Managing

for the Future

in a Rapidly Changing Arctic

A Report to the Pr esident

Interagency Working Group on Coordination of 

Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska

Chair: David J. Hayes 

Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior

Managing for the Future

in a Rapidly Changing Arctic

A Report to the President

Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development 

and Permitting in Alaska 

Chair 

David J. Hayes

Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior

Lead Authors

Joel P. Clement (Department of the Interior)

John L. Bengtson (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Brendan P. Kelly (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy)

March 2013

This report has been prepared with the active consultation and assistance of:

Arctic Research Commission (Chair: Fran Ulmer) and 

National Ocean Council (Co-Chairs: John Holdren and Nancy Sutley)

In addition, this report has been coordinated with the National Security Staff, the Domestic Policy Council, the Council on Environmental 

Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Economic Council, and representatives from relevant federal departments 

and agencies.

Tundra landscape on the Seward Peninsula (credit: K. Hill, National Park Service) 

Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing Arctic
ii

Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing Arctic

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary 1

Chapter 1: Introduction 4

1.1. Background of this report 5

1.2. Geographic scope 7

Chapter 2: Our changing Arctic 8

2.1. Environmental trends 8

Climate 8

Marine ecosystems 9

Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems 13

2.2. Cultural and social trends 14

Subsistence way of life 14

Historic and archeological resources 15

2.3. Economic trends 15

Oil and gas 16

Renewable energy 16

Mining 17

Commercial shipping 17

Commercial fisheries 18

Tourism 18

2.4. Infrastructure trends 18

Oil and gas 18

Roads 19

Marine shipping and support 19

Aviation infrastructure and services 19

Weather and sea ice forecasts 19

Space weather forecasts 20

Mapping 20

Coastal erosion and rural communities 20

Emergency preparedness and response 20

Arctic access 21

Communications 21

Chapter 3: Visions and goals for the U.S. Arctic 22

3.1. Industrial and commercial stakeholders 22

Oil and gas 22

Renewable energy 22

Mining 22

Shipping 23

Commercial fisheries 25

Tourism 25

3.2. State of Alaska 25

3.3.Tribal governments and Alaska Native Organizations 26

Subsistence way of life 27

Tribal consultation 27

Traditional knowledge 27

Ecosystem-based management 27

Economic development 27

Environmental protection 30

3.4. Municipal governments 30

Economic development 30

Emergency preparedness and response 30

Shipping 30

Food security 30

Community infrastructure 30

Partnerships 30

Scientific research 30

3.5. Conservation organizations 31

3.6. Federal Government 32

Science-based decision-making 32

Develop natural resources in an environmentally 

and culturally sensitive manner 33

Support development of adequate infrastructure 33

Improve communications 34

3.7. Comparing future visions and goals 34

Chapter 4: Toward an integrated, 

science-based approach to Arctic management 38

4.1. Institutional challenges 38

4.2. Promising approaches 41

Local and regional efforts 41

Federal efforts 44

International efforts 44

4.3. Integrating Arctic management 45

4.4. Recommendations 46

4.5. Conclusion 47

References 48

Appendix I. Arctic Science Portal 54

Appendix II. Preparing this report 56

Suggested citation: Clement, J. P., J. L. Bengtson, and B. P. Kelly. 2013. Managing for the future in a rapidly changing Arctic. 

A report to the President. Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska 

(D. J. Hayes, Chair), Washington, D.C., 59 p.
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Arctic Nation

The United States is an Arctic nation, one of only eight such nations worldwide that are responsible for the stewardship of a region 

undergoing dramatic environmental, social, and economic changes. The implications of these changes demand a fresh look at how the 

Federal Government and its partners address management challenges in the region. In consultation with the National Ocean Council, the National Security Staff, and the Arctic Research Commission, the Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic 

Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska (Alaska Interagency Working Group) initiated this report to describe these challenges as 

they relate to the management of natural resources in the U.S. Arctic. The report presents recommendations for advancing a common 

management approach that provides coordinated, forward-thinking solutions.

Change and Uncertainty

The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth, bringing dramatic reductions in sea ice extent, altered weather, and 

thawing permafrost. Implications of these changes include rapid coastal erosion threatening villages and facilities, loss of wildlife habitat, 

ecosystem instability, increased greenhouse-gas emissions from melting permafrost, and unpredictable impacts on subsistence activities 

and critical social needs.

In addition to elevating the already high level of uncertainty associated with resource management in the region, changes such as reduced sea ice are increasing interest in economic opportunities such as offshore oil and gas development and increased shipping through 

the region. The likelihood of increased human activity in this environmentally sensitive region has implications for managing a U.S. 

Arctic that currently lacks much of the costly infrastructure necessary to monitor and control the impacts of such activities.

Perspectives and Expectations

In the U.S. Arctic, more than 20 federal agencies have responsibilities that include resource management, scientific research, homeland security, emergency preparedness and response, maritime and aeronautical safety, and support to communities. Many partners in the region 

work closely with these agencies to achieve a wide range of management goals; these partners include state agencies, tribal governments 

and Alaska Native organizations, municipal governments, industrial and commercial stakeholders, and conservation organizations.

While the perspectives of these partners vary on specific objectives for the region, particularly regarding the appropriate extent of development, there is broad interest in supporting stable economies, thriving cultures, and sustainable ecosystems in the U.S. Arctic. Among 

the stakeholder concerns are bureaucratic processes that require engagement at many levels and which can burden stakeholders and 

communities. Partners in the U.S. Arctic want a framework for more inclusive, efficient, and transparent engagement that does not add 

unnecessary layers of bureaucratic process.

Caribou on the Arctic coastal plain (credit: Dept. of the Interior) 

Executive Summary
Executive Summary

Barriers and Opportunities

The U.S. Arctic is a vast area that is changing rapidly while economic and social expectations are growing. This combination of factors 

is adding stress to a largely balkanized management system already straining to address many competing issues and priorities. The sheer 

number of federal agencies alone presents challenges and underscores the need for a more coordinated approach. That said, however, 

there are many efforts at the local, regional, state, federal, and international levels that endeavor to improve coordination among the region’s stakeholders. These promising approaches can provide a foundation for a more holistic, integrated approach to management in the 

region. In advocating for such an approach, stakeholders strongly urged that it emphasize the following principles:

•	 whole-of-government coordination to improve efficiency and operational certainty;

•	 direct and meaningful partnership with stakeholders;

•	 science-based decision-making focused on ensuring sustainable ecosystems;

•	 adaptive approaches guided by ongoing research and monitoring;

•	 a region-wide planning approach that looks across jurisdictional boundaries; and

•	 improved understanding and consideration of the cumulative impacts of human activities in the region.

Blanket toss (Nalukataq) festival at Wainwright (credit: J. London, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) 

2
Executive Summary

Advancing an Integrated Approach

By incorporating those principles and considering multiple scales and jurisdictions in a more inclusive, transparent approach to management, an “Integrated Arctic Management” approach holds the promise of a broader-based consideration of economic, environmental, 

and cultural sensitivities and trends. The challenge is to improve the way that governments and stakeholders work together to implement 

such an approach without adding unnecessary layers of complexity or organizational overload in the U.S. Arctic. Building upon existing 

models, this report recommends that the U.S. Government:

1.Adopt an Integrated Arctic Management approach when making stewardship and development decisions affecting 

the U.S. Arctic: A commitment to apply the principles of Integrated Arctic Management will advance a common management approach that is resilient and adaptable to the changes taking place in the Arctic. Integrated Arctic Management is a 

science-based, whole-of-government approach to stewardship and planning in the U.S. Arctic that integrates and balances environmental, 

economic, and cultural needs and objectives. It is an adaptive, stakeholder-informed means for looking holistically at impacts and sensitivities 

across the U.S. Arctic and generating sustainable solutions.

2.Ensure ongoing high-level White House leadership on Arctic issues: A new National Strategy for the Arctic Region, 

to be established through the Presidential Policy Directive process, will identify strategic shared priorities for the U.S. Arctic 

region and will provide a framework for Executive Branch decision-making and high-level, government-wide leadership on 

the issues described in this report.

3.Strengthen key partnerships: The State of Alaska and Alaska Native tribal governments and organizations merit special 

partnership arrangements with the Federal Government.

4.Promote better stakeholder engagement: The Federal Government should conduct an assessment of existing means 

through which agencies, key partners, and other stakeholders interact on planning and management issues, with the goal of 

building upon best practices rather than creating new layers of engagement.

5.Coordinate and streamline federal actions: By the end of 2013, the Federal Government should conduct a review of the 

numerous interagency efforts related to the U.S. Arctic, with an eye toward identifying and addressing overlapping missions 

and reducing duplication of effort. In addition, there are several tools and processes already in use in the U.S. Arctic that, with 

increased coordination, can help to advance the Integrated Arctic Management approach to decision-making. These processes 

are described in additional recommendations related to linking science and management, environmental evaluations, important ecological and subsistence areas, scenario planning, and international coordination.

This report is a call to action on a pressing issue of national importance. The cultural, ecological, and economic costs of failing to 

adapt and strengthen management approaches in the face of rapid change are unacceptable. Our challenge is to apply the principles of 

Integrated Arctic Management to today’s decisions and to those that lie ahead in our shared future as an Arctic nation.

3

Construction of subsea pipelines in the Beaufort Sea (credit: D. Hinnah, Dept. of Transportation) 
The United States is an Arctic nation, one of only eight such 

nations worldwide that are responsible for the stewardship of a 

circumpolar region experiencing rapid and transformative physical, ecological, economic, and cultural changes. Arctic sea ice and 

glaciers are rapidly diminishing; weather is changing; coastlines 

are eroding; oceans and seas are becoming more acidic; species are 

increasingly threatened; and ecosystems are changing faster than 

our ability to track such shifts. As multi-year sea ice recedes and 

Arctic marine areas become more readily accessible, the region 

has become increasingly attractive for resource extraction and 

maritime traffic. At the same time, critical cultural and social 

needs, such as food security, are at risk, and onshore infrastructure 

is deteriorating along with the permafrost upon which it sits.

The Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic 

Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska (the Alaska 

Interagency Working Group), the Arctic Research Commission, and 

the National Ocean Council recognize that the management, 

safety, and security challenges posed by these changes are significant. Charged with facilitating safe, responsible, and efficient 

development of conventional and renewable energy resources in 

Alaska, the Alaska Interagency Working Group has been tasked 

with helping agencies make sound decisions that take into account 

economic development interests and needs, protection of human 

health and the environment, and the interests of indigenous 

populations. 

The Alaska Interagency Working Group has had considerable 

success in facilitating more coordinated and better decision-making 

in the Arctic. More must be done, however, on a government-wide 

basis, to better integrate the development and conservation 

strategies that are pursued by a variety of federal, state, and local 

governments in this rapidly changing region. To adapt to these 

changes, the United States and its partners must develop a 

common management approach that can advance the shared 

goal of sound, forward-looking decision-making across all levels 

of government.

Improving coordination and integrating all of these values in a 

common management framework is no small task. Marine and 

terrestrial areas pose distinct and separate management challenges, 

and there are over 20 federal agencies with domestic Arctic-related 

missions that include promoting safety; permitting commercial 

activities and energy development; conserving fauna, flora, and 

ecosystems; assuring clean air and water; and protecting cultural 

resources and heritage. Increasing international interest in the 

Arctic draws the Departments of Defense and State into these 

otherwise largely domestic discussions as well. In addition to federal agencies, there are many state, tribal, borough (county), and 

municipal governments and agencies striving to achieve multiple 

economic, ecological, and cultural objectives. 

Advancing a more coordinated, forward-thinking and inclusive 

management approach across all major sectors is challenged by the 

wide diversity of stakeholder interests and missions. In particular, 

those who live in the Arctic depend upon the services provided 

by the region’s ecosystems. Alaska Natives, in particular, face 

uncertainty not only in terms of food and water security but also 

in maintaining thousands of years of cultural traditions. Given the 

many interdependencies between humans and the environment 

in the Arctic, new approaches must not only be precautionary and 

guided by the needs of the ecosystems upon which many Alaska 

residents depend, but must also acknowledge the role of economic 

development in helping to meet critical social needs.

Chapter 1: 

 Introduction

The U.S. Arctic is undergoing dramatic environmental, social, and economic changes. The implications of these changes 

demand a fresh look at how the Federal Government and its partners address management challenges in the region.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction 
5

Common ground can be found, however, and existing models 

offer science-based approaches to balancing competing objectives. 

Some of these models and approaches are already being explored 

or applied in U.S. Arctic marine and terrestrial environments by 

agencies and groups with extensive responsibilities in the Arctic, 

such as the Department of the Interior and its Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement, and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; 

the Department of Commerce and its National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration; State of Alaska agencies; municipal and tribal governments; Alaska Native organizations; and 

interagency or international groups such as the National Ocean 

Council and the Arctic Council.

This report, which focuses on the portions of the Arctic that 

are within U.S. jurisdiction, seeks to build upon those efforts 

by exploring common management approaches to address this 

rapidly changing region. To lay a foundation for that discussion, 

Chapter 2 describes observed and predicted trends for the 

ecosystems, economies, and communities of the U.S. Arctic, 

with additional information on anticipated infrastructural needs 

in this transforming region. Chapter 3 explores and summarizes 

the goals and visions of the region’s many stakeholders as 

expressed during the preparation of this report. Chapter 4 

summarizes the challenges faced in managing competing 

objectives in a changing environment and provides guidance 

and principles for navigating those challenges. Chapter 4 closes 

by suggesting several steps that might be taken to develop a 

common management approach—which this report terms 

“Integrated Arctic Management”—that holds the promise of a 

broader-based and more consistent integration of development 

and conservation strategies, taking into account the values and 

interests of all key stakeholders in the Arctic.

1.1. | Background of this Report

President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13580 on July 

12, 2011, establishing the Alaska Interagency Working Group. 

The Executive Order acknowledged that federal agencies have 

many interdependent authorities and responsibilities related to 

energy development in Alaska. The Working Group was tasked 

with facilitating the coordination of relevant agency reviews, 

thereby enabling a more orderly, efficient, and informed approach 

to permitting and managing renewable and conventional energy 

projects in Alaska. 

Serpentine river near Shishmaref Inlet (credit: R.A. Winfree, National Park Service)

Polar bear on a barrier island near Kaktovik 

(credit: Fish and Wildlife Service)

As the Alaska Interagency Working Group took on the task of 

coordinating project reviews and approvals in the energy sector—

the primary commercial sector that is operating in the U.S. 

Arctic—two systemic challenges emerged. First, it became clear 

that scientific information and data relevant to U.S. Arctic decisions can be difficult to access, and it is not clear that the scientific 

agenda for the U.S. Arctic adequately serves the informational 

needs of decision-makers.

Second, as the Alaska Interagency Working Group reviewed permits for individual energy projects in the U.S. Arctic, it became 

apparent that the group could play a constructive role in advancing an overarching, Arctic-wide perspective on environmental 

and cultural issues, as well as a shared understanding of potential 

infrastructural needs. Such a perspective can help decision-makers 

exercise their authorities within a broader context that considers a 

range of environmental, social, and cultural needs—including the 

needs and aspirations of Alaska Natives, rural residents, and their 

local political leadership. 

Other interagency groups support similar objectives. The 

National Ocean Council has identified many of the same issues 

for the marine portion of the U.S. Arctic, while the Arctic 

Research Commission and others have noted these issues for 

both marine and terrestrial areas. In March 2012, the Alaska 

Chapter 1: Introduction 
Interagency Working Group teamed up with the National Ocean 

Council to jointly appoint Joel Clement of the Department of 

the Interior and Brendan Kelly of the White House’s Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (representing the National Ocean 

Council) to begin developing an integrated approach to addressing and managing resources in the marine, terrestrial, and coastal 

areas of the U.S. Arctic. 

In the summer of 2012, following interactions with the National 

Security Staff, the National Ocean Council, the Arctic Research 

Commission, and other relevant entities, the Alaska Interagency 

Working Group initiated the preparation of this Report to the 

President to address in more depth the two systemic issues 

noted above. 

With regard to the first subject—improved access to scientific 

information on the Arctic—Fran Ulmer, Chair of the Arctic 

Research Commission, agreed to take the lead and, as stated 

in a memo from Interior Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes to 

White House officials on July 30, 2012, establish a partnership 

between the Commission and the Alaska Interagency Working 

Group to address these important scientific data needs. As an 

initial step, the Commission has developed a web portal that 

aggregates a broad array of links to other websites where Arctic 

information is publicly available. The site is designed to expand 

and improve over time with additional contributions of scientific 

information from the user community. Appendix I describes the 

Commission’s efforts thus far.

With regard to the second subject—the need for a broader 

context within which to make management decisions about 

activities in the U.S. Arctic—the Alaska Interagency Working 

Group took the lead in preparing this Report to the President, 

working in collaboration with the National Ocean Council and 

several White House offices. This report provides a high-level 

review of key ecological processes and trends, cultural considerations, and long-term commercial needs and trends in the Arctic, 

with special emphasis on the following three areas:

•	 ecologically and culturally important areas, biota 

and processes, natural resources, and key drivers of 

environmental changes in the U.S. Arctic across agency 

jurisdictions and boundaries;

•	 anthropogenic, environmental, and climatological 

trends that could affect these resources over time; and

•	 commercial, societal, and governmental needs and 

trends that cut across agency jurisdictions, boundaries, 

and sectors such as energy, transportation, shipping, 

and tourism that could lead to future infrastructurerelated needs in the U.S. Arctic.

In undertaking this high-level review, this report underscores the 

importance of developing a broader understanding of alternatives 

for the future of the U.S. Arctic so that today’s decisions support 

tomorrow’s needs and aspirations for the region. In particular, 

this report begins to lay the foundation for developing and 

applying a common management approach to making important 

natural resource development decisions in the U.S. Arctic. The 

goal of such an approach is to promote ecological, cultural, and 

economic sustainability by bringing federal agency efforts into 

greater strategic alignment with each other, with the efforts of 

other key decision-makers, and with the needs of stakeholders in 

the region.

A wide variety of federal, state, tribal, municipal, industry, and 

non-governmental representatives provided substantial input to 

this report (Appendix II). The authors are aware that this report 

Caribou calving grounds on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(credit: D. Payer, Fish and Wildlife Service)

Chapter 1: Introduction 

6
7

only scratches the surface of the highly dynamic cross-currents of 

environmental, cultural, and economic trends in the U.S. Arctic, 

and that additional detail, context, and input are needed for 

follow-up actions. This report illustrates the complex issues confronting today’s and tomorrow’s decision-makers in the Arctic, 

and it offers important observations of how to continue to match 

decision-making processes to the special challenges presented by 

the Arctic. 

1.2. | Geographic Scope

Although the U.S. Arctic region recognized by the U.S. 

Government (and defined in the Arctic Research and Policy Act 

of 1984 [ARPA]) encompasses an expansive marine and terrestrial zone, this report focuses solely on the northern portion of 

that area. For the Arctic marine environment, this report focuses 

on the area that extends north from the Bering Strait region into 

the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea (Figure 1.1). These northern seas are characterized by diminishing seasonal sea ice. The 

physical oceanography and ecosystems of the southern Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands differ markedly from those of the northern Bering Sea, and thus are not included in this report.

For the terrestrial environment, this report uses the ecoregional 

boundaries specified by the North Slope Science Initiative and 

the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. These initiatives have developed partnerships, science needs, and research 

strategies aligned with the management needs addressed in this 

report. This geographic scope also captures Alaska’s unique terrestrial areas underlain by continuous permafrost and coincides 

with the boundaries used by the Arctic Council’s Circumpolar 

Biodiversity Monitoring Program.

Figure 1.1. The focus of the geographic area covered in this report is shaded in green. Ecological processes and environmental 

impacts often span zones crossing specific demarcation lines. Therefore, management efforts should consider how decisions may affect 

neighboring regions as well as what external factors may impact the region, such as species movements, transportation challenges, or 

social dimensions. (image: Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks)

Chapter 1: Introduction 
2.1. | Environmental Trends 

The effects of continued climate change are seen throughout 

the U.S. Arctic. Scientific observations and traditional knowledge suggest that this region is moving toward conditions never 

before witnessed. Scientists and observers have documented 

significant changes in sea ice extent, ocean chemistry, coastal 

erosion, precipitation, hydrology, and ecology, as well as extensive thawing of terrestrial ice sheets and permafrost.1

 Climate 

change influences ecosystem structure and function in the shortand long-term, but because these environmental variables are so 

deeply interconnected, it is difficult to predict the status of future 

ecosystems.

Climate: The Arctic is among the fastest-warming regions on 

earth, and the U.S. Arctic has recorded general warming in all 

seasons over the last decade.2, 3 This has brought reductions in 

sea ice and snow, rising sea levels, and rapid permafrost thawing. 

Additional challenges for coastal communities include erosion 

and flooding, ecological and cultural impacts of increased maritime access and development activities, and diminishing habitats 

for some of the ice-dependent species important for subsistence 

harvests, such as polar bears, several species of seals, and walrus.1

Although the average annual air temperature for all of Alaska 

increased by 3 degrees F (1.7 degrees C) during the past 60 years, 

the temperature across the Arctic areas covered by this report 

increased more rapidly.4

 For example, the mean annual temperature on Alaska’s North Slope increased by 4.9 degrees F (2.7 

degrees C) during the same 60-year period, with much of that 

change occurring recently (Figure 2.1). The U.S. Arctic’s average 

annual air temperature is predicted to increase by an additional 4 

degrees F (2.2 degrees C) over the next 30 years.5

 Decadal mean 

temperatures are expected to be consistently warmer than those 

of the late 20th Century, and by the end of the 21st Century the 

growing season in the U.S. Arctic is likely to lengthen by 

20 to 25 days.

Snow and precipitation—Snow cover is important to Arctic 

terrestrial ecosystems for water storage and insulation, but snow 

cover also affects ground-surface temperatures, energy balance, 

Figure 2.1. Air temperatures have been rising over the U.S. 

Arctic, as seen by comparing the change in temperature between 

recent years (2006 to 2011) and average temperatures during 

the last 30 years of the 20th Century (1970 to 1999). Marine 

warming in the Arctic north of Bering Strait is separate from 

the changes in the southern Bering Sea, which has a stronger 

tie to the climate variability of the North Pacific Ocean. 

(image: NOAA/Earth Systems Research Laboratory) 

Chapter 2: 

 Our Changing Arctic

The U.S. Arctic is experiencing rapid, sustained change, and those changes are expected to continue into the coming 

decades due to climate change, resource extraction, and increasing human activities. Terrestrial, freshwater, and marine 

ecosystems as well as broader environmental, cultural, and economic trends in the Arctic will be affected.

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

8
9

hydrology, habitat quality, and permafrost thickness. Snow cover 

strongly influences the thickness and persistence of sea ice and 

provides important denning habitat for threatened polar bears 

and ringed seals. Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in 

June, from 2010 to 2012, was well below average for the previous 

42 years (1967 to 2009).6 In Alaska, the snow-cover duration 

dropped by 15 days during the 30-year period of 1980 to 2009. 

Future snow projections for Alaska generally include an increase 

in annual precipitation, primarily during winter, but by 2050 

snowfall patterns are expected to shift to later dates of first snows, 

earlier snowmelt each year, and a decline in high snowfall days.7, 8

Increasingly delayed sea ice freeze-up in the Arctic Ocean will 

lead to diminished accumulation of snow on sea ice, affecting 

both the seasonal dynamics of sea ice and the animals that depend 

upon that snow cover.9

Northern Hemisphere snow cover has declined by about 10 

percent since the late 1960s, with stronger trends noted since 

the late 1980s.10 Alaska has shown similar trends, with a significant decrease in snow cover extent in May. Generally, the 

disappearance of snow in the spring has occurred about 4 to 

6 days earlier during the past three decades, which appears to 

have been driven by climate warming rather than a decrease in 

winter precipitation.11, 12 

Marine ecosystems: Historically, high-latitude marine 

ecosystems are characterized by extreme light and temperature 

conditions, seasonal ice, relatively simple food webs, and complex 

adaptations to life in cold environments.13 Much of the research 

Near Barrow, the date of spring snow 

melt has advanced by just over a 

week since the mid-1960s.12 

Scientific models predict that 

Alaska’s North Slope will see a 

trend of increasing annual snowfall 

accompanied by a decrease in the 

duration of snow cover.

Figure 2.2. This circumpolar view shows the coverage of Arctic sea ice (white area) on 16 September 2012, the day that the 

National Snow and Ice Data Center identified to be the minimum extent of sea ice coverage reached in 2012. Satellite data reveal 

how this new record low Arctic sea ice extent compares to the average minimum extent over the past 30 years (yellow line). 

(image: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio)

Tundra and hills on the Seward Peninsula (credit: J. London, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 
thus far has focused on species of special status (e.g., certain species 

of fish, seabirds, seals, walrus, whales, and polar bears); those 

which are important for subsistence harvests; or those which may 

be at risk from industrial activities, climate change, or pollutants. 

The scientific understanding of the many ecological linkages 

among freshwater, nearshore, and marine environments across this 

entire region is limited.

A combination of warmer surface water, loss of sea ice, and ocean 

acidification will adversely affect the development and productivity 

of some species, their food supplies, and their natural predators.14, 15 

Changes in Arctic sea ice are already affecting marine ecosystems 

and raising concerns for ice-dependent species, as reflected in 

recent listings of the polar bear, ringed seal, and bearded seal 

as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.16, 17, 18

Spring melt and break-up of sea ice strongly drive phytoplankton 

production near the ocean surface, and the associated energy and 

nutrient dynamics are already affecting Arctic food chains.19 A 20 

percent increase in primary productivity was reported throughout 

the Arctic Ocean from 1998 to 2009, including a 48 percent 

increase for the Chukchi Sea alone.20

Biological productivity, including algal growth under ice, form 

the base of marine food webs, which then support creatures 

higher up the food chain, including zooplankton, fish, birds, and 

mammals. Arctic cod, for example, are the most abundant forage 

fish, and they play a central role in the transfer of energy from 

plankton to higher-level consumers like ringed seals and polar 

bears. As warming alters sea ice conditions, northward shifts in 

the distribution of marine fishes are expected. Such food-web 

impacts would propagate through the ecosystem, from sea-floor 

organisms to their predators, and, ultimately, to the subsistence 

users whose livelihoods largely depend on having reliable access to 

marine mammals, fish, and other wildlife.

Shifts in marine biodiversity will, in part, depend on whether 

species are associated with the open ocean or with seasonal sea ice. 

Species like humpback whales and orcas may benefit from longer 

10

Figure 2.3. The total extent of minimum annual sea coverage 

throughout the entire Arctic has been trending lower during the period 

for which satellite data have been available. Note that the minimum 

sea ice extent for each of the last 6 years has been lower than for any 

previous annual record. (image: National Snow and Ice Data Center)

Figure 2.4. Fifty percent of the old, thick sea ice in the Arctic Ocean disappeared during the past seven years, having been replaced by 

thin, first-year sea ice. The multi-year (and therefore, thick) sea ice added stability to the northern hemisphere’s climate system and provided 

inertia to smooth out the influence of short-term atmospheric changes. The current, thinner fields of sea ice are more mobile and sensitive to 

climate change. (image: updated from Kwok and Untersteiner33) 

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 
11

ice-free periods, though anticipated changes in the food chain due 

to acidification may impact such species adversely.

21, 22 Ice-associated 

seals rely on sea ice for resting, pupping, and molting, and thus 

species like ringed seals may be especially vulnerable to predicted 

changes, as will the polar bears that prey upon them.23, 24, 25

 Sea ice—Seasonal patterns of Arctic sea ice are important 

drivers of change for marine ecosystems and global climate.26

The observed loss of summer sea ice has been more extreme than 

climate models had predicted, and this loss has been accompanied 

by decreases in both ice thickness and the presence of multi-year 

ice.27 Observational data and models forecast a nearly ice-free 

Arctic Ocean before mid-century, and possibly before 2030.27, 28, 29

The summer ice-free region in the U.S. Arctic has increased from 

about 30 to 300 miles (48 to 482 km) away from shore, but satellite data do not account for the presence of small remnants of pack 

ice; in the summer of 2012, such ice delayed oil exploration in 

the Chukchi Sea. Sea ice extent is likely to fluctuate significantly 

from year to year, but an overall downward trend is consistently 

predicted by climate models. The implications of decreasing sea 

ice are serious and include altered global climate patterns, greater 

“While the permafrost of the polar 

latitudes may seem distant and 

disconnected from the daily activities 

of most of us, its potential to alter 

the planet’s habitability when 

destabilized is very real.”

Marcia McNutt, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey

Arctic Report Card 2012: 

Tracking recent environmental changes

(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard) 

“The Arctic is changing in both 

predictable and unpredictable ways, 

so we must expect and prepare 

for surprises.”

Jane Lubchenco 

Administrator, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration

“Multiple observations provide strong 

evidence of widespread, sustained 

changes that are driving the Arctic 

environmental system into a new state.”

Martin Jeffries 

Arctic Science Advisor, 

Office of Naval Research

Permafrost exposed by coastal erosion along the Beaufort Sea 

(credit: K. Dunton, Univ. of Texas)

coastal erosion, increased ocean acidity, alterations in contaminant 

transport and cycling, inundation of coastal areas, and changes in 

marine ecosystem productivity.26, 30, 31, 32 

For the entire circumpolar Arctic, summer sea ice only covers half 

the area that it did at the end of the 20th Century (Figure 2.2). In 

each of the last six years, Arctic sea ice extent in September was 

lower than in any other year since the start of the satellite record 

in 1979. In September 2012, Arctic sea ice extent was 49 percent 

below the average (Figure 2.3). Prior to 2005, most of the Arctic 

Ocean was covered by thick, multi-year ice (i.e., had survived 

one or more summers of melting). Multi-year ice stabilized the 

ice pack, but its 50 percent decline since 2005 has made the ice far 

more susceptible to melting (Figure 2.4).

33

Open water absorbs most of the solar radiation reaching the 

ocean’s surface, while ice reflects that energy. Thus, as sea ice 

cover diminishes, the Arctic Ocean warms further and melts 

still more ice. This “new normal” makes it highly unlikely that 

the U.S. Arctic climate will return to previous conditions in the 

coming decades.

Ocean acidification—The Arctic Ocean is becoming more 

acidic as it absorbs the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide 

building up in the atmosphere. This acidification is especially 

rapid in the Arctic because: (1) cold seawater holds more carbon 

dioxide than warm water; and (2) a decrease in sea ice cover has 

increased the seawater exposure to atmospheric carbon dioxide.34, 35

Ocean acidification will have serious consequences for the 

entire Arctic marine ecosystem.35 High acidity causes decreased 

shell production and impacts other basic biological processes, 

potentially causing a system-wide reorganization of the marine 

ecosystem.34, 36 For example, ocean acidification is thought to 

have detrimental effects on the shell-producing prey of many fish 

species, which will impact subsistence communities and possible 

future commercial fisheries.14 Shifts that benefit some species may 

severely harm others, and the precise nature of ecological change 

will be difficult to predict.

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 
In the U.S. Arctic, a shorter frozen season presents 

challenges for land–based development.

Infrastructure in the fragile wetlands and tundra relies upon ice, snow and frozen ground.

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

""

"

"

" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

" "

"

"

"

""

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

" " "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

!

!

!

!

C A N A D A

64 N

Barrow Barrow

Nome Nome

Prudhoe Bay Prudhoe Bay

Kotzebue Kotzebue

Land-based development

will need to support

offshore leases.

Local residents rely upon

subsistence practices that

need frozen rivers and

adequate snow cover to

access hunting grounds.

Existing infrastructure

Current shipping

Offshore leases

National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska

Infrastructure in the fragile wetlands and tundra relies upon ice, snow, and frozen ground.

Resource extraction requires frozen conditions to create ice roads

to transport heavy equipment and maintain infrastructure.

Impacts of Reduced Snow

and Frozen Ground:

1. Fewer days during which

the oil and gas industry can

traverse frozen ground on 

the North Slope.

2. Limited season and

locations for ice roads.

3. Altered traditional spring

and fall hunting practices

and compromised hunter

safety.

4 to 7 days

8 to 9 days

10 to 15 days

Projected decrease in

length of frozen season

2010s to 2050s

# Days Open

200

175

150

125

Tundra Travel Open Season (Frozen Season) Trends

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

12 
13

Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems: Changes in 

terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems are likely to alter both 

the size and distribution of plant and animal populations.37, 38, 39

Fundamental shifts in biodiversity are expected due to such landscape changes as less lake ice, more permafrost thawing, warming 

of freshwater bodies, saltwater intrusion into freshwater areas, 

and increasing coastal erosion. For example, saltwater intrusion 

has already facilitated the sevenfold increase in the abundance of 

white-fronted geese since 1980, while at the same time shifting 

populations of molting black brant toward the Arctic coast.37, 38, 39 

Warmer temperatures may also lead to increased rain-on-snow 

events during winter, creating a layer of ice that prohibits animals 

like caribou or muskoxen from grazing on the vegetation 

required for their winter survival. Such events have reportedly 

caused large die-offs of muskoxen in Canada and smaller dieoffs of caribou in Alaska.40, 41 Warmer temperatures may also 

allow intrusion of non-native species once blocked by the cold 

temperatures, some of which may cause environmental or 

economic harm.

Figure 2.5. Aerial imagery of tundra and ocean showing the impacts of coastal erosion near Drew Point, AK. Between 1955 

and 2009, approximately 7,000 acres (2,833 hectares) of land were washed into the sea along a 40-mile (64 kilometer) stretch of 

Beaufort Sea coastline that included the portions shown here. The annual rates of coastline erosion were 20, 27, and 55 feet (6, 8, 

and 17 meters) per year, respectively, for the periods 1955 to 1979, 1979 to 2002, and 2002 to 2009. For year-to-year reference, 

note the large lake near the center of the photo. The colored lines in the 2009 image outline the location of the shoreline in the years 

indicated. (photo: Benjamin M. Jones, U.S. Geological Survey)

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

 Permafrost—In the U.S. Arctic, permafrost (perennially frozen 

subsoil) is becoming thinner and retreating as air temperatures 

increase.8, 42 The frost-free season is projected to be one month 

longer than present by the end of the 21st Century, and longer 

thaw periods will hasten permafrost degradation at its southern 

extent.8, 11 Permafrost thawing is already reshaping Arctic and 

near-Arctic landscapes and causing less stable ground in some 

areas.8, 42 Such thawing may compromise containment of contaminants in landfills, sewage lagoons, drilling waste pits, and 

tailings ponds, allowing those pollutants to migrate to nearby 

water bodies.43 Thawing permafrost and milder winters are also 

impacting winter road construction, thereby limiting access to 

isolated communities and industrial sites.44 

Permafrost in the Arctic holds a massive amount of carbon, much 

of it in the form of frozen organic matter (four times the amount 

of carbon already released to the atmosphere by human activities). As the permafrost melts, large amounts of carbon dioxide 

and methane may be released, further accelerating atmospheric 

warming. The release of carbon gases from the Arctic by 2020 

may well negate 42 to 88 percent of the planet’s ability to store and 

sequester carbon in vegetation and soils.45
Hydrology—Permafrost thawing will likely impact hydrology, 

surface water availability, and land surface in the U.S. Arctic. As 

shallow permafrost degrades, new pathways will open for surface 

water to drain from the landscape, reducing water availability 

for people and ecosystems. The precise nature of these changes is 

difficult to predict due to expected variability in snow depth, air 

temperatures, timing and amount of rain, and permafrost thawing rates.8

 Northern latitude lakes are already showing a trend 

toward increased duration of open water, earlier ice breakup, 

freezing delays, and reduced ice growth.46, 47

 Erosion—Coastal erosion in the U.S. Arctic is increasing 

due to reduced sea ice, increased wave action, and permafrost 

degradation. Remarkably, the erosion rates of some coastal 

areas along the Beaufort Sea east of Point Barrow have doubled 

over the past half century, from 20 to 45 feet (6 to 14 meters) 

per year (Figure 2.5).

48, 49 The coastline is thus being reshaped, 

with several attendant impacts on residents. Coastal villages, 

property, infrastructure, and livelihoods are being adversely 

affected, and the continued viability of some coastal villages 

is in doubt.48, 49, 50, 51 Erosion and other climate change impacts 

have the potential to increase the cost of maintaining infrastructure in Alaska by over $6 billion in coming decades.52 Shoreline 

fuel storage and delivery systems like pipelines and tanks are also 

threatened.53, 54 Government agencies are preparing inventories of 

coastal areas and facilities whose deterioration from erosion and 

inundation may threaten waters, fish, and wildlife.

Fires—Tundra fires have been rare historically, but they are 

expected to increase under projected climate scenarios.55, 56, 57

While models suggest that Arctic precipitation will increase, 

evapotranspiration and water drainage predictions indicate a 

drier tundra that will be susceptible to more numerous and 

intense tundra fires, releasing carbon and contaminants like 

mercury into the atmosphere.8, 58, 59 

2.2. | Cultural and Social Trends

Traditional ways of life in much of the U.S. Arctic are at risk. 

Alaska Natives face a number of cultural and social challenges 

stemming from climate change as well as from economic and 

industrial development in rural areas.60 Physical impacts to 

villages from erosion, subsidence, floods, and storm surges often 

require emergency responses, infrastructure investments, and in 

some cases even full-scale community relocation.

The subsistence way of life of many Alaska Natives and other 

rural residents relies upon natural resources for food, shelter, 

clothing, transportation, and the maintenance of cultural traditions. While industrial development, new technologies, and 

changing climate all affect locally based practices, reliance on 

natural resources remains high. Deep-seated cultural values of 

family, sharing, traditions, and supportive social networks are 

important to maintain amidst the changing circumstances.

Basic infrastructure is rudimentary or lacking in many U.S. 

Arctic communities. Low population densities over a vast 

geography, high engineering and construction costs, and/or lack 

of financial resources have led to absent or outdated water and 

sewer systems, a lack of passable roads between communities, and 

locally produced electricity that is expensive and lacks a centralized energy grid.

Subsistence way of life: Reliance on subsistence 

approaches—hunting, fishing, and gathering of plants—is 

widespread in the U.S. Arctic. Subsistence harvesting is not 

simply about calories and nutrition; it is culturally significant 

for Alaska Natives and other rural residents. Although economic development and climate change have challenged some 

subsistence practices, local reliance on natural resources and 

traditional ways remains high. 

For example, Alaska Natives in the U.S. Arctic make use of land 

and marine mammals, birds, fish, and plants. Migratory birds like 

white-fronted geese and northern pintail ducks continue to be 

harvested for subsistence. In the North Slope area, total annual 

bird harvests in this region were about 44,000, 45,000, and 

20,000 in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. The western Arctic 

caribou herd is hunted for subsistence at a rate of about 15,000 to 

20,000 animals per year. Fish, including whitefish, Arctic char, 

Arctic cisco, and Arctic cod, are among many species taken by 

Alaska Natives. Bowhead whales, beluga whales, bearded seals, 

ringed seals, spotted seals, walrus, and polar bears have been 

critically important components of the Alaska Native subsistence 

diet and culture for thousands of years. During the last decade, an 

average of 40 bowhead whales was landed annually, and between 

2008 and 2012 Alaska Native subsistence hunters annually harvested thousands of seals and walrus and dozens of polar bears.

Traditional knowledge has proven essential for subsistence 

harvesting and for sustainable management of natural resources. 

In conjunction with scientific investigations, traditional knowledge will continue to provide valuable evidence, assessment, and 

insight into fish, wildlife, and wildlife habitat as subsistence hunters adapt to changing environmental and social circumstances. 

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

14

Collapsing tundra coastline due to permafrost melt and erosion by 

the Beaufort Sea (credit: B. Jones, U.S. Geological Survey)
15

Historic and archeological resources: Alaska holds 

many nationally and globally significant archeological sites, 

historic structures, and traditional cultural properties. This 

legacy bears witness to a record of remarkable achievement: 

the arrival of humans in the western hemisphere over 14,000 

years ago; the development and spread of Eskimo, Aleut, 

Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, and other cultures; and human 

ingenuity and tenacity in a forbidding environment. 

Traditional and historically significant places are essential to the 

practices that transmit culture from one generation to the next. 

These sites, which document a long record of human adaptation 

to environmental change, include camps of pioneering hunters 

from the Ice Age, remains of sod houses, long-abandoned camps 

of prospectors in search of gold, and the graves of pilots from 

World War II. These unique cultural resources derive much of 

their significance from “place.” When conditions change, these 

sites cannot be relocated and still retain the same degree of cultural significance. Environmental consequences of climate change 

and modern development are affecting many of these sensitive 

sites, and that trend is likely to accelerate.

2.3. | Economic Trends

The U.S. Arctic remains a frontier economy; many of the 

products and much of the value of commercial activities derive 

from natural resources and are intended for out-of-state markets. 

Economic activities in the U.S. Arctic are technically challenging and expensive due to the harsh environment and limited 

transportation routes. Despite the challenges, the industrial sector 

operating in the U.S. Arctic has a major impact statewide in 

Alaska, generating, directly and indirectly, thousands of jobs, millions of dollars in personal income, billions of dollars in revenue 

(for federal, state, and local governments), and substantial industry profits.61 Revenue, employment, and personal income from 

these industrial activities can improve the quality of life for local 

residents and support the ability of state and local governments to 

provide public services to communities.

U.S. Arctic industrial investments continue to increase and drive 

infrastructure expansion and modernization. Alaska’s tourism and 

fishing industries also are based on natural resources, and their 

long-term profitability depends on the sustainability of ecosystem 

services. Projected increases in permafrost thawing will further 

restrict land-based resource development, such as onshore oil and 

gas exploration and development, which affects fragile tundra 

landscapes but also depends upon the frozen ground for stability.51 

Traditional Knowledge

Traditional knowledge (TK) refers to a body 

of evolving practical knowledge based on 

observations and personal experience of 

local residents over an extensive, multigenerational time period. TK typically finds 

expression in a specific environmental 

context, as technical mastery or expertise 

that promotes survival and well-being in 

that location and is shared primarily through 

kinship or household networks. 

By definition, TK is local rather than global in 

scope; it favors a dynamic rather than 

rigid approach to understanding; it is based 

on experience rather than innate qualities; and 

it is unevenly accumulated among residents. 

Some residents are more knowledgeable than 

others on specific topics of interest, and such 

expertise usually enjoys wide recognition 

within each community. Equally evident, TK 

involves much more than a mere collection 

of factual observation — it also yields an 

understanding of the landscape and one’s 

place in it that inspires others and anchors 

community values. Fundamentally more 

profound than other popular expressions 

of “citizen science,” TK retains a distinctive 

quality by emphasizing a fundamental sense 

of unity between humans and nature. For this 

reason, decision-making must distinguish 

clearly among three types of knowledge: 

facts (based on observation), inferences 

(based on hypotheses), and values (based on 

longstanding norms and preferences).

Excerpt from BOEM Ocean Science, 

Vol. 9, Issue 2, May/April/June 2012, page 4.

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

“What we now call subsistence 

is not a relic from the past—

a holdover from previous times that will 

inevitably disappear as market conditions 

take over—it continues to be the foundation 

of Alaska Native society and culture.” 

Julie Kitka, President 

Alaska Federation of Natives
Oil and gas: The U.S. Arctic holds large oil, gas, and mineral deposits, and these resources are dominant in the regional 

and state economies. Oil accounts for 98 percent of all natural 

resource revenues collected by the State of Alaska, and about half 

of all jobs in the state are directly or indirectly related to North 

Slope oil production and associated spending.62 Oil production 

has steadily declined since 1988, however, raising concerns about 

the economic sustainability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System 

if daily oil throughput continues to fall. 

 Onshore resources—Recent assessments indicate that significant 

amounts of oil and gas accumulations still exist on land, especially 

in areas like the central North Slope. While extraction on state 

lands in the central North Slope continues, oil reserve estimates 

in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska have been substantially reduced in recent years. Additional oil and gas resources 

may be accessible from shale formations and with increased use of 

advanced recovery technologies. Over the last 30 years, exploration activities have been limited by a 50 percent reduction in the 

number of days the ground was frozen and suitable for travel.63 

Offshore resources—Over 23 billion barrels of technically 

recoverable oil and 108 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable gas are estimated to lie in the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. That represents over 

89 percent of all oil and 82 percent of all natural gas estimated 

for all of Alaska’s OCS.64

Shell Oil Company conducted limited preparatory activities 

for exploratory drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 

2012, although ice encroachment and the failure to obtain 

certification of a required spill containment vessel precluded 

drilling into hydrocarbon zones. Shell Oil Company has 

elected not to continue exploration activities in the 2013 season. 

If Shell Oil Company is able to provide federal authorities with 

assurances that required safety and environmental safeguards are 

in place and functional, the company hopes to continue exploration activities in 2014 and beyond. ConocoPhillips and Statoil also 

hold leases in the Chukchi Sea; ConocoPhillips intends to begin 

exploratory drilling as soon as 2014. Several other companies also 

hold offshore leases in the region and seek permission to conduct seismic testing. The 2012 to 2017 Outer Continental Shelf 

Oil and Gas Leasing Program anticipates that additional lease 

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

16 

Trans Alaska pipeline in winter 

(credit: Dept. of the Interior) 

Concrete Island Drilling System (CIDS) surrounded by sea ice 

(credit: Dept. of the Interior) 

sales could occur in 2016 in the Chukchi Sea and in 2017 in the 

Beaufort Sea. 

Renewable energy: Renewable energy development and 

distribution in the U.S. Arctic is currently limited. Communities 

rely heavily on diesel or natural gas for heat, electricity, and 

transportation, even though heating fuel costs $4 to $10 per 

gallon.65, 66 Statewide, average heating fuel prices have increased 

by 64 percent since 2005, leading local governments to subsidize 

residential heating fuel costs and incentivize small-scale renewable energy integration.67, 68 

Wind energy is currently the most feasible renewable energy 

source for the Arctic, due to strong winds in coastal and mountainous areas. Alaska’s goal is to generate half of the state’s 

electricity from renewable resources by 2025; the Northwest 

Arctic Borough has a goal of 75 percent reliance on local fuel 

sources, both renewable and nonrenewable, by 2030.66 Kotzebue 

and Nome are leading the way in the Arctic with wind turbines 

that have capacities of 2.28 megawatts and can fully power up to 

360 homes in each community.66, 69 Several federal, state, and local 

entities are encouraging rural energy generation via wind turbines 

and solar panels. In addition, the NANA Regional Corporation, 

an Alaska Native association of 11 villages, is planning to expand 

the Kotzebue wind farm and study the potential for wind 

energy in other Northwest Arctic Borough communities. More 

recently, the Department of the Interior initiated a project with 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and several leading 

energy companies to explore potential development of a standardized and reliable small-scale wind-diesel renewable energy system 

for potential siting in small, off-grid U.S. Arctic villages. 
17

Mining: The U.S. Arctic hosts a variety of 

important mineral deposits. Seven large mines 

currently operate statewide in Alaska, and six 

more are in the exploration or permitting phases, 

along with thousands of smaller operations.70 The 

Red Dog Mine, located within the report area 

and the largest in Alaska in terms of production 

and reserves, is processing zinc, lead, and silver 

ore from one of the largest zinc deposits in the 

world. It accounted for 49 percent of Alaska’s 

total non-fuel mineral production in 2010 and 

it has produced ore worth over $1.5 billion.71

Further production of copper and zinc may 

develop from mineral deposits in the southern 

portion of the U.S. Arctic. High gold prices have 

brought increased exploration activity for placer 

gold in Alaska’s northern region in recent years, 

and gold production in 2010 totaled a reported 

2,595 ounces (80,714 grams).71 The U.S. Arctic 

holds considerable coal resources, with North 

Slope basins containing as much known coal as 

the rest of the United States combined.72, 73, 74 

Over 330 billion short tons (299 metric tons) of 

bituminous coal lie within the Colville River 

basin, which constitutes a major part of the 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.75

Arctic mining is both challenging and expensive due to the region’s remote and harsh 

environment, lack of roads, and potentially 

frozen shipping lanes. Nevertheless, exploration and development investment has increased 

in the last few years, driven in part by high 

commodity prices.76

Commercial shipping: Current shipping 

activity in the U.S. Arctic is mostly regional 

and centered on the export of resources and 

the resupply of communities and facilities 

extracting natural resources. Most shipping is 

done with tugs and barges due to the absence 

of deep-water ports in the U.S. Arctic. Oil 

and gas exploration and development continue to be the primary drivers for commercial 

maritime traffic in the region. Successful 

offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction 

ventures will depend heavily on safe marine 

transportation.

Diminishing Arctic sea ice is likely to 

encourage growth of commercial shipping 

via international trans-Arctic routes, though 

the time horizon for such an expansion is 

unclear. These routes may reduce transit distances between Europe and Asia by as much 

as 5,200 miles (8,369 km).77 The Marine 

Exchange of Alaska reports that commercial 

traffic through the U.S. Arctic increased by 

30 percent from 2008 to 2010, though total 

number of transits remains small relative to 

Figure 2.7. The U.S. Arctic Fishery Management Plan Area is defined as all marine 

waters in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, from 3 

nautical miles off the coast of Alaska or its baseline to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) 

offshore, north of Bering Strait, westward to the 1990 U.S./Russia maritime boundary 

line, and eastward to the U.S./Canada maritime boundary. The hatched area shown in the 

figure is provided for illustrative purposes only, and does not include State of Alaska waters 

within 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers) of the coast. The Arctic Fishery Management 

Plan Area (federal waters) is currently closed to commercial fisheries. (image: Scenarios 

Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks)

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

Figure 2.6. Tracks of ship traffic passing through Bering Strait and nearby areas 

during 2011. (image: Marine Exchange of Alaska)
other routes.* Transits through the Bering Strait also increased 

25 percent during the same 2-year period. As recorded by 

the Exchange’s Automatic Identification System, there were 

300 and 333 commercial-vessel transits of the Bering Strait in 

U.S. Arctic waters in 2011 and 2012, respectively, with many 

other vessels transiting west of the maritime boundary with 

Russia (Figure 2.6 shows transits for 2011). Increased traffic in 

the Arctic is leading to a growing use of the Bering Strait and 

U.S. Arctic waters, along with a dependency on the currently 

limited U.S. Arctic support infrastructure. 

Commercial fisheries: Until recently, year-round sea ice 

coverage beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone made 

commercial fishing infeasible in the Arctic Ocean. Although 

there is not yet a concentration of fish species of commercial 

interest in the Arctic Ocean, salmon and other fish may move 

northward as the Arctic warms. Diminishing sea ice may lead 

to the loss of ice-dependent species—such as Arctic cod—from 

large portions of their range in the next few decades, but it will 

lead to a reduction in the level of plankton on the ocean floor, 

favoring pelagic species of fish over bottom-feeders.78 Some 

salmon species (e.g., pink, chum) and cold-tolerant snow crab 

may increase in abundance in U.S. Arctic waters.79

Local fishers report occasional catches of other salmon species 

(chinook, sockeye, and coho), but colonization will depend on 

their ability to successfully reproduce in the perennial small 

spring habitats found in the rivers and streams that drain from 

the Brooks Range and the ability of juvenile fish to survive cold 

marine waters. No northward migration of the current groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea is expected in the next few decades, 

as seasonal ice cover and cold (<36 degrees F [2 degrees C]) 

bottom waters on the Bering Sea shelf still form a barrier to a 

northerly migration by pollock and cod.80

In anticipation of conditions that could lead to commercial 

fishery development in the U.S. Arctic, the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council recommended, and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented, the 

Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic 

Management Area, effectively preventing commercial fisheries 

from developing in federal waters until more information is 

available to support sustainable fisheries there (Figure 2.7).

81

These regulations were made prior to the rise of commercial 

interest in such fisheries to preclude the emergence of 

unregulated or inadequately regulated commercial fishing, which 

could adversely affect ecosystems as well as Arctic residents’ 

subsistence way of life.

Tourism: Tourism in Alaska’s far north has a long history, but 

the total activity remains low compared to tourist visits elsewhere 

in Alaska. Data for 2011 provide an overview: the Arctic accounted 

for 2 percent of Alaska tourist destinations, down from 3 percent 

in 2006, while overnight stays in the region dropped from 2 to 

1 percent of statewide totals. In 2009, direct employment in the 

visitor industry of Arctic Alaska was 200 jobs.82, 83 

Land-based tourism in the U.S. Arctic has grown since the 

1980s, and the opening of the Dalton Highway to Deadhorse 

in 1995 contributed to an increase of overland visitors.84 While 

guided Arctic cultural and wildlife tours remain popular, 

independent travel entering Alaska on the Alaska Highway has 

dropped significantly in the past decade.83 Visitation to National 

Parks, Preserves, and Monuments (Gates of the Arctic, Noatak, 

Kobuk Valley, Bering Land Bridge, Cape Krusenstern) as well as 

in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have remained stable.85, 86 

Marine tourism in the U.S. Arctic has been almost nonexistent 

in the past, and currently only one or two small (about 200 

passengers) cruise ships enter Alaska’s Arctic waters each year.87, 88

It is unknown if diminishing sea ice cover and longer, warmer 

summer seasons will be sufficient to drive an increase in Arctic 

marine tourism in the future.53, 89, 90

2.4. | Infrastructure Trends

Warming conditions in the Arctic strongly affect existing infrastructure as well as the needs and designs of future infrastructure. 

Permafrost thaw can undermine existing roads and buildings 

and, when combined with increased wave action due to reduced 

sea ice, accelerates coastal erosion, destroying or threatening 

shoreline infrastructure. Over time, the cost to mitigate damage 

and to protect, maintain, repair, or replace affected structures 

potentially could be in the billions of dollars.52 

The changing climate presents new challenges, both to existing 

and to new infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic. In an unstable or 

changing Arctic, design and construction of new infrastructure 

will require much higher engineering investments. Potential 

future climate change impacts from thawing permafrost, 

increased flooding, and increased coastal erosion have been 

estimated to add 10 to 20 percent to future costs of public 

infrastructure statewide.51 Where the thawed, unstable ground 

layers above permafrost increase in thickness, the consequences 

for industrial and village infrastructure will increase as the 

frozen foundations of those facilities become less stable.51 

Oil and gas: Alaska’s North Slope oil and gas infrastructure 

includes more than 3,400 wells and approximately 90 drilling 

pads, 260 reserve pits, 13 production centers, 14 support 

facilities, 6 docks and causeways, 5 air strips, 370 miles (595 

km) of roads, and over 430 miles (692 km) of trunk pipelines 

linking up to the 800-mile-long (1,287 km) Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System that stretches from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, 

Alaska.91 Although not yet developed, oil and gas production in 

the Chukchi Sea would have significant infrastructure needs, 

requiring either extensive pipeline construction across over 

200 miles (322 km) of the North Slope or dramatic increases 

in maritime tanker traffic in the region and through the 

Bering Strait. As the challenges associated with Arctic offshore 

drilling and production in environmentally sensitive areas grow 

increasingly complex, government and industry must provide 

new technological solutions to address these complexities and 

enhance spill prevention measures.

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

* “Commercial vessels” consist of landing craft, oil support vessels, drill ships, tugs, cargo ships, cruise ships, government vessels, and tugs. The Exchange does 

not count vessels making round trips to the Prudhoe Bay area supporting drilling operations, private boats, small oil spill response vessels, personnel launches 

operating near shore in support of oil development operations, or other commercial vessels.

18
* The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System is coordinating the establishment of domestic transportation policy to ensure safe and 

secure maritime shipping in the Arctic. On the international front, the Arctic Maritime and Aviation Transportation Infrastructure Initiative builds 

on the work of the Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, which focused on three themes: (1) enhancing Arctic marine safety; (2) 

protecting Arctic people and the environment; and (3) building Arctic marine infrastructure.87

Deadhorse Airport at Prudhoe Bay 

(credit: A. Brower, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) 

Roads: The Dalton Highway, terminating at Deadhorse, 

Alaska, is the only road connecting Alaska’s North Slope to 

southern Alaska and the rest of the North American road 

network. Permanent road construction in the U.S. Arctic is controversial, for both environmental and cultural reasons, as well as 

expensive. Temporary ice roads provide an important transportation option during winter months, though the period during 

which ice roads are passable has shortened due to warming.

Marine shipping and support: Shippers, insurers, and 

government agencies remain concerned that the existing U.S. 

Arctic Marine Transportation System is inadequate to support 

increased marine traffic and projected development activities.* 

Because the coastal waters of northern Alaska are shallow, there 

are limited refuges for ships in distress or deep-draft port facilities 

to handle increases in shipping in the region. 

There are no deep-water ports north of Adak and Unalaska 

in the Aleutian Islands, and few navigational aids exist from 

Kotzebue Sound to the Canadian border. The nearest permanent U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) facilities and vessels for U.S. 

Arctic emergency response and search and rescue are located in 

Anchorage, Kodiak, and Dutch Harbor; these are 730, 920, and 

1,150 miles (1,175; 1,480; 1,850 km), respectively, from Barrow, 

Alaska. Such great distances obviously delay responses for search 

and rescue and response to potential oil spills, although oil production operators are required to maintain response equipment in 

the region during drilling operations. Basic logistics and support 

for such functions are inadequate, and state and federal agencies 

are now exploring solutions to these problems.

Aviation infrastructure and services: The four major 

public airstrips in the U.S. Arctic that support commercial jet 

aircraft are in Deadhorse, Barrow, Kotzebue, and Nome. All 

other communities in this report’s study area are served by gravel 

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

19

runways. The Deadhorse airport has supported oil development 

in the Prudhoe Bay since 1970, and it continues to see a demand 

for additional apron space and lease-lot development. The 

Kotzebue airport has planned development to include runway 

safety area improvements and apron development. While the 

Barrow airport currently is meeting the needs related to oil 

exploration, it may be inadequate to support the transportation 

needs associated with oil production. 

Federal Aviation Administration systems for aeronautical communications, navigation, and surveillance in Alaska are based on 

a combination of ground and satellite technology. The Alaskan 

Satellite Telecommunications Infrastructure is the primary 

carrier for data/traffic for communications, weather information, 

surveillance, and environmental and navigational aids enabling 

air traffic services up to 72 degrees north latitude. The Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system, which supports air 

traffic control and aeronautical operations, should be operational 

for the North Slope of Alaska by March 2014, increasing the 

surveillance coverage for air traffic control. 

Weather and sea ice forecasts: Rapid loss of sea ice 

during the summer will continue to be a major driver of changes 

throughout the Arctic. The loss of sea ice and extreme variability 

in freeze-up and melt dates affect marine access, regional 

weather, global climate, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, 

and coastal communities. Furthermore, severe ocean storm 

conditions due to the lack of sea ice, coupled with complex 

weather and oceanographic hazards, threaten mariner safety in 

the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas and the well-being of 

coastal Alaska communities. The rapid freeze-up in the Chukchi 

Sea in the fall of 2012 and the major storm that caused the 

grounding of the drillship Kulluk near Kodiak Island in the Gulf 

of Alaska on New Year’s Eve 2012, illustrate such dangers.
Weather, ocean and wave, and sea ice forecasting continue to 

be challenges in the Arctic. Despite the availability of accurate 

information and analyses on current sea ice from the National 

Ice Center (jointly operated by NOAA, the Navy, and the Coast 

Guard), better sea ice forecasts are needed. Numerical weather 

prediction models, which also drive short-term sea ice forecasts, 

perform significantly worse in the Arctic region compared to the 

rest of the United States. In fact, the U.S. Arctic region has the 

second-worst global weather verification statistics. The scarcity of 

surface observations in the Arctic exacerbates the forecast challenges. To best address these issues, NOAA has engaged federal, 

foreign, and industry partners to enhance its polar-observing 

satellite and in-situ capabilities with additional satellite imagery 

and surface observations, as well as to develop future ocean, 

atmosphere, and sea-ice-coupled modeling capabilities. 

Space weather forecasts: “Space weather events” manifest 

as solar flares and coronal mass ejections. These events can cause 

significant degradation of high-frequency communications and 

positioning errors with Global Positioning Systems. The Arctic is 

especially vulnerable to space weather events due to its proximity 

to the geomagnetic pole, and impacts are generally stronger and 

longer-lasting than those occurring at lower latitudes. Access to 

accurate forecasts can help reduce risk to most activities in the 

Arctic that depend on precise geolocation and communications, 

such as offshore energy exploration and development activities, 

transpolar flights, search and rescue, marine transportation, and 

recreation. NOAA’s current GOES and POES satellites carry 

instruments that are critical tools for NOAA’s Space Weather 

Prediction Center. Future space weather monitoring will rely 

heavily upon instruments aboard the GOES-R and DSCOVR 

spacecraft once they are launched.

Mapping: Accurate mapping is essential to the responsible 

development of the Arctic, preservation of human life and safety, 

and the advancement of scientific discovery. Accurate positions 

(both horizontal and vertical) of water depths, critical hazards, 

navigation aids, shorelines, water levels, and other features are 

essential for safe navigation. Due to its historical inaccessibility, 

the U.S. Arctic lacks the geodetic and tidal control infrastructure 

currently available to the rest of the Nation. 

Less than one percent of navigationally significant U.S. Arctic 

waters have been surveyed with modern technology for depths 

and navigation hazards.92 Some U.S. Arctic waters were first 

surveyed by Captain James Cook in 1778, and they have not been 

surveyed since.93 The key to safe maritime transportation in an 

ice-free Arctic will be accurate hydrographic and shoreline charting to support safe harbors, navigation, and emergency response 

to disasters, whether natural or manmade. To improve Arctic 

marine navigation, NOAA has begun taking steps to survey and 

update nautical charts for the highest priority areas in the Arctic.

Alaska’s terrestrial elevation (or topographic) map is over 50 

years old, has never met National Map Accuracy Standards, and 

is widely considered grossly inaccurate. To begin addressing this 

infrastructure need, the Department of the Interior and the State 

of Alaska have been working together on the Alaska Mapping 

Initiative to bring Alaska’s terrestrial map into the 21st century. 

Many federal agencies are cooperating in the effort; the Alaska 

Mapping Executive Committee hopes to finish topographic 

mapping of the entire state, including the U.S. Arctic, by 2018. 

A network of seven long-term water-level monitoring stations in 

the U.S. Arctic provides important data for navigation, shoreline 

boundary purposes, and mapping activities.

Coastal erosion and rural communities: Coastal 

erosion rates in the Arctic over the past half century have been 

among the highest in the world.50 This is particularly noteworthy 

because marine waters which have typically remained frozen 

for 9 months of the year are now rapidly trending toward longer 

open-water periods, leading to increased wave action and still 

faster rates of erosion.94 In some locations, erosion rates have 

already doubled since the early 2000s (Figure 2.5).

48, 49

A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report found 

that 86 percent of Alaska’s 213 predominantly Native villages, 

historically situated along rivers and coasts, are now affected 

regularly by floods or erosion, and these impacts are expected to 

be greatly exacerbated by climate change.95 Several Arctic communities in northwest and western Alaska, including Shishmaref, 

Kivalina, and Newtok, have suffered substantial erosion; houses 

and buildings are falling into the sea, and landfills, archeological 

sites, and other infrastructure are being lost (Figure 2.8). 

Sustaining imperiled communities will entail significant financial 

and social costs. For example, while the least socially disruptive 

alternative proposed for Shishmaref is to move the entire community off of its barrier island (Sarichef Island) to the mainland, 

other alternatives include dispersing households from the community to “hub” communities such as Nome or Kotzebue or 

remaining on Sarichef Island and continuing to fight the erosion. 

Emergency preparedness and response: The vast 

geography and limited communications infrastructure in the 

U.S. Arctic significantly lengthen search and rescue and oil spill 

response times and create substantial challenges for federal agencies and other responders. Under current law, the oil industry is 

legally required to provide the capability to respond to any spills 

that may be associated with its operations. Alaska Clean Seas, an 

industry spill-response cooperative, responds to selected areas of 

the Outer Continental Shelf, adjacent shorelines, and the TransAlaska Pipeline System. Oil industry response is overseen by 

limited state and federal assets. 

The Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT), one of thirteen 

Regional Response Teams around the Nation, was established 

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

20

U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy in the Chukchi Sea 

(credit: E.C. Siddon, Univ. of Alaska/NOAA) 
by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It operates under the authority 

of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan to prepare for, and respond to, oil discharges 

and hazardous materials releases for all of Alaska. The ARRT is 

co-chaired by the Coast Guard and Environmental Protection 

Agency and provides federal and state governmental agencies, 

tribal entities, and other stakeholders with a forum to participate 

in pollution preparedness planning as well as a means to support 

coordination during pollution incidents. The ARRT developed 

a Unified Area Contingency Plan for response to oil and 

hazardous substance discharges or releases in Alaska; ten Subarea 

Contingency Plans were developed statewide, including three 

that cover the geographic boundaries in this report. 

In 2011, the eight member-nations of the Arctic Council signed 

the Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Marine 

Search and Rescue in the Arctic. In May 2013, these nations 

intend to sign the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine 

Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic. Both 

agreements represent necessary steps to facilitate international 

cooperation in the event of a search and rescue event or marine 

oil spill incident in the Arctic. Successful implementation of 

these agreements will require appropriate response capabilities 

stationed strategically in the U.S. Arctic. There also is a need for 

more cooperative oil spill response research, development, and 

testing for conditions unique to Arctic environments.

Arctic access: The United States assets that provide physical 

access to the Arctic to conduct domestic federal missions 

include aircraft and ships capable of operating in the cold, harsh 

Figure 2.8. Coastal erosion undermines a building 

at Shishmaref, Alaska, in 2007. (photo: R.A. Winfree, National Park Service)

Chapter 2: Our Changing Arctic 

21

environment. The Coast Guard relies upon mobile assets, such as 

major cutters and seasonal air and communications facilities, to 

meet mission requirements.

Icebreakers—Currently, one medium icebreaker (the USCG 

Cutter Healy) is operating seasonally in the Arctic. The Coast 

Guard is reactivating one of its two heavy icebreakers (the USCG 

Cutter Polar Star) in late 2013. Other vessels available to the 

Coast Guard in the Arctic region have limited icebreaking capability and capacity. In 2014, the National Science Foundation 

will launch its new ice-capable research vessel, the R/V Sikuliaq. 

Planning is underway for acquisition of a new Coast Guard 

icebreaker with the initial resources proposed in the 2013 

President’s Budget. The USCG Cutter Healy’s unanticipated 

support role in the emergency refueling mission to Nome in the 

winter of 2011 to 2012 raised awareness of the challenges that 

Arctic communities face, and the need to develop contingencies 

to meet critical needs. 

 Aviation— The Coast Guard does not have a permanent air 

station in the Arctic region. The closest Coast Guard Air Station 

is at Kodiak, which is 920 miles (1,480 km) from Barrow via air. 

During summer 2012, as part of the Coast Guard’s “Arctic Shield 

2012,” the Coast Guard had cutters equipped with helicopters 

patrolling the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and leased a hangar in 

Barrow to create a temporary “Forward Operating Location.” 

Two Coast Guard helicopters were deployed to Barrow from 

Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak and flew 289 hours in support 

of search and rescue, ice reconnaissance, Arctic maritime domain 

awareness, and other missions.

Communications: Securing reliable communication is 

becoming increasingly important in the U.S. Arctic; poor communications infrastructure affects day-to-day operations and 

emergency responses. Communications companies are considering installation of new submarine fiber optic cables through 

the region despite the harsh conditions.96 Stakeholders have also 

identified a need for improved vessel-to-vessel and ship-to-shore 

communication capabilities to include satellite communications.
3.1. | Industrial and Commercial Stakeholders

Oil and gas: During the coming decades, the oil and gas 

industry expects to develop onshore and offshore oil and gas 

resources in the U.S. Arctic. The industry maintains that the 

degree to which this happens will depend on the regulatory 

conditions, type and amount of resources discovered, economic 

factors, and infrastructure developed. The insurance industry 

will also play a key role by determining the availability of insurance packages to address unique Arctic conditions. The industry 

seeks a future that includes: 

•	 improved coordination by regulatory agencies, and clear 

and consistent application of standards, regulations, 

and statutes;

•	 creation and maintenance of infrastructure to move oil 

and gas to markets, including a potential natural gas 

pipeline from the North Slope, subsea pipelines from 

the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas, shore-based facilities to 

support offshore operations, pumping stations, a 250-

mile pipeline across the National Petroleum Reserve, 

and continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

System;97, 98, 99

•	 management plans that consider environmental 

protection and cultural needs alongside resource 

extraction activities;100 and

•	 a balance of industrial operations with local subsistence 

harvest needs.100

Several large, international oil companies have major, long-term 

investments in the U.S. Arctic. In recent years, there has been 

additional heavy investment in potential offshore oil development 

activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. For example, the 

2008 Chukchi Sea offshore lease sale garnered approximately $2.7 

billion in high bids from the oil and gas industry.101 Recently, Shell 

Oil Company has been leading the way in investing in offshore 

exploration activities in the U.S. Arctic.102

Renewable energy: The State of Alaska and regional governments are setting goals for significantly increasing the number 

of renewable energy projects statewide. The state has accompanied its goal-setting with significant investments in renewable 

energy projects through the Alaska Energy Authority. Although 

Kotzebue and Nome utilize wind power, the largest investments, 

and highest-profile Alaska renewable energy success stories, 

have taken place outside the Arctic (e.g., wind energy deployment in 

Kodiak). Expansion of this industry in the U.S. Arctic is hindered 

by a lack of infrastructure, seasonal climatic variations, and—as 

in other areas in rural Alaska—uncertainties regarding funding, 

regulatory processes, electrical grid access, and maintenance 

in remote locations. The Department of the Interior has been 

working with the State of Alaska, tribal entities, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations to coordinate the 

federal renewable energy effort in Alaska.

Mining: According to the Alaska Miners Association, 

industry representatives have indicated an interest in expanding 

operations in the U.S. Arctic over the next 20 to 30 years with 

legal, regulatory, infrastructural, and environmental conditions 

that include:103

Chapter 3: 

Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

The U.S. Arctic faces many challenges in the coming decades, and the many federal and state agencies, native groups, 

and other stakeholders in the region are determined to successfully address these challenges. While the groups do not 

always share the same needs and goals, they often do have many common aspirations. A summary of those perspectives 

is provided here. This summary does not purport to be a comprehensive assessment of the vision and goals of all 

stakeholders, but it provides a high-level overview of some of the driving forces that are likely to influence the future of 

the U.S. Arctic over the next 20 to 30 years.

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

22
•	 litigation reform to provide more accountability to the 

appeals and litigation processes for community and 

resource-development projects; 

•	 financial assurance requirements for environmental 

compliance managed exclusively by the State of 

Alaska, with taxes that are equitable and stable;

•	 wetlands and water-quality management with stateled managing authority, based on place-based and 

scientifically supportable standards, and fewer federal 

impediments to development; 

•	 prohibition on establishing international parks or 

nature reserves in Alaska; 

•	 minimal, but science-based, endangered species 

listings; 

•	 adequate road infrastructure to remote areas;

•	 regional electrical connections to rural communities; 

and

•	 lifted restrictions on bulk shipping to allow movement 

of nonpetroleum bulk natural resources.

Shipping: According to marine shipping experts, supporting 

a significant expansion of shipping in the U.S. portion of the 

Arctic would require the following developments:

•	 deep-water ports for ship refueling, cargo transfers, 

materials storage, and visitor disembarkment;

•	 site response plans for offshore anchoring, cargo loss, 

discharge from ships, as well as oil spills and other 

hazardous material discharges;

•	 creation of trust funds, financial pools, or other private 

insurance schemes, for liability and compensation 

purposes, should accidents occur;87

•	 updated and new navigational charts; 

•	 international harmonization of U.S. regulations and 

statutes, as with the Marine Mammal Protection Act;

•	 effective ballast water control and management 

to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive 

species;87 and 

•	 improvements in weather- and iceberg-monitoring 

data-sharing protocols. 

Oil field support facility at Prudhoe Bay (credit: M. Lindeberg, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) 

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

23

Researcher scanning sea ice (credit: J. London, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)
2012 Minimum 

Sea Ice Extent

1998 Minimum 

Sea Ice Extent

1980 Minimum 

Sea Ice Extent

Barrow

Cherskiy

Nome

Bay

Prudhoe

Tiksi

Dikson

Pevek

Tromsø

Reykjavík

Nuuk

(Godthåb)

Longyearbyen

Murmansk

Inuvik Churchill

Anchorage

Amderma

Yamburg

Dudinka

Igarka

Khatanga

Zeleny 

Mys

Provideniya

Anadyr

Egvekinot

Kotzebue

Juneau

Bergen

GREENLAND

CANADA U.S.A.

ICELAND

NORWAY

SWEDEN

FINLAND

RUSSIAN 

FEDERATION

FAROE 

ISLANDS

DENMARK

NORWAY

UNITED 

KINGDOM

IRELAND

Chukchi 

Sea Beaufort Sea

Hudson 

Bay

Gulf of Alaska

Baffin Bay

Norwegian 

Sea

Greenland

Sea

North

Sea

Baltic

Sea

Sea of 

Okhotsk

Bering Sea

Barents Sea

Kara

Sea

Leptev 

Sea

Offshore development is occurring 

and set to increase throughout the Arctic, 

further spurring increases in marine traffic and 

environmental risk.

The Arctic is changing rapidly, providing new opportunities and challenges.

Summer sea ice extent and overall ice thickness have been 

declining for at least 30 years, since satellite monitoring 

of sea-ice extent began. Recent projections for sea ice 

minimums indicate that a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean 

will occur by mid-century, and perhaps before 2030.* 

An ice-diminished Arctic is creating growth potential for 

commercial shipping on international trans-Arctic routes, 

which reduces existing transit distances between Europe 

and Asia by 5,200 miles (8,369 km). 

The intensity of summertime storms north of Alaska is 

also projected to increase. Ice distance from shore is expected to increase 10 fold (from 30 to 300 miles [48 to 

482 km]) contributing to greater fetch, stronger winds, 

and less shoreline protection. These changes will make 

coastal areas susceptible to severe erosion, creating potentially hazardous marine transportation and operating 

conditions, and increasing the need for new operations 

and weather forecasting capability. Severe storms have 

impacted large research vessels (September 2010) and 

Arctic communities (2012). Hurricane-force winds 

of 70 mph (113 km per hour) occurred in the Arctic 

Ocean in August 2012.

Small Ports

Major Ports

Each red bar represents one 

icebreaker, including federal and 

privately owned, light to heavy.

Northern Sea Route

Arctic Bridge

Northwest Passage

Extreme Storm Events by Decade 

Northern Alaska Coast

Arctic Sea Ice and Temperatures

Degrees Fahrenheit 

Millions of Square Miles

Years

Arctic 

Bridge

Northwest 

Passage

Northern 

Sea Route

Total extreme storms/decade

Number of storms with at least 100 km open water

20

15

10

5

0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Extreme Storms Per Decade

Decades

Minimum Sea 

Ice Extent

1979 to 2012 Historical and 

Projected Arctic 

Temperatures

1979 to 2060

* Wang, M., and J. E. Overland. 2012. A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 

years: An update from CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, 

L18501, 6 p., doi:10.1029/2012GL052868.

As sea ice declines, Arctic nations 

 must settle issues of jurisdiction, 

 resource development, 

 and management.

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

24
Commercial fisheries: Through discussions with representatives of the U.S. commercial fisheries industry, it is apparent 

that if and when interest grows for developing commercial fisheries in the Arctic, the industry would support sustainable practices, 

effective regulatory procedures, and science-based management. 

Additional goals would likely include:

•	 continued Coast Guard presence to limit illegal fishing 

and provide emergency response capabilities, including 

search and rescue; 

•	 continued scientific research in Arctic waters to improve 

understanding of the important ecological relationships 

that coastal communities, seabirds, and marine 

mammals depend upon; 

•	 adoption of international agreements to facilitate legal 

protection of U.S. interests in the face of competition 

from other Arctic nations (one such agreement, 

currently being proposed by the United States, would 

forestall the advent of commercial fishing in the 

high seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean until 

an international mechanism is in place to properly 

manage such fishing); 

•	 onshore processing facilities and ports to increase 

efficiency and provide product storage; 

•	 careful consultation with coastal communities to protect 

subsistence harvests and lifestyles; and 

•	 reestablishment of the State of Alaska Coastal Zone 

Management Program to protect fish and wildlife 

habitat and facilitate communication between federal, 

state, and local governments when making decisions for 

both onshore and offshore development.104 

Tourism: Longer, warmer seasons and loss of sea ice may stimulate an Arctic tourism industry in and around Alaska. Despite 

increased interest in Arctic travel, the market for a major Arctic 

cruise industry is uncertain. A few small, adventure-tourism 

cruise ships have been traversing the Arctic, but the large vessels 

from major cruise lines would bring many hundreds of passengers 

and require onshore facilities to process waste and to meet food 

and fuel needs. Increased cruise line and shore-based tourism 

would require:

•	 modern ports to allow ships to dock, refuel, and 

replenish supplies, and to let passengers disembark and 

visit coastal towns (a major, deep-water port in Nome, 

Barrow, or elsewhere would be needed to allow access 

to onshore facilities; such infrastructure currently does 

not exist, and its development would face substantial 

logistical hurdles and high costs);

•	 regional capacity for search and rescue capable of 

addressing the needs of very large vessels with hundreds 

of passengers; and

•	 expanded tourism infrastructure onshore, such as hotels 

and transportation services.

Red Dog Mine (credit: P. Neitlich, National Park Service) 

3.2. | State of Alaska 

The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 granted the state approximately 104 million acres (42 million hectares) of land, ownership 

of the submerged lands of navigable waterways and submerged 

lands up to 3 miles (4.8 km) offshore under the Submerged 

Lands Act, and primary authority to manage fish and wildlife 

unless covered by federal law. State officials are dedicated to their 

constitutional duty to responsibly develop and utilize the state’s 

natural resources for the benefit of citizens and to safeguard the 

state’s fish, wildlife, and natural environment.

The challenges in the U.S. Arctic that state officials decribed 

in their comments for this report included: (1) high unemployment rates and high fuel and food prices in remote communities; 

(2) lack of affordable energy, modern sanitation, and advanced 

communication technology in rural areas; (3) burdensome federal 

regulations and permitting processes; (4) lack of infrastructure 

to maximize opportunities from increased shipping, tourism, 

research, and development activity; and (5) impacts of climate 

change, such as the erosion threatening coastal villages.

The Office of the Governor described a vision for the U.S. Arctic 

that includes the following characteristics:

•	 sustainable, healthy communities that incorporate 

traditional knowledge in decision-making and are 

supported by responsible economic development;

•	 increased operational certainty to support economic 

activities, and revenue streams to help Alaska sustain 

its economy and healthy communities;

•	 a federal-state partnership to manage the U.S. Arctic, 

with a seat at the table for all Alaskans, including 

rural Alaskans and Alaska Natives;

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

25
•	 streamlined and coordinated permitting and regulatory 

processes that conserve the environment while allowing 

responsible resource development; and

•	 increased domestic and international shipping, tourism 

activity, fishing, mining, and offshore oil and gas 

production made possible by reduced sea ice.

State officials noted that they do not believe new layers of 

bureaucracy are necessary to accomplish this vision, but they 

indicated the following critical needs:

•	 a more effective and sophisticated collaborative 

relationship between the U.S. Government and the 

State of Alaska;

•	 increased investments in infrastructure such as 

pipelines, oil and gas production facilities, deepwater ports, fisheries, search and rescue and shipping 

infrastructure, icebreakers, and oil spill response 

infrastructure;

•	 increased attention to U.S. Arctic communities, 

particularly regarding human health, food security, and 

climate change issues such as coastal erosion, storm 

effects, sea ice retreat, and permafrost melt;

•	 increased investments in scientific research, 

monitoring, and mapping;

•	 cooperative agreements with Canada and Russia to 

leverage limited infrastructure; and 

•	 accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law 

of the Sea.

The views of the Governor’s Office are, to a large extent, shared 

by the Northern Waters Task Force—a body of Alaska state 

legislators, leaders of U.S. Arctic communities, and members of 

key state and federal agencies tasked with exploring opportunities 

for the U.S. Arctic. The findings of the Task Force’s final report, 

issued in January 2012, included the need for a U.S. Arctic 

strategy and inclusive processes for decision-making; increased 

data sharing, monitoring, and research prioritization; research 

and improvements to support the prevention and containment of 

oil spills; support for cross-cutting maritime needs such as Arctic 

shipping routes, vessel tracking systems, icebreakers, deep-water 

ports, and hydrographic mapping; and greater international 

involvement through the Arctic Council.

In addition to the aspirations of state government officials, 

Alaska’s U.S. senators have formally asked the Administration to 

develop a comprehensive federal strategy for the U.S. Arctic that 

describes future needs, priority areas, and specific implementation goals and objectives.

3.3. | Tribal Governments and Alaska 

Native Organizations

Tribal governments and Alaska Native organizations represent 

Alaska Native interests throughout the U.S. Arctic. Tribal 

governments operate both locally within individual communities 

as well as regionally. For example, the Inupiat Community of 

the Arctic Slope is the regional tribal government for all North 

Slope Borough villages. Additional groups that have been tribally 

authorized to represent their interests in the co-management 

of natural resources include the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission, Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, Ice Seal 

Committee, Eskimo Walrus Commission, and Alaska Nanuuq 

Commission. Alaska Native corporations, established under 

the Alaska Native Land Claims Act, also play important roles 

in the U.S. Arctic. Within the report area, there are 26 tribal 

governments, as well as 3 regional native corporations and 22 

village native corporations. When discussing the next 20 to 30 

years in the U.S. Arctic with some of these groups, the following 

important thematic goals emerged. 

Alaska Native bowhead whale hunter (credit: Dept. of the Interior) 

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

26
Subsistence way of life: Subsistence foods have 

sustained Alaska Natives for many thousands of years, and 

future generations must continue to rely on these foods 

for nutritional, economic, social, and cultural purposes. 

Maintaining the strength of the subsistence way of life is 

vitally important to Alaska Natives, both from food security 

and cultural touchstone perspectives. In the future, Alaska 

Natives seek to remain engaged in subsistence activities, both 

on land and at sea.

Tribal consultation: Alaska Natives want to be repre-

sented and provide input when important decisions are being 

considered that impact their land, their resources, and their 

way of life. Tribes have valuable information to contribute to 

the decision-making process, and they have a strong desire 

to participate in such decision-making. They noted that the 

Federal Government and tribal governments need to improve 

the system for effective and meaningful consultation on issues 

of mutual concern. Such a process should: (1) respect and take 

into account local and traditional knowledge; (2) provide a 

predictable and consistent framework for consultation; and (3) 

streamline consultations to minimize the workload burden on 

Alaska Native groups. 

Traditional knowledge: Local and traditional knowledge 

is considered by many to be an essential part of science-based 

environmental policy-making. Traditional knowledge is par-

ticularly valuable as it represents observations made repeatedly 

over many generations. During the current period of rapid 

change, the wealth of knowledge held by Alaska Natives can 

make key contributions to resource management and to collab-

orative research projects. 

Ecosystem-based management: The ecosystem-based 

management approach to managing natural resources incorpo-

rates and considers the role and needs of the human component 

of the environment. In the U.S. Arctic that means that this 

approach must include the needs and perspectives of Alaska 

Natives. Ecosystem-based management, as promoted by the 

National Ocean Council and implemented by working groups 

of the Arctic Council, should be implemented to support 

well-informed decisions that take a long-term perspective to 

balance environmental, economic, and cultural priorities. This 

approach recognizes that people depend upon ecosystems and 

that policy and management decisions that consider ecosystem 

needs will provide long-lasting benefits.

Economic development: Making progress on economic 

development, environmental protection, and ensuring the 

sustainability of the subsistence way of life are vitally important 

objectives for Alaska Natives. Because industrial development 

can result both in economic benefits to communities as well as 

environmental and social impacts, development decisions must 

be carefully considered in a balanced manner with a long-term 

perspective. When industrial development does occur in the 

U.S. Arctic, local communities need to receive real economic 

benefits, and the activities should not alter key features of eco-

systems that are important to local communities. 

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

27

Subsistence Way of Life

Food security, nutritional health, economic benefits, 

cultural values, spiritual connections, 

environmental stewardship

Reliance on a subsistence way of life is widespread 

in the U.S. Arctic. Although modernization and 

climate change are affecting subsistence practices, 

local reliance on natural resources remains high. 

Alaska’s rural residents currently harvest about 

22,000 tons (19,958 metric tons) of wild foods 

annually—a state-wide average of 375 pounds (170 

kg) per person, 60% of which is fish. Maintaining 

the strength of the subsistence way of life is vitally 

important to Alaska Natives, both for food security 

and as a cultural touchstone. They seek to remain 

deeply engaged in subsistence activities, both on 

land and sea. The Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act mandated that subsistence uses 

of fish and wildlife by rural residents of Alaska 

be given a priority on federal lands. Subsistence 

hunting and fishing on federal lands and waters 

in Alaska—about 60 percent of the state—is 

managed through the Dept. of the Interior/Dept. of 

Agriculture Subsistence Management Program. 

There are 10 Regional Advisory Councils to provide 

rural residents a direct opportunity to review 

proposed regulations, policies, and management 

plans; to have local public forums for subsistence 

issues; and to present recommendations and 

information to the interagency Subsistence 

Management Board, which sets seasons and bag/

catch limits. Each Council consists of residents who 

are knowledgeable about subsistence and other 

uses of fish and wildlife resources in their region. 

In addition, subsistence harvest of halibut is 

managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), while harvests of seals, sea lions, and 

certain whale species are co-managed by NMFS 

and Alaska Natives under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. Subsistence harvests of sea otters, 

polar bears, and walrus are co-managed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Alaska 

Natives, and the harvest of waterfowl and other 

migratory birds is co-managed by FWS and Alaska 

Natives under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Caribou 

are a vital 

subsistence 

food source for 

Alaska Natives 

in the region.

Caribou 

utilize the 

windy coast 

to escape 

mosquitoes.

Lakeside 

sedges 

provide 

essential food 

for caribou 

calves.

Loss of 

coastal sea 

ice is resulting in 

massive erosion 

and saltwater 

intrusion that may 

dramatically alter 

the ecosystem.

The rich ecology of Teshekpuk Lake is at risk from climate change.

The Teshekpuk Lake area provides crucial habitat for 

wildlife and subsistence activities, but is being impacted by a 

rapidly changing climate and is believed to hold recoverable 

petroleum resources. Balancing these pressures has proven 

challenging over the last twenty years.

Chapter 3:Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

28
Teshekpuk Lake

1977

1,734,000-acre 

(701,724- 

hectare) 

Teshekpuk 

Lake Special 

Area created

1978 to 1980

House versions of 

ANILCA propose 

turning the 

entirety of NPR-A 

into a national 

wildlife refuge

1983

Rep. John Dingell proposes 

establishing the Teshekpuk-Utukok National Wildlife Refuge

The Bureau of Land 

Management initiates 

an oil and gas leasing 

program, but with more 

than 200,000 acres 

(80,937 hectares) north of 

Teshekpuk Lake closed to 

protect molting geese

2006

The Department of the 

Interior approves drilling on about 500,000 

acres (202,343 hectares) 

around Teshekpuk Lake

U.S. District Court for 

Alaska removes the 

wildlife habitat around 

Teshekpuk Lake from an 

oil and gas lease sale

2008

A revised 

Environmental Impact 

Statement defers any 

oil leasing in the area 

for 10 years

1998

The Bureau of Land Management 

designates the 857,859-acre 

(347,163-hectare) Teshekpuk 

Lake Surface Protection Area, of 

which 588,998 acres (238,359 

hectares) are closed to oil and 

gas leasing to protect caribou, 

geese, and other resources

2013

A Record of Decision following 

a comprehensive National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) 

Environmental Impact Statement/

Integrated Activity Plan recognizes the importance of this area for 

wildlife and subsistence by making it unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing and off-limits to any new 

infrastructure unrelated to subsistence practices. This, coupled with 

oil and gas leasing outside the 

Teshekpuk Lake area, provides a 

balance for the greater NPR-A.

Established 

caribou 

migration 

routes may be 

disrupted by 

infrastructure 

development.

The whitefronted 

goose relies 

on Teshekpuk 

Lake during 

its sensitive 

molting 

period.

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

29
Hiker pauses to search for wildlife, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(credit: Fish and Wildlife Service) 

Environmental protection: Tribal governments are 

concerned that pollution and cumulative impacts from shipping, 

industrial development, and other sources could make marine 

mammals less available to hunters and unsafe for human 

consumption. The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples states that environmental degradation can violate the 

human rights of indigenous people and that it is the responsibility 

of governments to prevent environmental harm that threatens 

traditional food use.105 As industrial activity increases throughout 

the Arctic, governments and industry must prevent, mitigate, 

and respond to accidents and spills that could have catastrophic 

impacts on the Arctic and the people who live there.

3.4. | Municipal Governments

The municipal governments of Alaska (i.e., cities, villages, and 

boroughs) comprise a strong and talented network of public 

servants dedicated to improving the lives of people across Alaska. 

Within Arctic Alaska, there are 3 borough governments, 20 

municipal governments, and 26 village governments. When 

discussing the next 20 to 30 years with municipal government 

leaders during the preparation of this report, the following 

common thematic goals emerged.

Economic development: There is a strong desire to bring 

economic development to the communities of the U.S. Arctic. 

There is an equally strong desire to proceed with development 

in a way that respects and preserves local cultures. Communities 

are looking for ways to maximize local jobs and to ensure that 

Chapter 3:Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

30

local economies benefit from resource development and other 

industrial activities.

Emergency preparedness and response: Municipal 

governments have questioned the sufficiency of the capability 

and capacity to respond effectively to environmental emergencies 

such as offshore oil spills or ship accidents. Response plans rely 

heavily on industry’s ability to respond quickly to environmental 

emergencies, such as offshore spills. Increasing levels of shipping 

and other industrial activities such as oil and gas development 

require accelerated efforts by industry and government to 

collaboratively enhance appropriate response infrastructure in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. In addition, with the environmental 

changes brought about by a changing climate, the Arctic is 

experiencing an increase in severe weather, flooding, and coastal 

erosion. Municipalities feel that improved search and rescue 

capability must be a key part of these preparations.

Shipping: The frequency, types, and seasonality of shipping 

through U.S. Arctic waters is anticipated to change dramatically. 

The growing diversity and presence of fuel barges, oil and gas 

support vessels, bulk carriers, research ships, cruise ships, fishing 

vessels, and marine freight vessels is already imposing new 

demands on the coastal communities in the U.S. Arctic. 

Food security: Protecting the subsistence way of life 

and ensuring food security is a high priority in U.S. Arctic 

communities, where there are concerns about the impacts of 

noise pollution, chemical pollution, habitat loss, and other forms 

of disturbance on fish and wildlife populations and subsistence 

foods. Achieving food security is an important goal that must be 

sustained for many generations to come.

Community infrastructure: Many U.S. Arctic communities lack adequate housing, water, and sewer service, which pose 

dangerous health and safety issues to residents. A lack of roads 

and the high cost of energy pose additional challenges. Industrial 

development and population growth will dramatically amplify 

these problems if not carefully planned with current and future 

social needs in mind.

Partnerships: Local and regional governments are seeking 

better working relationships with federal and state agencies 

to deal with the magnitude of environmental and economic 

changes taking place across the U.S. Arctic. Communities want 

to foster true partnerships with government agencies throughout 

project planning and implementation. Recognizing that the staff 

resources of many communities are limited, there is a need to 

develop more efficient mechanisms for these interactions so that 

“initiative burnout” can be avoided.

Scientific research: Wise natural resource management 

decisions should be based on sound science and incorporate a 

precautionary approach that adopts a long-term perspective. 

Science-based decision-making should also include traditional 

knowledge, which can provide essential insights from the people 

living in the U.S. Arctic. The successful experiences of biologists 

and local hunters working together on research projects are great 

examples of how these two “ways of knowing” (i.e., scientific 
methods and traditional knowledge) can often complement 

each other to yield positive results. 

3.5.| Conservation Organizations

Non-governmental conservation and environmental organiza-

tions have expressed deep concern about industrial expansion 

into the U.S. Arctic, with particular disquiet regarding offshore 

oil and gas development. These concerns were exacerbated by 

the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and 

by the lack of capacity and infrastructure to respond to such a 

disaster in the U.S. Arctic. In addition to their concerns about 

the threat of petroleum spills from oil and gas activities and 

shipping, conservation organizations are also concerned about 

disturbance of marine mammals from drilling, vessel traffic, 

and seismic surveying in Arctic waters as well as conflicts with 

subsistence harvest activities. Although some of these organiza-

tions urge prohibition of any development in the region, others 

urge deferral or a “time-out” for such activities until the capac-

ity to respond to accidents or spills can be demonstrated and the 

areas of greatest ecological and subsistence value are described 

and mapped.

Conservation organizations providing input to this report noted 

that ecosystems and wildlife in the Arctic are already undergo-

ing changes and stresses as a result of climate change—stresses 

that are increasing but poorly understood and that may be 

exacerbated by industrial activities. Regarding the combined 

or cumulative impact of these activities, conservation groups 

pointed to a recent U.S. Geological Survey report on science 

needs in the region: “Although studies and research have been 

done by many organizations on many factors in the Arctic, 

there has been relatively little specific focus on a holistic, 

integrated, comprehensive assessment of cumulative effects of 

industrial activities in the Arctic.”106 

Permanent protection of important onshore ecological and 

subsistence areas in the Arctic is a high priority for a number of 

conservation stakeholders. Terrestrial locations that conservation 

groups have cited as deserving permanent protection due to 

exceptional biological and subsistence value include Kasegaluk 

Lagoon, the Utukok River Uplands, the Teshekpuk Lake 

wetlands, and the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge; marine areas deserving protection include Hanna 

Shoal, Barrow Canyon, Camden Bay, and Cross Island.

In providing input to this report, conservation organizations 

expressed a vision for the U.S. Arctic that includes:

•	 ongoing assessments of the food and health security 

necessary to support thriving indigenous communities;

•	 comprehensive, integrated scientific information and 

traditional knowledge that guides decision-making regarding if, when, and where development should occur;

•	 long-term monitoring of activities to measure the 

impacts of these activities and their interactions with 

climate change and other stressors;

Emergency Preparedness and Response

Responding to emergencies like oil spills and 

hazardous waste accidents requires many 

resources: aircraft, maritime vessels, personnel, 

and other materials. These resources are 

necessary to plan effectively for response, 

prevention, and clean-up on both land and sea.

There are few airfields and no major roads 

(other than the Dalton Highway) in the U.S. 

Arctic. Alaska’s North Slope has no refueling site 

for ships; the closest is over 1,000 miles (1,600 

km) away in Dutch Harbor. The nearest Coast 

Guard air facility is in Kodiak, which is 920 miles 

(1,480 km) from Barrow. The State of Alaska has 

one response-equipment site in the U.S. Arctic 

(in Kotzebue) with an aerial dispersant-delivery 

system staged in Anchorage. There are two 

land-based oil spill response organizations that 

service the North Slope, but they lack 

open-ocean capability.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities have begun a 3-year deep-draft Arctic 

port evaluation study. The Alaska Federation 

of Natives is urging construction of docks and 

establishment of search and rescue capacity for 

every Arctic coastal village. 

All federally permitted oil and gas activities 

require operators to have contingency plans 

approved and to maintain capabilities for 

emergency response. However, ensuring the 

capability for a rapid response in the event of 

a random event separate from such federally 

permitted activities, such as a spill from a 

passing ship, presents challenges. Several 

interagency federal efforts are underway, 

including those by the National Ocean Council, 

to better address preparedness for emergency 

response situations. 

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

31
•	 a consistent governance framework that incorporates 

consultation well in advance of management decisions 

and includes elders, hunters, and tribal leaders;

•	 identification and protection of important ecological areas with deferrals, exclusions, withdrawals, or time and/

or place restrictions on certain activities or development;

•	 credible development scenarios that support the analysis of the cumulative effects of climate change, ocean 

acidification, development, and industrial stresses upon 

terrestrial and marine environments; and

•	 implementation of Arctic-specific safety and oil spill 

response standards and regulations. 

3.6. | Federal Government

More than 20 federal agencies play a role in resource management and scientific research in the U.S. Arctic. The Federal 

Government also serves the public through national and homeland security, emergency preparedness and response, maritime 

and aeronautical safety, and support to communities and Alaska 

Natives. There is a consensus among federal agencies concerning many of the goals that need to be accomplished to support 

wise management decisions in the U.S. Arctic over the next 

20 to 30 years. Many of these goals are embodied in existing 

federal policy, including the U.S. Arctic Region Policy and 

Ocean Policy, as well as being advanced internationally in the 

Arctic Council.

Science-based decision-making:

Research and monitoring—An emphasis should be placed on 

scientific research and collecting baseline data to ensure that 

reliable information is available to inform management decisions. 

Shifts in Arctic climate variables, as well as terrestrial and marine 

ecosystems, should be monitored through rigorous, interdisciplinary research programs that collect and disseminate the best data 

and analyses to support environmental, economic, and cultural 

decision-making. Research should be designed to provide the 

information needed to facilitate well-informed decisions concerning environmental, economic, and cultural aspects of the 

U.S. Arctic.

Understanding and predicting change—Agencies involved in the 

U.S. Arctic should aim to better understand and improve forecasting of the effects of global environmental change in the Arctic 

as well as the potential impacts of economic development on 

communities and ecosystems. 

Traditional knowledge—Centuries of careful observation and 

experience by Alaska Natives has produced a wealth of traditional 

knowledge about nature and ecosystems in the U.S. Arctic. Traditional knowledge can offer valuable, complementary perspectives 

to information gained through scientific research. Agencies and 

partners should continue to develop means for incorporating 

traditional knowledge into decision-making.

Researchers measure a young spotted seal (credit: M. Cameron, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) 

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

32
Data management and access—Information can only be 

used effectively if it is readily accessible to analysts and 

decision-makers. Data and data products must be carefully 

archived and made available (e.g., through web-based data 

portals) so that management decisions can benefit from the 

best available information. 

Ecosystem-based management—Federal agencies expressed 

support for a more inclusive, science-based, holistic approach 

to research and management in the Arctic that is guided by the 

principles of ecosystem-based management. Decisions should be 

based on sound science and support healthy, productive, and resilient coastal communities and their associated marine, terrestrial, 

and freshwater ecosystems. 

Adaptive management—Management should be based on the 

expectation that surprises will undoubtedly arise; therefore, emphasis should be placed on developing approaches and tools that 

are precautionary and adaptive. The precautionary, science-based 

approach being used for managing U.S. Arctic commercial fisheries is a possible model for other emerging uses; that is, to ensure 

adequate information is in hand before inadvertently causing 

irreversible damage to resources or ecosystems.

Synthesis and assessment—Periodic syntheses of available information are essential to understanding trends, likely future states, 

and potential consequences to people. Integrated, interdisciplinary assessments of Arctic information should be undertaken to 

coalesce information and make it available to related policy and 

management decision processes.

Develop natural resources in an environmentally 

and culturally sensitive manner:

Environmental protection—Development of natural resources 

and infrastructure must be undertaken in a safe and environmentally sound manner, taking into account future conditions and 

goals. Industrial development should not be allowed to harm 

vulnerable or sensitive plant and animal populations, habitats, or 

ecological processes. 

Alaska Native culture and subsistence way of life—Decisionmakers must ensure that development does not prevent the 

continuation of subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. Food 

security, as well as access to water and clean, affordable energy, must 

be assured for communities throughout the U.S. Arctic.

Archeological and historical resources—The significant archeological and historical resources in the U.S. Arctic must be protected from threats posed by climate change, industrial development, 

recreation and tourism, and shifting public-use patterns.

Wilderness experiences—The U.S. Arctic holds an inspiring 

and diverse array of natural beauty and life. Congress established 

wilderness areas in Alaska to ensure their protection and to enable 

visitors to experience such outstanding natural areas.

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

33

Support development of adequate infrastructure:

Oil and gas development—A key goal must be to ensure that 

offshore operations are accomplished safely. Sufficient personnel 

and logistical resources should be made available by the commercial entities extracting these resources to ensure that oil and gas 

resources are developed safely and in an environmentally responsible manner. The United States should be a leader in developing 

Arctic offshore regulations and standards. 

Maritime awareness and presence—The Federal Government 

must maintain an appropriate presence in the U.S. Arctic to 

monitor, safeguard, and regulate maritime operations. Persistent 

awareness of all maritime activity in the Arctic will require 

greater collection and sharing of maritime data and analyses of 

real-time information. Acquiring an effective awareness will require all Arctic stakeholders to work together, which is critical for 

ensuring preparedness to respond to contingencies. This approach 

is also consistent with strategic priorities delineated in the National 

Strategy for Maritime Security and the National Plan to Achieve 

Maritime Domain Awareness.107, 108 

Infrastructure needs—Infrastructure investments (e.g., airports, 

roads, communication systems, utilities, maritime transportation 

systems, navigation data and aids, aircraft and shipping traffic 

separation protocols, ports), regardless of the level of government 

involved, need to be tied to development and national security 

frameworks that promote protection and sustainability of natural 

ecosystems and subsistence resources. The unique and pressing 

infrastructure needs of U.S. Arctic communities also must be 

addressed by all levels of government, particularly proper housing 

and health care, clean water and sewer facilities, and affordable 

energy. Research programs will require the development and 

maintenance of technologies, research platforms, and observing 

systems that can withstand harsh Arctic conditions.

Emergency response—The United States, in conjunction with 

private sector operators, needs to maintain an appropriate presence in the U.S. Arctic to monitor, safeguard, and regulate activities, as well as to be ready to respond to threats and hazards. This 

includes being able to respond to emergencies and accidents, both 

from domestic natural resource development efforts and from 

increased international vessel traffic. Additional infrastructure and 

other resources to enhance U.S. operational emergency response 

capabilities in the Arctic would help fulfill U.S. commitments to 

international partners concerning spill or search and rescue events 

in the Arctic. Preparedness efforts should continue to include oil 

spill response science as well as baseline data-gathering to inform 

the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process. 

Aeronautical safety—Systems that support air traffic control 

and aeronautical operations in the U.S. Arctic need to be 

upgraded and maintained. An example is the need to increase 

the coverage and availability of the Wide Area Augmentation 

System to improve aircraft navigation safety. Implementation of 

the Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime 

Search and Rescue in the Arctic, which entered into force in 

January 2013, should continue. 
Improve communications:

Interagency coordination—A fundamental goal for federal 

agencies is to improve interagency coordination on all aspects of 

science, management, stewardship, response, and permitting in the 

U.S. Arctic. “Whole-of-government” solutions should be pursued 

to eliminate redundancies and promote efficient operations. 

Effective partnerships—Creating effective partnerships 

among federal agencies, the State of Alaska, Alaska Native 

groups, municipal governments, commercial industries, 

academia, and other stakeholders will facilitate sound science 

and provide opportunities for effective resource management. 

Early consultations, outreach, and input to governments and 

stakeholders in Alaska will promote more effective, holistic 

decision-making and advance the integration of cultural, 

ecological, and economic perspectives. 

International engagement—The United States should continue 

to participate actively in international forums, such as the Arctic 

Council, to advance U.S. interests in transboundary issues such 

as fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation; best practices in energy 

development; international scientific collaboration; and safe shipping. Accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea 

would also enable the United States to better protect its interests 

in the Arctic, including with respect to maximizing legal certainty 

and international recognition of the U.S. continental shelf.

3.7. | Comparing Future Visions and Goals

The visions and goals expressed above reveal examples of both 

convergent and divergent views in the face of rapid environ

-

mental and economic change in the Arctic. All of the parties 

mentioned above acknowledge that the U.S. Arctic is changing 

at an accelerating pace. In general, many of the non-federal parties, including the State of Alaska, local governments, and many 

members of the Alaska Native community, call for increased 

scientific research, increased roles for Alaska Natives in deci-

sion-making, preservation of the subsistence way of life, and 

assurances that development will provide real economic benefits 

to nearby communities and be undertaken in an environmentally 

responsible manner. 

Several of the stakeholders, including representatives of munic

-

ipalities and Alaska Native groups, emphasized the importance 

of U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the 

Sea. The Convention sets forth key rules for managing and 

developing all living and non-living natural resources within an 

exclusive economic zone from the coast of each nation out to 200 

nautical miles (370 km). The Convention also provides the surest 

means for a nation to obtain legal certainty and international 

recognition with respect to the full extent of its continental 

shelf, which, in the Arctic may extend hundreds of miles north 

of Alaska. The United States remains the only Arctic nation 

that has not yet acceded to the treaty. Until the United States 

becomes a member, it has a limited voice in decisions affecting 

the future of the oceans that are so important to the people of 

the Arctic and our Nation. If the United States accedes to the 

Convention, the extended continental shelf area that would come 

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

34

Search and Rescue

One of the challenges of living or operating in 

the U.S. Arctic, compared to other areas, is the 

paucity of search and rescue resources. The 

scarcity of these resources is compounded by 

the risks of adverse weather conditions that 

may limit their use. Local weather forecasts and 

sea ice predictions in the U.S. Arctic are often 

only accurate for 2 to 3 days out, compared 

with 5- to 7-day predictive capabilities in much 

of the rest of the United States.

There are few airfields, no major roads, 

no deep-water ports, and relatively little 

coastal infrastructure and personnel to meet 

emergency search and rescue needs that 

may arise. During the 2012 summer season, 

the Coast Guard forward-deployed major 

assets (Coast Guard cutters, other surface 

assistance, and aviation support) in the waters 

off Alaska’s North Slope for the duration of the 

exploratory oil drilling season. Assistance at 

other times, though, particularly in the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas, will likely be significantly 

delayed by the long distances to existing 

Coast Guard facilities.

On land, the North Slope Borough Search and 

Rescue Department provides critical-care air 

ambulance services (medevac) throughout 

the North Slope Region, as well as conducting 

search, rescue, and other emergency missions.
under U.S. jurisdiction would be about twice the size of the State 

of California. The Administration continues to strongly support 

Senate action to accede to the Convention without delay. 

Goals and visions diverged on the issue of industrial development, particularly those that relate to additional oil, gas, 

and mining development. Whereas some Arctic residents and 

members of the conservation community seek to ensure that 

development will not take place until the capacity to respond 

to accidents or spills can be demonstrated and the areas of 

greatest ecological and subsistence value are better known and 

described, the State of Alaska, industrial corporations, and some 

other Arctic residents encourage expeditious exploration and 

development of these oil, gas, and mineral resources. Many 

Alaska Natives emphasized the need to seek a balance between 

ensuring that development provides economic benefits and 

ensuring that such development does not disrupt cultural values 

or adversely impact fish and wildlife resources, particularly 

those species needed for subsistence purposes.

It is clear that stakeholders are not interested in additional layers 

of process; existing processes already tax the capacity of many 

stakeholders without necessarily leaving them feeling fully 

informed or involved regarding federal decisions. A desire for 

more engagement and information may seem to contradict the 

desire for less process, but suggests that constituents and partners 

feel listened to but not heard. Partners in the U.S. Arctic want a 

framework for more inclusive, efficient, and transparent engagement that does not add layers of bureaucratic process.

Many of the stakeholder goals described above explicitly 

described the need to better integrate federal decision-making on 

two levels: (1) across jurisdictions and boundaries; and (2) among 

economic, cultural, and ecological uses and values. The next 

chapter will discuss the barriers to such integration, some success 

stories, and suggestions for advancing a more integrated approach 

to managing U.S. Arctic resources.

Pipelines at Prudhoe Bay (credit: M. Lindeberg, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) 

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

35
The U.S. Arctic is expected to become much warmer in the middle and latter portion of this century, 

with a longer growing season, shorter less severe 

winters, and a deeper annual thaw layer in soils. Permafrost thaw may occur in limited areas, and wildland fires may increase. Changes to water flow and 

wetlands are likely, driven indirectly by permafrost 

thaw and vegetation change. The complex interrelationships between these factors are likely to significantly alter the way humans use this landscape.

Local communities are reliant on the traditional 

foods—including caribou, marine mammals, fish, 

and berries—supported by these ecosystems. It is 

likely that climate change will cause stress to most 

existing plant and animal species. Current tundra 

ecosystems may shift to spruce/aspen forest and intermixed grass and tundra. Extensive encroachment 

of trees and shrubs has already been recorded. These 

changes may increase food supplies for browsing 

species such as moose, while decreasing the grass 

and lichens needed by caribou.

The impacts of climate change in the U.S. Arctic are already being felt by local 

and Alaska Native communities and by industry. 

Hotter weather and thawing soils can dry 

wetlands or cause unexpected shifts in snow 

coverage or drainage patterns, threatening 

water supplies for communities, industry, 

access to subsistance resources, and ice roads.

Thawing soils and changes 

in drainage can lead to 

contamination by human 

and industrial waste.

Once rare, tundra fires may 

increase in frequency and size. 

The lichens that caribou rely on 

are slow to recover after fires.

Caribou are a core component of local subsistence. They may be affected by increases 

in insect pests, more frequent fires, and loss 

of lichens. Winter rain that leads to icing can 

result in massive die-offs.

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

Once rare, tundra res may 

increase in frequency and size. 

The lichens that caribou rely on 

are slow to recover after res.

Thawing soils and changes 

in drainage can lead to 

contamination by human 

and industrial waste.

Caribou are a core component of local 

subsistence. They may be aected by 

increases in insect pests, more frequent 

res, and loss of lichens. Winter rain that 

leads to icing can result in massive die-os.

Hotter weather and thawing soils can dry 

wetlands or cause unexpected shifts in snow 

coverage or drainage patterns, threatening 

water supplies for communities, industry,

access to subsistance resources, and ice roads.

Thawing soils and changes 

in drainage can lead to 

contamination by human 

and industrial waste.

36
New ice-free shipping routes may 

provide a local economic boom for 

port communities, but could also 

overwhelm infrastructure or threaten 

traditional ways of life.

Sea ice provides an important habitat for 

many marine species. Changes in sea ice may 

force subsistance hunters beyond the 

preferred hunting range of 10 to 15 miles (16 

to 24 km) or into unsafe sea ice conditions.

Climate change is already forcing 

some coastal communities to 

relocate due to coastal erosion— 

at great economic and social cost.

The combination of thawing permafrost, greater 

evaporation, and more water taken up by vegetation 

suggest that the terrestrial landscape may become 

drier. Declining or shifting wetlands could affect 

migratory and resident bird species. Industrial development, which relies on ice roads, might be affected 

by a decreased supply of the water needed to create them. Changes in rivers, wetlands, and drainage 

might also impact community supplies of safe drinking water, and cause contamination from human 

waste or industrial waste.

Slow recovery of vegetation or vegetation shifts after 

fires can profoundly affect wildlife. Lichens— 

a crucial winter food for caribou—recover extremely slowly. Even small and relatively infrequent 

fires represent a new factor to be considered in the 

Arctic. 

Many wildlife species are affected, either positively or negatively, by snow cover. Icing events might 

become more common. Changes in season length 

affect hunting seasons and safe food storage, and 

changes to the depth and duration of frozen soils 

impact winter travel, construction, and ice roads.

Loss of land-fast ice, thawing permafrost, and briefer 

seasonal freezing make coastal soils highly susceptible to storm erosion. Losses—including economic 

damage as well as wholesale community destruction—are already extreme in some locations, particularly on the western coast. 

Major impacts to humans and their 

livelihoods include:

• coastal erosion and loss of communities;

• reduced snow and ice season for 

transportation, hunting, and development;

• rain on snow events resulting in caribou starvation;

• thawing soils and altered flow in rivers and wetlands;

• new ice-free shipping routes;

• ecosystem shifts; and

• changes in fire cycles.

Climate change is already 

forcing some coastal communities 

to relocate due to coastal erosion— 

at great economic and social cost.

New ice-free shipping routes may provide 

a local economic boom for port 

communities, but could also overwhelm 

infrastructure or threaten traditional ways 

of life.

Sea ice provides an important habitat for many 

marine species. Changes in sea ice may force 

subsistance hunters beyond the preferred hunting 

range of 10 to 15 miles (16 to 24 km) or into 

unsafe sea ice conditions.

Chapter 3: Visions and Goals for the U.S. Arctic

37
4.1. | Institutional Challenges

The U.S. Arctic is rapidly changing while economic, environmental, cultural, and social expectations are growing. This 

combination is adding stress to the largely balkanized management system for the Arctic that is already straining to address 

many competing issues across a vast area and many jurisdictions. 

An array of government institutions are engaged in trying to 

meet this challenge. More than 20 federal agencies and bureaus 

have domestic Arctic-related missions that include promoting 

safety, permitting commercial activities, conducting scientific 

research, assuring clean air and water, and conserving fauna, 

flora, and ecosystems. The responsibilities of each of those 

agencies are spelled out in U.S. law, but how they coordinate 

with each other can be unclear. State, municipal, and tribal 

governments also have authorities and responsibilities, further 

complicating the regulatory landscape.

Adding to management challenges in the U.S. Arctic are tensions inherent in the different missions of agencies working in 

the region. For example, some missions focus primarily on facilitating the extraction of minerals and energy resources, while 

others are charged primarily with understanding, moderating, 

and mitigating the potential impacts of human activities upon 

environmental or cultural values. Although there is considerable 

collaboration among agencies, different metrics of success in 

achieving agency mandates can hamper cooperation.

The vast area of the U.S. Arctic also impacts the level of 

coordination in the region—the total federal lands estate in 

Alaska is nearly the size of Texas and Wyoming combined. The 

Department of the Interior manages the majority of the land 

Chapter 4: 

 Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach 

 to Arctic Management

Integrated Arctic Management is a science-based, whole-of-government approach to stewardship and planning that 

integrates and balances environmental, economic, and cultural needs and objectives. It is an adaptive, 

stakeholder-informed means for looking holistically at impacts and sensitivities across the U.S. Arctic and generating 

sustainable solutions.

Muskoxen in Bering Land Bridge National Preserve 

(credit: National Park Service)

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

38
within the report area (Figure 4.1). This land includes the 22.8 

million acre (9.2 million hectare) National Petroleum Reserve 

in Alaska (NPRA), the 19.3 million acre (7.8 million hectare) 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the 8.5 million acre (3.4 million hectare) Gates of the Arctic National Park, and a number 

of other National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

Bureau of Land Management units. These are huge terrestrial 

areas, and most are larger than individual states (NPRA is the 

size of Indiana; the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the size 

of South Carolina). Each agency manages its areas under its own 

jurisdictions according to specific federal laws and regulations. 

Like the terrestrial region, the Arctic maritime domain is also 

extensive and, once again, multiple federal agencies are involved. 

For example, in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, the Department 

of the Interior’s Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) and Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) 

manage the exploration 

and development of offshore energy and mineral 

resources under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act, 

and they are charged with 

doing so subject to environmental safeguards. The 

Department of Commerce’s 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) is responsible for 

the stewardship and use of 

species, ecosystems, and 

marine living resources in 

federal waters. The Coast 

Guard, operating within the 

Department of Homeland 

Security, is responsible for 

marine safety, security, and 

environmental stewardship in U.S. waters. The 

Environmental Protection 

Agency is responsible for 

enforcement of the Clean 

Water Act and the Clean 

Air Act as well as sharing responsibilities and authority with the 

Coast Guard under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan. These agencies are all separate 

entities, most of them located in different Cabinet departments, 

and must work diligently to ensure that they have full access to 

the information, plans, and expertise of the others as they make 

decisions that potentially impact their responsibilities.

To address the challenges presented by the large number of federal agencies with major equities in the U.S. Arctic, the Federal 

Government has established many local, regional, and national 

interagency structures to enhance coordination and the sharing 

of information. Some of these bodies have added considerable 

value to government efforts in the region but, given the scope of 

issues and capacity limitations, some are perceived as adding to 

Figure 4.1. Federal and non-federal land ownership within the Arctic area addressed in this report. 

(image: Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks)

Researchers navigate through sea ice (credit: J. London, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

39
the complexity without adding value. There are some instances, 

however, where overlap can provide important advances in 

resource management, research, and other federal activities 

(e.g., Figure 4.2).

An arena in which interagency coordination is particularly 

important is in the development of Environmental Assessments 

(EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), as required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council 

on Environmental Quality implementation guidance. NEPA 

requires that federal agencies evaluate the potential environmental impacts of major federal actions, such as permitting certain 

human activities, and evaluate reasonable alternatives. In addition 

to considering the relevant science, agencies are required to 

involve the public in the NEPA process and allow stakeholders to 

review and comment upon the EISs that present the lead agency’s 

evaluation of potential impacts. 

The NEPA process is one of the primary opportunities for 

potentially affected parties to participate in decision-making, 

and that participation strengthens the process considerably. 

There are often many such evaluations underway at any given 

time, however, making such participation more complicated

(Figure 4.3). In addition, the different and sometimes competing 

agency missions, as well as different jurisdictional boundaries, 

can frustrate efforts to fully address each agency’s issues and 

values in a single NEPA document (e.g., Figure 4.4). Federal 

decision-making in the U.S. Arctic relies heavily upon such 

NEPA processes; the challenges described above make it difficult 

for agencies to insure that decisions fully account for ecosystem 

sensitivities and potentially competing development scenarios.

Example 6: Intersecon. In implemenng 

U.S. policy, the departments of State,

Commerce, Interior and the Naonal Science 

Foundaon shall work with the Interagency 

Arcc Research Policy Commiee to promote 

research that is strategically linked to U.S.

policies arculated in this directive, with input 

from the Arcc Research Commission and 

strengthen partnerships with academic and 

research instuons and build upon the 

relaonships these instuons have with their 

counterparts in other naons. 

Example 5: Intersecon. The Arcc Policy

Group (under Department of State) and the 

Interagency Arcc Research Policy Commiee 

(IARPC) both address research and science 

issues that are covered by the Arcc Council.

IARPC’s statutory charge is to “coordinate and 

promote cooperave Arcc scienfic research 

programs with other naons, subject to the 

foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of

State.” 

Example 4: Intra-set overlap. The Naonal 

Ocean Council (NOC) and the Interagency 

Arcc Research Policy Commiee overlap on 

science and research policy in the Arcc 

marine areas. The NOC oversees

implementaon of the Naonal Ocean 

Policy, including those priority objecves 

addressing ecosystem-based management, 

Coastal Marine Spaal Planning, changing

condions in the Arcc Ocean, resiliency and 

adaptaon to climate change, and ocean 

and coastal observaons and mapping.

Example 3: Intersecon. The Interagency Working Group on

Coordinaon of Domesc Energy Development and Perming in

Alaska (IWG) intersects with the Interagency Arcc Research Policy 

Commiee in terms of science informing perming. The IWG 

overlaps with the Naonal Ocean Council in areas such as regional

implementaon of ecosystem-based management. In implemenng 

U.S. policy, the IWG provides for the pursuit of ecosystem-based 

management in the Arcc.

Example 2: Intersecon. In implemenng 

U.S. policy, the departments of State, Interior, 

Commerce, and Energy shall work with other 

Arcc naons to ensure that hydrocarbon and 

other development in the Arcc region is 

carried out in accordance with accepted best 

pracces, internaonally recognized

standards and the 2006 G-8 Global Energy

Security Principles. The Interagency Working 

Group on Coordinaon of Domesc Energy 

Development and Perming in Alaska is

charged with facilitang the coordinated and 

efficient domesc energy development and 

permitng in Alaska while ensuring that all 

applicable standards are fully met. 

Security & 

Internaonal

(e.g., Interagency Policy CommieeNaonal Security Staff, Arcc Policy

Group - Department of State, U.S.

Extended Connental Shelf Task Force 

- Naonal Ocean Council/Department

of State, Department of Defense Task

Force Climate Change)

Science & 

Stewardship

(e.g., Naonal Ocean Council, 

Arcc research Commission,

Interagency Arcc Research 

Policy Commiee, Alaska

Marine Ecosystem Forum, 

North Slope Science Iniave, 

Alaska Climate Change

Execuve Roundtable) 

Energy 

Development & 

Transportaon

(e.g., Interagency Working 

Group on Coordinaon of

Domesc Energy Development 

and Perming in Alaska, 

Commiee on Marine 

Transportaon)

Example 1: Intersecon. The Naonal Security 

Staff sets forth policy for the United States to meet

naonal and homeland security needs relevant to

the Arctic Region. Under the Naonal Ocean 

Policy, the development of Coastal Marine Spaal 

Plans will be coordinated and compable with 

homeland and naonal security interests, including 

the flexibility to meet current and future needs. For 

example, Search and Rescue in the Arcc Region is

relevant across the enre spectrum of acvies to 

include – Security, Internaonal, Energy and 

Transportaon, Science and Interagency Arcc 

Research Policy Commiee and Stewardship. 

Figure 4.2. Examples of the interrelationships among U.S. interagency Arctic activities. Areas of intersection or instances of intra-set 

overlap reflect U.S. policy and associated implementation guidance as articulated consistently across various authorities. The examples 

below are neither exhaustive nor intended to emphasize a particular policy consideration. They are presented for informational purposes 

only. Figure courtesy of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee and the National Ocean Council.

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

40 The practical aspect of federal agency interactions with stakeholders in the Arctic is another issue that should be improved. 

For many of its proposed activities in the Arctic, the Federal 

Government is required to consult with and solicit comments 

from certain stakeholders. In some cases, there may be several 

different federal agencies taking separate actions in response to 

the same proposal. As a result, potentially affected groups and 

communities are sometimes inundated with government requests 

for input. These groups suffer from “meeting fatigue,” and they 

struggle to muster adequate resources or time to respond to 

agencies. The Federal Government would be a more effective 

partner if agencies coordinated their consultations and public 

reviews so that input could be gathered while reducing demands 

on local communities. 

Additional implications of compartmentalized management 

approaches include:

•	 best practices may not be applied evenly;

•	 policies and practices can be inconsistent across 

agencies;

•	 agencies may not have enough information or 

perspective to take into account long-term development 

and/or conservation trends or issues;

•	 consultation efforts between tribal governments 

and federal agencies may be inconsistent and/or 

uncoordinated; and 

•	 scientific research priorities may not sufficiently 

address the management needs of decision-makers.
These challenges underscore the complexity and possible variability of evaluating potential projects and plans in the Arctic 

with a proposal-by-proposal, area-by-area, piecemeal approach. 

In the rapidly changing Arctic, the current decision-making 

framework for managing natural resources may not be sufficiently flexible to adapt to future demands and emerging 

conflicts. In particular, individual agencies may not have the 

capability to develop an understanding of the broader development and/or conservation context in which their decisions 

may be nested. They also may not have a full understanding of the interests and needs of key stakeholders because of 

the limited resources available to stakeholders for responding 

to multiple actions. The concern, then, is that agencies may 

inadvertently make decisions that have unintended—and 

avoidable—consequences.

4.2. | Promising Approaches

Although the large number of agencies with Arctic responsibilities has created unique challenges for policy-makers and 

decision-makers, several good examples of local, regional, 

national, and international efforts to integrate the needs of 

ecosystems, economies, and cultures have emerged in recent 

years. These promising activities point the way toward common 

management approaches that can improve the knowledge base 

and decision-making capabilities in the Arctic for all levels of 

government.

Local and regional efforts: The Northwest Arctic 

Borough established the Subsistence Mapping Project to identify and map subsistence resources and provide information to 

support decisions about energy and infrastructure development. 

The project fosters cooperation with state and federal agencies 

and provides a foundation for integrating scientific information 

with local and traditional knowledge. Similarly, in the villages of 

Nuiqsut and Wainwright, the tribal governments, city governments, and the local Alaska Native corporations are collaborating 

to find structured ways to balance development and subsistence 

needs as they strive to prepare for the many changes that development may bring to the community.

The Open Water Season Conflict Avoidance Agreement 

between the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) and 

oil and gas companies is another example of integrating cultural, 

Figure 4.3. Multiple environmental evaluations of proposed oil and gas activities in the Arctic are often underway simultaneously

(BOEM—Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; BSEE—Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; NMFS—NOAA’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service). (image: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) 

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

41
environmental, and economic needs. To avoid unnecessary 

litigation, expense, and potential adverse impacts upon subsistence whaling activities, the AEWC and representatives from oil 

and gas corporations that are actively engaged in exploration or 

development negotiate measures to minimize impacts to subsistence activities. In past years, the companies have agreed to cease 

operations in certain areas during whaling seasons in the spring 

and fall (Figures 4.4 and 4.5). A terrestrial example of such a 

partnership concerns the Red Dog mine near Kotzebue; to avoid 

disruptions to subsistence hunting, the mine operators agreed to 

build a holding facility and avoid trucking ore during caribou 

migrations.

The Arctic Marine Mammal Coalition, a group of five tribally 

authorized Arctic Native organizations, has recently been formed 

to address similar issues for the Bering Strait. In a similar vein, 

several Alaska Native organizations are co-managing important 

subsistence species—including several marine mammal species—

via formal co-management agreements with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NOAA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Dept. of the Interior). 

Federal and state agency leaders in Alaska formed the Alaska 

Climate Change Executive Roundtable in 2007 as a mechanism 

for federal and state science agencies to share information about 

climate change activities and to facilitate cooperation among 

agencies. The North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI) was established by Congress as an intergovernmental forum of federal, 

state, local, and Alaska Native representatives to increase collaboration and address research and monitoring needs as they relate to 

development activities and environmental change on the North 

Slope of Alaska. NSSI has initiated a novel scenario-planning 

effort to gain a better understanding of the future and the kinds 

of activities and infrastructure it could support.

An innovative Arctic data-sharing agreement between NOAA 

and several oil and gas companies was signed in August 2011. The 

agreement provides a framework for industry to share information on meteorology, coastal and ocean currents, circulation and 

waves, sea ice, biological science, and hydrographic services and 

mapping with the Federal Government. This additional environmental information will enhance NOAA’s ability to monitor 

climate change and to support effective management decisions in 

the Arctic.

The Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) is a 

self-directed collection of agencies and stakeholders, established 

by the Department of the Interior, that is organized around the 

mission to identify and provide information needed to conserve 

natural and cultural resources in the face of landscape-scale 

stressors such as climate change. The USGS Alaska Climate 

Science Center provides scientific information, tools, and 

techniques that land, water, fish, wildlife, and cultural resource 

managers and other interested parties can use to anticipate, 

monitor, and adapt to climate- and ecology-driven responses. 

BOEM coordinates with both the Arctic LCC and the NSSI 

to provide funding opportunities for applied science for 

decision-making.

“The goal of the Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement is to balance development with our subsistence so 

that our subsistence resources and 

livelihood are protected while our 

country and our communities receive 

the benefits of development.”

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

February 2012

Bowhead whales in sea ice in the western Beaufort Sea 

(credit: A. Brower, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

42
Figure 4.4. 

Sensitive ecological 

areas and zones of 

development in the 

marine areas off of 

Northwest Alaska. 

(image: Scenarios 

Network for Alaska 

and Arctic Planning, 

Univ. of Alaska, 

Fairbanks) 

Figure 4.5. 

The spatial 

distribution of 

some examples 

of important 

areas for marine 

mammal subsistence 

hunting in relation 

to industrial 

development. 

(image: Scenarios 

Network for Alaska 

and Arctic Planning, 

Univ. of Alaska, 

Fairbanks)

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

43
The State of Alaska has focused on the need to improve coordination, particularly regarding economic issues. By establishing 

the Office of Project Management and Permitting composed 

of “project coordinators” for each sector, the state seeks to have 

agencies speak through one point of contact and with one voice. 

Although focused on the economic sector only, the initiative 

may provide a good model for broader interagency cooperation 

in the region.

Federal efforts: The Interagency Working Group on 

Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting 

in Alaska was established on July 12, 2011 by Executive Order 

13580 to coordinate federal permitting of energy development 

and “ensure the sharing and integrity of scientific and environmental information and cultural and traditional knowledge 

among agencies.” The Executive Order also identified formal 

liaison roles to facilitate engagement and coordination with the 

State of Alaska and with local communities, governments, tribes, 

co-management organizations, and with other Alaska Native 

organizations. The Alaska Interagency Working Group brings 

relevant permitting agencies into regular and close coordination 

regarding all aspects of onshore and offshore oil and gas and 

renewable energy development in Alaska.

The Alaska Interagency Working Group has convened stakeholders from the region to discuss improving the linkages between 

science and decision-making. These discussions identified the 

following needs: (1) to improve the accessibility of scientific 

information and traditional knowledge, making it available for 

decision-making; (2) to develop a common approach for combining data to map ecologically sensitive areas in the Arctic (Figure 

4.4); and (3) to gain a comprehensive understanding of potential 

infrastructure needs in the U.S. Arctic to anticipate development 

and conservation implications (Figure 4.5). The Chair of the U.S. 

Arctic Research Commission actively participated in these discussions, and the Commission initiative to provide easier public access 

to Arctic-related scientific information was a direct outgrowth of 

these cross-agency discussions (see Appendix I).

The Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT), established to 

coordinate the federal response to releases of oil or hazardous 

substances, is a unique federal collaboration for which the State 

of Alaska is considered the de facto co-chair. The enormous area 

of responsibility necessitates collaboration among 10 geographically specific Subarea Committees and contingency plans—three 

of which cover the geographical areas in this report.109 

A recent example of interagency progress in seeking ways to 

work together efficiently was the February 2012 workshop 

“Strengthening Partnerships: NOAA, BOEM, BSEE in the 

Arctic.” That workshop sought to improve communication, 

avoid duplication, and ensure that relevant management issues 

are adequately addressed.110 These agencies also signed a memorandum of understanding promoting cooperation on the 

development of Outer Continental Shelf energy resources and 

the conservation of living marine resources and marine ecosystems. In addition, multiple agencies and stakeholders participate 

in the annual “Open Water Meetings” in Anchorage, which 

address intersecting issues associated with oil and gas development and environmental protection. 

The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), 

comprising representatives from 14 agencies, departments, and 

offices across the Federal Government, is charged with developing five-year plans to coordinate research in the Arctic. Under 

the 2013 to 2017 plan, IARPC is coordinating 140 research 

projects in seven broad areas that will especially benefit from 

interagency collaboration: (1) sea ice and marine ecosystems; (2) 

terrestrial 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 studies. Reflecting the broad scientific 

consensus that rapid changes in climate are altering ice and snow 

cover with consequences for Arctic ecosystems, indigenous 

societies, and global climate, these studies are being coordinated 

among federal agencies in partnership with the State of Alaska, 

industry, indigenous organizations, academic researchers, and 

international collaborators. 

Executive Order 13547 established a comprehensive, integrated 

National Ocean Policy for the stewardship of the ocean, the coasts, 

and the Great Lakes. The Policy identifies changing conditions 

in the Arctic as a priority for federal agencies, in coordination 

with the State of Alaska, tribal governments, and Alaska Native 

communities. The National Ocean Policy also includes the 

adoption of ecosystem-based management as a foundational 

management principle. Ecosystem-based management is an 

adaptive, science-based management approach that accounts for 

economic and social benefits as well as environmental stewardship 

concerns; it is widely used by agencies nationwide.

International efforts: Under the leadership of the 

Department of State, the United States has played an active role 

in the Arctic Council since its establishment as a “high level 

forum” in 1996. In the Arctic Council, the United States works 

closely with the seven other nations with Arctic territory to discuss common challenges in the region and to seek joint solutions 

on the basis of consensus. The Council’s working groups provide 

expert advice on a range of subject matters.

Alaska Native seal hunter (credit: Dept. of the Interior)

44

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management
Norway’s Arctic strategy has facilitated collaborative approaches 

to balancing development with ecosystem needs. Government 

agencies and stakeholders in the Barents Sea region worked 

together to develop an ecosystem-based management approach to 

balancing the needs of industrial development, the fishing industry, and the important or vulnerable ecosystems of the region. 

According to an industry representative, this ecosystem-based 

approach has led to significant cost savings, time savings, and a 

great deal more certainty for their operations in the region, and 

scientists are confident that the most sensitive areas will not be 

impacted. Canada has initiated a similar approach in all of its 

marine areas, and the Arctic Council has formed an expert group 

to recommend further activities related to ecosystem-based management in the circumpolar Arctic.

4.3. | Integrating Arctic Management

The promising approaches described above are encouraging 

signs that it is possible to overcome the institutional barriers that 

inhibit coordination among agencies and hinder the integration 

of important larger-scale, cross-cutting environmental, economic, and cultural factors into the decision-making process. 

Principles that should guide implementation of an “Integrated 

Arctic Management” approach to decision-making emerge from 

the activities outlined above as well as from stakeholder comments provided during the preparation of this report.

In particular, many stakeholders strongly advocated that:

(1) The Federal Government should continue to advance 

a “whole-of-government” approach to improve efficiency, 

ensure consideration of cumulative impacts, streamline 

Figure 4.6. Location of 

Bureau of Land Management 

special areas and Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management 

deferral and alternate 

deferral areas within the area 

addressed by this report. 

(image: Scenarios Network 

for Alaska and Arctic 

Planning, Univ. of Alaska, 

Fairbanks)

decision-making, provide greater operational certainty for participants, and make the participatory requirements to stakeholders 

more efficient. 

(2) Management decisions and forward-looking planning should 

include direct and meaningful partnerships among industry, 

non-governmental organizations, communities, Alaska Natives, 

the State of Alaska, and federal agencies, with transparent, 

respectful, and consistent consultation and engagement with 

tribal governments being integral to the process. 

(3) Decisions should be science-based and focused on ensuring 

sustainable ecosystems and continuity of ecosystem functions and 

services by:

•	 identifying and protecting areas of significant ecological 

or cultural importance and/or sensitivity, along with 

the variables that define them;

•	 using the best available science to understand ecological 

processes, to identify and measure indicators of change, 

and to make policy and management decisions;

•	 utilizing and integrating traditional knowledge into 

decision-making;

•	 investing in research that meets the needs of managers 

and stakeholders, and coordinating data collection and 

analysis across the U.S. Arctic; and

•	 using precaution in decision-making, especially where 

the health, productivity, and resilience of ecosystems 

may be compromised. 45

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management
Stakeholders also identified additional principles of integrated 

decision-making, including the use of adaptive management 

approaches that allow decision-makers to manage through 

uncertainty by using baseline information and monitoring 

data to detect trends and make adjustments as new information 

becomes available; engaging in region-wide planning efforts 

that consider proposed activities across all U.S. Arctic jurisdictions to identify areas that are important to protect, those most 

vulnerable to change, and areas that can support development 

and infrastructure goals (e.g., Figure 4.6); and finding better ways 

to assess cumulative impacts* associated with development 

activities throughout the Arctic, enabling decision-makers to 

consider the broader context and potential additive consequences 

associated with individual project approvals. 

4.4. | Recommendations

The principles outlined above form the basis of a common 

approach for Arctic management and planning, an approach that 

integrates environmental, cultural, and economic concerns. This 

“Integrated Arctic Management” approach holds the promise of 

a broader-based and more consistent consideration of both development and conservation sensitivities and trends in the Arctic. 

The approach considers a larger scale than can be appreciated at 

the project- or agency-specific level, and takes into account the 

values and interests of all key stakeholders in the U.S. Arctic. 

Integrated Arctic Management should inform important planning 

and project decisions being made or influenced by federal, state, 

tribal, and local governments, as well as commercial interests, 

Alaska Native corporations, and non-governmental organizations. 

This is a management approach that already is taking hold in 

a meaningful way in the U.S. Arctic; the next step is to take 

additional, productive actions to facilitate the broader application 

of this approach without adding unnecessary layers of complexity 

or organizational overload. This report recommends that the 

U.S. Government:

1. Adopt an Integrated Arctic Management approach 

when making stewardship and development decisions affecting the U.S. Arctic: A commitment to 

apply the principles of Integrated Arctic Management will 

advance a common management approach that is resilient 

and adaptable to the changes taking place in the Arctic. 

Integrated Arctic Management is a science-based, whole-of-government approach to stewardship and planning in the U.S. Arctic that 

integrates and balances environmental, economic, and cultural needs 

and objectives. It is an adaptive, stakeholder-informed means for 

looking holistically at impacts and sensitivities across the U.S. Arctic 

and generating sustainable solutions.

2. Ensure ongoing high-level White House leadership on Arctic issues: Because of the importance of 

the Arctic to the United States, and recognizing the special 

challenges and opportunities that our Nation faces across a 

46

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

variety of sectors, the Administration is developing a National Strategy for the Arctic Region. This strategy, which will be 

established through the Presidential Policy Directive process, 

will identify strategic shared priorities for the U.S. Arctic 

region and will provide a framework for Executive Branch 

decision-making and high-level, government-wide leadership on the issues described in this report. The strategy, led 

by the National Security Staff, will help agencies coordinate 

and streamline the work of the Federal Government in the 

Arctic and amplify best practices and successful innovations. 

Integrated Arctic Management will play a key role in the 

stewardship, development, and infrastructure planning aspects 

of this broad strategy.

3. Strengthen key partnerships: The number of federal, 

state, local, and Alaska Native entities involved in Arctic decisions complicates efforts to build resilience and integrate the 

environmental, economic, and cultural interests and values 

of stakeholders in the region. Developing and maintaining 

strong, effective partnerships is integral to implementing an 

effective Arctic Strategy at the federal level. An important 

element of any strategy for the U.S. Arctic will be a clear 

delineation of state and federal roles implementing future 

Arctic programs. Two partners in the U.S. Arctic merit special 

attention from the Federal Government: the State of Alaska, 

and Alaska Native tribal governments and organizations.

State of Alaska—The Federal Government should 

promptly initiate a high-level dialogue with representatives 

of the State of Alaska, with the aim of facilitating a clearer 

understanding of shared goals and the identification of promising joint initiatives with this important partner.

Alaska Natives—High-level federal leadership should 

also promptly engage with Alaska Native leaders to reaffirm 

their special relationship with the Federal Government and 

to identify specific objectives for advancing Alaska Native 

roles and perspectives in the Arctic.

4. Promote better stakeholder engagement: The Federal 

Government should evaluate the existing ways through 

which federal agencies, key partners, and other stakeholders 

interact on management and planning issues in the U.S. 

Arctic. The goal of this assessment, to be conducted in 

2013, should be to identify where stakeholder engagement 

is working well and to consider ways to build on good 

systems that are in place, rather than creating new layers of 

stakeholder involvement. To facilitate this exercise, it may 

be helpful to consider convening an “Arctic Partnership 

Roundtable” that would include representatives of federal, 

state, tribal, and municipal governments; Alaska Native 

corporations; commercial interests; and conservation 

organizations. This forum could be used to survey and 

evaluate the effectiveness of current approaches to 

stakeholder engagement, while also sharing perspectives, 

discussing future plans and expectations, identifying common 

goals, and promoting partnerships to achieve those goals.

*The term “cumulative impacts” refers to the combined, incremental effects of human activity on a resource, ecosystem, or human community.111 Impacts of 

an action may be relatively insignificant on their own, but as they accumulate over time and combine with the impacts from other sources, they can lead to 

significant overall degradation of resources.
Sea ice in the Chukchi Sea (credit: J.L. Bengtson, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)

5. Coordinate and streamline federal actions: By 

the end of 2013, the Federal Government should conduct 

a review of the numerous interagency efforts related to the 

U.S. Arctic, with an eye toward identifying and addressing 

overlapping missions and reducing duplication of effort. In 

addition, there are several tools and processes already in use in 

the U.S. Arctic that, with increased coordination, can help to 

advance the Integrated Arctic Management approach to decision-making. With increased support from agency leadership, 

the following processes can be deployed in a coordinated, 

effective way to improve management decisions.

Linking science and management—Because sound 

management and planning decisions cannot be made without 

reliable information, it is vital that science and management 

efforts are linked together effectively. Integrated ecosystem 

research programs are a natural and essential partner to 

Integrated Arctic Management. The Federal Government 

should identify and implement specific actions that already 

are underway and/or that may be improved to: (1) strengthen 

the capacity of science programs to provide focused, 

ecosystem-based information needed by decision-makers 

for wise stewardship and development of natural resources; 

and (2) improve decision-makers’ access to integrated 

scientific information and traditional knowledge relevant to 

management in the Arctic.

Environmental evaluations—Many agencies are preparing both project-specific and programmatic environmental 

analyses, as required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). While there is some cooperation across agencies in preparing these documents, different analysts often 

draw on different sources of scientific information and focus 

on different topics in these analyses. There is no common, 

up-to-date compendium, for example, that analysts can use 

to identify area-wide development trends, area-wide environmental sensitivities, or changing conditions. As appropriate, 

agencies involved in environmental evaluations should prepare broad-based, Arctic-wide information products that can 

be shared among agencies and be included as part of NEPA 

analyses for agency-specific actions. Having access to these 

types of shared analyses would promote the sustainability of 

key ecosystems and processes by enabling improvements in 

assessments of cumulative impacts of natural and anthropogenic change. 

Important ecological and subsistence areas—There are 

a number of evaluations completed and underway that seek 

to identify sensitive or important environmental and subsistence areas in the Arctic and analyze the related impacts 

of climate change. These analyses should be assembled in 

2013 to provide a more complete, region-wide picture of the 

areas of special environmental sensitivity, vulnerability, or 

importance. This evaluation should be kept current and made 

readily available to decision-makers and stakeholders alike to 

facilitate a broader consideration of environmental sensitivities in the Arctic.

47

Chapter 4: Toward an Integrated, Science-Based Approach to Arctic Management

Scenario planning—Planning in the face of uncertainty 

can be enhanced by recognizing a set of plausible futures, or 

“scenarios” for the systems under consideration. There are a 

variety of scenario-planning efforts underway in the Arctic 

that could provide the type of forward-looking information 

about development trends important to Integrated Arctic 

Management. When these efforts are complete, federal 

agencies should assemble and assess the results to guide 

priority-setting and share Arctic-wide information about 

future activities that might otherwise be overlooked.

International coordination—The federal Arctic 

leadership team should facilitate international coordination 

by ensuring that the U.S. Senior Arctic Official is fully 

briefed on domestic efforts in the Arctic so that the 

Department of State can coordinate these efforts with those 

of the United States’ bordering international partners and 

other Arctic nations through the Arctic Council. This 

coordination will be of particular importance before and 

during the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council from 

2015 to 2017.

4.5. | Conclusion

In preparing for this report, the authors engaged in dialogues 

with many agencies and stakeholders in the U.S. Arctic to determine how the U.S. Government might improve management 

processes and practices to adapt to the rapid changes taking place 

there. All parties agreed that management decisions in the U.S. 

Arctic should seek to foster healthy economies, promote thriving 

cultures, and ensure sustainable ecosystems—an encouraging 

consensus and good starting point for advancing a holistic, inclusive approach that integrates these goals. 

Discussing this new approach has energized stakeholders and 

agencies, but its implementation will involve a very complex 

and challenging transition. In some instances this transition 

has already begun, and building momentum will require a 

thoughtful examination of opportunities and a much deeper 

engagement with partners and stakeholders. 

This report is a call to action on a pressing issue of national 

importance. The cultural, ecological, and economic costs of 

failing to adapt and strengthen management approaches in 

the face of rapid change are unacceptable. Success will require 

innovative and coordinated approaches that build upon the 

vast knowledge and experience of the people that know this 

region well and are committed to finding sustainable solutions. 

Our challenge is to apply the principles of Integrated Arctic 

Management to today’s decisions and to those that lie ahead in 

our shared future as an Arctic nation. 
References

1

Markon, C. J., S. F. Trainor, and F. S. Chapin III (Editors). 2012. The United States national climate assessment—Alaska technical 

regional report. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1379, 148 p.

2

IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (Editors), 

Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 7-22.

3

Overland, J. E., K. R. Wood, and M. Wang. 2011. Warm Arctic—cold continents: impacts of the newly open Arctic Sea. Polar Research 30, 

15787, 14 p., doi:10.3402/polar.v30i0.15787.

4

Alaska Climate Research Center. 2012. Temperature change in Alaska. University of Alaska, webpage posted 23 May 2012, http://climate.

gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html.

5

Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. University of Alaska website accessed January 2013, 

http://www.snap.uaf.edu/datamaps.php.

6

Derksen, C., and R. Brown. 2012. Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections. 

Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, L19504, 6 p., doi:10.1029/2012GL053387. 

7

Euskirchen, E. S., A. D. McGuire, F. S. Chapin III, S. Yi, and C. C. Thompson. 2009. Changes in vegetation in northern Alaska under scenarios of climate change, 2003-2100: implications for climate feedbacks. Ecological Applications 19(4):1022-1043.

8

Martin, P. D., J. L. Jenkins, F. J. Adams, M. T. Jorgenson, A. C. Matz, D. C. Payer, P. E. Reynolds, A. C. Tidwell, and J. R. Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife 

response to environmental Arctic change: predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Report from a workshop with the same name, 17-18 

November 2008, Fairbanks, AK. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 138 p.

9

Hezel, P. J. J., X. Zhang, C. M. Bitz, B. P. 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 39, L17505, 6 p., doi:10.1029/2012GL052794. 

10Callaghan, T., M. Johansson, R. Brown, P. Groisman, N. Labba, V. Radionov, R. Barry, O. Bulygina, R. Essery, D. Frolov, V. Golubev, T. Grenfell, M. Petrushina, V. Razuvaev, D. Robinson, P. Romanov, D. Shindell, A. Shmakin, S. Sokratov, S. Warren, and D. Yang. 2011. The changing 

face of Arctic snow cover: a synthesis of observed and projected changes. Ambio 40:17-31.

11Brown, R., and D. Robinson. 2011 Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover variability and change over 1922-2010 including an assessment of uncertainty. The Cryosphere 5:219-229.

12Stone, R. S, E. G. Dutton, J. M. Harris, D. Longenecker. 2002. Earlier spring snowmelt in northern Alaska as an indicator of climate change. 

Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, 4089, 13 p. 

13Hood, D. W., and D. C. Burrell (Editors). 1975. Assessment of the Arctic marine environment. Institute of Marine Science, University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, Occasional Publication No. 4, 468 p.

14Fabry, V., B. Seibel, R. Feely, and J. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. Ices Journal of Marine Science 65:414-432, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn048.

15Cooley, S., and S. Doney. 2009. Anticipating ocean acidification’s economic consequences for commercial fisheries. Environmental Research Letters 4:024007, 8 p., doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024007. 

16Janetos, A., L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B. P. Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw. 2008. Biodiversity. In: The effects of climate change on 

agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee 

on Global Change Research, Washington, DC, p. 151-181.

17Marz, S. 2010. Arctic sea ice ecosystem: a summary of species that depend on and associate with sea ice and projected impacts from sea ice 

changes. Report to the Arctic Council Working Group on the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Tromso, Norway, 64 p.

18Jay, C. V,, B. G. Marcot, and D. C. Douglas. 2011. Projected status of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in the twenty-first century. Polar Biology 34:1065-1084, doi:I 10.1007/s00300-011-0967-4.

48

References
19Leong, H., K. Brander, E. Carmack, S. Denisenko, K. Drinkwater, B. Hansen, K. Kovacs, P. Livingston, F. McLaughlin, and E. Sakshaug. 

2005. Marine systems. In: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 453–538.

20Frey, K. E., K. R. Arrigo, and R. R. Gradinger. 2011. Arctic Ocean primary productivity. Arctic report card: update for 2011. NOAA, 

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/primary_productivity.html.

21Laidre, K. L., I. Stirling, L. F. Lowry, Ø. Wiig, M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, and S. H. Ferguson. 2008. Quantifying the sensitivity of Arctic marine 

mammals to climate-induced habitat change. Ecological Applications 18:S97-S125.

22Kovacs, K. M., C. Lydersen, J. E. Overland, and S. E. Moore. 2011. Impacts of changing sea-ice conditions on Arctic marine mammals. 

Marine Biodiversity 41:181-194.

23Tynan, C. T., and D. P. DeMaster. 1997. Observations and predictions of Arctic climate change: potential effects on marine mammals. Arctic 

50(4):308-322.

24Kelly, B. P. 2001. Climate change and ice breeding pinnipeds. In: G.-R. Walther, C. A. Burga, and P. J. Edwards (Editors), “Fingerprints” of 

climate change: adapted behaviour and shifting species ranges. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, p. 43-55, doi:10.1007/978-

1-4419-8692-4.

25Fischbach, A. S., S. C. Amstrup, and D. C. Douglas. 2007. Landward and eastward shift of Alaskan polar bear denning associated with recent 

sea ice changes. Polar Biology 30:1395-1405.

26Francis, J. A., and S. J. Vavrus. 2012. Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophysical Research Letters 39, L06801, 6 p., doi:10.1029/2012GL051000.

27Wang, M., and J. E. Overland. 2012. A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years: an update from CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research 

Letters, Volume 39, L18501, 6 p., doi:10.1029/2012GL052868.

28Maslowski, W., J. C. Kinney, M. Higgins, and A. Roberts. 2012. The future of Arctic sea ice. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 

40:625-654.

29Stroeve, J., V. Kattsov, A. Barrett, M. Serreze, T. Pavlova, M. Holland, and W. N. Meier. 2012. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, 

CMIP3 and observations. Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, L16502, 7 p., doi:10.1029/2012GL052676.

30Holland, M. M., and C. M. Bitz. 2003. Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. Climate Dynamics 21:221-232.

31Serreze, M. C., and J. A. Francis. 2006. The Arctic on the fast track of change. Weather 61:65-69.

32Wieslaw, M., and A. Roberts. 2010. Future changes in Arctic sea ice cover. In: A. Roberts, J. Cassano, R. Döscher, A., L. Hinzman, M. Holland, H. Mitsudera, A. Sumi, and J. E. Walsh (Editors), 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, p. 23-25.

33Kwok, R., and N. Untersteiner. 2011. The thinning of Arctic sea ice. Physics Today 64(April):36-41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3580491.

34Orr, J. C., V. J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S. C. Doney, R. A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R. M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. 

Maier-Reimer, R. J. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R. G. Najjar, G. K. Plattner, 

K. B. Rodgers, B. Keith C. L. Sabine, J. L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R. D. Slater, I. 

J. Totterdell, M. F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean 

acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. 

Nature 437:681-686, doi:10.1038/nature04095.

35Yamamoto-Kawai, M., F. A. McLaughlin, E. C. Carmack, S. Nishino, and K. 

Shimada. 2009. Aragonite undersaturation in the Arctic Ocean: effects of ocean 

acidification and sea ice melt. Science 326(5956):1098-1100, doi:10.1126/science.1174190.

36Grebmeier J. M. 2012. Shifting patterns of life in the Pacific Arctic and sub-Arctic seas. Annual Review of Marine Science 4:63-78.

Polar bear swimming in the Chukchi Sea 

(credit: S. Parker-Stetter, Univ. of Washington)

49

References
37Flint, P. L., E. J. Mallek, R. J. King, J. A. Schmutz, K. S. Bollinger, and D. V. Derksen. 2008. Changes in abundance and spatial distribution of 

geese molting near Teshekpuk Lake, Alaska: interspecific competition or ecological change? Polar Biology 31:549-556.

38Lewis, T. L., P. L. Flint, D. V. Derksen, and J. A. Schmutz. 2011. Fine scale movements and habitat use of black brant during the flightless 

wing molt in Arctic Alaska. Waterbirds 34:177-185.

39Lewis, T. L., P. L. Flint, D. V. Derksen, J. A. Schmutz, E. J. Taylor, and K. S. Bollinger. 2011. Using body mass dynamics to explain long-term 

shifts in habitat use of arctic-molting geese: evidence for ecological change. Polar Biology 34:1751-1762.

40Putkonen, J., T. C. Grenfell, K. Rennert, C. Bitz, P. Jacobson, and D. Russell. 2009. Rain on snow: little understood killer in the north. Eos 

90:221-222.

41Liston, G. E., and C. A. Hiemstra. 2011. The changing cryosphere: pan-Arctic snow trends (1979–2009). Journal of Climate 24:5691–5712.

42Jorgenson, M. T., Y. L. Shur, and E. R. Pullman. 2006. Abrupt increase in permafrost degradation in Arctic Alaska. Geophysical Research 

Letters 33, L02503, 4 p., doi:10.1029/2005GL024960.

43AMAP. 2011. Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): climate change and the cryosphere. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway, 538 p.

44Stephenson, S. R., L. C. Smith, and J. A. Agnew. 2011. Divergent long-term trajectories of human access to the Arctic. Nature Climate 

Change 1:156-160.

45Schaefer, K., T. Zhang, L. Bruhwiler, and A. P. Barrett. 2011. Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming. Tellus Series B, Chemical and Physical Meteorology 63(2):165-180, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2011.00527.x.

46Magnuson, J. J., D. M. Robertson, B. J. Benson, R. H. Wynne, D. M. Livingstone, T. Arai, R. A. Assel, R. G. Barry, V. Card, E. Kuusisto, N. 

G. Granin, T. D. Prowse, K. M. Stewart, and V. S. Vuglinski. 2000. Historical trends in lake and river ice cover in the northern hemisphere. 

Science 289:1743-1746.

47Dibike, Y., T. Prowse, B. Bonsal, L. de Rham, and T. Saloranta. 2011. Simulation of North American lake-ice cover characteristics under 

contemporary and future climate conditions. International Journal of Climatology 32:695-709.

48Jones, B. M., C. D. Arp, R. A. Beck, G. Grosse, J., Webster, and F. E. Urban. 2009. Erosional history of Cape Halkett and contemporary monitoring of bluff retreat, Beaufort Sea coast, Alaska. Polar Geography 32:129-142.

49Jones, B. M., C. D. Arp, M. T. Jorgenson, K. M. Hinkel, J. A. Schmutz, and P. L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate and uniformity of coastline 

erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503, 5 p., doi:10.1029/2008GL036205.

50Jorgenson, M. T., and J. Brown. 2005. Classification of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea coast and estimation of sediment and carbon inputs from 

coastal erosion. Geo-Marine Letters 25:69-80.

51Larsen, P. H., S. Goldsmith, O. Smith, M. L. Wilson, K. Strzepek, P. Chinowsky, and B. Saylor. 2008. Estimating future costs for Alaska public 

infrastructure at risk from climate change. Global Environmental Change 18(3):442–457.

52Larsen, P., S. Goldsmith, M. Wilson, O. Smith, K. Strzepek, P. Chinowsky, B. Saylor. 2007. Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK, 108 p., http://ine.

uaf.edu/accap/documents/Full%20Report%20ICICLE.pdf.

53Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission (ACIAC). 2008. Final commission report: Alaska State Legislature March 17, 2008. Accessed 20 October 2012 at http://www.housemajority.org/coms/cli/cli_finalreport_20080301.pdf.

54CCAAG. 2008. Alaska climate change strategy: public infrastructure. Materials prepared for CCAAG meeting, May 16, 2008. Climate 

Change Adaptation Advisory Group, Alaska State Government, Anchorage, AK, 6 p., http://www.akclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/

O97F17336.pdf.

55Barney, R. J., and A. L. Comiskey. 1973. Wildfires and thunderstorms on Alaska’s North Slope. USDA Forest Service, Research Note PNW212, 8 p.

56Jones, B. M., C. A. Kolden, R. Jandt, J. Abatzoglou, F. Urban, and C. D. Arp. 2009. Fire behavior, weather, and burn severity of the 2007 

Anaktuvuk River tundra fire, North Slope, Alaska. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 41(3):309-316, doi:10.1657/1938-4246-41.3.309.

50

References
57Hu, F. S., P. E. Higuera, J. E. Walsh, W. L. Chapman, P. A. Duffy, L. B. Brubaker, and M. L. Chipman. 2010. Tundra burning in Alaska: linkages 

to climatic change and sea ice retreat. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, G04002, 8 p., doi:10.1029/2009JG001270.

58Wiedinmeyer, C., and H. Friedli. 2007. Mercury emission estimates from fires: an initial inventory for the United States. Environmental 

Science and Technology 41:8092-8098.

59Mack, M. C., M. S. Bret-Harte, T. N. Hollingsworth, R. R. Jandt, E. A. G. Schuur, G. R. Shaver, and D. L. Verbyla. 2011. Carbon loss from an 

unprecedented Arctic tundra wildfire. Nature 475:489-492, doi:10.1038/nature10283.

60Berkes, F., B. Forbes, G. Kofinas, T. Vlassova, and G. Wenzel. 2005. Hunting, herding, fishing, and gathering: indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the Arctic. In: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 650-690.

61ADCCED. 2012. 2010 Alaska economic performance report. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, 

Anchorage, AK, 47 p.

62Goldsmith, S. 2012. TAPS at 35: accounting for the oil revenues. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Web Note no. 12, July 2012, 5 

p., http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/webnote/2012_07_11-WebNote12.pdf.

63USGCRP. 2009. Regional climate impacts: Alaska. In: T. R. Karl, J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson (Editors), Global climate change impacts 

in the United States. A state of knowledge report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, 

NY, p. 139-144, http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf.

64Minerals Management Service. 2006. Assessment of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, MMS Fact Sheet RED-2006-01b, 6 p. Available for 

download at http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/Resource-Evaluation/RedNatAssessment.aspx.

65NANA Regional Corporation. 2008. The northwest Arctic strategic energy plan. Accessed 30 Oct 2012 at http://www.nwabor.org/

forms/EnergyPlan.pdf.

66Alaska Energy Authority. 2011. Renewable energy atlas of Alaska: a guide to Alaska’s clean, local, and inexhaustible energy resources. Alaska 

Energy Authority, Anchorage, AK, 29 p.

67NANA Regional Corporation. 2010. Renewable energy. Accessed 21 Oct 2012 at http://www.nana.com/regional/resources/alternative-energy/.

68Division of Community and Regional Affairs Research and Analysis Section (DCRARAS). 2012. Current community conditions: Alaska 

fuel price report, January 2012. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, 21 Oct 2012, http://www.

bbna.com/ak%20state/FuelWatch_2012_January.pdf.

69Kotzebue Electric Association. 2012. The wind farm that continues to grow. 21 Oct 2012, http://www.kea.coop/articles/the-wind-farmthat-continues-to-grow/. 

70Resource Development Council for Alaska. 2012. Alaska’s mining industry. Resource Development Council for Alaska, Anchorage, AK, 

website accessed December 2012, http://www.akrdc.org/issues/mining/overview.html.

71Szumigala, D. J., L. A. Harbo, and J. N. Adleman. 2011. Alaska’s mineral industry 2010. Special Report 65. Alaska Division of Geological & 

Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK, 83 p.

72Flores, R. M., G. D. Stricker, and S. A. Kinney. 2003. Alaska coal resources and 

coalbed methane potential. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2198, 4 p., http://

pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2198.

73Flores, R. M., G. D. Stricker, and S. A. Kinney. 2004. Alaska coal geology, resources, and coalbed methane potential. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS-77, 127 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-077/.

74U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2012. What is the role of coal in the 

United States? U.S. Department of Energy website. Updated July 18, 2012, http://

www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/role_coal_us.cfm.

Beluga whales in sea ice in the western Beaufort Sea 

(credit: V. Beaver, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)

51

References
75U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995. Economic feasibility of mining in the Colville mining district, Alaska. U.S. Bureau of Mines Open-file Report 

OFR 49-95, 26 p.

76Haley, S., M. Klick, N. Szymoniak, and A. Crow. 2011. Observing trends and assessing data for Arctic mining. Polar Geography 34:1-2, 37-61. 

77Humpert, M. 2011. The future of the northern sea route—a “golden waterway” or a niche trade route. The Arctic Institute, Center for 

Circumpolar Security, Washington, DC, http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2011/10/future-of-northern-sea-route-golden_13.html.

78Cheung, W. W. L., V. W. Y. Lam, and D. Pauly. 2008. Dynamic bioclimate envelope model to predict climate-inducted changes in distribution 

of marine fishes and invertebrates. In: W. W. L. Cheung, V. W. Y. Lam, and D. Pauly (Editors), Modelling present and climate-shifted distribution of marine fishes and invertebrates. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Fisheries Centre Research Report 16(3), p. 5-50.

79PICES/ICES. 2011. Report of the ICES/PICES Workshop on Biological Consequences of a Decrease in Sea Ice in Arctic and Sub-Arctic 

Seas (WKBCASAS), 22 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/SSGHIE:14, 10 p.

80Sigler, M. F., M. Renner, S. L. Danielson, L. B. Eisner, R. R. Lauth, K. J. Kuletz, E. A. Logerwell, and G. L. Hunt Jr. 2011. Fluxes, fins, and 

feathers: relationships among the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas in a time of climate change. Oceanography 24(3):250-265.

81NPFMC. 2009. Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area. North Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council, Anchorage, AK, 146 p., http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fishery-management-plans/arctic.html.

82State of Alaska. 2010. Economic impact of Alaska’s visitor industry. Prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Economic Development, 34 p.

83State of Alaska. 2012. Alaska visitor statistics program VI: summer 2011. Prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Economic Development. Multiple pagination.

84U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: public use [poster]. Accessed 21 October 2012 at http://arctic.fws.

gov/pdf/ccppup.pdf.

85Christensen, N., and L. Christensen. 2009. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge visitor study: the characteristics, experiences, and preference of 

refuge visitors. Accessed 22 October 2012 at http://arctic.fws.gov/pdf/visitorstudy.pdf.

86National Park Service. 2012. National Park Service visitor use statistics: annual park visitation (all years) for Bering Land Bridge, Cape 

Krusenstern, Gates of the Arctic, Kobuk Valley, and Noatak. Accessed 22 October 2012 at https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/ReportList.

87Arctic Council. 2009. Arctic marine shipping assessment 2009 report. Tromso, Norway, 189 p.

88Marine Exchange of Alaska. 2012. Vessel tracking. Marine Exchange of Alaska, Juneau, AK. Website accessed 23 October 2012 at http://

www.mxak.org/vtrack/login.html.

89Ringer, G. 2006. Cruising north to Alaska: The new ‘gold rush’. In: R. K. Dowling (Editor), Cruise ship tourism: issues, impacts, cases. 

CABI Publishing/Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p. 270-279. 

90Stewart, E. J., S. E. L. Howell, D. Draper, J. Yackel, and A. Tivy. 2007. Sea ice in Canada’s Arctic: implication for cruise tourism. Arctic 

60(4):370-80.

91BLM. 2003. Northwest National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska. Final integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement, volumes 1 

and 2. U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and Minerals Management Service.

92NOAA. 2011. Arctic nautical charting plan. A plan to Support sustainable marine transportation in Alaska and the Arctic. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coast Survey, Marine Charting Division, 53 p.

93NOAA. 2012. NOAA ship Fairweather conducting hydrographic reconnaissance in the Arctic. Mission to update measurements dating to 

the 18th century. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120730_fairweather.

html.

94Markus, T., J. Stroeve, and J. Miller. 2009. Recent changes in Arctic sea ice melt onset, freezeup, and melt season length. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, C12024, 14 p., doi:10.1029/2009JC005436.

95GAO. 2004. Alaska native villages: villages affected by flooding and erosion have difficulty qualifying for federal assistance. Highlights of GAO04-895T, a testimony before the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, 17 p.

52

References
96Hecht, J. 2012. Fibre optics to connect Japan to the UK—via the Arctic. New Scientist (March 20), p. 19.

97Northern Economics. 2009. Economic analysis of future offshore oil and gas development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and North Aleutian 

Basin. Prepared for Shell Exploration and Production. Northern Economics, Anchorage, AK, 136 p., http://www-static.shell.com/static/

usa/downloads/alaska/econanalysisofoffshoreogdevpt.pdf.

98Anchorage Daily News. 2010. Dwindling flow poses Trans-Alaska Pipeline dilemma. Anchorage Daily News, Anchorage, AK, http://www.

adn.com/2010/08/14/1410317/dwindling-flow-poses-trans-alaska.html.

99Barrett, T. 2011. Declining flow and the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). PowerPoint presentation by T. Barrett, Alyeska President, to 

Resource Development Council, 1 September 2011. Available at http://www.aoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/09-01-11-RDCBreakfast-Tom-Barrett-Alyeska-Declining-Flow-TAPS.pdf.

100ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. 2012. Communication number 43: ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.’s comments on the Draft Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the NPR-A. National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska: Final Integrated Activity Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume 5 (Chapters 5 and 6). Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage, AK, p. 366-407.

101BOEM. 2011. Lease sales (updated September 1, 2011). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Region, 1 p., http://www.

boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Leasing_and_Plans/Leasing/Alaska%20Region%20

Lease%20Sales%20To%20Date.pdf.

102Natural Resources Committee. 2012. Obama Administration American energy roadblocks Part 4: Alaska. U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC, http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=311519.

103Alaska Miners Association. 2012. Issues of concern for the Alaska mining industry for 2012. Alaska Miners Association, Inc., Anchorage, 

AK, 2 p., http://www.alaskaminers.org/ioc2012.pdf.

104United Fishermen of Alaska. 2011. Resolution 2011-2: a resolution of the United Fishermen of Alaska supporting the reestablishment of 

an Alaska coastal management program. United Fishermen of Alaska, Juneau, AK, 1 p.

105United Nations. 2008. United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Articles 29, 32, et al. United Nations, New York, 

15 p.

106Holland-Bartels, L., and B. Pierce (Editors). 2011. An evaluation of the science needs to inform decisions on Outer Continental Shelf 

energy development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1370, 278 p.

107Department of Homeland Security. 2005. National plan to achieve maritime domain awareness for the National Strategy for Maritime 

Security. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 20 p. + appendices, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/HSPD_MDAPlan.

pdf.

108White House. 2005. The national strategy for maritime security. The White House, Washington, DC, 26 p., http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/maritime-security.html and http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=456414.

109Alaska Regional Response Team. 2012. Alaska Regional Response Team website, http://www.alaskarrt.org.

110Alaska Sea Grant. 2012. Strengthening partnerships. NOAA, BOEM, BSEE in the Arctic. Report of a workshop held 23-24 February 

2012, Anchorage. Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, AK, 40 p., http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2012/boem/.

111EPA. 1999. Consideration of cumulative impacts in EPA review of NEPA documents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Federal Activities (2252A). EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999, 22 p.

Arctic cod swimming inside sea ice (credit: E.C. Siddon, Univ. of Alaska/NOAA)

53

References
Appendix I.

Arctic Science Portal

The U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) created a web portal* to provide decision-makers with easier access to scientific information about the Arctic. This effort is consistent with the Commission’s statutory responsibility to promote access to scientific information and to encourage greater coordination among research entities and government agencies. This document describes the project and 

the results to date.

_________________________

*A web site that brings information together from diverse sources in a uniform way.

54

Appendix I.
Purpose

A great deal of information and knowledge about the Arctic exists, though in many cases, it can be difficult to locate or access. At a 

time when the world is increasingly interested in the Arctic, and when many decisions are being made that will impact the region, it is 

essential that relevant research and information be readily available. The Arctic Science Portal, essentially a website guide to other websites, is designed to be a user-friendly interface that connects researchers, regulators, and the general public with information needed for 

decision-making, as well as for general information and education. 

When publicly released, the Arctic Science Portal will be hosted on the U.S. Arctic Research Commission’s website (www.arctic.gov). 

A draft version of the portal is currently available, for official use only, at www.arctic.gov/portal. The portal consists of an organized 

collection of links (URLs) to websites where Arctic information is publicly available. The portal directs users to appropriate websites 

based on topic and a short description (e.g., Arctic weather, sea ice conditions, fisheries, terrestrial ecosystems, oceanography, oil spill 

response research, etc.).

Importantly, the portal is not a tool whereby data from one or more sources can be combined, integrated, or analyzed. Nor will it be a 

site where data are archived. Instead, it is designed to direct users to readily available information. By categorizing this information and 

making it easily accessible from a single source, USARC’s goal is to provide a product that adds value beyond existing capabilities.

Scope

The initial focus and emphasis of the portal is on the U.S. Arctic region, as defined by Arctic Research and Policy Act.* However, links 

to non-U.S. websites with relevant Arctic information are also included and will continue to be added as the portal grows.

Audience

The Arctic Science Portal is designed to be accessible by a broad audience, in addition to experts, such as students, reporters, elected officials, research scientists, subsistence users, regulators, and the general public. USARC attempted to design a tool that is user friendly and 

enables feedback that will enable us to improve the portal and make it even more useful to the user community.

Process

USARC solicited input from a broad community of entities that create Arctic information and knowledge. In response, USARC received suggestions from many federal agencies, the State of Alaska, non-governmental organizations, and from non-U.S. governments. 

Once the portal is publicly released, USARC will continue to solicit input. The portal is also designed to encourage users to send 

feedback and suggestions for improvement. USARC will regularly update the portal based on such feedback. It is USARC’s hope to 

explore the possibility of a content management system during a second phase of the project, which would enable USARC to create an 

expanded, more searchable database that requires less day-to-day maintenance.

*”Arctic” means all U.S. and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all U.S. territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, 

and Kuskokwim Rivers; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain. 

55

Appendix I.
Appendix II.

Preparing This Report

This report was prepared with input from a broad group of agencies and stakeholders. One of the principal sources of that input came 

from listening sessions and discussions that were held with individuals and groups closely tied to the U.S. Arctic. Diverse perspectives 

were provided by representatives from federal, state, tribal, and municipal governments; Alaska Native organizations; commercial interests; 

and conservation and environmental organizations. The organizations listed below provided input to the development of this report. 

Their listing does not indicate that they support or endorse the report or its findings. The report is the sole responsibility of the U.S. 

Government. The listening sessions and discussions focused on the following topics: 

1.Goals: The most important environmental, economic, and cultural or other goals for the U.S. Arctic over the next 20 to 30 

years and beyond.

2.Opportunities: Effective strategies that have been used or could be used for decision-making in the Arctic.

3.Challenges: Removing obstacles to making sound, science-based decisions in the Arctic.

4.Federal Government: Steps through which the Federal Government can be a more effective partner in helping to achieve 

sustainability in the U.S. Arctic. 

State of Alaska agencies providing input to this report

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

Governor’s Office, State of Alaska

Tribal governments and Alaska Native organizations providing input to this report

Alaska Beluga Whale Committee

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

Alaska Federation of Natives

Alaska Nanuuq Commission 

Arctic Marine Mammal Coalition

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

Bering Straits Native Corporation

Bristol Bay Native Association

Eskimo Walrus Commission

Ice Seal Committee

Indigenous People’s Council for Marine Mammals

Inuit Circumpolar Council

Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope

Kawerak, Inc.

Kuukpik Corporation

NANA Regional Corporation

Native Village of Anaktuvuk Pass

Native Village of Atqasuk

Native Village of Barrow

Native Village of Elim

Native Village of Gambell

Native Village of Kaktovik

Native Village of Kotzebue

Native Village of Nome

Native Village of Nuiqsut

Native Village of Point Hope

Native Village of Point Lay

Native Village of Shishmaref

Native Village of Teller

Native Village of Wainwright 

Native Village of Wales

Olgoonik Corporation

Qayassiq Walrus Commission

Sitnasuak Native Corporation

Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation

Unalakleet Native Corporation Boat frame at Gambell 

(credit: R.A. Winfree, National Park Service)

56

Appendix II.
Municipal governments providing input to this report

Alaska Municipal League

City of Barrow

City of Kotzebue

City of Nome

City of Nuiqsut

City of Wainwright

North Slope Borough

Northwest Arctic Borough

Commercial and industrial stakeholders providing input to this report

Alaska Cruise Association

Alaska Oil and Gas Association

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 

Bering Sea Alliance LLC

ConocoPhillips Alaska

Resource Development Council 

Shell Oil Company 

United Fishermen of Alaska

Conservation and environmental organizations providing input to this report

Audubon Alaska

Defenders of Wildlife

Earth Justice

Natural Resources Defense Council

Oceana 

Ocean Conservancy 

Pew Environment Group

The Wilderness Society

World Wildlife Fund

Federal Government agencies providing input to this report

Arctic Research Commission

Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of Defense

Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Dept. of the Interior 

Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security

Department of Agriculture

Department of State

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Aviation Administration, Dept. of Transportation

Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Marine Mammal Commission

Maritime Administration, Dept. of Transportation

National Ocean Council, Executive Office of the President

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior 

Navy, Dept. of Defense

Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects

Office of the Secretary, Dept. of the Interior

Office of the Secretary, Dept. of Transportation

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior 

Trans Alaska pipeline in summer 

(credit: Dept. of the Interior)

Tundra swan (credit: Dept. of the Interior)

57

Appendix II.
Report production

Producing this report was a team effort that drew upon the expertise and talent of many. In addition to the lead authors and others listed 

on the report’s cover page, special thanks are extended to the following contributing authors, editors, graphic artists, and report production staff who worked so hard to assemble this report:

Robyn Angliss, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Michael Baffrey, Office of the Secretary, Dept. of the Interior

Greg Balogh, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Jim Balsiger, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

David Balton, Dept. of State

Matthew Blazek, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior

Peter Boveng, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Randal Bowman, Office of the Secretary, Dept. of the Interior

Jerry Brian, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior

Roberta Burns, Dept. of State

Martin Byrne, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior 

PK Cascio, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Ashley Chappell, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Kate Clark, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Cathy Coon, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior

Richard Corley, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation 

Chris Corvo, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President

Tony DeGange, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Douglas DeMaster, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Charlene Derry, Federal Aviation Administration, Dept. of Transportation

Steve Feldgus, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Dept. of the Interior 

Steven Frenzel, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Nancy Fresco, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Paul Gill, Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security

Steve Gray, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Heidi Hadley, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior

Cindy Hamfler, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior

Bill Hines, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Dennis Hinnah, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin., Dept. of Transportation

Willis Hobart, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Amy Holman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Cynthia Jacobson, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

David Jenkins, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Philip Johnson, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Benjamin Jones, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Tahzay Jones, National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior 

Roger Kaye, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Lon Kelly, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior

Jim Kendall, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior

Jenifer Kohout, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Tom Kurkowski, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Joe Kurtok, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior

Dennis Lassuy, North Slope Science Initiative 

Matthew Leonawicz, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Michael Lindgren, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Jane Lubchenco, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce 

Tim McCune, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Stacie McIntosh, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior

Richard Merrick, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Marti Miller, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Jerome Montague, U.S. Navy, Dept. of Defense

Adrianna Muir, Office of the Secretary, Dept. of the Interior

Appendix II.

58
David Murk, Dept. of Transportation

Marilyn Myers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Karen Oakley, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Jim Overland, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

David Payer, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

John Payne, North Slope Science Initiative

John Pearce, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Larry Persily, Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects

Pat Pourchot, Office of the Secretary, Dept. of the Interior

Tracy Rogers, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Mike Routhier, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior

Scott Rupp, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Chris Sabine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Mike Sigler, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Brad Smith, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Diane Soderland, Environmental Protection Agency

Margaret Spring, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Phyllis Stabeno, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

David Stanton, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

William Swears, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior 

Kristin Timm, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Lyman Thorsteinson, U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior

Dennis Thurston, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior

Sarah Trainor, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Raya Treiser, Office of the Secretary, Dept. of the Interior

Luis Tupas, Dept. of Agriculture

Sharon Warren, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of the Interior

Rebecca White, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Commerce

Robert Winfree, National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior

David Yokel, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior 

Grasses and wildflowers on the Seward Peninsula 

(credit: A. Andrew, National Park Service)

Drying fish at Savoonga 

(credit: R.A. Winfree, National Park Service)

59

Appendix II.
Wainwright, on the coast of the Chukchi Sea (credit: M. Lindeberg, National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)
Cover: Aerial photograph looking down at seasonal sea ice

(credit: National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA)