Detailed Information on the
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary Protection Assessment

Develop an additional performance measure for non-estuary program activities.

Developing more ambitious targets for the National Estuary Program's annual and long term measures on habitat acres protected and restored.

Develop treatment and management options for improving environmental management of cruise ship waste streams.

Develop an annual performance measure for the Ocean Dumping Program.

Measure: Acres protected or restored in NEP study areas

Explanation:Established in 1987 under the Clean Water Act Amendments, the National Estuary Program (NEP) is a successful, community-based program designed to restore and maintain the water quality and ecological integrity of estuaries of national significance. For the past 20 years, the NEP program has effectively used a watershed-based planning approach to connect upstream water pollution with downstream impacts on aquatic ecosystem health. A unique voluntary program, it operates through broad-based partnerships and consensus building to achieve environmental results including, but not limited to, habitat protection and restoration as one tool for protecting and restoring estuarine water quality. The NEP "study area" is the estuary plus associated aquatic ecosystems and the land and tributaries of surrounding watersheds up to the historic range of anadromous fish or head of tide. As a result, the study areas of most NEPs can include areas some distance inland from the estuary. Study areas for the 28 NEPs comprise approximately 77 million acres.

Measure: National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale)

Explanation:The National Coastal Condition Report, which reports regularly on the environmental condition of the coasts, is the program's peer-reviewed and probabilistically-based monitoring design that provides condition assessment and can be used in management decisions. This measure reports on overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally and is based on five key indicators of ecological health: water quality; coastal habitat loss; sediment quality; benthic community structure; and fish tissue contaminants. Each coastal region of the United States is assigned a score, on a scale of 1-5, for each indicator based on environmental data collected in a statistically-designed survey. These scores are then averaged to create overall regional and national scores.

Measure: Acres protected or restored in NEP Study Areas

Explanation:This measure is based on data collected by national Estuary Programs that detail ongoing coastal habitat activities that either protect or restore coastal habitat within the NEP study area. Protected habitat includes mechanisms such as land acquisition, conservation easements, deed restrictions, or other designations to prevent alteration of habitat. Restored habitat includes activities that enhance, establish, or rehabilitate ecosystem functions to habitat. Protection and restoration of coastal habitat contributes to improving water quality and overall ecosystem health of coastal waters, a key goal of the NEP program. Coastal wetlands and estuarine habitats are the vegetated interface between aquatic and terrestrial components of estuarine ecosystems. Wetland habitats filter and process residential, agricultural, and industrial wastes, thereby improving water quality; they also buffer coastal areas against storm and wave damage. An estimated 95 percent of commercial fish and 85 percent of sport fish Acres protected or restored in NEP Study Areas Year Target Actual 2004 25,000 Acres 107,000 Acres 2005 25,000 Acres 103,959 Acres 2006 25,000 Acres 140,033 Acres 2007 50,000 Acres 102,463 Acres 2008 50,000 Acres 2009 100,000 Acres 2010 100,000 Explanation: This measure is based on data collected by national Estuary Programs that detail ongoing coastal habitat activities that either protect or restore coastal habitat within the NEP study area. Protected habitat includes mechanisms such as land acquisition, conservation easements, deed restrictions, or other designations to prevent alteration of habitat. Restored habitat includes activities that enhance, establish, or rehabilitate ecosystem functions to habitat. Protection and restoration of coastal habitat contributes to improving water quality and overall ecosystem health of coastal waters, a key goal of the NEP program. Coastal wetlands and estuarine habitats are the vegetated interface between aquatic and terrestrial components of estuarine ecosystems. Wetland habitats filter and process residential, agricultural, and industrial wastes, thereby improving water quality; they also buffer coastal areas against storm and wave damage. An estimated 95 percent of commercial fish and 85 percent of sport fish spend a portion of their life cycles in coastal wetland and estuarine habitats.

Measure: Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored

Explanation:The efficiency measure results fluctuate year to year based on the funding appropriated and the actual NEP habitat acres that are restored or protected. In addition, there is variability from year to year in the number of acres that can be targeted because of the entities involved (e.g., federal, state, local municipalities.)

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Oceans and Coastal Program is to integrate the control of water pollution from land-base sources and vessels to improve the overall health of ocean and coastal ecosystems. The Program purpose is a direct response to the serious threats to U.S. ocean and coastal ecosystem health, and clearly addresses the need to protect those ecosystems from further degradation and additional threats. In order to achieve this goal, the Program must effectively coordinate regulatory and non-regulatory programs across EPA and with other Federal and non-Federal partners.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Goals 2 and 4; Clean Water Act (CWA): 301(h), 312, 320; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA or Ocean Dumping Act); An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Report of U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; U.S. Ocean Action Plan.

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

Explanation: The Program targets degradation of U.S. ocean and coastal waters, which compromises human health, threatens national and regional economies, and harms marine life. Nearly 80 percent of assessed ocean and coastal resources are impaired or threatened for human or aquatic life use, compromising public health of both coastal and non-coastal residents, natural ecosystems, and national and regional economies dependent on the health of those resources. An increase in human activities in coastal areas has resulted in major point and non-point source pollution to ocean and coastal waters, habitat loss from increased land development and degraded ecosystems, pollution from vessels, aquatic invasive species, and marine debris. The Program uses multiple tools to address these multiple problems.

Evidence: National Coastal Condition Report I (2001); National Coastal Condition Report II (2005); An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Report of U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980-2008, September 2004; Community-Based Watershed Management, Lessons from the National Estuary Program; U.S. Ocean Action Plan.

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

Explanation: No other entity or program is designed to improve ocean and coastal waters by bringing together diverse partners to apply their breadth of expertise in applied estuarine science, State/local environmental policy management, public involvement, education and outreach, and sustainable funding. Nor does any other program promote technical transfer of information, expertise, and best management practices from these designated watersheds to other coastal watersheds facing similar water pollution and water quality impairments. In addition, EPA's unique capacity as a regulatory agency with the authority to permit both land-based sources and vessels allows this program to utilize the analytic and enforcement capacity of the broader agency to develop innovative and effective programs to reduce pollution to ocean and coastal waters. NOAA programs are largely scientific research efforts and grants supporting State coastal management programs; NOAA has little involvement in implementation of those State programs. Nor does NOAA target the broad array of sources affecting coastal waters targeted by this Program. Finally, while other agencies, particularly DoD and USCG, control pollution from vessels, the Program has unique authority to regulate Armed Forces vessel discharges, regulated cruise ship discharges in Alaska, designate ocean dumping sites, and work with States to establish No-Discharge Zones. The EPA Ocean Survey Vessel is the only one that regularly monitors ocean dumping sites.

Evidence: CWA Act Section 320 and 312(n); Ocean Dumping Act; IAG between Department of Navy and USEPA: November 2004; President's Executive Order 13366 creating Committee on Ocean Policy; OSV Anderson - Celebrating 30 Years of Service (Fact Sheet, 1996); The O.S.V. ANDERSON: Working to Protect Our Oceans and Coasts (1992).

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

Explanation: As currently designed, the Program is addressing the major sources of pollution using an appropriate mix of voluntary, regulatory, and technology transfer approaches. The Program also relies on adaptive management practices to keep the program free of major design flaws and deficiencies. The recent Ocean Commission Report and subsequent U.S. Ocean Action Plan support the approach utilized in this Program. The key components of the recommendations cover the major elements of this Program, adopting a regional approach through watershed management, coordination among local, federal and international agencies, education of citizens, supporting marine commerce and transportation, addressing invasive species and maintaining a national system of monitoring.

Evidence: An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Report of U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; President's Executive Order 13366 creating Committee on Ocean Policy; U.S. Ocean Action Plan.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Oceans and Coastal Program selected 28 out of 100 estuaries nationwide to be part of the NEP based on the importance of their natural resources to the economy and ecosystem health. The selection was used to identify those estuaries that are most significant and most in need of the funding and technical assistance. Grants are provided to each of the 28 programs in the NEP to directly implement activities under their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP). The cost-sharing provisions of the grants, which require a one to one match, and a flexible community-based design approach encourage accountability and performance in each program's operations. Triennial reviews, technology transfer among the programs, and other sharing of information have caused the programs to adapt their management to improve performance. This approach has proven to be a success over the past 15 years and the NEP is seen as a model for other comprehensive watershed and community-based programs. Similarly, the Program targets ocean and coastal pollution from vessels rather than all sources. The cruise ship discharges in Alaska led to a national program targeting Alaskan waters and the UNDS program targets just Armed Forces vessels. In addition, the Program works with regional offices to monitor and assess the most important ocean dumping sites, and other ocean areas of concern, using the EPA Ocean Survey Vessel.

Evidence: NEP 2004-2006 Funding Guidance; NEP Annual Work Plans (e.g., Peconic, Galveston, and LIS); NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (e.g., Tillamook); CWA Section 320 and 312(n); Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations (33 USC 1901 Note); U.S. Ocean Action Plan; OSV Anderson - Celebrating 30 Years of Service (Fact Sheet, 1996); The O.S.V. ANDERSON: Working to Protect Our Oceans and Coasts (1992).

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: Yes. The Oceans and Coastal Program has identified two long-term performance measures that will track progress towards the protection and improvement of coastal and ocean waters. One uses an environmental index that rates overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally and the other tracks the numbers of acres protected or restored by the NEP. The program is also developing a long-term measure to track invasive species.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Goals 2 and 4; National Coastal Condition Report I (2001), National Coastal Condition Report II (2005); EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan Sub-Objective 2.2.2 Implementation Plan (SIP); Draft National Water Program Guidance: FY2006.

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

Explanation: No. Maintaining and improving the environmental index by 2008 is ambitious in light of the increasing pressures on our ocean and coastal resources. The use of and pressure on those resources has increased dramatically in recent decades due to population growth and development in coastal areas, increased marine commerce, and tourism. However, the long-term measure tracking acres protected or restored by the NEP is not ambitious.

Evidence: National Coastal Condition Report I (2001), National Coastal Condition Report II (2005).

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

Explanation: Yes. The program tracks the number of acres restored or protected by the NEP, and compliance rates of monitored ocean dumpsites and ocean outfall sites. The program is working to develop a measure tracking amounts of marine debris.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Goals 2 and 4; EPA FY2005 Annual Plan; EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan Sub-Objective 2.2.2 Implementation Plan (SIP).

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

Explanation: No. The NEP target for acres restored or protected is not ambitious. For the compliance goal, the baseline and targets are acceptable.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Goals 2 and 4; EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan Sub-Objective 2.2.2 Implementation Plan (SIP).

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

Explanation: No. NEP workplans do not commit grantees to EPA annual and long-term goals. EPA also does not commit contractors to the program's goals.

Evidence:  

Are independent 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: No. Independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality have not been conducted.

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: No. The program's budget request does not make clear the impact of funding, policy, or legislative decisions on expected performance, nor does it explain why the requested performance/resource mix is appropriate.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Yes. The Oceans and Coastal Program continues to work to improve its ability to demonstrate progress toward achieving its long-term goals, and to develop additional appropriate long term goals, as needed. EPA has created "Subobjective Implementation Plans" (SIPs) for each of the subobjectives related to water in the EPA Strategic Plan. The SIP for improving Coastal and Ocean Waters generally discusses how to meet our goals, and specifically identifies relevant Strategic Targets and Program Activity Measures, commitments to meet those targets, and issues regarding our ability to achieve our goals. The Oceans and Coastal Program SIP is updated annually, working with other relevant EPA offices (e.g., the Regions) and other partners (e.g., the National Estuary Programs) to ensure that adjustments are made as needed to continue on track to meet our goals and targets.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan Sub-Objective 2.2.2 Implementation Plan (SIP).

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: The Program is developing regulations for sewage and graywater discharges from cruise ship vessels operating in Alaska and for incidental discharges from Armed Forces vessels. The two regulations being developed support the Program goal of controlling ocean and coastal pollution and protecting ocean and coastal ecosystems. All regulations are subjected not only to EPA's "Action Development Process" (ADP), but often to OMB review and to external reviews. The Program is also developing an economic analysis and an environmental effects and benefits analysis for the cruise ship regulations to ensure that any proposed regulations meet program goals in the most efficient and effective way. The Program also manages regulatory programs for ocean dumping, waivers from secondary treatment for publicly owned treatment works, and sewage from vessels. Regulations for these programs were established primarily in the 1970s and our current activities involve program implementation and development of policies and guidance. Therefore, these programs will be discussed under the questions on regulatory implementation (3.RG3 and 4.RG1).

Evidence: Clean Water Act Section 312, Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations (33 USC 1901 Note).

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: No. EPA uses performance information from its primary partners, the NEP grantees, to manage the program and improve performance. However, because NEP workplans generally do not directly link to EPA's Strategic Plan or annual performance measures, the connection between reported data and management actions is not transparent. It is also unclear how regularly EPA collects performance information and uses it to manage smaller programs, such as dredged material disposal sites, no-discharge zones, and debris monitoring.

Evidence:  

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Oceans and Coastal Program managers and partners are accountable for grant/contract timeliness of deliverables, cost schedules, and demonstrated results. Federal grant project officers are held accountable for ensuring that all policies and procedures of the EPA Grants Administration Division are followed. Managers and staff structure, organize, and prioritize work to accomplish the objectives set forth in their annual performance plans and their project work plans. In addition, the performance standards for the Office Director and other managers include grants and contract management elements. The Program requires NEPs to submit detailed annual work plans documenting anticipated project/activity costs, schedules, deliverables, and performance results. Funds are not allocated to each NEP until the Program determines that the workplan meets all those requirements. Specific activities that target management plan implementation are laid out in each NEP annual workplan. NEPs receiving a "Pass-Conditional" rating must take corrective action to qualify for continued funding. NEPs that do not receive a "Pass" rating are ineligible for funding in the following fiscal year, and must demonstrate improvement in management plan implementation before becoming eligible again for funding.

Evidence: Contract Documents (e.g., Battelle); NEP 2003 Implementation Review Guidance; NEP 2004 Implementation Review Letters; NEP 2004-2006 Funding Guidance; NEP Annual Work Plans (e.g., Peconic, Galveston, and LIS); EPA Order on Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements (Jan 2005); EPA Grants Competition Policy; EPA-Coast Guard 2003 MOU Ballast Water Discharge Standard Rulemaking; IAG between Department of Navy and USEPA: November 2004.

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

Explanation: Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Oceans and Coastal Program develops an operating plan, which reflects how it plans on spending its budget (as requested in the President's Budget). Resources are allocated by goal, objective, subobjective, program and object class. Programs then adjust the operating plan to reflect appropriated levels. EPA's budget and annual Operating Plan are aligned with the Agency's Strategic Plan and approved by OMB and Congressional Appropriations Committees. Obligations and expenditures are tracked in the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) against the Operating Plan. On a bi-weekly basis, the Program managers are notified by the OWOW Director and senior finance manager of the Program's current amount and rate of expenditures and obligations. By the end of FY04, the Program had obligated 100% of its funds. Halfway through FY 2005, the Program had obligated 53% of its FY05 funds. EPA works with grantees to ensure that their work plans are in line with the Agency's Strategic Plan and Operating Plan and that recipient spending is consistent with the approved workplan. Each program office and grants management office conducts post-award monitoring of assistance agreements, including monitoring the draw-down of funds against grantee progress on workplan tasks and deliverables. This monitoring ensures that recipients are spending the funds designated to each program area for the intended purpose. All grantees are required to submit annual or more frequent financial status reports. As part of each office's post-award monitoring of grants, recipients are required to affirm that funds designated to each program area are indeed spent for the intended purpose. Several NEPs (e.g., the Columbia River Partnership and Sarasota Bay Estuary Program) have undergone outside audits and/or financial reviews. The audits concluded that the NEP management of their finances complied with accepted financial management practices.

Evidence: EPA's annual Operating Plan and Congressional Justification; EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Goals 2 and 4; Budget Automation System (BAS) data; EPA's Annual Report and Financial Statements; EPA's Policy on Compliance, Review, and Monitoring (EPA Order 5700.6); OWOW Bi-Weekly Status of Funds Reports; NEP 2004-2006 Funding Guidance; EPA Grant Regulations (40 CFR 35); EPA Grants Management Plan (epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf); EPA Order on Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements (Jan 2005); OCPD Work Plans for FY05.

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

Explanation: Yes. The program has an efficiency measure that tracks the cost of acres restored. It also has implemented several IT improvements to reduce reporting and administrative burdens.

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Oceans and Coastal Program through IAGs, MOUs, and MOAs collaborates and coordinates with other related programs to focus on ocean and coastal protection and restoration efforts. The Oceans and Coastal Program works very closely with a number of other offices within EPA and other federal agencies including: U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS, MMS, and FWS. The program also works closely with States, tribes, and NGOs. We are active in a number of federal and non-federal partnerships, such as Coastal America, National Dredging Team, Estuary Habitat Restoration Council, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and the Coral Reef Task Force. The NEPs collaborate and coordinate with State and local partners to implement their CCMPs. The Program works with other entities to reach common goals, deal with upcoming issues, and other specific program actions such as improved development of regulations, standards, data gathering, monitoring, and in general more effective program implementation.

Evidence: EPA-Coast Guard 2003 MOU Ballast Water Discharge Standard Rulemaking; IAG between Department of Navy and USEPA: November 2004; EPA and COE Partnership Agreement for Watershed Management; NDT Charter, Action Agenda for the Next Decade; EPA/NOAA MOA on Coastal Community Growth; Estuaries Live and National Estuaries Day agreements; Estuary.gov website (www.estuaries.gov/); Coastal America Memorandum of Understanding (2002) www.coastalamerica.gov/text/mou02.htm; President's Executive Order 13366 creating Committee on Ocean Policy.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Oceans and Coastal Program follows EPA's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds. Agency officials have a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO and other principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. At each step in the process, the propriety of the payment is reviewed. EPA trains individuals to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities for invoice review and for carrying out the financial aspects of program objectives. EPA received an unqualified audit opinion on its FY02 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the audit. EPA is taking steps to meet the new accelerated due dates for financial statements. Program managers and financial officers, respectively, are responsible to ensure that funds are obligated for the intended purpose and that the obligations are made properly. Accurate financial information is provided to program managers and financial officers via a funds report. Day to day operations are maintained using an integrated financial management system.

Evidence: Pre-award reviews, IFMS, IGMS, close outs.

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

Explanation: No. It is unclear if EPA is taking steps to improve reporting and data collection for its non-NEP activities. However, EPA has implemented the NEP Implementation Review (IR), which identifies and responds to specific challenges in each NEP every three years. EPA combines all the IRs and identifies common deficiencies. Several examples: 1) NEPs were not consistently reporting environmental results. EPA developed indicators training workshops and required reports to track changes in environmental conditions as part of the IR. 2) Many of the NEPs were not effectively identifying and obtaining funding to support their efforts. EPA developed a manual, held workshops, and established a system to track changes in funds leveraging in all NEPs. 3) EPA identified a weakness in the tracking of actions to implement the CCMP; we added an Annual Performance Goal (APG) in our strategic plan and required annual reports on completion of priority CCMP actions. 4) NEPs were inconsistently (and in some cases inadequately) addressing issues related to air deposition to coastal waters. EPA instituted a training program for state and local practitioners.

Evidence: NEP 2003 Annual Implementation Review Guidance; NEP 2004 Implementation Review Letters (e.g., San Juan Bay, Albemarle-Pamlico); NEP 2004-2006 Funding Guidance.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Yes. The grants are issued under the National Estuary Program. Each grantee is required to comply with agency rules for fiscal management and tracking. In addition, EPA issues Funding Guidance to the NEPs each year and requires the submission of an annual work plan and end of year tracking report to report on progress in the workplan. National meetings are held semi-annually to report on activities of the NEPs. Finally, every three years each NEP undergoes a detailed "Implementation Review" (IR) that includes reporting on budget, expenditures and leveraged funds. The IRs include site visits and meetings and concludes with a detailed report identifying strengths and challenges for future improvement. These reports are the basis of future funding decisions, tracking requests and IRs.

Evidence: Evidence: NEP 2004-2006 Funding Guidance; NEP 2003 Implementation Review Guidance; NEP 2004 Implementation Review Letters.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: EPA requires each individual program in the NEP to submit annual performance data for a number of different parameters. Currently, the parameters are habitat acres protected or restored, initiated and completed CCMP implementation actions, leveraging of funds, and environmental indicators. In addition, the NEPs are required to submit annual work plans that address both past and projected performance. EPA publishes the habitat information on the Internet under the PIVOT (Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool) program.

Evidence: NEP 2004-2006 Funding Guidance; Environmental Information Management System oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimsapi.serach?partner=ow-ocpd&frm=simple, www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.html.

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: The Oceans and Coastal Program is developing regulations for sewage and graywater from cruise vessels operating in Alaska and for incidental discharges from Armed Forces vessels. The Program has determined that the regulation of incidental discharges from Armed Forces vessels will affect the Department of Defense (DoD), United States Coast Guard (USCG), State governments, Tribal governments, and the general public; consequently, the Program has sought both the expert opinion and viewpoints of all affected parties. The Program has also consulted with all possible entities that would be affected by regulation of sewage and graywater from cruise vessels. These entities include the cruise ship industry, State of Alaska, Alaska Native Tribes, and NGO's (e.g., Blue Water Network). Two public meetings were conducted in Alaska in 2001 to discuss the possible cruise ship rule. The Program also educates the general public about the nature, implications, and benefits of the regulations via newsletters and the agency's web page. Comments and opinions from affected entities have been taken into consideration and incorporated, when appropriate, into the rulemaking process.

Evidence: Cruise Ships Public Meetings; UNDS: Newsletters, State Outreach Briefings, Letters, Annual Tribal Conferences.

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: While the regulations for incidental discharges from Armed Forces vessels have not yet been proposed, the Program has determined, using OMB guidelines, that there will be no regulatory impacts due to these rules. Pursuant to the terms of the E.O. 12866, the agency has determined that this proposed rule is a "significant regulatory action" because the UNDS statute, and its associated implementing regulations, raises novel legal and policy issues because the statue will prevent States that otherwise hold delegated CWA authority from implementing specific sections of the CWA. After considering the economic impacts of the regulation on small entities, the agency has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations apply only to vessels of the Armed Forces as defined by CWA section 312(a)(14), and as such, small entities are not affected by this proposed rule. EPA does not anticipate that the cruise ship regulations (i) will be considered significant under E.O. 12866, (ii) will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, or (iii) will effect an unfunded mandate. We will use information collected in our survey questionnaire and elsewhere to confirm this or to determine what analyses are required. We will perform an Environmental Impact Assessment/Benefit Analysis as well as Economic Analysis to determine all costs and benefits for this action, in accordance with EO 12866.

Evidence: CWA Section 312, Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations (33 USC 1901 Note); UNDS Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

Explanation: While the Program does not systematically review all its regulatory programs (ocean dumping, waivers from secondary treatment for publicly owned treatment works, and sewage from vessels), EPA does review these regulations from time to time. EPA recently reviewed its ocean dumping regulations as part of an evaluation of ratifying a new treaty on ocean dumping and determined that no changes are necessary because the regulations are still supporting the Program goals. However, in 1997 a controversy arose in NY/NJ Harbor that led to a revision of the regulations regarding testing. In 2003, EPA issued an emergency permit for treated process water from a FL fertilizer plant. The procedures in our regulations led to a well-documented and accepted solution to this potentially devastating problem. EPA and COE are currently evaluating whether to update our dredged material testing guidance, developed to implement the regulations, and combine it with guidance for inland disposal.

Evidence: Ocean Dumping Act; CWA: Section 301(h), 312; Emergency Ocean Dumping Permits; Ocean Dumping Testing Requirements: Final Rule,1996; Clarification of Suspended Particulate Phase Bioaccumulation Testing Requirements for Material Dumped in Ocean Waters: Final Rule,1994.

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

Explanation: The Program's rule development plans and rule preambles include significant discussions of net benefit factors and program goals. The Program has a commitment to maximize net benefits in all regulatory decisions. The Program produces a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of regulatory options for senior management's consideration, and documents the analyses thoroughly in the public record. For the UNDS regulation, EPA evaluates environmental benefits in concert with the analysis of both operational impacts and cost burdens to Armed Forces vessels, seeking to maximize the benefit relative to the aggregate burden. The Program first performs independent analyses of environmental effects, operational imparts, and costs. Subsequently, a combined analysis will be performed as part of the option selection process. Any proposed regulations covering the discharge of sewage and graywater from cruise ships will also be designed to maximize net benefits. The Program will perform an economic cost benefit analysis to determine the burden to affected entities. The Program intends to limit technology options to commercially available equipment that has been demonstrated to not impact the normal operation of cruise ships. In addition, the Program will develop regulations that focus on discharge constituents that have a demonstrable impact on Alaskan waters.

Evidence: UNDS: Feasibility Analyses and Discharge Assessment Reports.

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

Explanation: No. The coastal condition goal is new and cannot demonstrate progress, and the targets for the NEP acres protected are not sufficient to award credit.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Small extent, due to progress on NEP acres restored or protected.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan Sub-Objective 2.2.2 Implementation Plan (SIP); EPA FY 2005 Annual Plan; PIVOT (www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/habitat/progress.htm).

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

Explanation: No, waiting for 2005 data.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: No. The Oceans and Coastal program's purpose and goals are similar to NOAA's Estuarine Research Reserve System, NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program, USFWS' Coastal Program, and several Corps, USCG, and MARAD programs. However, the program has not compared its performance to these other programs.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: No. Evaluations either have not been of sufficient scope, or are not recent enough to be relevant.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: For example, under sections 102 and 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, EPA, and COE are required to ensure that ocean dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. In doing so, the agencies must consider the need for and the effects of such dumping. When site-specific problems are identified, site-specific resolutions are designed to address them. For example, when controversies in NY/NJ Harbor shut down navigational dredging in the 1990's, local solutions (a site-specific evaluation protocol and a remediation site for dredged material placement) were adopted to address the issues and get dredging back on track. Similarly, when the regulation of dredged material disposal in Long Island Sound was challenged in court, an MOU for the Sound was developed to address those issues and allow the program to move forward.

Evidence: Ocean Dumping Act; Designation of Historic Area Remediation Sites.