of Alaska, indigenous organizations, academic institutions, 

non-governmental organizations, the Arctic Council, and international partners. 

Scientists widely agree that the societal and environmental consequences of rapid environmental 

change are the most pressing scientific concerns in the Arctic region today. Diminishing sea-ice cover 

is expected to impact the global climate; diminishing ice sheets and glaciers are resulting in sea-level 

rise; and thawing permafrost is having impacts on both local infrastructure and the concentration of 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Addressing these challenges will require a sharp research focus 

on the changing cryosphere—the world’s solid-state water, including sea ice, glaciers, snow cover, and 

permafrost—and its effects on the physical environment, ecosystems, and communities in the Arctic 

and elsewhere. Key research questions include:

Sea ice and Arctic Ocean ecosystems

• At what rates will Arctic sea ice diminish over the next 100 years?

• What will be the consequences of diminishing sea ice for Arctic ecosystems and their inhabitants?

• What will be the consequences of diminishing sea ice for global climate and environments?

• How will Arctic Ocean acidity change in coming decades?

• What will be the consequences of acidification for Arctic ecosystems and their inhabitants?

Ice sheets and glaciers

• At what rates will Arctic glaciers and ice sheets diminish over the next 100 years and what

processes and forcings are driving the loss?

• What will be the consequences of diminishing glaciers and ice sheets for Arctic ecosystems and 

their inhabitants?

• How will diminishing glaciers and ice sheets impact global climate and sea level?

1. The Arctic Council consists of the eight Arctic States: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands),

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. Six international organizations representing Arctic 

Indigenous Peoples have permanent participant status.
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION A ND BACKGROUND

★ 7 ★

Permafrost

• At what rates will Arctic permafrost diminish over the next 100 years?

• What will be the consequences of diminishing permafrost for Arctic ecosystems and their

inhabitants?

• How will changes in permafrost impact the global climate system?

These key questions are being addressed by several Federal and non-Federal research efforts including:

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (http://www.globalchange.gov);

The National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, Changing Conditions in the Arctic

(http://www.white-house.gov/administration/eop/oceans/objectives); and 

The interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) 

(http://www.arcus.org/search/searchscience). 

This five-year plan identifies seven priority research areas where interagency cooperation will strengthen 

and enhance this ongoing work. They are: 

• Sea ice and marine ecosystems;

• Terrestrial ice and ecosystems;

• Atmospheric studies of surface heat, energy, and mass balances;

• Observing systems;

• Regional climate models;

• Adaptation tools for sustaining communities; and

• Human health.

Background

The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA) established the United States Arctic Research 

Commission (USARC) to promote Arctic research and recommend a research policy for the region. It also 

established the IARPC to develop national Arctic research policy and a five-year implementation plan. 

The IARPC is chaired by the director of the (NSF) and consists of principal representatives from 14 Federal 

agencies, departments, and offices. The IARPC staff meet monthly and the Principals meet twice per year.

In May 2010, recognizing the increasing participation of multiple agencies in Arctic research, President 

Obama directed the IARPC to be chartered as a subcommittee of the National Science and Technology 

Committee. This report constitutes the committee’s first deliverable since that change and subsequent 

revitalization under the leadership of both the Office of Science and Technology Policy and NSF.

The IARPC planning efforts adhere to Section 112 of the ARPA, which defines the Arctic as “all United 

States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and west of 

the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers (in Alaska); all contiguous seas, 

including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain.” While 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 8 ★

fully accepting this definition, the Committee also emphasizes that the Arctic is part of a larger, 

changing global system—the boundaries of which must be considered flexible in order to properly 

study the Arctic’s role in important global processes.

Previous work of the IARPC

Between 1987 and 2007, the IARPC produced 21 volumes of the biannual journal, Arctic Research of the 

United States, which reported Arctic research and results emerging from agencies and partners. The 

journal’s broad vision was to support scientific and engineering research that implements national 

policy objectives, including:

• Protecting the Arctic environment and conserving its living resources;

• Promoting environmentally sustainable natural resource management and economic 

development in the region;

• Strengthening institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic nations;

• Involving indigenous Arctic peoples in decisions that affect them;

• Enhancing scientific monitoring and research on local, regional, and environmental issues

(including their assessment); and

• Meeting post-Cold-War national security and defense needs.

Development of the fi e-year Arctic Research Plan v

This plan was developed by the IARPC staff: Jonathan Berkson, USGC; Shella Biallas, DOI; John Calder, 

NOAA; C. Nikoosh Carlo, NSF; Ashley Chappell, NOAA; Kathy Crane, NOAA; Richard Eckman, NASA; 

Wanda Ferrell, DOE; William Fitzhugh, SI; Martin O. Jeffries, DOD; Brendan P. Kelly, OSTP; Igor Krupnik, 

SI; Michael Kuperberg, DOE; Marya Levintova, NIH; Kim Mcgraw, DOI; Adrianna Muir, DOS; Alan 

Parkinson, CDC; James Partain, NOAA; Robert Sanford, NSF; Sandy Starkweather, NOAA; Simon 

Stephenson, NSF; Louis Tupas, DOA; Taneil Uttal, NOAA; Thomas Wagner, NASA. The Arctic Research 

Commission also provided valuable input to this plan.

Evolution of scientific studies in the Arctic

Early scientific information about the Arctic was primarily geographic and collected by 18th and 19th 

century European explorers (Beechey 1831; Hall 1866). For most of the following 100 years, scientific 

information came mainly from scattered efforts in ethnography and natural history, mostly associated 

with expeditions by the U.S. Signal Corps and others (Dall 1870; Ray 1885) and with management of 

fishing and hunting (Allen 1880; Elliot 1898). 

The first intensive investigation along the Arctic coast of Alaska took place with the International Polar 

Year (1881–1884) when the Signal Corps occupied a research station at Barrow, Alaska (Baker 1982). 

In the 1940s, ONR established the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory at Barrow, and studies of Arctic 

environments have been carried out there almost continuously under the administration of the Navy, 

the University of Alaska, and the North Slope Borough. 
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION A ND BACKGROUND

★ 9 ★

In the late 1950s, the Federal government considered detonating nuclear devices to create a port along 

the Chukchi coast of Alaska (AEC 1959). The Atomic Energy Commission contracted an investigation of 

potential environmental impacts and, thereby, provided baseline information about the Chukchi coast 

of Alaska and its near-shore waters (Willimousky and Wolfe 1966). In the 1970s and 1980s, an interagency 

agreement between the DOI’s Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Commerce (DOC)

NOAA created the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program to study the potential 

impacts of offshore oil development in sub-Arctic and Arctic Alaskan waters. For a decade or more, 

hundreds of studies looked at ice movements and deformation, mammals, birds, fish, benthos, plankton, 

microbiology, chemistry, oceanography, meteorology, and geology. Some of the work was eventually 

published in peer-reviewed literature, and all of it has been assembled by the Alaska Resources Library 

and Information Services housed on University of Alaska Anchorage campus (http://www.arlis.org/

resources/ocseap-reports).

Through the 1980s, most Arctic research was conducted in isolated disciplines such as biology, geology, 

and anthropology. Toward the end of the decade, systems science matured (Ashby 1956; von Bertalanffy 

1972; Lawton 2001), and a realization that human activity was driving rapid change in the Arctic began 

to prompt interdisciplinary work. The importance of interactions among systems—atmosphere, 

geosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere—was underscored by the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme and the World Climate Research Programme. The notion also stimulated the 

formation of NSF’s Arctic System Science Program, with a research focus on paleoenvironments and 

contemporary studies of interactions among ocean, land, and atmosphere. Eventually, human 

dimensions were included in studies of contemporary and paleoenvironments. 

While the IARPC’s mission is focused on the Arctic region, many new systems science approaches have 

been developed to consider high latitude phenomena (especially those associated with ice sheets, sea 

ice, and atmospheric coupling) in a broader perspective. As a result, there have been many commonalities in the evolution of Arctic and Antarctic science.

In 1997, scientists from 25 institutions called for a coordinated effort to understand rapid environmental 

change in the Arctic. Their efforts led to the formation of the SEARCH (http://www.arcus.org/search/

index.php). They produced science and research plans based on three main components: observing, 

understanding, and responding to Arctic change. The Arctic Observing Network (AON;

http://www.arcus.org/search/aon)—a component of SEARCH—aims to track and foster 

understanding of the complex, rapid environmental changes taking place in the Arctic through 

modeling, reconstructions of paleoen-vironments, and process studies of the environment, socioeconomics, cultures, and human health. Responding to change requires consideration of possible 

adaptive responses of Arctic communities and possible effects on people living outside the Arctic 

region. Rapid warming of the Arctic has led to dramatic declines in sea-ice extent and thickness with 

local and global impacts. Arctic sea ice influences atmospheric circulation patterns and precipitation as 

far south as the tropics (Budikova 2009). Similarly, warming has led to substantial losses of land ice, 

primarily from Greenland and Alaska, which are now responsible for a substantial fraction of observed 

sea level rise.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 10 ★

Summary

Interagency cooperation on Arctic research is more important than ever. Rapid changes are affecting 

the region’s biota and people in many ways, including by increasing access to the region for energy 

and mineral development, shipping, tourism, and military operations—human activities that may carry 

both risks and opportunities for the Arctic region. Federal agencies are conducting scientific research 

to fundamentally understand those changes, risks, and opportunities. Policymakers are increasingly 

relying on that science to make decisions and form practical responses. This IARPC research plan aims 

to support those decisions with enhanced interagency cooperation on Arctic research to address the 

most pressing science needs.

References

Allen, J. S. (1880). History of North American pinnipeds; a monograph of the walruses, sea-lions, sea-bears 

and seals of North America. Washington: Government Printing Press.

Ashby, W. R. (1956). Introduction to Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (1959), Roads and Core Holes: Project Chariot Site Plan. Holmes and 

Narver, Inc.

Baker, F. W. G. (1982). The First International Polar Year, 1882-1883. Polar Record, 21(132), 275-285.

Beechey, F. W. (1831). Narrative of a voyage to the Pacific and Beering’s Strait. London: Henry Colburn and 

Richard Bently.

Budikova, D. (2009). Role of Arctic sea ice in global atmospheric circulation: A review. Global and Planetary 

Change 68, 149-163.

Dall, W. H. (1870). Alaska and its resources. Boston. Lee and Shepard. 

Elliot, H. W. (1898). Report on the seal islands of Alaska. House Exec. Doc. 92, pt. 3-1.

Hall, C. F. (1866). Arctic researches and life among the Esquimuax: being the narrative of and expedition in 

search of Sir John Franklin, in the years 1860, 1861, and 1862. New York, NY: Harper and Bros., p. 565

Lawton, J. (2001). Earth System Science. Science 292:1965.

Ray, P. H. (Ed.). (1885). Report of the International Polar Expedition to Point Barrow, Alaska. 48th Congress, 

2nd Session, House Exec. Doc. 44.

Steller, G. W. (1988). Journal of a Voyage with Bering 1741-1742 O. W. Frost (Ed.), Stanford University Press.

von Bertalannfy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy of Management 

Journal 15, 407-426.

Wilimousky, N. J., & J. N. Wolfe. (1966). Environment of the Cape Thompson Region. Alaska: U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 
★ 11 ★

Chapter 3: Research Areas 

3.1. Understand sea-ice processes, ecosystem processes, ecosystem services, and climate 

feedbacks in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the contiguous Arctic Ocean

Lead Author:

John Calder, NOAA

Agency Partners:

DOD, DOI, NASA, NOAA, NSF

The annual Arctic Report Card (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard) integrates the latest 

information on the state of the Arctic based on input from more than 100 authors around the world. 

The 2011 Report Card concludes that data collected since 2006 are sufficient to indicate a shift in the 

Arctic Ocean system that is characterized by the persistent decline in the thickness and summer extent 

of sea-ice cover and a warmer, fresher, and more acidic upper ocean. There is, moreover, growing 

evidence that those changes are forcing marine ecosystems in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and 

the contiguous Arctic Ocean toward new and generally unknown states, with the potential for shortterm surprises (Krupnik and Bogoslovskaya 1999; Grebmeier 2006; Gradinger, et al. 2010). 

The IARPC agencies will work together over the next five years to enhance understanding of changing 

sea-ice-ocean-atmosphere interactions and feedbacks; improve sea-ice forecasting at various spatial 

and temporal scales; and detect and understand ecosystem change. Both “understanding” and 

“fore-casting” involve the application of models, whose outputs will inform decision making and 

planning for future observations. In conjunction with work described in other sections of this plan 

(e.g., section 3.2), agency partners will enhance efforts to organize, disseminate, and analyze relevant 

data and informa-tion. Applying modern cyberinfrastructure will improve capabilities for integrating 

data from different sources and blending different types of data to produce new insights and 

information. These advances are needed to be as responsive as possible to the needs of local 

residents, businesses, government decision-makers, and managers of Arctic Ocean resources. 

The work focuses on four activities.

3.1.1. Develop a framework of observations and modeling to support forecasting of seaice extent on seasonal to annual scales for operational and research needs 

Why do this? 

The Arctic Ocean system has shifted to a new state. Evidence cited in the Arctic Report Card shows 

that the minimum extent of summer Arctic sea ice from 2007 to the present has fallen below the 

previously established trend line for the period 1979 through 2006, and the rate of sea-ice loss 

exceedsthat projected by coupled climate models (Stroeve et al. 2007)2. 

Continued loss of sea ice will have important consequences for marine and terrestrial ecosystems, coastal 

communities, maritime transportation, natural resource development, regional and global weather and 

2. As this report was being finalized, a new record minimum was recorded for the extent of Arctic sea ice

(http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/).
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 12 ★

climate, and national security. Understanding and predicting the consequences of continuing sea-ice 

loss on the marine ecosystem will require better understanding of the Arctic Ocean environment and 

processes to improve sea-ice forecasts and predictions at a variety of spatial and temporal scales.

Timeframe: 

Mid-term (3-5 years)

Expected Outcomes:

• Improved operational and research forecasts/projections to support safe operations and ecosystem stewardship on a seasonal to annual basis.

• Reduce uncertainty in predictions and projections at longer time scales and over the entire

Arctic marine area, for better informed policy and decision making at local, state, national, and 

international levels.

• Significantly improved seasonal weather and sea-ice models and forecasts to fill a critical gap

in marine weather and climate services, since at seasonal and shorter time scales, sea-ice and

weather forecasts are tightly coupled and must be pursued together. Improved models and

forecasts will benefit community and subsistence activities, management of protected marine

resources (including ice-dependent species), marine navigation, and industry operations.

• At annual and longer time scales, reduced uncertainty and increased accuracy of sea-ice

projections and enhanced understanding of how newly sea-ice-free areas influence weather

and climate, not just in the Arctic but in the global system. Enhanced understanding will

lead to sustainable infrastructure and community planning and aid in projection of regional 

and global climate impacts forced by changes in the Arctic.

Milestones:

• Convene interagency expert group on sea-ice forecasting to develop multi-year implementation

plan, coordinate on-going observation and modeling, and determine needed improvements

to reduce uncertainty in forecasts [DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), NASA, 

NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2013]3

.

• Engage with stakeholders and users to determine needs for sea-ice forecasts and products

through venues such as the Alaska Marine Science Symposium and Alaska Forum on the

Environment (BOEM, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2013).

• Continue the Sea Ice Outlook and Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook to evaluate diverse sea-ice forecasting approaches and fill a valuable user need (NSF, NOAA; FY2013).

• Launch Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) 2 satellite altimetry mission to continue

the record of sea-ice thickness measurements and land ice elevation change (NASA; FY2016).

• Launch Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Follow-On satellite mission to

continue the record of changes in Arctic Ocean circulation and land ice mass loss 

(NASA; FY2017).

3. Throughout this document, agencies are listed alphabetically in milestones, and that order does not imply priority.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 13 ★

• Develop algorithms for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2), recently 

launched on Japan’s GCOM-W, to continue and enhance passive microwave record of sea-ice 

extent (NASA, NOAA; FY2014). 

• Improve knowledge of sea-ice melting through various activities such as ONR’s marginal ice

zone program and NASA’s Operation IceBridge mission (NASA, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2017).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs: 

Enhanced environmental observations and improved modeling capabilities are needed to meet the 

requirements for improved sea-ice forecasts on a seasonal to annual basis. Many of the observations 

and modeling capabilities would also be valuable for sea-ice forecasts at sub-seasonal time scales. 

Appropriate collaborations are needed to ensure data and model outputs are available to support 

forecasting at both time scales.

Both in-situ and remotely sensed observations will be needed, taking full advantage of 

international remote sensing assets. Processes requiring assessment include ice growth, export, 

melt, and albedo change, with in-situ measurements coupled to remotely sensed observations to 

create a pan-Arctic set of sea-ice state variables for data assimilation and model initialization. 

Specific sea-ice characteristics that need to be assessed are ice concentration, ice thickness, snow thickness, ice type (first-year vs. perennial), ice motion, leads/polynyas, melt pond fraction, surface albedo, 

temperature, and bottom and top ablation. Ocean mixed layer temperature, tidal, bathymetric, and 

circulation data are also needed. Most of these data also have applications to ecosystem and coastal 

zone studies and would lead to improved understanding of storm surges. 

Planning for observations must include input from modeling centers to ensure data collection in a 

manner appropriate to needs for initialization, validation, and assimilation of various forecast 

models. Continuous or frequently repeated data collection will be needed, including broad surveys of 

ice conditions in at least spring and fall, to initialize forecasts of both ice loss and regrowth. To meet 

the observational requirements in a cost-effective way, it will be necessary to take full advantage of 

all available observing platforms (e.g., ships, aircraft, fixed offshore platforms, coastal locations) on an 

opportunistic basis. Partnerships with national and international organizations and with private 

industry are needed so that platforms can be equipped with instrumentation for many of the 

needed observations on a mutually beneficial basis. Whenever possible, data should be returned 

in near real-time to support forecasting at shorter time scales and to verify sensor performance.

International collaboration will be a necessary component of this project, not only because Canada 

and Russia share the target region with the United States, but also because international collaboration 

is needed for access to critical remote sensing data. The most important of these are the 

international satellite radar missions, which are important for constraining sea-ice age, thickness, 

and motion [e.g., European Space Agency (ESA) CryoSat-2 and Canadian Search And Rescue 

Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) Missions]. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 14 ★

3.1.2. Identify and study sites in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the contiguous Arctic 

Ocean where climate feedbacks are active

Why do this? 

There are several feedback processes active in the Arctic marine environment, including those related to 

albedo and radiative-balance changes and air-sea fluxes of heat, moisture, and greenhouse gases. The 

loss of sea ice can affect all of these processes. The extent of summer Arctic sea ice is declining, the ratio 

of single-year to multi-year ice continues to increase, and the rate of sea-ice loss exceeds that projected 

by coupled climate models (Stroeve et al. 2007).

The sea-ice edge during the Arctic spring through fall seasons is dynamic with rapid and large location 

changes in response to amount of snow cover; clouds, solar radiation, and albedo; winds and ocean 

waves; and air and water temperatures. Interactions and feedbacks among those variables, from local 

to regional scales, can amplify Arctic-wide climate change and sea-ice retreat (Perovich and RichterMenge 2009). Better knowledge about such feedbacks is vital for understanding ice-air-ocean system 

processes, improving daily to seasonal weather and sea-ice forecast models, and increasing the accuracy 

of longer-term sea-ice and climate projections. 

Changes in sea ice and other portions of the cryosphere in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas region may 

affect fluxes of greenhouse gases. Recent work on the Beaufort Sea shelf found no conclusive evidence 

of massive methane venting from subsurface systems (Coffin et al. 2010), and there is no evidence 

in high latitude atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration data that natural emissions of 

methane have increased significantly in the last decade (Dlugokencky and Bruhwiler 2012). On the 

other hand, recent evidence (Shakova et al. 2010) indicates that methane is being released from or 

through thawing permafrost under shallow coastal seas north of Eurasia. The amount of methane 

available for release is potentially very large, but there are no data on the current rate of release 

throughout the Arctic or how the rate might change. The shallow shelves off northern Siberia and 

around the McKenzie Delta are important marine areas for methane research, and partnerships with 

Russia and Canada are essential to this work.

Carbon dioxide fluxes between the atmosphere and ocean may change with a persistent loss of sea-ice 

cover and warming of the Arctic Ocean. Carbon dioxide may be increasing or decreasing in the ocean 

at varying rates (Bates et al. 2011), and predicting the future influence of these fluxes on atmospheric 

carbon dioxide levels and on ocean acidification is not possible at present. 

Timeframe: 

Mid-term (3-5 years)

Expected Outcomes: 

• Improved understanding of the role of feedback processes driving sea-ice variability and change; 

improved sea-ice forecasts to support safe operations, ecosystem stewardship, and improved

predictions and projections of regional and global climate; better informed policy and decision

making at local, state, national, and international levels.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 15 ★

• Improved daily, weekly, and seasonal weather and sea-ice models and forecasts will fill a critical 

gap in marine weather and climate services with benefit for community and subsistence 

activities, management of protected marine resources (including ice-dependent species), 

marine navigation, and industry operations. 

• Reduced uncertainty and increased accuracy of sea-ice projections and understanding of

how newly sea-ice-free areas influence weather and climate, which will lead to sustainable

infrastructure and community planning and aid in projecting of regional and global climate

impacts forced by changes in the Arctic.

• Improved understanding and ability to forecast (based on both in-situ and remotely sensed

data) Arctic environmental change.

• Improved estimates of the contribution of Arctic greenhouse gas fluxes to climate warming.

Milestones: 

• Report of a workshop on sea-ice forecasting (NOAA; FY20124).

• Report of a workshop on the future of Arctic sea-ice research and forecasting, National Academy 

Polar Research Board (NASA, ONR; FY2013).

• Work through the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) in conjunction with State of Alaska and

response organizations to apply research results to oil spill response planning (DOI, NOAA,

USCG5

; FY2013).

• Investigate the marginal ice zone:

(1) Emerging Dynamics of the Marginal Ice Zone (ONR; FY2016).

− Science and field experiment planning; equipment development and testing (ONR; FY2013).

− Main field experiment in the Beaufort Sea (ONR; FY2014).

− Data analysis and synthesis (ONR; FY2016).

(2) Marginal Ice Zone Observations and Processes Experiment (MIZOPEX): (NASA, NOAA;

FY2013).

• Develop and test large-class, heavy payload unpiloted aerial systems (UAS) for sea-ice

characterization (NASA, NOAA; FY2013-14).

• Investigate sea-state and boundary layer physics in the emerging Arctic Ocean (ONR; FY2017).

− Science and field experiment planning; equipment development and testing (ONR; FY2014).

− Main field experiment in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas (ONR; FY2015).

− Data analysis and synthesis (ONR; FY2017).

4. While this plan covers the period 2013 to 2017, some activities extend work in progress. Some milestones may have

ee reached in 2012.

5. United States Coast Guard (Department of Homeland Security)

d n
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 16 ★

• Initiate interagency activity to improve application of remote sensing and buoy/mooring data 

to sea-ice forecasting (NOAA; FY2012).

• Investigate characterization of the circulation on the continental shelf areas of the Northeast

Chukchi and Western Beaufort Seas (BOEM; FY2012).

• Continue operation IceBridge acquisition of sea-ice surface elevation and supporting data, and 

expand Arctic sea-ice observations to constrain melting processes (NASA; FY2017).

• Initiate interagency evaluation of trends and significance of methane flux to the atmosphere

in Arctic regions (DOE, NOAA, USGS6

; FY2015).

• Initiate a dialogue with Roshydromet and Russian Academy of Science on a potential 

investigation of the current rate of methane release from the shallow shelves off northern 

Siberia (NOAA; FY2013).

• Initiate a dialogue with Canadian agencies on collaborative methane research along the

Beaufort Sea coast (DOE; FY2013).

• Identify optimal sites for short-term process studies underpinned by long-term observations

(all agencies; FY2014).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

New and enhanced communications technology for in-situ orbital and surface-based sensors is needed 

to provide real-time, integrated observations and products derived from atmosphere, ice, and ocean. The 

sensors will support investigations of the interactions and feedbacks among variables that control seaice concentration, thickness and motion, and the location of the ice edge. Deployment of in-situ sensors 

and support for process studies will require coordination with and access to charter and non-charter 

vessels capable of operating during spring, summer, and fall. Research into interactions and feedbacks 

among the atmosphere, ice, and ocean requires improved process models. Improving forecasts and 

predictions will require models that assimilate advanced observing data and derived products; 

provide time-varying sea-ice concentration, thickness, and ice-edge location at high temporal and 

spatial resolution; and fully couple ice-ocean-atmosphere processes. Improved sea-ice predictions also 

are critical to meeting objectives described in the following parts of this section requiring new 

science integration efforts on an interdisciplinary basis.

3.1.3 Complete deployment of a Distributed Biological Observatory in the Arctic Ocean to 

create long-term data sets on biological, physical, and chemical variability, change, and 

ecosystem response

Why do this?

Changes in location and timing of the seasonal ice edge can have profound effects on sea floor and water 

column marine ecology and human activity (Grebmeier et al. 2012; Huntington 2009). These changes 

also affect the ability of ice-dependent marine mammals to reproduce and rear young on ice (Kelly 2001; 

6. United States Geological Survey (Department of Interior)
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 17 ★

Kelly et al. 2010; Cameron et al. 2010; Hezel et al. 2012). Changes in zooplankton availability can affect 

distribution and abundance of baleen whales, which are important to subsistence cultures (Ashjian et 

al. 2010; Moore et al. 2010). Likewise, stranding of ice-dependent species on land likely reduces their 

survival or reproductive rates and will change their availability to subsistence hunters. Relationships 

among ice-edge retreat, changes in plankton dynamics, loss of summer sea ice, and foraging success 

of whales and ice-dependent species are poorly understood (Moore and Huntington 2008; Kovacs et 

al. 2011), as are the effects of these changes on Alaska Natives who depend upon such species (Metcalf 

and Robards 2008). In the initial study region (Fig. 3.1.1) changes in ecosystems will be partly driven 

by the varying flux of mass, heat, salt, and nutrients through the Bering Strait as well as by sea-ice loss 

and other changes in the physical state of the Arctic Ocean. Also, the effects on marine ecosystems of 

ocean acidification, happening now and projected to be greater in Arctic waters than anywhere else, 

are largely unknown. 

The Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo) integrates 

biological and physical sampling from both moorings and ships using a collaborative network of 

logistical sup-port (Grebmeier et al. 2010). Remote sensing and advanced in-situ technologies will 

be critical to the observatory’s success. Information from the DBO will provide a better 

understanding of how climate change affects Arctic biology and what steps will be necessary to 

improve stewardship of the Arctic marine ecosystem as human use and economic development 

increase. The DBO is intended to span multiple decades and likely will evolve as new approaches 

and technologies become available. 

Figure 3.1.1. Five possible regional locations of Distributed Biological Observatory 

transect lines and stations for standard hydrological and biological measurements in the 

Pacific Arctic sector. These locations were selected because they are known biological 

“hot spots”where change might be easier to detect.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 18 ★

Relevant U.S. agencies (including NOAA, NSF, and NASA) coordinated through the IARPC and international partners (including Canada, China, Japan, Korea, and Russia) coordinated through the Pacific 

Arctic Group (PAG)7 will take advantage of current research programs to create a marine DBO in the 

region for consistent, long-term monitoring of biophysical responses in pivotal oceanographic areas 

along a north-south latitude (Figure 3.1.1). Each area exhibits high biological productivity, 

biodiversity, gradients in ecosystem properties, and direct linkages to subsistence-based coastal 

communi-ties. All areas are projected to experience increased commercial use with the loss of sea ice. 

As sea ice retreats, the DBO will track the rate of ecosystem change and identify impacts. The DBO will 

provide critical information on the biodiversity of this region and a baseline for assessing how 

biodiversity will respond to climate change and loss of sea ice. The DBO will also provide baseline 

information necessary to assess and mitigate potential impacts of offshore resource development on 

subsistence activities. Observations will be conducted in collaboration with international partners 

and coordi-nated through the Pacific Arctic Group, which is a forum for discussion of science issues 

relevant to the Pacific sector of the Arctic. Its participants are drawn primarily from Canada, China, 

Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States. 

Timeframe:

Pilot-project and planning (3-5 years); decadal-term implementation 

Expected Outcomes: 

The DBO will:

• Provide a knowledge-resource base to improve the ability of resource management agencies

(e.g., BOEM and NOAA) to determine the effects of their actions on marine resources, resulting 

in improved conservation, protection, and management of Arctic coastal and ocean resources.

• Improve understanding of the effects of Arctic ecosystem and climate changes on subsistence 

cultures in the region.

• Provide information on variability and change in the physical environment at DBO sites and

the associated response of planktonic, pelagic, and benthic communities to enable improved

management and use of marine resources, including subsistence use of marine mammals.

• Develop or improve integrated physical-ecosystem models that relate past variability and

change in both physical and biological conditions at DBO sites and inform resource managers

of potential future conditions under different scenarios.

• Aid in developing risk-averse strategies to maximize the resilience of marine ecosystems, and

develop strategies to mitigate and adapt to adverse impacts.

• Increase understanding of the ecological implications of:

− Increasingly early ice-edge retreat and absence of summer sea ice;

− Increased severity of storms during the ice-free season;

7. The PAG is an informal association of organizations and scientists from Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the

United States who coordinate ship-based observations and facilitate shared operations in the Pacific sector of the Arctic 

and work toward data exchange and synthesis.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 19 ★

− Ice-dependent species forced to spend time on land, including impacts of human 

EJTUVSbance; and 

− Ocean acidification on Arctic marine ecosystems, especially plankton and calcareous seBfloor dwelling organisms important as prey to subsistence species. 

• Increase ability to monitor and assess environmental conditions under changing climate

TDFnarios through new collaborations and partnerships among participants of the Pacific

"SDUJDGroup and across U.S. agencies.

• Forge connections between a U.S. observing network and similar networks of other countries.

Milestones: 

• DBO partners conduct pilot research cruises (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo/) (NOAA, NSF;

FY2013).

• Creation of DBO satellite ocean color record (NASA; FY2014).

• The Arctic Observing Network (AON) subcommittee established by the IARPC organizes the

DBO interagency working group to develop U.S. plans and priorities (NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2012). 

• Initiate a dialogue with Roshydromet and Russian Academy of Science on developing DBO 

TUBtions in Russian territory as a complement to those in U.S. waters (NOAA; FY2013).

• Pacific Arctic Group meets annually to review results from 2010-2013 pilot activities (NOAA;

FY2013).

• Report in 2014 on International DBO activities and results to date (NOAA; FY2014).

• Updated DBO concept and national/international plan for decadal-scale implementation

release in 2014 will include identification of satellite resources that will be critical to the DBO.

Ocean color, sea surface temperature (SST), sea surface height (SSH), sea surface (SS) salinity,

and winds are all key measurements in the cloudy Arctic for ecosystem characterization (NASA, 

NOAA, NSF; FY2014).

• Starting in 2015, DBO partners execute decadal-scale plans and prepare periodic assessments

on physical and ecological state of Pacific Arctic marine environment using not only DBO data, 

but also data from BOEM, the North Pacific Research Board, and other sources (BOEM, NOAA,

NSF; FY2015).

• Report annually on recent developments at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium and seek

coordination with Alaska state agencies, oil industry, and other non-Federal organizations.

(Selected agencies as appropriate; FY2014).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

The DBO will require agencies to pursue new technologies for continuous, year-round, real-time 

observations of key physical, chemical, and biological variables; improve coordination with and 

access to charter and non-charter vessels capable of working in Arctic areas during the spring, 

summer, and fall; enhance application of satellite- and aircraft-based sensors (including use of 

unmanned aircraft); and improve use of community based observations and instrumented animals. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 20 ★

3.1.4 Develop integrated ecosystem research in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas

Why do this?

Research is needed to identify and understand processes that control ecosystem structure and

function as well as their sensitivities to changes in physical and chemical environments. Results from 

such process studies inform models that project future ecosystem status and provide critical

information to support adaptation efforts. Coordination of the Bering Sea Ecosystem Study (NSF) and 

the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (North Pacific Research Board) stands as a 

model for how an interagency study might be organized (Bering Sea Interagency Working Group 

(2006).

There are numerous outstanding research questions that will benefit from an interagency approach, 

such as:

• How will ecosystems respond to expected continued warming and acidification of the waters

in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and the contiguous Arctic Ocean?

• How might fluxes of mass, heat, salt, and nutrients from the Bering Strait, from the Mackenzie

River, from Siberian coastal currents, or from Atlantic water intrusion impact ecosystems in the 

study region?

• How will ice-edge ecosystems adapt to changes in location and timing of sea-ice retreat and

re-growth?

• Will the trend toward increased areas of open water seen in recent summers lead to seasonal

deepening of the mixed layer and alter ecosystem processes?

• Will southern species establish themselves in the Arctic Ocean and might the resulting stocks

approach commercial size?

• Will eastern and western species and stocks intermix, and will intermixture decrease diversity

and/or adaptation?

• How well do ecosystem models describe the current state of ecosystems in the study region,

and what improvements are needed to enable skillful projection of future ecosystem states?

• What new observing tools or technologies are needed to improve understanding of ecosystem

processes?

• How will degradation of submerged permafrost and natural gas hydrates impact ecosystems

in the Chukchi and Beaufort shelf regions?

• How will increased oil and gas drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas impact natural

ecosystems?

• How will shipping traffic and other human activities impact subsistence species and the

communities that depend upon them?

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years) 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 21 ★

Expected Outcomes: 

This research will create new knowledge about the regional ecosystem, including its key components 

and their linkages, and insight into how it responds to perturbation. This information will help in the 

development of hypotheses about responses to long-term trends such as persistent loss of summer 

sea ice, ocean warming, and ocean acidification. Scenarios for future subsistence and commercial use of 

living marine resources could be constructed from the research results and serve as guides for longerterm sustained observations. Results from process studies inform models that can be used to project 

future ecosystem status and allow proactive adaptation to changing conditions.

Milestones: 

• Conduct interagency and international workshops and consultations during 2013 to identify

high priority research themes and objectives and coordinate funding and logistic plans (Selected 

agencies as appropriate; FY2013).

• Perform synthesis and assessment during 2013-2014 on existing data and information to 

provide foundation for new research activities (Selected agencies as appropriate; FY2014).

• Initiate 3-5 year research activities starting in 2014 with interagency/international results 

integration mechanism (Selected agencies as appropriate; FY2014).

• Demonstrate new and updated cyberinfrastructure tools to enhance data integration and

application and identify opportunities for sharing of technology and tools among interagency 

partners (all agencies; FY2013).

• Conduct initial science integration conference in 2016 (Selected agencies as appropriate;

FY2016).

• Conduct environmental and integrated risk assessments to evaluate the potential impacts of

oil/natural gas production on ecosystems in the Beaufort Sea (DOE; FY2014).

• Evaluate ecosystem impacts of oil and gas development and potential oil spills (including effects 

of oil dispersants and a mixture of oil and dispersants) on the early life-history stages of Arctic

cod (NOAA; FY2013).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Improved partnerships between scientists and local-knowledge holders are needed as are the means 

for reviewing and funding such partnerships. A number of successful projects have been supported 

that encourage or require such partnerships, but there is recognition that more needs to be done to 

capture local knowledge in the Arctic. Agencies have differing mechanisms for supporting these types 

of partnerships but are open to good ideas generated at the working level (local residents, academic 

experts, and agency scientists) and proposed for consideration. The planned Arctic Observing Summit 

in 2013 is one opportunity for such ideas to be presented. Improved biophysical models will be needed, 

along with a parallel effort to test and validate the model outputs. Full-year investigations will create 

new requirements for observing platforms, data storage, and transmission. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 22 ★

References

Ashjian, C. J., Braund S. R., et al. (2010). Climate variability, oceanography, bowhead whale distribution 

and Inupiat subsistence whaling near Barrow, Alaska. Arctic 63(2), 179-194.

Bates, N. R., Cai W-J., & Mathis, J. T. (2011). The ocean carbon cycle in the western Arctic Ocean: Distribution 

and air sea fluxes of carbon dioxide. Oceanography 24(3), 186-201.

Bering Sea Interagency Working Group. (2006). Climate change and the Bering Sea ecosystem: An 

integrated, interagency, multi-institutional approach. 

Cameron, M. F., Bengtson, J. L., Boveng, P. L., Jansen, J. K., Kelly, J. K., Dahle, S. P., Logerwell, E. A., Overland, 

J. E., Sabine, C. L., Waring, G. T., & Wilder, J. M. (2010). Status review of the bearded seal (Erignathus 

barbatus). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-211, 246 p.

Coffin, R., et al. (2010). First Trans-shelf-slope Climate Study in the U.S. Beaufort Sea Completed. FITI 

Newsletter.

Dlugokencky, E. J., & Bruhwiler, L. (2012). Sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane in the 

Arctic. Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, 93(7), S144.

Grebmeier, J. M. (2012). Shifting patterns of life in the Pacific Arctic and Sub-Arctic Seas. Annual Review 

of Marine Science. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4(16.1-16.6).

Grebmeier, J. M., et al. (2010). Biological response to recent Pacific Arctic sea ice retreats. EOS, 91(18), 

161-168.

Hezel, P.J., X. Zhang, C.M. Bitz, B. Kelly, and F. Massonnet (2012). Projected decline in snow depth on 

Arctic sea ice caused by progressively later autumn open ocean freeze-up this century, Geophysical 

Research Letters, VOL. 39, L17505, doi:10.1029/2012GL052794.

Huntington, H. P. (2009). A preliminary assessment of threats to arctic marine mammals and their 

conservation in the coming decades. Mar. Policy 33: 77-82.

Kelly, B. P. (2001). Climate change and ice breeding pinnipeds. In G. R. Walther, C. A. Burga, and P. J. 

Edwards (Eds.). “Fingerprints” of Climate Change—Adapted Behavior and Shifting Species Ranges (pp. 

43‐55). New York, NY, Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

Kelly, B. P., Bengtson, J. L., Boveng, P. L., Cameron, M. F., Dahle, S. P., Jansen, J. K., Logerwell, E. A., Overland, 

J. E., Sabine, C. L., Waring, G. T., & Wilder, J. M. (2010). Status Review of the Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida). 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-212. 

Kovacs, K. M., Lyderson, C., et al. (2011). Impacts of changing sea ice conditions on Arctic marine 

mammals. Marine Biodiversity. 41, 181-194.

Metcalf, V., & Robards, M. (2008). Sustaining a healthy human-walrus relationship in a dynamic environment: challenge for comanagement. Ecol App. 18(2), S148-S156.

Moore, S. E., & George, J. C., et al. (2010). Bowhead whale distribution and feeding near Barrow, Alaska 

in late summer 2005-06. Arctic 63(2), 195-205.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 23 ★

Moore, S. E., & Huntington, H. P. (2008). Arctic marine mammals and climate change: impacts and

resilience. Ecol App. 18(2), S157-S165.

NSIDC. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/. Last accessed, Jan. 22. 2013.

Perovich, D. K., & Richter-Menge, J. (2009). Loss of sea ice in the Arctic. Annual Review of Marine Science, 

1, 417-441.

Shakova, N., Semiletov, I., et al. (2010). Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments 

of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Science, 327, 1246-1250.

Stroeve, J., Holland, M. M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., & Serreze, M. (2007). Arctic sea ice decline: faster than 

forecast. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.

3.2: Understand terrestrial ice processes, ecosystem processes, ecosystem services, and

climate feedbacks in the Arctic

Lead Author:

Shella Biallas, DOI

Agencies Partners:

DOE, DOI, NASA, NOAA, NSF, SI

Studying diminishing land ice, terrestrial ecosystem processes, ecosystem services, and climate feedbacks will contribute to a better understanding of the cumulative impacts of changes taking place in 

the Arctic and facilitate more informed decisions in the face of those changes. 

Mass drainage of Arctic land ice from the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers and ice caps is a new and 

poorly understood problem with global implications (Milne et al. 2009). Climate feedbacks from 

ongoing ecosystem changes are only beginning to be understood but are expected to lead to further 

changes in the global climate system while affecting local communities’ abilities to adapt to altered 

conditions on the ground. The 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA 2005) outlined a number 

of high-priority science needs, including a better understanding of causes of increased Arctic land ice 

mass loss, changes likely to occur in terrestrial ecosystems, and how those changes will impact local 

communities. Currently, there are strong research partnerships among U.S. agencies operating in the 

Arctic. The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (http://www.doi.gov/lcc/index.cfm), the North Slope 

Science Initiative (http://www.northslope.org/), and the Alaska Climate Science Center 

(http://www.doi.gov/csc/alaska/index.cfm), for example, are working to implement an appliedscience program to inform management of Arctic natural resources. 

The following five research areas will advance existing research participation, enhance coordinated 

approaches to understanding loss of land ice, climate feedbacks, terrestrial ecosystem processes and 

services, and support actions to address those changes. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 24 ★

3.2.1 Perform glacial-process studies targeting specific dynamic regimes

Why do this?

Mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic glaciers and ice caps, as well as from the Antarctic Ice 

Sheet, has increased rapidly since the mid-1990s. The combined loss from polar land-ice now accounts 

for one-third to one-half of sea level rise (Cazenave and Llovel 2010; Church et al. 2011; Rignot et al. 2011; 

Jacobs et al. 2012). That loss is documented using space-based remote sensing—including altimetry, 

gravimetry, and Interferometric Synthetic Aperature Radar—as well as field and aircraft studies. Geodetic 

measurements of continental uplift and Earth rotation support these observations (e.g., Jiang et al. 2010; 

Nerem and Wahr 2011; Mitrovica and Wahr 2011). 

The importance of research into the causes of increased Arctic land ice mass loss has been highlighted 

in numerous recent reports (e.g., http://www.acia.uaf.edu/, http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/

sap/sap1-2/final-report/default.htm, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard). Loss of Arctic land-ice 

will result in potentially serious “downstream effects” including regional and global sea-level change 

(e.g., vulnerabilities of coastal populations, economic and national security infrastructure, and 

habitats). Understanding the causes of increased Arctic land ice mass loss, their connection to ocean 

and atmospheric variability, and the implications for current and future sea level will require process 

studies (this research area), observational studies (3.4), and modeling (3.5).

In the Arctic, the ice mass loss is due to increased surface melting and the acceleration, retreat, and 

thinning of tidewater glaciers in Greenland (van den Broeke et al. 2009) and Arctic tidewater glaciers 

(Arendt 2011). Though more research is needed to fully understand the complex drivers behind the 

observed acceleration of tidewater glaciers (Moon et al. 2012), evidence suggests that climate change 

is a major factor. Evidence points to the marine margins of these glaciers as the region from which 

changes have propagated inland, but the drivers and mechanisms behind the acceleration are still 

unclear (Vieli and Nick 2011). The significance of this dynamic response has only recently been 

appreciated and is only beginning to be represented in current-generation ice sheet models. In the 

2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) report, this 

shortcoming was identified as the largest source of uncertainty in sea level change projections (Lemke

et al. 2007). Current projection estimates vary by more than an order of magnitude (Pfeffer et al. 2008; 

Price et al. 2011). In addition, the proximity of Greenland to the North Atlantic’s dense water formation 

regions implies that an increasing discharge of freshwater from Greenland can potentially impact the 

large-scale overturning circulation of the North Atlantic (Dickson et al. 2008), a major player in the 

global oceanic heat transport, with far-reaching climatic implications. 

The goals of the process studies are to identify and understand the relevant processes and 

develop/improve parameterizations for those processes that cannot be resolved in models. Six 

classe processes are identified, targeting Greenland outlet glaciers and Arctic tidewater glaciers: 

1. Ice/ocean boundary layer and plume dynamics: Key measurements and modeling of the

turbulent processes and their controls are needed to estimate submarine melt rates and 

develop appropriate melt rate parameterizations;
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 25 ★

2. Fjord circulation and exchanges with the continental shelf: Integrated observational, modeling, 

and data analysis efforts are needed to understand how the fjord and shelf dynamics impact

the ice/ocean boundary and the properties of sea ice, icebergs, and the ice mélange;

3. Glacial hydrology: Knowledge of the supraglacial, englacial, and subglacial hydrology,

including discharge of freshwater into the fjord environment, is key to our understanding of 

ice flow, submarine melt rate, and plume dynamics;

4. Glacier dynamics: Process studies need to address the transition in ice flow from large

catchment basins to narrow outlet or tidewater glaciers, in order to understand how the

changes in stress-distribution and large-scale bed geometry influence the flow of ice and its

supply to the terminus;

5. Calving: Calving plays a crucial role in both ice loss at the terminus and (indirectly) on the

acceleration of inland ice flow, but its description remains elusive; and

6. Mass change.

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years)

Expected Outcomes:

• Improved understanding of basic principles and mechanisms controlling the identified physical

processes.

• Direct observations of the meltwater plume at the ice/ocean interface, its spatio-temporal 

variability, accompanied by plume-resolving simulations.

• Observations of spatio-temporal variability of glacial hydrology (especially supraglacial lakes)

and its relation to meteorological conditions, glacier flow, and meltwater plume variability.

• Developed and tested empirical relationship constrained by observations among submarine

melt rate, glacier flow, fjord geometry, and circulation and ocean/atmosphere/sea-ice variability.

• Developed and tested empirical relationship constrained by observations between calving and 

environmental conditions as well as glacier internal stress balances.

• Based on observed relationships, formulate physically based parameterizations of unresolved

processes for use in large-scale Earth system models (see 3.4).

• New methods and instrumentation systems, capable of monitoring subsurface melting, calving,

subglacial discharge, and ice and sea-water properties in harsh environments.

• Enhance field campaigns with collection of paleo-proxies that provide evidence for past glacier 

variability.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 26 ★

Milestones:

• Define observational requirements (essential variables, spatio-temporal sampling) for each of

the components (ocean/fjord/ice-ocean interface/glacier/atmosphere) for process studies and

sustained monitoring (NASA, NOAA; FY2014).

• Initiate 3-5 year interdisciplinary and interagency research initiatives that draw together

observational, process modeling, and Earth system modeling expertise to accelerate progress

on specific process parameterizations in U.S. Earth system models (NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2014).

• Report strategies to feed results of process studies into sustained monitoring systems and Earth 

system models (DOE, NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2014).

• Foster a U.S. and international research focus on ice/ocean interactions, especially with regards

to the Greenland Ice Sheet. (NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2015).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

• Development of instrumentation systems capable of functioning in harsh glacier terminus

and fjord environments capable of withstanding the presence of sea-ice and iceberg, and

observational techniques yielding robust measurements with high level of signal-to-noise ratio.

• Improvement of remote sensing technologies and underlying retrieval algorithms.

• Establishment of comprehensive, well-structured, and sophisticated databases and data formats

to allow easy access and optimal use of data.

• Development of synergetic approaches (observational, theoretical, modeling, as well as multidisciplinary) in order to pool resources and make progress in the directions outlined above.

3.2.2 Coordinate and integrate terrestrial ecosystem research efforts

Why do this?

Research on terrestrial ecosystems in the Arctic would greatly benefit from access to the range of 

existing data systems, information portals, and efforts to identify gaps in dissemination of research 

data and information. Resource and information sharing among agencies could be significantly 

enhanced by establishing formal agreements, such as the Memorandum of Understanding between 

NOAA and USGS (MoU 2011). 

Existing sources of information and portals that provide a basis for comprehensive information sharing 

and coordination include: 

• NSF Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS) and Advanced CADIS system

(A-CADIS).

• Alaska Data Integration Working Group (ADIWG), formed to examine and address the technical 

barriers to efficiently integrate and share data within and among participating organizations.

• Polar Data Catalog maintained by the Canadian Cryospheric Information Network (CCIN).
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 27 ★

• The North Slope Science Initiative/University of Alaska Geographic Information Network (NSSI/

GINA). 

• USGS Science Portal.

• The Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS).

• The Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Circumpolar Biodiversity

Monitoring Program (CBMP) is developing a distributed and decentralized geo-referenced,

web-based portal for communications, data archiving, and information exchange.

• Arctic Portal established as part of the International Polar Year (IPY) activities and currently

maintained by Iceland and various Arctic Council Working Groups.

• Arctic, Western Alaska, and Aleutians & Bering Sea Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).

• Individual IARPC agencies (DOE, NASA, NPS8, NWS9, USGS) maintain substantial databases that

inform cross-agency efforts.

Timeframe:

Near-term (1-3 years)

Expected Outcomes: 

• Federal and Alaska state agency scientists identify the five most-pressing needs for scientific

research in the terrestrial Arctic, in cooperation with Arctic Council efforts.

• Existing information sharing mechanisms, such as data.gov, AON/CADIS, or the NSSI/GINA data 

catalog, are fully used by scientists in planning and implementing terrestrial-ecosystem research 

in the Arctic to coordinate with other ongoing and planned efforts, and to expeditiously report

their research findings.

• A single information delivery data hub is identified as the primary access point for various portals

and databases of U.S. and international Arctic research activities to provide a point of access

and collaboration for research activities.

Milestones: 

• Databases currently maintained by the Arctic LCC, NSF, NSSI, USGS, and non-governmental

groups are made available on one website or via one access point (DOI, NSF; FY2013).

• Review completed and ongoing Arctic studies involving cross-disciplinary collaboration at the

principle investigator level and identify any outstanding gaps and needs (NSF; FY2014).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Federal agencies should agree upon and adopt a single access point to existing and future informationsharing databases and portals and share them with cooperating state, local, and international partners. 

8. National Park Service (Department of Interior)

9. National Weather Service (NOAA, Department of Commerce)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 28 ★

Stored long-term observing data and associated information should be accessible to and easily managed 

by contributing partners.

3.2.3 Identify and study key sites where climate feedbacks are active, including permafrost, snow, hydrates, and glaciers 

Why do this?

The Arctic cryosphere regulates local, regional, and global climate and provides vital ecosystem services 

to communities. It also stores vast quantities of carbon (including in the form of methane) that may be 

released as temperatures increase and as ecosystem processes—such as wildland fires—change. A 

warming climate is having significant impacts on the Arctic cryosphere, such as decreased snow cover 

and thawing permafrost in the terrestrial environment. While terrestrial feedbacks in some locations have 

been studied, climate feedbacks in the region are generally still poorly understood (Arctic Monitoring 

and Assessment Program 2011). 

The 2011 report, Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA), from the Arctic Monitoring 

and Assessment Program (AMAP) of the Arctic Council identified a number of areas where additional 

U.S.-supported research could improve understanding of the cryosphere (http://amap.no/swipa/). 

For example, better quantifying the intensity of cryosphere-climate feedbacks would lead to better 

predictions of the degree and rate of changes in the cryosphere and Arctic environment. It will also be 

critical to understand how Arctic communities will be affected by cryospheric changes, including 

those that influence migration patterns of subsistence species, utility of areas of traditional use, and 

the stability of infrastructure such as roads, airports, pipelines, and buildings. Other research is needed 

to understand how climate-driven changes in different parts of the cryosphere are affecting Arctic 

ecosystems—a critical first-step toward being able to predict how particular species (including 

those important for subsistence) will respond to new conditions. 

Particular sites where climate feedbacks are observable can be identified by enhancing existing networks 

that build capacity for identifying, understanding, predicting, and responding to diverse environmental 

changes throughout the Arctic. For example, the Arctic LCC is identifying a suite of biophysical process 

topics most relevant to forecasting species and habitat response, which will guide 

recommendations for priority monitoring and modeling products. The Arctic LCC will recommend 

candidate sites for inclusion in a terrestrial ecosystem-monitoring network for northern Alaska that 

addresses the link-ages between physical drivers and biological responses. Implementing those 

recommendations will require the combined efforts and support of multiple agencies. The World 

Climate Research Program’s Climate and Cryosphere (CliC) Project supports and coordinates 

international research on the interaction between the cryosphere and the rest of the climate system, 

focusing on identifying patterns and rates of change (http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/en/). Also, 

the International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic (INTERACT) studies 32 

sites in 14 countries, including all Arctic nations, with a goal of building capacity to improve 

understanding of environmental changes in the Arctic (http://www.eu-interact.org/). 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 29 ★

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years)

Expected Outcomes:

• Cross-agency agreement on geographical areas in the U.S. Arctic where additional research on 

climate feedbacks and impacts on the cryosphere is most needed.

• Increased understanding of geophysical and ecosystem responses to changing climate and

cryosphere change, which informs management decisions and subsistence uses.

Milestones: 

• Consult with local communities on the geographical areas of traditional use that are most

impacted by changes in the terrestrial cryosphere, as well as the types of changes—permafrost 

thaw, coastal erosion, vegetation—most relevant to local communities (DOI; FY2013).

• Identify and compile Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data layers of existing climate feedback research in the Arctic and compare with areas of important traditional use (DOI; FY2012).

• Complete Wildlife Potential Habitat Forecasting Framework (WILDCAST) projections of potential 

land cover and habitat changes in Northern Alaska (USGS, FY2012).

• Assess existing tools and methods for measuring and mapping the effects of cryosphere

changes on Arctic ecosystems and communities, including water levels, sea level rise, salt water 

intrusion, and coastal inundation (DOI, NSF; FY2013).

• Complete improved coastal map and high precision Digital Elevation Models (DEM) for western 

and northern Alaska in order to better understand coastal erosion, storm surges, and sea level

rise. (DOI, NOAA, USCG; FY2013).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Traditional knowledge can help detect changes in terrestrial Arctic ecosystems and guide adaptation. 

As the cryosphere changes, climate feedbacks become more complex, changes in Arctic systems will 

occur more rapidly, and integrating traditional knowledge into decisions will be as important as ever. 

Other needs include systematically collecting information about the effects of cryospheric change on 

human society and greater engagement between the scientific community and Arctic residents. 

Improved networks are necessary to observe many of the long-term environmental changes taking 

place in the Arctic, including those pertaining to climate feedbacks (see section 3.4). Coordinating 

measures of changes in ecosystems and their components (e.g., species of concern) from in-situ and 

discrete observations with wider-ranging environmental parameters from remote instruments remains a 

challenge. Such coordination will improve the ability to relate geophysical change patterns to processes 

affecting ecosystems occurring across a range of spatial scales. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 30 ★

3.2.4 Investigate the frequency and severity of wildland fires in the Arctic

Why do this?

Climate changes are affecting the frequency, extent, and severity of Arctic wildland fires and will have 

cascading effects on other ecosystem processes (Olsen et al. 2011). Wildfire is the primary disturbance 

in boreal forests of interior Alaska and is also a disturbance in the tundra regions of the U.S. Arctic. Fire 

frequency and severity are primary determinants of vegetative succession trajectories and, subsequently, 

the rates of carbon sequestration and loss in boreal ecosystems. Fire frequency and severity are likely to 

increase in tundra ecosystems as plant biomass and productivity increase with the lengthening growing season. Vegetation succession following fire in tundra ecosystems, however, is not well understood 

(Final Report of the Joint Fire Study Program 2011). In general, there is evidence that observed increase 

in tall shrub cover (Tape et al. 2006) is linked to an increase in fire frequency (Higuera et al. 2008). Fire 

regimes and impacts have been observed on fine spatial scales at point locations in Alaska, but the 

collective impacts of wildland fire on vegetation, carbon, wildlife, air quality, permafrost degradation, 

and biogeochemical cycles across the landscape are poorly understood, yet critical to regional fire 

management strategies.

The 2007 Anaktuvuk River fire was the largest tundra fire to take place in the United States since 

recording began in 1950 and had major implications both for local ecosystems and the global carbon 

system. Several agencies have funded investigations of the severity of and ecological response to the 

Anaktuvuk River fire. That type of research, however, has not been a priority for resource managers. A 

recent study found the Anaktuvuk fire released carbon into the atmosphere about 100 times faster 

than it usually escapes from the ground in the Arctic summer, and released more than two million 

tons of CO2(Mack 2011). The fire was deep and severe for a tundra burn (Mack et al. 2011), and lichen 

cover was drastically reduced, thereby reducing winter forage for caribou. Because caribou foraging 

on winter range tend to avoid burned areas for up to 50 years (Joly 2007), large-scale burns may 

change seasonal distribution of the animals, thereby changing their availability to subsistence users.

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years)

Expected Outcomes: 

• An integrated understanding of the trends and impacts of Arctic wildland fires to inform policy

and land-management decisions.

Milestones: 

• Identify and inventory existing scientific research on Arctic wildland fires (DOI; FY2012).

• Consult with local communities and indigenous groups on science needs pertaining to Arctic

wildland fires and their impacts on cultural and subsistence needs (DOI; FY2012).

• Develop strategies/projects to identify succession stages of tundra communities following a

wildfire (DOI, NSF; FY2013).
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 31 ★

• Ensure coordination in the development of models that incorporate feedback from fire models 

with models of surface vegetation and organic layer properties and permafrost and soil 

conditions, incorporating hydrologic information as appropriate (DOE, DOI, NSF; FY2016).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

While the 2007 Anaktuvuk River fire was an event of unprecedented scale on the North Slope, it is 

not clear whether ongoing climate changes will lead to additional severe fires. Paleoecological work 

assessing fire-deposited charcoal in lake cores is underway and should contribute to improved 

under-standing of fire regime in that area. As fire-return intervals have historically been several 

hundreds of years, detecting less than very dramatic changes in long-term fire regime, or fire 

severity, may not be possible. Credible prediction of the potential effects of changes in fire regime, 

or fire management policy, on caribou distribution and subsistence use will likewise be challenging. 

The Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Modeling project, through the Alaska Climate Science Center and 

the Western, Arctic, and Northwest Interior Forest LCCs, is creating a framework to link existing 

models to produce a single integrated platform that simulates vegetation succession, disturbance 

regimes, hydrology, and permafrost dynamics. With broad support, this work can contribute to 

state-wide maps that forecast ecological conditions under specified climate scenarios. Data also are 

needed to improve response to fires and understanding of fire behavior include greater coverage in 

lightning-strike detection, particularly in the central Arctic, and enhanced distribution of weatherstation observation sites that collect temperature and precipitation data. 

3.2.5 Conduct socio-economic research to understand ecosystem services as increased

warming changes the Arctic tundra

Why do this?

More than 86% of communities in rural Alaska have been affected by serious erosion and flooding (GAO 

2003). Forced relocation of some communities comes at a high cost, and sites must be selected that 

will remain stable indefinitely. Local residents are being forced to address immediate needs, develop 

adaptation strategies for the future, and also balance social, cultural, and economic demands and 

expectations simultaneously (see section 3.6). 

Additional environmental stressors brought on by increased human activity in the area are also 

affecting Arctic communities. Such rapid change affects supply of subsistence foods and storage 

capability, integrity of local infrastructure, and social and cultural systems 

(http://www.arctichealth.org/ccNorthernCommunities). At the same time, economic and political 

pressures to fulfill global energy needs place a burden on Arctic residents. 

More research is needed on the social and economic impacts of ongoing environmental changes and 

their implications for local communities. Such information will provide the framework and data needed 

to develop proactive plans for protecting, managing, and adapting to a fragile and changing Arctic 

environment.

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 32 ★

Expected Outcomes: 

• A survey of the state of knowledge on terrestrial ecosystem services in the Arctic including identification of gaps in research on the importance of ecosystem services for Northern communities.

• A set of robust and reliable social indicators are established, and relevant data are collected to

predict, monitor, and mitigate the effects of climate change on Alaskan Arctic communities.

Milestones: 

• Support the outcomes and recommendations of the Arctic Social Indicators Project (http://

www.svs.is/asi/Implementation/Project%20description%20II.htm) within the United States.

− Develop a meta-database, published electronically, that identifies baseline Arctic social

indicators already monitored by national agencies (DOI, NSF, SI; FY2013).

− Establish an international task force of Arctic researchers to ensure social data are collected 

in a way that allows statistically valid comparisons among Arctic communities (DOI, 

DOS, NSF, SI; FY2012).

− Collect indigenous and non-indigenous regional data on the socio-economic implications 

of climate change at 5-year intervals (DOI, NIH, NSF, SI; FY2013).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Socio-economic data at the village and regional level are lacking as are direct investigations of the links 

between cause and social effects. The mechanisms of cause and effect are often complex and multifactoral. Small population size at the village and region level may preclude acquisition of statistically 

significant data for some indices. 

References

ACIA (2005). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: Scientific Report. 1042 pp. Cambridge University Press, 

UK. 

Arctic Health. University of Alaska—Anchorage. Compilation of Alaska Northern Communities Resilience 

and Adaptation Research—http://www.arctichealth.org/ccNorthernCommunities.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program. (2007). Oil and Gas in the Arctic: Effects and Potential Effects 

Volume 1 (Chapter 2—Social and Economic Effects). 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program. (2011). Working chapter 11.1 of Arctic Council SWIPA report. 

Arendt, A. A. (2011). Assessing the status of Alaska’s glaciers. Science, 332, 1044-1045. doi: 10.1126/

science.1204400.

Cazenave, A., & Llovel, W. (2010). Contemporary sea level rise. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci., 2, 145-173. doi:10.1146/

annurev-marine-120308-081105.

Church, J. A., et al. (2011). Revisiting Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophys 

Res Lett., 38, L18601.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 33 ★

Dickson, R. R., Meincke, J., & Rhines, P. (2008). Arctic-Subarctic Ocean Fluxes. Springer.

Government Accountability Office Report. (2003). ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES: Most Are Affected by 

Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/

d04142.pdf. Last accessed Jan. 22, 2013.

Higuera, P.E., et al. (2008). Frequent Fires in Ancient Shrub Tundra: Implications of Paleorecords for Arctic 

Environmental Change. PLoS ONE 3(3), e0001744. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001744.

Jacob, T., Wahr, J., Pfeffer, W. T., & Swenson, S. (2012). Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea 

level rise. Nature, 482, 514-518. doi:10.1038/nature10847.

Jiang, Y., Dixon, T.H., & Wdowinski, S. (2010). Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator 

of ice loss. Nature Geosci., 3, 404-407. doi:10.1038/ngeo845.

Joly, K., Bente, P., & Dau, J. (2006). Response of Overwintering Caribou to Burned Habitat in Northwest 

Alaska. Arctic. 60(4) (December 2007) 401–410.

Lemke, P., Ren, J., Alley, R. B., Allison, I., Carrasco, J., Flato, G., Fujii, Y., Kaser, G., Mote, P., Thomas, R.H., & 

Zhang, T. (2007). Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground. In: Climate Change 2007: 

The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, 

K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge, UK. & New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press.

Mack, M. C., Bret-Harte, M. S., Hollingsworth, T. N., Jandt, R. R., Schuur, E. A. G., Shaver, G. R., & Verbyla, D. 

L. (2011). Carbon loss from an unprecedented Arctic tundra wildfire. Nature 475, 489-492.

Memorandum of Understanding between the USGS and NOAA to Coordinate and Cooperate in Activities 

Involving Physical and Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies. Signed Jan. 9, 2011. 

Milne, G. A., Gehrels, W. R., Hughes, W., & Tamisiea, M. E. (2009). Identifying the causes of sea-level change. 

Nature Geosci., 2, 471-478.

Mitrovica, J. X., & Wahr, J. (2011). Ice Age Earth Rotation. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 39, 577–616. 

doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133404.

Mix, A. C., Samelson, R., & Padman, L. (Eds.). (2012). Interdisciplinary Approaches to Understanding 

Atmosphere/Ocean/Ice Shelf/Ice Sheet Interactions. A Workshop Report to NSF.

Moon, T., Joughin, I., Smith, B. & Howat, I. (2012). 21st-Century evolution of Greenland outlet glacier 

velocities. Science, 336, 576-578.

Nerem, R. S., & Wahr, J. (2011). Recent changes in the Earth’s oblateness driven by Greenland and Antarctic 

ice mass loss. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L13501. doi:10.1029/2011GL047879.

Olson, D., et al. (2011). Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program: Compiling, Synthesizing and 

Analyzing Existing Boreal Forest Fire History Data in Alaska. July 2011. http://www.firescience.gov/

projects/06-3-1-26/project/06-3-1-26_final_report.pdf. Last accessed Jan. 22, 2013.

Pfeffer, W. T., Harper, J. T., & O’Neel, S. (2008). Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21stcentury sea-level rise. Science, 321, 1340-1343.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 34 ★

Price, S. F., Payne, A. J., Howat, I. M., & Smith, B. E. (2011). Committed sea-level rise for the next century 

from Greenland ice sheet dynamics during the past decade. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 8978–8983.

Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., van den Broeke, M. R., Monaghan, A., & Lenaerts, J. (2011). Acceleration of the 

contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05503. 

doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.

Tape, K., Sturm, M., & Racine, C. (2006). The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern Alaska and the 

Pan-Arctic. Global Change Biology, 12, 686-702.

The Arctic Social Indicators Project. http://www.svs.is/asi/Implementation/

Project%20description%20II.htm van den Broeke, M., et al. (2009). Partitioning recent Greenland 

mass loss. Science, 326, 984. doi: 10.1126/science.1178176.

Vieli, A., & Nick, F. M. (2011). Understanding and modeling rapid dynamical changes of tidewater outlet 

glaciers: issues and implications. Surv. Geophys. 32(4-5), 437–458. doi:10.1007/s10712-011-9132-4.

3.3 Understand atmospheric surface heat, energy, and mass balances

Lead Authors:

Richard Eckman, NASA

Taneil Uttal, NOAA

Sandy Starkweather, NOAA

Agency Partners:

DOE, NASA, NOAA, NSF

Year-to-year and longer-scale trends and variability in surface-air temperature tend to be larger in 

the Arctic than in other parts of the globe. This Arctic amplification phenomenon is recognized as an 

inherent characteristic of the global climate system (Serreze and Barry 2011); the causes are believed 

to include complex interactions associated with heat exchange between the atmosphere and ocean 

(with its changing sea-ice extent), meridional heat transport, and radiative forcing from atmospheric 

constituents. Arctic atmospheric processes are influenced by unique features (polar night, high albedo 

surfaces, and atmospheric stability) that can change the sign and magnitude of aerosol and cloud radiative forcing relative to low latitudes. Important uncertainties in the sign and magnitude of these forcings 

(e.g., IPCC AR4) provide the rationale for coordinating and improving our integrated understanding of 

Arctic atmospheric processes. This plan addresses those uncertainties through milestones aimed at 

improving process representations in models, reducing uncertainty in model outputs, and developing 

long-term observational data sets. 

Remote sensing and in-situ observations at long-term observatories complement each other and contribute to documenting and understanding long-term trends. NASA and NOAA remote sensing assets 

offer an unique resource for observing Arctic atmospheric composition and radiative forcing. DOE, NSF, 

and NOAA support key ground-based observatories providing long-term data sets and campaign studies that are critical resources for addressing key climate model uncertainties such as clouds, aerosols, 

and impacts of short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs). These land-based observatories are also valuable 

resources for validating satellite observations. Data from these observatories also are available through 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 35 ★

the International Arctic System for Observing the Atmosphere (IASOA). During the International Polar 

Year, IASOA developed a major new international observatory facility in Tiksi, Russia, that significantly 

extends circumpolar coverage. DOE, NASA, NSF, and NOAA field and aircraft campaigns have contributed 

to an integrated understanding of the Arctic atmosphere and improved model parameterizations and 

the value of remote-sensing data products. DOE- and NSF-supported predictive modeling contributes 

to long-term understanding of regional and global sensitivities to aerosol loading and cloud processes, 

have revealed the relative contributions of short-lived climate forcers (discussed in more detail in the 

next section), and have helped to develop an integrated picture of the atmospheric interactions with 

terrestrial, oceanic, and cryospheric systems. Coordinated approaches around the Arctic, particularly 

those supported by international partnerships, are critical to developing a regionally coherent understanding of both how and why the Arctic atmosphere is changing. Jointly, these activities are improving 

our understanding of the unique role of the Arctic atmosphere in influencing the Arctic surface system 

as well as regional and global weather and climate.  

3.3.1 Improve understanding of short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs); source regions, direct 

and indirect effects, and net impact on Arctic warming

Why do this?

Short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) including black carbon, methane, and ozone are atmospheric constituents with relatively short residence times (days to years) and that warm the climate. These forcers 

are thought to have an enhanced influence on Arctic radiative forcing relative to mid-latitudes (Quinn 

et al. 2008). For example, black carbon can change Arctic radiation balances by either direct forcing by 

the radiative profile of the atmosphere, by aerosol-cloud indirect effects, or by lowering the albedo of 

(typically) bright Arctic surfaces after deposition or, potentially, by hastening the thaw of snow and 

ice. Investigating the relative contributions of these three mechanisms and the effects of black carbon 

requires additional attention. The Arctic contains vast amounts of methane locked in permafrost 

deposits and marine hydrates, with an uncertain potential for release into the atmosphere. As a 

greenhouse gas, methane is approximately twenty times more effective at trapping heat than is 

carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. Understanding current methane emissions and potential 

scenarios under a warmer Arctic is imperative. Many global circulation models do not take into 

account carbon feedback loops from Arctic tundra, where warming causes carbon release from 

thawing and decaying tundra that, in turn, could further accelerate carbon release. Ozone is both 

an air pollutant that impacts human health as well as a greenhouse gas. Both Arctic and remote 

sources produce ozone and its precursors. Boreal forest fires and increasing human activity will 

increase ozone precursors in the region. Further research is required to understand sources of ozone 

precursors as well as the oxidation capacity of the Arctic atmosphere. Ozone depletion events have 

been related to the deposition of mercury, which is a significant and toxic pollutant.

Existing agency capabilities to study SLCF’s include satellite instruments that monitor the long-range 

transport of mid-latitude pollution to the Arctic, in addition to detecting fires and their smoke plumes. 

These instruments measure aerosol optical depths, other aerosol properties, and collocated cloud 

properties. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and the Multi-angle Imaging 

SpectroRadiometer (MISR) provide an aerosol record dating from 2000, while the Atmospheric Infrared 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 36 ★

Sensor (AIRS) provides a carbon monoxide record from 2002. The Cloud-Aerosol LIDAR and Infrared 

Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite Cloud-Aerosol LIDAR with Orthogonal Polarization 

(CALIOP) instrument provides high-resolution vertical profiles of aerosols and clouds from 2006. Flying 

in formation with Aqua (MODIS, AIRS), Aura and GCOM-W1, the multi-sensor “A-Train” provides near 

simultaneous measurements of a variety of parameters. IASOA network observatories include proxy 

and direct measurements of black carbon, as well as direct measurements of methane and ozone at 

limited locations. About a dozen Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) and AeroCan (AERosol CANada) 

sunphotometer sites located at latitudes poleward of 60 ̊N monitor aerosol amount and type in seasons 

when the sun is above the horizon. The DOE Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment (NGEE) is focusing 

on measurements for improving the model simulations of climate-related emissions of SLCFs. DOE, 

NASA, and NOAA aircraft campaigns have also contributed to an integrated understanding of the 

Arctic atmosphere. The NASA Arctic Research on the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and 

Satellites (ARCTAS), for example, provided new characterization of bidirectional reflectance distribution functions for aerosols over Arctic surfaces, validated CALIOP LIDAR aerosol sensing for a range of 

conditions, and provided detailed characterization of the optical properties of aerosols from boreal fires. 

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years) 

Expected Outcomes: 

• Sustained and improved satellite-observation capabilities focused on SLCF’s (including black

carbon, methane, and ozone).

• Enhanced in-situ, long-term observations of SLCF’s including a methane-observing network.

• Improved modeling of SLCF transport and lifetime.

Milestones:

• Support process studies and campaigns to validate current satellite measurements, such as

aerosol products from MODIS, MISR, and Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) and

methane and near-surface ozone from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) on Aura 

(DOE, NASA, NOAA; FY2016).

• Develop pan-Arctic synthesis of SLCF’s from current observations focused on concentrations,

sources, and radiative impacts (NOAA, NSF; FY2014).

• Develop needs assessment for improved transport-modeling capability (DOE, NSF; FY2014).

• Support SLCF’s source identification through transport and regional modeling using satellite

and suborbital data to constrain the models (DOE, NSF; FY2017).

• Support black carbon source identification through chemical composition measurement at

key observatory locations and aerosol mapping from space with MODIS and MISR (DOE, NASA,

NOAA; FY2017).
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 37 ★

• Support black carbon radiative impact studies through in-situ measurements at key observatory 

locations and modeling of light scattering, absorption, and aerosol optical depth (DOE, NOAA; 

FY2017).

• Develop needs assessment for an Arctic methane-observation network (DOE, NASA, NSF;

FY2013).

• Increase spatial density of Arctic methane measurements (DOE, NOAA, NSF; FY2017).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

NASA operates a variety of sensors that monitor trends and transport of SLCF’s. Satellite retrievals of 

SLCF’s offer poor resolution near the Earth’s surface and must be integrated with higher-resolution in-situ

measurements. Agencies should support field validation campaigns to obtain direct information about 

aerosol and surface properties as well as other activities that reduce uncertainty in retrievals by satellites. 

Large spatial gaps exist in the current network of in-situ measurements for SLCF’s. Ground-based 

observatories could make stronger contributions to understanding the role of black carbon by building capacity to monitor the mass concentrations and chemical composition of aerosols in addition to 

current light-absorbing proxy measurements. Locations should be based on sampling representative 

air-mass trajectories. Given the spatial extent and diversity of methane sources, a much broader network 

of sustained methane measurements is required to monitor long-term methane trends, understand 

the processes that emit methane, and better constrain inverse model studies of the methane budget. 

3.3.2 Improve understanding of processes that control the formation, longevity, 

and physical properties of Arctic clouds, including the effects of—and sensitivities 

to—aerosols

Why do this?

Unlike other atmospheric features, clouds and aerosols are unevenly distributed in space and participate 

in highly integrated processes. Clouds, particularly those at low levels, occur frequently throughout the 

Arctic. They are particularly susceptible to aerosol influences on both liquid-droplet and ice-crystal nucleation, which impacts cloud formation, persistence, physical properties, and precipitation. Substantial 

uncertainty surrounds which modes of nucleation are operating under the varying conditions in the 

Arctic and how they are linked to aerosol composition and sources. Due to the prevalence of low sun 

angles and high surface albedos, Arctic aerosol and cloud radiative forcings typically have different 

signs than at lower latitudes. Specifically, they tend to warm the surface predominantly by trapping 

long-wave radiation more efficiently than they cool the surface by reflecting sunlight. Aerosols can 

change cloud cover, thickness, and brightness. These perturbations, thus, have direct implications for 

the net radiative balance at the Earth’s surface and top of the atmosphere. Arctic long-wave radiative 

forcing from low-lying clouds has been identified as an important controller of onset and duration of 

surface melt impacting the mass budgets of sea ice and ice sheets and the seasonal extent of snow cover. 

Cloud precipitation processes are a fundamental component of the Arctic hydrological cycle. Due to 

numerous, poorly known, complex processes involving clouds and aerosols, their misrepresenstation 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 38 ★

in models lead to large uncertainties in climate simulations of (i.e., IPCC AR4). To improve these 

modeling deficiencies, it is imperative to characterize and understand basic cloud and aerosol 

properties and their interactions within the system. 

U.S. agencies (DOE, NASA, NOAA, and NSF) employ satellite, ground-based, and in-situ assets to observe 

Arctic clouds and aerosols. Passive measurements from space are challenging, particularly during winter, and over snow and ice surfaces, due to low optical and thermal contrast among clouds, aerosols, 

and the underlying surface. Using satellites to assess the impact of aerosols on Arctic clouds is an even 

greater challenge for passive remote-sensing instruments due to persistent cloud cover, poor vertical 

discrimination, bright surfaces, relatively low aerosol column abundances, and low solar-illumination 

angles, but these measurement limitations are significantly improved by combining passive instruments, 

such as MODIS (measuring ambient radiation), with active instruments, such as CALIOP and CloudSat 

(measuring emitted LIDAR and radar returns). In addition to providing an unparalleled aerosol record 

going back to 2000, the MODIS and MISR satellite sensors monitor the long-range transport of pollution and smoke into the Arctic. Ground-based observations, however, provide a very important dataset 

of Arctic clouds. These measurements are being used to improve our knowledge of cloud processes, 

and thereby improve our ability to represent these processes in numerical models. Furthermore, these 

observations are also providing detailed climatologies, albeit in only a small number of locations, of 

cloud occurrence and phase as a function of height, as well as cloud particle size and water path. 

Important progress has also been made towards understanding cloud-aerosol interactions and properties via aircraft campaigns such as the recent NASA Arctic Research on the Composition of the 

Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS), the DOE Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign 

(ISDAC), and the NOAA Aerosol, Radiation, and Cloud Processes affecting Arctic Climate (ARCPAC). For 

example, ARCTAS provided new characterizations useful for energy balance assessment and a better 

understanding of aerosol radiative effects, which help to improve satellite measurements. ARCPAC and 

ISDAC both provided important new perspectives on aerosol composition and transport sources with 

important implications for cloud processes.

The International Arctic System for Observing the Atmosphere (IASOA) is a pan-Arctic consortium of 

flagship ground-based observatories that are supported by DOE, NOAA, NSF, Environment Canada (EC), 

the Russian Federal Service for Environmental and Hydrometeorolgical Monitoring (Roshydromet), the 

Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), and other government and non-government contributors from 

Arctic and non-Arctic countries. The observatories operate sophisticated instruments that support 

sustained, high-resolution, and simultaneous observations of clouds, aerosols, atmospheric structure, 

and the surface-energy balance. These year-round observatories provide excellent platforms for both 

long-term and campaign-based process studies. DOE’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) 

Climate Research Facility in Barrow, Alaska, for example, provides a long-term record of highly valuable simultaneous measurements of cloud microphysical and macrophysical parameters, aerosols, 

and surface radiation. Recent additions of scanning radars, powerful LIDARs, flux measurements, and 

aerosol instruments further enhance ARM’s measurement capabilities over an extended volume near 

Barrow. Measurements from that site have been the basis for several successful international model 

inter-comparison projects focused on cloud-resolving and single-column model simulations, whose 

goals are to improve Arctic cloud microphysics parameterizations and to better understand indirect 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 39 ★

effects of aerosols. Instrumentation at the new ARM site at Oliktok, Alaska, mirrors the Barrow site with 

the added capability of instrumented unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The focus of work at the Oliktok 

site is to examine clouds and aerosols over land, sea, and ice, as well as the coupled atmosphere-cloudterrestrial Arctic systems. The NSF has established an ARM-like site at Summit Station on the Greenland 

Ice Sheet. NOAA and EC operate a similar ARM-like site at Eureka, Canada. Ground-based observatories, 

in general, contribute unique and valuable information for use in model evaluation and development, 

for validation of satellite observational methods, and for long-term monitoring of Arctic atmospheric 

properties.

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years) 

Expected Outcomes: 

• Evaluation, improvement, and development of cloud and aerosol parameterizations in climate

and weather prediction models.

• Sustained and improved satellite-observation capabilities of cloud and aerosol properties, with

verification using surface observations.

• Sustained and enhanced ground-based observations including simultaneous measurements

of clouds and aerosols.

• Improved understanding of how clouds respond to changing levels of aerosols and sea ice.

• Synthesis of data sets that provide detailed descriptions of clouds and aerosols.

Milestones: 

• Support sustained and enhanced ground-based measurements of cloud and aerosol properties 

(DOE, NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2017).

• Conduct intensive, short-term, ground-based, and airborne field experiments to quantify the

impact of aerosols on clouds, conduct detailed process studies, and provide validation data sets 

for remote sensing data (DOE, NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2017).

• Support synthesis activities to develop long-term observational cloud and aerosol data sets

from ground-based and satellite platforms to evaluate model parameterizations (DOE, NASA,

NOAA, NSF; FY2017).

• Use observational data sets to constrain process-model studies and conduct detailed model

inter-comparisons to advance parameterization development (DOE, NSF; FY2017).

• Support laboratory studies to examine cloud-particle nucleation processes (DOE, NSF; FY2014).

• Support observations and modeling activities to improve understanding of transport of aerosols

from remote regions to the Arctic (NASA, NSF; FY2017).
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 40 ★

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

At many scales, models do not represent cloud and aerosol processes well. This general lack is based 

upon observational data sets of insufficient length, complexity, and spatial representation, as well as 

insufficient process-resolving models. Specific gaps in understanding include processes related to 

aerosol sources and transport, basic cloud-aerosol interactions, cloud-phase partitioning, the influence 

of heat and moisture advection on cloud formation, interactions between clouds and atmospheric 

structure, and determining the relative contributions of different cloud types to precipitation totals. 

To address the need to advance physical parameterizations in numerical climate and weather-prediction 

models, measurements related to cloud-aerosol-radiation processes at DOE, IASOA, NASA, NOAA, and 

NSF observatories should be sustained and enhanced. These measurements should be supplemented 

by intensive campaigns (DOE, NASA, NOAA, and NSF) focused on enhancing ongoing, long-term 

measurements and targeting specific processes or hypotheses. To expand the spatial footprint of these 

observations, DOE, NASA, NOAA, and NSF are funding technology development through the Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to enable cloud and aerosol measurements from UAVs 

and balloon-borne platforms. Enhanced emphasis should also be placed on validation and refinement 

of satellite measurement technologies for observing aerosol characteristics and transport, as well as 

characterizing clouds throughout the troposphere (NASA, NOAA). Satellite research would also greatly 

benefit from passive measurements from the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) mission 

launched in 2011, the forthcoming Joint Polar Satellite System-1 (JPSS-1), and international collaboration 

with European countries and Japan around future active measurements from the EarthCare mission. 

Ideally, development of a more advanced satellite-based, multi-angle, multi-spectral, polarimetric imager 

should be considered. Finally, where appropriate, agencies should support evaluation, utilization, and 

advancement of smaller-scale models that can be used in both process studies and as intermediaries 

for parameterization development. 

3.3.3 Develop an integrated understanding of Arctic atmospheric processes, their impact 

on the surface energy budget, and their linkages with oceanic, terrestrial, and cryospheric 

systems

Why do this?

Numerical models are used to understand and predict important processes such as the decline of Arctic 

sea ice, linkages between Arctic conditions and lower-latitude weather, and the general amplification 

of climate change in the Arctic. Developing models of sufficient quality, however, relies on building 

a system-level understanding of Arctic climate that includes detailed knowledge about the Arctic 

atmosphere and surface and their many interacting processes. Current models face considerable 

difficulties when representing Arctic atmospheric processes related to boundary layer structure, cloud 

formation, and aerosol-cloud interactions—all of which interact critically with the surface. The 

general inabilities of models to accurately represent the observed decline in Arctic sea ice and to 

properly capture its causes represent one tangible example. Such modeling difficulties result directly 

from limited, system-level observations and could be remedied by comprehensive and coordinated 

measurements of all contributing components. 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 41 ★

Process- and system-level understanding requires coordination and expansion of observational capabilities along with complementary process-modeling activities. Satellite measurements—a cornerstone of 

observation —provide valuable spatial coverage of many key parameters with linkages to those from 

lower-latitudes. They are often inadequate, however, for quantifying basic parameters such as surface 

temperatures and providing the level of detail needed for coordinated radiation, cloud, aerosol, and 

other atmospheric measurements. Additionally, many polar-orbiting satellites take insufficient measurements in the area within 800 kilometers of the North Pole. Although ground-based observations and 

aircraft campaigns may be spatially and/or temporally limited, they provide the types of measurements 

needed to characterize many of the necessary processes in high detail. Most existing knowledge on 

Arctic atmosphere-surface interactions is biased towards land-based or coastal observations and processes. Thus, the challenge is to coordinate existing and new interagency observational abilities from 

satellite, aircraft, and the ground to produce the comprehensive, process-level observations of the Arctic 

system needed to improve numerical models. 

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years) 

Expected Outcomes: 

• Sustained and improved satellite-observation capabilities focused on atmospheric interactions

with the surface and coordination of satellite-measurement capabilities.

• Improved understanding of the two-way relationship between sea ice and clouds.

• Sustained and enhanced ground-based observations emphasizing simultaneous measurements 

of clouds, aerosols, atmospheric structure, and surface-energy budget in land- and ocean-based

environments.

• Improved representation of Arctic systems in climate and weather-prediction models.

Milestones:

• Support model-component development and advancement of fundamental knowledge of the 

key processes that regulate aerosol and cloud impacts on the atmospheric- and surface-energy 

budgets (DOE, NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2015).

• Support research activities that integrate Arctic processes in regional and global models (DOE,

NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2017).

• Coordinate interdisciplinary campaigns to study the Arctic climate system as a whole (DOE,

NSF; FY2017).

• Increase use of UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) platforms for targeted observations of Arctic

processes (DOE, NASA, NOAA; FY2015).
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 42 ★

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Three prominent gaps exist in research on Arctic atmospheric processes and their interactions with the 

broader Arctic climate system: 1) a lack of comprehensive observations at specific locations; 2) a general 

dearth of process-level observations over sea-ice environments; and 3) limited routine observations in 

the central Arctic Basin.

Barrow, Alaska, is a primary hub for Arctic research in the United States. Benefiting from substantial 

observatory and campaign efforts by DOE, NASA, NOAA, and NSF, Barrow likely contains the most 

comprehensive Arctic atmospheric observatory capabilities worldwide and, in many ways, is a model 

for such observations. This comprehensive level, however, is not currently available at other key Arctic 

IASOA observatories operated in Canada, Greenland, Russia, and Northern Europe. Efforts should be 

made to broaden observational capabilities at additional Arctic locations, leveraging existing industrial 

monitoring sites where appropriate. The new ARM site at Oliktok, Alaska, with instrumentation mirroring 

the Barrow site—but with the added capability of instrumented UAVs—should attract other agency 

contributors. Additional instrumentation from other agencies, such as NASA, NOAA, and NSF, would 

provide more-comprehensive observations of clouds and aerosols over land, sea, and ice, as well as the 

coupled atmosphere-cloud-terrestrial Arctic systems.

The central Arctic Basin represents a substantial spatial coverage gap that limits models of 

important processes, such as those related to sea-ice decline. Multi-year, detailed, and 

comprehensive measurements, extending from the ocean through the sea ice and into the 

atmosphere, are critically needed to provide a process-level understanding of the complex regional 

systems of interactions and feedbacks that cannot be gained by land- or space-based observations. 

One option is to establish an intensive, multi-year, surface-based observatory in the central Arctic 

Basin via an icebreaker-supported ice sta-tion. Such an ambitions endeavor will require the 

coordinated support of multiple U.S. agencies and international partners. The 1997-1998 Surface 

Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean campaign (SHEBA), with participation by DOE, NASA, NOAA, and 

NSF was a good example of interagency coordination on a ship-based campaign that provided a first 

look into many central Arctic processes. Experience from SHEBA and other campaigns over the 

Arctic sea ice has shown that the most valuable data have been obtained from campaigns making 

comprehensive, multi-disciplinary measurements during one or more annual cycles; now in the 

“new Arctic” is an opportune time to look a second look at a substantially changed central Arctic.

Finally, operational models and model re-analyses assimilate observational data to improve model 

accuracy. The central Arctic Basin is, however, sparsely populated with routine observational inputs 

for these models. First, efforts should be made to improve operational satellite products through 

ground- and aircraft-based validation and algorithm development to provide improved constraints 

on model performance (NASA and NOAA). Second, expanded operational observations of basic Arctic 

atmospheric properties are needed, such as those provided by additional radiosonde stations or via 

routine dropsonde observations. UAVs offer great promise for cost-effective means to make sustained 

measurements over the central Arctic (DOE, NASA, and NOAA). These observational enhancements 

have the potential to reduce uncertainty in operational models and re-analysis products over both the 

Arctic and lower latitudes. 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 43 ★

References

Darby, L. S., et al. (2011). International Arctic System for Observing the Atmosphere (IASOA). In I. Krupnik, 

et al. (Eds.), Understanding earth’s polar challengers: International Polar Year 2007-2008, Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada: University of the Arctic. 

Jacob, D. J., et al. (2010). The Arctic Research of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and 

Satellites (ARCTAS) mission: design, execution, and first results, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5191-5292.

McFarquhar, G. M., et al. (2011). Indirect and Semi-Indirect Aerosol Campaign: The Impact of Arctic 

Aerosols on Clouds, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 92, 183-201.

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L. (Eds.). 

(2007). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA Cambridge University 

Press.

Quinn, P. K., Bates, T. S., Baum, E., Bond, T., Burkhart, J. F., Fiore, A. M., Flanner, M., Carrett, T. J., Koch, D., 

McConnell, J., Shindell, D., & Stohl, A. (2008). The Impact of Short-Lived Pollutants on Arctic Climate. 

ed. AMAP. Oslo, Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.

Serreze, M. C., & Barry, R. G. (2011). Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis. 

Global and Planetary Change, 77, 85-96.

Uttal, T., et al. (2002). Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 255-275. 

3.4. Integrate and continue to deploy a national Arctic observing system and promote 

international cooperation to create a circumpolar Arctic observing system

Lead Authors:

C. Nikoosh Carlo, NSF

Simon Stephenson, NSF

Martin O. Jeffries, ONR

Robert Sanford, NSF

Agency Partners:

DHS, DOE, DOI, EPA, NASA, NOAA, NSF, ONR

The Arctic Observing Network (AON) is being developed to provide data streams for parameters key 

to understanding the changing Arctic environment. Initially, a U.S. activity conceived by the Study of 

Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) group coordinated Arctic observing efforts expanded internationally during the International Polar Year 2007–2008, and these international efforts are now endorsed 

by the Arctic Council. Several documents and reports provide a vision of what an AON should be, as well 

as recommendations for network design, data approaches, input from local and other stakeholders, 

response to agency specific needs, and international partnerships (see end note). International collaboration has been developed further under the umbrella of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network 

(SAON), including participation by the eight Arctic countries, indigenous organizations recognized as 

permanent participants in the Arctic Council, Arctic Council working groups, and non-Arctic countries 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 44 ★

and entities (Calder 2011). The U.S. contribution to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global 

Atmosphere Watch provides another international cooperation mechanism.

For a list of Federal observing efforts see, Arctic Observing Network: Towards a U.S. contribution to PanArctic Observing (IARPC 2007). 

This section focuses on areas where interagency collaboration will greatly advance Arctic observing 

priorities and support the development of coordinated and integrated regional, national, and global 

observing systems. It will not attempt to review ongoing efforts at individual agencies. Suggestions for 

the general direction of network development are:

1. Agencies should establish key activities or priorities for Arctic research to support their mission. 

For example, NASA’s comprehensive approach uses satellite, aircraft, in-situ, and model output to

understand the causes of large, rapid changes in Arctic sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets, land surfaces, 

permafrost, and atmospheric composition and chemistry. Those physical parameters strongly

influence health and welfare of citizens throughout the pan-Arctic region, short-term weather 

patterns over the United States, and global change. NOAA’s Arctic Vision and Strategy targets

accurate, quantitative, daily to decadal predictions to support safe operations and ecosystem

stewardship. Both priority areas are also included in the National Ocean Policy’s Implementation 

Plan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans/objectives) and will benefit

greatly from interagency collaboration.

2. Residents of the North—individuals, communities, and their representative governments—

need sound information and decision-making tools to inform adaptations to future conditions 

that will preserve, to the extent possible, their livelihoods, access to resources, and cultures.

3. Research should continue to build our understanding of the changing Arctic environment

system and contribute to the design of an optimal observing network. From this, new priorities

will be added; older ones may decline in importance or change focus.

The IARPC plans to focus on nine interagency observing network efforts over the next five years. A formal 

review and update of those priorities will occur every two years.

3.4.1 Facilitate observing-system design for the arctic

Why do this?

Long-term observations in-situ, from space, and by local people and communities have been vital to 

documenting changes occurring throughout the Arctic environment. Without remote-sensing observations from space, for example, the recent dramatic changes in Arctic Ocean sea-ice extent with melting 

and mass loss in the Greenland ice sheet with and changing tundra “greenness” would not have been 

detected and quantified quickly. The recognized need for a diverse set of pan-Arctic observations that 

would improve the value of predictive models spawned the AON. The SEARCH articulated the need for 

AON in the first part of the last decade and continues today to refine thinking about the system via the 

SEARCH AON Design & Implementation Task Force (see the 2010 AON Program Status Report). More 

recently, the need was discussed in the National Academy of Sciences report, Toward an Integrated Arctic 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 45 ★

Observing Network. Components of the AON have been well-designed; the challenge now is how to link 

these effects across locations, regions, disciplines, or sectors.

Progress in understanding the changing Arctic environmental system will be achieved by a variety of 

methods, including the use of coupled, numerical models that represent a regional Arctic system. Ideally, 

observations vital to model initialization, calibration, assimilation, and skill-testing are best provided 

by an optimal network. Optimizing an observing network is a design exercise that itself would employ 

numerical models to establish observing priorities and identify gaps, optimal observing sites, and 

observational needs, such as variables to be observed and the frequency and duration of observations. 

Thus, observing-system design and Arctic-system modeling are symbiotic and require the observing 

and modeling communities to work together to identify and develop synergies that will improve both 

approaches. Arctic regional models are discussed in more detail in section 3.5.

3.4.2 Assess local-resident priorities for addressing change

Why do this?

Polar amplification of global environmental change is forcing local Arctic residents to address change 

immediately and to identify new adaptation strategies while balancing ongoing social, cultural, 

health, and economic demands and expectations (see sections 3.6 and 3.7). Priorities for the Alaska 

Native communities include: human health well-being, subsistence rights and access, development 

of alternative energy, and rural dependence on fossil fuels, including predicting how climate 

change will alter their environment (see Alaska Federation of Natives 2010 and 2011 Federal Priorities 

and the Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska Strategic Plan 2010-2014). Some observing networks 

should enable informed decision making by local Arctic residents. 

3.4.3 Combine in-situ and remotely sensed observations of sea ice with local community 

and traditional knowledge 

Why do this?

The changing seasonality of sea ice will have profound climate, environmental, socio-economic, and 

political consequences. A sea-ice observing system that combines in-situ and remotely sensed observations with local community and traditional knowledge can meet the growing need for information 

about the state of the sea-ice cover at daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal, annual, and decadal temporal 

scales. As the Arctic Ocean moves toward a more maritime environment, the challenge will be to develop 

an optimal and integrated sea-ice observing system and derived information products and tools that 

will serve individuals and communities, industry, governments, and scientific research. The observing 

system will improve understanding of sea-ice processes and changing seasonality, operational forecasts, 

and longer-term predictions. Sea-ice processes, interactions, feedbacks, and modeling are discussed in 

more detail in section 3.1.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 46 ★

3.4.4 Conduct long-term monitoring of key outlet glaciers and tidewater glaciers

Why do this?

Long-term monitoring is the only way to observe and study the evolving relationships between climate 

changes, perturbations at the ice/ocean interface, glacier flow, and mass loss. Periodic measurements at 

key sites near Greenland and Arctic tidewater glaciers should capture glacier flow, local meteorology, ice 

mélange conditions, and oceanic conditions near the glacier front, in the fjord, and on the continental 

shelf. Data collected should also provide a measure of the heat and freshwater transport into and out of 

key fjords to enable heat budget analyses and provide boundary conditions for ocean general 

circulation models (GCMs). Essential variables include ice elevation, mass balance and flow speed, 

local meteorology, ocean temperature and salinity, and sea-ice conditions. These data will provide 

inputs for models of land ice loss described in section 3.5 as well as invaluable context for the study 

and validation of the linkages between key processes operating at vastly differing scales. 

3.4.5 Monitor the biological and physical state of the Arctic marine environment

Why do this?

Unprecedented ocean warming and seasonal thinning and retreat of sea ice are altering the biology of 

the Arctic Ocean and could potentially lead to ecosystem reorganization. The international Arctic Council 

has initiated a program to monitor the biological state of the Arctic marine environment. In the United 

States, a DBO in the Pacific Arctic sector with emphasis on the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is envisioned 

to provide biological and supportive environmental data at explicit regional sites. Portions of the 

DBO represent the U.S. contribution to the Arctic Council’s monitoring program. The DBO would use 

a collaborative international network of logistical support to track ongoing shifts in ecosystem 

structure concomitant with climate change. These are discussed more fully in section 3.1.

3.4.6 Assess the effects of clouds and atmospheric constituents on surface radiation 

balance 

Why do this?

While the effects of Arctic warming are easily observed, the energy sources driving those changes are 

poorly understood. The surface-energy balance—the amount of energy from the sun versus the amount 

reflected or remitted back into space—is largely unknown due to the unusual effects of clouds and 

aerosols in polar regions (see section 3.3). The half-year-long polar night, the highly reflective surface of 

ice, and the unique atmospheric stability allow clouds and aerosols to enhance either warming or cooling 

depending on conditions. Short-lived climate forcers, which include black-carbon aerosols, ozone, and 

methane, are also thought to enhance Arctic radiative forcing. These and other complex cloud-aerosol 

processes contribute to some of the largest uncertainties in Arctic regional climate models.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 47 ★

3.4.7 Assess the impact of terrestrial warming and permafrost thawing on the carbon 

cycle 

Why do this?

Recent estimates show that soils of high-latitude ecosystems store about 2,000 petagrams of carbon; a 

catastrophic release of carbon from the soils could be many times greater than anthropogenic carbon 

dioxide emissions. Climate change scenarios predict the greatest magnitude of global warming will 

occur at high latitudes, and considerable observational evidence indicates recent warmer ground 

temperatures and permafrost thawing. The size of soil carbon pools and their sensitivity to temperature 

changes suggests a net loss of old-soil carbon to the atmosphere, causing a positive feedback to climate 

change. Terrestrial ecosystems are discussed in more detail in section 3.2, and marine ecosystems, 

including greenhouse-gas fluxes, are discussed in more detail in section 3.1.

3.4.8 Improve data access 

Why do this?

Many data sets can be archived in the NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System 

(EOSDIS); NOAA National Data Centers (Geophysical, Oceanographic, and Climate Data Centers); NOAA’s 

Arctic Ocean Observing System (AOOS); DOI/USGS Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data 

Center; DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) and Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments 

(NGEE) Data Archives; the NSF-supported Advanced Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service 

(A-CADIS); the Geographic Information Network for Alaska at the University of Alaska; and the 

Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge (ELOKA). Note that this is not an exhaustive list. The 

aim of these resources is to enable scientific discovery by allowing scientists to easily access, share, 

integrate, and work with data spanning multiple disciplines.

There remain several challenges that could benefit from interagency resources and expertise, which are 

detailed further in the Research Infrastructure Chapter 4, Table 3. These include, but are not limited to 

data exfiltration (unauthorized data transfer), data processing and archiving, establishing data standards, 

and data agreements that allow for interoperability of archives and support data discovery, analysis, 

and integration, and derived product development. 

3.4.9 Engage indigenous observers and communities in monitoring environmental 

parameters 

Why do this?

Federal agencies supporting various components of the emerging circumpolar Arctic observation 

system, both nationally and internationally, will continue to work toward integrating community-based 

observation networks with physical and biogeochemical monitoring systems. Introducing humanfocused components to observing and monitoring Arctic change has helped move the AON/SAON 

network far ahead of previous efforts. It is now widely recognized that engaging indigenous observers 

and communities in direct monitoring of various environmental parameters, such as weather, sea ice, 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 48 ★

coastal erosion, water resources, permafrost, marine and riverine resources, and terrestrial wildlife 

provides considerable value to both communities and researchers. There are strong positive 

examples such as EALÁT, a Reindeer Herders Vulnerability Network Study; the Bering Sea SubNetwork (BSSN); and the Sea Ice Knowledge and Use (SIKU) study—and similar projects begun under 

the IPY 2007-2008 program. During the next five years, agencies will explore the viability of converting 

such local initiatives into longer-term activities. 

Timeframe:

Long-term (>5 years) to achieve a sustainable AON; short-term (1-3 years) to make 

substantial progress on several high-priority areas.

Expected Outcomes:

• Improved understanding of how the Arctic system is changing and its connections to global

systems.

• Development of coordinated and integrated regional, national, and global observing systems.

• Informed decision making by local Arctic residents and other stakeholders.

• Easy access to, sharing of, integration across data spanning multiple disciplines.

• Coordinated monitoring network, including space and airborne missions, to measure and

monitor the overall controls on Arctic land ice mass change, and the freshwater input into the

North Atlantic.

Milestones: 

• Support diverse, multi-disciplinary observing teams that include representatives from state,

local, and tribal governments, academia, the private sector, the international Arctic community, 

and other stakeholders (DHS, DOE, DOI, EPA, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2014).

− U.S. Arctic Observing Coordination Meeting (DOI, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2012).

− Arctic Observing Summit (NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2013).

• Assess the state of the nine observing system/network themes and identify knowledge gaps and 

establish sites or regions for key observations (DHS, DOE, DOI, EPA, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2013).

• Develop an interagency (and international) planning document for an Arctic land ice

monitoring system with focus on outlet and tidewater glaciers and their surrounding. (DOE,

NASA, NOAA, NSF; FY2015).

• Develop action plans to implement an integrated design, including connections with other

national and international observing systems, sustain current and planned operations, and

use system models to identify observing contributions and needs for forecasting and design

(all agencies; FY2016).
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 49 ★

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

New activities under this plan should be informed by ongoing efforts at the local, tribal, state, Federal, 

and international levels. Efforts should be made to review existing activities and create synergisms when 

goals and priorities align. Current research efforts would benefit from advisors from across Federal, 

state, local, and academic research organizations and industry to address AON topics. Such diverse 

perspectives on high-priority topics could quickly mobilize resources to advance areas of critical need. 

Current inability to find some key datasets argues for a common portal to assist data discovery. Such a 

portal should be accessible and intuitive for local community members, educators, and the scientific 

community alike. Better access is needed to radar imagery over sea ice, glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets, 

and permafrost regions. The ESA Sentinel series and the Canadian Space Agency Radar Satellite 

(CSA RADARSAT) Constellation will partly fill this gap but will depend on partnerships with overseas 

operations including free and open data sharing. Monitoring land ice loss will require continued 

development and deployment of an interdisciplinary observing system that is low-energy consuming, 

weatherproof, highly telemetrically efficient, and robust. In general there is great need for realtime data analysis systems capable of dealing with different data sources, types, and formats; and 

space and airborne campaigns that provide a continuous observational record.

References

Alaska Federation of Natives. (2010) Federal Priorities. http://www.nativefederation.org/

AFNFedPriorities.php.

Arctic Observing Network [AON]. (2010). Arctic Observing Network (AON) Program Status Report. Results 

from the Third AON Principal Investigators (PI) Meeting, 30 November–2 December, 2009, 

Boulder, CO. http://www.arcus.org/search/aon.

Calder, J. (2011). Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON). In Krupnik, I., et al., (Eds.), Understanding

Earth’s Polar Challenges: International Polar Year 2007-2008. Edmonton, Canadian: Circumpolar 

Institute.

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee [IARPC]. (2007). Arctic Observing Network: Towards a U.S. 

Contribution to Pan-Arctic Observing. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf0842/index.jsp.

Inuit Circumpolar Council. (2011). Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska Strategic Plan 2010-2014. 

http://www.iccalaska.org/servlet/content/other.html.

National Research Council. (2006). Toward an Integrated Arctic Observing Network. Washington, D.C.: The 

National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11607.

Schlosser, P., Tucker, Warnick, W., & York, A. (Eds.). (2003). Arctic Research Support and Logistics: Strategies 

and Recommendations for System-scale Studies in a Changing Environment. Fairbanks, Alaska: 

Arctic Research Consortium of the United States. pp. 81. http://www.arcus.org/

logistics/03_report.html.

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L. (Eds.). 

(2007). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 50 ★

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA Cambridge University 

Press.

Study of Environmental Change [SEARCH]. (2005). Study of Environmental Arctic Change: Plans for 

Implementation During the International Polar Year and Beyond. Fairbanks, Alaska: Arctic Research 

Consortium of the United States (ARCUS). http://www.arcus.org/search/resources/

reportsandscienceplans.php.

End note:

Additional background on AON appears in:

• 2003 Arctic Research Support and Logistics: Strategies and Recommendations for System-scale 

Studies in a Changing Environment. ARCUS

• 2005 Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH): Plans for Implementation During the

International Polar Year and Beyond. ARCUS

• 2006 Towards an Integrated Arctic Observing Network. NAS

• 2007 Arctic Observing Network: Towards a U.S. contribution to Pan-Arctic Observing. IARPC

• 2009 Arctic Observing Network (AON) Program Status Report. Results from the Third AON

Principal Investigators (PI) Meeting, 30 November–2 December, 2009, Boulder, CO

3.5. Integrate Arctic regional models

Lead Author:

Mike Kuperberg, DOE

Agency Partners:

DOE, DOI, NOAA, NSF, ONR

Models of Earth’s climate are mathematical tools for understanding climate processes and their feedbacks, as well as for predicting and projecting climate variability and change. A variety of models are 

being applied in the Arctic region for projecting future climate change, forecasting Arctic weather and 

sea-ice conditions, and understanding Arctic processes. Yet, due to large feedbacks, sparse observations, 

critical gaps in process understanding, differences in process representation, and high variability of vegetation, ice, and snow cover, significant uncertainty exists in simulations of Arctic changes. An integrated 

and focused effort to improve Arctic models would benefit understanding of ongoing processes, ability 

to project future Arctic changes, and informed use of those projections. Strongly coupling modeling 

and process-science research ensures that models incorporate state-of-the-science knowledge about 

critical systems. Process studies (e.g., observations, experiments) can advance understanding in weak 

or unrepresented areas, and the resulting improved models can be used to guide field research/laboratory research and to inform future decisions. Parameterization is a challenge of scaling—describing 

complex, smaller-scale processes as a simplified, mathematical representation in larger scale models. 

Close and improved collaboration between modeling and process scientists is needed to develop, test, 

and implement parameterizations. The climate community has produced a number of documents that 

propose research directions; the following sections have made significant use of the Science Plan for 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 51 ★

Regional Arctic System Modeling (IARC), Modeling and Predicting Arctic Weather and Climate (Second 

International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP II), Science Plan 9, and the Arctic Climate 

Impact Assessment (ACIA).

3.5.1 Inventory Arctic modeling activities

Why do this?

Significant efforts have been made to coordinate and share research on Arctic regional modeling. Rapid 

changes in the pan-Arctic region, however, call for even greater coordination of agency efforts and 

planned scientific research in Arctic change and modeling. Existing sources and portals that provide a 

base for comprehensive information and data coordination and sharing include:

• National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, CO, which includes NASA’s Distributed 

Active Archive Center (DAAC) for all cryosphere related data and NSF’s Advanced

Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (ACADIS).

• The Arctic Portal established as part of the International Polar Year activities and currently

maintained by Iceland and various Arctic Council Working Groups

• ARM Climate Research Facility Archive (http://www.archive.arm.gov/armlogin/login.jsp)

• Earth System Grid (http://www.earthsystemgrid.org)

• Polar Hydrography Center, University of Washington

• U.S. National Academies Polar Research Board

• Alaska Ocean Observing System (http://www.aoos.org/)

• North Slope Science Initiative (http://northslope.org/)

• Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project workshops

• NASA Catalog of Earth Science System Components (http://www.asd.ssc.nasa.gov/m2m)

• Community Earth System Model (CESM) Polar Climate Working Group 

(http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Polar)

• NSF’s Arctic Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites (http://www.lternet.edu/)

• Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (http://www.arcticlcc.org)

• Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning (http://www.snap.uaf.edu/)

Access to and broader use of existing models, data systems, and information portals would better 

coordinate and integrate existing agency efforts and improve dissemination of data and information 

about Arctic research activities. An inventory of modeling activities, process research, and data sources 

would provide a basis for defining collaborative programs and coordinated campaigns for advancing 

Arctic modeling. Cataloging the existence and nature of activities, such as model inter-comparisons and 

benchmarking, should be included in such an inventory. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 52 ★

Timeframe:

Near-term (1-2 years)

Expected Outcomes:

• New efforts to intrinsically couple modeling and process research activities.

• More rapid integration of knowledge into models.

• Improved capability for model evaluation to inform process research.

Milestones:

• Conduct and disseminate a survey of Federal Arctic modeling efforts (DOE, NSF; FY2013).

• Evaluate the results of the survey and identify opportunities for collaborative development and/

or joint campaigns (DOE, DOI, NASA, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2014).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

A comprehensive bibliographic database of results from international entities [such as the International 

Arctic Science Committee and the World Climate Research Program’s (WCRP) Climate and Cryosphere 

Program] would provide needed context for how modeling relates to ongoing studies. 

3.5.2 Encourage coordinated approaches that better represent Arctic processes in Earthsystem models

Why do this?

Global Earth system models (ESMs) have become increasingly robust, accurate, and comprehensive. 

Large differences exist in the Arctic systems simulated by different ESMs and many processes are either 

absent (dynamic ice sheets, ice ecosystems), poorly represented (multi-phase clouds, permafrost, 

vegetation) or unresolved (ice fracturing, ice shelves, ocean eddies) in Arctic models. Feedbacks in the 

Arctic are also particularly strong and sensitive; thinning sea ice is very sensitive to both atmosphere and 

ocean forcing and becomes highly variable with subsequent changes in albedo and other feedbacks; 

biogeochemical processes that control the rate and nature of carbon release are suspected to lead 

to dramatic effects on atmospheric carbon concentrations from thawing permafrost; and ecosystem 

changes may have direct (albedo) and indirect (ecosystem services) impacts. 

Such processes and feedbacks control both regional Arctic and, indirectly, global climate variability. Their 

realistic representation requires models with very high spatio-temporal resolution as well as detailed 

and often long-term observations to improve parameterizations and model verification. High-resolution 

models of Arctic processes will subsequently need to be parameterized and/or scaled for use in current 

ESMs. International coordination of efforts and cost sharing are important while maintaining model 

diversity for more robust evaluation of a variety of approaches. 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 53 ★

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years) for many model improvements already in the pipeline; long-term (5-10 years) for 

next-generation models. The Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF) (http://www.earthsystem

modeling.org/) and the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) (http://esgf.org/) are currently making 

models and their output accessible to the larger community but further coordination is needed.

Expected Outcomes:

• Improved interagency coordination through dedicated multi-agency campaigns on specific

Arctic processes.

• Continued development of common modeling frameworks, data and meta-data standards to

facilitate increased sharing of model components, simulation, and observational data.

• Continued improvement of process representation of the Arctic region in Global Earth system

models.

Milestones:

• Identify critical Arctic processes for dedicated field and modeling campaigns across agencies

(DOE, DOI, NASA, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2015).

• Coordinate Federal activities to develop, implement, and test improved parameterizations of

Arctic physical processes and feedbacks (DOE, DOI, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2015).

• Develop standardized model components, meta-data, and data products (DOE, DOI, NOAA,

NSF; FY2016).

• Conduct model inter-comparisons to foster collaboration among modeling groups and identify

high-priority Arctic model improvements (DOE, NOAA, NSF; FY2018).

• Review report from the third session of the WMO Executive Council Panel of Experts on Polar

Observations, Research, and Services on the development of the Global Integrated Polar

Prediction System (NOAA, NSF; FY2012).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

While some coordinated efforts exist, such as the Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (AOMIP) 

and Climate Process Teams, additional opportunities exist to leverage and coordinate current and 

planned Arctic research investments. Enhanced mechanisms for interagency collaboration are therefore 

needed. 

3.5.3 Build Arctic and subsystem models for coupling with regional and global 

approaches

Why do this?

Regional models of the Arctic are important tools that enable explicit representation of fine-scale 

atmospheric, oceanic, terrestrial, and cryospheric processes at scales where they occur. Regional Arctic 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 54 ★

models can also take advantage of the growing number of data streams and process understanding 

that is emerging from mechanistic studies and field and laboratory observations. They can also highlight 

the most critical and sensitive processes and parameters for inclusion in regional and global models. 

Regional models are required to fully incorporate the complex interactions between sea ice, ice sheets, 

cold oceans, regional climate, permafrost stability, and their integrated influence on the regional and 

global carbon cycle and energy balance. Ultimately, the understanding obtained from these models 

can be incorporated into global models either through coupling/nesting or by creating appropriate 

parameterizations. Global Earth system models will be the primary tool for exploring climate change 

and the Arctic feedbacks in the global climate system.

Timeframe:

Mid- to long-term (3-10 years). Focused development of new subsystem models and interaction with 

experimentalists (>5 years); coupling and evaluation within regional and later in global models (5-10 

years).

Expected Outcomes:

• A hierarchy of models from process to regional scales.

• Inclusion of Arctic high-resolution physical, biological, chemical, and social subsystem model

components within a regional Arctic climate system model.

• Improved representation of the Arctic system in Earth system models through nesting of

regional models or development of parameterizations.

Milestones:

• Develop and evaluate stand-alone subsystem components of the Arctic system, incorporating 

mechanistic processes derived from experiments and/or observations (DOE, DOI, NSF; FY2014).

• Couple, test, and validate the aforementioned models against observations of subsystem components within a regional Arctic climate-system model (DOE, DOI, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2016).

• Couple and evaluate Arctic subsystem components within Global Earth system models (DOE,

DOI, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2017).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Observational data are needed to constrain and rigorously evaluate individual subsystem model 

components and multi-component interactions and dependencies. Advanced in-situ and remote 

platforms are needed for coordinated process studies, especially for difficult observations such as 

under-ice sampling and communication, melting out/freezing in, long-time/distance endurance, 

high-resolution, large-scale, and long-term coverage. Also, community participation in model 

development and data collection could be better supported by organizational structure as would 

common, coordinated Arctic data/model distribution center(s) for community posting and use of 

models.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 55 ★

3.5.4 Develop models of Arctic land ice mass loss, connections to ocean and atmospheric 

variability, and implications for sea level

Why do this?

Predicting future changes in ice sheet mass and the impacts on sea level, ocean circulation, and climate 

will require improved understanding of ice-sheet and ice-ocean processes. Data from process-oriented 

studies, targeted campaigns, and long-term monitoring systems must be integrated into large-scale 

circulation and Earth-system models. The spread of current projections of sea level rise contributions 

from Greenland by 2100, from 0.06 to 0.54 m, with an added 0.34 m from glaciers and ice caps, gives a 

crude measure of current uncertainties.

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-10 years)

Expected Outcomes:

• Implement and test physically based parameterizations of unresolved processes: key physical

processes operating on scales of 100 m or less need to be incorporated into Earth system models

using a suite of parameterization techniques.

• Comprehensive, well-structured, and sophisticated databases and data formats which allow

rapid access and optimal use of the hard-won data.

• Coupling of the various components of the Earth system models: representation of feedbacks

between ice sheet variability and the large-scale ocean/atmosphere circulation or other climate 

system components through interactive (two-way) coupling between ice sheet and climate

models or components.

• Coupling and accounting for Earth gravity/geodetic responses in models: glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) from visco-elastic mantle response to unloading and gravitationally self-consistent 

sea-level solutions are crucial in assessing regional sea level change as a consequence of ice

sheet mass loss; gravity models of improved accuracy are needed and results fed back into Earth 

system models (which currently neglect these effects).

• Model testing, analysis, and intercomparison: a hierarchy of modeling approaches serves as

a quantitative basis for model assessment and identification of systematic biases; a feedback

loop links large-scale model-data biases, e.g., subpolar gyre hydrographic properties, to those

at key locations (fjord exits and glacier termini), and to discrepancies of parameterized versus

observed processes.

• Use of models to optimize observing-system development: these studies will assess which 

processes have the strongest impact on constraining ice mass loss, and where, with what 

accuracy, and at which frequency these should be sampled.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 56 ★

Milestones:

• Support surveys of existing modeling capabilities by participating agencies that tackle

the ocean/land ice coupling problem, including parameterization and moving geometry

approaches (DOE, NOAA, NSF; FY2014).

• Help coordinate the implementation of multi-disciplinary test suites and scenarios for idealized 

and realistic model verification, validation, and intercomparison (a combination of ISOMIP and

SeaRISE but extended to the coupled problem); foster exchange of codes, inputs, experiences

(DOE, NSF; FY2014).

• Translate results from process studies into parameterizations for use in Earth System Models

(DOE, NOAA, NSF; FY2015).

• Development of new-generation modeling approaches into the coupled forward and inverse

problem (DOE, NOAA, NSF; FY2018).

• Completion of observing-system studies using improved models to further inform observingsystem design (DOI, NOAA, NSF; FY2023).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

• Numerical methods are needed that can deal with processes acting on a wide range of spatiotemporal scales, from sub-centimeter boundary layers to ocean basin-scale (1000 km) coupled 

atmosphere/ocean dynamics. Three types of complementary approaches may be pursued: (1) 

process-resolving simulations to develop process parameterizations; (2) feedback and testing of 

these parameterizations in large-scale Earth system models; and (3) in parallel with (1) and (2),

the development of new computational tools (unstructured and/or adaptive meshing, multigrid, multi-physics approaches) to enable seamless simulations. Algorithms are required that

can efficiently exploit emerging massively parallel computer systems and integrate different

system components. Yet, simulations also need to produce diagnostic output that is useful for

scientific analysis.

• Dynamical feedbacks through moving geometry (glacier retreat) represent a new computational 

challenge in climate modeling; coupled ocean-glacier simulations that aim to capture dominant

glacier stress perturbations through glacier un-grounding and retreat need to represent the

changing interface geometry.

• Observational sparsity requires the continued development and use of formal inverse/estimation methods in a coupled model/data framework; merging of diverse observations and models 

is needed to infer optimal state and parameters and to assess remaining uncertainties.

3.5.5 Increase Arctic model resolution to improve prediction and inform future research 

and observations

Why do this?

Accurate simulations of the Arctic require the ability to resolve features and processes at small spatial and 

temporal scales. For example, Arctic Ocean eddies, cloud processes, ice fracturing, ice-shelf dynamics, 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 57 ★

ecosystem/vegetation changes, and hydrology all occur on kilometer scales or smaller. Through 

data synthesis and integration with other models, high-resolution regional models can guide future 

observations and process studies while providing a large-scale and long-term picture of Arctic system 

variability. Variable resolution approaches are now being implemented and show great promise for 

enabling high-resolution Arctic models in a global model framework. Similarly, alternative time 

integration techniques are being explored to capture multiple time scales consistently and accurately.

Process understanding, data sets, and model representations are needed at small spatial and temporal 

scales. High-resolution model output is also commonly required by stakeholders, especially for impact 

assessment and mitigation/adaptation studies. While high-resolution global models are beginning to 

reach these spatial scales, continued use of regional, stand-alone, and nested models will be needed 

to provide ensemble simulations at the required resolutions. Similarly, fast processes related to surface 

exchange and boundary layer processes must be represented, as well as decadal modes of variability and 

longer processes like ice-sheet melting, ecosystem evolution, and ocean thermohaline circulation—all 

of which have significant impacts on the Arctic. Results from those simulations can inform process 

research direction and observing-system design (see section 3.4). Already, high-resolution simulations 

have been used to help design large-scale ecosystem studies in Arctic permafrost and float experiments 

in the Southern Ocean. 

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years) for improved Arctic climate-system models and variable-resolution models for 

focused Arctic simulations

Expected Outcomes:

• Improved and detailed forecasts of Arctic climate change to address stakeholder needs.

• Arctic simulations at fine-enough resolution to inform experimental/observational design and

field campaigns.

Milestones:

• Conduct ensemble simulations of future Arctic climate change at kilometer spatial scales (DOE,

DOI, NSF; FY2018).

• Engage the Arctic (and Earth system) modeling community in planning and designing future

field campaigns (DOE, DOI, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2012).

• Provide mechanisms for rapid access to processed (quality controlled, formatted/gridded)

observational data sets for model-data inter-comparison (DOE, NOAA, NSF; FY2015).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Much observational data are not at high enough resolution to validate kilometer-scale models or to 

incorporate into model-data inter-comparisons. Important gaps in process understanding limit full 

representation of the Arctic in coupled models. Advanced numerical techniques are needed for multiscale time integrations. High-performance computing and technical support are needed for model 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 58 ★

integration thereby enabling co-design of model algorithms and/or new modeling approaches to carry 

out high-resolution simulations on new computing architectures. 

3.5.6 Use insights from models to inform process research; use process research to 

evaluate and improve models 

Why do this?

Models can be used to simulate processes that are difficult to observe and, thus, poorly understood. 

Analyzing models can highlight areas where new observations or studies will improve representation 

of processes in models and ultimately benefit predictions about Arctic climate change. Modelers are 

eager for robust data sets to evaluate and test their products, and experimentalists are collecting 

observations and data that can be incorporated into models. The two communities, however, do not 

often interact directly. 

The disconnect among modelers, experimentalists, and observers has led to gaps in both the completeness of data for good prediction and in critical process representation in models. Coordinated 

research efforts are particularly needed in the Arctic where physical conditions and remote locations 

make it difficult to conduct process research and where different models currently provide very different representations of Arctic parameters and/or processes. Great opportunity exists to rapidly improve 

the design of Arctic experiments and observations, which would enable enhanced parameterization 

of subsystem, regional, and global models. Such experiments and observations also could identify and 

address structural uncertainty in models by including coupled experimental and predictive science 

components to identify gaps and needs simultaneously for both data and models.

Timeframe:

Near- to long-term (1-10 years). Current field-research efforts and laboratory process studies are 

already being informed to some extent by model analyses, but more comprehensive and integrated 

model and field campaigns will be needed. 

Expected Outcomes:

• Improved understanding and model representation of processes specific to the Arctic system.

• A new cycle of systems model development and improvement, incorporating integrated field

campaigns to develop refined parameterizations for Arctic process representations in models.

• More efficient use of research funds through enhanced collaboration among process 

researchers, observationalists, theoreticians, and modelers.

• Rapid increase in development of robust data sets, process understanding, and improved

models and predictive skill.

Milestones:

• Publish SeaRise ice sheet model intercomparison results (DOE, NASA, NSF; FY2013).
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 59 ★

• Analyze model output to determine future needs for data collection and process studies (DOE, 

DOI; FY2014).

• Design and implement integrated modeling and field campaigns focused on specific highpriority processes to improve process understanding and representation in models (DOE, DOI, 

NASA, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2012).

• Develop, test, and evaluate new/improved parameterizations (DOE, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2015).

• Plan and conduct interagency and intra agency conferences, workshops, and campaigns

designed to bring process researchers and predictive scientists together to solve Arctic grand

challenges (DOE, DOI, NASA, NOAA, NSF, ONR; FY2015).

• Develop funding solicitations that require integrated process-prediction research approach

(DOE, DOI, NSF, ONR; FY2013).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Closely connecting process and modeling science is needed to rapidly improve and validate our ability 

to project future Arctic conditions. Many processes in Arctic systems are not well understood and could 

be targets for focused research. Examples of key areas of research needs include:

1. Ice thickness distribution and ice production due to ice deformations;

2. Multi-phase ice, brine channels, melt ponds, and water/brine transport;

3. Ice-sheet and ocean interaction, ocean circulation in tidewater fjords, and property exchange

over the sill;

4. Time-dependent evolution of surface, englacial, and subglacial hydrology for the Greenland

ice sheet;

5. Ocean circulation and water-mass formation in ice-free Arctic conditions;

6. Ocean estuary/fjord subsystem model component for use in climate models;

7. Land/submarine permafrost distribution and interaction with atmosphere and/or ocean;

8. Permafrost hydrology and changes in morphology and sheet flow and riverine transport of

surface water, sediments, nutrients, and contaminants;

9. Arctic biogeochemical cycles within permafrost, sea ice, atmosphere, and ocean, including

carbon, methane, ice algae, aerosol-cloud interactions, aerosol deposition on ice;

10. Arctic mixed-phase clouds and other cloud microphysical processes, including ice nucleation;

11. Surface exchange processes at ice/ocean, ice/atmosphere, and ocean/atmosphere boundaries;

12. Rates and ranges of change for plants, animals, and ecosystem function; and

13. Permafrost-soil-vegetation interactions.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 60 ★

3.5.7 Integrate Arctic climate-modelresults with observational validation and verification

to understand the principal drivers and uncertainties of Arctic climate changes

Why do this?

Unified, regional Arctic climate-system models are ideal tools to integrate data and information 

across multiple components of the Arctic system. Such models may also be applied to advanced, 

probabilistic decadal projections. Models must be verified against analytic test cases and reference 

solutions and validated against the historical record. Ensemble simulations are required to sample 

the solution space for uncertainty quantification as well as to separate natural or internal modes of 

variability from externally forced changes. 

As with all aspects of climate modeling, critical evaluation needs to continue for Arctic regional 

models. Our ability to validate model projections (and to describe the uncertainties associated with 

those projections) is critical to our ability to use modeling results. Model validation contributes to the 

optimal synthesis and integration of limited process understanding and observational data to 

advance Arctic science, including interdependencies across the Arctic system components. 

Timeframe:

Mid- to long-term (3-10 years)

Expected Outcomes:

• Projection of future Arctic climate change and its impacts including variability estimates.

• Determination of key principle drivers of Arctic climate variability and trends.

• Integration of comprehensive analyses of causes and effects of Arctic climate change.

Milestones:

• Coordinate model experiments and inter-comparisons to critically evaluate regional model

results against observations (DOE, NOAA, NSF; FY2014).

• Develop and implement standards for gridded observational data sets (DOE, NOAA, NSF;

FY2014).

• Implement a common data portal for both observational data and common model experiments 

and projections (DOE, DOI, NSF; FY2018).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Improved diagnostic measures suitable for both observations and model data are needed, as well as 

statistical techniques for uncertainty quantification. Improved coverage and long-term monitoring of 

the Arctic will generate better knowledge of present climate and initial conditions for future projections. 

New techniques for filling in sparse observational data from the historical record will improve model 

validation. Model improvements and additions should occur as a continuous, iterative cycle. Enhanced 

computational and data infrastructure would enable improved integration of currently disparate data 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 61 ★

streams and the ability to exercise increasingly complex (and, therefore, realistic) model representations of Arctic systems. The enhancements include improved data archives and distribution, advanced 

informatics, and access to high-performance computing for high-resolution ensemble simulations.

3.6. Assess strengths and vulnerabilities of Arctic communities facing the impacts of 

climate change and assist in developing adaptation strategies and tools to maximize 

sustainability, well-being, and cultural and linguistic heritage

Lead Authors:

William Fitzhugh, SI

C. Nikoosh Carlo, NSF

Igor Krupnik, SI

James Partain, NOAA

Agency Partners:

DOI, DOS, EPA, NSF, NOAA, SI

Rapid Arctic change is forcing residents to adapt to new conditions created by environmental change 

and diverse socio-economic stressors. Age-old traditional responses, such as diversification of naturalresource harvesting, relocation, and dispersal or concentration in the resource-rich niches, offer valuable 

lessons, but by themselves may be inadequate to fully address challenges such rapid changes and 

modern economic transitions present. New community-based participatory research to identify regional 

and local vulnerabilities and adaptation tools contribute to the growing body of knowledge needed for 

decision-support science and policy recommendations. Understanding the impacts of climate change 

could be better served by adding base—or “bottom-up”—assessments of the current drivers of social 

well-being to computer-generated models and other top-down scenarios used in ecosystem modeling. 

Focused studies of major social parameters of change are under way that are national and international 

in scope. Integrative multi-disciplinary programs, like SEARCH, that seek to balance societal needs with 

research priorities advanced by rapid environmental change can help explore effective ways of 

engaging communities and Tribes in the issues of utmost public urgency, such as resource 

development or management of living resources. Arctic Social Indicators II and Arctic Human 

Development Report II, projects endorsed by Arctic Council, will emphasize the key role of local 

communities in both basic-science discovery and in creating adaption tools that are practical and 

efficient at the local, regional, and broader circumpolar levels. 

Knowledge about thresholds and prospective breaking points, as well as the inherent strengths in the 

social fiber that affect community resilience, would be invaluable in formulating Federal agency policies 

and in forging collaborations with diverse local stakeholders. The overall scope of new research should be 

broad and encompassing, but the informative case studies are to be conducted at the community level. 

Melding the historic effects of cash and natural-resource-harvesting economies with added stressors 

associated with modernization and ongoing climate change is challenging but necessary. The emphasis 

should be to provide Arctic residents with basic scientific knowledge necessary for community leaders to develop sustainable pathways for successful adaptation amid rapid environmental change and 

a variety of other stressors—while juggling diverse Federal, state, and local interests. Providing such 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 62 ★

knowledge will help preserve cultural vitality and improving health and overall well-being for the 

long-term. The need to support tribal communities so they have representation in climate changerelated activities and can develop and implement climate change strategies has also been 

recommended by the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force in its 2011 Progress Report. 

3.6.1 In collaboration with local communities, develop methods for assessing community 

sustainability and resilience and determine the efficiency of current adaptation strategies

Why do this?

Native communities have thrived in the Arctic for millennia, but today’s challenges are occurring at a 

pace faster than ever and may be beyond the capacity of traditional adaptation strategies. As primary 

stakeholders that will be affected by climate change, Arctic communities and Tribes need useful, 

access-ible, location-specific information on changes that are occurring and how those changes will 

impact human well-being. There is an urgent need for effective methods to assess community 

sustainability as northern residents face various socioeconomic challenges, changing local 

infrastructure needs, and high transportation and living costs. Traditional ecological knowledge 

should be actively incorporated in future planning, and more research is needed to identify key 

indicators of successful adaptation at local and regional scales. 

Timeframe:

Near-term (3-5 years)

Expected Outcomes:

• Inform new understanding on how climate change, past and present, has been/is being met

by Arctic communities and how communities have adapted.

• Improve research and assessment tools for studying the sources of community vulnerability to

climate and environmental change and implications for community adaptability developed in 

partnership with local communities and organizations.

Milestones: 

In collaboration with other Arctic nations: 

• Identify and develop a database on past and current adaptation strategies used by Arctic 

communities to combat climate change impacts (DOS10; FY2013).

• Determine which strategies have been most successful (DOS; FY2013).

• Document unintended consequences of previous strategies and responses to change

(DOS; FY2013).

• All will be explored by the Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic Report (DOS; FY2013).

10. This, and subsequent references to DOS in this section, indicates DOS’s role as the Federal lead in international Arctic 

Council activities, in particular, DOS’s role as head of delegation to the Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG).
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 63 ★

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Limited work has been done to identify what Arctic communities have done, or are currently doing, 

to adapt to the effects of climate change. Even less is known about the efficacy of those 

adaptation strategies. Research is needed to, first, identify the suite of climate-change adaptation 

strategies currently being (or that have been) used and, second, to analyze the efficacy of those 

strategies. Particular attention should focus on both community specific strategies and those that were 

applied more broadly at the regional, national, and circumpolar scales. All research needs to be 

conducted as joint efforts and in close collaboration with local Arctic communities.

3.6.2 Identify the current vulnerabilities of Arctic communities and ecosystems to climate 

change and explore their interactions with socio-economic and other stressors

Why do this?

The Arctic region is warming quickly. The impacts of this change on Arctic communities are occurring in 

conjunction with other stressors, such as high cost of living, infrastructure maintenance, lack of 

employment opportunities, and shortage of resources for community development (see Section 3.7 

for discussion of health-related challenges). These stressors need to be identified and quantified in 

pragmatic terms. Successful adaptation measures will require attention to multiple stressors 

simultaneously as well as close engagement with communities to empower self-sufficiency, initiate 

smart development, and build adaptive capacity.

Timeframe:

Near-term (1-3 years) 

Expected Outcomes: 

• Assist local communities in better understanding current vulnerabilities to climate change.

• Strengthen or create new partnerships among local stakeholders and resource managers to

assess the vulnerability of individual Arctic communities and develop locally based adaptation 

and more general mitigation strategies.

• In collaboration with local stakeholders, develop new understanding of how changes in Arctic

ecosystems and climate will affect natural-resource harvesting practices.

• Improve public understanding of how the effects of climate change interact with socioeconomic stressors in the Arctic.

• Advance engagement of Federal agencies with local communities in sharing information on

management and use of terrestrial and marine resources, and support empowerment for the

co-creation of knowledge.

• Community profiles that highlight impending vulnerabilities and indicators of resilience.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 64 ★

Milestones: 

• Establish research and community collaborations aligned with local priorities and needs, 

including in planning, data collection, conceptualization, and interpretation of research

results and recommendations (NSF; FY2013).

• Assess vulnerability of Arctic communities and ecosystems to climate change and socioeconomic stressors:

− Environmental Studies Program Social Indicators in Coastal Alaska-Arctic Communities

Study (BOEM; FY2014). 

− Arctic Sustainability (ArcSEES) initiative (BOEM, EPA, NSF, USFW, USGS, and a consortium of 

French science funding agencies; FY2013). 

• In collaboration with other Arctic nations, develop a standardized set of quantifiable socioeconomic indicators of vulnerability in the Arctic Council’s Arctic Social Indicators II Study (DOS; 

FY2012).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Research on the vulnerabilities and indicators of resilience of individual Arctic communities to climate 

change is limited. Thus, there is a need to develop quantitative measures of vulnerability and resilience 

to climate change for coastal communities, which can be compared with concurrent socioeconomic 

stressors. More-objective analysis will improve the content and quality of socioeconomic-impact assessments associated with policy actions and marine resource-management decisions. Such research will 

enable affected communities to develop strategies for best responding to the challenges and 

opportunities they face. 

3.6.3 Develop projections of future climate scenarios and demographic conditions to 

forecast potential strengths and weaknesses of human and ecological systems in the 

Arctic

Why do this?

Given current global environmental changes, the future will not be like the past; scenarios of future 

conditions help define alternate projections of environmental and socioeconomic states and—with 

identified uncertainties—will be valuable to adaptation planning. 

Timeframe:

Long-term (>5 years)

Expected Outcomes: 

• Improved models that allow communities and resource managers to better assess potential

community and ecosystem-level vulnerabilities to medium- and long-term climate scenarios as 

well as the relative benefit of specific actions to address those vulnerabilities at the decadal scale. 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 65 ★

Milestones: 

• In collaboration with other Arctic nations, develop a standardized set of socio-economic 

indicators to measure future community resilience (2020 and 2030 projections), including

input of local resources, population fluctuations and migration, communication networks, 

and capacity to adapt via the Arctic Council’s Arctic Social Indicators II Study 2012 and Arctic 

Resilience Report (DOS; FY2015).

• Link climate models with projections of ecological and socio-economic change that include

community dependence on harvesting local food sources (BOEM, DOE, NOAA; FY2017).

• Test existing scenarios of the status of certain wildlife species of value to local consumers,

according to available climate change models (USFW; FY2017).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Knowledge is lacking about how climate change might disproportionately impact communities and the 

ecosystems that they depend on for survival. A comprehensive research plan needs to be developed 

to collect the suite of information needed to model forecasted impacts. Once such models are created, 

adaptation strategies that respond to those impacts can be developed with local communities and 

various state and Federal agencies that can aid in moving explicit goals forward. 

3.6.4 Assist Arctic communities in documenting, revitalizing, and strengthening 

indigenous languages and cultural heritage 

Why do this?

Arctic communities have long faced threats to their indigenous languages and cultural continuity. New 

technologies, communication, education, and digital media are primarily in non-indigenous languages. 

At the same time, the digital era offers new channels for distant education, online publication, and 

broad dissemination of cultural materials. It is also creating new challenges, as most traditional 

cultural, subsistence, and language skills are still being transmitted by direct contact within families and 

communities. The impact of these and other new forces on the Arctic’s indigenous people is poorly 

understood. Federal institutions need to develop a unified strategy or policy for assisting Arctic 

residents with 21st century challenges to their cultural well-being. Many communities are eager to 

address the progressive loss of traditional knowledge and language and are willing to work in 

partnership with Federal and local agencies to develop new strategies to preserve and use their 

unique cultural heritage. 

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years)

Expected Outcomes: 

• Assess the existing Federal and State of Alaska resources that support Arctic people’s cultural

heritage and ways to expand collaboration with indigenous communities in language, 

knowledge, and heritage preservation.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 66 ★

• Enable informed decision making by users—local programs, cultural institutions, schools,

branches of local governments and communities—for collaborative actions in support of

indigenous cultural heritage, languages, and identities.

• With local communities develop new programs and templates for cultural preservation, including language revitalization.

Milestones: 

• In concert with local communities, strengthen partnerships between researchers, Alaska Native 

organizations, Federal, State, and non-governmental organization (NGO) entities through

strategic projects, workshops, and conferences (DOE, DOI, NEH11, NSF, SI).

− Beringia Days Annual Event (DOI’s National Park Service; FY2013).

− Documenting Endangered Languages Program (NEH, NSF; FY2013).

− Inuit Studies Conference (SI; FY2012).

• Develop tools that Arctic communities can use to more effectively support indigenous

languages, traditional ecological knowledge, and natural resource harvesting activities 

(NEH, NSF, SI; FY2014).

− Assessing the Vitality of Arctic Indigenous Languages - Research Development Workshops

(NSF; FY2012). 

− Recovering Voices Program ongoing outreach (SI; FY2014).

• Create community profiles that highlight continuity of indigenous languages and knowledge

systems (NEH, NSF; FY2014).

• Identify and strengthen Federal, State, and local efforts related to indigenous languages, 

traditional knowledge, and cultural heritage (DOI, NSF, SI; 2014).

• Develop research programs to monitor the status of indigenous languages and knowledge

systems and to better understand factors affecting language and cultural resilience (NEH, NSF, 

SI; FY2016).

Science and Technology Current Gaps and Needs:

Arctic communities have been and will continue to adapt to new technologies, communication, and 

preservation tools to sustain their cultures and languages. The strengths and threats from the new 

electronic and media era to indigenous languages have not been adequately studied, nor is a reliable 

assessment of the opportunities offered by new technologies available to guide Federal and state 

policies. Digital technologies are being increasingly used in support of indigenous languages and 

knowledge systems, but many critical issues, such as data management, data sharing, compatibility, 

and local resources remain unresolved. Research is needed to identify key components necessary for 

the application of new digital technologies and for collaboration of the many players at the Federal, 

state, local, and community levels. 

11. National Endowment for the Humanities
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 67 ★

3.7. Understand factors that impact human health in the Arctic, including infectious and 

non-communicable diseases, climate change, environmental contamination, and 

behavior and mental-health disorders

Lead Authors:

Alan Parkinson, CDC

Marya Levintova, NIH

Agencies Partners:

CDC, EPA, IHS12, NIH, USARC

Although health and survival of Arctic indigenous peoples have improved over the past 50 years, 

important disparities remain in life expectancy, infant mortality, and leading causes of death when 

compared with their respective national populations. Life expectancy of the indigenous peoples of 

Alaska, northern Canada, and Greenland is lower than that of the general populations of the United 

States, Canada, and Nordic countries. Similarly, infant mortality among indigenous segments of those 

populations is higher than that of the comparable national populations. Meanwhile, mortality rates for 

heart disease and cancer—once much lower among the indigenous populations of the United States, 

Canada, and northern European countries—now mirror their respective national rates. In addition, 

indigenous populations of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland have higher mortality rates for 

unintentional injury and suicide believed to result from a complex disorder of depression, 

alcoholism, child abuse, and other substance abuse (Levintova et al. 2010). Other health concerns 

of those groups include a high prevalence of infectious diseases such as hepatitis B and C, 

Helicobacter pylori, infant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted 

diseases, as well as heath impacts associated with exposures to environmental pollutants, rapid 

economic change and modernization, and climate change (Young and Bjerregaard 2008). 

The majority of DHHS-supported research in the Arctic is carried out within Alaska in collaboration with 

scientists at the University of Alaska, the State of Alaska, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 

(ANTHC). Most activities are funded by individual NIH institutes and/or CDC centers; however, some 

activities receive support from non-DHHS agencies, such as the EPA and U.S. Arctic Research Commission. 

The CDC maintains the Arctic Investigations Program (AIP), which is a field station located on the ANTHC 

campus in Anchorage. AIP provides a platform for collaborative biomedical and prevention research 

focused on improving the health of Alaska Native population and promotes circumpolar health through 

linkages with CDC centers, the International Union for Circumpolar Health, and the Arctic Council’s 

Sustainable Development Working Group’s Arctic Human Health Experts Group (Parkinson 2010). CDC 

also maintains the Alaska Pacific Regional Office of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, which conducts occupational safety research to reduce hazards in the Arctic.

Supporting further multi-agency research will contribute to knowledge of factors affecting human 

health in the Arctic and lead to development and implementation of prevention and control and 

successful treatment strategies that will greatly improve the health and well-being of Arctic residents. 

12. Indian Health Service 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 68 ★

3.7.1 Continue to expand circumpolar surveillance and research for infectious diseases, 

non-communicable diseases, trauma, injury, sanitation services, and indoor air quality to 

help prevent morbidity and mortality 

Why do this?

Effective surveillance can facilitate timely control of disease outbreaks, inform public health decisions 

on research and resource allocation, and provide data to maximize prevention and control strategies. 

Population-based surveillance of diseases of concern is conducted by public-health agencies in the 

United States, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the Russian Federation. The 

International Circumpolar Surveillance (ICS) of Emerging Infectious Diseases was established in 2000 as 

an Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group project. Linkage of the individual national 

systems has created a network of hospitals, public-health agencies, and reference laboratories throughout the Arctic to collect, compare, and share uniform laboratory, epidemiological, and research data 

on infectious diseases and assist in forming prevention and control strategies (Parkinson et al. 2008). 

Cancer research depends upon population-based cancer registries for monitoring cancer burden, 

which can be assessed in terms of mortality, incidence, health-care use, and economic cost. Planning 

and evaluating cancer screening programs depend upon disease-stage and incidence data provided 

by population-based registries. At NIH, the National Cancer Institute has supported the Alaska Native 

Tumor Registry since 1999 as part of its Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. 

Data from SEER show that gastric cancer is the third most-common type of cancer in the Alaska Native 

population (Wiggins 2008). Commonly associated with Helicobacter pylori infection, the mortality rate 

for gastric cancer in the Alaska Native people is more than three times that found in the general U.S. 

population (Miernyk et al. 2011). More research is needed to determine the linkage between Helicobacter 

pylori infection and gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease in Alaska Natives and other indigenous Arctic 

populations. In addition, there is an urgent need for effective strategies for treating Helicobacter pylori 

in Arctic populations where infection is endemic. Hepatitis B virus infections occur at endemic rates in 

Arctic populations and result in high rates of long-term problem such as cirrhosis and cancer of the liver. 

More needs to be learned, however, about the prevalence and clinical impact of hepatitis C (Young and 

Bjerregaard 2008). 

Native people living in Southwest Alaska suffer a high burden of acute and chronic respiratory disease. 

For example, one in four infants from the region is hospitalized annually with acute respiratory infections. 

Hospitalization rates of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in infants are the highest documented 

(Karron et al. 1999). Bronchiectasis, a chronic lung aftermath of severe pneumonias, is common 

among Alaska Natives in that region (Singleton et al. 2000). A combination of substandard housing, 

overcrowding, poor indoor-air quality, lack of indoor plumbing and running water, and other 

environmental factors contribute to such conditions (Hennessy et al. 2008). Alaska rates last among 

U.S. states for adequate sanitation service; approximately 23 percent of rural Alaskan households lack 

in-home water and sewer service. Hospitalization rates for respiratory, skin, and invasive-bacterial 

infections are all higher among persons living without running water. Research is needed to reduce 

environmental triggers of respira-tory disease in homes and develop strategies to address the 

ongoing disparities in sanitation services and the resultant health impacts.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 69 ★

Problems resulting from trauma and injuries are among the most serious that affect people living and 

working in the Arctic. Injuries are by far the most important causes of death among people around 35 

years of age there (Young and Bjerregaard 2008). While unintentional injuries have always been a hazard 

of living and working in the Arctic, major sociocultural changes and the widespread availability of alcohol 

have changed the pattern and extent of these injuries. A thorough review of the underlying cause of 

these health problems (based upon depression and including alcoholism, other drug abuse, child 

abuse, and suicide) occurred at a meeting in Anchorage on June 2 and 3, 2009, through collaboration 

between the USARC and the NIH Fogarty Center. That meeting led to a series of recommendations 

published in Levintova et al., 2010. Alaska also continues to have a high work-related fatality rate, 

mostly from drownings in the commercial fishing industry and plane crashes in aviation, which are 

exacerbated by the cold and remote and Alaska climate. More research is needed to understand the 

causes and potential interventions needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with 

intentional (suicide) and unintentional injuries. Special attention should continue to be given to 

preventing drownings and aircraft crashes. Worker health and safety in oil-spill response in the 

Arctic or other ice-covered waters poses new concerns as interest in natural resource exploration and 

extraction increase. 

Timeframe:

Long-term (5-10 years)

Expected Outcomes: 

• The circumpolar surveillance of invasive bacterial diseases (causes of pneumonia, meningitis,

septicemia) is ongoing and will be used to monitor the impact of intervention programs as

they are implemented.

• Together with the Public Health Agency of Canada, ICS will expand to include surveillance of

tuberculosis in the U.S. Arctic, northern Canada, Greenland, and six northern regions of the

Russian Federation for the collaborative systematic collection, interpretation, and dissemination 

of information pertaining to tuberculosis in circumpolar populations for use in epidemiologic

study, policy generation, program design, and evaluation.

• Use of cancer registry data will allow planning and evaluation of cancer-screening programs

and will contribute to the reduction in cancer incidence and mortality.

• Develop consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori in Arctic

populations and undertake a circumpolar study on putative bacterial markers of virulence and

host and environmental risk factors associated with peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer in

Arctic indigenous peoples. Potential markers will be validated in a prospective study of gastric 

cancer patients and matched controls to identify persons at risk for early screening.

• Promote and collaborate on surveillance research and management programs of chronic

hepatitis B and C using patient registries, increase screening and vaccination for hepatitis B in

Arctic, and design collaborative research programs on virology and pathogenesis of hepatitis

B and C in the Arctic.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 70 ★

• A North American Free Trade Agreement funded project will measure air quality and implement 

home-based intervention strategies to reduce levels of home-based environmental triggers of 

respiratory disease. Additionally, this project will measure the impact of these interventions on 

the severity and frequency of respiratory symptoms in Alaska Native children with respiratory 

disease and their families.

• Improve the water and sanitation services available to rural Alaskans by bringing together

various stakeholders for the purposes of determining novel strategies, including single home

solutions for water purification and sanitation. The goal is to address the ongoing disparities

in sanitation services and the resultant health impacts while keeping the costs of solutions

manageable.

• Continued development of strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality among workers in

Alaska is needed particularly in the commercial fishing and aviation industries.

• A retrospective study of all Arctic maritime disasters and oil spill is being conducted, which

will provide detailed information about casualties sustained during those events as well as

hazardous exposures suffered by responders, including search and rescue and spill clean-up

personnel. The results of this project may be incorporated into U.S. oil spill contingency plans

and could be adopted as an addendum to the revised spill response plan being developed by

Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (EPPR) and/or used as source material 

for occupational safety and health insertions in that plan.

• Develop strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality among oil spill response workers in the 

Arctic environment. Results may be incorporated into U.S. oil spill contingency plans, and could 

be adopted as an addendum to the revised spill response plan being developed by EPPR and/

or used as source material for occupational safety and health insertions in that plan.

Milestones: 

• Publish a comprehensive report on Circumpolar Surveillance of Infectious Diseases for the Arctic

Council Ministerial (CDC; FY2013).

• Conduct 5-year retrospective review of tuberculosis in northern Canada, the U.S. Arctic,

Greenland and northern regions of the Russian Federation (CDC; FY2013).

• Maintain Alaska’s compliance with standards of the National Program of Cancer registries and

the National Association of Central Cancer Registries (CDC; FY2012).

• Draft and publish a Helicobacter pylori treatment consensus document for high-prevalence.

Validate Helicobacter pylori bacterial markers of virulence and host and environmental risk

factors associated with peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer in Arctic indigenous peoples

(CDC; FY2013).

• Increase screening and vaccination for hepatitis B in Arctic and the design collaborative research

programs on virology and pathogenesis of hepatitis B and C in the Arctic (CDC; FY2012).
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 71 ★

• Measure indoor air quality before and after home-based intervention strategies in homes 

of children with chronic respiratory diseases. Measure severity and frequency of respiratory 

symptoms in children before and after the interventions (CDC, IHS; FY2013).

• Together with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s Village Safe

Water Program conduct stakeholder meetings to address scientific, technological, and

policy challenges associated with lack of sanitation services in Alaska. Determine health and

economic consequences associated with lack of sanitation services in Alaska using 

epidemiologic studies and economic models (CDC, USARC; FY2013).

• In collaboration with other Arctic nations and the State of Alaska, publish a supplement to the

Arctic Council’s Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters, which will contribute understanding and control of the unique hazards that exist to workers responding to an oil spill in

the Arctic (CDC, NIOSH13; FY2013).

• Maintain the Alaska Occupational Injury Surveillance System in cooperation with the State of

Alaska. Publish 20 years of occupational safety research to document progress and set goals

for the next 10 years (CDC, NIOSH; FY2014).

• Continue work with the USCG and Native Community Development Groups to identify ways to

encourage the use of personal flotation devices and personal locator beacons while commercial 

fishing. Continue partnerships with marine-safety educators to provide cold-water survival

classes in remote Native villages (CDC, NIOSH; FY2014).

• Conduct focus groups with pilots and company owners flying to remote villages to identify

strategies to combat pilot fatigue, particularly in the high-risk summer months (CDC, NIOSH;

FY2013).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Lack of sufficient numbers of certified Tumor Registrars has impeded the technological progress of the 

Alaska Cancer Registry. The absence of electronic means for hospitals and physicians to report to the 

central cancer registry is a technological gap. Further technological advances are needed to provide 

in-home sanitation services in Arctic environments. Challenges include providing sufficient clean water 

for hand washing and cleanliness and sanitation for the approximately 25% of rural Alaskans without 

these vital services. Novel solutions for single homes of water provision as well as sanitation need to be 

explored. Other efforts include improving energy efficiency of water systems operations; alternative 

delivery and waste removal technologies that address specific problems posed by the climate, soil, and 

permafrost; and changing source water parameters. Technology should be explored that helps achieves 

a balance between providing adequate volumes of water to maximize healthy washing behavior and 

conserving water and energy resources.

13. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Center for Disease Control)
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 72 ★

3.7.2 Continue interagency collaboration to monitor the impacts of climate change and 

environmental contaminants on human health and wildlife 

Why do this?

Over the last three decades, Arctic Alaska’s average temperature has increased by 5 degrees F (2.7 

degrees C), resulting in extensive glacier melting, thawing permafrost, reduction in Arctic Ocean seaice extent, precipitation increases, decrease in duration of snow cover, longer ice-free seasons on lakes, 

altered food webs, and greater risk of wildland fires. Warmer temperatures may cause 

environmental contaminants to move more readily from soil and water into the air; foster greater 

movement of contaminants from lower-latitude source-area soils (industrial sites, agricultural areas, etc.) 

into Arctic regions; and lead to contamination of traditional foods with man-made chemicals such as 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, toxophenes, and other pesticides. In the Arctic, those 

chemicals may be enriched in the marine- and land-based food webs and end up in humans. These 

compounds may be associated with adverse health outcomes and have caused some Alaska Natives 

to decrease consumption of traditional marine subsistence species and substitute with less-healthy 

western foods (ACIA 2005).

The impact of climate change on communities includes the disruption of permafrost-dependent 

structures, threats to village water supplies and sanitation systems, reduction in availability of 

subsistence species, and decreased air quality (wildland fire smoke, dust, and pollens). Health threats 

from climate change include morbidity and mortality resulting from trauma and injury associated 

with extreme events (storms, floods, increased heat and cold) and unpredictable ice conditions, 

increased mental and social stress related to changes in environment and loss of traditional 

lifestyle, decreased access to quality water and food sources, and potential changes in prevalence of 

some parasitic and zoonotic infectious diseases (Parkinson 2008). Evidence also exists for health 

consequences from exposure to toxic metals, such as mercury and lead. There may be adverse effects 

from exposure to organochlorines and mercury on child neuropsychological development and of 

organochlorines on their immune function and susceptibility to infection. 

New and previously experimental or seasonal shipping lanes are being opened in the Arctic as sea ice 

retreats and oil and mineral exploration markedly increase. These transport and industrial activities raise 

the possibility of increasing numbers of shipping disasters and oil spills, with increased risk to human 

workers, as well as to the marine environment, fauna, and flora. The EPPR Worker Hazard Reduction 

Project will attempt to address some of those emerging hazards.

Consequently, there is need for studies that collect and analyze human-health and ecosystem 

observations in rural communities located in the many diverse and ecologically-distinct areas of 

Alaska. In addition, studies that quantify the cumulative health effects of exposure in Alaska Native 

mothers and their infants to multiple environmental contaminants [anthropogenic persistent 

organic pollutants (POPs) and mercury] in subsistence foods are needed.

Timeframe:

Mid-term (3-5 years)
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 73 ★

Outcomes: 

• Community health assessments are designed to assess, one village at a time, the existing and

emerging threats and to provide residents with the training and capacity to monitor existing

threats, detect new threats, and allow the development of adaptation strategies, as proposed in 

section 3.6. The village-based monitoring programs conducted by ANTHC will form a network

that contributes data to state and Federal agencies to better inform those programs responsible 

for both human and wildlife health. The outcome of these programs could link with developing 

programs in Canadian Arctic communities.

• Engaging Alaskans as lay observers of human health and ecological events potentially

associated with climate change can provide the public-health community with an

important early warning of public-health consequences from such change (in conjunction

with efforts in 3.6). A University of Alaska, Anchorage project will provide public-health

professionals and other decision-makers with a network for the dissemination of informed

and culturally appropriate risk communications to guide adaptation planning that reduces 

health impacts on the Alaskan population.

• A data base of organochlorines, toxic metals, and micronutrients levels in human and salmon

tissue will allow the detection of any associations between prenatal exposure to organochlorines 

and/or mercury with adverse health outcomes, as well as any positive associations between

micronutrients levels and health. A time series in human- and subsistence-species tissue levels 

of organochlorines and mercury will help evaluate the impact of climate regime change on

ocean and atmospheric current delivery of those toxins from lower latitudes into the Bering Sea, 

addressing possible climate-change impact on subsistence resources and human health. ANTHC 

will provide and communicate risk and benefit data to Alaska Natives to enable region-wide

strategies and policies to reduce the risk and increase benefits of the traditional diet, which will

strengthen that critical component of Alaska Native culture.

• Evaluate climate-sensitive infectious-disease surveillance systems for—and baseline levels of

infection in—humans and wildlife in Alaska. Such evaluations will result in better understanding 

of the epidemiology and risk to subsistence wildlife species and to the people who depend of

them for food, allowing for rapid detection of outbreaks and development of prevention and

control strategies.

Milestones:

• Conduct community health assessments and initiate training and deployment of monitoring

technology. Develop a web-based monitoring network and village adaptation strategies, and

establish the monitoring database. Conduct statistical analysis of laboratory specimens and

share data with agencies and jurisdictions. Provide feedback to tribal leaders. Continue planning

with interested agencies to develop support for ongoing monitoring and extension to interested 

communities in Alaska. Disseminate program results to other circumpolar communities and

affected communities in the lower 48 states (IHS; FY2015).
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 74 ★

• Develop, deploy, and assess a surveillance and response Toolkit for Alaska to promote community based adaptation planning for climate change. Deliverables will include training protocols, 

a web portal, a surveillance dataset organized by region, adaptation and mitigation 

recommendations, and reports/manuscripts for peer-reviewed publication (CDC; FY2013).

• Recruit a cohort of 200 Alaska Native women for collection of blood samples, patient interview,

and medical-chart information. Collect and chemically analyze salmon tissue samples (CDC,

DOI, EPA; FY2015).

• Conduct surveillance evaluations and sero-prevalence studies on humans and wildlife for

potentially climate-sensitive infectious diseases such as those caused by brucella, trichinella,

echinococcus, toxoplasma, francisella, giardia, and cryptospordium species (CDC, DOI; FY2013).

• Implement a NOAA-CDC memorandum of agreement for environmental and public health

impacts providing exchange of scientific expertise and resources in the areas of climate, weather,

water, and environmental, oceanographic, and atmospheric health as it relates to public health 

(CDC, DOC; FY2015).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Findings from community assessments will require engineering solutions to be developed and applied 

by the ANTHC Division of Environmental Health and Engineering. Technology will need to be developed 

for ongoing village-based surveillance and determining antibody levels of zoonotic infectious diseases 

in killed subsistence animals, as well as village-operated sampling for climate-sensitive 

microbial threats to water security, such as giardia, cryptosporidium, toxoplasma, tularemia, and 

harmful algal blooms. Development of filter-paper blood-spot tests of animal blood are needed to 

monitor zoonotic diseases and possible contaminants. There is a general need to improve 

laboratory diagnostics and molecular-typing systems for many potentially climate-sensitive parasitic 

and zoonotic infectious agents in humans in wildlife. Finally, adaptation and mitigation planning may 

require local, state, and national coordination to conduct and evaluate further surveillance measures.

3.7.3 Continue to support investigator-initiated research in major health priority areas 

such as mental health including substance abuse and suicide, obesity, diabetes, and 

cancer 

Why do this?

NIH, the leading U.S. biomedical- and behavioral-research agency, supported more than 80 research 

projects in the Arctic from 2009-2012, with approximate average annual expenditure of $31 million. 

These projects are conducted by investigators at individual institutions with many having multiple 

research partners. NIH funding is awarded primarily to research and related institutions in Alaska and 

the Arctic, to non-Alaska institutions focused on indigenous populations, and to increase biomedical 

research capacity among Native and non-Native Alaska populations. 

The University of Alaska Center for Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) program at the Center for 

Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR) and the Alaska Institutional Development Award for Biomedical 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 75 ★

Research Excellence (INBRE) program receive the largest proportion of NIH funds in the region. Both 

programs are funded through the National Institute for General Medical Studies to support studies of 

chemical agents (especially contaminants in subsistence foods) and zoonotic and vector-borne microbial 

agents of disease. CANHR projects represent one example of multi-agency involvement that includes 

tribal and local communities, CDC, IHS, and other organizations. 

NIH-supported projects in the Arctic also focus on behavioral and mental-health problems, including 

addiction and related disorders. The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities 

(NIMHD) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have supported dozens of research projects on 

the determinants of substance abuse and mental health disorders in the Arctic. Additionally, 

NCMHD supports studies of various interventions for substance abuse and mental illness in Alaska. 

In addition, NIH has engaged with USARC, CDC, the State of Alaska, and local and academic institutions 

to develop priorities for research increases in Alaska, particularly on health-care delivery innovations, 

including telemedicine and information technology. The results of a workshop convened by those 

entities in Alaska indicate there is major need for better communications among agencies in and out of 

Alaska on issues related to health research, and there is need for inclusion of local communities or 

tribal groups in research planning and implementation. Inclusion of innovative and culturally 

appropriate methods of study is also needed (Levintova et al. 2010).

Timeframe:

Long-term (5-10 years)

Outcomes: 

• NIH will continue to support investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed research projects in biomedical and behavioral sciences in the Arctic. Many NIH-awarded projects engage multiple partners. 

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

As need for further funding of biomedical and behavioral research in the Arctic continues, NIH will 

support appropriate investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed projects. A number of gaps, however, 

should be highlighted: 

• Alaska-based institutions and researchers have not historically been highly competitive peer

review. In this time of reduced economic constraints, this gap is difficult to fill. Therefore, there

is a substantial need to develop collaborations with successful NIH award recipients.

• It is difficult to recruit from the sparsely populated Native villages in Alaska the large numbers

of participants needed to conduct longitudinal studies of chronic diseases. Genetic and cultural 

similarities among Arctic native populations would allow for statistically meaningful cohorts if

communication and information exchange among researchers were optimal.

• Finally, in addition to large population-based studies, exploration of alternative research design

(such as small sample design and studies in low-resource settings) is needed.
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 76 ★

3.7.4 Continue to engage indigenous communities and tribal groups in research activities 

and projects in the Arctic

Why do this?

Indigenous community members and their leaders should be involved in all stages of the research 

process—from formulating and approving projects and methods, to determining research outcomes, 

to interpreting and disseminating results. Genuine collaboration between researchers and indigenous 

communities not only builds valuable partnerships and mutual trust, but it also enhances research 

through information and knowledge sharing. Optimal engagement and partnership efforts enable 

research that is both culturally sensitive and conducive to producing shared benefits.

Timeframe:

Long-term (5-10 years)

Outcomes: 

• NIH, NSF, and CDC-supported investigators, and others, interested in conducting research in

the Arctic/Alaska work closely with community and tribal organizations/leaders in developing 

and conducting their research. In many cases, projects require tribal permission to be carried

out in the community.

• National Heart Lung and Blood Institute provided funding to the Norton Sound Health

Corporation, an Alaska Native-owned health corporation, as one of three grantees to conduct

the second phase of the Genetics of Coronary Artery Disease in Alaska Natives study.

Milestones: 

• NIH and CDC supports research through CANHR where researchers collaborate with tribal and

local communities on a number research topics, including nutrition, alcohol consumption and 

abuse prevention, drug abuse and prevention, and others (NIH; FY2012).

Science and Technology Gaps and Needs:

Better communication and more information exchanges are necessary between the researchers and 

the community before the start of research, during, and after its completion. 

References

ACIA. (2008). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press UK. 

p863-906.

ACIA. (2005). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: Scientific Report. 1042 pp. Cambridge University Press, 

UK.

Bengtsson et al., 2005. Second International Conference on Arctic Research Planning, Science Plan 9, 

Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.icarp.dk.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH AREAS

★ 77 ★

Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Task 

Force. October 28, 2011.http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/

2011_adapta-tion_progress_report.pdf.

Hennessy, T.W., Ritter, T., Holman, R., Bruden, D., Yorita, K., Bulkow, L.R., et al. (2008).  The relationship 

between in-home water service and the risk of respiratory tract, skin and gastrointestinal tract infections among rural Alaska Natives. American Journal of Public Health, 98(11): 2072-2078.

Karron, R., Singleton, R., Bulkow, L., et al. (1999). Severe respiratory syncytial virus disease in Alaska Native 

children. J Infect Dis :180, 41-9.

Levintova, M., Zapol, W.I., Engmann, N. (Eds.). (2010). Behavioral and Mental Health Research in the Arctic: 

A Strategy Setting Meeting. Inter J. Circumpolar health Suppl. 5. http://www.ijch.fi/CHS/

CHS_2010(5).pdf.

Miernyk, K., Morris, J., Bruden, D., McMohn, B., Hurlburt, D., Sacco, F., Parkinson, A.J., Hennessy, T., & Bruce, 

M. (2011). Characterization of helicobacter pylori cagA and vacA genotypes among Alaskans and 

their correlation with clinical disease. J.Clin.Micro 49(9), 3114-3121. 

Parkinson, A. J. (2010). Improving human health in the Arctic: the expanding role of the Arctic Council’s 

sustainable development working group. International J. Circumpolar Health 69(3), 304-313.

Parkinson, A. J., Bruce, M. G., & Zulz, T. (2008). International Circumpolar Surveillance, and Arctic network 

for the surveillance of infectious diseases. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 14(1), 18-24.

Parkinson, A. J. (2008). Climate Change and Infectious Diseases: the Arctic Environment. IOM Institute 

of Medicine. Global climate change and extreme weather events: understanding the contributions 

to infectious disease emergence. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

Roberts, A. and coauthors (2010). A Science Plan for Regional Arctic System Modeling, A report to the 

National Science Foundation from the International Arctic Science Community. International Arctic 

Research Center Technical Papers 10-0001. International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks.

Wiggins, C. L., Predue, D. G., Henderson, J. A., Bruce, M., Lanier, A. P., Kelly, J. J., Seals, B. F., & Espey, D. K. 

(2008). Gastric Cancer among American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States 1999-2004. 

Cancer, 113 (5), 1225-1233. 

Singleton, R., et al. (2000).  Bronchiectasis in Alaska Native children: causes and clinical courses. Pediatric 

Pulmonology, 29(3): 182-187.

Young, K. T, & Bjerregaard, P. (2008). Health Transitions in Arctic populations. Toronto: University of Toronto 

Press. 

★ 79 ★

Chapter 4: Research Infrastructure

Because the Arctic is geographically remote and environmentally harsh, advancing regional knowledge 

and understanding requires specialized research platforms and instruments. Needed infrastructure 

ranges from direct on-the-ground observations to satellite observations from space with advanced 

instruments and from field stations to research vessels. National and international assets are regularly 

brought to bear. United States infrastructure, its use, and availability are summarized in Tables 1-3. A 

few relevant foreign assets and missions are also mentioned, but the list is not exhaustive. International 

coordination of infrastructure and cost sharing is highly desirable.

Table 1 summarizes major infrastructure, including space- and ocean-based assets, aircraft (piloted and 

unpiloted), and field stations. Space-based instruments operated by NASA, NOAA, and other agencies 

are especially powerful tools for observing the remote Arctic. Reliance on foreign satellites for some 

observations and measurements is now common. NASA and its partners, including some commercial 

entities, operate nearly 60 research aircraft, many of which apply to Arctic work. The aircraft most critical 

to this research plan are listed in Table 1. 

Research in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas employs ice-breaking or ice-strengthened vessels, which 

are operated by the Coast Guard, the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), 

NOAA, private contractors, and foreign governments. U.S. Navy submarines that deploy occasionally to 

the Arctic Ocean obtain a limited amount of research-quality data. Sea-ice camps are occasionally operated for brief periods in the Arctic Ocean for process studies and autonomous instrument deployment. 

As sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean diminishes and vessel traffic increases, national needs for Arctic 

vessels for research, national security, and marine safety are being assessed. 

Field stations on land and the Greenland Ice Sheet are especially useful for long-term observations and 

for supporting process studies and shorter-term, satellite field camps. 

Table 2 summarizes significant but smaller research tools, with a focus on airborne and ocean-based 

infrastructure. The latter include numerous autonomous platforms and instruments that are growing 

in importance as access to research vessels becomes more challenging and the need for year-round 

observations grows. Basic equipment to enhance indigenous observations is also included.

Table 3 summarizes key assets of cyberinfrastructure that are important for research and education 

in the Arctic. Electronic media and distribution systems are critical to data acquisition, transmission, 

archiving and distribution, and to communicate research results to the greater scientific community 

and public. As data on the Arctic environmental system has become more voluminous, the need for 

more sophisticated hardware, software, standards, and sharing agreements has increased. 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 80 ★

Table 1. Major U.S. infrastructure (space-based, aircraft, ocean-based, field stations) needed to accomplish the five-year Arctic research plan. For each infrastructure element, its use, availability, and relevant 

sections of the plan are identified.

INFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Space-based

Existing satellite missions critical to Arctic research

NOAA satellite missions Weather and key climate 

variables.

Available through 2017. 3.1-3.4

Defense Meteorological Satellite 

Program (DMSP)

Mapping sea ice with 

passive microwave.

Available through 2017. 3.1-3.4

NASA Earth Observing Satellites Detailed studies of sea ice, 

clouds, and other Arctic 

parameters. 

Many are past design life. 3.1-3.4

Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Next-generation weather 

satellite.

SUOMI-NPP has planned 

operational life to 2017; 

other satellites are in 

planning stages.

3.1-3.4

USGS Landsat-5 and -7 Agriculture, geology, 

forestry, regional planning, 

mapping, global change 

research, emergency 

response and disaster 

relief, education. 

Landsat-5 launched in 1984 

and still in operation, but 

data acquisition limited by 

an electronics problem. 

Landsat-7 launched in 

1999 and still in operation. 

Minimum design life of 5 

years.

3.1-3.4

SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) Sea ice and glacier 

geophysics and mapping; 

Marine transportation 

support; Oceanography; 

Mapping—vegetation, 

geology, topography.

No U.S. SAR instruments 

available. Foreign SAR data 

(e.g., RADARSAT, TerraSAR-X, 

COSMO SkyMed) are 

available for purchase.

3.1-3.4

Satellites planned for launch by 2017

USGS/NASA LandSat Data Continuity 

Mission (LDCM)

Agriculture, geology, 

forestry, regional planning, 

mapping, global change 

research, emergency 

response and disaster 

relief, education.

Launch in 2013. 3.1-3.4

NASA Global Precipitation 

Measurement (GPM)

Measure snowfall and 

heavy rain.

Launch in 2014; Limited 

footprint over polar 

regions.

3.3

NASA/DLR (Germany) Gravity Recovery 

and Climate Experiment (GRACE) 

follow-on

Arctic oceanography, 

changes in ice mass, 

terrestrial water storage.

Launch in 2017. 3.1-3.4

NASA Soil Moisture Active Passive 

(SMAP)

Soil moisture, freeze thaw 

patterns, and potentially 

sea-ice mapping.

Launch in 2015. 3.1-3.4

NASA ICESat 2 Altimetry over land and 

sea ice to measure changes 

in thickness.

Launch in 2016. 3.1-3.4
C HAPTER 4: RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

★ 81 ★

INFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Aircraft

Piloted aircraft

P-3 (NASA) Two long-range survey 

aircraft that can be 

outfitted with a variety 

of instruments. Based at 

NASA Wallops. Currently 

used for study of Arctic sea 

ice and land ice, but has 

applications to many areas 

of Arctic science. 

Available through 2017. 3.1, 3.4

DC-8 (NASA) One long-range survey 

aircraft that can be 

outfitted with a variety 

of instruments Based at 

NASA Dryden. Currently 

used for study of Arctic sea 

ice and land ice, but has 

applications to many areas 

of Arctic science.

Available until 2014, when 

the aircraft requires major 

refurbishment.

3.1, 3.3, 3.4

Gulfstream-V (NSF/NCAR) One long-range, highaltitude aircraft for 

study of Chemistry 

and Climate, Chemical 

Cycles, Air Quality, 

Mesoscale Weather, Upper 

Troposphere and Lower 

Stratosphere.

Available through 2017. 3.3

LC130 (NSF) Eight ski-equipped heavylift aircraft for snow and ice 

landings to support field 

operations in Greenland. 

Based at Stratton Air Base. 

Available through 2017. Indirectly 3.2, 

3.3, 3.4

C130Q (NSF/NCAR)

C130 (USCG)

One long-range, highaltitude aircraft with 

standard thermodynamic, 

microphysics and radiation 

sensors, and ability to carry 

a wide variety of scientific 

payloads.

Multiple aircraft 

supporting Homeland 

Security missions, 

maritime/Arctic domain 

awareness, and testing 

capabilities of personnel 

and equipment. Scientists 

and scientific instruments 

are also accommodated. 

Based at Coast Guard Air 

Station Kodiak. 

Available through 2017.

Available through 2017.

3.3

3.1, 3.3, 3.4
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 82 ★

INFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Twin Otter NOAA. Four aircraft in 

the fleet. In the Arctic, 

aircraft are used for 

marine mammal surveys 

in the Bering, Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas.

Available through 2017. 3.1

Small aircraft USFWS (DOI) annually 

contracts light aircraft for 

fish surveys.

3.2

Unpiloted aircraft

Global Hawk (NASA and NOAA) Multiple aircraft 

supporting atmospheric 

measurements from high 

altitude (65,000 feet). 

Based at NASA Dryden.

Available through 2017. 

Two aircraft are operational 

for research, others could 

be made available.

3.1, 3.3, 3.4

Ikhana (NASA) One aircraft being 

developed for sea ice 

and oceanographic 

measurements, including 

buoy drop capability. 

Based at NASA Dryden.

In development for 

availability in 2013; 

availability beyond 2013 

dependent on research 

use.

3.1, 3.4

Other unpiloted aerial vehicles Various medium and 

small UAS and facilities 

are being developed for 

physical, chemical, and 

biological measurements 

by DOE, NOAA and NSF. 

DOE is developing a UAS 

operations facility at 

Oliktok (Alaska) site by 

mid-2012.

Available through 2012.

Ocean-based

Icebreakers Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean 

and atmosphere; 

Marine geophysics and 

bathymetry.

The U.S. Coast Guard has 

three polar icebreakers: 

Healy, Polar Star, Polar 

Sea. Healy remains active 

with an expected service 

life to 2030. Polar Star is 

undergoing an extensive 

overhaul intended to 

lengthen its service life to 

approximately 2020-2021 

and is expected to be back 

in service in FY 2013. It is

expected that Polar Sea will 

be decommissioned within 

the year. 

3.1, 3.3, 3.4

Ice-capable research vessels Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean 

and atmosphere; 

Marine geophysics and 

bathymetry.

The UNOLS vessel R.V.

Sikuliaq is scheduled to be

available for research in

early 2014.

3.1, 3.3, 3.4
C HAPTER 4: RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

★ 83 ★

INFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Other U.S. research and survey vessels Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean 

and atmosphere; 

Marine geophysics and 

bathymetry.

The UNOLS vessel R.V.

Marcus G. Langseth

supported Arctic Ocean 

geophysical research 

in summer 2011, 

demonstrating potential 

for future use of non-ice 

strengthened UNOLS 

vessels.

NOAA seasonally 

deploys the Oscar Dyson 

(fishery survey class) and 

hydrographic survey 

vessels, Rainier and 

Fairweather.

USFWS (DOI) R.V. Tiglax

operates in Arctic waters 

each summer.

3.1, 3.3, 3.4

Foreign vessels Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean 

and atmosphere; 

Marine geophysics and 

bathymetry.

NOAA annually charters 

the R.V. Khromova from 

Russia to carry out 

the Russian-American 

Long-term Census of the 

Arctic—servicing a Bering 

Strait mooring array and 

observing climate impacts 

on sea ice, ocean conditions, 

and ecosystems.

U.S. researchers regularly 

work from the Canadian 

Coast Guard icebreakers 

CCGS Louis St. Laurent and 

CCGS Wilfred Laurier.

International partners 

(Korea, China, Japan, Russia, 

Canada) use their vessels to 

sample in the Distributed 

Biological Observatory 

(DBO).

3.1, 3.3, 3.4

Submarines Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean 

and atmosphere; 

Marine geophysics and 

bathymetry.

Occasional (1-3/year) 

U.S. Navy Science 

Accommodation Missions 

(SAMs). Also occasional 

(every few years) Royal Navy 

(UK) submarine missions.

3.1, 3.4, 3.5
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 84 ★

INFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Sea ice Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean 

and atmosphere; 

Marine geophysics and 

bathymetry.

Ephemeral facilities that 

are occupied typically for 

periods of weeks to months, 

and less commonly for 1-2 

years. 

3.1, 3.3, 3.4

Field Stations

Toolik Lake, North Slope of Alaska Primarily investigator-led 

biology and long-term 

ecological research.

Operations supported by 

NSF, research supported 

by NSF and others, and 

available through 2017.

3.2, 3.4

Summit, Greenland Primarily investigator-led 

snow and ice geophysics, 

atmospheric science, and 

long-term observing. 

Also host to an emerging 

NOAA Baseline 

Observatory for long-term 

monitoring of atmospheric 

constituents.

Operations supported by 

NSF and NOAA, research 

supported by NSF and 

others, and available 

through 2017.

3.2, 3.3, 3.4

Barrow, Alaska NOAA Baseline 

Observatory for long-term 

monitoring of atmospheric 

constituents.

DOE maintains an 

Atmospheric Radiation 

Measurement (ARM) 

research site at Barrow, 

and a new site at Oliktok, 

Alaska, will be operational 

mid-2013. The Next 

Generation Ecosystem 

Experiment is expected 

to operate at Barrow and 

on the Seward Peninsula, 

Alaska, beginning in 

2012.

Available through 2017. 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 

Tiksi, Russia Primarily atmospheric 

science. 

NSF maintains the 

observatory in cooperation 

with NOAA and the 

Russian Federal Service for 

Hydrometeorology and 

Environmental Monitoring.

3.3, 3.4
C HAPTER 4: RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

★ 85 ★

Table 2. Significant smaller airborne and ocean-based assets and instruments needed to accomplish the 

five-year Arctic research plan. For each infrastructure element, its use, availability, and relevant sections 

of the plan are identified.

INFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Airborne

LIDAR for ice altimetry Sea ice thickness. Land ice 

surface elevation change. 

NASA Goddard provides 

various LIDARs for Arctic 

work for piloted and 

unpiloted aircraft. 

Available through 2017. 3.1, 3.4

Radar, ice penetrating Snow thickness over sea ice. 

Bed maps under land ice. 

Structure of land ice. NASA 

and NSF support various 

institutions that develop 

and operate snow and ice 

radars. 

Available through 2017. 3.1, 3.4

Ocean-based

Sea ice-based autonomous 

observatories (e.g., ice-tethered 

profilers, flux buoys, ice mass balance 

buoys, wave buoys)

Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean and 

atmosphere.

Available, but development 

of new and improved 

sensors continues.

3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 

3.5

Open-ocean autonomous platforms, 

(e.g., buoys, wavegliders, wave buoys)

Physics, chemistry and 

biology of ice, ocean and 

atmosphere.

Available, but development 

of new and improved 

sensors and platforms 

continues.

3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 

3.5

Unmanned underwater vehicles 

(UUV)

Physics, chemistry and 

biology of water; sea-ice 

draft; bathymetry.

Short duration: available.

Long duration: not 

available, but under 

development.

3.1, 3.4, 3.5

Acoustic communication and 

navigation

Command and control, and 

data relay to shore, for UUVs 

and similar platforms.

Not available, but 

technology exists.

3.1, 3.4

Moorings Physics, chemistry and 

biology of water; sea-ice 

draft.

Available, but development 

of new and improved 

sensors continues.

3.1, 3.4, 3.5

Cabled ocean observatories Physics, chemistry and 

biology of near-shore 

waters and ice, and realtime transmission of data; 

acoustic communication 

and navigation nodes.

With one exception in 

the Canadian Arctic, not 

available.

3.1, 3.4, 3.5

Other

Navigation (e.g., GPS) and 

communication tools (e.g., radios)

Technological innovations 

to enhance the collection of 

indigenous observations.

Available, but not widely 

distributed specifically 

for research-related 

observations.

3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 

3.6, 3.7
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 86 ★

Table 3.Cyberinfrastructure needs for the five-year Arctic research plan. For each element, its use, 

availability, and relevant sections of the plan are identified.

CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Broadband communications 

and Internet connectivity

Essential components of 

cyberinfrastructure for research 

and education.

Broadband communications 

and connections to the Internet 

remain a challenge in large 

areas of the Arctic, thus placing 

limits on movement of and 

access to data and information, 

and education and outreach 

opportunities for northern 

residents.

Applies to all 

sections.

Virtual research networks Facilitate online communication, 

collaboration and scientific 

discovery among researchers. 

The NSF Research Coordination 

Network (RCN) Program 

addresses the need for the 

development of virtual research 

networks. The DOD-funded 

Arctic Collaborative Environment 

(ACE) potentially offers a similar 

capability, with an emphasis on 

Web-based visualization, analysis 

and interpretation of diverse 

datasets.

Applies to all 

sections.

Data archiving Long-term data curation and 

distribution services.

Available for many data sets, 

e.g., NASA EOSDIS, NOAA 

National Data Centers (NGDC, 

NODC, NCDC), DOI/USGS EROS 

Center, DOE ARM and NGEE data 

archives. Arctic-relevant data 

from global and regional model 

simulations (e.g., Earth System 

Grid Federation).

NSF Division of Arctic Sciences 

funds the development of 

Advanced Cooperative Arctic 

Data and Information System 

(ACADIS) for research data and 

Exchange for Local Observations 

and Knowledge (ELOKA) 

in the Arctic for traditional 

knowledge. 

Inter-operability remains a 

challenge. Human subjects 

data and traditional knowledge 

require special handling due 

to privacy and data ownership 

concerns.

Applies to all 

sections.
C HAPTER 4: RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

★ 87 ★

CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE USE AVAILABILITY SECTION

Data standards Adherence to standards from 

the moment data are acquired 

makes possible inter-operability 

of archives, data discovery, 

analysis and integration, and 

derived product development.

Data standards are in widespread 

use, but are not necessarily 

uniform; different standards 

are used by different disciplines 

and research communities. 

Integrated, multi-disciplinary 

data standards will be needed 

for those archives that curate 

and distribute diverse datasets. 

As it continues to take on a 

greater role in responsible data 

and information management, 

the scientific community is 

developing and adopting 

data standards in consultation 

with data managers. The NSF 

Coordination Networks (RCN) 

program encourages RCNs 

that will develop community 

standards for data and 

meta-data.

Applies to all 

sections.

Data preparation and 

processing

QA/QC, preparation of data 

documentation, metadata 

profiles and data files, and 

placement in archives.

Accomplished with varying 

degrees of quality and success. 

There is growing recognition that 

research data must be properly 

processed and archived. NSF 

data policy provides guidance, 

requirements, standards. 

Applies to all 

sections.

Data agreements and access Facilitate free and open data 

sharing and exchange nationally 

and internationally.

In the United States, data are 

generally freely and openly 

available, but delays can 

occur between acquisition 

and availability in archives. 

Internationally, the situation is 

more variable; some countries 

charge fees and some do not 

release data.

Applies to all 

sections.

Data exfiltration Timely transfer of data from 

instruments in the field to people 

for data processing.

Time varies according to 

circumstances. There is 

increasing use of satellite 

communications, e.g., Iridium, 

for transfer from remote surface 

instruments. Not available 

for instruments below the 

surface leading to delays in 

data recovery and subsequent 

broader availability. Broadband 

communications, including 

microwave-enabled broadband, 

remain a challenge in the 

Arctic—see also ‘Broadband 

communications and Internet 

connectivity’.

Applies to all 

sections.

★ 89 ★

CRON

Acronym Full Name

A-CADIS Advanced Cooperative Arctic Data Information Service

ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

ADIWG Alaska Data Integration Working Group

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AeroCan AERosol CANada

AERONET Aerosol Robotic Network

AIP Arctic Investigations Program

AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sensor

AMAP Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program working group

ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 

AOMIP Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project

AON Arctic Observing Network

AOOS Alaska Ocean Observing System

ARCPAC Aerosol, Radiation, and Cloud Processes Affecting Arctic Climate

ARCTAS Arctic Research on the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites

ARCUS Arctic Research Consortium of the United States

ARM Atmospheric Radiation Measurement

ARPA Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BSSN Bering Sea Sub-Network

CADIS Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service

CAFF Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna working group

CALIOP Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarisation

CANHR Center for Alaska Native Health Research

CBMP Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program

CCGS Canadian Coast Guard Ship

CCIN Canadian Cryospheric Information Network
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 90 ★

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CESM Community Earth System Model

CLIVAR World Climate Research Programme’s Climate Variability and Predictability Program

COBRE Center for Biomedical Research Excellence (University of Alaska)

CSA Canadian Space Agency

DBO Distributed Biological Observatory 

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DoEd Department of Education

DOI Department of the Interior

DOS Department of State

DOT Department of Transportation

EALÁT Reindeer Herders Vulnerability Network Study

EC Environment Canada

ELOKA Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge

EOSDIS Earth Observing System Data and Information System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPPR Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group

EROS Earth Resources Observation and Science

ESA European Space Agency

ESMF Earth System Modeling Framework

ESMs Earth System Models

FMI Finnish Meteorological Institute

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GAO Government Accountability Office

GCMs General Circulation Models
CRON

★ 91 ★

GINA Geographic Information Network (University of Alaska)

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GPS Global Positioning System

GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment

GRISO Greenland Ice Sheet and Ocean working group

IARPC Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee 

IASOA International Arctic System for Observing the Atmosphere

ICARP II Second International Conference on Arctic Research Planning

ICESat Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite

ICS International Circumpolar Surveillance 

IHS Indian Health Service

INBRE Institutional Development Award for Biomedical Research Excellence

INTERACT International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic

IOM Institute of Medicine

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPCC AR4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report

IPY International Polar Year

ISDAC Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign 

JPSS-1 Joint Polar Satellite System-1

LCCs Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

LIDAR Light Detection And Ranging

LTER Long Term Ecological Research

MISR Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer

MIZOPEX Marginal Ice Zone Observations and Processes Experiment

MMC Marine Mammal Commission

MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NCMHD National Center for Minority Health and Disparities

NEH National Endowment for the Humanities 
ARCTIC RESEARCH PLAN: FY2013–2017

★ 92 ★

NGDC National Geophysical Data Center

NGEE Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NMFS-AFSC National Marine Fisheries Service—Alaska Fisheries Science Center

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NODC National Oceanographic Data Center 

NPP National Polar-orbiting Partnership

NPS National Park Service

NSF National Science Foundation

NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center

NSSI North Slope Science Initiative

NWS National Weather Service

ONR Office of Naval Research

PAG Pacific Arctic Group

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PI Principal Investigator

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RADARSAT Radar Satellite

RSV Respiratory Syncytial Virus

RV Research Vessel

SAON Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SDWG Sustainable Development Working Group

SEARCH Study of Environmental Arctic Change 

SEER Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results

SI Smithsonian Institution

SIKU Sea Ice Knowledge and Use
★ 93 ★

SLCFs Short-lived Climate Forcers 

SMAP Soil Moisture Active Passive

SS Sea Surface

SSH Sea Surface Height

SST Sea Surface Temperature

SWIPA Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic

TES Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer

UAS Unpiloted Aerial Systems 

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UNOLS University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System

USARC United States Arctic Research Commission 

USCG United States Coast Guard

USGS United States Geological Survey

UUV Unmanned Underwater Vehicle

VIIRS Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite

WCRP World Climate Research Program

WMO World Meteorological Organization

C HAPT ER 5: ACRONYMS

★ 95 ★

Acknowledgements

The Arctic Research Commission provided important input and support for the development of this 

plan. Kate Moran was instrumental in bringing the team together, and she drafted the first outline of 

the plan. The plan was enhanced considerably by discussion with and review by the Governor’s Office, 

State of Alaska; Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska; Mayor’s Office, North Slope Borough, 

Alaska; Mayor’s Office, Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska; Alaska Federation of Natives; Audubon Alaska; 

Barrow Arctic Science Consortium; Geological Survey of Canada; Indigenous People’s Council for Marine 

Mammals, Alaska; Oceana; Ocean Conservancy; Pew Environmental Group; Science Steering Committee 

of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change; and Von Braun Center for Science & Innovation. The plan 

was strengthened considerably by submissions from the U.S. CLIVAR Working Group on Greenland 

Iceland Sheet-Ocean Interactions.

A great many colleagues contributed ideas that improved the plan including Lilian Na’ia Alessa, Greg 

Balogh, Robert Bindshadler, Hajo Eicken, Kelly Falkner, John Farrell, Patrick Heimbach, Tim Holder, Ian 

Joughin, Jack Kaye, Tim Killeen, Marty Kress, Ronald Kwok, Molly McCammon, Richard Merrick, Eric Miller, 

Thomas Neumann, Sophie Nowicki, John Ogren, Steve Okkonen, Karen Remick, Eric Rignot, Piers Sellers, 

Glenn Sheehan, Matthew Shupe, Neil Swanberg, Mead Treadwell, Dave Turner, and William Wiseman.

Sara Bowden adeptly kept the writing team on track and shepherded the plan through many drafts. 

Leslie Fink, Neysa Call, and Becky Fried provided expert editing. Abby Graefe organized the consideration 

of public comments and helped immeasurably with the penultimate draft.