Detailed Information on the
Coast Guard Marine Environmental Protection Assessment

Coast Guard will continue its work with the Center for Naval Analyses to complete performance evaluations for all its programs.

Expand MEP measures.

Ensure MISLE MEP data are credible and reliable.

Measure: 5-yr average number of oil spills >100 gallons per 100 million short tons shipped

Explanation:This measure is a lagging indicator of Coast Guard Marine Environmental Protection Program impact on the long-term trend of significant oil spills. It is a simple moving average of Coast Guard investigated oil spills greater than 100 gallons discharged into navigable waters of the United States for the current and four previous fiscal years, divided by the 5-year average annual foreign and domestic short tons (100 million) of Oil & Oil Products shipped in U.S. waters.

Measure: 5-yr average number of chemical discharge incidents per 100 million short tons shipped

Explanation:This measure is a lagging indicator of Coast Guard Marine Environmental Protection Program impact on the long-term trend of chemical discharge incidents. It is a simple moving average of Coast Guard investigated chemical discharge incidents into navigable waters of the United States for the current and four previous fiscal years , divided by the 5-year average annual foreign and domestic short tons (100 million) of Chemical & Chemical Products shipped in U.S. waters.

Measure: Oil spills greater than 100 gallons

Explanation:This measure is an indicator of U.S. Coast Guard Marine Environmental Protection Program impact on the annual number of significant oil spills. It is a simple total of U.S. Coast Guard investigated oil spills greater than 100 gallons discharged into navigable waters of the United States for the current year.

Measure: Chemical discharge incidents

Explanation:This measure is an indicator of U.S. Coast Guard Marine Environmental Protection Program impact on the annual number of chemical discharge incidents. It is a simple total of U.S. Coast Guard investigated chemicals discharge incidents exceeding reportable quantities into navigable waters of the United States for the current year.

Measure: Marine environmental protection efficiency ratio

Explanation:This measure is the ratio of performance changes to cost changes. A value greater than 1.000 indicates performance efficiency, that is, performance gains greater than cost changes. For example, a value of 1.050 represents a 5% improvement in efficiency.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The MEP Program prevents oil and hazardous materials from entering navigable waters. If the oil or hazardous materials do enter the water, the MEP Program seeks to remove them.

Evidence: * Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 USC 1321) as amended by Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) * Port & Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (33 USC 1223-1232) * Coast Guard Publication 1 * United States Coast Guard Strategic Plan * Roles & Missions Study - 1999

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The MEP program began as a result of numerous environmental disasters of the 1960's, including the massive oil spill from the Torrey Canyon in 1968 and the Cuyahoga River Fire in 1969. Pollution from oil and hazardous substances, however, continued to be a problem and compelled Congress to pass several pieces of legislation to strengthen environmental protection. While the overall trend in spills has decreased as a result of the MEP program, recent spills like the T/V Prestige off the coast of Spain and the Tank barge 120 spill in Buzzards Bay highlight the risks and argue the continuing need for a vigilant marine environmental protection program. More recently, aquatic nuisance species such as the zebra mollusk have been recognized as a threat to US waters.

Evidence: * National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) * Clean Water Act of 1972 * Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 * Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 * Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 * National Invasive Species Act of 1996

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Coast Guard and EPA share responsibility for responding to oil and hazmat spills, but have divided jurisdictions into an Inland Zone (EPA) and Coastal Zone (US Coast Guard) to avoid duplicative efforts. To clearly define each jurisdiction, the Coast Guard and EPA mutually agreed on the boundary between coastal and inland areas. These boundary agreements are contained in the Regional Contingency Plans. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan also establishes the National Response System to coordinate federal, state and local preparedness and response efforts to oil and hazmat spills. As a result, all key agencies and organizations are involved in resolving key issues (such as setting protection priorities for environmentally sensitive areas). This system also aids in preventing redundant or duplicative efforts as the system enables agencies to work together to delineate responsibilities.

Evidence: * National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300) * Regional Contingency Plans, Area Contingency Plans, Facility Response Plans, Vessel Response Plans, State/Local Plans, and Federal Agency Internal Plans

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the statue underlying MEP regulations, is not designed to maximize net benefits. In several cases, the law requires regulations when the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. Coast Guard has used the flexibility in the law to maximize benefits where possible, and has sometimes used its cost-benefit analyses to try to convince Congress to change the law to improve efficiency.

Evidence: * Oil Pollution Act of 1990 * Tank Level Pressure Monitoring regulation

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Coast Guard uses a risk assessment matrix to ensure that the program focuses inspections on major contributors to pollution risk. The Port State Control Program tracks deficiencies by ship type, history, class, flag, and owner, and uses the data to set boarding priorities.

Evidence: * Risk assessment matrix * Port State Control program and Annual Report * Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has long reported two performance measures: oil spilled per million gallons shipped, and marine debris per mile of shoreline surveyed. The long-term goals are a 20% reduction in each over five years. For internal agency reporting, Coast Guard also tracks the total number of oil and chemical spills, while the Port State Control program reports the number of foreign-vessel pollution ticket cases.

Evidence: * USCG FY 2003 Report; FY 2002 Performance Report * Port State Control program and Annual Report

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program's long-term goals of a 20% reduction on each measure over five years are broken down into ambitious annual goals.

Evidence: * USCG FY 2003 Report; FY 2002 Performance Report

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has annual goals for its two performance measures that demonstrate progress toward the long-term goals. It is also working on new measures for ballast water management.

Evidence: * USCG FY 2003 Report; FY 2002 Performance Report

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: MEP targets are based upon achieving a 20% reduction in the current baseline over 5-years.

Evidence:

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The USCG works formally with partners such as American Waterways Operators (AWO), Passenger Vessel Association (PVA), and International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL); and also with organizations such as: Baltic & International Maritime Council (BIMCO) and The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners Association (INTERTANKO).

Evidence: * MOUs AWO: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/awo.pdf ICCL: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/iccl.pdf BIMCO: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/bimco.pdf INTERTANKO: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/intertnk.pdf

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: While numerous studies have considered aspects of the MEP program, there have been no comprehensive, independent analyses of its effectiveness. Coast Guard is in the early stages of initiating a study with the Center for Naval Analyses that they hope will provide for a plan of regular evaluations.

Evidence:

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Coast Guard uses a performance-based budgeting system. This methodology ties funding levels directly to performance goals and targets. Additionally, the Coast Guard's Mission Cost Program model provides comprehensive cost information for individual programs, including overhead and other indirect costs, as well as direct costs. Budget requests are explicitly tied to strategies adopted because they link to the accomplishment of long-term performance goals.

Evidence: * Regional Strategic Assessment Process * Marine Safety, Security & Envirnomental Protection Areas of Emphasis * Leadership Council Management Agenda * Action-Resource Process * Quality Management Board

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: To correct Coast Guard-wide deficiencies identified in earlier PARTs, Coast Guard has initiatied a study with the Center for Naval Analyses that they hope will provide for a plan of regular evaluations.

Evidence:

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: Coast Guard regulation development follows a program that requires a review of regulation projects for alignment with program goals. The instrument used to ensure this alignment is the work plan. Initiating a regulatory project requires that it meet the goals of the program and that relevant statutory requirements be vetted through the work plan review and approval process. The CG's Marine Safety Council provides oversight by the most senior leadership in the Coast Guard and ensures agreement with stated program goals.

Evidence: * Oil Pollution Act of 1990; proposed rules for salvage and fire fighting and dispersants for oil spills http://dms.dot.gov, docket # 3417 * Maritime Transportation Security Act; pending interim rules * National Invasive Species Act of 1996; proposed rules on penalties for non-reporting and mandatory ballast water management http://dms.dot.gov, docket # 13147

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The National Response Center and MISLE record data for all reported oil and hazardous substance discharges. This data is used to develop annual and semi-annual performance metrics and used by programs to determine needs for new initiatives. Through its National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (physically located at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center) the Coast Guard receives and analyzes information and data regarding nationwide compliance with ballast water reporting requirements and ballast water management practices. The results of these analyses have led to refinements of field operations, expanded education and outreach efforts, as well regulatory initiatives aimed at meeting the intent of the federal aquatic invasive species laws. Annual Port State Control evaluations provide timely and credible performance information.

Evidence: Information collected by the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse demonstrated that the voluntary ballast water management program was not effective, leading Coast Guard to develop regulations that would make the program mandatory.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Coast Guard has launched a Leadership Council Management Agenda (LCMA) to keep senior officials focused on key projects. For each program, the LCMA identifies the lead officials, the desired end-stage, and executable segments of the project, including timetables and resources. The leads report to the Commandant at Leadership Council meetings, while the Chief of Staff tracks their progress between meetings.

Evidence: * LCMA Update

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The Coast Guard obligates substantially all (over 99%) operating funds each year. Virtually all capital acquisition funds are obligated prior to expiring. Funds are obligated in a timely manner in accordance with the resource proposals process and monies disbursed for the intended purpose. Dedicated budget officers perform periodic reviews to ensure that all funds are obligated and spend down rates are properly executed. In the obligation of dedicated funding sources, such as those received by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, tight controls and reviews are in place to ensure that these funds are obligated for the intended purpose within the timeframes allowed.

Evidence: * Resource proposal process * Spend plans

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Coast Guard is continuously developing procedures and technologies to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness such as: utilization of Personal Data Assistants to input inspection comments and to obtain real-time access to voluminous laws, regulations, and policies; prototyped implementation of Activities Based Cost Management; implementation of a comprehensive suite of risk assessment and management tools; and the successful streamlining of the administratively intense legal prosecution of pollution violations in the form of an on-the-spot ticketing program.

Evidence: Two examples: PDAs. The use of electronic Personal Data Assistants is being prototyped at several Coast Guard commands to improve efficiency with documentation of mission performance and entry of information into the Marine Information System for Law Enforcement (MISLE). This evaluation of technology to improve efficiency stemmed from the results of an Activity Based Costing study regarding the large amount of time being spent on documentation. Concurrently, the Coast Guard is developing a master activity list and integrating Activity Based Costing with risk-based decision making to ultimately link resource allocation, operational activities, and impact (cause/effect) to assess the value or utility our actions have in relation to mission performance. TICKET PROGRAM. The Civil Penalty Process used for oil spills includes a multi-layered review process. The Marine Pollution Notification of Violation, "Ticket", program streamlines the process for the many smaller oil spills. The program uses a Notice of Violation/Settlement Offer at the scene of the oil spill to immediately notify the alleged violator of the proposed penalty. The program reduces Coast Guard time spent processing the violation. The program allows direct payment to the Treasury without any involvement by the Coast Guard or the hearing officer.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Coast Guard coordinates preparedness and response efforts under the National Response System. The MEP program also coordinates with other agencies and organizations through MOUs. At the national level, under the National Response System, the Coast Guard coordinates with EPA and other federal, state, local and industry stakeholders through the National Response Team (a 16 member agency committee chaired by EPA and vice-chaired by the Coast Guard) to develop national response policy. At the regional level, the Coast coordinates its activities through the Regional Response Team. At the local level, the Coast Guard coordinates its activities through local Area Committees.

Evidence: * National Response Plan * MOUs: AWO: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/awo.pdf ICCL: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/iccl.pdf BIMCO: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/bimco.pdf INTERTANKO: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ptp/pdf/intertnk.pdf

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Coast Guard is a leader in both financial and managerial accounting among large, multi-mission agencies within the government, employing systems and techniques that meet or exceed the requirements of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. This is evidenced by four consecutive clean audits under the Chief Financial Officers Act and cost accounting techniques for management reporting on asset, mission and performance goal costs that substantially exceed the requirement of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard number 4.

Evidence: * Audits, 1999-2002

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The MEP office has established two levels of management boards to address organizational change management and direction. It also has undertaken a major project (Project Benkert) to review the management and performance of the marine safety, security, and environmental protection programs.

Evidence: * Directorate Executive Steering Committee * Quality Management Board * Project Benkert

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: In promulgating rules, Coast Guard often goes beyond statutory requirements to seek public comment. In many cases, the rules are substantially changed based on views expressed by the regulated community. For example, Coast Guard dramatically cut the scope of the the "Fire-Suppression Systems and Voyage Planning for Towing Vessels" due to industry comment: the cost of the rule dropped from $116 million to $19 million over the period of analysis (2003-2015). Also, although the Maritime Transportation Security Act specifically exempted Coast Guard from the statutory requirement to seek comments, they held seven public meetings around the country anyway to gather information for the interim rules.

Evidence: * NPRM for Salvage and Fire Fighting: Comment period May 10-Oct 18, 2002; 4 public meetings http://dms.dot.gov, docket # 3417 * Maritime Transportation Security Act

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: Coast Guard's regulatory analyses are considered by OMB to be among the best in government.

Evidence: * 2 OPA 90 related NPRMs: Rule for Salvage and Fire Fighting - Reg Assessment and Dispersants Rule - regulatory assessment http://dms.dot.gov, docket # 3417 * Penalties for Non-submission of Ballast Water Reporting Forms - regulatory evaluation http://dms.dot.gov, docket # 13147 * Maritime Transportation Security Act interim rule cost/benefit analysis

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: Systematic regulatory reviews are conducted every 5 years. Where legislation such as OPA 90 and NISA 96 require performance reviews, they are conducted and regulations promulgated according to statutory requirements.

Evidence: * 1995 Regulatory Reform project, Streamlining initiative and institution of the Alternate Compliance Program. * 2001 programmatic regulatory assessment of OPA 90 regulation suite.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: Regulations are prevention-focused with enforcement provisions designed to reduce the need for response. Coast Guard looks carefully at each component of a draft regulation, using incremental analysis to maximize benefits across the entire rule. Only where specific solutions are dictated by statute are benefits not maximized.

Evidence: * The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 regulation suite includes construction and equipment provisions paired with vessel and facility response planning. Compliance expenditures are highest for parties analyzed to have the greatest risk of spilling oil. * National Invasive Species Act rules require the highest cost and highest level of compliance in the Hudson River and Great Lakes, where the economic impacts of ballast water-introduced invasive species are most severe. Lower cost compliance options will be available when the mandatory program is implemented nationwide. http://dms.dot.gov, dockets # 13147 and #3423

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: The Coast Guard's MEP program has contributed to a steady decline in the combined total of all chemical and oil spills, and resulting volume of marine pollution. The programs' long-term targets to reduce oil spills and debris were first set in 1996, and were based on a five-year average. The targets were periodically reevaluated and lowered as the programs showed increased effectiveness. Coast Guard met its long-term goal in 2001 and is on track to reach its 2009 goal.

Evidence: * Annual Performance Reports * Compendium of Oil Spills * Ocean Conservancy report of Marine Debris

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has shown consistent year-to-year improvement in the five-year average of spills and oil spill volume. Marine debris has also shown improvement over the past several years. All measures have indicated performance better than target.

Evidence: * Annual Performance Reports * Compendium of Oil Spills * Ocean Conservancy report of Marine Debris

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: Over the past five years the MEP program has exhibited a steady decline in oil spills and chemical discharge incidents with little additional program growth.

Evidence: * Annual Performance Reports * Compendium of Oil Spills * Ocean Conservancy report of Marine Debris

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No other similar programs exist.

Evidence:

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: This program has not had comprehensive, independent evaluations of its performance.

Evidence:

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: A 2001 Programmatic Regulatory Analysis of the major rules promulgated to implement OPA 90 estimated that they would result in a 67% reduction in total oil spilled between 1996 and 2025. Subsequent data has suggested the 67% estimate to be reasonably accurate so far. The analysis also showed that the rules cost $8,657 per barrel of oil not spilled. As a rule of thumb, $10,000 or less per barrel of oil not spilled is considered cost-effective. The answer is not "Yes" because the statute required Coast Guard to regulate in several areas that are not cost-effective. For example, the double-hull regulation has an estimated marginal cost of $68,079 per barrel of oil not spilled.

Evidence: * Regulatory analysis of May 2001 www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/regs/pra/ * Oil Pollution Act of 1990