The Arctic climate is changing, faster than anyone expected. The sea ice retreats earlier each year and it comes back later each year. The multi-year polar ice was smaller in September 2007 than we've ever recorded. From 2006 to 2007 the polar ice pack lost an area almost twice the size of California. In the village of Teller, Alaska, on the south side of the Seward Peninsula, the sound normally freezes by the beginning of October. This year it froze on December 18th.
The retreat of the polar sea ice is opening the arctic maritime domain to the full range of private and commercial use. A vast portion of the planet, heretofore inaccessible and unavailable to all but the heartiest inhabitants and explorers, may open to development and utilization. A modern "Gold rush" is beginning as an energy-starved world sees new frontiers of oil, gas, and minerals. Marine transportation systems envision shaving 4000 kilometers off the Europe to Asia trade route by sending ships "over the top." Eco-tourists ride cruise ships to the Arctic and Antarctic to experience the far reaches of the Earth. Commercial marine species are migrating north, opening the prospect of expanded commercial fisheries.
This new horizon is crowded with opportunities and challenges. How will this treacherous but fragile ecosystem be preserved and protected? How will existing Arctic species survive? What does climate change mean to indigenous people who have lived and loved, hunted and died, in the Arctic for over 10,000 years? How will their culture be preserved?
Questions unanswered for centuries, whose ambiguity could be tolerated, must now be answered.
And, what is the Coast Guard's role? The Chukchi, the Beaufort, and the Arctic are maritime domains. Many of the significant threats come from traditional Coast Guard maritime safety and security vectors. Whether the issue is commercial vessel safety, marine environmental protection, living marine resources, or homeland security, the Coast Guard must step forward to protect this emerging domain.
When ADM Allen assigned me to command the Seventeenth District in the summer of 2006, I had never had a 17th District tour. As I made my initial rounds of Alaska, meeting her extraordinary people and learning her challenging issues, everyone said that the Arctic was a growing issue. I've often described Alaska as the most magnificent place, the most beautiful place, and the most terrible place I've every known. Once you've seen the mountains, the glaciers, the forests, the islands, the tundra, the vistas of Alaska, you cannot imagine a more beautiful place. Sitka on a sunny day may be the most beautiful place on our planet. Sometimes it makes your heart hurt to see such vistas. But, a darkness lurks in this formidable land. Alaska has some of the worst weather on the planet and the line between life and death here, whether at sea or on land, is razor thin. Alaska kills in minutes, across vast distances. It is this combination, a breathtaking land of extraordinary beauty, populated by rugged individualistic people, in a place where fragile life abounds all around you, that makes "The Great Land" a truly unique place.
I learned that Alaska has traditionally been an "extractive" economy. From the beginning the Russians came to take the seals and sea otters. Through the American era people came for gold and then timber. Fish and crabs. And then oil and now gas. Zinc and lead. "Seward's folly" continues to be America's best deal with Alaskan resources fueling both America and the world's economies. The challenge remains, "How can we manage or husband Alaska's vast resources in a way that will ensure she is viable in perpetuity?" How do you develop these resources responsibly, without negative effect to a fragile environment?
One of my early briefings was Mr. Mead Treadwell's U.S. Arctic Research Commission presentation on climate change and the Arctic. For the first time I saw the possibility of large numbers of commercial vessels coming over the top of the world. I realized that the Bering Strait could easily become the next maritime "chokepoint" on the planet. I realized there was no infrastructure in the Arctic to support these vessels and I realized that we needed to prepare for the day, 10 to 20 years in the future, when the ships came. I left his briefing believing that I needed to start laying some bricks for a future Coast Guard wall.
I was wrong. My first year in Alaska proved that the Arctic is not an issue for 10 to 20 years into the future. The Arctic is upon us, now. Last summer, Shell oil sent a portion of its oil exploration flotilla into the Beaufort Sea. Due to a legal injunction, they went forward to learn the environment, not to drill. The flotilla had substantial organic response capability, including two Russian icebreakers. The Canadians tell us that 107 ships successfully transited the Northwest Passage last year into the Beaufort Sea and about 300 ships worked the Russian Arctic, primarily for resupply along the desolate north coast of Russia. The ships are coming already. Even more, I saw pictures of ice-breaking oil tankers, built by the Finns and operated by the Russians, now, year-round, on the European side of the Arctic. I saw plans for ice-breaking container ships and ice-breaking LNG carriers. They are building them now for the European trade. How long before they come our way?
I realized that we are not prepared for a major oil spill in the Arctic environment. The Coast Guard has no offshore response capability in Northern or Western Alaska and we only dimly understand the science of recovering oil in broken ice.
The SELENDANG AYU taught us the risk of large numbers of commercial vessels transiting through the fragile Aleutian ecosystem. Once a ship loses propulsion, especially during a winter storm, there is no capability that can keep them from striking the islands and discharging fuel and cargo, often with significant environmental effect and corresponding loss of life. About 400 ships per month transit Unimak Pass on the North Pacific route, with no intent to stop in Alaska. About twice a year we have close calls with a SELENDANG AYU type scenario. We are currently conducting the Aleutian risk assessment to identify risk and determine mitigating measures and response options to protect the Aleutians. While a similar effort is pending for Cook Inlet, it became apparent that we need a comprehensive effort to determine risks and response measures for western and northern Alaska.
When hundreds of vessels transit the Bering Strait, headed over the top of the world, they will pose exactly the same risk in an area with worse weather and much less infrastructure. There is no Dutch Harbor in the Arctic. The only harbor at all is Nome and there is nothing north of Nome. The tugs from Dutch Harbor got a line on the SELENDANG AYU but couldn't turn her head through the 70-knot winds. There are fewer tugs above Nome.
I was surprised when three cruise ships came through the Northwest Passage last summer without advance notice of arrival. Two of them stopped at Barrow. Barrow was genuinely surprised to have 400 German-speaking tourists descend on them with no notice. Looking at the pictures of the M/V EXPLORER sinking in the Antarctic this fall I realized that I was not prepared to respond to a mass casualty with 500 people 200 miles north of Barrow. There are no marine navigation or communication systems in the Arctic other than GPS.
Coastal erosion is a new and difficult issue for Arctic Alaska. Historically the sea ice would descend before the winter storms came, limiting the impact to winds alone. Now the winter storms are coming before the ice descends with attendant coastal erosion that threatens to take fuel farms, houses, even entire villages into the sea. D17's first taste of this issue came in the fall of 2006 when the Arctic village of Kivilina almost lost their fuel farm into the Chukchi Sea with attendant pollution. The larger issue became, "How were we, the State of Alaska and the Coast Guard, going to evacuate an entire village, at the height of a November storm?" From almost a thousand miles away from Kodiak? During the Alaska Forum on the Environment in Anchorage this past February I listened to briefs from nine coastal communities who were at risk from the sea due to coastal erosion.
It has also become clear that marine species are moving north. The Anchorage Daily News reported that scientists were surprised to see Walrus further north than ever. What's Wally up to? What's Wally doing? Well, Wally is just looking for lunch and he's finding lunch further north than ever.
Last August and September the Bering Sea Pollock fleet moved further north than ever, almost to St. Lawrence Island. Normally the Russian and American Pollock fleets are 60-70 miles apart in the Bering Sea, but last summer the fish movement pushed them into close proximity on the maritime boundary line. I had about 180 Russian fishing vessels within one-quarter mile of 70 American fishing vessels all trying to catch the same fish along an invisible line upon which we do not agree. To maintain calm on the line we published and broadcast the line to the U.S. fleet and moved the Air Station Kodiak C-130s to Nome. By flying from Nome we got 4 more hours per patrol on the line than we would have had flying from our traditional spots in Shemya and Kodiak.
State scientists in Kotzebue tell me that they're seeing Red King Crab and Tanner Crab in Kotzebue Sound. These species historically don't go that far north. Further, the salinity of the Sound is changing and the salmon, one of the primary native food sources, may be leaving.
CAPT Steve Hudson, D17(dp) told me that I had to go see the Red Dog Mine, the world's richest zinc mine, seventy miles into the Delong Mountains, inland from Kivilina above the Arctic Circle. The Red Dog works year round, pulling zinc and lead from an open pit mine and reducing it to a 55% concentrate. The ore is driven down a gravel road to the Delong Mountain Terminal where it is stored in large barns. For 2-3 months in the summer 20-30 large ore carriers, all foreign, some displacing as much as 70,000 tons, come to Kivalina and anchor 10-11 miles offshore because the Chukchi Sea is too shallow to bring them farther inshore. Special barges transfer the ore from the barns to the ships and load them offshore. It's an amazing system that works very well. Everything is covered. Everything is closed. I realized that this system could be used throughout the Arctic to seasonally extract Alaska's vast mineral wealth. The world's largest coal deposit lies inland along the northwest coast of Alaska, waiting for economical extraction.
Cruising World magazine called me and told me that some of their readers were planning to take yachts and cabin cruisers to the Arctic in the summer of '08. Could they do it? Pleasure boats are coming north expecting to run the transit to see the ice and the polar bears. They don't realize that there is no infrastructure or very limited infrastructure above Hudson Bay. They are used to a marina every ten miles with repairs and supplies. There are no marinas. There are no harbors. There are no communications. Even if you have a satellite phone, there are no response resources for hundreds if not thousands of miles.
I told Cruising World that there are no marinas, and no maritime infrastructure above Nome. They venture into one of the world's hardest places. To make the trip you need world class planning and logistics and you must be able to transit thousands of miles without assistance. If you call me for help on Channel 16 VHF-FM above the North Slope, I will not hear you.
Back in D17, I realized that much of this was theoretical. We had almost no idea, no maritime domain awareness, of what was actually happening on the waters of the Arctic. Our only automated identification system (AIS) data comes from the Marine Exchange towers in Barrow and Prudhoe Bay. Beyond their VHF-FM range, it's blank.
Looking at all these issues and realizing that the Arctic was upon us, we needed to get a plan. The first step was to begin developing Arctic Domain Awareness. CDR Todd Trimpert came up with that term and the associated concept. I asked, "What's the difference between Arctic Domain and Maritime Domain Awareness?" My staff replied, "ADA=MDA+". In most places the Coast Guard knows the culture, the infrastructure, and the operational parameters of maritime activity. In the Arctic we know very little. What are the cultural implications? What does the lack of infrastructure mean? What does the presence of large coal deposits mean? What effects will species movement impose? ADA is MDA within the context of the unique Arctic ecosystem, considering the affected human, social, cultural, economic, environmental, and physical factors. Viewed in these terms, and much to the chagrin of my friends in Coast Guard headquarters, MDA is actually a subset of ADA in D17.
We began developing ADA by sending Air Station Kodiak C-130s on bi-weekly maritime surveillance patrols along the Northwest and Northern Alaskan coasts. We went to places we hadn't been for a long time, like Barrow and Prudhoe Bay. We began to learn about Arctic operations. We began to find ships in the Chukchi Sea that we didn't expect.
In October, 2007 my staff (specifically CAPT Mike Inman and CDR Todd Trimpert) came forward with the idea of a North Pole flight; almost 1200 nautical miles north of Point Barrow. My first response was, "Why would we do that? Have we ever done that?" They replied that we should do it because it's there, and because it would be a great way to advance our Arctic learning and draw the attention of our citizenry to the fact that we are an Arctic nation. Further, they had no record that we had ever done such a flight so it became a unique, maybe first flight, opportunity. I asked them to run it by CAPT Andy Berghorn and the aviators in Kodiak, to get their impressions of the idea. I also ran it up the flagpole to Pacific Area and Headquarters, to let them know we were considering this "outside the box" concept.
Air Station Kodiak came back with the report that it was doable but there were problems; things we didn't know. First we didn't know if GPS was reliable all the way to the Pole. Second, we needed reliable communications for 15-minute comms checks, and they didn't know if comms were possible. Third, there was temperature. The fuel tanks on our C-130s aren't heated. At -46°C the fuel jells in the tanks. It was already October and we would have to go before Polar temperatures dropped below that level.
Many people pulled together to figure this out. Air Force pilots at Elmendorf, who routinely fly the Arctic, told us that GPS was good to the pole. Communications Area Master Station Pacific (CAMSPAC) and the Communications community "turned to" on the communications issue. They developed an outstanding communications plan that gave us options for HF comms to the Pole. COMMSTA Kodiak even brought gear and technicians to Barrow to try to set up a portable communications station in Barrow. Predicted temperatures along the flight path told us that we shouldn't go below -35°C.
We intended this to be a broad effort so we invited NOAA scientists, Barrow whaling skippers, and the press to join us on the trip. Dr. Mike Siglar of the Auke Bay labs and Captain Charlie Hobson, the senior whaling skipper from Barrow took us up on the offer. Both the New York Times and the Today Show came along as well. For almost eight hours during the flight Captain Hopson told us stories of growing up, hunting, and living on the Arctic ice. That experience was priceless.
The Air Station Kodiak crew, led by LT Thomas Wallin and LT William Sportsman did an outstanding job, taking us to the North Pole and beyond on a clear, dark day with an almost full moon. We had cloud cover at 5,000 feet most of the way but using CASPER optics we could peek through the clouds from time to time and enjoyed great views of the polar ice. GPS worked flawlessly. Communications worked too, but only because of the work the comms community had done beforehand. We used communications relays from Canada Iceland and Greenland for the last 600 miles of the trip. Temperature at altitude gave us our primary excitement. With about 500 miles to go it dropped to -40°C but held there. One challenge of the Arctic is that the normal Alaskan practice of dropping altitude to raise temperature when you begin to ice-up doesn't work over the polar ice cap. The air over ice is actually colder the closer you get. Dropping altitude wouldn't help us on this trip. Once back in Barrow we were reminded of other arctic lessons. Leaving the C-130 out overnight with temperatures below freezing leads to an unhappy airplane. We hangar the aircraft in Kodiak and Shemya due to this issue. Without a hangar in Barrow, substantial extra maintenance, and extra trips from Kodiak, were required to make it back to Kodiak.
We secured the first season of ADA flights on 7 December 2007, once the polar ice closed the Arctic to shipping. We were learning how to fly and how to conduct maritime surveillance in the North. We were learning arctic navigation, communications, maintenance procedures, and infrastructure requirements. But what are the Coast Guard operational requirements for the Arctic? The only way to find out was to conduct a summer test, when marine shipping was at its peak.
The D17 staff, led by CAPT Mike Inman and CDR Todd Trimpert, developed a concept of operations to conduct seasonal C-130 patrols from Nome, first to ensure aircraft availability next summer when the Pollock fleets move north, but also to give us easier access to the Chukchi Sea and the North Slope. Second, we wanted to conduct the full range of Coast Guard operations at Barrow, Alaska, the only community along the North Slope with sufficient existing infrastructure to support helicopters, small boats, and their crews. Third, we wanted to conduct security operations with MSST Anchorage in Prudhoe Bay, a site where inshore security operations may be required.
Because the Arctic is the domain of the polar icebreakers, and because the National Science Foundation did not intend to use POLAR SEA for the McMurdo Sound run this year, we also asked to use POLAR SEA for a multi-mission homeland security patrol in the spring of '08. Our view of the future state is that while we will need more scientific research than ever, we also need polar breakers for the full range of Coast Guard missions in the Arctic environment. We need them for homeland security and homeland defense, as well as search and rescue, fisheries law enforcement, maritime safety, and maritime environmental protection. If the POLAR SEA is available we can give them the opportunity to renew their ice qualifications while conducting all other missions. We forwarded the CONOP, including estimated costs, to Pacific Area and Coast Guard Headquarters for consideration.
Because we were planning to conduct Coast Guard operations in places that rarely saw Coast Guard forces, we began doing community engagement with the towns and villages where we planned to operate, including Nome and Barrow. These trips brought another issue to the fore.
All federal agencies have a requirement, imposed by Executive Order 13175 dated 6 Nov 200 and Executive Order 13084 dated 14 May 1998, to consult with Native American and Alaskan tribes before taking any actions that will have a significant effect on a recognized tribe. There are 229 recognized tribes in Alaska, and many of them live in northern and western Alaska. To educate us on this issue several members of the District and Sector staffs, including me, attended the Department of Defense Alaska Native Cultural Communications Course in Anchorage. DoD has the best program for Native American consultation and in Alaska DoD and the Department of the Interior have the most experience with the issue. That course was an "eye-opener" both for its background in Native Alaskan history and law, but also for the complexity of this issue. D17 has one-third of a billet dedicated to Native Alaskan liaison. Mr. Joel Casto had his work cut out for him.
Because I did not believe that the summer test would "significantly affect" the tribes, we did not conduct formal consultation with any Native Alaskan tribe. But because courtesy dictated that we inform them of our plans, the staff and I spent most of the winter of '07-'08 visiting communities, Native Alaskan Corporations, and tribal representative to (1) validate if they were seeing climate change, increased ship movement, and species migration, (2) to explain our CONOPS to them, and (3) to learn from them how best to conduct the Summer Test in their environment.
We learned several important things. First, preservation of culture is the highest value for Native Alaskans. Associated and interwoven with culture is the issue of subsistence. For rural Alaskans, both Native Alaskan and white, subsistence is real. In most of northern and western Alaska, 70% to 90% of the protein comes from subsistence, primarily fishing. There are no Walmarts or Farm Fresh to provide substance. Traditional farming is not practical. They live in a hunting and gathering society.
Realizing the importance of culture and subsistence, I resolved to "do no harm" with the summer test. As I continued engagement, district and sector elements were briefed on these issues and deployed to conduct specific planning for summer operations.
Coast Guard staffs from D17 to Pacific Area to CG Headquarters worked the POLAR SEA issues. Would the National Science Foundation release POLAR SEA for Arctic operations while in a "stand-by status" to support the ODEN if something went wrong in Antarctica this summer? Would they pay for the operation under the current funding arrangement? What track could the POLAR SEA follow that would not negatively impact seasonal whale hunting, a major subsistence issue for the coastal communities? How could the POLAR SEA get the training she needs while conducting the full range of Coast Guard missions? The answers to some of these questions have emerged from a flurry of magnanimous interagency engagements on the part of my staff, Pacific Area and CG Headquarters. NSF will pay for a 49-day multi-mission patrol for POLAR SEA in D17. This patrol is multi-mission and a vital first step in establishing our icebreaker fleet as national assets capable of serving the American public in a myriad of ways. While we continue to negotiate with various organizations in northern and northwest Alaska the exact track of POLAR SEA, we are also celebrating the dawn of a new day in the Arctic for the Coast Guard.
Another specific Coast Guard issue was how we would engage the District/Sector paradigm. Under the current Sector organization in Alaska, Sector Anchorage is responsible for legacy marine safety and marine environmental protection missions in northern and western Alaska but their area of responsibility does not extend so far for legacy operations missions like search and rescue and law enforcement. Because the summer CONOP deployed the full range of Coast Guard capabilities for all missions, the natural question arose, "What will belong to the District and what will belong to the Sector?" The hard, obvious answer was to work together with a joint District/Sector command and control element. To facilitate this novel approach CAPT Mark Devries, Commander, Sector Anchorage, made the winter engagement trips with me to northern and western Alaska. POLAR SEA and the C-130s will be under District TACON. The Barrow command and control element will be a mixed District/Sector unit led by LCDR Webber from D17 (drm). The Prudhoe Bay security unit will be completely under the TACON of Sector Anchorage.
One of the few "negatives" we heard came from an early visit to Barrow. Several people asked us not to come up there and "start handing out tickets." This reaction was based on their experience with other agencies that came north and initiated programs using that methodology. Thinking about the issue, the real goal is to enhance boating safety, not hand out tickets. We decided the best way to do that, especially in an environment where many of the boats in common use are "skin" boats or other personally manufactured boats that are not even registered, was to deploy the Coast Guard Auxiliary with us to offer boating safety training and courtesy inspections. By emphasizing education from a "friendly face" we hoped to enhance boating safety awareness and strengthen safety. The longer range goal is to recruit Auxiliarists in the coastal villages and to empower them to enhance boating safety in their own villages.
Many Arctic issues are much larger than the Coast Guard. Because of the ongoing boundary disputes the potential for conflict exists. When the Russians dropped their flag, claiming the North Pole and the Lomosov Ridge for themselves I termed it "Sputnik II." A clear shot was fired across the bow of the Arctic nations. How will we respond? Local relations between D17 and the Russian Northeast Border Guard Directorate are very strong. Similarly both D17 and D13 have great relationships with Canadian naval and Coast Guard counterparts. D17 is building a new relationship with Canada's JTF-North, their military entity most responsible for Canadian Arctic operations. Somehow we must keep the international relationships positive and constructive, not competitive.
I have intentionally avoided Department of Defense discussions in this journal. LTG Doug Fraser, the Commander, Alaska Command and JTF-Alaska, has engaged NORTHCOM, PACOM, and EUCOM on the Arctic issues. Both the COCOMs and the Joint Staff are reviewing these issues. While it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss those issues in this journal, I will simply say that DoD has a crucial role in deterring misadventure and encouraging good behavior in the Arctic.
The ongoing national policy challenge in the resource rich Arctic is how to balance reasonable development with protection of the environment. That is not a Coast Guard decision. Once a decision is made the Coast Guard's obligation is to provide maritime safety and security for that decision.
The ongoing national policy challenge in the resource rich Arctic is how to balance reasonable development with protection of the environment. That is not a Coast Guard decision. Once a decision is made the Coast Guard's obligation is to provide maritime safety and security for that decision.
Regarding that decision, there currently is no overarching Arctic policy or statutory framework that guides that balance. There is no structure to balance competing interests between the Arctic nations and the national, state, and local interests. The current situation has evolved to the point that someone does something and someone sues. Current Arctic policy is being set ad hoc by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That's not unusual for Americans. We often "punt" difficult issues to our courts. I just think it would be better if there was a comprehensive framework to balance international, national, state, local, industry, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and environmental interests without piecemeal lawsuits.
A reporter asked what my greatest challenge was with the Arctic initiative in Alaska. I told him that my greatest challenge had nothing to do with Alaska. It had to do with the fact that the average American doesn't realize that they are part of an Arctic nation. Because of Alaska, the United States is an Arctic nation, but we rarely act like one because most of us view Alaska as the land of far-far-away, out of sight and out of mind. Alaska and the Arctic is an issue for all of us.
One of the attorneys at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) asked me, "What does it mean to be an Arctic nation?" "What do you mean?" Well, an Arctic nation is one that owns land, water, and submerged lands in the Arctic. That means that you have opportunities in the Arctic. It also means that you have responsibilities and obligations in the Arctic, especially to preserve indigenous peoples and the environment.
Concurrent with our D17 efforts, ADM Allen recognized the need to review Coast Guard Arctic policy and VADM Papp, the Coast Guard Chief of Staff, convened the U. S. Polar Operations and Policy Work Group, led by RADM Jeff Garrett, retired. In their report of February 9, 2008, they identified problem areas and made a series of recommendations based on the degree of effort that the United States would be able to commit to the Arctic. First, a "marginal level" designed to meet minimum statutory requirements. Second, an "active" level designed to support evolving national polar objectives. And, third, a "leadership level" that would position the Coast Guard as the premiere federal agency for maritime polar issues. Based on priorities outlined in the NSC's interagency review of Arctic policy, it is anticipated that the Coast Guard will have the following expanding Arctic roles and missions in the next five to ten years:
- Project U.S. presence
- Protect sovereignty in Arctic
- Safeguard our oceans and resources
- Pollution prevention & response related to increased destinational shipping &
offshore energy exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas
- Living Marine Resource protection
- Facilitate safe navigation and protect Arctic maritime commerce associated with destinational traffic
- Waterways management
- Arctic shipping standards via IMO
- Enhance Arctic Domain Awareness
- SAR (eco-tourism and subsistence fishing/hunting)
- Arctic mariner credential/licensing standards
- Support expanding year round research in Arctic
Back in D17 we continue community engagement and summer planning. During the week of 24-28 March CDR Joe LoScuito (Deputy Sector Anchorage), Mr. Dean Terencio (Anchorage Flotilla), Mr. Joel Casto and I visited the Northwest Arctic Borough, officials in Kotzebue, and the Alaska Whaling Commission Chairman, Mr. Harry Brower, in Barrow. Unfortunately, the current POLAR SEA trackline has the potential to negatively impact the Spring whaling season. We are researching ways to reduce or remove and potential impacts. Remember, "Do no harm."
Upon completion of the Summer '08 test we will collect lessons learned and construct a first draft of requirements for seasonal Arctic operations. All will be forwarded to Pacific Area and CG Headquarters for review and future planning. Today I cannot tell you how much Coast Guard will be needed "when" in the Arctic. I can tell you that the Coast Guard is only a small part of a larger national and international issue. Every federal, state, and local agency-industry, NGOs, and non-profits, all need to turn their eyes to the north. It is appropriate that the U.S. Coast Guard lead the nation as the premiere federal agency for maritime Arctic issues. If we can establish an appropriate model for Arctic operations, one that balances seasonal operations with native Alaskan culture and subsistence, that ensures prevention while providing appropriate response, without doing harm, perhaps others will follow.
People have asked me, "Brooks, why are you so excited?" "Where's the EXXON VALDEZ of the North Slope?" They miss the point. I do not want an EXXON VALDEZ level event to draw national attention to the Arctic. No one does.
Others have asked, "Show me the money." Why should I care? I respond with the Chukchi Sea leases. When the Minerals Management Service put them up for auction late this winter they expected to receive about $600 million. The bids came in at $2.66 billion. The pressure to develop the Arctic's oil and gas reserves will continue as an energy-starved planet looks for dwindling sources of fossil fuels.
People have said, "Brooks, this is all about repairing the POLAR STAR or getting the Coast Guard a new polar icebreaker." I reply, "I don't know right now, but I suspect that I will need 3-4 new icebreakers, 7-9 ice hardened patrol ships, forward operating bases, marine pollution response capability, Arctic domain awareness, and Arctic communications capability...for a start."
We could ignore the Arctic. The Russians aren't. The Canadians aren't. Even non-polar nations like the Chinese aren't. It will take a decade to build the infrastructure to meet our responsibilities in the Arctic. The others will be ready. Will we?
The worst case scenario is a failure to peacefully settle the Arctic boundaries that leads to open conflict between the Arctic nations. That threat is not immediate, but could build quickly due to the boundary disputes.
The polar extremes of development could lead to substantial negative consequences; either uncontrolled development with negative environmental and cultural impact--or no development at all, with all opportunities lost. Will America support reasonable, responsible development that protects the environment and preserves Alaskan Native culture?
Without prevention measures, an EXXON VALDEZ/PRINSENDAM level event will occur. It's only a question of when. We will not be prepared. Many will die and they'll be talking about the environmental and economic damage fifty years from now.
The Arctic is upon us. It's a maritime domain and the nation needs her Coast Guard's leadership.
RADM Arthur E. (Gene) Brooks
Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District |
printer friendly