[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL MARITIME NAVIGATION PROGRAMS: INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
=======================================================================
(114-51)
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-415 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
___________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROB WOODALL, Georgia ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois
(ii)
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska JOHN GARAMENDI, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB GIBBS, Ohio CORRINE BROWN, Florida
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina JANICE HAHN, California
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
______
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California JARED HUFFMAN, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TODD ROKITA, Indiana ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JOHN KATKO, New York ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Columbia
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina Officio)
MIKE BOST, Illinois
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Rear Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy, U.S. Coast Guard:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. John Garamendi of California........................ 43
Hon. Todd Rokita of Indiana.............................. 47
Rear Admiral Shepard M. Smith, Director, Office of Coast Survey,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. John
Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California................................................. 59
Edward E. Belk, Jr., P.E., Chief, Operations and Regulatory
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 61
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.................................. 32
Hon. John Garamendi of California................................ 35
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, request to submit the following:
Letters of opposition to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act
\1\
Letter of September 7, 2016, from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.......................... 7
Rear Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, response to request for information
from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 30
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Written statement of Edward Saade, President, Fugro (USA) Inc.... 66
----------
\1\ The letters referenced by Congresswoman Napolitano are available
online at GPO's Federal Digital System (FDsys) at https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/CPRT-114HPRT23997/pdf/CPRT-114HPRT23997.pdf.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FEDERAL MARITIME NAVIGATION PROGRAMS: INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation,joint with the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment) presiding.
Mr. Hunter. The subcommittees will come to order. The Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation and the Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittees are jointly meeting today to review
the Federal Government's navigation programs.
From the earliest days of the United States, the Federal
Government took responsibility for activities necessary to
promote international and interstate trade, including
activities that promote safe and efficient maritime navigation.
Navigation activities of the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration provide for a safe, secure, and efficient Marine
Transportation System that forms the backbone of our economy.
The maritime sector contributes more than $650 billion annually
to the U.S. gross domestic product and sustains more than 13
million jobs. Nearly 100 percent of our overseas trade enters
or leaves the United States by vessels navigating the Marine
Transportation System.
To maintain this economic output, facilitate the efficient
movement of goods, protect the environment, and ensure the
safety and security of Marine Transportation Systems, the
navigable waters of the United States are charted, marked, and
dredged on a regular basis. NOAA is tasked with surveying and
producing over 1,000 nautical charts covering 95,000 miles of
shoreline and 3.4 million square nautical miles of waters; the
Corps is responsible for surveying and maintaining the depth of
nearly 25,000 miles of Federal navigation channels throughout
the country; and the Coast Guard is charged with the
maintenance of over 47,000 Federal Government-owned buoys,
beacons, and other aids to navigation that mark 25,000 miles of
waterways. That is a lot.
It has been 2 years since the last hearing on this topic. I
am interested in hearing from the agencies on progress made to
carry out these missions in a coordinated, cost-effective
manner, while also ensuring the safety, security, and
efficiency of our waterways and taking advantage of ongoing
technological advances. The agencies held 12 joint public
listening sessions in 2014 to better understand the needs of
the user groups, and I look forward to the agencies updating
the subcommittees on what they heard from user groups and how
the agencies went forward or will go forward to meet the user
needs.
In an age of electronic communications and digital
technology, I am interested to understand if the agencies have
been able to keep up with technological improvements and the
way in which charting data is collected and displayed. Is the
private sector able to use the data to develop their own
products to assist mariners, and are Federal actions assisting
these endeavors? Are Federal regulations supportive or do they
impede the move to a digital world? And as we move toward the
use of more e-navigation systems, are adequate redundancies and
backup systems like e-loran available to ensure safety?
In order to grow jobs and remain competitive in a global
economy, we must build and maintain a reliable, world-class
navigation system. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
on what progress they have made towards making such a system a
reality.
And, with that, I am not going to hear about it, I am going
to read about it when I read the transcript. The Armed Services
Committee is doing a classified overview of the entire Middle
East, which I am going to go and hear the ops briefing on and
then come back in here and resume.
So, I am going to turn it over right now to Mr. Gibbs, who
is going to chair this and who chairs the Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee. With that, I yield to Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. At this time I will yield to the ranking member
of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee,
Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Chairman. Welcome
back to all of us. We have got a busy month out ahead in
September, and thank you for scheduling this meeting,
particularly with the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
As we continue our oversight into the future of maritime
navigation, the timing of this hearing could not be better.
Only last week an article ran in the Wall Street Journal
entitled, ``Pilotless sailing is on the horizon. Freight
carriers aim to optimize the use of vessels, cut their fuel and
labor costs.'' This article revealed that right now ship
designers, operators, and regulators are gearing up for a
future in which cargo vessels sail the oceans and waterways
with minimal or even no crew. And it foresees a day in the not-
too-distant futures when technology, long used to improve the
commercial airline operations, will migrate to vessels.
Coming less than 2 weeks after the release of the FAA's
pioneering rulemaking governing the use of commercial drones,
the Wall Street Journal article reinforced in my mind that the
dawn of a new age of fully automated or even autonomous
transportation systems is upon us. The implications of such a
transformation could signal greatest innovation in maritime
transportation since the conversion from steam to diesel-
powered propulsion systems, or the advent of containerization.
Yet do we fully grasp the scale and complexity before us? I
don't think so. The tremendous size and expense of the newest
generation of mega-container ships such as the Benjamin
Franklin, which can carry up to 18,000 containers, make the
financial, commercial, and environmental risks enormous. And
for global maritime industry that sustains the reliable and
efficient global supply chain that fuels the U.S. economy,
failure and accidents could be devastating.
Additionally, this transformation will only increase our
reliance on electronic data, virtual aids to navigation, and
other network navigation technologies such as radars, chart
plotters, gyrocompasses that rely on positioning, navigation,
and timing signals provided by GPS. But we do know that GPS is
the single point of failure.
The fact of the matter is that the Coast Guard has such
identified GPS as the vulnerable--as cybersecurity--therefore,
the Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral Zukunft, has said that GPS
is the single point of failure in this critical infrastructure.
We need to work on that. We've been talking in this committee
and others about the problems of the GPS system and the
necessity of a backup. I suspect we're going to hear some of
that. We're going to learn a great deal.
Thank you for the hearing. I yield back my time.
Mr. Gibbs. Ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
DeFazio, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. DeFazio. I will just submit one for the record.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. As chairman of the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here
at this joint hearing with the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee.
There is no doubt the nexus between the Army Corps of
Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and the Coast Guard are vitally important to ensuring the
safety and security of our Nation's Marine Transportation
System, and ensuring a competitive edge for U.S. goods in
overseas markets.
I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here
today. We have Mr. Eddie Belk here from the Army Corps of
Engineers. He serves as the Chief of the Operations and
Regulatory Division. I look forward to hearing his testimony
about how the Corps of Engineers collaborates with both NOAA
and the Coast Guard.
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of nearly 25,000 miles of Federal navigation
channels, which includes both coastal and inland channels. It
will be interesting to hear how advanced technologies have
played a role in maintaining the authorized widths and depths
of these channels, as well as improving the safety for vessels
that transit the inland and the coastal systems.
In addition to dredging, the Corps is also responsible for
operating and maintaining more than 240 locks at more than 190
sites on the inland water river system. The average age of
these facilities is more than 60 years old. In 2014, Congress
enacted critical reforms to improve the inland navigation
system, both in WRRDA 2014 and a fuel tax increase requested by
industry that are intended to recapitalize our aging inland
navigation systems. While a large component of the Inland
Navigation Trust Fund is dedicated to completing the Olmsted
Locks and Dam project, it will be interesting to hear from the
Corps as to how they plan on accelerating and prioritizing the
other inland navigation projects on the Ohio and Mississippi
River systems.
Additionally, the Corps is responsible for operating and
maintaining the channels that lead to and from the Nation's
large network of coastal ports. At any given time only 35
percent of these channels are at their authorized widths or
depths, and we remain concerned the administration's budget
requests for these activities fall far short of what is
required.
Congress did its part in fiscal year 2016 by providing
almost $1.3 billion from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund,
which meets the suggested targets from WRRDA 2014. While other
trust funds have solvency challenges, the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund is being neglected by this administration. Their
annual budget for the Corps of Engineers does not reflect the
priorities of the Congress or this Nation.
Given the vast expanse of navigation channels, our advanced
technology can help improve navigation safety and advance
economic security, but only to a certain point. These
technologies need to be coupled with an adequate channel
maintenance and recapitalization of antiquated infrastructure
to ensure the Nation's competitive edge in the global
marketplace.
I now would like to yield----
Mr. Garamendi. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I do note that I
am also on the Armed Services Committee and that classified
briefing is going on, so I am going to excuse myself. My
colleagues on our side are going to remain here.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. I yield to--for any opening
statements--to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, from California, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing
me. I appreciate your calling attention to the importance of
this Nation's maritime transportation network.
Our historic investments in commercial harbors, inland
waterways, and port infrastructure have been critical to the
economic health and prosperity of our communities, our States,
and our Nation. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this committee is--
was successful in moving the bipartisan Water Resources
Development Act before the August break. I am hopeful that,
with your leadership, we can continue to advance the bill
forward before the end of this Congress.
The water resources bill shows what this committee can do
when it works on a bipartisan basis to address the critical
needs of this Nation. However, there is another issue pending
before Congress that has taken a far different path and has
resulted in confusion, uncertainty, strong opposition from
States and stakeholders alike. Mr. Chairman, I am referring to
language currently under negotiation in the National Defense
Authorization Act that weakens Federal, State, and local
authority to address pollutant discharges from vessels.
As you know, pollution legislation fails to exclusively--
falls exclusively within this committee's jurisdiction. In
fact, the last bill this committee formally considered was in
the 112th Congress called the Commercial Vessel Discharges
Reform Act. Yet, seemingly out of nowhere, an entirely new
vessel pollution bill called the Vessel Incidental Discharge
Act, or VIDA, has been added to a non-germane bill in another
committee, and is now under negotiations a joint House and
Senate conference.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the committee Democrats objected
to the inclusion of this never-before-seen proposal in the
defense bill. This proposal is radically different from the
bill this committee explored over 4 years ago, and has drawn
opposition from States and stakeholders alike. I would guess
that no member on this committee can explain exactly what this
legislation would do, who wrote it, or who would benefit from
it as, to the best of my knowledge, this proposal has undergone
no congressional hearings in the House or the Senate. I know
for certain no committee member or staff of the minority party
has been part of the process.
What is worse is that, despite the lack of transparency,
the list of States and organizations opposed to this proposal
is growing as more entities come to learn of its existence.
Over the past few weeks, the House and Senate have received
numerous letters from States and organizations expressing
concerns with the vessel pollution bill, which I ask for
unanimous consent to include in my remarks for the record. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The letters referenced by Congresswoman Napolitano are
available online at GPO's Federal Digital System (FDsys) at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-114HPRT23997/pdf/CPRT-114HPRT23997.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gibbs. So moved.
Mrs. Napolitano. These organizations, which include State
water pollution control agencies and State environmental
agencies, State fish and wildlife agencies, State boating
administrators, all express their concern that ``VIDA exempts
State authorities to protect State waters from harmful invasive
species and water pollution discharge vessels.'' Further, these
State agencies believe that ``VIDA will have adverse
consequences on water quality, sources of drinking water, and
sensitive aquatic resources.''
Mr. Chairman, over the past few years we have seen
countless examples where drinking water supplies of large and
small towns across the U.S. have been compromised by pollution
and invasive species. In my district and in the Western States
we are plagued with the invasion of the quagga mussel that has
clogged water distribution systems, added pollution, and
created hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for local
water agencies and our constituency.
Right now, in more communities, we cannot say that the
water that is delivered to our homes or our schools or our
workplaces is safe to drink. Think about that. Here, in the
United States, we cannot say with certainty that water we are
providing our citizens is always safe to drink. Yet, according
to the--the VIDA will have adverse consequences of water
quality and resources--and sources of drinking water in the
U.S.
So, then, will this legislation improve the operation of
vessels in the armed forces and national security? No, because
the discharge requirements for the vessels of the armed forces
are unchanged by this legislation. So this precious--this
legislation puts our precious State resource waters in jeopardy
to ensure that a small universe of commercial and fishing boats
are no longer regulated under clean water permitting
requirements.
Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to understand proposed
legislation before it has the potential to become law.
Therefore, I am requesting that this committee undertake a
formal legislative hearing on the vessel pollution before
further action is taken in the House. I ask unanimous consent
that a letter formally requesting this action be added to the
record.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Napolitano. In my view, far too little attention is
being given to the important topic to jam untested language
through on a non-germane bill with virtually no congressional
oversight within the proper committee of jurisdiction.
Our water, our local natural resources, are far too
precious to take action on this proposal without fully
understanding its impact.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gibbs. At this time I want to welcome our three
witnesses.
Our first witness is Rear Admiral Paul Thomas. He's
Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, United States Coast
Guard.
Our second witness is Rear Admiral Shepard Smith. He's the
Director of the Office of Coast Survey, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.
And Mr. Edward Belk, he is the Chief of the Operations and
Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
Admiral Thomas, welcome, and the floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL PAUL F. THOMAS, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT
FOR PREVENTION POLICY, U.S. COAST GUARD; REAR ADMIRAL SHEPARD
M. SMITH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COAST SURVEY, NATIONAL OCEAN
SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; AND
EDWARD E. BELK, JR., P.E., CHIEF, OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY
DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Admiral Thomas. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking
Member Napolitano, and distinguished members of the
subcommittees. I am honored to be here today to update you on
the Coast Guard's efforts to modernize marine navigation
systems and to enhance mariner situational awareness.
With the growth and diversification in domestic energy
production and the associated industries, increased use of
Arctic shipping lanes, and the simple need to move more people
and cargo by water in the decades to come, the demand on our
Marine Transportation System, or MTS, is unprecedented and it
is growing.
Working with our partners, such as NOAA and the Army Corps
of Engineers, and through the interagency Committee on the
Marine Transportation System, or CMTS, which I am proud to
chair, we are modernizing America's waterways for the 21st
century.
Through six key initiatives, carried out with extensive
stakeholder and interagency outreach and coordination, we are
reviewing and baselining our current aids-to-navigation system.
We are modernizing our physical aids system. We are
incorporating automatic identification system, or AIS ATON,
into system design and operation. We are modernizing the
delivery of marine safety information to the mariner,
developing data-driven, risk-based tools for modern waterway
system design. And finally, we are improving public
notification and participation in waterway system improvements.
To enhance our physical ATON constellation, we are now
broadcasting over 350 electronic aids through the nationwide
automatic identification system. This year we will prototype
our smart bridge, smart lock, and digital light ship
initiatives, all of which provide waterway users real-time
information about navigational aids and navigational
conditions, and enable smarter decisions that help to increase
safety, reduce congestions on our waterways, and enhance the
environment. And we can do this even in areas where AIS
broadcasts are not currently available.
Our interagency enhanced marine safety information
initiative, or the EMSI initiative, will coordinate all
Government-provided navigation information services into a
single integrated service delivered via the Web, accessible on
common devices, and interoperable with existing shipboard and
land-side navigation and logistics systems.
For the first time, a mariner will be able to enter an
intended route and quickly and easily find all the information
needed to safely navigate that route. In the near future we
will build a capacity to provide real-time updates to the
mariner during the transit.
But even as technology continues to change how mariners
navigate on our waterways, we remain focused on implementing
the proper mix of physical and electronic aids to navigation.
The Coast Guard understands that physical aids will continue to
be a vital component of our ATON system. Given this, it is
critical that we recapitalize our aging fleet of inland and
construction tenders. Our fleet of 35 inland aids to navigation
cutters services over 27,000 aids, or 56 percent of the entire
physical ATON constellation, nationwide.
And yet, this fleet has an average age of 52 years, with
some of our cutters more than 60 years old. The fleet is well
past its service life, but we are committed to maintaining
operational capability on our inland waterways. To that end, we
are in the final stages of the Inland River Tender Emergency
Sustainment project, intended to maintain the operational
capability of these cutters until a solution can be identified.
And we have worked closely with the Army Corps to research
alternatives for the recapitalization of this fleet.
In addition, the Coast Guard is currently conducting
comprehensive mid-life vessel sustainment for our fleet of 225-
foot seagoing buoy tenders, and our 175-foot coastal buoy
tenders, to ensure that they can continue to sail safely, and
effectively execute their critical missions.
The Service is grateful to this subcommittee's strong and
ongoing support for the sustainment and recapitalization of
these nationally critical fleets.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify
today, and for your continued support of the United States
Coast Guard. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Smith, welcome, and the floor is yours.
Admiral Smith. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member
Napolitano, and members of the subcommittees. My name is Shep
Smith, and I am the Director of the Office of Coast Survey at
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In this
capacity, I also represent the United States at the
International Hydrographic Organization. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on how NOAA is advancing
navigation services.
I am pleased to testify alongside the United States Coast
Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. Our agencies coordinate
activities and programs regularly, from local and regional
harbor safety committees to national program coordination and
joint participation in academic and public venues.
This hearing comes at a pivotal time for marine navigation,
and I am pleased to offer some highlights of my full testimony,
which is submitted for the record.
NOAA's role in marine navigation is to provide
authoritative nautical charts--tides and currents and weather.
I will be focusing my brief remarks today on nautical charting.
We have nearly completed a transition to a digital nautical
charting production system, which will improve the consistency
and efficiency of our charting program. Just as importantly, it
will allow us to move beyond the limitations of depicting
information on paper charts, creating digital charts optimized
for the needs of today's electronic navigation systems, and
supporting increasingly automated navigation. Over the coming
year we will be drafting and taking public input on a new,
national charting plan which will incorporate all of this
public input to envision an updated chart suite.
In addition to new charting technology, NOAA is leaning
forward to take advantage of the proliferation of available
relevant geospatial information and observation technology. We
are using satellite imagery derived bathymetric estimates in
shallow, clear areas. We have stood up a public database for
worldwide crowd source depth data from volunteer vessels with
the potential for thousands of users within a few years. We
plan to use this satellite data and crowd source depth data to
identify areas where charts are no longer accurate, and to
support temporary chart updates.
We are using LiDAR [Light Detection and Ranging] data from
Army Corps and NOAA aircraft to accurately survey shallow
coastal waters. We use multibeam data from other agencies where
it is available, relevant, and suitable for charting use. We
have begun to use unmanned survey systems to complement our
manned systems, and we see opportunity for greater use in the
near future.
At the core of our survey efforts, our own ships and
aircraft and those of our hydrographic contractors provide the
high resolution object detection surveys needed to accurately
measure depths and find isolated hazards, and in areas where
other sources are not available.
NOAA is working to ensure the Nation has a fleet of
research ships that meet the Nation's observation requirements.
Coast survey is engaged with the NOAA planning efforts to
identify and refine the requirements for replacement survey
vessels capable of supporting unmanned systems and sustained
operations in environmentally sensitive areas.
In electronic navigation systems, charts are used along
with information from weather, water levels, currents,
constantly changing channel conditions, and EMSI to plan,
monitor, and execute a voyage. Many of the most innovative and
advanced navigation systems are made by U.S. companies, and are
built on the foundation of NOAA's, the Coast Guard's, and the
Army Corps' freely available navigation information. These
systems are putting the best available technology onto U.S.
boats and improving the safety of the commercial vessels and
the 34 million U.S. boating families.
We have begun a test bed project in the Port of L.A./Long
Beach to prototype a new high resolution chart to support
precision navigation for large ships transiting the tightly
constrained waterways of that port.
NOAA is working with the Coast Guard on the two Arctic port
access route studies and with the Army Corps on their Arctic
deepwater port study. In addition, we hosted a charting
workshop in Anchorage in March of this year with Federal,
State, tribal, and local interests to prioritize the highest
risk areas for Arctic navigation.
To date, we have focused our survey and charting efforts
along frequently traveled routes, in approaches to towns and
facilities, and in potential harbors of refuge. Our survey work
in Alaska is highly constrained by a short survey season, lack
of logistical support, and the age of our two survey ships,
both approaching 50 years old.
NOAA plays a unique and important role by providing
critical information infrastructure to support safe, reliable,
and efficient navigation in maritime commerce. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss the state of NOAA's services with
you this morning, and I welcome any questions you may have.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Belk, welcome, and the floor is yours.
Mr. Belk. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs. And thank you as well
to Chairman Hunter and the distinguished members of both
subcommittees. I am Eddie Belk, Chief of the Operations and
Regulatory Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers here
at our headquarters in DC. I am honored to appear before you
this morning to discuss issues associated with Federal maritime
navigation programs, with an emphasis on interagency
cooperation and technological change.
This fiscal year the Corps is investing just over $2.6
billion appropriated by Congress to study, design, construct,
operate, and maintain our national infrastructure portfolio,
including channel deepening projects to accommodate post-
Panamax vessels and recapitalizing aging locks and dams to
increase reliability and efficiency of our inland waterways.
This investment also supports continued development of data-
informed navigation capabilities and technologies that I will
discuss this morning.
Over the past decade the Corps has experienced significant
improvement in the data we collect, create, and utilize to
operate and manage Corps maritime assets. Our philosophy is to
collect data once and then use it many times over by sharing it
very broadly both within the Corps and with others.
The concept behind e-navigation, as we call it, emphasizes
harmonizing data and information across all public and private
stakeholders. We believe that interagency e-navigation efforts
directly contribute to improved safety, efficiency, and
reliability of the Marine Transportation System.
The Corps is successfully applying e-navigation
capabilities today, with more on the way, through ongoing
research and development programs. The Corps is the United
States nautical charting authority for inland waterways. For
the past decade, the Corps has created over 7,200 miles of
detailed inland electronic navigational charts. Since 2013,
over 6 million of our charts and chart updates have been
downloaded by mariners, providing the most up-to-date
information for safely navigating our waterways.
The Corps is responsible for surveying all Federal
channels, harbors, and waterways in order to report channel
conditions to our partners and stakeholders. The past year the
Corps deployed our e-hydro tool across all coastal offices.
This tool takes hydrographic surveys of the navigation channels
and standardizes the data for use in enterprise tools. This
improves our ability to more quickly create and disseminate
more consistent products.
Example products include automatic development of channel
condition reports that are provided to NOAA for their use in
nautical charting of coastal waters, as well as standardized
electronic maps for use by waterway operators, ship pilots,
Federal partners, and the public. The e-hydro tool is being
expanded to the inland waterways with applications that create
inland survey overlays for Coast Guard use to improve the
accuracy and efficiency of setting physical buoys on our
rivers.
Another recently developed e-navigation tool is the Corps
of Engineers lock operations management application, or LOMA.
This uses real-time vessel tracking data from vessel automatic
identification systems, or AIS, to provide our lock operators
with visibility on the movement of commercial vessels along the
inland waterways. LOMA was deliberately designed to be
interoperable with the Coast Guard's nationwide AIS system,
using common architecture and software to manage the millions
of daily AIS data messages from moving vessels.
Building LOMA in partnership with the Coast Guard saved the
Corps time and significantly reduced development risks. The
Corps and the Coast Guard continue to work in partnership to
improve the system, and to make the most of these shared
capabilities.
Other capabilities being tested include the transmission of
information on physical aids to navigation that augment those
important directional and safety tools. For the first time on
U.S. inland waterways, the Corps, working closely with the
Coast Guard, transmitted a virtual aid to navigation to mark a
sunken vessel where the establishment of a physical buoy was
not possible due to adverse river conditions.
Additional capabilities include transmitting water current
velocities to towboat operators as they approach lock
structures so they are situationally aware of unexpected
adverse conditions at the lock entrance. We believe
transmitting such information will help increase lock
reliability, and improve mariner safety by reducing allisions
that can damage or close locks.
We continue to work with NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and other Federal
providers of navigation information to create an integrated
marine safety information service for all waters of interest to
U.S. mariners. This will provide commercial mariners and the
public with common access to marine safety information that is
tailored for their specific needs, available in formats usable
on their specific equipment or systems.
In closing, the Corps is actively engaged with partner
agencies and maritime users to accelerate the development and
deployment of technological enablers for the mariner, while
harmonizing data through e-navigation principles. We are
committed to improving our use of data from other agencies and
waterway stakeholders and to making our data and information
widely available for others to use.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I will start off the questions. For
Admiral Thomas and maybe Admiral Smith, I guess both, you know,
we have seen technology just grow immensely in the last couple
decades. Satellite technology and navigation technologies and
all of that. And I guess Admiral Smith mentioned about how you
were working to do a national charting plan and looking for
input from the public, and then to Admiral Thomas, responsible
for this electronic navigation, getting all the vessels and
real-time information.
How is that being incorporated between the two? And then,
you know--and I guess a simpler question, too, is: is there an
e-navigation app? What is the status on this technology in both
commercial and recreational users, and how does this
incorporate what Admiral Smith is trying to do with the
charting?
Admiral Thomas. Well, thank you for the question, Mr.
Chairman. There--it is a great question. There is a lot going
on, a lot of new technologies.
We coordinated our efforts between our three agencies and
many others through the Committee on the Marine Transportation
System, which I mentioned. And that particular committee has an
e-nav subcommittee that is focused exactly on your question,
which is how do we make sure that we are developing systems
that work with each other, that talk to each other, and that
are going to be accessible to the users on the waterway.
And I will let Admiral Smith talk about some of the
technical details, because he is more conversant on those, but
I will just add that a huge part of getting to where we need to
be with e-navigation is harmonization of the data sets kept by
the Army Corps, the NOAA, and the Coast Guard. And we are
working hard on that and making great progress. And when that
effort is complete, you will see leaps and bounds of progress.
Mr. Gibbs. Is the technology being adapted by both
commercial and recreational users of vessels? Is it adaptable
so they can use it?
Admiral Thomas. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. And we see, you
know, broad use of--as we develop products and make them
available, we are seeing them used very broadly----
Mr. Gibbs. How does that incorporate with--you say you are
doing a national charting plan, looking for public input. How
do you merge the two together so it is friendly for the users?
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The charting plan is
really specifically about charts. We have a very robust
distribution system for charts that go from recreational, chart
plotters, and the light commercial systems that are in use and
all the way up to the type-approved systems. All of that is
very mature.
What we are hoping to add on, through our joint
distribution of other types of data, are the tides, currents,
weather, and EMSI, and for the data to be well integrated into
these systems. Some systems are already at this level of
maturity but there is room for improvement in standardization
and the way that that data are distributed.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Belk, you know, there is over 25,000 miles
of Federal navigation channels, and the Army Corps is
responsible for conducting hydrographic surveys. And I think in
fiscal year 2016 the workplan for your operation and
maintenance, there was 30 entries for project condition
surveys, totaling $17.5 million. Would you say that amount is
high, average, or about right?
Mr. Belk. Could you repeat the question, Chairman? I missed
part of that.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, about the surveys, I think this past
year--your plan of operation and maintenance, you had 30
entries for project condition surveys, nearly $17.5 million. Is
that a typical figure? Is that about right, or is that not
enough, or----
Mr. Belk. Chairman, that is about right. We received some
additional funding from the Congress this year that we are able
to utilize through our workplan to get after and take care of
more condition surveys this fiscal year.
Mr. Gibbs. We are talking about the Federal navigation
channels. What role would the Inland Water Users Board and also
vessel operators play? It just came to my attention up in the
Cleveland Port in my area--I am from Ohio--there is a question
about the survey getting done for dredging the Cuyahoga River
at the port.
That is--you know, what kind of input does the port get
from the operators? And then, of course, you know, elsewhere,
in the Inland Waterways User Board--what kind of input, what
kind of interaction is there between your shop and them?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that
question. There is a tremendous amount of interplay between the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Inland Waterways User Board. In
fact, our next meeting of the Inland Waterways User Board will
be the first week in October in Chicago. We meet quarterly.
The Inland Waterways User Board is comprised of senior
leaders from across the navigation industry that are appointed.
The Corps of Engineers is also involved in that user board. We
get tremendous input from them, and we also are able to
describe to them our challenges and the priorities that we are
getting from the Congress. Together we are able to describe
where we can apply the funds we do get to buy down the most
risk.
One of the accomplishments that we have achieved this year,
in partnership with the Inland Waterways User Board and
industry, is the capital investment strategy that lays out a
20-year plan. It will invest almost $5 billion over 20 years to
buy down the most risk across the national system.
That partnership with the Inland Waterways User Board has
resulted in our ability to identify and buy down the most risk
with each dollar that is appropriated by the Congress.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. I want to--in a future question--my time is
up--I want to talk a little bit--I want to ask more questions
about the capital plan.
At this time I yield to Ranking Member Grace Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal
maritime programs we are discussing today are in place to
provide efficient and effective transportation of goods and
people--especially important in my area.
I am concerned when bad actors--this is a little bit out of
the bailiwick here, but I am concerned that bad actors in the
shipping industry have recently--one of them has recently
declared bankruptcy. Hanjin. And it affects our national
economy, putting employees out of work, the transportation
sector out of work, delayed arrival of goods, and increasing
the shipping rates. There are several ships already sitting out
in the sea.
I recognize the subject is not the topic of today's
hearing, and witnesses are not involved in the economics of
global shipping, but I would ask any of the witnesses to
comment on the current trends in global shipping and the crisis
in Hanjin ship sitting off our coastline. And are you concerned
about that? I know the Coast Guard has a role to play in that.
Admiral Thomas. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Napolitano.
We are, of course, aware of the situation with Hanjin Shipping.
There is tremendous pressure on containerized shipping--in
particular, globally. There are a number of ships that have
been laid up, and Hanjin is managing their financial crisis.
You know, our role is to ensure that, before those ships
enter U.S. ports, that they can meet their financial
obligations, particularly those to the U.S. Government. And
that is in the form of what we call a certificate of financial
responsibility.
In the case of the two ships that are currently off the
west coast--and I believe one off the east coast--you know,
Hanjin's longstanding financial arrangements have been
nullified by their bankruptcy, but they are negotiating those
arrangements on a case-by-case, ship-by-ship, port arrival-by-
port arrival basis, and I believe that they have reinstated
their COFRs with the U.S., and they are making individual
arrangements for port services, so that they can come into port
and unload their cargo.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good, because it affects the Nation, not
just our western port.
Mr. Belk, your testimony notes the potential benefit of
vessel automatic identification system to address congestion
along the inland waterways and coastal ports. The Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 directed the court to
implement vessel congestion mitigation strategy for the Upper
Mississippi and the Illinois waterway slot. Can you give the
committee an update on the implementation of these provisions?
It seems that the trend is for Congress to fund the Corps
at below capability, resulting in authorized projects taking
longer for construction to get started, and for the American
people to receive the benefit of this project. How can vessel
congestion strategies such as the automatic identification
systems be used as we wait for construction funds to--for these
authorized navigation projects?
Mr. Belk. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. The Corps
of Engineers is working very closely with the industry at a
number of levels, to make sure that we are communicating with
each other and are aware of traffic movements as they occur.
The Inland Waterways User Board is at the strategic level, and
we also have regional boards, like the regional--industry
executive task force that we work with to look at traffic
patterns. We have daily communications between our field folks
and the Coast Guard and the navigation industry to make sure
that we are all talking and understand the movement.
In addition, we have developed a couple of tools recently
that we have made available. One we released just this spring
announces publicly on a Web site all proposed channel closures
and restrictions that we anticipate in the coming work season.
What that allows the industry to do is make plans weeks and
months in advance to account for those kinds of construction
improvements, so that they are not an active discovery. Having
those identified and posted helps industry react and reduce the
impact to the American people.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a NOAA question.
Our State--my State, Florida, and our water management
districts, which are regional--and then we have county
governments--they do hydrographic surveys. And I am wondering,
is that information that they gather, is that used in
coordination with what you are doing, as far as that same
effort?
Admiral Smith. I am familiar with a few surveys from a few
years ago that were in areas of borrow pits and that sort of
thing for coastal Florida. And we do use that information when
we become aware of it.
We have an active program under our integrated ocean and
coastal mapping program, where we band together with several
different mapping organizations for the Federal, State, local,
and even private sector, so that we stay aware of what data is
available. And we do use it for charting, where it is relevant
and suitable for charting.
Mr. Webster. Is there a standard--some kind of standard for
the data in the way that it is formatted, or anything like
that, that would be helpful, that that information might even
be better used?
Admiral Smith. Modern systems are generally interoperable.
We generally can read each other's data without much of a
problem. There are issues sometimes with datums--the vertical
and horizontal references for the data.
NOAA's VDatum is a nationwide program that allows us to
transform data from one datum to another, so that most of those
interoperability problems are now taken care of.
So, the most important thing is for us to know about
available data, and for it to be relevant for navigation. Not
all hydrographic surveys that are done are relevant for
navigation.
Mr. Webster. Would it be easy for them to adapt to
gathering the data that you would need with--and that some of
the mechanics are the same and so, therefore, would it--is that
something that they could do that would make that data better?
Admiral Smith. We have a set of publicly available
documents called our specifications and deliverables for
hydrographic surveys, which define exactly what it is that we
need from a survey data set to be fully compliant for
navigation. Contractors could use these specifications for a
reference.
However, that is if we contract for a survey. If someone
does a survey for another reason, we can use that data to its
full effect, as long as it has some relevance for navigation.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Thomas, I read from staff that, you know, you are
augmenting physical aids to navigation with electronic. That
sounds OK. But it goes on to say, ``Reduce, where possible, the
number of physical ATONs that require regular seasonal
maintenance.''
I realize you have budgetary issues here, but here is my
concern. You know, you are now allowing people to not carry
physical charts. And unless their own computers were corrupted,
that probably isn't a big issue. But we have talked about the
vulnerability of the GPS system. Congress mandated that you
move ahead and look at, you know, what we might use as a
backup. But, you know, we have a report from GAO that was
rather critical a couple of years ago about DOT and DHS making
any progress on what would be or what is the necessity of
having a backup system.
So, I am concerned that this is yet another step. I mean,
so if I don't have physical charts but, you know, I have still
got charts, let's say, either on my computer or I have got a
physical chart, and I can navigate to an actual buoy, if the
system is down, great. But if we take out the buoys and we are
now going to have virtual buoys, you know, we are creating yet
another vulnerability. And I am very concerned about this
trend.
And, I mean, can you tell me where are we at in developing
a backup system?
Admiral Thomas. Well, thank you, Congressman, for the
question. Really, two parts there. I will--we have not removed
a single physical aid to navigation, as a result of our ATON
initiatives.
And, in fact, we are augmenting our physical systems. We
are looking at modernizing our physical aids. You know, what
are the buoys? How can--because--you know, how can we make them
lighter? Because all those things drive the requirements for
the cutters that I discussed that definitely need to be
recapitalized. So physical aids are and will continue to be an
integral part of our navigation system, and we are on record of
saying that the physical aids are, in fact, the backup for the
electronic navigation systems.
We share your concern, and I know Congressman Garamendi
shares it as well, with what is the national backup for our
precision navigation and timing system. This is a piece of
nationally critical infrastructure that is essential for all
modes of transportation. It is essential for many utilities,
for financial systems. It is essential for national defense.
Our Nation needs a backup system.
The Coast Guard is supporting DHS in their role on the
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing, and we are confident that they are on
the right track to identify the right solution for our Nation,
and that that solution, once in place, will have utility for
maritime navigation, as well as for all the other systems that
depend----
Mr. DeFazio. Do we have a timeline on when some conclusion
is going to be reached?
Admiral Thomas. You know, we support the effort, and we are
currently working with the NextCom to identify their
requirements for a national backup for PNT. That document is
supposed to be completed this year. And once their requirements
are known, we can move ahead smartly, identifying the potential
technologies that might be employed to give us the backup
capability.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. Admiral Smith, you mentioned
about--that, you know, you can use survey data that was done
for other purposes, if it is verified. I am wondering. Are we
anywhere near technology where--I mean, you know, we have
Google Maps, and they can tell me where congestion is because
of crowd-sourcing on the highway.
Is there any potential or possibility that either, you
know, through ships transmitting real-time data as to depths--I
know--let's say, for instance, recreationally, the inland
waterway east coast, big problem, shifting bars, et cetera. If
people were certified and set up to transmit data back to you
real time--and, you know, could that--is that a possibility? Is
that something you are looking at?
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. We have stood up--under the
auspices of the International Hydrographic Organization, and
with some of our international partners, a data center at the
former National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, now the
National Centers for Environmental Information. This cloud-
sourced database allows any user to upload their vessel's track
line information, which contains their GPS coordinates and
their depth readings, and will pull that information together
and make it available to any user. So this is publicly in,
publicly out. It is run by us, but it is not quality
controlled.
This has just stood up in the last few months. We envision
using this to be able to assess where the sea floor is
changing, and where we have problems with our charts. And
perhaps, once we see how dense the data is and how confident we
are, to make temporary chart changes while we are waiting for a
full survey to resolve the issue.
Mr. DeFazio. So you would advise mariners that this is from
aggregate data, you haven't certified it through an actual
hydrographic survey, but caution or whatever should be
exercised in----
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. On the paper charts we can display
it in a slightly different way. Through electronic systems
there are some flags that we can put on the data to indicate
that it is not from a real survey.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Admiral Smith. And we use a similar type of arrangement for
satellite-derived imagery, which we also have less confidence
in.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. And I do want to just say, as a
comment, that I am very concerned about the age of the fleets
being used, both by the Coast Guard and NOAA. And it is long
past time where Congress should take definitive action, because
we are looking at crippling ourselves if we don't make these
investments in new ships and the technology that could
accompany them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Belk, a quick question for you. Section 1034 of WRRDA
2014 directs the Corps to encourage the adoption of advanced
modeling technologies to streamline project delivery or improve
upon water resource projects. How has the Corps utilized its
authority to adopt or aid any e-navigation technologies?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir, for the question. So
the use of modeling is critically important to the Corps to
inform both how we design and construct our infrastructure, and
also how we operate and maintain it. We are making significant
investments in those capabilities, primarily through our
Engineer, Research, and Development Center, where we have
world-class experts who help us use the best available
technology, best available models--both physical and
mathematical models--to inform our designs and our operations
and maintenance practices.
So, we are making investments there, and we are applying
the results we get from those efforts to more efficiently use
the dollars that we get from this Congress to operate and
maintain our Nation's waterways infrastructure systems.
Mr. Davis. OK. This is a question for all three of you, I
guess. Are any of your agencies utilizing drone technology to
help with your mapping process? And, if so, are you running
into any issues with the FAA?
We will start with you, Mr. Belk.
Mr. Belk. We are utilizing drone technology. We use it more
for aerial surveys than mapping. For example, we had some
significant flooding over parts of the Mississippi Valley and--
well, significant portions of the Nation this year. We would
frequently use drones to provide us a quick aerial view of what
is happening on the ground, so that we can more quickly
assimilate what we need to do in the way of disaster response.
We are using it more in that mode than we are in surveys,
although we are doing a little of both.
Mr. Davis. Are you running into any problems with the FAA
certifying your ability to use them?
Mr. Belk. Sir, we have to work within DOD requirements as
we use those technologies. I wouldn't say we are having
problems, but there is a process that we have to go through in
order to use those technologies.
Mr. Davis. OK. Admiral Smith?
Admiral Smith. Sir, NOAA, in general, uses drones in a
variety of ways. We don't use any directly for the charting
program. If, by drones, you mean airborne. We do have some on-
the-water assets, which are small autonomous survey vessels,
which do share some of the benefits of airborne drones, and
some of the challenges of having unmanned systems out there.
And we are working right now within some very tight guidelines
and with some emerging best practices that the Coast Guard is
publishing.
Mr. Davis. OK, thank you.
Admiral Thomas?
Admiral Thomas. Sir, we don't use unmanned aerial systems
in the prosecution of our missions related to marine navigation
or aids to navigation. The Coast Guard is testing systems that
we use off of our cutters for, you know, extending the legs of
those cutters. But that is not within my portfolio.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Belk, I have got a little bit of time left.
As you may know, I am from central Illinois, so the Mississippi
River and Illinois waterways are a priority of mine, and have
been for a while. I am a strong proponent of maintaining the
lock and dam systems we have there, and upgrading them.
What would you say is the current conditions of the locks
and dams on the Upper Mississippi and the Illinois?
Mr. Belk. The Corps of Engineers supports interstate
commerce and international trade. And so, navigation is crucial
to enabling that. And our lock and dam systems are key to that.
We have a number of locks on both the Illinois that you are
particularly interested in, and the Upper Mississippi. The
condition varies, but there are significant requirements we are
having to place in the operation and maintenance of those as
they age. They are in excess of 60 years old, on average.
Mr. Davis. And with that, the age, what kind of impact do
you think that age is going to have on our ability in the
Midwest to move commerce up and down the navigation system? And
is the Corps ready to move forward with maintaining and--you
know, our goal is to expand them.
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. Fortunately, Congress has provided
additional funding in the last few appropriations acts, that we
have been able to use to buy down risk across that system.
We are also applying asset management principles across our
entire portfolio of inland navigation infrastructure, to
include the Illinois and the Upper Mississippi. What that
allows us to do is identify the risk associated with all our
assets, and the consequences of failure of those assets. Those
two things help us decide what our right priorities are so that
every dollar we get from this Congress we apply to buy down the
most risk.
So, a lot of that does go to the Illinois and the Upper
Mississippi, but other parts of the Nation, as well.
Mr. Davis. And I am going to break the rule and quickly ask
you. What is it going to take to get shovel ready and shelf--
off the shelf?
Mr. Belk. Sir, at this point the project has been
authorized and we will move as quickly as appropriations and
funding allow.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Thomas, a moment ago, in response to a question by
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, you said
that the Coast Guard is going to complete a study on
technologies that might be available as a backup system some
time this year or in the near future. Could you expand on that
and tell us what that study is all about and what technologies
you are looking at?
Admiral Thomas. Congressman, let me first thank you for
keeping us all focused on this really critical issue of a
backup position navigation and timing system for our Nation. I
may have misspoke, but what I meant to say was that the Coast
Guard is supporting DHS in their role on the National Executive
Committee for Space-Based PNT. That committee is undertaking
currently a requirements generation effort, which will define
the requirements for a complementary PNT system. And once those
requirements are defined, the executive committee will then
begin the assessment of competing technologies that might meet
that requirement.
So it is not a Coast Guard study. Coast Guard is certainly
supporting the department. NPPD has the lead for the department
in that. And, as you know, DOT really has the lead for our
Nation.
Mr. Garamendi. What is the timeline for the completion of
this?
Admiral Thomas. I can't speak to the completion of the
technology assessment, but I think--I am told the goal for the
completion of the requirements document is this year.
Mr. Garamendi. I am just trying to add up the number of
years that this process has been underway, and I think it is
approaching 20. And, frankly, I don't understand. It makes
absolutely no sense to me. We know that there is a backup
system that is deployed in other parts of the world, as in
China and Russia, and in parts of Europe. And I don't get it. I
really don't.
And you are right, it is a mission of mine. So I think I
will continue to push and shove. Frankly, I am very, very
disappointed in the administration in all this--as it continues
to circle around and circle around what we know is a backup
system that is readily available to us. And we do know that
GPS--one further question before I just continue on that way.
All of this new navigation electronics, as mentioned in
your paragraph here, ``the use of and increasing dependence on
electronics and technology.'' Is that dependent on GPS?
Admiral Thomas. Very much so.
Mr. Garamendi. I thought so. Just wanted it on the record.
A couple of other questions come to mind, and I will get to
those. The Arctic, I don't think we have discussed the Arctic
yet today.
Admiral Smith, I think you are at least partially
responsible for the navigational guides and charts of the
Arctic. Please update us.
Admiral Smith. Congressman, we have a suite of charts for
the Arctic, which we have had for many years. The data on those
charts is pretty old. And in some cases we don't----
Mr. Garamendi. But what does ``pretty'' mean? Eighteenth
century, seventeenth century, sixteenth, or maybe twentieth?
Admiral Smith. Yes, going back to the 1800s in some cases.
But, in fact, that is true in other parts of the country, as
well.
And so we are concerned about this, and we have been
prioritizing our survey efforts and our charting efforts on the
current and expected growth in economic activity in the Arctic.
So we have been working with the Coast Guard on the port access
route study, where most of the traffic will be, and ensuring
that those areas are well surveyed and well charted. The Red
Dog Mine and other local areas of economic activity have been a
high priority.
Whenever we hear about more vessels needing to go ashore or
going into places, those areas become our next priority----
Mr. Garamendi. So, really, the best method we have of
knowing what is beneath the surface of the ocean is when
somebody goes ashore and we can say, ``Ah, we have discovered a
new shoal''?
Admiral Smith. No, sir, that is not what I meant. I meant
that areas of increased vessel activity were an indication of
where we needed to prioritize our efforts.
Mr. Garamendi. So when they go ashore we want to know why
and where.
What resources would be necessary to deal with this Arctic
situation, which we know is the new Northwest or Northeast
Passage? What kind of--what resources are necessary to try to
get ahead of the shoaling of various vessels, which apparently
is the way in which we now know there is a new shoal or an old
shoal that we didn't know about? What do we need in resources?
Admiral Smith. I want to just clarify my remarks if you
thought that I meant that we were updating the charts based on
shoaling. Many small craft in Alaska actually are landing
craft, because there is no port facility. When they go ashore,
moving up onto the shore is how they get their fuel and other
things to the small towns up there.
So, after that clarification, the resources--we clearly are
not going as fast as we could. We are hampered, as I said in my
opening remarks, by the short survey season, by the age of our
ships, and their ability to go to these remote places safely,
and by the need to balance our survey and charting resources
across the whole country.
Mr. Garamendi. Just a final comment here. We have done
numerous hearings about the Arctic, about the necessity of
understanding the Arctic in detail, everything from icebreakers
to beyond. And in every one of those hearings, the issue of
charting and understanding the sea floor is of critical
importance.
I need from you and from the Coast Guard--we need, I should
say--specific information on what the requirements are to
advance our knowledge of the sea floor in the Arctic, so that
we can avoid shoaling as the principal way of understanding
where the reefs are. So could you deliver some level of
knowledge and information to us so that we might put that into
our planning?
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. I know we are over time here, but
we did conduct a study of Arctic gaps and plans at Congress'
request, and that study is currently in clearance.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. I just thought I would make a comment. I believe
that this committee 4 years ago kind of gave a blank slate to
move forward in this. And I think you need to report. You can
get back to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee. It would be much appreciated--in a timely manner.
Thank you.
Mr. Sanford?
Mr. Sanford. Under the category of technological change,
for instance, the port in Charleston, obviously, would have a
lot of commercial users, and it would have backup with a paper
chart. But the bulk of, for instance, the First Congressional
District would be charted but irrelevant to a commercial user.
So, as a boy, we would use charts wondering around St. Helena
Sound or Port Royal Sound. But now, hop in a little boat, and
it has got a Garmin, and off you go.
Can you give me the breakdown--first of all, are the paper
charts a loser, from a financial standpoint, or a winner? Do
you make money on them, or you lose money on them?
Admiral Smith. We do not sell charts directly any more. So
we have privatized the entire printing and distribution for
paper charts.
Mr. Sanford. So then they--it is a contract and they pay
you for the ability to do so?
Admiral Smith. They give us a very small royalty, which
basically covers the cost of the servers that we need to----
Mr. Sanford. So it is a wash.
Admiral Smith. We are not making any money on it. No, sir.
Mr. Sanford. Losing money, or no?
Admiral Smith. Well, we have appropriated funds to provide
charting services for the----
Mr. Sanford. How much is that?
Admiral Smith. So, overall, if you are including the
surveys as well as charting--and if you include our contracting
efforts and our own ships, it is about a $128 million program.
Mr. Sanford. So we spend $128 million on that, some of
which would be things like the Arctic sea floor, where there
aren't, you know, a lot of recreational users up there. But if
you break out that portion, which we particularly--it would
either be commercial or scientific versus recreation--what
would the split be, roughly, in terms of users?
Admiral Smith. That is not a very fine line. As you pointed
out, some of these areas overlap.
In the last 25 years or so, since the technological
revolution, where we could get full-bottom sea floor surveys,
we decided 25 years ago to focus our efforts with this new
technology on deep draft ships going to major ports.
Mr. Sanford. OK.
Admiral Smith. That has been the focus of our efforts for
the last 25 years. During those 25 years we have spent less
time in recreational areas, as----
Mr. Sanford. I guess my point, what I am getting at, is
would there be a way of saying we are just not going to do that
part any more? I mean, you know, St. Helena Sound is an
interesting place, I love it, but it is irrelevant, from the
standpoint of a commercial user. And the local shrimp boats
that go there, they know the waters real well.
So, I mean, would there be a big cost savings in saying
there are certain areas we are just not going to do any more,
and people can figure that out on their own, or no? It is on
the margin?
Admiral Smith. My responsibility in my position is to
provide safe navigation services to all boaters on the water.
We make every effort to manage----
Mr. Sanford. Understood. But I am just saying, I mean, the
vast majority of those recreational users aren't pulling a
chart any more. If they are using anything, they are using, you
know, Garmin or whatever, and----
Admiral Smith. Maybe I could clarify that, because Garmin
gets their chart information from us.
Mr. Sanford. Right.
Admiral Smith. So the charts that they are using are ours.
Garmin is redistributing them and making them available in a
convenient and well-designed device that suits their needs.
Mr. Sanford. And it would be updated----
Admiral Smith. The source charting information is still
ours.
Mr. Sanford. Sure. And they would be updated how often?
Admiral Smith. It depends on the area. A lot of those are
Army Corps surveys that we update as frequently as they come
along.
Mr. Sanford. Which would be how often?
Admiral Smith. It depends. Sometimes they survey once a
month, sometimes every 5 years. So it depends on how----
Mr. Sanford. So there is this split, currently, then. So if
it is a more recreational area, not a lot of commercial users,
it might be once every 5 years if they are doing--again, using
St. Helena Sound as an example. Would that be right?
Admiral Smith. I don't know the details on that particular
body of water.
Mr. Sanford. No, I am just picking it randomly.
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. So less--if it changes less often,
and it is less critical, it will be surveyed less frequently.
Mr. Sanford. OK. How about the--I guess what I am looking
for are cost savings. So you got 47,000 buoys. You are
spending, I guess, close to $1.5 billion in maintaining all of
that. Is there a way, given the way that technology has
changed, such that you maybe don't have to do as many buoys as
you used to?
Admiral Thomas. Well, thank you for the question. I mean we
are always looking to optimize our physical aids constellation,
and we have a process whereby we analyze where they are and
whether or not they need to be there. And that involves a great
deal of stakeholder input. The majority of our stakeholders on
the waterways want to keep the physical aids in place, and it
is very difficult to remove even one or two aids although, you
know, we are doing the studies that we need to do in order to
optimize the physical aids.
But even more importantly, we are studying how to modernize
our physical aids, so that they are more cost effective, they
can stay on station longer, they require less maintenance. And
that is really the way ahead for physical aids, as opposed to a
concerted effort to reduce the number of aids out there. It is
really to make the ones that are out there more efficient so
that we can maintain it less expensively.
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Maloney?
Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Thomas, I just wanted to ask you a couple of
questions about some activity that is going on in the--proposed
activity that is going on in the Hudson River Valley area of
New York that I represent.
You know, first, let me just say thank you for your
service, thank you for the work that the Coast Guard does. I
think all of us really appreciate how difficult and how
important the mission is.
I wanted to draw your attention to a matter of great local
concern, which is a proposal to create 10 new anchorage sites
along the Hudson River. You have a rulemaking process that is
underway right now. We are talking about sites from Yonkers,
New York, up to Kingston. We are talking about over 1,000 acres
of the river, 43 new sites. These are massive oil barges that
would be docked and anchored in an archipelago that would
stretch for miles up the Hudson River, creating, effectively,
an oil pipeline in the center of the river. This would be in
addition to the massive number of oil trains and oil shipments
that are occurring along the CSX line on the west bank of the
Hudson River.
So, this is generating, as you might imagine, intense local
concern that crosses all sorts of party lines and all sorts of
layers of Government. You have had people from the Democratic
mayor of Yonkers say this is going to destroy their waterfront
revitalization program, you see the conservative county
executive of Westchester agreeing with him. Same is true for
the Republican county executive of Duchess County, the
Democratic county executive of Ulster County, groups like River
Keeper and Scenic Hudson that are worried about the river.
And here is the point. The point is that we believe this is
a solution in search of a problem, that there is no need for
these additional anchorage sites for several reasons.
First, they already exist, they are simply spaced
differently.
Secondly, they are predicated on the notion that there will
continue to be a massive increase in the number of oil
shipments required down the Hudson River when, in fact, the
significant compression in the price of oil globally has
created a glut, and we have seen a reduction in shipments, so
that the infrastructure that has been contemplated may not be
in any way necessary. And yet we are moving aggressively
forward on this process.
Now, I want to thank you for responding to my request and
others' to extend the comment period for this through December.
That is a great first start. But I would really like to draw
your attention to it because the fact is that this is a bad
idea. This is not something we need. We don't want it. And we
want the process to take into account the intense local
opposition to this from all corners of all communities in the
Hudson Valley.
So, I just want to take the opportunity today to draw your
attention to that, and ask for your commitment that when the
public hearings occur, that, one, they will occur in a early
and timely way, and that they will be local, and that they will
take into account as many as these local viewpoints as they
possibly can, because at this point in the process I can tell
you that the people in the Hudson Valley feel as though their
voices have not been heard on this proposal, and they are very
concerned with the rate at which it is moving.
So, we appreciate the additional time to comment, but I
would really like your commitment on really including local
voices in the public hearings that should occur locally, and
the need to happen sooner, rather than later.
Admiral Thomas. Congressman Maloney, thank you for bringing
that issue to my attention. I am very much aware of it, and I
will say that, as a previous captain of a port myself, I am
very sensitive to local issues and the intense interest in what
happens on local waterways.
The increased activity on the Hudson River is a symptom of
the increased pressure on our Marine Transportation System. The
Coast Guard is trying to manage the risks. The anchorages
themselves, as you point out, don't create the increased vessel
traffic. Those anchorages are one means--just one means--that
we are exploring to manage the increased risk associated with
more crude oil moving down the river and more products moving
up the river.
I have spoken with the district commander, Admiral Steve
Poulin, in fact, just yesterday about this topic. He is
committed to full and open dialogue with regard to this
regulation, and he is totally open to all the alternatives that
are out there to help manage this risk. So we can commit to you
that there will be plenty of opportunity for comment, not only
to the record, but also through public meetings.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you very much.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I got some more questions.
Mr. Belk, what is the process that the Corps uses to
determine when they do surveys in the channels for dredging?
You know, is it a routine process, where you know you are going
to have to go in and check it? Or do you get information from
the vessel operators in the industry? Can you just kind of
expound about how you go about that, how the court goes about
that?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the question.
Our survey approach will depend on a couple of things. It
will depend on the use of that waterway, or that harbor, or
that channel, and it will depend on the shoaling patterns of
that channel. What that means is, on a very few projects, we
will perform surveys daily. But on most we will perform them
weekly or monthly. On some we will do it even once a year,
depending again on shoaling patterns and on the tonnage that
moves through that harbor.
Having said that, we also are in regular daily
communications at our operational level with the towboat
industry and with the Coast Guard. So if there are any
anomalies that pop up between surveys, or that were overlooked
in a survey, we have means to get visibility of those very
quickly, and respond appropriately.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think you are prepared to answer this
question about the Port of Cleveland. What is the status on
that survey?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir, I am tracking that concern of yours.
The Corps has allocated funding to conduct maintenance dredging
in Cleveland Harbor, but it has not dredged the harbor yet in
2016. The Corps has completed three surveys of Cleveland Harbor
navigation channel to date. A fourth survey is scheduled to be
completed this week.
Results from the previously completed surveys indicate that
the channel is navigable without restrictions and, therefore,
dredging is not necessary at this time. But we will see what
our surveys indicate this week. The available depth is 23 feet
for water maritime users, which meets the authorized depth. We
will continue to monitor those conditions into the future.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, it is just kind of amazing to me, because I
know they dredge it twice a year in the past, in the spring and
fall, so it is just, you know--maybe with some of the things
that port has done and the Corps has done to improve the
situation--or maybe this stuff is starting to work, I don't
know. At some point--maybe it was the weather, I don't know.
But----
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Being tentative----
Mr. Belk. I think historical dredging has been very
beneficial. I think if you look at the level of the Great
Lakes, they have increased slightly in recent times, so that is
helpful. And, frankly, the big factor, I think, is shoaling
patterns in Cleveland Harbor are lower than they typically have
been. So I think we are benefitting from all three of those
factors.
Mr. Gibbs. A little bit about the hydrographic data, does
the Corps have the authority to acquire that from privately
contracted entities, or does the Corps do it all?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. The Corps uses both approaches. We have
in-house hydrographic survey capability that we deploy, and we
also leverage the private-sector surveying capacity.
This fiscal year we are going to invest about $53 million
with the private sector to help us with both hydrographic and
topographic surveying of our infrastructure and our channels.
Mr. Gibbs. You know, we talk a lot about the inland
waterway navigation system and the average age of the locks and
dams on that system. Where do you see the most acute place
where commodities or industries might be affected? Is there one
place on the inland waterway system that is really a concern to
the Corps, a choke point?
Mr. Belk. Sir, I think we take a global or a system view of
our inland waterways transportation system, and a risk-informed
view of how we apply funding, both for operation and
maintenance and for capital investments.
I also really want to thank you and the subcommittee for
the authority you gave us in 2014 WRRDA to develop a capital
investment strategy with the navigation industry that the
Secretary of the Army was able to transmit to the Congress
earlier this year. I think that has been very helpful and
important to shape what our investment priorities need to be,
so that the Congress can have that as they make decisions on
what level of investment they want to make. They will know that
it is going to buy down the most risk, and have the best
positive effect on our inland waterways.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I appreciate that. I am a little concerned
about the administration's proposed budget. You know, this last
fiscal year--and, like you said, in WRRDA 2014 we took Olmsted
kind of offline and changed how we funded that, and we started
the projects, I think it was two lock projects on the Lower Mon
that have started.
But my understanding on the administration's proposed
budget, that curtails that funding. And, of course, the whole
concept was to start the Lower Mon projects and move to the
Kentucky and the Chick locks.
What's the status--if the funding is not there, if we went
by the President's proposal, if I understand it right, is the
work going to stop there at the Lower Mon projects, or is it
going to be just dragged out and, you know, kind of funded a
penny at a time? What is the status? What is going to happen
with those projects, moving forward? Because the plan was, when
we did this, was to get Lower Mon started and move to Kentucky
and move to Chicka locks in Tennessee. And so what is the
status, if Congress adopts, I guess, the President's budget?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
question. It is very important to the Corps and to inland
waterways users.
The fiscal year 2017 President's budget proposed $225
million for the Olmsted Locks and Dam project, the highest
priority in our capital investment plan. No funding is proposed
for Monongahela Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, also known as Lower
Mon, for Kentucky lock, or Chickamauga lock. The fiscal year
2017 budget amount of $225 million is below the $232 million
budgeted in fiscal year 2016, but above the $160 million to
$180 million that had been budgeted for construction in prior
years.
The administration believes this is the appropriate amount,
given the President's fiscal priorities, the Corps' Civil Works
responsibilities, and the need to reduce----
Mr. Gibbs. Let me stop--ask this question.
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. On the Lower Mon you--if I heard you right
you said the President's budget does not provide the funding
for the fiscal year 2017. Right? You said that, right?
Mr. Belk. Yes, correct.
Mr. Gibbs. What happens--do we have contracts that are
going to expire in that time? Or is there already a contract to
work past that time so the funding is there?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. So, again, the President's budget was
$225 million. Olmsted was a primary focus of those dollars. But
the Congress this year, in the appropriation process and under
the workplan process, we are able to invest some $404 million
to our inland waterways construction account.
What that means is we will not only address Olmsted at a
capability level of funding, we are also able to pick up and
continue working Kentucky lock, Lower Mon, and Chick lock with
the funding provided by Congress in fiscal year 2016.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. What's the responsibility of the
Corps to survey and maintain the channels, the approaches, and
the berths primarily used by the Coast Guard, Navy, and Federal
Government? How does that interaction work between the Coast
Guard and the Navy and--to get these surveys done for the
channels that are important for them?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. The Corps
of Engineers surveying authority devolves from project
authorities that the Congress gives us for navigation channels
for commercial navigation. We execute those with dollars
provided by Congress.
We do have some authorities as a byproduct of those project
authorities to do some of the surveying you described, but in
other cases we don't. Where we don't, we can take funding from
other agencies to perform those surveys that are outside the
authority that Congress has given us for such surveys.
Mr. Gibbs. I think--back to the hydrographic survey--I
think the Corps has about 100 vessels for doing those surveys.
What condition are those vessels in?
Mr. Belk. Sir, it varies. But on balance, and across the
fleet, they are older. I don't have an average age. I can get
that back to the subcommittee. They are older, and we are--
again, like our sister agencies here--looking at
recapitalization challenges as they continue to age.
Mr. Gibbs. Of course, I guess you have got the option of
doing more private contracting. You could do some of that
anyways for the surveys, right?
Mr. Belk. Yes, sir. We do.
Mr. Gibbs. Are there many interruptions in transferring the
data between NOAA and--or the Coast Guard? And if there was,
has there been any delays that--this data we talked about that
the Corps does, working with NOAA and the Coast Guard?
Mr. Belk. Sir, we have not experienced any. We are required
by statute to provide our surveys to NOAA within 60 days of
obtaining them for our channel surveys, and we have been
meeting those requirements. NOAA uses those surveys, in
addition to many other sources of data, to execute their
charting responsibility.
Mr. Gibbs. If my memory serves me right, was there an issue
in Corpus Christi on this?
[Pause.]
Mr. Gibbs. OK, I am done. I don't know if you got any
followup questions, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. I am going to take this in a
somewhat different direction for a few moments, an issue that
this committee, our subcommittee, has dealt with on and off
over the years. And it is the salvage and marine firefighting
regulations.
The waivers for the response systems, including ships and
other equipment, those waivers expired in February of 2015.
Now, those are waivers given to private sector, so that they
had time to invest in the necessary equipment and ships and
other items to deal with pollution and--as well as fire and
safety. This question, therefore, goes to the Coast Guard.
Where are we with assurances that these private
organizations actually have the equipment and are able to
respond?
Admiral Thomas. Congressman, I am not the best Coast Guard
representative to address that issue. It falls under my
colleague's response portfolio. I am familiar with the
requirements for salvaging marine firefighting, the plans and
the waivers. I don't have a current status, so I would have to
take that for the record to get back to you with details.
Mr. Garamendi. I thought that might be the case, the
answer, but I threw it out there because we would like to get
at this and have some assurances that these response mechanisms
are actually in existence. And so, if you could run that back
through the system and come back to us with an answer----
Admiral Thomas. We will be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
A long and collaborative development process led to the
identification of distinct salvage and marine firefighting
(SMFF) services for assessment, stabilization, and special
operations. This consultative process resulted in regulations
that went into effect in 2009, with a 2011 compliance date,
requiring tank vessels to plan for SMFF services. In 2013, SMFF
services became a required component for non-tank VRPs as well.
Today, all vessels which must have a VRP are required to plan
for SMFF response services.
The Coast Guard instituted a verification program to review
SMFF resource providers' capabilities and planning from 2011
through 2013. The review and subsequent corrective actions,
which included the use of temporary waivers, improved the
overall quality of submitted information. To date, corrective
actions have been made by the SMFF resource providers and no
waivers remain in place.
Mr. Garamendi. I have a series of five written questions
that I would like to submit to the record and get that on the
record.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
I want to thank our panel for their distinguished service
and for being here today. And also be aware--and I am sure you
are aware--of how important it is to adopt all this new
technology, get our inland waterway system and our ports all
working, and work together with our intermodal systems for our
national security and also our economic security.
So thank you for your service, and this concludes the
hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]