3710 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 45, NO.
11, NOVEMBER 2007
DEM Control in Arctic Alaska With
ICESat Laser Altimetry
Donald K. Atwood, Richard M. Guritz, Reginald R. Muskett,
Craig S. Lingle, Jeanne M. Sauber, and Jeffrey T. Freymueller
Abstract—Use of Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite
(ICESat) laser altimetry is demonstrated for control of a digital
elevation model (DEM) that is synthesized from repeat-pass ERS-1
and 2 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery using interferomet-
ric SAR (InSAR). Our study area is 15 650 km2 of the Barrow,
AK coastal plain adjacent to the Arctic Ocean; a vast expanse of
tundra, lakes, and arctic wetlands of such low relief as to be nearly
devoid of terrain features. The accuracy of the ICESat-derived
elevation measurements is assessed by comparison with dif-
ferential global positioning system (DGPS) data acquired
along ICESat ground tracks. The ICESat-derived elevations
have a mean accuracy, relative to the DGPS elevations, of
−0.01 ± 0.18 m. ICESat-derived elevations on the Arctic coastal
plain provide an excellent source for DEM control. We employ
the ICESat-derived ground control points (GCPs) in two distinct
InSAR processing steps: 1) selected points are used to perform
baseline refinements, which improves the ERS-1 and 2 interfero-
grams and 2) the ICESat-derived GCP position data (latitude, lon-
gitude, elevation) are then used as control in mosaicking multiple
InSAR-derived DEMs. The resulting ICESat-controlled DEM has
a mean accuracy of −1.11 ± 6.3 m relative to an independent
standard, which is a commercial airborne InSAR-derived DEM
having 0.5 m rms accuracy. This easily meets DTED-2 standards
and suggests that DEMs derived using only ICESat altimetry for
ground control would meet similar standards in other regions of
low relief.
Index Terms—Global positioning system, interferometry, ter-
rain mapping, satellite applications, synthetic aperture (RADAR).
I. I NTRODUCTION
G EODETIC quality ground control is time consuming and
costly to acquire in remote regions characterized by diffi-
cult logistics. Most mapping technologies depend, however, on
ground control points (GCPs) to attain the required accuracy.
Manuscript received November 21, 2006; revised April 6, 2007. This work
was supported by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA, formerly
the National Imagery and Mapping Agency) with University Research Initiative
(NURI) under Grant NMA501-03-1-2026.
D. K. Atwood and R. M. Guritz are with the Alaska Satellite Facility/
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-
7320 USA (e-mail: datwood@asf.alaska.edu; rguritz@asf.alaska.edu).
R. R. Muskett is with the International Arctic Research Center, University
of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340 USA and also with the
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-
7320 USA (e-mail: rmuskett@iarc.uaf.edu).
C. S. Lingle and J. T. Freymueller are with the Geophysical Institute,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320 USA (e-mail:
clingle@gi.alaska.edu; jfreymueller@gi.alaska.edu).
J. M. Sauber is with the Planetary Geodynamics Laboratory, NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20902 USA (e-mail: Jeanne.M.Sauber-
Rosenberg@nasa.gov).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TGRS.2007.904335
0196-2892/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE
Optical photogrammetry and interferometric synthetic aperture
radar (InSAR) both depend on GCPs to remove translational
and scale errors, and to adjust the elevations of digital elevation
models (DEMs) derived from multiple photographs or images
of the region of interest. Acquisition of GCPs usually involves
positioning markers identifiable in spaceborne or airborne im-
agery on the ground prior to acquisition of the imagery.
In most instances, GCP acquisition requires a significant
logistical effort to ensure a broad distribution of points, as
well as expensive global positioning system (GPS) equipment
and sophisticated postprocessing of the data. In populated re-
gions with road networks, GCPs are easy to acquire. However,
in remote regions, GCP acquisition typically involves costly
deployments via helicopter or light airplane. Thus, there is
a strong interest in new sources of GCPs that can be used
in conjunction with spaceborne or airborne remote sensing
methods for production of accurate DEMs.
In January 2003, National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration (NASA) launched the Geoscience Laser Altimeter
System (GLAS) into high polar orbit onboard the Ice, Cloud,
and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat). A major objective of this
spaceborne laser altimeter system, with orbital coverage from
latitude 86◦ N to 86◦ S, is to provide elevation measurements
of the Earth’s topography with accuracy sufficient to serve as a
terrestrial reference frame [1].
We investigate the use of ICESat-derived elevations and their
associated positional data as an alternative source of ground
control for DEMs, with particular focus on the arctic coastal
plain near Barrow. The reasons for this geographic focus are
sixfold.
1) The arctic coastal plains are well north of the latitude
60◦ N to 57◦ S coverage of the Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission, from which DEMs are available with 30-m
postings within the U.S. and 90-m postings outside
the U.S.
2) The maps of northern Alaska available from the U.S. Ge-
ological Survey (USGS) have low resolution (1 : 250 000
to 1 : 63 360) and are derived from stereo aerial pho-
tographs acquired in the 1950s to 1970s.
3) Due to their high northern latitudes, the arctic coastal
plains have ICESat ground tracks that are sufficiently
closely spaced for DEM control, on the order of tens of
kilometers.
4) Sufficient numbers of repeat-pass spaceborne syn-
thetic aperture radar (SAR) image pairs of the arctic
coastal plains were acquired during the European Space
Agency’s (ESA) European Remote Sensing satellite
ATWOOD et al.: DEM CONTROL IN ARCTIC ALASKA WITH ICESAT LASER ALTIMETRY
(ERS)-1 and 2 Tandem Mission, which flew during fall
1995 to spring 1996, for DEM generation.
5) A high-resolution commercial airborne InSAR-derived
DEM is available for the Barrow region that can be
employed as an independent standard of accuracy.
6) Conventional GCPs measured with differential GPS
(DGPS), although not widely distributed, are also avail-
able in the Barrow region for independent assessments of
accuracy.
We first describe a field campaign for acquisition of fast-
static and kinematic GPS (KGPS) data along ICESat ground
tracks within approximately 50 km of Barrow, carried out
during March 2004, and the use of these data to verify the
accuracy of ICESat altimetry in this region. We then demon-
strate a method for incorporating ICESat altimetry for control
in the generation of an InSAR-derived DEM of the Barrow
region. The accuracy of this DEM is then determined by
comparison with an independent standard, and the results are
summarized.
II. P OTENTIAL OF ICESat A LTIMETRY
FOR DEM C ONTROL
ICESat, which was launched in January 2003, is part
of NASA’s Earth Observing System. The GLAS onboard
ICESat measures ice sheet elevations, changes in elevation
over time, height profiles of clouds and aerosols, land eleva-
tions and land cover, and sea ice thickness. Because of its
global extent and unprecedented vertical accuracy, ICESat was
considered as a possible means for acquiring ground control
for accurate DEMs of the Earth’s topography. Specifically,
ICESat was intended to be used “as a reference framework
to evaluate and improve the accuracy of topographic maps
acquired by other airborne and space-based methods such as
conventional stereo-photogrammetry and radar interferometry”
(NASA, http://ICESat.gsfc.nasa.gov).
The GLAS instrument is an altimeter that continuously emits
laser pulses at a rate of 40 Hz. Round trip times, coupled with
precise knowledge of satellite location and orientation (from
onboard GPS, a star tracker, and ground laser tracking), permit
computation of elevation and ground position for each measure-
ment made. As ICESat orbits, GLAS receives backscattered
waveforms from a succession of ∼70-m footprints with along-
track separation of 172 m. Precise footprint positions are de-
rived from the 1064-nm channel, while dual 532- and 1064-nm
channels provide information on clouds and aerosols [2].
ICESat flies in a near-polar orbit with a 91-day exact-repeat
cycle and a 33-day near-repeat subcycle. Although the ground-
track spacing is relatively large at equatorial and temperate
latitudes, track separation in the Arctic is much less, on the
order of tens of kilometers, because of the orbital convergence
at the Poles. The elevation accuracy of GLAS, of course,
depends on terrain slopes, vegetation, and snow cover. At the
time of this report, ICESat-derived elevation accuracy (bias)
has been shown to be < 2 cm with a precision of < 3 cm
[3], [4]. This precision and accuracy, although not as high as
that obtainable from DGPS, appears to be more than sufficient
for control of DEMs. The availability of high-quality geodetic
3711
control that is well distributed is an essential requirement for
mapping remote regions such as Alaska [5].
Despite manufacturing problems with the onboard laser
diodes, there have been nine 33+-day periods of observations.
Throughout this time period, the ICESat Science Team has
continued to refine and implement processing algorithms for the
GLAS data. The final data set used in this study was acquired
from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, as of May 2006.
III. P ROJECT D ESIGN
The intent of our project is to independently evaluate the ac-
curacy and repeatability of the ICESat data and to demonstrate
its suitability for use as ground control in the generation of a
DEM using spaceborne repeat-pass InSAR. The Barrow region
was selected as our study site due to its low topography relief,
abundance of lakes, and availability of high-quality scientific
data for the region. Our approach follows two paths.
1) Use data from a field campaign to evaluate the accuracy
and precision of the ICESat-derived elevations on lakes
in the study area. This is achieved by comparing ICESat
elevations with those of precision DGPS. The choice of
lakes ensures flat topography that will be immune to
offset errors in the locations of the laser footprints. In
addition, the flat surface ensures a simple Gaussian return
waveform from GLAS, making it easier to interpret the
centroids as average footprint elevations. We acquire the
DGPS data using both kinematic measurements and long
residence, surveying at multiple points along the ICESat
ground tracks.
2) Utilize the ICESat data as ground control for the de-
velopment of an InSAR-derived DEM of the Barrow
Peninsula. The utility of the data is to be determined
for each step that requires ground control, specifically,
baseline determination and mosaic processing.
Three data sets were used in this study: 1) DGPS for analysis
of GLAS data quality at specific locations along the ICESat
ground path; 2) ERS-1 and 2 SAR image pairs acquired with
one-day time separation during the fall 1995 to spring 1996
Tandem Mission, for assessment of the utility of ICESat ground
control for DEM generation; and 3) a high-resolution commer-
cial DEM derived from airborne SAR data, for assessment of
the accuracy of our InSAR-derived ICESat-controlled DEM.
IV. F IELD C AMPAIGN
In March 2004, a GPS survey was performed in the Barrow
region, using two survey-grade GPS receivers with ground-
plane equipped antennas: one as a remote base station for
individual ponds and lakes, and the other as a rover unit for
fast-static and kinematic measurements. Two continuous base
stations (SG27 and BASC) also operated in Barrow. We also
surveyed a benchmark (S123) in Barrow with a third survey-
grade receiver, which remained on-site during the field cam-
paign. The Barrow Arctic Science Consortium (BASC) base
station and site S123 did not operate on all days of the field cam-
paign, but data from SG27 provided continues operation for all
3712 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 45, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2007
Fig. 1. SAR amplitude imagery of the Barrow Peninsula. Overlays indicate lakes where GPS data were acquired and the ICESat ground tracks. Kinematic survey
tracks are shown as well. Sea-ice-covered Arctic Ocean is at upper right and left. SAR image, ©ESA 2003.
days. The GPS measurements were timed to be approximately
coincident with the February–March 2004 ICESat acquisitions.
Field support was provided by the BASC. It provided logis-
tical support in the form of transportation, accommodations,
snow machines, sleds, field equipment, and trained personnel.
Of the seven days spent in Barrow (March 19–26, 2004),
whiteout and high wind-speed conditions curtailed field oper-
ations on three days, leaving four days (21, 22, 24, 26) for
measurements. Even the “good” days presented hardships in
the form of extreme cold, i.e., temperatures with wind chill as
low as minus 50 ◦ C (minus 58 ◦ F). Over the broad geographic
area of the study area, travel via snow machine was slowed by
sastrugi (snow dunes), whereas the harsh pounding of the sleds
caused equipment damage.
Static GPS data were acquired on frozen lakes because the
level lake surfaces were expected to minimize the positional
errors in the ICESat footprints. Had measurements been made
on land, any x/y disparities between the ICESat footprints and
GPS measurements may have led to errors caused by the mild
topography. Fig. 1 is a SAR image with overlays that depict the
sites of the ground survey as well as the ICESat tracks used in
the analysis.
A total of 21 GPS rover measurements were carried out on
a total of five lakes during the field study. At each survey site,
we set up a local base station on a tripod near the center of
the selected lake. We then conducted a series of up to five
20-min fast-static surveys, cardinally distributed across the
lake. The fast-static surveys also used tripod-mounted antennas.
All GPS receivers sampled data at an interval of 30 s. The fast-
static rover measurements yielded important data on possible
surface variability across the lake, whereas the associated snow
measurements yielded information on the thickness and vari-
ability of the snow cover.
In all instances, we attempted to reference the GPS measure-
ments to the ice surfaces of the lakes. This technique probably
provided accurate measurements in most instances. At some
sites, however, we found that stratified snow had hardened
into ice, and this may have contributed to measurement error
by elevating the GPS elevations several centimeters above the
actual surfaces of the lake ice.
Since the laser returns seen by ICESat come from the top
surface of the snow, it is important to ascertain the mean snow
thicknesses on a scale consistent with the footprints of ICESat.
To achieve this, we measured the snow thickness at the site of
each fast-static GPS measurement, then made a series of ten
snow thickness measurements, spaced every 5 m, in each of
the four cardinal directions. These measurements were later
averaged to provide a mean snow thickness in the region of
the corresponding fast-static GPS measurement. We biased the
GPS measurements by this mean snow thickness to estimate
the elevation of the snow surface as seen by ICESat at that
location. It should be noted that since the GPS survey and the
ICESat passes were not coincident in time, the possibility exists
for an additional bias being introduced by snowfall between
ATWOOD et al.: DEM CONTROL IN ARCTIC ALASKA WITH ICESAT LASER ALTIMETRY
the ICESat passes and the survey. This concern is addressed
in Section V.
In addition, KGPS data were acquired along the ICESat
ground tracks. One of the KGPS acquisitions coincided with
the ICESat ground tracks from November 14, 2003 (0349)
and February 21, 2004 (1331), whereas the second coincided
with an ICESat ground track of March 3, 2004 (0149). During
the two kinematic surveys, the GPS receiver was mounted on
a snow machine, which was slowly and consistently driven
along a presumed ground path. The liquid crystal display of the
GPS receiver could not sustain the cold for extended periods,
so waypoints were chosen to enable the driver to stay on
course.
V. ICESat V ERSUS DGPS: A CCURACY AND P RECISION
To compare elevations from ICESat to elevations measured
in the field with GPS, we must take care to determine heights
from both techniques in the same coordinate system. ICESat
measures ellipsoid heights relative to the TOPEX/Poseidon
ellipsoid data. A program was employed to convert the ellipsoid
heights from TOPEX/Poseidon to the WGS-84 ellipsoid data.
We computed heights from GPS in the ITRF97 reference frame,
and expressed them as ellipsoid heights above the WGS-84
ellipsoid. The present definition of WGS-84 coordinates is
based on the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS);
so at DEM accuracy levels, ITRF and WGS-84 are equiva-
lent [8]. Because we have a mixture of long and short static
occupations, fast-static surveys, and kinematic surveys, we
used a nested analysis strategy to place all results in ITRF97
while minimizing errors due to tropospheric delays and other
potential biases. Static and fast-static GPS data from the field
campaign were analyzed using the GIPSY-OASIS II software
developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) [6], driven by
in-house written analysis scripts. The GIPSY software uses
undifferenced phase and pseudorange measurements, and offers
a great deal of flexibility in models for estimated parameters.
For the static and fast-static surveys, we decimated data from
all sites to an epoch every 5 min.
First, we included data from the three sites in Barrow (SG27,
BASC, and S123) in a regional solution, along with data
from a network of 66 continuously operating GPS stations
distributed across the Northern Hemisphere, with the strategy
of Freymueller et al. [7]. In this regional solution, we esti-
mated time-dependent tropospheric delays at all sites, plus an
azimuthal-dependent tropospheric gradient. No sites were fixed
in this solution, and the JPL nonfiducial (frame-free) orbits
were fixed. The regional solution, based on 24-hr surveys, is
then aligned with ITRF97 with subcentimeter precision using a
seven-parameter transformation. Second, we estimated a local
solution using only the Barrow sites and lake sites (lake base
stations and fast-static sites), and resolving phase ambiguities.
In this local solution, we estimated only a constant tropospheric
delay for each site, which amounts to an assumption that the
time variation in the troposphere is constant for all sites (the
estimated zenith tropospheric delays differed by no more than
1–2 cm from site to site). No sites were fixed in this solution
either, and the JPL orbits in ITRF97 were fixed.
3713
The final analysis step was to adjust all regional and local
solutions together to generate a single self-consistent set of co-
ordinates. This final step is necessary because we used multiple
base stations in Barrow and did not fix any coordinates a priori.
Each lake was surveyed on only one day, but the sites in Barrow
were common to all days, as were the 66 continuous GPS
sites included in the solutions. Antenna heights, as recorded
in the field, were subtracted from the results to yield lake ice
elevation.
Postprocessing of the KGPS measurements was performed
using the Trimble Office software package with same-day
acquisition data files from six GPS stations of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Continuously Oper-
ating Reference Station (NOAA CORS) network in Alaska.
The NOAA CORS, along with the two local base stations, pro-
vided a network of eight stations for derivation of differential-
corrected least-squares solutions to the KGPS positions along
three profiles crossing tundra and frozen lakes. The height of
the antenna mounted on the snow machine was subtracted to
yield snow surface elevations.
Our data analysis focused on near-concurrent comparisons
of ICESat-derived elevations and DGPS lake measurements. Of
the five lakes surveyed, two lakes were eliminated because there
are no ICESat data at the time of the survey. The February 21,
2004 ICESat pass missed the small lake, U1, and there were
no 2004 passes associated with U3 due to a change in ICESat
scheduling. Thus, the analysis focused on Lakes G8, G3 and
U5, using ICESat data from the February 21 and March 3, 2004
ICESat passes.
Table I summarizes the results of the field survey and the as-
sociated ICESat-derived elevations. All vertical measurements
are ellipsoid-based in the WGS-84 data. Lake G3 was surveyed
at one remote site and five fast-static sites and compared with
ICESat passes 1331 (February 21, 2004) and 0149 (March 3,
2004). Lake G8 was surveyed at one remote site and two fast-
static sites and compared with ICESat pass 1331 (February 21,
2004). Lake U5 was surveyed at one remote site and one fast-
static site and compared with ICESat pass 0149 (March 3,
2004). The table reflects individual fast-static results as well
as mean and standard deviation values for the sum of all lakes.
The GPS survey elevations were corrected by the snow
thickness for comparison with the ICESat-derived mean lake
elevations. To determine whether snowfall accumulation be-
tween the ICESat passes and GPS survey contributed additional
biases, we investigated the National Weather Service (NWS)
climatological records for Barrow. At the time of the February
and March ICESat passes, the measured snow depth in Barrow
was 9 in. By the time of our field campaign, the depth had
increased to 11 in on March 21 and 12 in on March 25. This ad-
ditional accumulation was incorporated into the snow thickness
correction in Table I. Comparison of the corrected DGPS and
ICESat measurements yields a mean difference of 1 cm, well
within the standard deviation of the individual measurements.
Fig. 2 shows the results of one kinematic survey, along
with coincident ICESat tracks from ICESat passes 1331
(February 21, 2004) and 0349 (November 14, 2003). The snow-
machine traverse approximated the corresponding ICESat
ground track. These measurements enabled us to assess ICESat
3714 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 45, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2007
TABLE I
DGPS AND SNOW THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS PERFORMED ON LAKES
G3, G8, AND U5 ON MARCH 19–26, 2004 COMPARED WITH
ICESat MEASUREMENTS ON FEBRUARY 21, 2004 (1331) AND MARCH 3,
2004 (0149). MEAN SNOW THICKNESS WAS ADDED TO DGPS
ELEVATION ON EACH LAKE TO PERMIT A SNOW SURFACE REFERENCED
COMPARISON. CORRECTION FOR SNOW ACCUMULATION BETWEEN
ICESat PASSES AND SURVEY DATES ARE BASED ON DATA
FROM NWS OFFICE IN BARROW
Fig. 2. (Blue) KGPS traverse on March 21, 2004 compared with ICESat
altimetry of (green) November 14, 2003 and (red) February 21, 2004 along
the corresponding ground track.
accuracy along tracks that crossed both lakes and tundra over
a ca. 15-km transect. The KGPS elevations have been adjusted
for antenna height to represent the snow surface.
We confirmed the coincidence of the KGPS points along
the ground tracks of two ICESat passes. Vertical profiles of
KGPS and ICESat elevations were then compared in a point-
by-point manner. Neglecting the three evident outliers in the
KGPS profile (blue in Fig. 2) at about 3 and 5 km, Table II
TABLE II
KGPS ELEVATIONS ACQUIRED MARCH 22, 2004 COMPARED WITH
MEAN ICESat ELEVATIONS ACQUIRED NOVEMBER 14, 2003,
FEBRUARY 21, 2004, AND MARCH 3, 2004. CORRECTION FOR SNOW
ACCUMULATION BETWEEN ICESat PASSES AND SURVEY DATE
IS BASED ON DATA FROM NWS OFFICE IN BARROW. ALL
HEIGHTS ARE RELATIVE TO WGS-84 ELLIPSOID
shows the resulting statistics for the two kinematic surveys.
As in the case of the fast-static measurements in Table I, we
corrected for NWS-reported snow accumulation between the
time of the ICESat pass and the GPS surveys. On average, the
ICESat-derived and kinematic DGPS-derived elevations agree
within the errors of the measurements.
VI. ICESat A LTIMETRY AS G ROUND C ONTROL
From fall 1995 to spring 1996, ESA operated two polar or-
biting SAR satellites—ERS-1 and 2—in identical orbits which
enabled acquisition of sequential SAR imagery with one-day
time separation. Precise orbit control was maintained to min-
imize the transverse distance between satellite paths (baseline
distance) and maximize the interferometric utility of the data.
All land surfaces within a global distribution of ground station
masks (these satellites did not have onboard tape recorders)
were imaged by both satellites, multiple times, providing a
unique data set. Three ERS-1 and 2 Tandem Mission SAR
image pairs were selected for synthesis of an ICESat-controlled
DEM of the Barrow region.
In this section, we demonstrate the use of spaceborne
repeat-pass InSAR for derivation of a DEM of the Barrow
region in which ICESat altimetry is used for geodetic control.
We employ three sets of image pairs (Table III) from the ERS-1
and 2 Tandem Mission, which provided reliable high-resolution
SAR image pairs with one-day time separation. Both amplitude
(signal strength) and phase information (which has cyclic 2π
variation with slant range) are included for each pixel in SAR
complex image products. When producing a DEM, InSAR
combines the phase information from two repeat-pass obser-
vations of the same region to derive topographic variations. As
with other techniques for DEM generation, InSAR processing
requires accurate geodetic ground control [9]. For best results,
the baseline determination needs to have centimeter level
accuracy after refinement. This can be achieved using well-
distributed control within the SAR imagery with point height
accuracies on the order of 1–5 m root-mean-square (rms).
Derivation of DEMs using repeat-pass InSAR has been
described in detail by previous authors [10]–[15]. Fig. 3 is a
schematic representation of the InSAR processing sequence
ATWOOD et al.: DEM CONTROL IN ARCTIC ALASKA WITH ICESAT LASER ALTIMETRY
TABLE III
TABLE SHOWING THE ORBITS THAT WERE USED IN TESTING
THE A PPLICATION OF ICESat D ATA AS G ROUND
CONTROL FOR InSAR PROCESSING
Fig. 3. Flow chart depicting InSAR processing with ICESat control to pro-
duce a DEM. Brackets represent steps where ICESat-derived elevations are
employed for ground control. The processing steps shown in (a) are applied
to each of the three ERS image pairs. The processing steps in (b) pertain to
mosaicking of the resulting three DEMs into a single composite DEM.
employed here, including use of ICESat altimetry as ground
control. The integration of ICESat control into InSAR process-
ing for baseline refinement and mosaicking of DEMs is de-
scribed in the following sections.
3715
Fig. 4. (a) Unwrapped phase using perpendicular baseline derived from resti-
tuted state vectors, showing that a phase ramp dominates all terrain features.
(b) Use of iteratively culled ICESat GCPs distributed along the superposed orbit
ground tracks for baseline refinement has resulted in removal of the phase ramp.
Terrain features, mostly tundra lakes, are now visible.
VII. ICESat C ONTROL FOR B ASELINE R EFINEMENT
The ICESat-derived elevations were first employed to refine
our estimates of the baselines for InSAR processing. (The
baseline is the distance between the positions of the two SAR
satellites, i.e., ERS-1 and 2, at the acquisition times of the
two images used to produce each DEM; it has components
that are perpendicular and parallel to the SAR look directions.)
Typically, the baseline is estimated by starting with a rough
estimate based on the satellite ephemeris; it is then refined
using GPS ground measurements or selected points from a
pre-existing lower resolution DEM. Accurately estimating the
baseline, particularly its perpendicular component, is critical
because: 1) the sensitivity of the interferometer to topographic
height is directly proportional to the length of the perpendicular
baseline [11] and 2) error in the perpendicular baseline results
in inadequate removal of the “flat earth” phase [Fig. 7(a)]. This,
in turn, causes residual tilts in the final DEM.
The ICESat-derived elevations were substituted for GPS
ground measurements. This was done by estimating the line
and sample positions within the slant-range phase-unwrapped
image [Fig. 4(a)] corresponding to the geographic locations
of the ICESat footprints (the control points). The elevations
derived from the unwrapped phase were then compared to
the corresponding ICESat-derived elevations, and iteration was
employed to minimize the differences in a least-squares sense,
as indicated in Fig. 3(a).
The elevation differences of ICESat versus DEM include
outliers that may be attributable to cloud-induced errors in the
ICESat-derived elevations or phase-unwrapping errors in the
DEM caused, for instance, by low coherence. A water mask
based on low coherence was therefore created to eliminate
ICESat data from areas with lake ice, sea ice, and open water.
The largest control point outliers were culled after each iteration
of phase unwrapping and comparison to the ICESat elevations.
3716 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 45, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2007

Using this approach, baseline refinement was found to rapidly

converge, typically within two to three iterations, accompanied
by culling of about 2% of the ICESat-derived control points
after water/ice masking.
Fig. 4(a) shows the unwrapped phase from a single image
pair, using only the preliminary rough baseline estimate from
the orbit ephemeris (i.e., the restituted state vectors). A phase
ramp can be seen to dominate the terrain features of the Barrow
Peninsula. Fig. 4(b) shows the unwrapped phase for the same
DEM after baseline refinement using iteratively culled ICESat-
derived elevations for control. The improvement is significant.
The residual tilt present in the deramped phase [Fig. 4(a)] is
eliminated.

VIII. ICESat A LTIMETRY FOR M OSAIC

P ROCESSING C ONTROL
Three DEMs of the same area were produced using three
ERS-1 and 2 Tandem Mission image pairs [Table III, process
shown in Fig. 3(a)]. These three DEMs were then mosaicked
into a single DEM of the Barrow Peninsula, using the NASA
JPL Multi-mosaic software [process shown in Fig. 3(b)]. The
best results were obtained using a two-step mosaicking process.
First, the DEMs synthesized from three image pairs were
combined into a composite DEM using rigorous height match-
ing. The degrees of freedom permitted in the affine transfor-
mation included only scale and translation. Thus, the initial
mosaicking was, in effect, a planimetric adjustment to minimize
the least square errors in location and height between the
three DEMs.
In the second mosaicking step, the errors of the composite
DEM were minimized by using the along-track ICESat ele-
vations as geodetic control within the Multi-mosaic software.
ICESat data, available as of May 2006, consisted of GLA06
(ICESat L1B Global Elevation Data) from lasers 1, 2A, and
2B. GLAS positional data are released with reference to the
TOPEX/Poseidon ellipsoid. An ellipsoid conversion was ap-
plied to convert the data from TOPEX/Poseidon to the WGS-84
ellipsoid. A GEOID99 conversion program from the National
Geodetic Survey was then used to convert the data from
WGS-84 to the GEOID99 geoid. The converted ICESat data
were then used as input to Multi-mosaic to refine the vertical
height of the final DEM mosaic. Using an affine transformation
with all degrees of freedom (scale xyz, skew xyz, rotation
xyz, and translation xyz), the composite DEM was scaled,
rotated, and translated to minimize the height differences with
the ICESat elevations, in a least squares sense. The errors
of the resulting DEM were then assessed with respect to an
independent accuracy standard.
IX. A IRBORNE DEM FOR E VALUATION
OF ICESat-C ONTROLLED DEM
Fig. 5. Correlation plot of ICESat and Star-3i elevation data. The ICESat
elevations are consistently higher than those of the airborne SAR by 0.67 m,
on average.
operates an airborne dual-antenna SAR system, i.e., Star-3i,
aboard a Learjet 36A. The system acquires simultaneous SAR
image pairs at 1.25-m resolution, from which a 5-m DEM
and 1.25-m orthorectified image are produced. The vertical
accuracy of Intermap’s DEMs varies from 0.5- to 1-m root-
mean-square error. We utilized imagery and DEM products for
the Barrow, Meade River, and Teshekpuk quadrangles. Their
DEMs were provided in 1 : 63 360 scale quadrangle tiles with
NAD83 horizontal data and NAVD88/GEOID99 vertical data.
The accuracy of the Star-3i data was confirmed by com-
parison with the ICESat data, as shown in Fig. 5. ICESat
data over water (ocean and lakes) were masked, permitting
comparison between ICESat and Star-3i over land. The Star-3i
minus ICESat-derived elevation differences range from a mini-
mum of −2.86 m to a maximum of 1.97 m, with a mean offset
of −0.67 ± 0.50 m (ICESat elevations higher) for the 1031
points evaluated.
One possible explanation for the disparity between data sets
may be the seasonal difference between the Star-3i and ICESat
acquisitions. As noted in Section IV (field campaign), snow
biases the ICESat measurements to higher elevations. In this
case, the Star-3i acquisitions were made in summer, whereas
the ICESat acquisitions were made in March, well before the
spring snow melt. Based on our field observations, as much as
0.2 m of the mean offset may be accounted for by the snow
depth. The results shown in Fig. 5, however, indicate that the
Star-3i DEM is sufficiently accurate to be used as a standard for
characterizing the accuracy of our ICESat-controlled DEMs.

A standard for error analysis is available in the form of a

high-resolution DEM derived from an airborne X-band SAR.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in collaboration with
the USGS, contracted Intermap Technologies, Inc., to provide
DEMs and orthorectified imagery for the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska, which includes the Barrow region. Intermap
X. A CCURACY A SSESSMENT OF
ICESat-C ONTROLLED DEM
The results of the ICESat-controlled InSAR processing were
evaluated by comparing the individual and composite DEMs to
the Star-3i DEM, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7. The top row
ATWOOD et al.: DEM CONTROL IN ARCTIC ALASKA WITH ICESAT LASER ALTIMETRY 3717

Fig. 6. Top row, (a)–(c): Color-ramped individual ICESat-controlled DEMs. Bottom row, (a)–(c): Error distributions for the three individual ICESat-
controlled DEMs.

Fig. 7. (a) Color-ramped final DEM mosaic. (b) Color-ramped Star-3i reference DEM. (c) Error distribution for final ICESat-controlled DEM mosaic (a)
compared with Star-3i DEM (b).

in Fig. 6 shows a color-ramped DEM for each of the three
ERS SAR image pairs. The bottom row shows the elevation
errors relative to the Star-3i standard. Fig. 7 compares the
spaceborne InSAR-derived ICESat-controlled composite DEM
with the Star-3i airborne-derived DEM and depicts the resulting
error distribution.
Table IV summarizes the relative accuracies of our three
individual InSAR DEMs and our final DEM mosaic. The
height errors are significant for the three individual DEMs,
but these errors are minimized in the final mosaic due to:
1) averaging of the three independent DEM products, which
reduced the random errors and 2) the use of ICESat heights for
vertical control. Upon completion of the second pass mosaic,
the offset of the ICESat-controlled DEM relative to the Star-3i
DEM is −1.11 ± 6.30 m (Star-3i lower), as graphically shown
in Fig. 8.
3718 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 45, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2007
TABLE IV
MEAN ELEVATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ICESat-CONTROLLED DEMs
AND S TAR -3i InSAR-D ERIVED DEM OF THE S AME R EGION .
TABLE INCLUDES ERROR ANALYSES FOR INDIVIDUAL InSAR DEMs
(FIRST THREE ROWS) AS WELL AS THE FINAL
DEM MOSAIC (LAST ROW)
Fig. 8. Histogram of ICESat-controlled InSAR DEM minus airborne Star-3i
DEM elevations. The black curve is the Gaussian probability distribution
having the same mean and standard deviation.
USGS maps along the Arctic coastal plain in Alaska have
30-m contours and vertical accuracy of 15 m. Thus, the
6.3-m standard deviation of our ICESat-derived DEM repre-
sents a more than twofold improvement in current vertical
accuracy. In addition, the modest standard deviation suggests
that ICESat control can be used to produce DEMs meeting
DTED 2 standards elsewhere throughout the mild topography
of the arctic coastal regions, without the necessity of physically
acquiring ground control.
XI. P OSSIBLE I MPACT OF T ROPOSPHERIC W ATER V APOR
Despite the mean accuracy of the final mosaicked DEM
(Table IV), certain systematic errors are evident in the geo-
graphic distribution of the elevation errors. This can be seen in
Fig. 6(a)–(c) (bottom row), which depicts elevation errors for
the three individual DEMs, and in Fig. 7(c), which shows the
geographic distribution of errors in the final mosaicked DEM.
The individual DEMs from ERS-1 and 2 repeat-pass interfer-
ometry with one-day time separation exhibit clear geographic
trends in elevation error. Although the specific locations of
maximum and minimum error significantly vary from one DEM
to the next, the error maps exhibit spatial variability throughout
the region of study. Inadequate baseline refinement would lead
to an error ramp across any individual DEM, and no such ramp
exists in any of the three error maps in Fig. 6(a)–(c) (lower row).
Thus, we can rule out InSAR processing errors as the cause.
The most likely explanation for the spatially varying resid-
ual errors is tropospheric water vapor [16]–[18]. Tropospheric
water alters the dielectric constant of the atmosphere through
which the microwaves are transmitted and, therefore, changes
the accumulated phase. Changes in tropospheric water vapor
between repeat passes can lead to regional changes in the
interferogram over distances of tens of kilometers, consistent
with our DEM elevation errors.
The spatially varying and significant role of water vapor on
our DEM accuracy is not surprising. Point Barrow is the most
northerly point in Alaska, projecting into the Arctic Ocean. The
ERS-1 and 2 SAR images used in our study were all acquired
in winter, when the coastal waters were largely covered with
sea ice. Changing ice dynamics along the coast provides a
mechanism for marine moisture to enter the atmosphere in
a variable manner. That is, spatially variable offshore leads
release sizeable quantities of water vapor into the atmosphere.
This temporal and spatial variability is a mechanism capable
of altering the tropospheric water vapor near the coast over the
one-day repeat cycle of the ERS satellites. In turn, this may
cause the observed systematic elevation errors. Further work
will be required to establish this explanation.
XII. D ISCUSSION AND C ONCLUSION
We have shown that ICESat-derived elevations can provide
control for the generation of DEMs from spaceborne SAR data
in the high Arctic. The first issue addressed was whether the
ICESat elevation data are as accurate as the DGPS measure-
ments used in most ground campaigns. With a field study, we
demonstrated that the ICESat elevations on the arctic coastal
plain near Barrow approach the accuracy of DGPS elevations
along kinematic profiles and on frozen lakes, and are suffi-
ciently accurate for use as ground control.
It should be noted, however, that the frozen lake measure-
ments skirt the issue of errors associated with topography
and ground cover. By comparing results on large flat areas,
the point-wise measurements of DGPS can be statistically
compared with the 70-m footprint measurements of ICESat.
Moreover, the signal recovered from a snowfield lacks the
ambiguity caused by vegetated regions in which the laser is
reflected from various heights within the canopy. If ICESat is to
be considered for applications in hilly or mountainous regions,
then careful consideration must be given to interpretation of
the reported ICESat-derived elevations. Most likely, one would
want to examine the signal profile to select the most accurate
elevations for use in DEM control.
In most applications of ground control, there is a clear
identification of recognizable features in the images associated
with the positions of the GCPs. In using ICESat data, no
such point-to-point identification exists. That is, the ICESat
footprints cannot be unambiguously identified with specific
points on the ground. Initially, one must ignore issues of
planimetric accuracy in the SAR data and associate the InSAR
ATWOOD et al.: DEM CONTROL IN ARCTIC ALASKA WITH ICESAT LASER ALTIMETRY
DEM and the ICESat elevations based on an assumption that
the latitude–longitude locations of the ICESat footprints are
accurate. In this study area, however, lack of coregistration
should not present a significant problem. The reasons are as
follows: 1) the 10-m horizontal positional accuracy of the
ICESat data is exceptional and 2) the positional accuracy of the
spaceborne ERS-1 and 2 SAR data is better than 100 m, based
on a comparison of ICESat elevation profiles and the observed
locations of lakes in the SAR imagery. That is, even with an
absence of image-recognizable GCP locations, the positions of
the ICESat-derived GCPs are known to within 10 m, and the
corresponding DEM locations, prior to use of the ICESat data
for control, were generally within about 100 m.
Given the demonstrated accuracy of the ICESat data, the an-
swer to the question of whether these data can be integrated into
the processing of a DEM is “yes.” A key concern was whether
the sparse geographic distribution of the ICESat ground tracks
is adequate for DEM control. On the Barrow Peninsula, the
ICESat orbits are sufficiently closely spaced for this purpose,
with a separation on the order of tens of kilometers.
We employed ICESat data in two key steps: 1) refinement
of the interferometric baselines and 2) as ground control for
the mosaicking of three individual spaceborne InSAR-derived
DEMs. The ICESat-derived elevations admirably serve in each
of these production steps because the convergence of the
ICESat ground tracks in the high Arctic yields a sufficient
density of points within the 100-km swaths of the SAR. This
study clearly shows that one benefit of the ICESat mission will
be to provide an extensive data set of control points to support
future mapping of the polar regions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. P. Salamonowicz of
NGA for traveling to the University of Alaska Fairbanks for
initial discussions of this paper; NASA’s SENH and GSFC’s
IRAD programs for support of J. M. Sauber, R. Gens, and
B. Kerin of the Alaska Satellite Facility and O. Lawlor of the
UAF Department of Mathematics and Statistics for assistance
with programming and InSAR processing; A. Kaufman of
the Geophysical Institute/UAF for GPS equipment assistance;
M. Jeffries of the Geophysical Institute/UAF and C. Duguay of
the University of Waterloo for advice and equipment that we
used for snow depth measurement on the Barrow Peninsula;
the staff of the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium for logis-
tical support; P. Anashoak for invaluable local knowledge and
support during our Barrow field campaign; J. List, C. Markon,
H. C. Brown, and D. B. Kintz of the USGS, as well as
G. Panos of the BLM, for providing Star-3i DEMs; W. Manley
of the University of Colorado for access to geodetic control
data; and E. Chapin for consultation regarding use of the JPL
Multi-mosaic software.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. E. Schutz, H. J. Zwally, C. A. Shuman, D. Hancock, and J. P. DiMarzio,
“Overview of the ICESat mission,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 32, no. 21,
pp. L21 801.1–L21 801.4, 2005. DOI:10.1029/2005GL024009.
[2] H. J. Zwally et al., “ICESat’s laser measurements of polar ice, atmosphere,
ocean, and land,” J. Geodyn., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 405–445, Oct. 2002.
3719
[3] H. A. Fricker, A. Borsa, B. Minster, C. Carabajal, K. Quinn, and
B. Bills, “Assessment of ICESat performance at the salar de Uyuni,
Bolivia,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 32, no. 21, pp. L21 806.1–L21 806.5,
2005. DOI:10.1029/2005GL023423.
[4] C. C. Carabajal and D. J. Harding, “SRTM C-band and ICESat laser
altimetry elevation comparisons as a function of tree cover and relief,”
Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 287–298, 2006.
[5] J. Sauber, B. Molnia, C. Carabajal, S. Luthcke, and R. Muskett,
“Ice elevations and surface change on the Malaspina Glacier, Alaska,”
Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 32, no. 23, pp. L23 S01.1–L23 S01.4, 2005.
DOI:10.1029/2005GL023943.
[6] J. F. Zumberge, M. B. Heflin, D. C. Jefferson, M. M. Watkins, and
F. H. Webb, “Precise point positioning for the efficient and robust analysis
of GPS data from large networks,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 102, no. B3,
pp. 5005–5018, 1997.
[7] J. T. Freymueller, S. C. Cohen, and H. J. Fletcher, “Spatial variations
in present-day deformation, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, and their implica-
tions,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 105, no. B4, pp. 8079–8102, 2000.
[8] National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Department of Defense World
Geodetic System 1984, Jan. 3, 2000.
[9] G. Sun, K. J. Ranson, J. Bufton, and M. Roth, “Requirement of ground
tie points for InSAR DEM generation,” Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens.,
vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 81–85, 2000.
[10] H. Zebker and R. Goldstein, “Topographic mapping from interferometric
SAR observations,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 91, no. B5, pp. 4993–4999,
1986.
[11] H. A. Zebker, C. L. Werner, P. Rosen, and S. Hensley, “Accuracy of topo-
graphic maps derived from ERS-1 interferometric radar,” IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 823–836, Jul. 1994.
[12] O. Lawlor, T. Logan, R. Guritz, R. Fatland, S. Li, Z. Wang, and
C. Olmsted, “Generation of fine resolution DEM at test areas in Alaska
using ERS tandem pairs and precise orbital data,” in Proc. 12th Int. Conf.
Appl. Geologic Remote Sens., Denver, CO, Nov. 17–19, 1997.
[13] D. R. Fatland and C. S. Lingle, “Analysis of the 1993–95 Bering Glacier
(Alaska) surge using differential SAR interferometry,” J. Glaciol., vol. 44,
no. 148, pp. 532–546, 1998.
[14] R. Guritz, M. Ayers, T. Logan, S. Li, and O. Lawlor, “Automated DEM
production using ESA tandem mission data for the Caribou-Poker Creek
LTER Watershed, Alaska,” in Proc. Fringe, Leige, Belgium, Nov. 10–12,
1999.
[15] S. H. Lee, S. Baek, and C. K. Shum, “Multi-temporal, multi-resolution
data fusion for Antarctica DEM determination using InSAR and
altimetry,” in Proc. IGARSS, 2005, vol. 4, pp. 2827–2829.
[16] R. F. Hanssen, T. M. Weckwerth, H. A. Zebker, and R. Klees, “High-
resolution water vapor mapping from interferometric radar measure-
ments,” Science, vol. 283, no. 5406, pp. 1297–1299, 1999.
[17] Z. Li, J. P. Muller, P. Cross, and E. J. Fielding, “Interferometric synthetic
aperture radar (InSAR) atmospheric correction: GPS, Moderate Reso-
lution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and InSAR integration,”
J. Geophys. Res., vol. 110, no. B3, pp. B03 410.1–B03 410.10, 2005.
DOI:10.1029/2004JB003446.
[18] D. Moisseev, R. Hanssen, and J. Sabater, “Towards an atmosphere free
interferogram; first comparison between ENVISAT’s ASAR and MERIS
water vapor observations,” in Proc. IGARSS, 2003, vol. 5, pp. 2977–2980.
Donald K. Atwood received the Ph.D. degree in
physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy (MIT), Cambridge, in 1982.
He was with Bell Laboratories and Raytheon’s
Research Division in the field of microlithography
and with MIT Sea Grant in underwater acoustics.
He was with Raytheon, first as a Technical Advisor
for international environmental programs, then as
a Manager in atmospheric remote sensing with the
Goddard Space Flight Center. In 2000, he became the
Director of Science Support for the U.S. Antarctic
Program. He is currently the Manager of the Remote Sensing Support Center,
Alaska Satellite Facility/Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
where he is responsible for supporting the U.S. SAR community and contribut-
ing to special projects in remote sensing.
3720 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 45, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2007

Richard M. Guritz has been a Special Projects
Manager with the Alaska Satellite Facility
(ASF)/Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks since 2000. He specializes in inter-
ferometric applications of SAR data in projects that
have included a NASA Alaska DEM project and an
NGA north of 60 feasibility study; the latter was to
ascertain the feasibility of using ERS-1/2 Tandem
Mission SAR data to extend to the high Arctic the
topographic mapping carried out with SAR data
from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission which
flew in February 2000. Prior to 2000, he managed the Advanced Product
Development Group at ASF and was responsible for SAR user tools support
and SAR algorithm and prototype system development. He has 15 years of
experience working with SAR data.
Mr. Guritz is the recipient of a NASA Group Achievement Award (for
contributions to the Radarsat Antarctic Mapping Program, 2000), a NASA
Contractor Excellence Award (1999), a NASA Group Achievement Award (for
contributions to the Alaska SAR Development Team, 1992), and a Geophysical
Institute Outstanding Employee of the Year Award (1989).
Reginald R. Muskett received the B.S. degree in ge-
ology from the University of Alabama, Birmingham,
in 1983, the M.S. degree in geology (geophysics)
from the University of Akron, Akron, OH, in 1998,
and the Ph.D. degree in geophysics from the Uni-
versity of Alaska, Fairbanks, under C. S. Lingle,
in 2007.
In 1985, he was with the Defense Mapping
Agency, Hydrographic and Topographic Center, U.S.
Department of Defense, where he became a Senior
Cartographer in the Digital Products Department in
1992. He is currently with the University of Alaska.
Dr. Muskett is a member of the American Geophysical Union, the European
Geoscience Union, and the International Association of Geodesy. He is the
recipient of many awards for service in support of operations.
Jeanne M. Sauber received the Ph.D. degree in
geophysics from the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, in 1988.
She is currently a Geophysicist with the Planetary
Geodynamics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. The NASA research
she has led include studies to measure and model
ongoing crustal deformation across south central
Alaska using GPS, analysis of topography and sur-
face change data to quantify the interaction of
glaciers and tectonics, and to use SRTM and GPS
data to model the earthquake seismic cycle and constrain the mechanics
of shallow subduction zones. From 1999 to 2006, she was on the ICESat
Calibration and Validation Team at Goddard.
Jeffrey T. Freymueller received the B.Sc. degree
in geophysics from the California Institute of Tech-
nology, Pasadena, in 1985 and the M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees from the University of the South, Columbia,
SC, in 1988 and 1991, respectively.
He is currently a Professor of geology and geo-
physics with the Geophysical Institute and a Faculty
Member of the Department of Geology and Geo-
physics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. He has au-
thored numerous research papers on the application
of GPS to global plate tectonics and seismology.
Dr. Freymueller has been a member of the Steering Committee, University
NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO), since 1995 and the Chairman, since
1998. He has also served on committees and panels of the Geodesy Section
of the American Geophysical Union and is currently the Geodesy Section
President. He is the recipient of the 1992 NASA Group Achievement Award for
Development of OASIS/GIPSY Global Positioning System Analysis Software.

Craig S. Lingle received the B.S. degree in electri-

cal engineering from the University of Washington,
Seattle, in 1967, the M.S. degree in geological sci-
ences from the University of Maine, Orono, in 1978,
and the Ph.D. degree in geophysics from the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1983.
He was a National Research Council Resident Re-
search Associate, then a Research Associate with the
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental
Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder. He was a
Program Manager for Glaciology in the Division of
Polar Programs, National Science Foundation. He has carried out research on
measurements of the Greenland ice sheet with satellite radar altimetry in the
Oceans and Ice Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He is currently
a Research Professor and the Snow, Ice and Permafrost Group Leader with
the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, where he has been
a member of the faculty since 1990. His research interests include satellite
altimetry measurements on the Antarctic ice sheet, study of Alaska glaciers
with spaceborne SAR data, use of airborne laser altimetry to measure thinning
and retreat of the glaciers of northwestern North America in relation to their
contributions to rising sea level, and development of a 3-D time-dependent
thermomechanical model of the Antarctic ice sheet.