[Senate Hearing 111-1049]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1049
THE CHANGING ARCTIC: IMPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL RESOURCES AND LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 19, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-956 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Republican Staff Director
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican General Counsel
Nick Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 19, 2010.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witnesses
Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator from Michigan................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Edward S. Itta, Mayor, North Slope Borough.................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Rear Admiral Christopher Colvin, Commander, Coast Guard District
Seventeen, U.S. Coast Guard.................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Laura K. Furgione, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Weather
Services, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Richard Glenn, Vice President, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Mary C. Pete, Commissioner, U.S. Arctic Research Commission...... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Marilyn Crockett, Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association.................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
THE CHANGING ARCTIC:
IMPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL RESOURCES
AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Barrow, AK.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in the
Multipurpose Room, Inupiat Heritage Center, 542 Northstar
Street, Barrow, Alaska, Hon. Mark Begich, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. We can call--is that on? Yes. We can call
the field hearing to order.
Before we start and before I describe how a field hearing
works and some opening comments, I'd like to ask George Little
Man to come up and give us an opening prayer, if that would be
OK.
George?
Mr. Little Man. Thank you for coming. Welcome you and with
that, just a moment of silence. As you know, we lost our late
Senator here, Ted Stevens. So a moment of silence and then I'll
say the prayer.
[Moment of Silence.]
Mr. Little Man. Father, we thank you for this day that you
have given us and the things that have happened and they are
what they are, but we cannot change anything but you are our
Creator and we thank you for the people that are gathered here
to address the issues that concern all of us. Amen.
Senator Begich. Thank you, George. Let me--before we start,
we do have a panel and I'm joined by Senator Stabenow from
Michigan.
Before I do that, I want to explain to people what a field
hearing is and what the purpose is. This is a chance for the
U.S. Senate, in this case the Commerce Committee, to go out to
communities and these happen around the country in different
aspects, different committees, and this one's the Commerce
Committee, to talk about in our case, the Arctic and the
Changing Arctic and to understand what is happening and to hear
from people who have information that they will present to the
Commerce Committee in this format and in an official record
which will then be shared with my colleagues back in
Washington, D.C.
So the objective is to help inform the Washington, D.C.,
folks how it works in Alaska when it comes to the Arctic and we
have a very good panel, and I am joined by Debbie Stabenow,
Senator from Michigan. We're very pleased for her to be here.
I think this is now the farthest north you have ever been.
Senator Stabenow. I think so.
Senator Begich. I think so and so she will--as she said to
me as she landed, she is learning every second already about
the uniqueness of our state and our communities here. So we
thank her for being here.
She sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
which, for Alaska, is an important committee that deals with
many issues, especially here in the Arctic.
We also serve together on the Budget Committee. I'm a new
member, she has been there a little longer, and we've had an
opportunity to do some interaction with regard to the budget.
As mentioned by George, I do want to just take a minute to
recognize and honor, as yesterday the state took some time to
honor, the late Senator Ted Stevens. There's no question his
understanding, his desire with the Arctic and understanding the
uniqueness of Alaska and bringing Alaska truly into the modern
world in a lot of aspects. Everything from statehood to the
pipeline to Native Land Claims Act and many other things, as
all of us know.
I have been traveling the last week here and wherever I've
gone, there's no question wherever and whoever you talk to,
Senator Ted Stevens touched us. It may have been as a group, an
organization.
I don't know if that's a good thing or not, Mayor, that
bell there.
But there's no question that he had incredible impact on
all of us across this state and will be remembered for
generations to come not only in the city I was born in in
Anchorage, but all the way here in Barrow and throughout the
state. So yesterday was a very, I think, moving ceremony and an
opportunity for Alaskans to think and remember so much of what
he did to help us move forward.
But one of the areas I know he was interested in was the
Arctic and the future of the Arctic and where it should go and
what it could be. I know, as now a U.S. Senator in Washington,
DC., there's no question in my mind the importance of the
Arctic.
As I talk to my colleagues and explain the value and what
is here and its potential, I know from my perspective that, as
we move down the road, we'll be talking about mineral
resources, oil and gas resources, the environment, the
transportation. You can kind of list the items that are on the
agenda, from subsistence to what can happen and will happen
with or without us participating.
As the Arctic continues to melt and the industrial activity
occurs up in the Arctic, it is important for us now to take a
lead in doing what we can to manage it the best we can.
I have introduced several bills around the issue of the
Arctic, from research to addressing the environmental impacts
to long-term need for the Coast Guard. We were up in Kotzebue,
if I remember--you know, that's the one thing I've learned. I
travel so much now, I've got to remember what day I was where,
but we were up in Kotzebue visiting some of the forward
operations of the Coast Guard and we were recognizing the need,
the long-term need and the presence of the Coast Guard here in
the North as the Arctic continues to open up.
Also, whatever happens in the Arctic, if we decide to
develop in the Arctic with oil and gas, the revenue stream that
should be available from the Federal waters into our state, to
the people of our state is critical, and we've introduced
legislation around that.
Let me really just--I want to kind of end my general
comments and before I introduce the panel, I'm going to ask
Senator Stabenow to say a few words and then I'll introduce the
panel and, Mayor, I'm going to start with you.
My D.C. folks tell me I'm breaking protocol, but I don't
really care. The mayor of a borough is important and, Mayor
Itta, you have been a great ally in your community in bringing
your needs to Washington not once but many times, as I have
been subjected to your, and I say that in a positive way, your
explanation to me on the needs of the Arctic and you have done
a great job in doing that.
[The prepared statement of Senator Begich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Begich, U.S. Senator from Alaska
Thank you and welcome to this important hearing by the Senate
Commerce Committee on the Effects of Climate Change in the Arctic, its
implications for local communities and Federal responsibilities in the
area.
I'm pleased to welcome my colleague from the Senate, Debbie
Stabenow of Michigan, who serves on the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and with whom I serve on the Budget Committee.
Before I introduce our witnesses today. I'd like to remember my
predecessor in the U.S. Senate and his commitment to the Arctic.
Ted Stevens was honored yesterday following the tragic airplane
accident which took a life that encompassed much of what we know as
modern day Alaska--from the statehood movement to building the pipeline
and Native land claims.
Senator Stevens cared deeply about all Alaskans and worked to
ensure that rural residents shared the same benefits enjoyed by other
Americans: basic services like health care, clean water, and
telecommunications.
So we could afford these services, he was a strong proponent of
responsible and sustainable resource development, guided by a strict
conservation ethic.
Senator Stevens knew the Arctic has vast opportunities for energy
development and unique needs to protect the subsistence resources that
have sustained the Inupiaq residents of the Arctic for generations.
I share those goals and in looking at the challenges facing the
Arctic--which has been called ``ground zero for climate change''--I
introduced a series of hills last year.
I called it the ``Inuvikput'' package, named after the Inupiaq word
for ``the place where we live.''
That's intended to underscore that the Arctic is not a frozen
wasteland, rather it is a unique ecosystem that is home to a strong
people who endure the hardships of its long winters and have built a
vibrant culture about subsisting in the north.
My Inuvikput bills deal with:
Strengthening basic research into changing Arctic
environmental conditions;
Addressing the adaptation needs of communities some of which
are literally being undercut by coastal erosion or heaving
permafrost;
The special health needs of northern peoples;
The need for a stronger Coast Guard presence, including
icebreakers and forward operating bases to assert our national
interest in the opening Arctic waters deal with the search and
rescue and other responsibilities of increased maritime trade
and be prepared for oil spills in Arctic conditions; and,
Revenue sharing so local communities share in the benefits
of development off their shores.
Some of these concepts were recently included in Commerce Committee
Chairman Rockefeller's SHORE Act, the ``Securing Healthy Ocean
Resources and Environment Act.''
This bill mainly addresses shortcomings apparent after the
Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, but I'm pleased the
Chairman recognized the importance of Arctic by including key
provisions regarding scientific research and infrastructure development
in his bill.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses, many of whom have traveled
from far away to be here today.
For those from Washington, D.C., I think you will find that Arctic
winds are not just cooler, but they blow free of the partisan pressures
that often stifle progress within the Beltway.
In the Arctic, speaking your mind is often a matter of survival.
With that, I'd like to welcome our panelists:
I'm happy we have representatives of the Coast Guard and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration since these two key
agencies play a vital role in the Alaska Arctic now, and will do even
more so in the future.
We're fortunate to have Rear Admiral Chris Colvin, Commander of the
Coast Guard's 17the District which includes all of Alaska, and Laura
Furgione, who heads NOAA's Arctic Strategy team to tell us more about
how the government is going to help us operate safely and sustainably
in the changing Arctic.
I especially look forward to second panel, which is where we get to
hear from the people who live here and are on the front lines of how
climate change is affecting their lives.
I'm pleased to welcome:
North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Ina--a longtime leader and
whaling captain recently featured in Parade magazine;
Mary Pete of Bethel, an educator and subsistence advocate
and the newest member of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission;
Richard Glenn, Vice President of the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation, a for-profit ANCSA corporation committed to
preserving the traditional values of protecting the land, the
environment and the culture of the Inupiat;
State Representative Reggie Joule of Kotzebue, a leader on
Alaska health and education issues and World Eskimo Indian
Olympian;
And Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil
and Gas Association which represents the majority of oil and
gas operators in Alaska.
Before we begin, I'll invite my colleague from Michigan to make
some opening remarks before we begin our broader discussion of this
important subject.
But let me first, if I can ask Senator Stabenow, and then
I'll introduce the panel, and then I'll ask Mayor Itta to open.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Senator Begich, and good
morning. It really is a thrill and an honor for me to be here
for a number of reasons.
First, having heard over and over again from Senator Begich
both about the beauty of Alaska but also the needs of Alaska, I
don't think there's anyone--I know there's not anyone I have
met in my tenure that has been more of a champion in talking
about Alaska and being the welcoming presence of urging all of
us to come and see for ourselves both what your needs are, what
your challenges are, and how we can be supportive of you.
I certainly join with Senator Begich in remembering the
lion, the champion in Senator Ted Stevens, certainly, and we
all send our prayers to his family this week.
But it has been a real pleasure for me to get to know
Senator Begich and his family and to see Alaska through his
eyes and to now have the opportunity to come and see for
myself.
I am from Michigan. We consider what we call the Upper
Peninsula, the UP of Michigan to be North. I now have found a
place that is farther north in our country, but we share many
things.
The Coast Guard resources are critical to Michigan as they
are to you and we so much appreciate the leadership, Rear
Admiral, of your being here today and we also share neighbors
with Canada. So I find there are a number of different ways. We
have very many small rural communities.
I actually grew up in a town, I was telling the Mayor,
smaller than Barrow, 2,500 people in a little town in Northern
Michigan where I grew up. So, Senator Begich, we have a lot of
common interests in terms of the needs of our states and not
only on the Energy Committee and Budget but serving on the
Agriculture Committee where rural development is so important
and focusing on Finance Committee where I'm very proud we were
able to pass the Indian Health Bill after many, many, many
years and to be able to focus, as well, on those needs which
are so important.
So, Mayor, we're happy to be here. I'm happy to be here and
I'm looking forward to the opportunity to hear from the panel.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stabenow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator from Michigan
Thank you to Senator Begich and the Barrow Community for having me
here today as a visitor to Alaska and the Commerce Committee.
I look forward to hearing testimony and learning more about how
climate change is affecting communities in Alaska and also hearing
about possible solutions that can link communities everywhere.
Global warming is a fact. The science is solid. We know that we are
the cause, and that we will have to be the solution. And how that
solution looks will likely define the global economy for the next 50,
60, 70 years. The challenge is that while we know this is a serious
issue, it is not the issue most people in America are concerned about.
When I am talking to my constituents, their number one concern is
jobs.
In my state, we have an unemployment rate hovering near 13 percent.
Nationally, there are 15.1 million people who are unemployed. When we
count the number of people who are no longer receiving benefits, or who
are working part-time for economic reasons, that number jumps to over
26 million people.
Families in my state, and around the country, are deeply worried
about their jobs and their own economic situation. They are worried
about paying the mortgage, or paying the rent, putting food on the
table, and paying their bills. Winter is coming on, and people are
turning up the heater, and they're extremely concerned about energy
prices and how that affects their checking accounts.
So as we address climate change, we need to keep our focus on jobs
and American families who are already struggling with rising energy
bills.
We know that the clean energy economy represents an incredible
opportunity for growth. In my state of Michigan, we know how to build
things and grow things. We are manufacturing experts, with some of the
best engineers supported by some of the finest research universities in
the world. By making the right choices, we can become a leader in clean
energy research and manufacturing.
And these manufacturing solutions are also solutions for
communities in Alaska having to fight the effects of climate change.
New energy sources such as wind can help alleviate both the costs to
communities to import in fossil fuels and the costs borne from these
energy sources that result in the need to adapt to climate change.
But we have to do this right.
So when we're talking about clean energy, it's not enough that we
use those technologies, we have to make them here too.
There are 8,000 parts in a wind turbine--and all of them can be
made in Michigan. Solar panels require advanced manufacturing
techniques, which we happen to be very good at in Michigan.
But we are in a race to be leaders to make these new technologies.
The last thing we want is for communities in Alaska or Michigan to be
forced into purchasing these new clean energy technologies from abroad.
Our jobs and our national security depend on doing better.
Climate change is an important issue--probably the defining issue
of our time. How we respond to the current climate challenges will have
a lasting impact on the direction of our economy and on the future of
our country. We must get this right. We must do this in a way that not
only reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but that creates jobs and
opportunities in engineering, agriculture, information technology, and
most importantly, in manufacturing.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thanks, Debbie. It is
true every time, whatever committee, I don't even care if it's
the Budget Committee, I usually say, when I start talking about
something, I kind of weave in the Alaska component and then
whoever is on the panel, whoever they might be, the odds are
we're going to invite them to Alaska.
We've been very fortunate over the last year and a half to
have seven Cabinet Secretaries here traveling throughout the
state, most recently the Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral
Papp who visited and actually spent kind of a whirlwind tour
visiting the state which was very impressive to have him here.
I think it was his first major visit, if I remember, Admiral.
So it was very impressive and so we will continue to bring more
Federal officials up here, as well as my colleagues, just to
get a better sense of what goes on here and the travel that it
takes.
Some of my colleagues now understand that when I say I've
got to go home for the weekend, it's not as simple as hopping
in a cab or taking a bus. It's a little longer.
Let me introduce the panel and then, Mayor, I'm going to
ask you to start off, if that's OK. We are again fortunate to
have many people representing different organizations.
First, Rear Admiral Chris Colvin, Commander of the Coast
Guard 17 District, which includes all of Alaska.
Laura, and I'm going to--I know I'm going to mess up your
name. So I'm going to try here. Furgione, Laura Furgione, who
heads NOAA's Arctic Strategy Team and who is going to tell us
more about how the government is going to help us operate
safely in sustaining the Arctic, and we had a great--on the
Coast Guard plane on the way up here, we had some incredible
technology to see the impacts within the atmosphere as we
traveled on the Coast Guard plane. It's a partnership between
the two which is very impressive and I have to tell you I
couldn't understand all the numbers and what they meant but I
know it was good because they were low. So that was a good
thing and there was not many red lines and that was a positive.
Also, as I mentioned, Mayor, thank you for hosting us here.
Mayor Itta, who is a long-time leader in his community and
through the state and a whaling captain, and recently I
understand you were featured in Parade magazine which you are
now a star. I know.
Mary Pete, an educator and subsistence advocate and the
newest member of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission which we
thank you.
Also, Richard Glenn, the Vice President of the Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation for Nonprofit Corporation committed to
preserving the traditional values and protecting the land,
environment and culture of the people of the North.
And Marilyn Crockett, always good to see you, Executive
Director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, which
represents the majority of the oil and gas operators in Alaska,
as well as servicing companies. So, we thank you for coming all
the way up to be able to be here on this panel.
Mayor Itta, we will start with you on opening comments, if
that's OK, and then, Admiral, we'll go to you, Laura, then
we'll go to you, and then we'll continue down the panel.
I wanted to let you know we combined the panels because of
time and we were late arriving, but let's go ahead, Mayor, and
we have about--if you can keep your comments to about 5 minutes
each, I will do my best not to invoke my old assembly days.
Mayor Itta understands what that means, where I say time is
up, but, no, Mayor.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. ITTA, MAYOR,
NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH
Mr. Itta. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stabenow.
Welcome, and also to our fellow speakers up here, and also
everybody else that came up. We want to welcome you.
Again, I just really am thankful that you took the time,
considering all the changes we've had to make because of the
funeral and still be able to make it up here and I think that
shows the level of commitment and interest that you have in
hearing from the people and we're particularly thankful.
You are always welcome here and we appreciate your efforts
on behalf of our people and all Alaskans. I also want to give
you both our big Arctic warm welcome. We didn't provide snow
for you today just for that. OK?
You know, while we may be small towns, by any standard
Barrow is really off the beaten path, if you will, and so we
appreciate you taking the extra effort to make the journey all
the way up here and see what the people of America's Arctic
have to say and during your brief stay we hope you'll find that
our welcome is really warm and even if our weather isn't.
So I'm grateful for the chance to share with you a few
thoughts today about issues that concern us and fall under your
committee's jurisdiction. Climate change has attracted a lot of
interest in recent years and since the Arctic is the planet's
heat sink, this region here is kind of like ground zero when it
comes to the visible effects of a warming climate.
The Arctic Ocean's permanent ice pack, we know, is melting
away at an unprecedented rate. While this has become a
widespread concern only in recent years, it is something that
our people have observed for many decades.
When you live in a place like this for as long as we have,
lived along this coast, and when your survival depends upon
successfully hunting migratory animals across the tundra and
out among the ice flows, it is not surprising that Inupiat
possess vast environmental knowledge, a base, if you will.
We call it traditional knowledge. Scientists, who like to
reduce things to initials, call it TK. It is the accumulated
understanding about environmental conditions here that have
been passed on from generation to generation for thousands of
years. That's what enabled us to survive in one of the harshest
climates on Earth.
Some of our elders were aware of the current environmental
shift decades ago, as I stated, long before it became a
national concern. They didn't call it climate change but they
observed how the ice was further from the shore in the fall,
thinner in the spring than it had been in the past, the snow
cover didn't last as long on the tundra in the spring, and ice
cellars where we store our food were increasingly subject to
the melting of the permafrost. We lived this. We see this.
Erosion, eating away at the edges of our coastal villages,
the signs were there, but nobody imagined that this process
would accelerate to the extent that it has in recent years.
So there is a wealth of historical perspective among our
elders and our hunters and the science community is paying more
attention to traditional knowledge these days and we're
thankful for that.
Researchers acknowledge that TK can inform their work with
the longer view and a continuity that comes from the daily
encounter that our hunters and that our elders have had with
this environment.
I hope that the Federal Government will increase its
commitment to Arctic research, that researchers will take
advantage of the facilities offered by the Barrow Arctic
Science Consortium Facility, and that scientists and local
experts will develop closer ties as we try to understand how
climate change is affecting the animals' habitat and humans
over time.
The visible effects of climate change amount to a profound
set of impacts on our region. We anticipate another set of
impacts from offshore oil and gas exploration and development.
We would be a lot happier if this activity were happening
onshore in ANWR and we stand ready to speak up if the politics
ever began to look more promising, but offshore seems to have
the support of both government and industry and given that
reality, my goal is to make sure that any offshore activity is
conducted under the safest conditions with the best mitigations
and regulatory framework that recognizes the unique risks that
we face and that we must live with.
Our culture is anchored in the traditional hunt of the
bowhead whale along this coast and when something goes wrong
with an oil rig out there, we are the only people whose lives
may be drastically affected by the long-term impacts.
In closing, that is why I've been promoting a set of
offshore policy positions for more than 2 years now and I
salute our delegation for having sponsored legislation that
addresses a number of these positions.
Unfortunately, the tragedy in the Gulf has created
conditions that should make these policies all the more
marketable in Congress. But I'll be real interested to hear
about your feelings on that.
So with that, thank you for giving me the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Itta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward S. Itta, Mayor, North Slope Borough
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome you back to Alaska and
the North Slope. You are always welcome here, and we appreciate your
efforts on behalf of our people and all Alaskans. I also want to give a
warm Arctic welcome to Senator Stabenow. Even by Alaska standards,
Barrow is off the beaten path, so we appreciate your interest in making
the journey to hear what the residents of America's Arctic have to say.
And during your brief stay, we hope you'll find that our welcome really
is warm, even if our weather isn't.
I'm grateful for the chance to share a few brief thoughts with you
today about issues that concern us and fall under your committee's
jurisdiction. Climate change has attracted a lot of interest in recent
years, and since the Arctic is the planet's heat sink, this region is
kind of like Ground Zero when it comes to the visible effects of a
warming climate.
The Arctic Ocean's permanent ice pack is melting away at an
unprecedented rate. While this has become a widespread concern only in
recent years, it is something that our people have observed for many
decades. When you live in a place for as long as we have lived along
this coast, and when your survival depends on successfully hunting
migratory animals across the tundra and out among the ice floes, it is
not surprising that the Inupiat possess a vast environmental knowledge
base. We call it ``traditional knowledge.'' Scientists who like to
reduce things to initials call it ``TK.'' It is the accumulated
understanding about environmental conditions here that has been passed
on through the generations for thousands of years.
Some of our elders were aware of the current environmental shift
decades ago, long before it became a national concern. They didn't call
it climate change, but they observed how the ice was farther from shore
in the fall and thinner in the spring than it had been in the past. The
snow cover didn't last as long on the tundra in spring, and ice cellars
were increasingly subject to melting of the permafrost. Erosion was
eating away at the edges or our coastal villages. The signs were there,
but nobody imagined that this process would accelerate to the extent it
has in recent years.
So there is a wealth of historical perspective among our elders and
hunters, and the science community is paying more attention to
traditional knowledge these days. Researchers acknowledge that TK can
inform their work with a longer view and a continuity that comes from
the daily encounter that our hunters and elders have had with this
environment.
I hope that the Federal Government will increase its commitment to
Arctic research, that researchers will take advantage of the facilities
offered by the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, and that scientists
and local experts will develop closer ties as we all try to understand
how climate change is affecting the animals, habitat and humans over
time.
The visible effects of climate change amount to a profound set of
impacts on our region. We anticipate another set of impacts from
offshore oil and gas exploration and development. We would be a lot
happier if this activity were happening onshore in ANWR, and we stand
ready to speak up if the politics ever begin to look more promising.
But offshore seems to have the support of both government and industry.
Given that reality, my goal is to make sure that any offshore activity
is conducted under the safest conditions, with the best mitigations and
a regulatory framework that recognizes the unique risks we must live
with. Our culture is anchored in the traditional hunt of bowhead whales
along this coast, and when something goes wrong with an oil rig out
there, we are the only people whose lives may be drastically affected
by the long-term impacts.
This is why I have been promoting a set of offshore policy
positions for more than 2 years now. And I salute our delegation for
having sponsored legislation that addresses a number of these
positions. The tragedy in the Gulf has created conditions that should
make all of these policies more marketable in the Congress. But I'll be
interested to hear your feelings on that.
Quyanaqpak.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Mayor Itta. Admiral Colvin, I'll
turn to you and your testimony.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CHRISTOPHER COLVIN,
COMMANDER, COAST GUARD DISTRICT SEVENTEEN,
U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Colvin. Good morning, Senators. The Arctic is
perhaps the most exciting and significant geopolitical issue of
our generation. There are various potential geopolitical
futures for an evolving Arctic, but as of today we don't know
what the Arctic will look like by mid century. So today is our
opportunity to shape the future.
Today the United Sates does not have persistent presence in
the Arctic. That might preserve those options for future
generations. If the national intent is to only do science in
the Arctic, we're doing a reasonably good job of it, although
the Nation does need to conduct increased oil spill response
research in the Arctic, but if the national intent is to
preserve and enhance U.S. sovereignty in the Arctic, i.e.,
maintain awareness and oversight of activities in the U.S.
Arctic, there is vast room for improvement.
For example, the Nation needs operational icebreakers.
Currently, our two Polar Icebreakers are inoperative.
Maintenance and operating funds for the Polar Icebreakers need
to be returned to the Coast Guard.
Why do we care more about the Arctic today than a decade
ago? Simply stated, because there is water where there used to
be ice, lots of water, and more water means increased human
activity and increased human activity is what the Coast Guard
has been observing in the Arctic.
Last year, for the first time ever, large merchant ships
transited the northern route above Russia while at the same
time cruise ships transited the Northwest Passage above Canada.
Currently, a 70,000 metric ton cargo of gas condensate is
heading above Russia to Asia via the Bering Strait. It is
important to remember that there is only one way in and out of
the Arctic for over half the world and that's the Bering
Strait. The Bering Strait may become the Gibraltar of the
future.
Why does the Arctic matter to the United States? Because
the highest potential concentrations of oil and gas in the
Arctic coincidentally lie directly above Alaska, according to
the USGS's KERA Study. Other minerals, like the world's highest
concentrations of zinc, currently being mined at the Red Dog
Mine above the Arctic Circle, may be found in the Arctic.
The U.S. Coast Guard has been operating in the Arctic since
the whalers first were here in the 1800s. One of the greatest
Coast Guard rescues ever involved saving 265 sailors trapped in
the ice north of Point Barrow in 1898. I'm not sure if you were
there then.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Colvin. Still, the Coast Guard has much to learn
about operating in the Arctic and we learn it by working with
local experts, like the Northwest Borough's whaling captains,
and by conducting short operations, like Arctic Crossroads, to
prototype equipment and to learn about the local area.
We also take the opportunity to bring doctors and dentists
and veterinarians in to help the local people, much like the
famous Revenue Cutter Captain Mike Healey did in bringing
reindeer across from Siberia to help feed Native populations
back in the late 1800s.
Our lessons learned from operation of Arctic Crossroads are
varied and predictable. There is a lack of infrastructure to
support operations. HF Communications do not work well.
Satellite antennas often point too low on the horizon to be
effective. It is difficult to launch and operate small boats
from shore.
Every summer we are challenged to put together Arctic
Crossroads due to sparse resources and minimum funding and old
ships. This summer the Polar Sea broke down and was unable to
participate in our operations up here and much needed ships.
The buoy tender that was to have participated was also canceled
due to deep water horizon.
As Commandant said when he visited the Arctic last week,
the Coast Guard needs additional resources to operate in the
Arctic without negatively impacting other missions.
I fear in the not-too-distant future a large ship might
sink along the Northern Coast of Alaska. The Coast Guard will
be hard-pressed to rescue survivors and will be hard-pressed to
oversee the cleanup of any associated oil spill. The nearest
Coast Guard Search and Rescue resources are about a thousand
miles away and across two mountain ranges in Kodiak, Alaska.
In conclusion, Congress has the same responsibilities and
authorities in the Arctic Ocean as in any other ocean or the
Great Lakes. The challenge is finding the resources to properly
execute those responsibilities.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Colvin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Christopher Colvin, Commander,
Coast Guard District Seventeen, U.S. Coast Guard
Good morning, Chairman. I am pleased to be here today to discuss
the Coast Guard's operational presence in a changing Arctic and the
need for Federal infrastructure in the region.
Icebreaking Capacity in the Arctic
Just over a year ago, Admiral Allen testified before Congress on
Coast Guard icebreaking. He stressed the importance of maintaining our
Nation's ability to project maritime presence and strength throughout
the world, and specifically in the Arctic region. Arctic policy has
been 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 addition, President Obama recently
signed Executive Order 13547, which approved and directed Federal
departments and agencies to implement the Final Recommendations of the
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. One of the national priority
objectives the Task Force highlighted was to address the changing
conditions in the Arctic through better stewardship. In executing these
directives, 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 working closely 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, of which only the Healy, a medium
icebreaker, is currently operational and is capable of fulfilling most
of the current icebreaking needs in the Arctic and is specifically
adapted for scientific research. The Healy 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
currently laid up due to a major engineering casualty. Our other heavy
icebreaker, Polar Star, will be fully ready for operations in 2013
after completing a major reactivation project, funded by the 2009 and
2010 appropriations. These three ships represent our Nation's current
polar icebreaking capacity.
Arctic Trends
The Arctic environment is fragile and often harsh , and the
distances involved in Arctic operations can be immense. 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 to lease a part of
the 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.
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 observed in
the Arctic waters north of the Bering Strait. As a result,
fishing vessels have been observed moving further north, which
could lead to increased foreign incursions into the U.S. EEZ.
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. The Healy has been working over the past
few summers with a Canadian icebreaker, the Louis St. Laurent,
to collect scientific data necessary to assert claims to an
extended continental shelf in the Arctic.
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, and reflected in the new national ocean
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.
Several of the Coast Guard's statutory missions have a significant
role in supporting the objectives established in NSPD-66/HSPD-25 and
the National Ocean Policy.
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-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
Today, one thing is certain 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 and the National Ocean Policy. In order to better perform
our anticipated role, we have developed an Arctic Strategic Plan to
ensure the Coast Guard is both prepared and able to engage and conduct
statutory operations in the Arctic. From my perspective as the
Commander of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District, 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 summers of 2008 and 2009, 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 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, commercial, and
governmental activities in the Arctic.
Protecting the Maritime Environment
To help protect the environment of the Arctic Region, we must
continue to partner with companies operating in the region to support
pollution response. Recognizing that oil spill clean-up is
significantly more difficult in colder temperatures and ice-covered
waters, enhancing prevention measures is even more critical as a means
to reduce risk and mitigate against potential environmental damage.
Moreover, the combination of a harsh environment and limited response
resources and capabilities necessitates that awareness, contingency
planning, and 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 of ships and the SORS is permanently stored and deployed from
the Coast Guard's 225-foot ocean-going buoy tenders.
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 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 U.S. has not yet become a
party. 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. In addition, District Seventeen has
excellent communications and working relationships with
Russian agencies responsible for law enforcement, search
and rescue, maritime pollution response, and other missions
in the Arctic. Consistent with such efforts, the Coast
Guard 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 Decisions
that Affect Them
Some of the biggest successes and lessons for the way forward
that the Coast Guard has gained in recent years have come
from our continued engagement with Alaska Native Tribes.
Their extensive knowledge, assistance, and collaboration
have been invaluable to our safe operations and successful
mission execution. The Coast Guard has also provided
valuable assistance, including boating safety exchanges and
medical, dental, and veterinary 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 to the
greatest extent possible, 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 this summer and early fall. 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 eight 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. In addition, the Coast Guard will work
with its interagency partners to address stewardship requirements in
the Arctic consistent with the new National Ocean Policy. Future
mission requirements for this vast, remote, and exceptionally harsh
environment have been studied and are currently being reviewed. The
full multi-agency missions and asset gaps for the future have yet to be
determined.
In order to better understand our future roles and requirements in
both the Arctic and Antarctic, the Coast Guard contracted a consultant
to review current mission requirements and assess how changing Arctic
conditions might affect those requirements. The contractor has
completed their report and the Coast Guard is reviewing the study.
Information from this study, combined with lessons learned over the
past two summers, will help the Coast Guard's ongoing efforts to
determine the right mix of assets for the Arctic. The Coast Guard will
leverage the ongoing work of other agencies that are also confronting
mission impacts due to changing Arctic conditions, such as the Navy and
NOAA. Working together under the auspices NSPD-66/HSPD-25 we will
define and install the necessary infrastructure in the region. The
Coast Guard is also partnering with DHS in an upcoming Workshop at
University of Alaska Fairbanks to identify and prioritize research
opportunities to support Coast Guard operations in the Arctic. The
Workshop will emphasize infrastructure, communications, and sensors.
We will continue to update our Waterways Analysis & Management
System (WAMS) to determine the changing needs and uses of the Arctic
Federal navigational system. We are also moving forward with a Bering
Strait Port Access Routing Study which is a preliminary document to
establish Traffic Management Systems required by the International
Maritime Organization for recognition of the international community.
It is currently premature to plan shore-based facilities without a
clear understanding of what infrastructure will be required (e.g.,
deepwater support harbors, small boat stations, permanent air stations,
etc). The Coast Guard will continue to monitor the direction industry
takes, be it tourism, outer continental shelf (OCS) development,
fishing or Alaska Native needs.
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
1970s, and are fast approaching their extended service lives of just
over 30 years. The Polar Sea had a significant two-year refit in 2006,
extending its projected service life to 2014.
Currently, we are engaged in a multi-year, $62 million project to
reactivate Polar Star. The cutter is planned to be completed and ready
to return to operations in 2013. This project will extend Polar Star's
planned operational service life by 7 to 10 years.
Conclusion
The Arctic is a vast and challenging environment going through
significant changes. The unique nature of the region, magnitude of open
water, harsh weather and great distances involved, and new users are
leading to increased challenges to national sovereignty. As a Nation,
we now have an Arctic Region Policy and a National Ocean Policy and the
Coast Guard has a significant role in implementing those policy
directives. We are pushing forward to meet our responsibilities using
the resources available 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. Other Coast Guard resources are also expanding their
knowledge, experience, and competence to carry out mission
responsibilities in this vast and vitally important region.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
your questions.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Admiral. Let me go to next Laura
Furgione. I'll get it down. Let me go and have you do your
testimony next, please.
STATEMENT OF LAURA K. FURGIONE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEATHER SERVICES, NOAA,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Ms. Furgione. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Begich,
Senator Stabenow, Mayor Itta, and distinguished guests.
My name is Laura Furgione, and I'm the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Weather Services at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.
I've called the State of Alaska home for 15 years. During
this time I worked for NOAA's National Weather Service in
Kodiak, Juneau, Fairbanks, and from 2004 to 2008, in Anchorage
at the National Weather Service, as Alaska Regional Director.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you this
morning. Before I begin my official testimony, I do want to
devote a portion of my time to Senator Stevens, a tribute to
his lifelong dedication. He was such a strong advocate for
NOAA, the National Weather Service, the State of Alaska, and
the Arctic.
On May 2007, I was able to present him with the Director's
Award, celebrating his contributions to the expansion of the
Alaska Data Buoy Network from 5 buoys to 19 buoys.
When I started with the Weather Service, we actually only
had two buoys, one in the Central Bering and one in the Gulf of
Alaska. More buoys are weather sentinels of the sea. In
addition to providing data for operational marine forecast
warnings and atmospheric models, buoy data are used for a wide
variety of scientific research programs. This is merely one
example of how Senator Stevens assisted in expanding our
understanding of the Arctic and its surrounding waters.
My deepest sympathy to his family. May he rest in peace.
Is it on now? Is that better?
Senator Begich. Try it one more time.
Ms. Furgione. Now? Oh, wow. OK. See, I didn't really need a
microphone.
Senator Begich. You were doing pretty good without it.
Ms. Furgione. Now back to my formal testimony. This hearing
puts a well-deserved spotlight on emerging Arctic issues.
On behalf of NOAA, I'd like to thank the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation for its continued
attention to the issues associated with the changing Arctic and
the myriad of impacts to our Native culture, subsistence in the
Arctic, and the ecosystems on which we depend.
I also recognize Senator Begich and Senator Stabenow for
their leadership and support on Arctic issues, including the
numerous important pieces of Arctic-related legislation that
you mentioned.
The Obama Administration is looking closely at Arctic
policy and management. This is evidenced by the identification
of the Arctic as one of the ``special emphasis'' in the final
recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force that
was adopted by the President July 19, 2010.
The Ocean Policy Task Force final recommendations calls for
better ways to conserve, protect, sustainably manage Arctic
coastal ocean resources, new collaborations and partnerships to
better monitor and assess environmental conditions, and
improvement of the scientific understanding of the Arctic
system and how it's changing in response to climate-induced and
other changes.
As you know, there's now widespread evidence of climate
change in the Arctic region, most dramatically observed in loss
of sea ice. For in the last 5 years, we have witnessed the
lowest sea ice extents on record as well as a 35 percent
decrease in thicker multiyear ice. Recent Arctic temperature
increases are more than doubled in those found at more
southerly latitudes, suggesting the Arctic may be
disproportionately affected by changes in the Earth's climate.
The Arctic's 2008 Annual Mean Air Temperature over land was
the fourth warmest on record, which continues a long-term
upward trend. In addition, we're detecting shifts in ecosystems
from the Aleutian Islands to here in Barrow. I even understand
they saw an Opelio crab here in the Beaufort Sea.
These changes are already being felt in communities around
the Arctic and especially here in the State of Alaska. As my
boss, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator and Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, has said,
``Most of what we've seen in the Arctic Ocean has led us to
believe that warming is happening even faster than many of our
models are predicting. The melting of the ice in the Arctic
Ocean is happening at a faster pace than we had predicted and
that's creating new opportunities, opportunities that need to
be pursued in ways that are precautionary and take into account
the need to ensure those systems remain healthy and resilient
through the coming changes.''
As the United States confronts these Arctic challenges and
opportunities, it is evident that despite the wealth of
traditional scientific knowledge, exploration, and research to
date, basic data is still lacking in the Arctic.
In order to effectively manage the various Arctic
interests, accurate information about environmental conditions
in the Arctic is needed. Doug DeMaster, the Director of NOAA's
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and I led a team of NOAA
experts to develop NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy.
As the uses of the Arctic evolve, we believe it is
important that decisions related to conservation, management,
and use are based on sound science and support healthy,
productive, and resilient communities and ecosystems.
In addition, because of the global impacts of changes in
the Arctic environment, we seek to better understand and
predict those changes. Our Arctic Strategy integrates and
aligns our numerous and diverse capabilities and supports the
efforts of our international, Federal, state, local, tribal
partners and stakeholders.
NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy has six priority goals.
The first, which is our organizing principle, is forecast
changes in sea ice. The second: strengthen our foundational
science to understand and detect Arctic climate and ecosystem
changes. The third: improve our weather and forecast warnings,
weather and water forecast and warnings. My hydrologist would
be mad at me to mess that up. Enhance international and
national partnerships, improve stewardship and management of
ocean and coastal resources in the Arctic, and advance
resilient healthy Arctic communities and economies.
These goals were selected because they represent areas
where NOAA has the expertise to address emerging Arctic issues
and it also meets two criteria: one, providing the information,
knowledge, and policies to meet our mandates and stewardship
responsibilities, and, also, providing the information,
knowledge, and services to enable others to live and operate
safely in the Arctic.
The choices we make today can have pivotal impacts on the
future state of the Arctic. There is a great deal of work to be
done and NOAA, in collaboration with our partners, is committed
to strengthening Arctic science and stewardship and providing
the information, products and services needed by our Arctic
stakeholders.
We're in the process of finalizing our Arctic Vision and
Strategy and our next step is to engage our partners and
stakeholders again and transform that strategy into actions
that will support healthy, productive, and resilient Arctic
communities and ecosystems.
Thank you again, Senators Begich and Stabenow, for the
opportunity to talk about NOAA's role in the Arctic. We
appreciate your leadership and the time and attention the
Committee is devoting to this important issue and look forward
to working with you further.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Furgione follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura K. Furgione, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Weather Services, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
Good morning, Senator Begich, Senator Stabenow, and distinguished
guests. My name is Laura K. Furgione, and I am the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Weather Services at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I called the State of Alaska,
America's Arctic, home for 15 years. During this time, I worked for
NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS), in Kodiak, Fairbanks, Juneau,
and most recently, from 2004 to 2008, as the Alaska Regional Director
in Anchorage. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on
NOAA's activities in the Arctic.
This hearing puts a well-deserved spotlight on emerging Arctic
issues. On behalf of NOAA, I would like to thank the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation for its continued attention to
the issues associated with a changing Arctic and the myriad impacts to
its people and the ecosystems on which they depend. I would also like
recognize Senator Begich and Senator Stabenow for their leadership and
support on Arctic issues, including the numerous important pieces of
Arctic-related legislation that Senator Begich has worked to advance
this Congress. The Administration is looking closely at Arctic policy
and management, as evidenced by the work underway to implement the
January 2009 National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25) on an Arctic
Region Policy, and the identification of the Arctic as an area of
special emphasis in the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force, adopted by the President by Executive Order on July
19, 2010. The Ocean Policy Task Force's Final Recommendations call for
``better ways to conserve, protect, and sustainably manage Arctic
coastal and ocean resources . . . new collaborations and partnerships
to better monitor and assess environmental conditions . . . [and]
improvement of the scientific understanding of the Arctic system and
how it is changing in response to climate-induced and other changes.''
As you know, there is now widespread evidence of climate change in
the Arctic region, most dramatically observed in loss of sea ice. In 4
of the last 5 years, we have witnessed the lowest sea ice extents on
record, as well as a 35 percent decrease in thicker multi-year sea ice
during the same time period. Recent Arctic temperature increases are
more than double those found at more southerly latitudes, suggesting
that the Arctic may be disproportionately affected by changes in the
Earth's climate. The Arctic's 2008 annual mean air temperature over
land was the fourth warmest on record, which continues a long-term
upward trend. And while the annual mean temperature over land for 2009
was cooler than in recent years, the average temperature for the last
decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900. In
addition, we are detecting shifts in ocean ecosystems from the Aleutian
Islands to Barrow, Alaska, due to a combination of Arctic warming,
large natural variability, and sensitivity to changing sea ice
conditions.
These changes are already being felt in communities around the
Arctic and especially here in the State of Alaska where, for example,
coastal communities like Newtok are experiencing rapidly eroding
shorelines forcing costly and life-changing retreat inland. In the same
way, increasing coastal storms in the autumn in recent years are
impacting barge operations that supply coastal communities with
necessary supplies. In other parts of the State, thawing permafrost and
unprecedented outbreaks of insects like the spruce beetle are
profoundly changing the landscape and presenting new risks to
infrastructure. The availability of species that Alaskans depend on for
subsistence and economic livelihoods is also changing, whether in the
northward movement of marine fish species, the range of migratory
herds, or displacement of walrus and seal populations. These impacts
and a myriad of others present Alaskans and, by extension the Nation,
with a broad range of overwhelming challenges.
As Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator and Under Secretary
of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, has said:
``Most of what we have seen in the Arctic Ocean has led us to
believe that warming is happening even faster than many of the
models are predicting. The melting of the ice in the Arctic
Ocean is happening at a faster pace than we had predicted. And
that is creating new opportunities in the Arctic Ocean . . .
[opportunities that] need to be pursued in ways that are
precautionary and take into the account the need to ensure that
those systems remain healthy and resilient through the coming
changes.''
As access to the region opens up because of sea ice retreat, we are
seeing a corresponding growth in international and domestic attention
to the Arctic--manifested in public interest in countries' extended
continental shelf claims under customary international law as reflected
in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea--as well as
maritime domain awareness concerns and opportunities for economic
development and access to Arctic resources. Oil companies are investing
more in energy exploration and recovery, and commercial shipping
interests are anticipating one or more seasonally open trans-Arctic
trade routes. The potential for increased cruise ship tourism,
commercial fishing and establishment or expansion of other economic
activities may exert pressure on the existing marine transportation
system infrastructure and our security assets. These pressures are
likely to make it more challenging to respond promptly to changing
conditions in the region. These economic drivers can also threaten
marine and coastal ecosystems as well as Arctic inhabitants already
affected by the rapidly changing climate. Furthermore, the Arctic has
profound significance for climate and functioning of ecosystems around
the globe, so changes in the region affect us all. Climate changes
already apparent in the Arctic may portend future global climatic
conditions.
As the United States begins to confront these Arctic challenges, it
is evident that despite the wealth of traditional scientific knowledge,
exploration, and research to date in some areas, basic data is lacking
in the Arctic. In order to effectively manage the various Arctic
interests, accurate information about environmental conditions in the
Arctic is needed.
A strategic approach is essential to best leverage the strengths of
NOAA and the many agencies that have missions that relate to or impact
Arctic resources. As the uses of the Arctic environment evolve, NOAA
believes it is important that decisions and actions related to
conservation, management, and use are based on sound science and
support healthy, productive, and resilient communities and ecosystems.
In addition, because of the global impacts of changes in the Arctic
environment, we seek to better understand and predict changes there.
NOAA has developed a comprehensive Arctic strategy that integrates and
aligns our numerous and diverse capabilities and supports the efforts
of our international, Federal, state and local partners and
stakeholders. NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy (available at http://
www.arctic.noaa.gov/docs/arctic_strat_2010.pdf) has six priority goals,
derived directly from stakeholder requirements, upon which NOAA will
focus its efforts:
1. Forecast Changes in Sea Ice;
2. Strengthen Foundational Science to Understand and Detect
Arctic Climate and Ecosystem Changes;
3. Improve Weather and Water Forecasts and Warnings;
4. Enhance International and National Partnerships;
5. Improve Stewardship and Management of Ocean and Coastal
Resources in the Arctic; and,
6. Advance Resilient and Healthy Arctic Communities and
Economies.
These goals were selected because they represent areas where NOAA
has the expertise to address emergent Arctic issues that meet two key
criteria: providing the information, knowledge, and policies to meet
NOAA mandates and stewardship responsibilities; and providing the
information, knowledge, and services to enable others to live and
operate safely in the Arctic.
Forecasting Changes in Sea Ice
Continued rapid loss of sea ice will be a major driver of large
changes across the Arctic, and is the organizing principle for NOAA's
Arctic Vision and Strategy. The loss of sea ice affects marine access,
regional weather, ecosystem changes, and coastal communities. As ice
cover diminishes, marine food webs are expected to dramatically shift
from seafloor-dominant systems that favor commercial species such as
crabs to water column-dominant systems that favor commercial fish
species such as Pollock. The understanding of ice as a habitat also has
implications for oil spill response and damage assessment. As the
Arctic Ocean becomes seasonally passable and tourism, oil and gas
exploration, and shipping increase, floating sea ice will present a
major threat to maritime safety and increase the potential for oil
spills from vessel traffic in the region.
NOAA is currently conducting operational sea ice analysis and
forecasts, evaluating sea ice projections through Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change climate models, conducting and analyzing
satellite and airborne observations of sea ice freeboard or thickness,
improving satellite image analyses, and contributing to the Arctic buoy
program. NOAA's NWS has a sea ice desk at the Anchorage Weather
Forecast Office which provides operational sea ice forecasting in
Alaska. In cooperation with the National Ice Center in Suitland,
Maryland, it provides operational analyses and forecasts of sea ice
conditions and hazards in the Arctic 5 days a week. NOAA also supports
the National Snow and Ice Data Center, within the Cooperative Institute
for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado,
where a vast array of Arctic data are stewarded and made available to
both academic and public users.
However, improvements in the sea ice services that NOAA provides,
particularly model resolution and forecast frequency, and the
integration of different types of observations (including sea ice
characteristics and local knowledge) into the forecasts would enhance
our understanding of the Arctic environment. For operational planning
purposes, it is important that sea ice atlases for Alaskan waters are
up-to-date. To support infrastructure planning and development,
industry, state and local governments, and Federal agencies would
benefit from seasonal to multi-decadal sea ice projections to make
informed decisions. Research and modeling of Arctic processes and
anthropogenic effects are required to achieve these projections,
understand the impacts of sea ice loss, and improve weather and climate
forecasts for the Arctic and northern mid-latitude regions. NOAA's goal
is to provide accurate, quantitative, daily-to-decadal sea ice
projections in support of safe operations and ecosystem stewardship
during this time of rapid environmental change.
Strengthening Foundational Science to Understand and Detect Arctic
Climate and Ecosystem Changes
There is also great uncertainty in tracking the types and
magnitudes of social and ecological impacts caused by Arctic climate
changes and economic development. For example, the response of marine
primary production from additional loss of sea ice and the impacts on
higher levels within the food chain are largely unknown. Other examples
of changes in the Arctic are the thawing of permafrost, increased
coastal erosion, sea level changes, shifts in land and marine
transportation patterns, and changes in land-based human subsistence
resources. To adequately track these changes, sustained observations
are essential. Monitoring and understanding climate change in the
Arctic is important for other socioeconomic applications as well,
including infrastructure protection related to sea level changes,
transportation, and community resilience.
NOAA has a variety of ongoing and/or recent Arctic-focused climate
and ecosystem projects. NOAA operates a manned Atmospheric Baseline
Observatory six miles east of Barrow, Alaska, to measure changes in
atmospheric climate forcing agents. These include carbon dioxide
(CO2) and methane (CH4), compounds that deplete
stratospheric ozone, and related gases. They also include air pollution
from Eurasia known as Arctic Haze, black carbon measurements, and
surface radiation, to name only a few of the more than 200 measurements
conducted at this facility. The observatory was established in 1973 and
it has operated continuously to date. It is the world's longest
continuously operating atmospheric climate observatory in the Arctic.
It is expected to be in operation for the next century, monitoring and
documenting the causes of climate change in the Arctic.
Two NOAA polar orbiting satellite downlink antennae that relay
images of Arctic sea ice and clouds are supported at this site in
Barrow, as well as the northern most NOAA Climate Reference Network
station that accurately documents temperature and moisture changes in
the region. The NOAA Barrow Observatory also hosts the Department of
Energy's North Slope of Alaska Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
facility, and supports the adjacent United States Geological Survey
Barrow Geomagnetic Observatory. Together, these facilities are the
largest collection of environmental scientific instrumentation in the
entire Arctic and represent an investment in excess of $100 million.
To reduce uncertainties in NOAA information and services, NOAA is
establishing the basis for an ecosystem-level Arctic Change Detection
System within current resources. The goal is to monitor at minimum four
key areas: ecosystem responses to sea ice loss, necessary additional
climate observations over the Arctic, basic water level information,
and accelerated methane release. Such a system includes a marine
Distributed Biological Observatory for consistent monitoring of
biophysical responses and ecosystem change in the U.S. Arctic as sea
ice retreats. The Distributed Biological Observatory was the central
recommendation from a NOAA-sponsored stakeholder workshop in May 2009
on the biological impacts of loss of sea ice. Efforts such as the
Russian-American Long-term Census of the Arctic can also improve the
exchange of information about near and far field changes in the Arctic.
In addition--as evidenced by the science community's surprise at the
rate and magnitude of loss of summer Arctic sea ice from 2007 through
2009--new in situ, drifting, airborne, and satellite observing
technologies are needed to fill gaps in meteorological and
oceanographic fields for temperature, heat, methane feedbacks and other
biophysical parameters. Accurate geodetic elevations and water-level
information to update obsolete historical datasets will help coastal
communities adapt and increase resilience to hazards as ice-diminished
coastlines allow a completely new wave and storm surge regime to
develop as the seasons change.
Improve Weather and Water Forecasts and Warnings
Major stakeholders and partners, including the U.S. Coast Guard and
the State of Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, require more useful weather and water information for
planning and decisionmaking to protect lives, property, and manage the
region's many resources. Arctic populations rely heavily on aviation
and marine weather for safe transportation and access to goods and
services.
A 2006 study by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health reported that the accident rate for commercial pilots in Alaska
was five times higher than the national average. Additionally, Alaska's
$4 billion fishing industry is one of the most dangerous occupations in
the Nation, primarily due to the harsh weather conditions in the
region.
Improvements in weather and water information will lead to
increased safety and efficiency in these important sectors.
Environmental observations and studies supporting weather and ice
forecasts are highly limited in both geographic scope and frequency.
For example, there is inadequate real-time meteorological data in U.S.
Arctic waters to support accurate forecasting of ocean storms which
have serious potential to threaten marine transportation, offshore oil
and gas operations, and the Arctic coastal communities. The 2009
failure of NASA's QuikSCAT satellite scatterometer and the 2008
expiration of an agreement between NOAA, NASA and the Canadian Space
Agency for valuable, cost-free synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data from
the RADARSAT1 mission continue to hinder Arctic weather and sea ice
services capability. NOAA is attempting to mitigate these impacts by
procuring data from foreign satellite operators through a partnership
with the University of Alaska's Alaska Satellite Center. This
information is critical in real-time forecasting and warning of events
such as rapid sea ice formation, river ice jams, and storms carrying
hurricane force winds that are major hazards for life, property and
economic activities in the Arctic.
NOAA has also operated the Fairbanks Command and Data Acquisition
station in Fairbanks, Alaska since 1965 which manages the
aforementioned Barrow satellite downlink antennae. From that station,
NOAA accesses data from its Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellites (POES), various NASA research satellites, and a number
foreign environmental satellites which provide space-based data that
are used by NOAA to develop its forecasts, warnings, and information
for surface, marine, and aviation weather interests, with emphasis,
when possible, on high-impact events such as extra tropical storms and
polar lows, storm surge and other coastal hazards such as tsunamis,
heavy precipitation, floods, droughts, volcanic ash, and space weather.
Services are delivered through a number of media outlets from Internet
to high frequency radio broadcasts. NOAA is working to improve Arctic
marine weather, sea ice, and storm surge forecast services by
addressing greater needs for observations, modeling, and forecasts
while incorporating new techniques for ensuring this information leads
to the best possible decisions and associated response. Improved
forecast services will better ensure the safety and security of marine
transportation, oil and gas exploration, and tourism activities, and
protect northern and western Alaska coastal communities from storm
surge, inundation, and erosion hazards. Arctic weather also plays an
important role in global weather; understanding this role is essential
to improving global forecasts. NOAA understands that regular forecasts
and support for the Arctic region will contribute to the protection of
life and property and the enhancement of the economy, and will help to
fulfill NOAA's obligations in cooperative agreements with international
partners, and treaties such as the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea. For example, from the Fairbanks station, NOAA
receives alerts from locator beacons that have been activated by
persons in distress in the Alaska wilderness, or from mariners or
aviators in distress. The signals from these beacons are transmitted
via NOAA satellites which provide support under the auspices of the
international Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking (SARSAT)
program.
Enhance International and National Partnerships
No single region better exemplifies the complex interdependence of
communities and changing ecosystem conditions than the Arctic. The
breadth and complexity of the cultural, societal, economic, and
environmental impacts requires a concerted, systematic and rapid effort
with partners from international to local levels.
NOAA currently cooperates with other Arctic nations directly, as
well as through international institutions and organizations, to
support work in areas such as weather, climate, aviation, and marine
observations, forecasts, and services; ecosystem management; marine
transportation (e.g., hydrography and nautical charting); fisheries;
and ice monitoring. These relationships allow us to cooperate on sea
ice forecasts, as well as efforts to understand and predict changes in
the Earth's environment by observing the Arctic atmosphere and
cryosphere from manned observatories in places such as Summit,
Greenland and Tiksi, Russia. NOAA is also an active participant in
numerous international organizations such as the World Meteorological
Organization, the International Maritime Organization, the
International Hydrographic Organization, and the Arctic Council. NOAA
serves in leadership roles in two Arctic Council working groups
(Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment and Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Program), while providing expertise to others. Current
Arctic Council work includes assessing the effects of pollutants in the
Arctic, reviewing the comprehensiveness and efficacy of existing
governance mechanisms for the Arctic marine environment, and
understanding the status of biodiversity in Arctic ecosystems.
Modeling climate change at the regional and global levels is an
enormous task, best accomplished by sharing data at multiple levels--
with universities and researchers, with Federal and State agencies,
with other Arctic countries, and with non-Arctic countries possessing
satellite and observation capabilities in the Arctic. NOAA is working
to continue and expand these relationships through partnerships and
formal bilateral arrangements, recently highlighted by the signing of
the comprehensive climate change agreement between the Department of
Commerce and Department of the Interior (DOI). Understanding and
predicting how ice cover and consistency will change in the Arctic will
necessitate cooperation. NOAA seeks to increase both its interagency
and international partnerships to improve the accuracy, timeliness, and
coverage of its sea ice forecasts--ensuring seamless transitions across
jurisdictional boundaries and enhancing safe navigation.
These changes in climate and sea ice are also driving changes in
marine ecosystems (including species abundance and composition) in ways
not yet fully understood. Due to the interconnected nature of Arctic
ecosystems, the U.S. will need to continue to improve collaboration and
engagement with other Arctic nations through international mechanisms,
such as the Arctic Council and our bilateral relationships, to better
understand, observe, research, and manage Arctic resources. NOAA will
provide leadership and resources to support Arctic governance and
science organizations. Specifically, NOAA will continue to support the
Arctic Council and its working groups, which monitor and assess
biodiversity, climate, and the health of humans and ecosystems, and
contribute to international approaches to ecosystem and protected area
management, as well as management of shipping.
Continued coordination across Federal entities, such as that
provided by the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, will be
essential to implement overarching U.S. Arctic Policy goals,
particularly those identified by the U.S. Arctic Policy (NSPD 66/HSPD
25) and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's Final
Recommendations. NOAA continues to develop and advance partnerships
with our colleagues from the National Science Foundation (NSF), DOI,
and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, along with a multitude of
other Federal agencies that are focused on Arctic issues. A good
example is NOAA's regular collaboration with the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE, formerly the Minerals
Management Service) on a variety of biological assessments. BOEMRE is
currently funding roughly $29M in NOAA fisheries and marine mammal
studies, along with other cooperative environmental impact,
meteorological and oceanographic Arctic study projects in the Chukchi
and Beaufort Seas.
In the State of Alaska, NOAA partners with public and private
sectors at the Federal, state, and local scales. The agency is a member
of the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet's Advisory and Technical
Working Groups, and also plays an active role in the Alaska Climate
Change Executive Roundtable to facilitate cooperation among agencies
seeking solutions to Alaska's climate change challenges. Through the
roundtable, NOAA has acquired sites for observing stations; benefited
from sister agency capabilities to implement Administration events such
as the public meetings in Anchorage associated with the Ocean Policy
Task Force; and worked on defining clear synergistic roles for new
tools and services such as the proposed NOAA Climate Service and DOI's
Climate Science Center and their Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
NOAA and BOEMRE also partner closely to engage Alaska Natives regarding
oil and gas impacts to subsistence activities through the annual ``Open
Waters'' meeting. NOAA has had long standing co-management agreements
with several Alaska Native Organizations regarding research and
management of marine mammals in Alaska (excluding walrus, polar bears
and sea otters which are managed by DOI). NOAA believes co-management
should serve as the foundation for the management of subsistence takes
of marine mammals in Alaska. In addition, NOAA participates in a
Cooperative Agreement with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC)
for the management of its subsistence hunt and fully cooperates with
the AEWC on related domestic issues and through U.S. engagement at the
International Whaling Commission. NOAA is also on the oversight
committee of the North Slope Science Initiative and is contributing to
the development (and eventual implementation) of the Arctic and the DOI
Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Finally, NOAA has a
close working relationship with faculty and staff at the University of
Alaska, through partnerships such as the Alaska Regional Integrated
Science and Assessments group and Alaska Sea Grant which conduct
research on the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on
commercial and subsistence fisheries in the Bering and Chukchi Seas.
Continuing to build and sustain strong partnerships with the State of
Alaska and other local, regional and international stakeholders will be
critical to achieving success in the Arctic.
Improve Stewardship and Management of Ocean and Coastal Resources in
the Arctic
As the Arctic Ocean becomes more accessible with the retreat of sea
ice in summer months, cascading consequences must be anticipated.
Biophysical and chemical changes in the ocean, combined with increasing
human uses will impact the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas.
Currently, commercial harvest of groundfish, shellfish, salmon and
other resources, primarily in the Bering Sea, constitute almost 50
percent of marine fish landings in the United States. Further, these
same resources, plus various species of marine mammals, seabirds, and
other marine life are critical to the maintenance of the subsistence
lifestyle of over 40,000 indigenous people who inhabit small towns and
villages on Alaska's Arctic coastline.
NOAA currently conducts population assessments and ecological
process studies to meet its living marine resource management mandates.
An important research gap is that existing ecosystem models are unable
to provide reliable information on how loss of sea ice, increased ocean
acidity, and increasing ocean temperatures will specifically impact key
fish and mammal species. NOAA is leveraging existing resources to
expand limited aspects of its current Arctic ecosystem research program
and the regional Alaska Ocean Observing System, as well as implement
better data collection, analyses, and models to provide reliable
predictions of the changes coming to marine ecosystems in the U.S.
Arctic. It is critical to both the U.S. economy and the coastal
inhabitants of the U.S. Arctic that NOAA, in cooperation with Federal,
state, and local partners and stakeholders, improve its capabilities to
understand and predict the full spectrum of changes associated with
climate change in the Arctic, with the intended outcome of improving
the stewardship and management of Arctic marine resources.
Additional surveys are needed to assess the impact of climate
change, loss of sea ice, and ocean acidification on living marine
resources in the northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. One key
management question is how productivity and species composition will
change with the loss of sea ice, increased acidity, and sea surface
temperature warming. Very few surveys have been conducted to date to
assess the status of living marine resources in the northern Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas because of limited access to survey vessels
and aircraft during the ice free summer months. NOAA is exploring ways
to increase its Arctic survey capability. For example, it is
considering supplementing the NOAA fleet that performs survey work with
contracting vessels.
NOAA is working to expand two existing programs, while continuing
on-going assessment programs on marine mammals, fish, and shellfish:
(1) the Bering Aleutian Salmon International Survey and the Russian-
American Long-term Census of the Arctic, which are cooperative
international research programs in the northern Bering and Chukchi
Seas; and (2) NOAA's ocean acidification program. The former will
provide critical information on the biodiversity of this region and a
baseline for assessing how biodiversity will respond to climate change
and loss of sea ice. The latter activity will result in greater
attention given to the impact of more corrosive waters on the ecology
and life history of key Arctic species such as king crab. It is NOAA's
intent to continue annual trawl surveys for groundfish and crab in the
Bering Sea and biennial acoustic surveys. These surveys form the base
for sound management of groundfish and crab resources in the Bering
Sea.
Advancing Resilient and Healthy Arctic Communities and Economies
The Arctic's condition can be gauged by the health of the people
living and working in this unique environment, and by the impact of
increased economic activity on the region. Indigenous people have long
depended upon the unique characteristics of the Arctic for food,
livelihoods, cultural heritage, and protection. However, climate change
in the Arctic is altering the foundations of their communities and
challenging indigenous ways of life. As the ice barriers that protect
Arctic coastal communities diminish, the State of Alaska and its people
must make critical decisions based on threats from stronger storms,
increasing erosion, thawing permafrost, changing animal migration
patterns, and sea level changes. At the same time, the loss of sea ice
creates opportunities for commercial enterprises, creating tension
between traditional uses and new opportunities. Oil companies are
investing in exploration, private interests are anticipating an open
Arctic trade route, and pressure is increasing on our defense and
security assets to maintain a presence in the region in a ``response-
ready state'' because of the increased risks.
In light of these growing commercial, security and coastal
community pressures, sustainable management of the region, which until
now has been relatively inaccessible, will require Federal, state, and
local governments to work together to advance improvements in:
geospatial infrastructure for accurate positioning and
elevations;
tide, current and water level observations and prediction
coverage;
shoreline and hydrographic data;
nautical charts;
research on how oil behaves in ice;
spill response capability and understanding of current
environmental conditions for damage assessment and restoration;
weather and ice forecast coverage; and,
science-based recommendations for coastal community climate
change adaptation strategies.
NOAA has a variety of mandates relating to resilient communities
and economies, from hydrographic surveys and nautical charting to
coastal zone management and oil spill response. It recognizes that it
can make the highest positive impact to Arctic communities and
sustainable economic growth by providing an accurate geospatial
framework and products and services for safe navigation and security,
oil spill response readiness, and climate change. Putting good
information into the hands of mariners is essential for safe navigation
and environmental protection, and coastal communities and scientists
must have the same foundational support for good operational and
research decisions.
NOAA is working with partners like the U.S. Coast Guard and local
vessel pilots to prioritize surveys of likely shipping lanes in the
North Bering and Chukchi Seas to help address the Bering Strait
chokepoint, in particular, and more broadly to reduce the risk of
accident and environmental impact in Arctic waters. In FY 2010, NOAA is
conducting hydrographic surveys in the Bering Strait, a key area of
interest to the U.S. Navy, with some additional surveys planned for FY
2011. Through its Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical
Datum (GRAV-D) initiative, NOAA is leveraging resources in FY 2010 and
FY 2011 to dramatically improve elevation data in the U.S. With current
elevation measurements off by as much as two meters, Alaska is the
foremost priority for GRAV-D, and gravity data collection flights over
Alaska in the summers of 2010 and 2011 will improve that accuracy to
two centimeters. This effort will help coastal communities with
infrastructure-hardening challenges and decisions on erosion controls
and flood protections. In addition, NOAA has recently completed a tide
gauge demonstration project in Barrow in order to develop the
technology and approaches necessary for long-term water level
measurements under harsh Arctic conditions. NOAA's hydrographic
services provide valuable information to ensure conservation,
management, and use are based on sound science to support U.S. economic
growth, and resilient and viable ecosystems and communities.
To improve environmental preparedness, response, and recovery
efforts, NOAA is working to expand the NOAA Environmental Response
Management Application (ERMA) program to benefit Arctic stakeholders,
including coastal communities, Alaska Native villages, the State of
Alaska, industry, as well as NOAA and other Federal agencies. NOAA will
develop an ERMA website for two to three areas of high priority to
prepare for Arctic oil spill risks, and will likely include an area of
concern in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. ERMA is a web-based
Geographic Information System tool designed to assist both emergency
responders and environmental resource managers who deal with incidents
that may adversely impact the environment. The application can assist
in response planning and is accessible to both the command post and to
assets in the field during an actual response incident, such as an oil
spill or hurricane. The data within ERMA also assist in resource
management decisions regarding hazardous waste site evaluations and
restoration planning. ERMA also includes human use and human dimension
data components and, for the Arctic, would include sea-ice conditions.
Federal, State and Tribal governments will be able to use this
information and the ERMA interface not only to address oil spill
planning and response, but also to assess sea-ice and shoreline erosion
information.
NOAA is also responsible for administering the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), and the State of Alaska has a NOAA-approved CZMA
program. The State's CZMA program includes local districts and Alaska
Native tribal governments. NOAA works with the State, districts and
Alaska Natives and provides annual grants, management, and technical
assistance to help the State build its capacity to address pressures on
the State's coastal resources and communities, including planning for
climate-related changes and impacts.
In conclusion, NOAA is bringing its diverse capabilities to bear on
the cultural, environmental, economic, and national security issues
emerging as a result of changes in the Arctic. The breadth and
complexity of these impacts require a concerted, systematic and rapid
effort with partners from international to local levels. NOAA's
scientific capabilities are being deployed to increase understanding of
climate and other key environmental trends, to predict the ecosystem
response to those trends, and to offer the technical expertise needed
to develop policy options and management strategies for mitigation and
adaptation to the environmental challenges in the Arctic region. NOAA's
service capabilities are supporting safety and security needs for
fishing, marine mammal protection, marine and other modes of
transportation, energy, infrastructure, and mineral exploration in the
unique Arctic environment. The choices we make today can have pivotal
impacts on the future state of the Arctic. There is a great deal of
work to be done, and NOAA, in collaboration with our partners, is
committed to strengthening Arctic science and stewardship, and
providing the information, products, and services needed by our Arctic
stakeholders. Key to enhancing these efforts will be the coordinated
implementation of the Ocean Policy Task Force's Final Recommendations.
In addition to the Arctic as an area of special emphasis, there are
other key priorities that provide for focused and coordinated actions
that will improve our stewardship of the Arctic Region.
NOAA is currently in the process of validating a comprehensive NOAA
Arctic Vision and Strategy with our stakeholders that aligns our
capabilities in support of the efforts of our international, Federal,
state and local partners, and within the broader context of our
Nation's Arctic policies and research goals. Our next step is to engage
our partners and stakeholders, and transform that strategy into actions
that will support healthy, productive, and resilient Arctic communities
and ecosystems.
Thank you again, Senators Begich and Stabenow, for the opportunity
to talk about NOAA's role in the Arctic. We appreciate your leadership
and the time and attention the Committee is devoting to this important
issue, and look forward to working with you further.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Richard Glenn, and
then I'm going to go this way.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GLENN, VICE PRESIDENT,
ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION
Mr. Glenn. OK. Thank you.
Senator Begich. I should have said that warning ahead of
time so everyone knew where they were, so you weren't wondering
who's next.
Mr. Glenn. Thank you for coming, Committee Members and
Senators.
It's an honor to be here presenting to you on this panel
and I'm struck by the comments of the other panel members
already. I think that you are hearing the right words from the
right people and so I will not retrace the steps or the words
of Edward or the Admiral or Laura. Instead, I'll kind of edit
my comments on the fly, but you have a written version for you.
Senator Begich. Yes, we'll include all the written
testimony in the record.
Mr. Glenn. Thank you. So as Edward mentioned, this is
ground zero for climate change and if it's ground zero, the
residents of our coastal communities in the Arctic are at the
tip of the spear, to use another analogy. The traditional
knowledge that he referenced is a storehouse of information
that goes back over thousands of years and if you look at the
change observed today against the backdrop of traditional
knowledge, you bring a greater depth and understanding and so
while others might like to point to our people as victims of
climate change, I think we're adept as observers of this change
and adjusting to it because in many ways our culture is built
on change and there are many examples, from whaling camps
perched on the ice to coastlines suffering from erosion in our
villages where, if you're too complacent and you think the
status quo will remain that way, it's just the wrong decision.
So we adjust to change.
As you know, I'm the President or Vice President of Lands
and Natural Resources for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
I'm also the President of the Board of Directors of a local
nonprofit organization called the Barrow Arctic Science
consortium and this consortium's mission is to put visiting
researchers together with experts in our community and for the
last 15 or 20 years the theme of most of the research has been
global climate change.
As has been spoken already, the Arctic Ocean is changing
and the changes have been described accurately but it begs some
questions. There is less ice cover, less multiyear sea ice
cover especially, but is the corresponding increase in seasonal
sea ice good or bad for marine mammals and ice-dependent
species? Is there a measurable change in the current systems in
the Arctic Ocean, and what about this introduction of new
species? What is coming in here, and how do we understand it
better?
In the fall time season when the ice cover is at its most
drastic retreat, there's more fetch. That means we're more
prone to waves and wave-induced erosion, but in this new era of
reduced ice cover, is it really stormier? I mean, are we
suffering from increased wave erosion because it's stormier or
not?
Fundamental questions like these remain unanswered and
there's a place mat, I believe at your table, like there is at
mine, that talks about a coastal observatory based in the
Arctic, based at Barrow. I believe the Arctic Ocean is
screaming for greater understanding and without understanding
it, how can we understand the changes?
If, instead, you observe something for the first time, what
might appear to be a change could instead be something that was
yet undiscovered. So this cable marine observatory will give us
greater understanding of the Arctic Ocean system.
This is not a brand-new idea. This kind of observatory
exists in the Monterrey Bay Canyon and off the Oregon coastline
near Astoria, but the Arctic Ocean system itself lacks such a
tool.
We have cable ocean-observing systems installed by the
United States, by Canada, by Russia, and others, but they're
just mere data points and something like this cable coastal
observatory would give you an integrated approach with many,
many useful purposes. Our community, the industry, community
members, our hunters, our whalers are all in support of this
kind of observatory.
It can document the migration of marine species. It can
answer fundamental questions related to ocean, chemistry, and
currents. It can also observe and measure the effects of this
increase in vessel traffic that has been referenced and the
effects of seismic exploration, for example, on the ocean
environment and on marine species.
Barrow has what has been called the best-characterized air
column in the world, thanks to the NOAA facilities that are
here, the Climate Modeling and Diagnostics Lab, which is the
old name for these three or four buildings around the world
that measures the trace gases in the atmosphere, and we're the
first atmospheric evidence for increases in carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases.
There's also a Department of Energy facility whose mission
is to look at clouds and wind profiles and incoming solar
radiation and discuss how that either warms or cools the
environment.
We have a National Weather Service station here and if you
turn your back to the ocean and look inland, you'll see
hundreds of research plots and data sites that are already
wired. The Arctic is wired for research, everywhere but in the
ocean, and so it's especially appropriate now in this time of
change that we put increased monitoring on our ocean system.
My background is in natural sciences. I'm a geologist. My
mother was born and raised here and so this pride that our
people put in the knowledge of the natural environment and its
changes is a great ad mixture for Western science style
education and it's this crossroads of traditional knowledge and
Western science that's so important here.
And if you look at the land for a moment, you look at a
permafrost environment, you would see that our existence on the
surface is only part of the equation. Right beneath our feet,
there's a thousand feet of permafrost. If you go to Prudhoe
Bay, there's 2,000 feet of permafrost, not because it's any
colder there, it's because the ground over there is more like
Styrofoam and the ground over here is more like aluminum foil.
It's a thermal conductivity question.
But with such a thickness of permafrost, that's a time
investment of cold temperature. You know that it's not going
anywhere fast, but what is changing is that surface portion of
the permafrost that melts and freezes every year and the
permafrost itself is not an ironclad safe. It's a porous
system. Inside the peat that lies in the active layer, the
shallow permafrost and beneath the permafrost are hydrocarbons
and all kinds of sources of carbon. Peat lands in bogs
everywhere like this but it's especially more enriched here
because the permafrost for a time traps whatever it's freezing
and if you look just under the permafrost, you'll see these
things called methane hydrates which, for the purposes of too
long of a lecture, I'd love to talk about with you off record,
but the pressure and temperature conditions under the
permafrost and in the floor of our ocean are ripe for this ice
crystal that traps methane. It is the premier hydrocarbon
source but it also is a huge environmental issue.
It was the methane seeps and the oil seeps percolating up
through this natural system that caused President Warren
Harding in 1923 to draw basically a 150-mile circle around here
and call it the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4 and it's now
called the NPRA and was host to a lot of things, including oil
and gas exploration and knowledge and research about the
permafrost environment.
If you look just south of this town you'll see the Barrow
Gas Fields and that is a place discovered by the Navy, shallow
natural gas accumulations that may be the only gas fields in
the world that are producing gas from potentially a methane
hydrate source. So even though it was developed in the 1940s
and producing through today, it may be part of this cutting
edge of research related to methane hydrates.
There's change in the ocean, there's change on the land,
but our communities are changing, too, and this is an unusual
topic, I think, and it's not one that's talked about often, but
we live in villages. Our culture is rooted in the rural
communities, but villages are changing and villages in the
Arctic are really gritty and hard-scrabble places and that
means that things that the rest of the world takes for granted
come to us at immense cost, even things like reliable power,
sanitation, running water, clean and safe places to live. Those
things come here only at great cost.
In our region we're dependent upon a clean and healthy
environment for our culture and for our food. In addition,
we're dependent upon a resource industry to provide these
amenities that the rest of the world takes for granted at such
great cost. It might seem that we are conflicted but I believe
we, and like the rest of the world, should be, where
appropriately, conflicted, and so we live in this balance, this
balance of resource development and respect and use of our
natural environment.
The Arctic is changing but some things stay the same and
one of the things that stays the same is this image of the
Arctic as an idyllic frontier that's far away, this pristine
place where, if we could just put a jar over it, everything
would be fine. We know it's not that way, especially those of
us who live here, and if it's not that way, try to look at it
from our side. The Arctic is a close place. The Arctic is our
home and think of the lower latitudes as the distant and remote
places because it's only a thousand miles from here to the
North Pole and if you just go dot to dot along the communities,
along the coast, through the Canadian Archipelago, we speak the
same language, we have the same culture. The same issues affect
us as affect our neighbors in the Canadian and Russian Arctic,
as far away as Greenland.
In fact, we have friends, relatives, and family that
continue in an unbroken stream all along there and have for
thousands of years. So the image of this idyllic Arctic is a
mixed blessing. Some scientists want to come here and research
the frontier but the frontier is our home. We're thankful for
the science that it brings but we are not comfortable with the
stereotypes that exist related to the Arctic.
Finally, as committee members know, the Arctic policy is
changing and here I would like to leave my final comment and a
request. This is a field hearing in Barrow and we are one
community and you're hearing great testimony from the right
people and I applaud them and support their words, but there
are many other villages in the Arctic.
As you know, Senator Begich, we have more than 200 Alaskan
villages. I would say we probably have about a hundred, maybe
75 that you would classify as Arctic villages.
I would ask this committee and you Senators individually
that when you consider changes in Arctic policy that you seek
out input from all Arctic communities because, taken one at a
time, we are just villages, local expertise and local
knowledge, but taken together, we are the Arctic.
Thank you. Thank you for your time and thank you for your
attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Glenn, Vice President,
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
Thank you to members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation for coming to Barrow, Alaska--the heart of Alaska's
Arctic--to address this important theme. As you are aware, you are in
the land of the Inupiat. Our villages in this region are home to
Alaskan Native culture are storehouses of traditional knowledge; and
they are on the ``tip of the spear'' when it comes to witnessing our
changing Arctic. Traditional Knowledge takes today's witnessed change
and sets it against a backdrop of centuries of experience. The
knowledge does not reside in books, but is passed generation to
generation and resides in our people.
Our understanding of the Arctic is changing. Startling is it may
seem to others, I feel that the Inupiat people are adept in this era of
change because in many ways our culture is built up change and
adaptation. There are many examples, from whaling camps perched on the
sea ice, to villages on an eroding shoreline, where it never pays to
predict that things will stay the same.
First, it is plain for us to see that the Arctic Ocean is changing.
Freeze-up begins later and breakup begins earlier--measurably so.
Hence, the ocean ice cover is relatively thinner than it was in years
past. The reduced ocean ice cover means many things, and begs many
questions. Here are just two:
There is less multi-year sea ice, but is the corresponding
increase in seasonal sea ice good or bad for ice-dependent
species and other marine mammals? Is there a measurable change
in the current systems of the Arctic Ocean or in the
introduction of new species?
There is more fetch for late fall season storm waves, but
has it gotten stormier than in the times of greater ice cover?
I believe overall, that the Arctic Ocean system screams for greater
understanding. Without understanding it how can we understand its
changes? What may appear to be a ``change'' might instead be something
that we are seeing for the first time.
A cabled marine observatory will give us greater understanding of
the Arctic Ocean system. There are materials here which describe the
cabled marine observatory concept. They exist elsewhere already (there
is one near the Monterey Canyon and another near Astoria on the Oregon
coast). The Arctic Ocean lacks such a tool and it can be immensely
important in measuring fundamental parameters like sea chemistry and
ocean currents and answering questions like those above. In addition,
the observatory can document the migration of marine species, observe
and measure the effects of increased vessel traffic, seismic
exploration and other influences that mankind has on the Arctic Ocean
environment.
Barrow has what is called the best characterized air column in the
world. The NOAA GMCC lab is one of three in the world that are
responsible for measuring the trace gases in our atmosphere. We have a
newly renovated National Weather Service station. The U.S. Dept of
Energy has established the Atmospheric Radiation Monitoring site here;
it studies the effects of clouds, albedo, wind profiles on incoming
solar radiation. Barrow is also host to hundred of research plots on
the tundra extending inland in every direction up to a hundred miles
studying everything from plant succession to carbon exchange. This part
of the Arctic is wired for research. What is lacking is a similar
infrastructure for studying the ocean.
My background is in the natural sciences, and I have made a
personal focus of studying permafrost-related geology and sea ice
processes. Combining traditional knowledge with academic study and what
is called Western Science is an incredibly rewarding experience. Here
where the permafrost is up to a thousand feet thick and where the ocean
has a frozen cover for most of the year, we are in the heart of the
U.S. Arctic. With permafrost a thousand feet thick (and up to two
thousand feet thick at Prudhoe Bay), we understand that the bulk of it
is not going anywhere fast. But the warming of the climate is changing
that top few feet that freezes and thaws every year, and it may be
affecting things at greater depth. Relationships between permafrost,
carbon and carbon dioxide, methane, and the ocean seabed and tundra
subsurface are important to us, and important to the world.
Like peatlands and bogs everywhere, the tundra landscape is rich
with carbon. The tundra environment is especially enriched because the
permafrost allows its contents to be trapped by being frozen. And
within and underneath our permafrost (and on the bottom of the Arctic
Ocean and oceans around the world) are trapped the ice-methane
compounds called methane hydrates-which are the premier hydrocarbon
sources, as well as other conventional hydrocarbons. Naturally-
occurring methane and oil seeps were the reason President Warren
Harding created the 23-million acre Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 here
in 1923. The shallow natural gas fields of Barrow, discovered by the
Navy in the 1940s are excellent windows into the study of permafrost
and methane hydrates. Indeed we may be the only community in the world
that relies upon natural gas that is recharged by a methane-hydrate
source.
Change in the Arctic is not limited to the physical environment, of
course. Our communities are changing. Alaska is home to more than two
hundred villages. The term ``village'' keeps us at a loss when we push
for quality of life improvements. When the outside world thinks of
``villages'' they do not think of real-world quality of life
improvements. Villages in the Arctic have always been and will always
be gritty, hard scrabble places. As our villages grow, so does our need
for real world improvements. Basic items taken for granted elsewhere
such as running water, sanitation, reliable power, and access to the
outside world are achieved here at great cost.
In our region, where our villages are dependent upon the land and
ocean for food and the roots of our culture, we are also dependent upon
the natural resource development industry that has given us our only
economy. It has allowed us to build schools, health clinics, airports,
and to install running water and safe sanitation systems. So it may
seem that we are conflicted when it comes to issues like oil and gas
development. But we feel we are appropriately conflicted.
The Arctic is changing. But some things stay the same. The idea of
the Arctic as a frontier is indelible in Western culture. This is a
mixed blessing. What needs to stay the same is the fascination and need
for understanding of the Arctic system. The downside of the frontier
mystique is that we are perceived as a far-away place. I find more
value in keeping an ``Arctic-centric'' mindset and considering the low
latitudes as the far-away places. The interest in our region mixed with
our traditional knowledge has produced sustained, world-class research
and a mutually beneficial relationship between visiting researchers and
those who have been observing the Arctic and all of its changes for
thousands of years. In many ways all of that began here. It continues
here and it should be recognized and identified as a national priority.
Arctic Policy is changing--as it should. Here I would like to leave
my final comment and request. Today's field hearing is in Barrow. We
are one village. There are many other villages in the Arctic. I
respectfully request that when this Committee, and you individually,
consider changes to Arctic Policy, that you seek out input from all
Arctic communities. Singularly, we are a village; together, we are the
Arctic.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Richard. Let me go to Mary Pete
now.
STATEMENT OF MARY C. PETE, COMMISSIONER,
U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
Ms. Pete. My name is Mary Pete, and I thank us for being
here.
Senator Begich, Senator Stabenow, and Members of the Senate
Commerce Committee, and the City and Tribe of Barrow, thank you
for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the U.S. Arctic
Research Commission.
I was appointed by President Obama to the Commission in
June of this year to represent indigenous perspectives and
focus on anthropology, subsistence, and education.
Additionally, I serve as the Director of the University of
Alaska Fairbanks Kuskokwim Campus in Bethel, Alaska, and
previously served as the Director of the Subsistence Division
for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game overseeing research
and advocating for the protection of subsistence hunting and
fishing rights.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to share how climate
change is affecting subsistence in the Arctic. Inner
temperatures have warmed the Arctic at twice the rate of the
rest of the world, causing exaggerated changes in thawing the
permafrost and reducing sea ice, increasing weather
variability, such as precipitation, storm surges, flooding,
erosion, and increasing growing seasons.
The effects on subsistence are many. The northward range of
flora and fauna, you've heard of, and introduction of non-
native species, decreases in changes in traditional food
sources, disappearance of permafrost food shelters as well as
the disappearance of ice platforms during marine mammal hunting
seasons and erosion threatening village land mass.
The cultural significance of subsistence to Alaska Native
peoples cannot be overstated. It defines us. Any impacts to our
subsistence way of life is far-reaching and deep. Cultural
impacts of separating Alaska Native peoples from our
traditions, for example, by increased rural residents
emigration to regional hubs and urban centers due to increasing
energy costs and increased costs and effort to conduct
subsistence activities affects transference of subsistence
knowledge across generations, changes our diets, impacting our
health.
I want to remind all of us of the Federal Government's
fiduciary responsibility to provide for the health, safety, and
cultural preservation of Alaska Natives and American Indians.
Research as a means of establishing a baseline to protect
this trust responsibility and honoring self-determination of
our tribes is something I want to emphasize.
It is important that Federal agencies incorporate
traditional ecological knowledge in order to better understand
baselines and how the Arctic is changing as well as to validate
traditional ways of knowing. Methods for accomplishing this are
to institute policies to encourage the adoption of traditional
knowledge in managing decisions and to support co-management
organizations.
Climate change is perhaps the most obvious and widely-
acknowledged influence on the future of certain polar
societies. Other factors play a more immediate role in the
lives of Arctic residents in many areas. Globalization,
economic and political transformations, change in cultural
landscapes, often driven from afar but experienced from the
North, all are requiring adaptations. This is a summary of my
more extensive comments that you have on record.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pete follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary C. Pete, Commissioner,
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Climate Change is Having Serious, Real-Time Impacts on Subsistence
Resources and Subsistence Users
Senator Begich, Senator Stabenow, and distinguished guests, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the U.S. Arctic
Research Commission.\1\ At the recommendation of Senator Begich, I was
appointed by President Obama to the Commission in June of this year to
represent indigenous perspectives and to focus on anthropology,
subsistence, and education. Additionally, I serve as the Director of
the University of Alaska Fairbanks Kuskokwim Campus in Bethel, Alaska.
I previously served as the Director of the Subsistence Division for the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, overseeing research and advocating
for the protection of subsistence rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, the seven
Commissioners of the USARC are appointed by the President and report to
the President and the Congress on goals and priorities for the U.S.
Arctic Research Program. That program is coordinated by the Interagency
Arctic Research Policy Committee, (IARPC) chaired by National Science
Foundation Acting Director Dr. Cora Marrett, who is also an ex-officio
member of the Commission. See www.arctic.gov for Commission
publications, including the 2009-2010 Goals and Objectives Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a Commissioner and an Alaska Native subsistence user, I would
like to share with you how we are experiencing climate change and how
it is affecting our subsistence traditions. Climate change is happening
now and collaborative research is needed to understand it and to
investigate adaptation and mitigation strategies for Arctic subsistence
communities.
In the past two decades, Arctic ambient temperatures have warmed at
twice the rate of the rest of the globe.\2\ Higher temperatures are
becoming more common in autumn and winter, and daily temperature
fluctuations have become more extreme.\3\ Alaska is also experiencing
exaggerated changes in ocean pH (acidity) levels, thawing permafrost,
reductions in sea ice, changes in precipitation, storm surges,
flooding, erosion, and increased weather variability.\4\ As a result of
these changes, indigenous peoples of the Arctic are seeing northward
range expansion of flora and fauna, the introduction of non-native
species, decreases and changes in traditional food sources, the
disappearance of permafrost food storage shelters and ice platforms
during marine mammal hunting seasons, and coastal erosion is occurring
so quickly in many villages that homes and community infrastructure are
quite literally falling into the sea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Parkinson, A.J. et al., (2005), Potential Impact of Climate
Change on Infectious Disease in the Arctic, 64 Int'l J. Circumpolar
Health 478, 479.
\3\ Huntington and Fox (2005), Arctic Climate Impact Assessment,--
Scientific Report. Cambridge University Press, New York.
\4\ Warren, J. et al., (2005). Climate Change and Human Health:
Infrastructure Impacts to Small Remote Communities in the North, 64
Int'l J. Circumpolar Health 487.); Parkinson, A.J., (2008). The
International Polar Year, 2007-2008, An Opportunity to Focus on
Infectious Diseases in Arctic Regions, 14 Emerg. Infect. Diseases 1, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic people have a long history of adaptation. These changes in
climate, however, are occurring much more quickly than ever experienced
in the Arctic. The effects of climate change on subsistence resources
are especially of consequence to Arctic indigenous people. To us,
subsistence is much more than using traditional and natural materials
for sustenance, tools, transportation, and clothing. Through
subsistence, indigenous people are able to connect with the land and
our place in it; we derive our identities from our homeland. To
indigenous people of the Arctic, subsistence-based knowledge is the
foundation of important cultural traditions.
Subsistence resources are affected by changes in the climate of the
Arctic. Our subsistence resources, which form the backbone of our
traditional cultural practices, are changing--the places and times
where we have hunted and gathered for thousands of years are no longer
the same. Additionally:
Higher than usual temperatures are becoming more common, as
are extreme weather events. Weather conditions that might be
seen as negative in urban communities are often seen as
favorable in subsistence communities. These include rains that
make berries and vegetation grow, and blizzards and freezing
temperatures that result in conditions that improve winter
travel;
Winter storm surges are eroding coastlines, washing out
roads, and making travel difficult. A recent General Accountant
Office report found that 90 percent of Alaska's 213
predominantly Native villages are regularly affected by floods
or erosion. Communities are increasingly vulnerable as winter
freeze up occurs later and later in the season. This lack of
early autumn sea ice places many villages in great danger of
storm impact in the absence of ice to control wave action.
Storm impacts endanger human life, damage infrastructure and
result in erosion;
Hunting is dangerous or impossible on ice when early breakup
and late freeze-up create poor ice conditions. Many traditional
hunters have difficulty gaining access to land mammals (e.g.,
caribou) because in sufficient snow prevented effective use of
snow machines. Access is restricted to subsistence resources
and there is increased risk and reduced efficiency to our
hunting;
Quality of animals is changing--for example, because ice
seals have thinner blubber, it takes more of them to produce
the amount of oil we need to get through the winter--or we just
do without;
Lack of haul out ice platforms for seals and walruses is
causing problems for the species and is reducing hunter access;
The composition, distribution, and density of subsistence
species are changing. These changes directly affect the
subsistence species available for harvest;
Thawing of permafrost results in habitat changes, sinking
buildings and melting ice cellars, making long-term storage of
traditional foods more difficult. It also preconditions the
land for greater impacts from secondary storm surges, as
described above;
Fisheries are changing with changes in ocean circulation,
currents, water temperatures, ice coverage and nutrient
availability. Decreases and changes in anadromous fish stocks
directly affect the economic and dietary well being of
subsistence users; and
Changes and interruptions are occurring in the passing of
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).
Health and cultural activities of Alaskan Native peoples will be
harmed by a decline in subsistence practices. Subsistence diets are
rich in fish and marine and land mammals and offer numerous health,
social, cultural, and economic benefits. Proven health benefits include
protection from cardiovascular disease and diabetes and improved
maternal nutrition and neonatal and infant brain development. With the
cost of a pound of ground beef upwards of $10, and little or no
available fresh produce in many villages, there are also serious
economic and health implications related to a decline in subsistence
practices that may result from climate change.
Emigration is a serious problem in many villages. This is a
phenomenon that needs further study, but is likely to be exacerbated by
a decline in subsistence success caused by climate change. As
subsistence opportunities decline, it may become cost prohibitive to
stay in the village, encouraging residents to relocate to hub villages
and Anchorage. Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley has written that many social
ills of rural Alaska can be attributed to the disenfranchisement of
Alaska Natives with our cultural traditions. Subsistence is a key
component of our cultural traditions. Separation of Alaska Natives from
our cultural traditions may lead to feelings of decreased self-worth
and foster substance abuse, violence, and suicide. It is important to
protect subsistence cultural traditions.
To understand the dynamics of climate change and subsistence
harvest and use, there needs to be greater emphasis and coordination of
research among the agencies. The need for research is two-fold. First,
to understand traditional ways of knowing and action, agencies must
collaborate with indigenous Arctic populations--to establish a baseline
of understanding of topics such as where berries grow, when and where
ice develops, and the thickness of seal blubber and caribou skins. I
note that there is a wealth of this type of information at the Division
of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The division is
charged with providing information to ensure that the state implements
the subsistence priority law. To understand how subsistence resources
are changing while providing for validation of indigenous knowledge,
agencies should conduct research in collaboration with tribal groups.
Only after we understand how subsistence resources are changing can the
most effective policies be developed for protecting subsistence
traditions.
Policy measures need to be developed to help build resilience. Co-
management groups need to be supported and strengthened so they can
play a strong role in relaying local concerns and potential solutions.
In the past, these groups have played an important role, but as climate
continues to change and litigation continues in regard to subsistence
resources and climate change, co-management groups should play an
elevated role, they should conduct additional research, and funding
should be reprioritized in order to fulfill these tasks. Currently, the
Senate version of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill includes funding for seal and Steller sea lion
research, Alaska Native marine mammal co-management, Bering Sea crab
management and research, and ocean acidification research. These
requests are included as part of the C-J-S bill at the request of
Senators Begich and Murkowski.
In conclusion, the Federal Government has acknowledged that it has
trust responsibilities to American Indian and Alaska Native people that
include providing for health, safety and cultural preservation. Climate
change endangers this trust responsibility because it may harm
subsistence resources, and result in health declines in subsistence
users, foster social ills, and inhibit cultural preservation efforts.
Congress should look for ways to encourage greater collaboration among
the agencies, scientists and tribes to evaluate climate change and its
effect on subsistence and to develop consensuses on mitigation
strategies. Additionally, policies should ensure that traditional
ecological knowledge is used in developing resource management
decisions.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Marilyn, thank you
very much, Marilyn Crockett, for being here.
STATEMENT OF MARILYN CROCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OIL
AND GAS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Crockett. Thank you. Thank you. First, I will start by
mirroring the other welcomes that you've heard today. It's so
important that we have Senators from Congress come and see this
firsthand.
Senator Begich, thanks very much for sponsoring this field
hearing. We very much appreciate it.
Senator Begich. Thank you.
Ms. Crockett. The energy development in Alaska, as I'm sure
you know, has played a major role not only for North Slope
residents but the State of Alaska and the Nation, as well.
At peak, production from the State of Alaska accounted for
20 percent of the Nation's energy supply. Today, it's down to
about 12 percent but still that's a very significant factor
obviously when we look at import rates at 60 percent. So energy
development in Alaska plays a very key role.
As has been stated by others, and the Senator recognizes
this very well, Alaska has produced over 16 billion barrels of
oil to date, but that, while it feels like a major achievement
and it is a major achievement, in fact that number is somewhat
dwarfed when you look at the potential that still remains.
As Admiral Colvin pointed out, one-third of the Nation's
energy resources offshore are offshore the State of Alaska. So
the state can play a very, very critical role in the Nation's
energy supply.
You've heard a recurring theme today and it almost sounds
like we coordinated our messaging but in fact that did not
happen with regard to research. Can't emphasize enough and
you've heard it several times, the importance of evaluating the
research that has been conducted already, identifying the data
gaps that are out there and prioritizing the limited resources
that all of us have and focusing on those.
Since the 1970s, the industry has privately funded hundreds
of millions of dollars in research studies back in the 1970s
focused on engineering studies, wave, wind and oceanography
matters in sea ice.
Fast forward to today and more than a $150 million has been
invested just in recent times on new environmental and
wildlife-related studies over the past several years and that
doesn't include the money that's spent on a day-to-day basis on
ongoing monitoring and research in conjunction with existing
fields, and we all know that the former MMS, now BOEMRE, has
spent over $350 million on this research.
These are very, very important, but there still remains
some work to do and one of the things that I wanted to
specifically mention is the work that the USGS is doing. Last
spring, late last spring, USGS was tasked with undertaking a
comprehensive independent evaluation of science needs to
understand the resilience of Arctic coastal and marine
ecosystems to OCS resource extraction activities.
This evaluation is limited to the Beaufort Sea, so we'll
have a good snapshot of what's happening for us up here. USGS
will summarize key existing information, develop a process and
identify where knowledge gaps exist, and provide guidance as to
what research is needed, and we think that this report is
scheduled to come out in the Spring of 2011.
We believe it will be an important tool and that it will
demonstrate the depth and breadth of the research conducted to
date.
Additionally, we also understand that it will address
opportunities for and obstacles facing collaboration on current
and future research, as well as the importance of maintaining
what I call a centralized home for the science.
Research continues around the world and in the Arctic and
is commissioned and carried out by a very large number of
entities, but our ability to assimilate that work has been
constrained. Doing so will enable all of us to build upon
previous results, avoid duplication, and prioritize future
work.
Finally, it's important to realize that or to observe that
the research that I've been talking about is really related to
oil and gas but much of it will carry over and will be
extremely useful in evaluating the impacts from climate change,
evaluating how the ocean is looking these days, and it also
will set the stage for making decisions on what may be
happening in terms of future activity, as the Admiral
mentioned, with regard to shipping and tourism, fisheries, and
so on.
I'd like to shift just briefly to giving the agencies the
tools. That's what I sort of label this next topic. One of the
greatest challenges facing agencies charged with managing the
Arctic and its species is that of limited resources. Laws are
enacted by Congress and are assigned to agencies to carry out,
but, unfortunately, the resources to do so are frequently
inadequate.
By way of example, we've watched this unfold here in Alaska
related to the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale, an issue that the
Senator is very, very familiar with. National Marine Fisheries
Service is charged with managing this whale but it did not have
the resources it needed to conduct thorough monitoring or
population counts early in the beginning of the population
decline to react. Only when the population was listed as
depleted and, unfortunately, subsequently endangered under the
ESA did additional funding get appropriated to NMFS.
This limitation on resources also affects the agency's
ability to timely issue permits. For example, NMFS is
responsible for issuing incidental harassment authorizations or
IHAs required for any activity, including any scientific
activity, that has the potential to interact with species that
they manage.
These IHAs are important to the protection of the species
because they contain the stipulations and mitigation necessary
to conduct that activity, in other words, to protect the
species. It's therefore somewhat ironic that they don't have
the resources necessary to timely issue these permits, even
taking into account the long lead times for applications.
And then, finally, another factor affecting the agencies
are the number of petitions for listing those species under the
Endangered Species Act and the subsequent filing of lawsuits
that follows.
These already limited resources of agency personnel are
continually drawn away from their rightful management of the
species to deal with these legal challenges and I know that's
not directly the subject of today's hearing but it's
increasingly clear that the ESA is being wrongfully utilized as
a tool to stop any kind of development or activity and today
nowhere is this more true than in Alaska.
Finally, I can't conclude my comments without giving a nod
to Senator Begich and recognizing that the Alaska Oil and Gas
Association has advocated for OCS revenue-sharing for Alaska's
coastal communities and we will continue to do so until
enacted.
While it's true that the coastal communities will benefit
from OCS development in terms of jobs and property taxes, these
coastal areas are unique when compared to coastal areas of the
Lower 48 and that they do not have the same level of
infrastructure to accommodate increased demands on local
services.
So again, we commend Senator Begich for his efforts and
those of his colleagues and we're looking forward to having
this matter moved along.
And with that I'll conclude my comments. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Crockett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marilyn Crockett, Executive Director,
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
Good morning. My name is Marilyn Crockett and I am the Executive
Director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). AOGA is a
private, nonprofit trade association whose member companies account for
the majority of oil and gas exploration, production, transportation,
refining and marketing activities in the State of Alaska.
We want to first thank Senator Begich for holding this field
hearing in Alaska and to Senator Stabenow for taking the time to travel
to Alaska's north slope and to Barrow. Your efforts not only provide
you an opportunity to see the Arctic first-hand but also provide an
important and infrequent opportunity for north slope residents and
public officials to share with you their experiences and vision and
offer recommendations for initiatives which your committee may
undertake.
For more than 30 years, energy development across Alaska's north
slope has played an important role not only to north slope residents,
but to everyone in the State of Alaska, as well as the entire Nation.
At peak production, north slope oil accounted for more than 20 percent
of the Nation's domestic energy supply. Today, even at the reduced rate
of just over 12 percent, there can be no question that production from
Alaska is a critical component of the Nation's energy supply,
especially in the face of foreign imports which exceed 60 percent.
And the prospects for expanding the role Alaska can play in the
future are tremendous. While Alaska has produced over 16 billion
barrels of oil over the last 30 years, that achievement feels somewhat
dwarfed by estimates of what remains: 30 billion barrels of oil and 220
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. To put this into another
perspective, for the OCS alone, Alaska is estimated to contain one
third of the Nation's offshore energy resources.
Development of these resources is not without its challenges,
however. It is our sense that this is one of the fundamental reasons
for this field hearing: identifying those challenges, establishing
initiatives to address those challenges, and removing obstacles which
stand in the way while protecting the environment and preserving the
cultural way of life for local residents and communities. It's our
belief that that objective can be achieved.
The Importance of Research
There is no disputing the fact that sound science is the key to
addressing factors related to climate change, resource development, and
protection of the environment, wildlife and habitat. Research funded by
the industry in Alaska's arctic offshore has been underway since the
1970s, with a focus at that time on wind, wave, oceanographic and sea
ice dynamics, along with engineering studies aimed at technology
development to operate in the arctic. Fast forward to today: more than
$150 million has been invested by industry in new environmental and
wildlife-related studies over the past several years (not including
ongoing research conducted onshore in conjunction with new developments
and operations at existing fields), and the former MMS (now BOEMRE) has
spent over $350 million.
This research and scientific studies are ongoing today and will
continue into the future. But to be most effective, it's important that
agencies, industry and scientists evaluate what's been done, identify
what still needs to be done, and prioritize and fund that work.
Progress in this regard is being made.
Pursuant to a directive from the Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Interior, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is undertaking a
comprehensive, independent evaluation of science needs to understand
the resilience of arctic coastal and marine ecosystems to OCS resource
extraction activities. This evaluation is limited to the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas. USGS will summarize key existing information; develop a
process and identify where knowledge gaps exist; and provide guidance
as to what research is needed. Their report will be issued in the
Spring of 2011. We believe this report will be an important tool and
that it will demonstrate the depth and breadth of the research
conducted to date.
Additionally, we understand it also will address opportunities for
(and obstacles facing) collaboration on current and future research, as
well as the importance of maintaining a centralized ``home'' for this
science. Research continues around the world and in the arctic and is
commissioned and carried out by a large number of differing entities,
but our ability to assimilate that work has been constrained. Doing so
would enable all of us to build upon previous results, avoid
duplication and prioritize future work.
Finally, it's important to observe that, while the genesis of this
research is related to oil and gas, much of it will contribute greatly
to evaluation of the other potential activities or changes we may see
in the future in the arctic oceans (such as increased shipping and
tourism, fisheries, etc.), as well as increasing our knowledge-base on
wildlife critical to subsistence activities. As such, the Federal
Government has a responsibility to financially invest in these research
initiatives.
Give Agencies the Tools
One of the greatest challenges facing agencies charged with
managing the arctic and its species is that of limited resources. Laws
enacted by Congress are assigned to agencies to carry out, but
unfortunately, the resources to do so are frequently inadequate. By way
of example, we watched this unfold here in Alaska related to the Cook
Inlet beluga whale. The National Marine Fisheries Service, charged with
managing this whale, did not have the resources it needed to conduct
thorough monitoring or population counts early enough in the beginning
of the population decline to react. Only when the population was first
listed as depleted, and subsequently endangered under the Endangered
Species Act, did additional funding get appropriated to NMFS.
The limitation on resources also affects the agency's ability to
timely issue permits. For example, NMFS is responsible for issuance of
Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) required for any activity
(not just oil and gas development) which has the potential to interact
with the species that they manage. These IHAs are important to the
protection of the species in that they contain the stipulations and
mitigation measures necessary to conduct the activity (i.e., protect
the species). It is therefore somewhat ironic that they don't have the
resources needed to issue these in a timely manner . . . even taking
into account the long lead-times for applications.
Finally, another factor affecting these agencies is the plethora of
petitions requesting listing of species under the ESA, and the
subsequent filing of lawsuits that follow. The already-limited
resources of agency personnel are continually drawn away from their
rightful management of the species to deal with these legal challenges.
Although not directly the subject of today's hearing, it is
increasingly clear that the ESA is being wrongfully utilized as a tool
to stop any kind of development or activity . . . and today nowhere is
this more true than in Alaska.
Enact OCS Revenue Sharing for Alaska
The Alaska Oil and Gas Association has consistently advocated for
OCS revenue sharing for Alaska's coastal communities, and we will
continue to do so until enacted. While it is true that coastal
communities will benefit from OCS development in terms of jobs and
property taxes, these coastal areas are unique when compared to coastal
areas of the lower 48 states in that they do not have the same level of
infrastructure to accommodate increased demands on local services. We
commend Senator Begich for his efforts, and those of his colleagues, on
this important matter.
This concludes my comments. Thank you for inviting me to
participate in this field hearing.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Marilyn. Let me--I have a few
questions. Then I know Senator Stabenow will probably have some
questions. So I'll start with a couple.
First, again, thank you all for testifying. Those that have
written testimony they would like to submit to the record, I
know some have already done that, we will accept that and have
that as part of the official record. So please do that so that
your words are part of the record we take back to Washington,
D.C.
Let me first, maybe directly to you, Mayor, if I could, and
give me a sense of how the community in the North Slope feels
about offshore oil and gas development and their role or their
connection to it. In other words, do they feel they're being
heard? Do they think Federal agencies are part of the equation
enough with them? Give me kind of the sense of--I know we've
had some brief conversations, but I am curious as to how you
see the community interacting with the Federal agencies and are
they being heard enough, and is there a good process?
Mr. Itta. Thank you, Senator. As you know, most of the----
Senator Begich. Is your microphone on there? Sorry about
that.
Mr. Itta. I'm sorry. Is that better?
Senator Begich. Better.
Mr. Itta. As you know, most of our people historically have
been opposed to OCS development for a number of reasons, not
the least of which is that it negatively affects on our
traditional whaling and I must note at this time that we feel
that there's a lot of onshore development to be done yet and
that that should be pursued before we start drilling in the
water since we know that the risks are not nearly as great.
To answer your question, the people, in terms of people's
experience with Federal agencies, I'd have to say it has been
mixed. I'm a hunter and a whaler and have been a member of the
Barrow Whaling Captains Association that have participated
actively for 40 years in the MMS hearings. That's how long
we've been dealing with them here and I understand now they're
the Bureau of Ocean, Energy, Management something something.
Senator Begich. The guys that watch the water.
Mr. Itta. But it has been mixed. The long and short of it
is that the North Slope Borough and the whalers have been
frustrated, very frustrated in terms of responses and I'm going
to refer to the agency as MMS, that MMS has been less than
responsive to local suggestions and comments, and they've
always encouraged us to show up at one hearing after another,
but they very rarely ever incorporate any of our comments or
concerns into their regulatory framework.
So it's no wonder that lately there is less and less
participation because the citizens say what's the use? It
doesn't matter. They're just meeting their required you got to
have a meeting here with the public type thing. That's the
attitude that's prevailed. Now that's unfortunate, but this is
a new day and we're hopeful.
I'd like to get a little specific on that and that one
example we had suggested to MMS, which seemed perfectly
reasonable to us, is that they limit the number of exploratory
or operations offshore. Nobody has ever determined that five
projects are OK or is it 10 or is it 50 or is it 100 and what
we know as users of the ocean up here is what we call
cumulative impacts. The permitting system takes each one by
itself but never looks at the thing as a whole and that's
something that would give real assurance, I think, to our
people that there's a meaningful cap, if you will, that lessens
the intensity of the activity and we've had assurances by
industry that only a certain number of ships and assets can be
up here because there are a limited number of Arctic-capable
assets, if you will.
If that's the case, it makes perfect sense to put a number
and make it into a part of the law and I know that certainly I
would think that that would give our people a level of comfort
and it's just a common sense measure to us that we've been
bucking the wind on this issue like it's something.
So thank you, Senator.
Senator Begich. Let me ask you with Marilyn here and both
of you, I know, tell me kind of the relationship that the North
Slope, the Arctic Slope, the communities have with the oil
ventures that have been here now for many decades and, you
know, from obviously someone born and raised in the state, I
see it as a unique--I think Richard kind of carefully described
it as a balance between recognizing the change that's
occurring, the needs of the community and how to balance that
for both the resource development and the unique lifestyle
here.
How would you describe the relationship with the industry
from, you know, your personal or your view from the community?
Mr. Itta. If I may say so,----
Senator Begich. And then I'm going to jump to Marilyn to
give a----
Mr. Itta.--I'll just say I think that we've had a great
relationship with the oil and gas and also with the regional
corporation in regards to resource development and management
of those things. So, of course, we have differences but that's
OK.
But since Prudhoe Bay almost 40 years ago, we've had a
great working relationship with industry and the Oil and Gas
Association and we hope to continue to do so.
Senator Begich. Marilyn, do you have some----
Ms. Crockett. Thank you. I would have to agree. There's a
natural tension, as there should be, because we each have our
respective interests but there's a natural tension between the
industry and any form of government but particularly the form
of government that is responsible for the lands on which we're
operating or nearby.
But having said that, I know from personal experience that
the companies go to great lengths to visit with the villages,
sometimes at a fault, because I think they feel like there's a
revolving door of newcomers showing up for yet another town
hall meeting and we're sensitive to that, so we've been trying
to weigh that.
But I would say that the relationship between the trade
association and the borough, in particular, while we've had our
differences of agreement, as the Mayor just pointed out, we
still have had a very open door in terms of being able to air
those differences and trying to reach some common ground.
Senator Begich. Very good. I have two other quick questions
I'm going to do and then I'm going to hold. I know we're a
little over time but I'm going to ask--Debbie has questions and
then I'm going to probably pop back for one more round.
But let me ask, if I can, Marilyn, in regards to the
Deepwater Horizon. You know, when I'm back in Washington, I
spend a lot of time trying to explain the difference to Arctic
exploration, oil and gas activity in the Arctic versus what
goes on down in the Gulf of Mexico, and I've had to explain--
you know, I became, you know, in a lot of ways like Richard
was, like Mr. Science here.
I was really--I could tell you were about to give us a good
long explanation which was good. So I've become like mini Mr.
Science in the Senate trying to explain the differences.
Could you, in a very short way, kind of just--you know,
when people hear the Deepwater Horizon, they think, you know,
we're drilling 5,000 feet before we even--you know, we're going
down 5,000 feet before we touch the ocean floor which is not
the case.
Ms. Crockett. Yes.
Senator Begich. Can you----
Ms. Crockett. Absolutely. The Arctic offshore environment
is very, very different, as the Senator just pointed out, than
Gulf of Mexico.
Water depths in the Chukchi Sea, for example--well, first
of all, the leases that are being looked at today to be drilled
are about 80 to 100 miles offshore. The closest lease is 60
miles from shore, the farthest lease is about a 150 miles
offshore. So, Number 1, it's not quite as far from shore.
Number 2, water depths are substantially different. We're
looking at an area that's about a 150 feet deep as opposed to
5,000 feet deep. So from that perspective alone, it's a much--
it's probably inaccurate from a scientist point of view. It's a
much less dynamic environment because the water depths are
shallower.
Third, the reservoir pressures are much, much different.
Reservoir pressures in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea,
for the most part, excluding some onshore areas, are much, much
less. So the ability to, Number 1, contain a blowout, should it
occur, is, to use a layman's sort of point of view, it's
probably the difference between, let's say, a firecracker and
an M-80 that's going off, just to sort of put it in
perspective.
So those are really, in a nutshell, to be very brief in
answering your question, those are the----
Senator Begich. Sure.
Ms. Crockett.--biggest differences in terms of the
operating environment.
The other difference that I'll point out is that in Alaska,
we have a very limited number of players, companies that are
operating here. The Chukchi Sea, for example, even though it
was a $2.7 billion lease sale, has roughly six leaseholders. A
$2.7 billion lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico would generate 2
or 300 lease holders. So smaller, a fewer number of players,
much, much, much less activity occurring, and an operating
environment that's much different.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you. Into that, I want to
go, Admiral. During the Commerce Committee, I had an idea, an
amendment, and we weren't able to move it forward in the Shore
Act which is a piece of legislation that Senator Rockefeller,
the Chair, has put together as well as we've been able to put a
lot of our Arctic and Alaska kind of components into.
But one of the pieces I wanted to add in there but we were
unable to, because I think when you say it and I'm about to say
it, it gets people nervous and that is, and you've kind of said
it in your testimony, and that is, in order for us to
understand oil spill technology and how to maximize it and
improve it, we actually have to have controlled spills in order
to do that which means we have to do that on the water which
means we violate the Clean Water Act in order to understand
what we're preparing ourselves for because the only time we do
this research and that degree of research is when something bad
happens, like in the case of Exxon Valdez. So that's when we're
suddenly trying to move along and understand this new
technology.
Can you give me--I mean, I'm a believer in this, that, you
know, this is--understanding this technology, if you don't have
a controlled environment and that is one of the big issues that
comes up, was how do you deal with the Arctic environment.
Well, the best way to do that is you've got to sample it a
little bit and understand it and that means you have to not
just model it on a computer but you actually have to touch the
water at some point.
Can you give me some thoughts from the Coast Guard on that?
Every time I mention that,----
Admiral Colvin. Senator,----
Senator Begich.--I will tell you that just as soon as I
mention it, people like go crazy because they think it's--you
know, we're going to go out there and pollute the water. Well,
we've got to figure this out.
Admiral Colvin.--you know, Senator, I think small amounts
of water in a controlled type of, very controlled type of
environment that's actually in the Arctic would be very
beneficial for us from a response perspective, oil response
perspective.
The challenge we have right now is a lack of data. The
Coast Guard will be responsible to oversee an oil spill that
may happen. The responsible party, of course, is the party
tasked to actually clean it up, along with the Federal
cooperation and state cooperation.
Sir, the data that we have to rely on right now is
essentially from Norway and----
Senator Begich. Because they've done this kind of research?
Admiral Colvin.--they've done it, yes, sir, and getting the
data from Norway is completely subjective to them allowing us
to see it and they've been a great partner and they have
allowed us to have access to their information.
But I think it's important to realize that the climate in
Norway is significantly different. When you're up at Latitude
80 up there, you can still fish and they have a thriving
commercial fishing industry. Latitude 80 here is frozen. It's a
different world over here.
So, you know, you look at the results and you say, OK, you
know, it's instructive, but I sure wish we could do a little
bit in an isolated area, particularly in broken ice, maybe in
the spring, that type of thing, to find out what works and what
doesn't work, and I just don't know any other good way to do
it, sir.
Senator Begich. Thank you. My last question. Laura, as you
do the Arctic Visioning Strategy, I want to kind of go back to
Mayor Itta's original--my original question to Mayor Itta.
How are you engaging and actually, Richard, you brought it
up, too, the connectivity to the multiple villages, not just
being here in Barrow but how is your agency engaging not in
what has been described by Mayor Itta, the MMS, I call it check
the box and move on routine, but really hearing their thoughts
on how you develop that Arctic Visioning Strategy rather than,
no disrespect to all professors and all Ph.D.s and all the
people back in D.C. just drawing up stuff, but how do you
engage with folks like, as Richard said or Mayor Itta or Mary
Pete, how do you--what is the strategy there?
Ms. Furgione. Thank you, Senator, for your question. When I
moved back to D.C., the first thing they told me was to make
sure not to drink the kool-aid and to stay connected with the
local communities. So you understand that concept, as well.
We have a number of ways to maintain our connectiveness to
the local communities. As Mr. Glenn had said that we do have a
weather service office right here in Barrow and other NOAA
entities.
We also have partnerships with the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. Hio Iken is participating in a research project to
make sure that they are looking at this traditional ecological
knowledge, to incorporate that into our forecasts, and we even
have products now for the first time that try to incorporate
that information into our services and products so they can
better understand how the sea ice may impact the whalers and
the whaler centers.
Two other points is that we do have Amy Holman here with me
today. She's our NOAA Alaska Region Coordinator, so she makes
sure to facilitate across all of the NOAA line offices and also
to our stakeholders and partners.
We also just have a new Regional Climate Service Director
James Partain was just selected this week, as well. So we can
have a focus on the climate change right here in the state with
connections then to NOAA's intent to create the NOAA Climate
Service.
Senator Begich. Very good. Let me end there. Senator
Stabenow. Could you introduce and have Amy stand up, so
people--only because I want her to be seen by all those that
have input. OK. Thanks, Amy. Thank you.
OK. Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Senator Begich. Thank
you to each of you. I'm learning a lot and have many questions.
I won't ask all of them.
But, Mayor, let me just go back to you, and I know it's
very clear to me that, on the one hand, the oil and gas
industry has been a huge blessing in terms of the economy and
jobs and the resources certainly for our country, the resources
that we know are there that haven't been explored yet.
On the same token, the challenges, the concerns, the risks,
obviously certainly in a broad sense, both the benefits from
this great natural resource, but the carbon pollution that
comes from that is, on the other hand, creating the warming. So
they are great challenges, I think, and tensions that you can
see trying to work through all of that and I'm really learning
more about that.
But I know you have concerns. You've mentioned concerns
about offshore drilling which we certainly all appreciate. I
mean, I appreciate that coming from the debate even in our own
Great Lakes about that, what has happened in the Gulf and so
on.
Talk about onshore oil exploration for a moment because
this has been a very big part of your economy and jobs, and if
the onshore resources are no longer there, if it's moved
offshore, what does this mean to the borough in terms of your
economy and private sector jobs?
Mr. Itta. Thank you, Senator, and I'm glad you asked that
question.
As Mayor of the North Slope Borough, that is one of the
lessons that I've learned on my job, that one of the unique
responsibilities of being Mayor of a borough is to maintain not
only the present economic well-being of the region, but the
future economic well-being of the region.
I want to refer to three items that are ongoing. One is in
ANWR and that is in the 10.02 area on the efforts to
redesignate and virtually shut down any opportunity for oil
exploration within the coastal plain.
The second one was denial of the permit for what we call
CD-5 that you would look over as we go toward Prudhoe Bay
Alpine today, was the denial of that permit to get a pipeline
crossing across the Colville River which we look at as the
gateway to further oil and gas development within the National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska, NPRA, that you flew over.
Third was the current shutdown of any opportunities on
offshore, albeit temporary and with very good reason because of
the Gulf of Mexico incident, but what has happened is that, in
essence, in two generations up here since the discovery of oil
in Prudhoe Bay, we have gone from a subsistence-based economy
to a cash economy where we are now dependent on oil and gas and
mainly now oil and gas for the bulk of our revenues to provide
for the life safety and essential infrastructure of our vast
region up here. And we cannot go back and that is why I
continue to advocate for at least the eight policy positions to
be addressed in the hopes that the concerns will be mitigated
up here, and if offshore has to happen, which is what the
Federal Government, the past President and the current
President, and industry seem to be doing, rather than just say
no for no's sake, I've been advocating a position that strikes
a balance, if you will, to use Secretary Salazar's statement,
that I think that's enough said.
But we recognize the importance of oil and gas for the
economic well-being of our region because, as my colleague
Richard stated, things are different up here. It's very unique.
Things are so expensive. There's no roads. We maintain largely
our airports, roads, schools, health clinics. Virtually every
service is provided for by the North Slope Borough with revenue
largely from Prudhoe Bay.
Thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Just a little bit more on jobs because at
first glance, the very high-tech world of oil and gas
exploration seems very different from the ancient traditions of
bowhead whaling and skin boats, and I'm wondering, and this
would be for Mr. Glenn, as well, if you wanted to respond, how
the oil and gas companies have worked with your community, with
the Native American communities, the village corporations, to
make sure that there were local jobs and local hires.
Is this an area where there needs to be more done? Is this
an area that has worked well?
Mr. Itta. Senator, if you would, I would defer to my
colleague----
Senator Stabenow. Mr. Glenn?
Mr. Itta.--Richard Glenn on that, but, all in all, I think
they have done everything that was possible and with that, I'll
give it to Richard.
Mr. Glenn. So we've developed local training for local jobs
in our region in the hopes that our children, grandchildren
will be able to find a sense of worth, well-being, economic
opportunity and benefits and insurance packages and retirements
and everything that goes with a career, not just a job, and
that has been the vision of this Mayor, previous mayors that I
have worked with, and of our regional corporation, the
leadership that still exists in our regional corporation today
and those who founded it.
But we haven't done that well and I think that there's room
for improvement on both sides. If you take the time to look
back a little bit when oil exploration was the only activity in
our area, with the exception of isolated villages with almost
no infrastructure, people left home to go to work because they
had to feed their family and that would keep them away from
home for half years at a time.
Edward's part of this effort. I'm talking about the
exploration and discovery of Prudhoe Bay and the big fields
that came right after it, late 1960s to late 1970s, and at the
same time our borough was born and the borough was born to
improve the quality of life for our people.
So there was a bloom of construction opportunities here at
home, as well, and then so one generation of folks had to leave
home to feed their families. The next generation of folks maybe
were able to chase opportunities in their local village.
So now where are we? The borough revenues had hit a peak in
the, I would say, mid-1980s and have been on a slow decline
ever since then. There's less and less of a local economic
engine. If you're relying only on government service jobs, I
think that this has been a mixed blessing for our people. There
has been a generation of young folks that have grown up maybe
not having the necessity to leave their home to work in this
image we have of people who are getting healthy jobs in
industry, but it's happening. It's happening and industry
deserves credit for training programs. We deserve credit for
training programs and it's growing.
What people need is someone to make trail in front of them.
A young person will see a role model that has done something
and he'll follow and it kind of introduces a wave or a pyramid
of people behind them and where we're traveling today with you,
I hope Inupiat should be the postcard example of jobs in
industry because this is walk-to-work distance almost. It's 8
miles or 10 miles.
Senator Begich. In D.C., we would say that would be
impossible to have done. But eight miles is like eight blocks
in comparison.
Mr. Glenn. Right.
Senator Begich. If you want to give a comparison.
Mr. Glenn. If you look out your living room window from
Inupiat, where we were just visiting with representatives from
the Department of Interior, you can see the drill rigs. You can
see the flares, the safety flares from the production
operations at night and so it must really rub people the wrong
way if that's there and they are somehow either unable or not
participating in full-time satisfactory employment, and I don't
think that the answer is because there's this cultural
difference between pure subsistence lifestyle and the modern
tools of industry because we've had this question before.
If you go to even our smallest village, there's a power
plant running. There's a water-sewer plant running. There are
the physical plants of a village and if you open the door in
there 24 hours a day, three shifts around the clock, 7 days a
week, chances are there's an Inupiat person there working the
shift. His duty is to the shift, his duty is to keep the lights
on. It happens here at the local gas fields, too, because I was
there, and so when the power goes out, they wake up worried.
What did I do wrong? Is my partner not monitoring his station?
And so these people have not sacrificed their culture for
their duty to their community, in the same way I know our
people did not sacrifice their culture for gainful satisfactory
rewarding jobs in the oil patch.
The problem is making it happen and making it. In some
examples, some of our role models were champions fighting
industry and it's hard for the next generation to look back to
the same thing that my uncle or my grandfather was fighting and
now say I want to be a part of you. So we got our own issues to
take care of, but it's happening and any help there would be
encouraged.
Your earlier question was also important. If oil
production, exploration production comes to the ocean, I think
the borough still stands to benefit because, from everything
I've heard, the oil has to come ashore. When it comes ashore,
it has a landfall. There will be facilities there. There will
be pipelines transmitting it to, hopefully to a tap system.
That would be something that rivals the Great Wall of China in
this part of the world because it would be a huge new piece of
infrastructure, tax opportunities, and might open the door to
new safe onshore exploration opportunities that are currently
being held fallow because there's no infrastructure nearby.
So even offshore development holds benefits to our borough,
to our village residents for employment and tax base.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Just a couple questions
related to the offshore drilling because with what happened
with deep water horizons is just very--you know, it's very
present for all of us who have gone through months now of
briefings and looking at what's happening and working with our
colleagues in the Gulf and so on.
And, Ms. Crockett, you spoke about it being different here
because it's not as deep and so on, but how would the companies
access the offshore resources and how would they respond, I
mean, if something were to happen here? Do you feel confident
in the ability to respond with existing technologies and
resources and so on?
Ms. Crockett. Yes, Senator. Thank you. Thank you for that
question.
Yes, I do. If we look at--the company that has the--that is
the most active, if you will, if they could be active, they
would be active, is Shell and if you look at the plans that
they had in place for their drilling program in the Chukchi
Sea, it was extraordinary and it was unprecedented.
They had 24/7 response vessel capability nearby. They had
built-for-purpose ships that were at the location, that would
be at the location the entire time that they were drilling
during the exploration phase. So really an unprecedented,
especially here in Alaska, kind of drilling program that we
don't see anywhere else in the United States, frankly.
A lot of that has to do with the fact that it is a remote
operating area. There's not another platform that's 10 miles
away that you can, you know, call for assistance from and so
they really ramped up to do that. So that's just one example of
sort of the differences in the capability of the industry as it
operates in the offshore.
In the Beaufort Sea, drilling activity that may be taking
place there, very, very shallow water depths, very, very close
to existing infrastructure obviously with Prudhoe Bay and the
existing infrastructure there and the cleanup organizational,
Alaska Clean Seas, that's in existence at that location.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Just a couple of quick
questions for Admiral Colvin and then I'll turn it back over to
Senator Begich.
But to change the subject just a little bit, you
highlighted the problems with the Polar Sea Icebreaker, taking
that out of operation and the Polar Sea was going to be used
this summer to conduct the oil spill response drills.
Without the Polar Sea or other icebreakers like the Polar
Star, how is the Coast Guard going to be able to conduct these
drills in the coming years?
Admiral Colvin. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, for the
question.
We're not going to be. Unless the--well, we can certainly
operate in open water during the summer and we can bring up our
ships that normally operate in the Bering Sea, as long as it
has summer open water conditions, and we can go ahead and do
oil spill drills.
The challenge becomes earlier in the season on the
shoulders. As you get early or late in the season when the ice
is rapidly forming in November or earlier in the season, you
really need the icebreakers to operate in those conditions and
certainly throughout the winter.
One of the challenges, Senator, that I see with the
icebreakers, we've taken the money away from the icebreakers,
the maintenance and operations money, and we've given it to the
National Science Foundation and Congress is working hard to
give that money back.
The National Science Foundation has done exactly what I
would do if I was running the National Science Foundation.
That's put as many scientists aboard as many ships as possible
to get as much science done.
What that has resulted in is having Russian, Swedish, and
Canadian, a wide variety of foreign icebreakers operating in
U.S. waters. My contention would be that does very little to
enhance the sovereignty of the United States. We need to put
those same U.S. scientists aboard U.S. ships operating in U.S.
waters and that I think the National Science Foundation and
everybody would be delighted if we had operational icebreakers
and enough of them to put the U.S. scientists aboard U.S.
ships. (a) we'd get the science and (b) we'd make sure we
ensure our sovereignty.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. In the interest of time,
Senator, I will conclude at this point.
Thank you.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Let me, if I can, say
I just have one--if I can just do a quick follow up on that.
I'm trying to remember the class of icebreaker capable, we
were talking on the plane last week, and remind me of that
class because there was a lower cost but still could do an
enormous amount of work. What was that class?
Admiral Colvin. Yes, sir. The Healy is what we call a
medium icebreaker. Even though it's as big as the Polars as far
as length, it can only break ice up to about three meters
thick. So that's a medium icebreaker and we currently have
Healy operating with the Canadian Icebreaker Louis St. Laurente
right now in the disputed area between Canada and the United
States mapping that out. It's a great cooperation between the
United States and Canada.
But that's fairly limited as to what they can do. The Polar
icebreakers, the two Polar icebreakers, the Polar Sea and Polar
Star, the two most powerful conventional icebreakers in the
world, the only more powerful ones are the Russian nuclear
icebreakers, those are the ones that can break ice up to 20
feet and they can go up to the North Pole. They can operate
throughout U.S. Arctic.
Senator Begich. And what are the costs of those? Remind me.
Admiral Colvin. Sir,----
Senator Begich. I know I'm sitting now, so it's OK.
Admiral Colvin. Well, Senator, if you're asking to replace
one, my understanding is it's probably in the $500 million
range.
Now if you're asking how----
Senator Begich. Refurbished. Go ahead.
Admiral Colvin.--expensive it is to fix the Polar Star,
because the Polar Star had been taken out of operation, losing
the maintenance and operations money, it had been taken out of
operation and was just sitting at the pier in Seattle, when
Congress said, hey, let's go ahead and fix the Polar Star and
put it back into operation, about $68 million to get it
returned to operation, but that was last year when the money
and the work was started or actually this year, 2010. It'll be
2013 before it's ready to go.
So by letting that ship just sit there for about 5 years,
we ended up having to wait another 3 years after we gave it the
money before it will become operational.
Senator Begich. Very good. Let me say again, thank you to
the panelists. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your
written testimony.
What's going to happen in seconds, I'm told, once I hit
that gavel and suddenly people get up, seats will move around
and this will turn into an opportunity for a town hall meeting
that's occurring next, and I want to thank you all for the good
testimony.
It's interesting. I have to agree with you, Marilyn, that
no one coordinated but the one common thread that I heard was
the issue of research, technology, and how do we ensure that
the funding stream is there maybe for equipment to data
collection to understanding, so when the data is there, then
the decisions are made, the oil and gas development or fishing
or transportation, you can make them with some knowledge and
that seemed to be a very common thread. So I really appreciate
the information and the testimony.
Thank you all very much. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, for
being here today for this. We're going to later go fly over and
see some of the areas and so that's going to be very exciting.
So thank you all very much. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]