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. 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. 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. 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. 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.