Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals [1 ed.] 9780309571234

Citation preview

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

i

ARCTIC OCEAN RESEARCH AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES: NATIONAL NEEDS AND GOALS

Committee on the Arctic Research Vessel Ocean Studies Board Polar Research Board Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

National Academy Press 1995

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ii NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This committee was supported by a contract with the National Science Foundation. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor. Cover art was created by Carrie Mallory. Ms. Mallory received her Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree from the Cooper Union. She takes many of her themes from the natural world and has exhibited at a number of juried shows in the Northern Virginia area. The art for this cover was inspired by the shoreline at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia. Copies of this report are available from Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20418. Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iii

COMMITTEE ON THE ARCTIC RESEARCH VESSEL PAUL STOFFA (Chairman), University of Texas, Austin GERALD CANN, Independent Consultant, Rockville, Maryland DAVID DeMASTER, North Carolina State University, Raleigh RICHARD GOODY, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts JACQUELINE GREBMEIER, University of Tennessee, Knoxville RICHARD KU, University of Southern California, Los Angeles MARCUS LANGSETH, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York RICHARD MORITZ, University of Washington, Seattle JOHN MORRISON, North Carolina State University, Raleigh JOHN ORCUTT, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California LYNDA SHAPIRO, University of Oregon, Charleston DONALD WALSH, International Maritime Incorporated, Myrtle Point, Oregon Staff ELIZABETH TURNER, Study Director LORA TAYLOR, Senior Project Assistant

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iv

OCEAN STUDIES BOARD WILLIAM MERRELL (Chairman), Texas A&M University, Galveston GERALD A. CANN, Senior Advisor to the Executive Committee, Raytheon Company, Arlington, Virginia WILLIAM CURRY, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts ELLEN DRUFFEL, University of California, Irvine RANA FINE, University of Miami, Florida JOHN E. FLIPSE, Independent Consultant, Georgetown, South Carolina SUSAN HANNA, Oregon State University, Corvallis JOHN E. HOBBIE, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts EILEEN E. HOFMANN, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia ROBERT B. GAGOSIAN, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts ROBERT KNOX, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California LOUIS L. LANZEROTTI, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey JOHN MAGNUSON, University of Wisconsin, Madison B. GREGORY MITCHELL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California ARTHUR NOWELL, University of Washington, Seattle TERRANCE J. QUINN, University of Alaska, Fairbanks BARRY RALEIGH, University of Hawaii, Honolulu JAMES P. RAY, Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas PETER RHINES, University of Washington, Seattle BRIAN ROTHSCHILD, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth THOMAS C. ROYER, University of Alaska, Fairbanks LYNDA SHAPIRO, University of Oregon, Charleston SHARON SMITH, University of Miami, Florida PAUL STOFFA, University of Texas, Austin Staff MARY HOPE KATSOUROS, Director EDWARD R. URBAN, JR., Staff Officer DAN WALKER, Staff Officer ELIZABETH TURNER, Research Associate MARY PECHACEK, Administrative Associate LORA TAYLOR, Senior Project Assistant LAVONCYÉ MALLORY, Senior Secretary PAULETTE SALMON, Project Assistant

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

v

POLAR RESEARCH BOARD DAVID L. CLARK (Chairman), University of Wisconsin, Madison KNUT AAGAARD, University of Washington, Seattle JOHN B. ANDERSON, Rice University, Houston, Texas DAVID R. BAINES, St. Maries Clinic, St. Maries, Idaho ERNEST S. BURCH, JR., Consultant, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania GORDON F.N. COX, Amoco Production Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma ROBERT L. DEZAFRA, State University of New York, Stony Brook BERNARD HALLET, University of Washington, Seattle DOYAL A. HARPER, Yerkes Observatory, Williams Bay, Wisconsin DAVID M. HITE, Consultant, Anchorage, Alaska DIANNE M. McKNIGHT, U.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, Colorado DONAL T. MANAHAN, University of Southern California, Los Angeles WALTER C. OECHEL, San Diego State University, San Diego, California IRENE C. PEDEN, University of Washington, Seattle GLENN E. SHAW, University of Alaska, Fairbanks DONALD B. SINIFF, University of Minnesota, St. Paul JUNE LINDSTEDT-SIVA, ARCO, Los Angeles, California ROBERT M. WALKER, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri Ex-Officio Members CHARLES R. BENTLEY, University of Wisconsin, Madison ELLEN S. MOSLEY-THOMPSON, Ohio State University, Columbus ROBERT H. RUTFORD, University of Texas, Dallas ORAN R. YOUNG, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire Staff LOREN W. SETLOW, Director TONI GREENLEAF, Senior Project Assistant/Financial Assistant KELLY NORSINGLE, Senior Project Assistant

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vi

COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES M. GORDON WOLMAN (Chairman), The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania JAMES P. BRUCE, Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada WILLIAM L. FISHER, University of Texas, Austin GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, University of Virginia, Charlottesville DEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. PERRY L. MCCARTY, Stanford University, California JUDY MCDOWELL, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts S. GEORGE PHILANDER, Princeton University, New Jersey RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada THOMAS A. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park ELLEN SILBERGELD, University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida Staff STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director JIM MALLORY, Administrative Officer GREGORY SYMMES, Reports Officer SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate SUSAN SHERWIN, Project Assistant

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vii

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice- chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

viii

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

ix

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

1

INTRODUCTION The Arctic U.S. Interests in the Arctic Background of the Study Organization of Report

7 7 9 10 12

2

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH Marine Geology and Geophysics Physical Oceanography, Climate, and Sea Ice Chemical Oceanography Biological Sciences Summary of Disciplinary Preferences for Research Platforms

13 14 19 24 31 36

3

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS U.S. Icebreakers Submarines in the Arctic Alternatives to U.S. Ships and Submarines

39 40 47 51

4

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS UNOLS Planning for Arctic Facilities Program Costs Strategies for Acquisition and Configuration of the U.S. Icebreaker Fleet Actions to Improve the Healy's Operation for Science

59 59 61 61

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

66

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. CONTENTS

5

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

x

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Scientific Goals and Priorities in Oceanic Regions of the Arctic National Facilities Needed to Meet Scientific Requirements Scientific Requirements for Arctic Research Vessels Resource Projections and Requirements Management Options 69 69 71 71 72 72

REFERENCES 75

APPENDIXES

A— Letter of Request 79

B— Biographies of Committee Members 81

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Arctic is a region of greater economic and environmental importance than is suggested by its relatively small area and remoteness. The Arctic Ocean comprises only about 5 percent of the area of the global ocean yet contains about 25 percent of the global continental shelf. Arctic continental shelves are thought to contain vast mineral resources but remain relatively unexplored. The Arctic Ocean accounts for only about 1.5 percent of the volume of the global ocean, yet receives about 10 percent of global river runoff, and thus is influenced by inflow of fresh water and entrained materials to a greater extent than other oceans. Because of the great commercial and environmental significance of the region, it is of vital importance to gain fundamental knowledge about the Arctic Ocean and adjacent ice-bearing seas (e.g., the Chukchi and Bering), as well as the processes that link this area to the global system. As a nation bordering the Arctic Ocean and a leader in ocean science, the United States must maintain a significant role in arctic science. The Arctic is the least known of the world's oceans and detailed knowledge of its role in global processes is limited. Some of the keys to understanding ancient climate conditions are locked in the sediments of the Arctic Ocean basin, and developing abilities to understand and predict climate change depends on understanding the circulation, mixing, and formation of water masses that occur in this nearly landlocked ocean. The detection and monitoring of pollution, industrial and nuclear, in the Arctic Ocean are essential to sustain the living marine resources of the region as well as to preserve the health of the citizens of the United States and other nations that border the Arctic Ocean. The United States has clear national interests in the Arctic, and national policy must be based on solid scientific knowledge.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

To address climate, pollution, fisheries, nonliving resources, and other important science-based issues requires exploration of the Arctic Ocean and continued scientific surveying, monitoring, and process studies conducted over the next several decades. The remoteness of the Arctic and the difficulties associated with carrying out scientific investigations in an ice-covered ocean have limited our fundamental understanding of processes operating in the region and their impacts on adjacent regions and global systems. Although year-round research has been severely limited, arctic scientists have been innovative and opportunistic in obtaining access to, and support for, diverse platforms to acquire the scientific data they require. Among the facilities needed to support arctic science are satellites, ice stations, icebreakers, and submarines. The choice of facility depends on the nature, location, and time scale of the measurement required. Because of the importance of the Arctic Ocean and the difficulties associated with undertaking scientific research in the region, the National Science Foundation requested that the Ocean Studies Board and Polar Research Board of the National Research Council evaluate the scientific and logistic requirements for arctic research. The Committee on the Arctic Research Vessel was established to review and make recommendations related to (1) scientific goals, priorities, and requirements for Arctic Ocean sciences; (2) national facilities needed to meet the identified scientific requirements, including arctic research vessels; (3) resource projections and requirements; and (4) management options (see letter of request, Appendix A). For the purposes of this report, an “arctic icebreaking research vessel” is defined as a surface ship capable of operating independently in the marginal ice zone (and under escort* in the central Arctic Ocean), configured with the scientific equipment and laboratories required for multidisciplinary research, managed and scheduled solely for scientific research, and flexibly operated by an experienced crew whose sole mission is the support of scientific research. An arctic research vessel must be considered in the context of the U.S. icebreaking fleet, including research icebreakers, nonresearch icebreakers, and ice-capable vessels, operating in both arctic and antarctic regions. The committee addressed the issues raised in the request from the National Science Foundation and developed recommendations to promote the efficient conduct of arctic science by U.S. scientists. The committee presents several

*Safe entry and exit of research vessels and even Coast Guard icebreakers into the central Arctic Ocean sometimes requires escort by the most powerful icebreakers, for example, the Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers, depending on the season and local ice conditions. Under favorable conditions, however, U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers can reach and return from the North Pole without an escort.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

potential configurations for a bipolar† research fleet and the relative costs to the National Science Foundation of various combinations of ships but did not examine the optimal configuration of the entire U.S. oceanographic fleet or the total costs of the polar fleet to the U.S. government. SCIENTIFIC GOALS AND PRIORITIES IN OCEANIC REGIONS OF THE ARCTIC Finding: The committee finds that there are fundamental scientific questions in marine geology and geophysics, physical science (oceanography, ice, and climate studies), chemical oceanography, and biological sciences in the Arctic Ocean that require not only exploration but also systematic, year-round repeated investigation over the next several decades. The geologic history of the Arctic and the resources of its continental shelves are largely unknown. The Arctic Ocean is critical for deep-water ocean circulation and thus affects the global thermohaline circulation ‡ that is an important factor in the global climate system. This ocean basin receives 10 percent of global river runoff. Some of the region's rivers carry chemical and radioactive pollutants into the Arctic Ocean. The food web structure and basic life histories of arctic species are poorly understood. Chapter 2 presents a detailed discussion of objectives in four areas of arctic marine science: (1) marine geology and geophysics; (2) physical science (including oceanography, climate, and sea ice studies); (3) chemical oceanography; and (4) biological oceanography and marine biology. There are also important interdisciplinary research topics to be pursued in the Arctic, such as the relationship between physical and biological conditions that affect arctic ecosystems. Chapter 2 reviews the advantages and disadvantages of a wide variety of research facilities, particularly surface vessels and submarines, needed to meet the scientific objectives identified. Recommendation: Federal and state agencies of the United States should encourage arctic research by ensuring appropriate funding and providing dedicated research platforms.

†Bipolar

includes both arctic and antarctic regions.

‡Thermohaline

circulation is driven by changes in seawater density, due to effects of ice formation, freshwater inflow, temperature changes, and mixing of water masses.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

NATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDED TO MEET SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS Finding: Arctic science involves complex operations that require many types of platforms. Dedicated U.S. research icebreakers are essential elements of the U.S. arctic science strategy but at present do not exist for the Arctic. Finding: Certain important science objectives in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean can be met most efficiently (in terms of time) by a nuclear-powered submarine equipped for research. The unique abilities of research icebreakers and submarines are complementary. A research icebreaker would allow large multidisciplinary scientific parties to gain access to many important arctic regions and would permit horizontal and vertical sampling of the Arctic Ocean not possible by other means. Even with a research life span limited by the remaining fuel aboard, a nuclear submarine can traverse nearly all the Arctic Ocean with a small scientific party and acquire synoptic survey data that otherwise would be impossible to obtain. The capabilities of research icebreakers and submarines to address science needs are presented in Chapter 3. Recommendation: The U.S. government, primarily the National Science Foundation in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, should provide a research icebreaker (and associated operational costs) dedicated to arctic science at the earliest opportunity. Recommendation: The National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research should enter into immediate discussion with the U.S. Navy regarding the possibility of using a disarmed Sturgeon-class nuclear submarine for arctic research. SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH VESSELS Finding: Results of the Arctic Science Symposium sponsored by the Committee on the Arctic Research Vessel, along with previous reports and recommendations, consistently identify similar scientific and technical requirements for arctic icebreaking research vessels. Chapter 2 discusses the scientific questions and logistic requirements associated with Arctic Ocean research. Chapter 3 describes research platforms and their capabilities to meet arctic science goals. Different marine science disciplines have different needs for research platforms, from submarines to ice camps to buoys to surface vessels (see Table 5). In each of the four major disciplines considered in this study there are important needs for a large research icebreaker, which is also important for interdisciplinary research. The

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

symposium sponsored by the committee and the reports made available to it consistently identified the important role of an icebreaking research vessel in achieving arctic science objectives. Recommendation: The National Science Foundation, as the nation's lead science agency, should immediately identify and coordinate research activities of all agencies supporting scientific research in the Arctic that will use and support an icebreaking research vessel. RESOURCE PROJECTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS Finding: The creation of new arctic research facilities will inevitably result in associated costs for acquisition, operation, and science support. A review of the planning for an arctic icebreaking research vessel, and the anticipated associated costs for science and operations, appears in Chapter 4. These costs depend on which icebreaking research vessel is available for arctic research, how it is operated, and how it is incorporated into a bipolar icebreaking research fleet for arctic and antarctic regions. The committee found that the different combinations of research platforms differ in their operating costs and science capabilities (see Table 10). The committee anticipates that the Arctic Research Vessel would be strongly favored by the science community (except for work in the central Arctic) over the Polar-class icebreakers, including the USCG icebreaker Michael A. Healy. Recommendation: National priorities in the Arctic require that the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research, along with other agencies, act to ensure the needed operational and science support. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Finding: Arctic science is suffering from a lack of facilities, due to inadequate interagency cooperation and coordination. Finding: A research icebreaker must be flexibly operated by an experienced crew whose sole mission is science support. The traditional mode of operation for U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers is inconsistent with these needs. Chapter 4 identifies several bipolar strategies and configurations for operating an icebreaking fleet in the arctic and antarctic regions in a manner that will meet science objectives efficiently. The committee believes that the Healy could become an effective polar research vessel only if changes are made in its

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

mode of operation to accommodate scientific research in an optimal fashion. Chapter 4 draws particular attention to alternative strategies for configuring the U.S. icebreaker fleet and actions to improve the Healy's operation for science. Coordination between the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Coast Guard is needed to evaluate these and other possible strategies to guarantee deployment of the most efficient and cost-effective icebreaking research fleet. Arctic researchers have consistently identified several problems with research icebreakers operated by the U.S. Coast Guard. Most of these problems center on staffing of the vessels, which can lead to delays and impediments to the research, and the multiple missions of the U.S. Coast Guard, which can lead to problems in planning and carrying out research. Although U.S. Coast Guard representatives told the committee that the sole mission of the Healy will be science, there is a problem with the Healy's planned space for science laboratories and other facilities, including the need for heated decks and enclosed staging rooms. Laboratory space could be greatly expanded, however, if the crew size of the Healy is reduced. Chapter 3 provides a history and summary of these problems, and Chapter 4 discusses actions that would need to be taken to make the Healy an acceptable arctic research vessel. Without an icebreaker dedicated to arctic research, the scientific community cannot provide the data and knowledge vital to U.S. needs in the Arctic in a timely and efficient fashion. Recommendation: The National Science Foundation should lead an effort involving the Office of Naval Research and the U.S. Coast Guard to develop a coordinated bipolar strategy for the use of icebreakers and ice-strengthened ships in support of U.S. objectives for arctic and antarctic science in the most economical and effective way. Recommendation: It is essential that a research icebreaker be devoted to arctic scientific research. In summary, arctic science is an important national undertaking for the United States. Conducting the highest priority science will require, at a minimum, an icebreaking vessel devoted to science.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

7

1 INTRODUCTION

THE ARCTIC The Arctic is generally considered to be the portion of Earth above 66.5°N latitude (the Arctic Circle).* It has been defined for terrestrial systems as the region north of the tree line, the region north of the onset of continuous permafrost, and the region north of the 10°C isotherm for July (Figure 1). For oceanographic purposes, the Arctic may be defined as that portion of the northern sea that is normally covered by ice during a portion of the year. The Arctic Ocean is the world's smallest, with an areal extent of 13,900,000 km2, yet it contains the widest of all continental shelves, extending 1,210 km from the coastline at some sites off Siberia. The central basin has a mean depth of 3,700 m and is divided by three submarine ridges. The Arctic Ocean is nearly landlocked by Greenland, Canada, Norway, Alaska, and Russia, and the central portion is ice-covered throughout the year. Its primary inflow occurs through the Fram Strait between Greenland and Spitzbergen (Svalbard), with important inflow also occurring through the Bering Strait between Alaska and Siberia and across the Barents Sea shelf. The Bering Sea receives water from the Gulf of Alaska through the Aleutian Island chain, and the Chukchi Sea receives water through the Bering Strait. Outflow from the Arctic Ocean occurs primarily through the Greenland Sea into the Atlantic Ocean and forms the East

*For planning and funding purposes, the National Science Foundation includes the Bering Sea as part of the Arctic, although it is below 66.5°N.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

8

FIGURE 1 Location map of the Arctic Ocean region. Lightweight lines indicate outer continental margins, dashed where uncertain. The heavyweight line is the presently active seafloor spreading ridge in the North Atlantic and Eurasia Basin. Filled areas indicate present-day coastlines. The Arctic Mid-ocean Ridge is also known as the Nansen-Gakkel Ridge. The Amerasian Basin includes the Canada Basin, Makarov Basin, Mendeleyev Ridge, Alpha Ridge, and Chukchi Borderland. FM = Fram Strait. LS = Labrador Sea. MR = Mendeleyev Ridge. Source: PLATES Project—The University of Texas Institute for Geophysics GMT software (Wessel and Smith, 1991).

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

9

Greenland Current. This outflow ultimately enters the North Atlantic system of currents. Surface water in the Arctic Ocean is cold and relatively fresh. Mean surface temperatures are close to the freezing point of seawater, except for the ice-free shelf waters, which are a few degrees Celsius warmer during summer. Bottom water temperatures are among the lowest observed in the world's oceans, and average about `0.53 to `0.96°C in the Canadian and Eurasian basins, respectively. Salinity is reduced by freshwater inflow from several rivers, and means range from about 28‰ to about 34‰ around the Arctic. Precipitation in the Arctic is relatively low, averaging 51 cm yr-1. Ice cover of the Arctic Ocean and marginal seas varies seasonally, but approximately 70 percent of the Arctic is covered by sea ice at an average thickness of up to 4 m. In some areas, ice builds from year to year. The ice deforms continuously in response to stresses applied by the winds and currents, forming open leads and ice ridges up to 10 m high. Around the edges of the permanent ice pack, summer melting occurs, opening up the marginal seas. Areas of open water called polynyas form in localized regions within the ice pack during the ice growth season. U.S. INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC The following features of the arctic region are significant to U.S. interests: • Twenty-five percent of the global continental shelf underlies the Arctic Ocean (Grebmeier, 1995). • The nearly landlocked Arctic Ocean collects approximately 10 percent of the world's river runoff. Some of these rivers transport organic, inorganic, and radioactive pollutants. • The largest U.S. fishery (in dollar value) is in the Bering Sea. • Russia, Canada, the United States, and several European nations share international boundaries in the Arctic. • Significant mineral and petrochemical resources exist in the marginal Seas. • U.S. citizens live in the coastal zone and inland. • The arctic region plays an important role in global climate. • The region supports unique marine ecosystems that depend on, and are sensitive to, the ice cover. For both global and domestic reasons, it is important that the United States acquire a knowledge base sufficient to understand arctic processes relevant to the specific interests listed above. The United States needs both year-round access and a long-term presence in the Arctic. It is not enough to sample in the north

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

10

ern hemisphere spring and summertime, as is being done at present. Many of the important questions in the Arctic (e.g., fish abundances and recruitment, pollutant transport) require data from all seasons. In past years, the U.S.S.R. had a major scientific presence in the Arctic. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, and associated economic difficulties in Russia, it is likely that the United States will need to play an expanded role in arctic science. In addition, areas that were previously inaccessible because of Soviet policies may be open to U.S. researchers. Coordination on national and international levels will be necessary to use resources efficiently to achieve science goals. There is a lack of strong, coherent, coordinated U.S. policy in the Arctic, despite the many national interests in this region. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Discussion of the need for a dedicated research vessel for the Arctic began in the mid-1970s. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported conceptual and preliminary designs (Alexander et al., 1988; Royer et al., 1989; UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee, 1990 and 1994) for an Arctic Research Vessel (ARV).† The estimated costs of construction for the proposed ARV are between $113 million and $130 million, which will be funded from the NSF capital equipment account and will not affect direct science support. NSF uses a value of $120 million for its financial planning. Operating costs of the ARV are expected to be $9.1 million annually, according to Donald Heinrichs of the NSF Oceanographic Centers and Facilities Section, not including costs of escort icebreakers. Concurrently with NSF's planning, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has the icebreaker Michael A. Healy under construction, with science support identified as its primary mission. More recently, limited access to a nuclear submarine has enabled scientists to achieve some important arctic scientific sampling goals. The potential for access to a nuclear submarine dedicated to arctic research has generated enthusiasm in many scientific disciplines because of the unique capabilities of such a vessel. The NSF Oceanographic Centers and Facilities Section (in NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences) requested that the National Research Council (NRC) assess arctic marine science objectives, as well as the required resources to meet these objectives before its ARV planning continues (Appendix A). In response to this request, the NRC's Ocean Studies Board and Polar Research Board established

†The

acronym ARV is used throughout the report to refer to the specific vessel that has been endorsed by NSF, UNOLS, and the arctic science community, as opposed to the generic concept of an arctic research vessel.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

11

the Committee on the Arctic Research Vessel. The charge for the study included a review and analysis of the scientific requirements for an arctic research vessel and evaluation of the NSF-proposed ARV in light of other research facilities available. The committee was selected to provide a breadth of expertise in the principal marine science disciplines; marine engineering; and research vessel design, scheduling, and use. The goal was to include broad representation from the scientific community as well as specific arctic science experience (see Appendix B for biographies of the committee members). The committee met three times between February and May 1995. One meeting included a symposium focused on arctic science goals and needs. The committee considered many research platforms that are either in use or likely to be available for arctic programs. However, once it became clear that both stationary and underway at-sea access are required to meet scientific objectives, and that the nation already possesses facilities relevant to other platforms (e.g., satellites, ice stations, and aircraft), the committee concentrated its efforts on the icebreaker Healy, the NSF-proposed ARV, and nuclear-powered submarines. The committee benefited from the significant work that had been performed by the scientific community in developing and articulating arctic science goals. A number of reports, listed in the reference section, were available to the committee to aid in its deliberations. Many of these reports concluded that a surface icebreaker dedicated to research was needed in the Arctic. NRC reports published in 1988 and 1991 documented the need for a dedicated arctic research vessel. For example: “Thus, the scientific interests of the United States in the Arctic Ocean demand that a much more ice-capable vessel . . . be added to the U.S. icebreaker fleet. Previous Polar Research Board reports have recommended procurement of such a vessel based on the requirements of the arctic marine science community (NRC, 1988). The arctic geoscience community reaffirms this need (NRC, 1991, p. 52).” The University-National Oceanographic Laboratories System (UNOLS) has undertaken several studies concerned with modernizing the academic research fleet and the particular requirements for arctic research vessels (Alexander et al., 1988; Royer et al., 1989; UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee, 1990, 1994). Alexander et al. (1988) outlined the overall scientific needs for a research vessel dedicated to the Arctic. Royer et al. (1989) included more specific areas of the Arctic, as well as more specific requirements for the design and outfitting of an arctic research vessel. The 1990 UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee document recommended that the acquisition of a dedicated arctic research vessel be accorded the highest priority. In 1993 the UNOLS Arctic Research Vessel Subcommittee prepared detailed scientific mission requirements for an arctic research vessel, after receiving input from the arctic science community. This led to the 1994 preliminary design report based on drawings

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

12

from the engineering firm Glosten Associates. All of these reports provided valuable background information to the committee regarding the detailed logistic requirements for arctic research platforms. In addition, the 1994 preliminary design prepared by Glosten Associates and the video of icebreaking model tests provided useful insight into the icebreaking capabilities and the planning already completed for an arctic research vessel. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report focuses on the scientific challenges in the Arctic and the facilities needed to address these challenges. Chapter 2 summarizes the principal objectives of arctic research in the near future, as expressed at the workshop held in March 1995, and briefly describes the facilities needed. Chapter 3 describes the role and availability of arctic surface ships, submarines, and other platforms, as well as experiences of recent users of these platforms. Chapter 4 sets forth the committee's review of logistic and financial planning for a new arctic research vessel and develops bipolar facilities strategies and icebreaker fleet configurations that will meet future arctic research needs. Chapter 5 summarizes the committee's findings and recommendations.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

13

2 SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH Understanding of critical global processes will be enhanced significantly by exploration and research in the Arctic. Scientific interests in the Arctic focus on: • the geology and history of the ocean basin and surrounding continental shelves; • world ocean circulation, affecting climate and global change; • chemical tracer and pollution studies; and • life histories of arctic species and food web structure of arctic communities. In this chapter, priorities for marine sciences in the Arctic are presented in each of four subdisciplines: marine geology and geophysics, physical science, chemical oceanography, and biological science. Platforms needed for major scientific tasks are described. Although some individual research tasks might be conducted more efficiently by different platforms, a dedicated arctic research vessel is required for carrying out multidisciplinary research and collection of synoptic data sets for biological, chemical, and physical parameters. There are a variety of important multi- and interdisciplinary research topics, for example, studies of the effects of physical oceanography on the biology of marine organisms and the functioning of arctic ecosystems.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

14

MARINE GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS The scientific community has identified the following issues as having high and roughly equal priority in arctic marine geology and geophysics research: • • • •

paleoceanography and the paleoclimatic record; dynamics of the spreading of the Nansen-Gakkel Ridge; tectonic evolution of the Amerasia Basin; and sediment dynamics on continental shelves and slopes. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology

The fundamental objective of global change research is to develop an understanding of the ocean-atmosphere-land system to the extent that accurate predictions of both short- and long-term climate change can be made. These predictions are needed for translation into reliable information that will encourage better policymaking and planning. There is abundant evidence that significant variations in the ocean and climate systems have occurred on time scales of 100 to 1,000,000 years. Through analyses of deep-sea cores for a range of paleoceanographic proxies (e.g., isotopic ratios and abundances of diatom and foraminifera species), it is possible to construct three-dimensional pictures of the distribution and variation of oceanic properties at a number of previous time periods. In pursuit of improved predictive capabilities, a tremendous amount of effort has been devoted to developing coupled ocean-atmosphere-land climate models. These models have clearly demonstrated the sensitivity of the highlatitude northern regions to global-scale forcing (such as increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)) and the role of northern regions in affecting the global climate system. Paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic data establishing past conditions must be used to test and validate climate model performance, yet the largest and most critical gap in global data is in the arctic region. The results of model simulations provide forcing functions that allow modelers to evaluate the response of the global climate system to major natural changes in conditions (for example, the unintended experiment provided by the 50 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 associated with the last interglacial period). Characterization of past bottom currents and distributions of ice and its interaction with the seafloor are critical to the reconstruction of global climate, with application to predictions of future conditions. The type, size, and distribution of bottom bedforms on and beneath the seabed provide an extended record of arctic paleocurrents. Cooperative studies planned by German, Norwegian, and Russian scientists under the auspices of the International Arctic Science Committee will attempt to reconstruct ancient river discharges and their

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

15

influence on sea-ice formation, stratification of surface waters, and productivity. The principal activities needed to reconstruct arctic paleoclimates are seafloor drilling and long coring to obtain continuous samples of sediment in areas where deposition is rapid and where erosion provides access to older sediments. The tops and flanks of ridges will provide the principal sites. Deep-sea drilling at even a few sites will increase our knowledge of climate cycles in the Arctic enormously. The Nansen Arctic Drilling (NAD) program has scheduled deep-sea drilling in the Laptev Sea and Lomonosov Ridge in 1996 and 1997 (Nansen Arctic Drilling Program, 1992). Selection of the best specific drill sites must be preceded by geophysical surveys that include swath mapping of bottom topography and seismic reflection profiling of subseafloor structure. In shallow slope and shelf areas multichannel seismic surveys are required, whereas in the deeper basins single-channel seismic surveys may suffice. The Arctic Mid-ocean Ridge The Arctic Mid-ocean (Nansen-Gakkel) Ridge is the slowest spreading major ridge segment on Earth and thus represents one of the extreme endmembers of the global ridge system. Petrologists and geochemists are interested in studying the processes of magma generation and migration over the full range of ridge spreading rates. Ultra-slow spreading ridge segments are expected to have the greatest diversity of magma compositions because of the low magma budgets. The critical data needed to address this question are a high-resolution bathymetric map of the Arctic Mid-ocean Ridge using multibeam echo sounding. Dredging, coring, and drilling are required to obtain representative samples of igneous rock from outcrops on the ridge (Kristoffersen, 1990). Hydrothermal activity is a fundamental factor controlling seawater chemistry, and one of the most important processes linking the solid and the fluid realms. It is critical to determine the extent and distribution of hydrothermal venting over the slow end of the spreading rate spectrum. The spreading axis of the mid-Atlantic ridge system terminates on the margin of the Laptev Sea, which effectively places the Arctic Ocean portion, the Nansen-Gakkel Ridge, at the geographic end of the global mid-ocean ridge system. Vent communities in this area may support interactions between primary producers and consumers not previously observed. Observations regarding global biogeographic patterns of vent fauna distributions are critical to understanding processes that control evolution in the deep sea. The arctic seafloor is relatively free of seismic noise because surface gravity waves are absent. Thus, the ability to detect seismic signals with intermediate frequencies (10 Mhz to 1 Hz) could be enhanced by seafloor instruments in the Arctic. Knowledge of the Arctic Mid-ocean Ridge is limited, and understanding

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

16

of its transition to an intracontinental plate boundary in eastern Siberia is important for understanding global plate tectonics. The resolution of tomographic profiles of the arctic ridges and basins would be improved with data obtained by seismometers deployed on the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Tectonic Evolution of the Amerasia Basin The Amerasia Basin is a large area of the world ocean for which useful, testable plate tectonic models are lacking. Until the location and kinematics of the several plates suspected to underlie the basin are established, the origin and tectonic assembly of the surrounding continents and extensive continental shelves will remain poorly understood. Systematic bathymetry, acoustic imaging, and gravity and magnetic potential field surveys of selected areas of the basin will provide important insights into its geological structure. Tectonic features such as the Neogene and Quaternary thrust faults and folds also locally deform the seabed in the Amerasia Basin, and their systematic delineation will contribute to our understanding of the plate tectonic geometry and kinematics of the basin. Extensive swath mapping of the major features in the Amerasia Basin together with comprehensive potential field measurements over the entire basin will provide the most important new insights into the tectonic evolution of the Amerasia Basin. Multi- and single-channel seismic profiling from icebreakers or submarines on selected targets is also a critical need to decipher the history of the basins and ridges. Coring, and ultimately deep-sea drilling, of selected targets will be needed to establish the chronology of the development of the basin. Sediment Dynamics on Continental Shelves and Slopes, Cross-Shelf Transport, and Shelf-to-Basin Transport The Arctic Ocean receives the largest riverine input relative to its volume of any major ocean. Most of this input is from Siberian rivers that empty into the Barents, Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian Seas. During the twentieth century, industrial development, nuclear weapons manufacturing, and nuclear fuel processing in the former Soviet Union along many of these rivers resulted in the introduction of large amounts of industrial and radioactive wastes onto the shelves that underlie these shallow seas. Prediction of the dispersal of pollutants into Arctic Ocean waters and ultimately into the world ocean requires an understanding of the extent to which industrial and nuclear pollutants are incorporated into arctic sediments and recycled into the water column during erosion and sediment transport. These pollutants present a potential environmental threat, but they can also be used as chemical tracers to track and quantify sources and

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

17

dispersal pathways. A new environmental initiative is under way with a Russian/ German program in the Laptev Sea and a Norwegian/Russian program in the Barents Sea. One of the primary objectives of this initiative is to quantify and characterize the supply of dissolved and particulate matter, and its accumulation on arctic continental shelves. Large areas of the Arctic Ocean shelves have significant resource potential. Areas such as the Laptev Sea are already being explored and developed for hydrocarbons. The geology of this drowned continental platform is known at only the most rudimentary level. Mapping the extent and stratigraphy of basins on the Eurasian and North American shelves will provide the fundamental framework for resource assessment as well as contribute to understanding the geology of this remote and difficult-to-access region of the world. The shallow stratigraphy of arctic continental shelves provides an opportunity to study the history of sea-level rise and fall in the Arctic Ocean in the Late Tertiary and Quaternary periods. High-resolution shallow-water seismic profiling, in combination with shallow-penetration sediment drilling and coring, will be the main tools for investigating the sediments of the shelves. Multichannel seismic and potential field surveys will be important for defining the deep interior structure of the arctic shelves. For investigation of deep channels and canyons on the arctic shelves and slopes, swath mapping and near-bottom imaging will be required. Some of this work was begun by surveying of the Bering Sea channels in the 1980s. Facilities Requirements Most of the objectives of marine geology and geophysics research do not require year-round access to the Arctic Ocean but could instead be pursued in summer when the ice cover is thinnest. An ARV could be used for swath mapping and for gravity, magnetic, and seismic surveys. However, the ideal vehicle for swath mapping, gravitational, and magnetic potential field measurements, and some seismic reflection work for the .Arctic Ocean is the nuclear-powered submarine (SSN). The SSN has great endurance; it travels at speeds up to 25 knots and is intrinsically quiet and stable. Because it can operate under the ice, the SSN has access to all areas of the Arctic that are deeper than 100 m. An SSN could map the bathymetry, shallow subseafloor stratigraphy, and the magnetic and gravitational fields of large areas of the Arctic Ocean floor in a few years of concentrated effort (Table 1). Thus, a submarine is by far the most efficient and effective vehicle for precisely charting the bathymetry and gravity and magnetic fields of the Arctic Ocean basin. An NRC committee (NRC 1991, p. 53) believed that submarines would become the mainstay of geophysical data acquisition in the Arctic and recommended that “a national program to acquire multisensor geophysical data beneath the ice pack be considered.” The report

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

18

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

19

stated that the program would create a special niche for the United States in arctic solid-earth geoscience and produce major breakthroughs in scientific knowledge as well as economic returns to the United States. Gravity and magnetic fields can also be measured effectively from aircraft (Table 1). Large areas of the Amerasia Basin have already been mapped in this way by the geophysics group at the Naval Research Laboratory (Brozena et al., 1995). A partial map of the long-wavelength gravity field has been derived from satellite altimetry (Laxton and McAdoo, 1994). Dredging, coring, remotely operated vehicle (ROV) operation, heat flow measurements, seismic refraction, and multichannel seismic profiling are best done from a large surface platform, although some of these tasks could be accomplished from ice camps (Table 1). A research icebreaker could provide a surface platform in the margins of the Arctic Ocean during the summer season but would have to be escorted by an icebreaker that could navigate multiyear ice to work in the central Arctic Ocean. Alternatively, if an SSN can be used to conduct underway geophysical mapping, additional station work in the central Arctic could be done from ice camps. For work on the shelves, a relatively shallow-draft, ice-capable ship is required. Ice vehicles such as snowmobiles and hovercraft can be employed for station work through nearshore fast ice, though their uses are somewhat limited by rough ice conditions. In deeper waters, large research icebreakers such as the proposed ARV or Healy could provide access from July to October, or throughout most of the year if escorted by more powerful icebreakers. Deep-sea drilling in the Arctic presents special problems that have been addressed in detail by the NAD program (NAD Program, 1992). It seems most efficient to charter or lease drilling platforms that are already in the Arctic or can be easily transported there (Table 1). Existing scientific drilling vessels such as the JOIDES Resolution operated by Texas A&M University for the Ocean Drilling Program, could be used near the ice margin if escorted by a powerful icebreaker. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, AND SEA ICE The report from NSF's community workshop of March 1990 at Lake Arrowhead, California, on Arctic System Science “Ocean-Atmosphere-Ice Interactions” (Moritz et al., 1990) identifies and discusses important research themes and needs in arctic physical science. That report succinctly defined and set priorities for national science needs in the marine Arctic for the next decade and beyond. Together with the results of the Arctic Science Symposium (March 28-30, 1995) and the Regional Research Programme in the Arctic on Global Change (IASC and NRC, 1994), the Moritz et al. report suggests three primary

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

20

research directions in relation to studies of physical oceanography, climate, and sea ice: • circulation, mixing, and water mass transformations; • surface energy budget, atmospheric radiation, and clouds; and • freshwater and ice balance. Similar themes emerged from the European Committee on Ocean and Polar Sciences conference held in September 1994 (Johannessen et al., 1994). A coordinated research effort will be needed to address these topics. This effort will necessarily involve three different approaches to acquiring data: large-scale surveys, time-series monitoring, and process studies. Each of these approaches has different facilities requirements related to the location, time, and space scales to be sampled. Circulation, Mixing, and Water Mass Transformations Model simulations of global change that include ocean-atmosphere-land-ice interactions predict a particularly large increase of surface air temperature and marked reduction of sea ice cover over the Arctic Ocean in response to perturbations such as increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (Manabe and Stouffer, 1994). These models also predict large increases in precipitation in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and substantial weakening of the thermohaline circulation, which would moderate the warming over the northern North Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe (Manabe and Stouffer, 1994). In all global models, the dynamics and thermodynamics of sea ice exert primary control on the simulated climate response of the Arctic and Antarctic (Clark, 1982). There are wide variations among models, however, in both the formulation of the relevant ice processes and in the quantitative sensitivity of polar climate to perturbations. It is clear that the mechanisms controlling the thermohaline circulation in the Arctic need to be understood better. To understand the circulation, mixing, and water mass transformations in the Arctic, five main tasks must be accomplished: 1. assess the large-scale circulation and its role in the maintenance of the hydrographic structure and ice cover (IASC and NRC, 1994); 2. investigate the interactions between the shelves and the deep basins (NRC, 1988); 3. estimate the exchanges between the Arctic Ocean and the seas to the south (NRC, 1988); 4. assess the influence of sea ice on arctic circulation (Johannessen et al., 1994); and

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

21

5. understand the principal dynamics of arctic circulation (Johannessen et al., 1994). An event that began in the late 1960s with a pulse of fresh water into the ocean north of Iceland illustrates how sustained changes in relatively small ocean regions can conceivably change the thermohaline circulation of the Arctic Ocean. This “Great Salinity Anomaly” circulated around the Atlantic Ocean and returned to the Greenland Sea via the Atlantic Water inflow through the Faeroe-Shetland Channel, where it stopped deep water formation (Dickson et al., 1988; Aagaard and Carmack, 1989). Winter convection in this area now reaches only a third of the way to the seafloor, isolating the dense waters underneath and resulting in changes whose long-term impacts are only beginning to be comprehended. Recent studies indicate another event that occurred at the winter sea surface outside the Arctic Ocean and resulted in a thickening and one-half degree warming of the Atlantic Layer in the Arctic Ocean interior.* This thickening and warming, which has been described as a broad and deep anomaly of temperature and salinity, was detected from measurements conducted during two recent large-scale surveys: the SciCex-93 submarine cruise (Langseth et al., 1994) and the Arctic Ocean Section 1994-1995 (Travis, 1994). Without a baseline assessment of the oceanography of the Arctic, it will be difficult or impossible to assess the impact of such changes on arctic and global thermohaline circulation, whether or not they are indicators of climatic variability in the system. A major part of this assessment can be accomplished through large-scale surveys, and much has been accomplished by Russian investigators in the past 25 years. Throughout much of the central Arctic Ocean, important time and space scales increase with depth, suggesting that repeat surveys of properties through the full water column may be needed only once per decade, whereas surveys of some near-surface properties will be needed more frequently. Time-series measurements of a large suite of parameters are needed to resolve variability on time scales of days to years to decades. Characterizing variability is essential to assess the representativeness of the surveys and to resolve processes such as mixing, mesoscale circulation, and the salinization and freshening of the water column associated with the freezing and melting of ice, respectively. New techniques using acoustic thermometry and tomography can provide year-round synoptic monitoring of potential value to climate research in the Arctic Basin using acoustic propagation paths that crisscross the Arctic. Lowfrequency sound (below 90 Hz to minimize scattering) can be used for monitor

*James Swift, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and James Morison, University of Washington, personal communication to the committee, March 28, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

22

ing changes in temperature and salinity in the central Arctic Ocean to support climate studies and monitor global climate change. In the marginal seas and over shorter distances, frequencies in the 100 to 200 Hz range can be used to monitor ocean temperature changes and fluxes, as well as heat transport in the Fram Strait and other entrances to and exits from the Arctic Ocean. Acoustic thermometry can be conducted year-round over the entire Arctic, and provides information about the Arctic Ocean that is unavailable from satellites or ships because of the ice cover. Concurrent conductivitytemperature-depth/sound velocity profile (CTD/SVP) measurements are necessary in the early phases of this work to provide ground-truthing for understanding and interpreting the acoustic results. The research will focus on understanding the interaction between acoustic and oceanographic factors in four dimensions and characterize Arctic Ocean processes and their effects on the acoustics from internal wave scales (at frequencies higher than 100 Hz) through mesoscale and gyre scales. Processes at every scale are important to climate-related oceanography. Experiments must eventually encompass the spectrum from large-scale circulation, to fronts and mesoscale eddies, to small-scale turbulence and mixing. These experiments will require multibasin deep sections, acoustic tomography and thermometry, shelf surveys, clever use of moorings and subsurface floats, and rapid profiling of mesoscale, fine-scale, and microscale features. Surface Energy Balance, Atmospheric Radiation, and Clouds The radiation balance dominates the energy budget of the Arctic Ocean's surface in all seasons, and also plays a major role in the climate feedbacks exhibited by global climate models. These feedbacks involve strong interactions between surface radiative fluxes and the energy and mass balance of the sea ice and snow cover. Clouds are difficult to simulate in climate models. Cloud observational data in the Arctic are inadequate because there are few surface meteorological stations, particularly in the pack ice, and because cloud detection algorithms applied to satellite measurements perform poorly in this area. The recent climate record seems to show little or no observable manifestation of ice-snow-cloud-radiation feedback (Untersteiner, 1990), even though the poleward amplification of temperature change predicted with increased greenhouse gases is generally ascribed to this feedback. Furthermore, the results from different climate models vary widely. Comparative analyses of these results indicate that the concept of a straightforward albedo feedback based on net shortwave radiation is too simplistic, and that interactions with longwave radiation and hence clouds must be included at the same time (Untersteiner, 1990). To address the important processes that affect the Arctic's role in global

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

23

climate requires coordinated process studies that (1) observe the interactions among the ice and snow cover, atmospheric forcing, clouds, and the arctic mixed layer over at least a full annual cycle, and (2) define feasible measurement strategies for monitoring the state of the arctic climate over the coming decades. In addition to the process studies, emphasis should be given to measurements that will establish an accurate surface radiation budget climatology for the Arctic Ocean. It is also important to conduct careful and precise comparisons between satellite measurements and in situ data and to develop more accurate observational determinations of key variables needed for model simulations of ice coverage. Most of the needed in situ observations can be obtained as part of the largescale surveys and process studies discussed above or by the establishment of ground- or ice-based monitoring stations at high-latitude locations or by means of aircraft surveys. Freshwater and Ice Balance The Arctic Ocean may be thought of as a giant estuary that receives fresh water in the form of (1) runoff from Eurasia and North America, (2) precipitation (minus evaporation), mainly in the form of snow that accumulates atop sea ice during winter, and (3) low-salinity inflow through the Bering Strait. Much of this freshwater input is balanced by the export of sea ice and low-salinity arctic surface water at the Fram Strait. However, based on recent data,† it is apparent that at least some ice grounded on Russian shelves (tagged with radioactive sediments) may continue to circulate in the Arctic Ocean without exiting. Disposition of exported fresh water appears to play a major role in controlling the thermohaline circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean. This is because at low temperatures, the stratification of the water column is predominantly determined by salinity. This freshwater balance results in a strong halocline within the Arctic Ocean. Without this strong halocline, the ice cover might disappear, with enormous climatic, environmental, and economic consequences. In addition to the process studies described in preceding sections, it is important to monitor the inputs, reservoirs, and outputs of this freshwater cycle. A combination of observational and modeling activities is needed to refine the estimates of the large-scale hydrological cycle. The types of data needed include atmospheric moisture flux into the basin, river runoff, mass balance of sea ice, and changes of the water mass characteristics of the Arctic Ocean and

†Walter

Tucker, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, personal communication to committee, February 22, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

24

the Fram Strait. Time-series measurements of water mass salinity, current velocity, and transport within the basin and in the regions where the basin is connected with the remainder of the world ocean (Bering and Fram straits) are an important part of this effort. Facilities Requirements Studies of physical oceanography, sea ice, and climate require a full spectrum of sensors and measurement technology, including bottom and icemoored instruments, profilers, autonomous vehicles, drifters, acoustic sensors, and satellite-borne sensors. To deploy these sensors for large-scale surveys, process studies, and time-series monitoring, a variety of arctic platforms is needed, including icebreaking research vessels, submarines, aircraft, ice surface stations, seafloor moorings, satellites (Thomas, 1991), and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) (Table 2). Icebreaking research vessels play a unique role in the large, multidisciplinary baseline surveys of the basin that are needed to provide the context for studying variability in the system. Such surveys are inherently interdisciplinary and use instrumentation and analytical laboratories that can be supported only on a research vessel. For example, an icebreaker is necessary to support interdisciplinary process studies in environments such as the Bering Sea in winter, the marginal ice zone of the Chukchi Sea and other shelf seas during late spring to autumn, and the central Arctic Ocean during the summer. The baseline assessment of the circulation requires large-scale surveys of hydrographic variables, chemical tracers, velocity profiles, acoustic travel times, sea ice, and other properties. The primary platforms for the baseline surveys of properties below the arctic halocline are research vessels, which might include the arctic icebreakers and submarines. Icebreakers provide full-depth coverage but unfortunately do not provide synoptic coverage. The submarine might provide more synoptic coverage, but existing measurement technology limits coverage to only the upper to intermediate levels and to a small subset of the suite of data that can be collected from an icebreaker. Submarines are the optimal platform for surveying the large-scale morphology and mass of sea ice.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

25

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

26

CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY The need for chemical and geochemical research in the Arctic Ocean results from the following attributes: 1.

the unique biogeochemical pathways for organic carbon cycling occurring in high latitudes; 2. the Arctic's unique role in global deep water formation; 3. the potential and actual dispersal of pollutants from arctic rivers and atmospheric fallout; and 4. the paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic variations recorded in arctic sediments. In addition to these attributes, the Arctic Ocean is a unique natural laboratory for conducting research in chemical oceanography and gaining a basic understanding of biogeochemistry in cold regions. Although both the Arctic and Antarctic have ecosystems that show high seasonal variability (e.g., in light availability, primary production, and particle flux) and food webs that differ from their temperate and tropical counterparts, the Arctic is better suited for studying the biogeochemistry of cold regions than Antarctica because of the semi-enclosed nature of the Arctic Ocean. Its chemical budgets are more easily established because the fluvial and oceanic inputs in this region can be quantified more precisely as a result of the extensive continental boundaries and the relatively confined exchange routes with other ocean basins. This advantage in establishing chemical budgets enables study of detailed chemical processes and mechanisms that are often difficult to examine in more open systems. The above-mentioned four primary areas of chemical oceanographic research are discussed individually in more detail below. Biogeochemical Cycles The arctic region is not a major producer of biogenic material when compared with the world oceans (probably accounting for less than 10 percent of the total marine primary production), but some of the chemical uptake and regeneration processes involved in the arctic “biological pump” are unique among the world's oceans (e.g., carbon-to-nitrogen ratios of arctic planktonic material are frequently different from the typical Redfield ratios (Smith et al., 1995)). Shelf environments in the Arctic Ocean exhibit some of the highest rates of primary production observed in the global ocean. The produced organic carbon and the lithogenic material coming down the rivers do not appear to be accumulating on the shelf or in deep basins but may be accumulating in continental slope or rise environments.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

27

Denitrification is another important aspect of biogeochemical cycling in the Arctic. This process may exert an important control on the nitrogen available as a nutrient to marine phytoplankton, because the present rate of global denitrification appears to exceed the rate of nitrogen fixation (Codispoti and Christensen, 1985). The Arctic Ocean and its adjacent seas contain approximately 25 percent of all of the world's continental shelf area, and shallow and hemipelagic sediments are the predominant locations for oceanic denitrification (which occurs primarily as a result of the microbial degradation of organic matter in low-oxygen environments). Consequently, the Arctic may be responsible for as much as 5 to 20 percent of all denitrification occurring in the marine environment. Arctic sediments on the shelf and slope may be a considerable reservoir of methane, primarily trapped in clathrate structures. While the methane hydrate is of economic interest, it may also be of environmental concern because methane, like CO2, is a greenhouse gas. If ocean temperatures in the Arctic increase as a result of global warming, some of this methane may be released to the upper water column and escape to the atmosphere, contributing further to the greenhouse effect. The rates of methane oxidation in arctic sediments and waters remain to be studied systematically by means of water column and shallow sediment geochemical sampling (Johannessen et al., 1994). The uptake and release of CO2 by the ocean is partially governed by biogeochemical processes such as fixation of carbon in surface waters and deposition of organic carbon on the bottom of the ocean. Sea-ice biota may also play an important role in sequestration of atmospheric CO2. It will be necessary to conduct coupled physical-chemical-biological model studies and field experiments to determine the rates of CO2 fixation and the influence of seasonal sea ice cover and deep convection. Because models of global change commonly predict relatively large changes in tropospheric temperatures in the Arctic, and because this could result in significant changes in ice cover, biogeochemical cycling in the Arctic may be particularly sensitive to global warming. Water Mass Formation and Circulation Understanding the freshwater balance in the Arctic is important because it affects the density structure in the gyres of the Greenland and Labrador Seas, both of which form dense waters contributing to the global thermohaline circulation. In addition, many of the pollutants released into the Arctic have a riverine source, and consequently the trajectory of the fresh water is an important consideration in assessing the dispersal and fate of these materials. Geochemical tracers (natural and anthropogenic trace substances) can contribute significantly to studies of freshwater balance and water mass formation. Tracers

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

28

allow determination of pathways of near-surface waters into the interior of the basins (tritium and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)) and provide information about the rates of deep water formation and interbasin exchange (tritium, CFCs, carbon 14, argon 39) and on the sources and residence times of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean. Freshwater input can result from ice melting as well as fluvial inflow. The contribution of these two processes can be resolved using measurements of oxygen isotopes (or barium/nutrient concentrations) in conjunction with salinity, CFC, or tritium measurements. To understand water mass properties in the Arctic it is also necessary to acquire knowledge of halocline and brine formation. The halocline is a vital feature in the Arctic because it keeps the warmer waters at depth from surfacing, thus inhibiting ice melting at the surface. Because approximately half of the world ocean's abyssal waters originate in and around the Arctic, the importance of understanding deep water formation in the Arctic cannot be overemphasized. A recent analysis of tritium/helium 3 and CFC tracers has indicated a considerable slowdown in the formation of Greenland Sea Deep Water during the 1980s (Schlosser et al., 1991). Pollutants Pollutants in the Arctic may take the form of industrial waste (e.g., heavy metals and pesticides) coming down the major rivers of Asia, Europe, and North America or airborne materials transported through the atmosphere. They also may be in the form of radioactive waste leaking from subsurface storage through ground waters, rivers, or the seafloor. The Russian government admitted in 1993 that radioactive wastes, including submarine reactor cores, irradiated submarine cooling water, and even nuclear-tipped torpedoes, had been dumped or lost in the Arctic and North Pacific oceans (Government Commission on Matters Related to Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea, 1993). Some of these pollutants will remain dissolved during their aqueous transport from the continents to the ocean (e.g., strontium 90), whereas others may be scavenged from solution by particles in the soil, rivers, or the ocean (e.g., lead or plutonium). An understanding of the pathways and fates of these pollutants in the oceanic realm in terms of particle scavenging and burial is essential for predicting their effect on marine ecosystems and ultimately biological resources. The fate of pollutants in the Arctic will depend on surface water residence time, particle flux, the reactivity of the pollutant, and exchange rates between surface water and deep water. The more soluble pollutants may exit the Arctic Ocean in surface water, whereas the particle-reactive species may be transported to depth by particle scavenging or by sediment resuspension across the shelf break. Continental slope deposits in the Arctic are a likely sink for these pollutants, but minimal data exist to address this hypothesis.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

29

Paleoceanography and Paleoclimate The feedbacks among controls of sea surface temperature and ice/snow cover serve to amplify the effects of these controls at high latitudes. The highlatitude climate, in turn, affects the pole-to-equator energy transfer and hence atmospheric circulation. Thus, the Arctic is a critical region for understanding global climate change. Knowing the range of conditions that existed in the past should help in understanding present and future climates. Unfortunately, little is known about past oceanic and sedimentary processes in the Arctic Ocean. Sediment cores collected in the Arctic can be used to evaluate variations in surface nutrient levels (caused by changes in circulation and riverine input), depositional processes, and ice cover history over the past few million years. A variety of chemical proxies (e.g., stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon; elemental ratios of cadmium/calcium and barium/aluminum; and activities of thorium 230/ protactinium 231 and beryllium 10/aluminum 26) can be employed to reveal changes in ice cover history, sea surface temperature, and productivity. The results will enable correlations to be made between the marine record and records from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISPII) and the Paleoclimate of Arctic Lakes and Estuaries (PALE) project as well as extend the record back to a time without ice and with high global concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Facilities Requirements The Arctic presents a diverse environment in both space and time. Extensive sampling during all seasons is necessary to characterize the chemistry of the system. To address all of the research priorities described above requires facilities that enable research in continental shelf and slope environments, as well as in the deep central basins (Table 3). To sample these diverse environments in a systematic way and understand the relevant chemical oceanographic processes occurring in them, several months per year of ship time will be needed over a 10- to 30-year period. On these cruises the primary focus of the research would be chemical oceanography, although complementary science in other disciplines could be conducted as well. In addition, chemical oceanographers are expected to participate in most other research cruises to the Arctic to provide supplemental data to biological, physical, and geological research programs. An icebreaking research vessel is the most versatile platform from which to conduct the necessary field operations for chemical oceanography research priorities. This platform is essential because it permits a variety of sampling requirements to be carried out, including collection of water column profiles of dissolved and suspended chemical species, large-volume sampling and processing of trace metals and isotopes, coring, and deployment and recovery of instrumented

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

30

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

31

moorings, sediment traps, and benthic chambers. A research icebreaker is of highest priority because it accommodates a variety of sampling methods and provides enough space for multidisciplinary research, as well as access to the necessary arctic environments. Ice camps also serve as important platforms in meeting chemical research priorities in the Arctic. Ice camps permit data to be collected in different seasons (over several years in some cases) in a more or less time-series mode. However, the movement of ice camps with drifting surface ice may be decoupled from movement of bottom waters (which may move in different directions and at different speeds than the surface currents). Field camps located on land have been, and will continue to be, used to conduct research programs in the Arctic. However, most of this research is restricted to coastal environments because of logistic constraints of vehicles and vessels. Submarines have limited utility as platforms for chemical oceanography research. Although they are useful for surveying the upper halocline (current depth limits are 800 m), priority research objectives require a more versatile sampling platform. Of particular concern is the limited space on board submarines, which prevents much of the necessary chemical processing (requiring substantial equipment) and storage of a large number of samples. Furthermore, the restrictions on the use of certain organic solvents and radioactive materials on board submarines prevent certain types of chemical research from taking place there. Moorings and satellites are useful tools for chemical oceanographic needs in general; certainly they are for arctic investigations as well. Satellites are useful for chemical oceanography primarily because of their ability to provide information about physical and biological factors that affect ocean chemistry. Communication satellites also relay data from arctic-based instruments. These tools are complementary and supplementary to the platforms mentioned above and will not eliminate the need for other platforms. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Biological research in the Arctic can be divided into process-oriented studies of the origins and fates of organic carbon and species-oriented studies of fish, birds, and mammals. Because the requirements of these two approaches differ somewhat, each approach is discussed separately. Origins and Fates of Organic Carbon Contributions of primary producers, and consumption and transformations by heterotrophic organisms in the Arctic, vary along gradients in time, depth,

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

32

and distance across the shelf to the deep basin. Past studies have suggested that rates of primary production in the Arctic Basin are not high enough to account for observed levels of particulate organic carbon (POC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), nor of observed secondary production in some arctic shelf/slope regions. Entrainment of plant detritus from adjacent shelves must occur to account for the observed levels (Subba Rao and Platt, 1984; Walsh, 1989, 1995; Pomeroy et al., 1990). Results from a recent trans-Arctic cruise, however, showed high bacterial production late in the season and high zooplankton standing stock in comparison with primary production levels. These higher levels are attributed to use of DOC left over from an earlier phytoplankton bloom.‡ These data suggest that in situ production in the high Arctic is great enough to explain POC, DOC, and zooplankton levels in comparison with shelf/slope regions. Several testable hypotheses could drive future research in accounting for the discrepancy between these two sets of observations: • riverine input of POC and DOC; • transport of POC and DOC from the Arctic shelf to the basin; and • a temporal discontinuity between the peak of primary production and the resulting secondary production. Whatever the cause, the discrepancy suggests that the continental shelves and central Arctic may be decoupled in their carbon production and use. In particular, the central Arctic may uniquely depend on the microbial food web as a link between primary production and higher trophic levels. That is, primary production may not be consumed directly but rather may contribute to increased concentrations of organic material that is consumed by smaller and then larger heterotrophic organisms. However, the microbial loop becomes less important on the more productive shelves of the arctic marginal seas (e.g., Bering and Barents seas), where phytodetritus is more directly coupled to the underlying benthos (Grebmeier and Barry, 1991). The accumulation of carbon in fauna and sediments of the arctic slopes is possible but has not been studied. Future biological studies in the Arctic should define locations and rates of primary production and secondary consumer populations (both water column and benthic). Sources and fates of DOC and POC need to be determined. The structure of the arctic food web should be elucidated, and rates of carbon exchange along these trophic pathways should be measured. These questions are especially important in the Arctic, because the Atlantic deep water that supplies the world's oceans forms in the Arctic, in the vicinity of Spitzbergen (Svalbard). Thus, this region may potentially serve as a significant carbon sink (Broecker

‡Patricia

Wheeler, Oregon State University, personal communication to the committee, March 28, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

33

and Peng, 1992; Sarmiento and Sundquist, 1992; Walsh, 1995). If ice cover decreases, the broad continental shelves of both the Siberian seas (including the Chukchi, East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara Seas) and the Barents Sea may provide an increased carbon sink. Knowledge of the origins and fates of carbon in the Arctic thus becomes essential for accurate modeling of global carbon flux. The Bering Sea is the location of one of the world's richest fisheries, although various important commercial fish species have declined over the past few decades (NRC, 1995). Protective management of Bering Sea fisheries may depend on an understanding of the underlying trophic structure of the commercially valuable fish species throughout all seasons, including the icecovered winter months (NRC, 1995). .

Fish, Birds, and Mammals Vertebrate species in the Arctic are less studied than related temperate-zone species. Yet similar species at lower latitudes often serve as indicators of ecosystem stability, and with increased knowledge high-latitude species could serve a similar function in the Arctic (NRC, 1995). Arctic vertebrates are an important food source for indigenous peoples. Increasingly, birds and mammals are a focus for a developing arctic tourism industry (NRC, 1988). Although most are relatively plentiful, a few species are rare or endangered. Populations of arctic birds and mammals are closely linked with fish populations; therefore, studies of the interactions among fish, birds, and mammals are needed. Future vertebrate research is likely to focus on the following questions: • Basic biology and life history: What are the basic annual events in the life history of these species? What are their physiological needs and constraints? • Population-based questions: What are the genetic structures of the species (heterozygosity/stock separation)? What are the population sizes and structures (age/sex/breeding condition)? What are the trends in population sizes? • Habitat-based questions: What are the habitat uses, especially in winter, for which little information is available? What are the temporal and spatial variabilities in habitat use? • Environmental and oceanographic questions: What are the influences of environmental and oceanographic conditions on distribution patterns and behaviors? What factors affect recruitment success? • Ecosystem interactions: What are the relationships among species? What are the trophic relationships? How important are forage fish in providing for sustainable commercial fisheries?

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

34

• Questions based on human interactions: How do populations of marine vertebrates affect human populations in the Arctic? How do human activities such as hunting/fishing, tourism, mining, and military activities affect these species? Facilities Requirements Sample collection methods used in research to answer the biological questions described in the previous section include water bottles or pumps (usually mounted with a conductivity-temperature-depth sampler) to collect smaller, soft-bodied organisms; plankton nets of various meshes, towed horizontally or vertically, to collect nekton and larger plankton; and grabs, trawls, and box and gravity cores to collect benthic samples (Table 4). These techniques require the use of a winch, and usually some ability to move horizontally. In situ experiments require moored or benthic chambers. Many techniques use radioisotopes. Sample analysis requires availability of laboratory space to hold controlled temperature chambers, fluorometers, spectrophotometers, centrifuges, scintillation counters, drying ovens, carbonhydrogen-nitrogen analyzers, autoanalyzers, various types of microscales and particle counters, and specialized equipment. These items must be transported to the site, which implies a moving laboratory or an ability to transport delicate yet heavy equipment. Because most biological data require interpretation relative to physical and chemical parameters of the environment, biological oceanographers prefer to work in multidisciplinary teams, suggesting a requirement for relatively large scientific parties. An icebreaking research vessel would provide good spatial coverage, although access would be limited in the high arctic shelf and basin during part of the year, based on icebreaking capability. Sampling flexibility, laboratory space, and instrument transport would be excellent. A large interdisciplinary team could be accommodated. The ability to carry out seasonal or long-term temporal studies could provide scheduling challenges in certain geographic regions. Although a research icebreaker can provide a comprehensive platform for most biological oceanographic field requirements in the Arctic, some of these needs can be met, at least in part, by platforms other than a surface research icebreaker. If sufficient equipment and personnel can be transported, ice camps may provide opportunities for temporal studies at a single location. The most serious limitations include inability to move sampling equipment horizontally and lack of spatial coverage. Submarines could provide good opportunities for mapping of biologically important properties, using acoustics, fluorescence, turbidity, and other sensors. Collection of water samples is possible, although analytical laboratory space

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

35

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

36

would be limited. Other types of sample collection would require development and deployment of specialized collection equipment. Submarines are excluded from work in the shallow waters of the continental shelf, and thus are limited to the Arctic Basin. Permission to use radioisotopes would be required. Bunk space is limited, hence multidisciplinary studies would be constrained. Because arctic vertebrate species inhabit the sea, the surface of the land or ice cover, and the air, it is not surprising that research methods and facilities requirements for vertebrate research vary widely. Direct visual observations of terrestrial species (or those that breed terrestrially) require access within visual range. Close range is also required to obtain biopsy material and to tag animals. Subsequent use of biopsy material for genetic or pollution studies requires easy access to a well-equipped laboratory. Fisheries assessments generally require large nets and hook-and-line. Both are towed horizontally. They provide abundance estimates as well as material (fish) for basic life history data. Biosonics and remotely sensed visual information can be used to determine the spatial or temporal extent of assessment information, but generally some ground-truthing is required because the remote information is seldom species specific. As with birds and mammals, animal tissue is required for studying the genetic structure of a population or for tracing contamination along a food chain. Analysis of tissue samples requires access to a well-equipped laboratory. Facilities needs, like those of the carbon-based studies described earlier, can best be met with a variety of platforms. Some types of research would require a research icebreaker; some could use other types of platforms. Ice camps can give good access to terrestrial mammals and breeding birds for direct observations, tagging, and collection of biopsy materials. Ice camps also provide a laboratory base and can accommodate large, interdisciplinary research teams. Biosonic studies can be conducted from submarines. However, only a research icebreaker could provide: 1. a platform for the large trawls and long lines required for fisheries assessments or as a launching platform for submersibles; 2. access to marine birds and mammals that associate along the edges of the ice pack, where conditions are too unstable for an ice camp; and 3. the mobility needed to study the dynamics of vertebrate predator and prey interactions. SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINARY PREFERENCES FOR RESEARCH PLATFORMS As described in previous sections, different disciplines have needs for different types of arctic research platforms. Table 5 shows preferences for different platforms, according to discipline.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

37

Studies in marine geology and geophysics need a platform that can rapidly cover large areas of the Arctic Basin, with facilities for swath mapping, echo sounding, and gravity, magnetic, and seismic profiling. The best research platform for these tasks is a nuclear-powered submarine. For station work such as use of remotely operated vehicles, heat flow measurements, and dredging, as well as work in shallower areas, a large research icebreaker is required. The need of a large surface ship capable of deep-sea drilling could be met by leasing an existing drilling vessel. TABLE 5 Platform Preferences of Marine Science Disciplinesa Marine Physical Chemical Platform geology and science oceanography geophysics Icebreaker ++ + +b +++ Submarine +++ ++ + Moored ++ ++ ++ instrumentation + Satellites (remote + +b sensing) Aircraft survey + ++ + + Drifting buoys 0 + +b + + + Ice camps

Biological science +++ ++ ++ + + + +

+ + + Strongly preferred platform for most tasks + + Necessary platform for certain tasks, but not sufficient for all tasks + Useful platform as supplement 0 Little or no use in discipline aPreferences

do not account for differences in capital or operating costs. sea ice and climate studies, satellites, aircraft, and drifting buoys are important research platforms, and a research icebreaker is useful to collect ground-truthing data.

bFor

For physical oceanographic needs, several different types of platforms are needed, to collect data at several scales. Much use can be made of moored in

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

38

strumentation, buoys, drifters, and arrays that are left for long periods on the seafloor, in the water, or in ice. Submarines could contribute to the measurement of salinity and temperature in the deep Arctic Ocean. However, a surface icebreaker is needed to support interdisciplinary process studies and detailed vertical profiling of the water column in selected locations. Climate studies rely heavily on satellite remote sensing and ice-borne data buoys. Sea ice studies also use ice-borne data buoys. Submarines could contribute to mapping sea ice thickness, and aircraft are useful both to survey the ice and to transport scientists to selected locations for short-term measurements. Ice camps provide opportunities for longer time-series measurements and for oceanatmosphere-ice process studies that must be conducted over a full annual cycle. For climate studies, a research icebreaker is a lower priority. Chemical and biological oceanography, as well as marine biology, have more specific needs for a large surface icebreaker to serve as a floating laboratory, process large volumes of water or tow large trawl nets, and carry large instruments to a study site. Interdisciplinary research would be supported best with the larger scientific crew possible on a research icebreaker. Some studies of vertebrates also require ice camps. Submarines, moored instrumentation, remote sensing, and ice camps could provide supplementary data but would not eliminate the need for a large surface ship.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

39

3 ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

Research in the Arctic Ocean is supported at the present time by a variety of platforms such as icebreakers, ice-strengthened ships, long-term and short-term ice stations, autonomous instrumentation, aircraft, submarines, and satellites. Scientific uses of these platforms were discussed in Chapter 2. Each research platform has advantages and disadvantages associated with access to the research area, properties that can be measured, spatial and temporal sampling capabilities, and cost. For any given scientific purpose, one platform may be clearly superior. For instance, if the discussion is limited to proven measurement systems, satellites are best for measuring the extent of sea ice throughout the entire Arctic on time scales of days to decades. Autonomous ice buoys are best for measuring the synoptic patterns of surface air pressure and winds on similar time scales. Acoustic methods provide the best means for synoptic time-series measurements of properties that affect sound speed (temperature and salinity). Submarines are best for rapidly covering the entire ocean basin, for measuring the large-scale volume and morphology of sea ice throughout the basin, and for acoustic and gravity surveys. Ice camps allow long timeseries drifting measurements, while field camps on land allow long-term studies in particular coastal locations. A research icebreaker provides the best opportunity for carrying large scientific parties and instrumentation to specific locations for sampling or experimentation and for interdisciplinary studies. Certain tasks, such as large-scale horizontal towing (possible in some ice conditions), large-scale coring of shallow sediments, and processing of large volumes of seawater and biota, require a research icebreaker. U.S. investigators have conducted scientific measurement programs from a variety of platforms in the Arctic Ocean and its marginal and adjacent seas,

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

40

including the Polar-class icebreakers of the U.S. Coast Guard, the research vessel (R/V) Alpha Helix supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), and non-U.S. icebreakers. In addition, there is a growing body of U.S. experience acquired in the ice-covered seas surrounding Antarctica aboard the icebreaker R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer. Strategies to achieve an efficient, effective fleet of U.S. vessels that support oceangoing research in the Arctic are best developed in light of recent experience on these vessels. U.S. ICEBREAKERS A research vessel capable of icebreaking is uniquely qualified as a moveable laboratory that can transport scientists and equipment to polar regions; enable direct observations and in situ experiments in polar regions; sample and process large volumes of water, sediments, flora, and fauna; take vertical profiles of the water column in several locations within a limited time period; and collect biological samples of pelagic and benthic organisms. It can provide good spatial coverage of all arctic regions, including shelf, slope, and central ocean basin (ranked in order of increasing difficulty), given appropriate ice conditions and support ships. A surface icebreaker is also necessary for coring and dredging the sediments and rocks of the seafloor, although limited capabilities for these operations might be expected from an ice camp. The USCG Cutters Polar Sea and Polar Star are the only U.S. icebreaking ships that can carry researchers into the central arctic ice, under some conditions. These Polar-class icebreakers were built in 1976 and 1978, respectively. They were not designed for oceanographic research, but during the past 10 years, the U.S. Coast Guard has made modifications and added equipment to provide limited oceanographic research capabilities for these vessels. These improvements include provision of 1,200 square feet of laboratory space, installation of hydrographic and trawl winches, and clearing an area on the main deck aft for over-the-side work and towing. Recently a number of scientific expeditions using these ships have been carried out successfully, although there are also examples, such as the Arctic 91 expedition, of cruises that failed because of engine maintenance problems on these vessels. The projected scientific capabilities of the Healy (being built for the U.S. Coast Guard) and the proposed Arctic Research Vessel (ARV) (conceived and designed with financial support from the National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences) are patterned after those of the most recent class of Navy research vessels, the AGOR-23 to 26, except for additional capabilities required for studies in an ice-covered ocean. Each ship has the same types of laboratories and roughly the same amount of open deck space and space for scientific supplies, but the ARV has approximately 1.5 times the laboratory space of the

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

41

Healy. The laboratory space could become roughly equivalent if the size of the crew on the Healy is reduced to that of the number on a civilian research vessel. The major characteristics and scientific capabilities are summarized and compared with those of the Polar-class icebreakers and the Palmer in Table 6a and Table 6b. A multibeam bottom-mapping sonar has recently been added to the Healy's planned complement of scientific equipment. Table 7 summarizes the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) ice classification scheme. Although the Polar-class icebreakers (ABS class A5) were constructed to be able to work alone in the central Arctic Ocean, their science capabilities are less than those of the Healy or the ARV, and only the Russian nuclear icebreakers can operate without an escort in this area under all conditions. The Healy (roughly equivalent or slightly superior to an ABS class A3 in capabilities) and the proposed ARV (ABS class A3) are being designed to support science operations and have significant icebreaking capability, estimated at 4 to 4.5 feet of ice thickness at a speed of 3 knots. However, neither ship will be capable of navigating independently in most multiyear ice. Consequently, both ships would have to be escorted by a larger, more capable ship, such as one of the Polar-class vessels or a nuclear icebreaker, to work safely in the central Arctic Ocean. TABLE 6a Comparison of Icebreaker Specifications ARV Healy Displacement (LTWS) 11,500 16,300 Length (feet) 340 420 Beam (feet) 76 82 Endurance (days) 90 65 Power (BHP) 18,000 30,000+ Ice capability (3 knots) 4 feet 4.5 feet ABS ice class A3 A3-A4 Crew 26 75a Launch date [2000] 1998 aIncludes

Palmer 6,800 308 60 75 13,200 3 feet A2 26 1992

Polar Class 13,400 399 84 60 18,000-75000 6 feet A5 152a 1976/78

aviation detachment.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

TABLE 6b Comparison of Icebreaker Science Capabilities ARV Healy Science complement 36 35/50 Total lab space (sq ft) 7,900 3,800 Working deck space (sq ft) 13,300 3,000 Scientific storage (cu ft) 27,600 20,000 8 Vans 4/11a Helicopter Visit only 2 Full complement of winches yes yes 9.1 11.3c Annual operating cost ($M)b

42

Palmer 37 6,800 4,800 10,000 4/8a 2 possible yes 10.7

Polar Class 35 1,200 Small Unknown 7 2 no 11.5c

aThese

values indicate: vans with direct interior access/total number of vans. values do not include amortization of construction costs. cActual cost is shown. The cost to the NSF Arctic Science Program is smaller, because USCG partially subsidizes the cost (see Table 10). bThese

Based on the letters and reports made available to the committee, the arctic research community would prefer to use the proposed ARV, instead of the USCG vessels, because of the incompatibility of USCG missions with the needs of efficient scientific research. The primary missions of the U.S. Coast Guard include maritime law enforcement, safety of life at sea, search and rescue, and maintaining ports ice-free, although the committee was informed that the Healy's primary mission will be science. Consequently, USCG vessels carry larger crews than are required for purely scientific missions; based on the experiences of the scientific community with Polar-class vessels (whose stated missions are not primarily science), scientific cruises can be interrupted when they conflict with other USCG missions. Also, because of frequent personnel rotation, it is difficult to establish and maintain the requisite expertise among officers and enlisted personnel for scientific work in the ice-covered ocean. (Although

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

43

USCG crews lack expertise in scientific research, they are experienced in handling ships in ice.) The Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS), at its October 1994 meeting, strongly supported management of the ARV as a part of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratories System (UNOLS) fleet. The ARV would operate with a crew of 26, whereas the U.S. Coast Guard envisions a crew of 75 for the Healy. The turnover of crew and technical support staff would be far less on the ARV than the Healy, because the only mission of the ARV would be science. The experience of the academic community is that the continuity, maturity, and experience of the support staff are particularly important for the maintenance of sophisticated instrumentation and equipment and to ensure a high likelihood of success on scientific cruises. This is especially important in the harsh arctic environment. TABLE 7 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Classification Scheme for Icebreakers and Ice-Strengthened Vessels ICEBREAKER ABS ice class Ice transit, Ice transit, Example of ship continuous at 3 back and ram in fleet (or knots (ft) (ft) proposed) A5 6 20 USCGC Polar Sea A4 4.5 8 Louis St. Laurent A3 4 7 Proposed ARV, USCGC Healy A2 3 5 R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer ICE-STRENGTHENED thin, 1st year open R/V Alpha Helix C pack ice

Certain design features of the ARV (Kristensen et al., 1994) offer superior performance for research in an ice-covered ocean. The advanced hull design should result in superior maneuverability in ice; that is, smaller turning radius,

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

44

better backing capability in ice under compression, and controlled heeling of the vessel. Based on scale-model basin tests (Kristensen et al., 1994), the advanced hull design of the ARV should provide icebreaking capability nearly equal to that of the Healy with two-thirds the horsepower and fuel consumption. However, the hull design of the ARV is not optimal for open-water performance, making the ARV poorly suited for alternating service in the arctic and antarctic regions. The special hull design of the ARV should clear most of the ice to the side and provide a nearly ice-free channel behind the ship, making horizontal tows possible. The ARV's deep screws will result in less milling of ice. The provision of a forward Baltic room on the port side of the ship will allow parties to disembark onto the ice from a sheltered staging area, while work that requires open water alongside (e.g., CTDs, coring, ROVs) can be carried out from the starboard side. The greater endurance of the ARV compared with other vessels will prove more economical because refueling ports are distant from the Arctic Ocean, and the ability to carry out two or three major cruises without refueling will be a distinct advantage. However, like the Healy, the ARV will need the escort of heavier-duty icebreakers to remain safe when penetrating seas covered with multiyear ice buildup. Experiences of Scientists on Recent Icebreaker Cruises USCG Icebreakers—USCG icebreakers have provided support for research in both the Arctic and the Antarctic for many years. There is no question that the data acquired on these cruises have made valuable contributions to a variety of scientific disciplines. The Polar-class icebreakers, however, as military vessels, serve a variety of purposes. In contrast to the research fleet operated by UNOLS and non-U.S. research icebreakers such as the Oden and the Polarstern, the support of scientific research is not the sole mission of USCG vessels, and in some cases is not the primary mission. When science support is not the top priority, research efficiency decreases. Therefore, it is not surprising that problems are identified when scientists, accustomed to working aboard UNOLS vessels dedicated to science, evaluate the amount and quality of research support provided during cruises on USCG icebreakers. The problems cited are due mainly to the limited science capabilities available on the Polar-class vessels and the mode of operation and manning of these vessels. Through the 1980s there was growing concern that the shipborne data needed to address important scientific problems could not be obtained by U.S. scientists aboard USCG icebreakers operating as they had in the past. These concerns, and the underlying problems, were summarized in a 1988 report of the NRC Polar Research Board (PRB) (NRC, 1988). The PRB circulated a

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

45

questionnaire to scientists who had participated in USCG cruises. The report, based on 45 responses, cites the following common problems: • Ship's management and chain of command on the USCG vessels produce an operating environment that is slow, inflexible, and unresponsive to scientific needs; important deck equipment is outdated, inoperative, or nonexistent; and there is too little laboratory space. • The ships perform poorly in ice navigation, station keeping, and maneuvering associated with scientific sampling. • The management and maintenance of helicopters are not conducive to their use for scientific purposes and sometimes hinder the science. • Ship-to-shore communications are inadequate. Since the mid-1980s, there have been significant changes in USCG ships supporting ocean science. Through decommissioning, the USCG icebreaking fleet has been reduced to the two Polar-class vessels, the Polar Sea and Polar Star. Partly in response to the 1988 NRC report, USCG has made a concerted effort to upgrade the science support provided on the Polar-class vessels. Based on the experience of scientists since 1988, the assessment of USCG icebreaker science support is mixed.* There is evidence of significant improvement in some areas. For example, multidisciplinary science teams of 33 persons were fielded aboard the Polar-class vessels in the Northeast Water Polynya Project (1992 and 1993) and the Arctic Ocean Section (Travis, 1994). New data were obtained in physical, chemical, and biological oceanography. However, in several key areas the USCG icebreaker science support still falls short of that needed to address key questions of arctic marine science. The problems most frequently cited by members of the science parties on recent USCG cruises relate to inexperienced crew, breakdowns and mechanical failures in the ship propulsion systems leading to loss of science time and spatial coverage in the ice, inadequate shipboard laboratory space on the Polar-class vessels, inadequate control of planning and operations as they affect science, and limitations on seasonal and spatial sampling. With reference to seasonal and spatial sampling, many U.S. scientists place a high priority on acquiring new data in the northern Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and central Arctic Ocean during winter and spring. Because one or both of the Polarclass vessels operate in the Antarctic at this season, there has been little opportunity for such sampling. (Even if these vessels were available during winter, it is doubtful whether they or any surface ship, except possibly one of

*Personal communication to the committee from Arthur Grantz, U.S. Geological Survey, February 22, 1995; Sharon Smith, February 16, 1995, University of Miami; and Walter Tucker, U.S. Army CRREL, February 22, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

46

the Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers, could navigate and maneuver effectively in the Chukchi Sea and the central Arctic during the winter-spring season.) Recurring mechanical failures and breakdowns of USCG icebreakers appear to be due to the design of the propulsion system on the Polar-class vessels, together with the difficult ice conditions encountered by vessels in the A5 class. This results in substantial milling of large ice fragments by the controllable-pitch propellers driven by the gas turbines and direct diesel power plants. There is no evidence that these breakdowns will cease in future cruises with the Polar-class vessels. However, according to information provided to the committee by USCG, the Healy will have fixed-pitch propellers and a diesel-electric power plant to attempt to correct the ice-milling problem. USCG representatives informed the committee that the Coast Guard is now conducting a two-year effort to retrofit and upgrade the control and propulsion systems on the Polar-class vessels. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the Healy will operate in less severe ice conditions than those faced by the A5 Polar-class vessels. R/V Alpha Helix—The R/V Alpha Helix is a UNOLS vessel based at the University of Alaska, with modest ice strengthening but no icebreaking capability. Soon to be retired and apparently not to be replaced, the Alpha Helix has performed numerous research cruises, primarily in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Alaskan coastal waters during the past 15 years. Operation of this vessel is restricted primarily to open water, which is a severe limitation during late-summer cruises in the Chukchi Sea. The successful completion of hydrographic sections, biogeochemical stations, and deployment and recovery of moored instrumentation when faced with advancing ice makes operations inefficient and diminishes the scientific return from some cruises. The Alpha Helix does not provide access to the broad shelves of the Bering and Chukchi seas during the winter and the transitional seasons of ice advance and retreat. R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer—Since 1992 the Palmer, operated under contract by Antarctic Support Associates (ASA), has provided research support for the U.S. Antarctic Program. According to the Antarctic Research Vessel Oversight Committee (ARVOC, an ad hoc committee that reports to ASA), there is a high degree of satisfaction in the scientific community that uses the ship. The most significant problems were encountered initially: the technicians aboard ship were inexperienced and incapable of properly maintaining and operating some of the research instrumentation. ARVOC reports that this problem has diminished over the 1992-1995 period, as ASA has improved the staffing of the vessel by employing experienced, technically capable personnel on an ongoing basis. The vessel itself has performed well in maneuverability, icebreaking, and station keeping. Its laboratory space, deck equipment, communications systems, techni

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

47

cal support systems, and personnel are all rated highly by participants in research cruises, and demand for the use of the Palmer is guaranteed through 1997.† SUBMARINES IN THE ARCTIC U.S. Nuclear Submarines (SSNs) In August-September 1993 the U.S. Navy nuclear submarine Pargo was used for an arctic research program (Langseth et al., 1994). The use of such submarines as arctic research platforms is in its infancy. The Pargo carried a party of five scientists to the central Arctic Ocean, where a 21-day science program was conducted. A second, 43-day science program on the Cavella occurred in March-April 1995 and is the first cruise in a planned five-year scientific program jointly sponsored by the U.S. Navy and several federal agencies, including NSF. The Pargo cruise demonstrated that a small science party could work effectively in an SSN. The vessel obtained hydrographic, ice, chemical, and geophysical data along a 4,900-nautical-mile track. Autonomous data buoys for sampling surface meteorology, sea ice motion, and the temperature-salinity structure of the upper ocean were deployed from the submarine at predetermined locations (Langseth et al., 1994). The technical capability and performance of the U.S. Navy crew were deemed excellent by the scientific party, and an achievement-oriented attitude pervaded the exercise. The platform proved nearly ideal for underway collection of data on gravity, bathymetry, and morphology of the sea ice cover. The cruise also demonstrated that basic physical properties of the upper 1,000 m of the water column, such as temperature and salinity, can be surveyed quickly and efficiently by combining underway deployments of expendable CTD samplers with a set of hydrographic stations where the submarine surfaces through open leads and thin ice. Although the submarine is obviously the best platform for collecting underway profile data on a variety of parameters, such as bathymetry and underice morphology, it does have several significant limitations. In their present military configurations, SSNs offer extremely limited space for scientists to live and work, effectively excluding much of the shipboard laboratory work needed for biological and biogeochemical process studies. There is no provision for net tows and trawls that are commonplace in biological studies, and adapting or modifying submarines to accommodate such tows, trawls, and sediment coring

†Cornelius Sullivan, NSF Office of Polar Programs, personal communication to the committee, May 2, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

48

capabilities would probably be difficult and expensive. For reasons of naval policy, the submarine does not conduct science operations outside a clearly delimited area that encompasses most of the central Arctic Ocean. For reasons of safety, the submarine does not conduct science operations over the ice-covered, shallow (depth less than 100 m) continental shelves or in waters deeper than 800 m. Nuclear-powered vessels also may be legally restricted from operating in certain areas, such as Canadian coastal waters. The presence of a nuclear reactor aboard ship may contaminate samples so they cannot be analyzed for radioactive tracers such as tritium and carbon 14. There may also be problems with international cooperation, because foreign scientists are not allowed to participate in SSN cruises. The issue of access for women scientists to work on submarines would have to be resolved. The deck of the submarine is not designed to facilitate surface deployment of scientific gear, and all such gear must fit through a small hatch. For example, at the Pargo surface stations, profiles of conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) were limited to depths above 1,000 meters, and bottle samples could not be collected with standard rosettes, because a rosette sampler and full-size CTD winch would not fit through the hatch. Participants in the Pargo cruise were optimistic, however, that these equipment problems could be overcome without major modifications to the submarine itself. They believed that an engineering effort costing many times less than the annual operating costs of a surface ship could make it possible for full-depth CTD and bottle sampling to become a relatively routine component of the submarine scientific cruises. The existing five-year program of one submarine cruise per year (likely to be a different vessel for each cruise) limits the possibility of modifications to support efficient science opportunities. The “White Submarine” concept would overcome these limitations by employing a full-time dedicated submarine, outfitted for science purposes, for a five- to six-year program (Newton and Kauderer, 1994). However, the costs for this program are at present unknown. The Sturgeon class is particularly appropriate for arctic research because it is capable of surfacing through the ice without requiring expensive modifications. Because all the submarines of this class will be retired in five to seven years, the opportunity to acquire one for research purposes will exist only for a limited time. Even if an SSN were to become available for science, its lifetime would be limited, depending on the amount of nuclear fuel remaining (Sturgeon-class submarines cannot be refueled). A scientifically outfitted SSN brings unique capabilities to oceanographic research in the Arctic (Table 8). The principal attribute of an SSN is that its operation is completely independent of surface conditions, whether ice or rough seas; it provides an all-season, all-weather capability for work in the Arctic. The SSN offers a swift, quiet, and stable platform of great endurance that is ideal for underway charting operations. For this purpose SSNs are efficient in terms of data quality, time, and cost. In the Arctic Ocean, SSNs can accom

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

49

plish comprehensive geophysical and hydrographic surveying that is usually done from surface ships in open water, and do it far more cost effectively than icecapable surface ships (see Table 8 and Table 9). The SSN should be viewed as a highly effective, perhaps essential, complement to surface ships and not a replacement. The major impact it would have is to reduce the amount of underway survey work needed from surface ships. TABLE 8 Principal Characteristics of a Demilitarized Sturgeon-class Submarine Equipped for Science Speed Up to 25 knots Depth of operation 0 to 800 meters Practical endurance 90 days Range Unlimited but normal operations restricted to areas with water depths greater than 100 meters Laboratory space About 1,000 square feet Science berths 20 to 25 About 70 Operating crew

The SSN could be used effectively in a finite-duration program. During a six-year period a scientifically equipped SSN could contribute significantly to a comprehensive map of a wide range of parameters in the Arctic Ocean: • a complete, high-resolution swath map of the arctic basins deeper than 100 m; • a complete geophysical map of the arctic basins (magnetic surveys, gravity surveys, high-resolution seismic surveys); • a comprehensive map of hydrographic parameters (temperature, oxygen, and salinity) at submerged depths (50 to 240 m) plus closely spaced vertical profiles of the upper 1,000 m using expendable profiling devices. (With existing technology, the submarine systems used to measure temperature, salinity, and water chemistry are less accurate than the systems used aboard surface research vessels, and further development is needed.); • synoptic seasonal chart of current directions and speeds in the upper waters of the Arctic Ocean; • basinwide synoptic surveys of the chemistry of the upper 200 m of the water column;

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

50

• a five-year inventory of ice volume in the Arctic Ocean, and time-series data on ice deformation and movement as well as ice growth and shrinkage over large areas of the Arctic; and • an undersea survey of the extent and duration of ice algae blooms and other information about the distribution of organisms in the Arctic Ocean. TABLE 9 Outfitting a Demilitarized Scientific Submarine Hydrography • Recording conductivity, temperature, and depth • Up-looking and down-looking acoustic doppler current profiler • Enhanced sub-launchable expendable probes for temperature, salinity, oxygen, and current shear profiling Chemical oceanography • An uncontaminated seawater sampling system while submerged • Capability to sample the shallow water column at discrete depths by means of remotely operated vehicle or autonomous unmanned vehicles • Underway ship-mounted chemical sensors Geophysics • • • • •

Swath bathymetry Gravimeter and gravity radiometer Magnetic radiometer High-resolution subseafloor profiler (e.g., parasound or chirp sonar) High-resolution vertical incidence seismic profiling

Sea ice studies • Up-looking swath mapper of the ice bottom • Video imaging of the ice Biological oceanography • Submerged sampling capability • Midwater acoustic imaging capability • Underway ship-mounted color and turbidity sensors General • A computer-based integrated data management, quality control, and display system

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

51

Air-Independent Propulsion Not all of the potential undersea platforms are nuclear powered. Extensive activities (mostly military) focus on developing “air-independent propulsion” (AIP) for conventional, diesel-electric submarines. Sweden has just launched the Gotland, which is powered by sterling cycle engines. Similar naval submarine developments are taking place in Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Italy; however, at present, no U.S. AIP submarines are available. The AIP developmental efforts have resulted in at least four long-duration small submarines for civilian use: the French Saga and three German Seamaid/ Seahorse vessels. Military AIP developments will presumably continue to flow into the civil sector to provide long-duration in situ capabilities for marine research, although at high cost. ALTERNATIVES TO U.S. SHIPS AND SUBMARINES In considering the various scientific requirements and missions for surface research ships, there is also the additional question of whether some or most of these requirements can be met by the use of alternative platforms. It is obvious that alternative platforms may not be entirely satisfactory for some research projects. But the committee's briefing by arctic research scientists also showed that some research projects would not find a dedicated ARV or submarine as useful as other platforms. This section reviews some of the possible alternate platforms. In the context of this section, “platform” means either a fixed or mobile base for support of scientific operations. Because U.S. icebreakers and submarines were discussed earlier, they are not included in this section. However, non-U.S, vessels are discussed briefly. Satellites Earth-orbiting spacecraft, manned or unmanned, provide a powerful and unique tool for large-area sensing and real-time-series measurements. While they are expensive, they can do many tasks that cannot be accomplished by any other means. Satellites can provide a synoptic view of several oceanographic properties. Surface temperature, surface albedo, sea ice extent, and sea ice motion can be measured using satellite remote sensors. Ice thickness can be estimated through the joint use of satellite and ocean observations, and ice topography can be measured by satellite. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to launch a Geoscience Laser Altimeter System in 1999 or 2000 that would be useful for such measurements. Earth-orbiting

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

52

satellites are a mature technology and will be developed and supported through both domestic and international efforts to serve a wide variety of global science, communications, and positioning needs. NASA's Mission to Planet Earth has recognized the importance of Earthorbiting remote-sensing platforms. Because an orbital path will be over the world ocean from 60-75 percent of the time, ocean research applications could benefit greatly from this NASA initiative. The committee notes, however, that the orbital paths of potentially useful satellites are not now at sufficiently high latitudes to be of much assistance for research projects in the central Arctic. There is a similar problem with the use of communications satellites at high latitudes. This makes communications and data transfer from field sites considerably more difficult than at lower latitudes. This problem should be resolved in the next few years as new communications satellites are put into Earth orbit. For navigation, the U.S.-maintained Global Positioning System (GPS) provides adequate coverage at high latitudes. The comparable Russian GLONOSS positioning system is also available. However, in the Arctic, position locations are good to only 100 m using GPS when selective availability or antispoofing features are employed by the satellites. As in the case of the Navyowned AGORs, it may be possible to equip receivers on research platforms with the keys needed for 10 m accuracy. Aircraft and Remotely Piloted Vehicles General-purpose aircraft in support of arctic field operations have proven their utility. In the United States and Canada, most aircraft support services are operated by private contractors, offering a wide variety of options to put scientific parties on the ice, support them, and retrieve them at the completion of operations. Although these are logistic support operations, many of these aircraft can be configured to conduct aerial survey operations such as photography and remote sensing. These aircraft are funded by the individual scientific programs that require their services. There are also highly specialized, and usually large, aircraft that are specially configured for various types of science support missions. Examples include NASA's ER-2 (U2 variant) aircraft that can undertake long-duration, very high altitude missions, and the Navy's P-3 patrol aircraft specially equipped for surveying geomagnetic and gravity fields. These costly, high-maintenance systems have been supported and operated by the government at little cost to the scientific user. Recently, operators of these large aircraft have been seeking full cost recovery, which puts the operating expenses on a par with those of an icebreaker.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

53

Military technology has provided the capability to construct and operate small, unmanned aircraft capable of high altitudes and missions that can be several thousand kilometers in duration. These are primarily reconnaissance platforms, equipped with various imaging systems. In the Arctic, remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs) could be operated at long distances from the base station and could provide an alternative to more expensive aircraft. As with helicopters, smaller RPVs can be launched and recovered from ship or ice camp sites. Using remote television links to the base station, RPVs can scout ice conditions in the vicinity of the base, locate animals on the ice, and assist in search-and-rescue operations. The polar research community will benefit from continuing military and intelligence developments in these areas although, at present, the technology transfer process is not well developed. Non-U.S. Vessels Several non-U.S, polar vessels offer advantages (in terms of icebreaking capabilities and endurance) over U.S.-operated vessels. It is difficult to determine from the available list of non-U.S, ice-capable vessels which ones have the necessary space available for scientific research. The best-known non-U.S. vessels are: ‡ • four Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers, the Arktika, Ymal, Academix Schuleykin, and Professor Multanovsky (Mustafin, 1993); • three Russian diesel-powered icebreakers, the Vladimir Kavrayskty , the Otto Schmidt, and the Mikhail Somov (Brigham, 1991); • the Akademik Fedorov, a Russian diesel-powered research icebreaker built in Finland (Brigham, 1991); • the Australian Aurora Australis (diesel-powered); • the German Polarstern (diesel-powered); • the Swedish Oden (diesel-powered), accommodates scientific activities in laboratory vans; • the Norwegian Polar Duke (diesel-powered), currently chartered by NSF for the Antarctic; and • the Canadian Louis St. Laurent (diesel-powered). To obtain specific information about scientific support abilities of the approximately 80 other non-U.S. ships that are ice-capable would require an effort beyond the scope of this report.

‡Robert

Elsner, University of Alaska, personal communication to the committee, May 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

54

U.S. investigators have used non-U.S, vessels in two modes over the past few decades. In the first mode, exemplified by coordinated experiments such as the Marginal Ice Zone Experiment (MIZEX) and the Coordinated Eastern Arctic Research Experiment (CEAREX), an ice-strengthened non-U.S, vessel was chartered with funds from U.S. agencies, to be used as a research ship in the marginal ice zone or as a research camp moored to the pack ice. Although such charters have provided a wealth of new data and are highly cost effective for programs lacking the funds to support operations and research on the ocean for a large portion of every year, there are significant limitations. The laboratory space aboard such charters is often limited to modifications paid for as part of the charter. Because these spaces may be configured in a one-time, ad hoc modification, safety is a concern. In one experiment, for example, electrical power outlets in such a makeshift laboratory were exposed to leaking seawater. The second mode is for U.S. scientists to participate as investigators on research icebreakers such as Germany's Polarstern, Sweden's Oden, and Russia's Akademik Fedorov. In general, the capabilities and performance of these research icebreakers and their crews have been rated highly by U.S. participants. The primary limitation of this mode of operation is that U.S. investigators must compete for a small and apparently decreasing number of berths available for guests and must adapt their sampling program to the science plan formulated by the primary users of the ship. The limited opportunities for U.S. participation on Polarstern, Oden, and other European vessels may further decrease in the next 5 to 10 years if the “Grand Challenge” program (Johannessen et al., 1994) proposed to the European Union is approved, because this program would make heavy use of the European research icebreaking platforms that now exist. New circumarctic programs may be developed as a result of the International Arctic Science Committee's efforts. These could result in additional needs for U.S. studies as part of an international effort, where the limited availability of research vessels could hamper U.S. ability to respond or participate. In some cases, there is little opportunity for U.S. charter of non-U.S. vessels. Planning by European institutions for the use of these icebreakers generally occurs several years in advance, and excess time and space are often not available. The exception to this generalization may be the Russian icebreakers. It is possible that nuclear or diesel, research or nonresearch Russian icebreakers could be chartered by U.S. agencies to support U.S. arctic science projects, but the situation is far from clear.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

55

Ice Camps Ice camps are the most basic, simplest, and perhaps lowest cost “platforms” for some applications. In general the locations are stable and they are not spacelimited in the area surrounding the site. The camps are usually put onsite, supported, and removed by aircraft or helicopters. There are two types of camps, based on their projected duration. Long-duration camps are those that will be operational for prolonged periods of time and tend to be occupied year-round. Ice islands, such as the former T-3, are examples of this type of camp. Short-term camps are those occupied briefly, usually for a specific purpose or mission. They are highly portable and are usually configured for specific research missions. Often they are satellites of a long-duration camp. When they can be used, ice camps are the platform of choice for many investigators. An ice camp has been used successfully in a number of studies and will be used extensively in the Surface Heat Budget (SHEBA) project planned for spring 1997. Ice camps can provide a long-term station for sampling and an opportunity for coring sediments. They have limitations, however. They do not provide for work in the open ocean or marginal ice zone. They are also unsuitable for horizontal sampling of the water with trawls. Large camps move with the ice and cannot be relocated to specific areas of interest. Small camps cannot support some important science facilities. The cost of ice-camp-based studies can range from $600 to $4,000 per person per day, depending on such factors as the amount of support needed from ships and aircraft for a given experiment.§ Helicopters Small helicopters can be carried aboard research vessels and can be staged from ice camps. Used for both research tasks and logistic support, these vehicles offer a high degree of mobility and operational flexibility. In relation to the machines of just 10 to 15 years ago, modern helicopters are reliable and reasonably easy to maintain in the field. Hovercraft Hovercraft have been used around and over the ice for several years. In theory, they can go anywhere, bearing moderate payloads. Experience with hovercraft has demonstrated several limitations to their use in the arctic

§Erick

Chiang, Office of Polar Programs, NSF.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

56

environment. They have a limited range and size and require the support of a base. Large ice ridges may prove impassable, and the vehicle's skirts can be easily damaged by the ice, considerably reducing the hovercraft's efficiency. Buoys, Drifters, and Arrays Many types of data do not require the continuous presence of a human. Fixed buoy systems offer the ability to take long-term measurements and acquire data at sites where the system is not at risk from ice movement. Buoy technology today is sophisticated and can provide the necessary data at a fraction of the cost of manned systems. In open water, data can be transmitted by satellite or by radio to the platforms within range. Oceanographic moorings are anchored to the seafloor under the pack ice, and the shallowest instruments are designed to float 50 to 100 m below the ice. This type of mooring must be deployed and recovered by a surface party, usually aboard a ship, although some moorings have been deployed and recovered through holes drilled in the ice by surface parties transported to the site by aircraft. Arrays tend to be a large assembly of sensors combined to make multiple measurements of a variety of phenomena. Arrays can be moored at mid-water locations or located on the seafloor, depending on the mission requirements. Drifters are buoys that are not constrained by anchors (e.g., Honjo et al., 1995). In general, tracking the trajectory of the drifter buoy provides a means to measure water movements at predetermined depths. Drifters can also have onboard sensors to record basic oceanographic data. In the Arctic Ocean, ice cover provides a uniquely stable platform that can support autonomous instrumentation such as sophisticated electronics packages floating with the sea ice. Such systems can provide extensive time and space coverage of sea ice motions, surface air pressure and other meteorological parameters, ice temperature, ocean currents, and the temperature and salinity of the upper 400 m of the water column. Remotely Operated Vehicles Remotely operated vehicle (ROV) technologies have advanced greatly since their introduction as operational platforms in the early 1970s. Several thousand have been built and put into service worldwide. They have been used successfully under the ice. In fact, NASA operated one under the Ross Ice Shelf in the Antarctic in the early 1990s. This was a telepresence system: the pilot and his control station were several thousand miles away in Sunnyvale, California. ROVs can be deployed from ships, submarines, ice camps, and helicopters.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

57

They come in a variety of sizes ranging from small swimming TV cameras weighing less than 100 pounds to large work vehicles weighing tons. Some may be equipped with fiber optic data links to the base station to permit real-time monitoring of data and to change the mission profiles. The newest developmental direction in ROVs has been in long-penetration/ great-depth missions. A U.S. company is now building a 20-km-penetration ROV that will be used for inspecting water viaducts. By hardening the pressure hull, this could be a 10-km deep-diving vehicle. In late March 1995 the Japanese sent their $60 million Kaiko ROV into the one of the deepest places in the ocean, to a depth of 10,911.4 meters. Operating through holes cut in the ice, a vehicle such as this could make direct visual observations at any point on the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles The first operational autonomous unmanned vehicle (AUV) was developed by the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory in the 1960s for under-ice work in the Arctic. Range and mission duration were limited, but the system worked well for the time. However, most existing AUVs are experimental, and few operational systems exist. A major limitation is providing sufficient onboard power to support missions that could last weeks instead of days (the present maximum mission duration). When this problem is solved, AUVs can be configured for long-duration missions with transits measured in thousands of kilometers and mission durations measured in weeks. When the power problems are solved, AUVs may replace submarines for many applications. Short-duration AUVs will be the first operational vehicles of this type to be available for arctic research. They can be deployed from ships, submarines, ice camps, and helicopters. Programmed for specific missions, they will be able to make transits of several tens of kilometers at depths down to a few thousand meters.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. ARCTIC RESEARCH PLATFORMS

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

58

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

59

4 STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS The preceding chapters outlined research tasks in the Arctic and the types of operations that need to be supported by arctic research facilities. Yet, any new research facility will, by necessity, require new funding strategies. This chapter reviews the planning for support of U.S. marine science in the Arctic, paying special attention to fleet configurations that will optimize support for arctic research. UNOLS PLANNING FOR ARCTIC FACILITIES The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), a consortium of academic institutions, coordinates the scheduling and use of academic oceanographic research ships in the United States. The UNOLS fleet consists of 27 vessels up to 274 feet in length. Fleet operations over the past 10 years demonstrate an excess capacity of 1 to 1.5 ships relative to funded science programs and dollars available for operations.* In 1995 full utilization of the fleet was expected to cost $49.9 million, but only $46 million was available for operational costs. The shortfall may become worse as the fleet increases by one large research vessel in 1996. UNOLS has been actively involved for the past 8 years in planning for the NSF Arctic Research Vessel (UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee, 1990, 1994). The science mission requirements for the ARV were approved by the

*Kenneth Johnson, UNOLS, letter to the committee, Feb. 2, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

60

UNOLS council in 1993 and are incorporated into the UNOLS 1995 Fleet Improvement Plan: The Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) recommends that the Arctic Research Vessel be the highest priority acquisition of oceanographic research. The FIC strongly supports the addition of the ARV to the UNOLS fleet and recommends that it be operated by a UNOLS institution. The FIC and UNOLS take the position that the Arctic Research Vessel should be built only if sufficient funds are available for its construction, operation and science missions. (Langseth et al., 1995, p. 65)

In view of the limited resources available for the existing UNOLS fleet and the likely future funding problems, the UNOLS ARV endorsement is tempered by funding realities. In both written and oral remarks to the committee, the current chair of UNOLS, Kenneth Johnson, reiterated the above UNOLS position. “The versatility of a well-equipped, icebreaking vessel that is purposely designed for research makes it the only platform that can begin to meet all of the community needs.”† Because the annual operating costs for the ARV are expected to exceed $8-10 million, new operating support must be provided for the ARV so that science budgets are not negatively affected and so that other ships need not be removed from the oceanographic fleet. While UNOLS recommends that the ARV be operated by an academic (UNOLS) institution, the committee notes that alternatives to this mode of operation exist. The NSF Office of Polar Programs currently operates the research vessel Nathaniel B. Palmer through a long-term lease from Edison Chouest Offshore with operations contracted to Antarctic Support Associates. In response to a committee inquiry, Doug Martinson, who chairs the Antarctic Research Vessel Oversight Committee, reported on scientist satisfaction with the operations of the Palmer and indicated that this contract mode of operation with a commercial company has been successful. The committee was informed that one of the more important functions that UNOLS performs is scheduling of the UNOLS fleet to optimize resources and efficiency of operations. In the case of the ARV, this might be done according to the UNOLS model. The appropriate scheduling process should consider the efficient use of the entire U.S. icebreaking/ice-capable fleet, which means that the U.S. Coast Guard needs to be actively involved in the scheduling process.

†Kenneth Johnson, UNOLS, personal communication to the committee, February 22, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

61

PROGRAM COSTS Table 10 shows the committee's estimates, based on a variety of sources of the total operating costs, and that portion that must be funded from annual science budgets, for the ARV, the Healy, the Palmer, and the USCG Polar-class icebreakers. Apart from the cost of the Palmer, which is already funded, all of these figures represent new funding requirements that must be met with new appropriations or by reprogramming of existing funds. It is, of course, inevitable that the expanded activity of either the Healy or the ARV or both will also require increased science funding (Pittinger, 1994). The committee asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Minerals Management Service (MMS), and Office of Naval Research (ONR) to express their interest in providing future support for the operations and science activities of the proposed ARV. While other agencies were enthusiastic about the science opportunities that would become available, only ONR expressed the possibility of financial support, albeit minor. ONR funding from 1993 to 1995 included $10 million annually to respond to congressional concerns about arctic environmental contamination from Russian radioactive wastes and onshore leakage. Funding for future years will decrease to base levels of approximately $4 million per year for basic and applied arctic research related to ONR's mission. Thus, in the foreseeable future, the principal support for operations and science would have to come from NSF. The bottom lines in Table 10 show the upper limits of various scenarios. The five platforms differ greatly in their science capabilities, and the committee anticipates that the ARV would be strongly favored by the science community (except for work in the central Arctic, where icebreaker escort would be needed and a submarine would be most useful) over the Polar-class icebreakers or the Healy. STRATEGIES FOR ACQUISITION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE U.S. ICEBREAKER FLEET The annual operating and science costs are not the only factors that should be considered in reaching a decision about future arctic platforms. A rational approach to U.S. polar research should be bipolar and should consider total costs, including construction and refits, for operation of vessels in arctic and antarctic regions. From this perspective the optimum strategy for polar platforms may be different from that which emerges from arctic annual funding considerations alone. For example, the Healy has bipolar capabilities, similar to those of the Polar-class icebreakers and, according to the information available to the committee, could carry out some of the tasks of the Polar class when the time comes for their major refit and overhaul. Also, in a 30-year strategy,

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

62

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

aThe science support cost was estimated assuming that (1) the operating cost per scientist for the Palmer is typical for all five vessels (not including the USCG subsidy), (2) the science support cost is proportional to the number of science berths, and (3) the science support cost is 150% of the operating cost of the vessel. Thus, science support cost = ($35.7K per day/37 scientists) * # of scientists on ship X * science days per year for ship X * 1.5 bThese values are the costs to the arctic program are estimated as the percentage of time the ship would spend in Arctic (50 percent for USCG vessels, 0 percent for the Palmer, 100 percent for the ARV). cAccording to Capt. Alan Summy (USCG), the Polar Sea and Polar Star have 20 science berths (expandable to 35 berths) and the Healy will have 35 science berths (expandable to 50 berths). The committee chose to use the standard configuration values. These figures show the maximum NSF use of USCG vessels. In some years, however, NSF does not fund research and operations on USCG vessels. dA major portion of the operation of these ships will be subsidized by the USCG. Subsidized cost figures are shown. The actual annual operating cost for a Polar-class icebreaker is $11.5M. eThis estimate assumes that the Healy would work only in the Arctic, with a civilian crew and no USCG subsidy. fThe Palmer operates for 300 to 330 science days per year, with a cost of $10.7M for a 300-day science year.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

63

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

64

which is believed to be an appropriate time frame, it is possible to consider termination of the lease of the Palmer in the year 2002 or beyond. Dr. Garrett Brass, executive director of the Arctic Research Commission, presented the committee with several bipolar strategies‡ that, when projected over 30 years, and with allowance for depreciation and inflation, may be able to satisfy both arctic and antarctic research requirements at considerable cost savings when compared with the cost of two independent strategies for the polar regions. Although the committee did not validate the information and figures presented by Dr. Brass, such an approach allows more flexibility to adjust to unpredictable changes in science priorities by polar scientists and government budget priorities. This section discusses three of the possible strategies. The U.S. icebreaking fleet includes two ABS A5 vessels operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Polar Star and the Polar Sea. In addition, the Palmer is a class A2 vessel dedicated to antarctic research and funded by the NSF Office of Polar Programs. The U.S. Coast Guard has contracted for the Healy's construction. The Healy will be equivalent or somewhat superior to a class A3 vessel, capable of working in the Arctic and Antarctic. The NSF-funded UNOLS study for an Arctic Research Vessel (UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee, 1994) recommends a class A3 vessel for arctic research, and the UNOLS design proposes a vessel highly optimized for arctic research. It should be recognized that to reach the deep Arctic multiyear ice reliably will still require escorts by vessels of the Russian Arktika-class icebreakers or a Polar-class vessel in somewhat thinner ice. In the U.S. icebreaking fleet, the Polar Star and Polar Sea have the greatest icebreaking capability and consequently the largest operating area, but they are more restricted in their science capabilities than the Palmer, the Healy, and the proposed ARV. The Polar Star and Polar Sea have supported the U.S. antarctic research station on McMurdo Sound and will continue to do so. The Healy could also provide support and access to this station. The Palmer and the proposed ARV cannot accomplish this important support function. While the ARV design is optimized for arctic work, the Palmer is most appropriate for antarctic work and the Healy is capable of working at either pole in ice-covered areas consistent with its icebreaking capabilities. The ARV could conceivably work in the Antarctic, but the hull design (which makes it effective for work in ice) limits the desirability of making transits between the polar regions. The committee considered the science priorities and funding required to operate all five ice-capable vessels for science objectives at their maximum capability (Table 10). This option was considered unlikely based on projected near-term science demands and likely funding constraints for science and

‡Garrett

Brass, Arctic Research Commission, personal communication to the committee, March 16, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

65

operations. However, unlike the report of the General Accounting Office (GAO) to Congress in May 1995 regarding the proposed ARV (GAO, 1995), the committee considers an icebreaking fleet consisting of the Polar Star , the Polar Sea, the Palmer, and a bipolar Healy to be inadequate. Arctic science objectives cannot be addressed properly with this fleet because of limitations in access and capabilities and conflicting mission goals. The committee considered a four-vessel fleet that could provide the required resources to meet both antarctic and arctic science goals. Several fleet configurations are possible. The committee discussed three possibilities and recommends that NSF and U.S. Coast Guard evaluate these and other possible configurations. Configuration 1 reduces the future fleet to four by not building the Healy and by constructing the ARV instead. This option is presented for comparative purposes only; to terminate the planned construction at this point would result in penalties nearly equal to the entire cost of the vessel, according to a presentation by Alan Summy (USCG) to the committee on February 22, 1995. Configuration 2 reduces the future fleet to four ships by not building the proposed ARV. From the perspective of arctic research conducted from ships, this is the least desirable configuration because the proposed ARV design is optimized to meet arctic science objectives. While the design of the Healy for science purposes is not as good as the proposed ARV, it is a capable platform and represents a major improvement over existing facilities. Both arctic and antarctic science programs would benefit from the addition of the Healy to the icebreaking fleet. The Healy is also capable of supporting the science station at McMurdo Sound, an important antarctic science support function. This configuration would meet the arctic research needs of the United States only if the Healy were reconfigured and operated in a dedicated research mode similar to that contemplated for the ARV. Configuration 3 reduces the future fleet to four by mothballing one of the Polar-class vessels and constructing both the Healy and the proposed ARV. The Polar-class vessels require a refit to continue their mission, and this is currently being undertaken by the U.S. Coast Guard. Reliability of the vessels has been an issue that may possibly require design modifications as well as equipment overhaul and refit. If one of the Polar-class A5 icebreakers is held in storage, funds proposed for its refit could be applied to a major overhaul of the other vessel. One newly outfitted, reliable Polar-class A5 vessel, in conjunction with the Healy, is adequate to support McMurdo Station and can also provide escort service to the Healy and the ARV to the interior of the arctic ice pack under some conditions. This configuration optimizes the fleet for both antarctic and arctic science objectives. However, in the event of a breakdown or an emergency, no effective backup would exist, except from foreign vessels. This is of particular concern in the Antarctic because of its remoteness.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

66

As expected, maintaining a five-ship fleet is the most expensive option, with an estimated annual cost of $35.3M to the NSF arctic science program. The other options were similar in terms of the cost to the program, ranging between $30.2M and $32.0M annually. (For comparative purposes, for FY 1994 the NSF expenditure for all arctic environmental science was $37M.) The projections of the total annual cost for polar science (arctic and antarctic programs) are slightly more divergent, ranging from $64.2M to $74.4M. The committee, therefore, does not recommend a specific configuration based on cost because costs are similar and are only one of several important considerations in selecting an optimal configuration of the polar research fleet. Other important factors include the scientific capabilities of each vessel, the degree to which a vessel's mission is focused only on science, the icebreaking capabilities of a vessel, and the number of days a vessel is available each year. In addition to fleet configurations, the committee has also considered acquisition strategies for the ARV. One such strategy is the build-to-charter option. This is how the Palmer was brought into the fleet for antarctic research. This would minimize the initial funds required to bring the ARV into service and maintain flexibility in future years based on science requirements and funding. The Palmer, after some initial problems, has proved successful and could serve as a model for this approach. Another strategy is outright purchase, as favored by the General Accounting Office (GAO, 1995). The committee had neither the information nor the expertise to perform long-term cost analyses of different acquisition strategies. Such considerations were, in addition, outside the terms of reference for the committee's study. These analyses should be made by NSF and USCG working in collaboration as soon as possible, taking into consideration the full range of bipolar strategies. ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE HEALY'S OPERATION FOR SCIENCE The U.S. Coast Guard's “Required Operational Capabilities/Projected Operating Environment” for the Healy establishes support and conduct of scientific operations as a primary use of the vessel. The chief of the USCG Ice Operations Division also reported to the committee that the conduct of science is the Healy's only mission.§ Expenditures are sufficiently advanced to ensure that this vessel will be built. Given the present national budget, the Healy may be the only new asset available to the polar science community, but the Healy will not be an acceptable arctic research vessel if it is operated in a mode similar to other USCG polar assets (i.e., the two Polar-class icebreakers):

§Alan

Summy, USCG, personal communication to the committee, May 3, 1995.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

67

• There are mission conflicts between USCG mission uses and science requirements. • Difficulties arise from the differences in ship time scheduling systems used by USCG and those used by the scientific community. • Onboard USCG technical assistance at sea is inadequate for support of scientific projects. If funding limitations prohibit the near-term construction of the ARV, consideration must be given to adapting the Healy for efficient scientific use. One possibility to deal with some of the complaints of the scientific community is to reconsider the staffing of the Healy. Alan Summy (USCG) told the committee that USCG would consider alternative schemes for staffing the Healy. With respect to civilian staffing of the Healy, the committee considered the split staffing scheme used on NOAA vessels. Aboard these ships the deck officers are uniformed NOAA Corps officers, while the engineering officers, and non-officer deck and engineering personnel are civilians. This unique arrangement offers no operational advantages for the Healy. The committee believes the following steps can be taken to ensure an optimum use of the Healy: • Demilitarize the vessel to reduce crew size and to free up more space for science. The two (or one) Polar-class icebreakers can provide whatever military icebreaking missions may be required. • Operate the Healy with an all-civilian crew to provide personnel stability from year-to-year and continuity of onboard experience. • Maintain the Healy as a USCG asset, under this agency's management and operational control, in a manner similar to the Navy's practice associated with its university AGOR fleet. • Keep the vessel's primary mission as support of polar science, with the same search-and-rescue responsibilities as other civilian ships. By converting the Healy to a demilitarized, civilian vessel, there would be a considerable increase in the efficiency and capability for polar science operations. The ship's stable civilian crew would represent a significant, and improving, asset in terms of polar operational experience. The reduced crew levels would allow reconfiguration of interior space for additional scientific activities. There would also be possible benefits to USCG, which would be able to recover the officer and enlisted seagoing billets that would have been allocated to this vessel. The Healy's A3-class icebreaker status would still permit it to back up, or fill in for, the Polar-class vessels in emergencies where A3 capability would be sufficient for the mission (i.e., not in the central Arctic). Alternatives to the mode of operation described above include:

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STRATEGIES TO MEET ARCTIC RESEARCH NEEDS

68

• Lease the vessel to a university where it would be managed in accordance with the NSF-sponsored UNOLS program for the U.S. academic research fleet. • Arrange to have the Healy operated by a for-profit company in a mode similar to the Palmer. The committee believes that if major changes are made in the proposed operating mode of the Healy, it can become an effective polar research vessel dedicated to science.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

69

5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SCIENTIFIC GOALS AND PRIORITIES IN OCEANIC REGIONS OF THE ARCTIC Finding: The committee finds that there are fundamental scientific questions in marine geology and geophysics, physical science (oceanography, ice, and climate studies), chemical oceanography, and biological sciences in the Arctic Ocean that require not only exploration but also systematic, year-round repeated investigation over the next several decades. The arctic region is one of the most poorly studied areas on Earth because of its extreme environment and the lack of logistical support for interdisciplinary scientific studies. The existing loosely organized U.S. strategy for coordinated interdisciplinary studies in the Arctic has inhibited the United States in its role in arctic research. The Arctic contains a major portion of the world's continental shelves, yet their geology and resource potential are not sufficiently studied. Recent scientific investigations in the Arctic have focused on the important role that the Arctic Ocean plays in global climate and world ocean circulation. The arctic region is anticipated to be the most sensitive to climate change, and the paleoceanographic record within arctic sediments could provide indications of past atmospheric and oceanic changes due to climatic warming and cooling events. The food web structures of arctic biological communities are poorly known on time and space scales that would allow predictions of their response to environmental changes. Various regions of the Arctic Ocean require both single-survey, repeated stations and sections, and multiyear, interdisciplinary process studies to

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

70

understand the role of the Arctic Ocean in world ocean circulation and biogeochemical cycling. The consensus of the arctic science community is that there is an immediate need for a dedicated icebreaking research vessel for scientific investigations in the Arctic. Geological, physical, chemical, and biological studies require enhanced spatial and temporal coverage to identify potential resources, determine the role of the Arctic in global climate change, develop more realistic models of world ocean circulation, monitor and assess ocean pollution, and conduct essential process-oriented and experimental studies of food web structure. Yearround access to the shallow marginal seas of the Arctic, which are the most productive biologically and where biogeochemical cycling is most intense, is required to assess fully the status and potential changes in arctic ecosystems over time. The need for a dedicated icebreaker for scientific investigations in the Arctic has been known and pursued for the last 10 to 15 years. As early as 1982, a National Research Council report on academic research vessels found that: the NSF should immediately implement a policy to provide for the order of 1,000-2,000 scientist-days at sea every year on an ice-strengthened vessel in each polar ocean (NRC, 1982, p. 42).

Although the NSF research vessel Nathaniel B. Palmer has been built to provide ship access to the Antarctic, no similar vessel has been built for use in the Arctic. NRC reports from 1988 and 1991 strongly supported the procurement of a surface ice-capable research vessel dedicated for supporting arctic marine research. The 1988 report stated that the need for an arctic research vessel was “the single most important logistical requirement for the conduct of arctic marine research” (NRC, 1988, p. 3). In addition, all reports of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratories System (UNOLS) Fleet Improvement Committee since 1988 have recommended that the arctic research vessel be considered the highest priority new acquisition for oceanographic research. Yet, at the present time, the arctic research community is still without a dedicated research icebreaker. Recommendation: Federal and state agencies of the United States should encourage arctic research by ensuring appropriate funding and providing dedicated research platforms.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71

NATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDED TO MEET SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS Finding: Arctic science involves complex operations that require many types of platforms. Dedicated U.S. research icebreakers are essential elements of the U.S. arctic science strategy, but at present do not exist for the Arctic. Finding: Certain important science objectives in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean can be met most efficiently (in terms of time) by a nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) equipped for research. The ability of a submarine to cruise beneath the ice at high speed independent of surface weather or ice conditions makes possible scientific investigations that require large amounts of under-ice areal coverage. In fact, submarine-based capabilities are strongly preferred for most tasks comprising the proposed marine geology and geophysics research in the Arctic (Table 2) and would also be useful for other studies (see pp. 47-50). Although the scientific life span of SSNs is limited by the amount of fuel remaining, the committee believes that a unique opportunity for arctic research would result from procuring an icecapable Sturgeon-class submarine and refitting it for science purposes (see Chapter 3). Because more recent submarine classes are less ice capable than the Sturgeon class and these submarines are now being decommissioned, this opportunity will disappear unless immediate action is taken. Recommendation: The U.S. government, primarily the National Science Foundation in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, should provide a research icebreaker (and associated operational costs) dedicated to arctic science at the earliest opportunity. Recommendation: The National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research should enter into immediate discussion with the U.S. Navy regarding the possibility of using a disarmed Sturgeon-class nuclear submarine for arctic research. SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH VESSELS Finding: Results of the Arctic Science Symposium sponsored by the Committee on the Arctic Research Vessel, along with previous reports and recommendations, consistently identify similar scientific and technical requirements for arctic icebreaking research vessels. Chapter 2 and the many reports listed in the reference section describe important research programs to pursue over the next several decades. The National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and other agencies that support scientific research in the Arctic must coordinate their efforts to set

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

72

priorities for resources and maintain support for the research programs that will benefit from the availability of an icebreaking research vessel. Recommendation: The National Science Foundation, as the nation's lead science agency, should immediately identify and coordinate research activities of all agencies supporting scientific research in the Arctic that will use and support an icebreaking research vessel. RESOURCE PROJECTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS Finding: The creation of new arctic research facilities will inevitably result in associated costs for acquisition, operations, and science support. Research support for any arctic research vessel is subject to the same funding constraints that exist for all scientific research. As research dollars become more scarce, it will be even more important to identify, and set priorities for, important objectives, and make a long-term commitment to their continued funding, not just make funds available for the construction of facilities. Provision of a new arctic research vessel without funds for associated operations and science would take scarce financial resources from existing science and operations budgets of oceanography and polar science. Recommendation: National priorities in the Arctic require that the National Science Foundation and Office of Naval Research, along with other agencies, act to ensure the needed operational and science support. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Finding: Arctic science is suffering from a lack of facilities, due to inadequate interagency cooperation and coordination. Finding: A research icebreaker must be flexibly operated by an experienced crew whose sole mission is science support. The traditional mode of operation for U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers is inconsistent with these needs. The lack of communication among the scientific community and the primary agencies that fund ship operations in support of arctic research (primarily the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, and U.S. Coast Guard) has resulted in both the National Science Foundation and U.S. Coast Guard planning to build dedicated research icebreakers within three years of each other. The U.S. Coast Guard plans for the Healy are well under way, and 1997 is set as a launch date. The National Science Foundation is planning for the

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

73

proposed ARV to join the fleet in 2000. Neither the Healy nor the ARV is equipped to venture into multiyear ice without an escort. This situation is economically and scientifically inefficient. Coordinated planning between these two agencies, along with timely input from the scientific community, could have resulted in a first-class scientific research capability in the Arctic. It is necessary for these organizations to be more communicative and to develop a cooperative long-term strategy for research in both polar regions. The U.S. Coast Guard has provided use of its Polar-class icebreakers in the past and has recently realigned its mission statement to include scientific cruises. However, in the past, U.S. scientists have been dissatisfied with the militarystyle, multiple-mission operation of USCG icebreakers, with their limited space for science operations. The new Healy will have a priority assignment to support science, especially in the Arctic. The committee found that the Healy could provide a platform usable by the polar scientific community only if it were operated by a crew with experience in ice operations in polar regions, and dedicated to a scientific support mission. If this type of staff structure cannot be accomplished by the U.S. Coast Guard for the Healy, the committee recommends that a truly dedicated research icebreaker (i.e., the ARV) be built. Recommendation: The National Science Foundation should lead an effort involving the Office of Naval Research and U.S. Coast Guard to develop a coordinated bipolar strategy for the use of icebreakers and ice-strengthened ships in support of U.S. objectives for arctic and antarctic science in the most economical and effective way. Recommendation: It is essential that a research icebreaker be devoted to arctic scientific research.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

74

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

REFERENCES

75

REFERENCES

Aagaard, K., and E.C. Carmack. 1989. The role of sea ice and other fresh water in the arctic circulation. Journal of Geophysical Research 94:14485-14498. Alexander, V., et al. 1988. Arctic Science Requirements for Ice-Worthy Research Vessels. UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Report. Fleet Improvement Committee Office, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex. Brigham, L.W. 1991. The Soviet Maritime Arctic. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Md. Broecker, W.S., and T.H. Peng. 1992. Interhemispheric transport of carbon dioxide by ocean circulation. Nature 356:587-589. Brozena, J., W.R. Roest, and L.C. Kovacs. 1995. Airborne geophysical study of the Northeastern Canada Basin and adjacent shelf: Implications for early opening. Geophysical Research Letters. In press. Clark, D.L. 1982. Origin, nature and world climate effect of Arctic Ocean ice cover. Nature 300:321-325. Codispoti, L.A., and J.P. Christensen. 1985. Nitrification, denitrification and nitrous oxide cycling in the eastern tropical South Pacific Ocean. Marine Chemistry 16:277-300. Dickson, R.R., J. Meincke, S.A. Malmberg, and A.J. Lee. 1988. The “Great Salinity Anomalie” in the Northern Atlantic Ocean 1968-1982. Progress in Oceanography 20:103-151. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1995. Need for Additional Icebreaking Research Vessel Not Demonstrated. GAO/RCED-95-77. Washington, D.C.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

REFERENCES

76

Government Commission on Matters Related to Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea. 1993. Facts and Problems Related to Radioactive Waste Disposal in Seas Adjacent to the Territory of the Russian Federation. Office of the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow. Grebmeier, J.M. 1995. OAII/ARCSS Biological Initiative in the Arctic: Shelf-Basin Interactions Workshop of the Arctic System Science Program, NSF. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn. Grebmeier, J.M., and J.P. Barry. 1991. The influence of oceanographic processes on pelagic-benthic coupling in polar regions: A benthic perspective. Journal of Marine Systems 2:495-518. Honjo, S., T. Takizawa, R. Krishfield, J. Kemp, and K. Hatakeyama. 1995. Drifting buoys make discoveries about interaction processes in the Arctic Ocean. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 76:209, 215, 219. International Arctic Science Commission and National Research Council (IASC and NRC). 1994. A Regional Research Programme in the Arctic on Global Change. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Johannessen, O.M., P. Wadhams, P. Lenke, and W. Sandven (eds.). 1994. The Arctic Ocean Grand Challenge: A Decadal Programme 1996-2005. Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Bergen, Norway. Kristensen, D.H., B.L. Hutchinson, A. Keinonen, and K-H Rupp. 1994. Ice-Breaking and Open Water Performance Prediction of the new UNOLS/NSF Arctic Research Vessel. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, ICETECH '94 conference, March 1994. Kristoffersen, Y. 1990. Eurasia Basin in the geology of North America. Pp. 365-378 in The Arctic Ocean Region, Volume L, Decade of North American Geology. Geological Society of America, Washington, D.C. Langseth, M. T. Delaca, G. Newton, B. Coakley, R. Colony, J. Gossett, C. May, P. McRoy, J. Morison, W. Smethie, D. Steele, and W. Tucker. 1994. SCICEX-93: Arctic cruise of the U.S. Navy nuclear powered submarine USS Pargo. Marine Technology Society Journal 27 (4):4-11. Langseth, M., et al. 1995. UNOLS Fleet Improvement Plan, 1995. UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Report. Fleet Improvement Committee Office, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex. Laxton, S., and D. McAdoo. 1994. Arctic Ocean gravity derived from ERS-1 satellite altimetry. Science 265:621-624. Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer. 1994. Multiple century response of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Climate 7(1):5-23. Moritz, R.E., et al. 1990. Arctic System Science: Ocean-Atmosphere-Ice Interactions. Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc., Washington, D.C. Mustafin, N.V. 1993. The AARI is Your Partner. The Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

REFERENCES

77

Nansen Arctic Drilling Program. 1992. The Arctic Ocean record: Key to global change (Initial Science Plan). Polarforschung 61(1):1-102. National Research Council (NRC). 1982. Academic Research Vessels: 1985-1990. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council (NRC). 1988. Priorities in Arctic Marine Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council (NRC). 1991. Opportunities and Priorities in Arctic Geosciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. (In preparation.) Scientific and Technical Understanding of the Bering Sea Ecosystem. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Newton, G.B., and B.M. Kauderer. 1994. Report on the White Submarine Concept Development. Arctic Research Commission, Washington, D.C. Pittinger, R.F. 1994. Arctic infrastructure: The need for dedicated arctic research support. Oceanus. Fall:29-32. Pomeroy, L.R., S.A. Macko, P.H. Ostrom, and J. Dunphy. 1990. The microbial food web in arctic seawater: Concentration of dissolved free amino acids and bacterial abundance and activity in the Arctic Ocean and in Resolute Passage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 61:31-40. Royer, T., et al. 1989. Scientific Mission for an Intermediate Ice-Capable Research Vessel UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Report. Fleet Improvement Committee Office, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex. Sarmiento, J.L., and E.T. Sundquist. 1992. Revised budget for the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Nature 356:589-593. Schlosser, P., G. Bonish, M. Rhein, and R. Bayer. 1991. Reduction of deepwater formation in the Greenland Sea during the 1980's: Evidence from tracer data. Science 251:1054-1056. Smith, W.O., Jr, I.D. Walsh, and J.W. Deming. 1995. Particulate matter and phytoplankton and bacterial biomass distribution in the northwest water polynya during summer 1992. Journal of Geophysical Research 100:4341-4356. Subba Rao, D.V., and T. Platt. 1984. Primary production of arctic waters. Polar Biology 3:191-201. Thomas, R.H. 1991. Polar Research from Satellites. Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc., Washington, D.C. Travis, J. 1994. Taking a bottom-to-sky “slice” of the Arctic Ocean. Science 266:1947-1948. UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee. 1990. UNOLS Fleet Improvement Plan, 1990. UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Report. Fleet Improvement Committee Office, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

REFERENCES

78

UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee. 1994. Arctic Research Vessel: Preliminary Design Report. UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Report. Fleet Improvement Committee Office, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex. Untersteiner, N. 1990. Some problems of sea ice and climate modeling. Veroffentlichungen der Universitat Innsbruck 178:209-228. Walsh, J.J. 1989. Arctic carbon sinks: Present and future. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 3:393-411. Walsh, J.J. 1995. DOC storage in arctic seas: The role of continental shelves. Pp. 203-230 in W.O. Smith, Jr. and J.M. Grebmeier (eds.), Arctic Oceanography: Marginal Ice Zones and Continental Shelves. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. Wessel, P., and W.H.F. Smith. 1991. Free software helps map and display data. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 72:445-446.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

79

APPENDIX A Letter of Request NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230

OCEANOGRAPHIC CENTERS AND FACILITIES SECTION September 7, 1994 Dr. William Merrell Chairman Ocean Studies Board National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Dear Bill:

The Ocean Sciences Division of NSF requests the Ocean Studies Board in cooperation with the Polar Research Board review and evaluate the scientific requirements for an Arctic Research Vessel (ARV) in the context of national research needs in the Arctic ocean regions. The report will be most useful if completed by September 1995 with an interim science and technical report in the May/June 1995 timeframe. The following is a draft framework for the proposed review for consideration. I proposed to develop the final review charge jointly with you to ensure both direct NSF items and possible additional items of interest to the OSB are included to provide a balanced report. (1) Scientific requirements for Arctic Research Vessel. • • • •

Review/synopsis of past scientific reports and studies Identification of current and projected science requirements for next decade(s). Identification of base of support in research community. Who? Where? Opportunities for international collaboration. Added value?

All issues should be addressed in the context of national research needs-i.e. all agencies, not NSF alone. (2) National facilities to meet scientific requirements. • ARV design, research capabilities, and operations • Polar-class icebreakers, capabilities, and operations • Other platforms • • • •

Nuclear research submarine New Coast Guard construction (Healey) Other? International facilities contribution to requirements

(3) Resource projections and requirements • Projected agency programs • Science and logistics resource requirements

(4) Management options and recommendations • National facility • Other

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

80

Dr. william Merrell I recognize that the outline above has several artificial separations - i.e. science requirements, facilities and budgets need to be linked in a comprehensive report rather than treated as independent variables. The primary goal for NSF is to obtain a fresh comprehensive look at Arctic Ocean science requirements, needed ocean-going facilities (existing and new) , and needed resources and management approaches. The resource issue should be addressed in a prudent fashion - i.e. reasonable, timely, relevant scientific requirements not an unlimited universe. I envision two components to the proposed study. (1)

OSB/PRB organized workshop for scientific input, facilities presentations, and agency views/projections. (2) OSB/PRB chartered committee for review, analysis and report with substantiative recommendations. The proposed interim science and technical report in May/June 1995 would be based on the workshop with the final report by the committee. I would appreciate your comments, suggestions or additions to the proposed ARV review study. A budget estimate for the study, with options (?), will be useful. Sincerely,

Donald F. Heinrichs Head cc: M. Reeve, ADD/OCE

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B

81

APPENDIX B Biographies of Committee Members

Paul Stoffa chaired the Committee on the Arctic Research Vessel. He earned a Ph.D. in Geophysics from Columbia University in 1974. Dr. Stoffa has been a professor at the University of Texas since 1983 and is a Carlton Centennial Professor and Director of the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas, Austin. Dr. Stoffa has been a member of the Ocean Studies Board since 1992. His research interests include marine geology and geophysics, applied seismology, and nonlinear optimization methods. Gerald Cann is a 1953 graduate of New York University and served two years in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. He is currently a consultant to both industry and the university community. His most recent previous assignment was as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition). Mr. Cann has over 40 years of experience in senior management, including more than 20 years in industry and 20 years in the government specializing in technology application, system development, and acquisition from both an industry and government viewpoint. Mr. Cann has extensive experience in program development, program execution, and reorganization of major business units. He has served on numerous government committees and study panels and currently serves on the NRC Ocean Studies Board. David DeMaster earned his Ph.D. in oceanography from Yale University in 1979. He is a chemical oceanographer at North Carolina State University with

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B

82

research interests in biogeography and radiochemistry. He has extensive polar research and shipboard sampling experience. Richard Goody is retired but was most recently the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard University. He earned his Ph.D. in atmospheric physics at University of Cambridge. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Goody's research lies in the areas of the physics and dynamics of the atmosphere of Earth and other planets, and infrared spectroscopy. Jacqueline Grebmeier holds degrees from the University of California, Davis; Stanford University; University of Washington; and the University of Alaska. She is currently an associate professor at the Graduate School for Ecology at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Grebmeier has extensive experience in the Bering Sea, as well as on Russian Arctic cruises. Her research focus is on benthic carbon cycling, benthic/pelagic coupling, and sediment biogeochemistry. Dr. Grebmeier recently served on the NRC Committee on the Bering Sea Ecosystem. Teh-Lung (Richard) Ku was educated at Taiwan University and holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University. He was previously a research professor at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and is currently a professor of geological science at the University of Southern California. His expertise is in isotope geochemistry, geochronology, and hydrogeochemistry. Dr. Ku has been a Guggenheim fellow and a Fulbright senior scholar and has served on the NRC Committee on Geochronology and Chronostratigraphy. Marcus Langseth is the Senior Research Associate of Geophysics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. He earned his Ph.D. in geology from Columbia University. Dr. Langseth's research concentrations are in terrestrial and lunar heat flow, oceanographic instrumentation, and submarine geology. Richard Moritz is an oceanographer at the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington. He is an expert on sea ice dynamics. He earned a Ph.D. in meteorology and oceanography from Yale University in 1988. Dr. Moritz's research interests focus on surface heat budgets, ice dynamics, and ocean-atmosphere-ice interactions in the Arctic. John Morrison is an associate professor in the Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences at North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Dr. Morrison earned a Ph.D. in oceanography from Texas A&M University. He received the Antarctic Service Medal of the United States from Congress in 1983. Dr. Morrison was a visiting scientist/lecturer for the Cooperative Institute

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 1995. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B

83

for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Miami, Florida, in 1987. Dr. Morrison also received a Navy Summer Faculty Fellowship at the Naval Warfare Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania. In addition to numerous positions with Texas A&M University, he served as program director for a variety of National Science Foundation oceanographic activities. John Orcutt is a professor of geophysics and a research geophysicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He earned his Ph.D. in earth science from the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Orcutt chaired the Ocean Studies Board Navy Committee. His primary research interests are in the interaction of acoustic and seismic waves at the seafloor, the computation of synthetic seismograms and their use in inverse problems, and ocean bottom seismology. Lynda Shapiro is the director of the Institute of Marine Biology at the University of Oregon. She earned a Ph.D. from Duke University. Dr. Shapiro serves as a member of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council. Her research interests are focused in the area of biological oceanography. Donald Walsh earned a Ph.D. in physical oceanography from Texas A&M University. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1950 to 1974 in submarines and various research and development assignments. In 1959 he became U.S. Deep Submersible Pilot #1 while in command of the Bathyscaphe Trieste. Since 1983 he has been president of International Maritime Inc., a marine consulting practice. Dr. Walsh chaired the NRC Marine Board study on NOAA fleet modernization. He is a member of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, and a past member of the NRC's Marine Board.

Arctic Ocean Research and Supporting Facilities : National Needs and Goals, National Academies Press, 1995. ProQuest Ebook