U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

21–415 PDF 2017

FEDERAL MARITIME NAVIGATION PROGRAMS: 

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE 

(114–51) 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JANICE HAHN, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

WITNESSES 

Rear Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, 

U.S. Coast Guard: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. John Garamendi of California ......................................................... 43 

Hon. Todd Rokita of Indiana .................................................................... 47 

Rear Admiral Shepard M. Smith, Director, Office of Coast Survey, National 

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of California .......................... 59 

Edward E. Belk, Jr., P.E., Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ........................................................................... 32 

Hon. John Garamendi of California ....................................................................... 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, request to submit the following: 

Letters of opposition to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act 1

Letter of September 7, 2016, from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, to Hon. 

Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 7 

Rear Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, 

U.S. Coast Guard, response to request for information from Hon. John 

Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ......... 30 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Written statement of Edward Saade, President, Fugro (USA) Inc. .................... 66 

1The letters referenced by Congresswoman Napolitano are available online at GPO’s Federal 

Digital System (FDsys) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-114HPRT23997/pdf/CPRT114HPRT23997.pdf. 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 21415.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 21415.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 21415.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 21415.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 21415.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 21415.006
(1) 

FEDERAL MARITIME NAVIGATION PROGRAMS: INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND 

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION,JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 

room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment) 

presiding. 

Mr. HUNTER. The subcommittees will come to order. The Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation and the Water Resources and 

Environment Subcommittees are jointly meeting today to review 

the Federal Government’s navigation programs. 

From the earliest days of the United States, the Federal Government took responsibility for activities necessary to promote international and interstate trade, including activities that promote safe 

and efficient maritime navigation. Navigation activities of the 

Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provide for a safe, secure, 

and efficient Marine Transportation System that forms the backbone of our economy. The maritime sector contributes more than 

$650 billion annually to the U.S. gross domestic product and sustains more than 13 million jobs. Nearly 100 percent of our overseas 

trade enters or leaves the United States by vessels navigating the 

Marine Transportation System. 

To maintain this economic output, facilitate the efficient movement of goods, protect the environment, and ensure the safety and 

security of Marine Transportation Systems, the navigable waters of 

the United States are charted, marked, and dredged on a regular 

basis. NOAA is tasked with surveying and producing over 1,000 

nautical charts covering 95,000 miles of shoreline and 3.4 million 

square nautical miles of waters; the Corps is responsible for surveying and maintaining the depth of nearly 25,000 miles of Federal 

navigation channels throughout the country; and the Coast Guard 

is charged with the maintenance of over 47,000 Federal Government-owned buoys, beacons, and other aids to navigation that 

mark 25,000 miles of waterways. That is a lot. 

2 

It has been 2 years since the last hearing on this topic. I am interested in hearing from the agencies on progress made to carry 

out these missions in a coordinated, cost-effective manner, while 

also ensuring the safety, security, and efficiency of our waterways 

and taking advantage of ongoing technological advances. The agencies held 12 joint public listening sessions in 2014 to better understand the needs of the user groups, and I look forward to the agencies updating the subcommittees on what they heard from user 

groups and how the agencies went forward or will go forward to 

meet the user needs. 

In an age of electronic communications and digital technology, I 

am interested to understand if the agencies have been able to keep 

up with technological improvements and the way in which charting 

data is collected and displayed. Is the private sector able to use the 

data to develop their own products to assist mariners, and are Federal actions assisting these endeavors? Are Federal regulations 

supportive or do they impede the move to a digital world? And as 

we move toward the use of more e-navigation systems, are adequate redundancies and backup systems like e-loran available to 

ensure safety? 

In order to grow jobs and remain competitive in a global economy, we must build and maintain a reliable, world-class navigation 

system. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what 

progress they have made towards making such a system a reality. 

And, with that, I am not going to hear about it, I am going to 

read about it when I read the transcript. The Armed Services Committee is doing a classified overview of the entire Middle East, 

which I am going to go and hear the ops briefing on and then come 

back in here and resume. 

So, I am going to turn it over right now to Mr. Gibbs, who is 

going to chair this and who chairs the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. With that, I yield to Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. At this time I will yield to the ranking member of the 

Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. 

Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Chairman. Welcome 

back to all of us. We have got a busy month out ahead in September, and thank you for scheduling this meeting, particularly 

with the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 

As we continue our oversight into the future of maritime navigation, the timing of this hearing could not be better. Only last week 

an article ran in the Wall Street Journal entitled, ‘‘Pilotless sailing 

is on the horizon. Freight carriers aim to optimize the use of vessels, cut their fuel and labor costs.’’ This article revealed that right 

now ship designers, operators, and regulators are gearing up for a 

future in which cargo vessels sail the oceans and waterways with 

minimal or even no crew. And it foresees a day in the not-too-distant futures when technology, long used to improve the commercial 

airline operations, will migrate to vessels. 

Coming less than 2 weeks after the release of the FAA’s pioneering rulemaking governing the use of commercial drones, the 

Wall Street Journal article reinforced in my mind that the dawn 

of a new age of fully automated or even autonomous transportation 

systems is upon us. The implications of such a transformation 

3 

could signal greatest innovation in maritime transportation since 

the conversion from steam to diesel-powered propulsion systems, or 

the advent of containerization. 

Yet do we fully grasp the scale and complexity before us? I don’t 

think so. The tremendous size and expense of the newest generation of mega-container ships such as the Benjamin Franklin, which 

can carry up to 18,000 containers, make the financial, commercial, 

and environmental risks enormous. And for global maritime industry that sustains the reliable and efficient global supply chain that 

fuels the U.S. economy, failure and accidents could be devastating. 

Additionally, this transformation will only increase our reliance 

on electronic data, virtual aids to navigation, and other network 

navigation technologies such as radars, chart plotters, gyrocompasses that rely on positioning, navigation, and timing signals 

provided by GPS. But we do know that GPS is the single point of 

failure. 

The fact of the matter is that the Coast Guard has such identified GPS as the vulnerable—as cybersecurity—therefore, the Coast 

Guard Commandant, Admiral Zukunft, has said that GPS is the 

single point of failure in this critical infrastructure. We need to 

work on that. We’ve been talking in this committee and others 

about the problems of the GPS system and the necessity of a 

backup. I suspect we’re going to hear some of that. We’re going to 

learn a great deal. 

Thank you for the hearing. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, 

do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I will just submit one for the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. As chairman of the Water Resources 

and Environment Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here at this 

joint hearing with the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 

Subcommittee. 

There is no doubt the nexus between the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 

the Coast Guard are vitally important to ensuring the safety and 

security of our Nation’s Marine Transportation System, and ensuring a competitive edge for U.S. goods in overseas markets. 

I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here today. We 

have Mr. Eddie Belk here from the Army Corps of Engineers. He 

serves as the Chief of the Operations and Regulatory Division. I 

look forward to hearing his testimony about how the Corps of Engineers collaborates with both NOAA and the Coast Guard. 

The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the operation and 

maintenance of nearly 25,000 miles of Federal navigation channels, 

which includes both coastal and inland channels. It will be interesting to hear how advanced technologies have played a role in 

maintaining the authorized widths and depths of these channels, 

as well as improving the safety for vessels that transit the inland 

and the coastal systems. 

In addition to dredging, the Corps is also responsible for operating and maintaining more than 240 locks at more than 190 sites 

on the inland water river system. The average age of these facilities is more than 60 years old. In 2014, Congress enacted critical 

reforms to improve the inland navigation system, both in WRRDA 

4 

2014 and a fuel tax increase requested by industry that are intended to recapitalize our aging inland navigation systems. While 

a large component of the Inland Navigation Trust Fund is dedicated to completing the Olmsted Locks and Dam project, it will be 

interesting to hear from the Corps as to how they plan on accelerating and prioritizing the other inland navigation projects on the 

Ohio and Mississippi River systems. 

Additionally, the Corps is responsible for operating and maintaining the channels that lead to and from the Nation’s large network of coastal ports. At any given time only 35 percent of these 

channels are at their authorized widths or depths, and we remain 

concerned the administration’s budget requests for these activities 

fall far short of what is required. Congress did its part in fiscal year 2016 by providing almost $1.3 

billion from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which meets the 

suggested targets from WRRDA 2014. While other trust funds have 

solvency challenges, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is being 

neglected by this administration. Their annual budget for the 

Corps of Engineers does not reflect the priorities of the Congress 

or this Nation. 

Given the vast expanse of navigation channels, our advanced 

technology can help improve navigation safety and advance economic security, but only to a certain point. These technologies need 

to be coupled with an adequate channel maintenance and recapitalization of antiquated infrastructure to ensure the Nation’s competitive edge in the global marketplace. 

I now would like to yield—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I do note that I am 

also on the Armed Services Committee and that classified briefing 

is going on, so I am going to excuse myself. My colleagues on our 

side are going to remain here. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. I yield to—for any opening statements—to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, from California, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. 

I appreciate your calling attention to the importance of this Nation’s maritime transportation network. 

Our historic investments in commercial harbors, inland waterways, and port infrastructure have been critical to the economic 

health and prosperity of our communities, our States, and our Nation. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this committee is—was successful in moving the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act before the August break. I am hopeful that, with your leadership, we 

can continue to advance the bill forward before the end of this Congress. 

The water resources bill shows what this committee can do when 

it works on a bipartisan basis to address the critical needs of this 

Nation. However, there is another issue pending before Congress 

that has taken a far different path and has resulted in confusion, 

uncertainty, strong opposition from States and stakeholders alike. 

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to language currently under negotiation in the National Defense Authorization Act that weakens Federal, State, and local authority to address pollutant discharges 

from vessels. 

5 

2The letters referenced by Congresswoman Napolitano are available online at GPO’s Federal 

Digital System (FDsys) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-114HPRT23997/pdf/CPRT114HPRT23997.pdf. 

As you know, pollution legislation fails to exclusively—falls exclusively within this committee’s jurisdiction. In fact, the last bill 

this committee formally considered was in the 112th Congress 

called the Commercial Vessel Discharges Reform Act. Yet, seemingly out of nowhere, an entirely new vessel pollution bill called the 

Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA, has been added to a nongermane bill in another committee, and is now under negotiations 

a joint House and Senate conference. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the committee Democrats objected 

to the inclusion of this never-before-seen proposal in the defense 

bill. This proposal is radically different from the bill this committee 

explored over 4 years ago, and has drawn opposition from States 

and stakeholders alike. I would guess that no member on this committee can explain exactly what this legislation would do, who 

wrote it, or who would benefit from it as, to the best of my knowledge, this proposal has undergone no congressional hearings in the 

House or the Senate. I know for certain no committee member or 

staff of the minority party has been part of the process. 

What is worse is that, despite the lack of transparency, the list 

of States and organizations opposed to this proposal is growing as 

more entities come to learn of its existence. Over the past few 

weeks, the House and Senate have received numerous letters from 

States and organizations expressing concerns with the vessel pollution bill, which I ask for unanimous consent to include in my remarks for the record. 2

Mr. GIBBS. So moved. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. These organizations, which include State 

water pollution control agencies and State environmental agencies, 

State fish and wildlife agencies, State boating administrators, all 

express their concern that ‘‘VIDA exempts State authorities to protect State waters from harmful invasive species and water pollution discharge vessels.’’ Further, these State agencies believe that 

‘‘VIDA will have adverse consequences on water quality, sources of 

drinking water, and sensitive aquatic resources.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, over the past few years we have seen countless 

examples where drinking water supplies of large and small towns 

across the U.S. have been compromised by pollution and invasive 

species. In my district and in the Western States we are plagued 

with the invasion of the quagga mussel that has clogged water distribution systems, added pollution, and created hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for local water agencies and our constituency. 

Right now, in more communities, we cannot say that the water 

that is delivered to our homes or our schools or our workplaces is 

safe to drink. Think about that. Here, in the United States, we cannot say with certainty that water we are providing our citizens is 

always safe to drink. Yet, according to the—the VIDA will have adverse consequences of water quality and resources—and sources of 

drinking water in the U.S. 

So, then, will this legislation improve the operation of vessels in 

the armed forces and national security? No, because the discharge 

6 

requirements for the vessels of the armed forces are unchanged by 

this legislation. So this precious—this legislation puts our precious 

State resource waters in jeopardy to ensure that a small universe 

of commercial and fishing boats are no longer regulated under 

clean water permitting requirements. 

Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to understand proposed 

legislation before it has the potential to become law. Therefore, I 

am requesting that this committee undertake a formal legislative 

hearing on the vessel pollution before further action is taken in the 

House. I ask unanimous consent that a letter formally requesting 

this action be added to the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 7 here 21415.007
8 


Insert offset folio 8 here 21415.008
9 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In my view, far too little attention is being 

given to the important topic to jam untested language through on 

a non-germane bill with virtually no congressional oversight within 

the proper committee of jurisdiction. 

Our water, our local natural resources, are far too precious to 

take action on this proposal without fully understanding its impact. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. At this time I want to welcome our three witnesses. 

Our first witness is Rear Admiral Paul Thomas. He’s Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy, United States Coast Guard. 

Our second witness is Rear Admiral Shepard Smith. He’s the Director of the Office of Coast Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. 

And Mr. Edward Belk, he is the Chief of the Operations and Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

Admiral Thomas, welcome, and the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL PAUL F. THOMAS, ASSISTANT 

COMMANDANT FOR PREVENTION POLICY, U.S. COAST 

GUARD; REAR ADMIRAL SHEPARD M. SMITH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COAST SURVEY, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; 

AND EDWARD E. BELK, JR., P.E., CHIEF, OPERATIONS AND 

REGULATORY DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Admiral THOMAS. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking 

Member Napolitano, and distinguished members of the subcommittees. I am honored to be here today to update you on the Coast 

Guard’s efforts to modernize marine navigation systems and to enhance mariner situational awareness. 

With the growth and diversification in domestic energy production and the associated industries, increased use of Arctic shipping 

lanes, and the simple need to move more people and cargo by water 

in the decades to come, the demand on our Marine Transportation 

System, or MTS, is unprecedented and it is growing. 

Working with our partners, such as NOAA and the Army Corps 

of Engineers, and through the interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System, or CMTS, which I am proud to chair, 

we are modernizing America’s waterways for the 21st century. 

Through six key initiatives, carried out with extensive stakeholder and interagency outreach and coordination, we are reviewing and baselining our current aids-to-navigation system. We are 

modernizing our physical aids system. We are incorporating automatic identification system, or AIS ATON, into system design and 

operation. We are modernizing the delivery of marine safety information to the mariner, developing data-driven, risk-based tools for 

modern waterway system design. And finally, we are improving 

public notification and participation in waterway system improvements. 

To enhance our physical ATON constellation, we are now broadcasting over 350 electronic aids through the nationwide automatic 

identification system. This year we will prototype our smart bridge, 

smart lock, and digital light ship initiatives, all of which provide 

waterway users real-time information about navigational aids and 

navigational conditions, and enable smarter decisions that help to 

10 

increase safety, reduce congestions on our waterways, and enhance 

the environment. And we can do this even in areas where AIS 

broadcasts are not currently available. 

Our interagency enhanced marine safety information initiative, 

or the EMSI initiative, will coordinate all Government-provided 

navigation information services into a single integrated service delivered via the Web, accessible on common devices, and interoperable with existing shipboard and land-side navigation and logistics 

systems. 

For the first time, a mariner will be able to enter an intended 

route and quickly and easily find all the information needed to 

safely navigate that route. In the near future we will build a capacity to provide real-time updates to the mariner during the transit. 

But even as technology continues to change how mariners navigate on our waterways, we remain focused on implementing the 

proper mix of physical and electronic aids to navigation. The Coast 

Guard understands that physical aids will continue to be a vital 

component of our ATON system. Given this, it is critical that we 

recapitalize our aging fleet of inland and construction tenders. Our 

fleet of 35 inland aids to navigation cutters services over 27,000 

aids, or 56 percent of the entire physical ATON constellation, nationwide. 

And yet, this fleet has an average age of 52 years, with some of 

our cutters more than 60 years old. The fleet is well past its service 

life, but we are committed to maintaining operational capability on 

our inland waterways. To that end, we are in the final stages of 

the Inland River Tender Emergency Sustainment project, intended 

to maintain the operational capability of these cutters until a solution can be identified. And we have worked closely with the Army 

Corps to research alternatives for the recapitalization of this fleet. 

In addition, the Coast Guard is currently conducting comprehensive mid-life vessel sustainment for our fleet of 225-foot seagoing 

buoy tenders, and our 175-foot coastal buoy tenders, to ensure that 

they can continue to sail safely, and effectively execute their critical missions. 

The Service is grateful to this subcommittee’s strong and ongoing 

support for the sustainment and recapitalization of these nationally 

critical fleets. 

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, 

and for your continued support of the United States Coast Guard. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral Smith, welcome, and the floor is yours. 

Admiral SMITH. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the subcommittees. My name is 

Shep Smith, and I am the Director of the Office of Coast Survey 

at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In this 

capacity, I also represent the United States at the International 

Hydrographic Organization. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on how NOAA is advancing navigation services. 

I am pleased to testify alongside the United States Coast Guard 

and the Army Corps of Engineers. Our agencies coordinate activities and programs regularly, from local and regional harbor safety 

11 

committees to national program coordination and joint participation in academic and public venues. 

This hearing comes at a pivotal time for marine navigation, and 

I am pleased to offer some highlights of my full testimony, which 

is submitted for the record. 

NOAA’s role in marine navigation is to provide authoritative 

nautical charts—tides and currents and weather. I will be focusing 

my brief remarks today on nautical charting. 

We have nearly completed a transition to a digital nautical charting production system, which will improve the consistency and efficiency of our charting program. Just as importantly, it will allow 

us to move beyond the limitations of depicting information on 

paper charts, creating digital charts optimized for the needs of today’s electronic navigation systems, and supporting increasingly 

automated navigation. Over the coming year we will be drafting 

and taking public input on a new, national charting plan which 

will incorporate all of this public input to envision an updated 

chart suite. 

In addition to new charting technology, NOAA is leaning forward 

to take advantage of the proliferation of available relevant 

geospatial information and observation technology. We are using 

satellite imagery derived bathymetric estimates in shallow, clear 

areas. We have stood up a public database for worldwide crowd 

source depth data from volunteer vessels with the potential for 

thousands of users within a few years. We plan to use this satellite 

data and crowd source depth data to identify areas where charts 

are no longer accurate, and to support temporary chart updates. 

We are using LiDAR [Light Detection and Ranging] data from 

Army Corps and NOAA aircraft to accurately survey shallow coastal waters. We use multibeam data from other agencies where it is 

available, relevant, and suitable for charting use. We have begun 

to use unmanned survey systems to complement our manned systems, and we see opportunity for greater use in the near future. 

At the core of our survey efforts, our own ships and aircraft and 

those of our hydrographic contractors provide the high resolution 

object detection surveys needed to accurately measure depths and 

find isolated hazards, and in areas where other sources are not 

available. 

NOAA is working to ensure the Nation has a fleet of research 

ships that meet the Nation’s observation requirements. Coast survey is engaged with the NOAA planning efforts to identify and refine the requirements for replacement survey vessels capable of 

supporting unmanned systems and sustained operations in environmentally sensitive areas. 

In electronic navigation systems, charts are used along with information from weather, water levels, currents, constantly changing channel conditions, and EMSI to plan, monitor, and execute a 

voyage. Many of the most innovative and advanced navigation systems are made by U.S. companies, and are built on the foundation 

of NOAA’s, the Coast Guard’s, and the Army Corps’ freely available 

navigation information. These systems are putting the best available technology onto U.S. boats and improving the safety of the 

commercial vessels and the 34 million U.S. boating families. 

12 

We have begun a test bed project in the Port of L.A./Long Beach 

to prototype a new high resolution chart to support precision navigation for large ships transiting the tightly constrained waterways 

of that port. 

NOAA is working with the Coast Guard on the two Arctic port 

access route studies and with the Army Corps on their Arctic deepwater port study. In addition, we hosted a charting workshop in 

Anchorage in March of this year with Federal, State, tribal, and 

local interests to prioritize the highest risk areas for Arctic navigation. 

To date, we have focused our survey and charting efforts along 

frequently traveled routes, in approaches to towns and facilities, 

and in potential harbors of refuge. Our survey work in Alaska is 

highly constrained by a short survey season, lack of logistical support, and the age of our two survey ships, both approaching 50 

years old. 

NOAA plays a unique and important role by providing critical information infrastructure to support safe, reliable, and efficient 

navigation in maritime commerce. Thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss the state of NOAA’s services with you this morning, and 

I welcome any questions you may have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Admiral. 

Mr. Belk, welcome, and the floor is yours. 

Mr. BELK. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs. And thank you as well 

to Chairman Hunter and the distinguished members of both subcommittees. I am Eddie Belk, Chief of the Operations and Regulatory Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers here at our 

headquarters in DC. I am honored to appear before you this morning to discuss issues associated with Federal maritime navigation 

programs, with an emphasis on interagency cooperation and technological change. This fiscal year the Corps is investing just over $2.6 billion appropriated by Congress to study, design, construct, operate, and 

maintain our national infrastructure portfolio, including channel 

deepening projects to accommodate post-Panamax vessels and recapitalizing aging locks and dams to increase reliability and efficiency of our inland waterways. This investment also supports continued development of data-informed navigation capabilities and 

technologies that I will discuss this morning. 

Over the past decade the Corps has experienced significant improvement in the data we collect, create, and utilize to operate and 

manage Corps maritime assets. Our philosophy is to collect data 

once and then use it many times over by sharing it very broadly 

both within the Corps and with others. 

The concept behind e-navigation, as we call it, emphasizes harmonizing data and information across all public and private stakeholders. We believe that interagency e-navigation efforts directly 

contribute to improved safety, efficiency, and reliability of the Marine Transportation System. 

The Corps is successfully applying e-navigation capabilities 

today, with more on the way, through ongoing research and development programs. The Corps is the United States nautical charting 

authority for inland waterways. For the past decade, the Corps has 

created over 7,200 miles of detailed inland electronic navigational 

13 

charts. Since 2013, over 6 million of our charts and chart updates 

have been downloaded by mariners, providing the most up-to-date 

information for safely navigating our waterways. 

The Corps is responsible for surveying all Federal channels, harbors, and waterways in order to report channel conditions to our 

partners and stakeholders. The past year the Corps deployed our 

e-hydro tool across all coastal offices. This tool takes hydrographic 

surveys of the navigation channels and standardizes the data for 

use in enterprise tools. This improves our ability to more quickly 

create and disseminate more consistent products. 

Example products include automatic development of channel condition reports that are provided to NOAA for their use in nautical 

charting of coastal waters, as well as standardized electronic maps 

for use by waterway operators, ship pilots, Federal partners, and 

the public. The e-hydro tool is being expanded to the inland waterways with applications that create inland survey overlays for Coast 

Guard use to improve the accuracy and efficiency of setting physical buoys on our rivers. 

Another recently developed e-navigation tool is the Corps of Engineers lock operations management application, or LOMA. This 

uses real-time vessel tracking data from vessel automatic identification systems, or AIS, to provide our lock operators with visibility on the movement of commercial vessels along the inland waterways. LOMA was deliberately designed to be interoperable with 

the Coast Guard’s nationwide AIS system, using common architecture and software to manage the millions of daily AIS data messages from moving vessels. 

Building LOMA in partnership with the Coast Guard saved the 

Corps time and significantly reduced development risks. The Corps 

and the Coast Guard continue to work in partnership to improve 

the system, and to make the most of these shared capabilities. 

Other capabilities being tested include the transmission of information on physical aids to navigation that augment those important directional and safety tools. For the first time on U.S. inland 

waterways, the Corps, working closely with the Coast Guard, 

transmitted a virtual aid to navigation to mark a sunken vessel 

where the establishment of a physical buoy was not possible due 

to adverse river conditions. 

Additional capabilities include transmitting water current velocities to towboat operators as they approach lock structures so they 

are situationally aware of unexpected adverse conditions at the 

lock entrance. We believe transmitting such information will help 

increase lock reliability, and improve mariner safety by reducing 

allisions that can damage or close locks. 

We continue to work with NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and other Federal providers 

of navigation information to create an integrated marine safety information service for all waters of interest to U.S. mariners. This 

will provide commercial mariners and the public with common access to marine safety information that is tailored for their specific 

needs, available in formats usable on their specific equipment or 

systems. 

In closing, the Corps is actively engaged with partner agencies 

and maritime users to accelerate the development and deployment 

14 

of technological enablers for the mariner, while harmonizing data 

through e-navigation principles. We are committed to improving 

our use of data from other agencies and waterway stakeholders and 

to making our data and information widely available for others to 

use. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start off the questions. For Admiral 

Thomas and maybe Admiral Smith, I guess both, you know, we 

have seen technology just grow immensely in the last couple decades. Satellite technology and navigation technologies and all of 

that. And I guess Admiral Smith mentioned about how you were 

working to do a national charting plan and looking for input from 

the public, and then to Admiral Thomas, responsible for this electronic navigation, getting all the vessels and real-time information. 

How is that being incorporated between the two? And then, you 

know—and I guess a simpler question, too, is: is there an e-navigation app? What is the status on this technology in both commercial 

and recreational users, and how does this incorporate what Admiral Smith is trying to do with the charting? 

Admiral THOMAS. Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. There—it is a great question. There is a lot going on, a lot 

of new technologies. 

We coordinated our efforts between our three agencies and many 

others through the Committee on the Marine Transportation System, which I mentioned. And that particular committee has an enav subcommittee that is focused exactly on your question, which 

is how do we make sure that we are developing systems that work 

with each other, that talk to each other, and that are going to be 

accessible to the users on the waterway. 

And I will let Admiral Smith talk about some of the technical details, because he is more conversant on those, but I will just add 

that a huge part of getting to where we need to be with e-navigation is harmonization of the data sets kept by the Army Corps, the 

NOAA, and the Coast Guard. And we are working hard on that 

and making great progress. And when that effort is complete, you 

will see leaps and bounds of progress. 

Mr. GIBBS. Is the technology being adapted by both commercial 

and recreational users of vessels? Is it adaptable so they can use 

it? 

Admiral THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. And we see, you 

know, broad use of—as we develop products and make them available, we are seeing them used very broadly—— 

Mr. GIBBS. How does that incorporate with—you say you are 

doing a national charting plan, looking for public input. How do 

you merge the two together so it is friendly for the users? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The charting plan is 

really specifically about charts. We have a very robust distribution 

system for charts that go from recreational, chart plotters, and the 

light commercial systems that are in use and all the way up to the 

type-approved systems. All of that is very mature. 

What we are hoping to add on, through our joint distribution of 

other types of data, are the tides, currents, weather, and EMSI, 

and for the data to be well integrated into these systems. Some sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:50 Feb 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\9-7-16~1\21415.TXT JEAN
15 

tems are already at this level of maturity but there is room for improvement in standardization and the way that that data are distributed. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Belk, you know, there is over 25,000 miles of Federal navigation channels, and the Army Corps is responsible for 

conducting hydrographic surveys. And I think in fiscal year 2016 

the workplan for your operation and maintenance, there was 30 entries for project condition surveys, totaling $17.5 million. Would 

you say that amount is high, average, or about right? 

Mr. BELK. Could you repeat the question, Chairman? I missed 

part of that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, about the surveys, I think this past year—your 

plan of operation and maintenance, you had 30 entries for project 

condition surveys, nearly $17.5 million. Is that a typical figure? Is 

that about right, or is that not enough, or—— 

Mr. BELK. Chairman, that is about right. We received some additional funding from the Congress this year that we are able to utilize through our workplan to get after and take care of more condition surveys this fiscal year. 

Mr. GIBBS. We are talking about the Federal navigation channels. What role would the Inland Water Users Board and also vessel operators play? It just came to my attention up in the Cleveland 

Port in my area—I am from Ohio—there is a question about the 

survey getting done for dredging the Cuyahoga River at the port. 

That is—you know, what kind of input does the port get from the 

operators? And then, of course, you know, elsewhere, in the Inland 

Waterways User Board—what kind of input, what kind of interaction is there between your shop and them? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that question. 

There is a tremendous amount of interplay between the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Inland Waterways User Board. In fact, 

our next meeting of the Inland Waterways User Board will be the 

first week in October in Chicago. We meet quarterly. 

The Inland Waterways User Board is comprised of senior leaders 

from across the navigation industry that are appointed. The Corps 

of Engineers is also involved in that user board. We get tremendous input from them, and we also are able to describe to them our 

challenges and the priorities that we are getting from the Congress. Together we are able to describe where we can apply the 

funds we do get to buy down the most risk. 

One of the accomplishments that we have achieved this year, in 

partnership with the Inland Waterways User Board and industry, 

is the capital investment strategy that lays out a 20-year plan. It 

will invest almost $5 billion over 20 years to buy down the most 

risk across the national system. 

That partnership with the Inland Waterways User Board has resulted in our ability to identify and buy down the most risk with 

each dollar that is appropriated by the Congress. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. I want to—in a future question—my time is up— 

I want to talk a little bit—I want to ask more questions about the 

capital plan. 

At this time I yield to Ranking Member Grace Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal maritime programs we are discussing today are in place to provide effiVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:50 Feb 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\9-7-16~1\21415.TXT JEAN
16 

cient and effective transportation of goods and people—especially 

important in my area. 

I am concerned when bad actors—this is a little bit out of the 

bailiwick here, but I am concerned that bad actors in the shipping 

industry have recently—one of them has recently declared bankruptcy. Hanjin. And it affects our national economy, putting employees out of work, the transportation sector out of work, delayed 

arrival of goods, and increasing the shipping rates. There are several ships already sitting out in the sea. 

I recognize the subject is not the topic of today’s hearing, and 

witnesses are not involved in the economics of global shipping, but 

I would ask any of the witnesses to comment on the current trends 

in global shipping and the crisis in Hanjin ship sitting off our 

coastline. And are you concerned about that? I know the Coast 

Guard has a role to play in that. 

Admiral THOMAS. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Napolitano. 

We are, of course, aware of the situation with Hanjin Shipping. 

There is tremendous pressure on containerized shipping—in particular, globally. There are a number of ships that have been laid 

up, and Hanjin is managing their financial crisis. 

You know, our role is to ensure that, before those ships enter 

U.S. ports, that they can meet their financial obligations, particularly those to the U.S. Government. And that is in the form of what 

we call a certificate of financial responsibility. 

In the case of the two ships that are currently off the west 

coast—and I believe one off the east coast—you know, Hanjin’s 

longstanding financial arrangements have been nullified by their 

bankruptcy, but they are negotiating those arrangements on a 

case-by-case, ship-by-ship, port arrival-by-port arrival basis, and I 

believe that they have reinstated their COFRs with the U.S., and 

they are making individual arrangements for port services, so that 

they can come into port and unload their cargo. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good, because it affects the Nation, not just 

our western port. 

Mr. Belk, your testimony notes the potential benefit of vessel 

automatic identification system to address congestion along the inland waterways and coastal ports. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 directed the court to implement vessel congestion 

mitigation strategy for the Upper Mississippi and the Illinois waterway slot. Can you give the committee an update on the implementation of these provisions? 

It seems that the trend is for Congress to fund the Corps at 

below capability, resulting in authorized projects taking longer for 

construction to get started, and for the American people to receive 

the benefit of this project. How can vessel congestion strategies 

such as the automatic identification systems be used as we wait for 

construction funds to—for these authorized navigation projects? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. The Corps 

of Engineers is working very closely with the industry at a number 

of levels, to make sure that we are communicating with each other 

and are aware of traffic movements as they occur. The Inland Waterways User Board is at the strategic level, and we also have regional boards, like the regional—industry executive task force that 

we work with to look at traffic patterns. We have daily communicaVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:50 Feb 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\9-7-16~1\21415.TXT JEAN
17 

tions between our field folks and the Coast Guard and the navigation industry to make sure that we are all talking and understand 

the movement. 

In addition, we have developed a couple of tools recently that we 

have made available. One we released just this spring announces 

publicly on a Web site all proposed channel closures and restrictions that we anticipate in the coming work season. What that allows the industry to do is make plans weeks and months in advance to account for those kinds of construction improvements, so 

that they are not an active discovery. Having those identified and 

posted helps industry react and reduce the impact to the American 

people. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Webster? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a NOAA question. 

Our State—my State, Florida, and our water management districts, which are regional—and then we have county governments—they do hydrographic surveys. And I am wondering, is that 

information that they gather, is that used in coordination with 

what you are doing, as far as that same effort? 

Admiral SMITH. I am familiar with a few surveys from a few 

years ago that were in areas of borrow pits and that sort of thing 

for coastal Florida. And we do use that information when we become aware of it. 

We have an active program under our integrated ocean and 

coastal mapping program, where we band together with several different mapping organizations for the Federal, State, local, and even 

private sector, so that we stay aware of what data is available. And 

we do use it for charting, where it is relevant and suitable for 

charting. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Is there a standard—some kind of standard for 

the data in the way that it is formatted, or anything like that, that 

would be helpful, that that information might even be better used? 

Admiral SMITH. Modern systems are generally interoperable. We 

generally can read each other’s data without much of a problem. 

There are issues sometimes with datums—the vertical and horizontal references for the data. 

NOAA’s VDatum is a nationwide program that allows us to 

transform data from one datum to another, so that most of those 

interoperability problems are now taken care of. 

So, the most important thing is for us to know about available 

data, and for it to be relevant for navigation. Not all hydrographic 

surveys that are done are relevant for navigation. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Would it be easy for them to adapt to gathering 

the data that you would need with—and that some of the mechanics are the same and so, therefore, would it—is that something that 

they could do that would make that data better? 

Admiral SMITH. We have a set of publicly available documents 

called our specifications and deliverables for hydrographic surveys, 

which define exactly what it is that we need from a survey data 

set to be fully compliant for navigation. Contractors could use these 

specifications for a reference. 

18 

However, that is if we contract for a survey. If someone does a 

survey for another reason, we can use that data to its full effect, 

as long as it has some relevance for navigation. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Thomas, I read from staff that, you know, you are augmenting physical aids to navigation with electronic. That sounds 

OK. But it goes on to say, ‘‘Reduce, where possible, the number of 

physical ATONs that require regular seasonal maintenance.’’ 

I realize you have budgetary issues here, but here is my concern. 

You know, you are now allowing people to not carry physical 

charts. And unless their own computers were corrupted, that probably isn’t a big issue. But we have talked about the vulnerability 

of the GPS system. Congress mandated that you move ahead and 

look at, you know, what we might use as a backup. But, you know, 

we have a report from GAO that was rather critical a couple of 

years ago about DOT and DHS making any progress on what 

would be or what is the necessity of having a backup system. 

So, I am concerned that this is yet another step. I mean, so if 

I don’t have physical charts but, you know, I have still got charts, 

let’s say, either on my computer or I have got a physical chart, and 

I can navigate to an actual buoy, if the system is down, great. But 

if we take out the buoys and we are now going to have virtual 

buoys, you know, we are creating yet another vulnerability. And I 

am very concerned about this trend. 

And, I mean, can you tell me where are we at in developing a 

backup system? 

Admiral THOMAS. Well, thank you, Congressman, for the question. Really, two parts there. I will—we have not removed a single 

physical aid to navigation, as a result of our ATON initiatives. 

And, in fact, we are augmenting our physical systems. We are 

looking at modernizing our physical aids. You know, what are the 

buoys? How can—because—you know, how can we make them 

lighter? Because all those things drive the requirements for the 

cutters that I discussed that definitely need to be recapitalized. So 

physical aids are and will continue to be an integral part of our 

navigation system, and we are on record of saying that the physical 

aids are, in fact, the backup for the electronic navigation systems. 

We share your concern, and I know Congressman Garamendi 

shares it as well, with what is the national backup for our precision 

navigation and timing system. This is a piece of nationally critical 

infrastructure that is essential for all modes of transportation. It 

is essential for many utilities, for financial systems. It is essential 

for national defense. Our Nation needs a backup system. 

The Coast Guard is supporting DHS in their role on the National 

Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and 

Timing, and we are confident that they are on the right track to 

identify the right solution for our Nation, and that that solution, 

once in place, will have utility for maritime navigation, as well as 

for all the other systems that depend—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Do we have a timeline on when some conclusion 

is going to be reached? 

19 

Admiral THOMAS. You know, we support the effort, and we are 

currently working with the NextCom to identify their requirements 

for a national backup for PNT. That document is supposed to be 

completed this year. And once their requirements are known, we 

can move ahead smartly, identifying the potential technologies that 

might be employed to give us the backup capability. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. Admiral Smith, you mentioned 

about—that, you know, you can use survey data that was done for 

other purposes, if it is verified. I am wondering. Are we anywhere 

near technology where—I mean, you know, we have Google Maps, 

and they can tell me where congestion is because of crowd-sourcing 

on the highway. 

Is there any potential or possibility that either, you know, 

through ships transmitting real-time data as to depths—I know— 

let’s say, for instance, recreationally, the inland waterway east 

coast, big problem, shifting bars, et cetera. If people were certified 

and set up to transmit data back to you real time—and, you know, 

could that—is that a possibility? Is that something you are looking 

at? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. We have stood up—under the auspices 

of the International Hydrographic Organization, and with some of 

our international partners, a data center at the former National 

Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, now the National Centers for 

Environmental Information. This cloud-sourced database allows 

any user to upload their vessel’s track line information, which contains their GPS coordinates and their depth readings, and will pull 

that information together and make it available to any user. So 

this is publicly in, publicly out. It is run by us, but it is not quality 

controlled. 

This has just stood up in the last few months. We envision using 

this to be able to assess where the sea floor is changing, and where 

we have problems with our charts. And perhaps, once we see how 

dense the data is and how confident we are, to make temporary 

chart changes while we are waiting for a full survey to resolve the 

issue. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you would advise mariners that this is from aggregate data, you haven’t certified it through an actual hydrographic survey, but caution or whatever should be exercised in—— 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. On the paper charts we can display it 

in a slightly different way. Through electronic systems there are 

some flags that we can put on the data to indicate that it is not 

from a real survey. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Admiral SMITH. And we use a similar type of arrangement for 

satellite-derived imagery, which we also have less confidence in. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. And I do want to just say, as a 

comment, that I am very concerned about the age of the fleets 

being used, both by the Coast Guard and NOAA. And it is long 

past time where Congress should take definitive action, because we 

are looking at crippling ourselves if we don’t make these investments in new ships and the technology that could accompany them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

20 

Mr. Belk, a quick question for you. Section 1034 of WRRDA 2014 

directs the Corps to encourage the adoption of advanced modeling 

technologies to streamline project delivery or improve upon water 

resource projects. How has the Corps utilized its authority to adopt 

or aid any e-navigation technologies? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir, for the question. So the use 

of modeling is critically important to the Corps to inform both how 

we design and construct our infrastructure, and also how we operate and maintain it. We are making significant investments in 

those capabilities, primarily through our Engineer, Research, and 

Development Center, where we have world-class experts who help 

us use the best available technology, best available models—both 

physical and mathematical models—to inform our designs and our 

operations and maintenance practices. 

So, we are making investments there, and we are applying the 

results we get from those efforts to more efficiently use the dollars 

that we get from this Congress to operate and maintain our Nation’s waterways infrastructure systems. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. This is a question for all three of you, I guess. 

Are any of your agencies utilizing drone technology to help with 

your mapping process? And, if so, are you running into any issues 

with the FAA? 

We will start with you, Mr. Belk. 

Mr. BELK. We are utilizing drone technology. We use it more for 

aerial surveys than mapping. For example, we had some significant 

flooding over parts of the Mississippi Valley and—well, significant 

portions of the Nation this year. We would frequently use drones 

to provide us a quick aerial view of what is happening on the 

ground, so that we can more quickly assimilate what we need to 

do in the way of disaster response. We are using it more in that 

mode than we are in surveys, although we are doing a little of 

both. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are you running into any problems with the FAA certifying your ability to use them? 

Mr. BELK. Sir, we have to work within DOD requirements as we 

use those technologies. I wouldn’t say we are having problems, but 

there is a process that we have to go through in order to use those 

technologies. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Admiral Smith? 

Admiral SMITH. Sir, NOAA, in general, uses drones in a variety 

of ways. We don’t use any directly for the charting program. If, by 

drones, you mean airborne. We do have some on-the-water assets, 

which are small autonomous survey vessels, which do share some 

of the benefits of airborne drones, and some of the challenges of 

having unmanned systems out there. And we are working right 

now within some very tight guidelines and with some emerging 

best practices that the Coast Guard is publishing. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK, thank you. 

Admiral Thomas? 

Admiral THOMAS. Sir, we don’t use unmanned aerial systems in 

the prosecution of our missions related to marine navigation or 

aids to navigation. The Coast Guard is testing systems that we use 

off of our cutters for, you know, extending the legs of those cutters. 

But that is not within my portfolio. 

21 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Belk, I have got a little bit of time left. As you 

may know, I am from central Illinois, so the Mississippi River and 

Illinois waterways are a priority of mine, and have been for a 

while. I am a strong proponent of maintaining the lock and dam 

systems we have there, and upgrading them. 

What would you say is the current conditions of the locks and 

dams on the Upper Mississippi and the Illinois? 

Mr. BELK. The Corps of Engineers supports interstate commerce 

and international trade. And so, navigation is crucial to enabling 

that. And our lock and dam systems are key to that. We have a 

number of locks on both the Illinois that you are particularly interested in, and the Upper Mississippi. The condition varies, but there 

are significant requirements we are having to place in the operation and maintenance of those as they age. They are in excess of 

60 years old, on average. 

Mr. DAVIS. And with that, the age, what kind of impact do you 

think that age is going to have on our ability in the Midwest to 

move commerce up and down the navigation system? And is the 

Corps ready to move forward with maintaining and—you know, our 

goal is to expand them. 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. Fortunately, Congress has provided additional funding in the last few appropriations acts, that we have 

been able to use to buy down risk across that system. 

We are also applying asset management principles across our entire portfolio of inland navigation infrastructure, to include the Illinois and the Upper Mississippi. What that allows us to do is identify the risk associated with all our assets, and the consequences 

of failure of those assets. Those two things help us decide what our 

right priorities are so that every dollar we get from this Congress 

we apply to buy down the most risk. 

So, a lot of that does go to the Illinois and the Upper Mississippi, 

but other parts of the Nation, as well. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I am going to break the rule and quickly ask 

you. What is it going to take to get shovel ready and shelf—off the 

shelf? 

Mr. BELK. Sir, at this point the project has been authorized and 

we will move as quickly as appropriations and funding allow. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Thomas, a moment ago, in response to a question by the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, you said that 

the Coast Guard is going to complete a study on technologies that 

might be available as a backup system some time this year or in 

the near future. Could you expand on that and tell us what that 

study is all about and what technologies you are looking at? 

Admiral THOMAS. Congressman, let me first thank you for keeping us all focused on this really critical issue of a backup position 

navigation and timing system for our Nation. I may have misspoke, 

but what I meant to say was that the Coast Guard is supporting 

DHS in their role on the National Executive Committee for SpaceBased PNT. That committee is undertaking currently a requirements generation effort, which will define the requirements for a 

complementary PNT system. And once those requirements are deVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:50 Feb 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\9-7-16~1\21415.TXT JEAN
22 

fined, the executive committee will then begin the assessment of 

competing technologies that might meet that requirement. 

So it is not a Coast Guard study. Coast Guard is certainly supporting the department. NPPD has the lead for the department in 

that. And, as you know, DOT really has the lead for our Nation. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. What is the timeline for the completion of this? 

Admiral THOMAS. I can’t speak to the completion of the technology assessment, but I think—I am told the goal for the completion of the requirements document is this year. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am just trying to add up the number of years 

that this process has been underway, and I think it is approaching 

20. And, frankly, I don’t understand. It makes absolutely no sense 

to me. We know that there is a backup system that is deployed in 

other parts of the world, as in China and Russia, and in parts of 

Europe. And I don’t get it. I really don’t. 

And you are right, it is a mission of mine. So I think I will continue to push and shove. Frankly, I am very, very disappointed in 

the administration in all this—as it continues to circle around and 

circle around what we know is a backup system that is readily 

available to us. And we do know that GPS—one further question 

before I just continue on that way. 

All of this new navigation electronics, as mentioned in your paragraph here, ‘‘the use of and increasing dependence on electronics 

and technology.’’ Is that dependent on GPS? 

Admiral THOMAS. Very much so. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought so. Just wanted it on the record. 

A couple of other questions come to mind, and I will get to those. 

The Arctic, I don’t think we have discussed the Arctic yet today. 

Admiral Smith, I think you are at least partially responsible for 

the navigational guides and charts of the Arctic. Please update us. 

Admiral SMITH. Congressman, we have a suite of charts for the 

Arctic, which we have had for many years. The data on those 

charts is pretty old. And in some cases we don’t—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. But what does ‘‘pretty’’ mean? Eighteenth century, seventeenth century, sixteenth, or maybe twentieth? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, going back to the 1800s in some cases. But, 

in fact, that is true in other parts of the country, as well. 

And so we are concerned about this, and we have been 

prioritizing our survey efforts and our charting efforts on the current and expected growth in economic activity in the Arctic. So we 

have been working with the Coast Guard on the port access route 

study, where most of the traffic will be, and ensuring that those 

areas are well surveyed and well charted. The Red Dog Mine and 

other local areas of economic activity have been a high priority. 

Whenever we hear about more vessels needing to go ashore or 

going into places, those areas become our next priority—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So, really, the best method we have of knowing 

what is beneath the surface of the ocean is when somebody goes 

ashore and we can say, ‘‘Ah, we have discovered a new shoal’’? 

Admiral SMITH. No, sir, that is not what I meant. I meant that 

areas of increased vessel activity were an indication of where we 

needed to prioritize our efforts. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So when they go ashore we want to know why 

and where. 

23 

What resources would be necessary to deal with this Arctic situation, which we know is the new Northwest or Northeast Passage? 

What kind of—what resources are necessary to try to get ahead of 

the shoaling of various vessels, which apparently is the way in 

which we now know there is a new shoal or an old shoal that we 

didn’t know about? What do we need in resources? 

Admiral SMITH. I want to just clarify my remarks if you thought 

that I meant that we were updating the charts based on shoaling. 

Many small craft in Alaska actually are landing craft, because 

there is no port facility. When they go ashore, moving up onto the 

shore is how they get their fuel and other things to the small towns 

up there. 

So, after that clarification, the resources—we clearly are not 

going as fast as we could. We are hampered, as I said in my opening remarks, by the short survey season, by the age of our ships, 

and their ability to go to these remote places safely, and by the 

need to balance our survey and charting resources across the whole 

country. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Just a final comment here. We have done numerous hearings about the Arctic, about the necessity of understanding the Arctic in detail, everything from icebreakers to beyond. And in every one of those hearings, the issue of charting and 

understanding the sea floor is of critical importance. 

I need from you and from the Coast Guard—we need, I should 

say—specific information on what the requirements are to advance 

our knowledge of the sea floor in the Arctic, so that we can avoid 

shoaling as the principal way of understanding where the reefs are. 

So could you deliver some level of knowledge and information to us 

so that we might put that into our planning? 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. I know we are over time here, but we 

did conduct a study of Arctic gaps and plans at Congress’ request, 

and that study is currently in clearance. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. I just thought I would make a comment. I believe 

that this committee 4 years ago kind of gave a blank slate to move 

forward in this. And I think you need to report. You can get back 

to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. It 

would be much appreciated—in a timely manner. Thank you. 

Mr. Sanford? 

Mr. SANFORD. Under the category of technological change, for instance, the port in Charleston, obviously, would have a lot of commercial users, and it would have backup with a paper chart. But 

the bulk of, for instance, the First Congressional District would be 

charted but irrelevant to a commercial user. So, as a boy, we would 

use charts wondering around St. Helena Sound or Port Royal 

Sound. But now, hop in a little boat, and it has got a Garmin, and 

off you go. 

Can you give me the breakdown—first of all, are the paper 

charts a loser, from a financial standpoint, or a winner? Do you 

make money on them, or you lose money on them? 

Admiral SMITH. We do not sell charts directly any more. So we 

have privatized the entire printing and distribution for paper 

charts. 

24 

Mr. SANFORD. So then they—it is a contract and they pay you for 

the ability to do so? 

Admiral SMITH. They give us a very small royalty, which basically covers the cost of the servers that we need to—— 

Mr. SANFORD. So it is a wash. 

Admiral SMITH. We are not making any money on it. No, sir. 

Mr. SANFORD. Losing money, or no? 

Admiral SMITH. Well, we have appropriated funds to provide 

charting services for the—— 

Mr. SANFORD. How much is that? 

Admiral SMITH. So, overall, if you are including the surveys as 

well as charting—and if you include our contracting efforts and our 

own ships, it is about a $128 million program. 

Mr. SANFORD. So we spend $128 million on that, some of which 

would be things like the Arctic sea floor, where there aren’t, you 

know, a lot of recreational users up there. But if you break out that 

portion, which we particularly—it would either be commercial or 

scientific versus recreation—what would the split be, roughly, in 

terms of users? 

Admiral SMITH. That is not a very fine line. As you pointed out, 

some of these areas overlap. 

In the last 25 years or so, since the technological revolution, 

where we could get full-bottom sea floor surveys, we decided 25 

years ago to focus our efforts with this new technology on deep 

draft ships going to major ports. 

Mr. SANFORD. OK. 

Admiral SMITH. That has been the focus of our efforts for the last 

25 years. During those 25 years we have spent less time in recreational areas, as—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I guess my point, what I am getting at, is would 

there be a way of saying we are just not going to do that part any 

more? I mean, you know, St. Helena Sound is an interesting place, 

I love it, but it is irrelevant, from the standpoint of a commercial 

user. And the local shrimp boats that go there, they know the waters real well. 

So, I mean, would there be a big cost savings in saying there are 

certain areas we are just not going to do any more, and people can 

figure that out on their own, or no? It is on the margin? 

Admiral SMITH. My responsibility in my position is to provide 

safe navigation services to all boaters on the water. We make every 

effort to manage—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Understood. But I am just saying, I mean, the vast 

majority of those recreational users aren’t pulling a chart any 

more. If they are using anything, they are using, you know, 

Garmin or whatever, and—— 

Admiral SMITH. Maybe I could clarify that, because Garmin gets 

their chart information from us. 

Mr. SANFORD. Right. 

Admiral SMITH. So the charts that they are using are ours. 

Garmin is redistributing them and making them available in a convenient and well-designed device that suits their needs. 

Mr. SANFORD. And it would be updated—— 

Admiral SMITH. The source charting information is still ours. 

Mr. SANFORD. Sure. And they would be updated how often? 

25 

Admiral SMITH. It depends on the area. A lot of those are Army 

Corps surveys that we update as frequently as they come along. 

Mr. SANFORD. Which would be how often? 

Admiral SMITH. It depends. Sometimes they survey once a 

month, sometimes every 5 years. So it depends on how—— 

Mr. SANFORD. So there is this split, currently, then. So if it is a 

more recreational area, not a lot of commercial users, it might be 

once every 5 years if they are doing—again, using St. Helena 

Sound as an example. Would that be right? 

Admiral SMITH. I don’t know the details on that particular body 

of water. 

Mr. SANFORD. No, I am just picking it randomly. 

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. So less—if it changes less often, and it 

is less critical, it will be surveyed less frequently. 

Mr. SANFORD. OK. How about the—I guess what I am looking for 

are cost savings. So you got 47,000 buoys. You are spending, I 

guess, close to $1.5 billion in maintaining all of that. Is there a 

way, given the way that technology has changed, such that you 

maybe don’t have to do as many buoys as you used to? 

Admiral THOMAS. Well, thank you for the question. I mean we 

are always looking to optimize our physical aids constellation, and 

we have a process whereby we analyze where they are and whether 

or not they need to be there. And that involves a great deal of 

stakeholder input. The majority of our stakeholders on the waterways want to keep the physical aids in place, and it is very difficult 

to remove even one or two aids although, you know, we are doing 

the studies that we need to do in order to optimize the physical 

aids. 

But even more importantly, we are studying how to modernize 

our physical aids, so that they are more cost effective, they can 

stay on station longer, they require less maintenance. And that is 

really the way ahead for physical aids, as opposed to a concerted 

effort to reduce the number of aids out there. It is really to make 

the ones that are out there more efficient so that we can maintain 

it less expensively. 

Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Maloney? 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Thomas, I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions 

about some activity that is going on in the—proposed activity that 

is going on in the Hudson River Valley area of New York that I 

represent. 

You know, first, let me just say thank you for your service, thank 

you for the work that the Coast Guard does. I think all of us really 

appreciate how difficult and how important the mission is. 

I wanted to draw your attention to a matter of great local concern, which is a proposal to create 10 new anchorage sites along 

the Hudson River. You have a rulemaking process that is underway right now. We are talking about sites from Yonkers, New 

York, up to Kingston. We are talking about over 1,000 acres of the 

river, 43 new sites. These are massive oil barges that would be 

docked and anchored in an archipelago that would stretch for miles 

up the Hudson River, creating, effectively, an oil pipeline in the 

center of the river. This would be in addition to the massive numVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:50 Feb 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\9-7-16~1\21415.TXT JEAN
26 

ber of oil trains and oil shipments that are occurring along the CSX 

line on the west bank of the Hudson River. 

So, this is generating, as you might imagine, intense local concern that crosses all sorts of party lines and all sorts of layers of 

Government. You have had people from the Democratic mayor of 

Yonkers say this is going to destroy their waterfront revitalization 

program, you see the conservative county executive of Westchester 

agreeing with him. Same is true for the Republican county executive of Duchess County, the Democratic county executive of Ulster 

County, groups like River Keeper and Scenic Hudson that are worried about the river. 

And here is the point. The point is that we believe this is a solution in search of a problem, that there is no need for these additional anchorage sites for several reasons. 

First, they already exist, they are simply spaced differently. 

Secondly, they are predicated on the notion that there will continue to be a massive increase in the number of oil shipments required down the Hudson River when, in fact, the significant compression in the price of oil globally has created a glut, and we have 

seen a reduction in shipments, so that the infrastructure that has 

been contemplated may not be in any way necessary. And yet we 

are moving aggressively forward on this process. 

Now, I want to thank you for responding to my request and others’ to extend the comment period for this through December. That 

is a great first start. But I would really like to draw your attention 

to it because the fact is that this is a bad idea. This is not something we need. We don’t want it. And we want the process to take 

into account the intense local opposition to this from all corners of 

all communities in the Hudson Valley. 

So, I just want to take the opportunity today to draw your attention to that, and ask for your commitment that when the public 

hearings occur, that, one, they will occur in a early and timely way, 

and that they will be local, and that they will take into account as 

many as these local viewpoints as they possibly can, because at 

this point in the process I can tell you that the people in the Hudson Valley feel as though their voices have not been heard on this 

proposal, and they are very concerned with the rate at which it is 

moving. 

So, we appreciate the additional time to comment, but I would 

really like your commitment on really including local voices in the 

public hearings that should occur locally, and the need to happen 

sooner, rather than later. 

Admiral THOMAS. Congressman Maloney, thank you for bringing 

that issue to my attention. I am very much aware of it, and I will 

say that, as a previous captain of a port myself, I am very sensitive 

to local issues and the intense interest in what happens on local 

waterways. 

The increased activity on the Hudson River is a symptom of the 

increased pressure on our Marine Transportation System. The 

Coast Guard is trying to manage the risks. The anchorages themselves, as you point out, don’t create the increased vessel traffic. 

Those anchorages are one means—just one means—that we are exploring to manage the increased risk associated with more crude oil 

moving down the river and more products moving up the river. 

27 

I have spoken with the district commander, Admiral Steve 

Poulin, in fact, just yesterday about this topic. He is committed to 

full and open dialogue with regard to this regulation, and he is totally open to all the alternatives that are out there to help manage 

this risk. So we can commit to you that there will be plenty of opportunity for comment, not only to the record, but also through 

public meetings. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you very much. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I got some more questions. 

Mr. Belk, what is the process that the Corps uses to determine 

when they do surveys in the channels for dredging? You know, is 

it a routine process, where you know you are going to have to go 

in and check it? Or do you get information from the vessel operators in the industry? Can you just kind of expound about how you 

go about that, how the court goes about that? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

question. 

Our survey approach will depend on a couple of things. It will 

depend on the use of that waterway, or that harbor, or that channel, and it will depend on the shoaling patterns of that channel. 

What that means is, on a very few projects, we will perform surveys daily. But on most we will perform them weekly or monthly. 

On some we will do it even once a year, depending again on 

shoaling patterns and on the tonnage that moves through that harbor. 

Having said that, we also are in regular daily communications at 

our operational level with the towboat industry and with the Coast 

Guard. So if there are any anomalies that pop up between surveys, 

or that were overlooked in a survey, we have means to get visibility 

of those very quickly, and respond appropriately. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I think you are prepared to answer this question about the Port of Cleveland. What is the status on that survey? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir, I am tracking that concern of yours. The 

Corps has allocated funding to conduct maintenance dredging in 

Cleveland Harbor, but it has not dredged the harbor yet in 2016. 

The Corps has completed three surveys of Cleveland Harbor navigation channel to date. A fourth survey is scheduled to be completed this week. 

Results from the previously completed surveys indicate that the 

channel is navigable without restrictions and, therefore, dredging 

is not necessary at this time. But we will see what our surveys indicate this week. The available depth is 23 feet for water maritime 

users, which meets the authorized depth. We will continue to monitor those conditions into the future. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, it is just kind of amazing to me, because I know 

they dredge it twice a year in the past, in the spring and fall, so 

it is just, you know—maybe with some of the things that port has 

done and the Corps has done to improve the situation—or maybe 

this stuff is starting to work, I don’t know. At some point—maybe 

it was the weather, I don’t know. But—— 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Being tentative—— 

28 

Mr. BELK. I think historical dredging has been very beneficial. I 

think if you look at the level of the Great Lakes, they have increased slightly in recent times, so that is helpful. And, frankly, 

the big factor, I think, is shoaling patterns in Cleveland Harbor are 

lower than they typically have been. So I think we are benefitting 

from all three of those factors. 

Mr. GIBBS. A little bit about the hydrographic data, does the 

Corps have the authority to acquire that from privately contracted 

entities, or does the Corps do it all? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. The Corps uses both approaches. We have inhouse hydrographic survey capability that we deploy, and we also 

leverage the private-sector surveying capacity. 

This fiscal year we are going to invest about $53 million with the 

private sector to help us with both hydrographic and topographic 

surveying of our infrastructure and our channels. 

Mr. GIBBS. You know, we talk a lot about the inland waterway 

navigation system and the average age of the locks and dams on 

that system. Where do you see the most acute place where commodities or industries might be affected? Is there one place on the 

inland waterway system that is really a concern to the Corps, a 

choke point? 

Mr. BELK. Sir, I think we take a global or a system view of our 

inland waterways transportation system, and a risk-informed view 

of how we apply funding, both for operation and maintenance and 

for capital investments. 

I also really want to thank you and the subcommittee for the authority you gave us in 2014 WRRDA to develop a capital investment strategy with the navigation industry that the Secretary of 

the Army was able to transmit to the Congress earlier this year. 

I think that has been very helpful and important to shape what our 

investment priorities need to be, so that the Congress can have 

that as they make decisions on what level of investment they want 

to make. They will know that it is going to buy down the most risk, 

and have the best positive effect on our inland waterways. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I appreciate that. I am a little concerned about 

the administration’s proposed budget. You know, this last fiscal 

year—and, like you said, in WRRDA 2014 we took Olmsted kind 

of offline and changed how we funded that, and we started the 

projects, I think it was two lock projects on the Lower Mon that 

have started. 

But my understanding on the administration’s proposed budget, 

that curtails that funding. And, of course, the whole concept was 

to start the Lower Mon projects and move to the Kentucky and the 

Chick locks. 

What’s the status—if the funding is not there, if we went by the 

President’s proposal, if I understand it right, is the work going to 

stop there at the Lower Mon projects, or is it going to be just 

dragged out and, you know, kind of funded a penny at a time? 

What is the status? What is going to happen with those projects, 

moving forward? Because the plan was, when we did this, was to 

get Lower Mon started and move to Kentucky and move to Chicka 

locks in Tennessee. And so what is the status, if Congress adopts, 

I guess, the President’s budget? 

29 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. 

It is very important to the Corps and to inland waterways users. The fiscal year 2017 President’s budget proposed $225 million for 

the Olmsted Locks and Dam project, the highest priority in our 

capital investment plan. No funding is proposed for Monongahela 

Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, also known as Lower Mon, for Kentucky lock, or Chickamauga lock. The fiscal year 2017 budget 

amount of $225 million is below the $232 million budgeted in fiscal 

year 2016, but above the $160 million to $180 million that had 

been budgeted for construction in prior years. 

The administration believes this is the appropriate amount, 

given the President’s fiscal priorities, the Corps’ Civil Works responsibilities, and the need to reduce—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Let me stop—ask this question. 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. On the Lower Mon you—if I heard you right you 

said the President’s budget does not provide the funding for the fiscal year 2017. Right? You said that, right? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. What happens—do we have contracts that are going 

to expire in that time? Or is there already a contract to work past 

that time so the funding is there? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. So, again, the President’s budget was $225 

million. Olmsted was a primary focus of those dollars. But the Congress this year, in the appropriation process and under the 

workplan process, we are able to invest some $404 million to our 

inland waterways construction account. 

What that means is we will not only address Olmsted at a capability level of funding, we are also able to pick up and continue 

working Kentucky lock, Lower Mon, and Chick lock with the funding provided by Congress in fiscal year 2016. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. What’s the responsibility of the Corps 

to survey and maintain the channels, the approaches, and the 

berths primarily used by the Coast Guard, Navy, and Federal Government? How does that interaction work between the Coast Guard 

and the Navy and—to get these surveys done for the channels that 

are important for them? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. The Corps of 

Engineers surveying authority devolves from project authorities 

that the Congress gives us for navigation channels for commercial 

navigation. We execute those with dollars provided by Congress. 

We do have some authorities as a byproduct of those project authorities to do some of the surveying you described, but in other 

cases we don’t. Where we don’t, we can take funding from other 

agencies to perform those surveys that are outside the authority 

that Congress has given us for such surveys. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think—back to the hydrographic survey—I think the 

Corps has about 100 vessels for doing those surveys. What condition are those vessels in? 

Mr. BELK. Sir, it varies. But on balance, and across the fleet, 

they are older. I don’t have an average age. I can get that back to 

the subcommittee. They are older, and we are—again, like our sister agencies here—looking at recapitalization challenges as they 

continue to age. 

30 

Mr. GIBBS. Of course, I guess you have got the option of doing 

more private contracting. You could do some of that anyways for 

the surveys, right? 

Mr. BELK. Yes, sir. We do. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are there many interruptions in transferring the data 

between NOAA and—or the Coast Guard? And if there was, has 

there been any delays that—this data we talked about that the 

Corps does, working with NOAA and the Coast Guard? 

Mr. BELK. Sir, we have not experienced any. We are required by 

statute to provide our surveys to NOAA within 60 days of obtaining 

them for our channel surveys, and we have been meeting those requirements. NOAA uses those surveys, in addition to many other 

sources of data, to execute their charting responsibility. 

Mr. GIBBS. If my memory serves me right, was there an issue in 

Corpus Christi on this? 

[Pause.] 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, I am done. I don’t know if you got any followup 

questions, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I am going to take this in a somewhat different direction for a few moments, an issue that this committee, our subcommittee, has dealt with on and off over the years. 

And it is the salvage and marine firefighting regulations. 

The waivers for the response systems, including ships and other 

equipment, those waivers expired in February of 2015. Now, those 

are waivers given to private sector, so that they had time to invest 

in the necessary equipment and ships and other items to deal with 

pollution and—as well as fire and safety. This question, therefore, 

goes to the Coast Guard. 

Where are we with assurances that these private organizations 

actually have the equipment and are able to respond? 

Admiral THOMAS. Congressman, I am not the best Coast Guard 

representative to address that issue. It falls under my colleague’s 

response portfolio. I am familiar with the requirements for salvaging marine firefighting, the plans and the waivers. I don’t have 

a current status, so I would have to take that for the record to get 

back to you with details. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought that might be the case, the answer, 

but I threw it out there because we would like to get at this and 

have some assurances that these response mechanisms are actually 

in existence. And so, if you could run that back through the system 

and come back to us with an answer—— 

Admiral THOMAS. We will be happy to do that. 

[The information follows:] 

A long and collaborative development process led to the identification of distinct salvage and marine firefighting (SMFF) services for assessment, stabilization, and special operations. This consultative process resulted in regulations that went into effect in 2009, with a 2011 compliance date, requiring tank vessels to plan for SMFF services. In 2013, SMFF services became 

a required component for non-tank VRPs as well. Today, all vessels which 

must have a VRP are required to plan for SMFF response services. 

The Coast Guard instituted a verification program to review SMFF resource providers’ capabilities and planning from 2011 through 2013. The review and subsequent corrective actions, which included the use of temporary waivers, improved the overall quality of submitted information. To 

31 

date, corrective actions have been made by the SMFF resource providers 

and no waivers remain in place. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have a series of five written questions that I 

would like to submit to the record and get that on the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

I want to thank our panel for their distinguished service and for 

being here today. And also be aware—and I am sure you are 

aware—of how important it is to adopt all this new technology, get 

our inland waterway system and our ports all working, and work 

together with our intermodal systems for our national security and 

also our economic security. 

So thank you for your service, and this concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

32 


Insert offset folio 9 here 21415.009
33 


Insert offset folio 10 here 21415.010
34 


Insert offset folio 11 here 21415.011
35 


Insert offset folio 12 here 21415.012
36 


Insert offset folio 13 here 21415.013
37 


Insert offset folio 14 here 21415.014
38 


Insert offset folio 15 here 21415.015
39 


Insert offset folio 16 here 21415.016
40 


Insert offset folio 17 here 21415.017
41 


Insert offset folio 18 here 21415.018
42 


Insert offset folio 19 here 21415.019
43 


Insert offset folio 20 here 21415.020
44 


Insert offset folio 21 here 21415.021
45 


Insert offset folio 22 here 21415.022
46 


Insert offset folio 23 here 21415.023
47 


Insert offset folio 24 here 21415.024
48 


Insert offset folio 25 here 21415.025
49 


Insert offset folio 26 here 21415.026
50 


Insert offset folio 27 here 21415.027
51 


Insert offset folio 28 here 21415.028
52 


Insert offset folio 29 here 21415.029
53 


Insert offset folio 30 here 21415.030
54 


Insert offset folio 31 here 21415.031
55 


Insert offset folio 32 here 21415.032
56 


Insert offset folio 33 here 21415.033
57 


Insert offset folio 34 here 21415.034
58 


Insert offset folio 35 here 21415.035
59 


Insert offset folio 36 here 21415.036
60 


Insert offset folio 37 here 21415.037
61 


Insert offset folio 38 here 21415.038
62 


Insert offset folio 39 here 21415.039
63 


Insert offset folio 40 here 21415.040
64 


Insert offset folio 41 here 21415.041
65 


Insert offset folio 42 here 21415.042
66 


Insert offset folio 43 here 21415.043
67 


Insert offset folio 44 here 21415.044
68 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 45 here 21415.045