Research Plan 2 3 A

Home , Bering flounder, Oregon Graduate Center

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

1 Research Plan 2 3 A. Project Title: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the 4 algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea 5 6 B. Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity: Influence of sea ice dynamics and 7 advection on the phenology, magnitude and location of primary and secondary production, match- 8 mismatch, benthic-pelagic coupling, and the influence of winter conditions. 9 10 C. Rationale and justification: 11 The spatial extent of arctic sea ice is declining and earlier seasonal sea ice melt may dramatically 12 affect the magnitude, and spatial and temporal scale of primary production (Kahru et al. 2011, Wassmann 13 2011). In order to predict the consequences of these changes to ecosystems, it is important that we 14 understand the mechanistic links between temporally dynamic ice conditions and the physical factors 15 which govern phytoplankton growth (Popova et al. 2010). The mechanisms that govern productivity of 16 the Chukchi Sea ecosystem are of considerable interest due to dramatically changing temporal and spatial 17 patterns of sea ice coverage and because this area is likely to be the subject of intense fossil fuel 18 exploration in coming decades (Dunton et al. 2014). Tracing the biochemical pathways of basal resources 19 (pelagic and attached micro- and macroalgae) in this system is critical if we are to better understand how 20 the Chukchi Sea ecosystem might be modified in the future by a changing climate and offshore oil and 21 gas exploration and production (McTigue and Dunton 2014). 22 It is increasingly recognized that lipids and especially essential fatty acids (EFAs) are the drivers 23 of ecosystem production in marine systems (Arts et al. 2001, Litzow et al. 2006). The fatty acid 24 composition of many marine fish is well known (Budge et al. 2002) because of their nutritional 25 importance to humans, and the importance of EFAs for the nutritional physiology of fish is well resolved 26 due to the importance of these molecules for aquaculture systems (Sargent et al. 1999, Copeman et al. 27 2002, Bell and Tocher 2009, Carboni et al. 2012, Murray et al. 2015). However, lipid production by basal 28 resources (benthic and pelagic micro- and macroalgae) and lipid trophic transfer and bioaccumulation in 29 primary consumers such as bivalves and zooplankton is poorly characterized for most regions of the 30 world's oceans. 31 This is particularly true for the Chukchi Sea, where very little previous research has been 32 published on the lipid dynamics of this system (see however, Budge et al. 2007, 2008). Recent research in 33 the Artic has advanced the use of fatty acid compound-specific stable carbon isotope analyses (CSIA) for 34 separating sea ice-originated particulate organic matter (i-POM) from pelagic-originated sources (Wang 35 et al. 2014), and highly branched isoprenoid alkenes such as the lipid IP25 as a trophic biomarker for 36 inference of sea-ice contributions to heterotrophs (e.g., Brown and Belt 2012, Brown et al. 2014). 37 Research using different biomarker approaches to analyze the importance of i-POM to supporting 38 heterotrophs in the Arctic has just begun, and it appears that there is often contradictory evidence for the 39 role of ice algae in supporting heterotrophs. For example, using CSIA, Graham et al. (2014) found little 40 evidence that i-POM supports juvenile polar cod in the Beaufort Sea (Graham et al. 2014). Conversely, 41 Brown and Belt (2012) found ‘convincing’ evidence that i-POM was a significant contributor to benthic 42 invertebrate macrofauna. In order to understand the consequences of changing arctic ice dynamics and 43 associated primary production to food webs, more research, particularly aimed at characterizing multiple 44 lipid and isotope biomarkers in producers and diverse basal heterotrophs, is necessary. 45 Our proposed project will characterize the timing and composition fatty acid (FA) production by 46 functionally distinct arctic basal producer assemblages in the Chukchi Sea, including under-ice, benthic, 47 and pelagic algae. We will investigate the effects of reprocessing of algal lipids by microbial 48 communities, as well as a large spatial analysis of general lipids and essential FA ‘hotspots’ in the benthic 49 and pelagic Chukchi sea invertebrate fauna. This would be an important step towards mapping out the 50 trophic flow of fats through the entirety of this ecosystem, providing critical baseline information on the Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

51 sources and variation of these critical limiting molecules in arctic food webs during a time of dramatic 52 changes in the environment that produces these essential molecules. 53 54 D. Hypotheses: This proposal has three central organizing hypotheses around which the research 55 program is structured, emphasizing fundamental novel research on lipids in 1) lipids of different 56 primary producer assemblages, 2) spatial hotspots of essential lipids in benthic invertebrate 57 consumers, and 3) the changing nutritional value of basal resources as they age and bio-accumulate in 58 the benthos: 59 1. Total lipids and essential long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) will differ among bulk 60 algal communities in ice connected, benthic, and pelagic habitats. Previous research has 61 suggested that ice-algae are more PUFA rich than pelagic phytoplankton but it is unknown 62 whether this is due to differing algal taxonomic composition in these habitats (Galloway and 63 Winder 2015) or because of different environmental conditions. Moreover, recent work by 64 Dunton et al. (unpub. data) indicates that i-POM in benthic algal deposits, even in >40 m depth, 65 are still viable and photosynthesizing. The food value generally, and lipids in particular, of these 66 algal accumulations have not been studied. A comparative analysis of both producer community 67 composition and lipids in these habitats is needed. 68 2. The Chukchi Sea benthic invertebrate communities will be heterogeneous in their lipid 69 composition or content; we will identify essential fatty acid spatial hotspots where benthic 70 invertebrate food quality for predators is the highest. Recent research has shown that invertebrate 71 consumers from different areas of Hanna Shoal (Fig. 1) differ with respect to their density and 72 caloric content among geographic regions (Young 2015). We will used a comparative biomarker 73 approach (e.g., Galloway et al. 2013) to follow up on this work and ask whether benthic caloric 74 spatial density (Fig. 2a) in the Hanna Shoal is predictive of the essential fatty acid content of 75 benthic consumers. Benthic hotspots of caloric content or key fatty acids may be predictive of 76 predator abundance or foraging effort (Fig. 2b). 77 3. Nutritional value (e.g., fatty acid composition and caloric, lipid and sterol contents) of surface ice 78 algae will change as it is experimentally aged and inoculated with seafloor microbes. Recent 79 research on nearshore marine macroalgal producers has shown that as algal detritus ages and is 80 colonized by microbes, the biochemical components and it’s food value to consumers, changes 81 (Galloway et al. 2013, Sosik and Simenstad 2013, Dethier et al. 2014). This aging process may 82 lead to a net loss in food value if essential nutrients are preferentially metabolized by microbes 83 and protozoans, or it may result in a net increase in food value as a result of ‘trophic upgrading’ 84 and concentrating key essential nutrients (Klein Breteler et al. 1999). These processes are 85 potentially critical in arctic food webs but the potential consequences and expected direction of 86 changes to ice algae food quality in particular are currently unknown. 87 88 E. Objectives: These objectives are numbered according to the corresponding hypothesis being 89 evaluated (see above). 90 1. We will collect algal samples in at a broad spatial scale in the two field work years (2017, 2018) 91 corresponding roughly to the spatial area of the Hanna Shoal (Fig. 1) in four differing habitats: ice- 92 attached, under-ice pelagic, ice-free pelagic, and benthic. We will analyze community and biochemical 93 composition of all algal samples following standard protocols (e.g., Lowe et al. 2014) for a comparative 94 analysis of the ‘food value’ of these communities to primary invertebrate consumers. The outcome of 95 this objective will be the first systematic comparison and database of diverse biomarkers (e.g., >25 96 fatty acids and 3 stable isotope signatures) of primary producer assemblages from these four 97 habitats. This novel information will be critical for future efforts to model the implications to arctic food 98 webs of changing ice duration, extent, and persistence. For example, while it is understood that ice extent 99 and duration in the arctic is changing, and that these changes will affect the primary production that drives 100 upper trophic levels (Arrigo et al. 2008), no existing research that we are aware of has identified the 101 consequences of these changes for the relative food quality of resulting algal communities. This is Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

102 important because different types of primary producers vary greatly in their food quality for consumers 103 (Brett and Müller-Navarra 1997, Brett et al. 2009b, 2009a, Galloway and Winder 2015). 104 2. To investigate the spatial heterogeneity of invertebrate consumer fatty acid content, we will 105 collect samples using surface deployed benthic grabs at the same spatial scale as the previous Hanna 106 Shoal Ecosystem Study (http://arcticstudies.org/hannashoal/) funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 107 Management (Hanna Shoal Lead Scientist Ken Dunton is a co-PI on the proposed study). New sampling 108 would occur during fieldwork in the years 2017, 2018. Whenever possible, samples will be collected at 109 previously visited stations for optimal comparison with previous Hanna Shoal benthic monitoring efforts 110 (Fig. 1). In addition, we will extract fatty acids from archived frozen tissues from Dunton’s previous 111 Hanna Shoal project to expand the temporal scope of these analyses and leverage existing investments 112 into biomarker research efforts in the region. The outcome of this objective will be a comprehensive 113 spatially referenced database of diverse biomarkers (e.g., >25 fatty acids and 3 stable isotope 114 signatures) of the most abundant invertebrate congeneric taxa. This database will allow for 115 calculation of essential fatty acid benthic interpolated ‘heat maps’ (Dunton et al. 2012, Young 2015) to 116 create a predictive spatial model of regions in the Chukchi Sea with the greatest food value to predators. 117 In addition, we propose to use this biomarker database in collaboration with new NPRB Arctic programs 118 investigating marine predator spatial use and density in the Chukchi Sea (see section H, below). 119 3. To investigate the effects of diagenesis and aging on biochemical signatures and the nutritional 120 value of fresh and aged ice-algae, we will collect attached ice-algae in the field (in the year 2017) and 121 perform aging experiments. In a fully replicated and crossed design, we will test the effects of inoculating 122 surface algae with benthic microbial assemblages and aging 1-3 weeks on the biochemical signatures of 123 algae. To our knowledge, all previous research on ice-algae and benthic-pelagic subsidies has assumed 124 that the ice algae that sinks to the benthos has the same biochemical signature as it had at the surface. 125 However this assumption has not been empirically tested and this uncertainty affects our understanding of 126 the importance of ice algae to benthic food webs. The outcome of this objective will be the first 127 measured analysis on the effect of ice algae aging on total lipid and essential fatty acid content, and 128 isotopic biomarkers. Information about changes to each of the biomarkers (n=>25) will be used to 129 correct for microbial reprocessing and trophic upgrading by microbes and protozoa of ice-algae in arctic 130 food web models. Moreover, this information will allow us to use the measured aging effects to perform 131 sensitivity analyses on the importance of this process for food web mixing model outcomes. 132 133 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: 134 The essential PUFA of primary consumers are likely to be concentrated in benthic lipid hotspots 135 (Young 2015). This project will enable us to not only identify areas in the Chukchi Sea that are lipid 136 hotspots, but also will allow for the first attempts at linking these patterns to the mechanistic reasons for 137 such differences. For example, benthic lipid hotspots may be driven primarily by the temporally dynamic 138 influx of nutritionally valuable PUFA-rich ice algae (and therefore sensitive to the timing and extent of 139 ice algae production) or may be due to fundamental differences in benthic taxonomic composition in 140 different areas. The data we collect for this project will allow us to disentangle these competing 141 hypotheses, as well as evaluate previously unstudied mechanisms, such as sedimentary diagenesis of ice 142 originated algae as a consequence of aging and microbial remineralization. We will evaluate the relative 143 explanatory power of a suite of environmental factors such as depth, community composition, and 144 physical/biological oceanographic parameters on multivariate PUFA content (Galloway and Winder 145 2015) in benthic invertebrates in the Chukchi Sea. 146 In addition to the deliverables related to the a priori scientific questions put forth here, we will 147 generate large and publicly accessible biomarker datasets for both primary producers and basal 148 invertebrate consumers, in a system that is undergoing extensive change but has very little baseline data. 149 These biomarker databases will be made public within 12 months after all biomarker data is analyzed in 150 2019. Little is currently known about the interannual temporal dynamics and phenology of primary 151 producer and primary consumers lipids. For example, do the lipid contents (or biomarkers generally) 152 differ between years within conspecifics? Our own analyses will also leverage previously collected Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

153 samples of invertebrates from the Hanna Shoal Ecosystem study (Fig. 154 1; http://arcticstudies.org/hannashoal/). Moreover, because biomarker analyses require only a few mg of 155 dry tissue for each extraction, the PI Galloway will host an archive of voucher material for all tissues 156 sampled for future reference in a -80°C freezer at the OIMB. 157 Ecologists and resource managers have a major knowledge gap in our understanding of how 158 energy from primary production is transferred and re-packaged to the consumers in food webs. On the 159 one hand, lip service is paid to the role primary producers play in ‘fueling the food web’. We know that 160 primary producers theoretically form the wide base of the trophic pyramid, ultimately supporting the 161 species that governmental resource managers are mandated to actually manage (e.g., tertiary or higher 162 level predators including crabs, demersal and pelagic fish, and ultimately marine mammals). However, 163 the efficiency of the energy transfer from primary production to primary consumers varies tremendously, 164 depending on food quality, and a host of additional factors (Brett and Müller-Navarra 1997). Thus, the 165 link between producers and primary consumers, which may be the most critical piece, is essentially a 166 ‘black box’. We know very little about the role of food quality in regulating ecosystem scale trophic 167 efficiency. This knowledge gap causes considerable uncertainty in ecosystem management strategies. 168 Trophic transfer from primary producers to benthic primary consumers, is an important example; benthic 169 invertebrates, many of which are not under the mandate for management, are key trophic upgraders that 170 enable the transfer of energy from primary producers to upper trophic levels. What sources of primary 171 production are supporting representative organisms from these various guilds? Our project will provide 172 the baseline information necessary to address many of these questions. 173 174 G. Project design and conceptual approach: 175 176 Arctic Algal Productivity Hotspots and Food Quality 177 Sea ice algae accounts for a large proportion of arctic primary production (Gradinger 2009), and 178 ice-algae that falls to the benthos in the spring during ice breakup can deliver considerable biomass which 179 subsidizes benthic primary consumers and benthic food webs (Arrigo et al. 2012). As annual arctic ice 180 duration shortens (Arrigo et al. 2008), ice-associated phytoplankton blooms may occur early enough to 181 cause a mismatch with temperature regulated spring zooplankton blooms, causing increased export of ice 182 algae to the benthos and diminished zooplankton production (Hunt Jr et al. 2002). The pulse of pelagic 183 ice-associated production can be quite significant (Mundy et al. 2009) which may transfer to the benthos 184 and act as an annual kick-starter to secondary production. Moreover, littoral arctic habitats may act as 185 long term ‘food banks’ for storage of this production, where it is reprocessed by microbial communities 186 (Mincks et al. 2005, McTigue and Dunton 2014, North et al. 2014, McTigue et al. 2015). We propose to 187 study these processes in the Chukchi Sea, with a special focus on the Hanna Shoal, in order to build upon 188 previous background research on the benthic invertebrate fauna and productivity in this system (Dunton et 189 al. 2014, McTigue et al. 2015, Young 2015). 190 Pelagic-benthic subsidies are more complex than just ‘carbon’ inputs, as heterotrophs are co- 191 limited by diverse essential biomolecules and many factors determine food quality (Müller-Navarra 192 2008). Lipid subsidies from phytoplankton that are particularly rich in essential fatty acid (EFA) will 193 depend strongly upon phytoplankton taxonomic composition (Galloway and Winder 2015). Diatoms and 194 cryptophytes are particularly rich in EFA and are often very nutritious foods for invertebrates (Brett and 195 Müller-Navarra 1997, Galloway et al. 2014). Primary consumers can be considered EFA trophic 196 upgraders, because EFA content is greatly magnified at the trophic transfer from algae to consumers 197 (Brett et al. 2009b, Strandberg et al. in press). For diverse organisms, reproductive success and survival 198 rates are likely to depend upon the lipid stores that were laid down when times were good, or based on 199 pulsed energy subsidies during hard times. Lipids are thought to play an integral role in structuring 200 aquatic ecosystems (Litzow et al. 2006). Total lipid content of fish is established as a useful predictor for 201 future egg production (e.g., Marshall et al. 1999), and LCEFA appear to be a particularly important 202 component of lipids for fish eggs (Røjbek et al. 2012, Fuiman et al. 2015). 203 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

204 The Role of Fatty Acids as Complementary Trophic Tracers 205 Each basal producer assemblage has its own characteristic taxa and these taxa have their own 206 characteristic fatty acid profiles (Galloway et al. 2012, Taipale et al. 2013, Galloway and Winder 2015). 207 By knowing the fatty acid composition of the main primary producers in the Chukchi Sea, we can use 208 Bayesian mixing models to reverse-engineer the most important basal contributors to the suspended POM 209 in this system (Strandberg et al. 2015). Classically, these types of problems are dealt with using stable 210 isotope analyses (McTigue and Dunton 2014). Stable isotope and fatty acid biomarker approaches can be 211 combined within a mixing model framework with a potentially very large advantage of being able to 212 utilize many more tracers within the mixing models, which can turn underdetermined mixing models into 213 overdetermined models (Galloway et al. 2015). 214 Currently, only a few studies have examined the Chukchi Sea food web (Budge et al. 2008, 215 Dunton et al. 2012, McTigue and Dunton 2014, McTigue et al. 2015), and much remains unknown about 216 this system. For example, when using the classic stable isotope approach McTigue and Dunton (2014) 217 obtained several enigmatic results, and most consumers could not be easily reconciled with the basal 218 resources sampled in that study, e.g., phytoplankton, suspended particulate organic matter (POM) and 219 benthic sediments. In many cases the consumers assessed were more 13C enriched than any of these 220 prospective food resources (McTigue and Dunton 2014). Adding fatty acids to the mix of biomarkers 221 applied to this system will at the very least help resolve the very slight 13C differences between the basal 222 resources assessed by McTigue and Dunton (2014). FA are not a “magic bullet” in cases like this, but 223 typical basal resources such as phytoplankton, bacteria and macroalgae have very different FA profiles. 224 The fatty acid profiles of phytodetritus can also be quite distinct from its parent material. The use of 225 many biomarkers concurrently is likely to help resolve ongoing mysteries and conflicting results about the 226 importance of ice-algae to arctic benthic food webs (e.g., Brown and Belt 2012, Graham et al. 2014). 227 In order to improve on the current very rudimentary understanding to the Chukchi Sea food web, 228 our project will conduct a critical baseline assessment of the fatty acid and stable isotope signatures of the 229 main components of this system. The goal is to use both food web tracer methods to characterize the 230 approximately 40 consumers (McTigue and Dunton 2014) that are important components of this system. 231 Using a combined biomarker approach will make it possible to place our outcomes within the context of 232 previous research that solely utilized isotopes. Simultaneously analyzing FA biomarkers for these same 233 samples will allow us to employ far more dietary tracers, many of which are specific to particular basal 234 producers such as diatoms, dinoflagellates, bacteria, and benthic macroalgae. This dual dietary tracer 235 approach should present many new insights to the main biochemical contributors and ecological pathways 236 in this sea, since FA biomarkers can better resolve some questions than can stable isotopes (and vice 237 versa). Furthermore, many FA are rapidly degraded by microbes, so phytodetritus will have a distinct 238 lipid signature. For example FA would be extremely useful for distinguishing phytoplankton from benthic 239 sediments, which had very similar δ13C values in McTigue and Dunton (2014). Conversely, stable 240 isotopes maybe the best means to distinguish between phytoplankton and ice algae because these groups 13 241 likely have very different CO2 sources and thus distinct δ C values. 242 243 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 244 We will merge the biomarker database we will generate in this project with existing biomarker 245 (e.g. stable isotope) data from CI Dunton’s data from the Hanna Shoal (see above). In addition, we expect 246 that the benthic invertebrate lipid and community composition data that we generate will be of 247 considerable value as a suite of potential explanatory variables for several ongoing research programs that 248 are focused on investigating marine predator spatial use and density in these same regions, including: the 249 Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals (PI Ferguson); the Distribution of Fish, Crab, and Lower 250 Trophic Communities in the Chukchi Sea Lease Area (PI: Mueter); Influence of Sea Ice on Ecosystem 251 Shifts in Arctic Seas (PI: von Biela); and Tracing Sea Ice Algae in Arctic... with biomarker IP25 (PI: 252 Iken). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

253 Tables and Figures:

254 255 Fig. 1. Dunton et al. Hanna Shoal sampling stations from 2012-2013. http://arcticstudies.org/hannashoal/ 256

257 258 259 Fig. 2. a) interpolated heat map of all invertebrate taxa caloric content in the Hanna Shoal. b) box plot of 260 calories per spatial analysis cell and total walrus abundance across all studied months (from Young 2015). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

261 262 Literature Cited: 263 264 Arrigo, K. R., G. van Dijken, and S. Pabi. 2008. Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine primary 265 production. Geophysical Research Letters 35:L19603. 266 Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, 267 M. A. Palmer, W. M. Balch, F. Bahr, N. R. Bates, C. Benitez-Nelson, B. Bowler, E. Brownlee, J. 268 K. Ehn, K. E. Frey, R. Garley, S. R. Laney, L. Lubelczyk, J. Mathis, A. Matsuoka, B. G. 269 Mitchell, G. W. K. Moore, E. Ortega-Retuerta, S. Pal, C. M. Polashenski, R. A. Reynolds, B. 270 Schieber, H. M. Sosik, M. Stephens, and J. H. Swift. 2012. Massive phytoplankton blooms under 271 arctic sea ice. Science 336:1408–1408. 272 Arts, M. T., R. G. Ackman, and B. J. Holub. 2001. “Essential fatty acids” in aquatic ecosystems: a crucial 273 link between diet and human health and evolution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 274 Sciences 58:122–137. 275 Bell, M. V., and D. R. Tocher. 2009. Biosynthesis of polyunsaturated fatty acids in aquatic ecosystems: 276 general pathways and new directions. Pages 211–236 in M. T. Arts, M. T. Brett, and M. Kainz, 277 editors. Lipids in aquatic ecosystems. Springer, New York. 278 Brett, M. T., M. J. Kainz, S. J. Taipale, and H. Seshan. 2009a. Phytoplankton, not allochthonous carbon, 279 sustains herbivorous zooplankton production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 280 of the United States of America 106:21197–21201. 281 Brett, M. T., and D. C. Müller-Navarra. 1997. The role of highly unsaturated fatty acids in aquatic 282 foodweb processes. Freshwater Biology 38:483–499. 283 Brett, M. T., D. C. Müller-Navarra, and J. Persson. 2009b. Crustacean zooplankton fatty acid 284 composition. Pages 115–146 in M. T. Arts, M. T. Brett, and M. Kainz, editors. Lipids in Aquatic 285 Ecosystems. Springer, New York. 286 Brown, T. A., and S. T. Belt. 2012. Identification of the sea ice diatom biomarker IP25 in Arctic benthic 287 macrofauna: direct evidence for a sea ice diatom diet in Arctic heterotrophs. Polar Biology 288 35:131–137. 289 Brown, T. A., S. T. Belt, A. Tatarek, and C. J. Mundy. 2014. Source identification of the Arctic sea ice 290 proxy IP25. Nature Communications 5. 291 Budge, S. M., S. J. Iverson, W. D. Bowen, and R. G. Ackman. 2002. Among- and within-species 292 variability in fatty acid signatures of marine fish and invertebrates on the Scotian Shelf, Georges 293 Bank, and southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 294 59:886–898. 295 Budge, S. M., A. M. Springer, S. J. Iverson, and G. Sheffield. 2007. Fatty acid biomarkers reveal niche 296 separation in an Arctic benthic food web. Marine Ecology Progress Series 336:305–309. 297 Budge, S. M., M. J. Wooller, A. M. Springer, S. J. Iverson, C. P. McRoy, and G. J. Divoky. 2008. Tracing 298 carbon flow in an arctic marine food web using fatty acid-stable isotope analysis. Oecologia 299 157:117–129. 300 Carboni, S., J. Vignier, M. Chiantore, D. R. Tocher, and H. Migaud. 2012. Effects of dietary microalgae 301 on growth, survival and fatty acid composition of sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus throughout 302 larval development. Aquaculture 324-325:250–258. 303 Copeman, L. A., C. C. Parrish, J. A. Brown, and M. Harel. 2002. Effects of docosahexaenoic, 304 eicosapentaenoic, and arachidonic acids on the early growth, survival, lipid composition and 305 pigmentation of yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea): a live food enrichment experiment. 306 Aquaculture 210:285–304. 307 Dethier, M. N., A. Brown, S. Burgess, M. E. Eisenlord, A. W. E. Galloway, J. Kimber, A. T. Lowe, C. M. 308 O’Neil, W. R. Raymond, E. A. Sosik, and D. O. Duggins. 2014. Degrading detritus: changes in 309 food quality of aging kelp tissue varies with species. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 310 Ecology 460:72–79. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

311 Dunton, K. H., J. M. Grebmeier, and J. H. Trefry. 2014. The benthic ecosystem of the northeastern 312 Chukchi Sea: An overview of its unique biogeochemical and biological characteristics. Deep Sea 313 Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 102:1–8. 314 Dunton, K. H., S. V. Schonberg, and L. W. Cooper. 2012. Food web structure of the Alaskan nearshore 315 shelf and estuarine lagoons of the Beaufort Sea. Estuaries and Coasts DOI 10.1007/s12237-012- 316 9475-1. 317 Fuiman, L. A., T. L. Connelly, S. K. Lowerre-Barbieri, and J. W. McClelland. 2015. Egg boons: central 318 components of marine fatty acid food webs. Ecology 96:362–372. 319 Galloway, A. W. E., K. H. Britton-Simmons, D. O. Duggins, P. W. Gabrielson, and M. T. Brett. 2012. 320 Fatty acid signatures differentiate marine macrophytes at ordinal and family ranks. Journal of 321 Phycology 48:956–965. 322 Galloway, A. W. E., A. T. Lowe, E. A. Sosik, J. S. Yeung, and D. O. Duggins. 2013. Fatty acid and stable 323 isotope biomarkers suggest microbe-induced differences in benthic food webs between depths. 324 Limnology and Oceanography 58:1452–1462. 325 Galloway, A.W.E., S.J. Taipale, M. Hiltunen, E. Peltomaa, U. Strandberg, M.T. Brett, and P. Kankaala 326 2014. Diet specific biomarkers show that high quality phytoplankton fuel herbivorous 327 zooplankton in large boreal lakes. Freshwater Biology 59: 1902–1915. 328 Galloway, A.W.E., M.T. Brett*, G.W. Holtgrieve, E.J. Ward, A.P. Ballantyne, C.W. Burns, M.J. Kainz, 329 D.C. Müller-Navarra, J. Persson, J.L. Ravet, U. Strandberg, S.J. Taipale, and G. Alhgren. 2015. A 330 Fatty Acid Based Bayesian Approach for Inferring Diet in Aquatic Consumers. PLoS ONE 10: 331 e0129723. 332 Galloway, A. W. E., and M. Winder. 2015. Partitioning the relative importance of phylogeny and 333 environmental conditions on phytoplankton fatty acids. PLoS ONE 10:e0130053. 334 Gradinger, R. 2009. Sea-ice algae: Major contributors to primary production and algal biomass in the 335 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during May/June 2002. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 336 Oceanography 56:1201–1212. 337 Graham, C., L. Oxtoby, S. W. Wang, S. M. Budge, and M. J. Wooller. 2014. Sourcing fatty acids to 338 juvenile polar cod (Boreogadus saida) in the Beaufort Sea using compound-specific stable carbon 339 isotope analyses. Polar Biology 37:697–705. 340 Hunt Jr, G. L., P. Stabeno, G. Walters, E. Sinclair, R. D. Brodeur, J. M. Napp, and N. A. Bond. 2002. 341 Climate change and control of the southeastern Bering Sea pelagic ecosystem. Deep Sea Research 342 Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 49:5821–5853. 343 Kahru, M., V. Brotas, M. Manzano-Sarabia, and B. G. Mitchell. 2011. Are phytoplankton blooms 344 occurring earlier in the Arctic? Global Change Biology 17:1733–1739. 345 Klein Breteler, W. C. M., N. Schogt, M. Baas, S. Schouten, and G. W. Kraay. 1999. Trophic upgrading of 346 food quality by protozoans enhancing copepod growth: role of essential lipids. Marine Biology 347 135:191–198. 348 Litzow, M. A., K. M. Bailey, F. G. Prahl, and R. Heintz. 2006. Climate regime shifts and reorganization 349 of fish communities: the essential fatty acid limitation hypothesis. Marine Ecology Progress 350 Series 315:1–11. 351 Lowe, A. T., A. W. E. Galloway, J. S. Yeung, M. N. Dethier, and D. O. Duggins. 2014. Broad sampling 352 and diverse biomarkers allow characterization of nearshore particulate organic matter. Oikos:no– 353 no. 354 Marshall, C. T., N. A. Yaragina, Y. Lambert, and O. S. Kjesbu. 1999. Total lipid energy as a proxy for 355 total egg production by fish stocks. Nature 402:288–290. 356 McTigue, N. D., P. Bucolo, Z. Liu, and K. H. Dunton. 2015. Pelagic-benthic coupling, food webs, and 357 organic matter degradation in the Chukchi Sea: Insights from sedimentary pigments and stable 358 carbon isotopes. Limnology and Oceanography 60:429–445. 359 McTigue, N. D., and K. H. Dunton. 2014. Trophodynamics and organic matter assimilation pathways in 360 the northeast Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 361 102:84–96. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

362 Mincks, S. L., C. R. Smith, and D. J. DeMaster. 2005. Persistence of labile organic matter and microbial 363 biomass in Antarctic shelf sediments: evidence of a sediment “food bank.” Marine Ecology 364 Progress Series 300:3–19. 365 Müller-Navarra, D. C. 2008. Food web paradigms: the biochemical view on trophic interactions. 366 International Review of Hydrobiology 93:489–505. 367 Mundy, C. J., M. Gosselin, J. Ehn, Y. Gratton, A. Rossnagel, D. G. Barber, J. Martin, J.-É. Tremblay, M. 368 Palmer, K. R. Arrigo, G. Darnis, L. Fortier, B. Else, and T. Papakyriakou. 2009. Contribution of 369 under-ice primary production to an ice-edge upwelling phytoplankton bloom in the Canadian 370 Beaufort Sea. Geophysical Research Letters 36:L17601. 371 Murray, D. S., H. Hager, D. R. Tocher, and M. J. Kainz. 2015. Docosahexaenoic acid in Arctic charr 372 (Salvelinus alpinus): The importance of dietary supply and physiological response during the 373 entire growth period. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and 374 Molecular Biology 181:7–14. 375 North, C. A., J. R. Lovvorn, J. M. Kolts, M. L. Brooks, L. W. Cooper, and J. M. Grebmeier. 2014. 376 Deposit-feeder diets in the Bering Sea: potential effects of climatic loss of sea ice-related 377 microalgal blooms. Ecological Applications 24:1525–1542. 378 Popova, E. E., A. Yool, A. C. Coward, Y. K. Aksenov, S. G. Alderson, B. A. de Cuevas, and T. R. 379 Anderson. 2010. Control of primary production in the Arctic by nutrients and light: insights from 380 a high resolution ocean general circulation model. Biogeosciences 7:3569–3591. 381 Røjbek, M. C., C. Jacobsen, J. Tomkiewicz, and J. G. Stttrup. 2012. Linking lipid dynamics with the 382 reproductive cycle in Baltic cod Gadus morhua. Marine Ecology Progress Series 471:215–234. 383 Sargent, J. R., G. Bell, L. McEvoy, D. R. Tocher, and A. Estevez. 1999. Recent developments in the 384 essential fatty acid nutrition in fish. Aquaculture 177:191–199. 385 Sosik, E. A., and C. A. Simenstad. 2013. Isotopic evidence and consequences of the role of microbes in 386 macroalae detritus-based food webs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 494:107–119. 387 Strandberg, U., S. J. Taipale, M. Hiltunen, A. W. E. Galloway, M. T. Brett, and P. Kankaala. 2015. 388 Inferring phytoplankton community composition with a fatty acid mixing model. Ecosphere 389 6:art16–art16. 390 Strandberg, U. M. Hiltunen, E. Jelkänen, S. J. Taipale, M. J. Kainz, M. T. Brett, and P. Kankaala. in 391 press. Selective transfer of polyunsaturated fatty acids from phytoplankton to planktivorous fish 392 in large boreal lakes. Science of the Total Environment. 393 Taipale, S., U. Strandberg, E. Peltomaa, A. W. E. Galloway, A. Ojala, and M. T. Brett. 2013. Fatty acid 394 composition as biomarkers of freshwater microalgae: analysis of 37 strains of microalgae in 22 395 genera and in seven classes. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 71:165–178. 396 Wang, S. W., S. M. Budge, R. R. Gradinger, K. Iken, and M. J. Wooller. 2014. Fatty acid and stable 397 isotope characteristics of sea ice and pelagic particulate organic matter in the Bering Sea: tools 398 for estimating sea ice algal contribution to Arctic food web production. Oecologia 174:699–712. 399 Wassmann, P. 2011. Arctic marine ecosystems in an era of rapid climate change. Progress in 400 Oceanography 90:1–17. 401 Young, J. K. 2015, May. Abundance, biomass and caloric content of Chukchi Sea bivalves and influence 402 on Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) abundance and distribution in the northeastern 403 Chukchi Sea. Master’s of Science, University of Texas, Austin, TX. 404 405 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 406 Co-PI Dunton is closely involved in several ongoing Arctic projects: Linkages between terrestrial inputs 407 and food webs along the eastern Alaska Beaufort Sea (PI, NSF-ARCSS); Pacific Arctic Marine Synthesis, 408 PacMARS (Co-PI, NPRB project); Arctic Impact Nearshore Monitoring—Beaufort Sea Coast (Co-PI, 409 BOEM project); Arctic Kelp Communities in the Beaufort Sea (PI, BOEM); Hanna Shoal Ecosystem 410 Study (Lead Scientist, BOEM); Wading Shorebird Habitats and Feeding Resources in the Arctic National 411 Wildlife Refuge (co-PI, BOEM). Each of these projects could benefit directly from different aspects of 412 the lipid baselines work we will accomplish here. In addition, we expect that the benthic invertebrate lipid Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

413 and community composition data that we generate will be of considerable value as a suite of potential 414 explanatory variables for several ongoing research programs that are focused on investigating marine 415 predator spatial use and density in these same regions, as explained above, including: the Aerial Survey of 416 Arctic Marine Mammals (PI Ferguson); the Distribution of Fish, Crab, and Lower Trophic Communities 417 in the Chukchi Sea Lease Area (PI: Mueter); Influence of Sea Ice on Ecosystem Shifts in Arctic Seas (PI: 418 von Biela); and Tracing Sea Ice Algae in Arctic... with biomarker IP25 (PI: Iken). 419 420 Project Management: 421 Aaron Galloway: Galloway is a new Assistant Professor at the University of Oregon Institute of Marine 422 Biology, in the Department of Biology. Galloway is an expert in marine ecology, algal-invertebrate 423 interactions, fatty acid biology, and the use of Bayesian mixing models to infer resource utilization in 424 consumers. Galloway will be the Lead PI for this Project and he will be responsible for establishing the 425 specific research objectives for the project and directing field-sampling campaigns. Galloway will 426 supervise one PhD student associated with this project, who will be involved in all aspects of lipid 427 analysis, fieldwork, and experiments. At Galloway’s direction, each PI will host one semi-annual meeting 428 of senior PIs and graduate students at their home institution. All collaborators on the team will meet 429 quarterly via remote connection or in person when possible to discuss logistics, project management, and 430 analyses. In addition, Galloway will host Dunton and Brett and a postdoc from each Co-PI’s lab for the 431 OIMB departmental seminars in Oregon in Years 2-4. Galloway was recently the lead postdoc managing 432 a large international collaboration of Arctic limnologists (>130 total researchers, >35 lead PIs) for a 433 synthesis of under lake-ice ecology (https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/node/1625). This work provided 434 intensive training in best practices for managing large collaborations (including the use of Open Science 435 project management for tracking workflow and data), and culminated in an in person and remote attended 436 meeting at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) in Santa Barbara. 437 438 Michael Brett: Brett is an expert on the ecological role of lipids in aquatic food webs processes. Brett 439 published his first paper on fatty acids in 1990, and has published 35 papers on this topic overall. Brett is 440 also knowledgeable on a very wide range of research regarding lipid and food web ecology. Brett is a 441 Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) Department at the University of Washington. 442 Brett was on Galloway's PhD exam committee and Galloway and Brett have recently collaborated on six 443 publications. Brett and Galloway make a very effective team because Brett tends to bring a systems 444 approach to his research and focus on the bigger picture, and Galloway is extremely adept at tackling 445 interesting and challenging novel problems with lipid techniques. Galloway and Brett will collaboratively 446 establish the overall project objectives. Brett will be responsible to assuring the quality control objectives 447 for all fatty acids analyses are achieved, and Brett will supervise one graduate student at UW CEE. 448 449 Ken Dunton: Dunton has previously conducted extensive research in the Chukchi Sea and his role in the 450 project will be to make sure that all project related activities reflect the latest and deepest understanding 451 of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem. Dunton is a highly regarded marine biologist, with extensive expertise in 452 isotope biogeochemistry, Arctic ecology, and algal physiology. Dunton's research group has also 453 previously extensively sampled the stable isotope and bulk lipid composition of the most important 454 consumers in the Chukchi Sea. Dunton’s extensive local expertise in this ecosystem will be invaluable to 455 the success of this project and will assure that the efforts of Galloway and Brett are directed at the most 456 productive avenues. 457 458 Principal Investigators: 459 All PI CVs are attached. 460 461 Other Required Materials: 462 Timelines and milestones (MS Word) attached, Budget summary (Excel file) attached, a budget narrative 463 for each Co-PI (n=3 Excel Files), and a Logistics summary (MS Word) are attached. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Proposal Short Title Project Start Date – Project End Date FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 individual Apr responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1: Lipids/food value of primary producers MB, AG Data collection/field work AG, MB x x x x Data/sample processing MB, AG x x x x x x Analysis MB, AG, KD x x x x x x

Objective #2: Lipids/heterogeneity benthic consumers AG, KD Data collection/field work AG, KD x x x x Data/sample processing AG, KD x x x x x x Analysis AG, KD, MB x x x x x x x x

Objective #3: AG, MB, KD Data collection/field work AG x x x x Data/sample processing AG, MB x x x x x Lab experiments (algal aging, consumer assays) AG, MB x x x x Analysis AG, MB, KD x x x x x x x x x

Other Progress report AG x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation AG, MB, KD x x x x x PI meeting AG, MB, KD x x x x x Logistics planning meeting AG, MB, KD x x Publication submission AG, MB, KD x x x x x x x x Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) AG, MB, KD x x x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) AG, MB x x x x x x x x x x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the 4 algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea 5 6 Lead PI: Galloway 7 8 Logistical Needs: 9 Our research plan involves systematic spatial sampling in the two main field research seasons 10 (2017 and 2018) prescribed by the NPRB RFP. For objectives 1 and 2, we propose to revisit as many of 11 the same sampling stations as possible from the previous Hanna Shoal Ecosystem Study (HSES; see the 12 project narrative file Fig. 1, and http://arcticstudies.org/hannashoal/) funded by the Bureau of Ocean 13 Energy Management (Hanna Shoal Lead Scientist Ken Dunton is a co-PI on the proposed study). For 14 objective 1, we need to sample ice attached algae (via cores through ice from above and/or by using an 15 ROV), pelagic phytoplankton (standard phytoplankton tows) and benthic algae (using benthic grabs or an 16 ROV). The spatial extent sampled is not critical for this first objective, but ideally will take place at least 17 5-10 different stations roughly above and around the Hanna Shoal. 18 Objective 2 requires the use of a surface deployed benthic grab sampler to collect infaunal 19 invertebrates. The sampling stations for Objective 2 should ideally replicate the stations sampled by 20 Dunton in the HSES, or at the same spatial resolution around the Hanna Shoal. It is not critical that the 21 exact same stations are visited, as long as a similar spatial extent and density of sampling stations over the 22 shoal are visited (Fig. 1). Objective 3 will be focused on experimental work based on collection of 23 samples of ice-algae under the ice in 2017. The experiments (ice-algae aging) will ideally take place on 24 ship-board chambers, thus requiring a vessel with both under-ice sampling, benthic grab sampling, and 25 seawater experimental labs. If ship-board experimentation is not available, we will arrange for access to 26 experimental facilities at the nearest port of call. 27 Ideally, sampling will be in the summer months (e.g., June-August) but the exact dates are not 28 critical for our objectives, which are more focused on exploring the spatial heterogeneity of benthic lipid 29 hotspots and biochemical differences between algal communities. Our anticipated need for ship time is 30 roughly 2-3 weeks in each year. If some non-summer sampling of under-ice flora/fauna is possible, even 31 if the spatial extent differs from the summer plans, we would ideally do some sampling at that time (to 32 put the other results into a broader seasonal context). This ship time estimate will depend greatly on 33 whether we are part of other cruises. For Objective 1 we need to sample at an area along the ice fringe (as 34 we hope to sample ice-algae under the ice). The required sampling for these objectives could be 35 accomplished with a vessel that has ability to deploy benthic grabs, phytoplankton sampling nets, and a 36 suitable ROV piloting platform. A relatively simple on-board wet lab would be required for sorting 37 samples and ample freezer space would be required for preserving biomarker samples. Our research team 38 would generally request 3-5 berths on research cruises, but as few as 1 or 2 could be on board if 39 circumstances required it and if other researchers were willing to help with certain aspects of our work on 40 deck. In general, our needs are very flexible and likely compatible with other projects. 41 42 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 43 Co-PI Dunton has recently obtained an ROV that we could use for some of our objectives to film 44 and sample benthic and under-ice habitats. Dunton may be able to pilot the ROV for other missions as an 45 in kind contribution to other researchers sharing the cruise with us. The ROV has the capability to collect 46 samples with a manipulator arm and suction sampler. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: PI Aaron W. E. Galloway; University of Oregon; Oregon Institute of Marine Biology category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 16,480 70,695 91,475 84,706 82,091 56,733 402,180 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 16,480 70,695 91,475 84,706 82,091 56,733 402,180

NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB Other Support FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 start date through Cost Categories 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 TOTAL TOTAL (all years)

1. Personnel Salaries 4,390 16,710 24,185 25,395 24,760 14,551 109,991

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,100 7,650 10,532 11,088 10,861 6,426 48,657 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,250 7,500 7,500 3,750 3,750 3,750 27,500

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 2,500 6,667 4,000 2,000 2,000 1,333 18,500

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

1,632 12,806 21,610 21,068 19,703 15,346 92,165

Total Direct Costs 11,872 51,333 67,827 63,301 61,074 41,406 296,813 0

Indirect Costs 4,608 19,362 23,648 21,405 21,017 15,327 105,367

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 16,480 70,695 91,475 84,706 82,091 56,733 402,180 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 2

PROJECT TITLE: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Co-PI Michael T. Brett - University of Washington category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 6,476 101,206 102,440 20,015 18,993 17,605 266,735 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 6,476 101,206 102,440 20,015 18,993 17,605 266,735

NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB Other Support FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 start date Cost Categories through 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 TOTAL TOTAL (all years)

1. Personnel Salaries 0 38,623 40,167 6,802 7,074 7,357 100,023

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 0 7,666 7,973 1,653 1,719 1,788 20,799 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,250 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,250 12,500

4. Equipment 3,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 5,000

5. Supplies 1,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 10,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other 0 19,192 21,111 0 0 0 40,303

Total Direct Costs 5,250 72,981 73,751 12,955 12,293 11,395 188,625 0

Indirect Costs 1,226 28,225 28,689 7,060 6,700 6,210 78,110

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 6,476 101,206 102,440 20,015 18,993 17,605 266,735 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 3

PROJECT TITLE: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Co-PI Ken Dunton - University of Texas Austin category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 2,325 89,174 89,174 21,638 21,638 16,213 240,162 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 2,325 89,174 89,174 21,638 21,638 16,213 240,162

1. Personnel Salaries 0 36,000 36,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 93,000

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 0 10,080 10,080 1,960 1,960 1,960 26,040 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 15,000

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 8,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 20,000

Total Direct Costs 1,500 61,080 61,080 13,960 13,960 10,460 162,040 0

Indirect Costs 825 28,094 28,094 7,678 7,678 5,753 78,122

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 2,325 89,174 89,174 21,638 21,638 16,213 240,162 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): PI Aaron W. E. Galloway; University of Oregon; Oregon Institute of Marine Biology; Co-PI Michael T. Brett - University of category Washington; Co-PI Ken Dunton - University of Texas Austin; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 25,281 261,075 283,089 126,359 122,722 90,551 909,077 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 25,281 261,075 283,089 126,359 122,722 90,551 909,077

1. Personnel Salaries 4,390 91,333 100,352 39,197 38,834 28,908 303,014 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,100 25,396 28,585 14,701 14,540 10,174 95,496 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 4,000 13,000 13,000 9,250 9,250 6,500 55,000 0

4. Equipment 3,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 0

5. Supplies 3,500 11,667 8,000 6,000 5,000 2,333 36,500 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

1,632 41,998 52,721 21,068 19,703 15,346 152,468 0

Total Direct Costs 18,622 185,394 202,658 90,216 87,327 63,261 647,478 0

Indirect Costs 6,659 75,681 80,431 36,143 35,395 27,290 261,599 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 25,281 261,075 283,089 126,359 122,722 90,551 909,077 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Organization A – University of Oregon

Project Title: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $402,180

1. Personnel/Salaries: Galloway will draw 1 month of salary in each year of the project. Galloway’s monthly salary at the start of the project in FY16 is $8470 and the numbers in the budget accounts for a 5% annual COLA across the duration of the project. The annual effort in the first and final years of the project has been adjusted at account for the differences in UO accounting system and the mandated FY date ranged used by NPRB. Thus salaries and fringe costs for Galloway are adjusted to be 1/3 of one month is FY16 and 2/3 of one month in FY21. Galloway asks for partial support for one UO graduate student in FY16-21. The number of requested quarters of graduate student support is adjusted to focus on years with the highest effort, for a total of 12 quarters: 1 quarters in FY16 and FY21, 3 quarters in FY17-19, 2 quarters in FY20. The total per quarter cost of graduate student salary is $31,335 in FY1 and calculations also reflect a standard 5% annual COLA for the student salary. Please note that graduate student costs are distributed in the NPRB budget format within 3 NPRB cost categories, including ‘salaries’, ‘fringe benefits’, and ‘other’ (e.g. tuition). To account for differences in UO accounting timing and NPRB FY format, salary and fringe costs for the graduate student are adjusted to be 1/3 of one quarter is FY16 and 2/3 of one month in FY21.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: The fringe benefit rate is 51% for PI Galloway. The fringe rate for UO graduate students is 1% plus fees and insurance.

Personnel Expense Details

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI Galloway 1/3 of 1 month $77,000 $2,823 51% $1,440 FY16 Grad Student 1/3 of 1 quarter $31,335 $1,567 1%+fees $660 FY16 Totals $4,390 $2,100 FY17 PI Galloway 1 month $80,850 $8,641 51% $4,407 FY17 Grad Student 3 quarters $32,902 $8,069 1%+fees $3,243 FY17 Totals $16,710 $7,650 FY18 PI Galloway 1 month $84,892 $9,133 51% $4,658 FY18 Grad Student 3 quarters $34,547 $15,052 1%+fees $5,874 FY18 Totals $24,185 $10,532 FY19 PI Galloway 1 month $89,137 $9,590 51% $4,891 FY19 Grad Student 3 quarters $36,274 $15,805 1%+fees $6,197 FY19 Totals $25,395 $11,088 FY20 PI Galloway 1 month $93,593 $10,069 51% $5,135 FY20 Grad Student 2 quarters $38,088 $14,691 1%+fees $5,726 FY20 Totals $24,760 $10,861 FY21 PI Galloway 2/3 of 1 month $98,273 $6,933 51% $3,535 FY21 Grad Student 2/3 of 2 quarters $39,992 $7,618 1%+fees $2,891 FY21 Totals $14,551 $6,426 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

3. Travel: Total requested support for travel for all years of the project is $27,700. General travel costs for all trips for UO personnel were estimated as $750 per RT airfare from Eugene to Anchorage, plus 4 days lodging and limited per diem at $125 per day. Each per person per trip basic travel rate is thus $1250. In addition to summarizing travel in the required NPRB format, please also see the table at the bottom of this section that shows the expenses organized by trip purpose. When total travel for a given trip is listed as $2,500 this indicates trips where both the PI and the graduate student are traveling.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $1,250 Budgeted travel is for the PI Galloway to attend the kick off meeting (1 round trip).

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $7,500 Budgeted travel is for the PI Galloway and graduate student to attend mandated meetings, fieldwork, for a total of 6 round trips.

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $7,500 Budgeted travel is for the PI Galloway and graduate student to attend mandated meetings, fieldwork, for a total of 6 round trips.

Years 4: Total travel request in FY19 $3,750 Budgeted travel is for the PI Galloway and graduate student to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 3 round trips.

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $3,750 Budgeted travel is for the PI Galloway and graduate student to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 3 round trips.

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $3,750 Budgeted travel is for the PI Galloway and graduate student to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 3 round trips.

TRAVEL Each person-trip budgeted at $1,250 ($750 Airfare, 4 days at $125/day) Purpose FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Totals Kickoff Meeting - June 2016 1,250 1,250 Logistics Planning Meeting - Oct 2016 & 2017 1,250 1,250 2,500 Annual PI Meetings (PI and Grad student) - March 2017-2021 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 12,500 Alaska Marine Science Symposium - January 2017 - 2021 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 6,250 Field Work Travel (PI and Grad student) 2,500 2,500 5,000 Total travel per year 1,250 7,500 7,500 3,750 3,750 3,750 27,500

4. Equipment: Galloway requests no equipment.

5. Supplies: The total requested for supplies is $18,500, consisting of $5,000 for field-specific supplies and $13,500 for lab supplies. Field supplies are front-loaded in the first 3 years of the proposal for use prior to project fieldwork. Lab supplies will be needed throughout the project duration, with particular emphasis in years 1-3. Lab supplies constitute standard consumables related to lipid analysis (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, standards, etc.) and isotope sample preparation.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $2,500 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

$833 for field supplies and $1,667 for lab supplies (advance procurement in both categories before actual samples come in in Year 2)

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $6,667 $2,500 for field supplies (field sampling gear for PI and grad student) and $4,167 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $4,000 $1,167 for field supplies (field sampling gear for PI and grad student) and $2,333 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $2,000 $2,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $2,000 $2,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $1,333 $1,333 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

6. Contractual/Consultants: No funds are requested for subcontracts.

7. Other: UO specifies grants office categorized the graduate student tuition as an ‘other’ expense, and amounts per year are adjusted by the grants office to reflect differences in timing of monetary outlay by the UO and the mandated project years (e.g., 6 different fiscal years) in the NPRB RFP. The totals for this expense, based on the earlier reported # of grad student quarters supported per year, is as follows: $1,632 in FY16; $8,306 in FY17; $15,277 in FY18; $15,735 in FY19; $14,370 in FY20; and $7,346 in FY21. In addition, stable isotope analysis from a fee-for service lab (Washington State University Core Lab) is budgeted for FY17 ($4,167), FY18 ($5,000), and FY19 ($3,333), totaling $12,500. This assumes a total of 500 multiple isotope samples, consisting of δ13C, δ15N, and δ34S at a cost of $25 for each sample (returning data on a set of 3 isotopes). As a critical part of our goal to integrate diverse basal biomarker data with existing Chukchi research efforts, we will build a freely accessible database of all biomarker data in the latter 2 years of the project (FY20 and FY21). See additional explanation on data sharing and management plan in the project narrative document. We therefore request a total of $10,000 for designing and implementing this multivariate biomarker database ($3,333 in FY 20 and $6,667 in FY21). We request $6,999 for an outreach/education campaign ($1,999) and open access publication costs for peer reviewed manuscripts ($5,000). PI Galloway and the UO graduate student will develop an interactive exhibit of video footage, static data reports/exhibits, and handouts about the project that will be displayed at the Charleston Marine Life Center at UO Institute of Marine Biology (http://oimb.uoregon.edu/Documents/MarineLifeCenter-July2012.pdf). In addition, digital resources associated with this outreach will be posted on Galloway’s website and shared with other marine resource centers. Requested outreach and publication amounts by year are: $0 in FY16; $333 in FY17; $1,333 in FY18; $2,000 in FY19; $2,000 in FY20; and $1,333 in FY21.

Annual other totals across these sub-categories are: Year 1: Total Other request in FY16 $1,632 Graduate student tuition ($1,632).

Year 2: Total Other request in FY17 $12,806 Graduate student tuition ($8,306); isotope analysis ($4,167); outreach/publications ($333). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Year 3: Total Other request in FY18 $21,610 Graduate student tuition ($15,277); isotope analysis ($5,000); outreach/publications ($1,333).

Years 4: Total Other request in FY19 $21,068 Graduate student tuition ($15,735); isotope analysis ($3,333); outreach/publications ($2,000).

Year 5: Total Other request in FY20 $19,703 Graduate student tuition ($14,370); biomarker database ($3,333); outreach/publications ($2,000).

Year 6: Total Other request in FY21 $15,346 Graduate student tuition ($7,346); biomarker database ($6,667); outreach/publications ($1,333).

8. Indirect Costs: The standard indirect rate at UO is 45.0%, applied to the modified total direct costs in each year. MTDC means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and subawards and subcontracts up to the first $25,000 of each subaward or subcontract (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards and subcontracts under the award).

Total indirect funds requested by year: $4,608 in FY16; $19,362 in FY17; $23,648 in FY18; $21,405 in FY19; $21,017 in FY20; $15,327 in FY21

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: NA

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Budget Narrative – Organization B – University of Washington

Project Title: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by Organization B for this project is: $266,735

1. Personnel/Salaries: PI Brett will draw 1.0 month of salary in FYs 17-18 and 0.5 month of salary in FYs 19-21. Brett’s monthly salary in FY16 is $12,094 and the numbers in the budget accounts for COLA across the duration of the project. Brett asks for one graduate student support in FYs 17-18. The total cost to support a graduate student is $49,847 in FY17 and $52,992 in FY18. Please note that graduate student costs are distributed in the NPRB budget format within 3 NPRB cost categories, including ‘salaries’, ‘fringe benefits’, and ‘other’.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: The University of Washington applies the following standard benefit rates: 24.3% for Faculty and 17.7% for Graduate Students.

Personnel Expense Details

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI Brett 0 month 145,128 0 24.3% 0 FY16 Totals 0 0 FY17 PI Brett 1.0 month 150,936 12,578 24.3% 3,056 FY17 Grad Student 12 months 26,045 26,045 17.7% 4,610 FY17 Totals 38,623 7,666 FY18 PI Brett 1.0 month 156,972 13,081 24.3% 3,179 FY18 Grad Student 12 months 27,087 27,087 17.7% 4,794 FY18 Totals 40,167 7,973 FY19 PI Brett 0.5 month 163,248 6,802 24.3% 1,653 FY19 Totals 6,802 1,653 FY20 PI Brett 0.5 month 169,776 7,074 24.3% 1,719 FY20 Totals 7,074 1,719 FY21 PI Brett 0.5 month 176,568 7,357 24.3% 1,788 FY21 Totals 7,357 1,788

3. Travel: Total requested support for travel for all years of the project is $12,500. Each trip is estimated to cost $1,250: $750 per RT airfare from Seattle to Anchorage, plus 4 days lodging and limited per diem at $125 per day. In addition to summarizing travel in the required NPRB format, please also see the table at the bottom of this section that shows the expenses organized by trip purpose.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $1,250 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend the kick off meeting (1 round trip).

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $2,500 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $2,500 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips.

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $2,500 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips.

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $2,500 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips.

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $1,250 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings (1 round trip).

Total travel per year 1,250 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,250 12,500

4. Equipment: The total requested for equipment is $5,000 to for an updated to the Chemstation lipids analysis program for the GC in the Brett lab and autoloader on the GC.

Year 1: Total equipment request in FY16 $3,000 Update to GC Chemstation

Year 2: Total equipment request in FY17 $2,000 Update to GC autoloader

Year 3: Total equipment request in FY18 $0

Years 4: Total equipment request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total equipment request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total equipment request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies: The total requested for supplies is $10,000. This will cover standard consumables related to lipid analysis (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, standards, etc.) and isotope sample preparation.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $1,000 $1,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $3,000 $3,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $2,000 $2,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $2,000 $2,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $1,000 $1,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $1,000 $1,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

6. Contractual/Consultants: No funds are requested for subcontracts.

7. Other: Four quarters, three academic and one summer quarter, of tuition support is requested for the 12 month Graduate Student working on the project in FY 17 and FY18.

Year 1: Total Other request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total Other request in FY17 $19,192 Graduate student tuition: $5,841 per academic quarter and $1,669 summer quarter

Year 3: Total Other request in FY18 $21,111 Graduate student tuition: $6,425 per academic quarter and $1,836 summer quarter

Years 4: Total Other request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total Other request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total Other request in FY21 $0

8. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are calculated at 54.5% MTDC for the duration of the project, per the current rate agreement negotiated between the UW and the federal government. Details of that agreement can be found at the following link: www.washington.edu/research/maa/fa/fa_agreement.pdf.

Total indirect funds requested by year: $1,226 in FY16; $28,225 in FY17; $28,689 in FY18; $7,060 in FY19; $6,700 in FY20; $6,210 in FY21

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization B: NA

Total Other Support provided by Organization B for this project is: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Budget Narrative – Organization C – The University of Texas at Austin

Project Title: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by Organization C for this project is: $240,162

1. Personnel/Salaries: PI Dunton will draw 1.0 month of salary in FYs 17-18 and 0.5 month of salary in FYs 19-21. Dunton’s projected monthly salary in FY16 is $14,000. Dunton requests one graduate student support in FYs 17- 18. The total cost to support a graduate student is $22,000 annually. Please note that graduate student costs are distributed in the NPRB budget format within 3 NPRB cost categories, including ‘salaries’, ‘fringe benefits’, and ‘other’.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: A standard benefit rate of 28% has been applied to salaries.

Personnel Expense Details

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI Dunton 0 month 0 0 FY16 Totals 0 0 FY17 PI Dunton 1.0 month 168,000 14,000 28% 3,920 FY17 Grad Student 12 months 22,000 22,000 28% 6,160 FY17 Totals 36,000 10,080 FY18 PI Dunton 1.0 month 168,000 14,000 28% 3,920 FY18 Grad Student 12 months 22,000 22,000 28% 6,160 FY18 Totals 36,000 10,080 FY19 PI Dunton 0.5 month 168,000 7,000 28% 1,960 FY19 Totals 7,000 1,960 FY20 PI Dunton 0.5 month 168,000 7,000 28% 1,960 FY20 Totals 7,000 1,960 FY21 PI Dunton 0.5 month 168,000 7,000 28% 1,960 FY21 Totals 7,000 1,960

3. Travel: Total requested support for travel for all years of the project is $15,000. Each trip is estimated to cost $1,500: $1000 per RT airfare from Corpus Christi to Anchorage, plus 4 days lodging and limited per diem at $125 per day. In addition to summarizing travel in the required NPRB format, please also see the table at the bottom of this section that shows the expenses organized by trip purpose.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $1,500 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend the kick off meeting (1 round trip).

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $3,000 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips.

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $3,000 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $3,000 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips.

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $3,000 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings, for a total of 2 round trips.

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $1,500 Budgeted travel is for PI Brett to attend mandated meetings (1 round trip).

TRAVEL Each person-trip budgeted at $1,500 ($1,000 Airfare, 4 days at $125/day) Purpose FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Totals Kickoff Meeting - June 2016 1,500 1,250 Logistics Planning Meeting - Oct 2016 & 2017 1,500 1,500 3,000 Annual PI Meetings - March 2017-2021 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 Alaska Marine Science Symposium – January 2019-2020 1,500 1,500 3,000

Total travel per year 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 15,000

4. Equipment: None requested.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $1,000 $1,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $3,000 $3,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $2,000 $2,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $2,000 $2,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $1,000 $1,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $1,000 $1,000 for lab supplies (reagents, consumable glassware, gasses, etc.)

6. Contractual/Consultants: No funds are requested for subcontracts.

7. Other: Tuition for two years is requested for the 12 month Graduate Student working on the project in FY 17 and FY18.

Year 1: Total Other request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total Other request in FY17 $10,000 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Graduate student tuition: $5,841 per academic quarter and $1,669 summer quarter

Year 3: Total Other request in FY18 $10,000 Graduate student tuition: $6,425 per academic quarter and $1,836 summer quarter

Years 4: Total Other request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total Other request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total Other request in FY21 $0

8. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are calculated at 55.0% MTDC for the duration of the project (excludes tuition), the current rate for UT-Austin.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization B: NA

Total Other Support provided by Organization B for this project is: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway 1

Name and Address: Michael T. Brett Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Box 352700 University of Washington Phone: (206) 616-3447 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 email: [email protected]

Academic Background Ph.D. Institute of Limnology, Uppsala University 1990

M.Sc. Zoology - University of Maine 1985

B.Sc. Fisheries - Humboldt State University 1983

Professional History Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, 2008-present. Associate Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, 2001-2008. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, 1997-2001. Research Associate, Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, Davis, 1994-1997. Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, Davis, 1991-1994.

Ten Most Relevant Publications (out of 80) Taipale, S.J., E. Peltomaa, M. Hiltunen, R.I. Jones, M. Hahn, C. Biasi and M.T. Brett. 2015. Inferring phytoplankton, terrestrial plant and bacteria bulk δ13C values from compound specific analyses of lipids and fatty acids. PLoS ONE (in press). Strandberg, U. M. Hiltunen, E. Jelkänen, S.J. Taipale, M.J. Kainz, M.T. Brett, and P. Kankaala. 2015. Selective transfer of polyunsaturated fatty acids from phytoplankton to planktivorous fish in large boreal lakes. Science of the Total Environment (in press). Galloway, A.W.E., M.T. Brett, et al.. 2015. A Fatty Acid Based Bayesian Approach for Inferring Diet in Aquatic Consumers. PLoS ONE 10: e0129723. Brett, M.T. 2014. Resource polygon geometry predicts Bayesian stable isotope mixing model bias. Marine Ecology Progress Series 514, 1-12. Galloway, A.W.E, M.E. Eisenlord, M.N. Dethier, G.W. Holtgrieve, M.T. Brett. 2014. Quantitative estimates of resource utilization by an herbivorous isopod using a Bayesian fatty acid mixing model. Marine Ecology Progress Series 507: 219-232. Taipale, S.J., Strandberg, U., Peltomaa, E., Galloway, A.W., Ojala, A., & Brett, M.T. 2013. Fatty acid composition as biomarkers of freshwater microalgae: analysis of 37 strains of microalgae in 22 genera and in seven classes. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 71: 165-178. Brett, M.T., M.J. Kainz, S.J. Taipale, and H. Seshan. 2009. Phytoplankton, not allochthonous carbon, sustains herbivorous zooplankton production. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 106: 21197-21201. Burns, C.W., M.T. Brett, & M. Schallenberg. 2011. A comparison of the trophic transfer of fatty acids in freshwater plankton by cladocerans and calanoid copepods. Freshw Biol 56: 889-903. Arts, M.T., M.T. Brett, and M. Kainz. 2009. Lipids in Aquatic Ecosystems. Springer, New York. Brett, M.T., D.C. Müller-Navarra, A.P. Ballantyne , J.L. Ravet and C.R. Goldman. 2006. Daphnia fatty acid composition reflects that of their diet. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 2428-2437.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Kenneth H. Dunton Citizenship: USA Marine Science Institute Phone: 361-749-6744 The University of Texas at Austin FAX: 361-749-6777 750 Channel View Drive Port Aransas, TX 78373 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] Education 1986-1987, Post-doctoral Research Associate, Stable Isotopic Geochemistry, The University of Texas at Austin 1985, Ph.D., Biological Oceanography, University of Alaska, Fairbanks 1977, M.S., Biology, Western Washington University, Bellingham 1975, B.S., Biology, University of Maine, Orono

Professional History: 2002-present, Professor (Marine Science Institute, University of Texas at Austin) 1996-2002, Associate Professor ((MSI, UT-Austin) 1990-1996, Assistant Professor (MSI, UT-Austin) 1987-1990, Research Scientist (MSI, UT-Austin)

Five Recent and Relevant Publications: McTigue, N.D. P. Bucolo, Z. Liu, and K.H. Dunton. 2015. Pelagic-benthic coupling, food webs, and organic matter degradation in the Chukchi Sea: Insights from sedimentary pigments and stable carbon isotopes. Limnology and Oceanography 60: 429-445. Dunton, K.H., J.M. Grebmeier, and J. H. Trefry. 2014. The benthic ecosystem of the northeastern Chukchi Sea: an overview of its unique biogeochemistry and biological characteristics. Deep-Sea Research II 102:1-8. McTigue, N.D. and K.H. Dunton. 2014. Trophodynamics and organic matter assimilation pathways in the northeast Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Deep-Sea Research II 102: 84-96. Dunton, K.H., S.V. Schonberg, and L.W. Cooper. 2012. The ecology of coastal waters and estuarine lagoons of the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Estuaries and Coasts 35:416-435. Dunton, K.H., T. Weingartner and E.C. Carmack. 2006. The nearshore western Beaufort Sea ecosystem: circulation and importance of terrestrial carbon in arctic coastal food webs. Progress in Oceanography 71: 362-378. Five Other Significant Publications: Wilce, R.T. and K.H. Dunton. 2014. The Boulder Patch (North Alaska, Beaufort Sea) and its benthic algal flora. Arctic 67 (1): 43-56. Schonberg, S.V., J.T. Clarke and K.H. Dunton. 2014. Distribution, abundance, biomass and diversity of benthic infauna in the northeast Chukchi Sea, Alaska: relation to environmental variables and marine mammals. Deep-Sea Research II: 102:144-163. Iken, K., B. Bluhm, and K. Dunton. 2009. Benthic food-web structure under differing water mass properties in the southern Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 57:71-85. Dunton, K.H., J.L. Goodall, S.V. Schonberg, J.M. Grebmeier, and D.R. Maidment. 2005. Multi-decadal synthesis of benthic-pelagic coupling in the western arctic: role of cross-shelf advective processes. Deep-Sea Research II 52:3462-3477. Dunton, K.H. and D.M. Schell. 1987. Dependence of consumers on macroalgal (Laminaria solidungula) carbon in an arctic kelp community: δ13C evidence. Marine Biology 93:615-625.

Recent/Current Activities Relevant to Proposed Project: Linkages between terrestrial inputs and food webs along the eastern Alaska Beaufort Sea (PI, NSF-ARCSS); Pacific Arctic Marine Synthesis, PacMARS (Co-PI, NPRB project); Arctic Impact Nearshore Monitoring—Beaufort Sea Coast (Co-PI, BOEM project); Arctic Kelp Communities in the Beaufort Sea (PI, BOEM); Hanna Shoal Ecosystem Study (Lead Scientist, BOEM); Wading Shorebird Habitats and Feeding Resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (co-PI, BOEM).

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway

Aaron W. E. Galloway, Ph.D. University of Oregon Phone: 206-225-5137 Oregon Institute of Marine Biology Email: [email protected] 63466 Boat Basin Rd, Charleston, OR 97420 http://biology.uoregon.edu/profile/agallow3/

Academic Background Ph.D. 2013 University of Washington Aquatic and Fishery Sciences (Ecology) M.S. 2004 Central Washington University Resource Management (Wildlife Biol.) B.A. 1999 The Evergreen State College Environmental Science and Policy

Professional History (selected) Assistant Professor, University of Oregon, Oregon Institute of Marine Biology. Fall 2015. Instructor, University of Washington (UW), Friday Harbor Labs (FHL). Session B Summer 2015. Postdoctoral Research Associate, Faculty, Washington State University, School of the Environment, Pullman WA, USA. Supervisor: Stephanie Hampton. Sept 2014 – Aug 2015. Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher, Stockholm University, Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Sweden (Home Institution: UC Davis). Supervisor: Monika Winder. Nov 2013-14. Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Department of Biology, Joensuu, Finland. Supervisor: Paula Kankaala. June 2013-Nov 2013. Graduate Research Assistant, University of Washington (UW), School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Friday Harbor Labs (FHL). Supervisors: Sebens, Duggins, Dethier, Brett, Simenstad. 2007-2013. Graduate Teaching Fellow, National Science Foundation (NSF) Ocean and Coastal Interdisciplinary Science (OACIS) GK-12 Program Fellowship. 2 1-year appointments: 2010-2011; 2012-2013. Graduate Teaching Assistant, UW, FHL. Summer 2011 (Marine Botany); Spring 2012 (Invert. Zoology).

10 Most Relevant Publications (out of 21) Galloway, AWE, M Winder. 2015. Partitioning the relative importance of phylogeny and environmental conditions on phytoplankton fatty acids. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0130053 Galloway, AWE, MT Brett, GW Holtgrieve, EJ Ward, AP Ballantyne, et al. 2015. A fatty acid based algorithm for inferring diet in aquatic consumers. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0129723 Hampton, SE, MV Moore, T Ozersky, E Stanley, CM Polashenski, AWE Galloway. 2015. Heating up a cold subject: prospects for under-ice research in lakes. Journal of Plankton Research 37:277-284. Galloway, AWE, S Taipale, M Hultunen, E Peltomaa, U Strandberg, MT Brett, and P Kankaala. 2014. Diet specific biomarkers show that high quality phytoplankton fuel herbivorous zooplankton in large boreal lakes. Freshwater Biology 59:1902-1915. Galloway, AWE, ME Eisenlord, MN Dethier, GW Holtgrieve, and MT Brett. 2014. Quantitative estimates of isopod resource utilization using a Bayesian fatty acid mixing model. Marine Ecology Progress Series 507:219-232. Raymond, WR, AT Lowe, and AWE Galloway. 2014. Degradation state of algal diets affects fatty acid composition but not size of red urchin gonads. Marine Ecology Progress Series 509:213-225. Dethier, MN, A Brown, S Burgess, ME Eisenlord, AWE Galloway, et al. 2014. Degrading detritus: changes in food quality of aging kelp tissue varies with species. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 460:72-79. Lowe, AT, AWE Galloway, JS Yeung, MN Dethier, and DO Duggins. 2014. Broad sampling and diverse biomarkers allow characterization of nearshore particulate organic matter. Oikos 123:1341-1354. Galloway, AWE, AT Lowe, EA Sosik, JS Yeung, and DO Duggins. 2013. Fatty acid and stable isotope biomarkers suggest microbe-induced differences in benthic food webs between depths. Limnology and Oceanography 58:1452-1462. Galloway, AWE, KH Britton-Simmons, DO Duggins, PW Gabrielson, and MT Brett. 2012. Fatty acid signatures differentiate marine macrophytes at ordinal and family ranks. Journal of Phycology 48:956-965.

Galloway, A. W. E. – 1-page NPRB CV Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Research Plan A. Project Title: Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: Using autonomous drifting platforms to study the evolution from an ice-covered to an ice-free environment.

B. Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity: Influence of sea ice dynamics and advection on the phenology, magnitude and location of primary and secondary production, match- mismatch, benthic-pelagic coupling, and the influence of winter conditions.

C. Rationale and justification: The research proposed here will address questions focused on the impact of changing sea ice conditions on primary production. The Arctic-wide shift from multiyear to seasonal ice is enhancing the flux of sunlight into the under-ice environment, deepening the euphotic layer, and increasing the light available for photosynthesis and primary production (PP). Recent observations of high under-ice phytoplankton concentration at distances of ~100 km from the ice edge may be an indication of a changing PP regime (Arrigo et al., 2014; Churnside and Marchbanks, 2015). This, in addition to stronger thermal stratification in the summer (Steele et al., 2008; Timmermans, 2015) and more mixing in fall ahead of secondary blooms (Ardyna et al., 2014) are significant alterations to the current PP environment (Laney et al., 2014). As one of the most productive regimes in the world (Grebmeier, 2012), shifts in Chukchi sea ice are likely to have profound consequences for seasonal and ecosystem production at all trophic levels. For example, a small timing mis-match between phytoplankton blooms and zooplankton reproductive cycles can have consequences for the entire lipid-driven Arctic marine ecosystem (Ji et al., 2013; Leu et al., 2011; Soreide et al., 2010). For these reasons, several recent reports by members of the scientific and local Alaskan communities have consistently identified the impact of changing sea ice conditions on lower trophic level production and carbon cycling as among the critical research questions for this region (Huntington and Pfirman, 2014; Grebmeier et al., 2015).

In order to address these critical questions, measurements are required that i) cover the early spring before wide-scale ice melt, ii) show the evolution of the under-ice light field driving the spring bloom, and iii) follow the evolution from ice-covered to open water, in order to understand how early PP impacts both the timing and vertical distribution of summer and fall PP.

Fortunately, such novel measurements can now be made using buoys deployed in the ice in the late winter that will then drift with the pack, eventually melt out, but then remain in open water until fall freeze-up. Buoys provide observations of in situ ice pack conditions and overcome the limitations of current ship- and satellite-based observations. These limitations include i) difficulties getting a ship into the ice pack in late winter, ii) interannual variability in ice retreat at specific locations, that limits shipboard field planning, iii) ice adjacency issues that limit retrieval of Chl a by satellite within the ice pack or at the marginal ice zone (MIZ), iv) subsurface Chl a that is invisible to passive sensors, and v) pervasive clouds that limit remote observations.

We propose to use autonomous drifting platforms to investigate the link between light availability and phytoplankton abundance throughout the growth season. This approach will provide an extended time series (March through November) of high temporal resolution (hourly) measurements of light, phytoplankton and temperature at fixed depths in the water column. We propose to deploy four buoys (two per field season) approximately 50-100 km from Point Hope, AK in March, which historical sea ice motion analysis indicates will place them in a relatively weak northwestward motion field. This will allow sampling of eastern Chukchi areas initially, and then central and perhaps western areas in later spring and summer, thus complementing mooring data and summertime ship-based observations from more eastern areas. In this way, our data will provide observations that are currently lacking (Wassmann, 2011) and are critical in our understanding of the dynamics of the spring bloom in the seasonal ice zone, Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

and how this can impact later season PP. Using this approach, we can investigate questions relating to i) the presence of under ice phytoplankton growth related to thinning sea ice, ii) the true spring bloom magnitude (which is underestimated using current satellite methods), iii) the magnitude of PP that can be supported by the light availability both under the ice and in open water, and iv) the impact of under-ice PP on MIZ and open water PP, thus allowing for the determination of total annual production.

Our team has recent experience developing and deploying such buoys in the seasonal ice in the Northern Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and the Central Arctic Ocean through a project funded through NSF (2012 – 2015). Our Warming and Radiance Measurement (WARM) buoys are designed to measure vertical profiles of temperature, light, and chlorophyll. Instruments mounted on the buoy string include thermometers (at 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20 m depths), radiometers (PAR and spectral), a fluorometer for both Chl a and dissolved organic material (DOM), backscatter sensor and an upward-looking camera. Through this project, which has now ended its field work and is in the final stages of data analysis, we have successfully deployed four such buoys (Hill et al., 2014). Observations from Buoy #1, which was deployed off of Pt Barrow, AK in March of 2014 (Figure 1), illustrate the measurements that this system can provide. Buoy#1 drifted over the Northern Chukchi shelf and observed the evolution of the light field while in the ice and after melting out. Chl a concentrations of over 10 mg m-3 were observed for a period of two months in the region of Hanna Shoal, while at times 150 km within the ice pack. The buoy continued to provide data through the open water period, observing subsurface Chl a as well as a modest fall bloom. A DOM fluorescence sensor provided information on the link between phytoplankton and the DOM pool. Daily images looking up at the underside of the ice provided a striking visual depiction of water column conditions (Figure 1; http://www.borgodu.com/time-series-of-daily-underice- photographs/). The utility of the buoys in observing hard-to-detect features is highlighted in Figure 2, which demonstrates the ice and cloud limitations of the ocean color satellite MODIS. Only three (8-day averaged) images were available from MODIS over the entire deployment period of Buoy #1. Also compare this to the USCGC Healy cruise in 2014 which covered this area from 5/13/14 to 6/23/14 and completely missed the under ice bloom recorded by the buoy.

The suite of observations is unique to the WARM platform, and cannot be collected by other means. The NPRB project would enable new buoy-based observations to be made over the central Chukchi shelf, and integration of this data into a wider scale investigation of physical, biological and ecological processes of this region. Data collected from this platform will inform studies focused on the impact of the phenology of phytoplankton blooms on the distribution and life history of upper trophic levels. Such data can also provide information on hotspots of primary production which are linked to specific apex predators. Close linkages exist with studies of lower level production, including how our understanding of drivers of early PP can help in determining future availability of food for lower trophic level consumers. Real time data from these buoys can also help in field work planning, identifying areas of high PP that can then be more intensively studied from shipboard processes. Airborne campaigns can be used to provide spatial information that can help in analysis of buoy data, for example high resolution ice concentration or melt pond information. Modeling projects can make use of buoy data to set model conditions and validate outputs. Our observed linkages between light and PP can help improve current sea ice light penetration modules that feed into larger models. On a wider scale, the buoy observations compliment seasonal measurements from moored arrays on the Chukchi Shelf, and a pan-Arctic observatory, which includes bio-optical buoys in both seasonal and multiyear ice across both shelf seas and basins.

Hypotheses: Our overarching hypotheses is that a thinner and more open ice pack experiences higher under-ice light levels, which in turn promote enhanced under-ice primary production. H1: Under-ice PP is controlled by nutrient levels setup over the winter, and local sea ice conditions which determine light availability. H2: Phytoplankton is advected under the ice pack from the marginal ice zone, and light availability then supports continued growth beneath the ice. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

H3: Absorption of solar radiation in ice covered water columns and in open water affects density and thermal stratification, which in turn affect PP. H4: The occurrence of under-ice PP increases carbon export to the benthos.

D. Objectives: 1. Determine the link between the magnitude of PP under the ice and available solar irradiance, using PP models to investigate whether the local light field can sustain observed PP. 2. Investigate the link between under-ice and open water PP, examining the impact of spring PP on the magnitude of summer PP. 3. Assess the effect of solar radiation absorption on the thermal structure of the water column in spring, summer, and fall and relate this to the vertical distribution of phytoplankton. 4. Estimate potential sinking of carbon to the benthos, determine whether this is different between under ice and open water PP regimes. 5. Investigate the link between phytoplankton and the dissolved organic carbon pool. 6. Provide daily and seasonal phytoplankton biomass observations, as well as physical observations, to projects focusing on phenology of secondary producers and higher trophic levels. 7. Provide all observations to modeling teams to facilitate appropriate parameterization of models.

E. Expected outcomes and deliverables:

The principal product is a time series of hourly measurements of downwelling irradiance at 412, 443 and 555 nm as well as PAR (400 – 700 nm), Chl a and DOM fluorescence, backscatter at 532 nm, and temperature from sensors at fixed depths along the buoy string (Figure 3). Additionally, a daily picture is taken from 20 m depth looking upwards at the bottom of the ice (Figure 1).

Derived products include: a) Solar-driven thermal stratification: Hourly temperature and irradiance measurements will enable estimation of total shortwave radiation entering the ocean and the vertical partitioning of this energy. These data will help us understand the ramifications of thinning ice and increasing open water on solar heating, which influences thermal stratification in the water column and the storage of heat.

b) Light absorption/attenuation: Vertically resolved hourly downwelling irradiance data throughout the day will yield estimates of daily potential photosynthesis. The measurements will cover all ice/open water conditions experienced during the deployment. The data will provide critically needed in situ measurements on whether phytoplankton growth is supported beneath the ice. These measurements of light within and under the ice can be used by the modeling community to verify currently modeled sea ice light penetration outputs which are used by the biological components of models to simulate photosynthesis. These data are also critical to the solar- driven thermal stratification product.

c) Phytoplankton abundance: Hourly [Chl a], both at fixed depths and integrated between irradiance sensor depths allows us to investigate the magnitude of PP throughout the year, from under the ice pack, through melt season, open water and fall blooms. This product will provide data on a temporal scale that cannot be collected any other way. It will enable investigation of questions relating to the impact of changing ice conditions on lower trophic levels, the evolution of open water PP and occurrence of fall blooms. These data will also be used by studies focused on understanding the phenology of biological production cycles relating to zooplankton and higher trophic levels.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

d) Estimates of phytoplankton export to benthos: Vertical distribution of [Chl a] throughout the water column will enable an estimate of phytoplankton export to the seabed. There is a strong and direct link between sinking carbon and higher trophic levels, which in turn influences local communities. These data will enable a deeper understanding of how changing climate forcing i.e thinner ice, less extensive ice, and stronger stratification impacts pelagic-benthic coupling.

e) Dissolved organic material (DOM) concentrations: We will investigate the dynamics of the DOM pool using hourly measurements of DOM fluorescence (FDOM), and absorption by colored dissolved organic material (CDOM). The DOM pool is an important component of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem, where even small changes can have repercussions in the carbon cycle. As a substrate for the microbial loop, the link between phytoplankton abundance, sea ice, light availability and the DOM pool is a critical observation. These data can help answer questions such as photo-oxidation rates based on light availability and spatial distribution of DOM in relation to annual PP. These measurements will also allow us to determine the influence of CDOM, which is thought to be a dominant absorber in the spring water column, on total solar energy absorption

F. Project design and conceptual approach:

a. We propose to deploy two ice-tethered WARM buoys in ice on the Chukchi shelf in March of 2017 and two more in March of 2018 (Figure 4). Deployment from Point Hope is intended to place the buoy within the Central Channel of Bering Sea Water, which moves nutrient-rich water across the shelf and onto Hannah Shoal (a biological hotspot). Measurements will commence at the end of the winter period, providing information on the early spring period during which under-ice phytoplankton growth is stimulated. This buoy design was deployed in 2014 and 2015, successfully observing under-ice phytoplankton on the Northern Chukchi Shelf, and surviving melt to provide summer and fall measurements in open water.

b. The buoy (Figure 3) has a 30 m sensor string that includes sensors for the measurement of temperature, downwelling shortwave irradiance, and fluorescence. The instruments placed on the string are designed to quantify light intensity, phytoplankton abundance, dissolved organic matter, and temperature.

c. Deployment will be within 100 nm of the coast via helicopter. A suitable floe will be chosen based on size and location within the pack. Once on the ice, a hole is drilled with a 10 inch auger and the tether is fed through the hole. The surface float is offset from the ice hole to prevent shading on the uppermost light sensors. The ice hole will refreeze and hold the tether in place until it melts out of the ice. The buoy has been engineered by Pacific Gyre Inc. (Oceanside, CA) and consists of sensors attached to a conductive cable via Seabird’s inductive modem technology. The in-ice PAR sensors are LICOR underwater Quantum sensors (LI-192), in-water irradiance sensors are Satlantic OCR 500 multispectral irradiance sensors with 4 channels (412, 443, 555 nm and PAR). A Wetlabs ECO triplet with Chl a and DOM fluorescence and backscatter at 532 nm is located at the first in-water depth. A Turner Cyclops – 7 Chl a fluorometer will be added to the bottom of the tether (~30 m), to investigate carbon export to the benthos. The thermistor pods are white to reduce solar heating and the probes are mounted on the lower cap of the cylindrical housing to provide shading. Thermistors are set at depths of 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 m. A pressure sensor at 30 m as well as a wet/dry sensor on the surface float provides information on the melting process, as the ice melts the tether slips down through the ice until it is floating in open water, the pressure sensor reading will increase as this occurs. Finally a camera located at 20 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

m on the tether pointing up takes a picture at solar noon each day. Data are collected and transmitted every hour via the Iridium satellite network.

d. The data from the buoy provide both principal and derived products. Principal products of light, Chl a, FDOM and temperature are used to determine the link between light availability and phytoplankton abundance. Simple modeling using photosynthetic parameters (Platt et al., 1982, McMinn and Hegseth, 2004) can determine whether the light field can support phytoplankton growth. In this way we can investigate whether it is most likely the under-ice phytoplankton is grown in situ or advected from the ice edge. Temperature data are used to determine thermal stratification; light attenuation between the sensors are used to investigate under-ice warming due to solar heating. Increases in temperature beyond what can be attributed to the absorption of shortwave radiation will be interpreted as an indication of water mass dynamics (i.e., diffusion/advection). The attenuation of light at different wavelengths also provides a measure of water column components. By iteratively fitting absorption coefficients for phytoplankton, non- algal material, and CDOM to the observed attenuation coefficient using the equations of Lee et al., (2005) we will independently evaluate concentrations of Chl a and CDOM. This provides a vertical component to the biological measurements by allowing us to integrate Chl a and CDOM from the top to the bottom of the sensor string (as seen in Figure 1). Through this technique, as well as the proposed addition of a Turner fluorometer located at the bottom of the tether we can investigate sinking of phytoplankton from the surface to 30 m depth, to help answer questions regarding pelagic-benthic coupling.

G. Linkages between field and modeling efforts:

The data collected by the buoys will be essential for the forcing, initialization, and validation of Chukchi Sea ice-atmosphere-ocean coupled models. These observations will provide i) water column conditions at the end of winter, ii) initial conditions at the start of the growth season, iii) light intensity and attenuation for the bio-optical modeling component of phytoplankton growth, iv) validation of surface solar heat fluxes and v) vertical partitioning of heat flux within the water column.

We propose to collaborate with existing and newly funded modeling projects by using the models to explore the processes that are observed with the buoys. We will provide localized relationships between the light field and phytoplankton, between the evolution of water column components from late winter through spring and summer and between light penetration and heating. The models can then be used to explore the impact of these relationships across the whole study area. For example, if the under-ice light field that we observe is the same for all seasonal ice in the area, what is the impact on PP? Will PP increase everywhere along with increases in light, or in fact is it localized to areas with advection which move phytoplankton under the ice or provide nutrient resupply? Can the models explain the processes that lead to high surface and subsurface Chl a observed under the ice in late June and July (Figure 1D)? In short, our buoy data can help calibrate the models, while the models provide time/space context for our localized observations.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Tables and Figures:

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Figure 1. A) Drift track of WARM buoy #1 deployed March 2014 NE of Point Barrow by helicopter, location of images marked by camera icons. B) Daily PAR, depth is measured from the surface of the ice, sensor at 1 m is within the ice, 5 m is approximately 3 m under the ice. Note that snow cover inhomogeneities and melt ponds on the ice cover (as seen in the uplooking imagery) can cause negative extinction coefficients in light attenuation with depth, particularly at shallow depths. C) Distance from ice edge measured from AMSR2 passive microwave, black indicates the buoy is in the ice, red that it is in open water. D) Chl a measured at the 5 m depth using fluorometer (green), Chl a modeled using the diffuse attenuation measured between light sensors 5 to 10 m (red) and 10 to 20 m (blue). E) FDOM measured using fluorescence at the 5 m depth.

Figure 2. Data from WARM buoy #1 2014, track shown in Figure 1. Daily chlorophyll measurement in the water column (3 m from underside of ice when in ice, 5 m from water surface when in open water; black line), plotted with surface chlorophyll retrieval from MODIS for buoy location (red and blue line). Shaded areas represent time period for which ice cover, cloud cover or low solar angle was limiting MODIS retrievals. Blue shaded area under the graph represents the USGCC Healy 1401 Under Ice Bloom cruise.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Figure 3. Diagram of WARM buoy, showing placement of sensors. System is engineered and built by Pacific Gyre Inc. The surface float is offset during the ice phase to prevent shading of upper sensors. The float supports the weight of the tether once the system melts out. Data are collected hourly and relayed through iridium satellite network.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Figure 4. Planning map for deployment of buoys in March of 2017 and 2018. Circles represent 100 nautical miles distance from Point Lay and Hope, this is deployment distance using a helicopter. Major flows are shown: Herald Canyon (Light green) and Central Canyon (Dark green) both carry nutrient rich Bering Sea water, Alaskan Coastal Current (Red) carries fewer nutrients.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Literature Cited:

Ardyna, M. et al., 2014. Recent Arctic Ocean sea ice loss triggers novel fall phytoplankton blooms. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(17): 6207-6212. Arrigo, K.R., Hill, V.J., Belanger, S., Mitchell, B.G. and Hirawake, T., 2014. Estimates of Net Primary Production from Space-based Measurements, Reports of the International Ocean-Colour Coordinating Group, Dartmouth, Canada. Churnside, J.H. and Marchbanks, R.D., 2015. Subsurface plankton layers in the Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 42: 4896-4902. Grebmeier, J.M., 2012. Shifting Patterns of Life in the Pacific Arctic and Sub-Arctic Seas. Annual Review of Marine Science, Vol 4, 4: 63-78. Grebmeier, J.M. et al., 2015. Pacific Marine Arctic Regional Synthesis (PacMARS) Final Report, North Pacific Research Board. Huntington, H.P. and Pfirman, S., 2014. The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Hill, V. J., Steele, M. and Light, B. 2014. Continuous measurements of the under-ice light field in the Arctic Ocean. Paper presented at the Ocean Optics XXII conference, Portland, Maine Ji, R.B., Jin, M.B. and Varpe, O., 2013. Sea ice phenology and timing of primary production pulses in the Arctic Ocean. Global Change Biology, 19(3): 734-741. Laney, S.R. et al., 2014. Assessing algal biomass and bio-optical distributions in perennially ice- covered polar ocean ecosystems. Polar Science, 8(2): 73-85. Lee, Z.P., Du, K.P. and Arnone, R., 2005. A model for the diffuse attenuation coefficient of downwelling irradiance. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 110(C2). Leu, E., Soreide, J.E., Hessen, D.O., Falk-Peterson, S. and Berge, J., 2011. Consequences of changing sea-ice cover for primary and secondary producers in the European Arctic shelf seas: Timing, quantity, and quality. Progress in Oceanography, 90: 18-32. McMinn, A. and Hegseth, E.N., 2004. Quantum yield and photosynthetic parameters of marine microalgae from the southern Arctic Ocean, Svalbard. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 84(5): 865-871. Platt, T., Harrison, W.G., Irwin, B., Horne, E.P. and Gallegos, C.L., 1982. Photosynthesis and Photoadaptation of Marine-Phytoplankton in the Arctic. Deep-Sea Research Part a- Oceanographic Research Papers, 29(10): 1159-1170. Soreide, J.E., Leu, E., Berge, J., Graeve, M. and Falk-Petersen, S., 2010. Timing of blooms, algal food quality and Calanus glacialis reproduction and growth in a changing Arctic. Global Change Biology, 16(11): 3154-3163. Steele, M., Ermold, W. and Zhang, J., 2008. Arctic Ocean surface warming trends over the past 100 years, Geophysical Research Letters. Timmermans, M.-L., 2015. The impact of stored solar heat on Arctic sea-ice growth. Geophysical Research Letters. Wassmann, P., 2011. Arctic marine ecosystems in an era of rapid climate change. Progress in Oceanography, 90: 1-17.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data:

On a broad scale the data collected here can be integrated with many existing projects, answering questions related to drivers of early spring production that will be helpful for investigators studying both lower and higher trophic levels. There is a particularly close integration with the projects highlighted below.

Bering Strait Mooring program: Our buoys will provide complimentary measurements to the existing moorings, expanding observations to include light and biological measurements. By collecting data close to the underside of the ice we will increase the vertical range of existing measurements, which are exclusively below 17 m depth. The BS mooring will provide us with information on the incoming water properties and current speed, which together will be used to look at the advection of nutrients into our study area.

Hanna Shoal Project: In 2014 and 2015 our buoys crossed over this area and observed high production. The work proposed can provide similar data to the Hanna Shoal Project, by quantifying the magnitude of the spring bloom and estimating export of carbon to the benthos.

NE Chukchi Sea Moored Ecosystem Observatory: Our project will provide a linkage to this observatory, as our proposed drifting platform will investigate spatial patterns and relate them to the moored data.

Assessing the role of oceanic heat fluxes on ice ablation on the Chukchi Shelf: Our project will be able to provide solar driven heat fluxes to the underside of the ice and throughout the water column. This is complimentary to the ocean heat fluxes that will be investigated during this project and will enable a closure of the heat budget for ice covered and open water areas.

Project Management:

Dr. Hill will be the lead PI on this proposal. She will be responsible for the deployment of the buoys and analysis of primary products of light, temperature and biological processes. Dr. Hill has been involved in the study of optical algorithms and primary productivity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for a decade. She developed and deployed the bio-optical buoys described in this proposal, and is currently funded by NSF to study solar-driven warming, light availability and phytoplankton production within the central Arctic Ocean using autonomous buoys. This proposed project to NPRB would expand that activity to the Chukchi Sea.

Dr. Light’s experience working with optical data in ice-covered seas dovetails with V. Hill’s expertise in open Arctic waters. B. Light will be responsible for designing, interpreting, and modeling the optical characterization of the sea ice cover. As institutional PI, B. Light will contribute status reports to lead-PI V. Hill in time for biannual program reporting requirements. B. Light will co-supervise the programmer on this project and take the institutional lead on writing publications

Dr. Steele will work closely with B. Light to guide the successful design, deployment, and data interpretation of the buoy. M. Steele’s expertise in sea ice and ocean circulation will be used to guide buoy deployment strategy and interpretation of buoy results vis-à-vis water mass regimes encountered during buoy drift. Steele will combine ocean temperature and optics data to determine the role of local radiation in ocean warming. He will also co-supervise the programmer. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Coordination with other funded projects will be discussed at the planned program meetings. We can narrow down the deployment areas for the buoys based on the ship based field planning and focus on areas which other funded projects jointly identify as critical to understanding the ecosystem. Our continuing research efforts within the Arctic regime will be used to expand the data collected here to the connected ecosystems of the Arctic Basin and Beaufort Sea.

No permits are required. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: Using autonomous drifting platforms 1/7/15 – 30/9/21 individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar e Sept Objective #1: Link between under ice PP and irradiance Hill; Light; Steele Build buoys Deployment of buoys Data processing and QC Analysis, modeling of sustainable PP Publication preparation Objective #2: Link between under ice PP and open water PP Light; Hill; Steele Build buoys Deployment of buoys Data processing and QC Analysis, link under ice PP and open water PP Publication preparation Objective #3: Impact of SW radation on heating Steele; Light; Hill Build buoys Deployment of buoys Data processing and QC Analysis, observations plus modeling of potential heating Publication preparation Objective #4: Estimate phytoplankton sinking to benthos Hill; Light; Steele Build buoys Deployment of buoys Data processing and QC Analysis, vertical distribution of phytoplankton Publication preparation Objective #5: Investigate link between phyto. and DOM pool Hill; Steele; Light Build buoys Deployment of buoys Data processing and QC Analysis, DOM distribution linked with phytoplankton Publication preparation Objective #6: Provide observations to other fieldwork projects Light; Steele, Hill Provide data and work with interested parties Objective #7: Provide products to modeling effort Steele; Light; Hill Provide data and work with interested parties Other Progress report x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation x x x x x PI meeting x x x x x x Logistics planning meeting x x Publication submission Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) additional lines as needed Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Arctic Program Logistics Summary

Project Title: Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: Using autonomous drifting platforms to study the evolution from an ice-covered to an ice-free environment.

Lead PI: Victoria Hill

Logistical Needs: This project does not request any ship time. Buoys will be deployed via helicopter or plane in March of each field year. The cost of this is reflected in the budget ($30,000 per deployment period).

Companies with the necessary experience in sea ice landing include Last Frontier Air Ventures (www.LFAV.com) for deployment via helicopter, and Bald Mountain Air Service (www.baldmountainair.com) for single/twin otter based deployment.

Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics:

No in kind support at this time Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ODU Research Foundation

PROJECT TITLE: Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: autonomous drifting platforms for studying the evolution of ice covered seas to open water Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Victoria Hill - Old Dominion University Research Foundation category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 17,386 337,819 326,184 69,029 41,720 42,752 834,890 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 17,386 337,819 326,184 69,029 41,720 42,752 834,890

1. Personnel Salaries 2,737 32,908 33,895 23,926 12,322 12,691 118,479

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,295 14,658 15,435 11,784 6,269 6,566 56,007 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 7,185 25,608 16,337 3,825 3,825 3,825 60,605

4. Equipment 0 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 300,000

5. Supplies 0 10,000 10,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 29,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 33,000 33,000 0 0 0 66,000

7. Other

0 5,000 5,000 0 2,500 2,500 15,000

Total Direct Costs 11,217 271,174 263,667 44,535 26,916 27,582 645,091 0

Indirect Costs 6,169 66,645 62,517 24,494 14,804 15,170 189,799

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 17,386 337,819 326,184 69,029 41,720 42,752 834,890 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 2

PROJECT TITLE: Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: autonomous drifting platforms for studying the evolution of ice covered seas to open water Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Bonnie Light; Mike Steele - University of Washington category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 20,563 85,619 89,042 122,685 166,042 118,066 602,017 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 20,563 85,619 89,042 122,685 166,042 118,066 602,017

1. Personnel Salaries 6,809 31,596 32,860 47,433 65,260 45,246 229,204

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 3,629 16,841 17,514 25,282 34,784 24,116 122,166 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 3,528 7,996 8,314 7,005 7,284 7,569 41,696

4. Equipment 0

5. Supplies 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other 3,609 16,746 17,416 25,139 34,588 23,980 121,478

Total Direct Costs 17,575 73,179 76,104 104,859 141,916 100,911 514,544 0

Indirect Costs 2,988 12,440 12,938 17,826 24,126 17,155 87,473

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 20,563 85,619 89,042 122,685 166,042 118,066 602,017 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: autonomous drifting platforms for studying the evolution of ice covered seas to open water Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Victoria Hill - Old Dominion University Research Foundation; Bonnie Light; Mike Steele - University of Washington; PI category names from 3rd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 37,949 423,438 415,226 191,714 207,762 160,818 1,436,907 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 37,949 423,438 415,226 191,714 207,762 160,818 1,436,907

1. Personnel Salaries 9,546 64,504 66,755 71,359 77,582 57,937 347,683 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 4,924 31,499 32,949 37,066 41,053 30,682 178,173 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 10,713 33,604 24,651 10,830 11,109 11,394 102,301 0

4. Equipment 0 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 300,000 0

5. Supplies 0 10,000 10,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 29,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 33,000 33,000 0 0 0 66,000 0

7. Other

3,609 21,746 22,416 25,139 37,088 26,480 136,478 0

Total Direct Costs 28,792 344,353 339,771 149,394 168,832 128,493 1,159,635 0

Indirect Costs 9,157 79,085 75,455 42,320 38,930 32,325 277,272 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 37,949 423,438 415,226 191,714 207,762 160,818 1,436,907 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Old Dominion University Research Foundation

Project Title: Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: autonomous drifting platforms for studying the evolution of ice covered seas to open water

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $834,890

Dr Hill will be the lead PI on the proposal, she will be responsible for the deployment of the buoys, data analysis and publications. David Ruble will aid in logistics and buoy deployment, he will be responsible for data downloads from the buoys and preliminary data QC, as well as formatting of data for submission to archives.

FY2016: PI 0.5 month effort FY2017: PI 4 months effort; Research Associate 2 months effort FY2018: PI 4 months effort; Research Associate 2 months effort FY2019: PI 4 months effort FY2020: PI 2 months effort FY2021: PI 2 months effort

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits:

FICA, worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, health, dental, life and disability insurance premiums, annual and sick leave earnings, tuition reimbursement, and a fringe benefit contribution in lieu of retirement have been budgeted for these positions in accordance with current Old Dominion University Research Foundation policies.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI/Victoria Hill 4.67% $65,686 $2,737 47.32% $1,295 FY16 Totals $2,737 $1,295 FY17 PI/Victoria Hill 33.33% $67,567 $22,552 46.86% $10,569 FY17 RA/David Ruble 16.67% $62,133 $10,355 39.48% $4,089 FY17 Totals $32,908 $14,658 FY18 PI/Victoria Hill 33.33% $69,686 $23,229 48.02% $11,154 FY18 RA/David Ruble 16.67% $63,997 $10,666 40.14% $4,282 FY18 Totals $33,895 $15,435 FY19 PI/Victoria Hill 33.33% $71,777 $23,926 49.25% $11,784 FY19 Totals $23,926 $11,784 FY20 PI/Victoria Hill 16.67% $73,930 $12,322 50.88% $6,269 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

FY20 Totals $12,322 $6,269 FY21 PI/Victoria Hill 16.67% $76,148 $12,691 51.74% $6,566 FY21 Totals $12,691 $6,566

3. Travel: The travel budget includes travel to Anchorage for a PI meeting in 2016, logistics meetings in October of 2016 and 2017, annual PI meetings March 2017 through 2021 and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in 2017 through 2021. Additionally travel costs are included for two people from Norfolk, VA to Point Hope for 7 days to deploy buoys in Years 2017 and 2018. Travel costs are based on fares between Norfolk, VA and Anchorage, AL, and government per diem rates for hotel and meals.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $7,185

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $25,608

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $16,337

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $3,825

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $3,825

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $3,825

4. Equipment: A total of four buoys will be ordered from Pacific Gyre ($75,000 each), two in 2017 and two in 2018. The buoys consist of an inductive cable with irradiance, fluorescence, thermistors and pressure sensors.

Year 2: Total equipment funds request in FY17 $150,000

Year 3: Total equipment funds request in FY18 $150,000

5. Supplies: Funds are requested for supplies related to the deployment of the buoys and analysis of ice and water samples that are collected from the deployment site.

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $10,000

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $10,000 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $5,000

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $2,000

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $2,000

6. Contractual/Consultants: The cost of buoy deployment on the sea ice via helicopter from Point Hope using Last Frontier Air Ventures is $30,000 per field year. This is split into $10,000 per flight day, for a total of 3 days each year in FY 17 and FY 18, to factor in weather delays. A further $3,000 each year is requested to pay iridium satellite costs for data upload from the buoy to Pacific Gyre servers.

Total Contractual funds requested is $33,000 in FY17 and $33,000 in FY18.

7. Other:

Total other funds requested is $5,000 each year in FY17 and FY 18 for postage / shipping. The amount of $2,500 per year in FY 20 and FY 21 is requested to defray the costs of publications.

8. Indirect Costs:

Our ONR federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement dated March 19, 2015 authorizes an on-campus indirect cost rate of 55% of the modified total direct costs effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018.

Total indirect funds requested is $6,169 in FY16; $66,645 in FY17; $62,517 in FY18; $24,494 in FY19; $14,804 in FY20; and $15,170 in FY21.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington

Project Title: Light availability and productivity on the Chukchi Shelf: Using autonomous drifting platforms to study the evolution from an ice-covered to an ice-free environment

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $602,017

1. Personnel/Salaries:

Bonnie Light will lead the UW effort in deciding the most efficient and informative sensor configurations, deployment timing, and deployment location for the buoy string. B. Light’s experience working with optical data in ice-covered seas dovetails with V. Hill’s expertise in open Arctic waters. B. Light will be responsible for designing, interpreting, and modeling the optical characterization of the sea ice cover. As institutional PI, B.Light will contribute status reports to lead-PI V.Hill in time for biannual program reporting requirements. B. Light will co- supervise the programmer on this project and take the institutional lead on writing publications.

Michael Steele will work closely with B. Light to guide the successful design, deployment, and data interpretation of the buoy. M. Steele’s expertise in sea ice and ocean circulation will be used to guide buoy deployment strategy and interpretation of buoy results vis-à-vis water mass regimes encountered during buoy drift. Steele will combine ocean temperature and optics data to determine the role of local radiation in ocean warming. He will also co-supervise the programmer.

Suzanne Dickinson will design analyses for the data we retrieve from buoys. She is an experienced MATLAB programmer and will provide the project with accurate, creative, and well-documented scripts for interpreting and synthesizing data products. She will also generate maps for enhancing the visual display of our observations. S. Dickinson has been working successfully under the supervision of both B. Light and M. Steele for the past 3 years.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits:

Most APL-UW professional staff are not traditional faculty and do not have term appointments, or a regular full-time organizational salary. Individuals without appointments are expected to raise 100% of their annual salary from research grants and contracts. Some APL-UW professional staff have appointments, but are expected to raise from grants and contracts the balance of their annual salary.

The APL benefit and leave rates are in accordance with the University of Washington’s negotiated rates approved by DHHS and UW policy on proposal budgets. The APL-UW benefit rate for professional staff is 26.7% of salaries. The APL leave rate for professional staff is 26.6% of salaries. The total benefits rate is 53.3% of salaries.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Personnel Expense Details:

Month devoted Personnel Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI/Bonnie Light .25 $134,136 $2,795 53.3% $1,490 FY16 Co-I/Michael Steele .25 $192,648 $4,014 53.3% $2,139 FY16 Totals $6,809 $3,629 FY17 PI/Bonnie Light .75 $139,500 $8,719 53.3% $4,647 FY17 Co-I/Michael Steele .75 $200,352 $12,522 53.3% $6,675 FY17 Programmer/Suzanne 1.00 $124,260 $10,355 53.3% $5,519 Dickinson FY17 Totals $31,596 $16,841 FY18 PI/Bonnie Light .75 $145,080 $9,068 53.3% $4,833 FY18 Co-I/Michael Steele .75 $208,368 $13,023 53.3% $6,941 FY18 Programmer/Suzanne 1.00 $129,228 $10,769 53.3% $5,740 Dickinson FY18 Totals $32,860 $17,514 FY19 PI/Bonnie Light 1.00 $150,888 $12,574 53.3% $6,702 FY19 Co-I/Michael Steele 1.00 $216,708 $18,059 53.3% $9,625 FY19 Programmer/Suzanne 1.50 $134,400 $16,800 53.3% $8,954 Dickinson FY19 Totals $47,433 $25,282 FY20 PI/Bonnie Light 1.50 $156,924 $19,616 53.3% $10,455 FY20 Co-I/Michael Steele 1.50 $225,372 $28,172 53.3% $15,016 FY20 Programmer/Suzanne 1.50 $139,776 $17,472 53.3% $9,313 Dickinson FY20 Totals $65,260 $34,784 FY21 PI/Bonnie Light 1.00 $163,200 $13,600 53.3% $7,249 FY21 Co-I/Michael Steele 1.00 $234,384 $19,532 53.3% $10,411 FY21 Programmer/Suzanne 1.00 $145,368 $12,114 53.3% $6,457 Dickinson FY21 Totals $45,246 $24,116

3. Travel:

Year 1 (FY 16): The PI and the Co-I will travel to a 3-day kickoff meeting in Anchorage, AK per the FFP requirement. Detailed costs for a round trip airfare, lodging per night, per diem per day, and miscellaneous fees such as ground transportation and luggage check in fees are listed below.

Airfare per trip $489 Lodging per night $219 Per diem per day $92 Ground transportation and fees $250

Total travel request in FY16 $3,528

Year 2 (FY 17): The PI will travel to Anchorage to attend a 2-day logistics planning meeting. The PI and the Co-I will attend a 4-day annual PI meeting, and the PI will attend the 4-day Alaska Marine science Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Symposium. The trips are required by the RFP. Detailed costs for a round trip airfare, lodging per night, per diem per day, and miscellaneous fees such as ground transportation and luggage check in fees are listed below.

Airfare per trip $509 Lodging per night $228 Per diem per day $96 Ground transportation and fees $260

Total travel request in FY17 $7,996

Year 3 (FY 18): The PI will travel to Anchorage to attend a 2-day logistics planning meeting. The PI and the Co-I will attend a 4-day annual PI meeting, and the PI will attend the 4-day Alaska Marine science Symposium. The trips are required by the RFP. Detailed costs for a round trip airfare, lodging per night, per diem per day, and miscellaneous fees such as ground transportation and luggage check in fees are listed below.

Airfare per trip $529 Lodging per night $237 Per diem per day $100 Ground transportation and fees $270

Total travel request in FY18 $8,314

Year 4 (FY 19): The PI and the Co-I will attend a 4-day annual PI meeting, and the PI will attend the 4- day Alaska Marine science Symposium. The trips are required by the RFP. Detailed costs for a round trip airfare, lodging per night, per diem per day, and miscellaneous fees such as ground transportation and luggage check in fees are listed below.

Airfare per trip $550 Lodging per night $246 Per diem per day $104 Ground transportation and fees $281

Total travel request in FY19 $7,005

Year 5 (FY 20): The PI and the Co-I will attend a 4-day annual PI meeting, and the PI will attend the 4- day Alaska Marine science Symposium. The trips are required by the RFP. Detailed costs for a round trip airfare, lodging per night, per diem per day, and miscellaneous fees such as ground transportation and luggage check in fees are listed below.

Airfare per trip $572 Lodging per night $256 Per diem per day $108 Ground transportation and fees $292

Total travel request in FY20 $7,284

Year 6 (FY 21): The PI and the Co-I will attend a 4-day annual PI meeting, and the PI will attend the 4- day Alaska Marine science Symposium. The trips are required by the RFP. Detailed costs for a round Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

trip airfare, lodging per night, per diem per day, and miscellaneous fees such as ground transportation and luggage check in fees are listed below.

Airfare per trip $595 Lodging per night $266 Per diem per day $112 Ground transportation and fees $304

Total travel request in FY21 $7,569

4. Equipment: NA

5. Supplies: NA

6. Contractual/Consultants: NA

7. Other:

APL PRORATED DIRECT COSTS: The University indirect cost rate applied to APL-UW is lower than the rate elsewhere on campus (17% vs 54.5%) and does not recover the Laboratory’s central costs. These are recovered by applying a Prorated Direct Cost of 53% to total salaries. Prorated Direct Costs include such expenses as salaries and employee benefits for central service employees, administrative data processing, communications, and some facilities costs. APL- UW’s Prorated Direct Costs have been reviewed and accepted by the Navy’s Resident Administrative Contracting Officer Evan Wood, Office of Naval Research, Seattle Regional Office, per letter dated October 8th, 2014.

Total other funds requested are $3,609 in FY16, $16,746 in FY17, $17,416 in FY18, $25,139 in FY19, $34,588 in FY20, and $23,980 in FY21

8. Indirect Costs:

APL-UW’s negotiated rate is 17% of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC includes all direct costs less equipment, graduate operating fees, and the amount of sub-awards above the initial $25,000. The current F&A Rate Agreement with DHHS is dated April 23rd, 2015

Total indirect funds requested are $2,988 in FY16, $12,440 in FY17, $12,938 in FY18, $17,826 in FY19, $24,126 in FY20, and $17,155 in FY21.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: N/A

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $0 N/A

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH: Victoria J. Hill, PI Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Phone: 757-683-4911 Old Dominion University Fax: 757-683-5550 4600 Elkhorn Ave, Norfolk, VA 23529 E-mail:[email protected] Research group website http://www.borgodu.com

(a) Professional Preparation University North Wales, Bangor. UK Marine Bio./Oceanography Honours B.Sc 1998 Southampton Institute Biological Oceanography Ph.D. 2002 Post-Doctoral Research Associate Old Dominion University 2003-2006

(b) Appointments Research Assistant Professor Old Dominion University 2006-present Post-doctoral researcher Old Dominion University 2003-2006 Lecturer in general oceanography Southampton Institute 1999-2002

(c) Products most pertinent to this project Zhang, J., Ashjian, C., Campbell, R., Hill, V., Spitz., Steele, M. (2014). The great 2012 Arctic Ocean summer cyclone enhanced biological productivity on the shelves. Journal of Geophysical Research. 119(1) 297-312. Nelson, R. J., et al. inc V. Hill (2014). Biodiversity and Biogeography of the Lower Trophic Taxa of the Pacific Arctic Region: Sensitivities to Climate Change. In: J. M. Grebmeier and W. Maslowski (Eds.), The Pacific Arctic Region. Springer V. Hill; Patricia Matrai; Elise Olson; S. Suttle Mike Steele; Lou Codispoti; Richard Zimmerman (2013). Synthesis of primary production in the Arctic Ocean: II. In situ and remotely sensed integrated estimates, 1999-2007. Progress in Oceanography (110) 107:125 Zimmerman, R. C., Sukenik, C. I. and Hill, V. J., (2013). Subsea LIDAR systems. In: J. Watson and O. Zielinski (Eds.), Subsea optics and imaging. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Place, Published,471- 487. Hill, V, and R. Zimmerman. (2010). Estimates of primary production by remote sensing in the Arctic Ocean: Assessment of accuracy with passive and active sensors. Deep Sea Research (57):1243-1254. Hill, V.J., G.F. Cota, and D. Stockwell (2005). Spring and Summer Phytoplankton Communities in the Chukchi and Eastern Beaufort Seas. Deep Sea Research II 52:3369-3385 Hill, V.J, and G.F. Cota (2005). Spatial patterns of primary productivity in the Chukchi Sea in the spring and summer of 2002. Deep Sea Research II 52: 3344-354

(i) Professional Service to the Scientific Community: I routinely review manuscripts for publication in major scientific journals and research proposals for funding agencies, including NSF, NOAA, NASA and EPA. I serve on external review panels for NSF, NASA, and the French National Research Agency (ii) Outreach & Public Education: I am the regional co-coordinator of the Virginia National Ocean Sciences Bowl (Blue Crab Bowl), an annual competition for high school students, testing their knowledge of ocean science. Each summer I provide mentorship for high school summer interns from a local math and Science Academy, while they pursue research projects within my research group. In 2011, I acted as an Earth reporter for a BBC and Open University program, highlighting my research in the Arctic. In collaboration with colleagues within communications, theatre and STEM education I have developed a program to increase scientific literacy among children and families in our community. Science Alliance Live brings together science and art, for a local school and family audiences. I partake in annual visits to several local schools to present on life in the Arctic. I am a principle scientist in the Bio-Optical Research Group at ODU, mentoring undergraduate interns and teaching graduate students. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

Bonnie Light Polar Science Center, APL, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98105 [email protected] 206.543.9824

A. PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION University of Washington, Atmospheric Sciences, Postdoc 2000-2002 University of Washington, Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. 1995, Ph.D. 2000 Cornell University, Electrical Engineering, B.S. 1986

B. APPOINTMENTS 2011-present Principal Physicist, Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, UW 2013-present Affiliate Associate Professor, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, Univ. Washington 2002-2011 Physicist IV, Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, Univ. Washington

C. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS (see http://psc.apl.uw.edu/people/investigators/bonnie-light/ for links) Light, B., D. K. Perovich, M. A. Webster, C. Polashenski, and R. Dadic (submitted), Optical properties of first-year Arctic sea ice, J. Geohphys., Res. Light, B., S. Dickinson, D. K. Perovich, and M. M. Holland (2015), Evolution of summer Arctic sea ice albedo in CCSM4 simulations: Episodic summer snowfall and frozen summers, J. Geophys. Res., 120, 284–303, doi:10.1002/2014JC010149 Holland, M.M., D.A. Bailey, B.P. Briegleb, B. Light, and E. Hunke (2012), Improved Sea Ice Shortwave Radiation Physics in CCSM4: The Impact of Melt Ponds and Aerosols on Arctic Sea Ice. J. Climate, 25, 1413-1430. Goldenson, N, S. J. Doherty, C. M. Bitz, M. M. Holland, B. Light, and A. J. Conley (2012), Arctic climate response to forcing from light-absorbing particles in snow and sea ice in CESM, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12, 7903-7920, doi:10.5194/acp-12-7903-2012. Frey, K.E., D.K. Perovich and B. Light (2011). The spatial distribution of solar radiation under a melting Arctic sea ice cover, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38: doi:10.1029/2011GL049421. Light, B., T. C. Grenfell, and D. K. Perovich (2008), Transmission and absorption of solar radiation by Arctic sea ice during the melt season, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C03023, doi:10.1029/2006JC003977. Light, B., G. A. Maykut, and T. C. Grenfell (2004), A temperature-dependent, structural-optical model of first-year sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 109, C06013, doi:10.1029/2003JC002164. Light, B., G. A. Maykut, and T. C. Grenfell (2003), A two-dimensional Monte Carlo model of radiative transfer in sea ice’, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 10.1029/2002JC001513.. Light, B., G. A. Maykut, and T. C. Grenfell (2003), Effects of temperature on the microstructure of first- year Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 108(C2), 3051, doi:10.1029/2001JC000887. Light, B., H. Eicken, G.A. Maykut, and T. C. Grenfell (1998), The effect of included particulates on the spectral albedo of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 27,739-27,752.

D. QUALIFICATIONS, CAPABILITIES, AND EXPERIENCE My primary research interests lie in understanding radiative transfer in ice and snow, the optical and structural properties of sea ice, and laboratory and field investigations of ice physics. A principal aspect of my work involves the development of theoretical radiative transfer models for Arctic sea ice. My interests in understanding the chemistry and structure of sea ice have led to recent collaborative projects involving freezing equilibrium chemistry in soils on Mars, the physics of cold sea ice on Snowball Earth, and structural properties of melting sea ice in the context of its habitability. I have developed and currently manage a walk-in freezer laboratory at the Applied Physics Laboratory, have participated in six field campaigns on Arctic sea ice, and frequently engage in educational outreach opportunities. I was the keynote speaker at the Seattle Expanding Your Horizons youth conference (March 2015) and have been a Science Communication Fellow at the Pacific Science Center since 2010. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.5-Hill

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH MICHAEL STEELE Senior Principal Oceanographer Phone: (206) 543-6586 Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory Fax: (206) 616-3142 University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105 Email: [email protected] Professional Experience 1987-2013 Oceanographer, Polar Science Center, Seattle, WA 1987 PhD: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 1981 BA (Phi Beta Kappa): Physics, Reed College, Portland, OR 1980 Research Assistant, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY Community Service 2001-ongoing Co-chair, FAMOS = Forum for Arctic Modeling & Observational Synthesis 1999-ongoing Developer of ocean database PHC: (psc.apl.washington.edu/Climatology.html) ongoing Public lectures; Students: 8 undergraduates, 1 masters, 3 PhD, 5 postdocs Selected Publications Steele, M., W. Ermold, and H. Stern, Loitering of the retreating sea ice edge in the Arctic Seas, J. Geophys. Res., in review, 2015. Zhang, J. et al. incl. M. Steele, Influence of sea ice, snow cover & nutrient availability on massive under- ice Chukchi Sea phytoplankton blooms, Deep Sea Res. II, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.02.008, 2015. Steele, M., S. Dickinson, J. Zhang, and R. Lindsay, Seasonal ice loss in the Beaufort Sea: Toward synchrony and prediction, J. Geophys. Res., 120, 10.1002/2014JC010247, 2015. Clement Kinney J., et al. incl. Steele M., On the flow through Bering Strait: A synthesis of model results and observations, In: The Pacific Arctic Region: Ecosystem Status and Trends in a Rapidly Changing Environment, J. M. Grebmeier and W. Maslowski, eds., Springer Netherlands, 10.1007/978-94-017- 8863-2_7, 2014. Zhang, J. et al., incl. M. Steele, The great 2012 Arctic Ocean summer cyclone enhanced productivity on the shelves, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 10.1002/2013JC009301, 2014. Lique, C., and M. Steele, Seasonal to decadal variability of Arctic Ocean heat content: A model-based analysis and implications for autonomous observing systems, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 2013. Hill, V. J. et al. incl. M. Steele, Synthesis of integrated primary production in the Arctic Ocean: II. In situ and remotely sensed estimates, Prog. Oceanogr., 110, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2012.11.005, 2013. Popova, E. E., et al., incl. M. Steele, What controls primary production in the Arctic Ocean? Results from an ecosystem model intercomparison, J. Geophys. Res., 117, doi:10.1029/2011JC007112, 2012. Steele, M., J. Zhang, and W. Ermold, Mechanisms of summertime upper Arctic Ocean warming and the effect on sea ice melt, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C11004, doi:10.1029/2009JC005849, 2010. Falkner, K., M. Steele, R. Woodgate, J. Swift, K. Aagaard, and J. Morison, Dissolved oxygen extrema in the Arctic Ocean halocline from North Pole to Lincoln Sea, Deep-Sea Res. I, 52, 1138-1154, 2005.

Qualifications, capabilities, and experience I have worked over 25 years in arctic physical oceanography and sea ice, with experience in 9 separate field projects including the UpTempO and WARM buoy projects where where upper ocean warming is the main focus. I have 87 peer-reviewed publications, 38 as 1st or 2nd author, with 7 in preparation, submitted, or in press (July 2015). I have a long-standing interest in sea ice and ocean circulation, and a more recent focus on upper ocean warming in response to sea ice thinning and retreat. I also have experience working closely with ice and ocean biologists and optics experts to build multi-disciplinary understanding. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

1 Research Plan 2 A. Project Title: The role of krill in the Arctic food web – spatial hotspots and trophic interactions 3 B. Category: Understanding ecosystem structure and function requires taking trophic interactions into 4 account that govern ecosystem structure and function. Often, ecosystem dynamics are 5 disproportionately influenced by key forage taxa that support higher trophic levels. In the Arctic, krill 6 is one such pivotal forage group. Krill are one of the most important prey items for apex predators 7 such as bowhead whales in the Arctic, serving as an important component and critical node in the 8 food web. By feeding on ice algae, mesozooplankton, detritus, and microalgae, krill facilitate trophic 9 transfer from lower trophic levels to fishes and link benthic and pelagic food webs through daily 10 vertical migrations. Despite the importance of krill in the system, basic information on distribution, 11 abundance, and contributions to upper trophic level production is poorly known. We propose to 12 investigate the spatial distribution of krill in regional “hotspots” within the Chukchi Sea and quantify 13 their impact on upper trophic levels. Specifically, we will 1) quantify spatial distribution of krill using 14 a combination of advanced imaging technology and traditional sampling gear to identify “krill 15 hotspots”, 2) construct statistical models that incorporate the spatial and temporal information to 16 estimate krill abundance and biomass, and 3) quantify the potential impact of krill on important apex 17 predator using a compound-specific stable isotope approach. This work will examine the pivotal role 18 that krill plays in the Arctic, contributing to ongoing efforts examining how the spatial and temporal 19 dynamics of krill affect the distribution, life history and production of apex predators. The proposed 20 work responds to the NPRB Arctic Program’s priorities Category 3 lower trophic level 21 productivity and Category 2 species distribution and interaction in the RFP. 22 C. Rationale and justification: 23 a). Importance of krill in the Pacific-influenced Arctic: Euphausiids (krill), primarily the genus 24 Thysanoessa (Hopcroft et al. 2010), are considered to be a critical node in Arctic food webs supporting 25 fish (Dalpadado & Bogstad 2004) and apex predators of cultural, economic and ecological importance 26 (Krone et al. 1999, Dalpadado & Mowbray 2013, Hop & Gjosaeter 2013), but very little is known about 27 the seasonal and spatial dynamics of this key forage group. Krill link lower trophic levels including 28 mesozooplankton, ice algae, microalgae, and detritus with upper trophic levels (e.g., fishes), facilitating 29 energy transfer in the Arctic ecosystem. Climate change is affecting the Arctic Ocean, e.g., disappearance 30 of sea ice, and it is widely anticipated that impacts on marine mammals will be mediated significantly via 31 changes in prey distribution and abundance (Simmonds & Isaac 2007, Hollowed et al. 2013). In the 32 Arctic, krill appears to be disproportionately important as it is an important prey item for upper trophic 33 levels, e.g., bowhead whale (Dalpadado & Skjoldal 1996, Ashjian et al. 2010). 34 Krill are not only important for supporting apex predators, but it also plays larger, crucial roles in linking 35 benthic and pelagic habitats and mediated energy flow (Mauchline 1980). The trophic role of krill is 36 closely related to their strong vertical and lateral migration behavior. Krill exhibit strong vertical 37 migration, residing near the bottom during daytime and feeding in the water column at night. Since the 38 Arctic is an ecosystem dominated by ice-processes, krill can feed on the ice algae sinking to the bottom 39 and can provide a link between pelagic and benthic habitats. Furthermore, its migration acts as a conduit 40 between pelagic and benthic habitats, by feeding on phytoplankton and mesozooplankton in pelagic 41 habitat and facilitating transfer of phytoplankton production to the benthic and demersal food web. Krill 42 also migrate long distances on south-north trajectories (from the Bering Sea into the Arctic), taking 43 advantage of certain regional features (e.g., fronts, for feeding) and transferring energy across these 44 regions. In the Arctic, krill in general are not associated with thick ice conditions (Arndt & Swadling 45 2006) and there is no evidence that a self-sustaining population persists in the Chukchi Sea (Berline et al. 46 2008) although Buchholz et al. (2012) observed krill spawning in Kongsfjorden, Spitsbergen. 47 b). Stable isotope approach to examine source and the tropic role of krill in the Arctic: In the Arctic, 48 stable isotope approaches have successfully been used to examine the origin of different water masses 49 (e.g. Strain & Tan 1993, Khim et al. 2003, Iken et al. 2010) and food web structure (e.g. Dunton et al. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

50 1989, McMeans et al. 2013, Seymour et al. 2014). Prior studies using stable isotope approaches for 51 zooplankton including krill showed a west-east gradient in decreasing heavy carbon isotope composition 52 in zooplankton in the coastal waters of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (Dunton 1985, Saupe et al. 1989). 53 Overall, there are distinctive differences in the carbon isotope composition of zooplankton in the Bering, 54 Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Seas, reflecting water mass composition that drives organic carbon uptake and 55 metabolism and nitrogen isotope composition that also varies reflecting geographical differences in food 56 web trophic position (Dunton et al. 1989, Pomerleau et al. 2014). Therefore stable isotope approaches can 57 potentially provide insights on the origin of krill that apparently pass through the Bering Strait into the 58 Chukchi Sea where resident populations are presumed not to exist. Moreover, recent developments in 59 compound-specific isotope methodologies (reviewed by McMahon et al. 2013) promise to improve our 60 understanding further by taking advantage of the characteristics of both carbon isotopes in essential (non- 61 synthesizable) amino acids to reflect origin more conservatively than bulk organic samples, and also 62 nitrogen isotope ratios in certain amino acids that exhibit predictable biomagnification of 15N to reflect 63 trophic structure better than bulk tissue samples. We are already undertaking this approach in the Chukchi 64 Sea in two projects involving early career scientists: 1) as part of the BOEM supported COMIDA Hanna 65 Shoal project, including support for University of Maryland graduate student Mengjie Zhang. She is 66 undertaking thesis research on the use of the stable isotope composition of amino acids in Chukchi Sea 67 foodwebs with support that includes a North Pacific Research Board Graduate Student Fellowship; and 2) 68 collaborative efforts with Dr. Monika Kedra of the Polish Institute of Oceanology using the same 69 approach for organisms collected from the northern Bering to Chukchi Seas during cruises supported by 70 the National Science Foundation supported Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) program. Dr. 71 Kedra is receiving independent support from the Polish Academy of Sciences for the DBO collections. 72 These existing samples and data will be used to help interpret data from the additional samples to be 73 collected here that will concentrate on the role of krill in the regional ecosystem. 74 Both stomach content analysis and stable isotope approaches have been used to study the diets of 75 culturally and ecologically significant apex predators such as bowhead whale (Moore et al. 2010, 76 Pomerleau et al. 2011, Pomerleau et al. 2012), but there is limited knowledge on the geographical origins 77 and trophic position of krill that are consumed by bowheads during their annual migration from the 78 Bering through the Chukchi Sea to the Beaufort Sea and return. The extent of this transfer of surface 79 productivity to demersal food webs by krill changes in response to seasonal and habitat gradients is a 80 critical knowledge gap in our understanding of the role of krill in Arctic ecosystem dynamics. 81 c). Implications for climate change, sampling challenges and new technological solutions: The Arctic 82 is currently experiencing a profound transformation that will have unprecedented impact on the 83 ecosystem and krill could potentially serve as an indicator species for such changes within the Pacific 84 influenced Arctic. In the eastern Arctic for example, Zhukova et al. (2009) reported that the abundance 85 and spatial distribution of krill, Thysanoessa raschii and T. inermis showed distinct differences between 86 warm and cold years in the Barents Sea. In the Pacific-influenced Arctic, krill could serve as an indicator 87 species for the connections between the northern Bering (likely source for krill in the Chukchi Sea) and 88 changes in physical processes. Moore et al. (1995) reported observations of bowhead whale feeding in 89 localized areas where krill were abundant, and these areas were as small as 5 km × 8 km, suggesting that 90 krill may play an important role in sustaining upper trophic levels through their spatial aggregations. 91 Changes in water temperature, sea ice, water circulation, and food web trophic structure could all have 92 impacts on the intensity and timing of krill aggregations. Understanding the trophic position and 93 geographical distributions and origins of krill passing through Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea are all 94 critical points of information that can help elucidate the impacts of a changing Arctic system. 95 The paucity of information on krill biology, ecology, and population dynamics is due in part to the 96 challenges in sampling the organisms. Their vertical migrations between benthic and pelagic habitats 97 complicate sampling efforts because these two different habitats require different sampling approaches. 98 Samples from surface waters during daylight hours do not reflect krill abundance because they typically Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

99 reside on the bottom during daylight hours. Thus, to properly sample krill, it is best to collect samples 100 during hours of low sunlight (in summer), or at night at appropriate times of year (Mauchline 1980). Krill 101 are poorly captured by traditional sampling gear such as nets. The tendency to form aggregations is one 102 quality that hinders the ability to capture them with nets or to make precise abundance estimates (Miller 103 & Hampton 1989). Other sampling techniques such as acoustic detection can provide some insights on 104 krill distribution; however, acoustic instruments cannot provide taxonomic information on the animals 105 and estimating animal abundances at a more specific taxonomic level using acoustics is generally not 106 practical (Stanton et al. 1996). 107 108 Recent and rapid developments in imaging technologies however are now providing an effective solution 109 to many of the problems associated with sampling of krill and other zooplankton documented in prior 110 studies (e.g. Trevorrow et al. 2005, Ashjian et al. 2008, Sainmont et al. 2014). We propose here to use a 111 state-of-the-art ZOOplankton VISualization (ZOOVIS, Fig. 1) System that can effectively document krill 112 abundances. The ZOOVIS can identify different taxa and sample at a fine-scale spatial resolution that 113 surpasses traditional sampling approaches (Bi et al. 2013, 2015). A robust automated procedure has been 114 coded and developed as part of the system to process images obtained by ZOOVIS (Fig. 2, Bi et al. 115 2015). The instrument as available now, is towed behind a vessel at a reduced speed and includes a CTD 116 logger, for measurements of environmental variables that includes temperature, salinity, chlorophyll 117 fluorescence and dissolved oxygen. This imaging approach will be combined with sampling via 118 traditional nets to obtain krill for characterization of carbon and nitrogen isotope composition that will 119 provide insights on origin and trophic level. 120 D. Hypotheses: Our overarching hypothesis is that krill populations, primarily Thysanoessa group, play a 121 critical role in shaping the Chukchi sea ecosystem by transporting secondary production from the northern 122 Bering Sea and sustaining culturally and ecologically important higher trophic levels. Specifically, we 123 hypothesize: 124 a. In the Arctic ecosystem, the majority of krill populations originate from the Bering Sea. 125 b. The spatial distribution of krill, i.e., spatial aggregation, is an important mechanism to sustain 126 predator populations in the Pacific-influenced Arctic. 127 c. Krill represent a significant pathway for energy transfer between the secondary production of 128 zooplankton and the upper trophic levels. 129 E. Objectives: Our overall objective is to quantify the role krill play in shaping the Chukchi and adjoining 130 ecosystems through feeding on secondary producers. The expectation is that these organisms serve as an 131 important prey for culturally and ecologically important apex predators such as bowhead whales. 132 Specifically, we will 133 a. quantify krill spatial distribution (numbers per area) and seasonal variability using a combination 134 of advanced imaging technologies to map krill spatial distribution and traditional net sampling 135 gear to collect physical samples for validation and comparison; 136 b. construct statistical models that incorporate the spatial and temporal information to estimate the 137 abundance of krill and to infer the origination of krill population in the Chukchi Sea; 138 c. infer the origin of krill populations using isotope technique including the bulk composition of 139 specific tissues for δ15N, δ13C values in conjunction with compound-specific isotope composition 140 of amino acids to ascertain differences in organic carbon origin for carbon isotopes and 141 geographical differences in food web trophic structure for nitrogen isotopes. 142 d. construct energy transfer pathways (secondary production and ice algae -> krill -> predators) 143 using information from stable isotope measurements, and field sampling that will help quantify 144 the impact of krill on important species such as bowhead whales. 145 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: The proposed research will quantify the trophic role of krill in 146 the North American Arctic ecosystem by measuring δ15N, δ13C values of tissues, and undertaking 147 compound-specific isotope analysis. We combine this approach with investigation of the fine scale spatial 148 distribution of krill and the zooplankton and environmental variables using advanced zooplankton Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

149 imaging systems. Specific products will include: 150 a. fine scale spatial distribution of krill, zooplankton, and the associated environmental variables 151 including temperature, salinity, chlorophyll fluorescence, and dissolved oxygen (geographic 152 regions specified in method section), which could be useful for physical models and physical- 153 biological coupled models; 154 b. isotopic measurements on different trophic levels to quantify the trophic role of krill in the Arctic 155 ecosystem, which could provide useful information for ecosystem models; in some cases we will 156 use data from related programs, including RUSALCA, COMIDA and DBO, all of which we are 157 already involved with. 158 c. results on the origins of krill in the Chukchi Sea will provide a much clearer understanding how 159 climate change affects the connections between the Bering Sea and the Arctic, which improves 160 our capabilities for forecasting the changes in Arctic ecosystem under climate change; and 161 d. results on the fine scale spatial distribution of krill will shed light on the feeding, distribution and 162 life history of ecologically important species, e.g., Citta et al. (2014). 163 G. Project design and conceptual approach: The proposed work involves collection and analysis of data 164 from the field, and isotopic measurements to establish trophic levels in different regions. Field surveys 165 will be conducted during nighttime or low sunlight hours (if close to summer solstice) in the northern 166 Bering and Chukchi Sea with seasonal variation if practical and cost-effective during field work from 167 2017-2019. Surveys will use a combination of gear (ZOOVIS, bongo nets, continuous data loggers, and 168 water samplers) to provide data on seasonal krill distribution and abundance, the composition of the 169 associated zooplankton assemblages, environmental conditions, and the stable isotope composition 170 (carbon and nitrogen) of krill and their prey. Survey results and samples processed in the laboratory will 171 provide the necessary information to construct the energy transfer pathways from secondary producers -> 172 krill -> predator and quantify the impacts of krill on ecologically important predators. 173 a. Geographic locations: We propose to sample in both the northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea 174 (Fig. 1). Sampling in both regions will document carbon and nitrogen isoscapes in different 175 regions. The ZOOVIS will be towed continuously up and down and collect continuous water 176 column data between stations to provide data on the fine scale spatial distribution of krill during 177 ship transits. If a practical ship platform is available, we will sample in spring, but concentrate on 178 sampling that is most practical in the summer under ice free conditions. If seasonally resolved 179 sampling is possible, samples in spring will provide initial conditions and samples in summer will 180 provide information on the seasonal dynamics of krill and ecosystem structure in the Arctic. 181 b. Types of information will be collected: Our target organisms are primarily the krill genus 182 Thysanoessa. However, bongo samples will also provide information on other species, e.g., 183 copepods and larval fish and ZOOVIS will provide fine scale spatial distributions of the 184 associated zooplankton including copepods and other fragile species that are difficult to sample 185 with nets, e.g., ctenophores and other gelatinous zooplankton that are becoming more important. 186 The other instrumentation available on our ZOOVIS instrument package includes sensors for 187 determining salinity, temperature, chlorophyll fluorescence and dissolved oxygen that could 188 supplement underway and station sampling for these oceanographic parameters. Furthermore, we 189 will undertake isotopic measurements for different trophic levels in different regions to the extent 190 practical including krill, and predators. For example, we propose to develop mechanisms to 191 obtain access to stomach contents of harvested bowhead whales through cooperative efforts with 192 the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the Department of Wildlife Management of the 193 North Slope Borough, and we will use existing data sets being developed by other projects we are 194 involved with, including AMBON, DBO, RUSALCA and COMIDA. 195 c. Sampling methods and platform: ZOOVIS will be towed up and down along cross-shelf 196 transects collecting continuous water column profile data in the DBO sampling regions (Fig. 3). 197 Optimal coverage for an alongshore transect, for example, would include a 20 min ZOOVIS tow Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

198 every 10 miles. A continuous data logger on the ZOOVIS will record environmental variables 199 including temperature, salinity, chlorophyll fluorescence, and dissolved oxygen. To corroborate 200 ZOOVIS zooplankton imagery and to collect biological samples for isotope analyses, we will 201 work with John Nelson who is currently collect Bongo samples on the DBO cruises to get the 202 bongo samples because each bongo tow will produce two duplicated samples. Bongo samples 203 will be preserved in 5% buffered formalin for later identification of krill and other zooplankton in 204 the laboratory. Samples will also be collected for stable isotope analysis at each station. A sample 205 of surface and bottom water will be collected and filtered onto ashed, glass fiber filters (25 mm, 206 0.7 µm nominal pore size) using a syringe for C and N stable isotope analysis of suspended 207 particulate organic matter (SPOM). Krill will be collected from the bongo net zooplankton 208 sample. A subsample of 10 individuals (minimum) will be frozen at -20˚C and muscle tissue will 209 be dissected out for C and N stable isotope analysis. Initial testing will verify the presence or 210 absence of consistent isotopic differences between different regions. 211 d. Analytical techniques: Zooplankton from the bongo nets and stable isotope samples will be 212 processed in the laboratory. Zooplankton net samples will be counted by taking sub-samples with 213 a sample splitter. Sub-samples will be taken until the coefficient of variation for the sample is 214 stabilized at 10%. Zooplankton will be identified to species where possible and to genera 215 otherwise. Krill will be enumerated and separated into the following groups: males, females, 216 brooding adults, and juveniles. Weight-length relationships will be developed from measured 217 individuals to convert abundance estimates into biomass estimates. For analysis of C and N 218 isotope composition, filters with SPOM, and muscle tissue and gust contents of frozen krill will 219 be dissected out and then will be prepared using standard methods and analyzed on an Thermo 220 Plus stable isotope-ratio mass spectrometer coupled to a carbon-nitrogen analyzer and also to a 221 gas chromatograph for compound specific samples at the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. We 222 have worked out specific preparation procedures for both carbon and nitrogen isotope 223 compositions of amino acids through work undertaken in our laboratory during the COMIDA 224 project. This work is supporting a graduate student thesis that was presented at the December 225 2014 AGU Fall Meeting. 226 e. Statistical analysis: To model the relationship between krill abundance and environmental 227 factors, we will construct a spatially structured general additive model (GAM). The model 228 is: ( ) = + ( ) + ( , ) + , where g is the link function, µ is the expectation of 229 observations, α is𝑛𝑛 the intercept, Xi is the ith explanatory variable, si is a smooth function for the 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 230 ith 𝑔𝑔explanatory𝜇𝜇 𝛼𝛼 variable,∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑠𝑠 𝑋𝑋 ( 𝑆𝑆 ,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 )𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 is the spatial𝜀𝜀 structure in terms of locations, and ε ~ N(0, V) 231 is a residual vector. Krill abundance at survey locations (based upon net and ZOOVIS data) can 232 be interpolated to estimate𝑆𝑆 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 krill𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙distribution and linked with predator distribution (Citta et al. 233 2014). For analysis of stable isotope data, mixing models and trophic niche indicators will be 234 calculated separately to allow the identification and quantification changes in foraging ecology of 235 krill. Path analysis will be used to construct energy pathways among ice algae, benthic, 236 zooplankton, krill and predators. 237 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: This project focuses on the trophic role of krill by using 238 stable isotopic methodologies together with the fine scale spatial distributions of krill and associated 239 zooplankton and environmental variables. 240 a. Fine scale spatial information on krill and zooplankton is useful for developing physical- 241 biological coupled models (Berline et al. 2008) and understanding predator distribution and life 242 histories. 243 b. Continuous environmental variables including temperature, salinity, fluorescence and dissolve 244 oxygen could provide useful information for physical models. 245 c. Energy pathways constructed from isotopic data could provide information for ecosystem 246 models, .e.g, NPZ models. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Tables and Figures: Figure 1 Schematic representation of ZOOVIS showing optics and camera housing (two yellow units), computer and power housing (two black units) and the towing frame. The system uses specialized optics that produces a highly-collimated red beam of light. Objects in the light path disrupt the collimation and creates a shadow image. Images are captured by a high resolution 5 megapixel digital still camera, with which objects of 40 µm – 3cm can be resolved. The camera is capable of acquiring 15 full frame images every second, which enables the system to quantify the contents of 3.6 L per minute. Battery operation will be optimized for cold water conditions.

Figure 2: Examples of images and data processing for ZOOVIS: A) Image collected on Oct. 23 2011. B) Converting grayscale image to binary image (black-white) using a simple global threshold approach which identifies regions of interest (ROIs; red squares). The image shows that the jellyfish was segmented into pieces, copepods were missed and the image contained many particles, C) Converting grayscale Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

image to binary image using the Maximally Stable Extremal Regions approach for large organisms. D) Converting grayscale to binary using an adaptive thresholding approach for small organisms. E) Final binary image combining C and D with red boxes indicating ROIs that will pass through two layers of classification. F) First layer Support Vector Machine classifier where each ROI was classified into a category. G) Second classifier to remove unidentified objects. H) Example of sample of spatial distribution of early life stages of Mnemiopsis leidyi on July 24th 2011 near the Patuxent River mouth in the Chesapeake Bay with each black dot indicating one individual, black undulating lines indicating survey tracks, and black horizontal lines indicating 10m, the pycnocline depth. ZOOVIS and other imaging systems have been deployed to study krill (e.g. Trevorrow et al. 2005, Ashjian et al. 2008, Sainmont et al. 2014).

Figure 3 DBO sites (red boxes) are regional “hotspot” transect lines and stations located along a latitudinal gradient. DBO sites serve as a change detection array for consistent monitoring of biophysical responses. Modified by Karen Frey from Grebmeier et al. 2010, EOS 91. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Literature Cited: Arndt CE, Swadling KM (2006) Crustacea in arctic and antarctic sea ice: Distribution, diet and life history strategies. Advances in Marine Biology, Vol 51 51:197-315 Ashjian CJ, Braund SR, Campbell RG, George C and others (2010) Climate variability, oceanography, bowhead whale distribution, and iñupiat subsistence whaling near Barrow, Alaska. Arctic 63:179-194 Ashjian CJ, Davis CS, Gallager SM, Wiebe PH, Lawson GL (2008) Distribution of larval krill and zooplankton in association with hydrography in Marguerite Bay, Antarctic peninsula, in austral fall and winter 2001 described using the video plankton recorder. Deep-Sea Res Pt Ii 55:455-471 Berline L, Spitz YH, Ashjian CJ, Campbell RG, Maslowski W, Moore SE (2008) Euphausiid transport in the western Arctic Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 360:163-178 Bi H, Guo Z, Benfield M, Fan C, Ford M, Shahrestani S, Sieracki J (2015) A semi-automated image analysis procedure for in situ plankton imaging systems. Plos One:e0127121 Bi HS, Cook S, Yu H, Benfield MC, Houde ED (2013) Deployment of an imaging system to investigate fine-scale spatial distribution of early life stages of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in Chesapeake Bay. J Plankton Res 35:270-280 Buchholz F, Werner T, Buchholz C (2012) First observation of krill spawning in the high arctic Kongsfjorden, West Spitsbergen. Polar Biol 35:1273-1279 Citta JJ, Quakenbush LT, Okkonen SR, Druckenmiller MLand others (2014) Ecological characteristics of core-use areas used by Bering–Chukchi–Beaufort bowhead whales, 2006–2012. Prog Oceanogr Dalpadado P, Bogstad B (2004) Diet of juvenile cod (age 0-2) in the Barents Sea in relation to food availability and cod growth. Polar Biol 27:140-154 Dalpadado P, Mowbray F (2013) Comparative analysis of feeding ecology of capelin from two shelf ecosystems, off newfoundland and in the barents sea. Prog Oceanogr 114:97-105 Dalpadado P, Skjoldal HR (1996) Abundance, maturity and growth of the krill species Thysanoessa inermis and T.longicaudata in the Barents Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 144:175-183 Dunton KH (1985) Trophic dyamics in marine nearshore systems of the Alaskan high arctic. Ph.D. Thesis University of Alaska Dunton KH, Saupe SM, Golikov AN, Schell DM, Schonberg SV (1989) Trophic relationships and isotopic gradients among arctic and subarctic marine fauna. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 56:89-97 Hollowed AB, Planque B, Loeng H (2013) Potential movement of fish and shellfish stocks from the subarctic to the Arctic Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 22:355-370 Hop H, Gjosaeter H (2013) Polar cod (Boreogadus saida) and capelin (Mallotus villosus) as key species in marine food webs of the Arctic and the Barents Sea. Mar Biol Res 9:878-894 Hopcroft RR, Kosobokova KN, Pinchuk AI (2010) Zooplankton community patterns in the Chukchi Sea during summer 2004. Deep-Sea Res Pt I 57:27-39 Iken K, Bluhm B, Dunton K (2010) Benthic food-web structure under differing water mass properties in the southern Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res Pt Ii 57:71-85 Khim BK, Krantz DE, Cooper LW, Grebmeier JM (2003) Seasonal discharge of estuarine freshwater to the western Chukchi Sea shelf identified in stable isotope profiles of mollusk shells. J Geophys Res- Oceans 108 Krone CA, Robisch PA, Tilbury KL, Stein JE and others (1999) Elements in liver tissues of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus). Mar Mammal Sci 15:123-142 Mauchline J (1980) The biology of mysids and euphausiids, Vol. Academic Press McMahon, KW, LL Hamady, and SR Thorrold (2013) Ocean ecobiogeochemistry: A review. Ann Rev Oceanogr Mar Biol 51: 327-374. McMeans BC, Rooney N, Arts MT, Fisk AT (2013) Food web structure of a coastal arctic marine ecosystem and implications for stability. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 482:17-27 Miller DGM, Hampton I (1989) Krill aggregation characteristics: Spatial distribution patterns from hydroacoustic observations. Polar Biol 10:125-134 Moore SE, George JC, Coyle KO, Weingartner TJ (1995) Bowhead whales along the Chukotka coast in autumn. Arctic 48:155-160 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Moore SE, George JC, Sheffield G, Bacon J, Ashjian CJ (2010) Bowhead whale distribution and feeding near Barrow, Alaska in late summer 2005-06. Arctic 63:195-205 Pomerleau C, Ferguson SH, Walkusz W (2011) Stomach contents of bowhead whales (balaena mysticetus) from four locations in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Biol 34:615-620 Pomerleau C, Lesage V, Ferguson SH, Winkler G, Petersen SD, Higdon JW (2012) Prey assemblage isotopic variability as a tool for assessing diet and the spatial distribution of bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus foraging in the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 469:161-174 Pomerleau C, Nelson RJ, Hunt BPV, Sastri AR, Williams WJ (2014) Spatial patterns in zooplankton communities and stable isotope ratios (delta c-13 and delta n-15) in relation to oceanographic conditions in the sub-arctic Pacific and western Arctic regions during the summer of 2008. J Plankton Res 36:757-775 Sainmont J, Gislason A, Heuschele J, Webster CN, Sylvander P, Wang M, Varpe O (2014) Inter- and intra-specific diurnal habitat selection of zooplankton during the spring bloom observed by video plankton recorder. Mar Biol 161:1931-1941 Saupe SM, Schell DM, Griffiths WB (1989) Carbon-isotope ratio gradients in western arctic zooplankton. Mar Biol 103:427-432 Seymour J, Horstmann-Dehn L, Wooller MJ (2014) Inter-annual variability in the proportional contribution of higher trophic levels to the diet of Pacific walruses. Polar Biol 37:597-609 Simmonds MP, Isaac SJ (2007) The impacts of climate change on marine mammals: Early signs of significant problems. Oryx 41:19-26 Stanton TK, Chu D, Wiebe PH (1996) Acoustic scattering characteristics of several zooplankton groups. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 53:289-295 Strain PM, Tan FC (1993) Seasonal evolution of oxygen isotope-salinity relationships in high-latitude surface waters. J Geophys Res-Oceans 98:14589-14598 Trevorrow MV, Mackas DL, Benfield MC (2005) Comparison of multifrequency acoustic and in situ measurements of zooplankton abundances in Knight Inlet, British Columbia. J Acoust Soc Am 117:3574-3588 Zhukova NG, Nesterova VN, Prokopchuk IP, Rudneva GB (2009) Winter distribution of euphausiids (euphausiacea) in the Barents Sea (2000-2005). Deep-Sea Res Pt Ii 56:1959-1967

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: We are currently funded through the BOEM funded COMIDA Hanna Shoal program, the NSF supported Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) project, and the Russian-American Long-Term Census of the Arctic (RUSALCA). These projects are all generating data that can help inform the goals of this project, particularly isotopic data, including compound-specific isotope data on amino acid distributions within Chukchi sea foodwebs. This proposed research will enhance these developing data sets by fully incorporating the important trophic role that krill play in northern Bering and Chukchi ecosystems.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Project Management: Dr. Bi is a biological oceanographer and ecologist who has experience in zooplankton imaging systems, image processing and he also has wide experience in field collection and statistical analysis. He also has experience sampling at high latitudes through funding from the Bering Sea Program. He will have overall responsibility for the successful completion of this project. Dr. Cooper is an expert on stable isotope applications in organic materials and natural waters and has more than 30 years of experience in high latitude oceanographic research problems that are centered on biogeochemistry. He will be responsible for the successful completion of the laboratory aspect of the proposed research that will involve stable isotope analysis. Both PIs will participate in all aspects of the research. Dr. Bi will have responsibility for the proposed pelagic sample collections, deployment of the imaging system, and for data management. A Ph.D. level scientist, Dr. Dana Biasatti will also support work on this project for 2 months of each year during the field years to analyze isotope samples. A technician from Dr. Bi’s group will work on this project for 4 months of each year during the field years to analyze zooplankton samples and assist field work. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Principal Investigators: Hongsheng Bi Associate Professor Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Phone: 410-326-7249 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Fax: 410-326-7318 P.O. Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688 Email: [email protected] (a). Professional preparation 2005 Ph.D, Biological Oceanography with minor in Statistics, Louisiana State University 1996 M.S., Marine Ecology, Institute of Oceanology Chinese Academy of Sciences 1994 B.S., Marine Biology, Ocean University of China (b). Appointments Associate Professor, CBL/UMCES July 2015 - present Assistant Professor, CBL/UMCES Aug 2009 – 2015 Adjunct faculty, Oregon State University Aug 2009 – present (c). Five most relevant products H Bi, Z Guo, C Fan, MC Benfield, M Ford, 2015, An automated image analysis procedure for in situ plankton imaging systems, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127121. H Bi, H Yu, A Pinchuk, R Harvey, 2015, Interannual summer variability in euphausiid populations on the eastern Bering Sea shelf during the recent cooling event (2008-2010). Deep Sea Research Pt I, 95:12-19. H Bi, S Cook, H YU, MC Benfield, ED Houde, 2013, Deployment of an imaging system to investigate fine-scale spatial distribution of early-life stages of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Plankton Research, 35: 270 - 280. H Bi, R Ji, H Liu, Y Jo, J Hare, 2014, Decadal changes in zooplankton of the Northeast U.S. continental shelf, PLoS ONE, 9(1): e87720. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087720. H Bi, WT Peterson, PT Strub, 2011, Transport and coastal zooplankton communities in the northern California Current system, Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L12607, 5 PP., 2011, doi:10.1029/2011GL047927 (d) Relevant ongoing research projects Collaborative Research: BEST Synthesis: Integration and modeling of spatial-temporal variation in vital rates for euphausiids in eastern Bering Sea: Implications for demographics, 2011-2014, NSF, 493,229 (CBL $293,229). (Bi H, Harvey RH, 12.5% of time) Estimating early mortality and implications for reference points for the Atlantic menhaden stock, 2013- 2015, NOAA, $142,070, (Bi H, Wilberg M, Schueller A, Nesslage G, Walsh H, 8% of time) Framework for mobile deployment of the zooplankton visualization system and dual-frequency identification sonar system, 2014 – 2017, North Pacific Research Board, $146,950 ($93,130 CBL) (Bi H, Boswell K, 8% of time) (e). Synergistic activities i). Co-convener, Workshop on zooplankton as indicators, 2016 ICES/PICES international zooplankton production symposium, Bergen, Norway, 2016 ii) Convener, Workshop on population connectivity, Baltimore 2011 iii). Developed graduate courses on environmental statistics and spatial ecology iv). Manuscript reviewer for Aquatic Living Resources, Coastal Shelf Sci, Canadian J Fish Aquatic Sci, Deep Sea Res, Ecology, Fish Oceanogr, ICES J. Mar Sci, J Expl Mar Biol Ecol, J Mar Sys, J Plankton Res, J Oceanogr, Limnol Oceanogr: Methods, Mar Ecol Prog Ser, Restoration Ecol, Global Change Biol, PLOS One, Prog Oceanogr. v) Proposal reviewer for NSF Biological Oceanography, NSF Arctic Natural Research, NSF Arctic Observation Network, North Pacific Research Board and Delaware Sea Grant. Panelist for NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program 2013 2014 2015. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Principal Investigators: Lee W. Cooper Research Professor Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Phone: 410-326-7359 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Fax: 410-326-7318 P.O. Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688, USA Email: [email protected] (a). Professional preparation 1987 Ph.D, Oceanography, University of Alaska Fairbanks; 1980 M.S., Botany, University of Washington; 1978 B.A., Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz (b). Appointments Research Professor, CBL/UMCES February 2008 - present Ass’t Research Professor, Research Professor University of Tennessee, Knoxville Nov.1991 – 2008 Research Staff Member, Research Associate, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Nov.1991-January 2000 Research Associate, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Nov. 1988 – Nov. 1991 Postdoctoral Associate, University of California, Los Angeles Nov. 1986 – Nov. 1988 (c). Five relevant products; see also: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zQJsba4AAAAJ&hl=en Cooper, L.W., J.M. Grebmeier, I.L. Larsen, V.G.Egorov, C. Theodorakis, H.P. Kelly, J.R. Lovvorn, 2002. Seasonal variation in water column processes and sedimentation of organic materials in the St. Lawrence Island polynya region, Bering Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 226, 13-26. Grebmeier, J.M., L.W. Cooper, H.M. Feder, B.I. Sirenko, 2006. Ecosystem dynamics of the Pacific influenced Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. Progress in Oceanography, 71, 331-361. Grebmeier, J.M., J.E. Overland, S.E. Moore, E.V. Farley, E.C. Carmack, L.W. Cooper, K.E. Frey, J.H. Helle, F.A. McLaughlin, L. McNutt, 2006. A major ecosystem shift in the northern Bering Sea. Science 311: 1461-1464. Cooper, L.W., Lalande, C., Pirtle-Levy, R.S., Larsen, I.L., Grebmeier, J.M., 2009. Seasonal and decadal shifts in particulate organic matter processing and sedimentation in the Bering Strait Shelf Region. Deep-Sea Research II, 56: 1316–1325. Cooper, L.W., M.A. Janout, K.E. Frey, R. Pirtle-Levy, M.L. Guarinello, J.M. Grebmeier, J.M., J.R. Lovvorn, 2012. The relationship between sea ice break-up, water mass variation, chlorophyll biomass, and sedimentation in the northern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 65-70, 141-162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.02.002, (d) Relevant ongoing research projects Chukchi Sea Offshore Monitoring in Drilling Area (COMIDA): Hanna Shoal Ecosystem Study Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (via University of Texas subcontract), $529,267; 09/01/11 to 08/31/16; Months Per Year Committed to Project: 0.75 Collaborative Research: The Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO)-A Change Detection Array in the Pacific Arctic Region, National Science Foundation, $1,702,460 (includes ship support), 05/01/12 - 04/3/17. Months Per Year Committed to the Project: 1.0 Ecosystem Studies in the Pacific Arctic Region Under RUSALCA, DBO, and CBMP: Hydrography, Sediment, and Macroinfaunal Population Dynamics. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $745,241, 10/01/13 – 09/30/19. Months Committed to the Project: 1.5 (average) (e). Synergistic activities Member, National Academy Study Committee, Design of an Arctic Observing Network, 2004-06; Chief Scientist or Co-Chief Scientist, ten multi-investigator research cruises of the USCGC Healy, 2002-2013; other chief scientist/co-chief scientist experience onboard the USCGC Polar Star and Polar Sea, 1993, 1999, 2001, 2010; more than 15 years experience on annual cruises of the CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Arctic waters; Member and Chair, Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee, 2008-date; efforts include promoting cooperation between scientists and subsistence hunters (http://www.icefloe.net/community- primer); facilitating foreign icebreaker access. Member, Board of Directors CCGS Amundsen, 2015- Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Other Required Materials: Please use the templates provided for timelines and milestones (MS Excel), budget summary (MS Excel), budget narrative (MS Word), and logistics summary (MS Word). These templates are included as attachments to the RFP and available at: http://www.nprb.org/arctic-program/request-for-proposals/templates/.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Proposal Short Title Project Start Date – Project End Date individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1 Zooplankton image collection Bi x x x x x x x x Zooplankton sample collection Bi x x x x x x x x Zooplankton image & sample processing Bi x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Data analysis and spatial modeling Bi x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #2 Isotope sample collection Cooper x x x x x x x x Sample processing Cooper x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Analysis Cooper x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #3 Synthesis on spatial overlaps: krill and whales Bi x x x x x x x x synthesis on trophic role using isotope Cooper x x x x x x x x quantify predator and prey interactions Bi & Cooper x x x x x x x x Other Progress report Bi & Cooper x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation Bi & Cooper x x x x x PI meeting Bi & Cooper x x x x x Logistics planning meeting Bi & Cooper x x Publication submission Bi & Cooper Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Bi & Cooper x x x x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Bi & Cooper x x x x additional lines as needed Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 (No page limit) Text in Italics is for instructions only and should be deleted. 3 4 Project Title: The role of krill in the Arctic food web – spatial hotspots and trophic interactions 5 6 Lead PI: Hongsheng Bi, Lee Cooper 7 8 Logistical Needs: 9 1. Vessel requirements: ZOOVIS will be towed up and down along cross-shelf transects collecting 10 continuous water column profile data. The deployment of ZOOVIS requires an A-frame and 11 >1000 lbs capacity electric winch. We will also use shipboard power to recharge the batteries for 12 ZOOVIS regularly, given expected water temperatures. Over the side sampling using bongo nets 13 will be used to collect zooplankton samples for the stable isotope assays. A vessel such as the 14 Norseman II, priced at ~$22,000 per day would meet needs for such sampling, but ideally, as part 15 of an integrated research program, we would anticipate participating with other NPRB funded 16 researchers on more versatile vessels such as the Sikuliaq or Healy (both approximately $45,000 17 per day). Another possibility that would require additional negotiations following a successful 18 invitation to prepare a full proposal would be to leverage existing projects for which we are 19 funded such as DBO, AMBON, or RUSLACA and improve upon the vessels and/or extend use 20 with cooperating science parties. In each case, different considerations apply. Each of the 21 mentioned programs operates on ships that already have reached full or nearly full science 22 capacity. Some other considerations also apply. For example, the Canadian Coast Guard Service 23 Sir Wilfrid Laurier (DBO) cannot be chartered as a Canadian government asset, but is used via 24 cooperative agreements (we already have one in place between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and 25 the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences that supports our annual DBO 26 sampling). While there may not be capacity to use the ship during the July eastbound transit from 27 Victoria, B.C. into the Canadian Arctic, we could explore the potential to use the ship during the 28 westbound transit of the ship in the fall under the same cooperative agreement. The Norseman II 29 currently operates at capacity in support of AMBON, but with additional support from the NPRB 30 Arctic Program, it may be practical to move both this program and others such as proposed here 31 to a larger, more versatile ship such as the Sikuliaq that could meet the needs of both AMBON 32 and NPRB Arctic research program PIs more effectively. A similar case can be made for the 33 renewal of the RUSALCA program that we are funded under beginning October 1, 2015, 34 although in this case a larger Russian flag vessel would probably be the most practical 35 improvement from combined NOAA and NPRB support as this is a practical requirement for 36 work in Russian waters. 37 38 2. Vessel time: Ideally, we would conduct nighttime or low daylight sampling at Distributed 39 Biological Observatory (DBO) sites and tow ZOOVIS between stations. We also want to add a 40 north-south transect for ZOOVIS along the edge of slope water to investigate the north-south 41 gradients. We estimate that we would need three-weeks vessel time in July to survey summer 42 conditions. Sampling in May could be limited by ice conditions, therefore, our main sampling 43 effort will likely be in the summer. 44 45 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 46 47 We are currently funded through NPRB to develop a robust zooplankton image processing 48 procedure. The procedure has been published in PLOS One (Bi et al. 2015) and will be modified 49 and used for the proposed work. Bi is currently working with engineers to upgrade ZOOVIS and 50 develop a more user-friendly interface without adding additional costs to the proposed work. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

51 52 Cooper is currently funded through the BOEM funded COMIDA Hanna Shoal program, the NSF 53 supported Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) project, and the Russian-American Long- 54 Term Census of the Arctic (RUSALCA). These projects are all generating data that can help 55 inform the goals of this project, particularly isotopic data, including compound-specific isotope 56 data on amino acid distributions within Chukchi sea foodwebs. This proposed research will 57 enhance these developing data sets by fully incorporating the important trophic role that krill 58 play in northern Bering and Chukchi ecosystems. While the COMIDA Hanna Shoal project is in 59 its final performance year, the other two projects, and the new Arctic Marine Biodiversity 60 Observing Network (AMBON) project in which we are also participating could conceivably be 61 the source of leveraged logistical support, as described above under logistical needs. Upon a 62 positive recommendation for submission of a full proposal, we will work with other invited 63 proposers to seek the most effective means of leveraging existing ship support with additional 64 support that may be available through the NPRB Arctic Program. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

NPRB BUDGET SUMMARY FORM

PROJECT TITLE: The role of krill in the Arctic food web – spatial hotspots and trophic interactions Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Hongsheng Bi and Lee Cooper, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 127,590 137,256 139,314 144,472 42,650 0 591,282 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 127,590 137,256 139,314 144,472 42,650 0 591,282

1. Personnel Salaries 48,450 49,419 50,408 51,416 14,615 214,308

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 17,442 17,791 18,147 18,510 5,261 77,151 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 40,000

4. Equipment 0

5. Supplies 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 1,000 31,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000

7. Other

2,000 2,000 4,000

Total Direct Costs 83,392 89,710 91,055 94,426 27,876 0 386,459 0

Indirect Costs 44,198 47,546 48,259 50,046 14,774 204,823

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 127,590 137,256 139,314 144,472 42,650 0 591,282 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: The role of krill in the Arctic food web – spatial hotspots and trophic interactions Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Hongsheng Bi and Lee Cooper, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; PI names from 2nd organization - category organization affiliation; PI names from 3rd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 127,590 137,256 139,314 144,472 42,650 0 591,282 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 127,590 137,256 139,314 144,472 42,650 0 591,282

1. Personnel Salaries 48,450 49,419 50,408 51,416 14,615 0 214,308 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 17,442 17,791 18,147 18,510 5,261 0 77,151 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 0 40,000 0

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 1,000 0 31,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 20,000 0

7. Other

0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 4,000 0

Total Direct Costs 83,392 89,710 91,055 94,426 27,876 0 386,459 0

Indirect Costs 44,198 47,546 48,259 50,046 14,774 0 204,823 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 127,590 137,256 139,314 144,472 42,650 0 591,282 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Project Title: The role of krill in the Arctic food web – spatial hotspots and trophic interactions

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $591,282 (cell H27 on “org 1” page in budget summary)

1. Personnel/Salaries: Bi will spend 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, and 1.0 months on this project in years 1- 5 respectively. He will be responsible for krill sampling, both bongo nets and zooplankton imaging system deployments, image analysis, and statistical analysis for krill spatial distribution.

Cooper will spend 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 0.5 month on this project in years 1 -5 respectively. He will have overall responsibility for isotope analysis, and construction of energy pathways from isotope data.

Assistant Reseach Scientist Dana Biasatti, Ph.D. will spend two months per year in years 1-4 to coordinate isotope analysis, including sample preparation and instrument operation. Another technician will spend 5 months per year in years 1-4 to assist during field work including bongo sampling, deployment of imaging system, and image analysis.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Indicate the fringe rate that applies to all individuals identified in 1. Personnel/Salaries

Personnel Expense Details: In the table below, detail the personnel expenses described above. Add more rows as necessary.

Time devoted to Annual Personnel Fringe Year Title/Name project rate cost rate Fringe cost FY16 Associate Professor 1.5 $90,000 $11,250 36% $4,050 Hongsheng Bi FY16 Research Professor 1 $144,000 $12,000 36% $4,320 Lee Cooper FY16 Ass’t Research Scientist- 2 $61,200 $10,200 36% $3,672 isotopes FY16 Technician-plankton 5 $36,000 $15,000 36% $5400 FY16 Totals $48,450 $17,442 FY17 Bi 1.5 $91,800 $11,475 36% $4,131 FY17 Cooper 1 $146,880 $12,240 36% $4,407 FY17 Ass’t Research Scientist 2 $62,424 $10,404 36% $3,745 FY17 Technician-plankton 5 $36,720 $15,300 36% $5,508 FY17 Totals $49,419 $17,791 FY18 Bi 1.5 $93,636 $11,705 36% $4,214 FY18 Cooper 1 $149,818 $12,485 36% $4,495 FY18 Ass’t Research Scientist 2 $63,672 $10,612 36% $3,820 FY18 Technician-plankton 5 $37,454 $15,606 36% $5,618 FY18 Totals $49,419 $18,147 FY19 Bi 1.5 $95,509 $11,939 36% $4,298 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

FY19 Cooper 1 $149,818 $12,735 36% $4,585 FY19 Ass’t Research Scientist 2 $64,946 $10,824 36% $3,897 FY19 Technician-plankton 5 $38,203 $15,918 36% $5,730 FY19 Totals $51,416 $18,510 FY20 Bi 1 $97,420 $8,120 36% $2,923 FY20 Cooper 0.5 $152,815 $6,495 36% $2,338 FY20 Totals $14,615 $5,261

3. Travel: For each year of the project, indicate domestic and foreign travel separately; indicate the purpose of the travel and, as appropriate, detail airfare, taxi, accommodations, per diem, etc. expenses. FY16: Planning meeting @ 2 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person Total travel request in FY16 $2,500*2 = $5,000

FY17: Alaska marine science symposium @ 1 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person ASLO Aquatic Science meeting @ 1 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person

Summer field work preparation @ 2 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person Total travel request in FY17 $2,500 (spring survey) + $2,500 (AMSS) + +$2,500*2 (summer survey) = $10,000

FY18: AGU/ASLO/TOS Ocean science meeting @ 1 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore for ocean science meeting $2,500 per person Alaska marine science symposium @ 1 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person Summer field work preparation @ 2 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person Total travel request in FY18 $2,500 (spring survey) + $2,500 (AMSS) + +$2,500*2 (summer survey) = $10,000

FY19: ASLO Aquatic science meeting @ 1 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person Alaska marine science symposium @ 1 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person Summer field work preparation @ 2 person Travel from Washing DC/Baltimore to Alaska Port $2,500 per person Total travel request in FY18 $2,500 (spring survey) + $2,500 (AMSS) + +$2,500*2 (summer survey) = $10,000

FY20: AGU/ASO/TOS Ocean science meeting @ 1 person Travel from Washington DC/Baltimore for Ocean Science Conference $2,500 per person International conference @ 1 person Travel from Washington DC/Baltimore for an international conference $2,500 per person Total travel request in FY20 $2,500 (domestic) + $2,500 (foreign) = $5,000 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

4. Equipment:

No equipment funds are requested.

5. Supplies: For each year of the project, detail the funding requested to purchase supplies.

FY16: ZOOVIS battery $500*4 = $2,000 ZOOVIS data storage $150 for 2TB hard drive*10 = $1,500 Image processing software: Matlab base + 3 toolboxes = $1,000 Zooplankton Bongo samples: jars and preservatives = $500 Supplies for isotope analysis = $2,500 Total supplies funds request in FY16 $7,500

FY17: ZOOVIS battery $1,000*2 = $2,000 ZOOVIS data storage $150 for 2TB hard drive*10 = $1,500 Image processing software: Matlab base + 3 toolboxes = $1,000 Zooplankton Bongo samples: jars and preservatives = $500 Supplies for isotope analysis = $2,500 Total supplies funds request in FY17 $7,500

FY18: ZOOVIS battery $1,000*2 = $2,000 ZOOVIS data storage $150 for 2TB hard drive*10 = $1,500 Image processing software: Matlab base + 3 toolboxes = $1,000 Zooplankton Bongo samples: jars and preservatives = $500 Supplies for isotope analysis = $2,500 Total supplies funds request in FY18 $7,500

FY19: ZOOVIS battery $1,000*2 = $2,000 ZOOVIS data storage $150 for 2TB hard drive*10 = $1,500 Image processing software: Matlab base + 3 toolboxes = $1,000 Zooplankton Bongo samples: jars and preservatives = $500 Supplies for isotope analysis = $2,500 Total supplies funds request in FY19 $7,500

FY20: Image processing software: Matlab base + 3 toolboxes = $1,000 Total supplies funds request in FY20 $1,000

6. Contractual/Consultants:

In each field year, we have to ship the ZOOVIS and other gear to Alaska port or Seattle and it costs $2,500 for a one way shipping. Total Contractual funds requested is $5,000 in FY17 for a round trip shipping ZOOVIS and other gear from CBL/UMCES to Alaska/Seattle, $5,000 in FY18 to ship the system back to CBL/UMCES for maintenance and upgrade, $2,500 in FY18 for one round trip shipping, and $5,000 in FY19 for one round trip shipping. We will store the ZOOVIS in Alaska or Seattle between spring and summer cruises, but we have to ship ZOOVIS back to CBL after the summer cruise to perform the scheduled upgrades including replacing the old computer board Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi

in the camera system with a new Linux-based computer board and installing new software for better control of the system without additional costs to this project.

7. Other:

Total other funds requested is $2,000 in FY19 and $2,000 in FY20 to cover publication costs in a peer-reviewed journal and assume open publication access.

8. Indirect Costs: The Financial and Administrative Costs (F&A) rate for research is 53% MTDC set by a negotiated rate agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) dated October 9, 2012. F&A costs are not charged on equipment, tuition, participant costs, and subaward costs over $25,000.

Total indirect funds requested is $44,198 in FY16, $47,546 in FY17, $48,259 in FY18, $50,046 in FY19, and $14,774 in FY20.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: (Include federal and non-federal funding. Summarize outside support divided by cost categories above.)

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $##,### (cell I27 in budget summary) For each budget line item category, describe funding provided as other support (in-kind). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi Arctic Pre-proposal 3.7-Bi Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

1 Research Plan 2 3 A. Project Title: The impacts of changing sea ice conditions on the horizontal and vertical distribution of 4 primary producers in the ice covered zone (ICZ) of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem. (Short title: Impacts 5 of sea ice on primary producers.) 6 7 B. Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity: Influence of sea ice dynamics and 8 advection on the phenology, magnitude and location of primary and secondary production, match- 9 mismatch, benthic-pelagic coupling, and the influence of winter conditions 10 11 C. Rationale and justification: 12 13 The Chukchi Sea has experienced a fundamental shift in sea ice conditions in recent decades. Along with 14 a decrease in total sea ice extent, earlier ice breakup and later ice formation, the remaining ice is thinning 15 as first year ice replaces multiyear pack ice (Comiso, 2011; Kwok and Rothrock, 2009; Grebmeier et al., 16 2015; Frey et al., 2014). 17 18 Sea ice is a strong driver of ecosystem variability in the Chukchi Shelf. Peaks in surface chlorophyll a 19 concentrations are associated with springtime ice breakup, salinity-driven stratification and increased light 20 availability. Ocean color satellite trends show an increase in phytoplankton biomass in the open waters of 21 the Chukchi Sea combined with the dramatic decrease in the extent of sea ice observed since 2003 22 suggesting that early season ice breakup may stimulate phytoplankton production at the ice edge (Arrigo 23 et al., 2008; Grebmeier, 2012). In addition to breaking up earlier in the year, the thinner ice pack is 24 becoming increasingly dominated by annual sea ice that transmits more solar radiation to the water, which 25 in turn stimulates phytoplankton growth and surface warming that creates a positive feedback, 26 accelerating the loss of sea ice (Hill, 2008; Perovich et al., 2008). Further, we now suspect that 27 phytoplankton growth is possible both under the ice and within the open ice pack. Recent shipboard 28 (Arrigo et al., 2008) and autonomous buoy (Hill, unpubl.) observations detected high chlorophyll 29 densities (~40 mg m-3 Chl ) under solid ice pack in the northern Chukchi Shelf far from the melting ice 30 edge that was previously thought to represent the leading edge of the spring bloom. Churnside and 31 Marchbanks (2015) also reported surface and deep scattering layers attributed to phytoplankton in open 32 leads in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea over 100 km from the ice edge. It is unknown whether this 33 represents a new phenomenon caused by thinning ice, or a common occurrence resulting from advection 34 of phytoplankton-rich water under the ice. Phytoplankton growth is controlled by light availability under 35 and within the ice pack that is extremely hard to quantify. For example an area with several large floes 36 and thin leads will experience a different light regime than the same area with many small rapidly moving 37 floes even though the total area of open water may be the same. Unfortunately, the phytoplankton 38 dynamics within the ice pack are invisible to passive ocean color remote sensing instruments (e.g. 39 MODIS, VIRRS) that cannot see through ice cover. Further, the coarse spatial resolution (~1 km2) 40 relative to the scale of ice floes and leads, combined with adjacency effects between bright (ice) and dark 41 (open water) targets prevent accurate retrievals of ocean color and phytoplankton biomass from the open 42 leads. As a consequence we do not understand how the state of the ice pack controls phytoplankton 43 growth in the ice covered zone (ICZ). 44 45 Phytoplankton growth in the ICZ has an impact on open water productivity, as early growth depletes 46 surface nutrients before open water conditions are reached. As the melting ice pack initiates stratification 47 through melt water input and solar insolation, nutrient depletion of the surface layer will drive 48 phytoplankton populations down to the thermocline as has been observed in the summer in the Chukchi 49 Sea for many years (Hill et al., 2013). This deep chlorophyll maximum is invisible to passive ocean color 50 remote sensing and results in an underestimation of system productivity (Hill and Zimmerman, 2010). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

51 52 The objective of this research will be to determine if light-limited phytoplankton growth under the ice 53 pack is increasing in response to increased solar radiation, thinning and increased fracturing of the ice 54 pack, and how stimulation of phytoplankton growth and nutrient utilization under the ice affects 55 phytoplankton growth once open water conditions are reached. 56 57 This work will be carried out using lidar technology (Churnside, 2014), which allows mapping both the 58 vertical and horizontal distributions of phytoplankton layers from both airborne and shipborne 59 instruments. No other instrument is able to provide large scale synoptic distribution of phytoplankton 60 allowing us to relate to oceanographic processes such as sea ice conditions. 61 62 Hypotheses: 63 64 Overall hypotheses: The behavior (movement, breakup timing) and state of springtime sea ice (thickness, 65 floe size, lead size) is the primary driver of both spring and summer phytoplankton abundance both 66 horizontally across space and vertically in the water column. 67 H1: Significant phytoplankton growth within the ice covered zone (ICZ) does not occur until a certain 68 open water fraction is reached, which represents a threshold number of hours per day of light 69 saturated photosynthesis. 70 H2: Phytoplankton growth within the ICZ is impacted by ice concentration metrics that are more 71 complicated than simple ice concentration, but includes fractal metrics such as ice flow size and 72 distance between floes. That results in phytoplankton “seeing” a certain average daily light intensity. 73 H3: Phytoplankton growth within the ice pack has a direct impact on later season open water productivity, 74 through drawdown of nutrients, and timing of water column stratification. 75 76 Objectives: 77 78 1. Link sea ice and phytoplankton distribution and develop a model based on sea ice concentration, ice 79 floe shape and fractal metrics. 80 2. Understand how phytoplankton growth in the ICZ affects subsequent open water phytoplankton 81 horizontal and vertical distribution by comparing airborne lidar phytoplankton distribution within the 82 ICZ to that in open water. 83 3. Determine if ocean color trends of increasing phytoplankton growth represent changes in vertical 84 distribution by merging lidar and ocean color images. 85 4. Using airborne lidar observations we will: 86 a. calculate ice concentration and ice fractal metrics within the ICZ study area, 87 b. determine the spatial and vertical distribution of phytoplankton within the ICZ, 88 c. determine the spatial and vertical distribution of phytoplankton within open water next to the 89 ICZ, 90 d. determine how the ice characteristics impact phytoplankton distributions at the ice edge. 91 5. Using shipboard lidar and in water measurements we will: 92 a. quantify the vertical distribution of inherent optical properties (absorption coefficient, a; 93 scattering coefficient, b; backscatter coefficient, bb; beam attenuation coefficient, c; volume 94 scattering function, VSF; etc.) and apparent optical properties (diffuse attenuation coefficient, Kd 95 and attenuation coefficient of upwelling radiance, KLu), 96 b. quantify the vertical distribution of water column constituents (phytoplankton Chl a, particulate 97 carbon and nitrogen, total suspended matter (TSM), particle size distribution), 98 c. validate the airborne lidar algorithms for retrieving vertical distributions of optical properties (Kd, 99 bb, c), phytoplankton abundance and suspended particulate matter required to inform predictive 100 models of phytoplankton growth driven by light availability within the ICZ. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

101 6. Determine whether lidar can inform models to help improve estimates of carbon export to the benthos 102 by providing the vertical distribution of phytoplankton through the water column. 103 104 Expected outcomes and deliverables: 105 106 Products: 107 • Predictive model for phytoplankton abundance and growth based on sea ice concentration, 108 fractal/shape metrics that control light availability in the ICZ. 109 • Model to predict summer phytoplankton abundance based on spring sea ice conditions. 110 • Maps of vertical and horizontal distribution of phytoplankton both within the ICZ and in open water 111 for both field work seasons. 112 • Estimate of sinking carbon based on vertical carbon distribution. 113 114 Contributions: 115 • Maps of vertical and horizontal phytoplankton abundance in the ICZ will be produced and used to 116 understand how the magnitude, timing and distribution of ice break up impacts primary production. 117 o These data will be available for studies on higher trophic levels to investigate links between 118 phenology of phytoplankton and successful reproductive and maturation cycles of zooplankton. 119 • Improve our understanding of how future changes in sea ice will impact the dynamics of primary 120 production in the ice covered zone and adjacent open water that determines the distribution of 121 phytoplankton and the temporal and spatial patterns of primary production that ultimately control the 122 supply of organic carbon to planktonic and benthic consumers. 123 124 D. Project design and conceptual approach: 125 126 Geographic location of field work: We propose to conduct field work within the time frame 15th June to 127 15th July in 2017 and 2018 on the middle to northern Chukchi Shelf (Figure 1). This enables us to capture 128 both the period of ice break up over the northern shelf and newly open water to the south of the ice melt 129 edge. Based on satellite imagery from 2014 this will occur from mid-June onwards. The proposed ship 130 track will include open water, ice edge and further into the ice pack (Figure 1). 131 132 Data to be collected: We will collect coincident data on sea ice metrics, the horizontal and vertical 133 distribution of phytoplankton within the ice covered and open water zones and water column optical 134 properties. Data will be collected from two platforms, a Twin Otter flying out of Barrow, AK and 135 shipboard (ship TBD). 136 137 Airborne: From an aircraft, we will measure ice cover; vertical profiles of optical attenuation, 138 backscattering, and depolarization; ocean color; and sea-surface temperature. We will also collect high- 139 resolution images of the surface. Flight planning will satisfy several criteria. The first is adequate 140 visibility. Low clouds and fog are common in the area and flights have to avoid clouds below the aircraft 141 and thick fog. The aircraft can fly below clouds when cloud base height is over 500 m, and the lidar can 142 operate through thin fog. The second criterion is a desire to sample the range of conditions from open 143 water well away from the ice edge to total ice cover. Daily ice cover images from satellite will be used as 144 a guide. The third is to allow for frequent passes over supporting in situ data from surface ships. The 145 fourth criterion is to obtain repeat coverage in regions of rapidly changing ice cover. The goal is to fly 20 146 hours per week, for a total of 20,000 km of survey track. The instruments can collect data when visual 147 surveys are not possible (e.g., high winds), and this goal should be achievable. 148 149 Sea ice metrics: Sea ice metrics will be determined using imagery collected from the Twin Otter (Figure 150 2). The difference in brightness will be used to identify ice and open water, and the power spectral Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

151 density of the ice distribution will be calculated. The spatial resolution of the camera is a few cm, and the 152 images overlap, so a power spectral density can be calculated over five decades of spatial wavenumber. 153 Where this spectrum has a power law dependence on wavenumber, we know that the process is self- 154 similar, and the underlying process is fractal in nature. Over this range of wavenumbers, we can infer the 155 fractal dimension from the spectral slope. The level of the spectrum is a measure of ice fraction, and the 156 underwater light field can be calculated in a way that includes the distribution of floe sizes and 157 separations. This information can be used to parameterize sub-grid-scale effects in models. 158 159 Vertical and horizontal phytoplankton distribution: The lidar will provide observations of both horizontal 160 and vertical distribution of phytoplankton during ice melting/retreat phase and in summer open water. 161 Lidar maps scattering layers which can then be related to oceanographic processes (Churnside and 162 Donaghay, 2009). This technology was used to identify phytoplankton distribution within the ice covered 163 zone in the summer of 2014 (Figure 3) (Churnside and Marchbanks, 2015), demonstrating the remarkable 164 variability in the spatial distribution near the ice edge. The aircraft will be equipped with the NOAA 165 Oceanographic Lidar, a suite of visible radiometers to measure upwelling irradiance at seven 166 wavelengths, a suite of matched radiometers to measure downwelling irradiance at the same wavelengths 167 for atmospheric correction, a thermal radiometer, and a high-resolution digital camera. The visible 168 radiometers provide ocean color equivalent to satellite products, but with higher spatial resolution and in 169 cloudy conditions. 170 171 Analysis: Lidar data will be processed, in a procedure similar to that of Churnside and Marchbanks 172 (2015), to generate profiles of chlorophyll a concentration. However, a recently developed retrieval 173 algorithm (Churnside et al., 2014) will be used to simultaneously provide profiles of the diffuse 174 attenuation coefficient at 532 nm, Kd(532), and the volume scattering coefficient at the lidar scattering 175 angle of π rad, β(π). Using a bio optical model for the Arctic Ocean, these two parameters provide 176 estimates of light absorption by Colored Dissolved Organic Material (aCDOM) and phytoplankton 177 abundance in terms of the concentration of chlorophyll a, [chl a]. 178 179 Analysis of the ocean color data from the aircraft will use an atmospheric correction algorithm we have 180 developed for low-flying aircraft, which includes flight under clouds (Churnside and Wilson, 2008). 181 Standard satellite algorithms will then be used to infer surface chlorophyll, which will be compared with 182 the lidar surface value estimate. The thermal radiometer provides sea surface temperature, which will be 183 used to identify the source of surface water (e.g., Bering Sea water vs. ice melt). 184 185 Shipboard: From an ice capable ship we will independently validate the airborne lidar profiles using a 186 novel shipboard lidar system consisting of a pulsed YAG laser (532 nm, 4 ns pulse, 20 mJ pulse-1), two 187 Hamamatsu PMT detectors fitted with polarizing filters for co-polarized and cross-polarized return 188 power, and a National Instruments PXI-5154 digitizer (2 GSamples/s, 2 Ch, 8 bit) and control software 189 written in-house using LabView running under Windows 7 (Figure 4). By manipulating digitizer gain, 190 the shipboard lidar is capable of retrieving signals to a depth of four attenuation lengths, providing 191 complete coverage of the euphotic zone where light is sufficient to support phytoplankton growth. This 192 unique instrument will provide the capability to retrieve lidar profiles from the sea surface for direct 193 comparison with simultaneous airborne measurements, and to make independent lidar measurements 194 required for algorithm validation at every station occupied by the ship even when airborne matchups are 195 not possible because of weather conditions and/or logistical constraints beyond the control of this project. 196 Raw shipboard lidar profiles will be gain- and range-corrected (Kovalev and Eichinger, 2004) and then 197 processed with the same algorithms used for the airborne data to estimate Kd(532), β(π), [chl a] and 198 aCDOM. No atmospheric correction is required for the shipboard lidar profiles, which are initiated just 199 beneath the sea surface. 200 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

201 The shipboard lidar system will be deployed simultaneously with an in situ IOP profiling package 202 consisting of: 203 • two WETLabs ac-9 submersible spectrophotometers (one filtered to measure dissolved absorption, 204 one unfiltered to measure dissolved+particulate absorption) at 9 wavelengths 205 • HOBI Labs Hydroscat-6 to measure backscattering, bb, at 6 wavelengths 206 • WETLabs Eco-triplet fluorometer to measure [chl a], phycoerytherin and CDOM fluorescence 207 • Sequoia Scientific LISST-100 to measure near forward VSF, particle size distribution and beam 208 attenuation, c(532) 209 • SeaBird CTD along with a freefalling HyperPro radiometric/AOP profiler to measure 210 • Spectral downwelling irradiance, Ed(λ), at 1 nm resolution across the visible spectrum (400 – 700 211 nm), spectral upwelling radiance, Lu(λ), at 1 nm resolution across the visible spectrum (400 – 700 212 nm) and their corresponding attenuation coefficients, Kd(λ) and KLu(λ), respectively. 213 The HyperPro radiometric/AOP is fitted with a WETLabs Eco puck fluorometer and CTD, allowing us to 214 vertically synchronize these profiles with those from the IOP package. 215 216 At each station, we will also collect water samples from the shipboard CTD/Rosette system for 217 spectrophotometric measurement of [chl a], aCDOM , and gravimetric determination of suspended 218 particulate matter for local calibration of the fluorometric and optical profiles into absolute physical units -3 -1 219 – chl fluorescence to chl a concentration (mg m ), CDOM fluorescence to aCDOM (m ), c and bb to 220 suspended particulate matter (g m-3), and post-cruise determination of Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) 221 and Nitrogen (PON) (both mg m-3) using a Carlo Erba CNS analyzer. The entire suite of in situ data will 222 be used to calibrate the lidar profiles from both the shipboard and airborne mounted instruments, allowing 223 us to validate algorithms for retrieval of Kd(532), β(π), [chl a], CDOM, POC and TSM concentrations 224 from the lidar. 225 226 E. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 227 228 We will partner with whomever is funded on the modeling side by providing the observations to compare 229 to model output and also by providing input data as needed. The airborne data are particularly useful for 230 model comparison, because they provide synoptic observations of the spatial patterns. 231 232 In addition, our primary objective is to develop a model relating sea ice and the distribution of 233 phytoplankton. As part of this, we will also develop a sub-grid model of the distribution of floe sizes. 234 These process models can be incorporated into combined physical/bio-geochemical models of the 235 Chukchi Sea. 236 237 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

238 Tables and Figures: 239

240 241 242 243 Figure 1. Map of the proposed study region and surrounding areas. Overlaid image, from the VIIRS 244 ocean color instrument (http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cms/), was taken in June, 2015, and shows the 245 remarkable spatial variability in surface chlorophyll in the area. This image also highlights the difficulty 246 in obtaining satellite ocean color data near the ice edge. The red circles show the extent of the 250 nm 247 range of a Twin Otter from airports in Barrow or Kotzebue, where fuel is available. From these two 248 locations, most of the US portion of the Chukchi shelf can be reached. The black lines represent possible 249 ship tracks across open water and ice covered regions of the Chukchi Shelf. 250 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 Figure 2. Example of ice image from high-resolution camera. Image is 150 m across, with a pixel 278 resolution of 2.5 cm. These data will be used to assess sea ice fractal metrics and probability distribution 279 of floe sizes. Note the wide range of sizes within this single image. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

280 281 282 Figure 3. Chlorophyll concentration, C, according to the color bar at the top, as a function of depth and 283 distance along the flight track (Churnside and Marchbanks, 2015). Vertical white lines denote missing 284 data where the beam is blocked by surface ice, and the fraction of the surface covered by ice over 1 km 285 segments of the track is plotted at the bottom. This is an example of the spatial scales of variability in the 286 Chukchi Sea. A ship might observe a strong surface layer, a strong sub-surface layer, or almost no layer 287 if it stopped to profile chlorophyll at 3 km, 6 km, or 9 km, respectively. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

2 Depolarization Ratio Merged Signal (V) Range Corrected Signal (V m ) ln (Range Corrected Signal) A 0 -1 -2 -3 B 0 5 10 15 C D 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0 0

ro 5 5 ro 5 5

10 10 Station 1 Station 1 10 10 Range (m) Station 2 Station 2 15 Depth (m) True 15 15 15 True Depth (m) True

True Depth (m) True Station 1 20 20 20 20 Station 1 Station 2 Seafloor Station 2 25 25 25 25 288

E G H

289 290 291 Figure 4. Shipboard in situ lidar system. A-D: Example return signals from two stations near the 292 Chesapeake Bay mouth collected 15 July 2014. Station 1 was farther offshore, in deeper clearer water. 293 A. Raw return signals, gains merged. B. Range corrected signals. C. Log-transformed signals used to 294 calculate Ksys. Reflectance from the seafloor is clearly visible at Station 2. D. Depolarization ratio was 295 lower in the upper 10 m in the less turbid offshore station. E- H: The in-situ lidar instrument. E. 296 Removed from the watertight housing. F. End-on view of laser and detector optics. G. Complete system 297 ready for deployment. H. Complete system deployed using a floatation collar that positions the optical 298 window 1 m below the surface. 299 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

300 Literature Cited: 301 302 Arrigo, K. R., van Dijken, G., and Pabi, S. 2008. Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on 303 marine primary production. Geophysical Research Letters, 35: L19603. 304 Churnside, J. H. 2014. Review of profiling oceanographic lidar. Optical Engineering, 53: 305 051405-051405. 306 Churnside, J. H., and Donaghay, P. L. 2009. Thin scattering layers observed by airborne lidar. 307 ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 778-789. 308 Churnside, J. H., and Marchbanks, R. 2015. Sub-surface plankton layers in the Arctic Ocean. 309 Geophysical Research Letters, 42: 4896-4902. 310 Churnside, J. H., Marchbanks, R. D., Lee, J. H., Shaw, J. A., Weidemann, A., and Donaghay, P. 311 L. 2012. Airborne lidar detection and characterization of internal waves in a shallow fjord. 312 Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 6: 063611: 063611-063615. 313 Churnside, J. H., Sullivan, J. M., and Twardowski, M. S. 2014. Lidar extinction-to-backscatter 314 ratio of the ocean. Optics Express, 22: 18698-18706. 315 Churnside, J. H., and Wilson, J. J. 2006. Power spectrum and fractal dimension of laser 316 backscattering from the ocean. Journal of the Optical Society of America a-Optics Image Science 317 and Vision, 23: 2829-2833. 318 Churnside, J. H., and Wilson, J. J. 2008. Ocean color inferred from radiometers on low-flying 319 aircraft. Sensors, 8: 860-876. 320 Comiso, J. C. 2011. Large Decadal Decline of the Arctic Multiyear Ice Cover. Journal of 321 Climate, 25: 1176-1193. 322 Frey, K. E., Maslanik, J., Kinney, J. C., and Maslowski, W. 2014. Recent Variability in Sea Ice 323 Cover, Age, and Thickness in the Pacific Arctic Region. In The Pacific Arctic Region, pp. 31-63. 324 Ed. by J. M. Grebmeier, and W. Maslowski. Springer, Netherlands. 325 Grebmeier, J. M. 2012. Shifting patterns of life in the Pacific Arctic and Sub-Arctic seas. Marine 326 Science, 4. 327 Grebmeier, J. M., Cooper, L. W., Ashjian, C. A., Bluhm, B. A., Campbell, R. B., Dunton, K. E., 328 NMoore, J., et al. 2015. Pacific Marine Arctic Regional Synthesis (PacMARS) Final Report. 259 329 pp. 330 Hill, V. J. 2008. Impacts of chromophoric dissolved organic material on surface ocean heating in 331 the Chukchi Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978–2012), 113. 332 Hill, V. J., Matrai, P. A., Olson, E., Suttles, S., Steele, M., Codispoti, L. A., and Zimmerman, R. 333 C. 2013. Synthesis of integrated primary production in the Arctic Ocean: II. In situ and remotely 334 sensed estimates. Progress in Oceanography, 110: 107-125. 335 Hill, V. J., and Zimmerman, R. C. 2010. Estimates of primary production by remote sensing in 336 the Arctic Ocean: Assessment of accuracy with passive and active sensors. Deep Sea Research 337 Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 57: 1243-1254. 338 Kovalev, V., and Eichinger, W. 2004. Elastic Lidar. Theory, Practice and Analysis Methods, 339 Wiley Interscience. 340 Kwok, R., and Rothrock, D. A. 2009. Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and 341 ICESat records: 1958–2008. Geophysical Research Letters, 36: L15501. 342 Lee, J. H., Churnside, J. H., Marchbanks, R. D., Donaghay, P. L., and Sullivan, J. M. 2013. 343 Oceanographic lidar profiles compared with estimates from in situ optical measurements. 344 Applied Optics, 52: 786-794. 345 Perovich, D. K., Richter‐Menge, J. A., Jones, K. F., and Light, B. 2008. Sunlight, water, and ice: 346 Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2007. Geophysical Research Letters, 35. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

347 Shaw, J. A., and Churnside, J. H. 1997. Fractal laser glints from the ocean surface. Journal of the Optical 348 Society of America a-Optics Image Science and Vision, 14: 1144-1150. 349 350 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 351 352 ASAMM, CHESS – We will coordinate flights closely with these programs. The primary interest is in 353 flight safety, and daily meetings will be held to discuss weather and flight tracks. We will also share 354 observations of marine mammals, including information on whale feeding areas with the ASAMM 355 observers. Benthic feeding whales produce plumes of mud that provide a very distinctive lidar signature. 356 357 NE Chukchi Sea Moored Ecosystem Observatory – This mooring is about 45 minutes flight time from 358 Barrow, and we will make several overpasses to compare lidar data with the in situ data collected by the 359 mooring. While not a major objective of this project, we intend to compare the spatial variability 360 measured by the lidar during these overpasses with the temporal variability measured by the mooring. If 361 most of the small scale variability is due to advection, the spatial and temporal scales should depend on 362 the mean flow. 363 364 We have discussed this pre-proposal with Rick Reynolds and Dariusz Stramski of Scripps. They will be 365 proposing to make in situ profiles of the optical properties and relevant constituents of the water column. 366 They are also interested in passive remote sensing in the area. Their data will be valuable to us for 367 validating our ocean color and lidar retrievals in the Chukchi Sea. At the same time, our data will extend 368 the coverage into the ice pack to areas that they are not able to reach. In addition, the airborne data will 369 provide them with information on how representative their measurements are of the surrounding area. 370 371 Dr’s Hill, Steele and Light are submitting a pre-proposal to measure light availability, phytoplankton 372 abundance and solar driven stratification using autonomous drifting platforms. Their data will be valuable 373 to us as it will provide high temporal resolution measurements throughout the ICZ and open water periods 374 expanding our observations past the shipboard and airborne field season, as well as providing 375 measurements under the ice pack. 376 377 Project Management: 378 379 Dr. Churnside will be the lead PI on this proposal. He will also be responsible for the airborne portion of 380 the project and will take the lead on publications that depend most heavily on the airborne data. He has 381 an FTE position at NOAA – his management has reviewed this proposal and approved his participation as 382 part of that FTE position. Dr. Churnside is a leader in the field of lidar remote sensing of the ocean, with 383 extensive publications over the last 15 years and a recent review article on the topic (Churnside, 2014). 384 With airborne lidar, he has detected thin plankton layers in many locations, including Alaska, Oregon, 385 Norway, and Portugal (Churnside and Donaghay, 2009). In addition to his experience with field 386 measurements, he has a significant background in the development of theoretical models to understand 387 those measurements (Churnside et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2013; Churnside et al., 2012) and with fractal 388 analysis (Churnside and Wilson, 2006; Shaw and Churnside, 1997). 389 390 Dr. Hill will oversee the measurement and analysis of shipboard in situ IOP and AOP profiles, the 391 collection of water samples for determination of biogeochemical constituents. She has been working on 392 primary production in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for over a decade, and is currently funded by NSF 393 to study solar driven warming, light availability and phytoplankton production within the Arctic Ocean 394 using autonomous buoys 395 396 Dr. Zimmerman will oversee operation of the shipboard lidar system and assist Dr. Hill with co- 397 supervision of all shipboard activities associated with this proposal. Dr. Zimmerman has 30 years of Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

398 experience in measuring and modeling aquatic primary production and bio-optics of natural waters, 399 including planktonic and benthic systems, resulting in over 80 publications, including 5 patents and two 400 software copyrights. 401 402 Dr. Sukenik will supervise construction of the arctic-capable shipboard lidar system, integrating our 403 current detection optics and digitizer with an AIRTRAC 532 nm air cooled laser (Areté Associates). He 404 has over 20 years of experience using lasers for the study of atomic physics and oversaw the development 405 of our initial shipboard system. Our current system employs a water-cooled laser cavity that cannot 406 operate or be stored at temperatures below 0° C. 407 408 Coordination with other projects will be developed at the planned program meetings. In addition, close 409 coordination with other aircraft operations is planned, largely for safety reasons, but also to compare 410 observations. In 2014, this was accomplished through daily meetings of scientists and pilots of our 411 project and those doing Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAAM). Finally, we will contact 412 surface vessels by satellite phone and/or email before each overflight to get current conditions and after to 413 report on conditions in the vicinity of the vessel. 414 415 No permits will be required. All flights will maintain recommended minimum altitudes to avoid 416 disturbing wildlife. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Impacts of sea ice on primary producers July 2016 - September 2021 individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for June Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion –Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar May Sept Objective #1: Link sea ice and phytoplankton distribution Churnside Preparation for field deployment Data collection/field work Data/sample processing Analysis Model development/testing Publication Objective #2: The link between PP in ICZ and subsequent open water PP Churnside Preparation for field deployment Data collection/field work Data/sample processing Analysis Publication Objective #3: Merge ocean color images and LIDAR data Churnside Preparation for field deployment Data collection/field work Data/sample processing Analysis Publication Objective #4: Airborne LIDAR observations Churnside Preparation for field deployment Data collection/field work Data/sample processing Analysis Objective #5: Shipboard LIDAR observations Zimmerman Preparation for field deployment Data collection/field work Data/sample processing Analysis Publication Objective #6: LIDAR and carbon export to the benthos Zimmerman Preparation for field deployment Data collection/field work Data/sample processing Analysis Publication Other Progress report x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation x x x x x PI meeting x x x x x Logistics planning meeting x x Publication submission x x x Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: The impacts of changing sea ice conditions on the horizontal and vertical distribution of 4 primary producers in the ice covered zone (ICZ) of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem. 5 6 7 Lead PI: Dr. James Churnside 8 9 Logistical Needs: 10 11 AIRCRAFT 12 A twin engine aircraft with a down-looking camera port. Our equipment weighs about 75 kg and draws 13 1000 W of electric power. We require 80 flight hours between mid-June and mid-July. 14 15 SURFACE VESSEL 16 Type of vessel: Ice capable, needs to be able to enter the ice pack to a distance of approximately 100 km 17 from Mid-June to Mid-July. The field work dates are flexible, but require that we sample on the shelf and 18 shelf break while ice is in place. 19 20 Sampling capability: Water column sampling to a maximum depth 100 m. Capable of deploying 21 instrument of maximum weight 100 lbs from A-frame. 22 23 Number of days ship time: 30 to 40 days. 24 25 Month and year of sampling: Starting approximately 15th June in 2017 and 2018. Target study area is the 26 marginal ice zone and into the ice pack over Hannah Shoal region. 27 28 Number of berths: Berths for 4 people in 2017 and 2018. 29 30 Lab space:15 ft of bench space in the main lab for filtering and analysis of samples. 31 32 Sampling regime: Sampling is requested daily on a pre-determined ship track. Time requested on the main 33 winch is 1.5 hours during which we will deploy a CTD with sampling bottles, an in water optics 34 instrument and the LIDAR to a maximum depth of 100 m. 35 36 Special needs: Instruments require storage in heated area when not on deck. Sampling needs to be 37 conducted during daylight. 38 39 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: We will request use of a NOAA Twin Otter aircraft for this 40 work. Aircraft, pilots, and pilot travel would be provided in-kind by NOAA. NOAA aircraft schedules 41 have not been determined for the period of this program, but we have always gotten requested time in the 42 past. There will be some space on the aircraft that could be made available to collaborators, either for 43 remote sensing instruments or for visual observations using the bubble windows on the aircraft. Safety 44 training is required for participants, but can be obtained free of charge from the FAA. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

NPRB BUDGET SUMMARY FORM

PROJECT TITLE: Impacts of sea ice on primary producers PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: James Churnside, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30

NPRB Funding 40,905 124,333 114,333 33,797 4,500 4,500 322,369 Other Support 761,253 TOTAL 40,905 124,333 114,333 33,797 4,500 4,500 1,083,622

1. Personnel Salaries 17,978 53,934 53,934 17,978 143,824 $361,795

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 6,436 19,308 19,308 6,436 51,489 86,831 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,608 13,504 13,504 3,000 3,000 3,000 37,616

4. Equipment 0

5. Supplies 10,000 20,000 10,000 40,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

0 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 8,500

Total Direct Costs 36,022 108,746 98,746 28,914 4,500 4,500 281,429 448,626

Indirect Costs 4,883 15,587 15,587 4,883 40,940 312,627

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 40,905 124,333 114,333 33,797 4,500 4,500 322,369 761,253 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - Old Dominion University Research Foundation

PROJECT TITLE: The impacts of changing sea ice conditions on the horizontal and vertical distribution of primary producers in the ice covered zone (ICZ) of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Victoria Hill - Old Dominion University Research Foundation category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 178,964 259,058 257,745 132,331 127,819 83,350 1,039,267 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 178,964 259,058 257,745 132,331 127,819 83,350 1,039,267

1. Personnel Salaries 32,995 83,391 85,893 49,837 46,088 35,574 333,778 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 8,943 23,421 24,507 18,063 18,901 12,200 106,035 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 12,310 25,608 23,843 11,475 11,475 6,000 90,711 0

4. Equipment 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 0

5. Supplies 10,000 10,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 0 29,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 20,000 0

7. Other

4,379 17,307 19,818 4,000 4,000 0 49,504 0

Total Direct Costs 143,627 169,727 169,061 85,375 82,464 53,774 704,028 0

Indirect Costs 35,337 89,331 88,684 46,956 45,355 29,576 335,239 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 178,964 259,058 257,745 132,331 127,819 83,350 1,039,267 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Impacts of sea ice on primary producers Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): James Churnside, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory; Victoria Hill - Old Dominion University Research category Foundation; PI names from 3rd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 219,869 383,391 372,078 166,128 132,319 87,850 1,361,636 narrative. Other Support 761,253 TOTAL 219,869 383,391 372,078 166,128 132,319 87,850 2,122,889

1. Personnel Salaries 50,973 137,325 139,827 67,815 46,088 35,574 477,602 361,795

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 15,379 42,729 43,815 24,499 18,901 12,200 157,524 86,831 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 13,918 39,112 37,347 14,475 14,475 9,000 128,327 0

4. Equipment 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 0

5. Supplies 20,000 30,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 0 69,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 20,000 0

7. Other

4,379 19,307 21,818 5,500 5,500 1,500 58,004 0

Total Direct Costs 179,649 278,473 267,807 114,289 86,964 58,274 985,457 448,626

Indirect Costs 40,220 104,918 104,271 51,839 45,355 29,576 376,179 312,627

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 219,869 383,391 372,078 166,128 132,319 87,850 1,361,636 761,253 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory

Project Title: The impacts of changing sea ice conditions on the horizontal and vertical distribution of primary producers in the ice covered zone (ICZ) of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem.

Total Amount requested by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory for this project is: $322,369

1. Personnel/Salaries: This project will use the services of a Joint Institute engineer (Richard Marchbanks) for FY16-19. In FY16, two months will be spent in initial preparations for the field deployment. This includes testing all of the equipment so any needed replacement parts can be ordered and sending the radiometers to the factory for calibration. In FY16, six months will be spent on finalizing preparations for deployment, making the measurements in the field, and initial preparations for the second deployment. This includes pre- and post-deployment calibration of the lidar and preparing documentation for aircraft installation. In FY17, six months will be spent recovering from the FY16 deployment, preparing for the FY17 deployment, and making measurements in the field. In FY18, an additional two months will be spent making any repairs required after the second deployment and assisting with data analysis. The latter task involves providing engineering information regarding calibration and the specifics of data collection.

This project will also use the services of the NOAA PI for two months the first year and roughly six months each of the subsequent years, except for the last year. This will be back to two months. Dr. Churnside will be responsible for overseeing planning for field work, making the field measurements and data analysis and reporting. This time also includes attendance at the program meetings. Funding for Dr. Churnside’s salary will be provided by NOAA.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Benefit rate for the NOAA/University of Colorado Cooperative Institute for Research (CIRES) in the Environmental Sciences is 35.8%.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 R. Marchbanks 2 months $107,868 $17,978 35.8% $6436 FY16 FY16 Totals 2 months $107,868 $17,978 35.8% $6436 FY17 R. Marchbanks 6 months $107,868 $53,934 35.8% $19,308 FY17 FY17 Totals 6 months $107,868 $53,934 35.8% $19,308 FY18 R. Marchbanks 6 months $107,868 $53,934 35.8% $19,308 FY18 FY18 Totals 6 months $107,868 $53,934 35.8% $19,308 FY19 R. Marchbanks 2 months $107,868 $17,978 35.8% $6436 FY19 FY19 Totals 2 months $107,868 $17,978 35.8% $6436

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

3. Travel: The travel budget assumes 13 trips to Anchorage for meetings as described in the announcement – one in FY16, three in FY17, three in FY18, and two in each of FY19-21. It further assumes two trips of two people to Barrow for 30 days of field work in each of FY17 and FY18. Travel costs are based on government contract fares between Denver and Anchorage and government per diem rates for Anchorage and Barrow. Travel between Anchorage and Barrow will be on the survey aircraft. For each of the Anchorage meetings, an additional $100 was included for ground transportation. For each field deployment, ground transportation was estimated at $400 per trip; this includes a rental car in Anchorage during the installation and teardown.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $1608

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $13,504

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $13,504

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $3000

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $3000

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $3000

4. Equipment: No equipment will be purchased.

Year 1-6: Total equipment funds request in FY16-21 $0

5. Supplies: For each year of the project, detail the funding requested to purchase supplies.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $10,000

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $20,000

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $10,000

6. Contractual/Consultants: No contractors or consultants will be used.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Total Contractual funds requested is $0

7. Other: For each year of field deployment, $2000 is requested to ship the equipment to Anchorage for installation in the aircraft and back from Anchorage at the end of the deployment. The cost for this is based on our previous experience. For each of the last three years of the project, $1500 is requested for publications costs, also based on previous experiences.

Total other funds requested is $2000 in FY17, $2000 in FY18, $1500 in FY19, $1500 in FY20, and $1500 in FY21

8. Indirect Costs: CIRES overhead is 20% of salary, benefits, and travel.

Total indirect funds requested is $4883 in FY16, $15,587 in FY17, $15,587 in FY18 and $4883 in FY19

Other Support/In kind Contributions for the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory: Dr. Churnside’s salary, benefits and indirect costs will be provided by NOAA. He will spend 2 months on this project in FY16, 6 months each year during FY17-20, and 2 months in FY21. Annual salary is $155,055, benefits are 24% of salary and the indirect rate is 86.41% of salary.

Total Other Support provided by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory for this project is: $761,253 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Old Dominion University Research Foundation

Project Title: The impacts of changing sea ice conditions on the horizontal and vertical distribution of primary producers in the ice covered zone (ICZ) of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $1,039,267

1. Personnel/Salaries: Salaries are based on a 12-month performance period. Amounts charged per project period were calculated as follows: salary/12 = rate per month. Rate per month x number of months in period x percent effort in period = charge per period. The Principal Investigator, Victoria Hill, has a salary budgeted at 65,686 in year 1 with a 3% salary increase per project year. The Research Associate, David Ruble, has a salary budgeted at $60,323 in year 1 with a 3% increase each year. Co-PIs Drs. Zimmerman and Sukenik have salaries based on 9-month performance periods. Dr. Zimmerman’s salary at the start of this project will be $153,420, and Dr. Sukenik’s will be $115,690. Each will receive a 3% increase each year.

Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) wages are based on a 7.5 month performance period. A GRA may devote up to 50% academic year effort and 100% summer effort to the project each year. Specific wage rates are determined by the academic departments. They are based on the level of the student (masters or doctoral student) and on the number of years of experience the individual has had on research and sponsored projects. The wage rate for the GRA on this project is $24,000 for 7.5 months of effort. A 3% salary increase has been projected for the Graduate Research Assistant in each project year.

FY2016: PI 1.3 months effort; Co-PI Zimmerman 0.25 month effort; Co-PI Sukenik 0.33 month effort; Research Associate 1.3 months effort; GRA 3.25 months effort. FY2017: PI 4 months effort; Co-PI Zimmerman 0.51 month effort; Co-PI Sukenik 0.68 month effort; Research Associate 4 months effort; GRA 7.5 months effort. FY2018: PI 4 months effort; Co-PI Zimmerman 0.51 month effort; Co-PI Sukenik 0.68 month effort; Research Associate 4 months effort; GRA 7.5 months effort. FY2019: PI 4 months effort; Co-PI Zimmerman 0.3 month effort; Co-PI Sukenik 0.4 month effort; Research Associate 2 months effort; GRA 1.5 months effort. FY2020: PI 4 months effort; Co-PI Zimmerman 0.3 month effort; Co-PI Sukenik 0.4 month effort; Research Associate 2 months effort. FY2021: PI 2.7 months effort; Co-PI Zimmerman 0.5 month effort; Co-PI Sukenik 0.66 month effort.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits:

PI and Research Associate: FICA, worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, health, dental, life and disability insurance premiums, annual and sick leave earnings, tuition reimbursement, and a fringe benefit contribution in lieu of retirement have been budgeted for these positions in accordance with current Old Dominion University Research Foundation policies.

Co-PI Zimmerman - The fringe benefit rate applicable to university faculty salaries is 29% of the salary attributable to this project. This rate includes the university's contribution to the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System, FICA, health, life and disability insurance premiums, worker's compensation, unemployment insurance premiums, annual leave, and sick leave.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Co-PI Sukenik - The fringe benefits applicable to the Co-Principal Investigator’s summer salary include FICA, worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance premiums.

GRA - FICA, worker’s compensation, and unemployment insurance premiums have been budgeted for the summer salary of the Graduate Research Assistant. Only worker’s compensation has been budgeted on academic year salary. A health insurance subsidy in the amount of $450 is budgeted for each academic semester.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Annual Fringe Year Title/Name to project rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI/Victoria Hill 10.8% $65,686 $7,335 47.31% $3,470 FY16 Co-PI/Zimmerman 2.1% $153,420 $4,262 29% $1,236 FY16 Co-PI/Sukenik 2.8% $115,690 $4,262 9.09% $387 FY16 RA/David Ruble 10.8% $60,323 $6,736 39.54% $2,663 FY16 GRA/TBD 27% $24,000 $10,400 11.4% $1,187 FY16 Totals $32,995 $8,943 FY17 PI/Victoria Hill 33.33% $65,686 $21,895 47.38% $10,374 FY17 Co-PI/Zimmerman 4.3% $153,420 $8,694 29% $2,521 FY17 Co-PI/Sukenik 5.67% $115,690 $8,694 9.01% $783 FY17 RA/David Ruble 33.33% $60,323 $20,108 39.4% $7,923 FY17 GRA/TBD 62.5% $24,000 $24,000 7.78% $1,819 FY17 Totals $83,391 $23,421 FY18 PI/Victoria Hill 33.33% $67,657 $22,552 48.57% $10,395 FY18 Co-PI/Zimmerman 4.3% $158,023 $8,955 29% $2,597 FY18 Co-PI/Sukenik 5.67% $119,161 $8,955 8.98% $804 FY18 RA/David Ruble 33.33% $62,133 $20,711 40.11% $8,307 FY18 GRA/TBD 62.5% $24,720 $24,720 7.46% $1,844 FY18 Totals $85,893 $24,507 FY19 PI/Victoria Hill 33.33% $69,686 $23,229 48.84% $11,578 FY19 Co-PI/Zimmerman 2.5% $162,763 $5,425 29% $1,573 FY19 Co-PI/Sukenik 3.33% $122,736 $5,425 9.09% $493 FY19 RA/David Ruble 16.67% $63,997 $10,666 41.22% $4,397 FY19 GRA/TBD 12.5% $25,462 $5,092 0.43% $22 FY19 Totals $49,837 $18,063 FY20 PI/Victoria Hill 33.33% $71,777 $23,926 51.2% $12,251 FY20 Co-PI/Zimmerman 2.5% $167,646 $5,588 29% $1,621 FY20 Co-PI/Sukenik 3.33% $126,418 $5,588 9.09% $508 FY20 RA/David Ruble 16.67% $65,917 $10,986 41.16% $4,522 FY20 Totals $46,088 $18,901 FY21 PI/Victoria Hill 22.5% $73,930 $16,388 52.25% $8,563 FY21 Co-PI/Zimmerman 4.16% $172,676 $9,593 29% $2,782 FY21 Co-PI/Sukenik 5.5% $130,210 $9,593 8.92% $856 FY21 Totals $35,574 $12,200

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

3. Travel: The travel budget includes costs for PIs to travel to Anchorage for a PI meeting in 2016, logistics meetings in October of 2016 and 2017, annual PI meetings March 2017 through 2021 and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in 2017 through 2021. Additionally travel costs are included for four people from Norfolk, VA to Nome, AK to board a ship for fieldwork in years 2017 and 2018. Travel costs are based on fares between Norfolk, VA and Anchorage, AK, and government per diem rates for hotel and meals.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $12,310

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $25,608

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $23,843

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $11,475

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $11,475

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $6,000

4. Equipment: Funds are requested for the purchase of an ultra compact air cooled solid state pulsed YAG laser (AIRTRAC, RPMC Lasers, Inc.) to replace the existing laser used by our in situ system that is water- cooled and cannot be operated at temperatures below 0° C.

Year 1: Total equipment funds request in FY16 $75,000

5. Supplies: Funding is requested for supplies related to the collection and analysis of samples from field work.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $10,000

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $10,000

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $5,000

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $2,000

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $2,000

6. Contractual/Consultants: Funds are requested for calibration of optical instruments by WETlabs and Satlantic prior to field work seasons.

Total Contractual funds requested is $10,000 in FY17 and $10,000 in FY18.

7. Other:

Total other funds requested is $10,000 each year in FY17 and FY 18 for postage / shipping. The amount of $2,000 inFY18 and $4,000 each year in FY 19 and FY 20 is requested to defray the costs of publications.

It is the policy of Old Dominion University to include graduate research tuition in sponsored programs. Tuition remission of $4,379 is budgeted in FY16; $7,307 in FY17; and $7,818 in FY18. This includes all credit hours and fees per semester as well as a 7% anticipated increase per year.

8. Indirect Costs:

Total indirect funds requested is $35,337 in FY16; $89,331 in FY17; $88,684 in FY18; $46,956 in FY19; $45,355 in FY20; and $29,576 in FY21.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH: James H. Churnside

Dr. Churnside is currently developing and applying airborne instrumentation for marine studies. This instrumentation includes the NOAA Oceanographic Lidar, which can profile the density of fish and plankton in the upper ocean from a small aircraft, and radiometers for ocean color and sea-surface temperature. He used the lidar to make the first comparisons between airborne surveys of fish distributions and traditional ship-based methods, proving that valuable data can be obtained through airborne surveys at a fraction of the cost of ship surveys. He has demonstrated widespread occurrence of thin plankton layers, even in open-ocean environments. Using plankton as a tracer, he has demonstrated measurements of internal-wave dynamics and turbulence.

Dr. Churnside received his Ph.D. from the Oregon Graduate Center in 1978. He then became a Member of the Technical Staff of The Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles working on atmospheric propagation and laser speckle statistics. In 1985, he joined the Environmental Technology Laboratory, where he has worked on propagation and on infrared emission from the atmosphere in addition to the Oceanographic Lidar. From 1991 to 2001, he was chief of the Optical Remote Sensing Division. In 2005, the laboratories were reorganized to become the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. He has published 98 articles in refereed journals, written 5 book chapters, and holds 4 patents. He is a Fellow of OSA and SPIE and a member of AGU and TOS. From 2011 until 2014, he was an Associate Editor of Optics Express. Awards include two Distinguished Authorship Awards, two Bronze Medals, and a Silver Medal from the U.S. Department of Commerce, a NOAA Administrator’s Award, the Vilho Väisälä Award from the World Meteorological Organization, and the George W. Goddard Award from SPIE.

Recent journal publications: J.H. Churnside and R.D. Marchbanks (2015) “Sub-surface plankton layers in the Arctic Ocean,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 4896–4902. J.H. Churnside, K. Naugolnykh, and R.D. Marchbanks (2015) “Optical remote sensing of sound in the ocean,” J. Appl. Remote Sens. 9, 096038-096038. J. H. Churnside, J. M. Sullivan, and M. S. Twardowski (2014) "Lidar extinction-to-backscatter ratio of the ocean," Opt. Express 22, 18698-18706. X. Lu, Y. Hu, C. Trepte, S. Zeng, and J. H. Churnside (2014) "Ocean subsurface studies with the CALIPSO spaceborne lidar," J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 119, 4305-4317. J. H. Churnside (2014) "Review of profiling oceanographic lidar," Opt. Engineer. 53, 051405-051405. J. Churnside, B. McCarty and X. Lu (2013) "Subsurface Ocean Signals from an Orbiting Polarization Lidar," Remote Sens. 5, 3457-3475. J. H. Lee, J. H. Churnside, R. D. Marchbanks, P. L. Donaghay, and J. M. Sullivan (2013) “Oceanographic lidar profiles compared with in situ optical measurements,” Appl. Opt. 52, 786-794. J. H. Churnside, R. D. Marchbanks, J. H. Lee, J. A. Shaw, A. Weidemann, and P. L. Donaghay (2012) "Airborne lidar detection and characterization of internal waves in a shallow fjord," J. Appl. Remote Sens. 6, 063611. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Biographical sketch Charles I Sukenik, Co-P.I.

Professional Preparation Cornell University Physics B.A. 1987 Yale University Physics M.Phil. 1989 Yale University Physics M.S. 1989 Yale University Physics Ph.D. 1993

Appointments 2011-present University Professor (tenured) and Chair, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 2006-2007 Honorary Fellow, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 2003-2011 Associate Professor of Physics (tenured), Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 1997-2003 Assistant Professor of Physics, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 1995-1997 Research Associate (post-doc), University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 1993-1995 Research Fellow (post-doc) and Adjunct Lecturer in Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Five Products Most Pertinent to this Project

“Improved Design of a Frequency-shifted Feedback Diode Laser for Optical Pumping at High Magnetic Field”, M.J. Lim, C.I. Sukenik, T. H. Stievater, P.H. Bucksbaum, R.S. Conti, Opt. Comm. 147, 99 (1998). “Modulation-Free Laser Frequency Stabilization and Detuning”, C.I. Sukenik, H.C. Busch, and M. Shiddiq, Opt. Comm. 203, 133 (2002). “Extended tuning of an injection-locked diode laser,” M.K. Shaffer, G. Ranjit, and C.I. Sukenik, Rev. Sci. Instr. 79, 046102 (2008). “Two-color polarization spectroscopy in rubidium,” P. Kulatunga, H.C. Busch, L.R. Andrews, and C.I. Sukenik, Opt. Commun. 285, 2851 (2012). “Using Oceanographic LIDAR to Determine the Vertical Bio-Optical Structure of the Upper Ocean,” Richard C. Zimmerman, Charles I. Sukenik, Victoria J. Hill (Subsea optics and imaging, Edited by John Watson, University of Aberdeen, UK and Oliver Zielinski, University of Oldenburg, Germany, ISBN-13: 978 0 85709 341 7), pg 471-487 (2013).

Synergistic Activities • an extensive program for inclusion of undergraduates in research, with substantial representation from women and African-Americans. • introduced “SCALE-UP” teaching method (with L. Weinstein) to ODU curriculum, • co-initiated the ODU Physics Learning Center (PLC) to aid in retention of physics students. The PLC now serves as a model for other departments on campus. • developed partnership with Ocean Lakes Math / Science Academy (High School) reviewer for numerous proposals and refereed journals. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.8-Churnside

Biographical sketch Richard C. Zimmerman, Co-P.I.

Professional Preparation University of Southern California Biology B.S. (cum laude) 1975 University of Southern California Biology M.S. 1979 University of Southern California Biology Ph.D. 1983

Appointments 2003- Present Professor, Dept. Ocean, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 2003- 2011 Department Chair, Dept. Ocean, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 1999-2003 Adjunct Professor, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 1997- 2001 Vice-President and Senior Scientist, HOBI Labs, Inc., Marina, CA 1996- 2003 Associate Research Scientist, San Jose State University Foundation, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing CA 1992-1996 Asst. Research Scientist, Dept. Biology, UCLA 1987-1992 Research Associate (Instructor), Dept. Molecular Genetics & Cell Biology, University of Chicago. 1986-1987 Postdoctoral Research Associate, Dept. Molecular Genetics & Cell Biology, University of Chicago. 1986 Instructor, Biology Dept., California State University, Long Beach. 1983-1986 Postdoctoral Research Associate, Allan Hancock Foundation, USC

Five Products Most Pertinent to this Project (of more than 80) Zimmerman, R. and Dekker, A., 2006. Chapter 12. Aquatic optics: basic concepts for understanding how light affects seagrasses and makes them measurable from space. In: A. Larkum, R. Orth and C. Duarte (Editors), Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology and Conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 295-301. Pan, X., and R. Zimmerman. 2010. Modeling the vertical distributions of downwelling plane irradiance and diffuse attenuation coefficient in optically deep waters, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C08016, doi:10.1029/2009JC006039 Hill, V., and R. Zimmerman. 2010. Increasing the accuracy of remotely sensed primary production estimates for the Arctic Ocean, using passive and active sensors. Deep Sea Res. 57:1243-1254. Hill, V., P. Matrai, E. Olson, S. Suttles, M. Steele, L. Codispoti, and R. Zimmerman. 2013. Synthesis of integrated primary production in the Arctic Ocean: II. In situ and remotely sensed estimates. Prog. Oceanogr. In press. Zimmerman, R., C. Sukenik, and V. Hill. 2013. Using oceanographic LIDAR to determine the vertical bio-optical structure of the upper ocean, p. 471-487. In J. Watson and O. Zielinski [eds.], Subsea Optics and Imaging. Woodhead.

Synergistic Activities I participate in outreach efforts through the Virginia Aquarium, Virginia Marine Science Consortium and Virginia Sea Grant program. I served on the Editorial Board of Marine Ecology Progress Series and have volunteered for local science fair competitions and National Ocean Sciences Bowl, co-sponsored by ODU. I have also served on the Governing Board of the Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC), the Research and Education Advisory Committee (REAC) of the Virginia Sea Grant Program, and ODU representative to the Consortium for Ocean Leadership (COL). My radiative transfer model of plant canopies (GrassLight Ver 2.13) is now being evaluated by marine resource agencies in Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia and Washington as a potential tool for predicting impacts of climate change (water quality, temperature and ocean acidification) on populations of submerged aquatic vegetation. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

1 Research Plan 2 3 A. Project Title: Ecology of flatfish in the Chukchi Sea during early life history stages 4 5 B. Category 6 This pre-proposal responds to the third category, namely: Oceanography and lower trophic level 7 productivity: Influence of sea ice dynamics and advection on the phenology, magnitude and location of 8 primary and secondary production, match-mismatch, benthic-pelagic coupling, and the influence of 9 winter conditions. 10 11 C. Rationale and justification 12 Flatfish are important subsistence and ecological resources in the Chukchi Sea (Grebmeier et al., 2006). 13 Despite frequent occurrences and elevated abundance of flatfish detected in ongoing surveys, there is 14 remarkably little known about their ecology in the Chukchi Sea, particularly during early life history 15 stages. From previous ichthyoplankton surveys conducted in the Chukchi Sea in 2012 we know that 16 Bering flounder (Hippoglossoides robustus) is the most commonly encountered flatfish larvae, followed 17 by yellowfin sole (Limanda spp). Interestingly, Bering flounder and yellowfin sole partition their habitat 18 during the egg stage, with the former exclusively found in northern Chukchi (north of 72N) and the latter 19 exclusively found in the north Bering Sea and southern Chukchi (south of 69N). This distribution pattern 20 suggests different spawning origins and drift pathways during the egg stage, with Bering flounder closely 21 associated with cold water masses, and yellowfin sole with warmer and coastal water masses. However, 22 during the larval and pre-settlement stages, Bering flounder and yellowfin sole share most of the habitat 23 in the Chukchi shelf, with strong overlap in Kotzebue Sound region, suggesting a convergence of drift 24 pathways and common nursery locations. Greenland halibut (Reinharditus hippoglossoides) larvae are 25 also common in the Chukchi, but their origin is uncertain. There are known spawning grounds in the 26 Bering Sea slope (Sohn et al. 2009), thus late Greenland halibut larvae may advect into the Chukchi 27 through the Anadyr current. Alternatively, there can be additional spawning grounds in the Chukchi slope 28 region. 29 Drift pathways of fish species during the pelagic early life phase are typically linked to the physical 30 features of the ocean, such as mesoscale circulation patterns, but also smaller scale features, such as 31 eddies and fronts. Consequently, the survival of fish eggs and larvae has been typically linked to physical 32 forcing (Houde 2008). On the other hand, the settlement location of benthic oriented fish species is often 33 geographically consistent, due to the influence of spatially constrained habitat features such as sediment 34 size, bathymetry, bottom temperature, and location of favorable infauna and epibenthic community 35 assemblages. As a consequence, the success of post-settlement flatfish stages has been typically linked to 36 density-dependent sources of mortality, in turn mediated by environmental variability (Duffy-Anderson et 37 al. 2014). For example, body size at settlement and habitat characteristics during the post-settlement 38 phase have the potential to affect predation rates on juvenile fish. Slower growing and smaller individuals 39 can suffer high mortality due to size-selective predation and size-selective feeding success (Houde 1989, 40 Ellis and Gibson 1995, Van der Veer et al. 1997). Furthermore, during the post-settlement phase, 41 mortality can be particularly high due to abiotic (e.g., bottom temperature, currents and size of nursery 42 ground) and biotic factors (e.g., growth, predation, and competition among flatfish species) (Bailey 1994, 43 Rijnsdorp et al. 1992, Leggett and Frank 1997, Van der Veer et al. 2000). Many of the post-settlement 44 processes are habitat-mediated because they are influenced by the spatial overlap with potential predators 45 (Ciannelli et al. 2008), the availability of favorable resources, or the presence of optimal environmental 46 conditions (Gibson 1994, McConnaughey and Smith 2000, Bailey et al. 2005). 47 There is very limited knowledge on the location of flatfish larval and nursery habitats, size at 48 settlement, and bio-physical characteristics that affect these habitats and dispersal processes in the 49 Chukchi Sea. This is an unfortunate knowledge gap, considering the close link between environmental 50 forcing and spatio-temporal dynamics of flatfish (e.g., Vestfals et al. 2014, Wilderbuer et al. 2002). Since Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

51 much of the hypothesized climate-mediated changes in range, habitat use, trophic interactions, and 52 recruitment of arctic flatfishes is closely tied to factors influencing the larval and early juvenile periods, 53 focused study on these phases can offer an approach to mechanistic understanding and a framework for 54 forecasting future changes. 55 56 D. Hypotheses 57 We hypothesize that the larval habitats of flatfish in the Chukchi Sea are linked to the physical variables 58 that characterize the sources of different water masses flowing in to the Chukchi (e.g., temperature and 59 salinity), while settlement habitats are linked to geographically fixed variables (e.g., sediment size, depth, 60 spatial location, and consistency of hydrographic variables at depth). We furthermore hypothesize that 61 during the post-settlement phase newly settled flatfish experience density-dependent feeding success and 62 growth, as detected by their size-at-settlement and body condition indexes. 63 A corollary of these two hypotheses, if indeed they are met, is that in a warming Arctic, flatfish of Arctic 64 origins (e.g., Bering flounder and Greenland halibut) will experience increased post-settlement 65 competition from flatfish of Boreal origins (e.g., yellowfin sole). 66 67 E. Objectives 68 To test our hypotheses we will pursue the following objectives: 69 1. Perform historical analyses of flatfish larval, settlement and post-settlement distribution from 70 ichthyoplankton, beam trawl and groundfish collections 71 2. Conduct new field sampling in 2017 and 2019 to characterize physical and geographical 72 attributes of flatfish settlement habitats 73 3. Analyze otolith microstructure of newly settled flatfish to determine size at settlement 74 4. Calculate body condition index of newly settled flatfish to determine factors affecting post- 75 settlement growth 76 77 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables 78 This study will provide the following expected results: 79 1. Comprehensive spatial and temporal maps of larval and settlement habitats for the most 80 commonly occurring flatfish of the Chukchi Sea 81 2. Identification of factors affecting occurrence and abundance of larvae and post-settlement flatfish 82 stages during the dispersal and nursery phase 83 3. Size at settlement of most commonly occurring flatfish of the Chukchi Sea and relative 84 associations with geographic and biophysical variables 85 4. Geographical and physical factors affecting flatfish post-settlement body condition 86 87 Flatfish constitute one of the most abundant fish taxa sampled in ichthyoplankton, beam trawl and bottom 88 trawl surveys of the Chukchi Sea (e.g., EIS preliminary reports, Logerwell et al. 2015). However, 89 remarkably little is known about their distribution during the pre-settlement and post-settlement phases of 90 the life cycle. Understanding factors affecting their distribution and body conditions at these early life 91 history stages will provide insight both at a species and at the ecosystem level. At species level, several 92 studies have identified the dispersal and settlement phase of flatfish as a constraint to their survival (e.g., 93 Petitgas et al. 2014, Duffy Anderson et al., 2014, Bailey et al. 2005). Therefore, knowing how 94 environmental forcing affects larval and juvenile habitats will provide insight into their population 95 dynamics during adult stages. 96 At the ecosystem level, information on settlement habitats contribute to knowledge on benthic- 97 pelagic coupling and food web interactions. In arctic and subarctic systems, benthic-pelagic coupling is 98 considered one of the primary processes affecting carbon biogeochemical cycles, trophic interactions and 99 food web dynamics (Grebmier et al. 2006). In relatively shallow waters, such those in the shelf region of 100 Chukchi Sea, benthic-pelagic coupling is closely linked to timing and rates of primary production, 101 grazing, re-mineralization and sedimentation rates. These processes are tightly linked with the physics Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

102 through timing of sea ice melting, wind intensity, and water temperature. However, another, often 103 overlooked, pathway through which benthic and pelagic systems share carbon and nutrients is through 104 fish settlement processes, particularly for common and abundant benthic oriented fish. Therefore, an 105 assessment of fish settlement hotspots and fish settlement rates can provide much needed information for 106 characterizing pathways of biogenic carbon in the Chukchi Sea. 107 Lastly, settlement is constrained by the species development, habitat characteristics, and 108 phenology of production events. Because of the several constraints acting on the species ontogeny, 109 settlement can be a concentrated process, both in time and space, thus providing a concentrated food 110 source to many higher trophic level predators that feed on benthic resources. In the Bering Sea shelf, for 111 example, juvenile arrowtooth flounder (Atherestis stomias) and Greenland halibut are the main prey items 112 of the same species that they prey upon as adults, such as walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) and 113 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) (Livingston et al. 1993, Aydin and Mueter 2007, Ianelli et al. 2010, 114 Wilderbuer et al. 2010). The dual trophic role of flatfish, first as prey and then as predator, has the 115 potential to affect the dynamics of both the prey and the predator (Walters and Kitchell 2001). 116 117 G. Project design and conceptual approach 118 The study will be initially focused on Greenland halibut, Bering flounder and yellowfin sole, which are 119 the most common flatfish species in both ichthyoplankton and bottom trawl surveys. As we have an 120 opportunity to further examine existing data we may expand the list of species considered in our analysis 121 to include other common taxa. Yellowfin sole is of Boreal origins, supposedly spawning south of the 122 Bering Strait and being advected to the North through the coastal waters (Wilderbuer et al. 1992). 123 Yellowfin sole eggs in the Chukchi are typically associated with warmer and less saline coastal water 124 masses. Bering flounder has a large distribution range both in the Bering and Chukchi Sea. In the Chukchi 125 Sea eggs are very common and abundant and typically associated with cold water masses in the northern 126 region of the shelf. Both yellowfin sole and Bering flounder are coastal spawners, but it is unknown 127 whether spawning occurs in the Chukchi. Greenland halibut is a slope-spawning flatfish, with a long and 128 extensive pelagic larval duration (> 7 months). There are known spawning aggregations along the Bering 129 Sea shelf, but even for this species it is unknown whether spawning occurs also in the Chukchi. If so, 130 spawning must occur at northern deeper sites, along the northern slope region of the Chukchi. 131 Collectively these three species provide an ecologically intriguing gradient of life history adaptations, 132 from coastal (yellowfin sole and Bering flounder) to slope spawners (Greenland halibut), and from sub- 133 arctic (yellowfin sole) to Arctic origins (Bering flounder and Greenland halibut). 134 The first objectives of the study will be pursued through a retrospective analysis of ichthyoplankton, 135 beam trawl, and groundfish survey data, which will reveal patterns of abundance and distribution of 136 flatfish species during the larval, settlement and post-settlement phases. Figure 1 shows a map with 137 station locations where these data have been collected in previous surveys in the Chukchi and North 138 Bering Sea, as part of several integrated programs, such as Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Surveys, and 139 RUSALCA. Table 1 provides information on ichthyoplankton and beam stations by year, available for 140 analysis in the Chukchi. To build maps of flatfish larvae, settlement and post-settlement stages we will 141 use krigging and other interpolation techniques, such as LOESS or GAMs. Most of the collections 142 available for re-analysis are from 2012 and 2013, with additional data going back to 2002. Years 2012 143 and 2013 offer already an oceanographically interesting contrast. In 2013, bottom waters to the north 144 region of the Chukchi shelf were cooler than in 2012, probably due to a lower inflow of coastal current 145 from the Bering Strait in 2012. This hydrographic contrast provides an opportunity to assess whether 146 yellowfin sole eggs are entrained in the coastal currents, and the extent to which they are transported in 147 the Chukchi. 148 Once the retrospective analyses revel spatial patterns of larval and settlement habitat hotspots, we will 149 perform new sampling to better characterize the physical and geographical attributes of flatfish habitats 150 during early life history stages. Field sampling will also provide specimens samples for the third and 151 fourth objectives. Sampling will be conducted over two years (2017, 2019) in collaboration with the IES 152 (Farley et al.) and the Lower Trophic Level (Stabeno et al.) field proposals of the NOAA RACE and Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

153 PMEL Divs, respectively - Titles: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Upper Trophic 154 Level and Lower Trophic Levels. Specifically, beam trawl sampling will occur in the Chukchi only, on a 155 0.5o regular grid (red stations in Fig. 1), while larval sampling will occur at both in the Northern Bering 156 Sea and in the Chukchi on an equally spaced grid. Depending on time, we will plan on conducting higher 157 resolution beam trawl sampling at anticipated hot spots locations for settlement, such as the region of 158 Kotzebue Sound. We will use a 2 m wide and 0.5 m tall beam trawl, equipped with a mesh liner of 3x2 159 mm. Ichthyoplankton tows will be done with a 60 cm BON equipped with 300 um mesh size. At each 160 ichthyoplankton and beam trawl station we will perform a CTD to gather co-occurring hydrographic 161 variables. We will use common regression techniques (GLM, GAM) to relate distribution of flatfish early 162 life history stages to co-occurring geographic (bathymetry, lat and lon) and physical (temperature, 163 salinity) variables. 164 Performing otolith microstructure analysis of late pre-settlement and early-post-settlement stages will 165 address the third objective, of determining size at settlement. This procedure consists of two steps, firstly 166 identifying the otolith size – fish size relationships using linear regression models, and secondly applying 167 these relationships to determine size at settlement based on the location of the settlement check mark on 168 the otolith plane. A similar technique has been successfully implemented for determining size at 169 settlement of Greenland halibut and arrowtooth flounder in the Eastern Bering Sea shelf (NPRB progress 170 reports for project 1205). Size at settlement will be determined from a sample of 100-200 171 individuals/species/year, equally spaced across the Chukchi shelf. Using linear and nonlinear regression 172 techniques, we will relate size at settlement with geography (lat and lon), physics and the density of 173 settled individual to capture density-dependent sources of variability. Depending on the nature of the 174 otolith microstructure, if daily growth rings are visible, it may be possible to also determine post- 175 settlement growth. If such is the case, we will relate individual post-settlement growth with co-occurring 176 physical, biological and geographic variables. 177 Post-settlement condition will be assessed via morphometric indices, such as residuals from body-size 178 and body-weight relationships. Post-settlement conditions will be related to the size at settlement of the 179 individuals as determined in the previous objective, and with the same set of physical, geographic and 180 biological variables previously considered, using linear and nonlinear regression techniques. 181 182 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 183 This study will provide information on larval habitats and settlement locations and timing of common 184 flatfish in the Chukchi Sea. The study will furthermore provide information on geographic and 185 environmental variables affecting the location of settlement habitats, size at settlement, and post- 186 settlement condition of flatfish. It is expected that the student in this project would work closely with the 187 postdoctoral associate identified in the Ladd et al. NOAA/AFSC LTL proposal (zoo-, ichthyopalnkton 188 assemblages) and with the postdoctoral associate identified in the Mueter et al. gadid early life ecology 189 project (NPRB 1508). Other linked projects include modeling efforts by PI William Stockhausen and 190 collaborator Thomas Wilderbuer (NOAA RACE) to use the DISMELS model, applied to output from the 191 Hybrid ROMS and Northern Bering Sea ROMS models, to predict larval drift pathways and retention 192 areas for snow crab and flatfish in the NBS and Chukchi Sea. Our proposed study will provide 193 information for the particle tracking models of flatfish from spawning to settlement. Lastly, our study also 194 complements ongoing analysis of fish distribution (i.e., Ed Farley et al.), by expanding it to flatfish. 195 Expected results on flatfish densities at the settlement habitats can aid food web and biogeochemical 196 modeling by estimating the contribution of settlement processes on benthic-pelagic coupling in the 197 Chukchi Sea. 198 199 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

200 Tables and Figures: 201 202

203

Figure 1. Station map in the Chukchi and North Bering Sea (NBS) overlaid on the bathymetry image. Red dots indicate the proposed sampling for the NOAA RACE (Farley et al) and PMEL (Stabeno et al) Arctic IERP proposals, green is FOCI sampling 2016, 2018, 2020 through RUSALCA, and blue is the North Bering Sea that RACE will be sampling in 2017 and 2019. Ichthyoplankton samples will be collected at all grid stations and along selected hydrographic lines, while beam trawl sampling will only occur at the red grid stations in the Chukchi Sea

Table 1. List of Bongo 20 and 60 (20BON, 60BON), Large Clarke- Bumpus ichthyoplankton, and epibenthic sled trawl (SLED) tows in the Chukchi Sea by year (EcoFOCI Program, NOAA/AFSC). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

204 Literature Cited 205 206 Aydin, K., and F. Mueter. 2007. The Bering Sea--A dynamic food web perspective. Deep Sea Research 207 Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 54(23-26):2501-2525 208 209 Bailey, K.M. 1994. Predation on juvenile flatfish and recruitment variability. Netherlands Journal of Sea 210 Research 32(2):175-189. 211 212 Bailey, K.M., Nakata, H., and Van der Veer, H.W. 2005. The plankton stages of flatfish: physical and 213 biological interactions in transport processes. In: Flatfishes: biology and exploitation. Edited by Gibson, 214 R.N. Blackwell Science, Oxford UK. Pp. 95-118. 215 216 Ciannelli L, Fauchald P, Chan KS, Agostini VN, Dingsør GE. (2008) Spatial fisheries ecology: recent 217 progress and future prospects. Journal of Marine Systems. 71: 223–236 218 219 Duffy-Anderson, J. T., Bailey, K. M., Cabral, H., Nakata, H., and van der Veer, H., 2014. The planktonic 220 stages of flatfishes: physical and biological interaction in transport process. In: Gibson, R.N. (2nd Ed.), 221 Flatfishes: Biology and Exploitation. Blackwell Science, Oxford (in press). 222 223 Ellis, T., and R.N. Gibson. 1995. Size-selective predation of 0-group flatfishes on a Scottish coastal 224 nursery ground. Marine Ecology Progress Series 127(1):27-37. 225 226 Gibson, R.N. 1994. Impact of habitat quality and quantity on the recruitment of juvenile flatfishes. 227 Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 32(2):191-206. 228 229 Grebmeier JM, Cooper LW, Feder HM, Sirenko BI (2006) Ecosystem dynamics of the Pacific-influenced 230 Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas in the Amerasian Arctic. Progress in Oceanography 71 (2006) 331– 361 231 361 232 233 Houde, E.D. 1989. Comparative growth, mortality, and energetics of marine fish larvae: temperature and 234 implied latitudinal effects. Fishery Bulletin 87(3):471-495. 235 236 Houde ED (2008) Emerging from Hjort’s shadow. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 41: 237 53-70 238 239 Ianelli, J.N., S. Barbeaux, T. Honkalehto, S. Kotwicki, K. Aydin, and N. Williamson. 2010. Assessment 240 of the walleye pollock stock in the eastern Bering Sea. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report 241 for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Regions. North Pacific Fishery 242 Management Council, Anchorage, AK. 243 244 Leggett, W.C., and K.T. Frank. 1997. A comparative analysis of recruitment variability in North Atlantic 245 flatfishes--testing the species range hypothesis. Journal of Sea Research 37(3-4):281-299. 246 247 Livingston, P.A., A. Ward, G.M. Lang, and M.S. Yang. 1993. Groundfish food habits and predation on 248 commercially important prey species in the eastern Bering Sea from 1987 to 1989. U.S. Dep. Commer., 249 NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-11, 192 p. 250 251 Logerwell E, Busby M, Carothers C, Cotton C., et al. (2015) Fish communities across a spectrum of 252 habitats in the western Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. Progress in Oceanography (In press). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

253 McConnaughey, R.A., and K.R. Smith. 2000. Associations between flatfish abundance and surficial 254 sediments in the eastern Bering Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(12):2410- 255 2419 256 257 Petitgas, P., Rijnsdorp, A. D., Dickey‐Collas, M., Engelhard, G. H., Peck, M. A., Pinnegar, J. K., 258 Drinkwater, K., Huret, M., and Nash, R. D. 2013. Impacts of climate change on the complex life cycles of 259 fish. Fisheries Oceanography, 22(2): 121 – 139. 260 261 Rijnsdorp, A.D., Van Beek, F.A., Flatman, S., et al. (1992) Recruitment in sole stocks, Riccioni et al. 262 2009 Solea solea (L.) in the northeast Atlantic. Netherlands Journal of Sea Res. 29: 173-192. 263 Sohn D, Ciannelli L, Duffy-Anderson J (2010) Distribution and drift pathways of Greenland halibut 264 (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) early life stages in the Bering Sea. Fisheries Oceanography 19(5): 339- 353 265 353 266 Sohn D, Ciannelli L, Duffy-Anderson JD (In press) Distribution of early life Pacific halibut and 267 comparison with Greenland halibut in the eastern Bering Sea. Journal of Sea Research 268 269 Van der Veer, H.W., R. Berghahn, J.M. Miller, and A.D. Rijnsdorp. 2000. Recruitment in flatfish, with 270 special emphasis on North Atlantic species: progress made by the Flatfish Symposia. ICES Journal of 271 Marine Science 57(2):202. 272 273 Van der Veer, H.W., T. Ellis, J.M. Miller, L. Pihl, and A.D. Rijnsdorp. 1997. Size-selective predation on 274 juvenile North Sea flatfish and possible implications for recruitment. In Chambers, R.C. and E.A. Trippel 275 (Eds.). Early life history and recruitment in fish populations. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 279– 276 303. 277 278 Vestfals C, Ciannelli L, Duffy-Anderson J, Ladd C (2014) Effects of seasonal and interannual variability 279 in along-shelf and cross-shelf transport on groundfish recruitment in the eastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea 280 Research II 109: 204–214 281 282 Walters, C., and J.F. Kitchell. 2001. Cultivation/depensation effects on juvenile survival and recruitment: 283 implications for the theory of fishing. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(1):39-50. 284 285 Wilderbuer TK, Walters GE, Bakkala RG (1992) Yellowfin sole, Pleuronectes asper, of the eastern 286 Bering Sea: biological characteristics, history of exploitation, and management. Mar Fish Rev 54: 118 287 288 Wilderbuer, T.A., Hollowed, A., Ingraham, J., Spencer, P., Conner, L., Bond, N., Walters, G., 2002. 289 Flatfish recruitment response to decadal climactic variability and ocean conditions in the eastern Bering 290 Sea. Progress in Oceanography 55, 235–247. 291 292 Wilderbuer, T.K., D. Nichol, and K. Aydin. 2010. Stock sssessment of arrowtooth flounder. In Stock 293 Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Document for Groundfish Resources in the Bering Sea/Aleutian 294 Islands region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. 295 296 297 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

298 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data 299 300 This study is based on a combination of retrospective analyses and new fieldwork. The objectives and 301 sampling design of the new field-work have been carefully determined in concert with the lead PIs of the 302 NOAA-RACE-PMEL proposals on lower and upper trophic level dynamics (Title: Arctic Integrated 303 Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Upper Trophic Level and Lower Trophic Level). The proposed larval 304 and beam trawl sampling will be conducted on the same sampling platform of the NOAA upper and lower 305 trophic level study (see Fig. 1). This study also indirectly leverages on the collaboration that the FOCI 306 group have established with Russian colleagues through the RUSALCA USA-Russia partnerships (Fig. 307 1). Our proposed fieldwork will occur in 2017 and 2019, but in the even years (2016-18) FOCI will 308 continue sampling of ichthyoplankton through the RUSALCA initiative. The ichthyoplankton from even 309 years collections will be made available to us for analysis. 310 With regard to retrospective analyses we will require access and analyses of ichthyoplankton, beam 311 trawl and groundfish data from the Chukchi Sea. There have been ichthyoplankton collections in the 312 Chukchi and North Bering Sea going back to 2002. A table of existing data is included in the proposal 313 narrative (Table 1). We have already communicated with the lead PIs (Dr. Janet Duffy Anderson) 314 involved in these past studies and obtained permission for retrospective analyses of these data. Beam 315 trawl collections from the Chukchi are available through various projects, the most recent of which, 316 Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network (AMBON), will obtain samples during summer of 2015- 317 17 from three main transects across the north and central Chukchi Sea shelf. We have communicated with 318 one of the AMBON co-PIs (Dr. Franz Mueter, UAF) and obtained permission to access the beam trawl 319 data for the analysis of fish species assemblages. Additional beam trawl data have been collected through 320 other projects and we will continue to expand our network of collaborators to gain access of these data. 321 NOAA RACE has collected bottom trawl data through an inter-agency collaboration in 2012. We have 322 communicated with Bob Lauth (NOAA RACE) and will obtain access to the 2012 bottom trawl data for 323 the retrospective analyses of flatfish species assemblages. 324 This study also has a well-defined link with the modeling components proposed by Stockhausen and 325 Wildebuer in Hollowed modeling proposal (The future of commercial fisheries in the Chukchi Sea under 326 climate change) who will conduct a particle tracking analysis of flatfish and crab dispersal from spawning 327 to settlement areas. Drs. Ciannelli and Duffy-Anderson are collaborators in the dispersal study of 328 Stockhausen and will be able to integrate results should these two studies go forward. Results of our 329 proposed historical and field analyses of settlement and larval habitats will provide essential information 330 to the particle-tracking model. 331 332 Project Management 333 The project team includes Lorenzo Ciannelli (PI), Janet Duffy-Anderson (co-PI) and Libby Logerwell 334 (co-PI). We furthermore envision the involvement of at least one PhD student (name TBD). This team of 335 investigators has already successfully collaborated in several NPRB projects (e.g., 619, 905, BSIERP), as 336 also demonstrated by several co-authored, peer-reviewed articles (see attached CVs). The team is 337 therefore well poised to successfully expand their collaborative synergies in this new and exciting Arctic 338 venture. 339 340 Lorenzo Ciannelli is a Professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences in Corvallis, 341 OR. He has over 15 years of experience in the study of population and community ecology of marine 342 systems with particular emphasis on factors affecting fish spatial distribution and abundance. Dr. 343 Ciannelli has experience with the analysis fisheries spatial data, particularly with regard to density- 344 independent and density-dependent sources of variability on habitat characteristics. Ciannelli will be 345 responsible for the overall project administration and project reports. Ciannelli will also directly supervise 346 the graduate student(s) involved in the project. In collaboration with the other co-PIs and students, 347 Ciannelli will request the historical data for the analysis, and obtain otolith samples for the microstructure 348 analysis. Ciannelli will also assist with the analysis of settlement habitat, size and conditions in relation to Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

349 habitat variables, and synthesize results. 350 351 Janet Duffy-Anderson is the Program Director of the Eco-FOCI group in the NOAA RACE Division. 352 Duffy-Anderson will work with Ciannelli, Logerwell, and the student to examine spatio-temporal patterns 353 of flatfish production, and will help integrate observations with the physical environment, the 354 zooplankton prey field, and upper trophic dynamics. She will assist and advise with 355 data analysis, data interpretation and manuscripts. She has been working in the field of marine 356 zoo- and ichthyoplankton ecology for over 20 years and is an expert in flatfish plankton dynamics. 357 358 Libby Logerwell works in the Fisheries Interaction Team of the NOAA RACE Division. Logerwell: 359 Elizabeth Logerwell will work with Cianelli, Duffy-Anderson, and the student to help integrate 360 observations of flatfish distribution after settlement with the physical environment, the prey field and 361 trophic dynamics. She will assist and advise with data analysis, data interpretation and manuscripts. She 362 has been working in field of fisheries oceanography and habitat use for over 15 years, including Arctic 363 fish for the last 7 years. 364 365 366 Collection permits will be requested and obtained by the NOAA-AFSC study group 367 368 Principal Investigators: 369 See attached CVs 370 371 Other Required Materials: 372 See attached timelines and milestones (MS Excel), budget summary (MS Excel), budget narrative (MS 373 Word), and logistics summary (MS Word). 374 375 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

Proposal Short Title Project Start Date – Project End Date individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1: retrospective analyses of flatfish Data collection/field work ALL x x x x x x x Data/sample processing ST, FRA x x x x x x x Analysis LC, ST, FRA x x x x x x x x x x Objective #2: field surveys of flatfish habitats Data collection/field work ALL x x Data/sample processing LC, ST x x x x x x Analysis LC, ST x x x x x x Objective #3: size at settlement Data collection/field work ALL x x Data/sample processing LC, ST x x x x Analysis LC, ST x x x x Objective #4: condition Data collection/field work ALL x x Data/sample processing LC, ST x x x x Analysis LC, ST x x x x Other Progress report ALL x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation LC, ST x x x x x PI meeting LC, ST x x x x x Logistics planning meeting LC, JD, LL x x Publication submission ALL x x x x Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) ALL x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) ALL x LC Lorenzo Ciannelli JD Janet Duffy-Anderson LL Libby Logerwell FRA Fraculty Res Ass ST PhD student Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

Logistics Summary:

This project is proposed to take advantage of field sampling proposed by the NOAA/AFSC Lower Trophic Level and Upper Trophic Level teams (Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Surveys Phase II; Ladd et al. LTL and Farley et al. UTL), though it could be executed from any platform collecting larval fish from the plankton and age-0 fish from demersal trawls. The NOAA projects (Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey Phase 2 LTL and UTL teams) have funding to charter a vessel capable of deploying multiple trawl nets as described in the research plan (surface, midwater, and bottom), and conduct acoustics as well as bio/physical oceanographic operations in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea during August to early October 2017 and 2019. They propose 65 days at sea each year. This provides a suitable platform for the work proposed herein, though other funded projects could successfully perform the work. Regardless, ship time would be needed to conduct zooplankton tows and demersal trawling, and if full spatial coverage of the Chukchi shelf and Slope is to be realized we would need in excess of 50 days at sea with 24/7 operations. Berth for one scientist (per leg) of any proposed cruise are required, and the individual could assist with plankton and trawl execution and processing.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

NPRB BUDGET SUMMARY FORM

PROJECT TITLE: Ecology of flatfish in Chukchi Sea during early life history stages Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Lorenzo Ciannelli - Oregon State University category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 18,999 136,301 128,995 133,675 52,557 43,483 514,010 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 18,999 136,301 128,995 133,675 52,557 43,483 514,010

1. Personnel Salaries 4,754 49,448 50,930 52,454 15,584 10,701 183,871

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,139 13,578 14,495 15,050 7,169 5,029 57,460 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,800 9,600 7,700 8,050 11,050 12,850 51,050

4. Equipment 6,000 0 6,000

5. Supplies 150 7,100 1,100 1,300 1,950 1,000 12,600

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

0 19,104 19,884 20,700 0 59,688

Total Direct Costs 14,843 98,830 94,109 97,554 35,753 29,580 370,669 0

Indirect Costs 4,156 37,471 34,886 36,121 16,804 13,903 143,341

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 18,999 136,301 128,995 133,675 52,557 43,483 514,010 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

NPRB BUDGET SUMMARY FORM

PROJECT TITLE: Ecology of flatfish in Chukchi Sea during early life history stages Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: PI names from 2nd organization - organization affiliation category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 narrative. Other Support 1,234,206 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,234,206

1. Personnel Salaries 0 182,102

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 0 52,104 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 0

4. Equipment 0 1,000,000

5. Supplies 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other 0

Total Direct Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,234,206

Indirect Costs 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,234,206 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Ecology of flatfish in Chukchi Sea during early life history stages Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Lorenzo Ciannelli - Oregon State University; PI names from 2nd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 3rd category organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 18,999 136,301 128,995 133,675 52,557 43,483 514,010 narrative. Other Support 1,234,206 TOTAL 18,999 136,301 128,995 133,675 52,557 43,483 1,748,216

1. Personnel Salaries 4,754 49,448 50,930 52,454 15,584 10,701 183,871 182,102

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,139 13,578 14,495 15,050 7,169 5,029 57,460 52,104 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,800 9,600 7,700 8,050 11,050 12,850 51,050 0

4. Equipment 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 1,000,000

5. Supplies 150 7,100 1,100 1,300 1,950 1,000 12,600 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

0 19,104 19,884 20,700 0 0 59,688 0

Total Direct Costs 14,843 98,830 94,109 97,554 35,753 29,580 370,669 1,234,206

Indirect Costs 4,156 37,471 34,886 36,121 16,804 13,903 143,341 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 18,999 136,301 128,995 133,675 52,557 43,483 514,010 1,234,206 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Oregon State University

Project Title: Ecology of flatfish in Chukchi Sea during early life history stages

Total Amount requested by the Oregon State University for this project is: $514,010

1. Personnel/Salaries: We request salary support for Dr. Ciannelli to participate to advice graduate student, conduct synthesis, coordinate field activities, participate to annual meetings in Anchorage, synthesis, and reporting functions. The level of support varies from 1 to 2 months/year, depending on anticipated time devoted to the project. We request three years of salary support for a PhD graduate student who will work with co-PIs in field surveys, lab and data analysis, reporting functions, and manuscript preparation.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits rate are applied based on Oregon State University guidelines, and summarized below.

Personnel Expense Details: In the table below, detail the personnel expenses described above. Add more rows as necessary.

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 Ciannelli 0.5 114,096 4,754 0.45 2,139 FY16 Totals 4,754 2,139 FY17 Ciannelli 2 114,096 19,016 0.45 8,557 FY17 PhD 12 30,432 30,432 0.165 5,021 FY17 Totals 49,448 13,578 FY18 Ciannelli 2 117,519 19,586 0.46 9,010 FY18 PhD student 12 31.344 31,344 0.175 5,485 FY18 Totals 50,930 14,495 FY19 Ciannelli 2 121,044 20,174 0.45 9,078 FY19 PhD student 12 32,280 32,280 0.185 5,972 FY19 Totals 52,454 15,050 FY20 Ciannelli 1.5 124,676 15,584 0.46 7,169 FY20 Totals 15,584 7,169 FY21 Ciannelli 1 128,416 10,701 0.47 5,029 FY21 Totals 10,701 5,029

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $1,800 PI travel to kick off IERP meeting in Anchorage in June 2016 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 4 days, $200 local transportation

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $9,600 PI travel to logistic meeting in Anchorage in Oct 2016: $1,550 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 3 days, $200 local transportation

PI + student travel to IERP meeting in Anchorage: $4,100 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

PI travel to AMSS in Anchorage in January 2017: $2,050 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

Student + PI travel to field site in Chukchi in summer 2017: $3,800 $ 1,500 airfare Portland – Barrow, $300 for food, $100 local transportation

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $7,700 PI travel to logistic meeting in Anchorage in Oct 2017: $1,550 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 3 days, $200 local transportation

PI + student travel to IERP meeting in Anchorage: $4,100 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

PI travel to AMSS in Anchorage in January 2018: $2,050 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $8,050 PI + student travel to IERP meeting in Anchorage: $4,100 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

PI travel to AMSS in Anchorage in January 2019: $2,050 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

Student + PI travel to field site in Chukchi in summer 2019: $3,800 $ 1,500 airfare Portland – Barrow, $300 for food, $100 local transportation

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $11,050 PI + student travel to IERP meeting in Anchorage: $4,100 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

PI travel to AMSS in Anchorage in January 2019: $2,050 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

PI + student travel to conference in N America (e.g., ASLO): $4,900 $600 airfare, $400 registration, $200 local transportation, $250 per-diem x 5 days

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $12,850 PI + student travel to IERP meeting in Anchorage: $4,100 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

PI travel to AMSS in Anchorage in January 2019: $2,050 $ 600 airfare Portland – Anchorage, $250 per-diem x 5 days, $200 local transportation

PI + student travel to conference in Europe (e.g., ICES): $6,700 $1,500 airfare, $400 registration, $200 local transportation, $250 per-diem x 5 days

4. Equipment:

Year 1: Total equipment funds request in FY16 $6,000 We request equipment funds to build a beam trawl frame in aluminum, with lead weight, outer net with reinforced ribs, mesh liner, bridles, and shackles for attachment to the ship winch.

5. Supplies: For each year of the project, detail the funding requested to purchase supplies.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $150 - Research and computing charges: $300/month of PI x 0.5

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $7,100 - We request $2,500 to purchase a computer to be used by the students - Research and computing charges: $300/month of PI x 2 - We request $3,000 for shipping of field supplies (beam trawl, nets) and for insurance

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $1,100 - We request $500 for lab supplies - Research and computing charges: $300/month of PI x 2

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $1,300 - We request $200 for lab supplies - Research and computing charges: $300/month of PI x 2 - We request $500 for publication charges - Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $1,950 - We request $1,000 for lab supplies - Research and computing charges: $300/month of PI x 1.5 - We request $500 for publication charges

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $1,000 - We request $200 for lab supplies - Research and computing charges: $300/month of PI x 1 - We request $500 for publication charges

6. Contractual/Consultants:

7. Other:

Graduate student tuition: $19,104 in FY17, $19,884 in FY18, $20,700 in FY19

8. Indirect Costs: Indirect cost charged at the OSU rate of 47%of direct cost (minus student tuition and equipment)

Total indirect funds requested is $4,156 in FY16, $37,471 in FY17, $34,866 in FY18, $ 36,121 in FY19, $16,804 in FY20, $13,903 in FY21

Other Support/In Kind Contributions for NOAA/AFSC:

1. Personnel/Salaries: $ Duffy-Anderson (1mo/yr) FY16: $14385 FY17: $14817 FY18: $15262 FY19: $15719 FY20: $16191 FY21: $16677

Logerwell (1mo/yr) FY16: $14385 FY17: $14817 FY18: $15262 FY19: $15719 FY20: $16191 FY21: $16677

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: $92,543 NOAA fringe (EC Benefits rate) = 28%

Duffy-Anderson (1mo/yr) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

FY16: $4028 FY17: $4148 FY18: $4273 FY19: $4401 FY20: $4533 FY21: $4669

Logerwell (1mo/yr) FY16: $4028 FY17: $4148 FY18: $4273 FY19: $4401 FY20: $4533 FY21: $4669

3. Equipment: $1,000,000 It is estimated that over $1,00,000 in equipment is being offered for this project at no cost (bongo arrays + spares, CalVET arrays, all associated hardware & nets, fastcats, CTD, deck units, microscopes, at sea computers, data loggers, surface and benthic trawls, acoustic arrays, moorings).

4. Indirect: $0 AFSC does not match indirect (AFSC indirect 61.27%)

Total Other Support provided by NOAA/AFSC for this project is: $1,234,206 (cell I27 in budget summary) For each budget line item category, describe funding provided as other support (in-kind).

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

LORENZO CIANNELLI Oregon State University, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences

EDUCATION 1993 Laureate in Biology, Universita’ Degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”, Italy 2002 Ph.D. in Aquatic Fishery and Sciences, University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences (SAFS), Seattle, WA (Advisor: Prof. R.C. Francis)

ACADEMIC POSITIONS 1995-1996 Visiting scholar, University of Washington, SAFS, Seattle, WA, 1995-1996 1996-2002 Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, University of Washington, Seattle 2002-2003 Post-doc, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA, Seattle, WA 2003-2006 Post-doc, University of Oslo, Norway 2006-2011 Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, USA 2011-2015 Associate Professor, Oregon State University 2015-present Professor, Oregon State University

RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS 1) Ciannelli L, Bailey K, Olsen EM. (2015) Ecological and evolutionary constraints of fish spawning habitats. ICES Journal of Marine Science doi:10.1093 icesjms/fsu145 2) Vestfals C, Ciannelli L, Duffy-Anderson J, Ladd C (2014) Effects of seasonal and interannual variability in along-shelf and cross-shelf transport on groundfish recruitment in the eastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Research II 109: 204–214 3) Ciannelli L, Fisher JAD, Skern-Mauritzen M, Hunsicker ME, Hidalgo M, Frank KT, Bailey KM. (2013) Theory, consequences and evidence of eroding population spatial structure in harvested marine fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 480: 227-243 4) Duffy-Anderson J, Blood DM, Cheng W, Ciannelli L, Matarese AC, Sohn D, Vance TC, Vestfals C (2013) Combining field observations and modeling approaches to examine Greenland halibut (Reinharditus hippoglossoides) early life ecology in the southeastern Bering Sea. Journal of Sea Research 75: 96-109 5) Ciannelli L, Bartolino V, Chan KS (2012) Nonadditive and nonstationary properties in the spatial distribution of a large marine fish population. Proceeding Royal Society London B 279: 3635-3642 6) Bacheler NM, Ciannelli L, Bailey KM, Bartolino V (2012) Do walleye pollock exhibit flexibility in where or when they spawn based on the variability of water temperature? Deep Sea Research II 65-70: 208-216 7) Bartolino V, Ciannelli L, Spencer P, Wilderbauer T, Chan KS (2012) Scale-dependent depletion of natural populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 444: 251-272 8) Hunsicker, M, Ciannelli L, Bailey KM, Buckel J, White W., Link J, Essington T, Gaichas S, Anderson T, Brodeur RD, Chan, KS, Chen K, Englund G, Frank K, Freitas V, Hixon M, Hurst T, Johnson D, Kitchell J, Reese D, Rose G, Sjodin H, Sydeman W, van der Veer H, Vollset K, Zador, S (2011) Functional responses and scaling in marine predator-prey interactions: contemporary issues and emerging concepts Ecology Letters 14(12): 1288-1299 9) Sohn D, Ciannelli L, Duffy-Anderson J (2010) Distribution and drift pathways of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) early life stages in the Bering Sea. Fisheries Oceanography 19(5): 339- 353 10) Ciannelli L, Knutsen H, Moland E, Espeland SH, Asplin L, Jelmert A, Knutsen JA, Stenseth NC (2010) Small-scale genetic structure in a marine population in relation to water circulation and egg characteristics. Ecology 91(10): 2918-2930 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

Janet T. Duffy-Anderson

NOAA/NMFS/AFSC Phone: (206) 526-6465 7600 Sand Point Way, NE E-mail: [email protected] Seattle, WA 98115-0070

A. EDUCATION: Ph.D., March 1996, Marine Studies. University of Delaware, Graduate College of Marine Studies, Lewes, DE. B.S., June 1990, Biology. Lafayette College, Easton, PA. B. APPOINTMENTS: 2014-present: Co-Coordinator of NPCREP (w/ P. Stabeno, NOAA PMEL) 2014-present: Co-Coordinator of FOCI (w/ P. Stabeno, NOAA PMEL) 2014-present: Program Manager Recruitment Processes Program (NOAA/AFSC) 2013-present: Affiliate Faculty, Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 2004-present: Affiliate Faculty, University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. Seattle, WA. 2001-present: Research Fisheries Biologist, NOAA/AFSC. C. PI or Co-PI ON RESEARCH IN THE BERING AND CHUKCHI SEAS: Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (BSIERP), 2007-2012 NSF Bering Sea Synthesis Project: Variable transport of pollock eggs and larvae over the Bering shelf: a marriage of physics and biology, 2011-2013 Arctic Eis Project: Fisheries oceanography in the North Bering and Chukchi Seas, 2011-2014 RUSALCA: Patterns of flow and ecosystem variability on the Chukchi shelf: A new decade of RUSALCA research, 2016-2020 D. PUBLICATIONS (selected recent relevant, of 50+ total): 1. Logerwell, E., Busby, M., Carothers, C., Cotton, C., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Farley, E., Goddard, P., Heintz, R., Horne, J., Parker-Stetter, S., Johnson, S., Lauth, R., Moulton, L., Neff, D., Norcross, B., Seigle, J., and Sformo, T. Fish communities across a spectrum of habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Progress in Oceanography 2. Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Barbeaux, S., Farley, E., Heintz, R., Horne, J., Parker-Stetter, S., Petrik, C., Siddon, E., Smart, T. 2015. State of knowledge review and synthesis of the first year of life of walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) in the eastern Bering Sea with comments on implications for recruitment. Deep Sea Research II. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.02.001 3. Duffy-Anderson, J.T., K.M. Bailey, H. Cabral, H. Nakata and H.W. van der Veer. 2015. The planktonic stages of flatfishes: physical and biological interactions in transport processes. In Flatfishes: Biology and Exploitation. Gibson, R.N., et al. (Eds.). Wiley Publishing. pp. 132-170. 4. Vestfals, C., Ciannelli, L., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., and Ladd, C. 2014. Effects of seasonal and interannual variability in along-shelf and cross-shelf transport on groundfish recruitment in the eastern Bering Sea. Doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.09.026 5. Petrik, C.M., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Mueter, F., Hedstrom, K., Curchitser, E.N. 2014. Biophysical transport model suggests climate variability determines distribution of Walleye Pollock early life stages in the eastern Bering Sea through effects on spawning. Progress in Oceanography doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2014.06.004 E. Collaborators in last 48 months: Brodeur, NWFSC; Cabral, Univ Lisbon; Ciannelli, OSU; Curchitser, Rutgers; Danielson, UAF; Decker, Yale; Eisner, AFSC; Farley, AFSC; Hedstrom, UAF; Heintz, AFSC; Hermann, UW; Horne, UW; Koslow, UCSD; Hunsicker, NWFSC; Kurapov, OSU; Ladd, PMEL; Logerwell, AFSC; Matarese, AFSC; McClatchie, SWFSC; Mordy, UW; Mueter, UAF; Nakata, Nagasaki Univ; Napp, AFSC; Petrik, UC Santa Barbara; Ryer, AFSC; Stabeno, PMEL; van der Veer; NIOZ Arctic Pre-proposal 3.9-Ciannelli

ELIZABETH A. LOGERWELL Resource Ecology and Fishery Management Alaska Fisheries Science Center, F/AKC2 7600 Sand Point Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98115-0070 (206) 526-4231 [email protected] CURRICULUM VITAE

EDUCATION 9/83-6/88 B.S. in Biological Sciences with Honors, Stanford University, CA. 9/91-6/97 PhD. in Biology, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Irvine, CA.

POSITIONS HELD 5/97-9/97 Post-graduate researcher, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, CA 9/97-12/99 National Research Council Post-doctoral fellow, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, CA 1/00-2/01 Post-doctoral researcher, Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystem Regional Study, University of Washington, WA 2/01-8/03 Research Fishery Biologist, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, WA 8/03-present Supervisory Research Fishery Biologist, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, WA

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ARCTIC RESEARCH 2008 Beaufort Sea Marine Fish Monitoring (BOEMRE 2010-048) 2012 Synthesis of Arctic Research, SOAR (BOEM) 2013 Biological and Physical Oceanography of the Chukchi Sea (FWS #F12AF00731)

FIVE RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS Logerwell, E.A., K. Aydin, S. Barbeaux, E. Brown, M.E. Conners, S. Lowe, J.W. Orr, I. Ortiz, R. Reuter, and P. Spencer. 2005. Geographic patterns in the demersal ichthyofauna of the Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Suppl. 1): 93-112

Logerwell, E.A., P.J. Stabeno, C.D.Wilson, A.B. Hollowed 2007 The effect of oceanographic variability and interspecific competition on juvenile pollock and capelin distributions of the Gulf of Alaska Shelf. Deep Sea Research II 54:2849-2686

Logerwell, E.A., J. Duffy-Anderson, M. Wilson, D. McKelvey 2010. The influence of pelagic habitat selection and interspecific competition on productivity of juvenile walleye pollock and capelin in the Gulf of Alaska. Fisheries Oceanography 19:262-278. (funded by NPRB # F0524)

Logerwell, E.A., K.M. Rand and T.J. Weingartner 2011. Oceanographic characteristics of the habitat of benthic fish and invertebrates in the Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 34 (11): 1783-1796

Logerwell, E.A., M. Busby, C. Carothers, S. Cotton, J. Duffy-Anderson, E. Farley, P. Goddard, R. Heintz, B. Holladay , J. Horne, S. Johnson, B. Lauth , L. Moulton, D. Neff , B. Norcross, S. Parker-Stetter, J. Seigle, T. Sformo. 2015. Fish communities across a spectrum of habitats in the western Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. Progress in Oceanography. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.013

COLLABORATORS M. Baker (NOAA ORR), S. Barbeaux (AFSC), S.L. Danielson (UAF), L.B. Eisner (AFSC), L. Fritz (NMML), J. Horne (UW, AFSC), G.L. Hunt, Jr. (UW), N. Kercheval (NPFF), K.J. Kuletz (UAF), R.R. Lauth (AFSC), S. McDermott (AFSC), K. Rand (AFSC), M. Renner (UW), M. Sigler (AFSC), T. Weingartner (UAF). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

1 Research Plan 2 A. Project Title: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic 3 Level Productivity 4 5 B. Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity 6 7 C. Rationale and justification: 8 9 Changes underway in the Chukchi Sea (Fig. 1) are unprecedented; the physical environment is 10 experiencing increases in temperature, progressive declines in sea ice concentration, earlier spring ice 11 retreat, and delayed fall ice formation (Wood et al. 2015). Such shifts in timing and physical structure are 12 intimately tied to water column stratification and the delivery of heat, salt, and nutrients to the Chukchi 13 shelf. This physical restructuring is expected to propagate through the ecosystem. Current hypotheses 14 suggest changes across multiple trophic levels including primary production and phytoplankton size 15 structure (Arrigo et al. 2014, Ardyna et al. 2011, Li et al. 2009), zooplankton structure and dynamics 16 (Ershova et al. 2015), and shifts in upper trophic level species distributions, abundance, and phenology 17 (Berchok et al. 2015, Norcross et al. 2013, Logerwell et al. 2015). Continued warming will restructure the 18 food web through bottom-up forcing including shifts in timing and distribution of lower trophic plankters 19 and prey, increases in food chain length, and decreases in trophic transfer efficiency. 20 21 In order to understand the mechanisms by which the complex interactions of biotic and abiotic forcing 22 influence Arctic ecosystem productivity and functioning, and refine predictions of future response, we 23 propose a comprehensive, integrated, multi-disciplinary field-based approach that will allow us to resolve 24 the interacting factors that determine productivity and trophic dynamics in a changing Arctic climate. Our 25 teams (Arctic IES Phase II; lower trophic level [LTL] and upper trophic level [UTL] teams) propose to 26 expand on our previous comprehensive integrated ecosystem assessments (Arctic Integrated Ecosystem 27 Survey Phase I/Bering Arctic-Subarctic Integrated Survey) by undertaking an intensive, collaborative 28 study of the Chukchi and western Beaufort (if approved) ecosystems from physics to fish. We propose 65 29 days at sea (Fig. 1) in each of two field years, summers of 2017 and 2019. In this LTL component, 30 physics, nutrients, primary, and secondary production of the Chukchi Sea will be concurrently examined 31 using a moored array, autonomous and towed vehicles, and shipboard surveying that will capture spatio- 32 temporal variability of the ecosystem. Close collaboration with our counterparts in the linked UTL 33 component will allow us to understand the effects of these variables on upper trophic biological 34 production. PIs on this LTL proposal are also involved in the RUSALCA program, allowing us to 35 leverage ship time, insights and data from that project to inform a larger-scale understanding of the entire 36 Chukchi Sea. Our goal is tightly aligned with the overarching goal of the Arctic IERP - a better 37 understanding of the mechanisms and processes that structure the ecosystem and influence the 38 distribution, abundance, and life history of lower (phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton) and 39 upper trophic species (fish, seabirds, mammals), and their connections and potential vulnerability to the 40 rapidly changing environment in the Arctic. 41 42 D. Hypotheses: 43 44 The overall goal of this project is to better understand the climatological, physical, chemical and 45 biological processes that influence the flow of energy from primary producers to crustacean zooplankton 46 and ichthyoplankton in the Chukchi Sea and determine how a warming climate will influence these 47 processes. 48 49 Overarching Hypothesis: Reductions in Arctic sea ice influence the flow of energy through the pelagic 50 ecosystem in the Chukchi Sea, particularly: the seasonal composition, distribution and production of Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

51 phytoplankton; the distribution and standing stocks of large crustacean zooplankton that serve as the 52 prey base for upper trophic level fishes; and the assemblages, distributions, and abundances of larval and 53 early juvenile fishes that influence the recruitment success of later life stages.

54 H1: Earlier ice retreat/melt will result in stronger stratification. The contribution of temperature to 55 stratification is expected to increase, while the contribution of salinity to stratification is expected to 56 decrease or remain unchanged. 57 H2: The source of nutrients in the southern Chukchi is primarily Bering Strait; the source of nutrients in 58 the northern Chukchi is primarily upwelled Arctic basin water. 59 H3: Trends toward earlier ice retreat/melt will further shift the balance of primary production from ice 60 associated-algae to open water phytoplankton, thereby reducing organic matter export to the benthos 61 and energy flow to zooplankton grazers early in the season. 62 H4: Warming ocean temperatures will increase upper ocean stratification and reduce vertical nutrient 63 inputs to the mixed layer resulting in the formation of more spatially and temporally extensive 64 subsurface phytoplankton blooms and productivity maxima. 65 H5: Increased stratification will also shift the phytoplankton community to a greater fraction of small 66 cells, thus diverting more energy flow through the microzooplankton community. 67 H6: Nutritional quality of phytoplankton and their zooplankton grazers will decline with increased 68 warming (due to increases in stratification and reductions in nutrients). 69 H7: Zooplankton community size structure will change toward microzooplankton and smaller 70 zooplankters due to shifts in size structure of phytoplankton (H5), thus lengthening the food chain. 71 H8: Ichthyoplankton communities will shift due to changes in species composition and size structure of 72 zooplankton prey base. 73 74 E. Objectives: 75 76 1. (H1) Using under-ice pop-up float profiles of temperature and salinity, quantify the strength of 77 stratification, its temporal evolution, and the influence of temperature and salinity throughout the 78 spring ice melt/retreat. (Stabeno, Ladd, McCabe) 79 2. (H2) Use moored arrays to quantify transport in Herald Canyon and the eastern Chukchi 80 shelf. Shipboard observations will identify pathways of flow and their respective heat, salt, and 81 nutrient concentrations. (Stabeno, Ladd, McCabe, Mordy) 82 3. (H1, H2) Estimate surface heat fluxes using data from an EcoFOCI radiation buoy (summer) and 83 compare this to estimates of advective heat fluxes through the Chukchi Sea using both the moored 84 array and shipboard hydrographic data. (Stabeno, Ladd, McCabe) 85 4. (H3) Examine the relationship among ice thickness, ice retreat, and the timing and abundance of the 86 deep chlorophyll maximum that fuels benthic-pelagic coupling using data from moorings (e.g. Fig. 2) 87 and under-ice pop-up floats, which provide vertical profiles of T, S, PAR, tilt and pressure followed 88 by time series directly under the ice of these variables. Backscatter from the ADCP will be used to 89 identify times of rapid sedimentation of algae. (Stabeno, Mordy, Eisner, Lomas) 90 5. (H3, H4) Quantify the abundance of open water phytoplankton using Slocum gliders, a towed vehicle 91 (both platforms measure T, S, O2, chlorophyll, and nitrate) and shipboard observations (Fig. 3); make 92 a quantitative comparison to sinking ice-associated algae. (Eisner, Lomas, Mordy) 93 6. (H4, H5) Quantify spatial patterns in rates of total and new production, and phytoplankton 94 community size structure as a function of water column physics (stratification) and chemistry 95 (nutrient availability, specifically nitrate and ammonium). Use new primary production data to 96 validate and constrain ocean productivity models in regions where subsurface productivity maxima 97 are important. Use data to understand spatial variability in net community production (H3) and 98 identify ‘hot spots’ of trophic connections between LTL and UTL, and how these might change in 99 relation to other on-going projects in the region focused on detecting change (e.g., Distributed 100 Biological Observatory [DBO]). (Lomas, Eisner, Mordy) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

101 7. (H6) Evaluate trophic interactions between key zooplankton and their phytoplankton prey and transfer 102 of high quality fatty acids up the food web to key forage fish (e.g. Arctic cod). (Eisner, Lomas, Duffy- 103 Anderson) 104 8. (H7) Quantify the distribution, size, abundance, and species assemblage structure of zooplankton 105 (Fig. 4) and ichthyoplankton throughout the US shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea relative to 106 oceanographic conditions and compare results with historical estimates as derived from AFSC/FOCI 107 sampling 2004-present and other available data. Link observations to UTL derived-data to provide 108 mechanistic understanding of trophic relationships. (Duffy-Anderson, Spear, Eisner, Stabeno) 109 9. (H7) Examine connectivity and exchange of lower trophic biota (zooplankton, ichthyoplankton) 110 between ecosystems (Northern Bering Sea, Chukchi) to determine roles of these regions as sources 111 and sinks to secondary production. (Duffy-Anderson, Spear, Eisner) 112 10. (H7) Further resolve spawning and connectivity of Arctic cod and saffron cod adults, larvae and 113 juveniles by providing new field data on late-stage larvae in summer that will be used to ground truth 114 results from biophysical transport model efforts. (NPRB project 1508; Duffy-Anderson collaborator, 115 postdoctoral co-advisor) 116 11. (H7) Connect US Chukchi Sea IERP surveys to those planned in the Russian exclusive economic 117 zone (EEZ; 2017, 2019; Melnikov, TINRO). (Duffy-Anderson) 118 119 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: 120 121 • A continuation of large-scale, systematic integrated ecosystem surveys (physical oceanography to 122 fish and seabirds) that are difficult to obtain in the Arctic. Continuation of long-term moorings in 123 the Chukchi (C1, C3 and C4). These data will contribute to DBO regions 3, 4, and 5. 124 • A comprehensive integrated ecosystem data set of abiotic and biotic variables (physics to fish) in 125 the Chukchi and Beaufort seas to improve information about the influence of oceanographic 126 forcing on the distribution, abundance, and production of trophic biota and their potential 127 vulnerability to the rapidly changing environment in the region. 128 • Comprehensive integrated ecosystem data sets to further connect and improve previously funded 129 work by NPRB (i.e. NPRB projects 1228, 1403, 1426, 1508) and ongoing research in the northern 130 Bering Sea (AFSC, PMEL), Chukchi Sea (RUSALCA, AMBON), and Beaufort Sea (MARES, 131 U.S.-Canada Transboundary Fish and Lower Trophic Communities). 132 • Direct connection to planned integrated ecosystem surveys in the Russian EEZ of the Chukchi 133 Sea (Summers 2017 and 2019/20) through agreements to share data, bio/physical samples, and 134 scientist exchanges on research surveys. Shared data/samples (US/Russia) would be available for 135 the synthesis portion of the Arctic IERP. 136 137 G. Project design and conceptual approach: 138 139 We propose an integrated ecosystem survey of the Chukchi Sea (Fig. 1) August - early October 2017 and 140 2019. The surveys will follow the protocols developed for the Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey 141 (Arctic EIS Phase I) and the Bering Arctic Subarctic Integrated Survey (BASIS). Sampling will be 142 conducted on one vessel capable of deploying trawling (UTL component) and bio/physical oceanographic 143 (LTL component) gear. Sampling design includes gridded stations, four transects that have been occupied 144 previously by EcoFOCI and others, and 3 transects sampling the Chukchi Slope. The Barrow Canyon 145 transect corresponds to DBO line 5; the Icy Cape and Cape Lisburne lines have been occupied annually 146 since 2010 by EcoFOCI; the Pt. Hope line is the U.S. portion of a RUSALCA transect (DBO 3). CTD 147 casts, plankton tows, and water samples from Niskin bottles will be collected. 148 149 Subsurface moorings at three sites (C1, C3, and C4) will be deployed. These moorings will measure 150 current speed and direction (ADCP), near-bottom temperature and salinity, oxygen, nitrate, chlorophyll 151 fluorescence, PAR, bottom pressure and turbidity. The moorings will be deployed in 2017, Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

152 recovered/redeployed in 2018 on the RUSALCA cruise, and recovered in 2019. In addition to these 153 moorings, EcoFOCI (Stabeno) will deploy a mooring at C2 that measures the same parameters, along 154 with ice thickness, and a summer, surface mooring measuring radiation, and meteorological parameters 155 (wind speed and direction, atmospheric pressure, humidity etc.). A series of pop-up floats will be 156 anchored near the C2 mooring, and programmed to sequentially release under the ice in spring recording 157 the evolution of water column temperature and salinity as the ice melts/retreats. 158 159 Our sampling grid allows for continuation of, and comparisons with, previous Arctic EIS Phase I and 160 BASIS surveys. The 7 transects (higher spatial resolution) provide a more complete oceanographic 161 description of water masses, currents and fluxes of water properties (heat, freshwater, nutrients, biota) 162 spanning the region from Pt. Hope to the Chukchi Slope (Fig. 1). Shipboard surveys collect data primarily 163 during ice-free summer conditions, and moorings offer year-round observations of environmental 164 conditions. The moored array data are especially valuable in providing the temporal context for the 165 summer shipboard measurements and allowing for investigation of conditions during ice advance and 166 retreat as well as during the ice-covered winter. 167 168 High resolution sampling will be conducted using: (1) a towed vehicle (Sea Sciences Inc. Acrobat) and 169 two Slocum gliders (deployed during long transits or to re-occupy selected transects) and (2) a Prawler 170 that will be on the EcoFOCI C2 (Stabeno) radiation mooring, which climbs the mooring line and returns 171 hourly (or more frequent) profiles of T, S, O2, and fluorescence (Fig. 5). 172 173 Optical nitrate sensors will be deployed on the moorings to determine seasonal changes near the bottom, 174 and on the towed vehicle and Slocum gliders for high resolution sampling. Discrete samples from the 175 CTD will be frozen at -40°C, for later analysis for nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, phosphate and silicic acid. 176 177 Rates of net, new, and regenerated primary production, will be quantified using 13C, 15NO3, 15NH4 178 stable isotope tracers with 24-h simulated in situ (deck-board) incubations at a subset of hydrography 179 stations. Net community production (NCP) is net primary production minus heterotrophic respiration and 180 represents the production left to be transferred to higher trophic levels, either pelagic or benthic. NCP 181 will be calculated using seasonal changes in nutrient distributions, and oxygen profiles from the CTD and 182 standard geochemical methods (e.g., Emerson 2014) both within the surface mixed layer and below. 183 184 Large and small phytoplankton and microzooplankton taxa will be quantified using flow cytometric and 185 phytoplankton imaging methods (Laney and Sosik 2014; Stauffer et al. 2014; Moran et al. 2012) at a 186 subset of hydrographic stations including all primary productivity stations. Additionally, size-fractionated 187 chlorophyll and particulate organic matter samples will be used to quantify biomass in small and large 188 phytoplankton fractions. Elemental composition of particulate C, N and P will provide a metric of 189 phytoplankton ‘quality’, and help understand how biology is coupling the major macronutrient cycles. 190 191 We will evaluate fatty acid composition on whole water phytoplankton (and microzooplankton) samples 192 and on large crustacean zooplankton (euphausiids and large copepods) at a subset of locations. 193 Phytoplankton and microzooplankton samples will be filtered onto glass fiber filters and zooplankton will 194 be picked from bongo nets. All samples will be analyzed following extraction and derivitization to fatty 195 acids to fatty acid methyl esters (FAME; e.g., Hamm et al. 2001). Results will be compared with fatty 196 acid analysis of key pelagic fish taxa proposed in UTL Arctic IES II to estimate energy transfer. 197 198 Plankton samples will be collected from net sampling at all grid stations and selected oceanographic 199 transects to examine spatio-temporal variability in distribution, abundance, and community structure. 200 Plankton will be sampled using a 20/60-cm Bongo paired net array (0.505, 0.153 mesh) fished obliquely, 201 and from CalVET tows (0.153 mesh) fished vertically. Other gears (Multinet, Tucker trawl sled) may be 202 used at selected stations to obtain depth-discrete and/or epibenthic samples. Zoo- and ichthyoplankton Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

203 will be preserved for quantitative analyses from one side of the bongo net, and sorted and identified at the 204 Plankton Sorting and Identification Center in Szczecin, Poland and identifications will be verified at the 205 AFSC (grid stations). Some identification of larval fish and plankton collected from the other side of the 206 bongo net will take place at sea; representative samples will be saved for energetic analyses (H6), otoliths, 207 and connectivity studies (Ciannelli et al. proposal). Digital photographs will be taken of selected 208 zooplankters and larval fishes. Data from field research cruises will be examined in relation to 209 topographic features, local physical oceanography, and phytoplankton dynamics. Results will placed into 210 context by retrospective studies using previously collected ichthyo- and zooplankton data from this 211 region, extending back to 2004 (AFSC/EcoFOCI, Arctic EIS Phase I, RUSALCA, and other data as 212 available). The retrospective will permit evaluation of long-term change vs. short term variability. 213 214 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 215 216 The data collected in this project will be available to any modeling group funded under the Arctic IERP to 217 assist in model development and validation. In addition, we expect that output from ice- atmosphere- 218 oceanography and/or NPZ models will help inform our results. Any field program is inherently 219 constrained by limitations in spatial and temporal coverage. Models can help fill in the gaps by providing 220 higher spatial resolution and/or multi-year time series to assess temporal and spatial variability on scales 221 impossible from observations alone. Model results can provide context for our observations. 222 223 We have communicated with PIs from the following projects and have agreed to collaborate. Data from 224 physical and biological sampling could be contributed to: 1) efforts to develop NPZD modeling for the 225 arctic (Hermann et al., COBALT-ROMS/NPZ hybrid); 2) synthesis of decapod early life history (Weems 226 et al. Arctic IES UTL); 3) snow crab biophysical model (Parada et al. proposal); 4) arctic cod and saffron 227 early life model NPRB #1508; 5) Arctic IES UTL spatially-explicit growth models and fatty acid analyses 228 of fish and zooplankton; 6) early life flatfish IBM (Stockhausen and Wilderbuer proposal); 7) early life 229 flatfish growth and settlement models (Ciannelli et al. proposal); 8) Doyle et al. plankton imaging; 9) 230 Berchok et al. cetacean passive acoustics; 10) Pinchuk and Harvey euphausiid energetics; 11) Wang et al., 231 climate forecasting scenarios; 12) Lessard et al., microzooplankton. We look forward to partnering with a 232 strong benthic component and plan to assist model efforts of benthic-pelagic coupling. 233 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

234 Tables and Figures: 235 236 Figure 1. Proposed sampling as part of AFSC/PMEL UTL-LTL proposals. Red denotes proposed 237 sampling as part of the NPRB Arctic IERP, including hydrographic transects across the Chukchi Shelf 238 and Slope and moorings (red stars). Black denotes sampling as part of BOEM-Beaufort survey 239 (UTL). Green denotes sampling and moorings which are part of a funded RUSALCA 240 proposal. RUSALCA cruises will be in 2016, 2018 and 2020. Yellow indicates NOAA-funded PMEL 241 moorings. 242 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

243 Figure 2. Time series at the C2 mooring of (A) near-bottom (39 m) chlorophyll concentration, oxygen 244 saturation, and photosynthetic available radiation (PAR) in relation to (B) the daily average depth of ice 245 keels at the mooring (m), and the areal ice concentration (%) in a 50 km x 50 km box around the mooring 246 calculated using the National Ice Center data. The bloom (initially ice algae) likely occurs under and 247 within the ice before evidence of it appears at the bottom of the water column where our fluorometer was 248 located. This bloom consumes near-surface nutrients. Once the ice begins to melt, chlorophyll is exported 249 to the benthos. Associated with the increase in primary production is an increase of percent oxygen 250 saturation, suggesting that primary production continues at depth or that subsurface blooms below the 251 thermocline increase oxygen in the bottom layer (~40 m). PAR is an indication of how much light 252 available for photosynthesis reaches the bottom of the water column. Typically, measurable light reaches 253 the bottom from May through September. A common feature in the PAR time series is a decrease in PAR 254 to almost zero during the height of the bloom. This is likely a result of shading by phytoplankton above 255 the instrument. 256 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

257 Figure 3. Four hydrographic sections of chlorophyll concentration (µg l-1, non-linear scale) and dissolved 258 inorganic nitrogen (DIN, nitrate, nitrite and ammonium, µM) in the Chukchi Sea: (A) Point Hope (US 259 waters only, August 2012), (B) Point Hope to Russian coast (RUSALCA, July 2014), (C) Icy Cape (US 260 waters only, August 2012), and (D) Barrow Canyon (August 2012). These and additional transects in 261 Alaskan waters have been occupied since 2010. 262 263 Note that DIN and chlorophyll content was lowest in ACC water along the Alaskan coast, and highest in 264 Anadyr water (A and B), with remarkably high chlorophyll in the upper 10 m nearest the Russian coast 265 (B). Further north (C), there was a sharp subsurface chlorophyll maximum at ~20 m, which shoaled to the 266 upper water column near the Alaskan coast. Along the northern flank of Barrow canyon (D), there was a 267 deep chlorophyll fluorescence maximum, supersaturated oxygen (not shown) and elevated DIN below 40 268 m. On the southern flank of the canyon, stratification weakened, and nutrients were depleted throughout 269 the water column. 270 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

271 Figure 4. Below-thermocline water column temperatures in 2012 (A) and 2013 (B). Distribution of arctic 272 zooplankters in 2012 (C) and 2013 (D), and Pacific zooplankters in 2012 (E) and 2013 (F). Note influx of 273 arctic water in 2013 (B) relative to 2012 (A) in the vicinity of Wainwright, associated high abundances of 274 arctic plankton in 2013 (D relative to C), and northward extent of Pacific zooplankton in 2012 (E relative 275 to F). Figures courtesy of A. Pinchuk, University of Alaska. Scales: A) range -2 to 12; B) -2 to 12, C) 0 276 to 60, D) 0 to 60, E) 0 to 600, F) 0 to 600. 277 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

278 Figure 5. Schematic of sensors on a radiation buoy and mooring line that is currently deployed near the 279 C2 mooring site. The time series data shown include winds (10 min average and 12 hr running mean), 280 temperature and percent oxygen saturation from July 10-17, 2015 that were collected in real time from a 281 Prawler (mooring line crawler). The sampling frequency is programmable, varies in time and depth. 282 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

283 Literature Cited: 284 285 Ardyna, M., Gosselin, M., Michel, C., Poulin, M., and Tremblay, J.E., 2011. Environmental forcing of 286 phytoplankton community structure and function in the Canadian High Arctic: contrasting oligotrophic 287 and eutrophic regions, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 442, 37–57, doi:10.3354/meps09378 288 289 Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, 290 M. A. Palmer, W. M. Balch, N. R. Bates, C. R. Benitez-Nelson, E. Brownlee, K. E. Frey, S. R. Laney, J. 291 Mathis, A. Matsuoka, B. Greg Mitchell, G. W. K. Moore, R. A. Reynolds, H. M. Sosik, and J. H. Swift., 292 2014. Phytoplankton blooms beneath the sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Res. Part II, 105:1-16. 293 DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.03.018 294 295 Berchok, C.L., J.L. Crance, J.A. Mocklin, P.J. Stabeno, J.M. Napp, M. Wang, and C.W. 296 Clark. 2015. Chukchi Offshore Monitoring In Drilling Area (COMIDA): Factors Affecting the 297 Distribution and Relative Abundance of Endangered Whales. Draft Final Report, OCS Study BOEM 298 2015. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 299 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349. 300 301 Emerson, S.R., 2014. Annual net community production and the biological carbon flux in the ocean. 302 Global Biogeochemical Cycles 28, 14-28. 303 304 Ershova, E., Hopcroft, R., and Kosobokova, K. Inter-annual variability of summer mesozooplankton 305 communities of the western Chukchi Sea: 2004-2012. Polar Biology. doi: 10.1007/s00300-015-1709-9. 306 307 Hamm, C., M. Reigstad, C. W. Riser, A. Muhlebach, and P. Wassmann. 2001. On the trophic fate of 308 Phaeocystis pouchetii. VII. Sterols and fatty acids reveal sedimentation of P-pouchetii-derived organic 309 matter via krill fecal strings. Marine Ecology Progress Series 209: 55-69. 310 311 Hama, T., Miyasaki, T., Ogawa, Y., Iwakuma, T., Takahashi, M., Otsuki, A., Ichimura, S., 1983. 312 Measurement of photosynthetic production of a marine phytoplankton population using a 13C stable 313 isotope. Mar. Biol. 73, 31-36. 314 315 Hamm, C.E., Reigstad, M., Wexels Riser, C., Wassmann, P., 2001. On the trophic fate of Phaeocystis 316 pouchetii. 7. Fatty acids and sterols reveal sedimentation of Phaeocystis-derived organic matter via krill 317 fecal strings. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 209, 55 – 69. 318 319 Laney, S.R., Sosik, H.M., 2014. Phytoplankton assemblage structure in and around a massive under-ice 320 bloom in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II, 105(2014)30–41 321 322 Li, W.K.W., McLaughlin F.A., Lovejoy C., Carmack, E.C., 2009. Smallest algae thrive as the Arctic 323 Ocean freshens. Science, 326, 5952–539. 324 325 Logerwell, E., Busby, M., Carothers, C., Cotton, S., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Farley, E., Heintz, R., 326 Holladay, B., Horne, J., Johnson, S., Lauth, R., Moulton, L., Neff, D., Norcross, B., Parker-Stetter, S., 327 Seigle, J., and Sformo, T. 2015. Fish communities across of spectrum of habitats in the western Beaufort 328 Sea and Chukchi Sea. Progress in Oceanography. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.013 329 330 Moran, S.B., Lomas, M.W., Kelly, R.P., Gradinger, R., Iken, K., Mathis, J.T., 2012. Seasonal succession 331 of net primary productivity, particulate organic carbon export, and autotrophic community composition in 332 the eastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Res II 65-70, 84-97. 333 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

334 Norcross, B., Raborn, S., Holladay, B., Gallaway, B.J., Crawford, S.T., Priest, J., Edenfield, L.E., and 335 Meyer, R. 2013. Northeastern Chukchi Sea demersal fishes and associated environmental characteristics 336 2009-2010. Continental Shelf Research. 67: 77-95. 337 338 Stauffer, B.A., Goes, J.I., Mckee, K.T., Gomes, H.R., Stabeno, P.J., 2014. Comparison of spring-time 339 phytoplankton community composition in two cold years from the western Gulf of Alaska into the 340 southeastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Research II, 109:57-70. 341 342 Wood, K.R., N.A. Bond, J.E. Overland, S.A. Salo, P. Stabeno, and J. Whitefield (2015): A decade of 343 environmental change in the Pacific Arctic region. Prog. Oceanogr., 136, 12–31, doi: 344 10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.005. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

345 346 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 347 348 Innovative Technology for Arctic Exploration (ITEA) program: NOAA/PMEL has a new program to 349 develop autonomous platforms and sensors for the arctic. Mordy is a Co-PI on the program (with Cross 350 and Meinig). Technology is being developed in collaboration with EcoFOCI (Stabeno and Duffy- 351 Anderson), other PIs at AFSC (Eisner, DeRobertis) and at Bigelow (Lomas). We anticipate that all of 352 these innovative platforms and sensors will be available for this proposed effort. 353 354 Innovations in FY15 include the instrumentation and deployment of two Saildrones in the Bering Sea 355 (late April to late-July, 2015); deployment of new-generation profiling mooring (Prawler) in the Arctic 356 (off Icy Cape); deployment of a moored Lab-on-a-Chip nitrate sensor (in collaboration with Southampton, 357 NOS, UK); deployment of two prototype pop-up floats in the Chukchi Sea (anchored floats with timed 358 release under the ice, and telemetry of profile and under ice data to shore including T, S, pressure, PAR, 359 tilt, chlorophyll fluorescence), and deployment of two wave gliders in the Chukchi Sea (Carbon Wave 360 Glider and an Ecosystem Wave Glider, in collaboration with NOAA Ocean Exploration). 361 362 Ongoing developments include the incorporation of a new-generation transducer (Simrad Wideband 363 Autonomous Transceiver, WBAT) into the Saildrone with field trials scheduled in spring 2016 in 364 Shelikof Strait. In addition, CO2 and methane sensors are in development for the Saildrone, with initial 365 tests planned for the summer of 2016. NOAA is building a new variable speed coastal glider that can 366 quickly change buoyancy to avoid bottom, and can employ a boost speed of 3 kts to escape strong 367 currents or punch through a buoyant surface layer. Sensors being designed for the glider include a new- 368 generation Fast-Repetition Rate Fluorometer that provides estimates of gross primary production (Chelsea 369 Technologies Group), and a Flow-Cam that will photograph and catalog various types of phytoplankton 370 and microzooplankton (Fluid Imaging Technologies, Inc.) 371 372 RUSALCA: Patterns of Flow and Ecosystem Variability on the Chukchi Shelf: A New Decade of 373 RUSALCA Research (Mordy, Duffy-Anderson, Stabeno, Pisareva) was funded to conduct research on the 374 Chukchi Shelf in 2016-2020. In 2016 and 2018 moorings will be deployed as part of this research in the 375 western part of Bering Strait, at C2 on the Icy Cape line and at two moorings sites in Herald Canyon. 376 Hydrographic surveys will be done each year; more extensive surveys inclusive of fish sampling are 377 proposed for 2017 and 2019. The overarching hypothesis is: how do the pathways of flow on Chukchi 378 shelf vary, including: how is the flow partitioned between Herald Canyon and shallow eastern shelf; and 379 how do these patterns influence the distribution of heat, nutrients, and zooplankton? The data collected at 380 each of these mooring sites and the hydrography will be available. In addition, we propose to utilize the 381 cruise in 2018 to service the moorings and to collect data along three of the primary hydrographic 382 transects, so that we have 3 years of measurements (2016, 2017 and 2018). 383 384 Two BOEM funded programs (CHAOZ-X or Hanna Shoal Project, and ArcWEST) complete their field 385 work in 2015, but together with a third BOEM funded program (CHAOZ) provide a set of historical 386 hydrographic and zooplankton tows along our hydrographic lines (Barrow Canyon, Icy Cape, Cape 387 Lisburne, and Pt. Hope). These measurements began in 2010 and have been conducted in August or 388 September each year since, with only a few exceptions. In addition, this work supported measurements at 389 C1 (2010-2012, 2014-present, C2 (2010 - present), C3 (2010 - 2012) and C4 (2012 - present). 390 391 NOAA Office of Exploration and Research funded a field study in 2015 (Innovative Technology for 392 Exploration of the Arctic Ocean: Ecosystem and Carbon Wave Glider Surveys; Stabeno Mathis, Meinig, 393 Mordy). This proposal investigated spatial and temporal variability of physical, chemical and biological 394 properties in the Chukchi Sea using advanced moored radiation, surface mooring and AUV technology. 395 Much of this technology is available for use in our project. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

396 397 Project Management: 398 399 Duffy-Anderson: Janet Duffy-Anderson will serve as a Lead PI for the overall project. She will work 400 with Spear, Eisner, and the postdoctoral associate to examine spatio-temporal patterns of zooplankton and 401 ichthyoplankton production, and with other project PIs to integrate lower trophic observations with the 402 physical environment and with upper trophic ecology. She has worked in the field of marine zoo- and 403 ichthyoplankton ecology for 20+ years and has experience in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and arctic. 404 405 Eisner: Lisa Eisner will work with Lomas on the primary productivity and phytoplankton taxonomic 406 composition components, assisting with field data collection, analysis, interpretation and manuscripts. 407 She is a biological oceanographer with 25 years of experience in phytoplankton and zooplankton ecology 408 in temperate, sub-arctic and arctic ecosystems. 409 410 Ladd: Carol Ladd will serve as Lead PI for the overall project. She also has the lead responsibility on 411 collection and processing of hydrographic data on each cruise. She has approximately 15 years’ 412 experience in the physical oceanography of Alaskan waters. Her research focuses on the influence of 413 physical oceanography on ecosystems in the Arctic, Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. 414 415 Lomas: Mike Lomas will participate in the field research, oversee data QA and contribute to overall 416 project data analysis. He is a marine biogeochemist with a focus on the role that phytoplankton play in 417 controlling the ocean carbon cycle. Lomas has 18 years of experience in making primary production 418 measurements and quantifying phytoplankton biomass in a range of ocean environments. 419 420 McCabe: Ryan McCabe is an early-career researcher with expertise in coastal oceanography including 421 continental shelf circulation and buoyant coastal currents / river plumes. McCabe will participate in the 422 field research, will lead analysis of heat fluxes, and will work with Drs. Stabeno and Ladd on analysis of 423 circulation and water properties and their relationship to biochemical data. 424 425 Mordy: Calvin Mordy is responsible for the collection and processing of nutrient, and oxygen data, and 426 will lead the collaboration with the Innovative Technology for Arctic Exploration (ITEA) program, and 427 the RUSALCA program. He has 20+ years experience as a chemical oceanographer focusing on nutrient 428 cycles in Alaskan Waters. 429 430 Spear: Adam Spear will participate as a staff scientist in field research and synthesis of zooplankton 431 data. In collaboration with the postdoctoral researcher, Spear will be responsible for zooplankton 432 synthesis, including species assemblage structure and connectivity to upper & lower trophic levels. He 433 has more than 10 years’ experience in zooplankton ecology and more than 5 years of experience in the 434 Chukchi Sea. 435 436 Stabeno: Phyllis Stabeno has lead responsibility in all aspects of the moorings (design, building, 437 deployment, recovery and processing of data). She will ensure a timely distribution of all these data to 438 fellow investigators and delivery to the appropriate databases. She has over 20 years’ experience in 439 physical oceanographic and ecosystem research in the North Pacific, Bering Sea and Arctic. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity July 2016 – September 2021 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr–J July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July–S Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– individual responsible for completion July–Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar une Sept Dec Mar June ept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1 STRATIFICATION Cruise planning Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x x x x x x x x x x x Survey/Data collection/field work Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x Data/sample processing Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x x x x x Analysis Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #2 CIRCULATION Cruise planning Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd/Mordy x x x x x x x x x x x x Survey/Data collection/field work Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd/Mordy x x Data/sample processing Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd/Mordy x x x x x x Analysis Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd/Mordy x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #3 HEAT FLUX Cruise planning Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x x x x x x x x x x x Survey/Data collection/field work Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x Data/sample processing Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x x x x x Analysis Stabeno/McCabe/Ladd x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #4 ICE & PHYTOPLANKTON Cruise planning Stabeno/Mordy/Eisner/Lomas x x x x x x x x x x x x Survey/Data collection/field work Stabeno/Mordy/Eisner/Lomas x x Data/sample processing Stabeno/Mordy/Eisner/Lomas x x x x Analysis Stabeno/Mordy/Eisner/Lomas x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #5 PHYTOPLANKTON Cruise planning Mordy/Lomas x x x x x x x x x x x x Data collection/field work Mordy/Lomas x x Data/sample processing Mordy/Lomas x x x x x x x x Analysis Mordy/Lomas x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #6 PRIMARY PRODUCTION Cruise planning Lomas/Eisner/Mordy x x x x x x x x x x x x Data collection/field work Lomas/Eisner/Mordy x x Data/sample processing Lomas/Eisner/Mordy x x x x x x x x Analysis Lomas/Eisner/Mordy x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #7 TROPHIC INTERACTIONS Cruise planning Eisner/Lomas/Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x Data collection/field work Eisner/Lomas/Duffy-Anderson x x Data/sample processing Eisner/Lomas/Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x Analysis Eisner/Lomas/Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #8 ZOOPLANKTON/ICHTHYOPLANKTON Cruise planning Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner/Stabeno x x x x x x x x x x x x Data collection/field work Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner/Stabeno x x Data/sample processing Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner/Stabeno x x x x x x x x x x x x Field Analysis (zp, ichthyo) Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner/Stabeno x x x x x x x x x x x x Retrospective Analysis (zp, ichthyo) Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner/Stabeno x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #9 ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY Cruise planning Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner x x x x x x x x x x x x Data collection/field work Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner x x Data/sample processing Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner x x x x x x x x x x x x Analysis Duffy-Anderson/Spear/Eisner x x x x x x x x x x x x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr–J July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July–S Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– individual responsible for completion July–Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar une Sept Dec Mar June ept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #10 ARCTIC COD AND SAFFRON COD Cruise planning/Coordination with UTL & NPRB #1508 Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x Data collection/field work/Coordination with UTL & NPRB Duffy-Anderson x x Data/sample processing/Coordination with UTL and NPRB Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x Analysis (retrospective)/Coordination with UTl and Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Analysis (field)/Coordination with UTL and NPRB #1508 Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #11 US/RUSSIAN CHUKCHI Cruise coordination/discussions Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x x Results sharing/feedback Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Interpretation Duffy-Anderson x x x x x x x x Other Progress report All PIs x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation All PIs x x x x x PI meeting All PIs x x x x x Logistics planning meeting All PIs x x Publication submission All PIs

Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) All PIs x x x x x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) All PIs x x x x x x x x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic 4 Level Productivity 5 6 Lead PI: Duffy-Anderson and Ladd 7 8 Logistical Needs: 9 10 Ship time is needed to conduct hydrographic stations, zoo- and ichthyoplankton tows, and deploy/recover 11 moorings. Approximately 16 days at sea (excluding transit time to the Arctic) are needed to accomplish 12 our proposed sampling. Berths for five scientists per leg of the cruise are required. Some reduction to 13 staffing may be realized dependent on division of responsibilities among funded projects. 14 15 A vessel with the ability to deploy and recover moorings and conduct 24 hour (day/night) operations is 16 needed. Sufficient deck space for anchors, instruments, hardware and floats for 3 moorings is 17 needed. Either the ship must have winches for CTD and plankton tows or must have the space on the 18 deck to seat two winches, and the sources to power them. We require a dry room that is 10 feet by 15 feet 19 for processing oceanographic samples. The ability to tow and recover standard plankton nets is critical 20 (bongo, Tucker, multinet). Other requirements: space and power for two freezers (-40 and -80 °C); lab 21 space for electronic; wet lab; a fathometer; GPS. 22 23 The Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey Phase 2, Physics and Lower trophic level (Ladd et al., LTL) and 24 Upper Trophic Level (Farley et al.) are strategically linked with research activities and other sources of 25 funding for research and vessel support. Arctic IES Phase 2 LTL is supported by funds from the Bureau 26 of Energy Management (BOEM, approx. $2 million) and by the Pacific Marine Environmental 27 Laboratory (PMEL, $900 thousand for ship time). 28 29 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 30 31 We estimate the charter vessel required to conduct the integrated ecosystem survey will be ~$1 million 32 each year for ~65 days at sea (~$15,000 per day charter costs and fuel) for a total of $2 33 million. PMEL/FOCI receives up to $480K each year for ship time in the US Arctic, which will be used 34 to support this program. BOEM, through a funded AFSC project, will provide ~$500K each year for ship 35 time. The vessel selection (charter) will occur through the process currently in place within 36 NOAA/AFSC. A vessel has not been chosen, but examples of vessels that would be suitable for research 37 in the Arctic include (but are not limited to) the R/V Cape Flattery 38 (http://www.tanadgusix.com/pdf/Cape.Flattery.Spec.Sheet.pdf) owned by US Seafoods and has recently 39 been rigged to conduct trawl operations for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and the F/V Alaska 40 Provider also owned by US Seafoods (http://www.unitedstatesseafoods.com/our-fleet/). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - NOAA, AFSC

PROJECT TITLE: Arctic IES Phase II LTL - Physics and lower trophic Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: PIs: Eisner and Duffy-Anderson - NOAA, Alaska Fisheries Science Center; Grants: Jennifer Ferdinand NOAA, AFSC category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 13,104 275,166 192,506 363,584 190,300 9,517 1,044,177 narrative. Other Support 673,440 TOTAL 13,104 275,166 192,506 363,584 190,300 9,517 1,717,617

1. Personnel Salaries 36,835 27,435 39,094 29,106 132,470 330,897

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 8,274 7,682 8,779 8,150 32,885 92,543 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 7,604 22,888 13,699 23,814 11,331 7,517 86,853

4. Equipment 0 250,000

5. Supplies 5,500 13,000 3,000 13,000 34,500

6. Contractual/Consultants 99,100 121,880 182,445 121,880 525,305

7. Other

72,500 2,000 72,500 2,000 2,000 151,000

Total Direct Costs 13,104 252,597 175,696 339,632 172,467 9,517 963,013 673,440

Indirect Costs 22,569 16,810 23,952 17,833 81,164

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 13,104 275,166 192,506 363,584 190,300 9,517 1,044,177 673,440 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - UW, JISAO

PROJECT TITLE: Arctic IES Phase II LTL - Physics and lower trophic Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Ryan McCabe, Calvin Mordy - University of Washington, JISAO category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 12,721 160,704 136,331 182,763 112,558 39,302 644,379 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 12,721 160,704 136,331 182,763 112,558 39,302 644,379

1. Personnel Salaries 4,242 88,687 68,443 102,407 56,115 19,095 338,989

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,294 24,408 20,683 28,747 17,115 5,824 98,071 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 4,560 14,048 8,673 13,496 5,702 5,873 52,352

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 200 200 200 200 200 1,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other 0 200 10,200 200 10,200 200 21,000

Total Direct Costs 10,096 127,543 108,199 145,050 89,332 31,192 511,412 0

Indirect Costs 2,625 33,161 28,132 37,713 23,226 8,110 132,967

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 12,721 160,704 136,331 182,763 112,558 39,302 644,379 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - BLOS

PROJECT TITLE: Arctic IES Phase II LTL - Physics and lower trophic Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Michael W. Lomas - Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget 1,999 39,581 28,398 39,250 1,999 4,000 115,227 NPRB Funding narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 1,999 39,581 28,398 39,250 1,999 4,000 115,227

1. Personnel Salaries 10,331 10,539 10,750 31,620

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 5,166 5,269 5,375 15,810 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,197 2,695 1,197 2,695 1,197 1,197 10,178

4. Equipment 0

5. Supplies 2,994 2,994 5,988

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

2,515 1,689 1,198 5,402

Total Direct Costs 1,197 23,701 17,005 23,503 1,197 2,395 68,998 0

Indirect Costs 802 15,880 11,393 15,747 802 1,605 46,229

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 1,999 39,581 28,398 39,250 1,999 4,000 115,227 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - NOAA, PMEL

PROJECT TITLE: Arctic IES Phase II LTL - Physics and lower trophic Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Carol Ladd and Phyllis Stabeno - NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 5,806 58,050 73,289 24,680 19,400 12,664 193,889 narrative. Other Support 1,619,234 TOTAL 5,806 58,050 73,289 24,680 19,400 12,664 1,813,123

1. Personnel Salaries 0 313,364

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 0 100,277 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 5,806 6,133 10,092 8,620 8,900 9,164 48,715

4. Equipment 0 1,070,000

5. Supplies 0 48,327 59,516 12,282 10,000 0 130,125

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other 0 3,590 3,681 3,778 500 3,500 15,049

Total Direct Costs 5,806 58,050 73,289 24,680 19,400 12,664 193,889 1,483,641

Indirect Costs 0 135,593

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 5,806 58,050 73,289 24,680 19,400 12,664 193,889 1,619,234 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Arctic IES Phase II LTL - Physics and lower trophic Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): PIs: Eisner and Duffy-Anderson - NOAA, Alaska Fisheries Science Center; Grants: Jennifer Ferdinand NOAA, AFSC ; Ryan category McCabe, Calvin Mordy - University of Washington, JISAO; Michael W. Lomas - Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences; breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 33,630 533,501 430,524 610,277 324,257 65,483 1,997,672 narrative. Other Support 2,292,674 TOTAL 33,630 533,501 430,524 610,277 324,257 65,483 4,290,346

1. Personnel Salaries 4,242 135,853 106,417 152,251 85,221 19,095 503,079 644,261

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,294 37,848 33,634 42,901 25,265 5,824 146,766 192,820 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 19,167 45,764 33,661 48,625 27,130 23,751 198,098 0

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,320,000

5. Supplies 5,500 64,521 62,716 28,476 10,200 200 171,613 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 99,100 121,880 182,445 121,880 0 525,305 0

7. Other

0 78,805 15,881 78,167 12,700 6,898 192,451 0

Total Direct Costs 30,203 461,891 374,189 532,865 282,396 55,768 1,737,312 2,157,081

Indirect Costs 3,427 71,610 56,335 77,412 41,861 9,715 260,360 135,593

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 33,630 533,501 430,524 610,277 324,257 65,483 1,997,672 2,292,674 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – NOAA/AFSC

Project Title: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity

Total Amount requested by NOAA/AFSC for this project is: $1,044,177

NOTE: This budget is presented for 65 DAS

1. Personnel/Salaries: Overtime for NOAA employees taking part on the 65 day at sea (broken up into 3 legs) survey during FY17 (August to October 2017) and FY19 (August to October 2019). The NOAA employees include 1 or more research fish biologists and 1 or more oceanographers each leg of the survey. Overtime is estimated to be 132 hours per leg for each employee.

Overtime estimate: Federal salaries are capped at GS15 step 10 for each pay period. Total personnel cost is estimated based on the overtime rate plus the regular pay. If the total personnel costs exceed the salary cap, then the overtime estimate is equal to the overtime pay (max) minus the difference between total personnel costs and the salary cap.

Estimated pay period cap 2017 = $6,329 2019 = $6,585

FY16: Total $0 FY17: Total $36,835 $5,658 is requested in OT for cruise participation (NOAA FTE) $26,636 for 6 months logistical salary support (NOAA Term Employee) to prepare/participate in FY17 survey. Monthly rate includes leave surcharge at 22.5%

FY18: Total $27,435 $27,435 is requested for 6.0 mos technical salary support (NOAA Term Employee) to verify zooplankton and ichthyoplankton vouchers returned from Sorting Center (FY17 survey). Monthly rate includes leave surcharge at 22.5%

FY19: Total $39,094 $6,111 is requested in OT for cruise participation (NOAA FTE) $28,258 for 6 months logistical salary support (NOAA Term Employee) to prepare/participate in FY19 survey. Monthly rate includes leave surcharge at 22.5%

FY20: Total $29,106 $29,106 for 6.0 mos technical salary support to verify zooplankton and ichthyoplankton vouchers returned from Sorting Center (FY19 survey). Monthly rate includes leave surcharge at 22.5%

FY21: Total $0

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: NOAA fringe (EC Benefits rate) = 28% salary NOAA fringe on OT = 8%

FY16: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

FY17: $8,274 FY18: $7682 FY19: $8,779 FY20: $8,150 FY21: $0

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY17 NOAA Term 6 mos $53272 $26636 28% $7458 FY17 NOAA TBD at 1 mo $5658 28% $453 sea FY17 Lisa Eisner 132 hours OT $49.69/hr $4540 28% $363 FY17 Totals $36,835 $8,274 FY18 NOAA Term 6 mos $54870 $27435 28% $7682 FY18 Totals $27,435 $7682 FY19 NOAA Term 6 mos $56516 $28258 28% $7912 FY19 NOAA TBD at 1 mo $6111 28% $489 sea FY19 Lisa Eisner 132 hours OT $51.70/hr $4724 28% $378 FY19 Totals $39,094 $8,779 FY20 NOAA Term 6 mos $58212 $29106 28% $8150 FY20 Totals $29,106 $8150

3. Travel: All travel calculated with FY15 federal rates and annually adjusted for COLA (3%)

Foreign Travel Foreign travel is requested in Year 3 and Year 5, and is identified below as ‘foreign’.

Domestic Travel

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $7,604

• Kick off Meeting for PIs June Anchorage, AK (June - 3 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $475) $1425 Hotel in Anchorage (4 nights @ $339/night) $4068 Per diem (5 days @ $101/day; 3 d meeting + 2 travel days) $1515 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $375 COLA adjustment 3% FY16 $221

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $22,888 • Survey Participation – 3 Legs (August – September; 5 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Dutch Harbor/Nome ($1275) $7650 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Hotel in Dutch Harbor (3 nights @ $135/night) $2430 Per diem (3 days @ $75/day) $1350 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $750 M&IE at sea (65 days @ $6/day) $585 COLA adjustment 6% FY17 $766

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 3 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $475) $1425 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $100/night) $1500 Per diem (6 days @ $82/day; 4 d meeting + 2 travel days) $1476 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $375 COLA adjustment 6% FY17 $288

• Logistics Planning Meeting October Anchorage, AK (October - 2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $475) $950 Hotel in Anchorage (3 nights @ $100/night) $600 Per diem (4 days @ $82/day; 2 d meeting + 2 travel days) $656 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $250 COLA adjustment 6% FY16 $148

• AMSS Anchorage, AK (January - 1 scientist) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $475) $475 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $100/night) $500 Per diem (6 days @ $82/day; 4 d meeting + 2 travel days) $492 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $125 COLA adjustment 6% FY17 $96

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $13699

• Logistics Planning Meeting October Anchorage, AK (October - 2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $475 $950 Hotel in Anchorage (3 nights @ $100/night) $600 Per diem (4 days @ $82/day; 2 d meeting + 2 travel days) $656 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $250 COLA adjustment 3% FY16 $221

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

• PICES Foreign/Asia TBD (October - 1 scientist) Airfare – Seattle to Korea (RT @ $1000) $1000 Hotel in Seoul (7 nights @ $230/night) $1610 Per diem (7 days @ $144/day; 5 d meeting + 2 travel days) $1008 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $125 COLA adjustment 9% FY18 $337

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $23,814

• Survey Participation – Leg 1 (August – September; 6 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Dutch Harbor/Nome ($1275) $8925 Hotel in Dutch Harbor (3 nights @ $135/night) $2835 Per diem (3 days @ $75/day) $1575 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $875 M&IE at sea (65 days @ $6/d) $683 COLA adjustment 12% FY19 $1787

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March – 3 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $475) $1425 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $100/night) $1500 Per diem (6 days @ $93/day; 4 d meeting + 2 travel days) $1476 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $375 COLA adjustment 15% FY20 $717

• IFS Foreign/Europe (November - 1 scientist) Airfare – Seattle to Nantes (RT @ $1000) $1000 Hotel in Nantes (7 nights @ $210/night) $1470 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Per diem (7 days @ $127/day; 5 d meeting + 2 travel days) $889 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $125 COLA adjustment 15% FY20 $523

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $7517

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 3scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $475) $1425 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $100/night) $1500 Per diem (6 days @ $82/day; 4 d meeting + 2 travel days) $1476 Taxi at $125 RT from residence/airport/hotel $375 COLA adjustment 18% FY20 $862

4. Equipment:

No funds for equipment are requested.

Year 1: Total equipment funds request in FY16 $0 Year 2: Total equipment funds request in FY17 $0 Year 3: Total equipment funds request in FY18 $0 Year 4: Total equipment funds request in FY19 $0 Year 5: Total equipment funds request in FY20 $0 Year 6: Total equipment funds request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies:

Year 1: Funds are requested ($3500) for expendable supplies (shipping crates) for plankton samples. $2000 is requested for a computer and software for the postdoctoral associate. Total supplies funds request in FY16 $5500

Year 2: Funds are requested ($8000) for expendable supplies (jars, lids, labels, plastic bags, chemical, etc) for field plankton work. Funds are requested ($5000) for expendable supplies (cryovials, filters, chemical, etc) for field phytoplankton, production and fatty acid work. Total supplies funds request in FY17 $13,000

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Year 3: Funds are requested ($3000) for expendable supplies (forceps, dishes, microfuge tubes, lab vials, lab labels, etc) for lab plankton work. Total supplies funds request in FY18 $3000

Year 4: Funds are requested ($8000) for expendable supplies (jars, lids, labels, plastic bags, chemical, etc) for field plankton work. . Funds are requested ($5000) for expendable supplies (cryovials, filters, chemical, etc) for field phytoplankton, production and fatty acid work. Total supplies funds request in FY19 $13,000

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants:

Total contractor funds request in FY16: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY17: $99,100

Postdoctoral Associate Zooplankton/Ichthyoplankton (NOAA/NRC, 6 months) - $45000 Overtime for survey (30 DAS); postdoctoral (NOAA/NRC) - $16,000 Contract for Survey (60 DAS); TBD contractor - $18,000 ($300/d) Contractor for Survey for phytoplankton/primary production (65 DAS+2 days travel time); TBD contractor - $20,100 ($300/d)

Total contractor funds request in FY18: $121,880 Postdoctoral Associate Zoo/Ich (NOAA/NRC, 12 months) - $90,000 Stable isotope (C, N) analysis of primary productivity samples, 800 samples @ $31/sample =$24,800 Particulate phosphate analysis, 60 samples @ $18/sample =$1080 Fatty acid analysis of phytoplankton and zooplankton, 150 samples @ $40/sample =$6000

Total contractor funds request in FY19: $182,445 Postdoctoral Associate Zoo/Ich (NOAA/NRC, 12 months) - $90,000 Overtime for survey (30 DAS); postdoctoral (NOAA/NRC) - $17,820 Contract for Survey (35 DAS); TBD contractor - $19,440 ($300/d) Postdoctoral Associate Phytoplankton, NOAA/NRC, 4 months - $30,000 Overtime for survey (~45 DAS+ 2 days travel time); postdoc phytoplankton (NOAA/NRC) - $11,625 Contractor for Survey for phytoplankton/primary production (~45 DAS+ 2 days travel time); TBD contractor - $14100 ($300/d)

Total contractor funds request in FY20: $121,880 Postdoctoral Associate Phytoplankton, NOAA/NRC, 12 months - $90,000 Stable isotope (C, N) analysis of primary productivity samples, 800 samples @ $31/sample =$24,800 Particulate phosphate analysis, 60 samples @ $18/sample =$1080 Fatty acid analysis of phytoplankton and zooplankton, 150 samples @ $40/sample =$6000

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Total contractor funds request in FY21: $0

7. Other:

Total other funds request in FY16: $0

Total other funds request in FY17: $72,500

$42000 is requested to sort ichthyoplankton and zooplankton from 20/60 bongo array and CalVETs on the FY17 survey.

70 stations @$150/sample * 1 ichthyo sort 60 Bon 70 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 60 Bon 70 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 20 Bon 70 stations @$150/sample * 1 mz sort CalVET

$22,500 is requested to sort ichthyoplankton and zooplankton from an AFSC-led Northern Bering Sea cruise in 2017 to provide data on ingress and connectivity of ichthyoplankton and zooplankton from southern regions to the arctic. Presently, zooplankton will not be collected or sorted on this survey.

50 stations @$150/sample * 1 ichthyo sort 60 Bon 50 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 60 Bon 50 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 20 Bon

$3500 is requested to ship plankton samples to Poland for sorting $2000 is requested to ship voucher specimens (zooplankton, ichthyoplankton) $1000 is requested for sample archival $1500 is requested to for shipping phytoplankton, primary production gear and samples for 2017 survey

Total other funds request in FY18: $2000 $2000 is requested for publication costs; retrospective data manuscript

Total other funds request in FY19: $72,500

$42000 is requested to sort ichthyoplankton and zooplankton from 20/60 bongo array and CalVETs on the FY17 survey.

70 stations @$150/sample * 1 ichthyo sort 60 Bon 70 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 60 Bon 70 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 20 Bon 70 stations @$150/sample * 1 mz sort CalVET

$22500 is requested to sort ichthyoplankton and zooplankton from an AFSC-led Northern Bering Sea cruise in 2017 to provide data on ingress and connectivity of ichthyoplankton and zooplankton from southern regions to the arctic. Presently, zooplankton will not be collected or sorted on this survey.

50 stations @$150/sample * 1 ichthyo sort 60 Bon 50 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 60 Bon 50 stations @$150/sample * 1 zoo sort 20 Bon

$3500 is requested to ship plankton samples to Poland for sorting Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

$2000 is requested to ship voucher specimens (zooplankton, ichthyoplankton) $1000 is requested for sample archival $1500 is requested to for shipping phytoplankton, primary production gear and samples for 2019 survey

Total other funds request in FY20: $2000

$2000 is requested for publication costs; field data manuscript

Total other funds request in FY21: $2000 $2000 is requested for publication costs; field data manuscript on phytoplankton and primary production

8. Indirect Costs:

Total indirect funds requested $81,164 Overhead (NOAA, Line Office, FMC and GSA) is 61.27%

FY16: $0 FY17: $22,569 FY18: $16,810 FY19: $23,952 FY20: $17,833 FY21: $0

Other Support/In kind Contributions for NOAA/AFSC:

1. Personnel/Salaries: $330,897 Duffy-Anderson (1mo/yr) FY16: $14385 FY17: $14817 FY18: $15262 FY19: $15719 FY20: $16191 FY21: $16677

Spear (3mo/yr) FY16: $24134 FY17: $24858 FY18: $25603 FY19: $26371 FY20: $27173 FY21: $28817

Eisner FY16: $8773 (1 mo) FY17: $17712 (2 mo) FY18: $8940 (1 mo) FY19: $18049 (2 mo) FY20: $18220 (2 mo) FY21: $9196 (1 mo)

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: $92,543 NOAA fringe (EC Benefits rate) = 28%

Duffy-Anderson (1mo/yr) FY16: $4028 FY17: $4148 FY18: $4273 FY19: $4401 FY20: $4533 FY21: $4669

Spear (3mo/yr) FY16: $6960 FY17: $7169 FY18: $7384 FY19: $7605 FY20: $7833 FY21: $8068

Eisner FY16: $2326 (1 mo) FY17: $4698 (2 mo) FY18: $2372 (1 mo) FY19: $4792 (2 mo) FY20: $4840 (2 mo) FY21: $2444 (1 mo)

4. Equipment: $250,000 It is estimated that $250,000 in equipment is being offered for this project at no cost (bongo arrays + spares, CalVET arrays, all associated hardware & nets, fastcats, CTD, deck units, microscopes, at sea computers, chlorophyll filtration racks and pumps, bench-top fluorometers, fluorometer and beam transmissometer for CTD, primary production tanks, bottles, screen bags, above surface irradiance sensor and data loggers).

8. Indirect: $0 AFSC does not match indirect (AFSC indirect 61.27%)

Total Other Support provided by NOAA/AFSC for this project is: $673,440 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences

Project Title: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity

Total Amount requested by Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences for this project is: $115,227

NOTE: This budget is presented for 65 DAS

1. Personnel/Salaries: Lomas will commit 1 month of time to this project in fiscal year 2017, 2018 and 2019. For the purpose of quantifying labor, a labor month is equal to 163 hours. Lomas will be responsible for assisting with primary production and phytoplankton community measurements; will work with the project post-doc (in L. Eisner, AFSC budget) on processing and interpreting data and participate in annual PI meetings.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Vacations, holidays, sick time, and other paid absences are included in Employee Fringe Benefits. The fringe rate of 50% includes 19% paid leave (vacation, holiday, sick) and 31% paid benefits.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 FY16 Totals $0 $0 FY17 Michael Lomas 163 hours $123,972 $10,331 50% $5,166 FY17 Totals $10,331 $5,166 FY18 Michael Lomas 163 hours $126,468 $10,539 50% $5,269 FY18 Totals $10,539 $5,269 FY19 Michael Lomas 163 hours $129,000 $10,750 50% $5,375 FY19 Totals $10,750 $5,375 FY20 FY20 Totals $0 $0 FY21 FY21 Totals $0 $0

3. Travel:

Foreign Travel No foreign travel is requested.

Domestic Travel Any support for required meetings not listed below will be provided by other funds.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $1,197 • Kick off Meeting for PIs June Anchorage, AK (June - 1 scientists) Airfare – Boston to Anchorage (RT @ $501) $501 Hotel in Anchorage (3 nights @ $150/night) $450 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Per diem (3 days @ $82/day; 3 d meeting) $246

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $2,695 • Survey Participation – 3 Legs (August – September; 1 scientist) Airfare – Boston to Dutch Harbor/Nome ($1100) $1100 Hotel in Dutch Harbor/Nome (3 nights @ $135/night) $405 Per diem (3 days @ $75/day) $225

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 1 scientist) Airfare – Boston to Anchorage (RT @ $425) $425 Hotel in Anchorage (3 nights @ $100/night) $300 Per diem (3 days @ $80/day; 3 d meeting) $240

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $1,197 • PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 1 scientist) Airfare – Boston to Anchorage (RT @ $469) $469 Hotel in Anchorage (4 nights @ $100/night) $400 Per diem (4 days @ $82/day; 4 d meeting) $328

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $2,695 • Survey Participation – 3 Legs (August – September; 1 scientist) Airfare – Boston to Dutch Harbor/Nome ($1100) $1100 Hotel in Dutch Harbor/Nome (3 nights @ $135/night) $405 Per diem (3 days @ $75/day) $225

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 1 scientist) Airfare – Boston to Anchorage (RT @ $425) $425 Hotel in Anchorage (3 nights @ $100/night) $300 Per diem (3 days @ $80/day; 3 d meeting) $240

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $1,197

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 1 scientist) Airfare – Boston to Anchorage (RT @ $469) $469 Hotel in Anchorage (4 nights @ $100/night) $400 Per diem (4 days @ $82/day; 4 d meeting) $328

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $1,197

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 1 scientist) Airfare – Boston to Anchorage (RT @ $469) $469 Hotel in Anchorage (4 nights @ $100/night) $400 Per diem (4 days @ $82/day; 4 d meeting) $328

4. Equipment: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

No funds for equipment are requested.

FY16: Total equipment funds request in FY16 $0 FY17: Total equipment funds request in FY17 $0 FY18: Total equipment funds request in FY18 $0 FY19: Total equipment funds request in FY19 $0 FY20: Total equipment funds request in FY20 $0 FY21: Total equipment funds request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies: Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Funds are requested ($5000) for expendable supplies (cryovials, filters, chemical, etc) for field phytoplankton, production and fatty acid work. Total supplies funds request in FY17 $2,994

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $0

Year 4: Funds are requested ($5000) for expendable supplies (cryovials, filters, chemical, etc) for field phytoplankton, production and fatty acid work. Total supplies funds request in FY19 $2,994

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants: No contractual funds are requested.

Total contractor funds request in FY16: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY17: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY18: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY19: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY20: $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Total contractor funds request in FY21: $0

7. Other: Total other funds request in FY16: $0

Total other funds request in FY17: $2,515 $1,500 is requested for shipping gear and samples for 2017 cruise, and $1,015 is requested for ‘sea time’ pay for Lomas’ technician/student.

Total other funds request in FY18: $0

Total other funds request in FY19: $1,689 $1,689 is requested for shipping gear and samples for 2019 cruise

Total other funds request in FY20: $0

Total other funds request in FY21: $1,198 $1,198 is requested for publication costs; field data manuscript

8. Indirect Costs: Bigelow calculates the overhead rate (67%) as a percent of modified total direct costs, as allowed by OMB’s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The base excludes participant support costs, subaward amounts over the first $25,000, shiptime in excess of $5,000 per year, in-house fees for service and capital equipment. Bigelow cannot "waive" or reduce overhead rates on any sponsored research project due to the structure of our negotiated rate agreement with NSF. When a program sets limits on overhead, Bigelow must use Laboratory unrestricted funds (usually from our Annual Fund) to pay the unfunded portion of the indirect costs.

Total indirect funds request in FY16: $802

Total indirect funds request in FY17: $15,880

Total indirect funds request in FY18: $11,393

Total indirect funds request in FY19: $15,747

Total indirect funds request in FY20: $802

Total indirect funds request in FY21: $1,605

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences: Total Other Support provided by Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences for this project is: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – NOAA/PMEL

Project Title: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity

Total Amount requested by NOAA/PMEL for this project is: $193,889

1. Personnel/Salaries: NOAA/PMEL is not requesting salary for Ladd or Stabeno; we anticipate the contribution of salary at the rate of 2-3 months/year during the course of the program. This support is described in detail as part Other Support/In kind Contributions for PMEL.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: NA

3. Travel:

Foreign Travel No foreign travel is requested.

Domestic Travel For each year of the project, travel is requested for Ladd and Stabeno. All airfare is Seattle, WA to Anchorage, AK. While the second logistics meeting was scheduled in the RFP for FY18, if funded, we will request that it will be moved to FY19 to support the FY19 field season. Other funds will be used for travel to AMSS in FY17. The total travel requested is $48,715.

All travel calculated with FY15 federal rates and annually adjusted for COLA (3%)

Year 1: Total domestic travel request in FY16 $5,806

• Kick off Meeting for PIs June Anchorage, AK (June - 2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $912) $1824 Hotel in Anchorage (4 nights @ $479/night) $2874 Per diem (4 days @ $101/day; 3 d meeting + 1 travel day) $808 Ground Transportation at $150 RT from residence/airport/hotel $300

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $6,133

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $939) $1878 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $103/night) $1033 Per diem (5 days @ $85/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $850 Ground Transportation at $155 RT from residence/airport/hotel $310

• Logistics Planning Meeting October Anchorage, AK (October - 1 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $939) $939 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Hotel in Anchorage (3 nights @ $103/night) $303 Per diem (3 days @ $85/day; 2 d meeting + 1 travel day) $510 Ground Transportation at $155 RT from residence/airport/hotel $310

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $10,092

• Logistics Planning Meeting October Anchorage, AK (October - 1 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $967) $967 Hotel in Anchorage (3 nights @ $106/night) $318 Per diem (3 days @ $88/day; 2 d meeting + 1 travel day) $264 Ground Transportation at $159 RT from residence/airport/hotel $159

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March - 2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $967) $1934 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $106/night) $1060 Per diem (5 days @ $88/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $880 Ground Transportation at $159 RT from residence/airport/hotel $318

• AMSS Anchorage, AK (January -2 scientist) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $967) $1934 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $106/night) $1060 Per diem (5 days @ $88/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $880 Ground Transportation at $159 RT from residence/airport/hotel $318

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $8,620

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March -2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $996) $1992 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $109/night) $1090 Per diem (5 days @ $90/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $900 Ground Transportation at $164 RT from residence/airport/hotel $328

• AMSS Anchorage, AK (January - 2 scientist) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $996) $1992 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $109/night) $1090 Per diem (5 days @ $90/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $900 Ground Transportation at $164 RT from residence/airport/hotel $328

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $8,900

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March – 2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $1026) $2052 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $113/night) $1130 Per diem (5 days @ $93/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $930 Ground Transportation at $169 RT from residence/airport/hotel $338

• AMSS Anchorage, AK (January - 2 scientist) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $1026) $2052 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $113/night) $1130 Per diem (5 days @ $93/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $930 Ground Transportation at $169 RT from residence/airport/hotel $338

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $9,164

• PI Meeting Anchorage, AK (March – 2 scientists) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $1057) $2112 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $116/night) $1160 Per diem (5 days @ $96/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $960 Ground Transportation at $174 RT from residence/airport/hotel $348

• AMSS Anchorage, AK (January -2 scientist) Airfare – Seattle to Anchorage (RT @ $1057) $2112 Hotel in Anchorage (5 nights @ $116/night) $1160 Per diem (5 days @ $96/day; 4 d meeting + 1 travel day) $960 Ground Transportation at $174 RT from residence/airport/hotel $348

4. Equipment: No permanent equipment will be purchased. All equipment for moorings and cruises will be supplied by NOAA/PMEL and NOAA/AFSC.

5. Supplies: Funds are requested to prepare equipment (batteries, O-rings, calibrations, etc.) for the moorings and shipboard equipment. Note that the number of instruments needed to prepare are found in column 3. The charges for forklift/truck are for loading and unloading of the vessel. Shipping cost is to ship all equipment and supplies to port of departure and return to NOAA/PMEL.

Fiscal/ Project Materials & Supplies Total ($130,125) Year FY 16/ Year 1: NA $0 Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0 FY 17/ Year 2: Supplies for 3 sub-surface moorings $48,327 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

RCM w/ O2 3 $3,000 ADCP (600 KHz) 3 $3,150 Eco-fluormeter 3 $3,000 ISUS/SUNA 3 $6,000 Sea/Microcat 6 $6,600 Acoustic Release 3 $2,550 Hardware 3 $9,000 Anchors 3 $3,000 Floats (cleaning/prepping) 3 $450 Forklift/Truck 1 $955 CTD Prep. 1 $2,122 Shipping of Moorings 1 $8,500 Total supplies funds request in FY17 $48,327 FY 18/ Year 3: Supplies for 3 sub-surface moorings $59,516 RCM w/ O2 3 $3,090 ADCP (600 KHz) 3 $3,245 Eco-fluormeter 3 $3,090 ISUS/SUNA 3 $6,180 Sea/Microcat 6 $6,798 Acoustic Release 3 $2,627 Hardware 3 $9,270 Anchors 3 $3,090 Floats (cleaning/prepping) 3 $464 Forklift/Truck 2 $1,967 CTD Prep. 1 $2,185 Shipping of Moorings 2 $17,510 Total supplies funds request in FY18 $59,516 FY 19/ Year 4: Supplies for 3 sub-surface mooring recovery $12,282 Forklift/Truck 1 $1,013 CTD Prep. 1 $2,251 Shipping of Moorings 1 $9,018 Total supplies funds request in FY19 $12,282 FY 20/ Year 5: Post-calibration of 3 sub-surface mooring equipment $10,000 Total supplies funds request in FY20 $10,000 FY 21/ Year 6: NA $0 Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants:

No contractual funds are requested.

Total contractor funds request in FY16: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY17: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY18: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY19: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Total contractor funds request in FY20: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY21: $0

7. Other: Funds are requested to cover computer maintenance, software upgrades, connections charges, graphics (for publications and presentations), phone conference charges and for the maintenance of web page and supplies.

Fiscal/ Project Other Total ($15,049) Year FY 16/ Year 1: NA $0 Total other funds requested is $0 in FY16 FY 17/ Year 2: Computer services, graphics and printing $3,090 FY 17/ Year 2: General Shipping (of parts and materials via FedEX & $500 UPS) Total other funds requested is $3,590 in FY17 FY 18/ Year 3: Computer services, graphics and printing $3,181 FY 18/ Year 3: General Shipping (of parts and materials via FedEX & $500 UPS) Total other funds requested is $3,681 in FY18 FY 19/ Year 4: Computer services, graphics and printing $3,278 FY 19/ Year 4: General Shipping (of parts and materials via FedEX & $500 UPS) Total other funds requested is $3,778 in FY19 FY 20/ Year 5: Computer services, graphics and printing $0 FY 20/ Year 5: General Shipping (of parts and materials via FedEX & $500 UPS) Total other funds requested is $500 in FY20 FY 20/ Year 5: Publication costs $3,500 FY 21/ Year 6: NA $0 Total other funds requested is $3,500 in FY21

8. Indirect Costs: NA

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Other Support/In kind Contributions for PMEL

1. Personnel/Salaries: NOAA/PMEL is not requesting salary for Ladd or Stabeno; we anticipate the contribution of salary at the rate of ~2-3 months/year, or $549,235 of salary during the course of the program. Not shown in the table below (but included in the total) is the OAR PMEL overhead of 43.27%.

Time devoted Personnel Fringe rate Fringe Year Title/Name Annual rate to project cost (32%) cost Co PI/ FY 16 Oceanographer/ 0.5m $163,461.00 $6,810.88 $0.32 $2,179.48 Stabeno Lead PI/ FY 16 Oceanographer/ 0.5m $115,626.77 $4,817.78 $0.32 $1,541.69 Ladd FY16 Totals $11,629 $3,721 Co PI/ FY 17 Oceanographer/ 3m $168,364.83 $42,091.21 $0.32 $13,469.19 Stabeno Lead PI/ FY 17 Oceanographer/ 2m $122,713.02 $20,452.17 $0.32 $6,544.69 Ladd FY17 Totals $62,543 $20,014 Co PI/ FY 18 Oceanographer/ 2m $173,415.77 $28,902.63 $0.32 $9,248.84 Stabeno Lead PI/ FY 18 Oceanographer/ 2m $126,394.41 $21,065.74 $0.32 $6,741.04 Ladd FY18 Totals $49,968 $15,990 Co PI/ FY 19 Oceanographer/ 2m $178,618.25 $29,769.71 $0.32 $9,526.31 Stabeno Lead PI/

FY 19 Oceanographer/ 2m $22,264.67 $0.32 $7,124.69 $133,588.00 Ladd FY19 Totals $52,034 $16,651 Co PI/ FY 20 Oceanographer/ 2m $183,976.80 $30,662.80 $0.32 $9,812.10 Stabeno Lead PI/ FY 20 Oceanographer/ 2m $137,595.64 $22,932.61 $0.32 $7,338.43 Ladd FY20 Totals $53,595 $17,151 Co PI/ FY 21 Oceanographer/ 3m $189,496.10 $47,374.02 $0.32 $15,159.69 Stabeno Lead PI/ FY 21 Oceanographer/ 3m $144,883.94 $36,220.99 $0.32 $11,590.72 Ladd Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

FY21 Totals $83,595 $26,750

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: NOAA/PMEL Fringe Rate is 32%

4. Equipment: $250,000 It is estimated that $1,070,000 in equipment is being offered for this project at no cost. Fiscal/ Project Other In-Kind Contributions Total ($1,070,000.00) Year Approximate cost of equipment being used for this project FY 17- FY 19 Fully instrumented CTD & back-up $370,000 FY 17- FY 19 Mooring Equipment for 3 Moorings $290,000 FY 17- FY 19 Radiation Buoy and Prawler $140,000 FY 17- FY 19 Fully instrumented towed vehicle $120,000 FY 17- FY 19 Slocum glider $150,000

Total Other Support provided by NOAA/PMEL for this project is: $ 1,619,235

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Washington JISAO

Project Title: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity

Total Amount requested by University of Washington JISAO for this project is: $644,379

1. Personnel/Salaries: Ryan McCabe, Calvin Mordy, Shaun Bell, Geoffrey Lebon, David Strausz, Peggy Sullivan, and Heather Tabisola are research scientists at the University of Washington JISAO and are supported entirely by research grants. For grant purposes, research scientists must request support proportional to their efforts. Salaries include a 3% annual cost-of-living increase. Sea pay has been budgeted when appropriate.

Dr. McCabe will be the lead for the University of Washington component. His expertise is in coastal oceanography including continental shelf circulation and buoyant coastal currents / river plumes. McCabe will participate in data collection in one of the field years and will work with Drs. Stabeno and Ladd on analysis of circulation, water properties, and heat fluxes, including spatial and temporal variability. Support for McCabe is requested for 0.25, 1.75, 3, 2, 2, and 1 months per year of the project.

Dr. Mordy will serve as a co-PI on the project. His expertise is in nutrient chemistry with extensive experience in Alaskan waters. He will provide measurements of nutrients and oxygen on discrete samples, and examine the spatial and temporal variability of nutrients in the Chukchi Sea. We request 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1, 1, and 1 months per year support for Mordy. He is also a co-PI for the next five-years of the Russian-American Long-term Census of the Arctic (RUSALCA) program, including annual cruises in the southern Chukchi Sea (Bering Strait and Line 3), and less frequent expeditions to the Chukchi Borderlands (pending ship time). He will be responsible for integrating nutrient and oxygen data from the two programs. He is also a co-PI on a new NOAA program to develop innovative technology for Arctic exploration, and will integrate field testing of new platforms and sensors with this proposal.

Mr. Bell will assist with data processing and field efforts at sea. Funding for 0, 1.5, 1, 2.5, 1.5, and 0 months per year are requested in FY16–FY21 to support Bell.

Mr. Lebon is the lead mooring technician for the project and will direct mooring deployment/recovery efforts at sea. Funding for Lebon is requested for 0, 3, 2, 2, 1, and 0 months per year in FY16–FY21 and includes an anticipated 10% salary raise beginning in FY16.

Mr. Strausz will assist with instrument preparation as well as the at-sea field efforts. Funding for Strausz is requested for 0, 3.25, 2.25, 2, 0, and 0 months per year in FY16–FY21.

Ms. Sullivan will also assist with data processing and will ensure that all data and metadata are made publically available via national data archives. Funding for Sullivan is requested for 1 month in FY19 and 1.5 months in FY20.

Ms. Tabisola will assist in the field efforts at sea. Funding for Tabisola is requested for 1 month in FY19.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits are calculated as a percent of salary. The current rate used for professional staff including research scientists is 30.5%, and for hourly and sea pay 18.8%.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 McCabe 0.25 month $92,676 $1931 30.5% $589 FY16 Mordy 0.25 month $110,916 $2311 30.5% $705 FY16 Totals $4,242 $1,294 FY17 McCabe 1.75 month $92,676 $13515 30.5% $4122 FY17 McCabe sea pay 164 hours $92,676 $7308 18.8% $1374 FY17 Mordy 0.5 month $110,916 $4622 30.5% $1410 FY17 Bell 1.5 months $66,204 $8275 30.5% $2524 FY17 Bell sea pay 100 hours $66,204 $3183 18.8% $598 FY17 Lebon 3 months $86,940 $21735 30.5% $6629 FY17 Lebon sea pay 164 hours $86,940 $6855 18.8% $1289 FY17 Strausz 3.25 months $66,324 $17964 30.5% $5479 FY17 Strausz sea pay 164 hours $66,324 $5230 18.8% $983 FY17 Totals $88,687 $24,408 FY18 McCabe 3 months $95,460 $23864 30.5% $7279 FY18 Mordy 1 month $114,240 $9520 30.5% $2904 FY18 Bell 1 month $68,196 $5683 30.5% $1733 FY18 Lebon 2 months $89,544 $14925 30.5% $4552 FY18 Strausz 2.25 months $68,316 $12809 30.5% $3907 FY18 Strausz sea pay 50 hours $68,316 $1642 18.8% $309 FY18 Totals $68,443 $20,683 FY19 McCabe 2 months $98,328 $16387 30.5% $4998 FY19 Mordy 1 month $117,672 $9806 30.5% $2991 FY19 Bell 2.5 months $70,236 $14632 30.5% $4463 FY19 Bell sea pay 100 hours $70,236 $3377 18.8% $635 FY19 Lebon 2 months $92,232 $15372 30.5% $4689 FY19 Lebon sea pay 164 hours $92,232 $7273 18.8% $1367 FY19 Strausz 2 months $70,368 $11727 30.5% $3577 FY19 Strausz sea pay 164 hours $70,368 $5548 18.8% $1043 FY19 Sullivan 1 months $94,572 $7881 30.5% $2404 FY19 Tabisola 1 month $64,152 $5346 30.5% $1631 FY19 Tabisola sea pay 164 hours $64,152 $5058 18.8% $951 FY19 Totals $102,407 $28,747 FY20 McCabe 2 months $101,280 $16878 30.5% $5148 FY20 Mordy 1 month $121,200 $10100 30.5% $3081 FY20 Bell 1.5 months $72,336 $9043 30.5% $2758 FY20 Lebon 1 month $95,004 $7917 30.5% $2415 FY20 Sullivan 1.5 months $97,416 $12177 30.5% $3714 FY20 Totals $56,115 $17,115 FY21 McCabe 1 month $104,304 $8692 30.5% $2651 FY21 Mordy 1 month $124,836 $10403 30.5% $3173 FY21 Totals $19,095 $5,824 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

3. Travel:

Foreign Travel No foreign travel is requested.

Domestic Travel Note: domestic travel estimates below include a 3% annual increase.

Year 1/ FY16: Total travel request in FY16 $4,560 • Domestic travel support includes funds for 2 PIs for round-trip travel from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 3 days in June 2016 for a program kickoff meeting. Estimates are based on round-trip airfare of $885 each and summer per diem and hotel rates of $465 per day.

Year 2/ FY17: Total travel request in FY17 $14,048 Domestic travel support includes: • funds for 1 PI for round-trip travel from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 2 days in October 2016 for a logistics and planning meeting ($912 airfare + $207 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1326); • round-trip travel for 2 PIs from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in March 2017 for an annual project meeting ($912 airfare + $207 per day hotel and per diem, Total $3479); • round-trip travel for 1 PI from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in January 2017 for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($912 airfare + $207 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1740); • round-trip travel for 4 persons from Seattle, WA, to Nome, AK, for 2 days in August/September 2017 for the field cruises ($1313 airfare + $281 per day hotel and per diem, Total $7503).

Year 3/ FY18: Total travel request in FY18 $8,673 Domestic travel support includes: • funds for 1 PI for round-trip travel from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 2 days in October 2017 for a logistics and planning meeting ($939 airfare + $213 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1366); • round-trip travel for 2 PIs from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in March 2018 for an annual project meeting ($939 airfare + $213 per day hotel and per diem, Total $3583); • round-trip travel for 1 PI from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in January 2018 for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($939 airfare + $213 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1792); • round-trip travel for 1 person from Seattle, WA, to Nome, AK, for 2 days in August/September 2018 for the field cruises ($1353 airfare + $290 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1932).

Year 4/ FY19: Total travel request in FY19 $13,496 Domestic travel support includes: • round-trip travel for 2 PIs from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in March 2019 for an annual project meeting ($967 airfare + $220 per day hotel and per diem, Total $3690); Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

• round-trip travel for 1 PI from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in January 2019 for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($967 airfare + $220 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1846); • round-trip travel for 4 persons from Seattle, WA, to Nome, AK, for 2 days in August/September 2018 for the field cruises ($1393 airfare + $298 per day hotel and per diem, Total $7959).

Year 5/ FY20: Total travel request in FY20 $5,702 Domestic travel support includes: • round-trip travel for 2 PIs from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in March 2020 for an annual project meeting ($996 airfare + $226 per day hotel and per diem, Total $3801); • round-trip travel for 1 PI from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in January 2020 for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($996 airfare + $226 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1901).

Year 6/ FY21: Total travel request in FY21 $5,873 Domestic travel support includes: • round-trip travel for 2 PIs from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in March 2021 for an annual project meeting ($1026 airfare + $233 per day hotel and per diem, Total $3915); • round-trip travel for 1 PI from Seattle, WA, to Anchorage, AK, for 4 days in January 2021 for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($1026 airfare + $233 per day hotel and per diem, Total $1958).

4. Equipment:

No funds for equipment are requested.

5. Supplies:

Funds are requested for software upgrades and backup media required to process and store data files ($200/year FY17–FY21).

FY16: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0 FY17: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Total supplies funds request in FY17 $200 FY18: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $200 FY19: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $200 FY20: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $200 FY21: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $200

6. Contractual/Consultants:

No contractual funds are requested.

Total contractor funds request in FY16: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY17: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY18: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY19: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY20: $0

Total contractor funds request in FY21: $0

7. Other:

Funds are requested for conference registration ($100/person) in FY17–FY21 for 1 PI to attend the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($100/year, $500 total), and for communication costs such as poster printing, copying, mail, and long distance telephone charges directly related to the project ($100/year FY17–FY21, $500 total). Funds are also requested in FY18 ($10,000) and FY20 ($10,000) for analysis of frozen nutrient samples at NOAA PMEL. No funds for publications are included herein. Instead funds for publication are included in the NOAA PMEL budget.

Total other funds requested is $0 in FY16

Total other funds requested is $200 in FY17

Total other funds requested is $10,200 in FY18

Total other funds requested is $200 in FY19

Total other funds requested is $10,200 in FY20

Total other funds requested is $200 in FY21.

8. Indirect Costs:

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Facilities and Administrative costs are calculated as the off-campus rate 26.0% of MTDC (total direct costs less equipment and graduate operating fees) in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, per the DHHS IDC agreement dated 04/23/15.

Total indirect funds requested is $2,625 in FY16

Total indirect funds requested is $33,161 in FY17

Total indirect funds requested is $28,132 in FY18

Total indirect funds requested is $37,713 in FY19

Total indirect funds requested is $23,226 in FY20

Total indirect funds requested is $8,110 in FY21.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for University of Washington JISAO:

Total Other Support provided by University of Washington JISAO for this project is: $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Janet T. Duffy-Anderson

NOAA/NMFS/AFSC Phone: (206) 526-6465 7600 Sand Point Way, NE E-mail: [email protected] Seattle, WA 98115-0070

EDUCATION: Ph.D., March 1996, Marine Studies. University of Delaware, Graduate College of Marine Studies, Lewes, DE. B.S., June 1990, Biology. Lafayette College, Easton, PA. APPOINTMENTS: 2014-present: Co-Coordinator of NPCREP (w/ P. Stabeno, NOAA PMEL) 2014-present: Co-Coordinator of FOCI (w/ P. Stabeno, NOAA PMEL) 2014-present: Program Manager Recruitment Processes Program (NOAA/AFSC) 2013-present: Affiliate Faculty, Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 2004-present: Affiliate Faculty, University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. Seattle, WA. 2001-present: Research Fisheries Biologist, NOAA/AFSC. PI or Co-PI ON RESEARCH IN THE BERING AND CHUKCHI SEAS: • Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (BSIERP), 2007-2012 • NSF Bering Sea Synthesis Project: Variable transport of pollock eggs and larvae over the Bering shelf: a marriage of physics and biology, 2011-2013 • Arctic Eis Project: Fisheries oceanography in the North Bering and Chukchi Seas, 2011-2014 • RUSALCA: Patterns of flow and ecosystem variability on the Chukchi shelf: A new decade of RUSALCA research, 2016-2020 PUBLICATIONS (selected recent relevant, of 50+ total): 1. Logerwell, E., Busby, M., Carothers, C., Cotton, C., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Farley, E., Goddard, P., Heintz, R., Horne, J., Parker-Stetter, S., Johnson, S., Lauth, R., Moulton, L., Neff, D., Norcross, B., Seigle, J., and Sformo, T. Fish communities across a spectrum of habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Progress in Oceanography 2. Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Barbeaux, S., Farley, E., Heintz, R., Horne, J., Parker-Stetter, S., Petrik, C., Siddon, E., Smart, T. 2015. State of knowledge review and synthesis of the first year of life of walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) in the eastern Bering Sea with comments on implications for recruitment. Deep Sea Research II. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.02.001 3. Duffy-Anderson, J.T., K.M. Bailey, H. Cabral, H. Nakata and H.W. van der Veer. 2015. The planktonic stages of flatfishes: physical and biological interactions in transport processes. In Flatfishes: Biology and Exploitation. Gibson, R.N., et al. (Eds.). Wiley Publishing. pp. 132-170. 4. Vestfals, C., Ciannelli, L., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., and Ladd, C. 2014. Effects of seasonal and interannual variability in along-shelf and cross-shelf transport on groundfish recruitment in the eastern Bering Sea. Doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.09.026 5. Petrik, C.M., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Mueter, F., Hedstrom, K., Curchitser, E.N. 2014. Biophysical transport model suggests climate variability determines distribution of Walleye Pollock early life stages in the eastern Bering Sea through effects on spawning. Progress in Oceanography doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2014.06.004 COLLABORATORS & OTHER AFFILIATIONS (in last 48 months): Brodeur, NWFSC; Cabral, Univ Lisbon; Ciannelli, OSU; Curchitser, Rutgers; Danielson, UAF; Decker, Yale; Eisner, AFSC; Farley, AFSC; Hedstrom, UAF; Heintz, AFSC; Hermann, UW; Horne, UW; Koslow, UCSD; Hunsicker, NWFSC; Kurapov, OSU; Ladd, PMEL; Logerwell, AFSC; Matarese, AFSC; McClatchie, SWFSC; Mordy, UW; Mueter, UAF; Nakata, Nagasaki Univ; Napp, AFSC; Petrik, UCSB; Ryer, AFSC; Stabeno, PMEL; van der Veer; NIOZ Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Lisa B. Eisner NOAA/NMFS/AFSC Phone: (206)526-4060 7600 Sand Point Way, NE E-mail: [email protected] Seattle, WA 98115-0070 EDUCATION: University of Washington, Seattle, Oceanography, BS, Cum Laude, 1990 Oregon State University, Corvallis, Biological Oceanography, PhD 2003 APPOINTMENTS: 2003 - present. Research Oceanographer. AFSC/NOAA. Juneau, AK and Seattle, WA. 2004 - present. Affiliate Assistant Professor, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Univ. of Alaska 1991- 1997. Biological Oceanographer/Environ. Specialist 3. WA State Dept of Ecology, Olympia PI or Co-PI ON RESEARCH IN THE BERING AND CHUKCHI SEAS: Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (BSIERP), 2007-2012 Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Initiative (AYK SSI), 2006-2009, 2011-2013 NSF Bering Sea Synthesis Project: Climate effects on large crustacean zooplankton, 2011-2014 Arctic Eis Project: Fisheries oceanography in the North Bering and Chukchi Seas, 2011-2016 SELECT PUBLICATIONS MOST RELEVANT to the PROPOSED RESEARCH Coyle, K., Eisner, L., Mueter, F., Pinchuk, A., Janout, M., Cieciel, K., Farley, E., Andrews, A. 2011. Climate change in the southeastern Bering Sea: impacts on pollock stocks and implications for the Oscillating Control Hypothesis. Fish. Oceanog. 20(2): 139-156. Danielson, S., Eisner, L., Weingartner, T., Aagaard, K. 2011. Thermal and haline variability over the central Bering Sea shelf: Seasonal and interannual perspectives. Cont. Shelf Res., 31: 539-554. Danielson, S., Eisner, L., Ladd, C., Weingartner, T., Mordy, C. submitted. A comparison between late summer 2012 and 2013 water masses, macronutrients, and phytoplankton standing crops in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. Deep Sea Res. II. Eisner, L., Gann, Ladd, Cieciel, Mordy. In Press. Late summer early fall phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll a) in the eastern Bering Sea: spatial and temporal variations and factors affecting chlorophyll a concentrations, Deep Sea Res II. Eisner, L., Hillgruber N., Martinson E., Maselko J. 2013. Pelagic fish and zooplankton species assemblages in relation to water mass characteristics in the northern Bering and southeast Chukchi Seas. Polar Biology. Eisner, L., Napp, J., Mier, K., Pinchuk, A., Andrews A. 2014. Climate-mediated changes in zooplankton community structure for the eastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Res II, DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.03.004. Eisner, Twardowski, Cowles, Perry. 2003. Resolving phytoplankton photoprotective: photosynthetic carotenoid ratios using in-situ spectral absorption measurements. Limnol. Oceanogr., 48(2): 632-646. Hunt, G., Aydin, K., Coyle, K., Eisner, L., Farley, E., Heintz, R., Mueter, F., Napp, J., Ressler, P., Stabeno, P. 2011. Climate impacts on eastern Bering Sea food webs: A synthesis of new data and revision of the Oscillating Control Hypothesis. ICES J. Mar Sci. 68: 1230-1243. Pinchuk, A., Eisner L., submitted. Spatial heterogeneity in zooplankton distribution in the eastern Chukchi Sea as a result of large-scale interactions of water masses. Deep Sea Res. II. Sigler, M., Renner, M. Danielson, S., Eisner, L., Lauth, R. Kuletz, K., Logerwell, E., Hunt G. 2011. Fluxes, fins, and feathers: Relationships among the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas in a time of climate change. Oceanography 24(3):250–265. Sigler, Stabeno, Eisner, Napp, Mueter, 2013. Spring and fall phytoplankton blooms in a productive subarctic ecosystem the eastern Bering Sea during 1995-2011. Deep Sea Res II 109:71-83. COLLABORATORS & OTHER AFFILIATIONS (in last 48 months): A. Andrews, AFSC; K. Cieciel, AFSC; K. Coyle, UAF; S. Danielson, UAF; J. Duffy-Anderson, AFSC; E. Farley, AFSC; J. Gann, AFSC; A. Hermann, PMEL; N. Hillgruber, UAF; J. Horne, UW; G. Hunt, UW; C. Ladd, PMEL; S. Laney, WHOI; M. Lomas, Bigelow; E. Martinson, AFSC; K. Mier, AFSC; C. Mordy, PMEL; F. Mueter, UAF; J. Murphy, AFSC; J. Napp, AFSC; S. Parker-Stetter, A. Pinchuk, UAF; UW; P. Proctor, PMEL; R. Sambrotto, Columbia; M. Sigler, AFSC; P. Stabeno, PMEL. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

CAROL LADD NOAA/ Pacific Marine Environmental Lab 206-526-6024 (office) 7600 Sand Point Way NE 206-526-6485 (fax) Seattle, WA 98115 [email protected] Professional Preparation University of Washington, Seattle, Physical Oceanography, M.S. (1996), Ph. D. June (2000) Postdoctoral Research Associate, National Research Council, NOAA/PMEL, 2001-2002 California State University, Sacramento, Finance, B.S. December 1986 Appointments Oceanographer, NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), 2005-present Oceanographer, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, 2002-2005 Postdoctoral Research Associate, National Research Council, NOAA/PMEL, 2001-2002 Scientific Programmer, University of Washington, Seattle, 2000-2001 Research Assistant, University of Washington, Seattle, 1993-2000 Select Publications Most Relevant to Proposed Research Danielson, L., Eisner, L., Ladd, C., Mordy, C., Sousa, L., Weingartner, T.J., submitted. A comparison between late summer 2012 and 2013 water masses, macronutrients, and phytoplankton standing crops in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. Deep-Sea Res. II. Ladd, C., 2014. Seasonal and interannual variability of the Bering Slope Current. Deep-Sea Res. II 109, 5-13. Ladd, C., P. Stabeno, and J. E. O'Hern. 2012. Observations of a Pribilof eddy, Deep-Sea Res. I, 66, 67-76. Ladd, C. and P. Stabeno. 2012. Stratification on the eastern Bering Sea shelf revisited, Deep-Sea Res. II, 65-70, 72-83. Ladd, C., and P. Stabeno (2009), Freshwater transport from the Pacific to the Bering Sea through Amukta Pass, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14608. Ladd, C., W. Crawford, C. Harpold, W. Johnson, N. Kachel, P. Stabeno, and F. Whitney (2009), A synoptic survey of young mesoscale eddies in the Eastern Gulf of Alaska, Deep Sea Res. II. Ladd, C., C. Mordy, N. Kachel, and P. Stabeno (2007), Northern Gulf of Alaska eddies and associated anomalies, Deep Sea Res. I, 54, 487-509. Ladd, C. (2007), Interannual variability of the Gulf of Alaska eddy field, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L11605. Ladd, C., G. Hunt, Jr., C. Mordy, S. Salo, and P. Stabeno (2005), Marine environment of the eastern and central Aleutian Islands, Fish. Oceanogr., 14, 22-38. Ladd, C., J. Jahncke, G. Hunt, Jr., K. Coyle, and P. Stabeno (2005), Hydrographic features and seabird foraging in Aleutian Passes, Fish. Oceanogr., 14, 178-195. Synergistic Activities: • Member of Gulf of Alaska Board of Investigators, the guiding body for NPRB’s Gulf of Alaska IERP • Supervisor, JISAO postdoc, 2013-present. • Committee member for graduate student in Quantitative Ecology and Resource Management at University of Washington (graduated with Masters degree, 2010). • MPOWIR Senior Facilitator for mentor group, 2011-2012. Collaborators & Other Affiliations N.A. Bond, UW/JISAO; K.-S. Chan, U Iowa; K. Chen, U Iowa; W. Cheng, UW/JISAO; L. Ciannelli, OSU; K. Cieciel, NOAA/AFSC; E. Cokelet, NOAA/PMEL; K. Coyle, UAF; E. Curchitser, Rutgers; S. Danielson, UAF; M.B. Decker, Yale; J.T. Duffy-Anderson, NOAA/NMFS; L. Eisner, NOAA/NMFS; J. Gann, NOAA/AFSC; G. Gibson, UAF; C. Harpold, NOAA/AFSC; S. Hinckley, NOAA/AFSC; A.J. Hermann, UW/JISAO; J.K. Horne, UW; G.L. Hunt, UW; N.B. Kachel, UW/JISAO; H. Liu, Indiana U; K. Martini, UW/JISAO; F. Menzia, UW/JISAO; F. Mueter, UAF; C. Mordy, UW/JISAO; J. Moss, NOAA/NMFS; J. Napp, NOAA/NMFS; R. Paredes, OSU; P. Proctor, UW/JISAO; S. Salo, NOAA/PMEL; P.J. Stabeno, NOAA/PMEL; J. Overland, NOAA/PMEL; C. Vestfals, OSU Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Michael W. Lomas Senior Research Scientist, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences 60 Bigelow Drive, East Boothbay, ME 04543, Tel: (202) 747-3255; e-mail: [email protected]

Professional Preparation: 1999-2000 Post-Doctoral Scholar, University of Maryland, Horn Point Laboratory 1994-1999 Ph.D., Biological Oceanography, University of Maryland, College Park. Scientific Appointments: 2012 – pres. Senior Research Scientist, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences 2008 – 2012 Senior Scientist, Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences Products Most Relevant to the Proposed Research: 1. Moran, S.B., Lomas, M.W., Kelly, R.P., Gradinger, R., Iken, K., Mathis, J.T. 2012. Sea-ice control of lower trophic carbon partitioning in the eastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II, 65-70, 84-97. 2. Lomas, M.W., Moran, S.B., Casey, J.R., Bell, D.W., Tiahlo, M., Whitefield, J., Kelly, R.P., Mathis, J.T., Cokelet, E.D. 2012. Spatial and seasonal variability of primary production on the Eastern Bering Sea shelf. Deep-Sea Research II, 65-70, 126-140. 3. Baumann, M.S., Moran, S.B., Kelly, R.P., Lomas, M.W., and Shull, D.H. 2013. 234Th balance and implications for seasonal particle retention in the eastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Research II, 94, 7-21. 4. Bauman, M.S., Moran, S.B., Lomas, M.W., Kelly, R.P., Bell, D.W. 2013. Seasonal decoupling of particulate organic carbon export and net primary production in relation to sea-ice extent at the shelf break of the eastern Bering Sea: implications for off-shelf export of carbon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 118: 5504-5522. 5. Baumann, M.S., Moran, S.B., Lomas, M.W., Kelly, R.P., Bell, D.W., Krause, J.W. 2014. Diatom control of the autotrophic community and particle export in the eastern Bering Sea during the recent cold years (2008-2010). Journal of Marine Research, 72:405-444. 6. Stoecker, D., Weigel, A.C., Stockwell, D.A., Lomas, M.W. Microzooplankton: abundance, biomass and contribution to chlorophyll a in the eastern Bering Sea in summer. Deep Sea Research II,109:134-144. 7. Cross, J.N., Mathis, J.T., Lomas, M.W., Moran, S.B., Baumann, M.S., Shull, D., Mordy, C.W., Bates, N.R., Gradinger, R., Stabeno, P.J. 2014. Integrated assessment of the carbon budget in the Southeastern Bering Sea: from the atmosphere to the sediments. Deep Sea Research II, 109:112-124. 8. Lomas, M. W., Glibert, P. M., Shiah, F-K., and Smith, E. M. 2002. Microbial Processes and Temperature in Chesapeake Bay: Current Relationships and Potential Impacts of Regional Warming. Global Change Biology, 8:51-70. 9. Liu, C.L., Zhai, L., Zeeman, S., Eisner, L., Mordy, C.W., Lomas, M.W. Comparison of seasonal and geographic variations in modeled primary production and phytoplankton losses from the mixed layer between warm years and cold years on the eastern Bering Sea shelf. In review, Deep-Sea Research II. 10. Banas, N.S., Zhang, J., Campbell, R.G., Lomas, M.W., Sambrotto, R.N., Sherr, E.B., Sherr, B.F., Ashjian, C.J., Stoecker, D., Lessard, E.J. Past and future variability in the spring plankton dynamics in the eastern Bering Sea, 1971 – 2050. In review, Deep Sea Research II. Examples of Synergistic Activities: • Mentored 41 undergraduates; Advisor/committee member for M.Sc. (3) & Ph.D. (10) students. • Co-organizer of the OCB Scoping workshop on US Ocean Time-series and other time-series special sessions at national meetings (Matt Church & Frank Muller-Karger, co-organizers), and lead editor for a special issue in Deep-Sea Research II on the US ocean time-series. • Member of Bering Sea Project SAB 2009-2013; Guest Editor for Deep-Sea Research II issues reporting results from Bering Sea Ecosystem Study programs. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Ryan M. McCabe University of Washington JISAO, Box 355672 E-mail: [email protected] 3737 Brooklyn Ave NE Tel: (206) 685-0599 Seattle, WA 98195 Fax: (206) 685-3397

A. Professional Preparation U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC Physics BS 2000 U of Washington, Seattle, WA Physical Oceanography MS 2004 U of Washington, Seattle, WA Physical Oceanography PhD 2008 U of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Physical Oceanography 2008–2010 U of Washington, Seattle, WA Physical Oceanography 2010–2013

B. Appointments 2014–present Research Scientist, JISAO, U of Washington 2010–2013 Research Associate, School of Oceanography, U of Washington 2008–2010 Research Associate, Department of Aviation, U of New South Wales, Australia 2000–2008 Graduate Research Assistant, School of Oceanography, U of Washington

C. Relevant Publications McCabe, R. M., B. M. Hickey, E. P. Dever, and P. MacCready (2015), Seasonal cross-shelf flow structure, upwelling relaxation, and the along-shelf pressure gradient in the northern California Current System, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 45, 209–227, doi:10.1175/JPO-D-14-0025.1. McCabe, R. M., P. MacCready, and B. M. Hickey (2009), Ebb-tide dynamics and spreading of a large river plume, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 39, 2839–2856, doi:10.1175/2009JPO4061.1. Hickey, B., R. McCabe, S. Geier, E. Dever, and N. Kachel (2009), Three interacting freshwater plumes in the northern California Current System, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C00B03, doi:10.1029/2008JC004907. McCabe, R. M., B. M. Hickey, and P. MacCready (2008), Observational estimates of entrainment and vertical salt flux in the interior of a spreading river plume, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C08027, doi:10.1029/2007JC004361. Kudela, R. M., A. R. Horner-Devine, N. S. Banas, B. M. Hickey, T. D. Peterson, R. M. McCabe, E. J. Lessard, E. Frame, K. W. Bruland, D. A. Jay, J. O. Peterson, W. T. Peterson, P. M. Kosro, S. L. Palacios, M. C. Lohan, and E. P. Dever (2010), Multiple trophic levels fueled by recirculation in the Columbia River plume, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L18607, doi:10.1029/2010GL044342. Hickey, B. M., R. M. Kudela, J. D. Nash, K. W. Bruland, W. T. Peterson, P. MacCready, E. J. Lessard, D. A. Jay, N. S. Banas, A. M. Baptista, E. P. Dever, P. M. Kosro, L. K. Kilcher, A. R. Horner-Devine, E. D. Zaron, R. M. McCabe, J. O. Peterson, P. M. Orton, J. Pan, and M. C. Lohan (2010), River Influences on Shelf Ecosystems: Introduction and synthesis, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C00B17, doi:10.1029/2009JC005452. McCabe, R. M., P. Estrade, J. H. Middleton, W. K. Melville, M. Roughan, and L. Lenain (2010), Temperature variability in a shallow, tidally-isolated coral reef lagoon, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C12011, doi:10.1029/2009JC006023. Huang, Z.-C., L. Lenain, W. K. Melville, J. H. Middleton, B. Reineman, N. M. Statom, and R. M. McCabe (2012), Dissipation of wave energy and turbulence in a shallow coral reef lagoon, J. Geophys. Res., 117, C03015, doi:10.1029/2011JC007202. McCabe, R. M., P. MacCready, and G. Pawlak (2006), Form drag due to flow separation at a headland, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 36, 2136–2152, doi:10.1175/JPO2966.1.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Calvin W. Mordy Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean ph. (206) 526-6870 University of Washington fax: (206) 526-6744 Seattle, WA 98115 email: [email protected]

Professional Preparation B.S., 1982, Berry College, Mt. Berry, GA (Chemistry) M.S., 1986, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (Bioorganic Chemistry) Ph.D., 1992, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR (Chemical Oceanography) Post Doc. University of Southern California Appointments Oceanographer, University of Washington, 2009-present Oceanographer, Genwest Systems, 2007-2009 Oceanographer, University of Washington, 1993-2007

Relevant Publications Cooper, L.W., M. Sexson, J.M. Grebmeier, R. Gradinger, C.W. Mordy, and J.R. Lovvorn (2013): Linkages between sea-ice coverage, pelagic-benthic coupling, and the distribution of spectacled eiders: Observations in March 2008, 2009 and 2010, Northern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II, 94, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.03.009, 31–43. Danielson, S.L., L. Eisner, C. Ladd, and C.W. Mordy (2015): A comparison between late summer 2012 and 2013 water masses, macronutrients, and phytoplankton standing crops in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. Deep-Sea Res. II, Submitted. Granger, J, M.G. Prokopenko, C.W. Mordy, and D.M. Sigman (2013): The proportion of remineralized nitrate on the ice-covered eastern Bering Sea shelf evidenced from the oxygen isotope ratio of nitrate. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 27(3), 962–971. Horak, R.E.A., H. Whitney, D. Shull, C. Mordy, and A.H. Devol (2013): The role of sediments on the Bering Sea shelf N cycle: Insights from measurements of benthic denitrification and benthic DIN fluxes. Deep-Sea Res. II, 94, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.03.014, 95–105. Mordy, C.W., E.D. Cokelet, C. Ladd, F.A. Menzia, P. Proctor, P.J. Stabeno, and E. Wisegarver (2012): Net community production on the middle shelf of the Eastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II, 65-70, 110–125. Stabeno, P.J., E. Farley, N. Kachel, S. Moore, C. Mordy, J.M. Napp, J.E. Overland, A.I. Pinchuk, and M.F. Sigler (2012): A comparison of the physics of the northern and southern shelves of the eastern Bering Sea and some implications for the ecosystem. Deep-Sea Res. II, 65–70, 14–30.

Synergistic Activities 1) Collaborative Efforts: Co-PI on a new RUSALCA program (2014-2020) that will examine physics and biology in the southern Chukchi Sea (including Russian waters). Co-PI on a new program to develop innovative sensors and platforms for arctic exploration. Co-PI on several other BOEM programs in the arctic. 2) Leader of a team of 3-4 chemists who participate on about 4-6 cruises per year to collect hydrographic data (nutrients, oxygen, & chlorophyll) and deploy moored nutrient sensors. In addition, we receive frozen samples for laboratory analysis from a number of collaborative efforts. 3) As a lead nutrient chemist in the GO-SHIP CLIVAR hydrographic program (with Scripps and NOAA/AOML), we continue to build one of the largest deep-water global nutrient data sets in the world. 4) Undergraduate interns have assisted in the collection and dissemination of nutrient, oxygen, and chlorophyll data. ______Thesis Advisor: David Carlson, WCRP Director, Postdoctoral Advisor: Cornelius Sullivan, USC Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Adam H. Spear NOAA/NMFS/AFSC 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 526-4790 Email: [email protected]

EDUCATION B.S. 1999, Biology. Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD M.S., 2009, Biological Oceanography, University of South Florida, College of Marine Science

APPOINTMENTS 2011-present: Research Oceanographer, NOAA/AFSC 2004-2009: Research Assistant, University of South Florida, College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg, FL. 1999-2004: Faculty Research Assistant III, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Horn Point Laboratory, Cambridge, MD.

RESEARCH IN THE BERING AND CHUKCHI SEAS Chukchi Sea Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton (CHAOZ/CHAOZ-X), 2010-Present Arctic Whale Ecology Study (ArcWEST), Chukchi Sea, 2012-Present Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey (BASIS), 2014-Present

PUBLICATIONS Napp, J., Spear, A., Stabeno, P., Bloss, B., Strausz, D., (In Review), Acoustically-determined patterns of summer zooplankton biomass and vertical migration behavior from the Bering Sea shelf during a cold regime. Deep Sea Research II

Spear, A.H., Daly, K.L., Huffman, D.E., Garcia-Rubio, L.H. (2009) Progress in Develping a New Detecion Method for the Dinoflagellate, Karenia brevis using Multiwavlength Spectroscopy. Harmful Algae 8(2), 189-195.

RECENT COLLABORATORS Duffy-Anderson, AFSC; Napp, AFSC; Stabeno, PMEL; Berchok, AFSC; McKelvey, AFSC; Farley, AFSC

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.11-Ladd

Phyllis Jean Stabeno Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115-0700 Tel: 206-526-6453 Fax: 206-526-6485 email: [email protected]

Education B. S. University of Washington, Mathematics, June 1972 M. A. University of California, Berkeley, Mathematics, June, 1974 Ph. D. Oregon State University, Physical Oceanography, June, 1982

Professional Experience Co-director of NPCREP 2004-present Co-director of FOCI 1998-present Oceanographer, NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Lab. (PMEL) 1988-present Oceanographer, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmos. and Ocean, UW 1987-1988 Research Associate; Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 1985-1987 Research Fellow; Univ. College Galway, Ireland 1982-1984 PI or Co-PI on numerous research programs including: 2010-14 Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Study, NPRB (Hopcroft et al.) 2012-14 BEST Synthesis, NSF (Mordy, et. al.) 2011-17 ArcWEST, BOEM, (Berchok, et al.) 2011-16 SOAR, BOEM, (Moore and Stabeno) 2013-17 CHAOZ-X, BOEM (Berchok, et al.) 2014-16 Innovative Technology for Exploration of the Arctic Ocean: Ecosystem and Carbon Wave Glider Surveys, Ocean Exploration (Stabeno, et al.)

Selected Publications (over 150 total publications) Stabeno, P., N. Bond, N. Kachel, C. Ladd, C. Mordy, S. Strom (2015): Southeast Alaskan shelf from the southern tip of Baranof Island to Kayak Island: Currents, mixing and chlorophyll-a. Deep-Sea Res. II, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.06.018. In press Stabeno, P., & H. Hristova (2014): Observations of the Alaskan Stream near Samalga Pass and its connection to the Bering Sea, 2001– 2004. DSRI, 88, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2014.03.002, 30–46. Moore, S., and P. Stabeno (2015): Synthesis of Arctic Research (SOAR) in marine ecosystems of the Pacific Arctic. Prog. Oceanogr., 136, 1–11, doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.017. Wood, K., Bond, Overland, Salo, Stabeno, Whitefield (2015): A decade of environmental change in the Pacific Arctic region. Prog. Oceanogr., 136, 12–31, doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.005. Stabeno, Kachel, Moore, Napp, Sigler, Yamaguchi, Zerbini (2012): Comparison of warm and cold years on southeastern Bering Sea shelf and some implications for the ecosystem. Deep-Sea Res. II, 65–70, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.02.020, 31–45. Stabeno, Kachel, Moore, Mordy, Napp, Overland, Pinchuk, Sigler (2012): A comparison of the physics, chemistry, and biology of the northern and southern shelves of the eastern Bering Sea and some implications for the ecosystem. Deep-Sea Res. II, 65–70, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.02.019, 14–30. Danielson, Weingartner, Hedstrom, Aagaard, Woodgate, Curchitser, Stabeno (2014): Coupled wind- forced controls of the Bering-Chukchi shelf circulation and the Bering Strait throughflow: Ekman transport, continental shelf waves, and variations of Pacific-Arctic sea surface height gradient. Prog. Oceanogr., 125, doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.04.006, 40–61. Stabeno, Napp, Mordy, Whitledge (2010): Factors influencing physical structure and lower trophic levels of the eastern Bering Sea shelf in 2005: Sea ice, tides and winds. Prog. Oceanogr., 85(3–4), doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2010.02.010, 180–196. Stabeno, P.J., C. Ladd, and R.K. Reed (2009): Observations of the Aleutian North Slope Current, Bering Sea, 1996–2001. J. Geophys. Res., 114, C05015, doi: 10.1029/2007JC004705. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 1

1 A. Deciphering the base of Arctic food chains: Linking natural and anthropogenic organic sources 2 with microbial drivers of the carbon cycle 3 4 B. Category: Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity 5 6 C. Rationale and Justification 7 8 Some of the world’s highest primary production occurs on the wide shelves of the Arctic where 9 labile organic matter from phytoplankton production encounters recalcitrant terrestrial material carried in 10 by rivers and land fast ice (e.g. Eiken et al., 2005). The coexistence of these two organic matter pools, 11 one highly labile and one largely recalcitrant, makes the Arctic Ocean arguably the most complex 12 environment to examine the cycling of organic carbon (Stein and Macdonald 2004). This balance of 13 terrestrial versus marine carbon is closely linked to climate through the hydrologic cycle, and forms the 14 base of every food chain leading to fish, marine mammals, and other higher trophic level organisms in the 15 Arctic. Microbes are well known to be the essential recyclers and mediators in many biogeochemical 16 processes, yet the most basic information about the links among natural and anthropogenic organic 17 material and microbes is lacking for the Arctic. We know little about even the most basic aspect of 18 microbes, their phylogenetic or taxonomic composition. The gaps in understanding organic carbon and 19 microbes have been identified as a major limitation in understanding the Chukchi system (Grebmeier et 20 al., PACMARS, 2015). This project will address these gaps. We need information on organic material, 21 the microbes which control its distribution, and the integration of the two to inform biogeochemical 22 models now used to predict the response of the Arctic to system-wide changes likely to occur in the near 23 future. These changes include those due to climate and to contamination by oil and other hydrocarbons. 24 In addition to exploring links between natural carbon and microbes, we propose to address 25 anthropogenic materials and impacts on microbes. We already have a solid start on a baseline of oil 26 related hydrocarbons and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) distributions in surface sediments through 27 the COMIDA (Chukchi Sea Offshore Monitoring in Drilling Area) and Hanna Shoal programs supported 28 by BOEM (Harvey et al. 2014). This work shows that the Chukchi Sea is largely pristine, with only 29 minor elevations of anthropogenic organic contaminants near historic drill sites. A better understanding 30 of the broader organic pool and associated microbes is essential now to rigorously evaluate the potential 31 impact of hydrocarbons on microbial communities and the Chukchi system in general. This Arctic region 32 may see more exploration and drilling in the near future. We propose to expand the limited baseline data 33 from the Chukchi Sea in order to characterize the full organic carbon signal that fuels water column and 34 benthic productivity. The work will be done in tandem with a rigorous evaluation of the microbial 35 community prior to possible oil and other hydrocarbon contamination in the future. 36 While diverse communities of microbes are responsible for the recycling of natural organic 37 material, hydrocarbon and other organic contaminants are degraded by only select heterotrophic bacteria 38 which are fairly well-known in lower latitude systems, but much less so in the Arctic (Dong et al. 2015). 39 In particular, extensive work following the Deep Water Horizon spill in 2010 found that several known 40 oil-degrading bacteria (e.g. Oceanospirillales and Cycloclasticus) increased substantially in abundance 41 following the spill and then decreased somewhat as the spill was contained (Hazen et al. 2010; 42 Lamendella et al. 2014; Yang et al. 2014). The work and other studies have demonstrated the power of 43 16S rRNA gene approaches for addressing questions about the response of bacterial communities to 44 petroleum contaminants and to the natural inputs of organic material. We propose a similar 16S approach 45 to explore bacteria-organic relationships in the Chukchi Sea. It is unclear whether bacterial communities 46 will respond to oil spills in the Arctic the same as seen in low-latitude waters. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 2

47 Bacterial communities in low latitude systems are well known to vary with several natural 48 biogeochemical properties, including salinity, temperature and phytoplankton blooms (Fuhrman et al. 49 2015). All of those properties are likely to affect bacterial communities in the Arctic, but information is 50 limited (Bowman et al. 2012; Galand et al. 2010; Kirchman et al. 2010). Surprisingly very few studies in 51 any system have examined how the composition of organic material affects bacterial communities (e.g. 52 Dyda et al., 2009) even though it is well appreciated that bacteria tend to specialize in degrading select 53 classes of organic compounds (Cottrell and Kirchman 2000; Martinez et al. 1996). Sediment microbial 54 communities did vary with indices of organic carbon lability and terrestrial organic carbon from the 55 Rhone River as it empties into the Mediterranean Sea (Fagervold et al. 2014). 56 The balance of terrestrial and marine carbon is likely to affect microbes and thus carbon cycling 57 in the Chukchi Sea, but how is unknown. Levels of terrestrial and marine carbon in the Chukchi have 58 been estimated using bulk isotopes which provide a very useful start (Trefry et al. 2014). These data 59 show that land derived material is both widespread and significant (Fig 1), although the isotope values 60 need to be interpreted with caution because of variation in the marine end member (see Belicka et al. 61 2009). Perhaps as important is the appreciation that “marine carbon” is not uniform but its composition 62 varies greatly because it comes from many sources. Our preliminary molecular level analysis of lipid 63 biomarkers suggests that the marine carbon reaching the surface sediments is not simply from diatoms as 64 might be expected given that they dominate spring production; rather, the carbon comes from many other 65 members of the plankton community in addition to diatoms (Fig 2). The amount and composition of this 66 marine carbon, along with terrestrial carbon, are highly likely to be an important determinant of benthic – 67 pelagic coupling. The proposed work will explore that coupling by examining the organic material 68 produced in the water column, the material that arrives at the sediments, and the microbial communities in 69 both the water column and surficial sediments. This information is essential for understanding benthic 70 productivity and carbon cycling in the Arctic 71 This project team includes a marine organic geochemist (Harvey) and a microbial ecologist 72 (Kirchman), with substantial and complementary experience in polar climates and the Arctic. Both 73 detrital organic material and microbial communities will be examined and the data integrated. Examining 74 them together is the most powerful approach for understanding the base of food chains and the carbon 75 cycle—information that is essential to forecast how the Arctic will respond to climate change and 76 hydrocarbon contamination. 77 78 D. Hypotheses 79 80 1. Bacterial communities will reflect the balance of terrestrial and marine organic carbon across the 81 Chukchi Sea Shelf. 82 We hypothesize that the composition of free-living, attached, and surficial sediment bacterial 83 communities will correlate with the organic flux and type of organic carbon present in the water column 84 and sediments. Whether organic carbon comes from terrestrial sources versus marine primary production 85 will have a large impact on bacterial communities. Terrestrial organic carbon is usually thought to be 86 more resistant to microbial degradation than marine organic carbon (Wheeler et al., 1996; Dyda et al. 87 2009), although organic material newly released from melting tundra may be degraded relatively rapidly 88 (Schuur et al. 2015). 89 Measures of microbial community structure (16S rRNA genes) will be combined with unique 90 biomarkers of terrestrial plants, including triterpenoids and long chain fatty acids. These biomarkers have 91 the capability to trace riverine organic matter and transport of land derived material through ice as well as 92 the complex mixture of marine-derived organic material (Yunker et al., 2005; Belicka and Harvey, 2009). 93 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 3

94 2. Bacterial communities in surface sediments with low concentrations of hydrocarbons will differ 95 from communities in sediments without hydrocarbons. 96 Levels of hydrocarbons are known to be slightly elevated at several historic test drill sites 97 including the Klondike and Burger drill sites in the Chukchi Sea (Harvey et al., 2014.). While these sites 98 have higher than background levels of hydrocarbons, the concentration is currently low compared to well- 99 known contaminated habitats. This contamination is also reflected in specific elemental composition 100 (Trefry et al., 2014). We hypothesize that these low but long term contaminations have led to differences 101 in bacterial community structure in Chukchi sediments. 102 In addition to establishing a base line of organic and microbial composition before extensive 103 drilling begins, the proposed work is key to delineating microbe-hydrocarbon relationships in the Arctic. 104 We hypothesize that microbes related to oil-degrading bacteria in low-latitude systems will be present in 105 the Arctic, but we also anticipate finding new oil-degrading bacteria specific to the Arctic and its unique 106 biogeochemical environment. 107 108 3. Bacterial communities and detrital carbon pools change during advection of organisms and 109 detritus carried by south-to-north currents in the Chukchi Sea 110 Because of currents and bottom topography, organisms and detritus are advected from the pelagic 111 southern Chukchi Sea to the more benthic dominated northern Chukchi Sea (Grebmeier et al., 2006). We 112 hypothesize that changes in available carbon pools along this advection pathway, together with export 113 from ice and water column production, drive changes in bacterial communities. Bacterial communities 114 in free-living, attached, and surficial sediment bacterial communities will correlate with the differences in 115 the quality and type of organic carbon, not just total organic carbon fluxes along the south-to-north 116 geographical gradient. 117 118 E. Objectives 119 120 1. Expand datasets of organic contaminants in surface sediments to include a larger suite of molecular 121 level biomarkers that can determine broad (terrestrial verses marine) and refined (e.g. multiple algal) 122 sources of organic materials and their importance to the benthos. 123 124 2. Explore the composition of bacterial communities and of organic matter along the south-to-north 125 gradient in the Chukchi Sea. 126 127 3. Compare taxonomic composition of bacterial communities based on 16S rRNA gene sequences with 128 organic matter composition. 129 130 4. Evaluate bacterial communities in locations with elevated hydrocarbon levels versus locations without 131 hydrocarbons. 132 133 5. Provide integrative information on carbon sources and bacterial communities to modelers for a 134 comprehensive measure of the carbon cycle in the Chukchi Sea. 135 136 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables 137 138 The main product of the proposed work will be a detailed study of the composition of bacterial 139 communities and organic material at multiple locations in the Chukchi Sea. The project will examine Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 4

140 linkages between bacteria and organic material as both vary along the Chukchi Sea shelf and between the 141 water column and sediments. 142 The proposed work is both fundamental for understanding the Arctic ecosystem and for meeting a 143 critical resource management need. This proposed investigation will link detailed information on natural 144 and anthropogenic carbon with the base of the food chain leading to fish, marine mammals, and other 145 higher trophic level organisms in the Arctic. The proposed work would also provide insights and 146 information crucial for evaluating the impact of hydrocarbon contamination from oil exploration and 147 production in the Arctic. It would determine whether even low levels of hydrocarbons can affect the base 148 of marine food chains in the Arctic, and it would contribute to baseline information essential for 149 evaluating the effects of large scale spills that may occur in the near future. 150 151 G. Project design and conceptual approach 152 153 The observational and experimental part of the proposed work is divided into two phases. The 154 first phase allows for rapid progress without the need for field collections as it relies on samples from the 155 Chukchi already collected by Harvey during past and current programs. Analyses of these archived 156 samples will yield new insights at moderate cost. The samples include surface sediments and water 157 column particulate matter from 63 sites spanning the northern Chukchi Sea and Hanna Shoal (see Figure 158 1). Based on completed bulk measures of isotopes and carbon in sediments plus organic contaminants, 159 we already have important information to guide more detailed organic analysis and selection of samples 160 for determining bacterial community composition. Samples are currently archived at -80 oC by Harvey. 161 For a number of stations, there are archived samples for complementary water column particles as well as 162 for sediments. A subset of these samples will be analyzed during this first phase of the project to 163 determine the range of bacterial communities and organic material in the Chukchi Sea and to begin to 164 address our hypotheses. 165 The second phase of the observational work will consist of collecting and analyzing new samples 166 taken from the Chukchi Sea. The samples will include free living bacteria, those attached to particles in 167 the water column, and surface sediments. In addition to extending geographic coverage in the Chukchi, 168 the new samples will enable us to target areas with low level hydrocarbons and to see how those low 169 levels affect bacterial communities. We are flexible about the specific sampling sites and require only 170 modest amount of time to collect our samples. Consequently, our proposed work can be easily interfaced 171 with the field program under development. 172 173 Organic analyses. Our analytical scheme is designed to identify and quantify a suite of organic 174 constituents as well as their degradation products to track carbon sources and fates. Total lipids (including 175 organic contaminants and hydrocarbons) are extracted from particles, surface sediments and from 176 microbes with microwave assisted methods and split into fractions for various molecular level analyses 177 following well established protocol we have developed for bacteria (Taylor and Harvey 2011), natural 178 (e.g. Belicka et al., 2004) and organic contaminants and hydrocarbons ( Harvey et al., 2014). The 179 analyses employ state of the art laboratory approaches including gas chromatography coupled with mass 180 spectrometry and reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry 181 (RP-HPLC-APCI-MS) using Orbitrap technology. These approaches typically quantify 130 individual 182 organic biomarkers plus an additional 90 organic contaminants structures which are measured at 183 nanogram levels. 184 185 Bacterial analyses. The taxonomic composition of bacterial communities will be determined by tag 186 sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. We propose to look at three types of communities in both archived Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 5

187 samples (depending on availability) and new samples: 1) the free-living community (between 0.2 and 1.0 188 m) and the 2) community of large and particle-associated bacteria (>1.0 m) in the water column, and 3) 189 surficial sediments (0-1 cm). Kirchman has used tag sequencing approaches before in the Arctic and 190 low-latitude waters and sediments (Campbell and Kirchman 2013; Campbell et al. 2011; Kirchman et al. 191 2010; Kirchman et al. 2014). In brief, DNA will be extracted by standard methods and PCR will be used 192 to retrieve the 515-806 bp region of the 16S rRNA gene using standard primers with bar codes for 193 multiplex sequencing on a Illumina platform (Caporaso et al. 2012). The sequences will then by analyzed 194 by QIIME for quality control and taxonomic assignment (Caporaso et al. 2010). 195 196 Data analysis and integration. The individual data sets on organics and bacteria will be analyzed using 197 cluster analyses, such as principal component analysis (PCA) (e.g. Yunker et al., 2005) and nonmetric 198 multidimensional scaling (NMDS). Depending on the question and the data, relationships among these 199 two data sets and environmental properties will be explored by canonical discriminant analysis (CDA), 200 canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), or detrended correspondence analysis (DCA). These analyses 201 will be performed in R using the vegan package (Oksanen et al. 2015). It will be critical to discriminate 202 those factors that drive microbial diversity and their linkage with organic composition to provide useful 203 information to modelers. 204 205 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts 206 207 We are eager to work with modelers to be supported by this program and others to incorporate 208 our data and understanding into carbon cycle models. We anticipate contributing to at least two types of 209 models. The first type has been explored by several studies focused on mechanisms in low latitude 210 systems. These models have already incorporated microbes and organic material into thinking about the 211 flow of carbon and energy through food webs and about interactions among lower trophic levels 212 (Anderson and Ducklow 2001; Våge et al. 2014). Even these modeling studies, however, include little (or 213 none) of the diversity of the organic carbon pool or of the microbes. In these models, the detrital organic 214 carbon pool is divided into dissolved and particulate or into labile or semi-labile components. Likewise, 215 microbes are divided into simple functional groups (phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria) without 216 attempting to capture their diversity and phylogenetic composition, although there are exceptions 217 (Follows and Dutkiewicz 2011; Våge et al. 2014). The results from our study will be crucial for 218 improving these mechanistic models and to help them explore issues specific for the Arctic. 219 We also are eager to contribute to improving a second type of model, those that are used to 220 predict the consequences of climate change and contamination from petroleum extraction. Current large 221 scale models of the carbon cycle capture little of the diversity and complexity of detrital organic carbon 222 pools and microbial communities (Burd et al. 2015). With few exceptions, they do not have explicit 223 components for heterotrophic bacteria, although they do have different types of detrital organic carbon 224 pools. The lack of explicit components hampers the ability of these models to predict the impact of 225 climate changes, most obviously increases in temperatures, already affecting the Arctic. It is telling that 226 one of the few large scale models to include a heterotrophic bacteria component was designed to examine 227 temperature effects on carbon cycling (Vichi et al. 2007). Arguable more so than in other systems, several 228 heterotrophic bacterial components are needed in these models because of the diversity of organic 229 material in the Arctic. In particular, these models need to include bacteria capable of using not only 230 natural organic carbon from phytoplankton and terrestrial sources but also hydrocarbons. 231 232 233 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 6

234 Figure 1. Field stations visited during the Comida and Hanna Shoal Research programs. Archived 235 sediments are available for microbial and detailed organic analyses during phase one of the proposed 236 work. For many sediments, major properties and organic contaminants have already been analyzed and 237 are available. For a subset of stations, water column particles have been filtered and stored at -80.

238 Figure 2. Preliminary analysis of a subset of organic biomarkers in surface sediments previously 239 collected from the Comida and Hanna Shoal programs. The analysis of sterols (membrane lipids) 240 illustrate that detrital material from diatoms is but one source of the complex organic material arriving at 241 sediments. This organic material is available to bacteria to fuel the entire benthic community. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 7

242 Literature cited 243 244 Anderson, T. R., and H. W. Ducklow. 2001. Microbial loop carbon cycling in ocean environments studied 245 using a simple steady-state model. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 26: 37-49. 246 Belicka, L.L., R.W. Macdonald, M.B. Yunker and H.R. Harvey 2004. The role of depositional regime on 247 carbon transport and preservation in Arctic Ocean sediments. Marine Chemistry 86:65-88. 248 Belicka, L.L. and H.R. Harvey. 2009. The sequestration of terrestrial organic carbon in Arctic Ocean 249 sediments: a comparison of methods and implications for regional carbon budgets. Geochimica 250 et Cosmochimica Acta 73:6231-6248. 251 Bowman, J. S., S. Rasmussen, N. Blom, J. W. Deming, S. Rysgaard, and T. Sicheritz-Ponten. 2012. 252 Microbial community structure of Arctic multiyear sea ice and surface seawater by 454 253 sequencing of the 16S RNA gene. ISME J. 6: 11-20. 254 Burd, A. B., S. Frey, A. Cabre, T. Ito, N. M. Levine, C. Lønborg, M. Long, M. Mauritz, R. Q. Thomas, B. 255 M. Stephens, T. Vanwalleghem, and N. Zeng. 2015. Terrestrial and marine perspectives on 256 modeling organic matter degradation pathways. Glob Change Biol 10.1111/gcb.12987: (in press). 257 Campbell, B. J., and D. L. Kirchman. 2013. Bacterial diversity, community structure and potential growth 258 rates along an estuarine salinity gradient. ISME J. 7: 210-220. 259 Campbell, B. J., L. Yu, J. F. Heidelberg, and D. L. Kirchman. 2011. Activity of abundant and rare 260 bacteria in a coastal ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 12776-12781. 261 Caporaso, J. G., J. Kuczynski, J. Stombaugh, K. Bittinger, F. D. Bushman, E. K. Costello, N. Fierer, A. 262 G. Pena, J. K. Goodrich, J. I. Gordon, G. A. Huttley, S. T. Kelley, D. Knights, J. E. Koenig, R. E. 263 Ley, C. A. Lozupone, D. Mcdonald, B. D. Muegge, M. Pirrung, J. Reeder, J. R. Sevinsky, P. J. 264 Turnbaugh, W. A. Walters, J. Widmann, T. Yatsunenko, J. Zaneveld, and R. Knight. 2010. 265 QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Meth. 7: 335-336. 266 Caporaso, J. G., C. L. Lauber, W. A. Walters, D. Berg-Lyons, J. Huntley, N. Fierer, S. M. Owens, J. 267 Betley, L. Fraser, M. Bauer, N. Gormley, J. A. Gilbert, G. Smith, and R. Knight. 2012. Ultra- 268 high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. 269 ISME J. 6: 1621-1624. 270 Cottrell, M. T., and D. L. Kirchman. 2000. Natural assemblages of marine proteobacteria and members of 271 the Cytophaga-Flavobacter cluster consuming low- and high- molecular-weight dissolved 272 organic matter. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66: 1692-1697. 273 Dong, C., X. Bai, H. Sheng, L. Jiao, H. Zhou, and Z. Shao. 2015. Distribution of PAHs and the PAH- 274 degrading bacteria in the deep-sea sediments of the high-latitude Arctic Ocean. Biogeosciences 275 12: 2163-2177. 276 Dyda, R. Y., M. T. Suzuki, M. Y. Yoshinaga, and H. R. Rodger Harvey. 2009.The response of microbial 277 communities to diverse organic matter sources in the Arctic Ocean. Deep Sea Research Part II: 278 Topical Studies in Oceanography 56(17): 1249-1263. 279 Fagervold, S. K., S. Bourgeois, A. M. Pruski, F. Charles, P. Kerherve, G. Vetion, and P. E. Galand. 2014. 280 River organic matter shapes microbial communities in the sediment of the Rhone prodelta. ISME 281 J. 8: 2327-2338. 282 Follows, M. J., and S. Dutkiewicz. 2011. Modeling diverse communities of marine microbes. Annu. Rev. 283 Mar. Sci. 3: 427-451. 284 Fuhrman, J. A., J. A. Cram, and D. M. Needham. 2015. Marine microbial community dynamics and their 285 ecological interpretation. Nat. Rev. Micro. 13: 133-146. 286 Galand, P. E., M. Potvin, E. O. Casamayor, and C. Lovejoy. 2010. Hydrography shapes bacterial 287 biogeography of the deep Arctic Ocean. ISME J. 4: 564-576. 288 Grebmeier, J. M., and H.R. Harvey 2005. The Western Arctic Shelf–Basin Interactions (SBI) project: An 289 overview Deep-Sea Research II 52 (2005) 3109–3115. 290 Grebmeier, J. W. L.W. Cooper, H.M. Feder, B.I. Sirenko 2006. Ecosystem dynamics of the Pacific- 291 influenced northern Bering and Chukchi seas Prog. Oceanogr., 71 (2006), pp. 331–361 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 8

292 Grebmeier, J.M, L.W. Cooper, C.A. Ashjian, B.A. Bluhm, R.B. Campbell, K.E. Dunton, J. Moore, S. 293 Okkonen, G. Sheffield, J. Trefry, and S.Y. Pasternak. 2015. Pacific Marine Arctic Regional 294 Synthesis (PacMARS) Final Report, North Pacific Research Board. 259 pp 295 Harvey, H. R., K. A. Taylor, H. V. Pie, and C. L. Mitchelmore. 2014. Polycyclic aromatic and aliphatic 296 hydrocarbons in Chukchi Sea biota and sediments and their toxicological response in the Arctic 297 cod, Boreogadus saida. Deep Sea Res II 102: 32-55. 298 Hazen, T. C., E. A. Dubinsky, T. Z. Desantis, G. L. Andersen, Y. M. Piceno, N. Singh, J. K. Jansson, A. 299 Probst, S. E. Borglin, J. L. Fortney, W. T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M. E. Conrad, L. M. Tom, K. L. 300 Chavarria, T. R. Alusi, R. Lamendella, D. C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M. L. Zemla, 301 R. Chakraborty, E. L. Sonnenthal, P. D'haeseleer, H.-Y. N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J. D. Van 302 Nostrand, Y. Deng, J. Zhou, and O. U. Mason. 2010. Deep-sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil- 303 degrading bacteria. Science 330: 204-208. 304 Kirchman, D. L., X. a. G. Morán, and H. Ducklow. 2009. Microbial growth in the polar oceans- role of 305 temperature and potential impact of climate change. Nat. Rev. Microb. 7: 451-459. 306 Kirchman, D. L., M. T. Cottrell, and C. Lovejoy. 2010. The structure of bacterial communities in the 307 western Arctic Ocean as revealed by pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes. Environ. Microbiol. 308 12: 1132 - 1143. 309 Kirchman, D. L., T. E. Hanson, M. T. Cottrell, and L. J. Hamdan. 2014. Metagenomic analysis of organic 310 matter degradation in methane-rich Arctic Ocean sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 59: 548-559. 311 Lamendella, R., S. Strutt, S. E. Borglin, R. Chakraborty, N. Tas, O. U. Mason, J. Hultman, E. Prestat, T. 312 C. Hazen, and J. Jansson. 2014. Assessment of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact on Gulf 313 coast microbial communities. Frontiers in Microbiology 5. 314 Martinez, J., D. C. Smith, G. F. Steward, and F. Azam. 1996. Variability in ectohydrolytic enzyme 315 activities of pelagic marine bacteria and its significance for substrate processing in the sea. Aquat. 316 Microb. Ecol. 10: 223-230. 317 Rich J., M. Gosselin, E. Sherr, B. Sherr, and D.L. Kirchman. 1997. High bacterial production, uptake and 318 concentrations of dissolved organic matter in the Central Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research II 44: 319 1645-1663. 320 Schuur, E. a. G., A. D. Mcguire, C. Schadel, G. Grosse, J. W. Harden, D. J. Hayes, G. Hugelius, C. D. 321 Koven, P. Kuhry, D. M. Lawrence, S. M. Natali, D. Olefeldt, V. E. Romanovsky, K. Schaefer, M. 322 R. Turetsky, C. C. Treat, and J. E. Vonk. 2015. Climate change and the permafrost carbon 323 feedback. Nature 520: 171-179. 324 Trefry, J. H., R. P. Trocine, L. W. Cooper and K. H. Dunton, 2014. Trace metals and organic carbon in 325 sediments of the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II 102: 18-31. 326 Våge, S., J. E. Storesund, J. Giske, and T. F. Thingstad. 2014. Optimal Defense Strategies in an Idealized 327 Microbial Food Web under Trade-Off between Competition and Defense. PLoS ONE 9: 328 e101415. 329 Vichi, M., N. Pinardi, and S. Masina. 2007. A generalized model of pelagic biogeochemistry for the 330 global ocean ecosystem. Part I: Theory. Journal Of Marine Systems 64: 89-109. .Ambrosio, S. B. Joye, R. Highsmith, and A. Teske. 2014׳Yang, T., L. M. Nigro, T. Gutierrez, L. D 331 332 Pulsed blooms and persistent oil-degrading bacterial populations in the water column during and 333 after the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Deep Sea Res II doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.01.014. 334 Yunker, M.B., L.L. Belicka, H.R. Harvey and R.W. Macdonald 2005. Tracing the inputs and fate of 335 marine and terrigenous organic matter in Arctic Ocean sediments: A multivariate analysis of lipid 336 biomarkers. Deep-Sea Research II 52: 3478-3508. 337 338 339 340 341 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey 9

342 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data 343 344 The interaction between organic carbon from both natural and anthropogenic sources and the 345 microbial community has been identified as an important gap in our understanding of how the Chukchi 346 Sea operates (PACMARS report, 2015). The detailed information on carbon and bacterial communities 347 to be gathered by this project will undoubtedly help to better define ecosystem processes that are essential 348 for understanding not only pelagic-benthic coupling but also carbon dynamics; both are needed for 349 models to forecast scenarios of the Arctic in the near future. Both PI’s are experienced working with a 350 diversity of collaborators on large and small field programs to integrate results useful to overall program 351 goals and model development. 352 Leveraging results for other programs will be straightforward as Harvey has been the organic 353 chemistry PI for the COMIDA Cab program and is currently leading organic measures as PI on the 354 ongoing Hanna Shoal program supported by BOEM. These programs, led by Ken Dunton, have 355 documented the chemistry, physical environments and ecosystem processes for an important section for 356 the Chukchi Sea. Harvey is also a PI on the new MARES program funded by BOEM where he is 357 responsible for organic measures to investigate critical processes associated with carbon transport, its 358 source characterization, and shelf-basin exchange across the Beaufort Shelf. His previous experience for 359 integration includes his role as a PI and management team on the Arctic Shelf Basin Interaction (SBI) 360 program (see Grebmeier and Harvey, 2005 for overview), and as PI in the recent Bering Sea project co- 361 funded by NPRB and NSF. In the Bering Sea program as PI, his work was directed at euphausiids as 362 mediators of trophic transfer and energy exchange. In addition to being a PI, his duties on the Bering 363 Seas project included being elected as co-chair (with Mike Sigler of NOAA) to the Science Advisory 364 Board (SAB), which helped to coordinate the 54 PI’s involved in the program, synthesize program 365 results, to serve as liaison with agency contacts and to disseminate results from the project. The Bering 366 Sea Project SAB continues to serve as a conduit for the research emerging from the program with the 4th 367 special volume of journal articles now nearing completion. Kirchman was also a PI in the SBI program 368 and received additional NSF support during the synthesis phase of SBI to explore temperature effects and 369 other climate changes on carbon dynamics in the Arctic (Kirchman et al. 2009). 370 371 Project Management 372 Harvey will be responsible for cruise logistics and overall project coordination. Harvey is a 373 leader in the field of marine organic geochemistry and has 20 years of experience in Arctic oceanography 374 including yearly cruises to the Arctic during the last 10 years. He will contribute his expertise in 375 structural analysis of natural and anthropogenic organic compounds and in broader aspects of organic 376 carbon cycling to the program. Kirchman, a leader in the field of microbial oceanography and ecology, 377 will assist Harvey when needed in managing this project. He will contribute his expertise in microbial 378 ecology and specifically in bacterial community dynamics to the program. Kirchman has worked in the 379 Arctic since the Arctic Ocean Section program in 1994 (Rich et al. 1997). Both Harvey and Kirchman 380 will work together in integrating results from this project into the program’s larger effort in understanding 381 carbon cycling in the Arctic. 382 383 384 385 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey

Organic sources and microbial drivers - Harvey and Kirchman June 1, 2016 – September 30, 2020 individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1 Initial PI meetig Harvey x Analysis of existing samples for organics Harvey x x x x Collection of new samples for organics Harvey x x x x Data analysis Harvey x x x x x x x x x x x x Prepare for presentations and publications Harvey x x x x x x Objective #2 x x x x Analysis of existing samples for bactera Kirchman x x x x Collection of new samples for bacteria Kirchman Data analysis Kirchman x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Prepare for presentations and publications Kirchman x x x x x x x x Objective #3 Analyze combined data sets x x x x Prepare for presentations and publications Objective #4 Collection of new samples for bacteria & contaminants Harvey & Kirchman x x Analyze combined data sets x x x x Prepare for presentations and publications x x x x x x x x Objective #5 Interface with modelers x x x x x x x x Prepare for presentations and publications x x x x Other Progress report x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation x x x x x PI meeting x x x x x Logistics planning meeting x x Publication submission Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Logistics Summary

Arctic Program Logistics Summary

Project Title: Deciphering the base of Arctic food chains: Linking natural and anthropogenic organic sources with microbial drivers of the carbon cycle

Lead PI:

H. Rodger Harvey Professor and Chair Dept. of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529

Logistical Needs:

A. Type of vessel: A vessel that can ensure safe operation offshore is needed. Ice is not a deterrent to sampling in most cases. B. Gear deployment: We anticipate two types of gear needed, one for water column sampling which would employ a standard or large volume CTD and the second using mid-size box core for sediment sampling where no archived samples are present. The vessel needs to have means to deploy gear of moderate weight (up to 1200 lbs.) off the side or off the stern using a boom, a crane, an A-frame. A vessel equipped with a winch with conducting cable is not needed for sediment sampling, but required for the CTD. C. Ship time: Ideally, at least 20 days of ship time in each of 2017-2018 sampling seasons are needed for geographic coverage. We are flexible with particular timing and would consider spring, summer and/or fall as dictated by program needs and other investigators. D. Number of berths: We require at least three berths to accommodate our science crew. E. Lab space: We will need two 4-5 ft. sections of bench space in the lab to set up filtration equipment for particles and initial sorting and preservation stations for bacterial samples. Space is also needed to set up the epifluorescence microscope which can be secluded enough to be in the dark. Deck space will also be required for sediment processing from box core collections where needed. F. Refrigeration: A -80 oC freezer is preferred, and a standard chest freezer (-20 oC) is required for sediment and particle collections. We anticipate bringing along a liquid nitrogen Dewar for storing and transporting bacterial samples. We also require space in a +4 oC refrigerator to store reagents. G. Sampling: We will conduct our sampling at major process stations coordinated with other investigators for sediments, particles and microbes. Specific geographic sampling is only needed two previous test drill sites (Klondike and Burger 1 or 2), which are near the midpoint of the Chukchi Sea. CTD sampling needs will typically requires a single bottle (30L) at major depths where others are sampling. Sites where sediments will be collected require one hour of wire time with sediments sliced and processed on deck. All other work can be done when the ship is underway or when performing other tasks.

Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics:

The PI’s have no logistical support for vessels, but will contribute sampling and processing equipment for the project. The contributions will include:

0.25m box core and multiple sample boxes Contaminant free filtration system for particle collection Epifluorescence microscope Liquid nitrogen dewar for transport

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - Old Dominion University

PROJECT TITLE: Deciphering the base of Arctic food chains: Linking natural and anthropogenic organic sources with microbial drivers of the carbon cycle Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Rodger Harvey, Old Dominion University Research Foundation category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 3,379 95,883 108,618 114,962 89,794 0 412,636 narrative. Other Support 92,116 TOTAL 3,379 95,883 108,618 114,962 89,794 0 504,752

1. Personnel Salaries 35,733 37,519 39,396 34,854 147,502 71,408

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 11,677 14,157 15,173 15,238 56,245 20,708 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 2,180 3,650 4,200 4,320 2,340 16,690

4. Equipment 0

5. Supplies 8,200 9,400 9,400 3,000 30,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other 2,600 4,800 5,880 2,500 15,780

Total Direct Costs 2,180 61,860 70,076 74,169 57,932 0 266,217 92,116

Indirect Costs 1,199 34,023 38,542 40,793 31,862 146,419

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 3,379 95,883 108,618 114,962 89,794 0 412,636 92,116 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - University of Delaware

PROJECT TITLE: Deciphering the base of Arctic food chains: Linking natural and anthropogenic organic sources with microbial drivers of the carbon cycle Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: David Kirchman, University of Delaware category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 2,579 123,532 125,394 116,296 19,213 0 387,014 narrative. Other Support 158,714 TOTAL 2,579 123,532 125,394 116,296 19,213 0 545,728

1. Personnel Salaries 0 49,564 50,555 51,567 0 151,686 74,864

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 0 10,150 10,353 10,560 15,238 46,301 26,876 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,653 5473 5,473 4,422 1,548 18,569 0

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 10,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

0 9,000 9,000 8,000 1,000 27,000 0

Total Direct Costs 1,653 79,187 80,381 74,549 17,786 253,556 101,740

Indirect Costs 926 44,345 45,013 41,747 1,427 133,458 56,974

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 2,579 123,532 125,394 116,296 19,213 387,014 158,714 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Deciphering the base of Arctic food chains: Linking natural and anthropogenic organic sources with microbial drivers of the carbon cycle Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): David Kirchman, University of Delaware; Rodger Harvey, Old Dominion University Research Foundation; PI names from category 3rd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 5,958 219,415 234,012 231,258 109,007 0 799,650 narrative. Other Support 250,830 TOTAL 5,958 219,415 234,012 231,258 109,007 0 1,050,480

1. Personnel Salaries 0 85,297 88,074 90,963 34,854 0 299,188 146,272

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 0 21,827 24,510 25,733 30,476 0 102,546 47,584 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 3,833 9,123 9,673 8,742 3,888 0 35,259 0

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 13,200 14,400 9,400 3,000 0 40,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

0 11,600 13,800 13,880 3,500 0 42,780 0

Total Direct Costs 3,833 141,047 150,457 148,718 75,718 0 519,773 193,856

Indirect Costs 2,125 78,368 83,555 82,540 33,289 0 279,877 56,974

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 5,958 219,415 234,012 231,258 109,007 0 799,650 250,830 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Old Dominion University Research Foundation

Project Title: Deciphering the base of Arctic food chains: Linking natural and anthropogenic organic sources with microbial drivers of the carbon cycle

Total Amount requested by Old Dominion University Research Foundation for this project over the first 6 years of the program is: $412,636.

1. Personnel/Salaries:

Principal Investigator Faculty salary for the Principal Investigator, Dr. H. Rodger Harvey, is based on a 9-month performance period. Amounts charged are calculated as follows: salary/9 = rate per month. Rate per month x number of months in semester x percent effort in semester = charge per period. Dr. Harvey’s will devote approximately 0.81 month of summer effort to this project in fiscal years 17-19 and 0.51 month of summer effort in FY20. No salary is charged for initial meetings and coordination. A 5% salary increase has been budgeted as at the beginning of each project year. Dr. Harvey will act as lead PI for the project and provide coordination, data analysis and interpretation, and integration with the collaborating institution and other PI’s in the program. He will be willing to share his experience in broader program coordination if requested.

Research Technician We are requesting funding for 6 months of effort per year beginning in FY17 for Harvey’s research technician based on a 12-month performance period to assure success of the planned measures. Amounts charged per project period were calculated as follows: academic year salary/12 = rate per month. Rate per month x number of months in period x percent effort in period = charge per period. A 5% increase is budgeted each year. The budgeted salary is similar to a full time graduate student stipend who may be recruited if possible as this project would be an ideal thesis endeavor. That decision will be based on final program organization.

1. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: (ONR negotiated rate dated October 23, 2014)

Principal Investigator The fringe benefits applicable to the Principal Investigator’s summer salary include FICA, worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance premiums. Fringe benefit rates – FY 17 8.61%; FY18 8.59%; FY19 8.56%; FY20 8.81%.

Research Technician FICA, worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, health, dental, life, and disability insurance premiums, annual and sick leave earnings, tuition reimbursement, and a fringe benefit contribution in lieu of retirement have been budgeted for this position in accordance with current Old Dominion University Research Foundation policies. Fringe benefit rates – FY17 50.47%; FY18 59.27%; FY19 60.65%; FY20 59.95%.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI R. Harvey 0. 0 0 0 0 FY16 Research tech 0 0 0 0 0 FY16 Totals 0 0

FY17 PI R. Harvey 0.81 mos. $168,714 $15,184 8.61% $1,308 FY17 Research Tech 6 mos. $41,097 $20,549 50.47% $10,370 FY17 Totals $35,733 $11,678

FY18 PI R. Harvey 0.81 mos. $177,150 $15,943 8.59% $1,369 FY18 Research Tech 6 mos. $43,152 $21,576 59.27% $12,788 FY18 Totals $37,519 $14,157

FY19 PI R. Harvey 0.81 mos. $186,007 $16,741 8.56% $1,434 FY19 Research Tech 6 mos. $45,309 $22,655 60.65% $13,740 FY19 Totals $39,396 $15,174

FY20 PI R. Harvey 0.51 mos. $195,308 $11,067 8.81% $975 FY20 Research Tech 6 mos. $47,575 $23,787 59.95% $14,262 FY20 Totals $34,854 $15,237

FY21 PI R. Harvey 0 $0 0 0 0 FY21 Research Tech 0 0 0 0 0 FY21 Totals 0 0

Faculty contributed effort to the project is described below in the section titled Other Support.

3. Travel Estimates: Year 1 - FY16 (July 1-Sept 30 2016) PI planning meeting – Airfare and transfers Norfolk - Anchorage $1,460 Per Diem 4 days Anchorage @ $180/day $720 Total travel request in Year 1 $2,180

FY17: January Science Symposium/PI meeting Airfare and transfers Norfolk - Anchorage $1,080 Per diem 4 days Anchorage @ $180/day $720 Travel to cruise departure and return $1480 2 day ship deployment and offload per diem $370 Total travel request in Year 2 $3,650 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

FY18: January Science Symposium – Airfare and transfers Norfolk - Anchorage $1,080 Per diem 4 days Anchorage @ $180/day $720 Travel to cruise departure and return $1680 3 day ship deployment and offload per diem $540 Cruise mob/demob hotel (1 night) $180 Total travel request in Year 2 $4,200

FY19: January Science Symposium – Airfare and transfers Norfolk - Anchorage $1,080 Per diem 4 days Anchorage @ $180/day $720 Travel to cruise departure and return $1,680 3 day ship deployment and offload per diem $540 Cruise mob/demob hotel (1 day) $180 Total travel request $4,200

FY20: January Science Symposium and PI meeting – Airfare and transfers Norfolk - Anchorage $1,140 Per diem 5 days Anchorage @ $180/day $900 $2,340

International: No foreign travel is requested.

2. Equipment: All equipment is in place and no new equipment is requested in this proposal.

3. Supplies:

Funds are requested in the total amount of $30,000 for research related materials and supplies for detailed molecular level analysis of both natural and anthropogenic organic materials. This includes collection bottles and filtration materials for sediments and particles, chemicals, mass spectrometry supplies and gases, organic solvents and high purity gases, deuterated standards and related supplies needed for detailed analysis. Costs are based on prior experience and estimates of samples for analysis.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $8,200

Total supplies funds request in FY18 $9,400

Total supplies funds request in FY19 $9,400

Total supplies funds request in FY20 $3,000

6. Contractual/Consultants:

No consultants or contractors will be used with all measures conducted by university personnel

Total Contractual funds requested is $0 in all fiscal years. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

7. Other:

Funds are also requested in fiscal years 17-20 in the amount of $4,000 for postage/shipping expenses to transport gear and samples to cruises and exchange labile samples by overnight carrier. Partial instrumentation support and associated costs for support of the analytical facilities and related measures (isotopes and bulk PC/PN) are also included as expenses in fiscal years 17-20 in the amount of $11,700.

Total other funds requested is $15,780 (FY17 $2,600; FY18 $4,800; FY19 $5,880; FY20 $2,500)

8. Indirect Costs: Our ONR negotiated rate dated March 19, 2015 authorizes an on-campus indirect cost rate of 55% of modified total direct costs effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018. (See copy of attached rate agreement.)

Total indirect funds requested is $1,199 in FY16 and $34,023 in FY17 and $38,542 in FY18 and $40,793 in FY19 and $31,362 in FY20.

Other Support/In kind Contributions by Old Dominion University:

Total Other Support provided by ODU for this project is: $92,116 ($23,029 per FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20) through contributed time by the PI who will match supported time devoted for the project.

1. Personnel/Salaries:

4. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: (ONR negotiated rate dated October 23, 2014)

Principal Investigator

The fringe benefit rate applicable to university faculty academic year salaries is 29% of the salary attributable to this project. This rate includes the university's contribution to the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System, FICA, health, life and disability insurance premiums, worker's compensation, unemployment insurance premiums, annual leave, and sick leave.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Arctic Program Budget Narrative –University of Delaware

Project Title: Deciphering the base of Arctic food chains: Linking natural and anthropogenic organic sources with microbial drivers of the carbon cycle

Total Amount requested by University of Delaware for this project is: $371,964

1. Personnel/Salaries:

We request one month per year (except for FY 2016 and FY 2020) of salary support for D.L. Kirchman who will be responsible for overseeing the microbial aspects of the work, for analyzing the sequence data, and for working with H.R. Harvey in analyzing the interactions between microbes and organic material composition.

Delaware will also provide one month of salary support, plus fringes and indirect costs, for Kirchman to work on this project in FY17-19. For FY16 and FY20, it will provide 0.12 months, plus fringes and indirect costs.

Full support for a graduate student is also requested for FY17-FY19 when the field and data analysis parts of the proposed work are most intense. The student would participate in the field work and analyze the microbial data as part of his or her M.S. or Ph.D. work.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits:

According to University policy, fringe benefits are calculated as 35.9% for faculty and postdoctoral researchers, and 7.5% for graduate students. A copy of the agreement can be found at http://www.udel.edu/research/pdf/FY16-Fringe.pdf. .

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate cost FY16 PI D.Kirchman 0 NA NA NA 0 FY16 Totals 0 0 FY17 PI D.Kirchman 1 mo 271788 22649 35.9% 8131 FY17 Grad student 12 mo 26915 26915 7.5% 2019 FY17 Totals $49,564 $10,150 FY18 PI D.Kirchman 1 mo 277224 23102 35.9% 8294 FY18 Grad student 12 mo 27453 27453 7.5% 2059 FY18 Totals $50,555 $10,353 FY19 PI D.Kirchman 1 mo 282768 23564 35.9% 8459 FY19 Grad student 12 mo 28003 28003 7.5% 2100 FY19 Totals $51,567 $10,560 FY20 PI D.Kirchman 0 NA NA NA 0 FY20 Totals 0 0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

3. Travel: Year 1: PI Kickoff meeting (Kirchman) Airfare, Philadelphia-Anchorage: $750 Lodging: $600 Per diem: $303 Total travel request in FY16 $1653

Year 2: Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Kirchman) PI meeting (Kirchman and graduate student) Travel to cruise departure and return (one person) Airfare, Philadelphia-Anchorage: $3000 Lodging: $1388 Per diem: $1085 Total travel request in FY17 $5473

Year 3: Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Kirchman) PI meeting (Kirchman and graduate student) Travel to cruise departure and return (one person) Airfare, Philadelphia-Anchorage: $3000 Lodging: $1388 Per diem: $1085 Total travel request in FY17 $5473

Year 4: Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Kirchman) PI meeting (Kirchman and graduate student) Airfare, Philadelphia-Anchorage: $2250 Lodging: $1188 Per diem: $984 Total travel request in FY17 $4422

Year 5: Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Kirchman) Airfare, Philadelphia-Anchorage: $788 Lodging: $416 Per diem: $344 Total travel request in FY17 $1548

4. Equipment: No permanent equipment is requested.

5. Supplies Expendable supplies are requested only in Year 2 and 3 when field work will be done.

Year 2: Pumps: $500 Pipettes: $1000 Filters: $1000 DNA extraction kits: $2000 Miscellaneous chemicals: $500 Total supplies funds request in FY17 $5000

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

(Supplies continued) Year 3: Filters: $1000 DNA extraction kits: $2000 Miscellaneous chemicals: $1000 Total supplies funds request in FY18 $5000

6. Contractual/Consultants: This proposal has no contractual/consultants.

7. Other: Year 1: Total other funds requested is $0 in FY16 Year 2: Shipping (equipment and samples for cruise): $1000 Sequencing: $7000 Publication: $1000 Total other funds requested is $9000 in FY17 Year 3: Shipping (equipment and samples for cruise): $1000 Sequencing: $7000 Publication: $1000 Total other funds requested is $9000 in FY18 Year 4: Sequencing: $7000 Publication: $1000 Total other funds requested is $8000 in FY19 Year 5: Publication: $1000 Total other funds requested is $1000 in FY19

“Sequencing” refers to the costs associated with sequencing the 16S rRNA gene. This will be done by an outside vendor (we have used Mr. DNA (http://mrdnalab.com/) in the past) or the internal service at the University of Delaware, whichever is most competitive. The cost per sample depends on the number of samples and sequencing depth, which in turn depend on the field program still to be decided.

The money requested for “publication” will be used to pay for page charges and extra expenses for using color in figures and maps in papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

8. Indirect Costs:

The indirect cost rate is 56%.

Total indirect funds requested is $926 in FY16 Total indirect funds requested is $44,345 in FY17 Total indirect funds requested is $45,013 in FY18 Total indirect funds requested is $41,747 in FY19 Total indirect funds requested is $1,427 in FY20

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

The University of Delaware’s predetermined rate of 56% for fiscal year 2016 effective 07/01/2015 was used. The University of Delaware’s Facilities and Administrative (F&A) rates are approved by the Department of Defense, Office of Naval Research. The distribution base for the F&A rate is MTDC. Equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care and tuition remission, rental costs of offsite facilities, scholarships, fellowships, and vessel (ship) charges as well as the portion of each subcontract in excess of $25,000 shall be excluded from the modified total direct costs. A copy of our Negotiation agreement with the Office of Naval Research can be found at http://www.udel.edu/research/pdf/UD-FY16-18-Ext-Agree-Signed.pdf

Other Support/In kind Contributions from the University of Delaware:

The University of Delaware will contribute the following time and salary support for Dr. David Kirchman.

Year (FY) Effort Salary Fringes Indirect costs 2016 0.12 mo $2,665 $957 $2,028 2017 1 22,649 8,131 17237 2018 1 23,102 8,294 17,582 2019 1 23,564 8,459 17,933 2020 0.12 2,884 1,035 2,195

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $158,714

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Pre-proposal 3.12-Harvey Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

1 Research Plan 2 3 A. Project Title: 4 5 The relative importance of local processes vs. advection to production in the southern Chukchi Sea 6 7 B. Category: 8 9 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity 10 11 C. Rationale and justification: 12 13 The Chukchi Sea is a shallow, inflow, Arctic shelf that supports highly productive benthic communities 14 that are important sources of food for higher trophic levels including birds, fish and mammals (Grebmeier 15 2012, Grebmeier et al. 2006, 2015). Advection of water containing heat, nutrients, detritus, phytoplankton 16 and zooplankton from the Bering Sea is an important contributor to this productivity. However, the 17 importance of local production to the overall productivity of this shelf system is not known. We know 18 that phytoplankton and zooplankton are advected northward through Bering Strait and are carried across 19 the shelf, but how much of the biomass is enhanced through growth as it is transported? How much 20 biomass is retained in the pelagic food web and how much is available for export? Understanding of the 21 relative importance of in-situ vs. advected production and the consumption vs. export of water column 22 primary production is central to an understanding of how the Chukchi Sea ecosystem functions, of how 23 these lower trophic level processes drive the success of upper trophic level subsistence and commercial 24 organisms, and ultimately of how the ecosystem might respond to changes in climate forcing. 25 26 Water enters the Chukchi Sea through Bering Strait in three major water types: Anadyr Water (AW) to 27 the west, Bering Sea Water (BSW) in the middle, and Alaska Coastal Water (ACW) to the east of the 28 Strait (e.g., Coachman et al., 1975; Woodgate et al., 2005; Weingartner et al., 2005; Fig. 1). The currents 29 associated with these water types also carry nutrients and intrinsic plankton northwards from the Bering 30 Sea, with the Anadyr Current being especially recognized for its elevated nutrient concentrations and 31 likely high abundances of large copepods and euphausiids. Of particular interest biologically is the region 32 immediately to the north of Bering Strait up to Point Hope, since the conditions here represent the 33 upstream or starting conditions for the remainder of the Chukchi Sea. Significant benthic hotspots exist 34 both to the south (Chirikov Basin) and within this region (Southeastern Chukchi Sea) (Grebmeier et al., 35 2015; Fig. 2), indicating that significant phytoplankton and/or ice algal biomass is present and fluxes to 36 the sea floor presumably unconsumed by the zooplankton and making this a desirable region in which to 37 identify advected vs. in-situ primary and secondary production. This is also a region where water-column, 38 biological rate-processes have traditionally been overlooked: no measurements for zooplankton grazing 39 rates or grazing impacts have been undertaken. We have found regional differences in grazing rates and 40 prey preferences for species (e.g. Calanus glacialis) between the Northern Chukchi Sea and the Bering 41 Sea (Campbell et al. 2009, 2015) and it is likely that there will be additional differences here. 42 43 Our proposed project addresses several of the research questions central to the Arctic Program including: 44 45 • What are the mechanisms that determine the availability of lower trophic level resources? 46 • What are the rates of consumption, growth and reproduction of secondary producers? 47 • How does the strength of advection and water properties influence primary production patterns 48 and what factors limit production? 49 • How will changes in the strength and patterns of advection and the phenology of biological 50 production cycles influence pelagic-benthic coupling in the Chukchi Sea? Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

51 52 D. Hypotheses: 53 54 H1. Advection of nutrients into the Chukchi Sea from the Bering Sea is greatest in spring, while 55 advected biomass (phytoplankton, particle aggregates, zooplankton) is greatest during summer. This 56 is a result of growth process taking place in the Bering Sea during the spring and summer months. 57 58 H2. Primary production is highest during spring fueled by high concentrations of advected nutrients 59 and dominated by large diatoms, which contribute to large particle aggregates and high export flux to 60 the benthos. In contrast, summer production is lower, fueled more by regenerated nutrients and 61 dominated by smaller phytoplankton cells resulting in smaller particle aggregates and reduced export. 62 63 H3. Grazing is low during the spring due to low grazer biomass, which also contributes to higher 64 benthic particle flux. It is higher in summer, when grazer biomass is greatest, resulting in less export. 65 There is a fundamental shift in the planktonic food web from spring to summer: a simple diatom- 66 based food web in spring and a more complex microbial food web in summer. 67 68 H4. Secondary production, as estimated by egg production rates, is highest in the spring fueled by 69 diatom blooms and lower in the summer when the phytoplankton is dominated by smaller cells and 70 food concentrations are more limiting. 71 72 H5. Local production, although dependent on advected nutrients, is more important than biomass 73 advected into the region from the south in fueling higher trophic level production in the southern 74 Chukchi Sea. This will especially be true in spring when nutrients are plentiful. During summer 75 months when nutrients supplies are diminished advected biomass will be relatively more important. 76 77 H6. Most of the locally produced and advected chlorophyll is not grazed but available for direct 78 export to the benthos, especially in spring. During summer, greater zooplankton biomass will result in 79 somewhat higher grazing pressure and less material exported. The grazing processes in both seasons 80 will be dominated by microzooplankton. In summer, mesozooplankton will exert stronger top-down 81 control on microzooplankton limiting their potential grazing impact. 82 83 E. Objectives: 84 85 1. Determine water mass properties, water column structure, current velocities, and volume transport 86 from shipboard sensors. 87 88 2. Determine water mass properties, water column structure, current velocities, fluorescence, acoustic 89 backscatter as indicators of particle concentration, and volume transport for one year from mooring 90 sensors (in collaboration with R. Woodgate). 91 92 3. Quantify the depth-specific concentrations and/or the vertically integrated stocks of nutrients, 93 particle aggregates, chlorophyll, and micro- and meso-zooplankton at all stations during spring and 94 summer cruises. 95 96 4. Estimate integrated primary production, micro- and meso-zooplankton grazing impacts, and 97 copepod egg production rates at process stations for both cruises. 98 99 5. Estimate the production and consumption of chlorophyll in the region. Determine how much of the 100 production is retained in the water column through grazing and how much is available for direct 101 export to the benthic community. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

102 103 6. Develop a box-model budget for lower trophic level biomass sources and sinks for the southern 104 Chukchi Sea region. This will include advection (inflow, outflow), production, consumption, and loss 105 terms for spring and summer seasons. 106 107 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: 108 109 This proposal will produce the following synthetic outcomes that will be described in peer-reviewed 110 publications: 111 112 • Estimates of advective plankton biomass transport into and within the Chukchi Sea during two 113 contrasting production periods - spring and summer 114 • Annual advective transport of chlorophyll through Bering Strait 115 • Estimates of in-situ planktonic production and loss processes across boundaries, along advective 116 trajectories, and across the region – primary production, chlorophyll consumption, predation on 117 microzooplankton, egg production as an index of secondary production 118 • Total production and consumption rates for the region from integrated rates and, by difference, 119 the amount of export phytoplankton biomass and strength of benthic pelagic coupling 120 • Importance of advection vs. local production to overall system productivity by comparing 121 advected biomass with that produced and/or consumed in-situ 122 123 The proposal also will produce core data that can be incorporated into modeling efforts or included in 124 collaborative efforts with other projects within the Arctic Program as well as with collaborating projects 125 (Appendix A of the RFP). These core data types are listed in Table 1. 126 127 G. Project design and conceptual approach: 128 129 To address the hypotheses, we propose a field study that includes ship-based surveys and process studies 130 as well as analyses of data from moored sensors that will allow us to quantify the amount of biological 131 material (phytoplankton, microzooplankton, mesozooplankton) that is advected into the southern Chukchi 132 Sea from the Bering Sea and that which is locally produced and consumed in the water column. Our 133 research area will be the southern Chukchi Sea (Fig. 3), since this region is just downstream of the Bering 134 Strait input to the Chukchi and the flows are still somewhat reasonably constrained so it should be 135 possible to quantify transports in and out of the region (with the caveat that we cannot sample in the 136 Russian side of the Chukchi Sea). We plan for two three-week cruises on board a UNOLS-type research 137 vessel, the first during the summer of 2017 and the second in spring of 2018, preferably when sea ice is 138 still present (thus an ice capable ship is desirable). Sampling during the two periods will permit us to 139 identify the importance of local processes vs. advective input in producing the observed standing stocks 140 between the two seasons. Sampling during the cruises will be conducted both along transect lines as well 141 as through repeated sampling of water masses that have been tagged by drifters drogued at 10 m. In 142 addition, we will leverage the Bering Strait Mooring Program (R. Woodgate, PI; see letter of 143 collaboration) to equip the moorings with fluorometers that, along with existing instruments, will provide 144 us with information on water mass properties, chlorophyll concentration, and velocities and transport 145 through the strait for a year-long period that will cover both cruises. This year-long time series will allow 146 us to put the spring and summer process studies in a full seasonal context. 147 148 Research Cruises: Each cruise will combine distribution and process measurements such as was done 149 during the NSF/NPRB sponsored Bering Sea Program but with a focus on upper water column processes. 150 We will conduct three E-W transects across the shelf from nearshore to the convention line to quantify the 151 N-S flow and inputs/outflows from the region (Fig. 3). We also will conduct two N-S transects, one along Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

152 the convention line and a second along 165.5°W, to quantify transports across those boundaries. We will 153 sample to the NW of Saint Lawrence Island (SLI) to best capture the upstream conditions in the AW. 154 Three drifters will be released to trace water mass trajectories in the three water masses at key locations 155 (NW of SLI (AW), mid-Bering Strait (BSW), east-Bering Strait (ACW)). The Bering Strait drifters will 156 be deployed downstream of the two Bering Strait moorings. A full set of measurements (see below) will 157 be conducted at each drifter deployment. We will return to 1-2 of the drifters, depending on their 158 trajectory and as long as they remain east of the convention line, in the middle and near the end of the 159 cruise to repeat the measurements so that we can trace the evolution of the physical, chemical, and 160 biological processes in the same water parcel over time. Depending on weather/ice conditions, we will 161 adjust the cruise track/station timing to maximize the number of process stations along the northern, 162 middle, and southern E-W transects. 163 164 We will characterize the horizontal and vertical distributions of key biological and physical characteristics 165 along these transects thereby establishing boundary conditions for “box model” analyses. We will collect 166 underway acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) velocities and seawater temperature, fluorescence 167 and nutrient data from a science seawater system if it and the sensors are available. Over-the-side 168 sampling will be conducted at “nested” horizontal scales, depending on the variables to be measured. 169 High-horizontal resolution stations (9 km) will be conducted using the CTD and a Video Plankton 170 Recorder (VPR) to describe water column hydrographic, fluorescence, and plankton and particle 171 distributions (Ashjian et al., 2005; 2008). Broad-scale stations with a complete suite of physical, 172 chemical, and biological standing stock measurements will be conducted at every 2nd or 3rd station (18-27 173 km). At these stations, water will be collected at selected depths using Niskin bottles for nutrients 174 (N,P,Si) , chlorophyll (Total, >20 µm, <20->5 µm, <5µm), and microzooplankton standing stocks. The 175 microzooplankton samples from different depths in the upper 30 m will be pooled at each location for 176 estimates of integrated biomass. Phytoplankton species composition and relative abundance will be 177 determined from these same samples as well, but we will depend on the chlorophyll data for the 178 phytoplankton biomass estimates. Mesozooplankton will be collected using vertical hauls of a 60-cm, 179 150-µm mesh, Bongo net for abundance and biomass estimates. The standing stocks will be combined 180 with the measured ADCP velocities across the transects to yield horizontal transports. 181 182 We will measure key phytoplankton, microzooplankton, and mesozooplankton rate processes at selected 183 locations in different water masses to quantify in-situ production and transformations (grazing). Process 184 stations will be conducted at locations along the transect lines every 1-2 days and near at least two of the 185 drifters at their deployment and in the middle and/or end of the cruises, depending on their drift rates and 186 paths. At these stations, in addition to the broad-scale measurements, we will determine primary 187 production, grazing on chlorophyll (microzooplankton) and on chlorophyll and on microzooplankton 188 (mesozooplankton) and egg production, an index of secondary production, of important copepod species. 189 Primary production will be measured daily and grazing and egg production on every second day. Primary 190 production will be estimated using a 13C-15N dual tracer technique (Lee and Whitledge, 2005; Lee et al., 191 2007, Lee et al., 2012). Grazing will be assessed for microzooplankton with a 2-point dilution assay 192 (Sherr et al. 2013) and for the dominant mesozooplankton using traditional bottle incubations (Campbell 193 et al. 2009, 2015) with ambient water collected from the chlorophyll maximum or upper mixed layer. 194 Incubations will take place in an on-deck, plankton wheel while maintaining ambient temperature and 195 light conditions. From these experiments we will obtain estimates of micro- and meso-zooplankton 196 chlorophyll grazing rates and mesozooplankton predation on microzooplankton. By combining these 197 estimates with estimates of micro- and meso-zooplankton biomass we will be able to obtain estimates of 198 grazing impacts for both groups. We anticipate conducting at least 9-10 micro- and meso-zooplankton 199 grazing experiments using four zooplankton types and microzooplankton in each experiment. Our work in 200 the Bering and northern Chukchi Seas has demonstrated that this number of experiments will produce 201 robust estimates of chlorophyll dependent grazing rates (Fig. 4). Egg production rates will be measured 202 for the dominant copepod species, including broadcast (e.g. Calanus spp.) and egg carrying (e.g. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

203 Pseudocalanus spp.) types at the grazing station locations. For broadcast spawners, individual females 204 will be incubated for 24 hr in petri dishes containing filtered seawater (Plourde et al. 2005), and for egg 205 carriers, for 2 days in 60 ml flasks. 206 207 Vertical and horizontal particle flux will be estimated from the distribution and abundance of large 208 particles observed in the VPR using empirical equations to derive size dependent carbon content and 209 sinking rate (export flux) for marine snow and coupling the particle/carbon distributions to ADCP 210 velocities (horizontal flux) (e.g., Ashjian et al., 2005). 211 212 Moorings: We will leverage the ongoing Bering Strait Mooring program (R. Woodgate) to make 213 estimates of transport of water properties and biological material into the Chukchi Sea during our cruises 214 and over the course of the year. All three moorings are instrumented with ADCPs from which volume 215 transports through Bering Strait will be estimated. The moorings also are equipped with CTDs both near 216 bottom and at ~18 m to provide temperature and salinity measurements. We propose to attach shallow 217 (~20 m, top of moorings) and deep fluorometers (Wetlabs FLNTUSB: batter-powered, internally logging, 218 equipped with antifouling wiper) to each of the three Bering Strait moorings. These will be deployed prior 219 to our summer cruise (2017) and recovered after the spring (2018) during the scheduled mooring 220 maintenance cruises. The addition of fluorometers to the mooring sensor suite will provide estimates of 221 chlorophyll transport into the Chukchi Sea for the duration of the field program. We also will analyze 222 backscatter intensity measured by the moored ADCPs to gain insight into the interannual variability in 223 particle (e.g., plankton) flux by each mooring; since these ADCPs are uncalibrated we will not compare 224 intensities between instruments or estimate any absolute magnitudes of biomass or abundance from the 225 data. We plan to visit all three mooring sites during each cruise to allow for intercalibration of instruments 226 and correlation of the various biomass proxies being measured. 227 228 Synthesis: The process measurements will be combined with the vertically integrated standing stock 229 estimates to provide areal estimates of primary production, chlorophyll consumption, predation on 230 microzooplankton, and egg production, as an index of secondary production, at all station locations. 231 These integrated rates can be combined to estimate the total production and consumption rates for the 232 region as a whole, which by difference can provide a measure of the amount of phytoplankton biomass 233 available for export and the strength of benthic-pelagic coupling for the Southern Chukchi Sea. 234 235 The standing stocks, water mass characteristics, and velocities/transports across the bounding transects 236 will be used to estimate fluxes of particles, chlorophyll and zooplankton in/out of the study region. Rate 237 processes will be used to estimate in-situ primary and secondary production and chlorophyll production 238 and consumption. Together these estimates will quantify the relative importance of advective input/loss 239 vs. in-situ production/grazing/export during two contrasting seasons of the year. 240 241 Data analysis and archiving, within project synthesis, and manuscript preparation will occur during Years 242 4 and 5 of the project. Synthesis with other programs and components of the Arctic Program will occur 243 throughout the project, facilitated by participation in the annual project meetings and the AMSS, and will 244 be particularly concentrated in Years 5 and 6 when program level synthesis will be realized. 245 246 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: The proposed work will provide valuable inputs and 247 validation to ecosystem modeling projects. The data resulting from the proposed work can be compared to 248 modeled spatial distributions of standing stocks, primary production, and meso-micro-zooplankton 249 grazing impacts. This work will tie in nicely with a project proposed to the Arctic Program led by Rubao 250 Ji and Zhixuan Feng (WHOI), on which Ashjian and Campbell are unpaid collaborators, that proposes to 251 model the strength of benthic-pelagic coupling across the Chukchi Sea using coupled physical–biological 252 models. This project would provide valuable validation for that modeling effort as it focuses on grazing 253 impacts and vertical flux of organic material to the benthos in a known benthic hotspot. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

254 255 Tables and Figures: 256 257 Table 1. List of core data types to be collected during the project. Spacing or Type Parameter Frequency Responsible PI

Physical Temperature, salinity from CTD 10 km Okkonen Oceanography Underway temperature, salinity from flow through seawater Continuous All

Velocities from ADCP Continuous Okkonen

Drifter trajectories Continuous Okkonen

Phytoplankton Chlorophyll (Total, >20 µm, <20- >5 µm, <5µm) from CTD 20 km Stockwell

Phytoplankton Composition Every 2 days Stockwell

Primary Production Daily Stockwell Underway fluorescence from flow through seawater Continuous Stockwell

Moored fluorescence Daily for a year Stockwell

Zooplankton Integrated Microzooplankton Abundance in upper 30 m 30 km Ashjian Integrated Mesozooplankton Abundance, water column 20-30 km Ashjian/Campbell

Microzooplankton Grazing Every 2 days Campbell Mesozooplankton Grazing on Phytoplankton and Microzoop. Every 2 days Campbell Selected zooplankton carbon and nitrogen weights Every 2 days Campbell Egg production experiments of dominant ovigerous zooplankton Daily Campbell Vertical profiles plankton/particles from VPR 10 km Ashjian

Particle size distribution from VPR 10 km Ashjian Large particle vertical flux from VPR 10 km Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Other Nutrients from Niskin Bottles 20-30 km Stockwell Meteorological data from ship's sensors Continuous All Bottom topography from ship's sensors Continuous All Relative backscatter at each mooring Continuous Okkonen, Ashjian 258 259 260 Temperature Salinity

June 2005-2009

August 2005-2009

261 262 263 264 Figure 1. Mean bottom water temperature and salinity and advective fields averaged over the entire water 265 column for June 2005-2009 and August 2005-2009, derived from Regional Arctic System Model 266 (RASM) output (Maslowski pers. comm.). The fields, especially temperature in August, illustrate the 267 three major water types entering the Chukchi Sea through Bering Strait: Anadyr Water to the west (cold, 268 salty), Bering Sea Water (BSW) in the middle (intermediate temperature and salinity), and Alaska Coastal 269 Water (ACW) in the east (warm and fresh). Highest velocities are noted upstream and downstream of the 270 strait, with velocities of >50 cm/sec (~45 km/day) through the Strait and ~5-10 cm/day (4-8.5 km/day) 271 near the coast. The currents meander as the move north so that AW likely can be sampled at the western 272 end of the study area north of the Strait, near the convention line (169°W). 273 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

274

275 276 277 Figure 2. The macrofaunal benthic biomass distribution by decade. The Southeast Chukchi Sea hotspot 278 has consistently shown to have among the highest benthic biomass in the region since the 1970’s (Figure 279 from Grebmeier et al., 2015). 280 281 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

282 283 Figure 3. Map of the study area and planned core stations (blue dots). All core stations are located ~9 km 284 apart. The northern most transect lies along the US side of the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO; 285 http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo/ ) Line 3 but will be sampled at higher horizontal resolution. Red 286 triangles indicate locations of Bering Strait moorings. Additional stations will be conducted following the 287 drifters. Full process stations will be conducted every 2 days while primary production experiments will 288 be conducted daily. Our goal is to conduct at least 10 full process stations, concentrating on intercepting 289 pathways of advection in/out of the box as well as in the interior and periodically at drifter locations as 290 the drifters move through the study area. We also will sample the upstream conditions in the AW at a 291 station to the NW of St. Lawrence Island and in the Chirikov Basin (DBO site 2). The convention line in 292 the Bering Sea also is shown (red line). 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

301 302 303 Figure 4. Relationships for grazing rates on chlorophyll and total carbon (phytoplankton and 304 microzooplankton) for Calanus spp. adult females (left) and euphausiid adults and juveniles (right) from 305 the Bering Sea in spring determined during the BEST program (Campbell et al., 2015) 306 307 Literature Cited: 308 309 Ashjian, C.J., Gallager, S.M., Plourde, S. 2005. Transport of Plankton and Particles between the Chukchi 310 and Beaufort Seas during Summer 2002, described using a Video Plankton Recorder. Deep-Sea Research 311 II 52: 3259-3280. 312 313 Ashjian, C.J., Davis, C.S., Gallager, S.M., Wiebe, P.H., Lawson, G.L. 2008. Distribution of Larval Krill 314 and Zooplankton in Association with Hydrography in Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula, in Austral 315 Fall and Winter 2001 described using the Video Plankton Recorder. Deep-Sea Research II 55: 455-471. 316 317 Campbell, R.G., Ashjian, C.J., Sherr, E.B., Sherr, B.F., Lomas, M.W., Ross, C., Alatalo, P., Gelfman, C., 318 Van Keuren, D. 2015. Mesozooplankton grazing during spring sea-ice conditions in the eastern Bering 319 Sea. DSR II, Accepted 320 321 Campbell, R.G., Sherr, E.B., Ashjian, C.J., Plourde, S., Sherr, B.F., Hill, V., Stockwell, D.A., 2009. 322 Mesozooplankton prey preference and grazing impact in the western Arctic Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part II 323 Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 56, 1274–1289. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.10.027 324 325 Coachman, L.K., K. Aagaard, R.B. Tripp, 1975. Bering Strait. The regional Physical 326 Oceanography. University of Washington Press. Seattle and London. 172 pp. 327 328 Grebmeier, J.M., 2012. Shifting Patterns of Life in the Pacific Arctic and Sub-Arctic Seas. Ann. Rev. 329 Mar. Sci. 4, 63–78. doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-120710-100926 330 331 Grebmeier, J.M., Cooper, L.W., Feder, H.M., Sirenko, B.I., 2006. Ecosystem dynamics of the Pacific- 332 influenced Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas in the Amerasian Arctic. Prog. Oceanogr. 71, 331–361. 333 doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2006.10.001 334 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

335 Grebmeier, J.M., Bluhm, B. A., Cooper, L.W., Danielson, S.L., Arrigo, K.R., Blanchard, A.L., Clarke, 336 J.T., Day, R.H., Frey, K.E., Gradinger, R.R., Kędra, M., Konar, B., Kuletz, K.J., Lee, S.H., Lovvorn, J.R., 337 Norcross, B.L., Okkonen, S.R., 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating persistent 338 macrobenthic biomass hotspots and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. Prog. Oceanogr. 339 doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.006 340 341 Lee, S.H. and T.E. Whitledge, 2005. The primary and new production in the deep Canadian Basin in 342 2002. Polar Biology 28:190-197.

343 Lee, S.H., Yun, M.S., Kim, B.K., Saitoh, S., Kang, C.-K., Kang, S.H., and Whitledge, T.E., 2007. 344 Latitudinal carbon productivity in the Bering and Chukchi Seas during the summer in 2007, Cont. Shelf 345 Res., 59, 28-36, 2013. 346 347 Lee, Sang H., D. A. Stockwell, H. Joo, Y.B. Son, C. Kang and T.E. Whitledge, 2012. Phytoplankton 348 production from melting ponds on Arctic sea ice. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, C04030, 349 doi:10.1029/2011JC007717. 350 351 Plourde, S, Campbell, R, Ashjian, C, Stockwell, D. 2005. Seasonal and Regional Patterns in Egg 352 Production of Calanus glacialis/marshallae in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during Spring and 353 Summer, 2002., DSR II 52: 3411-3426. 354 355 Sherr, E. B., Sherr, B. F., Ross, C., 2013. Microzooplankton grazing impact in the Bering Sea during 356 spring sea ice conditions. Deep-Sea Res. II 94, 57-67. 357 358 Woodgate, R.A., Aagaard, K., Weingartner, T.J., 2005c. Monthly temperature, salinity, and transport 359 variability of the Bering Strait through flow. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (4), 360 doi:10.1029/2004GL021 880 361 362 Weingartner, T.J., Danielson, S.L., Royer, T.C., 2005b. Freshwater variability and predictability in the 363 Alaska Coastal current. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 52 (1), 169–191, 364 doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2004.09.030. 365 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

366 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 367 368 This proposal collaborates with the ongoing Bering Strait mooring program (NSF funded as part of the 369 AON program, R. Woodgate lead PI, see letter of support) and will equip the three moorings from that 370 program with shallow and deep fluorometers for one year. Those data will be analyzed together with the 371 temperature, salinity, and acoustic Doppler current profiler velocities measured by other instrumentation 372 on the moorings. Calibrated data from these instruments are available as part of the AON project. We also 373 will collaborate intellectually with Dr. Woodgate in the interpretation of the results. 374 375 Other US and International projects sample along the DBO3 transect (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo/) 376 routinely, including the AMBON project (K. Iken, Lead PI). We have discussed synergies with the 377 AMBON project both with Iken and also with co-PI Hopcroft. Data on standing stocks, hydrography, and 378 currents from cruises conducted by other programs during our field years would contribute to greater 379 understanding of the seasonal variability of northward transport across this boundary. Should a full 380 proposal be requested for our envisioned project, we will establish formal connections with these other 381 projects. 382 383 Other proposals submitted to the NPRB: 384 The proposal also compliments work proposed by S. Danielson, R. Hopcroft and colleagues at the 385 University of Alaska, since this work provides additional measurements not proposed in that program 386 (e.g., grazing rates) and would expand the understanding of both projects (we have discussed this 387 complementarity with Hopcroft and Danielson). The two projects seek to work in similar regions and 388 could mesh together nicely. This project also would synergize well with work being proposed by Donglai 389 Gong and colleagues to use a glider to trace the bio-physical evolution of Pacific water along Chukchi 390 Sea transport pathways and we have discussed working together with that project as well. 391 392 Project Management: 393 394 Ashjian (Lead PI), a biological oceanographer, will oversee all aspects of the work as well as participate 395 in any steering committee activities. Ashjian has over 20 years experience working in the Arctic, focusing 396 on biological-physical interactions and zooplankton distributions. She will be the point person for all 397 logistics and cruise planning, including disseminating information about the research to local 398 communities. She will be responsible for the zooplankton collections and the video plankton recorder data 399 collection and analysis. She also will serve as Chief Scientist for the cruises (contingent on collaboration 400 with other projects). Campbell (co-PI), a zooplankton ecologist, has been working in the Arctic for almost 401 20 yr. His research focuses on biological rate processes including feeding, growth, and reproduction. He 402 will be responsible, with assistance from Ashjian, for conducting the grazing and egg production 403 experiments on-board the ship and sample analysis at URI. He will assist Ashjian with the zooplankton 404 collections and will be responsible for their analysis in his laboratory. Okkonen (co-PI), a physical 405 oceanographer, has conducted field studies in Arctic seas since 1999. Okkonen will oversee the collection 406 and analyses of the physical data sets including the CTD, ADCP current velocities, drifter tracks, and 407 wind records and will work together with Woodgate and Stockwell on the estimates of annual fluxes of 408 fluorescence. Stockwell (co-PI), a phytoplankton ecologist, has worked in the Bering Sea and Arctic 409 Ocean over 20 years. Projects have included phytoplankton distributions, primary productivity estimates 410 and biomass distributions. He will oversee the collection and analysis of the nutrient, chlorophyll and 411 primary production datasets and will work with Okkonen and Woodgate on the analyses of the 412 fluorescence data from the moorings. All PIs will work together to integrate and synthesize the data sets 413 to address the hypotheses outlined in the proposal, will participate in all program meetings, contribute to 414 reports and preparation of manuscripts, and will archive the data at a NPRB identified data archive. None 415 of the research outlined in this proposal duplicates other research efforts of the PIs. The PIs are all soft- 416 money scientists and do not have FTE positions. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

417 418 We look forward to coordinating and collaborating with other field and modeling projects. We have an 419 agreement with the Bering Strait Mooring program (NSF; R. Woodgate, PI) to leverage their moorings to 420 provide a year-round estimate of transport through Bering Strait. We are willing to coordinate with other 421 funded field programs, including sharing ship-time and berths. Our data sets will be made available for 422 modeling studies in need of raw data sets (e.g. standing stocks) or synthesized data (e.g. integrated 423 production, grazing impact, or advected biomass) for model validation and parameter estimation. 424 425 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

426 Principal Investigators: 427 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

428 CARIN J. ASHJIAN 429 Senior Scientist, Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 430 Woods Hole, MA 02543 (ph) 508-289-345 (email) [email protected] 431 432 PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION 433 Cornell University Biology B.A. 1982 434 University of Rhode Island Oceanography Ph.D. 1991 435 436 APPOINTMENTS 437 Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), August 2011-Present, Associate 438 Scientist WHOI, 11/2000-8/2011, Assistant Scientist WHOI, 10/96-11/2000 439 Postdoctoral Investigator, WHOI, 6/96-10/96, Postdoctoral Scholar, WHOI, 1/95-6/96 440 Postdoctoral Associate, University of Miami, 4/94-11/94 441 Research Associate, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 3/92-3/94 442 443 SYNOPSIS 444 Research on biological-physical interactions, zooplankton rate processes, and biological-physical 445 modeling, 20 years of experience in Arctic oceanographic studies, over 50 cruises including as Chief 446 Scientist on USCGC Healy, R/V Thompson, and R/V Sikuliaq, PI or lead PI for numerous 447 collaborative, multidisciplinary Arctic projects funded by NSF, ONR, NOAA, BOEM, NASA, and 448 NPRB including SHEBA, SBI, SNACS, BOWFEST, BEST, PacMARS, and RUSALCA, service on 449 numerous national panels and committees including the National Academy Committee on Emerging 450 Research Questions in the Arctic.

451 MOST RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS

452 Campbell, R.G., Ashjian, C.J., Sherr, E.B., Sherr, B.F., Lomas, M., Ross, C., Alatalo, P., Gelfman, 453 C., Van Keuren, D. 2016. Mesozooplankton grazing during spring sea-ice conditions in the 454 eastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II, Accepted. 455 Grebmeier, J.M., Cooper, L.W., Ashjian, C. J., Bluhm, B.A., Campbell, R.G., Dunton, K.E., Moore, 456 S., Okkonen, S., Sheffield, G., Trefry, J., Pasternak, S.Y. 2015. Pacific Marine Arctic Regional 457 Synthesis (PacMARS) Final Report, North Pacific Research Board, 259 pp. 458 Ji, R., Ashjian, C.J., Campbell, R.G., Chen, C., Gao, G., Davis, C.S., Cowles, G.W., Beardsley, R.C. 459 2011. Life history and biogeography of Calanus copepods in the Arctic Ocean: An individual- 460 based modeling study. Prog. Oceanogr., 96: 40-56. 461 Okkonen, S.R., Ashjian, C.J., Campbell, R.G., Clarke, J., Moore, S.E., Taylor, K.D. 2011. Satellite 462 observations of circulation features associated with the Barrow area bowhead whale feeding 463 hotspot. Rem. Sens. Env.115: 2168-2174. 464 Ashjian, C.J. Braund, S.R., Campbell, R.G., George, J.C., Kruse, J. Maslowski, W., Moore, S.E., 465 Nicolson, C.R., Okkonen, S.R., Sherr, B.F., Sherr, E.B., Spitz, Y. 2010. Climate variability, 466 oceanography, bowhead whale distribution, and Iñupiat subsistence whaling near Barrow, AK. 467 Arctic 63: 179-194 468 Zhang, J., Spitz, Y., Steele, M., Ashjian, C. Campbell, R., Berline, L., Matria, P. 2010. Modeling the 469 impact of declining sea ice on the Arctic marine planktonic ecosystem. J. Geophys. Res., 115, 470 C10015, doi:10.1029/2010JC006302. 471 Campbell, R.G., Sherr, E.B., Ashjian, C.J., Plourde, S. Sherr, B.F., Hill, V., Stockwell, D.A. 2009. 472 Mesozooplankton prey preference and grazing impact in the Western Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea 473 Res. II,doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.10.027. 474 Ashjian, C.J., S.M. Gallager, S. Plourde. 2005. Transport of Plankton and Particles between the 475 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during Summer 2002, described using a Video Plankton Recorder. 476 Deep-Sea Res. II 52: 3259-3280. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

477 Robert G. Campbell 478 Associate Marine Research Scientist (401) 874-6692 (ph) 479 Graduate School of Oceanography (401) 874-6853 (fax) 480 University of Rhode Island [email protected] 481 Narragansett, RI 02882 482 483 Professional Preparation: 484 University of Rhode Island Natural Resources B.S., 1981; High Distinction 485 University of Rhode Island Oceanography Ph.D., 1993 486 487 Appointments: 488 Associate Marine Research Scientist, University of Rhode Island, 2006 - Present 489 Assistant Marine Research Scientist, University of Rhode Island, 1995 – 2006 490 Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Rhode Island, 1993 – 1995 491 492 Synopsis: 493 In the last 20 years I have worked on over a dozen, multidisciplinary, research projects in Arctic and 494 subarctic marine ecosystems including the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas and the Arctic Ocean 495 funded by NSF, ONR, NOAA, BOEM, NASA, and NPRB. I study the role that zooplankton play in 496 marine ecosystems and how they interact with their environment. I measure the biological rates that 497 control their population dynamics such as feeding, growth, and reproduction. I quantify these rates under 498 controlled conditions in the laboratory and under natural conditions in the field. I use both traditional 499 experimental approaches and new molecular methods to estimate biological rates, and recently I have 500 been using genetics to study population distributions. 501 502 Relevant Publications: 503 504 Campbell, R.G., Ashjian, C.J., Sherr, E.B., Sherr, B.F., Lomas, M.W., Ross, C., Alatalo, P., Gelfman, 505 C., Van Keuren, D. Mesozooplankton grazing during spring sea-ice conditions in the eastern 506 Bering Sea. DSR II, Accepted. 507 Grebmeier, J.M., Cooper, L.W., Ashjian, C. J., Bluhm, B.A., Campbell, R.G., Dunton, K.E., Moore, 508 S., Okkonen, S., Sheffield, G., Trefry, J., Pasternak, S.Y. 2015. Pacific Marine Arctic Regional 509 Synthesis (PacMARS) Final Report, North Pacific Research Board, 259 pp. 510 Ji, R., Ashjian, C.J., Campbell, R.G., Chen, C., Gao, G., Davis, C.S., Cowles, G.W., Beardsley, R.C. 511 2011. Life history and biogeography of Calanus copepods in the Arctic Ocean: An individual- 512 based modeling study. Prog. Oceanogr., 96: 40-56. 513 Zhang, J., Spitz, YH, Steele, M, Ashjian, C, Campbell, R, Berline, L, Matrai, P. 2010. Modeling the 514 impact of declining sea ice on the Arctic marine planktonic ecosystem, J. Geophys. Res., 115, 515 C10015, doi:10.1029/2009JC005387 516 Campbell, R.G., Sherr, E.B., Ashjian, C.J., Plourde, S., Sherr, B.F., Hill, V., Stockwell, D.A. 2009. 517 Mesozooplankton prey preference and grazing impact in the Western Arctic Ocean. DSR II. 56: 518 1274-1289. 519 Plourde, S, Campbell, R, Ashjian, C, Stockwell, D. 2005. Seasonal and Regional Patterns in Egg 520 Production of Calanus glacialis/marshallae in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during Spring and 521 Summer, 2002., DSR II 52: 3411-3426. 522 Campbell, RG, Teegarden GJ, Cembella, AD, Durbin, EG. 2005. Zooplankton grazing impacts on 523 Alexandrium spp. in the near-shore environment of the Gulf of Maine. DSR II 52: 2817-2833. 524 Campbell, RG, Wagner, MM, Teegarden, GJ, Boudreau, CA, Durbin, EG. 2001. Growth and 525 development rates of Calanus finmarchicus reared in the laboratory. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 221: 526 161-183. 527 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

528 Stephen R. Okkonen 529 Email: [email protected] 530 531 Professional 532 Preparation: University of Michigan 533 Environmental Sciences Engineering, B.S. May 1976 534 535 University of Alaska Fairbanks 536 Physical Oceanography, PhD. December 1993 537 538 Naval Research Laboratory - Stennis Space Center, Mississippi 539 Postdoctoral Fellow, Physical Oceanography October 1994 - May 1996 540 541 Appointments: Research Assistant Professor of Marine Science, January 1997– June 2007 542 Research Associate Professor of Marine Science, July 2007 – present 543 School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks 544 545 Memberships: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, The Oceanography 546 Society, Scholarly Union of Bio-Physical Arctic Researchers 547 548 Recent Relevant Peer-reviewed Publications: 549 550 Citta, J. Quakenbush, L.T., Okkonen, S.R., Druckenmiller, M.L., Maslowski, W., Clement-Kinney, 551 J., Ashjian, C.J., George, J.C., Brower, H., Small, R.J., Harwood, L.A., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. 552 2014. Ecological characteristics of core areas used by western Arctic bowhead whales, 2006- 553 2012. Prog. Oceanography DOI: 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.08.012 554 Grebmeier, J.M., Cooper, L.W., Ashjian, C. J., Bluhm, B.A., Campbell, R.G., Dunton, K.E., Moore, 555 S., Okkonen, S., Sheffield, G., Trefry, J., Pasternak, S.Y. 2015. Pacific Marine Arctic Regional 556 Synthesis (PacMARS) Final Report, North Pacific Research Board, 259 pp. 557 Stafford, K.M., S.R. Okkonen, and J.T. Clarke. 2013. Correlation of a strong Alaska Coastal Current 558 with the presence of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) near Barrow, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. 559 Prog. Ser. Vol. 474: 287–297, doi: 10.3354/meps10076. 560 Okkonen, S.R., C. Ashjian, R.G. Campbell, J.T. Clarke, S.E. Moore, and K.D. Taylor. 2011. Satellite 561 observations of circulation features associated with a bowhead whale feeding ‘hotspot’ near 562 Barrow, Alaska. Remote Sensing of Environment 115:2168-2174. 563 Ashjian, C.A., S.R. Braund, R.G. Campbell, J.C. George, J. Kruse, W. Maslowski, S.E. Moore, C.R. 564 Nicolson, S.R. Okkonen, B.F. Sherr, E.B. Sherr, Y. Spitz. 2010. Climate Variability, 565 Oceanography, Bowhead Whale Distribution, and Iñupiat Subsistence Whaling near Barrow, 566 AK. Arctic, 63(2):179-194. 567 Okkonen, S.R., C. Ashjian, R.G. Campbell, W. Maslowski, J.L. Clement-Kinney, and R. Potter. 568 2010. Intrusion of warm Bering/Chukchi waters onto the western Beaufort Shelf, J. Geophys. 569 Res, 115,C00A11,doi.10.1029/2008JC004870 570 Clement Kinney, J., W. Maslowski, S. Okkonen. 2009. On the processes controlling shelf-basin 571 exchange and outer shelf dynamics in the Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II 56(17):1351-1362, 572 doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.10.023 573 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

574 DEAN A. STOCKWELL 575 576 Institute of Marine Science Office Location: Irving II, Rm 330 577 School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Phone: 907-474-5556 578 University of Alaska Fairbanks Fax: 907-474-7204 579 PO Box 757220 Email: [email protected] 580 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 581 582 Professional Preparation 583 Ph.D., Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 1987 584 M.S., Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 1982 585 B.S., Oceanography, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1972 586 587 Professional Experience: 588 2008-present Associate Research Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute Marine Science 589 2000-2008 Assistant Research Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute Marine Science 590 2000-2001 Associate Program Director, NSF, Antarctic Biology & Medicine, 1 year rotator. 591 592 Most Relevant Publications: 593 Stoecker, D.K., Weigel, A.C., Stockwell, D.A., and M.W. Lomas. 2014. Microzooplankton: Abundance, 594 biomass and contribution to chlorophyll in the Eastern Bering Sea in summer. Deep Sea Research 595 Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 109:134-144. 596 Sukhanova, I.N., M.V. Flint, L.A. Pautova, D.A. Stockwell, J.M. Grebmeier, and V.M. Sergeeva. 2009. 597 Phytoplankton community of the Western Arctic in the vegetation season of 2002: Structure and 598 seasonal changes. SBI Special Issue of Deep-Sea Research II 56:1223-1236. 599 Sukhanova, I.N., M.V. Flint, T.E. Whitledge, D.A. Stockwell and T.K. Rho. 2009. Summer blooming of 600 Proboscia alata over the Eastern Bering Sea shelf. Oceanology 46:200-216. 601 Walsh, J.J., D.A. Dieterle, W. Maslowski, J.M. Grebmeier, T.E. Whitledge, M.V. Flint, I.N. 602 Sukhanova, N. Bates, G.F. Cota, D.A. Stockwell, S.B. Moran, D.A. Hansell and C.P. McRoy. 2005. A 603 numerical model of seasonal primary production within the Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. Deep-Sea Research 604 II 52:3541-3576. 605 Stockwell, D.A., T.E. Whitledge, S.I Zeeman, K.O. Coyle, J.M. Napp, R.D. Brodeur, A.I. Pinchuk and 606 G.H. Hunt, Jr. 2001. Anomalous conditions in the southeastern Bering Sea, 1997: nutrients, 607 phytoplankton and zooplankton. Fish. Oceanogr. 10:99-116. 608 Lee, Sang H., D. A. Stockwell, H. Joo, Y.B. Son, C. Kang and T.E. Whitledge. 2012. Phytoplankton 609 production from melting ponds on Arctic sea ice. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, C04030, 610 doi:10.1029/2011JC007717. 611 Walsh, J.J., J.K. Jolliff, B.P. Darrow, J.M. Lenes, S.P. Milroy, A. Remsen, D.A. Dieterle, K.L. Carder, F.R. 612 Chen, G.A. Vargo, R.H. Weisburg, K.A. Fanning, F.E. Muller-Karger, E. Shinn, K.A. Steidinger, 613 C.A. Heil, C. R. Tomas, J.S. Prospero, T.N. Lee, G.J. Kirkpatrick, T.E. Whitledge, D.A. Stockwell, 614 C.R. Tomas, T.A. Villareal A.E. Jochens and P. S. Bontempi. 2006. Red tides in the Gulf of Mexico: 615 where, when and why? J. Geophys. Res. 111: C11003 616 Hill, V., G. Cota and D. Stockwell. 2005. Spring and summer phytoplankton communities in the Chukchi 617 and Eastern Beaufort Seas. Deep-Sea Res. 52:3369-3385. 618 619 Related activities: Participated in Shelf Basin Interactions (SBI-Chukchi and Beaufort Seas); 620 Participating in Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (GOA-IERP) Fast Repetition 621 Rate Fluorometry (FRRF) and iron distributions. Participating in MARES, primary production and 622 chlorophyll distributions. Participated in GLOBEC-GOA, primary production estimates Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Proposal Short Title: Production Local Processes vs. Advection in Southern Chukchi 7/1/2016 – 9/30/2021 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 individual responsible for July–S Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion ept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1 - Shipboard physical oceanography Data collection/field work Okkonen x x x x x x Data/sample processing Okkonen x x x x x x Analysis Okkonen x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #2 - Year round moorings Stockwell, Data collection/field work (Woodgate) x x x x x x x x Stockwell, Data/sample processing (Woodgate) x x Stockwell, Okkonen, Ashjian, Analysis (Woodgate) x x x Objective #3 -Biological and chemical standing stocks Stockwell, Ashjian, Data collection/field work Campbell x x x x x x Stockwell, Ashjian, Data/sample processing Campbell x x x x x x x x Stockwell, Ashjian, Analysis Campbell x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #4 - Biological rate processes Stockwell, Ashjian, Data collection/field work Campbell x x x x x Stockwell, Ashjian, Data/sample processing Campbell x x x x x x x x Stockwell, Ashjian, Analysis Campbell x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #5 - Regional chlorophyll budget Analysis (Data collected/analyzed in Objectives 1- 4) x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #6 - Regional box model Analysis (Data collected/processed in Objectives1-5) All PIs x x x x x x x x x x x x Other Progress report All x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation All x x x x x PI meeting All x x x x x Ashjian, Logistics planning meeting Campbell x x Publication submission All x x x x x x x x Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) All x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) All x Synthesis with other projects All x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: The relative importance of local processes vs. advection to production in the Southern 4 Chukchi Sea 5 6 Lead PI: Carin Ashjian 7 8 Logistical Needs: Space and time on a research vessel suitable to conduct the proposed work is required. 9 Two ~21 day cruises to the northern Bering and southern Chukchi Sea are envisioned, one in late summer 10 2017 and one in late spring 2018. Because the spring cruise likely will encounter sea ice, the vessel 11 should be ice capable. The research vessel must be equipped with standard oceanographic sensors 12 including a CTD with a fluorometer and rosette, acoustic Doppler current profiler, bottom depth sounders, 13 and meteorological and PAR sensors, with an underway seawater sampling system, and with winches 14 suitable to deploy the CTD and light plankton nets (Bongos) and a self-contained Video Plankton 15 Recorder. The ship also must have the capability to provide seawater at ambient temperature to on-deck 16 water baths to be used in grazing and production incubations as well as for washing down nets. Sufficient 17 laboratory space is required to accommodate several microscopes, drying oven and at least two 18 chlorophyll filtration stations, computers for ADCP and CTD, and desktop fast repetition rate 19 fluorometer. Also required are fume hoods for work with hazardous chemicals (e.g., formaldehyde, 20 acetone), deionized water filtration systems, and a -80 °C freezer. The ship must have sufficient deck 21 space to accommodate an isotope van to support the primary production measurements and be 22 appropriately licensed to permit scientists to conduct stable isotope work. An environmental chamber 23 also is highly desired. We anticipate requiring 9-10 berths. Daily sampling for experiments optimally 24 would occur near dawn each day but sampling for standing stocks can occur around the clock. We are 25 happy to work with other groups however we must be able to accomplish our sampling in a time 26 appropriate to constrain the advection. Our needs would be well supported by the R/V Sikuliaq as she has 27 the necessary space, sensors, and capabilities, including ice capability. We have considered smaller 28 research vessels such as the R/V Norseman2 however these ships do not have the required capability to 29 support on-deck water baths or isotope vans, have limited laboratory space, typically do not carry the 30 required laboratory facilities (-80°C Freezers, deionized water systems), and have limited shipboard 31 sensors, winches, and CTD/rosettes. 32 33 Our budgets have been planned assuming the work would be conducted on a UNOLS level research 34 vessel. Should we be funded and a non-UNOLS level research vessel is identified for the work, 35 additional funds likely will be required to address equipment deficiencies, additional personnel training, 36 and additional personnel time to process the acoustic Doppler current profiler data. 37 38 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: The proposed work leverages an ongoing NSF supported 39 program led by R. Woodgate for which three moorings are maintained in the Bering Strait region. Here 40 we propose to equip those moorings with upper water column and deep water column fluorometers for 41 one year. Dr. Woodgate has agreed with this proposed enhancement of her moorings and will work with 42 us to design appropriate methods to secure the fluorometers to her existing moorings and will deploy and 43 recover the fluorometers during her summer 2017 and 2018 cruises (please see letter of support from Dr. 44 Woodgate). 45 46 47 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: The Relative Importance of Local Processes vs. Advection to Production in the Southern Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Carin Ashjian, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 12,383 220,097 219,537 68,400 73,112 33,076 626,605 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 12,383 220,097 219,537 68,400 73,112 33,076 626,605

1. Personnel Salaries 3,420 59,091 61,160 24,052 24,898 9,656 182,277

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,206 18,397 19,040 8,484 8,781 3,405 59,313 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 3,575 19,938 20,588 5,430 6,940 7,140 63,611

4. Equipment 5,000 5,000

5. Supplies 2,700 1,300 4,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

44,929 44,956 1,024 2,051 1,069 94,029

Total Direct Costs 8,201 150,055 147,044 38,990 42,670 21,270 408,230 0

Indirect Costs 4,182 70,042 72,493 29,410 30,442 11,806 218,375

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 12,383 220,097 219,537 68,400 73,112 33,076 626,605 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 2

PROJECT TITLE: The Relative Importance of Local Processes vs. Advection to Production in the Southern Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Robert Campbell, University of Rhode Island category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 4,182 108,059 156,263 72,908 29,774 10,371 381,557 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 4,182 108,059 156,263 72,908 29,774 10,371 381,557

1. Personnel Salaries 2,039 41,386 60,233 30,475 13,772 4,728 152,633

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 685 19,011 31,567 17,022 5,625 2,028 75,938 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 0

4. Equipment 0

5. Supplies 10,000 10,000 20,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

Total Direct Costs 2,724 70,397 101,800 47,497 19,397 6,756 248,571 0

Indirect Costs 1,458 37,662 54,463 25,411 10,377 3,615 132,986

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 4,182 108,059 156,263 72,908 29,774 10,371 381,557 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 3

PROJECT TITLE: The Relative Importance of Local Processes vs. Advection to Production in the Southern Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dean Stockwell, Univeristy of Alaska, Fairbanks category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 13,622 261,360 188,218 75,295 52,691 28,540 619,726 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 13,622 261,360 188,218 75,295 52,691 28,540 619,726

1. Personnel Salaries 4,664 62,249 63,234 35,561 24,507 12,000 202,215

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,338 16,271 16,671 10,206 7,033 3,444 54,963 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 3,049 8,157 8,537 3,138 3,271 3,419 29,571

4. Equipment 49,800 49,800

5. Supplies 21,755 16,755 38,510

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

32,140 19,865 1,125 200 100 53,430

Total Direct Costs 9,051 190,372 125,062 50,030 35,011 18,963 428,489 0

Indirect Costs 4,571 70,988 63,156 25,265 17,680 9,577 191,237

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 13,622 261,360 188,218 75,295 52,691 28,540 619,726 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: The Relative Importance of Local Processes vs. Advection to Production in the Southern Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Carin Ashjian, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Robert Campbell, University of Rhode Island; Dean Stockwell, category Univeristy of Alaska, Fairbanks breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 30,187 589,516 564,018 216,603 155,577 71,987 1,627,888 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 30,187 589,516 564,018 216,603 155,577 71,987 1,627,888

1. Personnel Salaries 10,123 162,726 184,627 90,088 63,177 26,384 537,125 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 3,229 53,679 67,278 35,712 21,439 8,877 190,214 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 6,624 28,095 29,125 8,568 10,211 10,559 93,182 0

4. Equipment 0 54,800 0 0 0 0 54,800 0

5. Supplies 0 34,455 28,055 0 0 0 62,510 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

0 77,069 64,821 2,149 2,251 1,169 147,459 0

Total Direct Costs 19,976 410,824 373,906 136,517 97,078 46,989 1,085,290 0

Indirect Costs 10,211 178,692 190,112 80,086 58,499 24,998 542,598 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 30,187 589,516 564,018 216,603 155,577 71,987 1,627,888 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Project Title: The Relative Importance of Local Processes vs. Advection to Production in the Southern Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by WHOI for this project is: $626,605

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) is a non-profit [501c(3)] research and education organization subject to the cost principles of 2 CFR 200. WHOI Principal Investigators are responsible for conceiving, funding and carrying out their research programs. Many of them also constitute the educational faculty of the Institution. Senior Personnel are expected to raise 12 months of support for themselves and their staff by writing proposals and obtaining sponsored research grants and contracts from a variety of sources. Those who participate in WHOI's academic programs receive an average of only 2 months of Institution support per calendar year, and participation in teaching and advising is neither required nor universal. NSF has confirmed to WHOI that salary support beyond 2 months per year can be justifiable for these Principal Investigators.

WHOI calculates overhead rates (both Laboratory Costs and General & Administrative Costs) as a percent of total direct salaries and benefits, as allowed by 2 CFR 200. Direct salaries exclude overtime- premium pay. A proposed labor month is equal to 152 hours or 1824 hours annually versus 2080 hours (40 hours/week for 52 weeks). The difference is for vacations, holidays, sick time, and other paid absences, which are included in the Paid Absences calculation. WHOI cannot “waive” or reduce overhead rates on any sponsored research project due to the structure of our negotiated rates with our cognizant government agency. When a program sets limits on overhead, WHOI must use Institution unrestricted funds to pay the unfunded portion of the overhead costs.

The rates included in the proposal are negotiated with our cognizant government agency or they are estimates. When estimated rates are finalized, costs will be in accordance with the rate agreement.

1. Personnel/Salaries:

Ashjian (Lead PI, Senior Scientist): Year 1: One week to attend the kick-off meeting. Years 2 and 3: 1.5 mo in each year to attend the logistics meeting, participate in a 3-week cruise, oversee VPR data analysis and archiving, coordinate and submit project reports, and participate in the annual PI meeting and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium. Years 4-5: 1.5 mo/year to work on data analysis, manuscript preparation, and program synthesis activities, coordinate and submit project reports, participate in the annual PI meeting and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium. Year 6: 0.5 mo to participate in program synthesis activities, the annual PI meeting, and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium and to coordinate and submit project reports.

Bahr (Research Specialist): Years 2 and 3: 2 week/year to process acoustic Doppler current profiler collected from a UNOLS standard research vessel. (Note: If a non-UNOLS research vessel is used, additional support may be required to support additional processing of ADCP data. Years 1, 4-6: No time budgeted.

Alatalo (Research Associate): Years 2-3: 3 mo/year to support procurement, packing, and shipping of equipment and supplies to support the cruise work, participate in a 3-week cruise, demobilize from the cruise, and analyze and archive data collected using the Video Plankton Recorder. Years 1, 4-6: No time budgeted.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Brown (Administrative Profession): Years 2-6: One week to assist with administrative tasks associated with the project. Year 1: No time.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Indicate the fringe rate that applies to all individuals identified in 1. Personnel/Salaries

The fringe benefit rate for salary is calculated at 35.27%. The fringe benefit rate for sea duty is 7.11%

Please see attached negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA).

Personnel Expense Details: Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 Carin Ashjian 0.25 164,160 3,420 35.27 1,206 FY16 Totals 3,420 1,206 FY17 Carin Ashjian 1.50 182,520 Reg Sal. 22,815 35.27 8,047 FY17 Carin Ashjian -- -- Sea Duty 5,862 7.11 417 FY17 Frank Bahr 0.50 121,848 5,077 35.27 1,791 FY17 Philip Alatalo 3.00 84,484 Reg Sal. 21,121 35.27 7,450 FY17 Philip Alatalo -- -- Sea Duty 2,822 7.11 200 FY17 Andrew Brown 0.25 66,912 1,394 35.27 492 FY17 Totals 59,091 18,397

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY18 Carin Ashjian 1.50 188,911 Reg Sal. 23,614 35.27 8,328 FY18 Carin Ashjian -- -- Sea Duty 6,067 7.11 431 FY18 Frank Bahr 0.50 126,096 5,254 35.27 1,853 FY18 Philip Alatalo 3.00 87,444 Reg Sal. 21,861 35.27 7,710 FY18 Philip Alatalo -- -- Sea Duty 2,921 7.11 209 FY18 Andrew Brown 69,264 1,443 35.27 509 FY18 Totals 61,160 19,040 FY19 Carin Ashjian 1.50 180,472 22,559 35.27 7,957 FY19 Drew Brown 0.25 71,664 1,493 35.27 527 FY19 Totals 24,052 8,484 Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY20 Carin Ashjian 1.50 186,816 23,352 35.27 8,236 FY20 Drew Brown 0.25 74,208 1,546 35.27 545 FY20 Totals 24,898 8,781 FY21 Carin Ashjian 0.5 193,334 8,056 35.27 2,841 FY21 Drew Brown 0.25 76,800 1,600 35.27 564 FY21 Totals 9,656 3405

3. Travel:

Year 1: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to the PI Kickoff Meeting in June, 2016 in Anchorage AK to collaboratively identify the hypotheses of the Arctic Program. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $800/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 3 nights lodging in Anchorage at the June GSA rate of $339/night, per diem for 2 people for 4 days at the Anchorage GSA rate of $101/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Total travel request in FY16 $3,575

Year 2:

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to a logistics planning meeting in October, 2016 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $800/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 3 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 4 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to the Annual PI meeting in March 2017 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $800/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 5 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Funds are requested for 5 people (Ashjian, Campbell, Alatalo, TBD, TBD) to travel to Nome, AK to participate in a three-week cruise in summer 2017. Airfare for 5 people R/T between Boston and Nome, AK at $1800/person, lodging for 3 rooms for 1 night in Anchorage AK at the summer GSA rate of $339/room, lodging for 3 rooms for 1 night in Nome AK at the summer GSA rate of $180/night, per diem for 5 people for 1 day in Anchorage AK at the summer GSA rate of $101/day, per diem for 5 people for 1 day in Nome, AK at the summer GSA rate of $86/day, taxi transportation in Nome, AK ($50), and transportation for five people to Logan Airport Boston (75 miles one way, $500) are required.

Funds are requested for Campbell to attend the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in January 2017 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for one person R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $800, transportation for to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $100), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 5 days at the Anchorage January GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required. (Ashjian also will attend; travel will be covered by an alternative source).

Total travel request in FY17 $19,938

Year 3:

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to a logistics planning meeting in October, 2017 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $800/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 3 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 4 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to the Annual PI meeting in March 2018 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $850/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 5 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Funds are requested for 5 people (Ashjian, Campbell, Alatalo, TBD, TBD) to travel to Nome, AK to participate in a three-week cruise in summer 2018. Airfare for 5 people R/T between Boston and Nome, AK at $1900/person, lodging for 3 rooms for 1 night in Anchorage AK at the summer GSA rate of $339/room plus tax, lodging for 3 rooms for 1 night in Nome AK at the summer GSA rate of $180/night, per diem for 5 people for 1 day in Anchorage AK at the summer GSA rate of $101/day, per diem for 5 people for 1 day in Nome, AK at the summer GSA rate of $86/day, taxi transportation in Nome, AK ($50), and transportation for five people to Logan Airport Boston (75 miles one way, $500) are required.

Funds are requested for Campbell to attend the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in January 2018 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for one person R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $850, transportation for to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $100), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 5 days at the Anchorage January GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required. (Ashjian also will attend; travel will be covered by an alternative source).

Total travel request in FY18 $20,588

Year 4:

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to the Annual PI meeting in March 2019 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $900/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 5 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Funds are requested for Campbell to attend the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in January 2019 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for one person R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $900, transportation for to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $100), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 5 days at the Anchorage January GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required. (Ashjian also will attend; travel will be covered by an alternative source).

Total travel request in FY19 $5,430

Year 5:

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to the Annual PI meeting in March 2020 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $950/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 5 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax, per diem for 2 people for 5 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to attend the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in January 2020 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $950/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 5 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Total travel request in FY20 $6,940

Year 6:

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to travel to the Annual PI meeting in March 2021 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $1000/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 5 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Funds are requested for Ashjian and Campbell to attend the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in January 2021 in Anchorage AK. Airfare for two people R/T between Boston and Anchorage at $1000/each, transportation for two people by bus to/from Logan Airport, Boston (75 miles one way, $50/each), 5 nights lodging in Anchorage at the GSA rate of $99/night plus tax ($120), per diem for 2 people for 5 days at the Anchorage October GSA rate of $82/day, and taxi transportation to/from the airport in Anchorage ($50) are required.

Total travel request in FY21 $7,140

4. Equipment:

Year 2

Funds ($5000) are requested for the fabrication of a stainless steel frame in which to mount the VPR underneath the CTD rosette so that the VPR/CTD/Rosette packaged can be deployed together.

Years 1, 3-6: No equipment requested.

5. Supplies:

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0.00

Year 2:

Funds are requested to cover the costs of jars ($200) and formaldehyde ($50) for sample storage and preservation, a time-depth recorder ($610, Star-Odi), two external hard drives for Video Plankton Recorder data storage ($100/drive), two Onset Computer HOBO Temperature loggers and base station to Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

monitor temperatures during the grazing experiments ($390), a 1-m2 plankton net ring with bridle ($500), 1m2 plankton net ($700), and miscellaneous stationary, laboratory, and field supplies (e.g., waterproof notebooks, tape, tie wraps, zip lock bags, permanent pens, etc.: $50).

Total supplies funds request in FY17 $2700

Year 3:

Funds are requested to cover the costs of jars ($200) and formaldehyde ($50) for sample storage and preservation, two external hard drives for Video Plankton Recorder data storage ($100/drive), replacement plankton net ($800), and miscellaneous stationary, laboratory, and field supplies (e.g., waterproof notebooks, tape, tie wraps, zip lock bags, permanent pens, etc.: $50).

Total supplies funds request in FY18 $1300

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $0.00

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0.00

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0.00

6. Contractual/Consultants:

Total Contractual funds requested is $0.00 in FY16-FY21

7. Other:

Year 1: No other costs are budgeted.

Total other funds requested is $0.00 in FY16.

Year 2: Funds are requested to cover the costs of printing poster(s) for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($200), for technical assistance in maintaining the computer equipment used in support of this project (9 hours @$81/hour: $729), and telecommunications and copying ($50). Funds also are requested to cover the costs of enumeration of microzooplankton samples from the grazing experiments (15 samples /experiment, 9 experiments, $230 sample: $31,050) and for the spatial distribution of microzooplankton types and abundance in the euphotic zone (30 samples, $230/sample: $6,900) at the OSU CEOAS Plankton Counting Facility (http://oeb.coas.oregonstate.edu/research/FCM_Facility.shtml). Funds to ship an estimated 2500# of freight from Woods Hole MA to Nome AK for use on the research cruise also are requested ($6000).

Total other funds requested is $44,929 in FY17.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Year 3: Funds are requested to cover the costs of printing poster(s) for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($200), for technical assistance in maintaining the computer equipment used in support of this project (9 hours @$84/hour: $756), and telecommunications and copying ($50). Funds also are requested to cover the costs of enumeration of microzooplankton samples from the grazing experiments (15 samples /experiment, 9 experiments, $230 sample: $31,050) and for the spatial distribution of microzooplankton types and abundance in the euphotic zone (30 samples, $230/sample: $6,900) at the OSU CEOAS Plankton Counting Facility (http://oeb.coas.oregonstate.edu/research/FCM_Facility.shtml). Funds to ship an estimated 2500# of freight from Woods Hole MA to Nome AK for use on the research cruise also are requested ($6000).

Total other funds requested is $44,956 in FY18.

Year 4: Funds are requested to cover the costs of printing poster(s) for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($200), for technical assistance in maintaining the computer equipment used in support of this project (9 hours @$86/hour: $774), and telecommunications and copying ($50).

Total other funds requested is $1,024 in FY19.

Year 5: Funds are requested to cover the costs of printing poster(s) for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($200), for technical assistance in maintaining the computer equipment used in support of this project (9 hours @$86/hour: $801), telecommunications and copying ($50), and publication costs for page charges associated with color figures in a manuscript ($1,000).

Total other funds requested is $2,051 in FY20.

Year 6: Funds are requested to cover the costs of printing poster(s) for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium ($200), for technical assistance in maintaining the computer equipment used in support of this project (9 hours @$86/hour: $819), and telecommunications and copying ($50).

Total other funds requested is $1,069 in FY21.

8. Indirect Costs:

The indirect cost rates are 53.80% for Laboratory costs and 36.59% for General and Administrative costs. The rates are applied to total salaries plus fringe benefits. Please see attached negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA).

Total indirect funds requested is $4,182 in FY16, $70,042in FY17, $72,493 in FY18, $29,410 in FY19, $30,442 in FY20, and $11,806 in FY21.

Total indirect funds requested is $218,375

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: $0

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $0.00

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Rhode Island

Project Title: The Relative Importance of Local Processes vs. Advection to Production in the Southern Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by the University of Rhode Island for this project is: $381,557

1. Personnel/Salaries:

Campbell (CoPI, Assoc. Marine Research Scientist): Year 1: One week to attend the kick-off meeting. Years 2 and 3: 3 mo in each year to attend the logistics meeting, participate in a 3-week cruise, analyze carbon and nitrogen samples, oversee zooplankton counting, morphometric measurements, egg production, fecal pellet production and grazing analysis, and archiving of data sets, and participate in the annual PI meeting and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium. Years 4-5: 1.5 mo/year to work on data analysis, manuscript preparation, and program synthesis activities, participate in the annual PI meeting and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium. Year 6: 0.5 mo to participate in program synthesis activities, the annual PI meeting, and the Alaska Marine Science Symposium.

Gelfman (Marine Research Specialist III): Years 2-4: 3, 6, 3 mo/year to participate in both 3-week cruises, enumeration and biomass determination of zooplankton samples, analysis of egg production and fecal pellet samples, assist with carbon and nitrogen analysis, and training and oversight of undergraduate student in morphometric analysis. Years 1, 5, 6: No time budgeted.

Undergraduate student: Years 2-4. Will primarily perform morphometric analysis on zooplankton images collected during the cruise and assist Gelfman in the laboratory as needed.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits:

The fringe benefit rate for Campbell is 33.6% and for Gelfman is 63% in FY16. Fringe rates are anticipated to increase at 5% per year. The undergraduate rate is 7.65% with no anticipated increase.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 Assoc. MRS 0.25 mo $97890 $2039 33.6% $685 /Campbell FY16 Totals $2039 $685 FY17 Assoc. MRS 3 mo $100827 $25207 35.28% $8893 /Campbell FY17 MRSIII 3 mo $60719 $15180 66.15% $10041 /Gelfman FY17 Undergrad. Stud 100 hrs $1000 7.65% $77 FY17 Totals $41386 $19011

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

FY18 Assoc. MRS 3 mo $103852 $25963 37.04% $9618 /Campbell FY18 MRSIII 6 mo $62540 $31270 69.46% $21719 /Gelfman FY18 Undergrad. Stud 300 hrs $3000 7.65% $230 FY18 Totals $60233 $31567 FY19 Assoc. MRS 1.5 mo $106967 $13371 38.9% $5201 /Campbell FY19 MRSIII 3 mo $64416 $16104 72.93% $11745 /Gelfman FY19 Undergrad. Stud 100 hrs $1000 7.65% $77 FY19 Totals $30475 $17022 FY20 Assoc. MRS 1.5 mo $110176 $13772 40.84% $5625 /Campbell FY20 Totals $13772 $5625 FY21 Assoc. MRS 0.5 mo $113481 $4728 42.88% $2028 /Campbell FY21 Totals $4728 $2028

3. Travel:

All project related travel is covered in Ashjian’s budget.

4. Equipment:

No equipment is requested in this proposal.

5. Supplies:

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0.00

Year 2:

Funds are requested to cover the costs of grazing experiments ($5000 total) including GF/F filters ($1200), microplankton sample bottles ($1500), culture tubes for chl a analysis ($750), cartridge filters, 0.2 µm ($300), and chemicals for sample preservation and chlorophyll analysis ($1250); for 1000 carbon and nitrogen analyses ($4000) including costs for all consumable materials, chemicals, and gases ($4 per sample); supplies for egg and fecal pellet production experiments ($500) including incubation containers and sample jars, and for miscellaneous field and laboratory supplies ($500).

Total supplies funds request in FY17 $10,000

Year 3:

sample); supplies for egg and fecal pellet production experiments ($500) including incubation containers and sample jars, and for miscellaneous field and laboratory supplies ($500).

Total supplies funds request in FY18 $10,000

Year 4:

Total supplies funds request in FY19 $000

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0.00

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0.00

6. Contractual/Consultants:

Total Contractual funds requested is $0.00 in FY16-FY21

7. Other:

None

8. Indirect Costs:

The indirect cost rates are 53.50% of MTDC. Please see attached negotiated indirect cost rate agreement.

Total indirect funds requested is $1,458 in FY16, $37,662 in FY17, $54,463 in FY18, $25,411 in FY19, $10,377 in FY20, and $3,615 in FY21.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for the University of Rhode Island:

Total Other Support provided by the University of Rhode Island for this project is: $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Alaska Fairbanks

Project Title: The relative importance of local processes vs. advection to production in the Southern Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by University of Alaska Fairbanks for this project is: $619,726

1. Personnel/Salaries: 40 hours (.23 mos.) in Year 1, 522 hours (3 mos.) in Years 2-3, 348 hours (2 mos.) in Year 4, and 174 hours (1 mo.) in Years 5-6 are requested for UAF PI Stockwell (at $54.94/hour) to participate in shipboard fieldwork, supervise the shipboard acquisition of primary productivity studies, chlorophyll distribution and nutrient data and the subsequent analyses of these data sets. 40 hours (.2 mos.) in Year 1, 261 hours (1.5 mos.) in Years 2-3, and 217.5 hours (1.25 mos.) in Years 4-5 are requested for UAF Co-I Okkonen (at $47.60/hour) to participate in shipboard fieldwork, supervise the shipboard acquisition of ocean current velocity and hydrographic data and the subsequent analyses of these data. 43.5 hours (.25 mos.) in Years 2- 3 are requested for personnel Pete Shipton (at $23.25/hour). Support is also budgeted for 1 graduate student (TBD) (partial academic year and partial summer) in Years 2-3. Salary for Pete Shipton includes mooring construction and development. Salaries for graduate student include cruise participation and processing of samples (primary nutrient collection and chlorophyll processing) during cruises. Any post-cruise processing that is required will cover the remaining salary.

All salaries are at the employees’ current rate of pay. A leave reserve of 13.7% for faculty salaries and 21% for support (classified) staff is included. Salaries are listed at the FY16 rate and include a 2.0% inflation increase for faculty, and 2.5% for professionals and staff each year.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Staff benefits are applied according to UAF’s Provisional FY16 fringe benefit rates. Rates are 28.7% for faculty salaries, 45.7% for support (classified) staff, and 9.2% for students (summers only for graduate students). $1,503 per year ($858 for Spring semester, and $645 for Summer only) is also included for graduate student health care in Years 2-3, with a 7.0% inflation increase per year. A copy of the rate agreement is available at http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/.

Personnel Expense Details:

Hours devoted to Hourly Leave Yearly Total Fringe Fringe Year Title/Name project rate Rate Increase Salary rate cost FY16 PI, D. Stockwell 40 $54.94 13.7% 2% $2,499 28.7% $717 FY16 Co-I, S. 40 $47.60 13.7% 2% $2,165 28.7% $621 Okkonen FY16 Personnel, P. 0 $23.25 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 Shipton FY16 Personnel, 0 $25.53 0% 7% $0 9.2% $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

graduate student (health (summer (TBD) care) only) FY16 Totals $4,664 $1,388 FY17 PI, D. Stockwell 522 $56.03 13.7% 2% $33,260 28.7% $9,546 FY17 Co-I, S. 261 $48.55 13.7% 2% $14,408 28.7% $4,135 Okkonen FY17 Personnel, P. 43.5 $23.83 21.0% 2.5% $1,254 45.7% $573 Shipton FY17 Personnel, 522 $25.53 0% 7% $13,326 9.2% $2,017 graduate student (health (summer (TBD) care) only) FY17 Totals $62,249 $16,271 FY18 PI, D. Stockwell 522 $57.15 13.7% 2% $33,925 28.7% $9,736 FY18 Co-I, S. 261 $47.60 13.7% 2% $14,696 28.7% $4,218 Okkonen FY18 Personnel, P. 43.5 $24.42 21.0% 2.5% $1,286 45.7% $588 Shipton FY18 Personnel, 522 $25.53 0% 7% $13,326 9.2% $2,130 graduate student (health (summer (TBD) care) only) FY18 Totals $63,234 $16,671 FY19 PI, D. Stockwell 348 $58.29 13.7% 2% $23,069 28.7% $6,621 FY19 Co-I, S. 217.5 $49.52 13.7% 2% $12,492 28.7% $3,585 Okkonen FY19 Personnel, P. 0 $25.04 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 Shipton FY19 Personnel, 0 $25.53 0% 7% $0 9.2% $0 graduate student (health (summer (TBD) care) only) FY19 Totals $35,561 $10,206 FY20 PI, D. Stockwell 174 $59.46 13.7% 2% $11,765 28.7% $3,377 FY20 Co-I, S. 217.5 $50.51 13.7% 2% $12,742 28.7% $3,657 Okkonen FY20 Personnel, P. 0 $25.66 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 Shipton FY20 Personnel, 0 $25.53 0% 7% $0 9.2% $0 graduate student (health (summer (TBD) care) only) FY20 Totals $24,507 $7,033 FY21 PI, D. Stockwell 174 $60.65 13.7% 2% $12,000 28.7% $3,444 FY21 Co-I, S. 0 $51.52 13.7% 2% $0 28.7% $0 Okkonen FY21 Personnel, P. 0 $26.31 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 Shipton FY21 Personnel, 0 $25.53 0% 7% $0 9.2% $0 graduate student (health (summer (TBD) care) only) FY21 Totals $12,000 $3,444

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

3. Travel:

Year 1 travel will be for UAF PI Stockwell and UAF Co-I Okkonen to attend the kickoff meeting for three days during which the core hypotheses of the program will be decided. One trip per year is included in Years 2-3 for PI Stockwell to travel to Anchorage, AK for two days to attend October PI planning meetings. PI Stockwell and Co-I Okkonen will travel to Anchorage, AK for four days each year in Years 2-6 to attend March annual meetings. Travel is budgeted for PI Stockwell to travel to Anchorage for four days to attend the Annual Marine Science Symposium (AMSS) each year in Years 2-6. Travel is budgeted for PI Stockwell, Co-I Okkonen, and the graduate student to travel to Nome (at $600/trip for airfare from Fairbanks to Nome, and $710/trip for airfare to travel from Kenai to Nome) to attend a cruise in Years 2 and 3. 3 days travel is budgeted for PI Stockwell and the graduate student, 2 days travel is budgeted for Co-I Okkonen. Airfare is estimated at $300/trip for Fairbanks, AK to Anchorage, AK and $235/trip for Kenai, AK to Anchorage, AK. Per Diem (meals/ incidentals/lodging) is $399/day or $159/day (depending on the season) for Anchorage per UA Board of Regents regulations for Alaska in-state travel and $282/day for Nome. Ground transportation is included for all travel at $60/person/trip.

An inflation rate of 10% per year has been included for all transportation costs. All airfare cost data is based on Internet research from www.kayak.com. All Per Diem is in accordance with GSA/JTR Regulations.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $3,049

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $8,157

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $8,537

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $3,138

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $3,271

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $3,419

4. Equipment: $49,800 is requested in Year 2 for flurometers (6 at $8,300 each).

Year 1: Total equipment request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total equipment request in FY17 $49,800

Year 3: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Total equipment request in FY18 $0

Year 4: Total equipment request in FY19 $0 Year 5: Total equipment request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total equipment request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies: $5,500 per year in Years 2-3 is included for filters, reagents, and other lab supplies. $500 in both Years 2 and 3 is included for isotope for primary productivity. $550 is included for chlorophyll standards, split between Years 2 and 3. $2,000 is requested in Year 2 for assorted incubator parts. $3,000 is requested in Year 2 for a light meter. $19,200, split between Years 2 and 3, is requested for 10m SVP drifters (8 at $2,400 each). $1,760 is budgeted for telemetry fees (8 fees at $220 a piece).

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $21,755

Year 3: Total supplies funds in FY18 $16,755

Year 4: Total supplies funds in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total supplies request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total supplies request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants: $10,880 is requested for isotope analysis (320 samples at $17 each). $13,800 is requested for nutrient analysis (300 samples at $23 each). $12,000 is requested to cover the cost of shipping equipment to Nome in Years 2 and 3. $100 per year in Years 3-5 is requested for publication costs. $4,000 is requested in Year 2 for incubator construction. $100 per year in Years 2-6 is requested for AMSS registration fees. $400 per year in Years 2 and 3 is requested for drifter shipping costs. $300 per year in Years 2-4 is requested for fluorometer shipping. Calibration costs are budgeted at $625 a year in Years 3 and 4. $9,000 is budgeted in Year 2 for fluorometer bracket construction.

Year 1: Total contractual funds request in FY16 $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian

Year 2: Total contractual funds request in FY17 $32,140

Year 3: Total contractual request in FY18 $19,865

Year 4: Total contractual request in FY19 $1,125

Year 5: Total contractual request in FY20 $200

Year 6: Total contractual request in FY21 $100

Other: No other funds are requested.

8. Indirect Costs: Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs are negotiated with the Office of Naval Research. The predetermined rate for sponsored research at UAF is calculated at 50.5% (FY14–FY16 predetermined agreement) of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC includes Total Direct Costs minus tuition and associated fees, scholarships, participant support costs, subaward amounts over $25,000, and equipment. A copy of the rate agreement is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/.

Year 1: Total indirect request in FY16 $4,571

Year 2: Total indirect request in FY17 $70,988

Year 3: Total indirect request in FY18 $63,156

Year 4: Total indirect request in FY19 $25,265

Year 5: Total indirect request in FY20 $17,680

Year 6: Total indirect request in FY21 $9,577

Other Support/In kind Contributions: No other outside support is being provided. Leveraging funds include equipment already in UAF inventory (bench-top fluorometers (~$10,000), FRRF fluorometers (~$30,000) and mooring sensors (~$40,000) will be used during this project.

Total Leverage Funds for this project is: $80,000 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.13-Ashjian Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 North Pacific Research Board Arctic Program Preproposal – Research Plan 2 3 PIs: Lead PI: David H. Shull (Western Washington University) 4 Co-PI: Allan H. Devol (University of Washington) 5 6 A. Project title: Sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots in the Pacific Arctic Region and the 7 response to climate change. 8 9 B. Research Category: Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity (benthic-pelagic 10 coupling) 11 12 C. Rationale and Justification: 13 14 The Pacific Arctic Region (PAR) has undergone remarkable changes in recent decades. These 15 include significant warming (Steele et al. 2008) and reduced ice cover (Cavaleiri and Parkinson 16 2012, Frey et al. 2015). Sea ice loss has been particularly rapid in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 17 since 2007 (Stroeve et al. 2012, Wang and Overland 2015). Models predict continued declines in 18 sea ice extent and near absence of summertime sea ice by 2040 if not sooner (Wang and Overland 19 2012, Overland and Wang, 2013, Wang and Overland 2015). The decline in sea ice between 1998 20 and 2009 corresponds to a 20% increase in net primary productivity (NPP) over this same period 21 due to increased open water area (Arrigo and Dijken 2011). Assuming NPP remains constant, 22 Arrigo and Dijken (2011) predicted that NPP in the Arctic would continue to increase with future 23 declines in sea ice. This would lead to a significant reshaping of Arctic Ocean food webs and the 24 ecosystem services they provide. 25 26 However, sustained increases in NPP in the PAR require increased nutrient supply. Yet sources 27 and sinks of nutrients in this region are not well enough understood to enable realistic forecasts of 28 future productivity (Arrigo and Dijken 2011). Nitrogen, the primary limiting nutrient in this 29 region, is supplied to the Chukchi from the Northern Bering Sea to the south and via upwelling at 30 the shelf break at the northern and northeastern boundaries. Nitrogen is lost via advection and 31 denitrification, the primary sink for bioavailable nitrogen in the Arctic (Codispoti et al. 1991, 32 Yamamoto-Kawai et al. 2006). However, rates of sedimentary denitrification and how they vary 33 in time and space are not well understood. 34 35 The goal of this proposed research is to quantify how rates of sedimentary denitrification vary 36 across the region and over time, focusing on areas with particularly high rates of denitrification 37 (sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots). We plan to test several hypotheses concerning the 38 processes that control rates of denitrification so that future changes in NPP can be better 39 forecasted. And, the data we collect will relate sedimentary processes to broader research 40 questions of regional concern such as nutrient cycling, ocean acidification and carbon cycling. 41 42 Nitrogen sources and sinks in the Chukchi Sea 43 44 After passing through the Bering Strait, Pacific water crosses 800 km of shallow continental shelf 45 in the Chukchi Sea as it moves toward the Beaufort Sea and Canada Basin. Thus, the Chukchi 46 serves as the Arctic Ocean’s Pacific gateway and its biogeochemical processes influence the rest 47 of the Arctic Ocean (Coachman et al. 1975, Maslowski et al. 2015). Several water masses enter 48 the Chukchi Sea via the Bering Strait. Anadyr water has the highest DIN concentration due to 49 upwelling in the Gulf of Anadyr in the Northern Bering Sea and serves as the primary supply of 50 DIN to the Chukchi, particularly in winter (Lowry et al. 2015). Anadyr Water, Bering Shelf 51 Water, and Alaska Coastal Water transport DIN northward across the Chukchi shelf, with exits Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 through Herald Canyon, Central Canyon, and Barrow Canyon (Overland and Roach 1987). Along 2 the northern and northeastern boundary, upwelling at the shelf break also supplies DIN, resulting 3 in relatively high bottom water nitrate concentrations and an N:P ratio near the Redfield 4 proportion (Fig. 1A, supplementary materials). 5 6 DIN is removed from surface waters by phytoplankton, some of which is exported to the benthos 7 where it is removed from the system by sedimentary denitrification (Devol et al. 1997, Chang and 8 Devol 2009). Unlike removal of DIN by phytoplankton, denitrification removes DIN but not 9 phosphorus, reducing the N:P ratio in bottom water. The extent of preferential nitrogen removal 10 can be quantified by N*, where N* = DIN – 16*P +2.9 (Gruber and Sarmiento 1997). Negative 11 N* is an indicator of denitrification. Regions in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas with low 12 concentrations of nitrate+nitrite and exceptionally negative N* occur in discrete regions we term 13 “sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots” (Fig. 1 A, B). 14 15 Several hotspots in the SW Chukchi Sea, near Barrow Canyon, and south of St. Lawrence Island 16 in the northern Bering Sea are circled (Fig. 1). The strong regional variation in N* and bottom 17 water nitrate concentration corresponds to variation in rates of denitrification. Devol et al. (1997) 18 observed higher than average rates of denitrification near the southern Chukchi Sea hotspot. 19 Chang and Devol (2006) measured denitrification rates near the hot spot at Barrow Canyon that 20 were 2-3 times higher than average rates. Horak et al. (2013) reported rates of denitrification 21 south of St. Lawrence Island that were also higher than the Bering Sea shelf average. 22 23 We contend that biogeochemical processes at these hot spots have a disproportionate affect on 24 nutrient supply to the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas and, due to their location at the Pacific 25 gateway to the Arctic Ocean, they strongly affect the rest of the Arctic as well. Devol’s research 26 group has measured rates of organic carbon mineralization and denitrification in the PAR in 27 1992, 1993 (Devol et al. 1997) and 2004 (Chang and Devol 2009), and in the northern Bering Sea 28 in 2007-2010 (Horak et al 2013). But, the regional patterns of denitrification in the PAR are just 29 now emerging. To better understand the controls on nutrient cycling in the PAR and to provide 30 necessary data for modeling the effects of changes in sea ice extent and organic carbon export on 31 productivity in this region, we propose to measure dissolved gas and solute fluxes at numerous 32 sites across the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas to determine the relationship between organic 33 carbon export to the benthos and the efficiency of nutrient cycling between sediments and bottom 34 water. We will also compare rates of denitrification that we will have measured from these 35 regions over 26 years (1992-2018) to determine how sediment biogeochemistry has varied during 36 a period of rapid environmental change in the Arctic. Our work will also provide data on 37 sedimentary fluxes of DIC, DOC, and alkalinity. 38 39 D. Hypotheses 40 41 1. Rates of sedimentary denitrification positively covary with organic carbon export to the 42 benthos (covariation in space) 43 2. Rates of sedimentary denitrification at biogeochemical hotspots vary with changes in 44 organic carbon export to the benthos (covariation in time, comparing data from 1992, 45 2004, and 2017-2018) 46 3. Denitrification in biogeochemical hotspots changes the concentration of nitrogen and N* 47 across the Chukchi shelf 48 4. Denitrification rates at biogeochemical hotspots covary with the activities of benthic 49 macrofaunal communities (bioturbation and bioirrigation) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 5. Sediment-water exchange of nutrients, DIC, and alkalinity are sufficient to influence 2 bottom water characteristics (nutrient concentration, N*, alkalinity, pH, aragonite 3 saturation) 4 5 The sediments in these sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots receive a significant fraction of 6 organic carbon and nutrients from overlying water and benthic infaunal biomass strongly reflects 7 patterns of carbon deposition to the seafloor (Grebmeier et al. 2006). Our hypotheses examine the 8 consequences of this pattern for nutrient cycling and provide insight into future productivity of 9 the PAR under continued sea ice retreat. 10 11 E. Objectives 12 13 1. Measure fluxes of dissolved oxygen, DIC, DOC, dinitrogen, ammonium, nitirite, nitrate, 14 phosphate, silicate, and alkalinity across the PAR (northern Bering, Chukchi, and 15 Western Beaufort Seas). 16 2. Measure rates of bioturbation and bioirrigation in sediments of the PAR. 17 3. Quantify patterns of organic carbon oxidation (aerobic oxidation, nitrate reduction, Mn 18 reduction, Fe reduction, sulfate reduction) across the PAR. 19 4. Work with other investigators to create a carbon and nitrogen budget for the PAR. 20 5. Quantify changes in the C and N cycles in the PAR over 26 years (1992, 2002, 2004, 21 2017-2018). 22 23 Our objectives will enable us to test our hypotheses, provide bottom boundary conditions for 24 coupled biogeochemical models of the PAR, and will enable construction of carbon and nutrient 25 budgets for the region. Further, since the future availability of nitrogen is key to predicting how 26 productivity will change in upcoming decades, our data on denitrification and the processes that 27 influence it will enable better understanding of the way the PAR will change in response to 28 changing climate. 29 30 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables 31 32 1. Quantification of benthic fluxes of O2, DIC, alkalinity, nutrients, and DOC. 33 2. Quantification of sediment profiles of Mn and Fe oxides, chlorophyll-a, organic carbon, 34 nitrate + nitrite, and dissolved silica 35 3. Calculation of rates of bioirrigation and bioturbation 36 4. Collaborate with other investigators in the construction of nitrogen and carbon budgets 37 for the Chukchi Sea 38 39 G. Project design and conceptual approach 40 41 Undisturbed samples of the sediment and overlying water will be collected on two spring/summer 42 research cruises (2017 and 2018) from approximately 40 stations in the Northern Bering, Chukchi 43 and Western Beaufort Seas by use of an Ocean Instruments MC800 8-sample Multicore. We will 44 collect samples from within biogeochemical hotspots and from surrounding regions (Fig 1). 45 Cores will be connected to a bottom water reservoir and incubated at near in situ temperature on 46 board the research vessel. Fluxes of O2:Ar and N2:Ar in the overlying water of flux cores will be 47 measured by membrane inlet mass spectrometry, using a Pfeiffer quadrapole mass spectrometer 48 (described by Davenport et al. 2012 and Horak et al. 2013). Dissolved oxygen will also be 49 measured by use of a PreSens Microx TX2 fiber optic oxygen meter and flow-through optode. + - - 50 Concentrations of nutrients (NH4 , NO2 , NO3 , P, Si) in 0.45-µm-filtered subsamples of overlying Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 water will be measured using standard colorimetric methods by means of a Westco Smartchem 2 chemical analyzer. 3 4 Due to the importance of anaerobic metabolic pathways and the preservation of reduced 5 compounds, sediment oxygen consumption rate underestimates organic carbon mineralization in 6 the Chukchi Sea, particularly where DIC release exceeds 86 µmol-C m-2h-1 (Christensen 2008). 7 Therefore, we will determine OC mineralization rates from the flux of dissolved inorganic carbon 8 (DIC). To assess the significance of calcium carbonate dissolution on the DIC flux we will also 9 measure alkalinity and Ca fluxes. To assess the significance of dissolved organic carbon, we will 10 measure the DOC flux as well. Samples for DIC and alkalinity will be preserved in HgCl and 11 later measured for total inorganic carbon by use of an Apollo SciTech DIC analyzer and 12 alkalinity by open-cell Gram titration. Samples for DOC will be filtered through pre-combusted 13 gf/f filters and frozen at -80 ˚C until analyzed by means of a Shimadzu TOC-VCSH catalytic 14 oxidation/NDIR TOC analyzer. For sediment cores with high densities of epifauna, organisms 15 will be collected from flux cores at the end of the incubation period and the contribution of 16 epifauna to oxygen demand and DIC release will be estimated following methods of Ambrose et 17 al. (2001). 18 19 Chemical profiles will be generated from sediment cores extruded and cut into sections 20 immediately after collection. Pore water will be extracted by centrifugation and 0.45-µm 21 filtration, and solutes (silicate, nitrate+nitrite) will be measured using the Westco Smartchem 22 analyzer. Solid phase samples for porosity, chlorophyll, Fe- and Mn-oxides, and organic carbon 23 will be frozen for later analysis. Fe- and Mn-oxides will be measured by flame atomic absorption 24 spectrophotometry following ammonium oxalate extraction (Esch et al. 2013). Chlorophyll-a will 25 be extracted in 90% acetone and measured by HPLC (Varian Prostar). Sedimentary organic 26 carbon and nitrogen will be measured by use of an Elantech NC analyzer. Rates of chlorophyll-a 27 degradation will be determined by incubating sediment aliquots from several depths in the 28 sediment column and measuring the change in chlorophyll-a concentration. First-order or quasi- 29 first-order degradation rates will be determined from the slope of the plot of chlorophyll 30 concentration vs. incubation time. Bioturbation rates will be determined from the profiles of 31 chlorophyll-a and first-order degradation coefficients (e.g., Sun et al 1994, Boon and Duineveld 32 1998). Bioirrigation rates will be determined by comparing the pore water silicate profile with the 33 sediment-water flux. 34 35 Our work will also quantify of the significance of different aerobic and anaerobic organic carbon 36 mineralization pathways. Total OC oxidation will be quantified by the DIC flux. Denitrification 37 will be quantified from the N2 flux. Mn and Fe reduction will be quantified by use of the 38 bioturbation rate and Mn(IV) and Fe(III) oxide distributions (Esch et al. 2013). We will determine 39 sulfate reduction rates by incubating sediment in anaerobic centrifuge tubes and directly 40 measuring the change in sulfate concentration using ion chromatography (Kristensen et al 1999). 41 Aerobic respiration will be estimated by difference between total and anaerobic respiration rates. 42 43 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts 44 45 Our work will provide the bottom boundary condition for coupled models of PAR productivity 46 and response to climate change. Modeled forecasts of productivity in the PAR will need to 47 quantify how DIN concentrations will vary with changes in sea ice coverage and thickness, water 48 column mixing and advection (Arrigo and van Dijken 2011). Denitrification is the most 49 significant sink for DIN in the Arctic and must be included in coupled biogeochemical models of 50 PAR productivity and response to climate change (Codispoti et al. 1991, Yamamoto-Kawai et al. 51 2006). By measuring fluxes of DIC and alkalinity, our work will also provide the bottom Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 boundary conditions for models of Arctic Ocean acidification. By quantitatively relating rates of 2 denitrification to organic carbon flux (see hypotheses in section D), we will provide a means for 3 modelers to examine the feedback between OC export and nutrient supply for primary producers. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 Supplementary materials 2 3 Figures 4 A. Bottom water nitrate + nitrite B. Bottom water N*

5 Figure 1. (A) Concentration of nitrate+nitrite (µM) in bottom water in the Northern Bering and 6 Chukchi Seas. (B) N* in bottom water (negative numbers indicate DIN deficit relative to 7 phosphorus). Circled regions are hot spots with the lowest values of bottom water nitrate+nitrite 8 and negative N*. Bottom water nutrient data from PACMAR database. 9 10 Literature cited 11 12 Ambrose, W., Clough, L., Tilney, P., & Beer, L. 2001. Role of echinoderms in benthic 13 remineralization in the Chukchi Sea. Marine Biology, 139(5), 937-949. 14 Arrigo, K. R., and G. L. van Dijken 2011. Secular trends in Arctic Ocean net primary production, 15 J. Geophys. Res., 116, C09011, doi:10.1029/2011JC007151. 16 Cavalieri, D. J., & Parkinson, C. L. 2012. Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010. 17 Cryosphere, 6(4), 881-889. 18 Chang, B. X., & Devol, A. H. 2009. Seasonal and spatial patterns of sedimentary denitrification 19 rates in the Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 20 Oceanography, 56(17), 1339-1350. 21 Christensen, J. P. 2008. Sedimentary carbon oxidation and denitrification on the shelf break of the 22 Alaskan Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Open Oceanography Journal, 2, 6-17. 23 Coachman, L. K., K. Aagaard, and R. B. Tripp 1975. Bering Strait: The Regional Physical 24 Oceanography, 172 pp., Univ. of Wash. Press, Seattle. 25 Codispoti, L. A., Friederich, G. E., Sakamoto, C. M., & Gordon, L. I. 1991. Nutrient cycling and 26 primary production in the marine systems of the Arctic and Antarctic. Journal of Marine 27 Systems, 2, 359-384. 28 Davenport, E.S., D.H. Shull, A.H. Devol. 2012. Roles of sorption and tube-dwelling benthos in 29 the cycling of phosphorus in Bering Sea sediments. Deep-Sea Research II 65-70: 163- 30 172. 31 Devol, A. H., Codispoti, L. A., & Christensen, J. P. 1997. Summer and winter denitrification rates 32 in western Arctic shelf sediments. Continental Shelf Research, 17(9), 1029-1050. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 Boon, A. R., & Duineveld, G. C. A. 1998. Chlorophyll a as a marker for bioturbation and carbon 2 flux in southern and central North Sea sediments. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 162, 3 33-43. 4 Esch, M.E.S., D. H. Shull, A.H. Devol. 2013. Regional patterns of bioturbation and iron and 5 manganese reduction in the sediments of the southeastern Bering Sea. Deep- Sea Res. II, 6 94, 80-94. 7 Frey, K. E., Maslanik, J.A., Kinney, J.C., and Maslowski, W. 2015. Recent variability in sea ice 8 cover, age, and thickness in the Pacific Arctic region. In Grebmeier, J and Maslowski, W. 9 (Eds) The Pacific Arctic Region. Ecosystem Status and Trends in a Rapidly Changing 10 Environment. Springer. 11 Grebmeier, J. M., J. E. Overland, S. E. Moore, E. V. Farley, E. C. Carmack, L. W. Cooper, K. E. 12 Frey, J. H. Helle, F. A. McLaughlin, and S. L. McNutt. 2006. A major ecosystem shift in 13 the northern Bering Sea. Science 311, 1461-1464. 14 Gruber, N., & Sarmiento, J. L. 1997. Global patterns of marine nitrogen fixation and 15 denitrification. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 11(2), 235-266. 16 Horak, R. E., Whitney, H., Shull, D. H., Mordy, C. W., & Devol, A. H. 2013. The role of 17 sediments on the Bering Sea shelf N cycle: insights from measurements of benthic 18 denitrification and benthic DIN fluxes. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 19 Oceanography, 94, 95-105. 20 Kristensen, E., Devol, A. H., & Hartnett, H. E. 1999. Organic matter diagenesis in sediments on 21 the continental shelf and slope of the Eastern Tropical and temperate North 22 Pacific. Continental shelf research, 19(10), 1331-1351. 23 Lowry, K. E., Pickart, R. S., Mills, M. M., Brown, Z. W., van Dijken, G. L., Bates, N. R., & 24 Arrigo, K. R. 2015. The influence of winter water on phytoplankton blooms in the 25 Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 26 doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.06.006 27 Maslowski, W., Kinney, J.C., Okkonen, S.R., Osinski, R. Roberts, A. F. and Williams, W. J. 28 2015. The large scale ocean circulation and physical processes controlling Pacific-Arctic 29 Interactions. In Grebmeier, J and Maslowski, W. (Eds) The Pacific Arctic Region. 30 Ecosystem Status and Trends in a Rapidly Changing Environment. Springer. 31 Overland, J. E., & Roach, A. T. 1987. Northward flow in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Journal of 32 Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978–2012), 92(C7), 7097-7105. 33 Overland, J. E., & Wang, M. 2013. When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?. 34 Geophysical Research Letters, 40(10), 2097-2101. 35 Steele, M., Ermold, W., & Zhang, J. 2008. Arctic Ocean surface warming trends over the past 36 100 years. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(2). L02614, doi:10.1029/2007GL031651 37 Stroeve, J. C., Serreze, M. C., Holland, M. M., Kay, J. E., Malanik, J., & Barrett, A. P. 2012. The 38 Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: a research synthesis. Climatic Change, 110(3-4), 39 1005-1027. 40 Sun M. Y., Aller R. C. & Lee C. 1994. Spatial and temporal distributions of sedimentary 41 chloropigmcnts as indicators ofbenthic processes in Long Island Sound. J Mar Res 52, 42 149-176 43 Sun MY, Lee 44 Wang, M., & Overland, J. E. 2012. A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years: An update from 45 CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(18). 46 Wang, M., & Overland, J. E. 2015. Projected future duration of the sea-ice-free season in the 47 Alaskan Arctic. Progress in Oceanography. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2015.01.001 48 Yamamoto-Kawai, M., Carmack, E., & McLaughlin, F. 2006. Nitrogen balance and Arctic 49 throughflow. Nature, 443, 43-43. 50 51 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data 2 3 Our proposal is independent. We could test our hypotheses and meet our objectives if we were 4 the only research team on the ship. However, we designed our proposal to integrate well with 5 researchers examining water column productivity, nutrient distributions, and physical 6 oceanographic processes. Our data on fluxes of nutrients, gases (O2, CO2, N2, Ar), and alkalinity, 7 and our data on sediment profiles of chlorophyll-a and organic carbon will integrate directly into 8 coupled biogeochemical models of the Pacific Arctic Region (providing bottom boundary 9 conditions). Because we focus on benthic-pelagic coupling and its effects on nutrient availability, 10 this proposal could serve as the only benthic component of a research program. But, it could also 11 complement a more traditional benthic program focused on the measurement of benthic biomass, 12 oxygen consumption, and bulk sediment properties. 13 14 Project management 15 16 David Shull (WWU) will be the lead PI. David will represent the research group at PI meetings, 17 the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, and participate in research cruises. David will be 18 responsible for sediment sampling and measurement of nutrients, DIC, DOC, alkalinity, 19 chlorophyll-a, and sedimentary organic carbon. Shull has participated in several research cruises 20 in the Bering Sea and was chief scientist for the 2010 Summer Bering Ecosystem Study cruise. 21 His laboratory has all of the equipment and standards necessary for making these measurements. 22 He will supervise a graduate student and two undergraduate students who will participate in the 23 research cruises. The graduate student will also be responsible for measurement of DIC, DOC, 24 and alkalinity at the end of the cruise (under Shull’s supervision). Allan Devol (UW), co-PI, will 25 be in charge measuring dissolved gas flux (O2, N2, Ar) by optode and membrane-inlet mass 26 spectrometry (MIMS). Devol has participated in numerous research cruises in the Arctic and 27 elsewhere and pioneered the direct measurement of denitrification via N2 gas flux. His laboratory 28 is well equipped for measuring the gas fluxes described in this proposal. He will supervise a post- 29 doctoral research assistant who will participate in the research cruises and run the optode and 30 MIMS during these cruises. Shull and Devol have worked together in the past and will share 31 responsibilities of data analysis and report publication. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Proposal Short Title Project Start Date – Project End Date individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1 Gas and nutrient fluxes Data collection/field work Shull x x x x Data/sample processing Shull, Devol x x Analysis Shull, Devol x additional lines as needed Objective #2 Rates of bioturbation and bioirrigation Data collection/field work Shull x x x x Data/sample processing Shull x x Analysis Shull x additional lines as needed Objective #3 Organic carbon oxidation pathways Data collection/field work Shull x x x x Data/sample processing Shull x x Analysis Shull, Devol x additional lines as needed Objective #4 Work with otherPIs to produce C budget Data collection/field work Shull x x x x Data/sample processing Shull x x Analysis Shull, Devol x additional lines as needed Objective #5 5. Quantify changes in the C and N in the Data collection/field work Shull x x x x Data/sample processing Devol, Shull x x Analysis Devol, Shull x additional lines as needed Other Progress report x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation x x x x x PI meeting x x x x x Logistics planning meeting x x x Publication submission x x x Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) x additional lines as needed Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 A. Project Title: Sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots in the Pacific Arctic Region and the response to 4 climate change. 5 6 Lead PI: David H Shull, Western Washington University 7 8 Logistical Needs: 9 10 We require an ice-hardened research vessel or icebreaker with an A-frame capable of deploying an Ocean 11 Instruments MC800 Multicore. We require a walk-in incubator or refrigerator on board with bench space 12 for conducting sediment flux core incubations. The incubator would need to accommodate our membrane 13 inlet mass spectrometer (3 feet of bench space) and centrifuge (4’ x 4’ footprint). We would need 14 approximately 30 days of ship time during two summer cruises (July, years 2017 and 2018). We are 15 flexible regarding the timing of the cruise. Our team would require four berths and 9’ of lab space, 16 including a bench to support our nutrient analyzer (2.5’ x 3’). 17 18 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 19 20 No substantial in-kind support for logistics. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots in the Pacific Arctic Region and the response to climate change Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: David H Shull, Western Washington University category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 50,375 103,949 105,823 81,989 21,935 11,910 375,980 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 50,375 103,949 105,823 81,989 21,935 11,910 375,980

1. Personnel Salaries 4,799 41,431 42,539 33,497 9,744 5,402 137,413

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,056 5,871 6,034 3,961 1,604 1,188 19,713 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,000 5,500 5,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 19,500

4. Equipment 41,015 0 0 0 0 0 41,015

5. Supplies 0 7,000 6,000 3,000 3,000 0 19,000

6. Contractual/Consultants (shipping) 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 4,000

7. Other (tuition)

0 20,519 21,545 21,545 0 0 63,609

Total Direct Costs 47,870 82,321 83,618 64,503 16,848 9,090 304,251 0

Indirect Costs 2,505 21,627 22,206 17,486 5,087 2,820 71,730

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 50,375 103,949 105,823 81,989 21,935 11,910 375,980 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 2

PROJECT TITLE: Sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots in the Pacific Arctic Region and the response to climate change Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Allan H. Devol. University of Washington category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 36,301 158,641 140,811 0 0 0 335,753 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 36,301 158,641 140,811 0 0 0 335,753

1. Personnel Salaries 6,075 72,953 69,300 148,328

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,476 17,727 16,840 36,043 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,000 2,000 2,000 5,000

4. Equipment 20,000 20,000

5. Supplies 2,000 10,000 3,000 15,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other 0

Total Direct Costs 30,551 102,680 91,140 0 0 0 224,371 0

Indirect Costs 5,750 55,961 49,671 111,382

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 36,301 158,641 140,811 0 0 0 335,753 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots in the Pacific Arctic Region and the response to climate change Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): David H Shull, Western Washington University; Allan H. Devol. University of Washington; PI names from 3rd category organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support should be detailed start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 in the budget NPRB Funding 86,676 262,590 246,634 81,989 21,935 11,910 711,733 narrative.

Other Support 0

TOTAL 86,676 262,590 246,634 81,989 21,935 11,910 711,733

1. Personnel Salaries 10,874 114,384 111,839 33,497 9,744 5,402 285,741 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,532 23,598 22,874 3,961 1,604 1,188 55,756 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 2,000 7,500 7,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 24,500 0

4. Equipment 61,015 0 0 0 0 0 61,015 0

5. Supplies 2,000 17,000 9,000 3,000 3,000 0 34,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 4,000 0

7. Other

0 20,519 21,545 21,545 0 0 63,609 0

Total Direct Costs 78,421 185,001 174,758 64,503 16,848 9,090 528,622 0

Indirect Costs 8,255 77,588 71,877 17,486 5,087 2,820 183,112 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 86,676 262,590 246,634 81,989 21,935 11,910 711,733 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Washington

Project Title: Sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots in the Pacific Arctic Region and the response to climate change

Total Amount requested by WWU for this project is: $335,753

1. Personnel/Salaries: P.I. Allan Devol’a budgeted salary is based on 0.1,1 and 1 months of effort in 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. Devol will attend PI meetings in those years and supervise the project. A post-doctoral research assistant is budgeted for in the amounts of 1, 12, and 11 months of effort in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. The research assistant will set up and operate the quadrapole mass spectrometer, will participate in cruises in 2017 and 2018 and will be involved in the data analysis and write-up.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits are calculated as 24.3% of PI and post-doc salary.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI/ A. Devol 0.1 month $164,960 $1,375 24.3% $334 FY16 Post Doctoral 1 month $56,400 $4,700 24.3% $1,142 FY16 Totals $6,075 $1476 FY17 PI/ A. Devol 1 month $171,559 $14,297 24.3% $3474 FY17 Post Doctoral 12 months $58,656 $58,656 24.3% $14,253 FY17 Totals $72,953 $17,727 FY18 PI/ A. Devol .9 month $178,421 $13,381 24.3% $3251 FY18 Post Doctoral 11 months $55,981 $61002 24.3% $13,588 FY18 Totals $69,300 $16,840 FY19 FY19 FY19 FY19 Totals FY20 FY20 FY20 Totals FY21 FY21 FY21 Totals

3. Travel:

Year 1: Travel to PI meeting in Summer 2016. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem. Total travel request in FY16 $1000

Year 2: Travel to PI meeting. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem: $1000

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Travel to field site (Nome, AK or Dutch Harbor, AK). Airfare, cab fees, 2 days at $129 per diem: $1000 Total travel request in FY17 $2000

Year 3: Travel to PI meeting. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem: $1000 Travel to field site (Nome, AK or Dutch Harbor, AK). Airfare, cab fees, 2 days at $129 per diem: $1000 Total travel request in FY18 $2000

4. Equipment:

Year 1: We will upgrade our current Prizma quadrapole mass spectrometer to a Prizma plus mass spectrometer and we will also upgrade associated systems.

Total equipment funds request in FY16 $20,000

Years 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: No purchases Total equipment funds request in FY17-FY21 $0

5. Supplies:

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $2000 Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $10000 Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $3000 Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $0 Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0 Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants: Zero funds requested.

7. Other:

Total other funds requested is $0 in FY16 Total other funds requested is $0 in FY17 Total other funds requested is $0 in FY18 Total other funds requested is $ in FY19 Total other funds requested is $0 in FY20 Total other funds requested is $0 in FY21

8. Indirect Costs:

Total indirect funds requested is $5,750 in FY16 and $55,961 in FY17, $49,671 in FY18 and $0 in FY19, FY20 and FY21 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Other Support/In kind Contributions for UW:

Total Other Support provided by UW for this project is: $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Western Washington University

Project Title: Sedimentary biogeochemical hotspots in the Pacific Arctic Region and the response to climate change

Total Amount requested by WWU for this project is: $375, 980

1. Personnel/Salaries: P.I. David Shull’s budgeted salary is based on 0.5 months of effort in 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021, and 1.5 months of effort in 2017 and 2019. Shull will attend PI meetings and the AMSS for years with 0.5 months of effort budgeted. Shull will also participate in research cruises in 2017 and 2018. Graduate student is budgeted for 2017, 2018, and 2019. And, summer salary for an undergraduate is budgeted for 2017-2020.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits are calculated as 22% of PI Shull’s salary and 20% of graduate and undergraduate student salaries.

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI/ D. Shull 0.5 months $115,183 $4,799 22% $1,056 FY16 FY16 Totals $4799 $1056 FY17 PI/ D. Shull 1.5 months $115183 $14398 22% $3168 FY17 Grad student 12 months $22534 $22534 10% $2253 FY17 Undergrad stu. 3 months $18000 $4500 10% $450 FY17 Totals $41431 $5871 FY18 PI/ D. Shull 1.5 months $118638 $14830 22% $3263 FY18 Grad student 12 months $23210 $23210 10% $2321 FY18 Undergrad stu. 3 months $18000 $4500 10% $450 FY18 Totals $41431 $5871 FY19 PI/ D. Shull 0.5 months $122197 $5092 22% $1120 FY19 Grad student 12 months $23906 $23906 10% $2391 FY19 Undergrad stu. 3 months $18000 $4500 10% $450 FY19 Totals $33497 $3961 FY20 PI/ D. Shull 0.5 months $125,863 $5,244 22% $1,154 FY20 Undergrad stu. 3 months $18000 $4500 10% $450 FY20 Totals $9744 $1604 FY21 PI/ D. Shull 0.5 months $129,639 $5402 22% $1188 FY21 FY21 Totals $5402 22% $1188

3. Travel:

Year 1: Travel to PI meeting in Summer 2016. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem. Total travel request in FY16 $1000

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Year 2: Travel to PI meeting. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem: $1000 Travel to AMSS meeting. Airfare, hotel, conference fees, $129 per diem: $1,500 Travel for three to field site (Nome, AK or Dutch Harbor, AK). Airfare, cab fees, 2 days at $129 per diem: $3000 Total travel request in FY17 $5500

Year 3: Travel to PI meeting. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem: $1000 Travel to AMSS meeting. Airfare, hotel, conference fees, $129 per diem: $1,500 Travel for three to field site (Nome, AK or Dutch Harbor, AK). Airfare, cab fees, 2 days at $129 per diem: $3000 Total travel request in FY18 $5500

Year 4: Travel to PI meeting. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem: $1000 Travel to AMSS meeting. Airfare, hotel, conference fees, $129 per diem: $1,500 Total travel request in FY19 $2500

Year 5: Travel to PI meeting. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem: $1000 Travel to AMSS meeting. Airfare, hotel, conference fees, $129 per diem: $1,500 Total travel request in FY20 $2500

Year 6: Travel to PI meeting. Airfare, hotel and $129 per diem: $1000 Travel to AMSS meeting. Airfare, hotel, conference fees, $129 per diem: $1,500 Total travel request in FY21 $2500

4. Equipment:

Year 1: Ocean Instruments Multicore + extra set of core tubes: $38,515. (I compared the cost of purchasing a multicore with the cost of using the Oregon State University multicore. Purchasing a new corer was less expensive.) One laptop computer for running our nutrient analyzer: $2500

Total equipment funds request in FY16 $41,015

Years 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: No purchases Total equipment funds request in FY17-FY21 $0

5. Supplies:

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0 Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $7000 Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $6000 Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $3000 Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $3000 Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

6. Contractual/Consultants: In 2017 and 2018, I will contract with a shipping agent to ship equipment to the research vessel to be used for fieldwork. Estimated cost: $2000.

Total Contractual funds requested is $0 in FY16, $2000 in FY17, $2000 in FY18, $0 in FY19- FY21

7. Other: For years 2 through 3, I budget for tuition reimbursement for one graduate student who will work on this project.

Total other funds requested is $0 in FY16 Total other funds requested is $20,519 in FY17 Total other funds requested is $21,545 in FY18 Total other funds requested is $21,545 in FY19 Total other funds requested is $0 in FY20 Total other funds requested is $0 in FY21

8. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs at WWU are DHHS negotiated at 52.2% of total salaries and wages.

Total indirect funds requested is $2505 in FY16 and $21627 in FY17, $22206 in FY18 and $17486 in FY19, $5087 in FY20and $2820 in FY21

Other Support/In kind Contributions for WWU:

Total Other Support provided by WWU for this project is: $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Allan H. Devol School of Oceanography, Box 355351 ph. (206) 543-1292 University of Washington fax (206) 685-3351 Seattle, WA. 98195-5351 USA e-mail: [email protected]

A. Professional Preparation B.S., 1967, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois (Chemistry) Ph.D., 1975, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Oceanography) Post Doc, 1975-1977, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. (Ocean/Fisheries)

B. Appointments ‘88-present Professor, University of Washington, Oceanography ‘85-’88 Research Associate Professor, University of Washington, Oceanography ‘80-’85 Research Associate Professor, University of Washington, Fisheries ‘77-’80 Research Assistant Professor, University of Washington, Fisheries

C. Products (5 most related to the proposed work) Babbin, A., Devol, A., Keil, R. and Ward B. (2014) Organic matter stoichiometry, flux and oxygen control nitrogen loss in the ocean. Science 344:406-408. doi: 10.1126/science.1248364. Devol, A.H. (2015) Denitrification, Anammox and N2 production in Marine Sediments. Annu. Rev. Mar. SCi. 2015. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-010213-135040 DeVries, T., Deutsch, C., Primeau, F., Chang, B., Devol, A. (2012) Global rates of water-column denitrification derived from nitrogen gas measurements. Nature Geoscience, 5:547-550. doi:10.1038/ngeo1515 Chang, B.X., Devol, A.H., and Emerson, S. (2012) Fixed nitrogen loss from the eastern tropical North Pacific and Arabian Sea oxygen deficient zones determined from measurements of N2:Ar. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. doi:10.1029/2011GB004207 Ward, B.B., Devol, A.H., Rich, J.J., Chang, B.X., Bulow, S.E., Naik, H, Pratihary, A. and Jayakumar A. (2009) Denitrification as the dominant nitrogen loss process in the Arabian Sea. Nature 461: 78-82

5 Additional Products Tiano. L., Garcia-Robeledo, E., Dalsgaard, T., Devol, A.H., Ward, B., Ulloa, O., Ccanfield, D.E. and Revsvech, NP. (2014) Oxygen distribution and aerobic respiration inn the north and south eastern tropical Pacific oxygen minimum zones. Deep-Sea Res. I., 94:174-183. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2014,10.001. Chang, B.X., A.H. Devol, and S.E. Emerson. (2010) The nitrogen gas excess in the Eastern Tropical South Pacific oxygen deficient zone. Deep-Sea Res. 57:1092-1102.

Devol, A.H. (2008) Denitrification. Pp. 263-302, In Capone, D.G., D.A. Bronk, M.R. Mulholland and E.J. Carpenter. Nitrogen in the Marine Environment. Elsevier, Devol AH, Uhlenhopp AG, Naqvi SWA, Brandes JA, Jayakumar DA, Naik H, Gaurin S, Codispoti LA, Yoshinari T (2006) Denitrification rates and excess nitrogen gas concentrations in the Arabian Sea oxygen deficient zone. Deep-Sea Research 53:1533- 1547 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Brandes, J.A., Devol, A.H. and Deutsch, C. 2007. New developments in the marine nitrogen cycle. Chem. Rev. 107:577-589.

D. Synergistic Activities: Developed and taught 2 courses (one lecture, one cruise-lab) on marine sedimentary biogeochemistry and interfaced with an NSF grant. Combined NSF Cruises with UW Oceanography Senior thesis class Development of in situ benthic chamber techniques. Development of new sedimentary diagenesis models.

E. Collaborators and Other Affiliations i.) Collaborators and Coauthors, last 48 months (Total number = 42) Amin, S., U Washington; Armbrust, V., U Washington; Babbin, A. Princeton U; Berg, P., U Virginia; Burbonnais, A., U Mass Boston; Butterfield, D., NOAA-PMEL; Canfield, D., U Southern Denmark;; Chang, B., U Washington; Dalsgaard, T., Aarhus U; Deutsch, C., U Washington; DeVries, T., UCLA; Emerson, S., U Washington; Esch, M., Western Washington U; Garcia- Robello, E., Aarhus U; Heal, K., U Washington; Horak, R., Am. Soc. Microbiol; Ingalls, U Washington; Jaquoit, J., U Southern California; Jayakumar, A., Princeton U; Keil, R., U Washington; Kuypers, M., Max Plank Inst. Bremen; Lavik, G., Max Plank Inst. Bremen; Lehman, M., U. Basel; Moffett, J., U Southern California; Moran, S.B., NSF; Mordy, C., NOAA-PMEL; Naqvi, W., Nat'l Inst. of Oceanography, India; Niak, H., Nat'l Inst. of Oceanography, India; Pratihary, A.K., Nat'l Inst. of Oceanography, India; Primeau, C., UCLA Qin, W., U Washington; Reimers, C., Oregon St. U; Revsbech, N.-P., Aarhus U; Rich, Jeremy J., Brown U; Schauer, A., U Washington; Shull, D., Western Washington U; Stahl, D., U Wshington; Tiano, L., Aarhus U; Ulloa, O., U Concepcion;Ward, B., Princeton U; Urakawa, H., U Washington; Martens-Habbena, W., U Washington;

ii) My graduate and post –doctoral advisors Richards, Francis A., (deceased) University of Washington Theodore T. Packard (retired) currently at U de Las Palmas, Gran Canaria iii) Graduate students (total number = 10) John P. Christensen, Bigelow Lab; Mervin Coover, CH2M Hill consultants, Seattle; Jay A. Brandies, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography; Hilairy H. Hartnett, Arizona State University; Amy Uhlenhopp Portland, OR;, Ben Van Mooy ,WHOI; Brook (Holcomb) Nunn, University of Washington , Kelly Balster, U of Washington, Bonnie Chang, (U Wshington, Heather Whitney, (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Katherine, Heal, University of Washington.

iii) Post Doctoral associates (total number = 3) Rachel Horak, American Society for Microbiology, D.C; Stephen Colbert, University of Hawaii’-Hilo; Pia Engstrom, Universtiy of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

DAVID H. SHULL Department of Environmental Sciences Tel: (360) 650-3690 Western Washington University FAX: (360) 650-7284 Bellingham, WA 98225 E-mail: [email protected]

A. PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION University of Washington Seattle, WA Oceanography B.S., 1988 University of Connecticut Groton, CT Oceanography M.S., 1992 Univ. of Massachusetts Boston Boston, MA Environmental Sci. Ph.D., 2000

B. APPOINTMENTS 2009 – present Associate Professor, Dept. Env. Sciences, Western Washington Univ. 2004 – 2009 Assistant Professor, Dept. Env. Sciences, Western Washington Univ. 2001 – 2003 Assistant Professor, Deparment of Biology, Gordon College 1999 – 2001 Research Associate, Darling Marine Center, University of Maine

C. PUBLICATIONS (*student coauthor) (i) Five most closely related Shull, D.H., A. Kremp, and L.M. Mayer. 2014. Bioturbation, germination and deposition of Alexandrium fundyense cysts in the Gulf of Maine. Deep Sea Res. II 103, 66–78. Horak, R. E., Whitney, H.*, Shull, D. H., Mordy, C. W., & Devol, A. H. 2013. The role of sediments on the Bering Sea shelf N cycle: insights from measurements of benthic denitrification and benthic DIN fluxes. Deep Sea Res. II 94, 95-105. Esch, M.E.S.*, D. H. Shull, A.H. Devol.2013. Regional patterns of bioturbation and iron and manganese reduction in the sediments of the southeastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Res. II 94, 80-94. Davenport, E.S.*, D.H. Shull, A.H. Devol. 2012. Roles of sorption and tube-dwelling benthos in the cycling of phosphorus in Bering Sea sediments. Deep Sea Research II 65- 70: 163-172. Shull, D.H., J.M. Benoit, C. Wojcik*, and J.R. Senning. 2009. Infaunal burrow ventilation and pore-water transport in muddy sediments. Est. Coast. and Shelf Sci. 83, 277-286.

(ii) Five other significant publications Cross, J.N. et al. 2014. Integrated assessment of the carbon budget in the southeastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Research II,109, 112-124. Baumann, M. S.*, Moran, S. B., Kelly, R. P., Lomas, M. W., & Shull, D. H. 2013. 234Th balance and implications for seasonal particle retention in the eastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Res. II, 94, 7-21. Mordy, C. W., Eisner, L. B., Proctor, P., Stabeno, P., Devol, A. H., Shull, D. H., Napp, J.M., and Whitledge, T. 2010. Temporary uncoupling of the marine nitrogen cycle: Accumulation of nitrite on the Bering Sea shelf. Marine Chemistry, 121, 157-166. Benoit, J. M., Shull, D. H., Harvey, R. M.*, & Beal, S. A.* 2009. Effect of bioirrigation on sediment− water exchange of methylmercury in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Environmental science & technology, 43, 3669-3674. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.15-Shull

Cox, A. M.,* Shull, D. H., & Horner, R. A. (2008). Profiles of Alexandrium catenella cysts in Puget Sound sediments and the relationship to paralytic shellfish poisoning events. Harmful Algae, 7(4), 379-388.

D. SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES Teach five undergraduate courses in marine and environmental science each year. Guest presentations to sehome High School (2015), Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee

E. COLLABORATORS (i) Collaborators and co-editors past 48 months S. Yang (WWU), A. Devol (UW), L. Mayer (U Maine), A. Kremp (Finnish Env. Inst.), J. Cross (NOAA), N. Bond (UW), B. Moran (URI)

(ii) Graduate advisors and postdoctoral sponsors (Total 3) Post-doc: L.M. Mayer (U Maine), Ph.D.: E.D. Gallagher (UMass Boston), R.B. Whitlatch (U CT)

(iii) Thesis advisor (Total 6) A. Simpson, M. Ciesielski, A. Walser, M. Esch, E. Davenport, A. Cox (all at WWU) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

1 A. Project Title: 2 ASGARD: Arctic Shelf Growth, Advection, Respiration and Deposition Rate Experiments 3 Asgard is the name of one of the nine homeworlds of Norse mythology, the home of Odin and the 4 location of Valhalla. Like the northern Bering and Chukchi shelf, Asgard is more fertile and productive 5 than all other lands. Fittingly, Asgard has the same root (gard ≈ garden) as the name Aagaard so our 6 choice of acronym connotes the importance of the carbon cycle and honors our friend and colleague Knut 7 Aagaard, pioneering Arctic oceanographer whose work over the last half-century continues to define 8 many of today’s most important high-latitude research topics. 9 B. Category: 10 This proposal is for a Research Category 3 oceanography and lower trophic level (LTL) 11 productivity study. Additionally, we will provide rate and distribution data for model initializations, 12 parameterizations, and validations in support of Research Category 4 modeling. We will also collect data 13 on benthic and water column prey fields useful for Research Category 4 modeling and Research Category 14 2 upper trophic level (UTL) studies. We propose two research cruises that can accommodate additional 15 participants from projects in any Research Category (1-5) who require ship or mooring-based 16 measurement platforms. 17 C. Rationale and justification: 18 As a changing climate and sea ice retreat progressively expose the Chukchi Sea to a longer open 19 water season, society will confront new resource management issues. These include the future of the 20 cultures and subsistence lifestyles of local indigenous communities, potential impacts of industrial 21 activities (e.g. commercial fishing, oil and gas extraction), potential changes to regional ocean carrying 22 capacity, and the resilience of the arctic marine ecosystem (NRC, 2014). 23 An ecosystem-based approach is needed to inform and guide policy-driven actions but this 24 approach requires synthesis of a detailed knowledge base that today remains incomplete in three 25 important ways. First, existing data are strongly biased to July through October although some of the 26 most important ecosystem processes occur in spring, late fall and winter when access is difficult. Second, 27 while we now understand the basic summer regional biogeography (Sigler et al., submitted), net 28 community production (Codispoti et al., 2013), and drivers of species distributions for some taxonomic 29 groups (Feder et al., 1994; Blanchard, 2014; Grebmeier et al., 2015; Eisner et al. 2013; Ershova et al. in 30 press), we have scant information from any season about the fundamental chemical and biological rates 31 that mediate carbon cycling and energy flows in the ecosystem. Third, as a consequence of the knowledge 32 gaps identified above, our ability to model the ecosystem with even a basic level of confidence is severely 33 curtailed, as is our ability to make useful future ecosystem projections upon which we can base 34 management or policy decisions. We propose to address these three limitations by a) undertaking 35 oceanographic environmental and LTL rate and distribution measurements from spring-season 36 expeditions on the R/V Sikuliaq to the northern Bering and southern Chukchi seas in 2017 and 37 2018, b) coordinating and collaborating with other ongoing projects in the region, including 38 participating in ship-of-opportunity sampling later in those years, and c) carrying out year-round 39 biophysical mooring deployments. In doing so, we will gather critically missing information required 40 for modeling and synthesis activities (Gibson and Spitz, 2011; Whitehouse et al. 2014). 41 The northern Bering and Chukchi sea continental shelves (Fig. 1) annually transmit fresh water, 42 heat, nutrients, and carbon (dissolved, particulate, and planktonic) from the North Pacific into the Arctic 43 (Carmack and Wassmann, 2006). Previous work during the 1982-1988 Inner Shelf Transfer and 44 Recycling (ISHTAR) program (with field work primarily in July and August) showed that the Chukchi 45 inflow is an important source of new nitrogen for western Arctic productivity and the Arctic carbon 46 budget as a whole (Walsh et al., 1989). Recent estimates of net community production (NCP) by 47 Codispoti et al. (2013) on the order of 70–100 g C m-2 identify the northern Bering and Chukchi shelves 48 as the singular most productive region across the entire Arctic marine system, exceeding the NCP of the 49 Nordic seas by a factor of 2-3 and exceeding other Arctic shelf and basin systems by factors of 6-100. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

50 A unique feature of the northern Bering and Chukchi shelf that fundamentally shapes the regional 51 ecosystem is the year-round delivery of substantial nutrient concentrations (NO3 > 10 µM) to a region of 52 the shelf that lies many hundreds of kilometers from the nearest continental slope (Sambrotto et al., 1984; 53 Kinder et al., 1986; Walsh et al., 1989). Nutrient delivery to the Chirikov Basin euphotic zone is 54 maintained at consistently high levels by the nutrient rich Anadyr Water (AW) carried by the Anadyr 55 Current (Fig. 1) where production is estimated at 250–300 g C m-2 y-1 (Sambrotto et al., 1984; Grebmeier 56 et al., 1988; Springer, 1988; Walsh et al., 1989). 57 Phytoplankton growth accelerates quickly in spring once ice retreat and snow melt permits 58 transmission of light into the underlying water column (Hill et al., 2005; Mundy et al., 2005) with primary 59 productivity outpacing consumption by grazers leading to the spring bloom. As the bloom wanes, 60 ungrazed cells age and tend to settle out. The shelf is shallow (< 60 m) so settling particulate matter has 61 only a short distance to travel to the seafloor, but the degree to which particles are remineralized or 62 repackaged within the planktonic realm is unknown. Nonetheless, a large fraction of the organic matter 63 makes it to the seafloor where it sustains a thriving benthic community (Highsmith and Coyle, 1990; 64 Feder et al., 2007; Grebmeier and Maslowski, 2014, and references therein) that directly supports most of 65 the marine mammals dependent on the Chukchi as summer feeding grounds. However, during this critical 66 period of ice retreat, the magnitude and spatial extent of the spring bloom, phytoplankton growth rates, 67 abundance and biomass of zooplankton, feeding rates, and benthic deposition and productivity rates are 68 all poorly known, and we are thus unable to accurately construct a carbon budget here. Even later in the 69 season when zooplankton communities support rich seabird communities (Day et al., 2013; Gall et al. 70 submitted), rate measurements of primary and secondary production remain scarce (Nelson et al., 2014). 71 The high proportion of production reaching the seafloor sustains populations of numerous energy- 72 dense prey items in “hotspot” regions, which serve as prey resources for a number of benthic feeding 73 predators (Grebmeier et al., 2006). These hotspots of benthic biomass may be maintained by interactions 74 of water circulation with topography, resulting in locally elevated deposition of organic material (Feder et 75 al. 2007; Blanchard 2014; Blanchard and Feder, 2014; Grebmeier et al., 2015). However, advection of 76 particulate carbon northward also appears to make a significant but unquantified contribution to the 77 annual carbon budget in the eastern Chukchi Sea (Feder et al. 1994; Dunton et al. 2005). Recent modeling 78 attempts identify the lack of quantitative information on key parameters describing ecosystem 79 functioning, variability, and carbon flow in the benthos as critical data gaps (Whitehouse et al., 2014). 80 Blanchard and Feder (2014) hypothesize that variations in mechanisms delivering food to the benthos 81 (e.g., circulation variations) and associated indirect effects from environmental interactions may be an 82 unrecognized source for change in hotspot production. 83 While macroscopic benthic communities have been relatively well studied, the size and 84 composition of the sediment microbial communities (bacteria, metazoan meiofauna) are largely unknown 85 in this region, even though these communities are most likely to show rapid responses to periodic or 86 spatially patchy organic inputs because they are essentially non-motile and do not produce dispersive 87 larval stages. Evidence from other areas suggests the magnitude, and perhaps quality, of particle flux 88 influences microbial community structure, such that key ecosystem functions like remineralization rates 89 and pathways may vary with magnitude of flux (Bienhold et al. 2012; Leduc et al. 2012). Moreover, the 90 degradation rates of labile organic matter in sediments - crucial information in building models of energy 91 flow for this system - have not been quantified, although they may be slower in this and other polar 92 regions, constituting a longer-term benthic food reservoir (Mincks et al. 2005, Pirtle-Levy et al. 2009). 93 Contemporary research programs have maintained an extensive set of summer open-water 94 Chukchi Sea observations over the last decade and more, demonstrating that invertebrates, and to a 95 limited degree small fishes, support the apex predators (marine mammals and seabirds) there. However, 96 with a few notable exceptions, the cruises shown in Fig. 2 (and listed at http://dbo.eol.ucar.edu/) sampled 97 the Chukchi Sea in July, August, September or October. Furthermore, many of these cruises targeted the 98 northern Chukchi shelf and Chukchi/Beaufort slope region, presumably far north of where much of the 99 AW-fueled production takes place. Many of these cruises were survey cruises that did not undertake the Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

100 rate-process experiments that we believe hold the key to advancing our understanding of Arctic shelf 101 carbon cycles. 102 The ASGARD project is a coordinated ensemble of vessel- and mooring-based process studies 103 consisting of physical, chemical, biological and biogeochemical rate measurements that are designed to 104 better constrain carbon and nutrient dynamics of the northern Bering and Chukchi sea continental shelves. 105 Our fundamental science question is: What regulates variations in carbon transfer pathways and how 106 will the changing ice environment alter these pathways and ecosystem structure in the Pacific Arctic 107 and beyond? Our approach is to measure a broad suite of environmental parameters, with emphasis on 108 biotic and abiotic rates, during the annual shelf transition from ice-covered to ice-free conditions. In 109 particular, we will quantify the physical and chemical environments: the planktonic and benthic microbial 110 and infaunal communities (composition, abundance and biomass); water mass, heat, salt, fresh water, 111 nutrient, and particulate advection rates; phytoplankton growth rates; zooplankton growth, reproduction, 112 feeding and respiration rates; quantity, quality, and degradation rates of sediment organic material; 113 benthic respiration rates; and particle sinking and deposition rates. These analyses will be carried out at 114 poorly-sampled locations and times of year. Year-round biophysical and biogeochemical moored 115 instruments will provide time series context of select parameters at sites located along the primary 116 advective pathways and within multiple water masses and biogeographical regimes. 117 D. Hypotheses: 118 Our research will demonstrate how the bottom topography along with the temporally varying 119 wind and ice fields regulate the advection of water masses, macronutrients, and particulate matter. From 120 this regulation a cascade of effects subsequently shapes the seasonally and inter-annually varying nutrient 121 utilization; planktonic community composition, distributions and productivity; benthic deposition and 122 productivity; and in all cases the rates and trophic pathways with which carbon is transferred between 123 interdependent trophic levels, organismal groups, and feeding guilds. Refining our understanding of these 124 linkages during mid/late spring as ice retreats is critical to our ability to anticipate consequences of, and 125 prepare for, a warming climate in future decades. Interdisciplinary and discipline-specific hypotheses that 126 will eventually enable us to achieve this integrated level of understanding include the following:

127 H1: The structure (timing, magnitude and direction) of the wind field is the primary regulator of 128 a) variations in the partitioning of flow to either side of St. Lawrence Island, b) variations in advective 129 pathways and sediment resuspension and deposition events, c) two-way coupling of nutrient-poor 130 coastal water masses with nutrient-rich mid-shelf water masses, d) temporally variable advective 131 contributions to the pre-bloom nutrient concentrations throughout the water column and near-bottom 132 nutrient concentrations year-round.

133 H2: Near-surface stratification during the period of ice retreat regulates macronutrient availability, the 134 depth, location, and magnitude of primary productivity, and the type of phytoplankton community 135 that subsequently dominates.

136 H3: Fluxes and quality of particulate matter supplied to the benthos are tightly coupled to the phenology 137 of sea ice retreat and primary production. Beginning with under ice phytoplankton blooms in the late 138 spring and continuing through the summertime open water season, sinking fluxes of fresh planktonic- 139 derived organic matter provide a sustained food supply. In other times of year, supply of organic 140 matter is small and less labile, coming primarily from resuspended, reprocessed and advective sources 141 further south.

142 H4: Although zooplankton are unable to contain the phytoplankton bloom, they are nonetheless important 143 in both transferring some portion of this production into the metazoan planktonic food-web and 144 efficient at repackaging material into fecal pellets for accelerated export to the benthos. The 145 composition of the zooplankton community and the temperatures at which they are operating 146 determine the efficiency of energy transfer into the zooplankton (i.e. losses to respiration versus 147 growth and reproduction) and the rates of fecal flux. Some of these rates are consistent with emerging Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

148 empirical global relationships, while others deviate significantly because polar data is currently 149 under-represented in such syntheses.

150 H5: Benthic respiration, carbon biomass, production, macrofaunal community structure, functional group 151 composition, and community-level production all vary with oceanic advection, water mass 152 characteristics, and pelagic production regimes. 153 E. Objectives: 154 1) Quantify ice, water volume, heat, salt, nutrient, carbon, and planktonic fluxes at under-sampled 155 locations and times in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas. 156 2) Assess particulate organic matter sinking and deposition rates and lower trophic level growth and 157 respiration rates in locations and times that currently lack data. 158 3) Better quantify synoptic, seasonal, and inter-annual changes in the regional biological carbon pump 159 dynamics and kinematics. 160 4) Collect physical, chemical, biogeochemical, and biological process rate data needed to constrain and 161 evaluate biophysical and ecosystem models. 162 5) Help develop educational and outreach materials to communicate compelling narratives about our 163 research to indigenous and non-indigenous local, regional, national and international audiences. 164 6) Contribute to the education and research programs of at least 6 M.S. and Ph.D. graduate students. 165 7) Support additional NPRB Arctic Program research projects with moored and ship-based measurement 166 platforms. 167 8) Form coordinated data collection and analysis collaborations with national and international partners. 168 9) Enhance the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) program by occupying DBO stations at a time 169 of year in which few samples have been collected previously. 170 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: 171 Scientifically, the ASGARD program is designed to directly address the NPRB Arctic Program 172 overarching questions by assembling a core team of subject matter experts to conduct closely coupled 173 disciplinary studies that are designed to fill data and knowledge gaps in order to address the hypotheses 174 and objectives listed above. We will contribute to the study programs of at least six UAF graduate 175 students, including stipend and tuition support for one full (3-year) M.S. student (zooplankton), one full 176 (5-year) Ph.D. student (particles), and one-half (2.5 year) Ph.D. student (benthic infauna and meiofauna), 177 as well as at-sea training and data collection opportunities for one M.S. (phytoplankton) and two Ph.D. 178 (physics and benthic epifauna) students that do not require financial support from ASGARD but who will 179 participate in ASGARD cruises and take data for use in their own externally supported research. 180 We plan on cruise involvement of outreach specialists such as education coordinators and media 181 production crews that will help us communicate our science to targeted stakeholders and the public. 182 Ideally, the outreach team will make use of the R/V Sikuliaq’s sophisticated $80k telepresence video 183 production instrument suite, designed to capture and integrate data displays, live camera footage, and 184 more. As scientists, we also anticipate cruise blogs and possibly even ship-to-shore interactive activities. 185 Deliverables include ASCII data files of the parameters listed in Tables 1-4, 10 semi-annual 186 reports, and a minimum of 12 peer-reviewed papers including contributions to program-led special issues. 187 We will prepare oral and/or poster presentations annually for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium and 188 the Arctic Program PI meetings. 189 G. Project design and conceptual approach: 190 Ship-based studies: Because of the intense summer and fall efforts directed at the northern Chukchi shelf 191 in recent years and because of the need to better understand the receding spring ice zone carbon 192 dynamics, we direct our effort to the northern Bering and southern Chukchi shelf (Fig. 3). We propose 193 water column and benthic work in open water, at the ice edge, and in the pack ice in late May and early 194 June in 2017 and 2018. Ice cover varies from year to year; in 2015 we would have been able to sample all 195 stations shown in Fig. 3, while in other years some of the northern sites could be inaccessible. Working 196 south to north, we would first occupy ten “process” stations, setting up experiments (Tbl. 1 and Fig. 3) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

197 that require extended (~ 10 day) incubation times (e.g., growth and respiration). As the ship visits the 198 process stations, we would pause to service moorings (Tbl. 3 and Fig. 3) that will record year-round time 199 series. Once all process station experiments are running, the ship would transition to a “survey” mode of 200 operation, rapidly working north-to-south along multi-station transects (Tbl. 2 and Fig. 3) and re- 201 occupying the process stations with a more limited sampling suite. Throughout the cruise we will collect 202 continuous underway navigational, ocean surface, ocean profile, and meteorological data (Tbl. 4). 203 Mooring-based studies: Physical and biophysical moorings as described in Tbl. 2 and Fig. 3 will record 204 year-round to reveal time histories of: 205 • NO3 concentrations and estimated fluxes just upstream of DBO-2, just downstream of DBO-3, and 206 between DBO-4 and DBO-5; 207 • The bifurcation of flow to either side of St. Lawrence Island and the influence of regional winds on 208 the upstream structure and partitioning of water masses feeding Bering Strait; 209 • Conditions in Anadyr Strait, in the nexus of the most important zone at which subsurface nutrients 210 are mixed to the surface as they arrive at the DBO-2 hotspot and Bering Strait; 211 • Anadyr Water and Alaska Coastal Water properties and advection rates; 212 • Phytoplankton blooms, sinking organic matter fluxes and their relationship to advective supply, 213 light, ice thickness and the retreating ice edge; 214 • Bottom sediment resuspension with respect to water and ice motion; 215 • The influence of coastal water masses and blooms on locations downstream and offshore. 216 Collaborations: Additional collaboration with national and international partners will allow us to extend 217 our results beyond the early-season ASGARD cruise with a two-way exchange of scientists and data from 218 other cruises later in those years. For example, through communication with colleagues at Hokkaido 219 University, the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), and the Korean 220 Polar Research Institute (KOPRI), we have found a strong interest in coordinated sampling amongst 221 multiple cruises. With multinational coordinated mooring deployments and station sampling locations we 222 have the potential to achieve far greater insights than one cruise per year can accomplish on its own 223 because the coordinated cruises can accomplish at least partially similar sampling in the same year but in 224 different seasons. We anticipate reserving a small number of berths on the R/V Sikuliaq for international 225 collaborators with the expectation that they will also be able to provide berths to our science party. We 226 also have discussed sharing the burden of mooring deployments and recoveries. This collaborative 227 approach would allow us to deploy a subset of the full mooring array in 2016 prior to the initial 2017 field 228 season and would open the door for international partners to participate in the annual PI meetings. 229 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 230 With carbon as the basic currency with which we describe and quantify biological and 231 biophysical interactions, including growth, respiration, energy conversion, energy movement, energy 232 storage and intra-trophic transfers, we need to understand the rate at which carbon is converted, stored, 233 buried, and relocated. Biophysical numerical models require as inputs sinking rates, growth rates and 234 respiration rates for all important species or functional groups. As outputs, models predict primary 235 productivity, secondary productivity and biomass. ASGARD will provide spatially explicit measures of 236 the production and respiration rates for the dominant pelagic and benthic species, along with basic 237 information about composition, biomass and abundance. 238 We anticipate working closely with NPRB Arctic Program modeling efforts and other efforts 239 external to the Program. For example, UAF PIs Gibson, Hedstrom and Coyle propose to update the 240 PAROMS model (NPRB projects #1302 and #1508) with the Nutrient-Phytoplankton-Zooplankton 241 (NPZ), benthic and sea ice algae model of Gibson and Spitz (2011) and our data would be invaluable to 242 this effort. The trophic energetics modeling of Whitehouse et al. (2014) described the benthos as one 243 condensed category, despite the fact that the Chukchi Sea is a benthic-dominated system. Our data could 244 help advance this approach and ASGARD PI and benthic ecologist Blanchard would provide his expertise 245 toward helping the modelers achieve a considerably more sophisticated level of complexity and realism. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

246 247 Tables and Figures: 248 249 Table 1. Process Station laboratory rate experiments. Underway samples (Tbl. 4) will also be collected at 250 all stations. In addition, all measurements made at the Survey Stations (Tbl. 3) will be collected at all 251 Process Stations. Mooring data collected at Process Stations will provide additional biophysical rate 252 estimates. 253 Measurement Parameters Instrument Number/Resolution Reference d13C Primary Production On-deck PP 6 depth levels Stockwell et al, 1997 incubator All process stations Hill et al., 2005 Zooplankton growth On deck incubator All process stations Liu & Hopcroft 2006, (Artificial Cohort) 2007, 2008a,b Zooplankton egg production Cold room All process stations Hopcroft et al. 1998, (individual females) plus up to 10 more 2005; Hopcroft & for key species Kosobokova 2010 Zooplankton respiration Cold room All process stations Koster et al. 2008 (individuals) plus up to 10 more for key species Fecal pellet production Cold room All process stations Juul-Pedersen et al. 2006 (community subsamples) plus up to 10 more for key species Bioturbation rates (234-Th) Multicore All process stations Aller & DeMaster 1984 Sediment community oxygen Multicore All process stations Danovaro, 2010 consumption and individual macrofaunal respiration rates Particle flux estimates from particle Underwater Vision All process stations Guidi et al., 2008 size distribution Profiler 5 254 255 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

256 Table 2. Survey Station measurements. All measurements listed here will also be made at all Process 257 Stations. Underway samples (Tbl. 4) will also be collected at all stations. 258 Measurement Parameters Instrument Temporal/Spatial Reference resolution T, S, P, ChlaF, DO, PAR, Beam SeaBird 1 m averaged profiles Weingartner et al. Transmittance SBE-911 CTD All survey stations 2013 Photosystem-II efficiency CTD-mounted 5 m averaged profiles Cheah et al. [2011]. Photosystem-II quantum yield Chelsea FRRF All survey stations

NO3, NO2, NH4, PO4, SiO4Total and CTD 5-10 depths per station Stockwell et al.1997 size-fractionated Chla Rosette All survey stations Hill et al., 2005 Quantity & quality of sediment Multicore 20 - 30 survey stations Mincks et al. 2005, organic matter, and modeled 2008, and references degradation rates within sediments therein (labile protein, chloropigments, TOC, δ13C) Sediment grain size Multicore 20 - 30 survey stations Feder et al. 2007 Bacterial biomass in sediments Multicore 20 - 30 survey stations Karl 1993 (ATP) Abundance, biomass and functional Multicore 20-30 survey stations Fauchald & Jumars group analysis of benthic meio- and 1979, Gerino et al. macro-infauna along with 2003, Danovaro δ13C and δ14N of select species 2010, Moens et al. 2013 Metazooplankton composition, Plankton nets 20-30 survey stations Hopcroft et al., 2010 abundance, biomass (150 and 505µm) Microzooplankton composition, CTD Rosette 20-30 survey stations Stoecker et al., 2013 abundance, biomass Particle size distribution Underwater Vision 5 m depth bins Picheral et al., 2010 (65 µm - 2.5 cm) Profiler 5 All survey stations Mesozooplankton abundance Underwater Vision All survey stations Forest et al., 2012 Profiler 5 259 260 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

261 Table 3. Mooring-based measurements. We include in the listing below only the southern Chukchi sites 262 that we would deploy as part of ASGARD but not the NE Chukchi Ecosystem Mooring that would 263 provide an additional downstream sensors including: Satlantic NO3 datalogger, a HydroBios sediment 264 trap, and an ASL Acoustic Zooplankton and Fish Profiler (see http://mather.sfos.uaf.edu/~seth/CEO/ for 265 additional details). 266 Measurement Parameters Instrument Temporal/Spatial Reference resolution Water Speed & Direction, T, Teledyne-RDI 2 m bins, Danielson et al., 2012 Signal Strength, 307 KHz ADCP hourly ensembles, Ice Draft, Ice Speed & Direction 6 mooring sites T, C, S, P, ChlaF, PAR, Beam SeaBird 1 depth level, Danielson et al., 2012 Transmittance SBE-16+ 1-4 hourly samples, 3 mooring sites T, C, S, P SeaBird 1 depth level, Danielson et al., 2012 SBE-37 hourly samples 6 mooring sites

NO3 Satlantic 1 depth level, Johnson and Colletti, SUNA/ISIS hourly samples 2002 1-2 mooring sites Boyle et al., 2014 Mass, Carbon, Nitrogen fluxes, food Hydrobios 1 depth level Fukuchi et a., 1993 quality of sinking particles Sediment Trap 2 mooring sites 24 bottle per trap

NO3, NO2, NH4, SiO3, PO4, DIC, TA WS Ocean 45 samples (~ weekly) Mills et al., 2005 Water Sampler 1 depth level, 1 mooring site 267 268 Table 4. Underway ship-based measurements, collected continuously. Measurement Parameters Instrument Temporal/Spatial Reference resolution Water Speed & Direction, Signal Strength Teledyne-RDI 2-4 m bins Weingartner 150 KHz ADCP 5 m ensembles et al., 2005 Wind Speed/Direction, Relative Humidity, Air SKQ 1 minute averages Temperature, PAR, Longwave Downwelling Meteorological Irradiance, Shortwave Downwelling Irradiance, Instruments Precipitation Rate/Accumulation, Sea Surface Skin Temperature

T, S, Chla Fluorescence, pCO2, CDOM, Turbidity, SKQ Seachest 1 minute averages Phycoerythrin, Crude Oil Instruments Ship speed, heading, Speed over Ground, Course SKQ Navigation 1 minute averages over Ground, Speed Through Water, Depth Instruments 269

270 271 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

272 273 274 Figure 1. Map of the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas with place names and mean flow pathways. 275 Contours are plotted along seafloor depths of 80 m, 45 m, 35 m, and 25 m. Colors denote current systems 276 and/or water masses as follows: Purple = Anadyr Current, Anadyr Water (AW), Bering Sea Water 277 (BSW), and Chukchi Sea Water; Black = Alaskan Coastal Current (ACC) and Alaskan Coastal Water 278 (ACW); Brown = Siberian Coastal Current (SCC); Yellow = Beaufort Gyre (BG) boundary current. Blue 279 dashed line denotes the US-Russia maritime Convention Line of 1867. Abbreviations include: SLI = St. 280 Lawrence Island, WI = Wrangel Island. Inset: Changes over 1979-2014 in the rate of spring ice retreat 281 for the region shown in this figure. The rate of retreat is computed as the time from the last 80% ice cover 282 to the first 20% ice cover, which for the region as a whole is a measure of the speed of the northward 283 propagating ice edge. The retreat today occurs 25 days faster than in 1979. Physical and biological 284 consequences of the accelerated spring transition cannot be well known without observations during this 285 period. 286 287 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

288 289 290 Figure 2. Left panel: Station locations of six contemporary July-October observation programs. Contours 291 are plotted along seafloor depths of 80 m, 45 m, 35 m, and 25 m. Colors denote the RUSALCA program 292 (green; 2004, 2009 & 2012 shown), the ArcticEis program (yellow; 2012 and 2013; only 2013 shown), 293 the DBO collaboration (cyan; 2010-present), TINRO stations (black; 2000-present, only 2008 shown), 294 CSESP (blue; 2008-2014; only 2012 shown), AMBON (red; 2015-2017). For a comprehensive list of 295 recent national and international cruises see http://dbo.eol.ucar.edu/. Right panel: Locations of year- 296 round moorings deployed over the 2014-2015 season. Marine mammal acoustic recording moorings are 297 shown with green circles and physical/biophysical moorings shown with black. The highly instrumented 298 and NPRB-sponsored NE Chukchi Ecosystem Mooring is shown in red. 299 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

300

301 302 303 Figure 3. Proposed study region, station map, and mooring locations. The cruise would first occupy the 304 process stations (yellow squares), from south to north, and then occupy the survey stations (all white and 305 black circles) from north to south. See Figure 2 for location of the CEM mooring, which represents a 306 critical downstream northern shelf monitoring site within our mooring array. See Table 3 for mooring 307 instrumentation. The two shallow moorings located close to the coast (in about 25 m of water) are 308 bottom-landing tripod moorings. Contours are plotted along 80 m, 45 m, 35 m, and 25 m seafloor depths. 309 Fish and microphone silhouettes denote locations of the proposed Norcross fish/epibenthos trawls and 310 Stafford marine mammal recorders, respectively. Existing acoustic recorder locations are shown in 311 Figure 2. 312 313 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

314 315 Literature Cited: 316 Aller, R. C. and D.J. DeMaster. 1984. Estimates of particle flux and reworking at the deep-sea floor 317 using Th-234/U-238 disequilibrium.Earth Planet Sci. Letts., 67, 308–318 318 Bienhold C., A. Boetius and A. Ramette, 2012. The energy-diversity relationship of complex bacterial 319 communities in Arctic deep-sea sediments. ISME J 6(4), 724-732. 320 Blanchard A.L., 2014. Variability of macrobenthic diversity and distributions in Alaskan sub-Arctic and 321 Arctic marine systems with application to worldwide Arctic Systems Marine Biodiversity:1-15 322 doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0292-6 323 Blanchard A.L. and H.M. Feder, 2014. Interactions of habitat complexity and environmental 324 characteristics with macrobenthic community structure at multiple spatial scales in the northeastern 325 Chukchi Sea Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 102:132-143 326 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.09.022 327 Carmack, E. and P. Wassmann, 2006. Food webs and physical-biological coupling on pan-Arctic shelves: 328 unifying concepts and comprehensive perspectives, Prog. Oceanogr., 71, pp. 446–477 329 Codispoti, L.A., V. Kelly, A. Thessen, P. Matrai, V. Hill, M. Steele and B. Light, 2013. Synthesis of 330 primary production in the Arctic Ocean: III. Nitrate and phosphate based estimates of net community 331 production. Progress in Oceanography 110, 126–150. 332 Danovaro R., 2010. Methods for the study of deep-sea sediments, their functioning and biodiversity. Boca 333 Raton, FL, CRC Press, 428 pp. 334 Day, R.H., T.J. Weingartner, R.R. Hopcroft, L.A.M. Aerts, A.L. Blanchard, A.E. Gall, B.J. Gallaway, 335 D.E. Hannay, B.A Holladay, J.T. Mathis, B.L. Norcross, J.M. Questel and S.S. Wisdom, 2013. The 336 offshore northeastern Chukchi Sea, Alaska: a complex high-latitude ecosystem. Cont. Shelf Res. 67, 337 147–165, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.02.002. 338 Doney S.C. and coauthors, 2012. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems Annual Review of 339 Marine Science 4:11-37 doi:doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-041911-111611 340 Dunton K.H., J.L. Goodall, S.V. Schonberg, J.M. Grebmeier, D.R. Maidment, 2005. Multi-decadal 341 synthesis of benthic-pelagic coupling in the western arctic: role of cross-shelf advective processes 342 Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 52:3462-3477 343 doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2005.09.007 344 Eisner, L., N. Hillgruber, E. Martinson, J. Maselko, 2013. Pelagic fish and zooplankton species 345 assemblages in relation to water mass characteristics in the northern Bering and southeast Chukchi 346 seas Polar Biology, 36, pp. 87–113 347 Ershova, E. H., R.R. Hopcroft, and K.N. Kosobokova. in press . Inter-annual variability of summer 348 mesozooplankton communities of the western Chukchi Sea: 2004-2012. Polar Biol.: DOI 349 10.1007/s00300-00015-01709-00309. 350 Fauchald K. and P.A. Jumars 1979. The diet of worms: A study of polychaete feeding guilds. 351 Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 17, 193-284. 352 Feder H.M., S. C. Jewett and A L. Blanchard, 2007. Southeastern Chukchi Sea (Alaska) macrobenthos 353 Polar Biology 30:261-275 doi:10.1007/s00300-006-0180-z 354 Feder H.M., A. S. Naidu, S. C. Jewett, J.M. Hameedi, W. R. Johnson and T. E. Whitledge, 1994. The 355 northeastern Chukchi Sea: benthos-environmental interactions Marine Ecology Progress Series 356 111:171-190 357 Forest, A., L. Stemmann, M. Picheral, L. Burdorf, D. Robert, L. Fortier, M. Babin, M., 2012. Size 358 distribution of particles and zooplankton across the shelf-basin system in southeast Beaufort Sea: 359 combined results from an Underwater Vision Profiler and vertical net tows. Biogeosciences 9, 1301– 360 1320 361 Fukuchi, M., H. Sasaki, H. Hattori, O. Matsuda, A. Tanimura, N. Handa, C. P. McRoy, 1993. Temporal 362 variability of particulate flux in the northern Bering Sea. Cont. Shelf Res. 13, 693–704. 363 doi:10.1016/0278-4343(93)90100-C Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

364 Gall, A. E., T. C. Morgan, R. H. Day, and K. J. Kuletz. submitted . Ecological shift from piscivorous to 365 planktivorous seabirds in the Chukchi Sea, 1975-2012. Global Change Biol. 366 Gerino M., G. Stora, F. Francois-Carcaillet, F. Gilbert, J.-C. Poggiale, F. Mermillod-Blondin, G. 367 Desrosiers and P. Vervier, 2003. Macro-invertebrate functional groups in freshwater and marine 368 sediments: a common mechanistic classification. Vie Milieu 53(4), 221-231 369 Gibson, G.A. and Y.H. Spitz, 2011. Impacts of biological parameterization, initial conditions, and 370 environmental forcing on parameter sensitivity and uncertainty in a marine ecosystem model for the 371 Bering Sea. Journal of Marine Systems. 88(2):214-231. 372 Grebmeier J.M., L. W. Cooper, H. M. Feder and B.I. Sirenko, 2006. Ecosystem dynamics of the Pacific- 373 influenced Northern Bering and Chukchi seas in the Amerasian Arctic Progress In Oceanography 374 71:331-361 doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2006.10.001 375 Grebmeier, J.M., W. Maslowski, 2014. The Pacific Arctic region: ecosystem status and trends in a rapidly 376 changing environment. In: Grebmeier, J.M., Maslowski, W. (Eds.), The Pacific Arctic Region: 377 Ecosystem Status and Trends in a Rapidly Changing Environment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–16. 378 Grebmeier, J.M., B. A. Bluhm, L.W. Cooper, S.L. Danielson, K.R. Arrigo, A.L. Blanchard, J. T. Clarke, 379 R.H. Day, K.E. Frey, R.R. Gradinger, M. Kędra, B. Konar, K.J. Kuletz, S.H. Lee, J.R. Lovvorn, B.L. 380 Norcross and S.R. Okkonen, 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating persistent 381 macrobenthic biomass hotspots and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. Progress In 382 Oceanography, 136, 92-114. 383 Guidi, L., G.A. Jackson, L. Stemmann, J.C. Miquel, M. Picheral and G. Gorsky, 2008. Relationship 384 between particle size distribution and flux in the mesopelagic zone. Deep. Res. Part I 55, 1364–1374. 385 Grebmeier, J.M., C.P. McRoy, and H.M. Feder, 1988. Pelagic–benthic coupling on the shelf of the 386 northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. I. Food supply source and benthic biomass. Marine Ecology 387 Progress Series 48, 57–67 388 Highsmith, R. C. and K. O. Coyle, 1990. High productivity of northern Bering Sea benthic amphipods. 389 Nature 344(6269):862–864 390 Karl D.M., 1993. Total microbial biomass estimation derived from the measurement of particulate 391 adenosine-5'-triphosphate. In Handbook of methods in aquatic microbial ecology (eds. Kemp P.F., 392 Sherr B.F., Cole J.J.), pp. 359-368. Boca Raton, Lewis Publishers. 393 Kinder, T.H.,D. C. Chapman and J.A. Whitehead, 1986. Westward intensification of the mean circulation 394 on the Bering Sea Shelf. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 16, 1217-1229. 10.1175/1520- 395 0485(1986)016<1217:wiotmc>2.0.co;2. 396 Leduc D., A. A. Rowden, D.A. Bowden, P.K. Probert, C.A. Pilditch and S.D. Nodder, 2012. Unimodal 397 relationship between biomass and species richness of deep-sea nematodes: implications for the link 398 between productivity and diversity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 454, 53-64. 399 Mincks S.L., C.R. Smith and D.J. DeMaster, 2005. Persistence of labile organic matter and microbial 400 biomass in Antarctic shelf sediments: Evidence of a sediment "food bank". Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300, 401 3-19. 402 Mincks S.L., C.R. Smith, R.M. Jeffreys and P.Y.G. Sumida, 2008. Trophic structure on the West 403 Antarctic Peninsula shelf: Detritivory and benthic inertia revealed by d13C and d15N analysis. Deep- 404 Sea Research II 55, 2502-2514. 405 Moens T., U. Braeckman, S. Derycke, G. Fonseca, F. Gallucci, R. Gingold, K. Guilini, J. Ingels, D. 406 Leduc, J. Vanaverbeke, et al., 2013. Ecology of free-living marine nematodes. In Handbook of 407 Zoology, vol 2 (ed. Schmidt-Rhaesa A.), pp. 109-152. Berlin, De Gruyter. 408 Mundy, C.J., D.G. Barber, C. Michel, 2005. Variability of snow and ice thermal, physical and optical 409 properties pertinent to sea ice algae biomass during spring, Journal of Marine Systems, Volume 58, 410 Issues 3–4, Pages 107-120, ISSN 0924-7963, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2005.07.003 411 National Research Council (NRC), 2014. The Arctic in the Anthropocene, Emerging Research Questions. 412 Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic, Polar Research Board, Division on Earth 413 and Life Studies, H. Huntington and S. Pfirman, co-chairs, 224 pp., ISBN: 978-0-309-30183-1 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

414 Nelson, R.J., Ashjian, C., Bluhm, B., Conlan, K., Gradinger, R., Grebmeier, J., Hill, V., Hopcroft, R., 415 Hunt, B., Joo, H., Kirchman, D., Kosobokova, K., Lee, S., Li, W.K.W., Lovejoy, C., Poulin, M., 416 Sherr, E., Young, K., 2014. Biodiversity and biogeography of the lower trophic taxa of the Pacific 417 Arctic region: sensitivities to climate change. In: Grebmeier, J.M., Maslowski, W. (Eds.), The Pacific 418 Arctic Region: Ecosystem Status and Trends in a Rapidly Changing Environment. Springer, 419 Dordrecht, pp. 269–336. 420 Picheral, M., L. Guidi, L. Stemmann, D.M. Karl, G. Iddaoud and G. Gorsky, 2010. The Underwater 421 Vision Profiler 5: An advanced instrument for high spatial resolution studies of particle size spectra 422 and zooplankton. Limnol. Ocean. Methods 8, 462–473. 423 Pirtle-Levy R., J.M. Grebmeier, L.W. Cooper and I.L. Larsen, 2009. Chlorophyll a in Arctic sediments 424 implies long persistence of algal pigments. Deep-Sea Res II 56(17), 1326-1338. 425 Sambrotto, R.N., J.J. Goering, and C.P. McRoy, 1984. Large yearly production of phytoplankton in the 426 western Bering Strait. Science. 225:1147-1150.Stabeno, P., Kachel, N., Ladd, C., 427 Springer, A.M., 1988. The paradox of pelagic food webs on the Bering–Chukchi continental shelf. 428 Dissertation, University of Alaska Fairbanks 429 Sigler, M.F., F.J. Mueter, B. A. Bluhm, M. S. Busby, E. D. Cokelet , S.L. Danielson, A. De Robertis, L. 430 B. Eisner, E.V. Farley, K. Iken, K. J. Kuletz, R. R. Lauth, E.A. Logerwell, A.I. Pinchuk, Summer 431 zoogeography 1 of the northern Bering and Chukchi seas, submitted to DSR-II Arctic Eis special 432 issue 433 Walsh, J.J., C.P. McRoy, L.K. Coachman, J.J. Goering, J.J. Nihoul, T.E. Whitledge, T.H. Blackburn, P.L. 434 Parker, C.D. Wirick, P.G. Shuert, J.M. Grebmeier, A.M. Springer, R.D. Tripp, D.A. Hansell, S. 435 Djenidi, E. Deleersnijder, K. Henriksen, B.A. Lund, P. Andersen, F.E. Mullerkarger and K. Dean, 436 1989. Carbon and nitrogen cycling within the Bering Chukchi Seas - source regions for organic- 437 matter effecting AOU demands of the Arctic Ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. 22, 277-359. 10.1016/0079- 438 6611(89)90006-2 439 Whitehouse G.A., K. Aydin T. Essington and G. Hunt Jr., 2014. A trophic mass balance model of the 440 eastern Chukchi Sea with comparisons to other high-latitude systems Polar Biology 37:911-939 441 doi:10.1007/s00300-014-1490-1 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

442 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 443 444 Other funded projects and data sources: 445 ASGARD is designed to take advantage of data that other regional sampling efforts collect and 446 also bolster the contributions and reach of other programs and other proposals funded by the NPRB Arctic 447 Program. Our station locations are coordinated in part with stations that will be occupied by other 448 programs later in the year and we will join some of these later cruises to make some of the same 449 measurements. In some cases the ASGARD investigators are co-investigators within the partner programs 450 listed below and the opportunity for later-season measurements is already secured. The other programs 451 include: 452 • Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) international collaboration: Canadian, Japanese, 453 Korean, and US cruises are presently scheduled to occupy DBO stations in July, August, and 454 September. We propose to sample one DBO-1 station and all DBO-2 and DBO-3 stations in May 455 and June. Our study design guarantees that complementary data is collected later in the season at 456 these stations. 457 • Arctic Marine Biological Observation Network (AMBON): AMBON will occupy DBO-3 and 458 DBO-4 along with other stations in August in the NE Chukchi in 2015, 2016, 2017 and possibly 459 beyond. The advective time scale across the Chukchi shelf approximately matches the duration 460 between the ASGARD and AMBON cruises. We anticipate the participation of an AMBON 461 Ph.D. student (at no cost) on ASGARD cruises to assist with sorting megafauna in trawl samples 462 and collect benthic invertebrate samples for δ13C and δ15N stable isotope analysis for integration 463 with the AMBON trophic level studies. Hopcroft and Danielson are AMBON investigators. 464 • CSESP operated to the north of our study area but shares several investigators with this proposal 465 (Blanchard, Danielson and Hopcroft) and we are well positioned to integrate the data collected in 466 ASGARD with the CSESP data. 467 • RUSALCA anticipates occupying DBO-3 every other year starting in 2016. Hopcroft is a PI in 468 that program, ensuring easy access to data. 469 • Chukchi Ecosystem Mooring (CEM): The proposed program depends heavily on this mooring’s 470 data to reveal to us the downstream consequences of the processes that ASGARD will directly 471 observe in southern Chukchi waters. Danielson, Hopcroft and McDonnell are CEM PIs. 472 • Other Chukchi Sea moorings: Our proposed moorings will enhance the value of the CEM mooring 473 and the Bering Strait moorings (UW/NOAA), the Icy Cape moorings (NOAA) and the other 474 (mostly NE Chukchi shelf) moorings that are maintained by industry and international partners 475 (Shell/ASL/JAMSTEC) (See Fig. 2). We note that with the likelihood that Shell continues to 476 maintain and even bolster the existing acoustic, physical and biophyisical moorings in the NE 477 Chukchi Sea, our program will be well placed to better understand the important upstream 478 conditions for this area. Our moorings compliment these other measurements by recording 479 chemical, biological and biogeochemical parameters that most of these other sites do not measure 480 and by targeting physically and biologically important sites at which no other moorings are 481 deployed. The magnitude and timing of ice, nutrient and particulate fluxes will be compared across 482 the mooring array. 483 484 Other proposals submitted to NPRB: 485 Collaborations with other proposals to be submitted to NPRB are highly desirable, and we will 486 make every effort to participate in collaborations (under the usual constraints and limitations of available 487 required time and resources). Importantly, we will provide a number of berths to LTL or UTL studies that 488 can make their sampling objectives integrate with the ASGARD schedule and plan. For example, we 489 would imagine that bird and marine mammal observers would participate in the cruises, and we have 490 already informed a number of other proposers of the potential for open berths on the ASGARD cruises. 491 For other LTL studies, ASGARD co-I Blanchard’s companion proposal would significantly fill 492 out the benthic infauna component and enable estimates of benthic production by further examining Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

493 spatial variations in benthic ecosystem functioning. The Aguilar-Islas trace metal proposal would 494 leverage work in the major NSF Arctic GEOTRACES study and lead to a better and new understanding 495 of water mass sources, pathways, and fates on a pan-Arctic scale. The Alkire proposal would provide 496 valuable pre-bloom nutrient data that would complement the moored data and water samples collected by 497 ASGARD by achieving a greater spatial coverage. For zooplankton, we see great value in collaborating 498 with the proposal to be submitted by Ashjian and Campbell that proposes to measure zooplankton grazing 499 rates directly as removal of cells. As zooplankton process work requires laborious sorting activities prior 500 to experimental setup, more processes could be measured at more stations through a collaborative effort 501 with them. Collaboration with the Lessard proposal on microzooplankton could allow experiments to 502 simultaneously measure micro- and meta-zooplankton grazing and growth rates, as well as replace this 503 proposal’s plan to subcontract our bare-minimum assessment of microzooplankton. Collaboration with 504 the Nelson proposal(s) would 1) tie in Canadian zooplankton observations and 2) extend our mooring 505 results farther eastward into the Beaufort Sea. 506 For UTL studies, the Norcross fish proposal has been designed to be seamlessly integrated within 507 the ASGARD sampling plan and it would provide additional leveraged benefits with the AMBON, 508 RUSALCA, and CSESP data collections. Likewise, the Stafford marine mammal acoustics proposal 509 would provide a valuable passive acoustics component to the ASGARD mooring array with recorders 510 placed at critical chokepoints currently lacking data. ASGARD would provide zooplankton prey fields to 511 the Goodyear marine mammal study. We would also expect to have some number of bird/marine mammal 512 observers on board. 513 514 Other proposals submitted to NSF: 515 To further extend the ASGARD project’s scope, ASGARD PI Danielson along with UAF faculty 516 A. Aguilar-Islas and J. Kasper is writing a proposal to NSF that would seek an additional 7-10 days of 517 ship time per year for the ASGARD cruise. This extra ship time would allow us to also conduct a number 518 of high-resolution underway water column surveys with a towed undulating CTD, bio-optics package, 519 and subsurface pumped underway chemistry sampling system. These data would allow us to categorize 520 the fine-resolution horizontal structure endemic to all shelves but never observed on the southern Chukchi 521 shelf. This NSF proposal would also support the purchase of 3 moored water samplers for nutrient and 522 trace element analyses distributed between Anadyr Strait and the NE Chukchi Sea and thus would add 523 value to NSF’s GEOTRACES program and NPRB’s NE Chukchi Ecosystem Mooring. Although the 524 ASGARD project would not critically depend on the NSF proposal to be funded, the NSF project would 525 provide a means to more confidently extrapolate the ASGARD station results across the region and if the 526 high-resolution transects were conducted prior to the survey stations on a transect line, we would have the 527 ability to become more adaptive in our selection of station locations. 528 529 530 531 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

532 Project Management: 533 All project PIs will contribute to semi-annual progress reports and participate in monthly science 534 update teleconferences with the NPRB Arctic Program team, annual PI meetings, the Alaska Marine 535 Science Symposium, and the 2016 kickoff meeting. 536 Dr. Seth Danielson is the ASGARD project lead and will be responsible for overseeing the 537 successful project implementation including compiling semi-annual reports and leading monthly 538 ASGARD team meetings. Danielson has been studying the Chukchi Sea since 1994 and will conduct the 539 physical oceanography components of the study, including processing and compiling the ship’s SBE-911 540 CTD and underway data streams and compiling the moored ADCP, T/C logger data. UAF Mooring 541 Technician Peter Shipton will construct the moorings and oversee the mooring deployments. 542 Dr. Arny Blanchard will contribute to the project as a biostatistician and benthic ecologist. 543 Blanchard has nearly 30 years of experience in Alaska-region marine environmental studies including 544 fieldwork, taxonomy, data analysis, and reporting, as well as experience in integrating results from multi- 545 disciplinary studies. He will assist modeling groups with advancing the state of the benthic 546 representations in models and assist the field groups providing guidance as needed on the benthic 547 component for fieldwork, analysis, and reporting, as well as serve as biostatistician assisting with 548 integrating study components. 549 Dr. Sarah Hardy will lead the benthic component, including overseeing field sampling and ship- 550 board respiration rate experiments. She will supervise a PhD student supported on this project and 551 oversee the laboratory analyses of all benthic samples collected, including abundance and biomass 552 measures and analyses of various food-quality parameters. She will participate in all annual PI meetings, 553 contribute to report writing, and author/co-author manuscripts related to the project. 554 Dr. Russ Hopcroft will be responsible for all aspects of zooplankton rate measurements and 555 community assessment for which he has decades of experience. He will participate on cruises and 556 supervise a M.Sc. student focused on rate measurements. He will participate in preparing reports and 557 manuscripts and attend programmatic meetings. He creates a linkage to several past and concurrent 558 multidisciplinary programs in the Chukchi Sea. 559 Dr. Andrew McDonnell will lead the component focusing on the water column transport and 560 sinking of particulate matter. He will conduct moored sediment trap deployments to measure particle flux 561 from the pelagic to the benthic realms, investigate the lateral transport of particulate matter with the 562 moored optical sensors, and will oversee shipboard surveys of marine particles and zooplankton with the 563 Underwater Vision Profiler, transmissometer, and LISST. He will participate in annual PI meetings, 564 contribute to report writing, and author/co-author manuscripts related to the project, and supervise an 565 interdisciplinary PhD student focusing on particle fluxes. 566 Dr. Dean Stockwell will be responsible for the collection and processing chlorophyll data. This 567 sampling includes size-fractionated chlorophylls at process stations, transit sampling and any underway 568 chlorophyll sampling. Primary production estimates will be the primary concern of Dr. Stockwell. This 569 data includes the carbon uptake rates as determined by 13C-uptake incubations. On process stations 570 Fv/Fm determinations will also be collected and is the responsibility of Dr. Stockwell. 571 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

Proposal Short Title Project Start Date – Project End Date individual responsible for completion By virtue of building an integrated FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 multi-disciplinary study, multiple investigators will be responsible for July–S Oct– Jan– Apr– July–S Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr–J July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– various aspects of all objectives. ept Dec Mar June ept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar une Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1 Danielson, Hopcroft, McDonnell, Stockwell Data collection/field work x x x x x x x x Data/sample processing x x x x x x x x Analysis x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #2 Hardy, Hopcroft, McDonnell, Stockwell Data collection/field work x x x x x x x x Data/sample processing x x x x x x x x Analysis x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #3 All ASGARD Principal Investigators Data collection/field work x x x x x x x x Data/sample processing x x x x x x x x Analysis x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #4 Danielson, Hardy, Hopcroft, McDonnell, Stockwell Data collection/field work x x x x x x x x Data/sample processing x x x x x x x x Provide results to modelers x x x x x x x x x x x x x Objective #5 All ASGARD Principal Investigators Assisting outreach team x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Objective #6 All ASGARD Principal Investigators Student support and mentoring x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Objective #7 Danielson Mooring deployments x x x x x x x x Sikuliaq cruises x x

Objective #8 All ASGARD Principal Investigators Collboration planning x x x x x x x x Collaborative cruises x x x x x Collaborative analyses x x x x x x x x x x x x

Objective #9 All ASGARD Principal Investigators Data collection/field work x x x x x x x x Data/sample processing x x x x x x x x Analysis x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Other Progress report Danielson x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation Danielson x x x x x PI meeting All ASGARD Principal Investigators x x x x x Logistics planning meeting All ASGARD Principal Investigators x x Publication submission All ASGARD Principal Investigators x xxx xxxx xxxx Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Danielson x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Danielson, Hardy, Hopcroft, McDonnell, Stockwell x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: Arctic Shelf Growth, Advection, Respiration and Deposition Rate Experiments 4 Lead PI: Seth Danielson 5 6 Logistical Needs: 7 The R/V Sikuliaq is the required platform for the proposed experiments because it: 8 • is capable of working in and near the ice edge 9 • is less expensive to operate than the USCGC Healy and can operate in shallower water depths 10 • can accommodate a science party of 26-30 berths (including marine technicians) 11 • has a weather window of operations that is broader than most other vessels, resulting in less 12 science time lost to poor weather (can handle icing conditions; has hands-off over-the-side 13 gear handling systems) , especially when working in and near the ice edge 14 • has sufficient dry lab, wet lab, cold room, and analytical lab space for all proposed activities 15 • is part of the UNOLS fleet and so provides top-flight technical support and a vast array of 16 supporting equipment and capabilities 17 • can accommodate all of Hopcroft’s large deck and lab incubation chambers 18 • can do coring, bottom grabs, midwater trawls and plumb-staff beam trawls 19 • has a fully equipped Seabird 9-11 CTD and 24-place rosette with 10-l bottles. 20 • provides flow-through seawater system with access ports 21 • provides on-deck running seawater for incubators 22 • is outfitted with a mast-mounted PAR sensor and associated meteorological instruments 23 • has a -80 °C freezer 24 • has a 150 KHz Teledyne RDI Ocean Surveyor ADCP 25 • can fish mid-water and bottom trawls 26 • comes with leveraged ship days contributed by UAF. 27 28 In addition to the standard ship’s equipment and facilities on board the R/V Sikuliaq, we would request the 29 following special UNOLS equipment, which would probably need to be leased from NSF: 30 • A Rad Van for stable isotope productivity experiments. 31 • A multi-corer for bottom sampling 32 33 We propose one 20-day cruise in late May/early June in each of 2017 and 2018 on board the R/V R/V 34 Sikuliaq, NSF’s new polar-class research vessel. An ideal timing would be to leave Nome on May 24 and 35 return to Nome on June 13. 36 37 Leveraged Support for Logistics 38 39 SFOS will be leveraging state-funded ship days on the R/V Sikuliaq as a resource to support this 40 project. Funds available total $1,200,000 of which $750,000 would be available for the 2017 cruise. 41 Given the current day rate ($43,616, which covers the vessel and technical services, including two marine 42 technicians on board the cruise) and assuming a 5% cost of inflation, $1.2M would cover 25 of the 40 43 science days needed for the two LTL cruises proposed here. We request that NPRB fund the remaining 15 44 science days and work with the NSF to ensure the vessel will begin operations in Nome. As the Sikuliaq 45 could be working anywhere in the North Pacific, this could require an extended transit. We will need to 46 schedule this ship time through the NSF-UNOLS ship scheduling system. We are unable to apply these 47 funds to any other vessel. 48 UAF PI Norcross is proposing an UTL study to execute midwater and benthic trawls for fish and 49 epibenthos and she seeks an additional four days of ship time to accommodate the time spent 50 trawling. Also, UAF PIs A. Aguilar-Islas, J. Kapser, and S. Danielson are writing a proposal to NSF, 51 which if funded could contribute an additional 7 days of science ship time per year plus transit days. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

52 Success of all of these proposals would result in two cruises up to 31 days long. We assume in our 53 planning that the cruises begin and end with a port call in Nome. ASGARD PI McDonnell submitted an 54 NSF CAREER proposal to run an Observational Oceanography class in 2017. If funded, SFOS would 55 contribute an additional two days of shiptime to this educational effort. We can potentially integrate 56 ASGARD and class activities by training students on the broad suite of ASGARD sampling techniques 57 that will be in use on the cruise. The student cruise might be able to occupy some southern ASGARD 58 stations and carry out an ASGARD mooring deployment. 59 60 We propose a science party of 14 ASGARD scientists plus two R/V Sikuliaq marine technicians, two 61 outreach specialists, and two international collaborators. The ASGARD team would include the following 62 allocation of berths: 63 • Chief scientist: 1 64 • Physics: 2 65 • Moorings: 1 66 • Chemistry/Phytoplankton: 2 67 • Zooplankton: 3 68 • Particles: 2 69 • Benthos: 4 70 • Marine technicians: 2 71 • Outreach specialists: 2 72 • International collaborators: 2 73 • Unclaimed berths: 6-10 74 75 The R/V Sikuliaq can carry a science party of 26 including the marine technicians, so our plan leaves six 76 berths for additional personnel without use of a berthing van. If an NSF berthing van were to be installed 77 it would provide space for an additional four personnel, for a maximum of ten additional scientists, 78 outreach specialists, community observers, media, or others. 79 80 ASGARD can easily accommodate activities that do not require additional wire time or station time, 81 which would include efforts such as underway sampling systems, water collections from the CTD, or 82 bridge observers. Activities that require dedicated wire time or special stations would need to be cleared 83 on an individual basis and we would need to evaluate whether additional days would need to be added 84 onto the cruise. 85 86 Two R/V Sikuliaq technicians will sail on the ASGARD cruise. This team is well trained at maintenance 87 and operation of the broad suite of science sensors and gear types that are part of the Sikuliaq ship’s 88 equipment. Technicians will be available to help facilitate over-the-side deployment operations and the 89 computer network operations. 90 91 The R/V Sikuliaq can accommodate a van on deck to house radiation-based experiments. 92 93 No prior special safety training is required for UNOLS vessels. 94 95 R/V Sikuliaq capabilities: see attached document 96 97 98 99 100 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: ASGARD: Arctic Shelf Growth, Advection, Respiration and Deposition Rate Experiments Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Seth Danielson - University of Alaska Fairbanks category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 18,874 605,813 582,961 484,002 318,716 216,176 2,226,543 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 18,874 605,813 582,961 484,002 318,716 216,176 2,226,543

NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB NPRB Other Support FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

Cost Categories 5/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 10/1 - 9/30 TOTAL TOTAL (all years)

1. Personnel Salaries 2,571 159,153 173,032 166,037 134,448 90,349 725,590

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 738 39,394 44,092 40,141 30,175 21,810 176,350 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 9,232 43,869 40,235 14,960 18,934 15,032 142,262

4. Equipment 0 108,966 11,240 0 0 0 120,206

5. Supplies 0 28,275 26,275 17,500 7,200 1,700 80,950

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 68,051 108,876 96,849 28,495 18,862 321,134

7. Other

0 0 0 0 0

Total Direct Costs 12,541 447,707 403,750 335,487 219,252 147,753 1,566,491 0

Indirect Costs 6,333 158,106 179,211 148,515 99,464 68,423 660,052

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 18,874 605,813 582,961 484,002 318,716 216,176 2,226,543 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: ASGARD: Arctic Shelf Growth, Advection, Respiration and Deposition Rate Experiments Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Seth Danielson - University of Alaska Fairbanks; PI names from 2nd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from category 3rd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 18,874 605,813 582,961 484,002 318,716 216,176 2,226,543 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 18,874 605,813 582,961 484,002 318,716 216,176 2,226,543

1. Personnel Salaries 2,571 159,153 173,032 166,037 134,448 90,349 725,590 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 738 39,394 44,092 40,141 30,175 21,810 176,350 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 9,232 43,869 40,235 14,960 18,934 15,032 142,262 0

4. Equipment 0 108,966 11,240 0 0 0 120,206 0

5. Supplies 0 28,275 26,275 17,500 7,200 1,700 80,950 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 68,051 108,876 96,849 28,495 18,862 321,134 0

7. Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Direct Costs 12,541 447,707 403,750 335,487 219,252 147,753 1,566,491 0

Indirect Costs 6,333 158,106 179,211 148,515 99,464 68,423 660,052 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 18,874 605,813 582,961 484,002 318,716 216,176 2,226,543 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Alaska Fairbanks

Project Title: ASGARD: Arctic Shelf Growth, Advection, Respiration and Deposition Rate Experiments

Total Amount requested by University of Alaska Fairbanks for this project is: $2,226,543

1. Personnel/Salaries: 348 hours per year in years 2-5, and 174 hours in year 6 are requested for the PI Danielson (at $49.20/hour) to manage the project and lead the physical oceanography studies. 87 hours in year 2 and 174 hours per year in years 3-6 are requested for Co-PI Hopcroft (at $59.14/hour) to lead the zooplankton component and supervise a MS student. 87 hours per year in years 2-6 are requested for Co-PI McDonnell (at $48.16/hour) to supervise a student and lead the particle studies. 174 hours per year in years 2-5 and 87 hours in year 6 are requested for Co-PI Hardy (at $47.19/hour) to supervise a PhD student and lead the benthic component. 40 hours in year 1, 522 hours per year in years 2 and 3, 348 hours in year 4, and 174 hours per year in years 5 and 6 are requested for the Co-PI Stockwell (at $56.54/hour) to lead the phytoplankton study and supervise a student at sea. 140 hours per year in years 2-6 are requested for Co-PI Blanchard (at $56.66/hour) to integrate this projects field results.

524 hours per year in years 2-4 are requested for Peter Shipton (at $23.25/hour) to construct and deploy the moorings. 87 hours per year in years 3-6 are requested for Cheryl Clarke-Hopcroft (at $30.72/hour) to oversee the zooplankton lab.

Support is also budgeted for 4 graduate students (academic and summer) and 1 undergraduate student (half-time summer only) to participate in the ASGARD program through classwork, field studies, and laboratory analyses.

All salaries are at the employees’ current rate of pay. A leave reserve of 13.7% is included for faculty salaries, 20.9% for professionals, and 21% for support (classified) staff. Salaries are listed at the FY16 rate and include a 2.0% inflation increase for faculty and 2.5% for professionals and staff each year.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Staff benefits are applied according to UAF’s Provisional FY16 fringe benefit rates. Rates are 28.7% for faculty salaries, 41% for professionals, 45.7% for support (classified) staff, and 9.2% for students (summers only for graduate students). $2,361 per year ($858 for Fall and Spring semesters, and $645 for Summer only) is also included for graduate student health care, with a 7.0% inflation increase per year. A copy of the rate agreement is available at http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation- agreements/.

Personnel Expense Details:

Hours devoted to Hourly Leave Yearly Total Fringe Fringe Year Title/Name project rate Rate Increase Salary rate cost FY16 PI, S. 0 $49.20 13.7% 2% $0 28.7% $0 Danielson FY16 Co-PI, R. 0 $59.14 13.7% 2% $0 28.7% $0 Hopcroft FY16 Co-PI, A. 0 $48.16 13.7% 2% $0 28.7% $0 McDonnell Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

FY16 Co-PI, S. 0 $47.19 13.7% 2% $0 28.7% $0 Hardy FY16 Co-PI, D. 40 $56.54 13.7% 2% $2,571 28.7% $738 Stockwell FY16 Co-PI, A. 0 $56.66 13.7% 2% $0 28.7% $0 Blanchard FY16 Peter Shipton 0 $23.25 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 FY16 Peter Shipton 0 $23.25 0% 0% $0 45.7% $0 FY16 Cheryl 0 $30.72 20.9% 2.5% $0 41.0% $0 Clarke- Hopcroft FY16 Graduate 0 $23.02 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY16 Graduate 0 $25.53 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY16 Graduate 0 $19.67 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY16 Graduate 0 $21.34 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY16 Undergraduate 0 $10.50 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY16 Totals $2,571 $738 FY17 PI, S. 348 $50.18 13.7% 2% $19,857 28.7% $5,699 Danielson FY17 Co-PI, R. 87 $60.32 13.7% 2% $5,967 28.7% $1,713 Hopcroft FY17 Co-PI, A. 87 $49.12 13.7% 2% $4,859 28.7% $1,395 McDonnell FY17 Co-PI, S. 174 $48.13 13.7% 2% $9,523 28.7% $2,733 Hardy FY17 Co-PI, D. 522 $57.67 13.7% 2% $34,228 28.7% $9,824 Stockwell FY17 Co-PI, A. 140 $57.79 13.7% 2% $9,200 28.7% $2,640 Blanchard FY17 Peter Shipton 348 $23.83 21.0% 2.5% $10,035 45.7% $4,586

FY17 Peter Shipton 176 $23.25 0% 0% $4,092 45.7% $1,870

FY17 Cheryl 0 $31.49 20.9% 2.5% $0 41.0% $0 Clarke- Hopcroft FY17 Graduate 2,088 $23.02 0% 0% $48,066 9.2% $7,263 Student (summer Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

only) FY17 Graduate 522 $25.53 0% 0% $13,326 9.2% $1,672 Student (summer only) FY17 Graduate 0 $19.67 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY17 Graduate 0 $21.34 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY17 Undergraduate 0 $10.50 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY17 Totals $159,153 $39,394

FY18 PI, S. 348 $51.19 13.7% 2% $20,254 28.7% $5,813 Danielson FY18 Co-PI, R. 174 $61.53 13.7% 2% $12,173 28.7% $3,494 Hopcroft FY18 Co-PI, A. 87 $50.11 13.7% 2% $4,956 28.7% $1,422 McDonnell FY18 Co-PI, S. 174 $49.10 13.7% 2% $9,713 28.7% $2,788 Hardy FY18 Co-PI, D. 522 $58.82 13.7% 2% $34,913 28.7% $10,020 Stockwell FY18 Co-PI, A. 140 $58.95 13.7% 2% $9,384 28.7% $2,693 Blanchard FY18 Peter Shipton 348 $24.86 21.0% 2.5% $10,286 45.7% $4,701

FY18 Peter Shipton 174 $23.25 0% 0% $4,092 45.7% $1,870

FY18 Cheryl 87 $32.28 20.9% 2.5% $3,395 41.0% $1,392 Clarke- Hopcroft FY18 Graduate 1,392 $23.02 0% 0% $32,044 9.2% $4,177 Student (summer only) FY18 Graduate 174 $25.53 0% 0% $4,442 9.2% $1,761 Student (summer only) FY18 Graduate 1,392 $19.67 0% 0% $27,380 9.2% $4,152 Student (summer only) FY18 Graduate 0 $21.34 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY18 Undergraduate 0 $10.50 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY18 Totals $173,032 $44,092 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

FY19 PI, S. 348 $52.21 13.7% 2% $20,659 28.7% $5,929 Danielson FY19 Co-PI, R. 174 $62.76 13.7% 2% $12,416 28.7% $3,563 Hopcroft FY19 Co-PI, A. 87 $51.11 13.7% 2% $5,056 28.7% $1,451 McDonnell FY19 Co-PI, S. 174 $50.08 13.7% 2% $9,907 28.7% $2,843 Hardy FY19 Co-PI, D. 348 $60.00 13.7% 2% $23,741 28.7% $6,814 Stockwell FY19 Co-PI, A. 140 $60.13 13.7% 2% $9,571 28.7% $2,747 Blanchard FY19 Peter Shipton 348 $25.88 21.0% 2.5% $10,543 45.7% $4,818

FY19 Peter Shipton 174 $23.25 0% 0% $4,092 45.7% $1,870

FY19 Cheryl 87 $33.08 20.9% 2.5% $3,480 41.0% $1,427 Clarke- Hopcroft FY19 Graduate 0 $23.02 0% 0% $0 9.2% 0 Student (summer only) FY19 Graduate 1,392 $25.53 0% 0% $35,538 9.2% $4,527 Student (summer only) FY19 Graduate 1,392 $19.67 0% 0% $27,380 9.2% $4,152 Student (summer only) FY19 Graduate 0 $21.34 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY19 Undergraduate 348 $10.50 0% 0% $3,654 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY19 Totals $166,037 $40,141 FY20 PI, S. 348 $53.26 13.7% 2% $21,072 28.7% $6,048 Danielson FY20 Co-PI, R. 174 $64.02 13.7% 2% $12,665 28.7% $3,635 Hopcroft FY20 Co-PI, A. 87 $52.13 13.7% 2% $5,157 28.7% $1,480 McDonnell FY20 Co-PI, S. 174 $51.08 13.7% 2% $10,106 28.7% $2,900 Hardy FY20 Co-PI, D. 174 $61.20 13.7% 2% $12,108 28.7% $3,475 Stockwell FY20 Co-PI, A. 140 $61.33 13.7% 2% $9,763 28.7% $2,802 Blanchard FY20 Peter Shipton 0 $26.91 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

FY20 Peter Shipton 0 $23.25 0% % $0 45.7% $0

FY20 Cheryl 87 $33.91 20.9% 2.5% $3,567 41.0% $1,462 Clarke- Hopcroft FY20 Graduate 0 $23.02 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY20 Graduate 1,044 $25.53 0% 0% $26,653 9.2% $3,912 Student (summer only) FY20 Graduate 0 $19.67 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY20 Graduate 1,392 $21.34 0% 0% $29,706 9.2% $4,461 Student (summer only) FY20 Undergraduate 348 $10.50 0% 0% $3,654 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY20 Totals $134,448 $30,175 FY21 PI, S. 174 $54.32 13.7% 2% $10,747 28.7% $3,084 Danielson FY21 Co-PI, R. 174 $65.30 13.7% 2% $12,918 28.7% $3,707 Hopcroft FY21 Co-PI, A. 87 $53.17 13.7% 2% $5,260 28.7% $1,510 McDonnell FY21 Co-PI, S. 87 $52.10 13.7% 2% $5,154 28.7% $1,479 Hardy FY21 Co-PI, D. 174 $62.42 13.7% 2% $12,350 28.7% $3,544 Stockwell FY21 Co-PI, A. 140 $62.56 13.7% 2% $9,958 28.7% $2,858 Blanchard FY21 Peter Shipton 0 $27.93 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0

FY21 Peter Shipton 0 $23.25 0% 0% $0 45.7% $0

FY21 Cheryl 87 $34.76 20.9% 2.5% $3,656 41.0% $1,499 Clarke- Hopcroft FY21 Graduate 0 $23.02 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY21 Graduate 1,044 $25.53 0% 0% $26,653 9.2% $4,128 Student (summer only) FY21 Graduate 0 $19.67 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY21 Graduate 0 $21.34 0% 0% $0 9.2% $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

Student (summer only) FY21 Undergraduate 348 $10.50 0% 0% $3,654 9.2% $0 Student (summer only) FY21 Totals $90,349 $21,810

3. Travel: 1 trip is included in year 1 for the PI and Co-PIs to travel to Anchorage, AK to attend the “Kickoff Meeting”. 1 trip per year in years 2 and 3 is included for 5 individuals to travel to Anchorage for the logistics-planning meeting. 1 trip per year in years 2-4 is included for 8 individuals and in years 5 and 6 for 6 individuals, to travel to Anchorage to attend the “all hands” meeting. 1 trip per year in years 4- 6 is included for 6 individuals to travel to Anchorage for the annual Alaska Marine Science Symposium. 1 trip per year in years 2 and 3 are requested for 15 individuals, 1 trip in year 2 for 2 individuals, and 1 trip in year 3 for 1 individual are included for travel from Fairbanks to Nome for fieldwork. 1 trip in years 2 and 5 are included for 1 individual to travel from Fairbanks to Hokkaido Japan for facilitating/finalizing international collaborations and collaborative analysis. 1 trip per year in years 2 and 3 is included for 1 individual to travel from Fairbanks to Quebec for analysis. Airfare is $250/person/trip for Anchorage, $500/person/trip for Nome, $1,900/trip for Hokkaido, and $1,800/trip for Quebec. Per Diem (meals/lodging/incidentals) for Anchorage is $399/person/day for the June travel and $159/person/day for all other Anchorage travel, $273/person/day for Nome, $227/day for Hokkaido, and $300/trip has been included for on-campus lodging in Quebec. $100 for ground transportation has been included for all trips.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $9,232

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $43,869

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $40,235

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $14,960

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $18,934

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $15,032

4. Equipment/Fabrication: $70,000 is requested for time-series sediment traps, $16,000 for moored nitrate sensor, $6,000 for a mooring frame, parts and flotation, and $6,000 for refrigerated incubator. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

261 hours per year in years 2 and 3 is requested for Peter Shipton (at $23.25/hour) to fabricate the ASGARD physical and biophysical moorings. A leave reserve of 21% is included with a 2.5% inflation increase each year. Staff benefits are 45.7% for support (classified) staff.

Year 1: Total equipment/fabrication request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total equipment/fabrication request in FY17 $108,966

Year 3: Total equipment/fabrication request in FY18 $11,240

Year 4: Total equipment/fabrication request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total equipment/fabrication request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total equipment/fabrication request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies: $18,500 in years 2 and 3, $9,500 in year 4, $3,200 in year 5 and $1,700 in year 6 is requested for filters, reagents and lab supplies. $500 in years 2 and 3 is requested for isotope for primary productivity. $275 in years 2 and 3 is requested for chlorophyll standards. $2,000 in year 2 is requested for assorted incubator parts. $3,000 in year 2 is requested for a light meter. $4,000 in years 2-4 for field supplies, box core spare parts, flux chambers, and respirations “spots”. $3,000 in year 3, and $4,000 in years 4-5 are requested for lab consumables.

Year 1: Total supplies request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total supplies request in FY17 $28,275

Year 3: Total supplies request in FY18 $26,275

Year 4: Total supplies request in FY19 $17,500

Year 5: Total supplies request in FY20 $7,200

Year 6: Total supplies request in FY21 $1,700

6. Contractual/Consultants: Per UAF policy, resident tuition costs ($423 per credit, 9 credits per semester) are included for the graduate student. Student tuition is listed at the AY15 rate with a 10% inflation increase per year. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

Per UAF policy, non-resident tuition costs ($864 per credit, 9 credits per semester) are included for the graduate student. Student tuition is listed at the AY15 rate with a 10% inflation increase per year.

$100 per year in years 3 and 4, $3,100 in year 5 and $6,000 in year 6 is requested for publication charges, $11,000 in year 2, $16,500 in year 3, $10,500 in year 4, and $1,000 in year 5 is included for shipping fees, $4,000 per year in years 2 and 3 and $2,000 in year 4 is included for factory calibration costs and refurbishments, $10,000 per year in years 3 and 4 is included for particle samples, $3,000 per year in years 2 and 3 is included for machine shop fabrication, $600 per year in years 4-6 is included for AMSS registration fees. $5,440 per year in years 2 and 3 is included for isotope analysis (320 samples, $17/sample), $14,950 per year in years 2 and 3 is included for nutrient analysis (600 samples, $23/sample), $4,000 in year 2 for incubator construction, $15,000 in year 4 for Th-234 analysis (100 samples, $150/sample), $1,500 in year 5 for stable isotope analysis (100 samples, $15/sample), and $17,250 per year in years 3 and 4 for microzooplankton analysis (75 samples/year, $230/sample).

Year 1: Total contractual/consultants request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total contractual/consultants request in FY17 $68,051

Year 3: Total contractual/consultants request in FY18 $108,876

Year 4: Total contractual/consultants request in FY19 $96,849

Year 5: Total contractual/consultants request in FY20 $28,495

Year 6: Total contractual/consultants request in FY21 $18,862

7. Other: No other funds are requested.

Year 1: Total indirect costs request in FY16 $6,333

Year 2: Total indirect costs request in FY17 $158,106

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

Year 3: Total indirect costs request in FY18 $179,211

Year 4: Total indirect costs request in FY19 $148,515

Year 5: Total indirect costs request in FY20 $99,464

Year 6: Total indirect costs request in FY21 $68,423

Other Support Contributions for University of Alaska Fairbanks: SFOS will be leveraging state-funded ship days on the R/V Sikuliaq as a resource to support this project. Funds available total $1,200,000 of which $750,000 would be available for the 2017 cruise. See Logistics Summary for details. Danielson and McDonnell will each allocate one year of TA support to the interdisciplinary PhD student. In addition to the R/V Sikukiaq ship’s equipment, UAF will provide to the project over $800,000 worth of mooring instrumentation and specialized field and laboratory equipment that currently resides in the ASGARD PI’s labs. These include: 8 ADCPs, 10 acoustic releases, 6 SBE-37 T/C recorders, 3 SBE-16 dataloggers, two nitrate dataloggers, one WS Ocean Water Sampler, 3 fluorometers, 3 PAR sensors, 3 transmissometers and assorted chain, line, hardware, and floatation items. Other specialized equipment includes a Leica DM4000 compound microscope, a Leica M165 steromicroscope with Leica DFC420 digital camera, and the CTD-mounted profiling ISOOP optics package, which includes a Chelsea Fast Repetition Rate Fluorometer, Underwater Vision Profiler (UVP5) and Laser In-Situ Scattering and Transmissometer (LISST) system.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson NSF’s Polar R/V SIKULIAQ

Length/Beam: 261’/48’ Science Party: 26 Draft/Freeboard: ~19’/9’ Crew: 20 Endurance: 45 days Science deadweight: 100 tons Speed Science vans: 3aft/1 fwd Calm/13ft seas: 11 kts Science storage: 8000 cu. ft. 3’ level ice: 2 kts Science labs: 2200 sq. ft. Diesel Fuel: 170,000 gals. Deck working area: 4360 sq. ft. Fresh Water: 13,150 gals. Water making: 6,000 gals/day Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson How R/V SIKULIAQ compares with other Global and Polar Class ships

KNORR THOMPSON SIKULIAQ HEALY PALMER LOA () 279 277 261 420 309

Total Lab/Shop/ 2,700 4,000 ~3,500 4,115 4,965 Work Space (sq )

Total Deck Space 4,000 4,070 ~4,360 4,100 ~3,300 (sq )

Total Science 525 993 ~700 ~2000 ~1100 Stowage (sq )

Crew Size 22-23 22 20 87 27

Technicians 2 2 2-4

Science Party 32 37 22-24 35 39 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Science Support Capabilities

SIKULIAQ will provide the tools needed to support ocean research on emerging critical questions in high-latitude science

• Acoustically quiet, ice-capable vessel • Global-ranging capability • Excellent sea keeping and station keeping capabilities • Broad array of acoustic systems for seafloor and water column survey and measurements • “Hands-free” over-the-side handling system • Flexible deck and lab arrangements for a wide variety of missions • Latest underway data collection and satellite communications systems • ADA-friendly •UAF to provide $500K/yr of shiptime

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Laboratories and Science Work Areas Science labs: 2200 sq. ft.

Labs Reefers Balc Room Workshop/Oﬃce Storage An. El &Com.

Baltic Wet Main Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Main Lab

• ~1000 Square Feet • Two Fume Hoods with cup sinks • 4 Main Sinks Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Wet Lab • ~510 Square Feet • One Fume Hood • Two sinks • Opens directly into Balc Room and Main Lab

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Analycal Lab • ~180 Square Feet • One Fume Hood • Temperature controlled • Opens directly into Reefer vesbule

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Computer Lab

• ~410 Square Feet • Sonar and ADCP workstaons • CTD control staon • Underway data collecon • Main networking center Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Refrigerated Spaces

• Climate Control Chamber & Scienﬁc Freezer – Idencal in size and temperature control speciﬁcaons. • ±1.8F between -20F and +40F – Equipped with unistrut and 120 VAC power.

-Each ~70 sq. ft. -Thompson @ 63 sq. ft. each

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Sonar Installaons -Sonars are synchronized to reduce interference between systems - Single vendor/integrator -Self-noise monitoring system included

Sonar “blister” ﬂat with mulbeam and single-beam sonars and ADCPs

Retractable Centerboard with Fisheries Sonars

A Transducer well With 1 spare mounng ring Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

EM302 Mulbeam EM710 Mulbeam •Operang Freq: 30 kHz •Operang Freq: 70-100 kHz •Transducer array: .5 deg X 1 deg •Transducer array .5 X 1 •Depth Range: 10-5000m •Depth Range 3-1000m •Pulse Forms: CW and FM chirp •Pulse Forms, CW & FM Chirp •Max soundings/ping 400 •Max soundings/ping : 864 •Depth Resoluon 1 cm

•Depth Resoluon: 1 cm •Ice strengthened •Ice Window ADCP 75 kHz and 150 kHz Retractable Centerboard main deck access 12 kHz echosounder EK-60 & spare mount for project •RDI Ocean Surveyor ADCPs use •Provision for future 38 kHz installaon •“Tradional” 12 kHz echosounder •Knudsen 3260 system common to UNOLS ﬂeet •Ice Windows

PS18 Sub-boom proﬁler Wells: project-speciﬁc acouscs Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Inbound/OutboundCommunicaons

• Satellite broadband connecons • HiSeasNet and Fleet Broadband • Equatorial Geostaonary Satellites • Worldwide, 24/7 internet connecvity • Drops oﬀ in high polar regions • Both systems in standard use throughout UNOLS

• Low Earth Orbit Iridium OpenPort system • Mulple orbing satellites • Coverage over polar regions • Lower bandwidth internet connecvity Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Internal Communicaons

• PA/GA system throughout • Dial phone system throughout • Dedicated push-to-talk all-call system for Deck Operaons • Connects Labs, A-frame, Starboard Crane, Science Control, Winch Control, Balc Room and Bridge Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

Networking Infrastructure

• Cat-7 + Fiber + CoAx wiring • Star configuraon • One or more major nodes on each deck • Nodes provide downstream connecvity • Most runs are 6xfiber pairs, 12xCat-7, 6xCoAx. • Most interior nodes have 24-port switches • Service to Vans, Masts • PoE service included • Dark fibers and unused CoAx and Cat-7 for project use and future expansion • Wireless networking planned throughout aer delivery Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Deck Ouit and Services • 2x2 edown grid on open deck a and foward • Tiedowns for incubators on 04 level • Limited edowns on housetop 05 level • Separate, temperature-controlled incubator water system to a deck, foredeck and 04 Incubator locaon • Deck heang system, a deck and foredeck • 120, 208 and 480 VAC available • Dedicated securing locaons for 3 self-loaded containers a • One locaon for a 10 CONEX box forward - shore li • Power, potable water, clean seawater, networking, comms and alarm connecons • Provision for Berthing Vans a. • Benchmarking system referenced to Master Reference Plane

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Seawater Systems: Seachest Locaons and Incubators

Additional incubator outlets

Additional Incubator Deck incubator outlets

Secondary Seachest: Near Centerline Primary Seachest: Capability to UCSW Port side of Ice Knife use spare mount in UCSW and Incubator Centerboard for special- purpose seawater intake Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Cranes -Two identical Appleton cranes -50ft maximum reach -35,000 lbs capacity at minimum reach -Offset to provide coverage of entire aft deck -Can self-load containers up to ~20,000# to designated locations -Removable crane heads to adapt to specific needs -Wireless control packs plus controls in Science control Room Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson

Inboard Parked Cast

Launch/ Recover

LHS Operang Posions Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Arctic Pre-proposal 3.16-Danielson Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

1 Research Plan 2 3 A. Project Title: Under-ice algal blooms in the Chukchi Sea 4 5 B. Category 3: Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity 6 7 C. Rationale and justification: The focus of this study is the enigmatic event seen in the Chukchi Sea in 8 June 2011 where unprecedented levels of algal biomass and primary production were observed deep 9 (~100 km) into consolidated pack ice (Arrigo et al. 2014; Arrigo et al. 2012; Laney and Sosik 2014). 10 Whether or not such events are an annual feature in the Chukchi Sea and if not, whether their frequency 11 can be expected to increase or decrease over the next half century, remain hard to ascertain. Companion 12 cruises to the Chukchi Sea in 2010 and 2014 failed to observe similar phenomena. Moreover, although 13 anomalous events in under-ice algal biomass have been noted earlier (e.g., Gradinger 1996) none are 14 comparable to the one seen in 2011. Given the potential impact on nutrient drawdown and export to the 15 benthos that such under-ice algal events may have, not knowing their frequency, magnitude, and 16 distribution in the Chukchi Sea represents a critical gap in our understanding of primary production, 17 trophic coupling, and biogeochemical cycling in those ecosystems. The goals of this research are a) to 18 better quantify the genesis, phenology, and frequency of any large, under-ice algal biomass events that 19 may occur in the Chukchi Sea at times of year unobserved by ships and satellites, and b) to examine the 20 physical mechanisms that may be responsible for such dynamics in under-ice algal biomass, testing 21 whether the putative ‘under-ice bloom’ explanation proposed by Arrigo et al. (2014) completely explains 22 under-ice algal dynamics in this hydrographically complex Arctic shelf region. 23 24 Observations at times of year when these events may be expected, i.e., before ice breakup, are central to 25 better quantifying the ecological import of any such under-ice algal events. Without such data it remains 26 virtually impossible to estimate the effect these events may have on ecosystem structure and function, or 27 their relevance on climatological scales. This project seeks to maintain an array of three biophysical/bio- 28 optical moorings in the eastern Chukchi Sea over a two-year period, to measure the timing and magnitude 29 of under-ice algal biomass and its relationship to physical factors such as ice cover, insolation, and 30 hydrography. These moorings are designed to retain their top-most sensor cage safely below the ice keel 31 horizon at ~30 m over the winter and release it into the upper water column (~5 m) in late spring as soon 32 as ADCP measurements indicate that such hazards have passed. Bio-optical sensors will monitor algal 33 biomass in the water column as well as nutrient concentration and light levels: two key resources that 34 constrain algal growth and blooms. Complementary physical sensors will measure ice cover, circulation, 35 hydrography, and stratification: essential variables for testing hypotheses about the physical forcing and 36 genesis of under-ice algal biomass events: ‘blooms’ or otherwise. In the context of this study even 37 negative outcomes (i.e., no observed under-ice algal events) will represent a significant finding that will 38 dramatically improve our understanding of annual and interannual trends in Chukchi Sea algal biomass. 39 40 This interdisciplinary project brings together two PIs (Dr. Sam Laney, Woods Hole Oceanographic 41 Institution, and Dr. Steve Okkonen, University of Alaska Fairbanks) with appropriate expertise and 42 experience for this study. Laney and Okkonen are prior collaborators with interests in physical-biological 43 coupling in the Chukchi Sea and both have made significant advances in long-term ocean observing in the 44 Arctic Ocean over the past decade: Laney in the use of autonomous sensors and bio-optics, and Okkonen 45 in the development of reliable, low-cost moorings suitable for shallow, seasonally ice-covered shelves. 46 The mooring array proposed here will complement other long-term observing assets in the region but it 47 will represent a unique addition a) because of its capability to deploy instruments directly in the upper 48 water column autonomously, and b) because it will expand annual-scale observations of ecosystem 49 properties collected on these shelves, by adding fundamental properties such as photosynthetic biomass, 50 insolation, and indices of nutrient availability on relevant temporal scales. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

51 D. Hypotheses: We will use the following hypotheses to structure our research effort in this project: 52 53 H1: High-biomass events like those observed by the second ICESCAPE cruise in 2011 by Arrigo et 54 al. (2012) do in fact occur each year in the Chukchi Sea at the shelf break. That is, the failure to 55 observe such events during cruises in 2010 and 2014 was most likely an issue of timing or location. 56 57 H2: These high-biomass events represent local, in situ blooms whose genesis is consistent with the 58 putative mechanism posited by Arrigo et al. (2012), i.e., an abundance of nutrient-rich winter water 59 made accessible to phytoplankton by high light levels in the water column, fostered by increased 60 light transmittance through the overlying ice via transient surface melt ponds. That is, blooms arise 61 in ice-covered, nutrient-rich Chukchi waters only after sharp increases in underwater light intensity. 62 63 H3: Year-to-year variability that is observed in the phenology of under-ice algal events is associated 64 with canonical interannual physical forcing mechanisms in the Chukchi Sea, i.e., wind stress and sea 65 ice cover. The timing of melt-pond formation is a dominant control on year-to-year bloom timing. 66 67 68 E. Objectives: There are four main objectives to this research: 69 70 1. To develop a new class of comparatively inexpensive bio-optical/biophysical moorings suitable 71 for year-long use on seasonally ice-covered Arctic coastal shelves, that can survive deployment 72 over the winter to be able to collect data under ice, in the following spring, 73 74 2. To deploy three such moorings in the Chukchi Sea with appropriate sensor suites for assessing 75 under-ice algal biomass and changes in associated limiting resources (light and nutrients), as well 76 as relevant physical properties, and to maintain these moorings over two project field seasons, 77 78 3. To use observations from these moorings to quantify basic aspects of seasonality in under-ice 79 algal biomass including timing, duration, magnitude, and spatial extent, and to interpret these 80 observations in the context of ice cover, circulation, hydrography, nutrient availability, and light 81 levels, to determine if such events do in fact consistently represent under-ice ‘blooms’, 82 83 4. To disseminate data and findings through presentations and publications, and to store the 84 observational data in appropriate archives and databases. 85 86 87 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables directly follow from the project objectives: 88 89 1. New and novel approaches for the acquisition and analysis of biophysical/bio-optical ocean 90 ecosystem data in shallow, seasonally ice-covered Arctic sea shelves such as the Chukchi Sea. 91 2. Physical, optical, and biological time series measurements that describe the not-well-understood 92 phenology of algal biomass and nominal ‘blooms’ in seasonally ice-covered regions of the 93 Chukchi Sea. 94 3. An improved understanding, derived from the aforementioned time series data, of the physical 95 forcing factors that have been hypothesized to control algal biomass under pack ice early in the 96 year, to discriminate between advective processes and local, in situ bloom processes. 97 4. Public dissemination of scientific findings through meetings (e.g. AMSS), publications in leading 98 journals, and archiving of project data. 99 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

100 G. Project design and conceptual approach: 101 102 Conceptual approach: Using an array of three year-round moorings we will examine a) whether or not 103 massive under-ice algal biomass events like the one observed in 2011 occur annually along the Chukchi 104 shelf break, and b) whether or not such events should be generally considered as representing ‘blooms’ in 105 the sense of the putative mechanism proposed by Arrigo et al. (2012) to explain the event observed in 106 2011. These three biophysical/bio-optical moorings will generate a comprehensive two-year time-series 107 of algal biomass, key resources (light and nutrients), and basic physical properties associated with forcing 108 processes, at three Chukchi sites. We envision that this study will present us with one of three outcomes: 109 110 i. If high levels of algal biomass are observed under pack ice, the timing and spatial distribution of 111 physical and ecological properties (nutrients, currents, light, etc.) will be consonant with the 112 putative bloom mechanism proposed by Arrigo et al. (2012). We will see high initial nutrient 113 conditions, then a sharp increase in light levels presumably due to surface snow melt and melt 114 pond formation, and then an increase in algal biomass on time scales in line with the growth rates 115 reported by Arrigo et al. (2012). Such an outcome will suggest that under-ice algal blooms are 116 not infrequent, and that significant export of water column primary production to the benthos 117 likely occurs while ice cover is present, not solely or largely in ice-edge blooms. 118 119 ii. High levels of biomass will be observed in one or both years, but observations of physical 120 properties (currents, hydrography, timing of light availability, etc.) are in conflict with the under- 121 ice bloom model proposed by Arrigo et al. (2012). Such an outcome will suggest that advective 122 processes may be important in placing algal biomass under ice, or alternatively that the under-ice 123 bloom model may not be the sole mechanism sustaining significant under-ice production. 124 125 iii. High levels of algal biomass are not observed in either year. Such an outcome will suggest that 126 significant under-ice primary production is an infrequent phenomenon, regardless of the actual 127 physical mechanisms that drove the event that was observed in 2011. 128 129 Study location and timing: Moorings in this proposed array are sited along the Chukchi shelf break 130 northwest of Hanna Shoal near the location of the observed 2011 under-ice algal event (Fig. 1). The three 131 proposed moorings will provide minimum coverage of the shelf break at two locations, with a third site 132 located to the south and away from the shelf break for comparison. This is a scalable study that can take 133 advantage of other mooring programs being conducted in the same general area. Our mooring locations 134 are not strictly determined and can be adjusted to accommodate other mooring projects or planned ship 135 operations in the study region during the NPRB Arctic program. We envision fieldwork in three separate 136 years: initial deployment in fall 2017, a turnaround cruise in 2018, and a final recovery cruise in 2019. 137 138 Technical: mooring design and infrastructure: This mooring project builds on a low-cost, sustainable 139 approach that has been refined by Okkonen over the past decade, with a novel innovation being the 140 releasable upper sensor package that will protect the topmost sensors from ice keel damage over the 141 winter period (Fig. 2). An EdgeTech PORT release will be interfaced with a near-bottom Acoustic 142 Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP, Teledyne Workhorse Sentinel) whose primary task will be to measure 143 water column velocity structure. Its bottom tracking mode will also measure ice keel depth and motion, 144 which will be monitored using ‘SmartCable’ technology developed in the Laney lab, to actuate the PORT 145 release sometime during the spring when the ADCP indicates that surface ice cover is minimal and the 146 upper cage can be moved from its 30-m wintertime depth to a new location at 5 m depth. This design 147 requires at-sea servicing only once a year, eliminating the need for one-for-one replacements at a given 148 site in order to sustain sampling over this study’s two-year observational timeframe. Deployments are 149 simplified with this approach, allowing these moorings to be deployed in late summer or early autumn 150 when sea ice extent is at its annual minimum and thus not requiring a ship with icebreaking capability. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

151 The sensor cage at the bottom that houses the ADCP also includes an inexpensive Star-Oddi CTD, as well 152 as dual acoustic releases and Xeos (Iridium) beacons to minimize the risk of losing a mooring due to 153 release failure or the inability to spot a surfaced mooring string in heavy fog or ice. By using inexpensive 154 hydrographic (physical) conductivity and temperature sensors (i.e., the Star-Oddis) we will be able to 155 identify water mass characteristics in this hydrographically complex coastal region while maintaining 156 lower cost per mooring. The upper sensor cage (the one at 30 m initially and later released to 5 m) will be 157 connected to the PORT release and its 25 m of releasable line, with a breakaway link for safety. This 158 upper cage will also contain two additional Star-Oddi CTDs, one on the cage itself and also at 10 m below 159 to derive a crude measure for stratification. This upper cage will also contain a datalogger and sensor 160 cluster including a fluorometer and radiometer, developed by Laney and used most recently in long-term 161 studies with Ice-Tethered Profilers in the Beaufort Gyre and the deep central Arctic Ocean (Laney et al. 162 2014). This includes low cost ‘triplet’ fluorometers to assess algal biomass (TriLux; Chelsea 163 Technologies Group), irradiance using a submersible PAR sensor (Satlantic Inc), and nitrate availability 164 from an optical absorbance approach (SUNA, Satlantic Inc.). The TriLux also measures optical 165 backscatter, a valuable proxy for assessing particle export. The top sensor cage will also contain a XEOS 166 Iridium beacon to provide recovery information if it parts from the anchor. 167 168 Biofouling has not been a large concern in this region of the coastal Arctic Ocean, and past mooring 169 deployments in Barrow Canyon (Okkonen, pers. comm.) showed no significant fouling of ADCPs and 170 CTDs after a full year of immersion. Nevertheless, anti-fouling approaches will be incorporated using 171 daily mechanical brushing (HydroWiper, ZebraTech, NZ) on the fluorometer and nitrate sensor, and 172 copper shutters on the irradiance sensors (Chavez et al. 2000), using a combination of methods developed 173 by Laney for year-long moorings at Station ALOHA near Hawaii and in the Arctic on Ice-Tethered 174 Profilers within the NSF Arctic Observing Network program (Laney et al. 2014). 175 176 We recognize that the sensor complement on these moorings is not as expansive as those proposed for 177 other long-term observational programs at lower latitudes. In part, this reflects our science objectives (i.e., 178 focusing on a specific objective: exploring seasonality, distributions, and forcing of algal blooms in 179 seasonally ice-covered coastal shelves). It also reflects our focus on collecting tractable long-term 180 observations while minimizing the use of sensors that remain untried or minimally tried in year-long polar 181 applications. We are open to broadening our sampling effort and using this under-ice algal bloom project 182 to deploy additional sensors over the Chukchi and Beaufort shelves, working with new collaborators, but 183 we are highly aware of the need to first have a robust, reliable mooring array in place to support this 184 expansion. The basic design of these moorings represents a low-cost, sustainable approach for locating 185 physical and biological sensors in the upper water column with improved survival over an entire year. 186 187 Timeline: We will begin fabrication efforts for these moorings in June 2016 to prepare for deployment in 188 late summer or fall of 2017. Okkonen will fabricate the mooring infrastructure following the current 189 Okkonen/UAF design but will adapt it to accommodate the PORT release system, utilizing a custom 190 ‘SmartCable’ interface provided by Laney to monitor the ADCP. Okkonen will integrate the standard 191 physical sensors into the bottom node (ADCP, 1x Star Oddi CTD) and the releasable upper node (2x Star 192 Oddi CTDs), and as well as upper-node biophysical sensors and logger provided by Laney (Fig. 3). Laney 193 and Okkonen have a Chukchi Sea mooring proposal currently under review in NSF’s Arctic Observing 194 Network program which, if funded, could potentially leverage ship time for the deployment of these 195 NPRB-funded moorings. The strategy for mooring turnaround is designed to streamline the service of 196 each mooring after it is recovered at one location and redeployed: adequate time is built into the schedule 197 to perform basic mechanical maintenance (replacing chains, weights, cleaning) but also to conduct annual 198 calibration and characterization analyses to ensure that sensors have not drifted or fouled too greatly out 199 of tolerance. The bio-optical sensors are most prone to this issue and so the PAR radiometers will be 200 calibrated against a second standard (an identical PAR sensor that is never deployed) and the fluorometers 201 will be calibrated against a solid standard and by using ‘clean water’ single-point calibrations. All such Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

202 measurements will be taken before and after any sensor cleaning, following standard practices. The Star- 203 Oddi CTDs will be replaced in Y2 and the ADCPs will get battery replacements. The overall project 204 budget funds the purchase of a limited number of replacement sensors for all but the most expensive 205 instruments (ADCPs & SUNAs), to be used if any sensor fails quality checks during mid-project 206 servicing in 2018 or if a mooring is lost or not able to be recovered for service. 207 208 Data: analysis and hypothesis testing: The timing of any under-ice ‘bloom’ event and whether or not it 209 follows the Arrigo et al. (2014) model ascribing growth to increased light due to surface meltponds, can 210 be directly assessed with the observations collected by these moorings. Modeling studies of circulation 211 and hydrography on the Chukchi shelf (Spall et al. 2007; Windsor and Chapman 2004) demonstrate that 212 wind forcing is an important driver of variability in the temperature, salinity, and current velocity fields 213 across the Chukchi including the shelf break region where our proposed mooring array will occupy. 214 Because we can reasonably infer that biological field variables also respond to changes in the wind field, 215 our analyses of variability in the biophysical environment will begin by comparing moored instrument 216 time series with contemporaneous records of the NCEP Reanalysis winds from Chukchi region. 217 Additionally, the ADCP provides data on the thickness of the overlying sea ice cover and on the 218 presence/depth of the pycnocline which, in conjunction with the bio-optical data, will allow us to 219 characterize structural aspects of bloom evolution. 220 221 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: This new bio-optical/biophysical mooring array will 222 represent a valuable addition to assets in the coastal Alaskan Arctic, providing the research community 223 with observations/records of seasonality and intermittency in algal biomass and other basic ecosystem 224 properties in shelf waters extending up to the US-Russia Convention line in the west. Other long-term 225 projects in the region focus on ‘hotspots’ (e.g., DBO lines, the Bering Strait, Barrow Canyon) and so this 226 mooring project is unique in that it targets the broader, less well-examined shelf brea, which in the past 227 five years have been shown to express significant ecosystem events whose genesis and frequency are not 228 yet well understood (Arrigo et al. 2014; Arrigo et al. 2012). The mooring array may complement a larger, 229 more observationally oriented program that has been proposed by the PIs to the NSF’s Arctic Observing 230 Network program, for deploying physical-biological moorings more broadly across the nearshore 231 Chukchi and Beaufort shelves (Long-term Mooring-Based Assessments of Phytoplankton and Their 232 Relationship to Hydrography and Sea Ice on the Eastern Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Shelves, under 233 review). The moorings proposed here to NPRB will be deployed earliest in late summer or early fall of 234 2017 with field observations lasting for approximately 24 months, to cover two complete annual cycles. 235 236 These observational time series data can be coupled with numerical model simulations and with satellite- 237 sensed multi-spectral fields to assess interannual, seasonal, and shorter-period trends in algal biomass, 238 valuable for inferring their influence on regional primary production and its responses to light, ice, and 239 hydrography. More generally, the observational data can be used for local comparison with and validation 240 of numerical simulations generated by any three-dimensional ocean model. Okkonen has an ongoing 241 relationship with the Naval Postgraduate School in which he has been using Regional Arctic System 242 Model (RASM) output to investigate migratory and dive behaviors of bowhead and beluga whales in the 243 Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. This relationship could be potentially be expanded to use RASM 244 output to provide context for interpreting in situ data acquired by the proposed mooring array. 245 246 We recognize that several other observational technologies could – in principle – be used to make similar 247 long-term observations under-ice in these shelves, e.g. moored profilers such as ICYCLER (Prisenberg et 248 al. 2007) or bottom-mounted winched profilers (Weingartner et al. 2010) . Yet the base cost of these 249 systems (without sensors) is much higher than the simple moorings we propose here. Moreover, these 250 more complex systems typically involve limitations with sensor payloads that often restrict the types of 251 sensors that can be deployed. This mooring design is robust and adaptable with regards to the types of 252 sensors it can accommodate not only for this study but also for field collaboration with new colleagues. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

253 Tables and Figures: 254 255

Fig. 1. Suggested locations (diamonds) for deployment of 3 bio-optical/biogeochemical moorings in the Chukchi Sea that are suitable for the goals of this research. Blue arrows depict the schematic circulation along the Chukchi and Beaufort shelves (adapted from Schulze and Pickart, 2012; Brugler et al., 2014; and Maslowski et al., 2014). The U.S.- Russia Convention Line is shown in dark blue. Two moorings are sited to occupy locations at the shelf break along the eastward shelf break jet, while a third site is located more shoreward in order to provide inshore comparison. 256

Fig. 2. The design of the proposed moorings. Each will be bottom-anchored with dual acoustic releases and XEOS Iridium beacons for reliable recovery. The biophysical/bio-optical sensors will be housed in a node placed at ~30 m depth in the water column, which will be released to a tethered depth of ~5 m early in the summer when the ADCP bottom tracking indicates low or no ice cover. This will be accomplished using an EdgeTech PORT release unit that will be interfaced to the ADCP bottom tracking output, using a modified ‘SmartCable’ interface already developed in the Laney lab for use in long-term moorings in the open ocean. A breakaway link is included to allow the mooring to ‘shed’ this top cage if it gets caught by ice keels, which is unlikely but may potentially occur with this top cage placed at ~30 m over the winter. The bottom node contains the ADCP and a logging CTD. 257 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

258

Fig. 3. The sensor cluster for the top instrument cage will follow a design based on earlier bio-optical sensor work by Laney on Ice-Tethered Profilers (Laney et al. 2014), except instead of using a SBE41 CTD (as shown here for the ITPs, left), each mooring will include Star-Oddi CTDs. The optical shutter design (middle) will be retained to protect the PAR sensor, and a actuated brush similar to the one pictured here with a SeaPoint SCF (right) will be used to periodically clean the fluorometer. Shutters and wipers will be controlled by a common datalogger that also will be responsible for data collection and storage until recovery. 259 260 261 262 263 264 Cage depth Sensor complement 35 m below CTD loggers (Star-Oddi), TriLux fluorometer (Chelsea Technology Group), PAR surface* irradiance sensor (Satlantic), SUNA nitrate sensor (Satlantic), datalogger & controller (Laney lab, custom), Iridium beacon (XEOS)

5 m above bottom CTD logger (Star-Oddi), ADCP (Teledyne Workhorse Sentinel), dual releases (EdgeTech), PORT release for upper node (EdgeTech), SmartCable interface (Laney lab, custom), Iridium beacon (XEOS)

*released to 5 m in spring, under ADCP/SmartCable control

Table 1. Summary of selected sensors and environmental variables. 265 266 267 268 269 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

270 271 Parameter Current Ice Depth of Water Algal Particle PAR velocity thickness surface masses biomass backscatter Sensor mixed layer, stratification ADCP w/ From From bottom Y bottom acoustic tracking tracking backscatter

Star-Oddi From T,S Y CTDs gradient

PAR Y sensor

TriLux Y Y triplet

Table 2. Matrix of sensors to be used and environmental variables to be measured. 272 273 274 275 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

276 Literature Cited: 277 278 279 Arrigo, K. R., and Coauthors, 2014: Phytoplankton blooms beneath the sea ice in the Chukchi sea. Deep- 280 Sea Res. Pt. II, 105, 1-16.

281 Arrigo, K. R., and Coauthors, 2012: Massive phytoplankton blooms under Arctic sea ice. Science, 336, 282 1408.

283 Chavez, F. P., D. Wright, R. Herlien, M. Kelley, F. Shane, and P. G. Strutton, 2000: A device for 284 protecting moored radiometers from fouling. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech, 17, 215-219.

285 Gradinger, R., 1996: Occurrence of an algal bloom under Arctic pack ice. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 131, 286 301–305.

287 Laney, S. R., and H. M. Sosik, 2014: Phytoplankton assemblage structure in and around a massive under- 288 ice bloom in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Research II, 105, 30-41.

289 Laney, S. R., R. A. Krishfield, J. M. Toole, T. R. Hammar, C. J. Ashjian, and M.-L. Timmermans, 2014: 290 Assessing algal biomass and bio-optical distributions in perennially ice-covered polar ocean ecosystems. 291 Polar Sci., 8, 73-85.

292 Prisenberg, S., R. Pettipas, G. A. Flowler, and G. Sidall, 2007: The ups and downs in developing an 293 under-ice moored profiler called the ICYCLER. The Seventeenth (2007) International Offshore and Polar 294 Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, The International Society of Offshore and Power Engineers.

295 Spall, M. A., R. S. Pickart, P. S. Fratantoni, and A. Plueddemann, 2007: Western shelf break eddies: 296 Formation and transport. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 38.

297 Weingartner, T., R. S. Pickart, and M. A. Johnson, 2010: Recommended physical oceanographic studies 298 in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 90 pp.

299 Windsor, P., and D. C. Chapman, 2004: Pathways of Pacific water across the Chukchi Sea: A numerical 300 model study. J. Geophys. Res., 109:C03002.

301 302 303 304 305 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

306 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 307 308 The research proposed here is not reliant on other programs or other sources of data for its success. This 309 mooring array may complement a larger, more observationally oriented 12-mooring study that has been 310 proposed by the PIs to the NSF’s Arctic Observing Network program, for deploying physical-biological 311 moorings more broadly across the nearshore Chukchi and Beaufort shelves (Long-term Mooring-Based 312 Assessments of Phytoplankton and Their Relationship to Hydrography and Sea Ice on the Eastern 313 Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Shelves, $2.5M, submitted October 2014, under review). 314 315 316 Project Management: The two PIs in this proposal, Okkonen and Laney, bring expertise and experience 317 to implement this regional mooring project successfully. Each has made significant advances in long-term 318 ocean observing research in Arctic waters over the past decade, Laney in autonomous observing of algal 319 ecology using bio-optics and Okkonen in the development and use of reliable, low-cost moorings suitable 320 for shallow, seasonally ice-covered Arctic shelves: 321 322 Laney (phytoplankton ecology & bio-optical sensor expertise in long-term assessments): Laney will be 323 the lead PI on this project. He has considerable research and engineering expertise with bio-optical 324 approaches used in phytoplankton ecology, with particular experience with integrating bio-optical sensors 325 into long-term autonomous monitoring systems such as year-round open-ocean moorings at Station 326 ALOHA in the North Pacific (WHOTS mooring program) and with Ice-Tethered Profilers in the central 327 Arctic Ocean (Laney et al. 2014 and associated patent applications). He has field experience in the 328 Chukchi Sea in several programs, beginning in 2007 and more recently as part of the NASA ICESCAPE 329 team that identified and assessed the massive 2011 under-ice bloom in the Chukchi Sea (Arrigo et al. 330 2012; Laney and Sosik 2014). 331 332 Okkonen (mooring expertise & physical oceanography of Alaskan Arctic shelves): Okkonen has 12 years 333 of experience in the development and maintenance of physical and biophysical oceanographic mooring 334 programs in seasonally ice-covered regions of the Chukchi and Beaufort shelves, including NSF AON- 335 related activities. Observations acquired through these mooring programs between 1999-2001 and 2006- 336 2014 have improved our understanding of how circulation in the nearshore region responds to the 337 presence/absence of fast-ice and how wind-driven changes in circulation influence prey distributions and 338 the resulting foraging environments of bowhead and beluga whales. Over the last decade Okkonen has 339 utilized these shelf moorings in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and has developed valuable experience 340 with sensor placement and mooring survivability in seasonally ice-covered waters. 341 342 Together, these PIs bring a unique combination of complementary skills that are particularly well suited 343 for developing biophysical moorings to assess basic pelagic ecosystem dynamics over annual scales in 344 shallow, seasonally ice-covered coastal waters. For this project, Laney will assume overall management 345 responsibility including reporting activities will oversee the technical aspects of the bio-optical sensor 346 clusters, related biofouling mitigation, and SmartCable release interfacing. Okkonen will assume 347 responsibility for the annual assembly, deployment, and recovery of the mooring array. Technical 348 assistance for the mooring program will be provided by UAF mooring technician Pete Shipton. Okkonen, 349 Laney, and Shipton will all participate in field deployment and turnaround activities each year. Okkonen 350 will also be responsible for the recovery of physical oceanographic data from mooring instruments and 351 the subsequent archiving of these data at the AON CADIS data repository at the Earth Observing 352 Laboratory, NCAR (www.aoncadis.org). 353 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Under-ice Algal Blooms in the Chukchi Sea July 1 2016 - Sep 30 2021 individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1: Develop new class of moorings Initial design & purchasing Laney/Okkonen x x Fabrication at UAF & WHOI Laney/Okkonen x x Preliminary tests Laney/Okkonen x x Objective #2: Deploy 3 moorings & maintain for 2 yrs Initial deployment Laney/Okkonen x x Preparation for servicing cruise Laney/Okkonen x x x Servicing cruise Laney/Okkonen x x Preparation for recovery cruise Laney/Okkonen x x x Recovery cruise Laney/Okkonen x x Necessary post-deployment final calibs Laney/Okkonen x x Objective #3: Analyses of mooring data Data quality control/processing Laney/Okkonen x x x x x x PI_level analyses & hypothesis testing Laney/Okkonen x x x x x Objective #4: Disseminate data & findings Presentations (see Other, AMSS) Publications (see Other) Data submission & archiving (see Other) Other Progress report Laney x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation Laney/Okkonen x x x x x PI meeting Laney x x x x x Logistics planning meeting Laney/Okkonen x x Publication submission Laney/Okkonen Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Laney x x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Okkonen x x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: Under-ice algal blooms in the Chukchi Sea 4 5 Lead PI: Samuel Laney, WHOI 6 7 Logistical Needs: 8 9 The primary vessel capability required for this project is the ability to deploy and recover taut-line type 10 oceanographic moorings in depths of ~50-100 m. Some deck space (~25 m2) will be needed for mooring 11 assembly/disassembly. Around 4 m of bench space is needed for pre-deployment instrument 12 testing/configuration and post-recovery data download, on ship. Three berths are required. 13 14 To maximize the likelihood that all 3 moorings can be deployed and/or turned around in any year, we 15 request ship time when sea ice extent is at its seasonal minimum, that is, during late-August to early 16 October. If a pending Laney-Okkonen NSF Arctic Observing Network proposal is funded (see below), 17 then vessel time (Healy or Sikuliaq) might possibly be leveraged. 18 19 If the USCGC Healy is used, instruments and gear will be loaded in Seattle and personnel will 20 embark/debark at Dutch Harbor. If the R/V Sikuliaq is used, instruments and gear will be loaded in 21 Seward and personnel will embark/debark at Nome. Although we consider the Healy and Sikuliaq as the 22 most likely candidates for the project platform, schedule conflicts may require other vessels such as the 23 R/V Norseman II to be considered. We estimate that the three moorings can be deployed and/or turned 24 around, including transit time among moorings, in two days given our requested deployment locations. 25 Year 3 is the mooring turnaround year. Deployed moorings need to be recovered, serviced, and 26 redeployed. We will board the ship each turnaround year with sensor suites for a single mooring 27 replacement. At each mooring location and upon recovery of the mooring, the replacement sensors will be 28 attached and the mooring immediately redeployed. As the ship transits to the next mooring location, 29 instruments from the just-recovered mooring will be removed from their frames, data will be downloaded, 30 new batteries installed and instruments re-installed in their frames. Mooring hardware (shackles, lines, 31 etc.) will be inspected and, if damaged or worn, will be replaced. This refurbished mooring will then be 32 put in the replacement mooring queue to await deployment at an upcoming location. This overall strategy 33 for mooring servicing provides for quick turnaround and minimizes effort required on-station for mooring 34 activities. 35 36 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 37 38 Laney and Okkonen have submitted a mooring-oriented research proposal to NSF’s Arctic Observing 39 Network program in October 2014, titled “Long-term Mooring-Based Assessments of Phytoplankton and 40 Their Relationship to Hydrography and Sea Ice on the Eastern Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Shelves”. This 41 pending proposal ($2.5M) involves the deployment of 12 basic physical-biological moorings in the 42 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. If it is funded, it is possible that the vessel time allocated for this NSF 43 proposal (on Healy or Sikuliaq) might be leveraged to deploy, service, and/or recover the three moorings 44 described in this NPRB pre-proposal. It is also potentially possible that the innovations described in these 45 three moorings for examining under-ice bloom dynamics explicitly, might be included on some of the 46 NSF-AON moorings, using NPRB support. The Laney-Okkonen NSF-AON project has requested berths 47 for a science party of six, for its efforts in this larger, 12-mooring project. As this project is still pending 48 review, the opportunities to leverage specific facilities of the ship that will be used, are uncertain. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Under-Ice Algal Blooms in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Samuel Laney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 15,250 224,223 88,040 72,487 62,600 63,834 526,434 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 15,250 224,223 88,040 72,487 62,600 63,834 526,434

1. Personnel Salaries 4,760 33,279 24,331 25,183 21,666 22,423 131,642

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,679 10,892 7,707 7,975 7,642 7,909 43,804 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 2,991 9,426 9,893 8,157 5,600 5,885 41,952

4. Equipment 72,000 72,000

5. Supplies 58,500 15,950 74,450

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

200 1,200 1,200 1,200 200 4,000

Total Direct Costs 9,430 184,297 59,081 42,515 36,108 36,417 367,848 0

Indirect Costs 5,820 39,926 28,959 29,972 26,492 27,417 158,586

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 15,250 224,223 88,040 72,487 62,600 63,834 526,434 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 2

PROJECT TITLE: Under-Ice Algal Blooms in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Steve Okkonen, University of Alaska category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 6,566 216,249 72,744 51,707 41,527 6,074 394,867 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 6,566 216,249 72,744 51,707 41,527 6,074 394,867

1. Personnel Salaries 1,974 18,649 26,255 24,140 20,387 2,032 93,437

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 681 6,890 8,667 7,634 5,851 583 30,306 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,707 3,489 3,671 2,583 1,355 1,421 14,226

4. Equipment 161,500 3,600 165,100

5. Supplies 7,350 7,350 14,700

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other 0

Total Direct Costs 4,362 197,878 49,543 34,357 27,593 4,036 317,769 0

Indirect Costs 2,204 18,371 23,201 17,350 13,934 2,038 77,098

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 6,566 216,249 72,744 51,707 41,527 6,074 394,867 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Under-Ice Algal Blooms in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Samuel Laney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Steve Okkonen, University of Alaska category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 21,816 440,472 160,784 124,194 104,127 69,908 921,301 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 21,816 440,472 160,784 124,194 104,127 69,908 921,301

1. Personnel Salaries 6,734 51,928 50,586 49,323 42,053 24,455 225,079 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,360 17,782 16,374 15,609 13,493 8,492 74,110 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 4,698 12,915 13,564 10,740 6,955 7,306 56,178 0

4. Equipment 0 233,500 3,600 0 0 0 237,100 0

5. Supplies 0 65,850 23,300 0 0 0 89,150 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

0 200 1,200 1,200 1,200 200 4,000 0

Total Direct Costs 13,792 382,175 108,624 76,872 63,701 40,453 685,617 0

Indirect Costs 8,024 58,297 52,160 47,322 40,426 29,455 235,684 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 21,816 440,472 160,784 124,194 104,127 69,908 921,301 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Project Title: Under-Ice Algal Blooms in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by WHOIH for this project is: $526,434

The rates included in the proposal are negotiated with our cognizant government agency or they are estimates. When estimated rates are finalized, costs will be in accordance with the rate agreement.

1. Personnel/Salaries:

All salary in this proposal for Organization A (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) is for PI Samuel Laney. His duties are distributed across the years of this project as follows:

Year 1 – 0.5 months for project initiation and NPRB project planning meeting Year 2 – 3.0 months including for development, fabrication, and deployment of moorings, and to support time at sea. Year 3 – 2.0 months for mooring service cruise and data quality analysis, to support time at sea, and meetings Year 4 – 2.0 months for final mooring recovery cruise and data quality analysis, to support time at sea, and meetings Year 5 – 2.0 months for data cleanup and data analyses, meetings, publications Year 6 – 2.0 months for final data analysis and archiving, final publications, project wrap-up

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: The fringe benefit rate for salary is calculated at 35.27%. The fringe benefit rate for sea duty is 7.11%.

Please see attached negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA).

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Personnel Expense Details:

Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 Samuel Laney 0.5 114,240 4,760 35.27 1,679 FY16 Totals 4,760 1,679 FY17 Samuel Laney 3.0 121,096 Reg Sal. 30,274 35.27 10,678 FY17 Samuel Laney -- Sea Duty 3,005 7.11 214 FY17 Totals 33,279 10,892 FY18 Samuel Laney 2.0 127,326 Reg Sal. 21,221 35.27 7,485 FY18 Samuel Laney -- Sea Duty 3,110 7.11 222 FY18 Totals 24,331 7,707 FY19 Samuel Laney 2.0 131,778 Reg Sal. 21,963 35.27 7,746 FY19 Samuel Laney -- Sea Duty 3,220 7.11 229 FY19 Totals 25,183 7,975 FY20 Samuel Laney 2.0 129,996 21,666 35.27 7,642 FY20 Totals 21,666 7,642 FY21 Samuel Laney 2.0 134,538 22,423 35.27 7,909 FY21 Totals 22,423 7,909

3. Travel: All travel is for PI Samuel Laney to travel to Alaska for various required meetings, plus travel to and from point of departure/arrival for cruises.

Year 1:

Travel to Kickoff Mtg. – June 2016 Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,370 1,370 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @200 200 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 3 Nights @339 1,017 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 Person 4 Days @101 404 Trip Total: 2,991

Total travel request in FY16 $2,991

Year 2:

Travel to Annual PI Meeting – March (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,370 1,370 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @200 200 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @99 396 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @82 410 Trip Total: 2,376

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Year 2 (contined) Travel to Logistics Meeting – October (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,370 1,370 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @200 200 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 2 Nights @99 198 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 3 Days @82 246 Trip Total: 2,014

Travel to Marine Science Symp.- January (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,370 1,370 Ground Grnd Transport. 1 @200 200 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @99 396 Misc. Meeting Registration 1 People @100 100 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @82 410 Trip Total: 2,476

Travel to/from cruise start/finish location (Woods Hole, MA to Dutch Harbor, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,500 1,500 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @200 200 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @135 540 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @64 320 Trip Total: 2,560 Total travel request in FY17 $9,426

Year 3: Travel to Annual PI Meeting - March (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,439 1,439 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @210 210 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @104 416 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @86 430 Trip Total: 2,495

Travel to Logistics Meeting – October (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,439 1,439 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @210 210 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 2 Nights @104 208 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 3 Days @86 258 Trip Total: 2,115 Travel to Marine Science Symp.- January. (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,439 1,439 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @210 210 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @104 416 Misc. Meeting Registration 1 People @100 100 Exp. Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @86 430 Trip Total: 2,595

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Year 3 (contined)

Travel to/from cruise start/finish location (Woods Hole, MA to Dutch Harbor, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,575 1,575 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @210 210 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @142 568 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @67 335 Trip Total: 2,688 Total travel request in FY18 $9,893

Year 4:

Travel to Annual PI Meeting - March (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,511 1,511 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @221 221 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @109 436 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @90 450 Trip Total: 2,618

Travel to Marine Science Symp.- January (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,511 1,511 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @221 221 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @109 436 Misc. Meeting Registration 1 People @100 100 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @90 450 Trip Total: 2,718

Travel to/from cruise start/finish location (Woods Hole, MA to Dutch Harbor, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,654 1,654 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @221 221 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @149 596 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @70 350 Trip Total: 2,821 Total travel request in FY19 $8,157

Year 5:

Travel to Annual PI Meeting – March (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,587 1,587 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @232 232 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @114 456 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @95 475 Trip Total: 2,750

Year 5 (continued) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Travel to Marine Science Symp.- January (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,587 1,587 Ground General Grnd 1 @232 232 Transport. Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @114 456 Misc. Exp. Meeting Registration 1 People @100 100 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @95 475 Trip Total: 2,850 Total travel request in FY20 $5,600

Year 6:

Travel to Annual PI Meeting - March (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,666 1,666 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @244 244 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @120 480 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @100 500 Trip Total: 2,890

Travel to Marine Science Symp.- January (Woods Hole, MA to Anchorage, AK ) Airfare Round Trip 1 Tickets @1,666 1,666 Ground General Grnd Transport. 1 @244 244 Lodging Nightly Rate (inc. Tax) 1 Rooms 4 Nights @120 480 Misc. Meeting Registration 1 People @100 100 Per Diem Other Domestic 1 People 5 Days @101 505 Trip Total: 2,995 Total travel request in FY21 $5,885

4. Equipment:

Year 1: No funds for equipment are needed in Year 1. Total equipment funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Equipment costs in Year 2 are for three (3) SUNA optical nitrate sensors, at $24k each. Total equipment funds request in FY17 $72,000

Year 3: No funds for equipment are needed in Year 3. Total equipment funds request in FY18 $0

Year 4: No funds for equipment are needed in Year 4. Total equipment funds request in FY19 $0

Year 5: No funds for equipment are needed in Year 5. Total equipment funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: No funds for equipment are needed in Year 6. Total equipment funds request in FY21 $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

5. Supplies:

Year 1: No funds for supplies are requested in Year 1. Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Year 2 supplies are largely dedicated to purchasing the instruments and supplies needed to fabricate and deploy the mooring array: three custom-made dataloggers ($4900 each, total $14700), additional batteries for remaining in situ instruments ($300), three XEOS beacons ($3000 each total $9000), three Trilux fluorometers ($2800 each, total $8400), six Zebratech Hydrowipers ($1250 each, total $7500), three PAR sensor ($2000 each, total $6000), and three sets of biofouling protection gear including shutters ($500 each, total $1500), modified wiper assemblies ($2500 each, total $7500), cabling and connectors ($700 each, total $2100) and mounting and mechanical parts ($500 each, total $1500).

Total supplies funds request in FY17 $58,500

Year 3: Year 3 supplies primarily include single spares of essential instruments for replacement if needed. These include a replacement datalogger and batteries ($4900), additional batteries for remaining in situ instruments ($300), a replacement XEOS beacon ($3000), a replacement Trilux fluorometer ($2800), a replacement Zebratech Hydrowiper ($1250), a replacement PAR sensor ($2000), and a replacement set of biofouling protection gear including shutter ($500), cabling and connectors ($700) and mounting and mechanical parts ($500). Total supplies funds request in FY18 $15,950

Year 4: No supplies are needed in Year 4. Total supplies funds request in FY19 $0

Year 5: No supplies are needed in Year 5. Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: No supplies are needed in Year 6. Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6 Contractual/Consultants:

No contractual/consultant costs will be necessary in this project. Total Contractual funds requested is $0 in FY16 through FY21

7. Other: . Year 1: No additional funds are requested for Year 1. Total other funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Funds for communications ($100) and photocopying ($100) costs are requested for Year 2. Total other funds request in FY17 $200 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Year 3: Funds for publications ($1000), communications ($100) and photocopying ($100) are requested for Year 3. Total other funds request in FY18 $1,200

Year 4: Funds for publications ($1000), communications ($100) and photocopying ($100) are requested for Year 4. Total other funds request in FY19 $1,200

Year 5: Funds for publications ($1000), communications ($100) and photocopying ($100) are requested for Year 5. Total other funds request in FY20 $1,200

Year 6: Funds for communications ($100) and photocopying ($100) costs are requested for Year 6. Total other funds request in FY21 $200

8. Indirect Costs:

Total indirect funds requested is $5,820 in FY16, $39,926 in FY17, $28,959 in FY18, $29,972 in FY19, $26,492 in FY20, and $27,417 in FY21.

Other Support/In kind Contributions:

No formal in kind support is provided for this research.

Total Other Support provided for this project is: $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Alaska Fairbanks

Project Title: Under-Ice Algal Blooms in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $394,867

1. Personnel/Salaries: 1276 hours total are requested for the PI Okkonen (at $47.60/hour) to administer the project. 24/261/174/87/0 hours per year (at $23.25/hour) and 0/43.5/43.5/43.5/0 hours per year (at $34.88/hour) are also included for Shipton.

All salaries are at the employees’ current rate of pay. A leave reserve of 13.7% is included for faculty salaries and a leave rate of 21.0% for senior personnel salaries. Salaries are listed at the FY16 rate and include a 2% inflation increase for faculty each year and a 2.5% inflation increase for senior personnel each year.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Staff benefits are applied according to UAF’s Provisional FY16 fringe benefit rates. Rates are 28.7% for faculty salaries and 45.7% for staff. A copy of the rate agreement is available at http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/.

Personnel Expense Details:

Hours devoted to Hourly Leave Yearly Total Fringe Fringe Year Title/Name project rate Rate Increase Salary rate cost FY16 PI, S. Okkonen 24 $47.60 13.7% 2% $1,299 28.7% $373 FY16 Shipton 24 $23.25 21.0% 2.5% $675 45.7% $309 FY16 Shipton 0 $34.88 0% 0% $0 45.7% $0 FY16 Totals $1,974 $681 FY17 PI, S. Okkonen 174 $48.55 13.7% 2% $9,605 28.7% $2,757 FY17 Shipton 261 $23.83 21.0% 2.5% $7,526 45.7% $3,439 FY17 Shipton 43.5 $35.75 0% 0% $1,517 45.7% $693 FY17 Totals $18,649 $6,890 FY18 PI, S. Okkonen 348 $49.52 13.7% 2% $19,595 28.7% $5,624 FY18 Shipton 174 $24.43 21.0% 2.5% $5,143 45.7% $2,350 FY18 Shipton 43.5 $36.64 0% 0% $1,517 45.7% $693 FY18 Totals $26,255 $8,667 FY19 PI, S. Okkonen 348 $50.51 13.7% 2% $19,987 28.7% $5,736 FY19 Shipton 87 $25.04 21.0% 2.5% $2,636 45.7% $1,205 FY19 Shipton 43.5 $37.56 0% 0% $1,517 45.7% $693 FY19 Totals $24,140 $7,634 FY20 PI, S. Okkonen 348 $51.52 13.7% 2% $20,387 28.7% $5,851 FY20 Shipton 0 $25.66 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 FY20 Shipton 0 $38.50 0% 0% $0 45.7% $0 FY20 Totals $20,387 $5,851 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

FY21 PI, S. Okkonen 34 $52.55 13.7% 2% $2,032 28.7% $583 FY21 Shipton 0 $25.66 21.0% 2.5% $0 45.7% $0 FY21 Shipton 0 $38.50 0% 0% $0 45.7% $0 FY21 Totals $2,032 $583

3. Travel: One trip per year is included in years 1-6 for the PI to travel to Anchorage, AK to attend meetings. Year 1 travel will be to attend the kickoff meeting for three days during which the core hypotheses of the program will be decided. PI Okkonen will travel to Anchorage, AK in years 2-6 for the remaining annual training meetings. Travel to Nome, AK is also listed for both PI Okkonen and Shipton in years 2 and 3, and for Shipton in year 4. Airfare is estimated at $350/trip to Anchorage and $500/trip to Nome. Per Diem (meals/incidentals/lodging) is $399/day (summer session) for the Kick-Off meeting and $159/day (winter session) for the Annual Training meetings per UA Board of Regents regulations for Alaska in-state travel. Per Diem for Nome is $273/day. Ground transportation is included for all travel at $100/trip.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $1,707

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $3,489

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $3,671

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $2,583

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $1,355

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $1,421

4. Equipment: $161,500 in equipment is listed in year 2 and $3,600 in year 3. The funds will be used to fabricate (3) oceanographic moorings. The breakdown of these costs are: (3) ADCP at $27,000 each, (8) Acoustic Release at $6,500 each, (4) XEOS Transponder at $3,000 each, (8) Instrument Cage & Floatation at $1,000 each, (3) Star-Oddi CTD at $1,200 each and (4) Tandem Release Assembly at $1,225 each.

Year 1: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Total equipment request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total equipment request in FY17 $161,500

Year 3: Total equipment request in FY18 $3,600

Year 4: Total equipment request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total equipment request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total equipment request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies: $7,350 per year in years 2 and 3 are included for field supplies. $3,000 each year are for the purchase of (3) Anchor and Chains at $1,000 each, $600 per year for (3) Release batteries at $200 each, $2,250 per year for (3) ADCP batteries at $750 each, and $1,500 per year for hardware.

Year 1: Total supplies request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total supplies request in FY17 $7,350

Year 3: Total supplies request in FY18 $7,350

Year 4: Total supplies request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total supplies request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total supplies request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants: There are no contractual/consultant funds requested.

7. Other: No other funds are requested.

8. Indirect Costs: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs are negotiated with the Office of Naval Research. The predetermined rate for sponsored research at UAF is calculated at 50.5% (FY14–FY16 predetermined agreement) of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC includes Total Direct Costs minus tuition and associated fees, scholarships, participant support costs, subaward amounts over $25,000, and equipment. A copy of the rate agreement is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/.

Year 1: Total indirect funds request in FY16 $2,204

Year 2: Total indirect funds request in FY17 $18,370

Year 3: Total indirect funds request in FY18 $23,201

Year 4: Total indirect funds request in FY19 $17,350

Year 5: Total indirect funds request in FY20 $13,934

Year 6: Total indirect funds request in FY21 $2,038

Other Support/In kind Contributions: There is no other support/in kind contributions for this project.

Total Other Support provided for this project is: There is no other support for this project.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Samuel R. Laney Associate Scientist Biology Department Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Redfield Laboratory, MS# 34 RESEARCH INTERESTS Polar oceanography; Phytoplankton ecology; Marine optics; Optical instrumentation; PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION B.S., Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Cornell University, 1992 M.Sc., Oceanography, Oregon State University, 2000 Ph.D., Oceanography, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Oregon State Univ., 2006 APPOINTMENTS Associate Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), Aug 2013-present. Assistant Scientist, WHOI, May 2009-Aug 2013. Research Engineer, Brookhaven Natl. Laboratory, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sci. Div., 1992-1996. RELEVANT CURRENT ACTIVITIES Co-PI, NASA ICESCAPE project, Chukchi Sea 2010-11, focus: algal ecology Co-PI, Sikuliaq Ice Trials, Bering Sea, 2015 Co-PI, NSF-AON Ice-Tethered Profiler program: applications to algal ecology & assessment Collaboration, algal distributions in Bering Sea using cell imaging approaches (NPRB/NOAA AFSC) RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS Laney, S. R., and H. M. Sosik. 2014. Phytoplankton assemblage structure in and around a massive under- ice bloom in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II 105, 30-41. Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, M. A. Palmer, W. B. Balch, N. R. Bates, C. Benitez-Nelson, E. Brownlee, K. E. Frey, S. R. Laney, J. Mathis, A. Matsuoka, B. G. Mitchell, G. W. K. Moore, R. A. Reynolds, H. M. Sosik, J. H. Swift. 2014. Phytoplankton blooms beneath the sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II 105, 1-16. Laney, S. R., R. A. Krishfield, J. M. Toole, T. R. Hammar, C. J. Ashjian, and M.-L. Timmermans. 2014. Assessing algal biomass and bio-optical distributions in perennially ice-covered polar ocean ecosystems. Polar Science 8, 73-85. Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, M. A. Palmer, W. B. Balch, F. Bahr, N. R. Bates, C. Benitez-Nelson, B. Bowler, E. Brownlee, J. K. Ehn, K. E. Frey, R. Garley, S. R. Laney, L. Lubelczyk, J. Mathis, A. Matsuoka, B. G. Mitchell, G. W. K. Moore, E. Ortega-Retuerta, S. Pal, C. M. Polashenski, R. A. Reynolds, B. Schieber, H. M. Sosik, M. Stephens, J. H. Swift. 2012. Massive phytoplankton blooms under Arctic sea ice. Science 336, 1408, doi:10.1126/science.1215065. Timmermans, M.-L., R. Krishfield, S. Laney, and J. Toole, 2010. Ice-Tethered Profiler measurements of dissolved oxygen under permanent ice cover in the Arctic Ocean. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 27, 1936- 1949, doi:10.1175/2010JTECHO772.1. RELEVANT FIELD RESEARCH Bering Sea ice trials for RV SIKULIAQ. March-April, 2015. Member of science party participating in ice trials for new UNOLS ice-capable research vessel. Bering/Chukchi Sea Winter cruise, USCGC HEALY. November-December, 2011. Examined phytoplankton overwintering strategies in late fall/early winter Arctic ecosystems. ICESCAPE 2010, ICESCAPE 2011, USCGC HEALY. June-July 2010, 2011. Examined mesoscale distributions of phytoplankton and optical properties in the Chukchi and Bering Seas. Arctic ocean optics, NOAA Ship OSCAR DYSON. August-September 2007. Conducted 3 week mesoscale survey of phytoplankton and ocean optical properties in the eastern Chukchi & Bering Seas.

Dr. S. R. Laney Curriculum Vitae Page 1 of 1 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.17-Laney

Stephen R. Okkonen Email: [email protected]

Professional preparation: University of Michigan Environmental Sciences Engineering, B.S. May 1976

University of Alaska Fairbanks Physical Oceanography, PhD. December 1993

Naval Research Laboratory - Stennis Space Center, Mississippi Postdoctoral Fellow, Physical Oceanography October 1994 - May 1996

Appointments: Research Assistant Professor of Marine Science School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, January 1997 – June 2007

Research Associate Professor of Marine Science School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, July 2007 – present

Memberships: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society The Oceanography Society, Scholarly Union of Bio-Physical Arctic Researchers

Recent Relevant Peer-reviewed Publications: Citta, J., LT Quakenbush; S R Okkonen; M L Druckenmiller; W Maslowski; J Clement Kinney; J C George; H Brower; R J Small; C J Ashjian; L A Harwood; MP Heide-Jorgensen. 2014. Ecological characteristics of core-use areas used by Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) bowhead whales, 2006-2012. Prog. Oceangr. (in press).

Stafford, K.M., S.R. Okkonen, and J.T. Clarke. 2013. Correlation of a strong Alaska Coastal Current with the presence of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) near Barrow, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Vol. 474: 287–297, doi: 10.3354/meps10076.

Okkonen, S.R., C. Ashjian, R.G. Campbell, J.T. Clarke, S.E. Moore, and K.D. Taylor. 2011. Satellite observations of circulation features associated with a bowhead whale feeding ‘hotspot’ near Barrow, Alaska. Remote Sensing of Environment 115:2168-2174.

Ashjian, C.A., S.R. Braund, R.G. Campbell, J.C. George, J. Kruse, W. Maslowski, S.E. Moore, C.R. Nicolson, S.R. Okkonen, B.F. Sherr, E.B. Sherr, Y. Spitz. 2010. Climate Variability, Oceanography, Bowhead Whale Distribution, and Iñupiat Subsistence Whaling near Barrow, AK. Arctic, 63(2):179-194.

Okkonen, S.R., C. Ashjian, R.G. Campbell, W. Maslowski, J.L. Clement-Kinney, and R. Potter. 2010. Intrusion of warm Bering/Chukchi waters onto the western Beaufort Shelf, J. Geophys. Res, 115,C00A11,doi.10.1029/2008JC004870

Clement Kinney, J., W. Maslowski, S. Okkonen. 2009. On the processes controlling shelf-basin exchange and outer shelf dynamics in the Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Res. II 56(17):1351-1362, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.10.023

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

1 Research Plan 2 A. Project Title: Temperature tipping points for Chukchi Sea benthic ecosystem function. 3 4 B. Category: Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity 5 6 C. Rationale and justification: Summary: The Chukchi Sea (CS) is an area where high benthic biomass 7 fuels a diversity of upper trophic levels. As a result, the transfer of photosynthetic energy into benthic 8 biomass is a critical ecosystem function that differentiates the CS from other polar seas. Much of our 9 understanding of factors that drive the CS community structure revolve around the pervasive cold 10 temperature regime present there, a temperature regime that is changing. Here we take a cross-Domain, 11 ecosystem-ecology approach to quantify how increasing temperature will shift the amount of secondary 12 production that occurs in the benthos. Specifically, by identifying the ability of bacteria to outcompete 13 animals for food in a warmer world, this proposal aims to provide a mechanism by which climate change 14 will alter the food available to upper trophic levels, the rate and trajectory of nutrient cycling and oxygen 15 consumption, and the overall carbon budgets in the CS. As a result we will have an increased 16 understanding of current and future ecosystem function of the lower trophic levels in the CS. 17 18 Cross-domain Competition in the Arctic: The shallow, expansive shelf of the CS fuels an incredible 19 benthic community. Tight bentho-pelagic coupling results in benthic infaunal biomass that can exceed 40 20 g C m-2 (Dunton et al. 2005; Grebmeier et al. 2006). This “benthic-focused” system results from high 21 primary production, limited zooplankton grazing and a retarded pelagic microbial loop (Grebmeier et al. 22 1989 and reviewed in Grebmeier et al. 2006; Hunt et al. 2013). As much as 50% of the annual primary 23 production is deposited directly on the seafloor (Campbell et al. 2009) fueling a high benthic standing 24 stock. This standing stock remains dense enough for large grazers as the cold temperature limit the 25 abundance of epibenthic grazers (fish and crab species are 2x less abundant than in the warmer Bering 26 Sea; Hunt et al. 2013). Instead the benthic production is periodically harvested by apex predators/grazers 27 including grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus), walrus (Odebenus rosmarus divergens), bearded seals 28 (Erignathus barbatu) and spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri; Lowry et al. 1980; Moore et al. 2003; 29 Simpkins et al. 20003; Feder et al. 2005; Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009). One of the fundamental 30 ecosystem functions of the CS benthos is secondary production that provides food for top predators who 31 in turn provide both material and cultural services to the region. 32 33 Temperature is thought to be an overarching feature that shapes the function of the CS yet is also 34 changing with our climate. In the CS, water temperatures are below 0oC for as much as 8 months of the 35 year during which cold Bearing Sea Water expands northward until is covers the shelf from Barrow 36 Canyon all the way Harold canyon (Hunt et al. 2013). This prolonged and cold temperature regime 37 impacts the timing of the spring bloom, the magnitude of sub-ice plankton blooms (sea ice and 38 phytoplanktonic blooms beneath the first year ice; Arrigo et al. 2012), and the survivorship of potential 39 commercial fish species including those that would graze the benthos (reviewed in Hunt et al. 2013). In 40 short, temperature shapes the overall function of the pelagic and benthic ecosystem. Hunt et al. (2013) 41 went so far as to call temperature the “critical difference” between the CS and adjacent seas. The CS is 42 also one of the areas that is predicted to undergo severe temperature shifts in the next 80 years (Mora et 43 al. 2012). Estimates of temperature increase at the seafloor are 1oC (following a heavy carbon reduction o 44 RCP45 scenario) to exceeding +3 C if there is no decrease in CO2 emission (RCP85 scenario; Mora et al. 45 2012). Parts of the CS may experience a staggering +4.0oC increase in temperature at the seafloor. While 46 these predictions are based on the latest Global Climate Models (GCMs) and may over or underestimate 47 the reality of 2100, they highlight the need to better understand the mechanism by which temperature 48 perturbations impact the activities that allows the CS to have the high benthic standing stock that typifies 49 the region and fuels the rest of the food web and ecosystem. 50 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

51 Climate change in the CS is an active area of research as it is likely to permeate many facets of the 52 ecosystem. Compelling hypotheses have focused on likely shifts in total production (Arrigo et al. 2012), 53 shifting species composition including the range expansion of benthic predators and competitors for arctic 54 species (Mueter and Litzow, Sirenko and Gagaev 2007; Nelson et al. 2009; Wassmann et al. 2010; Michel 55 et al. 2012; Grebmeier 2012), and a general shift to a more “pelagic focused” ecosystem (Grebmeier et al. 56 2006). Together these factors either modify the amount of carbon that will reach the seafloor or the 57 potential grazers of the seafloor community. The onset of a shifting ecosystem, and specifically one away 58 from dense benthic communities, has already been observed (Grebmeier 2012). There is declining benthic 59 biomass in the north Bering (Moore et al. 2003; Grebmeier et al. 2006) a habitat much more akin to the 60 Chukchi than the southern Bering. The ultimate mechanism that drives this reduction in biomass is 61 unknown; competing hypotheses suggest that it may be a result of climate driven alteration or top 62 predators exceeding their carrying capacity (Highsmith and Coyle, 1992; Moore et al., 2003; Grebmeier 63 et al., 2006). In both of these hypotheses, the fundamental limiting factor for the ecosystem is the total 64 amount of food available in the benthos as it is well recognized that “a shift […] at the lower trophic level 65 can cascade quickly to impact higher top predators” (Grebmeier 2012). 66 67 While fueled by pelagic processes, the ultimate ability of benthic ecosystems to sustain a high carrying 68 capacity is a function of the benthic processes that allow efficient consumption of and growth resulting 69 from deposited food resources. One of the mechanisms that controls the amount of food to the benthos is 70 cross-Domain competition, or specifically the ability of animals (macrofauna) to outcompete benthic 71 bacteria for deposited organic carbon (particulate organic matter; POM). Post POM deposition, both 72 bacteria and macrofauna attempt to rapidly colonize and consume POM prior to its consumption by the 73 other Domain (van Nugteren et al. 2009). The greater the success of bacteria in this competition, the more 74 carbon is remineralized and released into the water column and the less shunted into the animal food web 75 and made available for benthic grazers (Figure 1). Even if the carbon that is consumed by bacteria results 76 in growth of the bacterial population, a potential food source for the animals, in a best case scenario this 77 lengthens the food web and decreases the transfer of energy from POM into animal biomass. While the 78 interactions between infauna and microbes has been a research foci for years (e.g. Lopez and Levinton 79 1987; Plante et al. 1990; Plante and Shriver 1998; Kim et al. 2007; 2010; van Nugteran et al 2009; 80 Dunton et al. 2012), we are still in our infancy in understanding what dictates the success of bacteria vs 81 animals in this competition. Of the factors that may favor one group over the other, temperature appears 82 to be play a pivotal role in dictating the outcome of this competition. 83 84 The Achilles Heel of bacteria is their reliance on extracellular enzymes to break down carbon as these 85 enzymes are inhibited at low temperatures. For example, even when dealing with species adapted to 86 Arctic temperatures, the enzymes that would allow bacteria to most effectively degrade carbon are only 87 13% as efficient at winter Arctic temperarues compared to optimum temperatures (Arnosti and Jorgensen 88 2003). This has led to paradigms on how polar and ‘cold’ ecosystems are areas where metazoans are 89 dominant in their competition with bacteria. On the Antarctic Peninsula, bacteria are unable to efficiently 90 degrade fresh carbon leaving a good food resource available for macrofauna year round (Mincks et al. 91 2005; Smith et al. 2008). In that particular case, a dense benthic animal community resulted (Smith et al 92 2008; Mincks et al. 2009). A similar phenomenon has been seen in the Arctic where stable high benthic 93 food resources have been observed (Pirtle-Levy et al. 2009). If we examine the flow of carbon through a 94 variety of ecosystems, temperature again seems to define the success of bacteria in this competition. For 95 example, in the cold deep-sea after the deposition of POM the animal community incorporates fresh 96 carbon within days whereas bacteria take >16 days to do the same (Witte et al. 2003). In contrast, on 97 warmer shelf and intertidal regions rapid degradation and incorporation of food occurs by bacteria (Van 98 Oevelen et al. 2006a; Bühring et al. 2006). It is important to note that temperature changes need not be 99 great to greatly alter the efficiency of these enzymes. The arctic bacterial enzymes referenced above are 100 50% as effective at current CS temperatures compared to those predicted in the next 80 year (interpreted 101 from Arnosti and Jorgensen 2003). All of this evidence highlights that temperature is a defining factor in Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

102 routing of carbon through and overall food available to lower trophic levels and even small shifts in 103 temperature may cross a tipping point into an altered trajectory of benthic ecosystem function. 104 105 Ecosystem function in the CS now and forward – A vast knowledge exists on the ecosystem function of 106 the CS benthos in its current state (reviewed in Grebmeier et al. 2006 with important works since then e.g. 107 Schonberg et al. 2014; Souza et al. 2014; McTigue et al. 2014; 2015; Grebmeier et al. 2015). These 108 research projects have shown that productivity is a driver of the sediment community oxygen metabolism 109 (Grebmeier et al. 2006), that there is a large amount of organic carbon stored in the sediment (Pirtle-Levy 110 et al. 2009; McTigue et al. 2015), and that macrofauna are the dominant grazer of organic matter 111 (Grebmeier and McRoy 1989; Grebmeier et al. 2006). The benthic community has been mapped with 112 connections between oceanography and productivity resulting in much of the aforementioned discoveries 113 and predictions about what factors shape and will shape the ecosystem in the future. In this proposal we 114 aim to build on this foundation of knowledge by identifying how current and future temperature impacts 115 will modify the path of pelagic production through microbial vs macrofaunal food webs and ultimately 116 into upper trophic levels. 117 118 Identification and quantification of carbon routing is possible through application of cutting-edge, pulse- 119 chase isotopic experiments. In this technique, an algae labeled with 13C is introduced into a mesocosm 120 (sediment core) collected from the habitat. As the carbon is broken down, it is either released into the 121 dissolved inorganic carbon pool or incorporated into the bacteria and animals present in that core. As a 122 result, one can empirically measure the degradation rate/ remineralization rate of organic carbon in the 123 habitat (13C in the water) as well as secondary bacterial and animal production simply by following this 124 isotopically unique carbon into each of these groups. To trace this into bacteria, one measures the amount 125 of 13C incorporated in membrane lipids that are only found in bacteria and thus the bacterial production 126 can be quantified by bulk sediment lipid extractions. This approach has been successfully employed to 127 quantify the magnitude of bacterial consumption and competition in deep-sea, coastal shelf, and intertidal 128 soft-sediment systems (Blair et al. 1996; Witte et al. 2003; van Oevelen et al. 2006a). In addition, 129 advanced modelling techniques (based around inverse linear modeling approaches) are especially well 130 suited to quantify the flow of carbon based on these experiments (van Oevelen et al. 2006b; 2010). While 131 these experiments have most often been used to identify how a current ecosystems function, they hold the 132 power to quantitate how an ecosystem function will shift under a future scenario. Here we aim to apply 133 this technique to map the trajectory of carbon through the food web at current and future predicted bottom 134 water temperatures to inform the future magnitude of secondary production benthic production. This will 135 add a mechanistic understanding of benthic ecosystem function and resilience while complimenting the 136 current hypotheses on how this region of the world will change as we warm. 137 138 Response to RFP: This project addresses the Research Priorities set forth by the NPRB by providing 139 (quotes from RFP): 140 • “a mechanistic understanding of how physical processes” - in this case temperature 141 • “influence ecosystem structure and function” - secondary benthic production and carbon and 142 nutrient remineralization 143 • “influence relative shifts in benthic and pelagic systems” - amount of N,C, and P released and 144 routed through different benthic faunal pools 145 • “influence the persistence, abundance, distribution, and life history of apex predators” - quantify 146 the ecology of the apex predators’ food source 147 • “Research should inform a baseline understanding of current processes as well as an 148 understanding of how systems might shift in the context of a changing climate.” We will learn 149 how carbon routes through a critical component of the ecosystem and how the magnitude of this 150 routing will change using the most current climate scenarios. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

151 Within the specific call, this research directly addresses the “rates of consumption, growth […] of second 152 producers and identify how these rates are impacted by production […], water properties”. This research 153 identifies a mechanism of how secondary productions are impacted by changing water properties. 154 155 D. Hypotheses: Increasing bottom water temperatures will shunt carbon into the benthic microbial loop 156 making it unavailable for macrofaunal benthic communities (illustrated in figure 1). 157 158 E. Objectives (O): 159 O1: Identify the current flow of carbon and nutrients through the benthic ecosystem in the CS in both 160 “high biomass” and “normal biomass” locations. 161 O2: Map how community respiration and nutrient cycling changes as a function of temperature predicted 162 by the end of the century. 163 O3: Quantify the alteration of microbial vs macrofaunal secondary production as a function of future 164 temperatures. 165 166 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: The overall outcome of this project is a quantitative relationship 167 between temperature, nutrient and organic carbon cycling, and secondary production of both bacteria and 168 the animals that form the critical trophic link between phytoplankton and the top predators of the CS. We 169 expect that even with small shifts in temperature, a tipping point will be reached that drastically reduces the 170 ability of the benthos to efficiently transfer photosynthetic energy into animal biomass. We will explore 171 this through the following deliverables: 172 Deliverable(D) 1: Mesocosm experiments will identify the microbial uptake, animal secondary 173 production, and integrated community carbon utilization at current temperatures using pulse-chase 174 and inverse-modeling approaches. (Addresses O1) 175 D2: The magnitude and rate of secondary benthic production as a result of increasing temperature 176 measured and modeled. (Addresses O3) 177 D3: Benthic nutrient flux will be quantified as a function of benthic biomass at current and future 178 predicted temperatures. (Addresses O2 and feeds data into O1 and O3) 179 D4: Total community carbon utilization rate and sediment community oxygen consumption quantified at 180 current and future temperatures. (Addresses O2) 181 D5: Refined understanding of ecosystem ecology that integrates microbial and metazoan competition into 182 our understanding of carbon flow in the CS, now and in the future. (General advance of ecology 183 published as synthesis paper at project close) 184 185 G. Project design and conceptual approach: Field Study design: Sampling will ideally occur during 186 spring or fall. As winter time conditions are going to be most altered by climate scenarios, and currently 187 occur for 8 months in the CS, this is the time period that could result in the greatest alteration of 188 ecosystem functioning in the region. In addition, we plan to focus on regions that are under the influence 189 of Bearing Sea water rather than the warmer Alaska Coastal Water meaning that we aim sample part of 190 the area just south of Hannah Shoal extending to South and East. Within this region, two study locations 191 will be focused on based on the existing biomass maps of Grebmeier et al. (2006) and replicate random 192 sampling done within those regions. We are focusing on high and low biomass regions as these are likely 193 to provide differential insight on the response of the community to food input. Specifically, if we see 194 range expansions of benthic predators into the region, this will lower the benthic standing stock and thus 195 the low biomass samples will inform how bacterial-animal competition will be altered by that scenario. 196 Ideal sampling locations include 71.5oN 164oW (High Biomass) and 71.0oN 166oW (Low biomass) with 197 high biomass and normal biomass locations defined as greater or less than 10g C m-2 standing stock. 198 Sampling would occur at ~ 40-60 m water depth. We have designed the particular locations of sampling 199 to be flexible to allow the greatest collaboration with other projects, including those funded as part of this 200 call and those currently ongoing. The area just south of Hanna Shoal is an area of Walrus foraging include Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

201 biomass hotspots (Grebmeier et al. 2015), currently studied by the Hanna Shoal Project, adjacent to two 202 moorings, and a study site in an upcoming cruise led by L. Juranek and thus worthwhile to focus on. 203 204 At each site, 5 multicore deployments will collect replicates sediment samples (5 drops of each region 205 will be treated as replicates). The initial community will be sampled for 1) macrofaunal biomass; 2) 206 macrofaunal community structure (putative species distribution and abundance); 3) microbial biomass 207 (based on lipid abundance); and 4) chlorophyll content. As multicores collect between 4 and 8 208 psuedoreplicate cores, 6 of the remaining 7 cores will be exposed to 6 different treatments and 3 different 209 temperatures (Ambient in situ temperature; Ambient +1oC and Ambient +3oC) and either zero or 20 g C -2 13 210 m of diatoms. We will isotopically label (by growing them in NaH CO3 augmented water) axenic 211 cultures of Chaetocerous and Thalassiosira, two congeners of dominant members of the CS 212 phytoplankton community (Yang et al., in press). Axenic cultures are requires as co-occurring bacteria 213 with the diatoms as an assumption of this method is that one is not introducing pre-isotopically labelled 214 bacterial biomass. The total amount of carbon added is on the lower end of total annual productivity of 215 the region. Temperature control experiments will take place in small modified chest freezers with precise 216 temperature control and cores will be incubated over a period of 4 days under mild stirring. Oxygen will 13 217 be monitored continually and discrete water samples will be used to quantify the CO3 released as a 218 result of integrated microbial and metazoan activity and nutrient (N,P) efflux. The cores not augmented 219 by algae will be used to measure sediment community oxygen consumption, and nutrient efflux as a 220 function of temperature. Oxygen levels will not be allowed to drop below 75% of ambient. At the end of 221 the four days, the experiment will be terminated, and both macrofauna and sediment (i.e. microbial and 222 chlorophyll) preserved in 10% formalin and frozen at -80oC, respectively. Sediment will be vertically 223 sectioned in 3cm intervals to 9cm for the later analyses. Total unconsumed phytoplankton will be 224 measured in contrast to the change in sediment chlorophyll (measured flourometrically), the amount of 225 secondary bacterial production measure through extracting sediment lipids and measuring the 13C of 226 bacterial specific lipids (following Van Oevelen et al. 2006a), and the macrofaunal secondary production 227 by measuring the 13C of the fauna directly. Isotopic analysis will follow the methods of Thurber et al. 228 2013; lipid extraction following Thurber et al. 2012. Microbial biomass will be in Thurber’s lab, isotopic 229 composition fauna measured at Washington State and isotopic composition of specific fatty acids 230 measured at the UC Davis stable isotope facility. Total ecosystem carbon flow will be modeled using the 231 linear inverse models discussed in van Oevelen et al. (2010). 232 233 As a result of this we will have 1) secondary production values of high and low biomass regions 2) 234 Sediment community oxygen consumption as a function of temperature, macrofaunal biomass and 235 bacterial biomass 3) Nutrient flux as a function of temperature 4) flow of carbon and competitive 236 advantage of bacteria vs macrofauna as a function of temperature. All of these temperatures are those 237 likely to be experienced as the new winter temperatures over the next 80 years and will be based on 238 benthic biomass, which is already shifting in certain parts of the CS and thus important to constrain. 239 240 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: Within the project, every quantity measured will be 241 included in the referenced trophic and ecosystem modeling approaches. In regards to modeling efforts 242 outlined in the RFP, the relationship between T and the flux of O,N,P, and benthic production could be 243 fed from mooring and GCM models allowing constraint of nutrient regeneration, oxygen use, carbon use, 244 and potential impacts on total secondary production. These data also fit well in biological component 245 models, where the NPZ models could be altered to include Nutrient-phytoplankton-benthos models or the 246 benthic portion of N in and NPZ model better constrained. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

247 248 Tables and Figures:

Figure 1: A: hypothetical flow of carbon and nutrients through the benthos with arrows indicating flux. All black arrows and text will be directly quantified as part of this experiment. Grey arrows and text are parts of the ecosystem that are linked within this theoretical model but not directly measured. B: A hypothetical relative magnitude model of carbon/ nutrient flow at current temperatures. C: Predicted shift in relative flow of energy and alterations to nutrient and carbon cycling as a result of increased temperature and increased efficiency of microbial communities. Size of arrow in comparison to B indicates predicted changes. Note: CO2 is used as short hand for DIC system.

249 250 Literature Cited: 251 Arnosti, C., and B. B. Jørgensen. 2003. High activity and low temperature optima of extracellular 252 enzymes in Arctic sediments: implications for carbon cycling by heterotrophic microbial 253 communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 249: 15–24. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

254 Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, 255 M. A. Palmer, W. M. Balch, F. Bahr, and others. 2012. Massive phytoplankton blooms under Arctic 256 sea ice. Science 336: 1408–1408. 257 Blair, N. E., L. A. Levin, D. J. DeMaster, and G. Plaia. 1996. The short-term fate of fresh algal carbon in 258 continental slope sediments. Limnology and Oceanography 41: 1208–1219. 259 Bühring, S. I., S. Ehrenhauss, A. Kamp, L. Moodley, and U. Witte. 2006. Enhanced benthic activity in 260 sandy sublittoral sediments: Evidence from 13C tracer experiments. Marine Biology Research 2: 261 120–129. 262 Campbell, R. G., E. B. Sherr, C. J. Ashjian, S. Plourde, B. F. Sherr, V. Hill, and D. A. Stockwell. 2009. 263 Mesozooplankton prey preference and grazing impact in the western Arctic Ocean. Deep Sea 264 Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 56: 1274–1289. 265 Dunton, K. H., J. L. Goodall, S. V. Schonberg, J. M. Grebmeier, and D. R. Maidment. 2005. Multi- 266 decadal synthesis of benthic–pelagic coupling in the western arctic: Role of cross-shelf advective 267 processes. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 52: 3462–3477. 268 Dunton, K. H., S. V. Schonberg, and L. W. Cooper. 2012. Food web structure of the Alaskan nearshore 269 shelf and estuarine lagoons of the Beaufort Sea. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 416–435. 270 Feder, H. M., S. C. Jewett, and A. Blanchard. 2004. Southeastern Chukchi Sea (Alaska) epibenthos. Polar 271 Biol 28: 402–421. 272 Grebmeier, J. M. 2012. Shifting patterns of life in the Pacific Arctic and Sub-Arctic seas. Marine Science 273 4. 274 Grebmeier, J. M., and C. P. McRoy. 1989. Pelagic-benthic coupling on the shelf of the northern Bering 275 and Chukchi Seas. 111. Benthic food supply and carbon cycling. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 53: 79–91. 276 Grebmeier, J. M., B. A. Bluhm, L. W. Cooper, S. Danielson, K. R. Arrigo, A. L. Blanchard, J. T. Clarke, 277 R. H. Day, K. E. Frey, R. R. Gradinger, and others. 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes 278 facilitating persistent macrobenthic biomass hotspots and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. 279 Progress in Oceanography 280 Grebmeier, J. M., H. M. Feder, and C. P. McRoy. 1989. Pelagicbenthic coupling on the shelf of the 281 northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. 11. Benthic community structure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 51: 253– 282 268. 283 Grebmeier, J. M., L. W. Cooper, H. M. Feder, and B. I. Sirenko. 2006. Ecosystem dynamics of the 284 Pacific-influenced Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas in the Amerasian Arctic. Progress in 285 Oceanography 71: 331–361. 286 Highsmith, R. C., K. O. Coyle, B. A. Bluhm, and B. Konar. 2006. Gray whales in the Bering and Chukchi 287 Seas. Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems. University of California Press, Santa Cruz 303–313. 288 Hunt Jr., G. L., A. L. Blanchard, P. Boveng, P. Dalpadado, K. F. Drinkwater, L. Eisner, R. R. Hopcroft, 289 K. M. Kovacs, B. L. Norcross, P. Renaud, M. Reigstad, M. Renner, H. R. Skjoldal, A. Whitehouse, 290 and R. A. Woodgate. 2013. The Barents and Chukchi Seas: Comparison of two Arctic shelf 291 ecosystems. Journal of Marine Systems 109–110: 43–68. 292 Kim, S. L., A. Thurber, K. Hammerstrom, and K. Conlan. 2007. Seastar response to organic enrichment 293 in an oligotrophic polar habitat. Journal of experimental marine biology and ecology 346: 66–75. 294 Kim, S., K. K. Hammerstom, K. E. Conlan, and A. R. Thurber. 2010. Polar ecosystem dynamics: 295 Recovery of communities from organic enrichment in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Integrative and 296 Comparative Biology 50: 1031–1040. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

297 Lopez, G. R., and J. S. Levinton. 1987. Ecology of deposit-feeding animals in marine sediments. 298 Quarterly Review of Biology 235–260. 299 Lowry, L. F., K. J. Frost, and J. J. Burns. 1980. Feeding of bearded seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas 300 and trophic interaction with Pacific walruses. Arctic 330–342. 301 McTigue, N. D., and K. H. Dunton. 2014. Trophodynamics and organic matter assimilation pathways in 302 the northeast Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 303 102: 84–96. 304 McTigue, N. D., P. Bucolo, Z. Liu, and K. H. Dunton. 2015. Pelagic-benthic coupling, food webs, and 305 organic matter degradation in the Chukchi Sea: Insights from sedimentary pigments and stable 306 carbon isotopes. Limnology and Oceanography 60: 429–445. 307 Michel, C., B. Bluhm, V. Gallucci, A. J. Gaston, F. J. L. Gordillo, R. Gradinger, R. Hopcroft, N. Jensen, 308 T. Mustonen, A. Niemi, and T. G. Nielsen. 2012. Biodiversity of Arctic marine ecosystems and 309 responses to climate change. Biodiversity 13: 200–214. 310 Mincks, S. L., C. R. Smith, and D. J. DeMaster. 2005. Persistence of labile organic matter and microbial 311 biomass in Antarctic shelf sediments: evidence of a sediment food bank. Marine Ecology Progress 312 Series 300: 3–19. 313 Mincks, S. L., P. L. Dyal, G. L. Paterson, C. R. Smith, and A. G. Glover. 2009. A new species of 314 Aurospio (Polychaeta, Spionidae) from the Antarctic shelf, with analysis of its ecology, reproductive 315 biology and evolutionary history. Marine Ecology 30: 181–197. 316 Moore, S. E., J. M. Grebmeier, and J. R. Davies. 2003. Gray whale distribution relative to forage habitat 317 in the northern Bering Sea: current conditions and retrospective summary. Canadian Journal of 318 Zoology 81: 734–742. 319 Mora, C., C.-L. Wei, A. Rollo, T. Amaro, A. R. Baco, D. Billett, L. Bopp, Q. Chen, M. Collier, R. 320 Danovaro, A. J. Gooday, B. M. Grupe, P. R. Halloran, J. Ingels, D. O. B. Jones, L. A. Levin, H. 321 Nakano, K. Norling, E. Ramirez-Llodra, M. Rex, H. A. Ruhl, C. R. Smith, A. K. Sweetman, A. R. 322 Thurber, J. F. Tjiputra, P. Usseglio, L. Watling, T. Wu, and M. Yasuhara. 2013. Biotic and Human 323 Vulnerability to Projected Changes in Ocean Biogeochemistry over the 21st Century. PLoS Biol 11: 324 e1001682. 325 Mueter, F. J., and M. A. Litzow. 2008. Sea ice retreat alters the biogeography of the Bering Sea 326 continental shelf. Ecological Applications 18: 309–320. 327 Nelson, R. J., E. C. Carmack, F. A. McLaughlin, and G. A. Cooper. 2009. Penetration of Pacific 328 zooplankton into the western Arctic Ocean tracked with molecular population genetics. Marine 329 Ecology Progress Series 381: 129–138. 330 Norcross, B. L., B. A. Holladay, M. S. Busby, and K. L. Mier. 2010. Demersal and larval fish 331 assemblages in the Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 57: 332 57–70. 333 Pirtle-Levy, R., J. M. Grebmeier, L. W. Cooper, and I. L. Larsen. 2009. Chlorophyll a in Arctic sediments 334 implies long persistence of algal pigments. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 335 Oceanography 56: 1326–1338. 336 Plante, C. J., and A. G. Shriver. 1998. Patterns of differential digestion of bacteria in deposit feeders: a 337 test of resource partitioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series 163: 253–258. 338 Plante, C. J., P. A. Jumars, and J. A. Baross. 1990. Digestive associations between marine detritivores and 339 bacteria. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 93–127. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

340 Schonberg, S. V., J. T. Clarke, and K. H. Dunton. 2014. Distribution, abundance, biomass and diversity of 341 benthic infauna in the Northeast Chukchi Sea, Alaska: Relation to environmental variables and 342 marine mammals. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 102: 144–163. 343 Sheffield, G., and J. M. Grebmeier. 2009. Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens): differential 344 prey digestion and diet. Marine Mammal Science 25: 761–777. 345 Simpkins, M. A., L. M. Hiruki-Raring, G. Sheffield, J. M. Grebmeier, and J. L. Bengtson. 2003. Habitat 346 selection by ice-associated pinnipeds near St. Lawrence Island, Alaska in March 2001. Polar Biology 347 26: 577–586. 348 Sirenko, B. I., and S. Y. Gagaev. 2007. Unusual abundance of macrobenthos and biological invasions in 349 the Chukchi Sea. Russian Journal of Marine Biology 33: 355–364. 350 Slagstad, D., I. H. Ellingsen, and P. Wassmann. 2011. Evaluating primary and secondary production in an 351 Arctic Ocean void of summer sea ice: an experimental simulation approach. Progress in 352 Oceanography 90: 117–131. 353 Smith, C. R., S. Mincks, and D. J. DeMaster. 2008. The FOODBANCS project: Introduction and sinking 354 fluxes of organic carbon, chlorophyll-a and phytodetritus on the western Antarctic Peninsula 355 continental shelf. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 55: 2404–2414. 356 Souza, A. C., I.-N. Kim, W. S. Gardner, and K. H. Dunton. 2014. Dinitrogen, oxygen, and nutrient fluxes 357 at the sediment–water interface and bottom water physical mixing on the eastern Chukchi Sea shelf. 358 Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 102: 77–83. 359 Thurber, A. R. 2014. Diet-dependent incorporation of biomarkers: implications for food-web studies 360 using stable isotope and fatty acid analyses with special application to chemosynthetic environments. 361 Mar Ecol 362 Thurber, A. R., W. J. Jones, and K. Schnabel. 2011. Dancing for food in the deep sea: bacterial farming 363 by a new species of yeti crab. PloS one 6: e26243. 364 Thurber, A. R., L. A. Levin, A. A. Rowden, S. Sommer, P. Linke, and K. Kröεr. 2013. Microbes, 365 macrofauna, and methane: A novel seep community fueled by aerobic methanotrophy. Limnology 366 and Oceanography 58: 1640–1656. 367 Thurber, A. R., L. A. Levin, V. J. Orphan, and J. J. Marlow. 2012. Archaea in metazoan diets: 368 implications for food webs and biogeochemical cycling. The ISME Journal 6: 1602–1612. 369 Thurber, A. R., A. K. Sweetman, B. E. Narayanaswamy, D. O. B. Jones, J. Ingels, and R. L. Hansman. 370 2014. Ecosystem function and services provided by the deep sea. Biogeosciences 11: 3941–3963. 371 van Nugteren, P., P. M. Herman, L. Moodley, J. J. Middelburg, M. Vos, and C. H. Heip. 2009. Spatial 372 distribution of detrital resources determines the outcome of competition between bacteria and a 373 facultative detritivorous worm. Limnology and Oceanography 54: 1413–1419. 374 van Oevelen, D., J. J. Middelburg, K. Soetaert, and L. Moodley. 2006a. The fate of bacterial carbon in an 375 intertidal sediment: Modeling an in situ isotope tracer experiment. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 376 1302–1314. 377 van Oevelen, D., K. Soetaert, J. J. Middelburg, P. M. Herman, L. Moodley, I. Hamels, T. Moens, and C. 378 H. Heip. 2006b. Carbon flows through a benthic food web: Integrating biomass, isotope and tracer 379 data. Journal of Marine Research 64: 453–482. 380 van Oevelen, D., K. Van den Meersche, F. J. Meysman, K. Soetaert, J. J. Middelburg, and A. F. Vézina. 381 2010. Quantifying food web flows using linear inverse models. Ecosystems 13: 32–45. 382 Wassmann, P., C. M. Duarte, S. Agusti, and M. K. Sejr. 2011. Footprints of climate change in the Arctic 383 marine ecosystem. Global Change Biology 17: 1235–1249. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

384 Witte, U., F. Wenzhöfer, S. Sommer, A. Boetius, P. Heinz, N. Aberle, M. Sand, A. Cremer, W.-R. 385 Abraham, B. B. Jørgensen, and others. 2003. In situ experimental evidence of the fate of a 386 phytodetritus pulse at the abyssal sea floor. Nature 424: 763–766. 387 Yang, E. J., H. K. Ha, and S.-H. Kang. Microzooplankton community structure and grazing impact on 388 major phytoplankton in the Chukchi sea and the western Canada basin, Arctic ocean. Deep Sea 389 Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography , doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.05.020 390 391 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 392 This project compliments ongoing projects including: 393 (1) Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network. This proposed research examples remineralization as 394 a function of biomass in the CS and thus augments this projects goal of “dynamically interrelating data 395 sets” and “adding value to existing monitoring data.” Specifically we would add a mechanistic functional 396 ecological depth to their methods. In addition, a wealth of ongoing monitoring data includes both benthic 397 biomass and temperature, both of which are referenced below, and these two data types can be directly fed 398 into our resulting model. 399 (2) The Hanna Shoal Project – this research aligns well with the project and we would provide a mechanism 400 to relate their observations of biomass and chlorophyll to future climate scenarios. We have also chosen 401 our sites roughly to fall within areas that they have worked. 402 (3) Moored Ecosystem Observatories. This proposed project, as planned, has stations in between two Arctic 403 moorings that feed temperature, as well as other data. Modeling efforts that incorporate both mooring fed 404 data and NPZ models will benefit from the results of the proposed research both in terms of allowing the 405 application temperature to N,P flux (and in this region the flux is often directly into the seasonal photic 406 zone) and oxygen dynamics. In addition, if we find that a 3 degree change in temperature reduces the ability 407 of the animals to efficiently compete for food, this real time monitoring can inform tipping points of 408 ecosystem function as we reach them. 409 (4) Northern Bering Sea Bottom Trawl Survey. The Northern Bering is more similar to the Chukchi than 410 the southern Bering and benthic habitats in this region fuel fisheries that gain much of their energy from 411 the benthos. The same underlying cross-Domain competition principles are likely to impact the Northern 412 Bering ecosystem under future climate scenarios. 413 (5) Influence of Sea Ice on ecosystem shifts in the Arctic. Deposit feeding bivalves are a taxa that are 414 competing the same food source as bacteria and our posed hypotheses and results may help explain their 415 connection between ice algae and phytoplankton to benthic populations. 416 (6) Assessing the role of oceanic heat fluxes on ice ablation on the CS Shelf. The eddies that transport heat 417 will impact the temperature on the benthos and directly feed into our understanding of altered benthic 418 ecology that result from temperature. The heat flux project will provide important physical oceanographic 419 constraints for the underlying driver investigated here and our data will provide context to their results. 420 (7) Pacification of the Arctic – This project studies the temperature forcing role for gadid ecology. 421 Identifying the altered role of benthic secondary production will complement their research as combined it 422 presents a more holistic of an ecosystem that is defined by a tightly coupled benthic and pelagic ecosystem. 423 (8) Recently funded (NSF) work with PI L. Juranek aims to look at the primary production and inorganic 424 carbon stocks in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas focusing on the upper water column. As our results will 425 quantify the flux of nutrients and carbon out of the benthos in the same area of this project, we will add to 426 the overall understanding of the factors that drive CO2 emission and nutrient availability that Juranek’s 427 project will further elucidate. 428 (9) Proposed research by L. Ciannelli looks as processes critical to early survivorship of fish including 429 settlement and metamorphosis. Food sources can be an important driver of early survivorship and benthic 430 production is used by many of the species present in the CS. 431 432 Project Management: All data collection and analysis will be carried out by PI Thurber and the graduate 433 student supported as part of this project. They will have biweekly meetings during the course of the project Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

434 to facilitate rapid data processing, timely sharing of data among other NPRB researchers, and peer review 435 publications. PI Thurber has spent over 280 days at sea, 90 of those in polar habitats (Antarctic) in addition 436 to over 9 months carrying out land-based polar research including similar mesocosm experiments (these 437 results are soon to be submitted for publication). Although Thurber has not previously worked in the Arctic, 438 he has used every method proposed here and has experience at depths from the intertidal to over 6k m deep 439 including wire based, SCUBA, AUV, ROV, and HOV based approaches. While an early career research, 440 he has published (either as lead or co-author) 27 manuscripts most of which are on benthic ecosystem 441 processes (e.g. Thurber et al. 2013; 2014), the interactions of bacteria and invertebrates (Thurber 2007; 442 Thurber et al. 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014), and application and refinement of different lipid and biomarker 443 techniques (the above referenced and Thurber 2014). He also leads an international working group on 444 ecosystem function (which led to Mora et al. 2012), and had led (as chief scientist) international research 445 cruises. Thurber is trained as a benthic infaunal community ecologist and comfortable with putative species 446 or species identification of most invertebrates, while specializing in polychaetes. This project does not 447 require special permits. 448 449 Principal Investigators: CV attached. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

Cross-domain interactions on benthic secondary production July 1, 2016 – Sept 2021 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 individual responsible July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– for completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1: Current Energy Flow Pre-cruise prep Thurber X X Data collection/field work Thurber* X Home Institution Laboratory work (lipid and isotope preparation and quantification Thurber* X X X Submit isotope and lipid samples for analysis Thurber* X X Analysis, linear model application Thurber* X X X X X Objective #2: Nutrient and Oxygen Dynamics with temperature Data collection/field work Thurber* X Macrofaunal biomass measurement/ Nutrient analysis Thurber* X Analysis Thurber* X X Objective #3: Carbon and energy Flow in a warmer world Data collection/field work Thurber* X Home Institution Laboratory work (lipid and isotope preparation and quantification Thurber* X X X Submit isotope and lipid samples for analysis Thurber* X X Analysis, linear model application Thurber* X X X X Other Progress report Thurber x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation Thurber x x x x x PI meeting Thurber* x x x x x Logistics planning meeting Thurber x x Publication submission Thurber* X X X Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Thurber X X Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Thurber X X *indicates that Thurber will be ultimately responible for the completion of the task on the timeline but will work with the student on the project for each of these tasks Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: Temperature tipping points for Chukchi Sea benthic ecosystem function. 4 5 Lead PI: AR Thurber 6 7 Logistical Needs: Ship requirements: To facilitate this project we need a total of 48 hours of wire-time 8 aboard a vessel with an a-frame or crane capable of launching a multiple corer (max height = 370cm not 9 including shackle). Total weight of the multiple corer is ~500 kg and the ship would have to have a wire 10 and a winch capable of this (with safety margin). Ideally, this wire time would be spread over a longer 11 cruise and interspersed with other ship activities that would allow a reduction in total time as the main time 12 constraint here is post retrieval processing. At these depths actual time on the wire should be less than 1 13 hour per deployment and we require a total of 10 deployments to fulfil our sampling design assuming 100% 14 core success rate (which is optimistic). Through careful scheduling the ship time could be much reduced 15 from this estimate down to as little as 15 hours, including contingency deployments. Space on the ship 16 needed includes Freezer space (3ft3) in either a -20 freezer (-80 ideal), room for three small chest freezers 17 (2.5ft x 2.5ft x 4ft) and power to those freezers to carry out incubations. If a cold room at seabed 18 temperatures is available we can eliminate one of these freezers. A 3x2ft bench space area is needed in a 19 wet lab. Depending on season and weather, it is possible to have the freezers outside on the deck or in a 20 container/ hold. A multiple corer takes up approximately 6ft x 6ft deck space with shipping crates needed 21 to be either stored on board the vessel (if ports are different) or on land during the trip. 22 23 Month and year of sampling: Flexible with a preferred 2017 field campaign. Ideal month is April – May 24 after which water temperatures historically start warming for the summer in the region. Alternatively fall 25 sampling would also be possible and summer, while the least useful for the questions posed, is acceptable 26 but is also the worst of the seasons for this particular project. Winter would be fine if weather delays were 27 factored into wire time requirements (factor of 3 for the minimum amount (i.e. 45 hours minimum) and 72 28 hours for best case scenario.) 29 30 Three berths are requested with two required. If ship is not familiar with multiplecorer use – a technician 31 will be brought along requiring the third berth. Technician involvement has been budgeted in, however can 32 be removed depending on the ship. Further if a UNOLS vessel is used, then a Multiple corer can be 33 provided from the UNOLS pool. Cost saving of a local provided multiple corer is in excess of 22k. If we 34 provide a technician, they would not be need to be dedicated to this project throughout the cruise. 35 36 Sampling is not limited to daylight and the multiple corer can be effective in moderate seas, although this 37 is dependent on whether it is launched from amidship or the stern. The main concern with sea state is the 38 ability to safely deploy and recover the multiple corer which is also a function of the particular ship chosen. 39 40 It is important to note that the isotopic experiments proposed are NOT radioactive and thus do not require 41 specific vans nor certifications for the ship or investigators. They are best not done in close proximity to 42 natural radio-carbon measurements however can co-occur in relatively close proximity to natural 43 abundance stable isotope experiments, as the PI routinely does both approaches. 44 45 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: No in-kind support is currently identified. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Temperature tipping points for Chukchi Sea benthic ecosystem function. Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Andrew R. Thurber category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 16,345 176,477 124,093 109,729 42,353 23,410 492,407 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 16,345 176,477 124,093 109,729 42,353 23,410 492,407

1. Personnel Salaries 6,202 51,314 46,263 40,869 17,160 7,190 168,998

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,977 14,433 11,653 8,923 4,648 3,811 46,445 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,640 10,486 5,886 5,204 5,204 3,124 31,544

4. Equipment 5,181 5,181

5. Supplies 7,074 2,730 1,590 11,394

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

300 37,802 22,653 22,741 1,800 1,800 87,096

Total Direct Costs 11,119 126,290 89,185 79,327 28,812 15,925 350,658 0

Indirect Costs 5,226 50,187 34,908 30,402 13,541 7,485 141,749

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 16,345 176,477 124,093 109,729 42,353 23,410 492,407 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM

PROJECT TITLE: Temperature tipping points for Chukchi Sea benthic ecosystem function. Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Andrew R. Thurber category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 16,345 176,477 124,093 109,729 42,353 23,410 492,407 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 16,345 176,477 124,093 109,729 42,353 23,410 492,407

1. Personnel Salaries 6,202 51,314 46,263 40,869 17,160 7,190 168,998 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 2,977 14,433 11,653 8,923 4,648 3,811 46,445 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,640 10,486 5,886 5,204 5,204 3,124 31,544 0

4. Equipment 0 5,181 0 0 0 0 5,181 0

5. Supplies 0 7,074 2,730 1,590 0 0 11,394 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

300 37,802 22,653 22,741 1,800 1,800 87,096 0

Total Direct Costs 11,119 126,290 89,185 79,327 28,812 15,925 350,658 0

Indirect Costs 5,226 50,187 34,908 30,402 13,541 7,485 141,749 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 16,345 176,477 124,093 109,729 42,353 23,410 492,407 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Oregon State University

Project Title: Temperature tipping points for Chukchi Sea benthic ecosystem function.

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $492,407

1. Personnel/Salaries: PI Thurber will devote one month in FY16, 2 months in FY17 and FY18, and 1 month in FY19, FY20, and FY21. He will oversee all aspects of this project including attending all meetings, precruise prep and shipping, join the cruise, oversee all lab work, and be responsible, in collaboration, with the yet to be identified graduate student on preparation and publication of the results in peer-reviewed journals. Thurber is an Associate Professor (Senior Research) at Oregon State University, a position that receives 10% institutional support and his salary includes a cost of living increase of 3% per year.

Graduate Student (currently unidentified) will be recruited for this project. During FY17-19 they will work 12 months a year on this project and it will form the basis of their PhD. In FY20 they will continued to be involved in the synthesis stage for three months a year (over summer – no tuition requested). They will attend the PI and Graduate student meeting during the four years of their support and perform the majority of the lab work in collaboration with Thurber.

An at-sea technician will work for 1 month in the year of the cruise (indicated as FY17 on this proposal) to oversee multicore operations. It is the PIs hope that an appropriate deck crew will be available on the chosen ship to allow us to not bring this technician to save overall costs to this proposal, however, rental of the multiple corer from Oregon State often requires this cost. The technician is required to get sea pay at a rate of 70 dollars per day in addition to their salary.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Thurber: OPE/Fringe rate increases from .48 to .53 at a rate of .01 per year. Graduate student fringe rate starts at .165 in FY17 and increase at .01 per year for 9 months of the year. Summer fringe rate for the graduate student is 0.1 throughout the proposed duration and in FY20 only summer salary is included. Technician fringe is 0.59 on salary and .305 on sea pay.

Personnel Expense Details: Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 AR Thurber 1 month 74424 6202 .48 2977 FY16 Totals 6202 2977 FY17 AR Thurber 2 months 76657 12776 .49 6260 FY17 Graduate Studnt. 12 months 32140 32140 .1 & .165 4698 FY17 AtSea Tech. 1 month 64176 6398 .59&.305 3476 FY17 Totals 51314 14433 FY18 AR Thurber 2 months 78956 13159 .50 6580 FY18 Graduate Studnt. 12 months 33103 33103 .1 & .175 5073 FY18 Totals 46263 11653 FY19 AR Thurber 1 month 81325 6777 .51 3456 FY19 Graduate Studnt. 12 months 34092 34092 .1 & .185 5467 FY19 Totals 40869 8923 FY20 AR Thurber 1 month 83765 6980 .52 3630 FY20 Graduate Studnt. 3 months 35118 10180 .1 1018 FY20 Totals 17160 4648 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

FY21 AR Thurber 1 month 86278 7190 .53 3811 FY21 Totals 7190 3811

3. Travel: FY16: Total travel request in FY16 $1640 Domestic: Funds are requested to travel to the kick off meeting for 3 days (320 airfare; 339 room and 101 food per day.) All rates provided are government approved per diem in Anchorage and, when appropriate, reflect decrease travel costs in fall through spring ($181 food and lodging combined per day during fall, winter and spring) when meeting schedules dictate this. No foreign travel is requested.

FY17: Total travel request in FY17 $10486 Domestic: Travel for PI to Logistics planning meetings (2 days at 320 airfare and 362 Meals and lodging) and travel for PI and graduate student to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 1760 Meals and Lodging per person). PI will also travel to the Alaska Marine Science Conference (4 days at 320 airfare and 724 lodging and meals). Travel to unknown departure port for the cruise, including 2 days prior and 1 day post is planned for PI, Graduate Student, and Technician (320 airfare and 1320 Meals and lodging per person). No foreign travel is requested.

FY18: Total travel request in FY18 $5886 Domestic: Travel for PI to Logistics planning meetings (2 days at 320 airfare and 362 Meals and lodging) and to the Alaska Marine Science Conference (4 days at 320 airfare and 724 lodging and meals) and travel for PI and graduate student to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 1760 Meals and Lodging per person) is requested. No foreign travel is requested.

FY19: Total travel request in FY19 $5204 Domestic: Travel for PI to Alaska Marine Science Conference (4 days at 320 airfare and 724 lodging and meals) and travel for PI and graduate student to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 1760 Meals and Lodging per person). No foreign travel is requested.

FY20: Total travel request in FY20 $5204 Domestic: Travel for PI to Alaska Marine Science Conference (4 days at 320 airfare and 724 lodging and meals) and travel for PI and graduate student to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 1760 Meals and Lodging per person). No foreign travel is requested.

FY21: Total travel request in FY21 $3124 Domestic: Travel for PI to Alaska Marine Science Conference (4 days at 320 airfare and 724 lodging and meals) and travel to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 1760 Meals and Lodging per person). No foreign travel is requested

4. Equipment: Equipment is only requested in Year 2 of the project.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

Year 2: FY17 – During year 2 of the project we request the supplies necessary to purchase an Ocean Optics oxygen sensor to measure oxygen uptake in the experiments. Specifically this is a NeoFox unit with 30 “patches”. This instrument allows the oxygen to be quantified without opening of the core, meaning that we can remove artifacts of degassing and isotope loss through the purchase of this equipment. Total equipment funds request in FY16 $5181

5. Supplies: Year 1: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY16). Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: For FY17 we request: Three chest freezers modified for careful temperature control ($520 per freezer and $80 temperature control unit) that allow us to incubate the collected cores at different temperatures, $1.2k for sample bottles, whirlpack bags, cryovials, and tin boats for isotopic analysis. Axenic algae culture material and rearing supplies ($624) in addition to isotopic label for these algae ($300). A total of $240 dollars in reagents (Ethanol, formalin, MeOH) is also requested. 30 core tubes for deployment on the multiple corer are required as these will be used in as the incubation chambers after retrieval ($2910). They can be reused between sites. Total supplies funds request in FY17 $7074

Year 3: In FY18 we request supplies needed for lipid extraction and quantification to identify microbial biomass and lipid content (needed for compound specific analysis referenced in other), these supplies total $2250 and include reagents, gas for the Gas Chromatograph, and associated supplies (cost is ~$25 per sample for 120 sediment layers assuming that 75% of the samples are processed this year). $480 dollars in other associate reagents for nutrient sample prep, faunal quantification (gloves and formalin), etc. are also required. Total supplies funds request in FY18 $2730

Year 4: In FY19 we will finish the lipid extraction and quantification and thus require an additional $750 for finishing up the final 25% of the lipid extractions and quantification. An additional 480 dollars for lab reagents and supplies (isotopic analysis and gloves, etc) are requested as well as reagents to quantify chlorophyll from the sediment ($360). Total supplies funds request in FY19 $1590

Year 5: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY20). Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY21). Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants: There are no contracts or consultants on this proposal Total Contractual funds requested is $0.

7. Other: Total other funds requested is $300 in FY16: Thurber is required to include research computing fees on research grants amounting to 300 dollars per month of salary requested. In year one, this is one month. Total other funds requested is $37,802 in FY17: Tuition: Graduate tuition amounting to $14,328 is requested for the graduate student on the project (overhead is not charged on this fee). Shipping costs, Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

estimated to be $10k for supplies and the multiplecorer are requested between Oregon and an unknown AK port. Multiple corer rental, costing $12874 is requested. If a local multiple corer is available (including if UNOLS vessel is used) this fee is not needed. Research computing fees of $600 are requested. Total other funds requested is $22,653 in FY18: In addition to research computing fees ($600), graduate tuition ($14,913), and analytical costs ($7300) are requested. These analytical costs include measurement of animal isotopic composition ($2100 run at Washington State) and compound specific fatty acid composition (run at the University of California, Davis stable isotopic facility; $4200). These values are based on 20 individuals from each replicate having its stable isotopic composition quantified and 3 layers from pulse chase core (including the control core) having the isotopic composition of individual lipids (specifically fatty acids) measured. Half of these will be measured in FY18 and half in FY19. The costs indicated in this year are only this years portion of the costs. The change in N and P (i.e. nutrient flux) from all treatments will also be analyzed in this year ($840) at Oregon State. Total other funds requested is $22,741 in FY19: Research computing fees (300), graduate tuition ($14,641) and the remaining isotopic analyses ($2100 – animal and $4200 isotopic composition of bacterial fatty acids) will be the analytical and other associated costs in FY19. In addition we request $1.5k for providing open access to a subset of the publications that come out of this research. Total other funds requested is $1800 in FY20: We request only research computing fees ($300) and publication fees ($1500) as costs in FY20. Total other funds requested is $1800 in FY21. We request only research computing fees ($300) and publication fees ($1500) as costs in FY21.

8. Indirect Costs: The indirect cost rate for this proposal is 47% excluding tuition and fees and major equipment. This applies to total modified direct costs of (FY16) $11,119; (FY17) $106,781; (FY18) $74,272; (FY19) $64,686; (FY20) $28,811; (FY21) $15,924 resulting in: Total indirect funds requested is $5,226 in FY16 , $50,187 in FY17, $34,908 in FY18, $30,402 in FY19, $13,541 in FY20, and $7,485 in FY21

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: none

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber Arctic Pre-proposal 3.18-Thurber

Andrew R. Thurber, Ph.D. College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences (CEOAS) Tel: (+1) 541-737-4500 Oregon State University Fax: (+1) 541-737-2064 104 CEOAS Admin, Corvallis, OR 97331 [email protected] Education 2011-2014 Post Doctoral Fellow – NSF Polar Regions Research – Oregon State University 2005-2010 Ph.D. in Oceanography - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego 2001-2005 M.S. in Marine Science (Distinction) - Moss Landing Marine Labs, CSU- Stanislaus 1997-2001 B.S. in Marine Biology, Minor Mathematics - Hawaii Pacific University Select Appointments 2014-present Assistant Professor (Senior Research) – CEOAS, Oregon State University 2010-present Leader of the Ecosystem Function Working Group – INDEEP Current Grants & Awards 2015-2017 Co-PI: Hydrogen Sulfide reduces growth rates in manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum) on Lummi tide flats. USDA/ National Institute of Food & Agriculture (NIFA)/ Subaward from Northwest Tribal College (NWIC) 2015-2017 Co-PI: Seasonal diet changes for manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum) on Lummi tide flats: Building NWIC capacity for diet analysis. NIFA/ NWIC 2015-2016 Co-PI: Edginess in the subsurface: Microbial diversity of deep subseafloor ecotones - Center for Dark Energy Biosphere Investigations/NSF Select Publications (of 27 published) Thurber AR. 2014. Diet-dependent incorporation of biomarkers: Implications for food-web studies using stable isotope and fatty acid analyses with special application to chemosynthetic environments. (online early, Marine Ecology). Levin LA, Mendoza GF, Grupe B, Gonzalez JP, Jellison B, Rouse G, Thurber AR, Waren A. Macrofauna inhabiting authigenic carbonate at Costa Rica methane seeps. (in press, PLoS ONE). Marlow J, Steele J, Ziebis W, Thurber AR, Levin LA, Orphan VJ. 2014. Carbonate hosted methanotrophy: An unrecognized methane sink in the deep sea. Nature Communications 5: 5094 Thurber AR, Sweetman AK, Narayanaswamy BE, Jones DOB, Ingels J, Hansman RL. 2014. Ecosystem function and services provided by the deep sea. Biogeosciences 10:10193-18240 Thurber AR, Levin LA, Rowden AA, Kröger K, Linke P, Sommer S. 2013. Microbes, Macrofauna, and Methane: The importance of aerobic methanotrophy in fueling a high-biomass, methane seep infaunal community. Limnology and Oceanography 58:1640-1656. Mora C, Rollo A, Amaro T, Baco AR, Chen Q, Collier M, Danovaro R, Gooday AJ, Grupe B, Halloran PR, Ingels J, Jones DOB, Levin LA, Nakano H, Norling K, Ramirez-Llodra E, Ruhl HA, Smith CR, Sweetman AK, Thurber AR, Tjiputra JF, Usseglio P, Watling L, Wei C-L, Wu T, Yasuhara M. 2013. Projected climate change in the ocean and its impact upon marine biota and people. PLoS Biology 11(10): e1001682. Dayton PK, Kim S, Jarrell SC, Oliver JS, Hammerstrom K, Fisher JL, O’Connor K, Barber JS, Robilliard G, Barry J, Thurber AR, Conlan K. 2013. Recruitment, Growth and Mortality of an Antarctic Hexactinellid Sponge, Anoxycalyx joubini. PLoS ONE. 8(2): e56939. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056939 Thurber AR, Levin LA, Orphan VJ, Marlow J. 2012. Archaea in the diet of Metazoans: Implications for Chemosynthetic Ecosystems. ISME J 6:1602-1612. Thurber AR, Jones WJ, Schnabel K. 2011. Dancing for food in the deep sea: Bacterial farming by a new species of Yeti crab. PLoS ONE. 6(11):e26243. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0026243 Glover AG, Smith CR, Minks SL, Sumida PY, Thurber A. 2008. Macrofaunal abundance and composition on the West Antarctic Peninsula continental shelf: Evidence for a sediment ‘food bank’and similarities to deep-sea habitats. Deep-Sea Research II 55:2491-2501. Thurber AR. 2007. Diets of Antarctic sponges: links between the pelagic microbial loop and benthic metazoan food web. Marine Ecology Progress Series 351:77-89. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

1 Research Plan 2 3 Project Title: Energetics, growth and reproduction of key crustacean micronekton (CM) in the 4 Chukchi Sea: ecosystem responses to changing sea ice conditions. 5 6 Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity with secondary linkage to Category 7 2: species distribution and interaction. 8 9 This proposal addresses the phenology of key crustacean micronekton (primarily euphausiids), their 10 growth and production and their nutritional significance to the apex predators in the context of the 11 ongoing changes in advection and sea ice dynamics of the Chukchi Sea shelf. This study is most 12 compatible with NPRB identified Research Category 3: Oceanography and lower trophic level 13 productivity. The information is also relevant to category 2 as it will help define the species 14 distributions. 15 16 A. Rationale and justification: 17 The Arctic marine environment and its resident ecosystem are being impacted by global climate change. 18 We know, however, that the mechanistic processes underpinning the transition are not uniform, but differ 19 across various regions of the Arctic Ocean. The Chukchi Sea is unique among other marginal Arctic seas, 20 because it is an inflow system, with most of the water masses arriving directly from the northern Bering 21 Sea via the Bering Strait (Coachman et al, 1975; Carmack and Wassmann 2006). Recent evidence shows 22 that the volume of the relatively warm Bering Sea water flowing into the Arctic has increased in the last 23 decade (Woodgate et al. 2015). The increase is partially responsible for warmer temperatures on the 24 Chukchi Sea shelf (Luchin and Panteleev, 2014), and likely contributes to reduction in extent and 25 duration of seasonal sea ice (Weingartner et al 2013; Thomson and Rogers, 2014) and to increase in 26 primary production (Belanger et al 2013). As a result, the Chukchi Sea is at the leading edge of expected 27 changes in ecosystem structure which may propagate northward. 28 29 The shifts in climate are expected to impact life cycles of expatriate species in different ways, which in 30 turn may result not only in their spatial range expansion (Mueter and Litzow, 2008), but also in 31 reorganization of entire food webs as it has been recently observed in the southeastern Bering Sea (Fig. 1) 32 (Coyle et al 2011, Pinchuk et al 2013). As the Chukchi Sea responds to variations in climate, its ability to 33 support the resources upon which people depend may change (Arctic Program Implementation Plan, 34 2015). Changes in sea ice conditions (extent, coverage, thickness, and seasonality), water temperature 35 and stratification will influence not only the primary productivity but also the recruitment, growth, and 36 nutritional condition of important secondary consumers, such as copepods and euphausiids, and predatory 37 pelagic invertebrates, such as hyperiids which act as essential trophic linkages. As a result, environmental 38 responses by top predators, including humans, will be mediated by the responses of these key 39 intermediate food web constituents. 40 41 Crustacean micronekton (CM), mainly euphausiids and hyperiids, play a central role in high latitude 42 ecosystems, because they form a critical link between primary producers and upper level consumers 43 including seabirds, fish and mammals (Schneider et al., 1986; Hunt et al., 2002a). For instance, they 44 commonly occur in diets of bowheads whales as far north as Barrow where they comprise the majority 45 (up to 88%) of whale stomach volume (Lowry et al, 2004). Despite their obvious importance in the 46 pelagic trophic chain, the biology of CM species in the Chukchi Sea is poorly known. This gap in our 47 understanding is due mainly to improper sampling designs employed in the past and targeted at 48 mesozooplankton (e.g. copepods) rather than CM, which tend to avoid small nets and spend much of the 49 daytime near the bottom (Coyle and Pinchuk, 2002, Piatt and Springer, 2003). As a consequence, 50 models have little more than a guess at their role in energy flow to upper level predators. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

51 52 The major euphausiid species found on Chukchi and Beaufort shelves are Thysanoesa raschii, while more 53 oceanic T. inermis is less abundant (Timofeev, 1993). The two species are common on boreal Atlantic 54 and Pacific shelves where they occupy different habitats with T. raschii abundant in shallow coastal 55 waters and fjords (Dalpadado and Skjoldal, 1991; Pinchuk et al 2008, Szabo & Batchelder, 2014). They 56 have different energy strategies as well with the herbivorous T. inermis stores lipids to fuel overwinter 57 survival and reproduction in the spring while T. raschii is a constant feeder; as a result T. inermis 58 contains about twice the amount of lipid per individual as T. raschii (Falk-Petersen et al., 1981, 2000). 59 Omnivorous T. raschii instead appears to rely more heavily on detrital feeding to overwinter, and upon 60 the spring phytoplankton bloom to support spawning (Falk-Peterson et al., 2000; Harvey et al. 2012). 61 These different strategies are reflected in the timing of reproduction for these species: T. inermis 62 apparently spawns earlier in the year than T. raschii (Hopkins et al., 1984; Smith 1991), perhaps because 63 the latter species needs to feed before spawning. New information based upon biochemical measures of 64 age shows that both T. raschii and T. inermis are likely to live to age three or four years in the Bering Sea 65 (Harvey, Pleuthner and Shaw, Unpubl.), similar to their life spans in cold waters elsewhere (Einarsson, 66 1945; Hopkins et al., 1984; Dalpadado and Skjodal, 1991). The former species is particularly abundant 67 on the Bering Sea shelf (e.g. Bi et al 2015) and is a key prey for many planktivorous predators (e.g. Coyle 68 et al, 2011). Significant interannual changes in abundance of T. raschii in the southeastern Bering Sea 69 shelf appear to be linked with cold/warm climate stanza in the region and result in profound alterations in 70 the pelagic trophic chain (Coyle et al, 2011). 71 72 It is believed that historically euphausiids do not reproduce on the Chukchi and Beaufort shelves (Johnson 73 1963, Niebauer & Schell 1993, Siegel 2000, Berline et al 2008), but form sterile expatriate populations 74 (Ekman, 1953, van der Spael, 1983) which are maintained through the input of new individuals from the 75 Bering Sea stock (Cooney & Coyle 1982, Springer et al. 1989) via a path through the Bering Strait 76 (Moore & Clarke 1992, Moore et al. 2000, Lowry et al. 2004), where they support large seabird 77 populations (Piatt and Springer, 2003). The factors which prevent euphausiid spread in the Arctic are 78 thought to be a combination of colder temperature and relatively low food levels due to short duration of 79 ice-free season, which increases development time and impede euphausiid growth and lipid accumulation 80 necessary for survival through the winter and spawning in the following spring. The recent warming trend 81 reverses those negative effects thus setting a stage for successful colonization of the Chukchi and 82 Beaufort shelves by euphausiids. The establishment of a reproducing krill population will change 83 secondary production on the shelf, which almost certainly would lead to fundamental shifts in the local 84 marine food web. 85 86 In contrast to advected euphausiids, large hyperiids Themisto libellula are residents of the Arctic shelf 87 with circumpolar distribution. These predatory amphipods play a key role in the Arctic ecosystem linking 88 herbivorous mesozooplankton to higher trophic level zooplanktivorous predators such as fishes, seabirds 89 and seals (Dalpadado et al., 2001; Haug et al., 2004; Karnovsky et al., 2008). The high nutritional value 90 of T. libellula is largely due to their high lipid content, which sub-adult and adult individuals accumulate 91 during the summer season to survive through the winter and, subsequently, fuel reproduction in the 92 following spring (Percy and Fife, 1981; Dale et al., 2006; Noyon et al., 2011). It has been noted that 93 recent warming during the last decade in the Barents Sea led to substantial decreases in T. libellula 94 abundance, indicating the importance of the thermal regime to the species survival (Dalpadado et al., 95 2012). Similarly, T. libellula virtually disappears from the southeastern Bering Sea shelf during years of 96 reduced ice cover and becomes re-established during cold climate stanza (Pinchuk et al 2013). 97 98 A number of studies have established that energy rich lipids are essential in CM life cycles, particularly in 99 reproduction and as an overwintering strategy for euphausiids and hyperiids, which must contend with 100 seasonal food supply (Saether et al., 1986; Falk-Petersen et al., 2000; Hagen and Auel, 2001; Ju and 101 Harvey, 2004; 2006). As one of the major constituents of CM, particularly those species found in high Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

102 latitudes, lipids show pronounced seasonal variations, typically ranging from 7 to 60% of dry mass (e.g. 103 Falk-Petersen et al, 2000; Noyon et al., 2011). Different species of CM often show variable patterns of 104 lipid storage in terms of the lipid structures accumulated and their metabolism which reflect the strong 105 link between lipid dynamics and life cycle strategies (i.e. food availability, reproduction, prey selection, 106 overwintering) and appear to enable different species to utilize multiple ecological niches. 107 108 The storage lipids in CM are typically either wax esters or triacylglycerols depending on species (e.g. 109 Falk-Peterson et al., 2000; Noyon et al., 2012). For instance, while T. inermis appear to accumulate high 110 amounts of wax esters as the primary storage lipid, T. raschii use triacylglycerols (Falk-Peterson et al., 111 1982). In contrast, T. libellula lipid composition changes as the animals grow because of their ontogenetic 112 dietary shifts (Noyon et al 2012). In addition, phospholipids, known principally as the major structural 113 component of cell membranes are used by T. libellula (Noyon et al 2012) and by T. raschii as an 114 additional storage lipid in spring and early summer (Pleuthner et al in press). It has been suggested that 115 phospholipid accumulation might be tightly linked with reproduction, particularly for ovary development 116 and egg production (Hagen et al., 1996; Mayzaud et al., 2003). It has been observed that the northern 117 Pacific krill Euphausia pacifica transfers large portions of phospholipids to eggs, which leads to the 118 enhanced density for the eggs to sink and avoid consumption by predators (Ju et al., 2006). Since lipids 119 represent not only information on feeding history but are also the major carriers of energy to upper level 120 consumers, information on lipid storage and distribution in CM can provide much insight as both 121 nutritional markers and well as indices of reproduction potential. Given the high caloric density of lipids 122 compared to either proteins or carbohydrates (over 2 fold) is can be argued that the lipid content of CM 123 are the primary prey resource for higher trophic levels. Climate effects such as changing physical features 124 (i.e. sea-ice conditions, stratification) or food (i.e, phytoplankton, micro/mesozooplankton community 125 structure) have the potential to directly impact CM nutritional status and the coupling between trophic 126 levels. Ultimately, these changes determine how much energy transfers into the higher trophic levels. It is 127 not an exaggeration to consider the nutritional condition of CM as a key determinant in the distribution of 128 top predators within the changing Chukchi Sea ecosystem. 129 130 B. Hypotheses: 131 The overarching hypothesis for this project is that climate-mediated changes in oceanographic 132 conditions in the Chukchi Sea lead to changes in vital rates and lipid content of crustacean micronekton, 133 shifting their geographic distribution and energy content which propagate through the food web to apex 134 predators including fish and whales. Within this conceptual framework we propose to test the following 135 general hypotheses: 136 137 1. The recent biophysical changes result in increased euphausiid growth and lipid accumulation 138 leading to expansion of krill population over the Chukchi Sea shelf and establishment of a 139 reproducing population. 140 2. The krill provides comparable or higher nutritional value to the apex predators compared to 141 resident hyperiids on the Chukchi shelf. 142 3. The successful colonization of the Chukchi Sea shelf by euphausiids leads to shifts in 143 zooplanktivore predator diets in favor of krill. 144 145 146 C. Objectives:. 147 This collaborative proposal seeks to document and understand the changes in population status and 148 trophic role of CM in the Chukchi Sea. Measurements of euphausiid growth and reproduction are needed 149 to relate nutritional status to euphausiid health and spatial distributions. Our experience in marine 150 biochemistry and plankton ecology will allow us to quantify the growth and reproductive status, 151 production rates, age structure, diet history and energetic contents of both euphausiids and hyperiids in 152 the Chukchi Sea. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

153 Our specific objectives include: 154 1. To investigate spatial and interannual differences in size and stage/sex structure of euphausiid and 155 hyperiid populations. 156 2. To determine reproductive and somatic growth potential of krill populations based on rate 157 measurements in conjunction with length-frequency analyses. 158 3. To quantify lipid content and lipid class distribution in hyperiid and euphaisiid populations and 159 thus, nutritional status over multiple scales. 160 4. To estimate seasonal and interannual variability in euphausiid vital rates and energy allocation 161 strategies (growth vs reproduction) over spatial gradients across the shelf. 162 5. To evaluate detailed lipid composition of euphausiids and hyperiids as a tracer of their diet history 163 under changing spatial and temporal (e.g. seasonal and interannual) prey fields. 164 165 D. Expected outcomes and deliverables: 166 167 Comprehensive models of energy flow through the Chukchi Sea require more quantitative information on 168 both the spatial scale, abundance and energy content of key CM to both describe current trophic energy 169 flow as well as potential changes in the future. We will produce a relational database which contains 170 detailed information on MC lipid composition in relation to their size, sex, age, and growth and 171 reproductive status as well as spatial locations. The database can be shared with all interested parties. We 172 expect multiple papers resulting from this project and expanded data sets which will synthesize the results 173 and be not only published in international peer-reviewed journals but valuable to modelers 174 175 176 E. Project design and conceptual approach: 177 The NPRB Arctic program anticipates research cruises in each of three field seasons, 2017-2019. 178 Although the actual timing of the cruses and station plan will be determined by consensus with other 179 funded projects, a potential plan would include sampling north of the Bering Strait to the further extent of 180 the Chukchi Sea shelf. We advocate the spatial coverage as broad as logistically feasible, because we 181 expect to see differences in the CM vital rates due to heterogeneity in biophysical conditions over the 182 Chukchi Sea shelf. 183 184 We favor two preferable timing periods for data collection based on the euphausiid life history traits: one 185 at the start of the production season soon after the ice retreats and/or the other in late summer. Early 186 summer is time for intensive feeding, growth and reproduction, and it is critical for the population success 187 later on. Sampling in early summer will allow determination of CM nutritional status reflective of the 188 bloom, to quantify growth and reproductive efforts and relate them to available energy resources. By late 189 summer euphausiids stop increasing in length and maximize their lipid storages, thus becoming especially 190 good prey. Sampling in late summer will allow determination of CM nutritional status relevant to 191 overwintering. 192 193 We will primarily focus on euphausiids T. raschii, as a CM species which most likely benefits from the 194 ongoing environmental changes on the Arctic shelf and becomes increasingly important food source for 195 fish and apex predators, and hyperiid T. libellula as an important constituent of the pelgic food web most 196 likely being impacted. We measure effects of location and its biophysical conditions on CM size, age, and 197 development structure; total lipid content, composition and energetic value. 198 199 Field Collection: Euphausiids and hyperiids are good swimmers and can actively sense (mainly by visual 200 cues) and avoid an approaching zooplankton net (Falk-Petersen and Hopkins 1981; Sameoto et al. 2000, 201 Wiebe et al. 2004, Skjoldal et al. 2013). Traditional plankton nets underestimate euphausiids, which are 202 also too small to be well retained in traditional trawls designed to catch pelagic or demersal fish species. 203 Fishing at high speed during the darkest time is one way to overcome avoidance (Sameoto et al. 2000, Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

204 Skjoldal et al. 2013). We will use customized Tucker trawls with heavy weights and large mesh mesh 205 deployed off the moving ship at ~ 3 knots, when the sun disc inclination is the lowest. Our trawls are 206 equipped with a real-time data acquisition system, which include flowmeters, time, depth, temperature 207 and conductivity sensors integrated with a GPS to allow complete control of the trawl. We will take 208 advantage of acoustic detection (120 Hz) of micronekton scattering layers to maximize efficiency of our 209 tows. We anticipate collections of CM every night while at sea, weather permitting. 210 211 Shipboard Measurements and Bioassays: Total length will be measured digitally using customized 212 software to +1 µm with an accuracy of +5 µm (Roff and Hopcroft, 1986). Length-frequency histograms 213 will be resolved into normally distributed components (cohorts), and the Separation Index between each 214 pair of successive cohorts will be calculated using NORMSEP analysis, as implemented in FiSAT II 215 (Gayanilo et al., 1996). We will use Instantaneous Growth Rate technique to measure CM growth rates 216 following the methods previously tested in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea (Pinchuk & Hopcroft, 217 2007; Pinchuk and Coyle, 2008). The duration of each experiment is 2 days, so we will set up IGR 218 experiments every other night. Egg production experiments on krill will be run opportunistically 219 according to Pinchuk & Hopcroft (2006), when encountering specimens ready to spawn as indicated by 220 the presence of spermatophores and turquoise coloration of the ovaries. 221 222 Total and detailed lipid analysis: We will take advantage of recent developments of mass spectrometric 223 analysis to allow the determination of the suite of individual lipid classes present. For this process, lipids 224 in euphausiids and hyperiids will be extracted following the methods of Harvey et al. (2012) using 225 microwave-assisted solvent extraction. Reverse phase liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (RP LC- 226 MS) coupled to an LTQ XL Hybrid Ion Trap-Orbitrap Mass Spectrometer will be used to separate, 227 identify and quantify major lipid components. LC-MS methods follow modified from Bird et al. (2011), 228 with MS portion to accommodate different instrumentation. Positive and negative ion modes with the ESI 229 (electrospray ionization) source will be used cooperatively for lipid class quantification with picomole 230 sensitivity. Lipids are quantified to determine the complex suite of lipid classes observed among both 231 crustaceans including phospholipids (PL), triacylglycerols (TAG), wax esters (WE), sterols (ST), and free 232 fatty acids (FFA). These measures allow both total and detailed lipid content to be determined. It also 233 provides appropriate samples for more detailed analysis, of both fatty acids and their isotopic signatures. 234 235 F. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 236 237 Our project will provide information of CM vital rates which, combined with environmental data, is 238 critical for adjusting model parameters or selection of potential equations used in nutrient- 239 phytoplankton-zooplankton (NPZ) models. In addition, information on lipid composition and energy 240 content is important for bioenergetics modeling related to understanding energy flow through the 241 ecosystem and between its biological components. The data on population size/age structure are 242 fundamental to modeling population dynamics and secondary production. 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

254 Tables and Figures: 255

256 257 Figure 1. Trophic shift in salmon diets on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf during warm/cold stanza. 258 Note the contribution of resident euphausiids T. raschii (red), and the increasing role of hyperiids T. 259 libellula (purple), which had reestablished their reproducing population on the shelf. Similar shifts 260 occurred in Pacific Cod, Herring and many seabird diets (from Coyle et al, 2011; Pinchuk et al, 2013). 261 262 Literature Cited: 263 264 Anonymous (2015) Arctic Program Implementation Plan 2015-2021. North Pacific Research Board, 265 Anchorage. 266 Belanger S, Babin M, Tremblay J-E (2013) Increasing cloudiness in Arctic damps the increase in 267 phytoplankton primary production due to se ice receding. Biogeosci 10(6): 4087-4101 268 Berline L, Spitz1 YH, Ashjian CJ, Campbell RG, Maslowski W, Moore SE (2008) Euphausiid transport 269 in the Western Arctic Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 360: 163-178 270 Bi H, Yu H, Pinchuk AI, Harvey HR (2015) Variability in euphausiid populations on the eastern Bering 271 Sea shelf during the recent cooling event in summer 2008-2010. Deep Sea Res I 95:12-19 272 Bird S, Marur V., Sniatynski MJ, Greenberg HK, Kristal BS (2011) Lipidomics profiling by high- 273 resolution LC-MS and high-energy collisional dissociation fragmentation: focus on characterization 274 of mitochondrial cardiolipins and monolysocardiolipins. Anal Chem 83: 940-949 275 Carmack E, Wassmann P (2006) Food webs and physical–biological coupling on pan-Arctic shelves: 276 unifying concepts and comprehensive perspectives. Prog Oceanogr 71:446–477 277 Coachman LK, Aagaard K, Tripp RB (1975) Bering Strait: The Regional Physical Oceanography, 278 University of Washington Press, Seattle. 279 Cooney RT, Coyle KO (1982) Trophic implications of crossshelf copepod distributions in the 280 southeastern Bering Sea. Mar Biol 70:187–196 281 Coyle KO, Pinchuk AI (2002) The abundance and distribution of euphausiids and zero-age pollock on the 282 inner shelf of the southeast Bering Sea near the Inner Front in 1997-1999. Deep-Sea Res. II 49: 6009- Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

283 6030 284 Coyle KO, Eisner LB, Mueter F, Pinchuk AI, Janout MA, Cieciel KD, Farley EV, Andrews AG III 285 (2011) Climate change in the southeastern Bering Sea: impacts on pollock stocks and implications for 286 the oscillating control hypothesis. Fish Oceanogr 20:139–156. 287 Dale K, Falk-Petersen S, Hop H, Fevolden SE (2006) Population dynamics and body composition of the 288 Arctic hyperiid amphipod Themisto libellula in Svalbard fjords. Polar Biol 29:1063–1070. 289 Dalpadao P, Skjoldal HR (1991) Distribution and life history of krill from the Barents Sea. Polar Res. 290 10: 443-460 291 Dalpadado P, Borkner N, Bogstad B, Mehl S (2001) Distribution of Themisto (Amphipoda) spp. in the 292 Barents Sea and predator-prey interactions. ICES J Mar Sci 58: 876–895. 293 Dalpadado P, Ingvaldsen RB, Stige LC, Bogstad B, Knutsen K, Ottersen G, Ellertsen B (2012) Climate 294 effects on Barents Sea ecosystem dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 1303–1316 295 Einarsson H (1945) Euphausiacea: 1. Northern Atlantic species. Dana Rep, No. 27 296 Ekman S (1953) Zoogeography of the sea. Sidwick and Jackson, London. 297 Falk-Petersen S, Hopkins CCE (1981) Ecological investigations of the zooplankton community of 298 Balsfjorden, northern Norway: population dynamics of the euphausiids Thysanoessa inermis 299 (Krøyer), T. raschii (M. Sars) and Meganyctiphanes norvegica (M. Sars) in 1976 and 1977. J 300 Plankton Res 3: 558 177-192. 301 Falk-Petersen S, Gatten RR, Sargent JR, Hopkins CCE (1981) Ecological investigations on the 302 zooplankton community of Balsfjorden, northern Norway: seasonal changes in the lipid class 303 composition of Meganyctiphanes norvegica (M. Sars), Thysanoessa raschii (M. Sars), and T. inermis 304 (Krøyer). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 54: 209-224 305 Falk-Petersen S, Hagen W, Kattner G, and others (2000) Lipids, trophic relationships, and biodiversity 306 in Arctic and Antarctic krill. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57 (Supplement 3): 178-191. 307 Gayanilo FC, Sparre P, Pauly D (1996) The FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tools (FISAT) Users 308 Guide, FAO, Rome 309 Hagen W, Auel H (2001) Seasonal adaptations and the role of lipids in oceanic zooplankton. Zoology 310 104: 313-326 311 Hagen W, Van Vleet ES, Kattner G (1996) Seasonal lipid storage as overwintering strategy of Antarctic 312 krill. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 134:85–89. 313 Harvey HR, Pleuthner RL, Lessard EJ, Bernhardt MJ, Shaw CT (2012) Physical and biochemical 314 properties of the euphausiids Thysanoessa inermis, Thysanoessa raschii, and Thysanoessa longipes in 315 the eastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Res II 65-70: 173-183 316 Haug T, Nilssen KT, Lindblom L (2004) Feeding habits of harp and hooded seals in drift ice waters along 317 the east coast of Greenland in summer and winter. Polar Res 23: 35–42. 318 Hopkins CCE, Tande KS, Grønvik S, Sargent JR (1984) Ecological investigations of the zooplankton 319 community of Balsfjorden, northern Norway: an analysis of growth and overwintering tactics in 320 relation to niche and environment in Metridia longa (Lubbock), Calanus finmarchicus (Gunnerus), 321 Thysanoessa inermis (Krøyer) and T. raschi (M. Sars). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 82: 77-99. 322 Johnson MW (1963) Zooplankton collections from the High Polar Basin with special reference to the 323 Copepoda. Limnol Oceanogr 8:89–102 324 Ju S-J, Harvey HR (2004) Lipids as markers of nutritional condition and diet in the Antarctic krill 325 Euphausia superba and Euphausia crystallorophias during austral winter. Deep Sea Res Part II Top 326 Stud Oceanogr 51:2199–2214 327 Ju S-J, Harvey HR, Gómez-Gutiérrez J, Peterson WT (2006) The role of lipids during embryonic 328 development of the euphausiids Euphausia paciWca and Thysanoessa spinifera. Limnol Oceanogr 329 51(5):2398–2408 330 Karnovsky NJ, Hobson KA, Iverson S, Hunt JL Jr (2008) Seasonal changes in diets of seabirds in the 331 NorthWater Polynya: a multiple-indicator approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 357:291–299. 332 Lowry LF, Sheffield G, George JC (2004) Bowhead whale feeding in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, based on 333 stomach contents analyses. J Cetacean Res Manage 6:215–223 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

334 Luchin V, Panteleev G (2014) Thermal regimes in the Chukchi Sea from 1941 to 2008. Deep-Sea Res II, 335 109:14-26 336 Mayzaud P, Boutoute M, Alonzo F (2003) Lipid composition of the Antarctic euphausiids Euphausia 337 vallentini and Thysanoessa macrura during summer in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean. 338 Antarct Sci 15:463-475 339 Moore SE, Clarke JT (1992) Patterns of bowhead whale distribution and abundance near Barrow, Alaska, 340 in fall 1982−1989. Mar Mamm Sci 8:27–36 341 Moore SE, Demaster DP, Dayton PK (2000) Cetacean habitat selection in the Alaskan Arctic during 342 summer. And autumn. Arctic 53:432–447 343 Mueter FJ, Litzow MA (2008) Sea ice retreat alters the biogeography of the Bering Sea continental shelf. 344 Ecol Appl, 18: 309–320 345 Niebauer HJ, Schell DM (1993) Physical environment of the Bering Sea population. In: Burns JJ, 346 Montague JJ, Cowles CJ (eds) The bowhead whale. Soc Mar Mamm Spec Publ 2, p 201−238 347 Noyon M, Narcy F, Gasparini S, Mayzaud P (2012) Ontogenic variations in fatty acid and alcohol 348 composition of the pelagic amphipod Themisto libellula in Kongsfjorden (Svalbard). Mar Biol 159: 349 805-816 350 Noyon M, Narcy F, Gasparini S, Mayzaud P (2011) Growth and lipid class composition of the Arctic 351 pelagic amphipod Themisto libellula. Mar Biol 158: 883–892. 352 Percy JA, Fife FJ (1981). The biochemical composition and energy content of Arctic marine 353 macrozooplankton. Arctic 34: 307–313 354 Piatt JF, Springer AM (2003) Advection, pelagic food webs and the biogeography of seabirds in Beringia. 355 Marine Ornithology 31: 141-154 356 Pinchuk AI, Coyle KO (2008) Distribution, egg production and growth of euphausiids in the vicinity of 357 the Pribilof Islands, southeastern Bering Sea, August 2004. Deep-Sea Res II 55:1792-1800 358 Pinchuk AI, Coyle KO, Farley EV, Renner HR (2013) Emergence of the Arctic Themisto libellula 359 (Amphipoda: Hyperiidae) on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf as a result of the recent cooling, and 360 its potential impact on the pelagic food web. ICES J Mar Sci 70: 1244-1254 361 Pinchuk AI, Coyle KO, Hopcroft RR (2008) Climate-related changes in abundance and reproduction of 362 dominant euphausiids in the northern Gulf of Alaska in 1998-2003. Prog Oceanogr 77: 203-216. 363 Pinchuk AI, Hopcroft RR (2007) Seasonal variations in the growth rates of euphausiids (Thysanoessa 364 inermis, T. spinifera, and Euphausia pacifica) from the northern Gulf of Alaska. Mar Biol 151: 257- 365 269 366 Pinchuk AI, Hopcroft RR (2006) Egg production and early development of Thysanoessa inermis and 367 Euphausia pacifica (Crustacea: Euphausiacea) in the northern Gulf of Alaska. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 368 332: 206-215 369 Pleuthner RL, Shaw CT, Schatz MJ, Lessard EJ, Harvey HR (in press) Lipid markers of diet history and 370 their retention during experimental starvation in the Bering Sea euphausiid Thysanoessa raschii. Deep 371 Sea Res II. 372 Roff JC, Hopcroft RR (1986) High precision microcomputer based measuring system for ecological 373 research. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43, 2044– 2048. 374 Saether O, Ellingsen TE, Mohr V (1986) Lipids of North Atlantic krill. J Lipid Res 27: 609-614 375 Sameoto D, Wiebe P, Runge J, Postel L, Dunn J, Miller C, Coombs S (2000) Collecting zooplankton. In: 376 ICES zooplankton methodology manual. Ed. By Harris RP, Wiebe PH, Lenz J, Skjoldal HR, Huntley 377 M. Elsevier, Amsterdam 378 Siegel V (2000) Krill (Euphausiacea) life history and aspects of population dynamics. Can J Fish Aquat 379 Sci 57(Suppl. 3):130−150 380 Skjoldal HR, Wiebe PH, Postel L, Knutsen T, Kaartvedt S, Sameoto D (2013) Intercomparison of 381 zooplankton (net) sampling systems: Results from the ICES/GLOBEC sea-going workshop. Prog 382 Oceanogr 108: 1-42 383 Smith SL (1991) Growth, development and distribution of the euphausiids Thysanoessa raschi (M. 384 Sars)and Thysanoessa inermis (Krbyer) in the southeastern Bering Sea. Polar Res 10: 461-478 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

385 Spoel, van der S (1983) Patterns in plankton distribution and the relation to speciation: the dawn of 386 pelagic biogeography. In: Sims RW, Price JH, WhaIIey RES, eds. Evolution, time and space: the 387 emergence of the biosphere. London: Academic Press, 291-334. 388 Springer AM, McRoy CP, Turco K (1989) The paradox of pelagic food webs in the northern Bering Sea - 389 II. Zooplankton communities. Cont Shelf Res 9:359–386 390 Szabo AR, Batchelder HP (2014) Late spring and summer patterns of euphausiid reproduction in 391 Southeast Alaska fjord waters. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 516: 153-161. 392 Thomson J, Rogers WE (2014) Swell and the sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Res Letters. 393 10.1002/2014GL059983 394 Timofeev SF (1996) Ontogenetic ecology of euphausiid crustaceans (Crustacea, Euphausiacea) of the 395 northern seas. Nauka, Saint Petersburg. 396 Weingartner T, Dobbins E, Danielson S, Winsor P, Potter R, Statscewich H (2013) Hydrographic 397 variability over the northeastern Chukchi Sea shelf in summer-fall 2008–2010. Cont Shelf Res 67:5- 398 22 399 Wiebe PH, Gallager SM, Davis CS, Lawson GL, Copley N (2004) Using a high-powered strobe light to 400 increase the catch of Antarctic krill. Mar Biol 144: 493-502. 401 Woodgate RA, Stafford KM, Prahl FG (2015) A Synthesis of Year-round Interdisciplinary Mooring 402 Measurements in the Bering Strait (1990-2014) and the RUSALCA years (2004-2011). Submitted to 403 Oceanography, February 2015. 404 405 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 406 407 This project will fill a fundamental gap in our knowledge of euphausiid and hyperiid population status in 408 the Chukchi Sea and, therefore, entirely relies on new collected data. Given the uncertainties about 409 projects being funded under this RFP, it is designed to be largely independent from other research efforts. 410 However, it can be successfully integrated with the following components: 411 412 Physical Oceanography: Despite our ability to collect our own basic physical data during our collections, 413 our project will greatly benefit from a regular CTD/Nutrient/Fluorescence survey for better resolution of 414 biophysical fields over the study area. 415 416 Phyto- and Microzooplankton Productivity: Our detailed analyses of krill lipid composition and derived 417 prey sources become more meaningful when compared with data on in situ prey fields. Therefore, our 418 study can be readily integrated with any studies which examine composition, distribution, and production 419 rates of phyto- and microzooplankton. 420 421 Bioacoustics: While we plan to use acoustics as a tool only to locate backscattering layers before 422 sampling, our data on micronekton size structure will be invaluable to any acoustician who is trying to 423 identify and characterize distribution of backscattering pelagic animals. 424 425 Fish diets and bioenergetics: Our data on lipid composition and derived energy content of krill and 426 hyperiid size classes will be vital to upper trophic level studies examining feeding patterns and efficiency 427 of trophic interactions between fish such as Arctic cod and different species of salmon and micronekton. 428 429 We are aware of two teams who are proposing multi-disciplinary studies and have expressed keen interest 430 in our endeavor. 431 432 Ladd et al. Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II - Physics and Lower Trophic Level (LTL) 433 plan to collect and evaluate in situ phyto-, micro-, and mesozooplankton composition and their fatty acid 434 signatures as trophic history tracers. 435 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

436 Farley et al. Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II. – Upper Trophic Level (UTL) among 437 other tasks propose detailed examination of fish diets and linking the diet data to fish physiological 438 condition. 439 440 None of these programs targets CM. This proposal seeks to fill the gap. 441 442 Project Management: 443 The project is an inter-agency collaboration between University of Alaska (UAF) and Old Dominion 444 University (ODU). UAF (SFOS Fisheries Division) will coordinate the field collection, conduct live 445 experimentations, and lead synthesis of the results. ODU will participate in cruises and sample 446 collections, conduct detailed analysis of lipid from both species and interpretation of results. The duties 447 will be shared among the following individuals: 448 Dr. Alexei Pinchuk (University of Alaska Fairbanks) is the Lead Principal Investigator for this project 449 with overall administrative and supervisory responsibilities. Dr. Pinchuk has two decades of experience in 450 experimental and field studies of marine crustacean distribution, growth and reproduction. He is currently 451 one of the PIs in the NSF funded Bering Sea (BEST), CIAP/BOEM funded Arctic EIS, and SHELFZ 452 collaborative research programs, where he is responsible for zooplankton stock assessment and fish diet 453 assessment components. Dr. Pinchuk will conduct field collections and shipboard based experiments, and 454 will lead the publication(s) resulting from this project. 455 Dr. Rodger Harvey (Old Dominion University) is a Principal Investigator and will lead the lipid 456 analyses. As a marine biochemist, Dr. Harvey has three decades of experience in the detailed analysis of 457 lipids and their cycling in marine systems. He will supervise the technician at ODU and will co-author 458 publication(s) resulting from this project. 459 460 No permits are required to conduct the project. 461 462 Principal Investigators: 463 464 CVs for PIs Pinchuk and Harvey are enclosed. 465 466 Other Required Materials: 467 468 Timelines and milestones, budget summary, budget narrative and logistic summary are enclosed. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

Energetics, growth and reproduction of key crustacean micronekton (CM) in the Chukchi Sea: ecosystem responses to changing sea ice conditions May 1, 2016 - September 30, 2021 Individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Objective #1 Data collection/field work Pinchuk X X X X X X Data/sample processing Harvey X X X Analysis Pinchuk/Harvey X X X X X Objective #2 Data collection/field work Pinchuk X X X X X X Data/sample processing Harvey X X X Analysis Pinchuk/Harvey X X X X Objective #3, 4 and 5 Data collection/field work Pinchuk X X X X X X Data/sample processing Harvey X X X Analysis Pinchuk/Harvey X X X X X X Other Progress report Pinchuk X X X X X X X X X X AMSS presentation Pinchuk/Harvey X X X X X PI meeting Pinchuk/Harvey X X X X X Logistics planning meeting Pinchuk/Harvey X X X Publication submission Pinchuk/Harvey X Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Pinchuk X Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Pinchuk X Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: 4 Energetics, growth and reproduction of key crustacean micronekton (CM) in the Chukchi Sea: ecosystem 5 responses to changing sea ice conditions. 6 7 Lead PI: 8 Alexei Pinchuk 9 10 Logistical Needs: 11 12 Type of vessel 13 We can work on any kind of vessel that can ensure safe operation offshore. 14 15 Deck Rigging 16 The vessel needs to have means to deploy gear of moderate weight (up to 1000 lbs.) off the side or off the 17 stern using a boom, a crane, an A-frame or a davit. Ideally we would like to use a vessel equipped with a 18 winch with conducting cable, however, if that is not an option, we can bring our own winch. The winch 19 has 4x4 ft. footprint and requires 220V AC 3-phase power. We can also provide a step down converter in 20 case the winch power requirements do not comply with vessel power specifications. We would greatly 21 benefit from vessel’s echo sounding system running at 120 kHz to give us a better idea of micronekton 22 scattering layers distribution. However, we can also bring our own small light weight echosounder to 23 deploy off the side before trawling. 24 25 Ship time 26 Ideally, we would like to request up to 30 days of ship time in each of 2017-2019 sampling seasons. We 27 are flexible with particular timing and would consider spring, summer and/or fall. We would also 28 consider two ~15 day cruises sampling twice a season (e.g. spring and fall). 29 30 Number of berths 31 We require at least two berths to accommodate our science crew, three are preferred. 32 33 Lab space 34 We will need two 4-5 ft sections of bench space in the lab to set up our lab equipment (microscope, 35 digital measuring system, sorting dishes etc. with the second section for particle filtration gear. In 36 addition, we will need an incubator or a walk-in controlled temperature room to run our experiments. In 37 case the vessel does not have such facilities, we can bring our own indoor incubator (3x3 ft. footprint, 6.5 38 ft height) running on 110V AC power. Alternatively, we can set up our experiments on deck in a tote 39 equipped with flow-through ambient sea water supply, which would require approximately 4x4 ft. 40 footprint. 41 42 Freezing needs 43 A freezer (-80C) is needed for animals, we plan to bring a liquid nitrogen dewar for sample transport. 44 45 Sampling 46 We will conduct our sampling every night during the darkest hour when the sun declination is minimal to 47 reduce net avoidance. We do not need to synchronize our sampling with others nor do we require certain 48 sampling locations (stations). The sampling will take about 30 min of wire time with the vessel moving 49 headwind at about 3 knots. Sample sorting, set up of experiments and all other work can be done when 50 the ship is underway or when performing other tasks. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

51 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 52 53 While we are not bringing any in-kind support for vessel time, UAF will contribute up to $300,000 in the 54 following equipment: 55 56 electric winch with conducting cable 57 SeaBird CTD water samplers, profilers and loggers 58 Customized micronekton nets and trawls 59 Biosonics 120 kHz acoustic system 60 Incubators and totes 61 microscopes 62 digital measuring system 63 computing power 64 65 Our deck setup can be used for sampling by other components of the project during day time activities. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - University of Alaska Fairbanks

PROJECT TITLE: Energetics, growth and reproduction of key crustacean micronekton (CM) in the Chukchi Sea: ecosystem responses to changing sea ice conditions Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Alexei Pinchuk category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 5,364 46,503 46,017 45,459 12,061 11,969 167,373 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 5,364 46,503 46,017 45,459 12,061 11,969 167,373

1. Personnel Salaries 2,049 18,813 19,189 19,573 4,825 4,921 69,370

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 588 5,399 5,507 5,617 1,385 1,412 19,908 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 927 3,587 3,780 2,915 1,454 1,520 14,183

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 2,000 1,000 1,000 0 0 4,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 350 100 3,750

7. Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Direct Costs 3,564 30,899 30,576 30,205 8,014 7,953 111,211 0

Indirect Costs 1,800 15,604 15,441 15,254 4,047 4,016 56,162

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 5,364 46,503 46,017 45,459 12,061 11,969 167,373 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - Old Dominion University Research Foundation

PROJECT TITLE: Energetics, growth and reproduction of key crustacean micronekton (CM) in the Chukchi Sea: ecosystem responses to changing sea ice conditions Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Rodger Harvey - Old Dominion University Research Foundation category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 3,379 81,324 92,837 98,310 81,978 28,083 385,911 narrative. Other Support 69,090 TOTAL 3,379 81,324 92,837 98,310 81,978 28,083 455,001

1. Personnel Salaries 0 28,372 29,790 31,279 32,844 13,672 135,957 53,560

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 0 9,645 11,705 12,547 12,205 1,186 47,288 15,530 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 2,180 3,650 4,200 4,320 2,340 2,460 19,150

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 8,200 9,400 9,400 3,000 800 30,800

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other 0 2,600 4,800 5,880 2,500 0 15,780

Total Direct Costs 2,180 52,467 59,895 63,426 52,889 18,118 248,975 69,090

Indirect Costs 1,199 28,857 32,942 34,884 29,089 9,965 136,936

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 3,379 81,324 92,837 98,310 81,978 28,083 385,911 69,090 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Energetics, growth and reproduction of key crustacean micronekton (CM) in the Chukchi Sea: ecosystem responses to changing sea ice conditions Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Dr. Alexei Pinchuk; Dr. Rodger Harvey - Old Dominion University Research Foundation; ; category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support should be detailed start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 in the budget NPRB Funding 8,743 127,827 138,854 143,769 94,039 40,052 553,284 narrative.

Other Support 69,090

TOTAL 8,743 127,827 138,854 143,769 94,039 40,052 622,374

1. Personnel Salaries 2,049 47,185 48,979 50,852 37,669 18,593 205,327 53,560

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 588 15,044 17,212 18,164 13,590 2,598 67,196 15,530 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 3,107 7,237 7,980 7,235 3,794 3,980 33,333 0

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 10,200 10,400 10,400 3,000 800 34,800 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 350 100 3,750 0

7. Other

0 2,600 4,800 5,880 2,500 0 15,780 0

Total Direct Costs 5,744 83,366 90,471 93,631 60,903 26,071 360,186 69,090

Indirect Costs 2,999 44,461 48,383 50,138 33,136 13,981 193,098 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 8,743 127,827 138,854 143,769 94,039 40,052 553,284 69,090 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Alaska Fairbanks

Project Title: Energetics, growth and reproduction of key crustacean micronekton (CM) in the Chukchi Sea: ecosystem responses to changing sea ice conditions

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $167,373

1. Personnel/Salaries:

40/360/360/360/87/87 hours (.21/2.07/2.07/2.07/.5/.5 months) in years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, is requested for the PI Dr. Alexei Pinchuk (at $45.06/hour) to administer the project, conduct collections and experiments in the field, process data and prepare reports and manuscripts.

All salaries are at the employees’ current rate of pay. A leave reserve of 13.7% is included for faculty salaries. Salaries are listed at the FY16 rate and include a 2.0% inflation increase for faculty each year.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Staff benefits are applied according to UAF’s Provisional FY16 fringe benefit rates. Rates are 28.7% for faculty salaries. A copy of the rate agreement is available at http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/.

Personnel Expense Details:

Hours devoted to Hourly Leave Yearly Total Fringe Fringe Year Title/Name project rate Rate Increase Salary rate cost FY16 PI, A. Pinchuk 40 $45.06 13.7% 2.0% $2,049 28.7% $588 FY16 Totals $2,049 $588 FY17 PI, A. Pinchuk 360 $45.96 13.7% 2.0% $18,813 28.7% $5,399 FY17 Totals $18,813 $5,399 FY18 PI, A. Pinchuk 360 $46.88 13.7% 2.0% $19,189 28.7% $5,507 FY18 Totals $19,189 $5,507 FY19 PI, A. Pinchuk 360 $47.82 13.7% 2.0% $19,573 28.7% $5,617 FY19 Totals $19,573 $5,617 FY20 PI, A. Pinchuk 87 $48.77 13.7% 2.0% $4,825 28.7% $1,385 FY20 Totals $4,825 $1,385 FY21 PI, A. Pinchuk 87 $49.75 13.7% 2.0% $4,921 28.7% $1,412 FY21 Totals $4,921 $1,412

3. Travel:

One trip per year is included in Years 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for the PI to travel to Anchorage, AK to attend AMSS. Year 1 travel will be to attend the kickoff meeting for three days during Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

which the core hypotheses of the program will be decided. One trip per year to attend 2-day annual PI meetings in Anchorage are included in Year 2 and 3. One individual will travel to Nome, AK in years 2, 3, and 4 to participate in the research cruises. Nome is used as a placeholder, since ports of boat departure/arrival are not yet determined. Airfare is estimated at $400/trip to Anchorage, and $800 per trip to Nome, AK. Per Diem (meals/incidentals/lodging) is $159/day for Anchorage per UA Board of Regents regulations for Alaska in-state travel and $185/day for Nome. Ground transportation is included for all travel at $50/person/trip.

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $927

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $3,587

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $3,780

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $2,915

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $1,454

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $1,520

4. Equipment: No equipment is requested.

5. Supplies: $2,000/$1,000/$1,000 is requested in years 2, 3, 4, respectively for field supplies.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $2,000

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $1,000

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $1,000

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants: $250 is requested in year 5 for publication charges. $1000 is requested in years 2, 3, and 4 is requested for freight and shipping expenses. $100 is requested in years 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 is requested for AMSS meeting registration fees.

Year 1: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY17 $1,100

Year 3: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY18 $1,100

Year 4: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY19 $1,100

Year 5: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY20 $350

Year 6: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY21 $100

7. Other: No other funds are requested.

Year 1: Total Indirect Costs request in FY16 $1,800

Year 2: Total Indirect Costs request in FY17 $15,604

Year 3: Total Indirect Costs request in FY18 $15,441

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

Year 4: Total Indirect Costs request in FY19 $15,254

Year 5: Total Indirect Costs request in FY20 $4,047

Year 6: Total Indirect Costs request in FY21 $4,016

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: We are not bringing any in-kind support for vessel time, UAF will contribute up to $300,000 in the following equipment: electric winch with conducting cable, SeaBird CTD profilers and loggers, customized micronekton nets and trawls, Biosonics 120 kHz acoustic system, incubators and totes, Microscopes, digital measuring system, computing power

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

H. Rodger Harvey Professor and Chair Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529 [email protected] 757-683-6298

Education 1979 B.S. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA - Biology/Chemistry 1985 Ph.D. The University of Georgia, Athens GA - Microbiology (Bacterial Lipids)

Professional Background January 2011 - Chair, Dept. of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion Univ. 2000-2011 Professor, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, UMCES Fall 2000 Fulbright Senior Scholar – Inst. for Atomic and Molecular Physics, Amsterdam 1989-2000 Assist. and Assoc. Professor, Univ. Maryland Center for Environmental Science 1985-1988 Postdoctoral Fellow, Organic Geochemistry Unit, Univ. of Bristol, England 1982 Summer Research Fellow, NASA Ames Laboratory, Santa Clara, CA

Research Interests: Organic Geochemistry and Biochemistry of Marine Systems.

5 Selected Publications most relevant to this proposal (among 92) Bi, H., H.Yu, A.I. Pinchuk and H.R. Harvey. 2015. Interannual summer variability in euphausiids populations on the eastern Bering Sea shelf during the recent cooling event (2008–2010). Deep Sea Research I. 95:12-19. Harvey, H.R., K.A. Taylor, H.V. Fink, and C. L. Mitchelmore. 2014. Polycyclic Aromatic and Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Chukchi Sea Biota and Sediments and its Toxicological Response in the Arctic cod, Boreogadus saida. Deep Sea Research II 102: 32–55. Harvey, H.R., R.L. Pleuthner, E. J. Lessard, M.J. Bernhardt and C. T. Shaw. 2012. Physical and biochemical properties of the Euphausiids Thysanoessa inermis, Thysanoessa raschii, and Thysanoessa longipes in the Eastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Research II 65:173-183. Harvey, H. R., S-J. Ju, W-S. Kim, L. Feinberg, T. Shaw and W.T. Peterson. 2010. The biochemical estimation of age in euphausiids: laboratory calibration and field comparisons. Deep Sea Research II 57:663-671. Ju, S-.J, H.R. Harvey, J.G. Gutierréz and W. T. Peterson. 2006. The role of lipids during embryonic development of the euphausiids Euphausia pacifica and Thysanoessa spinifera. Limnology Oceanography 51:2398-2408.

Selected Synergistic Activities BEST-BSIERP Program (NSF/NPRB) - Science Advisory Board Co-Chair, 2008-present. Guest Editor – Deep Sea Research II, The Bering Sea Project, 4 volumes 2011-2014. Associate Editor Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta - 2004 to 2011 Guest Editor – Deep Sea Res. II, The SBI-Arctic program special issues - 2005 and 2007 NSF- Shelf Basin Interactions program advisory committee – June 2005-2007 President - Organic Geochemistry Division, The Geochemical Society, 2007-2010 NSF-Bering Sea Ecosystem Study (BEST) – project management writing team COMIDA and Hanna Shoal Research programs (BOEM) 2009- 2016 project PI - chemistry

Students 15 doctoral or M.S. students as primary thesis advisor, 27 graduate student thesis committees, 16 undergraduate researchers with independent projects.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.19-Pinchuk

Alexei I. Pinchuk [email protected] School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Fisheries Division University of Alaska Fairbanks 17101 Lena Point Loop Rd., Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 796-5466 Fax (907) 796-5446 PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION: University of Alaska Fairbanks Oceanography Ph.D. 2006 University of Alaska Fairbanks Biological Oceanography M.Sci. 1997 St. Petersburg State University, Russia Biology (Zoology) B.Sci./M.Sci. 1987 APPOINTMENTS: • Research Associate Professor: School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Fisheries Division, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2015-current • Research Assistant Professor: School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Fisheries Division, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2011-2015 • Postdoctoral Research Professional 5: Seward Marine Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2006- 2010 • ACT (Alliance for Coastal Technologies) Technical Coordinator: Seward Marine Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2006-2010 • Research Assistant, Research Technician, Research Associate, Research Professional II: Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1994-2006 • Research Scientist: Zoological Institute RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia, 1989-1994 • Junior Scientist: Institute of Biological Problems of the North, Far East Branch of RAS, Magadan, Russia, 1987-1989 FIVE MOST RECENT/RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS: • Bi H., Yu H., Pinchuk A.I., Harvey H.R. 2015. Variability in euphausiid populations on the eastern Bering Sea shelf during the recent cooling event in summer 2008-2010. Deep Sea Research I 95: 12-19. • Eisner L.B., Napp J.M., Mier K.L, Pinchuk A.I., Andrews A.G. 2014. Climate-mediated changes in zooplankton community structure for the eastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 109: 157-171. • Strasburger W.W., Hillgruber N., Pinchuk A.I., Mueter F.J. 2014. Feeding ecology of age-0 walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) in the southeastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 109: 172-180. • Pinchuk A.I., Coyle K.O., Farley E.V., Renner H.R. 2013. Emergence of the Arctic Themisto libellula (Amphipoda: Hyperiidae) on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf as a result of the recent cooling, and its potential impact on the pelagic food web. ICES Journal of Marine Science: 70: 1244-1254. • Pinchuk A.I., Coyle K.O., Hopcroft R.R. 2008 Climate-related changes in abundance and reproduction of dominant euphausiids in the northern Gulf of Alaska in 1998-2003. Progress in Oceanography 77: 203-216. SYNERGETIC ACTIVITIES • Member of the Working Group for the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) Comparative Ecology of Krill in Coastal and Oceanic Waters around the Pacific Rim • Reviewer: manuscripts reviewed for Polar Biology, Deep-Sea Research I, II, Progress in Oceanography, MEPS, Marine Biology, proposals for NSF, NPRB, NOAA (FATE). COLLABORATORS: Collaborators: C.F. Adams (UMD), C. Ashjian (WHOI), H. Bi (UMCES), R. Campbell (URI), L.B. Eisner (AFSC-NOAA), G. Eckert (UAF), E. Farley (NOAA), G. Gibson (IARC), H.R. Harvey (ODU), N. Hillgruber (UAF), A. Hoover-Miller (ASLC), G.L. Hunt, Jr. (UW), T.H. Johengen (UM-NOAA), E. Lessard (UW), J. Miksis-Olds (PSU), C. Mordy (PMEL-NOAA), F. Mueter (UAF), J.M. Napp (AFSC- NOAA), T. Shaw (OSU), P. Stabeno (PMEL-NOAA)

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

1 Research Plan 2 A. Project Title: Benthic ecology, biological traits analysis, and ecosystem functions in the northeastern 3 Bering and Chukchi Seas. 4 5 B. Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic levels. The project will also contribute Category 4 6 modeling by refining benthic parameters and to Category 2 Species interactions through a better 7 understanding of factors driving ecosystem characteristics and maintaining benthic production. 8 9 C. Rationale and justification: 10 Benthic prey resources are critical to ecosystem functioning and higher trophic level success in the 11 eastern Bering and Chukchi Seas. High energy prey, particularly amphipods and bivalves but other guilds 12 as well, support marine mammal populations of subsistence interest, as well as threatened or endangered 13 species. Changing prey resources may be a potential pathway for change and source of population 14 variation for predators. Thus, spatial drivers and processes maintaining “hotspots” of benthic productivity 15 are of concern in the long-term maintenance of mammal populations and are becoming better understood, 16 but other aspects of ecosystem characteristics, such as macroscale drivers of change, remain less clear 17 (Grebmeier et al., 2006; Blanchard, 2014; Blanchard and Feder, 2014; Grebmeier et al., 2015). The rich 18 prey resources attracting predators demonstrate high spatial and temporal variability, although sources for 19 temporal variations are largely unknown. 20 Linkages among marine ecosystems are apparent through the migratory paths of many higher trophic 21 level species such as seabirds and marine mammals and distributions of their invertebrate prey. 22 Macroscale distributions of prey resources demonstrate strong linkages among systems from the North 23 Pacific to the Chukchi Sea; linkages extend as far south as California for some species (Blanchard, 2014). 24 When considering these prey resources, interactions of climatic forces, oceanographic conditions, and 25 biological characteristics provide pathways for long-term change (Doney et al., 2012; Blanchard et al., 26 2013a; Blanchard et al., 2013b), although community-level change is not clearly detectable to date in the 27 northeastern Chukchi Sea to date (Blanchard and Feder, 2014). Understanding the strength and pathways 28 of linkages is critical for predicting potential future changes, but are poorly known. Macroscale 29 distributional drivers and oceanographic linkages provide challenges to prey resources and their predators 30 but may also be sources for resilience. Loss of feeding habitats will force changes in marine mammal 31 behavior, as indicated by the apparent loss of a feeding site north of Hanna Shoal observed in the early 32 1980’s (Nelson et al., 1994), that could not be found during extensive sampling by the CSESP (Blanchard 33 and Knowlton, 2013). Whitehouse et al. (2014) suggest that the comparatively lower production in the 34 Chukchi Sea, relative to other arctic shelf habitats, indicates poor resilience to change, but did not 35 consider species characteristics nor the biological traits allowing for their recovery from stress (Blanchard 36 et al., 2010; Blanchard et al., 2011). A key question then, is what factors contribute to benthic production 37 and maintenance of hotspots? In a rapidly changing marine environment, can future changes be better 38 predicted through enhanced understanding of species traits? 39 Locally or regionally focused benthic studies are common for the U.S. Arctic, although recent 40 syntheses provide a broader perspectives (Piepenburg et al., 2011; Hunt et al., 2013; Grebmeier et al., 41 2015). Additionally, the focus on selected areas of oceanographic interest (rather than ecologically 42 representative locations) may lead to biased conclusions about environmental/biological interactions, as 43 patterns apparent at one scale may not scale up to larger spatial extents (Blanchard and Feder, 2014). 44 Modeling of carbon flow through benthic systems is inaccurate when regional trends are interpreted only 45 in light of local covariates (sediment grain-size characteristics) and not drivers such a factors controlling 46 food delivery. Faunal distributions and community characteristics evaluated at larger scales may be 47 informative to validate, inform, and refine modeling at local scales when appropriate drivers are 48 accounted for. 49 The trophic mass balance model for the Chukchi Sea of Whitehouse et al. (2014) was a first attempt at 50 establishing an ecosystem-based model of carbon flow for the region and identified the lack of 51 information on benthic systems as a key data gap. One data gap is region-wide biomass density estimates Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

52 for macrofauna, a gap being filled for the northeastern Chukchi Sea by recent studies in including CSESP, 53 COMIDA-CAB, RUSALCA, AMBON, and AK MAP (Day et al., 2013; Dunton et al., 2014). Likewise, 54 a similar data gap exists for the northeastern Bering Sea due to the paucity of data available for models 55 (Gibson and Spitz, 2011), although amphipod specific investigations provide insights into gray whale 56 prey dynamics (Highsmith and Coyle, 1990; Highsmith and Coyle, 1992). As noted by Whitehouse et al. 57 (2014), the importance of the benthic communities to ecosystem functions in the eastern Baring and 58 Chukchi Seas suggests that understanding processes defining benthic production rates are critical for 59 understanding the U.S. Arctic ecosystems. Understanding resilience of marine systems has also been 60 identified as a priority for the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (JOCI: 61 http://www.jointoceancommission.org/), relying in part, on understanding benthic production. The data 62 gaps also include estimates of benthic production, refinement of benthic prey food webs, and connectivity 63 with other systems that can influence northern communities. For example, aggregation of benthic fauna at 64 the class level confounds results where one group (e.g., ampeliscid amphipods) provide a high energy 65 resource for predators, but that information is averaged with other less productive fauna. Thus, 66 incorporation of biological traits and food web information into ecosystem models will be a refinement 67 for parameterizing food web models. 68 An ecosystem-based approach is needed to inform and guide policy-driven actions but this approach 69 requires synthesis of a detailed knowledge base that today remains incomplete. One fundamental science 70 question is: What regulates variations in carbon transfer pathways and how will the changing ice 71 environment alter these pathways and ecosystem structure in the Pacific Arctic and beyond? Here, we 72 propose to investigate spatial variations in biological traits in association with habitat and spatial 73 structuring of prey guilds in the northeastern Bering and Chukchi Seas. This goal will be enhanced 74 through collaboration with existing (e.g., CSESP and AMBON) and proposed (ASGARD, Danielson et 75 al.; Benthos/mammal interactions, Blanchard et al.) projects. The ASGARD project proposes to address 76 model limitations by a) undertaking oceanographic environmental and lower trophic level rate and 77 distribution measurements from spring season expeditions on the R/V Sikuliaq to northern Bering and 78 southern Chukchi seas in 2017 and 2018, b) coordinating and collaborating with other ongoing projects in 79 the region including participating in ship-of-opportunity sampling later in the year, and c) carrying out 80 year-round biophysical mooring deployments. The Benthic Ecology and Biological Traits proposal 81 seeks to collaborate with and expand upon the lower trophic level rate experiments by providing 82 community level information on macrofauna and to associate rate and process information with 83 ecological patterns, particularly biological traits that can better refine models of ecosystem 84 functioning as well as provide insights into future changes. A main result of this study will be to refine 85 inputs for carbon flow models through understanding spatial and temporal drivers of benthic ecosystem 86 functions and variations in rate-based processes. 87 88 Hypotheses: 89 1) Benthic carbon biomass, macrofaunal community structure, functional group composition, and 90 community-level production vary spatially with oceanic advection, water mass characteristics, 91 and pelagic production regimes. This study will focus on the covariance of habitat characteristics 92 with rates of benthic production and biological traits and trophic characteristics of benthic prey 93 resources. Rather than being tied to solely to sediment characteristics, benthic community 94 structure are tied to oceanographic processes controlling the quality and quantity of particulate 95 organic carbon as well as the mechanisms of delivery (e.g., deposition or suspension). 96 2) Carbon biomass, production, macrofaunal community structure, functional group composition, 97 and community-level production vary temporally with oceanic advection, water mass 98 characteristics, and pelagic production regimes. Data from the historical sampling efforts of 99 Stoker (1981), Feder et al., (1994, 2007) and the CSESP (Blanchard et al., 2013a) will be used to 100 test for temporal changes in community functioning. 101 102 D. Objectives: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

103 1) Strengthen our understanding of drivers of benthic community composition through analysis of 104 oceanographic patterns, habitat characteristics, production rates, and the biological traits of prey 105 guilds. 106 2) Refine the ecosystem model of Whitehouse et al. (2014) by defining new parameters for 107 modeling. 108 3) Publish manuscripts identifying and leading to the evaluation of the strengths of covariances 109 among oceanographic and environmental characteristics and biological communities using 110 historical data as well as the 2008–2014 data collected during the CSESP from the northeastern 111 Chukchi. 112 4) Develop educational and outreach materials to communicate research to local, regional, national 113 and international audiences. 114 5) Form collaborative and coordinated data collections and analyses with local, regional, national 115 and international partners. 116 6) Bolster the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) program by occupying DBO stations in the 117 northeastern Bering Sea. 118 119 E. Expected outcomes and deliverables: 120 Scientifically, the benthic ecology and biological traits proposal is designed to directly address 121 NPRB Arctic Program overarching questions by conducting studies designed to fill data and knowledge 122 gaps and address the hypotheses and objectives listed above. Deliverables from the project includes 123 benthic community data and the biological traits matrix as ASCII data files and 2 papers that discuss 124 spatial and temporal variability in ecosystem functioning of marine communities in the northeastern 125 Chukchi Sea and oceanographic linkages. We will also present the research at state, national (AMSS and 126 others), and international conferences and forums. Deliverables also include 10 semi-annual reports and 127 attendance of Arctic program meetings. 128 As noted by Whitehouse et al. (2014), data gaps for benthic fauna are of primary concern. This 129 project seeks to address those data gaps through refinement of model parameters. A better understanding 130 of ecosystem functioning and the factors determining ecosystem characteristics will be critical for 131 managers and scientists alike. 132 133 F. Project design and conceptual approach: 134 Ship-based studies: Because of the intense summer and fall efforts directed at the northern Chukchi 135 shelf in recent years and because of the need to better understand the receding spring ice zone carbon 136 dynamics, this project proposes effort from the northeastern Bering Sea to the southern Chukchi shelf 137 (Fig. 1). Water column and benthic work is proposed in open water, at the ice edge, and in the pack ice in 138 late May and early June in 2017 and 2018. Sampling for the benthic study proposed is proposed to occur 139 on the ASGARD (Danielson et al., proposal to NPRB) cruise and sample ~20 stations with 3 replicates in 140 each of two years with samples will be collected using a 0.1-m-2 van Veen grab with samples sieved over 141 a 1.0-mm mesh screen. Subsamples will be collected for juvenile infauna and washed over a 0.5-mm 142 screen. Samples will be collected for environmental characteristics as well (sediment grain-size, sediment 143 isotopes, and organic carbon). Samples will be processed in the laboratory following methods of prior 144 studies (Feder et al., 1994; Feder et al., 2007; Blanchard et al., 2013a). The focal species for this project 145 are benthic infauna for which critical information for model parameters are missing (Whitehouse et al., 146 2014). Taxonomic effort will be at the family level, except that dominant species will be identified to 147 species, This project will emphasize aspects of benthic systems relevant to modeling efforts such as 148 determining distributional patterns of faunal guilds, ecosystem functions and associated drivers, and in 149 association with collaborating projects for the present RFP (Danielson et al., ASGARD; Blanchard et al., 150 Marine mammal and benthic ecology), may fill in critical gaps on factors driving production and species 151 interactions at regional scale. The study area encompasses a hotspot for benthic production in the 152 northeastern Bering Sea, a site at which ecologically-significant, temporal changes have been noted 153 (Coyle et al., 2007; Grebmeier, 2012). Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

154 Historical studies: One way to understand variation in marine communities and their functions, potential 155 responses to stressors, and biological interactions is to mine historical and current databases with respect 156 to faunal distributions, environmental conditions, and sources of variability. As value-added research, 157 support of synthetic analysis of historical data can fill significant data gaps at reduced costs. As opposed 158 to the cost of gathering new data in the region, synthesis of the historical data will enable new synthetic 159 insights into the ecology of the Chukchi Sea at reduced costs (e.g., Day et al., 2013, in prep.; Blanchard, 160 2014). Integration of historical data sets (Stoker, 1981; Feder et al., 1994) with contemporary data 161 collected over the same domains and prepared using the same methodologies (CSESP) can allow for 162 enhanced understanding of the latter data and provide insights into spatial and temporal structuring of 163 ecosystem functions. 164 Historical data sets represented in this proposal are those collected from 1971 to 1986 (Fig. 2). The 165 data were collected, taxonomically analyzed, and prepared using methods either similar to current 166 approaches or those familiar to the investigator. The caveat is that Stoker sieved samples over a larger 167 mesh screen (3.0-mm instead of 1.0-mm), but the larger screen captures biomass well and values are 168 comparable to biomass estimates from the smaller screen (Grebmeier et al., 2006); density and species 169 richness will be incomparable. 170 The 2008–2014 CSESP is a spatially and temporally extensive, multidisciplinary ecosystem-based 171 investigation of the northeastern Chukchi Sea (Day et al., 2013). Our multidisciplinary study was 172 conducted in the northeastern Chukchi Sea in the open-water seasons of 2008–2014 during 2–3 cruises 173 year–1 (Fig. 3) to each of three study areas (2008–2013 for Klondike and Burger; 2010–2013 for Statoil), 174 the Greater Hanna Shoal study area (2011–2012), and the nearshore zone (2014). The present study will 175 utilize the CSESP benthic and associated environmental data for comparison to test for changes in 176 variance in hotspots and with the ASGARD II data collections, will provide a contemporary data point for 177 comparison to the historical data sets. 178 Statistical methods: Univariate and multivariate statistical techniques will be used to data mine the 179 extensive databases for patterns that help understand environmental/biological associations and patterns 180 associated with biological traits. Statistical tools used may include repeated-measures and mixed-effects 181 ANOVA models, multivariate analyses (e.g., canonical correspondence analysis [CCA] and 182 multidimensional scaling [MDS]), and geostatistical techniques for spatial modeling, as appropriate. 183 Syntheses often rely on a weight-of-evidence approach through the detection of comparable trends with 184 comparisons and contrasts between areas of interest. Biogeographic linkages can be assess through 185 comparisons of species lists and statistical modeling, but the taxonomic distinctness index in the PRIMER 186 package can be very useful for this task as it provides a definition of similarity among taxonomic 187 linkages. 188 Biological traits analysis is a comparatively new method for analysis of benthic compositional 189 information, expanding upon analyses of motility and feeding behavior. Evaluation of benthic 190 communities using feeding mode and motility have a long history in benthic ecology but recent advances 191 have attempted to broaden the scope of those analyses to overcome weaknesses. Biological traits analysis 192 relies on information on feeding ecology, functional attributes, motility, reproductive strategy, and life 193 history characteristics to better understand species distributions and interactions (Usseglio-Polatera et al., 194 2000; Bremner et al., 2003; Bremner et al., 2006b; Bremner et al., 2006a; Cochrane et al., 2012; Paganelli 195 et al., 2012). Such a method provides a pathway for gaining deeper insights into biogeographic patterns 196 and ecosystem functioning and resilience by incorporation of life history and tolerances into analyses. 197 The analysis relies in determination of a matrix defining biological traits for species/families, a process 198 partially completed (~40% complete) by the present investigator. This proposal seeks to finalize that 199 matrix for benthic macrofauna, and test its use at local to macroscale levels. 200 Resource selection models (RSM) are a collection of statistical methods providing insights into habitat 201 preferences and usage by animals. RSMs have successfully described flatfish habitat preferences 202 throughout Alaska relying on logistic regression, discriminant analysis, and categorical regression tree 203 models (Norcross et al., 1997; Abookire and Norcross, 1998; Norcross et al., 1999). The RSM 204 framework will be applied to dominant and readily identified benthic fauna that occur across the spatial Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

205 domain of the historical data (e.g., the bivalves Ennucula tenuis and Macoma calcarea and the 206 polychaetes Maldane sarsi and Nepthys punctata) with species investigated with RSMs selected on 207 availability of environmental data and geographic spread of taxonomic information. Resource selection 208 choices/covariances of dominant fauna will be important model inputs for spatial considerations, 209 particularly if environmental interactions are represented as predictors. 210 211 Collaborations: The benthic ecology and biological traits project will collaborate with the ASGARD 212 project, and provide data useful form the DBO and AMBON projects. Collaboration of this proposed 213 study with the ASGARD project to extend results beyond the early-season ASGARD cruise through 214 contributions to a two-way exchange of scientists and data from other cruises later in the year. 215 216 G. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 217 With carbon as the basic currency for quantifying biological and biophysical interactions, 218 including growth, respiration, energy conversion, energy movement, energy storage and intra-trophic 219 transfers, we need to understand the rate at which carbon is converted, stored, buried, and relocated. 220 Biophysical numerical models require as inputs sinking rates, growth rates and respiration rates for all 221 important species or functional groups. As outputs, models predict community composition, primary 222 productivity, secondary production, and benthic biomass density. This project proposes to partner with 223 the ASGARD to provide further benthic community information including taxonomic composition of 224 dominants, benthic biomass and abundance, and biological traits that can be further incorporated into the 225 rate-based investigation of the ASGARD and other rate-based studies. The results of the project can 226 guide and refine parameterization of ecosystem models such as the benthic and sea ice algae model of 227 Gibson and Spitz (2011) and our data would be invaluable to this effort. The trophic energetics modeling 228 of Whitehouse et al. (2014) described the benthos as one condensed category, despite the fact that the 229 Chukchi Sea is a benthic-dominated system. 230 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

231

232 233 Figure 1. Proposed study region and station map. Proposed benthic sampling will occur at the ASGARD 234 process stations and 10 other stations per year. 235 236 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

237 238 Figure 2. Historical sampling locations from the northeastern Bering and Chukchi Seas. The two 239 study areas of interest are highlighted by the boxes. 240 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

241 242 Figure 3. Sampling locations for the Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies Program in the 243 northeastern Chukchi Sea, 2008–2014. 244 245 246 Literature Cited: 247 Abookire, A. A., and Norcross, B. L. 1998. Depth and substrate as determinants of distribution of juvenile 248 flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon) and rock sole (Pleuronectes bilineatus), in Kachemak Bay, 249 Alaska. Journal of Sea Research, 39: 113-123. 250 Blanchard, A. L. 2014. Variability of macrobenthic diversity and distributions in Alaskan sub-Arctic and 251 Arctic marine systems with application to worldwide Arctic Systems. Marine Biodiversity: 1-15. 252 Blanchard, A. L., and Feder, H. M. 2014. Interactions of habitat complexity and environmental 253 characteristics with macrobenthic community structure at multiple spatial scales in the northeastern 254 Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 102: 132-143. 255 Blanchard, A. L., and Knowlton, A. L. 2013. Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies Program, 2008-2011: 256 Benthic ecology of the northeastern Chukchi Sea. 190 pp. 257 Blanchard, A. L., Feder, H. M., and Hoberg, M. K. 2010. Temporal variability of benthic communities in 258 an Alaskan glacial fjord, 1971-2007. Marine Environmental Research, 69: 95-107. 259 Blanchard, A. L., Feder, H. M., and Shaw, D. G. 2011. Associations between macrofauna and sediment 260 hydrocarbons from treated ballast water effluent at a marine oil terminal in Port Valdez, Alaska. 261 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 178: 461-476. 262 Blanchard, A. L., Parris, C. L., Knowlton, A. L., and Wade, N. R. 2013a. Benthic ecology of the 263 northeastern Chukchi Sea. Part I. Environmental characteristics and macrofaunal community 264 structure, 2008–2010. Continental Shelf Research, 67: 52-66. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

265 Blanchard, A. L., Parris, C. L., Knowlton, A. L., and Wade, N. R. 2013b. Benthic ecology of the 266 northeastern Chukchi Sea. Part II. Spatial variation of megafaunal community structure, 2009–2010. 267 Continental Shelf Research, 67: 67-76. 268 Bremner, J., Rogers, S. I., and Frid, C. L. J. 2003. Assessing functional diversity in marine benthic 269 ecosystems: a comparison of approaches. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 254: 11-25. 270 Bremner, J., Rogers, S. I., and Frid, C. L. J. 2006a. Matching biological traits to environmental conditions 271 in marine benthic ecosystems. Journal of Marine Systems, 60: 302-316. 272 Bremner, J., Rogers, S. I., and Frid, C. L. J. 2006b. Methods for describing ecological functioning of 273 marine benthic assemblages using biological traits analysis (BTA). Ecological Indicators, 6: 609-622. 274 Cochrane, S. K. J., Pearson, T. H., Greenacre, M., Costelloe, J., Ellingsen, I. H., Dahle, S., and Gulliksen, 275 B. 2012. Benthic fauna and functional traits along a Polar Front transect in the Barents Sea – 276 Advancing tools for ecosystem-scale assessments. Journal of Marine Systems, 94: 204-217. 277 Coyle, K. O., Bluhm, B., Konar, B., Blanchard, A., and Highsmith, R. C. 2007. Amphipod prey of gray 278 whales in the northern Bering Sea: Comparison of biomass and distribution between the 1980s and 279 2002–2003. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 54: 2906-2918. 280 Day, R. H., Weingartner, T. J., Hopcroft, R. R., Aerts, L. A. M., Blanchard, A. L., Gall, A. E., Gallaway, 281 B. J., et al. 2013. The offshore northeastern Chukchi Sea, Alaska: A complex high-latitude ecosystem. 282 Continental Shelf Research, 67: 147-165. 283 Doney, S. C., Ruckelshaus, M., Duffy, J. E., Barry, J. P., Chan, F., English, C. A., Galindo, H. M., et al. 284 2012. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 4: 11-37. 285 Dunton, K. H., Grebmeier, J. M., and Trefry, J. H. 2014. The benthic ecosystem of the northeastern 286 Chukchi Sea: An overview of its unique biogeochemical and biological characteristics. Deep Sea 287 Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 102: 1-8. 288 Feder, H. M., Jewett, S. C., and Blanchard, A. L. 2007. Southeastern Chukchi Sea (Alaska) 289 macrobenthos. Polar Biology, 30: 261-275. 290 Feder, H. M., Naidu, A. S., Jewett, S. C., Hameedi, J. M., Johnson, W. R., and Whitledge, T. E. 1994. 291 The northeastern Chukchi Sea: benthos-environmental interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 292 111: 171-190. 293 Gibson, G. A., and Spitz, Y. H. 2011. Impacts of biological parameterization, initial conditions, and 294 environmental forcing on parameter sensitivity and uncertainty in a marine ecosystem model for the 295 Bering Sea. Journal of Marine Systems, 88: 214-231. 296 Grebmeier, J. M. 2012. Shifting patterns of life in the Pacific Arctic and sub-Arctic Seas. Annual Review 297 of Marine Science, 4: 63-78. 298 Grebmeier, J. M., Bluhm, B. A., Cooper, L. W., Danielson, S. L., Arrigo, K. R., Blanchard, A. L., Clarke, 299 J. T., et al. 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating persistent macrobenthic biomass 300 hotspots and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. Progress In Oceanography, 136: 92-114. 301 Grebmeier, J. M., Cooper, L. W., Feder, H. M., and Sirenko, B. I. 2006. Ecosystem dynamics of the 302 Pacific-influenced Northern Bering and Chukchi seas in the Amerasian Arctic. Progress In 303 Oceanography, 71: 331-361. 304 Highsmith, R. C., and Coyle, K. O. 1990. High Productivity of Northern Bering Sea Benthic Amphipods. 305 Nature, 344: 862. 306 Highsmith, R. C., and Coyle, K. O. 1992. Productivity of arctic amphipods relative to gray whale energy 307 requirements. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 83: 141-150. 308 Hunt, G. L., Blanchard, A. L., Boveng, P., Dalpadado, P., Drinkwater, K. F., Eisner, L., Hopcroft, R. R., 309 et al. 2013. The Barents and Chukchi Seas: Comparison of two Arctic shelf ecosystems. Journal of 310 Marine Systems, 109–110: 43-68. 311 Nelson, C. H., Phillips, R. L., McRea, J., Barber, J. H., McLaughlin, M. W., and Chin, J. L. 1994. Gray 312 whale and Pacific walrus benthic feeding grounds and sea floor interaction in the Chukchi Sea. 51 pp. 313 Norcross, B., Muter, F.-J., and Holladay, B. 1997. Habitat models for juvenile pleuronectids around 314 Kodiak Island, Alaska. Oceanographic Literature Review, 12: 1548. 315 Norcross, B. L., Blanchard, A., and Holladay, B. A. 1999. Comparison of models for defining nearshore Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

316 flatfish nursery areas in Alaskan waters. Fisheries Oceanography, 8: 50-67. 317 Paganelli, D., Marchini, A., and Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. 2012. Functional structure of marine benthic 318 assemblages using Biological Traits Analysis (BTA): A study along the Emilia-Romagna coastline 319 (Italy, North-West Adriatic Sea). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96: 245-256. 320 Piepenburg, D., Archambault, P., Ambrose, W., Blanchard, A., Bluhm, B., Carroll, M., Conlan, K., et al. 321 2011. Towards a pan-Arctic inventory of the species diversity of the macro- and megabenthic fauna 322 of the Arctic shelf seas. Marine Biodiversity, 41: 51-70. 323 Stoker, S. W. 1981. Benthic invertebrate macrofauna on the eastern Bering/Chukchi continental shelf. In 324 The Eastern Bering Sea Shelf: Oceanography and Resources, vol. 2, pp. 1069-1103. Ed. by D. W. 325 Hood, and J. A. Calder. NOAA. 326 Usseglio-Polatera, P., Bournaud, M., Richoux, P., and Tachet, H. 2000. Biomonitoring through biological 327 traits of benthic macroinvertebrates: how to use species trait databases? Hydrobiologia, 422-423: 153- 328 162. 329 Whitehouse, G. A., Aydin, K., Essington, T., and Hunt, G., Jr. 2014. A trophic mass balance model of the 330 eastern Chukchi Sea with comparisons to other high-latitude systems. Polar Biology, 37: 911-939. 331 332 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 333 The benthic community ecology and biological traits project would contribute directly to refinement of 334 ecosystem models for the area. The data would be compatible with and contribute to the DBO project in 335 the Bering and Chukchi Seas, as well as to the AMBON project through collaborative work with the 336 ASGARD project. The project would utilize historical and contemporary data from the CSESP project to 337 understand spatial and temporal differences in ecosystem function, with the data collected under this 338 proposal filling in a contemporary data gap for the northeastern Bering Sea. As the AMBON and CSESP 339 (2008–2014) projects overlap, collaborative efforts are expected. The data from this study would be 340 directly integrated into the ASGARD project by refining benthic community structure and helping to 341 understand benthic system functioning. The proposed benthic ecology project will contribute the 342 questions overarching NPRB research questions through research category 3 questions including: 343 • What are the mechanisms that determine the availability of lower trophic level (LTL) resources? 344 • How will changes in the abundance, density, location, and timing of LTL resources influence the 345 distribution and life history of upper trophic level predators? 346 The proposal also contributes to category 2: Species interactions questions including: 347 • What are the mechanisms that create and maintain biological hotspots? 348 • How important are hotspots in maintaining the ecological structure of the ecosystem and tho what 349 degree do species or species guilds critical to ecosystem function rely on them? 350 • How sensitive and resilient are species to variability, anomalies, and shifts in the physical 351 environment? 352 The proposal also contributes to category 4: modeling needs by: 353 • Providing refinements of a critical model component to better describe ecosystem functions. 354 • Provide insights into ecosystem components and physical drivers. 355 356 Project Management: 357 The project will be managed by Dr. Arny Blanchard, an experienced biostatistician and benthic 358 community ecologist with a history of long-term project management and successful and timely project 359 completion. As a collaboration with the ASGARD project, the benthic ecology study would allow for a 360 more expanded investigation of the benthos as well as collaborate with and leverage research through 361 participation of members from other research efforts (e.g., AMBON and the DBO). A separate proposal 362 by Blanchard (Benthic prey dynamics and marine mammal habitat usage) would leverage laboratory and 363 analysis costs between the projects. Data will be managed in MS Excel spreadsheets and input into MS 364 Access databases for data manipulation and storage. All data will be made available to AOSS and posted Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

365 publically through SFOS websites. Dr. Blanchard will oversee one part-time lab technician and one M.S. 366 student. 367 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

Benthic ecology, biological traits analysis, and ecosystem functions in the northeastern Bering and Chukchi Seas 05/01/2016 - 09/21/2021 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Individual responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Benthic community Data collection/field work Technician X X Data/sample processing Technician X X X X X X X X X Analysis Blanchard X X X X X X X Biological Traits matrix Data collection/field work Technician X X X X X X X X X Analysis Blanchard X X X X X X X Other Progress report Blanchard X X X X X X X X X X AMSS presentation Blanchard X X X X X PI meeting Blanchard X X X X X Logistics planning meeting Blanchard X X Publication submission Blanchard X X Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Blanchard X Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Blanchard X Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: 4 Benthic ecology, biological traits analysis, and ecosystem functions in the northeastern Bering and 5 Chukchi Seas. 6 7 Lead PI: 8 Blanchard, A. L., Ph.D., SFOS/UAF 9 10 Logistical Needs: 11 The benthic ecology and biological traits proposal would require ~12 days for shipboard sampling but the 12 proposal allows for up to 24 days field time to accommodate collaboration with other projects. No vessel 13 has been identified, although the Sikuliaq is preferred; the ASGARD proposal to which this proposal 14 collaborates specifies the Sikuliaq. The benthic sampling is flexible in timing and vessel as benthic 15 sampling could occur at nearly anytime during the summer, although collaboration with the ASGARD 16 project is preferred if possible. To be successful, we need a winch capable of retrieving a van Veen grab 17 (~150 lbs. fully filled), deck space for safely washing and processing samples, access to water for 18 washing samples, safe access to a formalin dispenser for preserving specimens, and hazmat storage for 19 formaldehyde. We need two berths for the benthic sampling team: one for a technician and the other for 20 an undergraduate student gaining research experience. The technician will be experienced in benthic 21 sampling methods and the undergraduate student will participate in the field sampling and in laboratory 22 analyses to gain research experience. 23 24 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 25 26 The benthic team members can provide field supplies and equipment including a 0.1-m2 van Veen grab in 27 not available on the vessel selected, sample storage containers, hoses, and miscellaneous sampling gear as 28 well as computers required for the work in the laboratory. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Benthic ecology and biological traits in the northeastern Bering Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Arny Blanchard - University of Alaska Fairbanks category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 12,190 35,389 159,628 155,884 34,647 28,904 426,642 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 12,190 35,389 159,628 155,884 34,647 28,904 426,642

1. Personnel Salaries 5,605 11,434 71,977 72,987 12,134 12,376 186,513

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,609 3,281 18,896 19,318 3,482 3,552 50,138 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 886 5,699 5,892 4,872 5,105 2,077 24,531

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 3,000 3,000 100 200 200 6,500

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 100 6,300 6,300 2,100 1,000 15,800

7. Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Direct Costs 8,100 23,514 106,065 103,577 23,021 19,205 283,482 0

Indirect Costs 4,090 11,875 53,563 52,307 11,626 9,699 143,160

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 12,190 35,389 159,628 155,884 34,647 28,904 426,642 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Benthic ecology and biological traits in the northeastern Bering Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Dr. Arny Blanchard - University of Alaska Fairbanks; ; ; category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 12,190 35,389 159,628 155,884 34,647 28,904 426,642 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 12,190 35,389 159,628 155,884 34,647 28,904 426,642

1. Personnel Salaries 5,605 11,434 71,977 72,987 12,134 12,376 186,513 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 1,609 3,281 18,896 19,318 3,482 3,552 50,138 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 886 5,699 5,892 4,872 5,105 2,077 24,531 0

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 3,000 3,000 100 200 200 6,500 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 100 6,300 6,300 2,100 1,000 15,800 0

7. Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Direct Costs 8,100 23,514 106,065 103,577 23,021 19,205 283,482 0

Indirect Costs 4,090 11,875 53,563 52,307 11,626 9,699 143,160 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 12,190 35,389 159,628 155,884 34,647 28,904 426,642 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – University of Alaska Fairbanks

Project Title: Benthic ecology, biological traits analysis, and ecosystem functions in the northeastern Bering and Chukchi Seas

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $426,642

1. Personnel/Salaries: 87 hours (.5 months) in year 1 and 174 hours (1 month) in years 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are requested for the PI Blanchard (at $56.66/hour) to administer the project. 1000 hours (5.75 mos.) in years 3 and 4 are requested for Research Technician Tami Rucker (at $24.45/hour) for fieldwork and laboratory analyses. Support is also budgeted for 2 undergraduate students (academic year and summer) assist in the field and laboratory.

All salaries are at the employees’ current rate of pay. A leave reserve of 13.7% is included for faculty salaries, 21% for support (classified) staff, and 9.2% for students. Salaries are listed at the FY16 rate and include a 2.0% inflation increase for faculty and 2.5% for professionals and staff each year.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Staff benefits are applied according to UAF’s Provisional FY16 fringe benefit rates. Rates are 28.7% for faculty salaries and 45.7% for support (classified) staff. A copy of the rate agreement is available at http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/.

Personnel Expense Details:

Hours devoted to Hourly Leave Yearly Total Fringe Fringe Year Title/Name project rate Rate Increase Salary rate cost FY16 PI, A. 87 $56.66 13.7% 2.0% $5,605 28.7% $1,609 Blanchard FY16 Totals $5,605 $1,609 FY17 PI, A. 174 $57.79 13.7% 2.0% $11,434 28.7% $3,281 Blanchard FY17 Totals $11,434 $3,281 FY18 PI, A. 174 $58.95 13.7% 2.0% $11,662 28.7% $3,347 Blanchard FY18 Research 1000 $25.69 21.0% 2.5% $31,082 45.7% $14,205 Technician, T. Rucker FY18 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 0% $0 Student (Academic) FY18 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 0% $0 Student (Academic) FY18 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 9.2% $1,345 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

Student (Summer) FY18 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 9.2% $1,345 Student (Summer) FY18 Totals $71,977 $18,896 FY19 PI, A. 174 $60.13 13.7% 2.0% $11,896 28.7% $3,414 Blanchard FY19 Research 1000 $26.33 21.0% 2.5% $31,859 45.7% $14,560 Technician, T. Rucker FY19 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 0% $0 Student (Academic) FY19 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 0% $0 Student (Academic) FY19 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 9.2% $1,345 Student (Summer) FY19 Undergraduate 696 $10.50 0% 0% $14,616 9.2% $1,345 Student (Summer) FY19 Totals $72,987 $19,318 FY20 PI, A. 174 $61.33 13.7% 2.0% $12,134 28.7% $3,482 Blanchard FY20 Totals $12,134 $3,482 FY21 PI, A. 174 $62.56 13.7% 2.0% $12,376 28.7% $3,552 Blanchard FY21Totals $12,376 $3,552

3. Travel: One trip is included in years 2 and 3 for the PI to travel to Anchorage, AK to attend the kickoff meeting. One trip per year is included for the PI to travel to Anchorage, AK to attend PI Meetings. One trip in years 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is included for the PI to travel to Anchorage, AK to attend the annual AMSS event. One trip is included in years 2 and 3 for the research technician and one undergraduate student to travel to Nome, AK for field work. One trip is included in years 4 and 5 for the PI to attend a national meeting to be determined. Washington, DC is currently used as a placeholder location. Airfare is estimated at $200/trip to Anchorage, and $1,200 per trip to Washington, DC. Per Diem (meals/incidentals/lodging) is $159/day for Anchorage per UA Board of Regents regulations for Alaska in-state travel, $273/day for Nome, and $300/day for Washington, DC. Ground transportation is included for all travel at $50/person/trip.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

Year 1: Total travel request in FY16 $886

Year 2: Total travel request in FY17 $5,699

Year 3: Total travel request in FY18 $5,892

Year 4: Total travel request in FY19 $4,872

Year 5: Total travel request in FY20 $5,105

Year 6: Total travel request in FY21 $2,077

4. Equipment: No equipment is requested.

5. Supplies: $500 per year in years 2 and 3 are included for field supplies. $2,000 per year in years 2 and 3 are included for laboratory supplies. $500/$500/$100/$200/$200 is requested in years 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively for program/project supplies.

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $3,000

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $3,000

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $100

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $200

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $200

6. Contractual/Consultants: $1,000 is requested in years 5 and 6 for publication charges. $1,000 per year in years 3, 4, and 5 is requested for meeting registration fees. $100 per year in years 2, 3, 4, and 5 is requested for freight and shipping expenses. $2,600 per year in years 2 and 3 is requested for Stable isotope sampling (100 samples @ $26 per sample).

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

Year 1: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY17 $100

Year 3: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY18 $6,300

Year 4: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY19 $6,300

Year 5: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY20 $2,100

Year 6: Total contractual/consultant funds request in FY21 $1,000

7. Other: No other funds are requested.

Year 1: Total Indirect Costs request in FY16 $4,090

Year 2: Total Indirect Costs request in FY17 $11,875

Year 3: Total Indirect Costs request in FY18 $53,563

Year 4: Total Indirect Costs request in FY19 $52,307

Year 5: Total Indirect Costs request in FY20 $11,626

Year 6: Total Indirect Costs request in FY21 $9,699

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.20-Blanchard

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Arny L. Blanchard School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks PO Box 757220 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 907.474.1123 CURRENT ACTIVITIES Interests include marine invertebrate taxonomy, marine benthic ecology, long-term monitoring, and environmental statistics. Current projects include long-term monitoring in Port Valdez, Alaska, the benthic ecology component of the Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies Program (CSESP), and providing statistical support for Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Program (AK MAP) managed by the ADEC.

PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK Biological Sciences B.Sc. 1989 University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK Statistics M.S. 1999 University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK Marine Biology Ph.D. 2006

APPOINTMENTS 2007-Pres Research Associate Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. Promoted to Associate professor 7/12/2015. 1997-2000 Research Associate, IMS, UAF, Fairbanks, AK. 1989-1996 Laboratory Technician, IMS, UAF, Fairbanks, AK.

PUBLICATIONS Blanchard, A. L. 2014. Variability of macrobenthic diversity and distributions in Alaskan sub-Arctic and Arctic marine systems: a review of long-term environmental studies in Alaska. Marine Biodiversity. Tu, K. L., Blanchard, A. L., Iken, K., Horstmann-Dehn, L. 2015. Small-scale variability in benthic food webs in the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 528:19-37. Blanchard, A. L. and H.M. Feder. 2014. Interactions of habitat complexity and environmental characteristics with macrobenthic community structure at multiple spatial and temporal scales in the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Special Issue Deep Sea Research II 102, 132-143. R. H. Day,T. J. Weingartner, R. R. Hopcroft, L. A. M. Aerts, A. L. Blanchard, A. E. Gall, B. J. Gallaway, D. E. Hannay, B. A. Holladay, J. T. Mathis, B. L. Norcross, J. M. Questel, S. S. Wisdom. 2013. The offshore northeastern Chukchi Sea, Alaska: a complex high-latitude ecosystem. Continental Shelf Research 67, 147-165. Blanchard, A.L., C. L. Parris, A. L. Knowlton, N. R. Wade. 2013. Benthic ecology of the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Part I. Environmental characteristics and macrofaunal community structure, 2008– 2010. Continental Shelf Research 67, 52-66. Blanchard, A.L., C. L. Parris, A. L. Knowlton, N. R. Wade. 2013. Benthic ecology of the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Part II. Spatial variation of megafaunal community structure, 2009–2010. Continental Shelf Research 67, 67-76. Hunt, G.L., A. L. Blanchard, P. Boveng, P. Dalpadado, K. Drinkwater, L. Eisner, R. Hopcroft, K. M. Kovacs, B. L.Norcross, P. Renaud, M. Reigstad, M. Renner, H.R. Skjoldal, A. Whitehouse, R.A. Woodgate. 2012. The Barents and Chukchi Seas: Comparison of two Arctic shelf ecosystems, Journal of Marine Systems, 109-110, 43-68. Feder H. M., S. C. Jewett, and A. L. Blanchard, 2007. Southeastern Chukchi Sea (Alaska) Macrobenthos. Polar Biology, 30:261-275. Feder, H. M., Jewett, S. C. and A. Blanchard. 2005. Southeastern Chukchi Sea (Alaska) epibenthos. Polar Biology, 28: 402-421. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

1 Research Plan 2 A. Project Title: Evaluating the impacts of early and late season changes in sea ice on in situ primary and 3 net community production in the Chukchi 4 5 B. Category: This research responds to Category 3 of the Arctic Program RFP. 6 7 C. Rationale and justification: The Arctic is undergoing rapid and pronounced change as a result of recent 8 warming. Of the many changes to the physical system, changes in sea ice extent and the timing of ice retreat 9 and advance have the potential to dramatically alter timing and location of primary production, with 10 subsequent consequences for space-time mismatches in carbon and energy flows through the rest of the 11 Arctic ecosystem. As evidenced from the satellite record of sea ice minimum area (NSIDC, 2015) the 12 physical system is a moving target. In this remote and logistically-challenging region, it is imperative to 13 establish a baseline for current ecosystem functioning, and to work toward a mechanistic understanding of 14 how changes in the physical baseline under continued warming will propagate through the system. 15 The proposed work will quantify rates of gross primary production and net community production using 16 dissolved gas observations without the need for incubation. The ratio of dissolved O2 to Ar (O2/Ar) allows 17 separation of abiotic and biotic changes to dissolved O2 saturations, allowing the net community 18 photosynthesis-respiration balance to be constrained. This ratio can be determined by a benchtop mass 19 spectrometer supplied with surface seawater, for high-resolution observations in space and time. Discrete 20 measurements collected for O2 isotopes allow the gross photosynthetic input of O2 to be constrained. 21 Combined, these integrated, community-level rate estimates will allow evaluation of the potential effects 22 of earlier ice retreat and longer openwater duration on Arctic productivity and the implications for energy 23 flows to higher trophic levels. 24 25 D. Hypotheses: Changes in ice extent and timing are driving pronounced changes to primary productivity 26 and net community productivity in Arctic regions. Specifically, 27 1) Earlier ice retreat is shifting the location and timing of ice-associated blooms, reducing early season 28 net community production, and hence, export to benthic systems. 29 2) Later ice advance in fall is extending the season over which atmosphere-ocean coupling is possible, 30 allowing late season storms to fuel additional primary and net community production by delivery 31 of new nutrients to shelf regions. 32 33 E. Objectives: Over an early (May -June) and late season (September) cruise in 2017, the PI will: 34 1. Estimate rates of in situ gross photosynthetic O2 production (GPP) using the natural abundance 35 of dissolved oxygen isotopes in the water column; 36 2. Estimate rates of in situ net community production (NCP) from the oxygen mass balance in the 37 water column using high-resolution measurements of O2/Ar gas ratios; 38 3) Evaluate ecosystem efficiency over early and late season timeframes as constrained by the net 39 community production/ gross primary production ratio. 40 4) In the context of physical and other measurements carried out as part of the NPRB Arctic Science 41 Field Program, evaluate mechanistic controls on rates and their spatial/temporal variability. 42 43 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: The proposed work will result in comprehensive estimates of net 44 community production (NCP) and gross primary production (GPP) in the Chukchi Sea at two critical 45 timeframes that represent gaps in current understanding of ecosystem functioning. Estimates of NCP 46 derived from high-resolution observations of surface layer O2/Ar observations (roughly 10000 points for a 47 ~4 week cruise, see Figure 1) will provide unprecedented spatial coverage and insight into ecosystem 48 metabolism in a way that would not be possible with standard bottle measurements. GPP rate information 49 derived from O2 isotope observations (roughly 100 data points each cruise) will be lower resolution, but 50 will still offer significantly more information than is typically afforded by incubation-based approaches. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

51 Combined, these observations offer estimates of net/gross production ratios, and will allow the efficiency 52 of lower trophic productivity during two very different physical states (early season, late season) to be 53 addressed in detail. 54 55 G. Project design and conceptual approach: 56 57 Background and Rationale: 58 It is clear from satellite-based and ship-based measurements that the Arctic is undergoing rapid and 59 pronounced change. Warming has led to significant reductions in ice cover and sea ice thickness 60 throughout the Arctic Ocean (e.g., Lindsay and Zhang, 2005; IPCC, 2007), resulting in extended melt 61 seasons (e.g., Stroeve et al., 2007), thinner ice (e.g., Maslanik et al., 2007) and longer periods of ice-free 62 conditions. These sea ice changes have the potential to dramatically affect the biogeochemistry and 63 ecology of Arctic seas (e.g., Richter-Menge et al., 2006; Serreze et al., 2007; 2009; Arrigo et al., 2008; 64 Moline et al., 2008; Lavoie et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2010; Walsh et al., 2011). Indeed, several recent 65 research programs (NASA’s ICESCAPE, Under Ice Blooms) have already begun to examine some of the 66 temporal and spatial shifts in lower trophic level productivity attendant with sea-ice changes in early 67 season. These studies (e.g., Arrigo et al., 2012; Frey et al., 2012) are starting to lay a baseline for 68 understanding of the nature and magnitude of the biogeochemical responses to changes in the physical 69 system, although much more work will be necessary to understand the integrated ecosystem response, not 70 only in early season, but across the entire growing season into the ice advance and the processes that pre- 71 condition the system for the following year’s ice retreat. 72 There is no clear consensus on how lower trophic level productivity in Arctic systems might change, 73 but one hypothesis is that earlier ice melt and longer open-water duration will lead to greater pelagic 74 primary production, i.e., a “greening” Arctic, driven by higher photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) 75 at depth (e.g., Pabi et al., 2008; Arrigo et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2010). Evidence that some of these 76 processes are occurring includes deepening of the nutricline and chlorophyll maximum in the interior of 77 the Canadian Basin over the past decade (e.g., McLaughlin and Carmack, 2010), and massive blooms 78 under first-year ice on the Chukchi Sea shelf (e.g., Arrigo et al., 2012). A shift in timing and location of 79 primary production from shelf systems with tight benthic-pelagic coupling to the pelagic realm will 80 obviously have consequences for secondary and higher trophic level productivity, creating mismatches 81 between food availability and energy requirements for higher trophic levels in the later season (e.g., 82 Forest et al., 2011; Grebmeier et al., 2006a,b; Moline et al., 2008). However, increased PAR via lower 83 coverage and thinner ice (and melt ponds, Frey et al., 2012) is unlikely to support sustained levels of 84 elevated productivity because depletion of nutrients in surface waters during the latter part of the growing 85 season provides a geochemical limit on light-enhanced productivity. Increased inputs of melt water are 86 expected to enhance stratification in the euphotic zone (e.g., Yamamoto –Kawai et al., 2009; Jackson et 87 al., 2011), potentially further limiting nutrient inventories, and hence, productivity. Thus, while earlier 88 melt may result in a change in timing of peak production (i.e. a shift toward earlier production), it is 89 unclear that annually-integrated primary productivity will increase given the limits imposed by the 90 availability of nutrients. 91 An alternative scenario is that the combination of more extensive and longer open water periods with 92 enhanced winds will lead to an overall increase in the supply of nutrients from deeper water masses to 93 Arctic shelves (by either upwelling and/or mixing), particularly during the late summer and early fall 94 when production would otherwise be limited by ice cover or nutrient limitation (e.g., Pickart et al., 2011, 95 2013a,b; Mathis et al. 2012). Recent studies indicate an intensification of wind forcing over the Alaskan 96 margin along the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, with a greater occurrence of upwelling-favorable events, 97 particularly late in the ice-free season (e.g., Spall et al., 2014; Pickart et al., 2013a). Pickart et al. (2013a) 98 recently estimated that the upward nitrate flux associated with storms in late season could support new 99 production of a comparable magnitude to early season production associated with sea-ice retreat. 100 Upwelling events occur most frequently in September-November (Pickart et al., 2013), and could pose a 101 unique opportunity to sequester additional carbon into shelf bottom waters prior to the winter ice advance. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

102 Satellite observations suggest upwelling-induced, late season blooms (e.g., Pickart et al., 2013a), and 103 these blooms could deliver export of new carbon to benthic communities, and transfer of metabolic 104 potential to the adjacent Arctic Ocean interior. Thus, such events have to potential for marked ecological 105 impacts to pelagic and benthic communities on and off the shelf (e.g., Anderson and Kaltin, 2001; 106 Grebmeier et al., 2006b; Zhang et al., 2010; Walsh et al., 2011). 107 To understand how changes in the physical system are manifesting in Arctic ecosystem function, it is 108 therefore critical, at a minimum, to observe both the early and late growing season time windows. It is 109 also critical to simultaneously constrain the ‘bottom-up’ (e.g. organic and inorganic nutrients, light, and 110 community structure) and ‘top-down’ (grazing rates, heterotrophic activity) factors that structure the 111 ecosystem. The work outlined in this pre-proposal is aimed at evaluating lower trophic level primary 112 productivity as well as net ecosystem metabolism (i.e. the balance between community photosynthesis 113 and all heterotrophic activity). The proposed techniques are uniquely well-adapted to capturing both 114 short-term and event-scale responses of the plankton community because they utilize high resolution 115 observations of dissolved gases which reflect the natural, in situ community rates without the need for an 116 incubation. Observations of the isotopes of dissolved O2 constrain the community-level gross 117 photosynthetic O2 input to the system (gross primary production, GPP), while observations of the ratio of 118 dissolved O2 to Argon constrain the net ecosystem balance between photosynthesis and respiration (net 119 community productivity, NCP). The PI (Juranek) has made these observations on late season cruises in 120 the Chukchi in 2011, 2012, and 2013, and was recently funded by Arctic Natural Sciences at NSF to 121 collect additional observations in August 2015 and September 2016. Collecting a similar suite of 122 observations in conjunction with the 2017 NPRB field campaign would allow 1) continuity of late season 123 GPP and NCP rate observations, allowing insight into potential mechanisms of interannual variability, 2) 124 collection of critically-needed new rate information in the early season window, and 3) interpretation of 125 rates constrained by O2/Ar and O2 isotopes in the context of other elements of the NPRB program, which 126 will presumably include aspects of plankton community composition, grazing and heterotrophic activity, 127 nutrient inventories, and higher trophic level energetics. 128 To illustrate the power of the proposed approach, data from prior collections in the Chukchi in 2011 129 and 2012 are presented. Juranek collected high resolution observations of the dissolved O2/Ar ratio and 130 discrete dissolved O2 isotope samples on October USCGC Healy transits from Dutch Harbor (AK) to the 131 Chukchi and Beaufort, and back. While the focus of these cruises was to service moorings funded under 132 the NSF Arctic Observing Network program (PI Pickart), Juranek was funded as part of a collaborative 133 NSF study to better understand drivers of ocean acidification in the Western Arctic (with J. Mathis at 134 UAF, now at NOAA-Arctic Sciences). These data, along with complementary observations of nutrients 135 and dissolved inorganic carbon procured by Mathis (Mathis et al., 2012) indicate substantial contributions 136 of late-season processes to Arctic productivity. 137 Methods, and Distribution of Dissolved Gases in Chukchi Surface Waters 2011-2012 138 Dissolved O2 provides quantitative information on both GPP and NCP because of the tight coupling 139 between O2 and organic carbon production/consumption processes (e.g. 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2, 140 where the forward reaction is chemical shorthand for photosynthesis and the reverse reaction is shorthand 141 for respiration). However, surface gas saturations are set by both biotic (photosynthesis, respiration) and 142 abiotic (warming, cooling) processes; therefore additional tracers are required to differentiate sources and 143 sinks. Argon (Ar) has similar solubility to O2 but no biological sources/sinks, so dissolved Ar is an 144 effective means to separate biotic and abiotic effects on O2 saturations (Craig and Hayward, 1987; Kaiser 145 et al., 2005). The O2/Ar saturation ratio, which is the measured [O2]/[Ar] normalized to the ratio expected 146 at equilibrium for a given temperature and salinity, thus reveals the net changes in O2 being driven by 147 biological production and consumption of organic matter, the ‘net biological O2 saturation’. When 148 combined with surface wind history, a simple O2 mass balance constrained by O2/Ar observations 149 determines NCP. The NCP estimate resulting from this approach is time-averaged over the ~2-10 day 150 residence time of O2 in the mixed layer with respect to gas exchange, and thus integrates episodic 151 processes that would likely be missed by bottle-based measurements. The dissolved O2/Ar ratio has been Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

152 used in many oceanic regimes to track NCP and net ecosystem metabolism (e.g., Emerson et al., 1997; 153 Cassar et al., 2007; Hamme et al., 2012; Juranek et al., 2012; Tortell and Long, 2009). 154 On 2011 and 2012 cruises, Juranek determined the O2/Ar of surface seawater continuously using an 155 equilibrated inlet mass spectrometer (Cassar et al., 2009) connected to the Healy’s science seawater 156 supply. After averaging and calibration, this resulted in nearly 9000 observations of net biological oxygen 157 saturation and NCP rate estimates along each cruisetrack (Figures 1 & 2). The 2011 and 2012 surveys 158 reveal several regional differences: the northern Bering was heterotrophic (net biological O2 inputs and 159 NCP are negative) on 3 out of 4 occupations, with a clear transition to more frequently autotrophic 160 conditions evident just north of Bering Strait. Highest biological O2 saturation are evident in a ‘hotspot’ 161 near Pt. Hope, and the northeastern Chukchi, consistent with prior observations of high rates of 162 productivity in these regions (Grebmeier et al., 2006a,b; Grebmeier, 2012). The biological O2 saturations 163 observed in the northeastern Chukchi are significant: we observe approximately 3-4% supersaturation due 164 to net biological activity, while detection capability is on the order of ± 0.3%. Vertical mixing most likely 165 biases results toward lower biological O2 saturations, since subsurface O2 concentrations are 166 undersaturated from respiration of organic matter (confirmed by sparse profiles collected throughout the 167 sampling area, data not shown). However, the only way to get a positive net biological O2 saturation is via 168 an excess of photosynthesis relative to community respiration. Therefore, these data clearly indicate that 169 there is net organic carbon production occurring in the Chukchi in October. 170 Interannual differences in biological O2 saturation provide insight into how ice conditions impact 171 episodic nutrient inputs and late season biological carbon uptake. A comparison of observations between 172 October 2012, the lowest sea-ice minimum on record, and October 2011, a year with substantially more 173 ice coverage (NSIDC, 2015), suggests that the Chukchi shelf has higher biological O2 saturations when 174 ice extent is lower (Figure 1). 175 In addition, during each cruise PI Juranek collected 50-70 samples for analysis of triple oxygen 17 17 176 isotopes of dissolved O2 ( Δ, Luz and Barkan, 2000, Juranek and Quay, 2013). The tracer Δ allows for 177 separation of the contributions of photosynthetic O2 and air-sea O2 exchange in surface mixed layer O2 178 budgets because of the very different 17Δ signatures associated with these processes (Luz and Barkan, 179 2000, Juranek and Quay, 2005; Kaiser, 2011). In short, a low 17Δ signature (less δ17O relative to δ18O) 180 would be indicative of a higher proportion of oxygen derived from air-sea exchange, while a higher 17Δ 181 would be indicative of a higher proportion originating from photosynthetic production. By measuring the 182 natural abundance of dissolved O2 isotopes (i.e., no incubations – this is an in situ tracer) and applying a 183 mass balance approach similar to that for O2/Ar, the gross photosynthetic O2 production (GPP) can be 184 calculated. GPP rates calculated from 2011-2012 17Δ observations are shown in Figure 3. These data -2 -1 185 indicate gross photosynthetic production rates of 10-100 mmol O2 m d , which would be equivalent to 186 net PP (NPP) rates of 30-300 mg C m-2 d-1 based on a GPP/NPP conversion factor derived from 187 chemostat cultures and prior comparisons of GPP to 14C-incubatons (Juranek and Quay, 2013). Although 188 the resolution of these observations is not as high as that for O2/Ar-derived NCP, the amount of data 189 coverage derived from this approach is higher than would typically be obtained from bottle-based 190 techniques. In addition, the 17Δ tracer and the applied budget integrate GPP over a longer timescale (2-7 191 day residence time of O2 in surface mixed layer) and much larger space scale than that determined from a 192 bottle-based approach. Thus, 17Δ-based rates are more likely to capture the influence of late-season 193 episodic nutrient inputs. 194 195 Proposed Observations as part of the NPRB Arctic Field Campaign 196 As part of the NPRB Arctic Campaign, I propose to collect high resolution observations of O2/Ar 197 from the surface seawater supply of a research ship using a sea-going mass spectrometer (as discussed 198 above). In addition I would collect approximately 200 observations of dissolved O2 isotopes for constraint 199 of GPP. The dissolved O2 isotopes require sufficiently high analytical precision that they cannot be 200 determined at sea; therefore, samples will be collected in gas-tight sampling bottles for shoreside analysis 201 on a Thermo 253 Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer housed at Oregon State University. The ideal 202 timeframe for data collection would be in the early and late season (May-June and September, Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

203 respectively). The region of highest priority for these determinations would be the NE Chukchi, 204 particularly the frequently occupied transects of the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO, 205 http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo/): Line 4, which extends from Wainwright toward Hanna Shoal, and Line 206 5 across Barrow canyon (see Figure 4). These regions are known ‘hotspots’ of productivity as evidenced 207 in previous studies (e.g. Grebmeier, 2012) and our own work (Figure 1). 208 On the early season cruise, I propose to map rates during transits across the NE Chukchi shelf, 209 including DBO Lines 4 and 5. After an intial survey phase, I would monitor a time-series of observations 210 in a more limited region focused on the marginal ice edge. This would allow evaluation of short-term 211 variability in rate terms as well as the evolution of those terms over serveral weeks. Recently, 212 observations of temporal variability in O2/Ar ratios over a diel cycle were observed at a time-series 213 location in the subtropical Pacific. These diel variations were used to resolve community respiration (CR, 214 from the decrease in O2/Ar observed between dusk and dawn) as well as daily NCP (from the increase in 215 O2/Ar over 24 hours), and GPP (from NCP + CR)(Ferron et al., 2015). This high-temporal resolution 216 approach opens up new opportunities to evaluate the time-variability of key components of community 217 energy flow on a repeated, daily basis without disturbance or confinement. I will evaluate both daily rates 218 immplied from this approach as well as longer-term time-integrated rates from the average daily O2/Ar in 219 the surface layer budget. I will also collect depth profiles to evaluate mixing contribution to the surface O2 220 budget, and will use meteorological observations from the Barrow weather station and NARR Reanalysis 221 to evaluate wind speeds and the gas exchange history for O2 in the surface layer (via a wind speed based 222 parameterization, Wanninkhof, 2014). 223 On the late-season cruise, I propose to map underway O2/Ar observations over a similar region of the 224 Chukchi shelf, and to use the real-time O2/Ar observations (and potentially other sensor data such as 225 fluorescence and backscatter) to identify biological ‘hot-spots’ that could serve as sites for further 226 process-based study. Again, I will evaluate high-resolution temporal variability in O2/Ar to resolve daily 227 rates, and will evaluate longer-term time averaged rates from the bulk mixed layer O2 budget with 228 prescribed terms for gas exchange and mixing. 229 These observations will contribute directly to the proposed deliverables (rates of in situ gross 230 primary production, net community production, net/gross production) in the Chukchi at two critical time- 231 windows that reflect extremes in changes to the physical system: the early, ice-retreat season, and the 232 prolonged openwater late season. These two windows are currently critical gaps in our understanding of 233 ecosystem functioning and how it might change with further warming. Addressing the research 234 hypotheses laid out in Section D in the context of highly-resolved GPP and NCP rate data and other 235 ancillary observations will enable strides forward in our understanding of how carbon and energy flows 236 might shift in this region in the future. 237 238 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: The proposed work will result in nearly 10,000 239 observations of net ecosystem metabolism throughout the NE Chukchi. This large volume of data will be 240 an important constraint in models which aim to examine how sea-ice changes will impact plankton 241 dynamics and energy flows in Arctic ecosystems. The PI is in the process of developing collaborations 242 with researchers at UAF (S. Danielson) and OSU (Y. Spitz) involved in 3-D modeling of Arctic systems 243 to ensure that data can be used as a constraint on model parameters, but also to use the models to evaluate 244 potential mechanisms that explain observed rates. In addition, the large data set of GPP collected as a 245 result of this work will be made publicly available through the PI’s website to assist in calibration and 246 validation of remote-sensing algorithms for regional primary production. 247 248 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

249 Tables and Figures: 250

251 252 253 Figure 1: The biological O2 saturations observed from underway O2/Ar observations on USCGC Healy 254 transits in 2011 and 2012. Solid black lines indicate the estimated sea ice edge during the timeframes 255 indicated. Values greater than one (blues) indicate an excess of autotrophic production over respiration. 256 The presence of excess O2 indicates that there is fixed organic carbon remaining in the surface, which can 257 be exported vertically to the benthos or laterally to the Canada basin. Values less than 1 (reds) indicate 258 either an excess of heterotrophic activity OR physical activity that mixes bottom waters with the surface. 259 This is particularly evident in the lower left panel, where a shelfbreak upwelling event was captured in the 260 vicinity of the Mackenzie River. The effect of this event on shelf inorganic carbon dynamics was 261 discussed by Mathis et al (2012). 262 263 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

264 -2 -1 265 Figure 2: NCP rates in mmol O2 m d calculated for the given biological O2 saturations on the 2011 266 cruise. The NCP rate calculation in this case assumes only a simple slab mixed layer where production, 267 respiration, and gas exchange are the dominant terms. Clearly these assumptions are invalid in regions of 268 intense physical activity (such as the upwelling event near the Mackenzie R.) With vertically-resolved 269 sampling, these physical impacts can be constrained in the budget. Note that physical mixing can only 270 bias NCP estimates negatively (since mixing brings water with a history of excess respiration to the 271 surface), therefore areas of positive NCP could be considered minimum estimates. 272 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

273 274 Figure 3: Observations of properties relevant to surface productivity on 2011 and 2012 cruises. (top row): 275 surface chlorophyll determined fluorometrically from bottle samples, (middle row): Observations of the 17 276 triple oxygen isotopic composition of dissolved O2 in the surface mixed layer ( Δ). Higher values 277 indicate a greater photosynthetic contribution of O2 to the surface, while lower values indicate that 278 atmospheric exchange dominates, (bottom row): gross photosynthetic O2 production (GOP) calculated 279 assuming a slab mixed layer with terms for production and gas exchange. To convert GOP to a 14C- 280 incubation equivalent rate, divide by a factor of 3. 281 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

282 283 Figure 4: From the Distributed Biological Observatory Website: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo/. We 284 propose to concentrate field work for early season and late season cruises in DBO regions 4 and 5. 285 286 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

287 Literature Cited: 288 Anderson, L. G., and S. Kaltin (2001), Carbon fluxes in the Arctic Ocean - potential impact by climate 289 change, Polar Research, 20(2), 225-232. 290 Arrigo, K. R., G. van Dijken, and S. Pabi (2008), Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine 291 primary production, Geophysical Research Letters, 35(19). 292 Arrigo, K. R., et al. (2012), Massive Phytoplankton Blooms Under Arctic Sea Ice, Science, 336(6087), 293 1408-1408. 294 Cassar, N., B. A. Barnett, M. L. Bender, J. Kaiser, R. C. Hamme, and B. Tilbrook (2009), Continuous 295 high-frequency dissolved O2/Ar measurements by equilibrator inlet mass spectrometry, Analytical 296 Chemistry, 81(5), 1855-1864. 297 Cassar, N., M.L. Bender, B.A. Barnett, B. A., S. Fan, W.J. Moxim, H. Levy, II, B. Tilbrook (2007), The 298 Southern Ocean Biological Response to Aeolian Iron Deposition. Science 317:1067-1070. 299 Craig, H., and T.L. Hayward (1987), Oxygen supersaturation in the ocean: biological vs. physical 300 contributions, Science, 235, 199-202. 301 Emerson, S., and co-authors (1997), Experimental determination of the organic carbon flux from open- 302 ocean surface waters, Nature, 389, 951-954. 303 Ferrón, S., S.T. Wilson, S. Martinez-Garcia, P.D. Quay, and D.M. Karl (2015), Metabolic balance in the 304 mixed layer of the oligotrophic North Pacific Ocean from diel changes in O2/Ar saturation ratios, 305 Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 3421-3430, doi: 10.1002/2015GL063555. 306 Forest, A., P. Wassmann, D. Slagstad, E. Bauerfeind, E. M. Nothig, and M. Klages (2010), Relationships 307 between primary production and vertical particle export at the Atlantic-Arctic boundary (Fram Strait, 308 HAUSGARTEN), Polar Biology, 33(12), 1733-1746. 309 Frey, K. E., K. R. Arrigo & W. J. Williams (2012), Arctic Ocean Primary Productivity and Nutrient 310 Distributions. In Arctic Report Card 2012, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard. 311 Grebmeier, J.M. Biological community shifts in Pacific Arctic and sub-Arctic seas. (2012). Annual 312 Review of Marine Science 4, 63-78. doi:10.114/annurev-marine-120710-100926. 313 Grebmeier, J. M., J. E. Overland, S. E. Moore, E. V. Farley, E. C. Carmack, L. W. Cooper, K. E. Frey, J. 314 H. Helle, F. A. McLaughlin, and S. L. McNutt, (2006a), A major ecosystem shift in the northern 315 Bering Sea, Science, 311, 1461-1464. 316 Grebmeier, J.M., L.W. Cooper, H.M. Feder, and B.I Sirenko (2006b). Ecosystem Dynamics of the 317 Pacific-Influenced Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. Progress in Oceanography, 71: 331-361. 318 Hamme, Roberta C., N. Cassar, V P. Lance, R. D. Vaillancourt, M.L. Bender, P. G. Strutton, T. S. Moore, 319 M. D. DeGrandpre, C. L. Sabine, D. T. Ho, and B. R. Hargreaves (2012) Dissolved O2/Ar and other 320 methods reveal rapid changes in productivity during a Lagrangian experiment in the Southern Ocean, 321 Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, 117, C00F12, doi:10.1029/2011JC007046. 322 Hauri C., P. Winsor, L.W. Juranek, A.M.P McDonnell, T. Takahashi, and J.T. Mathis (2013) Wind- 323 driven mixing causes a reduction in the strength of the continental shelf carbon pump in the Chukchi 324 Sea. Geophysical Research Letters 40(22), 5932-5936. 325 Hill, V., G. Cota, and D. Stockwell (2005), Spring and summer phytoplankton communities in the 326 Chukchi and Eastern Beaufort Seas, Deep Sea Research Part II:, 52(24-26), 3369-3385. 327 IPCC, (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 328 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, 329 M. Manning, Z., M. Chen, K.B. Marquis, M. Avery, Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge 330 University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. 331 Jackson, J. M., S. E. Allen, F. A. McLaughlin, R. A. Woodgate, and E. C. Carmack (2011), Changes to 332 the near-surface waters in the Canada Basin, Arctic Ocean from 1993-2009: A basin in transition, 333 Journal of Geophysical Research, 116(C10), C10008. 334 Juranek, L. W., and P. D. Quay (2005) In vitro and in situ gross primary and net community production in 335 the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre using labeled and natural abundance isotopes of dissolved O2, 336 Global Biogeocheical Cycles., 19, GB3009, doi:10.1029/2004GB002384. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

337 Juranek, L.W., and P.D. Quay (2013), Using triple isotopes of dissolved oxygen to evaluate global marine 338 productivity, Annual Reviews of Marine Science, 5, doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-121211-172430. 339 Juranek L. W., P. D. Quay, R.A. Feely, D. Lockwood, D.M. Karl, and M.J. Church (2012), Biological 340 production in the NE Pacific and its influence on air-sea CO2 flux: Evidence from dissolved oxygen 341 isotopes and O2 /Ar, Journal of Geophysical Research ,117, C05022, doi:10.1029/2011JC007450. 342 Kaiser, J., M.K. Reuer, B. Barnett, and M.L. Bender (2005), Marine productivity estimates from 343 continuous O2/Ar ratio measurements by membrane inlet mass spectrometry, Geophysical Research 344 Letters, 32, L19605, doi:10.1029/2005GL023459. 345 Kaiser, J. (2011), Technical note: Consistent calculation of aquatic gross production from oxygen triple 346 isotope measurements, Biogeosciences, 8, 1793-1811, doi:10.5194/bg-8-1793-2011. 347 Lavoie D., R.W. Macdonald, and K.L. Denman (2009) Primary productivity and export fluxes on the 348 Canadian shelf of the Beaufort Sea: A modelling study. Journal of Marine Systems 75(1–2), 17-32. 349 Li, W.K.W., F.A. McLaughlin, C. Lovejoy, and E.C. Carmack (2009) Smallest algae thrive as the Arctic 350 Ocean freshens, Science, 326, 529, 10.1126/science.1179798. 351 Lindsay, R. W., and J. Zhang (2005), The thinning of Arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: Have we passed a 352 tipping point? Journal of Climate, 18(22), 4879-4894. 353 Luz, B., and E. Barkan (2000) Assessment of oceanic productivity with the triple-isotope composition of 354 dissolved oxygen, Science, 288, 2028-2031. 355 Maslanik, J. A., C. Fowler, J. Stroeve, S. Drobot, J. Zwally, D. Yi, and W. Emery (2007), A younger, 356 thinner Arctic ice cover: Increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice loss, Geophysical Research 357 Letters, 34(24). 358 Mathis, J. T., et al. (2012), Storm-induced upwelling of high pCO(2) waters onto the continental shelf of 359 the western Arctic Ocean and implications for carbonate mineral saturation states, Geophysical 360 Research Letters, 39. 361 McLaughlin, F. A., and E. C. Carmack (2010), Deepening of the nutricline and chlorophyll maximum in 362 the Canada Basin interior, 2003-2009, Geophysical Research Letters, 37(24), L24602. 363 Moline, M. A., N. J. Karnovsky, Z. Brown, G. J. Divoky, T. K. Frazer, C. A. Jacoby, J. J. Torrese, and W. 364 R. Fraser (2008), High latitude changes in ice dynamics and their impact on polar marine ecosystems, 365 Ann.NY Acad.Sci., 1134, 267-319. 366 National Snow and Ice Data Center, (2015), Sea Ice Index. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and 367 Ice Data Center. Digital media accessed July 2015. 368 Pabi, S., G. L. van Dijken, and K. R. Arrigo (2008), Primary production in the Arctic Ocean, 1998-2006, 369 Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 113(C8). 370 Pickart, R. S., G. W. K. Moore, D. J. Torres, P. S. Fratantoni, R. A. Goldsmith, and J. Y. Yang (2009), 371 Upwelling on the continental slope of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Storms, ice, and oceanographic 372 response, Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 114. 373 Pickart, R.S., L.M. Schulze, G.W.K Moore, M.A. Charette, K.R. Arrigo, G. van Dijken, and S.L. 374 Danielson (2013a), Long-term trends of upwelling and impacts on primary productivity in the Alaskan 375 Beaufort Sea, Deep-Sea Research I, 79, 106-121. 376 Pickart R. S., Spall M. A., and Mathis J. T. (2013b) Dynamics of upwelling in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 377 and associated shelf-basin fluxes. Deep-Sea Research Part I 76, 35-51. 378 Pickart, R. S., M. A. Spall, G. W. K. Moore, T. J. Weingartner, R. A. Woodgate, K. Aagaard, and K. 379 Shimada (2011), Upwelling in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Atmospheric forcing and local versus non- 380 local response, Progress in Oceanography, 88(1-4), 78-100. 381 Richter-Menge, J., et al. (2006), State of the Arctic Report, 36 pp , NOAA OAR Special Report, 382 NOAA/OAR/PMEL, Seattle. 383 Schulze, L. M., and R. S. Pickart (2012), Seasonal variation of upwelling in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: 384 Impact of sea ice cover, Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 117. 385 Serreze, M. C., M. M. Holland, and J. Stroeve (2007), Perspectives on the Arctic's shrinking sea-ice 386 cover, Science, 315(5818), 1533-1536. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

387 Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, J. C. Stroeve, D. N. Kindig, and M. M. Holland (2009), The emergence of 388 surface-based Arctic amplification, Cryosphere, 3(1), 11-19. 389 Spall M. A., R.S. Pickart, E.T. Brugler, G.W.K. Moore, L. Thomas, and K.R. Arrigo (2014) Role of 390 shelfbreak upwelling in the formation of a massive under-ice bloom in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea 391 Research Part I, 105, 17-29. 392 Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze (2007), Arctic sea ice decline: Faster 393 than forecast, Geophysical Research Letters, 34(9). 394 Tortell PD, and M.C. Long (2009), Spatial and temporal variability of biogenic gases during the Southern 395 Ocean spring bloom. Geophysical Research Letters, 36 L01603, doi: 10.1029/2008GL035819. 396 Walsh, J. E., J. E. Overland, P. Y. Groisman, and B. Rudolf (2011), Ongoing Climate Change in the 397 Arctic, Ambio, 40, 6-16. 398 Wanninkhof, R., (2014), Relationship between wind speed and gas exchange over the ocean revisited 399 Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 12, 2014, 351–362. 400 Yamamoto-Kawai, M., F. A. McLaughlin, and E. C. Carmack, S. Nishino, K. Shimada, N. Kurita (2009), 401 Surface freshening of the Canada Basin, 2003-2007: River runoff versus sea ice meltwater, Journal of 402 Geophysical Research-Oceans, 114, C00A05, doi:10.1029/2008JC005000. 403 Zhang, J. L., Y. H. Spitz, M. Steele, C. Ashjian, R. Campbell, L. Berline, and P. Matrai (2010), Modeling 404 the impact of declining sea ice on the Arctic marine planktonic ecosystem, Journal of Geophysical 405 Research-Oceans, 115. 406 407 408 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 409 Juranek was previously funded by NSF (award 1232856) to investigate controls on carbon cycling 410 and ocean acidification in the Chukchi on USCGC Healy cruises in 2011-2013 (with PI J. Mathis of UAF, 411 now NOAA Arctic Program Manager). Following on to this, Juranek has received additional NSF 412 funding (award 1504394) to collect high resolution underway nutrient, carbon, and gas samples on an 413 opportunistic cruise in August 2015 (PI P. Stabeno of NOAA-PMEL) as well a high resolution surface 414 and towed and pumped vertical profile observations of the same parameters on a dedicated research cruise 415 in September 2016 (with co-PIs Hales and Goni from OSU). Thus, the proposed late season observations 416 in 2017 would be analyzed and synthesized in the context of the observations made in prior years, but 417 would have the additional benefit of a comprehensive and integrative study of other key aspects of system 418 functioning (grazers, higher trophic levels, community composition estimates, etc.). The PI would 419 welcome the opportunity for these collaborations. In addition, the early season observations proposed 420 here would be the first application of these gas tracers to the bloom dynamics associated with ice retreat. 421 Interpretation of this data set will certainly benefit from other ancillary observations funded as part of the 422 NPRB field program, as well as the context supplied by mooring based observations in the region 423 (Danielson NPRB award) and other AON assets. 424 425 Project Management: L. Juranek – lead PI: Juranek will be responsible for the overall management of 426 the proposed work and will attend all PI and logistics meetings as well as yearly Alaska Marine Science 427 Symposiums to communicate results of the project. She will oversee graduate student participation in the 428 project in FY17-19. Juranek is an early career PI with extensive experience in the application of dissolved 429 gas tracers to constraint of in situ community productivity in polar and low latitude regions. She has made 430 observations of late season O2/Ar on cruises in the Chukchi in 2011-2013, and has recently been funded to 431 collect similar data in 2015 and 2016. 432 Graduate student M. Buktenica: Buktenica is a first year student working with Juranek and will be 433 collecting dissolved gas, nutrient, carbon, and POC observations on cruises in 2015 and 2016 as part of the 434 aforementioned NSF award. This work will give her tremendous experience and capability with the 435 methods described here as well as with Arctic science in general. She will be primed to participate in a 2017 436 field campaign and will be experienced enough in the techniques that analyses and data reduction will be Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

437 completed rapidly. She will participate on at least one of the proposed research cruises and will conduct all 438 necessary analytical work in Juranek’s laboratory and the CEOAS stable isotope facility. 439 440 Principal Investigators: L. Juranek (see one page CV) 441 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

442 Biographical Sketch 443 444 Lauren Wray Juranek 445 Oregon State University Tel: (541) 737-2368 446 Corvallis, OR 97331-5503 Fax (541) 737-2064 447 E-mail: [email protected] 448 449 Professional Preparation 450 University of California, Davis Environmental Biology and Management B.S., 1999 451 University of Washington Chemical Oceanography M.S., 2003 452 University of Washington Chemical Oceanography Ph.D., 2007 453 NOAA-PMEL Postdoc, Ocean Carbon Cycling 2007-2009 454 455 Appointments 456 2011-present Assistant Professor, Oregon State University 457 2009-2011 Research Scientist JISAO/University of Washington 458 2007-2009 National Research Council Postdoctoral Research Fellow, NOAA/PMEL 459 2004-2007 NASA Earth System Science Graduate Fellow, UW 460 2001-2004 National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellow, UW 461 462 Selected Publications: 463 Juranek, L.W., and P.D. Quay (2013), Using triple isotopes of dissolved oxygen to evaluate global marine 464 productivity, Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci, 5, doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-121211-172430. 465 Juranek L. W., P. D. Quay, R.A. Feely, D. Lockwood, D.M. Karl, and M.J. Church (2012), Biological 466 production in the NE Pacific and its influence on air-sea CO2 flux: Evidence from dissolved 467 oxygen isotopes and O2 /Ar, J. Geophys. Res., 117, C05022, doi:10.1029/2011JC007450. 468 Juranek, L.W., and P.D. Quay (2010) Basin-wide primary production rates in the subtropical and tropical 469 Pacific Ocean determined from dissolved oxygen isotope ratio measurements, Global 470 Biogeochem. Cycles, 24, GB2006, doi:10.1029/2009GB003492. 471 Juranek L. W., and P. D. Quay (2005), In vitro and in situ gross primary and net community production in 472 the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre using labeled and natural abundance isotopes of dissolved O2, 473 Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19, GB3009, doi:10.1029/2004GB002384. 474 Juranek, L.W., R.A. Feely, W.T. Peterson, S.L. Alin, B. Hales, K. Lee, C.L. Sabine, J. Peterson (2009), A 475 novel method for determination of aragonite saturation state on the continental shelf of central 476 Oregon using multi-parameter relationships with hydrographic data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 24, 477 doi:10.1029/2009GL040778 478 Mathis, JT, RS Pickart, RH Byrne, CL McNeil, GWK Moore, LW Juranek, S Liu, J Ma, RA Easley, MM 479 Elliot, JN Cross, SC Reisdorph, F Bahr J Morison, T Lichendorf, RA Feely (2012), Storm-induced 480 upwelling of high pCO2 waters onto the continental shelf of the Western Arctic Ocean and 481 implications for carbonate mineral saturation states, Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L07606, 482 doi:10.1029/2012GL051574. 483 484 Current Funding: 485 NSF-PLR Collaborative Research: Observation and Prediction of Ocean Acidification in the Western 486 Arctic Ocean - Impacts of Physical and Biogeochemical Processes on Carbonate Mineral States (with J. 487 Mathis –UAF), 1/2012 – 12/2014 (currently in NCE), $250,651 OSU award to PI Juranek 488 NSF-PLR Collaborative Research: Southern Ocean Carbon and climate Observations and Modeling 489 (SOCCOM) (9/2014 – 8/2020), $533,112 to PI Juranek, as subaward from UA (J. Russell – lead PI) 490 NSF-PLR Late Season Productivity, Carbon, and Nutrient Dynamics in a Changing Arctic, 8/2015- 491 7/2018, $1,159,146 to L. Juranek, M. Goni, and B. Hales (OSU). 492 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

Ice impacts on Chukchi Productivity July 2016- July 2021 individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– Apr– July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– Oct– Jan– –Jun July– completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar e Sept Estimate GPP rates using O2 isotopes Data collection/field work Juranek, Buktenica Data/sample processing Juranek, Buktenica Analysis Juranek, Buktenica

Estimate NCP rates from O2/Ar Data collection/field work Juranek, Buktenica Data/sample processing Juranek, Buktenica Analysis Juranek, Buktenica

Evaluate net/gross production Data collection/field work Juranek, Buktenica Data/sample processing Juranek, Buktenica Analysis Juranek, Buktenica

Evaluate mechanisms for PP variability Data collection/field work Juranek, Buktenica Data/sample processing Juranek, Buktenica Analysis Juranek, Buktenica

Other Progress report Juranek x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation Juranek x x x x x PI meeting Juranek, Buktenica x x x x x Logistics planning meeting Juranek x x Publication submission Juranek, Buktenica Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Juranek Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Juranek, Buktenica Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: Evaluating the impacts of early and late season changes in sea ice on in situ primary and 4 net community production for the Chukchi 5 6 Lead PI: L. Juranek 7 8 Logistical Needs: Ship requirements: Absolute requirements for this project are the following: a steady 9 supply of surface seawater to the gas equilibrator of the mass spectrometer at a rate of 1-2 L/min. This does 10 not require a research-specific ship (although it is preferred) – we have made these observations on many 11 ships of opportunity including commercial cargo ships. We also require collection of subsurface samples 12 by way of a CTD-rosette. Sampling locations and timing are flexible and could be adapted to other user 13 needs, but generally we would target collection of 15 depth profiles in each season on the NE Chukchi shelf 14 for evaluation of potential mixing biases to surface layer dynamics. This would amount to less than 1 day 15 of wire time. 16 17 Space on the ship needed includes approximately 4 linear feet of counter space adjacent to a sink that drains 18 overboard to accommodate flowing seawater operations. Storage of supplies and sampling bottles can be 19 contained in a 4ft3 space. 20 21 Month and year of sampling: This is flexible within a preferred 2017 field campaign. We have proposed 22 to conduct underway measurements in early season (May-June) and late season (September) for reasons 23 outlined in the proposal. However, given constraints of the other elements of the NPRB field campaign we 24 would be open to collecting observations from months outside of these desired timeframes. Our preference 25 would be a minimum of 2 weeks of continuous observations in the NE Chukchi in the vicinity of DBO lines 26 4 and 5. This would allow us to map some spatial variability and to potentially follow temporal variability 27 in select locations. Cruise durations in the 4 week range would be optimal. 28 29 One berth would be requested for an early season and late season cruise. 30 31 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: No in-kind support is currently identified. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Evaluating the impacts of early and late season changes in sea ice on in situ primary and net community production in the Chukchi Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Laurie Juranek , Oregon State University category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 19,045 109,430 119,788 107,152 27,952 24,173 407,540 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 19,045 109,430 119,788 107,152 27,952 24,173 407,540

1. Personnel Salaries 6,789 29,657 48,690 42,734 7,641 7,870 143,381

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 3,327 9,736 12,833 9,759 4,050 4,250 43,955 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,640 7,086 5,204 5,204 3,124 3,124 25,382

4. Equipment 0

5. Supplies 10,000 10,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0

7. Other

1,200 21,142 19,725 20,364 4,200 1,200 67,831

Total Direct Costs 12,956 77,621 86,452 78,061 19,015 16,444 290,549 0

Indirect Costs 6,089 31,809 33,336 29,091 8,937 7,729 116,991

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 19,045 109,430 119,788 107,152 27,952 24,173 407,540 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Evaluating the impacts of early and late season changes in sea ice on in situ primary and net community production in the Chukchi Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Laurie Juranek , Oregon State University; PI names from 2nd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 3rd category organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 19,045 109,430 119,788 107,152 27,952 24,173 407,540 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 19,045 109,430 119,788 107,152 27,952 24,173 407,540

1. Personnel Salaries 6,789 29,657 48,690 42,734 7,641 7,870 143,381 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 3,327 9,736 12,833 9,759 4,050 4,250 43,955 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,640 7,086 5,204 5,204 3,124 3,124 25,382 0

4. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Supplies 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

1,200 21,142 19,725 20,364 4,200 1,200 67,831 0

Total Direct Costs 12,956 77,621 86,452 78,061 19,015 16,444 290,549 0

Indirect Costs 6,089 31,809 33,336 29,091 8,937 7,729 116,991 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 19,045 109,430 119,788 107,152 27,952 24,173 407,540 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Oregon State University

Project Title: Evaluating the impacts of early and late season changes in sea ice on in situ primary and net community production in the Chukchi

Total Amount requested by Organization A for this project is: $407,540

1. Personnel/Salaries: PI Juranek will devote one month in FY16, 2 months in FY17 and FY18, and 1 month in FY19, FY20, and FY21. She will oversee all aspects of this project including precruise prep and shipping, fieldwork, and lab work, and be responsible, in collaboration with the graduate student, on preparation and publication of the results in peer-reviewed journals. She will attend all PI meetings and will present annually at the AMSS. Juranek is an Assistant Professor at Oregon State University, a position that receives 30% institutional support and a cost of living increase of 3% per year.

Graduate Student M. Buktenica will be recruited for this project. We request 30 months of graduate student support over the field and lab intensive portion of this work in FY17-19 (6 mo in FY17, 12 mo in FY18, 12 mo in FY19). Buktenica is a first year graduate student working under Juranek’s supervision. She is working with Juranek on a related NSF award to study late season productivity in the Chukchi on cruises in 2015 and 2016. The timing of the NPRB field campaign in 2017 is ideal for her in terms of timing and readiness to tackle comprehensive interdisciplinary research. The fieldwork will form the basis of her PhD. She will participate in field work and will attend the PI meeting in FY18-19 to convey results of her research.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: Juranek: OPE/Fringe rate increases from .49 to .54 at a rate of .01 per year over the course of the proposal. Graduate student fringe rate starts at .175 in FY17 and increase at .01 per year for 9 months of the year. Summer fringe rate for the graduate student is 0.1 throughout the proposed duration.

Personnel Expense Details: Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost FY16 PI Juranek 1 month 81468 6789 .49 3327 FY16 Totals 6789 3327 FY17 PI Juranek 2 months 83912 13985 .50 6993 FY17 Graduate Studnt. 6 months 33583 15672 .1 & .175 2743 FY17 Totals 29657 9736 FY18 PI Juranek 2 months 86429 14405 .51 7347 FY18 Graduate Studnt. 12 months 34285 34285 .1 & .185 5486 FY18 Totals 48690 12833 FY19 PI Juranek 1 month 89022 7419 .52 3858 FY19 Graduate Studnt. 12 months 35315 35315 .1 & .195 5901 FY19 Totals 42734 9759 FY20 PI Juranek 1 month 91693 7641 .53 4050 FY20 Totals 7641 4050 FY21 PI Juranek 1 month 94443 7870 .54 4250 FY21 Totals 7870 4250

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

3. Travel:

FY16: Total travel request in FY16 $1640 Domestic: Funds are requested for Juranek to travel to the kick off meeting for 3 days (320 airfare; 339 room and 101 food per day.) All rates provided are government approved per diem in Anchorage and, when appropriate, reflect decrease travel costs in winter and spring ($181 food and lodging per day during fall, winter and spring) when meeting schedules dictate this. No foreign travel is requested.

FY17: Total travel request in FY17 $7086 Domestic: Travel for PI to Logistics planning meetings (2 days at 320 airfare and 181 Meals and lodging, total = $682) and travel for PI to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 440 Meals and Lodging, total = $2080). PI will also travel to the Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days at 320 airfare and 181 lodging and meals, total = $1044). Travel for one person to unknown departure port for two cruises (early season and late season), including 2 days prior and 1 day post is planned for PI or Graduate Student (320 airfare and 440 Meals and lodging per person per day, total = $3280). No foreign travel is requested.

FY18: Total travel request in FY16 $5204 Domestic: Travel for PI to Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days at 320 airfare and 181 lodging and meals, total $1044) and travel for PI and graduate student to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 440 Meals and Lodging per person, total = $4160). No foreign travel is requested.

FY19: Total travel request in FY17 $5204 Domestic: Travel for PI to Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days at 320 airfare and 181 lodging and meals, total $1044) and travel for PI and graduate student to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 440 Meals and Lodging per person, total = $4160). No foreign travel is requested.

FY20: Total travel request in FY16 $3124 Domestic: Travel for PI to Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days at 320 airfare and 181 lodging and meals, total=$1044) and travel for PI to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 440 Meals and Lodging per person, total = $2080). No foreign travel is requested.

FY21: Total travel request in FY17 $3124 Domestic: Travel for PI to Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days at 320 airfare and 181 lodging and meals, total = $1044) and travel to PI Meeting (4 days at 320 airfare and 440 Meals and Lodging, total = $2080). No foreign travel is requested

4. Equipment:

No equipment is requested for this proposal Total equipment funds request in FY16 $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

5. Supplies: Year 1: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY16). Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: For FY17 we request $10,000 in field and lab supplies for the data collection intensive phase of this work. This includes $3000 for 30 new gas-tight sampling bottles at $100/ea, which will allow for breakage and will supplement PI Juranek’s existing supply to enable collection of roughly 100 O2 isotope samples per cruise.It also includes $5000 for expandable supplies used in preparing gas samples for analysis on the isotope ratio mass spectrometer (e.g. 3 x 60 L dewars of liquid helium at $1000/ea, ultra- high purity He carrier gas, 160L dewars of liquid nitrogen). Finally, $2000 is requested for expendable supplies for the equilibrated inlet mass spectrometer that will be taken on research cruises (e.g., ~6 equilibrator cartridges at $300/ea, and $200 for various gastight fittings that are consumed during sea- going work) Total supplies funds request in FY17 $10000

Year 3: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY18). Total supplies funds request in FY18 $0

Year 4: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY19). Total supplies funds request in FY19 $0 Year 5: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY20). Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0 Year 6: We request no supplies in year 1 (FY21). Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants: There are no contracts or consultants on this proposal Total Contractual funds requested is $0.

7. Other: Total other funds requested is $1200 in FY16: We request $1200 in research computing fees assessed by CEOAS to PI Juranek Total other funds requested is $21,142 in FY17: We request $1200 in research computing fees assessed by CEOAS to PI Juranek. We request $7500 in user fees assessed by the stable isotope facility in CEOAS at OSU. There is a day rate of $250/day for users to run their own samples in this facility. We estimate it will take 30 days to run all samples associated with this project. We request $2500 for shipping of sea-going equipment to and from the ports of embarkation/debarkation. Tuition: Graduate tuition amounting to $9,942 is requested for the graduate student on the project (overhead is not charged on this fee). Total other funds requested is $19,725 in FY18: We request $1200 in research computing fees assessed by CEOAS to PI Juranek. Graduate tuition of $15525 is requested. We request $3000 for page charges associated with manuscript publication. Total other funds requested is $20,364 in FY19: Research computing fees ($1200), graduate tuition ($16,164) and $3000 in publication page charges are requested Total other funds requested is $4200 in FY20: We request only research computing fees ($1200) and publication fees ($3000) as costs in FY20. Total other funds requested is $1200 in FY21. We request only research computing fees ($1200) in FY21.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.22-Juranek

8. Indirect Costs: The indirect cost rate for this proposal is 47%. This applies to total modified direct costs of (FY16) $12,956; (FY17) $67,679; (FY18) $70,927; (FY19) $61,897; (FY20) $19,015; (FY21) $16,444 resulting in: Total indirect funds requested is $6,089 in FY16 , $31,809 in FY17, $33,336 in FY18, $29,091 in FY19, $8,937 in FY20, and $7,729 in FY21

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: none

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

1 Research Plan 2 3 A. Project Title: Changing Communities of Primary Producers Under Rapidly Declining Sea Ice: 4 Defining Sea Ice Biomes based on Sediment Traps, Sea Ice Cores, and Sediment Cores in the 5 Chukchi Sea 6 7 B. Category Three 8 Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity: Influence of sea ice dynamics and advection 9 on the phenology, magnitude and location of primary and secondary production, match- 10 mismatch, benthic-pelagic coupling, and the influence of winter conditions 11 12 C. Rationale and justification: 13 In concert with rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice extent, thickness, and ice age (Comiso 2012; 14 Stroeve et al. 2008), the abundance and composition of phytoplankton communities in the Arctic Ocean 15 and Chukchi Sea is changing (Arrigo et al. 2012; Boetius et al. 2013; Onodera et al. 2015). If sea ice 16 retreat continues and the Arctic Ocean loses summer sea ice in the next few decades (Holland et al. 2006; 17 Stroeve et al. 2012; Wang and Overland 2009), these changes in phytoplankton communities are 18 predicted to be even greater (Fujiwara et al. 2014). 19 Many studies suggest that as sea ice declines, primary productivity will increase (Arrigo et al. 20 2008; Arrigo and van Dijken 2011; Brown and Arrigo 2013), a few argue that it will dramatically drop 21 (Hare et al. 2007), still others posit that no considerable changes can be expected (Coupel et al. 2012; 22 Sigler et al. 2010; Stanley et al. 2015). Previous studies have looked at particulate organic carbon and 23 nitrogen (Gradinger 2009; Wyatt et al. 2013), stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes (Gradinger 2009), 24 biogenic silica (Wyatt et al. 2013), net community productivity (Stanley et al. 2015), and dominant algal 25 groups (Fujiwara et al. 2014) associated with sea ice in the region, however, these studies ignore the 26 specific community composition of phytoplankton in favor of estimating only net primary productivity. 27 Other ice-covered ecosystems, for example, high latitude lakes in Canada and Europe, show consistent 28 changes in the community composition of diatoms when the growing season increases and the period of 29 ice cover decreases (Douglas et al. 1994; Michelutti et al. 2003; Ruhland and Smol 2005). In these 30 environments, warmer conditions often favor small-celled species (Sorvari et al. 2002). In Antarctic 31 waters, a longer growing season and reduced ice extent led to a shift from diatoms to cryptophytes. This 32 shift reduced the abundance of krill, which feeds on diatoms and is an essential food source for fish, 33 whales, seals, and penguins, and increased the proliferation of salps and other gelatinous zooplankton 34 (Moline et al. 2004). In the Bering Sea, the expansion of warm-water dinoflagellates, green algae, and 35 cryptophytes are expected to drive diatoms poleward (Muller-Haeckel and Andersson 1989), perhaps into 36 the Chukchi Sea. 37 In order to model the impact that sea ice retreat will continue to have on primary productivity and 38 associated food webs in the Chukchi Sea, it’s essential to first determine the phytoplankton community 39 composition associated with various types of sea ice (i.e. fast ice, new ice, marginal ice, thick floes, etc.). 40 Specifically, as diatoms are one of the dominant phytoplankton in the Chukchi Sea (Coupel et al. 2012; 41 Laney and Sosik 2014), baseline data describing the distribution, especially in winter, is essential. There 42 has been some work on this in the Chukchi Sea including one sediment trap study in the Northwind 43 Abyssal Plain (Onodera et al. 2015), an evaluation of diatoms living in the water and under the ice during 44 late summer (Coupel et al. 2012), several examinations of under-ice diatom blooms (Arrigo et al. 2012; 45 Arrigo et al. 2014; Lowry et al. 2014), and a core from first year ice (von Quillfeldt et al. 2003). 46 This proposed project aims to build on this work, and on our recently-funded project that will 47 examine the sediment traps from the NE Chukchi Sea Moored Ecosystem Observatory in the eastern 48 Chukchi Sea (National Science Foundation, OCE-1524784), by taking the first annual species census of 49 primary productivity, specifically that of diatoms, on the Chukchi Sea shelf. We will use sediment traps, 50 deployed for two full years along a transect of increasing sea ice concentration and identify the annual Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

51 succession of primary producers as well as identify diatoms to the species level. Sea ice cores collected in 52 March at these same stations will allow us to identify sea-ice related species and relate productivity 53 happening in and under the ice to the sediments collected in the sediment traps. Multicores collected at 54 the sites as well will further allow us to identify which species settle to the sea floor, contributing to the 55 benthic food web and which are dissolved or consumed farther up in the water column. This data will 56 form the basis of sea ice biome maps that will serve to determine associations between primary producer 57 communities, diatom assemblages, and sea ice types. This information will be useful to modelers who 58 will be able to look not only at changing net primary productivity, but also at changing communities of 59 primary producers. If modelers are able to predict changes in sea ice types in the future (i.e. fast ice to 60 marginal ice), the data collected in this project will help extend those predictions to the make up of 61 primary producer communities. This information, in turn, will help to predict future benthic-pelagic 62 coupling and carbon export from the sea surface to the benthos. In addition, this information will be 63 useful to constrain sea ice proxies that can extend the record of sea ice back hundreds to thousands of 64 years, putting modern sea ice retreat and related primary productivity change into a long-term context. 65 This project addresses research category three of the request for pre-proposals by exploring the 66 phenology, seasonal succession, magnitude, and location of primary productivity and its relationship with 67 sea ice in the Northern Bering and Chukchi seas. In addition, a March field-season to collect sea ice cores 68 will further address the influence of winter conditions on primary productivity. 69 70 D. Hypotheses: 71 72 Hypothesis 1: The seasonal succession and net primary productivity of diatom species in the Northern 73 Bering and Chukchi seas can be explained by the type of sea ice cover present. 74 75 Hypothesis 2: A subset of diatoms, characteristic of different sea ice types, become tracers of those 76 ice biomes when they are deposited in the sediments directly below. 77 78 Hypothesis 3: Ancient changes in net primary productivity due to changing sea ice coverage can be 79 hindcast using changes in sediment diatom assemblages. 80 81 E. Objectives: 82 83 1. Deploy 3 sediment traps in the Northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea along a transect of 84 increasing annual sea ice duration (Figure 1). The sediment traps will be located in areas with 85 fine-grained sediment that reflects pelagic sedimentation rather than winnowing or reworking by 86 currents. We have proposed locations for these traps, but these are flexible within our parameters 87 if there are other locations more suitable for collaborative work. 88 2. Collect monthly to bimonthly sediment samples for two years from each trap. Each sediment 89 trap has 21 collection cups allowing us to collect sediments for between 10 and 21 days in each 90 cup. Longer collections will occur in winter when light is expected to limit phytoplankton 91 productivity. Sediment traps will be attached to a temporary mooring with a remote release to 92 allow us to collect the traps after one year and redeploy for a second year. On-going work at these 93 stations would depend on additional funding beyond the scope of this project. 94 3. Map sea ice types present during the duration of sediment trap deployment using satellite 95 observations of sea ice concentration, thickness, extent, and location as well as satellite-derived 96 chlorophyll concentration. We aim to map several types of sea ice, for example, fast ice, thick 97 floes, pancake ice, marginal ice, new ice (frazil/grease), etc. As sea ice is dynamic and constantly 98 changing, we expect that ice types will vary considerably over the year in each location. Ice types 99 will be averaged for each location based on the length of sediment collection time. 100 4. Collect sediments below traps annually using a multicorer (Summers 2018 and 2019). 101 Multicores will be collected when sediment collection cups are retrieved in order to observe Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

102 which diatoms are preserved in the sediments. In addition, these cores may be used for 103 paleoclimate records depending on the sedimentation rate and mixing rates in the cores. 104 5. Collect sea ice cores at the sediment trap sites in March 2018. Sea ice cores will be collected 105 using a Mark V ice corer (funding to purchase this instrument is in hand already), imaged on the 106 sea ice, and sectioned into 10 cm thick sections. If present, sub-ice algal strands (Arrigo et al. 107 2012) will also be collected. 108 6. Determine diatom assemblages and measure basic geochemistry (TOC, %N, C/N, %CaCO3, 109 δ13C, δ15N) of all samples (sediment traps, sediment cores, and sea ice). Samples will be 110 preserved and transported to Iowa State in order to carry out these analyses. By comparing the 111 geochemistry of the three collection sites (sea ice, sediment traps, and sediments), we will be able 112 to trace organic carbon and nitrogen from the primary producers to the sediments. Among the 113 many questions we can ask using these analyses are: is the bioavailable organic matter in the 114 sediments sourced from directly above or from terrestrial sources, and how does nutrient 115 utilization change over the course of the year in concert with changing nitrogen concentrations. 116 7. Measure grain size of sediment trap and sediment core samples. Grain size of sea ice samples 117 will be measured only when visible grains are present. These measurements will serve as a spot 118 check that pelagic sedimentation is the primary mode of deposition at the sites and will further 119 constrain the grain size of terrigenous sediments found in sea ice rafted debris. 120 121 F. Expected outcomes and deliverables: 122 123 1. Maps of ice types 124 By combining parameters from satellite data to classify sea ice types (Table 1), we will produce 125 maps of sea ice type across the Chukchi Sea for the duration of the sediment trap deployment. Satellite 126 data products will include Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sea ice concentration (Cavalieri et 127 al. 1996), MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sea ice concentration (Hall and 128 Riggs 2015), the unified sea ice thickness climate data record (Lindsay 2013), ocean color images from 129 SeaWiFS (Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor), and others. These maps will provide a baseline for 130 the types of ice present in the Chukchi Sea over the course of a year and how the ice evolves. Each map 131 will show the average sea ice conditions in the Chukchi Sea over the duration that the sediment trap is 132 collecting material. 133 134 2. Seasonal Succession of Diatom Species 135 We will create two-year long time series of mass flux of phytoplankton and species components 136 from a sediment trap transect across the Northern Bering and Chukchi shelves. This time series will be 137 compared to diatom and phytoplankton community composition from sea ice above the sediment traps 138 and sediments below to determine patterns in export production. These time series can be compared to 139 similar studies such as the NE Chukchi Sea Moored Ecosystem Observatory and Station NAP in the 140 southern Northwind Abyssal Plain (Onodera et al. 2015; Watanabe et al. 2014) (Figure 1) to create a 141 fuller picture of the seasonal succession of diatoms across the Chukchi Sea. 142 143 3. Definition of Sea Ice Biomes 144 By combining sea ice type maps with diatom assemblage data and satellite-derived chlorophyll 145 data, such as SeaWiFs (Lowry et al. 2014), we aim to define sea ice biomes as regions with both specific 146 physical characteristics (sea ice concentration, thickness, duration) and biological characteristics 147 (phytoplankton/diatom communities). These biomes will allow modelers to predict phytoplankton 148 communities given a certain sea ice type, but they will also help to define diatom-based sea ice proxies. 149 Commonly, sea ice proxies attempt to extend the record of sea ice back hundreds to hundreds of 150 thousands of years by associating sediment diatom assemblages to mean annual sea ice concentration 151 (Justwan and Koc 2008; Sha et al. 2014), however, it may be more accurate to use these proxies to 152 reconstruct specific environments (sea ice biomes) instead. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

153 G. Project design and conceptual approach: 154 This project proposes to describe the primary productivity in the region using three types of 155 samples: sea ice cores, sediment traps, and sediment cores. We propose to deploy 3 sediment traps along a 156 transect of increasing annual sea ice concentration in the northern Bering and Chuckchi seas (Figure 1). 157 Ideally, these sediment traps will record pelagic sedimentation at each site and as such primarily record 158 the rain of biogenic sediments (phytoplankton tests) but also wind-blown sediments that land in the 159 surface waters and settle straight down. However, bottom currents can pick up and transport sediments 160 that have already fallen to the sea floor, and tidal and surface currents can move sediments that are still 161 suspended in the water column. In order to minimize the impact of currents, these traps will be 162 strategically located in areas where current flow is minimal. We have measured the grain size of the top 1 163 cm of sediments across the Bering and Chukchi seas and have chosen deployment locations where grain 164 size is primarily composed of clay and fine silt (the easiest particles to transport by low currents; their 165 abundance indicates a low-energy environment). These locations are also expected to have relatively high 166 total organic carbon content (Grebmeier 1993), which is another indicator of pelagic deposition. 167 Sediment traps will be deployed during the summer, when sea ice is expected to be absent from 168 the stations and retrieved one year later. Exact dates for retrieval can be somewhat flexible (+/- 2 months). 169 Sediment traps will be fixed with 21 pre-programed cups that will open for between 10 and 21 days. 170 Because the epontic and spring blooms are expected to contribute the largest sediment flux (Arrigo et al. 171 2012; Onodera et al. 2015), the collection cups will change more often from March through August. This 172 proposal requests funding to collect two full years of sediments from each of the three locations. 173 Sediment traps will be located in water depths between 50 and 200 m and attached to temporary 174 moorings anchored to the sea floor with an acoustic release mounted just above the anchor. The traps 175 themselves will collect sediments approximately 2-3 m above the sea floor in order to capture material 176 that is near deposition. Floats will be approximately 20 m above the sediment traps to avoid creating an 177 umbrella effect above the traps, but also to avoid interacting with sea ice that might pull the traps out of 178 the sea floor. 179 Sampling cups will be inoculated with mercuric chloride, glutaraldehyde, or formaldehyde to 180 prevent bacterial decay of diatoms and other organisms. The exact preservative will be determined in 181 collaboration with others who may want to observe other components of the sediments (zooplankton, 182 organic geochemical parameters). Mercuric chloride is optimal for diatom preservation, but may degrade 183 other sediment components. The other treatments are acceptable alternatives for a multi-disciplinary 184 study. 185 We propose to also retrieve multicores from the stations where the sediment traps are located. 186 Multicores will be collected when the sediment traps are collected in order to relate the species in the top 187 1 cm of sediments to the species observed in the sediment traps. The cores will be dated using 210Pb and 188 137Cs to confirm that the sediments are modern at the surface and have not been subjected to erosion. 189 These dates will further constrain the sedimentation rate and age of sediments downcore for paleoclimate 190 study. Published sedimentation rates range from 30 cm/kyr (Darby et al. 2009) to 700 cm/kyr (Viscosi- 191 Shirley et al. 2003) for the Chukchi shelf. Multicores with similar sedimentation rates would be provide 192 200 to 2000 years of paleoclimate data. In addition, this is another opportunity for collaborative work 193 with a project looking at other sediment components such as radiogenic isotopes or benthos. 194 The final component of our fieldwork is to collect sea ice cores from the three stations during the 195 epontic bloom in March. Sea ice cores will be collected using a Mark V ice corer, imaged in the field, 196 sectioned, and slowly melted to observe both total phytoplankton present and diatoms (Eicken et al. 197 2009). 198 After collection, sediment trap and sea ice samples will be filtered and mounted on microscope 199 slides to identify the phytoplankton present using a combination of light and epifluorescence microscopy 200 at magnifications between 400 x and 1000 x (Joo et al. 2012). Carbon biomass will also be calculated 201 based on cell dimensions measured under the microscope (Menden-Deuer and Lessard 2000). 202 Sediment trap, sea ice, and sediment samples will be concentrated and cleaned (Warnock and 203 Scherer 2014). Diatoms will be identified to species level using a light microscopy at 1000 x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

204 magnification. We will determine relative percentages of diatoms following the methods of Warnock and 205 Scherer (2014) and Schrader and Gersonde (1978) as well as the annual flux of each species (both by 206 number and biomass) (Watanabe et al. 2014). 207 We will analyze the geochemistry of all sample types to examine the total organic carbon and 208 nitrogen reaching the sediments, the relative contribution of marine vs. terrestrial organic matter (δ13C, 209 C/N) (Meyers 1994; Schubert and Calvert 2001), and the nitrogen utilization (δ15N) (Brunelle et al. 2007; 210 Schmittner and Galbraith 2008). Samples will be investigated using a Finnigan MAT Delta Plus XL mass 211 spectrometer in continuous flow mode connected with a Costech elemental analyzer at Iowa State 212 University. 213 Additional sensors could be attached to the temporary moorings to measure parameters such as 214 water speed, temperature, salinity, and nutrient concentration for collaborative studies. However, because 215 the sediment traps need to be significantly below the surface, we will not be able to monitor surface water 216 conditions directly. Instead, during the two years of sediment trap deployment, we will monitor surface 217 conditions using satellite derived chlorophyll and sea ice concentration in order to map the types of sea 218 ice present throughout each time interval collected by the sediment traps. 219 Less than 1 g of sediment and 0.5 ml of concentrated water are required for all of our analyses, 220 however we expect that much more than this will be available in sediment cores and many sediment trap 221 and sea ice samples. This will leave material available for collaboration or future studies. All samples will 222 be preserved and archived at Iowa State and made available on request to other researchers. 223 224 Proof of Concept 225 The PI has recently been funded to compare diatom assemblages in Bering Sea shelf surface 226 sediments with those in sea ice and sea water above (OCE-1524784). Although the samples from sea ice 227 and sea water should be treated as snap shots of productivity and are certainly not representative of year- 228 round productivity, there are obvious correlations between the diatom assemblages in the sediments and 229 those above (Figure 2). We present two examples here. Both include the diatom assemblages in the top 1 230 cm of sediments compared to the assemblages in a small piece of sea ice collected and melted at the 231 station. At Station DLN 3 (Figure 1), the marginal ice zone diatoms Fragilariopsis oceanica and F. 232 cylindrus dominate both types of sample. However, resting spores of Chaetoceros were more prevalent in 233 the sediments than in the water samples, and the finely silicified species Thalassiosira hyalina was more 234 prevalent in the water sample. This may reflect preferential dissolution of T. hyalina in the sediments. 235 The second sample is not as straightforward (Figure 2). This station again is dominated by F. 236 oceanica and F. cylindrus. However, Fossula arctica another common marginal ice zone species (von 237 Quillfeldt 2001) makes up more than 25% of the sea water assemblage. This is surprising since F. arctica 238 is not particularly fragile and it is certainly common in many surface sediments. The surface sediments at 239 this site are composed of nearly 25% Melosira sol. This is a heavily silicified benthic species that may 240 indicate sediment winnowing or transport to this site from the coast (Sancetta 1982). 241 Although far from a complete story, our preliminary results indicate predictable relationships 242 between diatoms found in sea ice, sea water, and the sediment below and highlight sediment assemblages 243 that may reflect environmental variables that are unrelated to sea ice (i.e. sediment transport). They also 244 underscore the need for sediment trap data in order to look at multiple years of sedimentation instead of 245 only a single daily snapshot. 246 247 H. Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 248 This project will integrate well with modeling efforts that seek to examine the influence of sea ice 249 on communities of primary producers. Our data should be useful for modelers interested in ecosystem 250 modeling, food web modeling, or modeling export production and pelagic-benthic coupling. Our 251 sediment trap data can be used to predict what types of primary producers will make it to the sediments 252 under various sea ice configurations. If characteristic diatom assemblages are found to be associated with 253 different sea ice types, then it should also be possible to predict how primary producers will change as sea 254 ice continues to decline. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

255 Tables and Figures: 256 Ice Classification Concentration Thickness Other Shorefast Ice > 75% Continuous high concentration of ice in contact with shore Multiyear Ice > 75% > 2 m Marginal ice 15-75% Within 50 km of ice edge (15% concentration) Thick floes < 50% > 2 m New Ice (frazil, grease) > 15% < 0.5 m 257 258 Table 1: Subset of Sea Ice Types to be Mapped during this Project 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285

Figure 1. Proposed Sampling Locations (white dots). Bathymetry is shown in background. Lightest grey circles are areas composed of predominantly clay and silt sized sediments (pelagic sedimentation), medium grey are composed of sand sized sediments, and black are sediments composed of predominantly gravel. CEM marks the location of the NE Chukchi Sea Moored Ecosystem Observatory sediment trap, NAP is the Northwind Abyssal Plain sediment trap, DLN3 and SWC4 are samples where sediment and sea ice assemblages were already compared. These are described in Fig. 2 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

286

Figure 2. Diatom assemblages showing percentage of species in sediment and sea ice samples for two stations on the Bering Sea Shelf. 287 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

288 Literature Cited:

289 Arrigo, K. R., and coauthors. 2012. Massive phytoplankton blooms under Arctic sea ice. Science Express. 290 Arrigo, K. R., and coauthors. 2014. Phytoplankton blooms beneath the sea ice in the Chukchi sea. Deep 291 Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 105:1-16. 292 Arrigo, K. R., G. van Dijken, and S. Pabi. 2008. Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine primary 293 production. Geophysical Research Letters 35(19). 294 Arrigo, K. R., and G. L. van Dijken. 2011. Secular trends in Arctic Ocean net primary production. Journal 295 of Geophysical Research-Oceans 116. 296 Boetius, A., and coauthors. 2013. Export of Algal Biomass from the Melting Arctic Sea Ice. Science 297 339(6126):1430-1432. 298 Brown, Z. W., and K. R. Arrigo. 2013. Sea ice impacts on spring bloom dynamics and net primary 299 production in the Eastern Bering Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 118(1):43-62. 300 Brunelle, B. G., and coauthors. 2007. Evidence from diatom-bound nitrogen isotopes for subarctic Pacific 301 stratification during the last ice age and a link to North Pacific denitrification changes. 302 Paleoceanography 22(PA1215). 303 Cavalieri, D. J., P. Parkinson, P. Gloersen, and Zwally. 1996. Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 304 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data, 1996-2008. National Snow and Ice Data 305 Center, Boulder, CO. 306 Comiso, J. C. 2012. Large Decadal Decline of the Arctic Multiyear Ice Cover. Journal of Climate 307 25(4):1176-1193. 308 Coupel, P., and coauthors. 2012. Phytoplankton distribution in unusually low sea ice cover over the 309 Pacific Arctic. Biogeosciences 9(11):4835-4850. 310 Darby, D. A., and coauthors. 2009. The role of currents and sea ice in both slowly deposited central 311 Arctic and rapidly deposited Chukchi-Alaskan margin sediments. Global and Planetary Change 312 68(1-2):56-70. 313 Douglas, M. S. V., J. P. Smol, and W. Blake. 1994. Marked Post-18th Century Environmental Change in 314 High-Arctic Ecosystems. Science 266(5184):416-419. 315 Eicken, H., and coauthors. 2009. Field Techniques for Sea Ice Research. University of Alaska Press, 316 Fairbanks, AK. 317 Fujiwara, A., T. Hirawake, K. Suzuki, I. Imai, and S. I. Saitoh. 2014. Timing of sea ice retreat can alter 318 phytoplankton community structure in the western Arctic Ocean. Biogeosciences 11(7):1705- 319 1716. 320 Gradinger, R. 2009. Sea-ice algae: Major contributors to primary production and algal biomass in the 321 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during May/June 2002. Deep Sea Research II 56(17):1201-1212. 322 Grebmeier, J. M. 1993. Studies of pelagic-benthic coupling extended onto the Soviet continental shelf in 323 the northern Bering and Chukchi seas. Continental Shelf Research 13(5/6):653-668. 324 Hall, D. K., and G. A. Riggs. 2015. MODIS/Aqua Sea Ice Extent Daily L3 Global 1km EASE-Grid Day. 325 Version 6. [2015]. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center, 326 Boulder, Colorada USA. 327 Hare, C. E., and coauthors. 2007. Consequences of increased temperature and CO2 for phytoplankton 328 community structure in the Bering Sea. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 352:9-16. 329 Holland, M. M., C. M. Bitz, and B. Tremblay. 2006. Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea 330 ice. Geophysical Research Letters 33(L23503):1-5. 331 Joo, H. M., S. H. Lee, S. W. Jung, H.-U. Dahms, and J. H. Lee. 2012. Latitudinal variation of 332 phytoplankton communities in the western Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research Part Ii-Topical 333 Studies in Oceanography 81-84:3-17. 334 Justwan, A., and N. Koc. 2008. A diatom based transfer function for reconstructing sea ice concentrations 335 in the North Atlantic. Marine Micropaleontology 66(3-4):264-278. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

336 Laney, S. R., and H. M. Sosik. 2014. Phytoplankton assemblage structure in and around a massive under- 337 ice bloom in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part Ii-Topical Studies in Oceanography 338 105:30-41. 339 Lindsay, R. 2013. Unified Sea Ice Thickness Climate Data Record Collection Spanning 1947-2012. N. S. 340 a. I. D. Center, editor, Boulder, Colorado USA. 341 Lowry, K. E., G. L. van Dijken, and K. R. Arrigo. 2014. Evidence of under-ice phytoplankton blooms in 342 the Chukchi Sea from 1998 to 2012. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 343 105:105-117. 344 Menden-Deuer, S., and E. J. Lessard. 2000. Carbon to volume relationships for dinoflagellates, diatoms, 345 and other protist plankton. Limnology and Oceanography 45(3):569-579. 346 Meyers, P. A. 1994. Preservation of elemental and isotopic source identification of sedimentary organic 347 matter. Chemical Geology 114:289-302. 348 Michelutti, N., M. S. V. Douglas, and J. P. Smol. 2003. Diatom response to recent climatic change in a 349 high arctic lake (Char Lake, Cornwallis Island, Nunavut). Global and Planetary Change 38(3- 350 4):257-271. 351 Moline, M. A., H. Claustre, T. K. Frazer, O. Schofield, and M. Vernet. 2004. Alteration of the food web 352 along the Antarctic Peninsula in response to a regional warming trend. Global Change Biology 353 10(12):1973-1980. 354 Muller-Haeckel, A., and N. A. Andersson. 1989. The Significance of Ice Covers for Planktonic Algae. 355 Vatten 45(2):174-177. 356 Onodera, J., E. Watanabe, N. Harada, and M. C. Honda. 2015. Diatom flux reflects water-mass conditions 357 on the southern Northwind Abyssal Plain, Arctic Ocean. Biogeosciences 12(5):1373-1385. 358 Ruhland, K., and J. P. Smol. 2005. Diatom shifts as evidence for recent Subarctic warming in a remote 359 tundra lake, NWT, Canada. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 226(1-2):1-16. 360 Sancetta, C. A. 1982. Distribution of diatom species in surface sediments of the Bering and Okhotsk seas. 361 Micropaleontology 28:221-257. 362 Schmittner, A., and E. D. Galbraith. 2008. Glacial greenhouse-gas fluctuations controlled by ocean 363 circulation changes. Nature 456(7220):373-376. 364 Schrader, H. J., and R. Gersonde. 1978. Diatoms and silicoflagellates. Pages 129-176 in W. J. 365 Zachariasse, and coeditors, editors. Micropaleontological counting methods and techniques - an 366 exercise on an eight metres section of the Lower Pliocene of Capo Rossello, Sicily, volume 17. 367 Utrecht Micropaleontological Bulletin, Netherlands. 368 Schubert, C. J., and S. E. Calvert. 2001. Nitrogen and carbon isotopic composition of marine and 369 terrestrial organic matter in Arctic Ocean sediments: implications for nutrient utiliazation and 370 organic matter composition. Deep Sea Research I 48:789-810. 371 Sha, L., and coauthors. 2014. A diatom-based sea-ice reconstruction for the Vaigat Strait (Disko Bugt, 372 West Greenland) over the last 5000yr. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 373 403:66-79. 374 Sigler, M. F., and coauthors. 2010. How does climate change affect the Bering Sea ecosystem? . Eos 375 91(48):457-458. 376 Sorvari, S., A. Korhola, and R. Thompson. 2002. Lake diatom response to recent Arctic warming in 377 Finnish Lapland. Global Change Biology 8(2):171-181. 378 Stanley, R. H. R., Z. O. Sandwith, and W. J. Williams. 2015. Rates of summertime biological 379 productivity in the Beaufort Gyre: A comparison between the low and record-low ice conditions 380 of August 2011 and 2012. Journal of Marine Systems 147:29-44. 381 Stroeve, J., and coauthors. 2008. Arctic sea ice extent plummets in 2007. Eos 89(2):13-14. 382 Stroeve, J. C., and coauthors. 2012. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and 383 observations. Geophysical Research Letters 39. 384 Viscosi-Shirley, C., N. Pisias, and K. Mammone. 2003. Sediment source strength, transport pathways and 385 accumulation patterns on the Siberian–Arctic's Chukchi and Laptev shelves. Continental Shelf 386 Research 23(11-13):1201-1225. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

387 von Quillfeldt, C. H. 2001. Identification of some easily confused common diatom species in Arctic 388 spring blooms. Botanica Marina 44:375-389. 389 von Quillfeldt, C. H., W. G. Ambrose, and L. M. Clough. 2003. High number of diatom species in first- 390 year ice from the Chukchi Sea. Polar Biology 26(12):806-818. 391 Wang, M., and J. E. Overland. 2009. A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years? Geophysical 392 Research Letters 36. 393 Warnock, J. P., and R. P. Scherer. 2014. A revised method for determining the absolute abundance of 394 diatoms. Journal of Paleolimnology 53(1):157-163. 395 Watanabe, E., and coauthors. 2014. Enhanced role of eddies in the Arctic marine biological pump. Nat 396 Commun 5. 397 Wyatt, S. N., D. W. Crawford, I. A. Wrohan, and D. E. Varela. 2013. Distribution and composition of 398 suspended biogenic particles in surface waters across Subarctic and Arctic Seas. Journal of 399 Geophysical Research: Oceans 118(12):6867-6880. 400 401 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

402 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 403 404 1. Integration with collaborating projects from RFP Appendix A: 405 The PI has been in communication with Catherine Laland about examining the diatoms from the 406 first sediment traps at the Northeast Chukchi Sea Moored Ecosystem Observatory. This is an ideal 407 location to collect pelagic sediments and our project would be delighted to continue this partnership. We 408 would also be happy to use this location as one of our collection locations if we had the ability to take 409 sediment cores from near the mooring and sea ice cores from above. I understand that if sediment traps 410 are successful with this program, others may be deployed at the Distributed Biological Observatories. 411 These sites may also be appropriate for our needs and we would be thrilled to participate in analyzing 412 sediment trap data from them. In addition, we would be interested in carrying out our project in 413 collaboration with the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network, situated in oil and gas lease areas 414 of the Chukchi Sea. Grain size data from these areas indicates that pelagic sedimentation is occurring in 415 much of the lease areas. 416 Another mooring project is described in appendix A: The Bering Strait Mooring Program. 417 Unfortunately, our project would be unable to achieve our goals using the existing sediment traps attached 418 to moorings in this program because of the strength of the current moving through Bering Strait. There 419 appears to be very little pelagic sedimentation in the strait, with sediments dominated by sand. Instead of 420 capturing a record of the ecosystem above the mooring, we would capture a record of several distal 421 ecosystems. 422 Finally, this project would be a natural complement to the Tracing sea ice algae in Arctic 423 benthic food webs using the sea ice diatom biomarker IP25 project. Our knowledge of diatom 424 identification, paired with their expertise in organic geochemistry would expand their project’s aims and 425 be able to relate the living sea ice species to the geochemical proxies that they can measure. It would also 426 be a natural addition to our project to include IP25 analyses of all three types of samples (sediment traps, 427 sea ice, and sediments) in collaboration with this group. 428 Although I have not discussed this proposal with others who may have also submitted pre- 429 proposals, I am certain that this project could interface nicely with many other projects. For example, 430 sediment trap material could be easily split to provide samples to projects targeting marine particle 431 dynamics, larva, zooplankton, or microzooplankton. Additionally, sediment trap, sea ice, and sediment 432 core material could be shared with researchers using biogeochemical tracers such as IP25, other lipids, or 433 radiogenic isotopes to explore pelagic-benthic coupling and other aspects of sedimentation in the Chukchi 434 Sea. Finally, those projects focusing on ocean color or remote sensing could be natural partners as we 435 work to create our sea ice biome maps. We are very interested in conversations about how to integrate our 436 project with others. 437 438 2. Reliance on data not collected directly through this proposal 439 This project will monitor sea ice and sea surface chlorophyll throughout the two-year deployment 440 of the sediment traps in order to create maps of the types of sea ice present during the study. This data 441 will be satellite-based. It will largely be sourced from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and 442 processed using a combination of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and other mapping software. 443 444 Project Management: 445 This project has been outlined as a stand-alone project with a sole PI, however, it would be 446 optimal to develop a broad collaboration where this pre-proposal is one among several that would be 447 conducted together. I have attempted to outline above a few projects that would be natural collaborators. 448 There may be more. I see this project as fitting into either a larger mooring project, as a small piece of a 449 project that examines the Chukchi Sea ecosystem as a whole (from phytoplankton to mammals). 450 The PI (Caissie), is an early career researcher. I have recently been awarded my first National 451 Science Foundation grant (OCE-1524784), a one-year grant through the Research Initiation Grants 452 program. I have sailed on four cruises, all as a PhD student. Two of these (Healy 0601 and Healy 0702) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

453 were opportunities for me to collect sediments for my dissertation while assisting Jackie Grebmeier with 454 her sampling. The third, in 2008, was a short cruise collecting benthic samples for Grebmeier, in which I 455 got the chance to be the lead of my two-person team. On the final cruise, in 2009, I sailed as a 456 sedimentologist aboard the JOIDES Resolution in the Southern Bering Sea as part of the IODP 457 Expedition 323. In addition, I have more than a decade of experience identifying Bering and Chukchi Sea 458 diatoms and am well qualified to conduct the analyses outlined in this proposal. My first Master’s student 459 recently defended his thesis and is preparing a manuscript for publication. I have two PhD students 460 working in my lab currently. This proposal would bring a third PhD student onto our team. I would 461 supervise him/her with the understanding that all work outlined in this proposal is ultimately my 462 responsibility. However, I intend to give the PhD student the challenge of achieving these goals 463 independently as much as possible. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie BETH E. CAISSIE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES ♦ 253 SCIENCE I IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY ♦ AMES, IA 50011 ♦ (515) 294-7528 ♦ [email protected] HTTP://WWW.PUBLIC.IASTATE.EDU/~MARINESEDS/

EDUCATIONAL HISTORY

University of Massachusetts Amherst Advisor: Dr. Julie Brigham-Grette Ph.D. Geology, 2012 Dissertation: Diatoms as Recorders of Sea Ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas: Proxy Development and Application

M.Sc. Geology, 2006 Thesis: Rising Temperatures, Shrinking Ice: The Deglaciation to Holocene Paleoceanography of Umnak Plateau, Bering Sea

University of Alaska Fairbanks , B.Sc. Geology, Magna cum laude, 2003 Advisor: Dr. Paul Layer

Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts, B.A. Photography and Children’s Writing, 1997 Advisor: Ms. Jacqueline Hayden

APPOINTMENTS

Assistant Professor—Iowa State University, Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences August 2012-Present

Research Assistant—UMass Department of Geosciences, Amherst, MA September 2003-August 2012 Sedimentologist—Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, Expedition 323, Bering Sea July – September 2009 Teaching Associate—UMass Amherst, Smith College, Greenfield Community College 2006- 2008

FIELD WORK 153 CUMULATIVE DAYS AT SEA

2009 Southern Bering Sea, aboard the JOIDES Resolution 2 months 2008 Bering and Chukchi Seas, aboard the Norseman II 2 weeks 2007 Bering Sea, aboard the USCGC Healy Ice Breaker (Healy 0702) 1 month 2006 Bering Sea, aboard the USCGC Healy Ice Breaker (Healy 0601) 1 month

GRANTS RECEIVED 2015 OCE-RIG: Refining a Diatom-Based Sea Ice Proxy for the Bering Sea Using Water, Ice and Sediment Samples to Improve the Robustness of Sea Ice Reconstructions; National Science Foundation Award # 1524784 ($99,776). 2014 Creating and Implementing an Automated Peer Review Process for Team-Based Learning Classes; PI: Jane Rongerude; Collaborating Faculty with 10 others, ISU Online Learning Innovation Hub Flipped and Hybrid Course Development Initiative ($27,600) 2010 Post-Expedition Award for research related to IODP’s Exp. 323 ($15,000), US Science Support Program 2006 Geological Society of America Research Grant ($2000) 2002 UAF Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program grant: Sedimentological Evaluation of Siberian Soils ($1093)

PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS

Weckström, K., Miettinen, A., Caissie, B.E., Pearce, C., Ellegaard, M., Krawczyk, D., and Witkowski, A. 2014. Sea surface temperatures in Disko Bay during the Little Ice Age - Caution needs to be exercised before assigning Thalassiosira kushirensis resting spore as a warm-water indicator in palaeoceanographic studies. Comment on: Late-Holocene diatom derived seasonal variability in hydrological conditions off Disko Bay, West Greenland by Diana W. Krawczyk, Andrzej Witkowski, Jeremy Lloyd, Matthias Moros, Jan Harff and Antoon Kuijpers. Quaternary Science Reviews

Wehrmann, L.R., Risgaard-Petersen, N., Schrum, H.N., Walsh, Emily A., Huh, Y., Ikehara, M., Pierre, C., D’Hondt, S., Ferdelman, T.G., Ravelo, A.C., Takahashi, K., Alvarez Zarikian, C., and the IODP Exp 323 Scientific Party. 2011. Coupled organic and inorganic carbon cycling in the deep subseafloor sediment of the northeastern Bering Sea Slope (IODP Exp. 323). Chemical Geology, 284: 251-261.

Takahashi, K.A., Ravelo, C., Alvarez Zarikian, C. and Exp. 323 Scientists. 2011. IODP Expedition 323—Pliocene and Pleistocene Paleoceanographic Changes in the Bering Sea. Scientific Drilling vol. 11, pp 4-13.

Caissie, B.E., Brigham-Grette, J., Lawrence, K.T., Herbert, T.D., and Cook, M.S. 2010. Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene Sea Surface Conditions at Umnak Plateau, Bering Sea as Inferred from Diatom, Alkenone, and Stable Isotope Records. Paleoceanography,

25, 2008PA001671.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

Changing Communities of Primary Producers Under Rapidly Declining Sea Ice: Defining Sea Ice Biomes based on Sediment Traps, Sea Ice Cores, and Sediment Cores in the Chukchi Sea July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2021 individual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 responsible for July–S Oct–D Jan–M Apr–J July–S Oct–D Jan–M Apr–J July–S Oct–D Jan–M Apr–J July–S Oct–D Jan–M Apr–J July–S Oct–D Jan–M Apr–J July–S completion ept ec ar une ept ec ar une ept ec ar une ept ec ar une ept ec ar une ept Field Logistics Planning X X X X X X X X X X Deploy 3 sediment traps Deployment Caissie X X Retrieval Caissie X X Collect monthly to bimonthly sediment trap samples Caissie X X X X X X X X X Map Sea Ice Types Present Data collection/field work Caissie/Grad X X X X X X X X X Method Development Caissie/Grad X X Cartography Grad Student X X X X X X Define Sea Ice Biomes Caissie/Grad X X X X X X X X Collect Gravity Cores Caissie X X Collect sea ice cores Caissie X Determine diatom assemblages; basic geochemistry Sediment Trap Caissie/Grad X X X X X X X X Gravity Cores Caissie/Grad X X X X X X X X Age Models Caissie/Grad X X X X Sea Ice Cores Caissie/Grad X X X X Measure grain size Sediment Traps Caissie X X X X Gravity Cores Caissie X X X X Sea Ice Cores Caissie X X Other Progress report Caissie X X X X X X X X X X AMSS presentation Caissie/Grad X X X X X PI meeting Caissie X X X X X Logistics planning meeting Caissie X X Publication submission Caissie/Grad X X X X X X X X X X Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Caissie X X Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Caissie X X Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 Project Title: Changing Communities of Primary Producers Under Rapidly Declining Sea Ice: 4 Defining Sea Ice Biomes based on Sediment Traps, Sea Ice Cores, and Sediment Cores in the 5 Chukchi Sea 6 7 Lead PI: Beth E. Caissie, Iowa State University 8 9 Logistical Needs: 10 11 This project calls for four field seasons, three in the summer and one in the winter. 12 13 Field Season 1: Summer 2017 (July to September) 14 Purpose: To deploy three sediment traps 15 Vessel Needs: Ice reinforced ship with a winch for lowering sediment traps. 16 Number of Days of Ship Time: 3-4 days (1 day per site) 17 Number of Berths: 2 18 Lab/Sampling Needs: Storage for three sediment traps before deployment. 19 20 Notes: Because so few days of ship time are needed, we will be happy to round out other teams of 21 researchers to help them retrieve their samples when we are not deploying the sediment traps. We are 22 flexible on exact timing of deployment. 23 24 Field Season 2: Winter 2018 (March or April) 25 Purpose: To take ice cores from the three sediment trap stations 26 Vessel Needs: Ice Breaker with cage to move researchers from the ship to the sea ice 27 Number of Days of Ship Time: 3-4 days (1 day per site) 28 Number of Berths: 2 29 Lab/Sampling Needs: Freezer space for up to 30, 2 m long sea ice cores; small amount (2 m2) lab space 30 for filtering and subsampling on board. 31 32 Notes: This sampling needs to be done on the sea ice. A minimum of two researchers need berths, but the 33 sampling should be done by a team of four to six, with the extras made up of other researchers on the ship 34 who are willing to help. Because so few days of ship time are needed, we will be happy to round out other 35 teams of researchers to help them retrieve their samples when we are not on the sea ice. Sampling can not 36 be conducted in darkness because of polar bear safety concerns. Because of the patchiness of under-ice 37 algae, we will take several (up to 10) cores from each station with care to sample locations that may have 38 different surfaces (snow covered, wind-blown, melt ponds, pressure ridges). We are flexible on the exact 39 timing of coring. 40 41 Field Season 3: Summer 2018 (July to September) 42 Purpose: To retrieve and redeploy three sediment traps and to take sediment cores from the 3 sediment 43 trap locations. 44 Vessel Needs: Ice reinforced ship with a winch for lowering sediment traps and multicorer. 45 Number of Days of Ship Time: 3-4 days (1 day per site) 46 Number of Berths: 2 47 Lab/Sampling Needs: Multicorer from UNOLS equipment pool and storage for this; small lab area (2 48 m2) to begin initial processing of sediment cores and filter sediment trap samples; small area on deck to 49 extrude core and/or archive cores in core tubes. 50 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

51 Notes: Because so few days of ship time are needed, we will be happy to round out other teams of 52 researchers to help them retrieve their samples when we are not deploying the sediment traps. We are 53 flexible on the exact timing of sediment trap retrieval, but will need to have an idea about the timing a 54 year in advance so that the collection cups can be programmed to be collecting until we return. It would 55 be unfortunate to have several weeks with no collection of sediments especially in the growing season. 56 57 Field Season 4: Summer 2019 (July to September) 58 Purpose: To retrieve three sediment traps and to take gravity cores from the 3 sediment trap locations. 59 Vessel Needs: Ice reinforced ship with a winch for lowering sediment traps and multicorer. 60 Number of Days of Ship Time: 3-4 days (1 day per site) 61 Number of Berths: 2 62 Lab/Sampling Needs: Multicorer from UNOLS equipment pool and storage for this; storage for three 63 sediment traps after retrieval; small lab area (2 m2) to begin initial processing of sediment cores and filter 64 sediment trap samples; small area on deck to extrude core and/or archive cores in core tubes. 65 66 Notes: Because so few days of ship time are needed, we will be happy to round out other teams of 67 researchers to help them retrieve their samples when we are not deploying the sediment traps. We are 68 flexible on the exact timing of sediment trap retrieval, but will need to have an idea about the timing a 69 year in advance so that the collection cups can be programmed to be collecting until we return. It would 70 be unfortunate to have several weeks with no collection of sediments especially in the growing season. 71 72 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 73 74 I currently have funds available to purchase a Mark V Ice Corer. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Changing Communities of Primary Producers Under Rapidly Declining Sea Ice: Defining Sea Ice Biomes based on Sediment Traps, Sea Ice Cores, and Sediment Cores in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Beth E. Caissie, Iowa State University category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 10,407 216,930 124,196 118,828 91,933 59,775 622,069 narrative. Other Support 0

TOTAL 10,407 216,930 124,196 118,828 91,933 59,775 622,069

1. Personnel Salaries 2,815 40,892 42,119 43,383 35,838 19,581 184,628

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 366 6,007 6,188 6,374 3,738 3,050 25,723 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,750 11,200 15,140 9,700 8,900 8,900 55,590

4. Equipment 0 116,344 0 0 0 0 116,344

5. Supplies 400 1,500 2,500 2,000 400 0 6,800

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

2,410 11,187 20,736 21,810 16,631 11,728 84,502

Total Direct Costs 7,741 187,130 86,683 83,267 65,507 43,259 473,587 0

Indirect Costs 2,666 29,800 37,513 35,561 26,426 16,516 148,482

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 10,407 216,930 124,196 118,828 91,933 59,775 622,069 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Changing Communities of Primary Producers Under Rapidly Declining Sea Ice: Defining Sea Ice Biomes based on Sediment Traps, Sea Ice Cores, and Sediment Cores in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Beth E. Caissie, Iowa State University; PI names from 2nd organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 3rd category organization - organization affiliation; PI names from 4th organization - organization affiliation breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the budget NPRB Funding 10,407 216,930 124,196 118,828 91,933 59,775 622,069 narrative. Other Support 0 TOTAL 10,407 216,930 124,196 118,828 91,933 59,775 622,069

1. Personnel Salaries 2,815 40,892 42,119 43,383 35,838 19,581 184,628 0

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 366 6,007 6,188 6,374 3,738 3,050 25,723 0 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 1,750 11,200 15,140 9,700 8,900 8,900 55,590 0

4. Equipment 0 116,344 0 0 0 0 116,344 0

5. Supplies 400 1,500 2,500 2,000 400 0 6,800 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other

2,410 11,187 20,736 21,810 16,631 11,728 84,502 0

Total Direct Costs 7,741 187,130 86,683 83,267 65,507 43,259 473,587 0

Indirect Costs 2,666 29,800 37,513 35,561 26,426 16,516 148,482 0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 10,407 216,930 124,196 118,828 91,933 59,775 622,069 0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Organization A (Iowa State University)

Project Title: Changing Communities of Primary Producers Under Rapidly Declining Sea Ice: Defining Sea Ice Biomes based on Sediment Traps, Sea Ice Cores, and Sediment Cores in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by Iowa State University for this project is: $622,069

1. Personnel/Salaries:

Three personnel will complete this project: the PI, a graduate student working on his/her PhD, and an hourly undergraduate lab assistant. The PI is supported by a 9-month salary at Iowa State and is only requesting one month of summer salary during years 2, 3, and 4 when fieldwork will be conducted. Funds are requested to support the graduate student (20 hours per week) for the duration of the project and an undergraduate student (10 hours per week) during years 2 through 5. The PI will be responsible for coordinating all aspects of the project including planning the field seasons. The PhD student will work on diatom assemblage counting, scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging, geochemistry, and field season logistics under Caissie’s supervision. She/he will also participate in data analysis and interpretation. The undergraduate student will be paid $10 per hour. His/her responsibilities will include sample processing, diatom slide making, and grain size analysis.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits:

The fringe benefit rates at Iowa State University are 31.5% for the PI, 13% for graduate students, and 4.6% for hourly undergraduate employees.

Personnel Expense Details:

Personal rates are determined using a 3% cost of living salary increase per year. Time devoted Fringe Year Title/Name to project Annual rate Personnel cost rate Fringe cost

FY16 Graduate 1.5 months $22,520 $2,815 13% $366 Student FY16 Totals $2,815 $366 FY17 Asst. Prof/Beth 1 month $72,858 $8,096 31.5% $2,550 Caissie (9 months) FY17 Graduate 12 months $23,196 $23,196 13% $3,015 Student FY17 Undergraduate 12 months $9,600 $9,600 4.6% $442 Student FY17 Totals $40,892 $6,007 FY18 Asst. Prof/Beth 1 month $75,044 $8,339 31.5% $2,627 Caissie (9 months) FY18 Graduate 12 months $23,892 $23,892 13% $3,106 Student FY18 Undergraduate 12 months $9,888 $9,888 4.6% $455 Student FY18 Totals $42,119 $6,188 FY19 Asst. Prof/Beth 1 month $77,295 $8,589 31.5% $2,706 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

Caissie (9 months) FY19 Graduate 12 months $24,609 $24,609 13% $3,199 Student FY19 Undergraduate 12 months $10,185 $10,185 4.6% $469 Student FY19 Totals $43,383 $6,374 FY20 Graduate 12 months $25,347 $25,347 13% $3,256 Student FY20 Undergraduate 12 months $10,490 $10,491 4.6% $482 Student FY20 Totals $35,838 $3,738 FY21 Graduate 9 months $26,107 $19,581 13% $2,546 Student FY21Totals $19,581 $2,546

3. Travel:

Travel is budgeted using current, estimated costs:

Flight from Des Moines to Anchorage $800 Flight from Des Moines to San Francisco $400 Hotel in Anchorage $150/night Hotel in San Francisco $150/night shared with another person Iowa State Standard Per Diem $40/day Ground Transportation $150 Conference Registration (AGU) $300

Year 1: Funds are requested for the PI to travel to the kickoff meeting in Anchorage in June, 2016 for 3 days.

Total travel request in FY16 $1,750

Year 2: Funds are requested for the PI to travel to the logistics planning meeting in Anchorage (2 days; October; $1560), the Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days; January; $1940), and for the graduate student and PI to travel to the annual PI meeting (4 days; March; $3,880). Additional funds are budgeted for the graduate student to attend the biannual Polar Marine Diatoms Meeting (6 days; July; $500; partial support), and for the PI and the graduate student to travel to Alaska for a summer field season (2 days either side of cruise; June; $3,320).

Total travel request in FY17 $11,200

Year 3: Funds are requested for the PI to travel to the logistics planning meeting in Anchorage (2 days; October; $1560), the Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days; January; $1940), and for the graduate student and PI to travel to the annual PI meeting (4 days; March; $3,880). Additional funds are budgeted for the PI and the graduate student to travel to Alaska for a winter (3 days either side of cruise; March; $3,880) and a summer field season (3 days either side of cruise; June; $3,880).

Total travel request in FY18 $15,140 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

Year 4: Funds are requested for the PI to travel to Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days; January; $1940), and for the graduate student and PI to travel to the annual PI meeting (4 days; March; $3,880). Additional funds are budgeted for the PI and the graduate student to travel to Alaska for a summer field season (3 days either side of cruise; June; $3,880).

Total travel request in FY19 $9,700

Year 5: Funds are requested for the PI to travel to Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days; January; $1940), and for the graduate student and PI to travel to the annual PI meeting (4 days; March; $3,880). Additional funds are requested for the PI and the graduate student to attend a major conference such as the American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting or the Ocean Sciences Meeting ($3,080).

Total travel request in FY20 $8,900

Year 6: Funds are requested for the PI to travel to Alaska Marine Science Symposium (4 days; January; $1940), and for the graduate student and PI to travel to the annual PI meeting (4 days; March; $3,880). Additional funds are requested for the PI and the graduate student to attend a major conference such as the American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting or the Ocean Sciences Meeting ($3,080).

Total travel request in FY21 $8,900

4. Equipment:

Year 1: Total equipment funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Total equipment funds request in FY17 $116,344

Three sediment traps will be purchased in FY17. The cost is based on estimates from McLane Research Labs (Falmouth, MA) and Mooring Systems (Falmouth, MA). In addition, an acoustic release is needed to retrieve the sediment traps. This is estimated based on the UDB 9425A universal deck box sold by Mooring Systems. See table below for breakdown of costs.

Item Supplier Number Item Cost Total Cost Mark 7-21 Sediment Trap McLane Research 3 $24,430 $73,290 Spare 500 ml Bottles McLane Research 63 $8 $504 Batteries $50

Mooring Anchor Mooring Systems 3 $800 $2,400 Steel Floats Mooring Systems 3 $2,500 $7,500 867A Acoustic Release Mooring Systems 3 $5,700 $17,100 Chain, Shackles, Bridles, etc. Mooring Systems 3 $1,500 $4,500 9425A Universal Deck Box Mooring Systems 1 $11,000 $11,000 Sediment Traps Total $116,344 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

Year 3: Total equipment funds request in FY18 $0

Year 4: Total equipment funds request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total equipment funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total equipment funds request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies:

Funds are requested for chemicals, glassware, slide making equipment, and field equipment. Estimates are higher in years with field seasons (Years 2, 3, and 4) and years with more analytical work (Years 3 and 4).

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $400

Year 2: Total supplies funds request in FY17 $1500

Year 3: Total supplies funds request in FY18 $2500

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $2000

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $400

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants:

None

Total Contractual funds requested is $0

7. Other:

Funds are requested in this category for publication costs in years 4 and 5 ($1500 each), tuition, and analyses. Tuition is requested for the PhD student and is based on the tuition rate for academic year 2014- 2015 increased by 4.2% (the average yearly tuition increase). Geochemical analyses will be done in the Stable Isotopes Lab at Iowa State, grain size analyses will be done in the Marine Sediments Lab at Iowa Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

State, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging will be done in the Materials Analysis and Research Lab at Iowa State. Please see the table below for estimated sample and analyses cost breakdown.

Samples Collected # Samples # Sites Total Samples Analyses Performed Geochem, Grain Size Sediment trap 42 3 126 Years 3 and 4 Geochem, Grain Size Gravity core (1 cm sections) 40 3 120 Years 3 and 4 Ice cores (1-10 cm sections) 20 10 126 Geochem Only Year 3 Total samples 372

Analyses Cost per sample # Samples Total Cost Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Geochemistry $15 372 $5,580 $3,735 $1,845 $31.25 for treated and Grain Size untreated 246 $7,688 $3,844 $3,844 SEM $75/hour 40 $3,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 210Pb $325/sample 6 $1950 $975 $975

Year 1: Tuition: $2,410 Total other funds request in FY16 $2,410

Year 2: Tuition: $11,187 Total other funds request in FY17 $11,187

Year 3: Tuition: $11,657 Geochemistry: $3,735 Grain Size: $3,844 SEM: $1,500 Total other funds request in FY18 $20,736

Year 4: Tuition: $12,146 Geochemistry: $1,845 Grain Size: $3,844 SEM: $1,500 210Pb: $975 Publications: $1,500 Total other funds request in FY19 $21,810

Year 5: Tuition: $12,656 SEM: $1,500 210Pb: $975 Publications: $1,500 Total other funds request in FY20 $16,631

Year 6: Tuition: $10,228 Publications: $1500 Total other funds request in FY20 $11,728 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.23-Caissie

8. Indirect Costs:

The facilities and administrative (indirect) cost rate is 50% for research performed on-campus. This rate is applied to total direct costs minus tuition and equipment.

Total indirect funds requested is $148,482. This includes $2,666 in FY16, $29,800 in FY17, $37,513 in FY18, $35,561 in FY19, $26,426 in FY20, and $16,516 in FY21.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Organization A: none

Total Other Support provided by Organization A for this project is: $0 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

1 Research Plan 2 3 A.! Project Title: Biophysical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea 4 5 B.! Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity: Influence of sea ice dynamics and 6 advection on the phenology, magnitude and location of primary and secondary production, match- 7 mismatch, benthic-pelagic coupling, and the influence of winter conditions; 8 9 C.!Rationale and justification: 10 The extraordinary biological productivity of the Chukchi Sea (Loeng et al. 2005; Grebmeier et al. 11 2006; Arrigo et al. 2014) critically depends on the supply of nutrient-rich Pacific winter water formed 12 both locally in the Chukchi Sea and transported north from the Bering Sea (Figure 1) (Woodgate et al. 13 2005; Lowry et al. 2015). To understand the observed spatial patterns and temporal variability within the 14 rapidly changing Chukchi Sea ecosystem (e.g. Figure 2; Hill and Cota 2005; Sukhanova et al. 2009; 15 Arrigo and Van Dijken 2015), it is imperative that we properly characterize and quantify water mass 16 properties, associated transports (Coachman and Aagaard 1966, 1988; Weingartner et al. 1998; Woodgate 17 et al. 2005; Gong and Pickart 2015), and processes that modify the Chukchi Sea’s biogeochemical 18 properties (Pickart et al. submitted; Gong and Pickart, submitted). A comprehensive view of the flow 19 pathways in the Chukchi Sea has only recently been proposed and tested with observational data 20 (Woodgate et al. 2005; Gong and Pickart 2015; Pickart et al. submitted). While we now have reasonable 21 assessments of volume transport through major flow pathways, especially near Barrow Canyon, it is not 22 clear how Pacific waters are modified physically and biogeochemically as they flow from Bering Strait to 23 the Chukchi/Beaufort shelf-break. It is also not clear to what degree older Pacific winter water in the 24 basin contributes to transport into Barrow Canyon through exchange across the Chukchi shelf-break. The 25 flow patterns around the Herald and Hanna Shoal regions are especially complex, and we know very little 26 about exchange between active flow pathways and shoal regions. 27 Even less is known about sub-surface and under-ice biogeochemical processes within Pacific 28 waters as they are transported poleward, since satellite capabilities and previous ship studies are limited in 29 these environments (e.g. Lowry et al. 2014). Field results from ICESCAPE (Arrigo et al. 2012; 2014) and 30 SUBICE (Lowry et al. in prep) suggest that surface phytoplankton blooms form in nutrient-rich winter 31 water beneath first-year melt-ponded sea ice, which has become characteristic of the Chukchi Sea in 32 recent decades (Maslanik et al. 2011; Polashenski et al. 2012). As sea ice retreats, under-ice blooms 33 transition to open water blooms (and are referred to as ‘remnant’ under-ice blooms), leaving behind sub- 34 surface phytoplankton biomass and a signal of elevated oxygen and depleted nutrients (Figure 3) in 35 recently ice-free waters that can be used to infer under-ice production (Lowry et al. 2015). Potential shifts 36 in the timing, total amount, and relative contribution of under-ice and open water primary production 37 have important implications for both resident and migratory organisms that feed in the Chukchi Sea 38 (Loeng et al. 2005). However, more observations are needed to characterize under-ice and open water 39 sub-surface bloom dynamics and to predict the ecosystem response to ongoing changes in phenology and 40 total production. 41 Shipboard studies of phytoplankton blooms (Lowry et al. 2015) and zooplankton communities 42 (Ershova et al. 2015) in the Chukchi Sea indicate that different water masses have distinct biogeochemical 43 properties (e.g. nutrient and oxygen concentrations) that influence primary and secondary producers. 44 Specifically, the flow of nutrient-rich winter water appears to drive the spatial and temporal distribution 45 of phytoplankton blooms on the Chukchi shelf (Lowry et al. 2015), possibly contributing to the location 46 of biological hotspots such as those characterized by Grebmeier et al. (2015). Additionally, upwelling of 47 remnant winter water at the shelf-break (Spall et al. 2014) can play a key role in fueling extraordinary 48 primary production (Arrigo et al. 2012) through the supply of nitrate, the primary limiting nutrient in the 49 Arctic (Tremblay et al. 2006). Although these and other synoptic studies (e.g. SBI) provide tantalizing 50 evidence for coupled bio-physical processes that drive the extreme biological productivity of the Chukchi

1 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

51 Sea, they are based on shipboard surveys that are limited in spatial and temporal scope. To elucidate the 52 physical drivers for these biological processes and understand how the ecosystem will evolve in future 53 decades, we need higher-resolution season-long observations over a large portion of the Chukchi Sea. 54 To address the process-oriented questions regarding the relationship between physical forcing and 55 ecosystem response, our team will employ a combination of observational tools including underwater 56 gliders (Schofield et al., 2007), shipboard in-situ sampling, and satellite remote sensing to investigate the 57 dynamics of the base of the food web. High-resolution sampling conducted by a fleet of well- 58 instrumented gliders will provide an unprecedented view of Pacific water evolution as ice retreats across 59 the Chukchi Sea. The glider sampling program is designed to complement an integrated ship-based 60 sampling program that will investigate many aspects of the food web at lower spatial resolution. It will 61 also complement mooring-based studies focused on temporal variability at select locations. Furthermore, 62 data from the gliders will be useful for model-data comparison and data assimilation efforts and will also 63 assist in the interpretation of satellite remote sensing data, especially with regards to interaction between 64 surface and sub-surface processes. 65 66 D.!Hypotheses: 67 The proposed study is guided by a number of questions that are directly related to Research 68 Category 3 in the NPRB Arctic RFP: (1) How do seasonal ice retreat and the advection of Pacific winter 69 and summer waters affect the spatial distribution, duration, and magnitude of phytoplankton blooms on 70 the shelf and at the shelf-break? (2) How do bloom dynamics differ between active transport regions and 71 regions of weak flow (i.e. Hanna Shoal)? (3) How does phytoplankton physiology evolve under various 72 light, temperature, and nutrient regimes as blooms are advected along the transport pathways? (4) Is 73 summertime productivity of the Chukchi Sea limited by the amount of nutrients in Pacific winter water or 74 the amount of light available to primary producers? Based on these questions we have developed the 75 following hypotheses: 76 77 H1: The spatial distribution, temporal variability, and physiology of phytoplankton blooms in the 78 Chukchi Sea are governed by the supply of nutrient-rich winter water to the euphotic zone. Depending on 79 whether the seasonal ice melt is driven more by radiative or advective processes, the upper water column 80 of the Chukchi Sea will be dominated by either nutrient-rich winter water or nutrient-poor summer water, 81 leading to different rates of primary productivity. Specifically, ice melt due to stronger atmospheric 82 radiative forcing will retain winter water longer on the shelf and lead to higher primary productivity, 83 while ice melt driven by the advection of warm nutrient-poor Pacific summer water will lead to lower 84 primary productivity. 85 86 H2: Pacific winter water in the Chukchi Sea undergoes gradual warming and depletion of nutrients during 87 the summer as it is transported northward along the three major transport pathways. Most of the 88 geochemical transformation of the Pacific winter water takes place around the shoal regions and near 89 Barrow Canyon where the flow of winter water slows and converges, respectively, due to topographic 90 steering. Additionally, flow-bottom boundary layer interaction along energetic currents drives enhanced 91 mixing and upwelling of winter water inside Barrow Canyon. This large and persistent supply of winter 92 water leads to larger, more productive, and more prolonged phytoplankton blooms in these regions. 93 94 H3: In addition to the newly formed winter water already in Chukchi Sea, there is a continuous supply of 95 remnant winter water to the northern Chukchi Sea from the western Arctic basin through bottom 96 intrusions and upwelling at the shelf-break. This effectively provides an unlimited supply of nutrients for 97 fueling sub-surface primary production through the summer. While phytoplankton in the southern and 98 central Chukchi Sea are nutrient-limited after early summer, blooms in the northern Chukchi Sea 99 including the northern half of Hanna Shoal and Barrow Canyon are primarily limited by light. 100

2 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

101 H4: Following sea ice retreat, remnant under-ice blooms are prevalent across the Chukchi shelf, 102 reinforcing the notion that under-ice primary production is an important component of the ecosystem. The 103 relative contribution of open water versus under-ice production, which can be assessed through 104 concentrations of nutrients, oxygen, and phytoplankton near the ice edge, varies regionally in response to 105 the timing and mechanism of ice retreat and the physical processes controlling the nutrient supply. In the 106 northern and central Chukchi Sea, the contribution of under-ice blooms to total production is higher in 107 isolated areas with more persistent ice cover than along transport pathways that sustain open water 108 phytoplankton blooms. The relative importance of under-ice production is lowest in the southern Chukchi 109 Sea, where ice retreats earliest and open water blooms are advected north from the Bering Sea. 110 111 E.!Objectives: 112 1.Project planning: 113 1.1.! Hire project graduate student and postdoc (Kate Lowry). 114 1.2.! Attend project kickoff meeting in 2016 to develop the comprehensive science plan. 115 1.3.! Attend logistics meetings, PI meetings, and AMSS meetings. 116 2.Pilot study in 2017: 117 2.1.! Develop sampling plan for 2017 field season. 118 2.2.! Train technical staff, postdoc, and student who will be part of the field effort. 119 2.3.! Acquisition of sensors, platforms, other equipment needed for the 2017 field season. 120 2.4.! Equipment testing, calibration, and detailed planning of field work logistics. 121 2.5.! Execute the science plan and conduct field work for summer 2017. 122 2.6.! Data quality control, sensor calibration, provide data to numerical modeling community. 123 2.7.! Initial technical report on the 2017 field effort. 124 2.8.! Coordinated analysis of 2017 dataset with co-PIs. 125 3.Main field campaign in 2018: 126 3.1.! Develop and refine sampling plan for 2018 field season. 127 3.2.! Attend project PI and logistics meeting(s) for 2018. 128 3.3.! Prepare platforms, sensors, and cruise equipment for 2018 field season. 129 3.4.! Plan and coordinate field work logistics. 130 3.5.! Execute the science plan and conduct field work for summer 2018. 131 3.6.! Data quality control, sensor calibration, and submit data to the project modelers. 132 3.7.! Complete technical report of 2018 field effort. 133 3.8.! Coordinate and conduct analysis of 2018 dataset with co-PIs. 134 4.Synthesis & Publications: 135 4.1.! Present and publish initial results from both 2017 and 2018 field season. 136 4.2.! Graduate student completes manuscript based on 2017 and/or 2018 data. 137 4.3.! Conduct synthesis analysis of all data with other observational and modeling teams. 138 4.4.! Prepare and submit manuscript based on synthesis analysis of combined dataset. 139 4.5.! Present synthesis analysis results at project meetings and international meetings. 140 141 F.!Expected outcomes and deliverables: 142 The proposed study will use gliders to sample a number of high-resolution (<0.3 km) 143 temperature, salinity, and density transects along the transport pathways of Pacific waters in the Chukchi 144 Sea. One of the gliders will also make direct measurement of currents using an acoustic doppler current 145 profiler. With respect to H1, as measurements are made following an ice edge that is retreating under the 146 advective regime, we expect to find a water column dominated by warm and fresh summer water. Such 147 conditions are likely along the active flow pathways. Conversely, in regions of persistent sea ice where 148 ice retreat is delayed and eventually retreats due to atmospheric radiative forcing (e.g. Herald and Hanna 149 Shoals), we expect to find more winter water in the water column and direct warming of the winter water. 150 In this case, the winter water beneath the retreating ice edge will likely support enhanced biological 151 productivity (H4).

3 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

152 Glider-based measurements of chlorophyll a, CDOM, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient 153 concentrations will be used to assess spatial and temporal distributions of phytoplankton in relation to 154 water mass type and seasonal sea ice retreat (H2, H4). These measurements will be complemented by 155 glider-based detection of irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation) and physiological status (Fv:Fm, 156 the maximum efficiency of photosystem II) and ship-based measurements of phytoplankton biomass 157 (chlorophyll a and particulate organic carbon/nitrogen) to assess regional differences in the relative 158 importance of nutrient versus light limitation and overall productivity (H3). These observations will be 159 used to characterize nutrient fluxes and bloom evolution and to produce high-resolution maps of primary 160 production hotspots in the Chukchi Sea that will be useful for policymakers and resource managers. 161 This work will expand our baseline knowledge of how physical processes drive phytoplankton 162 bloom dynamics in order to better predict the ecosystem response to continued climate change. The 163 proposed research will improve our understanding of the contribution of sub-surface and under-ice 164 blooms to the productivity of the Chukchi Sea, which is essential for achieving valid estimates of primary 165 production. This work will also identify potentially important sites of energy transfer to higher trophic 166 levels where prolonged blooms are likely to support enhanced pelagic grazing by zooplankton and/or 167 benthic production through sinking phytoplankton. Thus, this study provides great potential for improving 168 our understanding of the integrated ecosystem through collaborations with groups studying zooplankton, 169 benthic organisms, fish, seabirds, marine mammals, and human communities. One particularly relevant 170 aspect of the glider dataset is the 120 kHz Echo Sounder data, which can be leveraged by shipboard 171 studies to characterize zooplankton populations across a wider spatial and temporal range. 172 All the final data from the proposed study will undergo rigorous quality control procedures and 173 be made available online to team members in a readily accessible file format. The data management will 174 be in compliance with NPRB data policy. In addition to the data products, the proposed project will result 175 in at least 5 peer-reviewed publications. PI Gong will lead a manuscript on the study of the water mass 176 transformation along the Pacific water transport pathways (H1, H3). Gong’s graduate student will be co- 177 advised by the other project PIs and will complete a manuscript on the differences between newly formed 178 winter water and remnant winter water and their relative contributions to primary production (H3). PI 179 Miles will lead a manuscript on bottom boundary layer interaction with the Alaskan Coastal Current from 180 Bering Strait to Barrow Canyon (H2). PI Lowry will lead a manuscript on phytoplankton bloom dynamics 181 in response to changing nutrient and light conditions as a result of seasonal ice retreat and water mass 182 advection (H1, H3, H4). PI Schofield will lead a manuscript on the application of glider technology and 183 advanced biogeochemical sensors in the seasonally ice covered polar environment. Finally, all the PIs will 184 participate in the project-wide ecosystem-level synthesis publication (H1, H2, H3, H4). 185 186 G.! Project design and conceptual approach: 187 To test the above stated hypotheses, we need high-resolution season-long observations of Pacific 188 water masses as they are transported from Bering Strait to the Chukchi shelf-break. Although this kind of 189 sampling is possible with a ship, tracking multiple transport pathways in this manner would come at 190 extraordinary cost. Satellites cannot provide observations of sub-surface water column properties and 191 fixed moored platforms are unable to follow water masses and resolve their complex spatial structure both 192 laterally and vertically. The only sensible cost-effective method for the proposed study is a glider-based 193 platform utilizing a suite of physical-biological sensors complemented by traditional ship-based sampling 194 to provide cross-calibration. 195 We plan to sample during two field seasons. 2017 will be a pilot field year with the main goal of 196 testing new sensors and exploring different sampling strategies. A pair of alkaline battery-powered gliders 197 will conduct 20-day deployments in the eastern Chukchi Sea along the Alaskan Coastal Current. A coastal 198 vessel or ship of opportunity will be used to conduct deployment and recovery. Alternatively, if we can 199 bring a glider aboard a research vessel for 2017, we will be able to conduct process-oriented studies in the 200 central and northern Chukchi Sea further offshore. 201 For the main field season in 2018, a fleet of three well-instrumented gliders will be deployed at 202 Bering Strait in the early summer. The gliders will fly along the major transport pathways in the Eastern

4 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

203 Chukchi (Figure 1) following the retreat of the seasonal sea ice toward the Chukchi shelf-break (along the 204 ACC, up the Central Channel). Each glider will be equipped with advanced physical, bio-optical, and bio- 205 acoustic sensors (Figure 4), including CTD (Seabird), chlorophyll a and CDOM fluorescence (Wetlab 206 Ecopuck), and dissolved-oxygen (Aanderraa Optode). Additionally, the glider that will fly along the ACC 207 pathway will carry an integrated Nortek AD2CP current profiler. This glider will focus on investigating 208 the physical modification of water masses inside the energetic ACC and inside Barrow Canyon. Data 209 from the AD2CP and Ecopuck will also be used to study the dynamics of the bottom boundary layer and 210 its effect on near bottom primary productivity. Two of the gliders will fly up through the Central Channel 211 and head toward western Hanna Shoal. One of these two gliders will carry a Satlantic SUNA nitrate 212 sensor (which is essential for assessing productivity, bloom dynamics, and nutrient limitation) and a PAR 213 irradiance sensor and the other will carry an Imagenex 120 kHz Echo Sounder for detecting zooplankton 214 (Figure 4). These two biological gliders will focus on the study of the sub-surface phytoplankton blooms 215 as the ice retreats and on bloom dynamics in the biological hotspots around Hanna Shoal. They will 216 eventually round Hanna Shoal in a clockwise direction and move toward the head of Barrow Canyon. 217 Finally, a fourth glider will carry a FIRe fluorometer sensor package to assess phytoplankton physiology. 218 This process-oriented glider will be deployed from the research vessel to complement the other glider- 219 based and ship-based sampling. 220 There are four basic sampling schemes designed to capture the general along-flow water mass 221 properties and the local spatial variability at specific regions of strong property gradients. The base 222 sampling plan is for the gliders to follow the expected transport pathways as the sea ice retreats. In 223 regions of ‘strong’ property gradients or very slow ice retreat, the gliders will conduct a triangle survey 224 pattern behind the ice edge in open water to capture the lateral structure of the flow and the water mass 225 distribution. To follow specific water masses, we will conduct drift-at-depth experiment with the gliders 226 acting as passive floats. Finally, for sampling near biological hotspots that require high temporal 227 resolution, we will fly the glider in a station-keeping mode to capture high-frequency temporal 228 variabilities. The decision of when to use which sampling scheme will depend on a number of 229 environmental and operational factors including the rate of ice retreat, flow velocity, water column 230 structure, and biological activity. Shipboard sampling will be leveraged to calibrate the sensors and 231 provide additional context for our glider-based study of phytoplankton bloom dynamics. Water will be 232 collected at discrete depths using a CTD rosette package for measurements of concentrations of nutrients, 233 dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, and particulate organic carbon/nitrogen. Samples will be collected 234 primarily from the research vessel during the main field season, with additional water samples taken 235 during glider deployment and recovery in the pilot year. Satellite remote sensing of sea ice and ocean 236 color will provide environmental context for the glider and ship data. 237 238 H.! Linkages between field and modeling efforts: 239 Recent high-resolution modeling investigations have focused on capturing the boundary current 240 dynamics and the spatial distribution and temporal variability of the Pacific water. To properly validate 241 these model results, it is critical that observations capture the essential physical and biogeochemical 242 processes driving the variability of Pacific waters at the necessary scales. The proposed observations will 243 resolve the range of spatial and temporal scales captured in the current models. Realtime data from the 244 gliders (Figure 5) can potentially be assimilated in data assimilative models such as Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean 245 Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) and Navy’s Arctic Cap 246 Nowcast/Forecast System (ACNFS, http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/skill.html) to help 247 improve operational oceanographic forecast in the Arctic. 248 Combining the suite of interdisciplinary observations with coupled physical-biogeochemical 249 models such as Biology/Ice/Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (BIOMAS) and the Regional 250 Arctic System Model (RASM) would enable us to better test our hypothesis regarding light versus 251 nutrient limitations in the southern and northern Chukchi Sea (H3) as well as the hypotheses regarding the 252 influence of ice cover and ice retreat on water column primary productivity (H1, H4). 253

5 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

254 Tables and Figures:

255 256 Figure 1: Known flow pathways in the Chukchi Sea (Gong and Pickart 2015). Three gliders will be deployed along the Central 257 Channel and Alaskan Coastal Current pathways from Bering Strait. An additional FIRe fluorometer equipped glider will conduct 258 process-oriented sampling within a smaller domain in the northern Chukchi Sea. If an opportunity arises through collaboration 259 with RUSALCA partners, we will also sample the westernmost Herald Valley pathway by glider and/or ship.

6 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

260

261 Figure 2: The spatial distribution of surface chlorophyll a concentrations in the Chukchi Sea in early July 2011 during the NASA 262 ICESCAPE field program (Arrigo et al. 2014).

7 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

263

264 Figure 3: Conceptual model illustrating the transition of an under-ice phytoplankton bloom to a sub-surface open water bloom. 265 Modified from CAFF (2010).

266

267 Figure 4: Slocum Glider platform enhancements and upgraded sensors that will be employed during this project (clockwise 268 starting from the leftmost): Extended buoyancy pump, Satlantic SUNA Nitrate sensor, thruster, Imagenex Echo Sounder (120 269 kHz), Wetlabs ECO Puck, Biospherical PAR. All equipment shown here is provided at no cost to the project. Other sensors to be 270 used in this project (not shown here) include the Nortek AD2CP current profiler, Aanderra Oxygen Optode, and Seabird CTD. 271

8 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

272

273 Fig 5. Glider data will undergo initial QA-QC and be made available for assimilation in near-realtime through the Integrated 274 Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Data Assembly Center (DAC). Profile data collected by gliders automatically undergoes 275 conversion to CF compliant NetCDF formats at Rutgers within an hour of surfacing. These data are then submitted to the IOOS 276 Glider DAC and to ERDDAP and THREDDS data file servers. Additionally, data are posted to the Global Telecommunications 277 Service (GTS) by the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) and are available for assimilation to all users. The data management 278 plan shown here can also be modified to meet NPRB data policy.

279 280 Literature Cited: 281 282 Arrigo, K. R., Perovich, D. K., Pickart, R. S., Brown, Z. W., Van Dijken, G. L., Lowry, K. E., Mills, M. 283 M., Palmer, M. A., Balch, W. M., Bahr, F., Bates, N. R., Benitez-Nelson, C., Bowler, B., Brownlee, E., 284 Ehn, J. K., Frey, K. E., Garley, R., Laney, S. R., Lubelczyk, L., Mathis, J., Matsuoka, A., Mitchell, B. G., 285 Moore, G. W. K., Ortega-Retuerta, E., Pal, S., Polashenski, C. M., Reynolds, R. A., Schieber, B., Sosik,

9 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

286 H. M., Stephens, M., & Swift, J. H. (2012). Massive phytoplankton blooms under Arctic sea ice. Science, 287 336(6087), 1408-1408. 288 Arrigo, K. R., Perovich, D. K., Pickart, R. S., Brown, Z. W., Van Dijken, G. L., Lowry, K. E., Mills, M. 289 M., Palmer, M. A., Balch, W. M., Bahr, F., Bates, N. R., Benitez-Nelson, C., Bowler, B., Brownlee, E., 290 Ehn, J. K., Frey, K. E., Garley, R., Laney, S. R., Lubelczyk, L., Mathis, J., Matsuoka, A., Mitchell, B. G., 291 Moore, G. W. K., Ortega-Retuerta, E., Pal, S., Polashenski, C. M., Reynolds, R. A., Schieber, B., Sosik, 292 H. M., Stephens, M., & Swift, J. H. (2014). Phytoplankton blooms beneath the sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. 293 Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 105, 1-16. 294 Arrigo, K. R., & Van Dijken, G. L., (2015). Continued increases in Arctic Ocean primary production. 295 Progress in Oceanography, 136, 60-70.

296 Coachman, L. K., & Aagaard, K. (1966). On the Water Exchange Through Bering Strait. Limnology and 297 Oceanography, 11(1), 44-59. 298 Coachman, L. K., Aagaard, K. (1988). Transports Through Bering Strait: Annual and Interannual 299 Variability. J. Geophys.Res. 93(C12), 15535–15539. 300 Ershova, E. A., Hopcroft, R. R., & Kosobokova, K. N. (2015). Inter-annual variability of summer 301 mesozooplankton communities of the western Chukchi Sea: 2004–2012, Polar Biol., 1–21.

302 Gong, D., & Pickart, R. S. (2015). Summertime circulation in the eastern Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea 303 Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 304 Gong, D., & Pickart, R. S. (submitted). Summertime water mass transformation in the eastern Chukchi 305 Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 306 Grebmeier, J. M., L. W. Cooper, H. M. Feder, and B. I. Sirenko (2006). Ecosystem dynamics of the 307 Pacific-influenced Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas in the Amerasian Arctic, Prog. Oceanogr., 71(2-4), 308 331–361.

309 Grebmeier, J. M., Bluhm, B. A., Cooper, L. W., Danielson, S. L., Arrigo, K. R., Blanchard, A. L., Clarke, 310 J. T., Day, R. H., Frey, K. E., Gradinger, R. R., Kedra, M., Konar, B., Kuletz, K. J., Lee, S. H., Lovvord, 311 J. R., Norcross, B. L., & Okkonen, S. R. (2015). Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating 312 persistent macrobenthic biomass hotspots and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic, Prog. 313 Oceanogr., 136(C), 92–114. 314 Hill, V., & Cota, G. F. (2005). Spatial patterns of primary production on the shelf, slope and basin of the 315 Western Arctic in 2002, Deep-Sea Res. Part II, 52(24-26), 3344–3354. 316 Loeng, H., Brander, K., Carmack, E., Denisenko, S., Drinkwater, K., Hansen, B., Kovacs, K., Livingston, 317 P., McLaughlin, F., Sakshaug, E., (2005). Marine Systems, in: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 318 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 453–538.

319 Lowry, K. E., Mills, M.M, Pickart, R.S., & Arrigo, K. R. (in prep). Seasonal development and evolution 320 of under-ice phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic. Limnol. Oceanogr. 321 Lowry, K. E., Pickart, R. S., Mills, M. M., Brown, Z. W., van Dijken, G. L., Bates, N. R., & Arrigo, K. R. 322 (2015). The influence of winter water on phytoplankton blooms in the Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Research 323 Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography.

10 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

324 Lowry, K. E., Van Dijken, G. L., & Arrigo, K. R. (2014). Evidence of under-ice phytoplankton blooms in 325 the Chukchi Sea from 1998 to 2012. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 105, 326 105-117.

327 Maslanik, J., Stroeve, J., Fowler, C., & Emery, W. (2011) Distribution and trends in Arctic sea ice age 328 through spring 2011, Geophysical Research Letters, 38(13).

329 Pickart, R. S., Mao, C., & Bahr, F. (submitted). Winter water in the Chukchi Sea: A revised circulation 330 scheme. Deep-Sea Res. Part II. 331 332 Polashenski, C.M., Perovich, D., Courville, Z., (2012). The mechanisms of sea ice melt pond formation 333 and evolution. J. Geophys. Res. 117, C01001. 334 335 Schofield, O., Kohut, J., Aragon, D., Creed, L., Graver, J., Haldeman, C., Kerfoot, J., Roarty, H., Jones, 336 C., Webb, D. & Glenn, S. (2007). Slocum gliders: Robust and ready. Journal of Field Robotics, 24(6), 337 473-486. 338 339 Spall, M. A., Pickart, R. S., Brugler, E. T., Moore, G., Thomas, L., & Arrigo, K. R. (2014). Role of 340 shelfbreak upwelling in the formation of a massive under-ice bloom in the Chukchi Sea, Deep-Sea Res. 341 Part II, 105, 17–29. 342 343 Sukhanova, I. N., Flint, M. V., Pautova, L. A., Stockwell, D. A., Grebmeier, J. M., & Sergeeva, V. M. 344 (2009). Phytoplankton of the western Arctic in the spring and summer of 2002: Structure and seasonal 345 changes, Deep-Sea Res. Part II, 56(17), 1223–1236, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.12.030. 346 347 Tremblay, J. E., Michel, C., Hobson, K. A., Gosselin, M., & Price, N. M. (2006). Bloom dynamics in 348 early opening waters of the Arctic Ocean, Limnol. Oceangr., 51(2), 900–912. 349 350 Weingartner, T. J., Cavalieri, D. J., Aagaard, K., & Sasaki, Y. (1998). Circulation, dense water formation, 351 and outflow on the northeast Chukchi shelf, J. Geophys. Res., 103(C4), 7647–7661. 352 353 Woodgate, R. A., Aagaard, K., & Weingartner, T. J. (2005). A year in the physical oceanography of the 354 Chukchi Sea: Moored measurements from autumn 1990–1991. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical 355 Studies in Oceanography, 52(24), 3116-3149. 356 357 Integration with existing projects and reliance on other sources of data: 358 The proposed study builds upon the knowledge of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem obtained from a 359 number of earlier field campaigns including Shelf-Basin Interactions (SBI, 2002-2005), Arctic Observing 360 Network (AON, 2009—present), Bering Strait: Gateway to the Pacific (2001—present), Russian- 361 American Long-term Census of the Arctic (RUSALCA, 2004—present), Impacts of Climate on the Eco- 362 Systems and Chemistry of the Arctic Pacific Environment (ICESCAPE, 2010-2011), and Study of Under- 363 ice Blooms In the Chukchi Ecosystem (SUBICE, 2014). In particular, the Bering Strait moored dataset, 364 the AON and ICESCAPE shipboard CTD and ADCP surveys in the Chukchi Sea have contributed 365 significantly to our understanding of Pacific water transport in the Chukchi Sea. Furthermore, the rare 366 spring and early summer observations made during SUBICE and ICESCAPE illustrated the high pre- 367 bloom nutrient concentrations in the Chukchi Sea and the importance of under-ice blooms and their 368 sensitivity to ice state and light conditions under ice. The proposed study will mechanistically connect the 369 Pacific water transport processes with the dynamics of early summer phytoplankton bloom in the Chukchi 370 Sea by exploring possible causal relationships. 371 Gong is currently a PI on the Marine Arctic Ecosystem Study (MARES) project and will 372 significantly leverage the glider sensor testing and analysis work that is currently being done for MARES.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

373 There are common themes between the goals of MARES and the NPRB Arctic RFP. Both projects are 374 interested in studying the changing Arctic ecosystem in a shelf environment. MARES is currently 375 focusing on the eastern Beaufort Sea while this proposal focuses on the Chukchi Sea. Together, these two 376 studies will allow for an important comparison of two distinctive coastal ecosystems. 377 Our proposed study is also highly complementary to another pre-proposal submitted to this RFP 378 entitled “The relative importance of local processes vs. advection to the productivity of the southern 379 Chukchi Sea” proposed by Carin Ashjian, Bob Campbell, Steve Okkonen, and Dean Stockwell. They are 380 proposing to examine advective vs. in-situ production, consumption, and export in the southern Chukchi 381 Sea using fluorometers mounted on Bering Strait moorings and drifters deployed at the Bering Strait. 382 Their focus area in the southern Chukchi Sea is upstream of our focus region in Hanna Shoal and Barrow 383 Canyon. Complementing the glider sampling in the southern Chukchi Sea with additional drifter and 384 moored data will help us to better address our stated hypotheses, especially H4. Furthermore, we would 385 leverage each other’s logistical and sampling needs and share a research vessel to conduct our research. 386 PI Gong and PI Ashjian are currently collaborating on the MARES project and PI Gong has also worked 387 with PI Stockwell on past AON studies. 388 Additionally, our project links with a number of other programs listed in Appendix A of the RFP. 389 The data collected by the Bering Strait mooring program will provide a direct comparison of transport 390 and hydrographic data between gliders and moorings at deployment and will serve to help separate 391 remote versus local forcing influence on downstream glider data. Furthermore, glider data will provide 392 broader spatial context and allow for interpretation of the length scales of variability captured by the 393 mooring program. Through coordinated glider flights with existing glider projects (i.e. Characterization 394 of the Circulation on the Continental Shelf Areas of the Northeast Chukchi and Western Beaufort 395 Seas and Glider based real-time monitoring of marine mammals in the Arctic), temporal and spatial 396 data density may be maximized, reducing uncertainty in the spatial and temporal variable sampling 397 techniques for all research programs. Similar multi-project coordinated glider flights have been performed 398 in other regions through GliderPalooza 2013, 2014, and 2015 and the Gulf of Mexico AUV Jubilee 399 program. This method has allowed data ‘force multipliers’ to be applied across all projects, leading to 400 uniform data processing and QA/QC across multiple institutions. It also allowed for adaptive sampling 401 based on shared knowledge and reduced costs by leveraging ships of opportunity across projects. 402 Similarly, future collaborations with projects that focus on additional aspects of the marine ecosystem 403 will extend the impact of our study of the physical drivers of biological processes in the Chukchi Sea. For 404 example, findings from the Aerial Survey Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM), the Chukchi Ecology 405 and Seal Survey (CHESS), and the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network (AMBON) 406 projects will be useful for understanding the significance of observed primary production hotspots for 407 upper trophic levels. Data from the Chukchi Acoustic, Oceanography, and Zooplankton Study 408 (CHAOZ) and the Hanna Shoal Project will be used to better understand the implications for 409 zooplankton and benthic communities of future shifts in phytoplankton dynamics (e.g. under-ice versus 410 open water, total productivity). These results will benefit from and inform studies of benthic-pelagic 411 coupling, such as the Influence of sea ice on ecosystem shifts in Arctic Seas. As a participating group in 412 the NPRB program, our aim is to characterize how physical processes control productivity at the base of 413 the food web and to use these results to reach a collaborative improved understanding of baseline 414 processes in the integrated ecosystem as well as the possible responses and potential feedbacks to future 415 change. 416 417 Project Management: 418 The overall project will be led by PI Gong who will coordinate the development and execution of 419 the science plan and coordination with co-PIs and other science teams. PI Gong will also lead the overall 420 physical oceanographic analysis effort. PI Gong is currently funded under the BOEM Marine Arctic 421 Ecosystem Study to conduct glider studies of the shelf and shelf-break ecosystem in the eastern Beaufort 422 Sea. PI Gong also has two first-author publications on Pacific water transport and transformation in the 423 Chukchi Sea using AON and ICESCAPE data. PI Miles will lead the overall preparation and execution of

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Research Plan and Supplementary Materials

424 the glider-based field program, realtime data processing/visualization, and glider data quality control. PI 425 Miles is co-directing the Center for Ocean Observing Leadership at Rutgers University. He has 426 participated in a number of glider-based studies on the West Antarctic Peninsula shelf, and in the 427 Amundsen Sea Polynya. PI Miles has a number of publications on the application of gliders for 428 investigating bottom boundary layer processes. PI Gong and Miles will work together on the physical 429 oceanographic data analysis for this project. PI Schofield will work with postdoctoral researcher Kate 430 Lowry in designing and executing the biological sampling program. PI Schofield has extensive 431 experience studying ecosystems in polar and mid-latitude environments, including with the Palmer 432 Station Long-term Ecosystem Study (PAL-LTER) project. PI Lowry will also conduct the analysis of the 433 biological data from both ships and gliders. PI Lowry participated in the ICESCAPE and SUBICE 434 projects and she has a number of first and co-authored publications on phytoplankton dynamics in the 435 Chukchi Sea. Finally, a to-be-selected graduate student will focus on studying the different types of 436 winter water. All PIs will work closely together in each phase of the proposed study and manuscript 437 preparation. 438 439 Principal Investigators: Donglai Gong, Travis Miles, Oscar Schofield, Kate Lowry (please find attached 440 CVs for each PI). 441 442 Other Required Materials: 443

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

Hire project graduate student and postdoc (Kate Lowry) Gong, Schofield x Attend project kickoff meeting in 2016 to develop the comprehensive science plan Gong, Miles, Lowry x Objective #2: Pilot study in 2017 Develop sampling plan for 2017 field season Gong, Miles, Lowry, Schofield x Train technical staff, postdoc, and student who will be part of the field effort Gong, Miles, Lowry x x Acquisition of sensors, platforms, other equipment needed for the 2017 field season Gong, Miles, Lowry x x Equipment testing, calibration, and detailed planning of field work logistics Gong, Miles xx Execute the science plan and conduct field work for summer 2017 Gong, Miles, Lowry x x Data quality control, sensor calibration, provide data to numerical modeling community Gong, Miles, Lowry x x x Initial technical report on the 2017 field effort Gong, Miles x Coordinated analysis of 2017 dataset with co-PI’s Gong, Miles, Lowry, Schofield xx Objective #3: Main field campaign in 2018 Develop and refine sampling plan for 2018 field season Gong, Miles, Lowry, Schofield x Prepare platforms, sensors, and cruise equipment for 2018 field season Gong, Miles, Lowry, grad student xx Plan and coordinate field work logistics Gong, Miles, Lowry x x Execute the science plan and conduct field work for summer 2018 Gong, Miles, Lowry, grad student xx Data quality control, sensor calibration, and submit data to the project modelers Gong, Miles, Lowry xxx Complete technical report of 2018 field effort Gong, Miles, Lowry x x Coordinated and conduct analysis of 2018 dataset with co-PIs Gong, Miles, Lowry, grad student xxxxx Objective #4: Synthesis and Publications Present and publish initial results from both 2017 and 2018 field season Gong, Miles, Lowry xxxx Graduate student completes manuscript based on 2017 or 2018 data grad student xx Conduct synthesis analysis of all data with other Gong, Miles, Lowry, Schofield, grad observational and modeling teams student xxxx Prepare and submit manuscript based on synthesis analysis of combined dataset Gong, Miles, Lowry, grad student xxxx Present synthesis analysis results at project meetings and international meetings Gong, Miles, Lowry, grad student xxx Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

Bio-physical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea July 1, 2016 Ð September 30, 2021 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19Apr FY20 FY21 individual responsible for JulyÐ OctÐ JanÐ AprÐ JulyÐ OctÐ JanÐ AprÐ JulyÐ OctÐ JanÐ ÐJun JulyÐ OctÐ JanÐ AprÐ JulyÐ OctÐ JanÐ AprÐ JulyÐ completion Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar e Sept Dec Mar June Sept Dec Mar June Sept Other Progress report Gong, Miles, Lowry x x x x x x x x x x AMSS presentation Gong, Miles, Lowry x x x x x PI meeting Gong, Miles, Lowry, Schofield x x x x x Logistics planning meeting Gong, Miles x x Publication submission Gong, Miles, Lowry, Schofield xxxx

Final report (due within 60 days of project end date) Gong, Miles, Lowry x Metadata and data submission (due within 60 days of project end date) Gong, Miles, Lowry x Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Logistics Summary

1 Arctic Program Logistics Summary 2 3 4 Project Title: Bio-physical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea 5 6 Lead PI: Donglai Gong 7 8 Logistical Needs: 9 10 FY2017: 11 For the pilot study in FY2017, we plan to deploy two gliders equipped with alkaline batteries for three week 12 missions in the Chukchi Sea. The main goal of the pilot study is to test the sampling plan, address logistical 13 issues, collect preliminary data, evaluate sensors, and determine ideal glider flight parameters. The timing 14 and location of the deployments are flexible depending on the availability of logistical support resources 15 such as vessel(s) and environmental conditions such as sea ice extent. There are three main mission 16 scenarios covering different study regions of interest. For all mission scenarios, the deployment and 17 recovery can be conducted from any available vessel of opportunity with access to the water. Both 18 deployment and recovery need to be conducted during daylight. A total of one ship day is needed for both 19 deployment and recovery of two gliders. 20 21 The first mission option is a southern Chukchi Sea deployment focusing on the water mass connection 22 between Bering Sea, Bering Strait and southern Chukchi Sea. The glider could be deployed either from a 23 coastal vessel based in Nome or St. Lawrence Island, or from any vessel of opportunity transiting through 24 the northern Bering Sea. The glider will fly through eastern Bering Strait and follow the Alaskan Coastal 25 Current. The glider recovery can be conducted from a coastal vessel based in Kotzebue. This deployment 26 can be conducted anytime between after ice melt in July to before ice formation in late October. The mission 27 is expected to last 2-3 weeks. It is very important to coordinate the deployment and recovery as the alkaline 28 gliders will have very little loitering time inside the fast flowing ACC current upon arrival near Kotzebue. 29 The deployment can be conducted with two people if using a coastal vessel. On a research vessel, an 30 available deckhand can help with the deployment and reduce the required bunk space to one. 31 32 The second mission option is to deploy upstream of Barrow Canyon to study the water mass and flow inside 33 Barrow Canyon. The glider can be deployed either from Wainwright or a ship of opportunity in the region. 34 The glider will then traverse along Barrow Canyon and head toward the Beaufort shelf-break before being 35 recovered by a ship of opportunity or from a coastal vessel based on Barrow AK. This deployment has 36 similar logistical needs and necessary environmental conditions as the first option. The mission expected 37 mission duration is 2-3 weeks as well. 38 39 A third option is possible if there is a research vessel of opportunity that is doing a study in the northern 40 Chukchi Sea. The glider will then be able to conduct study of the Central Channel and Hanna Shoal regions 41 at significant distances away from the coast. This deployment and recovery will be conducted by the same 42 research vessel. A total of one ship day is requested for both deployment and recovery. If a deckhand is 43 available to help, then only one PI or technician from our team will need to be on board. 44 45 Discrete water samples will be collected after each deployment and before each recovery for calibration of 46 the chlorophyll a fluorometer during the pilot study. Sampling methods will vary depending on the type of 47 vessel used for glider operations. If a research vessel is available, samples will be collected using the CTD 48 rosette and filtered during the cruise. If not, we will use a handheld water sampler and filtrations will be 49 performed on land. 50

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Logistics Summary

51 FY2018: 52 For the main field season in FY2018, we will use a total of four gliders including three lithium equipped 53 ones for extended deployments. The three lithium gliders will be deployed from near Bering Strait and head 54 northward into the Chukchi Sea. Two of the lithium gliders will follow the less sampled Central Channel 55 transport pathway through the western side of Hanna Shoal, around the northern Chukchi Sea. From the 56 Chukchi Sea shelfbreak region north of Hanna Shoal, the gliders will then cut diagonally across Hanna 57 Shoal toward its southern side. The third lithium glider will follow the Alaskan Coastal Current pathway 58 all the way to Barrow Canyon. A fourth glider, equipped with the FIRe flourometer will be deployed on 59 two sequential 10 day missions near the research vessel’s sampling domain, ideally near Hanna Shoal and 60 Barrow Canyon. In the ideal scenario, all four gliders will be deployed from a research vessel and recovered 61 from the same research vessel. However, it is certainly possible to deploy and recover the lithium battery 62 gliders using vessels of opportunity or coastal vessels. The logistics of glider shipping and transport would 63 be a bit more complicated depending on the exact scenario. If all deployments and recoveries are conducted 64 on the same research vessel (8-10 glider-related ship operations), then a total of 2 ship days are requested 65 and requires one bunk space for one trained PI or technician, plus one additional berth for the ship-based 66 sampling described below. Lastly, it is possible to execute three of the four glider missions without research 67 vessel support. This would require deployment by coastal vessel Nome and recovery by coastal vessel at 68 Barrow. In this scenario, all three gliders would need to travel through Bering Strait which does increase 69 the operational risk for the gliders. 70 71 With the expected availability of a research vessel for other components of the NPRB program, we plan to 72 conduct ship-based sampling to validate and complement the glider sampling, with a focus on nutrient 73 concentrations and phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll a and particulate organic carbon/nitrogen). This 74 sampling will require deploying a CTD rosette to collect water from discrete depths at up to 100 stations 75 across multiple horizontal transects, many of which will be sampled in tandem by the gliders. While our 76 ideal sampling plan includes stations in the southern, central, and northern Chukchi Sea, exact station 77 locations are flexible based on the interests of other cruise participants. Our sampling plan is best suited for 78 a research cruise of approximately 4-6 weeks, but could be adapted for a shorter/longer cruise if necessary. 79 The desired time of year is during the summer ice melt season (late-June to early-August), since our glider 80 sampling plan is designed to follow the ice edge as the sea ice retreats. The use of an icebreaker is ideal to 81 sample the water column both beneath the ice and in open water. In the lab, we will require counter space 82 (10-15 feet) for two filtration racks, a fluorometer, and a drying oven as well as storage space for 83 consumable supplies, frozen nutrient samples (-20°C), and refrigerated chlorophyll a samples in acetone 84 (4°C, flammable). Since our primary sampling is glider-based, we would minimize our shipboard sampling 85 if another group conducts related measurements (e.g. nutrients, chlorophyll a) during the cruise. 86 Conversely, if there are no other phytoplankton measurements, we would increase our sampling efforts to 87 include analysis of phytoplankton community composition through microscopy and request one additional 88 berth (for a total of three) to make measurements over the 24-hour period each day. 89 90 Leverage of In-Kind Support for Logistics: 91 Besides the potential opportunity to share ship time with other funded project under the RFP, our team 92 currently do not have in-kind support for logistics such as ships. Both VIMS and Rutgers are providing the 93 required number of gliders to complete the proposed study including a number of advanced sensors and 94 platform enhancements. The team is certainly open to modifying the glider sampling scheme if fellow co- 95 PIs from other groups identify clear scientific need(s). 96 97 For the shipboard sampling, in-kind support from Rutgers University will provide necessary field 98 equipment, including a Turner Designs fluorometer, filtration racks, a vacuum pump and trap, and a drying 99 oven. Additional support may include the use of microscopes for assessments of community composition 100 and a discrete FIRe instrument for calibration of the glider sensor.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 1

PROJECT TITLE: Bio-physical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Donglai Gong - Virginia Institute of Marine Science - College of William & Mary category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support

start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the NPRB Funding 3,621 153,351 179,515 94,695 31,601 20,599 483,382 budget Other Support 263,963 narrative. TOTAL 3,621 153,351 179,515 94,695 31,601 20,599 747,345

1. Personnel Salaries 012,63740,57139,8139,7526,144108,917 89,886

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 05,0556,3695,5733,9012,45823,35626,566 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 2,485 10,263 13,522 5,536 5,536 5,536 42,878 0

4. Equipment 0102,4220 0 0 0102,42259,000

5. Supplies 05,0005,000 0 0 010,000 0

6. Contractual/Consultants 00000000

7. Other

02,00069,05619,3592,500 092,91535,292

Total Direct Costs 2,485 137,377 134,518 70,281 21,689 14,138 380,488 210,744

Indirect Costs 1,136 15,974 44,997 24,414 9,912 6,461 102,894 53,219

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 3,621 153,351 179,515 94,695 31,601 20,599 483,382 263,963 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - ORGANIZATION 2

PROJECT TITLE: Bio-physical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Travis Miles, Oscar Schofield, Kate Lowry - Rutgers University category breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the NPRB Funding 24,753 319,714 397,034 77,131 36,001 33,466 888,099 budget Other Support 501,000 narrative. TOTAL 24,753 319,714 397,034 77,131 36,001 33,466 1,389,099

1. Personnel Salaries 7,917 103,045 117,637 23,543 8,651 8,911 269,704

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 3,163 40,746 46,618 9,438 3,456 3,560 106,981 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 4,890 14,847 19,106 9,120 9,120 9,120 66,203

4. Equipment 0000000501,000

5. Supplies 011,0009,0000 0 020,000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0 0

7. Other 045,50075,50010,5002,0000133,500

Total Direct Costs 15,970 215,138 267,861 52,601 23,227 21,591 596,388 501,000

Indirect Costs 8,783 104,576 129,173 24,530 12,774 11,875 291,711

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 24,753 319,714 397,034 77,131 36,001 33,466 888,099 501,000 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

ARCTIC PROGRAM: BUDGET SUMMARY FORM - MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS

PROJECT TITLE: Bio-physical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea Annual cost PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Donglai Gong - Virginia Institute of Marine Science - College of William & Mary; Travis Miles, Oscar Schofield, Kate category Lowry - Rutgers University; ; breakdown for FUNDING SOURCE FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL Other Support start date through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 10/1 through 9/30 should be detailed in the NPRB Funding 28,374 473,065 576,549 171,826 67,602 54,065 1,371,481 budget narrative. Other Support 764,963 TOTAL 28,374 473,065 576,549 171,826 67,602 54,065 2,136,444

1. Personnel Salaries 7,917 115,682 158,208 63,356 18,403 15,055 378,621 89,886

2. Personnel Fringe Benefits 3,163 45,801 52,987 15,011 7,357 6,018 130,337 26,566 3. Travel (include 1 trip to AMSS meeting in Anchorage each year plus for the year following project conclusion) 7,375 25,110 32,628 14,656 14,656 14,656 109,081 0

4. Equipment 0102,4220 0 0 0102,422560,000

5. Supplies 016,00014,0000 0 030,0000

6. Contractual/Consultants 0000000 0

7. Other

047,500144,55629,8594,5000226,41535,292

Total Direct Costs 18,455 352,515 402,379 122,882 44,916 35,729 976,876 711,744

Indirect Costs 9,919 120,550 174,170 48,944 22,686 18,336 394,605 53,219

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 28,374 473,065 576,549 171,826 67,602 54,065 1,371,481 764,963 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Project Title: Bio-physical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by Virginia Institute of Marine Science for this project is: $483,382

1. Personnel/Salaries:

FY2016: no salary support requested. PI Gong will attend the logistics planning meeting to coordinate with collaborators to develop the overall project science plan. PI Gong will have 1 month of institutional support from VIMS for the project.

FY2017: 1.5 months support is requested for PI Gong, VIMS will match the NPRB support for PI Gong with 1.5 months of institutional support. PI Gong will help to plan, prepare and execute the proposed pilot field work in collaboration with co-PIs at Rutgers University. PI Gong will also attend AMSS meeting and planning meeting. Additional support from other funded project will leveraged for new sensor integration, testing, and calibrations. VIMS will provide first year support for PI Gong’s graduate student who will mainly focus on course work in in FY2017.

FY2018: 1.8 months support is requested for PI Gong and 12 months for a graduate assistant. VIMS will match the NPRB support for PI Gong with 1.8 months of institutional support. PI Gong will be responsible for coordinating the overall fieldwork with colleagues from Rutgers University for the main field season. PI Gong will also assist with glider and anticipated shipboard operations. Gong’s graduate student will assist with analysis of data from 2017 as well as mission planning and glider operation for 2018.

FY2019: 1.5 months support is requested for PI Gong and 12 months for a graduate assistant. VIMS will match the NPRB support for PI Gong with 1.5 months of institutional support. This is the main analysis year with PI Gong responsible for the analysis of 2018 glider hydrographic data. Gong’s graduate student will focus on completing the analysis of 2017 data and compare with new results from 2018. The graduate student will also focus on completing his/her graduate degree and published the initial results in FY2019.

FY2020: 1 month support for PI Gong is requested for PI Gong. VIMS will match the NPRB support for PI Gong with 1 month of institutional support. PI Gong will focus on data analysis and synthesis with co-PIs. An in-depth publication focused on the physical oceanographic components of the two field seasons is planned. PI Gong will also attend the AMSS and PI meetings.

FY2021: 0.6 month support for PI Gong is requested for PI Gong. VIMS will match the NPRB support for PI Gong with 0.6 month of institutional support. PI Gong will participate in the final set of synthesis publications and present final project results at the AMSS and PI meetings.

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: The fringe rate at VIMS is 40% for the PI.

Personnel Expense Details:

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

3. Travel:

Year 1: Project kickoff meeting (PI Gong): $2,485 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($300/night x 4): $1200 Meals ($101 per diem x 5): $505 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY16 $2,485 (cell B20 in budget summary) Year 2: Project logistics meeting (PI Gong): $1,468 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 3): $360 Meals ($82 per diem x 4): $328 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Annual PI meeting (PI Gong & graduate student): $3664 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (PI Gong): $1872 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 5): $600 Meals ($82 per diem x 6): $492 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Pilot Field Season (PI Gong): $3259 Flight (Richmond to Dutch Harbor): $2200 Lodging ($135/night x 5): $675 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Meals ($64 per diem x 6): $384 Total travel request in FY17 $10,263 (cell C20 in budget summary) Year 3: Annual PI meeting (PI Gong & graduate student): $3664 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (PI Gong): $1872 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 5): $600 Meals ($82 per diem x 6): $492 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Pilot Field Season (PI Gong): $6518 Flight (Richmond to Dutch Harbor/Barrow x 2 trips): $4400 Lodging ($135/night x 5 x 2 trips): $1350 Meals ($64 per diem x 6 x 2 trips): $768 Total travel request in FY18 $13,522

Year 4: Annual PI meeting (PI Gong & graduate student): $3664 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (PI Gong): $1872 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 5): $600 Meals ($82 per diem x 6): $492 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY19 $5,536

Year 5: Annual PI meeting (PI Gong & graduate student): $3664 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (PI Gong): $1872 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 5): $600 Meals ($82 per diem x 6): $492 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY20 $5,536

Year 6: Annual PI meeting (PI Gong & graduate student): $3664 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (PI Gong): $1872 Flight (Richmond to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 5): $600 Meals ($82 per diem x 6): $492 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY21 $5,536

4. Equipment:

Year 1: Total equipment funds request in FY16 $0 (cell B21 in budget summary) Year 2: Glider SUNA Nitrate Sensor $52,922 Glider lithium batteries (for 3 glider missions) $49,500 Total equipment funds request in FY17 $102,422 (cell C21 in budget summary) Year 3: Total equipment funds request in FY18 $0

Year 4: Total equipment funds request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total equipment funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total equipment funds request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies:

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0 (cell B22 in budget summary) Year 2: Laptop computer $3,000 Lab supplies including tools & softwares $2,000 Total supplies funds request in FY17 $5,000 (cell C22 in budget summary) Year 3: Glider one time consumables for 2 gliders $2,500 Glider parts repair/replacment $2,500 Total supplies funds request in FY18 $5,000

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants:

Total Contractual funds requested is $0 for all years.

7. Other:

Total other funds requested is $0 in FY16.

Total other funds requested is $2,000 in FY17: Iridium communication: $2,000

Total other funds requested is $48,282 in FY18: Glider shipping round trip (2 gliders): $13,000 Glider & operator iridium communication (2 gliders): $20,000 Graduate student tuition: $15,292

Total other funds requested is $18,556 in FY19: Graduate student tuition: $16,056 Publication fee: $2,500

Total other funds requested is $2,500 in FY20: Publication fee: $2,500

Total other funds requested is $0 in FY21.

8. Indirect Costs:

The VIMS negotiated indirect rate is 45.7%. The indirect rate is not charged on all equipment over $5000, student tuition, and sub-contract amounts over the first $25,000.

Total indirect funds requested is $1,136 in FY16, $15,974 in FY17, $44,997 in FY18, $24,414 in FY19, $9,912 in FY20, and $6,461 in FY21.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Virginia Institute of Marine Science:

Total Other Support provided by Virginia Institute of Marine Science for this project is: $263,963

For FY2016 the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) will provide 1 month of project personnel support for PI Gong. For FY2017-2021, VIMS will match the personnel support for PI Gong for the proposed project on a 1 to 1 ratio up to a maximum of 2 months per year. VIMS will also provide full support (tuition and stipend) for the project’s graduate student for FY2017.

VIMS will supply two Slocum G2 gliders for use for FY2018. Each glider’s replacement value exceeds $180,000. On a per mission bases, the equipment cost is $10,000 for mission using alkaline battery and $20,000 for mission using lithium battery. VIMS will cover half of the per mission cost for the usage two lithium equipped gliders.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

The gliders to be used for this project will be equipped with an Imagenex echo sounder ($24,000) and an extended capacity buoyancy pump ($35,000) that is acquired for the BOEM’s Marine Arctic Ecosystem Study project. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Arctic Program Budget Narrative – Rutgers University

Project Title: Bio-physical evolution of Pacific waters in the Chukchi Sea

Total Amount requested by Rutgers University for this project is: $888,099

1. Personnel/Salaries:

FY2016: 1 month salary support requested by PI Miles, 0.5 months for Postdoc Kate Lowry, and no support for CO-PI Schofield. PI Miles and Postdoc Lowry will attend the project kickoff meeting

FY2017: 6 months support is requested for PI Miles, 1 month support for each Glider Pilot, Glider Technician, and Software Technician and 12 months postdoctoral support is requested for Lowry. PI Miles will attend the project logistics meeting, PI Miles, Co-PI Schofield, and postdoc Lowry will attend the annual PI meeting and Miles and Lowry will also attend AMSS meeting. PI Miles will be responsible for coordinating field work including glider prep with Glider Pilot and Technician, glider deployment and recovery, and data analysis alongside software technician and postdoc Lowry.

FY2018: 6 months support is requested for PI Miles, 2 months support for each Glider Pilot and Glider Technician, 1 month support for Software Technician, and 12 months postdoctoral support for Lowry. PI Miles will attend the project logistics meeting. PI Miles, Co-PI Schofield, and Postdoc Lowry will attend the annual PI meeting and Miles and Lowry will also attend the AMSS meeting. PI Miles will be responsible for coordinating field-work including glider prep with Glider Pilot and Technician, glider deployment and recovery, and data analysis alongside software technician and postdoc Lowry. Postdoc Lowry will be responsible for collecting in situ water sampling, data analysis, associated lab work, and glider data analysis.

FY2019: 3 months support is requested for PI Miles, and 1 month is required for postdoc Lowry. This is the main analysis year with PI Miles, Co-PI Schofield, and postdoc Lowry will be responsible for the analysis of 2018 glider hydrographic data alongside VIMS colleagues. Initial collaborative publications will be developed. The Annual PI meeting will be attended by Miles, Schofield and Lowry. The AMSS meeting will be attended by Miles and Lowry.

FY2020: 1 month support is requested for PI Miles and 0.5 months for postdoc Lowry. PI Miles, Co- PI Schofield, and Lowry will focus on data analysis and synthesis with Co-PIs. An in-depth publication focused on the physical oceanographic components of the two field seasons is planned. The Annual PI meeting will be attended by Miles, Schofield and Lowry. The AMSS meeting will be attended by Miles and Lowry.

FY2021: 1 month support is requested for PI Miles, no support required for Co-I Schofield and 0.5 months for postdoc Lowry. PI Miles, Co-PI Schofield, and postdoc Lowry will participate in the final set of synthesis publications. The Annual PI meeting will be attended by Miles, Schofield and Lowry. The AMSS meeting will be attended by Miles and Lowry

2. Personnel/Fringe Benefits: The fringe rate at Rutgers is 40.43% except for the Post Doc which is 38.60%.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Personnel Expense Details:

3. Travel:

Year 1: Project kickoff meeting (Miles & Lowry): $4,890 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($300/night x 4 x 2 people): $2400 Meals ($101 per diem x 5 x 2 people): $1010 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY16 $4,890

Year 2: Project logistics meeting (Miles): $1,468 Flight (Newark to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 3): $360 Meals ($82 per diem x 4): $328 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Annual PI meeting (Miles, Schofield, Lowry): $5456 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 3 people): $2100 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 3 people): $1800 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 3 people): $1476 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Taxi ($40 x 3): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Miles & Lowry): $3664 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Pilot Field Season (PI Miles): $4259 Flight (Newark to Dutch Harbor): $2200 Lodging ($135/night x 5): $675 Meals ($64 per diem x 6): $384 Car Rental ($200/day x 5) $1000 Total travel request in FY17 $14,847

Year 3: Project logistics meeting (Miles): $1,468 Flight (Newark to Anchorage): $700 Lodging ($120/night x 3): $360 Meals ($82 per diem x 4): $328 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Annual PI meeting (Miles, Schofield, Lowry): $5456 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 3 people): $2100 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 3 people): $1800 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 3 people): $1476 Taxi ($40 x 3): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Miles & Lowry): $3664 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Field Season (Miles & Lowry): $8518 Flight (Newark to Dutch Harbor/Barrow x 2 trips): $4400 Lodging ($135/night x 5 x 2 trips): $1350 Meals ($64 per diem x 6 x 2 trips): $768 Car Rental ($200/day x 5 x 2 trips) $2000 Total travel request in FY18 $19,106

Year 4: Annual PI meeting (Miles, Schofield, Lowry): $5456 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 3 people): $2100 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 3 people): $1800 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 3 people): $1476 Taxi ($40 x 3): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Miles & Lowry): $3664 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY19 $9120

Year 5: Annual PI meeting (Miles, Schofield, Lowry): $5456 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 3 people): $2100 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 3 people): $1800 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 3 people): $1476 Taxi ($40 x 3): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Miles & Lowry): $3664 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY20 $9120

Year 6: Annual PI meeting (Miles, Schofield, Lowry): $5456 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 3 people): $2100 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 3 people): $1800 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 3 people): $1476 Taxi ($40 x 3): $80 Alaska Marine Science Symposium (Miles & Lowry): $3664 Flight (Newark to Anchorage x 2 people): $1400 Lodging ($120/night x 5 x 2 people): $1200 Meals ($82 per diem x 6 x 2 people): $984 Taxi ($40 x 2): $80 Total travel request in FY21 $9120

4. Equipment:

Year 1: Total equipment funds request in FY16 $0 (cell B21 in budget summary) Year 2: Total equipment funds request in FY17 $0 (cell C21 in budget summary) Year 3: Total equipment funds request in FY18 $0

Year 4: Total equipment funds request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total equipment funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total equipment funds request in FY21 $0

5. Supplies:

Year 1: Total supplies funds request in FY16 $0

Year 2: Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Glider Alkaline batteries (for 2 glider missions) $5,000 Laptop computer $2,500 Chemicals and Lab Supplies $1,500 Glider supplies including tools & consumables $2,000 Total supplies funds request in FY17 $11,000

Year 3: Glider Alkaline batteries (for 1 glider mission) $2.500 Chemicals and Lab Supplies $4,500 Glider supplies including tools & consumables $2,000 Total supplies funds request in FY18 $9,000

Year 4: Total supplies funds request in FY19 $0

Year 5: Total supplies funds request in FY20 $0

Year 6: Total supplies funds request in FY21 $0

6. Contractual/Consultants:

Total Contractual funds requested is $0 for all years.

7. Other:

Total other funds requested is $0 in FY16.

Total other funds requested is $45,500 in FY17: Glider shipping round trip (2 gliders): $13,500 Iridium communications (2 gliders 30 days): $7,000 Boat Rental (2 days) $10,000 Glider Calibration $5,000 Glider Insurance (2 gliders) $10,000

Total other funds requested is $75,500 in FY18: Glider shipping round trip (2 gliders): $13,500 Iridium communications (2 gliders 60 days): $14,000 Boat Rental (3 days) $15,000 Glider Repair & Maintenance $8,000 Glider Insurance (2 gliders) $10,000 Sample Processing $15,000

Total other funds requested is $10,500 in FY19: Glider Repair & Maintenance $8,000 Publication fee: $2,500

Total other funds requested is $2,000 in FY20: Publication fee: $2,000 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Program: Budget Narrative

Total other funds requested is $0 in FY21.

8. Indirect Costs:

The Rutgers negotiated indirect rate is 55% as per The Rutgers Federal Rate Agreement dated April 24, 2015. The indirect rate is not charged on boat rentals, equipment repair and maintenance and glider insurance.

Total indirect funds requested is $8,783 in FY16, $104,576 in FY17, $129,173 in FY18, $24,530 in FY19, $12,774 in FY20, and $11,875 in FY21.

Other Support/In kind Contributions for Rutgers University:

Total Other Support provided by Rutgers University for this project is: $501,000.

Rutgers will supply two Slocum gliders for use in both FY2017 and FY2018. Each glider’s replacement value exceeds $180,000. The gliders to be used for this project will be equipped with an integrated Nortek AD2CP current profiler ($50,000), an extended capacity buoyancy pump ($35,000), and 4 Wetlabs Eco- triplets ($14,000 x 4), which have been previously acquired. Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Donglai Gong Assistant Professor Phone: (804) 684-7529 Virginia Institute of Marine Science Fax: (804) 684-7250 College of William & Mary Email: [email protected] Gloucester Point, VA 23062-1346 Education 2010 Ph.D., Rutgers University, Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences 2004 M.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics 2001 B.S. and B.A., Rutgers University, Physics and Mathematics

Academic Appointments 2012 Assistant Professor, Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary 2012 Postdoctoral Investigator, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 2010 Postdoctoral Scholar, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 2005 Graduate Research Assistant, Rutgers University

Relevant Publications Gong, D. and Pickart, R.S., Summertime Circulation in the Eastern Chukchi Sea, Deep-Sea Research Part II, in press. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.02.006 Gong, D. and Pickart, R.S., Summertime Water Mass Transformation in the Eastern Chukchi Sea, Deep-Sea Research Part II, submitted. Rona, P., Guida, V., Scranton, M., Gong, D., Macelloni, L., Pierdomenico, M., Diercks, A., Asper, V. & Haag, S., Hudson Submarine Canyon Head Offshore New York and New Jersey: A Physical and Geochemical Investigation, submitted to Deep-Sea Research Part II, submitted. Wallace, E. J. and Gong, D., Decadal Variability in Temperature, Salinity, and Shelf Water Volume in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and Georges Bank from 1977 to 2013, in revision. Sipler, R. E., Gong, D., Baer, S., Sanderson, M. P., Mulholland, M., Frischer, M. E., and Bronk, D. A., Potential Contribution of Arctic Nitrogen Fixation to the Global N Budget, in prep. Xu, Yi, Chant, R., Gong, D., Castelao, R., Glenn, S., Schofield, O., Seasonal variability of chlorophyll a in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, Continental Shelf Research (2011), 31, 16. Gong, D., Kohut, J. T., and Glenn, S. M., Seasonal climatology of wind-driven circulation on the New Jersey Shelf, J. Geophys. Res. (2010), 115, C04006, doi:10.1029/2009JC005520 Schofield, O., Chant, R., Cahill, B., Castelao, R., Gong, D., Kahl, A., Kohut, J., Montes-Hugo, M., Ramadurai, R., Ramey, P., Xu, Y., Glenn, S., The Decadal View of the Mid-Atlantic Bight from the COOLroom: Is Our Coastal System Changing?, Progress in Oceanography (2008), 23(4), 108-117. Gong, D., Mesoscale Variability on the New Jersey Shelf: Effects of Topography, Seasons, Winds, and Offshore Forcing on Circulation, Hydrography, and Transport, Ph.D. Dissertation (2010).

Mentors and Advisor Postdoctoral Mentors: Robert S. Pickart (WHOI), Dr. Glen Gawarkiewicz (WHOI) Graduate Advisor: Scott M. Glenn (Rutgers University)

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Travis Miles, Research Associate Center for Ocean Observing Leadership Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 Phone: (848) 932-3293 Fax: (732) 932-8578 E-mail: [email protected]

Education 2014 Ph.D., Rutgers University - Physical and Biological Oceanography 2009 M.S., North Carolina State University (NCSU) - Physical Oceanography 2007 B.S., North Carolina State University – Marine Sciences and Meteorology

Academic Appointments 2014 Postdoctoral Research Associate, Rutgers University 2009 Graduate Research Assistant, Rutgers University 2007 Graduate Research Assistant, North Carolina State University

Relevant Publications Miles, T., G. Seroka, J. Kohut, O. Schofield, and S. Glenn (2015), Glider observations and modeling of sediment transport in Hurricane Sandy, J. Geophys. Res. Ocean.

Miles, T., Glenn, S, Schofield, O. (2013), Temporal and spatial variability in fall storm induced sediment resuspension on the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Continental Shelf Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2012.08.006

Miles, T., Lee, SH, Wahlin, A., Ha, HK, Schofield, O., Kim, TW, Assmann, K. Observations of the Dotson Ice Shelf outflow: Implications for the iron fertilization of the Amundsen Polynya. Deep Sea Research Part II, under revision.

Schofield, O., Miles, T. Alderkamp, AC, Lee, SH, Haskins, T., Rogalsky, E., Sipler, R., Sherrell, R., Yager, P., In situ phytoplankton distributions in the Amundsen Sea polynya measured by autonomous gliders. Elementa, accepted.

Saba, G. K., Fraser, W. R., Saba, V. S., Iannuzzi, R. A., Coleman, K. E., Doney, S. C., Ducklow, H. W., Martinson, D. G., Miles, T. N., Patterson-Fraser, D. L., Stammerjohn, S. E., Steinberg, D. K., and Schofield, O. (2014) Winter and spring controls on the summer food web of the coastal West Antarctic Peninsula. Nature Communications.

Mentors and Students Postdoctoral Mentors[2]: Rich Dunk (Rutgers), Scott Glenn (Rutgers) PhD Advisor [2]: Scott M. Glenn (Rutgers), Oscar Schofield (Rutgers) MSc Advisor [1]: Ruoying He (NCSU) Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

Kate E. Lowry Ph.D. Candidate Tel: (650) 736-0688 Department of Earth System Science 473 Via Ortega, Room 140 School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences Stanford, CA 94305 Stanford University Email: [email protected]

Education Ph.D., Environmental Earth System Science (EESS), Stanford University, Expected 2016 Dissertation: The influence of sea ice and hydrography on the timing, distribution, and intensity of phytoplankton blooms in the rapidly changing Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean) Advisor: Professor Kevin R. Arrigo M.S., Earth Systems Program, Stanford University, 2011 B.Sc., Earth Systems Program - Oceans Track, Stanford University, 2011

Relevant Research Experience Ocean Biogeochemistry Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Research Assistant, June 2009 – present Combined field and satellite remote sensing techniques to study impacts of climate change on phytoplankton in polar marine ecosystems; Led teams of graduate and undergraduate students during oceanographic field expeditions in the Arctic and Antarctic; Participated in seven polar research cruises

Selected Awards (5 of 20 total) • Gerald J. Lieberman Fellowship, Stanford University, 2015 – present • NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, 2011 – present • Arctic Service Medal, United States Coast Guard, 2010, 2011, 2014 • NASA Group Achievement Award for ICESCAPE, 2012 • Antarctic Service Medal, National Science Foundation, 2011

Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications (7 of 14 total) [7] Lowry, K. E., R. S. Pickart, M. M. Mills, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, N. R. Bates, K. R. Arrigo, 2015. The influence of winter water on phytoplankton blooms in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res. Part II. in press. [6] Brown, Z. W., K. E. Lowry, M. A. Palmer, G. L. van Dijken, M. M. Mills, R. S. Pickart, K. R. Arrigo, 2015. Characterizing the subsurface Chlorophyll a maximum in the Chukchi Sea. Deep- Sea Res. Part II. in press. [5] Mills, M. M., Z. W. Brown, K. E. Lowry, G. L. van Dijken, S. Becker, S. Pal, C. Benitez-Nelson, A. - 3- L. Strong, K. R. Arrigo, 2015. Impacts of low phytoplankton NO3 : PO4 utilization ratios over the Chukchi Shelf, Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. Part II. in press. [4] Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, et al., 2014. Phytoplankton blooms beneath the sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res. Part II. 105: 1-16. [3] Lowry, K. E., G. L. van Dijken, K. R. Arrigo, 2014. Evidence of under-ice phytoplankton blooms in the Chukchi Sea from 1998 to 2012. Deep-Sea Res. Part II. 105: 105-117. [2] Palmer, M. A., G. L. van Dijken, B. G. Mitchell, B. J. Seegers, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, K. R. Arrigo, 2013. Light and nutrient control of photosynthesis in natural phytoplankton populations from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Arctic Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58(6): 2185-2205. [1] Arrigo, K. R., D. K. Perovich, R. S. Pickart, Z. W. Brown, G. L. van Dijken, K. E. Lowry, M. M. Mills, M. A. Palmer, W. M. Balch, N. R. Bates, C. R. Benitez-Nelson, E. Brownlee, K. E. Frey, S. R. Laney, J. Mathis, A. Matsuoka, B. G. Mitchell, G. W. K. Moore, R. A. Reynolds, H. M. Sosik, J. H. Swift, 2012. Massive phytoplankton blooms under Arctic sea ice, Science 336: 1408.

Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong

OSCAR M. SCHOFIELD Center for Ocean Observing Leadership Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 (TEL) 732-586-3077 (FAX) 732.932.8578 [email protected] http://rucool.marine.rutgers.edu

A. PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION. Undergraduate Institution: University of California, Santa Barbara, Biology, 1983-1987 Graduate Institution: University of California, Santa Barbara, PhD Biology, 1989-1993 Postdoctoral Institutions: University of California, Santa Barbara, 1993 Postdoctoral Institutions: Agricultural Research Service, New Orleans, 1994 B. APPOINTMENTS 2012-Present, Chairman of Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, 1995-Present Assistant- Associate-Full Professor, Rutgers University, 2001-Present Adjunct Professor, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 2000-Present Member of Rutgers Ocean Systems Engineering Center 1999- Present Member of Rutgers Environmental Biophysics and Molecular Biology Program, 1999-2014 Co-Director of the Coastal Ocean Observation Laboratory, 1995-2014 Adjunct Research Scientist, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL

C. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS (OUT OF OVER 180 PUBS) (**GRADUATE STUDENT OR POST DOC) Steinberg, D. M., Ruck, K. E., Gleiber, M., Garzio, L., Cope, J. S., Bernard, K. S., Stammerjohn, S. E., Schofield, O., Quetin, L. B., Ross, R. M. 2015. Long-term (1993-2013) changes in macrozooplankton off the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Deep Sea Research II. doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2015.02.009 **Alderkamp, A-C., van Dijken, G. L., Lowry, K. E., Connelly, T. L., Lagerstrom, M., Sherrell, R. M., Haskins, T., Rogalsky, E., Schofield, O., Stammerjohn, S. E., Yager, P. L., Arrigo, K. R. 2015. Iron availability drives phytoplankton photosynthesis rates in the Amundsen Sea Polynya, Antarctica. Elementa. doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000043 **Miles, T., Seroka, G., Kohut J., Schofield O., Glenn S. 2015. Glider observations and modeling of sediment transport in Hurricane Sandy. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans doi:10.1002/2014JC010474. **Cavnaugh, M., Abdala, F. N., Ducklow, H., Glover, D., Fraser, W., Martinson, D., Stammerjohn, S., Schofield, O., Doney, S. 2015. Effect of continental shelf canyons on phytoplankton biomass and community composition along the western Antarctic Peninsula. Marine Ecology Progress Series. doi: 10.3354/MEPS11189 **Saba, G. K., Fraser, W. R., Saba, V. S., Iannuzzi, R. A., Coleman, K. E., Doney, S. C., Ducklow, H. W., Martinson, D. G., Miles, T. N., Patterson-Fraser, D. L., Stammerjohn, S. E., Steinberg, D. K., Schofield, O. 2014. Winter and spring controls on the summer food web of the coastal West Antarctic Peninsula. Nature Communications 5: 4318 doi: 10.1038/ncomms5318 Schofield, O., Moline, M. A., Cahill, B., Frazer, T., Kahl, A., Oliver, M., Reinfelder, J., Glenn, S., Chant, R. 2013. Phytoplankton productivity in a turbid buoyant coastal plume. Continental Shelf Research. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.02.005 Schofield, O., Glenn, S. M., Moline, M. A. 2013. The robot ocean network. American Scientist 101: 434-441. Schofield, O., Ducklow, H., Bernard, K., Doney, S., Fraser-Patterson, D., Gorman, K., Martinson, D., Meredith, M., Saba, G., Stammerjohn, S., Steinberg, D., Fraser, W. 2013. Penguin biogeography along the West Antarctic Peninsula: Testing the canyon hypothesis with Palmer LTER observations. Oceanography 26(3): 78-80. Schofield, O., Ducklow, H. W., Martinson, D. G., Meredith, M. P., Moline, M. A., Fraser, W. R. 2010. How do polar marine ecosystems respond to rapid climate change? Science 328, 1520 DOI: 10.1126/science.1185779 **Montes-Hugo M., Doney, S., Ducklow, H., Fraser, W., Martinson, D., Stammerjohn, S., Schofield, O. 2009. Climate induced along-shelf changes in phytoplankton communities of West Antarctic Peninsula. Science RE1164533/CJH

D. SELECTED SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES 1) 2007-2011 Board of Directors of the Canadian “Ocean Networks Canada” 2) 2009-2011 National Research Council Member for the Committee of “Ocean Infrastructure for the year 2030” 3) 2012-2015 Co-Chair of Scientific Steering Committee of the International Southern Ocean Observing System, 4) 2012 Chair, Science Review Committee of Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Science Center 5) 2014-2015 National Research Council Advisory Committee on “Developing a Strategic Vision and Implementation Plan for the U.S. Antarctic Program”

1 Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong Arctic Pre-proposal 3.25-Gong