Sustained Armhook squid fishery


The first Armhook squid (Berryteuthis magister) fishery permit in Alaska was issued this year, 2011. Market squid commercial fishery implementation has been sporadic in the past.

Since then, the presence of squid fisheries in Alaska has been sporadic. The recently implemented squid fishery in Ketchikan is largely unmanaged and without further research we won’t understand how squid will react to a consistent harvest.

Information required to implement an adequate management plan is missing in many cases. In order to put a decent plan into place, we would need more information about squid distribution, size, and behavior. Information regarding how squid population would react to environmental changes, such as rising ocean temperature and ocean acidification is needed. One possible way we could learn more about the distribution of squid is the use of acoustic assessment of squid stock. Using this method, sonar would be used to great effect to locate and document specific squid species.

Currently, atmospheric CO2 content is rising at ~0.5% per year, and pH content of the world ocean is falling. It is projected to fall between 0.3 and 0.4 pH units by the end of the century. It has been suggested that this will likely result in a rise in squid populations in Alaska (Fabry et al, 2007).


In 2011, the first commercial permit in Southeast Alaska for the Armhook squid (Berryteuthis magister) (figure 1) was issued to fishermen outside of Ketchikan. Several permits have been issued in similar areas for the market squid (Loligo opalescens) but there has not been a consistent fishery or catch. Although the squid fishery in Alaska is just emerging it has been a consistent and successful fishery in California for over 100 years, with general increase in landings per vessel over the past 10 years (figure 2). We believe, with additional research and knowledge about squid behavior, that a successful fishery could also be implemented in Alaska. Although California has a productive fishery, there is a wide range of research needed before a large scale Alaskan fishery can be put in place. For example, much remains unknown about their diet, distribution, and overall effects on the SoutheastAlaska ecosystem. The rising ocean temperature and ocean acidification could lead to a rising squid population in Alaska. This will happen as squid migrate north in search of cooler waters.

In order to develop a stable fishery in Southeast Alaska, we need to look further into the research that California used to in managing their fishery. Such as, what boats were used? Were divers deployed? And what traps were set? By looking at California’s fishery, we can improve our own by learning from their advances and their mistakes.

To propose that there could be a consistent fishery in Southeast Alaska, we have to analyze California’s increase and Japan’s decrease in fishery income. When comparing Japan’s fishery and California’s the differences are substantial. Japan used their resources to the point where their fishery collapsed, whereas California has succeeded in maintaining a sustainable fishery.

Squid biology

Armhook squid can live up to 4 years. spending most of their life in a juvenile phase, maturing late in life, spawning once and then dying. Male armhook squid grow slower, but reach maturation earlier than their female counter parts (Ormseth and Spital, 2010)

Armhook squid can be found from southern Japan, throughout the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska and extend south to the U.S. West coast as far as southern Oregon. (Roper et al. 1984). The distribution of squid bycatch in AK from pelagic and benthic fisheries mostly occur along the shelf break and in deeper waters and on the south end of Kodiak Island (figure 3). There are many species of marine life in these areas which rely on squid as prey as well as a wide variety of species consumed by the squid themselves.

The primary predators of squid in the Gulf of Alaska are salmon, accounting for about half of squid mortality. Another 14% can be attributed to marine mammals such as sperm whales. Combined, the primary groundfish predators of squid (sablefish, pollock, and grenadiers) account for another 10%. A detailed view of squid mortality sources can be seen in figure 4 (Ormseth and Spital, 2010).

The diet of squid in the Gulf of Alaska is dominated by pelagic zooplankton, such as euphausiids and copepods (figure 5). Based on this assessment, squid can be estimated at consuming one to five million metric tons of zooplankton annually. Fish are also thought to account for a small portion of their diet. As much as one million metric tons are consumed annually. Armhook squid eat larger prey such as this by ripping them apart with their beak while shoving it into their mouths with their 8 arms. Their beak, which is used for feeding is very sharp and tough, made out of chitin, the same material as human fingernails. Indigestible beaks have been found in the stomachs of captured whales.

The Armhook squid (Berryteuthis anonychus) is most commonly found in subarctic waters in the north pacific, especially off the continental shelf. They feed off of copepods most often. Since we know that’s what they are eating, we have to be careful on the increasing numbers of squid because of the direct competition between juvenile salmon for food. Which as

a result could damage the amount of salmon we would have in Alaska and their fisheries. We can also include since the copepods are highly seasonal in the spring and all through late summer,

that the Armhook squid would have an abundance of prey to feed on. Although coming into the fall and through the winter the copepods start to die off and there is a great amount of decrease in their numbers. We can imagine that the Armhook squid will either move somewhere else for the seasonal decrease or die off as well. Research on the subject of squid migration and foraging behavior is needed in order to know how the Armhook squid is directly affected.

Research needed

The more we look into the possibility of a sustainable Armhook squid fishery, the more research is needed. From basic knowledge regarding their diet and general distribution, to more comprehensive information regarding how they would react to rising ocean temperature and increasing ocean acidification, much is still unknown.

Perhaps the most basic pieces of information needed are the ones regarding basic biology and ecosystem interaction of the squids in question. In order to be confident in knowing how implementing a fishery for these squid, one would need to know what other species would be affected when the population of Armhook squid is reduced in the region of the ocean in question.

One would also need to know what species are being affected, and what their current populations are, as well as what their future populations are likely to be. The reproduction rate of the Armhook squid still needs to be researched. Before harvesting the Armhook squid knowing how they would react to the impact on their population would need to be known.

Based on what we have observed with other squid species, we can safely assume that the Armhook squid will adapt fairly well to rising ocean temperature and increased ocean CO2 levels. Knowing how their prey species will adapt is still needed. If their prey species is going to be significantly negatively affected one would need to be more conservative in how they interact with the squid population.

We have found that the presence of Armhook squid is most prevalent in subarctic waters in the north Pacific. More specifically than that, however, not much is known, and we have little information about their migratory patterns. Costs in finding this information could be reduced by including input from fishermen happening upon these squid. Estimating populations and distributions of squid using sonar has also been found plausible. This information is needed in implementing a fishery the area.

Acoustic Assessment of squid

A significant amount of information would need to be collected if acoustic assessment is to be put into place. Population densities would need to be collected from many different locations, and at varied distances from the shore. Additionally, because squid migrate vertically in the water column throughout the day, data would have to be collected from varied depths, and at regular intervals throughout the day.

Acoustic assessment and the use of sonar technology could be used to estimate squid stock populations. The main instrument used is the echo-sounder, which consists of the transmitter, the transducer, the receiver, and the display. The transducer converts a voltage pulse produced by the transmitter into a pulse of sound. The pulses of sound travel through the water and bounce off objects, returning to the transducer. These echoes are received by transducer and are converted back into electrical pulses. These can then be seen on the display. This data can beconverted into a graphical format to easily present the information (figure 6) (Starr and Thorne, 1998).

Foreseeable problems in implementing this technology relate to its inability to return trustworthy information from near bottom and near surface waters. Use of acoustic assessment may also be limited in shallow waters. The sea surface and bottom are both strong reflectors of acoustic energy, and reading from near the surface would be influenced by wave shape and by movement of the boat carrying the equipment (Starr and Thorne, 1998).

The equipment needed for acoustic assessment of squid populations would extend past the equipment described above. For example, boats would be necessary to carry out usage of this equipment. However, it is possible that costs could be reduced if commercial fishing boats are equipped with this technology, and scientist are allowed to collect data during already scheduled trips.

The usability and convenience of using acoustic assessment is evident, but viability of using sonar to estimate squid populations may still seem questionable. However using this method has shown to be surprisingly accurate. By classifying signal patterns, accuracy in distinguishing between specific species can be increased. Using pattern classifiers, this technology has been proved to be more accurate in identification between cod capelin and mackerel than local fishermen of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It can also distinguish between specific species of squid. Presumably, the technology could be optimized for similar use with squid. This method also allows for the rapid survey of large areas and process large amounts of information in real time. (Starr and Thorne, 1998)

The essential position of squid within North Pacific pelagic ecosystems, combined with the limited knowledge of the abundance, distribution, and biology of many squid species in the area, make squid a good candidate for management distinct from that applied to other species (Ormseth and Spital, 2010)

Effects of Climate Change

Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising today at a rate of ~0.5% year-1, and over the last 250 years CO2 levels have risen almost 40%. The world ocean’s pH level is projected to fall between 0.3 and 0.4 pH units by the end of the century. It is clear that Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 levels and rising ocean acidification have affected many ecosystems world- wide. Ocean acidification is thought to depress metabolic rates by 31% and activity levels by

45% in the jumbo squid Dosidicus gigas (Fabry et al, 2007). However, much is still unknown about the effects of ocean acidification and rising ocean temperatures on the Armhook, or Commander squid Berryteuthis magister or the Market squid Loligo opalescens. Surprisingly, there is reason to believe that rising ocean temperature could be beneficial to squid in general, because of their fast growth rates, rapid rates of turnover at the population level. This allows them to respond very quickly to environmental changes. However information of this nature on the Armhook and market squid specifically is lacking. In order to formulate a management plan which one could be at all confident in implementing, we would need a significant amount of

additional information on the Armhook squid and how they will react to further changes in ocean acidity and temperature. Would the population of these squids increase in Alaska with continued ocean acidification, and if so how would it affect the size and/or well-being of the individual and the ecosystem?

Management Plan

In our fishery, the maximum allowable harvest (MAH) would be 10 tons, or 4,000 individual squid at 5 pounds. Permits would be issued for 2,000 pounds until the MAH was reached. If someone harvested 2,000 pounds, they would be allowed another permit until the MAH was reached. Even if this plan was successful, however, further research and a more detailed management plan would be necessary before a possible increase in harvest levels (Walker, pers. comm. 2011). As with most management plans, it would be reevaluated and adjusted each year as continued research brings new information on the overall impacts and implications of the fishery on Southeast Alaska.


Several attempts have been made to start a squid fishery is Southeast Alaska. While none of them have been successful, personal use catch is becoming more common in that area, and the market value of squid is rising. There are already squid fisheries present in the western pacific and Russia, and other nations have already fished successfully in Alaskan waters. Squid are also caught as bycatch in large numbers in the Pollock trawl fishery.

As the world ocean’s CO2 levels and temperatures continue to increase, squid may be forced to move to more temperate and/or subarctic waters. This would likely increase the squid population in Alaska. Rising squid populations could change the ecosystem dynamics, this could warrant a more rigorous fishery management plan. Not much is known about the squid population in Southeast Alaska, mainly due to the absence of a major bottom fishery, where most of the information has come from. Therefore, Fish and Game surveys would be focused there, while data from other parts of the state would come more heavily from observations made about fishery bycatch.


  1. Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., & Feely, R. A. (2009). Ocean acidification: The other CO(2) problem. Annual Review of Marine Science, 1(3), 169-192.
  2. Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432.
  3. Jefferts, K., Burczynski, J., & Pearcy, W. G. (2011). Acoustical assessment of squid (Loligo opalescens) off the central Oregon coast [Abstract]. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44(6). doi: 10.1139/f87-149
  4. Kubodera, Tsunemi. 2009. Berryteuthis magister (Berry, 1913). Commander squid. Version 12
  5. August 2009. in The Tree of Life Web Project,
  6. Ormseth, Olav & Spital, Cliff. 2010. Gulf of Alaska Squids. National Marine Fisheries Science Center. 18a. 663-694.
  7. Pecl, G., & Jackson, G. 2008. The potential impacts of climate change on inshore squid: biology, ecology and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 18(4), 373-385. doi: 10.1007/s11160-007-9077-3
  8. Roper, C.F.E., M.J. Sweeney, and C.E. Nauen. 1984. FAO Species Catalogue Vol. 3, Cephalopods of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol 3.
  9. Starr, R.M. and R.E. Thorne. 1998. Acoustic assessment of squid stocks. pp. 181-198 in: P.G.
  10. Rodhouse, E.G. Dawe, and R.K. O’Dor (eds.): Squid recruitment dynamics: the genus Illex as a model, the commercial Illex species and influences on variability. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 376. Rome, Italy.
  11. State of California Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game (Marine Region). 2005.
  12. Final Market Squid Fishery Management Plan. Los Alamitos, CA.
  13. Walker, Scott. 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commercial Fisheries Dept. 2030 Sea Level Dr #205, Ketchikan, AK 99901. (907)225-5195


The Effects of Sea Ice Volume on Algae in the Chukchi Sea


With the recent opening of the Northwest Passage above the Arctic Coast of the United States and Canada, increased ship traffic from shipping, research, and tourism will increase risk of ships running aground or becoming trapped within the ice in the Arctic Sea. We recognize this risk and propose that a heavy class be built for the United States Coast Guard, because our

current ice breaker fleet is small, consisting of only the medium icebreaker Healy and the recently refurbished heavy icebreaker Polar Star. A new icebreaker is necessary if the United States is to respond to emergencies in the Northwest Passage.


In recent years, the sea ice in the Arctic has been receding. As of September 2012, the amount of sea ice in the Arctic in terms of thickness and extent was at an all-time low, dropping from 4.5 million square kilometers to 3.5 million (Figure 1). This change in melting sea ice presents both disadvantages and advantages to the territories around the area. There are multiple disadvantages of the decrease in Arctic sea ice, one being that as the Arctic Sea ice level drops, habitats for species also drop. However, the melting sea ice can provide benefits to many countries that have coastlines in the Arctic such as Russia, Canada, and the U.S. As the sea ice melts, many Arctic shipping routes open—one of which is known as the Northwest Passage (Figure 2; Roach). The Northwest Passage could increase shipping opportunities along Arctic coastlines and serve as a faster, more efficient route by which ships can travel.

Shipping and tourism vessels must be able to navigate shifting sea ice safely. However, on the fringes of the Arctic ice cap, there are many icebergs and ice floes that pose danger to these ships. The primary threat to ships is the mobile ice, which could cause these ships to become trapped. An icebreaker would be needed to provide service to ships in need.

An icebreaker is a ship with the ability to navigate icy waters and clear paths for other ships. They are fairly large ships, at around 400 feet from bow to stern (O’Rourke). Most icebreakers last around 30 years before being refurbished or decommissioned (O’Rourke). There are two different methods of breaking ice: simply running through it or backing and ramming. Backing and ramming is a technique in which the ship backs up and rams the ice to break thicker sheets. Icebreakers are expensive and uncommon, but essential for Arctic navigation.

For our project, we propose that an icebreaker be built for use by the U.S. Coast Guard. The State of Alaska has shown interest in helping to fund this project, but they will not be solely responsible for finances. It is possible that funding could be acquired from many different parties who would be interested in contributing to a new icebreaker if it would benefit them in their Arctic operations, as was done with the Sikuliaq (Castellini). The vessel will be designed to break at least six feet of ice continuously and can be in service for 250 days at minimum so as to maintain a presence in Arctic waters throughout the year. The ship proposed should be maintainable by a crew of about 130, the size of the crew on former heavy icebreakers (O’Rourke). These aspects would greatly increase the ability of the Coast Guard to monitor and keep safe the Northwest Passage.


The Arctic sea ice is changing rapidly, and with this comes increased traffic through Arctic regions (DeMarban). Shipping vessels, tourism, oil drilling, and exploration of the Arctic all add to this traffic (Humpert. and Raspotnik). Given the estimated high number of vessels to be passing through the area, the ability to run an effective search-and-rescue mission is critical. Vessels can encounter problems such as icing from sea spray, getting stuck in sea ice, and iceberg collisions. The sheer remoteness of the Northwest Passage also poses a problem, since rescue times could be significantly slower if the passage was frozen (Humpert, and Raspotnik). The U.S. must increase their current Arctic navigational capabilities in order to manage the route. As of now, with only one functioning medium-power icebreaker, we are currently unable to do so.

Since traffic in the Arctic region is sure to exponentially increase in the years to come, we must match that with an increased number of icebreakers. A rise to 1.5 million tons of cargo has been predicted to pass through the Northwest Passage in the next year (Humpert, and Raspotnik). That number is expected to increase to 40 million tons by 2021, thirty times what it is today (Koranyi). With more shipping vessels going through the Arctic waters, more will be sailing near Alaska (CITE). Traffic in the Arctic Ocean will not only grow due to shipping vessels, but also because of tourism and resource development (DeMarban). Another factor to consider is that as of this year, over 1,000 vessels pass through the Bering Strait each summer, according to Rear Adm. Thomas P. Ostelo, commander of the Coast Guard in Alaska (Bellingston).

Traffic through the Northwest Passage is going to increase greatly in the near future. In order to ensure the safety of Arctic vessels, we must build at least one icebreaker, which will allow us to easily navigate Arctic waters. With only the medium sized Healy in working condition, the United States Coast Guard is currently not capable of responding quickly to an emergency in the Arctic.

Icebreakers in the United States

Currently, the nation is in possession of two functional icebreakers: one heavy (the Polar Star) and one medium (the Healy), but only the Healy is currently in operation. There are two others in the country that are privately owned (by the NSF and Shell), but neither can be heavily relied upon to aid in an emergency, as they are both light icebreakers (United States Coast Guard). Other Arctic countries, such Russia and Canada, have upwards of 15 icebreakers, allowing them much more control over Arctic operations. This small number of icebreaking ships has caused the Coast Guard to be unable to fulfill its Arctic missions: to patrol the Arctic North, to perform research in the Arctic West, and make the U.S.’s Arctic bases available (O’Rourke). To fulfill these requirements, the Coast Guard needs, with its current procedures, at least three heavy and three medium icebreakers (O’Rourke). However, because of the budget

limitations, it is only suggested that we build one icebreaker. This will keep the project feasible while still increasing the Coast Guard’s Arctic operating capacity. Currently, with only two icebreakers, our country is lacking in polar transport and research capacity.

The Coast Guard’s primary icebreaker is the United States Coast Guard Cutter Healy. The Healy is a medium icebreaker, capable of breaking up to three feet of ice continuously or eight feet backing and ramming (United States Coast Guard). The thickness of Arctic ice and the inefficiency of the backing and ramming technique hinders the Healy from being able to clear a path for a major shipping line. Its primary function is scientific research. Most of its research entails studying Arctic marine mammals (United States Coast Guard). While its research is undoubtedly valuable to the scientific community, it does not have the capacity to clear shipping routes for major tankers.

The U.S.’s only heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, was recently refurbished and is currently undergoing testing, estimated to be operable in fiscal year 2014 (O’Rourke). The Polar Star is capable of breaking six feet of ice at three knots and 21 feet of ice backing and ramming (Alexander). This is the capability our heavy icebreakers need to fulfill the Coast Guard’s missions. However, the fact that the heavy icebreaker was out of commission for over four years is troubling (Restino). If a major Arctic crisis, such as an oil spill, happened during that time, we would be lacking in ability to facilitate cleanup, or even rescue people involved in the accident. Therefore, any accidents that can happen in the Polar Regions are, for now, in the hands of other countries and private icebreakers.

There have been several studies showing that the U.S. would be helpless in the event of an Arctic oil spill. In early September, the Healy went on a mission to the waters north of Barrow, equipped with several new tools for detecting and cleaning oil spills (Bourne). Many of these are ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) similar to, but sturdier than those used to clean up the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (Bourne). Though much testing and trial runs have occurred, it is still general consensus among the U.S. National Academy of Scientists and industry leaders that as of today, there is no effective Arctic oil spill response (Bourne). There have been spills in the past (spills are inevitable considering the amount of drilling that occurs on the North Slope) but the vast majority have been small and on land. During a hearing after the Deepwater Horizon spill, General Thad Allen said, “The current condition of the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet should be of great concern to the senior leaders of this nation” (Shumaker). In this, General Allen stated that we are not ready for major Arctic operations at this moment. Another important observation was from Commandant Admiral Robert Papp, saying of the BP oil spill, “If this were to happen on the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing” (Bourne). These two quotes clearly demonstrate how those in charge of coastal safety understand the need for icebreakers.

Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard is lacking in ability to respond to a major Arctic emergency. This lack of ability is dangerous, as an Arctic oil spill has become “inevitable” in the eyes of some organizations (Bourne). Our current tools for cleaning up spills are being tested, but researchers do not know how effective they will be (Bourne). Also, we are unable to support oil facilities off the North Slope, except in Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay (Shumaker). Therefore, with our current icebreakers, it is impossible to support the infrastructure of our Arctic regions.

Recent Needs for Icebreakers

The U.S.’s Arctic operations have been important to the nation’s security and economy many times. Past missions of icebreakers were key in helping to protect Alaska and even some key northern locations during World War II (Canney). During WWII, the ice breaker Mackinaw was built to break ice on the Great Lakes shipping lanes to sustain the shipment of millions of tons of iron and other materials for war-time production of steel (Historical Naval Ships Association).These missions are examples of when U.S. needed ice breakers in the past and why we need them in the present and the future.

Tourism is also another area where icebreakers were needed. For example, in January of

2009, a cruise ship carrying 300 passengers was stuck in thick ice in the St. Lawrence River and was in need of icebreaker help. Luckily, the Canadian Coast Guard was able to respond and they sent out an icebreaker to help free the cruise ship. (Noronha) Another incident where an icebreaker was used for rescue was in 2010. A cruise ship, named the Clipper Adventurer, in Nunavut’s Coronation Gulf crashed into a rock and became stranded. This cruise ship was completing a 15 day Arctic Expedition before it ran aground. (CBC News) The ship’s 118 passengers and crew were all safe an unharmed by the time the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen arrived to rescue them (CNN Wire Staff). The Canadian icebreaker had to travel over

500 miles from its base in Quebec City to rescue the passengers and transport them to a nearby town called Kugluktuk (CNN Wire Staff). It reached the stranded passengers in just about two days. These instances help show that increased tourist traffic in icy waters could potentially lead to even more cruise ship crashes in icy waters.

In early 2012, the Healy plowed the way for a shipment of fuel to Nome; the only shipment the city would receive all year (Ahlers). The shipment is one of the only non-research missions the Healy has ever had. It was due to a length of bad weather that Nome couldn’t get its fuel, and the Healy and a Russian icebreaking tanker called Renda had to deliver the fuel (Ahlers). The two ships left from Dutch Harbor, 300 miles south of Nome (Ahlers). They

arrived on Saturday, January 14th (Yardley). Without the fuel shipment, Nome would have run

out of fuel by March (Yardley). The icebreaker was not the only way to ship the fuel into Nome (it could have been flown in) but it was by far the cheapest, as gasoline is already six dollars per gallon in the city (Yardley). This example proves that the U.S. is in need of icebreakers, and while the Healy came through in that instance, it may not be able to in a future incident.

There are also many instances today that icebreakers are being used. On September 4,

2013, the French catamaran Babuska was stuck in ice in the Arctic when it was traveling from Alaska to Greenland (ITAR-TASS). The Russian icebreaker Admiral Makarov rescued the two- man vessel overnight and dropped them of at the Port of Pevek in Chukotka, Russia on September 6 (ITAR-TASS). Without the help of the icebreaker, the two men would have had a smaller chance of survival.

In January 2013, a British Naval Vessel rescued an Antarctic cruise ship. The Icebreaker HMS Protector was escorting the Norwegian cruise liner Fram, the cruise liner hoping to safely follow the icebreaker through the ice-filled waters of the Antarctic (Baker). However, the boat got trapped by large chunks of ice completely surrounding the vessel and prohibiting any movement (Baker). It then took the icebreaker Protector over two hours to crack through the 13- foot-thick ice that surrounded the Fram (Baker). If the Protector hadn’t been escorting them, the passengers aboard the Fram most likely would have had to wait days before another ship could assist them in getting out of the ice, due to the extremely few number of icebreakers in that region (Baker).

Cruise ships getting stuck in Arctic waters aren’t the only problem. Similarly, many shipping vessels also get stuck in the ice. In fact, Russian icebreaker Vladivostok was sent to rescue a Russian shipping vessel Mikhail Somov (“New York Times”). The Somov had been used to deliver supplies and relief crews to the Soviet Union’s scientific bases on Antarctica (“Christian Science Monitor”). The Somov was stuck in the Amundsen Sea for four months, from late April to when the Vladivostok rescued it in early August. The ice surrounding the Somov was around 12 feet thick (“Christian Science Monitor”). The rescue mission took from early June to early August, which, had Russia not sent one of their bigger icebreakers, would have taken much longer (“New York Times”).

There have been numerous incidents involving shipping freighters getting stuck the sea ice and having to be saved by icebreakers. One of these include when the Nordvik, a tanker transiting over 5,000 tons of arctic diesel fuel to Khatanga, Russia (MAREX). When the ship attempted to plow through the ice, it suffered a hole on the port side of the ship (MAREX).

The primary mission of the USCGC Healy is scientific support (Elliot). With this mission in mind, the Healy has been taking annual summer trips to the Arctic West since 2001. These trips are purely scientific and have different goals with each trip. In 2008, the Healy had two scientific missions that were part of the National Science Foundation’s Bering Ecosystem Study and the North Pacific Research Board’s Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (Elliot). Their goal was to study the “ecological processes as the sea ice retreats… Healy scientists will launch a comprehensive suite of studies to provide insights about how marine microorganisms, plants and animals, including fish, marine mammals, and birds, as well as local

human communities, will be affected by the on-going changes in the region” (Elliot). The Healy was in the Bering Sea for the first Arctic West Summer deployment from March 6th to May 17th (Elliot). The ship traveled over 8000 nautical miles and managed to perform 1,100 individual science evolutions (Elliot). The Healy still continues these expeditions today. On July 11, 2013, the Healy began their most current four-month deployment (Follmer). Without the Healy, many of the science done in the Arctic West would not be possible. The ice out there is dangerous even in the summer, but with the Healy it is possible to safely travel in the ice and research the sea ice and ecosystems in that area. The Healy is perfectly equipped to accomplish all the research, with multiple labs, two oceanographic winches, open working decks, staging areas for science

operations, cranes, science freezer and refrigerator, etc, and is dedicated to performing these operations (U.S. Coast Guard). Devoid of the Healy, we would not have the research we have on sea ice and Arctic West habitats and we would not be able to continually perform the scientific missions without it.

The size of our icebreaker fleet today is much smaller than it has been in the past. The need for the ships, however, will soon increase. The increase in Arctic shipping will make instances like Nome’s fuel problem much more common, and with only the Healy to deal with them, we won’t be able to help every ship and town or respond easily to emergencies.

Potential Future Needs

The U.S. is currently incapable of speedy or effective response to a major Arctic crisis. We have relied on other foreign icebreakers to help with rescues and other emergencies in the past. If a new icebreaker were built to replace the Polar Star, they would give us a great advantage in working in the Arctic waters that would allow increased dependency on the

icebreakers for any need of assistance. It will also allow us to become more involved politically and economically in Arctic interactions. Our icebreakers could be used more widely and clear more ice, providing an opportunity for scientists to do more research and work in Arctic areas. The acquisition of more icebreaking ships would increase the effectiveness of U.S. operations in the Arctic regions. Currently, the two major icebreakers are able to break through the ice, assist in scientific research, defend and monitor U.S. territorial waters, and take part in other missions as needed by the Coast Guard (O’Rourke). Considering the increase in shipping, we will need the icebreakers to create passages allowing ships to travel through the Arctic seas. The icebreakers will play a huge role in protection and security for shipping and recreational vessels. Our Coast Guard needs another icebreaker, and there are certain expectations to which it needs to live up.


The ship outlined in our proposal is a heavy icebreaker, capable of breaking the thickest ice the Northwest Passage has to offer. The icebreaker must be able to spend at least 250 days at sea in one stretch, though over 300 would be recommended. These three factors are important to the functionality, fiscal feasibility, and efficiency of the icebreaker program.

Funding is always one of the primary factors in any project, be it scientific or economic. The state of Alaska has expressed interest in helping to fund a new icebreaker. No clarification was provided as to how much or what kind of help the state could provide. Also, Jim Hemsath, director of the Alaska Industrial and Development Authority has suggested that his agency could be involved in analyzing a market for a potential new icebreaker. For instance, Shell may

possibly rent the icebreaker for oil exploration in the Arctic, though a spokesman has stated that it is too early to say whether the company is considering this (DeMarban).

A new heavy icebreaker could cost approximately $852 million according to the Coast Guard (O’Rourke). However, this is an estimate for a heavy icebreaker, akin to the Polar Star. By contrast, it is estimated it would cost approximately $500 million to refurbish both the two Polar-class icebreakers for another decade (O’Rourke).

The most recent addition to the NSF’s (National Science Foundation) fleet is the Sikuliaq. The construction process started ten years ago. Many universities and research foundations got together to create a proposal for the NSF to build the Sikuliaq. Several different research groups provided funding for the $200 million project (Castellini). The primary purpose of the ship will be research; it is the only icebreaking vessel designed solely for this purpose (Castellini). Though it is owned by the NSF, it will be operated by the UAF School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (Castellini). The vessel will be used to research the effects of the opening of the Northwest Passage and changing sea ice on the ecosystems in the Arctic, and will also study the ecosystems that change with the new open ocean that was previously covered in ice (Castellini). The icebreaker’s construction cost was covered primarily by funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Walker). The design study cost $1 million and was funded by Congress (Walker). It is possible to acquire some funding from the Coast Guard’s budget, but most of the money will have to come from other sources.

The nation’s new icebreaker should be similar to or better than the older models, so the capabilities of the former ships should be taken as a minimum when outlining the new ship’s abilities. Therefore, the ship should be able to break six feet of ice with ease, and more than twenty feet backing and ramming. The thickness of the Arctic sea ice necessitates this. The

thickness of ice varies throughout the Arctic, so the ship must be capable of breaking extremely thick ice so as to be ready to clear a path through any route necessary. Since no highly defined trade routes have been established through the Northwest Passage, there is no specific region to which we can pay attention; therefore, the icebreaker must be able to adapt to wide varieties of situations, and a high icebreaking capacity is essential to this.

The capacity to spend 300 or more days at sea at a time would also be highly beneficial to the ship’s mission. The Arctic sea ice is thick all year, so the ship must be on duty all the time. Also, the icebreaker should be able to carry cargo. This ability would make an event like the recent fuel crisis in Nome much easier to resolve, and would also allow the government to rent out the icebreaker for commercial purposes such as shipping oil or other goods. The new icebreaker could also help in providing more fuel or more frequent shipments to cities like Nome along the Bering and Chukchi Seas, lowering the fuel price and therefore increasing quality of life in those regions. These three factors are critical in making our icebreaker both able to fulfill its missions and to carry out the omnipresent mission of supporting people’s livelihoods.


The United States most definitely needs at least one new icebreaker. The Coast Guard cannot fulfill its mission of making Arctic waters safe without at least four more ships (O’Rourke). There is also an increased demand for ships that can navigate Arctic waters as the Northwest Passage opens and shipping increases. Even with the opening of the Northwest Passage, travel by that route isn’t entirely safe due to drifting sea ice. Shipping will also increase the chance for a need for capable search-and-rescue teams in case of a crash. In the past, the U.S. had many needs for icebreakers, and there is no reason to suspect that we won’t in the future. Even with the refurbishing of the Polar Star, our Coast Guard needs more icebreakers, and a new ship with more advanced technology could make their mission much easier to fulfill.

Arctic shipping is becoming more and more prevalent, and as a major world power, the United States needs to have control over who and what passes through our national waters. Given the amount of goods traded from Europe to Asia, there are bound to be more foreign ships traveling via the Northwest Passage, and we need to be able to manage that influx of trade. Building a new icebreaker or icebreakers is the best way for the Coast Guard to complete their missions. As long as the Coast Guard can fulfill its mission, the Northwest Passage will be more profitable and more efficient; but above all, a safer route of trade.


  1. Ahlers, Mike. “Coast Guard mission to Nome exposes U.S. limits in ice-breaking capability.” CNN. CNN, 05 Jan 2012. Web. 6 Nov 2013. < nome-icebreaker/index.html>.
  2. Alexander, Rosemarie. “How the Coast Guard’s ice breaker crushes through 21 feet of solid ice.” KTOO. KTOO, 07 Aug 2013. Web. 9 Nov 2013. <>. 
  3. “American Shipyards urge Congress.”, 05 12 2011. Web. 10 Nov 2013. < press/american_shipyards_urge_congress_to_protect_u.s._arctic_security>.
  4. “A Soviet Icebreaker Guides Ship Out of Antarctic Icefield.” The New York Times. N.p., 04 08 1985. Web. 27 Nov 2013. < icebreaker-guides-ship-out-of-antarctic-icefield.html>.
  5. Baker, Kraig. “British Naval Vessel Rescues Antarctic Cruise Ship.” N.p., 23 01 2013. Web. 24 Nov 2013. < rescues-antarctic-cruise-ship/>.
  6. Bellingston, Jerry. “Why the U.S. Must Build More Icebreakers Now.” N.p., 17 02 2012. Web. 10 Nov 2013. < must-build-more-icebreakers-now-6693195>.
  7. Bourne, Joel. “As Arctic Melts, a Race to Test Oil Spill Cleanup Technology.” National Geographic. National Geographic, 13 Sep 2013. Web. 20 Nov 2013. < cleanup-technology/>.
  8. Canney, Donald L..”Ice Breakers and the U.S. Coast Guard.”United States Coast Guard.N.p., 19 Nov 2013. Web. 10 Nov 2013. <>. Castellini, Mike. (pers. comm.) UAF School of Fisheries 474-7210. P.O. Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220.
  9. “CGC Healy Ship’s Characteristics.”United States Coast Guard.United States Coast Guard, 19 Sep 2013. Web. 4 Nov 2013. <>.
  10. CNN Wire Staff, . “Passengers rescued from grounded Canadian cruise ship.” Cable News Network.Turner Broadcasting System, 30 Aug 2010.Web. 23 Nov 2013. <>.
  11. DeMarban, Alex. “Should Alaska take the lead in financing new icebreakers?.” Alaska Dispatch. Alaska Dispatch, 11 Apr 2012. Web. 8 Nov 2013. < icebreakers>.
  12. Historical Naval Ships Association, .N.p..Web. 21 Nov 2013. <>.
  13. Humpert, Malte, and Andreas Raspotnik. “The Future of Arctic Shipping.” .N.p., 11 10 2012. Web. 23 Nov 2013. ITAR-TASS, .N.p..Web. 21 Nov 2013. <>.
  14. Koranyi, Balazs. “Arctic Shipping To Grow As Warming Opens Northern Sea Route For Longer.” N.p., 29 05 2013. Web. 19 Nov 2013. < route_n_3351109.html>.
  15. McGarrity, John, Henning Gloystein, and Jane Baird, eds. “Big Freighter Traverses Northwest Passage for 1st Time.”, 27 09 2013. Web. 10 Nov 2013.
  16. Noronha, Charmaine. “Ice breaker frees cruise ship in Quebec.” The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times, 28 Jan 2009. Web. 21 Nov 2013. <>.
  17. “Nuclear Icebreakers Rescue Drifting Tanker in Arctic.”Maritime Executive. Marex, 16 09 2013. Web. 21 Nov 2013. < Rescue-Drifting-Tanker-in-Arctic-2013-09-16/>.
  18. O’Rourke, Ronald. “Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization:.” Federation of American Scientists. Federation of Amercian Scientists, 24 Jul 2013. Web. 10 Nov 2013. <>.
  19. Roach , J.. “Arctic Melt Opens Northwest Passage.”National Geographic News. National Geographic, 17 Sep 2007. Web. 17 Nov 2013. <>.
  20. Restino, Carey. “Coast Guard: Refurbished icebreaker heads north.” Alaska Dispatch. Alaska Dispatch, 06 Jul 2013. Web. 18 Nov 2013. < heads-north>.
  21. Shumaker, Lisa. ” U.S. icebreakers can’t handle Alaska oil spills: official.” Reuters. Reuters, 11 Feb 2011. Web. 20 Nov 2013. < vessels-idUSTRE71A5RM20110211>.
  22. “Soviet icebreaker attempts dramatic Antarctic rescue mission. Hampered by polar night and thick ice, the rescue ship faces slow going.” The Christian Science Monitor. N.p.. Web. 25 Nov 2013. <>.
  23. “Stranded Nunavut cruise ship passengers rescued.” CBC News., 29 Aug 2010. Web. 21 Nov 2013. < passengers-rescued-1.885355>.
  24. Thorndike, A.S., and R. Colony. 1982. Sea ice motion in response to geostrophic winds. Journal of Geophysical Research87(C8): 5845-5852.
  25. “USCGC Healy (WAGB-20).” United States Coast Guard.United States Coast Guard, 19 Sep 2013. Web. 17 Nov 2013. <>.
  26. “U.S. Coast Guard’s 2013 Review of Major Icebreakers of the World.” USNI News. USNI News, 23 Jul 2013. Web. 09/05/2013. < reivew-of-major-ice-breakers-of-the-world>.
  27. Walker, Sharice. “R/V Sikuliaq Launch.” R/V Sikuliaq: Global Class Ice-Capable Research Vessel. UAF, 22 Nov 2011. Web. 25 Nov 2013. <>.
  28. Yardley, William. “Tanker With Crucial Fuel Delivery Is Sighted Off Nome.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Jan 2012. Web. 23 Nov 2013. < sighted-off-nome.html?_r=0>.

Figure 1– The Extent of Arctic Sea Ice


Figure 2- Arctic Shipping Routes


Stochastic assembly produces heterogeneous communities in the Caenorhabditis elegans intestine

The gut microbiome varies greatly between individuals, and this variation could have important health consequences. These differences may be due to deterministic differences such as genetic differences between individuals or differences in individual history and environmental exposure; stochasticity may also play a role in variation between individual communities.

Spontaneous mutation rate is a plastic trait associated with population density across domains of life

The probability of spontaneous genetic mutations occurring during replication evolves among organisms. This mutation rate can also vary at a particular site in a particular genotype, dependent upon the environment.

Spatial Learning Depends on Both the Addition and Removal of New Hippocampal Neurons

It was classically assumed that once the development of the central nervous system ended, “everything can die, nothing can regenerate and be renewed”. This dogma, restricting neurogenesis to a developmental phenomenon has, however, been challenged by the discovery that new neurons are created in specific regions of the adult mammalian brain.

Sequential sampling of visual objects during sustained attention

The brain has limited processing capacity, yet it is constantly confronted with enormous amounts of information. Attentional mechanisms are therefore needed to selectively enhance the most task-relevant information.

Seed size and its rate of evolution correlate with species diversification across angiosperms

Angiosperms are one of the most species-rich clades on Earth and have dominated terrestrial plant communities since the Late Cretaceous Period. The astounding diversity of flowering plants is distributed extremely unevenly across the Tree of Life (ToL). Each of the 5 most species-rich angiosperm families contains more than 10,000 species, while more than 200 families contain less than 100 species each.

Seawall Construction

Well-built seawalls have long been used as an inexpensive way to control coastal erosion. Seawalls are associated with reduced aesthetic value, and increased erosion at the ends and in front of the seawall.

Rural Living and Subsistence Lifestyles and How They Impact Each Other

Our research topic is the dump and human waste contaminating our food supply. Tununak is a small village of about 350 people and is located near the Bering Sea. There are several hoppers around town, which you could locate if you simply took one stroll around.

RosettaRemodel: A Generalized Framework for Flexible Backbone Protein Design

Computational protein design tools to date have been useful for engineering proteins with a wide range of functions, including DNA binding, co-factor binding, catalysis, fluorescence spectral change, peptide-protein specificity, and protein-protein interaction. In building nanostructures, computational protein design methods have been applied to designing hyperthermophilic proteins, metalloproteins, water-soluble membrane channels, and higher order macromolecular assemblies. Many of these successes rely on fixed backbone approaches that maintain the backbone conformations seen in the original high-resolution crystal structures and focus on remodeling only the sidechains.

Scroll to top

Send this to a friend