[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1998
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
September 13, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-129 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 13, 2001............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam.. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, Kurt W., on behalf of the Management Association for
Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS).................. 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Brohl, Helen A., President, National Association of Maritime
Organizations.............................................. 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Gudes, Scott B., Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Hamons, Frank, Manager, Harbor Development, Maryland Port
Administration, and Chairman, Harbors, Navigation and the
Environment Committee, American Association of Port
Authorities................................................ 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
High, Jeffrey P., Director, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation........................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Watson, Captain Michael R., President, American Pilots'
Association................................................ 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Additional materials supplied:
Saade, Edward J., Vice President and General Manager, Thales
Geosolutions (Pacific) Inc., Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 63
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1998,
AND OTHER NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE PROGRAMS
----------
Thursday, September 13, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE GILCHREST, A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing will come to order. I thank you
for your indulgence and your patience, the witnesses and those
attending the hearing and Mr. Underwood and his staff and my
staff.
Today the Subcommittee will be hearing testimony on the
reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of
1998.
As the former Chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, I
am particularly interested in hearing about NOAA's updated
navigation program and how it fits into the broader
transportation, marine transportation system initiative.
Congress enacted the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act to
help provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration with a framework for the modernization of the
United States nautical charting, tide and current and geodetic
programs.
Since the Act became law, significant progress has been
made modernizing those programs largely through Congressional
additions to NOAA's budget request. Despite the progress that
has been made, much work remains to be done, and it is of great
concern to the Subcommittee that NOAA has still not been able
to put together a long term for maintaining its hydrographic
expertise.
The agency was taxed to prepare such a plan in 1998. Nearly
2 years after the statutory deadline has passed and after
repeated assurances from the agency that the plan was nearly
complete, the agency submitted a list of potential options
rather than a plan that chose between options. The Subcommittee
had long been aware of potential options and a further
recitation of those options was not productive or helpful.
I look forward to NOAA to ultimately produce an acceptable
long-range plan. 98 percent of the cargo in the United States
international trade moves by water. Without up-to-date
navigation services, the trade is neither safe nor as effective
as it could be. Therefore I look forward to hearing our
witnesses explain this morning what improvements are needed to
that navigation services, and how to achieve those
improvements.
In light of the events over the last couple of days, we
were debating whether or not to continue this hearing. But we
felt as many do here, that we as the Congress and the
government need to continue to pursue the great ocean of work
that keeps this company secure, vital, functioning and
operating. We also feel that this particular hearing and this
particular issue is also vital to the Nation's interests and
the Nation's security. But I also know all of you here feel,
under the circumstances, a great, sometimes incomprehensible
sadness, a sense of powerful resolve and a sense that America,
in its relationship with the rest of the world, has come to a
new beginning. It's more than Pearl Harbor. It is more than a
civil war. This is a completely new era that now we must take
responsibility for, be competent, intelligent, calm,
systematic, because what we do now will be of tremendous impact
to the next generation, for them, instead of picking up pieces,
to be ready to accept the torch from one generation to the
next.
So as we move through this hearing and the coming days, we
will stick together, be patient, clear-headed, intelligent to
work with the international community. And it is my
understanding that if we do that, and responsible adults across
this entire globe, we can, in fact, rid the world of this
terrible scourge.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Today the Subcommittee will be hearing testimony on the
reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998.
As the former Chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, I am
particularly interested in hearing about how NOAA's updated navigation
services program fits into the broader Marine Transportation System
initiative.
Congress enacted the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act to help
provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with
a framework for the modernization of the United States nautical
charting, tide and current and geodetic programs. Since the Act became
law, significant progress has been made modernizing those programs
largely through Congressional additions to NOAA's budget request.
Despite the progress that has been made, much work remains to be
done, and it is of great concern to the Subcommittee that NOAA has
still not been able to put together a long term plan for maintaining
its hydrographic expertise. The agency was tasked to prepare such a
plan in the 1998 Act. Nearly two years after the statutory deadline had
passed, and after repeated assurances from the agency that plan was
nearly complete, the agency submitted a list of potential options
rather than a plan that chose between options. The Subcommittee had
long been aware of the potential options and a further recitation of
those options was not productive or helpful. I look forward to NOAA
ultimately producing an acceptable long range plan.
Ninety-eight percent of the cargo in the United States
international trade moves by water. Without up-to-date navigation
services, that trade is neither as safe nor as effective as it could
be. Therefore, I look forward to hearing our witnesses explain this
morning, what improvements are still needed to the our navigation
services programs, and how to achieve those improvements.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I now would like to yield to the gentleman
from Guam, Mr. Underwood.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And of course, I
fully endorse the remarks you have just made about the current
situation that we are now confronted with as a Nation. Yet, and
as we are mindful of the situation that we are in and as we
carve out our national project on how to deal with this
condition, one of the ways that we defeat terrorism and the
effects of their activities is to get back to normal as quickly
as possible.
And so it is important that we have this hearing and that
we continue to address issues that are significant to our lives
as quickly and as normally as possible. And so I thank you for
holding this hearing at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
few roles more important than the one we are here to discuss
today. Hydrographic surveying is an essential element of water-
borne trade. The National Ocean Service, part of NOAA and
predecessor, the Coast Survey, have had responsibility for
maintaining hydrographic data since 1807, that is, since
practically the founding of the republic. Hydrographic
surveying has been recognized as an integral part of the duties
of government and is one of the oldest government functions.
As we all know, ships are not cheap to operate.
Hydrographic data is not cheap to gather, nor is it simple to
process this data and create usable accurate nautical charts.
But this is what NOAA is statutorily required to do, and it is
Congress's job to support NOAA and provide it with the
resources to fulfill its hydrographic obligations. NOAA must
maintain an in-house hydrographic capability and the expertise
necessary to carry out this mandate. I can sympathize with the
quandary NOAA finds itself in, a huge backlog of ocean areas
that need to be surveyed and a limited budget.
Long-term planning by NOAA is also hindered by the
uncertainty of future appropriations. But I have to ask the
question, why has NOAA not asked for more money for ship
surveying operations, either in-house or otherwise? NOAA has
requested just over $20 million for these activities in fiscal
year 2002. Yet according to the Marine Navigation Safety
Coalition, NOAA should be requesting closer to $80 million to
address the surveying backlog and various other related
projects, nearly four times the amount requested by NOAA.
A balance must be reached, and as I am sure that we will
hear today between NOAA's in-house capabilities and private
survey capabilities, the need to rapidly address the most
pressing survey data deficiencies must be balanced with the
need to produce and provide the most accurate data and
hydrographic products possible. I was very glad to see the
report that NOAA finally produced on maintaining Federal
expertise and capability in hydrography. Within the report,
several options are given as to how NOAA can fulfill its
mandate in the future. No one option was selected as the final
answer to all hydrographic surveying problems. But a general
plan of action was given in the conclusion. I am very
interested in carrying on a discussion on how this general plan
will be turned into specifics so that our surveying backlog can
be addressed and remedied through the most thorough and
efficient methods possible.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on
an issue so critical to safe marine commerce and transportation
and to the economic and social well-being of millions of
Americans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Robert Underwood, A Delegate to Congress
from Guam
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has few roles more important than the one we are here to
discuss today. Hydrographic surveying is an essential element of
waterborne trade. The National Ocean Service, part of NOAA, and its
predecessor, the Coast Survey, have had responsibility for maintaining
hydrographic data since 1807. That is, since practically the founding
of this nation, hydrographic surveying has been recognized as an
integral part of the duties of the government, and is one of the oldest
government functions.
As we all know, ships are not cheap to operate. Hydrographic data
is not cheap to gather; nor is it simple to process this data and
create useable, accurate nautical charts. But this is what NOAA is
statutorily required to do, and it is Congress's job to support NOAA
and provide it with the resources to fulfill its hydrographic
obligations. NOAA must maintain an in-house hydrographic capability and
the expertise necessary to carry out this mandate.
I can sympathize with the quandary NOAA finds itself in - a huge
backlog of ocean areas that need to be surveyed and a limited budget.
Long-term planning by NOAA is also hindered by the uncertainty of
future appropriations. But I have to ask the question: Why has NOAA not
asked for more money for ship surveying operations, either in-house or
otherwise? NOAA has requested just over $20 million for these
activities in Fiscal Year 2002. Yet according to the Marine Navigation
Safety Coalition, NOAA should be requesting closer to $80 million to
address the surveying backlog and various other related projects - 4
times the amount requested by NOAA.
A balance must be reached, as I am sure we will hear today, between
NOAA's in-house abilities and private survey capabilities. The need to
rapidly address the most pressing survey data deficiencies must be
balanced with the need to produce and provide the most accurate data
and hydrographic products possible.
I was very glad to see the report that NOAA finally produced on
``Maintaining Federal Expertise and Capability in Hydrography.'' Within
the report several options are given as to how NOAA can fulfill its
mandate in the future. No one option was chosen as the final answer to
all the hydrographic surveying problems, but a general plan of action
was given in the conclusion. I am very interested in carrying on a
discussion on how this general plan will be turned into specifics so
that our surveying backlog can be addressed and remedied through the
most thorough and efficient methods possible.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on an issue
so critical to safe marine commerce and transportation, and to the
economic and social well-being of millions of Americans.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Gilchrest. I understand, Mr. High, you have to leave
fairly soon.
Mr. High. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you may go first, sir.
STATEMENT OF JEFF HIGH, DIRECTOR, WATERWAYS MANAGEMENT, UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD
Mr. High. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity, Mr.
Underwood, for the opportunity to speak here on NOAA's
Hydrographic Services program and how it fits into the MTS, the
Marine Transportation System, and to let you know how NOAA's
services are important to the Coast Guard and the Nation.
First, Mr. Chairman, I was with Admiral Loy this morning
dealing with the terrorist incident issues and he sends his
regards and his regrets that he couldn't be here personally. I
also want to thank you for your leadership in recognizing the
importance of the MTS, and of course, I am referring
specifically to the first hearing on MTS, I believe, in
Congress that you held as the Chairman of the Coast Guard
Subcommittee about 3 years ago. And of course it was your
Committee that directed the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a task force to assess the adequacy of our MTS. And
that resulted in the report to Congress of September 1999.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my written testimony
for the record, if I may. But I would like to just highlight a
couple of points. First, on NOAA as a service provider, as an
interagency partner and as a steward of the environment. And I
would like to frame those in the context of the Marine
Transportation System. The Coast Guard and NOAA have enjoyed a
longstanding partnership that includes the exchange of
navigation and environmental information and services. NOAA's
navigation products have always been essential to the execution
of Coast Guard missions, such as search and rescue and oil
spill recovery. We also share the critically important goal of
navigation safety. Safe navigation mitigates the loss of life
and property and promotes a cleaner environment. It also
supports the uninterrupted transport by water of the consumer
goods that the Americans use in their daily life.
As I know Mr. Gudes will say, because I read his testimony
the demand for commercial use of our ports and waterways
continues to grow, fueled by increases in world trade.
Competition between commercial and recreational users for water
space is also increased. The types of vessels that call on our
ports are changing. We are seeing larger freight ships. We are
seeing higher speed ferries, as well as high speed personal
watercraft. All of these changes are challenges to the safe and
efficient flow of marine traffic. Mr. Chairman, today's
mariners and the time sensitive operating practices of modern
shipping require timely and accurate information from and about
the operating environment. Meeting these demands requires
precision navigation services and system, reliable hydrographic
surveys and real time information on weather, water levels and
maneuvering clearances, all services that NOAA provides under
the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act.
The Coast Guard is a direct partner with NOAA in the
production and delivery of safe navigation. I would like to
just mention a couple of activities. Since the earliest days of
the Republic, buoys and lighthouses have contributed to the
safety of navigation. Although sophisticated electronic
navigation systems have been introduced in recent years,
physical aids remain critical to managing transit risk. The
Coast Guard must continue to deliver this important service. I
mean, we must continue to partner with NOAA to provide it at
the highest levels of quality and reliability. Hydrographic
survey data is linked, and with our aid, to navigation data on
navigation charts. Both data sets are essential to safe
navigation.
The Coast Guard and NOAA are also part of an interagency
Committee that is managing the evolution of electronic
navigation technology. Electronic navigational chart, ENC-based
systems, can improve safety in waterways because they present
mariners with real time information. The Coast Guard and NOAA
have entered into a formal agreement to support production of
ENCs. The sooner we update the electronic navigational charts
and they can be delivered, the sooner we will benefit from the
safety advantage that they bring.
The Coast Guard agrees that NOAA needs to accelerate the
production of electronic navigational charts and needs the
resources to do so. Automatic identification systems is a new
tool that has tremendous possibilities for managing risk. A
vessel's AIS consist of a transponder that continuously
broadcasts pertinent navigational data, including vessel
documentation, position, course speed and cargo type. AIS is
dependent on the availability of precise navigation systems
that accurately depict the ship's operating environment.
AIS can also deliver highly accurate information from other
sources such as the weather and hydrographic information
provided by NOAA's PORTS system. The Coast Guard and NOAA have
continued to cooperate on the installation and operation of
PORTS in some of our Nation's busiest waterways. Mariner
reliance on the system is increasing. The Coast Guard strongly
supports the expansion of the system and NOAA's continued roll
in the quality control oversight.
In summary, Mr. Chairman the Marine Transportation System
provides a structure for all MTS users and stakeholders to work
together. The Coast Guard believes that we have no better
partner in the MTS effort than NOAA. NOAA is fully engaged in
forward thinking, has the best interest of the mariners and the
environment in mind at all times, and is a tremendous team
player.
You, sir and the American public should be proud of the way
NOAA provides its many valuable services to the Nation. The
Coast Guard, of course, also has a very significant role in
insuring port safety and efficient marine transportation. But
we know that our ability to meet our responsibilities is highly
dependent upon the ability of our Federal partners, and in
particular, NOAA, to accomplish their mission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss
this important issue today and I will be happy to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. High follows:]
Statement of Jeffrey P. High, Director of Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify
on how NOAA's hydrographic services program fits into the larger Marine
Transportation System initiative and let you know how important
modernization of the Federal government's navigation services program
is to the Coast Guard and to the nation.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continuing
leadership in recognizing the importance of the Marine Transportation
System not only today, but in earlier hearings you held. We also
appreciate your role in directing the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a Task Force to assess the adequacy of the nation's marine
transportation system to operate in a safe, efficient, secure, and
environmentally responsible manner. This mandate, which was part of the
Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998, resulted in the
September 1999 Report to Congress An Assessment of the U.S. Marine
Transportation System, which Mr. Gudes mentioned in his remarks.
The Marine Transportation System Initiative is the basis for many
interagency efforts. This is particularly evident in the Coast Guard's
working relationship with NOAA. The Coast Guard's long established
partnership with NOAA includes the exchange of navigation and
environmental information and services that are used every day in the
marine industry and in the course of Coast Guard operations. NOAA's
navigation products have always been essential to the execution of
Coast Guard missions such as search and rescue and oil spill recovery.
Of critical importance to the Coast Guard is our mutual goal of
navigation safety for boating and commercial shipping, a goal that is
also shared by the marine industry, marine transportation system
stakeholders, and other Federal and State government agencies who use,
or share responsibility for some aspect of the marine transportation
system. Safer navigation not only mitigates the loss of life and
property and promotes a cleaner environment, but also supports the
uninterrupted transport by water of the consumer goods that American's
use in their daily lives.
The demand for commercial use of our ports and waterways continues
to grow, fueled by increases in world trade and domestic use of the
waterways to transport goods and people. Competition between commercial
and recreational users for water space is also increasing. The types of
vessels that call on our ports are changing. We are seeing larger
freight ships and higher speed ferries, and high-speed personal
watercraft that swell the recreational boating population. Increased
use, coupled with increased speed and size, narrows the acceptable risk
margin associated with marine transportation.
What are the gaps and how should we close them? Professional
mariners require timely and accurate information about their operating
environment. The time-sensitive operating practices of modern shipping
require unrestricted access to the waterway and confidence in the
channel dimensions and the depiction of those dimensions. Meeting these
demands requires precision navigation services and systems, reliable
hydrographic surveys, and real time information on weather, water
levels, and maneuvering clearances, all services that NOAA provides
under the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. These services are
critical to achieving the vision of a U.S. Marine Transportation System
that will be the world's most technologically advanced, safe, secure,
efficient, effective, accessible, globally competitive, dynamic and
environmentally responsible system for moving goods and people.
The tools we use to do our business have changed. Safety
initiatives now involve information systems and position fixing systems
to display cartographic, navigational, and environmental information in
near real time. Navigational charts are dynamic, and require frequent
updating in response to shoaling, dredging, construction and the
related changes to buoys and other aids to navigation. The Coast Guard,
NOAA, National Imagery and Mapping Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers each have data critical to the safety of navigation. The
Coast Guard is a direct partner with NOAA in the production and
delivery of navigation products. Some of these activities include:
LSince the earliest days of the Republic, buoys and
lighthouses have contributed to the safety of navigation. Although
sophisticated electronic navigation systems have been introduced in
recent years, physical aids remain critical to managing transit risk.
The Coast Guard must continue to deliver this important service, and we
must provide it at the highest levels of quality and reliability. We
must also continue to cooperate with our colleagues at NOAA and the
National Ocean Service to ensure that information on our constellation
of short range aids to navigation is accurately presented to the
mariner. Hydrographic survey data is linked with aids to navigation
data on navigation charts. Both data sets are essential to safe
navigation. An interagency information technology solution is needed to
ensure the seamless exchange and management of the data required to
produce navigation information products. The Coast Guard and NOAA are
part of an interagency committee that is managing the evolution of
electronic navigation technology. Several work groups are looking
specifically at the digital data exchange question. Resolving
electronic chart data issues in an important joint project that has
international and industry implications.
LTechnology has been used to reduce the staffing of
vessels to make marine transportation economically feasible for a wide
range of industry practices - including ferry and cargo operations.
Electronic Navigational Chart (ENC) data is the core element of a
modern integrated navigation information system. ENC based systems can
improve safety in waterways because they present mariners with real-
time information quickly and with minimal effort. An accurate, timely
position based on Differential Global Positioning System (GPS)
information, when presented on an electronic chart, provides mariners
with the positioning accuracy they need to support navigation
decisions. The Coast Guard and NOAA have entered into a formal
agreement with respect to data sharing to support production of ENCs.
The faster updated electronic navigational charts can be delivered to
the mariner, the faster we can benefit from the safety advantage they
bring. The Coast Guard agrees with NOAA that we need to accelerate the
production of electronic navigation charts and will continue to work
closely with them to speed this delivery.
LAutomatic Identification Systems (AIS) is a new
communication tool that has tremendous possibilities for managing risks
associated with marine transportation. A vessel's AIS consists of a
transponder that continuously broadcasts pertinent navigation data,
including vessel identification, position, course, speed, and cargo
type. However, AIS is dependent on the availability of precise
navigation systems that accurately depict the ship's operating
environment. Continued support of the Differential GPS network and the
rapid delivery of accurate electronic navigational charts are essential
to the success of AIS.
LAIS can also deliver highly accurate information from
many sources, such as the weather and hydrographic information provided
by NOAA's Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS). The Coast
Guard and NOAA have continued to cooperate on the installation and
operation of PORTS in some of our nation's busiest waterways. Mariner
reliance on the system is increasing. The Coast Guard strongly supports
the expansion of the system and NOAA's quality control oversight of
PORTS.
Summary
The Marine Transportation System Initiative provides a structure
for all MTS users and stakeholders to work together to ensure that the
system will be safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible
for the full range of users in light of the projected increase in
demand. Initiatives that contribute to port and marine transportation
safety are in the national interest and the services that NOAA provides
are critical. The Coast Guard is committed to ensuring that vessel
traffic will continue to move on the Nation's waterways safely and
efficiently, including the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway in
coordination with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Modernization of the Federal government's navigation service program,
in particular NOAA's navigation products is essential to meeting that
objective. Although the Coast Guard has a significant role in ensuring
port safety and efficient marine transportation, our ability to meet
these responsibilities is dependent upon the ability of our Federal
partners to accomplish their missions.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue
today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. And I think we will probably go to questions
to you now, Mr. High. Would you say that the hydrographic
services we now have in our present Marine Transportation
System are adequate?
Mr. High. No, sir. I believe that there is room for
improvement. I think that we have databases on charting that
need to be updated. I think we can do more on the way of
electronic charts that we are working on. I think we can
improve our situation tremendously. There is lots of technology
that is available to us. We are working toward that end, but I
would say that we can make some improvement, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Of the options that NOAA has proposed, does
the Coast Guard have any one of those options, in particular,
that they feel would be the best likely way to proceed?
Mr. High. I'm not sure how to answer that question, sir. I
think we need a package of information. We need better data for
our ports, things that have been not updated for 50 years. We
need to know what is there. We really like the PORTS system,
the Physical Oceanographic Real Time System. And we can see
that tying into our AIS. The mariners are calling for that kind
of thing. Electronic charts are very important to us. For our
AIS technology we need to rely upon electronic charts.
So I would say we need the whole package, sir. I would
leave it to NOAA and your thinking on what the priorities might
be.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. High, you said that you have long been
in the partnership with NOAA. Could you explain the aspect of
that partnership that deals with Hydrographic Services, and do
you work closely with NOAA, and have you, in the last several
years, as we are, trying to make improvements in this area of
marine transportation?
Mr. High. Well, sir, I--let me say that I am not the
personal expert on that answer, so I can get you something for
the record if you would like. But my understanding is that we
have been working with NOAA for many years. I mean, we are--our
history goes back as far as NOAA does. We have been working
most recently closely on electronic charting. Our Hydrographic
Services issues our PORT system under keel clearance data. We
are interested in all of the services on tides and depth of
channels that provide to ourselves and the Corps of Engineers.
And I guess I probably best give you a better answer for the
record, if I may.
Mr. Gilchrest. One last question, Mr. High. In your
opinion, the state of the Hydrographic Services that we now
have fall somewhat short of what the Coast Guard's perspective
would be, to meet what you would like to see.
Now, do you mean that we have available technology that we
haven't incorporated into the process? We need to--by that I
mean, is it the Coast Guard's perspective that we do have
available technology, but it has not been implemented for
whatever reason? Maybe the reason is budgetary. Maybe the
reason is a conclusion as to how best to improve the available
service through available technology. Is that the reason?
Mr. High. Well, sir, I think we have--there is a couple of
issues on technology. One is the use of instruments aboard
vessels and that technology is always proceeding the standards
that you would have to set for electronic charts. For example,
we are making some progress on those things and that is work
that has to be done. I think the issue. My view is the issue is
the priority and the amount of resources that go into using the
technology that we have today to do the surveys that we need to
do and to put these systems in place. I believe it is a
priority and a resource issue primarily.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. High. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. High, can you explain some of the
problems, if there are any, that have been created by
inadequate hydrographic surveying from the Coast Guard's point
of view?
Mr. High. Well, sir, I have gotten some good advice, in
fact, I was going to say--thank you very much. We have had
incidents where we have had vessels run aground because they
have hit obstructions where we weren't aware that they were
there, and what was whispered in my ear and I am right on was
the QEII, the Queen Elizabeth II, that ran aground, hit a
pinnacle that we were not aware was there. That, to me, was an
inadequate charting of the waters, and that is a function of
the fact that we can't do them all within the resources that
NOAA's been given.
Mr. Underwood. So, maybe--I know the Chairman touched on
this question a little bit in the Coast Guard's relationship
with NOAA, on dealing with these particular kinds of issues, is
the Coast Guard--he asked the question in a way that said, you
know, are you--have you been working closely with NOAA on this
particular issue? Let me--I want to ask the same question, but
I have forgotten your answer on that, so let me try to think of
a better way of getting you to say--well, are there any areas
of, perhaps where you have been less than satisfied with, you
know, we always--the easiest thing to say on any of these
hearings is that we lack the resources to do everything that we
want to do. So please give us more resources and there will be
inevitably a resolution of these and a fulfillment of the needs
that we have.
But I guess the question really is, is there any--from the
Coast Guard's point of view, has there been--given the level of
resources that we have and that we have expended in the past
few years, is there a level of satisfaction and trust with what
is going on with hydrographic charting?
Mr. High. Well, sir, absolutely. Anything that we get from
NOAA is absolutely--has the quality control that we expect and
need and where we have used things. For example, we have
started an AIS, automatic identification project, in New
Orleans. We need to have a basis for that. Electronic charts,
data that we get from NOAA is absolutely trustworthy and that
is what we need. I guess I understand your point. The resources
are always the issue. One of the reasons that I think it is
important that we have looked at the Marine Transportation
System as a system where we looked at safety, security,
environment, the competitiveness, infrastructure, we believe
that perhaps this whole area has been an area that has been
underinvested. We have put a lot of money into surface
transportation and other things, and it may be time to look at
how we are putting the right kind of investment into our Marine
Transportation System. So again, I am sorry to not give you the
answer that you are looking for.
Mr. Underwood. No, I am not trying to--I am not trying to
identify problems that don't exist. I just want to make sure
that we fix the response, you know, we adequately understand
where the problems lie. I mean, if it is a resource issue, then
it is a resource issue. All right.
Let me see if I--I know this is probably a question more
for Mr. Gudes, but I am trying to understand, I know that NOAA
currently outsources some of the hydrographic surveying, so
from your--from the Coast Guard experience, is there any
distinction that you could make in the quality of effort that
has been--the kind of hydrographic charting that has been given
to you that has been provided on the basis of in-house
capabilities or charting that came as a result of outsourcing.
Mr. High. My understanding is that outsourced data and
collection is still given quality control review by NOAA, and
that is what gives us the credibility that we need. So we are
happy with that product as long as NOAA is standing there with
it.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. And I don't
think--I don't have any more questions, Mr. High. So if you
need to excuse yourself, we appreciate your time and effort
here this morning.
Mr. High. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
flexibility. We are working on some issues related to the
terrorist--.
Mr. Gilchrest. Keep our Nation's waterways and channels and
ports secure.
Mr. High. Yes, sir. That is our intent. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Stay safe in the process.
Mr. High. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are very welcome, sir.
Mr. Gudes, thank you for coming this morning.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT GUDES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND
ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY CAPTAIN DAVID MacFARLAND, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
COAST SURVEY
Mr. Gudes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I just, before
you start timing, make a comment?
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure.
Mr. Gudes. I just wanted to thank Jeff. I think actually
the relationship between NOAA and the Coast Guard are among the
closest in government. I think that is partly the nature of how
the two agencies evolved, 1790 or so for the Coast Guard, 1807
for NOAA. But if you take a look at the various programs that
we work in, we provide the search and rescue information that
goes to the Coast Guard to provide the rescues. We have worked
together on HAZMAT. We have worked together in plane crashes,
all sorts of safety for the public, the issues that you raised.
I just recently was over at the Coast Guard with the commandant
where he presented Coast Guard medals to several NOAA officials
who took part in the cleanup of the Galapagos Islands and the
oil spill, and it really is, I think, quite a very effective
and good relationship.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Proceed.
Mr. Gudes. First of all, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Underwood, let me thank you for holding the hearing. I fully
agree with your comments. The last few days have been tough for
everyone, been tough for all NOAA employees. I just learned
today reading the paper that I knew one of the victims in the
Pentagon and it has been quite tough. But we do have to
continue the business of government. We kept people on
essential services. There could be a hurricane in the Gulf at
any time or the east coast, and the issue that you are talking
about today is critically important to national security as
well, so I want to thank you.
Let me thank you on behalf of Secretary Evans and the 12-1/
2 thousand men and women in NOAA for holding this hearing and
talking about our navigation and maritime transportation system
programs. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Underwood
and the staff, John Rayfield, Dave Jansen, Harry Burroughs and
Sarah Morison and this whole Subcommittee for the leadership
that it has shown in this area and, I will refer to that
several times in my testimony.
Let me also note that I have here today Admiral Fields, the
head of our office and marine aviation operations, Captain Ted
Lowelstall and captain Dave MacFarland for the National Ocean
Service who are sitting right behind me. If you look at the
first slide, I have provided you with a set of slides. Our
Nation's maritime transportation, a transportation system, is
really divided into three legs, if you will, surface
transportation, or rail and truck and surface, the aviation
transportation system, which we have talked about so much in
the last few days.
But the other part that you are focusing on today, which
really doesn't, I think, receive enough attention is the
maritime transportation system and it is probably the least
visible. It carries 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade by weight
and 70 percent by value, and it supplies Americans with two-
thirds of all consumer goods that they own. The total volume of
maritime trade is expected to more than double over the next 20
years, and the added congestion and the size of the ships and
the draft they are taking add serious complications for the
Nation's economy, vessel safety and the environment.
NOAA has a variety of programs which really support the
MPS. It is not just the hydrographic that we are talking about
today, but it is also our weather forecast, our search and
rescue, our port development habitat restoration and spill
response. And I think that it is fair to say that MPS is about
the economy. It is about jobs. It is about the environment. It
is about safety, and yes, it is about national security. You
can turn to the next slide, please. The Hydrographic Service
Improvement Act has helped NOAA make progress in a number of
areas.
NOAA is responsible for charting the Nation's exclusive
economic zone which is greater, the EEZ is greater than the
whole size of the United States land mass. That is shown up in
the upper left. In fact, it is the largest EEZ area in the
world. We prioritized our surveys based on the nature and
extent of vessel traffic, the age of prior surveys and
prevalence of shoaling. These areas form the nationally--
navigationally significant areas and critical areas, and with
your leadership and the Subcommittee's leadership, NOAA has
modernized some of its survey equipment such as putting in a
multi beam sonar and increased outsourcing.
Also, NOAA's backlog of critical areas dropped from 43,000
square miles in the mid 1990's to about 30,000 square nautical
miles today. And if you take a look at the lower right-hand
corner, you will see that showing the State of Florida of that
is about the size of what we had to work down, and the backlog
is roughly the size of Florida, and the portion in red shows
our progress to date in working down that backlog.
And with the refurbishment of NOAA ship, Fairweather, and
activation in 2003 and increased outsourcing, we are confident
we are going to be working down that backlog. If you turn to
the next slide, we have moved to do business differently. We
have, after the passage of the Hydrographic Improvement Act and
work in the mid 1990's and leadership again from Congress, we
are now contracting out about 50 percent of our survey work and
developed a much stronger relationship with the private sector.
This slide shows where we were just a few years ago and
where we are now. It is a comparison with other countries. It
shows the size of the EEZ on the left showing the United States
with the largest EEZ, and it shows what our capabilities are if
you put both government assets together with private sector
assets for the total NOAA program. And just a few years ago,
before the passage of this Act, we were somewhere around 23rd
or so in the world. That is behind Mozambique. And now if you
take all the capabilities together, we have about five ships
and we are about 12th in the world. And we are working to
become more effective and increase productivity. If you take a
look at the next slide just real briefly, it sort of makes the
point that you were just making in your questions that the flip
side of what I am talking about is there is still a lot of
areas in this country where we need to do a better job of
mapping and charting. That is in Togiak Bay, Alaska, that shows
just a few years ago we had no soundings at all and now in
working down that backlog has been done. The next slide Mr.
Chairman shows that we really are looking for three legs, if
you will, of the stool of trying to work down that backlog and
get new information.
First of all, on the left is the NOAA vessels, and as I
said, we are bringing on a new vessel, thanks to the leadership
of Congress. On the right are our contract vessels, and on the
bottom is a new concept, relatively new concept for NOAA, is
the idea of a time charter or a lease charter, and we have been
discussing that within the administration. And I know up here
in Congress there has been an add-on for that area. I should
note, Mr. Chairman, that some of the questions you were asking,
in 1998, we spent some $12 million on hydrographic surveys in
the President's budget.
And in 2002, the budget before you, the proposal is $33
million in the President's budget for hydrographic surveys,
NOAA ship time and private sector ship time. I think that shows
the sort of change that has taken place in the way that the
administrations have looked at this function following your
lead and shows the sort of impact that the Act that you passed
just a few years ago here in Congress has had on NOAA and on
our programs.
If you turn to the next slide, I will run through these
very briefly. The way of the future is electronic navigational
charts. These are smart charts if you will. If you will allow
me, this is a standard NOAA nautical chart. I think it is of
James river. We produce about 400 thousand of these for the
private sector per year, or for the public and about 400,000
for the military. And this is the traditional way of doing
business. In fact, up through the late 1990's or so, this was
the only way we did business. This was the product we were
producing.
In the late 1990's, we moved to a digitized raster chart
with a CREDA, cooperative research and development agreement,
where we digitized those sort of images. You could get 50-
something charts on one CD. I think the last time I testified
we talked about that. But again, these are non smart charts.
These are just--the chart that you see is what you see on your
screen. What we are moving to is electronic navigational
charts.
These are charts that have information that are tied to GPS
that allow the mariner to be safe, to have automatic warnings
if he goes outside the channel, he or she. The Exxon Valdez,
this chart shows you that the Exxon Valdez accident likely
would not have happened had we had electronic navigational
charts in the bridge of that ship. There would have been
several times that Captain Hazelwood and his crew would have
been warned.
If you just go to the next slide, part of this whole area,
I think is moving forward into new research and development. As
I said, we have a lot of backlog, a lot of charting area to do,
and it requires new technologies and new ideas.
And one of the real bright spots, I think, in NOAA, and in
the government the last few years, is the creation of the Joint
Hydrographic Center at the University of New Hampshire. I was
just there a few weeks ago. It is staffed, in part, by
University of New Hampshire professors. We actually have some
of the best experts in the world. Some of them came from Canada
to join this institution. We have NOAA and NOAA Corp officers
going to school there, getting advanced degrees. And it really,
as you can see from some, the products is producing the next
generation of technology such as looking at back scatter, the
return from the sonar equipment to try to characterize the
bottom. And this is important, not just the hydrography. It is
important to essential fish habitat. It is important to all
sorts of areas in NOAA's missions.
And then finally, just my last slide. I often talk about
that NOAA is much more than our district employees, whether the
core officers or men and women serving on the ships or our GS
civilians. The NOAA team really is a total team and includes
the private sector. It includes the universities and academia.
And there are a few images there. And I think that in
approaching this issue, in understanding and getting to really
working down that backlog, it is going to take that sort of
team approach. And that is what we are now doing. Over half the
surveys we do are done by the private sector. We are working to
do more of that and we are working to modernize our government
sector, and as you pointed out, maintain hydrographic
expertise. So I see the red light. And I have seen it for a
while, so I will stop.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]
Statement of Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department
of Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the effectiveness
of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act and the navigation
information services that this Act authorizes. Promoting safe
navigation for the U.S. Marine Transportation System is one of the
critical missions provided by the Department of Commerce's National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We are very appreciative of
your continued support and interest in examining the progress we have
made in modernizing NOAA navigation programs since the enactment of the
1998 Act. The Department testified before this Subcommittee on this
subject in 1997, and it was my privilege to testify on NOAA's
navigation services in 2000. I would now like to update you on some of
our successes and program issues, and conclude by highlighting some
changes we would like to see in a new Hydrographic Services Improvement
Act. In addition, we will provide some preliminary comments on the
Committee's proposed draft reauthorization measure provided to us with
the invitation letter for this hearing. The Department of Commerce is
also preparing a draft legislative proposal for transmittal to the
Congress. It is our hope that reauthorization will allow NOAA to make
even greater strides in providing the timely and accurate information
so necessary for safe and environmentally sound marine transportation,
efficient maritime commerce and ultimately our Nation's economic
prosperity in the global marketplace.
The Marine Transportation System Initiative: NOAA's role
Since our Nation's founding, maritime trade has been vital to
economic prosperity. Today, more than 95 percent of U.S. foreign trade
moves by sea. In 1998, about 2.4 billion tons of cargo moved on our
waterways and through our ports; by 2020, trade is conservatively
projected to double, with the largest increase seen in container
shipping. The length, width, and draft of commercial vessels have grown
dramatically over the last 50 years, pushing the limits of many ports
and posing significant safety concerns and environmental risk as nearly
half of all goods transported are oil or other hazardous materials.
Growth in ferry, cruise line, and recreational boating also contributes
to increased congestion on our waterways. Ensuring safe and efficient
port operations is vital to maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S.
port industry and U.S. exports. One key to reducing risk is to invest
in the national information infrastructure that supports the maritime
movement of goods and people.
In 1998, Congress directed Federal agencies to assess the state of
the U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) and develop a vision for
modernizing the system. This was a first step toward developing a 21st
century transportation system that addresses the future of the system's
safety, security, competitiveness, infrastructure shortages, and
environmental health. Federal agencies and the private sector have
partnered to continue to support the MTS initiative by raising
awareness of MTS issues. In June, NOAA and its partners held the first-
ever national event promoting the MTS on the National Mall.
NOAA supports the MTS with a variety of navigation and
environmental services. NOAA's programs authorized by the Coast and
Geodetic Survey Act of 1947 and the 1998 Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act--Mapping and Charting, Survey Backlog, Geodesy, and
Tide and Current Data--form the backbone of the MTS information
infrastructure. In addition to promoting safe and efficient maritime
commerce with its navigation services, NOAA issues marine weather
forecasts, conducts satellite-aided search and rescue tracking with the
U.S. Coast Guard and other partners, and facilitates sound port
development. NOAA also supports an environmentally friendly MTS by
conducting waterway risk assessments to aid port planning, carrying out
spill preparedness and response activities, and promoting fisheries
management and habitat restoration. These activities form a
comprehensive and effective program supporting the future of the MTS.
Modernization of NOAA's Services
Since President Thomas Jefferson established the Survey of the
Coast in 1807, mariners have depended on federally-supported nautical
charts, coastal water level observations systems, and a geodetic
positioning reference system to navigate safely. NOAA charts are
developed from NOAA's hydrographic and shoreline surveys, tide and
current measurements, and national geodetic and geographic positioning
data, as well as information from many other sources. NOAA continues to
provide these traditional and fundamental services, but we now seek to
deliver them in ever more innovative ways to meet user demands for
accuracy, timeliness and electronic delivery. For example, we have
recently begun a prototype release of electronic navigational charts
via the Internet. We are exploring new capabilities for improving the
accuracy of Global Positioning System technology, and we are adding
forecasts to our real-time ``nowcasts'' of water levels to increase the
efficiency of vessel movement and cargo loads. Demonstration projects
have shown that these programs can provide the accurate data necessary
for determining precise under-keel and overhead/bridge clearances and
can support low visibility docking, allowing commercial vessels to
navigate more safely and to load and move cargo efficiently in and out
of depth-limited harbors. NOAA's integrated suite of surveying,
charting, water level, and positioning services is capable of
increasing the efficient movement of goods, thereby reducing vessel
fuel consumption and port pollution, supporting just-in-time delivery
of goods and enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. exports. NOAA's
navigation services also reduce the risk of marine accidents and
resulting environmental damage, ensuring that tourism, fishing and
other ocean- and coastal-dependent industries continue to prosper. If
accidents do occur, NOAA can provide the necessary support to ensure a
rapid science-based response and eventual restoration of damaged
coastal resources.
User communities
NOAA's navigation services are being utilized by an increasingly
diverse group of users. In addition to the mariner, other end users of
NOAA products include port authorities, vessel traffic systems,
environmental scientists and researchers, emergency planners and
coastal zone managers. The navigation programs have undertaken a
deliberate and consistent effort to recognize these new users, to
solicit all user input and to enlist the support of the private sector
and academia in data collection, product design and research and
development. Successes in our efforts to implement digital charting
databases and develop useful new products could not have been
accomplished without our private sector and academic partners.
Another success is NOAA's regional approach to working directly
with the navigation community. This core group, which includes
commercial mariners, marine pilots, the Coast Guard and Army Corps of
Engineers, among others, has fully participated in developing NOAA's
modernization strategy and prioritization of services. Throughout
NOAA's navigation services--hydrography, charting, positioning and
water level data--the basic strategy has been to make investments where
they will yield the greatest benefit to the public and the mariner.
Typically this has meant first focusing efforts and implementing
advanced technologies in and around the Nation's busiest ports and in
areas where the nature of the cargo or the uncertainty of seafloor
characteristics present the highest risk of harm or accident. NOAA has
effectively engaged the navigation community on a regional basis in
order to track and address critical needs. Recent investments in the
navigation programs have renewed this user group's confidence that NOAA
will deliver the accurate and up-to-date products on which safe and
efficient U.S. marine transportation depends. NOAA's long-standing
relationships with other maritime interests and organizations,
including U.S. Power Squadrons and Coast Guard Auxiliaries, are also
very beneficial. These groups often serve as ``eyes and ears'' for the
agency regarding significant changes affecting hydrographic services
and nautical charts on local waters. This volunteer activity provides
the Nation with a valuable service, one which NOAA would like to see
reflected in legislation to reauthorize the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act. Encouraging and promoting this important cooperative
charting effort, with NOAA's discretion to accept and define the terms
of such volunteer activities, would assist the agency tremendously.
Hydrographic Surveying
Reducing the critical hydrographic survey backlog is one NOAA
priority that has received significant attention in recent years.
Responsible for charting the 3.4 million square nautical miles (snm) of
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), NOAA undertook a realistic
assessment of hydrographic surveying needs and capability in 1994.
Nearly 500,000 snm of that area--about 15 percent of the EEZ--were
determined to be navigationally significant due to the greatest threat
of natural and manmade hazards to marine navigation. Given its limited
ability to address this huge responsibility, NOAA identified 43,000
snm--about 1.3 percent of the EEZ--as being the most ``critical'' to
survey in terms of vessel usage and safety issues. Critical survey
areas are waterways with high commercial traffic volumes, oil or
hazardous material transport, compelling requests from users, and
transiting vessels with low underkeel clearance over the seafloor. Much
of the survey backlog is in Alaska, where large areas have never been
surveyed, earthquakes can cause significant change, and high-occupancy
cruise ships are venturing into the uncharted waters at the feet of
receding glaciers.
In 1994, NOAA estimated that it would take 30 years to complete the
43,000 snm critical survey backlog. When we testified before the
Subcommittee in 1997, the backlog stood at approximately 39,000 snm.
Now at the end of Fiscal Year 2001, I am pleased to report that the
backlog has been reduced to 30,000 snm and the estimate for completion
at current funding levels is under 20 years and dropping with
contractor acquisition miles and the anticipated production of the
refurbished NOAA Ship FAIRWEATHER. NOAA had extremely successful field
seasons in fiscal year 00 and fiscal year 01, including several notable
obstruction findings. For example, while investigating a shoal
bordering the Boston North Channel with side scan and multi-beam sonar,
the NOAA Ship RUDE located the wreck of a steel barge rising ten feet
off the seafloor just inside the channel limits. This was an important
find, as a tanker carrying highly explosive Liquified Natural Gas with
a vessel draft deeper than the barge was due to transit the channel in
a matter of days.
NOAA has not achieved this significant reduction in survey miles
and time by itself. In 2001, NOAA contracted out over sixty-five
percent of its surveying resources, and our contractor relationships
are very strong. The contractors are gaining in experience, and their
data acquisition miles are increasing. Given the magnitude of survey
requirements, NOAA promotes using a balanced mix of resources to
acquire survey data. While operating in-house vessels is necessary to
maintain the expertise to ensure accurate nautical charts and assume
responsibility for contract data, utilizing the capabilities that the
private sector brings to bear on this problem makes good sense. Details
on our surveying efforts are shown in Table A.
With a plan in place to successfully address the critical survey
backlog, NOAA would like to renew its focus on the Nation's other
navigationally significant areas of responsibility. Critical areas in
need of periodic re-survey due to naturally occurring changes such as
silting, storms and earthquakes, increased vessel size using the
waterway, and wrecks or changes in navigational use must be placed on a
schedule to avoid a recurrence of the backlog situation. The U.S. Coast
Guard, marine pilots and port authorities have also identified
additional areas as potentially dangerous to safe navigation and in
need of survey. NOAA is able to address some of these unanticipated
requests on a quick response basis following hurricanes or other
disasters. For example, NOAA surveyed in Puget Sound for navigation
hazards following the February 2001 earthquake near Seattle. For the
most part, however, the remaining priority areas will take over 300
years to survey at the current level of effort. Limiting NOAA's efforts
to critical backlog alone does not fully meet the needs of commercial
mariners, recreational boaters, our federal partners, or other users,
for whom high-accuracy navigation information is essential to operate
safely in all nearshore waters. These stakeholders are depending on
NOAA to produce new digital hydrographic data to populate the
Electronic Navigational Chart and other innovative products that far
exceed the paper nautical chart in precision and capability. NOAA's
modern survey techniques using the Global Positioning System for
positioning accuracy are a significant improvement over older data
collection methods.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.001
Maintaining federal expertise in the management of hydrographic
surveying has been and will continue to be key to fulfilling NOAA's
legal responsibilities as the Nation's hydrographic and charting
office. NOAA can maintain that expertise with its hydrographic survey
vessels and a core group of government hydrographers and still contract
with the private sector for survey data. As I mentioned earlier, NOAA's
plan is to employ a mix of assets to acquire hydrographic survey data;
that is, to balance NOAA's capabilities with private sector contracting
and vessel leases for survey data. In-house expertise enables NOAA to
confidently accept data from outside sources, assume liability for
contractor data it accepts, and provide competent oversight of all
aspects of private surveying practices for these large multi-million
dollar contracts or chartered vessels. NOAA takes its responsibilities
for assuring the accuracy of the data on its charts very seriously.
To comment on the effectiveness of the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act on this program, the outlook is very good for NOAA to
continue to achieve efficiencies in its hydrographic surveying
responsibilities. A mix of assets--in-house and contract--has proven
highly successful to date, and we hope to see continued support for
this approach in a reauthorized Hydrographic Services Improvement Act.
At the request of Congressman David Vitter (R-LA) and the Office of
Management and Budget, NOAA is now exploring a vessel lease option to
add survey capacity and flexibility to reducing the hydrographic survey
backlog. We have entered into a contract with the auditing firm KPMG to
perform an independent cost analysis of NOAA's hydrographic surveying
through NOAA vessels, contracting and a vessel lease. KPMG's report is
due at the end of September. The purpose is to enable NOAA to most
effectively deploy its resources and highlight the most appropriate use
of survey options based on geography and risk mitigation. For example,
some survey areas strewn with rocks and pinnacles pose complex
challenges. It therefore may be more efficient to utilize the
experience and size of the NOAA ships RAINIER or FAIRWEATHER in these
dynamic regions where it is difficult to specify deliverables and to
task contractors with more well-defined seafloor areas on which they
have more experience.
NOAA's partners look to us for hydrographic leadership and research
into new survey technologies; developing efficiencies with multi-beam
and side scan sonar equipment on NOAA survey vessels improves the
effectiveness of both in-house and contract operations. NOAA also
demonstrates expertise by developing software integration and state-of-
the art technology with industry and academia. Advances in NOAA's
hydrographic surveying program will fuel this research and development,
provide more opportunities and options for contract survey work to
speed reduction of the critical backlog, and begin to address the
remaining navigationally significant areas in need of survey. The 1999
assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System echoes this three-
part goal. It recommends that NOAA accelerate backlog reduction, make
progress on surveys for the rest of the Exclusive Economic Zone, and
incorporate advanced technologies into hydrographic surveying to
improve data collection and enhance the Electronic Navigational Chart
for safe navigation. However, the language in the draft reauthorization
measure provided with the letter of invitation limits NOAA's authority
to operate its hydrographic ships without multi-beam equipment after
October 1, 2001. We fully support the Subcommittee's intent that NOAA
use modern equipment, but submit that the provision is overly specific.
For example, it would prohibit NOAA from operating subsequent and more
modern generations of equipment as those become available. In some
cases, multi-beam systems on NOAA's smaller vessels might be
inappropriate. NOAA's goal is to procure multi-beam systems to
modernize all larger NOAA survey vessels, but this effort will take
funding and time to achieve beyond the deadline specified; furthermore,
we believe this limitation on authority is counterproductive to using
all available assets to reduce the survey backlog.
Our partnership with the University of New Hampshire Center for
Coastal and Ocean Mapping and Joint Hydrographic Center continues
NOAA's commitment to productivity improvements by promoting research
and development, creating new markets and improving the training and
capability of U.S. hydrographers. The Joint Hydrographic Center has
been extremely successful, exceeding all expectations in its first two
years of operations. Both the educational and research programs are
well established and have achieved significant results. M.S. and Ph.D.
programs in Ocean Mapping have been approved by the University and
recognized by the International Federation of Surveyors/International
Hydrographic Organization, and 10 graduate students are enrolled to
date. In addition, the Center has developed software tools to read most
types of hydrographic data; developed 3-dimensional hydrographic data
visualization software; tested the ability of high speed high
resolution side scan sonar to deliver bathymetric data; and worked with
NOAA to survey Portsmouth Harbor for the Shallow Survey 2001 conference
data set. The Center is also supporting NOAA with bathymetric data
analysis in connection with potential Law of the Sea continental shelf
claims in the Arctic.
Electronic Navigational Charts
The Electronic Navigational Chart (ENC) is perhaps the most
anticipated, and most critical component of NOAA's suite of navigation
tools. NOAA began developing ENCs in 1994 when new advances in
navigation technology foreshadowed the potential for an integrated MTS
information infrastructure. To meet the requirements for civilian
transportation, the Department of Transportation began implementing
Global Positioning System (GPS) augmentations based on a technique
known as ``differential'' GPS (DGPS). Operated by the U.S. Coast Guard
for vessel positioning, the maritime DGPS has revolutionized onboard
navigation systems to give mariners very precise location data at 10
meters or less. Because more than fifty percent of NOAA's nautical
charting data were collected before 1940, in many cases the DGPS
position is more accurate than both the surveying technology that
gathered the soundings and the traditional nautical chart itself.
Depending on scale, the graphical accuracy portrayed on a nautical
chart can range from 40 to 100 meters. This is often the cause of the
``ship on the pier'' situation, where the vessel tied up at the pier
appears on the navigation system to be on the pier rather than
alongside. NOAA recognized early on that mariners need high-accuracy
electronic chart data to fuel their real-time navigation display
systems for collision and grounding avoidance and ``just-in-time''
delivery routing practices. Reaching the same conclusion, the
international hydrographic community encourages ENC development by
countries. The International Maritime and Hydrographic Organizations,
the latter on which NOAA represents the United States, developed
performance and data standards to authorize use of Electronic Chart
Display and Information Systems instead of paper charts. Commercial
mariners in particular embraced these concepts, as requirements to
carry and update nautical charts aboard vessels are burdensome and
bulky.
At the same time, though, NOAA could not abandon its continuing
charting mission to focus exclusively on the new ENC technology. Many
mariners still required traditional nautical charts. To meet this need
efficiently, NOAA developed a digital database system to update its
paper charts more quickly and get accurate data into the hands of users
in a more timely fashion. Additionally, the Raster Nautical Chart (RNC)
was designed with a private sector cooperative research partner as an
interim product that mariners could use while the advanced ENCs were
being developed. The raster product has been very successful.
Continually maintained using base chart program funding, it has proven
to be highly efficient and popular in its own right with the computer-
savvy mariner. NOAA and its private sector partner, MapTech, Inc. of
Amesbury, Massachusetts, and Bangor, Maine, have built on RNC
technology to develop a weekly electronic Update Service for the RNC,
and a new Print On Demand chart that is also updated on a weekly basis,
printed with the latest information when ordered, and then mailed to
the customer. Though essentially just an electronic picture of the
paper chart, and hampered by the same positioning limitations, the RNC
has enabled NOAA to improve its navigation products in the short term
and provide the public with affordable, accurate and up-to-date
navigation information.
The ENC is the next-generation product required to meet the
increasingly sophisticated and technological demands of mariners and to
ensure safe navigation. Built to international standards, ENCs, also
called vector charts, are not charts but rather a database of chart
features and digital hydrographic data that can be intelligently
processed and displayed by electronic charting systems. As ``smart
charts,'' ENCs give the user much more information than the paper chart
can, and with much greater accuracy. They can be integrated with GPS
satellite data and other sensor information (such as water levels,
winds and weather) to significantly improve navigation safety and
efficiency by warning the mariner of approaching hazards to navigation
and situations where the vessel's current track will take it into
danger. The NOAA ENC supports all types of marine navigation by
providing the official database for electronic charting systems. The
utility of the ENC database extends beyond navigation; for example, it
can also support marine geographic information systems for coastal
management.
Rather than simply ``vectorizing'' or digitizing the paper chart,
NOAA contracts with the private sector to construct the base ENC, which
is then supplemented with more precise data compiled by NOAA for
critical chart features such as channels, aids to navigation and
obstructions. NOAA's long-standing partnerships with the Coast Guard,
the Army Corps of Engineers and numerous other entities generate
immense quantities of this high-accuracy source data, which NOAA
digests and quality controls before charting. Our partners also
anticipate the availability of the ENC to meet their own objectives.
For example, NOAA's ENC will integrate with the Coast Guard's Automated
Identification System (AIS) to help track and manage vessel movement.
The International Maritime Organization has established a 2002 deadline
for all new commercial carriers to be fitted for AIS transponders.
Existing ships must be retrofitted for AIS transponders by 2005. This
international requirement makes it imperative for NOAA to move forward
in ENC construction and delivery.
As we testified in 1997, and again in 2000, NOAA has taken an
incremental approach to developing the ENC using the limited resources
it has available. NOAA's strategy has been to maintain and update its
existing chart suite in paper and raster formats while it creates
vector ENCs for waters where more detailed data would best promote safe
navigation, principally in and around the 40 major U.S. commercial
ports. Using this investment-for-benefit strategy, NOAA has built 135
ENCs, and plans to provide a total of 200 by the end of 2002 for the
Nation's busiest ports under the current budget request. Ultimately,
but only as resources allow, NOAA needs to produce approximately 660
ENCs to correlate with the paper chart suite of 1000 charts in order to
respond to the Marine Transportation System's need for full contiguous
coverage of U.S. and territory waters. Commercial mariners, as well as
electronic chart system manufacturers, have an expectation that NOAA
will produce a full suite of ENCs to provide significantly more
accurate and up-to-date information that can enhance safety and
environmental protection, reduce risks, and improve efficiency.
As of mid-July, NOAA has started releasing ENCs in a provisional
form for free download over the Internet. Since the first 63 ENCs were
posted, over 10,000 ENC files have been downloaded. This shows a real
interest on the part of the public, given that the availability of
these files has not been widely advertised, and the downloading traffic
has been steady to date. NOAA intends to make the provisional ENCs into
official chart products once we can provide periodic updates (sometime
after January 2002).
Shoreline Mapping/Geodetic Positioning
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 also authorizes
appropriations for NOAA's shoreline mapping and geodetic programs,
which support NOAA's nautical charting efforts, the MTS infrastructure,
and the Nation's positioning needs. NOAA's shoreline mapping activities
provide the accurate, consistent, and up-to-date data required to
delineate shoreline for NOAA's nautical products and ENCs. The
shoreline depicted represents the official National Shoreline of the
United States. NOAA delineates shoreline with stereo photogrammetry
using tide-coordinated aerial photography controlled by kinematic GPS
techniques. This process produces a seamless, digital database of the
National Shoreline. NOAA and its partners are working together to
develop new remote sensing techniques to accelerate shoreline mapping,
but only about 10 percent of the shoreline has been produced digitally
to date. In addition, approximately one-third of the U.S. shoreline has
yet to be mapped by NOAA and our partners in a manner that meets NOAA's
requirements for tide-controlled surveys for nautical charting
(primarily areas in Alaska, the Great Lakes, and the West Coast north
of Santa Barbara, California). Much of what has been mapped was done
prior to 1970, and the accuracy, consistency, and currency of these
areas of the coastline cannot be warranted. America's 95,000 miles of
coastline are subject to natural and man-made processes that
continually alter its shape and character. The National Shoreline
should be frequently evaluated, especially in this era of rapid coastal
development.
NOAA has determined that, in order to adequately maintain the
National Shoreline, it must place critical portions of the coastline on
a 5-year average cycle to resurvey and map, with remaining areas mapped
on a 10-year average cycle. An area is determined to be critical based
upon the level of economic activity, the potential for alteration, and
its environmental sensitivity. At the present rate of progress, NOAA
maintains the existing shoreline data on a 50-year cycle and cannot
address the one-third that has yet to be mapped. This is not sufficient
to keep pace with the needs of ENCs and the growing stress on the
Marine Transportation System.
NOAA received a $1.5 million increase for shoreline mapping in
fiscal year 2001. In line with its commitment to increase the
opportunities for private sector performance for routine data
acquisition and processing when appropriate, NOAA is in the process of
contracting for shoreline in the Gulf Coast and Alaska in support of
hydrographic surveying. NOAA intends to open up all future increases in
shoreline mapping and will begin to submit its current in-house
operations in the gathering of shoreline data to competition with the
private sector, in accordance with the Administration's Competitive
Sourcing Initiative. We have held workshops and meetings with relevant
private sector entities to inform them and work through issues in
advance. Knowledge gained from these activities has helped us devise a
strategy for photogrammetric and remote sensing services related to
shoreline mapping. We believe this strategy alleviates the need for a
report to Congress, as directed in the proposed draft reauthorization
measure provided to us. Using experience gained from its hydrographic
program as a model, NOAA will maintain core surveying management
competency but will also compete with the private sector and develop
opportunities to build private sector capability in photogrammetric
mapping to NOAA standards. GPS-positioned shoreline provides the high
accuracy needed for ENCs. Other new products that the private sector
could produce, such as large-scale docking charts, would also rely on
NOAA's digital shoreline database.
Over the years NOAA's photogrammetric techniques have also been
applied to other environmental problems dealing with the coastal zone.
For example, the program has produced boundary maps for government
agencies and legal authorities for use in the adjudication of marine
boundary disputes among Federal, state, and private litigants. Storm
evacuation maps have been used by government and disaster relief
agencies for planning emergency evacuation of affected inhabitants from
coastal areas subject to flooding by severe storms and hurricanes. NOAA
has also provided imagery to disaster relief agencies to assist in
rapid response storm damage assessment. Coastal zone managers,
planners, scientists, and regulatory agencies use the coastal zone maps
prepared by NOAA to assess marshlands, marine sanctuaries and other
coastal areas subject to multiple use.
Another crucial part of NOAA's mandate is management of the
National Spatial Reference System (NSRS), which provides a common
geographic framework and the foundation for the Nation's spatial data
infrastructure. NSRS provides the basis for mapping, charting,
navigation, boundary determination, property delineation,
infrastructure development, resource evaluation surveys, and scientific
applications; in other words, it is the underlying reference system
that provides positioning consistency for the entire United States.
NOAA is enhancing NSRS to complement the Global Positioning System and
give more integrity to GPS coordinates. The mainstay of NSRS is the
nationwide network of Continuously Operating Reference Stations
(National CORS). NOAA supplies data from over 200 National CORS sites
through cooperative agreements with academic, commercial, government,
and private organizations.
The U.S. Coast Guard's maritime DGPS network is a major contributor
to the National CORS. NOAA also provides integrity monitoring for the
Coast Guard DGPS sites to help ensure the system's reliability. The
Department of Transportation is currently expanding the maritime DGPS
network into the Nationwide Differential GPS (NDGPS) network. NDGPS
allows the marine navigator to determine vessel location and the
National CORS system allows the creation of charts specifying water
depth beneath the vessel and the distance from the vessel to a docking
site or an obstruction. NDGPS provides data to be used instantaneously
for positioning within a few meters. National CORS provides a framework
from which users extract data for more precise applications; surveyors,
engineers, GIS professionals, and others may use CORS data via the
Internet to compute 3-dimensional positions with an accuracy of a few
centimeters. Over 90 percent of the conterminous United States is
within 200 kilometers of at least one National CORS. It is NOAA's goal
to have the entire U.S. within 200 kilometers of three National CORS in
order to provide higher positioning accuracies and capabilities. NOAA
is also working on techniques for highly accurate positioning with GPS
in real time, so that mariners may make better decisions for operating
their vessels safely. With this expanded capability, port managers and
shippers have the opportunity to safely maximize capacity.
In the words of one GPS equipment manufacturing executive,
'Accuracy is Addictive.' The need for more accurate, timely, and
consistent positioning services causes the NSRS to continually evolve
in anticipation of meeting these burgeoning demands. One such effort
particularly relevant to marine transportation safety is Height
Modernization, a set of NOAA-led efforts to enhance the vertical
component of NSRS by providing better access to accurate, reliable,
real-time height data. NOAA prepared a report on Height Modernization
for this Subcommittee in 1998. This vertical accuracy is important
because, for example, knowing underkeel clearance (or the vertical
distance between a ship's bottom and the channel floor) minimizes the
risk of groundings, environmental damage and time spent waiting on high
tides to enter or leave a port. Knowing more precisely where a vessel
is helps the mariner to maximize use of limited channel depths safely
in changing weather and water conditions. Collisions with bridges can
be avoided if mariners have height information to navigate precisely
and know in real-time the air gap between the bridge and the vessel.
Preventing such incidents has an important effect on port capacity
because a maritime accident can close down a port, delay and reroute
other vessels, trains and road traffic, and cost millions of dollars,
especially if the accident results in a hazardous spill. A recent
example is the lift bridge struck by a grain freighter in the Great
Lakes between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. This accident had the
potential to block the St. Lawrence Seaway to both U.S. and Canadian
marine traffic for several days while clean-up took place, causing
expensive delays for other vessels moving freight through this major
marine trade link.
In order to implement Height Modernization, NOAA engages in a
variety of partnerships with the private sector, state and local
governments, and other Federal agencies. Many of these partnerships
provide geodetic control and access to NSRS, as well as development and
implementation of geodetic applications. NOAA is currently assisting
the states of California and North and South Carolina with targeted
funding, guidance and coordination. The intent is to have these serve
as prototype arrangements for implementing Height Modernization
nationwide. In fact, as directed in the pre-conference House 2002
Appropriations Bill, NOAA has moved forward on addressing a report
request to work with Louisiana and Wisconsin to assess these states'
geodetic program needs. NOAA held listening sessions in mid-August and
we plan to produce our report by the specified deadline of September
15, 2001, for Conference action.
National Water Level Observation Network/Physical Oceanographic Real-
time Systems
Real-time water levels, tides and currents are an important tool in
NOAA's suite of services to support safe and efficient use of a port.
The Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System, or PORTS, has received
Congressional attention in recent years, but the network of water level
stations that underpins PORTS is perhaps less well known. The National
Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) consists of approximately 175
continuously operating water level measurement stations distributed
along U.S. coasts, in the Great Lakes and connecting channels, and in
the U.S. territories and possessions. NWLON provides basic tidal datums
to determine U.S. coastal marine boundaries and for nautical chart
datums and long term sea level change. It also provides support for
NOAA's tsunami and storm surge warning programs, climate monitoring,
coastal processes and tectonic research. In the Great Lakes, water
level stations support water management and regulation, navigation and
charting, river and harbor improvement, power generation, scientific
studies and adjustment for vertical movement of the Earth's crust in
the Great Lakes Basin.
Although the NWLON stations have now been modernized with a real-
time data dissemination system developed in the 1980's, NOAA has been
unable to revisit stations to perform routine maintenance. This has
caused some stations to fail, and data from others is suspect. A recent
comprehensive assessment of NOAA's tidal current prediction products
shows major gaps and deficiencies for the Nation's ports and harbors
due in part to this station degradation. NOAA needs to restore failing
stations to operational status, collect current meter data at
historical locations and at new locations critical to the mariner. The
new data will be used in the design of future PORTS and in the
calibration and validation of hydrodynamic models for development of
nowcast/forecast products of water conditions critical for supporting
increasing marine commerce and safe navigation.
NOAA is working with regional and local partners to expand the
water levels observation network and PORTS in major U.S. ports. PORTS
is a decision support tool which integrates and delivers real-time
oceanographic data--water levels, currents, winds and water
temperature, forecasts and other geospatial information--to users via
the telephone, fax, and Internet. There are currently five large PORTS
(Tampa, New York, San Francisco, Narragansett Bay and Houston/
Galveston), and several smaller single station real-time systems
(Chesapeake Bay, New Haven, Soo Locks, Tacoma, Seattle, Anchorage,
Nikiski). Emphasis is now being placed on implementing real-time data
dissemination of automatically quality-controlled data from the entire
NWLON. Many ports have expressed interest in partnering with NOAA to
obtain their own PORTS, including Los Angeles/Long Beach, Charleston,
New Orleans, and Jacksonville, Florida, among others. Local authorities
fund and maintain the PORTS equipment, and NOAA assists with
installation and quality assurance. NOAA has developed and implemented
a quality control capability called the Continuous Operational Real-
Time Monitoring System (CORMS) to provide a centralized capability to
quality control the real-time data. This capability will ensure that
mariners and other users have accurate data upon which to confidently
base critical operational decisions that can affect life and property.
PORTS can tie into a vessel traffic system to help move ships in
and out of port as quickly as possible, and as fully loaded as is
safely possible. Underkeel clearance, of course, is again a key aspect
of this. A few more inches of draft can mean additional thousands to
millions of dollars to a shipper. It may take anywhere from two to
eight hours for a ship to leave a port and reach the ocean, and, of
course, it can take many hours to load additional cargo. To maximize
cargo loads, mariners need to know what the underkeel clearance will be
from 6 to 24 hours into the future. This takes forecast models combined
with real-time oceanographic systems and up-to-date nautical charts.
NOAA is doing research into forecast models and new visibility and air
gap sensors tied to PORTS; in fact, the Chesapeake Bay Forecast Model
just recently became operational to provide the maritime community with
improved predictions of water levels in the Chesapeake Bay. Ships
coming into port will use these sensors and models to time arrivals for
the best underkeel clearance situation and not have to wait outside the
bay or port entrance, wasting fuel. Knowing more exactly where a vessel
sits in the water column also reduces the need for deeper safety-margin
dredging.
NOAA continues to hear from the navigation community that the need
for PORTS data is a high priority. The 1999 MTS Assessment also
recommended expanding PORTS technology for maximum safety and
efficiency in waterways management. Many members of Congress are aware
of the utility of NOAA's real-time water level systems. In 2000 NOAA
sought, and appropriators granted, permission to reprogram funds to
keep PORTS operational and to activate Narragansett Bay. fiscal year
2001 funding enabled NOAA to maintain support for the existing PORTS
and implement the prototype CORMS. The current 2002 budget before
Congress would add needed flexibility to the program; this level of
funding will help maintain and upgrade the NWLON and allow NOAA to
provide quality assurance services for an expanded network of PORTS.
The Future: A new Hydrographic Services Improvement Act
Maritime shipping is the cheapest and most environmentally
responsible method of transportation. For many bulk products, from oil
to farm goods, there is no alternative transportation means. NOAA
provides tools to maximize the capacity of American ports while
safeguarding the environment. NOAA's navigation services can increase
the efficiency of a port's throughput, and they help the coastal
manager make informed decisions on development and resources. With
better information about bathymetry, water levels, currents,
positioning and obstructions, larger vessels can enter U.S. harbors and
carry more cargo for export, and every inch matters.
NOAA is an active participant in the MTS Initiative, and it is our
hope that a reauthorized Hydrographic Services Improvement Act will
allow NOAA to fully implement the integrated suite of services sought
by users of the MTS. NOAA's programs also support the National Energy
Policy by supporting safe waterborne transport of energy products and
national security objectives. To help achieve the world's most
technologically advanced, safe, efficient, globally competitive and
environmentally responsible system for moving goods and people, NOAA
must continue efforts to modernize its navigation services programs and
get its data into the hands of mariners and other users. Private sector
and fellow MTS agency partnerships are key to our collective success in
improving the MTS infrastructure.
I am pleased to report that significant headway is being made on
the critical backlog, and that NOAA is taking a look at strategies for
surveying other Navigationally Significant areas. Contracting for
hydrographic surveys is progressing very well. NOAA is satisfied with
the overall quality of the data generated by its contractors. The
letter of invitation inquires why NOAA was unable to develop a
meaningful plan to maintain expertise in hydrography and asks whether
it is still necessary for NOAA to maintain expertise. NOAA did submit
the report, the Hydrographic Expertise Report to Congress in fiscal
year 2001. This report, combined with the plan submitted to Congress
five years ago, explains NOAA's basic strategy at that time to 1) use
government vessels, 2) increase contracting, 3) pursue a third option
of leasing vessels, and 4) work with the private sector and other
agencies in the research and development of technologies. NOAA will
continue to work on ways to maintain expertise in the management of
hydrographic surveying, and ensure that the work is done in the most
efficient and reliable way possible and in accordance with
Administration policy on competitive sourcing.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act has been an effective
mechanism to begin addressing the survey backlog, and now NOAA should
turn its attention to fully modernizing the rest of the navigation
services program to handle the incoming hydrographic data and get this
critical information out to the mariner in a timely fashion. Some
changes that NOAA would like to see in a reauthorized Act include
increased flexibility to work with the private sector, non-governmental
and volunteer organizations to fulfill this mission. Authority to
increase public awareness on the availability of hydrographic services
would also help improve public safety and expand the community of NOAA
data users to more environmental groups. Clarifying that NOAA provides
basic data for environmental applications as well as engineering and
scientific purposes would simply encourage additional uses of this data
not foreseen in 1947. Finally, new authorization levels should reflect
the costs to implement new technologies in modernizing NOAA's
navigation programs, maintain and update charting and associated
databases, and provide high-accuracy data and services in the real-
time, digital formats demanded by our users. We request that the draft
reauthorization levels be consistent with the President's Budget. The
Department's draft bill will address the appropriate levels.
An unintended consequence of the draft authorization is that it
would nullify the permanent authorization of the programs provided by
the Coast and Geodetic Survey Act of 1947. NOAA's navigation programs
are perpetual infrastructure needs for the safety of the Marine
Transportation System and should remain permanently authorized. They
should not be subject to accidental de-authorization in the event that
Congress is delayed in acting on a programmatic reauthorization. As I
stated earlier, limits on NOAA's authority to operate its hydrographic
ships without multi-beam equipment are overly specific. We fully
support authorizing NOAA's use of modern equipment, but limitation on
authority is unnecessary. The draft legislation also inadvertently
restores language that limited NOAA's authority to perform navigation
services to U.S. waters; this language was changed in 1960 (Pub.L. 86-
409) and reiterated most recently during the 106th Congress with HR
1000, Title VI, Section 605 (Pub. L. 106-181), to clarify NOAA's
ability to operate outside of U.S. waters.
In closing, I would like to reiterate our focus on the ENC, the
electronic navigational charts which will integrate all of NOAA's core
products--new and accurate hydrographic and shoreline data, precise
positioning information, and real-time oceanographic data--to enhance
situational awareness and help the mariner utilize water depths more
safely and effectively for navigation and cargo movement, in all
weather conditions. As MTS trade and congestion increase, mariners will
need to be able to navigate in more crowded, low visibility situations
to keep traffic flowing. The impact of weather delays on cargo delivery
has ripple effects throughout our economy; Houston Ship Channel is an
excellent example of this. Home to some of the Nation's largest
petrochemical facilities, this port is shut down by heavy fog each
winter as ships sit waiting for better weather to transit the channel.
Delays in energy delivery translate into higher fuel prices for
consumers. The ability to navigate with the ENC in low visibility would
help reduce this backlog of ships awaiting passage and improve vessel
traffic management.
An initial set of ENCs is now available in prototype format via the
Internet and NOAA continues to maintain and update the raster nautical
charting database. The shoreline mapping program will expand its
contracting efforts this year to acquire more digital shoreline data,
and model arrangements with key states will help NOAA initiate Height
Modernization of the Nation's spatial reference system. Finally, we are
optimistic that the 2002 budget now pending before Congress will enable
us to put the ENC on track, as well as adequately maintain the NWLON
and PORTS systems, to support the Nation's need for high-accuracy
products to promote safe navigation.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.004
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gudes. Is NOAA now--you
haven't presented to us a specific road map for a plan that
NOAA will embark upon. There are various options out there, and
I know, based on certainly ever improving technology, perhaps
there is some hesitancy to move in one direction before a
technology that is on the horizon could be put into production
in the next 6 months. And our Committee would like to work with
you, if, in fact, that direction has not been resolved yet, a
specific set of options have not come to a fundamental
conclusion. So this Committee would like to stay in touch with
you, Mr. Gudes, to pursue as quickly as we can, the best
available options.
Having said that, can you give us some idea of what we can
expect with the extra money from 12 million to 33 million, if,
in fact--and we are hoping that you would actually get that 33
million in the President's budget?
Mr. Gudes. I think the Senate bill actually has even more
than the 33 million in it for some other programs to enhance
our efforts. I think that the lease charter I talked about is
on both sides of the House and Senate, or a time charter, I
guess the right way to put it, which is the idea of a private
sector ship that would really be operating on a much higher op
tempo, dedicated on behalf of doing backlogs, possibly in the
Gulf of Mexico, for example.
In the case of the 33 million, that change between the 12
million and 33 million, it represents the ship time. It
represents bringing the Fairweather to activation. I think that
actually takes place in 2003, fiscal year 2003, under our
intentions, our plan. It includes operating our other three
ships, the Rude, the Whiting on the east coast and the Rainier,
which is our most effective vessel on the west coast which has
six launches. It includes around $20 million or so of charter
time of using the private sector through specific charters. And
I would say that in any sort of plan, in any sort of outlook,
we are working with the private sector closely to make those
contracts more and more effective on the square nautical miles
that can be worked down with each of those contracts. And I
think last time I testified, Mr. Chairman, I talked about how
we have actually had some of our officers come off of ships,
and then the next job was working on shore with the private
sector and with the communities in terms of making that
relationship more effective.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the extra money would be of a fairly
large significant improvement in time, both on board ship,
working with the private sector to bring about more and better
hydrographic information. Could that also represent, in the
near term, the specific way in which NOAA is going to complete
this task?
Mr. Gudes. I am sorry. Say it again Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. The extra money, will that bring to fruition
a specific plan, a choice of an option or options that NOAA
will pursue?
Mr. Gudes. Well, we have submitted a hydrographic service
plan to you. I understand some of the criticisms of the
Committee that you feel that it--it is too general.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you feel that--and that is a good--I am
glad you said that. Do you feel that you are moving in a
direction that you want to move in? Is it just a perception of
us that it appears vague, but in your mind you are on this
course and you are in full gallop toward your goals?
Mr. Gudes. Let me tell you what I do think, Mr. Chairman,
and tell the Committee. This is my view, and you can either
applaud or get me in trouble for saying any of this. I think
that it is--.
Mr. Gilchrest. We would be happy to hear you say something
that you think might get you in trouble.
Mr. Gudes. I think I did last time I testified.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is how we make progress here.
Mr. Gudes. I think we talked about HAZMAT, one of my staff
told me. I think that we are on the right track, and I do
believe that if you listen, and I know we have been at a few
events together, I talk about the impact that NOAA has had on
our ocean programs. I think in almost every case it has been
very positive. And we now have a new ocean commission, as you
know, to take a look at things. But if you take a look at this
area of our business, it is quite clear that after 1970, this
country and NOAA reduced its capability. We went from 11 ships
to 8 ships to three ships in terms of the inherent government
capability, the internal capability and we did very little
contracting.
And so it is not by accident that really our capabilities
by the mid 1990's were less than they were when NOAA was
created. We have, through your leadership, through the
Congress's leadership and through people like Captain Dave
MacFarland and Admiral Fields who are behind me, really turned
that around in just the last few years. We are investing in new
equipment in our ships. Admittedly, we are not building new
hydrographic ships. We are investing in modernizing those
ships.
But the Rainier, as I said, is among the most sophisticated
and capable ships that we have in the hydrographic area. We
are, through the Congress's leadership, modernizing the
Fairweather, and so I think on the government side, in terms of
the equipment, we are doing the right things.
In terms of the technical expertise, I think that the type
of people, Sam Dubow, Commander Sam Dubow, who is behind me,
Captain MacFarland, these are the Nation's preeminent
government hydrographers. Efforts like creating the Joint
Hydrographic Center, these are the right things to do to
maintain the expertise. I think last time I testified here, I
said that we had come down to about 80-something FTEs in NOAA,
full-time equivalents that we considered hydrographic experts
and I felt that that was as low and lower that the government
should go; that we needed to rebuild that.
And I would make that statement again today, which will
probably have me in trouble, who knows. In terms of the private
sector, we didn't do enough contracting. In the mid 1990's, we
started to turn that around. Again, this was an area where
Congress, especially the House of Representatives, came back us
too, and now we are doing over $20 million of private sector
contracts a year. This lease charter idea is one that the
Congress has come to us with. And it is the idea of really
getting a very high operating tempo from the private sector in
areas that make sense where the private sector has special
expertise, the Gulf of Mexico is a great example where I think
we do very few government surveys in that area now. So on the
hydrographic survey side, I think we are doing the right
things. In terms of the R&D, I think we are finally starting to
do the right things to take a look at new research and
development, new tools to do the job. And it always is a
question of getting these products out into information that
the customers can use.
I will say this, in fact, Captain MacFarland heads the
constituent group that we meet with. NOAA does a pretty good
job of going out and trying to meet with constituents and
finding out what the private sector, the private sector in
terms of the people who produce data with us, as well as the
users, the ports and the shipping groups. I think that this
part of NOAA's business promotes safe navigation or maritime
transportation system is doing it right. When we have our
constituent workshops, 60 percent or so of the people who come
to the constituents workshops are private sector individuals,
are customers, are constituents who are coming to us saying
this is what we need the agency to do. And that is how we have
been trying to change our plans. That is how we have been
trying to offer our budget. I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Gilchrest. In a very complete way. Just--well, I have a
couple more questions, but I am going to yield to Mr. Underwood
at this point. Thank you, Mr. Gudes.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr.
Gudes, for your testimony on this. And I want to make sure you
understand that even though I have some reservations about the
contracting out, I am not asking these questions as away to
contrast in House capabilities vs. outsourcing. You know, we
are always going to have--we are going to have some contracted
out work. I mean, there is not a--this is not a question of
either/or, but it is a question of trying to understand what is
the--what are the relative merits that would allow us to chart
a more reasonable course in this regard.
In terms of the optimum efficiency of the vessels that are
directly under NOAA, are those--is the hydrographic capability
of the vessels that we have directly under NOAA and their
technological capabilities, are they at optimum efficiency now?
Is there more--if we gave more resources to those vessels,
would they--is there still a long ways to go, or are we at the
peak? And how do these vessels compare in terms of their
capabilities to vessels in the private sector as well as
vessels of other countries?
Mr. Gudes. Other countries I don't know the answer to that.
I'd probably have to get back to you for the record. In the
case of the vessels that we have, they were built specifically
for the coast, the old coast and geodetic survey for the
nautical part of NOAA. I think they are quite efficient. The
Rainier, as I said, has six launches, so they can really
multiply it capability. Some of the older ships are personnel
intensive. It probably costs, I would guess, about 5 to $6
million a year to operate the Rainier. But again, we have gone
back, and one of the things I didn't mention in my testimony as
I summarized was that we have gone back and done KPMG studies
and others to take a look at the cost of our ships versus
private sector versus lease charter. And we feel that actually
in terms of the op tempo, in terms of the square nautical miles
that we are getting that, in fact, they are very capable
platforms.
There is an issue I would be remiss in saying, twofold. One
is the operating tempos that I mentioned. How many days at sea
and how many days are you working. I just visited the Rainier
and Whiting, two of our ships during the August recess. Those
crews are working at high operating tempos.
The Rainier is in Alaska for quite some months, and they
are working very hard. And I would have a question of how much
more we could expect from what we ask our crews to do. In the
case of equipment, as you may know, we were prohibited from
modernizing the equipment on our ships for some period of time.
Multi beam sonar, as you know, we generally use side scan
sonar. Multi beam sonar, it depends on the kind of topography
underwater that we were looking at. We were prohibited from
modernizing. We have been modernizing our ships now, and I
think that is the right thing to do. In terms of the newest
technologies, I don't--I will have to get back to you for the
record about what is on the horizon.
Mr. Underwood. In terms of the op tempo and the crews, is
this comparable to service in the military, in the Naval
service? Is this in, like, 6 months on, or is that--.
Mr. Gudes. We are at about 200 and how many days for the
Rainier? 220 days.
Mr. Underwood. At sea?
Mr. Gudes. For the same crew. That is at sea days. Yes,
sir. Admiral Fields just reminded me. In terms for the military
operating tempos, I really would have to get back to you.
Mr. Underwood. That is more. I sit on Armed Services. That
is a higher op tempo rate than Naval service.
Mr. Gudes. It is. It is our fishery ships, our fisheries
research vessels as well, and it has to do with the cost
effectiveness of the days at sea as well.
But we are convinced that at the current operating tempos
that we are providing a pretty cost effective product for the
American public. I would just add, Congressman, that in the--in
my answer before, I do think that it is not a question of
should you contract out or should you not. We believe that
there is a lot of work that could be done in the private
sector. And as I pointed, out we have aggressively moved to do
work in the private sector, going back to Chairman Gilchrest's
point, I think that there is a core capability that is
important to maintain, and I think that that is about where we
really are in terms of NOAA right now, and putting those three
components together, as I pointed out, is what is really
producing the reduction of the backlog.
Mr. Underwood. Well, you know, this has many comparisons to
a series of--a level of inquiry that we constantly pursue in
the Armed Services Committee, which is, as well as A 76
process, to what extent do you outsource? To what are issues of
liability? What are core capabilities? What is essential to
public health and safety?
And so this is--you know, there are some activities
obviously that can be more easily outsourced. At the same time,
I want to express my concern that we certainly have in-house
capability of the highest order, certainly, the best in the
world. And if, based on the kind of information that you have
provided in the chart, we don't have the capabilities of many
countries to--we are not providing the same level of resources
as many countries.
Now, that is not the same as saying that we are not as
capable. And obviously that is a judgment call that all of you
that are involved in this line of work can make and best advise
us on. But at the same time, also, in the process of
outsourcing, it is very important that government retains the
ability and not only to provide the core competencies and the
best technical expertise to this area, but also is in the--can
manage and monitor the outsourcing capabilities.
So I am very interested in your chart, table A here on page
7, which you have outlined going back to cost effectiveness,
because we can analyze to what extent do we outsource on the
basis of technical expertise and cost effectiveness, you know,
whether these are dealing with issues concerning our core
competencies. But in this chart you have outlined, that just in
terms of cost effectiveness, on this chart, basically, the
vessels that--the in-house capability for the year 2000 is
certainly more cost effective than the outsourced or the
contracted-out work.
And then you have 2001, this year, your estimating that the
cost effectiveness of that continues to go up in terms of the
outsourced work. You know, I am not looking for a general
statement of reassurance, but basically, what you have is you,
if you have the cost effectiveness of the in-house at one
level, and you have the private sector providing it at another
level that, in the interest of making sure that you have a
balanced approach, that we are actually increasing the capacity
of the private sector and not kind of dragging it down.
And if we are not investing the level of resources that we
are into the in-house capacity or capabilities, then I am
concerned that we are actually creating a balance by, you know,
instead of raising one level, we are actually dragging down
another level. Now, I don't know, you can--I suppose you can
reassure me that that is not happening, and I certainly hope
that is not the case. But it is a concern that certainly I want
to express at this time.
Mr. Gudes. Yeah. I think that again, going back to my
comments before, we really didn't do a significant amount of
private contracting until the mid 1990's. That is significant
to note. NOAA's been in the--NOAA or its predecessors have been
in the hydrographic survey business for years. It is the oldest
function in our agency's lineage.
But in the mid 1990's, we really started an aggressive way
to do more contracting, again, largely to Congress, I think,
saying the right things to us about that we needed to look at
doing business differently. I think that we would find that the
private sector is getting more and more productive. It also has
to do with what areas you ask people to do the work in. There
are some areas in Alaska that can be very intensive in terms of
how much you can do. There are other areas of the country you
can get a lot more square nautical miles done because of the
bottom structure and because of the coast line, because of the
type of ships.
So there is a lot that goes in. But I think that the
private sector and NOAA's relationship with the private sector
has been growing stronger every year. I think the relationship
between our NOAA fleet commanders, our NOS leadership, our
hydrographic expertise in the private sector has been getting
better every year. That the private sector contracts are
becoming more and efficient. And so I think it is a good news
story as you move toward the future.
I do think, realistically, that looking at trying to solve
that backlog problem that I pointed to before, we have got to
look to expansion of the private sector capabilities. It is
more likely that that is where we are going to be able to get
that surge capability, and that is really what we have been
doing, and what I think basically my statements were about,
what we are looking towards.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I think I clearly, in this regard,
then, NOAA should be in the business of clearly identifying
what core competencies we have and we should retain and we
should invest R&D efforts in as well as making sure at the same
time that in the contract management and the quality of the
work that is being done by the private sector, that there be
adequate resources devoted to that. There is certainly a great
feeling sometimes amongst those people who are really strong
advocates of outsourcing, a lot of work, that we are going to
save a lot of money, and that this is not the case in this
instance.
But I know that that is the tendency inside the Department
of Defense, in this case, we are actually adding more money to
a necessary activity in which we are going to utilize the
private sector. But I would certainly urge that whatever kind
of quality assurance, because at the end of the day it is the
government that is going to be liable, and it is NOAA that is
going to be liable. It is all of us that are involved in this
from the public's point of view that we will be liable for
anything that goes wrong with that. And so I certainly hope
that we provide adequate resources toward contract management
and the quality assurance.
Mr. Gudes. I fully agree with you. And I think Jeff made
that statement, or answer, back to you that the Coast Guard
looks to NOAA. When they get data from us, they don't know if
it is private data or publicly produced data. It is data from
NOAA that we are endorsing. And I would agree with you.
Our general counsel points out that we are liable for all
the surveying and work and data and products. And that is
important to note. But I think that is right.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
A couple of follow-up questions, Mr. Gudes. One is the ENC
Acoustic System. Is that employed on any ships right now?
Mr. Gudes. Captain MacFarland tells me the answer is yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. What kind of ships are they?
Mr. Gudes. There are some--this is Captain MacFarland. Can
I bring him up? This is Captain Dave MacFarland from National
Oceanic Service.
Captain MacFarland. Thank you very much.
ENCs now are the fuel for the ECDIS, Electronic Chart
Display and Information System, and those systems are employed
on a few vessels around the world.
Mr. Gilchrest. American vessels?
Captain MacFarland. Sir, I don't know about that. I do know
that there are a number of international vessels.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are they oil tankers, cargo?
Captain MacFarland. Yes, to all of those, as well as long-
distance ferries. There are some vessels in the Great Lakes
that are using systems very similar to an ECDIS utilizing some
data.
Mr. Gilchrest. When you say ECDIS, what does ECDIS stand
for?
Captain MacFarland. Electronic Chart Display and
Information System.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that the same as ENC?
Captain MacFarland. The ENC--we are into the nitty-gritty
of it right now. The ENC, the Electronic Charting data is what
is used to fuel the ECDIS system. The ECDIS system is some
software and display systems, some hardware also. And, yes, it
is being used in some United States waters right now, but as a
backup only for paper charts.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you have that on your ship--and I think
you probably just answered my question. When you have this
ECDIS system on your ship, is it, in fact, better than having
the charts?
Captain MacFarland. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Or in addition to, you can look at the
charts, but this is going to verify whether the charts are
accurate?
Captain MacFarland. The answer to that is yes. The brand-
new electronic navigational chart is far more accurate.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is in real time. That is on your ship
and it is telling you what is underneath the boat?
Captain MacFarland. It is telling you what is charted under
the boat. It has got much more detail. You are also able to use
it interactively with a global positioning system so you know
exactly where you are at any given moment.
It also, as Mr. Gudes testified, gives you the ability to
have warnings. So a captain that is lost out there--and this
happens occasionally--where he becomes disoriented, it will
give him a warning telling him his ship is running into danger.
Mr. Gilchrest. How does the system know the ship is running
into danger? It can actually detect through some type of sonar
that there is an object ahead of you?
Captain MacFarland. No. That is not exactly how it
operates. We give it survey information that tells it where the
dangers lie. It knows where the ship is right now from the
satellites above, and it can determine the course that the ship
is headed. And it will tell you certain number of minutes, 10,
15 minutes ahead of time, before you actually ground.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you actually do, in fact, still need
high-tech hydrographic service to put into that system for it
to work?
Captain MacFarland. That is exactly right. Because it is
that high-tech information that you have been talking about
that is needed. And that is the information that goes into the
ENC that the mariner relies upon.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
One real quick easy question for Mr. Gudes to end the
session, that is the cost-sharing at the PORTS or Physical
Oceanographic Real Time Systems. Is that an essential part of
the funding aspect of NOAA's operation?
Mr. Gudes. Actually, that was again congressional
leadership back about 1995 or so when people came back and the
original plan was more of a Federal Government system and
correction was to do more of a cost-sharing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that the authorizers or the
appropriators--congressional leaders?
Mr. Gudes. It may have been the appropriators. I think that
is right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gudes.
Mr. Gudes. Mr. Chairman, we are just about ready to go--
commission the Maryland PORTS, Chesapeake PORTS system. And we
are working with Virginia on the lower bay to get a PORTS
system activated.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you can give us a date on that, we would
like to be there when you commission it.
Mr. Gudes. Mid to late October, I am told, from both sides.
Mr. Gilchrest. As long as the Pilots' Association aren't
still angry at us about the cost-sharing, we will show up.
Thank you, Mr. Gudes.
Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. It is good, Mr. Chairman, to get a lot of
attention. You know, if I could ask that NOAA provide a
statement on what they would consider core competencies that
have to be retained in house on the issue of hydrographic
surveying.
I wasn't going to make mention of this in your chart, Mr.
Gudes, but in terms of the 3.4 million square nautical of EEZ,
I assume this includes the Pacific as well?
Mr. Gudes. It includes all the EEZ. I hope the map does,
too.
Mr. Underwood. Well, the map doesn't have the Pacific in
there, so I just wanted to draw attention to that. It is one
thing to miss Hawaii, but, boy, to miss Guam--.
Mr. Gudes. We will get the map right next time.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am glad you pointed that out.
Mr. Gudes, Captain, thank you very much for your testimony;
and we continue to look forward to working with you.
Mr. Gudes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. And we enjoyed planting grass on one of
those beautiful little islands in the Chesapeake Bay a few
months ago with NOAA. I am going to tell you that Mr. Gudes was
on his knees a lot that day.
Mr. Gudes. We are supposed to do something on habitat
restoration up at the Baltimore Aquarium, maybe tomorrow if the
event still happens. Same sort of recognition of them at Morgan
State, habitat restoration.
Mr. Gilchrest. The second panel is Ms. Helen Brohl,
President of the National Association of Maritime
Organizations; Mr. Kurt Allen, Management Association for
Private Photogrammetric Surveyors; Mr. Frank Hamons, a dear
friend, from the Port of Baltimore; and the rather magnificent
pilot, Mr. Mike Watson, President of the American Pilots'
Association.
Ms. Brohl here today?
Any rate, gentlemen, thank you all very much. Difficult
circumstances for everybody. Thank you for your testimony that
you submitted and for coming here this morning.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning, Ms. Brohl.
Ms. Brohl. My apologies.
Mr. Gilchrest. I was just welcoming everyone and thanking
them for their time and effort under these very, very trying
circumstances. And if you are ready, Ms. Brohl, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MRS. HELEN A. BROHL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MARITIME ORGANIZATIONS
Ms. Brohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much for allowing us to be here today to participate in
these reauthorization hearings. And we do appreciate the
interest of the Committee on Navigation Services in the United
States.
My name is Helen Brohl, and I am here today representing
the National Association of Maritime Organizations. It is
comprised of 17 shipping associations and maritime exchanges
from all four seacoasts of the United States. NAMO's membership
brings together an important component of commercial maritime
activity which is concerned about issues directly or indirectly
impacting the safe and efficient navigation of vessels into and
through U.S. waters.
Navigation services under NOAA's National Ocean Service
Division directly impacts our operational interests in the safe
and efficient navigation of commercial vessels. The
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act specifically spells out
hydrographic responsibilities of the Administrator of NOAA. We
believe that the National Ocean Service, as the implementing
arm for the Administrator, has fulfilled that mandate very well
and lived up to the increased financial support it has gotten
in recent years.
We have had experiences, however, where other functions
under NOS have been in conflict with their effort to work
productively with maritime. This may be resolved in the spirit
of the MTS initiative.
We also believe that it may be time for NOS to review their
goals and priorities with industry input.
NOAA has successfully expanded and improved its ability to
acquire and disseminate hydrographic data with the additional
funding from recent years. It is NAMO's understanding that
``NOAA versus private surveying contractor'' relationship for
accumulation of data, has been streamlined and is pretty
successful.
You certainly know that there are 500,000 square nautical
miles of navigationally significant waters in the U.S., which
is about 300 years of work. Getting to the survey backlog has
been a successful appropriations priority. We are pleased with
the success. But NAMO has always been just as concerned for the
dissemination aspect of their mandate, which has not received
equal support. Data collection is important, but only valuable
as it contributes to updated and accessible nautical charts,
whether electronic or on paper.
We believe it is imperative that a thorough examination of
chart dissemination, based upon the needs of industry, be
organized by NOS with industry participation. We would expect
that electronic navigation charts will eventually be the most
efficient way to provide virtually real-time data charts to the
consumer, whether it be through professional navigation
systems, such as ECDIS, which you heard about before, in
conjunction with the Automatic Information Systems, AIS, or
even the home computer. Yet, we cannot emphasize enough, there
is still a very real need for updated paper charts.
The U.S. Coast Guard, under 33 CFR 164, states that no
person may operate or cause the operation of a self-propelled
vessel of 1,600 or more gross tons without an updated marine
chart of the U.S. waters in which it sails. It is still the
practice on commercial cargo vessels that a NOAA paper chart of
those waters is kept on the bridge. The paper chart provides a
readily accessible and broad view of those waters and allows
the mariner to make written notations, such as you might find
in "Local Notice to Mariners." This is essential since it is
rare that charts are updated to that moment of use. In fact,
many of the paper charts are woefully outdated.
New data is often already on the NOS database, but is not
getting to the consumer because of low funding. This, of
course, impacts any form of nautical chart. But, again, we
remind the distinguished Committee members that mariners will
continue using paper charts as long as laptop computers don't
fit into an outboard fishing boat or AIS transponders are not
yet integrated into a vessel's technology or there is no PORTS
station in every reach of navigable waters.
NOAA has been wrestling with the issue of print-on-demand
charts for a number of years. It was once proposed that there
be a central phone number that could be called for a very small
fee, less than $20. A newly printed chart based upon the data
of that moment would be overnight expressed to the consumer.
Naturally, chart agents who sell charts objected to this idea.
There was also a real attempt to get chart agents to have
plotters in their local store which could link to NOAA data and
print the most updated chart on demand. You could walk into the
store and they would just print out the most updated chart. But
it is our understanding that only the more expensive plotters
produce the best charts, and they were too expensive for the
average chart sales agent.
NAMO would like to see NOAA continue to accelerate their
investigation into a subscription program which would
automatically provide chart updates, whether by paper or
computer disk. We don't really care if those updates go to a
chart agent or directly to the chart or to a ship agent. But we
need updated charts sooner rather than later. And we don't want
the excitement of electronic charting to put that effort aside.
And, of course, we don't want to hinder work toward free
and accessible electronic charts. Obviously, information
transfer is essential for all key commercial navigation areas.
It is our understanding that NOAA works with the U.S. Coast
Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to receive new data, and
that the Corps of Engineers is also providing obstruction and
sounding information in digital format. However, we do not know
if the standard from Corps district to district or if all Corps
offices are regularly sending any information at all. This was
an issue on the Great Lakes.
A lot of the data wasn't getting to NOAA for updating. It
has been resolved because of industry intervention, but what of
other areas in the country? Is this still a problem?
We would like to commend NOAA for taking the initiative in
being deeply involved in the development and adoption of
standards that will stand up within the international
community. NOS has an active and lead role with the
International Hydrographic Organization and actively
participates with the International Maritime Organization to
ensure that both the national interests and the needs of the
mariner are brought together. We believe that NOAA's expertise
in hydrographic data standardization, collection and
dissemination rivals that of any other country in the world.
Just as the creation of updated charts is of the utmost
importance to the safe passage of commercial cargo vessels to
navigable waters of the U.S., NAMO fully supports the Physical
Oceanographic Real Time System, or PORTS, technology in
conjunction with AIS as the most multidimensional information
station available to guide vessels through commercial hubs and
byways. It is the experience of those NAMO members that have
responded that the NOS expertise and capabilities with PORTS is
very good. However, NAMO believes that the funding mechanisms
are prejudicial by nature and, therefore, should be provided
from the general Treasury.
PORTS technology builds on a water level gauge information
network, which is also managed by NOAA, but traditionally
funded from the Treasury. Water level information, which is now
viewed free of charge on line, is actively used for
environmental predictions and fisheries management, as well as
navigating. Yet only the localities that can find the large sum
of money to pay NOAA for a PORTS station will get a PORTS
station. Perhaps it was once thought that a PORTS station would
pay for itself through additional business. However, PORTS has
not proven to make a port more competitive, just safer.
The current requirement for a port or maritime organization
to find a million dollars for a PORTS station excludes many
deserving areas because of the cost itself. But what of those
areas that are essentially byways rather than a central port?
What local organization can take responsibility to acquire a
PORTS station for a dangerous reach of a river that has no
local port attached? Where will the funding be accumulated?
What about a busy fishing inlet outside of a port authority
jurisdiction? They, too, deserve the most advanced
oceanographic real-time data with which to navigate. PORTS is a
basic safety feature that corresponds with the Federal
Government's MTS initiative.
NAMO asks that the Committee view PORTS as an essential
safety feature of every important navigation channel in the
United States. We would also ask that NOS ensure that the basic
water level gauge network in the United States be tended to as
well and not overlooked. The congressional Great Lakes Task
Force is asking for 2 million in NOAA appropriations to upgrade
basic water level gauges to real-time information
reporting.What is the condition of gauges around the rest of
the country?
Since the inception of MTS there have been associated
discussions about the "cost of MTS." rather than view MTS as
this lofty new ideal, we would like NOS to see it as a
collection of immediate needs. PORTS, gauge station upgrades
and updated accessible nautical charts are small immediate
needs that will go a long way to making our critical navigation
areas safer and U.S. trade more efficient and competitive. We
believe that funding these types of navigation services from
the Treasury or even considering the harbor maintenance trust
is appropriate, particularly when it comes to PORTS.
Mr. Chairman, you specifically asked us to address how NOAA
programs relate to the Marine Transportation System initiative.
NOS programs, in particular, are absolutely most intimately
tied to the promotion of a safe and productive maritime
transportation system, and we commend NOAA for its leadership
role in MTS. NAMO believes that there should be much more
emphasis on ways to improve the system now. We also believe
that much more work should be done toward intra- or interagency
coordination of maritime-related programs.
NOAA has initiated a leadership in MTS with Coast Guard and
the U.S. Maritime Administration. This is appropriate and
welcome. An important goal of MTS is to have an active and
positive information exchange and working relationship between
government and industry. We have found the Navigation Service
Office of NOS to be very interested in working closely with
industry. We ask NOS, however, to also ask the same of their
other divisions, such as the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management.
NAMO members are responsive to the need to coordinate
vessel operations with natural resource interests such as the
right whale migration on the U.S. East Coast or the need for
ballast water treatment. We have been surprised to find,
however, that working together is not always an option for the
sanctuary interests in NOS. We are respectful of agency
regulations and requirements and the environment, but would
rather work together for viable navigation options as it only
proves more productive in the short term and certainly better
for long-term planning. It is important that these day-to-day
maritime transportation issues be actively resolved for a
better MTS.
The Hydrographic Services Act of 1998 has been helpful in
bringing NOS to the forefront in recent years. We have to thank
Members of Congress and your well-informed Committee staff
members who have facilitated much of these strides. It is now
time to thoroughly review the next step.
NAMO believes it is entirely appropriate to create an NOS
industry working group, if not a formal advisory Committee, to
prioritize programs and better understand the associated
funding needs. We do not want NOS requirements to fall through
the cracks because of a piecemeal approach. NAMO has an
extraordinary pedigree of members with a day-to-day interest in
the development of NOS programs and would be pleased to
participate in such a group.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments and
we are pleased to take any questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Brohl, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brohl follows:]
Statement of Helen A. Brohl, President, National Association of
Maritime Organizations
Chairman Gilchrest and Members of the Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to
participate in the reauthorization hearing of the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act of 1998 and your interest in navigation services in the
United States.
My name is Helen A. Brohl. I am here today representing the
National Association of Maritime Organizations (NAMO) which is
comprised of 17 shipping associations and maritime exchanges from all
four seacoasts of the United States: Chicago to New Orleans, Seattle to
Hampton Roads, LA to New York. [Membership list at end of statement.]
As the executive director of the U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association
- itself a NAMO member - I am currently serving a two-year term as NAMO
president. NAMO's membership brings together an important component of
commercial maritime in the United States - that which is concerned
about issues directly or indirectly impacting the safe and efficient
navigation of vessels into and through U.S. waters. Navigation services
under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Ocean Service (NOAA/NOS) division directly impacts our operational
interests in the safe and efficient navigation of commercial vessels.
As a young Sea Grant Fellow with a staff position on the old House
Oceanography Subcommittee handling budget review for NOAA's Coast
Survey, I recall that the program received very little attention and
consideration. Industry was not standing in the wings 17 years ago. I
am proud to say that I am here representing an organization that
testified at the 1998 hydrographic services hearing and helped raise
awareness and funding for up-to-date charts of our navigable waters and
NOAA's role in navigation services programs. We thank the many
Congressional advocates who have turned around this important program
and allow us today to talk about continuing and expanding on the
successes of the past few years.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 specifically
spells out hydrographic responsibilities of the Administrator of NOAA.
We believe that the National Ocean Service, as the implementing arm for
the Administrator for these responsibilities, has fulfilled that
mandate very well and lived up to the increased financial support. We
have had experiences, however, where other functions under NOS have
been in conflict with their effort to work productively with maritime.
This may be resolved in the spirit of the Marine Transportation System
initiative. We also believe that it may be time for NOS to review their
goals and priorities with industry input.
NOAA has successfully expanded and improved its ability to acquire
and disseminate hydrographic data with the additional funding from
recent years. It is NAMO's understanding that the NOAA versus private
surveying contractor relationship for accumulation of data has been
streamlined and is quite successful. As you may know, there are 500,000
square nautical miles of navigationally significant waters in the
United States - which is about 300 years of work. Getting to the survey
``backlog'' has been a successful appropriations priority. We are
pleased with this success but NAMO has always been just as concerned
for the dissemination aspect of their mandate which has not received
equal support. This is partly the fault of industry for not asking the
right questions during the appropriations process and NOAA not making
this need clear enough. Data collection is important - but only
valuable - as it contributes to updated and accessible nautical charts
whether electronic or paper.
We believe it is imperative that a thorough examination of chart
dissemination based upon the needs of industry be organized by NOS with
industry participation. This would include the role of electronic
charts, raster charts, paper charts and mechanisms for access on
demand. We would expect that electronic navigation charts (ENC's) will
be the most efficient way to provide virtually real-time chart data to
the consumer - whether it be through professional navigation system
operations such as ECDIS, in conjunction with automatic information
systems (AIS) or via the home computer. Yet, we cannot emphasize enough
that there is still the very real and immediate need for updated paper
charts.
The U.S. Coast Guard under 33 CFR 164.33-164.41 states that no
person may operate or cause the operation of a self-propelled vessel of
1600 or more gross tons without an updated marine chart of the U.S.
waters in which it sails, excepting innocent passage. It is still the
practice on commercial cargo vessels that a NOAA paper chart of those
waters is kept on the bridge. The paper chart provides a readily
accessible and broad view of those waters. It also allows the mariner
to make written notations from the ``Local Notice to Mariners.'' This
is essential since it is rare that charts are updated to that moment of
use. In fact, many of the paper charts are woefully outdated. The Coast
Guard hand of government is mandating the use of outdated charts from
the NOAA hand of government. Isn't this a job for MTS?
New data is often already in the NOS database but not getting to
the consumer because of low funding. This, of course, impacts any form
of nautical chart. But again we remind the distinguished committee
members that mariners will continue using paper charts as long as lap
top computers don't fit into the outboard fishing boat or AIS
transponders are not yet integrated into a vessel's technology or there
is no Physical Real Time Oceanographic System in every reach of our
navigable waters.
NOAA has been wrestling with the issue of ``print on demand''
charts for a number of years. It was once proposed that there be a
central phone number that could be called and for a very small fee -
less than $20.00 - a newly-printed chart based upon data at the moment
would be overnight expressed to the customer. Naturally, chart agents
objected to this idea. There was also a real attempt to get chart
agents to have plotters in the local store which could link to NOAA
data and print the most updated chart on demand. It is our
understanding that only the more expensive plotters produced the best
charts but were too expensive for the average chart sales agent. NAMO
would like to see NOAA continue and accelerate their investigation into
the subscription program which would automatically provide chart
updates whether by paper or computer disk. We don't care if those
updates go to the chart agent (as long as the cost remains reasonable)
or directly to the ship agent but we need updated paper charts sooner
than later and don't want the excitement of electronic charting to put
that effort aside nor do we want to hinder work toward free and
accessible electronic charts.
NOAA needs considerably more funding to pursue electronic
navigation charting, raster charts and paper charts and to incorporate
the advancing technologies associated with providing updated nautical
charts to the commercial or recreational maritime community. It is our
understanding that NOAA works with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to receive new data. It is our experience that
the Corps of Engineers is often providing obstruction and sounding
information in digital format. However, we do not know if this is
standard from Corps district to district or if all Corps offices are
regularly sending any information at all. This was an issue in the
Great Lakes which is resolved because of industry intervention. What of
other areas around the country?
Obviously, information transfer is essential for all key commercial
navigation areas. For example, port authorities work very hard to get
Corps of Engineers funding to dredge their port area. If the post-
dredge soundings do not get to NOAA in Silver Spring, MD for updating
of the local chart, it is as if the port was never dredged. We can
quote you vessel masters who live by the chart in front of them, not
what the pilot on board may believe is there from experience. Whether
it's Duluth or Hampton Roads, even inches of additional under keel
clearance matter when loading cargo. Who is reminding the Corps of
Engineers to request proper support for their digital information
development and ensuring that their information is directed in the best
format possible to NOS? Sounds like a classic case for MTS!
We must commend NOAA for taking the initiative with being deeply
involved with the development and adoption of standards that will stand
up within the international community. NOS has an active and lead role
with the International Hydrographic Organization and actively
participates with the International Maritime Organization to ensure
that the both the national interests and the real needs of the mariner
are brought together. We believe that NOAA's expertise in hydrographic
data standardization, collection and dissemination rivals that of any
other country in the world.
Just as the creation of updated charts is of the utmost importance
to the safe passage of commercial cargo vessels through the navigable
waters of the United States, NAMO fully supports the Physical
Oceanographic Real Time System or PORTS technology in conjunction with
AIS as the most multi-dimensional information station available to
guide vessels through commercial hubs and by-ways. It is the experience
of those NAMO members that have responded that the NOS expertise and
capabilities with PORTS is very good. However, NAMO believes that the
funding mechanisms are prejudicial by nature and therefore, should be
provided from the general treasury.
PORTS technology builds on water level gauge information which is
also managed by NOAA but traditionally funded from treasury. Water
level information - which can now be viewed free of charge online - is
actively used for environmental predictions and fisheries management as
well as navigating. Yet, only the localities that can find a large sum
of money to pay NOAA for a PORTS station, get to have a PORTS station.
Does a city ask its citizens to create a coalition, come up with a
design and find a funding source in order to put a stop light at a busy
intersection? That stop light is funded from the local tax treasury
because it is essential for the safety of the citizens. Perhaps it was
once thought that a PORTS station would pay for itself through
additional business. However, PORTS has not proven to make a port more
competitive, just safer.
The current requirement for a port or maritime organization to find
a million dollars for a PORTS station excludes many deserving areas
because of the cost itself but what of those areas that are essentially
by-ways rather than a central port? What local organization(s) takes
responsibility to acquire a PORTS station for a dangerous reach of a
river that has no local port attached? What about busy fishing inlets
outside of a port authority jurisdiction? They too deserve the most
advanced oceanographic real-time data with which to navigate. PORTS is
a basic safety feature that corresponds with the Federal Government's
MTS initiative. NAMO asks the Committee to view PORTS as an essential
safety feature of every important navigation channel in the United
States.
The federal agency presentations at MTS briefings show pictures of
bigger ships and congested ports which in our perspective doesn't mean
spend billions of dollars, taking many, many years to dredge as deep as
you can go. It means we need to install PORTS stations and any other
navigation safety technology available in critical areas to address
this congestion now including making sure that the many basic water
level gauge stations around the country are in good shape and providing
real-time data. It is a penny-wise choice. But if the relatively small
investment still scares you, why not allow the use of Harbor
Maintenance Trust Funds? An authorization of even $6 million per year
for new builds might allow two or three PORTS stations to go on-line
each year and the upgrade of a large number of solo water level gauge
stations. We would have to ask NOS, but its possible that the total
cost for maintenance of all existing PORTS stations might be less than
$2 million per year.
Since the inception of MTS, there has been associated discussions
about the ``cost of MTS.'' Rather than view MTS as this lofty, new
ideal, we would like NOS to see it as a collection of immediate needs.
PORTS, gauge station upgrades, and updated, accessible nautical charts
are a small immediate need that will go a long way to making our
critical navigation areas safer and U.S. trade more efficient and
competitive. Allow us to remind you that it is the trade associated
with waterborne transportation that provides billions in Customs
revenue each year. We believe that funding these types of navigation
services from the treasury or the Harbor Maintenance Trust is a
reasonable request.
Chairman Gilchrest specifically asked us to address how NOAA
programs relate to the Marine Transportation System or MTS initiative.
NOS programs, in particular, are absolutely the most intimately tied to
the promotion of a safe and productive maritime transportation system
and we commend NOAA for its leadership role in MTS. NAMO believes that
there should be much more emphasis on ways to improve the system now.
We also believe that much more work should be done toward intra or
inter-agency coordination of maritime related programs. The maritime
industry is subjected to approximately 127 different user fees from an
array of federal agencies who do not consult about the total impact of
these measures. For example, U.S. Customs charges vessels an overtime
fee for inspections which isn't used for the overtime service of the
agent who then may not have enough overtime money in the local budget
to provide an inspection in overtime. Providing Customs inspection at
the dock is important for promoting trade in the United States. Are
these day-to-day operational issues part and parcel of the MTS
initiative? Is there a representative from every agency that charges a
maritime fee on the MTS Interagency Working Group?
NOAA has initiated a leadership partnership in MTS with the US
Coast Guard and US Maritime Administration. This is appropriate and
welcome. The goal of MTS is to have an active and positive information
exchange and working relationship between government and industry. We
have found the navigation services office of NOS to be very interested
in working closely with industry. We ask NOS to ask the same of their
other divisions such as the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management. NAMO members are responsive to the need to coordinate
vessel operations with natural resources needs such as with the Right
Whale migration on the U.S. East Coast or the need for ballast water
treatment. We have been surprised to find, however, that working
together is not always an option for sanctuary interests in NOS. We are
respectful of agency regulations and requirements but would rather work
together for viable navigation options as it only proves more
productive in the short term and better for long-term planning. It is
important that these day-to-day maritime transportation issues be
actively resolved for a better MTS.
The Hydrographic Services Act of 1998 has been helpful in bringing
NOS to the forefront in recent years. We have to thank Members of
Congress and well-informed committee staff members who have facilitated
much of these strides. It is now time to thoroughly review the next
step. NAMO believes it is entirely appropriate to create an NOS-
industry working group if not formal advisory committee to prioritize
programs and better understand the associated funding needs. We do not
want NOS requirements to fall through the cracks because of a piece-
meal approach. NAMO has an extraordinary pedigree of members with a
day-to-day interest in the development of NOS programs and would be
pleased to participate in such a group.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the
Hydrographic Services Act reauthorization hearing. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions from the Committee.
Members of the National Association of Maritime Organizations:
Association of Ship Brokers and Agents; Boston Shipping Association;
Columbia River Steamship Operators Association; Connecticut Maritime
Association; Hampton Roads Maritime Association; Jacksonville Maritime
Association; Marine Exchange of LA/LB Harbor, Inc.; Maritime Exchange
of Puget Sound; Maritime Association of the Port of Charleston;
Maritime Association of the Ports of NY/NJ; Maritime Exchange of the
Delaware River and Bay; Steamship Association of Louisiana; Puget Sound
Steamship Operators Association; Savannah Maritime Association; South
Jersey Port Corporation; US Great Lakes Shipping Association; and West
Gulf Maritime Association.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Allen.
STATEMENT OF KURT ALLEN ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
FOR PRIVATE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEYORS (MAPPS)
Mr. Allen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
letting me have the opportunity to be here today. My name is
Kurt Allen. I am Division Manager of Greenhorne & O'Mara, based
locally here in Greenbelt, Maryland. I am testifying today on
behalf of MAPPS. It is our national association of more than
150 private firms engaged in a variety of mapping-related
activities.
We would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
leadership in creating the hydrographic surveying contracting
program in NOAA. This Subcommittee, together with the Commerce
Appropriations Subcommittee, has for the last 7 years provided
the leadership that has long been needed to make the changes
necessary in NOAA that benefit the American taxpayer, the
boating community, and the private surveying and mapping
profession. We also would like to commend NOAA for the new
direction it has begun with regard to the utilization of the
private sector for hydrographic surveying, shoreline mapping,
aerial photography, height modernization and airport surveys.
We believe NOAA's move toward contracting has been very
successful. Private firms have been able to provide innovative
staffing, scheduling and deployment to ensure that the
government receives value for its money.
With a significant national backlog in critical ports
requiring hydrographic surveys, MAPPS fully supports budget
increases for this program. This backlog forms a strong basis
for the increased use of the private sector for the conduct of
hydrographic surveys and for the NOAA Corps officers and
civilians to be refocused on inherently government activities
such as contract administration and quality control.
However, there are still a number of qualified private
firms, including those experienced in providing hydrographic
services and other mapping activities, that can be utilized to
further enhance the capabilities of NOAA. We believe NOAA
should follow the lead of the Corps of Engineers, the USGS and
NOAA in relying on the private sector to provide commercially
available mapping services. We urge the Subcommittee to
decrease the authorized level for NOAA ownership and operation
of hydrographic survey vessels. As you know, despite the
progress that has been made and the leadership exerted by the
Subcommittee, the NOAA ship survey operation activities remain
on GAO's list of high-risk programs and continue to be a major
management challenge and program risk.
There are capable and qualified private sector mapping
firms that should be used to a greater extent by NOAA. These
activities not only include hydrography, but include geodetic
surveying, aerial photography, remote sensing, photogrammetric
mapping and the actual production of electronic navigational
charts.
We believe NOAA should focus its in-house activities in the
establishment of professional and technical standards, the
certification of data, research and development, funding and
administration of grants and contracts and perform these
services that are inherently governmental in nature and which
are not necessarily competitive with the private sector.
We would urge the inclusion of the following provisions in
the reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Improvement
Act.
First, that NOAA should be required to use the private
sector for all commercially available surveying and mapping
services. NOAA should be mandated to maintain an intellectual
core capability in hydrography versus a large dollar capital
capability.
Also, Congress should provide a more steady stream of
funding to enhance productivity and efficiency of contractors
even further. Legislation should require NOAA data
certification program for electronic navigational charts. We
regret that NOAA has not utilized the authority it was granted
in 1998, and we urge the Committee to amend section 304, Public
Law 105-384, by changing the "may" to "shall" with regard to
establishing a data certification program and establishing the
statutory deadline for NOAA to implement a program.
The cap on funds for in-house NOAA ships should also be
lowered and revised to include both ownership and operation of
vessels. MAPPS opposes NOAA's leasing of ships. This strategy
fails to resolve the issue of unfair government competition and
fails to take advantage of saving dollars and increased
efficiency that has been identified by the Inspector General.
It can also be realized by contracting to firms that have the
ships, equipment, personnel and expertise to meet NOAA's needs.
Mr. Chairman and this Committee, I thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think maybe we should have had Mr. Gudes
on this panel. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
Statement of Kurt Allen, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Greenbelt, MD on behalf
of the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors
(MAPPS)
Mr. Chairman, I am Kurt Allen, Division Manager of Greenhorne &
O'Mara, Inc. My firm provides a full spectrum of surveying and mapping
services to the USGS, NIMA, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife
Service, among other Federal agencies.
Our firm is based in Greenbelt, Maryland. I am personally a
resident of Annapolis. We employ more than 350 persons in Maryland and
another 350 in offices in North Carolina, Florida, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Georgia.
Let me first commend this Subcommittee for its leadership in
creating the hydrographic survey contracting program in NOAA in the
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. This subcommittee, together with
the Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee, has for the past 7 years,
provided the leadership that has long been needed to make the necessary
changes in NOAA that benefit the American taxpayer, the recreational
and commercial boating community, and the private surveying and mapping
profession. We also commend NOAA for the new direction it has begun
with regard to utilization of the private sector for hydrographic
surveying, shoreline mapping, height modernization, aerial photography,
and airport surveys.
For the services that NOAA has begun contracting to the private
sector, we believe the agency is highly satisfied. Private firms have
been innovative in staffing, scheduling and deployment to ensure that
the government receives value for its money. Currently, almost all the
NOAA hydrographic contractors are MAPPS member firms.
Our members in the hydrographic program believe the professional
relationship that has been established and the development of new tools
and techniques for efficient acquisition and processing of hydrographic
data in support of nautical charting is beneficial to both NOAA and the
private sector, and to the nation as a whole. With the significant
national backlog in critical areas requiring hydrographic surveys,
MAPPS fully supports the need to expand budget allocations for this
program. This backlog forms a strong basis for the increased use of the
private sector for the conduct of hydrographic surveys, and for the
NOAA Corps officers and civilians to be refocused on inherently
governmental activities such as in contract administration and quality
control.
The critical expertise in hydrography resident within NOAA can be
of significant assistance to the private sector in the form of
necessary standardization, certification, quality control and contract
administration.
However, there are still a number of qualified private firms,
including those experienced in performing hydrographic services for the
Corps of Engineers in its inland waterways program, that have not been
selected for contracts by NOAA. Mr. Chairman, there is additional
private sector capacity and capability that could be utilized to
further enhance the capabilities of NOAA.
We would urge the Subcommittee to decrease the authorized level for
NOAA ownership and operation of hydrographic survey vessels. As you may
know, despite the progress that has been made, and the leadership
exerted by this Subcommittee, the NOAA survey ship operation activities
remain on the General Accounting Office list of high risk programs, and
as recently as January of this year, continues to be a major management
challenge and program risk in the Department of Commerce. GAO found,
``NOAA continues to rely heavily on its in-house fleet and still plans
to replace or upgrade some of these ships. Consequently, continued
oversight of NOAA's plans to replace or upgrade ships will be needed to
ensure that NOAA is pursuing the most cost-effective alternatives for
acquiring marine data.'' (GAO-01-243, Commerce Challenges, January
2001)
NOAA can stretch its dollars in the production of nautical charts
to support commerce and ensure safe navigation by transforming itself
into an organization that performs only those services that are
inherently governmental in nature. It should not be expending funds for
in-house performance of commercially available mapping activities.
There is a capable and qualified private sector in mapping that can
and should be used to a greater extent by NOAA. These activities
include not only hydrography, but geodetic surveying, aerial
photography, remote sensing, and photogrammetric mapping, and the
actual production of electronic navigational charts (ENCs).
We believe NOAA should focus its in-house activities on the
establishment of professional and technical standards, certification of
data, research and development, funding and administration of grants,
and to perform those services that are inherently governmental in
nature and which are not competitive with the private sector.
We would urge the inclusion of the following provisions in the
reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act:
NOAA should use the private sector for all commercially
available surveying and mapping services. This is not only required by
OMB policy (SEE OMB Circular A-76), but by language in the fiscal year
96 Commerce Appropriations bill. It should be noted that NOAA has still
not completed a fully inventory of all its commercial mapping
activities, as it is required to do by the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform (FAIR) Act, Public Law 105-270);
NOAA should maintain an ``intellectual'' core capability
in hydrography, versus a large dollar capital capability;
NOAA should provide a more steady stream of funding to
enhance the productivity and efficiency of contractors even further;
and it should strive to improve its contract management capability.
A NOAA data certification program for Electronic
Navigational Chart data, and the S-57 format, is needed for private
sector firms. We would urge the Committee to amend section 304 of PL
105-384 by changing the ``may'' to ``shall'' with regard to
establishing a data certification program and establishing a statutory
deadline for NOAA to implement such a program. We regret that NOAA has
not utilized the authority it was granted in 1998.
The cap on funds for in-house NOAA ships should be
lowered, and revised to include both ownership and operation of
vessels. MAPPS opposes NOAA's leasing of ships. This strategy fails to
resolve the issue of unfair government competition, and fails to take
advantage of the saving of dollars and increased efficiency identified
by the Inspector General, that could be realized by contracting to
firms that have the ships, equipment, personnel and expertise to meet
NOAA's needs.
The expansion of private sector utilization for
photogrammetry, geodesy, remote sensing, aerial photography and other
commercially available geospatial activities is both welcomed and
encouraged.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your subcommittee for the opportunity
to appear before you today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hamons, welcome.
STATEMENT OF FRANK HAMONS, MANAGER, HARBOR DEVELOPMENT,
MARYLAND PORT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Hamons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before this Committee today. I do think
that while recognizing the seriousness of the situation that we
have faced in recent days, continuing with business is a
necessity in order that those who perpetrated this do not get
what they want out of it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hamons. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am
Frank Hamons, Manager of Harbor Development at the Maryland
Port Administration, Chairman of the American Association of
Port Authorities' Harbors, Navigation and Environment
Committee. Founded in 1912, AAPA is an association of 160
public port authorities in the United States, Canada, Latin
America and the Caribbean. My testimony today reflects the
views of AAPA's United States delegation.
AAPA port members are public entities, divisions or agents
of the State and local governments mandated by law to serve
public purposes. Public port authorities are charged with
developing port facilities, facilitating waterborne commerce
and promoting economic development.
The success of U.S. international trade depends on a viable
and safe navigation system. Without modern navigational tools,
the United States cannot move cargo that is important to the
U.S. economy through ports without compromising safety or
threatening the environment. For these reasons, reauthorization
of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act is a priority--
must be a priority.
AAPA has consistently advocated for increased funding for
navigational services provided by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Safety systems, such as PORTS, that
provide valuable navigation information should be provided for
all U.S. ports, not simply to those who can afford it. And I
speak of one port that is installing this system right now--is
in the process, and we should have an agreement signed probably
by late October, perhaps early November, to do so. One of those
ports can proceed with this, but we are recognizing that all
ports need this service.
Safety should not be a matter of choice, but of necessity.
It is also the view of the Marine Navigation Safety Coalition,
a coalition of over 40 industry groups representing various
aspects of the Nation's marine transportation system, formed to
promote the importance of funding NOAA's navigation services
programs as authorized under the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act.
Today, mariners transiting U.S. waters are forced in many
locations and many situations to rely on outdated navigation
charts and tidal predictions produced by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. In fact, over the past 10 years
or more, NOAA has been forced to withdraw tide and current
predictions at several major ports, including the Port of New
York and New Jersey due to insufficient and outdated
information.
The San Francisco chart was also withdrawn in 1991, and
more are expected to be pulled since 50 percent of them are
based on observations over 50 years old.
I would say that we at the Port of Baltimore and Chesapeake
Bay are being served very well right now by NOAA. They are
doing a lot of hydrographic surveying in our area.
But to give you an indication of the type of problem that
is faced, some of the information that was recently replaced
within the past year was almost reaching its centennial
anniversary when the resurveying occurred. It was 99 years old.
So it gives you an idea of what is on some of the charts.
As I say, we are being served right now--the resurveying is
under way, and that is great for us, but for those who are
still dealing with this data around the country, it is a real
problem.
Compounding these problems is the rapid growth of traffic
on U.S. waters. Waterborne commerce has tripled since 1947. The
U.S. Department of Transportation projects that it will triple
again over the next 3 decades. Electronic navigation charts are
the new standard for safe navigation of vessels and are the
base ingredient or visual backdrop for collision avoidance
systems, such as the Electronic Chart Display and Information
System and the United States Coast Guard proposed Automated
Identification System. These complementary systems are designed
to prevent accidents and spills by alerting the mariner of a
potential grounding in enough time for the mariner to take
corrective action. Despite the importance of integrating ENCs
for use within the maritime industry, NOAA has not received the
necessary funding over the years to bring them on line.
Another important NOAA navigational tool is the Physical
Oceanographic Real Time System, or PORTS. With accurate real-
time information and modern forecasts, ships can safely adjust
loads to use available draft margins. Despite the success of
this program and enhancing safety and improving efficiency of
vessel movements in international trade, PORTS has only been
available to a small number of commercial harbors. Those
fortunate few are paying for its operation and maintenance, and
those wishing to install a new system must pay for this as
well.
In the case of Maryland, we are--Port of Baltimore, we are
150 miles from the ocean, southern approach; the northern
approach, we are 112 miles from the ocean. We have 126 miles of
dredged channel in these various systems. It is invaluable to
be able to project, as you start, where you are going to go and
what the conditions are going to be when you get there and then
verify it en route. This is an invaluable service.
Over the years, Federal funding for the PORTS system has
been meager at best, and in fiscal year 2000 was nonexistent.
This year for the first time we may see a bigger jump in
funding thanks to the support of this Committee. However, the
tides and currents line item that funds PORTS has never
received the annual $22 million outlined in the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act of 1998.
We urge the Committee to continue its push for the
necessary funds and the reauthorization of the Hydrographic
Services Act to guarantee that NOAA can continue to provide the
quality assurance and infrastructure necessary to keep existing
ports in operation and enable other ports to install PORTS.
Further, AAPA believes the Federal Government should pay
for not only design and quality assurance, but also the
installation and maintenance of the PORTS system to ensure a
uniform state-of-the-art national program. Beyond the need to
secure additional funding for NOAA's suite of navigation
services, reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Act
presents other opportunities to improve on these services. The
1998 bill required that within 6 months of enactment, NOAA and
the U.S. Coast Guard was supposed on submit a report to
Congress on the status of real-time tide and current data
systems and U.S. ports, existing safety and efficiency needs in
U.S. ports that could be met by increased use of these systems,
and provide a plan for expanding PORTS to enhance safety needs.
NOAA did submit two reports to Congress. However, these
reports did not go far enough in examining the current needs of
the maritime industry and outlining NOAA's long-range plan for
addressing these needs.
AAPA suggests that before any new recommendations or plans
are made with regard to the future of NOAA navigation programs,
a more comprehensive report should be completed. National Ocean
Service should be charged with developing a long-range
strategic plan for addressing these recommendations.
Also, AAPA believes the National Ocean Service should
develop a stakeholder advisory group to provide guidance,
expertise and direction on navigation safety issues, as well as
consultation on a comprehensive review of the needs of the
industry.
Finally, the bill should direct the various Federal
agencies that have jurisdiction over navigation safety, such as
NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to
better coordinate their efforts to eliminate duplication of
efforts and maximize limited resources. AAPA believes this
cooperation will lead to better services for the maritime
industry.
Overall, the goal of the Hydrographic Services Improvement
Act, 1998 was to focus attention on improving the
infrastructure of the Nation's navigation system and to provide
the framework for catching up with the survey backlog and
modernizing navigation operations. Though it authorized
significant funding to improve NOAA's navigation services, the
administration has never requested nor has Congress
appropriated these higher funding levels.
The bill was a positive first step toward raising awareness
for navigation safety. However, we have a long way to go.
Safety programs such as PORTS should not be an option for those
who can afford it, but a national priority funded by the
Federal Government. It must be a Federal priority to maintain
our Nation's waterways, to provide the necessary tools to allow
mariners to do their jobs, and to facilitate the commerce that
provides significant economic benefits to our Nation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamons follows:]
Statement of Frank Hamons, Manager, Harbor Development, Maryland Port
Administration and, Chairman of the American Association of Port
Authorities, Harbors, Navigation and the Environment Committee
Good morning. I am Frank Hamons, Manager of Harbor Development at
the Maryland Port Administration and Chairman of the American
Association of Port Authorities' Harbors, Navigation and the
Environment Committee. Founded in 1912, AAPA is an association of 160
public port authorities in the United States, Canada, Latin America and
the Caribbean. In addition, the Association represents almost 300
sustaining and associate members, firms and individuals with an
interest in the seaports of the Western Hemisphere. My testimony today
reflects the views of AAPA's United States delegation.
AAPA port members are public entities, divisions or agents of State
and local government mandated by law to serve public purposes. Public
Port Authorities are charged with developing port facilities,
facilitating waterborne commerce, and promoting economic development.
Ports are key to this nation's ability to trade internationally,
providing American consumers and businesses with the choices they
demand for worldwide products and markets. Ports provide this
connection to the world by handling 95 percent of all U.S. overseas
trade by weight, and 75 percent by value.
The success of U.S. international trade depends on a viable and
safe navigation system. Without modern navigational tools, the United
States cannot move cargo that is important to the U.S. economy safely
and efficiently through ports. In addition, with an increase in the
number of larger, deep draft vessels, the United States cannot afford
to compromise safety or threaten the environment. For all of these
reasons, reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act
must be a priority.
AAPA has consistently advocated for increased funding for
navigation services, including mapping and charting, tides and currents
and Physical Oceanographic and Real-Time Systems (PORTS) provided by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Providing
adequate resources to maintain modern and accurate navigation services
must be a national priority because these programs provide critical
environmental protection and safety tools to all waterway users and
enhance the efficiency of international trade. Safety systems such as
PORTS that provide valuable navigation information should be provided
for all U.S. ports and not simply to those that can afford it. Safety
should not be a matter of choice but of necessity.
That is also the view of the Marine Navigation Safety Coalition, a
coalition of over 40 industry groups representing various aspects of
the nation's Marine Transportation System, including marine pilots,
maritime exchanges, cargo and vessel owners, rail and terminal
operators, and ports. The Coalition, coordinated by AAPA, was formed
four years ago to promote the importance of funding NOAA's navigation
services programs as authorized under the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act.
Background
Today mariners transiting U.S. waters are forced, in many
situations, to rely on out-dated navigation charts and tidal
predictions produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). A large percentage of depths shown on NOAA
charts are based on surveys that were conducted over 50 years ago. In
fact, a number of deep draft ships that travel through U.S. waters are
relying on charts with depths that were determined by the use of lead
lines prior to World War II. Over the past ten years or more, NOAA has
been forced to withdraw tide and current predictions for several major
ports, including the Port of New York and New Jersey, due to
insufficient and outdated information. The San Francisco chart also was
withdrawn in 1991 and more are expected to be pulled, since 50 percent
of them are based on observations over 50 years old.
Ships routinely pass within a few feet of the bottom when entering
and transiting our nation's coastal and inland waterways. A single
impediment such as an uncharted rock, an old concrete buoy block, or
the fluke of an abandoned anchor has the potential to puncture the hull
of a ship. The environmental damage from such an accident can be
measured in billions of dollars.
Compounding these problems is the rapid growth of traffic on U.S.
waters. Waterborne commerce has tripled since 1947. The U.S. Department
of Transportation projects that it will triple again over the next
three decades. The number of recreational boaters has nearly doubled
since 1970, crowding already overflowing harbors.
Electronic Nautical Charts (ENC) are the new standard for safe
navigation of vessels and are the base ingredient or visual backdrop
for collision avoidance systems such as the Electronic Chart Display
and Information System (ECDIS) and the United States Coast Guard's
proposed Automated Identification System (AIS). These complementary
systems are designed to prevent accidents and spills by alerting the
mariner of a potential grounding in enough time for the mariner to take
corrective action. Creating an ENC is not simply a matter of converting
the paper chart data to an electronic format, since most of the chart
data was collected using positioning methods that predate Global
Positioning System. NOAA is recollecting position-critical data using
geodesy and aerial imagery on critical chart features such as petroleum
docks, ferry terminals and aids to navigation to enable mariners to
safely navigate vessels in constricted waterways and in times of
limited visibility. Unfortunately, despite the importance of
integrating ENCs for use within the maritime industry, NOAA has not
received the necessary funding over the years to bring them on line.
Another important navigational tool NOAA has developed is the
Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS). With accurate, real-
time information and modern forecasts, ships can safely adjust loads to
use available draft margins. PORTS allows ships--berthed or under way--
to access real-time data from a variety of instruments that measure
currents, winds and waves, water levels (tides), depths, temperatures,
and salinity. Despite the success of this program in enhancing safety
and improving the efficiency of vessel movements and international
trade, PORTS has only been available to a small number of commercial
harbors. Those fortunate few are paying for its operation and
maintenance and those wishing to install a new system must pay for this
as well.
The data available from PORTS enables much more accurate tide and
current predictions, thus reducing travel delays and increasing
traffic-handling capabilities. Many of this country's export products
are price-sensitive commodities. Because shipping contracts can hinge
on a few tenths of a cent per bushel of grain or ton of coal,
transportation costs can be the deciding factor for foreign buyers
choosing between American or foreign bulk products. Maximizing the use
of channel depths is an important factor in the efficiency of
waterborne commerce. PORTS systems are also instrumental in preventing
and responding to spills of hazardous materials and oil, predicting
coastal floods and conducting scientific research. The success of PORTS
in Tampa Bay, Florida, New York-New Jersey, San Francisco, Houston and
the Chesapeake Bay is fueling interest in the establishment and
expansion of these systems at other harbors around the country.
Without PORTS, true depth, rise in tide and on-site wind and
channel current information is not readily available. Furthermore, as
trade and vessel operations increase, harbors that do not have this
system will have trouble handling the increasing volume of traffic at
the same level of safety as they do today. It has become clear that at
a number of ports, the PORTS program is no longer an enhancement but a
necessity for many groups, including but not limited to pilots, vessel
operators, shippers, the U.S. Coast Guard and port authorities. With no
other tool to accurately monitor these conditions, significant safety
and environmental risks could result.
There is another important contribution that PORTS makes to
safeguarding the coastal environment. On July 5, 2000, an accident
occurred in which a tugboat towing an oil barge punctured a hole in the
hull of the barge, thus causing an oil spill in the Narragansett Bay.
Less than two weeks prior, Rhode Island celebrated the installation of
PORTS in the Narragansett Bay area, and it is a good thing the system
was in place. With PORTS up and running, Rhode Island's Department of
Environmental Management worked with NOAA and other agencies to contain
the oil spill by predicting how the slick would move as a result of the
current, wind and tides. PORTS was instrumental in minimizing the
environmental impact from this accident and, no doubt, saved a great
deal in clean up costs.
Over the years, Federal funds for the PORTS system have been meager
at best, and in fiscal year 2000 were non-existent. This year, for the
first time, we may see a bigger jump in funding thanks to the support
of this Committee; however, the Tides and Currents line item that funds
PORTS has never received the annual $22 million outlined in the
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998. PORTS must receive a
stronger financial commitment from the Administration and Congress to
ensure a nationally viable program. We urge the Committee to continue
its push for the necessary funds in the reauthorization of the
Hydrographic Services Act to guarantee that NOAA can continue to
provide the quality assurance and infrastructure necessary to keep
existing PORTS in operation and enable other harbors to install PORTS.
Further, AAPA believes that the Federal government should pay for not
only design and quality assurance, but also the installation and
maintenance of PORTS systems to ensure a uniform, state-of-the-art
national program.
Recommendations
Beyond the need to secure additional funding for NOAA's suite of
navigation services, reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services Act
presents other opportunities to improve on these services. The 1998
bill required that within six months of enactment, NOAA and the USCG
were supposed to submit a report to Congress on the status of real-time
tide and current data systems in U.S. ports, existing safety and
efficiency needs in U.S. ports that could be met by increased use of
those systems and provide a plan for expanding PORTS to enhance safety
needs. NOAA did submit two reports to Congress; however, these did not
go far enough in examining the current needs of the maritime industry
and outlining NOAA's long-range plan for addressing these needs. AAPA
suggests that before any new recommendations or plans are made with
regard to the future of NOAA navigation programs, a report should be
completed that includes a comprehensive review of the status of these
programs, the needs of the maritime industry, and recommendations for
the most cost-effective and efficient means for addressing these
issues. This study should be fully coordinated with the maritime
industry. Once it is completed, the National Ocean Service (NOS) should
be charged with developing a long-range strategic plan for addressing
these recommendations.
AAPA believes that the National Ocean Service should develop a
stakeholder advisory group to get feedback and direction from the
private sector. With the growth of international trade over the next
twenty years, safety will become an even greater priority. In planning
to meet the needs of the maritime industry, NOS should establish this
advisory group to provide guidance, expertise, and direction on
navigation safety issues as well as consultation on a comprehensive
review of the needs of the industry.
Finally, the bill should direct the various Federal agencies that
have jurisdiction over navigation safety, such as NOAA, the U.S. Coast
Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers, to better coordinate their
efforts to eliminate duplication of efforts and to maximize limited
resources. The 1999 Marine Transportation System (MTS) Report, An
Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, identifies the
greatest safety concern among stakeholders as the Aavailability of
timely, accurate, and reliable navigation information.'' Therefore it
suggests that NOAA work in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Coast Guard as well as local communities to design, develop and
install appropriate Physical Oceanographic Real-Time Systems (PORTS)
technology, accelerate the current timetable for reducing the survey
backlog, and expand and develop the coverage of electronic navigational
charts. AAPA believes that this cooperation will lead to better
services for the maritime industry.
Conclusion
Overall, the goal of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of
1998 was to focus attention on improving the infrastructure of the
nation's navigation systems. The Act was to provide the framework for
catching up with the survey backlog and to modernize navigation
operations. Though it authorized significant funding to improve NOAA's
navigation services, the Administration has never requested, nor has
Congress appropriated, these higher funding levels.
The bill was a positive first step towards raising awareness for
navigation safety; however, we have a long way to go. Safety programs
such as PORTS should not be an option for those who can afford it but a
national priority funded by the Federal government. Without these
essential programs that provide valuable information to mariners, there
is an increased probability that maritime accidents, taking a
substantial toll on the industry and the environment, will occur. It
must be a Federal priority to maintain our nation's waterways, to
provide the necessary tools to allow mariners to do their job, and to
facilitate the commerce that provides significant economic benefits to
our nation.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hamons. We will hopefully,
what with our efforts and your expertise, make sure we take
that vital next step.
I also want to thank Mr. Hamons. We have worked for a
number of years now on some very, very controversial issues in
the State of Maryland, often at opposite ends of the opinion
scale. Mr. Hamons has always showed himself to be highly
professional, and as a result of that, we have been able to
retain a very fluid, workable, professional relationship by
which people that we both represent benefit.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hamons. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. And Mike Watson, somebody else we worked
with in the State of Maryland for a number of years.
Mike, welcome this morning.
I would like to also say that Mike has always been a
professional person in his career and in his profession, and
has been a benefit to the people that he represents and has
also been a benefit to us with the information you provide us
with.
You may begin, Mike.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MICHAEL R. WATSON, PRSEIDENT, AMERICAN
PILOTS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Watson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To you and
Mr. Underwood, I can only say, I and all the pilots in the
United States echo your thoughts and concerns; and we are proud
to have your leadership here and the leadership of Congress to
represent our country in these terrible times.
Members of my group this morning, we see the TV going in
New York, going all the time. The Port of New York is closed,
but the American Pilots' Association operation is running 24
hours a day to help the rescue efforts up there.
So, Mr. Chairman, Committee, my name is Michael Watson. I
am President of the association of--excuse me, of the American
Pilots' Association. I work in that category with you, Mr.
Chairman, which represents all of the licensed State pilots
throughout the United States.
We have had opening remarks that 95 percent of the commerce
coming to and from the United States is coming by way of
maritime activity, of that 95 percent, 95 percent of those
ships are daily manned by members of the American Pilots'
Association representing not only the Federal interests, but
the State interests for each and every port.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 was an
important first step in providing an effective mechanism for
NOAA to modernize its navigation services. The act authorized
urgently needed levels of funding and enhanced NOAA's ability
to leverage its limited resources by the increased use of
contracting. The act also encouraged further development and
implementation of NOAA's Physical Oceanographic Real Time
System known as PORTS, which provides critical real-time tide
and current information.
Today I salute you for your vision and offer a pilot's-eye
view of the act where it matters most from the bridge of the
large commercial ships navigating our Nation's waterways. As I
am talking, APA members are piloting loaded tankers, cruise
ships, coal colliers, bulkers, car carriers, LNG ships, product
carriers, container ships, which all are moving our Nation's
commerce.
Some of them are on unfamiliar ships. Some are in
restricted visibility. Most are handling ships drafting within
a few feet of the bottom and with similar air draft clearances
under bridge spans. Virtually all are aboard foreign vessels
with captains and crew who are, most likely, struggling to
communicate in the English language. Some are threading their
way through fishing fleets, others are keeping a sharp eye on
the high-speed ferries. And if today, we were on a weekend in
normal times, more than a few pilots of these deep-draft ships
would be threading their way through many sailboats and
recreational boaters.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998
established authorized levels of funding that would enable NOAA
to make significant improvements to the safety of navigation in
U.S. waters. Unfortunately, the amount of funding appropriated
has been substantially less than the authorized levels. Most
confounding has been the administration's failure to request in
its budgets the funding levels authorized under the
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. A quick review of the
funding history for NOAA's PORTS system provides an excellent
illustration.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998
authorized 22.5 million for NOAA's tides and currents program
for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2001. Of these amounts,
11.5 million was authorized for each fiscal year to implement
and operate a national quality control system for real-time
tide and current programs and to maintain the national tide
network and to design and install real-time tide and current
data measurement systems.
During this 3-year time period, 34.5 million was
specifically authorized for NOAA's real-time tide and current
program. Despite overwhelming support for the program from the
maritime industry, however, the administration requested only
2.8 million in additional funding for PORTS over the entire 3-
year period.
Within the Department of Commerce, NOAA carries the
responsibility for providing the essential hydrographic
services that facilitate the safe and efficient movement of our
waterborne commerce and protect the marine environment. This is
a considerable undertaking. These programs--offices within the
National Service who shoulder this responsibility have a
remarkable record of achievement given their limited funding
and resources. Despite the critical importance of these promote
safe navigation programs to our Nation, these programs
currently receive a paltry 3.5 percent of NOAA's budget.
The American Pilots' Association has a formal partnership
with NOAA, as well as the United States Coast Guard. My staff
and I have met personally with senior NOAA management and
expressed our concern that the agency must elevate the priority
of its promote safe navigation programs.
We look forward to meeting with the Secretary of Commerce
to convey this very same message.
Mr. Chairman, we hope that we can also count on the
Subcommittee's continued leadership on this subject. The
challenges facing our Nation's marine transportation system
demand a significantly greater commitment to funding NOAA's
promote safe navigation programs.
I should also point out that the promote safe navigation
programs are extremely cost-effective. If adequately funded and
aggressively implemented, they have the potential to reduce the
need for or minimize the extent of many dredging projects. The
resulting net financial savings and the increased protection of
the environment could be extremely important.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some specific
comments on NOAA's surveying activities. The American Pilots'
Association supports the responsible use of contract surveying,
which has been effective in reducing the surveying backlog.
However, contracting is a means to an end, not in itself the
measure of success. Surveying, whether contract or in-house,
should be undertaken first in those priority areas NOAA has
appropriately identified as critical in their national charting
plan.
Further, public money spent on contract surveying, should
expedite NOAA's completion of its electronic navigation chart
database, not emasculate it by diverting already scarce
funding. The APA recommends amending the act to require NOAA to
provide regular periodic surveying and a rapid response
surveying capability for our country's major ports and harbors
and their approaches. These are the critical navigation areas
where our country's commerce is flowing, where the channel and
shoreline is consistently changing by dredging and port
infrastructure development, where recreational and other
competing vessel traffic is the most concentrated in the areas
of greatest populations. NOAA's Office of Coast Survey
established a Navigation Services Division comprised of
regional navigation managers to enhance its rapid response
capabilities and focus on these critical areas. This enhanced
rapid response capability has proven invaluable to pilots.
The APA is aware of numerous examples where NOAA has drawn
on its in-house expertise and resources to respond to pilots'
request for emergency hydrographic surveys. These are field
investigations, have located submerged barges, wrecks,
shoaling, underwater pipes, fish havens and artificial reefs in
pilotage waters. Sadly, the Navigation Services Division has
received funding for only two boats to cover our entire
country.
We should have this critical capability in every major
port. A good next step would be to provide a rapid-response
boat for each regional navigation manager. An APA member pilot
is frequently the only United States citizen aboard ocean-going
ships entering and leaving our ports and harbors.
Pilots need the best available navigation information and
tools. Modernizing and delivering NOAA's hydrographic products
and services will provide the greatest return for the public's
money in facilitating our maritime commerce and protecting our
marine environment.
I hope the Subcommittee will continue to meet these
challenges by leading Congress to reauthorize the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act. Thank you very much, sir
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:]
Statement of Captain Michael R. Watson, President, American Pilots'
Association
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Captain Michael Watson, President of the American Pilots' Association.
The American Pilots' Association is the national trade association of
professional maritime pilots. Its membership is made up of 56 groups of
state-licensed pilots, representing virtually all state pilots in the
country, as well as the three groups of United States-registered pilots
operating in the Great Lakes. APA members pilot over 95 percent of all
ocean-going vessels moving in United States waters. I appreciate this
opportunity to testify and express the American Pilots' Association's
support for the reauthorization of the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act.
Mr. Chairman, you have asked for our views on whether the Act has
provided an effective mechanism for NOAA to modernize its navigation
services program; for our recommended changes to the Act; and our
thoughts on the development and implementation of Electronic Navigation
Charts and Physical Oceanographic Real Time (PORTS) Systems. I
understand that you are also interested to hear how NOAA's programs
relate to the Marine Transportation System initiative.
NOAA's promote safe navigation programs are essential to our Marine
Transportation System. NOAA's hydrographic products and services are
critical government services that facilitate the safe movement of our
nation's waterborne commerce and protect our marine environment. Over
ninety-five percent of our nation's international commerce moves by
water. This commerce is expected to double and perhaps triple within
the next twenty years. The report to Congress on the U.S. Marine
Transportation System 1 observed that the greatest safety
concern voiced at the Regional Listening Sessions and the November 1998
MTS National Conference related to the availability of timely,
accurate, and reliable navigation information. This May, as one of its
first resolutions, the Marine Transportation System National Advisory
Council, of which I am a member, recommended to the Secretary of
Transportation that he work with the Secretary of Commerce to support
the further implementation of NOAA's PORTS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ September 1999 Report to Congress, ``An Assessment of the U.S.
Maritime Transportation System,'' pg. 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, this Subcommittee had the vision to draft and facilitate
the enactment of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. The
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 was an important first
step in providing an effective mechanism for NOAA to modernize its
navigation services. The Act authorized urgently needed levels of
funding and enhanced NOAA's ability to leverage its limited resources
by the increased use of contracting. The Act also encouraged further
development and implementation of NOAA's Physical Oceanographic Real-
Time (PORTS) System, which provides critical real-time tide and current
information. Today, I salute you for your vision and offer a pilot's-
eye view of the Act where it matters--from the bridge of large
commercial ships navigating our nation's waterways.
As I am talking, APA members are piloting loaded tankers, cruise
ships, coal colliers, bulkers, car carriers, LNG ships, product
carriers, and containerships, moving our nation's commerce. Some of
them are on unfamiliar ships, some are in restricted visibility, most
are handling ships drafting within a few feet of the bottom and with
similar air gap clearances under bridge spans. . . virtually all are
aboard foreign vessels with Captains and crew who are most likely
struggling to communicate in English. Some are threading their way
through fishing fleets, others are keeping a sharp eye on high-speed
ferries, and, if today were on a weekend, more than a few pilots on
these deep-draft vessels would be busy skirting sailing regattas.
NOAA's hydrographic products and services--nautical charts, tide,
current and weather information--are essential decision-support tools
for safe navigation. Pilots use these tools to safely navigate ocean-
going ships through our nation's waterways. With the evolution in ship
size, there is increasingly little margin for error. The stakes are
high. The risk to life, commerce and the environment is real.
Accelerating the development and delivery of NOAA's hydrographic
products and services is critical to our ability to move our country's
increasing waterborne commerce safely and efficiently.
From our perspective, NOAA is making headway in modernizing and
delivering its navigation services. However, we are concerned because
the modernization is not on pace to meet the imminent challenges facing
our nation's marine transportation system. A good example is NOAA's
effort to build our national database for electronic navigational
charts or ENCs. In addition to leveraging its in-house surveying
capability through contracting, NOAA has entered into data sharing
initiatives with the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers to
facilitate the production of ENCs. This summer, NOAA began making
available provisional ENCs on the internet. This is a giant step in
making the ENC data available to the public and will enable the market
to develop electronic charting systems for mariners. However, despite
this effective program management, ENC production is falling behind
schedule due to a lack of sufficient funding. The funding for NOAA's
promote safe navigation programs needs to be increased.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 authorized levels
of funding that would have enabled NOAA to make significant
improvements to the safety of navigation in U.S. waters. Unfortunately,
the amount of funding appropriated has been substantially less than the
authorized levels. Most confounding has been the Administration's
failure to request in its budgets the funding levels authorized under
the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act. A quick review of the
funding history for NOAA's PORTS program provides an excellent
illustration.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 authorized $22.5
million for NOAA's tides and currents programs for each of fiscal years
1999 through 2001. Of these amounts, $11.5 million was authorized for
each fiscal year to implement and operate a national quality control
system for real-time tide and current programs and to maintain the
national tide network, and to design and install real-time tide and
current data measurement systems. During this three-year time period,
$34.5 million was specifically authorized for NOAA's real-time tide and
current program. Despite overwhelming support for the program from the
maritime industry, the Administration requested only $2.8 million in
additional funding for PORTS over the entire three-year period.
After an emergency reprogramming of NOAA funds--robbing Peter to
pay Paul--to keep the highly touted PORTS program alive, the $2.8
million was finally appropriated this fiscal year. Unfortunately, a
large percentage of the money was consumed by Agency overhead, federal
salary increases, and increased operating costs. The remaining funds
have proven woefully inadequate to deliver on the automation of CORMS--
the quality control system, modernization of the instrument testing
facility, OSTEP, and to catch up on the deferred maintenance of the
national water-level observation network as promised. In fact, most of
the Field Operations Division personnel--those who perform the
maintenance and repair work--have been travel restricted due to a lack
of funds. Astonishingly, the Administration's current budget request
for fiscal year 2002 requests zero additional dollars for this critical
navigation program.
Within the Department of Commerce, NOAA carries the responsibility
for providing the critical hydrographic services that facilitate the
safe and efficient movement of our waterborne commerce and protect the
marine environment. This is a considerable undertaking. Those program
offices within the National Ocean Service who shoulder this
responsibility have a remarkable record of achievement given their
limited funding and resources. Despite the critical importance of these
promote safe navigation programs to our nation, these programs
currently receive a paltry 3.5% of the total NOAA budget.
The American Pilots' Association has a formal partnership with
NOAA. My staff and I have met personally with senior NOAA management
and expressed our concern that the Agency must elevate the priority of
its promote safe navigation programs. We look forward to meeting with
the Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, we hope that we can count on
this Subcommittee's continued leadership. The challenges facing our
nation's marine transportation system demand a significantly greater
commitment to funding NOAA's promote safe navigation programs.
While we all work to increase funding for navigation services, NOAA
must continue to make best use of the funding it receives. It is
imperative that NOAA be empowered to allocate its resources to achieve
the greatest public good. In this instance, the greatest public good is
for NOAA to develop and deliver timely, accurate and reliable
hydrographic products and services to the mariner. In the process, we
must never confuse a means to an end with the ultimate purpose. As an
example, one of the critical needs that has been identified is the
backlog of hydrographic surveying. The primary reason it is important
to survey is to make sure that there are no uncharted hazards to
navigation. NOAA is responsible for surveying over 3 million square
miles of the U.S. exclusive economic zone. Clearly, not all survey
miles are equal and we should be spending the public's money to
complete the critical areas first.
The increased use of contracting has been effective in reducing the
backlog. The American Pilots' Association supports continuing the
responsible use of contract surveying. However, contracting is a means
to an end, not in itself the measure of success. Surveying, whether
contract or in-house, should be undertaken first in those priority
areas NOAA has appropriately identified as critical in their national
charting plan. Further, public money spent on contract surveying should
expedite NOAA's completion of its ENC database, not emasculate it by
diverting already scarce funding.
The APA recommends amending the Act to require NOAA to provide
regular periodic surveying and a rapid response surveying capability
for our country's major ports and harbors and their approaches. These
are the critical navigation areas where our country's commerce is
flowing, where the channel and shoreline is constantly changing by
dredging and port infrastructure development, where recreational and
other competing vessel traffic is the most concentrated, and the areas
of greatest population.
NOAA's Office of Coast Survey has established a Navigation Services
Division comprised of regional Navigation Managers to enhance its rapid
response capabilities and focus on these critical issues. NOAA's
enhanced rapid response capability has proven invaluable to pilots. The
APA is aware of numerous examples where NOAA has drawn on its in-house
expertise and resources to respond to pilots' requests for emergency
hydrographic surveys. An emergency survey may be required to reopen a
port following a hurricane or other severe storm, to investigate an
unexplained or apparent chart discrepancy or sounding. These NOAA's
field investigations have located submerged barges, wrecks, shoaling,
underwater pipes, fish havens and artificial reefs in pilotage waters.
Sadly, the Navigation Services Division has received funding for only
two boats to cover our entire country. We should have this critical
capability in every major port. A good next step would be to provide a
rapid response boat for each regional Navigation Manager.
An APA member pilot is frequently the only United States citizen
aboard ocean-going ships entering and leaving our ports and harbors.
Pilots need the best available navigation information and tools.
Modernizing and delivering NOAA's hydrographic products and services
will provide the greatest return for the public's money in facilitating
our maritime commerce and protecting our marine environment. I hope you
will stay the course to meet these challenges by leading Congress to
reauthorize the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Watson.
I guess I will start with you, Mike, and what you said near
the end of your testimony. And this has to do with Mr. Allen's
proposal that NOAA contract out all of its hydrographic
activities or data collection. I think I am saying that
correctly.
Mike, it seems that you said the contracting-out might
enhance NOAA's capability. But are you saying that--would you
disagree with Mr. Allen that all those data collecting surveys
should not be contracted out?
Mr. Watson. Yes. I would disagree with that, sir. And I can
expand on that a little bit.
Hydrographic surveys and charting are, for the mariner, all
mariners, probably the most important aspect. You have to know
where you are, where you are going and where not to go. Every
country in the world has its own hydrographic survey
department, and they are the responsible entity of that
government to protect not only their own citizens, but all
mariners coming into the waters.
We saw with the QE2 incident, which Mr. Gudes remarked
upon, the need for accurate surveys. I happened to be in
contact with the president of that pilot group the morning that
happened. I must commend NOAA. They did have a vessel on that
site, I would say, within 10 hours. It was luck that it was up
there, but they had the capability of finding out the problem.
NOAA and the United States Government, in my particular
opinion, are like our military. You cannot charter everything
out. You have to have a corps of responsible, trained people
and equipment to ascertain and certify that this is accurate
data. With that, I would be opposed to contracting all of this
work out. I think it has a role to play in the right area, but
I think NOAA still needs to have a strong arm in it and have a
rapid response team to do this.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Allen, can you comment on that?
Mr. Allen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't disagree with
anything Captain Watson said, other than if we are talking
about data collection, I think there is certainly a role for
NOAA to play, a very big and important role for NOAA to play.
But in the area of data collection, which is where most of
our interest is, I would say that we are just as committed--the
private sector is just as committed as the government and has a
track record of doing this with other agencies to do data
collection and be able to provide the level of quality that the
government is currently--or more so than the government is
currently providing.
Captain Watson mentioned the Department of Defense and
military. We currently do this for the military. We do data
collection for them in a classified environment in which we are
actually on the front lines providing data to the warfighter.
It is not an unusual scenario for us to potentially
understand how important this data is; and from a data
collection perspective, we have the motivation and the market
forces to innovate. A lot of the vision that has come out of
NOAA recently has come from this Committee and not necessarily
from the agency itself. And, you know, my perception from the
private industry is, as a firm, really kind of sees NOAA's
budgetary process as status quo, as opposed to looking for new
ways to get things done and improve electronic charting.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Brohl, do you want to comment on that?
Ms. Brohl. I think that we are concerned primarily with the
movement of a vessel from point A to point B safely; and
frankly, we rely heavily on the pilots. I commend you for
inviting the pilots here. They are really the number one
defense and best expertise for actually asking what their needs
on the bridge are.
In some respects, I have to say that as long as we have
updated information, it may not matter who does it. But I have
to also agree with Captain Watson that NOAA, as a government
entity, has been extraordinarily responsible about certain
things that we need. In terms of the accumulation of the data,
whether that accumulation needs a security oversight to it--
there are instances where NOAA vessels were on site. For the
airline that went down off of Long Island, where there were
concerns about that, I seem to recall that NOAA was there right
away. So there is a security aspect to NOAA's mandate, as well,
which is important to having some equipment of their own and
ability to do that. But NOAA, as a government agency whose
response is to respond to the needs of the stakeholder, has
been so tremendous.
I particularly represent the Great Lakes Shipping
Association. In the Great Lakes, we have had a lot of low water
problems. We have a lot more critical areas and the need for
real-time information. NOAA, out of Silver Spring, has been
responsive to our needs to provide vector charts when we needed
them. And I don't think those are things--of course, we are
talking about the accumulation of data, but they definitely
need the in-house expertise; and there have been times when, as
Captain Watson said, you needed someone to be out there.
I can't answer the question, whether a contractor who is
under contract to accumulate data under a certain contract, you
can call them and say, Oh, would you go off that contract and
do something else now because we have a critical need, I can't
answer whether that is doable with the agreements that they
have with the private contracting.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hamons.
Mr. Hamons. Well, I agree with the sentiments that Captain
Watson expressed, and I understand why he said that. My concern
simply would be this. The quality of the data depends upon the
standards that are being enforced. And it doesn't matter to me
too much where the data comes from, as long as it meets that
quality and those standards. That would be a critical NOAA
responsibility, and they must be funded to maintain that level
of standard and that quality.
If the system--if NOAA drives the system, we are okay. If
the system demand reaches a point that it is driving NOAA, that
is where you get into trouble unless you can enforce the
quality of the standards. So NOAA must be funded to that level
so they can enforce the quality of the data that is coming in.
If that happens, then I am not worried.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you very much for your testimony and, in particular, Captain
Watson, I found your testimony very sobering and very important
to understand the constellation of this.
We have discussed the--I guess we are trying to understand
the general continuum of what is appropriate work to outsource
in the private sector and what kind of capability we want to
continue to maintain and develop and cultivate within NOAA. I
understand that market-driven forces helps improve cost
efficiency. But also market-driven forces sometimes perhaps in
issues of safety in issues that we are addressing here, public
safety and the safety of our maritime industry, you know, it
has to respond to a different set of standards. It can't
respond simply to market-driven issues.
Mr. Allen, I know you represent a number of people
interested in securing these contracts. And yet, as I
understand it, NOAA only started contracting out this work
sometime in the mid-90's. So what kind of work are the firms
that you represent generally involved in prior to that and what
kind of activities were they involved in?
Mr. Allen. Mr. Underwood, a lot of work that we are talking
about is also similarly contracted out by the Corps of
Engineers around the country. And we have been doing
hydrographic surveying--firms within our organization have been
doing hydrographic surveying for 20, 30 years for the Corps of
Engineers and throughout the waterways, and have had a very
successful partnership with the Corps. And we are looking for
that partnership with NOAA. And with the contracting out that
has happened to date, there has been much progress. We would
like to see that progress continue and improve.
Mr. Underwood. I would have to say, Mr. Allen, that your
responses to the question by Mr. Gilchrest, and my own,
certainly are a little bit more moderate in tone than your
statement that has been submitted to the record. So I just
wanted to make a note of that. And it is important we
understand exactly where we are going with this issue.
You know, contracting out is not an objective in and of
itself. It can't be the main objective. There is a higher
purpose for NOAA to exist. There is a higher purpose for the
oversight that is provided for this. Otherwise, we would be
contracting out Committee work, and that would be pretty scary.
So there is a defined purpose and a higher purpose here.
And so, I guess that was the--I guess the urgency in trying to
understand exactly what is that core competence and how do we
sustain that, because it is not only sustaining the expertise
and the capability and then, in turn, having the ability to
provide adequate oversight, which is not--is always an iffy
issue in defense activities that have been contracted out,
because there has been the tendency to see this as a way to
save the government money; and as a consequence, the level of
oversight has decreased over time rather than has increased.
And then you get into a whole range of other issues. And of
course, ultimately, it is NOAA that is responsible--it is the
government that is responsible. And so the issues of liability
loom very large in this as well as just sustaining and
maintaining a sense of security and safety for the public as
well as for people involved in maritime industries.
I have no real questions other than that. I guess I think
we are at least trying to find that appropriate mix. And in
that sense, I think we will take into account--at least I will
take into account--the day-to-day users of the information of
hydrographic charting in that sense. I will take their comments
with a little--put more credence into their comments.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Just a couple of
follow-up questions.
Two things, Mike. You don't have to comment on the first
one. It was interesting, you said we could dredge less if we
had a better hydrographic system in place.
I thought that was encouraging and provided us with
incentive to the get this thing in place immediately, for the
Chesapeake Bay region. The other--Mike, would you agree with
Mr. Gudes in his--Mr. Gudes talked about this--these priority
areas, the critical priority areas along our coast. Would you
agree with his selection of the critical priority areas?
Mr. Watson. Um--.
Mr. Gilchrest. I'm not sure if you saw the slide that he--.
Mr. Watson. I did not see the slides, no. Having said that,
the pilots from around the country have worked closely, very
closely, with NOAA to establish the critical areas. In your
district in the Chesapeake Bay, before I came to Washington, we
have worked for years with NOAA, and that is why I say
appropriate use of funding and management is imperative,
because we sat down with NOAA. We have our 50-foot channel, and
we put that channel together, the original Army Corps of
Engineers funding and design criteria for that channel, and I
worked with Mr. Hamons. It was about 30 percent more than was
needed by quality professionals, working in a redesign channel.
And the Maryland pilots--.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sorry, Mike. The redesign channel was
30 percent more than what?
Mr. Watson. No. We redesigned the Federal Army Corps of
Engineers channel. We cut it by about 30 percent--.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I see.
Mr. Watson. --of necessary dredging and channel design.
Consequently, 33 percent less mud was dumped in the Chesapeake
Bay; $110 million were saved for the taxpayers on that one
particular project. That would not--.
Mr. Gilchrest. What project was that?
Mr. Watson. The 50-foot channel project, that was completed
back in the late 1980's. Without the cooperation of NOAA and
the Coast Guard, we would not have been able to do that because
it required better knowledge of current direction and water
level measurement, which is a great variable. You can't just go
on predicted tides. As you know, a front comes through, the
Chesapeake Bay goes down 1 meter. So that cooperation and that
ability at that time allowed that project to go ahead and save
environmental concerns as well as financial interests. If these
projects are no longer funded--and the Maryland pilots have
worked for 10 years with NOAA as a test base to develop the
port system. I am very proud of that. And consequently,
Maryland will come in with a very good package. But, yes, if it
is used throughout the country, the professionals that are
moving the big ships that require the dredging and the real
concerns can more professionally ascertain the channel design
and what is needed to protect the environment.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Watson. I might make one other comment about the need
for the accuracy of this data, and, again, I can refer to your
district. The data is so old, and it needs to be updated, that
the technology today of GPS and DGPS and navigation systems of
which we have developed is so much more accurate than the
current paper charts. When we moved the Constellation for her
repairs from the Inner Harbor to the dry docks, if you
superimpose the true position of the vessel as compared with
the chart, it would have been about a hundred feet outside of
the dry dock. So vessels operating in restricted visibility
with high-tech means of navigation, these ECDIS systems are no
better than the database and the chart that they have. And as a
matter of fact, it can lead people into terrible situations if
they are not aware of that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mike.
Apparently we have a vote on. I just have just some brief
questions for some of the witnesses.
Ms. Brohl, you made a comment about a subscription program.
Could you explain that briefly?
Ms. Brohl. Sir, I don't know that I can explain it all that
well. It is something I have only really heard about. NAMO had
been working on the print on demand for quite a long time with
NOAA to get them moving with the ability to get updated prints
charts, paper charts. There is a lot of data that is currently
in the computers at NOAA that is just not getting onto a chart.
The electronic is easier because once you have it in the
database, you can access that.
But we were frustrated. There was a while there where the
issue of printing a chart at NOAA got mixed up into the
aeronautical chart printing. Where was that going to go? Is
that going to go to defense or go back to DOT? And it really
held off any of our ability to try to get a more readily
accessible real time paper chart. I know that sounds strange,
because the minute the paper chart is updated it is no longer
real time.
But I understand that for NOAA now, after having gone
through a number of scenarios with providing more real time
paper charts, that a subscription service is very simple. It is
merely that you have an interest in one area, Maryland or
wherever--.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there is not one in place now.
Ms. Brohl. No. They hoped to get that going. We would like
to see it accelerate, come up with something where we are not
waiting around to find out.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that something that you are discussing
with NOAA, and NOAA has--.
Ms. Brohl. I only recently became aware of it. We have not
had any meaningful discussions with NOAA about it, and we
intend to do that.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. We will follow up on that.
Ms. Brohl. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. I had a couple more questions, but I think I
can--Frank, for example, I would like to talk to you about the
PORTS system and the cost-sharing process and all those things,
but I will give you a call or visit Baltimore.
Mr. Watson, Mr. Allen, Ms. Brohl, Mr. Hamons, thank you all
very much for coming today under these trying circumstances.
And we appreciate the information that you exchanged with us
today.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saade follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5129.010
-