Coast Guard: Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and Coordination with Stakeholders
Released: 2011-12-01T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Diminishing Ice Opens Potential for Increased Human Activity in the Arctic

Scientific research and projections of the changes taking place in the Arctic vary, but there is a general consensus that Arctic sea ice is diminishing and some scientists have projected that the Arctic will be ice- diminished for periods of time in the summer by as soon as 2040.recently as September 2011, scientists at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that the annual Arctic minimum sea ice extent for 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite record, and 938,000 square miles less than the 1979 to 2000 average annual minimum. These environmental changes in the Arctic are making maritime transit more feasible and are increasing the likelihood of human activity including tourism, oil and gas extraction, commercial shipping, and fishing in the As region.characteristics still provide challenges to surface navigation in the Arctic, including large amounts of winter ice and increased movement of ice from spring to fall. Increased movement of sea ice makes its location less predictable, which is likely to increase the risk for ships to become trapped or damaged by ice impacts.

Coast Guard Faces Challenges to Arctic Operations

As we reported in September 2010, the Coast Guard faces challenges to Arctic operations including limited maritime domain awareness, assets, and infrastructure. In a 2008 report to Congress, the Coast Guard stated that maritime domain awareness in the Arctic is critical to effective engagement in the Arctic as activity increases. However, several factors—including (1) inadequate Arctic Ocean and weather data, (2) lack of communication infrastructure, (3) limited intelligence information, and (4) lack of a physical presence in the Arctic—create challenges for the Coast Guard in achieving maritime domain awareness in the Arctic. The Coast Guard also faces limitations in assets and infrastructure in the Arctic. These include (1) an inadequate portfolio of small boats for Arctic operations, (2) the environmental impact of Arctic conditions on helicopters and airplanes, and (3) a lack of cutter resources for Arctic patrols.

Coast Guard Is Identifying Arctic Requirements, but Funding Is Uncertain

Coast Guard’s Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements

The Coast Guard has taken a variety of actions to identify its Arctic requirements. As we reported in September 2010, these encompass a range of efforts including both routine mission operations and other actions specifically intended to help identify Arctic requirements. Through routine mission operations, the Coast Guard has been able to collect useful information on the capability of its existing assets to operate in cold climates, strategies for overcoming logistical challenges presented by long-distance responses to incidents, and the resources needed to respond to an oil spill in a remote and cold location, among other things. We also reported that the Coast Guard had efforts underway specifically designed to inform its Arctic requirements, including the establishment of seasonal, temporary operating locations in the Arctic and biweekly Arctic overflights. The temporary operating locations were established during the summers of 2008 through 2010, and have helped the Coast Guard identify performance requirements and obstacles associated with the deployment of small boats, aircraft, and support staff above the Arctic Circle. The seasonal (March-November) biweekly Arctic overflights were initiated in October 2007 to increase the agency’s maritime domain awareness, test personnel and equipment capabilities in the Arctic, and inform the Coast Guard’s Arctic requirements, among other things. As we reported in September 2010, these efforts addressed elements of three key practices for agencies to better define mission requirements and desired outcomes: (1) assessing the environment; (2) involving stakeholders; and (3) aligning activities, core processes, and resources.

High Latitude Study Identifies Arctic Requirements

The Coast Guard’s primary analytical effort to identify and report on Arctic requirements, the High Latitude Study (the Study), identifies the Coast Guard’s responsibilities in the Polar regions, discusses the nature of the activities it must perform over the next 30 years, and concludes with a high-level summary of the Coast Guard’s material and nonmaterial needs to meet the requirements. Specifically, the Study identifies the Coast Guard’s current capability gaps in the Arctic and assesses the degree to which these gaps will impact future missions. Of the Coast Guard’s 11 mission areas, 9 are expected to experience future demand in the Arctic region. The Study identifies several current capability gaps that affect the majority of these mission areas. Specifically, gaps in communications capabilities affect all 9 mission areas, while deficiencies in the information available about sea ice coverage in the Arctic affects 8 mission areas.The other major gaps that affect the majority of mission areas are related to the lack of polar icebreaking capacity, which will be discussed later in this statement.

Of the 9 mission areas that the Coast Guard will need to carry out in the Arctic, the Study identifies 7 mission areas expected to be significantly or moderately impacted by current capability gaps. In general, these missions all address the protection of important national interests in the Arctic or the safety of mariners and the environment. See appendix II for more detail about the degree of impact that current capability and capacity gaps are expected to have on future Coast Guard mission performance.

The Study then identifies potential solutions to specifically address gaps in communications and electronic navigation capabilities, recommending that the Coast Guard acquire more than 25 additional communication or navigation facilities for Arctic operations. In addition to these capabilities, the Study compares six different options—identified as Arctic force mixes—to a baseline representing the Coast Guard’s current Arctic assets. These force mixes add assets to the existing baseline force mix, and contain different combinations of cutters (including icebreakers), aircraft, and forward operating locations and are designed to mitigate the mission impacts caused by current capability gaps. See appendix III for a description of the assets included in each Arctic force mix.

The High Latitude Study also includes a risk analysis that compares the six Arctic force mixes in terms of the ability of each force mix to reduce the risk that is expected to exist in the future Arctic environment. Risk reduction is determined in part by (1) identifying a list of potential Arctic maritime incidents requiring Coast Guard support, such as maritime accidents resulting in multiple casualties or a major oil spill, or both; (2) quantifying the likelihood that these search and rescue and maritime environmental protection incidents could occur and the resulting impact should they occur; and (3) assessing the relative effectiveness, or risk reduction, of force packages the Coast Guard may employ to respond to those incidents. The intent of the analysis is to provide information on risk-reduction alternatives to inform the acquisition process. According to the Study, the baseline Arctic force mix reduces less than 1 percent of risk in the Arctic because this patrol capability cannot reasonably respond to northern area incidents, while the six other Arctic force mixes reduce between 25 and 92 percent of risk annually, though the amount of risk reduced varies by season. See appendix III for the amount of annual risk in the Arctic reduced by each force mix.

Funding for Identified Arctic Requirements Is Challenging and Uncertain

As we reported in September 2010, administration budget projections indicated that DHS’s annual budget was expected to remain constant or decrease over the next 10 years. Moreover, senior Coast Guard officials, based in Alaska, reported that resources for Arctic operations had already been reduced and were inadequate to meet existing mission requirements in Alaska, let alone expanded Arctic operations. These officials also reported a more than 50 percent year-to-year reduction between 2005 and 2009 in the number of large cutters available for operations in their region. Officials also expressed concern that the replacement of the 12 older high-endurance cutters with 8 new cutters may exacerbate this challenge. Given the reductions that have already taken place, as well as the anticipated decrease in DHS’s annual budget, the long-term budget outlook for Coast Guard Arctic operations is uncertain. The challenge of addressing Arctic resource requirements in a flat or declining budget environment is further underscored by recent budget requests that have identified the Coast Guard’s top priority as the recapitalization of cutters, aircraft, communications, and infrastructure— particularly with regard to its Deepwater program. Recent budget requests also have not included funding for Arctic priorities, aside from the annual operating costs associated with existing icebreakers.

This budget challenge is exacerbated when the costs of the High Latitude Study’s proposed resource requirements are taken into account. Specifically, the Study estimates that the cost of acquiring the assets associated with each of the six Arctic force mixes would range from $1.01 billion to $6.08 billion, and their corresponding annual operating costs would range from $72.3 million to $411.3 million. See appendix III for the estimated acquisition cost of each Arctic force mix. Additionally, the estimated cost for the recommended communications and electronic navigation capabilities for Arctic operations is about $23.4 million. Given current budget uncertainty and the Coast Guard’s recent acquisition priorities, it may be a significant challenge for the Coast Guard to acquire the assets that the Study recommends.

Coast Guard Continues to Face Challenges Related to Icebreakers

The most significant issue facing the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet is the growing obsolescence of these vessels and the resulting capability gap caused by their increasingly limited operations. As we noted in our 2010 report, Coast Guard officials reported challenges fulfilling the agency’s statutory icebreaking mission, let alone its standing commitment to use the icebreakers to support the Navy as needed. Since then, at least three reports have further identified the Coast Guard’s challenges to meeting its current and future icebreaking mission requirements in the Arctic with its existing polar icebreaker fleet, as well as the challenges it faces to acquire new icebreakers. The Coast Guard’s existing fleet includes three icebreakers that are capable of operating in the Arctic:

Polar Sea (inoperative since 2010): The Polar Sea is a heavy commissioned in 1978 with an expected 30-year icebreaker lifespan. A major service life extension project, completed in 2006, was expected to extend the Polar Sea’s service life through 2014. However, in 2010, the Polar Sea experienced major engine problems and is now expected to be decommissioned in 2011. According to a Coast Guard budget official, this will allow its resources to be redirected toward the ongoing service life extension of the Polar Star. Fig. 2 below shows the Polar Sea in dry dock.

Polar Star (inoperative since 2006): The Polar Star is a heavy icebreaker commissioned in 1976 with an expected 30-year lifespan. The Polar Star is currently undergoing a $62.8 million service life extension, and is expected to return to service in 2013. The ongoing service life extension is expected to extend the Polar Star’s service life through at least 2020.

Healy (operative): The Healy is a medium icebreaker, commissioned in 2000, with an expected 30-year lifespan. The Healy is less capable than the heavy icebreakers and is primarily used for scientific missions in the Arctic. As a medium icebreaker, the Healy does not have the same icebreaking capabilities as the Polar Sea and Polar Star. Because of this, it cannot operate independently in the ice conditions in the Antarctic or ensure timely access to some Arctic areas in the winter.

ABS Consulting, U.S. Polar Icebreaker Recapitalization: A Comprehensive Analysis and Its Impacts on U.S. Coast Guard Activities, prepared for the United States Coast Guard, (October 2011). icebreakers (Recapitalization report), which assessed options for recapitalizing its existing icebreaker fleet, including building new icebreakers, or reconstructing the Polar Sea and Polar Star to meet mission requirements, among other options. This October 2011 report found that the most cost-effective option would be to build two new heavy icebreakers, while performing minimal maintenance to keep the existing icebreakers operational while construction is taking place. In addition to having the lowest acquisition cost of any option—at $2.12 billion—this option also has the lowest risk due to the complexity (and therefore risk) associated with the other options of performing major service life extensions or reconstructing the Polar Sea and Polar Star. The risk associated with these options is driven by high levels of uncertainty in terms of cost, scheduling, and technical feasibility for reconstructing the existing fleet. Given the time frames associated with building new icebreakers, the Recapitalization report concluded that the Coast Guard must begin planning and budgeting immediately.

High Latitude Study.

ABS Consulting, High Latitude Study Mission Analysis Report. medium icebreakers). The Study does provide cost estimates for acquiring the recommended icebreakers, but it does not directly assess the feasibility of its recommendations.

Funding Limitations Remain the Main Challenge Related to Icebreakers

As mentioned above, the Coast Guard faces budget uncertainty and it may be a significant challenge for the Coast Guard to obtain Arctic capabilities, including icebreakers. Given our analysis of the challenges that the Coast Guard already faces in funding its existing acquisition programs, it is unlikely that the agency’s budget could accommodate the level of additional funding (estimated by the High Latitude Study to range from $4.14 billion to $6.9 billion) needed to acquire new icebreakers or reconstruct existing ones. The Recapitalization report similarly concludes that the recapitalization of the polar icebreaker fleet cannot be funded within the existing or projected Coast Guard budget. All three reports reviewed alternative financing options, including the potential for leasing icebreakers, or funding icebreakers through the NSF or DOD. The Recapitalization report noted that a funding approach similar to the approach used for the Healy, which was funded through the fiscal year 1990 DOD appropriations, should be considered.Guard has a more immediate need than DOD to acquire Arctic capabilities, including icebreakers, making it unlikely that a similar funding approach would be feasible at this time. For more details on Coast Guard funding challenges and options specific to icebreakers, see appendix IV.

Coast Guard Coordinates with Numerous Stakeholders on Arctic Operations

The Coast Guard continues to coordinate with various stakeholders on Arctic operations and policy, including foreign, state, and local governments, Alaskan Native governments and interest groups, and the private sector. In September 2010, we reported that the Coast Guard has been actively involved in both bilateral and multilateral coordination efforts such as the Arctic Council. The Coast Guard also coordinates with state, local, and Alaskan Native governments and interest groups; however, some of these stakeholders reported that they lack information on both the Coast Guard’s ongoing planning efforts and future approach in the Arctic. In response to these concerns, in 2010 we recommended that the Commandant of the Coast Guard ensure that the agency communicates with these stakeholders on the process and progress of its Arctic planning efforts. The Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation and is in the process of taking corrective action. For example, in April 2011, the Coast Guard issued a Commandant Instruction that emphasizes the need to enhance partnerships with Arctic stakeholders. Additionally, in August 2011, the Commandant participated in a field hearing in Alaska which included discussion about the Coast Guard’s Arctic capability requirements.

The Coast Guard also coordinates with federal agencies, such as the NSF, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and DOD, and is involved with several interagency coordination efforts that address aspects of key practices we have previously identified to help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies. For example, as discussed above, the Coast Guard collaborates with the NSF to manage the nation’s icebreaker fleet, including scheduling icebreaker time for research activities, while NOAA provides the Coast Guard with weather forecasts and warnings, as well as information about ice concentration and type. Additionally, the Coast Guard is involved with interagency efforts such as the Interagency Policy Committee on the Arctic, created in March 2010 to coordinate governmentwide implementation of National Security Presidential Directive 66 / Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25.

Since our September 2010 report, the Coast Guard has partnered with DOD on another interagency coordination effort, the Capabilities Assessment Working Group. DHS and DOD established the working group in May 2011 to identify shared Arctic capability gaps as well as opportunities and approaches to overcome them, to include making recommendations for near-term investments. DHS assigned the Coast Guard lead responsibility for the working group, which was directed to focus on four primary capability areas when identifying potential collaborative efforts to enhance Arctic capabilities, including near-term investments. Those capability areas include maritime domain awareness, communications, infrastructure, and presence. The working group was also directed to identify overlaps and redundancies in established and emerging DOD and DHS Arctic requirements. This working group will address several of the key practices we have identified—articulating a common outcome; identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; and reinforcing agency accountability for the effort through a jointly developed report containing near-term investment recommendations. The establishment of the working group helps to ensure that collaboration between the Coast Guard and DOD is taking place to address near-term capabilities in support of current planning and operations; however, upon the completion of the report in January 2012, the working group is expected to be dissolved.

GAO is also conducting an ongoing review of DOD’s May 2011 Report to Congress on Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage that was directed by the House Committee on Armed Services and will report on our results in January of next year. That report will assess the extent to which DOD’s Arctic Report addressed congressional requirements and DOD’s efforts to identify and prioritize the capabilities needed to meet national security objectives in the Arctic, including through collaboration with the Coast Guard.

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have at this time.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

For information about this statement please contact Stephen L. Caldwell, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at (202) 512-9610, or caldwells@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Other individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Dawn Hoff (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Kowalewski (Analyst-In- Charge), Christopher Currie, Katherine Davis, Geoffrey Hamilton, Adam Hoffman, John Pendleton, Timothy Persons, Steven Putansu, Jodie Sandel, David Schmitt, Amie Steele, Esther Toledo, and Suzanne Wren.

Appendix I: Map of the Arctic Boundary

This appendix provides a map of the Arctic boundary, as defined by the Arctic Research and Policy Act. As discussed in the report, the Coast Guard currently has limited capacity to operate in the waters immediately below the Arctic Circle, such as the Bering Sea. Increasing responsibilities in an even larger geographic area, especially in the harsh and remote conditions of the northern Arctic, will further stretch the agency’s capacity.

Appendix II: Impact of Capability Gaps on Coast Guard Mission Performance

This appendix provides information on the degree to which the Coast Guard’s existing capability gaps in the Arctic are expected to impact future mission performance. Of the Coast Guard’s 11 mission areas, 9 are expected to experience future demand in the Arctic, and the degree to which existing capability gaps are expected to impact these missions has been classified as Significant, Moderate, or Low. Examples of how these gaps are expected to impact each mission are also included below.

Appendix III: Arctic Force Mixes

This appendix provides information on potential solutions to the Coast Guard’s existing capability gaps in the Arctic. The High Latitude Study compares six Arctic force mixes in terms of the ability of each force mix to reduce the risk that is expected to exist in the future Arctic environment. The force mixes add assets to the baseline force mix (which represents the Coast Guard’s current Arctic assets) and include different combinations of cutters (including icebreakers), aircraft, and forward operating locations. The specific asset combinations for each force mix are described below. The estimated acquisition cost for each Arctic force mix and the percent of risk the force mix is expected to reduce in the Arctic is also shown below.

Appendix IV: Funding Limitations Related to Icebreakers

This appendix provides an overview of the funding challenges the Coast Guard faces related to icebreakers. These include limitations in the Coast Guard’s existing and projected budget, as well as alternative financing options.

Coast Guard Budget Limitations

The Coast Guard faces overall budget uncertainty, and it may be a significant challenge for the Coast Guard to obtain Arctic capable resources, including icebreakers. For more than 10 years, we have noted Coast Guard difficulties in funding major acquisitions, particularly when acquiring multiple assets at the same time. For example, in our 1998 report on the Deepwater program, we noted that the agency could face major obstacles in proceeding with that program because it would consume virtually all of the Coast Guard’s projected capital spending. In our 2008 testimony on the Coast Guard budget, we again noted that affordability of the Deepwater acquisitions would continue to be a major challenge to the Coast Guard given the other demands upon the agency for both capital and operations spending. In our 2010 testimony on the Coast Guard budget, we noted that maintaining the Deepwater acquisition program was the Coast Guard’s top budget priority, but would come at a cost to operational capabilities. This situation, of the Deepwater program crowding out other demands, continued, and in our report of July this year we noted that the Deepwater program of record was not achievable given projected Coast Guard budgets. Given the challenges that the Coast Guard already faces in funding its Deepwater acquisition program, it unlikely that the agency’s budget could accommodate the level of additional funding (estimated by the High Latitude Study to range from $4.14 billion to $6.9 billion) needed to acquire new icebreakers or reconstruct existing ones.

The U.S. Polar Icebreaker Recapitalization Report contains an analysis of the Coast Guard’s budget which also concludes that the recapitalization of the polar icebreaker fleet cannot be funded within the existing or projected Coast Guard budget. This analysis examined the impact that financing a new polar icebreaker would have on Coast Guard operations and maintenance activities, among others. The report found that given the Coast Guard’s current and projected budgets, as well as its mandatory budget line items, there are insufficient funds in any one year to fully fund one new polar icebreaker. Additionally, though major acquisitions are usually funded over several years, the incremental funding obtained from reducing or delaying existing acquisition projects would have significant adverse impact on all Coast Guard activities.

This means that it is unlikely that the Coast Guard will be able to expand the U.S. icebreaker fleet to meet its statutory requirements as identified the Commandant of by the High Latitude Study. As we reported in 2010, the Coast Guard has recognized these budgetary challenges, noting that the Coast Guard would need to prioritize resource allocations, while accepting risk in areas where resources would be lacking. Given that it takes 8-10 years to build an icebreaker, and the Coast Guard has not yet begun the formal acquisition process, the Coast Guard has already accepted some level of risk that its statutory mission requirements related to icebreakers will continue to go unmet.

Limitations on Alternative Financing Options

The three reports discussed earlier in this statement all identify funding as a central issue in addressing the existing and anticipated challenges related to icebreakers. In addition to the Coast Guard budget analysis included in the Recapitalization report, all three reports reviewed alternative financing options, including the potential for leasing icebreakers, or funding icebreakers through the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Department of Defense (DOD). Although DOD has used leases and charters in the past when procurement funding levels were insufficient to address mission requirements and capabilities, both the Recapitalization report and the High Latitude Study determined that the lack of existing domestic commercial vessels capable of meeting the Coast Guard’s mission requirements reduces the availability of leasing options for the Coast Guard. Additionally, an initial cost-benefit analysis of one type of available leasing option included in the Recapitalization report and the High Latitude Study suggests that it may ultimately be more costly to the Coast Guard over the 30-year icebreaker lifespan. Another alternative option addressed by the Recapitalization report would be to fund new icebreakers through the NSF. However, the analysis of this option concluded that funding a new icebreaker through the existing NSF budget would have significant adverse impacts on NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed that needed by the NSF.

Related GAO Products

Coast Guard: Action Needed As Approved Deepwater Program Remains Unachievable, GAO-11-743, Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011.

Coast Guard: Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10-870, Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2010.

Coast Guard: Observations on the Requested Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, Past Performance, and Current Challenges, GAO-10-411T, Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2010.

Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and Related Performance and Management Challenges, GAO-09-810T, Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2009.

Homeland Security: Enhanced National Guard Readiness for Civil Support Missions May Depend on DOD’s Implementation of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, GAO-08-311, Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2008.

Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, Recent Performance, and Related Challenges, GAO-08-494T, Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 2005.

Coast Guard Acquisition Management: Deepwater Project’s Justification and Affordability Need to Be Addressed More Thoroughly, GAO/RCED-99-6, Washington, D.C.: October 26, 1998.

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118, Washington D.C.: June 1996.

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.