Coast Guard: Improved Process Exists to Evaluate Changes to Small Boat
Stations (Letter Report, 04/01/94, GAO/RCED-94-147).

In a March 1990 report (GAO/RCED-90-98) on the Guard's proposal to close
or curtail operations at 15 small boat stations, GAO found that the
Coast Guard had neither developed comprehensive criteria nor applied a
sound, methodical decision-making process.  Small boat stations have
been established near U.S. coastal waters, the Great Lakes, and inland
lakes and waterways to perform rescue missions and to protect and save
property.  In its current report, GAO indicates that the Coast Guard's
new process for determining the need for station changes is reasonable
and responds to the deficiencies noted in the 1990 report.  The current
process, for example, includes detailed criteria for considering such
factors as a station's workload, the availability of alternative
resources, boating and economic trends, and necessary upgrades to the
facility.  Using the new process, Coast Guard officials have done a
comprehensive analysis of small boat stations, which they plan to
complete by April 15, 1994.  As a result of this evaluation, they expect
to recommend closure, consolidation, or substantial downsizing of some
stations.  Coast Guard officials also expect a net reduction of about
100 jobs at small boat stations to meet fiscal year 1995 budget cuts
being imposed agencywide.  Coast Guard officials project that small boat
stations' operating and facilities costs would be cut by nearly $4.5
million annually if the proposed changes are implemented.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-147
     TITLE:  Coast Guard: Improved Process Exists to Evaluate Changes to 
             Small Boat Stations
      DATE:  04/01/94
   SUBJECT:  Coast Guard
             Reductions in force
             Emergency preparedness
             Evaluation criteria
             Budget cuts
             Inland waterways
             Personnel management
             Management information systems
             Federal facility relocation
IDENTIFIER:  Atlantic Coast
             Pacific Coast
             Gulf of Mexico
             Great Lakes
             Florida
             Coast Guard Search and Rescue Management Information System
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Congressional Requesters

April 1994

COAST GUARD - IMPROVED PROCESS
EXISTS TO EVALUATE CHANGES TO
SMALL BOAT STATIONS

GAO/RCED-94-147

Small Boat Stations


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  GAO - General Accounting Office
  LESIM - Law Enforcement Simulation Model
  SARMIS - Search and Rescue Management Information System
  SARQ - Search and Rescue Queuing Model
  SARSIM - Search and Rescue Simulation Model
  UCG - Unit Change Guide

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-256632

April 1, 1994

The Honorable Frank R.  Lautenberg
Chairman
The Honorable Alfonse M.  D'Amato
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Carr
Chairman
The Honorable Frank R.  Wolf
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The House Appropriations Committee Report for the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies 1994 Appropriations Bill
requested GAO to review all of the Coast Guard's small boat stations
to determine if closures or consolidations were feasible.  The Coast
Guard has more than 180 of these stations along the nation's coasts
and waterways.  A primary mission of small boat station personnel is
to respond to mariners in distress; however, units are also
responsible for a variety of other missions, including enforcing U.S. 
fishing regulations, interdicting drugs and illegal immigrants, and
responding to marine environmental pollution. 

In 1990, we reported on the Coast Guard's proposal to close or
curtail operations at 15 small boat stations.\1 In that review, we
found that the Coast Guard had not developed comprehensive criteria
or applied a sound, methodical decision-making process for closing
the stations or reducing their operations.  We made several
recommendations to improve this process.  This report focuses on (1)
the reasonableness of the Coast Guard's new process for evaluating
possible station changes\2 and (2) the potential for closing or
consolidating those stations indicated by the Coast Guard's new
process. 


--------------------
\1 Coast Guard:  Better Process Needed to Justify Closing Search and
Rescue Stations (GAO/RCED-90-98, Mar.  6, 1990). 

\2 Station "changes" are defined to include the establishment,
consolidation, closure, downgrading, or upgrading of a station. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The Coast Guard's new process for determining the need for station
changes is reasonable and is responsive to the deficiencies noted in
our 1990 review.  Unlike the previous process, the current process
includes detailed criteria for considering such factors as a
station's workload, the availability of alternative resources,
boating and economic trends, and necessary upgrades to the facility. 
The process requires that these criteria be applied to all small boat
stations under consideration and that the most up-to-date data
available be used--two important factors that were missing from the
Coast Guard's former effort.  If applied correctly, this new process
should provide the Coast Guard and the Congress with a reasonable
basis for determining the appropriate number of stations and the
appropriate resources for those stations. 

Using the Coast Guard's new process, officials have undertaken a
comprehensive analysis of small boat stations, which they plan to
complete by April 15, 1994.  As a result of this evaluation, they
expect to recommend closure, consolidation, or substantial downsizing
of some stations.  Coast Guard officials also expect a net reduction
of about 100 positions at small boat stations to meet fiscal year
1995 budget cuts being imposed agencywide.  This estimate factors in
personnel increases needed at other stations to handle projected
workload increases.  Coast Guard officials estimate that the small
boat stations' operating and facilities costs would be reduced by
about $4.4 million annually if the proposed changes are implemented
as planned.  GAO did not review the Coast Guard's application of the
process and therefore has no opinion on the validity of the specific
station changes under consideration. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Coast Guard is required by 14 U.S.C.  sections 2, 88, and 141 to
develop, establish, maintain, and operate rescue facilities to aid
distressed persons and protect and save property in waters subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States.  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.  (See app. 
I.) The system consists of more than 180 shore facilities that
operate over 1,700 small boats and over 200 larger patrol boats and
cutters and 32 air stations/air facilities that have over 180
aircraft.  These facilities are staffed by active duty, reserve, and
auxiliary personnel.  Figure 1 shows a small boat station, including
its administrative, operations, housing, fueling, and boathouse
facilities.  In addition, the Coast Guard receives search and rescue
assistance from a variety of sources, including federal, state, and
local agencies; Good Samaritans; commercial providers; and foreign
nations.  For fiscal year 1993, the Coast Guard reported that through
its search and rescue activities, it saved 4,689 lives and prevented
the loss of $908 million in property. 

   Figure 1:  Aerial Photograph of
   a Small Boat Station

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  U.S.  Coast Guard.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Small boat stations are often involved in other missions unrelated to
search and rescue, including recreational boating safety, enforcement
of laws and treaties, marine environmental safety, port safety and
security, aids to navigation, and military readiness.  This
involvement varies geographically from one Coast Guard district to
another, depending on differing conditions among regions.  For
example, in South Florida immigrant interdiction is a primary mission
at some small boat stations; this mission is virtually nonexistent in
the Great Lakes region. 

Over time, the need for small boat stations at particular locations
has changed with changes in boating activity, boating equipment, and
the capabilities of other search and rescue service providers, such
as local police and fire departments.  However, over the years the
Coast Guard's decisions to close or reduce operations at small boat
stations, which were based on changing conditions or budget
reductions, have been politically sensitive.  These sensitivities
were based on perceptions that reduced operations or closures would
reduce the agency's ability to save lives and property.  Some units
have been closed, but more recently the Coast Guard has been
unsuccessful in obtaining congressional concurrence to close
additional stations.\3 In 1988, the Coast Guard attempted to close
some stations to help meet a budget shortfall.  However, the Congress
directed that the units be reopened until GAO reviewed and reported
on this closure decision.  In our 1990 report on this matter, we
cited serious weaknesses in the Coast Guard's decision-making process
and recommended a series of steps to improve this process. 


--------------------
\3 In a fiscal year 1990 Conference Report, H.  Rpt.  101-315, for
the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies for Fiscal Year
1990 Act, the conferees asked the Secretary of Transportation to seek
concurrence from the Senate and House Appropriations Committees for
significant increases or decreases in the operational capability of a
unit, including closures, through a significant increase or decrease
in funding and/or personnel. 


   THE COAST GUARD'S NEW PROCESS
   FOR EVALUATING CHANGES AT SMALL
   BOAT STATIONS IS REASONABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The Coast Guard has developed a new approach for evaluating changes
at small boat stations that is reasonable and is responsive to the
deficiencies noted in our 1990 report.  Unlike its previous review
process, the Coast Guard's current process provides a formal,
consistent method of evaluating small boat stations which documents
decisions that are based on relevant criteria and the best available
data. 


      PRIOR CLOSURE METHODOLOGY
      WAS INADEQUATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

In fiscal year 1988, the Coast Guard analyzed its small boat stations
and concluded that 15 stations could be closed or downsized.  Our
analysis of the Coast Guard's methodology found it flawed in several
respects.  First, the Coast Guard did not use a consistent review
process for evaluating stations.  It included only 34 stations in its
evaluation, and among this group, it did not apply evaluation
criteria consistently.  Second, the process lacked adequate criteria
on the impact that closures or curtailed operations might have on the
lives saved and on a station's ability to accomplish its missions
unrelated to search and rescue.  Third, the Coast Guard did not
document its decision-making process until after the fact.  Even
then, the Coast Guard did not provide the rationale for maintaining
operations at 19 of the 34 stations that were initially considered
for closure.  Furthermore, some of the data used in making closure
decisions were incomplete or inaccurate.  For example, the Coast
Guard used two outdated studies as data sources for its decisions. 

To improve the Coast Guard's process, we recommended establishing
formal instructions to identify the criteria to be used when making
closure decisions; requiring that complete, current, and accurate
data be used in the application of the criteria; and adding a
measurement of the impact that closures and reductions would have on
saving lives and carrying out other Coast Guard missions.  The Coast
Guard and the Department of Transportation agreed with our
recommendations, and in 1992 the Coast Guard began developing a new
methodology for determining needed station changes. 


      NEW PROCESS ADDRESSES PRIOR
      WEAKNESSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Coast Guard headquarters officials have taken the necessary steps to
improve the process for evaluating small boat stations.  The new
procedures identify the criteria to be applied and require that (1)
the criteria be consistently applied to all stations under
consideration, (2) the decision-making process be completely
documented, (3) the most current data be used in the process, and (4)
the impacts of the proposed actions be evaluated. 

Because of the importance of accurate data, headquarters personnel
have already taken steps to improve the quality of the data in the
Search and Rescue Management Information System (SARMIS) and are
involved in several ongoing efforts to continue this improvement. 
For example, they have made several revisions to a software program
to address the problems encountered with the system and have provided
information in a newsletter to Coast Guard staff emphasizing the
importance of accurate data.  This newsletter has also provided
information to assist personnel in identifying and correcting common
data entry errors.  An example of their ongoing effort to improve
data quality is a Coast Guard-wide analysis of SARMIS to develop a
comprehensive set of requirements to improve the functionality, data
accuracy, and availability of SARMIS and its data base.  Also, the
Coast Guard is rewriting the SARMIS manual, which is used as guidance
for data entry by Coast Guard staff, to incorporate a new policy on
and procedures for reporting on search and rescue activities.  They
expect that this rewrite will further improve data accuracy. 

The criteria used in the process have been expanded to include the
impacts of proposed station changes on such things as (1) the economy
of the community surrounding the station, (2) the quality of life of
station personnel, and (3) the station's overall effectiveness in
terms of saving lives and performing many other missions not related
to search and rescue.  Table 1 shows more specifically how the Coast
Guard, in developing a new process for evaluating station changes,
responded to the major recommendations in our 1990 report.  (See app. 
II for a more complete description of the detailed steps of the
process.)



                                     Table 1
                     
                        The Coast Guard's Actions on GAO's
                                 Recommendations

1990 GAO
recommendation      Coast Guard action taken since 1990 report
------------------  ------------------------------------------------------------
Establish formal    A formal document, called the Unit Change Guide (UCG), was
instructions        developed to provide instructions for a multistep analysis
                    of stations being considered for a change. Compliance with
                    this process is required for any unit change consideration.

Identify the        The UCG has identified specific criteria to be considered
criteria            when analyzing a station for a potential change. Up to 13
                    criteria may be considered in the UCG analysis. These
                    criteria include mission performance levels, proximity to
                    other stations, personnel and facility costs, and economic
                    and community impacts.

Apply the           The step-by-step review process requires that criteria are
criteria            consistently applied to all stations under consideration.
consistently

Document the        The UCG requires documentation of each analytical step
decision-making     through a series of worksheets that provide justification
process             for all decisions made. Written documentation on all
                    stations analyzed, whether selected for proposed changes or
                    not, is to be included in the final report.

Expand the          The criteria are more comprehensive (more factors are
criteria            considered) and the impact of a change is evaluated for all
                    missions, not just the search and rescue mission. New
                    measures are used to evaluate effectiveness in saving lives,
                    rather than only measuring the number of lives saved.

Require the use     The process requires using the most up-to-date data
of                  available to assess station changes, including the search
current,            and rescue data base (SARMIS) and other data obtained from
complete,           local units on alternative resources and economic and
and accurate data   community impacts. Also, the Coast Guard is using what we
                    believe to be better analytical techniques for evaluating
                    historical data to project future station activity levels.
                    Efforts have also been made to reduce the subjectivity of
                    and errors in SARMIS data through additional guidance and
                    computerized error checks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, Coast Guard headquarters officials performed a preliminary
test of the new process for evaluating small boat stations.  A Coast
Guard official told us the test was performed to assess the
evaluation methodology and to confirm the availability of the data
necessary to complete the process.  Although this test did not
include an analysis of all steps in the process, it led to
modifications that further strengthened the process.  The official
also said that some of these modifications included the addition of
an analytical step to more comprehensively measure lifesaving
effectiveness--making it a more central part of the overall
evaluation.  Additional information on workload trends was added to
ensure that a station's workload was adequately considered and
instructions were clarified to ensure that the process would be
implemented correctly.  GAO also reviewed the process and provided
suggestions for improving it.  By late 1993, the Coast Guard had
adequately responded to our suggestions by adopting all substantive
recommendations. 


   POTENTIAL EXISTS TO CLOSE OR
   DOWNSIZE SMALL BOAT STATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The potential exists now and in the future to close or downsize some
small boat stations.  Coast Guard officials also expect some stations
to increase in size as they assume the workloads of closed adjacent
facilities.  Using the new process, Coast Guard officials have
undertaken an analysis of small boat stations and plan to complete
this evaluation and prepare a list of proposed station changes by
April 15, 1994.  From this analysis, officials said they expect to
identify stations that could be closed, consolidated, or
substantially downsized.  We did not validate these proposed station
changes because the results of the Coast Guard's analysis, including
the data used and the methodology followed, were not available at the
time of our review. 

Coast Guard officials anticipate that personnel resources at small
boat stations will be reduced by about 100 when the proposed changes
are implemented.  This estimate factors in staffing level increases
at some remaining stations to provide the resources needed to handle
projected workload increases at these sites.  Overall, Coast Guard
officials estimate a $4.4 million annual reduction in operating and
facilities costs when the proposed changes are fully implemented by
fiscal year 1997.  Budget reductions resulting from these changes
would be about $691,000 for fiscal year 1995 and $3.75 million for
fiscal year 1996. 

Additional station consolidations could occur in the future with the
advent of technological advancements, most notably equipment
upgrades.  The clearest example is a new 47-foot motor lifeboat that
the Coast Guard will acquire to replace the 44-foot motor lifeboat
currently in use at small boat stations.  The Coast Guard is now
testing six of these new boats at stations on both coasts and plans
to procure as many as 100 for delivery to the boat stations between
1996 and 2000.  Coast Guard officials believe the speed of this boat,
which is at least twice as fast as the 44-foot boat, will provide
them with the ability to respond much faster to search and rescue
cases, even in heavy weather conditions. 

The superior speed of the 47-foot boat is likely to increase the
geographic area that could be served by one station.  As a result, in
the future the Coast Guard may be able to further consolidate
stations located in close proximity to each other without affecting
search and rescue response capabilities.  However, the actual
potential for station consolidations and the corresponding effect of
consolidations on the performance of all small boat missions will not
be known until the Coast Guard reapplies the process in the late
1990s.  At that time, Coast Guard officials told us, they plan to
include new data on the capabilities of the 47-foot boat in their
process.  They also told us that they plan to use the process
regularly to address future needs for change that may result from
budget cuts, significant shifts in missions or workloads, or other
advances in technology. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The Coast Guard's past decisions to close or reduce operations at
small boat stations have been difficult to defend because the Coast
Guard did not have adequate criteria and a process to justify its
decisions.  The Coast Guard's new process is much improved and
provides the ability to reassess the need for small boat stations on
a continuing basis to accommodate changes in activity levels,
technology, and budgetary constraints. 

We believe the results of the Coast Guard's ongoing analysis based on
this process should provide the Coast Guard and the Congress with the
information needed to make sound decisions on station changes,
including closures, consolidations, and upgrades for the fiscal year
1995 budget and future years.  However, since we have not validated
the results of the Coast Guard's recently proposed changes, it is
incumbent on the Coast Guard to ensure that accurate and complete
data were used and the appropriate methodology was applied. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided a draft of this report to the Chief, Search and Rescue
Division, Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services, and an
official from the Office of the Director of Resources at U.S.  Coast
Guard headquarters.  They generally agreed with the facts and
conclusions in this report.  Where appropriate, we incorporated their
comments.  As agreed, we did not obtain written agency comments on
the draft report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We conducted our work between August 1993 and February 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
During that time, we contacted appropriate Coast Guard headquarters
and field officials and reviewed and analyzed relevant data and
studies.  Details of our scope and methodology are provided in
appendix III. 

As agreed, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan
no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the date
of this letter.  We will then send copies of this report to the
Secretary of Transportation; the Commandant, U.S.  Coast Guard; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties.  We will also make copies available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IV. 

Kenneth M.  Mead
Director, Transportation Issues


LOCATIONS OF THE COAST GUARD'S
SMALL BOAT STATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I

The more than 180 small boat stations are located in nine Coast Guard
districts.  The number of small boat stations in each district
varies; for example, 37 stations are located in District 1, while
District 11 has 13 stations.  Figures I.1 through I.8 identify the
name and geographic location of each small boat station. 

   Figure I.1:  District 1 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.2:  District 5 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.3:  District 7 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.4:  District 8 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.5:  District 9 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.6:  District 11 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.7:  District 13 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.8:  District 14 Small
   Boat Stations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


THE COAST GUARD'S PROCESS FOR
DETERMINING CHANGES NEEDED AT
SMALL BOAT STATIONS
========================================================== Appendix II

The Coast Guard's process for determining changes needed at small
boat stations consists of four main steps that are performed by
headquarters staff:  (1) identify stations to be considered for
change; (2) evaluate stations to ensure that contemplated changes are
appropriate and possible; (3) recommend to decisionmakers a list of
potential station changes; and (4) implement the recommendations. 
The first two steps serve as "screens" that narrow down the number of
stations being considered by comparing them against specific
criteria.  The third step organizes the results into a report, and
the fourth step directs the recommendations through the approval
process.  A brief description of each of these steps follows. 


      STEP 1:  IDENTIFY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1

This step involves screening the stations being considered for change
by comparing certain station factors and characteristics to three
different criteria--mission performance (workload), proximity to
other resources, and mandated circumstances. 

Each criterion serves as a "gate" for the criterion that follows. 
That is, only those stations selected after applying the mission
performance criterion are considered in the proximity criterion;
similarly, only those selected after applying the proximity criterion
are considered by the mandated circumstances criterion.  Mission
performance (workload) of stations is checked against established
criteria.  For example, all stations being evaluated for possible
closure are "flagged" if their workloads fall below 110 hours of time
on sortie.\1 Only these "flagged" stations are evaluated further--the
other stations are eliminated from consideration for closure at this
point.  Stations "flagged" in the above step are compared to criteria
relating to their proximity to other resources (e.g., other
stations).  Stations selected on the basis of the proximity criteria
are considered for mandated circumstances or restrictions, which may
affect the Coast Guard's plans to change a station's operations. 
These restrictions may include congressional legislation, property
restrictions, and other restrictions affecting the status of units. 
All remaining stations selected during this phase are forwarded to
the Evaluate step. 


--------------------
\1 Defined as time in hours that the Coast Guard's small boats spend
under way on search and rescue sorties, as reported in the SARMIS
data base. 


      STEP 2:  EVALUATE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2

This step analyzes all of the stations selected in the Identify step
to ensure that contemplated changes are both appropriate and
possible.  This step considers two types of factors or
criteria--decision factors and prioritizing factors.  Stations are
first screened by the decision factors:  mission performance,
resources, environmental impact, and changes to other units.  These
four factors are used to determine if, strategically, the proposed
change for the stations can be accomplished.  A mission performance
analysis is performed for each station under consideration at this
point to determine whether other stations can provide needed service
if the proposed change is implemented.  Stations selected after
applying this factor are subjected to another analysis to determine
if sufficient resources are available to perform all assigned
missions and to determine the costs associated with the proposed
change.  Next, an evaluation is performed on the impact of a change
on the physical and natural environment.  The final decision factor
involves an evaluation to ensure that a proposed change to a station
is not in conflict with a change to an adjacent unit.  If a station
fails to meet the criteria of any of the decision factors, it is
removed from further consideration. 

Stations that meet all the decision factors may be reviewed again at
this point before being evaluated by the prioritizing factors.  This
review confirms the availability of alternate resources identified in
the mission performance review, ensures that personnel and cost data
and all cost/savings data associated with a proposed change are
accurately accounted for, checks to ensure that no environmental
issues may alter future impact assessments, and rechecks the proposed
changes. 

Stations selected after applying the decision factors are evaluated
in terms of six prioritizing factors to determine the desirability of
the proposed changes identified by the previous evaluation steps. 
Units are not eliminated from further consideration by prioritizing
factors.  In cases where there are conflicts between proposed
changes, the prioritizing factors help to determine the most
desirable change.  The prioritizing factors are (1) trends--including
boating, population, economic, and workload trends; (2) economic
impact; (3) community impact; (4) costs and benefits; (5)
acquisition, construction and improvements proposals; and (6) quality
of life. 


      STEP 3:  RECOMMEND
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.3

This step organizes the list of stations developed from the two
previous steps into a report format for consideration by
decisionmakers.  This step provides documentation for the
decision-making process, identifies the stations selected for change,
and prioritizes suggested station changes from the most to least
desirable.  During this step, a list of the stations not selected for
change is prepared, and information is provided on the factor that
eliminated each station from further consideration for change.  The
report also includes information on the overall evaluation, such as
who directed the review, why the review was conducted, the universe
of stations considered, implementation recommendations, the
chartering memorandum from the authority initiating the review, the
completed worksheets used in the analysis, and a list of the actual
data sources used in the review.  This report is then addressed to
the appropriate level for consideration of the proposed changes. 


      STEP 4:  IMPLEMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.4

The final step of the process is to implement approved recommended
changes.  If existing processes for implementing the changes are
available, they must be used to facilitate the implementation of
those changes.  For example, Operating Facility Change Orders and
Personnel Allowance Amendments may be required for certain types of
station changes.  A key element of this step is ensuring that an
appropriate level of community and political notification and
involvement occurs. 


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================= Appendix III

To assess the Coast Guard's progress in developing criteria for
evaluating station changes, we interviewed Coast Guard headquarters
officials from the offices of Navigation Safety and Waterway
Services; Engineering Logistics and Development; Acquisition,
Readiness and Reserve; and the Director of Resources.  The interviews
focused on detailed issues raised in the previous GAO report and the
corresponding actions by the Coast Guard taken to resolve these
issues.  In our discussions with Coast Guard headquarters officials
responsible for drafting the evaluation process, we conducted a
step-by-step review of how a basic change might be evaluated by the
Unit Change Guide to determine exactly how the criteria and process
would be applied.  We also discussed how the Coast Guard's 1992 Small
Boat Releveling Plan would be used in conjunction with the Unit
Change Guide. 

We also reviewed relevant Coast Guard studies and guidance, focusing
our analysis on the Unit Change Guide, Releveling Plan, and
supporting documentation for selected criteria developed in these
documents.  Three simulation models--the Search and Rescue Simulation
(SARSIM), the Search and Rescue Queuing (SARQ), and the Law
Enforcement Simulation (LESIM)--are cited in the Unit Change Guide as
sources for analyzing various options when considering unit changes. 
We examined available documentation for two of these models--SARQ and
SARSIM.  SARQ is no longer actively used, but SARSIM is occasionally
used to provide supplemental analyses of the effects of proposed
station changes.  We discussed the process followed when the SARSIM
model is used with Coast Guard officials in the Search and Rescue
Division of the Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services. 
We also discussed the LESIM model with an official from the Coast
Guard Research and Development Center, who said that it is under
development and currently is not being designed for use in small boat
station assessment. 

We also reviewed the National Search and Rescue Manual, the Search
and Rescue Program Description, the SARMIS Manual, and a Search and
Rescue Program Standards Review document.  We also reviewed data
retrieved from SARMIS and the Abstract of Operations Manual of
Boats-1992.  We used these data to analyze missions, activity levels,
and the nature of search and rescue incidents for all stations
visited. 

To assess the potential for closing or consolidating stations, we
reviewed the analysis and results from the Coast Guard's 1993
preliminary test of the Unit Change Guide.  In addition, we visited 6
Coast Guard District offices, 8 Group offices, and 36 small boat
stations and talked with Coast Guard officials at various levels
about operations, resources, staffing, and other issues that must be
considered to make sound decisions on substantive station changes. 

The following is a list of units and locations we visited. 

Coast Guard Districts

District 1, Boston, MA

District 5, Norfolk, VA

District 7, Miami, FL

District 8, New Orleans, LA

District 9, Cleveland, OH

District 13, Seattle, WA

Coast Guard Groups

Group Woods Hole, Woods Hole, MA

Group Baltimore, Baltimore, MD

Group Cape May, Cape May, NJ

Group Miami Beach, Miami Beach, FL

Group Key West, Key West, FL

Group New Orleans, New Orleans, LA

Group Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

Group Astoria, Warrenton, OR

Coast Guard Small Boat Stations

Station Provincetown, Provincetown, MA

Station Chatham, Chatham, MA

Station Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich, MA

Station Woods Hole, Woods Hole, MA

Station Menemsha, Menemsha, MA

Station Castle Hill, Newport, RI

Station Point Judith, Narragansett, RI

Station Taylors Island, Taylors Island, MD

Station Barnegat Light, Barnegat Light, NJ

Station Beach Haven, Beach Haven, NJ

Station Atlantic City, Atlantic City, NJ

Station Great Egg, Ocean City, NJ

Station Townsends Inlet, Townsends, NJ

Station Cape May, Cape May, NJ

Station Indian River Inlet, Rehobeth Beach, DE

Station Miami Beach, Miami Beach, FL

Station Islamorada, Islamorada, FL

Station Marathon, Marathon, FL

Station Key West, Key West, FL

Station New Orleans, New Orleans, LA

Station Grand Isle, Grand Isle, LA

Station Venice, Venice, LA

Station Fairport, Grand River, OH

Station Ashtabula, Ashtabula, OH

Station Erie, Erie, PA

Station Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

Station Niagara, Youngstown, NY

Station Rochester, Rochester, NY

Station Sodus, Sodus Point, NY

Station Oswego, Oswego, NY

Station Sackets Harbor, Sackets Harbor, NY

Station Alexandria Bay, Alexandria Bay, NY

Station Tawas, Tawas, MI

Station Grays Harbor, Westport, WA

Station Cape Disappointment, Ilwaco, WA

Station Tillamook, Garibaldi, OR


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Allen Li, Associate Director
Judy K.  Pagano, Senior Operations Research Analyst

SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE

Randall B.  Williamson, Assistant Director
Steven N.  Calvo, Evaluator-in-Charge
Dawn E.  Hoff, Site Senior

