U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

52–799 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–259 

STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE ARCTIC IN 

U.S. POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

AUGUST 20, 2009—ANCHORAGE, AK 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

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 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

CHARLES J. HOUY, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

Professional Staff 

CHARLES KIEFFER

CHIP WALGREN

SCOTT NANCE

DRENAN E. DUDLEY

CHRISTA THOMPSON

SUZANNE BENTZEL

REBECCA DAVIES (Minority) 

CAROL CRIBBS (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

KATIE BATTE (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski ................................................... 1 

Statement of Hon. Sean Parnell, Governor, State of Alaska ............................... 4 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 7 

Statement of Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ............ 12 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 15 

Icebreaking Capacity in the Arctic ......................................................................... 15 

Arctic Trends ............................................................................................................ 15 

National Arctic Policy .............................................................................................. 16 

Supporting Execution of the National Arctic Policy Objectives ........................... 17 

National Arctic Capacity ......................................................................................... 19 

Coast Guard Icebreaker Assets .............................................................................. 19 

Statement of David Benton, Executive Director, Marine Conservation Alliance ....................................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 28 

Statement of Dr. Lawson W. Brigham, Professor of Geography and Arctic 

Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks .............................................................. 32 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 35 

Statement of Edward S. Itta, Mayor, North Slope Borough, Alaska .................. 38 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 40 

Statement of Mead Treadwell, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission .......... 41 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 45 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 55 

Questions Submitted to Admiral Thad W. Allen .................................................. 55 

Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd ................................................. 55 

Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski ............................................... 56 

Questions Submitted to Governor Sean Parnell ................................................... 58 

Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski ............................................... 58 

Questions Submitted to Edward S. Itta ................................................................. 59 

Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski ............................................... 59 

Questions Submitted to Mead Treadwell .............................................................. 61 

Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski ............................................... 61 

Questions Submitted to David Benton ................................................................... 65 

Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski ............................................... 65 

Questions Submitted to Dr. Lawson W. Brigham ................................................. 67 

Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski ............................................... 67 

(1) 

STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE ARCTIC IN 

U.S. POLICY 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2009 

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

The subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m., in the Lew Haines Memorial 

Room, University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library, Hon. 

Lisa Murkowski presiding. 

Present: Senator Murkowski. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good afternoon. We are calling to order the 

Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations 

Committee. We are here today for a hearing on the strategic importance of the Arctic in U.S. policy. 

I would like to welcome all of you who have joined us. Again, 

good afternoon, and thank you all for joining us here today. I want 

to start off by first acknowledging Senator Robert Byrd, who is 

chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate 

Appropriations Committee, and thank him for allowing us to have 

this field hearing here in Anchorage today. 

It is great to be back up in the State, and it is great to be here 

in Alaska and holding a hearing on the Arctic here. Most of the 

time we hold these hearings back in Washington, DC. We invite 

the Arctic experts from Alaska and from other places to participate, 

but there is so much that goes on within this region. And I am 

happy to be able to have Alaskans hear about them firsthand 

today. So this is a real opportunity for us, and I hope you all appreciate that. 

Now, before I offer brief opening remarks, I will take the opportunity to introduce our invited witnesses. We are privileged today 

to have Governor Sean Parnell join us this afternoon. Governor 

Parnell was elected to the State house of representatives back in 

1992. He later went on to serve in our State senate. He was elected 

as Lieutenant Governor in 2008 and served with former Governor 

Sarah Palin, and then on July 26 of this year, Governor Parnell 

was sworn in as the 12th Governor for the State of Alaska. So I 

want to thank you and welcome you, Governor Parnell. I look forward to your testimony. 

We are also extremely privileged this afternoon to have the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen, 

who is with us. Admiral Allen is the 23rd Commandant of the 
2 

Coast Guard. He leads the largest component of the Department of 

Homeland Security comprised of nearly 90,000 men and women. 

Admiral Allen has a very illustrious background. He graduated 

from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1971. His career has been 

filled with command both at sea and ashore. He has served as the 

commanding officer of Group Long Island Sound and captain of the 

port. He commanded Group Atlantic City and the Loran Station in 

the Kingdom of Thailand. 

Throughout his 38 years of service, Admiral Allen has demonstrated great leadership and certainly tremendous ability to effect change. We saw that in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. He served as the principal Federal official for response 

and recovery operations and was the Chief of Staff of the Coast 

Guard after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. He was also responsible for leading Coast Guard forces as the Commander of the 

Atlantic Area and the U.S. Maritime Defense Zone Atlantic. 

Today Admiral Allen is leading the Coast Guard through significant modernization to better organize, train, equip, and deploy our 

men and women to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I thank 

you, Admiral Allen, and look forward to your testimony. 

Our second panel this afternoon is comprised of our Alaskan experts. The first witness will be Mr. David Benton. David is the executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance based out of 

Juneau. He has got over 25 years of experience in national and 

international oceans governance issues. For about 14 of those 

years, Mr. Benton represented the State of Alaska in international 

negotiations, and on national fisheries issues, he had a hand in negotiation of the majority of the international fisheries and oceans 

treaties that are enforced today in the North Pacific. Mr. Benton, 

it is a pleasure to welcome you here to the committee, and I might 

mention he has also served for 9 years on the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and was the first chair of the North Pacific 

Research Board which administers a comprehensive research program for the North Pacific, the Bering Sea, as well as the Arctic. 

Next on our second panel is Dr. Lawson Brigham. Dr. Brigham 

is a distinguished professor of geography and Arctic policy at the 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks. He is also a senior fellow at the 

Institute of the North here in Anchorage and at the Scott Polar Research Institute in the United Kingdom. From 2005 to 2009, he 

was the chair and co-lead for the Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine 

Shipping Assessment. He is a career Coast Guard officer. He 

served at sea and commanded four Coast Guard cutters, including 

a patrol boat. He has been on the Great Lakes icebreaker, a medium endurance enforcement cutter in the Atlantic, and the polar 

icebreaker, the Polar Sea. He has participated in many Arctic and 

Antarctic expeditions, including voyages aboard five different icebreakers. 

Next on our panel is Mayor Edward Itta of the North Slope Borough. Mayor Itta was elected mayor in November 2005, has been 

reelected in 2008, and over the past couple of decades he has 

served in a variety of leadership positions for regional government. 

He is President of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska, the 

U.S. arm of the international organization representing the world’s 

Inuit people. He is the present local government representative for 
3 

Alaska on the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee. He is 

past president and current member of the Barrow Whaling Captains Association and past commissioner and vice chairman of the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and also a current member 

and an active whaling captain. It is a pleasure to have you with 

us this afternoon, Mayor Itta. 

And the final member of the panel is Mead Treadwell. Mr. 

Treadwell is currently the Chairman of the United States Arctic 

Research Commission. Mead was appointed to the Commission in 

2001 and was made chair by the President in 2006. Mr. Treadwell 

serves as a senior fellow at the Institute of the North, and he was 

previously with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation as Deputy Commissioner. He has represented the State 

of Alaska on U.S. delegations on three circumpolar government 

groups: the eight-nation Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, 

the follow-on Arctic Council, and the Regional Governors Northern 

Forum. He is also a member of the board of the Alaska Science and 

Technology Foundation and on the board of the Prince William 

Sound Science Center and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees 

Council’s Policy Advisory Committee. So we welcome you, Mr. 

Treadwell. 

We are holding this hearing this afternoon to learn more about 

the significant changes that are occurring in the far north and how 

the United States must prepare for an ice-diminished Arctic. We 

recognize that the Arctic is becoming more accessible due to a loss 

of summer sea ice and increases in technology, increased maritime 

activity relating to the transportation of goods, of oil and gas development, mineral extraction, tourism, as well as research, will demand new infrastructure and investment, as well as a greater presence in the region. So today’s hearing will, hopefully, illuminate 

what some of these key issues will be. 

We recognize that the United States is an Arctic Nation because 

of Alaska and the region has always had great strategic value to 

the United States. Arctic policy must recognize new developments, 

including the impacts and the effects of climate change and the impacts of increased activity within the region, the significant energy 

and natural resources that have been identified, a growing understanding of the significance of the unique natural environment, and 

an increased awareness of the geopolitical importance of the Arctic. 

Now, I have recently introduced a couple bills in the Senate that 

will address some of the high priority needs that we have already 

identified. The first is based on recommendations of the Arctic 

Council’s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment. It is focused on developing maritime infrastructure. These include aids to navigation, 

port facilities, icebreaking escort, oil spill prevention and response, 

environmental monitoring, vessel tracking, and search and rescue 

capabilities. 

The second bill that we have introduced authorizes funding to 

monitor coastal changes and to provide for safe navigation by mapping Arctic waters, including our extended continental shelf. 

We are also working on the Federal funding for the refurbishment of one of our two existing heavy icebreakers in the Homeland 

Security appropriations bill. This recently passed the Senate. This 

funding will extend the service life of the Polar Star and allow it 
4 

to join the Polar Sea in active duty in the Arctic, but it is not a 

long-term solution. I think we recognize that we must do more 

when it comes to our icebreaking capacity. 

The Arctic is unquestionably unique and the projections of an 

ice-diminished Arctic have profound implications for this region, its 

ecology, its environment, and its people. And how we address and 

adapt to these changes is truly the challenge and the opportunity 

that lie ahead. 

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for your attendance 

and your testimony today, and for those of you who have joined us 

within the audience and online, I hear a little bit of feedback there, 

but I think we can deal with that. 

With that, Governor Parnell, if we can start with your testimony, 

and I will state this to you and all of the witnesses. Your testimony 

will become part of the committee record. We ask that you summarize in any way but your full written statement will be included as 

part of the committee record. 

So with that, we will begin with you and, again, thank you for 

your appearance here today and your service to our State. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR, STATE OF ALASKA 

Governor PARNELL. And thank you, Senator Murkowski. Thanks 

for hosting this field hearing in our State to address these important issues. 

The changing Arctic and the national policies really must form 

the basis of a new national Arctic doctrine of sorts. My hope is that 

the discussion today will inform development of that doctrine. 

Before I begin my remarks, Madam Chair, I too want to say 

thank you and recognize Admiral Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard 

and all the members of the Coast Guard and their families here in 

Alaska. Just this week, the Coast Guard helped save the lives of 

nine people in our State. And as I know you do too, we deeply appreciate the men and women who keep our coastline secure and 

our people safe. So I am here to say thank you as well to the Admiral and the members of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

As you know and as you said, Senator, Alaska is America’s Arctic. It is our home. It is our history, our heritage, and our future. 

And Alaska is the only national link to the Arctic. The Arctic’s 

abundant resources, human and natural, our strategic location, 

these all demand our attention. The people of Alaska understand 

and we eagerly accept our role in the advancement of national and 

international Arctic policy. We worked closely with the previous administration on national and homeland security directives outlining 

broad policies on the Arctic. We look forward to working with this 

administration and this Congress in the same way. 

So today I present Alaska’s view of U.S. Arctic policies in five 

areas: our resources, national and homeland security, science, and 

foreign policy. In the Arctic, these policies are inextricably linked 

and must be acted upon jointly, and they have got to be discussed 

in the context of climate change. 

So let me begin by focusing on Alaska’s resources, most of all, 

our human resources, Alaska’s people. And make no mistake. Alaskans have been adapting for years. Changes in the Arctic affect us 

directly every day, and no one is more vested in Arctic policy than 
5 

the people who subsist from the land, hunting, fishing, gathering, 

not just for food, but for survival of a culture. Collaboration with 

our Arctic residents is a must, and as Alaskans, we understand the 

need for that balance. 

Any conversation about the Arctic must also include Alaska’s 

natural resources, our gold, zinc, coal, natural gas, and oil among 

them. These resources make the Arctic vital to American energy security. Alaska is America’s Arctic energy bread basket. We have 

traditional and renewable sources of energy in staggering volumes 

here, and Alaska can play an even greater role in reducing the 

amount of oil and gas we import from abroad. We can be America’s 

test bed for renewable and alternative energy sources. 

Offshore Alaska, the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, those can be 

explored safely in the near term producing oil and gas for decades. 

Without these known traditional sources of energy, we risk highercost energy, higher taxes, and greater dependence on foreign oil. 

We can do this on our own soil. Let us not be led down the easy 

path to invest America’s foreign aid dollars in exploration abroad. 

Let us keep it here. Let us keep it where Americans, where Alaskans can get the jobs and where environmental laws safeguard our 

land, seas, and wildlife. 

Turning to cleaner fuels, the State of Alaska is pursuing the construction of a natural gas pipeline. We want to bring the North 

Slope’s abundant, clean natural gas to America’s markets. 

We also remain fully committed to alternative and renewable energy. This is the place to field test every alternative. From wind 

turbines, to hydroelectric, to chip-fired systems that burn wood for 

fuel, Alaska is America’s alternative energy center. I am confident 

that together we can bring traditional, renewable, and alternative 

energy to market and increase Alaska’s contribution to our Nation’s 

energy independence for years to come. 

Now let us turn to homeland security. Alaska is America’s Arctic 

guardian. Our strategic location, resources, our people, these all 

compel strong funding for homeland security purposes. The Department of Homeland Security and its agencies have been strong partners in providing for the safety and security of Alaskans and our 

economy. 

The changing climate, diminished sea ice, as you have described, 

and increased military and commercial activity—these require a 

greater Coast Guard presence. So I am here to seek funding for a 

new Coast Guard duty station or port on Alaska’s western or northern coast. They need to move north and improve their capability. 

To provide homeland security, the Coast Guard must have new 

Arctic class icebreakers. In addition, the Department of Homeland 

Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency must 

have authority to prevent long-term disasters, and I am talking 

about those that we can predict before they occur. Erosion threatens our communities. The Federal law was not written with such 

hazards in mind and does not provide the large-scale response 

these small communities need. 

So on to national security. As the summer ice retreats, opportunities for commerce, tourism, and transportation advance. As we 

have seen throughout the world’s oceans, increased maritime traffic 

elevates both risks and threats. We can no longer assume that the 
6 

Arctic is an impenetrable barrier. Instead, we have got to take 

steps to protect our Nation’s people and our economy, our energy 

infrastructure. Alaska’s strategic position as the northern crossroads also places us squarely between potential adversaries and 

the rest of the United States. So I am urging the Congress to support the ground-based missile defense system in Alaska and reconsider the proposal to scale back the placement of interceptors at 

Fort Greely. 

Turning to science, despite centuries of exploration and study, 

much about the Arctic remains a mystery. Standard weather and 

climate models are not sufficient for understanding and predicting 

trends and patterns. New models require fresh data and up-to-date 

research. The State of Alaska strongly supports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and its initiatives to improve 

its observations and research across the Arctic and to develop innovative models for forecasting weather. In the Arctic—this is something you can appreciate, Senator. The Arctic literally needs to be 

put on the map. Scientific research and economic exploration are 

set back by low-quality, decades-old mapping data. We need highquality maps of the Arctic, both land and sea. 

So turning now to foreign policy, for much of our history, the Arctic has been both ungoverned and ungovernable. Those days are 

over. Arctic nations have stepped up economic and military activity 

in the region. I am going to strongly urge the Senate to ratify the 

U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Once ratified, the treaty 

will allow us to claim jurisdiction over the outer continental shelf 

behind the 200-mile limit. U.S. boundaries could grow into areas 

that may hold large deposits of oil, natural gas and other resources. 

Russia, Canada, Denmark, and Norway already have claims to Arctic territory, and we need a seat at the table. 

Climate change. Alaskans know this land. We deal with it every 

day. Some of our residents deal with the changes in the Arctic ice 

every day. The timing, extent, and nature give us all cause for concern. To define and address these concerns, we have formed the 

Climate Change Subcabinet to respond to immediate needs in rural 

villages and plan for future needs as well. And the subcabinet has 

turned recommendation into action. We are now working on coastline stabilization, emergency and evacuation planning, hazard mitigation planning, and training and exercises for the communities 

that need help most. And I want to say thank you to our Federal 

partners for their help in this process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So in conclusion, I just applaud you, Senator, for bringing this 

hearing to Alaska. These policies will have a profound effect on the 

Nation and on our State for generations. Alaska and the U.S. Government share a policy that is balanced and recognizes the diversity the Arctic offers. It highlights the Arctic’s unique characteristics and consequent need for unique treatment. So I urge the Congress and the administration to continue the good work on Arctic 

policies. I encourage the development of a national Arctic doctrine 

that includes all stakeholders in the future of the Arctic. Alaska 

will participate and Alaska will contribute. 

Thank you. 
7 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN PARNELL

Introduction 

Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for this opportunity to address the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on one of the greatest 

challenges facing the Nation and the State of Alaska—the changing Arctic and the 

national policies necessary for its understanding, its protection, and its responsible 

development. 

Before I begin my remarks, Madam Chair, I would like to take a few moments 

to recognize and thank Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the United States 

Coast Guard, and all the members of the Coast Guard for their bravery and hard 

work in Alaska. 

Just this week, the Coast Guard helped save the lives of nine people in Alaska. 

A Coast Guard helicopter found two missing adults and a child near Ketchikan. 

With help from Alaska State Troopers, family and friends, the Coast Guard rescued 

another six people when a 20 foot pleasure boat overturned at Tee Harbor near Juneau. Unfortunately, one person lost their life in that incident. My thoughts and 

prayers are with his family and we deeply appreciate the men and women who keep 

America’s coastlines safe and secure. 

As you know Senator Murkowski, Alaska is America’s Arctic—it’s our home, our 

history, our heritage, and our future. And Alaska is the only national link to the 

arctic and the only state that shares a border with two other arctic nations. Arctic 

policies affect every state and every citizen—Alaskans most of all, not just because 

of our strategic location on the globe—but because of what we have to offer. The 

Arctic’s abundant resources; human and natural, and our strategic location for national security demand our attention. The people of Alaska understand and eagerly 

accept our role in the examination and development of national Arctic policy. 

We worked closely with the previous Administration on National and Homeland 

security directives outlining broad policies on the arctic. We hope to continue that 

collaboration with this Administration and Congress. 

Today, I present Alaska’s view of U.S. Arctic policies in five areas: Resources, national and homeland security, science, and foreign policy. In the Arctic, these policies are inextricably linked. And, while I describe these issues individually, it is 

vital that this committee and the administration understand and act on them jointly. Domestic energy supplies support national and homeland security. Security enables development and protects the environment. Foreign policy enables international participation in scientific research. This must all be discussed in the context of climate change and how Alaska is adapting in light of Arctic policy. 

Resources 

Let me begin by focusing on Alaska’s resources—most of all, our human resources—Alaska’s people. Make no mistake, Alaskans have been adapting for years. 

Changes in the Arctic affect us directly, every day. No one is more vested in Arctic 

policy than the people who subsist from the land—hunting, fishing and gathering, 

not just for food, but for the survival of their culture. Collaboration with our Arctic 

residents and local governments, is a must. Alaskans understand the need for balance. 

Any conversation about the Arctic must also include Alaska’s natural resources— 

coal, gold, zinc, silver, copper, natural gas and oil. These resources make the Arctic 

vital to American energy security. Alaska is America’s Arctic energy breadbasket. 

We have traditional and renewable sources of energy in staggering volumes here. 

Alaska can play an even greater role in reducing the amount of oil and gas we import from abroad. And we can be America’s test-bed for renewable and alternative 

energy sources. 

The onshore Arctic areas, such as the NPR–A and the coastal plain of ANWR, 

hold great promise. 

Alaska is home to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, which carries 685,000 barrels of oil a day to the lower 48 States. This major supply of oil is key to our national energy security. 

Offshore Alaska, the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, can be explored safely in the 

near-term, producing oil and gas for decades. Without these known, traditional 

sources of energy, we risk higher cost energy, higher taxes, and greater dependence 

on foreign oil. We can do this on our own soil. Let us not be led down the easy path 

to investing America’s foreign aid dollars in exploration abroad. Let’s keep it here— 

where Americans can get the jobs, and where environmental laws safeguard our 

land, seas, and wildlife. 
8 

Putting the brakes on domestic energy production does not prevent global warming or end threats to species. Instead, delaying responsible exploration and development increases the problem by shifting resource extraction to less environmentally 

preferred fuels and locations. 

Turning to cleaner fuels, the State of Alaska is also pursuing the construction of 

a pipeline to bring the North Slope’s abundant, clean natural gas to American markets. We have two competing private sector groups working diligently to permit a 

natural gas pipeline that can deliver 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to 

the continental United States. Again, if we can turn on the supply of clean, American natural gas—from Alaska—we will reduce our dependence on imports and 

bring less expensive energy to homes across America. 

Unfortunately, current language in proposed climate change legislation would 

likely make the project uneconomic and would lead to the use of higher cost fuel 

sources before technology catches up. 

Alaska remains fully committed alternative and renewable energy, as well. This 

is the place to field test every alternative. From wind turbines, to hydro-electric, to 

chip-fired systems that burn wood for fuel—Alaska is America’s alternative energy 

center. 

I am confident that together we can bring both traditional, renewable and alternative energy to market and increase Alaska’s contribution toward our Nation’s energy independence for years to come. 

Homeland Security 

Alaska is America’s Arctic Guardian. Our strategic location, resources and people 

compel strong funding for homeland security. The Department of Homeland Security 

and its agencies have been strong partners in providing for the safety and security 

of Alaskans and our economy. 

Melting sea ice and increased military and commercial activity require a greater 

Coast Guard presence. The Coast Guard needs to move north and improve its capability—our heavy ice-class icebreakers are on their last legs. To provide homeland 

security—the Coast Guard must have new Arctic-class ice breakers equipped for 

search and rescue missions, border protection, law enforcement, fisheries enforcement, infrastructure and environmental protection. 

Support for funding for those icebreakers is up to this committee. We need to fund 

a new Coast Guard duty station or port on Alaska’s coast between Nome and Barrow to meet the new challenges of the Arctic. 

The Coast Guard needs to keep the promise of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and 

establish a research program for the Arctic. With information in hand, we can continue to work with the Coast Guard to improve our ability to prevent and respond 

to oil spills in the region. 

In addition, The Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency must have authority to act on disasters we can predict, not 

just those looming around the corner or the one we currently face. In western and 

northern Alaska, the sea ice no longer shields the coast from fall storms. The resulting erosion threatens the sustainability of some communities. The Federal law was 

not written with such hazards in mind and does not provide the mount the largescale response these small communities need. 

Exploration and development will bring more coastal and maritime infrastructure 

such as ports, repair facilities, fuel depots, pipelines, and transportation. These assets will need effective, enforceable security buffer zones to ensure continuity under 

all hazards. 

National Security 

As the summer ice retreats, opportunities for commerce, tourism and transport 

advance. Already we see more mineral, oil and gas exploration—more vessel traffic 

and science missions. As we have seen throughout the world’s oceans, increased 

maritime traffic elevates both risks and threats. Currently, the North Slope Borough 

and oil and gas producers on the slope, fill much of that void. We need the Federal 

Government to step in. We can no longer assume that the threat from the north 

to our oil production fields is not real. We can no longer assume that the Arctic is 

an impenetrable barrier. 

The United States must increase national focus on the Arctic, add resources to 

collect scientific data, and increase Coast Guard presence to address these new challenges and opportunities. This will provide the ability to develop the American Arctic’s vast natural resources and is critical for the protection of strategic national infrastructure and assets. 

Alaska’s strategic position as the northern crossroads also places us squarely in 

line between potential adversaries and the rest of the United States. I urge the Con-
9 

gress to support the ground-based missile defense system in Alaska and reconsider 

the proposal to scale back the placement of interceptors at Fort Greely. We play a 

critical role in national security and in the security of American allies. 

Science 

Despite centuries of exploration and study, much about the Arctic remains a mystery. Standard weather and climate models are not sufficient for understanding and 

predicting trends and patterns. New models require fresh data and up-to-date research. 

The State of Alaska strongly supports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and its initiatives to improve its observations and research across the 

Arctic and to develop innovative forecasting models for next week’s weather and 

next century’s climate. 

I encourage scientific collaboration among the academic world, the Arctic nations, 

and non-governmental organizations to improve our understanding of fisheries, marine mammals, land animals and vegetation in the Arctic ecosystem. This research 

must be open and rigorous. 

The State continues its support of the use of unmanned aerial systems for Arctic 

operations and research. The Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation and 

NOAA are working on a plan for how best to make that happen. The technology 

exists; the stakeholders are ready; but the current regulations are inflexible and 

outdated. 

And the Arctic, literally, needs to be put on the map. Scientific research and economic exploration are set back by low quality, decades-old mapping data. There is 

no accurate baseline to measure change, to identify trends and patterns, or predict 

potential outcomes. We need high quality maps of the Arctic—both land and sea. 

Funding for such priorities should not be based on population density, but instead 

on current and future strategic economic and environmental values. 

Foreign Policy 

For much of its history, the Arctic has been both ungoverned and ungovernable. 

Even as the eight Arctic nations have increased economic activity, the Arctic climate 

has impeded economic and social development, transportation, and research. That 

era must end. 

I strongly urge the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea. Once ratified, the treaty will allow us to claim jurisdiction over the offshore continental shelf behind the 200-mile limit. U.S. boundaries could grow into 

areas that may hold large deposits of oil, natural gas and other resources. Russia, 

Canada, Denmark, and Norway have claims to Arctic territory under the auspices 

of the Law of the Sea. Without ratification, the United States. cannot fully participate in adjudication of these claims. 

Climate change 

Alaskans have extremely close ties to the land and the sea and are sensitive to 

their subtleties and variability. The changes in the Arctic ice—their timing, extent, 

and nature—give us cause for concern. 

To define and address these concerns, Governor Palin formed the Climate Change 

Subcabinet to respond to immediate needs in rural villages, plan for the long term 

and determine research needs and the sub-cabinet has turned recommendation into 

action. We’re now working on coastline stabilization, emergency and evacuation 

planning, hazard mitigation planning, training and exercises for the communities 

most in need. 

The Climate Change Strategy is in the final stages and will be presented to me 

this fall. We’ve had noteworthy partnerships with several Federal agencies in this 

process, and we look forward to continued work with the Federal Government as 

we address climate change. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I applaud you, Senator Murkowski, on bringing to Alaska this hearing on the strategic importance of the Arctic in U.S. policy. These policies, whether 

long-standing or emerging, will have a profound effect on the Nation and on Alaska 

for generations. We must take a balanced approach to protect our food sources, 

thousands of jobs and the energy security provided by Alaska’s oil and mineral development. 

Alaska and the U.S. government share a policy that is balanced and recognizes 

the diversity the arctic offers. And it highlights the Arctic’s unique characteristics 

and consequent need for unique treatment. 

I urge the Congress and the Federal Administration to continue the good work 

on Arctic policies and encourage the development of a National Arctic Doctrine that 
10 

includes all stakeholders in the future of the Arctic. Alaska will participate and 

Alaska will contribute. We are eager to work with Congress to manage all our resources. 

On taking office last month, I asked Alaskans and myself several questions: In 

the next 50 years, will Alaska move forward, or will time pass us by? Will each of 

us be a vital player, or will we stay on the bench? Will we just survive, or will we 

choose to thrive? 

Today Alaskans join me in stating that our state—and our nation—must not be 

idle and passive; that we must not drift; that we must choose our destiny and work 

hard, as well, to achieve it. 

The Arctic is our future. We choose to move forward, and we choose to thrive. 

Thank you for your leadership and your service to our great State and to our Nation 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Governor. I appreciate your 

comments and not editorializing, because I do want to make sure 

that we have got time for questions from the full panel, but I appreciate your singling out what we in Congress can do in terms of 

advancing the Law of the Sea Treaty. I think we recognize that for 

purposes of just identifying that which we believe rightfully should 

be ours is important. And until we sign on and we ratify the Law 

of the Sea Treaty, we are at a disadvantage, but we are also at a 

disadvantage if we fail in our own mapping efforts. I know those 

of you who have been looking at this recognize that when we do 

not know what is out there, it puts us at a distinct disadvantage. 

So a couple points there. 

I wanted to ask you specifically. You have mentioned the national Arctic policy or directive and have indicated your support for 

that effort and the State’s willingness to certainly be a participant. 

Do you believe that the State needs to have its own Arctic policy? 

Or how do we mesh the initiatives at the State level with what we 

advance from a national perspective? 

Governor PARNELL. I think inherently Arctic policy is a national 

and international undertaking which effectively resides with the 

Federal Government. I think, though, that because our people and 

our State are impacted by that Arctic policy, I think the State deserves and needs a seat at the table. So my hope is to be an active 

participant as a State and as individuals in the State in development of that Arctic policy. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. A couple of different things that are going 

on at the State level. You have mentioned the Climate Change 

Subcabinet and the fact that they have reported out with a series 

of recommendations. You have also mentioned the work that is 

going on with coastline stabilization and the efforts there. One of 

the things that I think we appreciate is that as we see erosion continue and continuing at an accelerated level in certain areas, it is 

more than just putting some additional riprap in. It is significant 

work. It is expensive to do. And at the Federal level, we are grappling with how we move forward with such an extensive initiative. 

I was able to recently restore the reauthorization that is necessary 

for the Army Corps of Engineers, the authority to make sure that 

they can move forward with that. 

But this is an area where I think from both the State and the 

Federal perspective we have got a lot of work to be doing together, 

and I would like just your feedback on how we can both be working 

to provide for a level of security and protection. 
11 

Governor PARNELL. I think we can do it in several ways, and I 

think we are doing it. One, I said that Alaska wants to participate 

and contribute, and I think we are full-on partners in that. So, for 

example, within the last year and a half, the Governor’s office had 

requested about $24 million from the legislature for coastal erosion 

stabilization efforts. The legislature appropriated about $15 million 

of that request. So we are a financial partner in the effort. When 

it comes to individual communities, we are working hand in hand 

with Federal agencies to get the job done to protect our communities, and I think you are going to see that continue. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have actually got an opportunity to go out 

tomorrow to Newtok to see how we are helping to move a community. I think one of the beautiful examples that we have with 

Newtok is it is a community that has taken initiative, but they are 

working with all of the different partners to help facilitate. The 

military is helping with the emergency evacuation. The State is a 

participant. The Feds are a participant. Everyone who is a stakeholder is engaged and is involved in really telling a good story with 

Newtok. 

Governor PARNELL. Senator, can I just expound on that just for 

a moment? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Certainly. 

Governor PARNELL. I think that is a wonderful example of Federal coordination, and we are grateful to the U.S. marines, the U.S. 

Navy for participating in that effort with us, with the Federal and 

State government, as well as working very closely with the local 

residents on that move. 

I also want to point out that it does not necessarily take a relocation effort. Sometimes these challenges look bigger because we take 

them in big chunks by saying we have to move a village. And that 

may be true over time, but we can also take significant steps to 

protect the life and safety of our residents. So, for example, with 

another village that is threatened by erosion, we might work together on an evacuation route, a road out of the village inland so 

that they can have safety from the weather. That, in turn, will lead 

to perhaps a new school, which in turn will draw village residents 

to a different location. So if we can work together to take these 

large problems, break them down into manageable sizes, and work 

together with the communities, I think we will have a win-win together. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Appreciate it. Thank you for your testimony, Governor. Thank you for being here today. We look forward 

to working with you on these issues and so many more. 

With that, I would ask you, Admiral Allen, to join us at the 

table. 

And for those of you that are on the line—I believe it is just various media outlets—I would ask you to please put your microphones on mute. We are picking up a lot of feedback and it is quite 

disruptive. So if you can all check your mute buttons and be quiet. 

Make sure you have got something that works there, Admiral. If 

you would please go ahead. Again, thank you and welcome. 
12 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST 

GUARD 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I do have 

a statement for the record. I would like to submit that and would 

make some opening comments. I actually had prepared an oral 

statement within the 5 minutes, but I thought it might be more instructive to tell you what I have done this week. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Great. 

Can I just ask again, those of you that are on the line to please 

make sure that your microphones are off. We are still picking up 

feedback. We will see if that gets it. Thank you, sir. 

Admiral ALLEN. Thank you, ma’am. Also, I want to thank you for 

two things. Number one, it is 92 degrees in Washington today. I 

am glad to be here. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We are glad to have you. 

Admiral ALLEN. I believe this is the first hearing I have ever 

done in my operational duty uniform. I just flew in from Dead 

Horse, so thank you for that as well. 

I left Washington on Monday morning. I come to Alaska every 

summer, mostly in August, to see how our forward-deployed personnel are doing on the North Slope. And this is our third year of 

doing that. This year, I thought it would be good to take a ‘‘whole 

of government’’ approach in doing that, and so while they are not 

here with me—they are fanned out across the State as we speak— 

I took with me on the plane Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the Administrator 

of NOAA and Under Secretary of Commerce. We had Deputy Secretary David Hayes from Interior and Nancy Sutley, Chairman of 

the Council on Environmental Quality, and Heather Zichal, who is 

the Deputy Advisor to the President and works for Carol Browner 

focusing on climate and energy issues. 

We flew into Nome and met with Mayor Michaels. We got on 

three helicopters and flew up to the village of Shishmaref. I met 

with the mayor there. We looked at the coastal erosion and the impact of climate change on that village, and you have just discussed 

that with the Governor here. 

One of the reasons we went there is that this summer we decided 

to make a difference in the forward deployment. We reached out 

to the communities and said, ‘‘What do you need from us? We provide access. We bring people, and we bring equipment up here. Is 

there something else we could be doing?’’ And we found out there 

are some things we could be doing at very low cost that would have 

a significant impact on the communities. 

In combination with our other services—this includes the Army, 

the Air Force, the National Guard, the Air Guard and the Navy— 

we have deployed medical teams to take care of dental work to help 

with the clinics. Our big surprise is the amount of popularity we 

have had for bringing veterinarian services to the North Slope especially in taking care of some issues related to rabid foxes and the 

dogs and the animals that are so important to our communities up 

there. It was clear to us that this is resonating, and it is clear to 

us that for a very small amount of money, you can leverage the resources you have and have a very large impact. 

We left Nome and went to Fairbanks and got a briefing from the 

University of Alaska at Fairbanks on changes in climate, some of 
13 

the studies that are going on there, and the great work that is happening there. 

I had a chance myself to go out to Fort Greely. I looked at the 

ground-based missile interceptors and had a great conversation out 

there. The Coast Guard is involved in that work regarding the seabased X-band radar and some of the work that is going on down 

at Kodiak. So that really helped to fill my knowledge out. 

We then went up to Barrow. We met with Mayor Itta, the elders, 

and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and looked at the 

issues up there. Again, we saw the immediate feedback from putting veterinary services and other services up there in the summer. 

I was over at Dead Horse this morning. I am down here right 

now. 

As you know, for the past three summers, we have moved forces 

to the North Slope. We know—and I like your term ‘‘diminished 

ice.’’ There is always ice somewhere up there, ma’am, and we all 

know that. I am sure it is not appreciated elsewhere. We have had 

deployed forces up there for 3 years in a row, and we are learning. 

We are in the process of doing a northern latitude requirements 

study in the Coast Guard right now; the first phase of which will 

be done later on this year. Some things we are learning are that 

our traditional small boats do not operate well off the North Slope 

as far as launching and recovery, and we have much to learn from 

the Eskimo natives that operate up there, and we are talking with 

them every summer. We have long-range communications problems 

with our helicopters because of the lack of infrastructure, especially 

in high frequency nets, which we have to use to communicate and 

assure our assets are being safe. And as has already been stated, 

there are navigational challenges up there because there is lack of 

mapping data, and Automatic Identification System navigation is 

an issue moving forward, too. 

We continue to refine what we need to do up there. We will continue to deploy and operate up here every summer. I think the real 

question before us, as the Governor and everybody whom I have 

talked to has alluded, is: How do we transition from mobile deploying forces, seasonally to making a better footprint up there, not 

only for ongoing operations year round but to surge if something 

were to happen up there. With the increased shipping and use of 

the Arctic waters up there, whether it is ecotourism, increased traffic-related oil or gas exploration, we need to be able to carry out 

the responsibility the Coast Guard has in the Lower 48 regarding 

law enforcement, search and rescue, environmental response, and 

so forth. 

We hope sometime in the next 6 months to start putting together 

a requirements document that will generate what we really need 

to operate up there. We know that on the water, our small boats 

are not what is needed up there. Some other vehicle, whether it is 

an air boat, a hover craft, or something we are going to have to 

look at to be able to provide the right access and be able to operate 

on the water up there. Again, the type of helicopter and the communications are going to be an issue as well. 

If I was to summarize the Coast Guard’s view of the Arctic and 

the strategic issues associated with that, I would probably give you 

four issues, ma’am. 
14 

The first one has already been alluded to, and that is to maintain 

our current capability so we do not erode our ability to respond to 

an incident that occurs up there. Right now, as you know, there are 

three icebreakers in the Coast Guard inventory, and that is America’s inventory. One is an ice-strengthened research vessel, the 

Coast Guard cutter Healy, which is deployed as we speak to collect 

data for a potential claim beyond the continental shelf when we 

ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. 

However, we have one icebreaker that is operational, the Polar 

Sea. The Polar Star has been laid up, and we are currently going 

through an evaluation of that to complete repair as we have been 

appropriated about $30 million. The ship was dry-docked recently, 

and we are generating a work list. It should be done sometime in 

the next 4 to 6 weeks. That will allow us to proceed and tell us 

what needs to be done. And as you have noted, the Senate has 

added $32 million in its appropriations this year. 

I have been asked several times what would it take to put the 

Polar Star back in operation, and the answer is the combination of those 2 foot mounts and about $62 million. And it would take time 

to make a long-term decision about where we need to go with icebreakers. 

We are not presupposing a decision to build icebreakers. What 

we need to do is to build a valid set of requirements based on better knowledge of what is happening up there, but in the meantime, 

our goal is to maintain current readiness and not let that degrade 

any further than it has. 

The second issue for us, as I have already alluded to, is to engage 

with our native partners up there and conduct operations. We will 

be up there in the summers. That will be for the foreseeable future. 

And then the goal is to transition to whatever we need to do after 

that. I say whatever we need because I think those requirements 

need to be solidified, but we should not take too long to do that. 

I think the next 6 to 12 months should tell us something about 

that. 

The third issue would be, without being too glib, we need a 

‘‘whole of government’’ approach rather than a ‘‘whole in government’’ approach, rather than working by ourselves, digging out of 

our own holes. It is nice to be up here with all our partners traveling around the State, but it is also nice to see the various services 

out there operating together. Collectively with small contributions, 

they are generating tremendous, tremendous return on investment 

up there not only for us in terms of experience and making our people better leaders and better technically skilled people but also because of some of the invaluable services they bring to the people 

up there. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

And the fourth issue, as I have alluded to already, would be to 

generate solid mission requirements, based on data, to understand 

what it is we need to do up there in terms of effects. We can talk 

about a forward station. We can talk about a helicopter, but what 

we really need to do is to be able to respond to a search and rescue 

case, deal with an oil spill and deal with emerging homeland security or law enforcement issues up there, and I think we need to fig-
15 

ure out what capability it is going to take to do that without presupposing the outcome. We will generate the right requirements, 

and hopefully at that point we will gain the support and the resources we need to effect that. 

I want to thank you again for having us here, ma’am, and thank 

you for your continuing support. And I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN

Good afternoon, Senator Murkowski. I’m pleased to be here today to discuss the 

Coast Guard’s Arctic presence. 

ICEBREAKING CAPACITY IN THE ARCTIC

Just over a year ago, I testified before Congress on Coast Guard icebreaking. I 

stressed the importance of maintaining our Nation’s ability to project maritime presence and strength throughout the world, and specifically the Arctic region. In the 

past year, arctic policy was further defined by National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 25 on Arctic Region Policy. This Directive provides specific policy objectives while acknowledging 

the effects of climate change and increased human activity in the Arctic region. In 

executing this direction, we must be prepared to address the impacts of more open 

water, an increasing population of maritime users operating in a fragile and challenging environment, and assertion of claims to the vast natural resources of the 

region. The Coast Guard, through the Department of Homeland Security and with 

the Departments of State and Defense must work to improve maritime domain 

awareness, preserve the global mobility of United States military and civilian vessels and aircraft, and project a sovereign United States maritime presence in the 

Arctic region. 

To that end, the Coast Guard has continued expansion of its operations in Arctic 

waters during open water periods while also ensuring its multi-mission capacity is 

available to support execution of Coast Guard responsibilities year round. As you 

know, the Coast Guard has three polar icebreakers, two of which are currently operational. The HEALY, a medium icebreaker, is capable of all Arctic operations and 

is specifically adapted for scientific research. She is currently operating in the Arctic 

conducting hydrographic mapping of the U.S continental shelf. Polar Sea, which is 

one of our two heavy icebreakers, is capable of all operations in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. She will conduct an Arctic West Patrol early this fall to support national science missions. The Coast Guard’s third icebreaker and other heavy icebreaker, Polar Star, is not operational since being placed in ‘‘caretaker’’ status in 

2006. Polar Star recently came out of dry dock in Seattle as part of ongoing engineering assessments being conducted as part of the project funded in the 2009 Appropriations Act. These three ships represent our Nation’s current icebreaking capacity in the Arctic region. 

ARCTIC TRENDS

The Arctic environment is dynamic. Observations and trends have been reported 

that could increase the intensity of our operations and impact our access requirements: 

—Dynamic Changes in Ice Conditions.—The steady recession of the ice edge continues to open new water in the summer months. As such, dangers to shipping 

may increase because of the dynamic and unpredictable movement of ice. 

—Expanding Resource Development.—Based on assessments by the U.S. Geological Survey, there have been projections that an estimated 22 percent of the 

world’s oil and natural gas could be located beneath the Arctic with some portion of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources located within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Reflective of this value, oil companies bid nearly $2.7 billion for Chukchi Sea mineral rights. 

—Eco-tourism.—This industry continues to expand as cruise ships, carrying hundreds of passengers, test the limits of safe navigation in Arctic waters. To date, 

we have already observed an increase by one in the number of adventure 

cruises from last year’s for Northwest Passage Transits. Two cruise ships recently transited the Northwest Passage, one from the east and one from the 

west with 164 and 184 passengers respectively. 
16 

—Fish Stock Migration.—As the ice edge recedes and water temperatures change, 

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council reports an increase in fish 

stocks being caught to the north. As a result, fishing vessels have been observed 

moving further north, which could lead to increased foreign incursions into the 

U.S. EEZ. —Sovereignty Claims.—With the increased level of open water comes more ability 

to research and map the oceans floors. This research, including hydrographic 

surveys and bottom sampling may serve as precursors to international sovereignty claims to extended continental shelves pursuant to the Law of the Sea 

Convention. 

NATIONAL ARCTIC POLICY

The United States is an Arctic nation. As the ice edge continues to recede in the 

summer, the extent of navigable waters increase. As we adjust to this dynamic, it 

is critical to recognize the Arctic Region as environmentally fragile, rich in natural 

resources, and of significant national importance and international interest. We 

must be prepared to meet current and future demands. The objectives established 

in the Arctic Region Policy include: 

—Meeting national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic 

Region. 

—Protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources. 

—Ensuring natural resource management/economic development are sustainable. 

—Strengthening institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic nations. 

—Enhancing scientific monitoring and research into environmental issues. 

—Involve the Arctic’s indigenous communities in decisions that affect them. 

As Commandant, I believe the the Coast Guard’s eleven statutory missions may 

have a significant role in supporting many of the objectives established in NSPD– 

66/HSPD–25. 

Additionally, the multi-nation Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) published in April 2009 provided a comprehensive assessment of the current uses and 

future impacts of increased accessibility and maritime activity in the Arctic. The report concluded that safe, secure, and environmental sound maritime commerce in 

the Arctic region will depend on adequate infrastructure to support shipping activity, search and rescue capabilities, short and long range aids to navigation, high- 
17 

risk area vessel-traffic management, iceberg warnings, shipping standards, and 

comprehensive measures to protect the marine environment. 

SUPPORTING EXECUTION OF THE NATIONAL ARCTIC POLICY OBJECTIVES

One thing is certain today regarding the Arctic, there is more navigable ocean 

during summer months where there used to be ice, and the Coast Guard has statutory and regulatory responsibilities in that ocean. The Coast Guard is the Nation’s 

primary maritime safety, security, environmental protection and law enforcement 

agency. As such, we hold a significant responsibility in executing the Arctic Region 

Policy. In order to better perform our anticipated role, we are developing an Arctic 

Strategic Plan (ASP) to ensure the Coast Guard is both prepared and able to engage 

and conduct statutory operations in the Arctic. From my perspective, in addition to 

our existing mission demands, the Coast Guard must actively participate in the 

multi-agency effort to address current and future challenges associated with the 

Arctic. 

Meeting Homeland Security Needs in the Arctic 

As part of a multi-agency effort to implement the Arctic Region Policy, we continue to push forward and assess our Arctic limits. In the summer of 2008, we established Forward Operating Locations (FOL) on the North Slope. We employed 

Coast Guard small boats, helicopters, and Maritime Safety and Security Teams 

(MSSTs) in Prudhoe Bay, Nome, and Barrow to increase maritime domain awareness and test capabilities in the Arctic environment. We will continue those efforts 

later this summer, when there is the most open water, by redeploying Forward Operating Location bases in most of the same places. Currently, these FOLs operate 

on a limited basis due to weather conditions, distances, and a lack of shore based 

infrastructure. We will institute changes based on lessons learned last year, as we 

continue to develop and refine our knowledge base on operations in the Arctic. 

To evaluate activity trends in the Arctic, the Coast Guard commenced extensive 

Arctic Domain Awareness flights. Coast Guard C–130 Flights originated out of a 

temporary Forward Operating Location in Kotzebue last summer and will continue 

later this summer. These flights help develop a complete awareness of all private 

and governmental activities in the Arctic. 

Protecting the Maritime Environment 

To help protect the critical, pristine and fragile environment of the Arctic Region, 

we must continue to support pollution response capabilities in the region. Recognizing that oil spill clean-up is significantly more difficult in colder temperatures 
18 

and ice-covered waters, enhancing prevention measures is even more critical as a 

means to mitigate risk. Moreover, the combination of a harsh environment and limited response resources and capabilities necessitates that awareness, contingency 

planning, communications amongst stakeholders are effective and efficient. 

While prevention is critical, so is response capability. We continue to exercise the 

vessel of opportunity skimming system (VOSS) and the Spilled Oil Recovery System 

(SORS) in the Arctic. Both of these systems enable vessels to collect oil in the unfortunate event of a discharge. The VOSS is deployable and capable of being used on 

a variety ships and the SORS is permanently stored and deployed from the 225 

buoytenders. The VOSS has been exercised in the Arctic on the Polar Sea and the 

SORS will be exercised on SPAR later this summer. 

To better understand the impact the northward movement of fish stocks into the 

Arctic will have on sustainability, a regional management plan is needed. The North 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council imposed a moratorium on fishing within the 

U.S. EEZ in the Arctic until assessment of the practicality of sustained commercial 

fishing in the region is completed. Regardless of the outcome of the assessment and 

follow-on management plan, it is certain the Coast Guard will play a critical role 

in its enforcement. 

Facilitating Safe, Secure, and Reliable Navigation 

With the deployment of the Coast Guard buoy tender SPAR to the Arctic last year 

the Service began an in-depth Waterways Analysis Management Survey (WAMS). 

This ongoing survey applies criteria described in the AMSA to assess safe shipping 

routes, aids to navigation, and vessel routing and traffic system requirements in the 

Arctic. 

Supporting Multi-Agency Arctic Region Policy Implementation 

Strengthen Cooperation’s Among the Eight Arctic Nations 

The Coast Guard continues to support international and multilateral organizations, studies, projects, and initiatives. Some key groups, projects and legal frameworks include the Arctic Council, AMSA, Ilulissat Declaration (2009), and the U.N. 

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the United States has not 

yet acceded. In April 2009, Coast Guard District Seventeen and the Canadian Coast 

Guard held a Joint Maritime Pollution Contingency Plan Table Top Exercise for oil 

spill responses in the Beaufort Sea. Consistent with such efforts, the Coast Guard 
19 

will continue to engage Arctic Nations and international organizations to identify 

and meet current and future challenges associated with the Arctic. 

Involve the Arctic’s Indigenous Communities in USCG Decisions That Affect 

Them 

Some of our biggest successes and lessons for the way forward have come from 

our continued engagement with Alaska Native Tribes. Their knowledge, assistance 

and collaboration have been invaluable to our safe operations and initiatives. For 

instance, we conducted boating safety exchanges and provided medical and dental 

outreach programs while operating in remote villages on the North Slope. We will 

continue to focus on working with these groups, while ensuring their equities are 

recognized and protected, as we adapt to the challenges associated with changing 

operations in the region. 

Enhance Scientific Monitoring and Research into Environmental Issues 

The Coast Guard continues to support the Arctic research efforts of the scientific 

community through ongoing operations onboard the CGC Healy and Polar Sea this 

summer. These missions will support the Naval Research Lab, National Science 

Foundation, Office of Naval Research, and the Department of State to continue 

mapping of the continental shelf. Additionally, Air Station Kodiak has and will continue to provide scientific research support from its C–130s through deployment of 

data buoys in the Arctic. 

NATIONAL ARCTIC CAPACITY

While our summer operations continue to provide valuable lessons and help us 

gain better insight regarding the Arctic, we must acknowledge the seasonal limitation of these efforts. When summer season commercial activity expands, mariners 

will test the boundaries of safe navigation, and as the five Arctic nations continue 

to collect data to make jurisdictional claims, it is important to maintain an appropriate presence in the Arctic for law enforcement and response purposes with vessels capable of accessing the region. The expansive distances, severe weather conditions, and lack of land-based infrastructure continue to challenge our capabilities. 

As established by NSPD–66/HSPD–25 and noted previously, the Coast Guard has 

jurisdiction and statutory mission requirements over Arctic waters and the demands 

associated with those obligations will increase as waterways continue to open. Future mission requirements for this vast, remote, and exceptionally harsh environment are still being studied. The full multi-agency missions and asset gaps for the 

future have yet to be determined. 

In order to better understand our future roles, requirements, and gaps in both the 

Arctic and Antarctic, we are conducting a High Latitude Study, an in-depth mission 

analysis report. The results, which will be available in the summer of 2010, will 

allow us to better understand our mission needs in the Arctic, ensure we are better 

positioned to fill the critical roles through a comprehensive Arctic strategy to include a mix of assets and other resources. 

COAST GUARD ICEBREAKER ASSETS

The Healy, commissioned in 2000, has an expected service life of 30 years. The 

Polar Sea and Polar Star were both commissioned in the late 1970s, and are fast 

approaching their extended service lives of 30 years. The Polar Sea had a significant 

2-year refit in 2006, extending its service life to 2014. 

We are currently engaged in a $30.3 million project on the Polar Star. Independent engineering assessments are being completed now, including completion of 

a brief dry dock in May, to ascertain the extent of work required to continue with 

this major overhaul. Extending Polar Star’s service life could provide additional 

backup capacity for Healy and avoid a heavy icebreaking capacity gap when Polar 

Sea reaches the end of its already extended service life. However, the cost of this 

additional capacity, including the expense to operate and maintain both Polar Sea 

and Polar Star, must be weighed against the costs and benefits of other backup capacity options. 

Budget authority for the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers currently rests with the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) and has since being transferred in 2006. 
20 

CONCLUSION

The Arctic is a vast and challenging environment going through significant 

changes. The unique nature of the region, magnitude of open water, and new users 

are leading to increased challenges to National sovereignty. As a Nation, we now 

have an Arctic Region Policy and the Coast Guard has a significant role in implementing that policy. We are pushing forward to meet our responsibilities using the 

resources available right now. 

To meet our national responsibilities in the Arctic, we must ensure we are prepared for the challenges associated with this unique and harsh environment. While 

we work to refine future mission requirements and identify the precise mix of assets 

needed to perform them, Coast Guard icebreakers stand ready to meet our current 

icebreaking needs in the Arctic. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, thank you, Admiral. 

Let me ask you this. We recognize that the existing infrastructure up north is limited at best and nonexistent in some cases. You 

have indicated that the goal here is to generate solid mission requirements, to use your terminology, to really understand what the 

requirements are first before we act. Did I understand that you 

ought to know this in about 6 months, that there will be a requirements document? 

Admiral ALLEN. We have initiated a high-latitude study that will 

be in three parts. The first part is going to focus on the current 

requirements for icebreakers. The second will be future requirements, and the third will look at forward operating from the Northern Slope. 

To give you an example, if I could just pick a few places, there 

are three places where we can get very large aircraft to go further 

north, and we have been conducting Arctic domain awareness 
21 

flights with our C–130 aircraft up to the ice edge and even further. 

We can fly out of Nome, we can fly out of Barrow and we can fly 

out of Dead Horse. They differ radically in the amount of logistical 

support that is available and our ability to bring numbers of people 

in and operate from there. 

So we would have to make a decision on where the need is and 

the requirement where you want to operate from. A helicopter in 

Nome might not do you any good for an event off Point Barrow and 

vice versa, and so we need to figure out where the risks are, what 

we want to achieve and what best accomplishes that. And then we 

need to look at the infrastructure that is available and how we 

would move people in to conduct command and control and be able 

to generate the type of effects we want offshore. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we have had an opportunity to talk 

about the geographic reality that when you have got your assets located down in Kodiak and you need to move something up north 

somewhere around the Chukchi, that is a heck of a long haul. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And yet basing them, whether it is a helicopter or otherwise, in an area where you do not have a hangar facility where you do not have runways that you need, where you do 

not have harbor for the boats, we are talking some pretty basic infrastructure needs. Is that correct? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, ma’am. If I could use an example. There is 

an extraordinary amount of work being done in Nome by Mayor 

Michaels. They have extended the jetties, as you know, out there, 

and they have been able to deepen the port somewhere between 20 

and 24 feet, average 22 feet in depth. Now, some of our smaller 

vessels can get in there, but those are the ones that cannot accommodate the seas and the ice conditions that are up there for the 

ones that can (the polar breakers and the larger vessels) the last 

refueling stop is Kodiak. So depending on where you are operating, 

you are talking about 900 or 1,100 miles from the gas station. Now, 

that is okay if you are a polar icebreaker because you have the sustainability and can carry the fuel and water to do that. 

So those are the types of things we need to talk about. How 

would you create the capability to do that, and how would you be 

able to create forward presence? You do not have to have the ports 

if you have the ships that have the sustainability, and those are 

the tradeoffs. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So, you are right now in a seasonal assessment. You are up during these few short months of the summer. 

What, if anything, is being done to assess the assets that we have 

in winter conditions? If you need to move a helicopter out, for instance—— 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Are we able to do what we 

need, given the assets that we currently have? 

Admiral ALLEN. If you want to talk about helicopters for a second, I can give you probably a good example there. We have two 

types of helicopters, an H–65 Dolphin helicopter and an H–60 Jayhawk helicopter, a variant of the Blackhawk helicopter that the 

rest of the armed forces uses. Our H–65 helicopter is used largely 

on board ship, and they are shorter range. They do not have de- 
22 

icing capability. The H–60’s do have de-icing capability. So one of 

the things we have learned on deploying up there, you can move 

an H–65 up there in the summer. It is not the optimum. Even in 

the summer we have icing conditions. I was flying in an H–60 between Nome and Shishmaref the other day, and we moved into 

icing conditions in the summer. So an H–65 might be at risk in operations up there. So the only helicopter that would have year 

round operational capability up there would be an H–60, but there 

are conditions when even an H–60 would not be able to fly, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. As far as our icebreakers go and our capacity, we have had the discussion about what the Congress is doing 

right now to put forward funding to bring into operational readiness one of our icebreakers. But in terms of our needed capacity, 

do we know—do you know at this point in time what we will need 

as an Arctic nation as we prepare for the additional commerce that 

we will see, whether it is energy-related or tourism-related or what 

have you? What do you really believe our capacity will be needed 

to be? 

Admiral ALLEN. I think a good starting point is the assumptions 

related to our current fleet. When I came in the Coast Guard, I believe we had five icebreakers. We had them on both the east and 

the west coast. They did three major missions. We did the Pacific 

North of the Arctic, the Arctic West, if you will. We did the breakout of McMurdo Sound, a resupply, ultimately the South Pole Station, and we did Arctic East deployments, which were mainly the 

breakout of Tooele to support the Panzer Goose Operations of the 

Air Force at Tooele. 

Based on an agreement with the Canadians, when we built the 

Polar Sea and the Polar Star and downsized our fleet, we went to 

three polar icebreakers under the assumptions that the Canadians 

under a current agreement would break out Tooele. And under that 

agreement, if they needed something in the Arctic West up around 

the boundary line off the North Slope, then we would provide them 

services. That led us to believe that we could have three icebreakers: one ice-strengthened, the research vessel, the Healy, and 

the Polar Sea and the Polar Star. That would allow us to break out 

McMurdo and take care of the Arctic West and the research requirements. 

If there is an extensive requirement for us to reciprocate for 

what the Canadians are providing us in Tooele and we go below 

three icebreakers, all of a sudden—first of all, we become at risk 

of being able to meet our commitment. So even at our current readiness posture with the Polar Sea ready for sea and the Polar Star 

being laid up, if we were in McMurdo breaking out down there, had 

the Healy deployed, and there was a need to help the Canadians 

in response to what they do for us in Tooele, it starts to become 

problematic. If you move beyond that, you put additional requirements on, and then you start having to question whether or not the 

three icebreakers that are currently in the inventory are enough. 

We have been approached by my other service chiefs with whom 

I work and by Chairman Mullen about the optimal laydown. If you 

wanted to have an icebreaker available to go north or south and 

have one available year round, to have what we call a 1–0 presence, it takes three ships to do that. And we have documented from 
23 

the Department of Defense, if it were achievable, six icebreakers 

will be needed to do that. I am not sure we ought to leap to that 

conclusion without validating the requirements, but I think absolutely the three is a four. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But that too is part of this needs assessment that you are undertaking to determine exactly what that is. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask about the Healy which is out, 

as you have mentioned, doing some of the extended continental 

shelf mapping which is so very important. Do you know how much 

more information we may need before we are able to—well, we cannot submit our claim, but in order to make an extended claim, do 

you know where we are in the mapping process? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, ma’am, you are a little bit above my pay 

grade academically on this one. I do know we have been working 

very, very hard to gather the seismic data. As you know, under the 

Law of the Sea Treaty, as the Governor has stated, we can assert 

a claim beyond the 200-mile limit up to 350 miles. That is based 

on seismic data that demonstrate that the outcropping is an extension of the continental shelf. The Healy has been involved for several years in doing that. Very, very important to this country. Regardless of where we ultimately go on the Law of the Sea Treaty, 

whether it is in accordance with the Law of the Sea or a unilateral 

claim, we have to be able to define that those are the limits of the 

shelf. 

So I would have to bring somebody in to help you interpret, 

where we are going out there, but we are doing our best. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate it. 

Given what we know is happening in the Arctic and as you, I believe have said, all you know is that there is more water out there 

and you are in charge of it. How much does this change the mission of the Coast Guard all of a sudden—and I should not say all 

of a sudden, but by now having this expanded mission up north in 

terms of enforcement and just preparedness and readiness? 

Admiral ALLEN. It does not necessarily change our mission. It 

places new requirements on how we execute our mission in a place 

that is dominated by what I would call tyranny of distance, harsh 

operating environments, lack of infrastructure, as we have talked 

about. I have the same requirements in the territorial sea off the 

Barrow Spit as I do off the tip of Key West, Florida. I have the 

same responsibility to conduct fisheries boardings and to make 

sure the laws are being carried out within the EEZ whether it is 

north of the Bering Straits or in the Gulf of Mexico or off Georges 

Bank in New England. 

So it is a matter of projecting presence up there. It is a matter 

of U.S. sovereignty. It is a matter of being able to achieve the effects that are expected of us to accomplish our already-assigned 

missions in a place where the environment has been dramatically 

changed, and that really is the challenge. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And I will ask you one more question that 

is perhaps a little more politically charged. Most in the United 

States, I would dare say, do not believe or do not think of the 

United States as an Arctic nation. They do not appreciate much of 
24 

what we experience up north, and as we see diminished or diminishing sea ice up there, the landscape is changing. 

As the Coast Guard is tasked with its overall mission around the 

country, is it a factor that you deal with that with the budget that 

the Coast Guard has and the mission that you are tasked with, 

that it could potentially be more difficult to get the resources and 

the assets that you need up north to provide for the level of protection simply because we are where we are? And again, most people 

do not view the Arctic as being something that we need to be responsible for right now. 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, I think you have hit the center of the 

issue, ma’am. We would consider that discussion to be an extension 

of the outcome of that high-latitude study that is going on right 

now. 

That is one of the dilemmas we have in the Coast Guard, and 

it is a good dilemma and a bad dilemma. The good news is we are 

a multi-mission agency. You put one ship out there. It can do five 

missions. The bad news is we are a multi-mission agency. You put 

one ship out there. It can do one mission at a time. So there is an 

inherent risk-management proposition associated with that. So we 

are never going to be completely optimized to cover all of our missions. We were never intended to be because that is the operational 

genius that pays so much back to this country. 

The question is what is the threshold and how does that threshold change when requirements change in a place like the Arctic. In 

a purely political sense, it is up to me as the Commandant to frame 

that discussion as somebody who has a vested interest in Alaska. 

I told somebody a while back when you compare us to another 

military service, what separates us is we do not deploy someplace 

to do our mission. We execute our mission where we live, and we 

become entwined in the DNA of our communities and the regions 

where we operate. I like to believe that because of that, we understand and know that. The question is—and you all raised it earlier—how do you transmit that to a larger audience where it is understandable? And you and I have had really great discussions in 

the past. It is probably because we are both Ketchikan brats, as we 

have talked about. But it is expanding that discussion to a larger 

circle and having it be understood. Frankly, I consider that a leadership role that I have to play as the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard and have been trying to play for the last 3 years. 

That said, we are committed to moving to the North Slope with 

the resources we have. We have moved resources around. We have 

made sure that we can have a presence up there. And I think we 

have improved what we have done up there every year, and while 

we are making these decisions and having this discussion, that remains our commitment to Alaska. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate that 

commitment. I appreciate all that the Coast Guard does to serve 

us here in Alaska and around the country. 

I look at the role that the Coast Guard is playing and will play 

up north and can only appreciate the incredible men and women 

that are serving us. I do not think we can say thank you enough. 

But I want to publicly recognize you and your leadership on how 

we are assuming the role as an Arctic nation and moving respon-
25 

sibly to lay the groundwork for what we know is coming in terms 

of increased activity up there. So again, I appreciate all that you 

do and your great, great leadership for this State and for this Arctic nation. So thank you. 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, I gratefully acknowledge that on behalf of 

my people, ma’am. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You are with some of the best. 

With that, let us call up the second panel, if we may, and thank 

you, Governor Parnell and Admiral Allen. 

Okay, let us move on to our second panel. I have introduced each 

of the members previously. Again, I welcome you all. I will note 

that there is no particular order other than we decided to do it alphabetically. So we will begin the second panel testimony with you, 

Mr. Benton. I would again ask all of you if you can keep your testimony to within 5 to 7 minutes. Your full written testimony will be 

included as part of the record. David, why do you not go ahead and 

proceed? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BENTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE 

Mr. BENTON. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. I want to extend our appreciation to you on 

behalf of the seafood industry for all the work that you have done 

for us over the years on a whole range of issues. 

It may be a bit peculiar to have the fishing industry at a hearing 

on U.S. Arctic policy in some ways because currently there are no 

fisheries conducted in the U.S. EEZ. I think that it is a recognition 

that Alaska has taken a very interesting position, at least the seafood industry, the State, and the Fisheries Management Council, 

on how to address Arctic issues on fisheries. Anyway, I wanted to 

express my appreciation to you to provide us an opportunity to talk 

about that today and also to Senator Byrd for issuing the invitation. 

Senator, as I mentioned, I approached the hearing with some 

questions in my mind about how to present the unique approach 

that the seafood industry took. Our organization, the Marine Conservation Alliance, represents harvesters, processors, and coastal 

communities involved in the major groundfish and shellfish fisheries in Alaska. Probably 70 percent production is represented by 

our membership. So it is not a small organization, and it is companies that have a vested interest in being able to go fishing. 

Our association, however, worked with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to promote and initiate and eventually 

adopt—get the council to adopt the Arctic FMP which closes the entire U.S. Arctic to commercial fishing. The reason that the seafood 

industry took that position was a recognition on our part that the 

rate of change in the Arctic, the loss of sea ice is exceeding forecasts. It is quickly outstripping the level of science that we need 

to manage fisheries appropriately and on a sustainable basis, and 

frankly, the rate of change up there is putting a lot of other living 

marine resources that are ice-dependent under a lot of stress and 

is having very profound effects on the people that live around the 

Arctic coastline of Alaska, and we wanted to be part of the solution, 

not part of the problem. 
26 

The council, as you know, successfully adopted that Arctic FMP. 

It is in front of the Secretary of Commerce now. We have urged the 

Secretary of Commerce, along with many others, to adopt that 

FMP and to put that policy in place. 

One of the reasons and maybe a driving reason for us, aside from 

those I have just mentioned, for getting the United States positioned in the way that it is is a recognition that with the loss of 

sea ice and the opening up of areas that have been inaccessible to 

date to potential commercial fisheries, both within our zone but 

also in the Russian zone, the Canadian zone, and most importantly, in the international waters of the Arctic Ocean—a recognition that the United States is going to have to take a leadership 

role in shaping policy up there to prevent impacts that we have 

seen in other parts of the world. 

And I want to mention the Bering Sea. We had quite an experience in the late 1970s/early 1980s when the 200-mile limits were 

adopted by the nations around the world. Many distant water fleets 

were being pushed out of the 200-mile zones that were being 

claimed. In the Bering Sea, those were fleets from China, Japan, 

Poland, Korea, Taiwan, and they were getting pushed out of the 

zones of the United States and the zones of Russia. And a number 

of those fleets wound up in the international waters of the Bering 

Sea in the so-called donut hole. 

There were no controls on those fleets. There was no resource 

surveys or scientific assessments of the status of the stocks out 

there that they were fishing on. There was minimal enforcement 

presence because the Coast Guard was primarily tasked, and appropriately so, trying to patrol our own boundaries. The Russian 

border guards were in the same position, and so there was virtually 

no enforcement of any regime in the international waters of the 

Bering Sea. 

It took us many, many years to secure a convention for the central Bering Sea donut hole. And frankly, the only reason that we 

were able, in my opinion—and I was deeply involved in those negotiations. The only reason that we were, at the end, able to secure 

that convention is because the pollock stocks collapsed. The fishery 

grew very quickly from virtually zero harvest out there to well over 

2 million metric tons, and then collapsed. And when it collapsed, 

the distant water fishing nations agreed to the convention that 

should have been in place from the beginning. 

The reason I bring that up is I think that is an instructive lesson 

for what could unfold in the high Arctic. 

So it was our position—and certainly you in the Congress and 

you personally demonstrated great leadership with Senate joint 

resolution 17 to get the United States policy oriented in the right 

direction and moving. And it was our position that the United 

States had to be on a good, solid footing to then go to the rest of 

the world and say, wait a minute, we do not want to repeat what 

happened in the Bering Sea donut hole in the high Arctic in the 

international waters where there are no fisheries now and there is 

also no regime in place. I think by getting Senate joint resolution 

17 adopted and signed by the President, that got the State Department oriented to make this a priority and to engage the rest of the 

international community on a path to try and at least perhaps get 
27 

a moratorium on commercial fisheries beyond 200 miles. That was 

a very important step for us and I think it is going to serve the 

country very well. 

Just a couple of things I want to touch on very quickly because 

I know that we are somewhat short on time. Listening to the Commandant, Admiral Allen, I think that we all—and certainly the 

seafood industry owes the United States Coast Guard a huge debt 

of gratitude. 

In listening to his discussion about their assessments of their 

needs in the Arctic, one thing that I hope they keep in mind and 

certainly we would like for the Congress to keep in mind is the 

enormously critical and complex task the Coast Guard is already 

serving in the North Pacific and in Alaska. They have to patrol one 

of the longest maritime boundaries in the world and enforce the 

boundary. They have to enforce numerous treaties that are on the 

high seas that span the territory from Asia to North America. They 

have to enforce treaties in the Bering Sea, and now we are going 

to add to that requirement that they move into a whole new vast 

area and meet the challenges and they are significant challenges 

in the Arctic. 

In meeting those challenges, the Congress, I hope, fully appreciates the complexity of the task that the Coast Guard has now and 

the need to not diminish their current capability in meeting that 

task. They are already in our view doing a wonderful job, but they 

are stretched thin on resources and they are going to be more 

stretched thin. And so this needs to be new money, new resources, 

not just sort of shuffling the existing resources around to patch 

holes as they move forward. So I wanted to call your attention to 

that. 

And then the final thing, Senator, is the need for research and 

science. The Arctic FMP that the council adopted is going to be 

very dependent on what science gets done in the high Arctic. And 

that is true for a whole host of Arctic activities beyond fisheries. 

The research community has experienced a fairly significant increase in funds in recent years for Arctic research primarily I think 

in conjunction with NPRB-related research and also International 

Polar Year, and some of the funding increases have come about by 

those kinds of initiatives. But that is sort of a temporary thing. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

As the United States policy unfolds, we would strongly urge you 

to look at a model similar perhaps to the North Pacific Research 

Board for the Arctic that provides a long-term, stable source of 

funding for Arctic research. It needs to be new money. Again, it is 

sort of like the situation with the Coast Guard. There is never 

enough money for marine research. There are a lot of needs in the 

North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea that are still not being 

met, but this new challenge is in front of us. We have got to meet 

it. So we need to see if we can find new sources of money, and 

those sources need to be longer-term, not sort of pulses of appropriations that come and go because of the burdens that that places 

on the research community. 

With that, I will end my oral comments, and you have my written testimony for the record. Thank you very much. 
28 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID BENTON

Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for chairing this hearing today to discuss the 

strategic importance of the Arctic to the United States, and emerging issues regarding Arctic fisheries management and conservation. I also want to thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Byrd, for this opportunity to come before the subcommittee on these important issues. 

For the record, my name is David Benton, and I am the executive director of the 

Marine Conservation Alliance (MCA). MCA is a broad based coalition of harvesters, 

processors, coastal communities, Community Development Quota (CDQ) organizations, and support services businesses involved in the groundfish and shellfish fisheries 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. Our members collectively represent roughly 70 percent of the production of North Pacific fisheries. 

MCA has been actively engaged for several years now in the development of U.S. 

policy regarding the Arctic, and Arctic fisheries. MCA recognized early on that climate change in the high Arctic was causing a rate of change in that region that 

argued for a unique precautionary approach to fishery management. There are 

many concerns regarding the loss of sea ice and the potential for new fisheries in 

the Arctic not only within our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but also in the EEZs 

of Russia and Canada as well as the international waters of the Arctic Ocean beyond the 200 mile limits of any of the Arctic nations. These include concerns regarding our state of knowledge about Arctic marine ecosystems, the status of potential 

fishery resources, the effects fisheries might have on other living marine resources 

such as marine mammals and seabirds, and the potential for impacts arising from 

fisheries beyond our EEZ on the resources and people of the U.S. Arctic to name 

a few. Because of these concerns, we worked closely with the members of Congress 

including this Committee to secure passage of Senate Joint Resolution 17. Similarly 

we worked very closely with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council on the 

recently adopted Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Arctic. 

SJR 17 establishes a policy direction for the United States to engage the international community in negotiations to develop comprehensive international agreements for the management and conservation of fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean, and 

to take actions to prevent the development of commercial fisheries in the high seas 

of the Arctic until such comprehensive agreements are in place. 

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted a Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) for U.S. Federal waters north of Bering Strait that adopts an ecosystem 

approach to management, sets forth scientific procedures to gauge future fisheries, 

and closes the U.S. Arctic EEZ to commercial fishing until the scientific information 

is available to make a determination whether or not to initiate commercial fisheries. 

MCA believes that, taken together, these two initiatives form a solid foundation 

for U.S. policy. We have also been fortunate in the assistance to date from the Department of State and NOAA in pursuing these initiatives. Ambassador Balton at 

State has taken a lead role in pursuing implementation of SJR 17, and I want to 

publicly acknowledge his work. Additionally, NOAA Fisheries worked very hard 

with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to help develop the Arctic FMP. 

Yet, considerable work remains to be done, particularly on the international front, 

to secure a sound, science driven management regime for Arctic fisheries. Madame 

Chair, today I would like to discuss these actions further, and steps that can be 

taken to protect United States interests in the Arctic. 

Information that is now readily available should leave no doubt that the rate of 

loss of sea ice in the high Arctic has exceeded earlier forecasts. The potential is for 

large areas of the Arctic Ocean to become ice free for large portions of the year. In 

conjunction with this trend, there is evidence that marine resources are redistributing themselves accordingly. For example, the distribution and migrations of ice 

dependent marine mammals and seabirds is changing rapidly and many of these 

species are experiencing environmental stress. Similarly, there is evidence of fishery 

resources such as salmon, crab, and groundfish moving west and north from the 

North Pacific into the Arctic, although comprehensive data are lacking. What data 

we have indicate that the distribution of salmon is expanding in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, and there is evidence that certain crab species and some groundfish 

may be moving northward into the Chukchi as well. 

Beyond our own waters, the status of fishery resources is less clear. There is some 

information regarding fish stocks in the Russian and Canadian EEZs, but like the 
29 

United States, comprehensive data are lacking. In the case of the international 

waters beyond our respective EEZs data are even more sparse. With the retreat of 

sea ice and changing ocean conditions there is also the potential for species from 

the Atlantic side to move into the high Arctic waters on the Pacific side, yet there 

is little or no data available to assess this possibility. 

This lack of scientific information should mean that the nations of the world will 

restrain themselves until the necessary data are available. Unfortunately, the 

record is often just the opposite. The situation is similar to what occurred in the 

international waters of the Bering Sea in the early 1980’s, a series of events we 

should avoid repeating if at all possible. 

During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, foreign fleets were pushed out of the 200 

mile zones of coastal states around the world. In the Bering Sea, where large fisheries were being conducted by a number of distant water fleets, this led to the rapid 

expansion of a multi-national fleet entering the international waters beyond the 

Russian and U.S. zones. This area, referred to as the Donut Hole, had not been scientifically surveyed to assess stock status, there were no controls on the fishery, and 

enforcement consisted almost solely of the United States and Russians trying to patrol their respective maritime boundaries to prevent incursions into their domestic 

waters. These fleets came from Japan, China, Poland, and the Republic of Korea 

and by the late 1980’s numbered several hundred vessels. They were concentrating 

on Pollock and harvests peaked at a reported 2 million plus tons before the stock 

collapsed. 

In the late 1980’s the United States and Russia initiated negotiations with the 

distant water fishing nations with the intent of securing an international management regime to conserve the stocks and regulate the fishery. These negotiations 

lasted several years and only came to a conclusion when the pollock stock collapsed. 

The treaty that should have been in place from the beginning, before the fishery 

started, is now in place but the pollock resource remains at extremely low levels. 

There is no fishery in the Donut Hole now with the exception of tightly controlled 

experimental fishing to assess stock status. 

This experience should be a warning about how events may unfold in the high 

Arctic. Several non-Arctic nations are already establishing a presence in the region 

through research cruises and other means. There are fisheries in the Atlantic taking 

place north of the Arctic Circle. There are international fishery management agreements already in place for fisheries in the north Atlantic and Barents Sea with authorities extending into Arctic waters on the Atlantic side. There is talk of extending 

their jurisdiction. The European Union, among others, has indicated an interest in 

asserting influence in the high Arctic. The point being, numerous interests and nations that have been prevented from moving into the Arctic Ocean off our shores 

by the presence of sea ice are looking north. 

MCA believes that the United States needs to aggressively pursue a multipronged strategy to prevent what occurred with the Bering Sea Donut Hole from 

unfolding in the Arctic. This strategy needs to be built on developing bi-lateral understandings with our Russian and Canadian neighbors. It is in their interests just 

as much as it is ours to pursue a course of action to close the international waters 

of the Arctic Ocean to commercial fisheries now, and not repeat the experience we 

had with the Bering Sea Donut Hole. If we can secure agreement with Russia and 

Canada that there be no commercial fishing in the high seas of the Arctic Ocean, 

then the three largest Arctic nations can present a united front to the rest of the 

world with some likelihood of success in securing such an agreement. 

From our perspective this is the best way to realize the intent and purpose behind 

SJR 17. 

A closely related matter is the conservation and management of resources within 

the EEZs of the United States, Russia, and Canada. It is in the United States interest to engage our two neighbors in bi-lateral discussions to ensure consistent management and conservation actions for transboundary stocks we might share between 

our respective EEZs. This is particularly true for Russia. The Chukchi shelf extends 

from Alaska across the maritime boundary to the Russian coast. Many of the marine mammals, seabirds, and fishery resources of the Chukchi move through Bering 

Strait which we share with the Russians. If fisheries develop on the Pacific side of 

the Arctic north of Bering Strait, they are most likely to start in the Chukchi and 

it may be the Russians who commence fisheries first. Because of the interconnectedness of resources within United States and Russian waters it is important that the 

two nations cooperate in developing complimentary scientific assessment and resource management programs now before fisheries commence. 

The same can also be said regarding the need to initiate bi-lateral talks with Canada. However, there is probably less urgency, as the likelihood of significant fish-
30 

eries beginning in the Beaufort Sea in the near term is less than it is with the Russians in the Chukchi. 

It is our understanding that there has been some exploration of these matters 

with both nations, and MCA applauds those efforts. However, MCA also believes 

that serious bilateral negotiations need to commence in the near future to make 

progress. MCA recognizes that these bi-lateral talks will be time consuming and difficult. In both instances they will be complicated by other issues, including boundary 

disputes. However, failure to reach an understanding with our Arctic neighbors regarding fisheries will put at jeopardy the conservation efforts the United States initiated with the Arctic FMP. With this in mind, MCA urges the United States to segregate fishery talks from other, more controversial negotiations. 

A key component of a comprehensive strategy for U.S. Arctic fisheries involves actions within our own waters. MCA supports the adoption of the Arctic FMP and related regulations. Attached, for the record, is our recent letter to Secretary Locke 

requesting his approval of the Arctic FMP. Successful implementation of the Arctic 

FMP is contingent upon good scientific information on Arctic marine resources, including fish stocks, and the Arctic ecosystem. U.S. Arctic research in recent years 

has received significantly more attention, due largely to the International Polar 

Year with its emphasis on the Arctic. This will be a short lived boost, unless a stable, long term source of funds and resources is put in play for Arctic research. 

This Committee has, in the past, taken a lead role in developing stable sources 

of funding for marine research. In Alaska, the North Pacific Research Board is providing a long term vision and stable funding for marine research. The NPRB is in 

the process of conducting, in conjunction with the National Science Foundation, a 

multi-year multi-discipline ecosystem assessment of the Bering Sea. This $50 million program will provide important insights into the Bering Sea ecosystem, and factors affecting it like climate change and loss of sea ice. A similar model could be 

looked at for Arctic research. 

The final component for a comprehensive strategy for the U.S. Arctic goes beyond 

fisheries considerations. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has a critical and 

enormously complicated mission in Alaska. With search and rescue operations in 

two oceans and three seas, enforcing several international agreements spanning the 

North Pacific and the Bering Sea, patrolling one of the worlds longest contiguous 

maritime boundaries, and not to mention maintaining a robust enforcement presence in the Nation’s largest domestic fisheries the USCG already has a lot on its 

plate. Now, with the opening of the Arctic and the need for an increasing presence 

in this vast region, MCA is concerned that sufficient new funding and resources be 

made available to the USCG to accomplish its new Arctic mission without diminishing its existing mission and presence in other parts of the North Pacific and Alaska. We strongly urge the Congress, and this Committee to fully fund the USCG mission in Alaska, and not allow this new challenge in the Arctic to undermine the excellence of the USCG in meeting the demands of its existing mission. 

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. 

Encl: (1) MCA Letter to Secretary of Commerce, July 24, 2009. 

MARINE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, 

Juneau, AK, July 24, 2009. 

Ms. SUE SALVESON, 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK. 

Re: 0648–AX71 (PR) Arctic FMP 

Attn: Ellen Sebastian. 

DEAR MS. SALVESON: The Marine Conservation Alliance (MCA) wishes to express 

its support for Secretarial approval of the Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area (Arctic FMP) and Amendment 29 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab 

(Crab FMP). The MCA is a coalition of harvesters, processors, Community Development Quota organizations, and coastal communities involved with Alaska groundfish and crab fisheries. 

Our support for adoption of the Arctic FMP includes the establishment of the Arctic Management Area, the approach used in the FMP to establish target and ecosystem component species groups, and the general prohibition on commercial fishing 

in the Arctic Management Area until stock assessments are completed. Based on 

stock assessments and other scientific analyses, and following the Council’s thorough public review and decision making process, we expect future management actions to be taken, including establishment of commercial fisheries, in accordance 
31 

with the national standards and other provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act 

(MSA) and other applicable law. We urge the Secretary, and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) to approve the Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 in their 

entirety. 

MCA has supported the development and adoption of the Arctic FMP from the 

very beginning. We recognized early on that climate change in the high Arctic was 

causing a rate of change in that region that argued for a unique precautionary approach to fishery management. There are many concerns regarding the loss of sea 

ice in the Arctic, and existing scientific research hasn’t answered these concerns. 

Preventing the incursion of commercial fisheries until the science is available to 

make sound decisions is the only logical approach to management in this region. 

Future decisions regarding whether or not to initiate fisheries in the Arctic Management Area will be guided by this FMP and the Magnuson Stevens Act. Authorizing a fishery will require an amendment to the FMP, with the full suite of analyses and public participation the Council process entails. Through this process, 

issues such as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), defining optimum yield and how to 

achieve it, setting harvest specifications and determining overfishing limits, vessel 

licensing or effort control rules, fishery monitoring and observer coverage, controls, 

and impacts on ecosystem components will all have to be addressed. In addition, 

concerns regarding marine mammals, seabirds and other waterfowl will also have 

to be addressed and impacts avoided. The Council’s deliberative process is well suited to ensure that this is a robust process that will in the end result in sustainable 

fisheries if they are authorized. 

To ensure that the Council process keeps pace with the rate of change in the Arctic, it is important that the Council and NMFS make scientific research in the Arctic a priority. MCA recommends that the NMFS and Council develop a suite of research priorities, including stock assessments, for the Arctic for implementation by 

NOAA. These research priorities should also be forwarded to the North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) for their consideration as well. 

In addition, we encourage NMFS and the Council to continue work through the 

committee process to develop further guidance and criteria for initiating analysis of 

potential new fisheries, including conditions that would need to be addressed if and 

when fisheries are authorized in the Arctic Management Area. 

Adoption of the Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 sets the stage for thoughtful and 

science driven deliberations regarding future fishery development in the Arctic region. These deliberations not only need to be guided by good science, but also by 

active engagement with the people who live along Alaska’s Arctic coast. MCA fully 

supports efforts to include Alaska’s Arctic residents in decisions that affect them. 

During development of the Arctic FMP, the Council made exceptional efforts to engage the residents, communities, and organizations representing the people of Alaska’s Arctic. The Council has recently established a strong outreach program to continue this effort, as well as a new committee to more fully engage Alaska’s subsistence communities in the fishery management process. We are confident that the 

Council will continue this effort to include meaningful participation by the people 

of the communities along the Arctic coast in future management decisions. 

As a final point, we also wish to encourage the Secretary to fully engage in international discussions regarding fishery management in the high Arctic. MCA believes 

that bi-lateral discussions with our Russian and Canadian neighbors are extremely 

important to ensuring coordination throughout the Arctic region. This coordination 

is necessary to ensure that the conservation actions taken by the United States 

through the Arctic FMP are complemented, and not undermined, by any management actions taken by our Arctic neighbors in their waters, or by other nations in 

the international waters of the Arctic Ocean. It would be unfortunate to have a repeat of our experience in Bering Sea ‘‘donut hole’’ in the Arctic. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

DAVE BENTON, 

Executive Director. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Benton. 

Just so that you know, what we will do is we will have testimony 

from each of you and then I will come back and ask my questions 

of you at that time. So thank you. 

Dr. Brigham, welcome. 
32 

STATEMENT OF DR. LAWSON W. BRIGHAM, PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY AND ARCTIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS 

Dr. BRIGHAM. Thank you, Senator. I am here again to flaunt the 

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment which at least here is legislation implemented—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Why do you not go ahead and pull that mic 

just a little bit closer? 

Dr. BRIGHAM. Sure. In fact, just so you know there is international interest, I go on Saturday to brief the Norwegian Ship 

Owners Association, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, Norwegian 

Institute of Defense Studies, and DNB, which is the classification 

society, all in Norway about AMSA. So it is not only domestic but 

international interest in this important comprehensive study led by 

the United States, Finland, and Canada. 

I should remark that there are three complementary ways in 

which you can view this study. It is certainly baseline assessment 

for Arctic marine activity early in the 21st century, and we are 

quite confident that in the future all future studies would look to 

this study as really the baseline study and an important starting 

point. 

Second, I think everyone should know that this is an Arctic 

Council policy document. There have not been too many policy documents issued by the Arctic Council. It is an intergovernmental 

forum, but in this case, all eight countries have agreed and every 

word in this document painfully, as it took place, was negotiated 

by the eight Arctic countries. So in fact the 17 recommendations 

and all the words in this document can be really interpreted as a 

message of the Arctic states to the world on how they intend, including us, in very broad principles to protect Arctic people and the 

Arctic marine environment. 

And finally, this document is a strategic guide to all the ministries, all the departments of the eight Arctic states. It is also a 

strategic guide to the global maritime industry on what the Arctic 

states are thinking. It is a guide to the indigenous people, a host 

of stakeholders, all of which are in the Arctic today and coming to 

the Arctic through the century. The AMSA highlights a way forward and it also points to the significant research and infrastructure that is needed to be funded in the future for enhancing marine 

safety and environmental protection. 

There were 90 specific findings, and I will just summarize seven 

of them in very broad terms, some of which already folks have spoken about. 

The presence of Arctic shipping. Already we have the global maritime industry in the Arctic, and perhaps the regulatory environment, the regulatory system is not up to the arrival of the global 

maritime industry. Of course, that involves IMO, the International 

Maritime Organization, moving forward more quickly than it has 

in the past to enhance marine safety and environmental protection. 

Certainly a growing presence of large cruise ships in the Arctic. 

Perhaps today the most pressing issue for the Arctic states is the 

presence of cruise ships with 3,000 passengers in the high latitudes, particularly around Greenland in this case. 
33 

Most of the traffic today supports natural resource development, 

but there is a specter of trans-Arctic navigation in the future, at 

least during a short summer season. 

We talked about today already sea ice changes, but the important point was already made that while there is a season of diminished ice, perhaps ice-free, whatever that means, most of the year 

through the century it is ice-covered, and the implications of that 

is that all ships in the future navigating the Arctic have to have 

some polar-class capability. So they have to have enhanced standards for operating in this environment. 

We did find in this study a general lack of uniform mandatory 

rules and an important point, nondiscriminatory rules, because we 

want international standards. So we saw a potpourri of different 

rules and standards in the Arctic and it is up to the IMO and the 

leadership of the Coast Guard at IMO representing the United 

States to move toward international standards which are mandatory. 

We found in the study that most of the marine activity in the future will be conducted by non-Arctic stakeholders, people with little 

knowledge of the Arctic, some knowledge, but perhaps the majority 

with little knowledge of the Arctic. There will be multiple users in 

many Arctic waterways like the Bering Strait, and obviously, there 

is a potential overlap of new marine operations in areas of traditional indigenous use. That is quite clear. 

Many uncertainties in the future of Arctic navigation: gas prices, 

oil prices, fee systems, sea ice variability, new discoveries, world 

trade patterns, et cetera. So it is very hard to define exactly what 

the future might be in numbers of ships, but clearly the future of 

marine operations is linked to the global economy and depends 

upon both global and regional factors. 

We talked about UNCLOS already, and the study reaffirmed 

that UNCLOS is the framework for governance of marine operations and overall use in the Arctic Ocean. It is an ocean we have 

to emphasize again to everyone from the Arctic states to the world. 

It is an ocean, folks. UNCLOS is the framework, the legal framework, for regulation, in particular, of shipping. IMO is the operative agency, the competent U.N. agency, to develop shipping rules 

and regulations, and then our part and your part is to embed those 

regulations in domestic law and those international standards. 

One of the final findings and the most important one that we 

have talked about today is marine infrastructure. There really is 

no superior present marine infrastructure in most of the Arctic. 

Some modern infrastructure along the Norwegian coast, some in 

northwest Russia, but for most of the Arctic, it is very different 

than the rest of the planet, the rest of the world’s oceans. There 

is no infrastructure. Few charts. 8 to 10 percent of the Arctic 

Ocean is charted to international standards. That leaves 90-plus 

percent to be surveyed. A little SAR, salvage, ship monitoring and 

tracking, AIS navigation, and on and on and on. You mentioned 

many of these, all termed infrastructure, all lacking in the Arctic. 

The most significant one today, though, is the hydrographic database for charting is certainly not adequate in most areas to support 

current and future Arctic marine activities to support them safely. 
34 

There are 17 recommendations in the document. They are divided into three broad themes: enhancing Arctic marine safety, 

which is IMO level international work; protecting Arctic people and 

the environment; and building the infrastructure. I will not go 

through all 17. I will leave that to folks to read in the study. But 

I wanted to turn to several specific things that could be done in the 

United States Arctic with the outcomes of this study. 

All of the recommendations in AMSA apply to the U.S. maritime 

Arctic and all are of strategic importance. The outcomes of AMSA 

relate to broadly U.S. energy, economic security, as we know, environmental security, maritime security. The entire U.S. maritime 

Arctic was addressed in many ways in the AMSA study, and in a 

specific area, the Bering Strait region from about Point Hope south 

to the ice edge was studied in some detail because it is a region 

of significance for future traffic in and about the entire basin. And 

without further investment and development of a broad array of 

marine infrastructure in the United States Arctic, it would be very 

difficult to adequately address even a limited number of risk scenarios for emergency response in the region. 

And I will just read my specific immediate requirements that 

come from the AMSA. 

The first is really we do need a comprehensive risk assessment 

of future marine activity in the Bering Strait region. We have one 

ongoing, of course, in the Aleutian Chain, but really what we need 

is one from the National Academy and the Coast Guard and other 

agencies to perform that risk assessment to find out what are the 

challenges ahead. 

We need to strengthen and build an Alaska ocean observing system so that system can be responsive to all of the users today and 

in the future. 

Certainly we need to expand hydrographic surveying and charting, and the legislation you proposed will help that, but it has to 

be sustained into the future. 

We need to develop an enhanced capacity for what is called Arctic marine traffic awareness, a fancy term for really monitoring and 

tracking ships. And part of that is to work with our Russian colleagues in passing and sharing data in real time so we have a picture in real time of ship traffic in and amongst the Russian Arctic 

and the United States Arctic here in the Bering Strait region. 

We need enhanced cooperation with the Russian Federation in 

environmental response and SAR, and we have some of that with 

the Coast Guard leadership here in Alaska. 

An important one is the future mandatory standards I have mentioned. You have to embed that in domestic legislation in the future. 

We certainly need a mix of icebreaking capability not only for the 

deep ocean but for the coastal ocean. So the Coast Guard needs capability to operate in coastal seas, and the buoy tenders and the 

ships of the future need to operate in ice-covered waters and in 

shallow waters around the coast. 

An important one that we were not able to orchestrate in AMSA 

was we need in the United States and the other Arctic states need 

a comprehensive Federal and State survey of Arctic marine use by, 

in this case, Alaska’s indigenous communities. Each of the Arctic 
35 

countries were asked and the permanent participants in the Arctic 

Council and indigenous people were asked to conduct a survey, provide information to us in the AMSA effort, and we did not get any 

response from any of the Arctic states or the indigenous groups, 

which was interesting. We need that survey so we can match up 

survey with new uses so we can figure out a regulatory and safe 

management of the region. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

And finally, we need enhanced support for oil spills on ice. I am 

sure you will hear about that in the future. 

The challenges are many for Alaska’s extensive maritime Arctic. 

We certainly need a strategic vision of sustained support. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LAWSON W. BRIGHAM

Good afternoon Madam Chair. Thank you for continuing to focus on issues related 

to the U.S. Arctic and America’s many, key roles in the circumpolar world. From 

2005–2009, I was Chair and U.S.-Lead for the Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA). My remarks will focus on AMSA and how AMSA’s many 

outcomes relate to Alaska and U.S. Arctic interests. 

Introduction 

The AMSA 2009 Report was approved by the 8 Arctic Ministers at the Arctic 

Council Ministerial Meeting in Tromso, Norway on April 29, 2009. This comprehensive study of current and future Arctic marine activity, led by Canada, Finland and 

the United States, can be viewed in three important and complementary ways: 

—As a baseline assessment of Arctic marine activity early in the 21st Century. 

We are confident all future studies on the topic of Arctic marine shipping will 

use this 2009 assessment as an important starting point for their future work. 

—Second, as an Arctic Council policy document—the 2009 Report is a negotiated 

document where the 17 AMSA recommendations have been accepted by the 8 

Arctic national governments. Thus, AMSA is a ‘message’ to the world from the 

Arctic States on how they intend, in broad principles, to protect Arctic people 

and the Arctic marine environment. During the April 2009 Ministerial Meeting, 

the U.S. Delegation had a highly influential role in AMSA gaining approval of 

the entire final report. 

—And third, as a strategic guide for the Arctic State governments, the global maritime industry, indigenous people, and for a host of stakeholders who intend to 

use the Arctic Ocean throughout the century. AMSA highlights a way forward, 

but also indicates that significant research and infrastructure need to be funded 

to provide for enhanced marine safety and marine environmental protection 

throughout the Arctic Ocean. 

Central Issues of AMSA 

The AMSA 2009 Report identified more than 90 specific findings. I believe seven 

central issues express the overall sense of the assessment: 

Presence of Arctic Shipping.—The global marine industry has already arrived in 

the Arctic to support natural resource development and regional trade. Also, there 

is a growing presence of large cruise ships in Arctic waters, especially in 

Greenlandic waters. The vast majority of these voyages are destinational (meaning 

the ship sails north, performs some marine activity, and sails south). There are few 

trans-Arctic voyages today, but more ships may attempt trans-Arctic voyages during 

future summers of reduced Arctic sea ice or ice-free conditions. 

Arctic Sea Ice Changes.—Arctic sea ice continues to retreat—visible examples are 

record sea ice retreats north of Barrow during summer and autumn—providing increased marine access and potentially longer seasons of navigation along all Arctic 

routes. However, the winter sea ice cover will remain and regions of the Arctic will 

be partially ice-covered in spring, summer and autumn. The regulatory implication 

of this variable ice coverage is clear: future ships navigating in these Arctic waters 

will require some level of polar or ice class capability. 

Arctic Shipping Rules and Standards.—There is a general lack of uniform, mandatory and non-discriminatory Arctic ship regulations and mariner, ice navigation 
36 

standards for the Arctic Ocean. There are no specifically tailored, mandatory environmental standards developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

for vessels operating in the Arctic. 

Future User Challenges.—Arctic marine activity will include mostly non-Arctic 

stakeholders, multiple users in Arctic waterways, and the potential overlap of new 

marine operations with traditional indigenous uses. 

Uncertainties of Future Arctic Navigation.—The AMSA scenarios effort identified 

a large number of uncertainties that may define the future of Arctic shipping: legal 

and governance regimes; oil and gas prices; hard minerals/global commodities pricing (for example nickel, copper, zinc, and high grade iron ore); climate change and 

sea ice variability; new resource discoveries; transit fees; world trade patterns; the 

roles of the marine insurance industry; advanced Arctic ship technologies, and more. 

The future of Arctic marine operations is linked to the global economy and depends 

on global and regional factors. 

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).—UNCLOS provides a fundamental framework for the governance of Arctic marine navigation and 

overall marine use. Since most of the Arctic region is an ocean, UNCLOS sets out 

the legal framework for the regulation of shipping according to maritime zones of 

jurisdiction. Also AMSA notes that the IMO is the competent U.N. agency for issues 

related to international shipping including maritime safety, security and environmental protection. The IMO acts as a secretariat for most international maritime 

conventions and facilitates their implementation through the adoption of numerous 

codes and guidelines that become international rules and standards. 

Arctic Marine Infrastructure.—There is a general lack of marine infrastructure in 

the Arctic except for areas along the Norwegian coast and coastal regions of northwest Russia. Missing or lacking infrastructure include: hydrographic data; charts; 

communications; ports and port facilities; adequate environmental monitoring (for 

weather, sea ice and icebergs); search and rescue (SAR) capability; environmental 

response capability; salvage; ship monitoring and tracking (Arctic maritime traffic 

awareness); aids to navigation; and, more. AMSA states clearly that the vastness 

and harshness of the environment make conduct of emergency response significantly 

more difficult in the Arctic. Significantly, the Arctic’s hydrographic database for 

charting is not adequate in most areas to support current and future Arctic marine 

activities. And, the observation network of meteorological and oceanographic observations important to safe navigation is extremely sparse and not adequate for increased Arctic marine transportation. 

AMSA Recommendations 

AMSA’s 17 recommendations are presented in the report under three broad, interrelated themes: (1) Enhancing Arctic Marine Safety; (2) Protecting Arctic People and 

the Environment; and (3) Building the Arctic Marine Infrastructure. These themes 

are fundamental to understanding the complexity of responding to increased marine 

use and to the breadth of current and future investment required to achieve enhanced marine safety and environmental protection throughout the Arctic Ocean. 

Implementing the AMSA recommendations will require extensive international cooperation and public-private partnerships. The following are selected comments on 

the AMSA recommendations. 

Under the first theme, Enhancing Arctic Marine Safety, the Arctic states have decided to support (together) efforts at IMO to strengthen, harmonize and regularly 

update international standards for Arctic vessels. They have decided to support efforts to augment global IMO ship safety and pollution prevention conventions with 

specific mandatory requirements for ship construction, design, equipment, crewing, 

training and operations in the Arctic. It would be a goal that all ships operating 

in the U.S. Arctic waters meet these future requirements and standards. Also, the 

Arctic states have decided to support development and implementation of a comprehensive, multi-national Arctic search and rescue SAR instrument (including 

aeronautical and maritime SAR). The Arctic Council has already formed an SAR 

Task Force led by the United States to initiate drafting of such an instrument. The 

Arctic states have also agreed to explore the possibility of uniform Arctic safety and 

environmental protection regulatory regimes, particularly for the central Arctic 

Ocean. 

For the second theme, Protecting Arctic People and the Environment, the Arctic 

states have recognized the importance of engaging with Arctic communities with effective communication when Arctic shipping and other economic activities are envisioned. They also understand and support exploring the need for internationally 

designated areas for the purpose of environmental protection in Arctic marine regions; the IMO’s ‘‘special areas’’ or Particularly Sensitive Area (PSSA) designation 

are possible tools to study. The Arctic states have also decided to enhance the mu-
37 

tual cooperation in the field of oil spill prevention. It is important to note that 

AMSA identified the release of oil into the Arctic marine environment (either accidental release or illegal discharge) as the most significant threat from Arctic shipping. In addition the Arctic states have decided to engage with relevant international organizations (such as IMO and the International Whaling Commission) to 

further assess the effects on marine mammals due to ship noise, disturbance and 

strikes in Arctic waters. 

For the last theme, Building the Arctic Marine Infrastructure, the Arctic states 

recognize the critical importance of greatly improving marine infrastructure in the 

region so as to enhance marine safety and marine environmental protection. They 

have given their support to continued development of a comprehensive Arctic marine traffic awareness system (for ship monitoring and tracking) and to improve ship 

data sharing in near real-time. These efforts will require close international cooperation and the involvement of the maritime industry. The Arctic states have decided to continue to develop a circumpolar pollution response capability through circumpolar and regional agreements. They also understand the need to improve access to data and information in support of safe navigation and voyage planning in 

Arctic waters. These efforts would entail enhanced hydrographic surveys and improved systems for meteorological and oceanographic information. 

AMSA and U.S. Arctic Requirements 

All of AMSA’s recommendations apply to the U.S. maritime Arctic and are of strategic importance. The outcomes of AMSA relate broadly to U.S. energy and economic 

security, environmental security, and surely, maritime/naval security. The entire 

U.S. maritime Arctic was addressed in AMSA and a specific area, the Bering Strait 

Region, was studied as a region of significance to the future of marine transportation in the entire Arctic basin. Without further investment and development of a 

broad array of marine infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic, it will be difficult to adequately address even a limited number of risk scenarios for emergency response in 

the region. 

A review of the findings, recommendations and analyses of AMSA suggests the 

following select and immediate requirements for the U.S. maritime Arctic: 

—A comprehensive risk assessment of future Arctic marine activity in the Bering 

Strait region. 

—Strengthening and building an Alaska ocean observing system that can be responsive to the needs of an expanded number of marine users throughout U.S. 

Arctic waters. 

—Significantly expanded hydrographic surveying and charting in the Bering 

Strait region and in all U.S. Arctic waters as marine use moves northward. 

—Development of an enhanced capacity for Arctic marine traffic awareness—a 

system to monitor and track ships, particularly in the Bering Strait region and 

across the North Slope—and continued cooperation with the Russian Federation 

regarding ship data sharing in near real-time. 

—Enhanced cooperation with the Russian Federation on Arctic environmental response and SAR in the Bering Strait region. 

—Application of future mandatory standards and guidelines for Arctic ships developed at IMO to U.S. Arctic waters through timely implementation of maritime 

regulatory legislation. 

—Building a mix of icebreaking capability to meet U.S. national interests in Alaska’s Arctic coastal waters and strategic needs throughout the Arctic Ocean. 

—Conducting a comprehensive federal and State of Alaska survey of Arctic marine use by Alaska’s indigenous communities to assess the impacts of future marine operations in U.S. arctic waters. 

—Enhanced support for oil spills in ice research and continued investment in scientific development of ecosystems-based management and the large marine ecosystem (LME) concept as tools for application in the U.S. maritime Arctic. 

The challenges of expanded marine use along Alaska’s extensive maritime Arctic 

are many. The future will require a strategic vision of sustained support and a full 

realization that the U.S. maritime Arctic is important to our national security and 

economic interests. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on AMSA and the Arctic. I am pleased to answer your questions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Dr. Brigham. 

Mayor Itta, welcome. 
38 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. ITTA, MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, 

ALASKA 

Mr. ITTA. Thank you. I am honored to be here today, Senator, 

and especially grateful to you for the opportunity to sit on this 

panel, one of the first I believe that has happened relative to my 

home country. And it is interesting that the homeland security portion is tied into this. 

I want to lead off by saying that while I am the North Slope Borough mayor, my thoughts and feelings come from a lifetime spent 

in the Arctic as an Inupiaq Eskimo, as a whaling captain, and as 

a hunter under the guidance of elders and expert hunters like my 

father and his father before him as far back as we can remember, 

as well as my own experience as I just stated. 

I note that there are five general areas that are of importance, 

and I will just note them: fishing; tourism, i.e., cruise ships; marine 

transportation; and energy. I want to add a fifth, and that is where 

I am coming from and that is relative to the issue of subsistence 

and sustenance through subsistence and value of being Inupiaq as 

a culture. I want to focus today my discussions on the first and the 

fifth or the fourth and the fifth items I stated. Largely my testimony will be related to energy as it relates to subsistence and our 

culture. 

As our people have observed the increasingly rapid retreat of the 

multi-year ice pack and other symptoms of global climate change, 

one thing has become clear. Our land, the Arctic, is under a lot of 

stress, and it could be stressed further by commercial opportunities 

that arise as the polar ice cap continues to shrink. As residents of 

the Arctic, we are worried. As citizens of the United States, we are 

determined to see that human activity under these fragile conditions does not make things worse. 

In the next few minutes, I would like to share my ideas for making sure that a more accessible Arctic is not thrown into further 

imbalance by future commercial or industrial activity. 

The first thing I believe we need to do—and I am glad to hear 

that this is a general area of consensus of a lot of my colleagues— 

is to beef up the scientific research effort in the Arctic to make sure 

that we have adequate baseline data. We have to know the wildlife 

populations and the habitat before any of these activities in the 

outer continental shelf get underway. And I say this because if we 

do not, we will not be able to measure impacts or understand the 

impacts of the activities going forward. We need a line of reference, 

and we do not have that. 

A combined Federal, State, and local framework for collaborative 

research is already in place, and this is one that you are familiar 

with and that we thank you for supporting, and that is the North 

Slope Science Initiative. It needs adequate funding. It has got a 

great mission. It wants to combine the efforts of various agencies 

and entities so that there is some coordination in all the activities. 

Responsible resource development in an increasingly fragile polar 

world will also require strong regulatory protections. And I want 

to applaud you, Senator Murkowski, for recognizing this in your 

proposed language that requires any proposed offshore oil and gas 

production, to use pipelines to shore-based facilities rather than 

tanker transportation across Arctic waters to distant infrastructure 
39 

because we know most of the damage of oil spills has been caused 

in the transportation process. This is a fundamental safety precaution that must be in place in the event of OCS production. 

At the same time, the Federal Government has to apply existing 

regulations more vigorously in the offshore leasing process. That is 

the only way to prevent what has unfortunately happened in the 

last few years, when environmental reviews and other regulatory 

standards that are in place now have been so poorly applied that 

it forces us into court. And this is certainly not where I want to 

engage our oversight agencies. I do not believe that that is the answer, but I firmly believe that this is indicative of a problem that 

needs to be looked into out here. 

During the past 30 years, we in the North Slope have worked 

with industry hand in hand in support of onshore Arctic oil and gas 

development. During that three decades, one of the things that we 

have noticed is that individual projects can have a specific set of 

impacts, but in combination with other nearby projects, they can 

also have additional cumulative impacts. We think it is important 

for these to be separately monitored and analyzed in the course of 

development because while one project will not hurt a specific 

group of animals that migrate, a number of them will when you 

put them all together. There is no system in place right now to look 

at cumulative impacts as a whole, and we believe that that is an 

important area. 

When I talk about baseline science and cumulative impacts, I get 

often a lot of resistance, impressions of code words. Some people 

think that these kind of protective standards are beyond what is 

necessary, but this is how I look at it. We have heard widely publicized and widely promoted predictions relative to oil and gas in 

the Arctic OCS, numbers of $70 billion that might be there in resource wealth. $70 billion. Such vast upside potential carries with 

it, I believe, a responsibility to use world-class standards and safeguards that minimize any potential costs in damage to the Arctic 

environment and the subsistence way of life. World-class safeguards should include zero volume discharge requirements like 

they have in Norway. Spill prevention and response measures 

should be viewed really as a good investment to industry that pays 

dividends in avoiding the cost of a spill response. 

I would also like to see a provision in Federal law that requires 

independent State licensed marine pilots on certain types of vessels 

crossing the Arctic Ocean both in the Chukchi and the Beaufort 

Sea. It is a preventive measure that makes as much sense in the 

Arctic as it does in Cook Inlet or in the Prince William Sound. 

I believe these kind of safeguards make even more sense in the 

Arctic than they do in development areas further south because we 

know as a people living there the Arctic is uniquely unforgiving, 

hardly any room for error and mistakes. We know this living life 

and death issues that we are aware of. Broken ice conditions, scenarios that have never been encountered before—broken ice conditions at various times of the year make any kind of a spill response 

virtually impossible, which means spill prevention is doubly, maybe 

triply, important. 

Also, the Arctic has very little emergency response capability, as 

my colleague here—and I might note that you have been active in 
40 

the Inuit Circumpolar Council as the unit in Alaska that works 

with as a permanent participant through the Inuit Circumpolar 

Council—that the 17 points he mentions are vitally important. We 

have very little emergency response capability. And you mentioned 

we do not have safe harbors for vessels and whatnot in the event 

of a catastrophe or an accident in an area that is so vast and so 

remote, people have no comprehension of what it is that we are 

talking about. 

As we see this exploding interest in OCS resource development, 

marine shipping, and other uses, it is pretty clear to us that the 

Arctic needs a Coast Guard presence, and we wholeheartedly support the efforts, the good efforts, of Admiral Allen and his group. 

We need a year round Coast Guard presence in the North Slope 

and better navigational infrastructure. There are so many basic infrastructure items that are lacking now. 

And I do not want to end just on an entirely seemingly negative 

tone. We as a people know and understand the importance of energy relative to our needs of our country. We are U.S. citizens. Our 

North Slope Borough was founded and is funded through oil and 

gas. Our hope, our dream is to coexist and find a way to come together as the Arctic opens up further and further. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So this is an exciting time in terms of the potential for new commercial activities in the Arctic, and as I stated, it is also a time 

for great concern for us as a people that live there. We have the 

most to lose if any mistakes are made over there in the Arctic 

waters. We cannot just relocate or move somewhere. We live there. 

This is what identifies us as a people, and the fate of the Arctic 

is our fate. And I hope, Senator, you in Congress will remember 

this, as you determine America’s new role as an Arctic nation. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. ITTA

I’m honored to be here today, and I’m grateful to you, Senator Murkowski, for the 

opportunity to sit on this panel. My title may be North Slope Borough mayor, but 

my thoughts and feelings come from a lifetime spent in the Arctic under the guidance of elders and expert hunters like my father, as well as from my own experience 

as a hunter and whaling captain. 

As our people have observed the increasingly rapid retreat of the multi-year ice 

pack and other symptoms of global climate change, one thing has become clear— 

the Arctic is under a lot of stress. And it could be stressed further by commercial 

opportunities that arise as the polar ice cap shrinks. As residents of the Arctic, we 

are worried. As citizens of the United States, we are determined to see that human 

activity under these fragile conditions does not make things worse. 

In the next few minutes, I’d like to share some of my ideas for making sure that 

a more accessible Arctic is not thrown into further imbalance by commercial and 

industrial activity. 

The first thing I believe we need to do is to beef up the scientific research effort 

in the Arctic to make sure we have adequate baseline data. We have to know the 

status of wildlife populations and habitat before OCS development gets underway, 

or else we won’t be able to measure and understand the impacts of activity going 

forward. A combined Federal, State and local framework for collaborative research 

and data sharing is already in place through the North Slope Science Initiative. It 

just needs to be adequately funded. 

Responsible resource development in an increasingly fragile polar world will also 

require strong regulatory protections. I want to applaud Senator Murkowski for recognizing this in her proposed legislation that requires any offshore oil and gas pro-
41 

duction to use pipelines to shore-based facilities rather than tanker transportation 

across Arctic waters to distant infrastructure. This is a fundamental safety precaution that must be in place in the event of OCS production. 

At the same time, the Federal Government has to apply existing regulations more 

vigorously in the offshore leasing process. That’s the only way to prevent what has 

happened in the past few years, when environmental reviews and other regulatory 

standards have been so poorly applied that it forced us into court, which is not 

where we want to engage with the oversight agencies. 

During the past three decades, we have worked with industry in support of onshore Arctic oil and gas development. One of the things we noticed over the years 

is that individual projects can have a specific set of impacts, but in combination 

with other nearby projects they can also have additional, cumulative impacts. We 

think it’s important for these to be separately monitored and analyzed in the course 

of development, because most Arctic wildlife species migrate over vast distances and 

are susceptible to these cumulative changes. 

When I talk about things like baseline science and cumulative impacts, I often 

get a lot of resistance. Some people think these kinds of protective standards are 

beyond what is necessary. But here’s how I look at it—we have all heard widelypromoted predictions that the Arctic OCS could contain $70 billion in resource 

wealth. Such vast upside potential carries with it a responsibility to use world-class 

safeguards that minimize any potential costs in damage to the Arctic environment 

and the subsistence way of life. 

World-class safeguards should include zero-volume discharge requirements like 

they have in Norway. 

Spill prevention and response measures should be viewed as a really good investment that pays dividends in avoiding the costs of a spill. 

I’d also like to see a provision in Federal law that requires independent, statelicensed marine pilots on certain types of vessels crossing the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas. It’s a preventive measure that makes as much sense in the Arctic as it does 

in Prince William Sound, where it was put in place after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

These kinds of safeguards make even more sense in the Arctic than they do in 

development areas farther south, because the Arctic is a uniquely unforgiving place 

to operate. Broken ice conditions at various times of year make spill response virtually impossible, which means spill prevention is doubly important. Also, the Arctic 

has very little emergency response capability for an area that is so vast and remote. 

As we see this exploding interest in OCS resource development, marine shipping 

and other uses, it’s pretty clear the Arctic needs a year-round Coast Guard presence 

and better navigational infrastructure. 

This is an exciting time in terms of the potential for new commercial activity in 

the Arctic. It’s also a time of great concern for the people who live there. We have 

the most to lose from mistakes that are made in Arctic waters. We can’t just relocate if things go wrong, because the Arctic is our home. It defines us as a people, 

and its fate is our fate. I hope the Congress will remember this as you determine 

America’s new role as an Arctic Nation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, mayor, for your very articulate 

statement. I appreciate that. Thank you for being here. 

Now we go to Mr. Mead Treadwell. 

STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR, U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH 

COMMISSION 

Mr. TREADWELL. Thank you, Senator, for having me here today 

to testify on the strategic importance of the Arctic in U.S. policy. 

As you know, Madam Chair, in 2007, the commission recommended to the President that we conduct in this country a new 

Arctic policy review. The last time one had been done was 1994. 

That is a secret document which cannot be read by the general 

public, but because of the great changes we have seen witnessed 

in the Arctic, we thought the United States should have a new Arctic policy. That document approved is public. It is a national security presidential directive. We worked with the interagency process 

to see it born, but we really wanted to thank you for the extra effort we know you made to make sure it saw the light of day. 
42 

We are now working in an interagency deliberation that is working to implement this policy, and at the same time, the new administration has got an ocean policy task force which is going to give 

us a chance again to look at the Arctic policy and make any corrections or fixes as it goes on. And that group, with Admiral Allen and 

the others that he mentioned, will be meeting tomorrow. So that 

is a very positive thing. 

In fact, yesterday I had the opportunity to join the Commandant, 

NOAA Administrator Lubchenco, Interior Under Secretary Hayes, 

and the two leaders from the White House environmental team on 

a flight which took us over the North Slope oil fields onshore and 

offshore. We released a buoy in the Arctic Ocean, saw the diminishing ice pack quite a few miles offshore. We saw a scampering 

polar bear on a barrier island, and we visited with North Slope 

Mayor Itta and his team. And thank you very much for a very nice 

lunch, Mr. Mayor. 

Clearly on the minds of our visitors was what next do we need 

to do in the Arctic as Arctic policy. And Madam Chair, there is a 

number of goals and objectives, but I bring them down to three 

things: investigation, investment, and international cooperation. 

Let me address each of these in turn. 

Investigation means research. Change in the Arctic requires a robust program of research. A global climate mitigation system, 

which we are working to try to develop, without Arctic and Antarctic research is like having a ship without a chart or a rudder. 

Research is also necessary to understand the resource potential of 

the Arctic and it has been mentioned before what is out there, 

what may be at risk from fishing or oil spills as shipping and industrial activity moves into the Arctic Ocean. 

We supported the AOOS workshop last January to begin thinking about how can we have an integrated Arctic Ocean research 

plan. There is some legislation pending, as you know. One thing I 

have heard a lot from the leaders of the new administration is that 

they want to be able to apply a spatial planning process in the Arctic Ocean, and we cannot do that appropriately without having the 

baseline research that has been discussed. 

Research is also necessary to help Arctic people, especially our 

indigenous peoples, respond to change, and while satellite pictures 

can show you the rapid retreat of sea ice, what you cannot see but 

should be just as concerned about is the rapid loss of indigenous 

languages spoken for thousands of years in the Arctic and with 

that loss, a tremendous loss of knowledge, culture, and identity 

goes with it. 

And while we are on the subject of people, it is the commission’s 

strong recommendation that our national health research program 

dig deep, much deeper than before into the causes of the suicide 

epidemic that takes so many native youth, not just in Alaska where 

the rate is four times that of the national average but across the 

north. 

Investment. To meet our responsibilities in the changing Arctic, 

we need to have the means and the willingness to invest both capital and operating sums. We pay particular attention to the use of 

Coast Guard icebreakers, ice-strengthened research vessels, and 

sensor networks. We appreciate the fact that Congressman Young 
43 

has introduced an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Implementation Act to address this investment need and that you and Senator 

Begich have introduced companion bills. The big ticket icebreaker 

issue I will talk about in just a moment. 

International cooperation. The policy of the United States also 

speaks directly to the need for international cooperation to accomplish many, if not all of our goals in the newly accessible Arctic. 

And I have heard my colleague here today talk about domestic regulation, and there are some new domestic regulations needed, but 

basically to make most of those stick in an ocean which is open to 

all, we need international cooperation. We need it in fishing. We 

need it in shipping, and frankly, we can have the best regulations 

on oil and gas on our shores, but if somebody is messing up on the 

other side of the Chukchi Sea, we have not done ourselves much 

good either. So international cooperation is needed there. It is 

needed with trans-boundary wildlife. We have to do a much better 

job supporting our co-management activities from the Arctic Eskimo Whaling Commission to the walrus group, to making the new 

polar bear treaty work. There is some great frustration there that 

I think we need to look into. 

We talked about the Law of the Sea. We talked about that before. The commission has recommended that that treaty be ratified 

by the Senate. We are doing the work to make a claim. To answer 

the question that you asked the Commandant, our original estimate was that it would be about a $75 million exercise. We are 

about a third year into that, spending about $6 million to $8 million a year. There is some more work to be done. We have learned 

a lot of new things in that process, and there is a long voyage just 

about to begin for this year’s work. 

We had to work with all the nations bordering the Arctic Ocean 

to get the same rights to research throughout the Arctic Ocean that 

legitimate researchers have in Antarctica. If you look at that neighborhood on that map, Senator, you will notice that it is a fairly 

small ocean as oceans go. Right now, I think about 12 of the last 

14 times we have requested access in Russian waters to take bottom grab samples and so forth, we have been denied permission to 

go in with our ships. Yet, in Antarctica any legitimate researcher 

can go anywhere or on the margin. And that is one problem that 

was not addressed in the Law of the Sea and that we have been 

urging our nations to address internationally. 

When it comes to fishing, the United States’ plans for a moratorium on fishing in the high north could be much for naught unless 

we reach cooperation with Canada and Russia and those nations 

who would fish the high seas. Toward that end, the Arctic Research 

Commission is cosponsoring with the NPRB, the Department of 

State a conference here, the first international conference on Arctic 

fisheries, October 19–21 here in Anchorage to at least get all those 

issues on the table with experts. 

Finally, to meet our Nation’s research objectives, we not only 

need access throughout the Arctic but cooperation in establishing 

trans-boundary monitoring networks. And I will speak a little bit 

more to that in a moment. 
44 

So this is the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations. Let me give you a few things within the purview specifically 

of this committee that you might want to look at. 

The commission is on record as supporting two polar-class icebreakers to replace the Polar Star and the Polar Sea, which are operating past the end of their service life. The policy of the United 

States—this has been a very difficult decision inside the administration. We understand the process that Admiral Allen spoke 

about. As a background for that process, the commission worked 

very hard to get a National Academy study that came up with the 

basic justification for the two new icebreakers. The ice is receding, 

but it can ridge up into conditions no other kind of icebreaker can 

handle besides a polar-class vessel, and we need an all-weather, 

all-hazards capability in the Arctic, as we do other places. 

Monitoring networks, imagery and mapping, including the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network, which relies on sea, air, land, 

and space sensing, terrestrial and space telecommunications infrastructure. That has been discussed. It is probably the most important legacy that we will leave in the science infrastructure area 

after the International Polar Year. A finer mapping of Alaska in 

the Arctic region will assist intelligence and defense objectives, as 

well as emergency response to storms and wildfires. This committee should be aware of the important work done by the National 

Ice Center. The idea of homeland security—basically it was the 

homeland security needs that have helped move forward the mapping effort that is going on now. I am very glad the Governor mentioned it. The State has been a full partner in this exercise, but if 

not for the intelligence community weighing in as part of homeland 

security needs, I do not think we would be moving forward. 

To underscore the importance of the Arctic observing networks, 

let me note this. The United States intends to embark this December with other nations on a global mitigation scheme for climate 

change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Two of the largest 

wild cards critical to the success of that mitigation effort involve 

feedbacks from the amplified air and water temperature of the Arctic region. Temperature rise can produce a massive injection of 

methane into the atmosphere from warming permafrost and from 

sources beneath the ocean. With receding ice comes a reduced albedo of the earth where much more solar radiation is absorbed by 

darker sea water instead of being reflected into space by whiter sea 

ice. An appropriate monitoring system, therefore, is a strategic 

asset for the world besides addressing the local issues that we have 

here. It is also going to allow us to have much better higher-resolution models to understand what is happening in various local parts 

of the Arctic, something that we found in the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment we need very much. 

Oil spill research. Perhaps the most important near-term action 

this subcommittee could take as a result of this hearing is to join 

with us to help kick start a renewed Arctic oil spill research program. Madam Chairman, I had the opportunity after the Exxon 

Valdez disaster to work with the Congress to help write the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990. The law set up a robust research program, 

including an interagency committee to coordinate oil spill research. 

That committee has not met regularly. It has not kept public 
45 

records. It has not developed the kind of spill research program 

that the Congress expected. As a matter of oversight, we thought 

you should know that. 

Much of the Nation’s oil spill research that is conducted in the 

Arctic is conducted through a joint industry program in Norway. A 

recent test there, costing over $10 million, showed promising results for a number of technologies, including burning, skimming, 

dispersants, coagulants, and bioremediation. But as Mayor Itta 

said, there is much more work to be done. 

I am confident the Nation has the means with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to fund a program that Congress asked to be developed but has not been. That fund is $2.7 billion, replenishable 

from a nickel a barrel tax paid on oil imported into the United 

States. At present, that is about 15 million nickels a day, and at 

$70 a barrel, the cost of the tax is far less than 1 percent of the 

cost of oil. There are innovative ways just on the way the interest 

on this fund is used today, including to support the Denali Commission in repairing bulk fuel tanks and the Prince William Sound 

Oil Spill Recovery Institute. I believe that we should have a national program of at least $30 million to $50 million a year, and 

out of that, at least a $10 million program in the Arctic to address 

the issues that you have got. When you sell leases in the Chukchi 

for $2.7 billion, when Mayor Itta explains to us why he feels he has 

to go to court, and we cannot even turn to an integrated, acrossthe-Government, a whole Government approach, as the Admiral 

said, program on oil spill research, and it is about time we had one. 

There is a lot more I could say. I am going to leave time for questions. But I really appreciate the chance to be here. 

And I want to conclude my testimony by passing on a comment 

raised by Commissioner Vera Metcalf, a resident of Nome. In her 

capacity as a commissioner and as director of the Arctic Eskimo 

Walrus Commission, Vera has worked to help the Coast Guard, 

moving operations north, to have closer communication with Arctic 

residents and Arctic communities. To quote her, ‘‘If there were a 

way for coastal communities to become more aware of important 

issues such as these, perhaps through town hall meetings, it would 

be helpful for us,’’ Vera wrote. ‘‘The Bering Strait is becoming more 

of a portal for all ship traffic, and I am sure there is some form 

of high level agreement with Russia for search and rescue, but the 

strait is a prime strategic area.’’ 

PREPARED STATEMENT

She is right. The Bering Strait, sometimes now called the Bering 

Gate, is a prime strategic area and the entire Arctic Ocean is as 

well. Work to make sure that activity in this part of the world’s 

oceans is safe, secure, and reliable has just begun, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee in the years to come. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWALL

Senator Murkowski, thank you, Chairman Inouye and Chairman Byrd for the opportunity to testify today on the strategic importance of the Arctic and U.S. Policy. 
46 

1Mead Treadwell is chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, www.arctic.gov. The Commission, established by the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, has seven members appointed by the President to set goals for the U.S. Arctic Research Program. The director of the 

National Science Foundation serves as an ex-officio member of the Commission and chair of the 

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), which takes the Commission’s established goals and coordinates approximately $400 million in annual Arctic research activities conducted by over a dozen federal agencies with Universities and international partners. Treadwell 

is Senior Fellow of the Institute of the North, founded by former Alaska Governor Walter J. 

Hickel. The Institute conducts research on Arctic policy, energy and fishing, infrastructure, defense and security issues. Treadwell is CEO of Venture Ad Astra, LLC, a private investment 

development firm. With Tim Wiepking, he co-chaired the Commonwealth North study group 

which published, May, 2009, Why the Arctic Matters: America’s Responsibilities as an Arctic 

nation. http://www.commonwealthnorth.org/index.cfm?fa=docjump&documentid=370 2The text of NSPD–66 /HSPD–25, issued January 9, 2009, can be found at http:// 

www.arctic.gov/news/2009%20Arctic%20Region%20Policy.pdf 

It states that the policy of the United States is to: 

—Meet national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region; 

—Protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources; 

—Ensure that natural resource management and economic development in the region are 

environmentally sustainable; 

—Strengthen institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic nations (the United States, 

Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and Sweden); 

—Involve the Arctic’s indigenous communities in decisions that affect them; and 

—Enhance scientific monitoring and research into local, regional, and global environmental 

issues. 

As a member of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 1 since 2001 and chair since 

2006, I can report that our Commission shares with you the understanding that the 

Arctic is a vital, strategically important region of the United States—and is getting 

more so. In 1867, after a bloody Civil War, the United States struggled with whether we 

should become an Arctic nation. Detractors of the Alaska Purchase called it ‘‘Seward’s Folly.’’ Russian America, which had supplied the world great quantities of 

whale oil and fur, was decried also as ‘‘an icebox,’’ a ‘‘sucked orange’’ with the bulk 

of its resources already exploited, or, my favorite, ‘‘Walrussia.’’ In 1959, Congress 

again struggled with Alaska: in the Statehood debate, a major issue was whether 

Alaska could support itself, and contribute to the Nation. 

Today, those who think about America’s strategic interests know better. General 

Billy Mitchell, considered the father of the U.S. Air Force, predicted the strategic 

value of Alaska as the world entered the air age. An attack and occupation in the 

Aleutian Islands by Japan in World War II, which quieted ship and troop transport 

via the North Pacific’s ‘‘great circle’’ route, further indicated the strategic value of 

Alaska’s location. Since oil began flowing through the Alaska pipeline in 1977, 

America’s Arctic has been a major producer of energy—helping the Nation buy less 

from foreign sources and increasing our national security thereby. A recent USGS 

estimate that 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of the 

world’s undiscovered natural gas is to be found inside the Arctic Circle—not to 

speak of the vast tidal, wind, methane hydrates and unconventional fossil fuels, 

coal, geothermal, hydro energy resources also to be found—strengthens the case that 

the United States has strategic interests here. 

Clearly, our Arctic is no ‘‘sucked orange.’’ It is well understood that the Arctic 

helps feed, fuel, and defend America. Arctic fisheries, in the Bering Sea near here, 

or the North and Barents Sea near Iceland and Norway, lead the world in production. Global air transport criss-crosses the Arctic to link the continents, and after 

500 years of exploration and imagination about Northern Sea Routes, sea transport 

may, soon, as well. Arctic military assets—the DEW Line, our submarines, our sensors in the air and at sea, our soldiers, sailors and airmen—stood guard during the 

Cold War. The missile defense installation activated recently at Fort Greely does the 

same—sited on northern latitude ‘‘high ground’’ that puts it in position to deflect 

inbound ballistic missiles aimed at North America from the Middle East or the 

Western Pacific. 

In 1994, the United States issued, in secret, the first Arctic Policy written with 

public input. According to a press release at the time, that policy emphasized the 

opportunity for international cooperation to protect the environment, and led the 

United States to join the eight-nation Arctic Council. In 2007, our Commission recommended to the President that he conduct a new Arctic policy review—given the 

great changes we’ve witnessed in the North. The new Arctic Policy document approved earlier this year was the first public National Security Presidential Directive/Homeland Security Presidential Directive ever issued for this region, and it details, in response to change, a broad range of U.S. objectives in the North.2 The 

Commission thanks you, Senator Murkowski, for the extra effort we know you made 
47 

3The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has established five thematic goals for the Nation’s 

Arctic research program: Environmental Change of the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea, Arctic 

Human Health, Civil Infrastructure Research, Natural Resource Assessment and Earth Science, 

Indigenous Language, Identity, and Culture. See http://www.arctic.gov/reportslgoals.html 

Those goals are carried out by an interagency process, headed by the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/arctic/iarpc/start.jsp 

with the President to get that policy signed last winter and released into the light 

of day. We participated in the interagency deliberation that developed this policy, 

and we are working now with fellow agencies in the U.S. government—from the Department of State, the Coast Guard in Homeland Security, the Department of Interior, NSF and NOAA, among them—to see it implemented. 

Madame Chair, there are a number of goals and objectives in the policy, but as 

I think of the task of implementation ahead of us for the ation, it comes down to 

three things, ‘‘i-words,’’ if you will: investigation, investment, and international cooperation. Let me address each of these in turn: 

Investigation.—Change in the Arctic requires a robust program of research. Scientific research is necessary to understand climate change, and to guide the global 

response in both ‘‘mitigation’’ and ‘‘adaptation.’’ A global climate mitigation program 

without polar (Arctic and Antarctic) research to back it up would be a ship without 

a chart—or a rudder. 

Research is necessary to understand the resource potential of the Arctic, and what 

may be at risk from fishing or oil spills, as shipping and industrial activity moves 

into the Arctic Ocean. 

Research is necessary to help Arctic people, especially our indigenous peoples, respond to change. While satellite pictures can show you the rapid retreat of sea ice, 

what you can’t see—but should be just as concerned about—is the rapid loss of indigenous languages, spoken for thousands of years in the Arctic. With that loss, a 

tremendous loss of knowledge, culture and identity goes with it. 

And while we’re on the subject of people, it is the Commission’s strong recommendation that our national health research program dig deep, much deeper 

than before, into the causes of the suicide epidemic that takes so many native 

youth—not just in Alaska, where the rate is four times that of the national average, 

but across the North.3

Investment.—An accessible Arctic Ocean requires our presence. As I’ve heard my 

colleague, Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Allen, say about the Arctic many 

times, ‘‘where there was once ice there is now water.’’ 

We pay particular attention to the use of Coast Guard icebreakers, ice-strengthened research vessels, and sensor networks (buoys, satellites, and other elements of 

monitoring networks in or under the sea, on the land, in the air and in space) in 

Arctic research. But as was shown in the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, completed by the eight Arctic nations this spring, the Arctic Ocean will need aids to 

navigation, hydrographic mapping, search and rescue, ports of refuge, and salvage 

capability as this ocean becomes accessible to the world. We appreciate the fact that 

Congressman Young has introduced an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Implementation Act to address this investment need, and that you and Senator Begich 

have introduced companion bills. 

Infrastructure investment onshore, to help our communities respond to rapidly 

eroding shorelines, is also necessary. As areas that were protected by ice are increasingly swamped by water, this committee and its sister appropriators have a 

choice to make—invest now, or send FEMA later. Our belief is you want to invest 

now, and we have urged an appropriate research program to guide that effort. Senator Begich, in his collection of Arctic bills introduced recently, addresses this in S. 

1566, the Arctic Climate Adaptation Act. 

In other words, to meet our responsibilities in the changing Arctic, we need to 

have the means and willingness to invest both capital and operating sums. 

International Cooperation.—The policy of the United States also speaks directly 

to the need for international cooperation to accomplish many, if not all, of our goals 

in the newly accessible Arctic. 

The basis of cooperation in the Arctic is not just the eight-nation Arctic Council, 

but the global United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. For several years 

now, our Commission has recommended that treaty be ratified by the Senate. Doing 

so will help extend the territory of the United States in areas where the continental 

shelf goes outside our 200-mile limit. Our Nation is doing the work to make a claim, 

but we cannot sit at the table, make our claim or comment on those being made 

by four other Arctic nations in this ocean, until we ratify the treaty. 

We need to work with our Arctic neighbors, as well as other national partners, 

on other objectives as well. We should resolve our boundary with Canada in the 
48 

4The Commission provided staffing for leadership of the Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), which established an eight-nation agenda for cooperation in Arctic 

shipping, much of it to be accomplished before the United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO). See http://www.arctic.gov/publications/AMSAl2009lReportl2ndlprint.pdf 5Toward this end, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission is among the sponsors of ‘‘Managing 

Resources for a Changing Arctic,’’ an International Arctic Fisheries Symposium October 19–21, 

2009 in Anchorage, Alaska, designed to initiate international discussions for conserving and 

managing future fisheries in the Arctic Ocean, including managing migratory, trans-boundary 

and straddling fish stocks. http://www.nprb.org/iafs2009/ 

Beaufort Sea region. We should work with all nations bordering the Arctic Ocean 

to get the same rights to research throughout the Arctic Ocean that legitimate researchers have in Antarctica. In the past several years, Russia has denied United 

States and other nations research vessels access inside their exclusive economic 

zone many times. 

When it comes to shipping, the policy contemplates cooperative efforts in establishing vessel traffic rules for areas like the Bering Strait, and common efforts to 

provide search and rescue in the Arctic Ocean.4

When it comes to fishing, the United States’ plans for a moratorium on fishing 

in the high North could be much for naught unless we reach cooperation with Canada and Russia, and those nations who would fish the high seas.5

When it comes to oil and gas development, in our Nation or others, a common 

approach to high standards is advisable, through the Arctic Council or other means. 

Last fall, the United States and Canada held a conference here in Anchorage, supported in part by the Commission, to compare ways we can improve Arctic oil and 

gas development. 

Finally, to meet our Nation’s research objectives, we need not only access throughout the Arctic, but cooperation in establishing trans-boundary Arctic monitoring networks. There is much work to be done in this Arctic neighborhood. 

Madame Chairman, as this is the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the U.S. 

Senate’s Appropriations Committee, let me conclude with a set of recommendations 

from the Commission’s standing objectives that this Committee may wish to address. 

Homeland Security Infrastructure.—The Commission is on record in support of 

building two new Polar Class icebreakers to replace the Polar Star and Polar Sea, which are operating past the end of their service life. The policy of the United 

States is not yet as specific, but the need for an all-weather, all conditions maritime 

capability is clear. Ice is receding, but it can ridge up into conditions no other kind 

of icebreaker can handle. Our icebreakers are used for a variety of missions—from 

having a national presence in the Arctic Ocean (as well as in the Antarctic), being 

able to provide law enforcement, border protection, fisheries enforcement, environmental and other emergency response, and search and rescue. As well, these vessels 

are our primary platform for Arctic Ocean research. During time of war, these ships 

perform the functions of a naval vessel. If we are serious about maintaining safety, 

security, and the natural environment of the Arctic Ocean, we must have those icebreakers. If we are serious about being sure that our own rules and those of the 

Law of the Sea will stick, we must have these icebreakers. We can only get them 

if the Congress and the President make the funding commitment. 

Investments in shipping infrastructure are contemplated by the Arctic Marine 

Shipping Assessment Implementation Act, legislation I mentioned above that is proposed by all three members of Alaska’s Congressional delegation. Those investments 

include aids to navigation, hydrographic mapping, spill response capability, automatic identification system receivers (AIS) to tell us when vessels are approaching, 

and other safety and security needs. AMSA showed us this is a new ocean for shipping, but one increasingly used today and one that could be heavily used soon. 

Monitoring Networks, Imagery, and Mapping, including the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network (SAON), which relies on sea, air, land and space sensing, terrestrial and space telecommunications infrastructure. Homeland security operations in 

the North, as well as scientific research, depend on a common infrastructure that 

includes appropriate means to understand weather and climatic conditions, such as 

sea ice, and to communicate that information anywhere on earth. We need space 

and air based imagery to detect change, both on near term for emergency response, 

and a long-term to support research and resource management. Finer mapping of 

Alaska and the Arctic region will assist intelligence and defense objectives, as well 

as emergency response to storms and wildfires. This Committee should be aware of 

the important work done by the National Ice Center, a joint operation of NOAA, the 

U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which serves mariners information about ice 

conditions anywhere in the world. In 2006, the Commission sponsored a workshop 

with telecommunications providers and researchers to understand what capabilities 
49 

6See the Commission’s 2004 Workshop Report written with the Prince William Sound Oil 

Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI), Advancing Oil Spill Response in Ice Covered Waters, http:// 

www.arctic.gov/publications/oillinlice.pdf Also, see the NOAA/University of New Hampshire 

Coastal Response Research Center’s 2008 Workshop Report, Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and Framing Solutions, issued January, 2009: http://www.crrc.unh.edu/workshops/arcticlspilllsummit/arcticlsummitlreportlfinal.pdf 

exist to provide data, voice and video links to and from the highest latitudes within 

our jurisdiction. The Iridium network, for high latitudes especially, is an important 

asset for operations in the Arctic—whether they are research, security, tourism, 

fishing, or oil and gas development offshore. The United States serves as an ‘‘anchor 

tenant’’ for that network, and it is important to understand its strategic value as 

next generation satellites are designed and launched. 

To underscore the importance of the NSF-led program on Arctic Observing Networks, please note this: the United States intends to embark this December, with 

other nations, on a global mitigation scheme for climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Two of the largest ‘‘wild cards’’ critical to the success of that 

mitigation scheme involve ‘‘feedbacks’’ from the amplified air and water temperature 

of the Arctic region. Temperature rise can produce a massive injection of methane 

from Arctic sources, a greenhouse gas at least 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. 

With receding ice comes reduced albedo of the earth, where much more solar radiation is absorbed by darker seawater instead of being reflected into space by whiter 

sea ice. An appropriate monitoring system is a strategic asset for the world in the 

objective of dealing with climate change. We need it to track how well mitigation 

programs are working. It will give us fair warning on other concerns as well, from 

shoreline erosion, change of ocean currents, ocean acidification that could damage 

or destroy certain fisheries. 

From the Commission’s standpoint, Arctic Observing Networks are the most important legacy of the International Polar Year, and we are working through the 

process established in the Arctic Research and Policy Act to make sure the Senate 

Appropriations Committee has the specific information it needs to see a working 

network established. Agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, including 

the Coast Guard, FEMA, the National Ice Center, all will depend on this information to fulfill their missions. 

Oil Spill Research Program.—Perhaps the most important near-term action this 

subcommittee can take as a result of this hearing is to join with us to help kickstart a renewed Arctic oil spill research program. Madame Chairman, I had the opportunity after the Exxon Valdez disaster to work with the Congress as it crafted 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. That law provided for a robust oil spill research program, to be coordinated by the Interagency Oil Pollution Research Coordinating 

Committee. (IOPRCC) It also provided authorization for funding the program 

through the Oil Pollution Liability Fund, which collects a nickel per barrel from all 

oil produced or imported into the country. As a matter of oversight, the Congress 

should know that today that this program is not working. Helping it work, both nationally and within the Arctic, is within your committee’s jurisdiction. 

The United States has collected billions of dollars from the sale of leases for oil 

and gas exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The risk of spills in ice we 

might need to deal with come not just from those prospects, but from ships and fishing vessels coming through the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean, oil drilling in other 

areas, including Russia and Canada. 

Much of the Nation’s oil spill research relevant to this region is conducted through 

a Joint Industry Program in Norway. A recent test there, costing over $10 million, 

showed promising results for a number of technologies including burning, skimming, 

dispersants, coagulants, and bioremediation. Recently Dr. John Farrell, the Commission’s executive director and I visited with the SINTEF scientists in Trondheim 

who lead this program, and there is more work to be done. 

Likewise, the Commission recently asked former Commissioner Dr. Walter Parker 

to attend Canada’s Arctic Marine Oil Program (AMOP) conference, and he reported 

to us that current research is in sore need of significant support. 

Twice in the past decade, the Commission has co-sponsored meetings of experts 

on Arctic spills to help develop a research agenda. While we give high credit to the 

work our workshop partners are doing at the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute in Cordova, Alaska, and the NOAA Coastal Response Research Center 

at the University of New Hampshire, we are concerned that no Arctic spill research 

program, broad scale and integrated across Federal agencies, can be said to exist.6

We don’t believe that a robust research program can answer every concern we’ve 

heard voiced about OCS development and shipping by residents of the North Slope 

Borough, Madame Chair, but we are confident that the Nation can do a better job 
50 

7 USARC Commissoner Buck Sharpton of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks is CIMES cochair. A description of CIMES programs may be found at http://cimes.hawaii.edu This author, 

in his capacity as a Senior Fellow at the Institute of the North, www.institutenorth.org, has 

written extensively on the need for national and local planning for Electromagnetic Pulse Attack 

and high-energy solar flares. The Congressionally created Commission to Assess the Threat to 

the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, www.empcommission.org, has made specific recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on this subject. 

planning, and involving the public, in an Arctic oil spill research program. I’m also 

confident that the Nation has the means, with the Oil Pollution Liability Fund, to 

fund a program that Congress has asked to be developed but hasn’t been. 

Before making this statement to you, I had conversations with the leaders of 

NOAA and the Coast Guard, with the Governor of Alaska and his Commissioner 

of Environmental Conservation, with the Mayor of the North Slope Borough and 

leaders at the Department of the Interior, which has issued OCS leases. We have 

heard from the oil industry that has bought the leases and they, too, while confident 

they can respond appropriately now to an accident, want to see a research program 

in place. The law calls for it, so let’s do it. We have to come together. 

If the Interagency Oil Pollution Research Coordinating Committee, chaired by the 

Coast Guard, calls a meeting to start this process, we will help. We will do what 

we can to have the appropriate agency players, industry players, community leaders, and spill research specialists, including the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, involved. We will take a proposal for funding, as a result of the 

Committee’s work, to the President’s science advisor and the Office of Management 

and Budget. We will encourage their plan to be adopted by the Interagency Arctic 

Research Policy Committee. We will work to help build ties between U.S. research 

efforts, the State of Alaska, and those of other nations. We will let you know, as 

the law requires, if the process is working, and we will let you know if it falls down. 

Billions of dollars are at stake in the offshore Arctic with decisions pending on 

oil and gas exploration. Our Nation’s energy security is at stake, and the Alaska 

pipeline is running at only one quarter of its capacity. Statistics show that spills 

are a greater risk from shipping and fishing vessels, and those vessels are moving 

north. Whatever we do as a Nation, the ships and oil and gas exploration activities 

of other nations may have an effect on our Arctic shores. The time to start an effective, enduring Arctic oil spill research program is now. 

Homeland Security Research.—The Committee should be aware that the Department of Homeland Security supports a University Center of Excellence called 

CIMES (Center for Island, Maritime, and Extreme Environment Security), a partnership between the University of Hawaii, the University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez 

and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.7 This group is looking into unique issues 

related to our Arctic infrastructure, and has projects to improve the use of space 

imaging and coastal radar for ship detection in Arctic waters. We see other areas 

of the Department’s responsibility that could benefit from greater integration with 

the U.S. Arctic Research program. For example, as the Department looks at threats 

to critical infrastructure from an Electro-Magnetic Pulse Attack or a solar flare (the 

Compton effect or the Carrington effect) it should pay attention to the fact that close 

to 200 Alaska rural communities may have, as a result of these incidents, no power 

or telecommunication or air support whatsoever. As you look at the Department’s 

plans in this area, we urge a consideration of Arctic need. Likewise, as the Department plays a major role in U.S. planning for a response to disease epidemics, such 

as bird flu, it can benefit from the understanding of migratory bird pathways conducted in the Arctic. 

Extended Continental Shelf claim Research.—The Commission is a member of the 

interagency group guiding the Nation’s work toward a claim for extended continental shelf under the Law of the Sea. Off Alaska alone, our claim could be greater 

than the size of California. We appreciate the work being done by the U.S. Coast 

Guard and urge full funding of this program, through several agencies. 

Energy Research.—While energy research is not specifically the purview of this 

subcommittee, I wanted to take the opportunity, Senator Murkowski, to thank you 

for your help in having the National Renewable Energy Laboratory place a staffer 

in Alaska. The Commission urged the Department of Energy to do so, as you did. 

We are concerned that the Arctic Energy Office, funded through the Department of 

Energy’s Office of Fossil Fuels, is limited in the scope of work it can pursue. Alaska’s energy needs require research and experimentation in a wide-range of alternatives, based on places. Diversification of our energy supply, away from diesel, will 

help reduce the risk of spills. New energy sources promises to make life in some 

Arctic communities more economically sustainable. The U.S. Coast Guard oversees 

environmental issues at a large number of bulk fuel tanks throughout rural Alaska, 
51 

and alternative energy options can help reduce the Coast Guard’s expense, as well 

at that borne by the Denali Commission and the State of Alaska, in this area. We 

understand the Senate Energy Committee has a hearing on these issues at Chena 

Hot Springs later this week, and we wanted to draw the connection with Homeland 

Security. 

Let me conclude my testimony by passing on a comment raised by Commissioner 

Vera Metcalf, a resident of Nome. In her capacity as a Commissioner and as director 

of the Arctic Eskimo Walrus Commission, Vera has worked to help the Coast 

Guard—moving operations North—to have closer communication with Arctic residents and Arctic communities. ‘‘If there were a way for coastal communities to become more aware of important issues such as these (town-hall meetings?), it’d be 

helpful for us,’’ Vera wrote. ‘‘The Bering Strait is becoming more of a portal for all 

ship traffic, e.g., USCG and others in the region. I’m sure there is some form of high 

level agreement with Russia for Search and Rescue, fishing regulation, oil spills, but 

the Strait is a prime strategic area.’’ 

Madame Chair, Commissioner Metcalf is right. The Bering Strait, sometimes now 

called the Bering Gate, is ‘‘a prime strategic area,’’ and the entire Arctic region is 

as well. Work to make sure that activity in this part of the world’s oceans is ‘‘safe, 

secure, and reliable’’ has just begun. We look forward to this subcommittee’s understanding and support in the years to come. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Treadwell, and those are 

good words to end on, ‘‘safe, secure, and reliable.’’ I think that is 

so much of what we are attempting to do here today in raising the 

awareness. Whether it is with the sustainability of our fisheries or 

whether it is a continuation of the subsistence lifestyle of our indigenous peoples up north, whether it is the marine transportation, it 

all comes down to safe, reliable, and secure. 

So much of what we have heard here today is how we prepare, 

and I think we are in almost an enviable position in many ways 

because we can actually prepare because we have got somewhat of 

a blank slate out there. In many ways, this is the last place on 

planet Earth where there are really no boundaries yet, and it is 

kind of wide open and evolving. We can be smart. We can be 

proactive. But it goes to the point that each one of you has raised 

and it is getting the information that we so desperately need, making sure that we have the research there, making sure that we are 

following the science and really working to prepare. From that research, you then build out, as the Commandant has said, the infrastructure so that we can respond. 

Our challenge will be to make sure that we have actually put 

things in place before we see the level of activity increase, and I 

think this is some of what we are facing when we are talking about 

cruise ships coming through, when we are seeing a level of marine 

activity and commerce that simply has not been there. These are 

the challenges that we face. 

I have a whole series of questions that I would like to ask. I am 

probably going to submit some in writing to you because I think 

they are important to include in the record. 

But as you noted in Vera Metcalf’s comment, she says we should 

be having some town halls. Well, I have a health care town hall 

across town that I have got to get to by 5 o’clock. So I am going 

to have to be keeping an eye on the time. 

But I want to ask you each. So much of what we need to do, 

whether it is getting the funding for the icebreakers or for the research for the fisheries or making sure that we are using the 

science of the local people, the indigenous peoples that are there, 

comes down to a competition for funds. And it goes back to the 

question that I asked the Commandant. You have got a budget. 
52 

You have got to figure out how you are covering the mission of the 

Coast Guard. 

Well, I think part of our challenge from an appropriations perspective—and that is the committee that we are sitting in today— 

it is all about making sure that people understand the need for the 

research, the need for what will be expensive infrastructure. How 

do we do a better job of really ensuring and convincing the American people that the Arctic is important? How do we do a better job 

of this? 

And, mayor, from your perspective, how can we better utilize the 

human assets that we have up north, the people who are most impacted by what we will see so that we can help other people in this 

country understand the importance of this region? 

It is a very general question, but I think it is a very real challenge for us. The people in Iowa are not connecting with what we 

need to be doing here, and they view my attempt to get dollars for 

Alaska as an Alaska issue. It is not an Alaska issue. It is an American issue. It is an Arctic issue. 

But help me in how we can better promote the importance of the 

Arctic. And I throw that out to any of you. Mayor, you look like 

you are reaching for the mic. 

Mr. ITTA. I am going to take a shot at it here. 

I think our challenge is a matter of prioritization, to put it simply. Easier said than done, and I realize that. I think the biggest 

challenge is very similar to the issues we faced years ago and still 

face today as Alaskans. So many in America did not realize Alaska 

was a part of the United States and that we are U.S. citizens. I 

think this is a part of our challenge. How does what goes on in the 

Arctic relate to my life in Des Moines, Iowa? That is going to be 

the challenge, I think, that we face. 

Tied into all of this, I think in the back of everybody’s mind is 

the whole issue of global climate change that I think everybody has 

a general knowledge of it but says, oh, that does not affect me. 

I think a more pointed program—I do not know that ‘‘PR’’ is the 

right word, but certainly we as a people in the Arctic with our 

knowledge can help any effort that the Federal Government may 

need, or even our State, to make what is happening in the Arctic 

relative to what is in the best interest of the United States of 

America. I think that is our biggest challenge, and it is a very difficult one for me to, just on the spur of the moment, say here is 

what we need to do. 

But I applaud you, Senator, for the perception that you have gotten here from the testimony today, and big changes are happening. 

Big changes are happening in historic terms. But it is not necessarily that we see massive change day to day, but we know historic change is happening in the Arctic. The first thing we do is 

worry and that is normal. And it is with us and it is not too 

healthy, but we observe things that are changing up there. I think 

if you can tie that connection to what we are trying to do not just 

for energy or fishing or maritime transportation systems, but how 

does that relate to what I am doing. 

So I am starting to repeat myself, so I will stop right there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate the perspective. 

Mead. 
53 

Mr. TREADWELL. I think the first message is that we feed America, we fuel America, we defend America. We help bring supplies 

in and out of America. Tens of thousands of people a week traverse 

the Arctic in aircraft, and you are likely to see more of that in 

ships. We are having a very large debate in Congress on climate 

change issues. Frankly, if any of the schemes being discussed are 

going to work, you have to keep the Arctic cold. If you do not keep 

the Arctic cold, you are going to see a massive amount of extra 

greenhouse gases. So for those strategic reasons, you have got to 

pay attention to the Arctic. 

Tactically, I think as David Benton has said, we have done a 

fairly good job in Alaska of trying to isolate and almost endow certain kinds of research projects. We have done it with the North Pacific Research Board. There is very good legislation on the North 

Slope Science Initiative. We are trying to find funding for it. I mentioned oil spills. There may be a way to craft that legislation as authorization legislation rather than appropriation legislation that 

does endow this. We have to figure out some way with the icebreakers. 

And frankly, the bill that you introduced on implementation of 

this puts us out in the international setting. I am very glad that 

the eight-nation Arctic Council has several Arctic observers who 

are other nations. Japan, China, Korea have all applied to come in 

or come in as observers now. And the importance there is that as 

Lawson said, you will have other nations of the world looking to 

use the Arctic. Well, we should demand of them, help us be partners to keep it safe. So that is why I emphasize the importance of 

international cooperation. 

But there are some endowments yet to be had that I think we 

can very honestly argue for. It is not earmarking sciences in Alaska. It is earmarking something that is strategic for the country. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And that argument needs to be made exceptionally clear. 

Dr. Brigham or Mr. Benton, do you want to add anything to 

that? 

Mr. BENTON. I will take a stab at that. 

I am mulling over your general question because to me it really 

is fundamental to a problem that Alaska has across the board on 

many of the issues that affect our State. But this one is particularly poignant I think, because of the fact, as Mead pointed out, 

that the Arctic transcends the Nation. It is really a world issue. 

And as the mayor has pointed out, it has real consequences for cultures and traditions and people that have been around for a very 

long time and have a very unique place in the world. 

What I was mulling over is a somewhat similar situation that we 

had back in—again, go back to sort of the 1980s. We were having 

a horrible time with our salmon fisheries being intercepted on the 

high seas. It was at least a North American problem, if not a global 

problem. But people in Kansas, people in Iowa, people in Canada, 

a few of them cared. Most of them did not care. People down in 

California and Washington and Oregon really did not care. Yet it 

was causing a huge problem. There was a very large fleet operating 

anonymously out in the middle of the North Pacific, 1,000 vessels, 

30,000 miles of net a night, high seas rip net fleet. 
54 

Alaskans—and one in particular, Mr. Harold Spark, who is no 

longer with us, who is from Bethel—decided they had had enough 

and started a grassroots campaign of educating folks around the 

country. And the State and the Federal Government and particularly our congressional delegation joined in. And in not too long a 

period of time, we were actually able to get people to understand 

the significance of the problem by reaching out across a variety of 

venues. 

One of the key components there was that the environmental 

community joined with Alaskans, and they have a way of conveying 

messages that are important and they can convey them well. They 

know how to do that. 

On this one, on the Arctic issue, they are engaged, but I am not 

sure that they are engaged in a way that along with all the rest 

of us forms the kind of partnership that you are talking about or 

what I am getting from you that you are talking about, which is 

how do we elevate this in a way that it is a positive message of 

what we need to do. It is a call to arms, so to speak, because there 

are problems. But it is not just the gloom and doom stuff. It is 

what are we going to do about it and how are we going to do that 

and how are we all going to work together to get that to happen. 

So the scientific community, I think the State is there. The seafood industry—I mean, we have taken our stand and I think a fairly reasonable approach. What we really need is for all the different 

interests to rally around the message that this is a bigger problem 

and maybe quit fighting so much with each other and figure out 

how we are going to put that message out there in a positive way 

that helps you get the job done. 

And I would lay a gauntlet down to the environmental community when they will step up to that plate and work with the rest 

of us instead of sometimes—and in the case of the seafood industry, 

we get into a lot of quarrels every once in a while. That is legitimate, but in this one, we do not have a quarrel. I would sort of 

lay the gauntlet down to them on how are they going to work with 

the rest of the Alaskans to get that message out there and try and 

get some positive action. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, it truly is something that requires a 

cooperative effort amongst all sectors, but I think both Dr. 

Brigham—you and you, Mead, have mentioned the international 

cooperation that must go on, whether it is within the shipping regime or as the mayor has pointed out, there is very little room for 

error. And if somebody is not doing things environmentally sound 

on the other side of the Chukchi and there is an issue there, it does 

not stop at whatever border may be. We will see the implications. 

And I think the recognition is that now is the time for the level 

of cooperation with the other Arctic nations in so many different 

ways, as well as within our own country as we work to try to advance the priorities that I think must move forward so that we are 

prepared for this new Arctic. But it will take a great deal of effort 

and an awareness again of the significance of the region here. 

So I will put out the task to each of you, not only those of you 

that are testifying, but to all those that are interested. We have got 

a challenge ahead of us, but I think if we are proactive in building 

out the research, working collaboratively as we advance, whether 
55 

it is development of infrastructure or ensuring that cultures and 

lifestyles continue as they have for centuries, we will have something to really look back at with pride in terms of what we have 

developed because we acted in a manner that was proactive rather 

than reactive. Too much of what we do is a reactive response because it happens. Well, let us get on top of the wave here and figure out how to make it work right. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Again, gentlemen, I have probably a minimum of 10 questions for 

each of you and may have more after this session here this afternoon that I will submit to you so that we can get those further for 

the record. So your homework is not quite done yet. But I thank 

you for not only your time and what you have given today for the 

record but for what each of you brings to the table on the issue of 

the evolving Arctic and how we can really demonstrate leadership 

as an Arctic nation. I look forward to working with all of you in 

the future as we move forward. But I thank you for your time and 

for those who have joined us, I thank you for your interest. We 

have got a lot of work to do, and I think it is good work because 

there is a level of excitement and opportunity, given the challenges 

that we face. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the witnesses for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

Question. The Coast Guard established temporary Forward Operating Locations 

on the North Slope during the summer of 2008. What, if any, have been the challenges? What has the Coast Guard learned from this experience? 

Answer. The major challenges experienced by the Coast Guard during its deployments to northern and northwestern Alaska in 2008 and 2009 are as follows: 

—Vast distances. Operations in the Arctic are constrained by the time required 

for surface vessels and aircraft to cover vast distances to reach the Arctic 

Ocean. 

—Lack of support infrastructure (e.g. berthing, resupply, repair facilities, suitable 

runways, aircraft hangars, ports and small boat launch & recovery locations, 

etc.). 

—Lack of an effective communications network/architecture. 

—Lack of accurate and timely weather forecasts/observations. 

—Age, special coverage, and data fidelity/confidence of the navigation charts 

above the Arctic Circle are not sufficient for increased operations of surface vessels. 

Significant lessons learned from those operations include: 

—Existing CG small boats/short range helicopters (i.e. HH–65) tend to be ineffective due to operating conditions and geographic remoteness. 

—Icebreakers or ice-hardened vessels with embarked helicopters are necessary in 

hazardous and dynamic ice conditions. 

—Engagement with and input from the indigenous peoples is imperative for mission effectiveness.. Their partnership is very valuable as we incorporate their 

local area knowledge into Coast Guard operations. 

—Broken sea ice is prevalent and can pose a hazard to boats and ships in even 

the best summer conditions. Wind shifts can cause broken ice to accumulate 

quickly trapping vessels and making previously clear waters impassable. 

Question. The Coast Guard has no designated air stations north of Kodiak, Alaska 

and Point Barrow, Alaska. Is search and rescue capacity in the Arctic Region needed 

and, if so, what Coast Guard capabilities exist to meet this demand? What additional assets would be needed to carry out this mission? 

Answer. There are two Coast Guard Air Stations in Alaska: Sitka and Kodiak. 

During the summer, D17 maintains one HH60 helicopter at Aviation Support Facil-
56 

ity Cordova. These operations patrol the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, but 

would be challenged to conduct SAR operations in the Arctic Ocean. 

The Coast Guard is conducting a High Latitude Mission Analysis, an analysis of 

the Coast Guard’s missions in the Arctic region. This report will include an analysis 

of requirements for the Coast Guard SAR mission in northern Alaska and Arctic region. 

Question. The recession of polar icecaps is expected to make the Northern Sea 

Route over Russia feasible in the next 10–20 years. This route offers significant potential benefits to shippers through alternate routes. What steps has the Coast 

Guard taken to ensure that it has the capability and resources to address its full 

spectrum of missions in the Arctic? 

Answer. The Coast Guard is conducting a mission analysis to examine its mission 

needs in the high latitude regions. The report is scheduled to be completed in June 

2010. 

Question. The Coast Guard may need additional icebreaker, surface, aviation, and 

shore assets to maintain and safeguard U.S. interests in the Arctic. Does the Coast 

Guard have cost estimates for this expanded role in the Arctic? If so, how was the 

estimate developed? If not, how will the Coast Guard go about developing a reliable 

cost estimate? 

Answer. The Coast Guard has begun an analysis to identify mission requirements 

to support current and projected operations in the Arctic. The study is scheduled 

to be completed in June 2010 and will provide the basis for a gap analysis of Coast 

Guard capabilities. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question. Admiral Allen. Thank you for your testimony and informing us of the 

Coast Guard’s presence and changing mission in the Arctic. You briefly mentioned 

that the United States Coast Guard supports ratification of the Law of the Sea 

Treaty? Why? 

Answer. There are several key reasons why the Coast Guard supports the immediate accession to the Convention. Ninety-five percent of U.S. imports and exports 

are carried by water at some point. Foreign-flagged ships carry the vast majority 

of these products. The Convention provides a solid foundation for the effective enforcement of U.S. laws and international standards on these foreign vessels plying 

our waters. Joining the Convention would benefit the Coast Guard’s robust portstate control efforts and further ensure that foreign ships operating in our waters 

are safe and secure and that they do not harm our marine ecosystem. 

The Convention advances U.S. homeland and national security interests. It secures for military and commercial vessels, including Coast Guard ships and aircraft, 

navigational rights and freedoms throughout the world’s oceans. These include the 

right of transit passage on, over and under international straits. Moreover, the Convention’s provisions enhance the efforts of the Coast Guard to protect the security 

of ports used for international shipping, to enforce laws concerning maritime traffic 

in illicit drugs, weapons, and undocumented immigrants; illegal, unregulated and 

unreported fishing; and piracy. 

Question. If the Senate does not ratify the treaty, how does that affect your ability 

to carry out your mission in the Arctic and other places? 

Answer. Joining the Convention would significantly enhance the Coast Guard’s 

ability to carry out its missions in the Arctic region and elsewhere in the U.S. 200- 

nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) by providing clear, internationally 

agreed-upon principles for operating in and governing ocean space. The Convention’s 

provisions are consistent with U.S. marine environmental protection programs, in 

particular Coast Guard efforts to keep substandard and polluting vessels out of U.S. 

ports and coastal waters, including those in the Arctic. Failing to join the Convention would hamper many of those mission-related efforts. Additionally, the Coast 

Guard would not be able to make internationally secure claims on behalf of the 

United States to the vast living and non-living resources on the extended continental shelf in the Arctic region that includes the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas. Remaining outside of the Convention undermines the missions of the Coast 

Guard and our long-term security interests. 

As the U.S. representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 

Coast Guard has long played a leading role in developing international standards 

including recent efforts to improve maritime safety and environmental security 

through enhanced construction and operating standards for ships sailing into the 

Arctic. The Coast Guard is also active in the work of the Arctic Council, composed 

of the eight Arctic States (United States, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Swe-
57 

den, Finland and Russia). Being an ‘‘outsider’’ to the Convention hampers U.S. negotiating positions at the IMO and within the Arctic Council, regional fisheries management organizations and other international forums, making it more difficult to 

achieve key U.S. policy objectives. 

Question. Admiral, your just briefly mentioned United States icebreaking capability. What are the next steps to increase our capability? 

Answer. Coast Guard priorities at this time are to continue to study the Coast 

Guard’s mission requirements through the High Latitude Study, which will be received by the contractor in June 2010. The results will help the Coast Guard determine Arctic operational requirements including polar icebreaker mission requirements. However, in the interim, the Coast Guard has temporarily shifted assets to 

the Arctic for short periods in the summer to study cold weather impacts on equipment and assess the emerging changes in regional activity. 

Question. What is the Coast Guard’s role in oil spill research and how much 

money does the Coast Guard spend annually on it? Should the CG have a larger 

budget for this and shouldn’t we be getting more money out of Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund for oil spill clean-up research? 

Answer. Oil spill research and development (R&D) is primarily supported through 

the Coast Guard’s Research and Development Program. Following the Exxon Valdez 

spill and the subsequent passage of Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 

90), Coast Guard oil spill R&D focused on four areas of emphasis: (1) spill response 

planning and management; (2) spill detection and surveillance; (3) vessel salvage 

and on-board containment; and (4) spilled oil cleanup and alternative countermeasures. In addition, Section 7001(a) of the OPA 90 established the Interagency 

Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research. The purpose of the Interagency 

Committee remains twofold: (1) to prepare a comprehensive, coordinated Federal oil 

pollution R&D plan; and (2) to promote cooperation with industry, universities, research institutions, State governments, and other nations through information sharing, coordinated planning and joint funding of projects. The Coast Guard serves as 

the chair of this committee. 

Coast Guard oil spill R&D is funded from the Coast Guard Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation, of which a portion is derived 

from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. New capabilities for responding to oil and 

hazardous chemical spills have been achieved from leveraging RDT&E funds in the 

past few years. These included manuals for fast water response, in-situ burning, enhanced chemical prediction models, and improved planning and response guidance 

for the Coast Guard’s Strike Teams. 

The fiscal year 2010 President’s Budget includes $560,000 to address oil spill research and requirements as a part of the RDT&E request. 

Question. As you mentioned, the icebreaker Healy is in the Arctic Ocean again 

this summer doing some extended continental shelf mapping with the Canadians. 

How much more information do we have to do in order to make an extended continental shelf claim? 

Answer. The multi-agency Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) Task Force mapping 

the ECS is chaired by the Department of State with co-vice chairs from the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 

Task Force is coordinating the collection and analyses of relevant data and will prepare the necessary documentation to establish the proposed claimed limits of the 

U.S. continental shelf in accordance with international law. Additionally, prior to 

submitting an ECS claim the United States must first ratify the United Nations 

Convention on the Law of the Sea to become a party to it. The Coast Guard provides 

the platform from which the mapping is conducted; however, it is not the agency 

that will file any ECS claims. 

Question. Presently, the National Science Foundation has funding authority over 

the U.S. Icebreaker program. Can you give me an update on your progress to move 

that authority back to the Coast Guard? 

Answer. The current MOA, which was an implementing agreement with respect 

to planning and operation and maintenance of icebreaker activities and assets, is 

under review as both agencies seek ways to improve management and execution of 

these activities. 

Question. The U.S. Geologic Survey has identified significant energy resources in 

the off shore waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. How much does this change 

the mission for the Coast Guard? 

Answer. The identification of potential resources in these areas does not impact 

Coast Guard missions. The tempo of existing Coast Guard missions might increase 

if and when commercial interests establish production facilities that significantly 

change human presence and maritime traffic in these areas. The Coast Guard has 
58 

begun an analysis to identify mission requirements to support current and projected 

operations in the Arctic. 

Question. Do you believe that the Coast Guard, and potentially the Navy, may 

need a deepwater port in the Arctic? 

Answer. Operational resource requirements will be determined by a variety of 

both internal and external studies and assessments. The Coast Guard has contracted a study of current and future Arctic and Antarctic influences and drivers 

and their relation to Coast Guard missions in the high latitude Polar Regions. The 

study will provide the Coast Guard’s perspective of current and projected polar mission requirements and the gaps in capabilities needed to execute its missions in 

these critical regions. The expected delivery of the final report from the contractor 

is June 2010. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question. The last administration has come out with a National Arctic Policy. Do 

you believe that the State of Alaska should develop a State policy as well? 

Answer. While the State does not have a formal Arctic policy, we are highly engaged on Arctic issues. As the only State in the United States that extends into the 

Arctic Circle and borders the Arctic Ocean, this is a necessity for Alaska. A few 

areas where Alaska has been involved in Arctic policy include: support for a moratorium on fishing in the U.S. Arctic Ocean Exclusive Economic Zone, development and 

management of the State’s oil and gas leasing program, participation in the Arctic 

Council, and the work of the State’s Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. We are looking 

for ways to better coordinate the work of our agencies with respect to the Arctic and 

are considering the value of a formal policy statement. 

Question. I am also looking forward to the State’s climate change strategy that 

will be presented this fall. Do you anticipate that it will have a robust implementation process to accompany it? 

Answer. The Climate Change Sub-Cabinet is working through the process of completing the Alaska Climate Change Strategy. This process will include consideration 

of recommendations from stakeholders and public review of a draft proposal before 

that draft is submitted to my office. In the meantime, the sub-cabinet has already 

implemented a number of key actions in urgent situations like those in coastal communities threatened by flooding and erosion. The State will support efforts in this 

area, but hopes to continue collaboration with local governments, Federal agencies, 

Alaska Native communities, academia, non-governmental organizations, and industry. 

Question. You mentioned that the State of Alaska is working on coastline stabilization. I was recently able to restore the authorization for the Alaska Coastal 

Erosion program within the Army Corps of Engineers authority. While there is a 

substantial Federal funding component required, there is a tremendous need for increased funding overall. Is the State of Alaska considering spending more money to 

assist with this effort? 

Answer. There are many Alaska communities that are at risk from erosion and 

flooding. Alaska’s Climate Change Sub-Cabinet, chaired by Environmental Conservation Commissioner Larry Hartig, has looked closely at the needs of communities whose situation likely will he made worse by warming and other predicted 

effects of climate change. The Sub-Cabinet has focused their efforts on prioritizing 

the needs of the most at-risk communities. 

The Sub-Cabinet formed an Immediate Action Workgroup specifically to make recommendations on actions that need to be taken in the near term to avoid loss of 

life, loss of critical services, infrastructure, or substantial loss of property in the 

most at-risk communities. The Governor’s budget included requests for $24.2 million 

in State general funds over the past two legislative sessions based on the Sub-Cabinet’s recommendations for specific projects and also mitigation, planning, and permitting. The legislature has funded $15.4 million of these general fund requests 

over that time period. 

I am very appreciative of your efforts to restore the authorization for the Alaska 

Coastal Erosion program within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). The 

State has worked closely with the USCOE and understands the tremendous need 

for funding in order to address the recommendations of the Climate Change SubCabinet. 

I am currently working with State agencies to develop the fiscal year 2011 operating and capital budgets that will be released to the public in December. Posi-
59 

tioning us for economic development and strengthening Alaska’s families continue 

to be my priorities. I will carefully consider the recommendations of the Climate 

Change Sub-Cabinet in developing the budget and how the State’s efforts can best 

leverage Federal funding for coastal erosion. 

Question. You mentioned the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and their inability to act on disasters that they can 

predict. Do you believe that Federal law must be changed in order to allow FEMA 

to have this new authority? 

Answer. The Stafford Act governs Federal response to disasters. I believe the act 

is sufficiently broad in its authority to enable just such a flexibility. However, the 

implementing policies at FEMA seem to be written to limit action until the disaster 

is almost upon us. This policy has been reinterpreted in recent years as evidenced 

by pre-landfall disaster declarations for approaching hurricanes. 

Alaska is leading a discussion among the States on ‘‘imminent’’ and ‘‘inevitable’’ 

disasters and will meet soon with FEMA leaders on changing the older, more rigid 

policies. I am confident the new leadership at FEMA will commit to working with 

the States to amend existing policy to acknowledge the merit of early action to save 

lives and property and to prevent excessive recovery costs. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important topics with 

you. If you should need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact 

me. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO EDWARD S. ITTA

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question. Mayor Itta thank you for your testimony and the perspective of the Borough and residents of the North Slope. 

Answer. I was honored to speak at the hearing on August 20, and I’m grateful 

to you, Senator Murkowski, for the opportunity to be part of this important discussion. My title may be North Slope Borough Mayor, but my thoughts and feelings 

come from a lifetime spent in the Arctic under the guidance of elders and expert 

hunters like my father, as well as from my own experience as a hunter and whaling 

captain. 

Question. You spoke about the dramatic environmental changes that are occurring 

in the Arctic and how they are affecting the residents of the North Slope. How are 

you adapting to these changes? 

Answer. We are seeing our permafrost melt. Our ice cellars are melting, which 

could cause real problems if this trend continues. Without ice cellars, whaling captains have nowhere to store our maqtaq for community distribution throughout the 

year. This scenario could require that we buy commercial frozen storage lockers and 

pay for their substantial power demands in order to manage the quantities of 

maqtaq we have to deal with. 

Changing weather and ice conditions are making the spring bowhead whale hunt 

noticeably more dangerous. We find pockets of thin ice near the shore where, in the 

past, ice was 4 or 5 feet thick. This makes travel on the shorefast ice very dangerous, and there is really no way to adapt to these dangers, except to stay off the 

ice, which would mean abandoning our spring hunt. 

We have seen a shift in wind patterns. The east wind has shifted to the northeast, 

which tends to keep the leads closed. Ocean currents that normally run east to west 

have shifted to the opposite direction, preventing leads from opening in the spring 

and preventing hunters from getting to the whales. By the time leads open up, we 

have often missed opportunities to hunt. 

The spring hunt has been notably less successful. We have had to meet our subsistence needs during the fall hunt, which I believe is even more dangerous. Hunters are traveling great distances into ice-free waters now, and we have seen an increase in swells. Storms appear much more quickly now. 

The ocean also seems to be warmer now. If this is true, warmer water will have 

an impact on the entire food chain. 

Even the migration pattern of caribou seems to have changed. For example, herds 

normally travel from east to west. This year, the caribou were traveling from west 

to east. Scientific research is required to determine the long-term impacts of these 

behavioral shifts. 

All of these changes require adaptation by our people, and some of them don’t 

allow for adaptation. But I’m also worried about how the animals will adapt, which 

is also a question begging for research. 
60 

Question. Mayor Itta, as a whaling captain, how are the environmental changes 

you are experiencing affecting the bowhead whale migration and hunt? 

Answer. My comments in response to the first question address this question as 

well. 

Question. How would you recommend the residents of the Arctic can be more involved in the decision-making process? 

Answer. Discussions that lead to policy need to involve the people of the Arctic. 

We want to be involved. We need to be involved. We know what is going on in the 

Arctic and our traditional knowledge needs to apply to the Federal Government’s 

policy in the Arctic. People who live up here will feel the impacts of climate change 

and development every day. Over the next few years, our people will be faced with 

more competing uses close to home, and impacts will accumulate with the steppingstone pattern of westward industrial expansion. I believe we can coexist with development, but the Federal Government needs to work with local communities to place 

a greater emphasis on communication, collaboration, science, traditional knowledge, 

and respect for subsistence. 

Revenue sharing for local communities is one way to guarantee that the people 

most directly affected will have the capacity to participate in the official dialogue, 

which occurs in the context of voluminous documents to review and comprehensive 

comments to assemble. Our communities do not have this capacity, and it prevents 

their meaningful participation in the process. 

No stakeholder on the North Slope can go it alone and hope to succeed. Our success in the long term will be directly linked to our ability to work together. 

Question. Mayor Itta, you talked about a number of initiatives including the development of a marine harbor. I know that the harbor study was authorized in the 

2007 Water Resources Development Act but that very little has been done so far. 

Is the Army Corps of Engineers looking at this project and how much has the borough been involved? 

Answer. We have not had any specific conversations with the Army Corps of Engineers in regard to a marine harbor, but this is something the North Slope Borough 

would have an interest in discussing. Future discussions would have to involve the 

City of Barrow, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and all affected village corporations. 

Question. You have been outspoken about your concerns for offshore energy development. What kind of role do you see the Coast Guard playing in providing you the 

assurances you will need that the development can be safe? 

Answer. Offshore development and increasing vessel traffic point to the need for 

an effective U.S. Coast Guard presence. Congress should fund a year-round Coast 

Guard station and needed infrastructure with oceangoing and airborne response capabilities on the North Slope. The Arctic coast must have the same protections that 

our other coasts enjoy. A year round presence to monitor ocean activity is a must. 

It takes huge dollars but without the Coast Guard the Federal Government is flying 

blind in the Arctic. 

Effective oil spill prevention and response in the Arctic Ocean are predicated on 

active monitoring of vessel traffic and swift emergency response capability in times 

of crisis. The U.S. Coast Guard plays a primary role in these activities in other 

coastal oil provinces, and extreme Arctic conditions justify an important role for the 

Coast Guard in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

Increased needs for navigation aid placement, vessel traffic management, ship 

compliance inspections, security considerations and emergency response capability 

clearly suggest that enhanced Federal safety infrastructure and maritime resources 

need to be committed to this region. These needs include an expansion of the Marine Exchange with real-time data sharing that includes the NSB, the Barrow Arctic 

Science Consortium (BASC) and AEWC. 

I want to thank you Senator Murkowski for stepping up to the plate an asking 

Congress to support funding for ice breakers in the Arctic, along with better infrastructure for navigation aids and vessel traffic management. 

I am also pleased with your efforts to ensure that offshore oil and gas is not transported by tanker in the Arctic marine environment, where broken ice conditions can 

threaten shipping routes with little warning. A marine tanker accident like the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill in the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas would have a truly devastating impact on the Arctic marine environment and the way of life of the In ̃upiat 

on the North Slope. 

I hope your legislation is able to sail through Congress, or maybe I should say, 

plow through the legislative process like a brand new icebreaker. 
61 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO MEAD TREADWELL

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question. How do we convince the American people that the Arctic, and what is 

happening in the region, is important? 

Answer. Assets in the Arctic feed America, fuel America, defend America, inspire 

America. They maintain biodiversity for species seen less in other parts of the 

world. Arctic cold helps regulate the earth’s climate and contain perhaps 25 percent 

of the world’s terrestrial carbon stored within the permafrost or the boreal forest. 

America’s Arctic is strategic not just for defense, but as a crossroads for the world’s 

air travel today and ship travel, soon, tomorrow. Hardly any route used between 

North America or Europe and East Asia gets between those places without traversing some part of the Arctic airspace or sea. Even today, much North AmericaAsia ship traffic plies the Great Circle Route which passes north of the Aleutians. 

Are these assets important? To those that understand them, of course! 

To convince the American people of the importance of the Arctic, it is best to focus 

on both opportunities and risks. Prospects of Arctic shipping have attracted explorers to the North for over 500 years—and that opportunity, understood and pursued 

correctly, has attracted attention. Arctic energy prospects, estimated as huge by the 

recent U.S. Geological Survey report, represent another opportunity for our Nation, 

which is struggling to diversify and find cleaner sources of energy. 

News of risks to Arctic resources, or risks to the Nation from ignoring competition 

and security issues in the Arctic, is another way to attract the public’s attention. 

We hear about Russia planting a flag at the North Pole, and wonder if our own borders, prerogatives, national interests and territorial claims under the Law of the 

Sea will be respected. We hear about receding ice, and wonder if the critters, much 

less the people, who depend on the ice platform for their livelihood, will be affected. 

We hear about Alaska coastal villages wasting away, as the seasonal breakwall of 

sea ice is there less time to protect against storms (we also hear about melting permafrost, shoreside, caused in part by a warmer ocean nearby), and we wonder how 

those communities will survive. We hear warnings of ocean acidification, and wonder if we can reverse the trend of carbon absorption by the ocean in time to avoid 

effects on the food chain, and species we enjoy, such as crab. We hear about the 

reductions of oil flow in the trans-Alaska pipeline, and wonder if new Arctic resources can replace them to continue to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources. 

Commissioner Vera Metcalf wrote to me, as I prepared this answer, saying, ‘‘I believe that the average American will respond to national security in the Arctic as 

it continues to be ice-free especially as the Northwest Passage becomes even more 

accessible possibly to, e.g., terrorists, drug runners, etc. Recently, we had a small 

boat with a family that sailed all the way from northern United States to Port of 

Nome through the NWP and no one was aware of this. Nothing happened, but 

would been a safety issue if a storm came up. Seems that we will have more of these 

types of activity if ice continues to diminish.’’ 

Finally, the unique features of the Arctic have their own inherent interest for the 

American public. During the International Polar Year, agencies supporting research—and researchers themselves—drew significant attention to their work 

through public and educational outreach programs. The ‘‘IPY wave’’ of publicity will 

continue as results of data collections are published. The Nation’s continuing Arctic 

Research Program, which follows the goals set by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, has outreach and educational components tied to most research grants or agency science. 

From the Commission’s standpoint, we have promoted Arctic research as necessary homework for the Nation and the world—for strategic purposes, environmental protection and understanding climate change, understanding whether mitigation approaches will work, and finding new economic opportunity. Arctic research 

also expands basic human knowledge about the planet, and helps us protect and 

maintain some of its hardiest, oldest, and unique cultures. 

Question. You talked about the need for increased oil spill research. How would 

you recommend we move forward to put together an integrated Arctic spill research 

plan? 

Answer. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 has all of the ingredients to produce a viable Arctic research plan, if those mechanisms are used. Some additional work by 

the Congress and the administration would be helpful. The Commission will shortly 

publish a White Paper on these issues, but specific steps to move forward are suggested here: 

An Interagency Oil Pollution Research Coordinating Committee, created by the 

Act and chaired by the U.S. Coast Guard, needs to meet regularly, involve state en-
62 

vironmental agencies, industry and academic institutions as it did in the beginning, 

and produce a regularly-updated plan. Notices of meetings, minutes, and agendas 

should be posted online for the public to see. Congress should exercise its oversight 

and OSTP should exercise its coordination powers to ensure the research provisions 

of OPA 90 are followed, with full participation by USCG, NOAA, MMS and other 

DOI agencies. 

The plan should be, as suggested by an early National Academy review, 

prioritized to reduce the greatest risks in the chain of oil exploration, production, 

transport and use. 

For its Arctic/subarctic work, the Committee should coordinate closely with the 

Commission, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), two government funded research programs with ties to NOAA (the Prince William Sound 

Oil Spill Recovery Institute in Cordova, Alaska, created by OPA 90 to deal with Arctic/subarctic spill research, and the Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. It should work closely with Canadian efforts, including 

the regular Arctic Marine Oil Program (AMOP), and Norwegian efforts, including 

the Joint Industry Program conducted by SINTEF with—among other sources— 

United States and private funding. It is appropriate and necessary to involve the 

State of Alaska and the Boroughs of Alaska’s North Slope, Northwest Arctic, western, Aleutian Coasts and Gulf Coasts where oil development is occurring or proposed, and marine transportation in Arctic/subarctic conditions is occurring. 

For its work nationwide, including the Arctic, the Committee should find a ‘‘tie’’ 

to the Nation’s science coordinating body, the National Science and Technology 

Council chaired by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (We 

have recommended the same tie for the IARPC, and urge further coordination with 

the interagency processes related to marine transportation and to oceans policy 

overall.) 

The administration and the Congress should make sure that extramural, competitive, grant funding for research is regularly available in the significant amounts 

contemplated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Oil Pollution Liability Fund 

(OPLF) has the capacity to replenish annual expenditures from the eight cent a barrel tax on all oil produced or used in the Nation. We recommend funding for all national programs at the rate of $30 to $50 million per year. Funding should not only 

be directed to technological improvements that decrease the risk or spills and improve response, but it should also make sure the basic biological assessments are 

conducted in areas susceptible to spills where that baseline work is not already occurring. Given recent lease sales earning close to $3 billion in revenues to the United 

States, other offshore development in Arctic/subarctic ice covered areas that will 

serve U.S. markets, and the increasing amount of shipping of all types occurring in 

the Arctic Ocean, we recommend an annual budget of $8–10 million from the OPLF, 

through the USCG’s competitive program, OSRI and CRRC, to meet concerns raised 

about the need for oil and ice research. 

We endorse the approach in Senator Begich’s legislation calling for the National 

Academy’s help in reviewing research needs in this area. 

We support the approach taken in legislation pending in both houses of Congress 

that would expand the endowment from OPLF available for OSRI funding, and believe the same funding model may be appropriate to ensure multi-year funding for 

oil in ice research sponsored by the Coast Guard, NOAA, and MMS. 

We support the approach taken by legislation (separately introduced by the Alaska delegation; pending now as a provision in the House-passed Coast Guard Authorization Bill) to implement the findings of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, 

and urge funding of the authorization. 

Question. How do we keep the momentum of the International Polar Year going 

and capitalize on the volume of research that has been done? 

Answer. We urge the Congress to hold a post-IPY hearing to consider scientific 

results of this effort, as those results come in. An appropriate time might be the 

summer of 2010. 

We urge the Appropriations Committee to insist that the provisions of the Arctic 

Research and Policy Act are followed so that the Congress, the academic community 

and the public are specifically aware of the funding directed to Arctic research by 

our Nation. At this point, the ARPA requirement for a ‘‘cross-cut’’ budget is not regularly fulfilled, and never—for a decade or more—has a summary of Arctic research 

spending been presented with sufficient time for the Commission and the Congress 

to review. 

We believe the United States has good Arctic research goals which are spawning 

renewed plans by IARPC in five separate areas. These plans will, if funded, be a 

significant legacy to the International Polar Year. 
63 

We urge the full capitalization of the Arctic Observing Network IARPC has committed to as part of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) program. 

Congress should request specifics on capital and operating funding needs and ensure that the $60∂ million initial funding provided through NSF is followed with 

an operating and reporting commitment by a Federal agency charged with monitoring, probably NOAA. 

Question. What do you see as the next step in Arctic Ocean scientific research? 

Answer. In the same way the Nation has launched an integrated scientific effort 

in the Bering Sea, agencies and funding entities should come together to develop 

and fund such an effort in the Arctic Ocean. 

We believe an MOU between NOAA, NSF, the North Pacific Research Board, 

OSRI, and the Navy, as a minimum, would help bring this funding effort forward. 

We support the study design planning effort proposed by Senator Begich’s legislation. 

We believe the call for Arctic Ocean ‘‘baseline’’ science, discussed in the work of 

the President’s Ocean Policy Task Force, is appropriate, and that there is significant 

work done already by Federal agencies, academic institutions, and industry (usually 

as a result of government stipulations) to serve as the foundation of that work. 

We support strong integration of local and traditional knowledge, and funding of 

marine mammal co-management groups through NMFS and USFWS to maintain 

the significant research contribution these groups make. 

We urge funding agencies to work more closely with CDQ groups in the Bering 

Sea region to include the science these groups are doing with the State of Alaska 

in baseline studies. 

We support stronger efforts at international coordination with our neighbors, Russia and Canada. We urge the Arctic nations to work out a stable regime for access 

to scientific research vessels in the Arctic Ocean—researchers have that stable access in Antarctica, but access for research in the Arctic Ocean is decreasing as nations make their extended continental shelf claims. Regular bilateral science meetings at a high level to focus on Bering Sea and Arctic issues are necessary; the number of missed opportunities, missed field seasons, and cancelled voyages/expeditions 

has brought us to an untenable stage. 

Question. As Chairman of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, you are very familiar with the scientific research occurring in the Arctic. How do we develop the 

international cooperation we need for coordinated research? 

Answer. The Commission has worked to fulfill its responsibility to help build scientific cooperation by being involved in existing coordinating mechanisms and helping to sponsor international workshops and science planning efforts on specific topics. We have also made field trips to meet with our science partners firsthand; including Japan, Canada, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Greenland. We have received 

delegations recently from Japan, China, Norway, Canada, Iceland, and Russia. We 

coordinate closely with the Department of State, the NSF and NOAA, among others 

in government. The International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) is supported in large part through a U.S.-Japan agreement 

made during the Clinton Administration, and we highlighted those joint efforts during recent visits to Japan. We have a counterpart Commission in Canada that we 

work with closely, and other Arctic or polar coordinating groups we work with in 

many other nations. 

For the Congress, we would like to highlight these international issues: 

—As mentioned above, we have a problem of regular access in the Russian EEZ 

that could get worse as Russia’s extended continental shelf claims are realized. 

An international agreement to guarantee the same access in the Arctic Ocean 

that is allowed in Antarctica would be an optimal approach; at the very least 

this issue should be raised with Russia at every opportunity and a mechanism, 

such as the regular bilateral meeting suggested above, would be useful. 

—Full design, capitalization and operation of a Sustained Arctic Observing Network will require strong cooperation among Arctic nations and others conducting research in the region. We believe political leaders responsible for funding this program should regularly review—both in the appropriations process 

and in joint cooperative meetings of GEOSS, IPCC, WMO, IASC, the Arctic 

Council and Arctic Parliamentarians. This network will be valuable to the world 

as we measure greenhouse gas emissions more exactly as part of a climate 

change mitigation scheme. 

—International educational exchange programs, including Fullbright Fellowships 

and exchanges through the University of the Arctic, are important to building 

continued collaboration in Arctic research. Congress can help long-term collaboration by supporting these programs and others like them. 
64 

Question. Do you believe we have enough funding for Arctic Research in the 

United States? How much more do we need? 

Answer. The Commission cannot answer this question on a holistic level because 

the interagency cross-cut, summarizing the Arctic research budget, is not provided 

as required by the Arctic research and policy act. We are on record, however, as noting discrepancies between the plans of the United States to conduct Arctic research, 

and the absence of funding for some of those research priorities. 

To highlight a few: 

—The Commission has urged the United States to replace its aging polar class 

icebreaker fleet with at least two vessels. These vessels would not solely be 

dedicated to research, but would ensure the United States has an all-weather, 

all conditions capability for the entire suite of Coast Guard Arctic missions. We 

urge funding for other research infrastructure, including cabled observatories 

proposed in the Beaufort Sea and Bering Strait region, completion of the Barrow Global Climate Change Research Facility, and other items included in the 

Commission’s 2007 and forthcoming 2009 goals report. 

—The Commission has urged the Congress to support funding for studies by the 

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, to help develop a rigorous 

research plan to deal with the suicide epidemic in rural Alaska. We estimate 

that funding need at $1.2 to $1.5 million for the Institute of Medicine Study, 

and we urge an increment in funding for suicide research at NIH, and for pilot 

intervention programs funded by HHS through tribal health entities and the 

State of Alaska. 

—The Commission has urged the Congress to dedicate income and receipts from the Oil Spill Liabilitly Fund of at least $30 million per year, $8–$10 million per 

year directed to Arctic research, for problems of oil spills in the Arctic. An appropriation of $450,000 to $500,000 to support a National Academy review of 

research needs in this area, authorized by Senator Begich’s proposed legislation, 

is also recommended. 

—The Commission has urged creation of a significant baseline integrated Arctic 

Ocean study program, modeled after joint agency and North Pacific Science 

Board work in the Bering Sea region. We recommend NRPB and NSF be provided $60 to $65 million for a 5 or 6 year study to design the program with 

the National Academy’s help, and appropriate funding thereafter. 

—The Commission urges the Administration and the Congress to fund science 

plans developed by IARPC in response to Commission goals. New funding may 

be necessary to accomplish the SEARCH science plan, including the Arctic Observing Network and Arctic Ocean Science goals, Arctic Health research, an 

Arctic Infrastructure research program being developed (which would incorporate a wide range of infrastructure problems in the North as well as the oil 

spill research program urged above), a Resource Assessment Program which includes funding for the Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment Program promised 

in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, and 

a program being developed at IARPC to support indigenous language, identity 

and culture. That last goal was the first humanities/social science interagency 

goal recommended by the Commission, and we urge Congress to support more 

regular funding for research of this type in the Arctic. 

—The Commission believes the work of wildlife co-management groups in Alaska, 

which contribute significant data important to management of whales, walrus, 

polar bears, seals, sea lions, and sea otters, should be regularly and fully funded. International support to gain similar data from Russia, once provided 

through mechanisms of USAID, need to be replaced in some manner, given that 

trans-boundary assessments are necessary to have complete data on transboundary populations of wildlife. 

Question. The United States, through the signing of the Illulisat Declaration with 

the other Arctic coastal states, recognized that the law of the sea provides for the 

essential rights and responsibilities in the Arctic. The signing states reaffirmed 

their commitment to this legal framework and to the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims. Do you agree that the Law of the Sea Treaty is the only 

governance structure that we need in the Arctic? 

Answer. The Law of the Sea is not the only governance structure that we have 

in the Arctic, but it will serve as the umbrella for most of the needs we’ve currently 

heard discussed that should be considered for ecosystem based management of this 

new ocean. 

Among those needs are agreements to promote safe, secure and reliable shipping 

identified in the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, and authorized by the House 

version of the Coast Guard Authorization bill now pending. A recent conference in 

Anchorage discussed the need for increased scientific cooperation (and potential 
65 

international management of trans-boundary stocks or Arctic high-seas fisheries) related to Arctic fisheries that may develop with changing climate and increasing access. The Arctic ecosystem is impacted by trans-boundary contaminants that are covered by treaties the United States has also, so far, not ratified. A new, transboundary effort or agreement to reduce soot and other short-term forcers of climate 

change, may also be appropriate after the Arctic Council’s Task Force considers this 

issue further. Heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants are changing the food 

Arctic residents consume or produce for export. Soot, we have learned, may be responsible for the exacerbated melting of sea and glacier ice in the polar regions. 

On the issue of access to parts of the ocean for researchers, the Law of the Sea 

grants coastal states the ability to veto research that requires a minimal, even a 

‘‘grab sample’’ of dirt from the ocean bottom inside a nation’s economic zone or extended continental shelf. Other important work, including geological drilling or 

bottomfish population surveys, can be impacted by these restrictions. The Commission believes a scientific agreement of some sort to define the rights of science in 

the region is appropriate. Stronger bilateral efforts with Russia, including agreements to address access, could also resolve the problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these questions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DAVID BENTON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question. It is clear that the fishing industry is seeing some major changes in 

stock location. How is the industry adapting to this? 

Answer. Fortunately, in Alaska industry has many of the tools it needs to adapt 

to changing stock distribution in existing fisheries, especially in the Bering Sea. 

First and foremost, fisheries that have catch share programs such as the AFA pollock fishery, the Amendment 80 flatfish fishery, the halibut/sablefish longline IFQ 

fishery, and the CDQ fishery have the ability to modify fishing operations to adjust 

to changing conditions. Catch share programs allow individual fishermen, or fishing 

companies, to plan fishing operations to account for longer run time to more distant 

fishing grounds, to avoid or adjust to weather conditions which is both a safety and 

efficiency issue, or in some fisheries operate within the coop structure to reduce the 

number of vessels involved in a fishery and thus improve efficiency. 

There is also concern about the effects of climate change on stock status and the 

potential for overfishing. The conservative management system employed by the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council provides appropriate buffers between actual catch, the Acceptable Biological Catch limits, and overfishing limits to take into 

account uncertainty in stock status and prevent overfishing. Management also incorporates important monitoring and enforcement programs (onboard observers, 

electronic vessel monitoring systems, etc.) to ensure compliance even in distant 

water fisheries. The result is a robust management system that is a model for sustainable fishery management. 

While these are not critical issues in the U.S. Arctic at this time, if a redistribution or range extension occurs into U.S. Arctic waters, then similar tools and management measures will be important components for any sustainable fisheries program. The current Arctic FMP provides a framework for obtaining the science necessary to make such decisions in the future. 

Question. As you mentioned you have been involved in a number of international 

fisheries agreements such as the Donut Hole Convention. You articulated what happened in that area and the risks of repeating a situation like that in the Arctic, 

without some kind of international agreement. Do you believe this is something we 

can achieve? What do you see as the sticky points in the negotiations? 

Answer. Yes, I believe that we can secure international agreement to prevent a 

repeat of what happened with the Bering Sea Donut Hole. This would be a step wise 

process that would be executed at several levels concurrently. The United States 

should begin by initiating talks with our Russian and Canadian neighbors on a common approach to the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean. The goal of 

such bi-lateral and tri-lateral discussions should be to seek agreement on a moratorium in the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean north of Bering Strait 

and north of Svalbard. Getting agreement will not be easy, and sticking points in 

such talks will include concerns by both Russia and Canada of the effect of such 

provisions on their respective territorial claims and sovereignty. Russia will also be 

concerned that this may set the stage for a moratorium in their own waters, something we should assure them is not linked to what takes place in the international 
66 

waters of the Arctic Ocean. In fact, because of our shared experience with the Bering Sea donut hole, the United States should be able to demonstrate to the Russians 

that we have a common goal in the central Arctic. 

The Canadians will have similar concerns, as well as internal issues regarding the 

relationship between the central government and the Native peoples of the Canadian Arctic. They will also have concerns regarding the United States/Canadian 

boundary in the Beaufort Sea. This can be addressed in a manner similar to how 

we deal with the disputed boundary in Dixon Entrance. 

If we can secure agreement among these three Arctic nations that a moratorium 

makes sense, then a joint initiative to secure such a moratorium through appropriate international bodies should have a reasonable chance of success. For example, 

this could be through a United Nations resolution similar to the driftnet moratorium enacted in the early 1990s. However, the difference here would be that such 

a resolution should set criteria or principles for how and when fisheries might be 

authorized in the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean in the future. 

This would set the stage for future negotiations for a more comprehensive international agreement if one is deemed necessary. 

At the same time, in various international fora (FAO, ICATT, etc) the United 

States needs to make it clear that it would be inappropriate for existing organizations such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) or ICES to 

attempt to assert jurisdiction in the central Arctic Ocean north of Bering Strait and 

north of Svalbard. Arctic fisheries policy needs to be led by the Arctic nations, not 

through fisheries organizations dominated by non-Arctic nations. 

On a separate track, the United States should enter into discussions with our 

Russian and Canadian neighbors for bilateral agreements relating to fishery management within our respective 200 mile zones, including scientific cooperation. I do 

not believe that this necessarily translates into fishing moratoria in Russian or Canadian waters. But, as we learned at the Arctic International Fisheries Conference 

held recently in Anchorage, there is little or no commercial fishing in either Russia 

or Canada in Arctic waters adjacent to the U.S. EEZ. Because of this, in my view, 

now is the time to discuss how we can work together to meet our respective conservation and management objectives. I believe this to be particularly important 

with Russia, because there may be shared stocks that can become commercially viable in the near future along our common boundary in the Chukchi Sea. 

As a final point, the United States must accede to the United Nations Law of the 

Sea. This is a critical step to protect United States interests on a range of maritime 

issues including Arctic fisheries. 

Question. You also stated your support for the action by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to initiate an Arctic Fisheries Management Plan. Why 

is this FMP important? What level of fisheries research have we done in the Arctic 

and how much more do we need to do? 

Answer. The Arctic FMP is important for a number of reasons. First, it affirms 

the conservative and precautionary approach to fisheries management that the 

NPFMC is well known for. The rate of change in the waters north of Bering Strait 

is having a profound effect on the resources and people of the region. The Arctic 

FMP ensures that fisheries will only be established if and when we have a good scientific understanding of the status of fishery resources in the region including the 

effects fisheries might have on the Arctic marine ecosystem, and only after a transparent and open decision making process that includes the people that live there. 

Because the situation with the Arctic is so unique, the Alaska seafood industry 

strongly supported the Council in developing and implementing this FMP. 

The Arctic FMP is also important as a foundation for U.S. policy to address international fishery issues in the greater Arctic region. It puts the United States on 

sound footing when discussing the necessity for a moratorium in international 

waters as well as cooperative scientific and management programs with Russian 

and Canada. 

Question. What other proactive steps can the United States take to support our 

commercial fisheries in the northern Bering Sea and Arctic region? 

Answer. There are several steps the United States can take to support fisheries 

in the northern Bering Sea and Arctic regions, including: 

Step up scientific research. The foundation for sustainable fisheries is a strong 

and ongoing stock assessment and research program to assess commercially important stocks and better understand the ecosystem functions of the marine environment. This is particularly true in these northern waters. This includes efforts to improve and expand cooperative research between the fishing industry and scientists. 

Cooperative research can be a cost effective way to develop innovative solutions to 

conservation and management needs. 
67 

Fully fund fisheries management. NOAA fishery management programs, including stock assessment programs, are routinely under funded in the President’s budget. This has been true for multiple administrations, including this one. Congress has 

had to step in and provide funding to maintain these programs. The effects of climate change, and the need for management to have better tools and more robust 

data will only increase. There is a need to secure this funding as part of the base 

budget, and provide some measure of fiscal stability to these critical programs. 

Fully fund the U.S. Coast Guard mission in the Arctic without shortchanging existing enforcement and SAR programs elsewhere in Alaska. I touched on this in my 

written and verbal testimony at the hearing, and will not go into detail here except 

to underscore the importance of the USCG mission in the North Pacific and Bering 

Sea where over half the Nation’s fisheries landings occur, and recognize the growing 

pressure on the USCG as their renewed and vital mission in the Arctic Ocean continues to develop and grow. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide our thoughts on Arctic fisheries and the issues that are assuming more and more importance both to Alaska 

but also to the Nation as a whole. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. LAWSON W. BRIGHAM

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question. You mentioned some of the recommendations that are based on the findings of the report. What do you see as the next steps to get the recommendations 

implemented? 

Answer. There are 17 recommendations based on the nearly 100 findings of the 

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA). They are organized in three inter-related themes: Enhancing Arctic Marine Safety (5); Protecting Arctic People and the 

Environment (8); and, Building the Arctic Marine Infrastructure (4). Some of the 

recommendations will be implemented by the International Maritime Organization 

(IMO), some by the Arctic Council and its working groups, and some by the individual Arctic states. All of the recommendations related to infrastructure will require long-term, strategic investments by the Arctic states and public-private partnerships. Implementation has begun for the following topics: 

Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) Instrument.—The Arctic Ministers in April 2009 

approved the formation of a Task Force led by the United States to develop a SAR 

agreement including aeronautical and maritime SAR. The Task Force will report to 

the Arctic Council’s Senior Arctic Officials. 

IMO Measures for Arctic Shipping.—In June the IMO approved development of 

relevant mandatory measures for the Guidelines for Ships Operating in Ice-covered 

Waters (a current voluntary set of guidelines for Arctic ships). 

The Arctic Council’s working group on Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) has begun in September 2009 drafting a follow-on plan for AMSA. 

During 22–24 October 2009 the University of Alaska Fairbanks (with the University 

of the Arctic and Dartmouth College) is hosting an international workshop titled 

Considering a Roadmap Forward: The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment. Experts 

will attend from industry, Arctic governments, academe, indigenous groups and 

NGOs. The future of the 17 AMSA recommendations will be fully explored and a 

workshop report will be widely circulated within the Arctic and the global maritime 

industry. 

Question. Many of the recommendations will require the cooperation of the other 

Arctic states. Do you believe that it is possible to have the necessary cooperation 

to get multi-lateral agreements on regulations and regimes? 

Answer. To address global maritime use of the Arctic Ocean, the appropriate body 

is the IMO. I believe it is only through IMO that mandatory and uniform standards 

can be approved for Arctic ship construction, design, equipment, crewing, training 

and operations. Regulations for shipping to enhance Arctic marine safety and environmental protection must come from international cooperation at the IMO level. 

What will be critical (to the successful development of Arctic-specific regulations & 

conventions) is that the Arctic states must work closer together at IMO on matters 

of importance and common interest in the Arctic. The Arctic states can also develop 

their own regional agreements on such critical issues as search and rescue (SAR) 

and environmental response capacity. There is today the necessary Arctic state cooperation and political will to develop and implement these agreements that are of 

a practical maritime nature. 

Question. The report makes some recommendations about infrastructure needs 

and investments in the Arctic. What do you see as the priorities? Why? 
68 

Answer. The following is a priority list of infrastructure requirements that are required in the Arctic and in particular, the U.S. Arctic in Alaska’s coastal seas: —Expanded Hydrographic Surveying and Charting.—This is the most basic or 

fundamental requirement to enhance marine safety and marine environmental 

protection. Without adequate charts, most Arctic navigation will be a high risk 

venture. —Establishment of an Arctic Ocean Observing System.—Adequate circumpolar 

and regional environmental observations are essential to understanding Arctic 

climate changes and to the facilitation of marine use of the Arctic Ocean. An 

enhanced observing network and integrated system around Alaska’s waters will 

greatly improve marine safety and environmental protection. —Surveys of Indigenous Arctic Marine Use.—Surveys of marine use by Arctic communities are critical to supporting multiple use management issues and strategies throughout the Arctic Ocean. Such regional and local surveys will provide 

information (sea ice and waterway uses) key to reducing potential marine user 

conflicts and mitigating the potential impacts of Arctic shipping. —Comprehensive, Regional Risk Assessments.—Risk assessments are crucial for 

Arctic areas such as the Bering Strait Region. Regulators, enforcement organizations, the marine industry and local communities need to understand the levels of Arctic marine activity (current and future) and the levels of risk associated with marine traffic in regions of limited infrastructure. —Arctic Marine Traffic Awareness System.—A circumpolar marine traffic awareness system (called for in a major AMSA recommendation) is important for 

monitoring and tracking of all commercial shipping in the Arctic Ocean. Data 

collected in near, real-time from such a system would be passed among the Arctic states to facilitate emergency response, general enforcement and the possible 

avoidance of user conflict. —Oil Spill Response and Research.—AMSA identifies oil spills (from accidental or 

illegal discharges) as the most significant threat from expanded Arctic marine 

activity. Increased research & development, international cooperation, and improved regional, environmental response plans are critical to adequately responding to greater marine use of the Arctic Ocean. In the United States, a 

greater emphasis on and funding of Arctic oil spill research is of the highest 

priority. 

Question. Dr. Brigham, you were an icebreaker captain. How does U.S. icebreaker 

capability compare with other Arctic nations? 

Answer. Two of the three ships in the U.S. Federal fleet considered polar icebreakers, the U.S. Coast Guard cutters Polar Star and Polar Sea, have operated in 

the Arctic and Antarctic for more than 30 years. They are in need of immediate replacement. When the Polar class ships were newer and fully operational, only the 

Soviet Union and the Russian Federation had more polar icebreaker capability than 

the United States. Russia today operates the world’s largest fleet of nuclear and 

non-nuclear (true) polar icebreakers in support of their national interests in the vast 

Russian Arctic maritime region. Many of these Russian polar ships are aging and 

several polar icebreakers of Canada (Louis S. St-Laurent), Sweden (Oden) and Germany (Polarstern) are also older. Canada, Sweden, Finland, and Norway also operate other icebreakers that are smaller and less capable than the most powerful polar 

icebreakers (many operate in the Baltic and a few operate in the Arctic as well). 

For coastal icebreaking, these nations have capability far exceeding anything found 

in Alaska’s coastal seas. Today the U.S. Coast Guard does not have adequate 

icebreaking ships to meet the future, multiple maritime needs in the shallow subarctic seas of the Bering Sea region and north into the coastal seas in the U.S. Arctic maritime. It is important to note that deep draft polar class icebreakers cannot 

usually operate in many shallow Arctic areas. 

It is the current management of the U.S. Federal, polar icebreaker fleet—the authority for managing the ships is in the National Science Foundation (NSF), not in 

the U.S. Coast Guard—that is the serious and debatable national security issue. 

The NSF approach to funding polar icebreaker capability is to charter foreign polar 

icebreakers such as the Swedish icebreaker Oden for Antarctic operations and fund 

research aboard Russian polar icebreakers in the Arctic (NSF also funds Arctic research aboard the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Healy). This NSF strategy, supported by 

OMB, is considered by many as an outsourcing strategy of U.S. polar maritime interests. Many of our Federal responsibilities and national interests are being chartered to icebreakers operated by foreign nations. Unwittingly, this funding strategy 

allows the foreign ships to continue to be fully employed by their foreign national 

operating bodies. This takes place at the expense of having viable, U.S. Federal and 

national polar icebreaker assets. The United States has many security, legal, political, economic, environmental, and research interests in the Arctic and Antarctic 
69 

that require Federal, maritime polar capacity. The current United States funding 

strategy will result in the absence of a viable U.S. polar icebreaker fleet when it 

is most required to protect and advance our national interests in the decades ahead. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator MURKOWSKI. So with that, I again thank you all and we 

call this subcommittee hearing to a conclusion. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., Thursday, August 20, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ