Detailed Information on the
Coast Guard: Waterways Management Assessment

Review inland river AtoN operations to provide a total cost analysis, recommend actions to optimize performance while reducing capital acquisition cost and implement recommendations.

Develop a comprehensive domestic icebreaking outcome performance measure.

Conduct an independent, comprehensive evaluation of Waterways Management and implement recommendations.

Measure: 5-year average of number of distinct collision, allision, and grounding (CAG) events

Explanation:A composite measure of three adverse outcomes involving the navigation of commercial vessels??collisions, allisions, and groundings??that can result in disruptions to maritime commerce.

Measure: 5-Year Average Collision, Allision, and Grounding Deaths and Injuries.

Explanation:A measure of the long-term trend in personnel casualty out-comes related to collision, allision, and grounding events. A five-year average is used as an indicator of long-term performance to ensure evaluation of the underlying trend and to mitigate the impact of normal year-to-year variation.

Measure: 5-Year Average Chemical Spills and Oil Spills Greater than 100 Gallons from Collisions, Allisions and Groundings.

Explanation:A measure of the long-term trend in significant pollution outcomes??reportable chemical spills, and oils spills greater than 100 gallons??associated with collisions, allisions, and groundings. A five-year average is used as an indicator of long-term performance to ensure evaluation of the underlying trend and to mitigate the impact of normal year-to-year variation.

Measure: Closure Days in Summer/Winter of Critical Waterways due to Ice

Explanation:A measure of disruptions to maritime commerce due to ice. Nine Great Lakes waterways have been identified as critical based on historical ice conditions, volume of ship traffic and potential for flooding??with the St. Mary's River as the reference point. Targets for this measure depend on the severity of the winter: no more than 2 closure days during average winters and no more than 8 during severe winters. Winter severity is calculated using the method outlined in: "Maximum Freezing Degree-Days as a Winter Severity Index for the Great Lakes, 1897-1977" by Raymond A. Assel.

Measure: Number of Distinct Collision Events

Explanation:A measure of adverse navigation outcomes due to collisions that can result in disruptions to maritime commerce. It is an annual indicator of Waterways Management performance subject to normal year-to-year variation.

Measure: Number of Distinct Allision Events

Explanation:A measure of adverse navigation outcomes due to allisions that can result in disruptions to maritime commerce. It is an annual indicator of Waterways Management performance subject to normal year-to-year variation.

Measure: Number of Distinct Grounding Events

Explanation:A measure of adverse navigation outcomes due to groundings that can result in disruptions to maritime commerce. It is an annual indicator of Waterways Management performance subject to normal year-to-year variation.

Measure: Waterways Management Long-term Efficiency Ratio

Explanation:This measure is the ratio of performance changes to cost changes. A value greater than 1.000 indicates performance efficiency??performance gains that are more favorable than cost changes. A value of 1.050, for example, would indicate a performance gain about 5.0% more favorable than cost changes.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Coast Guard's Waterways Management (WWM) program is to manage, influence, and provide access to a safe, secure, efficient and environmentally sound waterways system. Several statutes clearly link the various components of WWM (Navigation Systems, Marine Transportation System services, and Bridge Administration) back to its mission. The program facilitates maritime commerce by minimizing disruptions to the movement of goods and people, while maximizing recreational enjoyment and environmentally sound use of navigable waters??all while maintaining robust waterway restoration capabilities when disruptions do occur.

Evidence: The overarching mission of the WWM program clearly supports the statutory duties of the Coast Guard established in 14USC2: "shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate, with due regard to the requirements of national defense, aids to maritime navigation, ice-breaking facilities, and rescue facilities for the promotion of safety on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;..." In addition to safety, the importance of efficiency for maritime commerce is reflected in the Congressional finding in 33USC1221 that waterways management is of major national importance to "(1) reduce the possibility of vessel or cargo loss, or damage to life, property, or the marine environment and (2) prevent damage to structures in, on, or immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States or the resources within such waters.

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

Explanation: Safe and efficient movement of maritime traffic depends on a uniform system of vessel traffic services (VTS) and accurately maintained aids to navigation. Groundings, collisions and allisions are a continuing problem that endanger lives and create costly delays for the movement of trade goods.

Evidence: Numerous reports, studies, and other Federal and international efforts identify a continuing need for the safety, security, and stewardship of the Marine Transportation System. The Transportation Research Board noted that the total volume of domestic and international marine trade is expected to more than double over the next 20 years (The MTS and the Federal Role, 2004). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution.A857(20): Guidelines for Vessel Traffic Services cites "..the responsibility of Governments for the safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment in areas under their jurisdiction..."

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

Explanation: The program works closely with other Federal and non-Federal entities, but well defined, discrete objectives are incorporated into program design. State and local entities maintain short-range aids only where there is no need for a waterway to be marked by the Federal Government. Private radio aids to navigation are specifically prohibited as there is a national interest in coordinating limited airwave and frequency use. In the U.S., the Coast Guard is the only authority named in law competent to regulate marine commerce. Federal measures have been used to preempt or override conflicting state and local laws in order to ensure uniform regulations, to uphold international obligations, and to avoid confusion and duplication. The Coast Guard is the only U.S. agency tasked and funded to meet large-scale domestic ice breaking requirements. The Office of Marine Transportation provides liaison with other federal, state, local and private entities on matters pertaining to the Marine Transportation System not only to minimize the potential for redundant or duplicative efforts, but also to actually create synergy so that the federal government works collaboratively and not in a fragmented manner. Through MOUs with the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Bureau of Land Management and state and local governments, the Coast Guard works to coordinate and facilitate balance among competing land and maritime needs when exercising its permitting authority for bridges over navigable waters.

Evidence: The Transportation Research Board's Report, "Transportation System and the Federal Role" (2004), describes the statutory role of each federal agency involved in the Maritime Transportation System. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is focused on the establishment and maintenance of infrastructure, such as locks, dams, levees, and dredged channels, the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) is focused on ensuring adequate Merchant Marine and maritime industry capacity, and the Coast Guard's focus is on safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally sound operations. State governments may regulate non-federal aids to navigation only as prescribed in 33CFR66.05. The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, 46 USC 9306, specifically exempts states, local municipalities and private entities from engaging in the regulation of pilotage of foreign trade vessels on the Great Lakes.

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

Explanation: Overall program design is generally effective. The flexibility of the Sector Commanders to surge multiple assets and direct activities using the various Captain of the Port authorities enables the Coast Guard to respond more quickly and effectively to waterway disruptions. The Coast Guard has a Waterways Management Directorate wherein aids to navigation, vessel traffic services, electronic navigation, bridge administration and waterways policy and regulatory programs, are joined in a unified organization. This alignment extends vertically from Coast Guard Headquarters through Areas, Districts and Sectors, and allows the Coast Guard to work more cohesively with other government and non-government partners. Some design flaws may exist for discrete activities of the Waterways Management (WWM) Program and require further assessment. The Coast Guard has produced limited and conflicting assessments of the capability of the private sector to provide, maintain, and service short-range aids to navigation and operate vessel traffic services. At least one independent review has questioned the design of preventative icebreaking operations in the Great Lakes, but this is a relatively small piece of the WWM program. The overall goals of the Bridge Administration Program, an interagency service led by USCG, better align with the mission of the Department of Transportation (where USCG was housed until it joined the new Department of Homeland Security), thus retention of this program in USCG may be focusing USCG resources away from critical DHS missions.

Evidence: Variable findings and recommendations are presented in assessments and business case analysis of USCG's inland Aids to Navigation (AtoN) services (Bearing Point report, April 2004; Volpe Cost analysis, 1994; USCG internal Business Case Analysis, 2006). A Center for Navel Analysis report (U.S. Coast Guard East Coast Domestic Icebreaking: A Capability Assessment, CRM D0005195.A2 / Final, January 2002) states: "The amount of PI [Preventative Icebreaking] that is done is largely customer driven, not legally mandated. Waterways that are considered critical for commerce are regularly cleared of ice, so that barges carrying home heating oil, for instance, can reach their destinations. Because the Coast Guard has conducted icebreaking operations, free of charge, for almost 70 years, no economically viable commercial alternative has been developed." This suggests that preventative icebreaking operations might be restructured as partially fee-based, to optimize cost and repair of federal assets. Independent analysis (CNA, 2007) of the Bridge Administration Program (BAP) found "The BAP is isolated from the rest of the Coast Guard in ways that may limit its performance and preclude the valuable synergies that it and other programs could create."

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

Explanation: The Waterways Management program serves the maritime community. The program identifies the need to establish aids to navigation and vessel traffic services by conducting risk assessments in close cooperation with the intended users of the systems. The Coast Guard developed a Waterways Analysis and Management System (WAMS) and requires that a WAMS analysis be conducted for all critical waterways and reviewed at least once every five years. This analysis incorporates the perspective of major and/or frequent users of the waterway under review to ensure those perspectives are incorporated into any final waterway design recommendations. The Coast Guard has used Port Access Route Studies and has applied the Port and Waterways Safety Assessment process in several waterways to gather public input into regulatory, traffic management, aids to navigation and Vessel Traffic Safety changes. Bridges are designed, permitted and altered, specifically to help facilitate and balance both land and maritime user needs. In planning for domestic icebreaking operations, the Coast Guard coordinates with Canadian authorities and conducts regular conference calls with industry stakeholders to ensure the program's efforts effectively target the needs of intended beneficiaries.

Evidence: To justify the establishment of an aid to navigation (AtoN) system it must be shown that there is a valid need for this system and that the establishment of the system will satisfy these needs (Aids to Navigation Manual, 02 MAR 2005, COMDTINST M16500.7A, Chapter 3, Governing Policies). The Waterways Analysis and Management System (WAMS) manual is a tool for managing competing interests and uses of the United States' Waterways: WAMS Manual Draft.doc. A Center for Naval Analysis study (CNA, USCG Bridge Administration: Is the program working?, CRM D0014661.A2/Final, January 2007) found the Bridge Administration Program (BAP) focuses its activity on the correct population: bridge owners and waterway users.

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 long-term trends in three adverse outcomes are used as key indicators of the program's performance in the management of U.S. waterways and its contribution to the safe navigation of commercial vessels. Preventing disruptions and impediments to maritime commerce is a focal point of the Program, and collisions, allisions, and groundings are primary causal factors the program strives to pre-vent. The long-term effectiveness of the program can be gauged by improvements in the 5-year average number of collisions, allisions or groundings. Minimizing collisions, allisions, and groundings (CAGs) also contributes to fewer personnel casualties and less environmental damage due to spills. The program's long-term impact in these areas is indicated by changes in the 5-year average number of mariner and passenger casualties associated with CAGs, and the 5-year average number of CAG-related reportable chemical spills, and oil spills greater than 100 gallons.

Evidence: ?? FY2008 annual performance results are reported for key Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures in: Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief.FY2008.pdf ?? Key GPRA measures are reported quarterly in the DHS Future Years Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP), which (with authorization) can be accessed at: https://dhsonline.dhs.gov/portal/jhtml/community.jhtml ?? Assessment of key Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures, and a discussion of program goals and objectives, is found in the: Prevention.Strategic Assessment.FY07-13.NOV09.pdf ?? A discussion of program goals and objectives, is also found in the: Coast Guard Strategy.pdf ?? Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets are detailed in the decision memo (draft): CG-3 RAP Targets Decision Memo 19Mar.Draft.doc

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

Explanation: To improve its target setting process, the program now uses a baseline forecast determined from historical data, includes objective assessments of capability constraints and the impacts of external drivers and trends, determines anticipated benefits of continued improvements within existing efficiencies and sets realistic expectations for planned performance initiatives. A 2006 baseline is established for each measure and ambitious outyear targets are aligned with the Agency's Strategic Plan.

Evidence: ??The target-setting process is presented in: CG-5 MEMO TARGETSETTING.doc ??Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets are detailed in the decision memo (draft): CG-3 RAP Targets Decision Memo 19Mar.Draft.doc ??FY2008 annual performance results are reported for key Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures in: Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief.FY2008.pdf ??Key GPRA measures and targets are reported in the DHS FYHSP, which (with authorization) can be accessed at: https://dhsonline.dhs.gov/portal/jhtml/community.jhtml ??Assessment of key Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets, and a discussion of program goals and objectives, is found in: Prevention.Strategic Assessment.FY07-13.NOV09.pdf ??Targets and performance initiatives are also presented in the Prevention Performance Plan (in draft form): Prevention.Performance Plan.FY07-13.JAN9.pdf

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: Annual measures indicate interim progress in meeting the long-term performance measures. The program has three annual outcome measures to separately track collisions, allisions, and groundings. The program also measures "Closure Days due to Ice" of critical waterways (using the St. Mary River as the reference point) to capture performance of the domestic icebreaking program, a component of waterways management.

Evidence: ??FY2008 annual performance results are reported for key Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures in: Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief.FY2008.pdf ??Key GPRA measures are reported quarterly in the DHS Future Years Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP), which (with authorization) can be accessed at: https://dhsonline.dhs.gov/portal/jhtml/community.jhtml ??Assessment of key Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures, and a discussion of program goals and objectives, is found in the: Prevention.Strategic Assessment.FY07-13.NOV09.pdf ??Targets and performance initiatives are also presented in the Prevention Performance Plan (in draft form): Prevention.Performance Plan.FY07-13.JAN9.pdf ??A discussion of program goals and objectives, is also found in the:. Coast Guard Strategy.pdf ??Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets are detailed in the decision memo (draft): CG-3 RAP Targets Decision Memo 19Mar.Draft.doc

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

Explanation: The program has baselines and ambitious targets for three of its four annual measures. The targets for domestic icebreaking are designed to meet negotiated contractual/MOU agreements and reflect only a small portion of the overall operation in the Great Lakes. To improve its annual target setting process, the Program now uses a baseline forecast determined from historical data, includes objective assessments of capability constraints and the impacts of external drivers and trends, determines anticipated annual benefits of continued improvements within existing efficiencies and sets realistic annual expectations for planned performance initiatives.

Evidence: ??The target-setting process is presented in: CG-5 MEMO TARGETSETTING.doc ??Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets are detailed in the decision memo (draft): CG-3 RAP Targets Decision Memo 19Mar.Draft.doc ??FY2008 annual performance results and targets are reported for key GPRA measures in: Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief.FY2008.pdf ??Key GPRA measures are reported quarterly in the DHS Future Years Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP), which (with authorization) can be accessed at: https://dhsonline.dhs.gov/portal/jhtml/community.jhtml ??Assessment of key Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets, and a discussion of program goals and objectives, is found in: Prevention.Strategic Assessment.FY07-13.NOV09.pdf ??Targets and performance initiatives are also presented in the Prevention Performance Plan (in draft form): Prevention.Performance Plan.FY07-13.JAN9.pdf

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: The Coast Guard works in close cooperation with industry partners in order to obtain their commitment to work toward the achievement of the annual and long-term goals of the program. The U.S. Coast Guard and the American Waterways Operators (AWO), for example, convened a work group under the auspices of the Coast Guard-AWO Safety Partnership to investigate all bridge allisions. The work group included Coast Guard personnel and AWO member company representatives and was supported by Coast Guard and AWO staff. Their recommendations were published in May 2003. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Eighth Coast Guard District, and the River Industry Executive Task Force, which includes representatives from the inland towing industry, signed an agreement to develop comprehensive actions to reduce collisions, allisions, and groundings, following a season of extreme high water conditions on the Mississippi River system in 2005. This agreement led to the development of a risk-based Waterways Action Plan which is used to respond to all extreme water events on the Inland River system. Targets for Closure Days due to Ice were developed in close consultation with industry stakeholders and the program's Canadian Coast Guard partner. The Coast Guard works in close coordination with the Canadian Coast Guard to meet the annual and long-term goals of the program.

Evidence: ??An example of support by industry partners for Coast Guard work to reduce bridge allisions is provided in: CG-AWO.Bridge Allision Workgroup Report (May 2003). ??The Waterways Action Plan (draft version provided), which was signed in March 2007, is provided as an example of how the USCG is working with other governmental agencies and the marine industry to reduce collisions, allisions, and groundings. The Waterways Action Plan is attached: Waterways Action Plan July 25, 2006.doc; Waterways Action Plan Article.pdf. ??USCG develops support for its program goals through an agreement among of Federal agencies with responsibility for the Marine Transportation System (MTS). The Charter for the Committee on Marine Transportation System directs agencies to coordinate the development and implementation of national MTS policies consistent with national needs and report to the President its views and recommendations for improving the MTS.

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: The Coast Guard has in place a process for conducting independent evaluations of all its programs on a five-yr review cycle. It has contracted with the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Waterways Management program. The evaluation has begun and is scheduled to be completed by the close of calendar year 2007. The contracted scope of work includes a comprehensive assessment of the program's purpose and design, the availability and use of performance data, and an evaluation of program performance. The evaluation includes all components of Waterways Management including Aids to Navigation, Bridge Administration, domestic icebreaking, Vessel Traffic Management, and marine information exchange.

Evidence: ??The schedule of program assessment rating tool reviews and independent program evaluations was provided to OMB. ??The signed proposal for Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation independent program evaluation now underway was provided to OMB.

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, full-cost budgeting system to tie funding directly to performance goals and targets throughout the budget build process, including resource proposal development, prioritization, and justification. The Coast Guard ties portions of each year's budget request to specific mission programs, such as Waterways Management, through the Coast Guard's Mission Cost Model. The Mission Cost Model is an estimate of the percentage of the Coast Guard's budget that is projected to be used, in the proposed budget year, on specific resource needs of the mission programs, based on past years' operational asset hours per mission program.

Evidence: Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional-Stage Budget Submission, Strategic Context, shows the key budget theme of "Improve Operational Capability." Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2008 Budget in Brief and Performance Report show performance goals linked to budget requests.

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

Explanation: In 2006, the program improved the quality of its strategic planning by adopting an annual planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process that seeks to optimize performance across a planning horizon extending to budget year plus five years. In 2005, the Coast Guard acted to overcome a significant strategic planning deficiency by combining all its maritime transportation related program elements and creating the Waterways Management Directorate. The Waterways Management program has undertaken a contractor-assisted evaluation of its performance measurement systems. The Program continues to evaluate the design and scope of its mission and is working with OMB to determine its appropriate role in bridge administration.

Evidence: ??Steps taken to assess and prioritize planning deficiencies are discussed in: Prevention Operations: Strategic Assessment (October 2006) ??That the Coast Guard has taken steps to correct planning deficiencies is evident by efforts to pursue new technologies to modernize the U.S. Aids to Navigation System: AtoN Strategic Plan (Draft) ??A new Domestic Ice Operations plan has been drafted and is in the final stages of routing for approval. ??Proposal to transfer Bridge Administration Authorities to DOT was included in 2008 President's Budget.

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 Coast Guard Regulatory Development Program (RDP) is governed by 33 CFR Subpart 1.05, Rulemaking, within an organizational framework set forth in 46 CFR Part 1, Organization, General Course, and Methods Governing Marine Safety Functions. These regulations are supplemented by Coast Guard Headquarters Instructions. The RDP is organized as a Quality Standards System (QSS) that ensures quality through defined and managed policies and procedures. The Coast Guard annually reviews its regulatory plan for the upcoming year. The Commandant of the Coast Guard gives the final approval. Regulations supporting Waterways Management also consider impacts from industry standards development, international activities at IMO, and federal advisory committees. This process ensures alignment of regulatory development efforts with program goals. The preambles for the program's rules clearly articulate the need for the rule and its relationship to the program's primary goal; safety in the maritime environment. In some cases, the Coast Guard will seek public review of studies conducted under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. These studies may identify need for regulatory action or they may determine that no further regulatory action is required. Coast Guard regulations also support Waterways Management through the publication of routine and frequent regulatory actions. Many of these regulations are of short duration for specific events.

Evidence: ??Agency policy and standard practices to ensure regulations support program goals are described in Headquarters Instructions (HQINST) 16703.1 (dated Jan 11, 1995), as modified by HQINST 16703.2 (dated June 25, 2001), Regulatory Development and Review. ??Examples of Federal Register "Notice of Study" demonstrate that Coast Guard approves development of regulatory actions after ensuring there are no other alternatives to meeting the stated program goals except by regulation. ??Senior management reviews regulatory actions to ensure alignment with program goals in the Marine Safety and Security Council (MSSC) Annual Report 2006 ??Routine and frequent regulatory actions are published in the Federal Register accompanied by explanation of how the regulation supports the goals of the Waterways Management program.

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: Coast Guard field units enter all compliance, enforcement and investigative actions into the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) System. Several deficiencies in this system were identified in a recent independent evaluation of other Coast Guard programs that also use this system. In addition to MISLE, field units enter pertinent information relating to short range aids to navigation into the Integrated Aids to Navigation Information System (I-ATONIS). The Waterways Analysis and Management System (WAMS) tool has been developed to ensure that navigational risk is evaluated for all critical waterways at least once every five years, but this system is not fully in place. Special studies are also conducted as required to address specific performance concerns. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard and the American Waterways Operators (AWO) convened a work group in 2003 under the auspices of the Coast Guard-AWO Safety Partnership to investigate all bridge allisions and make recommendations to improve performance results. In the course of conducting Ports and Waterways Safety Assessments (PAWSA), the Coast Guard regularly collects performance information on vessel traffic management measures such as aids to navigation, Vessel Traffic Service, the Automatic Identification System, marine communications and regulatory efforts.

Evidence: The information in the I-ATONIS database is used for generation of Local Notice to Mariners, Light List, charting, and program management decisions. AtoN Manual.Admin.pdf ??Integrated Aids to Navigation Information System will provide a single automated application integrating critical information that supports AtoN operations on waterways. I-ATONIS.Software Design Document.doc ??The Waterways Action Plan (draft version provided), which was signed in March 2007, is provided as an example of how the USCG, and our key partners, uses performance information to manage the program and improve results. ??Since 1999, when the first PAWSA was conducted, the Coast Guard has completed an additional 39 PAWSAs throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

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 program has a clearly defined chain of command. Key managers include the Waterways Management Program Director and Waterways Management Office Chiefs. The Sector Commander (i.e., Captain of the Port) is primarily responsible for meeting the Sector's performance, cost and schedule expectations. The Officer Evaluation Report (OER) includes evaluation criteria that hold the Sector Commander accountable for achieving results. Area, District and Sector commands are held accountable through a requirement to submit regular Operational Performance Accountability Reports (OPAR). The MaxHR performance evaluation system for civilians - which all three Office Chiefs are subject to, along with senior civilians in the field - requires annual performance goals that are directly linked to program goals, directorate goals, Coast Guard goals, and Departmental goals.

Evidence: Key program managers for the program are delineated in the Sector organization chart. Officer Evaluation Reports for Sector Commander include performance and resource allocation criteria in the description of primary duties. Example MaxHR evaluations were provided for key civilian managers. The most recent OPAR provided by the program documents performance through FY2007 second quarter.

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

Explanation: The program funds come primarily from Coast Guard's Operating Expense appropriation. The Coast Guard obligates substantially all (over 98%) of its operating funds each year. The Coast Guard maintains an internal control system to ensure timely obligation of funds. First, the Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management enforces the provisions of Commandant Instruction M7100.3 (series), Financial Resources Management Manual, which specifies quarterly spending rates and funding carry over limits. Second, obligation rates are tracked and reported bi-weekly by the Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management. Third, specific budget authority is allocated to the respective Area and District budget offices. Each Area and District is staffed to actively manage the funds in their respective locations. Lastly, several daily reports are offered to all financial report users to monitor obligation rates. The Coast Guard uses its Finance and Procurement Desktop (FPD) to process all of its simplified acquisitions (<$100k). FPD is directly interfaced with the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and requires a validated record in FPDS-NG prior to creating an obligation in FPD. The Coast Guard's formal contracting offices (>$100k) use the Contract Information Management System (CIMS) which is also interfaced with FPDS-NG, but does not require the validated record prior to obligation. The Coast Guard's FPDS-NG Program Manager requires each formal contracting office to certify its data in FPDS-NG on a quarterly basis. The certification exercise insures that all of the Coast Guard's awards have been entered into FPDS-NG. The Coast Guard complies with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) - 4.602, Federal Procurement Data System, which requires reporting to FPDS-NG.

Evidence: The Budget Execution Report for February 2007 shows obligations and expenditure rates. Quarterly spending rates and funding carry over limits for Depot maintenance are specified in USCG's Financial Resources Management Manual (FRMM). The program has no recent or pending ADA violations and is well below OMB's threshold for unacceptable rates of improper payments.

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: The Coast Guard has developed a long-term efficiency measure for the Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation program that synthesizes the program's long-term outcome (collisions, allisions, and groundings) with the cost to execute the program. The measure is an indicator of relative change in performance versus the relative change in cost-a value greater than 1.000 indicates performance gains greater cost changes. Competitive bidding is regularly used to determine the best value for services as part of the bridge alteration function. These services include securing contractors for environmental documentation preparation and construction. A cost benefit analysis is prepared to ensure the effective use of federal funds for proposed projects. The program conducts an annual review of all contracts for government services to ensure best value. Measurements include turnover time, a cost benefit analysis, and an overall consideration of the effectiveness of the contract. Vendors are chosen based on past performance and contracts are limited to periods of no longer than one year to allow the program to change vendors when necessary. The Coast Guard periodically assesses the capability of the private sector to provide, maintain, and service short-range aids to navigation and operate vessel traffic services. All program units are subject to scrutiny under the regularly recurring A-76 audit process to ensure competitive sourcing of personnel resources. Cost comparisons and organizational efficiency determinations are conducted to determine the appropriate mix of military billets, government employee civilian positions and contracted or outsourced personnel resources. At present, the program's Navigation Center is undergoing an A-76 audit.

Evidence: ??The Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation (AtoN) Long-term Efficiency Ratio is described in documents provided to OMB and summarized in the PART Performance Measures section. ??The Strategic Plan aims to maintain the same or improved level of service to mariners while, working to accomplish 22 new goals and initiatives. AtoN Strategic Plan.draft.doc ??The Bridge Administration Manual provides technical guidance for the cost-benefit analysis procedures related to alteration of bridges that unreasonably obstruct navigation. CIM165905C, Bridge Admin Manual.pdf ??Construction tender (WLIC) cost effectiveness: 1994 Volpe Cost Analysis for Outsourcing WLIC.doc ??Factors that should be considered in identifying potential areas for competition : ATON BCA 2004.bearing point.pdf ??Cost effectiveness for the Coast Guard to operate the WLICs : 2006 WLIC-WLR BCA Outsourcing Analysis.doc

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program works directly with various federal agencies in a joint effort to address the future needs of the Marine Transportation System. This includes working with the Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and other agencies on broad maritime issues such as dredging, navigation, disaster recovery, transportation management, and joint use of waterways. The program also has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Marine Information Services of North America which is a non-profit maritime organization dedicated to improving the flow of domestic and international commerce by facilitating information exchange. The 1977 Memorandum of Arrangements between the United States and Canada requires collaboration and coordination of the shared pilotage program in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Pilotage Program actively engages with its Canadian counterparts to comply with the requirements of the MOA. The Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) also have a Memorandum of Understanding relating to domestic icebreaking operations. Coast Guard personnel in the Ninth District and the CCG maintain a Joint Operations Center in Sarnia, Ontario, to ensure coordinated icebreaking efforts throughout the Great Lakes. The Bridge Administration Program works with the Federal Highway Administration to coordinate the preparation and processing of environmental documents. The program's Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service - a shared responsibility between the U.S. and Canada - has been in operation for 30 years.

Evidence: ?? DIP NOTE of 2005 extending the agreement providing for the coordination of icebreaking activities of Canada and the U.S. on the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence Seaway System (1980 Agreement): Agreement with US and Canada-DOMICE.pdf ?? Memorandum Of Arrangements (MOA) on Great Lakes Pilotage between Secretary of Transportation, United States of America and the Minister of Transport of Canada: Great Lakes Pilotage MOA.pdf ?? 46 USC 9307 establishes the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee. ?? Memorandum of Agreement between CG and NSF concerning the management of polar icebreakers. USCG-NSF MOA_Aug05.pdf ?? The purpose of the MOA between the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers is to clarify the areas of jurisdiction/responsibilities. CG-ACOE MOA.doc ?? The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Coast Guard and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by the CG and FHWA in the preparation and processing of environmental documents pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CG-FHWA MOU.doc ?? An agreement among of Federal agencies with responsibility for the Marine Transportation System (MTS) to coordinate the development and implementation of national MTS policies consistent with national needs and report to the President its views and recommendations for improving the MTS. Charter for the Committee on Marine Transportation System.doc

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General assigned 8 Material Weaknesses for Coast Guard financial reporting during the Fiscal Year 2006 Chief Financial Officer Audit. These findings contributed to the Department of Homeland Security's receiving a disclaimer opinion on their Fiscal Year 2006 financial statements. In each of the 8 Material Weakness areas, Coast Guard financial policy and procedure is deficient and in many instances they are non-compliant with generally accepted government accounting principles. Further, the uncertainty of underlying financial data does not provide reasonable assurance that the Coast Guard financial statements are complete or accurate at any time. Strong financial management and complete financial reporting are top priorities for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has made progress in addressing the 8 material weaknesses, most notably in the following ways: (1) By establishing the Senior Assessment Team and Senior Management Council to provide oversight for Internal Controls over Financial Reporting and implementation of OMB A-123, Appendix A; and (2) By compiling and publishing a comprehensive Corrective Action Plan which includes corrective action steps for each of the 8 areas of material weakness. Additionally, Coast Guard Headquarters created a new Office of Financial Transformation and Compliance to include three new divisions: The Strategic Coordination Staff, Internal Control Division, and the Audit Remediation Division. These divisions will serve to improve financial reporting internal controls, remediate audit findings, and aggressively pursue corrective actions.

Evidence: Section 3, pages 174-236, of the Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report includes (1) the Independent Auditor's Report for the Department of Homeland Security, which shows that the Coast Guard is part of eight of DHS' material weaknesses, and (2) the Notice of Findings and Recommendations. The Coast Guard Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan shows how the Coast Guard is remediating its material weaknesses and reportable conditions.

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

Explanation: The program has aggressively acted to identify management deficiencies through restructuring, self-assessment and by conducting independent program evaluations. A comprehensive, independent evaluation of the whole Waterways Management Program by the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation was begun in March 2007. The program has addressed disaster response planning deficiencies as GAO report 06-903 indicates, "In our review of the Coast Guard's hurricane preparation practices, it seems many of the factors we raised in the past, have been addressed by the Coast Guard." To improve financial management, Coast Guard Headquarters created a new Office of Financial Transformation and Compliance to include two new divisions: The Internal Control Division and the Audit Remediation Division. These divisions will serve to improve financial reporting internal controls, remediate audit findings, and aggressively pursue corrective actions.

Evidence: ??Steps taken to address response and recovery deficiencies are discussed in: GAO-06-903.CG Response & Katrina Recovery Prep.pdf ??Actions planned to improve Aids to Navigation performance are described in: .AtoN Strategic Plan.draft.doc ??Other evaluations include a 2002 Center for Naval Analysis Corporation study of Great Lakes and East Coast ice breaking. and a 2005 report by Bearing Point, United States Coast Guard Aids to Navigation (AtoN) Business Case Analysis ??A new Domestic Ice Operations plan has been drafted and is in the final stages of routing for approval: DOMICE_COMDTINST_Jun05.doc. ??The Coast Guard Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan for financial management shows how the Coast Guard is remediating its material weaknesses and reportable conditions.

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 program meets or exceeds statutory requirements to seek public comment in its regulatory actions. The program complies with Coast Guard 3-month standard periods for public comment on regulatory action. There are additional quality checkpoints that are in place during the development of a regulatory action that ensure the interests of consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public are considered during rulemaking. These checkpoints are in place for all rulemakings, not just during the development of regulations that are considered significant under E.O. 12866. In one example, the Coast Guard substantially altered regulatory requirements for carriage of Automatic Identification System equipment in response to public comment. Specifically, the Coast Guard removed carriage requirements previously imposed for commercial fishing vessels and small passenger vessels certificated to carry less than 151 passengers. The Coast Guard maintains a web site to encourage and assist interested parties in commenting on regulatory projects. The website includes extensive information about the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act to foster small business participation in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard also seeks regular input from the marine industry, the States, national boating organizations and the public through Coast Guard-supported forums such as the Navigation Safety Advisory Committee, the Houston-Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee, Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee and the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee. Membership in these groups includes industry representatives, the States, national organizations, and the public. The meetings are open to the public and announced in the Federal Register.

Evidence: ?? The Coast Guard maintains a website that encourage public participation and support for small entities at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/regs/reghome.html ?? When appropriate, the Coast Guard has modified regulations based on public comment or consultation with groups impacted by proposed regulatory actions as discussed in TSS Juan de Fuca Settlement.pdf; USCG-2003-14757 FR.pdf; andUSCG-2003-14757 TIR.pdf ?? The Coast Guard seeks regular input from industry and the public through Federal Advisory Committees in support of its rulemaking activities as discussed in GLPAC FedReg Notice.pdf; HOGANSAC FedReg Notice.pdf; and LMRWSAC FedReg Notice.pdf

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: Most of the program's rulemaking activity is classified as an economically nonsignificant regulatory action. The program evaluates both significant and nonsignificant regulatory actions using quantitative cost benefit and willingness-to-pay analyses. In the case of regulations whose benefits are non-quantifiable, the Coast Guard utilizes threshold analysis to determine the impact of the regulatory action. The programs primary significant rulemaking actions (AIS Vessel Carriage Requirements) were found by OMB to be consistent with or without change.

Evidence: Regulatory analyses associated with the AIS Vessel Carriage Requirements regulation included benefit-cost analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis. The final rule was cleared by OMB in 2003.

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

Explanation: Benefit-cost analysis conducted for the program's primary significant rule (Automatic Identification System [AIS] Vessel Carriage Requirements) looks only at the proposed regulatory scheme. There do not appear to be any statutory barriers to developing alternative regulatory schemes for the AIS rule.

Evidence: No evidence was provided to show that the program analyzes alternative approaches to ensure that the selected scheme maximizes net benefits.

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

Explanation: The Program has achieved significant success in achieving its long-term performance goals and is on track to meet all of its 2013 long-term performance targets. The combined 5-year average annual number of collisions, allisions, and groundings performance has improved nearly 19%, from a long-term trend of 2,215 in 2001 to a long-term trend that in 2006 was only 1,797.

Evidence: ?? Performance results and targets are reported for key Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures in: Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief.FY2008.pdf ?? Key GPRA measures and targets are reported in the DHS Future Years Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP), which (with authorization) can be accessed at: https://dhsonline.dhs.gov/portal/jhtml/community.jhtml ?? Assessment of key Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets, and a discussion of program goals and objectives, is found in: Prevention.Strategic Assessment.FY07-13.NOV09.pdf ?? Charts & graphs used for performance analysis and target setting are created from Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) data copied into the various tables in the excel file: Waterways Performance Workbook.xls

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

Explanation: Key annual measures include the annual number of collisions, the annual number of allisions, and the annual number of groundings. Another key indicator of program performance in minimizing disruptions to maritime commerce is Closure-days Due to Ice. The program attained its Fiscal Year 2006 annual goals for limiting collisions and allisions, and missed its target for groundings due primarily to unusual water conditions affecting the Mississippi and other western rivers. In 2006 there were no closure days of critical waterways due to ice.

Evidence: ?? Performance results and targets are reported for key Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures in: Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief.FY2008.pdf ?? Key GPRA measures and targets are reported in the DHS Future Years Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP), which (with authorization) can be accessed at: https://dhsonline.dhs.gov/portal/jhtml/community.jhtml ?? Assessment of key Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation performance measures and targets, and a discussion of program goals and objectives, is found in: Prevention.Strategic Assessment.FY07-13.NOV09.pdf ?? Charts & graphs used for performance analysis and target setting are created from Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) data copied into the various tables in the excel file: Waterways Performance Workbook.xls

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

Explanation: For Fiscal Year 2006, an efficiency ratio greater than 0.973 in Fiscal Year 2006 would indicate favorable performance. The efficiency ratio for the Waterways Management-Aids to Navigation program was 0.963 in Fiscal Year 2006, which was one percentage point off target. The increasing cost of manning, operating, and maintaining an aging fleet of inland tenders is one factor in this shortfall. The program has several examples where established management procedures have led to performance and process efficiencies.

Evidence: The performance results for the program's long-term efficiency measure Several examples of process efficiencies follow. From 1996-2005 the Coast Guard replaced its fleet of large buoy tenders, the Seagoing Buoy Tenter (WLB) and the Coastal Buoy Tender (WLM). In doing so, the Coast Guard transitioned from thirty-seven units with a total complement of 1658 personnel, to seven fewer but more capable cutters with a total complement of 1102. The cost to outfit a legacy buoy with a 3 nautical mile nominal range was on average $1380. Using newly available Light-Emitting Diode technology that cost is reduced nearly in half to $750. Other examples where established management procedures have led to performance efficiencies include: The Integrated Aid to Navigation System (I-ATONIS), which deployed in 2005 and eliminated the need to mail paper copies of Local Notices to Mariners, saving over $1.2M annually; the short-range aids program implementation of new LED technology, specifically self-contained LEDs, which reduced aids servicing costs and improved reliability of the aids system; the recent Great Lakes icebreaker project which replaced a 180' buoy tender and existing icebreaker with the new Mackinaw - one vessel with reduced manning requirements capable of performing the mission of two older assets; and purchase of software designed to track vessels, pilot dispatch and availability, and capture financial data necessary for more efficient and effective management of the Great Lakes Pilotage program.

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

Explanation: The U.S. shares the same aid availability standards and targets as other countries that maintain navigation systems. These standard and targets are consistent with those recommended by the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA). The U.S. maintains 50,033 aids to navigation while the average of other reporting countries is 7,255 aids to navigation. The Coast Guard maintains the system with a staff of 2,904 personnel for an average of 0.058 staff per aid. The international average (not including the U.S.) is a staff of 590 personnel for an average of 0.081 staff per aid. The performance of the Great Lakes Pilotage program compares favorably with other programs, both federal and state, specifically, with the rate-making process which relies more on actual business needs than politically-influenced negotiation.

Evidence: ??The IALA Questionnaire outlines the amount of property, equipment, and personnel the U.S. Coast Guard have for its aids to navigation system. These data are compared internationally. ??Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, 46 USC 9303(f), and 46 CFR part 404, provides authority for the Coast Guard to establish rates pilots may charge for services. Appendices A and B to 46 CFR part 404 provides specific rate making methodologies based on utility industry models.

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

Explanation: The Coast Guard has not had an independent evaluation of its whole Waterways Management Program, although one is currently underway. There have been comprehensive and independent evaluations of specific program elements. While the evaluations have identified areas for improvement, the overall assessments indicate that these activities are effective and achieving results with respect to their specific objectives. In general, the effectiveness of these activities with respect to long-term performance goals has not been evaluated in these focused assessments.

Evidence: ?? An independent evaluation found the Bridge Administation program effective in January 2007: CNA Eval.Bridges.pdf ?? The Volpe Study on Great Lakes Icebreaking cost effectiveness reported an ice breaking benefit cost ratio 8.91.doc

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

Explanation: Coast Guard reviews all regulations on a 10-year cycle to assess necessity and small entity impact. To date, none of the program's regulations has required revision based on these reviews. The program also conducts annual reviews of one of its two significant rules (i.e., Great Lakes Pilotage) to determine how pilotage rates should be adjusted to address changes in shipping conditions and demand for service. No evidence was provided to demonstrate that net benefits of the rule are increasing.

Evidence: DHS Interim Management Directive 0490 (Jan 2004) directs regulatory coordinators in Coast Guard to review regulations in accord with Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq).