HSRP Emerging Arctic Priorities Working Group Report

HSRP Meeting ~ NOAA Headquarters, Silver Spring, MD

Dr. Lawson Brigham, EAP Chair

17 September 2015

Q1 ~ What criteria should NOAA consider to prioritize its national mission for hydrography & charting between the U.S. Arctic and the rest of the Nation?

• HSRP/EAP: No Adequate Criteria for Direct Comparison ~ Charleston/NY-NJ/LA-LB vs. Frontier U.S. Maritime Arctic.

• Ports/Harbors Linked to International & Domestic Trade (Economic Vitality).

• Unknown Compelling National Security Requirements.

• Arctic Offshore Leasing ~ USG Assumed Responsibility for Large Infrastructure Gap in Vast Areas of the U.S. EEZ.

• New Funding Required ~ Reduce NOS Re-Prioritizing Funds for Arctic Hydrography & Charting.

• Key Link: U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region ~ Chart the Arctic Region Under Line of Effort Pursue Responsible Arctic Region Stewardship.

Q1 Draft HSRP Recommendations:•NOAA should seek additional funding in a Congressional line item budget for Arctic hydrography, charting and associated geoid observations consistent with the National Strategy for the Arctic Region.

•NOAA’s internal Arctic strategy should place hydrography & charting of the U.S. maritime Arctic among the highest priority requirements for program execution, consistent with U.S. national Arctic strategies and implementation plans.

Maritime Traffic 1 June to 30 November 2013

Alaska Marine Exchange

Maritime Traffic 1 Jan to 31 May 2013

Alaska Marine Exchange

1 January 1 January 1 March 1 March

1 April 1 April 1 June 1 June

Winter & Spring Months

Q2 ~ What criteria should NOAA consider to prioritize hydrography and charting requirements within the U.S. Arctic?

• U.S. Maritime Arctic Operations & Commercial Uses: Federal Offshore Lease Sites & Approaches

Kivalina Terminal and Red Dog Zinc Mine

National Security & Law Enforcement Requirements

Coastal Community Resupply

Summer Resupply to the North Slope

Bering Sea Fisheries

Emerging Arctic Port(s) [Nome]

Identification of Places of Refuge

• HSRP Not Aware of Current National Security Requirements.

• Projected Traffic Available for Expanded Arctic Offshore Development.

Q2 Draft HSRP Recommendations:•National security requirements for hydrography & charting of the U.S. maritime Arctic in light of a changing Arctic should be refined and provided to NOAA/NOS for integration with other marine uses and for planning future surveys; CMTS could be used as a facilitator to obtain DOD/USN & DHS/USCG critical national security requirements.

•NOAA/NOS should seek a better understanding of the seasonal traffic levels and charting requirements of coastal tug-barge operations used primarily for resupply within the U.S. maritime Arctic.

•NOAA/NOS should seek, perhaps from CMTS, a better understanding of the hydrography & charting requirements for offshore oil and gas exploration – inside & outside the federal leased areas – and a priority list of the places or harbors of refuge within the U.S. maritime Arctic.

Q3 ~ What criteria should NOAA consider to prioritize tides/currents and positioning requirements within the U.S. Arctic?

• Inadequate geospatial & oceanographic infrastructure for accurate positioning & hydrography in Chukchi & Beaufort Seas (adjacent leased areas).

• 4D (x,y,z,t) positioning relies on precise differential GNSS & co-located tide & CORS stations ~ minimum of 3 required near the lease areas to accurately control hydrographic surveys.

• Highest priority: co-located tide gauges & CORS stations along northwest Alaska coast.

• In situ current measurements ~ Doppler current profilers (months/years of observations required for current circulation models).

• Inadequate funding ~ main constraint for NOS & NGS execution.

   

Q3 Draft HSRP Recommendation:

•NOAA/NOS must improve access to the National Spatial Reference System and fundamental oceanographic data on tides and currents in the U.S. maritime Arctic; additional tide gauges and co-located CORS stations are urgently required in the Bering Strait region, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea.

Q4 ~ Given the realties of shorter survey seasons and mobilization costs, what are realistic annual targets in percentage surveyed and charted over the next five years in the Bering Strait? In potential U.S. Arctic deep draft ports and harbors of refuge?

• Region ice-covered fully or partially 7-8 months each year.

• Length of ice-free season increasing in the autumn.

• 3-month survey season for NOAA Ships Fairweather & Rainier and one contract effort near Nome.

• Minimum annual production rate of 500 sq. nm at current funding levels; overall goal over 10-11 plan ~ 5700 sq. nm: 1200 sq. nm for corridor/access route + 2500 sq. nm for approaches/federal offshore lease areas + 2000 sq. nm for approaches/refuge areas.

• Annual rate based on present technology, standards & survey areas nearshore.

Q4 Draft HSRP Recommendation:

•NOS should plan for a minimum annual survey rate of 500 square nautical miles for the next five years within the U.S. maritime Arctic under existing funding levels; NOAA should also develop an alternative plan for projected, increased funding levels that would consider expanded surveying of corridors, port approaches, and refuge areas.

Q5 ~ Should NOAA look at alternative strategies to Arctic coverage other than our current approach of full bottom coverage? What might be some recommended new/creative approaches to partnerships and funding strategies that NOAA might employ to increase gravity data acquisition, develop Alaskan geoid models, install tide gauges and survey for nautical charting?• Only 1% of the U.S. maritime Arctic charted to modern international standards; NOS should explore all strategies

& technologies to provide baseline hydrographic information in remote areas despite accuracy limitations.

• Full bottom coverage remains critical for port approaches & potential traffic routes through Bering Strait.

• New hydrographic survey tools: ROVs & AUVs for remote areas.

Satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB) using LANDSAT 7 & 8 + Worldview 2 data

(not successful in turbid waters)

Crowd-sourcing bathymetry (CSB) ~ volunteer data collection.

• HSRP supports NOS & NGS (GRAV-D) contracting strategies ~ funding limits program execution.

Q5 Draft HSRP Recommendations:•Recognizing the accuracy limitations, NOS should further explore and employ crowd-sourced bathymetry (CSB) focusing on the application of CSB in the vast nearshore, remote regions of the U.S. maritime Arctic where there is minimal or no data.

•NOAA/NOS should explore with NSF (and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the ship’s operator) and the Coast Guard the further integration of the UNOLS polar research ship Sikuliaq, additional Coast Guard cutters, and any new U.S. polar icebreakers, on the long-term plan for hydrographic surveys in Alaska.

•NOAA/NOS should explore a potential private sector partnership for bathymetric information with the commercial firms that operate (typically tug-barge units) along western Alaska routes on summer resupply to coastal communities and Prudhoe Bay/North Slope.

Q6 ~ How might NOAA think about this region differently?

• NOAA perspective ~ nearly all envisioned Arctic activities require accurate charts, base-maps & geodetic measurements.

• Broad-based interest focused on a single region.

• Most federal agencies involved & many private sector firms ~ new cooperative public-private arrangements are needed for infrastructure challenges.

• Innovative approaches to coordination & funding ~ establish an interagency-private sector forum to address: critical infrastructure needs, coordination of activities, pooling of resources; framework for frank exchange of current & future needs; role for the Arctic Executive Steering Committee?

• With offshore leasing USG has assumed responsibility for infrastructure including charting w/o adequate resources or any cost-sharing mechanism with commercial users.

Q6 Draft HSRP Recommendations:•NOAA and the CMTS must expand interagency-private sector dialogue and collaboration; the potential pooling of critical Arctic marine infrastructure including hydrography must be explored as well as cost-sharing surveys and exchange of marine data as part of our national Arctic strategy.

•NOAA/NOS should request the recently established Arctic Executive Steering Committee (coordinated by the White House Office of Science & Technology) the integrated hydrographic/charting requirements for all federal agencies, in particular bringing clarity to those critical requirements of DOD/USN & DHA/USCG.

Challenges for the U.S. Maritime Arctic

• Increased Hydrography & Charting

• Implementation of the IMO Polar Code

• Robust Arctic Observing System

• Enhanced Domain Awareness

• Improved SAR & Environmental Response

• Continued Research & Exploration

• Alaskan Arctic Deepwater Port