U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–814 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 112–860 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD OPERATIONS IN 

ALASKA 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

AUGUST 6, 2012—KODIAK, AK 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. HOUY, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

Professional Staff 

CHARLES KIEFFER

CHIP WALGREN

SCOTT NANCE

DRENAN E. DUDLEY

REBECCA M. DAVIES (Minority) 

CAROL CRIBBS (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

NORA MARTIN

COURTNEY STEVENS (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu ................................................ 1 

Article by Admiral Robert J. Papp, The Emerging Arctic Frontier ............. 2 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 11 

Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski .................................................................. 12 

Statement of Admiral Robert J. Papp, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ........... 16 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 19 

Operation Arctic Shield 2012 .................................................................................. 19 

The Coast Guard in Alaska and the Arctic Region ............................................... 20 

The Coast Guard in Context of National Arctic Policy ......................................... 21 

Arctic: Coast Guard Mission ................................................................................... 22 

Arctic: Drilling by Shell ........................................................................................... 23 

Polar Ice Breakers: Number of Vessels .................................................................. 24 

Operation Arctic Shield ........................................................................................... 26 

Cutters: Replacing Legacy Vessels ......................................................................... 28 

Polar Icebreakers: Leasing Pros and Cons ............................................................ 31 

Fisheries Enforcement ............................................................................................. 32 

Statement of Dr. Mark Myers, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of 

Alaska—Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska .............................................................. 34 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 36 

Major Drivers of Change in the Arctic ................................................................... 37 

Needed Investments in the Arctic .......................................................................... 37 

Government Coordination With Research Universities ....................................... 38 

Statement of Merrick Burden, Executive Director, Marine Conservation Alliance, Seattle, Washington ................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 41 

Statement of Bruce Harland, Vice President, Commercial Services, Crowley 

Marine, Oakland, California ............................................................................... 43 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 44 

The Arctic Region in Alaska ................................................................................... 44 

Strategies To Address Changing Climatic Conditions .......................................... 44 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 49 

Questions Submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard ..................................................... 50 

Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu ............................................. 50 

Polar Icebreakers ..................................................................................................... 50 

Polar Sea .................................................................................................................. 50 

Offshore Patrol Cutters ........................................................................................... 51 

Rescue 21 .................................................................................................................. 52 

Arctic Research ........................................................................................................ 52 

Letter From Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell, State of Alaska ................. 53 

(1) 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD OPERATIONS 

IN ALASKA 

MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Kodiak, AK. 

The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., at Hangar No. 3, U.S. Coast 

Guard Air Station Kodiak, in Kodiak, Alaska, Hon. Mary L. 

Landrieu (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu and Murkowski. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you so much for joining us for this 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, and I would 

like to call the hearing to order. 

It is truly an honor for me to be back here in Alaska. This is my 

third time as a United States Senator. I had the great pleasure of 

visiting over a decade ago with a wonderful host, very well known 

to my colleague, Senator Murkowski, because I was a guest of her 

father, Senator Frank Murkowski. A few years later, I had the opportunity to come back to Alaska with the Hon. Ted Stevens. 

It really is a joy and a privilege. I thank Senator Murkowski for 

encouraging me, as a wonderful member of this subcommittee, to 

hold this important field hearing here in Kodiak, Alaska. 

I want to begin by acknowledging Chairman Malutin. Thank you 

very much for inviting us to his island. The mayors are also here, 

and we have several elected officials. 

I know that Senator Murkowski, who has just been a phenomenal leader for Alaska, and such a strong voice, not only for 

this community, but for the entire State, I’m sure that she will recognize some of those individuals in her opening statement. 

I want to begin with an opening statement, which is our procedure. I will turn it then over to Senator Murkowski. 

I am thrilled to be here at, literally, the largest Coast Guard station in America, with thousands of men and women from our Coast 

Guard. This is a little late, but happy birthday for your 222nd 

birthday. We have been celebrating, I’m sure, Admiral, all over the 

Nation and the world, because of the extraordinary work of the 

Coast Guard. So my belated happy birthday to all of you. 

I wanted to begin with a statement that came from an article, 

and I would like to put it in to the record. Admiral Papp wrote this 

article. It is called the ‘‘Emerging Arctic Frontier’’. I’m sure that he 

will refer to it in his opening statement. 
2 

But I think it is appropriate, Senator Murkowski, for us to begin 

at your charge to hold this hearing today with the words of Admiral Papp when he says, ‘‘The world may seem to be growing smaller, but its seas are growing bigger, particularly in the great north 

where a widening water highway beckons both with resources and 

challenges.’’ 

That’s why Senator Murkowski has asked me to conduct this 

hearing this morning. I’m happy to do it. I would like to submit for 

the record, and without objection, the entire article. 

[The article, originally published in Proceedings Magazine on 

pages 16–21 (February 2012 Vol. 138/2/1,308), follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Senator LANDRIEU. I welcome the Coast Guard men and women, 

citizens of Kodiak, and others who were able to join us today. 

Any given year, the Coast Guard saves approximately 3,800 

lives. It removed, last year, 166,000 pounds of cocaine in transit to 

the United States. It interdicted more than 2,500 undocumented 

migrants attempting illegally to enter the country, and conducted 

more than 1,700 boardings of high-interest vessels bound for the 

United States. 

Even more impressively, in an average month in Alaska, the 

Coast Guard conducts 51 search-and-rescue cases, conducts 161 

vessel boardings, saves or assists 74 people, services 59 aids to 

navigation, and responds and investigates at least 10 pollution incidents, and monitors the transit of 25 tankers carrying more than 

700 million gallons of oil safely through Prince William Sound, and 

ensures that more than 1.38 million pounds of explosives are safely 

transported through Alaska’s maritime transportation network. 

Just an average day at work for the thousand men and women 

that wear the uniform proudly and support Alaska, our Nation, 

and the world. 

As I said, I am so pleased to join my dear friend and colleague 

and partner, Senator Lisa Murkowski. We not only serve on Homeland Security together, but we have served for many years on the 

Energy Committee together, and are excited about our adventures 

and opportunities in exploring resources for this Nation. 

But we are here today to discuss Coast Guard operations in Alaska, the strategic importance of the Arctic, and the challenges facing 

the Coast Guard in this region. 

Approximately 2,500 Coast Guard personnel support operations 

in Alaska, which encompasses 3.8 million square miles and more 

than 44,000 miles of coastline. 

Much of the Alaskan way of life occurs on the water. At times, 

this environment can be harsh and unforgiving. That’s what makes 

it so important, I believe, for our subcommittee and others in the 

Congress to support the work of the Coast Guard here on the 

ground. 

Their many missions include fisheries enforcement, search and 

rescue, port security, and environmental response, and I would like 

to believe, in partnership with the oil and gas industry, oversight, 

yes; enforcement, yes; but a real partnership with the private sector to deliver the resources essential for our Nation. 

Not only has Senator Murkowski been a leading advocate, but 

Senator Begich, who is not with us today at the hearing but is at 

work in Alaska with other officials, touring another part of the 

State. 

We are pleased to have on our first panel Admiral Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard. Our second panel, chosen by Senator 

Murkowski, is Dr. Mark Myers, vice chancellor for research at the 

University of Fairbanks; Merrick Burden, executive director of the 

Marine Conservation Alliance; and Bruce Harland, vice president, 

contract services, Crowley Marine. We are thrilled to have you all, 

and we’ll call on you in just a moment, after our opening statements. 

The work of the Coast Guard, or the work the Coast Guard does 

in Alaska, is not unfamiliar to us in Louisiana. We, too, have a 
9 

very large Coast Guard, very vibrant fishery, and extraordinarily 

robust oil and gas drilling off of our coast. In fact, 80 percent of 

the offshore oil and gas resources of the Nation come off the coast 

of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama. 

So these assets and these challenges are very, very familiar to 

me. 

I would be remiss, Senator Murkowski, if I did not mention the 

special place the Coast Guard holds in my heart and in the hearts 

of the 4.5 million Louisianans that I represent, and 10 million people along the gulf coast, because, Admiral, as you know, the Coast 

Guard was first on the job after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and 

rescued, at that time, 33,000 people, not over open water, where 

the Coast Guard had trained, but flying in and out of tall buildings, over and under electrical lines, literally rescuing people out 

of 14- and 20-foot floodwaters in the middle of the city. What an 

amazing vision for the Coast Guard, and they carried it out beautifully. 

Admiral, the people of Louisiana will always be grateful for the 

heroic efforts of the Coast Guard, along with our Cajun navy, as 

we say, and coasties, too, to help you in that effort. 

Let me hit just a few other highlights of the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that Senator Murkowski helped me draft. With 

her help and input, we have been able to plus-up some of the Coast 

Guard assets, even in tight budget times. She and I believe that 

we need to direct more of the limited resources we have to support 

this arm of our military. With her help, our bill will include $10.36 billion for the Coast Guard, $282 million above the President’s request. The bill provides targeted increases above the request to ensure Coast Guard 

personnel serving on the front line have the resources they need to 

accomplish these important missions. Some of the benefits that will 

come directly to the Nation and Alaska include: $620 million for 

the sixth national security cutter (NSC); $77 million for long-lead 

materials for the seventh NSC; $335 million for six fast response 

cutters (FRCs), two of which will be homeported here in Alaska; 

$25 million for the continued development of the offshore patrol 

cutter (OPC); $8 million for initial acquisition planning and design 

of a new polar icebreaker, a priority to both Senator Murkowski 

and myself. I’m sure she’ll speak more about this in the coming 

minutes. 

And, $10 million is for military family housing. I want to give 

Admiral Papp a shout-out for his advocacy for housing issues, and 

particularly Linda Papp for her extraordinary advocacy on behalf 

of the Coast Guard families that live in very rural areas sometimes 

in our country, and don’t have access to all of the bells and whistles, Senator, that some of our other communities enjoy. Housing 

is important for them, to have that kind of comfort and quality of 

life, not luxurious, but comforting for themselves and their children. As a mother and a wife, she most certainly understands that, 

and so do we. 

So we are really focused on upgrading the housing for our military, and hope we can report some good results. 

We have $69 million for construction and upgrades of shore facilities; $5 million to renovate the aircraft hangar in Cold Bay right 
10 

here in Alaska; and $1.1 million for new fuel tanks in Sitkinak; $8 

million to slow the retirement of one of our high endurance cutters 

(WHECs). I could go on. 

These are just some of examples of what we have invested in this 

budget, as soon as we can get it passed for the Coast Guard this 

year. 

A specific focus of ours today, in trying to conclude here, is the 

diminishing ice, or the retreating ice in the Arctic, and resulting 

implications for the Coast Guard’s responsibilities, and the assets 

needed to respond. 

Scientists predict that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer 

months by late 2030. This is truly an extraordinary change on our 

planet, and we must be ready for it. 

Rarely used shipping routes, such as the Northwest Passage, the 

Northern Sea Route, will likely be used more frequently. Exploration for natural resources is expected to intensify. 

The United States Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic 

accounts for about 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, and 

30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas. 

The Commandant has been vocal about the trend of diminishing 

ice and what it means for the Coast Guard. I referred to the article 

he wrote. Let me quote again. He says: ‘‘This change from ‘hard’ 

to ‘soft’ water, growing economic interest and energy demands, and 

increasing use of the seas for maritime activities by commercial, 

native, and recreational users demand a persistent, capable U.S. 

Coast Guard presence in the Arctic region. Our mandate to protect 

people on the sea, protect people from threats delivered by the sea, 

and protect the sea itself applies in the Arctic equally as well as 

the Atlantic, Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.’’ 

Unfortunately, today, two of our Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers, the Polar Star and the Polar Sea, have well exceeded 

their intended 30-year service lives and are not currently operational. 

The Polar Star is being refurbished to reenter service in 2013 for 

another 7 to 10 years. The Coast Guard plans to decommission the 

Polar Sea. We all saw the importance of the Coast Guard’s icebreaking capabilities this past winter when one of the active icebreakers, the 

Healy, which I am so proud was built by the strong and wonderful 

people in Avondale shipyards in my hometown of New Orleans, 

Louisiana, broke through the ice to deliver fuel to the people of 

Nome. Louisiana and Alaska have very strong partnerships, and I 

am so pleased that that ship was built at home in my State. 

Many comprehensive studies of icebreaker requirements have 

been conducted over the years. All have concluded that a polar 

icebreaking fleet is essential to the national interest. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to thank Senator Murkowski for her tireless efforts advocating for the polar fleet, reminding us that we are an Arctic Nation. I’m very happy to turn the mike over to Senator Murkowski 

for her opening statement, and want to commit to her—she has 

heard me say this in Washington, but I wanted to come to Alaska 
11 

to say it, that I want to be a partner with her to develop assets 

that our Nation needs to stay first in global competition, first in 

commercial, and first in proper natural resource development. 

Alaska is really that frontier and so is the Arctic. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Good morning. I call the subcommittee to order. 

I welcome the Coast Guard men and women, citizens of Kodiak, and others who 

were able to join us today. Saturday was the Coast Guard’s 222nd birthday, so I 

want to wish everyone in the Coast Guard a belated happy birthday. In 2011, the 

Coast Guard saved over 3,800 lives, removed over 166,000 pounds of cocaine in transit to the United States, interdicted over 2,500 undocumented migrants attempting 

to illegally enter the country, and conducted over 1,700 boardings of high interest 

vessels bound for the United States. In an average month in Alaska, the Coast 

Guard conducts 51 search-and-rescue cases; conducts 161 vessel boardings; saves or 

assists 74 people; services 59 aids to navigation; responds and investigates 10 pollution incidents; monitors the transits of 25 tankers carrying more than 700 million 

gallons of oil safely through Prince William Sound, and ensures that more than 1.38 

million pounds of explosives are safely transported through Alaska’s maritime transportation network. 

I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Lisa Murkowski, to discuss 

Coast Guard operations in Alaska, the strategic importance of the Arctic, and the 

challenges facing the Coast Guard in the region. Approximately 2,500 Coast Guard 

personnel support operations in Alaska, which encompasses 3.85 million square 

miles and more than 44,000 miles of coastline. Much of the Alaskan way of life occurs on the water, and the harsh and unforgiving environment makes it critical that 

our Coast Guard men and women have the resources to perform their many missions here, including: fisheries enforcement, search and rescue, port security, and 

environmental response. We are joined today by two panels of distinguished witnesses to discuss these matters. 

Our first panel includes: 

—Admiral Robert J. Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard; and 

Our second panel includes: 

—Dr. Mark Myers, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Fairbanks; 

—Merrick Burden, Executive Director, Marine Conservation Alliance; and 

—Bruce Harland, Vice President—Contract Services, Crowley Marine. 

The Coast Guard will forever be in my heart and in the hearts of my Louisiana 

constituents in light of its heroic efforts following Hurricane Katrina. The Coast 

Guard rescued over 33,000 of our citizens during the largest search and rescue mission in Coast Guard history. When Katrina hit, Admiral Papp was the Commander 

of the Ninth Coast Guard District, an area that covers the Great Lakes. To help 

in the response effort, he ordered the deployment of several hundred personnel 

under his command to the gulf region. I am forever grateful to him and the Coast 

Guard men and women who helped aid those in need following the hurricane. 

In May of this year, Admiral Papp testified before this subcommittee on the Coast 

Guard’s budget request for fiscal year 2013. At that hearing, we were able to discuss 

some of the challenges facing the Coast Guard, including the need to recapitalize 

its aging fleet of ships and planes. That hearing helped the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee make key funding decisions for the Coast Guard’s 

fiscal year 2013 budget. With the help of Senator Murkowski, the fiscal year 2013 

Senate appropriations bill includes $10.336 billion for the Coast Guard, $282 million 

above the administration’s request. The bill provides targeted increases above the 

request to ensure that Coast Guard personnel serving on the front lines have the 

resources to accomplish their missions in fiscal year 2013 and in the future. Specific 

investments that will benefit the Nation and Alaska include: 

—$620 million for the sixth national security cutter; 

—$77 million for long-lead material for the seventh national security cutter; 

—$335 million for six fast response cutters, two of which are expected to be 

homeported in Alaska; 

—$25 million for the continued development of the offshore patrol cutter; 

—$8 million for initial acquisition planning and design of a new polar icebreaker; 

—$10 million for military family housing; 

—$3.1 million for 26 billets to enhance oil spill response capabilities; and 
12 

—$69 million for construction and upgrades of shore facilities, including $5 million to renovate an aircraft hangar in Cold Bay and $1.1 million for new fuel 

tanks in Sitkinak (pronounced ‘‘sit-ki-nak’’); 

—$8 million to slow the retirement of one 378 foot high endurance cutter until 

it can be replaced. 

A specific focus of mine today will be on the diminishing ice in the Arctic, the resulting implications on Coast Guard responsibilities, and the assets needed to respond. Scientists predict that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer months by 

the late 2030s. Rarely used shipping routes, such as the Northwest Passage and 

Northern Sea Route, will likely be used more frequently. Exploration for natural resources is expected to intensify—the United States Geological Survey estimates that 

the Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas. 

The Commandant has been vocal about the trend of diminishing ice and what it 

means for the Coast Guard. In an article he wrote earlier this year for the U.S. 

Naval Institute Proceedings Magazine, entitled ‘‘The Emerging Arctic Frontier’’, he 

said: 

‘‘This change from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ water, growing economic interests and energy demands, and increasing use of the seas for maritime activities by commercial, native, 

and recreational users demands a persistent, capable U.S. Coast Guard presence in 

the Arctic region. Our mandate to protect people on the sea, protect people from 

threats delivered by sea, and protect the sea itself applies in the Arctic equally as 

in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.’’ 

Unfortunately today, two of the Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers, the Polar 

Star and Polar Sea, have exceeded their intended 30-year service lives and are currently not operational. The Polar Star is being refurbished to re-enter service in 

2013 for another 7–10 years and the Coast Guard plans to decommission the Polar 

Sea. We all saw the importance of the Coast Guard’s icebreaking capabilities this 

past winter when the one active icebreaker, the Healy, which was built by Avondale 

Shipyards in Louisiana, broke ice to help deliver fuel to the people of Nome. 

Many comprehensive studies of icebreaker requirements have been conducted over 

the years and all have concluded that a polar icebreaking fleet is essential to the 

national interest. The most recent study, commissioned by the Coast Guard and 

completed in 2010, concluded that a minimum of six icebreakers, three heavy and 

three medium, are required to fulfill Coast Guard statutory missions. However, 

while other countries like Russia and Canada are quickly building icebreakers to 

increase their presence in the Arctic, the United States has been slow to respond. 

The alarm has sounded, but we keep hitting the snooze button. 

Senator Murkowski and I discussed the need for new icebreakers at our budget 

hearing with the Commandant in May, and I want to continue that conversation 

today. 

I want to thank Senator Murkowski for inviting me to Alaska to chair this field 

hearing and thank the Coast Guard for providing us with such a dramatic location 

here at Air Station Kodiak. I now recognize Senator Murkowski for an opening 

statement before turning to our witnesses for their testimonies. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Landrieu, thank you, first, for your 

commitment to come to Alaska to see and understand a little bit 

more about the role that the Coast Guard plays in our northern 

waters. 

In my time in the United States Senate, I can honestly say that 

there is no other colleague in the Senate that has more of a commitment and a passion to our Coast Guard than you, perhaps 

maybe me. But between the two of us, I think it is recognized that 

there is a level of advocacy and a commitment and a care for the 

men and women of the Coast Guard. 

So to be able to share some time in this hangar today, discussing 

what can be done to help those who are serving, and serving sometimes in some somewhat adverse conditions, giving them the as-
13 

sets, the training, and truly the attention that they need, this is 

something that I want to continue our work together. 

Your leadership has been critical, absolutely critical, in advancing some of the platforms that we need, some of the issues you 

mentioned, the housing, but the priority that you have placed on 

it is greatly, greatly appreciated. 

And I appreciate the fact that you have come to Alaska. It is not 

easy to get here from Louisiana. And to come out to Kodiak here 

today and spend a couple days within the State is greatly appreciated. We recognize that time is valuable, and the time that you 

spend away from your constituents to come and understand others 

is greatly appreciated. 

I want to also welcome you, Admiral Papp. It is indeed an honor 

and a pleasure to have you back here at Air Station Kodiak. I 

think this is the third summer now that you have made that commitment to come to Alaska to visit, to speak personally with, to observe, to better understand, and to truly lead. And your leadership 

is greatly appreciated. 

I also appreciate the commitment you have given to the role here 

in the Arctic, and your leadership has truly made a difference. 

I also want to recognize Admiral Ostebo, who is sitting behind 

you. Admiral Ostebo is head of the 17th District here, and he’s 

doing a fine job for us. We appreciate your leadership as well, sir. 

I also want to recognize Linda Papp. Ever ready, always working, and speaking strongly for the Coast Guard families, which is 

greatly, greatly appreciated. 

And I do want to recognize some of the local officials that are 

here. Mayor Jerome Selby, Mayor Pat Branson, we have Representative Alan Austerman, some other folks from the community, I appreciate you being here. 

I think it is significant, Senator Landrieu, that we’re sitting in 

this hangar. The last time I was here, I was able to greet some of 

the crewmen who had just concluded several pretty fantastic rescues. We have, again, some adverse conditions that we deal with, 

but the role that the Coast Guard plays here in Alaska from a 

search-and-rescue perspective is something that is, quote, ‘‘madefor-TV’’. And in fact, you do see it on TV. 

But it is the everyday role of these everyday heroes that are 

truly making a difference in the lives of Alaskans. So to be back 

in this hangar with so many is important. 

As you look around the room, those frames that you see up there 

are from vessels that have gone down, and the Coast Guard has 

played a role—the name over there, you can’t see the full name. 

The Selendang Ayu was a pretty tough tragedy here in Alaska. So 

some of the history around the walls is worth noting. 

I do hope that as we leave this field hearing this morning, not 

only Senator Landrieu gets a little bit deeper appreciation of the 

role that the Coast Guard is playing, but how the other steppedup activities in our northern waters is putting a level of responsibility on our Coast Guard. 

We’re going to be hearing from Mark Myers with the University 

of Alaska about some of the changes on the ground, in the water, 

that we are seeing. Our other witnesses that are here today will 

speak to the commercial shipping interest that they’re seeing, the 
14 

level of activity that we’re seeing in our northern waters that, 

again, puts the Coast Guard operations here in Alaska at a different level, beyond the protecting lives and property that we might 

see down here, but the position of enforcing our fisheries, preserving our living marine resources, promoting our national security, all exceptionally important within the mission. 

Now, I believe that the Commandant will describe in more detail 

the 17th District area of responsibility stretches from the North 

Pacific Ocean to the Arctic Ocean and everything in between. It is 

a lot of water. It is one of the biggest areas of responsibility within 

the Coast Guard. 

And along with the operational challenges that the Coast Guard 

currently faces, the future opening of the Arctic and increased activity that the Coast Guard currently faces in that area, I think we 

recognize there are challenges there. We appreciate that. 

But these challenges must be met by the administration with 

adequate budgeting for the resources necessary to get the job done. 

And it’s tough to be talking about budgeting back in Washington, 

DC, right now, because things are tough and tight. We recognize 

that. But I think we also recognize that we cannot shirk from that 

responsibility and the requirements that are out there. 

Legacy Coast Guard assets in this State are aging. The current 

acquisition timeline leaves Alaska pretty far down the list for replacement of lost assets. 

In the last few years, we have seen the decommissioning of the 

Acushnet. This was a medium endurance cutter (WMEC) with 67 

years of service. It was homeported down in Ketchikan. The 

Acushnet patrolled the North Pacific and the Bering Sea. It could 

stay underway for weeks at a time. 

Now the replacement for the Acushnet is going to be one of the 

FRCs that you mentioned, Senator Landrieu. 

This is going to arrive in service in 2014, so we have a gap there. 

Another issue with the FRC is it will stay underway for only 5 

days, which is the equivalent of our legacy patrol boats. 

So while the FRC will be a stop gap solution until the OPCs are 

in service, it will be years before an OPC is eventually homeported 

here in the State. 

In the meantime, our only WHEC, which is the Munro, which is 

stationed here in Kodiak, is quickly exceeding its useful life. It was 

commissioned back in 1971. 

The Munro has the ability to spend up to 30 days at sea. It was 

fairly recently brought to Alaska, back in 2007 from Alameda, California. Before then, we did not have a WHEC. 

In 2008, the Munro served a vital role in rescuing 20 souls from 

the sinking of the Alaska Ranger fishing vessel. Again, a pretty remarkable story. 

But unfortunately, in the not too distant future, I worry that we 

may again be without a WHEC, and multimission responsibilities 

here in District 17 could overwhelm the Alaska-based assets. The 

Bertholf, which we will have an opportunity to see tomorrow, one 

of the NSCs that will replace the WHECs, will continue to patrol 

the North Pacific and the Bering, but it’s going to do so from Alameda, California. 
15 

I am concerned about all of this because there was a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that reduced 

operational capacity of the WHECs has hindered mission performance. The report says that WHECs and the replacement NSCs are 

the only vessels in the Coast Guard capable of safely launching and 

recovering small boats and aircraft in the Bering Sea. 

Now, it takes about 24 days roundtrip for the Bertholf to travel 

the 3,000 nautical miles from Alameda to here in Kodiak. That is 

24 days that could be spent underway in the Bering Sea. 

So I do have concerns, and I think it is appropriate to express 

them. 

Recently, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council met 

here in Kodiak, and it came to their attention the District 17 is facing a 19-percent reduction this summer in the available major cutter days for fisheries law enforcement. The council is concerned 

with this reduction in cutter days because of the vital importance 

that the Coast Guard plays in enforcing the domestic fishing regulations and the international treaties. This is including the enforcement of the maritime boundary and the high seas driftnet violations. 

We had an opportunity to talk about the challenges that we face, 

the limited capacity that we have, and truly so many of the issues 

that are out there. 

But even without this reduction in cutter days, the Coast Guard 

already faces operational challenges of enforcing in this vast Bering 

Sea. Ten percent of this area within the Bering Sea is what they 

call a doughnut hole of international waters, where you have foreign factory trawlers who are quite often illegally overfishing. 

I believe the case is clear that America needs an NSC 

homeported here in Kodiak when the Munro is decommissioned. 

Now finally, and you touched on this briefly, Madam Chairman, 

this is the need, the desperate need, for icebreaking capacity. 

We saw last year how important it is to have polar icebreaking 

capacity to respond to mission needs. It was reported everywhere 

from the New York Times to the local radio station here the heroic 

efforts of the cutter Healy as she provided a path for the Renda to 

bring much-needed fuel to the community of Nome and the surrounding villages in northwestern Alaska. 

I think you are certainly aware, the Commandant is aware, of 

where we all stand on meeting additional icebreaking capacity, so 

I’m not going to take any more time here today, except to say that 

I am pleased that the administration has finally begun budgeting 

for a new polar icebreaker. I think we recognize it is far less than 

we all want, but we need to be working together to continue in the 

fiscal year 2014 budget a request for this critically important need. 

As I convey my comments, I recognize that it may appear that 

I am not satisfied with what I have here in District 17, with the 

assets. I am grateful for the Coast Guard, the men and women, and 

the presence of all that you do. But I also recognize that we ask 

an extraordinary amount of the men and women who serve us. And 

we have an obligation to provide you with those assets that allow 

you to do the job, do it well, and do it safely, so that you return 

home to your families. 
16 

And I worry. I worry because that water is big and deep and 

broad, and many, many, many times dangerous. Whether you’re on 

the sea or whether you are in a helo in the air plucking fishermen 

out of waves that are 20 feet high and gales that are blasting, we 

put you in harm’s way, and we have an obligation to ensure that 

you have the assets to do what you do so honorably. 

So I look forward to working with my colleague, and with you, 

Admiral, and with so many of our leaders. 

And again I thank the Senator for her time and attention here 

in Alaska. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator. 

And, Admiral, we will go right into your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, COMMANDANT, U.S. 

COAST GUARD 

Admiral PAPP. Good morning, Madam Chair, Senator Murkowski. It is great to be back in Alaska. I think I have visited Alaska and the 17th Coast Guard District more often than any other 

location in our Coast Guard, and that is because of the importance 

of what we do up here, how vital the Coast Guard is to Alaska and 

the Arctic. And also, it is a very challenging operation area as well, 

and I want to stay in touch with what our people are doing up 

here, the challenges they are facing, and their needs. 

So I’m deeply appreciative to this subcommittee for its strong 

show of support through the budget process to make sure that our 

Coast Guard people are getting what they need. I also want to 

thank you for giving focus to Alaska and the Arctic, but more importantly, for your continuing support to our hardworking Coast 

Guard people. 

I’ve stated before it is my highest honor to be able to work with 

them, to lead them, and to represent them. 

And I also want to thank Captain Jerry Woloszynski, who is the 

base commander here, and Captain Melissa Rivera, who is the new 

air station commanding officer, for their support to put on this 

hearing today, and all my fellow coasties that are up here who 

have worked so hard in displaying the hospitality to all of us as 

we are visiting. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and the 

chance this week to show you those hardworking men and women 

in action. It is important to see and hear firsthand, just like I have 

done over the last three summers, what it is like to live and serve 

in one of our most extreme and challenging areas of Coast Guard 

operations. 

I started out this weekend, and it has been a great Coast Guard 

birthday. I started out by going to Florida, where I presided at the 

commissioning of our newest patrol boat, the Richard Etheridge, 

produced in the great State of Louisiana, and then flew up immediately to Ketchikan, Alaska, where we had a chance to spend part 

of our Coast Guard birthday and attend the Blueberry Festival before proceeding over here and spending some of Coast Guard Day 

with our people here at Kodiak. 

We have, of course, traveled yesterday up to Barrow, so we could 

observe Coast Guard operations in the difficult conditions that we 

find 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle, and observe some of our 
17 

people who are involved in Operation Arctic Shield, which is showing and demonstrating our expanding work up there, and demonstrating why it is so important for us to be there. 

During this 9-month operation, we have deployed the NSC, the 

Bertholf, and we are also celebrating Bertholf’s commissioning of 4 

years ago this week, and we will get a chance to see her and her 

crew in operation. 

I can report that our Coast Guard is on station and ready to 

meet today’s traditional mission demands, like protecting Alaska’s 

$3.1 billion fisheries industry, while we also prepare for the future. 

Activity in the most remote reaches of Alaska continues to evolve 

and grow, including planned drilling operations in the Chukchi Sea 

and the Beaufort Sea. Foreign tankers will be using the Northern 

Sea routes, which transit through the Bering Strait and into the 

Bering Sea, and cruise liners will continue to press even further 

into the Arctic. 

We must continue to work to refine our ability to provide and 

then support a persistent operational presence during this period 

of increased human activity or environmental risk. 

And that is why Operation Arctic Shield is so important to us. 

During this 9-month operation, we’ll be deploying the Bertholf, as 

I said, and two of our 225-foot oceangoing, ice-capable buoy 

tenders. We have also forward deployed two of our H–60 helicopters to Barrow and will test and deploy the spilled oil recovery 

system for the first time north of the Arctic Circle, and will continue to examine the requirements to protect living marine resources in the higher latitudes. 

We will also continue to evaluate the best methods by which to 

manage the waterways in the area. 

Given the challenges of operating in this region, we know we 

can’t do it all by ourselves. This takes a whole-of-government approach, and we’re working very closely with other Federal agencies, 

and State, local, and tribal partners. 

We must also carefully consider the resource requirements needed to sustain operations in this environment. 

I’m reminded of our earliest days of operations in Alaska. I’m a 

student of history, and in the late 1800s, in fact starting in 1867, 

when our first cutters came up to Alaska, they plied these waters 

most often under sail, but they also had coal-fired engines. 

We didn’t have a lot of infrastructure up here, and we even have 

historic records that show our crews going ashore in Unalaska and 

mining coal so they could keep their ships going. 

So while we didn’t have permanent infrastructure, over time, because of the increased demand of deploying cutters up here, a coaling station was built in Dutch Harbor on the island of Unalaska 

and served for many years and still serves as a place for logistic 

support for our cutters operating in the Bering Sea. 

So we still have limited infrastructure in Alaska today, but we 

have an advantage over our predecessor cutters that were up in 

our early history. We now have remarkably capable cutters able to 

operate offshore with greater endurance and autonomy. 

Thanks to your continuing support and that of the administration, we are currently building a very capable offshore infrastructure, our NSCs. They don’t rely upon a supply of coal to operate 
18 

and conduct these missions. And in fact, these cutters can carry all 

the supplies they need to provide a sustained presence, and they 

can carry and launch both small boats and helicopters to conduct 

the full range of Coast Guard missions, and also can provide a robust suite of command and control communications capabilities. 

That is why the completion of the NSC fleet is critical to our 

ability to continue to meet our mission demands in this area, and 

why it has continuously been my No. 1 priority for our acquisitions 

money. 

And of course, you will see the Bertholf on Tuesday, and you will 

get a chance to experience firsthand why her tremendous capabilities are in such need up here in the Bering Sea. 

Additionally, with the support of the Congress and the administration, we are also making smart investments now with the fiscal 

year 2013 budget to ensure we are ready to operate effectively in 

the Arctic in the future. The fiscal year 2013 budget provides funding to expand and upgrade the aviation facilities at Cold Bay, 

which you will also see this week. And it also initiates the acquisition of a new polar-class icebreaker. 

The budget also provides for operational funding for our medium 

polar icebreaker Healy, and it reactivates the Polar Star, so we can 

get her back into service in 2013. 

We remain committed to Alaska, as borne out by our investments 

for the future and our operations today, and our presence here each 

summer to make sure we are providing the type of resources that 

our people need to operate in this environment. 

And finally, I can’t forget our hardworking coastguardsmen and 

their families who serve here, many in remote locations. 

I thank you for recognizing Linda, both of you. She has been 

working very hard, and I am very proud of her, because she is focused on housing concerns and childcare services for our families. 

Just during this trip alone, she has met with housing officers 

here and in Ketchikan, and I’m very proud to report that in Cordova, as you know, we recently constructed 26 brand-new homes 

for our people to alleviate a housing shortage there. 

I’m committed to providing for the needs of the 1,600 Coast 

Guard active-duty families stationed throughout Alaska, and we 

appreciate your continued support, along with the administration, 

in making the welfare of our military families a top priority. 

In the Coast Guard, we work as a crew, but we serve as a family. 

We will continue to find that balance between maintaining our operations, recapitalizing our fleet and our infrastructure, and ensuring the needs of our Coast Guard families are being met. So it is 

with deep appreciation that I thank you for putting a spotlight on 

those needs, so we can continue to work together to make sure our 

Coast Guard people are getting the tools they need. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So I thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 
19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP

Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am honored to join 

you in Alaska to discuss the Coast Guard’s Arctic responsibilities and operations. 

This summer we are preparing for Arctic activity driven by the oil industry’s 

planned drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Partnering closely 

with Federal, State, local, and tribal government partners, and working with industry as the regulated parties, the Coast Guard is ready for operations this summer 

in the Arctic with Operation Arctic Shield. The lessons we learn this year will inform our planning and strategy, to ensure we remain always ready to ensure the 

safety, security and stewardship of the emerging maritime frontier of the Arctic. 

OPERATION ARCTIC SHIELD 2012

Arctic Shield 2012 is a three-pronged interagency operation in Alaska’s coastal 

Arctic domain consisting of outreach, operations, and assessment of capabilities 

from February through October 2012. Outreach is comprised of delivering education, 

awareness and health services for Arctic communities and outlying native villages. 

Operations involve deployment of major cutter forces, air assets, communication 

equipment, and mission support to conduct the Coast Guard’s missions. Assessment 

of capabilities involves an analysis of our front-line operations and mission support 

assets in Arctic conditions. Additionally, an oil spill contingency exercise in Barrow, 

Alaska, will test Coast Guard and Navy skimming equipment launched from a 225- 

foot Coast Guard buoy tender. Arctic Shield 2012 has been carefully tailored to deliver the appropriate set of capabilities to this remote area. I am very proud of our 

team in the 17th Coast Guard District for bringing the Arctic Shield plan to fruition. 

The following unclassified schematic outlines our planned force lay down for Arctic Shield 2012. The graphic demonstrates our key challenge—moving Coast Guard 

resources from our long-established bases in south Alaska to the emerging frontier 

of northern Alaska. 

For the first time, we have two MH–60 helicopters in Barrow standing the watch 

and ready to respond. This means that, readiness and weather permitting, we can 

meet a 30-minute launch window for imminent missions such as search and rescue, 

environmental protection and law enforcement. The following photo shows the MH– 

60s in their leased hangar in Barrow. 
20 

We have deployed USCGC Bertholf, the first National Security Cutter, to the 

southern Arctic region, providing persistent operational presence, and command and 

control, in areas where we lack the permanent infrastructure of a coastal Sector. 

We have also deployed two light-ice capable 225-foot ocean-going buoy tenders to increase offshore operational capability in the region. 

THE COAST GUARD IN ALASKA AND THE ARCTIC REGION

The Coast Guard has been operating in the Arctic Ocean since 1867, when Alaska 

was just a territory. Then, as now, our mission is to assist scientific exploration, 

chart the waters, provide humanitarian assistance to native tribes, conduct search 

and rescue, and enforce U.S. laws and regulations. 

In Alaska, Coast Guard aircraft and vessels monitor more than 950,000 square 

miles off the Alaskan coast to enforce U.S. laws. We patrol an even larger area of 

the north Pacific Ocean to stop large-scale high seas drift netting and other illegal 

fishing practices, including foreign incursions into the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone. We also conduct maritime safety and environmental protection missions in the 

region. 

To protect the Arctic environment, we are engaging industry and the private sector to address their significant responsibilities for pollution prevention, preparedness, and response. Recognizing that pollution response is significantly more difficult in cold, ice, and darkness, enhancing preventative measures is critical. Those 

engaging in offshore commercial activity in the Arctic must also plan and prepare 

for emergency response in the face of a harsh environment, long transit distances 

for air and surface assets, and limited response resources. We continue to work to 

improve awareness, contingency planning, and communications. We are also actively 

participating in the Department of Interior-led interagency working group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska, (established 

by Executive Order 13580), to synchronize the efforts of Federal agencies responsible for overseeing the safe and responsible development of Alaska’s onshore and 

offshore energy. 

While prevention is critical, the Coast Guard must be able to manage the response to pollution incidents where responsible parties are not known or fail to adequately respond. In 2010, we deployed an emergency vessel towing system north of 

the Arctic Circle. We have also exercised the Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System (VOSS) and the Spilled Oil Recovery System (SORS) in Alaskan waters, but we 

have yet to conduct exercises north of the Arctic Circle. Both of these systems enable vessels to collect oil in the event of a discharge, however, these systems have 

limited capacity and are only effective in ice-free conditions. We plan on again testing and deploying the SORS in the vicinity of Barrow in a Field Training Exercise 

this summer during Arctic Shield 2012. 

Fisheries are also a major concern. The National Marine Fisheries Service, based 

upon a recommendation from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, has 

imposed a moratorium on fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone north 

of the Bering Strait until an assessment of the practicality of sustained commercial 
21 

fishing is completed. The Coast Guard will continue to carry out its mission to enforce and protect living marine resources in the high latitudes. 

We are employing our Waterways Analysis and Management System to assess 

vessel traffic density and determine the need for improved aids to navigation and 

other safety requirements. We are also moving forward with a Bering Strait Port 

Access Route Study, in coordination with our international partners, which is a preliminary analysis to evaluate vessel traffic management and appropriate ship routing measures. 

The Coast Guard continues to support international and multilateral organizations, studies, projects, and initiatives. We are actively working with the Arctic 

Council, IMO and their respective working groups. We are leading the U.S. delegation to the Arctic Council Oil Spill Task Force that is developing an International 

Instrument on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response. We are also 

conducting joint contingency response exercises with Canada and we maintain communications and working relationships with Canadian and Russian agencies responsible for regional operations including Search and Rescue (SAR), law enforcement 

and oil spill response. We maintain bilateral response relationships with Canada 

and Russia, and last month we hosted representatives from the Russian State Marine Pollution Control Salvage and Rescue Administration (SMPCSRA) to sign an 

expanded memorandum of understanding and joint contingency plan to foster closer 

cooperation in oil spill response. We will continue to engage Arctic nations, international organizations, industry, academia and Alaskan State, local, and tribal governments to strengthen our partnerships and inter-operability. 

Our engagement with Alaska Native Tribes continues to be highly beneficial. Our 

continued partnership has made our operations safer and more successful. We are 

working hard to ensure tribal equities are recognized, and that indigenous peoples 

and their way of life are protected. We look forward to continuing to strengthen our 

partnerships with our Alaskan Native partners. 

The Coast Guard continues to push forward and assess our capabilities to conduct 

operations in the Arctic. Since 2008, we set up small, temporary Forward Operating 

Locations on the North Slope in Prudhoe Bay, Nome, Barrow and Kotzebue to test 

our capabilities with boats, helicopters, and Maritime Safety and Security Teams. 

We also deployed our light-ice capable 225-foot ocean-going buoy tenders to test our 

equipment, train our crews and increase our awareness of activity. Additionally, 

each year from April to November we have flown two sorties a month to evaluate 

activities in the region 

Looking ahead, the Coast Guard’s regional mission profile has evolved significantly. Increasing human activity will increase the significance and volume of maritime issues, such as freedom of navigation, offshore resource exploration, and environmental preservation. 

THE COAST GUARD IN CONTEXT OF NATIONAL ARCTIC POLICY

U.S. Arctic policy is set forth in the 2009 National Security Presidential Directive 

(NSPD) 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 25. For the past 4 

years, as we are today with Arctic Shield 2012, we have been conducting limited 

Arctic operations during open water periods. However, we face many challenges. 

Some Arctic operations demand specialized capabilities and personnel trained and 

equipped to operate in extreme climates. Our assessments of the Nation’s requirements for operating in ice-laden waters consider infrastructure requirements to support operations, and requirements for personnel and equipment to operate in extreme cold and ice. 

Given the scope of these challenges, we have been conducting oil-in-ice research 

since 2010 to evaluate, develop, and test equipment and techniques that can be used 

to successfully track and recover oil in any ice filled waters, and have explored 

promising technologies, such as heated skimmers. The Coast Guard’s strategic approach is to ensure we pursue the capabilities to perform our statutory missions so 

we can ensure the Arctic is safe, secure, and environmentally sustainable. This 

strategy is consistent with our Service’s approach to performing its Maritime Safety, 

Security and Stewardship functions. 

CONCLUSION

Arctic Shield 2012 is an appropriate plan to meet projected mission requirements 

this year. Moving forward, we will continue building our strategy using a whole-ofgovernment approach that will inform national dialogue and policy development for 

this critical region. 

While there are many challenges, the increasingly open Arctic Ocean also presents unique opportunities. We look forward to working with the Congress on how 
22 

our Coast Guard can continue to support our national Arctic objectives, protect its 

fragile environment and remain Semper Paratus—Always Ready in this new ocean. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

ARCTIC: COAST GUARD MISSION

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. I will start out with about 5 or 

6 minutes of questions, turn it over to Senator Murkowski. We may 

go through a second round, because there are some important 

things we would like to get on the record. 

We have all mentioned this in our opening statements, but I 

would like to give you an opportunity to take 1 minute to describe 

in even more detail for the subcommittee how the retreating Arctic 

ice will dramatically change the Coast Guard’s responsibilities, 

looking into the future. The northward migration of fish stock potentially; offshore oil exploration sites, which you mentioned; the 

extraordinary increase in commercial shipping that I think we have 

not really contemplated or really fathomed how significant that 

could be; and how these developments are affecting Coast Guard 

plans for your budget, given the pressures on your budget, yet at 

the same time this growing very new and extraordinary, unprecedented, opening of these waters. 

If you could just hit a few more details on that, so that we can 

try to grasp the real needs that you have. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Chairman. 

Many people, as I travel around the country, ask the same question. The good thing is there is a lot of interest in the Arctic now. 

I think the work of this subcommittee, the two of you, some speaking engagements I have had, are causing people to ask the questions now. 

And when I try to relate this to a landsman, someone who is 

from the interior of the country who doesn’t quite understand, is 

to think about if your city, or your county, or your parish incorporated a new portion of land or gained some additional space and 

area, but you never increased your police force or you never increased your fire department. They would take on added responsibilities, added burdens, and they would have to spread the existing resources a little bit thinner in order to accomplish the mission. 

So up here in the Arctic—and first of all, this country, the United 

States, has the largest maritime exclusive economic zone in the 

world, 3.3 million square miles of exclusive economic zone. And 

fully a third of that is here in Alaska. 

When the ice was covering the Arctic most of the time, there was 

no human activity. We didn’t have to deploy any Coast Guard resources up there. But now during the summer months, when we 

are having much more open water, soft water, as I refer to it in 

the article, we have responsibilities up there. We’re the maritime 

law enforcement, first responder service for this country. So we 

have the authorities; we have the responsibilities; and we need to 

set priorities and distribute our resources up there to take care of 

an emerging mission and operation in those waters. 

So, with no significant increase in our resources right now—in 

fact, sort of a little bit of a budget that is reducing some of our 

operational capability and capacity, what we are doing is we are 
23 

making reasoned decisions across our mission sets and deciding 

where our highest priorities are. 

So, obviously, our WHECs and now our NSCs are used for fisheries, search and rescue, law enforcement, drug interdiction, and 

migrant interdiction. We still have all those responsibilities, but we 

are deploying resources up here in the summertime to account for 

the increased human activity. 

Most of the year we have one WHEC in the 17th Coast Guard 

District. As we speak today, we have three under the tactical control of Admiral Ostebo. The Rush, one of our WHECs, is prosecuting a high-seas driftnet case, almost all the way over to Japan 

right now, because they have been pursuing this vessel. 

We have the Munro, which is patrolling the maritime boundary, 

protecting the fisheries in the Bering Sea. 

And the Bertholf will be on her way up to the Arctic to be up 

there on standby for operations that are occurring off the North 

Slope. 

So it is like I always tell people, the Coast Guard doesn’t have 

resources to do 100 percent of every mission that we have, so what 

we do is we make reasoned decisions based on risk and priorities 

on a daily basis, and allocate those ships and aircraft that we do 

have to what we consider to be the highest mission. And right now, 

the Arctic is one of our highest missions. 

ARCTIC: DRILLING BY SHELL

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Let me put this into the record, 

which I think may be shocking to people from Alaska that were focused but maybe not as focused as we were in the gulf when this 

is happening, but as you all know, in 2010, 2 years ago, the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the gulf. 

Now, we drilled 40,000 deepwater wells relatively safely in the 

Gulf of Mexico. I like to say, as an advocate for the industry, but 

also for good environmental practices, that until the Deepwater Horizon, there was more natural seepage of oil into the ocean than oil 

ever spilled from a rig. The Deepwater Horizon blew those numbers 

up and put 5 million barrels of oil into the gulf. 

It may be shocking, Senator, to think about this, but 47,000 personnel and 7,000 vessels responded to that accident. I mean, we’re 

sitting in the largest airbase here, and we only have 1,000 personnel. I don’t think you have nearly 7,000 vessels anywhere close. 

The Deepwater Horizon response had to be done immediately. 

I think the Nation has to really come to grips with the exploration opportunities for oil and gas, the great need of the Nation 

to have our own domestic resource, but the extra responsibility 

that comes with that to provide the vessels and the manpower to 

take care of something if, like in that situation, something went 

terribly wrong. 

So could you talk for 1 minute about Shell’s hopes to begin exploratory drilling? Give us just a little bit of an update about what 

is going on, and how you and the Coast Guard plan to be at the 

ready in the event that something terrible happened. 

We hope it doesn’t. We know the technology is good. We know 

there are containment measures. 
24 

But like every industry, you have to have some fallback safeguard, and the Coast Guard is it. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Taking lessons learned from Deepwater Horizon, I think there 

are some things that are directly applicable to the challenges of 

drilling up in the Arctic. We have had a chance, along with the Department of the Interior, to review the response plans that Shell 

has put forward. 

When Deepwater Horizon occurred, the drill rig, and that was a 

production well, but the drill rig was out there and basically was 

there by itself, for the most part. 

Shell is going to be drilling in much shallower water, about 150 

feet as opposed to 5,000 feet. You don’t necessarily have to have 

just remotely operated vehicles up here. You can actually put divers down. 

And Shell is going to have up there 22 vessels that are all designed either as ice vessels, as anchor vessels, as skimmers, response vessels. They will have everything in place and ready to go 

in an overabundance of caution, in case something happens. 

First of all, looking at it from a layman’s point of view, it is a 

much easier operation in 150 feet of water. And they believe that 

the reservoirs that are up there are under much less pressure than 

down on the gulf. 

So to a certain extent, you’re dealing with apples and oranges. 

But even saying that, we’re looking at the worst-case discharge 

possibility, and I think Shell has well-prepared for that. The Coast 

Guard has had an opportunity to review their response plan, along 

with the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Safety and Energy 

Enforcement (BSEE). 

And all of us will need to sign off on that and approve that before 

they start drilling. 

Most of their vessels are here already. They do have one vessel, 

which is an Arctic containment system, which is their tertiary response system in the unlikely event of a spill. That is still down 

in Bellingham, Washington, right now, going through review by the 

American Bureau of Shipping and our Coast Guard inspectors. 

There’s still a work list of things to be done on that before we can 

certify that as safe to operate. 

And until the Arctic Challenger is released and gets up here, 

they will have to wait until that drilling begins. But they have primary, secondary, and tertiary systems to deal with any possible 

discharge up there. 

And, quite frankly, I have to say I am impressed with the 

amount of effort, work, and commitment of resources that Shell has 

done. 

POLAR ICE BREAKERS: NUMBER OF VESSELS

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

My final question for this round, again, is to focus on the polar 

icebreakers. It is a very important investment and significant investment that our country is going to have to make. A recent study 

sanctioned by the Coast Guard, named the ‘‘High Latitude Study’’, 

calls for a minimum of three heavy polar icebreakers and a minimum of three medium polar icebreakers. 
25 

How many new heavy polar icebreakers does the Coast Guard intend to procure? What would be the future implications for the 

budget? And if you could comment on what some of our competitors, China and Russia, are doing in this area, and really how far 

behind we are right now in this initiative? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

First of all, I need to focus on what we can do today to make sure 

we have icebreaking capability and capacity for our country. 

In the law, the Coast Guard is responsible for maintaining our 

icebreaker fleet. And as I stated, we are in woeful condition right 

now. Healy is the one bright spot, because Healy is only about a 

dozen years old and is in good shape. And thank goodness we had 

that ship to call upon last year when we had the situation up in 

Nome. 

You both are fully aware of the dreadful condition of Polar Sea 

and Polar Star. They are well past their service life, very difficult 

and expensive to maintain. And I have had limited funding in 

order to be able to deal with them. 

The bright spot there is the operating money has been transferred back into the Coast Guard’s budget in fiscal year 2013 from 

the National Science Foundation, which will give us sufficient 

funds to operate Healy properly and to operate one of the Polars. 

We also received some money in past budget cycles to put Polar 

Star back into service. Polar Star is in the shipyard down in Seattle right now undergoing renovation, and we will have her back 

in service in 2013. 

So that’ll give us one heavy breaker and one medium breaker, 

and that is my bridging strategy over the next probably decade 

until we get the new polar icebreaker built. And once again, I look 

at that optimistic—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. How much do those new polar icebreakers 

cost, approximately? 

Admiral PAPP. We are estimating anywhere between $800 mil- lion to $1 billion, looking across the world at the price that we see 

in other countries and what Canada is allocating to build their new 

icebreakers. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Do you know how many Canada has, how 

many Russia has, and how many China has? 

Admiral PAPP. I would have to get back to you with the exact 

numbers for the record. 

[The information was not available at press time.] 

Senator LANDRIEU. They have more than we do? 

Admiral PAPP. Absolutely. Russia has in the neighborhood of a 

dozen heavy icebreakers. Canada, I believe, has four right now 

heavy icebreakers. And of course, we have the two, but they are out 

of service right now. We are rapidly working to get Polar Star back 

and active. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I’m going to turn it over to Senator Murkowski, but one of the challenges that our subcommittee has, and 

the Senator and I have talked about this publicly and privately 

many times, is the Federal Government requires us to basically 

pay cash up front for these investments. When we build an aircraft 

carrier, when we build a billion-dollar ship, there has to be a better 

way to do this, because we have to take that money out of the 
26 

Coast Guard budget. We have to find the money in the Coast 

Guard budget to build this polar icebreaker, this new fleet. 

We’re going to have to figure out a better way, Senator, to do 

that. 

I’m going to ask, when the Senator is finished, one or two more 

questions about that. But there might be some partnerships with 

the private sector, there might be some foreign partnerships, allies, 

that we can maybe share some of these expenses with. There has 

to be some way we can, particularly with the crunch that is coming 

to our budget, figure out a way. 

I know lots of people like to say we have to do more with less, 

but sometimes you just can’t do more without more. I think this 

is an example of what we’re running into here. 

And I turn it over to you, Senator. 

OPERATION ARCTIC SHIELD

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Landrieu, I appreciate you focusing 

so much of your questions on the issue of icebreaker and 

icebreaking capacity. It is extraordinarily important to us here in 

the State, but it is extraordinarily important to us as a Nation. We 

are an Arctic Nation. And as an Arctic Nation, to know that we do 

not have an icebreaker that is a polar-class icebreaker, a heavy icebreaker, given all that is happening, is really quite remarkable. 

And, Commandant, you and I have had an opportunity to discuss 

the situation with the Healy last year and how close we were as 

a Nation to not even having the Healy accessible to us, that you 

were in a situation where you effectively had to turn down a request to send the Healy down on a mission to Antarctic. 

Had you made the decision another way, when the people of 

Nome needed help, needed assistance at a very difficult time, we 

would not have been able to provide the level of assistance, and to 

help those people out, because our one medium-strength icebreaker 

would not have been available. So think about the what-ifs. 

And it’s not a situation that I think we want to be in. Again, we 

are in Arctic Nation, but sometimes you wouldn’t know it when you 

look at the assets. 

I had an opportunity to be with you Barrow yesterday, to talk 

with some of the Coast Guard’s men and women that are up north 

right now, working that Barrow mission. And I found it interesting 

that some of those that I was speaking with yesterday were coming 

back today, coming back home. 

So they are working up north; they are living down here. And for 

those who haven’t checked their maps, the distance between the 

Barrow and Kodiak is 820 nautical miles. 

So when we appreciate how we are going to have a Coast Guard 

that will be serving the area with the Arctic Shield Operation, I 

think it is important to recognize that there’s a financial strain 

here. To move these men and women back and forth is going to be 

challenging. To move the assets back and forth is going to be challenging. 

If you’re staging out of a Dutch Harbor, it is 1,125 miles. So 

whether you’re moving the Bertholf up or you’re going by helicopter, you’re going by C–130, I think it is a recognition we’re deal-
27 

ing with some considerable issues with the distance. And that leads 

to cost as well. 

I would like you to address just generally how the Coast Guard’s 

preparedness in moving forward with Operation Arctic Shield this 

summer with the assets that we currently have—we mentioned the 

Bertholf is moving her way up north. I think you mentioned two 

H–60s that would be moving back and forth. 

But as we talk about how we manage the waterways, how we 

move the necessary personnel, can you describe to Alaskans how 

well-manned, how our capabilities are at this point for the operations this summer? 

And then if you can then address the practical reality that we 

do not have a polar-class icebreaker, whether or not the mission capability is compromised at all, because we do not have that 

icebreaking capacity for whether it is Arctic Shield or the other 

mission sets that the Coast Guard has here. 

Admiral PAPP. I have three levels of concerns. First of all is tactical. What are we doing this summer on the basis of that activity 

that is up there? What are we doing to prepare ourselves for perhaps the next decade question? And then what is the long-term 

plan up there? 

The President, through directives, has challenged all of Government to look at the Arctic and start thinking about and planning 

for what we need to do in the future. And because of the Coast 

Guard’s broad authorities and responsibility, we are taking that 

very seriously. 

We have devoted staff to this effort. And we have also devoted— 

even though Arctic Shield, this is the first time we’re doing that 

operation. We did something called Arctic Crossroads for 3 years 

before that. We have known that our activity is going to increase 

up there, so we have been taking our equipment up, experimenting, 

seeing how it performs, and trying to learn more about the operating environment as the activity starts to flow up toward the 

North Slope. 

Another important aspect is getting to know the people up there. 

That is their world. So the people who inhabit the villages, we have 

been engaged in outreach with them, to help us understand the 

culture and the environment up there, because they have literally 

thousands of years of experience and history with the operating environment, and that helps us. 

So for right now, we are well-prepared, because like we always 

do traditionally, we have multimission assets that we can deploy 

that are very capable and that are sufficient for the level of human 

activity that is going on this summer and perhaps for the next 

three or four summers. 

But as we finish up Arctic Shield this year, we will do a hot 

wash of that entire operation, and decide what went well, what 

didn’t go as well, what sort of resources we might need for the next 

year. Then we can begin that planning evolution. 

At the same time, that feedback will go back to Washington to 

our staff that is working at headquarters, developing our Arctic 

strategy, our long-range strategy for what we need to do up here. 

And that will inform our future budget years, how we start plan-
28 

ning for resource proposals for perhaps more permanent infrastructure. 

As was noted during the opening statement, we don’t expect it 

to be ice-free during the summertime probably until about 2030. 

But it is still going to freeze up during the wintertime. And there 

will be ice that we will have to deal with during certain periods of 

the year. 

So what we need during those periods of the year when the ice 

is there is some sort of short access that can only be provided by 

an icebreaker. 

So our multimission assets, our helicopters, our fixed-wing aircraft, the NSC, these are all very versatile assets that we can apply 

during the temporary times that there is human activity up there. 

But there’ll be other times when things start freezing up, as happened last fall with Nome, that we need to have that assured access of an icebreaker. 

I wouldn’t say I am comfortable at this point, but we do have 

Healy that is on call. And as I said, by next year, we will have 

Polar Star back in service, which will give us two icebreakers. Not 

an abundance of resources, but enough that will make me comfortable that we will be able to respond to the types of challenges 

that we are facing over the next 10 years as we continue to work 

our way forward to determine the other resources that we need. 

CUTTERS: REPLACING LEGACY VESSELS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Until the Polar Star is back in the water, 

I sure hope that we are able to keep Healy up here and not send 

her down on a research mission to Antarctica. 

That is just my ask. I am sure that you have thought of that as 

well. 

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the legacy vessels, and 

how we deal with what I would describe as the gaps that are out 

there. Two of the vessels that are covered in this GAO report are 

homeported here. I mentioned the Munro, the WHEC, but we also 

have the Alex Haley that is here. 

The Alex Haley is 41 years old. The Munro is 45 years old. 

Can you give me some sense as to what the plans are to replace 

these legacy vessels? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Fortunately, with the support of the administration and the 

strong support shown by this subcommittee, the national security 

project is moving forward. We will be prepared to award the contract for NSC No. 6 within the 2013 budget as soon as we have an 

approved budget. And we already have long-lead materials on order 

for No. 6. 

And as was indicated with the opening statement, for the fiscal 

year 2013 budget, there has also been long-lead money put in there 

for No. 7, which should help us along as well. 

We hope to build out eight of the NSCs, which will replace the 

12 WHECs that we currently have right now. And then we will immediately get into what is called the offshore patrol cutter, or the 

OPC. 
29 

We just got out a request for proposal on the OPC, and that 

project is on schedule. And we hope to be able to award the construction for the first OPC in the fiscal year 2015 budget. 

So ultimately, though, we will have—today we have 41 major 

ships. They will be replaced by 33 major ships when the project is 

done. 

But they will be more capable ships. But they won’t be able to 

be in as many places as the legacy fleet. 

Having said that, the legacy fleet, many of them were only getting about two-thirds of the underway days that we programmed 

for, because of major casualties and breakdowns. 

So the best solution is to get these new ships built as quickly as 

possible, because they will be more reliable and substantially more 

capable than the ships they are replacing. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I mentioned also in my statement about 

the loss of underway days, the importance of these cutters actually 

being underway, conducting the mission, and the fact that the outside cutters are spending 25 to 30 days underway every deployment as they transit from, in this case, from California up here. 

So the desire, the importance, to have these vessels homeported 

here I think it is an issue I think we look at as we try to address 

how the mission is fulfilled. 

Do you have any sense in terms of when the decommissioning of 

the Munro or the Healy may come about? 

Admiral PAPP. I am trying to keep them going as long as we can. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. 

Admiral PAPP. If my recollection is correct, Munro is the youngest of our WHECs and, as you note, is in excess of 40 years old. 

A lot of people, when you speak to our citizens and you say 40, 

45 years old, they don’t perceive that as being very much. But in 

the life of a ship, that really makes it well beyond senior citizen 

status. 

The Navy’s service life is usually about 25 years for a ship. We 

in the Coast Guard work our ships very hard in very challenging 

and very demanding conditions. So these 12 WHECs that we had 

have had a pretty rough life, spending a lot of time in the Bering 

Sea. 

And you have what amounts to—because they were built in the 

1960s, there is a lot of 1950s technology that is still on these ships. 

Many components that you just can’t get spare parts for nowadays 

unless they are hand manufactured. 

So when we have a breakdown, part of the problem is it takes 

us so long to get replacement parts and put them back into service 

that we lose those underway days and our effectiveness out there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the need, the desire, to get our 

new vessels on, but, again, I’m worried about the gaps, where we 

have ships that are decommissioned without that replacement vessel on-site in the water. 

And I think those that rely on our Coast Guard are looking very 

critically at the timing as well. So I just put that out there. 

Madam Chairman, I probably have a couple more, but I will turn 

it to you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I would like to follow up on this technology 

issue. 
30 

I had the privilege, the responsibility and privilege, to go down 

to Guatemala as chair of the Homeland Security Committee and 

look at some of the drug interdiction situations down there. I have 

to just say for the record, it is shocking to see the technology that 

the drug cartels have. 

New materials, submarines that are undetectable, running drugs 

from Mexico through Guatemala into the United States, and we are 

operating our boats, Senator, with 1950s technology. 

I mean, we are trying to keep up with other countries. We also 

have to keep up with the drug cartels. I know that, Admiral, you 

were restricted in your budget, and the Senator and I have some 

restrictions. But where there’s a will, there is a way. We are going 

to have to find a way to get the assets for this Nation that we need 

to protect our homeland and to monitor the great industries that 

we have responsibility for that produce wealth and opportunity for 

our country. 

It is very concerning to me, and I want to ask you this, because 

I’m trying to really understand, as we change our fleets, how can 

you sort of compare the OPCs for operations in Alaskan waters, 

how will the capabilities compare to the NSC? 

Can you just explain that, and make sure that we are building 

the kind of ships that Alaska needs? Because the needs of the Gulf 

of Mexico are going to be a little bit different, of course. Our waters 

are a little tamer, as we don’t, of course, have any ice anywhere 

around. Although we can have terrible storms and hurricanes, I 

want to make sure that our country is building the right kinds of 

ships for the east coast, the west coast, the gulf coast, and for Alaska. 

So do you have any concerns at all that the plans are not providing the assets that Alaska and our Arctic boundaries need? 

Admiral PAPP. Ma’am, when we finish this shipbuilding project, 

we’ll basically have two major cutters, the NSC and the OPC. 

Today we have two classes. We call them the WHEC and the 

WMEC. 

Our challenge is the WMECs that we have right now are incapable of operating in the Arctic and the Bering Sea. They cannot take 

the seas. We can’t launch small boats, we can’t launch helicopters 

from them, because they just can’t take the conditions that are 

found up in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. 

Consequently, we moved all our WHECs a number of years ago, 

took them off the east coast, and moved them to the west coast, because, particularly for Alaska patrol, Bering Sea patrol, the 

WHECs are the only ships that we have been able to use yearround up here. 

When we get to this new fleet, in the requirements that we put 

out for the OPC, which is the WMEC replacement, we put requirements in there for it to be able to operate, launch small boats, land 

and launch helicopters in sea state five, which will allow it to operate in the Bering Sea. 

So there’ll be times when we are able, in the future, even though 

we will have only a reduced number, 8 instead of 12, the high-end 

ships will have the opportunity, the option, to send the OPC up 

here as well. 
31 

In fact, we have plans to station two of our OPCs up here in 

Alaska, hopefully here at Kodiak. 

So that will give us much more versatility in where we can deploy those. Right now, there are only, basically, 12 ships that we 

can send up here. When we get the new fleet built out, any of the 

ships we have in those 33 will be able to come up here. 

Obviously, in the worst weather, you want the NSC up here, because that gives us our best capability for the conditions that are 

found up in Alaska. 

POLAR ICEBREAKERS: LEASING PROS AND CONS

Senator LANDRIEU. I want to say that we’re getting some 

pushback, Senator, from some people in Washington that think 

that the Navy is the only operational group that should have these 

very large ships. But I want to go on record strongly, and I’m a 

very big supporter of the Navy and the need for them to have the 

kind of ships that they need, but we just cannot patrol waters— 

we are not patrolling waters within just 15 miles, as you know, of 

our coastline. 

We have up to 200 miles as our economic zone. Under the Law 

of the Sea Treaty, if we can ever get that resolved, we may have 

up to 600 miles, I understand, here off of the coast. 

So this is not just patrol boats going up and down a few miles 

off the coast. These boats need to be seaworthy and have a very 

different mission, of course, than the Navy, but they have to be big 

and strong and able to maintain. 

My last question, and we talked about this, Commandant, about 

the pros and cons of having the private sector build an icebreaker 

and lease it back. 

Both the Senator and I are very concerned about not getting one 

or two but several, and getting them much more quickly than the 

plans that we have in place. I think you are making the best lemonade you can out of the sort of lemon situation that you have been 

given, but what are the pros and cons of having the private sector 

build an icebreaker, leasing it back to the Coast Guard? 

I know there are some disadvantages in your mind, but what 

might be some of the disadvantages and advantages, if you could? 

And I’m ready to close out and go to the next panel, unless you 

have—— 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

I think the biggest con is that the Coast Guard generally builds 

and operates ships for 30-plus years. It is something we can rely 

upon. It is a capability the country knows it has. 

And if you build a ship and you invest in it, if you were to lease 

over that time period, it ends up costing you way more. 

And I know your interest in this, so we had a chance to do a rudimentary business case analysis, and also look at the legal implications of what missions we could conduct for the Coast Guard 

under Coast Guard-owned or leased. 

I would say, at this point, because we are struggling right now 

just to have one polar icebreaker, there’s a certain level we want 

to have Coast Guard-owned, because we can rely upon that. 

And it’s sort of like, if I can use a very simple illustration, a 

number of years ago, I wasn’t certain whether I was going to retire 
32 

or not. And we had one car that we owned, and we know that’s 

ours and we can rely upon it all the time. But because I wasn’t 

sure what was happening, we leased another car. 

We spent a lot of money on that lease. And at the end of the day, 

it wasn’t ours, and we had to turn it back in, so we could fall back 

on the car that we owned. 

I want to have an icebreaker that we own, maybe a couple icebreakers that we own. And then I think leasing is more of an option, in my mind, when you need surge capabilities for a couple 

years and you can go out and perhaps invest in a lease that gets 

you through a tough period. But then at the end of the day, you 

don’t have the responsibility for maintaining it afterward. 

So right now I am focused on procuring, getting the appropriation, and building an icebreaker that we will have for a good three 

decades and be able to rely upon, and use it for the full set of Coast 

Guard missions. 

And that brings in the other argument, the legal argument. 

Under the various leasing options that we have looked at, you can 

use it for icebreaking, but you can’t necessarily use it for law enforcement and defense-related operations, where you need a sovereign military vessel that belongs to the United States. 

So my recommendation, my strongest recommendation to you, is 

we proceed in getting a Coast Guard-owned icebreaker or two as 

we go forward, and put our efforts into that. And then who knows 

what happens in the future. Maybe there are some times where 

you need to surge for a couple years, because of conditions, and a 

lease might make sense for that. 

But my strongest recommendation is staying with the Coast 

Guard-owned. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. I think this has been a very, very 

good first panel. And, Admiral, thank you for your testimony. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, go ahead. 

FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT

Senator MURKOWSKI. If I might just ask one more brief question, 

because we focused a lot about the activities up north, but I think 

we also recognize that one of the very significant responsibilities of 

the Coast Guard in this region is fisheries enforcement. 

And unfortunately, we have seen an increase in the illegal, unreported, the high seas driftnet fisheries. Could you just comment, 

briefly, Admiral, on what we’re seeing out there? Is it an increased 

volume of traffic, a level of sophistication that we haven’t seen before? And how are we doing in combating this illegal activity? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

And I would like to have my staff or myself, when both of you 

get back to Washington, and give you a classified briefing on what 

is going on there. 

But I would call this fishing piracy that is going on. Right now, 

we are prosecuting a case—the WHEC Rush, as I mentioned, is almost all the way to Japan but still under Admiral Ostebo’s tactical 

control. 
33 

And we have been working across the Government. We have 

something called the Maritime Operational Threat Response Organization, which works across State and Justice and other departments. And we have come to a national objective of seizing what 

amounts to, we found out now, a stateless vessel that has 40 tons 

of fish. 

They put 8 miles of net out there and collect everything that 

flows through it, killing off a lot of species, and picking up migratory stocks that perhaps would come back to Alaska waters. And 

they have 40 tons of fish onboard. 

We have a boarding team on board right now on the cutter Rush, 

and we are working to come to either pass this off to China, perhaps, for prosecution, because there is a claim—well, there are Chinese citizens on board that are manning the ship. But it is stateless, as far as we can determine. And as a fallback, we can bring 

it back to the United States for prosecution as well. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I hope we are filing charges not just against 

the man operating the ship but the buyers of these fish and tracking it down to the networks that are really funding these kinds of 

illegal operations. And we will commit to work on that. 

I think people would be horrified at home to hear—the lower 

48—about what is really going on here in these waters. 

But thank you, Admiral, we appreciate it. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Senator 

Murkowski. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And our next panel, and we’re going to conduct the next panel for about 30 to 35 minutes. 

As you are introduced, if you come forward? There’ll be very brief 

introductions and the Senator may want to add some words. 

Mark Meyer serves as vice chancellor for research at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, where he oversees administration of 

the university’s $123 million per year research enterprise that supervises the university’s stand-alone initiatives. Prior to serving in 

this capacity, Chancellor Myers held various senior executive and 

scientific research in petroleum industry positions, including the 

State of Alaska pipeline coordinator. 

Welcome, Dr. Myers. 

Our next is Merrick Burden, executive director of the Marine 

Conservation Alliance. Mr. Burden is executive director of a group 

of industry harvesters, processors, and communities engaged in the 

North Pacific and Bering Sea seafood industry. He can probably 

shed some light on what we just spoke about. 

Their role is to seek practical solutions to sustainable fisheries 

management through sound science and application of law. 

And finally, Mr. Bruce Harland, vice president of Alaskan international contract service, Crowley Marine Services, a business unit 

responsible for the U.S. West Coast international markets. Crowley 

provides ship-assisted and escort services, salvage, and oil spill response equipment; contract towing services; Atlantic transportation 

services; et cetera, et cetera. 

So, all three of these gentlemen have tremendous experience in 

areas that our subcommittee is exploring today. 
34 

Dr. Myers, why don’t we begin with you? I think we have asked 

for 5 minutes of opening testimony. Then we will go through probably just one round of questioning, but go right ahead. 

Try to pull the mike a little closer to you, and you may have to 

adjust it, or you can pull it off, like I did. I am not sure it’s on. 

One of the staff may turn that on. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK MYERS, VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA—FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS, 

ALASKA 

Dr. MYERS. Thank you, Chairman Landrieu, Senator Murkowski, 

for the opportunity to speak. But also, thank you for coming to 

Alaska. 

You can’t get a perspective on the size and scope of the State and 

the challenges the Coast Guard faces until you actually see it in 

place. 

The State is vast. The Coast Guard’s mission is vast. Just to give 

you an example, almost 30 years ago, I worked in the oil and gas 

industry, and we did an exploration well in the Navarin Basin. 

That was after working in Louisiana. 

Senator LANDRIEU. You’re going to have to speak a little louder. 

It is going to be hard, so just kind of lean into your mike. 

Dr. MYERS. Is that better? 

Senator LANDRIEU. That’s better. 

Dr. MYERS. Almost 30 years ago, when I first came up to Alaska, 

I worked on an oil exploration well in the Navarin Basin. And we 

used a much larger helicopter, a Chinook, then the H–60 here, 

much more capable in terms of distance. 

In order to get to the well site, we had to replace almost all the 

seats on the helicopter with inboard fuel tanks, and we could only 

take a few people at a time, over 4 hours of over-ocean conditions 

out of Nome, the closest major port and facility with fuel and an 

airport. 

And we didn’t wear our exposure suits. To simply explain that, 

if you went down, the exposure suit, you would not survive long 

enough. There would be no rescue. 

So to give you scope, that was one well almost 400 miles offshore 

in Alaska. That is the scale and scope of issues. 

And we went off in the closest possible location that had an airport and fuel. 

So the areas we’re talking about are huge in scope, and the Coast 

Guard’s mission is very, very challenging in that way. 

I’m going to focus my testimony on the Arctic itself, the Arctic 

region, so sort of the Bering Strait into the north. And in addition 

to the huge responsibilities the 17th District has, the Arctic is 

going to be a very big challenge. 

As you had mentioned, we are seeing major changes in environmental conditions. We’re also seeing a significant drive toward resource development, circumpolar in the Arctic, a lot of that driven 

by oil and gas potential, the U.S. Geological Survey 2008 study 

pointed out, as you did, 13 percent of the undiscovered resources. 

That equates to about 90 billion barrels of oil and about 44 billion 

barrels of natural gas liquids. That is a huge amount of petroleum 

potential out there. And countries are exploring, whether it be the 

United States or other countries, it is happening as we speak. 
35 

At the same time, there are immense mineral deposits in the 

Arctic, in addition. Coal deposits, lead, zinc, iron ore, nickel in the 

Arctic that are being considered for development, now that we’re 

seeing possibilities for shipping. 

Ecotourism has been mentioned. That is becoming a much larger 

industry in the Arctic as people want to get north and see this 

country. 

And then, finally, Arctic shipping and possibly Arctic fishing. As 

we see opportunities to develop resources in the Arctic, the ability 

of the northern sea route becomes a real possibility with icestrengthened hulls. 

So we’re seeing those major pushes in the development side. At 

the same time, the change that is happening in the Arctic is happening very rapidly. 

As a simple analog, it is really about water. Fundamentally, the 

Arctic is frozen. And as it warms up, it is becoming much less frozen. 

Simply put, that means seasonally, much longer open water seasons. And also, the glue that holds the Arctic coast together is permafrost. Permafrost is really just ice within the soil. As we lose 

that, as it changes, the coast erodes much more quickly. 

As we lose sea ice, there are huge environmental feedback mechanisms that take place that increase warming. Again, ice reflects 

really well, reflects sunlight. The open ocean absorbs sunlight. 

Ocean acidification and other factors are occurring. 

So we’re seeing in the Arctic in major transition, both in the case 

of the resources that are available, but also in the environmental 

conditions. 

So research to understand those conditions is extremely important. And the Coast Guard has a significant role in that through 

the Healy. The Healy is a unique U.S. asset. It can carry about 35 scientists. 

It has tremendous laboratory capacity. It is, basically, our major 

Arctic research vessel that can work in the areas to the north, 

where we have ice conditions still. 

Again, the ice changes we’re seeing both on the fringes of the 

summer months—September is the least amount of sea ice—but 

also as you move further north, it is still very much ice. 

The Healy can break about 4.5 feet of ice. It can work in conditions that no other surface vessel that the U.S. Government operates can. It has been doing that work very well. 

For instance, in determining the basic shape and conditions of 

the Arctic basin and any potential claim that the United States 

might make in the future under the Law of the Sea, the Healy, 

along with the St. Laurent, the Canadian service, has been for multiple years working to acquire the basic seismic and bathymetric 

data sets so we understand both the Canadian and Russian claims, 

and a U.S. claim or protest should we decide to go that route. 

So it’s a critical vessel. That vessel is also the only working icebreaker we have. So if it gets called off for other search-and-rescue 

areas, the scientific missions must quit. 

So it is a very challenging condition to have only a single icebreaker. The Polar Star will become critical, to see it operational. 

Also, a medium icebreaker can only really work in single season 
36 

ice. It can’t do the heavy lifting that a heavy icebreaker can, in the 

sense of dealing with more severe ice conditions. 

But again, the Healy becomes a critical asset. The Coast Guard 

cooperation with the National Science Foundation has led to fundamental research changes and understandings in the Arctic. And if 

we lose that capacity, or if we can’t maximize that capacity, the 

country will lose a significant amount of research capacity. 

Second, the opportunity to do transformational approaches is 

available. If you think about these helicopters, there are very few 

of them. The H–60 is land-based only. That is really the only seaborne helicopter that can be carried by cutter. They can’t cover 

much of the ground. 

We need to start using more unmanned systems, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned submarines, submarine gliders, and 

remote sensing systems, coupled with the fundamental traditional 

way that we do Arctic domain awareness. 

The university is working in strong partnership with the Department of Homeland Security through various funded research 

projects, one of which is a cooperative between the Department of 

Homeland Security and the universities of Alaska and Hawaii 

working jointly. 

One of the products of that research is an Arctic domain awareness system that uses very small portable radars with their own 

small portable supply mostly powered by wind and solar, but a little bit of backup diesel. Those radars can sense sea ice. 

Along with UAVs, along with satellites, we can do a much better 

job of detecting ice along the coast. We can also use it, potentially, 

to locate vessels. The power source and the communication system 

then can be used to relay critical information for other sensors. 

So the ability to put coastal, small-scale, portable systems out 

there, combined with other assets, really revolutionizes our ability 

to see and understand the conditions that are occurring in the Arctic, giving a better picture. 

It is crucial that we build systems that can work under ice. 

Again, if you look fundamentally, much of the year, the coast is 

still covered. We need to understand what is under the ice. We 

need to understand, should there be a catastrophic oil spill, to be 

able to model and actually map the movement of that oil under ice, 

also to understand the ecological changes that are occurring under 

the ice as well. 

So there’s a lot of new technology and approaches that universities are in the forefront, that the partnership with Homeland Security are really important. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

At the same time, it is very important the Coast Guard, in my 

opinion, start adapting and using more of these approaches. Being 

able to launch small, UAVs off their ships, for example, would be 

a huge leveraging system. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MARK MYERS

Thank you, Chairwoman Mary Landrieu, Ranking Member Dan Coats, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today 
37 

to discuss the resources necessary to respond to changes in the Arctic, and the 

United States Coast Guard’s many responsibilities in Alaska. 

The U.S. Coast Guard is actively engaged in missions throughout maritime Alaska. For this testimony I will focus on the Arctic and the great challenges that the 

Coast Guard and the Nation will face in light of the environmental and human use 

changes we are observing. I will stress the importance of research both enabled and 

conducted with the support of the Coast Guard and needed by the Coast Guard to 

develop effective mission capabilities in this challenging environment. 

MAJOR DRIVERS OF CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC

Two major drivers of change in the Arctic are: (1) a warming climate with its corresponding ecosystem changes; and (2) an increased demand for the Arctic’s abundant natural resources. A major result of a warming Arctic has been a significant 

reduction in seasonal ice cover along with a decrease in multi-season ice in the central Arctic Ocean. This has created more seasonal near shore open water and a 

longer potential shipping season in areas of the Arctic. These circumstances have 

contributed to increased interest in resource exploration and development along 

with more ship based tourism and seasonal marine transport. The increased human 

activity in the Arctic is coupled with challenges faced by Arctic communities due to 

increased coastal erosion, storm surge and permafrost thawing and the associated 

challenges to infrastructure along with concern about maintaining the quality of and 

access to subsistence food sources in a changing environment. 

These changes in the Arctic place additional burdens on the Coast Guard to focus 

more efforts further North in the challenging environments of the Arctic in key missions including marine environmental protection, search and rescue, protecting marine living resources, maintaining maritime domain awareness and presence and 

managing ice operations. The U.S. Arctic is a challenging environment in which to 

perform these missions because it has little built infrastructure (for example no 

deep water ports), severe operating conditions, and a rapid ecosystem change. 

NEEDED INVESTMENTS IN THE ARCTIC

A significant investment in research will be necessary for the Coast Guard to understand the changing conditions successfully and their effects on its key missions 

and incorporate new approaches and technologies into arctic operations. This will 

include robust capacity to support and understand and integrate the results of wide 

ranging Arctic research fields including physical oceanography, atmospheric and 

weather science, ecosystem analysis and social science. The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) Research Plan for 2013–2017 highlights many of 

the needed study directions including sea ice and marine ecosystem studies, terrestrial ecosystem studies, atmospheric studies of surface heat, energy and mass balances, observing systems, regional climate models, adaptation tools for sustaining 

communities and human health studies. 

With respect to observing systems, new approaches to integrated Arctic monitoring are necessary some of which can be provided by unmanned systems including 

aircraft (from hand launched to Global Hawk) ocean surface and underwater vehicles (submarine gliders and powered) which can be used in conjunction with aircraft, 

ship, buoys, and cabled ocean observing systems, and satellite systems. In addition, 

small portable and remotely powered land based systems such as small high frequency coastal radar can greatly assist in tracking ships, measuring surface currents and tracking sea ice. 

Key to successful research and operations in the Arctic are ice breakers and long 

endurance aircraft. The Healy is the only currently operational U.S. ice breaker in 

the Arctic and a crucial and unique research platform for working in and moving 

through ice up to 4.5 feet thick. With its 4,200 square feet of lab space, sensor systems and winches the Healy can accommodate 35 scientists (up to 50 in surge capacity). The Healy is the only U.S. Government surface vessel capable of performing 

broad based scientific research in the northern and central regions of the Arctic 

Ocean. In recent years the Healy has worked collaboratively with the Canadian ice 

breaker St-Laurent to gather key bathymetric and seismic data critical to understanding the basis for future claims for an extended continental shelf that may be 

filed under UNCLOS by either Canada or Russia. In October 2012 the United States 

will launch the National Science Foundation funded, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

operated global class ice-capable research vessel R/V Sikuliaq. With its Arctic specific design the Sikuliaq will be able to break through up to 1 meter of ice and perform similar research missions. However, the Sikuliaq will not be able to operate 

as far north or for the length of season that the Healy can. The Sikuliaq is best 

seen as a complimentary vessel to the Healy. Until the Polar Star is refurbished 
38 

the Healy will be the only operational U.S. polar ice breaker. That means that in 

addition to its scientific mission the Healy must perform all the other key northern 

missions including such things as rescue and emergency escort, marine environmental protection and maintaining maritime domain awareness and protection. 

Even with the refurbishment of the Polar Star new ice breaking capacity will be 

necessary for the United States to maintain a credible long term Arctic presence 

and conduct effective research in ice covered waters. 

GOVERNMENT COORDINATION WITH RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

It is important that the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) continue to be an active partner with Federal and State research agencies 

and universities which conduct arctic research. These include but are not limited 

to partnerships with National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Geological Service, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Alaska, the United States Antarctic Resource Center, and U.S. universities including Alaska, New Hampshire, Hawaii and others. One example of a 

successful university/DHS collaboration with the University of Hawaii/University of 

Alaska Fairbanks DHS funded Center for Island, Maritime and Extreme Environment Security (CIMES). The CIMES Arctic Maritime Domain Awareness component 

will deliver to the Coast Guard in the summer of 2013 a demonstration of integrated 

satellite, UAV, and high frequency radar for collecting and analyzing ‘‘ice-water 

interface’’ data in near real-time for navigation assistance off the coast of Barrow. 

The purpose of the demonstration is to validate that the technologies and models 

created as a result of CIMES funding from DHS can directly enhance Coast Guard 

operations by improving the understanding between sea ice and open water, in near 

real-time, for: (1) search and rescue, (2) environmental protection, and (3) border security missions, in the Arctic. 

In summary, the Coast Guard will play an increasingly important role in the Arctic in the upcoming decades. Increased investment will be needed in many areas of 

research and technology necessary to understand and respond to increased maritime 

activity and the changing environment. Increased investment will be needed in 

building and maintaining a capable ice breaker fleet, forward operating infrastructure and capacities, strong agency and university partnerships, and new technological enablers including unmanned systems and advanced sensors. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

I am very happy that you mentioned that, because, as the Senator knows, I plussed-up the research budget of Homeland Security 

by $200 million. I feel very strongly in investing in research dollars. 

And, Senator, we can work to direct a portion of that, I think, 

with the support of the department, to more of this kind of research for the Arctic, because we have to operate more smartly. 

And I think the new technology with this unmanned technology 

could give us more eyes in the sky, using our satellites, et cetera, 

a smarter way for the Coast Guard to catch these perpetrators, like 

this one that put an 8-mile net across the ocean, as well as using 

it for others. 

So, thank you. 

Mr. Burden. 

STATEMENT OF MERRICK BURDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE 

CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

Mr. BURDEN. Before I start, I would just like to express my 

thanks. It is a great honor to be here this morning. I appreciate 

the invitation. So I will just go ahead and get started. 

I would like to thank the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for holding this hearing today. I would also like to thank 

Senator Murkowski for her ongoing commitment to the Coast 

Guard, the Alaska fishing industry, and fishing-dependent coastal 

communities. 
39 

For the record, my name is Merrick Burden, and I am the executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance (MCA). 

MCA is a broad-based coalition of seafood harvesters, processors, 

fishing-dependent coastal communities, Western Alaska community 

development port organizations involved in the Federal ground fish 

and shellfish fisheries off of Alaska. 

MCA was formed to promote the sustainable use of North Pacific 

marine resources by present and future generations. MCA supports 

research and public education regarding the fishery resources of 

the North Pacific and seeks practical solutions to resource conservation issues. 

The fishing industry off Alaska generates more than $3 billion at 

the wholesale level and supports more than 80,000 jobs directly 

and indirectly on an annual basis. It is the largest private-sector 

employer in the State of Alaska, and it employs individuals from 

all over the United States who come to Alaska to work as fishermen, seafood processors, or in support industries. 

In many areas of coastal Alaska, the seafood industry is the dominant source of employment, and is the economic driver for those 

communities. 

The fisheries of the North Pacific have often been called one of 

the success stories of fishery management. The volume of fishery 

resources extracted from the North Pacific and Bering Sea number 

in the millions of tons annually, and many fisheries in the region 

have been certified as sustainable by third-party verification processes. 

This multibillion-dollar economic engine relies upon sustainable 

management practices, which means domestic regulations and 

international treaties must be enforced. 

These fisheries take place in some of the most remote areas of 

the United States and in some of the most hazardous maritime 

conditions found on Earth. Sea ice and gale force winds are commonplace in the region and frequently provide hardship for those 

that live and work in the area. 

In the fall of 2011, for instance, the city of Nome, Alaska, required that an icebreaker assist in getting a fuel tanker to the city, 

in order for residents there to have heat and energy for the long 

winter. 

During the snow crab season of this past winter, the crab industry was forced to hire a tug for 3 months to regularly clear ice from 

the St. Paul Harbor so that crab vessels could safely access the 

harbor to deliver their catch. 

In addition to these specific examples, each year fishermen injured at sea are airlifted from their vessels and transported via helicopter to Kodiak or Anchorage, more than 100 miles away. 

Despite the remoteness of this region, substantial amounts of 

commerce make their way between North America and Asia via the 

North Pacific great circle route. Ships traveling between the U.S. 

west coast thread their way through the Aleutian Islands, typically 

passing through Unimak Pass, which lies to the east of Dutch Harbor. 

Occasionally, these ships find themselves in distress and in need 

of assistance. At times, these ships have drifted ashore and broken 
40 

apart, spilling fuel oil or their cargo into the waters of the North 

Pacific. 

Only a handful of years ago, this very thing occurred and threatened to impact the fishing industry due to concerns from consumers over the possibility of contaminated seafood. The fishing industry responded by conducting water quality assessments and fish 

contamination tests to alleviate these concerns. 

While these assessments cost a great deal, the seafood industry 

in Alaska depends on consumer confidence in their products. Although there have not been any apparent impacts on the seafood 

industry from these events yet, increased shipping traffic increases 

a risk that there may be impacts in the future. 

Madam Chair, the Coast Guard plays an important part role in 

these waters, which matter a great deal to the North Pacific seafood industry. 

The seafood industry has long viewed the Coast Guard as not 

only a welcome presence but a necessary partner. The Coast 

Guard’s task in this region is enormous. At times, the Coast Guard 

is the lifeline of the industry as they aid fishermen in distress. 

They play the part of incident management and response. 

At other times, they enforce domestic regulation and international treaties or agreements, such as the observed RussiaUnited States maritime boundary. 

These activities often take place in severe conditions where gale 

force winds, heavy seas, sea ice, and freezing spray are present 

that not only affect the ability of fishing vessels to harvest fish 

from these waters but also affect the ability of the Coast Guard to 

perform rescue operations, or to respond to other incidents. 

In these instances, mere minutes can mean the difference between a successful response and an unsuccessful one. 

This means that reliable, up-to-date equipment that can stand up 

to these conditions is a vital component of the Coast Guard’s mission in Alaska and to the people that rely upon the Coast Guard 

for their well-being. 

The fishing industry is inherently at the whim of the natural environment. As the natural environment changes, so must the seafood industry. 

One place that is experiencing relatively dramatic change is the 

Arctic. Information indicates that crab, salmon, and some species 

of ground fish may be extending their range northward from the 

Bering Sea and spilling into the Arctic. If commercially valuable 

fish and shellfish become established in sufficient numbers, it is 

possible that fisheries will look to expand northward as well. 

Recently, however, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council voted to close these waters to fishing for many types of species 

until more is known regarding the ability of this environment to 

support commercial fishing activities. This means that for the foreseeable future, we do not expect to see much fishing in this region. 

Over the longer term, it appears possible for fisheries to develop 

in the Arctic. But due to conditions that are present in this area, 

it is difficult for us to imagine fishing activity occurring at the 

same scale which it does in the Bering Sea. 

In any event, when you U.S.-based commercial fishing activity 

takes place in the Arctic, if it does at all, it is almost certainly 
41 

many years away and, therefore, the needs of Coast Guard as it relates to domestic fishing activity in the Arctic appears limited for 

some time. 

However, other user groups are eyeing the Arctic, such as the oil 

and gas industry. These developments will require additional resources, which further expand the Coast Guard’s mission off Alaska. 

It recently came to our attention that the Coast Guard’s 17th 

District is facing a 19-percent reduction in the number of cutter 

days that can be used for fisheries law enforcement. Our understanding is that this reduction is being driven by the retirement of 

older Coast Guard assets, which have not been replaced, and the 

reprioritization of remaining assets to operations in the Arctic. 

The seafood industry is concerned that this reduction will impact 

safety, enforcement, and management of North Pacific fisheries. 

We would ask that the Congress provided funding necessary to 

maintain a fisheries-based Coast Guard presence that is more similar to recent years, while also providing funding that will be necessary for the Coast Guard’s expanding role in the Arctic. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Madam Chair, I want to thank you and members of this subcommittee for providing this opportunity to testify to you today. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MERRICK BURDEN

I would like to thank the Chair and Ranking member of the subcommittee for 

holding this hearing today. I would also like to thank Senator Murkowski for her 

ongoing commitment to the United States Coast Guard, the Alaska fishing industry, 

and fishing dependent coastal communities. For the record, my name is Merrick 

Burden, and I am the Executive Director of the Marine Conservation Alliance 

(MCA). MCA is a broad based coalition of seafood harvesters, processors, fishing dependent coastal communities, and western Alaska Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) organizations involved in the Federal groundfish and shellfish fisheries off 

Alaska. MCA was formed to promote the sustainable use of North Pacific marine 

resources by present and future generations. MCA supports research and public 

education regarding the fishery resources of the North Pacific, and seeks practical 

solutions to resource conservation issues. 

The fishing industry off Alaska generates over $3 billion at the wholesale level 

and supports over 80,000 jobs directly and indirectly on an annual basis. It is the 

largest private sector employer in the State of Alaska, and it employs individuals 

from all over the United States who come to Alaska to work as fishermen, seafood 

processors, or in support industries. In many areas of coastal Alaska the seafood industry is the dominant source of employment and is the economic driver for those 

communities. 

The fisheries of the North Pacific have often been called one of the success stories 

of fishery management. The volume of fishery resources extracted from the North 

Pacific and Bering Sea number in the millions of tons annually and many fisheries 

in the region have been certified as sustainable by third-party verification processes. 

This multi-billion dollar economic engine relies upon sustainable management practices, which means domestic regulations and international treaties must be enforced. 

These fisheries take place in some of the most remote areas of the United States 

and in some of the most hazardous maritime conditions found on Earth. Sea ice and 

gale force winds are commonplace in the region and frequently provide hardship to 

those that live and work in the area. In the fall of 2011 for instance, the city of 

Nome, Alaska, required that an ice breaker assist in getting a fuel tanker to the 

city in order for residents there to have heat and energy for the long winter. During 

the snow crab season of this past winter, the crab industry was forced to hire a tug 

for 3 months to regularly clear ice from the St. Paul harbor so that crab vessels 
42 

could safely access the harbor to deliver their catch. In addition to these specific examples, each year fishermen injured at sea are airlifted from their vessels and 

transported via helicopter to Kodiak or Anchorage, several hundred miles away. 

Despite the remoteness of this region, substantial amounts of commerce make 

their way between North America and Asia via the North Pacific Great Circle route. 

Ships traveling between the U.S. west coast thread their way through the Aleutian 

Islands, typically passing through Unimak pass which lies to the east of Dutch Harbor. Occasionally these ships find themselves in distress and in need of assistance. 

At times these ships have drifted ashore and broken apart, spilling fuel oil or their 

cargo into the waters of the North Pacific. Only a handful of years ago this very 

thing occurred and threatened to impact the fishing industry due to concerns from 

consumers over the possibility of contaminated seafood. The fishing industry responded by conducting water quality assessments and fish contamination tests to 

alleviate these concerns. While these assessments cost a great deal, the seafood industry in Alaska depends on consumer confidence in their products. Although there 

have not been any apparent impacts to the seafood industry from these events yet, 

increased shipping traffic increases the risk that there may be impacts in the future. 

Madame Chair, the United States Coast Guard plays an important role in these 

waters which matter a great deal to the North Pacific seafood industry. The seafood 

industry has long viewed the United States Coast Guard as not only a welcome 

presence, but a necessary partner. The Coast Guard’s task in this region is enormous. At times the Coast Guard is the lifeline of the industry as they aid fishermen 

in distress; they play the part of incident management and response; at other times 

they enforce domestic regulation and international treaties or agreements, such as 

the observed Russian/U.S. maritime boundary. These activities often take place in 

severe conditions where gale force winds, heavy seas, sea ice, and freezing spray are 

present that not only affect the ability of fishing vessels to harvest fish from these 

waters, but also affect the ability of the Coast Guard to perform rescue operations 

or to respond to other incidents. In these instances, mere minutes can mean the difference between a successful response and an unsuccessful one. This means that reliable, up to date equipment that can stand up to these conditions is a vital component of the Coast Guard’s mission in Alaska, and to the people that rely upon the 

Coast Guard for their well-being. 

The seafood industry is inherently at the whim of the natural environment. As 

the natural environment changes, so must the seafood industry. One place that is 

experiencing relatively dramatic change is the Arctic. Information indicates that 

crab, salmon, and some species of groundfish may be extending their range northward from the Bering Sea and spilling into the Arctic. If commercially-valuable fish 

and shellfish become established in sufficient numbers, it is possible that fisheries 

will look to expand northward as well. Recently, however, the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council voted to close these waters to fishing for many types of species 

until more is known regarding the ability of this environment to support commercial 

fishing activities. This means that for the foreseeable future we do not expect to see 

much fishing in this region. Over the longer term it appears possible for fisheries 

to develop in the Arctic, but due to the conditions which are present in this area 

it is difficult for us to imagine fishing activity occurring at the same scale which 

it does in the Bering Sea. In any event, when U.S.-based commercial fishing activity 

takes place in the Arctic, if it does at all, is almost certainly many years away and 

therefore the needs of the Coast Guard as it relates to domestic fishing activity in 

the Arctic appears to be limited for some time. However, other user groups are eyeing the Arctic, such as the oil and gas industry. These developments will require 

additional resources which will further expand the Coast Guard’s mission off Alaska. 

It recently came to our attention that the Coast Guard 17th District is facing a 

19-percent reduction in the number of cutter days that can be used for fisheries law 

enforcement. Our understanding is that this reduction is being driven by the retirement of older Coast Guard assets which have not been replaced, and the 

reprioritization of remaining assets to operations in the Arctic. The seafood industry 

is concerned that this reduction will impact safety, enforcement, and management 

of North Pacific fisheries. We would ask that Congress provide funding necessary 

to maintain a fisheries-based Coast Guard presence that is more similar to recent 

years while also providing funding that will be necessary for the Coast Guard’s expanding role in the Arctic. 

Madame Chair, I want to thank you and members of the Committee for providing 

this opportunity to testify before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 
43 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Harland. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE HARLAND, VICE PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL 

SERVICES, CROWLEY MARINE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HARLAND. Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to 

speak with you this morning. 

My name is Bruce Harland, and I am the vice president of contract services for Crowley Marine Services, a company that has 

been operating in the Alaskan Arctic continuously since 1957. 

I’m also here as a representative of the American Waterway Operators (AWO) and its member companies that supply valuable 

transportation services to Alaskans. 

In preparation for the meeting, the members first agreed on our 

definition of the Alaskan Arctic as the region west and the north 

of the Unimak Pass. 

This area is characterized by extreme weather events, changing 

and unpredictable ice conditions from year to year, draft limitations, and above all, a remote region where assistance can be many 

hours or even days away. 

AWO-member companies have worked within these limitations to 

develop a safe, efficient, and cost-effective system to provide transportation and fuel delivery services to villages and businesses in 

the region. The tools we have developed include fleets to deliver 

supplies in shallow waters; operating material such as float hoses 

to deliver to island tanks; spill response plans; landing craft used 

where no docks exist; procedures to be followed that capture best 

practices; and above all, experienced, professional mariners who 

have an intimate knowledge of the region. 

Over the last 5 years, we have witnessed a dramatic change in 

the Arctic with reduced but still unpredictable ice conditions, increased interest in resource development in the outer continental 

shelf, adventure tourism, and talk of new polar shipping routes. 

The Coast Guard is now developing strategies to respond to this 

change and AWO-member companies would propose these areas of 

focus: 

Accurate charting and hydrographic information. Most areas in 

the region have little or no up-to-date charts. Increased use of electronic charting and aids to navigation embedded into electronic 

charts would be a significant improvement. The navigable rivers 

and bays are especially critical for safe navigation. 

Increased Automatic Identification System coverage in the area 

to identify other vessels for security, collision avoidance, and potential assistance. 

Vessel traffic system for Unimak Pass and the Bering Strait to 

improve safe passage. 

More accurate weather and tide information for the region. 

Improved search-and-rescue capabilities and incident response in 

the region. This could be with a combination of new assets and facilities in the region. 

Improved icebreaking capabilities. This would again provide 

search-and-rescue capability, security for the region, and could potentially extend the marine season by opening up the ice for shipping during the shoulder seasons. 
44 

A deepwater Arctic port. This is currently being investigated by 

the State and the Army Corps, and could be utilized as a forward 

deployment point for the Coast Guard. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In conclusion, we would like to leave you with a final thought. 

AWO members have been safely operating in the region for many 

years and, in conjunction with both the Coast Guard and the State 

of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, have developed effective systems for the safe transportation of cargo and bulk 

fuels vital to the health and development of the local cities and villages in Alaska. Significant regulatory changes that would alter 

this transportation system could have a very large impact on the 

fragile economic health of the region already suffering from the 

high cost of basic necessities, such as heating fuel. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE HARLAND

Good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak with you this morning. My 

name is Bruce Harland and I am the vice president of Contract Services for Crowley 

Marine Services, a company that has been operating in the Alaskan Arctic continuously since 1957. I am also here as a representative of the American Waterways Operators and its member companies that supply valuable transportation services to 

Alaskans. 

THE ARCTIC REGION IN ALASKA

In preparation for this meeting, the members first agreed on our definition of the 

Alaskan Arctic as the region west and north of Unimak Pass. This area is characterized by extreme weather events, changing and unpredictable ice conditions from 

year to year, draft limitations and above all a remote region where assistance could 

be many hours or days away. AWO-member companies have worked within these 

limitations to develop a safe, efficient, and cost-effective system to provide transportation and fuel delivery services to villages and business in the region. The tools 

we have developed include lighterage fleets to deliver supplies in shallow waters, 

operating materials such as float hoses to deliver to inland tanks, spill response 

plans, landing craft for where no docks exist, procedures to be followed which capture best practices and above all experienced professional mariners who have an intimate knowledge of the region. 

STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CHANGING CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Over the last 5 years we have witnessed a dramatic change in the arctic with reduced but still unpredictable ice conditions, increased interest in resource development in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), adventure tourism and talk of new 

polar shipping routes. The USCG is now developing strategies to respond to this 

change and the AWO-member companies would propose these areas of focus. 

—Accurate charting and hydrographic information. Most areas in the region have 

no up to date charts. Increased use of electronic charting and aids to navigation 

embedded into electronic charts would be a significant improvement. The navigable rivers and bays are especially critical for safe navigation. 

—Increased AIS coverage in the area to identify other vessels for security, collision avoidance, and potential assistance. 

—Vessel traffic system for Unimak Pass and Bering Straits to improve safe passage. 

—More accurate weather and tide information for the region. 

—Improved Search and Rescue capabilities and incident response in the region. 

This could be with a combination of new assets and facilities in the region. 

—Improved ice-breaking capabilities. This would again provide Search and Rescue 

capabilities, security for the region and could potentially extend the marine season by opening up the ice for shipping during the shoulder seasons. 

—Deepwater Arctic Port. This is currently being investigated by the State and the 

Army Corps and could be utilized as a forward deployment point for the USCG. 
45 

CONCLUSION

We would like to leave you with a final thought; AWO members have been safely 

operating in the region for many years and in conjunction with both the USCG and 

State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation have developed effective 

systems for the safe transportation of cargo and bulk fuels vital to the health and 

development of the local cities and villages in Alaska. Significant regulatory changes 

that would alter this transportation system could have a devastating impact on the 

fragile economic health of the region already suffering from the high cost of basic 

necessities such as heating fuel. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

We’re going to start with Senator Murkowski’s questioning. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, each of you, for your contribution here. I think as we think about the role of the Coast Guard, 

it is easy to think about the icebreaking capacity, the helos that we 

need, the response cutters. But I think the recognition is that there 

is an expanding role in so many different sectors. 

And, Bruce, you mentioned what we are seeing with the increased shipping traffic. As there is more water, you are going to 

see more ships. As there are opportunities to decrease your costs 

by moving through the northern waterways routes or up around 

the Northwest Passage, we are seeing changes. And again, the 

Coast Guard’s responsibility just becomes that much more enhanced. 

So I would like to focus just real quickly in terms of what we’re 

seeing with the volume of commercial shipping and traffic. 

I am going to show the chairman here a picture that shows the 

volume of ships. These are the numbers of ships that move through 

Unimak Pass. 

Now, Unimak Pass is here on the Aleutian Islands. And when 

you’re transiting from the lower 48 from Seattle, you either come 

around the Aleutian chain, which is all the way up here, or you cut 

through Unimak. So you have a choke point here at Unimak. The 

distance here is about 12 miles, I understand. 

You also have a choke point here in the Bering Sea, where it is 

about 50 miles across. 

But right now, we don’t have any rules of the road, so to speak. 

And you have a level of shipping traffic that is heading north. 

Mr. Harland, can you speak to what you are seeing, how you 

view the significance of waterway management, I guess for lack of 

better terminology, as we’re seeing the volume of ship traffic in and 

around our Arctic and northern waters? 

Mr. HARLAND. Waterway traffic is one of the most critical issues 

facing the State of Alaska, and we have seen that transportation 

of oil and refined products, those incidents have dropped dramatically. And where we see the difficulty is in the foreign cargo ships, 

which are using Unimak Pass. It’s innocent passage. They are on 

their way from an international voyage to a U.S. port or a Canadian port. 

And if they have engine trouble, if they have steering gear go 

out, then they are at the whim of the weather. And the Selendang 

Ayu is an incident that was a devastating impact to the city of Unalaska and the region, which spilled oil and a whole cargo of soybeans. 

And part of that funding from that incident is doing the Aleutian 

Islands risk assessment study. And they are looking at how we can 
46 

make Unimak Pass and the Bering Sea routes safer, and what kind 

of vessel traffic system can be put in place that still abides by 

international law, that you can’t impede innocent passage, but allows some safeguards and some regulation of the traffic. 

We’re seeing 70 or so ships a year ago that go to Red Dog Mine 

and come back down through the straits. As the Northwest Passage 

and the northern sea route become more popular, especially in the 

marine season, the 120 days they can operate, you’re going to see 

continued traffic increases through there. 

I suspect that it will be a slow buildup, but right now, Unimak 

Pass is the single largest transit point in the State of Alaska and 

the most risk for an incident. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It is appropriate that we note it is not only 

the commercial shipping traffic. 

We have cruise ships, Madam Chairman, that are now going 

through the Northwest Passage there. 

You mentioned the ore. We have the minerals coming out of Red 

Dog. It is a level of ship activity that is truly unprecedented. 

Let me ask this question to you, Mr. Burden. And in my opening 

comments I noted that District 17 is facing a 19-percent reduction 

in the availability of cutter days for fisheries law enforcement. And 

you spoke to not only the role that Coast Guard plays in terms of 

search and rescue, I think it is important to note for the record 

that, last year, District 17 responded to 586 search-and-rescue 

cases. They saved 146 lives, and they assisted 712 mariners. 

I think our fishermen know and respect the role of the Coast 

Guard here, but it speaks to the significance of the role of the 

Coast Guard within the fisheries industry. 

So if the Coast Guard is seeing a reduction, will see a reduction 

in the number of days they are actually out there on the water, 

whether it is for fisheries law enforcement, or whether it is for 

search-and-rescue cases, what does that mean to you in the industry? 

Mr. BURDEN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

It is very difficult to stress the significance of those statistics 

that you just cited. They are not only significant, they are also heroic, in many ways. 

As you know, the environment of the Bering Sea can be quite 

treacherous. And the expanse of the Bering Sea is immense. 

When it comes to the perspective of the seafood industry, we are 

operating in some very hazardous environments. And it often 

comes down to a matter of minutes in response time. And those 

minutes mean the difference between life and death, between a 

successful response and an unsuccessful one. 

And so, from the seafood industry’s perspective, we believe there 

is a certain level, a minimum amount of resources that are necessary to adequately patrol not only for enforcement but also to respond to safety incidents as they occur, and not only a certain 

quantity of resources, but also a certain quality of resources. 

As you know, and as we have been speaking about here, routinely, is the hazardous conditions. And I think it would be a real 

tragedy to have an incident begin to occur and have a delay in response time due to the inability to start up something, for instance. 
47 

So we really are concerned about the level of response capability 

and also the quality of that response capability. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And, Dr. Myers, I appreciate also your discussion about the role that UAVs can play. I think it is significant 

that when Healy was escorting the Renda north, you’re looking to 

find that path of least resistance through the ice. And we have 

some pretty smart folks out there that I think realized toward the 

end that one of the better, more effective ways to find those leads, 

those breaks in the ice, was through the use of UAVs that they 

were able to launch and run out there. And it made the passage 

doable. 

I think we appreciate that we can do so much more. As Senator 

Landrieu has mentioned, we can utilize these for fisheries enforcement, as you’re out over incredible open areas where to have 

manned aircraft and a helicopter out there, it’s tough. So how we 

can utilize that more I think is going to be critically important to 

us. 

You also mentioned the mapping. I think it is important to acknowledge that, as we speak, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is out there, gathering additional 

coastal topography data. 

Madam Chairman, they are essentially mapping an area that 

has not been mapped since Captain Cook was sailing these shores 

in the 1800s. Now, if you’re a navigator, you’re a mariner out there, 

I think you’d like to know that your data is just a little bit more 

up to date. 

But, Dr. Myers, can you give me any other examples where the 

University of Alaska is cooperating, whether it is with what NOAA 

and Fairweather are doing, whether it is your research with the 

UAVs, how are you partnering with the Coast Guard to help with 

the expanding role in the Arctic? 

Dr. MYERS. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

First of all, I would like to really say how pleased the university 

is with the support we have been getting from the Coast Guard. 

Admiral Ostebo has been up to the university many times. We 

have had great conversations on emerging technological approaches, both how we can get support from the Coast Guard but 

also how the Coast Guard might employ some of the new systems 

and ideas coming online. 

So it has been a very, very constructive dialogue. And as you 

have pointed out, and other panelists have pointed out, the Arctic 

has really some unique characteristics, not the least of, it is very 

dark and very cold for much of the year. And traditional observational systems that might work in the gulf don’t work so well in 

the Arctic for those reasons. We lack support infrastructure. 

So as we look at those concepts, again, any time we combine and 

merge sensor technologies together, we have a better picture of the 

Arctic. 

You mentioned the UAVs, in the example. UAVs can be used 

with all sorts of other instruments, not just optical cameras. They 

have 3-D presence. They can loiter longer than aircraft can. They 

don’t risk a pilot. You can afford to lose them if you have to. 
48 

So they are a key technology, but they are not unique. Better integration of the satellite technologies that are out there, new technologies like hyperspectral being used. 

I will just give you an example. When you have oil in ice, you 

get a very different spectral signature. You have a very hard time 

telling pond water from oil, just because of the characteristics. Now 

take that into the darkness. 

So you can see, you have to use different sensors. You have to 

use a different set of mixtures. We have to understand those systems. We need not only to do the research, but we then need to 

operationally integrate those in. 

So, there is one example, better fusion and approaches of the 

technology. 

One area we are very excited about is the National Science Foundation is funding a new oceanographic research vessel specifically 

designed to work in Arctic waters, the Sikuliaq, which will launch 

in October. 

Now, it is capable of breaking about a meter of ice. Again, not 

nearly as capable as a heavy or medium icebreaker, but can work 

on the fringes. It has very good scientific capacity. So we see great 

opportunities for collaboration between the Sikuliaq and the Healy, 

for example, real opportunities. 

You mentioned the mapping. We need much more multi-beam 

sonar data, to get to the bathymetric data down, particularly as we 

move further north, it gets pretty shallow pretty quickly. 

Deepwater port studies to look at possible locations, at port clearance, and really look at what are the conditions, what are the challenges there environmentally, what is the utility. 

And then finally, an area of important collaboration is the university has operated local community colleges out in the rural communities. We have strong, established relationships with these 

communities of trust between and collaborative education and 

participatory science where the communities participate. That relationship is very handy in terms of developing a core trust and core 

communications in the social sciences. 

So as you look at resiliency of communities, that is another area. 

And social response to change, and to disasters, and to search and 

rescue, the university can play a really good role working with the 

Coast Guard in terms of building better relationships and more resiliency in local communities, and bidirectional information flowing 

from those communities to our agencies. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We appreciate what you are doing. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Our hearing is just about ready to come to a close. I think the 

testimony has been terrific. 

I just would like to end with one question to you, Dr. Myers. You 

oversee a research budget of about $123 million. What are the two 

or three areas that you’re focusing your own budget on, believing 

that you would be setting your own priorities that might serve as 

some guidance to the Federal Government, in terms of our research 

dollars? 
49 

Dr. MYERS. A lot of those priorities have been driven by gaps of 

knowledge and also by my experience as director of the U.S. Geological Survey and seeing where some of those gaps are. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Could you list just one, two, or three that you 

are directing? 

Dr. MYERS. Yes. No. 1 is oil-spill response in the Arctic. We have 

to do it differently. As you mentioned, we don’t have the capacity, 

and we so we need to be a lot smarter in terms of how we do it. 

So new and emerging technology and approaches to understand oil, 

to build better predictive models of where oil would flow, to be able 

to monitor oil better, should we get to a worst case scenario. 

The university is targeting not the current exploration stage, but 

10 or 15 years down, should we have, as expected—at least in my 

opinion, as expected—development of year-round production from 

the Outer Continental Shelf. 

So building those capacities, filling those gaps, has been something we have invested quite significantly in. 

Fundamental oceanographic research and partnerships. For instance, ocean acidification is something we are investing in, to understand, because we have so little data. And there is really very 

little funding coming out of Federal agencies to look at ocean acidification in the Arctic. They’re looking at it elsewhere, but not so 

much in the Arctic. Another key area. 

Understanding the social drivers and dynamics of resiliency. How 

do we build better communications and trust? I think the example 

of the Macondo spill and the community response is a key example 

of where we can do a better job of communications, how can we develop better approaches of bidirectional communication with communities, how do we pump out reliable information to communities 

that they trust? 

So authoritative data coming to these communities, so they can 

be part of the solution and engaged early on, which has been a 

challenge, whether it be the Exxon Valdez or whether it be the 

Macondo spill. Those are, I think, another area, so the social 

science research piece is also a place where we prioritize. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I think this has been excellent testimony. 

And again, Senator, thank you for suggesting that we have this 

field hearing. It has been really eye-opening, and it is just the beginning. It is my first day, and I am looking forward to 3 more 

days down here on the ground. 

I thank Admiral Papp. I thank the men and women of the Coast 

Guard Air Station hear in Kodiak for hosting this wonderful event. 

I remain committed to providing the men and women of the 

Coast Guard the tools they need to accomplish your many missions. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We will leave the record open, as is customary, for 2 weeks for 

other members to submit questions or for other testimony to come 

from the community at large, comments from the community at 

large. 

So the subcommittee will hold the record open for 2 weeks, until 

close of business Monday, August 20. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted for response subsequent to the hearing:] 
50 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. COAST GUARD

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

POLAR ICEBREAKERS

Question. Currently, the Coast Guard has two heavy polar icebreakers, the Polar 

Sea and the Polar Star. The Polar Star is being refurbished and will be reactivated 

in 2013 for another 10 years of service, and the Coast Guard has plans to decommission the Polar Sea. The fiscal year 2013 budget request and the Senate bill include 

initial funding for a new icebreaker, but it will take 8–10 years to complete. A recent study sanctioned by the Coast Guard, named the High Latitude Study, calls 

for a minimum of three heavy polar icebreakers and three medium polar icebreakers. 

How many new heavy polar icebreakers does the Coast Guard intend to procure 

and what would be the implications for future Coast Guard operations of having a 

polar icebreaking fleet that includes only one heavy polar icebreaker? 

Answer. The Coast Guard plans to acquire one new polar icebreaker. The Coast 

Guard can meet known mission demands with the addition of one polar icebreaker. 

The number of icebreakers needed for Coast Guard operations in the future is dependent upon actual demand in the Polar regions. 

Question. Please elaborate on the challenges that the Coast Guard faces in building a new icebreaker, including affordability, industrial supplier base, and schedule? 

Answer. The last polar icebreaker constructed in the United States was the CGC 

Healy, delivered in 1999. Healy was built at Avondale shipyard. The current industry may require production line upgrades and acquisition of specialized tools, material, and equipment. The 10-year estimated schedule to complete reflects the challenges associated with the special design of the ship. As a current example, the Canadian Coast Guard is currently constructing a new heavy icebreaker. The 

Diefenbaker project was formally approved in 2008 and is projected to be delivered 

in 2018. 

Scheduled elements include acquisition or development of a current design, time 

necessary to place the design and construction on contract, production engineering 

preparation time, vessel construction, post delivery work, and ice trials. Due to the 

need for special grades of steel, much thicker than normal and a unique hull form, 

developing a production design may prove more challenging than with conventional 

ships. 

Question. Instead of building an icebreaker from scratch, are there parent-craft 

designs, perhaps one built by a foreign partner, that the Coast Guard is looking into 

that would speed up the acquisition timeline? 

Answer. An Alternatives Analysis study will examine the potential for a parentcraft or parent-design. The U.S. Coast Guard is already working closely with the 

Canadian Coast Guard as they work through detailed-design efforts on their heavy 

icebreaker project, CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, which is projected to be delivered in 

2018. 

POLAR SEA

Question. The Polar Sea was placed in inactive status in November 2011 based 

on its current mechanical state and cost to repair, and you plan to decommission 

the Polar Sea at the end of 2012. 

Given the growing need for icebreaking capabilities, why is the Coast Guard decommissioning this vessel? Does the cost to repair the Polar Sea outweigh the benefits of having it return to service? 

Answer. Based on the estimated cost to repair and reactivate Polar Sea and given 

a maximum service life extension of 7 to 10 years, the cost to return Polar Sea to 

operations as a near-term stopgap measure exceeds the benefits a return to service 

would provide. Additionally, icebreakers Healy and Polar Star will meet Coast 

Guard’s icebreaking needs for the next 7 to 10 years, thus Coast Guard is concerned 

only with maintaining its capability beyond this time period. Moving forward, the 

Coast Guard will focus resources on the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker. 

Question. Is there an option for the Coast Guard to provide this vessel to a private 

shipyard for repair and then have the shipyard lease it back to the Coast Guard 

until a new icebreaker is built? 

Answer. The direct transfer of Polar Sea to a private shipyard has not been analyzed by the Coast Guard. Leasing a vessel is a short-term strategy to close a current capability gap, as a Government-owned asset provides greater operational flexibility and long-term, reliable capacity to meet current and future requirements. The 

reactivation of Polar Star will mitigate the current capability gap. The capability 
51 

gap assumed from the High Latitude Study Mission Analysis Report is based on 

long-term projections through 2040; a short-term leasing option is not a cost-effective strategy to fill these gaps. 

OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTERS

Question. During the next decade, the offshore patrol cutter (OPC) is scheduled 

to replace 270-foot and 210-foot medium endurance cutters that are nearing the end 

of their service lives. Compared to the national security cutter (NSC), the OPC will 

be smaller, less expensive, and in some respects less capable. Construction of the 

first OPC is expected to begin in fiscal year 2017 with delivery in fiscal year 2020. 

To what extent, if any, does the Coast Guard plan to use OPCs for operations in 

Alaskan waters? How will the capabilities of the OPC compare to those of the NSC? 

Answer. Offshore patrol cutters will be designed to perform Living Marine Resources Enforcement, Search and Rescue, and Maritime Boundary Line Enforcement 

while in Alaskan waters. The OPCs will be capable of operating year round in the 

Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, and per the Operational Requirements Document 

and Concept of Operations, may operate in areas of less than 100 percent coverage 

of broken plate, pancake, and sea ice ranging from 10 to 30 inches thick (though 

the OPC will not conduct icebreaking as a mission). The ability to operate in such 

ice conditions is an objective capability. 

The national security cutter and offshore patrol cutter capabilities are listed in 

the following table: 

Capability Offshore patrol cutter (projected) National security cutter 

Seakeeping ............................................. Sea State 5 (up to 13-foot seas)— 

Boat and Helo ops.

Sea State 5 (up to 13-foot seas)— 

Boat and Helo ops 

Endurance ............................................... 8,500–9,500 nautical miles/45–60 

days.

12,000 nautical miles/60 days 

Boats and Aviation (Hangar) ................. 2–3 boats and H–60/Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (H–65).3 boats and H–60/Vertical Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicle (2 H–65) 

Speed ...................................................... 22–25 knots .......................................... 28 knots 

Accommodations (maximum) ................. 120–126 ................................................ 146 

Command and Control ........................... Some integration & interoperability ...... NATO interoperable, Integrated, Tactical

datalink 

Intelligence Collection ............................ Partial .................................................... Full 

Force Protection, including Chemical .... Ballistic, Forward weapons, Countermeasure Washdown.Collective Protection System and Countermeasure Washdown, Forward & 

Aft weapons. 

Deployer .................................................. Independent, Theater Security Cooperation.Full battle group 

Underway resupply ................................. Fueling at Sea/Provide to patrol boats Fueling at Sea/Provide to patrol boats 

Both the OPC and the NSC will have the necessary seakeeping to operate yearround in Alaskan waters, but the NSC has increased range and endurance as compared to the OPC, allowing it to remain in the patrol area for a longer period without refueling. 

Question. What missions in Alaskan waters would be better performed by NSCs 

than OPCs? 

Answer. Both the OPC and the NSC will have the necessary seakeeping to operate year-round in Alaskan waters, but the NSC has increased speed, range, and endurance as compared to the OPC, allowing it to remain in the patrol area for a 

longer period without refueling. The NSC also carries three boats as compared to 

two planned on the OPC, and has an additional helicopter hangar. These additional 

capabilities are critical for executing search and rescue and law enforcement operations in the harsh weather of the vast Alaskan region. Specific advantages in capability of the NSC as compared to the OPC include: 

—28 knots sustained as compared to projected 22–25 knots of speed for the OPC. 

This capability is useful in the Alaska region where there are limited forward 

operating locations for Coast Guard helicopters to stage from during the peak 

search and rescue (SAR) season. 

—A range of 12,000 nautical miles as compared to 8,500 nautical miles for the 

OPC. This additional range is useful for executing long-range fisheries enforcement actions, such as with the recent case in which the Coast Guard turned 

over a vessel suspected of illicit drift net fishing east of Japan in the North Pacific Ocean to the China Fishery Law Enforcement Command. 
52 

—60 days endurance, which is a full 2-week advantage over the OPC. This capability is useful as long as oilers to conduct at-sea replenishment are scarce in 

the Alaska region, and ports to resupply are limited (only Dutch Harbor and 

Kodiak, Alaska). 

Question. Will some of the OPCs be built with ice-strengthened hulls to operate 

in the Arctic? 

Answer. The Operational Requirements Document and Concept of Operations for 

the offshore patrol cutter include a brief discussion of an OPC variant that could 

operate in areas of less than 100 percent coverage of broken plate, pancake, and sea 

ice ranging from 10 to 30 inches thick (though the OPC will not conduct icebreaking 

as a mission). The ability to operate in such areas and conditions is an objective 

capability. 

RESCUE 21

Question. Rescue 21 is the Coast Guard’s advanced direction-finding communications system that is deployed on U.S. coastlines to better locate mariners in distress 

and save lives. Rescue 21 is replacing the National Distress and Response System, 

which has been in use since the 1970s. The Rescue 21 system began initial operations in 2005 and has since been deployed across the continental United States and 

Hawaii, but Alaska has been a challenge due to its rough terrain and extreme 

weather. 

What are the Coast Guard’s plans with respect to expanding Rescue 21 throughout Alaska? 

Answer. The Coast Guard will recapitalize the legacy National Distress Response 

System (NDRS) in Alaska. Rescue 21 Alaska will differ from the system currently 

being deployed by General Dynamics C4 Systems (GDC4S) due to the unique geographic, operational, and environmental challenges. Starting in fiscal year 2013, the 

Coast Guard will recapitalize the console control systems and increase VHF FM 

voice capability at existing remote tower sites. 

The Coast Guard will also increase system coverage in a minimum of three areas 

prioritized by the Pacific Area and Alaska (District 17) Commanders through their 

review of actual Search and Rescue case data and meetings with Alaska operational 

stakeholders. These new areas are Middle Cape, Peril Strait, and Fairweather 

Banks. New tower sites planned for these areas will require design and construction 

activities including completion of all logistics planning, permitting, and environmental compliance requirements. 

Additionally in fiscal year 2013, the project will add Digital Selective Calling 

(DSC) functionality and complete network infrastructure upgrades. This will allow 

command centers to automatically receive GPS position data from vessels in distress 

with properly configured DSC radios. 

ARCTIC RESEARCH

Question. Dr. Mark Myers, the vice chancellor for research at the University of 

Fairbanks included in his written testimony, the following: ‘‘A significant investment in research will be necessary for the Coast Guard to understand the changing 

conditions successfully and their effects on its key missions and incorporate new approaches and technologies into Arctic operations.’’ 

What is the Coast Guard is doing in terms of Arctic research or other projects 

related to challenges in Alaska? 

Answer. The Coast Guard has been actively engaged in Arctic related research 

since 2009, when the Coast Guard began evaluating technologies and developing approaches for responding to oil spills in ice-covered waters. 

To date, the Coast Guard has conducted two spill response demonstrations in the 

Great Lakes prior to testing in the Arctic region to evaluate the efficacy of current 

oil-in-ice response capabilities. These demonstrations included participants from 

multiple State and Federal agencies, spill response organizations, foreign governments and both Coast Guard and commercial vessels. Preliminary results indicate 

that heated skimmers, and emerging techniques such as oil herding, show promise 

and warrant further field evaluation. The Coast Guard also conducted a spill response demonstration during the Coast Guard’s Arctic Shield exercise in the Arctic 

region in August 2012, deploying a Spilled Oil Recovery System (SORS) and a heated skimmer from a Coast Guard buoy tender. The Coast Guard also plans to conduct another Great Lakes exercise in January 2013 that will include greater indepth testing of the SORS plus additional response technologies, to include oil detection on and under ice. 

The Coast Guard is also investigating vessel capabilities for Arctic operations. The 

investigation included an Arctic craft demonstration that took place off Barrow, 
53 

Alaska, in August 2012. During this demonstration two amphibious vehicle technologies were evaluated for performance across unimproved shore, through open 

water, and transiting through or over ice flows. The goal of the effort is to identify 

the most appropriate craft/boat for Coast Guard operations off the North Slope of 

Alaska and off cutters operating in and around ice-covered waters. 

The Coast Guard is also researching Arctic communication alternatives. One 

project is assessing the operational use of the U.S. Navy-led joint mission Tactical 

Microsatellite (TacSat) 4 for Arctic communications. Testing will use satellite communication systems aboard Coast Guard cutters and aircraft operating in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The satellite’s unique coverage pattern, a ‘‘low HEO’’ 

(highly elliptical orbit) with long dwells on theaters, may provide the Coast Guard 

with communications capabilities not always available in the high latitudes. The 

Coast Guard also plans to research High Frequency (HF) communication gaps and 

options in the Arctic region. The study will model current capabilities and identify 

potential future solutions to close gaps. 

Search and Rescue (SAR) in waters that are partially or completely ice-covered 

is another area of current Coast Guard research. While testing has yet to occur in 

Alaska, realistic search performance tests approximating procedures for Coast 

Guard helicopters and airboats in an Arctic environment have taken place in the 

Great Lakes. These tests may prove to be useful in developing tactics and procedures for use in the environment in Alaska. 

The Coast Guard also continues to partner with other agencies and entities conducting Arctic research. One such example is the Coast Guard’s partnership with 

the Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 

(CRREL). The partnership underscores anti-icing technologies, as they relate to vessels, aircraft, and shore infrastructure (e.g., antennas aboard cutters, boats, and aircraft and how this impacts vessel-to-shore communication in Arctic conditions). 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And, Madam Chairman, I would just ask 

unanimous consent that the testimony that we have received from 

Lieutenant Governor Treadwell that was submitted to the subcommittee be submitted for the record. We do have that. He had 

asked me to do just that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Absolutely. We will, without objection. 

[The statement follows:] 

LETTER FROM LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MEAD TREADWELL, STATE OF ALASKA

AUGUST 6, 2012. 

Hon. MARY L. LANDRIEU, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: Hearing on the Need for a Robust United States Coast Guard Presence in Alaska 

Dear SENATOR LANDRIEU AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you for the invitation 

to today’s hearing. A family commitment has kept me out of town. 

This letter submits comments to the Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Appropriations for its hearing held in Kodiak, Alaska on the need for a robust U.S. 

Coast Guard presence in the U.S. Arctic. 

First, on behalf of the State of Alaska and its grateful people, who are part of 

a grateful nation, we honor the work of the United States Coast Guard and two of 

its fallen Kodiak Guardsmen, Petty Officer 1st Class James Hopkins, an electronics 

technician, and Richard Belisle, a civilian employee and retired Coast Guard chief 

petty officer, who were killed this spring while on duty. Alaska mourns with the 

families and friends of Jim and Rich. We are enduringly grateful for the work of 

the Coast Guard everywhere in Alaska. 

The United States must prepare now to realize and act on the significant opportunities and address the changing needs in the Arctic over the coming decade. We are 

already seeing an increase in activity in the Arctic from oil and gas exploration, 

mineral development, tourism and marine transportation. This testimony addresses 

four specific needs that relate to the work of the USCG in America’s Arctic: permitting needs for new infrastructure, planning for offshore energy exploration and de-
54 

velopment, preparing for new global shipping patterns, and addressing gaps in 

science and research. 

1. Alaska has extensive amounts of stranded resources. The State is hard at work 

planning pipelines and roads to bring these resources to world markets and to communities suffering from crippling energy prices. Nearly all these mineral and energy 

projects need roads and pipelines with river crossings—bridges that must be approved by the USCG. We understand the Coast Guard has just one permit administrator in Alaska. While a ‘‘general permit’’ approach should be considered, we urge 

the Congress and the Coast Guard to make sure staff resources are sufficient in this 

area to streamline permitting and help access to Arctic resources and communities. 

2. Offshore oil and gas exploration and development is a present reality. The 

USCG has a leading role in ensuring marine safety and environmental protection. 

This year’s drilling season is the beginning of what we expect could be sustained 

exploration and development. Land, air, and sea-based Coast Guard resources will 

become increasingly more necessary. If Shell, ConocoPhillips, StatOil and others are 

successful in their exploration, regular Coast Guard presence will be necessary for 

enforcement and oil spill prevention. These important duties can’t be performed 

from a distant base such as Kodiak or even Unalaska. The Coast Guard needs to 

have heated hanger space, housing and other basic infrastructure in the Arctic that 

will allow for sustained surveillance, search and rescue, inspections and enforcement, and coordination of spill response efforts. 

3. As the Arctic Ocean becomes increasingly accessible, European, Asian and 

North American nations are taking advantage of new shipping routes. U.S. Arctic 

policy calls for a shipping regime that is safe, secure, and reliable. Alaska and the 

Nation’s coast are protected by Federal laws such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

and State laws. Many federally required standards are administered by the Coast 

Guard. For regulated vessels, these standards are some of the most stringent in the 

world. Standards exist for vessel design, equipment, operations, crew licensing and 

manning requirements, navigation safety, and spill liability. Industry can and has 

voluntarily exceeded these minimum standards. One of the most important changes 

was the phasing out of single hull tankers to double hulls. We are concerned these 

standards do not apply to many vessels passing through the Bering Strait and the 

Aleutian Islands. 

(a) Unregulated vessels in the Aleutians (which the U.S. has been including in 

the American Arctic) and Bering Strait are a threat to that goal. To help mitigate the danger, it is imperative that the USCG implement and enforce U.S. 

regulations for tank and non-tank vessels within U.S. jurisdiction and aggressively pursue improvements for oil spill preparedness and response for foreign 

vessels in innocent passage through the International Maritime Organization. 

Alaska is at the intersection of the circumpolar shipping route for trade between our Pacific west coast and the Pacific Rim countries. Alaska is also the 

gateway to Arctic shipping through the Bering Sea, which is arguably the 

most productive fishery in the world. Increased presence, improved oil spill 

preparedness and response, and establishment of oil spill removal organizations in remote areas are essential for resource protection and safe shipping 

for both the circumpolar and Arctic shipping routes. Completion of the ongoing risk assessments for both the circumpolar shipping route through the 

Aleutians and the Arctic shipping route through the Bering Straits is essential. 

(b) This past January, the world watched as the Coast Guard Cutter Healy escorted the Russian tanker Renda with a vitally important cargo of fuel for 

residents of Nome. We are grateful to the selfless crew of the Healy, who increased an already long deployment and gave up celebrating the holidays 

with their families to come to the rescue of iced-in Alaskans. The thick ice 

put the Healy’s medium-class ice-breaking capabilities to the test, and the lesson reaffirmed that America needs heavy, polar class icebreakers. 

(c) Through the Arctic Council, the U.S. has signed an international agreement 

on search and rescue in the Arctic. We are responsible for the lives of those 

in our sector who are in danger, and we must be ready to respond. 

(d) The U.S. is also participating on the Arctic Council Task Force for Arctic 

Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response to develop an international 

instrument on Arctic marine oil pollution preparedness and response with the 

eight Arctic nations. This instrument provides a framework for international 

collaboration in combating incidents or threats of marine oil pollution and will 

be presented at the next Ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in 2013. 

For this, too, we must be prepared. 

(e) The Coast Guard will be on the front lines in following through on these 

binding agreements with our Arctic neighbors. We look forward to com-
55 

menting upon the Committee on Marine Transportation Services’ report ordered by Congress on these issues under the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Act of 2010. 

4. Lastly, we continue to need appropriate access and platforms for science in the 

Arctic. Although the State of Alaska strongly supports the U.S. Senate’s ratification 

of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea, there is some concern that ascension to 

it will make parts of the Arctic Ocean less accessible for some kinds of science and 

research. We need to support long-term monitoring networks and good land and sea 

mapping now, to support later U.S. claims in the Arctic. 

The State of Alaska stands ready to be a partner with the United States and 

USCG in all these efforts. Governor Sean Parnell, in a letter to U.S. Representative 

Don Young dated March 15, 2012, said that while the State will not subsidize Federal missions such as icebreaking, it can be supportive in other ways, such as financing. Alaska is also already working with Federal partners on studies for Arctic 

ports. We are laying plans for Arctic marine shipping, and participating in Federal 

studies and the international agreements mentioned above. We are a long-standing 

partner with the Federal Government in science, and just submitted comprehensive 

feedback from State agencies on the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee 

draft 5-year Arctic research plan. 

America must be ready for an accessible and developing Arctic. The rest of the 

world is not waiting for us as energy exploration, development, shipping, and tourism grow in this ocean. A Russian think-tank recently suggested the Arctic Ocean 

be renamed the Russian Ocean because they take this opportunity seriously. America has to be serious about the Arctic. Equipping our Coast Guard is part of rising 

to the challenge and benefiting from the new opportunities before us. 

Sincerely, 

MEAD TREADWELL, 

Lieutenant Governor, State of Alaska. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator LANDRIEU. And the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., Monday, August 6, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ