 Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us today. My name is Hannah Fuller. I am a media officer with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Thank you for joining us today for a webinar on the report released just this morning, The Future Directions for Southern Ocean and Antarctic Reef, Nearshore, and Coastal Research. You can download a copy of the report and other supporting materials at www.nap.edu. A recording of this webinar will be available in the coming weeks on the National Academies website. For those of you not familiar with the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, we are private non-profit institutions that provide independent objective analysis and advice to the US to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. For each requested study, panel members are chosen for their expertise and experience and serve pro-bono to carry out the study's statement of tax. The reports that result from the study represent the consensus view of the committee and must undergo external peer review before they are released, as did this report. We have many members of the committee with us here today to discuss the report but before I turn it over to them I want to go over a few reminders. Please note that this webinar is scheduled to last one hour. We'll start off with a presentation summarizing the report and then we'll open it up to any questions you may have. To ask a question, simply click Q&A at the bottom of your screen and type in your question. You can submit a question at any time during the presentation and we'll get to as many as we can at the end. Now I'd like to introduce the members of the committee that wrote the report who will be speaking with us today. First up we have the committee co-chairs, Paula Bontempe, she's the committee co-chair and Dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, and her co-chair is Alan Mix and he is a distinguished professor of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University and they're joined by Jill McCookie, an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, Ted Maxim, an associate scientist with tenure at the Woods Full Oceanographic Institution, and Andrew Thompson, a professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology. Thank you all for your time joining us today and now I'll pass it off to Paula. Thank you so much Hannah and thank you everyone for joining us today. My name is Paula Bontempe and I serve as one of the co-chairs of the National Academies Committee on Future Directions for Southern Ocean and Antarctic, Near Shore and Coastal Research. Thank you for joining us today. For the next 30 minutes we will provide a high-level overview of our key findings and then we will have time for questions. Broadly throughout this presentation we hope to convey a few take-home messages. First, the Southern Ocean and Near Shore Antarctic research provides critical data about societally and economically urgent issues. The science drivers identified by the committee justify major investments in the U.S. Antarctic program, the near-term prioritization of the design and construction of the Polar Class III ice-breaking Antarctic research vessel will support U.S. national interests. So to begin this study was sponsored by the NSF Office of Polar Programs. The committee was tasked to do three things. First, identify the highest priority science drivers for Southern Ocean and Antarctic coastal research based on prior reports. Second, the committee was also tasked to determine the capabilities that are essential to support the science drivers. This includes current and emerging tools, technologies, and approaches as well as capabilities for the Antarctic research vessel that is currently in preliminary design stage of the MREFC or major research equipment and facilities construction process at NSF. Lastly, the committee was tasked to note any gaps between science drivers and the portfolio of capabilities and discuss how NSF might address them. The complete statement of task can be found in box 1-1 of the report. In response to this task the National Academy's formed our committee which is composed of 13 qualified technical experts from a diversity of backgrounds including physical, chemical, and biological oceanography, marine geology and geophysics, ocean technology, and ice-ocean atmosphere interaction. Many of these experts are active Antarctic researchers and have expertise with the different tools and technologies utilized in this region. As required by the statement of task, the committee compiled and considered the science priorities identified in previous reports. This included several previous National Academy reports on ocean sciences and Antarctic sciences including consensus reports released in 2011, 2015, and 2021. Additionally, the committee held three information-gathering open sessions which included presentations from the authoring committees of prior reports, presentations from potential national and international partners, and a presentation from the NSF Antarctic Research Vessel Science Advisory Subcommittee. Finally, the committee held a two-day community workshop in February where invited national and international experts were asked to present on what they considered to be the highest priority science drivers and the capabilities necessary to enable that research. The workshop included several breakout sessions where participants prioritized science drivers and capabilities. On the right, you can see the product from one breakout session to identify science priorities. The committee assessed the information gathered from the community workshop, open sessions, and previous reports to define the highest priority science drivers. These science drivers do not represent the full breadth of science that US Antarctic program supports, but rather the most compelling science that is poised for near-term progress, including research that has a high potential for societal impact. The committee then leaned heavily on these three drivers to structure the report. These priorities include, first, the impact of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean on global sea level, which is chapter three of the report, second, the impact of Southern Ocean circulation and air sea exchange on global heat and carbon budgets, which is chapter four of the report, and the impact of environmental change on Antarctic and Southern Ocean biota and their ecosystem services, which is chapter five of the report. Throughout the report, we use the following shorthands to refer to these three science drivers, sea level rise, global heat and carbon budgets, and changing ecosystems. These prioritized science drivers are interdisciplinary with disciplines like geology, biology, chemistry, oceanography, physics, and engineering, among others, playing an important role in each. We will now focus on each of the three science drivers in the order that they are presented in the report, starting with the first sea level rise. Antarctica's ice sheets contain around 58 meters of sea level rise potential and may be approaching a dangerous tipping point. Sea level rise due to greenhouse gas emissions will affect the entire global community and economy, especially the approximately 1 billion people who live in low-lying coastal areas. More accurate projections of the rate and location of sea level rise are essential to plan for the welfare of coastal and global communities and economies. As with each science driver, the committee identified a series of priority science questions within each topical area. These are shown on the right. They are, how much and how fast will ocean warming raise sea level? How much and how fast will atmospheric warming raise sea level? How will floating ice processes impact the rate of ice sheet loss? Will grounding zone instabilities create tipping points of irreversible ice loss? And will geological and geophysical properties and processes exacerbate or moderate sea level rise? The committee also identified areas of needed observations to advance these science priorities which are highlighted as conclusions in the report. For example, the committee found that model representations of atmospheric and ocean forcing would be improved with better observations of surface energy, heat transport, and ice mass balance. Additionally, there is limited understanding of key processes such as how self-perpetuating feedbacks at grounding zones result in uncertain projections of sea level rise. Examples of these self-perpetuating processes are shown on the right. The committee found that the potential for tipping points would be better elucidated with more detailed reconstructions of the rates and extents of ice loss during past warm periods and improved observations of ice shelf cavities and ice fracture mechanics. Finally, improved constraints on geologic processes like glacial isostatic rebound and its correlation to viscosity of the underlying mantle as shown on the right will improve the accuracy of projected sea level rise. The second science driver is global heat and carbon budgets. The Southern Ocean plays an outsized role in the global climate system as deep waters rise to the surface in this area in exchange heat and carbon with the atmosphere. The Southern Ocean also connects the circulation of all ocean basins and controls the strength of the global deep overturning circulation. The committee identified a series of priority science questions to advance this science driver, which are shown on the right. They are, what determines the net uptake and release of carbon dioxide and how will it change in the future? What are the key temporal and spatial scales of upper ocean processes that influence air sea exchange? What are the pathways of ocean heat and biogeochemical properties? How can understanding past changes in the Southern Ocean heat and carbon dioxide budgets elucidate the future? And finally, what processes will impact Antarctic sea ice extent and thickness? The committee also identified areas of needed observations which are highlighted as conclusions. For example, the committee found that additional pouring and drilling as well as deployments of autonomous platforms will elucidate the long term variability of the global overturning circulation and its influence on global heat content, carbon storage and climate. Next, the committee found that the collection of data from the Southern Ocean needs to reflect biogeochemical and physical variations that occur over a wide range of scales from 100 meters to 100 kilometers. Observations also need to be sustained over a full seasonal cycle to understand the delivery of heat under ice shelves and the production of Antarctic bottom water. Finally, as shown in the graph on the right, 2023 was marked by extreme anomalies in sea ice extent. Large biases still persist in model representations suggesting that key processes are not yet understood. The committee found that multi-platform initiatives are needed over a range of spatial and temporal scales to better understand the controls on sea ice extent and its influence on circulation dynamics and carbon cycling. The final science driver in this report is changing ecosystems. The Southern Ocean and coastal Antarctica ecosystems are uniquely adapted to extreme environments and rich in important functions that regulate the exchange of energy, nutrients and carbon throughout the food chain. There is much to be learned about how Southern Ocean Bioda will respond to continued and accelerating climate change and how their responses may impact important natural systems that directly or indirectly benefit humans. The committee identified a series of priority science questions to advance this science driver, which are shown on the right. They are what are the feedbacks between changing ecosystems and biogeochemistry that drive the carbon cycle? How have biota adapted and evolved and what is their resilience to change? How can the study of global connections and ecosystem services inform evidence-based conservation and management? The committee also identified areas of needed observations again highlighted as conclusions. For example, the committee found that better constraints on the biological carbon pump require sustained and widespread biogeochemical and paleo biogeochemical measurements. There is still much to be learned about how Southern Ocean Bioda will respond to continued and accelerating climate change and how their response may alter biogeochemical cycles and food webs. The utilization of innovative technologies, including remote sensing and molecular analyses, can reveal the full extent of biological responses to climate variability. Finally, many Antarctic biota and ecosystems directly or indirectly benefit humans. These so-called ecosystem services include fisheries, biomedical and technological applications, tourism, opportunities for climate mitigation strategies and the biological carbon pump. The committee found that foundational and ongoing observations and modeling are necessary to sustain Antarctic resources for a healthy ocean economy. I will now turn it over to Alan Mix to present the committee's findings related to capabilities. Thanks Paula and hello everyone. Thanks for attending. We see quite a few people out there online. My name is Alan Mix and along with Paula I serve as co-chair for this study. Just as a reminder the report is available now for download through the National Academies. The QR code isn't up right now but I think it will be at the end. So the remainder of this presentation I will be focusing on the needed capabilities to support the science drivers that Paula just outlined and will discuss the committee's recommendations. The U.S. Antarctic program managed by the Office of Polar Programs operates, manages and supports logistics and scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. To achieve the science goals the U.S. Antarctic program currently operates three research stations, two research vessels and a fleet of aircraft. The operations and maintenance cost of these platforms is significant with approximately 60 percent of the total annual budget spent on Antarctic logistics. Currently the U.S. Antarctic program is facing a shortage of logistical resources which is leading to the curtailing of upcoming Antarctic seasons and to vessels that are operating below their capacities. NSF indicated that several factors have led to these constraints. First, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a backlog of projects. Second, OPP's budget over the last decade or so has declined slightly when corrected for an annual average rate of inflation. This impact is compounded by the increasing costs of aging infrastructure and the unequal impact of inflation on certain logistical costs like heavy aircraft, cargo ships, U.S., Coast Guard ice breaking and fuel. Given that approximately 60 percent of the office's total annual budget is spent on Antarctic logistical support, these rising costs have a disproportionate impact on the Office of Polar Programs total budget and therefore on its ability to fund science programs. As you will have noted during the discussion of science drivers, Southern Ocean and nearshore Antarctic research provides critical data about societally and economically relevant issues. The committee concluded that the science drivers justify major investments in the U.S. Antarctic program including to its infrastructure, science mission, and partnerships. Unless the Office of Polar Programs budget is increased to keep pace with inflation, logistical constraints will continue to decrease the amount of science that can be supported and thus limit U.S. research capacity and global leadership. Because the committee was asked to consider the capabilities essential to support science drivers in the context of a resource constrained environment, we classified the relative scientific importance of capabilities as critical or important for each science driver. A capability that is not classified as either critical or important, the white space on the table, may still be beneficial and useful for the science driver, even though it did not rise to the level of such classification. A table classifying the importance of capabilities on U.S. or partner vessels is shown on the right of the slide you see now and can be found in our report as table 6-1 along with justifications for each classification in the supporting text. Note that these classifications are not specific to the proposed Antarctic research vessel. Rather, these rankings consider whether it is critical or important for researchers to have access to these capabilities on U.S. or partner vessels. The committee also classified the relative importance of tools and technologies for each science driver identified in this report. This table can be seen on the right on the current slide. Same color scheme as before and as table 6-2 in our report. In addition to these tables, the committee also provided a targeted set of actionable recommendations and conclusions to address gaps and capabilities and promote the advancement of the science drivers. We will now review these conclusions and recommendations. As noted by NSF, both U.S. Antarctic program vessels are approaching or have exceeded their expected 30-year design service life. Without near-term investments in research vessels, the U.S. will be less capable than other nations to undertake research important to national security and interests. A U.S. owned and operated icebreaker dedicated to science is crucial to advance this report's science drivers and U.S. interests in the region. The committee found that the near-term prioritization of the design and construction of the Antarctic research vessel, or ARV, will support national interests and use-inspired research. This critical research would otherwise be compromised by gap and vessel support for the Antarctic region. The need for wintertime access to nearshore regions is a major design parameter that cuts across all three science drivers identified in this report. Thus, a Polar Class III rating is a critical design parameter for the ARV. This capability will support research that will advance U.S. security interests in preparedness and resilience to global events, including, as you heard earlier, sea level rise and climate change. Helicopter support on icebreakers in the Antarctic region ensures access to remote and heavily crevast areas that do not accommodate fixed-wing aircraft. This support enables scientists to access and deploy heavy equipment in remote coastal regions that are essential for critical research, such as research on sea level rise. Alternative methods of accessing these locations can be logistically complicated, expensive, or dangerous. Full helicopter support was removed from the Antarctic research vessel conceptual design in 2020 due to concerns about operational costs and the space required to accommodate the Helodeck hangar and supporting infrastructure. A solution will be required to address this gap and ensure access to these important regions. The committee recommends that the Office of Polar Programs release a request for information to develop innovative solutions for supporting U.S.-led expeditions to remote, heavily crevast, and rapidly thinning glaciers and ice shelves. Some potential solutions may include international partner agreements, commercial leasing options, a cost-effective solution for supporting two light helicopters on the ARV that could be incorporated without delaying progression through the final design stage, combined fixed-wing and helicopter modes of operation, or some combination of all of these options. The committee provides additional supporting evidence and information for these potential solutions in Chapter 6. Following the advancement of the ARV into the final design stage and the appropriation of funds, the ARV will move into the construction phase. NSF has indicated that a representative of the ARV Scientific Advisory Subcommittee will be included on the technical change board as a full voting member throughout this period. This is a positive approach that will encourage continued community engagement and transparency. The committee recommends that the Office of Polar Programs should continue to incorporate community input into major infrastructure development and ensure transparent development processes. Given the impending retirement of the Nathaniel B. Palmer and the charter exploration for the Lawrence and Gould, the vessels you see on this slide, NSF has indicated that it is planning to transition its dedicated Antarctic fleet from two vessels to one vessel. NSF notes that the Palmer and Gould are currently being scheduled below their operational capacity due to budgetary constraints, and that a one-vessel program would allow for more cost-effective operations. The committee considered what implications this transition might have for the research community. One potential impact of this transition is equity in field participation. This transition may reduce the number of oceanographic research projects, which could have the unintended consequence of narrowing opportunities for researchers and impacting the diversity of chief scientists on US vessels. The committee found that NSF should complete impact assessments on the planned transition to a one-vessel program, communicate their results, and implement actions to mitigate these impacts. One potential approach to foster equitable opportunities could be to implement dual anonymous peer review in the proposal review process, similar to some programs in NASA's Science Mission Directorate. This potential approach, along with other possible suggestions, is detailed in Chapter 6 of the report. Another potential impact of the planned transition to a one-vessel program is related to the relative importance of large interdisciplinary field projects. Given the logistical constraints of working in the Antarctic region under a planned one-vessel program, NSF-directed calls for proposals on large interdisciplinary field projects will accelerate discoveries. Thus, NSF should regularly convene community workshops to identify cost-effective, directed, and interdisciplinary field programs focused on specific regions and integrated science questions. Currently, there is an unmet need for a small coastal vessel that can operate independently of ice breakers and provide safe and nimble access to the shallow coastal zone. This gap may be exacerbated following the planned transition to a one-vessel program. Thus, NSF should, in consultation with the research community, consider investing in the lease or purchase of a small coastal vessel that could operate independently of ice breakers or other larger vessels. As you can see from the image on the right, this vessel could be as small as 15 meters to enable access to the relatively ice-free areas around the peninsula, or it could be larger with increased oceanographic capabilities and berths. Investments in a small coastal vessel will avoid having to deploy the ARV in situations in which its capabilities are not fully utilized. A recurring theme in this report is interest in localized regions of the southern ocean and near shore Antarctic, including the ice shelf face and grounding zone. NSF should support the development of new and innovative observing systems, such as fiber optic cables, autonomous underwater vehicles, and drones, that will collect sustained data at key locations, even in the absence of ice breaker support. Finally, important research on the effects of multiple stressors on Antarctic ecosystems requires facilities that can accommodate multifactorial experiments that manipulate sea water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. These capabilities are a current gap in the aquarium facilities at Palmer and McMurdo stations. Thus, the committee recommends the Office of Polar Programs should convene a community workshop to consider needed upgrades to the aquarium and other laboratory facilities at both Palmer and McMurdo stations. The Office of Polar Programs regularly collaborates with intra-agency directorates and divisions and with other U.S. agencies, such as those shown on the right. These inter and intra-agency partners share many of the same research interests. Targeted open competitions on interdisciplinary topics will maximize the resources and expertise of the Antarctic science community. Wherever possible, the U.S. should prioritize investments in its own infrastructure. These investments will provide U.S. researchers with the opportunity to maintain leadership positions and engage as equal decision-making partners in the design and implementation of future international field programs. However, partnerships with commercial, non-governmental, and international organizations are also essential to advancing research questions. Lead-agency agreements, similar to those utilized for the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, are effective for large interdisciplinary programs and can address gaps that are inevitable in any single organization. NSF should strengthen existing and identify new strategic opportunities for lead-agency agreements with various countries. This is particularly important for those nations with year-round stations and vessel capabilities that are complementary to those of the United States. More information on potential partners and their vessel capabilities are found in Chapter 6 of the Appendices of the Report. Partnerships can also alleviate concerns about the equitable access to advanced technologies that are highly expensive and have limited availability. Resource pools, including for remotely operated vehicles and drones with dedicated technical support, may enhance the equitable allocation of resources. The committee recommends that NSF should explore the creation and expansion of shared instrument and equipment pools to support cost-effective and equitable access. So, in summary, the Southern Ocean and Neershore Antarctic Research provides critical data about societally and economically relevant issues. We've emphasized three major science themes as exemplary, sea-level rise, global heat and carbon budgets, and changing ecosystems. Each of these science drivers are priorities that require U.S. leadership and are examples of essential research around Antarctica, all with global impact. These science drivers justify major investments in the U.S. Antarctic Program. The near-term prioritization of the design and construction of the Antarctic Research Vessel will support U.S. national interests, and critical research would be compromised by a gap in vessel support for the Antarctic region. You can download the report using the QR code on the screen or via the National Academy's webpage. Thank you for listening, and my colleagues and I are happy to take any questions you might have at this time. Thanks a bunch. Thanks, Alan and Paula. I really appreciate that. Yeah, just a reminder to everybody who's watching that you can click the Q&A button and ask the question at any time, and we'll try to get to them as many as we can. So first up, we have a question. Paula, could you tell us all a bit more about how the science drivers were determined? Yes, absolutely. So in the earlier part of the presentation, we talked a little bit about the fact that we looked at historical reports from 2011, 2015, and I believe 2021. Assessed those. The committee members then held a number of workshops. We convened our meetings. We talked to experts, for example, from national and potential international partners. And then we had an open workshop for the science community where we spent a couple of days together. We heard from experts all around the world in Southern Ocean and Antarctic research fields. We spent time in breakout sessions talking about science drivers, prioritizing them, and then discussed over a number of meetings internally as a committee what rose to the top. And the three that are identified in no particular order were the three that rose to the top. Thanks, Paula. Jill, our next question is for you. What research would a small coastal vessel enable in the U.S. identified? Based on the report, there is a variety of unique opportunities at a small research vessel would enable. Because of its ability to operate in these ice-free regions, it can really help assess migratory bird patterns, for example. Examine some of the benthos in those more ruggedized trains that are re-fridged that the ARV might not be able to access, as well as help with monitoring of invasive species, for example. Great. Thank you. Our next question is why did the committee recommend workshops to identify larger projects instead of supporting small individual PI-driven research projects? Andy, would you be able to answer this one? Yeah. I'd be happy to take that question. So I think this was really driven by the fact that as we were doing our work in the committee, it was very clear that some of the key areas where we expect to see progress over the next of the upcoming years and decades is really at the interface of different disciplines. So it's really looking at the coupling, say, between the physics by geochemical cycling, air-sea interactions, or ocean ice interactions. And so to do this effectively, we'll need to have teams going out there working in interdisciplinary ways. And we felt that it could be challenging if there are proposals coming into NSF that are largely focused on individual teams thinking about their different science priorities. And so we thought there were a lot of benefits from suggesting that NSF, or alternatively through the community, we could organize meetings where the discussion there is really what are the priorities going forward and what are the most effective ways that we can use the resources that are available to us, the ship time, other types of technologies to study these problems. And then work with NSF to design ways to make those studies really effective and find ways to either target different locations that we think are really critical choke points in our understanding, or focusing on specific problems that we know are limiting our understanding of whether it's future sea level rise or air-sea or uptake of CO2 say in the Southern Ocean. Sandy, our next question is what tools and technologies does the committee think are promising emerging technologies? Ted, is this one that you're viewing to take the track at? Yeah, thanks for that. Yeah, so this, this, the part to think that this report was not just about capabilities for an ARV, it was about what capabilities are needed to address these really important key science drivers, and some of those may be hosted on an ARV or they may be launched from shore or from other vessels. So a lot of the things that we were interested were or that we discussed, and this can be seen, I think it's table six two in the report, when all of you download the report and read it, you can see all of those things. But some of the key ones are, you know, robotic technologies like AUVs or ROVs, particularly, you know, as these things evolve and develop new under ice capabilities and long range capabilities, we expect to see the reach of these broadening both temporally and spatially beyond where they can be even deployed by and recovered by an icebreaker. Drones and for UASs as we often call them are something that are being cutting more and more important than that something where the ARV is actually quite forward looking. It's not about just a replacement vessel for the Palmer, it's about planning science for the next 40 years. So it was this was it wasn't our goal to design the ARV, but it's nice that the plan designed for the ARV is complementary to a lot of the technologies that we had discussed. So we will have capabilities for launching large heavy lift drones, for example, and accommodating AUVs and ROVs. So that's something we see with particularly drones as extending the reach again from the air, looking at long range access, either from a vessel or from shore. We are aware that there's technologies now being developed where there would be drones that would be flying for months at a time, for example. So those are some of the things we're looking at. Also, innovative platforms, for example, accessing under ice shelves, fiber optic cables, which are an interesting new area of research to look at, various phenomena and innovative floats. Floats of revolutionized oceanography in the non ice covered seas and really only just starting to have a large presence in the Antarctic. We see a future for development in those areas, floats and, for example, moorings at the front of ice shelves. So lots of ideas about what's going to be coming forward in the next several decades that will both complement and enhance future ARV. Our next question is the NSF seems to be funding more research that has a direct impact on society and to US innovation. How should the nation value the research that occurs in Antarctica in comparison to this innovative and societally relevant research? Alan, would you like to start on this one? Yeah, good question. Of course, Antarctica is far away and out of sight in mind for many average citizens. But I think what we tried to do in this report is to provide a relatively small number, a manageable number of very high level, high priority science drivers that aren't something that just happens far away and is not just of casual intellectual interest. All of these issues, sea level rise, global heat and carbon related to ocean circulation and so on and ecosystems are critical issues that affect the whole globe and are of critical US national interest and requiring US leadership of the global community. So there's lots of basic science in there, of course, and there are plenty of detailed topics of intense interest to individuals in the scientific community, but by packaging them into these high level, critical, societally relevant issues that we're hoping that that helps focus NSF's attention and the nation's attention and the investments that need to be made to make these things happen. And these are all now problems. They're not things we need answers to 50 years from now. We need answers now. Is it possible to add something to that, you know, if it needs anything and it doesn't, but I just want to comment that the committee did spend a significant amount of time, and I think this is evident in the report, freezing those science drivers to strike balance between discovery driven science and societally relevant information that's needed. And that's a really important point is that there's still plenty of room for discovery driven basic research. Thanks Alan, thanks Paula. Our next question is the presentation mentioned sediment cores, but our ice cores, especially shallow cores near the coast, also a priority for understanding sea level rise. Alan, would you like to start on this one too? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And certainly access to the sea floor is a critical issue. Of course, that's difficult in ice infested waters and harsh environments like the Antarctica. But similarly, ice cores around the coastal region and interior of Antarctica are a critical piece of that puzzle. We need to understand both the atmosphere and the ocean sides of the problem. And so some of that, that involves access to some of these critical regions that they're particularly there, you know, regions that we identified as potentially dangerous to access unless we do it in the right way. And also underscores the need for a polar class three ice breaker to get to some of the places around Antarctica that we have not been able to access before in all seasons. So absolutely, we're talking quite a bit about the ocean here, but this involves all aspects of of access to the records of ice, ocean and climate, and so on that we need. So for sure, that ice cores are in the picture and the issue is having the technologies to access those areas. Ice breakers part of it. And I'll just quickly add that there is more detail about the need for ice cores and the value they bring to the science drivers in the report. Thanks, Alan. Thanks, Jill. Our next question is, are there any recommendations in the report for increasing the amount of winter season work in that sea ice zone? And or Andy, would you like to answer this one? Sorry, could you repeat the question? Yeah. Our next question is, are there any recommendations in the report for increasing the amount of winter season work in the sea ice zone? Yeah, PC three. That is a key thing and a key design parameter for the vessel based on the science drivers is increased access to areas that as Alan said that we haven't been able to access previously. This was kind of highlighted recently during the ITGC cruises where they had trouble accessing through heavy ice. Polar class three will access almost all regions year round. There are a few that obviously won't be able to be accessed year round, but that was felt that was the appropriate balance between the needed capability to address the science and keeping the size and cost of the vessel and the management level. Yeah. And if I could just add to that, Hannah, if we look at some of the key science drivers in the report, if we think about ocean heat transport towards our ice shells, their impact on sea level rise, we have a real bias in how we have been able to observe these regions because our observations are almost exclusively limited to summertime. And so for our ability to actually capture what is interannual variability, which is what higher frequency variability, we actually need to be making these measurements, not just in the summertime, but throughout the year. And as Ted said, really clearly having access to that is going to make a big difference. One of the other big drivers, of course, is the change in the overturning circulation. A lot of numerical models have predicted a slowdown of Antarctic bottom water. And our ability to actually see that observationally is still rather limited. And so really what the report put forward was being able to make sustained year round measurements near the coastal margins to be really be able to resolve these these processes. And then the last thing I'll say that I think has come up a couple times is our science going forward. These problems are so important and so large that they do require partnerships with other nations. And so a polar class three vessel that will allow us to get us into these regions, I think also opens up a lot of collaborative activities with other countries, maybe even with commercial partners. And so I think these are important regions to explore and just absolutely essential for the work we'll be doing going forward. Thanks Ted. Thanks, Andy. Our next question is related to what you just said, Andy. What is the benefit of lead agency agreements and what countries should NSF establish the agency agreements with? Yeah, thanks, Anna. So this was, you know, this was one of the things that we were tasked with as part of the committee was to think not just about the resources that will be available through NSF but how NSF and maybe other funding agencies can support work with other nations. I think the most important thing it echoes some of what I said earlier on that a lot of this work is interdisciplinary. It requires expertise across a range of different disciplines and different approaches. And so to the extent to which we have the ability to work with our colleagues in other countries that have additional resources that they can bring to the table, whether it's through helicopter support, whether it's through additional ships, I think this is incredibly important. In terms of who we should work with, you know, this is something we discussed a little bit in the committee. I don't think that it's a little bit outside of our scope. But in terms of, you know, we have had partners that we have worked with very successfully in the past, the UK, for instance, with beginning relationships with South Koreans. And we should certainly continue to support those. But I think the committee feels strongly that, you know, these problems are so important that we should also be willing to explore new collaborations with other partners that we have not necessarily worked with before. Great. Thanks, Andy. Our next question is, could you talk more about the equity disparities that might be associated with the transition from a two vessel to a one vessel research program? Jill, would you like to take on this question first? Yeah. Thank you for that. And I also welcome any other committee members adding to this. This is something we spent quite a bit of time discussing and is detailed in the report this concern about how going from a two ship to a one ship vessel might reduce participation or might limit the amount of training that early career researchers might have the opportunity to engage in when we limit this vessel and when we extend the duration of the ARV. So we asked that NSF or we recommended that impact assessment would be beneficial to understanding the full scope. We might not be aware of all the potential impacts. And then we also recommended looking into the use of a small research vessel. So the smaller vessels might also open up opportunities and take some of that logistic burden off of the ARV, as well as looking into community needs in the laboratory spaces at both Palmer and McMurdo and how that might be better utilized and improved upon. And then we also linked this with some of these collaborative research opportunities that Andrew was talking about where we have some of these workshops that engage a broader community and can bring in our easy early career researchers at the early planning stage and the location selection for some of these larger collaborative projects. And I don't know if anyone else would like to build I can just like riff on it a little bit and yeah regarding the access and why we recommended the small vessel as well as the larger ARV and you know clearly the ARV will have some capabilities that we've never had before and so that's essential. But we were tasked by NSF with considering all of these things in the context of a budget constrained environment. And so you can read our report in that context that we were concerned about the access that that implies particularly as we go to some you know some large assets that we really need. And so we included this suggestion for the smaller vessel in part as a cost effective solution to maintaining some of that access. Now obviously you know all the scientists out there on the call would love to have not a budget constrained environment and see the budget grow. And you know what a surprise we probably would too but we were that's not the question we were asked we were asked to consider how to optimize the program in the context of budget constraints. And so read it that way and you know obviously if budget constraints weren't an issue yeah the answer might be a little bit different but that's what we did in response to the questions we were asked. Yeah and I forgot to mention also the recommendation regarding dual blind peer review might also help with you know ensuring a diverse trained workforce. Okay thanks you guys. Our next question is drilling and coring are identified as necessary capabilities in the report. How might this be accomplished in light of the impending retirement of U.S. ice breakers in the Joides resolution? Yeah Alan is that something you'd like to take on? Yeah and that's of course issues of the Joides resolution outside of our scope but we had quite a few discussions about the need for access to the seafloor in a variety of ways and but including some of the obvious ways of drilling and coring and you'll note that in every of those each of the three science drivers there's a need for information from the paleo realm understanding how the system has developed as a as a key to process. And so our committee is was not tasked with designing the vessel there isn't there are other committees working on that however it is clear that drilling and coring are identified as some fairly heavyweight infrastructure drivers that are part of the vessel design and our discussion of the science needs the the science priorities affirmed that indeed we will need some of those capabilities on on the ARV and access to the seafloor so yeah definitely that's in that now that we're not tasked with solving the Joides resolution problem but obviously that's that's part of the puzzle of seeing how the U.S. community can maintain access to the seafloor and at least in the context of the ARV as a relatively large vessel that's part of the picture. Great thank you. Our next question is why can the research highlighted be in the report be supported by fixed wing operations drones or land traverses instead of helicopter operations. Joe would you get for taking on this one? Yeah I'll take a first stab at this so thank you for that question and if you if you look through the report report a variety of possibilities were explored and the recommendation is to look further into this and get community community input on what is some of the requirements that will help get this work done but there were noted challenges with utilizing fixed wing and land based traverses to access some of these heavily crevasse sites and some of these zones of interest along the grounding loan and along the grounding zone and there has been evidence of significant delays due to weather windows when you're working with both fixed wing and traversed camps versus the potential new accesses that this polar class ARV would provide. Great thank you. Our next question is underlying the urgency for focus on these critical southern ocean issues is the reduction in funding. How can the community including NASA leverage this report to turn this funding problem around? Ella do you want to try answering that one first? Thanks Hannah yeah sure so you know sometimes we we don't get the money we want for certain initiatives and as a former civil servant you know I'm familiar with that but what one of the things I think it's tremendously positive about this report is it built consensus-based scientific drivers and priorities and they did a very good job assessing the capabilities that are needed to address those and that's everything from you know in situ observations to modeling and beyond and so you know you know if you do nothing else reading the report taking a look at the recommendations and using that as a spring board to justify the connection as we talked about in the report between discovery-driven basic research informing management and policy in society societally relevant areas and then landing on to the economics of investing in the U.S. infrastructure and the U.S. Antarctic program like this will really have intense payoffs and as Alan highlighted and many of the panelists a number of times there is tremendous urgency to investing in this now right. We cannot wait two or three decades even one decade for this as we all know we have to start investing so building our internal arguments talking and educating about these science drivers about the recommendations about the opportunities for innovation pathways to new technology development the relevance to industry and to some of the other partners out there I think is going to be very very important. Thanks Paula. So we just have a few more minutes left and so the report was released to the public just one hour ago or now two hours not reaching the end of this webinar I'm wondering if the committee members if any of you would like to chime in with some things that you want to make sure people take away from this webinar or areas that you would like them to focus on as they dive deeper into the report later today and next week or if there's anything that hasn't come up in this webinar yet that you really want to want to make sure is highlighted before we log off. I could just add I maybe we didn't mention that there there will be follow-up communication with the community obviously you know we have quite a few people on the call which is great people haven't quite read the report yet since they've just seen it but and so there are opportunities for follow-up we will be having town hall meetings at the AGU meeting in San Francisco in December and at the ocean sciences meeting in February in New Orleans and we hope people will participate in those opportunities and will continue the discussion in coordinating community input to that will help NSF move these initiatives forward and yeah obviously the these this some of these last questions that came up about you know concern about budget limitations and so on is well you know that that relies on community input to you know take what what we've seated as some themes to coordinate some of the discussion taking that forward in in in many ways to you know first do good science obviously but but also to advocate for good science and for the societally important goals here of of researching an article that may be not quite in you know the front of of every every citizen's mind every day and so so yeah it's up up to us to to make clear in many ways the importance of this science and the and the investments that are required to make it happen. If I could just add one more thing I'd like to say you know NSF the Office of Public Programs was a was a willing and helpful partner throughout this process and I think they're really open to some of the suggestions we've made but in terms of moving to a one-ship mode of operation we do feel strongly about these these issues of equity and making sure that everyone has access and so I'd like to encourage people that are out there to make sure they communicate with NSF about ways to move forward and hopefully this report is helpful in terms of some of the suggestions that we've made. And I I really appreciate that comment Andrew and one of the things that you know maybe folks can look at as they read through this report is this integration of not just the critical science and tools needed but also this notion of workforce development which was emphasized throughout. Yeah thank you Jill that was the piece I wanted to hit on this is an investment in our future in many ways in resources that are not just infrastructure but also our personnel right. Well thank you all so much for joining us today as panelists thank you to our committee members for all of their work on this report. I thank you to all of our attendees for joining us today that is all the time that we have for questions. After you exit this webinar you can go and download the report and thank you all again for joining us today. Thank you. Yes thanks everyone.