Planning for the International Polar Year 2007-2008: Report of the Implementation Workshop (2004)

Robin Bell, chair of the Polar Research Board (PRB) and research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, William Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering, Chris Elfring, Director of the PRB, and Mary Albert, Chair of the U.S. National Committee for the IPY delivered welcoming remarks. These were followed by remarks from all the agencies present, highlighting their interests and hopes for the IPY. This chapter outlines key remarks from each agency.

Dr. William Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), presented the first talk on behalf of the NAE, the National Academy of Sciences (Bruce Alberts, President), and the Institute of Medicine (Harvey Fineberg, President). Dr. Wulf noted that the National Academies were pleased to have been instrumental in guiding the planning for International Polar Year to its present stage. The recent Vision report was developed in a “bottom up” fashion, with wide input from the science and engineering communities and from the government agencies with responsibilities in the polar regions. This report is an important first step in creating what will become the U.S. IPY program and also an important contribution to the international IPY campaign. It is clear that IPY 2007-2008 will take place in some shape or form, but it is time for the next step in IPY planning: to move from vision to implementation. It is time to talk in more concrete terms about actual activities and the resources needed to make them happen.

The National Academy of Sciences was instrumental in planning and executing the highly successful International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957-1958. And when the field activities concluded, in 1958 and continuing into 1959, the NAS building was the venue for negotiations between the U.S. government and the 11 other nations with Antarctic IGY programs that ultimately became the Antarctic Treaty. It is natural, therefore, for the National Academies to take a strong interest in a program like IPY 2007-2008 that will both advance polar science and enhance

international cooperation. The upcoming IPY has an important parallel to IGY; in both instances, important technological and engineering advances will allow scientists to do truly innovative work that can lead to major scientific findings. In the 1950s, the tools came from World War II: rockets, the prospect for satellites, and advances in instrumentation. The tools available today are equally striking: unmanned robotic vehicles that can explore beneath the sea ice, an array of new sensors and automatic sensor networks, and advanced computing and telecommunications capabilities that could not have been imagined even a few decades ago.

Ms. Chris Elfring, Director of the the National Academies’ Polar Research Board (PRB), followed Dr. Wulf with some additional comments on the Academies’ goals for the IPY. The first National Academies goal was to get a sense of whether IPY 2007-2008 had considerable scientific merit. The IGY was held only 25 years after the second IPY because there was an incredible suite of new scientific tools available and it was clear that a coordinated international campaign held significant potential. In order to determine whether a new IPY was appropriate for 2007-2008, the PRB polled NAS and NAE members, hosted an interactive web discussion over a series of weeks, and talked to scientists at more than a dozen conferences. The answer was a resounding “yes,” there is a compelling rationale for an IPY in 2007-2008.

The Academies second goal was to help get IPY planning started at the international level. To succeed, IPY must be a truly international effort. First, the PRB worked with colleagues in England to put the idea before the International Council for Science (ICSU). The PRB helped ICSU establish an international IPY Planning Group and worked to have strong U.S. leadership in the group. With Robin Bell (the PRB chair) appointed as vice-chair of the Planning Group and Bob Bindschadler (PRB committee member) as another U.S. member, the PRB helped the ICSU Planning Group write a strong rationale for IPY and the first guidance they distributed to get other nations involved. The PRB continues to serve as a liaison to the international group so that the United States has a real leadership role in the international setting.

The Academies third goal was to ensure that IPY 2007-2008 was planned using a transparent process and with strong “bottom-up” input from the science community and agencies. The recent NRC Vision report is the result of significant outreach to the U.S. science community. The report articulates what could be accomplished during IPY, and as a result, real excitement is building in the community, evidenced by over 400 preliminary submissions of IPY ideas to the ICSU IPY Planning Group.

The Academies would be pleased to have a continued role in IPY 2007-2008, and the PRB envisions at least three “next” concrete goals. The first is to continue acting as a conduit for communication and coordination with the international planning effort; the second is to continue in a communication and coordination role with the U.S. science and agency communities; and the third is to help facilitate the transition from vision to implementation. What will these goals entail? Some things

are clear—the ICSU international Planning Group (which will become a joint ICSU-WMO Joint Committee in October 2004) has requested that each nation have a National Committee as a point of contact and the Academies would be pleased to continue in that role. The PRB structure is also well suited for facilitating meetings like this workshop to help with decision-making and coordination of efforts, for continuing to help articulate science goals, and for producing documents needed to articulate IPY ideas and justify activities.

Beyond these rather process-oriented goals, the PRB stresses that the overall goal of IPY 2007-2008 should be to improve life for people through increased understanding of the polar regions and their global connections. We should all keep that in mind as we move ahead in our planning.

Dr. Arden Bement, Acting Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), gave the first agency remarks. Dr. Bement noted that both the NAS and ICSU have made a compelling case for an IPY in 2007-2008, and that NSF is in full agreement. In the polar regions, environmental change is observable in reduced sea ice extent, retreating glaciers, shifting patterns in flora and fauna, and environmental observations by Arctic natives. These changes—whether environmental, biological or social—have implications for the rest of the globe. Polar change ripples across the planet on a spectrum of time scales, through the atmosphere, oceans, and living systems.

We do not yet fully understand the causes of what we are observing. Now is the time to change this, for new tools make possible the needed observations and synthesis. They range from satellites to ships to sensors, and from genomics to nanotechnology, information technology, and advances in remote and robotic technologies. The NSF is especially pleased at this new opportunity, offered by IPY, to advance fundamental science, alongside the mission activities of our fellow agencies. Although the Office of Polar Programs would naturally take the NSF lead, a number of NSF directorates—bio- and geosciences, education and human resources, engineering, and social and behavioral sciences—also have potential roles.

One of the main emphases for the IPY from NSF’s perspective includes the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH). SEARCH will explore the causes of Arctic environmental change and its relationship to global climate, biogeochemical cycles, ecosystems, and human populations. Understanding the biological and social consequences of and adaptations to change is integral to this program. In conjunction with the science, the Smithsonian Institution will launch an exhibition on Arctic change in May, 2005, called “The Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely.” NSF is 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 (ISAC).

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. The West Antarctic ice sheet, grounded below sea level, may be especially prone to instability. The analysis of finer temporal resolution ice cores drilled in West Antarctic will help fill in the details of climate history, which are now gleaned mainly from the Greenland ice cores. A field camp in West Antarctica would have potential to support activities beyond drilling, depending on scientific and international interest. We also need to study the bedrock beneath the ice sheets, which strongly influences ice stability. Geological drilling, such as in the Ross Sea, will also advance insight on critical climate junctures of the past.

A third 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 that can sample organisms directly in the natural environment and help trace complex environmental relationships are coming on-line. Some startling insights about how organisms interact with, and influence, their physical environment have already come to light. More polar scientists need training in these technologies. Polar ecosystems rank among the least known on earth, yet these systems—often simpler than those in the rest of the world—can serve as testbeds for genomics. Also, the study of how polar organisms react to higher temperatures and ultraviolet radiation may provide insight into how organisms in other ecosystems may react to future changes.

Other areas ripe for exploration in IPY include extending observations at the polar Long-term Ecological Research (LTER) sites into the winter season. Increasing cooperation with Arctic peoples and increasing research efforts that are of interest to northern residents are also needed. Additional activities could include establishing systems to record and share data around the world, exploring the Arctic Ocean’s Gakkel Ridge, and investigating ecosystem changes in the Bering Sea.

All of these are exciting scientific frontiers, and exploring them will rely upon maintaining the polar science infrastructure built through U.S. investment dating back to the IGY. In Antarctica, the new South Pole Station will be completed in 2007, offering a premier laboratory for astrophysics, among other disciplines. Added to that are the state-of-the-art Crary Laboratory at McMurdo Station, facilities at the Palmer Station, and NSF’s ability to erect large, temporary field camps for particular studies. Broad success of IPY activities at these facilities relies upon Coast Guard icebreakers, which in turn hinges upon securing funding to keep the icebreakers operational. Logistics capabilities are critical to the success of the IPY and will need to be included in our planning.

NSF also stressed the importance of international planning. International collaboration made IGY a success, and it spawned structures for peaceful scientific cooperation, like the Antarctic Treaty, that endure today. 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. The polar

science communities have a spectacular scientific history, and it is the right time to move forward on this International Polar Year, which is sure to accelerate discovery for the benefit of this nation and the world.

RADM Dennis Sirois, Assistant Commandant for Operations, highlighted U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) interest in the IPY. The USCG mission includes providing logistics support for re-supply of McMurdo Station in Antarctica, and the USCG looks forward to providing logistics support for IPY activities with key partners. The USCG takes the polar logistics mission very seriously, and they encourage IPY participants to think “out of the box” to maximize the use of available resources. For instance, many opportunities exist for Coast Guard vessels and aircraft to make contributions in the sub-polar regions in the course of their normal operations. The USCG is faced with some daunting challenges though; three difficult years of ice breaking have damaged the two polar-class icebreakers, Polar Sea and Polar Star. In particular, the Polar Sea will be unavailable for Operation Deep Freeze 2005 (re-supply of Antarctica). Repairs to the Polar Sea are scheduled to take 1-2 years, although an influx of new funds could accelerate this timetable. In concluding, the USCG noted that the IPY could serve as the impetus for focusing attention on the critical needs we face relating to our aging icebreaker fleet.

Dr. Jerry Elwood, director of the Climate Change Research Division in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (Office of Science), provided formal remarks for the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE’s interest in the polar regions largely is in the global climate system, in particular how the global climate system is affecting the arctic region, and in turn how the polar regions affect the climate system. While no new DOE initiatives currently are planned for the IPY, changes in programmatic priorities are possible. DOE is actively looking to participate in IPY by collaborating with other agencies and nations. DOE has three main areas of interest:

1. Arctic Climate Research: The main focus for DOE efforts in Arctic climate research are climate modeling and climate process studies. DOE is interested in regional climate, ocean circulation, sea ice, and coupled climate-biogeo-chem models. Most of DOE’s climate process studies involve the DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program facility in Barrow, Alaska (http://www.arm.gov/instruments/static/bmet.stm), which includes a Cloud and Radiation Testbed (CART). The Barrow ARM/CART site is one of three in the

United States, and these sites provide some of the most detailed information for climate process studies available. DOE also is deploying a mobile ARM/CART, which could be utilized in the IPY, and possibly available for Antarctic studies. The DOE also has an unmanned aerial vehicles program, and they can deploy UAVs over the sites for intensive campaigns.

2. Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in the Arctic: DOE is the primary sponsor of AmeriFlux (http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/index.html) an instrumented network of research sites in North, Central, and South America that provides continuous measurements of ecosystem level exchange of CO₂, energy, and water with the atmosphere at diurnal, synoptic seasonal, and interannual time scales using the eddy correlation method. Three currently active AmeriFlux sites are located in the Arctic region of Alaska at Atquasuk, Barrow, and Upad. Since each AmeriFlux station operates using with similar instruments, the network may be a good data source for polar-mid-latitude-tropical comparison and/or teleconnection studies.

3. Characterizing life in extreme environments: DOE has substantial genome sequencing capabilities that could be brought to bear on the polar environments, to characterize life forms to understand the communities and the diversity of communities in Arctic environments. To this end, the DOE operates the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) in Walnut Creek, California (http://www.jgi.doe.gov/) which provides the research community at large with access to the high throughput sequencing capabilities at the JGI.

Dr. Gary Foley, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory, provided remarks on behalf of the EPA. Dr. Foley noted that 75 percent of U.S. coastline is in Alaska, and that Alaska has unique issues and problems requiring special focus. For instance, Alaskan ecosystems are different from the rest of the 49 states. The EPA focus for IPY could be centered on three objectives:

1. Improve basic knowledge about Arctic stressors and effects: EPA activities related to this objective include the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Phase II assessment (heavy metals); transformation of mercury at the Arctic sunrise; PBTs (PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals, pesticides), ramification of the Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) treaty; and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) coastal and fresh water monitoring assistance. The EMAP effort is particularly interesting for the EPA, and they hope that the IPY might spur Alaska to implement EMAP and lead to efforts to develop a monitoring grid of the entire circumpolar (circumarctic) region for establishing the baseline condition. EPA is planning to approach AMAP to see if they have an interest in EMAP.

2. Understand and reduce risk to Arctic residents and the Arctic environment: EPA interests in this objective include an Alaskan native fetal cord blood monitoring study (a project to increase the ability of tribes to assess environmental threats) and a study of the benefits and risks of a traditional diet, in particular heavy metals and Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in traditional foods and in seagull eggs.

3. Implement innovative technologies to solve environmental problems: EPA efforts in this objective may include a reduction of atmospheric mercury releases from Arctic nations, reducing PCBs in Russia, grants to tribes to develop sustainable technologies, and EMAP support of innovative monitoring technologies.

The EPA is also very interested in using the IPY to contribute to a number of international projects, including the Global Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS), which needs a stronger polar focus; ratifying the treaty for the Long Range Transport of Air Pollution (LRTAP)/POPs, and coordinating emissions inventory and technology assistance for United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Alternative Cover Demonstration Project (ACAP) mercury studies (EPA has the U.S. lead).

Dr. Jerry Mullins, Manager of Polar Programs and Canada for the Department of the Interior/United States Geological Survey (DOI/USGS) Office of International Programs, presented the DOI/USGS interests in the IPY. The USGS stressed the importance of participating in the IPY as a unified agency, rather than having each office participate individually. The USGS is broadly interested in studies pertaining to change in the cryosphere and utilizing satellites and autonomous vehicles. The USGS also is particularly interested in data issues pertaining to the IPY and in broadening national and international collaboration on their IPY efforts. During the IPY, USGS Arctic interests include glacier studies, especially re-visiting glaciers surveyed in the IGY; ice coring/climate history studies; the biology impacts of deglaciation; earthquakes; permafrost; minerals and energy assessment; borehole temperature measurements; migratory birds; polar bear habitat; and marine mammals. In the Antarctic, the USGS is interested in seismology; geodesy, especially autonomous measurements and aerogeophysical observations in the interior; establishing a geomagnetic observatory at the South Pole; improving GIS/on-line data delivery, and helping to develop an air geophysics science platform. Dr. Mullins also noted that the USGS runs the U.S. Data Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where they archive satellite and airborne imagery. The USGS is specifically interested in establishing an enhanced seismic array at the South Pole station.

Mr. Jeff Gossett, Technical Director at the Arctic Submarine Lab (ASL), stated that although the ASL has no specific IPY plans, several current projects are relevant to the IPY. For example, the Navy routinely de-classifies environmental data and may use the IPY to release additional data. Bathymetric data from 1999 through 2002 should be released prior to the IPY, and upward-looking sonar data may be available. Furthermore, the Navy is planning ice camps near Prudhoe Bay for five weeks (beginning late March/early April) in the spring of 2007 and 2009, and the Navy has committed to making two to three weeks available for scientific experiments. Finally, the Navy previously operated several dedicated Scientific Ice Expeditions (SCICEX) cruises to the Arctic. While the likelihood for dedicated science submarine cruises during IPY is low, programs on a cruise staffed exclusively by navy personnel is possible (SCICEX accommodations, where samples will be collected by navy personnel, but no civilian scientists will be on board).

Dr. James Mahoney, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Deputy Administrator, presented for NOAA. As a representative of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), Dr. Mahoney emphasized that the IPY is an opportunity to further polar research and understanding if stronger links are made between the IPY, CCSP, and the GEO efforts. NOAA believes the IPY is an ideal opportunity to advance observations of the polar region, and NOAA noted that “observations” include not only the original acquisition of data, but also archiving and long-term stewardship of the data and its application to societal needs. NOAA stressed that the IPY is an ideal time for advancing observations of sea ice, polar oceans and seas, and biological variables, and for vigorous efforts to provide ground-truth for satellite instrument-derived data sets. Establishing a baseline to assess future change, both physical and biological, could be a lasting legacy of the IPY.

NOAA suggests that an effort to improve decision-support systems in the Arctic be a focus for the IPY. Recent changes and model projections, if realized, will require significant adaptive response by Arctic residents, and new management approaches for species that are or may become exploited or endangered. An emphasis on biological observations to detect climate impacts and identify new management approaches requires an initial exploratory survey in under-studied regions such as the polar regions. NOAA also advocates an increased effort on impacts of “space weather” during the IPY, which could extend our knowledge of the space frontier and pay benefits in protecting people and infrastructure.

As probably all agencies will do, NOAA has evaluated its participation in IPY along three lines: (1) what is NOAA already doing that would contribute to the IPY; (2) what current activities could be modified to better meet IPY objectives; and (3) what new activities might NOAA consider for the IPY period and beyond. To evaluate the IPY-relevance of current activities, NOAA has completed an inventory of its ongoing activities in the polar regions; all five of NOAA’s line offices have some level of polar activity. The vast majority of NOAA’s current polar programs are in the broad category of environmental observations, either by satellite or in situ means. Most of these observations are conducted by operational programs supporting one or more of NOAA’s strategic missions. Activities such as satellite operations, weather station operations, living marine resource assessment, trace gas monitoring, nautical charting, sea ice forecasting, data management, and others will continue during and beyond the IPY period. Some of NOAA’s observational programs (e.g., sea ice thickness, atmospheric observatories, ocean observations) are still in their early development and may evolve somewhat before the IPY begins. NOAA has several campaign-style programs that are likely to have a polar expression during the IPY. These include the Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research Programs and the Weather Research Program.

Among the activities NOAA will consider for its FY2007 budget are several that relate to recommendations of the U.S. National Committee:

NRC Recommendation 1: Initiate a sustained effort to assess environmental change and variability

• Extend GOOS/GEO to the Arctic Ocean—sea ice thickness, snow cover, motion, and energy balance; Arctic Ocean structure and circulation; Bering Strait Observations

• Begin Arctic System Reanalysis—high resolution Arctic coupled oceanice-atmosphere model with data assimilation to produce uniform gridded fields from non-uniform observations

• Capture historical polar data sets, construct data atlases, and make available to public through web-based means

• Implement North Pacific and Arctic Observing Enhancement (THORPEX) leading to first ever verification of Arctic weather forecasts

NRC Recommendation 2: Study of coupled human-natural systems

• Enhance decision-support capabilities in Alaska through exchange of information with users on application of climate data for their benefit; work with Arctic countries to develop circumpolar decision-support capabilities

• Develop a circumpolar map of resources at risk from oil spills in the Arctic

• Undertake research to improve short-term Arctic sea ice forecasting to improve navigation and subsistence activities

NRC Recommendation 3: Explore new frontiers

• Enhance research in Alaska on biological and biogeochemical responses to climate change in the Arctic Ocean and in permafrost areas

• Enhance research on marine mammal (e.g., Right Whale, Steller Sea Lion, Ice Seals) population dynamics in the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas

• Begin research on air/sea coupling east of Greenland and its influence on ocean thermohaline circulation (both weather and climate influence)

NRC Recommendations 4 and 5: Create observing networks and improve science infrastructure

• Accelerate Alaskan coastal bathymetry and shoreline mapping

• Add real-time water level stations in Alaska

• Accelerate application of NOAA satellites, ships, and aircraft to observation of polar regions

Mr. Ray Arnaudo, Deputy Director of the Office of Environmental Sciences/Ocean Affairs, spoke on behalf of the U.S. Department of State. Although the State Department is not typically thought of as a research-granting agency, they do provide some limited funds for studies on international issues. Nonetheless, the main resource that the State Department has is international outreach, connection, and cooperation through U.S. embassies. These embassies are a major network already in place for dissemination of IPY information. For instance, the Public Affairs Bureau in the Department is a simple and effective method to get resources and information out to other countries. The State Department also leads U.S. delegations to the Antarctic Treaty, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), AMAP, the Arctic Council and others, where it can urge support for the IPY. The State Department has some specific interests in IPY research including refurbishing icebreakers, strengthening the polar focus in the GEO effort, enhancing continental shelf research, improving ecosystem management via CCAMLR, utilizing the GLOBE program as a vehicle for getting students involved in research, and further incorporating EMAP.

Dr. William Fitzhugh, Director of the Smithsonian Arctic Studies Center, presented on behalf of The Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian Institution recognizes three primary areas where it may make substantial contribution to the

IPY via its science, collections, and public education. In the realm of polar science, the Smithsonian Institution has a relatively small operation, compared to other major agencies; it is most actively engaged in anthropological and human-environment research in the Arctic through its Arctic Studies Center. The Smithsonian is perhaps better known for its collections, and it has a vast repository of artifacts from previous U.S. IPY expeditions, as well as Antarctic meteorite collections, and additional polar materials in the fields of botany, zoology, and paleoecology. The Smithsonian might use the forthcoming IPY as an opportunity for an enhanced effort to preserve instrumentation and other records of the IPY-1 and of IGY, as well as of the new IPY. The Smithsonian is also well-known for public education and is already planning a small display on arctic climate change in 2005. It is possible that a Smithsonian contribution to the IPY could be a larger public education display, including a major exhibit (with potential traveling venues), additional science projects with public outreach, and more integration of current climate change projects already on-going.

Dr. Jack Kaye, Director of the Earth Science Enterprise Research Division, presented for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Potential NASA contributions to IPY cut across multiple NASA enterprises (pre-transformation), including the Office of Earth Science, the Office of Space Science, and the Office of Biological and Physical Research. NASA’s contributions likely will involve ongoing activities (operating satellites, continuing ground networks, and scientific research), some episodic activities (satellite snapshots and field campaigns), and possibly some new satellites. Currently, NASA operates nearly 20 satellites that collect information about the polar regions. Some, such as IceSat, provide unique polar information not available from other sensors. NASA emphasized the need for surface (ground and ocean surface) and airborne observations to complement their satellite based sensors in order to do proper calibration/validation work and achieve the best scientific results.

NASA also has polar missions that reach beyond Earth, including the PHOENIX Mission that will land near Mars North Pole in 2008, the Lunar Recon Orbiter that will map Lunar polar regions for the first time in 2008, and the Mars Recon Orbiter (MRO) that will explore Martian polar regions from orbit. NASA stressed that polar analogues in Mars exploration are vital; for instance, scientists have used Earth’s polar regions to simulate Mars for over 30 years. For instance, the Dry Valleys of Antarctica are the best “Mars analogue” known on Earth. The ASTEP Program (astrobiology) uses polar activities in Antarctic, Axel Heiberg, Svalbard, Siberia, and in the future potentially Iceland. In summary, NASA is using the polar region analogues as we prepare to explore “beyond”, where astronauts and robotics emulate future deep space mission scenarios. NASA also noted that the new NASA Science Mission Directorate (Earth and Space sciences) can help extend

the “reach” of IPY to science-relevant polar regions of Mars, the Moon, and beyond.

NASA is well-known for cutting edge technology, and they envision using the IPY to test new tools and techniques, including UAVs. NASA also anticipates a field campaign during 2006-2007, looking at Greenland outlet glaciers. NASA plans to enhance coordination in the IPY, particularly through complementary surface-based observations, integrated modeling, and involvement in major government-wide activities (SEARCH, CCSP, GEO). Some potential NASA science, technology, and outreach elements include:

NRC Recommendation 1: Initiate a sustained effort to assess environmental change and variability

• Polar feedbacks (CCSP): Satellite derived albedo

• Polar snapshot: Work with other agencies that have sensors with limited duty cycles (e.g. SAR) to cover polar regions, in an effort to maximize repeat coverage. This should occur in conjunction with field activities.

• Targeted airborne laser surveys of polar ice sheet elevation changes: Repeat Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica surveys of the 1990s and 2002 for revised mass balance assessment, in particular to determine if mass loss is accelerating.

• Surveys of ice thicknesses around the perimeter of Antarctic and Greenland grounding lines with ice-penetrating radar

NRC Recommendation 2: Study of coupled human-natural systems

• Ozone observations and process studies

NRC Recommendation 3: Explore new frontiers

• Polar Regions as stepping stones to planetary environment

• Polar analogies to other planets, including surface and environmental characteristics, and paleo-environmental proxies

NRC Recommendations 4 and 5: Create observing networks and improve science infrastructure

• New observation networks that are stepping stones to exploring other planets. Sensor networks, intelligent data collection (e.g. artificial intelligence), and power management are particular interests.

• Surface rovers: Transition currently passive rovers such Tumbleweed to a steerable design

• UAVs: Develop a UAV SAR, or UAV laser altimetry to survey targeted areas of polar ice

NRC Recommendation 6: Education and outreach

• Wide-band data transmission for virtual presence

• Challenges for instrumentation development to meet observational challenges

Dr. Sharon Hrynkow, Acting Director of the Fogarty International Center (FIC), presented for the National Institutes of Heath (NIH). FIC has recently been designated the NIH focal point on Arctic issues. Under the direction of NIH Director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the NIH is initiating new ways of thinking and operating, specifically highlighting interdisciplinary teams. For the IPY, FIC/NIH envisions an opportunity to highlight human health and suggested that the World Health Organization also be asked to co-sponsor the IPY. NIH ideas for consideration include polar human health studies of infectious and chronic diseases and mental health and suicide, and training northern residents, particularly girls, in medicine and public health.

Dr. Kathie L. Olsen, Associate Director for Science, indicated that Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is supportive of IPY and its wide range of exciting scientific questions covering many disciplines and providing opportunities for advancing interdisciplinary sciences of north and south polar regions. OSTP acknowledges the lead Federal agency role of NSF in Arctic research, as specified in the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984. Should the need arise for involvement of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), OSTP is willing to assist in this process. Dr. Olsen also noted that the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is a high priority for the Administration, and it is being developed around the global observations needed to study scientific questions. Many of these questions, from climate change to health to the environment, involve concepts of the IPY.

Dr. James Andrews highlighted the Office of Naval Research (ONR) interest in IPY. Although ONR has had a long history of science and research in the polar regions, the High Latitudes Program has come to an end, and ONR participation

likely will be on an individual principle investigator basis, either through various environmental studies or for sensors and remote systems.

At the conclusion of the agency presentations, workshop committee member Mr. Phil Smith proposed a framework for the IPY, which incorporated the ideas from the Vision report and most of the major initiatives discussed by the agencies and in the ensuing group discussions. The tentative “Framework for IPY” includes eight objectives (Table 1). During discussion of the framework, it became clear that the potential activities described by the agencies tracked well to the main themes of the Vision report and that the agencies had many concrete ideas for IPY activities that would be in line with the international context, and at the same time, further U.S. interests.