This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-870 
entitled 'Coast Guard: Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are 
Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be 
Beneficial' which was released on October 15, 2010. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

September 2010: 

Coast Guard: 

Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More 
Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial: 

GAO-10-870: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-870, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The retreat of Arctic sea ice combined with expected increasing human 
activity in the area––in shipping traffic and oil and gas exploration––
has increased the strategic interest that the United States and other 
nations have in the Arctic. As a result, the Coast Guard is expected 
to acquire increased responsibilities in the region. GAO was asked to 
examine the extent to which the Coast Guard is: (1) coordinating with 
stakeholders on Arctic issues and operations and what, if any, further 
opportunities exist to enhance coordination; (2) taking action to 
identify requirements for future Arctic operations; and (3) taking 
steps to identify and mitigate challenges to meet current and future 
Arctic requirements. GAO reviewed Coast Guard documents that described 
efforts to plan for increased Arctic activity. GAO conducted a site 
visit to Alaska and interviewed federal officials, Alaska state 
officials, Alaska Native stakeholders, as well as private or nonprofit 
organizations representing Arctic interests. These observations are 
not generalizable, but provided insights on Coast Guard activities and 
actions. 

What GAO Found: 

The Coast Guard coordinates with an array of stakeholders—foreign, 
federal, state, and local governments; Alaska Native interest groups; 
and private and nonprofit entities—on Arctic policy and operational 
issues, but some stakeholders want more information on the agency’s 
Arctic planning efforts. Many local and Alaska Native officials 
praised the Coast Guard’s coordination efforts on its summer Arctic 
operations, for example. However, 9 of the 15 state and local 
officials GAO met with wanted more information on the status and 
results of the Coast Guard’s efforts to develop its future Arctic 
requirements. For example, some state and local officials believed 
that the agency had already determined its plan for Arctic operations 
but had not shared it, and one state official reported that his office 
and others may be willing to invest in infrastructure that could 
benefit the Coast Guard if and when they know the agency’s plans. 
Coast Guard officials told us that they have been focused on 
communication with congressional and federal stakeholders and intend 
to share Arctic plans with other stakeholders once determined. In the 
interim, some state and local stakeholders reported having limited 
information that they believe would be useful on the process and 
progress of the agency’s Arctic planning efforts. As a result, the 
Coast Guard could be missing an opportunity to create shared 
expectations and report on its progress with stakeholders central to 
future Arctic operations. 

The Coast Guard has taken specific action to identify Arctic 
requirements and gaps while also collecting relevant information from 
routine operations. The High Latitude Study is the centerpiece of the 
agency’s efforts to determine its Arctic requirements. The Coast Guard 
has also established temporary operating locations in the Arctic and 
conducted biweekly Arctic overflights to obtain more information on 
the Arctic operating environment. In addition, information gathered 
during the Coast Guard’s routine missions––ice breaking, search and 
rescue, and others––also informs requirements. The agency’s 
preliminary efforts to identify its Arctic requirements generally 
align with key practices for agencies defining missions and desired 
outcomes. 

The Coast Guard faces Arctic challenges including limited information, 
minimal assets and infrastructure, personnel issues, and difficult 
planning and funding decisions, but is taking initial steps to address 
these challenges. Specifically, the Coast Guard does not currently 
have Arctic maritime domain awareness––a full understanding of 
variables that could affect the security, safety, economy, or 
environment in the Arctic––but is acquiring additional Arctic vessel 
tracking data, among other things, to address this issue. In addition, 
the Coast Guard’s Arctic assets and infrastructure are limited and not 
suitable for the harsh environment, but the agency is testing 
equipment and using alternative options to mitigate gaps. Finally, the 
Coast Guard faces uncertainty over the timing of predicted 
environmental changes in the Arctic, as well as over future funding 
streams. To address these challenges the Coast Guard obtains 
scientific data on Arctic climate change and is studying its Arctic 
resource requirements to support potential future funding needs. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Coast Guard communicate with key stakeholders 
on the process and progress of its Arctic planning efforts. DHS 
concurred with our recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-870] or key 
components. For more information, contact Stephen L. Caldwell at (202) 
512-9610 or caldwells@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

The Coast Guard Coordinates with Many Stakeholders but Some Want More 
Information on the Agency's Ongoing Arctic Planning and Future 
Approach: 

The Coast Guard Is Taking Action to Identify Future Arctic 
Requirements While Routine Operations Provide Other Valuable 
Information: 

The Coast Guard Faces Numerous Challenges to Current and Future Arctic 
Operations: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Examples of State, Local, and Alaska Native Stakeholders 
Operating in the Arctic: 

Appendix III: Examples of Coast Guard Coordination with Key Federal, 
State, Local, Alaska Native, and Private Sector Stakeholders: 

Appendix IV: Select Interagency Coordination Efforts Related to Arctic 
Policy: 

Appendix V: Coast Guard's Routine Arctic Operations That Also Inform 
Future Requirements: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key Federal Agencies Also Operating in the Arctic: 

Table 2: Examples of State, Local, and Alaska Native Stakeholders 
Operating in the Arctic: 

Table 3: Examples of Coast Guard Coordination with Key Federal, State, 
Local, Alaska Native, and Private Sector Stakeholders in the Arctic: 

Table 4: Select Interagency Coordination Efforts Related to Arctic 
Policy: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Map of the State of Alaska Superimposed on the Lower 48 
States: 

Figure 2: Map of the Arctic Boundary as Defined by the Arctic Research 
and Policy Act: 

Figure 3: U.S. Coast Guard's Healy and the Canadian Coast Guard's 
Louis S. St. Laurent on a Joint Mission in the Arctic: 

Figure 4: A Coast Guard HC-130 Aircraft on an Arctic Domain Awareness 
Flight in May 2009 above Kivalina, Alaska: 

Figure 5: A Response Boat in Arctic Waters Off of Barrow, Alaska: 

Figure 6: The Grounding of the Vessel Selendang Ayu in the Aleutian 
Chain: 

Abbreviations: 

AIS: Automatic Information System: 

BOEMRE: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement: 

CMTS: Committee on the Marine Transportation System: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation: 

EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone: 

FMP: Fishery Management Plan: 

IMO: International Maritime Organization: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NSF: National Science Foundation: 

NSIDC: National Snow and Ice Data Center: 

NSPD-66/HSPD-25: National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive 25: 

UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: 

USARC: United States Arctic Research Commission: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 15, 2010: 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Homeland Security: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Don Young: 
House of Representatives: 

The retreat of sea ice combined with an expected increase in human 
activity--shipping traffic and oil and gas exploration--has increased 
the strategic interest that the United States and other nations have 
in the Arctic region. The region's strategic value was further 
underscored by a 2008 United States Geological Survey study which 
stated that the extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute 
the world's largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum. 
[Footnote 1] As a result of these and other anticipated changes in the 
Arctic, the U.S. Coast Guard is expected to face increasing 
responsibilities in the waters off of Alaska's 44,000 miles of coast. 
According to Coast Guard officials, some of the Coast Guard's 11 
statutory missions will take on particular importance including 
Fisheries Enforcement, Search and Rescue, Marine Environmental 
Protection, and Aids to Navigation mission areas. In addition, the 
Coast Guard, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has 
been tasked with specific Arctic policy objectives set forth in 
National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD-66/HSPD-25)--a January 2009 directive 
which outlines national Arctic policy and tasks senior officials, 
including the Secretary of Homeland Security, with its implementation. 
The Coast Guard currently has limited capacity to operate in the 
waters below the Arctic Circle--the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Chain--
and increasing responsibilities in an even larger geographic area, 
especially in the harsh and remote conditions of the northern Arctic, 
will further stretch the agency's capacity.[Footnote 2] Presently, all 
of the Coast Guard's assets are based well below the Arctic Circle, so 
Coast Guard operations above the Arctic Circle are constrained by 
several factors, including the time required for surface vessels and 
aircraft to cover vast distances to reach the Arctic Circle. When the 
Coast Guard is able to respond to an incident, its surface and air 
assets are limited by fuel capacity and the distance to fuel sources. 
As a result, Coast Guard cutters (non icebreakers) and aircraft are 
only able to operate for a few days or a few hours on scene before 
returning for fuel. Figure 1 compares the State of Alaska to the lower 
48 states to illustrate the large distances between, for example, 
Kodiak (the Coast Guard's northernmost air station) and Point Barrow 
(the northernmost point of land in Alaska). 

Figure 1: Map of the State of Alaska Superimposed on the Lower 48 
States: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

The map depicts the following areas of the State of Alaska: 

Attu; 
Barrow; 
Cold Bay; 
Cordova; 
Dutch Harbor; 
Juneau; 
Ketchikan; 
Kodiak; 
Nome; 
St. Paul. 

Source: Coast Guard. 

[End of figure] 

The Coast Guard has started exploring how to manage these and other 
challenges to Arctic operations and we were asked to review the 
agency's initial efforts to prepare for increasing Arctic activity. 
Specifically, this report addresses the extent to which the Coast 
Guard is: (1) coordinating with stakeholders on Arctic issues and 
operations and what, if any, further opportunities exist to enhance 
coordination; (2) taking action to identify its requirements for 
future Arctic operations; and (3) taking steps to identify and 
mitigate Arctic challenges to meet current and future Arctic 
requirements. 

To gather information for all three objectives we interviewed public 
and private sector representatives with Arctic operations or interests 
on: stakeholder coordination; Coast Guard action to identify future 
requirements; and Coast Guard efforts to overcome Arctic-related 
challenges. Specifically, we: 

* interviewed headquarters-based officials from the Coast Guard and 
other federal entities--National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Arctic 
Research Commission, and the Departments of State, Defense, and 
Commerce, among others; 

* conducted a site visit to Alaska to interview field-based officials 
from the Coast Guard and six other federal departments and agencies 
with operations in the Arctic, three Alaska state departments, one 
Alaska Native interest group, and six private or nonprofit 
organizations representing various Arctic interests; and: 

* conducted additional interviews by phone and in person with 
representatives from other federal, state, local, Alaska Native, and 
private and nonprofit sector stakeholders and the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO). 

To determine the extent to which the Coast Guard is coordinating with 
Arctic stakeholders and if additional coordination opportunities 
exist, we interviewed the above noted stakeholders due to their 
presence or involvement in the Arctic, reported interaction with the 
Coast Guard, and based on the recommendations of other Arctic 
stakeholders. Since we selected a nonprobability sample of Arctic 
stakeholders, the information obtained from these interviews cannot be 
generalized to all stakeholders but does provide for a broad overview 
of the types of Coast Guard coordination taking place on Arctic 
issues. We also reviewed documentation of the Coast Guard's Arctic 
coordination such as memorandums of understanding, Coast Guard records 
of contact with Alaska Native interest groups, and after-action 
reports. To assess the Coast Guard's interagency coordination on 
Arctic policy issues we identified how, if at all, each effort aligned 
with key practices we have identified for enhancing and sustaining 
interagency coordination. We also reviewed the Coast Guard's 
interagency coordination efforts against criteria in Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government related to effective 
characteristics of program management.[Footnote 3] We did not evaluate 
the effectiveness of each interagency coordination effort but simply 
identified the key practices each effort is structured to address. 

To determine the steps that the Coast Guard is taking to identify its 
future Arctic requirements we interviewed headquarters officials, as 
well as field-based Coast Guard District and Sector officials 
responsible for all Coast Guard operations in the state of Alaska. 
[Footnote 4] We also interviewed the above noted stakeholders to 
obtain their views on Coast Guard actions and their role in helping 
the Coast Guard determine its Arctic mission requirements. We also 
reviewed Coast Guard documentation of its efforts to plan for 
increased Arctic activity, including documents pertaining to the 
agency's ongoing analysis of current and future Arctic mission 
requirements and after-action reports. We reviewed our prior work on 
key steps and critical practices to implement the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993[Footnote 5] and determined how the 
Coast Guard's preliminary planning efforts align with these. 

To determine the extent to which the Coast Guard is taking steps to 
identify and mitigate Arctic challenges to meet current and future 
Arctic requirements, we interviewed headquarters and field-based Coast 
Guard officials to discuss the Arctic operating environment, 
challenges to the Coast Guard's Arctic activities, and steps being 
taken to mitigate these challenges. We also reviewed Coast Guard 
documents such as after-action reports and reports to Congress, as 
well as federal and international research reports to distill 
additional challenges and factors impacting the Coast Guard's Arctic 
operations. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to September 
2010 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. See 
appendix I for a more detailed description of our scope and 
methodology. 

Background: 

Receding Ice Opens Potential for Increased Commerce in the Arctic: 

Scientific explanations and projections of the changes taking place in 
the Arctic vary, but there is a general consensus that Arctic sea ice 
is diminishing. As recently as August 2010 scientists at the U.S. 
National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that the average Arctic sea 
ice extent for July was the second lowest in the satellite record. 
[Footnote 6] Much of the Arctic Ocean remains ice-covered for a 
majority of the year, but some scientists have projected that the 
Arctic will be ice-diminished in the summer by as soon as 2040. 
[Footnote 7] 

These environmental changes in the Arctic are making maritime transit 
more feasible and are increasing the likelihood of human activity 
including tourism, oil and gas extraction, commercial shipping, and 
fishing in the region. For example, a 2008 United States Geologic 
Survey study estimated that areas north of the Arctic Circle contained 
90 billion barrels of oil; 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; 
and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquid. Until May 2010, the 
Shell Oil Company was scheduled to begin exploratory drilling off the 
Northwest coast of Alaska in July of 2010.[Footnote 8] According to 
industry officials, such drilling operations could result in 
additional vessel activity in northern Alaska and the Arctic Marine 
Shipping Assessment also stated that future commercial shipping 
activities are likely to grow with the extraction of resources such as 
oil, gas, and ore. While resource extraction activities are expected 
to increase, commercial fishing will likely not occur above the Arctic 
Circle in the near term due to a U.S. decision in November 2009 to 
close 150,000 square nautical miles of U.S. Arctic waters to 
commercial fishing until sufficient information is available to 
support the sustainable management of a commercial fishery.[Footnote 9] 

Varying Definitions of the Arctic Are Used: 

Not all Arctic stakeholders define the "Arctic" geographical area the 
same way. The U.S. Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 defines the 
term "Arctic" broadly to include the Bering Sea and Aleutian Chain, 
while others define the "Arctic" more narrowly as the area above the 
Arctic Circle. The broader definition of the Arctic adds about 2 
million square kilometers of territory not included in the narrower 
definition of the Arctic. Figure 2 illustrates the Arctic boundary as 
defined by the Arctic Research and Policy Act and also shows the 
Arctic Circle line of latitude. 

Figure 2: Map of the Arctic Boundary as Defined by the Arctic Research 
and Policy Act: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map] 

Source: Created by the National Science Foundation for the U.S. Arctic 
Research Commission. 

[End of figure] 

International Conventions and Organizations Facilitate International 
Collaboration in the Arctic: 

There are several international conventions and organizations that 
guide international collaboration in the Arctic. One of the key 
Conventions--the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
(UNCLOS)--has become the subject of greater focus as Arctic sea ice 
diminishes. UNCLOS, which entered into force in November 1994, 
addresses all aspects of ocean space including, among other things, 
economic and commercial activities, environmental control, and 
settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters for those countries 
that have ratified the convention. In general, UNCLOS provides that 
any coastal nation that has acceded to the Convention can make a claim 
to certain continental shelf rights including oil and gas that are 
discovered on its continental shelf beyond its 200 nautical mile 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).[Footnote 10] An UNCLOS subcommittee is 
to consider and approve nations' outer continental shelf land claims. 
However, the United States has signed but not ratified this Convention 
and therefore is not able to submit claims under the convention's 
provisions at this time. 

Since 1996, international Arctic cooperation has taken place in the 
Arctic Council, an organization of the eight Arctic states (United 
States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and 
Sweden), six Permanent Participant groups (indigenous peoples' 
organizations), and observers which include international 
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and non-Arctic 
states.[Footnote 11] The council and its bodies focus on environmental 
and sustainable development issues, but the council has no regulatory 
authority or treaty responsibilities. However, the council does issue 
guidelines for Arctic operations and studies such as the Arctic Marine 
Shipping Assessment. In addition to the Arctic Council, the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted broad mandatory 
safety guidelines, as well as more specific voluntary guidelines for 
ships transiting the Arctic.[Footnote 12] 

The United States Has Regulations and Policies That Govern Arctic 
Operations: 

The United States has obligations that apply to Arctic operations 
including overarching national policies, as well as more specific 
maritime policies and authorities. NSPD-66/HSPD-25 reflects current 
U.S. Arctic policy and is therefore key among these policies. The 
Coast Guard's role in the Arctic was implicated in this directive, 
which acknowledges the effects of climate change and increased human 
activity in the Arctic region, lays out specific policy objectives and 
federal partners, and reaffirms the importance of Alaska Native 
consultation in policy decisions.[Footnote 13] In addition to NSPD-
66/HSPD-25, Executive Order 13175 also plays a key role in U.S. Arctic 
operations. Executive Order 13175 requires federal agencies to involve 
Indian tribal governments, such as certain Arctic indigenous 
communities in Alaska, in decisions that affect them.[Footnote 14] 
Finally, since the Arctic region is primarily a maritime domain, 
existing policies and authorities relating to maritime areas continue 
to apply. 

The Coast Guard Is the Primary Federal Maritime Agency in the Arctic, 
but Multiple Stakeholders Also Have Arctic Responsibilities: 

Since the Arctic is primarily a maritime domain, the Coast Guard plays 
a significant role in Arctic policy implementation and enforcement. 
The Coast Guard is a multimission, maritime military service within 
the DHS that has responsibilities including maritime safety, security, 
environmental protection, and national defense, among other 
missions.[Footnote 15] Therefore, as more navigable ocean water 
emerges in the Arctic and human activity increases, the Coast Guard 
will face expanding responsibilities in the region. Other federal 
agencies also have responsibilities in the Arctic. See table 1 for 
other key federal agencies and their roles in the Arctic. 

Table 1: Key Federal Agencies Also Operating in the Arctic: 

Federal agency: Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 
Arctic responsibilities: NOAA (1) provides information on Arctic 
oceanic and atmospheric conditions (such as clouds, atmospheric 
temperature, tides, currents, bathymetry, and ice conditions); 
(2) issues weather and ice forecasts; (3) provides fisheries 
management and enforcement; (4) is responsible for the protection of 
endangered marine species, habitat restoration, and natural resource 
damage assessment (such as after oil spills); (5) develops and 
maintains nautical charts; (6) provides information on the climate; 
and (7) is responsible for the protection of marine mammals, including 
participation in co-management activities with Alaska Native 
organizations for species that are the focus of subsistence harvests. 

Federal agency: Department of Defense (DOD); 
Arctic responsibilities: DOD is responsible in the Arctic and 
elsewhere for securing the United States from direct attack; securing 
strategic access and retaining global freedom of action; strengthening 
existing and emerging alliances and partnerships; and establishing 
favorable security conditions. DOD is responsible for underwater 
navigation and some vessel tracking. Additionally, the Navy has 
developed an "Arctic Roadmap" which lists Navy action items, 
objectives, and desired effects for the Arctic region from fiscal year 
2010 to 2014. Focus areas include training, communications, 
operational investments, and environmental protection. 

Federal agency: Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE); 
Arctic responsibilities: BOEMRE is responsible for approving leases 
for resource development projects in Arctic waters; oversight and 
regulation of offshore oil and gas operations; review and approval of 
oil spill response plans; and verification of operational and response 
capabilities. The bureau also funds ocean research through the 
Environmental Studies Program to provide science in support of 
management decisions. 

Federal agency: Department of State (State Department); 
Arctic responsibilities: State Department is responsible for 
formulating and implementing U.S. policy on international issues 
concerning the oceans, the Arctic, and Antarctica. The department also 
leads the domestic interagency Arctic Policy Group and U.S. 
participation in the Arctic Council. 

Federal agency: Department of Transportation (DOT); 
Arctic responsibilities: DOT provided financial support for the Arctic 
Marine Shipping Assessment and one of DOT's component agencies, the 
Maritime Administration, works on Arctic transportation and shipping 
issues, among other things. 

Federal agency: National Science Foundation (NSF); 
Arctic responsibilities: NSF is responsible for funding U.S. Arctic 
research--including research on the causes and impacts of climate 
change--and provides associated logistics and infrastructure support 
to conduct this research. NSF and the Coast Guard also coordinate on 
the use of the Coast Guard's icebreakers for scientific research. 

Federal agency: U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC); 
Arctic responsibilities: USARC is responsible for, among other things, 
developing and establishing an integrated national arctic research 
policy that guides federal agencies in developing and implementing 
their Arctic research programs. In addition, USARC biennially 
publishes a "Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research." 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

State and local governments, Alaska Native tribal governments and 
other Alaska Native interest groups, private industry, and nonprofit 
groups are also important Arctic stakeholders. State government is 
involved in, among other things, Arctic fishery enforcement, oil spill 
planning and response, emergency management, and economic development. 
Local governments, Alaska Native tribal governments, and Alaska Native 
interest groups are in some cases the closest stakeholders to 
activities taking place in the Arctic. Consequently, the 
responsibility for responding to Arctic incidents often falls to local 
governments. For example, the North Slope Borough, which encompasses 
about 89,000 square miles of northern Alaska, maintains its own search 
and rescue capabilities including fixed and rotary wing aircraft. 
Additionally, 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. Finally, private sector and 
nonprofit groups are also important Arctic stakeholders. These groups 
cover a wide spectrum of interests, including resource extraction 
companies, cruise lines, vessel tracking organizations, and 
conservation groups, among others. See appendix II for a description 
of some of the state, local, and Alaska Native Arctic stakeholders. 

The Coast Guard Coordinates with Many Stakeholders but Some Want More 
Information on the Agency's Ongoing Arctic Planning and Future 
Approach: 

The Coast Guard Coordinates and Collaborates with Foreign Governments 
on Arctic Policy Issues: 

The Coast Guard has been actively involved in both multilateral and 
bilateral Arctic coordination efforts with foreign governments. The 
multilateral efforts have often concerned Arctic-wide operational 
issues while the bilateral efforts have related to specific 
operational issues between the United States and an Arctic neighbor. 
One example of a multilateral effort is the Coast Guard's role as the 
primary U.S. representative to the IMO for policy development. For the 
past few years the Coast Guard has advocated for IMO's voluntary 
Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic-Ice Covered Waters to be 
changed to mandatory requirements for ships operating in both Arctic 
and Antarctic waters to enhance maritime safety in the regions. 
[Footnote 16] In another example of multilateral collaboration, the 
Coast Guard participates in two Arctic Council working groups under 
the leadership of the State Department and is the U.S. Head of 
Delegation for the Council's Search and Rescue Task Force.[Footnote 
17] In this role, the Coast Guard is the U.S. government lead in 
multilateral negotiations on a proposed SAR agreement among the eight 
Arctic Council nations to establish primary responsibility for 
aeronautical and maritime search and rescue services within the Arctic. 

The Coast Guard has also engaged in bilateral coordination and 
collaboration with other Arctic nations. For example, since the summer 
of 2008 the Coast Guard has collaborated with the Canadian Coast Guard 
on joint extended continental shelf surveys in support of the State 
Department-led interagency Extended Continental Shelf Task Force. 
During these joint expeditions one U.S and one Canadian icebreaker 
have conducted joint extended continental survey expeditions to 
collect seismic and bathymetric data that both countries could use as 
the foundation for potential future extended continental shelf land 
claims in the Arctic.[Footnote 18] According to the Extended 
Continental Shelf Task Force, this collaboration between the United 
States and Canada saves millions of dollars for both nations, provides 
data both nations need, ensures that data are collected only once in 
the same area, and increases scientific and diplomatic cooperation. 
Figure 3 shows these two icebreakers working together on a mapping 
cruise in September 2009. In July 2010 the State Department announced 
plans to conduct this joint operation again in 2010. 

Figure 3: U.S. Coast Guard's Healy and the Canadian Coast Guard's 
Louis S. St. Laurent on a Joint Mission in the Arctic: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Coast Guard. 

[End of figure] 

Another example of the Coast Guard's bilateral coordination and 
collaboration with the Canadian government is the Joint Marine 
Pollution Contingency Plan for Canada and the United States. This plan 
was designed to enhance cooperation and standardize response 
procedures between the two nations with respect to an oil or hazardous 
substance release. The two countries have conducted joint tabletop 
exercises of the plan five times since 1998 and most recently in 
Anchorage in March 2010. The purpose of this latest exercise--entitled 
CANUSNORTH 2010--was to simulate a joint response to an oil spill on 
the United States-Canada border in the Arctic. The Coast Guard also 
has a long-standing collaborative relationship with the Russian Border 
Guard.[Footnote 19] Coast Guard District 17 officials told us that 
they exchange visits with Russian Border Guard officials every 6 
months in an effort to facilitate communication between the United 
States and Russia, particularly on fisheries and increasingly on 
Arctic issues. According to the Coast Guard District 17 Commander, 
communication between the two countries has improved as a result. For 
example, in May 2009, when Alaska Native hunters crossed the maritime 
boundary into Russia, the Coast Guard and Russian Border Guard worked 
cooperatively to ensure the hunters returned safely to the United 
States. The two countries have also worked cooperatively to respond to 
illegal fishing along the maritime boundary between the United States 
and Russia in the Bering Sea. 

The Coast Guard Coordinates with Federal Agencies on Arctic Operations 
and Uses Key Practices to Collaborate on Arctic Policy: 

The Coast Guard coordinates with other federal agencies to leverage 
federal resources and expertise for Arctic operations. Officials at 
all nine of the federal agencies we met with reported partnering with 
the Coast Guard on Arctic operations--although some were much more 
involved with Coast Guard Arctic operations than others. For example, 
NOAA, as the federal authority on oceanic and atmospheric data, 
reported providing the Coast Guard with aviation, surface, and marine 
weather forecasts and warnings; nautical charts and real-time 
oceanographic data (such as ice concentration and type); and satellite-
aided data--information which, according to Coast Guard officials, is 
critical to the Coast Guard's search and rescue operations.[Footnote 
20] In addition, officials at NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service 
reported collaborating with the Coast Guard on oversight and 
enforcement of Arctic fisheries. The Coast Guard also collaborates 
with NSF to manage the nation's icebreaker fleet, including scheduling 
icebreaker time for research activities.[Footnote 21] Appendix III 
describes additional examples of the Coast Guard's operational 
coordination with other federal Arctic stakeholders. 

The Coast Guard is also involved in several interagency coordination 
efforts relating to Arctic policy that address aspects of key 
practices we have previously identified to help enhance and sustain 
collaboration among federal agencies. Our previous work has shown that 
federal agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts 
by engaging in eight key practices: (1) define and articulate a common 
outcome; (2) establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; (3) 
identify and address needs by leveraging resources; (4) agree on roles 
and responsibilities; (5) establish means of operating across agency 
boundaries; (6) develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on 
results; (7) reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts 
through agency plans and reports; and (8) reinforce individual 
accountability for collaborative efforts through performance 
management systems.[Footnote 22] The following are some of the 
interagency coordination efforts the Coast Guard has been or is part 
of and the key practices that they address: 

* NSPD-66/HSPD-25 established the policy of the United States with 
respect to the Arctic region and specified implementation actions to 
be taken by federal agencies. The adoption of NSPD-66/HSPD-25 
addresses two key practices--defining and articulating a common 
outcome and delineating agency roles and responsibilities. 
Specifically, the policy clarifies governmentwide policy priorities in 
the Arctic and tasks specific heads of departments with the 
responsibility to coordinate implementation. 

* Another interagency coordination effort involving Coast Guard 
participation is the Interagency Policy Committee on the Arctic. The 
White House's National Security Staff and Council on Environmental 
Quality co-chair this committee, which was created in March 2010. The 
committee is an interagency body established to coordinate 
governmentwide implementation of NSPD-66/HSPD-25. According to Coast 
Guard and State Department officials, one of the committee's first 
tasks was to compile information from all relevant agencies on their 
activities in support of NSPD-66/HSPD-25; the compilation is 
considered an active document that National Security Staff will use to 
track progress and identify policy implementation gaps. Coast Guard 
officials reported that this committee is a great forum for federal 
agencies to identify opportunities for collaboration. This interagency 
coordination effort addresses aspects of key practices we have 
previously identified including: identifying and addressing needs by 
leveraging resources; developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and 
report on results; and reinforcing agency accountability for 
collaborative efforts through agency plans and reports. 

* The establishment of mutually reinforcing or joint strategies and 
plans between the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy demonstrates another 
Coast Guard interagency coordination effort. For example, in October 
2007 the Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, and U.S Marine Corps published a 
unified maritime strategy which stressed the importance of an 
unprecedented level of integration among maritime forces and enhanced 
cooperation in light of the changes taking place in the Arctic, among 
other challenges.[Footnote 23] In addition, the Coast Guard and U.S. 
Navy have worked collaboratively to develop their respective Arctic 
roadmaps--the Navy published its roadmap in November 2009 and, as of 
July 2010, Coast Guard officials reported that their Arctic Roadmap 
was in final draft form and undergoing senior level agency review. The 
Navy's Arctic roadmap lays out specific action items, objectives, and 
desired effects for the Arctic region from fiscal years 2010 through 
2014 and identifies areas for collaboration with the Coast Guard 
throughout. Coast Guard officials report that their agency's Arctic 
Roadmap is specifically responsive to the directives in NSPD-66--
laying out the six principle objectives of NSPD-66 and drilling down 
to a list of specific action items for various Coast Guard offices. 

* Finally, the Coast Guard and the Navy have made efforts to establish 
compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across 
boundaries--another key practice we have identified to enhance 
interagency collaboration. The Coast Guard and the Navy have numerous 
agreements and policies governing interagency collaboration including 
the National Strategy for Maritime Security and its supporting plans 
and the National Defense Strategy.[Footnote 24] The two agencies also 
have a long-standing memorandum of agreement regarding the use of the 
Nation's icebreakers--the Coast Guard operates the nation's 
icebreakers and uses them, when needed, to support the Navy.[Footnote 
25] The Navy's Arctic Roadmap identifies further opportunities to 
improve collaboration with the Coast Guard. For example, it identifies 
the need to revisit existing agreements, or form new ones, concerning 
interoperability and collaborative efforts in the Arctic including 
operations, training, and common investments to achieve economies of 
scale. The Navy's Arctic Roadmap also describes plans to investigate 
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance interoperability with the Coast Guard 
in anticipation of increased joint operations in the region. 

The Coast Guard is also involved in numerous other interagency 
coordination efforts related to the Arctic. See appendix IV for 
descriptions of other select interagency coordination efforts and how 
they address key practices. 

The Coast Guard Coordinates with State and Local Governments on 
Operational Issues: 

The Coast Guard coordinates with state and local governments on issues 
related to Arctic operations.[Footnote 26] For example, Coast Guard 
officials report regular communication with Alaska state agencies on 
common missions such as with the Department of Fish and Game on 
fisheries enforcement; the Department of Natural Resources on 
regulatory inspections of oil and gas vessels, coastal management, and 
boating safety; and the Department of Environmental Conservation on 
oil spill prevention and response. Additionally, state officials 
report that regularly scheduled meetings such as the Coast Guard's 
bimonthly teleconferences with Alaska Department of Fish and Game and 
the Alaska Wildlife Troopers serve as an opportunity to exchange 
information and assist each other with logistical and operational 
challenges. Local government officials we met with also reported 
having open lines of communication with the Coast Guard and noted that 
this is particularly important to ensure they are included in 
discussions that affect their region. For example, North Slope Borough 
officials and the Mayor of Nome reported that the Coast Guard 
coordinated closely with them when preparing to conduct summer 
operations in the Arctic and attributed the Coast Guard's success in 
engaging the Arctic communities to this close coordination in advance 
of their operations. Appendix III provides additional examples of 
coordination between the Coast Guard and state and local governments. 

The Coast Guard Engages Alaska Native Interest Groups to Improve the 
Agency's Cultural and Operational Awareness: 

Coast Guard officials report that coordination with Alaska Native 
governments and interest groups is of utmost importance to gain on-the-
ground information and to enhance the agency's cultural awareness. 
[Footnote 27] The Coast Guard Commandant emphasized in August 2009 
that the dialogue, collaboration, and lessons learned from Alaska 
Native interest groups are essential for safe operations in the 
Arctic. As such, the Coast Guard has made outreach to Alaska Native 
leaders a key facet of its recent Arctic activities including summer 
operations on the North Slope and a summer 2009 visit from several 
high ranking White House and agency officials. Both of the Alaska 
Native interest groups we interviewed had positive remarks about the 
Coast Guard's recent approach to relationship building with the Alaska 
Native community. For example, one representative of an Alaska Native 
interest group on the North Slope stated that the Coast Guard is a 
model agency in how it has interacted with the Alaska Native community 
and that the impact of such efforts was greater Coast Guard access to 
community knowledge, resources, and support. Another Alaska Native 
official representing eight villages on the North Slope of Alaska 
stated that he was very impressed with the Coast Guard's approach to 
the Alaska Native communities. Appendix III provides examples of 
operational coordination between the Coast Guard and Alaska Native 
interest groups. 

To sustain these outreach efforts with Alaska Natives, the Coast Guard 
recently took steps to reinstate a tribal liaison position in District 
17. District officials reported that since January 2009, they have had 
one half-time tribal liaison billet dedicated to coordination and 
outreach with the Alaska Native community. In July 2009, District 17 
officials submitted a request to the Commandant seeking a full-time 
tribal liaison position. However, Coast Guard officials told us that 
the request was not acted upon and, in spring 2010, authority over 
this position was transferred to Coast Guard Headquarters and the 
position was modified to no longer include tribal liaison duties. In 
July 2010, after we discussed this issue with Coast Guard officials, 
Pacific Area and the Commandant announced the creation of a full-time 
tribal liaison billet to engage Alaska Native communities. 

The Coast Guard Uses Formal and Informal Mechanisms to Coordinate with 
the Private Sector in the Arctic: 

The Coast Guard uses formal and informal mechanisms to coordinate with 
a variety of private sector stakeholders in the Arctic including those 
with interests in Arctic resource extraction, commercial fishing, 
tourism, and shipping. In terms of formal relationships, the Coast 
Guard has a contract with the Marine Exchange of Alaska, a nonprofit 
vendor of real-time Automatic Information System (AIS) data, to 
provide the Coast Guard with data on vessel traffic for certain parts 
of Alaska.[Footnote 28] In another example, Coast Guard officials and 
oil and gas representatives are advisory board members of the Prince 
William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, which supports projects 
designed to understand and respond to the effects of oil spills in the 
Arctic region. 

The Coast Guard also coordinates with private interests through 
informal mechanisms. For example, Shell Oil Company officials stated 
that they have briefed Sector Anchorage and District 17 officials on 
details of their oil exploration activities including time lines, 
location of industry vessels, and industry capabilities. Similarly, 
officials representing the Alaska cruise industry stated that they 
have met with Sector Anchorage officials as well as senior leadership 
from District 17 to discuss cruise ship routes and logistics. In 
addition to the for-profit private sector, the Coast Guard also has 
informal coordination with various nonprofit entities with Arctic 
interests. For example, officials from an environmental nonprofit 
organization stated that they interact with Coast Guard officials at 
public forums and through the North Pacific Fisheries Management 
Council. In addition, officials from the Marine Conservation Alliance--
an organization established by the Alaska seafood industry to, among 
other things, promote sustainable fishing--reported that the Coast 
Guard is doing a good job of cultivating a positive relationship with 
the Russian Border Guard, which is particularly important to ensure 
enforcement of the U.S. decision to close U.S. Arctic waters to 
commercial fishing. Appendix III provides further examples of 
coordination between the Coast Guard and the private sector on Arctic 
operations. 

Stakeholders Reported Having Limited Information about the Coast 
Guard's Arctic Planning Efforts and More Communication about Agency 
Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial: 

The state and local Arctic stakeholders we met with were generally 
positive about Coast Guard's coordination on day-to-day operations but 
9 out of 15 of these stakeholders also reported that they lack 
information on both the Coast Guard's ongoing planning efforts and 
future approach in the Arctic. For example, a group of state and local 
officials told us that they thought the Coast Guard had already 
developed its Arctic plans but had not yet shared this information 
with them. One local government official who has worked closely with 
the Coast Guard stated that the High Latitude Study interviews and the 
agency's recent community outreach in the Arctic have raised public 
expectations that the Coast Guard will be establishing a year-round 
presence in the region, but this official reported not knowing whether 
this expectation would be realized or not. A State of Alaska official 
reported that his office and others may be willing to invest in 
infrastructure that could benefit the Coast Guard but this would be 
difficult to do if they did not know of the agency's plans and time 
frames for action. In addition, officials at an environmental 
nonprofit organization we met with were concerned that the Coast Guard 
did not have a formal process in place such as that used for proposed 
regulations that would make information available to the public as 
well as offer an opportunity for public input to be provided to the 
agency regarding its Arctic plans. Finally, an Alaska Native North 
Slope resident and environmental policy advisor we met with reported 
that local communities want more information on what the Coast Guard 
is doing or planning to do in the Arctic. 

Our prior work on organizational transformations identified an 
effective external communication strategy as essential to successful 
transformation in federal agencies--changes such as those the Coast 
Guard will likely experience with its potential operational growth in 
a new and large geographic area.[Footnote 29] We have previously 
reported that establishing a communication strategy should be a top 
priority for agencies undergoing a transformation and is central to 
creating shared expectations, reporting on progress, and forming the 
partnerships needed to develop and implement an organization's 
strategies. We have previously reported that communication is most 
effective when done early and often and this helps to build an 
understanding of the purpose of planned changes and builds trust among 
stakeholders. We have also reported that establishing a communication 
strategy is important in the public sector, where policy making and 
program management call for transparency regarding the goals and 
outcomes to be achieved and the processes to be used in achieving 
them. In addition to our prior work on organizational change, 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 
management should ensure there are adequate means of communicating 
with, and obtaining information from, external stakeholders that may 
have a significant impact on the agency achieving its goals.[Footnote 
30] 

Coast Guard headquarters officials told us that they have been focused 
on communication with congressional and federal stakeholders and, as 
of July 2010, did not have a communication strategy in place for 
communicating to state and local stakeholders in Alaska on the 
progress, time frames, or results of the agency's Arctic planning 
efforts. Agency officials told us they would likely develop such a 
strategy when the ongoing High Latitude Study is completed and the 
administration determines a course of action. However, it could be 
months or years before a course of action is determined. Developing a 
communication strategy to report on results is important; however, 
stakeholders are also interested in the process and progress of the 
agency's planning efforts. Limited Coast Guard communication on the 
process and progress of its Arctic planning efforts has resulted in 
some state and local stakeholders reporting that they lack information 
they believe would be useful to facilitate their own participation in 
the process and allow for their planning efforts. In addition, the 
Coast Guard could be missing an opportunity to create shared 
expectations and report on its progress with key partners. While we 
recognize that the Coast Guard and the administration are still 
developing their Arctic strategy, communicating about the planning 
process and interim steps is key to creating transparency and 
providing a context for agency plans. 

The Coast Guard Is Taking Action to Identify Future Arctic 
Requirements While Routine Operations Provide Other Valuable 
Information: 

High Latitude Study Is the Centerpiece of the Coast Guard's Efforts to 
Identify Arctic Requirements: 

The Coast Guard has multiple efforts underway to better understand the 
agency's future requirements and gaps in both the Arctic and Antarctic 
with its primary effort being the High Latitude Study, an effort 
undertaken in response to congressional direction.[Footnote 31] In 
August 2009, the Coast Guard contracted out the development of the 
High Latitude Study with the goal of producing three related mission 
analyses related to (1) Polar icebreaking needs, (2) all 11 Coast 
Guard missions in the Arctic region, and (3) all 11 Coast Guard 
missions in the Antarctic region. [Footnote 32] In carrying out the 
study, contractors have conducted literature reviews, held workshops 
to obtain Coast Guard stakeholder input, and conducted site visits and 
interviews with Coast Guard units in Alaska as well as with other 
stakeholders, including private sector, federal, state, local, Alaska 
Native, and international interest groups. Coast Guard officials 
estimate the study's cost at $1.7 million and that all three volumes 
will be ready for Coast Guard internal review in summer 2010; however, 
they won't be released publicly until a later date. 

The Arctic mission analysis piece of the High Latitude Study is 
expected to include[Footnote 33] 

* an analysis of the functional requirements to carry out the Coast 
Guard's existing missions in the Arctic, 

* an analysis of how the Coast Guard might close any operational gaps, 

* solutions for a range of future demand scenarios such as a mass 
search and rescue incident or an Arctic oil spill (including looking 
at partnerships and opportunities to leverage resources), and: 

* a rough order of magnitude cost estimate. 

According to Coast Guard officials, the High Latitude Study is not 
expected to detail specific recommended solutions or assets, but 
rather identify the types of capabilities needed in the Arctic. In 
addition, while not Arctic-specific, DHS and the Coast Guard have 
begun a comprehensive Fleet Mix Analysis--an analysis of the 
capabilities, number, and mix of assets it needs to fulfill the 
agency's missions. According to Coast Guard officials, this analysis 
is due to be completed in December 2010 and is expected to include 
more specific fleet requirements for surface operations in the Bering 
Sea region of the Arctic but not above the Arctic Circle.[Footnote 34] 

The Coast Guard's Temporary Arctic Operations Test Assets, Build 
Relationships with Local Communities, and Inform Operational 
Requirements: 

Another action the Coast Guard has taken specifically to inform its 
Arctic requirements has been the establishment of temporary, seasonal 
operating locations in the Arctic. These efforts, conducted during the 
summers of 2008 and 2009, were focused on improving the agency's 
knowledge of the Arctic region and identifying requirements needed to 
carry out its missions there. The specific objectives of these 
temporary operating locations have been to improve Arctic domain 
awareness, test communications, test the agency's ability to respond 
to incidents, and engage with the local Alaska Native communities. 
These Arctic deployments have been short--in Barrow for 2 weeks in the 
summer of 2008 and in Barrow, Nome, and Prudhoe Bay for about 6 weeks 
in 2009--and have not involved the construction of permanent 
infrastructure. 

The Coast Guard used these efforts to identify performance 
requirements and obstacles associated with the deployment of small 
boats, aircraft, and support staff above the Arctic Circle. According 
to Coast Guard officials, lessons learned from these activities are 
captured in after-action reports that are being used to inform future 
Arctic requirement planning efforts. For example, in the summer of 
2008 the Coast Guard experimented with small response boats and MH-65 
helicopters in Barrow, Alaska and the agency's after-action report 
states that the Coast Guard learned about the lack of infrastructure, 
such as hangar space, in Barrow and grappled with the lack of reliable 
navigation charts in the region.[Footnote 35] These challenges to 
Arctic operations are described later in this report. As part of the 
summer 2009 deployment, the Coast Guard carried out an "Arctic 
Crossroads" program--including, among other things, boating safety 
awareness programs for children, veterinary services, and outreach to 
Alaska Native communities in the Arctic. According to the Coast Guard, 
these outreach activities highlighted the importance of good relations 
with village leadership and tribal elders for future Arctic operations. 

The Coast Guard is planning additional Arctic operating location 
activities for the summer of 2010. According to Coast Guard officials, 
the 2010 activities will include daily small boat operations in 
Kotzebue; medical, veterinary, and water safety outreach to 10 remote 
communities; and HC-130 maritime boundary line patrols.[Footnote 36] 
In addition, the Coast Guard icebreaker Healy will work closely with a 
Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker on a science mission in August and 
September. The Coast Guard had also planned to have the Polar Sea 
icebreaker retrieve science buoys and deliver medical personnel to 
four villages, but the ship's scheduled 2010 Arctic patrol has been 
canceled due to engine problems. In addition, Coast Guard District 
17's planned use of its buoy tender--the Hickory--for summer 2010 
Arctic operations has been canceled because another District 17 buoy 
tender--the Sycamore--was deployed to the Gulf of Mexico to assist 
with Deepwater Horizon oil spill response efforts and the Hickory is 
needed to cover their Aids to Navigation responsibilities. 

The Coast Guard's Arctic Overflights Also Test Capabilities, Increase 
Maritime Domain Awareness, and Inform Requirements: 

Another key Coast Guard effort specifically focused on gaining Arctic 
information has been the Coast Guard's Arctic overflights, which were 
initiated to increase the agency's maritime domain awareness, test 
personnel and equipment capabilities in the Arctic, and inform the 
agency's Arctic requirements, among other things. The Coast Guard 
initiated seasonal (March-November) biweekly Arctic domain awareness 
flights in October 2007. Coast Guard officials reported that these 
flights have resulted in better situational awareness--the Coast Guard 
is gaining biweekly observations of Arctic ice conditions and vessel 
traffic--and operational insight that is being used to inform the 
agency's future Arctic requirements.[Footnote 37] For example, the 
Coast Guard's after-action report from a May 2010 overflight along the 
northwestern coast of Alaska lists four objectives: maritime security 
and national defense patrol, monitor impact from coastal erosion, 
familiarize and train pilot and crew above the Arctic Circle, and 
collect scientific data for NOAA.[Footnote 38] The after-action report 
lists the vessels sighted and includes descriptions of the weather and 
ice coverage--information that improves the Coast Guard's situational 
awareness and may be helpful in determining the agency's future Arctic 
requirements. An October 2007 overflight after-action report notes the 
lack of communications connectivity on the North Slope and lack of 
support infrastructure for the HC-130 in Barrow. (These challenges are 
elaborated later in this report.) According to the Coast Guard, the 
information gathered from Arctic overflights informs the agency's 
future Arctic requirements by, for example, improving pilot 
familiarity with the region, providing information on the limitations 
of aircraft, and providing marine mammal observation data. Figure 4 
shows the view from a Coast Guard flight over Kivalina, Alaska in May 
2009. 

Figure 4: A Coast Guard HC-130 Aircraft on an Arctic Domain Awareness 
Flight in May 2009 above Kivalina, Alaska: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Coast Guard. 

[End of figure] 

The Coast Guard's Routine Arctic Operations Also Inform Requirements: 

In addition to the specific Coast Guard actions taken to inform its 
Arctic requirements, the agency is also gaining valuable knowledge 
about the Arctic from conducting its routine mission operations in the 
region. Through routine mission operations--especially those related 
to icebreaking, search and rescue, marine environmental protection, 
and Aids to Navigation--the Coast Guard has been able to collect 
useful information on the capability of its existing assets, 
strategies for overcoming logistical challenges presented by long-
distance responses to incidents, and the resources needed to respond 
to an oil spill in a remote and cold location, among other things. 
According to the Coast Guard, these routine mission activities have 
provided further insight into the agency's future Arctic requirements. 
For more information on these actions, see appendix V. 

The Coast Guard's Preliminary Efforts to Determine Future Arctic 
Requirements Generally Align with Key Practices We Have Identified for 
Defining Agency Missions: 

Our prior work on the key steps and critical practices to implement 
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993[Footnote 39] 
highlighted the importance of three key practices in an agency's 
effort to define its mission and desired outcomes, all of which are 
relevant to the Coast Guard's ongoing planning efforts: (1) involve 
stakeholders; (2) assess environment; and (3) align activities, core 
processes, and resources.[Footnote 40] We reported that successful 
organizations we studied based their strategic planning, to a large 
extent, on the interests and expectations of their stakeholders. 
Stakeholder involvement is important to help agencies ensure that 
their efforts and resources are targeted at the highest priorities. 
Just as important, involving stakeholders in strategic planning 
efforts can help create a basic understanding among the stakeholders 
of the competing demands that confront most agencies, the limited 
resources available to them, and how those demands and resources 
require careful and continuous balancing. We further reported on the 
importance of managers assessing the environment--both inside and 
outside their organizations--in order to anticipate future challenges 
and to make adjustments so that potential problems do not become 
crises. The third critical practice--align activities, core processes, 
and resources--will be important once the Coast Guard determines its 
mission and desired outcomes in the Arctic. 

Though the Coast Guard is still early in its Arctic planning process, 
the agency's preliminary efforts address elements of each of these key 
practices to define agency missions and desired outcomes. 
Specifically, the Coast Guard has involved stakeholders in its 
planning efforts by conducting over 50 interviews with a wide range of 
stakeholders as part of the High Latitude Study and consulting with 
local leaders and Alaska Native elders as part of its temporary 
operations on the North Slope in the summers of 2008 and 2009. The 
Coast Guard has assessed its environment by reviewing the agreements 
and policies, domestic and international, that impact the agency's 
requirements in the Arctic, taking stock of other nations' activities 
and interests in the region, and analyzing the "drivers" or potential 
sources of change in the Arctic. In addition, the agency's Arctic 
overflights and temporary operations improve the agency's Arctic 
domain awareness. Finally, the High Latitude Study addresses the third 
critical practice of aligning activities, core processes, and 
resources by beginning to identify the potential activities and 
resources needed to support the Coast Guard's Arctic missions and 
goals. 

The Coast Guard Faces Numerous Challenges to Current and Future Arctic 
Operations: 

The Coast Guard Has Limited Maritime Domain Awareness in the Arctic, 
but Is Working to Acquire Additional Data: 

Coast Guard officials report that improved maritime domain awareness 
is critical to the agency's operations in the region but the agency 
faces several challenges to addressing this. According to the Coast 
Guard, maritime domain awareness is an effort to achieve an 
understanding of anything in the maritime environment that can affect 
the security, safety, economy, or environment of the United 
States.[Footnote 41] Coast Guard documents state that Arctic domain 
awareness--maritime domain awareness in the Arctic--is critical to 
understanding the risks to the maritime community and infrastructure, 
the Arctic environment, and Alaska Native culture and subsistence 
lifestyle. In addition, in 2008, the Coast Guard reported to Congress 
that Arctic domain awareness will be critical to effective engagement 
in the Arctic as activity increases.[Footnote 42] At the beginning of 
the agency's 2008 summer deployment in the Arctic, District 17 
officials reported not having the Arctic domain awareness to fully 
understand the context or the risks of operating in or monitoring the 
Arctic and explained that the summer operations were intended to 
address this. According to senior Coast Guard officials, Coast Guard 
after-action reports of summer Arctic operations, and other federal 
partners, challenges exist for the Coast Guard in achieving Arctic 
domain awareness. These challenges include (1) inadequate Arctic Ocean 
and weather data, (2) lack of communication infrastructure, (3) 
limited intelligence information, and (4) lack of a physical presence 
in the Arctic. For example: 

Inadequate Arctic Ocean and Weather Information: NOAA officials 
reported a lack of accurate data for Arctic navigation including, 
among other things, tides, nautical charts, water levels, currents, 
shoreline, sea ice, and meteorological information. This lack of 
information can have an impact on the ability of the Coast Guard to 
conduct routine and emergency missions. For example, during its summer 
Arctic deployments the Coast Guard reported that smaller pieces of sea 
ice are often missed by current technology and, while inconsequential 
for icebreakers, this sea ice represents a significant hazard for the 
remainder of the Coast Guard's portfolio of boats. 

Lack of Communication Infrastructure: The Coast Guard reported 
communication problems during its summer operations due to limited 
network infrastructure. Coast Guard officials noted that high-
frequency radio communication is unreliable for low-flying aircraft in 
the U.S. Arctic and is ineffective at extreme latitudes. For example, 
Coast Guard HC-130 aircraft and icebreakers deployed to the Arctic may 
be unable to communicate with one another on high-frequency radio 
despite being in relatively close proximity unless special equipment 
is on board.[Footnote 43] For the 2009 deployment, the Coast Guard 
reported that reliable communications continue to be the primary 
concern when conducting forward operations. These communication issues 
present safety concerns for Coast Guard Arctic operations. To help 
improve communications, the Coast Guard is planning to replace 
antiquated communications systems nationwide with an advanced command, 
control, and communications system called Rescue 21.[Footnote 44] 
However, because of the unique operating and support requirements of 
the Alaska region, Coast Guard will be implementing a modified, 
commercially-based solution in Alaska rather than the current Rescue 
21 system. 

Limited Intelligence Information: Senior Coast Guard officials 
reported that while Arctic intelligence gathering is not an immediate 
concern, the agency does need to develop greater capacity in this area 
as Arctic activity increases. Coast Guard District 17 officials 
reported that current sources of Arctic intelligence include biweekly 
Arctic domain awareness overflights, temporary Arctic operations, 
satellite and AIS information, Joint Terrorism Task Force meetings, 
and international information sharing. District 17 officials also 
reported that they search the internet and open sources for 
information on Arctic vessel traffic and adventure cruises.[Footnote 
45] To obtain more information on Arctic vessel traffic, District 17 
Coast Guard officials are pursuing the purchase of additional real-
time AIS data for the Arctic, but they reported that funding 
limitations remain a concern. Also, Coast Guard's report to Congress 
notes that these intelligence limitations diminish the Coast Guard's 
ability to successfully monitor, assess, and maintain a predictive 
advantage and operational awareness of Arctic activities. 

Lack of an Arctic Presence: The Coast Guard has a very limited 
physical presence in the Arctic. Most of the Coast Guard's on-the-
ground activity in the Arctic has taken place during the agency's 
brief summer deployments in the region. The Coast Guard's physical 
presence also consists of biweekly Arctic overflights, patrols by 
icebreakers, and District 17's buoy tender, when those assets are 
available. In recent years, however, the Coast Guard's icebreakers 
have had mechanical problems which have limited their usage in the 
Arctic and the buoy tender has currently been redeployed. Coast Guard 
District 17 officials noted that this lack of overall presence affects 
the Coast Guard's ability to project U.S. sovereignty, gather 
intelligence, and respond to incidents. 

Senior District 17 officials stated that they had taken actions to try 
to increase their Arctic awareness. For example, District 17 has 
stationed HC-130 airplanes in Nome and Kotzebue during the summer 
months to provide easier access to the maritime boundary with Russia 
and to monitor foreign commercial fishing incursions into U.S. waters. 
Additionally, the Coast Guard will continue its summer deployments in 
2010 and pursue a contract to purchase data for 10 additional AIS 
sites from the Marine Exchange of Alaska. Three of these sites are 
expected to provide additional Arctic domain awareness on transiting 
vessels. These are small steps towards understanding the Arctic 
environment and without additional Arctic infrastructure, assets, and 
data, limited Arctic domain awareness will remain a challenge. 

Coast Guard Assets and Infrastructure for Arctic Missions Are Limited 
and Not Suitable for the Arctic Environment: 

District 17 officials reported that they do not have the assets to 
effectively conduct their missions in the Arctic. In anticipation of a 
growing demand for a Coast Guard presence in the Arctic, District 17 
has used its temporary Arctic operations as an opportunity to test the 
adequacy of its assets (boats, helicopters, airplanes) in Arctic 
conditions. Coast Guard after-action reports and officials both 
reported several asset challenges: (1) an inadequate portfolio of 
small boats for Arctic operations, (2) an environmental impact on 
helicopters and airplanes, and (3) a lack of cutter resources for 
Arctic patrols. 

Inadequate Portfolio of Small Boats for Arctic Operations: The 
combination of ice floes, steeper waves, and shallow, silt-filled 
water presents an extremely hazardous operating environment for small 
boats in the Arctic. District 17 officials reported that these 
conditions render the agency's current portfolio of small boats 
ineffective for safe operations. Coast Guard officials report that it 
will be difficult for the agency to carry out its statutory missions 
in the Arctic if another small boat option is not identified. Figure 5 
shows a Coast Guard response boat in Arctic waters off of Barrow, 
Alaska. 

Figure 5: A Response Boat in Arctic Waters Off of Barrow, Alaska: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Coast Guard. 

[End of figure] 

Environmental Impact on Helicopters and Airplanes: The unique 
operating conditions in the Arctic--freezing temperatures, snow, and 
ice--make helicopter and airplane missions tenuous. For example, 
during the 2008 summer deployment, the Coast Guard reported that the 
vast distances, icing conditions, and scarcity of aviation fuel on the 
North Slope rendered the Coast Guard's MH-65 helicopter ineffective 
for North Slope operations. Additionally, during the 2009 summer 
deployment, the Coast Guard reported that MH-60 helicopters would need 
to operate in tandem to provide backup self-rescue resources in remote 
areas.[Footnote 46] The Coast Guard reported that while the HC-130 
Hercules airplane is capable of operating in harsh conditions, major 
modifications (e.g., aircraft structures, hydraulic and electrical 
systems, landing gear skis, fuel with a lower freezing point) would be 
required to operate in Arctic conditions throughout the entire year. 

Lack of Cutter Resources for Arctic Patrols: Senior Coast Guard 
officials reported that in fiscal year 2010 the agency has less than 
two major medium endurance or high endurance cutters at a time 
available to cover its statutory missions in all Alaskan waters--an 
area of responsibility equal to the size of the continental United 
States--and that this resource level is inadequate to sustain the 
Coast Guard's current requirements in Alaska, let alone expanded 
Arctic operations.[Footnote 47] Coast Guard officials noted that this 
low level of cutter availability limits the agency to patrols in the 
Bering Sea. Senior Coast Guard officials reported that District 17 has 
seen a year-to-year reduction in the number of large cutters available 
for district operations--from the equivalent of 3.0 cutters on patrol 
at the same time in Alaska in 2005 to 2.0 in 2006, to less than 2.0 
cutters in 2009, to about one cutter programmed to be on patrol at all 
times in Alaska beginning in 2011.[Footnote 48] Senior Coast Guard 
officials also reported that additional cutter time will be needed to 
provide adequate resources for the Coast Guard's Arctic missions, 
especially since the Arctic region is such a remote and challenging 
operating environment. In addition, some Coast Guard officials are 
concerned that the planned replacement of 12 high-endurance cutters 
with 8 new National Security Cutters may exacerbate this challenge, 
though others noted that the proposed Offshore Patrol Cutters may make 
up some of the difference. However, as of July 2010, DHS and the Coast 
Guard were still developing the requirements for the Offshore Patrol 
Cutter and a deployment date has yet to be determined.[Footnote 49] 

Coast Guard officials acknowledge that many of the agency's assets are 
not suitable for the Arctic environment and said they are beginning to 
develop potential solutions. For example, in March 2010, Senior 
District 17 officials sent a memo to Pacific Area Command and Coast 
Guard Headquarters requesting assistance in researching and 
identifying a suitable small boat platform for Arctic operations. The 
memo listed a set of requirements and capabilities including, among 
other things, a jet-driven engine, ability to operate in slush ice and 
8-foot seas, and ability to be transported by an HC-130 aircraft. 
District 17 officials reported in June 2010 that the agency has 
identified a 28-foot boat that may meet some, but not all, of the 
requested parameters for an Arctic boat. District 17 officials also 
reported that they plan to have the prototype of this boat tested 
during the 2010 summer deployment in Kotzebue. However, District 17 
officials stated that this particular boat is not HC-130 compatible, 
and thus is not acceptable for their Arctic needs. 

The Coast Guard Lacks the Infrastructure to Maintain a Consistent 
Presence in the Arctic: 

The Coast Guard lacks the infrastructure to maintain a consistent 
presence in the Arctic. In its 2008 report to Congress, the Coast 
Guard noted that as Arctic activities increase the "United States will 
need a maritime surface and air presence in the Arctic sufficient to 
support appropriate prevention and response regimes as well as 
diplomatic objectives." Especially important to achieving this 
presence is shore-based infrastructure which is essential for Arctic 
operations including, among other things, logistical support for air 
and surface operations, coordination with stakeholders, and improved 
response times. However, the Coast Guard does not have any permanent 
infrastructure in the Arctic.[Footnote 50] For example, the Coast 
Guard has no designated air stations north of Kodiak, Alaska--a city 
948 miles or 8 helicopter flight hours and at least one fuel stop from 
Point Barrow, Alaska under favorable weather conditions. Additionally, 
once on scene in the Arctic, surface and air assets are limited by 
fuel capacity, distance to fuel sources, and crew rest requirements. 
Although there are limited cutter services for small vessels in Nome, 
the closest Coast Guard full-service facility to Barrow is located in 
Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian chain--almost 1,000 miles away. 

In addition to a lack of infrastructure for air and surface assets, 
there is also a lack of housing facilities for Coast Guard personnel. 
For example, during the agency's temporary Arctic operations in the 
summer of 2009 in Prudhoe Bay and Nome, Coast Guard personnel were 
housed in a variety of public and private locations due to a lack of 
facilities. This particular lack of infrastructure also necessitates 
advance planning for any Arctic operations. For example, due to the 
remoteness of the Arctic region, a minimum of 18-24 hours lead time is 
needed to acquire and transport parts, equipment, and material to any 
Coast Guard operating location there. 

Senior District 17 officials reported trying to find interim solutions 
to their infrastructure challenges. For example, to provide better 
response capabilities to remote Bering Sea locations--the hub of 
Alaskan fishing grounds--the Coast Guard deploys aircraft to forward 
operating locations in Cold Bay and St. Paul during the winter. To 
reduce costs for these operating locations, Coast Guard personnel in 
St. Paul have been staying in the Long Range Aids to Navigation 
station--one of the Coast Guard's most isolated and remote duty 
stations which was recently closed. Additionally, the Coast Guard has 
been leasing hangar space in Cold Bay for winter operations and has 
invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade the hangar. 
However, Coast Guard officials reported that both the hangar and 
housing options in Cold Bay remain inadequate. For example, according 
to Coast Guard documentation, the leased hangar in Cold Bay is 
inadequate to house two helicopters due to insufficient space for 
blade clearance, has structural problems, and lacks adequate heating 
for pilots. Also, as a cost savings measure in Cold Bay, two aircrews 
are using a house maintained by Alaska State Troopers. However, 
according to Coast Guard officials, this arrangement does not provide 
adequate lodging or dining facilities and is subject to the 
availability of the house. In an effort to retain Cold Bay as a 
forward operating location, in May 2009, District 17 submitted a 
revised proposal to Headquarters for a more limited, cost-effective 
structure in Cold Bay capable of holding two H-60 helicopters. 
District 17 officials reported in June 2010 that the project was 
endorsed by the Coast Guard Commander for Pacific Area and sent to 
Coast Guard Headquarters for sequential clearance. However, District 
17 officials reported that the earliest the project could begin is 
fiscal year 2012, and only after another fiscal year 2012 project has 
been pulled from the construction calendar. While this would provide a 
solution to infrastructure issues at Cold Bay, this location still 
only allows the Coast Guard to maintain a presence on the periphery of 
the Arctic. 

Coast Guard Personnel Face Challenges Operating in the Arctic Due to 
Limited Training Opportunities: 

The Coast Guard has encountered difficulties allocating its personnel 
and other resources to accomplish all of its diverse missions while 
ensuring that it addresses personnel readiness, qualifications, and 
training requirements.[Footnote 51] This is also the case in the 
Arctic, where the Coast Guard faces challenges ensuring its personnel 
have adequate experience to navigate Arctic conditions. 

The Coast Guard faces diminishing Arctic fleet experience due to 
limited icebreaker resources. A 2007 report from the National Research 
Council stated that new icebreakers would allow "the Coast Guard to 
reestablish an active patrol presence in U.S. waters north of Alaska 
to meet statutory responsibilities that will inevitably derive from 
increased human activity, economic development, and environmental 
change." According to Coast Guard officials, the lack of capable U.S. 
icebreakers combined with the significant role that icebreakers have 
played supporting scientific missions, has limited the experience that 
Coast Guard personnel can gain conducting additional statutory 
missions in the Arctic. For example, the Coast Guard Commandant 
testified on July 16, 2008, that although the Coast Guard was able to 
conduct patrols with the icebreakers in May and June 2008--fisheries 
enforcement and Arctic Domain Awareness--he noted "I wish we could 
have done more. I wish we could have got deeper into the ice and spent 
a longer time there, because these competencies atrophy over time, and 
I am concerned that at a certain point, there won't be a baseline 
level of competency to operate these ships." Coast Guard Headquarters 
officials affirmed this view by stating that one of the key challenges 
facing the Coast Guard in the Arctic is the diminishing fleet 
expertise for operating in Arctic-type conditions. Although there are 
other domestic icebreakers--used primarily for Great Lakes 
icebreaking--due to differences in ice conditions icebreaking aboard 
these vessels does not completely translate to the skill set needed 
for operating in Arctic ice conditions, according to Coast Guard 
program officials. 

The Identification of Detailed Arctic Requirements Will Require 
Further Data and Take Considerable Time, and Funding Is Uncertain: 

As the Coast Guard plans for future Arctic operations, the agency 
faces the challenge of uncertainty over the time frame for the 
environmental and developmental changes taking place in the Arctic as 
well as uncertainty over future funding streams. While scientific 
research has indicated that the Arctic might have ice-diminished 
summers as early as 2040, there will likely continue to be variability 
in the quantity, location, and projections of ice cover, especially 
since recent data show the ice diminishing at a record pace. 
Additionally, there is still a need for more sophisticated Arctic ice 
models from NOAA and other agencies to improve the accuracy of 
predictions of future changes in sea ice. In the absence of a 
scientific consensus on a climate change time line, the Coast Guard 
may find it difficult to determine precisely when and how much to 
invest in an Arctic presence. In addition, the timing of oil and gas 
exploration and development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas could be 
affected by ongoing litigation, the public reaction to the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the current moratorium on 
new drilling permits, among other things. These factors make it 
difficult for the Coast Guard to plan and dedicate the resources 
needed to meet future extraction activities. 

Though various planning efforts are underway, the identification of 
detailed Arctic requirements (numbers and types of assets, dollars, 
and personnel required) will still take considerable time to complete 
and it may be many more years before detailed requirements translate 
into budget requests, congressional appropriations, acquisition 
activity, and, finally, assets and infrastructure that may be needed 
for Arctic operations. For example, the Coast Guard is studying how 
many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, would be needed as 
replacements for Polar Star and Polar Sea.[Footnote 52] However, the 
first replacement polar icebreaker would not enter service for 8 to 10 
years, by which time the Polar Star and Polar Sea would be over 40 
years old--well past their intended service lives. Furthermore, the 
Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that new replacement 
icebreakers could cost between $800 and $925 million each in 2008 
dollars. 

Given the resource-constrained federal budget environment, the Coast 
Guard's planning process, however thorough, to identify Arctic 
requirements will not guarantee that the Coast Guard's identified 
resource needs for the Arctic are met. The Commandant of the Coast 
Guard recognized the economic challenges when he testified in May 2009 
on the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2010 budget request. He acknowledged 
that the Coast Guard could no longer do more with less, and would need 
to prioritize resource allocations, while accepting risk areas where 
resources would be lacking. In July 2009, we reported that while the 
Coast Guard's budget has increased significantly since 2003, the long- 
term budget outlook for the Service is uncertain.[Footnote 53] 
Specifically, administration budget projections indicate that the 
DHS's annual budget is expected to remain constant or decrease over 
the next 10 years. As a result of this budget uncertainty, even if the 
results of the High Latitude Study show the need to increase Arctic 
resources, it may be a significant challenge for the Coast Guard to 
obtain them. 

Coast Guard officials reported that they had gathered information on 
the changing Arctic and are evaluating future Arctic operations in 
order to be informed as they prepare themselves to move forward with 
Arctic plans. For example, Coast Guard officials commented that they 
consult with NOAA--the federal authority on climate change--on climate 
change projections and current weather-related data when projecting 
future Arctic-related plans. Additionally, the Coast Guard's High 
Latitude Study has taken into account the variations in climate change 
projections in the Arctic and will provide the Coast Guard with 
information on how its Arctic investments could change with respect to 
variability in the Arctic climate. The High Latitude Study should also 
help the Coast Guard to support its future funding requests related to 
its Arctic requirements by providing the supporting information 
necessary to validate its budget requests. 

Conclusions: 

Determining a future course of action for Arctic operations presents 
the Coast Guard with significant challenges given the range and 
complexity of factors the agency must navigate in developing its plan. 
Uncertainty about when the Arctic will become navigable, the limited 
information on both current and future Arctic activity, and the 
difficulty of operating in a harsh environment and concerns about 
future funding--all contribute to planning challenges. Though its 
Arctic planning efforts are still formative, the Coast Guard has 
partnered with agencies and organizations that share an interest in 
the Arctic. This has allowed the Coast Guard to leverage resources and 
develop relationships that will likely play a key role as the agency 
develops its operations in this region. However, the Coast Guard's 
success in implementing an Arctic plan also rests in part on how 
successfully it communicates with key stakeholders, especially state 
and local officials, and Alaska Native tribal governments and interest 
groups. Coast Guard officials reported the agency's intent to develop 
a communication strategy to share information with Arctic stakeholders 
once it determined the agency's longer-term plans. Communicating these 
results, once known, is essential and we agree with this intent, but 
also believe it is important for the Coast Guard to begin to 
communicate now with key stakeholders about its ongoing planning 
process and related progress to keep stakeholders engaged in this 
process. We believe it is important in the public sector, and perhaps 
even more so with respect to Arctic issues given the many 
uncertainties, that policy making be transparent regarding the goals 
and outcomes to be achieved as well as the processes used in achieving 
them. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To maintain effective communication and relationships with 
stakeholders central to the Coast Guard's future Arctic operations, we 
recommend that the Commandant of the Coast Guard ensure that the 
agency communicates with these stakeholders on the process and 
progress of its Arctic planning efforts. 

Agency Comments: 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS, DOI, DOC, 
DOD, DOT, NSF, and State. The departments did not provide official 
written comments to include in our report. However, in an e-mail 
received September 9, 2010, the DHS liaison stated that DHS concurred 
with our recommendation. DHS, DOI, DOC, and NSF provided written 
technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as 
appropriate. 

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 of this report 
to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Secretary of Defense, the Acting Director of NSF, 
appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. In 
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web 
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any further questions about this report, please contact me 
at (202) 512-9610 or caldwells@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Stephen L. Caldwell: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our work were to determine the extent to which the 
Coast Guard is: (1) coordinating with stakeholders on Arctic issues 
and operations and what, if any, further opportunities exist to 
enhance coordination; (2) taking action to identify its requirements 
for future Arctic operations; and (3) taking steps to identify and 
mitigate Arctic challenges to meet current and future Arctic 
requirements. 

To gather information for all three of these objectives we interviewed 
public and private sector representatives with operations or interests 
in the Arctic. We interviewed headquarters-based officials at the 
Coast Guard, National Science Foundation, U.S. Arctic Research 
Commission, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce 
regarding the Coast Guard's efforts to prepare for increasing Arctic 
activity. To further understand the Coast Guard's coordination with 
Arctic stakeholders, efforts to identify Arctic requirements, and 
operational challenges in the Arctic, we conducted a site visit to 
Alaska where we interviewed field-based officials from seven federal 
departments and agencies with operations in the Arctic (Coast Guard, 
Department of Defense, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 
Enforcement,[Footnote 54] Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Arctic 
Research Commission, and the Denali Commission[Footnote 55]), three 
Alaska state departments (Fish and Game; Natural Resources; and 
Commerce, Community and Economic Development), one Alaska Native 
interest group (Alaska Native Regional Corporation[Footnote 56]), and 
six private or nonprofit organizations representing various Arctic 
interests including those related to shipping, cruise line activities, 
resource extraction, fishing, and environmental protection. We also 
conducted telephone interviews with representatives from two 
additional Alaska Native interest groups (Alaskan Eskimo Whaling 
Commission, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government), 
the Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Division of Homeland 
Security and Emergency Preparedness, two representatives of Arctic 
local government, a nonprofit environmental protection organization, 
and an international cruise line association. Additionally, the team 
met with representatives of the International Maritime Organization 
(IMO) to discuss the development of Arctic regulations and guidance. 
[Footnote 57] 

To determine the extent to which the Coast Guard is coordinating with 
Arctic stakeholders on Arctic issues and operations and if additional 
coordination opportunities exist, we interviewed the above noted 
stakeholders due to their presence or involvement in the Arctic, 
reported interaction with the Coast Guard, and based on the 
recommendations of other Arctic stakeholders. Since we selected a 
nonprobability sample of Arctic stakeholders, the information obtained 
from these interviews cannot be generalized to all stakeholders but 
does provide for a broad overview of the types of Coast Guard 
coordination taking place on Arctic issues. We also reviewed 
documentation of the Coast Guard's Arctic coordination such as 
memorandums of understanding, Coast Guard records of contact with 
Alaska Native interest groups, and after-action reports. For the Coast 
Guard's interagency coordination on Arctic policy issues we identified 
how, if at all, each effort aligned with key practices we have 
identified for enhancing and sustaining interagency coordination. We 
also reviewed the Coast Guard's interagency coordination efforts 
against criteria in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government related to effective characteristics of program management. 
[Footnote 58] We did not evaluate the effectiveness of each 
interagency coordination effort but simply identified the key 
practices each effort is structured to address. 

To determine the steps that the Coast Guard is taking to identify its 
future Arctic requirements we interviewed headquarters and field-based 
Coast Guard officials. On our site visit to Alaska we met with Coast 
Guard District 17 and Sector Anchorage officials responsible for all 
Coast Guard operations in the state of Alaska.[Footnote 59] During 
this site visit we joined Coast Guard and other officials on a Coast 
Guard Arctic domain awareness flight which provided direct observation 
of how the agency is using one aviation asset to learn more about the 
Arctic environment.[Footnote 60] We also interviewed the above noted 
stakeholders to obtain their views on Coast Guard actions and 
understand the role that other Arctic stakeholders have had in helping 
the Coast Guard determine its Arctic mission requirements. We also 
reviewed Coast Guard documentation of its efforts to plan for 
increased Arctic activity including documents pertaining to the 
agency's High Latitude Study (the Coast Guard's ongoing analysis of 
current and future Arctic mission requirements) and after action-
reports (reports that document an event or exercise to capture 
performance and suggest improvements). We reviewed our prior work on 
key steps and critical practices to implement the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993[Footnote 61] and determined how 
the Coast Guard's preliminary planning efforts align with these. 

To determine the extent to which the Coast Guard is taking steps to 
identify and mitigate Arctic challenges to meet current and future 
Arctic requirements, we interviewed headquarters and field-based Coast 
Guard officials to discuss the Arctic operating environment, 
challenges to the Coast Guard's Arctic activities, and steps being 
taken to mitigate these challenges. On our site visit to Alaska we 
discussed these issues with Coast Guard District 17 and Sector 
Anchorage officials and observed Arctic-related assets and activities 
to further our understanding of the challenges the agency faces. 
Finally, we reviewed Coast Guard documents such as after-action 
reports and reports to Congress as well as research reports from the 
Arctic Council (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment), National 
Academies, Congressional Research Service, and the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, among others, to distill additional 
challenges and factors impacting the Coast Guard's Arctic operations. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to September 
2010 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Examples of State, Local, and Alaska Native Stakeholders 
Operating in the Arctic: 

Table 2 describes key state, local, and Alaska Native stakeholders 
operating in the Arctic. The table provides information on the 
responsibilities of the stakeholders as well as examples of their work 
or locations in the Arctic. This is not an exhaustive list, but the 
table does give a sense of the many stakeholders and layers of 
responsibility that the Coast Guard must coordinate with in the Arctic. 

Table 2: Examples of State, Local, and Alaska Native Stakeholders 
Operating in the Arctic: 

State, local or Alaska Native Arctic stakeholder: State of Alaska; 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game; 
Arctic responsibilities: This department is responsible for 
protecting, maintaining, and improving the fish, game, and aquatic 
plant resources in the state and managing their use and development in 
the best interest of the economy and well-being of the people of the 
state. For example, the department regulates commercial fishing. 

State, local or Alaska Native Arctic stakeholder: State of Alaska; 
Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management; 
Arctic responsibilities: State, local or Alaska Native Arctic 
stakeholder: This department provides critical services to the state 
to protect lives and property from terrorism and all other hazards, as 
well as to provide rapid recovery from all disasters. For example, the 
department tracks emergency planning efforts for Alaskan communities 
including those in the Arctic. 

State, local or Alaska Native Arctic stakeholder: State of Alaska; 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; 
Arctic responsibilities: This department's mission is to conserve, 
improve, and protect Alaska's natural resources and environment and 
control water, land, and air pollution, in order to enhance the 
health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state and their 
overall economic and social well being. For example, the department is 
responsible for mitigating the effects of oil spills and ensuring 
their cleanup in Northern Alaska. 

State, local or Alaska Native Arctic stakeholder: Local government; 
Borough; 
Arctic responsibilities: The state is divided into 17 boroughs which 
function somewhat similarly to counties in other states. For example, 
Alaska's North Slope Borough encompasses 89,000 square miles of Arctic 
territory in northern Alaska. 

State, local or Alaska Native Arctic stakeholder: Alaska Native 
interest groups and governments; Regional and village corporations; 
Arctic responsibilities: The Alaska Native Regional Corporations were 
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 
enacted into law in 1971, which settled land and financial claims made 
by the Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of 13 
regional corporations to administer those claims. For example, the 
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation represents eight Arctic villages 
including Barrow and Point Hope. 

State, local or Alaska Native Arctic stakeholder: Alaska Native 
interest groups and governments; Tribal village governments; 
Arctic responsibilities: At the village level, a federally recognized 
tribal government may coexist with a city government. For example, the 
Arctic village of Barrow has both a city government structure and a 
tribal government structure--the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat 
Traditional Government. In communities with both municipal and tribal 
governments, the state recognizes both as a local government and will 
work with both governments jointly or separately. There are currently 
229 federally recognized tribal governments in Alaska. 

State, local or Alaska Native Arctic stakeholder: Alaska Native 
interest groups and governments; Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and 
Eskimo Walrus Commission; 
Arctic responsibilities: The mission of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
Commission is to safeguard the bowhead whale and its habitat and to 
support the whaling activities and culture of its member communities. 
The Eskimo Walrus Commission represents Alaska's coastal walrus 
hunting communities and is recognized statewide for working on 
resource co-management issues on behalf of Alaska Natives. Both of 
these groups safeguard the essential cultural, natural, and 
subsistence resources that are a significant part of their communities. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Examples of Coast Guard Coordination with Key Federal, 
State, Local, Alaska Native, and Private Sector Stakeholders: 

Table 3 provides information on the key agencies and organizations 
that the Coast Guard coordinates with on Arctic operations. The table 
outlines additional coordination activities between the Coast Guard 
and each agency or organization. This is not an exhaustive list; the 
Coast Guard also coordinates with other agencies. 

Table 3: Examples of Coast Guard Coordination with Key Federal, State, 
Local, Alaska Native, and Private Sector Stakeholders in the Arctic: 

Federal government: 

Stakeholder: Department of Defense (DOD); 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: 
* The Coast Guard coordinates with various DOD entities to conduct 
joint operations and leverage existing resources; 
* For example, the Coast Guard coordinates with: (1) Joint Task Force- 
Alaska in support of a unified approach to the security and defense of 
Alaska; (2) Navy's Meteorological and Oceanographic Command for marine 
weather observation and reporting in the Arctic; (3) Air Force and 
Army components, Alaska Air National Guard and the Alaska Army 
National Guard, coordinate closely with the Coast Guard's command 
centers and aircrews on rescue missions in Alaska; 
* In addition, under a long-standing agreement with the Navy, the 
Coast Guard operates the nation's icebreakers and uses them, when 
requested, to support the Navy. 

Stakeholder: Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA); 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: 
* The Coast Guard coordinates with several NOAA offices to receive 
scientific and technical support for operations in the Arctic. NOAA 
provides meteorological data such as average temperatures and water 
levels, weather forecasts, nautical charts, and global positioning 
system data; 
* During an oil spill, NOAA delivers expert scientific support to the 
Coast Guard in its role as Federal On-Scene Coordinator; 
* NOAA, the U.S. Navy, and the Coast Guard aid the navigation of U.S. 
assets in ice-infested waters through the National Ice Center; 
* The Coast Guard coordinates with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries 
Service to manage and protect fisheries; 
* The National Marine Fisheries Service and Coast Guard District 17 
interact regularly as members of the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council--one of eight regional councils established to oversee 
management of the nation's fisheries; 
* In 2009 the North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended, 
and National Marine Fisheries Service approved, the Arctic Fishery 
Management Plan, which prohibits commercial fishing until sufficient 
information is available to enable a sustainable commercial fishery. 
The Coast Guard is the agency responsible for its enforcement. 

Stakeholder: Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE); 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: 
* BOEMRE and the Coast Guard coordinate on civil penalties, accident 
investigations, and oil spill planning, preparedness, and response; 
* According to BOEMRE officials in Alaska, coordination with the Coast 
Guard takes place: (1) when BOEMRE approves oil companies' contingency 
plans and provides a courtesy copy to the Coast Guard; (2) in field 
demonstrations to verify equipment and issue certifications (i.e., oil 
spill removal organizations, vessels, and mobile offshore drilling 
units) to drilling companies; and (3) for Coast Guard and BOEMRE-
sponsored research on oil spill responses. 

Stakeholder: National Science Foundation (NSF); 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: 
* The Coast Guard coordinates with NSF on the use of polar icebreakers 
in support of enhanced awareness of the Arctic region; 
* In 2005, NSF and the Coast Guard signed a memorandum of agreement 
(superseding their 1999 agreement) for the use of Coast Guard 
icebreakers for science and operational support of programs funded by 
NSF. The agreement was entered into after budget authority for the 
Coast Guard's polar icebreakers was transferred to NSF. 

State, local, and Alaska Native government: 

Stakeholder: State of Alaska; 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: The Coast Guard has 
coordinated with; 
* the Department of Fish and Game through bimonthly teleconferences 
focused on fisheries enforcement; 
* the Alaska Department of Homeland Security through Joint Terrorism 
Task Force meetings; and; 
* the Department of Environmental Conservation through the Alaska 
Statement of Cooperation, a partnership agreement to work 
cooperatively to identify and respond to environmental issues and 
concerns in Alaska. 

Stakeholder: Local government; 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: The Coast Guard has 
coordinated with; 
* the North Slope Borough through annual regional planning meetings to 
discuss Coast Guard's summer operations, among other things; 
* the City of Nome on search and rescue; and; 
* local leaders to arrange Coast Guard boating safety awareness 
training in North Slope villages. 

Stakeholder: Alaska Native governments and interest groups; 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: The Coast Guard has 
coordinated with; 
* the Native village of Kivalina to address coastal erosion issues; 
* the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission to plan Coast Guard activities 
so that subsistence hunting is not interrupted; 
* the Native villages of Unalakleet, Kwigillingok, Koyuk, and Kotzebue 
to maintain buoys that mark the approaches to these native villages; 
* Alaska tribal leaders and senior military leaders by attending the 
annual Tribal-Military Leaders Meeting; and; 
* Tribal leaders in northwest and northern Alaska to discuss the local 
impacts of climate change and resource development. 

Private sector: 

Stakeholder: Private industry (oil/gas, fishing, shipping, cruise 
lines); 
Example of coordination with the Coast Guard: The Coast Guard has 
coordinated with; 
* the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, which provides a forum for 
communication between oil and gas industry and cooperation with 
members, the public, and local, state, and federal government to learn 
about industry plans on the North Slope; 
* the Marine Conservation Alliance, which supports the Alaskan fishing 
industry and those who are directly or indirectly involved in the 
North Pacific (Alaska) fisheries to share information on fishery 
management;
* Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska, which coordinates and advises cruise 
ships on a variety of issues including customs and immigration, 
transporting staff and passengers, and outfitting cruise ships for 
activity in the Arctic; and; 
* other industry representatives, such as Shell Oil Company officials, 
to share information on the location of oil extraction vessels, time 
line of operations, and private search and rescue capabilities. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Select Interagency Coordination Efforts Related to Arctic 
Policy: 

Table 4 provides information on key forums for interagency 
coordination on Arctic policy and the key practices these coordination 
efforts incorporate, which are not discussed in the body of this 
report. 

Table 4: Select Interagency Coordination Efforts Related to Arctic 
Policy: 

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee: 

Lead and key participating agencies: Lead agency: Office of Science 
and Technology Policy; Key participants: National Science Foundation 
(Chair), Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Health and Human 
Services, Homeland Security, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Transportation, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Smithsonian 
Institution, National Endowment for the Humanities; 
Establishment and purpose: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: Established by the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, 
this committee helps set priorities for future Arctic research; 
works with the Arctic Research Commission to develop and establish an 
integrated national Arctic research policy to guide federal agencies; 
develops a 5-year plan to implement the national policy, and updates 
the plan biennially, among other things. On July 22, 2010, President 
Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum that assigns responsibility for 
specific Arctic research activities to the National Science and 
Technology Council. As a result, the Interagency Arctic Research 
Policy Committee will become a subcommittee under the Committee on 
Environment and Natural Resource, which is one of the four primary 
National Science and Technology Council committees; 
Example actions or accomplishments: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: In April 2007 this committee compiled member agency 
information about the Arctic environment in a report, Arctic Observing 
Network: Toward a US Contribution to Pan-Arctic Observing. The report 
pinpoints where and how the different federal agencies are collecting 
environmental data in the Arctic; 
Key interagency coordination practices incorporated: Interagency 
Arctic Research Policy Committee: Define and articulate a common 
outcome; establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; agree on 
roles and responsibilities; and establish means of operating across 
agency boundaries. 

U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task Force: 

Lead and key participating agencies: Lead agency: State Department; 
Key participants: NOAA and the Department of the Interior (co-vice 
chairs); the U.S. Geological Survey, the Executive Office of the 
President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Energy, 
National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Regulation, and Enforcement, and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission; 
Establishment and purpose: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: In April 2007, the White House's Interagency Committee on 
Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration established the 
Extended Continental Shelf Task Force. The task force coordinates the 
collection and analysis of relevant data and prepares the necessary 
documentation to establish the limits of the U.S. continental shelf in 
accordance with international law. The Coast Guard conducts data-
gathering cruises in the Arctic and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, in collaboration with other partners, uses the data to 
map the ocean floor; 
Example actions or accomplishments: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: The Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration have collected data from cruises in the Arctic Ocean in 
2003, 2004, and 2007 to 2009. The 2009 U.S. - Canada Arctic 
Continental Shelf Survey mission was a 41-day mission involving Coast 
Guard and Canadian icebreakers to collect scientific data about the 
extended continental shelf and Arctic seafloor. The two nations plan 
to work together again in the summer of 2010; 
Key interagency coordination practices incorporated: Interagency 
Arctic Research Policy Committee: Define and articulate a common 
outcome; establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; agree on 
roles and responsibilities; and establish means of operating across 
agency boundaries. 

Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS): 

Lead and key participating agencies: Lead agency: Department of 
Transportation; Key participants: Approximately 25 federal agencies 
including the Coast Guard; State; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Maritime 
Administration; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of 
Interior; Federal Maritime Commission; Department of Energy; 
Office of Management and Budget; Office of Science and Technology 
Policy; Council on Environmental Quality; and National Security 
Council; 
Establishment and purpose: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: This committee was established as the result of a directive 
in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, issued December 17, 2004. Effective 
August 2005, the CMTS's mission is to ensure the development and 
implementation of national Marine Transportation System policies 
consistent with national needs and to report to the President its 
views and recommendations for improving the system; 
Example actions or accomplishments: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: The CMTS Coordinating Board approved the development of a 
U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation Integrated Action Team, co-chaired 
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Maritime 
Administration, in January 2010 to facilitate cross-federal agency 
coordination to strengthen the marine transportation system in the 
U.S. Arctic region, in the areas of safety, security, reliability, and 
economic and environmental sustainability of the system. The 
Integrated Action Team drafted a work plan which included the 
completion of an inventory and gap analysis of federal agencies' 
Marine Transportation System-related activities in the Arctic; 
Key interagency coordination practices incorporated: Interagency 
Arctic Research Policy Committee: Define and articulate a common 
outcome; establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; agree on 
roles and responsibilities; establish means of operating across agency 
boundaries; develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on 
results; and reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts 
through agency plans and reports. 

Arctic Policy Group: 

Lead and key participating agencies: Lead agency: State Department; 
Key participants: Departments of the Interior, Energy, Commerce 
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Transportation 
(Federal Aviation Administration), and Homeland Security (Coast 
Guard), Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, 
U.S. Arctic Research Commission, and the State of Alaska; 
Establishment and purpose: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: Established in 1971, the Arctic Policy Group coordinates 
U.S. positions on international Arctic issues and, as such, leads U.S. 
participation in the Arctic Council; 
Example actions or accomplishments: Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee: The Arctic Policy Group meets once a month to discuss 
Arctic Council issues as well as other Arctic issues; 
Key interagency coordination practices incorporated: Interagency 
Arctic Research Policy Committee: Define and articulate a common 
outcome; establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; 
agree on roles and responsibilities; and establish means of operating 
across agency boundaries. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Coast Guard's Routine Arctic Operations That Also Inform 
Future Requirements: 

This appendix provides additional information on some of the Coast 
Guard's routine Arctic operations--icebreaking missions, search and 
rescue cases, marine environmental protection responses, and Aids to 
Navigation maintenance--that provide further insight into the agency's 
future Arctic requirements. For example: 

Ice Operations: The mission of the Coast Guard's polar icebreakers--
the Polar Sea, Polar Star, and the Healy--is to conduct and support 
scientific research, defend U.S. sovereignty and other U.S. interests 
in Polar regions, monitor sea traffic in the Arctic, and conduct other 
Coast Guard missions such as search and rescue. However, for many 
years these polar icebreakers have spent most of their time conducting 
and supporting scientific research. These research activities have 
resulted in greater insight on climate change, ocean floor mapping, 
and other data which Coast Guard officials report are helping to 
inform their Arctic requirements.[Footnote 62] For example, Coast 
Guard icebreakers collect real-time satellite imagery, which 
researchers from the international Arctic research community use to 
investigate the effects of climate change and ice conditions. In 
another example, as mentioned previously, over the past 3 years the 
Coast Guard has carried out joint scientific cruises with the Canadian 
Coast Guard to map portions of the Arctic Ocean floor and prepare both 
nations for potential extended Exclusive Economic Zone claims in the 
region. 

Coast Guard officials note that the broadening scope of U.S. interests 
in the Arctic may shift heavy icebreaker utilization from a scientific 
support focus to a more multimission role to align with these 
broadening interests. Coast Guard officials also reported that an 
expansion of the demands on the Coast Guard's polar icebreakers may 
exacerbate some of the agency's existing icebreaking resource 
challenges. For example, Coast Guard officials reported challenges 
fulfilling the agency's statutory icebreaking mission, let alone its 
standing commitment to use the icebreakers to support the Navy as 
needed, because (1) the budget and schedule for icebreaker operation 
has in recent years been managed by the National Science Foundation, 
(2) there is a limited number of U.S. polar icebreakers, and (3) two 
of the three Coast Guard icebreakers are currently experiencing 
operational problems. The Polar Star has not been in operational 
condition since July 2006 and is currently undergoing a 30-month $62.8 
million rehabilitation to extend its service life by approximately 7 
to 10 years.[Footnote 63] According to the Coast Guard, the Polar Star 
will not be operational for deployment until 2013. In addition, in 
June 2010 the Coast Guard announced that the Polar Sea had engine 
problems and would be unavailable for operation until at least January 
2011. The Coast Guard has estimated that a new replacement icebreaker 
could cost between $800 million and $925 million (in 2008 dollars) and 
require around 10 years to design, award, and build. 

Search and Rescue: Coast Guard officials reported that their 
experience deploying assets to respond to search and rescue incidents 
above the Arctic Circle highlighted the asset and personnel 
requirements for operating in this harsh region. For example, Coast 
Guard officials reported having minimal search and rescue capacity 
above the Arctic Circle. The agency's closest aviation assets are in 
Kodiak, Alaska, over 800 miles or about 8 hours helicopter flight time 
away from the North Slope--too far away to be useful in an urgent life 
or death situation. 

In addition, due to the Coast Guard's limited assets above the Arctic 
Circle the agency sometimes relies on third party responders. For 
example, in July 2007 a Shell Oil Company helicopter and Canadian 
Coast Guard cutter assisted a 20-foot skiff near Barrow, Alaska and in 
September 2009 an Alaska Clean Seas vessel evacuated a medical patient 
from a cruise ship near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.[Footnote 64] Coast Guard 
officials report that although the number of search and rescue cases 
above the Arctic Circle has been relatively low, these experiences 
provided valuable information on Coast Guard and third party search 
and rescue assets and capabilities in the Arctic which helps them to 
determine future needs in the region. Coast Guard officials expect 
that the demand for search and rescue will grow with increasing Arctic 
maritime traffic. 

Marine Environmental Protection: Coast Guard officials report that as 
of July 2010 the agency has not had to respond to any oil or hazmat 
spills in waters above the Arctic Circle, but the agency's experience 
responding to incidents in more southern Arctic waters has provided 
insight into the agency's future Arctic requirements. For example, 
Coast Guard officials explained that their response to the December 
2004 grounding of a 738-foot freighter--the Selendang Ayu--highlighted 
the logistical challenges of getting personnel and assets on scene in 
an area with limited infrastructure.[Footnote 65] Figure 6 shows the 
view from an overflight to search for possible spilled oil after the 
vessel broke in two. According to Coast Guard officials, this incident 
created the second largest oil spill in Alaskan history. Coast Guard 
officials stressed that a response to a similar incident above the 
Arctic Circle would be even more difficult due to the limited 
infrastructure--hangars, ports, communications systems, berthing--and 
minimal Coast Guard assets operating in the remote Arctic regions. The 
former Coast Guard District Commander in Alaska stressed that as 
commercial vessel and barge traffic grows in northern and western 
Alaska, the Bering Strait will become the newest chokepoint on the 
planet and each large vessel will pose a "Selendang" risk to the U.S. 
Arctic. 

Figure 6: The Grounding of the Vessel Selendang Ayu in the Aleutian 
Chain: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, the Coast Guard's current District Commander in Alaska 
told us that responding to a large oil spill in the Arctic caused by 
an incident such as a vessel collision in the Bering Strait was one of 
his biggest Arctic concerns and the former Commandant of the Coast 
Guard has also publicly commented on the agency's limited response 
resources and capabilities to address a major spill in the Arctic 
Ocean. Recognizing these limitations, Coast Guard District 17 and 
Sector Anchorage plan to conduct an Ecological Risk Assessment--a 
consensus building exercise for federal, state, local and tribal 
responders to evaluate the relative harm of oil spill clean-up 
strategies on the marine and human environment--along a stretch of 
Arctic coastline near Kivalina beginning in winter of 2010.[Footnote 
66] Once complete, the assessment data will be available for refining 
existing oil spill contingency plans. 

Another effort which provided insight into the Coast Guard's future 
Arctic requirements with regard to oil spills was a March 2010 
tabletop exercise involving federal, state, tribal, and local leaders 
in the United States and Canada, including the U.S. and Canadian Coast 
Guards. As mentioned previously, the 2010 CANUSNORTH tabletop exercise 
was a 2-day event to practice a joint response to an oil spill on the 
U.S.-Canada border in the Arctic. The exercise's objective was to 
raise awareness of the challenges associated with an oil spill 
response in the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Arctic region and to improve 
joint response operations between the United States, Canada, and 
regional stakeholders. The after-action report for this exercise 
identified both strengths and areas for improvement such as the need 
to learn more about waste disposal methods in the Arctic and the need 
to verify the usability of existing dormant runways along the North 
Slope region. 

The Coast Guard and others have limited scientific information on how 
oil behaves in icy environments but several research efforts are 
underway which may help inform the Coast Guard's Arctic requirements. 
Officials from the Coast Guard, NOAA, and other agencies have noted 
the general lack of information on how oil behaves in icy 
environments, which is important for conducting injury assessments and 
developing response and restoration strategies. Coast Guard and NOAA 
officials told us that the most prominent research on the properties 
of spilled oil in icy water and the effectiveness of potential 
response techniques has been conducted by a joint industry program 
coordinated by the Norwegian research company SINTEF. The SINTEF 
researchers obtained permission from the Norwegian government to put 
actual crude oil into the sea in carefully controlled conditions, thus 
enabling the testing of oil behavior and cleanup effectiveness in ice 
conditions closely similar to those that might be encountered in an 
Arctic oil spill emergency. According to Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, Regulation, and Enforcement officials, their Technology 
Research Assessment Program funds and conducts state-of-the-art cold-
water spill response research in collaboration with the Coast Guard, 
SINTEF, and others. In addition, Coast Guard officials report that the 
agency's Research and Development Center has an ongoing project to 
develop oil-in-ice response technology.[Footnote 67] Coast Guard 
officials stated that the Norwegian research and other oil-in-ice 
research efforts improve their understanding of the agency's future 
Arctic requirements for marine environmental protection. 

Aids to Navigation: The Coast Guard reports that it currently 
maintains 37 Aids to Navigation--such as buoys, lights, and signs--
along the Western coast of Alaska and plans to reestablish its only 
Aid to Navigation above the Arctic Circle in August 2010.[Footnote 68] 
Coast Guard officials have learned from their experience maintaining 
Aids to Navigation in Alaska that Arctic ice conditions complicate the 
deployment of aids; there is a lack of basic data to inform aid 
placement and heavy ice conditions make it difficult to keep water- 
based aids in fixed position. Coast Guard officials reported that due 
to these difficulties, all Aids to Navigation in the region are land- 
based and the agency would need to invest more resources--time, 
cutters, and money--to maintain floating Aids to Navigation in the 
Arctic. District 17 officials reported that water-based Aids to 
Navigation are needed because the waters immediately offshore the 
Arctic coast are typically very shallow and marine traffic often needs 
to remain 8-10 nautical miles (or farther) offshore. According to 
Coast Guard officials, at this distance, a typical land-based Aids to 
Navigation is not visible. In 2008 and 2009 the Coast Guard conducted 
waterways analysis trips to the Arctic to determine current and future 
Aids to Navigation needs in some parts of the Arctic.[Footnote 69] 
Coast Guard personnel have also interviewed regional experts to 
determine hazards, needs, and typical waterways to inform their 
decisions about which areas need greater attention, new aids, or both. 
Coast Guard District 17 officials described the need to deploy 
seasonal Aids to Navigation infrastructure; research technical 
solutions to power unmanned lighted Aids to Navigation in Arctic 
regions; develop competency in servicing non-solar-powered aids; 
develop skills in designing, constructing, and maintaining year-round 
aids in the shallow water off Alaska's North Slope; and work with the 
International Maritime Organization to establish a Bering Strait 
traffic management scheme.[Footnote 70] According to Coast Guard 
officials, an increase in Arctic vessel traffic may increase the 
importance of Aids to Navigation to prevent disasters, collisions, and 
wrecks in the region. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Stephen L. Caldwell, (202) 512-9610 or caldwells@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact above, Dawn Hoff, Assistant Director; Dan 
Klabunde, Analyst-in-Charge; Sylvia Bascopé; Claudia Becker; Geoff 
Hamilton; Amanda Miller; Jessica Orr; and Steven Putansu made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected Complex 
Acquisitions. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-588SP]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010. 

Coast Guard: Service Has Taken Steps to Address Historic Personnel 
Problems, but It Is too Soon to Assess the Impact of These Efforts. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R]. Washington, 
D.C.: January 29, 2010. 

Coast Guard, Better Logistics Planning Needed to Aid Operational 
Decisions Related to the Deployment of the National Security Cutter 
and Its Support Assets. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-947]. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 
2009. 

Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and Related 
Performance and Management Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-810T]. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 
2009. 

Maritime Security: Vessel Tracking Systems Provide Key Information, 
but the Need for Duplicate Data Should Be Reviewed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-337]. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 
2009. 

Maritime Security: National Strategy and Supporting Plans Were 
Generally Well-Developed and Are Being Implemented. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-672]. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 
2008. 

Coast Guard: Condition of Some Aids-to-Navigation and Domestic 
Icebreaking Vessels Has Declined; Effect on Mission Performance 
Appears Mixed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-979]. 
Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2006. 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 
2005. 

Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and Transformation: Lessons Learned 
for a Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal Agencies. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-293SP]. Washington, 
D.C.: November 14. 2002. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999. 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 
and Results Act. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118]. Washington, D.C.: June 
1996. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3049, "Circum-Arctic 
Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the 
Arctic Circle" (July 23, 2008). 

[2] All Arctic stakeholders do not define the Arctic geographical area 
the same way. Federal law relating to Arctic research, for example, 
defines the Arctic as all U.S and foreign territory north of the 
Arctic Circle and all U.S. territory north and west of the boundary 
formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwin Rivers [in Alaska]; all 
contiguous seas including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, 
and Chuchki Seas; and the Aleutian Chain. Pub. L. No. 98-373, 98 Stat. 
1248 (1984). For the purposes of this report, we are limiting our 
analysis to a more specific definition of the Arctic-the more remote 
region above the Arctic Circle. 

[3] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[4] Coast Guard Sectors run all missions at the local and port level, 
such as search and rescue, port security, environmental protection, 
and law enforcement in ports and surrounding waters, and oversee a 
number of smaller Coast Guard units, including small cutters, small 
boat stations, and Aids to Navigation teams. Coast Guard Districts 
oversee Sectors, other Coast Guard units, such as Air Stations, and 
major buoy tenders, among other assets. Sector Anchorage has the 
largest geographical area of responsibility in the nation, which 
includes the North Slope, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Bristol Bay (with 
the world's largest run of sockeye salmon), Kodiak Island, Kenai 
Peninsula, and the Aleutian Islands. 

[5] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

[6] The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the 
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the 
University of Colorado at Boulder. NSIDC supports research into our 
world's frozen realms: the snow, ice, glaciers, frozen ground, and 
climate interactions that make up Earth's cryosphere. NSIDC manages 
and distributes scientific data, creates tools for data access, 
supports data users, performs scientific research, and educates the 
public about the cryosphere. 

[7] A Joint Coast Guard /U.S. Navy Statement on Arctic ice terminology 
supports usage of the term "ice diminished" rather than "ice free" 
because both agencies recognize that the region will continue to 
remain ice-covered during the wintertime through the end of this 
century and the current and projected decline in Arctic sea ice is 
highly variable from year to year. 

[8] The Department of Interior announced on May 27, 2010, that 
applications for permits to drill Shell's 5 wells will not be 
considered until 2011 because of the need for further information- 
gathering, evaluation of proposed drilling technology, and evaluation 
of oil spill response capabilities for Arctic waters. 

[9] This decision was contained in a final rule that implements the 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Fish Resources of the Arctic 
Management Area and Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. The Arctic FMP and 
Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP establish sustainable management of 
commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area and move the northern 
boundary of the Crab FMP out of the Arctic Management Area south to 
the Bering Strait. 74 Fed. Reg. 56,734 (2009) (effective Dec. 3, 2009). 

[10] Under UNCLOS, an EEZ is a maritime zone beyond and adjacent to 
the territorial sea that may not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from 
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is 
measured. Within the EEZ, the coastal state has sovereign rights for 
the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural 
resources, both living and nonliving, of the seabed, subsoil, and the 
superjacent waters and, with regard to other activities, for the 
economic exploitation and exploration of the zone (e.g., the 
production of energy from the water, currents, and winds). 

[11] The Ottawa Declaration of 1996 formally established the Arctic 
Council as a high-level intergovernmental forum. The Ottawa 
Declaration was a political declaration signed in Ottawa by 
representatives of the governments of Canada, Denmark (including 
Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian 
Federation, Sweden, and the United States. 

[12] The IMO is a United Nations specialized agency with 
responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the 
prevention of marine pollution by ships. 

[13] The directive spells out six policy objectives: (1) meet national 
security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region; 
(2) protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological 
resources; (3) ensure that natural resource management and economic 
development in the region are environmentally sustainable; (4) 
strengthen institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic 
nations; (5) involve the Arctic's indigenous communities in decisions 
that affect them; and (6) enhance scientific monitoring and research 
into local, regional, and global environmental issues. 

[14] On March 1, 2010, DHS published A Plan to Develop a Tribal 
Consultation and Coordination Policy Implementing Executive Order 
13175, which recognizes that to increase internal communication and 
collaboration, it is imperative that DHS have staff dedicated to 
working with, and improving, relations with the 229 federally 
recognized tribes in Alaska. 

[15] The Coast Guard's 11 statutory missions are (1) ports, waterways, 
and coastal security; (2) migrant interdiction; (3) defense readiness; 
(4) drug interdiction; (5) other law enforcement; (6) search and 
rescue; (7) living marine resources; (8) Aids to Navigation; (9) ice 
operations; (10) marine environmental protection; and (11) marine 
safety. 

[16] In December 2002, the IMO issued a set of voluntary guidelines 
for ships operating in Arctic ice-covered waters. The guidelines apply 
to passenger and cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage or more engaged in 
international voyages. They do not apply to fishing vessels, military 
vessels, pleasure yachts, and smaller cargo ships. The guidelines are 
intended to promote safety and prevent pollution in the Arctic, and 
they include provisions on ship construction, ship equipment related 
to navigation, crew training, and operation of the ship. For example, 
the guidelines require ships to carry fully enclosed lifeboats or to 
carry tarpaulins to cover their lifeboats and require the crew to 
include at least one ice navigator with documented evidence of having 
completed an ice navigation training program. The guidelines are 
currently being updated with a targeted completion date in 2010 though 
they would likely not be adopted until 2012. 

[17] The Arctic Council's Search and Rescue Task Force was formed in 
April 2009 with a mandate to develop a SAR agreement for the Arctic 
and has been asked to finalize the agreement in time to be presented 
for adoption by the Arctic Council at its Ministerial meeting in 
spring 2011. 

[18] Since 2003, the United States has been gathering and analyzing 
seismic and bathymetric data to determine its extended continental 
shelf. Bathymetric data provide a three-dimensional map of the ocean 
floor. Seismic data provide a cross-section view of what is beneath 
the ocean floor. From that cross-view, scientists can derive 
information on the depth, thickness, geometry, and other 
characteristics of the geological layers stacked on top of one another. 

[19] More specifically, the Coast Guard has a long-standing 
relationship with the Northeast Border Guard Directorate of the 
Federal Security Service of Russia--a Russian counterpart to the Coast 
Guard--which is tasked with guaranteeing the safety of marine routes 
and coastal waters of the Russian Federation. 

[20] NOAA, Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force, and the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration signed a Memorandum of Agreement, Interagency 
Memorandum of Agreement for the United States Satellite-Aided Search 
and Rescue System, effective as of February 25, 2010. The memorandum 
supersedes agreements signed in 1998 and 2003. 

[21] The operation and maintenance of Coast Guard icebreakers was 
funded through NSF's budget in fiscal years 2006 through 2009, which, 
according to Coast Guard officials, presented challenges to 
maintaining the polar icebreaker fleet and ensuring Coast Guard crews 
are properly trained. Fiscal year 2010 appropriations (Pub. L. No. 111-
117, 123 Stat. 30304, 3145 (2009)), however, directed the transfer of 
the $54 million icebreaker budget from NSF to the Coast Guard and a 
new agreement governing the relationship between the Coast Guard and 
NSF temporarily supersedes their 2005 agreement. In addition, the DHS 
Office of Inspector General is currently assessing the Coast Guard's 
need for heavy-duty icebreakers to accomplish its missions. 

[22] See GAO, Results-oriented Government: Practices That Can Help 
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[23] Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps, A Cooperative 
Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (October 2007). Additionally, the 
implementation document for this strategy--Naval Operations Strategy 
2010: Implementing the Maritime Strategy--was released in April 2010 
and discusses strategy and resource needs in the Arctic. 

[24] For more on the National Strategy for Maritime Security see GAO, 
Maritime Security: National Strategy and Supporting Plans Were 
Generally Well-Developed and Are Being Implemented, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-672] (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 
2008). 

[25] The 1965 U.S. Navy-U.S. Treasury Memorandum of Agreement was 
executed to permit consolidation of the icebreaker fleet under one 
agency. That rationale was reinforced by a 1982 Roles and Missions 
Study which stated that polar icebreakers should be centrally managed 
by one agency and that the Coast Guard was the appropriate one due to 
the multimission nature of polar ice operations. This memorandum of 
agreement was updated in 2008. The signatories were DOD and DHS and 
the agreement included an update on responsibilities for coastal 
security. 

[26] Local government officials we interviewed were either borough or 
city government officials. Alaska's constitution and state laws allow 
for several types of regional and local government units--such as 
boroughs, which are units of government that are similar to the 
counties found in many other states. About one-third of Alaska is made 
up of 16 organized boroughs. The remaining two-thirds of the state is 
sparsely populated land that is considered a single "unorganized 
borough." 

[27] For the purposes of this report, Alaska Native interest groups 
include Alaska Native Tribal councils, regional and village 
corporations, as well as other Alaska Native organizations. 

[28] AIS equipment transmits information such as the name of the 
vessel, its position, speed, course, and destination to receivers 
within range of its broadcast, allowing AIS-equipped vessels to be 
tracked when they are operating in coastal areas, inland waterways, 
and ports. Receivers may be installed on other vessels, land stations, 
or other locations. Coast Guard personnel can monitor screens 
transmitting information on the tracked vessels. The Marine Exchange 
of Alaska operates a network of AIS receivers throughout Alaska to 
capture vessel transmissions (name, position, course, speed, etc) for 
the purposes of tracking the vessels operating in and around Alaska's 
waterways, including the Arctic region. 

[29] GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and Transformation: 
Lessons Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and Other 
Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-293SP] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14. 
2002). 

[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[31] The explanatory statement accompanying the DHS fiscal year 2008 
appropriations directed the Coast Guard to submit a report that 
assesses the Coast Guard's Arctic mission capability and an analysis 
of the effect a changing environment may have on the current and 
projected polar operations, including any additional resources in the 
form of personnel, equipment, and vessels. In response, the Coast 
Guard produced a December 2008 "Report to Congress: U.S. Coast Guard 
Polar Operations." This report provided an overview of the Arctic and 
Antarctic operating environments and Coast Guard's current 
capabilities, and described a proposed High Latitude Study to fully 
determine the scope of mission requirements. Then, in the president's 
fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Coast Guard requested and a House 
report accompanying the DHS fiscal year 2009 appropriations directed 
$200,000 for this study. Most recently, the conference report 
accompanying the DHS fiscal year 2010 appropriations directed the 
agency to continue its analysis of national mission needs in the high 
latitude regions to inform national polar policy. 

[32] A mission analysis report is the first step in a major system 
acquisition continuum. According to the Coast Guard's Major Systems 
Acquisition Manual, a mission analysis report is a collection, cross 
analysis, and documentation of numerous feeder studies and analyses 
that look across a number of different mission areas. The mission 
analysis report is not intended to be an asset-oriented analysis. The 
mission analysis report has two parts--part 1 lays out the assessment 
of a deficiency in functional capability which will prevent the Coast 
Guard from adequately conducting missions now or in the future, and 
part 2 provides justification and preliminary options for satisfying 
mission capability gaps. 

[33] The definition of the Arctic used in the High Latitude Study is 
the federal definition established by the Arctic Research and Policy 
Act of 1984. 

[34] The Coast Guard expects the fleet mix analysis to assist in 
determining capability-capacity-performance sensitivities and serve as 
one tool, among many, in making future capability requirements 
determinations, including future fleet mix decisions. According to 
Coast Guard officials, the agency plans to update this fleet mix 
analysis every 4 years and use it as a basis to update the numbers and 
types of assets needed for the Deepwater program. The Deepwater 
Program--the largest acquisition program in the Coast Guard's history-
-began in the late 1990s as an effort to recapitalize the Coast 
Guard's operational fleet. The program now includes projects to build 
or modernize five classes each of ships and aircraft, and procurement 
of other capabilities. 

[35] Small response boats are 25-feet long and capable of fast and 
high-speed maneuvering tactics. The MH-65 is the Coast Guard's main 
helicopter and used in search and rescue, drug interdiction, and 
homeland security missions. According to the Coast Guard, the MH-65 is 
capable of operating in the polar environment but requires a heated 
hangar for storage and maintenance between flights. It must also avoid 
operating in conditions of visible moisture that will cause ice to 
form on the aircraft and avoid temperatures below -13 degrees 
Fahrenheit. The Arctic limitations of these assets are discussed later 
in this report. 

[36] The HC-130 Hercules is a long-range surveillance and transport, 
fixed-wing aircraft that is used to perform a wide variety of missions. 

[37] While Arctic domain awareness flights contribute to the Coast 
Guard's awareness of vessel traffic in the Arctic, the agency is also 
in the process of acquiring more AIS real-time vessel traffic data in 
the Arctic. According to officials at the Marine Exchange of Alaska, a 
nonprofit which sells AIS data to the Coast Guard, AIS may provide 
cheaper and more comprehensive vessel tracking data than Arctic domain 
awareness flights. However, Coast Guard officials told us that AIS is 
not a panacea as (1) only vessels weighing over 300 tons are required 
to have AIS on board and (2) vessels that do not want to be detected 
are unlikely to comply with the AIS requirement or may spoof another 
ship's AIS signal. For more on this see GAO, Maritime Security: Vessel 
Tracking Systems Provide Key Information, but the Need for Duplicate 
Data Should Be Reviewed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-337] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 
2009). 

[38] The Coast Guard has partnered with NOAA to track methane and 
carbon dioxide emissions over Alaska using instruments on Coast 
Guard's HC-130 aircraft during Arctic domain awareness flights. 

[39] The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is the primary 
legislative framework through which agencies are required to set 
strategic goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to 
which goals were met. 

[40] See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 
1996). 

[41] The process of achieving maritime domain awareness includes: (1) 
collection of information, (2) fusion of information from different 
sources, (3) analysis through the evaluation and interpretation of 
information, and (4) dissemination of information to decision makers, 
with the goal of identifying risks and threats before they turn into 
catastrophic events. 

[42] See Report to Congress: U.S. Coast Guard Polar Operations 
(December 2008). 

[43] A Coast Guard official explained that this is due to magnetic 
interference at high latitudes and noted that satellite communications 
using UHF bandwidth or line-of-sight radio frequencies (VHF-FM/AM) are 
not similarly affected. 

[44] Rescue 21 is designed to improve the Coast Guard's ability to 
execute all missions in the coastal zone, and, according to the Coast 
Guard, is essential to its search and rescue mission. The Coast Guard 
is deploying Rescue 21 to locations across the United States. See GAO, 
Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected Complex 
Acquisitions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-588SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010). 

[45] The Alaska Joint Terrorism Task Force is comprised of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and 14 core agencies, which conduct 
counterterrorism investigations and intelligence collection, analysis, 
and dissemination throughout Alaska; prepare for special events 
management; and conduct crisis management. 

[46] The MH-60 is the Coast Guard's medium-range recovery helicopter. 

[47] The 378-foot High Endurance Cutter class are the largest cutters 
ever built for the Coast Guard. Equipped with a helicopter flight 
deck, retractable hangar, and the facilities to support helicopter 
deployment, the High Endurance Cutter is versatile and capable of 
performing a variety of missions, and operates throughout the world's 
oceans. Medium Endurance Cutters are helicopter-capable medium-range, 
medium-endurance platforms. 

[48] Under Coast Guard scheduling policy, a 1.0 allocation equates to 
a full year of scheduled cutter days. A 2.0 allocation means two 
cutters are always scheduled to be on patrol. Cutters deploy from 
Kodiak, Ketchikan, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, and Hawaii. Lost 
cutter days occur when cutters are unable to deploy due to engineering 
difficulties, maintenance that exceeded planned days, or unexpected 
extensions for the cutter(s) on patrol, among other things. 

[49] The National Security Cutter is the largest and most technically 
advanced class of cutter in the Coast Guard, with capabilities for 
maritime homeland security, law enforcement, and national defense 
missions. As we previously reported in 2009 [GAO, Coast Guard, Better 
Logistics Planning Needed to Aid Operational Decisions Related to the 
Deployment of the National Security Cutter and Its Support Assets, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-947] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 17, 2009)], as a result of the increased capabilities of the 
National Security Cutters, the Coast Guard plans to replace 12 of the 
aging 378' High Endurance cutters that have been in service since the 
1960s, with 8 National Security Cutters--however, only 5 National 
Security Cutters have been funded to date. The Offshore Patrol Cutter 
will complement the Coast Guard's legacy fleet and next-generation 
cutters to extend operational capabilities across the mission spectrum. 

[50] The problem of infrastructure in the Arctic is not limited to the 
Coast Guard. Senior Coast Guard officials noted that the Arctic in 
general has limited infrastructure and almost no federal capacity. 

[51] For more on this see GAO, Coast Guard: Service Has Taken Steps to 
Address Historic Personnel Problems, but It Is too Soon to Assess the 
Impact of These Efforts [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 
2010). 

[52] In addition, the DHS Office of Inspector General is currently 
assessing the Coast Guard's need for heavy-duty icebreakers to 
accomplish its missions. 

[53] See GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget 
and Related Performance and Management Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-810T] (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 
2009). 

[54] Secretarial Order 3302, issued June 18, 2010 renamed the Mineral 
Management Service to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Regulation and Enforcement. The change was effective immediately. 

[55] Introduced by Congress in 1998, the Denali Commission is an 
independent federal agency designed to provide critical utilities, 
infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. With the 
creation of the Denali Commission, Congress acknowledged the need for 
increased interagency cooperation and focus on Alaska's remote 
communities. 

[56] Village and regional 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). 

[57] The IMO is an organization of 160 member countries with observers 
from governmental, industry, environmental, public interest, and labor 
organizations that is concerned with the safety of shipping and 
cleaner oceans. To achieve its objectives, the IMO has promoted the 
adoption of some 30 conventions and protocols, and has adopted well 
over 700 codes and recommendations concerning maritime safety, the 
prevention of pollution, and related matters. 

[58] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[59] Coast Guard Sectors run all missions at the local and port level, 
such as search and rescue, port security, environmental protection, 
and law enforcement in ports and surrounding waters, and oversee a 
number of smaller Coast Guard units, including small cutters, small 
boat stations, and Aids to Navigation teams. Coast Guard Districts 
oversee Sectors, other Coast Guard units, such as Air Stations, and 
major buoy tenders, among other assets. Sector Anchorage has the 
largest geographical Area of Responsibility in the nation, which 
includes the North Slope, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Bristol Bay, Kodiak 
Island, Kenai Peninsula, and the Aleutian Islands. 

[60] Arctic domain awareness flights provide visibility on seasonal 
mining operations and coastal erosion while supporting the Coast 
Guard's homeland security mission, maritime domain awareness, and 
scientific research. 

[61] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

[62] The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General 
is currently assessing the Coast Guard's need for heavy-duty 
icebreakers to accomplish its missions. 

[63] Congressional direction accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 
2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142 (2009) specified that of 
additional funding provided, that $5.2 million is funded in the AC&I 
direct personnel costs, PPA (program, project, and activity), and 
within that amount, the Coast Guard shall begin survey and design and 
conduct a business case analysis for either a new heavy polar 
icebreaker class or a major life extension project for existing heavy 
icebreakers (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 111-298, at 89 (2009) incorporating 
direction specified in Senate Report No. 111-31, at 78 (2009)). 

[64] Alaska Clean Seas is a non-profit cooperative that provides 
response services to numerous other oil and gas companies on Alaska's 
North Slope. 

[65] The Selendang Ayu ran aground off of Unalaska Island in the 
Aleutian Chain, broke in two, and spilled its cargo of soybeans and 
approximately 336,000 gallons of oil. 

[66] The assessment team is made up of federal and state response 
agencies, Alaska Native villages, subsistence groups, and commercial 
waterway users, among others. 

[67] In addition, the Coast Guard chairs the Interagency Coordinating 
Committee for Oil Pollution Research, which is tasked with preparing a 
federal oil pollution research and development plan and promoting 
cooperation among industry, universities, research institutions, state 
governments, and other nations through information sharing, 
coordinated planning, and joint funding of oil pollution research 
projects. The committee currently serves as a forum for its federal 
members to coordinate oil pollution research activities, but no 
funding has been appropriated by Congress since 1995. 

[68] The Coast Guard has statutory authority to operate and maintain a 
system of maritime aids to facilitate navigation and to prevent 
disasters, collisions, and wrecks. In September 2006 we reported that 
to fulfill this mission, the Coast Guard operates over 53,000 aids. 
These Aids to Navigation are like road signs of the waterways and are 
placed along coasts and navigable waters as guides to mark safe water 
and to assist mariners in determining their position in relation to 
land and hidden dangers. These aids consist of both floating aids, 
such as buoys, and fixed aids, such as lights or signs mounted on 
pilings. For more on this see GAO, Coast Guard: Condition of Some Aids-
to-Navigation and Domestic Icebreaking Vessels has Declined; Effect on 
Mission Performance Appears Mixed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-979] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 
2006). 

[69] Waterways Analysis and Management System studies ensure that 
current aids are necessary elements of the Aids to Navigation system 
in particular waterways. They also evaluate the aids to determine 
their effectiveness, which often leads to alterations of technical 
aspects of the aids and establishment or disestablishment of aids in 
order to meet changing needs in waterways. 

[70] A Bering Strait traffic management scheme would separate traffic 
with "lanes" to reduce the likelihood of collisions or other 
casualties. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: