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

Letter

Background

Causes of Vessel Abandonment and Dereliction

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.

Federal ADV-related Laws and Statutes

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.

State ADV-related Laws

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.

Federal ADV Response Guided by Authority, Interagency Agreements and Funding

Federal Response Authorities Outlined in Federal Laws and Regulations, the National Contingency Plan, and Interagency Agreements

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.

Federal Agencies Reported Exercising Authorities within Funding Constraints

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.

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

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.

Federal Agencies Have Expended Funds for About 2,000 ADV-related Responses since 2005

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.

States Reported Varying Actions to Address ADVs

Many States Reported Data on ADVs Identified and Removed and Related Expenditures

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.

State Programs and Funding for ADV-efforts Vary

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.

State Perspectives on Addressing ADVs

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.

Agency Comments

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.

Appendix I: Selected Abandoned and Derelict Vessel-related Laws of the 30 Coastal States

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.

Appendix II: Coast Guard Sector Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Tracking

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.

Appendix III: Estimated Federal Abandoned and Derelict Vessel (ADV) Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2015

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.

Appendix IV: Coastal State-Reported Funding Source for Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Activities since Fiscal Year 2013

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.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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.