Witness the Arctic - Winter 2004/2005, Volume 11 Number 2

Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road • Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 Chronicles of the NSF Arctic Sciences Program Winter 2004/2005, Vol ume 11 Num ber 2 A RC TIC continued on next page By Robert W. Corell, Pål Prestrud, and Gunter Weller F or the past four years, almost 300 scientists and experts, including elders and other insightful residents, have worked on a comprehensive analysis, synthesis, and documentation of the impacts and consequences across the Arctic of climate variability and changes, including the impacts induced by increases in ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The Arctic Council (see page XX) inaugurated the project in 2000, charging the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) to • evaluate and synthesize knowledge of how climate and UV radiation have been changing in the Arctic, how they are projected to change in the future, and the likely impacts of those changes on environmental, human health, social, cultural, and economic systems, and • provide useful information and recommendations to the governments, organizations, and peoples of the Arctic and the world to help them respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by climate change. The Arctic Council tasked two of its working groups, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) and Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), to conduct the ACIA in association with the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC; see page XX). All eight of the arctic nations and the U.K. provided fi nancial and in-kind support. An Assessment Steering Committee (ASC), established by AMAP, CAFF and IASC, provided overall coordination for the ACIA and liaison with relevant national and international organizations, including indigenous peoples’ groups and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The ASC guided the development of the assessment through teams of authors, drawn from many disciplines and countries, who participated in a series of focused workshops. The assessment produced two reports: • A scientifi c report, totaling more than 1000 pages in 18 chapters, which was subject to a comprehensive external review by an independent group of more than 225 international scientists and other experts; • A 140 page overview report, designed for a broad non-scientifi c readership and also externally reviewed. The ACIA reports will be used in the development of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, to be completed in 2007. The ACIA teams of authors submitted the scientifi c and overview reports to the Arctic Council during its ministerial meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland in November 2004. Just prior to the ministerial meeting, the ACIA hosted an International Scientifi c Symposium in Reykjavik to examine issues connected to climate change in the circumpolar Arctic and its environmental and societal consequences. More than 250 participants presented 150 papers and discussed the ACIA results and their background, including indigenous peoples’ perspectives and observations, in an integrated circumpolar context and in light of global, regional, and sub-regional environmental management and policy development. Participants also identifi ed knowledge gaps and priorities for new research and monitoring and outlined signifi cant national, bilateral, and multilateral activities that have contributed to ACIA. International Assessment Enumerates Climate Change Impacts Across the Arctic Map of the Arctic, showing present and future boundaries of summer sea ice, permafrost, and tree line. The projected boundaries at the end of the century were derived from models used by the ACIA. The change in the permafrost boundary assumes that present areas of discontinuous permafrost will be free of any permafrost in the future; this is likely to occur beyond the 21 st century. st century. st Figure from chapter 18 of the ACIA, courtesy G. Weller. 2 At the ministerial meeting, the Arctic Council released a seven page policy document responding to the ACIA fi ndings and providing general recommendations for mitigation and adaptation measures. Major fi ndings The ACIA details and projects signifi cant disruptive impacts from climate change and UV radiation in the Arctic, while identifying a number of potential opportunities for indigenous and other residents, communities, economic sectors, and governments of the region. To develop its projections, the assessment used a single scenario of the future, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) B2 scenario. B2 is a "moderate" climate change scenario, which projects global carbon dioxide emissions more than doubling by 2100, from about 6 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) in 1990 to some 14 GtC. Under this scenario, nine Global Climate Models (GCMs) predict an average global temperature response of +2.2°C (range +0.9 – +3.4°C) by 2071–2100 compared to 1961–1990. To provide model output to the ACIA, the B2 scenario was implemented on fi ve GCMs (fi gure below). With some variation, these GCMs predict approximately twice as much warming in the Arctic compared to the global average over a similar time period; this result accords with other IPCC projections. Evidence of recent warming in the Arctic includes records of increasing temperatures, melting glaciers, reductions in extent and thickness of sea ice, thawing permafrost, and rising sea level. There are regional variations and patterns within this overall trend; for example, in most places, temperatures in winter are rising more rapidly than in summer. In Alaska and western Canada, average winter temperatures have increased by as much as 3–4°C over the past 60 years, while the global average increase over the past 100 years has been only about 0.6 ± 0.2°C. Ozone depletion in northern latitudes and the resultant changes in UV radiation have increased markedly during the past decade, with some sectors of the Arctic experiencing short-term reductions in ozone of about 20% and increases of more than 40% in incident UV radiation. Over the past 30 years, arctic sea ice extent has decreased on average by about 10%, and this change has been 20% faster over the past two decades than over the past three decades. Projections that arctic sea ice extent and seasonal duration are likely to decrease even more rapidly in the future will lead to seasonal opening of potentially important marine transportation routes and signifi cant changes in albedo, cloudiness, humidity, exchanges of heat and moisture, and ocean circulation, particularly along coastlines and near ice margins. The average of the fi ve ACIA model simulations project substantial and accelerating reductions in summertime sea ice around the entire Arctic Basin, with one model projecting an ice-free Arctic in the summer by the middle of this century. The average of the fi ve ACIA models projects that the navigation season in the Northern Sea Route along the Eurasian coast from the Atlantic to the Bering Strait, currently 20–30 days per year, will increase by 2080 to 90–100 days (150 days for ice-breaking vessels), with one model indicating it is likely to open to this degree by mid-century. This could have important economic and political implications, increasing access to the region’s oceanic and near coastal resources and raising issues of sovereignty, safety, and environmental preservation. In addition, access to sea ice is critical to the survival and reproduction of many high latitude marine mammals. Scientists and arctic residents are concerned that the thinning and depletion of sea ice in the Arctic will cause the extinction of key marine mammals, including polar bear, walrus, and some species of seal. Loss of these species threatens the hunting culture of Inuit in Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka. The total land-based ice in the Arctic is estimated at 3,100,000 km 3 , which corresponds to a sea-level equivalent of about 8 m. Recent studies of glaciers in Alaska already indicate an accelerated rate of melting, representing about half of the estimated loss of mass by glaciers worldwide. Over the past two decades, the melt area on the Greenland ice sheet has increased on average by about 0.7% per year (or about 16% from 1979–2002), with considerable interannual variation. IPCC estimated that a sustained increase in arctic temperatures of 3°C would lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over a period of 1000 years—the ACIA models suggest that regional warming will be much higher than this by the end of the 21 st century. Rising temperatures favor taller, denser vegetation, promoting the expansion of forests into arctic tundra, and tundra into polar deserts. This change, along with rising sea levels, is projected to shrink tundra area to its lowest extent in at least the past 21,000 years, potentially reducing the breeding area for many migratory bird species and the grazing areas for animals that depend on tundra and polar desert habitats. Half the current tundra area is projected to disappear in this century. While arctic agriculture is a small industry in global terms, the region’s potential for commercial crop production is projected to advance northward. Inland peoples throughout the Arctic depend on caribou and reindeer herds, which need abundant tundra vegetation and good foraging conditions, especially during the calving season. In addition to reducing the area of tundra suitable for grazing, climate-induced changes are proCanadian Climate Centre NCAR Climate System Model Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Hadley Centre Climate Model 3 European Centre, Hamburg temperature change from 1990–1999 mean (˚C) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 year Projections of change from the 1990–1999 mean in arctic surface air temperature from the fi ve GCM models used by the ACIA. The region covered is from 60°N to the pole. Figure courtesy J. Walsh. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Before Printing search for XX 3 jected to increase incidence of freeze-thaw cycles and freezing rain, both of which prevent animals from eating iced-over vegetation. Further, migrations of other species (moose, red deer, etc.) into traditional pasturelands are likely to disturb some populations. Although much of the redistribution of species is climate induced, the development of roadways, pipelines, and other infrastructure also contribute. Marine fi sheries are a vital part of the economy of virtually every arctic country and provide an important food source globally. Because they are largely controlled by factors such as local weather conditions, ecosystem dynamics, and management decisions, projecting the impacts of climate change on marine fi sh stocks is diffi cult. Based on available information, however, projected warming is likely to improve conditions for some important arctic fi sh stocks such as cod and herring, while negatively affecting others. For example, the extent of northern shrimp will probably contract, reducing the large catch (about 100,000 tons a year) currently taken from Greenlandic waters. While the total effect of climate change impacts on fi sheries will likely be less important than decisions regarding management, specifi c communities that are heavily dependent on fi sheries may be dramatically affected. Permafrost presently underlies most of the land surfaces in the Arctic, and thawing ground will disrupt transportation, buildings, and other infrastructure. Permafrost temperatures over most of the sub-arctic land areas have increased by up to 2°C over the past few decades, and the depth of the layer that thaws each year is increasing in many areas. Over the next century, permafrost degradation is projected over 10–20% of the present permafrost area, and the southern limit of permafrost is projected to shift northward by several hundred kilometers. Rising temperatures are already degrading land routes over frozen tundra and across ice roads and bridges, and the incidence of mud and rockslides and avalanches are likely to increase. The number of days per year in which heavy equipment travel on the tundra can be approved by the Alaska Department of Natural involve changes in knowledge and how it is used, for example, using new weather prediction techniques. Arctic people have historically altered their activities in response to changing conditions; however, they increasingly indicate that the rapid rate of climate changes is limiting their capacities to adapt. As the fi rst comprehensive examination of climate change and its impacts in the arctic region, the ACIA represents the initiation of a process, rather than simply a set of reports. The ACIA brought together hundreds of scientists from around the world whose research focuses on the Arctic and incorporated the insights of indigenous peoples who have a long history of gathering knowledge in this region. Linking these different perspectives is an exciting process for both the science community and the residents of the Arctic, and it clearly has great potential to continue to improve understanding of climate change and its impacts. An analysis of the knowledge gaps revealed by the ACIA suggests that three major topics should be priorities to improve future analyses: • sub-regional impacts: assessments of climate change impacts focused on smaller regions have the greatest relevance and utility for residents; • socioeconomic impacts: in most cases, only quantitative information on economic impacts is available; and • assessing vulnerabilities: assessing vulnerability involves knowledge not just of the consequences of stresses and their interactions, but also of the capacity of the system to adapt. The ACIA overview report and policy document are available as PDF downloads from the AMAP web site: http://amap. no/acia ; the overview report can also be ordered from Cambridge University Press: http://us.cambridge.org/titles/catalogue. asp?isbn=0521617782 . The scientifi c report will be available in early 2005. For more information, see the ACIA web site: www.acia.uaf.edu , or contact Robert Corell, ASC Chair (global@dmv. com), Pål Prestrud, ASC Vice Chair ( pal. [email protected] o ), or Gunter Weller, Executive Director of the ACIA Secretariat ([email protected]). “Nowadays snows melt earlier in the springtime. Lakes, rivers, and bogs freeze much later in the autumn. Reindeer herding becomes more diffi cult as the ice is weak and may give way… All sorts of unusual events have taken place. Nowadays the winters are much warmer than they used to be. Occasionally during winter time it rains. We never expected this; we could not be ready for this. It is very strange… The cycle of the yearly calendar has been disturbed greatly and this affects the reindeer herding negatively for sure…” Larisa Avdeyeva, Lovozero, Russia, 2002 Resources has dropped about 50% in the past 30 years, limiting oil and gas exploration and extraction. Across the Arctic, indigenous peoples accustomed to the wide range of natural climate variations report changes that are unique in the long experience of their peoples. Residents of the Arctic are likely to face major impacts due to climate and other environmental changes, which are occurring in the context of other interrelated changes. Environmental changes include chemical pollution, habitat destruction, and over-fi shing. Social and economic changes include technological innovations, trade liberalization, urbanization, self-determination movements, and increasing tourism. increasing tourism. The impacts will vary with regional differences in climate change and will depend largely on the interactions among the various changes; people’s resilience or vulnerability to climate change depends on the cumulative stresses to which they are subjected as well as their capacity to adapt to these changes. Individual and collective adaptive capacity is affected by political, legal, economic, social, and other factors, including age, lifestyle, gender, and access to resources. Rural arctic residents in small, isolated communities with a fragile system of support, little infrastructure, and marginal or nonexistent public health systems appear to be most vulnerable. People who depend on subsistence hunting and fi shing, especially those who rely on just a few species, will be vulnerable to changes that heavily impact those species. Responses to environmental changes are multi-dimensional and include adjustments in hunting, herding, and fi shing practices as well as alterations in the political, cultural, and spiritual aspects of life. Adaptation can The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 4 Arctic Research Support and Logistics W. Berry Lyons, chair • [email protected] Byrd Polar Research Center The Ohio State University Keith Alverson • [email protected] Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) David Barber • [email protected] University of Manitoba James G. Bellingham • [email protected] g Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Terry V. Callaghan • t.v.callaghan@sheffi eld.ac.u k University of Sheffi eld Lee W. Cooper • [email protected] University of Tennessee Margo Edwards • [email protected] University of Hawaii Shari Fox Gearheard Shari Fox Gearheard Shari Fox Gearheard • [email protected] Harvard University Molly McCammon • [email protected] Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS) Jamie Morison • [email protected] University of Washington Scott E. Palo • [email protected] University of Colorado Andrey Proshutinsky • [email protected] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Lars-Otto Reiersen • [email protected] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) Vladimir E. Romanovsky • [email protected] University of Alaska Fairbanks Peter Schlosser • [email protected] Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Columbia University Julienne C. Stroeve • [email protected] g National Snow and Ice Data Center University of Colorado Craig Tweedie • [email protected] Michigan State University John Walsh • [email protected].edu International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks T he Polar Research Board (PRB; see page XX ) has begun a new study, XX) has begun a new study, XX “Designing an Arctic Observing Network”, sponsored by the NSF Offi ce of Polar Programs (OPP). The two-year study, which will provide guidance in the design of an arctic land, atmosphere, and ocean observing network, is in part a response to a recommendation for such an analysis in the October 2003 report Arctic Research Support and Logistics: Strategies and Recommendations (see mendations (see mendations Witness Spring 2004). Witness Spring 2004).Witness The PRB solicited nominations for the study committee in the summer of 2004, initially appointed the 18 members (see box) in the fall, and held the fi rst committee meeting in Washington, D.C., at the end of October. Plans include workshops in Anchorage, Alaska, on 9–11 February 2005 and in Copenhagen, Denmark, 15– 17 May 2005. The committee is scheduled to report on their fi ndings in late 2005. The study committee will provide thoughts on the overarching philosophy and conceptual foundation for an international arctic observing network and, where possible, concrete advice to move the concept toward implementation. Specifi cally, the committee will: • identify key variables that must be monitored for a comprehensive arctic observing network; • briefl y review the purposes and extent of existing and planned global observing systems and platforms, highlighting critical spatial, temporal, or disciplinary gaps of importance to the Arctic; • describe the infrastructure needed to create a comprehensive arctic observing network, including advice on types, number, and the distribution of network components; where stations might be placed; and the role that remote sensing and novel technologies might play. This discussion will explore two levels—an "ideal" network and a "minimal" network—to help illustrate choices that may need to be made during implementation. • comment on how to ensure sound data management in this type of network, using perspectives from data managers, those generating data, and those who use or might use the data. • recommend a technical strategy to ensure effi cient, coordinated implementation and operation of an arctic observing network, including methods to ensure that data products from different sensors are spatially and temporally consistent, processes that could be used to design the optimal mix of observations and test for data redundancies, and approaches that could be used to keep the network current and cost effective. The agenda of the committee’s fi rst meeting in October 2004 included: • Tom Pyle (NSF) on NSF’S motivation and expectations for the study; • Keith Alverson, Molly McCammon, and Craig Tweedie on existing observing networks, including GOOS, AOOS, and the Circumpolar Environmental Observatory Network (CEON; see Witness Spring 2004); • Terry Callaghan on observations at Abisko Scientifi c Research Station in arctic Sweden; • Lars-Otto Reiersen on the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program; • Ronald Birk (NASA) on the Interagency Working Group on Earth Observations; • Jamie Morison on proposed observing networks, including efforts related to the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH; see page XX), the International Polar Year (IPY: see page XX), the Arctic Ocean Sciences Board (AOSB), and the Climate and Cryosphere project (CLiC); and • Andrey Proshutinsky reporting on NSF workshops on Instrumentation for Arctic Ocean Exploration and Arctic Observing Based on Ice-Tethered Platforms. For more information, see the project’s web site: http://dels.nas.edu/prb/aon , or contact Paul Cutler (202-334-3479; fax 202-334-1477; [email protected]). Arctic Observing Network Committee Members PRB Study Guides Design of Arctic Observing Network 5 I n recent years, major national and international efforts have considerably improved topographic mapping products for much of the world, but most have not included the Arctic (Nolan and Prokein, 2003). In an effort to improve the quality and accessibility of imagery and elevation data in the region, Matt Nolan of the University of Alaska Fairbanks developed an Earth Science, Logistics, and Outreach Terrainbase (EarthSLOT) as a pilot project. Funded by NSF’s Arctic Research Support and Logistics program, EarthSLOT is an Internet-based system that allows users to explore the earth interactively in 3D with high quality motion. By visualizing digital elevation and imagery data in a format that is free and easily accessible, EarthSLOT aims to increase both the user base for such data and the demand for better products in the Arctic. EarthSLOT uses TerraExplorer software, made by Skyline Software, Inc., which allows users to: • view imagery and elevation data of various resolutions anywhere in the globe via the Internet, • control navigation over the globe in 3D, and • query internal or external databases that are in one of many standard formats. The EarthSLOT web site features a global mosaic of 15 m resolution Landsat 7 imagery superimposed on 1 km resolution digital elevation models (DEMs), with NASA’s Blue Marble dataset fi lling in several gaps in the 15 m mosaic. Several cities are augmented with data of substantially higher resolution—up to 30 cm—and most of the Kuparuk River watershed and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) in the Alaskan Arctic are at 2.5 m resolution. The Antarctic is overlain with a 125 m resolution mosaic of Radarsat imagery. The site also features examples of other types of earth models where shaded relief, color slices, and derived model data have been draped over topography. While being able to “fl y” around the planet in 3D via the Internet is a useful tool in itself, the real power of EarthSLOT is that scientists can superimpose their own fi eld data on top of the earth models offered online, as well as control the links and objects that the end-user views. For instance, Nolan has posted an example from his own glacier research allowing his collaborators to visualize the locations of survey stakes, weather stations, and ice coring locations, as well as access the data collected there. Users are also welcome to contribute imagery and elevation data to the EarthSLOT web site for public use. Nolan has also collaborated with other organizations to demonstrate the potential of EarthSLOT’s GIS capabilities. VECO Polar Resources incorporated their project database into the terrainbase so that users can look up an investigator’s name, “fl y” to one of their fi eld locations, and view project-related background data and links for more information. Nolan is working with ARCUS to incorporate the terrainbase into the Teachers and Researchers Exploring and Collaborating program (TREC; see page XX ) as a teaching resource. XX) as a teaching resource. XX Participants will use movies created with EarthSLOT to better visualize arctic geography and the science that goes on there. Nolan expects that the inherent videogame quality of the interface combined with the high-resolution 3D imagery will attract users to the site, giving them the opportunity to learn about the earth and current science activities. EarthSLOT will ultimately serve many different earth models superimposed with different imagery, model output, or derived raster-data layers based on user needs. Nolan also is working towards incorporating ocean bathymetry in the highest resolutions available. For more information, see the EarthSLOT web site: www.earthslot.org , or contact Matt Nolan (907-474-2467; fax 907-474-7979; [email protected]). Reference Nolan M and Prokein P. 2003. Evaluation of a new DEM of the Putuligayuk Watershed for Arctic hydrological applications. In Phillips M, Springman SM, and Arenson LU (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Permafrost, Zurich, Switzerland, 21−25 July 2003. Williston, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1380 pp. EarthSLOT Supplies Interactive Views of Terrain, Data Arctic Research Support and Logistics A screen shot from EarthSLOT showing the topography of the area around McCall Glacier in northeastern Alaska. The blue labels indicate the locations of survey stakes and yellow labels the locations of weather stations; these are hyperlinked to the actual data within the application. McCall Glacier, located in the Romanzov Mountains of the Brooks Range, has the longest history of scientifi c observation for any U.S. arctic glacier. The most detailed studies of the glacier began in 1957−58 as part of the International Geophysical Year and were continued by the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1969−75 as part of the International Hydrological Decade, in the mid-1990s as part of a Ph.D. thesis, and from 2003−07 as part of the NSF ARCSS Freshwater Initiative. Image courtesy of Matt Nolan. 6 Arctic Research Support and Logistics A ugust 2004 through April 2005 marks August 2004 through April 2005 marks A the fi fth season that station staff will Athe fi fth season that station staff will A “winter over” at the Greenland Environmental Observatory at Summit (GEOSummit). The station is located 3280 m above sea level on the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet. From 1989 through 1993, this site was the location of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2; see Witness Autumn 1998), which recovered one of the longest ice cores in the world with a continuous, detailed climate record for the past 110,000 years. To enable a more comprehensive analysis of the ice core record, seasonal fi eld campaigns at the site followed to characterize the transfer and preservation processes incorporating atmospheric compounds into ice. Through these investigations it became evident that year round measurements would be required. The studies also revealed that the snowpack plays a signifi cant role in the cycling of atmospheric compounds and does not act merely as a sink, as was earlier postulated. The unique characteristics of the location also became increasingly apparent in the years following the GISP2 drilling. Summit is the only high elevation station north of the Arctic Circle providing year round measurements of the free troposphere. To enhance access to data from this unique location, investigators who frequently used the station worked to establish Summit as an observatory. In 2003, the GEOSummit baseline measurement program was funded by NSF to provide a core set of climatic variables for investigators worldwide. The program is operated in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and observatory operations are permitted by the Greenlandic Home Rule Government and the Danish Polar Centre. Currently, the suite of baseline measurements available to researchers includes • station meteorology, • snow accumulation measurements from a 100-stake array and a 12 km transect, • weekly surface snow chemistry, • monthly snow pit chemistry and stratigraphy, • fi lter sampled radionuclides, and • aerosols measured continuously with an eight-drum impactor sampler. NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (NOAA-CMDL) instrumentation is on-site to provide continuous ozone, black carbon, carbon cycle gas, and greenhouse gas sampling from a 15 m tower (see caption). Flasks are collected weekly for carbon cycle gasses, and halocarbon fl asks are collected biweekly. This year, Biospherical Instruments installed two spectro-radiometers and a pyranometer as part of the NSF Offi ce of Polar Programs UV Monitoring Network. GEOSummit’s Year-Round Observation Program Expands In addition to baseline measurements and observatory operations, GEOSummit is an international station available for both campaigns and longer-term research. Currently, researchers from Switzerland are continuously measuring energy balance over the ice sheet on a 36 m tower, and two German projects are making seismic and stratospheric observations. In summer 2005, French researchers plan to deploy instrumentation to measure mercury. Other future projects include deployment of a multi-axis differential optical absorption spectrophotometer (MAX-DOAS) for the measurement of halogen oxides at various levels and possibly a LIDAR for the measurement of polar mesospheric clouds (see Witness Spring 2002). Witness Spring 2002).Witness One asset of the station is the relative ease of access for campaign research. Logistical operations are arranged in advance by VECO Polar Resources (VPR), and investigators are typically deployed via the 109 th Air National Guard Unit in Scotia, New York. Once in Greenland, scientists are fl own to the GEOSummit along with their cargo. The station consists of a variety of structures including a 26’ by 56’ building that serves as a summer kitchen, dining hall, bathroom, and laundry facility; a generator module that supplies power and includes a snow melter for water production; and two connected structures that serve as a laboratory, winter kitchen and berthing area, and bath unit. During the summer fi eld season which extends from early April through late August, visitors sleep in unheated Arctic Ovens–tents made with sturdy frames and breathable, water resistant material. The facility can accommodate up to 50 researchers at a time for as little as a few days or up to the duration of the season. Multidisciplinary research programs at Summit are coordinated through the Science Coordination Offi ce (SCO), which is run cooperatively between the University of California, Merced and the University of New Hampshire under contract with NSF. For more information, see the GEOSummit web site: www.geosummit.org , or contact John Burkhart at the SCO (209658-7142; [email protected]). Geoff Phillips clears sample intake lines from one of GEOSummit’s two sampling towers as the last rays of sun in 2004 light the station. Photo by John Burkhart. 7 Toolik Management Strives for Minimal Disturbance Arctic Research Support and Logistics As plans for natural gas development on the north slope of Alaska and construction of a natural gas pipeline appear to be moving ahead, the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Toolik Field Station (TFS), has been experiencing a recent increase in nearby economic development activities; station management has been working to ensure that research activities are not disturbed as a consequence. During summer 2004, Alyeska, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline service company, located a 40-person work camp for pipeline repair at the north end of Toolik Lake on a gravel pad formerly occupied by a work camp during original construction of the pipeline. Alyeska project managers ensured that camp personnel avoided experimental sites and discharged grey water where impact to Toolik Lake was minimal. Alyeska removed the camp at the end of the 2004 season and there are currently no plans to use the site during the 2005 fi eld season. TFS management met with the Joint Pipeline Offi ce (JPO), the Anchorage-based state and federal offi ce that permitted the Alyeska project, and asked for early communication about any similar activities planned for the future. JPO personnel were responsive and will notify TFS management in the future. Alaska state lands west of the Toolik Lake Research Natural Area (RNA) have been leased for natural gas exploration to PetroCanada, Ltd. Seismic exploration is planned for the winters of 2004–2005 and 2005–2006. If marketable gas is found, extraction activities would not commence until 2013, and then only if a natural gas pipeline is constructed along the Dalton Highway pipeline corridor. PetroCanada has been cooperating with the UAF Institute of Arctic Biology to ensure that the access route for gas exploration and seismic activities will not impact areas where intensive research occurs including the Toolik Lake RNA and the upper Kuparuk River watershed. Senator Ralph Seekins (R Alaska) has introduced a bill to remove the current Alaska state prohibition on off-road vehicle travel within fi ve miles of the Dalton Highway. If this bill becomes law, any restrictions on off-road vehicle traffi c will be governed and enforced by the northern offi ce of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that administers the Toolik RNA. Managers from TFS and BLM have planned a forum for 15 February 2005 to consider the best response to this bill and to help prepare a management plan for the Toolik RNA. In December 2004, scientists met in an NSF-sponsored workshop to set future directions for science support at TFS. The last meeting on science planning for TFS occurred in February 1995 and resulted in the publication of “Toolik Field Station, the Second 20 Years: Recommendations on the Development of Toolik Field Station” (1996, ARCUS). A prime goal of the 2004 meeting was to address whether, and to what extent, TFS should develop multi-use core lab facilities providing more sophisticated scientifi c services, and to prioritize what those facilities and services should be. Participants identifi ed desirable goals for the station including: • enhanced environmental monitoring that would complement data already collected by the Arctic Long Term Ecological Research program, • improved nutrient analysis facilities and services, and • enhanced GIS and data management. A white paper summarizing the recommendations of the workshop, including a prioritized plan for implementing multiuse core facilities, will be published ?? . For more information on these activities, see the TFS web site: www.uaf.edu/ toolik , or contact Mike Abels (907-4745063; [email protected]), or Brian Barnes ([email protected]), or Donie Bret-Harte ([email protected]). Healy to Join Oden in 2005 Mention TREC in Box 8 ARCSS Program T he two main freshwater outputs from the Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic pass through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA) and along the East Greenland Shelf. Estimates suggest that three main passages of the CAA (Nares Strait, Jones and Lancaster sounds) combined carry about the same amount of freshwater as fl ows through Fram Strait; Nares Strait and Jones Sound carry roughly half of the freshwater fl ux through the CAA, while the other half exits through Lancaster Sound. For the fi rst time, the fl uxes through all of these gateways are being monitored simultaneously by collaborating programs. One of the NSF contributions to this effort, funded through the Freshwater Initiative (FWI), began in 2003 to quantify and determine driving forces of fl uxes through Nares Strait and Jones Sound. Led by Kelly Falkner of Oregon State University (OSU; see member insert) and Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware, “Variability and Forcing of Fluxes through Nares Strait and Jones Sound: A Freshwater Emphasis” involves Canadian collaborators from the Institute of Ocean Sciences, Meteorological Service of Canada, and Bedford Institute of Oceanography, as well as colleagues from several U.S. and Canadian universities. The project objectives include: • monitor water properties and currents over 3.5 years in Nares Strait, Cardigan Strait, and Hell Gate via mooring arrays; • measure ice fl uxes through satellite-based and moored observations; • track remote and local forcing of throughfl ow via a moored pressure sensor array and mesoscale atmospheric modeling for Nares Strait; • determine water mass origins and transformations via modern tracer hydrographic times series in the straits and northern Baffi n Bay; • explore bivalve shell records as a proxy of historical throughfl ow variability and retrieve sediment cores that can used to address longer time-scale variability in future studies; and • use the fi ndings to improve parameterization of CAA throughfl ow in arctic and global models. Group Details Fluxes Through Canadian Archipelago The project fi eldwork began in 2003 aboard the USCGC Healy (see Healy (see Healy Witness when). Thirty-three scientists and ness when). Thirty-three scientists and ness 92 crew members sailed from St. John’s, Newfoundland, via Baffi n Bay and Nares Strait to the Lincoln Sea. From 21 July to 19 August, the team: • conducted 79 casts of the CTD-rosette system to produce detailed hydrographic sections in Baffi n Bay, Smith Sound, Kennedy and Robeson channels, the previously unsampled Petermann Glacier Fiord, and deep Hall Basin; • obtained four piston cores that appear to extend to the last glacial (more than 10,000 years ago) from off the slope of Bylot Island and a gravity core in deep Hall Basin; • deployed 18 moorings in southern Kennedy Channel to monitor current speed and direction as well as temperature, conductivity, and ice draft; • deployed fi ve shallow pressure-sensing moorings at sites in Nares Strait; • collected bivalves for a project using shell layers to reconstruct past chemical conditions in the strait; • carried out hull-mounted ADCP surveys at several locations; • collected the fi rst swath mapping data for the region via the ship's Seabeam system; and • acquired underway surface properties via the thermosalinograph system along the majority of the ship's track. Two teachers posted daily journal entries to the project web page throughout the cruise. A member of the Nunavut community from Grise Fiord participated in on-board activities. A professional photographer documented both science activities and the environment. Future analyses and plans The team will obtain estimates of the location, amount, and motion of sea ice from the Advance Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s latest Aqua satellite platform, which can “see” the sea ice surface through clouds and during the dark winter months, and compare the satellite data with information from moorings in Nares Strait, Jones Sound, and Lancaster Sound. The steep topography rimming Nares Strait steers winds along the channel. A regional atmospheric model takes advantage of this steering effect to estimate local winds from daily analyses of the large-scale atmospheric state. Preliminary results suggest a correspondence between the estimated along-strait winds and satellite measurements of ice motion through the strait. In conjunction with other research activities in the region, expendable CTDs are being deployed whenever possible. The project team plans to retrieve the 2003 moorings, download their data, and refurbish and redeploy them via aircraft operating out of a camp in Greenland in spring 2005, with recovery planned for spring 2007. Tentative plans include a Canadiansponsored ship-based repeat tracer hydrographic survey in the region in 2006. For more information, see the project web site: http://newark.cms.udel.edu/~cats, or contact Kelly Falkner (541-737-3625; fax 541-737-2064; [email protected] state.edu). For more information on the coordinated Canadian Archipelago to Labrador Sea efforts, see the ASOF-West web site: http://asofw.apl.washington.edu . Map of the Baffi n Bay region. Pressure sensing moorings in blue. Main array in pink. Planned site for base camp for 2005 and 2007 aircraft operations in red. Bathymetric map from the U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Program. 9 ARCSS Program ARCSS Committee Advances Community Synthesis Efforts T he Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Committee (AC) is taking a proactive role in working with Neil Swanberg, the Program’s director, to further the overall goals of ARCSS by developing, in collaboration with the research community, synthesis activities that • contribute to the integration of current knowledge, • improve our ability to predict arctic environmental change; and • offer research opportunities for a broad spectrum of ARCSS scientists. The past research components of ARCSS, including Land-Atmosphere-Ice Interactions (LAII), Ocean-Atmosphere-Ice Interactions (OAII), Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences (PARCS), and Human Dimensions of the Arctic System (HARC, see page XX ), have contributed an abunXX), have contributed an abun-XX dance of data and have advanced knowledge of many aspects of the Arctic. Each of these efforts also has undergone community-driven synthesis and integration activities to advance system-level understanding, while targeted interdisciplinary efforts such as the Freshwater activity (see Witness Spring 2004) have pursued unifyWitness Spring 2004) have pursued unify-Witness ing research themes. These analysis and integration activities provide a compelling foundation for a major synthesis enterprise. A synthesis workshop, held during summer of 2003 in Big Sky, Montana, brought ARCSS researchers together in an interdisciplinary mode to construct conceptual models of the entire arctic system (see Witness Spring 2004). Workshop parWitness Spring 2004). Workshop par-Witness ticipants have submitted a paper describing insights into the future state of the arctic system. In early 2004, an ARCSS announcement of opportunity (AO) focused on the integration of key elements of the LandShelf Interactions (LSI) and Pan-Arctic Cycles, Transitions, and Sustainability (PACTS) science plans into a new three year research focus. The resulting group of projects, the Study of the Northern Alaska Coastal System (SNACS; see page XX), focuses on the arctic coastal zone of Alaska as a locus of research that naturally integrates knowledge and provides a testbed for a true systems approach. To further develop ARCSS synthesis strategies and conceptual models of the arctic system, a second synthesis retreat was held in summer 2004 in Lake Tahoe, California. Workshop groups discussed a model of a two-state (modern and future seasonally ice free) arctic system, and continue their efforts to prepare papers and disseminate the results of this workshop. The recent ARCSS synthesis AO (“Synthesis of Arctic Systems Sciences”; nsf 05525), announced November 2004, builds on ARCSS maturity in the disciplinary sciences and achievements in synthesis, with potential for major advances in understanding of the Arctic. The AO is available at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/ nsf05525/nsf05525.htm . The deadline for submission is 18 March 2005. A Developing ARCSS Structure To support these synthesis efforts, the AC plans to develop a new well-integrated structure for the ARCSS program that will: • Promote interdisciplinary research initiatives while allowing disciplinary groups to maintain community contacts; • Foster communication in the ARCSS community; • Allow fl exibility and rapid response in a diffi cult budget environment; • Maximize the effectiveness of the ARCSS Program; and • Enable ARCSS to work closely with other efforts, such as the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH; see page XX). The developing structure is composed of “Communities of Practice,” through which disciplinary and interdisciplinary groups of investigators self-organize to lead topical aspects of synthesis science coordination and planning. These groups of investigators will not be organized by formal infrastructure, membership, or duties, but will be able to receive a nominal level of support to facilitate communications, such as teleconferences, website resources, and similar assistance from a centralized ARCSS Science Management Offi ce (SMO). In addition to acting as a conduit of communication between the broad community, the various “Communities of Practice”, the AC, other programs and NSF, the ARCSS SMO, currently at ARCUS, will provide support to the AC and to the synthesis process. The new ARCSS structure will also contribute to the development of an updated ARCSS science plan in 2006. The details of this structure will be further developed over the coming months, with input and guidance from the broader community. Tools for Community Input A variety of community planning and development activities and tools are now available or in planning stages to solicit input on the developing ARCSS structure and priority needs: • An online community feedback form for comments about proposed ARCSS structure, communication issues, and related themes is available at: www.arcus. org/ARCSS/survey_feedback.html . • A n online synthesis survey on key components and processes of the arctic system and related themes is available at www.arcus.org/ARCSS/survey_synthesis. html . • An ARCSS Program electronic listserve will broadcast announcements about research initiatives, funding opportunities, meetings, and related activities focused on the ARCSS Program. To subscribe, go to www.arcus.org/ARCSS/list/ . • A web seminar, tentatively scheduled for February 2005, will provide an open forum on any aspect of the ARCSS program planning and development. • In the planning stages for early Fall 2005 is a combined in-person/electronic community workshop to further develop ARCSS synthesis and program integration. More information about community activities and meetings will be announced on the ARCSS website and through other means as details become available. For more information, see the ARCSS web site: www.arcus.org/ARCSS , or contact Jonathan Overpeck (520-6229065; [email protected]), or Neil Swanberg (703-292-8029, nswanber@nsf. gov), or Helen Wiggins (907-474-1600, [email protected]). 16 NSF News Intelligent Management of the Electrical Power Grid. Bement served as head of NIST’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, the agency’s primary private-sector policy adviser; as head of the advisory committee for NIST’s Advanced Technology Program; and on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. He also served on the National Science Board (NSB) from 1989−95; chaired the Commission for Engineering and Technical Studies and the National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council; was a member of the Space Station Utilization Advisory Subcommittee O n 24 November 2004, Arden L. Bement, Jr., became the twelfth director of NSF. Bement had been NSF’s acting director since February 2004 (see Witness Spring 2004). President Bush Witness Spring 2004). President Bush Witness nominated him for the permanent position in September 2004, and the Senate confi rmed Bement on 20 November. The NSF director’s term is for six years. While he was acting NSF director, Bement continued to direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the Department of Commerce. He was appointed NIST director in 2001. His appointment as permanent NSF director coincides with his resignation as director of NIST. Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado School of Mines, a master’s degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, and an honorary doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University. Bement began his career as a research associate at General Electric (1954−65). Subsequent positions included manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965−70); professor of nuclear materials, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1970−76); director, Offi ce of Materials Science, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA; 1976−79); deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering (1979−80); vice president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc. (1980−92). In 1992, Bement joined the faculty at Purdue University, where he was the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering. He also held appointments at Purdue in the schools of Materials Engineering and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as in the Krannert School of Management. He was director of the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Arden Bement Becomes Twelfth NSF Director and the Commercialization and Technology Advisory Committee for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and consulted for the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Bement is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering; has been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord Corp.; and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corporation, a division of ALCOA. For more information, see the NSF web site: www.nsf.gov . Bement on the International Polar Year (IPY) We are especially pleased at this new opportunity, offered by IPY, to advance fundamental science alongside the mission activities of our fellow agencies. While our Offi ce of Polar Programs would naturally take the NSF lead, a number of NSF directorates— Bioand Geosciences, Education and Human Resources, Engineering, and Social and Behavioral Sciences—also have potential roles. Some particular areas that could serve as science foci at NSF for the International Polar Year [include]: We have already joined with a number of our fellow agencies in the broadest effort to date to understand the Arctic, called SEARCH, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change. We are also enthusiastic about the interest on the part of the Arctic nations and the international community in transforming SEARCH into a truly international effort, under a new name: The International Study of Arctic Change. I’ll also mention the importance of studying the Arctic Ocean, its ecosystems, and the geophysics beneath. All of these are largely unexplored, yet their study will offer insight into areas ranging from life in extreme conditions to territorial claims. Another proposed NSF focus for IPY science—in potential partnership with NASA, USGS, and other agencies—is the large ice sheets, both north and south. While we know enough to recognize that we cannot yet model their behavior, their dynamics and fate are of direct consequence to human beings around the globe. Another high priority will be to focus genomics technology on life in the extreme conditions of polar regions. This is an area of potential collaboration with the Department of Energy. Genomic tools are coming on-line that can sample organisms directly in the natural environment and help to trace complex environmental relationships. More polar scientists need training in these technologies. Other areas ripe for exploration in IPY include extending observations at the polar Long-term Ecological Research Sites into the winter season and performing research on arctic peoples. Additional activities could include establishing systems to record and share data around the world, exploring the Arctic Ocean’s Gakkel Ridge, along with ecosystem changes in the Bering Sea. A lasting legacy of IPY will be a portrait of the “state of the poles”—a benchmark of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ecosystems at both ends of the globe for future studies. —excerpted from remarks made by Dr. Bement at the International Polar Year Implementation Workshop, 8 July 2004 (see page XX). For the complete text, see http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/bement/alb040708_intpolar.htm 17 NSF News Environmental Ed and Cyberinfrastructure 18 NSF News OPP, Arctic Section Offer New Opportunities, Guidelines I n October 2004, the Arctic Sciences Section of the NSF Offi ce of Polar Programs (OPP) released an updated program solicitation for proposals to conduct research in the Arctic. The solicitation describes opportunities in • Arctic Natural Sciences (see page xx), • Arctic Social Sciences (see page xx), • Arctic System Science (see page xx), • Arctic Research Support and Logistics (see page XX), • Arctic Cyberinfrastructure and Sensors, and • Arctic Research and Education. The solicitation also announced a single annual target date for proposals to all programs. The 2005 deadline was 24 January. The Arctic Section plans to conduct a survey of the arctic research community to determine the best timing for an annual deadline in future years. Any more weasel words? In my mind I see rotten tomatoes fl ying toward NSF. For more information, see the full solicitation (NSF 05-514) at www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf05514 . Polar Research Fellowships In March 2004, the NSF Offi ce of Polar Programs (OPP) solicited the fi rst applications for Postdoctoral Fellowships in Polar Regions Research. This new program offers new program offers new support for training and research on any aspect of scientifi c study of the Antarctic and/or the Arctic for a continuous period of up to 3 years. OPP received NUMBER of applications by the June deadline. Winners of the 2004 competition are: Nate A. Bickford (Ph.D. 2002, University of Whoknows) , who will work with Brenda Norcross at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on habitat use and life history of fi sh in the eastern Bering Sea; Bradley A. Buckley (Ph.D. 2002, University of Whoknows) , who will work at Stanford with George Somero on the genomics of Antarctic notothenioids, an extremely cold-tolerant group of perchlike fi sh; Brook Nunn (Ph.D. 2002, University of Whoknows) , who will work with David Goodlett at the University of Washington on the effects of iron supply on the size, composition and bioavailability of dissolved organic carbon from Phaeocystis antarctica, a colonial haptophyte alga; Matthew D. Wallenstein (Ph.D. 2002, University of Whoknows) , who will work with Josh Schimel at the University of California at Santa Barbara on the seasonal variability of the soil microbial communities responsible for decomposition of the arctic tundra carbon pool; and Kenia Whitehead (Ph.D. 2002, University of Whoknows) , who will work with Nitin Baliga of the Institute of Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington and with Ferran Garcia-Pichel of Arizona State University on global patterns of gene expression and regulation in response to UV radiation and low temperature stress. One additional award is still pending. OPP anticipates hosting workshops, beginning in FY 2005, for fellows and their sponsoring scientists to promote the development of skills, to • facilitate connections among fellows as developing scientists and as members of the polar research and education communities, • provide opportunities to meet NSF program offi cers and support staff, and • enable participants to contribute to the development of the postdoctoral fellowship program. The participation of both fellows and their sponsoring scientists in these workshops is an important part of the fellowship program. The deadline for applications to the 2005 postdoctoral fellowship competition is 2 March 2005. Travel grants are available for applicants to travel to a potential host institution. They may be submitted at any time but at least three months prior to the proposed travel. For more information, see the complete program solicitation (NSF 04-566) at www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub. cfm?nsf04566 , or contact Kathleen Flint (703-292-4426; kfl [email protected] v ) or Bernard Lettau (703-292-8030; [email protected] v ). New Research Guidelines Because fi eld research in the Arctic is often conducted near settlements, in areas used for subsistence harvests by local residents, or in habitat used by threatened or endangered species, it has the potential to disrupt subsistence activities or disturb federally protected species. A new set of guidelines on these issues have been developed and are available for comment. They are intended to help researchers make appropriate contacts in arctic communities and plan fi eldwork in a manner that reduces potential disruptions. The new Guidelines for Improved The new Guidelines for Improved The new Cooperation between Arctic Researchers and Northern Communities , drafted by the Arctic Sciences Section of the NSF Offi ce of Polar Programs and the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, with the input of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, and the Alaska Native Science Commission, have been available for community review and feedback since August 2004. The document has received many reviewer comments and will be revised in the spring 2005. The draft Guidelines contain: Guidelines contain: Guidelines • maps depicting areas of high use for subsistence activities, • information about protected species, • migration routes of some key subsistence use species, • contact information for relevant organizations, and • a timeline and a checklist for developing research plans. This information should be used by researchers to improve communication with northern communities and plan research activities in keeping with the Principles for Conduct of Research in the Arctic ( Arctic (Arctic http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/arctic/ conduct.htm ). In addition, the Guidelines are intended to raise awareness of federally protected species in northern Alaska and provide information to help researchers comply with federal laws. For more information, a copy of the Guidelines , or to comment on the document, see the ARCUS web site: www.arcus. org/guidelines , or contact Renée Crain (703-292-8029; [email protected]). 19 Capitol Updates U.S. Arctic Research Commission Two New Reports from U.S. Arctic Research Commission T he U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) recently published two reports of interest to the U.S. and international polar community. Climate Change, Permafrost, and Impacts on Civil Infrastructure reports the fi ndings on Civil Infrastructure reports the fi ndings on Civil Infrastructure of a task force chartered by the USARC to identify key issues and research needs to better understand global change impacts on permafrost in the Arctic and linkages to natural and human systems. The task force of eight was composed of university scientists and engineers, a former USARC commissioner, and the USARC deputy executive director. The major topics addressed include: • permafrost and its role in the Arctic, • future climate change and current research initiatives, • impacts on infrastructure in Alaska and the circumpolar north, and • specifi c recommendations to federal agencies, the State of Alaska, and the National Research Council. This publication is the fi rst stage of a longterm USARC effort to enhance permafrost research and ensure permafrost studies are adequately addressed in all global carbon dioxide and arctic systems programs. Advancing Oil Spill Response in IceCovered Waters was developed and pubCovered Waters was developed and pubCovered Waters lished in collaboration with the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI; see www.pws-osri.org ). In anticipation of increasing navigational access to northern waters in the upcoming decades, this report identifi es key programs and research and development projects that will improve the ability to respond to oil spills in ice-covered waters. The report grew out of the broad range of oil spill-related topics presented at the 2000 Alaska Clean Seas International Oil and Ice Workshop in Anchorage, Alaska. It identifi es seven priority program areas: • dispersants in ice; • oil defl ection or redirection in a broken ice fi eld; • remote sensing of oil under, in, among, or on top of ice; • transferring viscous products with ice; • chemical herders; • capabilities of existing mechanical recovery systems; and • simulants. Additionally, the Commission held its 74th meeting 18–19 January 2005 in Ballston, Virginia to discuss updates on programs and research projects affecting the U.S. Arctic and recommendations from these reports. These reports are available on the USARC web site: www.arctic.gov . For more information, contact Garry Brass (703-525-0111; [email protected]v). 20 T he mission of the Polar Research Board (PRB), which is a unit of the National Academies, is to “promote excellence in polar science and advise government and the science community on issues relevant to the Arctic, Antarctic, and cold regions in general.” The PRB has a variety of responsibilities, such as planning for the International Polar Year 2007–2008 (see page XX ), and helping U.S. scientists XX), and helping U.S. scientists XX engage in international activities through U.S. Committees to the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC; see page XX ) and the Scientifi c Committee on AntXX) and the Scientifi c Committee on Ant-XX arctic Research (SCAR). The main responsibility of the Board, composed of about 14 volunteer members with diverse scientifi c backgrounds (see box), is the design and oversight of focused studies that provide concrete advice to federal and state agencies and others with cold region interests. Each study is conducted by a specially appointed ad hoc committee, also volunteers, who gather information, deliberate, and write consensus reports with recommendations. In recent years, the National Academies overall, and the PRB in particular, has come to play a special role in helping in the design and oversight of new or evolving science programs. By drawing on existing expertise, PRB committees can help program planners set up sound mechanisms for operation and learn from how other research programs handle the common tasks of requests for proposals, data management, and science advisory functions. The Board increasingly uses a variety of outreach approaches to help new science programs identify research priorities that meet their missions and serve the needs of relevant communities. Two recent examples of this type of work have directly served northern regions. First is the report Elements of a Science Plan for the North Pacifi c Research Board (NRC 2004), sponsored by the Board (NRC 2004), sponsored by the Board North Pacifi c Research Board (NPRB). The NPRB is custodian to 20% of the interest earned from the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund; in 1997, Congress dedicated these funds to research in the North Pacifi c Ocean, the Bering Sea, and the Arctic Ocean. Knowing that careful advance planning could increase the value of its work over time, the NPRB sought assistance to design a framework for a science plan that would help in administration and distribution of the research funds. As part of its work, the committee visited communities along the coast of Alaska and talked with users of the resources to gain a sense of their needs for the applications of scientifi c research. The committee’s report to the NPRB provided advice on management issues ranging from the proposal process to data management, guidance on the elements needed in a successful science plan, and specifi c recommendations of research themes addressing • ecosystem states and variability; • human impacts on the marine environment; • economic, social, and management research; and • forecasting and responding to environmental change. A second report of this type is Developing a Research and Restoration Plan for Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (Western Alaska) Salmon (2004), sponsored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This committee was asked to guide expansion of a research program to improve understanding of the causes of recent declines in salmon populations in western Alaska. It, too, visited coastal communities to interact with stakeholders and resource managers. It outlined elements of a research and restoration plan for the region, including thoughts on the focus of the program, strategies for developing research themes, synthesis of prior research, and integration of the study plan with existing programs. It provided a comprehensive list of questions identifi ed as important to stakeholders and suggestions for implementing the program. Although PRB reports can address different kinds of issues and be of use to varied audiences, these two illustrate the role of the Board in providing direct science planning advice. National Academies reports are available at www.nap.edu . For more information on the PRB, see: www.national-academies.org/prb, or contact Chris Elfring (202-334-3426; fax 202334-1477; [email protected]). PRB Advises Evolving Science Programs Polar Research Board PRB Members Robin Bell, chair Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University [email protected] Mary Albert Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory [email protected].mil Akhil Datta-Gupta Texas A&M University [email protected] George Denton University of Maine at Orono [email protected] Richard Glenn Arctic Slope Regional Corporation [email protected] Jacqueline Grebmeier University of Tennessee [email protected] Henry P. Huntington Huntington Consulting [email protected] David Karl University of Hawaii [email protected] Amanda Lynch University of Colorado [email protected].edu W. Berry Lyons Ohio State University [email protected] Robie Macdonald Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected].gc.ca Miles McPhee McPhee Research Company [email protected] Carole L. Seyfrit Radford University [email protected] John Walsh University of Alaska Fairbanks [email protected].edu Warren Zapol University of Harvard Medical School [email protected] 21 International News provide political support for the International Polar Year (IPY; see page XX) in the Arctic and decided that the Arctic Council will develop proposals to the IPY Joint Committee. The U.S. volunteered to facilitate submission of a proposal on human health in the Arctic. Sweden will facilitate a proposal on observations and monitoring. To reinforce the importance Iceland and the Arctic Council attach to facilitating scientifi c cooperation in the Arctic, Iceland also hosted Arctic Science Summit Week (see page XX), a conference on information technology, and a meeting of ministers of education and science. Kathie Olsen of the Offi ce of Science and Technology Policy led the U.S. delegation to this meeting. Looking Ahead Iceland passed the chair’s gavel to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who outlined Russia’s priorities for the 2004–06 period. He noted that Russia will help assure timely completion of • the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) Assessment of Oil and Gas Development in the Arctic, • the work on shipping and transportation infrastructure by the Sustainable Development (SDWG) and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working groups, and • clean up under the Arctic Council Action Plan on Pollution (ACAP) of ecological “hot spots” identifi ed by the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (see www. beac.st ). Russia plans to introduce a new focus on the prevention and management of emergencies to the Arctic Council by engaging other nations in Arctic Rescue, a program headed by the federal agency EMERCOM. Russia will chair the Emergency, Preparedness, and Response (EPPR) and Sustainable Development working groups. The chairman of the Senior Arctic Offi cials will be Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs announced Norway’s willingness to assume the chair in 2006. The U.S. will chair two of the Arctic Council’s working groups during the upcoming Russian chairmanship: • John Calder of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will chair AMAP and in this capacity oversee the completion of the Assessments of Oil and Gas Development and Acidifi cation; and • Robert Dyer of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue as chair of ACAP. Kenton Wohl of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed his successful two-year chairmanship of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) working group and passed the lead to Sweden. Ministers approved the pilot phase of a Project Support Initiative (PSI) that will assist the council with project preparation and provide a mechanism for non-grant funding. ACAP is to work with the Initiative during the pilot phase. The Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO) is to manage the PSI. Norway announced a substantial contribution to help start the PSI at the Ministerial. The U.S. Department of State sponsored a workshop in January 2005 to consider the implications of climate variability, as described in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), for a number of foreign policy issues, including the availability and potential for exploitation of energy, fi sheries, and other resources, access to new sea routes, new claims under the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (see Witness Spring 2004), and national Witness Spring 2004), and national Witness security. For more information on the Arctic Council, see their web site: www.arcticcouncil.org , or contact Sarah Brandel (202-647-3264; fax 202-647-4353; [email protected]). Arctic Council Ministers Discuss Policy, Future Projects A t the fourth biennial Ministerial MeetAt the fourth biennial Ministerial MeetA ing of the Arctic Council (see Aing of the Arctic Council (see A Witness Spring 2004) in Reykjavik, Iceland, on November 24, 2004, Iceland’s Foreign Minister, David Oddson, welcomed ministers from the eight member countries of the Arctic Council and delegates of the six permanent participants, that represent arctic indigenous organizations. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula J. Dobriansky led the U.S. delegation. The foreign ministers of Russia, Sweden, Finland, and Norway, the Environment Minister of Canada, and the Greenland Home Rule Minister of Finance also participated. Presentation of the completed Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA; see page 1) and curiosity about the resulting policy recommendations attracted considerable media attention. Ministers signed the Reykjavik Declaration, which includes language on climate change in the Arctic, and approved an ACIA policy document, which is available under “What’s New” on the Arctic Council website at www.arcticcouncil.org . The consensus agreement in response to the ACIA includes recommendations on mitigation, adaptation, research, monitoring, and outreach. Iceland organized the fi rst comprehensive assessment by social science experts of human conditions in the Arctic. Oran Young of the University of the Arctic (see Witness Spring 2004) co-directed Witness Spring 2004) co-directed Witness The Arctic Human Development Report with Níels tic Human Development Report with Níels tic Human Development Report Einarsson of the Stefansson Arctic Institute in Iceland. Several U.S. experts from the University of Alaska served as lead chapter authors. The report is available through the Stefansson Arctic Institute at www. svs.is . Ministers welcomed the report and directed the Council’s working groups to consider appropriate follow-up actions. The Arctic Council’s working groups reported to the ministers on a growing number of activities and outlined new strategic visions for the Council’s work in marine conservation, biodiversity monitoring, and sustainable development. Ministers confi rmed that the Arctic Council will U.S. participation in the Arctic Council continues to grow along with the work. New energy and expertise is coming from the University of Alaska system, from a younger generation of Alaska natives, and wider engagement with those active in arctic science organizations. On behalf of the Department of State, I salute your contributions. They are making a difference for arctic residents and the Arctic Council. Sarah K. Brandel, U.S. Senior Arctic Offi cial 22 International News E stablished in 1991, the Canadian Polar Commission (CPC) is Canada’s lead advisory agency for polar research issues and is responsible for monitoring, promoting, and disseminating polar knowledge. The Commission has been active on several fronts to facilitate greater cooperation between Canadian researchers and the international research community. The CPC leads Canada’s preparations for the International Polar Year 2007–2008 (IPY; see page XX ), including the establishXX), including the establish-XX ment of Canada’s IPY Steering Committee (see box). As part of this effort, the Commission, with funding from Foreign Affairs Canada, held open sessions in northern communities including Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Kuujjuaq, Iqaluit, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Throughout summer 2004, these meetings • elicited suggestions from the public and northern scholars regarding IPY planning and Canada’s role, and • gathered ideas for pan-Canadian and pan-northern projects. In spring 2004, the Commission met with the United States Arctic Research Commission (USARC; see page XX ) and XX) and XX the Arctic Institute of North America (AINA; see Witness Spring 2004) in CalWitness Spring 2004) in Cal-Witness gary to discuss polar research issues of common interest and strategies to increase AINA’s funding and profi le. In March 2004, the CPC and the Canadian Mission to the European Union jointly hosted a two day Canada-EU Symposium in Brussels entitled “Environmental Assessment, Climate Change Research and Policy Implications in the Arctic.” The symposium brought 50 climate change researchers and decision makers together to discuss arctic research issues, concerns, and opportunities in an effort to stimulate research initiatives between Canadian and EU scientists. In conjunction with the symposium, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Environment Agency (EEA) released a joint report, “Arctic Environment: European Perspectives,” aimed at promoting discussion on European policy actions related to the Arctic. The report is available at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2004_38/en . The Commission was one of the organizers of the third Northern Research Forum (NRF), “The Resilient North— Human Responses to Global Change,” along with the NRF Secretariat, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the City of Yellowknife, Aurora College, and the community of Rae-Edzo. During September 2004, 144 participants from nine countries met in Yellowknife to address issues that are challenging northerners’ ability to adapt to change. An ongoing activity of the University of the Arctic Yves Bégin • [email protected] Université Laval Charles Bélanger • [email protected] Laurentian University Gérard Duhaime • [email protected]al.ca Université Laval Ian R. Church • [email protected] Yukon Government Helmut Epp • [email protected] NWT Government Nancy Gibson • [email protected] University of Alberta Barry Goodison • Barry[email protected] Environment Canada Geoff Green • [email protected] Students on Ice Peter Harrison • Peter[email protected] National Research Council of Canada Irwin Itzkovitch • [email protected] Natural Resources Canada Peter Johnson • [email protected] Canadian Polar Commission Jim McDonald • [email protected] Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies Robie W. Macdonald • [email protected].gc.ca Fisheries and Oceans Canada Gordon McBean • [email protected] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Ludger Müller-Wille • ludger[email protected] McGill University Wayne Pollard • Wayne Pollard •Wayne Pollard [email protected] Canadian Committee for Antarctic Research Jamal Shirley • [email protected] Nunavut Research Institute Duane Smith • [email protected] Inuit Circumpolar Conference (Canada) Sally Webber • [email protected] Sally Webber • sw[email protected]Sally Webber Yukon College Canadian Commission Promotes Polar Studies Canadian IPY Steering Committee (UArctic; see Witness Spring 2003), the Witness Spring 2003), the Witness Forum convenes biannually to stimulate discussion among members of the research community and northern stakeholders to address the problems and opportunities facing circumpolar peoples in the context of social and environmental change and economic globalization. In September 2003, the CPC and the Canadian Committee for Antarctic Research (CCAR) held an international workshop at the University of Alberta to develop a framework for a Canadian Antarctic Research Program (CARP). “Polar Connections” was a follow-up to the CPC’s paper, Antarctic Science and Bipolar Linkages: A Strategy for Canada (2002), which makes recommendations and outlines how Canada should go about increasing its research activities in Antarctica. Additionally, the CPC maintains the Canadian Polar Information Network (CPIN), which is designed to make polar data and information more readily available to the Canadian public. This communication network, which includes interactive workshops and on-line discussion groups, continues to expand and is extensively used by government agencies, international groups, and non-government agencies. For more information on the CPC, go to: www.polarcom.gc.ca , or contact John Bennett (613-943-8605; fax 613-9438607; [email protected]). 23 International News T he International Arctic Buoy Programme (IABP) maintains a network of drifting buoys throughout the central Arctic Ocean to provide meteorological and oceanographic data for real-time operational requirements and research purposes, including support to the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and the World Weather Watch (WWW) Programme. Beginning as the Arctic Ocean Buoy Programme in 1978, the IABP was developed as a cooperative effort and is funded and managed by its participants (see box), who provide equipment, services, and program coordination, as well as funding. Thirty-six operational buoys populate the array, which collects data on air temperature, surface pressure, and ice drift. Buoys transmit data over the ARGOS satellite communication system to be collected and quality controlled by the Polar Science Center (PSC) of the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington for use by the research community. The data are also available in near-real time over the Global Telecommunication System for use in operational modeling and forecasting. In addition to data management and IABP coordination responsibilities, the PSC maintains the IABP web site: http:// iabp.apl.washington.edu . Here, several data sets on sea level pressure, surface air temperature, ice motion, and other geophysical variables are available to the public. Also available from this site is a free CD-ROM containing buoy data and derived products from 1979 through 1999, a temperature and salinity data set from drifting buoys deployed between 1985 and 1994, GIF fi les graphically depicting gridded products, and a surface air temperature data set that combines data from buoys, manned drifting stations, and meteorological land stations. The PSC portion of the IABP is funded by the U.S. Interagency Buoy Program Program Supplies Wide Array of Long-term Buoy Data • Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research–Germany • Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute– Russia • Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Agency • Christian Michelsen Research–Norway • International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks–United States and Japan • Japan Marine Science and Technology Center • Marine Environmental Data Service– Canada • Meteorological Service of Environment Canada • National Ice Center–United States • Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command–United States • Naval Oceanographic Offi ce–United States • Norwegian Meteorological Institute • Norwegian Polar Institute • Pacifi c Marine Environmental Laboratory–United States • Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington– United States • Service Argos–France and United States • U.K. Meteorological Offi ce • United States Army, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory • U.S. Interagency Buoy Program–Including the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Ice Center; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Science Foundation; and Offi ce of Naval Research • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution– United States • World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)–International International Arctic Buoy Programme Participants (USIABP) and managed by the National Ice Center (NIC). The USIABP represents several U.S. entities (see box). The NIC also collaborates with Canada under the auspices of the North American Ice Service to offer a common suite of ice products and ice related services and information to North American and international users. For more information, see the IABP web site: http://iabp.apl.washington.edu , or contact Ignatius Rigor (206-685-2571; [email protected]). T he Second International Conference for Arctic Research Planning (ICARP II; see Witness Spring 2004) is scheduled Witness Spring 2004) is scheduled Witness for 10−13 November 2005 in Copenhagen, Denmark. ICARP II will guide international cooperation in the Arctic over the next 10−15 years by complementing ongoing research programs and planned initiatives, such as the International Polar Year (see page XX). In preparation for ICARP II, over 120 scientists are contributing to the development of 13 draft research plans addressing a range of pan-arctic themes, including: • sustainable development and arctic economies; • indigenous peoples and change in the Arctic; • arctic coastal processes; • deep central basin of the Arctic Ocean; • Arctic Ocean margins and gateways; • arctic shelf seas; • terrestrial cryosphere and hydrologic systems; • terrestrial biosphere and biodiversity; • simulating and understanding past, present, and future patterns of change; • science in the public interest; • vulnerability, resilience, and rapid change; • enabling research infrastructure; and • resources and funding to enable research. By June 2005, the working groups will deliver the draft research plans, which will be widely circulated and then serve as the basis for discussion during ICARP II. An integrated comprehensive plan for arctic research over the next decade will also be offered for discussion. For more information, see the ICARP II web site: http://www.icarp.dk , or contact Patrick Webber (517-355-1284; fax 517432-2150; [email protected]). Thirteen Draft Science Plans to be Reviewed at ICARP II 24 M ore than 30 years of scientifi c ocean drilling have explored the earth’s geological history in increasing detail. The fi rst effort to recover records from the global seafl oor by deep ocean coring and downhole logging was the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP, 1968–1983). The DSDP began as a U.S. program but quickly evolved into an international effort with fi ve nations (France, West Germany, Japan, U.K., and U.S.S.R.) partnering in funding and decision-making through the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES). As the DSDP drillship Glomar Challenger reached the Glomar Challenger reached the Glomar Challenger end of its useful life, the DSDP evolved into the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP, 1985–2003) with the commissioning of the JOIDES Resolution . Twenty-three nations contributed to the ODP, with more than half of the funding from the U.S. Integrated Ocean Drilling Program A new international ocean drilling program began on 1 October 2003. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) is coled by NSF and the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), each of which will contribute about $500 million to IODP over its ten year span. Signifi cant scientifi c and fi nancial participation is also provided by the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) and China. More than 600 scientists contributed to the development of the IODP initial science plan, available on the IODP web site ( www.iodp.org ), which identifi es three areas of initial emphasis: the deep biosphere and sub-seafl oor ocean, the processes and effects of environmental change, and solid earth cycles and geodynamics. Like DSDP and ODP, IODP expeditions are proposal-driven and planned after extensive scientifi c and safety review. The IODP differs from its predecessors, however, in using three types of drilling vessels, each provided by an IODP partner: • a heavy riser vessel for drilling deep sedimentary and crustal holes, contributed by Japan; • a lighter riserless vessel to provide widely distributed arrays of high resolution International News Cooperating Nations Foster Ocean Drilling Programs cores to address climate, environmental, and observatory objectives, contributed by the U.S.; and • occasional use of mission-specifi c platforms, contributed by ECORD, for projects that cannot be undertaken by the two primary vessels. Japan, led by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), constructed a new platform for IODP, the Chikyu , a 210 m long riser vessel launched in 2002. The Chikyu eventually will have a 12 km drill string for coring in water depths up to 4 km. Still undergoing outfi tting and testing, she will begin expeditions in 2007. Riser technology will allow long-term expeditions in areas previously inaccessible to scientifi c ocean drilling. The riser, a metal tube extending from the seafl oor to the Chikyu , contains a device to prevent blowout, which allows for drilling in areas with hydrocarbon potential. It uses drilling mud rather than seawater as a drilling fl uid, which is advantageous in unstable holes or areas with slow penetration. A riser vessel can drill deep into the crust at both passive and convergent margins. The U.S.—through the alliance of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and Texas A&M University—operates a riserless drillship for IODP. For the fi rst phase of IODP, it will be the same vessel used in ODP—the JOIDES Resolution , which will conduct fi ve expeditions in 2004–2005 before an approximate year-long hiatus in drilling. During this time, a vessel (the Resolution or a similar vessel) will be converted to meet the long-term needs of IODP. Riserless expeditions will resume on the upgraded ship in mid-2006. Riserless drilling is effective in moderate to deep water and allows sampling in most of the world’s oceans. Fourteen European countries comprise the ECORD, which operates missionspecifi c expeditions to carry out high-priority research that cannot be served by the other platforms, particularly in shallow waters and ice-covered regions. The Arctic Coring Expedition (ACEX; see page XX) is the fi rst IODP mission-specifi c platform operation. The ACEX is operated by the ECORD Science Operator (ESO), in cooperation with the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat (SPRS). The next mission-specifi c expedition will work in the Tahiti/Great Barrier Reef area in 2005. The IODP held a town meeting in December 2004 in association with the American Geophysical Union (AGU) fall meeting in San Francisco. For more information, see http://www.iodp.org/education_outreach/town_meeting.html . For more information, see the IODP web site: www.iodp.org , or contact Nancy Light (202-465-7500; fax 202-955-8363; [email protected]). Arctic Programs and Plans Since the early 1990s, the Nansen Arctic Drilling (NAD) Program has led the development of plans to study the Arctic’s geological evolution and past environmental change. NAD is an international research effort funded by contributions from member nations; JOI serves as the NAD secretariat. Several reports (see References) outline key scientifi c questions requiring at least a decade of dedicated arctic scientifi c drilling and a long-term funding commitment. NAD is supporting the development of a proposal to drill in the Chukchi borderland region. For more information, contact Bernard Coakley, chair of NAD ([email protected]). The European Polar Board has begun planning for a new research icebreaker with a deep-drilling capability that would contribute to IODP. The science plan for this effort is available at http://www.ecord.org/ about/j/AB-science.pdf . For more informaabout/j/AB-science.pdf. For more informa-about/j/AB-science.pdf tion, contact Jörn Thiede ([email protected]). References NAD Science Committee. 1992. The Arctic Ocean record: Key to global change (Initial Science Plan of the Nansen Arctic Drilling Program). Polarforschung 61: 1-102. forschung 61: 1-102.forschung Hovland M, et al. 2001. The high-Arctic drilling challenge. JOIDES Journal 27: 7-20 ( JOIDES Journal 27: 7-20 (JOIDES Journal http://poseidon. palaeoz.geomar.de/fi les/jj_vol_27_1.pdf ). Kristoffersen Y, Mikkelsen N (eds). 2004. Scientifi c drilling in the Arctic Ocean and the site survey challenge. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Special Publication ( http://www.geus. dk/geuspage-uk.htm ). 25 International News T he sediments from the top of the Lomonosov Ridge contain a climate record dating back more than 50 million years. The paleosciences community has been interested in drilling in this area for a number of years to gather direct evidence of past climate fl uctuations, but were unable to arrange commitments to meet the daunting logistical challenges. Among other diffi culties, drilling operations would require a ship to hold its position in the moving ice sheets of the Arctic Ocean at a point only 250 km from the North Pole, while drilling into a ridge that is 800 m below sea level at its shallowest point. In 2003, however, the new Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP; see page XX) implemented a multiple drilling platform approach, including mission-specifi c platforms for areas inaccessible to other drillships. In the fi rst project under this new approach, the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD; the IODP partner providing mission-specifi c platforms) devised a plan to drill the Lomonosov Ridge. In August 2004, three icebreakers met at the ice edge northwest of Franz Josef Land to begin this project, known as the Arctic Coring Expedition (ACEX), The $12.5 million ACEX expedition involved over 200 people, including scientists, technicians, crew, and educators (see page XX), and recovered hundreds of meters of core from the seafl oor. The 34 ACEX investigators onand off-shore represent 27 institutions (seven U.S. institutions, seven Japanese, fi ve U.K., two French, and one each from Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Russia, Italy, and Germany). The ACEX project was funded by NSF, ECORD, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Technology, and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology. At the drill site, temperatures hovered between 0° and -11°C, and ice fl oes of 1–3 m blanketed over 90% of the ocean surface. The ice drifted at speeds of up to 0.3 knots and changed direction with little warning. Specially converted for this expedition, the Swedish coring icebreaker Vidar Viking undertook the drilling, suspending over 1600 m of core pipe through the water column and into the underlying sediments. The two other icebreakers, the Russian nuclear vessel Sovetskiy Soyuz and the SwedSovetskiy Soyuz and the Swed-Sovetskiy Soyuz ish diesel-electric Oden , protected Viking by circling “upstream” in the ice, breaking the fl oes into pieces too small to dislodge her from within a 40 m radius from a fi xed position. Despite thick and pervasive ice cover, the fl eet and ice management teams successfully enabled the coring crew to recover cores from three holes that extended as deep as 430 m beneath the seafl oor, in water depths as great as 1300 m. Ice conditions became unmanageable only twice, forcing the fl eet to retrieve the pipe and move away until conditions improved. Early results reveal that the upper sediments indicate the presence of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean over at least the past 15 million years. In older underlying cores, dark organic-rich sediments contain abundant remains of plants and algae, including diatoms, silicofl agellates, and dinofl agellate cysts. These sediments are about 45 to 50 million years old and indicate an environment characterized by ice-free, warmer surface ocean waters. Within these sediments, a zone contained massive concentrations of megaspores of the hydropterid fern Azolla , which resembles duckweed. Similar fi ndings, dated to 49.3 million years ago, have been reported from many sites in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere and suggest a widespread freshwater environment in the region at this time. Still deeper, the team found direct evidence that the North Pole was unequivocally ice-free and much warmer 55 million years ago during an episode of global warming. These deep sediments contain microfossils of marine plants, algae, and animals consistent with subtropical, shallow seas, as well as a mass extinction event. Geologists refer to this interval as the “Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum.” This brief period of extreme warmth coincided with massive input of carbon to sea and air that has been attributed to the dissociation of large deposits of gas hydrates (frozen methane within the seabed). This discovery indicates that the arctic surface ocean was warmer, somewhere around 20°C, whereas today it is usually no warmer than -1.5°C and generally covered by ice at least 1 m thick. The cores have been transferred to a repository at the University of Bremen, Germany, where the science team will study them in detail. For more information, see the ACEX web site: www.iodp.de , or contact Kate Moran (401-8746421; [email protected] u ) or John Farrell (401-874-6561; jfarrell@gso. uri.edu). Drillsite overview from 3300 m, showing the coring ship Vidar Viking on station (at the top Vidar Viking on station (at the top Vidar Viking of the picture). Below, Oden keeps the waters clear of ice fl oes, and at the bottom, the Sovetskiy Soyuz breaks up the larger fl oes moving towards the coring site. Photo by Per Frejvall. International Team Cores Lomonosov Ridge Sediments 32 Non-Profi t Org. U.S. Post age PAID Permit No. 957 Anchorage, AK Arctic Research Consortium of the United States 3535 College Road Suite 101 Fairbanks, AK 99709 USA A Note From the ARCUS President Inside SEARCH 1 NSF News 4 Arctic Research Support & Logistics 5 ARCSS Program 7 Arctic Natural Sciences Pro gram 12 Arctic Social Sciences Pro gram 13 Arctic Social Sciences News 14 U.S. Arctic Research Com mis sion 15 Polar Research Board 15 Capitol Updates 16 Education News 17 International News 20 Science News 28 Calendar and Publications 31 I hope that, since I am writing this message on New Year’s Eve, I will be forgiven for a somewhat retrospective and perhaps even maudlin perspective. I am excited and encouraged by the progress and potential of arctic research and the recognition of an ever-growing need for ARCUS involvement to advocate and facilitate in support of the research community. Over the past decades, there has been a big change in interest and support for research in northern regions. I will give a subarctic example. In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation developed a program called Research Addressing National Needs (RANN). The University of Alaska responded with a proposal for a comprehensive study of Prince William Sound, including the watersheds and social aspects. It was well-reviewed but not funded. Why? Because the opinion was that it did not address a national need. The region was considered far too remote and of limited pragmatic interest (this was, of course, before the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline). As a result, there were virtually no baseline data about the area when the Exxon Valdez tanker hit Bligh Reef in 1989. Exxon Valdez tanker hit Bligh Reef in 1989.Exxon Valdez We are better off now. The Arctic is increasingly recognized as important in global climate change (see page 1). Other issues in the region, such as subsistence needs, the prospect of increased development, and the potential for ice-free navigation, raise provocative research questions. In response to the need for more information about the Arctic, the scientifi c community and agencies are developing well conceived, prescient programs: • The interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) forms the foundation of the International Study of Arctic Change (ISAC), which has the potential to become the signature circumarctic program (see page XX). • The international Census of Marine Life includes a fi eld project on Arctic Ocean Diversity (see www.coml.org ). • New national and international research efforts in the subarctic seas are moving ahead (see page XX). All this is happening as the 2007−2008 International Polar Year approaches (see page XX). Clearly, the arctic research community is larger and more active than ever before; its needs for effective networking, outreach, and coordination will continue to grow; and the role of ARCUS in serving that community will continue to expand. —Vera Alexander Vera Alexander is a biological oceanographer who has worked in high latitudes since 1962. She was dean of the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks from 1989 to 2004, when she became the Provost’s Special Assistant for Fisheries and Ocean Policy. A long-time member of the ARCUS Board of Directors, she was elected president in 2003. She also serves on the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission and North Pacifi c Marine Science Organization (PICES), among others.