COAST GUARD

Actions Needed to 

Close Stations 

Identified as 

Overlapping and 

Unnecessarily 

Duplicative

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate

October 2017

GAO-18-9

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-9, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation, U.S. Senate

October 2017

COAST GUARD

Actions Needed to Close Stations Identified as 

Overlapping and Unnecessarily Duplicative

What GAO Found

GAO found that the U.S. Coast Guard has a sound process for analyzing its boat

stations that includes clear and specific steps for analyzing the need for stations 

using terms that can be readily defined and measured. In 2013, following this 

process, the Coast Guard and its contractor identified 18 unnecessarily

duplicative boat stations with overlapping coverage that could be permanently 

closed without negatively affecting the Coast Guard’s ability to meet its 2-hour 

search and rescue (SAR) response standard and other mission requirements. 

The process was designed to ensure the Coast Guard met or exceeded 

requirements to maintain SAR coverage and to account for such factors as boat 

downtime and surge capacity to respond to certain incidents. Further, the boat 

station analysis did not consider potential SAR responses by the Coast Guard’s 

air stations and facilities, which can provide additional overlapping coverage.

Coast Guard officials said that the closures would, among other things, help 

improve operations by consolidating boat station caseloads to help ensure 

personnel were active enough to maintain training requirements. 

Overlap of Coast Guard Search and Rescue Coverage Provided by Boat Stations, Air Stations, 

and Air Facilities as of May 2017

In 2017, the Coast Guard affirmed that its leadership believes the 2013 study 

remains valid, but so far the agency has not taken actions to implement the 

closures identified by its sound process. Instead, the Coast Guard is 

recommending conversion of some year-round stations to seasonal stations that 

would operate during the summer. Coast Guard officials stated that seasonal 

closures are preferable to no action, given its limited resources, the significant 

overlapping SAR coverage, and potential to improve operations. However, 

permanently closing unnecessarily duplicative stations may better position the 

Coast Guard to improve its operations. It could also achieve up to $290 million in 

cost savings over 20 years, if stations were permanently closed.

View GAO-18-9. For more information, contact 

Jennifer Grover at (202) 512-7141 or 

GroverJ@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

The Coast Guard, within the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), is charged with preventing loss 

of life, injury, and property damage in 

the maritime environment through its 

SAR mission. It maintains over 200 

stations with various assets, such as 

boats and helicopters (depending on 

the station), along U.S. coasts and 

inland waterways to carry out this 

mission, as well as its other missions 

such as maritime security. Resource 

limitations and changes to operations 

require the Coast Guard to periodically 

reexamine the need for these stations.

GAO was asked to review these 

efforts.

This report addresses, among other 

objectives, the extent to which the 

Coast Guard has (1) a sound process 

for analyzing the need for its boat

stations and (2) taken actions to 

implement its boat station process 

results. GAO reviewed Coast Guard 

laws, standards, and guidance; 

analyzed Coast Guard data on station 

locations and SAR coverage; and 

analyzed the process and criteria used 

to evaluate its station needs and 

compared it with established 

evaluation design practices and 

internal control standards. GAO also 

interviewed Coast Guard officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three 

recommendations, including one 

recommendation that the Coast Guard 

close unnecessarily duplicative 

stations that its analysis identified.

DHS concurred with the 

recommendations and stated it plans 

to act to eliminate unnecessary 

duplication.
Page i GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Letter 1

Background 6

Coast Guard Has a Sound Process for Analyzing the Need for 

Boat Stations and the Results Identified Overlap and 

Unnecessary Duplication 13

A 2014 Analysis of Selected Coast Guard Air Stations and Air 

Facilities Identified Unnecessary Duplication but Coast Guard 

Would Benefit from a Comprehensive Process 22

Coast Guard Has Not Taken Actions nor Developed a Plan to 

Close Unnecessarily Duplicative Stations Its Analyses Identified 26

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 40

Appendix II Selected Coast Guard Assets 44

Appendix III Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Coast Guard Boat 

Stations in the Contiguous United States 46

Appendix IV Reported Single-Boat Search and Rescue Responses by Selected 

Stations, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016 50

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 53

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Tables

Table 1: Coast Guard’s 9-Step Boat Station Optimization Process, 

Criteria, and Actions Taken for Each Process Step 17

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Table 2: Summary of Selected Coast Guard Recommendations to 

Change Boat Station Operations 30

Table 3: Selected Coast Guard Boats Used for Search and 

Rescue (SAR) at Boat Stations 45

Table 4: Total Single Station Coast Guard Search and Rescue 

(SAR) Cases for Selected Boat Stations, Fiscal Years 

(FY) 2010 through 2016, and Estimated FY 2015 Annual 

Operating Cost 50

Table 5: Winter Single Station Coast Guard Search and Rescue 

(SAR) Cases Reported for Selected Boat Stations, Fiscal 

Years 2010 through 2016 52

Figures

Figure 1: Coast Guard’s Field Structure 8

Figure 2: How the Coast Guard Conducts a Search and Rescue 

(SAR) Case 10

Figure 3: GAO Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication 12

Figure 4: Coast Guard’s 9-Step Station Optimization Process with 

Criteria to Analyze the Need for Boat Stations 14

Figure 5: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage Provided by 

Coast Guard Boat Stations in Districts 1, 5, and 9 

Reported in September 2013 (Current as of May 2017) 16

Figure 6: Map of Coast Guard Helicopter Coverage as of August 

2017 24

Figure 7: Timeline of Studies and Actions to Address the Need for 

Coast Guard Stations, 1970 to 2017 (number of proposed 

closures denoted within the shapes below) 28

Figure 8: Overlap of Coast Guard Search and Rescue Coverage 

Provided by Boat Stations, Air Stations, and Air Facilities, 

May 2017 35

Figure 9: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Boat Stations 

in the Contiguous United States Reported in September 

2013 (Current as of May 2017) 46

Figure 10: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Coast 

Guard Boat Stations in District 1 Reported in September 

2013 (Current as of May 2017) 47

Figure 11: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Coast 

Guard Boat Stations in District 5 Reported in September 

2013 (Current as of May 2017) 48
Page iii GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 12: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Coast 

Guard Boat Stations in District 9 Reported in September 

2013 (Current as of May 2017) 49

Abbreviations 

ACCAM Aviation Capability and Capacity Assignment Module

BBEDCA Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

BCA Budget Control Act

cgSARVA Coast Guard Search and Rescue Visual Analytics

D1 Coast Guard District 1

D5 Coast Guard District 5

D9 Coast Guard District 9

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FY fiscal year

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement

SAR search and rescue

SMC SAR mission coordinator

Stations (small) seasonally operated detached sub-units of larger

parent stations

U.S.C. United States Code

9-Step Process Coast Guard’s 9-step station optimization process

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

October 26, 2017

The Honorable John Thune

Chairman

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), is the principal federal agency charged with 

preventing loss of life, injury, and property damage in the maritime 

environment through its search and rescue (SAR) mission, which it 

conducts along with 10 other missions including marine environmental 

protection and drug interdiction.1 To fulfill its SAR responsibilities, along 

with its other missions, the Coast Guard maintains multimission boat 

stations, air stations, and air facilities, with associated assets such as 

boats, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft, along our coasts and inland 

waterways.2 While some missions conducted out of these stations, such 

as ports, waterways, and coastal security, have increased in recent years, 

annual Coast Guard search and rescue caseloads have decreased from 

about 32,000 cases per year in 2004 to about 17,000 in 2016, a reduction 

of 47 percent. The need to balance a broad array of missions, while 

operating under constrained budgets in recent years, underscores the 

importance for the Coast Guard to ensure its stations are needed and 

optimally located.3

 1

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. 6 U.S.C. § 

468(a). 

2

The Coast Guard refers to its stations as multimission because of the various missions 

performed out of these stations. Multimission stations include boat stations that operate 

boats, and air stations and air facilities that operate aircraft. When discussing multimission 

stations in general in our report, we refer to them as stations.

3

For example, the Coast Guard’s total discretionary budget fluctuated from almost $9.6 

billion in fiscal year 2010 to about $9.0 billion in fiscal year 2015, and $9.1 billion in fiscal 

years 2016 and 2017. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Many factors help determine the placement of stations and the allocation 

of Coast Guard resources for their operations. These include population, 

historical factors, environmental conditions such as water temperature, 

and the availability of other rescue resources and partners. For example, 

some geographic regions have boat stations in closer proximity because 

when many of them were established, the crews used rowboats (which 

moved at slow speeds for shorter distances) to conduct search and 

rescue cases. In 1990, we reported that the Coast Guard and its 

predecessor agencies had established over 400 stations since 1844, and 

that about 200 of these stations had since been closed, destroyed by 

storms, or transferred to other government entities.4 Since that 1990 

report, the Coast Guard has attempted to close additional stations it 

considered unnecessary, but met resistance from impacted communities 

and others. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 

Coast Guard was tasked with expanded security-related mission 

responsibilities and subsequently established eight additional stations. 

However, the need for stations at particular locations has generally 

decreased with changes in boating activity, boating equipment, and the 

capabilities of other search and rescue providers such as local police and 

fire departments.

Changes to Coast Guard operations, such as additional mission 

requirements to address emerging security issues, and resource 

limitations, require the Coast Guard to periodically review the allocation of 

these resources, including those directed toward stations to ensure they 

are positioned to meet the Coast Guard’s missions while not 

unnecessarily duplicating efforts. Given the importance of the Coast 

Guard’s SAR and other missions, you asked us to review whether its 

efforts to optimize station locations and allocate resources were sound 

(i.e., defendable). This report addresses the extent to which the Coast 

Guard (1) has a sound process for analyzing the need for its boat 

stations, and the outcomes of the process; (2) has a sound process for 

analyzing the need for its air stations and air facilities, and the outcomes 

of the process; and (3) has taken actions to implement the results of its 

process for analyzing the need for stations.

To identify the extent to which the Coast Guard has a sound process for 

analyzing the need for its boat stations, we reviewed laws, policies, and 

 4

GAO, Coast Guard: Better Process Needed to Justify Closing Search and Rescue 

Stations, GAO/RCED-90-98 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 1990).
Page 3 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

procedures related to its SAR mission. We reviewed Coast Guard 

documentation of processes it used to analyze the need for boat stations, 

including a 2013 study documenting a contractor analysis that followed 

the Coast Guard process, reviewed resource and budget factors, and 

analyzed station activity levels.5 We also reviewed prior GAO reports on 

the Coast Guard’s previous attempts to close stations.6 To verify and 

validate the Coast Guard’s specific analytical process used to determine 

overlapping SAR coverage among these stations, we obtained and 

analyzed the Coast Guard’s analytical assumptions, the operational 

parameters of the assets assigned to the stations (e.g., boat speeds), and 

station locations. This analysis also allowed us to verify the soundness of 

the Coast Guard’s model used to identify overlap. We then independently 

recreated and visually depicted overlapping SAR coverage provided by 

the boat stations, based on Coast Guard data, assumptions, and 

documentation, and compared it with SAR case data by geographic area. 

We then analyzed Coast Guard data on single-boat SAR responses 

(sorties) by station for fiscal years 2010 through 2016, the most recent 

data available at the time of our review.7 We visited a nongeneralizable 

sample of 12 boat stations we selected from within Coast Guard districts 

where the Coast Guard had identified overlap, and interviewed Coast 

Guard officials to identify local policies, station characteristics, local 

coordination with emergency responders and federal agencies, and local 

input to the Coast Guard’s process for assessing station needs and 

implementing changes to the locations of boat stations, if any. We 

compared Coast Guard actions to evaluate boat stations against criteria 

for sound evaluation design practices established in GAO’s Designing 

 5

We obtained search and rescue case data, such as the number of single- and multi-boat 

responses by station and by fiscal year, from the Coast Guard’s Marine Information for 

Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system, for fiscal years 2010 through 2016.

6

GAO, Coast Guard: Improved Process Exists to Evaluate Changes to Small Boat 

Stations, GAO/RCED-94-147 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1994); GAO/RCED-90-98.

7

In some locations, more than one Coast Guard station may initiate a search and rescue 

response due to the close proximity of the stations or other factors. Because about 29 

percent of these SAR cases (22,322 out of 77,953) could be duplicative if attributed to 

individual stations, we focused our analyses on single-boat responses (55,631 cases) 

where we could accurately attribute the cases to individual stations.
Page 4 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Evaluations guidance,8 the Coast Guard’s SAR response standard,9 and 

statutory requirements to conduct public outreach.10

To assess the reliability of Coast Guard SAR data, we interviewed 

knowledgeable officials, reviewed documentation, and electronically 

tested the data for obvious errors and anomalies. We interviewed Coast 

Guard officials to discuss the reliability issues we identified, and officials 

informed us of ongoing actions to resolve the issues. We determined that 

the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report to 

demonstrate selected station caseloads. Details of our scope and 

methodology are described in appendix I.

To identify the extent to which the Coast Guard has a sound process to 

analyze the need for its air stations and air facilities, we reviewed laws, 

policies, and procedures related to its SAR mission. We reviewed Coast 

Guard documentation of processes it used to analyze the need for 

selected air facilities in 2014. We obtained and analyzed Coast Guard air 

station and air facility locations and assumptions made for determining 

overlapping SAR coverage in 2014 and used a mapping program to 

visually depict overlapping coverage provided by aviation assets, based 

on Coast Guard data, assumptions, and documentation. Additionally, we 

 8

GAO, Designing Evaluations 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: January 

2012). This report addresses the logic of program evaluation design, presents generally 

accepted statistical principles, and describes different types of evaluations for answering 

varied questions about program performance, the process of designing evaluation studies, 

and key issues to consider toward ensuring overall study quality. This report is one of a 

series of papers whose purpose is to provide guides to various aspects of audit and 

evaluation methodology and indicate where more detailed information is available. It is 

based on GAO reports and program evaluation literature. To ensure the guide’s 

competence and usefulness, drafts were reviewed by selected GAO, federal, and state 

agency evaluators, and evaluation authors and practitioners from professional consulting 

firms. This publication supersedes Government Operations: Designing Evaluations, 

GAO/PEMD-10.1.4 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1991). 

9

The Coast Guard establishes its response standard based on a macro analysis of 

expected survival times of people in the water, including regional variances (e.g., cold 

water versus warm, resource-rich port areas versus remote locations), and calls for its 

stations to plan to arrive to the scene of the SAR distress cases within their area of 

responsibility within 2 hours (including up to 30 minutes of preparation prior to launch). 

U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Addendum to the United States National Search and 

Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue 

Manual, COMDTINST M16130.2F (Washington, D.C.: January 2013). 

1014 U.S.C. § 675 requires the Coast Guard to provide an opportunity for public comment 

and for public meetings in the area of the station or subunit with regard to the decision to 

close the station or subunit. 
Page 5 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

interviewed Coast Guard officials to obtain information on the extent to 

which the Coast Guard used findings and recommendations from 

selected studies, strategies, and plans in its analyses of the need for and 

locations of its air stations and air facilities. We also compared Coast 

Guard actions to evaluate air stations and air facilities against criteria 

established in GAO’s Designing Evaluations guidance.11

To determine the extent to which the Coast Guard has taken actions to 

implement the results of its analyses of its need for stations, we analyzed 

Coast Guard documents and reports to identify proposals put forth by the 

Coast Guard for permanently or seasonally closing stations it has 

identified as overlapping and unnecessary. We analyzed these proposed 

actions to determine whether proposed plans or decisions regarding 

permanent and seasonal station closures aligned with the results of the 

Coast Guard analyses. Specifically, we reviewed the 2013 contractor 

study, memoranda detailing field input on the results of the study and 

their verification of the stations the study identified as unnecessarily 

duplicative, and compared the recommended closures from the various 

analyses to determine if the outcomes were consistent. We also 

compared Coast Guard actions against its response standard and 

statutory requirements for conducting public outreach. Finally, we 

reviewed documents and information on these proposals and compared 

them against criteria in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government12 and leading practices identified in the Project Management 

Institute’s Standard for Program Management.13

We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 through October 

2017 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.

 11GAO-12-208G.

12GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014). 

13Project Management Institute, Inc., The Standard for Program Management ®, Third 

Edition (Newton Square, Pa.: 2013). The Standard for Program Management ® describes, 

among other things, how resource planning, goals, milestones, performance measures, 

and program monitoring and reporting are good practices that can enhance management 

for most programs. 
Page 6 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

The Coast Guard is required to develop, establish, maintain, and operate 

rescue facilities for the promotion of safety and may aid distressed 

persons, and protect and save property in waters subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States.14 To carry out its responsibilities, the 

Coast Guard maintains a search and rescue system on the Atlantic, 

Pacific, and Gulf coasts; the Great Lakes; and other inland lakes and 

waterways. This system consists of about 190 boat stations, 183 of which 

are located in the contiguous United States. The Coast Guard also 

operates aircraft from 24 air stations and four air facilities.15 As of August 

2017, these stations and facilities operated about 700 boats and about 

200 aircraft. In fiscal year 2016, the Coast Guard reported that its SAR 

operations saved 5,174 lives and protected more than $63 million in 

property from loss.

The Coast Guard’s boat stations, air stations, and air facilities are subject 

to laws which require the Coast Guard to maintain specific minimum 

capabilities—such as a requirement to maintain at least one vessel at 

each station that is fully capable of operating within the prevailing weather 

and marine conditions in that station’s area of responsibility.16 In addition 

to maintaining capabilities requirements, if the Coast Guard reevaluates 

its station location needs and intends to close a boat station, air station, 

or air facility, it also must follow a statutorily defined process, which 

includes making a determination that adequate SAR coverage will remain 

in place.17 To close an air facility, the Coast Guard must also submit a 

proposal to close the facility to Congress in the President’s annual budget 

 1414 U.S.C. § 2. See also 14 U.S.C. § 88.

15The Coast Guard owned and operated these air stations and air facilities as of May 

2017. Generally, air stations operate year-round. An air facility operates as a subunit (i.e., 

detachment) of an air station in a separate location. Air facilities may or may not operate 

year-round.

1614 U.S.C. § 674.

17For a boat station closure, 14 U.S.C. § 675 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to determine that the Coast Guard’s remaining boat stations will maintain the safety of the 

public in the area of the boat station; weather and marine conditions do not require the 

continued operation of the station; and the Coast Guard will still be able to meet its 

response time standards once the boat station is closed. Additionally, the Coast Guard 

must provide an opportunity for public comment and public meetings held in the area near 

the boat station.

Background

Laws Governing the 

Optimization of the Coast 

Guard’s Boat Station, Air 

Station, and Air Facility 

Locations
Page 7 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

and notify members of Congress who represent the impacted 

communities, as well as certain committees.18

The Coast Guard’s field structure is divided into two Area Commands, 

Atlantic and Pacific, within which are nine Districts consisting of 37 

Sectors and the stations within them (see figure 1).19

 1814 U.S.C. § 676a.

19We use D for district when associated with a specific district number (e.g., D9).

The Coast Guard’s 

Structure and Stations 

That Conduct Search and 

Rescue
Page 8 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 1: Coast Guard’s Field Structure

Stations are traditionally associated with search and rescue but they may 

perform the full range of Coast Guard missions. Coast Guard personnel 

live and work at or near their stations so they can rapidly respond to 

emergencies as they arise. This model facilitates the Coast Guard’s 

search and rescue response resource planning standard. Under this SAR 
Page 9 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

standard, Coast Guard plans for its units with SAR responsibilities to 

arrive on the scene of a case within 2 hours of receiving a distress call.20

Stations vary in their mission mix and pace of operations (i.e., operational 

tempo) by geographic region or District, and by season. For example, 

Coast Guard boat stations in D7 (Florida, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 

and the Caribbean) commonly conduct migrant interdiction operations, 

whereas boat stations located along the Great Lakes (D9) rarely conduct 

this mission. In some locations, SAR cases may be more common during 

the summer boating season than in the winter. Stations in D9 have a 

shorter boating season than stations in D7. According to Coast Guard 

officials, while D7 has more total SAR cases than D9, cases in D9 are 

concentrated in a shorter time period than in D7 (i.e., shorter boating 

season). Boat stations also vary widely in size and function. For example, 

Station New York in New York City has an authorized strength of 88 

personnel, whereas Station Frankfort in Frankfort, Michigan, has an 

authorized strength of 15 personnel.21 Both stations perform SAR and 

other missions, but Station New York also conducts a high level of 

homeland security missions, while Station Frankfort provides ice rescue 

capability during the winter. Additionally, the Coast Guard operates 18 

seasonal boat stations called “Stations (Small),”22 which are detached 

subunits of larger parent stations; the Coast Guard generally operates 

these during the summer boating season.23

 20Coast Guard guidance calls for its stations to plan to arrive to the scene of the SAR 

distress cases within their area of responsibility within 2 hours (including up to 30 minutes 

of preparation prior to launch).

21Authorized personnel strengths are as of July 2016.

22This number of Stations (Small) is as of August 2017.

23The Coast Guard also has five auxiliary stations in the Great Lakes region that are open 

only during the boating season. Auxiliary stations are operated by volunteers and conduct 

missions such as maritime safety patrols. Auxiliary station operations are beyond the 

scope of this review.
Page 10 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

When the Coast Guard receives notification of a distressed mariner,24 a 

search and rescue mission coordinator evaluates the case and assigns 

assets, such as boats or aircraft, to respond.25 Cases may involve 

multiple assets depending on the complexity of the case, such as the 

need to locate a mariner whose position is only generally known or to 

operate in severe weather conditions. Figure 2 depicts the general steps 

for conducting a SAR case.

Figure 2: How the Coast Guard Conducts a Search and Rescue (SAR) Case

 24Mariners in distress may request assistance from the Coast Guard using radio and 

satellite communications systems, such as very high frequency radios or Emergency 

Position-Indicating Radio Beacons. The Coast Guard also operates the Rescue 21 

communications system, which is also used to communicate with and locate boaters in 

distress. This system is a network of radio towers that receive distress calls in the coastal 

waters and rivers of the continental United States, Hawaii, and U.S. territories. A system 

similar to Rescue 21 is being deployed in Alaska.

25Rescue operations may also be conducted to prevent the loss of property on the ocean 

and other waterways. If a boat or ship is disabled, for example, the Coast Guard can tow it 

to port or provide materials for repairing the vessel. The Coast Guard is generally not 

responsible for salvaging boats or ships unless the people aboard are in danger or if the 

boat poses an environmental or navigational hazard. 

How the Coast Guard 

Conducts a Search and 

Rescue Mission
Page 11 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

The Coast Guard uses several different types of assets to carry out its 

search and rescue and other missions. These assets include boats, rotary 

wing aircraft (helicopters), fixed wing aircraft (planes), and cutters 

(including patrol boats and ships). Additional details regarding some of 

these assets, including boat speeds, are described in appendix II.

Over time, the need for Coast Guard stations at particular locations has 

changed due to changes in Coast Guard asset capabilities, boating 

activity, boating equipment, safety technology, and the capabilities of 

other search and rescue service providers, such as private towing firms. 

However, the Coast Guard’s decisions to close or reduce operations at 

boat stations based on changing conditions or budget reductions have 

been sensitive. We previously reported that these sensitivities were 

based on the perception that reducing operations or closing stations 

would reduce the agency’s ability to save lives and property. In 1990, we 

reported that the Coast Guard’s attempts to close stations in 1988 were 

not successful because the Coast Guard did not have policies or 

procedures for what criteria should be used or how the criteria should be 

applied, and because the Coast Guard applied its evaluation criteria to a 

limited universe—only 34 stations instead of all stations.26 We also found 

that the Coast Guard did not adequately address how closing stations 

would impact the Coast Guard’s effectiveness in saving lives or 

performing other missions.

In 1994, we reported that the Coast Guard had created a new process for 

determining the need for boat station changes.27 We also found that the 

new process included detailed criteria to evaluate the appropriate need 

for stations, such as boating and economic trends and the availability of 

alternative SAR resources. The Coast Guard then unsuccessfully 

attempted to close stations in 1995 using this process, and again in 2008, 

efforts which we describe later in this report.

 26GAO/RCED-90-98.

27GAO/RCED-94-147.

Prior GAO Work on 

Station Optimization
Page 12 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

In 2010, federal law required that we identify programs, agencies, offices, 

and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and 

government-wide, and report annually.28 The annual reports describe 

areas in which we have found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication among federal programs and have resulted in $136 billion in 

financial benefits for the federal government. Figure 3 outlines the 

definitions we have used since 2011 in our work to address 

fragmentation, overlap and duplication.

Figure 3: GAO Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication

 28Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note. See GAO’s 

Duplication and Cost Savings web page for links to the 2011 to 2017 annual reports: 

http://www.gao.gov/duplication/overview.

Prior Work on 

Fragmentation, Overlap,

and Duplication
Page 13 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

The Coast Guard has a sound process for analyzing the need for boat 

stations that is consistent with GAO’s Program Evaluation guidance, 

which calls for choosing well-regarded criteria against which to make 

comparisons in order to achieve strong, defensible conclusions.29 The 

primary criteria Coast Guard subject matter experts established, 

consistent with statutory requirements that the Coast Guard make a 

determination that adequate SAR coverage would remain in place,30 were 

(1) a minimum threshold of overlapping SAR coverage had to be 

maintained and (2) the Coast Guard’s ability to meet its nationwide 2-hour 

SAR response standard had to be maintained.31 By applying these 

criteria, the Coast Guard’s process identified overlapping search and 

rescue coverage where three or more stations can respond to a single 

SAR case within 2 hours, and unnecessary duplication where stations 

could be closed without negatively impacting the Coast Guard’s ability to 

meet mission requirements, such as its 2-hour SAR response standard.

In June 2012, the Coast Guard established a Station Optimization 

Process Charter that called for the Coast Guard to develop a defendable 

process with criteria for analyzing stations for potential closure. The 

charter stated and Coast Guard officials confirmed that the process was 

developed to ensure that closure recommendations would be based on 

solid justifications for stations selected, and would stand up to rigorous 

scrutiny. The charter called for (1) the process to be data driven; (2) 

criteria to be applied consistently; (3) consideration of previous GAO 

recommendations on assessing stations for closure; and (4) adherence to 

statutory requirements to conduct outreach to affected communities.32

The Coast Guard then established a working group of subject matter 

experts who developed a Station Optimization Process with nine 

analytical steps. The Station Optimization Process included criteria for 

 29GAO-12-208G.

3014 U.S.C. § 675.

31U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Addendum to the United States National Search 

and Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and 

Rescue Manual, COMDTINST M16130.2F (Washington, D.C.: January 2013).

3214 U.S.C. § 675 requires the Coast Guard to provide an opportunity for public comment 

and for public meetings in the area of the station or subunit with regard to the decision to 

close the station or subunit. It must also determine that (1) remaining SAR capabilities are 

maintained in the area, (2) regional and local conditions are considered that do not require 

the continued operation of the station, and (3) SAR standards are met.

Coast Guard Has a 

Sound Process for 

Analyzing the Need 

for Boat Stations and 

the Results Identified 

Overlap and 

Unnecessary 

Duplication
Page 14 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

analyzing the need for boat stations based on data analysis, consistent 

application of criteria, and legal requirements. Figure 4 shows the Station 

Optimization Process and its nine steps.

Figure 4: Coast Guard’s 9-Step Station Optimization Process with Criteria to Analyze the Need for Boat Stations

a

Coast Guard guidance calls for its stations to plan to arrive to the scene of the SAR distress cases 

within their area of responsibility within 2 hours (including up to 30 minutes of preparation prior to 

launch).

b

At the time the study was conducted, certain stations were excluded from further consideration for 

closure based on security requirements that were in place at that time but which have since been 

removed.

c

The optimization steps include assessing the impact of station closure on the Coast Guard’s 11 

statutory missions.
Page 15 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

In April 2013, the Coast Guard initiated its 9-step Station Optimization 

Process to analyze its boat stations, and the results identified 18 stations 

that could be closed because they provide overlapping and unnecessarily 

duplicative SAR coverage. The Coast Guard hired a contractor to carry 

out the analysis and identify potential cost savings from permanent 

closures of such stations. Although focused on SAR coverage, the 

process also included consideration of all Coast Guard missions carried 

out at these stations.33 The contractor followed the 9-step process, with 

certain steps conducted by the Coast Guard––such as step 1, which 

analyzed the system and identified overlapping SAR coverage––and 

developed and ranked different closure options to maximize cost savings. 

Coast Guard officials provided additional district input on unique 

characteristics of certain stations to further refine the closure options. The 

final study identified 18 stations for closure that it estimated would 

achieve cost savings without impeding the Coast Guard’s ability to meet 

its SAR response standard and carry out its other missions. We discuss 

this further later in this report.

The Coast Guard considers some overlap or redundancy to be 

necessary, to account for such things as operational challenges, boat 

maintenance downtime, personnel training requirements, and the need 

for surge capacity to respond to certain incidents. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard directed the contractor to analyze areas with triple or greater 

station coverage as its baseline for analyzing whether stations were 

unnecessarily duplicative. Based on the Coast Guard’s review of this 

coverage, it determined that the greatest extent of overlapping coverage 

existed in Districts 1, 5, and 9, and directed the contractor to focus on 

stations in those areas. Figure 5 shows the extent of overlapping Coast 

Guard boat station SAR coverage as of September 2013 that was used 

for the contractor study and is still accurate as of May 2017. It shows for 

Districts 1, 5, and 9, up to quadruple or greater SAR coverage provided 

by boat stations with overlapping response capabilities.34 According to the 

 33According to documentation we reviewed, the contractor study analyzed information 

provided by the Coast Guard, such as search and rescue coverage maps, closure 

scenarios, and financial data. Coast Guard officials reviewed the contractor’s draft report 

with recommended closures and provided field-level input on unique characteristics of 

certain stations, which the contractor analysis then incorporated into its final report.

34We recreated the map of overlapping search and rescue coverage by following the 

same parameters the Coast Guard used when it provided the map to the contractor in 

2013. The extent of overlapping coverage identified in 2017 is the same overlap identified 

in the Coast Guard’s 2013 contractor study. Appendix III shows overlapping SAR 

coverage provided by boat stations in the contiguous United States. 

Coast Guard Used Its 

Station Optimization 

Process to Analyze Boat 

Stations and Identified 

Overlap and Unnecessary 

Duplication
Page 16 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Coast Guard, in an attempt to be conservative in maintaining SAR 

coverage, the optimization process did not consider the use of Coast 

Guard air assets such as helicopters—an additional layer of coverage—

nor did it consider the availability of some local agencies that respond to 

SAR cases, such as police departments and emergency responders. 

Therefore, overlapping coverage depicted in figure 5 excludes air asset 

responses and any responses or assistance provided by state and local 

agencies. The extent of coverage in 2017 was the same as the Coast 

Guard’s 2013 contractor study reported.

Figure 5: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage Provided by Coast Guard Boat Stations in Districts 1, 5, and 9 Reported in 

September 2013 (Current as of May 2017)
Page 17 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

We determined that the actions taken to complete the station optimization 

process are sound, consistent with our Program Evaluation guidance 

which calls for, among other things, evaluating programs based on wellregarded criteria to achieve strong, defensible conclusions. In addition to 

using the 2-hour response standard as a criterion, the optimization steps 

identified actions to systematically analyze quantitative measures using a 

documented ranking system to remove critical stations from consideration 

for closure. For example, step 4 of the process evaluated the number of 

security boardings conducted by selected stations, among other metrics, 

and removed certain stations for consideration from closure based on a 

systematic application of criteria related to other mission responsibilities. 

Further, as described in table 1, the process began with consideration of 

all boat stations in the contiguous United States, included steps to ensure 

that data were reliable and appropriate, clearly identified limitations of the 

analysis, and conducted simulations to assess how well the Coast Guard 

would be prepared to carry out its responsibilities under different closure 

alternatives, such as whether a station closure reduces or changes the 

Coast Guard’s ability to meet its response standard—all actions included 

in our Program Evaluation guidance. Table 1 provides details of actions 

taken by the contractor and the Coast Guard to complete the 9-step 

station optimization process.

Table 1: Coast Guard’s 9-Step Boat Station Optimization Process, Criteria, and Actions Taken for Each Process Step

Optimization process (and 

criteria applied)

Action(s) taken for each optimization step

Step 1: Analyze search and

rescue (SAR) response 

coverage Criterion: Identify areas 

where three or more stations can 

respond to SAR cases within 2 

hours.a

• Coast Guard analyzed the search and rescue capability range of all stations and identified 

areas of redundancy or overlap where multiple stations could respond to a SAR case, based 

on the station’s boat cruising speed in moderate weather, for 5 years of SAR responses 

(fiscal years 2008 through 2012).

• Coast Guard focused on areas with triple or greater station coverage as its baseline for 

unnecessary duplication.

• Based on the findings of response overlap, Coast Guard directed the contractor to focus on 

Districts 1, 5, and 9 to analyze how SAR response times would change if certain stations 

were not operated year-round or were permanently closed.

Step 2: Remove some stations 

with special security missionb

Criterion: Remove some stations 

from consideration for closure 

related to their security mission.

• Coast Guard directed the contractor to exclude 88 stations with mounted automatic weapons 

from consideration for closure, to maintain certain homeland security functions at those 

stations.
Page 18 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Optimization process (and 

criteria applied)

Action(s) taken for each optimization step

Step 3: Analyze closure 

alternatives Criteria: Meet 2-hour 

SAR standard and maintain at 

least 90 percent double coverage.

• Contractor analyzed 762 closure scenarios for remaining stations within Districts 1, 5, and 9

using modeling software to show the extent to which the 2-hour SAR response standard 

would be met with varying combinations of station closures.

• Contractor identified some data inconsistencies and took steps to address them.c

• Contractor eliminated certain stations from closure based on established criteria such as 

not meeting the 2-hour SAR response standard and maintaining at least 90 percent 

double coverage.

• Contractor obtained regional input and validation from Coast Guard district officials.

Step 4: Analyze other mission 

needs Criteria: Evaluate patrols, 

escorts, and boarding activities by 

mission.d

• Coast Guard used the contractor results identified in Step 3 to systematically determine 

Coast Guard’s port security and law enforcement responsibilities for these stations.

• Coast Guard analyzed the amount of security activity conducted by these stations, such as 

the number of activities by mission (e.g., alien migrant interdiction or drug interdiction 

operations) and ranked these activities using a systematic scoring methodology.

• Coast Guard removed certain stations from closure consideration where the process 

determined that the station was crucial to its port security or law enforcement missions.

Step 5: Analyze resource 

allocation Criterion: Determine 

resources required to execute 

each alternative.

• Contractor analyzed asset and personnel hours, and applied a formula-based workload 

reallocation process to analyze the expected impact on stations receiving the additional SAR 

workload from stations that would be closed, and determined a reallocation of personnel and 

assets to receiving stations.

Step 6: Analyze cost savings 

Criterion: Evaluate the initial year 

and recurring cost savings.

• Contractor identified recurring and nonrecurring costs of stations under consideration for 

closure and developed cost savings estimates.

• Cost savings estimates excluded proceeds from selling the properties.

Step 7: Select preferred option 

Criterion: Evaluate and select 

preferred option(s).

• Contractor analyzed additional factors, such as scenarios in which seasonally operating 

stations would need to take on SAR cases from closed stations, and focused permanent 

closure options on those stations that would allow the Coast Guard to continue to meet its 

mission requirements.

Step 8: Analyze environmental 

impact Criterion: Evaluate 

selected alternative(s) for 

environmental impacts.

• Contractor reviewed environmental and historical impacts, such as whether hazards such as 

asbestos or lead required mitigation. At the time of the study, five closure candidate stations 

were identified for related site restoration work.

• 29 of 51 potential closure candidate stations were 50 years or older in 2013, which would 

have required an additional assessment step to determine if the station would be 

categorized as a historic property prior to its closure.

• 33 of 51 stations considered for potential closure had known environmental liabilities.

• Contractor did not consider property divestiture proceeds but noted that these properties 

would typically be transferred or sold “as is.”

• Contractor noted that additional and more detailed assessments would be needed to 

determine property divestiture.
Page 19 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Optimization process (and 

criteria applied)

Action(s) taken for each optimization step

Step 9: Develop a ranked list 

Criterion: Achieve greatest cost 

savings. 

• Contractor ranked stations to close first based on greatest cost savings, excluding property 

sale proceeds.

• Contractor presented draft recommendations to Coast Guard for validation and to obtain 

additional district input on unique characteristics of some stations, such as surf rescue 

capability.

• Contractor revised station rankings based on this additional input.

• Contractor recommended 18 permanent station closures that it estimated could achieve cost 

savings of about $290 million in 2015 dollars, over a 20-year period, if necessary personnel 

and assets from closed stations were reallocated to adjacent stations and remaining 

personnel and assets were eliminated, excluding proceeds from selling the property.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard documents and discussions with U.S. Coast Guard officials. | GAO-18-9

a

Coast Guard guidance calls for its stations to plan to arrive to the scene of the SAR distress cases 

within their area of responsibility within 2 hours (including up to 30 minutes of preparation prior to 

launch).

b

At the time the study was conducted, certain stations were excluded from consideration for closure 

based on security measures that were in place at that time but which have since been removed.

c

Contractor identified data inconsistencies (incorrect SAR location data) with roughly 5 percent or 

fewer of SAR case locations. To address this, the contractor developed a workaround in its scenario 

modeling. Specifically, when a station was being considered for closure in the model, the SAR cases 

it would have conducted if it were open were allocated to adjacent stations based on the model, and 

cases with incorrect locations were proportionally allocated to stations adjacent to the station being 

considered for closure. This workaround was used to determine whether the station closure would 

have an unacceptable impact on the ability to meet the 2-hour SAR standard for responses.

d

The optimization steps include assessing the impact of station closure on the Coast Guard’s 11 

statutory missions.

Consistent with the 9-step optimization process and to validate the 

closure scenario results, the contractor and Coast Guard Headquarters 

obtained regional input from district officials to gain context about the 

stations under consideration for closure such as unique rescue 

characteristics that were not quantifiable. Coast Guard officials within 

Districts 1, 5, and 9 generally supported the contractor recommendations 

to close some stations, with a few exceptions.

35 For example, District 1’s 

input stated that one station recommended for closure by the contractor 

analysis had a unique surf rescue capability that was not available at 

adjacent or other nearby stations and thus this station did not provide 

unnecessarily duplicative SAR coverage since no nearby station could 

provide this capability. Thus, District 1 recommended that the station 

 35The documents we reviewed confirmed some areas where the contractor obtained input 

from affected districts, such as unique surf station characteristics, and revised the list of 

stations recommended for closure, as described in table 1. During interviews we 

conducted with Coast Guard officials within Districts 1, 5, and 9, officials also discussed 

the impact closures would have on some leadership opportunities (e.g., fewer stations to 

manage means fewer opportunities for personnel to be in command of a station).

Additional District Input 

Helped Refine List of 

Closure 

Recommendations
Page 20 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

remain open. Given this input, the contractor removed this station from 

consideration for closure. In another example, District 5 officials reported 

that closure of one of its stations would increase response times from 

adjacent stations due to the presence of shoaling and barrier island 

conditions that could not be accounted for in the quantitative modeling. 

Therefore, the contractor eliminated that station from consideration for 

closure and recommended an alternative station for closure. This process 

of obtaining regional input and validation from district officials was carried 

out such that if a station identified for closure would negatively impact 

critical missions, it was removed from closure consideration. This 

additional district input resulted in a final contractor study that 

recommended station closures that would achieve the greatest cost 

saving without negatively impacting the Coast Guard’s ability to meet 

mission requirements.

In addition to identifying stations with unique characteristics that 

warranted keeping them open, additional district input also confirmed 

contractor recommendations that some stations should be permanently 

closed. For example, District 5’s input concurred with the closure of six 

stations, including one where officials we interviewed on site confirmed its 

steadily diminishing SAR caseload. Our analysis of Coast Guard data 

validated this station’s low workload showing an average of seven singleboat response SAR cases annually36 from fiscal years 2010 through 

2016.37 We also found that this station had been recommended for 

closure in the past.38 In another example, District 9 input sought an 

additional, seasonal closure of one station that the contractor analysis did 

not evaluate for permanent closure due to one criterion applied by the 

process.39 District 9’s input provided additional context for this station, 

 36We analyzed search and rescue case data, such as the number of single- and multiboat responses by station and by fiscal year. In some locations, more than one Coast 

Guard station may initiate a search and rescue response due to the close proximity of the 

stations or other factors. Because around 29 percent of these SAR cases (22,322 out of 

77,953) could be duplicative if attributed to individual stations, we focused our analyses on 

single-boat responses (55,631 cases) where we could accurately attribute the cases to 

individual stations.

37From fiscal years 2010 through 2016, the 183 boat stations we analyzed averaged 41 

single-boat responses annually.

38The Coast Guard conducted a limited study of one station’s workload to assess the 

viability and disposition of the station. This study was completed in April 2007 to document 

support for closing this one station.

39Closing this station would retain 88 percent double station coverage instead of the 90 

percent threshold established for the study. 
Page 21 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

saying that seasonal closure was preferable to taking no action because 

there was significant response redundancy in this region. Moreover, the 

district input noted that the acquisition of modern boats has increased the 

range and reduced the response time of many stations. District input also 

noted that improvements in public education and awareness of safe 

boating practices, technology and availability of communications 

equipment, and the increase in non-Coast Guard response resources has 

resulted in a steady and dramatic decline in the stations’ SAR workloads. 

Our analysis of all Coast Guard single-boat response data for cases 

within the contiguous United States for fiscal years 2010 through 2016 

confirmed this decline, showing an annual average of 46 cases per 

station in 2010 to an annual average of 39 cases per station in 2016, a 

decline of about 15 percent.40 Appendix IV provides details from our 

analysis of the number of single-boat response SAR cases conducted by 

selected stations.

 40Our analysis of Coast Guard SAR single-boat response case data from fiscal years 

2010 through 2016 found that the 18 stations recommended for closure reported an 

average of about 15 single-boat SAR responses annually, compared to an annual average 

of about 41 single-boat responses for all boat stations. Some seasonal stations report the 

number of cases to which they respond in combination with their parent station. Excluding 

these seasonal stations, the single-boat response SAR caseload for our sample results in 

an average of 19 responses annually for fiscal years 2010 through 2016.
Page 22 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

In 2014, the Coast Guard contracted for an analysis of selected air 

stations and air facilities that identified overlap and unnecessary 

duplication but it did not comprehensively review all air stations and air 

facilities. Specifically, the criteria-based analysis reviewed search and 

rescue capabilities, operational case data, and other mission 

requirements, and determined that certain air facilities provided 

overlapping search and rescue coverage, some of which was 

unnecessarily duplicative. Coast Guard officials said they used the results 

of this analysis to support proposed closures of air facilities in Newport, 

Oregon, and Charleston, South Carolina, in the President’s Fiscal Year 

2014 Budget.41 Subsequent appropriations for fiscal year 2014 also did 

not include funding for the operation of the two air facilities. However, 

shortly before their planned closure date, the Coast Guard encountered 

strong opposition to the closures at the local, state, and Congressional 

levels, and did not close them.

As with boat stations, the Coast Guard considers some overlapping 

coverage among air stations and air facilities desirable to mitigate 

potential risks such as those posed by asset maintenance downtime, 

limitations in the number of qualified personnel, restrictive weather 

conditions, or case complexity. Coast Guard officials stated that the 2014 

analysis considered many factors to address potential impacts of the 

closure of the Newport and Charleston air facilities. For example, the 

Coast Guard used modeling tools to determine the operational impact of 

altering facility locations and the availability of aviation assets. Coast 

Guard officials told us they also conducted outreach to the affected 

communities and their political representatives in advance of the 

proposed closure date, as required by law.42

Further, Coast Guard officials explained that the fiscal outlook at the time 

(e.g., sequestration) required changes to optimize assets, and their 

proposal accomplished this without sacrificing operational capability 

because the response time of neighboring SAR units would remain within 

 41Coast Guard Aviation Force Siting Optimization Study, September 2014.

4214 U.S.C. § 676a.

A 2014 Analysis of 

Selected Coast 

Guard Air Stations 

and Air Facilities 

Identified 

Unnecessary 

Duplication but Coast 

Guard Would Benefit 

from a 

Comprehensive 

Process
Page 23 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

the Coast Guard’s SAR standards.43 The 2014 analysis also determined 

that the majority of SAR cases involving these two facilities occurred 

close to shore, with boat responses generally arriving on scene and 

conducting the search and rescue instead of air assets.44 Circles in figure 

6 represent air asset response capabilities nationwide, as of August 2017, 

with darker shades reflecting greater overlapping coverage.

 43Under sequestration, the Coast Guard faced about a 25 percent curtailment in its air and 

surface operations. Sequestration is an automatic, across-the-board cancellation of 

budgetary resources. Sequestration was first established in the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA) to enforce discretionary spending limits 

and control the deficit. This budgetary enforcement mechanism was revived by the Budget 

Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which provided the legal basis for the fiscal year 2013 

sequestration. Pub. L. No. 112-25, 125 Stat. 240 (2011).

44Our analysis of Coast Guard SAR cases from fiscal years 2010 through 2016 found 

similar results in that 20 percent of SAR responses (20,683 cases out of 103,263 cases) 

involved Coast Guard aviation assets.
Page 24 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 6: Map of Coast Guard Helicopter Coverage as of August 2017

Note: Figure includes stations that operate helicopters but excludes fixed wing aircraft, which also can 

be used to conduct some search and rescue activities, such as conducting a search over a large 

area. Figure also identifies two air facilities the Coast Guard attempted to close in 2014.

In 2014 and 2016, two laws were enacted that required the Coast Guard 

to keep the air facilities open for a specific period of time,45 and 

 45In 2014, the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act was enacted 

stating that the Coast Guard may not close a Coast Guard air facility that was in operation 

on November 30, 2014; or retire, transfer, relocate, or deploy an aviation asset from an air 

facility for the purpose of closing such a facility. The provision was effective until January 

1, 2016. Pub. L. No. 113-281, § 225(b), 128 Stat. 3022, 3039 (2014). In 2016, the Coast 

Guard Authorization Act of 2015 was enacted extending the 2014 act closure provisions 

until at least January 1, 2018. In addition, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 

contained a provision stating that, beginning January 1, 2018, the Secretary of Homeland 

Security may not close or terminate operations at a Coast Guard air facility until a number 

of specific requirements, discussed below, are met. 14 U.S.C. § 676a.
Page 25 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

established a number of requirements the Coast Guard is required to 

follow if it proposes closing or terminating operations at its air facilities.46

Thus, the two air facilities remained open. As of May 2017, Coast Guard 

officials told us they have no plan to close air facilities or air stations, nor 

do they plan to develop a process to comprehensively review air stations 

or facilities to optimize their locations because previous attempts to close 

stations or facilities have been prohibited by law or subject to certain 

requirements. However, the Coast Guard has responsibility for evaluating 

the need for its air stations and air facilities to ensure that it is using 

resources as effectively and efficiently as possible. The Coast Guard’s 

station optimization charter calls for a defendable (i.e., sound) and datadriven analysis of boat stations that meets statutory requirements. This 

charter could be a template for establishing a parallel process for 

comprehensively analyzing the need for its air stations and air facilities.

GAO’s Program Evaluation guidance calls for evaluating programs based 

on well-regarded criteria to achieve strong, defensible conclusions.47

Program evaluations can also provide accountability for the use of public 

resources (e.g., to determine the “value added” by the expenditure of 

those resources), such as whether scarce resources are being spent on 

unnecessarily duplicative air facilities. Having a sound and reproducible 

process for comprehensively analyzing the need for air stations and air 

facilities will better position the Coast Guard to make decisions to 

enhance the efficiency of its operations and more effectively allocate its 

resources. These actions will also better inform Congress as to the status 

of the Coast Guard’s resource needs and the efficiency of its operations.

 46Requirements include Secretary of Homeland Security determinations that (1) SAR 

capabilities are maintained in the area; (2) weather and sea conditions do not require 

continued facility operation; and (3) SAR time standards will continue to be met. The 

Secretary must also provide opportunities for public comment, including public meetings in 

communities in the area of responsibility of the air facility, regarding any proposed closure; 

submit a proposal to Congress in the President’s budget prior to any closure; and not later 

than 7 days after a closure proposal is submitted provide written notice to members of 

Congress and Senators who represent the district in which the facility is located or which 

assets conduct SAR operations; and written notice to the House Committees on 

Appropriations and Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations and Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 14 U.S.C. § 676a.

47GAO-12-208G.
Page 26 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

The 2013 analysis of Coast Guard stations identified unnecessary 

duplication and recommended certain stations for potential closure; 

however, as of August 2017 the Coast Guard had not closed any stations, 

nor developed a plan with time frames for closing stations. In their input to

the station optimization process, Coast Guard officials in affected districts 

supported recommended station closures to achieve operational 

improvements, and Coast Guard leadership continues to believe the 

study results are valid. Implementing station closures could also result in 

costs savings.

The need to close some Coast Guard stations that provide unnecessarily 

duplicative SAR coverage to efficiently respond to changed 

circumstances such as improved technology is not a new issue. Coast 

Guard officials reported, and our prior work has shown, that the Coast 

Guard has attempted to permanently or seasonally close stations at least 

eight times since 1973.48 However, closing unneeded stations has 

historically been difficult due to public concern about the effect of closures 

on local communities and other factors. In some cases over the years, 

Congress has intervened and enacted federal laws that have affected 

Coast Guard’s proposed closures. For example, in 1988 the Department 

of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1989, 

required the Coast Guard to reopen boat stations 1 year after they had 

been closed,49 and at the same time provided that GAO was to evaluate 

the methods behind the Coast Guard decision.50 Responding to this 

provision in 1990, we reported that the Coast Guard’s 1988 closure 

decisions were based on flawed methods, incomplete analysis, and 

incomplete data. The Coast Guard subsequently updated its process and 

by 1994 we reported that that it was using a reasonable approach to 

recommend stations for closure.

Despite the improved Coast Guard process, no stations have been closed 

since 1988. Coast Guard officials reported that Congress continues to 

 48Count of closure attempts includes planned closures, proposed closures, and closures 

that the Coast Guard began processing, including the ongoing efforts to seasonally close 

stations. In addition, in 1990 we reported that the Department of Transportation Inspector 

General recommended that the Coast Guard close 21 stations, and the Coast Guard 

recommended additional closures. See GAO/RCED-90-98.

49Pub. L. No. 100-457, 102 Stat. 2125, 2126 (1988).

50Id. at § 350, 102 Stat. 2156. 

Coast Guard Has Not 

Taken Actions nor 

Developed a Plan to 

Close Unnecessarily 

Duplicative Stations 

Its Analyses Identified

Coast Guard Has 

Attempted to Close 

Stations At Least Eight 

Times since 1973
Page 27 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

oversee and manage the closure of stations, such as by establishing new 

requirements in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, which must 

be met to change any boat stations, after the Coast Guard attempted to 

close 23 stations in 1995.51 Similarly, after the Coast Guard attempted to 

close two air facilities in 2014, legislation was passed in 2014 and 2016 

that prohibited Coast Guard air facility closures until January 2016 and 

2018, respectively.52

Figure 7 provides a timeline of Coast Guard station change proposals or 

actions, including at least eight Coast Guard attempts to close stations 

between 1973 and 2014. The figure also includes statutory requirements 

established in 1989, 1996, 2014, and 2016, and two data-driven analyses 

and studies with recommendations to address unnecessary duplication, 

among other information.

 5114 U.S.C. § 675.

52In addition, beginning January 1, 2018, the Coast Guard must meet additional 

requirements prior to closing air stations or air facilities. 14 U.S.C. § 676a.
Page 28 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 7: Timeline of Studies and Actions to Address the Need for Coast Guard Stations, 1970 to 2017 (number of proposed 

closures denoted within the shapes below)

a

In 1990 we reported on the Coast Guard’s process for closing stations and past attempts to close 

stations. See GAO, Coast Guard: Better Process Needed to Justify Closing Search and Rescue 

Stations, GAO/RCED-90-98 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 1990).
Page 29 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

b

Pub. L. No. 100-457, 102 Stat. 2125, 2126 (1988).

c

See GAO, Coast Guard: Improved Process Exists to Evaluate Changes to Small Boat Stations, 

GAO/RCED-94-147 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1994).

d

Following unsuccessful attempts to permanently close the stations, the Coast Guard changed them 

to seasonal stations.

e

14 U.S.C. § 675.

f

Coast Guard analysis and study recommended permanent closure of Station Shark River due to low 

caseload and close proximity to an adjacent station. This station is designated a seasonal station but 

operates year-round.

g

Pub. L. No. 113-281, § 225(b), 128 Stat. 3022, 3039 (2014).

h

14 U.S.C. § 676a.

Past Coast Guard efforts to analyze and close stations have frequently 

identified the same stations as candidates for closure. For example, prior 

to the 2013 contractor study, at least two Coast Guard districts conducted 

their own station analyses to identify opportunities to improve their 

stations’ operations. These analyses also recommended permanent and 

seasonal closures of some stations. Specifically, in 2010, Coast Guard 

District 9 began conducting a data-driven analysis of its stations to 

optimize its boat forces. District 9 officials told us they initiated the 

analysis due to budget constraints, the challenges they had in fully 

staffing their stations, and their awareness of overlapping SAR coverage 

within the district. District 9’s analysis reviewed more than 16,000 SAR 

cases over a 5-year period (2008–2012) to understand and quantify 

potential response inefficiencies. According to Coast Guard officials, their 

analysis determined that overall SAR caseload in District 9 was extremely 

high in the summer months, but there was little or no SAR caseload for 

some stations during the winter, a factor which also affected training 

proficiency as personnel were not able to respond to enough cases to 

maintain required qualifications.53 Based on the results of this analysis, in 

December 2012, District 9 requested approval to permanently close five 

stations and seasonally close three stations to achieve more effective 

operations and improve maritime safety in the Great Lakes region.

According to Coast Guard district officials, these recommended closures 

provided no calculated savings to taxpayers because they involved 

movement of personnel positions and assets to other stations, not their 

elimination. Instead, the recommendations showed an effort to improve 

operational efficiency and conserve Coast Guard resources. Furthermore, 

 53The Coast Guard reported that workloads in District 9 were diluted among stations 

during the winter, which limited the opportunities for personnel to gain experience through 

on-the-job training necessary to build a proficient workforce.
Page 30 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

among those stations in Districts 1, 5, and 9 recommended for permanent 

closure in 2013, at least five—Ashtabula, Ohio; Frankfort, Michigan; 

Harbor Beach, Michigan; Shark River, New Jersey; and Block Island, 

Rhode Island—were also recommended for closure between 1985 and 

1988.

When we compared the 2012 recommendations from the District 9 

analysis, the 2013 contractor analysis recommendations that used the 9-

step Station Optimization Process, and additional 2013 district input, we 

found similar results among the various analyses with respect to which 

stations should be permanently or seasonally closed. Based on our 

review of documentation and interviews with District 9 officials, as well as 

our comparison of the results of the District 9 analysis with the results of 

the contractor analysis, the 2013 recommendations are affirmed by the 

District 9 analysis.54 We provide a comparison of selected 

recommendations and Coast Guard Headquarters’ tentatively planned 

actions in table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Selected Coast Guard Recommendations to Change Boat Station Operations

Station (district) 2012 District 9 

analysis

2013 contractor 

analysis

2013 district input 2017 recommended 

actions

Ashtabula, OH (9) Close Not applicable 

(n/a)a Close Seasonally Close

Frankfort, MI (9) Seasonally Close n/aa Seasonally Close Seasonally Close

Harbor Beach, MI (9) Seasonally Close n/aa Seasonally Close Seasonally Close

Kenosha, WI (9) Close Close Close Seasonally Close

Lorain, OH (9) Close Close Close Seasonally Close

Ludington, MI (9) Seasonally Close n/aa Seasonally Close Seasonally Close

Oxford, MD (5) n/a Close Close To be determined (TBD)

Beach Haven, NJ Seasonal Station (5) n/a Close Close TBD

Fortesque, NJ Seasonal Station (5) n/a Close Close TBD

Shark River, NJ Seasonal Station (5) n/a Close Close TBD

Roosevelt Inlet, DE Seasonal Station (5) n/a Close Close TBD

Wrightsville Beach, NC (5) n/a Close Leave Openb Leave Open

Ocracoke, NC Seasonal Station (5) n/a n/a n/ab TBDb

 54Due to the amount of time that has passed since the District 9 study was conducted and 

personnel changes, the Coast Guard was unable to locate some documentation for us to 

review. However, the documentation available from the various studies, related testimonial 

evidence, and our own analysis of SAR data was sufficient to make this determination.
Page 31 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Station (district) 2012 District 9 

analysis

2013 contractor 

analysis

2013 district input 2017 recommended 

actions

Jones Beach, NY (1) n/a Close Close TBD

Merrimack River, MA (1) n/a Close Leave Openc Leave Open

Scituate, MA Seasonal Station (1) n/a Close Close TBD

Block Island, RI Seasonal Station (1) n/a Close Close TBD

Fishers Island, NY Seasonal Station (1) n/a Close Close TBD

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard studies, feedback memoranda, and policy change requests. │ GAO-18-9

a

Station not considered for closure by the contractor study due to study-specific criteria such as the 

extent to which station area of operations would retain double coverage.

b

District 5 input identified unique conditions at Wrightsville Beach to keep that station open. As an 

alternative, district officials identified Seasonal Station Ocracoke as a closure candidate without a 

reduction in the Coast Guard’s ability to meet the area SAR standard. The standard calls for Coast 

Guard stations to plan to arrive on the scene of the SAR distress cases within their area of 

responsibility within 2 hours (including up to 30 minutes of preparation prior to launch).

c

District 1 identified this station as having a unique and irreplaceable capability that adjacent stations 

did not have—surf boat response––and thus it was important to keep it open.

Input from District 9, which had the greatest number of affected stations in 

the 2013 analysis, supported recommended changes and stated that “the 

existing unnecessary redundancies, unsustainable complexities, and 

unacceptable resource gaps negatively affected mission execution in the 

Great Lakes, where staffing shortfalls exist.” District 9’s input further 

stated that in some regions, four stations could respond to SAR cases 

within the Coast Guard’s SAR standard, and that while some redundancy 

is merited, these areas demonstrate redundancy that is operationally 

unnecessary, inefficient, and detrimental to the training needs of station 

personnel.

Our interview with officials at one affected station confirmed some of the 

complexities facing the region. For example, officials told us that because 

one station recommended for seasonal closure does not operate a boat 

capable of offshore SAR responses, adjacent stations are already 

directed to respond to certain offshore SAR cases in that station’s area of 

responsibility to meet the Coast Guard’s 2-hour SAR standard. Officials 

we interviewed from each of the seven stations we visited in District 9 

noted their station’s high SAR caseload concentration during the summer 

months and the low or nonexistent SAR caseload during the winter. For 

example, officials from two stations that the Coast Guard would like to 

seasonally close during the winter told us that their stations had not 

responded to an ice rescue in more than 7 years. Officials we interviewed 

at one station recommended for permanent closure noted that 

commercial boating traffic and the local population have been declining 

District 9 and Station Input 

Supported Recommended 

Permanent and Seasonal 

Station Closures
Page 32 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

for many years, that the station was not busy during the winter season, 

and that the station had not conducted an ice rescue since 2002.

In 2017, the Coast Guard affirmed that its leadership believed that the 

results of the 2013 study remained valid as station workloads have 

remained relatively consistent. Headquarters officials also told us that the 

2013 study criteria and subsequent recommendations for permanent 

closures were conservative because of previous unsuccessful attempts to 

close stations, and to meet statutory requirements to maintain a certain 

level of SAR coverage. They also told us that the analysis did not 

consider additional layers of response even though these layers could 

provide some additional SAR response backup for Coast Guard stations. 

For example, the contractor’s analyses of boat stations did not consider 

SAR support provided by Coast Guard aviation assets, which generally 

provide an additional layer of SAR coverage for boat stations. Moreover, 

district officials told us that aviation assets in District 9 were recently 

realigned to provide even greater response capability, including longer 

range helicopters with de-icing capability to improve winter response 

capability.

The contractor analysis also did not take into account the potential SAR 

capabilities of commercial towing operators and local first responders 

which can also provide another layer of coverage to assist Coast Guard 

stations with SAR coverage. For example, officials from each of the seven 

stations we visited in District 9 told us that they coordinate with other 

entities, such as commercial towing operators, who can conduct 

responses for non-life-threatening incidents, such as providing fuel to or 

towing disabled boats in their station’s area of responsibility. Officials from 

one station also told us that the local fire department has performed ice 

rescues in the past, because people who require ice rescues tend to dial 

911 first rather than call the Coast Guard, and thus local emergency 

responders are able to respond faster than the Coast Guard. Officials 

from another station told us that the local sheriff has two response boats, 

and that the Coast Guard coordinates with local government and 

responders.

Station closures could also achieve cost savings in addition to the 

aforementioned efficiency improvements. For example, based on our 

analysis of the contractor study, if its recommendations to permanently 

close the 18 stations from D1, D5, and D9 were implemented, and 

personnel and boat assets were moved or reduced in accordance with 

the study recommendations, the study reported that these closures could 

Station Closures Could 

Achieve Cost Savings
Page 33 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

achieve potential cost savings of about $290 million over 20 years.55 In 

addition, land disposition estimates were excluded from the study, which 

could result in one-time proceeds from the sale of the land on which the 

stations are sited, if the land value exceeded remediation costs.56

In addition to lost opportunities to improve operational efficiency and 

effectiveness because stations were not closed previously, some of these 

stations have also fallen into physical disrepair and will require funding for 

repairs if the stations remain open, even if they are only operated 

seasonally. For example, officials at one station we visited showed us a 

boat dock that was improperly installed and thus was subsequently 

damaged by waves and will need to be repaired or replaced. At this same 

station, officials informed us that the furnace system requires daily, 

manual adjustments to address temperature fluctuations that could cause 

damage to the station. One official also told us that this station’s building 

structure is too big and costly, and its condition too poor, to be worth 

keeping. Therefore, even if this station were seasonally closed, as 

currently recommended—despite the analysis results suggesting 

permanent closure—the station will continue to require personnel to be at 

the station on a daily basis year round. Another station, which multiple 

studies recommended for permanent closure because of unnecessary 

duplication and a caseload insufficient to sustain the training 

requirements of personnel stationed there, was rebuilt as a result of 

extensive damage from Hurricane Sandy. According to Coast Guard 

budget data, more than $2.3 million was expended to restore this station 

as of March 2017 using funds appropriated by the supplemental 

appropriations act enacted in response to Hurricane Sandy.57

 55We validated the potential cost savings of about $290 million over 20 years. Based on 

our analysis, the present value of potential cost savings is $269 million. 

56The contractor study did not estimate potential environmental remediation costs.

57Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-2, 127 Stat. 4, 28 (2013).
Page 34 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Given the extent of overlapping SAR coverage identified by the Coast 

Guard’s analyses and its attempts to address unnecessary duplication, 

we considered the stations’ levels of overlapping coverage in the context 

of the definitions we use for identifying overlap and duplication.58 Figure 8 

depicts the extent of the Coast Guard’s overlapping boat and air station 

SAR coverage, with darker shading representing greater overlapping 

coverage, some of which the Coast Guard determined to be 

unnecessarily duplicative. Boat station coverage is represented by 

shading while aviation coverage is shown by the largest circle sizes.

 58In 2010, federal law required that within departments and government-wide we identify 

programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities and report 

annually. Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note. See 

GAO’s Duplication and Cost Savings web page for links to the 2011 to 2017 annual 

reports: http://www.gao.gov/duplication/overview. Overlap occurs when multiple agencies 

or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, 

or target similar beneficiaries. Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs 

are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries.

Actions Needed to 

Address Unnecessary 

Duplication
Page 35 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 8: Overlap of Coast Guard Search and Rescue Coverage Provided by Boat Stations, Air Stations, and Air Facilities, 

May 2017

In April 2016, the Coast Guard completed statutory requirements 

associated with closing eight stations in District 9 by conducting outreach 

to regional and local communities that would be affected by seasonal 

closures. The Coast Guard held these meetings to explain why it was 

necessary to optimize station locations and reallocate personnel from 

closed stations to their adjacent stations; address overlapping SAR 

coverage; and seasonally close unnecessarily duplicative stations. Coast 

Guard officials from one station told us they held a public meeting with the 

local fire department, police, and commercial towing operators to describe 

planned changes for seasonal operations at the station, despite this 

station having been recommended for permanent closure by studies and 

district input. According to Coast Guard officials, while some local 

responders in the District 9 area expressed some concerns, they 

understood the need for change. In addition, according to headquarters 
Page 36 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

officials, the Coast Guard has also completed outreach efforts with 

members of Congress who represent these communities. They further 

stated that they plan to follow the same outreach process when they 

finalize decisions about whether to permanently or seasonally close 

stations in Districts 1 and 5.

The Coast Guard has not taken action to implement the results of its 

analyses which recommended closures even though it has completed 

requirements to pursue station closures in District 9. Officials stated that 

the Coast Guard has not implemented the results of its sound process 

because past station closure efforts have been met with resistance from 

affected communities. As a result, Coast Guard leadership decided to 

pursue a more cautious approach by maintaining seasonal daily 

operations rather than closing stations outright as recommended in 

multiple analyses.59

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

agencies should have policies and procedures for ensuring that findings 

of audits or other reviews, such as the Coast Guard’s 2013 station 

optimization study, are promptly resolved. The guidance further states 

that managers are to (1) correct identified deficiencies, (2) produce 

improvements, or (3) demonstrate that the findings and recommendations 

do not warrant management action.

60

Coast Guard officials stated they recognize that their planned actions do 

not fully match the identified recommendations, but given historical 

challenges with closing stations, seasonal closures are preferable to 

taking no action. In March 2017, Coast Guard officials told us they 

intended to begin the process for seasonal closures of stations in District 

9 at the end of the 2017 boating season while actions in Districts 1 and 5 

are pending as the Coast Guard has not finalized its decisions about 

these stations.

The Project Management Institute’s Standard for Program Management 

describes, among other things, how resource planning, goals, and 

milestones are good practices that can enhance management for most 

 59As of August 2016, the Coast Guard planned to operate some seasonal stations during 

the weekend only; however, in February 2017 the Coast Guard revised its intended 

actions to be more cautious and operate the seasonal stations on a daily basis.

60GAO-14-704G.
Page 37 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

programs.61 By executing decisions to close stations based on the results 

of its analyses and developing a plan with milestones to execute actions it 

has identified to address unnecessary duplication, the Coast Guard will 

be better positioned to follow through with both permanent and seasonal 

closures of unnecessary stations, can improve its operational and training 

proficiency by consolidating the remaining stations’ workloads to allow for 

sufficient training, and may realize cost savings.

The Coast Guard’s 2013 analysis, based on a sound, data-driven process 

that applied established criteria—its 2-hour SAR response standard—

supports permanently closing some boat stations. Nevertheless, Coast 

Guard officials do not intend to follow the recommendations to 

permanently close the stations the study recommended, due, in part, to 

views expressed by community representatives. The Coast Guard’s 2014 

air station and air facilities study also supported closing two air facilities 

and was criteria-based, but was not comprehensive. An optimization 

process similar to that applied to boat stations could make a better case 

for closing selected air stations and air facilities, if it is methodologically 

sound.

The need to close Coast Guard stations that provide unnecessary 

duplication of SAR coverage, in response to changing circumstances, is 

not a new issue. Closing unneeded stations has historically been difficult, 

but with improvements in technology, severely decreased workloads, and 

continuing budget constraints, the importance of reevaluating the 

operations of these stations is even greater. In addition to lost 

opportunities to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness that 

would be gained by closing unnecessary stations, some of these stations 

have fallen into physical disrepair and will require funding for repairs if 

they remain open. Given these factors, Coast Guard action is clearly 

warranted.

 61Project Management Institute, Inc., The Standard for Program Management ®, Third 

Edition (Newton Square, Pa.: 2013). The Standard for Program Management ® describes, 

among other things, how resource planning, goals, milestones, performance measures, 

and program monitoring and reporting are good practices that can enhance management 

for most programs. 

Conclusions
Page 38 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

We are recommending the following three actions to the Coast Guard:

• The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish and follow a 

sound air station optimization process similar to its process for 

analyzing boat stations to allow it to comprehensively analyze its need 

for air stations and air facilities and determine what changes may be 

needed. (Recommendation 1)

• The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a plan with 

target dates and milestones for closing boat stations that it has 

determined, through its 9-step process and subsequent analysis, 

provide overlapping search and rescue coverage and are 

unnecessarily duplicative. (Recommendation 2)

• The Commandant of the Coast Guard should take action to close the 

stations identified according to its plan and target dates. 

(Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In its 

comments, reproduced in appendix V, DHS concurred with our 

recommendations. DHS, through the Coast Guard, also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

DHS concurred with our first recommendation that the Coast Guard 

establish and follow a sound air station optimization process similar to its 

process for analyzing boat stations so it may comprehensively analyze its 

air station and air facility needs. DHS further stated that the Coast Guard

would utilize its fiscal year 2020 Planning, Programming, Budget, and 

Execution cycle to identify efficiencies in air station optimization using 

best practices employed in its boat station optimization efforts. DHS 

expects this effort to be completed in September 2019.

DHS concurred with our second recommendation that the Coast Guard 

establish a plan with target dates and milestones for closing boat stations 

that it has determined provide overlapping search and rescue coverage 

and are unnecessarily duplicative. DHS stated that Coast Guard 

headquarters and appropriate district commands will continue to analyze 

operational coverage across the nation through the 9-step optimization 

process and recommend closures or seasonalization (e.g., seasonal 

closures) of boat stations to eliminate unnecessary duplication and 

overlap in search and rescue coverage. The Coast Guard’s internal 

analysis is expected to be completed in September 2020.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 39 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

DHS concurred with our third recommendation that the Coast Guard take 

action to close the identified stations according to its plan and target 

dates, stating that Coast Guard headquarters personnel and appropriate 

district commands will continue to analyze closing or seasonalizing 

operations at boat stations identified according to its plan and target 

dates. DHS further stated that it must complete implementation of the 

second recommendation before beginning to implement the third and that 

the estimated completion date for the third recommendation was to be 

determined. Given the robustness of the Coast Guard’s review process 

and the clear results showing unnecessary duplication among some boat 

stations, in addition to other valid analyses completed in previous years 

supporting the closure of unneeded boat stations, the Coast Guard 

should move forward with minimal delay to implement this third 

recommendation, once the plan as outlined in the second 

recommendation is completed. We will continue to monitor the Coast 

Guard’s actions to close unnecessarily duplicative stations in a timely 

manner through our annual report on duplication, overlap, and 

fragmentation in the federal government. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and 

other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7141 or GroverJ@gao.gov. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI

Sincerely yours,

Jennifer Grover

Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

To identify the extent to which the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) has a 

sound process for analyzing the need for its boat stations, we reviewed 

laws, policies, and procedures related to its search and rescue (SAR) 

mission. We reviewed Coast Guard documentation of processes it used 

to analyze the need for boat stations, reviewed resource and budget 

factors, and analyzed station activity levels. We also reviewed prior GAO 

reports on the Coast Guard’s resource allocation process and its previous 

attempts to close stations.1 To verify and validate the Coast Guard’s 

specific analytical process used to determine overlapping coverage, we 

obtained and analyzed the Coast Guard’s analytical assumptions, 

including the operational parameters of the assets assigned to the 

stations (e.g., boat speeds), and station locations.2 This analysis also 

allowed us to verify the soundness of the Coast Guard’s model used to 

identify overlap. We then independently recreated and visually depicted 

overlapping SAR coverage provided by the stations, based on Coast 

Guard data, assumptions, and documentation, and compared it with SAR 

 1

GAO, Coast Guard: Better Process Needed to Justify Closing Search and Rescue 

Stations, GAO/RCED-90-98 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 6, 1990); and Coast Guard: 

Improved Process Exists to Evaluate Changes to Small Boat Stations, 

GAO/RCED-94-147 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1994).

2

The Coast Guard Search and Rescue Visual Analytics (cgSARVA) is an interactive 

system that has been designed to assist U.S. Coast Guard decision makers and analysts 

in understanding and assessing the operational efficiencies of different Coast Guard 

missions at different organizational levels. cgSARVA provides an interactive user interface 

and a suite of tools that enable visualization, analysis, and assessment of different Coast 

Guard missions. According to program documentation, the system allows an analysis of 

the potential risks to the maritime environment associated with station closures and 

reallocation of different resources in terms of response time, potential lives and property 

lost, and provides optimal direction as to the nearest available station in case of such 

station closures. According to program documentation, the system enables the analysis of 

trends, patterns, and anomalies associated with the distribution of cases in both space 

and time conducted by the Coast Guard throughout the United States. According to 

program documentation, the Aviation Capability and Capacity Assignment Module 

(ACCAM), an optimization model for Coast Guard air stations, was created for the Coast 

Guard to maximize aircraft fleet operational performance subject to budgetary constraints, 

or, conversely, to minimize aircraft fleet operational costs subject to performance targets. 

It is a two-stage model. The first stage is a simulation model of each Coast Guard air 

station generating performance metrics resulting from various scenarios. Each scenario is 

determined by a large number of relevant air station attributes, including number and 

types of stationed aircraft, operational level, historical search and rescue mission 

response, historical maintenance processes, deployment requirements, and other mission 

requirements. The second stage is an optimization model over the structured set of

scenarios to determine the optimal deployment assignments, operational levels, and 

aircraft allocation among all Coast Guard air stations, under the current infrastructure. 

Additionally, the optimization model is used to demonstrate the potential efficiencies of 

proposed infrastructural changes.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

case data by geographic area. We then analyzed Coast Guard data on 

single boat SAR responses (sorties) by station for fiscal years 2010 

through 2016, the most recent data available at the time of our review.3

We visited a nongeneralizable sample of 12 stations we selected from 

within districts where the Coast Guard had identified overlap, and 

interviewed officials to identify local policies, station characteristics, local 

coordination with emergency responders and federal agencies, and local 

input to the Coast Guard’s process for assessing station needs and 

implementing changes to the locations of stations, if any.

Additionally, we interviewed Coast Guard officials, including field and 

headquarters personnel, to determine the extent to which the Coast 

Guard had assessed maritime activity trends and leveraged resources 

from outside entities, such as local first responders, federal agencies, and 

private industry. We also interviewed Coast Guard officials to obtain 

information on the extent to which the Coast Guard used findings and 

recommendations from selected studies, strategies, and plans in its 

analyses of the need for its boat stations.

To assess the reliability of Coast Guard SAR data, we interviewed 

knowledgeable officials, reviewed documentation, and electronically 

tested the data for obvious errors and anomalies. We interviewed Coast 

Guard officials to discuss the reliability issues we identified, such as the 

inability to attribute multi-boat SAR case responses to individual stations, 

as well as inconsistent data related to the types of boats used to conduct 

SAR cases. Regarding attributing multi-boat responses to individual 

stations, Coast Guard officials told us that some cases involve multiple 

boats and that the outcome of a SAR case may not be attributable to an 

individual station. Regarding boat assets used to conduct SAR cases, in 

February 2017, officials informed us that in 2015 the Coast Guard 

implemented changes to its Marine Information for Safety and Law 

Enforcement (MISLE) system and added around 500 controls, such as 

built-in data entry checks, to prevent potential data entry errors. Officials 

told us that this change could have caused some inconsistences in how 

 3

We obtained search and rescue case data, such as the number of single- and multi-boat 

responses by station and by fiscal year, from the Coast Guard’s Marine Information for 

Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system, for fiscal years 2010 through 2016. In 

some locations, more than one Coast Guard station may initiate a search and rescue 

response due to the close proximity of the stations or other factors. Because around 29 

percent of these SAR cases (22,322 out of 77,953) could be duplicative if attributed to 

individual stations, we focused our analyses on single-boat responses (55,631 cases) 

where we could accurately attribute the cases to individual stations.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

the data is captured, but that the implementation of the changes includes 

testing and ongoing actions to resolve the issues. We determined that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report to 

demonstrate selected station caseloads in our report. We compared 

Coast Guard actions to evaluate stations against criteria established in 

GAO’s Designing Evaluations guidance, which call for adhering to 

established evaluation design practices in order to achieve reliable 

results,4 the Coast Guard’s SAR response standard,5 and statutory 

requirements to conduct public outreach.6

To identify the extent to which the Coast Guard has a sound process to 

analyze the need for its air stations and air facilities, we reviewed laws, 

policies, and procedures related to its SAR mission. We reviewed Coast 

Guard documentation of processes it used to analyze the need for 

selected air facilities in 2014. We obtained and analyzed Coast Guard 

assumptions and station locations for determining overlapping SAR 

coverage in 2014 and used a mapping program to visually depict 

overlapping coverage provided by aviation assets, based on Coast Guard 

data, assumptions, and documentation. Additionally, we interviewed 

Coast Guard officials to obtain information on the extent to which the 

Coast Guard used findings and recommendations from selected studies, 

 4

GAO, Designing Evaluations 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: January 

2012). This report addresses the logic of program evaluation design, presents generally 

accepted statistical principles, and describes different types of evaluations for answering 

varied questions about program performance, the process of designing evaluation studies, 

and key issues to consider toward ensuring overall study quality. This report is one of a 

series of papers whose purpose is to provide guides to various aspects of audit and 

evaluation methodology and indicate where more detailed information is available. It is 

based on GAO reports and program evaluation literature. To ensure the guide’s 

competence and usefulness, drafts were reviewed by selected GAO, federal and state 

agency evaluators, and evaluation authors and practitioners from professional consulting 

firms. This publication supersedes Government Operations: Designing Evaluations, 

GAO/PEMD-10.1.4 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1991).

5

The Coast Guard establishes its response standard based on a macro analysis of 

expected survival times of people in the water, including regional variances (e.g., cold 

water versus warm, resource-rich port areas versus remote locations), and calls for its 

stations to plan to arrive to the scene of the SAR distress cases within their area of 

responsibility within 2 hours (including up to 30 minutes of preparation prior to launch). 

U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Addendum to the United States National Search and 

Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue 

Manual, COMDTINST M16130.2F (Washington, D.C.: January 2013).

6

14 U.S.C. § 675 requires the Coast Guard to provide an opportunity for public comment 

and for public meetings in the area of the station or subunit with regard to the decision to 

close the station or subunit. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

strategies, and plans in its analyses of the need for and locations of its air 

stations. We compared Coast Guard actions to evaluate air stations and 

air facilities against criteria established in GAO’s Designing Evaluations 

guidance which calls for adhering to established evaluation design 

practices in order to achieve reliable results, to determine if the Coast 

Guard’s methodological steps were sound.7

To determine the extent to which the Coast Guard has taken actions to 

implement the results of its analyses of its need for boat and air stations, 

we analyzed Coast Guard documents and reports to identify proposals 

put forth by the Coast Guard for permanently or seasonally closing 

stations it has identified as overlapping and unnecessary. We analyzed 

these proposed actions to determine whether proposed plans or 

decisions regarding stations aligned with the results of the Coast Guard 

analyses. Specifically, we reviewed the study reports, memoranda 

detailing district input on the results of the 2013 contractor study and their 

verification of the stations the study identified as unnecessarily 

duplicative, and compared the recommended closures from the various 

studies to determine if the outcomes were consistent. We also compared 

Coast Guard actions against its response standards and statutory 

requirements to conduct public outreach. Finally, we reviewed documents 

and information on these proposals and compared them against criteria in 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,8 and leading 

practices identified in the Project Management Institute’s Standard for 

Program Management.9

We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 through October 

2017 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.

 7

GAO-12-208G.

8

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014). 

9

Project Management Institute, Inc., The Standard for Program Management ®, Third 

Edition (Newton Square, Pa.: 2013). The Standard for Program Management ® describes, 

among other things, how resource planning, goals, milestones, performance measures, 

and program monitoring and reporting are good practices that can enhance management 

for most programs. 
Appendix II: Selected Coast Guard Assets

Page 44 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) uses several different types of 

assets to carry out its missions, including search and rescue. Coast 

Guard assets include boats, rotary wing aircraft (helicopters), fixed wing 

aircraft (planes), and cutters (including patrol boats and ships).

The Coast Guard’s primary boat station search and rescue (SAR) assets 

are its boats, which it uses to conduct searches near shore and on inland 

waterways, such as harbors and bays that are too shallow for its larger 

cutters to access.1 Different boats have different capabilities (see table 3). 

For example, 47-foot motor life boats are slower than other boats, but can 

operate in heavy weather and up to 50 nautical miles offshore.

The Coast Guard operates two types of aircraft: rotary wing (helicopters) 

and fixed wing (airplanes). Rotary wing aircraft operate from air stations, 

air facilities, cutters equipped with flight decks, and other locations that 

can support flight operations. The Coast Guard uses its rotary wing 

aircraft for search and rescue in coastal waters, among other mission 

uses. Rotary wing aircraft can hover and are equipped with hoists, which 

can allow rescue of distressed individuals from the water. Fixed wing 

aircraft operate from Coast Guard air stations, air facilities, and airports, 

and are used to conduct over-water searches and other missions.

Coast Guard cutters are ships 65 foot or longer. They operate under the 

control of District or Area commands. According to the Coast Guard, 

cutters are suitable for conducting extended search and rescue 

operations because of their high endurance, communications systems, 

and ability to operate in heavier weather than other assets. Cutters carry 

boats that can directly rescue mariners in distress. Cutters with flight 

decks can serve as launch platforms for helicopters, which can help with 

SAR operations.

The Coast Guard generally allocates boats to stations based on the 

needs and conditions of those stations. The Coast Guard also has other 

types of boats in its inventory that are used for a variety of missions that 

 1

As of August 2017, the Coast Guard operated about 1,400 boats and cutters, of which 

about 700 are boats operated out of boat stations.

Appendix II: Selected Coast Guard Assets

Boats

Aircraft

Cutters
Appendix II: Selected Coast Guard Assets

Page 45 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

may include SAR missions. Table 3 provides details of selected boats 

used for search and rescue.

Table 3: Selected Coast Guard Boats Used for Search and Rescue (SAR) at Boat Stations

Type of boat Specifications Purpose

Response Boat Small - I 

(RB-SI)

25-foot, maximum speed 46 knots, cruise speed 

35 knots, maximum seas of 6 feet, maximum 

range 150 nautical miles, maximum offshore 

distance 10 nautical miles, brought into service in 

2003.

Designed as a highly maneuverable and multimission 

capable boat powered by twin outboard gas engines, 

used to conduct search and rescue and high-speed 

maneuvering tactics, including homeland security 

operations.

Response Boat Small - II 

(RB-SII)

29-foot, maximum speed 47 knots, cruise speed 

25 knots, maximum seas of 6 feet, maximum 

range 175 nautical miles, maximum offshore 

distance 10 nautical miles, brought into service in 

2012. 

Designed as a highly maneuverable and multimission 

capable boat powered by twin outboard gas engines, 

used to conduct search and rescue and high-speed 

maneuvering tactics, including homeland security 

operations.

Response Boat Medium 

(RB-M)

45-foot, maximum speed 47 knots, cruise speed 

30 knots, maximum seas of 10 feet, maximum 

range 250 nautical miles, maximum offshore 

distance 50 nautical miles, started production in 

2008.

Designed as a high-speed, self-righting, multimission 

capable boat to operate in moderate weather and sea 

conditions and are not permitted to operate in 

breaking surf or bar conditions.

Motor Life Boat (MLB) 47-foot, maximum speed 25 knots, cruise speed 

20 knots, maximum seas of 30 feet and surf of 20 

feet, maximum range 200 nautical miles, 

maximum offshore distance 50 nautical miles, 

started production in 1997.

Designed as a self-righting response rescue boat 

primarily for SAR missions in high seas, surf, and 

heavy weather conditions, and also supports other 

mission operations.

Special Purpose Craft –

Shallow Water (SPC-SW)

27-foot, maximum speed 41 knots, cruise speed 

30 knots, maximum seas of 4 feet, maximum 

range 225 nautical miles, maximum offshore 

distance 5 nautical miles, brought into service in 

2008. 

Designed as a multimission capable boat for shallow 

water operations including search and rescue, 

maritime law enforcement, and Ports, Waterways, 

and Coastal Security missions.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard documentation as of March 2017. | GAO-18-9
Appendix III: Extent of Search and Rescue 

Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in the 

Contiguous United States

Page 46 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figures 9 through 12 show the extent of search and rescue coverage by 

U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) boat stations in the contiguous United 

States and selected Coast Guard districts reported in September 2013. 

The extent of coverage in 2017 was the same as the Coast Guard’s 2013 

contractor study reported.

Figure 9: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Boat Stations in the Contiguous United States Reported in September 

2013 (Current as of May 2017)

Note: GAO recreated the map of search and rescue coverage by following the same parameters the 

Coast Guard used when it provided the contractor the map in 2013. The extent of coverage identified 

in 2017 is the same reported in the Coast Guard’s 2013 contractor study.

Appendix III: Extent of Search and Rescue 

Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in 

the Contiguous United States
Appendix III: Extent of Search and Rescue 

Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in the 

Contiguous United States

Page 47 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 10: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in 

District 1 Reported in September 2013 (Current as of May 2017)

Note: GAO recreated the map of search and rescue coverage by following the same parameters the 

Coast Guard used when it provided the contractor the map in 2013. The extent of coverage identified 

in 2017 is the same reported in the Coast Guard’s 2013 contractor study.
Appendix III: Extent of Search and Rescue 

Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in the 

Contiguous United States

Page 48 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 11: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in 

District 5 Reported in September 2013 (Current as of May 2017)

Note: GAO recreated the map of search and rescue coverage by following the same parameters the 

Coast Guard used when it provided the contractor the map in 2013. The extent of coverage identified 

in 2017 is the same reported in the Coast Guard’s 2013 contractor study.
Appendix III: Extent of Search and Rescue 

Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in the 

Contiguous United States

Page 49 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Figure 12: Extent of Search and Rescue Coverage by Coast Guard Boat Stations in District 9 Reported in September 2013 

(Current as of May 2017)

Note: GAO recreated the map of search and rescue coverage by following the same parameters the 

Coast Guard used when it provided the contractor the map in 2013. The extent of coverage identified 

in 2017 is the same reported in the Coast Guard’s 2013 contractor study.
Appendix IV: Reported Single-Boat Search and 

Rescue Responses by Selected Stations, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 50 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Table 4 provides details of selected U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) 

stations recommended for permanent or seasonal closure and the search 

and rescue (SAR) caseloads they reported for fiscal years 2010 through 

2016, as well as estimated fiscal year 2015 annual operating costs. Our 

analysis of Coast Guard SAR single-boat response case data from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2016 found that the 18 stations recommended for 

closure reported an average of about 15 single-boat SAR responses 

annually, compared to an annual average of about 41 single-boat 

responses for all boat stations. These numbers are based on station 

reported data in the Coast Guard’s Marine Information for Safety and Law 

Enforcement (MISLE) case management system, and only include cases 

in which a single boat was launched to conduct a SAR mission. Some 

SAR missions result in multiple stations launching due to factors such as 

close proximity of stations, case complexity such as weather conditions, 

or other factors such as boat availability or training. Including multilaunch 

cases could result in double counting of SAR cases and therefore these 

cases were excluded from our analysis.1 Due to flexibility in how Coast 

Guard stations report SAR responses, some seasonal stations, which are 

detached subunits of larger parent stations, report the number of cases to 

which they respond in combination with the parent station.2 Because we 

could not disaggregate this information, we do not report on individual 

cases from these stations.

Table 4: Total Single Station Coast Guard Search and Rescue (SAR) Cases for Selected Boat Stations, Fiscal Years (FY) 2010 

through 2016, and Estimated FY 2015 Annual Operating Cost

Single SAR cases by fiscal year

Station (district) Estimated FY2015 

annual operating cost

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Ashtabula, OH (9) $1,031,917 7 28 22 19 31 22 44 173

Frankfort, MI (9) $882,816 15 14 12 10 13 20 4 88

Harbor Beach, MI (9) $866,247 15 15 10 6 5 11 11 73

Kenosha, WI (9) $1,815,684 26 27 42 23 22 11 13 164

Lorain, OH (9) $2,417,118 18 28 36 28 36 33 42 221

 1

Around 29 percent of SAR cases (22,322 out of 77,953) could be duplicative if attributed 

to individual stations. Therefore, we focused our analyses on single-boat responses 

(55,631 cases) where we could accurately attribute the cases to individual stations.

2

Excluding the stations that did not report their single-boat response SAR cases produces 

an average of 19 responses annually for the selected stations for fiscal years 2010 

through 2016, compared with the overall average of 41 single-boat responses for the 183 

multimission stations we analyzed.

Appendix IV: Reported Single-Boat Search 

and Rescue Responses by Selected

Stations, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016
Appendix IV: Reported Single-Boat Search and 

Rescue Responses by Selected Stations, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 51 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Single SAR cases by fiscal year

Station (district) Estimated FY2015 

annual operating cost

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Ludington, MI (9) $910,493 16 20 21 15 17 13 8 110

Oxford, MD (5) $1,068,894 26 13 18 17 15 15 13 117

Beach Haven, NJ Seasonal Station (5) $1,823,748a 15 4 4 4 2 1 4 34

Fortesque, NJ Seasonal Station (5) —a 11 10 2 7 4 0 4 38

Shark River, NJ Seasonal Station (5) —a 19 8 17 1 0 0 2 47

Roosevelt Inlet, DE Seasonal Station (5) —a 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Wrightsville Beach, NC (5) $1,577,217 19 47 39 18 22 16 24 185

Ocracoke, NC Seasonal Station (5) —b — — — — — — — —

Jones Beach, NY (1) $2,316,669 88 63 49 30 39 30 44 343

Merrimack River, MA (1) $2,094,330 82 55 50 36 19 33 35 310

Scituate, MA Seasonal Station (1) $407,891c — — — — — — — —

Block Island, RI Seasonal Station (1) $963,002d — — — — — — — —

Fishers Island Seasonal Station, NY (1) —d — — — — — — — —

Legend: — = not reported.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue case data. | GAO-18-9

Note: In some locations, more than one Coast Guard station may initiate a SAR response due to the 

close proximity of the stations or other factors. Because around 29 percent of these SAR cases 

(22,322 out of 77,953) could be duplicative if attributed to individual stations, we focused our analyses 

on single-boat responses (55,631 cases) where we could accurately attribute the cases to individual 

stations. Due to flexibility in how Coast Guard stations report SAR responses, some seasonal 

stations, which are detached subunits of larger parent stations, report the number of cases to which 

they respond in combination with the parent station. Because we could not disaggregate this 

information, we do not report on it.

a

A 2013 station optimization study grouped the closure of these stations together and attributed total 

cost savings for the four stations. The cost per station is a fraction of $1,823,748. Coast Guard could 

not provide annual station costs for some seasonally operated stations.

b

We estimated annual operating costs based on combining two sources because the Coast Guard 

could not provide details for some stations that operate seasonally and where operating costs are 

combined with nearby stations. We were unable to obtain station operating costs for some stations.

c

A 2013 station optimization study grouped the closure of this station with another station and 

attributed total cost savings for the two stations. We estimated an annual operating cost of around 

$407,891 for this station by combining information from two Coast Guard sources.

d

A 2013 station optimization study grouped the closure of these stations together and attributed total 

cost savings for the two stations. The cost per station is a fraction of $963,002. Coast Guard could 

not provide annual station costs for some seasonally operated stations.

Table 5 provides details of selected stations recommended for permanent 

or seasonal closure and the SAR caseloads they reported during the 

winter months, for fiscal years 2010 through 2016.
Appendix IV: Reported Single-Boat Search and 

Rescue Responses by Selected Stations, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 52 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Table 5: Winter Single Station Coast Guard Search and Rescue (SAR) Cases Reported for Selected Boat Stations, Fiscal 

Years 2010 through 2016

Single SAR cases by fiscal year, winter quarter

Station (district) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total responses 

2010–2016

Ashtabula, OH (9) — — 1 — 1 — — 2

Frankfort, MI (9) 1 1 — — — — 1 3

Harbor Beach, MI (9) — — — — — — 1 1

Kenosha, WI (9) 1 — 2 — — 1 2 6

Lorain, OH (9) — — 1 — — 1 — 2

Ludington, MI (9) — — — — — — — —

Oxford, MD (5) — 2 1 3 — 2 — 8

Beach Haven, NJ Seasonal Station (5) — — — — 1 — — 1

Fortesque, NJ Seasonal Station (5) — — — — — — — —

Shark River, NJ Seasonal Station (5) — — — — — — — —

Roosevelt Inlet, DE Seasonal Station (5) — — — — — — — —

Wrightsville Beach, NC (5) 1 1 6 — 3 3 3 17

Ocracoke, NC Seasonal Station (5) — — — — — — — —

Jones Beach, NY (1) 5 7 7 — 6 3 5 33

Merrimack River, MA (1) 4 2 — 2 1 2 — 11

Scituate, MA Seasonal Station (1) — — — — — — — —

Block Island, RI Seasonal Station (1) — — — — — — — —

Fishers Island, NY Seasonal Station (1) — — — — — — — —

Legend: — = not reported.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue case data. | GAO-18-9

Note: In some locations, more than one Coast Guard station may initiate a SAR response due to the 

close proximity of the stations or other factors. Because around 29 percent of these SAR cases 

(22,322 out of 77,953) could be duplicative if attributed to individual stations, we focused our analyses 

on single-boat responses (55,631 cases) where we could accurately attribute the cases to individual 

stations. Due to flexibility in how Coast Guard stations report SAR responses, some seasonal 

stations, which are detached subunits of larger parent stations, report the number of cases to which 

they respond in combination with the parent station. Because we could not disaggregate this 

information, we do not report on it.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 53 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 54 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 55 GAO-18-9 Coast Guard Search and Rescue

Jennifer A. Grover, (202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact above, Dawn Hoff (Assistant Director), Andrew 

Curry (Analyst-in-Charge), Chuck Bausell, Dorian Dunbar, Michele Fejfar, 

Peter Haderlein, Eric Hauswirth, Tracey King, John Mingus, Claire 

Peachey, and Christine San all made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100982)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.