Maritime Environment: Federal and State Actions, Expenditures, and Challenges to Addressing Abandoned and Derelict Vessels
Published: 2017-03-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: ADVs can block navigable U.S. waterways and pose threats to the environment, and public health and safety, as fuel and hazardous material can leak into the water as the vessels deteriorate. Multiple federal agencies have responsibility for responding to ADV-related incidents, while states may also address ADVs through their own laws and policies. GAO was asked to review actions federal and state agencies have taken to address ADVs in U.S. waterways. This report examines (1) key factors that guide how federal agencies respond to ADVs; (2) the extent federal agencies track ADVs and their expenditures for responding to them; and (3) actions states have taken to address ADVs and the factors they cite as affecting their efforts.
GAO reviewed federal laws and policies which guide ADV-related actions for the Coast Guard, EPA, USACE, NOAA, and FEMA, and analyzed these agencies' ADV-related caseload and expenditure data for fiscal years 2005 through 2015, the most current available data. GAO interviewed agency headquarters and field-based officials in four states, selected for their geographic diversity and varying state laws and actions regarding ADVs. GAO also surveyed 30 coastal states regarding their ADV-related actions, expenditures and challenges.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal agencies respond to abandoned and derelict vessels (ADV) in accordance with federal law, interagency agreements, and funding availability. Federal laws and the National Contingency Plan—the government's blueprint for responding to oil and hazardous substance releases—establish federal agency roles for leading a response to an ADV-related incident based on various factors, such as the type of ADV threat posed and its location (see fig. below). Interagency agreements have also helped to guide federal ADV response efforts. For example, the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) signed an agreement in 2012 outlining their procedures for responding to navigation hazards, including sunken vessels. Agencies reported they generally did not have funding to support actions beyond responding to ADVs posing navigation hazards in federally-maintained waterways and pollution and public health threats, nor were they required to do so by federal law or agency policy.
Key Federal Agency Responses to Abandoned and Derelict Vessels
The Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USACE, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintain data on responses to, and associated expenditures for, pollution and navigation threat incidents in U.S. waterways, which sometimes have involved ADVs. GAO analysis determined that these agencies expended at least $58 million on ADV response from fiscal year 2005 through 2015. Over two thirds of these expenditures were associated with two ADV-response cases, in 2008 and 2011.
The 28 coastal states that responded to GAO's survey reported on their various ADV-related actions and perspectives on factors affecting their ability to address ADVs—including limitations on their state authority and insufficient funding.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations in this report. Agencies provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Abandoned vessels and derelict vessels (ADV) are two terms commonly  used to describe vessels that are without identified ownership, in  significant disrepair, or both. There are many such vessels in U.S.  waterways that are either left to deteriorate by the owner or operator, or at  times are the result of a catastrophic weather event. Generally unsightly,  some ADVs may pose a threat to the safety of maritime navigation, the  environment, and public health. In particular, ADVs can impede marine  transportation by blocking navigable waterways, and, if not well marked or  just below the water’s surface, could pose collision risks to vessel  operators. ADVs may also become sources of pollution as the vessels  can contain significant amounts of fuel oil or hazardous materials that can  leak into the water as the vessels deteriorate, threatening the local  community, marine life, and nearby habitat. For example, in 2011, a  derelict 432-foot barge split in half and began leaking oil into the  Columbia River on the border of Washington and Oregon. According to  Coast Guard records, the resulting federal response to clean up the river  and remove the barge totaled about $21.6 million.
Multiple federal agencies share responsibility with states for responding to  the threats that may be posed by ADVs, including the Coast Guard,  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers  (USACE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In particular, the  Coast Guard and EPA are responsible for leading federal responses to oil  and hazardous material releases in U.S. waterways, while USACE is  responsible for responding to marine debris, including vessels, that pose  navigation hazards in federally maintained navigable channels, harbors,  and waterways. State governments may also address ADVs, through  their own laws and policies. You asked us to review actions federal and  state government agencies have taken to address ADVs in U.S.  waterways. This report addresses the following questions:  1.  What key factors guide how federal agencies respond to incidents  involving ADVs in U.S. waterways?  2.  To what extent do federal agencies track ADVs in U.S. waterways and  their expenditures for responding to them, and what does their data  show?  3.  What actions have states taken to address ADVs and what factors do  they cite as affecting their efforts?
To answer the first objective, we reviewed federal laws and regulations to  identify federal agency authorities and roles relative to ADVs. Additionally,  we reviewed policy and guidance issued by federal agencies with  responsibility for leading ADV responses, including the Coast Guard,  EPA, USACE, NOAA, and FEMA. We interviewed relevant headquarters  officials from these agencies to obtain insight into the factors guiding their  responses to ADV-related incidents. We also conducted site visits and  interviewed cognizant field officials with jurisdiction for coastal waters in  four states: Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, and Washington. We selected  these states for their geographic diversity and their varying state ADV- related laws and programs. We interviewed officials from five Coast  Guard Sectors (Columbia River, Maryland-National Capital Region,  Mobile, New Orleans, and Puget Sound); four EPA Regions, and four  USACE District offices (Baltimore, Mobile, New Orleans, and Seattle).
We also interviewed officials from two NOAA field offices responsible for  implementing the agency’s nationwide marine debris program (Mobile, AL  and Seattle, WA). The results of these site visits are not generalizable,  but provide insight on federal agency ADV response-related authorities,  policy, and actions.
To answer the second objective, we obtained and analyzed information  from federal agencies regarding their methods for tracking ADVs,  caseload for responding to ADV-related incidents, and associated  expenditures. Specifically, we analyzed federal laws and agency policy  and guidance to identify requirements or methods for tracking ADV- related incidents and interviewed agency headquarters and field officials  to obtain information on how these laws, guidance, and policies have  been implemented. Additionally, we analyzed data provided by Coast  Guard, EPA, USACE, NOAA, and FEMA showing ADV-related cases and  expenditures in coastal states. We did not analyze ADV-related cases  and associated expenditures from U.S. territories. To conduct these  analyses, we compiled agency data for fiscal years 2005 through 2015,  the most current full fiscal year data available at the time of our review.  We analyzed these data to identify each agency’s reported number of  ADV-related cases and associated expenditures.
We also reviewed case files for selected ADV responses to obtain insight  into federal actions and the factors that guided them during fiscal years  2005 through 2015. Two of the agencies, Coast Guard and USACE,  provided us with a list of nationwide ADV-related cases and their  expenditures to address them. For EPA, we reviewed the EPA’s Federal  On-Scene Coordinator website to identify the agency’s ADV cases, and  conducted follow up interviews with EPA regional officials to verify  whether their cases involved ADVs. For NOAA, we assessed data  provided by NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration regarding grants  awarded nationwide for marine debris removal, and ADVs specifically, for  fiscal years 2005 through 2015. Additionally, for FEMA, we analyzed its  data regarding ADV removals and expenditures for responses to two  presidentially-declared disasters—Hurricane Katrina, in 2005 and  Superstorm Sandy, in 2012. FEMA headquarters officials reported it  would require a large investment of staff resources to assemble complete  data showing FEMA-funded ADV removals during fiscal years 2005  through 2015. GAO and FEMA officials agreed to limit data analysis to  FEMA ADV removal expenditures for Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm  Sandy because they were two of FEMA’s largest responses during this  period. We believe these data provide valuable insight into FEMA ADV- related actions during this timeframe. On the basis of our analysis and  discussions with officials from each of these agencies, we determined the  above mentioned data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of  describing the extent to which federal agencies tracked ADV’s, and their  estimated number of responses and associated expenditures.
To answer the third objective, we surveyed the 30 coastal states and  received completed survey responses from 28 of them (93% response  rate). Among other things, our survey requested information about the  number and type of ADVs that these states had identified and removed  from their waterways since fiscal year 2013, aspects of their laws and  ADV programs, and perspectives on challenges they faced. In addition,  we selected four states for site visits based on their geographic diversity,  as well as differences in their laws and the actions they had taken related  to ADVs. During our site visits to Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, and  Washington we interviewed cognizant state officials about perspectives  on their ADV-related actions and challenges in addressing ADVs. Finally,  we conducted a legal analysis of the extent to which the 30 coastal states  have laws prohibiting abandonment of vessels and establishing  consequences for abandonment.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2015 through  March 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Causes of Vessel Abandonment and Dereliction
paragraphs: According to NOAA, severe weather events, financial hardships, and the  potentially high costs for owners to properly remove vessels from  waterways all increase the likelihood that vessels will become abandoned  or derelict. For example, states that are subject to frequent storms or  hurricanes may be especially susceptible to derelict vessels. In addition,  financial hardships may lead to an increase in the number of ADVs as  vessel owners no longer have the financial resources to properly care for  their vessels leading to their abandonment and disrepair. The high cost of  properly disposing vessels that owners no longer want may also lead  vessel owners to abandon their vessels. Figure 1 shows photos of ADVs  in U.S. waterways.
section_title: Federal ADV-related Laws and Statutes
paragraphs: No single federal law comprehensively addresses ADVs. However,  various laws and regulations provide federal authority for responding to  maritime pollution and navigation threats, including threats posed by  ADVs. Table 1 shows selected federal laws providing authority for ADV- related response.
section_title: State ADV-related Laws
paragraphs: According to our analysis of state laws from all 30 coastal states, state  laws that address ADVs vary. For example, 25 of the 30 coastal states  have laws that define the terms “abandoned” or “derelict” vessels. In  states that have a process for designating a vessel as “abandoned” for  removal, state laws vary with respect to the amount of time between  when a state identifies a potential ADV and when the state is authorized  to remove it—ranging up to 6 months. Moreover, 24 of the 30 coastal  states prohibit abandoning a vessel or require that the owner remove an  abandoned or derelict vessel under certain circumstances after notice  from the state.
Some coastal states also have legal mechanisms in place to dissuade  vessel owners from abandoning their vessels. For example, 21 of the 30  coastal states have laws that include civil penalties for abandoning or  failing to remove a vessel after notice from the state, while 12 of the 30  states impose criminal penalties for abandoning or failing to remove a  vessel after notice from the state. See appendix I for selected highlights  of the 30 coastal state’s ADV-related laws.
section_title: Federal ADV Response Guided by Authority, Interagency Agreements and Funding
subsections: section_title: Federal Response Authorities Outlined in Federal Laws and Regulations, the National Contingency Plan, and Interagency Agreements
paragraphs: Federal laws, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and interagency  agreements, delineate federal authorities and roles for responding to  maritime pollution and navigation threats, including those posed by  ADVs. For example, the NCP and its underlying authorities provide  response authorities for removing oil and other pollutants and mitigating  or preventing a substantial threat of discharge of oil, including authorizing  the removal of vessels that are discharging, or threatening to discharge  oil. The Rivers and Harbors Act provides authority for removing vessels  posing navigation hazards in U.S. waters. Moreover, the NCP sets the  procedures for responding to such discharges, assigns duties to federal  agencies, and designates the agency responsible for coordinating a  federal response. Notably, while the authority exists to remove an entire  vessel, in practice, response to a vessel is usually limited to removing a  discharge of oil or other pollutant rather than removing the vessel, due to  cost and other considerations.
Federal agencies have also established interagency agreements to  further guide their authority and respective roles for responding to  navigation and pollution threats posed by ADVs. For example,  In 2012, the Coast Guard and USACE headquarters signed a  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to improve their efficiency and  effectiveness for determining whether an obstruction is a navigation  hazard and for the marking and removal of sunken vessels and other  navigation obstructions. According to the MOU, USACE and the  Coast Guard jointly determine whether the vessel or obstruction is a  navigation hazard and the necessary steps to mitigate or remove the  hazard. For example, the Coast Guard is the lead agency for  broadcasting information about a sunken vessel hazard to the  maritime community, and, if necessary, marking it to enable vessel  operators to avoid it. If no vessel owner is identified or the owner is  unable or unwilling to remove the vessel, USACE is the lead agency  for removing navigation obstructions in federally maintained channels,  harbors, and navigable waterways when pollution is not an issue.
Coast Guard, EPA, USACE, NOAA, FEMA and other federal agencies  on the National Response Team issued joint abandoned vessel  guidance in 2014 to provide Federal On-scene Coordinators with  information about the regulatory and policy authority of each federal  agency having a major nexus to abandoned vessels, among other  information. The guidance includes information on applicable laws  and regulations relating to abandoned vessels and hazards to  navigation, federal funding authority, and case studies about previous  responses.
The following highlights responsibilities of the Coast Guard, EPA,  USACE, NOAA, and FEMA, as outlined in federal law, the NCP, and  interagency agreements.
In general, the Coast Guard has primary responsibility for responses to  pollution threats posed by all sources in the coastal zone, whereas the  EPA exercises these authorities in the inland zone. Coast Guard and  EPA authorities for responding to these incidents are mainly captured  under the Clean Water Act, CERCLA, and OPA-90, consistent with the  NCP. In most cases, the two agencies’ authorized actions are focused on  removing oil/hazardous substances from a vessel, and leaving it in place  once the substances have been removed. However, when there is a  discharge or substantial threat of a discharge if the vessel is left in place,  the agencies are authorized to seek removal, and if necessary,  destruction of the vessel as part of operations to remove the pollutants  and eliminate the pollutant threat. In addition to these authorities, the  Abandoned Barge Act authorizes the Coast Guard to take law  enforcement actions with respect to abandoned barges, defined as  barges over 100 gross tons left unattended for more than 45 days.
The Coast Guard has issued guidance to its field units that clarify these  authorities. For example, Coast Guard guidance issued in 1996 and 2011  states that the agency will not remove vessels that are simply a  community nuisance. Rather, for a vessel to be removed or destroyed,  Coast Guard Commandant approval is required, and certain criteria must  be met, including that the vessel is a continued substantial threat to the  environment, or there is evidence of continued illegal dumping. More  recently, in 2016, Coast Guard issued field guidance stating that the  Coast Guard does not have the authority or resources to investigate,  respond to, or remove marine debris unless the debris poses pollution,  public safety, or hazard to navigation threats. The guidance states that  Coast Guard field units are to refer abandoned vessel issues that do not  involve pollution or hazard to navigation threats to state authorities.
USACE is responsible for keeping federally maintained navigable  waterways and channels free of obstructions from marine debris. In  particular, federal law prohibits vessels from obstructing navigable  channels and provides USACE with discretionary authority to remove an  obstructing vessel after 30 days without liability for any damage to the  vessel owner, or in the case of an emergency, to remove the vessel after  24 hours. USACE policy, in general, is to only remove sunken vessels  that are located in a federally maintained channel and block or  substantially impair navigation. Legal responsibility for removing sunken  vessels falls on the owner, lessee or operator (responsible party) of the  wrecked vessel—not the federal government. USACE will remove the  vessel only if the owner, operator, or lessee of the vessel cannot be  identified or cannot remove the vessel in a timely and safe manner.  USACE policy also reflects that state and local governments share  responsibility and have a role in keeping channels clear for navigation  within their jurisdictions.
NOAA is the federal government lead for addressing marine debris, which  includes ADVs. NOAA supports federal and state ADV-related efforts in  various ways, including through federal, state, and local level  coordination, technical support, and competitive funding opportunities.  In 2006, the Marine Debris Act established a program within NOAA to  address the adverse impacts of marine debris through identification,  determination of sources, assessment, prevention, reduction, and  removal of marine debris. Through its marine debris program, NOAA  provides grants to support state, local, and tribal government, as well as  commercial and non-profit organization efforts to address marine debris.  This includes removing ADVs that pose threats to marine habitat in  coastal waterways. We discuss NOAA’s community based removal grant  program in more detail later in this report.
FEMA is the lead federal agency that coordinates the response to a  Presidentially-declared major disaster or emergency under the Stafford  Act. In this role, FEMA is authorized to provide funding to eligible  applicants to remove debris caused by a Presidentially-declared major  disaster or emergency when doing so is in the public interest, such as by,  for example, eliminating an immediate threat to lives, public health and  safety, or property. However, FEMA may not provide funding if all or part  of the work falls within the statutory authority of another agency. For  example, according to 2012 FEMA waterway debris removal guidance,  FEMA may fund the removal and disposal of debris, wreckage, and  sunken vessels from non-federally maintained navigable waterways  when another federal agency does not have the specific authority to do  so. Instances when FEMA had authority to provide funding to eligible  applicants included responses to the Presidentially-declared disasters  Hurricane Katrina (2005) and Superstorm Sandy (2012). FEMA may  also 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.
Figure 2 shows the circumstances in which federal agencies generally  respond to ADV-related incidents in U.S. waterways as Federal On-scene  Coordinators, or through funding ADV removal by state, local, tribal, and  nonprofit organizations, based on their respective authorities outlined in  the NCP, federal laws, and interagency agreements. In most cases, the  removal of an ADV threat requires an interagency response by federal,  state, and local authorities.
section_title: Federal Agencies Reported Exercising Authorities within Funding Constraints
paragraphs: Federal agencies reported they generally did not have funding to support  actions beyond responding to ADVs posing navigation, pollution and  public health threats, nor were they required to do so by federal law or  agency policy. For example, USACE headquarters officials stated that  USACE has limited funds to respond to ADVs, and as a result, USACE  guidance articulates that funding priorities require USACE to take a  conservative approach with respect to the removal of ADVs. Officials  noted that while USACE authority extends to all U.S. navigable waters,  the agency exercises its discretionary authority to remove sunken vessels  only in federally-maintained navigable channels and waterways to  conserve resources. Further, officials stated that unless an ADV is  blocking navigation in a federally-maintained navigable channel, USACE  will not remove or track the vessel because this is not required by law and  the agency has limited resources that it must allocate to higher priorities.
Similarly, Coast Guard and EPA headquarters and field officials we spoke  with reported that the agencies did not have funding to address ADVs  beyond those posing pollution threats. In particular, Coast Guard  headquarters officials stated that the agency’s lack of enforcement of the  Abandoned Barge Act was due, in part, to the cost of investigative efforts  to forensically identify an ADV with no identification markings. They  added that this is because once a vessel is abandoned it becomes almost  impossible to trace the vessel’s owner beyond following leads. As a  result, officials reported that there is little action the Coast Guard can take  when the owner or responsible party cannot be identified if the vessel  does not pose a potential pollution threat or hazard to navigation. Coast  Guard headquarters officials also cited the agency’s inability to enforce  the Abandoned Barge Act as an example of these funding limitations.  Specifically, officials stated that while the Abandoned Barge Act provides  the Coast Guard with authority for levying fines for abandoned barges,  the Coast Guard had not assessed any penalties to owners under the  Abandoned Barge Act during fiscal years 2005 through 2015 because  there was no funding to support efforts to identify and track down these  owners.
Moreover, in cases where federal agencies respond to ADV-related  incidents, agency officials stated that the costs to remove ADVs are  unpredictable and can be significant. For example, USACE headquarters  officials reported that the cost for removing larger vessels in deep water  or vessels requiring special equipment or removal techniques can run in  the millions of dollars—and require additional appropriations or  reprogramming of agency funds. For example, in fiscal year 2015,  USACE District Jacksonville led a $2.6 million response to remove a 110- foot derelict barge from the federal channel at Fort Pierce Harbor, Florida.  According to USACE case information, various factors contributed to the  high cost for USACE to remove the vessel. In particular, the barge sank  and broke into multiple pieces in strong currents, posing a safety hazard  to divers who were working to dismantle and remove the vessel. The  barge also contained propane tanks and other hazardous material that  complicated the removal effort.
section_title: Federal Agencies Track their Responses to Pollution and Navigation Threats, but ADVs are Not Specifically Tracked Federal Agencies Track Pollution and Navigation Threat Responses, but Do Not Specifically Track Responses to ADVs
paragraphs: Federal agencies with ADV-related authorities maintain data on their  responses to and associated expenditures for responding to pollution and  navigation threat incidents in U.S. waterways, which in some instances  involved ADVs. However, these federal agencies do not specifically track  the extent of ADVs nationwide or the expenditures for responding to  them. While none of the five agencies systematically track ADVs, the  Coast Guard currently requires its field units to track information on  ADVs. Specifically, Coast Guard internal policy, in effect since 1996,  requires Coast Guard Sector Commanders to (1) maintain an inventory of  abandoned vessels that pose or are likely to pose a substantial pollution  threat, hazard to navigation, or other significant safety or health threat  and (2) annually submit an abandoned vessel summary report to both  Coast Guard headquarters and the Sector’s District office. However,  headquarters officials reported, in April 2016, that the Coast Guard had  not implemented these tracking requirements. Officials attributed this to  various factors including competing priorities and insufficient resources to  conduct the tracking and stated that their experience has indicated that,  absent the potential for pollution or a hazard to navigation, there is little  utility in tracking ADVs.
In August 2016, Coast Guard headquarters officials reported initiatives  underway to change the Coast Guard’s ADV tracking requirements and  provide additional tools for sectors to maintain awareness of ADVs. They  reported that as the Coast Guard has insufficient resources to track all  ADVs, they are updating the agency’s 1996 abandoned vessel policy.  Officials said the updated policy would require sectors to maintain  awareness of (1) abandoned barges over 100 gross tons, in order to  enforce the Abandoned Barge Act, and (2) ADVs that could pose a  pollution threat or become a hazard to navigation. In addition, Coast  Guard initiated efforts with NOAA, in April 2016, on a proposal to display  ADV data collected by all Coast Guard Sectors in NOAA’s Environmental  Response Management Application (ERMA) website, as Sector San  Francisco was already doing. According to a draft MOU between the  Coast Guard and NOAA, the purpose of the effort is to improve the  tracking, inventory, and accountability of ADVs along the navigable  waters of the United States—with the collected data allowing the  agencies to build and maintain a national strategy for improving ADV- related coordination and inventory. In February 2017, Coast Guard  headquarters officials reported that they were finalizing these efforts and  expected to issue the updated abandoned vessel policy and finalize the  MOU for the ERMA initiative by early summer 2017.
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Have Expended Funds for About 2,000 ADV-related Responses since 2005
paragraphs: According to our analysis of available federal agency data and case  documentation, federal agencies expended at least $58 million from fiscal  years 2005 through 2015 for about 2,000 ADV responses. However, this  estimate likely represents a minimum and not the total amount of federal  ADV-related expenditures during this period, because as discussed  earlier, federal agencies reported that they did not specifically track  whether their expenditures involved ADVs. As a result, agencies used  manual searches to identify their ADV-related response expenditures.  Table 2 summarizes our analysis of Coast Guard, EPA, USACE, and  NOAA’s reported minimum ADV-related expenditures for fiscal years  2005 through 2015. See appendix III for information showing agency- specific annual estimated ADV-related response caseload and  expenditures.
Reported individual federal agency ADV-related responses varied across  the agencies, with the majority of expenditures associated with a limited  number of costly responses. Specifically:
The Coast Guard expended at least $42.5 million from the OSLTF  and CERCLA from fiscal years 2005 through 2015 to respond to 34  ADVs posing pollution threats. Of this total, Coast Guard officials  reported expending about $900,000 to respond to 32 ADVs. We  identified two additional cases totaling about $41.6 million that were  not reported by the Coast Guard’s National Pollution Fund Center  (NPFC) as ADV-related cases, but are identified as such in other  agency documents we reviewed. For one case, in 2011, the Coast  Guard expended $21.6 million in response to the M/V Davy Crockett,  a 432-foot derelict barge on the Columbia River which runs between  Oregon and Washington states. In this case, about 1.6 million gallons  of oil contaminated water, over 400 tons of oily debris, and 2 tons of  asbestos were recovered from the Columbia River. For the second  case, in 2008, the Coast Guard expended about $20 million in its  response to the M/V Sea Witch, an abandoned 610-foot container  ship. This Coast Guard coordinated response recovered about  500,000 gallons of oil contaminated water and 161 tons of oily sludge  and debris from the Patapsco River, in Maryland.
According to our analysis of information on EPA’s Federal On-Scene  Coordinator website and correspondence with EPA’s 10 regional  offices about the data, EPA expended at least $5.2 million in OSLTF  and CERCLA funds to respond to 121 ADVs posing pollution threats  from fiscal years 2005 through 2015. According to the data, most of  these expenditures were for a $4 million project to remove 77 ADVs,  1,700 cubic yards of contaminated sediments and over 10 tons of  hazardous materials from the Oakland Estuary in California in 2013.
USACE headquarters provided data that showed the agency  expended about $4.2 million to remove an estimated 800 ADVs  posing navigation hazards from federally maintained waterways for  fiscal years 2005 through fiscal year 2015. According to USACE  officials, about $400,000 of these expenditures funded vessel removal  activities specifically related to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In  addition, USACE headquarters officials attributed over half of the  agency’s total ADV expenditures during this period to the previously  described $2.6 million federal response to remove an abandoned  barge in Florida during fiscal year 2015.
NOAA’s ADV-related expenditures were primarily for 17 NOAA  Community-based Marine Debris Removal grants totaling about $1.9  million from fiscal years 2006 through 2015. NOAA’s Marine Debris  program offers nationwide competitive funding opportunities to state,  local, and tribal governments, as well as academic, nonprofit, or  commercial institutions for marine debris projects focused on removal,  prevention through education and outreach, or research. For  example, in 2014 NOAA reported providing a grant of about $140,000  to the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium to remove ADVs and  unwanted vessel and fishing gear from the coastal waters of South  Carolina to improve the safety of navigable waterways and the health  of essential fish habitats.
FEMA headquarters officials reported that the agency records the cost  of eligible debris removal for which it provides funding by declared- major disaster or emergency, and that ADVs are a small subset of  debris removal that the agency generally does not specifically track.
Through a manual search, FEMA officials determined that the agency  expended $4.2 million in Stafford Act funds to reimburse eligible  applicants for their removal of 570 ADVs from waterways as part of  the applicant’s responses to Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm  Sandy. FEMA reported that this $4.2 million represented a small  subset of the $3.3 billion overall debris removal costs that FEMA  reimbursed eligible applicants for their responses to Hurricane Katrina  and Superstorm Sandy.
section_title: States Reported Varying Actions to Address ADVs
subsections: section_title: Many States Reported Data on ADVs Identified and Removed and Related Expenditures
paragraphs: More than half of the states responding to our survey reported data on the  number of ADVs they had identified and removed in their states in an  almost three-year period. Specifically, 18 of the 28 states that  responded to our survey reported having identified a total of 5,649 ADVs  between the start of their fiscal year 2013 and July 2016. Of the ADVs  these states identified, 4,958 (88 percent) were recreational vessels of  less than 40 feet in length.
Many states reported removing the ADVs they had identified. Specifically,  18 of 28 states reported removing a total of 3,034 of the 5,649 ADVs (54  percent) identified. Figure 3 shows the number of ADVs states reported  having identified and the share removed from fiscal year 2013 through  July 2016.
Eleven of the 28 states that responded to our survey reported expending  funds for ADV-related activities, including for prevention, response, and  removal. Reported expenditures for these ten states totaled about $15.9  million from fiscal year 2013 through April 1, 2016. Table 3 shows the  reported ADV-related expenditures for each of these states.
section_title: State Programs and Funding for ADV-efforts Vary
paragraphs: Half of the states that responded to our survey (14 of 28) reported having  state run programs that conduct ADV-related activities, including  prevention, response, and removal activities. The types of ADV–related  activities these 14 states were implementing varied and included the  following selected efforts.
Tracking ADVs: Eight of the 28 states reported tracking ADVs and  ADV-related information in an ADV-specific database or general  marine debris database that includes ADVs. For example,  Washington’s Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Derelict  Vessel Removal Program tracks ADVs using NOAA’s ERMA  geographic information system database. By using ERMA, state  officials said they can actively identify and track “vessels of concern,”  which are those vessels that are in danger of becoming derelict.  Washington DNR has a prioritizing process to evaluate these vessels  relative to their potential threats to human health and safety and the  environment, and uses the information to guide vessel removal  funding decisions.
Vessel turn-in programs: Six of the 28 states reported that their  ADV programs included a vessel turn-in program. Generally for  smaller recreational vessels, the programs allow an owner to turn over  custody of a vessel to public agencies to prevent its potential  abandonment. For example, the Oregon State Marine Board reports  that its vessel turn-in program provides an incentive for vessel owners  to avoid financial responsibility for the vessel’s removal, while  reducing the state’s potential removal costs and pollution or  navigation threats that may be posed should the vessel become an  ADV.
Figure 4 shows the Washington DNR Vessel Turn-in program brochure  and a notice that is placed on “vessels of concern” to alert owners that  their vessel is in danger of becoming a derelict vessel.
Public outreach and education: Twelve of the 28 states reported  conducting public education, training, or outreach as a way to prevent  vessels from becoming ADVs. For example, officials from Alabama  reported conducting local media outreach programming on local  television stations and through publicly distributed newsletters,  cleanup activities, and posting of “no anchor” signs to prevent vessel  owners from illegally mooring their vessels.
Coordination with federal and local agencies: Thirteen states  reported involvement with ADV-related task forces involving  participants from federal, state, and local agencies. For example,  following the breakup of the derelict 432-foot barge Davy Crockett in  2011, Washington and Oregon agencies convened task forces in  Washington and Oregon to bring stakeholders together to identify and  address imminent pollution and hazard to navigation threats posed by  derelict vessels, barges, and houseboats along the upper, middle and  lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers. The Columbia River Derelict  Vessel task force, established in 2011, developed recommendations  for state agencies, including to normalize and streamline the process  by which state agencies can seize and dispose of vessels, and  creating clear process guidance for removal and disposal of vessels.  They also recommended normalizing vessel registration requirements  between Washington and Oregon to enhance their ability to identify  responsible parties when vessels become abandoned. Similarly, since  2008, California has facilitated an informal working group with state  and federal agencies, salvage companies, and boating organizations  to increase their effectiveness in addressing ADVs.
Twenty-one of the 28 states that responded to our survey reported on  their methods for funding ADV-related efforts from fiscal year 2013  through July 2016. These states reported various funding mechanisms  including legislative-appropriated budgets, vessel registration fees, and  federal grants. For example, thirteen states reported using dedicated ADV  funding through legislatively-appropriated budgets and/or vessel  registration fees, while three states—New York, South Carolina, and  Texas—reported having relied on federal grants to fund their ADV  activities. Appendix IV shows reported funding mechanisms for ADV  activities for the 21 states during fiscal year 2013 through July 2016.
section_title: State Perspectives on Addressing ADVs
paragraphs: The 28 coastal states that responded to our survey also reported various  perspectives on factors that affect their ability to address ADVs in their  state including authority and funding issues, challenges with disposing  ADVs, and concerns with federal actions.
Eight of 28 states responding to our survey reported always or often  experiencing challenges to addressing ADVs due to state laws or policy  officials considered to be inadequate or vague. Six of these respondents  reported having a law pertaining to ADVs. The other two reported they do  not currently have any law related to ADVs. Officials reported that not  having an official definition of an abandoned or derelict vessel in state law  limits their ability to take action to remove ADVs because they do not  have full legal authority to conduct removal actions when necessary. For  example, officials from Alabama told us that without a state law pertaining  to ADVs, their agency has limited access to state resources and  authorities available to take action to address ADVs. Moreover, these  officials told us that not having a law that defines what a derelict or  abandoned vessel is prevents the state’s ADV agency, the Alabama  Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, from having the full  legal authority to conduct removal actions when necessary. Alabama  officials also reported that the public’s lack of understanding of vessel use  laws and laws related to water safety also contributes to greater numbers  of vessels abandoned in state waterways.
Many states cited insufficient funding as a challenge to addressing ADVs,  noting that ADVs were generally not high priorities because their state  needed to direct funding to other issues and faced considerable budget  limitations. Specifically, 21 of 28 states reported that they had no budget  for ADV response, and 13 of these states reported experiencing funding  challenges “always” or “often” when carrying out ADV-related activities.  For example, Louisiana officials told us that because the state did not  have a funding source to address ADVs, they lacked incentive to take any  action. Similarly, South Carolina officials reported that while past ADV  removal efforts had been successful, funding opportunities for such  initiatives are limited and unpredictable and efforts to obtain federal grant  funding are time-intensive. Alabama officials told us that the state was  facing considerable budget shortfalls and ADVs were not the highest  priority for the state relative to other needs, such as funding for prisons,  education, and Medicaid.
Seventeen of 28 states reported always or often facing challenges in  responding to, or removing, larger ADVs due to the high cost of doing so.  For example, Washington officials told us their state was well funded to  deal with small recreational vessels, but faced challenges addressing  larger vessels, particularly those 150 feet and larger. Similarly, officials  from both Maryland and Texas reported that their state agency does not  have the budget to remove and dispose of larger vessels.
Sixteen of 28 states reported experiencing challenges always or often  with ADV disposal options regardless of vessel size—and 14 states  reported always or often experiencing challenges with vessel recycling  options. For example, officials from three states reported that this was  due to the type of hull materials and the condition or location of the  vessels when they were identified for removal. Texas officials reported  that disposal is always a challenge and recycling is sometimes a  challenge when the vessel hull is made of fiberglass, a material Texas  officials said had little to no salvage value. Further, Texas officials  reported recycling of fiberglass is currently limited due to its high cost  compared to landfilling a vessel. Similarly, California officials reported  they were unaware of methods to recycle fiberglass vessels, and that not  all landfills in the state will accept vessels for disposal. However, officials  from Washington reported exploring private sector options for recycling  fiberglass-hulled ADVs.
Finally, 19 of 28 states reported always or often experiencing challenges  removing and disposing of ADVs due to unknown, unresponsive, or  difficult vessels owners. For example, Alabama officials said that they  experience challenges because of the time spent attempting to contact  unknown or unresponsive vessel owners.
Views on Federal Agency ADV-related Issues  Most of the 28 states responding to our survey reported being generally  satisfied with, or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, about their coordination  with federal agencies on ADV-related issues. However, many states  reported they had had little coordination with some federal agencies with  respect to ADVs. For example, 19 of the 28 states reported having  never or almost never coordinated with the EPA or FEMA and 12 states  reported having never or almost never coordinated with NOAA on ADV  efforts. Figure 5 shows our analysis of the 28 responding states’ reported  satisfaction with their coordination with federal agencies on ADV-related  issues from fiscal year 2013 through July 2016.
Some states reported concerns about federal actions taken to address  ADVs. For example, three states reported frustration about the Coast  Guard’s practice of removing the pollution threat from ADVs, while leaving  the ADVs in waterways.  Moreover, Louisiana officials reported that  even if the Coast Guard left the vessel in the water, they would like to be  kept better informed by the Coast Guard regarding its planned action on  an ADV. Other concerns raised by states included their lack of formal  agreements such as memoranda of understanding or interagency  agreements with federal agencies, tribal, other state, or local agencies  (10 states); challenges in determining the jurisdiction over an ADV— whether federal or state (8 states); and the federal permit processes  being lengthy (1 state).
Florida officials expressed a specific concern about the Coast Guard’s  handling of the disposal of interdicted migrant vessels, as they reported a  growing number of abandoned migrant vessels littering their coastline.  Specifically, the Coast Guard often allows interdicted migrant vessels to  go adrift after removing the migrants and marking the vessels, rather than  removing the vessels from the sea. For example, since fiscal year 2014,  the Coast Guard reported interdicting an estimated 700 migrant vessels in  its 7th District and setting an estimated 500 of them adrift after marking  them. Of those, the Coast Guard reported that 17 vessels have been  called in as pollution threats by the public since fiscal year 2015. Coast  Guard officials reported the agency often sets these vessels adrift  because it lacks the resources needed to remove them from waterways,  particularly since many vessels are interdicted on the high seas. In  recent years, the Coast Guard has acknowledged this issue and  examined options to address it.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and the EPA.  We received technical comments that we have incorporated, as  appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the above  Departments, EPA, and appropriate congressional committees. In  addition, this report is available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Staff acknowledgments are provided in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Selected Abandoned and Derelict Vessel-related Laws of the 30 Coastal States
paragraphs: Table 4 highlights selected state laws in place in the 30 coastal states  related to abandoned and derelict vessels (ADV). The table includes laws  that specifically prohibit abandonment of a vessel on public or private  waterways or require that the owner remove an abandoned or derelict  vessel under certain circumstances after notice from the state. This table  also includes state laws that define “abandoned” or “derelict” vessel or a  formal process for designating a vessel as abandoned, as well as state  laws related to abandoned property or littering that specifically address  ADVs or that were identified to us by a state official. This table, however,  does not include state laws that more generally address abandoned  property, illegal dumping, littering or similar laws that a state may use to  respond to or remove ADVs.
section_title: Appendix II: Coast Guard Sector Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Tracking
paragraphs: Table 5 shows Coast Guard Sectors with jurisdiction for coastal states  that Coast Guard headquarters and field personnel reported track and do  not track abandoned and derelict vessels (ADV). According to our  analysis, 18 sectors track ADVs, including 13 reported by Coast Guard  headquarters and 5 others identified from field personnel. Twelve sectors  reported they were not tracking ADVs. Of the 12 sectors, according to  headquarters-provided information, most reported not tracking because  they lacked the resources to do so. Three sectors reported having no  need to track ADVs. For example, Sector Detroit officials reported they  didn’t track ADVs because doing so was not required. Sector Puget  Sound officials reported that while they did not actively track ADVs  themselves, they utilized information maintained by Washington and  Oregon as needed, rather than tracking similar information themselves.
section_title: Appendix III: Estimated Federal Abandoned and Derelict Vessel (ADV) Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2015
paragraphs: According to our analysis of Coast Guard, Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Federal Emergency  Management Agency (FEMA) data and case documentation, federal  agencies expended at least $58 million from fiscal years 2005 through  2015 to respond to about 2,000 incidents in which ADVs posed navigation  or pollution threats. Reported individual federal agency expenditures  varied across the agencies, and agencies generally reported the data  were minimum estimates of their ADV expenditures.
Table 6 shows the Coast Guard expended at least $42.5 million from the  Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) and Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) from fiscal years  2005 through 2015 to respond to 34 ADVs posing pollution threats. Of  this total, Coast Guard officials reported expending about $900,000 to  respond to 32 ADVs. We identified two additional cases (from 2008 and  2011) totaling about $42 million that were not reported by the Coast  Guard’s National Pollution Fund Center (NPFC) as ADV-related cases,  but are characterized as such in other agency documents we reviewed.
Table 7 shows EPA reported expenditures for the 5 regions that reported  responses to ADV cases during fiscal years 2005 through 2015.  According to our analysis of information on EPA’s Federal On-Scene  Coordinator website and discussions with EPA’s 10 regional offices about  the data, EPA expended at least $5.2 million in OSLTF and CERCLA  funds to respond to 121 ADVs posing pollution threats from fiscal years  2005 through 2015. According to the data, most of these expenditures  were for a single, $4 million response in 2013 to remove 77 ADVs and  other material from Oakland, Estuary in California.
Table 8 shows USACE reported expending about $4.2 million to remove  about 800 ADVs posing navigation hazards from federally maintained  waterways for fiscal years 2005 through 2015. USACE headquarters  officials attributed over half of the agency’s total ADV expenditures during  this period to its removal of an abandoned barge in Florida in fiscal year  2015.
Table 9 shows NOAA awarded about $1.9 million for 17 Community  Based Marine Debris Program for ADV removal, from fiscal years 2006  through 2015.
FEMA headquarters officials reported the agency expended $4.2 million  in Stafford Act funds to reimburse eligible applicants for their removal of  570 ADVs from waterways as part of responses to Hurricane Katrina in  2005 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Table 10 shows FEMA reported  expending about $1.8 million dollars for applicants to remove 242 ADVs  across four states as part of the response to Hurricane Katrina, and about  $2.5 million for applicants to remove 328 ADVs across two states as part  of the response to Superstorm Sandy in 2012.
section_title: Appendix IV: Coastal State-Reported Funding Source for Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Activities since Fiscal Year 2013
paragraphs: Twenty-one of the 28 coastal states that responded to our survey  reported using various methods to fund their abandoned and derelict  (ADV)-related activities since fiscal year 2013. Table 11 shows the  funding sources that each of the 21 states reported using to fund their  ADV-related activities.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Hoff (Assistant Director),  Jason Berman (Analyst-in-Charge), Chuck Bausell, Alyssia Borsella,  Dominick Dale, Imoni Hampton, Eric Hauswirth, Marcus Lee, Heidi  Nielson, Steven Putansu, and Britney Tsao made key contributions to this  report.