[Senate Hearing 115-896]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-896
PREPARING FOR MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
IN A CHANGING ARCTIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE,
FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 6, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-560 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin, Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
MIKE LEE, Utah EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY PETERS, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 6, 2018................................. 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 3
Witnesses
Captain Edward Page, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired) and Executive
Director, Marine Exchange of Alaska............................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO, Chamber of Shipping of America. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Willie Goodwin, Chairman, Arctic Waterways Safety Committee...... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Andrew Hartsig, Arctic Program Director, Ocean Conservancy....... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Appendix
Letter to Senator Sullivan from Mead Treadwell, Chair, Arctic
Circle Mission Council on Shipping and Ports and Co-chair,
Woodrow Wilson Center Polar Institute Advisory Board........... 37
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Willie Goodwin................................................. 38
PREPARING FOR MARITIME TRANSPORTATION IN A CHANGING ARCTIC
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Wicker, Fischer,
Gardner, Young, Baldwin and Schatz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmospheres, Fisheries and the Coast Guard will now come to
order. I want to thank our witnesses, many of whom have
traveled from far places like Alaska to come to this hearing
and talk about an issue that has been actually highlighted
quite a lot recently in the media, but the Arctic seas have
historically been considered impassable and impractical to
maritime transportation routes. But the retreat of Arctic sea
ice, better ice-breaking technology and global demand for
Arctic resources has led to an increase in human activity and
has raised interest and concerns about the future of the
region.
Today's hearing is intended to bring together different
stakeholders from across different disciplines to more fully
understand what challenges and opportunities lay ahead and what
is currently being done to ready the Nation for a changing
Arctic.
Data provided by NOAA indicates that as 2011, Arctic sea
ice was 42 percent thinner than it was in 1979. If this trend
continues, the Arctic Ocean may be ice free during the summer
months within the next 20 years. It therefore, behooves our
Federal Government, all of us, private industry and Arctic
stakeholders to fully focus on preparing for this new
eventuality.
[Chart.]
Senator Sullivan. I have a chart here that shows already,
it is possible to safely navigate the Arctic via the Northwest
Passage or the Northern Sea Route, as you see in the blue and
the orange here. These routes can save shippers weeks in travel
and are thousands of nautical miles shorter when compared to
using the Suez Canal or Panama Canals. Yet much of the critical
infrastructure needed to support an increase in safe shipping
does not currently exist, particularly in the United States,
which is an Arctic nation because of my state, the State of
Alaska.
The challenges in the Arctic are manyfold, including the
lack of an American port, ice breaking capabilities, increased
demands for search and rescue, environmental response, vessel
traffic safety and security, law enforcement, and fisheries
resource management.
One chief concern among these challenges is the lack of a
deep water port within close enough proximity to serve as a
staging area for search and rescue, pollution response,
environmental concerns, and Arctic security operations.
Currently, the closest U.S. port to the Arctic is Dutch
Harbor in Unalaska which is nearly 1,000 miles away from the
Arctic Circle. This is almost like having a port based in
Florida taking care of operations in Boston. Nobody on the East
Coast would tolerate that situation.
Further, much of the hydrographic survey data relied upon
for safely navigating the Arctic region is a half a century
old, if not older. Consistent and reliable communications
within the northern latitudes is also a great concern. Limited
satellite coverage, poor transmission of radio signals and
sparse cellular phone networks all contribute to difficulty in
operating in the Arctic in terms of communications.
Overcoming these hurdles will take a whole of Government
effort. Working with industry, non-Governmental partners,
Arctic communities and strong international cooperation to
ensure the consistent flow of commerce and the preservation and
protection of the natural Arctic environment.
The U.S. Coast Guard, one of the prime Federal agencies
involved in securing America's future in the Arctic, has begun
its Arctic Port Assessment Route Study. This study will analyze
current vessel traffic, projected increases and will make
recommendations for future rulemaking, actions, or appropriate
international agreements as it pertains to vessel routing,
traffic separation schemes and other related measures. And I
applaud the Coast Guard for their proactive measures and look
forward to reviewing their findings.
The United States, of course, is not alone in its efforts
to facilitate safe commerce and activity in the Arctic region.
As a member of the Arctic Council, along with other Arctic
nations like Canada, Russia, and the Nordic countries, we are
working together in a consensus-based inter-Governmental form
which aims to promote environmental, social, and economic
aspects of sustainable development in the Arctic.
The council is critical to successful implementation of the
international code for ships operating in polar waters.
President Putin, though, has also mentioned that he views the
Arctic as the next Suez Canal and the Russians intend to
control it, which I do not think is in America's interest.
The potential in the Arctic is hard to fully quantify for
more efficient shipping routes to supporting and enabling
America's blue economy, the Arctic is a great resource, one for
which we must begin preparing for today to ensure we can
maximize its potential while also protecting its environmental
integrity and importance.
With that, I want to again thank our witnesses for being
here today. I look forward to hearing their thoughts on these
issues, and I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening
statements that she may have.
Senator Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Sullivan: I appreciate
your convening this important hearing. The Arctic is rapidly
changing as many countries, including the United States, look
to expand their presence in the region. It is becoming
increasingly important that we chart a thoughtful course that
simultaneously seeks to promote international cooperation,
environmental protection, and efficient commerce, while
protecting our Nation's security.
Even though my great State of Wisconsin is a long way from
the Arctic Circle, though sometimes the winters feel similar, I
have some perspectives that I would like to share as some of
the emerging issues in the Arctic are already underway in the
Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes region faces similar changes to the Arctic
with regards to experiencing climate change effects and the
need for additional ice breaking capability, accurate nautical
charting, and methods to respond to an oil spill in icy
conditions.
The Great Lakes have been a major commercial shipping hub
since the late 19th century. We have the Lakers, that carry
cargo between the lakes and the Salties that enter the lakes
from the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence Seaway. These
vessels transport large amounts of iron ore for the steel
industry, coal for power generation, stone for construction,
and grain for both domestic and international consumption.
There are more than 100 commercial ports in the Great Lakes.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Transportation System handles about 230
million metric tons of cargo each year.
Wisconsin's Great Lakes ports alone, moved approximately 27
million metric tons of cargo and generated $1.4 billion in
economic activity. Direct and indirect spending supported just
over 7,400 jobs last year.
Great Lakes cargo shipping makes sense. It saves $3.6
billion in transportation costs compared to the cheapest land
based transportation. But it is not always easy. Safe and
efficient shipping depends upon reliable nautical charts, and
currently, these maps need to be updated for the Great Lakes.
There are infrastructure challenges of maintaining ports,
locks, and seaways. There are environmental consequences like
water quality degradation and invasive species that cost the
Great Lakes economy over $100 million in losses each year. And
there is the issue of winter ice and ice breaking.
Historically, winter weather conditions on the Great Lakes
have been relatively consistent and timing the shipping season
and the aid of Coast Guard ice breakers has insured relatively
few delays, but climate change is creating more variable winter
conditions in the Great Lakes, with some winters being much
icier than others, and this poses major risks to shipping. The
winters of 2014 and 2015, when ice cover on the Great Lakes
peaked at an average of over 90 percent, icy conditions caused
delays in shipments, including ships getting stuck in the ice,
like the cargo ship Arthur M Anderson in 2015.
It was two Canadian Coast Guard ice breakers that broke it
free to transport iron ore from Wisconsin to Ohio--not our own.
The Lake Carriers Association estimated that ice-related
shipping delays during these two winters cost the industry $705
million and $355 million in lost revenue, respectively.
Even during last year's relatively milder winter shipping
season, the Coast Guard experienced significant lost operation
hours on their ice breakers due to maintenance issues. That is
why I have been and remain an advocate to ensuring that the
Coast Guard gets another ice breaker that is at least as
capable as the Mackinaw. The Great Lakes needs to ensure safe
and continued maritime commerce.
Senator Sullivan, the need for additional ice breakers in
consideration of climate change impacts on ice cover and
infrastructure challenges are shared between the Arctic and the
Great Lakes, and there is a lot that I think we can agree on.
And I look forward to working together to ensure safe shipping
in these regions, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses this morning.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. I think it is
a great point that certainly we have a lot to learn from, in
terms of, how the Great Lakes have operated and a lot of common
interest, including our ice breaking fleet both for the Arctic
region and the Great Lakes region.
Again, I want to welcome our witnesses. We have a number of
my constituents who made the long trek from Alaska. We very
much appreciate that. Starting from my left, we have Captain Ed
Page, who is a retired Coast Guard Captain, is currently the
Executive Director of the Marine Exchange of Alaska; Kathy
Metcalf, the President and CEO, Chamber of Shipping of America;
Willie Goodwin, Chairman of the Arctic Waterways Safety
Committee; and Andrew Hartsig, who is the Director of the
Arctic Program for the Ocean Conservancy. You will each have 5
minutes to deliver an oral statement and we will, of course,
submit a longer written statement to be included in the record
for the testimony and official record of this hearing.
We will begin with you, Captain Page. Thank you and
welcome.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN EDWARD PAGE, U.S. COAST GUARD (RETIRED)
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE EXCHANGE OF ALASKA
Captain Page. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to
testify before you today regarding preparing for the increased
maritime activity anticipated in the Arctic region.
As mentioned before, my name is Ed Page, I am the Executive
Director of the Marine Exchange of Alaska, which is a nonprofit
maritime organization established to provide information,
communication services to aid safe, secure, efficient
environment maritime operations.
And my comments today are based on my 50 years of maritime
experience--30 of which have been in Alaska. My comments also
comport with the interest of my Board of Directors who are the
maritime ministry of Alaska: fishermen, vessel operators, ports
and pilots, and communities.
The nature of maritime traffic in the Arctic, as much
before, is evolving, has more operators, our testing viability
of operating and transient waters of new maritime frontier. I
commend this Subcommittee for looking forward-looking ahead to
ensure that we do it right, we close the barn door before the
horses get out, if you will.
I embarked on my maritime career in 1968 when I entered the
Coast Guard Academy and first sailed to Alaska in 1973. And
since then, I have experienced Arctic waters from the decks of
Coast Guard vessels tankers, off-shore supply vessels, cargo
ships, and oil spill response vessels. And in doing so, I have
learned the Arctic is a lot different. It is more remote. It
has challenges to the cold, the darkness, the presence of ice,
environmental sensitivity and other challenges of lack of other
activities, and infrastructure support a vessel in trouble.
It is a new maritime frontier, and it is the Wild West. I
also served as Chief Environmental Protection for the Coast
Guard during the Exxon Valdez oil spill. During that period, I
spent 3 years, over which there was two and a half billion
dollars expended, and 10,000 people involved in spill response.
My takeaway from the experience, we need to do a better job of
preventing. Prevention is the focus.
Later in my career, I served as the Captain of the Port Los
Angeles, Long Beach, and during that period, we developed a
joint partnership with the State of California, the Coast
Guard, and the Marine Exchange of Maritime Ministry developed a
vessel tracking system to ensure maritime domain managed for
its very complex port. I took that model and retired from the
Coast Guard in 2001, started the Marine Exchange of Alaska, but
today, it operates one of the largest tracking systems in the
world in its private nature, encompasses 1.5 million square
miles. We have a 24-hour-a-day operating center and it is
supported by the Coast Guard, NOAA, the State of Alaska and the
maritime industry. It is a public-private partnership on
steroids, in my mind, for the maritime industry.
As noted by the Coast Guard Commandant Schultz recently in
his policy vision for enabling maritime commerce, he recognized
increasing accessibility to the Arctic, also introduced some
increased risk. To that end, the Coast Guard R&D Center
embarked with a joint project with the Marine Exchange of
Alaska called the Arctic Next Generation Navigational Safety
Information System. And it recognized basically that they are
not going to continue to put buoys and lighthouses to provide
aids and navigation for mariners in the Arctic. Buoys do not
stay in place in ice. So this 5-year project that was
undertaken demonstrated the use of technology to transmit
virtual buoys in ice conditions and other broadcast
information, safety information, vessels a more expedient way,
clear way, digitally. The project was just completed a little
while ago. I urge that we take this concept, which we used--we
built 235 transmitting stations in the Alaska to demonstrate
the viability of this and continue moving on to an actual
capability that is fully implemented for the Arctic, providing
information to vessels transiting those waters.
With the help of the Arctic Domain Awareness Center, we
have been able to take this automatic identification system of
tracking vessels and even squeeze more value out of it, and one
of those projects has been identifying the historical transit
of vessels and provide the information NOAA to system and focus
in which areas need to be charted. Basically, charting where
vessels are going. Also this information is used to help the
Coast Guard and the PAR study for the Bering Strait, and again,
that now has been implemented since last week, and I believe
that is going to be going for the rest of the Arctic, which I
think fully support.
Also in western Alaska, we have developed an industry-led
alternative planning criteria, which focus more on prevention
and this is implemented by the Alaska Maritime Prevention
Response Network, proven very effective. It is monitoring
vessels, setting track lines, implementing more spill response
equipment. There have been some missteps as of late as far as
interpretation of that policy that I believe has been very
successful, and I am pleased to see that Congress is having
that looked at, studied again and hopefully, re visit and turn
more toward the prevention side and less toward response,
reactive side.
I also support expanding the capabilities of Nome, so they
can provide the logistic support that the Coast Guard, NOAA and
other vessels and the Polar Security Cutters makes all the
sense in the world. Right now, our vessel breaks down in the
Arctic, it is like looking for a tow truck if you are broken
down in D.C. and find it in Denver, a couple of days away, so.
Thank you for your time. I stand prepared to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Captain Page follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Edward Page, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired)
and Executive Director, Marine Exchange of Alaska
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am
honored to testify today regarding preparing for maritime
transportation in our Nation's changing Arctic. My name is Ed Page and
I am the Executive Director of the Marine Exchange of Alaska a non-
profit maritime organization I founded in 2001. My comments today are
based on my 50 year maritime career of which 30 have been in Alaska. My
comments also comport with the sentiments of the Marine Exchange's
Board of Directors.
I embarked my maritime career in 1968 upon entering the Coast Guard
Academy and over the following 33 years sailed on Coast Guard vessels
and served in a variety of marine safety assignments in the contiguous
United States, overseas and Alaska. I've had the opportunity to
experience Arctic waters from the deck of a Coast Guard vessel,
tankers, offshore supply vessels, cargo ships and oil spill response
vessels. Later, while serving as the Chief of Marine Environmental
Protection for the 17th Coast Guard District (Alaska region) during the
Exxon Valdez oil spill it became evident to me greater emphasis should
be directed towards preventing marine casualties. Despite the three-
year spill response, during which thousands of responders were employed
and over 2.5 billion dollars expended, there are still adverse impacts
to Prince William Sound. The effectiveness of oil spill response is
similar to success in fighting forest fires. While response
capabilities are needed, increased focus on prevention clearly provides
the best return on investment. Later, as Captain of the Port for the
LA/LB port region I learned the value of public/private partnerships in
establishing a joint Coast Guard, State of California, and marine
industry vessel tracking system. I retired from the service in 2001 to
establish the non-profit Marine Exchange of Alaska, to provide the
Alaska maritime community an organization with the capability to
agilely implement technological solutions and standards of care to
enhance maritime safety.
Arctic waters are far different than other waters of the U.S.
Arctic waters are environmentally rich but fragile, remote, subject to
extreme cold and at times covered in ice. Due to the lack of resources,
responding to a marine casualty in the Arctic is more challenging than
anywhere else in the U.S. Fortunately, as demonstrated in Coast Guard
Commandant Schultz's recent Vision for Enabling Maritime Commerce, the
Coast Guard recognizes increased accessibility to Arctic waters
introduces increased risk. This strategic document noted the need to
assess, monitor and manage these risks and addressed modernizing aids
to navigation and mariner information systems.
Arctic Maritime Traffic: The nature of maritime traffic in
the U.S. Arctic is evolving as some operators of cargo vessels
and cruise vessels who avoided Arctic waters in the past are
now testing the viability of transiting the waters of this new
maritime frontier. Currently, most maritime traffic in the U.S.
Arctic is affiliated with research, support of oil exploration
and production and shipping of goods and materials to remote
communities. Over the past 12 years the Marine Exchange of
Alaska has built and currently operates an extensive Automatic
Identification System (AIS) comprised of over 130 vessel
tracking receiver stations in Alaska. This system provides
information on maritime activity in the Arctic to the Coast
Guard, NOAA, the State of Alaska and other maritime
stakeholders to help assess and monitor vessel operations in
the Arctic as well as to aid responses to marine casualties.
The historical information provided by this system is being
used by NOAA to prioritize their hydrographic surveys and
charting of Arctic waters. With the benefit of historical
maritime traffic routes and updated charts, the Coast Guard was
able to establish the first polar vessel routing measures and
marine protected areas adopted by IMO in the Bering Strait (the
passage between Russia and Alaska). These went into effect
early this week, on December 1st, 2018. Similar efforts to
provide mariners information on routes that minimize
environmental and safety impacts developing from increased
maritime activity for the remainder of U.S. Arctic waters
encompassing the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas needs to be
undertaken.
Technological Solutions: With the location of ice ever
changing, the implementation of communications technology
capable of providing updated vessel routing measures and
information on dynamic marine protected areas has been explored
by the Coast Guard R&D Center in partnership with the Marine
Exchange of Alaska. The five-year project titled the ``Arctic
Next Generation Navigational Safety Information System''
determined AIS transponders can be used to effectively transmit
navigational safety and environmental information to vessels
sailing Arctic waters. The traditional navigational safety
systems comprised of lighthouses, buoys and shore aids to
navigation are not suitable for the Arctic. While physical
buoys will be swept away by ice, the R&D project demonstrated
AIS is capable of transmitting virtual buoys (aids to
navigation) that can be displayed on vessels' navigational
systems. The technological solutions identified by the R&D
effort provide the most cost-effective solution for addressing
the Coast Guard's waterways management mission. These Arctic
tailored technological solutions should move from being
conceptual to operational.
Maritime Domain Management and Response: The Coast Guard now
has the tools and information to monitor maritime activity in
the Arctic. This is commonly referred to as Maritime Domain
Awareness. We need to move from Maritime Domain Awareness to
Maritime Domain Management of our Arctic waters. For Western
Alaska waters, including the Arctic, the marine industry
proposed Alternative Planning Criteria (APC) to address
environmental protection and established the non-profit Alaska
Maritime Prevention and Response Network to implement elevated
risk mitigation and response capabilities prescribed in the
APC. Millions of dollars were expended in expanding vessel
tracking capabilities for 1.5 million square miles of Alaska
waters to aid adherence to routing measures through monitoring
and communicating with vessels 24 hours a day and the
procurement and staging of additional oil response equipment in
the Arctic. Over the last few years Coast Guard policy re APCs
has diminished the capabilities and effectiveness of this
industry led initiative by redirecting emphasis from prevention
to response. I trust the direction to the Coast Guard and the
Comptroller General to report on and audit APCs and pollution
response in the recent Coast Guard Authorization Bill passed by
both the House and Senate should restore the progress APCs have
made towards preventing marine casualties and oil spills in the
Arctic.
U.S. Arctic Port at Nome: As Arctic maritime operations
increase the need to support the logistics needs of U.S.
vessels operating in the Arctic will increase beyond the
capabilities of our northernmost U.S. port in Nome. Coast Guard
and Navy vessels, research vessels, offshore supply vessels and
tugs, small cruise ships and other vessels operating in the
Arctic will need to be accommodated to address the increasing
maritime activity in the Arctic. Expansion of the Port of Nome
is the most viable option. Funding for dredging and outer
breakwater construction at Nome will help our Nation take
advantage of the opportunities the Arctic presents for our
economy as well as help fulfill our responsibility of
protecting our Arctic waters from unsafe and environmentally
harmful maritime activity.
Icebreaking Capacity: The Coast Guard's Polar Security
Cutter initiative is clearly in our Nation's best interests in
protecting this emerging maritime frontier. There are few
vessels operating in the U.S. Arctic that can respond to
mariners in distress and none that can enforce laws and
treaties. The opening of Arctic waters to more maritime
activity is presenting a substantially greater role for the
Coast Guard in the Arctic that needs to be properly resourced.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I am willing to answer any questions you may have and pleased to
provide additional information to the Subcommittee members and staff at
any time.
Senator Sullivan. Great, well thank you, Captain Page. And
next, we will hear from Ms. Metcalf.
STATEMENT OF KATHY METCALF, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CHAMBER OF
SHIPPING OF AMERICA
Ms. Metcalf. Good morning. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking
Member Baldwin, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
this very important issue. I am Kathy Metcalf, President and
CEO of the Chamber of Shipping. We represent members with a
U.S. base of operations that operate in both the domestic and
international trades and operate both U.S. flag and non-U.S.
flag vessels.
Shipping in Arctic waters--and we have all read a number of
projections--is expected to increase in volume over the future.
That is why we are all here. Four particular maritime
transportation needs: one is the offshore support vessels that
are expected to increase due to increased offshore exploration;
two is the Arctic is a destination transport with ships moving
energy, raw materials, and other goods from, between Arctic
ports and the rest of the world. You mentioned, Senator
Sullivan, trans-Arctic shipping using at least for right now,
the Northern Sea Route, potentially in the future, the
Northwest Passage. And then the fourth, cruise shipping and
tourism. I am not going to bore you with the details of some of
the Arctic governance issues, but we do have some concerns. In
1996, the Arctic Council was formed. The work of the Arctic
Council is initiated through 6 working groups, 2 of interest
here--I mean they are all interesting, but these 2 particular
ones--one is the Emergency Prevention for Preparedness and
Response Working Group, and the other is the Protection of the
Marine Environment Group. Under PAME, 3 initiatives have come
to fruition. In 2009, the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment was
agreed. The Arctic Ship Strategic Plan in 2004, and most
recently, and of importance to the industry, is the Arctic
Shipping Best Practices Form, which is an opportunity for all
stakeholders to sit down, share information, and that will be
even more important as the volumes increase and as the
experiences in the Arctic increase.
We are a founding member of the International Chamber of
Shipping, and in my written testimony, are details of seven key
principles related to marine transportation and the Arctic. And
I would note today, I am addressing that, obviously, as a U.S.
ship owner rep, the U.S. Arctic, but also the Arctic as a
whole. Because what happens someplace else may obviously still
impact the U.S. Arctic.
Principally, in these fundamentals is the maintenance of a
global framework where possible that would regulate Arctic
shipping through the International Maritime Organization. It
would create a global set of consistent, understandable, and
well-known standards that can be implemented across the world
shipping fleets. You have mentioned development of the marine
infrastructure--full and free market access--there are some
concerns as you mentioned President Putin indicated that the
Arctic is--he would like to see it become the next Suez Canal.
We would not. We would hope that there would be free navigation
in accordance with UNCLOS.
Senator Sullivan. We fully agree with you on that point.
Ms. Metcalf. I thought you would. Now the Polar Code you
had mentioned earlier, and I am not going to belabor that
point, but of note there, is that there are 2 safety and
environmental protection mandatory sets of that, as well as
some recommendatory of that story. There is also training,
international training that is included in there. But for the
last minute, I would like to emphasize the fact that we have
several members that operate in the Arctic and have for years.
Crowley Maritime Corporation has extensive experience in the
Arctic. Starting in the mid-1950s when they serviced the
distant Due Line, off the northern coast of Canada. In 1968,
Crowley began providing services in the Arctic through its
sealifts to Pudeau Bay as well as petroleum transport for the
resupply of remote villages. Today their operating areas
include the entire Arctic Coast of the U.S. with a storage
capacity of more than 75 million gallons. Crowley is one of the
unquestionable leaders in the provision of energy resources to
the Arctic. They operate seven U.S. flag and ten U.S. flag
barges all burning low-sulfur fuels and have a number of other
environmental protection systems that have been put in place
long before the Polar Code ever required it.
As Senator Baldwin mentioned, it is a critical need to be
able to fund the infrastructure, whether it is through public,
private, or some combination of, as Ed mentioned, agreements
that provide the necessary things. So, enhancement of the U.S.
icebreaking capability, both in the Arctic and the Great Lakes,
benefits the U.S. economy and the efficiencies of our system.
It is critical.
In conclusion, the Arctic is changing, is ever-challenging
that Maritime Ministry Global and U.S. stands ready to meet
those needs, and I ran across a quote that I hope you'll permit
me 2 seconds to read by author William Arthur Ward, ``The
pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to
change. The realist adjusts the sails.'' We are ready to adjust
our sails.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Metcalf follows:]
Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO, Chamber of Shipping of America
Good morning, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Baldwin and Members
of the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony
at this hearing to discuss emerging transportation issues in the
changing Arctic region.
Mister Chairman, we respectfully request that our testimony be
entered into the record for this hearing.
I am Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO of the Chamber of Shipping of
America (CSA). CSA represents member companies which are U.S. based
that own, operate or charter both U.S. and non-US flag oceangoing
tankers, container ships, and other merchant vessels engaged in both
the domestic and international trades. Several of our members conduct
operations in the Arctic region including operations based in U.S.
waters.
Shipping in Arctic Waters
Recent observations and projections for the future suggest that
thinner ice and longer ice free periods could result in the possibility
of increased international shipping activity in the Arctic. There are
four main types of operations in the Arctic, all of which are projected
to increase in volume in the future:
(1) offshore support vessel activities supporting offshore
exploration activities
(2) destination transport with ships moving energy, raw materials
and goods from and between Arctic ports and the rest of the
world
(3) trans-Arctic shipping using commercially viable intercontinental
Arctic sea routes connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
via the Northern (Russian) Sea Route (NSR) and potentially in
the future, via the Northwest Passage (Canadian)
(4) cruise shipping and tourism
Technical developments in ship design, construction and equipment
that make operations possible in these remote regions with challenging
and unpredictable sea and weather conditions, are stimulating increased
interest in Arctic shipping driven for the most part by the increasing
demand for shipping services that can support the activities noted
above. Increased efficiencies in long range transportation routes can
be appreciated by noting that a voyage between Tokyo, Japan and
Hamburg, Germany via the Suez Canal is approximately 14,000 nautical
miles with a duration of approximately 50 days, while the same voyage
transiting the Northern Sea Route would be approximately 8000 nautical
miles with a duration of approximately 35 days resulting in more fuel
and time efficient transport of cargoes with a resulting reduction in
air emissions due to the significant reduction in transit miles.
In view of the anticipated increases in shipping services in the
Arctic, there is a growing awareness within the international community
about the impact of these increased activities on the sensitivity of
Arctic ecosystems and the need for a high degree of care by vessels
operating in and through the Arctic. The global shipping industry fully
acknowledges these concerns and is totally committed to the protection
of the Arctic marine environment, the prevention of pollution and the
safe operation of vessels in this area.
Arctic Governance Issues
In 1996, the Arctic Council was formed to promote cooperation,
coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic indigenous
communities and other stakeholders with a focus on sustainable
development and environmental protection. The Ottawa Declaration
established membership in the Arctic Council to include Canada,
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and
the United States. In addition, six organizations representing Arctic
indigenous peoples have status as Permanent Participants and an
observer status exists which is open to non-Arctic states and other
entities that the Council determines can contribute to its work.
The work of the Arctic Council is conducted through six working
groups which are the Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP), Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Conservation of Arctic
Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response
(EPPR), Protection of the Marine Environment (PAME), and Sustainable
Development Working Group ((SDWG). While all carry out vital projects,
EPPR and PAME are the two principle working groups relative to Arctic
shipping issues. In 2002, the Council requested PAME to develop a
strategic plan for the protection of the Arctic marine environment
which was approved as ``The Arctic Strategic Plan (AMSP)'' in 2004 with
four strategic goals including reduction and prevention of pollution,
conservation of Arctic marine diversity and ecosystem functions,
promotion of the health and prosperity of all Arctic inhabitants and
the advancement of sustainable Arctic marine resource use. PAME was
also charged with developing the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment
which was agreed by the Council in 2009 and is the subject of periodic
status reports with the most recent published in May 2017.
Most recently under the leadership of PAME, the Arctic Shipping
Best Practices Information Forum was created to raise awareness of the
provisions of the IMO Polar Code and to facilitate the exchange of
information and best practices among the forum participants. In
addition a number of Arctic Shipping Forums/Conferences have been
convened or are planned to facilitate discussions among all
stakeholders on critical issues and promote the sharing of information
which include governance issues as well as operational issues.
Principles with Respect to the Regulation of Ships and the Governance
of Maritime Activity in the Arctic
The international shipping industry through the International
Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and its member national associations, of
which CSA is a founding member, has identified 7 key principles related
to maritime activities in the Arctic:
(1) Maintenance of a global framework regulating Arctic shipping
under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), to ensure the creation and implementation of
comprehensive and consistent requirements for safety and
environmental protection.
(2) Development of Arctic maritime infrastructure to support safety
and environmental protection including programs to address aids
to navigation, nautical charts, satellite communications,
bunkering facilities, port reception facilities for ship's
waste, pilotage in shallow passage areas, ice-breaking
capabilities, search and rescue infrastructure and the
provisions of ``places of refuge''.
(3) Full participation of shipping nations in the decision making
processes associated with the development of Arctic shipping
requirements and programs. The rights of the nations which
compose the Arctic Council are acknowledged however these
rights should always be exercised in a manner that remains
consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and existing IMO conventions, including the recently
implemented Polar Code which amended the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL).
(4) Full and free market access and freedom of navigation.
Unilateral, national or regional regulations governing ship
safety, environmental protection or other shipping matters
should be avoided and must not disadvantage ships registered in
non-Arctic nations. The UNCLOS regime of transit passage for
straits used for international navigation should be given full
force and effect. Likewise, regulations governing market access
should be consistent with commitments made by governments at
the World Trade Organization (WTO).
(5) Need for legal clarity about the status of the Arctic.
Outstanding questions about the legal status of Arctic waters
need to be clarified at the United Nations level. In general,
in all waters (other than ``internal waters''), the right of
innocent passage within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
enshrined in UNCLOS should always apply. Further clarification
is needed as to the definition of ``internal waters'' as well
as the relationship between coastal states' rights and the
principles of innocent passage and transit passage enshrined in
UNCLOS. International shipping needs clarity with respect to
which nations or organizations are responsible for ensuring the
safety and environmentally responsible operations of ships
operating in Arctic waters.
(6) Transparency of national regulations. Although the shipping
industry promotes the concept of globally consistent
regulations for Arctic shipping consistent with UNCLOS and IMO
conventions, if national requirements are to be put in place
they should be clear, understandable and accessible to the
shipping industry to ensure successful compliance.
(7) Reducing bureaucracy and setting appropriate fees for services.
Consistent with coastal nations' rights and obligations under
UNCLOS, the development of Arctic shipping and the services
necessary to assure safe and environmentally responsible
operations should be fair, transparent and avoid the creation
of monopolistic practices where it is determined that fees
should be assessed on users. These processes should reconcile
the need for both environmental and economic sustainability and
will require the provision of maritime services that are
competitive and cost efficient.
The IMO International Code of Safety for Ships Operating in Polar
Waters (The Polar Code)
The Polar Code and related amendments to SOLAS and MARPOL, which
entered into force on 1 January 2017, is intended to cover the full
range of shipping related issues relevant to navigation in waters
surrounding both the North and South poles including ship design,
construction and equipment, operational and training concerns, search
and rescue, and protection of the unique environment and eco-systems of
the polar regions. The Polar Code includes mandatory measures covering
safety (part I-A) and pollution prevention (Part II-A) and
recommendatory provisions for both safety and pollution prevention
(parts I-B and II-B, respectively). The chapters in the Polar Code set
out goals and functional requirements including issues related to ship
structure, stability and subdivision, watertight and weathertight
integrity, machinery installations, operational safety, fire safety/
protection, life-saving appliances and arrangements, safety of
navigation, communications, voyage planning, manning and training,
prevention of oil and noxious liquid substance pollution, prevention of
pollution by sewage, and prevention of pollution by discharge of
garbage. The Polar Code also includes new manning and training
requirements which are now mandatory under the Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention and Code effective 1
July 2018 and include requirements for basic training (Master, Chief
Mate and officers in charge of a navigational watch) and advanced
training (Master, Chief Mate).
The Polar Code applies to vessels which operate in polar waters and
are required to be certified in accordance with the SOLAS Convention
(Part I safety and manning/training requirements) and/or the MARPOL
Convention (Part II). For non-SOLAS vessels required to hold a MARPOL
certification, only the provisions of Part II apply. New ships built on
or after 1 January 2017 must be compliant with the safety provisions at
the time of delivery while existing ships (built before 1 January 2017)
must comply with the safety provisions by their first intermediate or
renewal survey after 1 January 2018. As noted above the manning and
training requirements apply to new and existing ships on 1 July 2018.
The environmental protection requirements are applicable to both new
and existing vessels on/after 1 January 2017. Compliance with the Polar
Code is documented through the issuance of a Polar Ship Certificate and
requires the preparation of a ship-specific Polar Operations Manual.
US Flag Operations in the Arctic
As noted in my opening comments, CSA has several members that
operate in Arctic waters. For example, Crowley Maritime Corporation has
extensive experience in ice management and vessel operations in the
Arctic, supporting commercial and government services and goals.
Starting in the mid-1950s with the first operations in the Arctic by
commercial tug and barge service, Crowley began supplying the Distant
Early Warning (DEW) Line radar installations for the U.S. Air Force in
the Aleutians and across the northern coast of Canada. In 1968, Crowley
began providing services in the Arctic through its sealifts into
Prudhoe Bay as well as petroleum transportation for the re-supply of
remote villages, other commercial entities and government facilities.
Today, Crowley's operating areas include the entire Arctic coast of the
US, including sounds, bays and rivers and most recently has expanded to
serve the Canadian Arctic. Crowley has also successfully managed
projects in Prudhoe Bay, Sakhalin, Coronation Gulf of Canada and the
Barents Sea. With a storage capacity of more than 75 million gallons,
Crowley is one of the unquestionable leaders in the Alaska fuel
industry providing transportation, distribution and sales of petroleum
products to more than 280 communities across the state, including many
in the Alaskan Arctic. Crowley also supports the energy industry on the
North Slope with summer tug-and-barge sealifts of large production
modules and other essential marine transportation services.
As indicated by the examples above, Crowley offers a full range of
services including project management, heavy lift barge transportation,
ocean towing, engineering, liquefied natural gas (LNG) services, naval
architecture, vessel design and construction management, project
concept studies and emergency response services.
Crowley operates seven U.S. flag tugs and ten U.S. flag barges that
provide seasonal deliveries to the region that are paramount to the
viability and quality of life for the indigenous populations living in
the remote villages of the Alaskan Arctic. These vessels utilize ultra-
low sulfur diesel fuel and typically stop in Port Clarence to change
from deep sea towing gear to shallow draft towing gear to avoid
impacting the Arctic sea bottom. Crowley also utilizes shallow draft
assist vessels to manage barge operations in the shallow waters of the
region to further minimize its operational footprint in the Arctic.
Safe and environmentally responsible operation is the fundamental basis
of Crowley's operating philosophy and is reflected in its vessel
design, maintenance and crew training requirements, use of ice
monitoring to determine safe navigational routes and avoid wind driven
ice which can entrap equipment, and its collaboration with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to minimize the impact of its operations on
identified endangered species which includes the use of marine
observers and adherence to marine mammal avoidance areas.
Infrastructure Funding
As noted above, safe and environmentally responsible operations
require that attention be paid to infrastructure needs including
development and/or enhancement of navigation and communication systems,
aids to navigation, search and rescue capability, land-based systems to
enable bunkering and waste disposal, emergency response needs and
icebreaking capability. While all require funding likely from a
combination of public and private sources, in particular, I would bring
your attention to the current status of the U.S. Coast Guard's
icebreaking capability and the urgent need for additional funding to
meet the needs of both the U.S. Arctic waters as well as the Great
Lakes. Enhancement of the U.S. icebreaking capability will benefit the
U.S. economy and the efficiencies of the marine transportation system
by maximizing the operational seasons in both the Arctic and Great
Lakes. The industry fully supports and is appreciative of provisions
contained in the recently passed U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2018 addressing these critical resources.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the changing and ever challenging landscape
of the Arctic and Arctic shipping requires a realistic and pragmatic
assessment of the maritime transportation needs at a global level and
at the U.S. level relative to transportation needs in the U.S. Arctic.
The shipping industry will meet that challenge in a safe,
environmentally responsible and efficient manner taking into account a
quote from educator and author William Arthur Ward who commented that
``The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to
change; the realist adjusts the sails''.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. We would
be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Ms. Metcalf.
Mr. Goodwin.
STATEMENT OF WILLIE GOODWIN, CHAIRMAN, ARCTIC WATERWAYS SAFETY
COMMITTEE
Mr. Goodwin. Good morning. Good morning my name is Willie
Goodwin, and I am from Kotzebue, Alaska and serve as Chairman
of the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee. In northern Alaska,
we depend heavily on the ocean for our food resources. In some
of our communities, 90 percent of the food supply comes from
the ocean. We all depend on our coastal waters for local
transportation. As our sea ice melts, we are seeing dramatic
increases in other maritime traffic, including marine research,
tourism, international transit, and fisheries entanglements. In
2017, 24 different research cruisers were planked in our waters
for a three-month period. In 2016, Crystal Cruise Lines brought
1,700 people to the Arctic on the Crystal Serenity. We see
smaller vessels, commercial and private cruise traffic on a
regular basis. Sometimes vessels anchor offshore and just start
pouring passengers into our communities.
Changes are coming fast, and they are creating very real
risks. The Arctic Ocean is a dangerous place where at any time
we still have sea ice. Wind, weather, and sea state can change
without warning. We regularly have storms from a--with
hurricane force-winds. One of our communities, Beryl, lost two
experienced hunters this fall due to rough seas. Adding large
ocean-going vessels to these waters where we have people
already risking their lives to feed their families can be a
prescription for disaster. Alaska is a big state with a lot of
area for the Coast Guard to cover. The nearest Coast Guard
station, which is located in Dutch Harbor, is 700 miles from
Nome and 1,200 miles from Point Barrow. That is greater than
the distance from here to Omaha, Nebraska, and we are talking
travel by boat.
Through 2015, we had radio towers with ship-to-shore
capabilities from St. Lawrence Island to the Canadian border.
This system was privately funded by oil and gas operators, but
everyone used it. Oil and gas use it. Tug and barge use it.
Transiting vessels use it. Coast Guard use it. Our marine
mammal hunters depended on it as their lifeline to shore. When
Shell pulled out in 2015, all that disappeared. Thanks to
Captain Page and his team at the Alaska Marine Exchange, we
have AIS covered for most of our waterway. We can track
vessels, but we have no way of reaching them. We cannot warn
them if they are entering waters where we have hunters or other
residents in small craft, and we cannot communicate with them
if they are in distress. I cannot stress enough, the risk of
life caused by our lack of communication infrastructure and
other safety measures, but in Alaska, we do not just sit and
watch, we act and we get things done.
In 2014, working with Coast Guard District 17, our hunter
groups, local and regional Governments and tribes, marine
pilots, and commercial and industrial users got together and
stood up. The Arctic Waterways Safety Committee, our harbor
safety committee for the Arctic. We have initiated a waterway
safety plan, worked with the Coast Guard, NOAA and our Alaska--
and our Alaska delegation to push up the schedule for
bathymetric surveys through the Bering Strait and along our
coast. Contributing to the Port Access Route Study for the
Bering Strait region and started gathering information for the
Chukchi Beaufort Sea PARS. The Coast Guard, NOAA, NSF and BOEM
all participated in our Arctic Waterways Safety Committee
meetings. This organization--we got this organization off the
ground with private foundation funding, but our Federal
Government is getting huge benefit from our work. So our
academic researchers and commercial and industrial vessels
operators, but our private foundation money is gone.
Senators, here is the bottom line. The Arctic is no longer
opening. It is open, and here is what we have: hundreds of
local citizens transiting and hunting in our coastal waters in
small craft, increasing numbers of large ocean-going vessels
transiting the same water, an AIS system, a harbor safety
committee dedicated to maritime safety. But here is what we do
not have: communication infrastructure, a consistent Coast
Guard presence, modern ocean floor mapping, disaster response
infrastructure and resources, resources to continue our work on
maritime safety measures. We need resources, and we need
infrastructure. If you remember nothing else from my testimony
today, please remember this, the Arctic is home to coastal
maritime communities working underwater in small craft. The
Arctic also is a frontier where thousands of people are now
traveling in large vessels in poorly chartered waters. Our
Federal Government can work with us to support the approach we
are taking--putting safety measures and infrastructure in place
before the unthinkable happens, or our Federal Government can
take responsibility for addressing human disaster in one of the
harshest environments on Earth without infrastructure or even
communication capabilities. I encourage you to choose the first
option.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodwin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Willie Goodwin, Chairman,
Arctic Waterways Safety Committee
Good morning, my name is Willie Goodwin. I'm from Kotzebue, Alaska,
and serve as the Chairman of the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee.
Thank you for giving me a few minutes to speak with you. I am here
today to talk about the marine traffic we are seeing in our northern
Alaskan coastal waters, the concerns this traffic is creating, the
solutions we are developing, and the engagement we need from our
Federal government to continue the work to create a safe environment
for the arctic maritime.
The Arctic Marine Environment Is Changing Rapidly. Our coastal
communities in northern Alaska depend very heavily on the ocean for our
food resources. In some of our communities, 90 percent of the food
supply is taken from the ocean. In our remote villages, we don't have
access to grocery stores like you do here, so these resources are
critical to our food security.
They are the backbone of the subsistence culture of Native
communities throughout Alaska. Our principal marine resources are the
five main arctic marine mammals: the bowhead whale, beluga whale,
walrus, ice seals, and polar bear.
Our people have relied on these marine mammals for thousands of
years. They are so important to us that we created five tribally-
authorized hunter groups to speak for us on issues affecting our five
marine mammals. As hunters, we have managed our resource use for
thousands of years, but when the Marine Mammal Protection Act was
passed, we were forced to create formal organizations and get tribal
recognition so that we could convince the Federal government to pay
attention to us and to work with us. I recently retired from my long-
time position as Chairman of Alaska Beluga Whale Committee.
We also depend on our coastal waters for local transportation. We
don't have a Metro system like you have here in Washington, D.C. We
don't have Uber. There are no roads connecting our communities. So if
we want to travel between villages, we either take a snow machine
across the ice in winter or one of our small outboard skiffs along the
coast in summer.
This is the way things have been for us for thousands of years,
with snow machines replacing dog teams and outboards replacing canoes.
But now the Arctic is different. While the rest of the globe is just
beginning to wake up to the reality of climate change, we have been
watching its effects transform the Arctic right before our eyes for the
past 25 years. And the rate of change increasing every year. The Bering
Strait is now ice free year-round and fall 2017 was the latest freeze-
up on record for the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. On Monday it
was 24 degrees in Barrow. Not too long ago, that would have been a
summer temperature!
I am not here to talk with you about these climate facts, but I
hope that you are holding hearings to inform yourselves.
Arctic Maritime Traffic Is Increasing. The changing climate is
bringing a lot of other changes our way, including increasing marine
vessel traffic. Up north, we have been working with offshore oil and
gas operators since the1980s, to address impacts of their activities on
our waters, our resources, and our hunters. That has been a pretty
successful collaboration so far, but now we are also faced with other
vessel activity, including marine research, tourism, international
transit, and fisheries entanglements.
In 2017, we were notified of 24 different research cruises planned
for our waters in a three-month period. In 2016, Crystal Cruise Lines
brought 1,700 people to the Arctic on the Crystal Serenity for a cruise
up the coast of Alaska and through the Northwest Passage. We see
smaller commercial and private cruise traffic on a regular basis. It is
not unusual for vessels to anchor offshore and discharge foreign
passengers into our communities. We see vessels that we can't identify
hauling unknown cargo through our coastal waters.
These changes are coming faster than we can keep up with them. And
they are creating very real risks for our people and for the many
people now out on these very dangerous waters. One of our communities,
Barrow, lost two very experienced hunters this fall, due to rough seas.
The Arctic Waterways Safety Committee Has oversight of the Waters
From the Northern Bering Sea To the Canadian Border. As I'm sure you
know, the U.S. Coast Guard recognizes Harbor Safety Committees,
comprising local marine interests in the various ports and harbors of
the coastal U.S. In October 2014, a number of marine interests in
northern Alaska worked with Coast Guard District 17 to stand up a
Harbor Safety Committee for U.S. waters from the northern Bering Sea to
Canada. Since we don't have harbors in northern Alaska, we refer to
this committee as the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee, or AWSC.
The AWSC is the largest Harbor Safety Committee in the United
States, by area. And it is the only Harbor Safety Committee that
includes subsistence hunters. This is because, in Alaska, the greatest
number of marine users are subsistence hunters, working from small
skiffs to gather marine food resources for their communities.
In other areas of the country, hunting tends to be more of a
recreational activity. In the Arctic, hunting sustains life. So, where
we come from, when someone tells you they're a hunter, it means that's
somebody who gets things done. In this case, our marine mammal hunters
took the initiative, with the Coast Guard's guidance, to identify the
key marine interests and bring them together.
The AWSC is a 15-member committee, including one seat for a
representative from each of our five marine mammal hunter groups, as
well as the North Slope Borough, the Northwest Arctic Borough, the City
of Nome, the Alaska Marine Pilots Association, Marine Research (vessel
operators and research funders), Cruise Tourism, Tug and Barge
Operators, Oil and Gas/Mining, Fishing, and Regional Tribal Entities.
In the short time we've been together, we have begun to work
closely with the Coast Guard, NOAA, and our Alaska Delegation to
Congress to advocate for bathymetric surveys through the Bering Strait
and along our coastal areas. We engaged with District 17 in their work
on the Port Access Route Study for the Bering Strait Region and will
engage in the Chukchi Sea/Beaufort Sea PARS. We are engaged with NOAA
and Coast Guard District 17, providing updates and additions to the
Coast Pilot and Notice to Mariners, with seasonal notifications of
subsistence hunting times and areas.
We are in the process of drafting the Waterways Safety Plan for our
region of coverage. To create this Plan, we already have well-
established guidelines for offshore oil and gas activities, taken from
the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission's Open Water Season Conflict
Avoidance Agreement with offshore operators. We also have guidelines
from the NANA Region's work with Red Dog Mine. We are using the Puget
Sound Waterways Safety Plan as a guide and consulting with District 17
whenever possible.
Because of the substantial amount of marine research traffic,
especially Federal traffic, we are seeing close to our shores, we are
working very closely with NOAA, NSF, BOEM, Coast Guard, and the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks to develop marine research protocols.
Our goal is to promote vessel safety and to help reduce interference
with our hunters.
Another initial area of focus is tug-and-barge operations. The tug-
and-barge guidelines are being put together in cooperation with Crowley
Maritime, one of the principal tug-and-barge operators in our region.
Continuing to Build a Safe Maritime Environment in Alaska's Arctic
Will Take Investment. The AWSC has become the primary forum for arctic
waterways-users to gather, exchange information, and coordinate their
operations with each other and with our hunters. Our Federal agencies,
including Coast Guard are enthusiastic about this public forum and they
are certainly making use of it. Academic researchers and commercial and
industrial vessel operators express their gratitude for the opportunity
to participate in this collaborative venue. Working together, we are
making a difference on the water. The opportunity to meet, exchange
ideas, and raise concerns is giving us the ability to increase safety
for everyone using our coastal waters.
We need to keep this work going. Our success so far is small
compared to the challenges we face. But it is significant.
Collaboration is the Alaska way. And we are demonstrating the value of
collaboration for establishing a safe and prosperous Arctic maritime.
We are identifying needs and finding consensus on solutions that are
effective and meaningful for all involved.
Our only choice is to keep this work going! But we don't have
dedicated resources to support the work. As I said before, as hunters
we get things done. We have brought in foundation funding to get this
effort up and running. We are volunteering our time. We are giving this
everything we have, for the sake of safety on our waters.
I hear about a lot of meetings that different groups are having
across the Arctic. And I travel to some of them. A lot of people are
talking about a lot of things and making a lot of plans. The Arctic
Waterways Safety Committee is the only group that is actually making a
difference on the water.
The Need for Coastal Communications Infrastructure in Northern
Alaska Is Urgent. Thanks to Mr. Ed Page and his team at the Alaska
Marine Exchange, we have AIS coverage for most of our waterway, which
means we can track vessels through the AIS system. But we have no way
of reaching them. This means that we can't warn them if they are
entering waters where we have hunters or other local residents in small
craft. We also can't communicate with them if they are in distress.
I cannot stress enough the risk to life caused by our lack of
communications infrastructure. It leaves our local residents vulnerable
to interactions with large vessels. Alaska is a big state with a lot of
area for the Coast Guard to cover. The nearest Coast Guard station,
which is located at Dutch Harbor is 700 miles from Nome and 1,200 miles
from Pt. Barrow. That's greater than the distance from here to Omaha,
Nebraska. And we're talking travel by boat. If there were an emergency
in our northern waters, our local hunters might be the only responders
on-sight for days.
Through 2015, we had an elaborate system of radio towers with ship-
to-shore capabilities using VHF and satellite phone. Every village from
St. Lawrence Island to the Canadian border had a radio tower staffed by
individuals who coordinated the movements of large vessels with the
activities of our small subsistence hunting boats. This system started
with one radio tower at Dead Horse, put up in 1985, and grew and
expanded over the course of 30 years. Oil and gas used this system.
Tug-and-barge used it. Transiting vessels used it. Coast Guard used it.
Our marine mammal hunters depended on it as their lifeline to
shore. The Arctic Ocean is a dangerous place at any time. Our northern
areas still experience sea ice. Wind, weather, and sea-state can change
without warning. We regularly experience storms with hurricane-force
winds. Adding large ocean-going vessels to these waters, where we have
people already risking their lives to feed their families, can be a
prescription for disaster. The risk is multiplied by our lack of sound,
reliable communications and traffic management.
I repeat. On any given day, we have hundreds of people on the water
in small craft, working and risking their lives to feed our
communities. We have unknown numbers of ocean-going vessels transiting
our waters. We have no way to communicate.
We have reached out to the Coast Guard. We have reached out to the
White House. We have reached out to the Committee on Marine
Transportation Systems. We have looked for ways to attract private
investors. We have briefed members of Congress.
The Arctic is no longer opening. It is open. Our residents are
subsistence hunters. We are hard-working people who get things done. We
feed our communities and look for responsible ways to share our
resources. But we aren't going to get much further protecting our
coastal waters,--or the resources that are vital to our survival, or
our hunters and residents, or the people transiting along our coast--
without resources and engagement from our Federal Government.
To summarize for you, here is the situation today. What we have as
the Arctic opens and what we need.
This is what we have:
We have hundreds of citizens transiting and hunting in our
coastal waters in small craft.
We have increases in the numbers of large ocean-going
vessels coming through those same waters, largely unaware of
our hunters' presence.
We have a public forum, the AWSC, where local, federal, and
international marine interests are working together to develop
consensus measures for arctic transit and maritime safety.
This is what we need for maritime safety:
We need a consistent Coast Guard presence in our waters.
We need infrastructure for ship-to-shore communications with
the vessels that are transiting our waters.
We need infrastructure and other resources to support
disaster response.
We need modern ocean floor mapping for the vast majority of
our waters.
We need a way to ensure that mariners are aware of the
traffic management measures so far agreed to under our
Waterways Safety Plan.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AWSC isn't even listed on the U.S. Coast Guard's Port
Directory link on its Homeport website.
And that is the short list.
If you remember nothing else from my testimony today. Please
remember this. The Arctic is home to coastal maritime communities
working on the water in small craft. The Arctic also is a frontier
where thousands of people are now traveling in large vessels in poorly
charted waters. Without communications infrastructure. Without traffic
safety measures. Without disaster response infrastructure or even
protocols. And with very limited Coast Guard coverage. Our Federal
government can work with us to support the approach we are taking,
putting safety measures and infrastructure in place before the
unthinkable happens. Or our Federal government can take responsibility
for addressing human disaster in one of the harshest environments on
earth, without infrastructure or even communications capabilities.
I encourage you to choose the first option.
Thank you for your time.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Goodwin for that
outstanding testimony. I particularly appreciate the focus on
the actions that you have already taken, which are very
commendable and these issues that I think a lot of people do
not recognize, for example, the lack of communications
opportunities and capability, which most Americans take for
granted.
Mr. Hartsig, five minutes for your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW HARTSIG, ARCTIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR, OCEAN
CONSERVANCY
Mr. Hartsig. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Sullivan,
Ranking Member Baldwin and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Andrew Hartsig. I live and work in Anchorage, Alaska, where
I am the Arctic Program Director for Ocean Conservancy.
Ocean Conservancy is a nonprofit marine conservation
organization. Our program engages at local, State, national and
international levels to address a range of conservation
challenges, including increasing vessel traffic in the Arctic.
People argue about a lot of things in the Arctic, but there is
widespread agreement that vessel traffic will continue to
increase and that we are not adequately prepared for it.
Fortunately, we can act now to prevent future shipping
accidents and to bolster our preparedness and response
capacity.
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the
world, and that is reducing the extent, thickness, and duration
of seasonal ice cover. Vessel traffic in the Arctic has already
grown significantly, and it is poised to increase even more
rapidly as the ice-free season continues to lengthen.
A new ocean is opening up to ship traffic, and it is an
awe-inspiring place. Our Arctic coasts are home to indigenous
peoples whose ways of life, cultures, and economies are
inextricably linked to the ocean. Arctic waters support an
astounding abundance of sea birds, fish and marine mammals.
Each spring, the Bering Strait hosts one of the biggest marine
mammal migrations in the world. And at the same time, the
Arctic is remote and challenging. Infrastructure is limited,
coastal communities are not connected to the road system. There
are no deep-water ports north of Dutch Harbor. Arctic waters
are subject to seasonal sea ice and severe weather, and in many
cases, we do not know exactly what is out there. Less than 2
percent of the Arctic has been charted to modern standards. So
given these conditions, increasing vessel traffic adds
substantial risk. Alaskans have experienced major oil spills,
and we understand what is at stake when risks become reality.
Now is the time to put in place Arctic-appropriate measures
that will increase safety and protect the marine environment,
even as vessel traffic continues to grow.
As Captain Page said, prevention of accidents should be our
highest priority. That is true in the Atlantic, the Pacific,
and the Great Lakes, and it is imperative in the remote waters
of the Arctic where harsh conditions can prevent response
efforts for days on end. We also need to bolster our
preparedness and response capacity. Here are just four things
we can do: We can put in place additional vessel routing
measures like traffic lanes and guard rails on highway, routing
measures can help ensure that vessels travel along predictable
routes that are free of navigational hazards. The Coast Guard
has already worked with the International Maritime Organization
to designate routing measures in the Aleutians and the Northern
Bering Sea and Bering Strait. Now, they are considering a
similar process for the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Ocean
conservancy strongly supports this work. Done right, it will
increase shipping safety, reduce conflicts with subsistence
users and safeguard sensitive marine environments. We can also
improve Coast Guard implementation of alternative planning
criteria or APCs. Given the Arctic's vast distances and lack of
infrastructure, vessels operating there cannot meet standard
requirements for oil spill response plans. APCs allow vessel
operators to come up with alternative ways to reach an
equivalent level of preparedness. Unfortunately, APCs have not
been implemented consistently, which means that some vessels
operated with contracts that do not guarantee access to the
greatest amount of in-region, oil spill response equipment, and
that situation should be addressed. We can also do a better job
preparing residents of Arctic coastal communities to respond to
shipping accidents. Arctic residents will likely be first
responders in the event of an accident, and they will certainly
be the most directly affected by impacts from spills.
Allocating more resources toward regionally appropriate spill
response equipment and training would greatly increase
community preparedness.
The last thing I will mention is the need for continued
support for ice breakers. They are important in any region that
experiences seasonal ice, including the Great Lakes, and in the
Arctic, they are critical. Congress should continue to support
construction of new ice breakers, which will help the Coast
Guard better meet its national security, search and rescue,
environmental protection, and other vital missions 365 days a
year.
The management decisions we make today will affect the
Arctic for years to come. If we focus on targeted prevention
measures and continued build out of response capacity, we can
ensure safety and environmental protection measures keep pace
with the rapidly changing shipping sector.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I
appreciate your time, and I look forward to the Subcommittee's
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartsig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew Hartsig, Arctic Program Director,
Ocean Conservancy
I. Introduction
Good morning Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Baldwin, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Andrew Hartsig and I am the Arctic
Program Director at Ocean Conservancy. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about emerging marine transportation issues in the
changing Arctic region and opportunities to promote safe shipping
practices that accommodate increasing vessel traffic and safeguard
Arctic communities and the marine environment.
Ocean Conservancy is a nonprofit marine conservation organization
that works across sectors to address systemic challenges and find
lasting solutions. Our Arctic program--which includes Alaska-based
staff located in Anchorage, Eagle River and Juneau--focuses on
preserving the resilience of Arctic and sub-Arctic marine ecosystems.
We engage at local, state, national and international levels to address
conservation challenges related to commercial fishing, offshore oil and
gas operations, marine debris, climate change and vessel traffic, among
others.
As an Alaska resident who has worked on marine issues in the Arctic
for the past ten years, I have seen how rapidly the region is changing.
The Arctic is experiencing some of the fastest warming on the planet--
twice as fast as the rest of the world. Warming temperatures are
melting permafrost and glaciers, disrupting marine ecosystems, and
reducing the extent, thickness, and duration of seasonal sea ice cover.
These changes, in turn, are having profound impacts on maritime
transportation in the Arctic. Vessel traffic in the Arctic has already
grown significantly, and is poised to increase rapidly in coming years
as the ice-free season lengthens. As vessel traffic increases, so too
does the potential for significant impacts to residents of the region
and to the marine ecosystem.
Fortunately, we have a window of opportunity to put in place
Arctic-appropriate measures and best practices that will increase
safety and protect communities and the marine environment. First and
foremost, we can take common-sense steps to prevent maritime accidents
from happening in the first place. These steps include implementing
targeted vessel routing measures, moving toward a more effective
approach to Alternative Planning Criteria, tightening limitations on
discharges into the water, supporting advancements in vessel tracking
and communication, and improving nautical charts. Second, we can
improve our ability to respond effectively if an accident does occur by
increasing spill response equipment and training in local communities,
continuing to fund design and construction of new ice-breaking polar
security cutters and supporting seasonal Arctic Shield operations and
additional Coast Guard outreach activities in Arctic communities.
II. A Changing Arctic and Risks from Vessel Traffic
U.S. Arctic waters include an enormous area that stretches from the
Aleutian Islands to the Beaufort Sea. These waters are remarkably
productive and have great biological and cultural significance. The
U.S. Arctic coast is home to the Aleut, Unangan, Yup'ik, Cup'ik, St.
Lawrence Island Yup'ik, and Inupiaq peoples whose way of life, cultures
and economies are inextricably linked to the marine ecosystem. Ocean
Conservancy does not speak for these indigenous people, who have relied
on these productive waters for hundreds of thousands of years, but we
strongly believe that any discussion of the Arctic Ocean must
prioritize their views.
The Arctic marine environment itself is diverse. The ocean around
the Aleutian Islands remains ice-free all year long, but from St.
Lawrence Island north, sea ice normally covers the ocean's surface for
months at a time. These icy waters turn into a rich feeding ground each
spring, when they host one of the largest marine mammal migrations on
the planet. As sea ice melts, thousands of whales, hundreds of
thousands of walrus and ice seals and millions of birds pass through
the Bering Strait to feed, breed and give birth. To the south, waters
of the southern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands support the Nation's
richest and most productive commercial fisheries, as well as globally
significant seabird colonies. The Pribilof Islands are breeding grounds
for more than 50 percent of the world's population of northern fur
seals.
This region is changing rapidly, putting these vibrant ocean
ecosystems at risk. Human-caused climate change is reducing sea ice
cover, causing villages to erode into the ocean, making subsistence
hunting more difficult and dangerous and disrupting food chains. It is
also facilitating other industrial activities--like oil and gas
exploration and development and commercial fishing--in addition to
increasing vessel traffic. While this hearing focuses on marine
transportation, it is important to keep in mind this broader view as we
consider how to manage vessel traffic in the region.
At present, the bulk of ship traffic through the Arctic region
occurs on the Great Circle Route, which connects the west coast of
North America to East Asia and passes near or through the Aleutian
Islands. Further north, ships, tugs and barges play a vital role
delivering fuel and other goods and materials to Arctic communities and
industrial endeavors, such as Red Dog mine and North Slope oil and gas
projects. The Department of the Interior has also proposed future oil
and gas lease sales in U.S. Arctic waters. If those lease sales come to
pass, exploration and development would add significant vessel traffic
in the region.
In addition, Arctic transit routes between East Asia and Western
Europe are emerging--at least for certain sectors of the shipping
industry--as viable alternatives to traditional routes that run through
the Suez or Panama canals. The Arctic Ocean itself is projected to
experience ice-free summers by mid to late century, which could create
a new trans-polar route over the top of the globe. All of these Arctic
transit routes pass through the Bering Strait. According to a 2016
Coast Guard study, Bering Strait transits increased from 220 in 2008 to
540 in 2015. Marine-based tourism is also increasing in the Arctic.
Cruise companies are investing heavily in purpose-built expedition
cruise ships for Arctic voyages, with nearly 30 new vessels expected to
launch by 2022.
III. Toward Safer Arctic Shipping
Increased vessel traffic in the Arctic--whether from tourism,
transit traffic or destination shipping--puts the region at increased
risk. An accident in the remote Arctic could easily turn into a
nightmare scenario for search and rescue agencies, especially if it
involved a passenger ship. An accident could also cause an oil spill,
including a major spill like the 2004 Selendang Ayu disaster that
released roughly 350,000 gallons of oil and diesel into Aleutian Island
waters. Vessel traffic can also result in strikes on marine mammals,
introduction of invasive species from ballast water or hull fouling,
discharge of greywater and sewage into the water, emission of
pollutants into the air, increases in subsea noise and potential
conflicts with subsistence users.
With ship traffic in the U.S. Arctic poised to grow rapidly, it is
time to implement regionally-appropriate management measures and best
practices that are designed to increase safety and reduce the risk of
harm to communities and the Arctic environment.
A. Prevention is the first line of defense
Prevention should be the first line of defense in icy Arctic
waters--as well as other cold-water regions such as the Great Lakes.
The Arctic is subject to seasonal darkness, severe weather and strong
ocean currents. It is extremely remote and has minimal infrastructure.
When vessels have accidents in these remote waters, search and rescue
efforts are a serious challenge. Cleaning up a significant oil spill is
extraordinarily difficult and only marginally effective. In many
instances, stormy sea conditions and poor weather may preclude response
efforts for extended periods of time, further reducing effectiveness.
When 3,000 gallons of persistent oil spilled into the waters off Shuyak
Island this spring, it took three days to get response vessels on-scene
due to poor weather--and that spill was less than 50 miles from the
Coast Guard station on Kodiak.
No single silver bullet will prevent all shipping accidents and
impacts, but a suite of regionally appropriate mitigation measures and
best practices can go a long way. These measures and practices include
targeted vessel routing measures, a consistent and effective approach
to Alternative Planning Criteria, limitations on discharge, innovations
in vessel tracking and communication, and improved charting.
Routing Measures
Vessel routing measures can be used to help prevent accidents in
the maritime Arctic. Routing measures include various kinds of shipping
lanes, Precautionary Areas (places where mariners should use extra
care) and Areas to be Avoided (ATBAs) (places through which specific
types of vessels should not travel).
The Coast Guard has already worked with the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) to designate important routing measures in the U.S.
Arctic. In the Aleutian Islands, there are now a series of ATBAs that
establish 50 mile buffer zones around most of the islands. These buffer
zones encourage vessels transiting the Great Circle Route to maintain a
safe distance from the coast, which not only helps keep vessels off the
rocks, but also provides additional time to respond if a vessel loses
propulsion.
In addition, the Coast Guard successfully completed a Port Access
Route Study (PARS) in the Bering Sea, Bering Strait and southern
Chukchi Sea. The Bering Strait PARS led to formal establishment of
voluntary vessel traffic routes in this region. These routes encourage
ships to travel along a predictable and consistent path, which helps
prevent accidents. The designated routes have been surveyed to modern
standards, so vessel masters can be confident they will have plenty of
water under their keels. In addition to the establishment of vessel
routes, the Bering Strait PARS led to the designation of three ATBAs
around islands in the Northern Bering Sea. These ATBAs were developed
with input from local communities and are intended, in part, to protect
subsistence uses.
With the completion of the Bering Strait PARS, the Coast Guard is
considering a similar process in the more northerly waters of the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Ocean Conservancy strongly supports a
Chukchi/Beaufort PARS. It is the logical next step and will help
establish safer shipping corridors that stretch from the Aleutians to
the Central Arctic Ocean.
When it begins the Chukchi/Beaufort PARS process, the Coast Guard
must conduct meaningful outreach to communities, tribes, and other
Alaska Native organizations to help ensure that outcomes from the
process are supported by and meet the needs of those who live in the
region. In addition, the Coast Guard should coordinate with Canadian
counterparts to ensure vessel traffic routes align at the U.S./Canadian
border. Finally, the Coast Guard should keep in mind the highly
seasonal and dynamic nature of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Seasonal
or dynamic measures could be designed specifically for these unique
Arctic waters. Such management measures would move in space and or time
to account for changes in sea ice, marine mammal migration and
concentrations, and subsistence hunting of marine mammals.
Alternative Planning Criteria
In U.S. Arctic waters, long distances between ports and coastal
villages can make it impossible to satisfy certain requirements for
vessel response plans mandated by regulations implementing the Clean
Water Act and Oil Pollution Act of 1990. As a result, Coast Guard
regulations provide for the use of Alternative Planning Criteria (APC).
In situations where standard vessel response plan requirements are
not feasible, the Coast Guard's APC regulations allow vessel owners and
operators--or independent organizations that represent owners and
operators--to apply for permission to use alternative ways of
preventing and responding to a worst-case discharge. Ocean Conservancy
applauds the Coast Guard's recognition that prevention measures--such
as routing measures and 24/7 vessel tracking--can play a vital role in
APC programs.
While Ocean Conservancy supports the concept of APCs, the Coast
Guard's implementation of the APC program in Alaska could be improved.
The Coast Guard's approach has created a situation where different
Coast Guard-approved APC organizations vary significantly with respect
to the amount--and location--of oil spill response equipment they
provide. This system not only fails to maximize oil spill prevention
and response resources, it threatens to create a ``race to the bottom''
that will ultimately reduce the amount of money available to invest in
the build-out of response resources in the region.
Ocean Conservancy appreciates the Senate's attention to this matter
in the recently-passed Coast Guard Reauthorization package. Among other
things, that legislation requires any APC approved for the Arctic to
verify that operators have conducted in-region training and that
equipment has been tested and proven capable of operating in the
region. We also look forward to the Coast Guard's report on its
implementation of APCs, which should provide insights that can help
improve prevention and response measures in the Arctic.
Discharge
Absent effective mitigation measures, the growth in Arctic vessel
traffic will increase the amount of pollutants that ships discharge
into the region's waters. These discharges can include graywater,
sewage, marine debris, and the other chemicals, all of which can
contain pollutants that have negative effects on marine wildlife, fish,
and other resources. The Arctic may be uniquely vulnerable to the
impacts of discharge from vessels. For example, the Bering Strait is
extremely shallow and pollutants may not disperse as quickly as they do
elsewhere. The abundance of wildlife and the critical importance of
this wildlife to indigenous peoples of the region also heighten the
risks associated with discharge from vessels.
International rules, including the Polar Code, restrict some forms
of discharge in some portions of the Arctic. However, significant gaps
remain. For example, international law does not regulate the discharge
of graywater--a category that includes wastewater from dishwashers,
showers, laundry machines, washbasin drains and similar facilities--
even though graywater can be just as detrimental to the marine
environment as raw sewage. Ocean Conservancy supports more stringent
restrictions on discharge of pollutants from ships in Arctic waters to
prevent adverse impacts to Arctic peoples and wildlife.
Vessel tracking and communication
Accurate and timely tracking of marine traffic can help ensure
problems are spotted and addressed early. Similarly, efficient
communication of relevant information can help ship operators and other
maritime users avoid hazards and conflicts, including potential
conflicts with subsistence users. In recent years, improvements to
maritime navigation and communications technologies likely played a key
role in preventing shipping accidents. These technologies continue to
advance, and there are opportunities to collaborate with vessel
operators on data needs and technology requirements as well as coastal
communities to harness those advancements to make even more progress.
Both satellite-and VHF-based Automatic Identification System (AIS)
technologies are already used to track vessels as they travel through
U.S. Arctic waters. AIS technologies are capable of transmitting more
data, including information about weather, sea ice, or the presence of
marine mammals and or subsistence hunters. Moreover, AIS technologies--
in concert with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and integrated
electronic display systems--can ensure that mariners receive this
information only when it is relevant. Ocean Conservancy encourages the
Coast Guard and other Federal agencies to support and facilitate the
use of these and similar technologies as important tools to prevent and
mitigate the impacts of maritime accidents.
Charting
Accurate, up-to-date nautical charts should be a foundation of
maritime domain awareness, but just a tiny percentage of the U.S.
Arctic has been charted to modern standards. In their Arctic Vision and
Strategy, NOAA has acknowledged that ``confidence in the nautical
charts of the region is extremely low,'' and that ``[m]ost Arctic
waters that are charted were surveyed with obsolete technology, some
dating back to the 1800s.'' This problem is not merely hypothetical. In
2015, a vessel supporting Shell's oil exploration efforts was damaged
when it grounded in poorly charted waters near Unalaska. The following
year, a Norwegian tanker ran aground on an uncharted shoal near Nunivak
Island.
Ocean Conservancy appreciates the Federal government's commitment
to improve and modernize Arctic charting and acknowledges the
significant progress that has already been made. In recent years,
NOAA's Office of Coast Survey has released new or updated charts for
some targeted Arctic waters, with more on the way. More recently,
Congress reauthorized the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act,
including $10 million for Arctic hydrographic surveys.
We appreciate these advances and the hard work that has made them
possible. We also recognize that the U.S. Arctic is vast and it will
take an aggressive effort, secure funding, and efficient prioritization
of resources to tackle the work of modernizing Arctic nautical charts.
B. Response
The first priority in preparing for increased vessel traffic should
be prevention--stopping maritime disasters before they can happen.
However, it is also necessary to continue to improve response
capabilities to ensure we are prepared for accidents that might happen.
Building Community Response Capacity
Residents of the Arctic region should receive priority
consideration in determining how to best build out response capacity in
the U.S. Arctic. In the event of a shipping accident, residents of
coastal communities are likely to be first responders and are likely to
be most directly affected by the impacts of a spill. To help mitigate
these burdens, all Arctic communities should receive spill response
equipment that is appropriate to the local environment as well as
training in the proper use of that equipment. These steps would bolster
response capacity and could also provide jobs for residents of local
communities. Additional funding for regionally appropriate response
resources in U.S. Arctic communities would help increase preparedness.
Polar Security Cutters
New icebreakers, or polar security cutters, are an important part
of any plan to improve response capacity. As Arctic sea ice diminishes
and maritime activity in the region grows, the need for additional
icebreaking capacity will only become more acute. In addition to Alaska
and the rest of the Arctic, icebreaking capacity is also important in
sub-Arctic and cold-water regions, such as the Great Lakes, which also
experience seasonal ice. The anticipated increase in U.S. icebreaking
capacity will fill a critical gap in maritime infrastructure and enable
the Coast Guard to better meet national security, search and rescue,
law enforcement, environmental protection, and other critical Arctic
missions--365 days a year.
Ocean Conservancy appreciates Congress's commitment to expand U.S.
icebreaker capacity, both via maintenance of the Polar Star and via
acquisition of new polar security cutters.
New polar security cutters represent a long-term investment in our
Arctic. As the Coast Guard moves toward acquisition of these vessels,
it can develop designs that minimize air pollution, water pollution,
and underwater noise. Acquisition of new vessels provides an
opportunity for the Coast Guard to showcase world-class design and
engineering.
Arctic Shield
In the Arctic, the nearest permanent Coast Guard station is in
Kodiak, more than 950 air miles from the Beaufort Sea. However, for
multiple years, U.S. Coast Guard District 17 has deployed personnel and
resources to the Arctic during the open water season to conduct safety
and security operations in the region. These ``Arctic Shield''
activities have included search and rescue, emergency response,
trainings, community outreach and law enforcement.
Seasonal deployment of Coast Guard resources and personnel to the
Arctic is critical to ensure preparedness. In continuing this effort,
the Coast Guard can and should strengthen its outreach to residents of
Arctic communities, including meaningful consultation with Alaska
Native Federally-recognized Tribes regarding activities and policies
that take place in or affect Arctic waters. Congress should ensure that
Coast Guard District 17 has secure, consistent funding to continue and
strengthen Arctic Shield operations and to undertake more robust
outreach to Arctic communities and organizations.
IV. Conclusion
The decisions we make today will affect the Arctic for years to
come. If we make management decisions based on the best available
science and technology, engage the range of stakeholders living and
operating in the region, focus on targeted preventative measures and
continue to build-out regionally appropriate response capabilities, we
can ensure that safety and environmental protection measures keep pace
with the rapidly changing maritime transportation sector.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I appreciate
your time and I look forward to the Subcommittee's questions.
Senator Sullivan. Great, I want to thank again, all the
witnesses for their very informative testimony. Want to notice
we have Senator Wicker here, the incoming Chairman of this
important Committee in the next Congress. So, thank you,
Senator Wicker for joining us. I am going to begin just opening
questions really to any and all the panelists on some of the
issues relating to the traffic and let me begin by asking, is
there a benefit to persistent 24/7 man-vessel traffic system
for the Arctic, and if so, why? If you can provide us details.
And again, I would like to open this up to any and all of you,
Captain Page, why do we not begin with you, sir?
Captain Page. Yes sir, actually to some extent right now,
we do have a 24-hour monitoring system and prescribed routes by
the industry, that is, throughout the Arctic waters. And so----
Senator Sullivan. How can that be improved and what more
would we need?
Captain Page. Well I think we need from this point is a
better way of communicating with vessels with automatic
identification systems. The technology of the Arctic Next
Generation Navigational Safety Information System, which I
mentioned beforehand was a R&D project. So we improve upon that
and also we need to have better routing measures for the
Beaufort. Ours is fairly simplistic, stay well enough offshore
to give us time a vessel breaks down that they do not
immediately end up on the beach. So I think as the Coast Guard
looks at identifying--IMO adopted routing measures in the
Arctic that will prescribe some level of order and keep them
away from areas to be avoided and ensure that traveling waters
are adequately charted.
Senator Sullivan. Anyone else on that question in general?
Mr. Hartsig. I----
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Hartsig?
Mr. Hartsig. Yes, thank you. I would agree with Captain
Page in terms of making the most of next generation
technologies, maritime communications, and navigation
technologies. A lot is changing, and I think we can do more to
capitalize on that. And this idea of two-way communication and
having information show up on an as-needed basis on some of the
electronic charting and display systems in vessels, I think we
can do a lot more with that in coming years.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask another question, I'll start
with you, Mr. Goodwin, but it is truly for everybody, what do
you feel are opportunities, certainly that we can talk about,
but the biggest threats to a safe and environmentally sound
shipping in the Arctic and the impact on the coastal
communities that you highlighted so well in your testimony.
Mr. Goodwin. Communication system that would include ship
to shore. But it would be communication of ships they traverse
our waters to inform them of small boats where our hunters are
located and/or marine resources.
Senator Sullivan. Anyone else on that question? Ms. Metcalf
or Captain Page, you care to comment?
Ms. Metcalf. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. The biggest threat to safe,
environmentally sound shipping in the Arctic?
Ms. Metcalf. The biggest threat, to me, is having
inadequate vessels and I am answering, with your permission,
for the entire Arctic.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Metcalf. As I said earlier, the U.S. Arctic is a small
piece, and if something happens elsewhere, it may certainly
impact our coastlines as well, but we are all trying to protect
the Arctic. I think having the competency of mariners, which
the Polar Code training requirements now address, to me the
biggest threat is what makes the front pages, unfortunately,
and that is spills and potentially with passenger tourism
traffic, what is expected to increase --the thought of a 3,000-
passenger ship, hundreds of miles away from rescue presents a
formidable challenge that I think the world has to address.
Senator Sullivan. And we are seeing an increase in the
tourism levels, correct?
Ms. Metcalf. Yes sir. We do not represent the cruise lines
but yes, it has been well documented that the Arctic is a
destination where expeditionary type of voyages and----
Senator Sullivan. The old expeditionary voyages.
Ms. Metcalf.--the old expeditionary voyages were a lot less
populated. I--Will you may be able to help, but when the
Crystal Line ship went up, I think there was a couple thousand
passengers on board that ship, but I know for a fact that they
are looking at an excess of 2,000 passenger ships going up
there for a cruise, and I think that is a wonderful thing, but
I know the cruise lines is taking great actions to make sure
that any kind of incident that occurred up there would be
provided for in the appropriate way.
Senator Sullivan. Great, I was just given some notes here.
Twenty-six new polar cruise ships are set to launch in the next
3 years, which is a 45 percent increase in terms of passengers
expected close to 38,000 cruise ship passengers in 2020. And I
could not agree more with you that if God forbid we did have
some kind of accident, we certainly do not have the capability
to safely rescue them right now.
Senator Baldwin, on that ice note, I will turn it over to
you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baldwin. Well, I am struck by how much what we are
talking about today also applies to the Great Lakes. Many of
you have referenced that and including the negative economic
impact of inadequate U.S. Coast Guard ice breaking capacity.
Simply put, we need more ice breakers to support commerce and
keep mariners safe in the Arctic and in the Great Lakes.
The facts speak from themselves. During the winter shipping
seasons between 2013 and 2015, severe ice coverage resulted in
$1 billion in lost economic activity. Last winter, with
relatively light ice, the Coast Guard had 246 lost ice breaker-
operating days, due to maintenance or casualties in industry,
reported the delay or cancellation of over 6 billion tons of
material due to ice. Alarmingly, some of these lost days were
on ice breakers that have already gone through a life service
extension program, demonstrating that the updates being made
are not making these ships any younger or more reliable.
Ms. Metcalf, can you please explain the importance of Coast
Guard ice breakers to your members and the role they have in
supporting commerce, and additionally, how does the performance
of these ice breakers impact your shipping season?
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you for the question Senator Baldwin. I
have to admit that I have tried to go through retrofit, and it
has not made me any younger, either.
Senator Baldwin. Yes.
Ms. Metcalf. So, I----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Metcalf. I can appreciate what is going on here. I am
not a marine engineer that can talk about the ice breaker
maintenance, other than the fact that when you need them--us
and the commercial industry, you need them. And if there is
ever a doubt that they are not going to be available, then the
prudent thing is to simply not trade, which is what we call the
end of the season up in the Great Lakes. It is critical to
understand--and I am speaking from a commercial vessel
perspective--that you could only stretch out the age of a
vessel for so long. You are fortunate in the Great Lakes,
because you have, in most cases, fresh water. So a number of
the Salties are much, much older than the typical 25 to 30-year
lifespan that we see in the salt water operations. But it is
absolutely critical to recognize that with the best maintenance
and repair and the best engineers working on those ships,
eventually they need to be replaced, and hopefully replaced
with a vessel that embodies the newest technology, both
propulsion systems, construction methods, navigating systems,
communication systems. So it is absolutely critical, yes ma'am.
Senator Baldwin. The Great Lakes are also the world's
largest freshwater system, provides--it provides drinking water
to over 35 million people. The oil spill that happened earlier
this year in the straits of Mackinaw really highlights the
importance of having freshwater specific and cold weather,
spill-response plans. Fortunately, a large oil spill has not
occurred in the Great Lakes, but we really need to be ready in
case one does. We have made an important step forward in the
recently passed Coast Guard bill, which authorized a Coast
Guard Center of Excellence to study and address the unique
Great Lakes environment.
Captain Page, during your career, you served as a captain
of the port and chief of marine safety and environmental
protection for the Coast Guard's Pacific area. Can you talk
about the need to develop strategies to respond to an oil
spill, and particularly, in icy conditions, like those in the
Arctic and the Great Lakes?
Captain Page. Yes, Senator. The Chair--it has continued to
be a daunting problem. I have been in the Arctic doing oil
spill exercises on the frozen ice and what have you. And
certainly, much more complex than the Gulf of Mexico, you know,
and the Great Lakes are up in the Arctic nation. So, it is
something that needs more work. I do not have the silver
bullet; people keep on working it, but we do need to improve
that capability, and I think--and also the ship board meeting
firefighter salvage regulation. The Coast Guard came up with
it. It was a great way of kind of keeping the oil from a damage
vessel from entering the water. So, I think it is another
important component is, to keep it out of the water is your
best bet, and I think if you look at the California fires, they
realize that prevention--and that may mean more fire trucks but
probably more prevention measures is probably the best way to
go about it.
So, I continue to harp upon prevention, but I also know
that you can still can have fires, car accidents, despite all
our efforts. So, you still need the ambulances and the fire
trucks, oil spill response capabilities and they need to be
improved upon. So, I am glad to see that is being addressed in
the legislation, and I am sure that we can continue to make
progress in that area.
Senator Sullivan. I am going to ask a few more questions,
you know, I had put up a chart on the different sea routes, the
Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. I would like our
witnesses, any and all of you, to do a little bit of comparing
and contrasting. What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks
for each of those routes that you see for the future?
Captain Page. Well, I see that the Northwest Passage is
more challenging avenue to take in light of the fact that the
Canadian waters are shallower--Archipelago Islands, they claim
sovereignty over that waterway and shallow draft and more ice
concentration. So it more challenging, the Northern Sea Route,
but I think that, over time, as the ice recedes from that area,
that it would be a much more--easier for vessels to navigate
through that passage. And then our challenge is going to be, we
are going to have a lot of vessels engage in innocent passage,
not subject to Coast Guard regulations, because they are on
free trade, transiting through our backyard, if you will,
through the Arctic waters and going through other foreign
ports. So, I think that is another challenge to work with the
international maritime committee, setting standards so that
ensures there is a consistent approach, which as I mentioned
beforehand, consistent integrated approach to the Arctic
nations recognizing we are in the same boat. It is in the best
interest to ensure that all vessels comply with consistent
vessel routing measures and monitoring and standards of care
throughout.
So, I see that--but clearly, the Northern Sea Route is an
easier route and for the support, if you will, by the Russians
who have a lot of commodities they ship out. So, they invest a
lot of major ice breakers and facilitate that trade. We
obviously do not have that same capability on our side of the
Arctic.
Senator Sullivan. So, right now the Russians have 40. They
are planning on building 13 more, some of which are nuclear-
powered. Some of which are weaponized. Can you talk about if
they are charging fees? We talked about Putin talking about the
new Suez Canal and how Russia is going to own that. What
exactly are they doing in terms of charging or other
requirements to go through the Northern Sea Route?
Ms. Metcalf. I can try. I do not know, in dollar terms,
what it is. All I envision for the Northern Sea Route, is its
whole plaza like we see at the New Jersey Turnpike. And I worry
very much that countries are going to, because of their
geographical position, are going to attempt to use the Arctic
as a cash cow, rather than recognizing that a free Arctic is
the best benefit of every nation.
Senator Sullivan. Any other thoughts on that, the Northern
Sea Route or others? Mr. Hartsig?
Mr. Hatsig. Thank you. One of the concerns that I have is
there is a tremendous buildup of L&G facilities on the Yamal
Peninsula in Russia, that I think is going to--has already
created additional traffic and in coming years, will generate
even more traffic on the Northern Sea Route. One of the
interesting things, whether it is the Northern Sea Route or the
Northwest Passage or even at some point in the future going
straight over the top, all of those routes converge at the
Bering Strait. So, all of the traffic is going to be through a
relatively narrow bottleneck and exposing U.S. waters to
whatever kind of risks there are from increased traffic. So, I
think it is extremely important to have those international
standards that we are talking about. That's--the Polar Code has
gone along with, but I think we can do more and also makes the
recent Bering Strait PARS and areas to be avoided, a really
important step.
Senator Sullivan. Good point. That is a really important
point. Let me turn to the issue that I raised in my testimony
and some of you raised in your testimony, and that is the issue
of infrastructure in ports. What role do you foresee any of the
future deep water Arctic ports playing, whether it is Point
Spencer or Nome or other areas or facilities like you
mentioned, Mr. Goodwin in Kotzebue for increase in traffic in
safety in the coming years, and how important is that? You
mentioned just how remote it is from, you know, the other ports
and so did I in my testimony, but I would like the witnesses to
expand upon this issue, because I think it is an issue that
unfortunately does not get a lot of play outside of Alaska and,
you know, what I have concerns about is some day it is going to
get a bunch of play outside of Alaska if there is some kind of,
you know, incident that we have to respond to in terms of an
emergency.
Mr. Goodwin. Thank you. In terms of an emergency, we have
nothing. Nothing, completely nothing up north. So, what do we
do? You know we have our smaller craft hunting, and they would
be the first responders if anything happens up there. But
without a port or any kind of infrastructure, there is nothing
we can do. And also, I would like to point out that we very
much would like to see the PARS for the Chukchi and the
Beaufort Sea get done as soon as possible. Right now it is a
free for all. Ships can go anywhere they want.
Senator Sullivan. And you are the Chairman, as I mentioned,
Mr. Goodwin, of the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee, do you
feel that you are getting decent access into the Coast Guard as
they are working through this PARS? Your views, are they
reaching out to you?
Mr. Goodwin. Yes, the Coast Guard is very good at working
with the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee with all these
issues that we are putting forth in our safety plan and other
issues, and they recognize the need for infrastructure for a
port for any kind of a disaster that could happen.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Other thoughts from other witnesses
on the issue of ports?
Captain Page. Yes sir.
Senator Sullivan. Captain Page.
Captain Page. You are talking about the distances from the
Arctic and then Nome is the closest actual port that is
operating near the Arctic waters, and the capacity Gnome was
really designed right now to accommodate the needs of the
Arctic communities, it is not with respect to additional
shipping in the Arctic, it is really delivering goods and
supplies to the people who live in that region, the northwest
Arctic regions. So, I have been to Gnome at times when I see
the Coast Guard, the ice breaker offshore and shuttling
supplies and personnel through small boats, because they cannot
come up to the dock. So, they have to well offshore and shuttle
things back and forth. Similarly, NOAA vessels have a
difficulty coming to that dock, because of the capacity and the
water depth and what have you. So, enhancing, expanding that
port so that it can accommodate the needs of off-shore supply
vessels, the Coast Guard vessels, NOAA vessels, possibly even
Naval vessels, would dramatically improve the logistics support
capability that are needed as we expand maritime operation in
the Arctic, including emergency response resources.
Senator Sullivan. But every witness agrees that we need
more infrastructure support port capacity in that region,
correct? I see for the record, all four vigorously nodding
their heads.
[Nonverbal response.]
Senator Sullivan. That is great. Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. So it is imperative that mariners have
current and accurate charts, especially in the harsh Arctic
environment. I have been informed that some of the charts could
date back as far as the 18th century, which was surprising to
me, and I concur with Senator Sullivan that we need more
charting, both in the Arctic and Great Lakes. In fact, that is
why we teamed up in introducing and passing the Digital Coast
Act, which would help improve the mapping and imaging products
that help communities keep safe and help commerce keep running.
Earlier this year, it was reported that less than 2 percent
or about 4,300 square nautical miles of U.S. Arctic waters have
been surveyed with modern multi-beam technology. Ms. Metcalf,
what are the implications of not having charts available that
accurately reflect the hazards your shippers could encounter,
and how have members of your industry adapted their operations
as new routes open up in the Arctic and tell us what modern,
multi-beam technology is?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Metcalf. I'll put my NOAA hat on and pretend like I
know. No, I will address that. I can compare the Arctic to--let
us say you wanted to go on a hike deep into the wilderness in
the United States. You would not go out there by yourself, with
a compass and a camera. You would probably have to find, or
want to find, somebody local that knows the area. The people
that have been operating, at least our members that have been
operating the Arctic--and Crowley in particular, maybe a couple
of other companies--have been doing it for years, as indicated
the 1950 start by servicing the Due Line. At this point, it is
experience. They are the high trail guys.
The concern, of course, is when other companies that have
not operated in the Arctic, decide well this is an opportunity,
let us go up there and do it. They need to appreciate the risk
associated with not having the experience level that the
current operators have. The sonar that you are referring to, to
the best of my ability, we used to do, well NOAA used to do
sonar scans and you would do depth scans. It is now almost, to
the best of my knowledge, a 3D type of sonar. So, you can see
not only the vertical but also the horizontal to some degree
and gives a much more accurate read. So, it is something that
is very much needed, but quite frankly, thankfully NOAA is
narrowing and reducing the backlog, even in charts down here in
the lower 48. So, it is a challenge for them to keep charts up
to date. It is a little easier now, because we do not have
monks actually drawing the charts anymore. They are all in
digital form. So, they are much easier to adjust and upload on
the ships. Thank you.
Senator Baldwin. You know, we have been talking today, a
lot about the retreating sea ice creating opportunities for
increased commerce in the Arctic. I would like to talk a little
bit more about what is causing that ice to retreat, and that is
climate change. Mr. Hartsig, can you describe for us the
impacts of climate change in the Arctic and with the impacts
from climate change and human activities in the Arctic on the
rise, how do we maintain the natural resilience of Arctic
ecosystems?
Mr. Hartsig. Thank you for that question. The biggest
impact of climate change, I think, is on the sea ice. And like
I said in my testimony, we see reduced extent of sea ice,
reduced thickness and shorter ice seasons, and that is having
all sorts of implications for wildlife, because it is habitat
for a lot of ice-dependent species but also for communities,
and Mr. Goodwin can talk much more eloquently than I can about
the impacts to subsistence hunters. So, I think that is kind of
the number 1 impact. But warming in general is also having
tremendous impacts on thawing of permafrost and affecting
infrastructure and then in terms of what we can do to mitigate
it, the challenge, of course, is that climate change is global
in nature. So, it is affecting communities in the Arctic who
really, on a grand scale, have contributed very, very little to
the causing climate change but are bearing the greatest impacts
from its effects.
So, it is unquestionably a challenging problem. In terms of
the shipping industry, a couple of things come to mind: one is
reducing the output of black carbon or soot that will basically
absorb heat, and it is a particular problem in the Arctic and
kind of exacerbates the effects of warming there. But the
shipping industry also has been a little bit slow in terms of
taking responsibility for reducing emissions, although I will
say they are making progress at the International Maritime
Organization and even in the industry itself. I saw just, I
think yesterday or the day before, Maersk has committed to a
carbon-free shipping by 2050. So, things can be done and things
are moving. So, I do see some hope on that front.
Senator Sullivan. Well, listen, I would like to go into a
couple of other topics, and again, these are questions for the
entire witness panel. There is a lot of discussion about the
Coast Guard PARS and one of the things we will do after this
hearing is look at the timing of this, you know, it is
important. Mr. Goodwin, you mentioned it is important to get
that out soon. Some of my concerns are that it is important to
get it right, but it is also important to get it done. And when
I hear, you know, issues of like perhaps 4 more years or
something along those lines, I do not think that is the time-
frame that any of us are looking for, despite the fact that we
are certainly complimentary to the Coast Guard of the fact that
they are undertaking this important route study.
Let me ask each of you, what would you like to see in it?
What, right now, here is an opportunity I am sure major Coast
Guard officials are watching this hearing. What would each of
you like to see in the Arctic Port Access Route Study that they
are currently undertaking?
Captain Page. Well, I will start, Senator. In light of the
fact that I have been involved with some of these discussions
before, and in fact, involved in the current PARS that went
down, started about like about 8 years ago, I think ago,
actually. So, when you talk about multi-year process, it can be
very complicated. So, like yourself, I would like to see a
faster development of the PARS. I would hope that----
Senator Sullivan. What are you hearing that the timeline is
right now?
Captain Page. I have not heard a timeline on the PARS, for
the new one or that they are anticipating. I know they plan on
having some documents come out this spring on it and start--and
they realize how much bigger area the Bering Strait, which is
one of the complicating factors and what I would like to see is
that they recognize the fact that you may draw a line through
the Arctic, but if there is ice there, they are going to go
around the ice. And so, we have to have a somewhat flexible
dynamic or multi-faceted type of routing measure, because we do
not know where the ice is going to be, and the ships have to
avoid the ice in many cases, and I have seen that happen where
tankers normally go 20 miles offshore, all of sudden, they are
way offshore to avoid a whole bunch of ice. And I think in
light of that, to continually have what they did in the PARS,
for the Bering Strait, you have areas to be avoided. In some
cases, they are going to be dynamic in nature because of the
whalers engaged in whaling activity, that is a dynamic area to
be avoided or there are marine mammals move to a particular
area. So, it needs to recognize the Arctic is changing. The ice
is changing; the environmental protected areas are changing.
So, it has to be some dynamic aspect of it and areas to be
avoided. So, it is fairly complicated, multi-faceted. You
cannot just draw two lines and say, ``Go there.'' Recognizing
when they go outside, they could be going to an area that you
do not want them to go to. So, you have got to define the no-go
areas and preferred areas and alternative areas and have the
ability to apply dynamic information to vessels. So--but I
think it is something the Coast Guard needs to do. I know they
want to do it. I hope they have the resource to do it. I know
it is another big workload on their part. I hope the Congress
supports them in getting that done if it requires additional
resource or what have you.
Senator Sullivan. Great, thank you. Ms. Metcalf, do you
have a view on the PARS?
Ms. Metcalf. I can shorten it down and say, yes, I agree.
The two points though is, one is the nature of the dynamic
area, you will hear some objections from some of the shipping
industry on that. We have already set a precedent on the East
Coast of the United States with dynamic management areas for
the avoidance of ship strikes for white whales. So, it is
possible to do it. It is difficult and the communications of
these areas as they move are absolutely critical to the
shipping industry.
The second point I would suggest in the PARS, on how we do
it, perhaps through the Arctic Council, is I am going to guess
most of the other 7 Arctic nations besides the United States
are looking at this already, and we need to put our puzzles
together so there is a unified PARS for the entire Arctic.
Because if Canada does a PARS study and says, ``You should come
out at this point,'' and our PARS says, ``No, we should come
out at this point,'' then we have got a little difference here.
And so we need to try and align internationally, these routing
studies so that they all work.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you. Mr. Goodwin, PARS.
Mr. Goodwin. Well, with the experience that we have had
with the part that go--went through the Bering Strait, I think
the communities along the North Coast are ready to provide the
information that is required or will be needed. So, I do not
suspect that the time-frame will be as long as it is with the
last one, because the information that we know we can provide.
And also for your information, the Canadians--the Canadian
Government appropriated $1.5 billion to do a water program. So,
they have started on their procedures with what kind of safety
do they want on their systems. So, right now it is the
Cambridge Bay Area and British Columbia, and also the Nunavut
Settlement Area, which will connect to our PARS, have started
discussions on that. So we have got to work together to make
sure that they work.
Senator Sullivan. Do you believe that the Coast Guard was
responsive to your communities and other coastal communities in
Alaska? Were their concerns reflected in the last PARS?
Mr. Goodwin. Yes, they--the testimony that was given, I
think they took everything to heart and adjusted some of the
routes to satisfy different seasons for hunting, different
species. So I think we can do that again.
Senator Sullivan. Good. So, there was a good precedent the
last time, of them listening to the local communities?
Mr. Goodwin. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Mr. Hartsig. Do you have a view on
the PARS?
Mr. Hartsig. Yes, I think I will echo a lot of what has
been said. Maybe I can boil it down to 5 things. I think when
the Coast Guard considers the PARS, it has to be a safe and
efficient route that provides the requisite services to
communities or else there is no point in doing it. It has also
got to protect subsistence users and subsistence resources. It
has got to protect special places in the Arctic, marine
environment that have special sensitivities and like Captain
Page said, it is--this is a dynamic environment. So to the
extent that we can have a dynamic, or at least seasonal
management, I think that is important. And finally, connecting
the dots, especially with Canada, to make sure that we are--
have alignment at the terminus of the route.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me ask another question that
has been referenced a few times, but how important is and what
benefits do you see in the recently enacted Polar Code? And
again, I will just open this up to any of you. Ms. Metcalf, I
am sure you know a lot about this. You want to start or Captain
Page.
Captain Page. Well I am sure we can both comment on it,
Senator. I think the Polar Code is a good step in the right
direction. It certainly raised the bar, recognizes we have a
unique operating environment. So, it puts additional
requirements on both vessels and then ensures they are
constructed to meet the ice that they are going to encounter,
what have you. I do think it also places some responsibility on
a coastal state, such as the U.S. obviously on ensuring that we
are providing information to mariners to make sure they have a
safe passage. So there is a voyage-planning component of the
Polar Code where vessels are supposed to plan ahead of time
when they are going through some waters, they do so safely. But
the coastal states have an obligation to provide information to
vessels. So, what is a safe route and what have you? So, I
think there is some commitment on our part to fulfill those
aspects of the Polar Code so the mariners have the best
information, know the routes, know the hazards, ices and what
have you. So, it is brokering information, and I think that is
an area that we can put more attention to. But I think the
Polar Code is certainly a step in the right direction, and it
does help raise the bar as far as the standards for vessels,
and I defer to Kathy.
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you. I apologize for my coughing,
Senator.
Senator Sullivan. It is that time of year. No problem.
Ms. Metcalf. It is, yes. The way I look at the Polar Code,
it is making sure trained mariners, specifically trained for
Arctic operations are put on a constructed ship unique for the
Arctic operations for which they are designed, with all the
right equipment and in some cases, equipment beyond that more
temperate area operating ships would have because of the
remoteness of the area. And plugged into the necessary
infrastructure so that it becomes a polar system. The right
people, the right ship, and the right infrastructure.
Senator Sullivan. Anyone else on that? Mr. Goodwin.
Mr. Goodwin. Right now, most of the coastal communities are
beginning to outline their hunting areas by the season and also
our knowledge of their resources out there--marine mammals when
they come up, when they have their young--that information will
be available so that the mariners can know they are approaching
certain areas with certain hunting periods for certain species.
And we will have that information from our travel code.
Senator Sullivan. Good, thank you. Mr. Hartsig, any views
on the code?
Mr. Hartsig. I think like everyone else on the panel, I
think that the Polar Code is a great step forward and really
important. I guess, my only real concern is that we do not view
it as an end point. It does not do everything. One of the
things that it does not do is, like Mr. Goodwin was saying,
designate specific areas that need protection whether that is
for subsistence or areas of environmental sensitivity. And
then, even in a broader sense, there are some things that were
left out of the Polar Code. Not only in the Arctic but
worldwide, there are no regulations on the discharge of gray
water, for example. That could be an important issue in the
Arctic. So, I think there is still some work to do but no
question, it is important and a lot better than where we were
before we had the Polar Code.
Senator Sullivan. Good, I think it is a good example of,
you know, as all of you mentioned, an important step.
Let me conclude with a couple of questions relating to ice
breakers. You know, it is not just for transportation, it is
for defending our sovereign interest in the region. We talked
about Russia. The other country that is becoming very active,
aggressive, in the Arctic is China. And so, the good news is, I
think you are starting to see just what Senator Baldwin and
myself but a broad base number of members of Congress,
Democrats and Republicans, who have grown interested in the
issue of both ice breakers on the Great Lakes but just as
importantly in the Arctic. The National Defense Authorization
Act, this year, which was signed into law by the President in
August had a provision that I authored. This is for the
military to authorize 6 polar class ice breakers. They are not
appropriated yet, but the fact that they are authorized in law,
very strong bipartisan vote on that, by the way, in the Armed
Services committee. I think, was an important step.
But what I want to actually talk about is kind of related
but not really, the Coast Guard is not in the salvage business,
nor should they be, in my view. What is private industry doing
to prepare for any type of salvage and recovery scenarios in
the Arctic, meaning do we need like an Arctic AAA to be able to
support the eventual increase in shipping traffic through the
Arctic? Again, a lot of your testimony, all of you, has been
about preparation. So what is happening in that area,
particularly with regard to private industry?
Captain Page. Well, Senator, that is a very challenging
question, and I think it is a matter of volume and whether this
even pencils out as far as economical. Obviously at this point
and time, there are so few--limited shipping out there that it
would never pencil out to pay for a vessel to be parked in the
Arctic, to, you know, be available for salvage purposes. But I
think, over time, as shipping increases that certainly needs to
be the solution.
You mentioned the Polar Security Cutters and ice breakers
of the Coast Guard you are planning on. I applaud your efforts
and persistence and success in moving that ball down the field.
I think in some cases that I would hope that the Polar Security
Cutters are somewhat of a Swiss Army knife of capabilities.
They are relatively fast. They give search and rescue. They
have a law enforcement capability with some weaponry so they
can enforce the laws and treaties. They can--but they all
should be able to intercede when a vessel is in distress, to
stabilize the situation until commercial assistance arrives.
So--and when I was in the Cutter years ago, that is what we
would do. We had towing capability and if a vessel broke down,
we would just stabilize the situation until a commercial tug
could grab it, and they would take over, and they would move
on. So, I would hope that capability exists, because it never
is really going to be in the near future, a number of tugs
operating in the Arctic that can be available to respond to a
vessel emergency, because it really does not pencil out
financially and so I think that is going to be one of our
problems. And if we make only vessels engage in U.S. trade, pay
for that capability, then it is going to disproportionately
drive vessel traffic and maritime operations into foreign
ports, because they can skirt those costs by being on instant
passage. And the Kentucky trade with Vancouver BC instead of
Vancouver, Washington. So, we need to be careful you do not
inadvertently direct traffic to other ports.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Any other thoughts on that? Ms.
Metcalf?
Ms. Metcalf. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the thing I would ask is
that none of the members that already operate up there, one of
their items in their basket of services is actually emergency
response. And so, in fact, one particular member, I believe
purchased a salvage company and the salvage company operates
worldwide. So, I can see them as a business, from a business
perspective, seeing the Arctic--development of the Arctic as
something that would add onto that. But the other thing that I
would add to is this is not unlike 1991 when we were all
looking at Open 90 and trying to figure out where all these
resources were going to come. And it is--it would be nice if it
was a quicker process and we instantly had all the necessary
response capabilities, but we did not then and we do not now
and all we can do is push forward to get what we need as soon
as we can.
Senator Sullivan. Great. No, it is clearly a gap, but the
fact that people are starting to focus on it, I think is
positive.
Well listen, I want to thank the witnesses here. Very, very
informative. I think there is a lot of agreement. You could
tell from the panel. I think you can see it among Senators and
a lot of good ideas. My own sense is we are very behind on this
issue relative to other countries, relative to what is
happening and that is a problem, but the good news is, I think
people are starting to wake up to it. And the leadership of the
organizations and the individuals represented here among our
witnesses is a major reason for that. So, we will continue to
focus on it.
I certainly intend to be the Chairman of this Committee in
the next Congress, and we will see if that happens. I hope it
does, but I am going to continue to focus on these issues, and
we will certainly want the expertise represented here to remain
engaged and, as you said Mr. Goodwin, I loved your opening
statement about action. You are taking action. We need to start
taking action, and we are going to get there. We will keep
pressing.
So, I want to mention with regard to the hearing, the
record will remain open for the next two weeks. During this
time, Senators may submit additional questions to all of the
witnesses for the record. Upon receipt of these questions, we
respectfully ask the witnesses to submit their written answers
to the Committee as soon as they can.
And again, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing
today, in particular, my three constituents who traveled a long
way to come to this hearing. I particularly want to thank the
three of you for doing that. It is very important. It is not
always easy. So, we will continue to focus on this, and we want
all of you to stay engaged with us.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Woodrow Wilson Center Polar Institute Advisory Board
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Sullivan,
As you convene the December 6 hearing titled ``Preparing for
Maritime Transportation in a Changing Arctic'' in the Commerce
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I
wanted to provide an update on the efforts we have made at the Arctic
Circle and the Woodrow Wilson Center's Polar Institute on ways to
finance the infrastructure necessary for an Arctic Ocean that is--to
quote words you and I helped write in the 2009 U.S. Arctic Policy
document--``safe, secure and reliable.''
In late 2014, then-President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson of Iceland and
Alaskan Alice Rogoff, co-chairs of the NGO Arctic Circle, asked me to
lead an inquiry which became known as the Arctic Circle Mission Council
on Shipping and Ports. I was joined in the leadership of this effort by
former Alaska Commerce Commissioner Paul Fuhs, then-chair of the Marine
Exchange and former Alaska Senate President and Bush Administration
official Drue Pearce in this effort. In the four year time period, our
team conducted presentations, consultations, conference calls and
workshops with a wide variety of government officials, Arctic experts,
shippers and shipping companies, labor unions, insurance underwriters,
shipbuilders, icebreaker operators and others in Singapore, Korea,
China, Japan, Russia, the US, Canada, the Marshall Islands, Greenland,
the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and other
nations.
We focused on three concepts:
What it would take to develop an international ``seaway''
system for the Arctic Ocean and its approaches, modeled in part
on the international St. Lawrence Seaway between the U.S. and
Canada, that would collect voluntary fees or tariffs to defray
the costs of icebreakers, ports of refuge, and other necessary
precaution and response measures for safety and reliability.
Developing a league of Arctic ports, who would work together
to promote an Arctic seaway, and house infrastructure necessary
for safety and reliability.
Looking at new mechanisms to help finance necessary Arctic
infrastructure. Those mechanisms combine options in public and
private finance, insurance options, and regional (Arctic or
Northeast Asia) Development Bank options.
Our working papers, including an early draft of potential
legislation to create an Arctic Seaway Development Corporation, are
available at www.arcticcircleseaway
report.wordpress.com.
For the purposes of your hearing this week, we wanted to convey the
following:
1. Today, Russia's Northern Sea Route Administration is the only
end-to-end icebreaker escort service for ships using the Arctic
Ocean. Fees charged for that service range near $500,000 per
voyage. A recent study conducted for Russian Authorities,
presented at the Arctic Economic Council in 2017, indicates a
large number of European/Asian port city pairs for which
container traffic is likely to be more economic if a reliable
container shipping service is established in the Arctic Ocean.
If just ten percent of the approximately 18,000 vessels
transiting the Sues Canal were diverted to Arctic shipping,
approximately $900 million per year would be available to
support icebreaking and other services necessary for
reliability.
2. Many shipping nation representatives we spoke with, especially in
Asia, indicated they would feel more comfortable if a ship
escort service in the Arctic Ocean were operated by an
international consortium, rather than Russia alone. Many
icebreaker owning nations and private companies indicated they
would be able to make icebreakers and other resources available
for a coordinated seaway service.
3. Among Arctic shipping experts we have met with, the estimated
demand for Arctic shipping varies. New projects contemplated to
bring LNG to market from the North Slope of Alaska and the
Mackenzie River Delta of Canada may join Russian LNG expansion
as users of the Arctic Ocean. This year, we saw a new test of
container shipping by Maersk in the Arctic. A large number,
reportedly more than 30, new ice strengthened cruise ships are
in some phase of construction for Arctic and Antarctic
operations. If a regular, fee-based icebreaker escort service
were available, Arctic shipping could be expected to be higher.
4. Russia and Canada both claim ownership of waters the U.S. and
other nations consider to be international waters. An argument
for an international seaway agreement is that nations would
work together to provide safety and reliability in this ocean,
rather than stress conflicts over ownership.
5. Global leaders of the maritime insurance industry we met with
encouraged our efforts to bring forward a seaway proposal, and
indicated they might be able to help shippers decide to use the
seaway's resources, for a fee, rather than going it alone. If
legislation is introduced in the U.S. and in other countries to
organize such an effort, insurance industry leaders we met with
indicated an interest in providing testimony.
6. Ports of refuge and transshipment ports are needed to provide
reliability in Arctic shipping. LNG bunkering fuel supplies may
be necessary if heavy fuel oils are outlawed in the Arctic by
the IMO. Helping to finance ports is an appropriate role for a
seaway authority.
The hearing you've convened involves entities currently working
hard to bring about safety, domain awareness, spill prevention and
response capability in the Arctic Ocean. To their efforts, our concept
of bringing icebreakers of several nations together to foster
reliability, on a fee based service that Tero Vauraste has dubbed
``Uber for Icebreakers,'' has a chance to make more funding available
for the entire suite of needs in the Arctic Ocean. We look forward to
seeing legislation to this effect considered.
The Wilson Center's Polar Institute has agreed to hold further
meetings and workshops on the concept of an Arctic seaway, and we stand
by to assist your subcommittee in your efforts.
Sincerely,
Mead Treadwell,
Chair,
Arctic Circle Mission Council on Shipping and Ports,
Co-chair,
Woodrow Wilson Center Polar Institute Advisory Board,
Lt. Governor of Alaska, 2010-2014,
Chair,
U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 2006-2010,
and Commissioner, 2001-2010.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Willie Goodwin
Question. Today coastal residents and marine mammal subsistence
hunters, operating in small craft, are the most numerous categories of
mariners in northern Alaskan waters. Decreasing sea ice, changing
weather patterns, and increasing large vessel traffic are increasing
threats to the safety of our coastal residents. I congratulate you and
our other northern Alaskan marine mammal hunter groups for taking the
lead in standing up the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee. I understand
that your experience working with the Coast Guard in Alaska, to bring
the Waterways Safety Committee into being, was very positive. Can you
tell me about your current experience working with the Coast Guard to
continue efforts, through the Safety Committee and otherwise, to
increase marine safety along our coast? Are there any areas where you
think we need improvement?
Answer. Thank you for that question. Yes, our work with previous
Coast Guard commands in Alaska was very positive. Beginning in about
2010, representatives of District 17 regularly attended local meetings
in our communities and meetings of our hunter groups, asking for input
on our experiences with changes in the ocean and increases in large
vessel traffic. This is how we learned about Harbor Safety Committees
and formed the idea for the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee, which we
stood up in 2012 in consultation with District 17 personnel.
Through 2016, we had an excellent relationship with District 17,
including their Tribal liaison and senior officer program managers. All
were fully engaged in collaboration with us, all the way up to the Rear
Admirals, all of whom made a point of attending our meetings and
visiting our villages. In between formal meetings and consultations, it
was common for the Tribal liaison and senior officers to reach out
directly to our local representatives to keep us informed about
activity in our waters, especially the large vessel traffic. At the
same time, they sought our input on management issues to enhance
maritime safety up north. They clearly saw the safety of our mariners
and hunters as a priority of their command. Similarly, they engaged us
as their ``eyes and ears'' on the water in our remote region.
Unfortunately, since 2016, this engagement has dropped off
significantly. District 17 personnel attend meetings and offer formal
presentations, but the sense of collaboration and senior-level
engagement is no longer there. Also lost is the inter-meeting outreach
that helped us maintain two-way communications about upcoming large-
vessel cruises into our waters or concerns that we might have about
what we are seeing and experiencing in our coastal areas.
We understand that the Alaska region covers a very large amount of
territory and it can be difficult for Coast Guard personnel who are new
to Alaska to develop a rapport with folks from our remote communities.
It seems that as soon as they do, their tour ends and they are
reassigned elsewhere. We certainly appreciate these challenges, but we
need to find a way to re-establish a fully engaged collaborative
relationship with the Coast Guard. We are key District 17 stakeholders.
Our residents and hunters are Tribal members. Our hunter groups on the
Arctic Waterways Safety Committee are both Tribally authorized and co-
management partners with either the Department of Commerce/NOAA or the
Department of the Interior/FWS. Therefore, we have the authority and
Federal recognition necessary for meaningful collaboration and
consultation. We need our maritime colleagues in District 17, including
senior officers, to re-engage in a collaborative and meaningful
relationship that will ensure maritime safety along our northern coast
and the protection of our marine environment.
[all]