U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–585 PDF 2014

FINDING YOUR WAY: THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL 

AIDS TO NAVIGATION 

(113–51) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

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 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida, 

Vice Chair 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JANICE HAHN, California 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, 

United States Coast Guard ................................................................................. 3 

Rear Admiral Gerd F. Glang, director, Office of Coast Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 3 

James R. Hannon, Chief, Operations and Regulatory, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................... 3 

PANEL 2 

Dana A. Goward, president and executive director, Resilient Navigation and 

Timing Foundation ............................................................................................... 20 

Larry A. Mayer, Ph.D., professor and director, School for Marine Science; 

director, Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping; and codirector, NOAA/ 

UNH Joint Hydrographic Center, University of New Hampshire ................... 20 

Scott Perkins, GISP, on behalf of the Management Association for Private 

Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS) ............................................................... 20 

Captain Lynn Korwatch, executive director, Marine Exchange of the San 

Francisco Bay Region ........................................................................................... 20 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. John Garamendi, of California ...................................................................... 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio ................................................................................ 35 

Rear Admiral Gerd F. Glang .................................................................................. 38 

James R. Hannon .................................................................................................... 47 

Dana A. Goward ...................................................................................................... 50 

Larry A. Mayer, Ph.D. ............................................................................................. 53 

Scott Perkins, GISP ................................................................................................. 60 

Captain Lynn Korwatch .......................................................................................... 64 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Captain Lynn Korwatch, executive director, Marine Exchange of the San 

Francisco Bay Region, answers to questions for the record from Hon. John 

Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ......... 71 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Boat Owners Association of the United States, written testimony ..................... 73 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86585.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86585.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86585.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86585.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86585.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86585.006
(1) 

FINDING YOUR WAY: THE FUTURE OF 

FEDERAL AIDS TO NAVIGATION 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD

AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in Room 

2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HUNTER. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to review the future of the Federal 

Government’s navigation programs. I want to thank and commend 

Ranking Member Garamendi for requesting the subcommittee hold 

this hearing and explore this important topic. 

We rely on the navigation activities of the Coast Guard, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA to provide for a safe, secure, 

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

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

trade enters or leaves the U.S. by vessels navigating the Marine 

Transportation System. 

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

security of Marine Transportation System, the navigable waters of 

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

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

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

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

navigation channels throughout the country; and the Coast Guard 

is charged with the maintenance of over 50,000 Federal Government-owned buoys, beacons, and other aids to navigation that 

mark 25,000 miles of waterways. 

In fiscal year 2013, NOAA, the Corps, and the Coast Guard spent over $2.5 billion to carry out these navigation missions. In light of 

the current budget environment, I am interested in exploring ways 

to carry out these missions in a more cost-effective manner, while 

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

In an age of electronic communications and digital technology, I 

am interested in the savings and efficiencies that can be gained 

through an E-Navigation system, as well as the progress we have 

2 

made in implementing E-Navigation. However, I am also concerned 

that as an E-Navigation system is built out, adequate redundancies 

and backup systems are put in place to ensure safety. 

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

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses what progress they 

have made toward making such a system a reality. 

And I have to tell you, too, from my experience as an artillery 

officer, we went to GPS for artillery. Artillery is the big cannons 

we use in the Marine Corps, and we shoot with them. But you have 

to know where you exist on the planet to know where you are 

shooting at. And we went to GPS in about 2005, and we also 

went—we still had maps and we still knew how to lay a battery. 

We knew how to do that, but we switched to GPS so we could do 

it much faster. If the GPS went down, which the military always 

thinks of, especially in a combat situation, you are always able to 

go back and use the old system. And I think that if you can do it 

in war time, when it comes to shooting giant projectiles at the 

enemy, you can sure as hell do it in the ocean and have some kind 

of a backup system to—in case the GPS goes down or the Chinese 

shoot our satellites out, or whatever. The ability is there. 

So, I think that we are lagging a little bit behind the times, probably because we haven’t been forced to change. I think in the military, especially in a wartime environment, you are forced to 

change. And I think we are lagging here when it comes to NOAA 

and the Coast Guard on doing the same thing. 

And I would like to thank Mr. Garamendi for holding this hearing, for requesting it, and with that I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try to be 

brief, because I really want to hear from the witnesses here. 

Before I begin, I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for following through on my request to convene this morning’s hearing. 

We are in the midst of a revolution. Not a political or social one, 

which may be of interest to you and I, but, really, one that speaks 

to technology. It is evident all across this Nation—Sacramento 

River, where I live, the coastal waters of San Francisco, and even 

San Diego, which I know you are interested in—this technological 

revolution can be a major part of our national system and aids to 

navigation. 

The emergence and rapid evolution of advanced satellite telecommunications, even GPS, and noting that the Marine Corps is 

moving rapidly into the modern world. Remote sensing, computer 

technologies, all this has changed, and it gives us an opportunity 

to ensure the safe passage of commercial and recreational vessels 

that transit the coastal inland waters of the United States. This 

transition to a system of E-Navigation, the tools and technologies 

offer many advantages over the conventional aids to navigation 

such as nautical charts, beacons, buoys, and lighthouses that have 

guided our mariners for generations. 

But this transition also raises important questions. Are the electronic systems reliable, and is the infrastructure resilient? Can it, 

or should it, replace our entire system of physical aids to navigation? How are we going to maintain and financially sustain the ENavigation infrastructure and technologies over time? And finally, 

3 

what is the appropriate role of the non-Federal partners in this enterprise? 

The responsibility to ensure the safety of navigation is one of the 

Federal Government’s oldest tasks, dating back even before the 

coastal survey by Thomas Jefferson in 1807. Fortunately, our system of aids in navigation has proven itself to be one of the best investments ever made by Congress. But how we manage the rapid 

transition to a world of E-Navigation technologies will affect the future of safety and efficiency of the maritime commerce for decades 

to come. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and let’s get on 

with it. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. And I just want to 

point out, too, I mean, one of the reasons I am interested in this 

is DHS has studied the Presidential directive that told them to create a backup system for GPS, and their conclusion was that we 

needed to study it more. So they did a study, and now we are going 

to do more studies, and that is the circle loop, the endless loop of 

stupidity that we have in Congress, instead of just getting something done. 

Anyway, so with that, our first panel of witnesses today are Rear 

Admiral Joseph Servidio, Assistant Commandant for Prevention 

Policy at the United States Coast Guard; Rear Admiral Gerd 

Glang, director of the Office of Coast Survey of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Jim Hannon, Chief of 

Operations and Regulatory for the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

Admiral Servidio, you are recognized for your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL JOSEPH SERVIDIO, ASSISTANT 

COMMANDANT FOR PREVENTION POLICY, UNITED STATES 

COAST GUARD; REAR ADMIRAL GERD F. GLANG, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF COAST SURVEY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; AND JAMES R. HANNON, 

CHIEF, OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY, UNITED STATES 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking 

Member Garamendi, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is my pleasure to be here today to discuss the Coast 

Guard’s role in managing and maintaining the Federal navigation 

system that supports hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce 

and 13 million jobs in the U.S. 

The Coast Guard absorbed the Lighthouse Service in 1939. And 

back then, there were fewer than a quarter of today’s 50,000 Federal aids and 50,000 private aids to navigation. Recently, we have 

implemented numerous functional and environmental improvements to both fixed and floating aids, including solarization, installing the latest day/night LED lighting, transitioning to environmentally friendly codings, and the use of more efficient mooring 

systems. These improvements enhance performance by increasing 

visibility, improving reliability, and reducing maintenance. 

Our vision for a 21st-century navigation system is one that improves safety, recognizes the need for resiliency, and facilitates the 

flow of commerce through an optimum balance of visual and elecVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Sep 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\2-4-14~1\86585.TXT JEAN
4 

tronic aids. To achieve this vision, the Coast Guard is integrating 

electronic positioning and navigation technology, and leveraging investments in infrastructure, such as the automated identification 

system, or AIS, to provide mariners with the most accurate and 

timely nav info available. 

We are also focused on increasing the efficiency of our support 

system. This includes investing in vessel sustainment programs for 

our multimission buoy tender fleet, leveraging the relatively low 

cost, yet highly effective capabilities of our aids-to-navigation 

teams, and adopting cost-saving best practices at all program echelons. 

One of the most important considerations for the Coast Guard is 

the ever-increasing size and number of vessels operating on U.S. 

waterways. With increased ship size, the margin for error for safe 

navigation in our waterways is getting increasingly smaller. With 

the support of the Committee on the Maritime Transportation System, the Coast Guard is working closely with a broad spectrum of 

Federal agencies and our key partners, the Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA, to identify and mitigate evolving risks on our Nation’s waterways. Together, we are engaging the public to ensure 

that we gather input from the full range of waterway users so we 

make informed decisions and provide stakeholders with the information they need. 

Mariners and industry have told me how important timely and 

accurate information is in managing waterway risks. This is why 

the Coast Guard is looking to leverage the capability provided by 

AIS to transmit real-time information directly to the mariner. 

When fully implemented, we expect the system will be able to provide immediate notification of safety and security zones, hazards to 

navigation, and special events and operations. 

Moving forward, we will also continue to leverage the capabilities 

provided by increasingly sophisticated and affordable electronic 

chart systems which can display electronic nav aids, radar overlays, and text-capable notifications. Our modernization plan will include opportunities to eliminate unnecessarily or overly redundant 

visual aids when appropriate. 

As we take advantage of the capabilities electronics systems provide, it is important to understand that there will always be a need 

for visual aids to navigation in America’s waterways. Electronic 

aids and information transmitted over AIS can provide vital resiliency, and can be a valuable augmentation tool. However, safe 

navigation requires visual references to validate position information. 

Coast Guard efforts have yielded significant results. For example, the use of electronic aid markers during last summer’s Americas Cup in San Francisco was widely touted as a great success. We 

will continue to evaluate lessons learned from this event and integrate them into our developing modernization plans. Together with 

our key NOAA and Army Corps of Engineers partners, and in coordination with waterway users, we will design and implement a 

Federal navigation safety system composed of the optimum balance 

of visual and electronic aids, one well suited for future needs of 

mariners and navigation. 

5 

Finally, I would like to thank Congress and this subcommittee in 

particular for the support and the investments you have made to 

help us improve our navigation safety programs. I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral Glang? 

Admiral GLANG. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking 

Member Garamendi, and members of the subcommittee, I am Rear 

Admiral Gerd Glang, director of the Office of Coast Survey at the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce. And in this capacity I also serve as the U.S. 

National Hydrographer. Thank you for inviting NOAA to testify 

today on Federal aids to navigation and the products, services, and 

expertise NOAA provides in support of safe and efficient marine 

navigation and commerce. 

I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Coast Guard and the 

Army Corps of Engineers. Our agencies work together on the water 

every day, and at higher levels, such as through the interagency 

Committee on the Marine Transportation System, to maintain and 

improve maritime infrastructure, protect life and property, and facilitate marine commerce. 

When you plan a road trip, there are certain things that you 

need upfront to make your trip safer and more time efficient, such 

as maps, weather forecasts, and traffic conditions. Mariners rely on 

similar information before going to sea and while on the water. 

They need accurate and authoritative nautical charts, marine 

weather forecasts, and information on tides, currents, waves, and 

other environmental conditions that could pose navigation challenges. This information becomes even more valuable as ships get 

larger and larger, and the sea room around them decreases as they 

seek to gain every inch of available draft. 

The Federal partners all have important roles to play in maintaining maritime infrastructure and supporting the Marine Transportation System and safe navigation. NOAA plays a critical and 

unique role in providing the informational infrastructure that 

makes maritime commerce safer, more reliable, and more efficient. 

Since Thomas Jefferson called for and Congress authorized a survey of the U.S. coast in 1807, NOAA and its predecessor organizations have been the authoritative Federal source for domestic marine charts, as well as water level and positioning data and services. NOAA maps the sea floor, provides the Nation’s nautical 

charts, and quickly conducts hydrographic surveys following storms 

or other emergencies. We also work closely with the U.S. Navy and 

the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, who have responsibilities for hydrography and charting overseas. 

NOAA is the source of information on tides, water levels, and 

currents, and provides the Nation’s underlying horizontal and 

vertical positioning framework, which serves as a spatial foundation for all mapping and charting. This framework also informs 

flood risk determination, transportation planning, and land use decisions. NOAA is responsible for issuing marine weather forecasts 

and warnings for U.S. coastal waters and Great Lakes, the Pacific 

and Atlantic Oceans, and portions of the Arctic Ocean. 

6 

NOAA is also the lead Federal agency for the U.S. Integrated 

Ocean Observing System, or IOOS, a partnership that provides valuable ocean data and services. 

Lastly, NOAA supports emergency response within U.S. ports 

and waterways by providing scientific support for hazardous spill 

response, as well as hydrographic surveys and aerial imagery to 

support damage assessment and the resumption of maritime commerce. 

In fulfilling these responsibilities, NOAA sits on the cutting edge 

of technological development, and uses innovative approaches and 

partnerships to meet stakeholder needs. For example, NOAA uses 

the latest multibeam echosounder technology and airborne laser, or 

LiDAR, technologies to more accurately and efficiently map the sea 

floor and shoreline, and is deploying new sensors for NOAA’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System, or PORTS. NOAA is also advancing its charts and other navigation-related products, integrating them where possible, improving their accessibility, their 

formats, and their use. 

Our partners and daily interactions with the Coast Guard and 

Army Corps are essential in assuring our waterways are safe and 

our products and services are up to date and relevant. As we work 

through the CMTS and develop these technological advancements 

that will result in seamlessly integrated Federal navigation support and improved collaboration in collecting and disseminating informational infrastructure. 

NOAA’s strengths include our versatility and responsiveness to 

customer needs. We regularly seek user feedback on our navigation 

products, and strive to improve those tools to meet emerging needs. 

In this effort, we are currently working with the Coast Guard and 

the Army Corps to plan a series of listening sessions around the 

Nation. Our goal is to better understand customer needs and identify the navigation improvements that will best meet those needs. 

As you mentioned, 99 percent of America’s overseas trade enters 

or leaves the U.S. by ships and demands on our waterways and 

maritime infrastructure will only increase. NOAA continues to 

work closely with our Federal colleagues to provide that informational infrastructure. 

I thank you for inviting NOAA to testify today, and I welcome 

any questions you may have. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Admiral. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Hannon, you are recognized. 

Mr. HANNON. Good morning, Chairman Hunter and Ranking 

Member Garamendi, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Jim Hannon, Chief of Operations and Regulatory 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am honored to be here 

today to discuss the future of Federal aids to navigation in the 

United States. 

The Corps helps facilitate commercial navigation by providing 

support for safe, reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable waterborne transportation systems. We now invest over 

$1.8 billion annually to study, construct, replace, rehabilitate, operate, and maintain commercial navigation infrastructure for approximately 13,000 miles of coastal channels and 12,000 miles of 

inland waterways. The Corps works in partnership with Federal 

7 

agencies, to include the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, as well as stakeholders, to help 

manage these navigation on these waterways. 

With respect to Federal aids to navigation, we are responsible for 

providing surveys to these coastal channels and inland waterways 

to the Coast Guard, who then deploys its aids to navigation to 

mark the channel. This information is also then reflected on the 

coastal nautical charts provided by the NOAA and the inland nautical charts that are provided by the Corps of Engineers. 

Over the past decade, we have experienced an exponential 

growth in data we create and use to operate, maintain, and manage these assets. We have also seen this same trend throughout the 

marine transportation community. Over the past several years, we 

have developed frameworks and strategies to improve data value 

by converting raw data into information and knowledge. Our philosophy is to collect data once and use it many times by making 

it available throughout our organization and to others. E-Navigation is the term we use to define these principles, and the national 

and international definition of E-Navigation speaks to the harmonizing of this data across the Nation’s navigable waterways, and to 

including all stakeholders, both public and private. 

The Corps has successfully developed and deployed a number of 

E-Navigation tools that are in use today. As the U.S. nautical 

charting authority for the inland waterways, we have created over 

7,200 miles of detailed inland electronic navigational charts that 

support the navigation safety. In 2013, over 1 million mariners 

downloaded these charts and chart updates, ensuring they had the 

most up-to-date information for navigating the rivers. 

Another E-Navigation tool combines our inland electronic charts 

with U.S. Coast Guard Automatic Identification System, their AIS. 

The Corps Lock Operations Management Application—LOMA—visualizes real-time movement of commercial vessels on the inland 

waterways. LOMA was deliberately designed to be compatible with 

the U.S. Coast Guard’s AIS program to provide real-time quality 

assurance and long-term data archival and retrieval. 

In addition to providing both agencies with real-time situational 

awareness, LOMA also transmits information called river information services directly to the vessels on the inland waterways. This 

includes transmitting water current velocities at our locks to bargetow operators, so they are situationally aware of potential unexpected conditions at our lock entrances. 

We also use the LOMA tool to transmit a range of information 

such as locations of dredges, construction activities, and to issue 

other marine notices. We are presently working with the NOAA 

and with the Coast Guard to create an integrated three-agency marine safety information notice for broadcast on all of the coastal 

and inland ports and channels. This will provide commercial mariners and the public a single notice that includes all three agencies’ 

information. We expect the first version to be operational by the 

end of the year. 

We utilize a coastal E-Navigation tool called E-Hydro to provide 

our channel condition surveys to NOAA. This tool assembles and 

disseminates consistent and reliable surveys from across the Corps 

by formatting the data into international standards to meet 

8 

NOAA’s nautical charting needs. E-Hydro is Internet-based, so it 

significantly reduces the amount of time it once took us to provide 

this data. 

In closing, the Corps is actively engaged in developing and improving and deploying digital navigation information by harmonizing this data through our E-Navigation principles. Through a 

working group of the Committee on the Marine Transportation System, we have been working with the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, and 

other Federal agencies to use their data, make our data and information available, link this information, and then provide it to 

mariners and operators with the goal of improving the safety of our 

Nation’s channels and waterways. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here and testify today, and be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Mr. Hannon. We are going to begin questioning now. 

I just have a quick one. What is the overlap? Or is there no overlap? Is there any redundancy? Does everybody have a lane and 

they stay in it, and it complements everybody else’s? 

Admiral GLANG. Chairman, let me take a crack at that answer, 

and maybe the others, as well. 

So, we work very hard to stay in our lanes. That is probably a 

good way to describe it. So with the Army Corps, for instance—I 

will draw you a mental picture—approaching the Chesapeake Bay, 

there is a Federal channel, that is the Army Corps’ responsibility. 

As you come in that Federal channel, you will see the aids to navigation, or the lighthouses. That is the Coast Guard’s responsibility. 

And then, to bring all that information together on a nautical 

chart, that is NOAA’s information. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. 

Mr. HANNON. Sir, I would also echo what Admiral Glang says. 

We do the surveys on inland and coastal. We provide the information to the Coast Guard and to the NOAA to be able to do the 

coastal charts, which we don’t do. And then we use that information to do the inland charts. Then again, Mr. Chairman, the Corps 

provides that information so both the NOAA and the Coast Guard 

can provide the aids to navigation. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would say that if 

there is any overlap, we are doing whatever we can to see which 

agency is the most effective and efficient at doing that and reducing that. We have met monthly. We are going right from here to 

an infrastructure investment roundtable together. We work closely 

together to see that we leverage each of our capabilities, which are 

unique, in managing our waterways. Because the resources are not 

limitless. So we recognize the need to, again, work together for the 

mariners and look at the future of what our navigation needs are. 

Mr. HUNTER. So let me ask you. The U.S. Geological Survey has 

a different coastline than you do on their maps, for instance. There 

is two different coastlines if you look at yours and you look at 

theirs. 

My question would be—I will wait until the admiral is finished 

getting his answer. I am just kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

9 

Mr. HUNTER. I am sure he wasn’t telling them—did you hear the 

question? The coastline differs with different surveys and different 

maps. 

Admiral GLANG. That is right. So it is my understanding that it 

is the shoreline on NOAA nautical charts that is used for the purpose of legal issues. And it is certainly the National Geodetic Survey, which is our sister program within NOAA who maintains the 

national shoreline. So it is my understanding that USGS is actually getting some of their shoreline data from us. 

Mr. HUNTER. But they are different. I am just bringing up—you 

don’t have to have the answer for that, because there probably isn’t 

one, but that is just an example. 

Really quick, when it comes to the E stuff, when it comes to the 

GPS, there is about 13 million fun boaters out there. You thinking 

of anything like an iPhone app? And not one that we develop for 

$5 billion, but like a $500 iPhone app that allows them to see stuff 

and download? And to go along with that, do you ever see a time 

where you don’t need visual cues, where it is all electronic? Or is 

part of being on the ocean that you are going to have visual aids 

because we had them 5,000 years ago and we are going to have 

them now? 

Mr. HANNON. Let me take the first question regarding applications and recreation boaters on our inland navigation systems. It 

is about sharing—our E-Navigation is about sharing that data and 

making it available. And we are working to have some smartphone 

applications. In fact, I was just looking at a couple yesterday that 

cost about $10 to download those apps. Of course, to be able to 

print the charts, you still have to pay to print the charts. 

But we are working to move in that direction, where we make 

it more accessible to folks to have ease of getting that information 

for inland waterway and navigation systems. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Mr. Chairman, I think your question is on 

point with regards to the different needs of the different waterway 

users. There is a number of people now—kayaking and paddle 

boats are the biggest growth area, as far as recreational vessels go. 

So they have very different capabilities than that pilot bringing a 

deep draft vessel in that has a pilot laptop. We need to make sure 

our navigation system meets all of those users’ needs. 

Now, it might not be Federal aids to navigation. It might be private aids to navigation. There might be a whole spectrum that we 

need to look at. But we recognize the waterway users—there is a 

number of them—and they all have different capabilities. And we 

need to make sure that our nav system of the future addresses 

those various user needs and their capabilities. 

Mr. HUNTER. I would say lastly—I am out of time—but, Admiral, 

when you just—in your comments, when you said when you go on 

a road trip you make sure that you have a map and all this stuff, 

and my—what I told John was, no, you just—an iPhone. And that 

is true, I think, for everybody. I mean, you know, 10 years ago we 

would go buy the road atlas and make sure that we turn—watch 

our odometer. But I don’t think you do that anymore. I think that 

is one of the points of this hearing, is to establish that. 

And, with that, I yield to the ranking member. 

10 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let’s carry on where you left off, Chairman 

Hunter. And if you would like some more time to carry it on, please 

do. 

But there is a opportunity here for public-private partnership. It 

is obviously taking place with various kinds of apps that can be 

purchased. But all of that is dependent upon the database and the 

ability for these private sector entrepreneurs and companies to access that database. How is that working? Is the database available 

for these private organizations to get that information and then to 

publish it? And what problems might there be, as a result of that? 

Any one of you want to start with that? Admiral? 

Admiral GLANG. Yes, sir, thank you. So this is actually kind of 

the exciting part of the future of navigation. At NOAA we make 

available for free the raster version, which is kind of an image 

version of our electronic charts, and our electronic navigation 

charts for free to the public, and that has been available now for 

at least a dozen years. And what we are seeing is a large entrepreneurship out there where folks are building things like smartphone 

apps or GPS-based chart plotter systems, and they take up our 

charts in either of those formats—or, in some cases, in both—and 

then they add value to it and make that product available to the 

boater or to the mariner. 

A new product we just rolled out is making our charts available 

in pdf, which is the portable document format form, so mariners 

can actually print a chart out at home, if they want to do that. 

PDF will not meet carriage for the regulatory requirement, but it 

is certainly a way to get the chart into as many hands of as many 

boaters as possible for as low a cost as possible. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Pick up that regulatory piece of it. 

Admiral GLANG. Yes, sir. So ships that need to meet carriage requirements under the SOLAS agreements and the IMO are required to carry navigation charts from an authorized hydrographic 

office. So for U.S. waters that is the National Ocean Service. And 

at the moment, the state of play is shippers are required to have 

paper charts. And there is a transition process now where they are 

using electronic systems. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I will just go Coast Guard and then Army Corps 

of Engineers. Same subject matter, availability of the database for 

private entrepreneurs and others that want to develop an application. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Yes, sir. Generally, what the Coast Guard 

does when it comes to regulatory, we look at international standards. And the international standards are the ones that are overarching for the AIS system, for GPS, for raster, for radars on vessels and other types of information displays, so that you can take 

that information, you can use them in multiple sources. As other 

GPS regimes come on board, there will be an international standard for how they need to be transmitting data, so again we can 

use—so others can look at that. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Are private entities able to access this information? Any problem in doing so? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Well, the security of some of the information, 

that is part of the reason why we have a Government function to 

oversee some of the security for AIS and other things in our ports, 

11 

sir. It is a transparent system, so that every vessel can see the information provided by other vessels, but there are spoofing, and 

there is other types of things, and that is why we have capabilities 

in place to address that. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Army Corps? 

Mr. HANNON. Yes, sir. As I mentioned, our information is provided across the Internet, Web-based services, which was really 

how the two apps were developed, so private industry could pick 

up that information and then they can have that information printed off for anyone who goes to those apps. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. Is there a need for a formal advisory committee that would assist the three entities in developing additional 

information and making it more readily available, and also updating or upgrading this information? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sir, the Coast Guard has a Federal advisory 

committee, NAVSAC, Navigation Safety Advisory Committee, that 

we consult with. And they give us regular recommendations with 

regards to transitioning, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable. 

Mr. HANNON. Yes, sir. I would also offer that. I believe the work 

that we are involved in with the Coast Guard and NOAA, as well 

as other Federal agencies within the Committee on the Marine 

Transportation System and this E-Navigation action team that is 

assimilating information and pulling information together, is a 

good way to address your question, as well, sir. 

And, of course, we all reach out to various stakeholders, navigation industry, international industries, as well, to get information 

and plug back in to those—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Is that a formal process, or is it ad hoc, that advisory—from the private sector? 

Mr. HANNON. Reaching out? At least with us, the Corps of Engineers, it is through our various meetings that we have with our industry partners, with the navigation industry, the various industry 

partners, with PIANC, the international navigation association. I 

wouldn’t call it ad hoc; we intentionally reach out and, through 

those dialogues, get that information. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Ranking Member, sir, I believe one of the 

members of the second panel actually serves on NAVSAC. So they 

might be—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. Would you recommend any changes 

in the law or the regulations to further the purpose of E-Navigation? And, if so, what are those changes that you might think necessary, besides more money? Or maybe we ought to just focus on 

more money. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sir, I do think that your—as you mentioned, 

the money aspect. People think that electronic aids to navigation 

is going to be a money saver. I am not sure whether that is going 

to be the case, as we go forward. 

I am not aware of any laws that need to be changed at this point 

in time, sir. But I am not sure whether the future will be cheaper 

than what the present system is, because—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, what hindrances are there in the present 

system that would delay or cause not to occur E-Navigation and 

the integration of E-Navigation with the other navigational aids? 

12 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sir, I think the greatest issue right now is the 

needs of the various segment of users of our waterways. When I 

go to pilots, they will identify certain buoys that could be removed. 

If I go to recreational boaters, they will say those are the buoys 

that need to stay, those are the systems. 

So, I think we need to have that discussion, and this is what we 

are looking to do, both NOAA, the Army Corps, and the Coast 

Guard, to have public listening sessions, to have an outreach, to 

recognize that there are electronic systems that are everywhere 

now that were nonexistent 20 years ago. And we need to transition 

into what the new navigation system looks like, and take our current system and see how we can transition to what is necessary for 

the future, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Any other comments on that? 

Admiral GLANG. Yes, sir. So I am not aware of any laws or regulations at this point that we would want to change. I think of ENavigation as an evolution. And maybe an analogy is the Internet, 

and how we have learned to use that and exploit it. And I think 

if you broadly equate E-Navigation with a marine intranet, then 

one of the things that comes to mind is having a reliable and robust way to get that information ashore, or among ships through 

the Internet. And to enable that, you have to think about some 

kind of a coastal infrastructure to support that kind of marine 

Internet out to, say, 30 nautical miles. So that is the kind of infrastructure, the big pieces, I think, that would really enable us to 

fully take advantage of E-Navigation. 

Mr. HANNON. Sir, we have not seen any laws, regulations, or 

policies that create any challenges or impediments. 

I think one of the challenges for us just becomes priorities. We 

interact with our various stakeholders to understand what their 

needs are, and then collaboratively work with them to address 

those needs. I think the other part is just your basic firewall IT 

challenges, as we learn and grow. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank the ranking member. The gentleman from 

the Carolinas is recognized, Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start out by saying that I am very blessed to live in a coastal area, and have spent 

a lot of time on the waterways, offshore and inshore, and am so 

very impressed with what you all have been able to do, the navigation aids here. And I have also had the pleasure of being able to 

navigate in places other than the United States, and I can tell you 

that it sure is a lot easier to navigate here with the aids that you 

do have. 

And, you know, I can sit here with my smartphone today and access the data from a NOAA buoy 40 miles offshore and see what 

the wind is doing and the waves are doing, and I can look at a 

weather satellite and see what the water temperatures are, and it 

is fascinating, what you have been able to do. 

I also see, not with respect to navigational aids, but my primary 

concern here, as a congressperson, is jobs. I think that is what our 

country is concerned about, and making this country competitive. 

And when I see things, what we have done with the Port of Miami, 

and it has taken 15 years to get a permit to dredge that port, what 

13 

we are dealing with at the Port of Charleston right now, I know 

there are a lot of ways that we can make us more efficient, because 

if we can’t get these ports dredged, we can’t use the post-Panamax 

ships. It costs $500, $700 less to ship a container from Charleston 

to Singapore with a post-Panamax ship than it does with the ships 

we currently use. So if we can’t get these ports dredged, then, obviously, we are putting our manufacturers in the United States at a 

huge disadvantage to the rest of the world. 

So, here is my question to you with respect to navigational aids. 

What are you doing right now, how will this make us more competitive, how will this make our ports more accessible to international trade, and create American jobs? That is my primary concern. That is what I want to hear about. And how can I help you 

do that? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sir, let me take a shot at that. I can tell you 

right now, NOAA puts out ports data, which is real-time information on the height of the water. St. Lawrence Seaway is allowing 

vessels to have certain equipment on board to load 3 inches deeper. 

That is significant, when you end up looking at the efficiency of our 

ports and commerce and jobs and other things that go with it. 

From this meeting, sir, this afternoon, the Committee on Maritime Transportation Systems has a meeting on infrastructure investment. We are going to have a roundtable that all of us are 

going to be participating in, looking at how we most effectively use 

the Federal dollars that go into infrastructure investment. But—— 

Mr. HUNTER. We didn’t get our invite to that, just so you know. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTER. That is OK. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We will let you know the results, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. I am sure you will. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. So I have recognized the need for it. Vessels, 

again, the new Panamax vessels, are going to be 1,150 feet long, 

as opposed to—two decades ago we saw about 820-foot-long ships. 

And the new Panamax vessels are 50 percent wider. So we do need 

to look at those types of investments, sir, because our infrastructure is designed for a smaller vessel at the present point in time. 

Mr. RICE. Well, it would appear to me that would just be moving 

the markers around. I mean what can we do to make it more efficient? What can we do to make it easier here than anywhere else? 

What can we do to make it cheaper here than anywhere else to 

pass cargo in and out? You guys are the experts. 

Mr. HANNON. Let me discuss our inland navigation system, with 

our locks and dams. We have 197 locks on our inland navigation 

system. The majority of those locks are over 50 years old, our infrastructure is aging. 

One of the benefits that we see with our E-Navigation—and I 

mentioned this in my testimony on our river information services— 

is our ability to transmit to the tow operators real-time current velocities that are at the entrances to our locks. So they know, as 

they approach our lock and dams, what is happening there, and 

can gauge and adjust as they come in. This means less collisions 

or ‘‘allisions,’’ as we say in the industry, which means less opportunity to have already aging infrastructure further damaged. 

Mr. RICE. Kind of like timing your stop lights? 

14 

Mr. HANNON. Yes, sir, that is. We also see opportunities to see 

what traffic is moving up and down the waterways, and to work 

with industry to be more efficient in how we move those tows 

through our locks and dams on our inland system. 

We also are able to share information in real-time about what 

are those conditions that are taking place, like dredges that might 

be in an area, so vessel operators would know as they were approaching and can make adjustments. 

Mr. RICE. I should know this, but I am a freshman, so you forgive me. Is the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies—are they 

available for maintenance and improvement of your navigational 

aids? 

Mr. HANNON. They are for the coastal channels and coastal ports, 

but not for the inland channels. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. And not for the navigation aids, sir. 

Mr. RICE. OK. Not for the navigation aids? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. For the channels, sir, not for the aids to navigation. 

Mr. RICE. OK. So do you have ample funds to maintain your 

navigational aids? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We have ample funds at present, sir, to maintain our navigational system. We are going to be doing listening 

sessions and seeing what the needs are in the future. And again, 

right now we have ample funds to maintain the system we have, 

sir. 

Mr. RICE. Is LORAN still operational? Please tell me no. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. LORAN is not operational, sir. The Nation 

made a decision to do away with LORAN. And, as such, we are no 

longer transmitting over LORAN, sir, in the U.S. 

Mr. RICE. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Hey, we are just going to— 

I am sure Mr. Garamendi has got some more questions. I just want 

to ask really quickly. You said that—you talked about the 

Panamax ships, and the Army Corps says that is something we are 

going to look at. Why aren’t we fast-tracking this? Why is it taking 

10 or 15 years? Why hasn’t the Coast Guard come out vocally for 

fast-tracking this stuff, and NOAA and, together with the Army 

Corps, doing everything that you can to make sure that the U.S. 

isn’t left in the international dust or wake, I guess you would say, 

right, international wake? 

But why aren’t we doing that? I mean, we can obviously say that 

we need to do this, and doggone it, we are going to look at it. We 

all know what the ship sizes are going to be, we all know what 

their drafts are. We know what our port needs—which ports need 

to be dredged for what ships. So why don’t we just do it? The problem is that we aren’t. We are going to talk about it and plan for 

it and study it, and we will be about 10 to 20 years behind everybody. 

So, that is my question. Why aren’t we doing it? And why—I 

mean I haven’t seen anything on my desk for a fast-track authority 

for the Army Corps of Engineers to be able to do this so that we 

are prepared, like the rest of the world is. I haven’t seen that. It 

might be at this meeting you are going to later that we are not 

going to. 

15 

Mr. HANNON. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we are doing 

within the Army Corps of Engineers addresses our civil works 

transformation. Within our civil works transformation, we are able 

to get from a planning feasibility study, which I think you are making reference to, to construction on the ground quicker. 

We are implementing a program across the Nation where we can 

do studies and have them completed within 3 years with less than 

$3 million, with complete vertical and horizontal coordination, so 

we move faster and quicker, from feasibility to starting the design 

and construction. This includes all planning studies for our ports, 

as well. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let me mention, too, there is—there are companies 

out there that can do dredging without stirring up PCBs. They 

have kind of whirlwind technology that is—they are able to dredge 

in a harbor like San Diego, where we dumped a bunch of World 

War II munitions over the side, and we got to be really careful, and 

super strict and stringent environmental regulations. There are 

companies out there that are able to do that now fairly cheaper. 

I am just wondering. Have you heard of them? Or, I mean, you 

guys know of that, and I am telling you what you already know? 

Mr. HANNON. Sir, we work with various companies that do that 

work. In fact, the preponderance of dredging that we do from an 

operation and maintenance perspective is done by contracting out. 

And so, we work with those dredging companies and corporations 

to employ the latest technologies to be able to do those things that 

you are talking about. 

Mr. HUNTER. Admirals? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Coast Guard doesn’t authorize the dredging, 

sir, we don’t permit the dredging. From a nav safety standpoint, 

obviously we are concerned about it. 

I will say, sir, I think some of the U.S. Government’s decisions 

are going to be how many ports do we need to have ready for the 

new Panamax vessels. I believe New York, Baltimore, Norfolk, and 

I think Miami, are going to be capable of handling them. The question will be how many other ports we might need to invest in. And 

I don’t have the answer to that, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. With that, I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of dredging is really an issue of Congress. We authorize and we haven’t authorized much recently. There are no earmarks and there are no— 

the no new start policy has been in place for the last 3 years, and 

so a lot of this is—the problem lies with the 435 Members of this 

House and the Senate that have not authorized. 

The three-by-three issue that the Corps just talked about is operating. But again, it is not really moving very fast because there is 

no money. And in many cases, there is no authorization. The new 

WRRDA bill, which is in process in the conference committee, does 

address some of this. But, again, it is going to come down to 

money. At the end of the day, we have been reducing the amount 

of money available for almost all infrastructure, including much of 

what is being discussed here in terms of dredging locks and the 

rest. 

So, if we really want to advance this, we are going to have to 

pony up the money and to make it available. And if the new threeVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Sep 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\2-4-14~1\86585.TXT JEAN
16 

by-three works as it seems to be, it will deal with some of the problems of getting these things done on time. We need to watch that. 

The questions really go into a lot of detail, here, and I think we 

can probably spend several hours on it. But there is the Physical 

Oceanographic Real-Time System, known as PORTS. I think it is 

operating in just three ports in the United States—three places, I 

guess, is the right way to say that, three locations. And it seems 

to have been very successful in reducing groundings and providing 

information. Could we discuss that and what it would take to—if, 

in fact, it is successful, what it would take to implement that in 

more locations? 

Admiral GLANG. Yes, sir. So PORTS is operational in 22 locations 

around the country. A PORTS system for a particular port will— 

it is a suite of sensors, so there will be water-level gauges, weather 

gauges, tides and current gauges. And those—the actual collection 

of systems that are being observed, or observations in each port, 

that will vary. So some ports will have fog sensors, some will have 

air gap sensors under bridges, and things like that. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So it works, and it is successful? 

Admiral GLANG. It works—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And it reduces problems of all kinds? 

Admiral GLANG. Absolutely. We hear first-hand from pilots 

around the country. There will be major ship movements that rely 

on the air draft sensors under the bridges that come safely in and 

out of port. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. Should it be expanded? Are there any impediments to its use, and—— 

Admiral GLANG. So PORTS funding is probably the issue that we 

are getting at here. There is a distinct separation on the role that 

NOAA takes in the PORTS system. So we will oversee the collection of the data, the project management of the system, and the 

dissemination of the data. The funding of the system and the operations and maintenance of the sensors, that is the responsibility of 

the partners in a particular port. And we have lots of different examples of local partners. Some of them are port authorities, some 

are Federal agencies. In some cases it is the pilots who are also involved. So there are different models in different areas for those 

partnerships. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So no changes in that system are recommended. 

Admiral GLANG. Well, certainly it would be great if port systems 

were fully federally funded. That would certainly strengthen the reliability of the system. However, the reality is that we do rely on 

these partnerships right now. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Very good. Admiral? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sir, what I can say is, from a captain in the 

port—and I have been a captain of the port in a number of different ports—it allows you to reduce some of the safety margins 

that you would have in place if you have real-time information. So 

you really know how much under-keel clearance you need, as opposed to estimating it. So there is an economic advantage to having 

PORTS available, and there is a safety advantage to having it, too. 

It allows us to reduce some of those safety margins. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. One final question has to do with the security 

of these systems. We are moving more and more to E-Navigational 

17 

systems, as we should. The question of cyber security comes up. If 

you could, address that issue. How do we provide the security that 

the information is real, that it is not false and leading to some sort 

of accident? 

Mr. HANNON. Sir, from the Corps of Engineers’ perspective, the 

majority of what we are putting out right now is really Internetbased via Web services. At this point in time, we are working within the information security requirements and are not having any 

real challenges with that. I think part of our challenge will be ensuring that as we are putting information out, we are making sure 

everyone understands what is authoritative data and work to provide quality assurance on what we put out to ensure there is no 

misinformation. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Admiral, Admiral? Which one would like to go 

first? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sure, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Coast Guard? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. I think, overall, in all of the maritime we 

need to be more cyber security aware. I think it is a growing area 

that people are starting to understand. I think that is one of the 

reasons why the Coast Guard is the competent agency for managing AIS. We have it as a Federal function, so we can ensure that 

we have that cyber security backbone in place, as we roll out the 

E-Navigation types of systems. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And you will be somewhat more successful than 

Target? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We recognize it is a concern, sir, and we will 

be addressing that concern. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to learn more about that. But let’s go 

ahead—NOAA? 

Admiral GLANG. Yes, sir. I am not sure how much more I can 

add. There are Federal standards for IT security. We are always 

having to grow those and improve those, of course, because 

vulnerabilities are always being uncovered. So the intent is to try 

and stay ahead of those vulnerabilities. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. There would seem to be—an additional area of 

concern is that the more we rely upon the entrepreneurs and individual companies that are providing applications using the basic 

data, the opportunity for problems would seem to increase. I think 

there was some discussion about this—let’s just quickly revisit 

that. How do you doublecheck? Is that a responsibility that you 

have? Or is that the responsibility of the entrepreneur, and the potential for a significant lawsuit if they have bad information? What 

do we have here? 

Mr. HANNON. Sir, with the Corps, putting information on the 

Internet, anyone can take that information and use it. I think our 

responsibility is to ensure that we continue to communicate well 

with folks that use our data. Our partners know that we are the 

ones that do the surveys, that provide information for the charts, 

and so, we are communicating with our industry partners. We are 

continuing to communicate with our Federal partners, and making 

information available to the public about what new advances we 

are making within the E-Navigation realm. That way they have a 

18 

source to come back to us to ask questions and get clarification, if 

there is a need. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We do have the regulatory regime, sir, the 

international regs, the national regs, the industry best practices, 

with regards to cyber security and others. Keeping current with 

what the vulnerabilities are, as Admiral Glang testified to, is going 

to be a challenge, but it is one that we are going to have to address, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I—Admiral Glang, want to add anything here? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. It just seems that we want—it seems we would 

want to have private companies take the data, the information, and 

then use it in developing applications of various kinds. But the application could be incorrect, could be troublesome. Not that I am 

suggesting a new regulatory regime, but this—there is a potential 

problem here that is buyer beware, I mean, as to those applications. 

I will let it go at that. I don’t know, it is a concern that is going 

to be, I think, increasing as private companies take this data and 

provide applications of it that will be available to various users. I 

yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank the ranking member. Explain now on this 

last note. There is a requirement, if you are a tanker you have to 

use NOAA-approved stuff. But if you are a jet skier, you can use 

your iPhone, right? There is less gas or oil involved in a spill, 

right? 

One last question I have got. How do you allocate the money 

spent on intercoastal versus ocean coastal, outercoastal—I don’t 

know what the word is, but coastal waterways, meaning the ocean 

coast and the inner coastal stuff. How do you allocate the money? 

Mr. HANNON. Sir, within the Corps of Engineers, we look at the 

highest usage areas in regards to inland waterways and in regards 

to coastal. So we have about five inland systems that carry about 

95 percent of the commerce. And the same for our coastal system, 

there is a smaller number of costal areas that carry most of the 

commerce. 

Our first priorities are at those highest use areas. Then, with 

moderate and lower use, we still are able to fund some of those, 

as well. But, our first priority is to the higher use areas. 

Mr. HUNTER. So, like, the Northeast and the lock system coming 

down from Pennsylvania, moving south? Are you familiar with 

what I am talking about, the lock system, the intercoastal lock system that they have? 

Mr. HANNON. On our lock and dam systems, we look at where 

we have our highest use areas to prioritize the need for repairs and 

for operation and maintenance. Our lower use systems would have 

a lesser level of service, as far as the time that a lock was actually 

open and available. But it is based on the use and the need, primarily to the commercial aspects of things, and then with our 

recreation community to be able to make that service available, as 

well. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Mr. Chairman, our aids navigation is a national system. Our AIS system is a national system. So we use 

19 

those assets where they are needed. For example, we can have a 

buoy tender that is up in New England that could, if necessary, be 

servicing aids elsewhere. We think the resiliency that comes with 

that system is very apropos. 

Mr. HUNTER. Great. And Mr. Rice asked about the LORAN, longrange—LORAD? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. LORAN. 

Mr. HUNTER. LORAN, sorry, LORAN. And he said, ‘‘I hope it is 

done with’’—so that was the backup for using GPS. So the idea was 

to go GPS. You have to have a backup for it, right, in case the satellites go down or there is a problem with it. And LORAN was the 

backup for that, right? Or e-LORAN, it was low radio frequency 

backup for GPS. That is what it was supposed to be, or no? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. LORAN was an older system, sir. I think it 

was operational in the 1970s and 1980s, when I was first assigned 

to a cutter. Those were—— 

Mr. HUNTER. What am I talking about, then? That is—— 

Admiral SERVIDIO. eLORAN. 

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. eLORAN, right. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. It is something that the Nation was looking 

at as a possible backup. To be honest, sir, it is a national decision. 

I believe that, with the classification levels involved and others, I 

am not sure how much I could—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, you can tell me this. If you are going to go 

GPS, if you are going to go full GPS at some point, you have got 

to have a backup for that. Right? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We have visual aids to navigation, sir. We 

have a number—— 

Mr. HUNTER. So the visual aid is the backup. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. But I believe for the Nation, sir, I believe that 

it has been studied, and there has been determinations made as to 

whether eLORAN is necessary or not, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Call in the Marines. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, right. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTER. Gentlemen, thank you all for your time and your 

testimony, and for what you do for the country. We appreciate it. 

And thanks for being so forthcoming. 

And we have a second panel. Do I end this? Do I bang the gavel 

here, or we just go to the second panel? OK, second panel. 

We are going to take a break here for 5 minutes, too. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HUNTER. The subcommittee will come to order again. Our 

second panel of witnesses today includes Mr. Dana Goward, president and executive director of the Resilient Navigation and Timing 

Foundation; Dr. Larry Mayer, professor and director, School for 

Marine Science; director, Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping; 

and codirector, NOAA/UNH Joint Hydrographic Center, University 

of New Hampshire; Mr. Scott Perkins, testifying on behalf of the 

Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors; 

and Captain Lynn Korwatch, executive director of the Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region. We have everybody. 

Mr. Goward, you are recognized first. Thanks for being here to 

all of you. 

20 

TESTIMONY OF DANA A. GOWARD, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESILIENT NAVIGATION AND TIMING 

FOUNDATION; LARRY A. MAYER, PH.D., PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, SCHOOL FOR MARINE SCIENCE; DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR COASTAL AND OCEAN MAPPING; AND CODIRECTOR, NOAA/UNH JOINT HYDROGRAPHIC CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; SCOTT PERKINS, GISP, ON 

BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR PRIVATE 

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEYORS (MAPPS); AND CAPTAIN 

LYNN KORWATCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE EXCHANGE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 

Mr. GOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. By way 

of introduction, my last job was as the director of Marine Transportation Systems for the United States Coast Guard. I now head an 

educational and scientific nonprofit, the Resilient Navigation and 

Timing Foundation. And it is a pleasure to be here representing 

that organization today. 

And let me say right off that, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, you are welcome to any of our meetings any time, and I will 

ensure that you get invitations. Unlike the Government, we are 

very open on that sort of thing. 

In 2009, officials at the Newark International Airport were puzzled as to why a newly installed landing system would periodically 

malfunction. After much effort, and working with the FAA and the 

FCC, they finally discovered it was a driver passing by on I–95 

with a GPS jamming device that he had illegally purchased on the 

Internet to hide his activities from his employer. They have since 

protected their landing system to most GPS jamming, but they still 

detect about five jammers going by on I–95 every day. 

In London, The Economist magazine reports that the stock exchange loses GPS timing about 20 minutes a day, probably for the 

same kind of reasons. North Korea periodically jams GPS, in South 

Korea. The Russian military, as a matter of doctrine, believes that 

their forces will not have access to space signals when they go into 

combat, because they are so easy to interfere with. And a professor 

at the University of Texas has shown how easy it is to spoof GPS 

receivers and essentially take over drone aircraft and some ships. 

So I mention these stories to make three very important points. 

First, GPS is by far the most important and significant Federal aid 

to navigation, bar none. Not only is it essential transportation infrastructure, but it is also essential to telecommunications, cell 

phones, to the Internet, financial transactions, electrical power distribution, and even precision agriculture. It enables about a 30-percent efficiency in the agriculture of this Nation. So it is really a silent utility, much like running water. Something we can do without 

for short periods, but even then things get fairly unpleasant pretty 

quickly. And extended disruptions could be disastrous. 

So, my second point is that the United States Government has 

known about this for quite some time. And in 2008, as I think was 

mentioned, the Federal Government decided to establish enhanced 

LORAN, eLORAN, much different from the old LORAN, much 

more precise, much less expensive, much more automated. They deVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Sep 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\2-4-14~1\86585.TXT JEAN
21 

cided to establish eLORAN as a terrestrial augmentation for GPS. 

It is a high-power signal, very difficult to disrupt. 

Unfortunately, nothing became of those plans, even though it 

was publicly announced. At the same time, many other nations— 

Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, all of northwestern Europe, led by the 

United Kingdom—have either retained or are building eLORAN 

systems, because they don’t want to be so dependant on space as 

we are. In fact, South Korea and India also have plans that they 

are actively engaged in to construct eLORAN systems. 

My final point is that we could have an enhanced LORAN system 

here in the continental United States and reduce the threat and 

the risk to the American people for about $40 million—that is $40 

million with an M. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. We don’t deal in numbers that small. 

[Laughter.} 

Mr. GOWARD. I am sorry, sir, that is part of the problem. Exactly. 

And we could do it by rehabilitating unused existing infrastructure 

that is in the possession of the Federal Government. This would actually save the Federal Government money in the long run, because it wouldn’t be necessary to go through the expense of disposing of that infrastructure, and it would also allow agencies like 

the FAA and the USCG to reduce their dependance on old, industrial-age navigation systems that they must maintain right now, 

because GPS is a single point of failure. 

Unfortunately, rather than rehabilitating this infrastructure, the 

Department of Homeland Security is in the process of dismantling 

and disposing of it. We, in the RNT Foundation, think this is not 

a proper use of public funds, it will cost the Government more in 

the long run. And, in fact, we encourage an immediate halt to that 

activity. 

In fact, we believe so much in the Federal Government’s decision 

to establish eLORAN, that in order to reduce the burden on Government we have proposed a public-private partnership so as to 

quickly establish the system within this country, provide a second 

navigation timing signal for all critical infrastructure, and reduce 

the risk to the American people as quickly as possible. 

I have some reference material I will leave for the staffs. I would 

like to submit the rest of my comments for the record. And thank 

you very much, again, for the opportunity to be here with you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. Dr. Mayer, you are recognized. I am 

looking at the wrong—Dr. Mayer. Go ahead, Doctor. 

Mr. MAYER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Sure, and then we will jump around a little bit. 

Mr. MAYER. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, my 

name is Larry Mayer. I am the director for the Center for Coastal 

and Ocean Mapping, and codirector of the NOAA Joint Hydrographic Center at the University of New Hampshire. These centers 

serve NOAA, other Federal agencies, and the private sector 

through the development of new tools and protocols that support a 

range of ocean and coastal mapping applications, including safe 

navigation. 

Particularly relevant to our discussion today are the Center’s efforts in collaboration with NOAA, to ensure that we have the best 

tools possible to map hazards on the sea floor and in the water colVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Sep 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\2-4-14~1\86585.TXT JEAN
22 

umn. And, as the complexity of the data that we collect increases, 

that we can present those data to mariners and others in ways that 

are easy to interpret for the safest operation of vessels in all circumstances. 

In support of these goals, we have embarked on a project we call 

the chart of the future, aimed at taking advantage of the advances 

in sea floor mapping, in navigation systems, positioning systems, 

water level measurements, all the things we have heard about 

today, and exploring how these many sources of information can be 

integrated and displayed in the most useful and intuitive fashion. 

What I would like to do today is build on the remarks of my colleagues and take advantage of the tremendous infrastructure they 

are supporting, and data they are providing, envision what the 

chart of the future might look like, and the services it might provide. 

To illustrate this, I have brought this little video clip to give you 

a tangible idea of the concepts I am describing. As you look at the 

video, I want to emphasize that what you are seeing is not a cartoon or an artist’s rendition. It is the product of real data, collected 

and provided by our lab and many of the agencies represented here 

today. 

As you see, our vision of the chart of the future seeks to provide 

the mariner with a complete picture of the sea floor, the surrounding shoreline, and other relevant features. It takes advantage 

of the fact that our modern, multibeam mapping systems can provide complete coverage of the sea floor, rather than the sparse samples that earlier lead-lines and single-beam echosounders produced. 

Mariners will no longer need to mentally integrate numbers and 

contours displayed on charts to determine the relationship of their 

vessel’s keel to the sea floor. But rather, they will be able to clearly 

see, in an intuitive perspective view, the relationship of the keel to 

the sea floor and other hazards. 

The displays will be interactive and will be able to bring in the 

most relevant information for the task at hand. Information about 

fisheries habitat or sand or gravel resources can be superimposed 

on the depth information, providing those charged with the protection of the environment or the exploitation of resources the critical 

information they need. 

The fundamental issue for safe navigation is the distance between the sea floor and the bottom of the vessel. This distance is 

constantly changing with the tides, and yet our charts are static 

products. We envision a chart of the future that is dynamic and 

tide-aware. The chart will receive NOAA tide data through the AIS 

system, and update itself to display the actual under-keel clearance 

at a given time and location. 

As the vessel enters a harbor or approaches a coast, a collection 

of fully geo-referenced images can be displayed in a 3D context, 

creating what is, in essence, a digital, 3D coast pilot. A click on a 

feature described in the text will instantly bring up an image of 

that feature in a 3D map, and a click on the image will instantly 

bring up the text describing that feature. 

Finally, we can also bring in full 360-degree panoramas of our 

harbors and coastlines. With these images incorporated into the 

23 

chart of the future, the mariner can enter unfamiliar harbors at 

night or in fog, and still see a clear picture of the surroundings. 

I presented a vision of what the chart of the future might be, a 

vision that we believe will provide the mariner and the Nation with 

an enhanced level of safety and security, as well as support multiple uses of the data. What we have described is quite doable. But 

to make this vision a broader reality, we need to ensure that our 

Nation continues to support and upgrade the critical infrastructure 

that it depends on. 

We must ensure continued provision and upgrade of high-precision positioning systems, just as we have been hearing, tide measurement systems, the support of AIS, smart buoys, enhanced 

weather, wave, and current measurements. Most importantly, we 

have to strive to provide full bottom coverage to our critical waterways, harbors, and coastal areas, remembering that many of these 

areas are dynamic. And that we will also need to understand how 

they change with time or in response to events like Superstorm 

Sandy. 

And, above all, we have to ensure that the data collected are of 

the highest quality and meet the highest standards. If this can be 

done, we are confident that the future of maritime navigation will 

be bright and safe. 

I thank you for the opportunity to share this vision with you, and 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate it. That is pretty 

amazing. 

Mr. Perkins, do you have a video? 

Mr. PERKINS. Pardon? 

Mr. HUNTER. Do you have a video? 

Mr. PERKINS. No, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. That was fun. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am 

Scott Perkins. I am a geospatial professional out of Mission, Kansas, testifying today on behalf of the MAPPS Association, a national association of private-sector geospatial firms. 

Serving and mapping in geospatial data supports a variety of 

maritime functions, such as port and harbor maintenance, dredging, and that facilitates 98 percent of our international trade. Federal Government has had a historically important role in providing 

those aids to navigation, the ATONs. Coast Guard performs the 

necessary beneficial service for the Nation in servicing and maintaining those aids to navigation. They are an integral component 

of facilitating the safe movement of goods and people through that 

45,000 miles of maritime transportation system and throughout the 

Great Lakes. 

The reliance on ATONs by mariners and recreational boaters has 

steadily changed with the expanded capabilities and the use of the 

modern positioning and timing systems, as my colleague has already mentioned, systems that were built upon GPS and LORAN 

and other data and services. This has directly contributed to the 

draw-down on the number of the aids to navigation that the Coast 

Guard has had to maintain. That is a positive draw-down. 

24 

We recommend that the Coast Guard publish weekly changes to 

the list as a Web service, so that anyone can use that data so that 

they can update it on to their Web applications, their desk top, 

their smartphones, and increase the ease of use of that data. 

GPS forever changed the use of the compass. The electronic chart 

has forever changed the use of the paper chart. Autonomous underwater vehicles are going to change the ATONs and the large navigational buoys, as we know them. The AUVs are coming at an 

amazing rate. There are already thousands of these autonomous 

vehicles on the water’s surface and underneath the water’s surface. 

These systems will become what were known as the light ships of 

our future, replacing or reducing the large navigational buoys that 

the Coast Guard has to maintain. 

These new ATONs are going to be equipped with the hydrographic surveying tools my colleague on my right has showed you, 

such as depth measuring devices, the capability to stay positioned 

over a fixed hazard or a coastal rock, the ability to renavigate over 

top of a moving river bottom on the inland waterways. 

The future ATON is going to be built upon this AUV-type technology. It is going to recognize changing water levels, changing currents, atmosphere conditions, and provide near real-time positioning. This is a more dynamic and responsive system of aids to 

navigation. 

However, NOAA, working with its contractors, cannot meet the 

demand for authoritative hydrographic data at the current level of 

funding for navigation, observations, and positioning programs. 

Services are crucial to the future development to these aids to navigations and AUV deployment, such National Ocean Service programs as GRAV–D and coastal LiDAR, that provide the baseline 

data that is critically important to transportation in our economy. 

These activities need to be funded at the present level of higher. 

It is also important that Congress properly reauthorize the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, H.R. 1399, that was introduced by Representative Young. And we also recommend passing 

of H.R. 1382, the Digital Coast Act, that was introduced by Representative Ruppersberger of Maryland and Representative Young. 

Enactment of these bills will go a long way towards a coordinated 

and comprehensive national mapping effort for coastal, State, and 

territorial waters of the United States. It is going to better integrate these navigational and nonnavigational geospatial activities 

in NOAA. 

We emphasize the need to better coordinate geospatial activities 

among the various agencies and numerous programs and the applications. This has already been noted in several GAO reports. 

One solution that we recommend would be the enactment of a 

provision similar to the one included in the Biggert-Waters Flood 

Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Develop deep, cross-cutting, jointfunding strategies to leverage and coordinate the budgets and expenditures. Recommend the similar legislative position with regard 

to the geospatial data and charting in the aids to navigation. 

There is an enormous capacity and capability in the private sector to provide the Government agencies the geospatial services that 

are needed to support aids to navigation and E-Nav. MAPPS urges 

Congress to enact legislation to accelerate and complete the transiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Sep 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\2-4-14~1\86585.TXT JEAN
25 

tion from Government and university performance of commercially 

available activities to the contractor performance, while refocusing 

the agencies back on inherently governmental activities. 

In summary, the aid to navigation of the future can be and 

should be a smaller, lighter, more agile, more self-sustaining system than the current large navigational buoys. The new public-private partnership is the key to success here. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Perkins. 

Captain Korwatch, you are recognized. 

Captain KORWATCH. Good morning. My name is Captain Lynn 

Korwatch, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you 

today. I am the executive director of the Marine Exchange of the 

San Francisco Bay Region. The Marine Exchange is a nonprofit 

trade association, and our membership is comprised of maritime 

labor, tug companies, pilots, port authorities, and the many, many 

organizations that provide services and support to ships in the San 

Francisco Bay region. 

As strictly an honest broker of information, the Marine Exchange 

is often called upon to participate in activities that support the 

health and success of our region. These include managing the 

NOAA PORTS system, acting as secretariat for our Maritime Security Committee and Harbor Safety Committee, sponsoring a local 

Trade Facilitation Committee, and managing, on behalf of FEMA, 

over $95 million of port security grant money. 

Since the Exchange is considered a neutral party in the region, 

I was asked to chair the local Harbor Safety Committee. The committee is sponsored by the California Office of Spill Prevention and 

Response, and is comprised of representatives of every maritime 

segment in San Francisco, including labor, tanker, and dry cargo 

operators, tug companies, fishermen, and recreational boaters. 

State agencies such as the State Lands Commission, and Federal 

partners such as the Coast Guard, NOAA, and the Army Corps of 

Engineers all have a seat at the table. 

This committee tackles a wide variety of issues during our meetings and our work groups, and we spend a significant portion of 

our time focusing on prevention measures. Needless to say, the 

topic of navigation aids is one that we address frequently. 

With the wide diversity of waterway users comes an equally wide 

diversity of experience and technology. The pilots on the large 

ships have sophisticated systems available to assist them in guiding their vessels through the narrow channels and the bridges of 

the bay. And this electronic technology can be useful. Small vessels, on the other hand, often have nothing more than a chart book 

identifying the markers and buoys around the channel. This disparity in training and technology creates some challenges in our region and nationwide. 

Mariners rely on a multiple layer of information to establish 

their positions, and the foundational layer they depend upon most 

is the physical objects they see out the window and are marked on 

charts in the same way you look at road signs when you are driving. Just as paper charts should not be used solely for navigation, 

neither should electronics be the only navigation tools in our toolVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Sep 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\2-4-14~1\86585.TXT JEAN
26 

box. Without markers and buoys to mark the channels or areas of 

safe passage, the challenge of relying on undependable signal is exponentially more hazardous, hazardous to the boat operator, hazardous to their passengers and crew, hazardous to the other operators in the area, and hazardous to the environment of our region. 

There is no question that maintaining buoys, towers, lights, 

lighthouses, daymarks and shapes is an expensive and labor-intensive undertaking. But the unalterable fact is that these physical 

aids are essential to the safety of navigation on our waterways. 

Funding this infrastructure is always going to be a challenge. It is 

my opinion that the Coast Guard is the best organization to provide national-international continuity, and they should receive sufficient funding to provide for the continued maintenance of these 

critical navigation items. 

This is not to say that the use of navigation aids should not be 

explored. On the contrary, newer technologies have greatly enhanced maritime safety, and there is no reason to think that the 

future does not hold further improvements. A blend of these two 

systems is most likely the future of safe navigation on our waterways. Perhaps a better way to serve users is to use electronic aids 

as a way to augment and enhance navigation, versus solely eliminating aids as a way to reduce costs. I believe that we must develop a national strategy that is transparent and inclusive to the 

use of all users. Outreach to local stakeholders to get their input 

and expertise will help to ensure the success and acceptance of 

changes to our waterways. 

There is an expression that is often quoted in our industry: ‘‘If 

you have seen one port, you have seen one port.’’ As each port region is unique, this must be factored into the decisionmaking regarding the configuration of future aids. Moving with deliberation 

and due consideration of the traditions and proven success of our 

industry will ultimately result in the improvement of our waterways and provide a safe operating environment for all users. 

I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Garamendi, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Harbor 

Safety Committee. I look forward to answering any questions you 

might have. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Captain. Question. What are you a captain of? 

Captain KORWATCH. I went to the California Maritime Academy, 

graduated from there, and was captain of a very large container 

ship that ran between the west coast of the United States and Hawaii. 

Mr. HUNTER. For how long? 

Captain KORWATCH. And I was the first American U.S. captain. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. 

Captain KORWATCH. Female U.S. captain. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. That is great. OK, thank you very much. 

Thank all of you. 

It seems like, I think, you are all right. And I want to start really 

quick with the eLORAN system. Why did they stop it? Because 

DHS said they needed to do a study about their study regarding 

their study? 

27 

Mr. GOWARD. Yes, sir. My understanding was that it was a budget issue, small though the numbers may be. And I would offer that, 

regardless of the wisdom of the decision at the time, since then 

new threats—as I think you understand—have arisen. And new 

needs for mission assurance across both civilian and military applications have arisen. And I would offer it is time to reconsider that 

decision quite seriously. 

Mr. HUNTER. Regarding the unmanned vehicles in your video, 

there is a company in California called Liquid Robotics, right, and 

they have a self-perpetuating wave rider surfboard, right? So I 

went and saw their stuff. We had a hearing about 6 months ago, 

and the Coast Guard said that they could not implement any of 

those systems because right now their regulations described them 

as floating debris. So that because they literally didn’t have a word 

for this new technology, in their legalese it was called floating debris, and they had no way to implement floating debris into any of 

their systems, hopefully they are moving on this. 

But I guess I would ask that, from your point of view, what are 

you doing to make inroads? And I would ask all of you. What are 

you doing to make inroads on things like this, where you have a 

technology that is super cheap, super easy, you can put any sensor 

package load you want to on this thing, you can keep it in one 

place for 2 years, or you can have it go around the globe five times, 

whatever you want, how do you make this—from an industry side, 

or an academic perspective, what do you do? 

Mr. PERKINS. Chairman Hunter, what we do in the private sector 

is we implement that new technology, and we put it into our toolbox, and we go out there and we make revenue with it. It is happening right now. There are commercial firms in the Midwest that 

are using these systems already on inland waterways. They are 

being used in ports and harbors in the coastal areas. The technology is already fully implemented in use. What is lagging behind 

is the governmental rulemaking process on what type of lights and 

what type of flagging, antiquated regulations regarding flagging 

and lighting. 

Mr. HUNTER. Lights and flagging on the automated, unmanned 

systems? 

Mr. PERKINS. That is correct. I attended the NAVSAC, the Navigation Safety Advisory Committee, meeting in Norfolk, Virginia, 2 

months ago. And that dominated the topic of conversation. That is 

the Coast Guard Federal advisory committee. They are talking 

about the lights and what type of flags, because they think of these 

as vessels, and they don’t—and, as you mentioned, they don’t fit 

the definition of vessel. 

You know, private sector has a tremendous capacity here to move 

forward and implement this technology. We are on the cutting edge 

of it. It is being used right now. And the regulation isn’t there, you 

know, to maintain that—— 

Mr. HUNTER. How much money could the Coast Guard save if 

their buoys put themselves in place? 

Mr. PERKINS. I am not an economist, sir, but—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Probably a lot. 

Mr. PERKINS [continuing]. I can take the task of trying to get you 

an answer on that. 

28 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. OK. Thank you. Doctor? 

Mr. MAYER. Yes. From an academic perspective, it is the exact 

same answer. The technologies are there, they are implemented. 

We can work in between the regulatory issues, but to implement 

this in a Federal sense, there are tremendous constraints, because, 

as Mr. Perkins said, the regulations are far behind the technology. 

And I think it is something we do really need to address. 

Mr. HUNTER. And, Captain, I think your statements about the 

road signs—your iPhone still tells you which road to turn right on. 

It tells you when it is coming up, but you still have to look at it. 

And I am just curious, too, what everybody else’s thoughts are 

on how do you keep the old system so that the old man on the sea 

can still look at what he needs to look at, but the new kid out there 

on his sailboat can look at his iPhone and be able to navigate, and 

have it—have all of it without spending twice the money and having too much redundancy. Right? How do you do that? I mean is 

it possible for the Government to do that, or you think that it will 

just make everything redundant and cost twice as much, because 

then they are going to have two systems fully funded and fully in 

place that really don’t—that do complement each other, but not because they made it that way, simply because they complement each 

other? Right? 

Mr. PERKINS. Chairman, on the aviation side, in our aircraft, we 

are now using electronic charts on iPads. You know, it is no longer 

a requirement that we load the cockpit with the paper charts. But 

we still put them in the cockpit. There is still that redundancy. 

So, in the case of our aircraft, our privately owned commercial 

aircraft, we are using electronic charts first, paper charts as the 

backup, and there is still a compass in the dash of the cockpit. 

Mr. HUNTER. Sure. 

Mr. GOWARD. Sir, it is a complicated question, and I will try to 

give a not-too-complicated an answer. 

Part of it deals with the way that Federal maritime aids to navigation are provided. There was talk about the 50,000 buoys, lights, 

and such that the Coast Guard provides. There is also another 

50,000 in the United States that are privately provided. And so, 

there is a—when users are required to come forward and validate 

the need for an aid to navigation, they frequently do. 

The problem with the 50,000 that the Coast Guard provides is 

they are provided as a free good. And so, there is a real reluctance 

on the part of any user group to give up something that is provided 

for free. 

Now, if you contrast that with the United Kingdom, where aids 

to navigation are provided by a nongovernmental organization and 

paid for by vessels that pay light fees when they come into the 

ports, the United Kingdom actually made a conscious trade-off between electronic and physical aids to navigation. 

They did a study and they said, ‘‘We think you can find your way 

from port to port with GPS, but part of the problem is the GPS is 

a single point of failure. What we would propose is to establish this 

enhanced LORAN system to complement GPS so that you have two 

signals. And then we will be able to do away with a lot of these 

large buoys offshore, a lot of these large buoy tenders offshore, a 

lot of the lighthouses. And then, as a result, our cost, as the NGO, 

29 

will go down and your light fees will go down. How many people 

are in favor of that?’’ Well, you can imagine there wasn’t a hand 

in the room that didn’t go up. 

The U.S. Coast Guard and the United States Government doesn’t 

have that luxury, because the users don’t directly pay for and have 

a financial stake in the 50,000 aids that are provided by the Federal Government. So, while providing a secondary electronic system 

will be good, and will allow the Coast Guard and the FAA and others to start to move more towards electronic navigation, you won’t 

be able to have that direct trade-off until the Government sees 

itself more as the navigation authority, as opposed to the navigation—or the aids-to-navigation authority, as opposed to the aids-tonavigation provider. 

And I would argue that having the appropriate infrastructure 

will provide you the base where you can shift more of those physical aids to navigation to local control and local decision, as to 

whether or not they should stay in place, and whether or not those 

bills should be paid. But right now, the system that we have is 

very much biased towards the Federal Government doing it all. 

Mr. HUNTER. So—and, Captain, if you could respond to that—I 

think the last part of what you said is important, where you let 

San Francisco decide what San Francisco Port wants, you let San 

Diego decide what they want. But what you are saying is, if your 

iPhone goes down, then you could turn on an AM station and it 

will say, ‘‘Turn right now.’’ But what you are talking about is taking down the street signs. 

Mr. GOWARD. Well, so, I would offer, sir, that your iPhone would 

have two sources of information. And if one of them goes down, the 

other would automatically come in. And I would argue that—— 

Mr. HUNTER. The enhanced—— 

Mr. GOWARD. The enhanced LORAN or GPS—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Enhanced LORAN is not as sophisticated, though, 

as the GPS, right? 

Mr. GOWARD. Yes, sir. It is, essentially, as sophisticated as GPS. 

Mr. HUNTER. It is? 

Mr. GOWARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. 

Mr. GOWARD. It can get you within 8 to 10 meters. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. 

Mr. GOWARD. Which is perfectly fine for maritime aids to navigation. And I agree that you would never do away with all the buoys 

and the lighthouses, and so forth. But rather than having the decision made in Washington, DC, as to whether or not all—which 

buoys and lighthouses needed to be there, you would—— 

Mr. HUNTER. What are John and I supposed to do, then? We 

could work that out. 

Mr. GOWARD. I think there is lots of work to be done, so—yes, 

sir, besides that. But then the Government, the Federal Government, would say, ‘‘We have provided these two electronic aids to 

navigation. We think there is a baseline, a certain minimum number of physical aids to navigation. If there are others, let’s talk 

about who pays for them, and whether or not they stay in place,’’ 

and so forth. But right now that—it is very difficult, if not impossible, to have that conversation. 

30 

Mr. HUNTER. And, Captain, that is my question to you, and then 

I am—I will yield to the ranking member. 

Captain KORWATCH. And I think, you know, certainly one of the 

issues that our industry deals with, just as I mentioned in San 

Francisco, we have a wide diversity of users. We have those large, 

commercial vessels who have the technology. Those operators have 

paid for that technology to be able to determine and identify these 

electronic aids. 

On the other side, we have—just as I think Admiral Servidio 

mentioned—we have a significant number of kayakers. We have a 

significant number of paddle boaters. We have small recreational 

boaters. And now you are telling them, ‘‘You have to buy this technology.’’ They can’t all afford the technology. And the same way we 

do not tell passengers or drivers in cars, ‘‘You all have to have this 

technology in order to navigate our roads,’’ I mean, I think that we 

still have to have those baseline aids so that people can look out 

their porthole, their window, and see the buoy, and know when to 

turn, what area to stay out of, what area they are allowed to transit in. 

I had a conversation with our local Coast Guard, who said that 

there was some attempt to remove some aids in sort of the very 

south part of our San Francisco Bay, where no commercial vessels 

go. The water is very shallow there. And when recreational boaters 

run aground, the only way they can get to them is pulling them 

out by helicopter, a significant cost associated with that. Whereas, 

if we had maintained the buoys down there, perhaps we wouldn’t 

have to pay and put personnel at risk by lifting them out of there 

with a helicopter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Garamendi? Mr. Garamendi has got to go, and 

he has somebody waiting for him in his office. If you have anything 

you would like to add, please—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. First, I thank you for the hearing, Mr. Chairman, very important information available from the witnesses 

here. They have given us some data, some information in their 

written testimony. I would like them to follow up with specific 

things. I have a series of questions for, I think, all of you. I would 

like to have that—we will get those to you, and if you can get that 

back in writing, it would be very helpful. 

I am particularly interested in the way in which you have this 

public-private partnership in the bay area. Is that a model for 

other places? It may address some of the issues you have talked 

about, Mr. Goward. 

Also, the eLORAN issue, I think, is going to be extremely important. One thing we know for certain is that the GPS system is 

going to go down, some time, some place, in a very inopportune moment. Is there a backup available? The answer is there could be 

at what appears to be a very minimum cost, if we do not destroy 

the apparatus that is presently in place. And so I think we ought 

to get on that right away. And I would like to work with you, Mr. 

Chairman, on querying the Department of Homeland Security 

about that issue, and perhaps finding $40 million to provide an alternative to the GPS system. 

And then—I have got to go. My apologies. 

31 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. I thank the ranking member. The last panel that we had, they spent about $2.5 billion together, those 

three groups—NOAA, the Army Corps, and the Coast Guard—$2.5 

billion a year, upkeeping all of this stuff that we are talking about. 

Right? That could give us an icebreaker. That is $1 billion. That 

is an icebreaker, or two icebreakers. There is a lot of stuff you 

could do with that. You could do the eLORAN. 

I guess the big question is, or one thing we may want to do, is 

put us in the same room with the Coast Guard and the Army 

Corps. And instead of having them speak first and then leave, everybody kind of sit around. What kind of interaction have you had 

with them when it comes to going back and forth with the Coast 

Guard, with the Army Corps, with NOAA? Besides kind of the industry-to-Big Government, ‘‘Hey, here is what we have,’’ and they 

say, ‘‘Thank you, we will do a study,’’ and then you leave. 

Captain KORWATCH. If I may, certainly in San Francisco Bay we 

have a very, very close working relationship with our Coast Guard 

partners, as well as our Army Corps and NOAA. They all sit, as 

I indicated, on our Harbor Safety Committee. We discuss these 

issues on a monthly basis. They are very responsive to issues that 

we raise. 

We have a significant amount of problems with dredging, of 

course, like most port regions. We have a significant amount of 

problems with run-off coming from the mountains, assuming we 

have rain, which—not necessarily this year. But we do have a very 

close working relationship with them, and they are very responsive 

if we have issues that come up. They have been known to put a 

buoy back when they have discovered that it really does need to be 

put back in place. 

So, I think, from a local level, all of the Marine Exchanges 

around the country are incomparable relationships with our local 

sectors. There are 12 Marine Exchanges around the country, and 

we all have that same dialogue going on. 

Mr. HUNTER. So more explicitly at the 50,000-foot view, the 

interaction between kind of technology and what is happening in 

the private sector, compared to what they are doing, what is the 

dialogue there? 

Mr. PERKINS. The MAPPS Association holds a Federal conference 

twice a year, and we invite in our Government counterparts, so 

that the MAPPS Association has a very close working relationship 

with NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, and other agencies. And the Coast Guard has not 

been part of that, but we will do some outreach, and we will try 

to get them to the table, maybe getting to the heart of the matter, 

you know, of the expense. Right? And—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, let me stop you there. I mean when the—6 

months ago the Coast Guard called a surface unmanned vehicle 

‘‘floating debris,’’ so you must not be getting through to them, is 

what I am saying. I mean there must be some hangup if you are 

talking to them twice a year, and they still think it is the equivalent of a floating log. 

Mr. PERKINS. Pardon me. They are not coming to our meetings, 

presently. 

Mr. HUNTER. I got you, OK. 

32 

Mr. PERKINS. So we need to do—our association needs to do some 

outreach and get Coast Guard at the table, right, to help work on 

solving that. 

One thing that the MAPPS Association has suggested is the idea 

of a simple user fee for all GPS-enabled devices. A user fee. Just 

think of the economic driver—— 

Mr. HUNTER. We call that a tax here, but go ahead. 

Mr. PERKINS. I understand that—— 

Mr. HUNTER. I am kidding, I am kidding. Go ahead. 

Mr. PERKINS. I understand that. But if there were a simple user fee, for simplicity’s sake, of $1 for a new device that is navigationally, you know, capable, that would—if that were to go into a 

trust fund, that would provide a pool to replace these buoys, keep 

these markers updated, to provide authoritative geospatial data 

that is necessary for the chart of the future. It sounds a lot like 

a tax, I don’t deny that. But a user fee is different than a tax. User 

fees work very well for the recreational sportsmen in this country. 

It has led to habitat preservation. I don’t need to lecture you on 

the benefits of what the sportsmen have been able to do with those 

type of fees. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MAYER. And if I could just comment in terms of interactions 

with these agencies from an academic perspective, the interaction 

has been quite good. They support much of our research, across the 

board, all the agencies we saw here today. The issue is always that 

we tend to be—in the academic perspective, we are looking far 

ahead. The agencies are constrained by their regulations, by international regulations. And it is kind of progressing through that—— 

Mr. HUNTER. They are also constrained by their culture, in that 

they have done it before, so they are going to keep on doing it. 

Mr. MAYER. Yes, but from my interaction, they have been very 

open-minded, at least in terms of listening to what the future could 

hold and, again, trying to find how, while we are thinking 10 years 

ahead, how they can implement some of that in a much shorter 

timeframe. 

Mr. GOWARD. Yes, sir. If I could preface that, while I have talked 

much about eLORAN today, we in the Foundation believe there is 

room for all navigation and timing systems that serve a purpose, 

and that we need as many of them as possible to ensure our resilience and that our Nation is secure. 

That said, on the eLORAN issue, even though we are system agnostic, we note that the United States has decided this is the right 

way to go, as have many other nations, and so we are fully supportive of that, and we want to help the Federal Government get 

to where the Nation needs to be. We have discussed this with the 

Department of Defense, with the Department of Transportation. 

The staffers in both of those departments are very supportive. We 

have not received any responses from our inquiries to the Department of Homeland Security. We are hoping to reverse that, and 

that they will come to the table and—— 

Mr. HUNTER. They are a very new department. They have only 

been around 10 years. You have got to give them time. 

Mr. GOWARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. In 20 or 30 years, they will respond. 

33 

Mr. GOWARD. It is probably the backlog of correspondence. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, right. 

Mr. GOWARD. Yes, sir. So, we are hoping to talk with them, as 

well as the other two lead departments in this role, but it is difficult finding someone that wants to take a leadership role for this, 

which is essentially a commons issue. It is like maritime or the 

Internet or space. Everyone wants to use it, but no one necessarily 

wants to be responsible for it and pay for it, as inexpensive as it 

may be. 

Mr. HUNTER. It is multiagency, too. 

Mr. GOWARD. Absolutely multiagency. It cuts across every facet 

of American society. 

Mr. HUNTER. Which makes things harder, yes. 

Mr. GOWARD. Yes, sir. Absolutely. So that, and the fact that it 

is so low cost is—really is the crux of the problem. It doesn’t—until 

there is a failure, it doesn’t rise to the larger consciousness. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. OK. I have got to run, too. So, Captain, 

Doctor, gentlemen, thank you very much. Thanks for your testimony, and have a great day. 

Captain KORWATCH. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. With that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

34 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86585.007
35 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86585.008
36 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86585.009
37 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86585.010
38 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86585.011
39 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86585.012
40 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86585.013
41 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86585.014
42 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86585.015
43 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86585.016
44 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86585.017
45 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86585.018
46 


Insert offset folio 19 here 86585.019
47 


Insert offset folio 20 here 86585.020
48 


Insert offset folio 21 here 86585.021
49 


Insert offset folio 22 here 86585.022
50 


Insert offset folio 23 here 86585.023
51 


Insert offset folio 24 here 86585.024
52 


Insert offset folio 25 here 86585.025
53 


Insert offset folio 26 here 86585.026
54 


Insert offset folio 27 here 86585.027
55 


Insert offset folio 28 here 86585.028
56 


Insert offset folio 29 here 86585.029
57 


Insert offset folio 30 here 86585.030
58 


Insert offset folio 31 here 86585.031
59 


Insert offset folio 32 here 86585.032
60 


Insert offset folio 33 here 86585.033
61 


Insert offset folio 34 here 86585.034
62 


Insert offset folio 35 here 86585.035
63 


Insert offset folio 36 here 86585.036
64 


Insert offset folio 37 here 86585.037
65 


Insert offset folio 38 here 86585.038
66 


Insert offset folio 39 here 86585.039
67 


Insert offset folio 40 here 86585.040
68 


Insert offset folio 41 here 86585.041
69 


Insert offset folio 42 here 86585.042
70 


Insert offset folio 43 here 86585.043
71 


Insert offset folio 44 here 86585.044
72 


Insert offset folio 45 here 86585.045
73 


Insert offset folio 46 here 86585.046
74 


Insert offset folio 47 here 86585.047
75 


Insert offset folio 48 here 86585.048
76 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 49 here 86585.049