[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18126-18132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY ARCTIC RESEARCH POLICY COMMITTEE--MESSAGE 
                       FROM THE PRESIDENT--PM 127

  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying 
report; which was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

To the Congress of the United States:
  As required by section 108(b) of Public Law 98-373 (15 U.S.C. 
4107(b)), I transmit herewith the Eighth Biennial Report of the 
Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (February 1, 1998, to 
January 31, 2000).
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
                                   The White House, September 14, 2000.

   Eighth Biennial Report of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
    Committee to the Congress--February 1, 1998 to January 31, 2000

(Prepared by the National Science Foundation for the Interagency Arctic 
                       Research Policy Committee)


                               Background

       Section 108(b) of Public Law 98-373, as amended by Public 
     Law 101-609, the Arctic Research and Policy Act, directs the 
     Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to 
     submit to Congress, through the President, a biennial report 
     containing a statement of the activities and accomplishments 
     of the IARPC. The IARPC was authorized by the Act and was 
     established by Executive Order 12501, dated January 28, 1985.
       Section 108(b)(2) of Public Law 98-373, as amended by 
     Public Law 101-609, directs the IARPC to submit to Congress, 
     through the President, as part of its biennial report, a 
     statement ``detailing with particularity the recommendations 
     of the Arctic Research Commission with respect to Federal 
     interagency activities in Arctic research and the disposition 
     and responses to those recommendations.'' In response to this 
     requirement, the IARPC has examined all recommendations of 
     the Arctic Research Commission since February 1998. The 
     required statement appears in Appendix A.


                     Activities and Accomplishments

       During the period February 1, 1998, to January 31, 2000, 
     the IARPC has:
       Prepared and published the fifth biennial revision to the 
     United States Arctic Research Plan, as required by Section 
     108(a)(4) of the Act. The Plan was sent to the President on 
     July 7, 1999.
       Published and distributed four issues of the journal Arctic 
     Research of the United States. These issues reviewed all 
     Federal agency Arctic research accomplishments for FY 96 and 
     97 and included summaries of the IARPC and Arctic Research 
     Commission meetings and activities. The Fall/Winger 1999 
     issue contained the full text of the sixth biennial revision 
     of the U.S. Arctic Research Plan.
       Consulted with the Arctic Research Commission on policy and 
     program matters described in Section 108(a)(3), was 
     represented at meetings of the Commission, and responded to 
     Commission reports and Recommendations (Appendix A).
       Continued the processes of interagency cooperation required 
     under Section 108(a)(6)(7), (8) and (9).
       Provided input to an integrated budget analysis for Arctic 
     research, which estimated $185.7 million in Federal support 
     for FY 98 and $221.5 million in FY 99.
       Arranged for public participation in the development of the 
     fifth biennial revision to the U.S. Arctic Research Plan as 
     required in Section 108(a)(10).
       Continued to maintain the Arctic Environmental Data 
     Directory (AEDD), which now contains information on over 400 
     Arctic data sets. AEDD is available on the World Wide Web.
       Continued the activities of an Interagency Social Sciences 
     Task Force. Of special concern is research on the health of 
     indigenous peoples and research on the Arctic as a unique 
     environment for studying human environmental adaptation and 
     sociocultural change.
       Continued to support an Alaska regional office of the 
     Smithsonian's Arctic Studies Center in cooperation with the 
     Anchorage Historical Museum to facilitate education and 
     cultural access programs for Alaska residents.
       Supported continued U.S. participation in the non-
     governmental International Arctic Science Committee, via the 
     National Research Council.
       Participated in the continuing National Security Council/
     U.S. Department of State implementation of U.S. policy for 
     the Arctic. U.S. policy for the Arctic now includes an 
     expanded focus on science and environmental protection and on 
     the valued input of Arctic residents in research and 
     environmental management issues.
       Participated in policy formulation for the ongoing 
     development of the Arctic Council. This Council incorporates 
     a set of principles and objectives for the protection of the 
     Arctic environment and for promoting sustainable development. 
     IARPC supports the contributions being made to projects under 
     the Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) 
     by a number of Federal and State of Alaska agencies. IARPC's 
     Arctic Monitoring Working Group serves as a U.S. focal point 
     for AMAP.
       Approved four coordinated Federal agency research 
     initiatives on Arctic Environmental Change, Arctic Monitoring 
     and Assessment, Assessment of Risks to Environments and 
     People in the Arctic, and Marine Science in the Arctic. These 
     initiatives are designed to augment individual agency 
     mission-related programs and expertise and to promote the 
     resolution of key unanswered questions in Arctic research and 
     environmental protection. The initiatives are intended to 
     help

[[Page 18127]]

     guide internal agency research planning and priority setting. 
     It is expected that funding for the initiatives will be 
     included in agency budget submissions, as the objectives and 
     potential value are of high relevance to the mission and 
     responsibilities of IARPC agencies.
       Convened formal meetings of the Committee and its working 
     groups, staff committees, and task forces to accomplish the 
     above.

 Appendix A: Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee Responses to 
           Recommendations of the Arctic Research Commission

       Section 108(b)(2) of Public Law 98-373, as amended by 
     Public Law 101-609, directs the IARPC to submit to Congress, 
     through the President, as part of its biennial report, a 
     statement ``dealing with particularity the recommendations of 
     the Arctic Research Commission with respect to Federal 
     interagency activities in Arctic research and the disposition 
     and responses to those recommendations.'' In response to this 
     requirement, the IARPC has examined all recommendations of 
     the Arctic Research Commission since January 1998. The 
     previous IARPC report, submitted in January 1998, responded 
     to Commission recommendations through 1997. Many of these 
     recommendations deal with priorities in basic and applied 
     Arctic research that ongoing agency programs continue to 
     address.
       The following recommendations are from the Arctic Research 
     Commission report ``Goals and Opportunities for United States 
     Arctic Research'' (1999).


                      recommendations for agencies

       At the request of the IARPC agencies we are including 
     specific recommendations for these agencies and interagency 
     groups in order to make clear to them our view of the 
     opportunities.
     National Science Foundation
       The National Science Foundation Arctic Science Section in 
     the Office of Polar Programs has made great strides in recent 
     years in their interest in and efforts on behalf of research 
     in the Arctic. We are pleased with several developments in 
     recent years, including the partnership with the Commission 
     in support of the ARCUS Logistics Study, the participation of 
     the Section's staff on the Commission's field trips to 
     Greenland and Arctic Canada, and the Foundation's support for 
     the swath bathymetric mapping system deployed in 1998 as part 
     of the SCICEX Program. Nevertheless, there still remains a 
     substantial disparity between support for research in the 
     Antarctic and in the Arctic. A new era is about to dawn in 
     Arctic research because of the arrival in 2000 of the new 
     Coast Guard icebreaker Healy. Healy has the potential to 
     become the most important ship for Arctic research ever 
     launched. On the other hand, it may languish at the dock 
     making only occasional forays into the Arctic. The National 
     Science Foundation has committed to Healy by ending its 
     support for the ARV design activity conducted by the 
     University National Oceanographic Laboratory System. Healy 
     will be the principal U.S. resource for surface studies of 
     the Arctic Ocean. Having committed philosophically to Healy 
     it is essential that NSF find the resources to operate Healy 
     as a research vessel with a minimum operating schedule of 
     approximately 200 days per year. Without sufficient operating 
     support, the NSF commitment to Healy will be a hollow one. 
     The FY 99 budget for the Foundation contains a substantial 
     increase in funding for Arctic Logistics needs.
       NSF appreciates the Commission's comments on the great 
     strides in recent years by the Arctic Science Section, Office 
     of Polar Programs, on behalf of research in the Arctic. NSF's 
     commitment to supporting Arctic research in all areas remains 
     strong, but NSF is to the sole Federal sponsor for Arctic 
     studies. As the Commission is aware, both NSF and the Office 
     of Polar Programs must continually find the appropriate 
     balance of support for a wide variety of disciplines and 
     activities. In the specific case of supporting research that 
     requires the use of the Healy, NSF's FY 00 budget request 
     included funding for initial testing for scientific 
     applications of the Healy. In FY 00 the Foundation also hopes 
     to support limited research on the Healy during the science 
     system testing cruises.
       Long-term planning (FY 01 and beyond) includes continued 
     support for research on the Healy. Support for up to 100 
     operating days is planned, although it is unclear whether the 
     amount required to fully fund 200 operating days, including 
     science costs, would be available for this purpose from NSF. 
     NSF will work with other user agencies to develop mechanisms 
     for science support for the Healy.
     Department of Defense
       A number of activities fall under the Department of 
     Defense. Chief among these is the SCICEX Program of the 
     Department of the Navy. The 109th Airlift Wing of the New 
     York Air National Guard provides LC-130 support for both 
     Arctic and Antarctic research operations. In addition, DOD is 
     conducting a program entitled Arctic Military Environmental 
     Cooperation (AMEC) jointly with the Norwegian and Russian 
     ministries of defense. The Commission encourages the 
     Department of Defense to continue to provide support for 
     Arctic research and environmental studies and to communicate 
     with the Commission on any new programs.
       The level of interest in Arctic research continues to wane 
     at the Office of Naval Research. The fact that the Arctic 
     Ocean is no longer considered an area of strategic threat is 
     due to the decrease in tensions with Russia. The result has 
     been a precipitous decline in funding for Arctic studies at 
     the Office of Naval Research. The Commission believes that 
     the decrease in Arctic operations is a reason for maintaining 
     research levels in the Arctic in order to maintain the 
     national capability in the region. Research is generally much 
     less expensive than operations and the knowledge base created 
     and maintained by research in the region may be of vital 
     national interest in the future, particularly as access to 
     the Arctic Ocean improves, a fact made likely through the 
     observed thinning of Arctic sea ice. Reduced military 
     activities in the region do not justify reduced research 
     efforts and may be an excellent justification for maintaining 
     and even increasing research.
       With this mind, the Commission commends the efforts of the 
     Navy in carrying out the SCICEX cruises. The Commission notes 
     the substantial effort made by the Navy to support this 
     program in the face of shrinking resources and facilities. 
     These expeditions into the Arctic Ocean aboard operational 
     fast attack nuclear submarines show an extraordinary interest 
     in the support of science by the Navy. The question of the 
     continuation of these cruises after 1999 and the retirement 
     of the last of the Sturgeon Class submarines is of great 
     concern to the Commission, and the Commission recommends that 
     the Navy explore with the scientific community the means to 
     continue this invaluable access to the Arctic Ocean.
       The SCICEX Program began in 1998 to collect swath 
     bathymetric data in the Arctic for the first time from a 
     submarine. This instrument, known as the Seafloor 
     Characterization And Mapping Pods (SCANP), has been made 
     possible by the enthusiastic support of the National Science 
     Foundation's Office of Polar Programs. These data collected 
     by SCAMP will be of great value for students of the region 
     from many disciplines. The region surveyed in 1998 and 1999 
     will comprise only a moderate fraction of the area of the 
     deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean. The means to continue 
     gathering swath bathymetry with the SCAMP system should be 
     developed for the future, preferably using Navy nuclear 
     submarines. This recent development in submarines capability 
     is a reinforcing reason to continue the SCICEX Program. A 
     corollary issue is the declassification of achieved 
     bathymetry data collected on previous operations. These data 
     are a valuable resource for the research community. A 
     continuing program should be established to bring these data 
     out from the classified realm respecting the security 
     concerns, which may surround the collection of these data. 
     The construction of the new U.S.-Russian Arctic Ocean Atlas 
     CD shows that these difficulties may be overcome.
       As a further indication of the utility of Navy nuclear 
     submarines for research in the Arctic Ocean, the Commission 
     also notes the cooperation of the Navy in attempting to carry 
     out a test of the submarine as a receiving ship for seismic 
     refraction measurements. This test, when completed, will 
     indicate the suitability of the submarine for such 
     experiments, and the Commission encourages further 
     investigation of this concept. The Commission also notes the 
     cooperation of the Navy in the declassification of 
     bathymetric and ice profile data collected by Navy nuclear 
     submarines in the Arctic. The value of these data is 
     indicated by the importance attached to the bathymetric data 
     by the international community in connection with the update 
     of the GEBCO chart of Arctic Ocean bathymetry. Navy data will 
     at least double the data base available for this update.
       Finally, the Commission recommends that the Navy cooperate 
     fully in a study of the costs and benefits of retaining a 
     Sturgeon Class submarine as an auxiliary research platform 
     for worldwide use by the civilian science community as 
     discussed above.
       The Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 
     (CRREL) in Hanover is a national treasure. In the current 
     climate of budget stringency the pressure on Army labs is 
     growing. The Commission wishes to be on record in support of 
     the vital national resource that exists at CRREL. Serious 
     reductions at CRREL might be helpful in the short term but a 
     detriment to the national welfare over the long term. The 
     Commission encourages continued support for CRREL.
       The Commission has recently discussed with CRREL the 
     importance of understanding the effects of global climate 
     change on the permafrost regime. The Commission looks forward 
     to CRREL's plans for further study of climate change and 
     permafrost, supports the concept and encourages support for 
     these studies by all of the IARPC agencies.
       The Department of Defense invests in R&D priorities 
     consistent with mission requirements and resources. First and 
     foremost, the Science and Technology investments within DoD 
     are undertaken to ensure that warfighters today and tomorrow 
     have superior and affordable technology to support their 
     missions and to give them revolutionary war-winning 
     capabilities. Thus, the

[[Page 18128]]

     DoD S&T investment is directly linked to the assessment of 
     current and future security threats. While the interest of 
     the Department of Defense and the Office of Naval Research in 
     Arctic research and environmental studies remains strong, the 
     prioritization of S&T funding is subject to the fiscal 
     realities and must consider present strategic and operational 
     requirements. The Department remains committed to funding 
     Arctic research at a level commensurate with the mission 
     requirements. Contrary to the Commission's assertion, the 
     decrease in military operations in the Arctic is not a 
     rationale for maintaining or expanding departmental S&T 
     efforts in the region.
       From an S&T perspective, the Department of Defense supports 
     the Navy's ongoing examination of the feasibility of 
     continued Arctic research using Navy submarines. Such 
     analysis is taking into account DoD's national security 
     mission, the national security requirements for submarine 
     operations, downsizing of the operational fleet, and the 
     life-cycle costs of implementation of an extension of the 
     SCICEX research program. Further, the Navy is cooperating 
     with NSF and its contractors in an ongoing study of the costs 
     and benefits of retaining a Sturgeon Class submarine as an 
     auxiliary research platform for civilian science applications 
     operated on a reimbursable basis.
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
       NOAA has been the leading U.S. agency for AMAP. In this 
     role, NOAA has supplied both staff efforts and funding to the 
     AMAP. These efforts have been largely conducted on a goodwill 
     basis without organized programs or a satisfactory funding 
     base. NOAA deserves great credit for these efforts and the 
     Commission commends and supports their efforts. NOAA has 
     conducted an Arctic Initiative beginning in 1996 at a funding 
     level of approximately one million dollars. The Commission 
     supports this initiative and recommends that it continue in 
     the coming fiscal year and eventually becomes an ongoing part 
     of the NOAA program.
       NOAA appreciates the recognition by the Commission of its 
     role as U.S. lead agency for the Arctic Monitoring and 
     Assessment Program (AMAP). It is NOAA's intention to continue 
     its participation in AMAP, to coordinate interagency AMAP 
     projects in a partnership effort, to increase outreach to 
     impacted Alaskan communities, and to promote greater 
     involvement in AMAP activities by Alaskan people and 
     organizations at both local and statewide levels.
       NOAA also appreciates the Commission's support of the 
     Arctic Research Initiative (ARI), a peer-reviewed research 
     effort that we have administered jointly with the Cooperative 
     Institute for Arctic Research at the University of Alaska 
     Fairbanks. After a start at the $1.0 million level in FY 97, 
     the ARI received $1.5 million in FY 98 and $1.65 million in 
     FY 99. NOAA intends to continue this program, and the 
     President included support for the ARI as part of NOAA's base 
     budget request for FY 00. NOAA completed a report on the 
     first three years of the ARI and provided copies of the 
     report to the Commission.
       As the Commission is doubtless aware, in FY 00 NOAA is 
     combining ARI funds with International Arctic Science Center 
     funds in a joint announcement of opportunity. This 
     announcement was released to the Arctic science community on 
     August 18, 1999. It invites proposals on global change and 
     its effects on the Arctic, including detection; interactions 
     and feedback; paleoclimates, Arctic haze, ozone and UV; 
     contaminants; and impacts and consequences of change. The 
     announcement is available on the IARC web page at http://
www.iarc.uaf.edu and on the CIFAR web page at http://
www.cifar.uaf.edu.
       In order to focus our Arctic research efforts more sharply, 
     we have established an Arctic Research Office within NOAA's 
     Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
       The National Undersea Research Program (NURP) has had a 
     long and perilous history. Only occasionally has it appeared 
     in the President's budget. The Commission believes that NOAA-
     NURP can be a valuable asset to the research community. In 
     particular, the Commission takes note of the report of the 
     ``Blue Ribbon Panel,'' which spelled out a new paradigm for 
     NURP. The Commission's interests in NURP's activities in the 
     Arctic include the use of unmanned and autonomous underwater 
     vehicles in the Arctic as well as the employment of the 
     Navy's nuclear submarine assets under the SCICEX Program 
     noted above. The Commission believes that the time has come 
     for an organic act for NURP that will establish it as an 
     ongoing activity with a structure based largely on the 
     recommendations of the ``Blue Ribbon Panel.'' As part of 
     their mission NURP should undertake to fulfill the commitment 
     made in the SCICEX MOA to support the research infrastructure 
     costs of the SCICEX Program.
       Following the reinvention of the National Undersea Research 
     Program (NURP), which began in 1997, the program has been 
     included in the President's budget each year at increasing 
     levels. The Blue Ribbon Panel report was taken into account 
     in the restructuring of the program, and an organic act 
     supporting the reinvention is under review by the 
     Administration.
       Regarding the SCICEX program, the Director of NURP serves 
     on the National Science Foundation's Study Steering Committee 
     to examine and analyze the costs and benefits of employing a 
     U.S. Navy nuclear submarine dedicated to global oceanographic 
     science. This would be a follow-on to the SCICEX program. 
     Based on the results of this study and future budget levels, 
     NURP will determine its contributions to support 
     infrastructure and research costs in any follow-on to the 
     SCICEX program.
       NOAA operates a suite of National Data Centers including 
     the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the National 
     Oceanographic Data Center, the National Geophysical Data 
     Center and the National Climate Data Center. These data 
     centers are charged with the responsibility for data rescue 
     in the former Soviet Union. The Commission recommends that 
     the national data centers communicate the nature of their 
     data rescue activities to the Commission and expand them as 
     necessary to collect data vital to our understanding of the 
     Arctic, especially the dispersal of contaminants in the 
     region.
       The NOAA National Data Centers (NNDC) continue their long 
     history of cooperative data exchange with counterpart 
     institutions in the former Soviet Union (FSU). The following 
     summary highlights some of the oceanographic, meteorological, 
     and geophysical data sets recovered and made public in the 
     past few years as a result of this cooperation. While these 
     data are significant contributions to our knowledge of Arctic 
     regions, our FSU colleagues indicate there are enormous 
     holdings still in manuscript form or on outdated magnetic 
     tapes. Reasonable estimates to acquire these additional data 
     and make them available far exceed the resources available to 
     NNDC.
       The National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) has an 
     active, proposal-driven program of ``data archaeology and 
     rescue'' for oceanographic and ancillary meteorological data 
     for the world ocean. These activities are funded by NOAA's 
     Office of Global Programs and by the NOAA/NESDIS 
     Environmental Services Data and Information Management 
     program. As a result of this project, substantial amounts of 
     data for the sub-Arctic and Arctic have been made available 
     internationally without restriction on CD-ROM as part of 
     ``World Ocean Database 1998'' (WOD98) and the ``Climatic 
     Atlas of the Barents Sea 1998: Temperature, Salinity, 
     Oxygen'' products. The majority of these rescued data are 
     from Russian institutions. There are an estimated 500,000 
     Russian Nansen casts from the Barents Sea and surrounding 
     areas still not available, many of these data being in 
     manuscript form.
       The Ocean Climate Laboratory of NODC also is working with 
     the Murmansk Marine Biological Laboratory to construct and 
     publish a ``Plankton Atlas of the Barents Sea.'' A second 
     atlas on the physical properties of the Barents Sea will be 
     expanded to include the Kara and White Seas. Russian 
     institutions have expressed interest in developing atlases, 
     databases, and joint research projects, mainly for the sub-
     Arctic. For example the Arctic and Antarctic Research 
     Institute (AARI) of St. Petersburg is proposing to prepare 
     such products for the Greenland-Norwegian Sea region. If 
     funding becomes available, AARI and the Ocean Climate 
     Laboratory will co-develop this database and analyses.
       Recently, Arctic and sub-Arctic oceanographic data from 
     Sweden, Poland, the U.S., and Canada were added to WOD98, and 
     more data are being processed for future updates.
       The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) has several 
     ongoing data rescue and exchange programs with Russian 
     counterparts to rescue, digitize, and render available 
     geophysical data from Russia. Most of these are part of 
     larger data exchange programs. Likewise, the National Snow 
     and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), in collaboration with NGDC, has 
     been involved in extensive Russian and former Soviet Union 
     data rescue activities. The NOAA/NESDIS Environmental 
     Services Data and Information Management program has funded 
     most of these activities. A list of rescued data sets at 
     NSIDC is available to the Commission. Many more data sets are 
     in need of rescue and publication. These include ice station 
     seismic refraction stations, borehole temperature 
     measurements, and additional years of sea ice data.
       Since 1989 the National Climatic Data Center has been 
     exchanging meteorological and climate data on an annual basis 
     with the All-Russian Research Institute for 
     Hydrometeorological Information (RIHMI) under the ``U.S.-
     Russia Agreement on the Cooperation in the Field of 
     Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources.'' Data 
     exchanged include three- and six-hourly synoptic weather 
     reports (since 1966), daily temperature and precipitation 
     (since 1884), daily snow (since 1874), daily snow in heavily 
     wooded areas (since 1996), monthly total precipitation (since 
     1890), and upper air data (since 1960).
       In 1996 a project was initiated with RIHMI to rescue 
     synoptic weather observations contained on 10,000 magnetic 
     tapes at risk of being lost due to age and deterioration. The 
     data from approximately 80 observing sites from 1891 to 1935, 
     700 stations from 1936 to 1965, 1300 sites from 1966 to 1984, 
     and 2000 sites from 1985 to the present were copied to

[[Page 18129]]

     new media. In addition, daily precipitation data were 
     extracted from the observations and provided to the National 
     Climatic Data Center for the preparation of a U.S.-Russian 
     precipitation data set for research.
       During 1999 a cooperative project was initiated to make 
     available to NCDC the upper air data from the Russian Arctic 
     drifting stations (data beginning during the 1950s).
     Environmental Protection Agency
       The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research 
     and Development (ORD) has shown little interest in the study 
     of the special environmental concerns in the Arctic. Although 
     the EPA-ORD was closely engaged in the Arctic and a principal 
     support for the activities of the Arctic Environmental 
     Protection Strategy up until 1994, subsequent involvement has 
     been minimal. This has left the United States committed to 
     programs under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, 
     particularly in AMAP, for which the appropriate agency 
     (Environmental Protection) refrained from providing support. 
     The Commission considers this to have been a short-sighted 
     decision and recommends strongly that the EPA-ORD make a 
     substantial effort in the study of contaminants in the 
     Arctic. The U.S. has been judged an underachiever by the 
     international community involved in the AEPS and the current 
     discussion on the future of AMAP under the Arctic Council has 
     become very difficult given that there are no plans for EPA-
     ORD to directly support AMAP efforts.
       The Commission notes the workshop held in Fairbanks in the 
     summer of 1996. The Commission also notes that the intention, 
     announced at the 1996 Meeting by the Head of the Office of 
     Research and Development, to establish an Arctic baseline 
     study station at Denali National Park fails to understand 
     that the Park is not in the Arctic, that experimental 
     opportunities in a National Park are extremely limited, and 
     that there are a number of superior sites in Alaska, notably 
     Toolik Lake and the Barrow Environmental Observatory, which 
     would provide a superior site where EPA could take advantage 
     of ongoing studies by many scientists.
       The ability of EPA to interact with the Native residents of 
     the Arctic is compromised by the application of their risk 
     assessment paradigm. This paradigm has led to the conclusion 
     that the U.S. Arctic population is not of high priority 
     because of its small size. This ignores the closeness of the 
     relationship of these people to their environment (roughly 50 
     percent of their annual caloric intake comes from native 
     plant and animal species), the environmental stresses on 
     village life (almost 50 percent of Alaskan villages use the 
     ``honey bucket'' system for human waste disposal), and their 
     vast and ancient store of traditional knowledge of the Arctic 
     environment.
       There are important efforts in the Arctic sponsored by the 
     EPA's Office of International Programs. EPA's Office of 
     International Activities (OIA) has supported the study of 
     contaminants in umbilical cord blood samples from Arctic 
     residents. This AMAP-sponsored program was ignored during the 
     AMAP initial assessment activities but has been resurrected 
     with the assistance and support of EPA-OIA. EPA-OIA has 
     proposed other activities in the Arctic including projects to 
     assess and reduce sources of mercury and PCBs. The Commission 
     commends EPA-OIA for their efforts and urges support for 
     their activation and expansion.
       The Arctic Research Commission expressed appreciation for 
     ongoing research sponsored by the Office of International 
     Activities (OIA) on contaminants in cord blood of Native 
     infants, and strong concerns about the lack of investment by 
     the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Below are 
     responses to these concerns, and a brief outline of EPA's 
     relevant activities.
       Support of AMAP
       EPA's decision to withdraw from the AMAP process in 1994 
     was based on issues other than recognition of the importance 
     of this activity. EPA has re-engaged with AMAP by directly 
     supporting the Heavy Metals workgroup and conducting other 
     work relevant to contaminant issues in the Arctic.
       In March 1999 the Office of Research and Development (ORD) 
     agreed to chair the Heavy Metals Team during AMAP Phase II. 
     To that end, EPA organized and sponsored a workshop ``Heavy 
     Metals in the Arctic'' in September 1999 to produce a final 
     AMAP Phase II heavy metals research plan and to establish an 
     international heavy metals team. ORD has committed to 
     producing a Phase II report in 2003 that includes unreported 
     U.S. data from Phase I and new data from Phase II. The eco-
     system-level risk assessment process will serve as the 
     conceptual framework for organizing research results. EPA's 
     ability to launch major new research programs to fulfill AMAP 
     research plans is problematic. Available funds will have to 
     be used strategically to focus on the most essential portions 
     of the AMAP Phase II plan. For success, efforts will be made 
     to find matching funds through partnerships and coordination.
       AMAP is targeting ``effects'' and plans a special workgroup 
     on combined effects during Phase II. The ORD has also 
     targeted this as an issue and is planning a combined 
     symposium and workshop for multiple stressors and combine 
     effects on the Arctic Bering Sea during FY 00. Workshop 
     results will be framed by the risk assessment process and 
     offered to AMAP as an alternative approach for addressing 
     this scientific challenge.
       Arctic Research
       The Denali National Park Demonstration Intensive Site 
     Project under the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 
     Program was designed to establish an air quality station with 
     UV-B monitoring capability. Data collected there can and do 
     provide very useful information about changes in UV-B 
     radiation in northern regions as well as long- range 
     transport of airborne contaminants from parts of the world 
     very remote from Alaska. However, EPA agrees that the Denali 
     National Park research station is outside of the Arctic and 
     recognizes the need for additional Arctic research. To 
     further development of an Arctic research program, ORD 
     established an Arctic Program office in Anchorage, Alaska. 
     Program staffs are directly involved in AMAP and the Bering 
     Sea Regional Geographic Initiative (see ``Risk Assessment'' 
     below).
       The Office of International Activities (OIA) has been a 
     lead in supporting basic research with international 
     implications characteristics of Arctic environmental 
     concerns. OIA, in partnership with the ORD National Effects 
     Research Laboratory and in coordination wit NOAA and DOE, 
     installed a new state-of-the-art mercury Tekran speciation 
     monitoring unit at the NOAA research station in Barrow, 
     Alaska. The equipment became operational in January 1999 and 
     confirmed the ``Arctic Sunrise'' phenomenon this spring. In 
     addition, OIA has continued its support of the Alaska Native 
     Cord Blood Monitoring Program. The program is designed to 
     monitor the levels of selected heavy metals (including 
     mercury) and persistent organic pollutants (including PCB 
     congeners) in umbilical cord and maternal blood of indigenous 
     groups of the Arctic. The study will generate 180 infant-
     mother specimen pairs and will include two groups of infants 
     from the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Canada) and infants 
     recruited from the Alaska native American populations. Other 
     OIA activities include the Multilateral Cooperative Pilot 
     Project for Phase-Out of PCB Use, and Management of PCB-
     Contaminated Wastes in the Russian Federation.
       REPA Region 10 continues to support contaminants research 
     through a new partnership with the Sea Otter Commission to 
     expand efforts in monitoring persistent, bioaccumulative, and 
     toxic pollutants (PBTs) in subsistence foods in Alaska. The 
     Traditional Knowledge and Radionuclides Project, conducted in 
     partnership with the Alaska Native Science Commission, is 
     ongoing
       Risk Assessment
       Risk assessment has a varied history of development and use 
     in EPA. Within the last 10 years, the process and its 
     application have broadened dramatically from single-stressor-
     driven assessments to complex integrated ecosystem 
     assessments for multiple stressors and combined effects. 
     While it is true that EPA tends to target most resources 
     toward environmental issues impacting areas of greater 
     population density, this is a priority setting exercise 
     rather than an application of the risk assessment process.
       EPA has found the broadened risk assessment approach to be 
     very effective in bringing together scientific research and 
     management strategies. Specifically it allows communities to 
     use available scientific information (and, particularly in 
     the Arctic, traditional knowledge) to better understand what 
     complement of stressors may be causing undesirable change in 
     important values, key scientific questions that need to be 
     investigated, and alternative problem solving strategies 
     designed to achieve environmental results.
       It is within this broader frame of reference that EPA is 
     focusing resources and time in the Arctic. The risk 
     assessment process involves multiple steps, including 
     planning (establishing shared goals), problem formulation 
     (using available knowledge to develop conceptual models), 
     analysis (exposure and effects data), and risk 
     characterization (establishing relationships). The Bering Sea 
     Regional Geographic Initiative, sponsored by Region 10 and 
     ORD, is focused on planning and problem formulation to help 
     make sense of the enormous amount of available data and to 
     give direction to future research in the Bering Sea. The 
     Traditional Knowledge and Radionuclides Project sponsored by 
     Region 10 is helping redefine the risk management process 
     with tribes and may offer new ways to re-frame how risk 
     assessment is used in the Arctic. In a similar vein, ORD has 
     begun planning and problem formulation for the Pribilof 
     Islands in partnership with the people of St. Paul to develop 
     a demonstration case study of the process within a Native 
     community. Risk assessment will also provide the conceptual 
     framework for reporting on heavy metals for AMAP Phase II.
       These activities will provide significant lessons within 
     the Arctic about how to establish management direction, 
     identify data gaps and research opportunities, link research 
     to management concerns, and provide a legitimized use of 
     traditional knowledge.

[[Page 18130]]


     Department of State
       The Department of State is responsible for the negotiation 
     and operation of our international agreements in the Arctic. 
     The Department seeks input from the IARPC agencies and others 
     through the Arctic Policy Working Group, which meets monthly 
     with the Polar Affairs Section at State. Over the years a 
     disconnect has occurred between the Department and the 
     officials in other agencies making the vital decisions 
     affecting our participation and performance in international 
     programs. This stems principally from the lack of 
     coordination between what the agencies will actually do and 
     the policies expressed in these programs. The most obvious 
     case was the failure of the United States to participate in 
     the AMAP health study of contaminants in umbilical cord 
     blood. While endorsing this program and its goals on the one 
     hand, no samples were actually sent for analysis even though 
     samples existed. The result is that the United States has 
     been viewed with a certain amount of scorn in AMAP meetings 
     (the Commission notes that this program has finally begun 
     under the auspices of the EPA Office of International 
     Activities). The cure for this is certainly not simple. The 
     most important step, however, is that the Department of State 
     must, in the future, meet with Agency policy officials to 
     review their recommendations, spell out the equivalent 
     commitments to action by agencies, and modify their positions 
     accordingly. These meetings must be carefully prepared so 
     that the issues to be discussed are clearly spelled out and 
     that the nature of the commitment required from the agencies 
     is understood well beforehand so that the agencies can come 
     to the table prepared to make commitments.
       The complexity of this problem can be seen in the state of 
     affairs in October 1998. In October the United States took 
     over the chair of the Arctic Council. At the same time, 
     agency budget appropriations were passed for FY 99 but 
     virtually no specific budget commitments were identified as 
     supporting investigations relevant to Arctic Council needs. 
     Many relevant activities occur in agency programs which could 
     demonstrate U.S. commitment to the Arctic Council but there 
     is no system to collect results and report on relevant U.S. 
     activities to the Council and no financial support for these 
     activities. This problem needs to be addressed immediately 
     for FY 00 and beyond.
       The Department of State is puzzled by the Arctic Research 
     Commission's recommendations for the Department with regard 
     to facilitation of U.S. Arctic Research. The entire first 
     paragraph is, verbatim, what was reported in their ``Seventh 
     Biennial Report to Congress,'' which was submitted last year 
     and which covered the period of February 1, 1996 to January 
     1, 1998. The incident that they highlight as an example of an 
     ``interagency disconnect'' that resulted in ``complete 
     failure'' of the United States to participate in an Arctic 
     Council program occurred in 1996 and involved a Federal 
     agency outside of the control of the State Department. From 
     the perspective of the Department, it appears that the Arctic 
     Research Commission has not seen our response to this same 
     evaluation last year. In that initial response, we explained 
     in detail what the State Department's role is with regard to 
     facilitating U.S. research in the Arctic and the formulation 
     of U.S. Arctic policy. It appears that the Arctic Research 
     Commission has failed to take this into consideration. With 
     regard to the additional language that the Commission has 
     submitted this year, the Department would like to emphasize 
     that all queried Federal agencies, with the exception of one, 
     offered general support for the U.S. chairmanship of the 
     Arctic Council. While we are not in a position to comment on 
     the contents of the budgets of other agencies with regard to 
     support for the U.S. chairmanship, we note that the 
     Department received financial support in the amount of 
     $250,000 for its Arctic Council chairmanship in FY 99 and has 
     requested financial support for the Arctic Council in its FY 
     00 budget request. We also note that a number of other 
     agencies, among them the Departments of Commerce/National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Energy, Interior/Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency, 
     have committed both financial resources and staff time to 
     assist with chairing the Arctic Council. We also note that 
     the Department of State has been generally pleased with the 
     level of participation and leadership from the aforementioned 
     U.S. agencies and others within the Arctic Council's working 
     groups.
     U.S. Coast Guard
       The U.S. Coast Guard is the principal provider of research 
     time on icebreakers for U.S. scientists not collaborating 
     with other nations. In the past, the lack of an open system 
     for soliciting participants and planning cruises has produced 
     friction and disagreement as well as some important 
     successes. With the advent of Healy, the new Coast Guard 
     icebreaker, a new system must emerge. The dialog between the 
     scientific community which will be using Healy, Coast Guard 
     designers, and ship builders has been substantially improved. 
     The formation of the Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee 
     has been successful and has led to substantial improvements 
     in the design of research facilities aboard Healy. In the 
     near future the need for liaison and coordination will change 
     from the construction team to operations. The Commission 
     anticipates that the Coast Guard will work closely with the 
     AICC drawing upon the U.S. academic community's substantial 
     level of experience in oceanographic operations generally and 
     in Arctic studies in particular.
       The AICC and the closer cooperation in which it is 
     participating will not help to produce the potential for a 
     new era of U.S. Arctic research unless a commitment to 
     operating funds for icebreaker utilization is forthcoming. 
     The Commission has recommended to the National Science 
     Foundation that it provide funds for full utilization of 
     Coast Guard icebreakers at up to 200 operating days per year 
     as appropriate depending on funding. The Coast Guard should 
     support NSF in its efforts to provide these funds.
       The Coast Guard will depend heavily on the Arctic research 
     community to participate in determining scheduling priorities 
     for Healy. The UNOLS Ship Time Request System will be the 
     primary mechanism for fielding and sorting requests for ship 
     access. There is a clear need for subsequent scheduling 
     meetings to occur. A specific plan for arbitrating competing 
     scheduling demands has yet to be defined. A discussion of how 
     this process should work is an agenda item for the January 
     2000 Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee meeting. The 
     Coast Guard envisions a process where it provides information 
     on ship availability and operational access to specific areas 
     and where the science community takes responsibility for 
     prioritizing research goals that will result in actual ship 
     access for investigators. Input from the Arctic Research 
     Commission, the National Research Council, and the National 
     Science Foundation will be key to developing an equitable 
     system that meets the national research requirements.
     Interagency Task Force on Oil Spills
       There is a substantial dearth of knowledge about oil spills 
     in Arctic conditions. The Commission has long recommended a 
     substantial research program on the behavior of oil in ice-
     infested oceans based in part on the research agenda spelled 
     out in Appendix I. In addition, the Commission has had 
     substantial discussions with the Oil Spill Recovery 
     Institute. The Commission in collaboration with the Alaska 
     Clean Seas Association and others has recommended test burns 
     in the Arctic Ocean to study the variety of questions 
     associated with this highly effective method of disposing of 
     oil on the sea. The Commission recommends that the 
     Interagency Task Force commence such a program soon, before 
     the question is made imperative by an accident in the Arctic.
       The Coast Guard supports the ARC in its recommendation to 
     commence a research program on the behavior of oil in ice-
     covered waters, although no funds are currently available to 
     support such a program. The Coast Guard continues to endorse 
     the preparedness and response efforts of the Emergency 
     Preparedness Prevention and Response Working Group of the 
     Arctic Council, as well as individual national research.
       The task force was established as the Coordinating 
     Committee on Oil Pollution Research (CCOPR) under Title VII 
     of Public law 101-380, otherwise known as the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990. The Committee has not been funded since FY 95. 
     As a result the Coordinating Committee has focused on 
     ensuring that the research and development projects of its 
     member agencies are discussed and the results of that 
     research and development are shared with Federal, state, 
     local, and private sector researchers. The Coordinating 
     Committee has been unable to initiate any research not 
     already approved by an agency as part of the agency's 
     mission-specific activities. Thus, a proposal for the 
     Committee to initiate and manage a research and development 
     program to study methods of disposing of oil in Arctic waters 
     is not viable at this time. The Arctic Research Commission 
     may wish to propose meeting with the Coordinating Committee 
     to discuss proper research foci with attendant partnership 
     funds to the individual agencies that comprise the 
     Coordinating Committee.
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration
       The Commission has been briefed on the programs undertaken 
     by NASA in the Arctic or having a substantial component in 
     the Arctic. These programs are clearly of a high caliber. The 
     Commission notes, however, that these programs are poorly 
     publicized outside of the community of NASA Principal 
     Investigators. The Commission recommends that NASA carry out 
     a program of outreach to the Arctic Research Community to 
     publicize these programs and to encourage broader 
     participation. NASA is always at risk for the engineering 
     side of their programs to overwhelm scientific uses and 
     needs. The Commission believes that by broadening the 
     participation of the research community in their programs, 
     NASA can benefit from the resulting community support.
       The Commission also notes that NASA is a participating 
     agency in the International Arctic Research Center and 
     supports the Alaska Synthetic Aperture Radar Facility at the 
     University of Alaska. The Commission supports these efforts 
     and looks forward to their continuation and expansion.

[[Page 18131]]

       NASA welcomes the support of the Arctic Research Commission 
     for its Arctic research program. NASA is sympathetic to the 
     need for outreach of its programs within the broader 
     scientific community. NASA has established procedures by 
     which it seeks to inform the broader community of its goals 
     and vision.
       NASA publishes a Science Implementation Plan for the Earth 
     Science Enterprise, which includes Arctic research. This 
     document is reviewed outside NASA and provides an opportunity 
     for scientists to understand the scope of planned activities 
     and their relationship to overarching science goals. NASA has 
     invested in the development of effective user interfaces at 
     its Data Active Archive Centers, realizing how important 
     these are to the productive use of mission data. In continued 
     recognition of this, NASA initiated a National Research 
     Council Polar Research Board review of its polar geophysical 
     products during 1999, with a view to obtaining independent 
     and science-driven advice on how best to provide data sets 
     for Arctic researchers. Furthermore, through this review, 
     NASA seeks to develop a strategy for broader use of its polar 
     data sets by the research community.
       In recognition of the important role that the Arctic plays 
     in global climate, NASA will continue to support Arctic 
     research. The Alaska SAR Facility and the International 
     Arctic Research Center each have important roles to play in 
     encouraging innovative and collaborative Arctic research.
     National Institutes of Health
       Under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy the 
     United States has become involved in programs concerning the 
     health of Arctic residents, particularly the indigenous 
     people of the region. In particular, the AMAP health study 
     has been focused on environmental effects on health in the 
     region. When the United States undertook to sign the AEPS 
     Declaration (and subsequently the Arctic Council Declaration) 
     the message to agencies was that there would be no new money 
     requested or appropriated for these activities. As a result, 
     the U.S. effort in the AMAP health program has been paltry. 
     It is clear that the responsibility for the national effort 
     in this regard falls to the National Institutes of Health, 
     particularly the National Institute for Environmental Health 
     Studies. Unfortunately, the NIH-NIEHS effort has been 
     virtually nonexistent. The Commission recommends that NIH 
     immediately organize an Arctic Environmental Health Study 
     focused primarily on the measurement program outlined by the 
     Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program. In addition, the 
     study of incidences and trends in the major causes of 
     morbidity and mortality in the Arctic should be included in 
     Arctic Council activities, perhaps as an initiative is 
     sustainable development. The effects of both communicable 
     diseases such as tuberculosis, systemic diseases such as 
     diabetes and cancer, and external causes of illness and death 
     such as alcoholism and accident have profound effects in the 
     Arctic.
       The NIH should undertake to become the focal point for 
     Arctic Council health studies in both AMAP and the 
     sustainable development activities of the Council. To this 
     end NIH should provide secretariat support for U.S. Arctic 
     Council health-related activities and take on the 
     responsibility to see that the myriad relevant efforts at NIH 
     and elsewhere are collected and reported to the Arctic 
     Council as the U.S. contribution. This activity should also 
     include a program, in collaboration with relevant State of 
     Alaska agencies and institutions, to synthesize these results 
     and return them to the Arctic community in understandable 
     language along with their implications for life in the 
     Arctic.
       The Arctic Research Commission observed that, despite the 
     agreement that the United States participate in the Arctic 
     Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) and subsequently the 
     Arctic Council, no new monies were requested or appropriated. 
     U.S. efforts in AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
     Program) were considered paltry. The ARC recommended that the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly its 
     component, the National Institute of Environmental Health 
     Sciences (NIEHS), organize an Arctic Environmental Health 
     Study, focused on AMAP measurements. A study of the major 
     causes of morbidity and morality was suggested to be included 
     in Arctic Council activities (but perhaps as part of 
     Sustainable Development), and the NIH should become a focal 
     point for reporting health studies to the Arctic Council, 
     including informing the Arctic community of implications for 
     life in the Arctic.
       The NIH, and its sister agencies within the Public Health 
     Service (PHS), namely the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention (CDC) and the Indian Health Service (IHS), are 
     pleased to note considerable progress in supporting several 
     programs under the Arctic Council, including both AMAP/Human 
     Health and Sustainable Development.
       AMAP Monitoring Program
       Although the initial focus of AMAP was on the exposures to, 
     and effects of, anthropogenic pollution, there has been a 
     broadening of its sphere of interest, especially among the 
     Human Health expertroup, to include ancillary aspects that 
     are related to the central focus.
       The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, which derived 
     from, and closely affiliates with, the Indian Health Service, 
     is sponsoring the Alaska Native Cord Blood Monitoring 
     Program, with the additional financial and moral support of 
     many other Federal, state, and local organizations. Such a 
     monitoring program comprised a ``core activity'' of AMAP in 
     its first phase, during which the U.S. was not able to 
     participate. Now, however, during the second phase of AMAP, 
     the U.S. is a full partner in the Arctic region monitoring 
     efforts.
       AMAP Biomarkers Conference
       It is evident that there would be tremendous value in 
     utilizing more sensitive indicators of exposure to, and of 
     the possible adverse effects of, the various anthropogenic 
     pollutants found in the Arctic environment. Applicability of 
     very sensitive ``biomarkers'' based on genetic or biochemical 
     tests could be expected to advance the research agenda 
     considerably if properly understood and applied. With this in 
     mind the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
     NIH, is sponsoring the International AMAP-2 Biomarkers 
     Conference, in Anchorage, Alaska, in early May 2000. The 
     conference will bring together Arctic health researchers and 
     experts on the use of biomarkers, with the purpose of 
     achieving cross fertilization of ideas and identifying 
     opportunities.
       Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases
       The Arctic Investigations Program of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention is contributing to the Human 
     Health research agenda through its program to study emerging 
     and reemerging infectious diseases in the Arctic. This is 
     especially apropos because of the suspected relationship of 
     the adverse health effects of pollution on an individual's 
     resistance to infections (e.g. due to an impaired immune 
     response), especially in newborns, infants, and youth.
       Arctic Environmental/Health Database
       Under consideration is a proposed computerized database 
     that would incorporate traditional environmental/health 
     knowledge from indigenous Arctic populations as well as 
     available data entries in the National Library of Medicine 
     (NLM, NIH) Medline database. The challenge is how to acquire 
     and codify such traditional knowledge in a machine-readable 
     format. If the project can be implemented, it would include 
     education and training of Arctic populations on the access 
     to, and use of, the database, which would also provide a 
     means of disseminating the activities of the Arctic Council 
     AMAP, Sustainable Development, and other working groups.
       Arctic Telemedicine
       In support of the Sustainable Development initiative 
     proposed by the State of Alaska, the PHS, which chairs the 
     White House Joint Working Group on Telemedicine, is providing 
     input to the Telemedicine Initiative. NIH components that 
     will be involved include the National Library of Medicine 
     (extramural grants support program) and the NIH Clinical 
     Center (intramural telemedicine project).
     Department of the Interior
       The U.S. Geological Survey has led the effort by IARPC 
     agencies in the assembly of a data structure for Arctic 
     research. Unfortunately, there has never been a satisfactory 
     funding base for this program. In the past, many IARPC 
     agencies have contributed to this effort but these 
     contributions have faded. Only NSF continues to provide 
     support. The Commission recommends that the USGS and the 
     Department of the Interior accept that this program belongs 
     to them and should be fully supported. The USGS should have 
     the full support of the other IARPC agencies. It is 
     particularly important that an effort be staged to save 
     important earth science data from the former Soviet Union. 
     Much useful data is collected in old paper records which are 
     even more vulnerable now that fuel has become scarce in many 
     places. The Commission has recommended that the NOAA National 
     Data Centers undertake a data rescue project coordinated with 
     the USGS.
       The Commission is correct in stating that the data 
     collection effort by the U.S. Geological Survey is not a 
     funded effort. Consequently the U.S. Geological Survey is 
     able to continue this work only as a collateral effort. The 
     latest budget information indicates that this picture will 
     not improve in the foreseeable future. However, the USGS 
     intends to continue this work as best it can and will 
     continue to seek partners to help support the program.
       The USGS Water Resources Branch has recently reduced the 
     number of hydrologic monitoring stations in the Arctic. Data 
     from these stations are urgently needed for testing and 
     improving the predictions of large-scale of freshwater runoff 
     in the Arctic. In addition, fresh-water runoff affects the 
     stratification of the Arctic Ocean and the distribution of 
     nutrients, traces, and contaminants brought to the Arctic 
     Ocean from the land. The World Climate Research program--
     Arctic Climate System Study maintains an Arctic Runoff Data 
     Base for these purposes. The Commission recommends that the 
     USGS rebuild a strong program of Arctic hydrologic 
     measurements.

[[Page 18132]]

       The measurement of Arctic rivers and streams has never 
     enjoyed sufficient funding, so there are just two rivers that 
     flow directly into the Arctic that have stream gages in 
     operation. The cost of maintaining a stream gage on an Arctic 
     river that requires helicopter access is prohibitive. 
     Consequently, unless the budget picture improves 
     significantly, it is unlikely that the U.S. Geological Survey 
     can increase the density of gages in the Arctic. However, the 
     USGS will continue to gather as much information as possible 
     and also promote cooperation with other interested parties 
     whenever possible.
       Members and staff of the Commission have visited the 
     National Park Service research logistics housing facility at 
     Nome, Alaska. The Park Service is to be commended for this 
     effort and other agencies should consider the Park Service's 
     example as a model to follow.
       The Department thanks the Commission for its continuing 
     endorsement of the National Park Service program.
       The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department has been a 
     stalwart in the work of the Arctic Council's working group on 
     the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. The Commission 
     recommends that other divisions of the Department follow the 
     example of the Fish and Wildlife Service in their support of 
     Arctic Council Activities.
       The Department thanks the Commission for its continuing 
     support for the Fish and Wildlife Service's Arctic Council 
     activities.
     Department of Energy
       The energy needs of Arctic villages in Alaska are extreme. 
     Poor transportation to remote villages, small communities 
     unable to take advantage of the economies of scale usually 
     associated with municipal energy systems, a mixed economy 
     with only modest cash flow, and the lack of a sophisticated 
     technical infrastructure all make the provision of adequate 
     energy resources in the Arctic difficult. The Commission has 
     no specific programs to recommend but will undertake a review 
     of DOE's village energy programs in FY 99. This study will 
     lead to a Commission Special Report with specific 
     recommendations for research and development of appropriate 
     technology for the Arctic.
       The State of Alaska faces many unique challenges in helping 
     to ensure that its citizens have access to affordable and 
     reliable electric power. These challenges are particularly 
     evident in rural areas of the state, where electricity is 
     primarily produced by small, expensive, and difficult to 
     operate and maintain diesel power plants. At present the cost 
     of electricity for rural customers is eased somewhat by the 
     availability of the Power cost Equalization (PCE), an 
     electric rate subsidy program administered by the Alaska 
     Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). However, 
     funds for the PCE are derived from the sale of oil from 
     Prudhoe Bay and are projected to be exhausted in 2000 or 
     2001, and when that occurs, electricity rates in rural areas 
     could rise substantially. Faced with higher electricity 
     costs, and the potential danger of environmental damages 
     related to the use of petroleum energy in a fragile Arctic 
     ecosystem, various Alaskan entities are now exploring ways in 
     which renewable sources of energy can aid in the production 
     of electric power. To better understand the role that 
     renewable energy can play, the DOE's Wind energy Program is 
     engaged in collaborative efforts with a number of Alaskan 
     organizations at the state and local levels to explore ways 
     in which wind can make a greater contribution in the 
     production of electric power.
       The Department of Energy has been an important source of 
     technology transfer to the Russian nuclear power reactor 
     program. Unfortunately, budget reductions threaten this vital 
     activity. The Commission is concerned that the future of U.S. 
     participation is in jeopardy and that in the future nuclear 
     energy production particularly in the Russian Arctic may 
     proceed without the support of the Department of Energy. The 
     budget for interaction with Russia on nuclear power systems 
     should be supported and reinforced.
       The concerns of the Commission are noted. The Department 
     agrees that nuclear safety in the Russian Federation remains 
     an important focus of international concern.
       The Commission fully supports the activities in the Arctic 
     under the Agency's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) 
     Program. The ARM Program is an important research effort and 
     is also an outstanding example of close cooperation between 
     researchers and Native communities and stands as an example 
     for other research programs.
       The Department thanks the Commission for its continuing 
     endorsement of the ARM Program.
     Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC)
       Unfortunately, the current budget stringency has caused the 
     IARPC agencies to become hesitant about Arctic research in 
     the face of the many other demands on their scarce resources. 
     At the same time, however, the national commitment to 
     activities in the Arctic has grown. This is particularly true 
     in the case of the Arctic Council. The Commission recommends 
     that the NSE, in its role as lead agency for Arctic research, 
     call together the IARPC Seniors to agree on a plan of 
     research to support U.S. participation in the Arctic Council 
     which goes beyond the current rhetoric and demonstrates the 
     national commitment to carry on the goals of the U.S Arctic 
     Policy expressed by the President on 29 September 1994. Since 
     the appropriation of new money to meet these commitments 
     depends on timely consideration of the nation's participation 
     in the Arctic Council, which we currently chair, and the 
     submission of budget requests to allow agencies to meet their 
     responsibilities as member and chair to the Council, it is 
     imperative that the IARPC agencies come to the table with the 
     intention to request and redirect resources to carry out this 
     task.
       The biennial revision to the U.S. Arctic Research Plan for 
     2000-2004, as approved by the IARPC, includes a multiagency 
     focused initiative that is intended to support U.S. 
     participation in the Arctic Council. The Department of State 
     is the lead agency for the Arctic Council. The Department of 
     State has assigned personnel and resources to support the 
     Arctic Council secretariat, although no separate resources 
     were requested to support the research program. Several 
     agencies are conducting research that supports Arctic Council 
     priorities.
       On another front, the United States agencies need to update 
     the IARPC plan for a comprehensive study of the Arctic Ocean. 
     While current experiments are important and of high quality, 
     there is no current plan for the study of the Arctic Ocean 
     which provides context for these studies. The National 
     Science Foundation has commissioned the formulation of a 
     strategy for the study of the Arctic Ocean. The other IARPC 
     agencies with responsibilities for research in the Arctic 
     Ocean include Navy, NOAA, USGS, USCG, EPA, NASA and parts of 
     several others. IARPC should organize an interagency meeting 
     of the principal agencies responsible for Arctic Ocean 
     research. The Commission has recommended such a plan in the 
     past and feels even more strongly that an organized effort is 
     needed given the increasing evidence for rapid and 
     substantial change in the Arctic Ocean. The Commission 
     recommends that IARPC update the 1990 IARPC report ``Arctic 
     Oceans Research: Strategy for an FY 1991 U.S. Program'' on a 
     multi-agency basis and that this program be submitted to the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy for consideration on a budget-wide basis.
       The biennial revision to the U.S. Arctic Research Plan for 
     2000-2004, as approved by the IARPC, includes a multiagency 
     focused initiative on Arctic Marine Sciences. This is IARPC's 
     update of the 1990 IARPC report ``Arctic Oceans Research: 
     Strategy for an FY 1991 U.S. Program.''
       The Commission also notes their recommendation above the 
     IARPC publish an annual report on Bering Sea research.
       The IARPC biennial report of agency accomplishments, to be 
     published in the IARPC journal Arctic Research of the United 
     States (Spring/Summer 2000), will highlight Bering Sea 
     research.

                          ____________________