2. Land-Shelf Interactions (LSI) Science Plan Development Supported by a Science Management Office Grant from the U.S. National Science Arctic System Science Program (OPP-0228646) Lee Cooper University of Tennessee http://arctic.bio.utk.edu/#raise Coastal Processes Session SEARCH OSM, Seattle October 2003

3. Land-Shelf Interactions ~2000- oCoordinated, interdisciplinary project (versus RAISE framework) with focus on environmental change at the arctic land-sea boundary oScience needs identified through community input to science plan available through web download (http://arctic.bio.utk.edu/#raise) oGeographically neutral

5. What is the relationship between Land-Shelf Interactions (Nearshore Initiative) and RAISE?

6. RAISE is unique among ARCSS components 1.RAISE is explicitly international (and thus pan- Arctic or at least cross-Arctic) in implementation. 2.RAISE supports research within terrestrial and marine systems and across the land-sea margin 3.RAISE supports global change research from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present 4.RAISE has a human dimensional element 5. RAISE is the only cooperative research program supported by both the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research

7. How LSI will interlock with other Arctic System Science projects? Diagram is based on discussions at Seattle All- Hands Meeting

8. Some key topics identified in science plan 1.Coastal dynamics and permafrost 2.Coastal oceanographic processes-biology, physics and chemistry 3.Sea ice variability and primary production 4.Freshwater mixing with Arctic water masses 5.River-borne material transport and fate

9. Practical Objective: Better access to Arctic coastal zone for environmental change research

10. Request to ARCSS Committee, March 2003 To assess the state of the Land-Shelf Interactions science planning effort To recommend to the ARCSS Program the appropriate future steps needed to implement a research program that will make a significant contribution to understanding environmental change in the Arctic near-shore system.

11. May 9, 2003

12. Selected Comments on “LSI-PACTS Prospectus.doc” as of 16 May 2003 “Basically I suggest the AO is seriously flawed. All they have done really is stitch together all the "buzz words" It does not make a science program.” “Right now there is no program that really covers the physical part of the nearshore processes, and yet it was clearly defined as a knowledge gap at the recent Freshwater PIs' meeting. So I do hope LSI and PACTS will seriously consider to offer this opportunity to fill in this knowledge gap. I believe this would also greatly benefit the goals of LSI and PACTS.”

13. “Sustainability of arctic societies means what? This is not likely to mean fisheries or crops. What time frame does something need to persist to be classed as sustained? Vulnerability is used with sustainability, or in lieu of, in each case. Maybe S should stand for Sensitivity. Second, on matters of substance this prospectus is very human-, land- and Alaska-centric. Pan-Arctic appears to be necessary only for the acronym. Study location seems to be predisposed to on-going study site(s). One would be hard pressed to go from the mountains to the sea in some locations. It has almost nothing specific to coasts, coastal environments or continental shelves. "(Landscape) heterogeneity", "pattern-based research" are not broadly applicable to anything marine other than benthic communities.”

14. “What I am a bit concerned about is that in the process of reshaping RAISE into LSI and now bringing together LSI and PACTS, the efforts to engage our Russian colleagues and their respective institutions in the process seem to have fallen by the wayside (at least to the extent that there is no single mention of the history of LSI or its venue for Russian-American collaboration in the prospectus).” “My understanding is that the LSI is a missing link between numerous "terrestrial" projects funded through LAII/ATLAS and etc "deep-shelf-basin " projects OAII/SBI. Yes, geographically it is "shallow" shelf and adjacent part of the land (coastal zone): this is unexplored boundary zone between land and shelf. Biogeochemical cycles and physical forces determined them over the shallow shelves should be a major issue.

15. “More shotgun marriages from ARCSS! This draft AO focuses on biogeochemical cycles and human dimensions. That's fine, I guess, except that: (1) I thought LSI had a clear chemical/physical component as well. (2) A major FWI gap identified in Boulder this past Feb '03 was shelf processes, or really LSI processes. IE, FWI funded "deep ocean" studies, and hydrological studies, but very few shelf studies. This is a PHYSICAL gap. Everyone seemed to agree this was a problem, but we were optimistic that LSI would "take care of it." The language in this draft AO indicates that purely physical or chemical/physical studies would likely not be funded. So we'd be missing a big opportunity.”

16. “I have read through the LSI-PACTs document and it is too thin...who knows what science it actually relates to. I agree with it is not a strong effort. The science needs organizational rubrics like that highlight land-shelf interactions, like biogeochemical transformations, water fluxes and sediment budget and then links to the importance to the Arctic system.” “Can we beef up the concept that regional seas, not just pan-Arctic, are needed, with emphasize on Beaufort and Chukchi. No mention of role of SBI??? Ironically the original RAISE report recommended emphasis on lagoons for land -sea interactions. Why can't we focus some attention on lagoons as the sources and sinks of nutrients and carbon. Erosion and sedimentation fit here.” “There is almost nothing left of LSI in the prospectus.”

17. What next? Resolve the issues relating to LSI and PACTS Give the ARCSS Committee and NSF Polar Programs the research community input that is needed Do the necessary international coordination Announcement of Opportunity in FY 2004 Launch an Effective Program for Arctic Coastal and Near-shore Research