Proceedings of the 

Workshop on 

State-level Responses 

to Abandoned and 

Derelict Vessels 

September 15-17, 2009 

Miami, FL 

Neal Parry and Kris McElwee (eds.) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-37 

October 2010 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of Response and Restoration 

Marine Debris Division

Photo courtesy of D. Helton, ORR 
 

 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

their use by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
 

 

 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON STATE-LEVEL
 

RESPONSES TO ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS
 

1, 2 1

Neal Parry and Kris McElwee (eds.)

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 Office of Response & Restoration

 NOAA Marine Debris Division

 Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA

2 I.M. Systems Group, Inc.

 Rockville, MD 20852, USA 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-37 

October 2010 

This document should be cited as follows: 

Parry, N. and K. McElwee. (eds.). 2010. Proceedings of the Workshop on State-level Responses to 

Abandoned and Derelict Vessels. September 15-17, 2009. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOS-OR&R-37. 

For copies of this document, please contact: 

NOAA Marine Debris Division 

N/ORR, SSMC-4 

1305 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

www.MarineDebris.noaa.gov 
 

 

Proceedings of the 

Workshop on
	

State-level Responses to Abandoned and Derelict Vessels
	

Miami, FL
	

September 15-17, 2009
	

1 
2 

State-level Responses to 

Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Workshop

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 3 

Preface...................................................................................................................................... 4 

Section I 

Background .............................................................................................................................. 6

Components of a Comprehensive ADV Program .................................................................... 8 

Section II 

Program Administration......................................................................................................... 11 

Legislation.............................................................................................................................. 15 

Funding .................................................................................................................................. 17 

Inventory ................................................................................................................................ 21 

Removal ................................................................................................................................. 23 

Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 26 

Enforcement ........................................................................................................................... 28 

Prevention .............................................................................................................................. 30 

Outreach ................................................................................................................................. 33 

Section III 

Federal Agency Overview ..................................................................................................... 37 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 

Key Legislation .................................................................................................................... 

Case Study Examples ........................................................................................................... 

Discussion Notes .................................................................................................................. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ........................................................... 38 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ............................................ 39 

United States Army Corps of Engineers .............................................................. 40 

United States Coast Guard .................................................................................. 41 

Additional Federal Agencies ................................................................................................ 

Identified Legislative Gaps .................................................................................................. 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 

Section IV 

Conclusion and Next Steps .................................................................................................... 46 

Appendix A: Agenda ................................................................................................................... 47 

Appendix B: Sea Grant Law Review (abbreviated table) ............................................................ 49 

Appendix C: National Association of State Boating Law Administrators BMPs ....................... 54 

Appendix D: Presentations .......................................................................................................... 74 
 

 

Acronyms 

ADV		 Abandoned and Derelict Vessel 

BMP		 Best Management Practice 

CERCLA		 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act 

CWA		 Clean Water Act 

DMV		 Department of Motor Vehicles 

DOI		 Department of the Interior 

EPA		 Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA		 Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FOSC		 Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

GLO		 Texas General Land Office 

GPS		 Global Positioning System 

IRT		 Innovative Readiness Training 

MA		 Mission Assignment 

MDP		 Marine Debris Program 

MOA		 Memorandum of Agreement 

NASBLA		 National Association of State Boating Law Administrators 

NOAA		 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRDA		 Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

OPA		 Oil Pollution Act 

USACE		 United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG		 United States Coast Guard 

3 
 

 

 

 

Preface 

The State-level Responses to Abandoned and Derelict Vessels workshop was held September 15 

to 17, 2009. A representative from each coastal state (including the Great Lakes) was invited to 

attend. The term “state” should be interpreted throughout this document to include territories and 

commonwealths of the United States of America. 

This document is organized to provide two levels of detail for any audience interested in 

abandoned and derelict vessels (ADVs). Section I has been designed as a reference tool to 

provide introductory and high-level information on the components of a state-level ADV 

program. 

In Section II, a significant amount of information is included for each of the identified 

components of a successful state ADV program. During the workshop, attendees shared 

numerous ideas during the discussion of each program component–first in small teams, and then 

with the entire workshop. Support and criticism for each idea was shared openly, and the detailed 

description found under each idea is taken directly from the expert attendees. 

Information on ADV-relevant mandates and authorities from a select group of Federal agencies 

can be found in Section III, including case study examples. Section IV provides concluding 

remarks, as well as specific suggestions for future ADV efforts that were proposed by workshop 

attendees. Background information—including presentations and reference material—is included 

in the appendixes. 

While this document grew out of a workshop, it will remain relevant only as it is updated to 

reflect the most current state of knowledge. As such, it is imperative that lessons learned—both 

positive and negative—are shared and disseminated with other interested parties to achieve local, 

regional, and national success.

4 
Section I
 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Background 

ADVs are consistently identified as problematic to state coastal managers, negatively impacting 

marine waterways and communities. While seaworthy vessels provide many services such as 

recreation and commerce, ADVs have numerous deleterious impacts—threat of oil or other 

pollutant spills, impediments to navigation, physical destruction of habitat, use as clandestine 

dump sites, nutrient enrichment, tourism reduction, and human health and safety hazards, to 

name a few. Storm events can move or break up vessels, spreading the damage over a greater 

area and often increasing the cost of addressing them. Responsible ownership, maintenance, and 

operation are the norm for the boating community, but once a vessel becomes abandoned or 

derelict actions to mitigate the aforementioned potential impacts are necessary. 

Part of the challenge in appropriately responding to ADVs is the sheer number of variables (e.g., 

ownership, jurisdiction, liability, appropriate legislation or regulations) possible per individual 

case. Some scenarios, such as if a vessel is leaking oil or if a vessel is located in a federally 

maintained navigation channel, are relatively clear in terms of responsibility and action required. 

However, there are significantly more scenarios with an unknown path to resolution. Who is 

responsible for responding to a derelict vessel not leaking oil or in a federally maintained 

navigation channel? What if a vessel owner cannot be identified? Who pays for removal and 

disposal? What if the vessel breaks apart, with a portion on land and a portion still in the water? 

Are there response differences between commercial and recreational vessels? A robust state 

ADV program, working in coordination with marinas, boat owners, nongovernmental 

organizations, and Federal and other state agencies, can help overcome these challenges. 

During 2008 and 2009, media coverage of ADVs was substantial. Many stories cited the 

economic downturn in the United States as a contributing factor to an increase in the number of 

ADVs. The Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Workshop was designed in response to both this 

observation and the many requests the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Marine Debris Program (MDP) receives regarding ADVs in state waters. While 

awareness of the issue has been raised nationally, solutions and new ways of addressing ADVs 

have not been clearly articulated and adopted. 

The workshop to address abandoned and derelict vessels was held September 14-17, 2009, in 

Miami, Florida, with the intention of bringing together Federal agency representatives and state 

coastal managers to facilitate discussion on ADVs and share challenges and successful practices. 

The workshop objectives were to: 

•	 Share information on NOAA and other select Federal agencies’ ADV interests and 

resources. 

•	 Enhance communication between states that have ADV programs and those looking to 

build them. 

Prior to the workshop, given the wide variety of expertise and experiences of participants, a 

questionnaire was distributed with each attendee’s registration confirmation. Participants were 

asked to respond to two questions intended to guide the workshop discussion of ADV program 

6 
components and challenges and provide a baseline of state-level involvement in the topic. The 

questions were: 

•	 What are the two largest issues you face in terms of abandoned and derelict vessels? 

Please explain. 

•	 What do you want to learn and what do you hope to take away by participating in the 

workshop? 

Responses to the first question included challenges in identifying funding sources (70%), 

determining vessel ownership (30%), knowing the number of ADVs impacting the state (20%), 

and understanding Federal authorities (20%). Responses to the second question included an 

interest in strategies from states with an ADV program (65%), identifying funding sources 

(40%), increasing knowledge of relevant ADV legislation (20%), and strengthening state and 

Federal agency partnerships (20%). 

Building upon these responses to initiate discussion, the workshop was designed to allow Federal 

agencies to share information with state representatives on their mandates and authorities, and 

for states that have adopted ADV abatement programs to share information about their successes 

and challenges. The workshop was additionally designed to go beyond simply sharing 

information in order to establish a network of individuals committed to learning from one 

another and working together. Articulating the roles of the Federal agencies present and the 

lessons learned from existing state ADV programs provided tools and suggestions for other state 

managers without a formal ADV program to emulate and apply in their own region. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

Components of a Comprehensive ADV Program 

Steps to build a comprehensive ADV program may include planning for program administration, 

enacting legislation, identifying funding sources, creating an ADV inventory, planning for the 

removal and disposal of ADVs, clarifying enforcement authority and abilities (directly or 

through other state agencies), developing prevention strategies, conducting outreach campaigns, 

and. It should be noted that successful ADV programs can exist without some, or even many, of 

these components. The following list is intended to serve as a guide for state managers 

developing an ADV program; it contains all of the components identified by the workshop 

participants. 

•	 Program Administration: Identify the needed infrastructure for a successful program; 

develop a vision and strategy. 

Outlining what the state’s ADV program would look like from discovery to disposal is 

recommended, as is considering general program administration requirements. 

•	 Legislation: Know the relevant legislation; pursue appropriate state legislation to 

formalize an ADV program. 

Know state statutes and key definitions (the Sea Grant Law Center State Abandoned 

Vessel Laws document is one tool) and investigate the state’s political climate as it 

relates to addressing ADVs and developing a state program to conduct the work. 

•	 Funding: Understand applicable funding sources and the true cost of all components of a 

program; strive for self-sustaining funding. 

Funding, along with removal and disposal, was identified as a critical component of any 

state ADV program and requires strategic consideration and incorporation. 

•	 Inventory: Create an ADV inventory to capture and track key information. 

Knowing the magnitude of ADV challenges is critical to being able to propose 

appropriate solutions; an inventory need not be complicated or expensive. An inventory 

should include location, number, and accumulation rate of ADVs. 

•	 Removal: Weigh options for removal methods, which vary in cost, success, and 

ecological damage; understand those methods that will work best by vessel type and 

geographic location. 

Removal, along with funding and disposal, was identified as a critical component of any 

state ADV program, and requires strategic consideration and incorporation. 

•	 Disposal: Proper disposal can be accomplished through several different means, each 

varying in cost and environmental impact. 

Disposal, along with funding and removal, was identified as a critical component of any 

state ADV program, and requires strategic consideration and incorporation. 

• Enforcement: Active enforcement programs may deter irresponsible vessel ownership. 

8 
Cooperation is needed with enforcement officers to reduce existing numbers of ADVs, 

potentially recover costs for removal and disposal, and reduce the number of ADVs 

intentionally created. 

•	 Prevention: Avoiding, to the greatest extent possible, vessels becoming abandoned and 

derelict can save money and prevent the natural resource and navigation threats and 

should be the goal of any ADV program. 

Some ADVs are created intentionally and others are the result of storms or other indirect 

causes. Consider how laws, training, and outreach can be implemented to reach the most 

appropriate audiences and prevent ADV introduction. 

•	 Outreach: Engage necessary and interested constituents and partners to address ADVs 

An effective outreach campaign need not be expensive or time-consuming, particularly 

with the explosion of social media outlets. Increasing awareness of the challenges may 

reveal unknown solutions. Develop, strengthen, or reinvigorate a working relationship 

with relevant Federal and state agencies. Determine what other state agencies have an 

interest, responsibility, or are impacted by ADVs. Explore partnerships with enforcement 

agencies targeted toward ADV issues. 

9 
Section II
 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Administration 

A comprehensive ADV program has many elements, ranging from staffing to response protocols 

to coordination with other states and Federal agencies. The following topics identify and describe 

those program elements that contribute to a successful, long-term program: 

• Definition of program 

Explanation: Initial planning should identify specific details on what the program will 

do and the problems it will address. This may be spelled out somewhat in legislation, but 

clear lines between what the program will and won’t address will help determine staff 

and funding priorities. Developing a single vision to pursue should be conducted early in 

order to facilitate a common understanding as to why the state is pursuing an ADV 

program. A distinction may be drawn between recreational and commercial ADVs. 

Critical Considerations: Defining the program will establish boundaries on what it can 

and cannot do, making it easier to explain the program and prioritize funding; a definition 

that is too strict may create challenges as the state ADV program expands. 

• Staff 

Explanation: To design, implement, and maintain an ADV program, a variety of staff 

expertise is needed, including management, enforcement, legal matters, environmental 

issues, grants, and contracts. Though a program may rely on individual offices within its 

agency that are responsible for some of these areas, it is helpful to have specific expertise 

within the program to work on the issues on a daily basis. 

• Roles of Federal agencies 

Explanation: New ADV programs should learn and understand the appropriate Federal 

agencies’ mandates and authorities related to ADVs. A comprehensive understanding of 

these agencies’ permitting requirements as they apply to ADVs is also helpful. 

• Understanding existing laws 

Explanation: Though each state ADV program will have legislation particular to its 

activities, the program should also identify other state legislation that may have a bearing 

on addressing ADVs. This may include laws regarding insurance, property rights, and 

taking of property. 

• Prioritization scheme 

Explanation: A major reason to assess ADVs, both their physical condition and the 

damage or threat to surrounding areas, is to determine their priority for removal. A 

prioritization scheme should be set based on the needs of the state, region, county, or 

other area; factors to consider may include threats to navigation, human safety, habitat, or 

tourism. When determining the criteria for prioritization, engaging a stakeholder group 

may ensure all factors are considered. 

• Ability to research vessel history 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Explanation: Establishing a particular vessel’s history is necessary to legally determine 

ownership in many states, particularly if this may be used for prosecution or cost 

recovery. A program should have the expertise and ability to access all applicable state 

and Federal databases that may have information on the vessel or vessel owner. 

•	 Legacy issues 

Explanation: States with numerous ADVs in their waters before a sustainably funded 

program is created may find themselves with a significant backlog, and the initial 

assessment should implement a prioritization scheme for the vessels under consideration. 

Additionally, the funding stream should clearly articulate whether program funds can be 

applied toward legacy vessels or only vessels identified following establishment of the 

program. 

•	 Emergency response 

Explanation: In addition to addressing legacy vessels, an ADV program should have 

plans for addressing two types of emergency response. The first type is when a vessel is 

wrecked. Generally a cost savings is seen and habitat is preserved if the vessel can be 

removed as quickly as possible, before it has time to sink further, create a pollution 

incident, or break into smaller pieces. However, having funding and legal authorities to 

respond quickly can be challenging, as can mobilizing salvage crews. A plan may include 

protocols for the response, including notification, funding, and an open contract for 

salvage. The second type of response plan is for a large incident, such as a hurricane or 

other large catastrophic event. This may create tens to hundreds of derelict vessels at one 

time, and a means of assessing them and prioritizing removal should be established 

before the incident occurs. In the case of federally declared disasters, prior consultations 

with FEMA may help determine how derelict vessels will be handled. 

•	 Develop best practices 

Explanation: Setting best management practices (BMPs) can be used to standardize 

methods and get the best results for the program. The protocols and BMPs of other states 

can be reviewed and adopted or adapted. Learning from other states reduces time and 

necessary resources, and though each state will have its own specific challenges, many 

ADV issues are general, and successful practices implemented elsewhere can be adopted 

with little modification. 

•	 Pilot programs 

Explanation: Pilot programs can be an effective means of testing new methodologies, 

building upon protocols that may have been established in another state ADV program 

and concurrently pursuing new ways of achieving identified program goals to save the 

program time and funding. 

•	 Equipment 

Explanation: Equipment is an essential element of any program, ranging from the 

standard desks, computers, and phones to the more specialized such as GPS capabilities, 

laptops suitable for marine field work, boats, and related safety equipment. Proper 

equipment is needed to work in the field and to identify, assess, and track ADVs. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Record-keeping 

Explanation: Maintaining up-to-date records is essential to a good program; ADVs 

removed and disposed of must be tracked, case histories and accomplishments should be 

documented, and other activities should be recorded. This can also assist with tracking 

performance measures and demonstrating the worth of the program. 

. 

•	 Funding management 

Explanation: Any program that receives funds should have a means of managing and 

accounting for the funds received and expended. 

•	 Contracts/grants 

Explanation: Contracts and grants are two methods of financing removal and disposal of 

ADVs. These mechanisms may also be used for other program components such as 

prevention and outreach activities. 

•	 Clearinghouse of funding 

Explanation: A clearinghouse of funding opportunities would make it easier for states 

and smaller entities to apply for funding for ADV projects. 

Critical Considerations: A clearinghouse may increase efficiency of limited staff time; 

oversight and management requirements of this clearinghouse are undetermined. 

•	 Cooperation among agencies within one state 

Explanation: Program staff should seek out those agencies within their state that may 

have an interest in ADV issues to ensure connections are made, reduce agency 

jurisdictional miscommunication, reduce process timelines, share information on methods 

and techniques, and satisfy other logistical needs. A comprehensive understanding of 

these agencies’ permitting requirements as they apply to ADV is also essential. 

Establishing BMPs and having memorandums of agreement or understanding established 

up front may lead to more efficient and timely vessel removal. 

Critical Considerations: Proactive coordination encourages increased communication, 

productive working relationships, and an overall increased awareness of the state’s ADV 

issue, and may facilitate future actions by regulatory agencies due to an enhanced 

familiarity with process and need; proactive efforts require constant upkeep to reduce the 

loss of institutional knowledge in regulatory agencies with personnel turnover, and also 

require diligence and constant outreach. 

•	 Coordination with other land owners 

Explanation: Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), state agencies, 

tribes, and others who own land upon which a vessel may be abandoned should 

coordinate any response activities. 

•	 Partners 

Explanation: The most successful programs are built with involvement from key 

partners and stakeholders. Though partners may differ on how the problem should be 

addressed, external support to address ADVs can contribute to the success of the 

13 
 

 

 

program. The state agency can seek partners in the following communities: recreational 

boating, commercial boating (fishing and shipping), insurers, marina owners, law 

enforcement, counties, chambers of commerce (tourism), state Sea Grant offices, nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Save the Bay, Sierra Club), and even older 

schoolchildren who may be able to provide field assistance while participating in a 

learning opportunity. 

•	 Cooperation among states 

Explanation: Neighboring states may have similar issues, may experience derelict 

vessels that “travel” from one state to the next as laws in one state change, or may have 

the same people abandoning vessels in their states. By cooperating across state borders, 

programs can identify and address these problems, and the states can learn from each 

other. 

•	 Reciprocal agreements among states 

Explanation: States have expressed an interest in reciprocal enforcement arrangements 

to address derelict vessel owners that move from one state to another. Reciprocal 

agreements exist between states on many issues (e.g., driver’s licenses, vehicle 

registration), and these agreements should be amended, as appropriate, to include vessel 

issues and the sharing of information regarding ADVs. This may include broad sanctions 

that would prohibit a derelict vessel owner from obtaining a fishing license or registering 

a vessel in another state. 

Critical Considerations: Creates a stronger disincentive to remain negligent; requires 

multi-state action with associated costs to increase collaboration. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legislation 

Many states are considering new laws and authorities to address the problem of ADVs, and those 

with active programs provide legislative models for emulation. Even existing state programs may 

benefit from additional authorities, and refined legislation may help improve the effectiveness of 

state ADV programs and potentially reduce future vessel abandonment. 

• Model legislation 

Explanation: Many states are developing or revising their statutes regarding ADVs, and 

there is interest in model legislation that would cover a complete range of issues, 

including definitions, program funding, inventory, prevention and reduction methods, 

removal, disposal, and amnesty programs.
	

Critical Considerations: A comprehensive model would provide a single source for 

states considering new or strengthened ADV legislation; however, a comprehensive
	

model is difficult because of the unique legislative frameworks among states, and many 

elements may be legislatively or politically impossible for some states.
	

• Definitions 

Explanation: Clear definitions are needed, with critical terms including abandoned, 

derelict, wrecked, and debris. Abandonment time scales need to be carefully considered 

to ensure that owners have sufficient time to repair or recover their property without 

creating a long delay in the state’s ability to take action on vessels. Defining when a 

vessel is degraded to the point where it officially becomes “debris” is critical since debris 

removal is often easier than “vessel” removal for states. 

Critical Considerations: Clear definitions provide more certainty, and model language 

may make starting a program more palatable for states; however, definitions may take a 

long time to develop and approve. Overly precise definitions may lead to inadvertent 

legislative gaps; additionally, new definitions, if not carefully researched, may conflict 

with existing state laws. 

• Geographic scope 

Explanation: In addition to states, some counties, port districts, and municipalities have 

enacted laws addressing abandoned vessels. 

Critical Considerations: More localized responses may be more expedient than action 

by a state agency; however, relying too heavily solely on localized responses may result 

in marginal vessels moving to adjacent locales to avoid prosecution. 

• Commercial vs. recreational vessels 

Explanation: Most ADVs are recreational, but commercial vessels tend to be 

substantially more difficult and costly to address. Broad legislation would cover both, but
	

treat violations differently. For instance, more severe penalties for commercial violations,
	

including bonding to operate in state waters, could generate funding.
	

Critical Considerations: Uniform treatment of vessels is generally good; however, 

commercial vessels are licensed and regulated differently than recreational boats. A 

15 
 

 

 

 

single legislative approach may not be appropriate given the difference in numbers of 

incidence and the resources required to address commercial and recreational vessels. 

•	 Insurance, titling, registration, and licensing requirements 

Explanation: Insurance and licensing requirements are one way to reduce vessel 

abandonment and better track vessels that have become abandoned. Titling should be 

required; the last titled owner would then be liable. Bonding for license fees may be an 

additional mechanism to reduce ADV accumulation. 

Critical Considerations: These avenues may help to reduce abandonment in the long 

run; however, these tools may be politically challenging and may also increase vessel 

abandonment in the near term for marginal vessels if participation costs are deemed too 

high. 

•	 Licensing and compliance scheme 

Explanation: A vessel licensing requirement could be modeled after automobile 

licensing requirements, which include licensing, registration, training, and insurance 

Critical Considerations: The “Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) approach” may 

provide a model framework for success, if properly enforced; however, there are many 

historic legal and regulatory differences between boats and cars that may make a DMV 

model difficult to implement. 

•	 Costs and cost recovery 

Explanation: There are considerable political challenges in developing a fee-based 

program. New legislation may be more successful if it focuses on critical program 

elements and does not raise fees outright. If fees are necessary, they should be directly 

linked to the benefited community (e.g., boaters). Cost recovery from derelict vessel 

owners may also be challenging as many may not have the appropriate level of insurance 

or assets. 

Critical Considerations: Not raising fees may make legislation more likely to be 

enacted; however, lack of a revenue source may greatly reduce the effectiveness of the 

program. 

16 
 

Funding 

Funding was a known constraint for states developing their own ADV programs prior to the 

workshop but was reiterated through the pre-workshop questions posed to attendees. State ADV 

programs may find a myriad of ways to identify financial support for their activities when 

creating a program. During the workshop, Washington, California, and Maryland representatives 

presented how each of their states secured funding to respond to ADVs. There was a general 

sense that securing financial support through a general appropriation was unlikely and fees, 

while politically challenging, are a proven way to raise funds. Identified funds could then be 

supplemented from other sources, as necessary, depending on the scope of each state’s need. 

Text Box - Case Studies 

Initiated in Washington in 2002, funding for ADV work was initially collected through 

recreational boater annual registration fees of $2 per boat and a $5 fee on “foreign 

vessel registration” (fee on non-Washington boaters staying than 60 days), which yielded 

approximately $500,000 annually. Legislative amendments in 2006 allowed for the 

receipt of gifts such as grants, donations, and legal settlements, while amendments in 

2007 created an ability to receive general fund transfers and special appropriations. A 

2007 legislative change additionally increased the annual registration fee to $3 for 

calendar years 2008 to 2014 (see Appendix D). 

In 1997 California passed Senate Bill 172, creating the Abandoned Watercraft 

Abatement Fund, which provides funds “to public agencies to remove, store, and dispose 

of abandoned, wrecked, or dismantled vessels or any other partially submerged objects 

which pose a substantial hazard to navigation, from navigable waterways or adjacent 

public property, or private property with the landowner’s consent.” ADV funding 

currently stands at $500,000 per year, and the fund may be allocated up to $1 million. 

Funding comes from the Department of Boating and Waterways’ Harbors and Watercraft 

Fund, which is funded by boater registration fees, gas taxes, and interest payments on 

loans. The fund is revolving; any unspent funds in a given year revert back into the fund 

toward the total $500,000 allocation. Grants are awarded to agencies (e.g., counties, 

cities, marinas), which are responsible for a 10% match of funds and coordinate all 

aspects (e.g., hiring of salvors) of the actual removal; funds are reimbursed after the 

completion of work (see Appendix D). 

The Maryland ADV program is funded through the Waterway Improvement Fund, which 

was created in 1966 to improve and promote the recreational and commercial 

capabilities, conditions, and safety of Maryland waterways for the benefit of the general 

boating public. Funds are obtained primarily through a 5% excise tax on new and used 

vessels, which is paid when boaters purchase and title vessels. Funds are available to all 

municipalities and counties through grant applications that are 100% reimbursable. The 

maximum allowed per municipality or county is $50,000, and funds are valid for two 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

years. Total funding available for the program in 2008–2009 was $250,000 (see 

Appendix D). 

Non-Fee Funding 

• Directed Federal funding 

Explanation: Some Federal agencies have responsibilities toward ADVs that may allow
	

for direct Federal funding to states.
	

Critical Considerations: New legislation could require Federal agencies to financially
	

support state-level ADV activities from their own operating budgets without requiring a
	

state contribution; however, the majority of ADVs are not covered by Federal mandates. 

The Federal responsibility may not be always be clear-cut or well understood by the
	

states even in cases with Federal mandates to address vessels in specific situations (e.g.,
	

blocking a navigation channel, posing a threat of pollutant release).
	

• Grants from Federal agencies 

Explanation: Examples include Coastal Zone Management funds, estuary programs, and 

Federal funding opportunities through www.grants.gov.
	

Critical Considerations: Competitive Federal grants may be available to support ADV
	

work; specific ADV work may not be competitive under some specific types of grants; 

grants may take a long time to process and are not a consistent source of funding.
	

• State appropriation 

Explanation: Direct appropriation to a specific state agency to address ADVs. 

Critical Considerations: Having the funds provided through the state appropriation 

process makes funding immediately available to conduct the work and could be relied 

upon for the funding of future projects, assuming a legislative mandate is in place; 

however, getting the support of the state legislature can prove difficult, particularly in 

challenging economic times. Additionally, there may be a “use-or-lose” clause associated 

with the funding amount, which can be frustrating given the episodic and variable 

incidence of ADVs. Finally, funding that is inconsistent from year to year stifles longterm project planning. 

• Mitigation 

Explanation: For some communities, it may be appropriate to require mitigation projects 

of certain activities (e.g., construction). Municipal approval to build a hotel along a 

beachfront could require the developer to remove an ADV. This could be done on a 

sliding scale; a small activity could require only a small ADV to be removed and a larger 

development could require many. It may be necessary to articulate the relationship 

between the specific geographic area of construction and associated ADVs eligible for 

removal. Additionally, there may be some instances (such as impacts to public access 

shorelines) in which natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) funds could be applied 

to ADV work. 

Critical Considerations: Mitigation funding creates an opportunity that would not 

otherwise exist to address an ADV (potentially legacy or uniquely challenging). 

Mitigation could also be conducted through donations from the builder to a state ADV 

removal program. The negative impacts on the positive action (e.g., construction) would 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

naturally need to be balanced with the community benefit gained by addressing the ADV. 

In some states, mitigation activities may require significant outreach and planning efforts 

with permitting agencies. 

• Gifts/Donations 

Explanation: Ensure state legislation related to ADV funds is in place to allow for the
	

acceptance of gifts or donations. 

Critical Considerations: Gifts can provide financial support; however, they are unlikely 

to provide sustainable funding.
	

Cost Recovery Mechanisms 

• Insurance/Bonds 

Explanation: Utilizing insurance payout monies or bonds for ADV removal 

Critical Considerations: Getting boaters to insure their vessels provides an avenue to 

collect funds that could be applied for removal, which reduces the financial burden on the 

state; the financial value of the insurance policy may not be enough to assist ADV 

operations; an insurance policy is often for oil pollution only and may not extend to 

removal of the vessel; an owner may not be legally obligated to use an insurance payout 

for removal. 

• Cost recovery from owner 

Explanation: In some cases, the state may conduct a vessel removal and then negotiate a 

payment plan with the owner, who may not have the cash on hand to perform the removal 

but is willing to assume financial responsibility in a way they can afford. In some cases, 

no interest is charged if agreed payments are made on time. 

Critical Considerations: This method exemplifies a slow and steady cost recovery, but 

also keeps the vessel owner engaged and can create good public relations for the state; 

there may be added administrative costs to track and process payments, and payments 

received may not cover all costs if there is a long payback period without accrued 

interest. 

Fees and Taxes 

• Moorage fees 

Explanation: Assess fees for slip rentals, leases, or sales that could be collected similarly
	

to a sales tax.
	

Critical Considerations: Boaters are responsible for payment; only those that use
	

marinas pay.
	

• Other boat-related fees 

Explanation: Examples include boating fees, registration fees, excise taxes, and bonding 

of fishing boats when obtaining a commercial fishing license. 

Critical Considerations: These types of fees can build the base funding to launch a state 

ADV program, and concurrently get the directly impacted community to recognize their 

contribution to the issue as well as the benefits they receive; dedicated accounts tied to 

user fees may be more secure from state budget reclamation during challenging economic 

circumstances; different state agencies may be responsible for the collection of the funds 

19 
 

 

and related application for the funds, which can lead to cross-agency interests competing 

with one another; fees may be uniformly unpopular and politically challenging. 

•	 Tax on the production of vessels 

Explanation: Emulating the concept of an excise tax or other funding source related to 

the manufacture of all sizes of vessels, taxes could be deposited into a fund administered 

by a Federal agency, such as NOAA. The fund would provide a grant source for a certain 

percentage of states’ costs of addressing ADVs and could also act to support ADV 

programs similar to Coastal Zone Management grants. 

•	 USCG documentation fee 

Explanation: Annual USCG documentation fees could be applied toward a grant fund 

for the removal of documented vessels (or direct disbursement to states based on the 

percentage of documented boats in that state). 

Critical Considerations: Funds are frequently already allocated for other purposes. 

•	 Offshore oil lease revenues 

Explanation: Legislation to allow for the use of offshore oil lease revenues for removal 

of vessels, especially abandoned oil barges. 

Critical Considerations: May address particularly challenging vessels; not a funding 

mechanism that is applicable in all states. 

•	 Other non-boat–related fees 

Explanation: Examples include gaming leases, targeted hotel taxes, lottery taxes, and 

custom license plate fees. The ADV program in Mississippi is partially funded with 

casino gaming leases. Identifying potential alternative revenue sources to support ADV 

work may be more acceptable by obtaining support from the groups that will benefit most 

from the program. 

Critical Considerations: These are some of the potential untapped revenue sources that 

could be used for ADV work; these may not be sustainable for the long-term, thus 

limiting in financial support and ability to conduct ADV projects. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inventory 

An inventory of ADVs is critical for a successful state program. At the initiation of a program, 

an accurate inventory is helpful for understanding the scope of the problem and developing the 

legislative and public mandates to address it. As the state program becomes operational, the 

inventory will guide priority and goal setting and provide a baseline for program 

accomplishments and effectiveness. The inventory may also be useful for FEMA baseline data, 

for disclosure of potential boating and fishing hazards, mapping problem areas, and more easily 

identifying larger environmental problems associated with ADVs. 

• Components 

Explanation: A vessel inventory should include information about the vessel (e.g., 

location, dimensions, hull material); threats posed by the vessel (e.g., oil, navigation); the 

vessel history and casualty information; the owner or owners; the location (e.g., shoreline 

and bottom type, ownership); presence of vessel debris; and presence of sensitive 

resources. Photo documentation is critical, including a time series if the vessel is 

revisited. To ensure consistency, an inventory should have standard forms. 

Critical Considerations: An inventory is valuable in building a legislative case, helpful 

for operations, and can serve to identify vessels that may be historic; the process for 

documenting vessels and working with the State Historic Preservation Office may be 

expedited so that vessel assessments can be completed prior to recovery and disposal 

activities; information changes rapidly, surveys are expensive, and there may be unmet 

expectations about prompt removal once a vessel is listed in the inventory. 

• Frequency and geographic scope 

Explanation: A baseline vessel inventory is necessary. As the program becomes 

operational, the inventory should be updated as vessels are added or removed, with an 

annual or biannual resurvey effort, even though more frequent surveys may be 

appropriate in certain high-activity areas or after major storm events. The timing of 

surveys may be state-specific, depending on boating and fishing seasons, and the 

geographic scope of an inventory should include all state waters, both marine and inland. 

The scope may extend into Federal waters, especially in areas with offshore shoal areas 

and marine protected areas. 

Critical Considerations: Broad and frequent updates allow for performance 

measurements and routine reprioritization as new vessels are added to the inventory; 

however, resurvey efforts are expensive, progress may not warrant frequent updates, and 

GPS data comes in different formats that may require technical expertise; the geographic 

scope may be beyond the authority of the responsible agency (marine vs. inland 

agencies). 

• Mine existing data sources 

Explanation: A vessel inventory may rely on data from a number of sources. In addition 

to direct survey efforts, the inventory may build on information available from the 

USCG, NOAA, existing state, Federal, and local shoreline survey programs (e.g., marine 

charting, wildlife, coastal zone management surveys), local law enforcement, and marina 

21 
 

records. Aerial surveys are ideal for identification of potentially derelict vessels, as well 

as Google Earth and other on-line imagery resources. Other potential providers of vessel 

information are the USCG Auxiliary, marinas, port authorities,, yacht clubs, NGOs (e.g., 

River and Bay Keepers), salvage and towboat operators, shoreline municipalities, 

landowners, and the general public. States may benefit from free access to Department of 

Transportation title abstracts. In many cases, data providers may have incomplete data 

and a state agency representative will need to conduct a site inspection to confirm the 

vessel information. 

Critical Considerations: Use of other sources and providers can reduce costs, help focus 

agency efforts, and increase buy-in of stakeholders; may lead to expectation of prompt 

removal, especially for information provided by NGOs and the public; some data sources 

may be inaccurate or incomplete, and surveys conducted for another purpose may lead to 

spatial gaps; combining multiple records may lead to double counting of vessels, 

particularly in areas where there are clusters of vessels or where vessels are not visually 

distinguishable; aerial surveys are snapshots and will most likely require follow-up 

surveys. 

22 
 

 

 

Removal 

For existing ADVs, removal is the ultimate goal to stop the impacts to the environment and 

marine species. The choice of which removal technique(s) to use can depend on factors such as 

habitat type, water depth, degree to which the vessel is grounded, and method of disposal 

following removal (e.g., reclamation of recyclable materials, directly to landfill). Workshop 

participants agreed that removal and disposal should be considered together whenever possible. 

Text Box - Case Study
	

To provide an operational perspective, a panel of experts was convened to share their 

field experiences and discuss action-oriented issues. Captain Bill Hicks, Blue Water 

Marine Services Inc., discussed his years of experience removing ADVs and 

recommended coordinating the removal effort of multiple ADVs in a single geographic 

area to minimize mobilization and demobilization costs. Ms. Janet Allen, PBS&J, urged 

states to consider writing standards to avoid selection of removal contractors based 

solely on the lowest cost, particularly where ADV projects involve sensitive habitat or 

complicated removal procedures. Lieutenant David Dipre, Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, shared valuable information on some of the State of Florida’s 

statutes and definitions related to ADVs. Mr. John Ricisak, Miami-Dade County 

Department of Environmental Resources Management, discussed a grant he received in 

2007, with which he was able to remove 68 derelict vessels since the start of the project. 

More than 30 vessels were also removed by responsible parties as a result of coordinated 

enforcement efforts. 

Hazardous materials 

• Hazardous materials (Hazmat) 

Explanation: Before removing and disposing of an abandoned or derelict vessel, project 

coordinators must address any hazmat on the vessel or confirm there is none. 

Critical Considerations: Environmental responsibility can minimize (or eliminate) any 

hazmat concerns; due diligence may require additional time, resources, oversight, and 

involvement of other personnel on-scene. 

Methods 

• Barge and crane 

Explanation: This is the standard method for vessel/debris removal, although there are 

numerous variations on this principle. This method may be best suited for vessels not 

intended for resale or otherwise needed to remain intact. 

Critical Considerations: This is the industry standard, and is a universal approach that 

many operators can conduct; inexperienced contractors may do more damage to natural 

resources than those with demonstrated experience with this method and equipment. 

• Patch and pump 

Explanation: This method is used in deeper water when the vessel is intact. The vessel 

can be pumped, refloated, and taken into port or other nearshore area for further 

processing. 

23 
 

 

 

 

Critical Considerations: Allows for an intact hull and may reduce impacts to 

surrounding habitat; there are inherent risks with diving, with the potential for diverelated accidents, and this method can be impacted by weather and water conditions; a 

vessel may be re-abandoned after relocation if not properly overseen. 

• Divers/Lift bags 

Explanation: This method can be used in conjunction with “patch and pump.”
	

Critical Considerations: Allows for intact hull to be refloated and salvaged or restored; 

may require specialized skill-set on the part of the contractor to properly operate.
	

• No action 

Explanation: This is a possible alternative in limited situations. A vessel may be too 

challenging or cost-prohibitive to move, so if a responsible party can be identified, they 

may be held accountable for making the vessel stationary, safe, and lighted and marked 

for navigation purposes, as well as any other associated costs. 

Critical Considerations: This method may provide a limited solution to a derelict vessel 

that poses a hazard to navigation and is cost-prohibitive to address; no action could set a 

bad precedent to irresponsible owners who anticipate the state will assume all 

responsibility, as this method is only viable with strict guidelines in place; vessels must 

be identified on NOAA or USACE charts if not removed. 

Conducting the Work 

• Removal by private entity/owner 

Explanation: Compelling private removal with coordinated law enforcement activities. 

Critical Considerations: Additional program funding should not be required; a lack of 

control over removal could result in collateral damage; complex removals may require a 

complex removal plan and significant oversight. 

• Removal by state ADV program 

Explanation: The state ADV program may use its own staff or contract with a 

salvage/removal company to remove a vessel. 

Critical Considerations: This method assures that work will be undertake according to 

state requirements, and competitive bids can keep costs down; however, extensive state 

oversight is required; must adhere to state contracting requirements; increases staff 

workload; must have funds available to undertake work. 

• Inmate crews 

Explanation: The use of inmate crews to do certain types of work can substantially 

lower costs, although this requires working with the state’s Department of Corrections to 

outline suitable tasks that fit with the inmates’ training, capabilities, and security 

requirements. 

Critical Considerations: Labor costs can be substantially lowered, with some small 

amount of outreach to potential future offenders potentially being accomplished; there 

may be additional administrative work to set up and oversee this type of work. 

• Innovative Readiness Training 

24 
 

Explanation: Partnering with the military either formally through an Innovative 

Readiness Training (IRT) program or informally through relationships with locally based 

Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit, SupSalv, and related diving and engineering groups, 

this method may allow low- or no-cost removal. It may be required or preferable to have 

a Federal partner request support through IRT. 

Critical Considerations: IRT can be a very cost-effective method to remove large or 

numerous vessels and allows the military to demonstrate active support of the impacted 

community; experience indicates many divers relish this type of project for training; the 

timeline associated with IRT is approximately 2 years, during which time the vessel 

condition and/or location may change; need to develop a list of required equipment and 

technical support; cost-sharing may be an expectation, particularly on informal training 

activities; IRT operations require careful oversight to ensure best practices are carried out 

to prevent biological damage. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disposal 

As previously discussed, workshop participants felt that any state ADV program must 

concurrently plan for disposal activities when selecting a removal strategy. Specific ideas 

pertaining to disposal are: 

• Ship-breaking 

Explanation: Knowing where a vessel can be broken may be a significant challenge for a 

state ADV program. Some small vessels may be raised and then transported to a 

designated area without too much difficulty, while larger vessels may pose greater 

logistical issues. Ship-breaking yards are often notoriously polluted, and it may be that 

new technologies are required to identify innovative ways to address resulting pollution. 

If a vessel is to be towed to a ship-breaking yard, a dead-ship tow plan is required by the 

USCG. 

Critical Considerations: A good solution when ships can be raised easily, because they 

are dismantled completely out of the water, usually resulting in no further contamination 

of the marine environment; most pollution can be collected and treated if work is 

performed in dry dock; contamination of the ship-breaking yard is a concern, and large 

vessels may be challenging to break apart appropriately. 

• Incineration 

Explanation: More research is needed on the ability to incinerate ADVs economically 

and safely, being mindful of the potential to generate energy in the process. Fiberglass 

was suggested as a material that could be incinerated or recycled, but more research is 

warranted. 

Critical Considerations: Less waste enters landfills, and energy could potentially be 

generated from this method; incineration is not an option for all ship materials and is 

potentially too expensive to be feasible; incineration could prove hazardous and may 

require special air quality permits; energy generation is feasible only in areas with proper 

facilities, and haphazard incineration may destroy potentially recyclable materials. 

• Disposal in landfill 

Explanation: A vessel is taken to an approved landfill and destroyed, with verification 

potentially requiring a witness or comprehensive documentation. 

Critical Considerations: This method ensures a particular ADV will not become marine 

debris again; destruction adds to landfill bulk, and may require consideration of the 

type/class of landfill to be utilized as some material may have to be separated to meet 

landfill requirements. 

• Recycling for salvage 

Explanation: Vessels constructed of material with value may be recycled or sold for 

scrap, and the resulting value may be used to reduce cost paid to the salvor. In some 

cases, fiberglass may be ground up and added to concrete or asphalt pavement. 

Critical Considerations: Allows for recycling of material and adds an incentive to 

salvors to recover as much material as possible for resale; splitting value of metal with 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the salvor may also encourage recovery of more valuable materials; feasibility of this 

system is subject to the price of metals, and as recycling services are sometimes 

unavailable the cost-effectiveness may be limited. 

• Recycling for other uses 

Explanation: Information is needed on the value of vessel materials for other 

applications. Can ADV components be restored and resold as second-hand goods to 

collectors or other boaters? Can processed hull materials be added to construction 

materials, dock planks, or picnic tables? 

Critical Considerations: A robust recycling program may provide value to traditional 

waste material as well as reduce the quantity going to landfill; the demand for and quality 

of material to be reused are uncertainties, with more market research needed. 

• Scuttling 

Explanation: Vessels that require emergency action or that cannot be disposed of on 

land may have the option to be scuttled at sea, given the proper permits, conditions, and 

removal of contaminants. State programs may benefit by establishing pre-determined 

locations appropriate for scuttling a vessel. 

Critical Considerations: Scuttling removes the vessel debris without adding to landfill 

bulk and does not require overland transport or processing costs; in certain 

circumstances, the scuttled vessel can serve as a fish aggregating device for divers (see 

next section, “Recycling to reef”); this method is an option only for steel-hulled vessels; a 

perception can be that this is simply relocating an ADV to another part of ocean, since a 

vessel may still be considered marine debris in some places; the vessel may still have 

some contaminants associated, and may increase limiting amounts of nutrients in area 

resulting in biological changes. 

• Recycling to reef 

Explanation: Some vessels may have value to states as fish aggregating devices and/or 

artificial reefs. A high level of cleaning and permitting may be required. 

Critical Considerations: The same considerations seen in the previous section, 

“Scuttling,” apply. Reef creation may be an attractive disposal option, particularly if a 

state faces landfill constraints, and could also be popular among recreational fishers and 

divers; creating an artificial reef can be expensive, and any future vessel degradation can 

create an unstable reef. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enforcement 

Strong enforcement operations may enhance a state’s ADV program as the threat, either real or 

perceived, of prosecution acts as a deterrent to irresponsible management of a vessel. As 

demonstrated in the State of Florida, law enforcement activities encourage ADV removal by 

responsible parties. Further ideas on enforcement are: 

• Laws and legislation 

Explanation: Develop standard justification to encourage legislation that requires vessel 

titling in states that currently lack this requirement. Encourage the use of administrative 

decisions to reduce the subjectivity of court decisions and establish standards for case 

process and adjudication. Work with nationwide umbrella groups, such as NASBLA, to 

provide model legislation for a standard approach and process. Ensure laws governing 

ADVs are clear and concise to alleviate prosecutors’ frustration and/or apathy. Work with 

counties to establish standard protocols and reduce variation among regions within states 

and districts. Develop laws that provide amnesty or encouragement for responsible 

owners of derelict vessels and enforce penalties for irresponsible actions. 

Critical Considerations: Unified clear and concise legislation with universal agreement 

may facilitate prosecution and removal of vessels and also help fund the removal of 

vessels; these activities may require a high level of effort to maintain. 

• Compliance and enforcement 

Explanation: Enforcement of strong legislation is paramount, as laws are only as good as 

the ability to enforce them. The ability to enforce laws relies on boater registration and 

titling, and will perhaps be made easier if neighboring states use consistent language in 

their statutes. Disincentives and penalties will encourage compliance, as will education 

about boat owner responsibilities. 

Critical Considerations: Encourages boaters to comply with laws, thereby preventing 

intentional dumping; may be a large burden on enforcement officers, who can only 

enforce laws as written and may not have sufficient time and funding to support a broad 

enforcement program. 

• Hotline for reporting 

Explanation: Implement a hotline for the public to report groundings, along with a 

publicity campaign. 

Critical Considerations: May serve to coordinate input from the public into a single 

state agency; resources to manage a hotline will be required, and specific response 

procedures will need to be established. 

• Enforcement officer capacity 

Explanation: Provide officers training resources to be familiar with ADV laws and 

enforcement policies, and incorporate officers into standard program activities to 

reinforce familiarity and awareness of ADV issues. Increasing marine officer numbers 

and cross-deputization may elevate ADV issues to same level as general patrol duties. 

28 
 

 

 

 

Critical Considerations: Give enforcement a better understanding of the laws under 

different agencies, as well as the authority to act on them, to increase the engagement of 

motivated patrol and enforcement squads on the water; increased responsible ownership 

and awareness by owners and increased outreach through boater safety interactions are 

both positive possible results; increased officer engagement requires individuals to stay 

focused and positive to stay diligent, and avoid becoming lackadaisical over time or get 

lost to other case work. 

•	 Agency coordination 

Explanation: Coordinate all agency jurisdictions (Federal, state, and local) to best use 

authorities to address ADV issues. 

Critical Considerations: Increased communication should result; increased coordination 

frequently requires additional time to be most effective. 

•	 Tracking vessels photographically long-term 

Explanation: Use law enforcement officers’ time on the water and local knowledge 

combined with the low cost of digital photography to help document and record the status 

of ADVs in their regions over time. This may create a simple, low-cost, effective 

database to record and prioritize vessel removal needs. 

Critical Considerations: Low-cost, low-tech, effective, and accurate database to track 

vessels and document new vessels and associated trends; tracking adds another task to 

officers’ busy schedule and is dependent on their time to conduct the necessary 

photographic documentation. 

•	 Judicial system 

Explanation: Direct and focused outreach to raise awareness of detrimental impacts of 

ADVs to state waters and resources. Work with judges, magistrates, and district 

attorneys’ offices to understand and appreciate ADV issues and take a more serious 

approach to prosecuting ADV cases. Work to keep costs down by standardizing cases and 

fines/penalties to reduce case load requirements. Develop a case law briefing book to 

maintain institutional knowledge among new attorneys after any turnover. Reach out to 

elected judges’ constituents to make them aware of the importance of thorough ADV 

process and prosecution. 

Critical Considerations: These activities may result in decreased court cost and 

increased case activities; other boat owners may learn that courts are actively prosecuting 

ADV cases; a more unified judicial process to support field and management efforts and 

activities may also result; effort is required to stay engaged with turnover in court system 

and to maintain relationships throughout the entire system of process. 

•	 Dealing with offenders 

Explanation: Prohibit violators from obtaining a license for commercial and recreational 

fishing, and report associated fines to taxing authority. 

Critical Considerations: Awareness may increase responsible boating practices; 

additional duties for law enforcement officers may be unpopular. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prevention 

Prevention comprises a variety of items that could fit under the other categories, but which 

collectively may reduce the accumulation of ADVs. Underlying effective prevention is strong, 

enforceable legislation (see Legislation section), because without the threat of prosecution, many 

prevention efforts may be ineffective. On the other hand, incentives are also important. In all 

cases, an important component of a state ADV program is an outreach campaign articulating a 

vessel owner’s responsibilities and the relevant laws. While slow degradation of a vessel’s 

condition may be one contributor to dereliction, grounding events are another, and responding 

quickly can minimize collateral damage from the vessel. Further ideas on prevention strategies 

are: 

• Understand the reasons for ADV creation 

Explanation: ADV creation has several common causes and perhaps others not so 

common. To successfully prevent ADVs, a state must understand the predominant 

reasons they have ADVs (this may vary by region or vessel type) and tailor prevention, 

enforcement, and outreach programs accordingly. 

• Strong legislation 

Explanation: Strong legislation that clearly defines ADVs and indicates the 

consequences for abandoning or allowing a vessel to become derelict is necessary. Clear 

legislation makes law enforcement easier, especially when disincentives are written into 

law and are enforceable. Model legislation could be written for continuity among states 

for titling, registration, and other ADV law components. 

Critical Considerations: See the Legislation section. 

• Moorage area management 

Explanation: Regulating anchorage areas may help identify ADVs and potentially keep 

them from accumulating.
	

Critical Considerations: Vessels are easier to remove while still afloat; there may be 

challenges dealing with live-aboard vessels and other social justice issues.
	

• Providing secure moorage for at-risk vessels before storm events 

Explanation: Absent owners should not be a reason for a vessel to sink or break apart in 

a storm event. If state ADV program staff could secure an abandoned, at-risk, or 

unattended vessel before a severe storm, property loss, vessel destruction, or further 

degradation of the vessel may be prevented. This may result in lower costs for the 

eventual removal of the vessel or eliminate the need altogether. 

Critical Considerations: Can prevent the sinking or grounding of vessels or collisions 

with other property, with a decreased cost of eventual removal, if necessary; liability 

concerns for whoever secures another person’s vessel (handling private property). 

• Rapid response to groundings 

Explanation: In coral reef habitats, and particularly in high-energy wave areas, 

groundings can quickly result in catastrophic vessel groundings, with the owner walking 

30 
 

 

 

away from responsibility. A rapid response to remove a grounded vessel can lead to less 

damage to the habitat and may also save the vessel. However, owners may choose a 

lowest-cost response and not know best practices for removing their own vessel. In the 

interest of saving money, they may contract with the lowest bidder for removal, which 

may result in substandard removal operations. Ensuring a rapid response to groundings 

may result in saving boats, habitat, and money. 

Critical Considerations: Fewer ADVs, fewer impacts to habitat, and lower removal 

costs; a properly trained and equipped rapid response team through the state will require 

additional resources, and private contractors may prescribe to differing technical 

standards. 

•	 Review laws that may unintentionally encourage vessel abandonment 

Explanation: Some laws, such as those to rationalize fishing effort in a particular area 

and fishery, may have a consequence of creating an excess of boats that are no longer 

needed to earn a living. Without a financial incentive for maintaining the vessel, the 

former fisherman may no longer do so. With decreased fishing effort, the market is 

unlikely to absorb the excess boats, leading to the abandonment of vessels (e.g., Alaska’s 

king crab fishery). Being aware of these potential sources of ADVs can allow a program 

to work with the targeted group on outreach, education, and amnesty programs. 

Critical Considerations: Being aware of potential sources of ADVs allows targeted 

outreach and use of amnesty funds; it also presents an opportunity for legislative or 

agency outreach regarding unintended consequences; additional resources are required to 

review these laws and provide recommendations. 

•	 Amnesty 

Explanation: An amnesty program would allow boat owners to surrender their vessels 

and potentially have fines or disposal fees waived or reduced. While an amnesty program 

might attract vessels that the owner could afford to dispose of or had no intention of 

abandoning, the significantly lower cost of accepting a boat in this way rather than 

waiting for it to become derelict and require removal through the legal and contract 

process may outweigh that concern. An amnesty program may encourage donations of 

boats to nonprofit organizations. 

Critical Considerations: Low cost per vessel by keeping enforcement, contracting, and 

administrative costs down; by removing vessel before it becomes derelict, hazards and 

damage to the environment can be minimized; this program could attract vessels that 

would never have become part of the ADV stream (e.g., boats that were being stored on 

owner’s property). 

•	 Local salvage companies purchase (or accept) and charitable organizations accept 

donations of vessels 

Explanation: The salvage value of unmaintained vessels may make it worthwhile for a 

salvage company to accept or even pay minimally for them since they could salvage the 

valuable materials and responsibly dispose of the remainder. Similarly, charitable 

organizations could accept vessels as donations and may be able to rehabilitate them and 

sell them to a responsible owner. Both of these mechanisms could keep insolvent owners 

from abandoning their vessels. 

31 
 

 

Critical Considerations: Low to no cost for the state, with the potential to rehabilitate 

some vessels; this is an additional opportunity to protect the boat owner’s investment; 

requires strong outreach to charitable organizations regarding when a vessel cannot 

responsibly be resold. 

•	 Cradle-to-grave program 

Explanation: A cradle-to-grave program would require liability to be distributed from 

the manufacturer to the last known owner. In such a program, multiple parties can be 

assigned responsibility if a vessel becomes derelict, with the benefit that a vessel’s 

identifiable history may discourage resale of vessels already determined as derelict. Legal 

action could pursue not only the last owner, but also previous owners, dealers, and 

manufacturers. An imposed manufacturer’s bond could be released to the owner 

following proper disposal, or to the state or county for removal if the vessel is deemed 

abandoned or derelict. 

Critical Considerations: Responsibility for a vessel is shared among everyone who has 

had a stake in it, including the manufacturer, dealer, and all owners; it is unlikely that 

these types of laws would be enacted, and would likely take a long time to implement; it 

is questionable whether the time and effort to create the paper trail would be worth the 

resources needed. 

•	 Increased vessel longevity 

Explanation: Work with boat manufacturers to increase the longevity of the vessel, as 

such an approach may strengthen a boat manufacturer’s sale of repair parts and prevent 

boats from becoming ADVs. 

Critical Considerations: Protects the boat owner’s investment; these efforts might 

reduce new boat sales. 

•	 Link sales departments of marinas 

Explanation: If owners of deteriorating boats were approached by sales departments, 

they might be given information on how to maintain their investment. This could be more 

effective than being approached by enforcement officers or only by the marina’s boating 

department. A person with a deteriorating boat may need only a nudge from a sales 

person to put his/her boat up for sale rather than see it continue to fall in value. 

Critical Considerations: Provides outreach to boat owners on how to avoid letting their 

vessel become derelict; the effectiveness of the effort is difficult to determine. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Outreach 

When establishing a state ADV program, developing effective outreach to encourage community 

involvement and stakeholder buy-in requires the identification of different target groups and 

consideration of both the timing and diversity of the messaging. An understanding of the 

magnitude of the issue will allow the program to provide solid information and demonstrate an 

understanding of the issue, both of which will strengthen the outreach campaign. Often outreach 

requires an individual or single agency to take the lead to develop critical mass before a larger 

campaign can be led by another (or more appropriate) entity (e.g., boater education group). With 

increased availability of information, objections to certain ADV program aspects, such as 

boating fees, may diminish. 

• Boater education programs 

Explanation: Education programs are a key component to inform boaters before they go 

out on the water. Important topics include insurance, sales responsibilities, navigational 

hazards, safety hazards, and equipment standards, as well as guidance on preferred 

methods of disposal and information on how to respond to unexpected vessel problems. 

Education prior to licensing and titling (if required) could be the most effective, though 

handouts and signage at marinas and boater events, as well as media outlets, are also 

important. 

Critical Considerations: Boater education programs are required before boats go into 

the water; get information out to the correct parties in a friendly format and provide 

points-of-contact for emergency situations; however, education programs may be difficult 

to implement, boaters may forget what they learn, and laws may change; program may 

need to differ depending on state or region. 

• Leadership 

Explanation: An individual or individual agency needs to take the lead to launch the 

outreach campaign to build momentum, and having an appropriate vehicle to deliver the 

information is paramount. Having a recognized leader (or lead agency) is critical before 

fully engaging in public outreach efforts. Have a single point of contact for all boating 

laws. 

Critical Considerations: Having a specific individual (or agency) identified may 

alleviate confusion when trying to share information, increase community involvement, 

and get stakeholder buy-in; leadership may not be easily identified, and without it, the 

outreach campaign could be perceived as disorganized due to technical difficulties or 

other obstacles. 

• Leveraging other agencies and groups 

Explanation: Examples of groups that could be leveraged include Coast Guard Auxiliary 

and Power Squadron (for reporting vessels in poor condition and ADVs, providing 

outreach to boaters, checking for registration and safety equipment, tracking condition of 

vessels), SeaTow and other towing groups (for informing boat owners/operators of proper 

next steps for damaged vessels and related owner responsibilities), USCG fishing vessel 

inspections (for outreach and seaworthiness checks), River/Bay Keeper groups (for 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reporting and tracking ADVs), marinas, and fishing and boating supply stores (for 

providing outreach materials). 

Critical Considerations: Keeps outreach and information-gathering costs low; requires 

time to build partnerships, coordinate efforts, and distribute accurate information to other 

stakeholders. 

•	 Targeting audiences 

Explanation: It is important to identify different target audiences in terms of both the 

timing of the outreach (during ADV program development) and the messaging. Examples 

include public officials (especially at the municipal level), general boating public, 

legislators, industry that could be partnered with, and trade groups. Use of membership 

organizations (e.g., Bay Keepers) may also be beneficial. 

Critical Considerations: Appropriately timed outreach efforts to different stakeholders 

can solicit their input and support at critical times in the process, such as when 

developing legislation; outreach messaging can be appropriately diverse to benefit all 

stakeholders to understand how they may be affected by a state ADV program; 

conversely, poorly developed outreach may be detrimental to building support (e.g., 

when contact phone numbers are incorrect and website URLs are broken links); relying 

on one key message (either economics or environment - and not both) cannot engage the 

full suite of stakeholders. 

•	 Understanding the magnitude 

Explanation: Outreach requires a thorough understanding of the magnitude of the 

problem, and an effective campaign needs to demonstrate the scope of the problem (e.g., 

how many vessels, where they are, and impacts caused) as well as the available resources 

to respond because if the problem far exceeds resources, the public perception could be 

negative. 

Critical Considerations: An outreach campaign that increases stakeholder 

understanding of the magnitude of the challenges may result in support for ADV work 

not previously identified; lack of specific information (e.g., “it’s just a problem”) is not a 

helpful message by itself and does not educate the public. 

•	 Expectation management 

Explanation: Anticipating resistance and objections to certain ADV program 

components such as boater fees may be helpful, while also remaining mindful that with 

time and increased knowledge, the immediate reactions may change. Addressing 

expectations about short-term benefits is important, and outreach campaigns may require 

a few years to become operational. An example is the proposed $2 fee to dispose of car 

tires: while the disposal fee was once considered excessive, informal calculations now 

suggest that removing improperly discarded tires that make their way to a dam facility 

can cost nearly $1,500 per tire to remove due to the costs of permits and manpower 

required. Sharing this type of information with the public can temper expectations. 

Critical Considerations: Recognizing that objections may change can bolster an 

outreach campaign and increase community involvement; there is no guarantee that 

outreach efforts undertaken will change behavior. 

34 
 

 

• National outreach program 

Explanation: Should highlight the extent of the problem, the impacts, and solutions. This 

cannot be undertaken by individual states and is seen as important to raise national 

awareness and raise the political likelihood of addressing ADVs in states that face unique 

challenges and demonstrated resistance. A national program may also increase the 

likelihood that states would adopt uniform definitions or reciprocity, and it should 

include an insurance notification component. Partnering with the insurance industry on 

ADV issues may facilitate policy writers’ obtaining full and complete evidence of an 

actual vessel malfunction as opposed to deliberate destruction by an owner. 

Critical Considerations: Can reach the hearts and minds of inland dwellers, and may be 

less expensive than implementing outreach campaigns within each coastal state; message 

needs to be carefully crafted to ensure it is general enough to capture the nationwide 

problem, does not exclude any individual state’s interests, and remains effective. 

35 
Section III
 

36 
 

Federal Agency Overview 

Introduction 

Federal agency mandates and authorities primarily concern ADVs that impact federally 

maintained waterways or are releasing pollutants into the environment. Many Federal agencies 

have authorities relevant to ADVs; however, four agencies that have significant responsibilities 

to address ADVs participated in the workshop: the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), and United States Coast Guard (USCG). The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, while unable to attend the workshop, provided information that is 

summarized in the section “Additional Federal Agencies,” below. The layout of this section 

intentionally replicates the format of the Federal agency presentations at the ADV workshop. 

Key Legislation 

As part of the Federal agency presentations during the workshop, each agency identified the 

most relevant mandates and authorities that provide guidance when responding to ADV issues. 

While other legislation may be applicable for these primary (and other) agencies, below is a list 

of the specific mandates and authorities presented during the workshop along with a brief 

description of specific components most relevant to ADVs. Additional legislative mandates are 

discussed later in this section. 

Case Study Examples 

Federal agency presenters provided contextual examples of their involvement with ADV issues. 

These examples come directly from each Federal agency’s presentation at the workshop and 

serve to demonstrate the types of projects each agency has been involved with; they do not 

constitute all possible scenarios for involvement by these Federal agencies. 

Discussion Notes 

During the Federal agency presentations, workshop record-keepers individually documented 

questions posed and answers given during the discussion. This section is intended to highlight 

some of the critical questions posed to Federal agency representatives during the roundtable 

discussion. 

37 
 

 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Introduction 

FEMA is involved with ADVs via the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (Stafford Act). The Act gives FEMA the responsibility for coordinating 

the Federal government’s response to Presidentially declared disasters. For direct Federal 

assistance (under 44 CFR §206.208), FEMA may mission-assign another Federal agency 

to remove eligible ADVs when the state and local governments certify that they lack the 

capability to perform or contract for the work. For grant assistance, FEMA may 

reimburse applicants for the removal and disposal of eligible ADVs. 

Key Legislation 

o	 Stafford Act – Sections 403, 407, and 502 

o	 Under the Stafford Act, funds may be used for the removal and disposal of ADVs. 

The objective of the FEMA Public Assistance Grant Program is to provide 

assistance to state, tribal, and local governments, and certain types of private 

nonprofit organizations so that communities can quickly respond to and recover 

from major disasters or emergencies as declared by the President. 

o	 Through the Public Assistance Grant Program, FEMA provides funding to 

eligible applicants to remove wreckage and sunken vessels from publicly and 

privately owned waters to eliminate an immediate threat to lives, public health 

and safety, or improved property, or to ensure the economic recovery of the 

affected community. A number of factors may be considered in determining 

eligibility, and in order to be eligible vessels must be 

•	 Sunken/damaged as a direct result of the Presidentially declared 

emergency or disaster; 

•	 Located in the declared designated area; and 

•	 The legal responsibility of the applicant to remove. 

Case Study 

Following the impacts of Hurricane Ike in September 2008, the Oil Spill Prevention and 

Response Act of 1991 authorized the Texas General Land Office (GLO) to remove and 

dispose of ADVs in Texas coastal waters. ADVs were catalogued using Texas Park and 

Wildlife’s Boat Registration Database and the USCG Vessel Documentation Database. 

The GLO was able to remove a total of 124 vessels. FEMA will reimburse reasonable 

GLO costs expended to identify, catalog, tag, remove, store, and dispose of these vessels 

in Texas coastal waters. 

Discussion Notes 

38 
 

 

Q – Does FEMA have the authority to amend the Stafford Act?
	

A – No, it can only modify the regulations. Only the U.S. Congress can amend the Act.
	

Q – Who is eligible for FEMA Disaster Preparedness Grants?
	

A – States, local entities, private nonprofit organizations that provide similar government
	

services, and tribal entities.
	

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Introduction 

ADVs may pose a significant threat to NOAA trust resources through physical 

destruction of habitats and the dispersion of toxic chemicals and fishing gear into the 

marine environment. NOAA responds to ADVs through the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act when a vessel is within or threatens resources within a sanctuary. NOAA additionally 

supports ADV activities through funding opportunities, such as those focused on ADV 

removal, and providing technical assistance, as defined in the Marine Debris Research, 

Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006. NOAA personnel may provide scientific and 

technical assistance to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), when requested as part 

of the National Contingency Plan. 

Key Legislation 

o	 Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act 

•	 Address marine debris through mapping, identification, impact 

assessment, removal and prevention, focusing on living marine resources; 

reduce and prevent loss of fishing gear; public outreach and education. 

o	 Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 

•	 Requires NOAA to provide assistance through competitive grant 

programs; authorizes the national program to provide assistance to states 

and territories in removing abandoned fishing gear, marine debris, and 

abandoned vessels that threaten coral reefs. 

o	 National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

•	 Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (NOAA) to designate and protect 

areas of the marine environment with special national significance due to 

their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, 

archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities as national marine 

sanctuaries. Establishes liability and civil penalties for damages done by 

vessels, authorizes the Secretary to undertake actions to prevent or 

minimize destruction, loss of, or injury to sanctuary resources and to 

assess damages to sanctuary resources. 

Case Study 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NOAA involvement with addressing ADVs has principally included assessment of the 

vessel itself and providing associated removal options based on the assessment. In 2006, 

a NOAA project provided vessel inspection training for safety officers in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Some remaining funds were granted to 

the CNMI through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to partially fund the 

removal of the wreck of the commercial fishing vessel Nam Sung 62 on the island of 

Rota. A NOAA project in American Samoa provided salvage options and cost estimates 

for three ADVs. NOAA has similarly conducted assessments and provided removal 

options for an abandoned barge in the Occoquan River in northern Virginia. 

NOAA’s assistance is currently limited to technical assistance and does not generally 

include providing funds for removal of ADVs. 

Discussion Notes 

Q – What grant opportunities are available through NOAA, and what is the limit?
	

A – NOAA competitive grant opportunities to address marine debris, including ADVs, 

depend on funding, but have historically totaled approximately $750,000 per year. The
	

limit for a single project has been $200,000.
	

Q – What databases have already been created that have information on ADVs?
	

A – Some of the databases referenced in preparation for this workshop include the
	

NOAA Automated Wrecks and Obstructions Information System (AWOIS), NOAA
	

Abandoned Vessel Program (AVP) database, NOAA Resources and Undersea Threats
	

(RUST), and certain state databases. Not all information is readily accessible, and
	

keeping any database updated is a challenge.
	

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Introduction 

USACE is involved with ADVs when a vessel sinks in or impacts a navigable channel; 

the owner, operator, or lessee should immediately notify the responsible Corps District or 

USCG Area, Sector, or Captain of the Port. (In the event there is a pollutant release, the 

USCG – with assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency – will take the lead, 

with USACE assisting as needed). USACE may need to conduct a channel survey to 

determine whether the vessel constitutes an obstruction to navigation. Under current 

USACE policy and funding limitations, the location of the vessel with respect to the 

navigation channel with determine whether further USACE involvement in removal is 

warranted. 

Key Legislation 

o	 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 – Sections 15 (33 USC 409), 19 (33 USC 414), 

and 20 (33 USC 415) 

40 
 

•	 Sec. 15 - Prohibits obstructing of navigable channels in a way which 

prevents the passage of other vessels. 

•	 Sec. 19 - Allows USACE to remove an obstructing vessel after 30 days 

without liability for damages to the owner of the same. 

•	 Sec. 20 - In an emergency, allows USACE to remove or oversee removal 

of an obstructing vessel after 24 hours and seek reimbursement of removal 

costs by the owner, operator, or lessee of said vessel. 

o	 Engineer Regulation and Pamphlet 1130-2-520, Chapter 4 – Removal of Wrecks 

and Other Obstructions (and related appendixes) 

•	 Owner, operator, or lessee (if identifiable) is responsible for removal of 

wrecks or other obstructions to navigable waterways within USACE 

jurisdiction. 

•	 USACE must notify owner, operator, or lessee that wreck or obstruction 

has been determined an obstruction to navigation and must be removed. 

•	 USACE cannot take private property. Must attempt notification of need 

for removal. 

•	 Appendix B – Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between USCG and 

USACE defining roles during and following marine accidents. 

Case Study 

Given the responsibility to clear federally maintained waterways of ADVs, USACE was 

involved with removing ADVs from navigation channels following Hurricane Katrina in 

2005. USACE has additionally been involved in clearing intercoastal waterways and 

responding to vessel collisions. 

Discussion Notes 

Q – What is the definition of a “navigable channel”?
	

A – Commercially navigable waters, which are authorized by Congress as navigation 

channels. A list of these can be obtained from local district offices and they are not
	

always the same as navigable waters of the U.S. as defined under the Clean Water Act.
	

Q – How is USACE involved in clearing ADVs from navigable channels at times other
	

than following a Presidentially declared disaster?
	

A – USACE works to remove ADVs from the water, and not just move them out of the
	

channel. The entire annual budget for ADV work, however, is $500,000 so the agency
	

must work with states and other partners to prioritize removal so no single vessel
	

consumes the entire budget. 

United States Coast Guard 

Introduction 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

USCG is involved with ADVs by its designation as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to 

oversee Federal response efforts for the containment, removal, and disposal of oil or 

hazardous substance releases into the marine environment. USCG may be responsible for 

ADVs if given a direct mission assignment by FEMA. Agencies given mission 

assignments (MA) to remove debris are responsible for removing anything within the 

definition of debris provided in that MA. 

Key Legislation 

o	 Clean Water Act (CWA) and Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) 

•	 CWA, as amended by OPA 90, provides the basic statutory authority for 

pollution prevention, contingency planning, and response activities within 

the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone for oil and hazardous substances. 

o	 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) 

•	 CERCLA, also known as Superfund, extends the response provisions of 

the Clean Water Act to a wide range of “hazardous substances, pollutants, 

and contaminants” and to releases that threaten not only coastal or 

navigable waters but also other environments, such as the air or ground. 

o	 Abandoned Barge Act of 1992 

•	 Prevent future marine pollution and take law enforcement actions with 

respect to abandoned barges over 100 GT and those that pose a significant 

threat. 

Case Study 

U.S. Coast Guard involvement with ADVs is often demonstrated through Federal 

response efforts for the containment, removal, and disposal of oil or hazardous substance 

releases into the marine environment, which may entail vessel removal. Additionally, 

USCG may be tasked by FEMA through a MA to contribute to the removal of ADVs. For 

example, USCG has been working in the Gulf of Mexico on ADVs following Hurricane 

Katrina. 

Discussion Notes 

Q – When conducting environmental assessments of ADVs, is there a distinction between 

potential impacts to habitat versus species?
	

A – No, a thorough assessment will be conducted if there is a threat to the environment
	

anywhere.
	

Q – Is there a possibility for cost-sharing between Federal agencies when responding to 

ADV issues?
	

A – The USCG has been working for some time to facilitate improved coordination 

between Federal partners so the entire process is effectively handled in the most efficient 

and effective way. Agencies need to get working agreements in place before initiating a 

case, and must also work with the responsible party to the extent possible. 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional Federal Agencies 

In addition to the Federal agencies giving formal presentations during the workshop, other 

agencies have important roles to play regarding ADVs. The workshop benefited from the 

involvement of EPA and the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

EPA provided information on the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act (as amended 

by the Ocean Dumping Act), broadly describing the process for obtaining a general permit for 

ocean disposal of vessels. Permits are issued and managed regionally, and close collaboration 

with other Federal agencies is a requirement. In an effort to strengthen communication and 

partnerships at the Federal level when considering ADV issues, additional agencies merit 

inclusion in any future workshops to better understand the full breadth of Federal agency 

responsibilities. The following list serves only as a starting point of agencies with a demonstrated 

interest in ADVs: 

• Environmental Protection Agency 

• Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service) 

• Department of the Navy – Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SupSalv) 

• Department of Transportation (U.S. Maritime Administration) 

Identified Legislative Gaps 

Based on historical knowledge, the identification of numerous “if/then” scenarios, and discussion 

of the case studies, it was clear that a comprehensive response to ADVs on the Federal side is not 

always possible due to gaps in existing legislative mandates. Supplementary legislation and 

agreements related to ADVs are currently under consideration, both domestically in the U.S. 

House of Representatives and internationally through the International Maritime Organization 

(IMO). The Coral Reef Conservation Act Reauthorization and Enhancement Amendments of 

2009 (HR860 in 111th Congress) includes a section on the development of an inventory of vessel 

grounding incidents. While this database may complement other existing Federal inventories, the 

focus will be on incidents involving coral reefs. Potential international agreements include the 

Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, adopted by a Diplomatic Conference in Nairobi in 2007 

through the IMO. The Convention is intended to fill a gap in the existing legal framework and 

addresses the navigational hazard caused by vessels, damage to the marine environment, and 

costs associated with marking and removing hazardous wrecks. As of May 2009, only Nigeria 

had ratified the Convention, with another four countries as signatories still requiring ratification. 

On March 23, 2010, FEMA issued Recovery Policy 9523.5, entitled “Debris Removal from 

Waterways,” to provide guidance for determining the eligibility of debris for removal from 

navigable waterways, the coastal and inland zones, and wetlands under the Public Assistance 

Program. Recent disaster activity, including Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, demonstrated the need 

for additional guidance to clarify the roles and responsibilities of FEMA, USACE, and USCG in 

43 
 

removing debris, wreckage, and sunken vessels from waterways. USACE and USCG reviewed 

and provided input on this policy. 

Conclusion 

Current Federal mandates and authorities related to ADVs do not provide comprehensive 

responsibility to remove vessels that are hazards to navigation or release pollutants. Existing 

laws governing responses to polluting or potentially polluting vessels, those that are or could 

become navigation hazards, and those actually or threatening to damage certain protected areas 

have created only a patchwork resolution to this nationwide issue. Addressing recreational 

vessels remains largely outside the scope of any Federal agency, particularly if navigational 

disruptions or hazardous material releases are not demonstrated. Thus, responsibility to address 

these ADVs generally falls to state and local authorities, which is why the workshop 

intentionally focused on increasing the capacity of state-level managers. 

44 
Section IV
 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion and Next Steps 

The State-level Responses to Abandoned and Derelict Vessels workshop was the first nationwide 

opportunity for stakeholders to work together to critically discuss the myriad of challenges 

associated with ADVs. Following the Federal agency session’s identification of legislative gaps, 

it was agreed that states may be best suited to address their specific ADV issues. As states have 

different levels of need and capacity to respond to the issue, the workshop benefited attendees 

through the sharing of challenges and successes in order to learn from one another—something 

attendees identified as important before the workshop. 

An additional outcome of the group discussions at the workshop is this document, which outlines 

the critical components of a state-level ADV program. While having each of the program 

components is not a requirement for an effective ADV program, they are all interrelated parts 

that merit consideration when developing or refining a state program. All states impacted by 

ADVs are advised to consider each of these components when building or strengthening their 

programs. 

Participants in the workshop provided a number of suggestions for future efforts that those 

interested in developing or strengthening a state program could undertake. 

•	 Workshop attendees should continue to learn from one another, particularly as states 

develop or expand their ADV programs. This community of individuals may be uniquely 

qualified to assist one another in the future. 

•	 States will need to devise their own processes for establishing an ADV program, and the 

suggested program components, while helpful guides, may not be appropriate for each 

state. Furthermore, this document will require revision to remain a guidance tool. 

•	 Federal agency representatives acknowledged gaps in existing legislative mandates and 

authorities, and while this document does not advocate new Federal legislation, 

pragmatic approaches to ensuring the consistent application and interpretation of relevant 

federal ADV legislation were encouraged. 

•	 Re-convening this group in the future would provide an opportunity to critically review 

both obstacles to progress and implantation successes following the State-level Response 

to Abandoned and Derelict Vessels workshop in September 2009. 

46 
Appendix A
 

47 
 

 

 

AGENDA
 

Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Workshop
 

September 15-17, 2009
 

Miami, Florida
 

Time Topic 

Tuesday 

8:00–8:30am Registration and coffee 

8:30–9:15am Welcome, overview, and introductions 

9:15–10:00am What constitutes a successful abandoned and derelict vessel program? 

10:00–10:30am Break 

10:30–12:00pm Nationwide support efforts 

• Sea Grant Law Center 

• National Association of State Boating Law Administrators 

• NOAA Abandoned Vessel Program 

12:00–1:30pm Lunch 

1:30–2:30pm Perspectives from other sectors (law enforcement, salvage, removal) 

2:30–3:00pm Break 

3:00–4:45pm Federal interests and responsibilities 

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

• United States Coast Guard (USCG) 

4:45–5:00pm Closing 

Wednesday 

8:30–8:45am Welcome and agenda review 

8:45–9:45am Funding an ADV statewide program – WA, CA, MD 

9:45–10:45am Components and challenges of building a successful program – MS, FL, 

PR, MN 

10:45–11:15am Break 

11:15–12:30pm Documenting the components and challenges of building a successful 

program (Session I) 

12:30–2:00pm Lunch 

2:00–4:15pm Documenting the components and challenges of building a successful 

program (Session II) 

4:15–4:30pm Closing 

Thursday 

8:30–9:00am Coffee 

9:00–10:00am Review of discussion outputs on components and challenges of building 

a successful program 

10:00–11:30am Moving forward together 

11:30–12:00pm Closing remarks 
Appendix B
 

49 
Comparison of Coastal State Programs Addressing Abandoned and Derelict Vessels - September 2009 

STATE Explicit Definition of 

Abandoned Vessel Formal Program Dedicated Funding Source Lead Agency Formal Designation Process 

Removal 

Requirements Disposition Process Disposal Requirements 

Prioritization 

Scheme Additional Information 

Alabama No No No None No None, removal 

governed by state’s 

salvage laws 

None None None Port Authorities may order 

derelict vessel removed from a 

state port. 

Alaska Yes. Alaska defines 

both “derelict” and 

“abandoned” 

vessels. 

No No Department of 

Transportation and 

Public Facilities 

None, abandoned and 

derelict vessels may be 

immediately taken into 

custody by the Department 

or law enforcement 

personnel. 

None Following provision of 

notice, vessels can be 

disposed of through 

public sale, as junk, or 

otherwise destroyed. 

None None Separate rules apply for 

derelict and abandoned 

vessels in state harbor 

facilities. 

California No Yes, the California 

Abandoned 

Watercraft 

Abatement Fund 

Grant Program 

Yes, up to $1 

million per year 

may be 

authorized. 

Department of 

Boating and 

Waterways 

None, designated state 

employees may 

immediately remove 

abandoned vessels if an 

obstruction to navigation or 

poses a danger to public 

health or the environment. 

None Following provision of 

notice, vessels can be 

disposed of through 

public sale. 

Must comply with 

local city health 

ordinances. 

Funding from AWAF 

is granted based on 

need. 

Connecticut No No No Department of 

Environmental 

Protection 

None, state boating law 

enforcement officers may 

immediately take 

abandoned vessels into 

custody. 

None None None None Marina owners may acquire 

liens for storage charges. 

Delaware Yes, Delaware 

defines “abandoned 

vessel” 

No No Department of 

Natural Resources 

and Environmental 

Control 

None, the Department may 

seize abandoned vessels 

located on public property. 

None Following provision of 

notice, vessels can be 

disposed of through 

public sale. If the 

vessel can't be 

removed intact, 

Department may 

dispose of it in any 

reasonable manner. 

None None 

Florida Yes, Florida defines 

“derelict vessel” 

Yes Yes, Derelict 

Vessel Removal 

Grant Program 

when funded by 

legislature. 

Fish and WIldlife 

Conservation 

Commission 

Yes, Commission 

designates derelict vessels 

for removal after attempts 

are made to identify owner. 

None, derelict vessels 

located on pubilc 

property may be taken 

into custody by 

Commission or law 

enforcement 

personnel. 

Vessels may be 

retained, traded, 

donated, sold or 

disposed of by 

notifying a refuse 

removal service. 

Disposal options 

are limited to 

permitted artificial 

reefs site and 

landfill locations. 

Derelict vessels that 

are public safety 

and navigational 

hazards are 

removed first. 

Georgia Yes, Georgia defines 

“abandoned vessel” 

Yes, the Georgia 

Sunken Vessel 

Project 

No Georgia 

Department of 

Natural Resources 

None, law enforcement 

personnel have the 

authority to remove 

abandoned vessels upon 

notifying DNR. 

None Once removed, vessels 

are subject to liens and 

foreclosure 

proceedings (public 

sale). 

None DNR prioritizes 

removal efforts 

based on tiers. 

Failure to pay AbV removal 

fees or liens can result in 

revocation or suspension of 

boat and motor vehicle 

licenses. 

Hawaii Yes, Hawaii defines 

both “derelict” and 

“abandoned” 

vessels. 

No No Hawaii Department 

of Land and 

Natural Resources 

None, the Department is 

authorized to immediately 

take abandoned and 

derelict vessels into 

custody. 

None Following provision of 

notice, vessels can be 

disposed of through 

public sale. 

None None Hawaii has special provisions 

for vessels abandoned upon 

premises of vessel repair 

business, private marina, or 

yacht club or left at small boat 

harbor. 

Illinois Yes, regulations 

define “abandoned 

watercraft" 

No No Department of 

Natural Resources 

None, when a watercraft is 

abandoned on state waters 

for more than 24 hours, any 

law enforcement agency 

with jurisdiction may 

authorize its removal. 

None Following provision of 

notice, vessels can be 

disposed of through 

public sale or 

depending on the age 

of the vessel disposed 

as junk or sold for 

salvage. 

None None 

Indiana No No No Department of 

Natural Resources 

None, Department law 

enforcement officers may 

impound abandoned 

watercraft upon discovery. 

None Upon expiration of 90-

day waiting period, 

abandoned watercraft 

may be destroyed or 

sold at public auction. 

None None Indiana has special provisions 

authorizing the sale of 

watercraft by marina 

operators. 

Louisiana No Yes, for oil-bearing 

abandoned vessels -

the Louisiana Oil Spill 

Coordinator’s Office 

Abandoned Barge 

Program 

No, although Oil 

Spill Contingency 

Fund can be used 

by LOSCO in 

limited 

circumstances. 

Louisiana Oil Spill 

Coordinator’s 

Office (AbV that 

threatens release 

of oil) 

The Louisiana Oil Spill 

Prevention and Response 

Act requires LOSCO to 

locate, identify, mark, and 

analyze the contents of any 

abandoned or derelict 

vessels or structures found 

within the state. 

None, LOSCO is 

authorized to remove 

abandoned and 

derelict vessels and 

structures. 

State agencies are 

authorized to sell 

abandoned vessels. 

None Under OSPRA, 

abandoned and 

derelict vessels are 

removed on the 

basis of highest risk 

to human health 

and safety, the 

environment, and 

wildlife habitat. 

The Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality has 

jurisdiction over the removal of 

abandoned vessels pursuant 

to a delegation of authority by 

the Governor following 

Hurricane Katrina. DEQ is 

required to provide notice to 

vessel owners and approve 

removal plans. 
Comparison of Coastal State Programs Addressing Abandoned and Derelict Vessels - September 2009 

STATE Explicit Definition of 

Abandoned Vessel Formal Program Dedicated Funding Source Lead Agency Formal Designation Process 

Removal 

Requirements Disposition Process Disposal Requirements 

Prioritization 

Scheme Additional Information 

Maine Yes, Maine defines 

“abandoned 

watercraft” 

No Submerged Lands 

Fund 

Maine Department 

of Conservation 

The Director of the Maine 

Department of 

Conservation may only 

initiate the removal of a 

watercraft after the 

municipal board or 

commission entrusted with 

harbor management 

determines that the vessel 

is derelict or abandoned 

and attempts have been 

made to identify the owner. 

Removal efforts must 

comply with all state 

and federal 

environmental laws. 

The Department is 

authorized to sell 

abandoned watercraft. 

None None Watercraft that have been 

abandoned prior to July 1, 

1993 are not subject to 

removal. 

Maryland Yes, Maryland 

defines “abandoned 

vessel” 

Yes, the Maryland 

Abandoned Boat 

Program 

Waterway 

Improvement 

Fund 

(approximately 

$500,000 per 

year) 

Department of 

Natural Resources 

DNR may only seize, 

remove, or take custody of 

an abandoned vessel if 

notice was provided to the 

last known registered 

owner 15 days prior or by 

publication within 30 days 

of the seizure (if owner 

unknown). 

None DNR may sell 

abandoned vessels at 

public auction, receive 

title to vessel, or 

otherwise dispose of it. 

None Priority is given to 

abandoned vessels 

that are navigational 

or environmental 

hazards. 

Landowners in Maryland may 

acquire title to any abandoned 

vessel on their land or in 

adjacent water upon submittal 

of proper forms and 

information to DNR. Maryland 

law also allows marina 

operators to remove vessels 

than have been left for more 

than 48 hours without 

permission. 

Massachusetts No No Abandoned 

Vessel Trust Fund 

Department of 

Conservation and 

Recreation 

DCR may immediately 

remove abandoned vessels 

that are an obstruction to 

navigation and other uses 

of state waters. However, if 

the owner is known, notice 

must be given prior to 

removal. 

None None None None Individuals can acquire 

ownership over abandoned 

vessels by utlizing procedures 

established by the state’s 

abandoned property laws. 

Michigan No No No Secretary of State 

(abandoned 

property) 

No None, abandoned 

vessels can be 

claimed by applying 

for a certificate of title 

with the SOS. 

Under the state’s 

abandoned property 

laws, property may be 

disposed of by 

returning it to finder or 

public sale. 

None None Title to “abandoned property 

of historic or recreational 

value” found on state-owned 

bottomlands of the Great 

Lakes belongs to the state. 

Removal of such vessels 

requires a permit from 

Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

Minnesota No No No N/A No None, removal is the 

responsibility of the 

owner. However, local 

governments can 

remove abandoned 

watercraft when 

owners fail to do so. 

Under the state’s 

abandoned property 

laws, property that 

remains unclaimed for 

more than 6 months 

becomes the property 

of the person in 

possession. 

None None 

Mississippi Yes, Mississippi 

defines “derelict 

vessels” 

Yes, the Mississippi 

Derelict Vessel 

Removal Program 

Derelict Vessel 

Fund 

Department of 

Marine Resources 

Not generally, but sunken 

or submerged vessels in 

coastal wetlands within any 

designated navigation 

channel or 100 yards of a 

state, county, or municipal 

boat boundary may be 

declare a hazard to 

navigation by DMR. 

Prior to the removal of 

any derelict vessel, an 

environmental 

assessment must be 

performed to 

determine potential 

impacts to coastal 

wetlands. 

Derelict vessels may 

be destroyed or 

otherwise disposed of. 

Derelict vessels 

are to be 

disposed of in an 

approved landfill. 

If the vessel has a 

steel hull, DMR 

may clean it for 

use as artificial 

reef material. 

Removal prioritized 

based on highest 

threat. Derelict 

vessels declared to 

be a navigation or 

environmental 

hazard are to be 

removed 

immediately. 

New Hampshire No No No Department of 

Safety (generally); 

Pease 

Development 

Authority (Ports 

and Harbors) 

None, the Department of 

Safety and the PDA may 

immediately impound 

abandoned vessels. 

None Upon expiration of 90-

day waiting period, 

abandoned vessels 

may be sold at public 

auction or retained for 

use by the state. 

None None Boat storage yard owners may 

place a lien for rental and 

other reasonable charges for 

any vessel or boat abandoned 

on their premises. 

New Jersey No No No N/A None, municipalities and 

law enforcement officials 

have authority to 

immediately seize 

abandoned vessels. 

None Abandoned flat-bottom 

boats, barges, scows, 

and rafts may be sold 

at public auction. 

Vessels may only be 

disposed of by 

someone (landowner, 

municipality, harbor 

commission) acquiring 

title. 

None None The state may require the 

owner of a barge docked in or 

on the bank of any river for 

more than 10 consecutive 

days to post a bond of 

$25,000 with the municipality, 

which will be forfeited if the 

barge sinks or becomes 

unnavigable. 
 

Comparison of Coastal State Programs Addressing Abandoned and Derelict Vessels - September 2009 

STATE Explicit Definition of 

Abandoned Vessel Formal Program Dedicated Funding Source Lead Agency Formal Designation Process 

Removal 

Requirements Disposition Process Disposal Requirements 

Prioritization 

Scheme Additional Information 

New York Yes, New York 

defines “wreck” 

No No N/A None, sheriffs may 

immediately take 

possession of wreck 

property. 

None Wrecked property may 

be sold at public 

auction. 

None None 

North Carolina Yes, North Carolina 

defines “abandoned 

vessel” 

No No Wildlife Resources 

Commission 

No None Under the state’s 

unclaimed property 

laws, property having 

no substantial 

commercial value may 

be destroyed unless it 

has historical 

significance. Property 

remaining unclaimed 

after three years can 

be sold at public 

auction. 

None None Under state law, a person may 

acquire ownership of an 

abandoned vessel by 

providing proof to the Wildlife 

Resources Commission that 

the lawful owner has actually 

abandoned the vessel. 

Ohio Yes, Ohio defines 

“abandoned vessel” 

and “abandoned junk 

vessel” 

No No N/A None, law enforcement 

personnel may immediately 

order abandoned vessels 

into storage. 

None Abandoned vessels 

may be disposed of in 

a variety of ways 

depending on where 

they were found, 

including public sale 

and delivery to marine 

salvage dealer. 

None None 

Oregon No Yes, the Oregon 

Abandoned Vessel 

Program 

Abandoned Boat 

Removal and 

Cleanup 

Subaccount 

Oregon State 

Marine Board 

Unless immediate removal 

of the vessel is necessary 

to prevent imminent 

environmental damage or 

risk to public safety, law 

enforcement personnel 

must notify the Board and 

the owner (if identifiable) 

prior to taking it into 

custody. 

None If vessels remain 

unclaimed for more 

than 60 days, law 

enforcement personnel 

may dispose of it by 

acquiring title pursuant 

to state law and 

thereafter selling or 

otherwise transferring 

the vessel. 

None None, although only 

vessels posing an 

environmental 

threat or hazard to 

navigation are 

eligible for funding 

from the 

Abandoned Vessel 

Fund. 

Pennsylvania No No No Pennsylvania Fish 

and Boat 

Commission 

None, the Commission may 

immediately take 

possession of a boat 

abandoned on public 

property or waters. For 

vessels on private property, 

landowners must register 

the vessel as an 

abandoned boat to acquire 

title. 

None Unclaimed abandoned 

boats found on public 

waters may be sold at 

public auction. If the 

vessel has no value 

other than salvage, the 

salvor in possession 

may apply to acquire 

title and thereafter 

destroy, dismantle, 

salvage, or recycle the 

boat. 

None None 

Rhode Island No No No Department of 

Environmental 

Management 

The Director of the 

Department of 

Environmental 

Management may only 

remove a vessel after the 

owner has been notified 

and failed to act within the 

time specified in the notice. 

None Abandoned vessels 

may be sold at public 

or private sales. 

None None Harbormasters have authority 

to take custody and control of 

abandoned vessels located in 

the coastal waters and harbor 

areas of their towns. 

South Carolina Yes, South Carolina 

defines “abandoned 

vessel” 

Yes, there is a formal 

program guided by 

the Abandoned 

Vessel Removal Task 

Force 

No, removal 

efforts dependent 

on grant funding 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control, Office of 

Ocean and Coastal 

Resource 

Management 

No, OCRM is authorized to 

immediately seize 

abandoned vessels. 

OCRM may require a 

permit be obtained for 

the removal of a 

vessel from a “critical 

area” if the removal 

process will 

significantly impact 

the surrounding marsh 

environment. 

OCRM requires that all 

abandoned vessels be 

completely removed 

from the water and 

disposed in an 

approved landfill to 

prevent future reuse 

and abandonment. 

If contractors are 

used to remove 

vessels, OCRM 

requires them to 

submit a spill 

prevention and 

recovery plan. 

None, although 

OCRM does give 

preference for grant 

funding to local 

governments who 

have not previously 

participated in 

removal efforts. 

South Carolina has 

procedures for obtaining title 

to abandoned vessels. 
Comparison of Coastal State Programs Addressing Abandoned and Derelict Vessels - September 2009 

STATE Explicit Definition of 

Abandoned Vessel Formal Program Dedicated Funding Source Lead Agency Formal Designation Process 

Removal 

Requirements Disposition Process Disposal Requirements 

Prioritization 

Scheme Additional Information 

Texas No Yes, the Abandoned 

Vessel and Structure 

Removal Program 

Coastal Protection 

Fund 

General Lands 

Office 

GLO may immediately 

remove vessels which are 

involved in an actual or 

threatened unauthorized 

discharge of oil. Before 

removing vessels which are 

a threat to public health, 

safety, or welfare, a threat 

to the environment, or a 

navigation hazard, the GLO 

must conduct an 

investigation, prepare a 

report, and comply with any 

hearing requests. Law 

enforcement agencies are 

also authorized to 

immediately take 

abandoned watercraft into 

custody. 

None The GLO may dispose 

of removed vessel “in 

any reasonable and 

environmentally sound 

manner.” If an 

abandoned watercraft 

taken into custody by a 

law enforcement 

agency is not claimed 

by the owner, the 

agency may sell, 

transfer, or use the 

watercraft. 

None None GLO Commissioner is 

authorized to order the 

forfeiture of any money paid to 

a person under the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife 

Department’s shrimp license 

buyback program is he finds 

the vessel to which the license 

was applied was abandoned. 

Virginia No No Marine Habitat 

and Waterways 

Improvement 

Fund 

Marine Resources 

Commission 

The Marine Resources 

Commission must notify the 

owner, if known, and wait 

one week before removing 

the vessel. If the vessel’s 

state of disrepair is due to a 

natural disaster, the state 

must wait 60 days before 

issuing a notice. 

None, anyone is 

entitled to “take up a 

boat or vessel adrift.” 

There is no identified 

disposal options for 

vessels removed by 

MRC. Landowners can 

acquire title to any 

vessel abandoned on 

his land or in adjacent 

water for more than 60 

days and drift property 

may be sold. 

None None Virginia law permits local 

governments to enact 

ordinances authorizing the 

removal of vessels. 

Washington Yes, Washington 

defines “derelict” and 

“abandoned” vessel. 

Yes, Washington has 

a derelict vessel 

removal program 

Derelict Vessel 

Removal Account 

Department of 

Natural Resources 

Public entities authorized to 

remove vessels must first 

obtain custody of the 

vessel by notifying the 

owner of its intent by mail 

and posting on the vessel. 

If the vessel is an 

immediate threat, public 

entities may take temporary 

possession. 

None Authorized public 

entities may use or 

dispose of the vessel 

in any appropriate and 

environmentally sound 

manner without further 

notice to the owners. 

Vessel disposal 

must be done in 

an 

environmentally 

sound manner 

and in 

accordance with 

all federal, state, 

and local laws, 

including the state 

solid waste 

disposal 

provisions. 

Use of funds from 

the Derelict Vessel 

Removal Account 

are prioritized for 

the removal of 

derelict and 

abandoned vessels 

that are in danger of 

sinking, breaking 

up, or blocking 

navigation channels 

or that present 

environmental risks 

such as leaking fuel 

or other hazardous 

substances. 

Separate rules exist for public 

moorage facilities and 

marinas. 

Wisconsin No No No N/A The abandonment of a boat 

in a traffic lane and 

obstructions to navigation 

are considered public 

nuisances. County district 

attorneys, at the request of 

the Department of Natural 

Resources, shall institute 

proceedings to abate such 

nuisances. 

None, municipalities 

may have any 

watercraft obstructing 

or interfering with the 

free navigation of any 

river, canal, channel, 

or slip within its harbor 

removed to a 

convenient and safe 

place. 

Property abandoned 

on state lands and 

unclaimed for more 

than 60 days may be 

returned to the finder 

or sold at private or 

public sale. Political 

subdivisions may 

dispose of property 

after 30 days. 

None None 
Appendix C
 

54 
  

   

     

                             

         

State Boating Law 

Administrators

Governmental Affairs and

Administration 

Committee, Waterways 

Management

Subcommittee 

2009

National Association of 

BEST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES (BMP) FOR

ABANDONED BOATS

Ten BMPs are recommended to provide the most expeditious removal of recreational vessels

from our national waterways and lands.
  

  

       

                                                           

     

       

       

                       

   

   

   

Introduction

Abandoned  recreational  vessels  are  unsightly  and  pose  potential  threats  to

navigation  and  the  environment  (i.e.,  sources  of  pollution  and  illegal  dump  sites).

Additionally, they are  often  difficult and expensive  to remove. Such  vessels are a growing

national problem1, for example: 

	 Florida  is  reported    to  have  1,500 
 

abandoned  vessels  in  or  around  the 

waters  of  the  state  and  for  FY  2008‐09 

Florida legislators allocated $1.55 million

for ongoing removal activities,2
 

	 Louisiana  developed  an  inventory  of

abandoned  vessels  and  barges  totaling 

approximately  800  vessels/barges  of 

which roughly 200 were characterized as 

posing a potential pollution problem,3
 

	 Maryland received reports of 132 abandoned vessels in 2008 and expect similar

numbers for 2009,4

	 The State of Washington State has approximately 200 known abandoned boats,5

	 South Carolina has about 150 abandoned boats,6

	 Georgia reportedly has 100 – 150 abandoned vessels along its 118‐mile coast.7

Some government officials and others expect to see more boats headed for a watery

grave as the effects of the present recession drag on. “The suspicion is that the number (of

1 See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01boats.html?_r=1
 2 See http://fosterfollynews.com/news/2009April8FWCRemovesJunkedBoats.php.
 3 See http://www.losco.state.la.us/print_pages/print_ps_prevention.htm.
 4 Personal communication with Bob Gaudette, Director MD DNR Boating Services 6/23/09.
 5 See www.threesheetsnorthwest.com/2009/06/washington‐one‐of‐few‐states‐with‐programs‐to‐deal‐with‐

derelict‐and‐abandoned‐boats/
 6 See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01boats.html. 7 See http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/nov/13/abandoned-boats-leaving-behind-environmental-wreck/ and 

http://www.altamahariverkeeper.org/aboutus/news/012807.asp. 

NASBLA	 September, 2009  Pa g e  | 1
 
  

       

   

   

       

       

   

   

  

         

                                                           

   

   

   

   

      

abandoned  boats)  is  growing  because  of  the  economy,”  said  Doug Helton  of  the  National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Response and Restoration.8

Severe weather events, economic  hardships,  financial  problems and  the  potentially 

high costs  for removal all increase  the likelihood  that

boats  will  be  abandoned.    When  boaters  live  a  long

distance  from where their boats are docked,  they can

fail  to  provide  necessary  repairs  and monitoring.

While  Federal  agencies  can  provide  some  relief  for

vessels  that  threaten waters  through  the discharge of 

oil  and  other  pollutants  and  for  those  that  impede

navigation, in reality is it unusual for a Federal agency

to  fund or initiate  the removal of an abandoned vessel.9  Therefore, it is usually left to  the

states or local municipalities to remove the vessels. 

States and municipalities need the ability to dispose of abandoned or derelict boats 

in  the  most  efficient,  expeditious and  cost  effective  manner.  States  that  are  subject  to 

frequent  storms  or  hurricanes may  be  especially  susceptible  to derelict  vessels.  The

Waterways Management  Subcommittee,  of  the  National Association  of  State  Boating  Law 

Administrator’s  Governmental  Affairs  and  Administration  Committee,  was  charged  with 

writing  a  report  containing  recommendations  for  best management practices (BMPs)  on 

issues  surrounding  salvage  insurance  and  the  effects  of  abandoned  vessels  on  the  states.   

This charge correlates with NASBLA’s Strategic Plan under 1.4 and 3.5 and was a carry‐over

charge from 2008. 10

Details

The Subcommittee conducted two surveys to address the charge.  A short survey was

completed in 2008 that investigated salvage insurance and abandoned boats (Appendix A).

Forty  states  and  territories responded.  The  second survey,  conducted  in  2009,  dealt 

specifically  with  abandoned  and derelict  vessels  (Appendix  B).   Thirty‐two  states  and

territories responded. Results  from  both  surveys are utilized  in  this  report.   While  both

commercial  and recreational  boats  are  abandoned  for  numerous  reasons,  this  report 

focuses on recreational boats. 

8 See http://www.threesheetsnorthwest.com/2009/06/left‐to‐rot‐and‐sink‐dozens‐of‐abandoned‐boats‐litter‐

washingtons‐waterways/. 9 See Boring and Zelo, 2006, available electronically at 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1295_AVP_State_Review_12_2006.pdf. 10 See http://www.nasbla.org/files/public/governance/Strategic%20Plan%20FY08‐2.pdf

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 2
 
       

       

   

   

  

   

   

   

  

   

                                                           

       

According to the  first survey, no laws require recreational vessels to have a salvage

provision or rider on boat insurance.   In New  Jersey, barges docked along  the bank of any

river for more  than 10 days  may  be required  to post  a  bond of  $25,000  with  the 

municipality.  The bond may be  forfeited and used to  remove the vessel should it become

abandoned.    South  Carolina  reported  that  most  owners  that  have recorded  liens  are

required by the lien holder to insure their vessel.  The issue of salvage insurance appears to 

be handled locally as a contractual requirement of many marinas and yacht clubs.  No state

indicated  it was  moving  toward requiring  such  insurance.  Arkansas  requires  liability

insurance on vessels powered by over 50hp and all personal watercraft, but does not have a

salvage  provision or  rider.  In  addition,  vessel  salvage  has  roots  in  admiralty  law  and  is

beyond  the  scope  of this  investigation.

Therefore, the  Subcommittee  decided  no

further action would be  taken with  regard to

salvage insurance from a national perspective.  

See Appendix  A  for  the  full survey  and

responses.

The  focus  of  this  report is  to

recommend  BMPs  applicable  to  the  steps 

commonly  taken  by states  to resolve  the 

issues  of  abandoned  or  derelict  vessels.

These elements include: 

1) Determination of abandonment/derelict vessel, 

2) Determination of ownership, 

3) Notification phase, 

4) Waiting period, 

5) Notice of intent to sell or notice of waiver of rights, 

6) Sale or disposition, and 

7) Transfer of ownership and re‐registration, if warranted.

Survey  results  are  discussed in  the  context of  the  investigative  and removal 

processes and related  to  funding mechanisms  for  the disposition of abandoned or derelict

boats.  This  report  also  discusses  NASBLA’s  “Abandoned  or  Salvaged  Recreational  Boat 

Procedure11”  that  was  adopted  in  1998  by  what  was  then  the  Numbering  and  Titling 

Committee. 

11 See http://www.nasbla.org/files/public/VIRT/Abandoned Procedure 091698.pdf.

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 3
 
   

                         

                       

   

         

  

   

  

   

                      

       

                                                           

       

       

Best Management Practices

BMP #1: Make it easy for the boater to understand where they can

properly dispose of their vessel in order to avoid having the vessel abandoned.

Boaters must be given methods to properly dispose of their vessels and alternatives 

to abandonment. For example, California identifies various alternatives to abandoning boats

and recommends: 

	 Donation:  Some  charities  accept motorboats,  sailboats, personal  watercraft, and 

other  vessels,  as  tax‐deductible  donations.  The  boat  will  generally  need  to be  in

decent condition to use as a donation.  

	 Recycling: Used boat part dealers, or salvagers, may accept your old vessel  for its 

parts, which they resell. Each dealer will compensate the boat owner for the value of 

the  useable  parts  minus  the  total cost  of  dismantling the  vessel  and  recycling  or 

disposing of  hazardous  wastes;  however  each  dealer  has  its  own specific 

requirements for the length and type of vessel they will accept. These dealers can be 

found under the heading "Boat" in your local yellow pages.  

	 Dismantling: Some used boat dealers will dismantle and dispose of a vessel that has 

no  redeemable  value.  Each  dealer  has its  own  requirements  for  vessel length  and 

type, and each dealer will charge for this service. The costs usually run between $15

and  $20  per  foot  and  include  transportation,  labor,  disposal,  and  recycling  or

disposing of used oil and other hazardous materials.

Further, names and addresses of boat salvage companies are provided on California’s web 

site.12

Connecticut, in their Clean Marina Guidebook, provides names of companies that take 

boat donations and includes Best Management Practices for disposing of a vessel that will be 

accepted at a permitted solid waste landfill or transfer station.13

BMP #2: Provide incentives for boaters to properly dispose of their vessel

and disincentives for improper disposal.

12 See www.dbw.ca.gov/Funding/AWAF.aspx. 13 See www.ct.gov/dep/cleanmarina.

NASBLA	 September, 2009  Pa g e  | 4
 
    

   

     

   

   

   

   

                                                           

       

      

Providing  incentives  to  dispose  of  a  vessel  properly  and  disincentives for

abandoning a vessel can reduce the number of boats that are abandoned or become derelict.  

South Carolina  has  a  state  law  that allows  salvage  of abandoned vessels, which  may 

encourage removal by others. California has proposed legislation that would allow boaters

to  turn in  their  boats  rather than  abandon  them as  a  result of a  paper  published in  2005 

entitled  “Report  and  Recommendations Related to  Abandoned  Vessels”.  The  first  ten 

recommendations provide strategies to prevent recreational vessels from being abandoned.

The recommendations relate to revising the lien sale laws and regulations to make it easier

for local agencies to dispose of wrecked vessels before they sink and become more costly to

remove  from  the  waterways.  The  recommendations advocate increasing the  penalties  for

abandoning  a vessel  and  providing  a  stronger  deterrent  to  vessel  owners.  Finally,  the 

recommendations address vessel registration, tracking and enforcement processes available 

to local law  enforcement  to  provide

law enforcement with better tools to 

quickly  identify  vessel  owners  and 

dispose  of  vessels  before  they  sink 

and  become  a hazard  on  the 

waterways and  to  provide a greater 

deterrent  to  owners that 

contemplate  abandoning their

vessels. The  next eight

recommendations relate  to

developing  a  pilot  turn‐in  program

that  would  allow  vessel  owners  to 

dispose  of  their  vessel through  a local  agency  rather  than  abandoning  the vessel.14   After

several attempts, California is getting closer to having a bill passed for such a program.  On

September  4,  2009,  the California  senate  passed  the  Abandoned  Boat  Abatement  Bill  (AB 

166).15

 California’s “Abandoned Boat Abatement” will: 

1. Increase the fine minimum fine for abandoning a boat from $500 to $1,000.

2. Allow monies from the fines to be used for disposal of a “surrendered vessel”

3. Require  the  Dept.  of  Boating  and  Waterways  to  track  the  number  of 

surrendered  vessels  between  January  1, 2010  and  January 1,  2012  and

attributed costs for consideration to continue or revise the program. 

4. The bill would sunset January 1, 2013 unless extended by enabling legislation.

14 See http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PDF/Reports/AVAC_Report.pdf. 15 See http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a53/Pressroom/Press/20090904AD53PR01.aspx

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 5
 
   

   

           

   

                                                           

   

5. Under this law:

	 “Surrendered vessel” means a vessel that the verified titleholder

has willingly surrendered to a willing public agency under both

of the following conditions:

1. The  public  agency has determined  that  the  vessel  is  in

danger  of  being  abandoned  with  the  likelihood  of

causing  environmental  degradation  or becoming  a

hazard to navigation;

2. The  decision  to  accept  a  vessel  is  based  solely  on  the

potential of the vessel to likely be abandoned and cause

environmental  degradation  or become  a  hazard  to 

navigation. 

	 A  surrendered  vessel  may  be  disposed  of  immediately  upon

acceptance by a public agency.

The State of Washington has also tried to initiate a program to defray the cost to boat 

owners  of disposing  of  boats  before  they are abandoned  or  become  derelict.  Washington 

was  not  successful  in  getting  their  program  implemented,  but  the  concept  warrants 

discussion.  In  2008, Washington put  forth legislation  for  a  “vessel  amnesty” pilot  project 

which proposed to use up to $200,000 of the derelict vessel removal account, funded from

boater  registration fees,  to  dispose  of  boats  that  had  the  greatest  potential  to  become 

derelict or abandoned. 16   In order to  be eligible  for  reimbursement  of up  to 100%  of the 

costs to dispose of a vessel, the boat owner would have to prove that he or she:

1. Was a Washington state resident;

2. Owns a  vessel in an advanced  state of  disrepair, with  no material  value and

has a high likelihood of becoming an abandoned or derelict vessel;

3. Has  insufficient  resources  to properly  dispose  of  the  vessel  outside  of  the 

program. 

There are laws on the books now that provide a disincentive to abandoning a vessel.  

In Maryland, there is a $1,000 charge for abandoning a boat.  Minnesota has a state law that

allows a local unit of government to charge up  to 5  times  the cost of removal if  the owner 

does not pay.  Fines of up to $500 per day can accrue to someone who abandons a boat in 

Mississippi waters.  Florida can charge up to $1,000 criminal penalty, but owners of vessels 

that  contribute  pollution  to  the  states  waterways  can  be  charged  civilly  with fines  up  to 

16 See http://www.statesurge.com/bills/502855‐sb5058‐washington

NASBLA	 September, 2009  Pa g e  | 6
 
  

                       

                     

   

   

     

                                                           

                             

       

   

  

                  

$50,000  per  violation  per  day.  Additionally, a  judge  may  require  that an  owner  perform

community service.  To date the longest service time is 250 hours.17

BMP #3: States and territories are encouraged to title boats because it

provides a paper trail that can simplify the ownership discovery phase.

The  Discovery  Phase  can  be difficult.  Various  Federal  agencies  (e.g.,  NOAA  and  US

Coast Guard) have programs to identify and inventory possible abandoned vessels.  The US

Coast  Guard  has  started  a  pilot  project  at  Sector  Baltimore  to  use  the  US  Coast  Guard 

Auxiliary for this task.18

It should be noted that the titling of boats will assist in tracking the owner in a great 

number of cases, especially those where a vessel is sold and the new owner never registers 

it.  Titling  facilitates  contact with any lien  holders who may have an interest in  the  boat.  

Also,  hidden Hull Identification Numbers  (HINs) installed by  the  manufacturer,  can  assist

with tracking a vessel.  However, the reality is that in many cases owners cannot be tracked 

because all identifying marks (registration and hull Identification numbers) are removed or 

the legal  owner is indigent and costly legal proceedings would not provide  the  funding  to 

have the vessel removed. 

The US Coast Guard has implemented a program entitled Vessel Identification System,

or  VIS  for  short.    This voluntary program requires  states to  sign  a Memorandum  of 

Understanding  with  the  USCG.   In  return  for  a  state  providing  current  registration

information to  contractors  with  the  USCG,  VIS  will  merge  vessel registration  information

with vessel documentation records.  Databases from all participating states will be available 

to VIS agreement holders.  Having this information available to the officers in the field may

significantly  facilitate  the  discovery  phase.    While  NASBLA  has encouraged  all  states  to 

participate in VIS19, some states are having difficulties due to identity protection laws which

prohibit  releasing  the information.  To  date,  there  are  31  states  and  territories

participating.20

17 Lt. David Dipre; Florida Boating and Waterways Division of Law Enforcement, personal communication, 9/16/09.
 18 See http://www.avp‐balt.org/letter.php.
 19 See http://www.nasbla.org/files/public/Policy‐

Govt%20Affairs/2008%20Resolutions/Urging%20States%20to%20Join%20VIS%20Final.pdf
 20 Personal Communication: Lynne McMahan; RBS Specialist, USCG; 9/11/09

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 7
 
                       

                         

                            

   

     

       

       

     

       

   

  

   

       

  

   

                                                           

                 

BMP #4: States and territories need to understand 1) what agencies are

available to them to handle abandoned boats, 2) under what circumstances they will

remove vessels and 3) if permits are needed before work can be performed.

The  question  of who  takes  charge  of  removing abandoned and  derelict  boats is  far

from  a  simple question.   While  many  entities  have  the  authority  to  remove  them,  lack  of

funding is often seen as a reason that these groups do not.  Abandonment on private lands is

a common  occurrence in  the  region  of  the country covered by  the Northern Association of

Boating Administrators (NABA)  where  the  boating  season is  short. When  a  vessel is

abandoned on private property, it often becomes the burden of the property owner to take 

the necessary steps to resolve the issue.  This may also be case in locations where tidelands 

are privately owned.  In states that have a short boating season, boats are often abandoned

on land. If the boat is abandoned on a public road or state property and involves a currently

licensed trailer, removal and disposal is generally handled through abandoned vehicle laws.

In such cases, the towing company is responsible for the tow vehicle and whatever is on it.

However, in  the majority of  cases,  the  vessel with  or without a trailer is  found  on  private

lands and it becomes the landowners responsibility for disposition.

When  a  vessel  is  abandoned  or is  deemed derelict  on  a  waterbody or  shoreline, 

various entities could claim responsibility.  Federal or state agencies will often step in when

pollution is imminent or when the vessel represents a navigation hazard.  Certain Federal 

agencies will only resolve the hazard which may not result in the removal of the vessel.  For

example, the pollutants may be removed and a vessel may be refloated, but monies are not

made  available  to  remove  the  vessel.    Local  governments  bear  significant  responsibility 

when the state or federal governments fail to do so.  Indiana and Illinois are poised to sign a

Memorandum  of  Understanding  with  the  US  Coast  Guard  regarding  abandoned  boats.21

USCG  will  remove  those  vessels  that  are a  hazard  to navigation and  will  assist in  tagging 

vessels abandoned on the southern tip of Lake Michigan.  Tagged vessels will carry a serial

number  that  will  provide  contact  information  which  will  be  available  to  both  states  to

increase the search base for the owner. 

Nationally, several states noted that jurisdiction  for handling abandoned boats was

not  clear. While  all  states  implied  that the  vessel  owner  is  ultimately  responsible  for

removing an abandoned vessel or reimbursing the removing agency once removed, it often

happens that the vessel owner does not step up to remove the vessel.  When the states and 

territories  were  surveyed  as  to  under  whose  responsibility  abandoned  vessels  fall,  the 

21 Personal Communication: Maj. Felix Hensley, BLA Indiana

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 8
 
   

       

               

       

   

     

           

   

answers were complex with overlapping authorities cited by many states. Of  the 13 states

who  replied  from  NABA,  4  indicated  that  the  land  or  vessel  owner  was  responsible  for 

disposing of the vessel; 11 indicated that states could remove vessels; 1 noted that Federal 

agencies can intervene and 8 indicated that local jurisdictions are generally responsible.  Of

the 11 states  that responded in  the southern regional states  (Southern States Boating Law

Administrators Association  [SSBLAA]), one indicated  that it was  the owner’s responsibility; 

ten that it was the state and six that local governments were authorized to remove vessels.  

One state responded that it was the wrecker service that was responsible for removing the 

vessel and that the service could request title.  In the western states (Western States Boating

Administrators Association [WSBAA]), of the 8 states that responded, one indicated that the 

boat owner was responsible, six that the state would respond; one, Federal agency and five 

that local governments were responsible.  These responses make it clear that in most states, 

no one entity is responsible  for removing vessels.  The preponderance of responses in  the

NABA  states  that  cite that  the  vessel  owner  or  property  owner  upon  whose  property  a

vessel is  abandoned is  responsible  for  disposing  of the  vessel may point  to  differences in 

seasonality from the Southern or Western states.  NABA states share a short boating season,

whereby boat owners are accustomed to hauling their boats out.  Therefore, in many cases 

the vessels are abandoned on  land rather  than in  the  water.   In  those  states  most  of  the

property owners bear the responsibility for the vessel. 

The  Robert T.  Stafford Disaster  Relief  and  Emergency  Assistance Act  (PL  100‐707,

a.k.a “The Stafford Act”), signed into law in 1988, amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974

(93‐288).  This  federal  legislation  created  a  national  program  for  disaster  preparedness, 

response, recovery and mitigation and enables  the Federal Energy Management Agency  to

approve state’s disaster management plans.  Such plans identify a framework for the proper

management of the debris generated by a natural disaster to facilitate the prompt and cost 

efficient  recovery  that  is  eligible  for  FEMA  reimbursement  and  protective  of  the

environment.  States  should  become  familiar  with  their  state’s Natural  Disaster  Planning 

document  to  ensure  that  protocols  are  followed.  The  understandable  attitude  to  “do

whatever needs to be done” can prove costly.  Federal reimbursement will not be made if it

cannot be demonstrated that money was expended or that damages have been incurred as a

direct result of the declared disaster or emergency.  States could lose out on reimbursable

expenses for removing vessels that are destroyed in natural disasters.   

Not  only  should  the  states  and  territories  understand what  governmental  agencies 

are authorized  to  remove  boats  within their  waters  but  good  intra‐  and inter‐agency 

communications are critical.  To ensure that the unit responsible for removing derelict boats 

does not go afield of state laws, the unit must know what permits may be needed and from

whom,  to  remove  a  vessel.    Many  states  are  required to  have  permits  from  their  sister 

agencies  or departments  before  the  bottom  can  be  disturbed.  This  is  especially  true  in

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 9
 
         

             

                   

                             

               

   

         

   

   

   

                                                           

                   

                                    

        

  

warm  waters where corals  and  other  state  or federally  endangered species may  grow on 

vessels  that  have  been  derelict  for  a  long  time.    Furthermore, State  Historic  Preservation 

Office (SHPO) review may be required for vessels abandoned for more than 50 years.  

The  National  Oceanographic  and Atmospheric  Association  (NOAA) Marine  Debris 

Program  recently  held  an  Abandoned  and  Derelict Vessel  Workshop  in  Miami,  FL,

September 15‐17, 2009. 22  It was clear at this meeting that communication with all entities 

responsible  for  an  abandoned  or  derelict  vessel  was  lacking.  For  example,  few  of  the 

managers  responsible  for  handling  the  abandoned  boat  programs  in  their  states  or 

territories knew about NASBLA or that their state or territory had a designated boating law

administrator.  

BMP #5: The terms “abandoned boat”, “derelict vessel”, “vessel” and

“ownership” should be defined, as necessary. Specific time limits need to be set as

part of the definition for abandoned and derelict vessels.

Definitions become  important  in  the  ability  to  remove  vessels  in an expeditious 

manner.  Of the 32 states /territories that responded to the question in the second survey, 

one half of those states (16) did not have definitions for either “abandoned boat” or “derelict 

vessel” although many  of  those  states  had laws  dealing with abandoned  or  derelict  boats.

Sixteen  states formally  defined  the  terms.    None of  the  states had  a  definition for

“seaworthy,” although California uses it in the process for removing a derelict or abandoned

boat.    The  purpose  for  defining both  an “abandoned  vessel”  and “derelict  vessel”  is  to 

provide a more expeditious  process  for  removal  of a derelict  vessel  that is  not  capable  of

floating without assistance.  Boring and Zelo (2006)23 found that the definitions of “vessel” 

and “ownership” were important because such definitions could exclude certain watercraft

from established removal processes or  funding opportunities.  In NASBLA’s Abandoned or

Salvaged Recreational Boat Procedure, the Numbering and Titling Committee incorporated 

the  term  “derelict vessel”  in  the  definition  of  “abandoned  vessel”.  States  may  find  that 

separating the two can provide a more streamlined process for removal of those boats that 

are clearly of no value.  In many cases, according to the survey, the last registered owner is

responsible  for  removal  of  the  vessel.  In  all  states  and  territories,  the  primary  entity

responsible for disposition of a boat is the “owner”. 

22 See http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html for proceedings of the workshop, when published. 23 Boring, Christine and Zelo, Ian, 2006 Review of State Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Programs, NOAA Office of

Response and Restoration,

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1295_AVP_State_Review_12_2006.pdf

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 10
 
   

   

   

     

       

       

          

       

             

   

   

         

         

                                                           

              

       

Time  limits  need  to  be  set

whereby,  if  a  boat  is  left  on  a  property

for  greater  than this  specified time 

period,  the  boat  may  be  considered

abandoned. Of  the  32  states  that 

responded to the question on the second

survey,  14  had  specific  time  limits  after

which a  vessel  on waters  of  the  state  or

upon  property  other  than  his  own

without  the consent of  the owner would 

be deemed to be abandoned.  Of interest,

is the state of Florida.  By design, no time

limit is assigned to determine derelict or

abandoned boats  because  by  definition  “abandoned  property”  means  it  has  no  apparent 

intrinsic  value  to  the  rightful  owner.24 For those  states  who  did  assign  time  limits, 

Connecticut had the shortest time frame of 24 hours; the majority of those responding listed 

30 days.   Indiana  indicated  that no  one  could  abandon  a  vessel at  any  time, indicating

removal  could  be immediate if  the  vessel was  found  unattended in  a  sunken,  beached,  or 

drifting condition.  Other time frames were seven days, 15, 90, and 45 days.  The District of

Columbia had  the longest wait time  to define a boat as abandoned at 180 days. Maryland

has various time frames depending on the situation:  if a boat is left in a private marina or

boatyard (in water or on land), a private dock at or near the water’s edge without consent of 

the  owner  it  is  considered abandoned  after 30  days  or 90  days with  initial consent;  if

abandoned anywhere else  on  private  land  without  consent  of  the  owner  it  is  considered

abandoned after 180 days.  Finally, it can be considered abandoned under a mechanic’s lien 

after  30 days.25      Several  states indicated  that  removal  could  be  immediate  if the  vessel

impedes  the  use  of  a  public  facility  or  presents  a  safety,  navigational  or  environmental 

hazard.  However,  once  removed  the  “abandoned  boat/derelict”  vessel  process  continues.  

Florida takes an aggressive stand on abandoned boats.  The owner is given 5 days to remove 

the vessel once  the  vessel is  posted.   If it  is not removed,  the  state  agency removes  the

vessel and disposes of it.

24 See Fl statutes: 705.101(3) and 823.11. 25 See http://www.dnr.state.md.us/download/B117_abinstuction.pdf.

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 11
 
                         

       

          

         

         

             

      

                              

             

                  

           

   

           

   

   

   

   

BMP #6: There must be a notice to owner(s) and/or secured parties by

certified mail/return receipt which includes:

 Description of the vessel and

identifying numbers

 Location where vessel is located

 Rights to reclaim vessel within XX

days

 Notice that failure to claim the vessel will constitute a waiver of all rights,

title and interest in the vessel

 Notice that any costs for removal/recovery will be the responsibility

of the owner

In order the provide assistance to the states and territories dealing with abandoned

and derelict  boats  it is  incumbent  upon the state to  have legislation  in  place  that clearly

defines  the  process  to remove  a  vessel  once  it  has  been  abandoned.  Once  a  boat  is

determined  to  be  “abandoned”  or  to  be  a  “derelict”  vessel,  determination  must  be  made 

early on, as to what type of process will be followed in the event a vessel is “abandoned”.  

If  a  boat  owner  does not  pay  for  services rendered,  the  service  dealer  (marina

operator, repair shop), in many states, can initiate a vessel or mechanic’s lien on the vessel

and the vessel may be sold for satisfaction of the lien.   Liens for US Coast Guard documented 

vessels cannot be made through regular state lien procedures and must be filed through the

USCG.    Vessels  that measure  five  net  tons  by  volume  (not  weight)  are  eligible  for

documentation  through  the US  Coast  Guard.  Generally, most  vessels  greater  than  25  feet 

will measure five net tons.  The benefit to the recreational boat owner is that documentation 

serves  as  proof  of  nationality  and  enhances vessel  financing  through  the  availability  of

preferred mortgages on  the documented  vessel.  Under  such cases  the USCG is prohibited

from  making changes to  the  documentation  paperwork  including  change  of  vessel 

ownership, name and hailing port without the consent of the mortgagee. Some states choose 

to  treat  documented vessels  through  the  basic  abandoned  boat process  since  it  has  been

noted  by  several  states  that  USCG  documented  vessels  present  more  difficulties  in  the 

disposition  process.  In  the  second  survey,  California  responded  that  unless  the  boat is in 

imminent danger of sinking or has sunk, the only way law enforcement officers can declare

a USCG documented vessel as “derelict”, and thus subject to removal, is if the documentation 

has elapsed.  In general, it appears that if a state chooses to define “derelict” vessel, disposal

may  follow  a more  streamlined process.  Finally,  the  processing of  vessels  after  a  natural 

disaster (e.g., floods or hurricanes) may follow different rules.  

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 12
 
   

                        

                              

                           

                                

                  

   

   

   

  

   

       

   

 In the removal process, the rightful owner must be notified and given sufficient time 

to remove the vessel.  This is typically done by the claimant (“finder”) but is sometimes done 

by  the state agency.  Contact information can be obtained from state agencies  responsible 

for  titling  or  vessel  registration  or  sometimes  from  a  law  enforcement  agency.   In  some

states  a  law  enforcement  agency  must  be contacted  to  1)  ensure that  the  vessel  was  not 

reported  stolen  and  2)  start  the  clock  on  providing  proper  notice  to  the  last  registered

owner (i.e., for right to reclaim).  Sometimes the vessel is moved from one illegal location to

another, thereby re‐starting the clock and process. 

BMP #7: If an owner cannot be identified, a public notice to attempt

to locate the owner of the abandoned/derelict boat is critical. While the purpose is to

locate the owner, the public notice serves to notify the vessel owner that failure to

claim the vessel will constitute a waiver of all rights, title and interest in the vessel.

Consideration should be made for advertisement via the Web.

Those responding to  the second survey had varying  times  for a person  to claim  the

vessel before  removal  was initiated.   Waiting  times  ranged from three  to  ninety  days.  In

Ohio, a person must respond within 72 hours if the vessel is on public property.  While it is

critical  for protecting the  boat  owners  rights,  the  shorter  the  time  period  the  better,

especially if the boat is sunk or broken up. 

However,  if  the  owner  is  unknown  or  if the  certified  mail  notice  is  returned

“undeliverable,”  notice  by  publication  is  often  initiated, thereby increasing  the  process.

Twenty‐two (22)  of those  responding  to  the  second  survey  indicated  newspaper 

advertisements are used.  Ten (10) states indicated  they have no process or set  time limit 

for advertising.  The time period for placing an advertisement in the local newspaper where

the vessel is located varied by respondent.  Examples are one day in one local newspaper, 

three consecutive days in a local newspaper; and two successive weeks in one or more daily

newspapers.  Tennessee  law  stipulates  that  the  notification  by  publication  must  be

submitted within 15 days of  the second  failed attempt at certified mail.  Most respondents 

indicated that notification via the Internet would not be allowed by state statute; however, 

three indicated that web posting would be acceptable.  The State of Washington indicated 

that they do use web postings.   Structuring the statute to allow for advertizing via specific

websites may prove to be a cost efficient method of notice. 

If  the  owner  is  located,  most  states  are  very  flexible  in  allowing them  to  make 

provisions to remove the vessel, since it achieves the desired outcome.  If the owner comes 

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 13
   

   

  

   

             

   

             

forward  and  makes  it  clear  they  do  not  want  the  boat,  sometimes  the  problem  can  be

resolved without completing the process if another person wants it.  Those two parties can

then negotiate and the vessel can be legally transferred.  However, such situations rare and 

special consideration must be given not to pass on a vessel that will continue to degrade in 

quality.  More typically, the owner is not located and the process continues.  

The waiting period for a notice through advertisement varies by state.  Some do not

use  this additional  step and  only  require  contact  through  certified mail.  Indiana indicated 

that they try to contact the last known owner by certified letter.  By state statute they must 

wait 90 days after which any unclaimed craft shall be destroyed or sold at public auction.

No other publication is required. 

    While necessary  to afford boaters their rights  to claim  their property, the waiting

period  delays  removal operations.  For  example,  in  Arizona,  if  the  state  is  successful  in 

contacting  the  owner  through  certified  mail,  they must  wait 180  days for the owner to

respond.   Non  response means  that  they waive  their rights  to  ownership.  After  that  time 

ownership can be transferred.   Arizona does have a more streamlined process in the event 

the owner cannot be located, in which they have 15 days to notify the applicant and within

45  days  must  publish  in  the  paper  that  ownership will  be  transferred  10  days  after 

notification.  Generally,  the  waiting  period  is  about  30  days.    Having  a  definition  for  a

derelict vessel and concomitant process could streamline the removal process even further. 

Some  states  require  that  a  physical

notice be placed on the vessel. 

NASBLA September, 2009  Pa g e  | 14
 
                       

                           

       

       

                 

                   

                 

       

   

                           

                              

                               

     

   

   

         

   

       

BMP #8: The applicant for title or registration of an abandoned or

salvaged boat needs clear expectations early on of what they will need to complete

the registration/titling process including:

1. Police report, if required

2.	 Notarized affidavit for registration/titling of the abandoned or salvaged

vessel

3. Receipts for certified mail to identified owner(s) and lien holders

4. Original copies of the notice of publication, if necessary.

Once the notice period is complete the claimant can receive title and/or the right to 

register  the  vessel.    Generally, a notarized affidavit is  needed  to  register or  title  the

abandoned or salvaged recreational vessel.  Other paperwork, as required by the state may

be needed.  This can be the most frustrating part of process for the person that is attempting 

to register or get title to an abandoned vessel.  Many times people do not realize the proof

that must be provided before claiming a vessel. 

BMP #9: The fewer the steps to allow transfer to an applicant that will

take the vessel the better. States need to review what steps are legally necessary to

allow an entity to remove and dispose of a vessel. Transfer may be by title,

registration or affidavit.

A question was posed in the second survey to determine if the applicant could keep a

boat abandoned on private property without having  to put it up for auction and bid on it.

For those states that take abandoned boats and then sell them to recoup charges, it makes

sense to  require  a  sale.   In  Delaware,  any recovered vessel  must  be  turned  over  to  the

Department of Fish and Wildlife Enforcement.  It is stored for at least six months after which 

it is sold at public auction.  Streamlining of this time line may serve beneficial Also, perhaps,

the requirement to sell the vessel does not make as much sense for private individuals who 

are  attempting  to  claim  an  abandoned  boat.    For  example,  in  Connecticut,  the  person

wishing to keep a boat abandoned on their property must put the boat up for sale.  They are

then eligible to bid on it.  Similarly, in Ohio, if no one bids on the vessel and it is on private 

property, the claimant may keep the boat.  In Florida, if a person claims a derelict vessel as 

found  property  they  must  be  willing  to  bring  the  vessel  into  compliance  immediately,

meaning the vessel must be removed from waters of the state upon filing the claim. 

NASBLA	 September, 2009  Pa g e  | 15
 
     

               

         

        

   

   

         

                                                           

       

In states were ownership is provided after proof that the owner cannot be found, the

applicant requesting the vessel could then use, sell or dispose of the vessel. Under Virginia’s

abandoned boat  law,  title  is  transferred  to  the  applicant  and  they  can  sell  it,  keep  it,  or

dispose of it.   However, under the mechanic’s lien or self service storage liens, auction of the 

boat is required. 

With respect to derelict vessels that are sunken or beyond repair, Utah allows that if

the vessel is inoperable and cannot be rebuilt or reconstructed the vessel may be converted

to scrap or otherwise disposed of without following the typical abandoned boat procedure. 

BMP #10: States should allocate

funds dedicated to the removal of derelict and

abandoned boats and provide a mechanism

which prioritizes such removals.

While  the  BMPs  above  outline  the  process

for disposing of an abandoned vessel, whether by 

sale,  transfer  to  another  owner  or by  destruction 

of the vessel, derelict vessels require salvage costs

that  typically are not reimbursed to  the removing 

agency.    A  steady  source  of  funding  and  mechanism  to  distribute  the  funds  is  most

beneficial.   Few  states or  territories  have such  programs,  but with  the  rise  in  number  of

abandoned boats,  such programs will  become critical to  success in  removing vessels  from

waters and lands. 

	 In Indiana, all vessels unclaimed by the owner after 90 days shall be destroyed or 

sold by public auction.  All monies received from the sale are deposited in the fish

and wildlife fund.  This fund helps support the program. 

	 In 2001, the State of Washington’s legislature authorized the use of money in the 

states  toxics  account  for  cleanup  and  disposal  of  hazardous  substances  on 

abandoned and derelict vessels.  In 2002  the legislature provided authority and

funding  for a  “Derelict Vessel  Removal  Program”  to  dispose  of  abandoned  and 

derelict vessels.26 Three dollars ($3) per vessel numbered and $5 per out‐of‐state

26 See http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_dv_derelict_brochure.pdf 

NASBLA	 September, 2009  Pa g e  | 16
 
           

   

  

     

   

   

   

  

                                                           

       

       

       

       

       

       

vessel registered in Washington goes into the  fund.  Washington registers about

265,000 boats annually. 

	 Oregon provides grants to reimburse the removal authority up to 75% of the cost

of removal.  Generally,  the Dept. of State Lands, who usually owns the bed upon

which the sunken boat sits or will sit, pays the other 25%.  By law, funding for the 

Abandoned Boat Fund cannot exceed $150,000 per year.27 Oregon also provided

questions  and  answers  (Q&As) regarding  abandoned  vessels  as  part  of their 

outreach program.28

	 Maryland  has a grant  program whereby local jurisdictions  can apply  for a  state 

DNR  grant. Typical  grants  range  from  $10,000  to  $50,000  per  jurisdiction 

annually. Funds come from a 5% excise tax on newly registered boats.29

	 Texas  does  provide  some  funding which is  handled  by  the  General Land Office.  

The vessel must qualify for funds.  Environmental concerns are used to determine 

priority. 

	 California  has a grant  program whereby local agencies may apply for money  to 

remove  derelict  boats and  boats that  are hazards  to navigation  through  the

Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund.  The  fund, created in 1997 provides up

to $1 million per year in removal, storage and disposal costs.  Local agencies must

supply 10% matching funds.30

	 Florida  provides  grants  to  states through  a Derelict  Vessels  Removal  Grant 

Program.  The program has not been funded in a number of years but was funded 

through the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund.31

	 Mississippi  has  a Derelict  Vessel Removal  Program,  established in  1998  funded

through the Tidelands Trust Fund. The Department of Marine Resources Marine 

Patrol is responsible for investigating claims.32

	 South  Carolina  has received  federal  assistance from  NOAA  for  a  Marine  Debris

and Abandoned Vessel Removal Project.33

27 See www.oregon.gov/OSMB/docs/PDF-Publications/AbVesselProg.pdf. 28 See http://www.oregon.gov/OSMB/BoatLaws/salvageboats.shtml. 29 See www.mlis.state.md.us/2001rs/fnotes/bil_0005/sb0605.doc. 30 See http://www.dbw.ca.gov/Funding/AWAF.aspx. 31 See myfwc.com/Recreation/boat_grant_DerelictVessel.htm. 32 See www.dmr.state.ms.us/DMR/Derelict-vessels/derelict.htm.

NASBLA	 September, 2009  Pa g e  | 17
 
   

   

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                 

             

	 In the event of a natural disaster, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Public  Assistance  funds  may  be  available.34 In  those  cases,  vessels  in  public 

waterways will be brought  to a centralized place  for processing and are exempt

from being penalized for abandonment.  Owner’s insurance plans generally come 

into  play  under  natural  disasters.  States  and  local  governments  can  request

reimbursement for disposal costs during declared emergency situations. 

Conclusions

Two major processes (not including the mechanic lien process) are primarily used by 

the states to deal with abandoned and derelict boats once it is clear that the owner of the 

vessel in question cannot be determined or is financially unable to dispose of the boat.  The

first works to transfer ownership to an individual or a state agency so that steps can be 

taken to either recover costs by selling the vessel or having the right to dispose of the vessel 

without concern for liability to the last registered owner.  The second process involves 

vessels with little to no monetary value, in which disposal is the most likely conclusion.  

Removal and disposal costs can be significant in these cases and some mechanism to fund 

the removals is necessary. 

Based on the BMPs presented and recommendations from the Abandoned and 

Derelict Vessel Workshop hosted by NOAA Marine Debris Program 35 it is recommended by

the Waterways Management Subcommittee that the “Abandoned or Salvaged Recreational 

Boat Procedure” adopted in 1998 by NASBLA’s Vessel Identification, Registration and 

Titling Subcommittee be updated using a multidisciplinary approach.  States and territories 

need a model act that provides for the entire abandoned boat process, including penalties 

and fines and provisions for funding.  Therefore, the Waterways Management Subcommittee 

recommends that the Subcommittee work with the NASBLA Vessel Identification, 

Registration and Titling Subcommittee and Enforcement and Training Committee to develop 

a comprehensive model act regarding abandoned and derelict vessels.

33 See www.coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/issues/docs/debris_summary.pdf. 34 See http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=46389 for more information on abandoned vessels from 

FEMA. 

35 See http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/about/welcome.html, Workshop Proceedings, when posted.

NASBLA	 September, 2009  Pa g e  | 18
Appendix D
 

74 
     

       

     

       

       

       

            

         

       

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

       

   

       

   

   

     

     

       

     

   

   

         

       

       

         

   

   

       

     

   

   

       

           

     

         

       

     

     

       

       

     

     

     

     

       

   

           

         

       

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

Federal Agency Gallery Walk

Abandoned & Derelict Vessel workshop

US Army Corps of 

Engineers ® 

Federal interests & responsibilities

•	 Key Agency mandates & authorities

•	 Scenarios for initiating Agency involvement

•	 Agency capacity

– Examples of involvement (Case Study)

•	 Critical thinking: After listening to all Agency

talks...Where are the opportunities for

increased State and Federal collaboration?

Agency mandates & authorities Agency mandates & authorities (con’t)

Legislation Activities Outputs

Marine Debris Research,

Prevention, and Reduction

Act

• Address marine debris

through mapping,

identification, impact

assessment, removal and

prevention, focusing on

• Federal Information

Clearinghouse

• Research and assessment

of marine debris impacts

• Workshops for researchers

living marine resources

• Reduce and prevent loss

of fishing gear

• Public outreach and

education

• Nets‐to‐Energy and

Fishing‐for‐Energy

partnerships

• Over 150 grants and

contracts since 2005

Legislation Activities Outputs

Coral Reef Conservation

Act of 2000

• Requires NOAA to provide

assistance through grant

programs to states in

removing abandoned fishing

gear, marine debris, and

• Coral Reef Conservation

Act Reauthorization and

Enhancement Amendments

of 2009 (H.R. 860 in 111th

gear, marine debris, and Congress) – Section 210

abandoned vessels from coral

reefs to conserve living marine

resources

Congress) Section 210

“Vessel Grounding

Inventory”

• Derelict Fishing Gear (DFG)

removed from the

Northwestern Hawaiian

Islands since 1995

Agency mandates & authorities
 

(con’t)
 Legislation Activities Outputs

National Marine

Sanctuaries Act

• Authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce (NOAA) to

designate and protect areas of

the marine environment with

special national significance

• NOAA Office of National

Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS)

has removed vessels under

this authority in emergency

special national significance salvage/response situations,

due to their conservation,

recreational, ecological,

historical, scientific, cultural,

archeological, educational, or

esthetic qualities as national

marine sanctuaries.

salvage/response situations,

as well as in a prevention

capacity (even if outside a

NMS boundary if imposing

an imminent threat).

• Decline in marine

insurance prevalence has

reduced available funding

Scenarios for NOAA Involvement

• National Marine

Sanctuary

• Scientific Support

Coordinators

– Regional Response Team

participation

• Grant programs

• By definition
         

             

             

       

             

       

               

   

     

   

         

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

     

       

   

     

                   

                 

                 

             

           

                   

             

                 

               

               

             

           

         

   

Case Study #1

• (2006) Commonwealth

of the Northern

Mariana Islands (CNMI)

• Nam Sung 62 wreck on

Rota

– competitive grant for

vessel inspection

– Final removal complete

in April 2009

Case Study #2

• (2009) Belmont Bay, VA

– assessment and options

for removal

Case Study #2 (con’t)

• Assessment (including

removal options) sent

to Congressman Gerald

Connolly’s office

– Information passed to

local citizen groups who

petitioned for action

– Funding for removal

remains unclear

NOAA (and USCG) definition of

“marine debris”

Marine debris is any persistent solid material

that is manufactured or processed and directly

or indirectly, indirectly, intentionally intentionally or unintentionally, unintentionally,

disposed of or abandoned into the marine

environment or the Great Lakes.

Abandoned & Derelict Vessels fit within this working definition!

Opportunities

•	 In those cases where there is a clear connection between

derelict vessels and marine debris threats to living marine

resources, there are ways NOAA (within our mandates) might

assist. Ideas currently being developed include the following:

1.	 competitive grant opportunities (with a match requirement,

per the Act) for funding derelict vessel activities – focus on

prevention

2.	 helping develop guidelines for assessing priority derelict

vessel situations

3.	 assisting in the coordination of workshops to bring people

and new ideas together to address this important issue

Critical Thinking

•	 How can NOAA better assist states facing the

challenges of abandoned & derelict vessels in

their waters?

•	 How helpful would re‐authorization of the

Coral Reef Conservation Act “Vessel

Grounding Inventory” be?
     

       

     

   

   

       

                

           

           

       

                 

                 

                     

                 

     

     

             

             

     

           

               

   

Federal Agency Gallery Walk

Abandoned & Derelict Vessel Workshop

US Army Corps of 

Engineers ® 

1791‐DR‐TX Hurricane Ike

Federal Interests & Responsibilities

•	 Key agency authorities

•	 FEMA PA eligibility

•	 Agency capacity

– Examples of involvement (Case Study)

•	 Update

•	 Critical thinking: After listening to all agency talks...Where are

the opportunities for increased State and Federal

collaboration?

FEMA PA ADV authorities

•Sections 403, 407, and 502 of the Stafford Act authorize 

FEMA to provide funding to eligible applicants to remove 

wreckage and sunken vessels from publicly and 

privately owned waters to eliminate an immediate threat 

to lives, public health and safety, or improved property, 

or to ensure th e economic recovery of th e aff ected 

community. 

•The removal of wreckage and sunken vessels from 

Federally maintained navigable channels and waterways 

is ineligible for reimbursement from FEMA. 

FEMA Public Assistance (PA)

Direct Federal Assistance (44 CFR §206.208)

•	 FEMA may mission assign another Federal agency to remove

eligible ADV vessels when the State and local government

certify that they lack the capability to perform or contract for

the work.

Grant Assistance

•	 FEMA may reimburse applicants for the removal and disposal

of eligible ADV vessels.

FEMA PA Assistance Eligibility

In order to be eligible vessels must be:

•	 Sunken/damaged as a direct result of the Presidentially

declared emergency or disaster;

•	 Located in the declared designated area; and

•	 The legal responsibility of the applicant to remove
   

                 

                   

                 

           

     

               

                     

             

           

                   

     

                       

         

                       

     

             

           

           

1791‐DR‐TX Hurricane Ike

•	 Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1991authorizes Texas

GLO to remove and dispose of ADVs in TX coastal waters

•	 ADVs were catalogued using TX Parks and Wildlife’s Boat

Registration Database and the USCG Vessel Documentation

Database

•	 GLO removed 124 ADVs

•	 FEMA will reimburse GLO reasonable costs to identify,

catalog, tag and remove, store and dispose of ADVs in TX

coastal waters

DAP 9523.5

FEMA is currently developing Disaster Assistance Policy

9523.5 Debris Removal from Waterways to provide eligibility

guidance for the removal of debris and sunken vessels from

non‐federally maintained navigable waterways.

–	 A draft policy was submitted to FEMA regions, IAEM, NEMA and its
 

members for comment in February 2009
 

–	 The policy will be transmitted to and reviewed by USACE and USCG
 

prior to final issue.
 

Critical Thinking

•	 Within its authority, how can FEMA better

assist states facing the challenges of

abandoned & derelict vessels in their waters?
     

       

         

     

       

   

       

            

         

       

USACE ADV Mandates & Authorities

         

       

         

         

     

         

         

     

       

         

       

       

             

       

   

       

         

         

         

     

       

         

       

         

      

       

           

       

       

       

       

     

       

       

         

         

USACE ADV Mandates & Authorities (cont’d)    

   

     

       

   

          

       

         

     

     

       

           

       

       

     

       

         

       

       

     

       

       

       

      

       

       

         

       

USACE ADV Mandates & Authorities (cont’d)

       

     

   

         

       

     

       

         

   

   

   

           

     

   

                     

             

                 

                        

           

           

                   

                 

       

                     

               

       

Federal Agency Gallery Walk

Abandoned & Derelict Vessel Workshop

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

US Army Corps 

of Engineers ® 

Federal Interests & Responsibilities

•	 Key USACE mandates & authorities

•	 Initiating USACE involvement

•	 USACE capacity

– Examples Examples of involvement involvement (Case Study)

•	 Opportunities

•	 Critical thinking: After listening to all agency

talks...Where are the opportunities for

increased State and Federal collaboration?

Legislation Requirements Actions

River & Harbor Act of

1899 – Sections 15 (33

USC 409), 19 (33 USC

414), and 20 (33 USC

415)

• Sec. 15 ‐ Prohibits obstructing of

navigable channels in a way

which prevents the passage of

other vessels or raft.

• Sec. 19 ‐ Allows USACE to

remove an obstructing vessel or

raft after 30 days without

li bilit f d t th

• Notify owner, operator, or

lessee of vessel or raft being a

hazard to navigation and

request immediate removal.

•Ensure owner, operator, or

lessee has a viable removal

plan and implements that plan

liability for damages to the tl

owner of the same.

• Sec. 20 ‐ In an emergency,

allows USACE to remove or

oversee removal of an

obstructing vessel or raft after

24 hours and seek

reimbursement of removal costs

by the owner, operator or lessee

of said vessel.

promptly.

•Closely monitor the removal

process to ensure no

additional damages result and

removal is done efficiently.

•Determine the need for

emergency removal of vessel

or raft and notify owner,

operator, or lessee of that

intention.

Legislation Requirements Actions

•Engineer Regulation

and Pamphlet 1130‐2‐

520, Chapter 4 –

Removal of Wrecks and

Other Obstructions (and

related appendices)

• Owner, operator, or lessee (if

identifiable) is responsible for

removal of wrecks or other

obstructions to navigable

waterways within USACE

jurisdiction.

• USACE must notify owner,

operator, or lessee that wreck or

b i h b

•Owner, operator, or lessee

remove wreck or other

obstruction from navigable

channel in a timely manner.

•Owner indicate to USACE in

writing that abandonment is

intended.

•Owner reimburse USACE for

obstruction has been l

determined an obstruction to

navigation and must be

removed.

• USACE cannot take private

property. Must attempt

notification of need for removal.

• Appendix B – MOA between

USCG and USACE defining roles

during and following marine

accidents.

removal expenses.

Legislation Requirements Actions

•The Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief &

Emergency Assistance

Act (42 USC 5121 and

the following) (88 Stat.

143) (The Stafford Act)

• The President may provide

financial assistance to state and

local governments following

presidentially‐declared major

disasters and emergencies.

•FEMA is the lead and source

of funding and direction.

Initiating USACE Involvement

•	 When a vessel or raft sinks in or impacts a navigable

channel, the owner, operator, or lessee should immediately

notify the responsible Corps District or USCG Area, Sector,

or Captain of the Port. (In the event there is a pollution

spill, the USCG ‐ with assistance from the Environmental

Protection Agency ‐ will take the lead with USACE assisting

as needed.)

•	 The USACE may need to conduct a channel survey to

determine whether the location of the vessel or raft

constitutes an obstruction to navigation.

•	 The location of the vessel or raft with respect to the

navigation channel will determine whether further

USACE involvement in removal is warranted.
   

                     

             

           

                   

               

     

                   

       

                     

                   

        

             

           

           

         

           

  

Case Studies (cont’d)
 Case Studies • (2005) Wreck Removal from 

federal channel after 

Hurricane Katrina - Gulfport, 

MS and Bayou La Batre, AL 

USACE Survey Boat 

Irvington Assisting – 

Gulfport 

Fishing vessel location 

• (2008) Barge halves location 

after 23 July collision 

between the downbound 

tanker M/V Tintomara and a 

fuel barge being pushed by 

towboat M/V Mel Oliver – 

New Orleans, LA 

g 

Bayou La Batre 

•	 (2008) Wreck Removal – M/V 

Shark (tugboat) and S/V 

Catharina from Intracoastal 

Waterway, Dania, FL 

Opportunities

•	 In those cases where there is a clear or potential connection

between abandoned & derelict vessels and a federally‐

maintained navigation channel, the USACE can help:

1. by first locating the vessels and determining whether they

constitute hazards to navigation and then coordinating those

findings with the USCG

2. by overseeing or effecting the removal of vessels determined

to be hazards to navigation.

3. by ensuring that the removal was complete and that the

navigation channel, closed or restricted by the USCG, can be

reopened to unimpeded navigation.

Critical Thinking

•	 Within its authority, how can USACE better

assist states facing the challenges of

abandoned & derelict vessels in their waters?

– Channel Surveys?

•	 How helpful are federal‐level materials,

technologies or resources in developing state

programs? ?

•	 Other thoughts?
     

       

     

       

   

       

            

         

       

       

     

       

           

       

     

   

       

   

     

   

       

         

   

       

   

       

   

   

       

     

         

           

   

   

     

     

   

   

           

         

           

       

   

   

     

       

          

       

     

       

   

   

     

       

       

   

                 

       

         

   

Federal Agency Gallery Walk

Abandoned & Derelict Vessel Workshop

US Army Corps of 

Engineers ® 

Federal Interests & Responsibilities

•	 Key agency mandates & authorities

•	 Initiating agency involvement

•	 Agency capacity

– Examples of involvement (Case Study)

•	 Opportunities

•	 Critical thinking: After listening to all agency

talks...Where are the opportunities for

increased State and Federal collaboration?

Agency ADV mandates & authorities	 Agency ADV mandates & authorities

Legislation Requirements Actions

Clean Water Act (CWA)

Oil Pollution Act of

1990 (OPA)

CWA, as amended by OPA 90,

provides the basic statutory

authority for pollution

prevention, contingency

planning, and response activities

within the 200 mile Exclusive

• Harmful quantity of Oil

• Authorizes cleanup action

under federal authority

within the 200‐mile Exclusive • Oils Spill Liability trust

Economic Zone for oil and

hazardous substances.

• Oils Spill Liability trust

Fund (OSLTF)

• Designate Responsible

Parties

• Administrative Orders

Legislation Requirements Actions

Comprehensive

Environmental

Response,

Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA)

CERCLA, also known as

Superfund, extends the response

provisions of the Clean Water

Act to a wide range of

"hazardous substances,

pollutants and contaminants"

• Cleanup for hazardous

waste sites and

emergency response to

hazardous substances

releases

pollutants, and contaminants

and to releases that threaten not

only coastal or navigable waters

but also those that may threaten

other environments, such as the

air or ground.

• Designate Responsible

Parties

• Hazardous material lists

and RQs

• Superfund

Agency ADV mandates & authorities

Legislation Requirements Actions

Abandoned Barge Act

of 1992

• Prevent future marine

pollution and take law

enforcement actions with

respect to abandoned barges

over 100 GT

• Environmental threat –

OSLTF or CERCLA funding

• Threat to public health,

safety, or welfare that

cannot be effectively

• Removal of barges that pose a

significant threat

y

abated by means other

than removal, and there

is no cost to the CG

Initiating USCG Involvement

Courtesy Sector Mobile 

and USCG 
   

   

     

             

     

   

       

   

   

     

         

Initiating USCG Involvement

Source: CAPT Jim Wilkins, COMNAVSEASYSCOM 

Case Studies

• P/C LOVELY LADY

• 1930 wooden hull yacht

• 107’ L / 19’ B / 9.9’ D

• 172 GRT

• Miami River, Biscayne

Bay Aquatic Preserve

Opportunities

• Define local working agreements

• Identify abandoned vessels

• Area Contingency Plans

• Harbor Safety Committees

Critical Thinking

• Work within statutory authority

• Incident Command / Removal planning

• Responsible parties

• Salvage

• Other thoughts?
 

 

 

 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) 

General Permit for Ocean Disposal of Vessels 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) 

General Permit for Ocean Disposal of Vessels
 

EPA ocean dumping regulations contain a General Permit for disposal of 

vessels (40 CFR 229.3) 

 Permits are issued and managed by EPA Regions 

 General Permit notice and clean-up provisions: 

 Requires the following information to be provided in writing to EPA no later than 1 

month before proposed disposal date: 

 Need for vessel disposal 

 Type and description of cargo normally carried 

 Proposed disposal procedures 

 Potential effects on marine environment 

 Adequate evaluation of disposal alternatives 

 Re-use of vessel or parts removed from vessel 

 Recycling 

 Destruction of hazardous constituents 

 Cleaning of vessel or components, removal of components, or treatment 

 General Permit notice and clean-up provisions (continued): 

 Requires that qualified personnel take appropriate measures to remove to the 

maximum extent practicable all materials that may potentially degrade marine environment,

including: 

 Emptying and flushing all fuel lines and tanks 

 Removing other pollutants and readily detachable material from hull 

 Items with potential substances of concern include: 

 Coolers, separators, scrubbers, heat exchangers 

 Diesel and other tanks, paints, piping, pumps, engines 

 Fire extinguishing/fighting equipment, generators 

 Oil sumps, hydraulic systems, compressors, cables 

 Valves and fittings, electrical equipment 

 Requires notice to EPA and USCG at the following intervals: 

 At least 10 days before proposed disposal that vessel has been cleaned and is available for 

inspection 

 Vessel may be transported for dumping only after EPA and USCG agree that cleanup 

requirements in the General Permit have been met 

 48 hours before proposed disposal 

 By phone 12 hours before vessel’s departure, including: 

 Proposed departure time and place 

 Disposal site location 

 Estimated time of arrival 

 Name and communication capability of towing vessel 

 Requires notice of schedule changes to USCG as rapidly as possible 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) 

General Permit for Ocean Disposal of Vessels 

 Disposal procedures 

 Disposal must take place: 

 During daylight hours 

 No closer than 22 km (12 mi) from nearest land and in water no less than 50 

fathoms (300 ft) deep OR in a designated site on current nautical charts for the 

disposal of wrecks 

 All necessary measures must be taken to insure vessels sink to the bottom rapidly

and marine navigation is not impaired 

 Disposal must NOT take place: 

 In established shipping lanes unless at a designated wreck site 

 In a marine sanctuary 

 In a location where hull may present hazard to commercial trawling or national 

defense 

 In the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of another country 

 EPA must report all disposals to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

pursuant to the London Convention 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) 

General Permit for Ocean Disposal of Vessels
 

 Example of use of the General Permit (Russian Barge CTP-424, 2007) 

 Abandoned Russian barge threatened to run aground at a sea lion rookery near 

Kodiak, AK 

 Coast Guard inspected the vessel and appropriately disposed of several spent 

batteries (only hazardous material aboard), then identified and contacted the owner 

 Owner subsequently forfeited ownership and responsibility of the barge and the 

Coast Guard made the determination that it was “abandoned” pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 

§§ 4701 et seq and other authorities 4701, et. seq., and other authorities 

 Coast Guard submitted proposal to EPA Region 10 to sink the Russian barge under 

the General Permit for ocean disposal of vessels (40 CFR § 229.3) 
 

 

Terminology 

•	 Salvage 

•	 When a vessel or cargo has 

residual value. 

•	 Removal incentive 

• W k R Wreck Removal 

•	 When vessel or debris has 

no significant value. 

•	 Contract removal 

•	 Abandonment 

Presentation Summary 

•	 Introduction 

•	 Threats from Vessels 

•	 NOAA Roles and Concerns 

•	 NOAA Databases 

•	 NOAA Abandoned Vessel NOAA Abandoned Vessel 

Program History and 

Activities 

•	 Why are we worried about small spills 

of non-persistent oils but leaving 10 

tons of steel and fiberglass is okay? 

Hurricane Katrina, 2005 

Threats from Vessels 

• Threat of oil spills and other pollutants 

• Physical destruction of substrate 

• Wildlife entrapment 

• Hazard to navigation 

• Source of marine debris 

• Illegal dump sites 

• Nutrient enrichment and invasive species

• Visual eyesore 

• Human Health and Safety 

NOAA Roles in Response to Shipwrecks and Abandoned 

and Derelict Vessels 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration 

Presentation Summary 

• Introduction 

• Threats from Vessels 

• NOAA Roles and Concerns 

• NOAA Databases 

•	 NOAA Abandoned Vessel NOAA Abandoned Vessel 

Program History and 

Activities 
Samala Photos 

Habitat Injury 

Entanglement Hazard 

Threats to Navigation 

Marine Debris 

Illegal Dump Sites 

•	 M/V Kimton, Fajardo, 

Puerto Rico 

•	 Vessel used for illegal 

dumping of waste oils 

and explosives 

•	 Abandoned Barge, 

Louisiana. Potential 

dumping site 
 

Visual eyesore and loss of tourism 

• F/V Van Loi, Kauai 

• Oil, debris, and fishing gear 

spread along hotel beach 

Public Safety 

Health and Safety Hazard 

Abandoned Smuggling Vessel, Guam, 2008 

NOAA Databases 

•	 Abandoned Vessels 

(primarily affecting corals) 

•	 Automated Wrecks and 

Obstructions Information 

System (Navigation hazards) System (Navigation hazards) 

•	 Resources and Undersea 

Threats (historic and 

pollution) 

NOAA interests in shipwrecks and 

abandoned vessels 

•	 National Marine Sanctuary 

Program 

• Office of Coast Survey 

• Office of Ocean Exploration 

•	 Office of Response and 

Restoration Restoration 

AWOIS 

•	 NOAA Coast 

Survey 

•	 Automated 

Wrecks and 

Obstructions
 

Information 

System
 
 

Resources and Undersea Threats (RUST) 

NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Program 

•12/23/41: The 440-foot 

Montebello was loaded with three 

million gallons of crude oil when 

it sank off of San Luis Obispo, 

CA, near the southern edge of the 

Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary. 

Oil Laden 

Wrecks 

Tanker “Bow Mariner” 

Offshore Virginia 

NOAA Abandoned Vessel Program 
Prevention of Vessel Debris in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

July 2006 
#62 Nam Sung

 

#62 Nam Sung - aerial 

Wreck Removal 

feasibility study, 

American Samoa 

February 2008 

vessel debris fields 

State Roles 

•	 Initial review of 

state efforts 

•	 Most states have 

limited ability to limited ability to 

address derelict 

vessels, and even 

more limited 

funding 

Vessels still afloat 

• F/V Mwaalil Saat 

• Surveyed in 2003 

•	 Sank in 2004 

during Typhoon 

Tingg tin

•	 Response costs in 

excess of $3.5 

million 
Vessel Clusters 

Empire, Louisiana 

Piti Channel 
• www.response.restoration.noaa.gov 

Doug.Helton@NOAA.gov 

g , g y j p

meet the intent of the law

 df t l l

Funding Considerations 

Funding Approach: 

 In 1997 Senate Bill 172 created the Abandoned Watercraft 

Abatement Fund (AWAF). It provides funds to public 

agencies to remove, store, and dispose of abandoned, 

wrecked, or dismantled vessels or any other partially

submerged objects which pose a substantial hazard to 

navigation, from navigable waterways or adjacent public 

property, or private property with the landowner's consent. 

 As part of its commitment to provide clean, safe and 

enjoyable recreational boating on State waterways, the 

Department of Boating and Waterways administers this 

statewide program. It allows local public agencies to apply

for funding and upon approval, enter into a contract grant 

agreement with Cal Boating. 

Funding Approach, continued 

 Currently funded at $500,000 per FY 

 The fund may be allocated up to 1 million 

 Funding comes from the Departments overall 

Harbors & Watercraft Fund, which is funded by 

boater registration fees, gas taxes and interest 

payments on loans. 

 The fund is a revolving fund, so any unspent 

money reverts back into the fund to meet the 

$500,000 allocation. 

Lessons Learned: 

 One approach does not work for all grantees 

 There are many case-by-case considerations that 

may not meet the letter of the law, but instead, 

meet the intent of the law 

 The Program is doing good things for the 

environment, one boat at a time 

 The program is only as successful as the 

motivation of the agency receiving the funding 

Funding Challenges: 

 The total amount of grant requests exceeds the 

Program allocation 

 Getting agencies to spend their money, so the 

Fund may be increased to meet the demand Fund may be increased to meet the demand 

 Flexibility to distribute or reallocate funds that have 

not been spent 

 Some agencies are unable to provide the 10% 

match of funds, and therefore do not participate 

 Being able to meet the needs of agencies with 

emergency removal costs 

Funding Concerns: 

 Agencies not spending their grant funds 

 Agencies using the Fund as a “line of credit” 

and ultimately, tying up funds that could be 

used for actual removals 

 Unable to work my way through the red tape 
confirms insurance etc.

Grant Administration: 

 Grants are awarded to local agencies (Counties, 

Cities, Public Marinas) based on actual need 

 The grantee coordinates the hiring of salvers, 

confirms insurance requirements, etc. requirements, 

 Grantee oversees and administers all aspects of 

actual vessel/hazard removal 

 Funds are reimbursed to the Grantee after 

completion of work 
• MARYLAND’S APPROACH TO FUNDING 

MARYLAND’S 

ABANDANED & DERELICT • LESSONS LEARNED/FAILURES 

VESSEL FUNDING 

• RECOMMENDATIONS 

La Juan M Lee 

September 16, 2009 

MARYLAND’S APPROACH TO FUNDING 

DERELICT VESSEL PROGRAM 

•	 SPECIAL FUNDS 

•	 The Waterway Improvement Fund was created in 

1966 by (Annotated Code of Maryland Section 8-707 

of the State Boat Act) of the State Boat Act) 

•	 Purpose is to fund projects which improve and 

promote the recreational and commercial 

capabilities, conditions and safety of Maryland 

waterways for the benefit of the general boating 

public 

•	 Funds are obtain primarily from a one time 5% 

excise tax – new and used vessels 

•	 Excise tax is paid when boaters purchase and 

title vessels in Maryland 

•	 Fund other services such as Pump out Fund other services such as Pump out, clean 

marina and hydrographic operations 

•	 Funds are made available to all Maryland 

counties or municipalities 

FUND DISBURSEMENT 

• Each county or municipality has to apply for a 

grant 

•	 Grants are 100% reimbursable Grants are 100% reimbursable

• Maximum amount allowed per county or 

municipality - $50,000 

– Debris Removal $20,000 

– Abandoned/Derelict Vessel $30,000 

$50,000 

•	 Each county or municipality must submit an 

application for fund approval 

•	 Available funds – distributed between the state 

and the various counties and the various counties. 

•	 Funds are valid for two years. 

•	 Funds for available for 2008-2009 - $250,000 
 

LESSONS LEARNED/FAILURES 

• An abandoned boat crew was used in addition to 

issuing local grants 

• Their role was to focus more on cleaning up old 

derelict boats that were not a hazard to navigation. 

• Removed everything they saw with regard to debris 

or derelict boats 

• The crew was stopped for budget reasons 

SUSTAINABLE FUNDING 

RECOMMENDATION 

• Find some source of special funding 

• A marginal increase in a fee or registration A marginal increase in a fee or registration 

such as $5.00 or $10.00 

• An excise tax usage 

BOATING SERVICES, E-4 

LA JUAN LEE 

580 TAYLOR AVENUE 

MARYLAND DEPARTMEMT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401
 

PHONE: 410-260-8463
 

WWW.DNR.MARYLAND.GOV 

llee@dnr.state.md.us 
 

 

 – 

 

-

- 

Mississippi Dept. of Marine Resources 

Derelict Vessel Removal Program 

Irvin Jackson, Program Manager (Sep. 09) 

• Periodic Surveys to Locate DV’s 

• DV’s Reported by Public and Other Agencies 

Priority for Removal: 

DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL 

2

Priority for Removal: 

• DV’s Leaking Fuel/Oil, or Other Hazardous 

Chemicals 

• Hazards to Navigation 

• Future Storm Threats Hurricanes 

• Derelict Vessels Restricting Public Access 

• DV’s Must be Sunk (below mean-high tide) for 30 Days 

• Legal Requirements for Known and Unknown Owners 

Contracting for Removal: 

DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL 

3

• Establish Scope of Work 

• Quotes or Bids Requested Based on Est. Cost 

• P.O. or Contract Issued to Lowest Qualified Contractor 

• Removal Normally Occurs Within 30 Days After Award 

Permit/Waiver Required: Coordinated With Corps. Of 

Engineers. 

• Contractor/Owner: Must describe how DV will be 

removed. 

DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL 

4

• EVA: Required for Hazardous Chemicals 

• Hazardous Chemicals (Oil/Fuel) Must be Disposed of at 

an Approved Disposal Site. 

• Protective Boom Must be Placed Around DV Prior to 

Start of Work. 

Methods of DV Removal: Land/Water 

• Equipment Required: Normally a Barge and Crane 

• Some Steel DV’s Require Cutting by Torch or Chopping 

DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL 

5

• Some DV’s Can be Refloated and Disassembled on 

Shore. 

• DV Debris is Loaded on Barge and Transported to 

Shore for Deliver to Approved Dump Site. 

• Some Steel Hull DV’s Can be Used for Artificial Reefs. 

DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL 

Accomplishments: 

• 216 DVs removed to date 

• 43 - Steel Hull Vessels & Barges to Artificial Reefs 

6

• 25 Derelict Fishing Boats Removed by Owner 

• Average cost $6,560.00 per Wood Hull Vessel 

• Average cost $25,000 to $50,000.00 Steel Hull Vessel 
Barges to Become Artificial Fishing Reefs 

7

Bayou Portage, Pass Christian, 

MS to FH-2 11/13/01, to FH-13 

12/7/01. to FH-4, 3/24/02 

Boat To Artificial Fishing Reef 

7 Dec. 01 

8

From Bayou Portage, Pass 

Christian, MS – To Fish Haven 13 

Boat To Artificial Fishing Reef 

7 Dec. 01 

9

From Bayou Portage, Pass 

Christian, MS – To Fish Haven 13 

Bayou Caddy 

4 Derelict Vessels 

Typical Derelict Vessels 

10

Hancock County 

Effort completed 2/20/03 

Capt. Terrell and Amvina V 

Gulfport Purchasing, behind Grand Casino 

Removed August 01, 2001 

11

Barges to Reefs Program: 

• Typical barge along the MS Gulf Coast to be used 

as artificial reef material over the next 12 months. 

12
Typical Method of Derelict Vessel Removal 

13

Removal of the “Rough Times” From Bayou Caddy 

14
 

Derelict Vessels: Common 

Understanding vs. the Law. 

Lieutenant David Dipre 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Division of Law Enforcement 

Boating and Waterways Section 

Waterway Management Unit 

That’s my boat and it’s not a 

derelict boat! 

Most people think: 

It can’t be derelict until it has been 

trashed, crashed, dumped and sunk. 

Florida Statute 823.11 

• Any Vessel that is left or stored 

• In a Wrecked, Junked or Substantially 

Dismantled condition 

The Definitions 

• Left (1) – to cause or allow to remain in 

a specific condition. 

• Left (2) – to have gone away from 

• Store – to put away for future use 

Definitions continued... 

• Wrecked – to cast ashore, to 

reduce to a ruinous state by or as 

if by violence 

Definitions continued... 

• Junked – something of poor 

quality, something of little 

meaning, worth or significance, 

to get rid of as worthless 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Definitions continued... 

• Substantially dismantled – 

largely but not wholly taken to 

pieces, stripped of dress or 

covering stripped of furniture covering, stripped of furniture 

and equipment 

Problems associated with 

Derelict Vessel 

• Fuel Pollutants 

• Debris from vessel degradation 

• Hazard to navigation 

• Damage to sea grasses 

• Damage to marine corals 

• Criminal Activity areas 

Never moves and is never pumped out 

Associated Politics/Socioeconomics 

of Derelict Vessels 

• Derelict vessels only directly affect 

coastal and inland waterways. 

– Derelict vessels affect our waters but 

those affects are only directly observed, 

f lt th i i d b th f felt or otherwise experienced by those of 

us on or around the coastal and inland 

waterways. 

– Persons living in landlocked areas often 

have no knowledge of derelict vessels. 

These people are the larger portion of the 

voting public having other interests and 

concerns. 

Associated Politics/Socioeconomics 

of Derelict Vessels...continued 

• Boaters 

–Most boaters view DVs as 

hazards to navigation. These 

vessels are often submerged in vessels are often submerged in 

shallow, but navigable, waters. 

They may also be adrift, 

unseen and unexpected, 

threatening the boater’s safety. 

Sailboats and small dinghys are 

the most common of all DVs. Drifting in open water....at night 
Associated Politics/Socioeconomics 

of Derelict Vessels...continued 

• Recreational fishermen 

– Fishermen often take a positive 

view of DVs as a potential fishing 

spots. Derelict Vessels provide 

hbaitat, even in shallow waters, h ll for 

many species of fish. Because of 

their ability to provide habitat, 

these vessels may often find some 

assistance to deeper water. Vessels 

are occasionally scuttled to use as 

future fishing spots. 

Associated Politics/Socioeconomics 

of Derelict Vessels...continued 

• Home Owners 

– Home owners view DVs most 

often as an eyesore, a pollutant 

hazard, and as a potential threat 

to home and property in the h d h

event of a storm. FWC is often 

asked to investigate live-aboard 

vessels that are anchored near 

homes. These vessels are often 

reported as DVs or having other 

violations. 

Associated Politics/ 

Socioeconomics of Derelict 

Vessels...continued
 

• Homeless 

– Homeless living on or around the water 

utilize these DVs. They will often refloat 

them, patch them and move onto them as 

temporary housing. If the vessels have 

been marked as DVs, the homeless 

individuals will paint over the notices and 

move the vessels to a new location. 

These vessels are only temporary housing 

and are often abandoned allowing them to 

sink again or drift. 
What Constitutes a 

successful DV program? 

• Strong Leadership 

• Interagency cooperation –NOAA, DEP, FWC 

• Reliable Funding 

• Community Interaction 

• Strong legislation 

• Dedicated Staff 

• Sufficient Resources – salvage, restoration, 

marinas 

• Public and Agency education about derelict 

vessels. 

Strong Leadership 

OK...Well...Uh...Sort of...? 

Stronger Leadership Interagency Cooperation 

Reliable/Consistent Funding Community Interaction 
 

 

 

Strong Legislation Dedicated Staff 

Sufficient Resources Public and Agency Education 

DVs from a Law 

Enforcement perspective 

• DVs are a public nuisance due to the 

potential hazards to navigation and 

potential threat to boater’s safety and 

to the environment 

DVs from a Law 

Enforcement perspective 

To leave or store an abandoned/derelict vessel is a crime 

committed out of negligence or with the intent to avoid 

responsibility for the expense and labor to properly 

remove the vessel thus allowing others handle the 

consequences of such and act. 
DVs from a Law 

Enforcement perspective 

• To Make the Case: 

– Vessel identifiers 

– Titles, state registration, USCG 

D i ocumentation 

– Proof of responsibility 

– Proof of ownership 

– Notifications through certified mail 

– Proof of the vessels derelict condition 

I like the Native American...he said it 

all without saying anything. 
       

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

               

                  

             

             

                     

           

             

     

             

     

           

        g ;  

   

           

             

             

     

Abandoned and Derelict Vessel

Workshop

Puerto Rico DNER

Original NOAA Inventory

• Year: 2002

• Total vessels inventoried: 34

First DNER inventory update

• Year:2007

• Total vessels inventoried:68

Mapping of Abandoned Vessels

Clusters in San Juan, Fajardo, Culebra, Boqueron. 

Abandoned vessels interagency

workgroup

• Attempt by DNER Secretary to address the problem

(2007). Immediate priority was to find a way to

remove a couple of large vessels in Cataño.

• Several meeting held, issues discussed, need was

clearly presented.

• Result: no PR nor federal agency had funds to deal with

them.

• Workgroup was disbanded – no formal program

currently exists in DNER for abandoned vessels issue.

DNER Marine Resources Division

• Has submitted 2 proposals to NOAA Marine

Debris program – not funded.

• Convinced 1 insurance company (Integrand) to

remove one sailboat from seagrass bed;

Owner clearly identified.

• Even though a few additional abandoned

vessel owners can be identified, and reports

have been sent to our Rangers, no

enforcement action has resulted.
   

     

         

               

ar ous                s ances s as

   

                 

                 

           

     

                     

                       

      y          

’              

               

                                

      

         

             

       

“              

                 

                     

             

               

             

U.S. Coast Guard

• Has been very cooperative.

• Accompany us on abandoned vessel

inspections: check for oil and fuel on board,

hazardous substances, and if it’s being used as

clandestine dump site.

• Has removed at least 2 vessels in recent years

in PR that were used to dump oil, but

concentrates on those posing threat to

shipping lanes.

Detection of Abandoned Vessels

• We often find them during routine overflights, for mooring buoy program purposes.

• May follow up with field visit, during

mooring buoy maintenance or on special trips.

• Almost always all identification has been removed, making enforcement nearly impossible.

• NGO s and dive shops alert us to others.

• Hope to start a new project – using SSS and ROV to document submerged abandoned vessels in the Fajardo area. Some from storms, some accidents, some on purpose. None authorized.

Examples of Abandoned Vessels in

Puerto Rico

Legal issues

• Legal framework for dealing with abandoned vessels

in PR is very weak.

• Abandoned Vessel” is not defined in boating

regulations.

• Failure to notify DNER of vessel abandonment is a

$50 fine.

• Expired registration of a vessel on the water is a $100

fine.

• Marine benthic and coastal habitat is definitely

impacted by the large number of abandoned and

derelict vessels on the coasts on Puerto Rico.

Any questions?
i l

Parks and Trails Division

i l

i l i l

 

i l

 

i l

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

Paul Nordell 

Adopt-a-River Program Coordinator 

Parks and Trails Division 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Paul Nordell, DNR Program Coordinator 

Eva Johnson, MCC Water Recreation Specialist 

State-level Responses to Abandoned 

and Derelict Vessels (ADVs) 

Paul Nordell 

Adopt-a-River Program Coordinator 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Adopt-a-River Program 

Minnesota has about 92,000 miles of flowing water 

and 22,000 lakes and basins. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

The Adopt-a-River program empowers 

Minnesotans to keep their resources beautiful 

by removing rubbish from public waters. 

Adopt-a-River Program 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Adopt-a-River Program 

Since 1989, Adopt-a-River program has: 

• Organized 2, 802 cleanups by 78, 507 

volunteers. 

• Volunteered over 265,000 hours. 

• Cleaned over 9 200 miles of Minnesota 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Cleaned over 9,200 miles of Minnesota 

shoreline. 

• Removed over 5.3 million pounds of trash! 

Statewide Adoption Status, 2009 

The entire community depends upon the quality of our waters for 

safe drinking, health of wildlife, and recreation. Through 

involvement in volunteer cleanups, the polluting impacts of litterstrewn storm water can be reduced. 

Adopt-a-River Program 

Annual Mississippi Riverboat Cleanup 

In 2009, over 3,000 pounds of trash were removed. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 
i l i l

i l i l

i l i l

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 
i l i l

i l i l

i l i l

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 
i l i l

i l i l

i l

ette

i l

i 

i

 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Found Objects Sculpture - Minnesota State Fair 

• Since 1994, the Minnesota DNR has 

commissioned an artist to create a sculpture 

made entirely from trash taken from water 

resources. 

• Fairgoers, young and old, complete a 

scavenger hunt and receive a prize. 

• This brings a lot of attention to the problems in 

our public waters. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Urgie the Sturgeon 

by Demian Jackman 

2009 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Red Alert by Al Wadzinsky 

2002 

The sculpture’s permanent 

location in St. Paul, Minnesota 

Dragonfly by Paul Byer 

2006 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Contact Information 

Paul Nordell 

Phone: (651) 259-5630 

Adoptariver.dnr@state.mn.us 

Adopt-a-River Program 

DNR Parks & Trails Division 

500 Lafay Rd Box 52 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Adopt-a-River Program 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 

September 15-17, 2009 

M ami, F orida 

Photos were suppl ed by volunteers, the DNR, and 

Rolf Hagberg of the M nnesota Conservation Corps. 

500 Lafayette Rd. Box 52 

St. Paul, MN 55155-4052 

Fax: 651-297-5475 

www.mndnr.gov/adoptriver 
United States Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke 

Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. 

Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

David Kennedy 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and 

Coastal Zone Management