U.S. Arctic waters north of the Bering Strait and west of the Canadian border encompass a vast area that is usually ice covered for much of the year, but is increasingly experiencing longer periods and larger areas of open water due to climate change. Sparsely inhabited with a wide variety of ecosystems found nowhere else, this region is vulnerable to damage from human activities. As oil and gas, shipping, and tourism activities increase, the possibilities of an oil spill also increase. How can we best prepare to respond to such an event in this challenging environment? Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment reviews the current state of the science regarding oil spill response and environmental assessment in the Arctic region north of the Bering Strait, with emphasis on the potential impacts in U.S. waters. This report describes the unique ecosystems and environment of the Arctic and makes recommendations to provide an effective response effort in these challenging conditions. According to Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment, a full range of proven oil spill response technologies is needed in order to minimize the impacts on people and sensitive ecosystems. This report identifies key oil spill research priorities, critical data and monitoring needs, mitigation strategies, and important operational and logistical issues. The Arctic acts as an integrating, regulating, and mediating component of the physical, atmospheric and cryospheric systems that govern life on Earth. Not only does the Arctic serve as regulator of many of the Earth's large-scale systems and processes, but it is also an area where choices made have substantial impact on life and choices everywhere on planet Earth. This report's recommendations will assist environmentalists, industry, state and local policymakers, and anyone interested in the future of this special region to preserve and protect it from damaging oil spills.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO evaluated the: (1) Philadelphia and New York ports' oil spill response preparation and capabilities; (2) Coast Guard authority to manage responses for the ports; and (3) measures that would help prevent major oil spills from occurring in the future. GAO found that: (1) neither the Coast Guard nor industry had adequate response capabilities or preparations for oil spills of over 100,000 gallons; (2) tankers transiting the Philadelphia and New York ports were not required to have oil spill response contingency plans; (3) although the Coast Guard's revised plan for Philadelphia realized that larger oil spills could occur, its local resources could not effectively handle spills of more than 50,000 gallons, and neither the industry's nor the New York Coast Guard's plans specifically identified spill sizes or what personnel and equipment should respond to spills of various sizes; (4) the Coast Guard believed that it lacked authority to require private ship owners, operators, and industry cooperatives to have contingency plans for dealing with oil spills or to ensure that industry had adequate response preparations; (5) recent legislation required all owners and operators of tank vessels carrying oil in U.S. waters to prepare and submit contingency plans to the Coast Guard; (6) the responses to the Presidente Rivera and Exxon Valdez spills indicated a need to improve oil recovery equipment, since current technology could typically expect to recover only 10 to 15 percent of an oil spill; and (7) recent experiences indicate the Vessel Traffic Service System's importance in preventing vessel groundings or collisions that could result in oil spills.