[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FINDING YOUR WAY: THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL AIDS TO NAVIGATION
=======================================================================
(113-51)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-585 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
VACANCY
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska JOHN GARAMENDI, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey RICK LARSEN, Washington
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida, LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
Vice Chair CORRINE BROWN, Florida
TOM RICE, South Carolina JANICE HAHN, California
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
VACANCY
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel 1
Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy, United States Coast Guard.............................. 3
Rear Admiral Gerd F. Glang, director, Office of Coast Survey,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration................ 3
James R. Hannon, Chief, Operations and Regulatory, United States
Army Corps of Engineers........................................ 3
Panel 2
Dana A. Goward, president and executive director, Resilient
Navigation and Timing Foundation............................... 20
Larry A. Mayer, Ph.D., professor and director, School for Marine
Science; director, Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping; and
codirector, NOAA/UNH Joint Hydrographic Center, University of
New Hampshire.................................................. 20
Scott Perkins, GISP, on behalf of the Management Association for
Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS)...................... 20
Captain Lynn Korwatch, executive director, Marine Exchange of the
San Francisco Bay Region....................................... 20
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Hon. John Garamendi, of California............................... 34
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio..................................... 35
Rear Admiral Gerd F. Glang....................................... 38
James R. Hannon.................................................. 47
Dana A. Goward................................................... 50
Larry A. Mayer, Ph.D............................................. 53
Scott Perkins, GISP.............................................. 60
Captain Lynn Korwatch............................................ 64
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Captain Lynn Korwatch, executive director, Marine Exchange of the
San Francisco Bay Region, answers to questions for the record
from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 71
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Boat Owners Association of the United States, written testimony.. 73
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
FINDING YOUR WAY: THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL AIDS TO NAVIGATION
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
Room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hunter. The subcommittee will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to review the future of the
Federal Government's navigation programs. I want to thank and
commend Ranking Member Garamendi for requesting the
subcommittee hold this hearing and explore this important
topic.
We rely on the navigation activities of the Coast Guard,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA to 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 U.S. 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 System, 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 50,000 Federal Government-owned buoys,
beacons, and other aids to navigation that mark 25,000 miles of
waterways.
In fiscal year 2013, NOAA, the Corps, and the Coast Guard
spent over $2.5 billion to carry out these navigation missions.
In light of the current budget environment, I am interested in
exploring ways to carry out these missions in a more cost-
effective manner, while also ensuring the safety, security, and
efficiency of our waterways.
In an age of electronic communications and digital
technology, I am interested in the savings and efficiencies
that can be gained through an E-Navigation system, as well as
the progress we have made in implementing E-Navigation.
However, I am also concerned that as an E-Navigation system is
built out, adequate redundancies and backup systems are put in
place to ensure safety.
In order to grow jobs and remain competitive in a global
economy, we must build and maintain a world-class navigation
system. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses what
progress they have made toward making such a system a reality.
And I have to tell you, too, from my experience as an
artillery officer, we went to GPS for artillery. Artillery is
the big cannons we use in the Marine Corps, and we shoot with
them. But you have to know where you exist on the planet to
know where you are shooting at. And we went to GPS in about
2005, and we also went--we still had maps and we still knew how
to lay a battery. We knew how to do that, but we switched to
GPS so we could do it much faster. If the GPS went down, which
the military always thinks of, especially in a combat
situation, you are always able to go back and use the old
system. And I think that if you can do it in war time, when it
comes to shooting giant projectiles at the enemy, you can sure
as hell do it in the ocean and have some kind of a backup
system to--in case the GPS goes down or the Chinese shoot our
satellites out, or whatever. The ability is there.
So, I think that we are lagging a little bit behind the
times, probably because we haven't been forced to change. I
think in the military, especially in a wartime environment, you
are forced to change. And I think we are lagging here when it
comes to NOAA and the Coast Guard on doing the same thing.
And I would like to thank Mr. Garamendi for holding this
hearing, for requesting it, and with that I yield to the
ranking member.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try to
be brief, because I really want to hear from the witnesses
here.
Before I begin, I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
following through on my request to convene this morning's
hearing. We are in the midst of a revolution. Not a political
or social one, which may be of interest to you and I, but,
really, one that speaks to technology. It is evident all across
this Nation--Sacramento River, where I live, the coastal waters
of San Francisco, and even San Diego, which I know you are
interested in--this technological revolution can be a major
part of our national system and aids to navigation.
The emergence and rapid evolution of advanced satellite
telecommunications, even GPS, and noting that the Marine Corps
is moving rapidly into the modern world. Remote sensing,
computer technologies, all this has changed, and it gives us an
opportunity to ensure the safe passage of commercial and
recreational vessels that transit the coastal inland waters of
the United States. This transition to a system of E-Navigation,
the tools and technologies offer many advantages over the
conventional aids to navigation such as nautical charts,
beacons, buoys, and lighthouses that have guided our mariners
for generations.
But this transition also raises important questions. Are
the electronic systems reliable, and is the infrastructure
resilient? Can it, or should it, replace our entire system of
physical aids to navigation? How are we going to maintain and
financially sustain the E-Navigation infrastructure and
technologies over time? And finally, what is the appropriate
role of the non-Federal partners in this enterprise?
The responsibility to ensure the safety of navigation is
one of the Federal Government's oldest tasks, dating back even
before the coastal survey by Thomas Jefferson in 1807.
Fortunately, our system of aids in navigation has proven itself
to be one of the best investments ever made by Congress. But
how we manage the rapid transition to a world of E-Navigation
technologies will affect the future of safety and efficiency of
the maritime commerce for decades to come.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and let's get
on with it.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the ranking member. And I just want to
point out, too, I mean, one of the reasons I am interested in
this is DHS has studied the Presidential directive that told
them to create a backup system for GPS, and their conclusion
was that we needed to study it more. So they did a study, and
now we are going to do more studies, and that is the circle
loop, the endless loop of stupidity that we have in Congress,
instead of just getting something done.
Anyway, so with that, our first panel of witnesses today
are Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, Assistant Commandant for
Prevention Policy at the United States Coast Guard; Rear
Admiral Gerd Glang, director of the Office of Coast Survey of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Jim
Hannon, Chief of Operations and Regulatory for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
Admiral Servidio, you are recognized for your statement.
TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL JOSEPH SERVIDIO, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT
FOR PREVENTION POLICY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; REAR ADMIRAL
GERD F. GLANG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COAST SURVEY, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; AND JAMES R. HANNON,
CHIEF, OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
Admiral Servidio. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking
Member Garamendi, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. It is my pleasure to be here today to discuss the
Coast Guard's role in managing and maintaining the Federal
navigation system that supports hundreds of billions of dollars
of commerce and 13 million jobs in the U.S.
The Coast Guard absorbed the Lighthouse Service in 1939.
And back then, there were fewer than a quarter of today's
50,000 Federal aids and 50,000 private aids to navigation.
Recently, we have implemented numerous functional and
environmental improvements to both fixed and floating aids,
including solarization, installing the latest day/night LED
lighting, transitioning to environmentally friendly codings,
and the use of more efficient mooring systems. These
improvements enhance performance by increasing visibility,
improving reliability, and reducing maintenance.
Our vision for a 21st-century navigation system is one that
improves safety, recognizes the need for resiliency, and
facilitates the flow of commerce through an optimum balance of
visual and electronic aids. To achieve this vision, the Coast
Guard is integrating electronic positioning and navigation
technology, and leveraging investments in infrastructure, such
as the automated identification system, or AIS, to provide
mariners with the most accurate and timely nav info available.
We are also focused on increasing the efficiency of our
support system. This includes investing in vessel sustainment
programs for our multimission buoy tender fleet, leveraging the
relatively low cost, yet highly effective capabilities of our
aids-to-navigation teams, and adopting cost-saving best
practices at all program echelons.
One of the most important considerations for the Coast
Guard is the ever-increasing size and number of vessels
operating on U.S. waterways. With increased ship size, the
margin for error for safe navigation in our waterways is
getting increasingly smaller. With the support of the Committee
on the Maritime Transportation System, the Coast Guard is
working closely with a broad spectrum of Federal agencies and
our key partners, the Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA, to
identify and mitigate evolving risks on our Nation's waterways.
Together, we are engaging the public to ensure that we gather
input from the full range of waterway users so we make informed
decisions and provide stakeholders with the information they
need.
Mariners and industry have told me how important timely and
accurate information is in managing waterway risks. This is why
the Coast Guard is looking to leverage the capability provided
by AIS to transmit real-time information directly to the
mariner. When fully implemented, we expect the system will be
able to provide immediate notification of safety and security
zones, hazards to navigation, and special events and
operations.
Moving forward, we will also continue to leverage the
capabilities provided by increasingly sophisticated and
affordable electronic chart systems which can display
electronic nav aids, radar overlays, and text-capable
notifications. Our modernization plan will include
opportunities to eliminate unnecessarily or overly redundant
visual aids when appropriate.
As we take advantage of the capabilities electronics
systems provide, it is important to understand that there will
always be a need for visual aids to navigation in America's
waterways. Electronic aids and information transmitted over AIS
can provide vital resiliency, and can be a valuable
augmentation tool. However, safe navigation requires visual
references to validate position information.
Coast Guard efforts have yielded significant results. For
example, the use of electronic aid markers during last summer's
Americas Cup in San Francisco was widely touted as a great
success. We will continue to evaluate lessons learned from this
event and integrate them into our developing modernization
plans. Together with our key NOAA and Army Corps of Engineers
partners, and in coordination with waterway users, we will
design and implement a Federal navigation safety system
composed of the optimum balance of visual and electronic aids,
one well suited for future needs of mariners and navigation.
Finally, I would like to thank Congress and this
subcommittee in particular for the support and the investments
you have made to help us improve our navigation safety
programs. I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Glang?
Admiral Glang. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking
Member Garamendi, and members of the subcommittee, I am Rear
Admiral Gerd Glang, director of the Office of Coast Survey at
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the
Department of Commerce. And in this capacity I also serve as
the U.S. National Hydrographer. Thank you for inviting NOAA to
testify today on Federal aids to navigation and the products,
services, and expertise NOAA provides in support of safe and
efficient marine navigation and commerce.
I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Coast Guard and
the Army Corps of Engineers. Our agencies work together on the
water every day, and at higher levels, such as through the
interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System, to
maintain and improve maritime infrastructure, protect life and
property, and facilitate marine commerce.
When you plan a road trip, there are certain things that
you need upfront to make your trip safer and more time
efficient, such as maps, weather forecasts, and traffic
conditions. Mariners rely on similar information before going
to sea and while on the water. They need accurate and
authoritative nautical charts, marine weather forecasts, and
information on tides, currents, waves, and other environmental
conditions that could pose navigation challenges. This
information becomes even more valuable as ships get larger and
larger, and the sea room around them decreases as they seek to
gain every inch of available draft.
The Federal partners all have important roles to play in
maintaining maritime infrastructure and supporting the Marine
Transportation System and safe navigation. NOAA plays a
critical and unique role in providing the informational
infrastructure that makes maritime commerce safer, more
reliable, and more efficient.
Since Thomas Jefferson called for and Congress authorized a
survey of the U.S. coast in 1807, NOAA and its predecessor
organizations have been the authoritative Federal source for
domestic marine charts, as well as water level and positioning
data and services. NOAA maps the sea floor, provides the
Nation's nautical charts, and quickly conducts hydrographic
surveys following storms or other emergencies. We also work
closely with the U.S. Navy and the National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency, who have responsibilities for hydrography
and charting overseas.
NOAA is the source of information on tides, water levels,
and currents, and provides the Nation's underlying horizontal
and vertical positioning framework, which serves as a spatial
foundation for all mapping and charting. This framework also
informs flood risk determination, transportation planning, and
land use decisions. NOAA is responsible for issuing marine
weather forecasts and warnings for U.S. coastal waters and
Great Lakes, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and portions of
the Arctic Ocean.
NOAA is also the lead Federal agency for the U.S.
Integrated Ocean Observing System, or IOOS, a partnership that
provides valuable ocean data and services.
Lastly, NOAA supports emergency response within U.S. ports
and waterways by providing scientific support for hazardous
spill response, as well as hydrographic surveys and aerial
imagery to support damage assessment and the resumption of
maritime commerce.
In fulfilling these responsibilities, NOAA sits on the
cutting edge of technological development, and uses innovative
approaches and partnerships to meet stakeholder needs. For
example, NOAA uses the latest multibeam echosounder technology
and airborne laser, or LiDAR, technologies to more accurately
and efficiently map the sea floor and shoreline, and is
deploying new sensors for NOAA's Physical Oceanographic Real-
Time System, or PORTS. NOAA is also advancing its charts and
other navigation-related products, integrating them where
possible, improving their accessibility, their formats, and
their use.
Our partners and daily interactions with the Coast Guard
and Army Corps are essential in assuring our waterways are safe
and our products and services are up to date and relevant. As
we work through the CMTS and develop these technological
advancements that will result in seamlessly integrated Federal
navigation support and improved collaboration in collecting and
disseminating informational infrastructure.
NOAA's strengths include our versatility and responsiveness
to customer needs. We regularly seek user feedback on our
navigation products, and strive to improve those tools to meet
emerging needs. In this effort, we are currently working with
the Coast Guard and the Army Corps to plan a series of
listening sessions around the Nation. Our goal is to better
understand customer needs and identify the navigation
improvements that will best meet those needs.
As you mentioned, 99 percent of America's overseas trade
enters or leaves the U.S. by ships and demands on our waterways
and maritime infrastructure will only increase. NOAA continues
to work closely with our Federal colleagues to provide that
informational infrastructure.
I thank you for inviting NOAA to testify today, and I
welcome any questions you may have.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Admiral. We appreciate it.
Mr. Hannon, you are recognized.
Mr. Hannon. Good morning, Chairman Hunter and Ranking
Member Garamendi, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Jim Hannon, Chief of Operations and
Regulatory for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am honored
to be here today to discuss the future of Federal aids to
navigation in the United States.
The Corps helps facilitate commercial navigation by
providing support for safe, reliable, cost-effective, and
environmentally sustainable waterborne transportation systems.
We now invest over $1.8 billion annually to study, construct,
replace, rehabilitate, operate, and maintain commercial
navigation infrastructure for approximately 13,000 miles of
coastal channels and 12,000 miles of inland waterways. The
Corps works in partnership with Federal agencies, to include
the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, as well as stakeholders, to help manage these
navigation on these waterways.
With respect to Federal aids to navigation, we are
responsible for providing surveys to these coastal channels and
inland waterways to the Coast Guard, who then deploys its aids
to navigation to mark the channel. This information is also
then reflected on the coastal nautical charts provided by the
NOAA and the inland nautical charts that are provided by the
Corps of Engineers.
Over the past decade, we have experienced an exponential
growth in data we create and use to operate, maintain, and
manage these assets. We have also seen this same trend
throughout the marine transportation community. Over the past
several years, we have developed frameworks and strategies to
improve data value by converting raw data into information and
knowledge. Our philosophy is to collect data once and use it
many times by making it available throughout our organization
and to others. E-Navigation is the term we use to define these
principles, and the national and international definition of E-
Navigation speaks to the harmonizing of this data across the
Nation's navigable waterways, and to including all
stakeholders, both public and private.
The Corps has successfully developed and deployed a number
of E-Navigation tools that are in use today. As the U.S.
nautical charting authority for the inland waterways, we have
created over 7,200 miles of detailed inland electronic
navigational charts that support the navigation safety. In
2013, over 1 million mariners downloaded these charts and chart
updates, ensuring they had the most up-to-date information for
navigating the rivers.
Another E-Navigation tool combines our inland electronic
charts with U.S. Coast Guard Automatic Identification System,
their AIS. The Corps Lock Operations Management Application--
LOMA--visualizes real-time movement of commercial vessels on
the inland waterways. LOMA was deliberately designed to be
compatible with the U.S. Coast Guard's AIS program to provide
real-time quality assurance and long-term data archival and
retrieval.
In addition to providing both agencies with real-time
situational awareness, LOMA also transmits information called
river information services directly to the vessels on the
inland waterways. This includes transmitting water current
velocities at our locks to barge-tow operators, so they are
situationally aware of potential unexpected conditions at our
lock entrances.
We also use the LOMA tool to transmit a range of
information such as locations of dredges, construction
activities, and to issue other marine notices. We are presently
working with the NOAA and with the Coast Guard to create an
integrated three-agency marine safety information notice for
broadcast on all of the coastal and inland ports and channels.
This will provide commercial mariners and the public a single
notice that includes all three agencies' information. We expect
the first version to be operational by the end of the year.
We utilize a coastal E-Navigation tool called E-Hydro to
provide our channel condition surveys to NOAA. This tool
assembles and disseminates consistent and reliable surveys from
across the Corps by formatting the data into international
standards to meet NOAA's nautical charting needs. E-Hydro is
Internet-based, so it significantly reduces the amount of time
it once took us to provide this data.
In closing, the Corps is actively engaged in developing and
improving and deploying digital navigation information by
harmonizing this data through our E-Navigation principles.
Through a working group of the Committee on the Marine
Transportation System, we have been working with the U.S. Coast
Guard, NOAA, and other Federal agencies to use their data, make
our data and information available, link this information, and
then provide it to mariners and operators with the goal of
improving the safety of our Nation's channels and waterways.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Again, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here and testify today, and be
pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Mr. Hannon. We are going to begin
questioning now.
I just have a quick one. What is the overlap? Or is there
no overlap? Is there any redundancy? Does everybody have a lane
and they stay in it, and it complements everybody else's?
Admiral Glang. Chairman, let me take a crack at that
answer, and maybe the others, as well.
So, we work very hard to stay in our lanes. That is
probably a good way to describe it. So with the Army Corps, for
instance--I will draw you a mental picture--approaching the
Chesapeake Bay, there is a Federal channel, that is the Army
Corps' responsibility. As you come in that Federal channel, you
will see the aids to navigation, or the lighthouses. That is
the Coast Guard's responsibility. And then, to bring all that
information together on a nautical chart, that is NOAA's
information.
Mr. Hunter. Got you.
Mr. Hannon. Sir, I would also echo what Admiral Glang says.
We do the surveys on inland and coastal. We provide the
information to the Coast Guard and to the NOAA to be able to do
the coastal charts, which we don't do. And then we use that
information to do the inland charts. Then again, Mr. Chairman,
the Corps provides that information so both the NOAA and the
Coast Guard can provide the aids to navigation.
Admiral Servidio. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would say that if
there is any overlap, we are doing whatever we can to see which
agency is the most effective and efficient at doing that and
reducing that. We have met monthly. We are going right from
here to an infrastructure investment roundtable together. We
work closely together to see that we leverage each of our
capabilities, which are unique, in managing our waterways.
Because the resources are not limitless. So we recognize the
need to, again, work together for the mariners and look at the
future of what our navigation needs are.
Mr. Hunter. So let me ask you. The U.S. Geological Survey
has a different coastline than you do on their maps, for
instance. There is two different coastlines if you look at
yours and you look at theirs.
My question would be--I will wait until the admiral is
finished getting his answer. I am just kidding.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. I am sure he wasn't telling them--did you hear
the question? The coastline differs with different surveys and
different maps.
Admiral Glang. That is right. So it is my understanding
that it is the shoreline on NOAA nautical charts that is used
for the purpose of legal issues. And it is certainly the
National Geodetic Survey, which is our sister program within
NOAA who maintains the national shoreline. So it is my
understanding that USGS is actually getting some of their
shoreline data from us.
Mr. Hunter. But they are different. I am just bringing up--
you don't have to have the answer for that, because there
probably isn't one, but that is just an example.
Really quick, when it comes to the E stuff, when it comes
to the GPS, there is about 13 million fun boaters out there.
You thinking of anything like an iPhone app? And not one that
we develop for $5 billion, but like a $500 iPhone app that
allows them to see stuff and download? And to go along with
that, do you ever see a time where you don't need visual cues,
where it is all electronic? Or is part of being on the ocean
that you are going to have visual aids because we had them
5,000 years ago and we are going to have them now?
Mr. Hannon. Let me take the first question regarding
applications and recreation boaters on our inland navigation
systems. It is about sharing--our E-Navigation is about sharing
that data and making it available. And we are working to have
some smartphone applications. In fact, I was just looking at a
couple yesterday that cost about $10 to download those apps. Of
course, to be able to print the charts, you still have to pay
to print the charts.
But we are working to move in that direction, where we make
it more accessible to folks to have ease of getting that
information for inland waterway and navigation systems.
Admiral Servidio. Mr. Chairman, I think your question is on
point with regards to the different needs of the different
waterway users. There is a number of people now--kayaking and
paddle boats are the biggest growth area, as far as
recreational vessels go. So they have very different
capabilities than that pilot bringing a deep draft vessel in
that has a pilot laptop. We need to make sure our navigation
system meets all of those users' needs.
Now, it might not be Federal aids to navigation. It might
be private aids to navigation. There might be a whole spectrum
that we need to look at. But we recognize the waterway users--
there is a number of them--and they all have different
capabilities. And we need to make sure that our nav system of
the future addresses those various user needs and their
capabilities.
Mr. Hunter. I would say lastly--I am out of time--but,
Admiral, when you just--in your comments, when you said when
you go on a road trip you make sure that you have a map and all
this stuff, and my--what I told John was, no, you just--an
iPhone. And that is true, I think, for everybody. I mean, you
know, 10 years ago we would go buy the road atlas and make sure
that we turn--watch our odometer. But I don't think you do that
anymore. I think that is one of the points of this hearing, is
to establish that.
And, with that, I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Garamendi. Let's carry on where you left off, Chairman
Hunter. And if you would like some more time to carry it on,
please do.
But there is a opportunity here for public-private
partnership. It is obviously taking place with various kinds of
apps that can be purchased. But all of that is dependent upon
the database and the ability for these private sector
entrepreneurs and companies to access that database. How is
that working? Is the database available for these private
organizations to get that information and then to publish it?
And what problems might there be, as a result of that? Any one
of you want to start with that? Admiral?
Admiral Glang. Yes, sir, thank you. So this is actually
kind of the exciting part of the future of navigation. At NOAA
we make available for free the raster version, which is kind of
an image version of our electronic charts, and our electronic
navigation charts for free to the public, and that has been
available now for at least a dozen years. And what we are
seeing is a large entrepreneurship out there where folks are
building things like smartphone apps or GPS-based chart plotter
systems, and they take up our charts in either of those
formats--or, in some cases, in both--and then they add value to
it and make that product available to the boater or to the
mariner.
A new product we just rolled out is making our charts
available in pdf, which is the portable document format form,
so mariners can actually print a chart out at home, if they
want to do that. PDF will not meet carriage for the regulatory
requirement, but it is certainly a way to get the chart into as
many hands of as many boaters as possible for as low a cost as
possible.
Mr. Garamendi. Pick up that regulatory piece of it.
Admiral Glang. Yes, sir. So ships that need to meet
carriage requirements under the SOLAS agreements and the IMO
are required to carry navigation charts from an authorized
hydrographic office. So for U.S. waters that is the National
Ocean Service. And at the moment, the state of play is shippers
are required to have paper charts. And there is a transition
process now where they are using electronic systems.
Mr. Garamendi. I will just go Coast Guard and then Army
Corps of Engineers. Same subject matter, availability of the
database for private entrepreneurs and others that want to
develop an application.
Admiral Servidio. Yes, sir. Generally, what the Coast Guard
does when it comes to regulatory, we look at international
standards. And the international standards are the ones that
are overarching for the AIS system, for GPS, for raster, for
radars on vessels and other types of information displays, so
that you can take that information, you can use them in
multiple sources. As other GPS regimes come on board, there
will be an international standard for how they need to be
transmitting data, so again we can use--so others can look at
that.
Mr. Garamendi. Are private entities able to access this
information? Any problem in doing so?
Admiral Servidio. Well, the security of some of the
information, that is part of the reason why we have a
Government function to oversee some of the security for AIS and
other things in our ports, sir. It is a transparent system, so
that every vessel can see the information provided by other
vessels, but there are spoofing, and there is other types of
things, and that is why we have capabilities in place to
address that.
Mr. Garamendi. Army Corps?
Mr. Hannon. Yes, sir. As I mentioned, our information is
provided across the Internet, Web-based services, which was
really how the two apps were developed, so private industry
could pick up that information and then they can have that
information printed off for anyone who goes to those apps.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Is there a need for a formal advisory
committee that would assist the three entities in developing
additional information and making it more readily available,
and also updating or upgrading this information?
Admiral Servidio. Sir, the Coast Guard has a Federal
advisory committee, NAVSAC, Navigation Safety Advisory
Committee, that we consult with. And they give us regular
recommendations with regards to transitioning, what is
acceptable, what is not acceptable.
Mr. Hannon. Yes, sir. I would also offer that. I believe
the work that we are involved in with the Coast Guard and NOAA,
as well as other Federal agencies within the Committee on the
Marine Transportation System and this E-Navigation action team
that is assimilating information and pulling information
together, is a good way to address your question, as well, sir.
And, of course, we all reach out to various stakeholders,
navigation industry, international industries, as well, to get
information and plug back in to those----
Mr. Garamendi. Is that a formal process, or is it ad hoc,
that advisory--from the private sector?
Mr. Hannon. Reaching out? At least with us, the Corps of
Engineers, it is through our various meetings that we have with
our industry partners, with the navigation industry, the
various industry partners, with PIANC, the international
navigation association. I wouldn't call it ad hoc; we
intentionally reach out and, through those dialogues, get that
information.
Admiral Servidio. Ranking Member, sir, I believe one of the
members of the second panel actually serves on NAVSAC. So they
might be----
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Would you recommend any changes
in the law or the regulations to further the purpose of E-
Navigation? And, if so, what are those changes that you might
think necessary, besides more money? Or maybe we ought to just
focus on more money.
Admiral Servidio. Sir, I do think that your--as you
mentioned, the money aspect. People think that electronic aids
to navigation is going to be a money saver. I am not sure
whether that is going to be the case, as we go forward.
I am not aware of any laws that need to be changed at this
point in time, sir. But I am not sure whether the future will
be cheaper than what the present system is, because----
Mr. Garamendi. Well, what hindrances are there in the
present system that would delay or cause not to occur E-
Navigation and the integration of E-Navigation with the other
navigational aids?
Admiral Servidio. Sir, I think the greatest issue right now
is the needs of the various segment of users of our waterways.
When I go to pilots, they will identify certain buoys that
could be removed. If I go to recreational boaters, they will
say those are the buoys that need to stay, those are the
systems.
So, I think we need to have that discussion, and this is
what we are looking to do, both NOAA, the Army Corps, and the
Coast Guard, to have public listening sessions, to have an
outreach, to recognize that there are electronic systems that
are everywhere now that were nonexistent 20 years ago. And we
need to transition into what the new navigation system looks
like, and take our current system and see how we can transition
to what is necessary for the future, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Any other comments on that?
Admiral Glang. Yes, sir. So I am not aware of any laws or
regulations at this point that we would want to change. I think
of E-Navigation as an evolution. And maybe an analogy is the
Internet, and how we have learned to use that and exploit it.
And I think if you broadly equate E-Navigation with a marine
intranet, then one of the things that comes to mind is having a
reliable and robust way to get that information ashore, or
among ships through the Internet. And to enable that, you have
to think about some kind of a coastal infrastructure to support
that kind of marine Internet out to, say, 30 nautical miles. So
that is the kind of infrastructure, the big pieces, I think,
that would really enable us to fully take advantage of E-
Navigation.
Mr. Hannon. Sir, we have not seen any laws, regulations, or
policies that create any challenges or impediments.
I think one of the challenges for us just becomes
priorities. We interact with our various stakeholders to
understand what their needs are, and then collaboratively work
with them to address those needs. I think the other part is
just your basic firewall IT challenges, as we learn and grow.
Mr. Garamendi. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the ranking member. The gentleman from
the Carolinas is recognized, Mr. Rice.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start out by
saying that I am very blessed to live in a coastal area, and
have spent a lot of time on the waterways, offshore and
inshore, and am so very impressed with what you all have been
able to do, the navigation aids here. And I have also had the
pleasure of being able to navigate in places other than the
United States, and I can tell you that it sure is a lot easier
to navigate here with the aids that you do have.
And, you know, I can sit here with my smartphone today and
access the data from a NOAA buoy 40 miles offshore and see what
the wind is doing and the waves are doing, and I can look at a
weather satellite and see what the water temperatures are, and
it is fascinating, what you have been able to do.
I also see, not with respect to navigational aids, but my
primary concern here, as a congressperson, is jobs. I think
that is what our country is concerned about, and making this
country competitive. And when I see things, what we have done
with the Port of Miami, and it has taken 15 years to get a
permit to dredge that port, what we are dealing with at the
Port of Charleston right now, I know there are a lot of ways
that we can make us more efficient, because if we can't get
these ports dredged, we can't use the post-Panamax ships. It
costs $500, $700 less to ship a container from Charleston to
Singapore with a post-Panamax ship than it does with the ships
we currently use. So if we can't get these ports dredged, then,
obviously, we are putting our manufacturers in the United
States at a huge disadvantage to the rest of the world.
So, here is my question to you with respect to navigational
aids. What are you doing right now, how will this make us more
competitive, how will this make our ports more accessible to
international trade, and create American jobs? That is my
primary concern. That is what I want to hear about. And how can
I help you do that?
Admiral Servidio. Sir, let me take a shot at that. I can
tell you right now, NOAA puts out ports data, which is real-
time information on the height of the water. St. Lawrence
Seaway is allowing vessels to have certain equipment on board
to load 3 inches deeper. That is significant, when you end up
looking at the efficiency of our ports and commerce and jobs
and other things that go with it.
From this meeting, sir, this afternoon, the Committee on
Maritime Transportation Systems has a meeting on infrastructure
investment. We are going to have a roundtable that all of us
are going to be participating in, looking at how we most
effectively use the Federal dollars that go into infrastructure
investment. But----
Mr. Hunter. We didn't get our invite to that, just so you
know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. That is OK.
Admiral Servidio. We will let you know the results, sir.
Mr. Hunter. I am sure you will.
Admiral Servidio. So I have recognized the need for it.
Vessels, again, the new Panamax vessels, are going to be 1,150
feet long, as opposed to--two decades ago we saw about 820-
foot-long ships. And the new Panamax vessels are 50 percent
wider. So we do need to look at those types of investments,
sir, because our infrastructure is designed for a smaller
vessel at the present point in time.
Mr. Rice. Well, it would appear to me that would just be
moving the markers around. I mean what can we do to make it
more efficient? What can we do to make it easier here than
anywhere else? What can we do to make it cheaper here than
anywhere else to pass cargo in and out? You guys are the
experts.
Mr. Hannon. Let me discuss our inland navigation system,
with our locks and dams. We have 197 locks on our inland
navigation system. The majority of those locks are over 50
years old, our infrastructure is aging.
One of the benefits that we see with our E-Navigation--and
I mentioned this in my testimony on our river information
services--is our ability to transmit to the tow operators real-
time current velocities that are at the entrances to our locks.
So they know, as they approach our lock and dams, what is
happening there, and can gauge and adjust as they come in. This
means less collisions or ``allisions,'' as we say in the
industry, which means less opportunity to have already aging
infrastructure further damaged.
Mr. Rice. Kind of like timing your stop lights?
Mr. Hannon. Yes, sir, that is. We also see opportunities to
see what traffic is moving up and down the waterways, and to
work with industry to be more efficient in how we move those
tows through our locks and dams on our inland system.
We also are able to share information in real-time about
what are those conditions that are taking place, like dredges
that might be in an area, so vessel operators would know as
they were approaching and can make adjustments.
Mr. Rice. I should know this, but I am a freshman, so you
forgive me. Is the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies--are
they available for maintenance and improvement of your
navigational aids?
Mr. Hannon. They are for the coastal channels and coastal
ports, but not for the inland channels.
Admiral Servidio. And not for the navigation aids, sir.
Mr. Rice. OK. Not for the navigation aids?
Admiral Servidio. For the channels, sir, not for the aids
to navigation.
Mr. Rice. OK. So do you have ample funds to maintain your
navigational aids?
Admiral Servidio. We have ample funds at present, sir, to
maintain our navigational system. We are going to be doing
listening sessions and seeing what the needs are in the future.
And again, right now we have ample funds to maintain the system
we have, sir.
Mr. Rice. Is LORAN still operational? Please tell me no.
Admiral Servidio. LORAN is not operational, sir. The Nation
made a decision to do away with LORAN. And, as such, we are no
longer transmitting over LORAN, sir, in the U.S.
Mr. Rice. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman. Hey, we are just going
to--I am sure Mr. Garamendi has got some more questions. I just
want to ask really quickly. You said that--you talked about the
Panamax ships, and the Army Corps says that is something we are
going to look at. Why aren't we fast-tracking this? Why is it
taking 10 or 15 years? Why hasn't the Coast Guard come out
vocally for fast-tracking this stuff, and NOAA and, together
with the Army Corps, doing everything that you can to make sure
that the U.S. isn't left in the international dust or wake, I
guess you would say, right, international wake?
But why aren't we doing that? I mean, we can obviously say
that we need to do this, and doggone it, we are going to look
at it. We all know what the ship sizes are going to be, we all
know what their drafts are. We know what our port needs--which
ports need to be dredged for what ships. So why don't we just
do it? The problem is that we aren't. We are going to talk
about it and plan for it and study it, and we will be about 10
to 20 years behind everybody.
So, that is my question. Why aren't we doing it? And why--I
mean I haven't seen anything on my desk for a fast-track
authority for the Army Corps of Engineers to be able to do this
so that we are prepared, like the rest of the world is. I
haven't seen that. It might be at this meeting you are going to
later that we are not going to.
Mr. Hannon. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we are
doing within the Army Corps of Engineers addresses our civil
works transformation. Within our civil works transformation, we
are able to get from a planning feasibility study, which I
think you are making reference to, to construction on the
ground quicker.
We are implementing a program across the Nation where we
can do studies and have them completed within 3 years with less
than $3 million, with complete vertical and horizontal
coordination, so we move faster and quicker, from feasibility
to starting the design and construction. This includes all
planning studies for our ports, as well.
Mr. Hunter. Let me mention, too, there is--there are
companies out there that can do dredging without stirring up
PCBs. They have kind of whirlwind technology that is--they are
able to dredge in a harbor like San Diego, where we dumped a
bunch of World War II munitions over the side, and we got to be
really careful, and super strict and stringent environmental
regulations. There are companies out there that are able to do
that now fairly cheaper. I am just wondering. Have you heard of
them? Or, I mean, you guys know of that, and I am telling you
what you already know?
Mr. Hannon. Sir, we work with various companies that do
that work. In fact, the preponderance of dredging that we do
from an operation and maintenance perspective is done by
contracting out.
And so, we work with those dredging companies and
corporations to employ the latest technologies to be able to do
those things that you are talking about.
Mr. Hunter. Admirals?
Admiral Servidio. Coast Guard doesn't authorize the
dredging, sir, we don't permit the dredging. From a nav safety
standpoint, obviously we are concerned about it.
I will say, sir, I think some of the U.S. Government's
decisions are going to be how many ports do we need to have
ready for the new Panamax vessels. I believe New York,
Baltimore, Norfolk, and I think Miami, are going to be capable
of handling them. The question will be how many other ports we
might need to invest in. And I don't have the answer to that,
sir.
Mr. Hunter. With that, I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of
dredging is really an issue of Congress. We authorize and we
haven't authorized much recently. There are no earmarks and
there are no--the no new start policy has been in place for the
last 3 years, and so a lot of this is--the problem lies with
the 435 Members of this House and the Senate that have not
authorized.
The three-by-three issue that the Corps just talked about
is operating. But again, it is not really moving very fast
because there is no money. And in many cases, there is no
authorization. The new WRRDA bill, which is in process in the
conference committee, does address some of this. But, again, it
is going to come down to money. At the end of the day, we have
been reducing the amount of money available for almost all
infrastructure, including much of what is being discussed here
in terms of dredging locks and the rest.
So, if we really want to advance this, we are going to have
to pony up the money and to make it available. And if the new
three-by-three works as it seems to be, it will deal with some
of the problems of getting these things done on time. We need
to watch that.
The questions really go into a lot of detail, here, and I
think we can probably spend several hours on it. But there is
the Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System, known as PORTS. I
think it is operating in just three ports in the United
States--three places, I guess, is the right way to say that,
three locations. And it seems to have been very successful in
reducing groundings and providing information. Could we discuss
that and what it would take to--if, in fact, it is successful,
what it would take to implement that in more locations?
Admiral Glang. Yes, sir. So PORTS is operational in 22
locations around the country. A PORTS system for a particular
port will--it is a suite of sensors, so there will be water-
level gauges, weather gauges, tides and current gauges. And
those--the actual collection of systems that are being
observed, or observations in each port, that will vary. So some
ports will have fog sensors, some will have air gap sensors
under bridges, and things like that.
Mr. Garamendi. So it works, and it is successful?
Admiral Glang. It works----
Mr. Garamendi. And it reduces problems of all kinds?
Admiral Glang. Absolutely. We hear first-hand from pilots
around the country. There will be major ship movements that
rely on the air draft sensors under the bridges that come
safely in and out of port.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Should it be expanded? Are there any
impediments to its use, and----
Admiral Glang. So PORTS funding is probably the issue that
we are getting at here. There is a distinct separation on the
role that NOAA takes in the PORTS system. So we will oversee
the collection of the data, the project management of the
system, and the dissemination of the data. The funding of the
system and the operations and maintenance of the sensors, that
is the responsibility of the partners in a particular port. And
we have lots of different examples of local partners. Some of
them are port authorities, some are Federal agencies. In some
cases it is the pilots who are also involved. So there are
different models in different areas for those partnerships.
Mr. Garamendi. So no changes in that system are
recommended.
Admiral Glang. Well, certainly it would be great if port
systems were fully federally funded. That would certainly
strengthen the reliability of the system. However, the reality
is that we do rely on these partnerships right now.
Mr. Garamendi. Very good. Admiral?
Admiral Servidio. Sir, what I can say is, from a captain in
the port--and I have been a captain of the port in a number of
different ports--it allows you to reduce some of the safety
margins that you would have in place if you have real-time
information. So you really know how much under-keel clearance
you need, as opposed to estimating it. So there is an economic
advantage to having PORTS available, and there is a safety
advantage to having it, too. It allows us to reduce some of
those safety margins.
Mr. Garamendi. One final question has to do with the
security of these systems. We are moving more and more to E-
Navigational systems, as we should. The question of cyber
security comes up. If you could, address that issue. How do we
provide the security that the information is real, that it is
not false and leading to some sort of accident?
Mr. Hannon. Sir, from the Corps of Engineers' perspective,
the majority of what we are putting out right now is really
Internet-based via Web services. At this point in time, we are
working within the information security requirements and are
not having any real challenges with that. I think part of our
challenge will be ensuring that as we are putting information
out, we are making sure everyone understands what is
authoritative data and work to provide quality assurance on
what we put out to ensure there is no misinformation.
Mr. Garamendi. Admiral, Admiral? Which one would like to go
first?
Admiral Servidio. Sure, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Coast Guard?
Admiral Servidio. I think, overall, in all of the maritime
we need to be more cyber security aware. I think it is a
growing area that people are starting to understand. I think
that is one of the reasons why the Coast Guard is the competent
agency for managing AIS. We have it as a Federal function, so
we can ensure that we have that cyber security backbone in
place, as we roll out the E-Navigation types of systems.
Mr. Garamendi. And you will be somewhat more successful
than Target?
Admiral Servidio. We recognize it is a concern, sir, and we
will be addressing that concern.
Mr. Garamendi. I want to learn more about that. But let's
go ahead--NOAA?
Admiral Glang. Yes, sir. I am not sure how much more I can
add. There are Federal standards for IT security. We are always
having to grow those and improve those, of course, because
vulnerabilities are always being uncovered. So the intent is to
try and stay ahead of those vulnerabilities.
Mr. Garamendi. There would seem to be--an additional area
of concern is that the more we rely upon the entrepreneurs and
individual companies that are providing applications using the
basic data, the opportunity for problems would seem to
increase. I think there was some discussion about this--let's
just quickly revisit that. How do you doublecheck? Is that a
responsibility that you have? Or is that the responsibility of
the entrepreneur, and the potential for a significant lawsuit
if they have bad information? What do we have here?
Mr. Hannon. Sir, with the Corps, putting information on the
Internet, anyone can take that information and use it. I think
our responsibility is to ensure that we continue to communicate
well with folks that use our data. Our partners know that we
are the ones that do the surveys, that provide information for
the charts, and so, we are communicating with our industry
partners. We are continuing to communicate with our Federal
partners, and making information available to the public about
what new advances we are making within the E-Navigation realm.
That way they have a source to come back to us to ask questions
and get clarification, if there is a need.
Admiral Servidio. We do have the regulatory regime, sir,
the international regs, the national regs, the industry best
practices, with regards to cyber security and others. Keeping
current with what the vulnerabilities are, as Admiral Glang
testified to, is going to be a challenge, but it is one that we
are going to have to address, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. I--Admiral Glang, want to add anything here?
[No response.]
Mr. Garamendi. It just seems that we want--it seems we
would want to have private companies take the data, the
information, and then use it in developing applications of
various kinds. But the application could be incorrect, could be
troublesome. Not that I am suggesting a new regulatory regime,
but this--there is a potential problem here that is buyer
beware, I mean, as to those applications.
I will let it go at that. I don't know, it is a concern
that is going to be, I think, increasing as private companies
take this data and provide applications of it that will be
available to various users. I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the ranking member. Explain now on this
last note. There is a requirement, if you are a tanker you have
to use NOAA-approved stuff. But if you are a jet skier, you can
use your iPhone, right? There is less gas or oil involved in a
spill, right?
One last question I have got. How do you allocate the money
spent on intercoastal versus ocean coastal, outercoastal--I
don't know what the word is, but coastal waterways, meaning the
ocean coast and the inner coastal stuff. How do you allocate
the money?
Mr. Hannon. Sir, within the Corps of Engineers, we look at
the highest usage areas in regards to inland waterways and in
regards to coastal. So we have about five inland systems that
carry about 95 percent of the commerce. And the same for our
coastal system, there is a smaller number of costal areas that
carry most of the commerce.
Our first priorities are at those highest use areas. Then,
with moderate and lower use, we still are able to fund some of
those, as well. But, our first priority is to the higher use
areas.
Mr. Hunter. So, like, the Northeast and the lock system
coming down from Pennsylvania, moving south? Are you familiar
with what I am talking about, the lock system, the intercoastal
lock system that they have?
Mr. Hannon. On our lock and dam systems, we look at where
we have our highest use areas to prioritize the need for
repairs and for operation and maintenance. Our lower use
systems would have a lesser level of service, as far as the
time that a lock was actually open and available. But it is
based on the use and the need, primarily to the commercial
aspects of things, and then with our recreation community to be
able to make that service available, as well.
Mr. Hunter. Got you.
Admiral Servidio. Mr. Chairman, our aids navigation is a
national system. Our AIS system is a national system. So we use
those assets where they are needed. For example, we can have a
buoy tender that is up in New England that could, if necessary,
be servicing aids elsewhere. We think the resiliency that comes
with that system is very apropos.
Mr. Hunter. Great. And Mr. Rice asked about the LORAN,
long-range--LORAD?
Admiral Servidio. LORAN.
Mr. Hunter. LORAN, sorry, LORAN. And he said, ``I hope it
is done with''--so that was the backup for using GPS. So the
idea was to go GPS. You have to have a backup for it, right, in
case the satellites go down or there is a problem with it. And
LORAN was the backup for that, right? Or e-LORAN, it was low
radio frequency backup for GPS. That is what it was supposed to
be, or no?
Admiral Servidio. LORAN was an older system, sir. I think
it was operational in the 1970s and 1980s, when I was first
assigned to a cutter. Those were----
Mr. Hunter. What am I talking about, then? That is----
Admiral Servidio. eLORAN.
Mr. Hunter [continuing]. eLORAN, right.
Admiral Servidio. It is something that the Nation was
looking at as a possible backup. To be honest, sir, it is a
national decision. I believe that, with the classification
levels involved and others, I am not sure how much I could----
Mr. Hunter. Well, you can tell me this. If you are going to
go GPS, if you are going to go full GPS at some point, you have
got to have a backup for that. Right?
Admiral Servidio. We have visual aids to navigation, sir.
We have a number----
Mr. Hunter. So the visual aid is the backup.
Admiral Servidio. But I believe for the Nation, sir, I
believe that it has been studied, and there has been
determinations made as to whether eLORAN is necessary or not,
sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Call in the Marines.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. Gentlemen, thank you all for your time and your
testimony, and for what you do for the country. We appreciate
it. And thanks for being so forthcoming.
And we have a second panel. Do I end this? Do I bang the
gavel here, or we just go to the second panel? OK, second
panel.
We are going to take a break here for 5 minutes, too.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hunter. The subcommittee will come to order again. Our
second panel of witnesses today includes Mr. Dana Goward,
president and executive director of the Resilient Navigation
and Timing Foundation; Dr. Larry Mayer, professor and director,
School for Marine Science; director, Center for Coastal and
Ocean Mapping; and codirector, NOAA/UNH Joint Hydrographic
Center, University of New Hampshire; Mr. Scott Perkins,
testifying on behalf of the Management Association for Private
Photogrammetric Surveyors; and Captain Lynn Korwatch, executive
director of the Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay
Region. We have everybody.
Mr. Goward, you are recognized first. Thanks for being here
to all of you.
TESTIMONY OF DANA A. GOWARD, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
RESILIENT NAVIGATION AND TIMING FOUNDATION; LARRY A. MAYER,
PH.D., PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, SCHOOL FOR MARINE SCIENCE;
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR COASTAL AND OCEAN MAPPING; AND CODIRECTOR,
NOAA/UNH JOINT HYDROGRAPHIC CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE; SCOTT PERKINS, GISP, ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION FOR PRIVATE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEYORS (MAPPS); AND
CAPTAIN LYNN KORWATCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE EXCHANGE OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
Mr. Goward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to be here today. By way of
introduction, my last job was as the director of Marine
Transportation Systems for the United States Coast Guard. I now
head an educational and scientific nonprofit, the Resilient
Navigation and Timing Foundation. And it is a pleasure to be
here representing that organization today.
And let me say right off that, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, you are welcome to any of our meetings any time, and I
will ensure that you get invitations. Unlike the Government, we
are very open on that sort of thing.
In 2009, officials at the Newark International Airport were
puzzled as to why a newly installed landing system would
periodically malfunction. After much effort, and working with
the FAA and the FCC, they finally discovered it was a driver
passing by on I-95 with a GPS jamming device that he had
illegally purchased on the Internet to hide his activities from
his employer. They have since protected their landing system to
most GPS jamming, but they still detect about five jammers
going by on I-95 every day.
In London, The Economist magazine reports that the stock
exchange loses GPS timing about 20 minutes a day, probably for
the same kind of reasons. North Korea periodically jams GPS, in
South Korea. The Russian military, as a matter of doctrine,
believes that their forces will not have access to space
signals when they go into combat, because they are so easy to
interfere with. And a professor at the University of Texas has
shown how easy it is to spoof GPS receivers and essentially
take over drone aircraft and some ships.
So I mention these stories to make three very important
points. First, GPS is by far the most important and significant
Federal aid to navigation, bar none. Not only is it essential
transportation infrastructure, but it is also essential to
telecommunications, cell phones, to the Internet, financial
transactions, electrical power distribution, and even precision
agriculture. It enables about a 30-percent efficiency in the
agriculture of this Nation. So it is really a silent utility,
much like running water. Something we can do without for short
periods, but even then things get fairly unpleasant pretty
quickly. And extended disruptions could be disastrous.
So, my second point is that the United States Government
has known about this for quite some time. And in 2008, as I
think was mentioned, the Federal Government decided to
establish enhanced LORAN, eLORAN, much different from the old
LORAN, much more precise, much less expensive, much more
automated. They decided to establish eLORAN as a terrestrial
augmentation for GPS. It is a high-power signal, very difficult
to disrupt.
Unfortunately, nothing became of those plans, even though
it was publicly announced. At the same time, many other
nations--Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, all of northwestern
Europe, led by the United Kingdom--have either retained or are
building eLORAN systems, because they don't want to be so
dependant on space as we are. In fact, South Korea and India
also have plans that they are actively engaged in to construct
eLORAN systems.
My final point is that we could have an enhanced LORAN
system here in the continental United States and reduce the
threat and the risk to the American people for about $40
million--that is $40 million with an M.
Mr. Garamendi. We don't deal in numbers that small.
[Laughter.)
Mr. Goward. I am sorry, sir, that is part of the problem.
Exactly. And we could do it by rehabilitating unused existing
infrastructure that is in the possession of the Federal
Government. This would actually save the Federal Government
money in the long run, because it wouldn't be necessary to go
through the expense of disposing of that infrastructure, and it
would also allow agencies like the FAA and the USCG to reduce
their dependance on old, industrial-age navigation systems that
they must maintain right now, because GPS is a single point of
failure.
Unfortunately, rather than rehabilitating this
infrastructure, the Department of Homeland Security is in the
process of dismantling and disposing of it. We, in the RNT
Foundation, think this is not a proper use of public funds, it
will cost the Government more in the long run. And, in fact, we
encourage an immediate halt to that activity.
In fact, we believe so much in the Federal Government's
decision to establish eLORAN, that in order to reduce the
burden on Government we have proposed a public-private
partnership so as to quickly establish the system within this
country, provide a second navigation timing signal for all
critical infrastructure, and reduce the risk to the American
people as quickly as possible.
I have some reference material I will leave for the staffs.
I would like to submit the rest of my comments for the record.
And thank you very much, again, for the opportunity to be here
with you.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you. Dr. Mayer, you are recognized. I am
looking at the wrong--Dr. Mayer. Go ahead, Doctor.
Mr. Mayer. OK, thank you.
Mr. Hunter. Sure, and then we will jump around a little
bit.
Mr. Mayer. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, my
name is Larry Mayer. I am the director for the Center for
Coastal and Ocean Mapping, and codirector of the NOAA Joint
Hydrographic Center at the University of New Hampshire. These
centers serve NOAA, other Federal agencies, and the private
sector through the development of new tools and protocols that
support a range of ocean and coastal mapping applications,
including safe navigation.
Particularly relevant to our discussion today are the
Center's efforts in collaboration with NOAA, to ensure that we
have the best tools possible to map hazards on the sea floor
and in the water column. And, as the complexity of the data
that we collect increases, that we can present those data to
mariners and others in ways that are easy to interpret for the
safest operation of vessels in all circumstances.
In support of these goals, we have embarked on a project we
call the chart of the future, aimed at taking advantage of the
advances in sea floor mapping, in navigation systems,
positioning systems, water level measurements, all the things
we have heard about today, and exploring how these many sources
of information can be integrated and displayed in the most
useful and intuitive fashion.
What I would like to do today is build on the remarks of my
colleagues and take advantage of the tremendous infrastructure
they are supporting, and data they are providing, envision what
the chart of the future might look like, and the services it
might provide.
To illustrate this, I have brought this little video clip
to give you a tangible idea of the concepts I am describing. As
you look at the video, I want to emphasize that what you are
seeing is not a cartoon or an artist's rendition. It is the
product of real data, collected and provided by our lab and
many of the agencies represented here today.
As you see, our vision of the chart of the future seeks to
provide the mariner with a complete picture of the sea floor,
the surrounding shoreline, and other relevant features. It
takes advantage of the fact that our modern, multibeam mapping
systems can provide complete coverage of the sea floor, rather
than the sparse samples that earlier lead-lines and single-beam
echosounders produced. Mariners will no longer need to mentally
integrate numbers and contours displayed on charts to determine
the relationship of their vessel's keel to the sea floor. But
rather, they will be able to clearly see, in an intuitive
perspective view, the relationship of the keel to the sea floor
and other hazards.
The displays will be interactive and will be able to bring
in the most relevant information for the task at hand.
Information about fisheries habitat or sand or gravel resources
can be superimposed on the depth information, providing those
charged with the protection of the environment or the
exploitation of resources the critical information they need.
The fundamental issue for safe navigation is the distance
between the sea floor and the bottom of the vessel. This
distance is constantly changing with the tides, and yet our
charts are static products. We envision a chart of the future
that is dynamic and tide-aware. The chart will receive NOAA
tide data through the AIS system, and update itself to display
the actual under-keel clearance at a given time and location.
As the vessel enters a harbor or approaches a coast, a
collection of fully geo-referenced images can be displayed in a
3D context, creating what is, in essence, a digital, 3D coast
pilot. A click on a feature described in the text will
instantly bring up an image of that feature in a 3D map, and a
click on the image will instantly bring up the text describing
that feature.
Finally, we can also bring in full 360-degree panoramas of
our harbors and coastlines. With these images incorporated into
the chart of the future, the mariner can enter unfamiliar
harbors at night or in fog, and still see a clear picture of
the surroundings.
I presented a vision of what the chart of the future might
be, a vision that we believe will provide the mariner and the
Nation with an enhanced level of safety and security, as well
as support multiple uses of the data. What we have described is
quite doable. But to make this vision a broader reality, we
need to ensure that our Nation continues to support and upgrade
the critical infrastructure that it depends on.
We must ensure continued provision and upgrade of high-
precision positioning systems, just as we have been hearing,
tide measurement systems, the support of AIS, smart buoys,
enhanced weather, wave, and current measurements. Most
importantly, we have to strive to provide full bottom coverage
to our critical waterways, harbors, and coastal areas,
remembering that many of these areas are dynamic. And that we
will also need to understand how they change with time or in
response to events like Superstorm Sandy.
And, above all, we have to ensure that the data collected
are of the highest quality and meet the highest standards. If
this can be done, we are confident that the future of maritime
navigation will be bright and safe.
I thank you for the opportunity to share this vision with
you, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate it. That is
pretty amazing.
Mr. Perkins, do you have a video?
Mr. Perkins. Pardon?
Mr. Hunter. Do you have a video?
Mr. Perkins. No, sir.
Mr. Hunter. OK. That was fun.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perkins. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
Scott Perkins. I am a geospatial professional out of Mission,
Kansas, testifying today on behalf of the MAPPS Association, a
national association of private-sector geospatial firms.
Serving and mapping in geospatial data supports a variety
of maritime functions, such as port and harbor maintenance,
dredging, and that facilitates 98 percent of our international
trade. Federal Government has had a historically important role
in providing those aids to navigation, the ATONs. Coast Guard
performs the necessary beneficial service for the Nation in
servicing and maintaining those aids to navigation. They are an
integral component of facilitating the safe movement of goods
and people through that 45,000 miles of maritime transportation
system and throughout the Great Lakes.
The reliance on ATONs by mariners and recreational boaters
has steadily changed with the expanded capabilities and the use
of the modern positioning and timing systems, as my colleague
has already mentioned, systems that were built upon GPS and
LORAN and other data and services. This has directly
contributed to the draw-down on the number of the aids to
navigation that the Coast Guard has had to maintain. That is a
positive draw-down.
We recommend that the Coast Guard publish weekly changes to
the list as a Web service, so that anyone can use that data so
that they can update it on to their Web applications, their
desk top, their smartphones, and increase the ease of use of
that data.
GPS forever changed the use of the compass. The electronic
chart has forever changed the use of the paper chart.
Autonomous underwater vehicles are going to change the ATONs
and the large navigational buoys, as we know them. The AUVs are
coming at an amazing rate. There are already thousands of these
autonomous vehicles on the water's surface and underneath the
water's surface. These systems will become what were known as
the light ships of our future, replacing or reducing the large
navigational buoys that the Coast Guard has to maintain.
These new ATONs are going to be equipped with the
hydrographic surveying tools my colleague on my right has
showed you, such as depth measuring devices, the capability to
stay positioned over a fixed hazard or a coastal rock, the
ability to renavigate over top of a moving river bottom on the
inland waterways.
The future ATON is going to be built upon this AUV-type
technology. It is going to recognize changing water levels,
changing currents, atmosphere conditions, and provide near
real-time positioning. This is a more dynamic and responsive
system of aids to navigation.
However, NOAA, working with its contractors, cannot meet
the demand for authoritative hydrographic data at the current
level of funding for navigation, observations, and positioning
programs. Services are crucial to the future development to
these aids to navigations and AUV deployment, such National
Ocean Service programs as GRAV-D and coastal LiDAR, that
provide the baseline data that is critically important to
transportation in our economy. These activities need to be
funded at the present level of higher.
It is also important that Congress properly reauthorize the
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, H.R. 1399, that was
introduced by Representative Young. And we also recommend
passing of H.R. 1382, the Digital Coast Act, that was
introduced by Representative Ruppersberger of Maryland and
Representative Young. Enactment of these bills will go a long
way towards a coordinated and comprehensive national mapping
effort for coastal, State, and territorial waters of the United
States. It is going to better integrate these navigational and
nonnavigational geospatial activities in NOAA.
We emphasize the need to better coordinate geospatial
activities among the various agencies and numerous programs and
the applications. This has already been noted in several GAO
reports.
One solution that we recommend would be the enactment of a
provision similar to the one included in the Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Develop deep, cross-
cutting, joint-funding strategies to leverage and coordinate
the budgets and expenditures. Recommend the similar legislative
position with regard to the geospatial data and charting in the
aids to navigation.
There is an enormous capacity and capability in the private
sector to provide the Government agencies the geospatial
services that are needed to support aids to navigation and E-
Nav. MAPPS urges Congress to enact legislation to accelerate
and complete the transition from Government and university
performance of commercially available activities to the
contractor performance, while refocusing the agencies back on
inherently governmental activities.
In summary, the aid to navigation of the future can be and
should be a smaller, lighter, more agile, more self-sustaining
system than the current large navigational buoys. The new
public-private partnership is the key to success here.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments,
and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
Captain Korwatch, you are recognized.
Captain Korwatch. Good morning. My name is Captain Lynn
Korwatch, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today. I am the executive director of the Marine Exchange of
the San Francisco Bay Region. The Marine Exchange is a
nonprofit trade association, and our membership is comprised of
maritime labor, tug companies, pilots, port authorities, and
the many, many organizations that provide services and support
to ships in the San Francisco Bay region.
As strictly an honest broker of information, the Marine
Exchange is often called upon to participate in activities that
support the health and success of our region. These include
managing the NOAA PORTS system, acting as secretariat for our
Maritime Security Committee and Harbor Safety Committee,
sponsoring a local Trade Facilitation Committee, and managing,
on behalf of FEMA, over $95 million of port security grant
money.
Since the Exchange is considered a neutral party in the
region, I was asked to chair the local Harbor Safety Committee.
The committee is sponsored by the California Office of Spill
Prevention and Response, and is comprised of representatives of
every maritime segment in San Francisco, including labor,
tanker, and dry cargo operators, tug companies, fishermen, and
recreational boaters. State agencies such as the State Lands
Commission, and Federal partners such as the Coast Guard, NOAA,
and the Army Corps of Engineers all have a seat at the table.
This committee tackles a wide variety of issues during our
meetings and our work groups, and we spend a significant
portion of our time focusing on prevention measures. Needless
to say, the topic of navigation aids is one that we address
frequently.
With the wide diversity of waterway users comes an equally
wide diversity of experience and technology. The pilots on the
large ships have sophisticated systems available to assist them
in guiding their vessels through the narrow channels and the
bridges of the bay. And this electronic technology can be
useful. Small vessels, on the other hand, often have nothing
more than a chart book identifying the markers and buoys around
the channel. This disparity in training and technology creates
some challenges in our region and nationwide.
Mariners rely on a multiple layer of information to
establish their positions, and the foundational layer they
depend upon most is the physical objects they see out the
window and are marked on charts in the same way you look at
road signs when you are driving. Just as paper charts should
not be used solely for navigation, neither should electronics
be the only navigation tools in our toolbox. Without markers
and buoys to mark the channels or areas of safe passage, the
challenge of relying on undependable signal is exponentially
more hazardous, hazardous to the boat operator, hazardous to
their passengers and crew, hazardous to the other operators in
the area, and hazardous to the environment of our region.
There is no question that maintaining buoys, towers,
lights, lighthouses, daymarks and shapes is an expensive and
labor-intensive undertaking. But the unalterable fact is that
these physical aids are essential to the safety of navigation
on our waterways. Funding this infrastructure is always going
to be a challenge. It is my opinion that the Coast Guard is the
best organization to provide national-international continuity,
and they should receive sufficient funding to provide for the
continued maintenance of these critical navigation items.
This is not to say that the use of navigation aids should
not be explored. On the contrary, newer technologies have
greatly enhanced maritime safety, and there is no reason to
think that the future does not hold further improvements. A
blend of these two systems is most likely the future of safe
navigation on our waterways. Perhaps a better way to serve
users is to use electronic aids as a way to augment and enhance
navigation, versus solely eliminating aids as a way to reduce
costs. I believe that we must develop a national strategy that
is transparent and inclusive to the use of all users. Outreach
to local stakeholders to get their input and expertise will
help to ensure the success and acceptance of changes to our
waterways.
There is an expression that is often quoted in our
industry: ``If you have seen one port, you have seen one
port.'' As each port region is unique, this must be factored
into the decisionmaking regarding the configuration of future
aids. Moving with deliberation and due consideration of the
traditions and proven success of our industry will ultimately
result in the improvement of our waterways and provide a safe
operating environment for all users.
I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Garamendi, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
the Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the
Harbor Safety Committee. I look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Captain. Question. What are you a
captain of?
Captain Korwatch. I went to the California Maritime
Academy, graduated from there, and was captain of a very large
container ship that ran between the west coast of the United
States and Hawaii.
Mr. Hunter. For how long?
Captain Korwatch. And I was the first American U.S.
captain.
Mr. Hunter. Got you.
Captain Korwatch. Female U.S. captain.
Mr. Hunter. Got you. That is great. OK, thank you very
much. Thank all of you.
It seems like, I think, you are all right. And I want to
start really quick with the eLORAN system. Why did they stop
it? Because DHS said they needed to do a study about their
study regarding their study?
Mr. Goward. Yes, sir. My understanding was that it was a
budget issue, small though the numbers may be. And I would
offer that, regardless of the wisdom of the decision at the
time, since then new threats--as I think you understand--have
arisen. And new needs for mission assurance across both
civilian and military applications have arisen. And I would
offer it is time to reconsider that decision quite seriously.
Mr. Hunter. Regarding the unmanned vehicles in your video,
there is a company in California called Liquid Robotics, right,
and they have a self-perpetuating wave rider surfboard, right?
So I went and saw their stuff. We had a hearing about 6 months
ago, and the Coast Guard said that they could not implement any
of those systems because right now their regulations described
them as floating debris. So that because they literally didn't
have a word for this new technology, in their legalese it was
called floating debris, and they had no way to implement
floating debris into any of their systems, hopefully they are
moving on this.
But I guess I would ask that, from your point of view, what
are you doing to make inroads? And I would ask all of you. What
are you doing to make inroads on things like this, where you
have a technology that is super cheap, super easy, you can put
any sensor package load you want to on this thing, you can keep
it in one place for 2 years, or you can have it go around the
globe five times, whatever you want, how do you make this--from
an industry side, or an academic perspective, what do you do?
Mr. Perkins. Chairman Hunter, what we do in the private
sector is we implement that new technology, and we put it into
our toolbox, and we go out there and we make revenue with it.
It is happening right now. There are commercial firms in the
Midwest that are using these systems already on inland
waterways. They are being used in ports and harbors in the
coastal areas. The technology is already fully implemented in
use. What is lagging behind is the governmental rulemaking
process on what type of lights and what type of flagging,
antiquated regulations regarding flagging and lighting.
Mr. Hunter. Lights and flagging on the automated, unmanned
systems?
Mr. Perkins. That is correct. I attended the NAVSAC, the
Navigation Safety Advisory Committee, meeting in Norfolk,
Virginia, 2 months ago. And that dominated the topic of
conversation. That is the Coast Guard Federal advisory
committee. They are talking about the lights and what type of
flags, because they think of these as vessels, and they don't--
and, as you mentioned, they don't fit the definition of vessel.
You know, private sector has a tremendous capacity here to
move forward and implement this technology. We are on the
cutting edge of it. It is being used right now. And the
regulation isn't there, you know, to maintain that----
Mr. Hunter. How much money could the Coast Guard save if
their buoys put themselves in place?
Mr. Perkins. I am not an economist, sir, but----
Mr. Hunter. Probably a lot.
Mr. Perkins [continuing]. I can take the task of trying to
get you an answer on that.
Mr. Hunter. Got you. OK. Thank you. Doctor?
Mr. Mayer. Yes. From an academic perspective, it is the
exact same answer. The technologies are there, they are
implemented. We can work in between the regulatory issues, but
to implement this in a Federal sense, there are tremendous
constraints, because, as Mr. Perkins said, the regulations are
far behind the technology. And I think it is something we do
really need to address.
Mr. Hunter. And, Captain, I think your statements about the
road signs--your iPhone still tells you which road to turn
right on. It tells you when it is coming up, but you still have
to look at it.
And I am just curious, too, what everybody else's thoughts
are on how do you keep the old system so that the old man on
the sea can still look at what he needs to look at, but the new
kid out there on his sailboat can look at his iPhone and be
able to navigate, and have it--have all of it without spending
twice the money and having too much redundancy. Right? How do
you do that? I mean is it possible for the Government to do
that, or you think that it will just make everything redundant
and cost twice as much, because then they are going to have two
systems fully funded and fully in place that really don't--that
do complement each other, but not because they made it that
way, simply because they complement each other? Right?
Mr. Perkins. Chairman, on the aviation side, in our
aircraft, we are now using electronic charts on iPads. You
know, it is no longer a requirement that we load the cockpit
with the paper charts. But we still put them in the cockpit.
There is still that redundancy.
So, in the case of our aircraft, our privately owned
commercial aircraft, we are using electronic charts first,
paper charts as the backup, and there is still a compass in the
dash of the cockpit.
Mr. Hunter. Sure.
Mr. Goward. Sir, it is a complicated question, and I will
try to give a not-too-complicated an answer.
Part of it deals with the way that Federal maritime aids to
navigation are provided. There was talk about the 50,000 buoys,
lights, and such that the Coast Guard provides. There is also
another 50,000 in the United States that are privately
provided. And so, there is a--when users are required to come
forward and validate the need for an aid to navigation, they
frequently do.
The problem with the 50,000 that the Coast Guard provides
is they are provided as a free good. And so, there is a real
reluctance on the part of any user group to give up something
that is provided for free.
Now, if you contrast that with the United Kingdom, where
aids to navigation are provided by a nongovernmental
organization and paid for by vessels that pay light fees when
they come into the ports, the United Kingdom actually made a
conscious trade-off between electronic and physical aids to
navigation.
They did a study and they said, ``We think you can find
your way from port to port with GPS, but part of the problem is
the GPS is a single point of failure. What we would propose is
to establish this enhanced LORAN system to complement GPS so
that you have two signals. And then we will be able to do away
with a lot of these large buoys offshore, a lot of these large
buoy tenders offshore, a lot of the lighthouses. And then, as a
result, our cost, as the NGO, will go down and your light fees
will go down. How many people are in favor of that?'' Well, you
can imagine there wasn't a hand in the room that didn't go up.
The U.S. Coast Guard and the United States Government
doesn't have that luxury, because the users don't directly pay
for and have a financial stake in the 50,000 aids that are
provided by the Federal Government. So, while providing a
secondary electronic system will be good, and will allow the
Coast Guard and the FAA and others to start to move more
towards electronic navigation, you won't be able to have that
direct trade-off until the Government sees itself more as the
navigation authority, as opposed to the navigation--or the
aids-to-navigation authority, as opposed to the aids-to-
navigation provider.
And I would argue that having the appropriate
infrastructure will provide you the base where you can shift
more of those physical aids to navigation to local control and
local decision, as to whether or not they should stay in place,
and whether or not those bills should be paid. But right now,
the system that we have is very much biased towards the Federal
Government doing it all.
Mr. Hunter. So--and, Captain, if you could respond to
that--I think the last part of what you said is important,
where you let San Francisco decide what San Francisco Port
wants, you let San Diego decide what they want. But what you
are saying is, if your iPhone goes down, then you could turn on
an AM station and it will say, ``Turn right now.'' But what you
are talking about is taking down the street signs.
Mr. Goward. Well, so, I would offer, sir, that your iPhone
would have two sources of information. And if one of them goes
down, the other would automatically come in. And I would argue
that----
Mr. Hunter. The enhanced----
Mr. Goward. The enhanced LORAN or GPS----
Mr. Hunter. Enhanced LORAN is not as sophisticated, though,
as the GPS, right?
Mr. Goward. Yes, sir. It is, essentially, as sophisticated
as GPS.
Mr. Hunter. It is?
Mr. Goward. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. OK.
Mr. Goward. It can get you within 8 to 10 meters.
Mr. Hunter. OK.
Mr. Goward. Which is perfectly fine for maritime aids to
navigation. And I agree that you would never do away with all
the buoys and the lighthouses, and so forth. But rather than
having the decision made in Washington, DC, as to whether or
not all--which buoys and lighthouses needed to be there, you
would----
Mr. Hunter. What are John and I supposed to do, then? We
could work that out.
Mr. Goward. I think there is lots of work to be done, so--
yes, sir, besides that. But then the Government, the Federal
Government, would say, ``We have provided these two electronic
aids to navigation. We think there is a baseline, a certain
minimum number of physical aids to navigation. If there are
others, let's talk about who pays for them, and whether or not
they stay in place,'' and so forth. But right now that--it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to have that conversation.
Mr. Hunter. And, Captain, that is my question to you, and
then I am--I will yield to the ranking member.
Captain Korwatch. And I think, you know, certainly one of
the issues that our industry deals with, just as I mentioned in
San Francisco, we have a wide diversity of users. We have those
large, commercial vessels who have the technology. Those
operators have paid for that technology to be able to determine
and identify these electronic aids.
On the other side, we have--just as I think Admiral
Servidio mentioned--we have a significant number of kayakers.
We have a significant number of paddle boaters. We have small
recreational boaters. And now you are telling them, ``You have
to buy this technology.'' They can't all afford the technology.
And the same way we do not tell passengers or drivers in cars,
``You all have to have this technology in order to navigate our
roads,'' I mean, I think that we still have to have those
baseline aids so that people can look out their porthole, their
window, and see the buoy, and know when to turn, what area to
stay out of, what area they are allowed to transit in.
I had a conversation with our local Coast Guard, who said
that there was some attempt to remove some aids in sort of the
very south part of our San Francisco Bay, where no commercial
vessels go. The water is very shallow there. And when
recreational boaters run aground, the only way they can get to
them is pulling them out by helicopter, a significant cost
associated with that. Whereas, if we had maintained the buoys
down there, perhaps we wouldn't have to pay and put personnel
at risk by lifting them out of there with a helicopter.
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Garamendi? Mr. Garamendi has got to go, and
he has somebody waiting for him in his office. If you have
anything you would like to add, please----
Mr. Garamendi. First, I thank you for the hearing, Mr.
Chairman, very important information available from the
witnesses here. They have given us some data, some information
in their written testimony. I would like them to follow up with
specific things. I have a series of questions for, I think, all
of you. I would like to have that--we will get those to you,
and if you can get that back in writing, it would be very
helpful.
I am particularly interested in the way in which you have
this public-private partnership in the bay area. Is that a
model for other places? It may address some of the issues you
have talked about, Mr. Goward.
Also, the eLORAN issue, I think, is going to be extremely
important. One thing we know for certain is that the GPS system
is going to go down, some time, some place, in a very
inopportune moment. Is there a backup available? The answer is
there could be at what appears to be a very minimum cost, if we
do not destroy the apparatus that is presently in place. And so
I think we ought to get on that right away. And I would like to
work with you, Mr. Chairman, on querying the Department of
Homeland Security about that issue, and perhaps finding $40
million to provide an alternative to the GPS system.
And then--I have got to go. My apologies.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you. I thank the ranking member. The last
panel that we had, they spent about $2.5 billion together,
those three groups--NOAA, the Army Corps, and the Coast Guard--
$2.5 billion a year, upkeeping all of this stuff that we are
talking about. Right? That could give us an icebreaker. That is
$1 billion. That is an icebreaker, or two icebreakers. There is
a lot of stuff you could do with that. You could do the eLORAN.
I guess the big question is, or one thing we may want to
do, is put us in the same room with the Coast Guard and the
Army Corps. And instead of having them speak first and then
leave, everybody kind of sit around. What kind of interaction
have you had with them when it comes to going back and forth
with the Coast Guard, with the Army Corps, with NOAA? Besides
kind of the industry-to-Big Government, ``Hey, here is what we
have,'' and they say, ``Thank you, we will do a study,'' and
then you leave.
Captain Korwatch. If I may, certainly in San Francisco Bay
we have a very, very close working relationship with our Coast
Guard partners, as well as our Army Corps and NOAA. They all
sit, as I indicated, on our Harbor Safety Committee. We discuss
these issues on a monthly basis. They are very responsive to
issues that we raise.
We have a significant amount of problems with dredging, of
course, like most port regions. We have a significant amount of
problems with run-off coming from the mountains, assuming we
have rain, which--not necessarily this year. But we do have a
very close working relationship with them, and they are very
responsive if we have issues that come up. They have been known
to put a buoy back when they have discovered that it really
does need to be put back in place.
So, I think, from a local level, all of the Marine
Exchanges around the country are incomparable relationships
with our local sectors. There are 12 Marine Exchanges around
the country, and we all have that same dialogue going on.
Mr. Hunter. So more explicitly at the 50,000-foot view, the
interaction between kind of technology and what is happening in
the private sector, compared to what they are doing, what is
the dialogue there?
Mr. Perkins. The MAPPS Association holds a Federal
conference twice a year, and we invite in our Government
counterparts, so that the MAPPS Association has a very close
working relationship with NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other agencies.
And the Coast Guard has not been part of that, but we will do
some outreach, and we will try to get them to the table, maybe
getting to the heart of the matter, you know, of the expense.
Right? And----
Mr. Hunter. Well, let me stop you there. I mean when the--6
months ago the Coast Guard called a surface unmanned vehicle
``floating debris,'' so you must not be getting through to
them, is what I am saying. I mean there must be some hangup if
you are talking to them twice a year, and they still think it
is the equivalent of a floating log.
Mr. Perkins. Pardon me. They are not coming to our
meetings, presently.
Mr. Hunter. I got you, OK.
Mr. Perkins. So we need to do--our association needs to do
some outreach and get Coast Guard at the table, right, to help
work on solving that.
One thing that the MAPPS Association has suggested is the
idea of a simple user fee for all GPS-enabled devices. A user
fee. Just think of the economic driver----
Mr. Hunter. We call that a tax here, but go ahead.
Mr. Perkins. I understand that----
Mr. Hunter. I am kidding, I am kidding. Go ahead.
Mr. Perkins. I understand that. But if there were a simple
user fee, for simplicity's sake, of $1 for a new device that is
navigationally, you know, capable, that would--if that were to
go into a trust fund, that would provide a pool to replace
these buoys, keep these markers updated, to provide
authoritative geospatial data that is necessary for the chart
of the future. It sounds a lot like a tax, I don't deny that.
But a user fee is different than a tax. User fees work very
well for the recreational sportsmen in this country. It has led
to habitat preservation. I don't need to lecture you on the
benefits of what the sportsmen have been able to do with those
type of fees. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. Absolutely.
Mr. Mayer. And if I could just comment in terms of
interactions with these agencies from an academic perspective,
the interaction has been quite good. They support much of our
research, across the board, all the agencies we saw here today.
The issue is always that we tend to be--in the academic
perspective, we are looking far ahead. The agencies are
constrained by their regulations, by international regulations.
And it is kind of progressing through that----
Mr. Hunter. They are also constrained by their culture, in
that they have done it before, so they are going to keep on
doing it.
Mr. Mayer. Yes, but from my interaction, they have been
very open-minded, at least in terms of listening to what the
future could hold and, again, trying to find how, while we are
thinking 10 years ahead, how they can implement some of that in
a much shorter timeframe.
Mr. Goward. Yes, sir. If I could preface that, while I have
talked much about eLORAN today, we in the Foundation believe
there is room for all navigation and timing systems that serve
a purpose, and that we need as many of them as possible to
ensure our resilience and that our Nation is secure.
That said, on the eLORAN issue, even though we are system
agnostic, we note that the United States has decided this is
the right way to go, as have many other nations, and so we are
fully supportive of that, and we want to help the Federal
Government get to where the Nation needs to be. We have
discussed this with the Department of Defense, with the
Department of Transportation. The staffers in both of those
departments are very supportive. We have not received any
responses from our inquiries to the Department of Homeland
Security. We are hoping to reverse that, and that they will
come to the table and----
Mr. Hunter. They are a very new department. They have only
been around 10 years. You have got to give them time.
Mr. Goward. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. In 20 or 30 years, they will respond.
Mr. Goward. It is probably the backlog of correspondence.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, right.
Mr. Goward. Yes, sir. So, we are hoping to talk with them,
as well as the other two lead departments in this role, but it
is difficult finding someone that wants to take a leadership
role for this, which is essentially a commons issue. It is like
maritime or the Internet or space. Everyone wants to use it,
but no one necessarily wants to be responsible for it and pay
for it, as inexpensive as it may be.
Mr. Hunter. It is multiagency, too.
Mr. Goward. Absolutely multiagency. It cuts across every
facet of American society.
Mr. Hunter. Which makes things harder, yes.
Mr. Goward. Yes, sir. Absolutely. So that, and the fact
that it is so low cost is--really is the crux of the problem.
It doesn't--until there is a failure, it doesn't rise to the
larger consciousness.
Mr. Hunter. Got you. OK. I have got to run, too. So,
Captain, Doctor, gentlemen, thank you very much. Thanks for
your testimony, and have a great day.
Captain Korwatch. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]