Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$43.00



View/Hide Left Panel

2
Presentations and Discussions

ORIENTATION TO WORKSHOP GOALS

Welcome

Welcome Dave Clark, Polar Research Board

On behalf of the Polar Research Board of the National Research Council, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this workshop1 concerned with NOAA's Arctic research initiative. The principal focus of this workshop is to develop a series of suggestions that the NOAA will find useful in guiding the next phase of the Arctic Research Initiative.

Today, as I have watched people file in this room, I thought that things have changed in the Arctic in the last few years. Thirty years ago all of those in the U.S. who were concerned with the Arctic would have fit in just one comer of this room. Yet this year alone, I have attended five Arctic research meetings, most of which included different people than are here today (and the last meeting had 200 in attendance). People like Garry Brass and others here have probably attended even more Arctic-related meetings with different people.

This is good because it represents a dramatic shift in research emphasis in this country. We recognize new problems in the Arctic, problems that we want to address today. During the past 30 years, we have developed new techniques to solve some of the old problems. Perhaps most important is that the funding available now for research to solve some of these Arctic problems is at a more substantial level than it has ever been. The really good news is that with so much activity in the Arctic now, many of the problems that we worried about for years are being addressed and addressed in a good fashion. And of course, we are learning more about this intriguing and strategic part of the earth than we hoped to learn 30 years ago.

1  

The papers in this volume were developed from transcripts of recordings made at the workshop. They have been edited for clarity but not changed in substantive ways nor have we attempted to alter the informal tone of the discussions. Some speakers provided copies of the overheads that illustrated their talks, and these are included here, but we could not guarantee quality reproduction.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop 2 Presentations and Discussions ORIENTATION TO WORKSHOP GOALS Welcome Welcome Dave Clark, Polar Research Board On behalf of the Polar Research Board of the National Research Council, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this workshop1 concerned with NOAA's Arctic research initiative. The principal focus of this workshop is to develop a series of suggestions that the NOAA will find useful in guiding the next phase of the Arctic Research Initiative. Today, as I have watched people file in this room, I thought that things have changed in the Arctic in the last few years. Thirty years ago all of those in the U.S. who were concerned with the Arctic would have fit in just one comer of this room. Yet this year alone, I have attended five Arctic research meetings, most of which included different people than are here today (and the last meeting had 200 in attendance). People like Garry Brass and others here have probably attended even more Arctic-related meetings with different people. This is good because it represents a dramatic shift in research emphasis in this country. We recognize new problems in the Arctic, problems that we want to address today. During the past 30 years, we have developed new techniques to solve some of the old problems. Perhaps most important is that the funding available now for research to solve some of these Arctic problems is at a more substantial level than it has ever been. The really good news is that with so much activity in the Arctic now, many of the problems that we worried about for years are being addressed and addressed in a good fashion. And of course, we are learning more about this intriguing and strategic part of the earth than we hoped to learn 30 years ago. 1   The papers in this volume were developed from transcripts of recordings made at the workshop. They have been edited for clarity but not changed in substantive ways nor have we attempted to alter the informal tone of the discussions. Some speakers provided copies of the overheads that illustrated their talks, and these are included here, but we could not guarantee quality reproduction.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop The bad news for those of us who have been involved for a long time is that we no longer have a monopoly on Arctic research. This includes the annoying fact that our manuscripts are criticized more heavily and we don't get as much money for our personal research because there are so many more people working in the area. Nonetheless, the fact that Arctic research is moving forward is a great thing, and the Polar Research Board, among many other groups, is very appreciative of NOAA's initiative. Today we have a specific objective and only a few hours allotted to accomplish it. We have many speakers scheduled and, more importantly, many issues to discuss. The proceedings of this workshop will be published by the National Academy Press, and we hope that our discussions will be useful in guiding NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research in defining and pushing forward their Arctic Research Initiative. Just how good these proceedings are and just how useful they are to NOAA depends, of course, upon the full participation of each of you in attendance. So, we are ready to go. I will ask Walt Oechel, who is serving as the chairman of the workshop, to define our specific plan of action for today's activities. Workshop Structure and Goals Walter Oechel, Polar Research Board I think this is a fantastic opportunity to have some formal input into NOAA's contaminant research program. What we would like to do today is review the key gaps in areas requiring research in Arctic contaminants, review what NOAA has done up to this point, and what it is doing now. After that what we will try to identify the areas where NOAA is best able to make a contribution, and this includes looking at what other agencies are doing and what NOAA's unique capabilities are. So, we should consider NOAA's capabilities, the possible synergism with other agencies and institutions, and try to identify major gaps in contaminants research. As we use the term here, contaminants research is fairly broadly defined. We want to help NOAA build a coherent program, something that is identifiable and can move the field ahead. The structure of today's workshop is to briefly review NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative and, also, hear a bit about the U.S. Arctic contaminants research meeting from Fairbanks last August. Jim Baker, NOAA's top administrator, will talk about "the big picture" and how the issue of contaminants and the Arctic Research Initiative should fit into that larger context. We'll then have a series of talks reviewing various NOAA programs and how they contribute to our understanding of contamination in the Arctic. We will also look at perspectives from outside NOAA to make sure that what NOAA is doing fits in the broader context. All this will easily take all morning. Before we break for lunch, we will have a general brainstorming session to look at the large research questions and try to identify additional research points that we may want to discuss in the breakout groups. Then during lunch we will ease into the breakout discussions, and after

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop lunch have focused discussions on the three major research questions. We'll return here for a plenary discussion and reports from the breakout groups. Time is very limited and we have a very ambitious agenda for one day. PRB member Gordon Cox has volunteered to be the timekeeper. So, he has a large hook, and will be ruthless in its application. Your meeting books contain a description of the Arctic Research Initiative, which you'll note focuses on the Bering Sea region and Western Alaska. The main elements within the program have been a study of natural variability and studies of anthropogenic influences, including contaminants transport and fate plus issues like Arctic haze, ozone, and UV changes. NOAA has been very interested in the impacts on ecosystem structure and function. So, those are the major issues that we want to talk about today. We need to ask not just what research is need but where can NOAA make the largest contribution? How can NOAA best work with other agencies' programs and in the end come up with a coherent, well-focused program. So, with that I would like to ask Joe Friday to give us a general introduction. Joe Friday is the Assistant Administrator for OAR, for anyone who doesn't know. Welcome Joe Friday, NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research I have been the Assistant Administrator for NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) for only two weeks now, but I wanted to welcome you because this is an area that I am looking forward to with great enthusiasm and great interest. I am not a newcomer to the Arctic issues. I served as the Department of Defense representative to the Interagency Arctic Research Coordinating Council back when I was Director of Environmental and Life Sciences as a young, dashing Air Force colonel. That is many years ago unfortunately, 1979 through 1981. At that time, some of you may remember one of the things that we were involved with doing in that time period was trying to evaluate the physical plants and everything else that should be there, and this was the time frame in which the Navy recognized it was probably cheaper to deploy from the lower Forty-Eight than it was to maintain the full capacity up at NARL (Naval Arctic Research Laboratory). As a result, it phased down some of the activities up at Barrow. During the 16 years that I spent in the National Weather Service, I visited every one of our Alaskan sites in January or February because I didn't want the folks to think that I just went up there to do salmon fishing. I have never been salmon fishing in Alaska, as a matter of fact, but I have visited every one of the sites there. I participated in a joint review of the high Arctic sites in the Canadian Environmental Service, Alert, Eureka, Resolute, Mould Bay. When we landed at Mould Bay our plane contained 14 people, and we tripled the population of the entire island.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop I am looking forward to understanding the current state of the science in the Arctic. I don't want to run afoul of the timekeeper or take time from Alan Thomas because he will be giving you the directions and expectations from OAR's perspective, but I would say one thing. I like the point of view that this is a short meeting. Short meetings are better than long meetings, I think, but we have to remember what we are trying to accomplish. I am in the process of preparing our quarterly management reviews, and as I went through the various things that were listed as accomplishments in the last quarter there were several meetings listed. I, personally, do not view a meeting as an accomplishment. Descartes' definition of management may be ''I meet, therefore, I am,'' but I think that is wrong. What we have to do with meetings is really try to focus and accomplish something, as both Dave and Wait pointed out earlier. I think Alan is going to be carrying the same message. We really want to come away from here with a direction to go. I probably won't be able to contribute much to the breakout sessions because my database is too stale, but I am looking forward to understanding what the issues are and the status of things. And again, I welcome everyone here. I'm not one to be accused of micro management, except occasionally, and I don't intend to micro manage the laboratories and the activities in OAR either. I do want to understand what is going on, and I do want to be able to focus on what the real issues are and make sure that we are contributing in real ways. Again, I am glad that you are all here, and I hope you have a productive meeting. PRESENTATIONS NOAA and Arctic Contaminants Research Alan Thomas with Eddie Bernard, Dave Hofmann I will be sharing my time with Eddie Bernard and Dave Hofmann, but let me just start by talking a little bit about the context; context is important because you always have to know the agency's mission. One of the points I keep making is that there are lots of things we can do, but somehow we have to relate it back to what it says on that sign on our door. In general, NOAA has a lot of interests in the Arctic. Probably the primary two are forecasting and warning of the weather in the Arctic and fisheries management. We have other programs like the role of the Arctic in climate, but one of the things we have found very hard is to find an integrating way of handling activities in the Arctic. One of the things that is clear to me is that when we look at some of these research issues, we have a kind of an integrator. One of the things that I am particularly interested in is how do Arctic activities relate together, and one of the reasons it is a problem is that our missions tend to be global or very large scale, and the Arctic is one component of a much

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop larger mission area, whether it is forecasting the weather globally or climate or fisheries management. This frustration on how you coordinate within an agency was one of the rationales behind us setting up the Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) a number of years ago. One of the things we found in our interactions is that many times universities, where they have certain loci themselves, allow a lot of people to come together in a way that it is hard here in Washington. At universities, you start with the substance, and then you worry about the policy. So, that the context of what we are doing. The Arctic Research Initiative has been driven by a lot of activities. Garry Brass and the Arctic Research Commission have been very interested in NOAA and our opportunities. Also, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) is one of the main driving forces, and I want to just recognize Ed Myers from NOAA who has worked hard on a very skimpy amount of resources to try to coordinate AMAP activities throughout the federal agencies and at least do something from the U.S. side. So, for a lot of reasons we have arrived at having the opportunity to implement a small, but hopefully useful new program, the Arctic Research Initiative (ARI). We took this opportunity driven by a number of forces, and it came to focus fairly quickly last year. To implement the ARI, NOAA initially reached out to the universities and hopefully down the road to the international community. The ARI received $1 million its first year. That's not a lot, but there are many significant things you can do for a million dollars. We started with having this cooperative institute. We asked Gunter Weller, Patricia Anderson, Ted DeLaca and others to help pull together the first makings of this program. I talked to the Polar Board about a year ago that we were going to do something. Hopefully, today we can report on what we have done in year one. In setting up the first year of the Arctic Research Initiative we invited input from key NOAA players. Fisheries Service was represented by a couple of people from their Seattle-Alaskan Fishery Center and NOS and NWS and I talked to Walt Planet about NESDIS input. Because of the short time frame available to plan the first year we dealt largely with University of Alaska scientists. We had a good turnout; there were a number of others from the state and, through Garry Brass, we had input from the Commission. We advertised the availability of support through NSF. ARI funds did not go only to the University of Alaska; although because of the process we used a lot of the support there. The kind of criteria that we put on is that we wanted to build partnerships between NOAA scientists and university scientists, and that would be a good way of trying to get both very high-quality science and mission-relevant activities. We also paid attention to ongoing activities so that we could add value to some of the activities that are ongoing. We obviously stayed within our mission but we tried to address some of the Arctic policy issues and concerns that were coming out of AMAP.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop I think we now have a better idea what AMAP is proposing, and so one of the things that we wanted advice on today is how can we put that into our plan, and, also, how we focus on achievable results. We actually have a process going. We have some research ongoing, and that is moving forward. Now, in terms of the focus, both this past year and a general sense in the future, NOAA is very interested in natural variability. That is one of the things that we have done for a long while, and that is very important. We think it is important that when we look at contaminants we still look at the natural variability in the environment, particularly because the polar regions have enormous natural variability. Also, and Walt referred to this, contaminants is a very broad area. Last year, for example, if you look at points four and five on the list of research themes, No. 5 is really marine contaminants, and there is a lot of effort on that within NOAA, and that certainly is one of the areas in which there is a lot of attention. But we also are going to look at Arctic haze and UV, and I think in the broader sense carbon flux is really going to be something that is important from a climate perspective. So, I wanted to emphasize that we view this in a very broad context of what needs to be done, and so, we hope that you look at it in that sense. Then just very quickly, the two really major areas were one, the Bering Sea green belt and processes in ecosystem production. That has been a focus of some interest to our Fisheries Service, interest to our research program and other parts of NOAA, and we were able to add, I think, value to some of the activities that are going on, as a part of our study of the variability in the Bering Sea and Western Arctic. The other major activity was anthropogenic influences on the Western Arctic and Bering Sea. So, those are the two larger topics that will be addressed later. Before I turn this over to Eddie Bernard and Dave Hofmann to talk in more detail about what was supported, let me add that what we did last year was to run a process that actually ended up getting implemented in FY 1997. That was one of our goals: to show that we could manage a successful program, one that included an open process for input from other universities and agencies. We intend to run a process that has an international dimension and tries to leverage the resources that we have here since we want to be able to do our part in terms of upholding the U.S. role in things like the Arctic AMAP program and the International Arctic Research Center program as well as some of the other international activities. As I said before, monitoring and data collection in terms of contaminants in the traditional sense is certainly one of the things that we are interested in because of the fisheries and the native populations and the interests around Alaska. But the broader issue of UV and related stratospheric ozone depletion is also important and in fact there was a major program up there this year, the Polaris program that had NASA, the universities, NSF and NOAA participation. And then there is climate change, which we did not fund this year but I think is of ever-increasing importance.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop In terms of our expectations, we are looking for how can we improve the ARI; what is the best way of going about broadening the program, recognizing that we probably can expect somewhere in between 1 and 2 million dollars this year. You have to think about what you can do for that kind of money, and in NOAA we want results because we are a mission agency. We want the science to be as relevant as we can to the issues addressed by our Fisheries Service, National Ocean Service, the Weather Service, or our climate program. In that context I think I would be remiss to say that I believe that we have not focused on the Arctic from a climate perspective as much as we need to. We have spent a lot of time in the tropical oceans and topical areas over the last 10 years. So, we ought to try to see what we can do within the Arctic with the resources we have. Any questions? Questions/Discussion PARTICIPANT: Alan, you mentioned a one-to-two million-dollar level of effort. Do you envision this to be a long-term NOAA program that would eventually be part of the NOAA base effort? DR. THOMAS: That is always our hope. We don't give up easily. DR. OECHEL: Alan, what was the process by which you got to the Bering Sea area and Western Alaskan Arctic as a geographic focal point? DR. THOMAS: Internal to NOAA we have a number of activities. The Bering Sea is very important for the Fisheries Service. We have done work on fisheries oceanography in that area, the donut hole problem on the international side. Also, there is some evidence that was presented at our workshop that there are some climate signals like the North Pacific Oscillation and others that we need to pay attention to, some very large changes in that area, and you know, Alaska is an enormously productive area. So, we are driven by our mission to work there. Also, that is not to say that we wouldn't work in the Arctic Ocean because in fact, we have a monitoring station at Barrow. That is a very important area for us, and if you look at the haze and the UV, there is an interest, but for us Alaska is the Arctic. It is the first order, that we do work in Fram Straits and various other parts. We do, and we would like to, but if you look at it from a practical sense, our support comes from working on fisheries management, weather forecasting, climate and things like that. DR. OECHEL: But to understand contaminant impacts, even in the Bering Sea, it seems like large-scale transport processes are extremely important, and yet I don't necessarily see those reflected in the program right now. DR. THOMAS: Probably not at the million-dollar level. Ultimately we would like to model that, because certainly large-scale processes are relevant. But our program, for now, is rather small for that. As time goes on, I think we will work with the Weather Service and the university in looking at atmospheric transport, and this is an outgrowth of things like looking at volcanic and other activities. For now, though, the question is what can you do usefully for $1 million?

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop DR. OECHEL: I guess my question was about the process, but it sounds like it is almost more obvious within NOAA that that was the area to go rather than opening it up and then coming down to that area. DR. HILD: My name is Carl Hild. I am with the Rural Alaska Community Action Program. The question I have, the Department of Commerce does have an American Indian Alaskan Native policy. How was that applied last year for the expenditure of $1 million, and how do you anticipate it is going to be applied for this coming year? DR. THOMAS: We are going to try to get input. We will have workshops as we did in Fairbanks. We sought input probably not as broadly this year as we should but we are going to try to find out who and try to invite interested parties to the workshop. I think we supported some work ultimately in areas of interest to the native population of Alaska as I believe through one of the proposals. So, we have gotten a little bit, and I am just saying that that is one of the issues in front of us; how do you broaden this participation. DR. HILD: Would it be possible to put something in the announcement of opportunity that you anticipate people should reflect this policy because it is a Department of Commerce policy? DR. THOMAS: Right. One of the other issues that I think we talked a little bit to Garry Brass on the sustainable development, Arctic sustainable development activity, and certainly that is a part of what NOAA is interested in. I would like now for Eddie Bernard to come up to talk about the first area of natural variability and then Dave Hofmann will talk a little about the contaminant area. Eddie Bernard As Alan indicated, nine of the 15 proposals were associated with natural variability. The motivation for this is to understand the existing productivity of the Bering Sea. This is a composite of numerous years of investigation, and it identifies a high zone of productivity along this shelf. This is the topography of the Bering Sea. This is a deep basin by this wide shelf here, and so, as a result of this high productivity the United States derives about 40 percent of its tonnage of fisheries from this body of water, and actually about 10 percent of the entire biomass of the planet is actually produced in this area. One of the questions is why such high productivity, and over years of investigation we have come up with a schematic concept of the way the circulation works in this area. There are lots of detailed mechanics involved in this that we need to talk about in order to understand some of the variability. NOAA's interest, as Alan said, is in fisheries and because the fisherman are out there, of course, the Weather Service wants to provide good forecasts so that when vessels ice up and when they hit big storms we don't lose lives unnecessarily.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop So, this is the general circulation pattern. There is a big gyre that goes in the basin and then as this gyre follows the contours of the bathymetry that gives rise to a lot of interaction. That is the key right there, this confluence of high productivity with these physical mechanisms seems to be one of the products that we want to focus on. And just to give you an idea in terms of natural variability, there were two studies in the Bering Sea ecosystem that focused on bioindicators. One is the analysis of seal hunting up in the Chukchi Sea area to look at hunting for 50 years from 1920 to 1970. Since 1970, there has been pretty good population dynamics but to use the indigenous people of Siberia to sort of understand how their hunting went up and down. A second bioindicator is a spotted seal study that is done by the Alaska Fish and Game Department in which they tagged 21 seals from 1991 to 1993, and these data are being analyzed to see what the correlation is between ice pack and fluctuations in the marine mammal populations. Okay, so, those are sort of gross bioindicators of what is going on. The other projects that are funded are process studies, and the hypothesis driving this is that there is a lot of interaction fight here and in order to take advantage of some NOAA activities, the Coastal Ocean Program is sponsoring a program called the Southeast Bering Sea Carrying Capacity. They had several cruises lined up for this spring to collect data in this green belt. Now, although the green belt image I showed you earlier is a composite of many data, no one has actually gone and systematically surveyed this area until the first cruise in May, and so, let me just show you some preliminary results of that cruise. First of all, the first cruise went out and deployed some moorings and some drifters, and this was all money that was supplemental to the Coastal Ocean Program Southeast Bering Sea carrying capacity. Investigators included several people who were looking at both the nutrients and the physical transport. There is a web page in Colorado that puts out near real time altimetric measurements, and this is the Aleutian Archipelago here and this is the Bering Sea covered here. What you are looking at here is a high elevated area here that represents an eddy, and it seems like these features, these eddy features, are a dominant mechanism in which transport takes place from the deep ocean, nutrient-rich waters to the shelf where it supplies food that sustains this high productivity. This information is brand new. This collaboration didn't exist before the Arctic program was under way, and now, after a few discussions this is available over the web page. We took our ship fight out to the middle of this because it was under way, made surveys in real time of the current velocities and what you are looking at here is a cross section. Let me guide you here. You are looking at a cross section through this eddy, fight through the middle, okay? This is a circulation pattern, and there is a clockwise eddy. So, the flow is coming out of the page and into the page, but notice that this eddy is not symmetrical. It is distorted toward the shelf side, and in measuring chlorophyll inside the eddy and outside the eddy we found that it was greatly intensified inside the eddy. So it

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop looks like this eddy stretching mechanism is actually acting as a vertical flux in bringing nutrients from the deep ocean up to the shelf and supporting the nutrients, and this is the first data we have that actually supports this hypothesis that has been advanced, and we are very excited about it. In addition to making direct measurements we also seeded this eddy with drifters, and there you see the drifters. It is hard to tell from this, but they are going in a clockwise direction, and these drifters have chlorophyll measuring devices on them. So, you can actually track the chlorophyll inside the eddy. As we would expect, these are high. This one that got pulled out of the eddy is low. So, what we see here from the preliminary results is that it looks like the eddy structures are very important in transporting nutrients from the deep ocean basin up to the shelf which supports sustained productivity. In addition to the oceanographic features that cause these eddies, what supports them is a study of the meteorological programs, and we are studying the natural variability by looking at the changes in the Aleutian low and one pattern that has emerged is that it looks like if you take a look at some long period fluctuations in climate you will see that the Aleutian low actually seems to prefer two modes. One mode is in the Gulf of Alaska, and the other mode is in the Bering Sea. If you look at the time period between 1989 and 1996, versus the 1977 to 1980 time frame, it looks like over that period there have been some shifts in sea level pressure, and for the non-meteorologists in this area this represents a rising of the sea level pressure which would depress, would suppress the intensity of the Aleutian low, and then this would be lowering in this area the high pressure system. So, in effect, this is lowering gradient and lowering some of the intensification that is taking place in the high Bering Sea. For us simple oceanographers it seems like the obvious thing that is going on here is that when you have an intense low pressure system that sits here it brings up warm air from the south, and it creates lots of mixing, and it is a very energetic system. When it is in this system, when the Aleutian low sits over here, it is bringing in cold air. It is less intense. There is not as much misting, but them will be more ice because of the cold. So, these are the natural variabilities that we are studying. We are, also, studying the planetary boundary layer at Barrow, Alaska to see what changes have taken place. So, all of this is loosely woven together. Like Alan said, all of these programs are linked to other programs, and probably about one-third of the funding from the Arctic program is actually being supplied for all the science that is being accomplished.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop wish to take this up because we don't have a formal coordinated program for looking at UV effects on health in the NIH directly. DR. FRIDAY: There is one aspect of the health effects where NOAA is concerned. For the last couple of years you may have noticed that there are UV indexes routinely associated with the weather forecast around the country. That is a product of NOAA. We worked on that issue with the American Academy of Dermatology and with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. We see it as educational outreach to try to explain the significance of UV exposure on humans. But you are right that in general the actual health mechanisms are not our mission. DR. HALLET: One thing that is closely related to this: the international research centers have an interest in participating in UV, and apparently a set of stations is being discussed it is partly in place around the Arctic. This would be a natural focus for scientists coming in to study the causes of UV. The idea would be that NOAA could participate in an international program that is fairly well established. The third item was arctic haze. Here we discussed atmospheric circulation variations, understanding sources and regions of aerosols, and intercomparisons of databases in the U.S., Russia and other parts of the world. Perhaps the two contenders for most of the attention, according to our group, were understanding and defining long-term trends and then understanding the characteristics of the aerosols and so understanding chemical and physical characteristics of arctic haze. Those were seen as the primary areas of need. Now, one thing that was common to all themes was a need to really understand what to document and understand variability in atmospheric circulation as a driver for all of these components. Here we discussed some subcategories. One is to take advantage of the instrumental and the paleo records and to focus on stability issues and mixing dynamics. And, of course, the use of models to better understand and develop insights and, also, to work on the models and use the data to validate the models so that they can be better predictive tools.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop FLIPCHART NOTE—GROUP #1 Research Needed to Address Arctic Haze, Ozone, and UV Flux General Areas of Significance: Define variability in atmospheric Circulation as a driver for all 3 areas, plus: take advantage of instrumental and paleo records, focus on stability/mixing dynamics, and improve modeling and validation. Effects of UVB of biosphere (e.g., Aleutian low dynamics). UV Flux (Note: The Working group Used the IASC document, "Effects of Increased UV Radiation" as the basis for its discussion and selecting the following key issues.) UV International Research Centers (UVIRCs): using the research stations that already exist in the Arctic to measure UV changes, we should incorporate a biological component so we can begin to develop a coordinated Understanding of UV flux and its effects. Surface and Satellite monitoring and modeling of the UV radiation field. Effects of UVB on aquatic ecosystem (e.g., abundance, distribution, composition, and biogeochemical cycling of particulate and dissolved organic matter in diverse aquatic ecosystems). Effects of UVB on terrestrial ecosystems. UV-induced changes in plant chemical composition. Effects of UVB on human health. Social impacts of UVB radiation, e.g., perturbation of food Chain and impact to indigenous populations. Effects of arctic haze and clouds on UV radiation. Ozone: Stratosphere Characterize ozone anomalies, loss, and trends. Understand temperature trends for formation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). Win me stability of Arctic strata, sphere vortex. Volcanic perturbations to stratospheric aerosol and effects on ozone. Impact of current commercial transpolar subsonic aviation (current and projected) on Arctic stratosphere. Arctic Haze Understanding and defining long-term trends. Understanding chemical and physical characteristics of Arctic haze . Atmospheric circulation variations. Understanding source regions of aerosols. Comparisons, of databases in U.S. and Russia.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop Summary of Breakout Group #2: Natural Variability DR. COX: What you see in front of you are the results of our group's brainstorming exercise. After we did some brainstorming we made an effort to prioritize or identify which of these issues are more critical than others. Those issues that are most important are identified by a circle around the issue number. I am going to only highlight those issues that we have identified as being the most important. These are quality assurance, control, how data are collected and analyzed (I think this applies to everything we are talking about today), and common calibration procedures, whether it be satellite instruments or other equipment. We are looking for standards to employ in our regular business. As far as the more important research issues, we discussed the need to coordinate, share, and pull together information from different databases; there are a number of different arctic databases. There may be some advancements that we can make by pulling together information from some, say, physical databases and biological databases. What is the spectrum of variability and time scales for important environmental parameters? Define what the important parameters are and develop models to describe the variability. This was an interesting outcome from our discussion and that is the use of manmade or anthropogenic contaminants as tracers to better understand natural variability. These could include things like better understanding transport. It was also suggested that maybe there are some manmade non-toxic tracers that we could introduce into the environment to better understand transport and other mechanisms. Another issue we discussed was sensitivity studies, and models to obtain parameters of variability. Let me expand on that a bit. If we run the models that we currently have, we may identify some variables that people wouldn't necessarily think as being important but in fact could be good indicators of change. We discussed environmental monitoring of critical areas; Barrow is a good example. There may be other areas that should be designated as critical areas. Essentially what we want to do is look for areas that would be good locations to test the health of the environment. Last but not least, we discussed advancing our ability to predict fishery stock. Here is a very important commercial issue, and what we are looking at are natural versus manmade effects. It can include things like impact on pollock or other important species in the environment.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop FLIPCHART NOTES—GROUP #2 Research Needed to Address Natural Variability Coordinate, share, combine information from different databases. Need to establish baseline understanding so We Can understand variability. Better understand the spectrum of the variability amplitude and time scales of important environmental parameters. Define important parameters; develop models to describe variability. Environmental monitoring of critical areas (e.g., Barrow, Alaska.) Improved ability to predict fisheries stock trends, to determine what is "natural" versus "man-made" effects; to understand regime shifts. Improved capabilities to use of anthropogenic contaminants as tracers to better understand natural variability and contaminant transport; these must be nontoxic. More sensitivity studies and models to identify parameters of variability. Better quality assurance, quality control, and attention to how data is collected and analyzed. Better understanding of interannual variability of greenbelt processes, including shelf/slope exchange processes. Address ice dynamics/thermodynamics, including historical records and trends. Address variability of stratosphere (ozone depletion, cooling), long-term trends, effect of cloud, and driving forces for stratospheric stability. Better understanding of coupled physical-biological models/processes including beyond the boundaries of the Bering Sea. Consider long-term records (1000s of years) through ice and sediment cores to put current variability into perspective. Improved comparative studies in the Arctic, including comparisons of similar environments with different human usage. Better understanding of multi-stressor problem-existing and possible future stressors. Better understanding of "predictability." How far out into the future do we need to predict? Increased emphasis on habitat change (e.g., migratory changes, permafrost, vegetation changes). Better understanding of the role of long-term variability in atmospheric transport on temperature, cloud cover, and arctic haze variations (as opposed to greenhouse gas forcing). Increased use of common calibration procedures.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop Summary of Breakout Group #3: Contaminant Sources, Transport, and Dispersion Effects DR. BURCH: Our report is divided into three sections, and depending on our time I may or may not make it through all of them. So, I will start with the most important one which was substantive issues. (These, by the way, are not prioritized.) The general opinion was that the effects of contaminants on people was the key issue now and in the future. We also felt that a lot of that was not NOAA's problem but certain aspects of it were. For example, ecological risk assessment, exposure estimates, the study of sentinel species and so on—all of which relate to impact on humans—those things are certainly within the realm of NOAA's operations. A second consideration was that whatever is done should be science driven. That means that it should be guided by hypotheses that relate to a larger body of knowledge. It should relate to the general body of science, not isolated theories. A third consideration is that, there should be special attention paid to multiple stressors and synergy. Fourth, an ecosystem approach should be used, with special emphasis on the food web and biomagnification. I thought that the need to take a systems approach was obvious, but my colleagues tell me not everybody thinks this way. I don't know how you could do this without a systems approach. Fifth, we talked about why people contaminate in the first place, particularly when they are pretty sure they are going to contaminate. We agreed, however, that that was really not NOAA's problem. Then our group had a series of general areas that we thought should be investigated. One of them is the interactions of sources and sinks especially land atmosphere exchanges. Another one is the large-scale pattern of and controls around contaminant transport. Third, large-scale patterns of and controls on atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations. Another subject we thought would be appropriate for NOAA investigation was attention to local sources of contamination and their effects. Most of the time we are talking about Arctic or global but sometimes you build a dam or do something locally that has pretty serious effects. Many times NOAA has some business in studying them. Another area was the interaction between arctic and sub-arctic transport processes. We shouldn't keep the rest of the world out of this. We have to plug the arctic studies into the rest of the world. Finally, under substantive studies it was recommended that baseline studies of newly introduced chemicals should be carded out. An enormous number of new chemicals is introduced every year and nobody knows what effect these are going to have. Since you know when they are being introduced you can get on it fight away and make some sense out of it fairly quickly.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop The second general area was what I called administrative issues. I don't know if my colleagues agreed with that, but you will understand what I mean in a minute. One of them is that there needs to be an analytical protocol, an intercalibration of results, so that the results of the various studies can be compared and perhaps integrated with one another. There should be the archiving of data, and whether this is central or decentralized doesn't matter so much as that there be a plan. If it is decentralized the various laboratories have to be able to communicate with each other. We are also told that Antarctic specialists may have more experience in this than the Arctic people, and we might check out what they have done before we try it ourselves. Another recommendation is that we establish index sites and study index species. This will give us a series of comparisons over time so we can see trends. In addition, looking at the effects of contamination or contaminants should be encouraged. In other words, you may be studying contaminants themselves, but try to go a little bit beyond that and see what the next step is. Sixth, there is the environmental impact of the research itself. The scientists in Antarctica were forced to pay attention to this because of our Treaty obligations. Arctic scientists probably should do the same thing. And finally there should be communication with the local people. I emphasize the word "with" because it does not mean communicate to. It means that you listen as well as talk, and this is best done before, during, and after the study. The final general subject we talked about was criteria to be used by NOAA in evaluating proposals. We didn't resolve all these thoughts, but I will mention them anyway. One of them was that funded studies should be relevant to societal needs. We started to get into the old argument about basic research versus societal needs and we never finished. PARTICIPANT: That is too bad. We have been waiting for that answer for 100 years. DR. BURCH: Secondly, we should contribute to the understanding of systems as opposed to isolated phenomena. Again, I am embarrassed to tell you it has to be mentioned. But people forget about it. The third factor in evaluating proposals is that they should involve partnerships. To the extent possible, new proposals should be built on existing proposals or programs. I suppose the new buzz word is "leveraging."

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop FLIPCHART NOTES—GROUP#3 Research Needed to Address Contaminant Sources, Transport, and Effects Effects of contaminants on people, both now and in the future. Specific areas of concern include individual health, community health, subsistence, risk assessment, and risk communications. These areas are generally outside the scope of NOAA's mandate. However, related areas that do fall within the Scope of NOAA's mandate include ecological risk assessment, the long-term study of possible sentinel species, and exposure estimates. Contaminants research should use an ecosystems approach, focusing on the food web and biomagnification The interaction between Arctic and subarctic transport processes. The interactions of sources and sinks, especially land-atmosphere exchanges. Large scale patterns of and controls on contaminant transport. Large scale patterns of and controls on atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations. Studies of local sources of contamination and their effects. Baseline studies of local sources and effects of newly introduced chemicals should be conducted. Am important area that has received little or no scientific attention is the decision-making processes used by and the motivations of the people Who institute policies leading to serious environmental damage. Of particular interest are policy makers in the former Soviet Union. However, these issues fall within the domain of the social sciences and not NOAA. Contaminant research should be science-driven. This means that it Should not be ad hoc, but guided by careful assessment of research needs so what results over time is an integrated view of the problem. Special attention Should be paid to multiple stressors and synergy. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES Continued efforts to improve and standardize analytical protocols so there can be calibration of the results of different studies. Systematic efforts to archive data on contaminants (origin, transport, effects). If data are stored in dispersed locations, a network of communications between the several archives, and between the archives and researchers. needs to be created. A general policy governing proprietary fights to data must be agreed on before such a network will be able to function effectively. (To do this, the advice of scientists working on similar issues in the Antarctic should be sought.) A set of index sites should be established and monitored. A set of index species populations should be agreed upon and monitored. Documenting the effects of contaminants should be encouraged. There is a need for greatly improved communication between the members of the scientific community and Arctic residents with respect to contaminants. In this exchange, scientists should listen as Well as speak.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop Summary of Breakout Group #4: Amap DR. BRASS: be clear that what I am about to say that this is not a statement from the Arctic Research Commission. This is the statement from the group that discussed AMAP. I am going to read it: The Arctic Research Initiative has been designated in part to satisfy the U.S. involvement in AMAP Phase II. Funding arctic contaminant research is not sufficient to meet the U.S. responsibility to AMAP. NOAA should do a good and complete job with respect to AMAP or withdraw from AMAP involvement. There is a bold statement. There are great scientific benefits to be gained from NOAA's involvement in AMAP. Furthermore, should the U.S. want a role in Phase II of AMAP and in setting priorities for contaminant research and response in the Arctic, adequate U.S. involvement in Phase II is essential. This group agrees that one FTE and a budget of around $300,000 are necessary to satisfy minimum U.S. involvement in AMAP. The FTE will serve as the U.S. AMAP manager and will be responsible for coordinating involvement from other agencies assuring that appropriate U.S. data are fed into the AMAP data center, continue native involvement and information exchange. The budget will be used to support travel, printing, data formatting and transfer and ad hoc research costs. Furthermore, all scientific results produced under the ARI must be reported to AMAP. NOAA should establish at least one long-term study site in the U.S. Arctic to conduct baseline studies of environmental stressors and provide supporting data for other focused AMAP research projects. FLIPCHART NOTES—GROUP #4 Working Group Statement on Suggested U.S. Role in AMAP The Arctic Research Initiative has been designed, in part, to satisfy the U.S. involvement in AMAP Phase II. But funding for this one, relatively small research program is not sufficient to meet the U.S. responsibility to AMAP. The United States should do a good and complete job with respect to AMAP or withdraw from AMAP involvement. There are great scientific benefits to be gained from U.S. involvement in AMAP. Furthermore, if the United States want a role in Phase II of AMAP and in setting priorities for contaminants research and response in the Arctic, adequate U.S. involvement is essential. This group believes that one full-time employee is necessary to adequately coordinate federal and state agency involvement in the program, assure that appropriate U.S. data are fed into the AMAP data center, and promote continued involvement and data exchange with Alaskan Natives. A budget sufficient to support travel, printing, data formatting and transfer, and ad hoe analytical costs is essential, perhaps around $300,000 per year to satisfy minimum U.S. involvement. Although many federal and state agencies should contribute (including financially) to a U.S. AMAP effort, NOAA should play a leadership role. All scientific results produced under the ARI could be reported to AMAP. It would be in NOAA's interest to establish at least one long-term study site in the U.S. Arctic to conduct baseline and trend studies of environmental stressors and provide supporting data for other focused AMAP research programs.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop Questions/Discussion: DR. THOMAS: I just want to be sure I understand. What I am hearing is that you say that NOAA should be the one who picks up the responsibility for Phase II of AMAP, administrative responsibility versus passing the hat interagency-wise. Is that what you are saying? DR. BRASS: I think you can be creative about how you get the funding, if you can find some partners and fellow collaborators for that. It would reduce the financial burden on the ARI and free up more money for science. I encourage all of us to try to find some partners for you. I have been working on one called the Environmental Protection Agency. We know that they are at least interested. So, yes, remember I said that there were infrastructural costs involved in AMAP that we just cannot avoid. It is much more fun to put all the money for science, but if that science is not pulled together and reported back and put into a coherent U.S. position, we just haven't done our job. DR. OECHEL: So, the recommendation of your subcommittee group was that there be the secretariat established and that NOAA would take the lead on it. DR. BRASS: Now, I want to reiterate the qualification that I just made. If there is a way to add some contributors, even if it means distributing a little control, I think that is an important thing. PARTICIPANT: Also, we were using the term ''AMAP manager'' as opposed to secretariat because there is already an international secretariat. FINAL THOUGHTS DR. OECHEL: I would like to thank everyone for the high-quality presentations and the excellent contributions in the working groups. I, personally, feel quite good, the extent to which everyone jumped into it and what people came up with. So, from my perspective it was quite successful. DR. THOMAS: May I have a minute? I just want to add my thanks particularly to Chris for her organization and to the Board. I found it an interesting day, and I think it will take us a while to digest the findings. DR. FRIDAY: And I just wanted to point out that we shouldn't apologize for identifying the fact that we need to study systems as opposed to individual events because we have never been able to really study systems effectively. I think we need to constantly remind ourselves of that. DR. CLARK: You all have stolen my thunder. I want to thank each and every one of you. You are all busy people. Some of you have traveled thousands of miles and you all had something else you could have been doing. So we appreciate your input. We appreciate the effort. We approached this with some apprehension because we were

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop initially convinced we couldn't do much of value inside of 2 days, yet I think we have made some progress. I hope this workshop and its proceedings will be useful to NOAA, and that we have helped make the 1997-98 funding year even more successful than the previous one.

OCR for page 13
NOAA's Arctic Research Initiative: Proceedings of a Workshop This page in the original is blank.