Committee on the Marine Transportation System and Arctic Maritime Infrastructure

A Presidential Directive in the U.S. 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. 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. 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. 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. The USCG  operates the nation’s two functioning icebreakers, which are used in the  Arctic for emergency response, research assistance, and patrols. Mapping, Charting, and Weather Information

In response to increasing demand, NOAA has taken several steps to  improve mapping, charting, and weather information for the U.S. Arctic. The CMTS Prioritized U.S. Arctic MTS Infrastructure and Plans to Monitor Agencies’ Progress

		The CMTS Prioritized Future Federal Arctic MTS Infrastructure Development

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. 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. 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. 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. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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. 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 conducted site visits to Nome, Barrow, and Anchorage,  Alaska, from July 21, 2013, to July 27, 2013.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.