Maritime Infrastructure: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade
Published: 2014-03-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Decreasing seasonal sea ice has opened up Arctic waters for longer periods with resulting potential economic opportunities in commercial shipping, cruises, commercial fishing, oil, and mining. In light of the importance of U.S. efforts to effectively manage Arctic issues, GAO was asked to examine U.S. actions related to developing and investing in Arctic maritime infrastructure.
This report discusses (1) current commercial maritime activity in the U.S. Arctic and anticipated activity in the next 10 years, (2) actions taken by government entities in support of planning and developing U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure, and (3) federal interagency efforts to identify and prioritize Arctic maritime-infrastructure investments. GAO interviewed representatives from the commercial-shipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, oil, and mining industries and government entities involved in the U.S. Arctic. Site visits were conducted to Nome, Barrow, and Anchorage, Alaska. These sites were selected based on factors such as geographic location and infrastructure activity.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Commercial U.S. Arctic maritime activities are expected to be limited for the next 10 years, according to industry representatives, due to a variety of factors. Interviews with industry representatives highlighted a variety of general challenges related to operating in the Arctic, such as geography, extreme weather, and hard-to-predict ice floes. Industry-specific factors were also cited as contributing to limited commercial activity. For example, shipping companies noted higher costs with Arctic transit; cruise industry groups noted a lack of demand for Arctic cruises from the mainstream cruise-consumer base, and oil companies last drilled offshore exploratory wells in the U.S. Arctic in 2012.
Although the activity will likely be limited, federal, state, and local stakeholders have taken some actions to plan for future maritime-infrastructure investments. Some of these actions address factors that, as identified by industry representatives, contribute to the current and expected limited maritime activity in the U.S. Arctic. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in collaboration with the State of Alaska, has taken steps to study the development of an Arctic deepwater port; the lack of which is a factor identified by mining representatives as contributing to the expected limited mining activity in the U.S. Arctic. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is in the preliminary phase of seeking to acquire a new polar icebreaker, which could be used for emergency response, research assistance, or patrols. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Alaska government are working to improve mapping, charting, and weather information for the U.S. Arctic.
The Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) published the U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action in July 2013, which prioritized actions for developing Arctic maritime infrastructure and identified the lead agency for each action. This report prioritized two broad categories to be addressed in the near term: information infrastructure, such as mapping and charting, and response services, such as search and rescue. Implementation of the report's actions is at the discretion of each federal agency; however, according to CMTS officials, CMTS is currently developing a process to regularly monitor agencies' progress in addressing the recommended actions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations in this report. USCG, NOAA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Interior sent GAO technical comments on this report, which were incorporated as appropriate. USACE did not have any comments on this report.
View a video of GAO's review of U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The recent retreat of sea ice in the Arctic, combined with an expected  increase in human activity, has heightened the United States’ and other  nations’ interests in the Arctic region. The United States, with the State of  Alaska extending above the Arctic Circle, is one of eight Arctic nations.  Record low levels of sea ice over the past decade could have potential  impacts on access to natural resources, the people who inhabit the  region, and the U.S. economy. For example, diminishing sea ice has  made some Arctic waters navigable for longer periods of time and, as a  result, may contribute to new economic opportunities in commercial  shipping, cruises, commercial fishing, oil, and mining. Growth in these  types of commercial activities in the Arctic, however, could also increase  the risk of negative maritime impacts, such as ship collisions or oil spills,  and potentially increase demand for services such as search and rescue  and other maritime navigation support.
Given the potential increase in commercial activity in the Arctic, there has  been greater international focus on developing and investing in maritime  infrastructure, such as deepwater ports and improved mapping and  charting of Arctic waters. Maritime infrastructure could help facilitate  transportation and commerce and be used to support activities such as  search and rescue and emergency response. Within the United States,  there are a variety of stakeholders that play a role in planning and  developing maritime infrastructure in the Arctic, including the federal  government, the state of Alaska, private investors, and others.
In light of changing conditions in the Arctic and the importance of U.S.  efforts to effectively manage Arctic issues, you asked us to examine  actions related to developing and investing in U.S. Arctic maritime  infrastructure. This report examines:
What is known about the extent of current commercial maritime  activity in the U.S. Arctic, and according to stakeholders, what is the  anticipated activity in the next 10 years?
What actions have government entities taken in support of planning  and developing U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure, and what unique  challenges exist, if any?
What federal interagency efforts have been taken to identify and  prioritize Arctic maritime infrastructure investments?
In the absence of a singular definition of the Arctic, federal agencies’  definitions vary. In this report, we use the term Arctic to mean areas  above the Arctic Circle and the term U.S. Arctic to discuss those areas  that are U.S. waters and land as defined by the Arctic Research and  Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA). We focused on the development of maritime  infrastructure on the waters and land along the western and northern  coasts of Alaska, particularly the more remote areas north of the Bering  Strait. Maritime infrastructure includes (1) the marine transportation  system (ports, navigable waterways, and port connectors such as roads  and railways); (2) aids to maritime navigation (buoys and beacons); (3)  mapping and charting; (4) weather and sea ice forecasts; and (5) polar  icebreakers. We focused on the commercial-shipping, cruises,  commercial-fishing, oil, and mining industries as potential commercial  operators in this region. Our scope does not include Arctic issues  pertaining to domain awareness, defense, or international affairs; we  recently issued reports or are conducting ongoing work in these areas.
To gather information for all three objectives, we reviewed program  documentation and related reports and interviewed officials from the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the  Department of Transportation (DOT), the Committee on the Marine  Transportation System (CMTS), the Department of the Interior’s (DOI)  Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and  Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and federal interagency coordinating  bodies. We conducted site visits in 2013 to Nome, Barrow, and  Anchorage, Alaska. We chose these site visits based on a variety of  criteria, including geographic location in the state, number of interviews to  be conducted, infrastructure activity, cultural considerations, and  recommendations from stakeholders. During these site visits, we  collected relevant documentation and interviewed a range of U.S. Arctic  stakeholders such as officials from state and local government agencies,  and representatives from Alaska Native organizations, Alaska Native   academic and research institutions, and companies. We  corporations, also reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed representatives  from other U.S. Arctic stakeholders such as engineering entities,  environmental groups, and industry associations and companies. The  results of these interviews are not generalizable, but do provide insights  regarding current and planned-maritime activities in the U.S. Arctic. We  reviewed prior GAO reports on several topics, including our body of work  on Arctic issues and interagency collaboration.
Village and regional Alaska Native corporations were established pursuant to the Alaska  Native Claims Settlement Act primarily as vehicles for distributing land and monetary  benefits to Alaska Natives to provide a fair and just settlement of aboriginal land claims in  Alaska. Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971).
To describe what is known about commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic,  we interviewed companies and industry trade associations from the  commercial-shipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, oil, and mining  industries. To describe actions federal, state, and local government  entities have taken in support of the U.S. Arctic marine transportation  system, we interviewed and collected documentation from 7 federal, 10  state, and 6 local government entities to identify infrastructure within the  scope of responsibility for each entity. We also identified specific efforts  each entity has taken related to mapping, ports, port connectors, weather  and sea-ice data, polar icebreakers, and aids to navigation. To describe  federal interagency efforts taken to identify and prioritize Arctic maritime  infrastructure investments, we reviewed a key federal government report  and prior GAO reports on several topics including our body of work on  Arctic issues and interagency collaboration. See appendix I for additional  information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Alaska and the Arctic
paragraphs: Alaska’s location makes the United States an Arctic nation. Alaska has  extensive maritime access, with over 6,000 miles of coastline, bordered  by the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas; the Arctic Ocean; the Gulf of  Alaska; and the Bering Strait, whose jurisdiction is divided between the  United States and Russia. See figure 1. The Bering Strait provides the  only access to the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific Ocean, which lies south  of the Aleutian Islands. Federal waters typically extend from 3 to 200  nautical miles offshore, and state waters for coastal states such as Alaska  generally extend from the state coastline up to 3 nautical miles offshore.  Within the complex array of federal and state maritime boundaries, all  navigable waters of the United States are subject to some type of federal  jurisdiction.
There is evidence that the Arctic sea ice cover has diminished, which has  increased interest in shipping into and through the U.S. Arctic during the  summer months. As seasonal sea ice diminishes, the time and extent to  which vessel traffic can use Arctic waters increases. There are two types  of shipping that occur in the U.S. Arctic: “destinational” and “trans-Arctic.”  Currently, most shipping in the U.S. Arctic is destinational. Destinational  shipping refers to shipping into or out of the Arctic, mainly in support of  commercial activity. It includes, for example, shipping that supports  seasonal oil-drilling operations in U.S. Arctic waters and tugs and barges  that provide diesel oil and other commodities to remote Alaskan villages.  Destinational shipping to the U.S. Arctic coast through the Bering Strait  usually begins in July and ends by mid-October.
Trans-Arctic shipping refers to use of the Arctic as a route between two  destinations outside of the Arctic. There are two primary trans-Arctic sea  routes. The Northwest Passage follows the northern coasts of Alaska and  Canada, connecting the east coasts of Canada and Asia. The Northern  Sea Route follows the northern border of Russia, connecting Asia and  Europe. Increased trans-Arctic use of the Northern Sea Route could  affect the U.S. Arctic because the eastern entry/exit point passes through  the Bering Strait. According to USCG data, vessel transits through the  Bering Strait, for both northbound and southbound destinational and  trans-Arctic traffic, ranged from 217 to 484 transits annually from 2008 to  2013. See figure 2.
Alaska is the largest U.S. state, but with a small population, the lowest  population density in the country, and large travel distances. See figure 3.  In addition, Alaska’s geography is diverse with mountainous terrains, and  areas of the state that are completely iced-in most of the year.  Consequently, Alaska’s transportation systems are unique compared to  those of the contiguous states. Highway and rail infrastructure is primarily  located in the south central region of the state, and many cities do not  have highway connections to the rest of the state. There is one rail line  running 500 miles from the south central region of the state to the interior  (from Seward and Whittier to Fairbanks, Alaska). Many Alaskan cities  and villages are accessible only by air or water. Consequently, there are  a number of general aviation airports and small ports and harbors, and  the dominant modes of transportation are air service and barge service  along coastal and inland waterways. See figure 4.
section_title: Multiple Federal and Other Stakeholders Have Arctic Maritime Infrastructure Responsibilities
paragraphs: There are a wide variety of federal, state, local, and other stakeholders  that play a role in planning, developing, and managing U.S. Arctic  maritime infrastructure. Table 1 shows some key federal agencies with  Arctic maritime-infrastructure responsibilities.
There are also a variety of non-federal stakeholders with responsibilities  in planning, developing, and managing Arctic maritime infrastructure  including international entities, the state of Alaska, local governments,  Alaska Native organizations, and non-profits that work with federal  agencies to plan and develop maritime infrastructure. For additional  information on Arctic stakeholders and maritime infrastructure  components, see appendix III.
Federal agencies’ involvement in planning and developing Arctic maritime  infrastructure is guided by several national policies. The Administration  issued the Arctic Region Policy in 2009, which addresses issues related  to national security, international governance, international scientific  cooperation, economic issues, environmental protection, and maritime  transportation in the Arctic region. It specified that priorities for maritime  transportation include safe navigation, protection of maritime commerce,  and protection of the environment. It recognized the need for  infrastructure to support shipping activity, and search and rescue  capabilities, among others. The White House National Ocean Council  issued the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan in April 2013.  While this plan is broader than the Arctic region, it specifically identifies  the need for improvements to communications, environmental response  to marine pollution and oil spills, the ability to observe and forecast sea- ice, and the accuracy of charts and maps of the region. In May 2013, the  White House issued a National Strategy for the Arctic Region. This  document was created to articulate the strategic priorities for the Arctic  region and to position the United States to meet the challenges and  opportunities that lie ahead, such as evolving the Arctic infrastructure and  charting and mapping the Arctic region’s oceans and waterways. It  prioritizes and integrates the work of federal agencies with activities that  are already under way in the state of Alaska and at the international level.  An implementation plan for this document was released in January 2014  that sets forth the methodology, process, and approach for executing the  strategy, including a framework to guide federal activities in the  construction, maintenance, and improvement of ports and other Arctic  infrastructure.
section_title: Committee on the Marine Transportation System and Arctic Maritime Infrastructure
paragraphs: A Presidential Directive in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, issued in 2004,  created the Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS),  chaired by DOT. The CMTS is supported by a sub-cabinet policy  advisory body, the Coordinating Board, a dedicated staff body, the  Executive Secretariat, and Integrated Action Teams. The Arctic Integrated  Action Team (Arctic IAT) is led by the Coast Guard, Maritime  Administration (MARAD), and NOAA. In 2012, the Coast Guard and  Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 established the CMTS in statute and  requires CMTS to serve as a federal interagency coordinating committee  to (1) assess the adequacy of the marine transportation system (MTS),  (2) promote the integration of the MTS with other modes of transportation  and other uses of the marine environment, and (3) coordinate and make  recommendations with regard to federal policies that affect the MTS.
In 2010, Congress directed the CMTS to coordinate the establishment of  domestic transportation polices in the Arctic to ensure safe and secure  maritime shipping and the implementation of the Arctic Council’s Arctic  Marine Shipping Assessment Report. In response in 2013, CMTS  published the U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and  Priorities for Action (Arctic Report), developed by the Arctic IAT and  subject to extensive interagency review, which reviewed maritime traffic in  the U.S. Arctic, current conditions of U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure,  and current Arctic MTS policies, among other things.
section_title: Key Selected Industries Projected Limited Commercial Maritime Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade
paragraphs: Diminishing sea ice has contributed to promising prospects for oil and gas  in the U.S. Arctic and created growth potential for commercial shipping  on trans-Arctic routes that are geographically shorter than current  shipping routes through the Panama or Suez Canals. However, industry  representatives we spoke with from five key industries— commercial  shipping, cruises, commercial fishing, oil, and mining—stated that their  level of commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic is expected to remain limited  over the next 10 years due to a variety of contributing factors. Factors  included general challenges related to operating in the Arctic such as  geography, extreme weather, and hard-to-predict sea ice movement,and other industry-specific factors. Table 2 provides some examples of  contributing factors cited by industry representatives.
subsections: section_title: Commercial Shipping
paragraphs: For decades destinational shippers have provided transport services such  as fuel and supplies for coastal villages north of the Bering Strait, hauled  construction materials and equipment to support local development, and  exported zinc-lead ore from the Red Dog Mine during the summer  months. To date, the diminished sea ice has not greatly increased the  volume of destinational shipping activity, with the exception of an increase  in vessels and barge traffic in 2012 to support an oil company’s  exploration during that summer’s drilling season.
One shipping company representative told us that in 2013, media sources had credited  a Chinese container shipping company with the first container ship transit of the Northern  Sea Route that year, but the ship was actually a smaller multi-purpose ship, not a  container ship vessel that would be used for container cargo transportation. however, other companies are interested in the route’s potential.  Tanker companies have not used the Northwest Passage for trans- Arctic shipping.
Shipping industry representatives we spoke with highlighted a number of  contributing factors that can affect plans for trans-Arctic shipping,  including higher costs, specialized vessel requirements, and the lack of  reliability in terms of weather and ice—particularly the sea ice presence in  the Northwest Passage. First, using Arctic routes would incur additional  costs that may not outweigh the benefits. For example, the shipping  industry uses a network of ports, but there is not a U.S. port in the  network north of the Bering Strait. A representative from a major  container shipping company stated that even if a port were built, since the  passages are not open year-round, it would require companies to modify  their schedules for those months the Arctic is open, which could be  expensive and disruptive. Second, transiting Arctic routes would require  ice-strengthened vessels, which have less shipping capacity due to  increased weight. In particular, the shallower waters along the  Northwest Passage can only accommodate a smaller vessel, which may  not present the necessary economies of scale to warrant shipping  companies modifying their schedules to use an Arctic route. Finally,  shipping representatives told us that the consistent presence of sea ice,  bad visibility, high winds, and uncharted waters all raise the risk of  transiting the Arctic. A container ship company representative stated that  the container-shipping industry is reliant on strict schedules, and the  unpredictability of sea ice and weather makes the trans-Arctic passages  less reliable. A tanker-shipping industry representative added that ship  captains are not willing to take vessels loaded with oil through uncharted  waters, such as those in much of the Arctic. Similarly, a recent study  published by MARAD stated that the availability of an Arctic route seems  unlikely over the next 10 to 20 years due to uncertainties surrounding the  rate at which sea ice will diminish; the lack of U.S. trade lanes that would  provide sufficiently shorter sailing distances to make an Arctic route  relevant; and the investments needed for escort vessels, staging ports,  and channel preparations.
section_title: Cruises
paragraphs: A handful of cruises each year sail in the U.S. Arctic, and the number is  expected to remain relatively stable through the next 10 years. Cruise  ships that sail above the Bering Strait in the U.S. Arctic are a niche  segment of the adventure cruise market. According to representatives  from an Alaska cruise association, only one of its members currently uses  the Northwest Passage once or twice per year with small cruise ships that  carry fewer than 200 passengers. By comparison, mainstream cruise  vessels, which operate in southeast Alaska, can carry more than 1,000  passengers each.
Cruise industry representatives we spoke with expect cruise tourism in  the Northwest Passage to remain limited to adventure cruises for the next  10 to 15 years. The representatives did not believe that mainstream  cruise companies would offer U.S. Arctic tours in the foreseeable future or  that additional charting or mapping, icebreakers, or search and rescue  capabilities in the Arctic would increase cruise traffic in the Northwest  Passage. According to representatives from a cruise association, the  primary reason for the limited number of Arctic cruises is a lack of  demand from the mainstream cruise consumer base. They noted that  approximately 10 days are required to sail the long distances in the U.S.  Arctic, often with no variation in scenery and no points of interest for  which to disembark.
section_title: Commercial Fishing
paragraphs: Commercial fishing is currently prohibited in U.S. waters north of the  Bering Strait under a federal Arctic Fishery Management Plan for the  region implemented in a National Marine Fisheries Service final rule.  The 2009 final rule implementing the North Pacific Fishery Management  Council’s Arctic Fishery Management Plan places a ban on all  commercial fishing in specified U.S. waters north of the Bering Strait in  the U.S. exclusive economic zone, which includes the Beaufort and  Chukchi Seas, “until sufficient information is available to enable a  sustainable commercial fishery to proceed.” Two commercial-fishing  industry representatives we spoke with said that it is not certain when, if  ever, federal or state waters will open to commercial fishing. There is little  industry interest in establishing commercial fisheries north of the Bering  Strait until researchers are able to determine the impact of commercial  fishing. So far, the industry representatives have not seen a big move of  fish stock north due to diminished sea ice, which, in their view, would be a  reason to open those waters. According to industry representatives, no  increases in commercial fishing are expected in the next 10 years.
section_title: Oil
paragraphs: Recently, oil companies have invested in initial exploration for offshore oil  resources in the U.S. Arctic. Three major oil companies that hold  offshore leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are in the exploration  phase of their sites and may still be decades away from production,  according to industry representatives. One company began drilling two  exploratory wells in 2012, with 25 vessels supporting these drilling  operations, which increased the destinational maritime traffic that  season. However several well-publicized incidents halted operations.  None of the three companies chose to conduct exploratory offshore  drilling for the 2013 drilling season, but instead conducted site-surveying  activities such as “bathymetric” mapping.
In the next 10 years, oil exploration activity is expected to be limited and  the impact on the levels of maritime traffic appears uncertain.  Representatives from two companies said that they had not decided  when they will resume exploration and that they are awaiting DOI’s  proposed rule for Alaska Outer Continental Shelf drilling before  determining their plans for the 2014 drilling season. A third company  recently decided to stop its exploration program for Alaska in 2014 citing  unresolved legal issues stemming from a January 2014 decision of the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affecting proposed DOI oil and  gas leases in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska, that,  among other things, remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the  District of Alaska for further proceedings. Several factors create  uncertainty about how future oil exploration activities may affect maritime  traffic. First, it is unknown when and whether U.S. Arctic offshore oil  production will begin. One industry representative we spoke with  estimated 10 years or more until oil production can begin. The  production stage could increase seasonal, destinational traffic due to the  increase in support vessels. Second, even if companies eventually begin  producing oil in the U.S. Arctic, an industry association and company  representatives stated that the oil would likely be transported through a  sub-sea pipeline to land where it would then connect to the Trans-Alaska  Pipeline System, rather than being transported by tanker. According to  an oil-industry association representative, transporting the oil by tanker is  not the preferred option because it presents a greater risk for spills  because of floating ice, shallow waters, and potential collisions with other  vessels. Finally, uncertainty regarding oil prices and variable industry  trends also can affect the oil industry activity in the U.S. Arctic. For oil  companies, the U.S. Arctic presents one potential oil production  opportunity that must be weighed against other potential sites. According  to an oil industry association representative, oil companies focus on those  areas and production sites that provide the best business opportunities.  Currently the costs of developing the offshore oil fields in the Arctic are  not as competitive as other investment opportunities emerging in shale oil  fields across the United States.
section_title: Mining
paragraphs: The Red Dog Mine, which opened in 1989 and is located near Kotzebue,  is currently the only mine operating in the U.S. Arctic. The Red Dog Mine  is serviced by a port facility and a road known as the DeLong Mountain  Transportation System. The port is accessible for shipping a few months  each year, so the mine stores its zinc ore at the DeLong facility and  typically ships it to customers through the Bering Strait from July to  October each year.
Currently there is one new mine being planned in the U.S. Arctic, and one  under consideration. Plans exist to develop a copper mine in the Ambler  Mining District, which is located 180 miles southeast of the Red Dog  Mine, but production would not begin for at least 6 years, and the method  for transporting the copper ore has not been determined. In addition, an  Alaska Native regional corporation is considering development of a  coalmine on the North Slope and is currently assessing a location for a  potential deepwater port to transport the coal. The effect of the planned  mines on the levels of maritime traffic appears uncertain in the next 10  years. Mineral deposits are in remote locations and would require the  development of significant infrastructure, such as roads capable of  carrying freight, rail, or a deepwater port to transport the ore. Mining  companies, such as those in the Ambler Mining District, have considered  using the DeLong Terminal to ship ore, but have not done so due to its  shallow depth. While the port may have sufficient depth to ship Red Dog  Mine’s zinc ore, a deepwater port would be needed for heavier copper  ore. According to the representative, mining companies would be  interested in using ports to export extracted minerals, but do not plan to  develop port infrastructure on their own.
section_title: Government Entities Have Taken Some Actions to Support U.S. Arctic Maritime Infrastructure, Though Development Presents Unique Challenges
subsections: section_title: Federal and State Government Entities Have Taken Some Actions to Support the U.S. Arctic MTS
paragraphs: Federal and state government entities have taken some actions to  support the existing Arctic maritime infrastructure and plan for future  maritime infrastructure investments. Table 3 below describes the current  status of existing maritime infrastructure to support the Arctic MTS. Some  government actions help to address the factors that some industry  representatives identified as limiting their current and expected activity in  U.S. Arctic. For example, the USACE, in collaboration with the State of  Alaska, has taken steps to study the development of an Arctic deepwater  port, a factor identified by mining representatives as contributing to the  industry’s limited activity. Given the level of interest in developing the  Arctic, we reviewed efforts by the various government entities to plan and  develop maritime infrastructure such as ports; aids to navigation; polar  icebreaking; mapping, charting, and weather information; and port  connectors, such as rail and roads.
Currently there are studies under way to develop an Arctic deepwater port  in northern Alaska. The USACE and the Alaska Department of  Transportation and Public Facilities have reported on this issue and are  currently conducting an additional study to identify potential port sites in  the U.S. Arctic region. In addition to conducting studies, the USACE  also conducts dredging, for example at the Port of Nome, with a 22-foot  deep outer harbor and a 10-foot deep small boat harbor, which supports  vessels that service commercial and community needs. The state of  Alaska has also taken some actions in support of planning and  developing port infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic. The Alaska Industrial  Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), a corporate agency related  to the state government, provides project financing for Alaska businesses.  For example, it financed the construction of the approximately $260  million DeLong Mountain Transportation System for the Red Dog Mine  near Kotzebue. AIDEA, in conjunction with an Alaska Native Corporation,  has also funded the second phase of a study to determine the feasibility  of developing Cape Thompson, located on the North Slope, as a port for  shipping extracted minerals and gas.
Officials we spoke with from state and local government suggested that a  U.S. Arctic deepwater port is needed to support a potential increase in  maritime activities in the Arctic. According to these government officials,  an Arctic deepwater port could potentially serve as a trans-shipment hub  for companies using Arctic routes or could host a permanent USCG  presence in the Arctic, allowing the USCG to better meet its missions for  search and rescue, oil spill response, and maritime law enforcement.  While there was some agreement about the usefulness of a deepwater  port to support USCG efforts, industry representatives we spoke with had  varying views about such a port’s potential for commercial purposes.  Shipping-industry representatives, for example, indicated that they would  not use a U.S. Arctic deepwater port for trans-Arctic shipping because of  high fuel costs or the fact that such a port would not be connected with  existing port networks or any port connectors.
subsections: section_title: Aids to Navigation
paragraphs: The USCG is conducting a Waterway Analysis and Management System  assessment along the western and northern coasts of Alaska in order to  understand the extent and type of aids to navigation needed; however,  officials we spoke with indicated that there were no current plans to  expand deployment of aids to navigation in the Arctic region. According to  federal government sources, there are a number of challenges to such  deployment in the Arctic. First, hydrographic surveying and mapping must  be completed before the USCG can install aids to navigation in an area,  and as noted in table 3, a large amount of the U.S. Arctic remains  uncharted or mapped.challenging to operate north of the Bering Strait due to the freeze-thaw  cycle and likelihood of sustaining damage from floating sea ice.
section_title: Polar Icebreaking
paragraphs: The USCG is currently in the preliminary phase of a new polar-icebreaker  acquisition project including development of a formal mission need  statement, a concept of operations, and an operational requirements  document. million in fiscal year 2013 and $2 million in fiscal year 2014. These sums  are a fraction of USCG’s cost estimates, which range from $850 million to  $1 billion for one new icebreaker that USCG plans to put into service in  the early 2020s.
USCG budget requests for this pre-acquisition work were $8  Although multiple studies have pointed to a gap in the nation’s  icebreaking capabilities, due to limited resources, the USCG balances  icebreaking needs against a variety of considerations. The USCG  operates the nation’s two functioning icebreakers, which are used in the  Arctic for emergency response, research assistance, and patrols. In  early 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy escorted a  Russian fuel tanker to Nome to provide the city with an unprecedented  winter fuel delivery. The Russian tanker was the city’s only option after its  final fall fuel shipment was cancelled due to a large storm in the Bering  Sea. The USCG’s other icebreaker, the USCGC Polar Star was recently  reactivated and conducted icebreaking sea trials in the U.S. Arctic during  summer 2013 to make sure it was functioning properly after 3 years of  extensive repairs. Due to the limited number of icebreakers, the USCG  determines where it sends its icebreakers based on risk assessments.
Ice operations are a USCG statutory mission area.
section_title: Mapping, Charting, and Weather Information
paragraphs: In response to increasing demand, NOAA has taken several steps to  improve mapping, charting, and weather information for the U.S. Arctic. In  February 2013, NOAA released its plan to create new nautical charts in  parts of the U.S. Arctic. In addition, NOAA is working in partnership with  the Alaska Ocean Observing System to develop an Alaska Sea Ice Atlas,  which would be a weekly web-based product providing site-specific and  season-specific information on sea ice in Alaskan waters, including  anticipated season lengths and navigation opening dates. According to  NOAA, a prototype will be available in 2014.
In addition to NOAA’s charting efforts, the state of Alaska is undertaking a  charting and mapping initiative. The state’s Department of Natural  Resources is overseeing a Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative, which is  developing a digital base map of the state, including the U.S. Arctic. The  state dedicated $3 million for the mapping initiative in the fiscal year 2014  enacted budget.
According to NOAA officials, mapping and charting information for the  U.S. Arctic has generally not been an issue until recently, since  historically the Arctic has been ice-locked and closed to substantial  maritime activity. Although a majority of industry representatives we  spoke with did not identify a need for updated nautical charts, officials  from NOAA stated that with increased accessibility to the Arctic, the  agency has observed an increasing demand for updated charts among  multiple users, including other federal agencies. Furthermore, officials  noted similar increased demand for weather and sea ice information.  Weather forecasts in the Arctic are not as accurate as those for the rest of  the United States, due to fewer observations and forecasting models. To  meet this demand, additional observations and forecasting models are  necessary to improve weather and sea ice forecasts in the challenging  Arctic environment.
section_title: Port Connectors
paragraphs: Plans for developing and investing in U.S. Arctic port connectors are fairly  limited. At the federal level, there are no specific plans to develop  connecting roads or railways to existing ports or harbors, although the  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides formula grants to  states, including Alaska, for state-highway investment. However, the state  of Alaska has created the Roads to Resources initiative to support the  state’s priority to develop its natural resources by providing needed  infrastructure to transport minerals. For fiscal year 2014, $8.5 million was  appropriated and the Governor has proposed an additional $8.5 million in  the fiscal year 2015 budget toward an all-year access road to the Ambler  Mining District, according to Alaska officials.
section_title: Unique Geographic and Construction Challenges Can Increase U.S. Arctic Maritime Infrastructure Costs
paragraphs: Geographic and construction challenges can affect the development of  infrastructure in the Arctic, challenges that often result in more complex  and costly design and construction. According to engineers we spoke  with, although the engineering capabilities and technology exist,  engineers in Alaska have to account for unique geographic challenges,  which include the following.
Permafrost: In northern Alaska, engineers have to address melting  permafrost—the thawing of the soils underneath structures and roads.  The melting of permafrost can be mitigated by using special designs,  but at a high cost. For example, in Nome, as shown in figure 5, a  hospital was built on a special foundation above the ground so that  the building’s warmth would not melt the permafrost underneath.
Coastal erosion: Coastal erosion is a result of stronger waves that are  occurring at an accelerated rate with the diminishing sea ice. Erosion  also increases at the shoreline as a result of permafrost melt and  could contribute to higher waves around ports and affect pilings or  other port infrastructure. These challenges can be mitigated by efforts  such as strengthening the shoreline. See figure 5. As with roads and  buildings, there are ways to mitigate the Arctic conditions, but they are  costly.
There are also substantial construction challenges that could affect Arctic  maritime infrastructure development, including the following.
Construction materials and equipment: According to USACE officials,  construction materials and equipment are typically not readily  available when and where they are needed and often must be  shipped great distances. In most cases, materials and equipment  must be transported by sea during a brief summer window with  construction occurring in the same window or slightly beyond. For  example, according to one engineer, gravel used for road construction  and building foundations is often not available in the area of the  construction. According to a state official, in many places there are no  or limited supplies of local gravel, and the cost of transporting the  gravel to the site could be greater than the cost of gravel itself.
Skilled construction labor force: Villages may be able to provide some  local labor, but skilled construction labor is usually in short supply in  smaller villages and has to be brought in from other locations.
According to USACE officials, one unique construction labor issue is  that the local labor force in Alaska may have to hunt or perform other  subsistence activities during the warmer summer season to survive  the winter. Bringing in outside workers drives up the cost of a project  because, in the absence of existing housing facilities, temporary  camps are needed.
Short construction season: Alaska has an approximately 4-month  construction season, along with extreme temperature ranges. While  some types of construction can be done in the winter, such as  excavating in permafrost and bogs, other types of construction  cannot, such as erecting steel structures.
Largely due to the above factors, maritime infrastructure development in  the Arctic is generally considered to be more expensive than similar  construction in the continental United States. During our interviews with  Arctic stakeholders with expertise in engineering and construction, we  heard estimates of higher costs for Arctic maritime infrastructure  components that ranged from 15 percent to 500 percent higher than for  infrastructure constructed in the contiguous states. However, according to  USACE officials, data do not exist to show specifically how much more  expensive Arctic construction would be for different types of infrastructure  projects. For an accurate civil construction cost estimate in Alaska, for  example, the USACE would typically develop a customized estimate  based on the infrastructure needed. This type of estimate depends on the  specifics of the project’s scope, including project design, location,  availability of qualified labor, time of construction, and other factors.
section_title: The CMTS Prioritized U.S. Arctic MTS Infrastructure and Plans to Monitor Agencies’ Progress
subsections: section_title: The CMTS Prioritized Future Federal Arctic MTS Infrastructure Development
paragraphs: In July 2013, the federal interagency CMTS published the U.S. Arctic  Marine Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action (Arctic  Report), which identified and prioritized actions for developing Arctic  maritime infrastructure and identified the lead agency for each of those  actions, among other things. According to CMTS officials, it is the first  systematic, interagency and publicly reviewed, sector-specific plan for  federal U.S. Arctic maritime transportation policies, programs, and  services. In addition to a summary of the myriad of federal Arctic reports,  the Arctic Report includes an Arctic MTS Improvement Plan, which  provides actions and time frames for federal agencies to invest in Arctic  maritime infrastructure. Specifically the Arctic Report prioritized two broad  categories of MTS infrastructure—information infrastructure, such as  mapping and charting, and response services, such as search and  rescue—to be addressed by agencies in the near term.were selected as near-term priorities because, according to the Arctic  Report, they: were identified as requirements by expert reports;  can be achieved with existing resources; were deemed to be regionally significant; are interdependent, building on each other to develop the Arctic MTS; would help establish a foundation for sustainable federal Arctic  can immediately increase safety for the mariner; and  support and safe operations.
Within the information infrastructure and response services categories,  the Arctic Report recommended over 70 near-term actions to be  addressed by 2015 by select member agencies: USCG, Department of  Defense (jointly with USCG), and NOAA. According to the CMTS, the  remaining three categories of MTS infrastructure development priorities  identified in the Arctic Report require longer lead times and more  investment to be adequately addressed.
Development of the recommended infrastructure priorities was an  interagency effort from nine CMTS member agencies, including USCG,  NOAA, USACE, and BOEM. Officials from the key federal agencies within  the scope of this report indicated that they had suggested actions based  on their current program elements. For example, BOEM included  currently funded environmental program studies, such as ice engineering  studies, as near-term actions in the information infrastructure MTS  category.
section_title: CMTS Plans to Monitor Agencies’ Progress Addressing Recommended Actions
paragraphs: According to CMTS officials, they are currently developing formalized  plans to regularly monitor the extent to which agencies are addressing the  Arctic Report’s recommended actions. In addition, officials plan to monitor  the extent to which recommended actions are being implemented  consistent with the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. We have  previously found that developing mechanisms to monitor the results of  collaborative efforts is a key practice that can help to enhance and  sustain collaboration among federal agencies. Furthermore, monitoring  is particularly important where, as here, the CMTS is not vested with the  authority to require agencies to implement the identified actions or  activities. While regular monitoring does not provide resources to  address the MTS needs of the Arctic, it can provide an efficient way to  keep all stakeholders apprised of potential changes and help them to be  more responsive to any adjustments to priorities or recommended actions  in the Arctic Report.
Implementation of the recommended actions identified in the Arctic  Report is at the discretion of each federal agency and according to CMTS  officials, no additional funding or resources were provided to address the  priorities. Recommended actions will depend on, among other things,  individual agency resources and available appropriations. For example,  USACE officials reported that although the actions included in the Arctic  Report are largely consistent with those identified in their planning  processes, the agency would only budget for those that reflect existing  USACE priorities and projects under consideration, such as the Arctic  deep-draft port study. The Arctic Report also identifies several priorities  without including a specific time frame for agency action; these priorities  are noted as “recommended but not resourced,” meaning agencies may  not have planned or budgeted for them. Therefore, CMTS and its member  agencies will only know the status of all recommended actions if they are  actively monitored and reported on.
CMTS officials also noted that the Arctic Report is a “living document” that  should be updated as needed to reflect agencies’ progress addressing  recommended actions and to incorporate information from other Arctic  planning documents currently in development. There are a number of  ongoing planning efforts and critical planning documents in development  that could affect identified Arctic priorities and the planning and  development of U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure. For example, an  Alaska legislative commission is currently developing a document that will  outline the State of Alaska’s overarching Arctic priorities. That document  could lead to changes to the Arctic Report priorities or recommended  actions, and consequently, federal agencies’ efforts to address those  actions.
Since CMTS is in the early stages of developing a process for agency  monitoring, officials may want to consider identifying the type of  information to be monitored and the timing and frequency of the  monitoring. For example, tracking such details as to why an agency may  not be addressing a recommended action or why an agency may be  experiencing delays or any changes in an agencies’ commitment to  addressing a recommended action. The reason for a delay or not  addressing a recommended action could be particularly important given  that some recommended actions being addressed by agencies may affect  other agencies’ recommended actions. Furthermore, since there are over  70 recommended agency actions scheduled to be addressed in the next  2 years, the CMTS may want to consider more frequent monitoring of  agencies’ progress in order to keep the Arctic Report effectively updated  in the near term. According to CMTS officials, they will monitor and report  on progress made to improve the Arctic MTS infrastructure.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Economic opportunities in the U.S. Arctic are considered to be key drivers  for the development of Arctic maritime transportation infrastructure.  Although we found commercial industries currently have limited activity in  the U.S. Arctic and similarly limited plans for activity over the next 10  years, federal agencies are taking steps to plan and develop maritime  infrastructure that could help to address some of the underlying factors  that contribute to limited development. For example, plans are moving  forward to study potential sites for a U.S. Arctic deepwater port— infrastructure that some have cited as desirable for both potential  commercial activity and to enhance maritime safety.
CMTS, the federal interagency coordinating committee tasked with  addressing various Arctic maritime infrastructure issues, includes member  agencies with differing missions and objectives. The identification,  prioritization and vetting of Arctic maritime infrastructure plans and near  term actions for federal agencies were important steps to addressing  Arctic maritime infrastructure needs. Given the level of uncertainty around  the development of the Arctic and the challenges and high costs to  developing Arctic maritime infrastructure, it is important that federal  agencies with responsibility for infrastructure components incorporate  Arctic maritime infrastructure priorities and identified actions into their  agency’s overall planning and investment decisions. Furthermore, since  implementing recommended actions is at the discretion of the agencies  and the Arctic Report is considered a “living document” with potentially  changing priorities and actions, monitoring agencies’ progress in  addressing recommended actions is an important step in planning,  developing, and investing in Arctic maritime infrastructure. Effective  monitoring will help ensure that CMTS member agencies continue to  address Arctic maritime infrastructure as a coordinated effort with a  shared understanding of current priorities and actions needed.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of our report to USACE, USCG, NOAA, DOT, and  DOI for their review and comment. USCG, NOAA, DOT, and DOI  provided written technical comments, which we incorporated into the  report as appropriate. USACE did not have any comments on this report.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Defense,  the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, the  Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the Interior, appropriate  congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO Website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)  512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page   of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report are to (1) identify what is known about the  extent of commercial maritime activity in the U.S. Arctic and anticipated  activity in the next 10 years; (2) identify actions government entities have  taken in support of planning and developing U.S. Arctic maritime  infrastructure and unique challenges that may exist; and (3) describe  federal interagency efforts that have been taken to identify and prioritize  Arctic maritime infrastructure investments.
For this report we focused on maritime infrastructure on the waters and  land along the western and northern coasts of Alaska, in particular areas  north of the Bering Strait because of the diminishing seasonal sea ice in  these areas. Federal government agencies use multiple definitions for the  Arctic, as there is no singular definition. We used the term Arctic to mean  areas above the Arctic Circle and the term U.S. Arctic to discuss those  areas that are U.S. waters and land, as defined by the Arctic Research  and Policy Act of 1984, which includes “all United States and foreign  territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and  west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Kuskokwim, and Yukon  Rivers in Alaska; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the  Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain.” We focused  on the commercial-shipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, oil, and mining  industries. The maritime infrastructure included in our review is the  marine transportation system (ports, navigable waterways, and port  connectors, such as roads and railways), aids to navigation (e.g., buoys  and beacons), mapping and charting, marine weather and sea ice  forecasts, and polar icebreakers.
To obtain information on all of our objectives we reviewed program  documentation and written reports and interviewed knowledgeable  officials from selected federal entities, state of Alaska entities, local  governments, industry associations, companies, Alaska Native  organizations, Alaska Native corporations, academic and research  institutions, engineers, financial and insurance services, and  environmental groups as shown in table 4.
We selected the stakeholders based on relevant published literature, our  previous work, stakeholders’ recognition and affiliation with private  industry, and recommendations from the stakeholders interviewed. The  results of these interviews are not generalizable, but do provide insights  regarding current and planned maritime activities in the U.S. Arctic.
To describe what is known about commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic,  we interviewed companies and industry trade associations from the  commercial-shipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, oil, and mining  industries. We selected these industries based on background research  from key Arctic infrastructure reports from the Congressional Research  Service and the Committee on the Marine Transportation System.  Information we collected included specific industry practices, such as the  use of Arctic routes and ports, and the extent to which industries plan to  utilize Arctic routes and increase their activity over the next 10 years  particularly north of the Bering Strait.
To describe actions federal, state, and local government entities have  taken in support of the U.S. Arctic marine transportation system, we  interviewed and collected documentation from 7 federal, 10 state, and 6  local entities to identify infrastructure within the scope of responsibility for  each entity. We also identified specific efforts each entity has undertaken  related to mapping, ports, port connectors (e.g., roads and rail), weather,  polar icebreakers, and aids to navigation. To describe unique challenges  that may exist, we conducted a site visit to Alaska and interviewed  stakeholders. We conducted site visits to Nome, Barrow, and Anchorage,  Alaska, from July 21, 2013, to July 27, 2013. We chose these sites by  applying the following criteria: geographic location in the state, number of  interviews to be conducted, infrastructure activity, cultural considerations,  and recommendations from stakeholders. During the site visits, we spoke  with federal, state, local, Alaska Native, and private sector stakeholders;  toured the ports of Nome and Anchorage; and viewed barge-landing  areas in Barrow. We also documented existing infrastructure, the physical  environment, and challenges to developing infrastructure in each location.  In addition to the site visits, we spoke with engineers and financial and  insurance representatives. The information we gathered from these  interviews include relative costs of constructing infrastructure in the Arctic  and considerations for cost calculation.
To describe federal interagency efforts that have been taken to identify  and prioritize Arctic maritime infrastructure investments, we reviewed a  key federal government report and prior GAO reports on several topics  including our body of work on Arctic issues and interagency  collaboration.CMTS, BOEM and BSEE, the USACE, NOAA, and the USCG to  understand the status of the near-term actions identified in the CMTS  Arctic Report and how, if at all, those actions fit within each agency’s  strategic plans.
In addition, we interviewed knowledgeable officials from  We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Diminishing Arctic Seasonal Sea Ice
paragraphs: Scientific research and projections vary, but there is consensus that Arctic  sea ice is diminishing and will continue to do so through the 21st century.  According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, the September  ice extent in the Arctic has seen a downward trend with a 13.7 percent  decrease per decade since 1979. The center also reported that the 2013  Arctic sea-ice extent decreased to 2.0 million square miles—the sixth  lowest in the satellite record. See figure 6. NOAA officials stated that sea  ice volume (area times thickness) is now estimated at 25 percent of its  1980 amount. Predictions by researchers of when there will be an ice- diminished Arctic Ocean in the summer range from sometime in the next  10 years to the year 2100, with most estimates in the range of 20 to 40  years.
section_title: Appendix III: Arctic Maritime Infrastructure Roles of Federal and Other Stakeholders
subsections: section_title: Key Federal Agencies
paragraphs: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead federal agency  responsible for maintaining and improving navigable waterways in the  United States (e.g., to provide dredging of port harbors). Among  USACE’s responsibilities, the USACE assists federal, state, local, and  native entities with planning, engineering, and construction of projects.  USACE is the key federal agency in constructing, operating and  maintaining harbors, shipping channels, and inland waterways, as  well as locks, dams, and other navigation structures such as jetties.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is a multi-mission, maritime military  service within the Department of Homeland Security that has  responsibilities including maritime safety, security, environmental  protection, and national defense, among other missions. Ice  operations and aids to navigation are two of its 11 statutory mission  areas. USCG plays a significant role in search and rescue efforts,  emergency response, and maritime law enforcement.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provides weather  and sea ice forecasts, nautical charts, and oceanographic information  for marine transportation, accurate-positioning infrastructure, real-time  and forecast models for navigation and oil-spill response, and satellite  search and rescue support services for the U.S. Exclusive Economic  Zone, which includes areas in the U.S. Arctic.
Department of Transportation and its respective federal  administrations—Federal Highway Administration and Federal  Railroad Administration—provide some support for infrastructure that  is used as connectors to ports. The Maritime Administration provides  technical assistance to port authorities for project planning, design,  and construction.
There is also a variety of non-federal stakeholders involved with Arctic  maritime infrastructure including international entities, the State of Alaska,  local governments, Alaska Native organizations, Alaska Native  corporations, and other non-profits. Among them are:  International Entities: The United States participates in the Arctic  Council, a high level intergovernmental forum established in 1996 to  promote cooperation, coordination, and interaction among Arctic  states, with the involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and  other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, particularly issues  of sustainable development and environmental protection in the  Arctic.
State of Alaska Government: Multiple entities within state government  have a role in the development of Arctic maritime infrastructure or the  landside transportation connectors. Related state roles include search  and rescue, infrastructure finance and construction, and regulating the  use of Arctic waters within Alaska’s jurisdiction. In addition, the State  Legislature formed the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission in 2012 to  create an actionable Arctic policy for Alaska. The Commission  released a Preliminary Report for public comment in January 2014,  with a final report due to the Alaska Legislature in January 2015.
Local Government: Local government includes both cities and  boroughs. A borough functions somewhat similarly to a county in  other states. For example, Alaska’s North Slope Borough  encompasses 89,000 square miles of Arctic territory in northern  Alaska, and includes the city of Barrow and others.
Alaska Native Organizations: Alaska Native communities have  inhabited the Arctic region for thousands of years and have cultures  that are particularly sensitive to changes in the environment due to  subsistence lifestyles revolving around marine ecosystems. There are  currently 225 federally recognized tribal governments in Alaska, which  may coexist with a city government. Groups such as the Alaska  Eskimo Whaling Commission and the Eskimo Walrus Commission  have also formed to represent and protect Alaska Natives’ lifestyles  and heritage.
Alaska Native Corporations: Regional and village Alaska native  corporations are private entities that have business interests and own  land that could affect the development of maritime infrastructure.
Non-profit: The Marine Exchange of Alaska, a not-for-profit entity that  works with USCG and the State of Alaska, among others, collects  vessel traffic data through the Bering Strait. Relying on Automatic  Identification System (AIS) technology, the Marine Exchange tracks  and reports on vessel traffic around the state of Alaska. While AIS  data relies on self-reported information—such as the description of  the type of vessel, type of cargo, or the destination of the vessel—it  does provide an indication of the overall steady trend of Arctic  maritime activity.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant Director);  Brian Chung; Swati Deo; Geoff Hamilton; Delwen Jones; Les Locke; Josh  Ormond; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.  Sarah Kaczmarek, Melanie Papasian, Theresa Perkins, and Christopher  Stone made key contributions to the video in this report.