[Senate Hearing 114-93]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-93
STAYING AFLOAT: EXAMINING THE RESOURCES
AND PRIORITIES OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-250 PDF WASHNGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman CORY BOOKER, New Jersey, Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
TED CRUZ, Texas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY PETERS, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 28, 2015................................... 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Prepared statement of Senator Rubio.......................... 31
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 15
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 17
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 23
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 25
Witnesses
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard............ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Admiral Paul F.
Zukunft by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 33
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 35
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 41
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 43
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 44
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 50
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 51
STAYING AFLOAT: EXAMINING THE RESOURCES
AND PRIORITIES OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Ayotte, Booker,
Cantwell, Blumenthal, Schatz, Peters, and Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and Coast Guard will now come to order.
Good morning, everybody.
I would like to start by thanking the Commandant of the
United States Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, for taking
time out of his busy schedule to testify today.
The Coast Guard's mission is to ensure the safety,
security, and stewardship of our Nation's waters, a daunting
task that covers the largest system of ports, waterways, and
coastal seas in the world. The Coast Guard more than admirably
performs this mission on a daily basis with a team of less than
90,000 members, comprised of active duty, reserve, civilian,
and volunteer forces, and an annual budget of less than $10
billion and a fleet of aging vessels and aircraft.
Admiral, I think as you know, as I have said before, prior
to
9/11, in my view, the Coast Guard was the only one of our
military services whose members were risking their lives
literally on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Your heroic efforts
continue. Please, I think one thing we want to get out of this
committee is to make sure you thank all your members for their
fantastic service.
Let me provide me a few examples of that service.
Last year, the Coast Guard executed more than 17,500 search
and rescue missions and saved over 3,400 lives. In addition,
last year's Coast Guard law enforcement crews interdicted 140
metric tons of narcotics, detained over 300 smugglers, and
interdicted more than 3,500 migrants.
Meanwhile, the Coast Guard's maritime prevention mission
was responsible for the inspection of over 12,000 U.S.
commercial vessels, 3,600 maritime facilities, and the
screening of more than 25,000 cargo containers.
This crucial mission ensures compliance with safety and
environmental protections.
As you are aware, I am a very big fan of the Coast Guard
and your members. But as you recently stated, Admiral, the
Coast Guard's mission demands are on the rise. Increasing human
activity in the Arctic; violence, corruption, terrorism, and
drug trafficking in the Caribbean Basin, Central America, and
Mexico; and, many people don't recognize, overseas contingency
operations demand an increased Coast Guard presence not only
off the coast of the United States but around the globe.
Amazingly, the Coast Guard continues to respond to these
demands with a fleet of cutters that are operating well beyond
their planned service life. These vessels are expensive to
maintain and, due to their increasing age, are not necessarily
optimal for the performance of your evolving set of missions.
The average age of the service's medium-endurance cutters
is almost 50 years old. The Coast Guard's high-endurance
cutters have been in service since the 1960s. Mechanical
malfunctions have forced four cutters headed to sea in support
of counter-narcotic missions to return to port for emergency
dry-docking.
In fact, a 2014 DHA inspector general report found that the
declining readiness of the Coast Guard's high-endurance cutters
continues to pose significant challenges to mission
performance. This decline in fleet readiness certainly
contributes to the service's ability to stop just 20 percent of
the illegal drug shipments that it knows about.
So it is hard to believe that the Coast Guard's fiscal year
2016 budget request does not fully fund design activities
related to the acquisition of the offshore patrol cutter. I
look forward to hearing what impacts this will have on the
acquisition of the offshore patrol cutter, a priority for the
Coast Guard.
Another of the service's priorities should be a new polar
icebreaker. The ongoing recession of the Arctic sea ice
coverage and simultaneous opening of Arctic waters is driving
dramatic increased activity in the regions of the Arctic,
including off the coast of Alaska.
These developments have heightened interest and concerns
about the region's future, with the consequences for increased
demands for search and rescue, environmental response, vessel
traffic safety and security, law enforcement, and, of course,
fisheries resource management.
Coast Guard icebreakers are multi-mission platforms that
are capable of supporting the national interest throughout the
polar regions of our country. Its fleet of three, two of which
are operational, pales in comparison to that of Russia's fleet
of 40 icebreakers. The Coast Guard's fleet is actually one-
third the size recommended by the High-Latitude Mission
Analysis report published in 2010. And we would be very
interested in your comments on the polar icebreaker needs.
This subcommittee has a great deal of work to do to ensure
that the Coast Guard is properly resourced to fund its
priorities, modernize its assets, and successfully execute its
mission. I look forward to hearing from the Commandant and the
Members of the Subcommittee on these and other important
issues.
I would now like to turn the mike over to Ranking Member
Booker for 5 minutes to deliver his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
I just want to say this is my first opportunity to be a
Ranking, with Senator Sullivan. It is an honor to have an
opportunity to work with him. Honestly, his commitment in a
very short time to the work of the Senate as well as the
important work of this committee is admirable.
He said something to me the other day. He has served with
me now for 4 months, and he said it feels like 10 years. I can
only think that is because we feel like old friends.
Senator Sullivan. We will take that comment without
objection.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. I have already apologized, Admiral, that I
have to leave to an important Committee markup. But I do want
to say thank you so much for joining us here. As the Commandant
of the Coast Guard, your service to our country is admirable
and deeply appreciated by all here on the Committee.
I want to express my appreciation not only for your service
but for all that the Coast Guard does. It has been 225 years
that the Coast Guard has safeguarded our Nation's maritime
interests here at home and around the world.
And what I have seen in my time as mayor of the state's
largest city, of which I now serve as their Senator for the
state, has been incredible continuous work by the Coast Guard
in our state.
As recently as 2 weeks ago, the Coast Guard rescued four
civilians from a capsized boat in central New Jersey. The
operator of the 20-foot boat called the Coast Guard to say that
it was taking on water near the entrance of the Shrewsbury
River, just off of Sea Bright. A rescue crew from the Coast
Guard Station Sandy Hook arrived on the scene as the boat
capsized.
Rescue operations like these are, unfortunately, often for
the Coast Guard, and they remind us of the importance of the
work that you do in saving lives and serving this nation.
I am grateful to the men and women of the Coast Guard who
continually put their lives on the line, day after day, for
property at sea, who keep our ports safe and secure, and who
protect our marine environment for this and future generations,
both in New Jersey and around the country.
We have facilities in our state, from the United States
Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May to the Atlantic City
Station, that not only serve the purposes of which I have
mentioned but are also important and integral parts of our
state's economy, our state's community, and our state's overall
well-being.
So I thank you for being here to represent the Coast Guard,
and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word?
Senator Sullivan. Yes, sir. Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. I will enter a statement in the record.
Just to say that I have spent quite a bit of time with the
Admiral. We recently were together for a day, doing
demonstrations of how they interdict a lot of the people that
are coming as migrants and how they take care of them and all
their health needs on those Coast Guard cutters. Some of those
cutters are 50 years old. We have to replace them.
General Kelly, the Commander of SOUTHCOM, doesn't have
enough Coast Guard out there to stop the drugs. They can only
interdict 20 percent of the drugs that the intelligence
apparatus knows is coming out of South America into Central
America and now, increasingly, into the Dominican Republic and
Puerto Rico.
While I was there with the Admiral, we went on a fast boat.
And they showed me how one of their fast boats was the bad guy
trying to get away from the Coast Guard fast boat. And, of
course, if you like some g-forces, which I do, you can pull g-
forces almost in those sharp turns on the fast boats. So they
just do a wonderful job.
The final comment: They are part of our military effort on
the other side of the globe because the Coast Guard is over
there, along with the armed forces as well. So we owe a lot to
this public service, and we need to modernize some of their
equipment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to thank the Coast Guard's 25th Commandant,
Admiral Paul Zukunft, for testifying today.
I had the opportunity to spend some time with Admiral Zukunft and
some of the men and women that serve in the Coast Guard. I've
experienced the professionalism of this sea-going service firsthand
while flying interdiction drills with aircrews from Miami and also
going to sea on multiple assets off the coast of Florida.
The Coast Guard, while small, is extraordinarily agile. With 11
statutory missions to perform, maintaining this level of agility is no
small feat.
The Coast Guard has a vast amount of demands placed on it, and is
forced to meet those demands with an aging fleet of cutters and
aircraft.
The Coast Guard's 210-foot Medium Endurance Cutters are roughly 50
years old, and some of the Coast Guard's C-130 planes are almost as
old.
Admiral, I know you face many challenges as the Commandant of the
Coast Guard but I am confident in your ability to lead this Service. I
am also confident in the men and women that serve under you, and in the
Service's ability to do all that we ask of it.
Thank you for your continued service to our country and I look
forward to your testimony.
Senator Sullivan. Admiral, the floor is yours for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL PAUL F. ZUKUNFT, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST
GUARD
Admiral Zukunft. Good morning, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking
Member Nelson, Ranking Member Booker, members of this
committee. On behalf of the 88,000 men and women of the Coast
Guard, thank you for the support that you provide to my Coast
Guard.
I ask that my written statement be accepted as part of the
official record.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
Admiral Zukunft. I will first start in this, our
hemisphere. We are witnessing extreme violence in Central
America, stemming from insidious transnational organized
criminal networks. We are seeing significant maritime commerce
shifts, fueled by the American energy renaissance. We have
rapidly increasing demands on both industry and government in
the cyber domain. And the Arctic Ocean is open to more commerce
and tourism every year.
Most importantly, all of these geostrategic trends have
converged concurrently on our nation, dramatically increasing
demands on Coast Guard operations and contingency preparedness.
This comes at a time when much of the Coast Guard's
infrastructure and many of our platforms are well beyond their
service life. As you mentioned, last year, I sent four 50-year-
old medium-endurance cutters to costly emergency dry-docks,
losing 20 percent of my planned patrol days.
These pressures put the Coast Guard under tremendous
strain. To help alleviate this strain, we have developed
strategies to address these converging trends, and, moving
forward, we will align our budget priorities to meet them. I
will spend just a moment discussing these converging trends.
Illegal trade in drugs, people, and weapons is a $750
billion global criminal enterprise, and, since 9/11, over
450,000 Americans have died in our homeland due to drug
violence and drug overdose. And unaccompanied minors that are
fleeing crime-ridden countries in Central America, they are
fleeing because drug trafficking organizations reign supreme in
those nations, and those children are coming to a safe refuge,
the United States.
Now, combating these networks requires a forward-based
presence that draws upon the Coast Guard's unique global
authorities to attack illicit trafficking where it is most
vulnerable, and that is at sea.
Two weeks ago, Cutter BOUTWELL returned home from a 79-day
patrol on a flight deck with 29,000 pounds of pure cocaine that
she had seized as a result of 40 interdictions made by U.S.
forces and our international partners. Those interdictions also
resulted in the apprehension of more than 100 traffickers.
Now, BOUTWELL is a 47-year-old Coast Guard cutter, and when
she returned from the patrol before that, she came back with
just slightly more cocaine than that.
And why is that? Because today we have visibility on
approximately 90 percent of the known maritime drug movements
in the Caribbean and the Pacific. And we are only able to
target, as Senator Nelson mentioned, 20 percent of that 90
percent of those illegal shipments with our limited arsenal of
ships and aircraft. This is truly an issue of capacity.
And this is why the offshore patrol cutter is my number one
recapitalization priority. The offshore patrol cutter will
provide affordable and persistent offshore presence needed to
meet maritime objectives well into the 21st century.
Now, shifting to the Arctic, our Nation's fleet of ocean-
going icebreakers today is comprised of one heavy operational
icebreaker, POLAR STAR, and one medium icebreaker, HEALY.
Today, human activity in the Arctic is on the rise,
including trans-Arctic shipping, ecotourism, and resource
exploitation, and the Coast Guard is actively planning for the
potential of Arctic drilling this summer. And we will have a
rotational presence of the Coast Guard Cutter HEALY, a national
security cutter, and a shore-based aviation detachment based in
the Arctic region this summer.
By reactivating POLAR STAR, we have purchased up to 10
years of decision space to recapitalize our icebreaking fleet.
Two of those years have expired. And while I am exploring
several options to reconstitute our Nation's fleet of
icebreakers, I will need top-line relief in my acquisition
budget to make this requirement a reality.
Finally, investing in 21st-century Coast Guard platforms
and people is a smart choice. No one will return more
operational value on every dollar than the men and women of the
United States Coast Guard. Our acquisition force received 5
Federal acquisition awards in 2014, and we were the first
military service to achieve a clean, unqualified financial
audit, an accomplishment we have done for 2 consecutive years
as we continue to strengthen our financial management
processes. And we have proved to be responsible stewards of our
financial resources and capital plan, operating and maintaining
platforms, like BOUTWELL, well beyond their service life.
Going forward, the key to our future operational success is
stable and predictable funding. I look forward to working with
this committee as we make prudent investments in the 21st-
century Coast Guard.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Zukunft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant,
U.S. Coast Guard
Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee. Thank you for the continued support the Congress has shown
to the 88,000 active duty, civilian, reservists, and auxiliary
personnel of the United States Coast Guard, through funding investment
in our people, the recapitalization of our aging fleet, and sustainment
of our front-line operations.
At all times an Armed Force, a regulatory agency, a humanitarian
service, a Federal law enforcement agency and a member of the
intelligence community, the Coast Guard protects, defends, and promotes
National interests on the high seas, in our Exclusive Economic Zone,
near our coasts, and in our ports and inland waterways. The Service
leverages more than 60 bilateral agreements and arrangements to address
counter narcotics, illegal migration, fisheries enforcement and weapons
proliferation--not only beyond our territorial sea, but in many cases,
extending U.S. jurisdictional reach into [the territorial sea or other]
waters under the jurisdiction of signatory nations.
We are a maritime law enforcement service without peer and a unique
instrument of international diplomacy. Many nations model their
maritime forces after the U.S. Coast Guard to address transnational
crime, human smuggling and foreign incursions into their respective
waters. The Coast Guard uses our broad authorities, capabilities, and
expansive partnerships to sustain an effective and persistent presence
to ensure the most vital National interests in the maritime operating
environment are met.
The U.S. Coast Guard operates in a complex, diverse and rapidly
changing world. To ensure we meet the demands of today while preparing
for tomorrow, the Service aligns its actions and investments with other
components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and National
strategies. The Fiscal Year 2016 Budget continues the sound stewardship
of fiscal resources to invest in the 21st Century Coast Guard.
Investments in the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) acquisition, improved
aviation capabilities, integrated command and control systems and a
proficient workforce are all critical to our future success. We remain
an adaptable force, firmly committed to prioritizing operations and
resources to maximize service to the Nation.
Our extraordinary people deserve America's investment in a 21st
century Coast Guard. In 2016, we will bring special focus to four
maritime concerns that support the Nation's interests, security, and
prosperity:
(1) Combating Transnational Organized Crime networks and securing
our borders;
(2) Safeguarding commerce;
(3) Enhancing our internal IT security and promoting cyber security
within ports; and
(4) Maintaining our presence in the Polar Regions.
As part of the President's strategy to enhance stability,
prosperity, and governance in Central America, the Coast Guard is
repositioning legacy forces and investing in the people and platforms
necessary to carry out an offensive strategy that targets Transnational
Organized Crime networks, operating with impunity throughout the
Central American region, and disrupts these criminal network operations
where they are most vulnerable--at sea. For example, Coast Guard Cutter
BOUTWELL returned home with nearly 60,000 pounds of uncut, pure cocaine
with a street value of more than one and a half billion dollars in two
patrols over the last six months. It was the result of nearly 40
different interdictions by U.S. forces. Our Helicopter Interdiction
Tactical Squadron (HITRON) set a record in 2014, with 46 at sea
interdictions netting over 31 metric tons of cocaine and 27 tons of
marijuana. The increase in illicit trafficking of humans, drugs, and
weapons into our transit zones and southern approaches is the direct
result of Transnational Organized Crime networks operating with
impunity throughout the Central American region. These organizations
are vying for power through drug-fueled violence, the effects of which
are destabilizing governments, undermining the rule of law, terrorizing
citizens, and driving illegal migration from Central America to the
United States, including the inhumane and perilous migration of
unaccompanied children.
We continue to replace High Endurance Cutters, with the more
capable National Security Cutters. In 2016, we will continue
construction of the final three NSCs. In the future, acquisition of an
affordable and capable offshore patrol cutter will also be a critical
piece of the Coast Guard's Western Hemisphere Strategy to combat these
networks. The OPC will be the backbone of Coast Guard offshore presence
and the manifestation of Coast Guard authorities. It is essential to
interdicting drug smugglers at sea, as well as for interdicting
undocumented migrants, rescuing mariners, enforcing fisheries laws,
responding to disasters, and protecting our ports. As the Coast Guard
completes acquisition of the NSC, the OPC will become Coast Guard's
number one acquisition priority.
In 2013, a new tank barge entered the stream of commerce every day
in America, moving product on our maritime highways to fuel the United
States economy. There has been a significant increase in barge transits
carrying oil and natural gas on the Mississippi River in the last five
years. The Coast Guard plays an important role in ensuring the safe and
secure movement of commerce on the Nation's waterways to bolster
economic security. Changes in U.S. energy production have increased the
traffic levels at some of our ports. Larger tanker vessels, greater
complexity of port operations and expanded movement of energy and
hazardous materials increase the overall risk of an incident that could
have severe environmental consequences. To keep pace with the maritime
industry we regulate, the Coast Guard will continue ongoing initiatives
to improve our marine safety workforce, and support innovative
technologies to improve waterways management.
In 2016, we will remain in lockstep with other components of DHS
and Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to enhance cyber security to
defend our own network and work with port partners to protect maritime
critical infrastructure and operators.
The Coast Guard cutter POLAR STAR recently completed Operation Deep
Freeze in Antarctica. Her mission consisted of breaking out a channel,
and escorting petroleum and break bulk carriers, to resupply the United
States base of operations in McMurdo Sound. That vital mission has
enabled the U.S. to conduct scientific research and to implement the
Antarctic treaty--a strategic necessity for our Nation. POLAR STAR is
the only heavy ice breaker in the United States fleet capable of
conducting this mission and providing assured access. In 2016, we
continue the pre-acquisition work for procurement of a new polar
icebreaker including development of a request for proposal.
In 2016, the Coast Guard will continue mobile and seasonal
operations and partner with the coast guards of all Arctic nations
through the Arctic Coast Guard Forum. We will continue to cooperate
with the Department of State and other Federal and international
partners as the U.S. assumes the Chairmanship of the Arctic Council in
2015. Mobile and seasonal operations--the summer deployment of assets
during Operation Arctic Shield--will continue to better understand the
operational demands of the region and inform the timing and extent of
any infrastructure needs based on human and economic activity in the
region. Operation Arctic Shield is geared towards assessing the
operational capabilities of cutters, boats, and aircraft in the Arctic
while strengthening relationships with state, local, and tribal
stakeholders. Research operations will continue on Coast Guard's medium
ice breaker, HEALY. In addition to providing a research platform for
U.S. scientists, HEALY provides a vessel of opportunity to help manage
increasing human and economic activity in the Arctic. For example, last
summer Coast Guard Cutter HEALY was diverted to rescue a 36-foot
sailing vessel trapped in ice forty miles north of Barrow, Alaska.
The Coast Guard's daily activities support nearly every facet of
the Nation's maritime interests, protect our homeland and secure our
economic prosperity. The past year of Coast Guard operations was no
exception. The Coast Guard responded to over 17,500 search-and-rescue
cases, saving more than 3,400 lives; seized over 91 metric tons of
cocaine and 48.9 metric tons of marijuana destined for the United
States, worth an estimated $3 billion; detained over 340 suspected drug
smugglers; interdicted more than 3,500 undocumented migrants; conducted
over 25,000 container inspections; completed over 9,600 Safety of Life
at Sea (SOLAS) safety exams on foreign vessels; and responded to
approximately 8,000 reports of pollution incidents.
You will not find a better return on investment than the U.S. Coast
Guard. Due to exceptional commitment and innovation, the Coast Guard
has ships sailing today that are 60 years old--well beyond their
service life. The Medium Endurance Cutters that make up the backbone of
the offshore fleet are reaching 50 years of age. Over the last two
years, four of these cutters have experienced emergency drydocks,
losing nearly 20 percent of their planned patrol days. As careful
stewards, the Service was the first military service to earn an
unqualified audit opinion, and has done so two years running. As part
of the Coast Guard's plan to recapitalize for the next half century,
the Service created an acquisition workforce that won five federal-
level awards in 2014.
As the Service approaches 225 years of service, history has proven
that a responsive, capable, and agile Coast Guard is an indispensable
instrument of national security, and investing in 21st century Coast
Guard platforms and people is a prudent choice despite the challenging
fiscal environment.
No other investment will return more operational value on every
dollar than the 88,000 extraordinary men and women of the U.S. Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard will remain Semper Paratus--Always Ready.
FY 2016 Request
The Coast Guard's FY 2016 budget preserves Coast Guard operations,
invests in Coast Guard personnel and continues recapitalization efforts
for our cutters, boats, aircraft, systems and infrastructure. The
budget also efficiently allocates resources to optimize Coast Guard
mission performance. The Coast Guard must continue meeting today's
operational requirements while investing in future capability to best
serve the Nation.
The Coast Guard's FY 2016 budget priorities are to:
1. Invest in the 21st Century Coast Guard;
2. Sustain mission excellence; and
3. Maximize service to nation.
Invest in the 21st Century Coast Guard
Coast Guard mission demands continue to grow and evolve. The
complexities and challenges facing the Nation require well-trained
Coast Guard men and women with capable platforms providing the
persistent presence necessary to conduct operations. Given the age and
condition of existing assets, future mission success relies on
continued recapitalization of Coast Guard boats, cutters, aircraft,
systems, and infrastructure. Similar to the Medium Endurance Cutter it
replaces, the Offshore Patrol Cutter will provide the majority of the
Coast Guard's offshore surface capacity essential to stopping drug
smugglers at sea in addition to interdicting undocumented migrants,
rescuing mariners in distress, deploying alongside the Navy, enforcing
U.S. fisheries laws, responding to disasters, and protecting our ports.
They are an important component of enhancing security as outlined in
the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America.
In support of the DHS's strategic objectives, the FY 2016 budget
provides for the acquisition of six Fast Response Cutters, continues to
invest in acquisition activities for an affordable Offshore Patrol
Cutter and funds vessel sustainment projects for two 140-foot WTGB Ice-
breaking Tugs and a 225-foot Seagoing Buoy Tender. The budget also
continues sustainment and conversion work on legacy fixed and rotary
wing aircraft, missionization of the C-27J aircraft received from the
Air Force, and investment in Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR)
systems.
Sustain Mission Excellence
The FY 2016 budget ensures the Coast Guard can conduct today's
highest priority operations in support of national objectives. Most
importantly, it sustains the Coast Guard's workforce and supports
proficiency, maximizing operational safety and effectiveness. In 2016,
the Coast Guard will decommission two 110-foot Patrol Boats that are
being replaced by more capable Fast Response Cutters. The Coast Guard
will also decommission three HC-130 aircraft and corresponding support
personnel while accepting the delivery of new C-130J aircraft and C-27J
aircraft. The FY 2016 budget sustains the Coast Guard's highest
priority operations with current operational assets and the necessary
workforce.
Maximize Service to Nation
The Coast Guard's authorities extend well beyond our territorial
sea, requiring us to meet evolving mission requirements stemming from
national priorities, while remaining a trusted steward of public
resources.
The FY 2016 budget sustains critical frontline operations by
efficiently allocating resources across all mission programs. Coast
Guard operational commanders will continue maintaining search and
rescue coverage, protecting critical infrastructure, countering illicit
threats from entering the United States, facilitating the proper
function of the MTS to minimize disruptions to the transit of maritime
commerce, safeguarding the maritime environment, and supporting foreign
policy objectives and defense operations.
FY 2016 Highlights
Invest in the 21st Century Coast Guard
Surface Assets $533.9M (0 FTE)
The budget provides $533.9 million for the following surface asset
recapitalization and sustainment initiatives:
National Security Cutter (NSC)--Provides funding for
the Structural Enhancement Drydock Availability (SEDA) for
the NSC and post delivery activities for the fifth through
eighth NSCs, completing the recapitalization of the Coast
Guard's High Endurance Cutter fleet. The acquisition of the
NSC is vital to performing DHS missions in the far off-
shore regions, including the harsh operating environment of
the Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic;
Fast Response Cutter (FRC)--Provides funding to
procure six FRCs. These assets replace the aging fleet of
110-foot patrol boats that provide the coastal capability
to conduct Search and Rescue operations, enforce border
security, interdict drugs, uphold immigration laws, prevent
terrorism, and enhance resiliency to disasters;
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)--Supports technical
review and analysis of preliminary and contract design
phase deliverables for the OPC project. The
Administration's request includes a general provision
permitting a transfer to the OPC project if the program is
ready to award the next phase of vessel acquisition in FY
2016. The OPC will replace the Medium Endurance Cutter
classes that conduct missions on the high seas and coastal
approaches;
Polar Ice Breaker (WAGB)--Continues pre-acquisition
activities for a new polar icebreaker;
Cutter Boats--Continues funding for production of
multi-mission cutter small boats that will be fielded on
the Coast Guard's major cutter fleet beginning with the
NSC;
In-Service Vessel Sustainment--Continues funding for
sustainment projects on 140-foot ice breaking tugs (WTGB),
225-foot seagoing buoy tenders, the training Barque EAGLE
(WIX), and initial sustainment activities for the 47-foot
motor lifeboats (MLB);
Survey and Design--Continues funding for multi-year
engineering and design work for multiple cutter classes in
support of future sustainment and acquisition projects.
Air Assets $200.0M (0 FTE)
The budget provides $200.0 million for the following air asset
recapitalization or enhancement initiatives:
HC-144A--Funds spare parts required to maintain the
operational availability of the HC-144A Ocean Sentry
aircraft;
HC-27J--Funds continued activities of the C-27J Asset
Project Office (APO). The APO organizes logistics,
training, maintenance support and ensures these newly
acquired aircraft are ready for induction into the
operational fleet. Funds aircraft regeneration, spares,
initial training, mission system development, ground
support equipment to stand up first operational unit;
HH-65--Continues modernization and sustainment of the
Coast Guard's fleet of HH-65 helicopters, converting them
to MH-65 Short Range Recovery (SRR) helicopters. The
modernization effort includes reliability and
sustainability improvements, where obsolete components are
replaced with modernized sub-systems, including an
integrated cockpit and sensor suite;
C-130J--Funds initial spare parts required for stand
up of the second operational HC-130J unit.
Other Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Initiatives $65.1M (0 FTE)
The budget provides $65.1 million for other initiatives funded
under the Acquisition, Construction and Improvements account,
including the following equipment and services:
Program Oversight and Management--Funds activities
associated with the transition of the Coast Guard's assets
from acquisition to operations, including delivery,
provision of logistics, training, and other services
necessary to ensure seamless integration into the
operational fleet;
Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR)--
Provides design, development, upgrades, and assistance on
C4ISR hardware and software, creating a common operational
picture and ensuring interoperability of all new and in-
service assets;
CG-Logistics Information Management System--Continues
development and deployment of a unified logistics system
for Coast Guard operational assets.
Shore Units and Aids to Navigation (ATON) $101.4M (0 FTE)
The budget provides $101.4 million to recapitalize shore
infrastructure for safe, functional, and modern facilities that
support Coast Guard assets and personnel:
Specific Projects--Pier improvements in Little Creek,
VA, to facilitate a 210' WMEC homeport shift; renovation
and restoration of electrical system at Air Station Barbers
Point, HI; the first phase of the replacement of aging dry-
dock facilities at the Coast Guard Yard; erosion control
work at Station Siuslaw River, OR; and construction of
permanent facilities at Station Vallejo, CA;
ATON Infrastructure--Construction and improvements to
short-range aids and infrastructure to improve the safety
of maritime transportation.
Major Acquisition System Infrastructure--Modification
and construction of facilities to support newly delivered
acquisitions. Includes upgrades and construction for NSC
homeports, Medium Range Surveillance aircraft operational
and maintenance facilities, and engineering, feasibility,
and environmental studies for future projects.
Personnel and Management $116.9M (881 FTE)
The budget provides $116.9 million for pay and benefits of the
Coast Guard's acquisition workforce.
Sustain Mission Excellence
Operational Adjustments
Cyber Security Remediation +$5.2M (0 FTE)
This increase reflects a portion of a DHS-wide plan to address
identified vulnerabilities related to a component
controlled system, and the Department will track
remediation of these vulnerabilities commencing in FY 2015.
Support Structure Review and Rebalancing -$2.5M (-
18 FTE)
A thorough review of the Coast Guard's support delivery structure
identified personnel reductions at various locations that
can be taken with no direct operational impacts and a
minimal loss of current service delivery;
National Capital Region Footprint Consolidation -
$3.0M (0 FTE)
Reduces the Coast Guard's physical footprint in the National
Capital Region through consolidation of personnel and
offices into the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters
building at St. Elizabeths;
Professional Services Contract Reduction -$44.9M (0
FTE)
Reduces or scales professional services contracts and redirects
savings to higher priorities;
Manual Continuous Monitoring Reduction -$1.2M (0
FTE)
Due to increased capabilities of the Continuous Diagnostics and
Mitigation (CDM) program, the need for manual cyber
security monitoring is reduced and the Coast Guard is able
to achieve savings with no loss of IT system security;
Headquarters Directorate Reduction -$5.0M (0 FTE)
Reduces funding for the overhead costs of Coast Guard
headquarters directorates through a focused effort to
minimize duplicative spending on consumable supplies and
materials.
Asset Decommissioning and Retirement
As the Coast Guard recapitalizes its cutter and aircraft fleets and
brings new assets into service, the older assets that are being
replaced will be decommissioned or retired.
Patrol Boat (WPB) -$1.1 M (-14 FTE)
Decommissions two 110-ft WPB patrol boats. These assets will be
replaced with Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) in the Seventh
Coast Guard District.
HC-130 Aircraft Retirement -$11.7M (-53 FTE)
Eliminates funding and personnel associated with the retirement
of three HC-130H to the Air Force for transfer to the U.S.
Forest Service as outlined in the FY 2014 National Defense
Authorization Act. Newly acquired HC-130J and C-27J
aircraft will provide increased operational reliability.
Maximize Service to the Nation
Operating and Maintenance Funds for New Assets +$89.9M
(222 FTE)
Provides funding for operations and maintenance of shore
facilities, as well as cutters, boats, aircraft, and associated
C4ISR subsystems delivered through acquisition efforts.
Shore Facilities--Funds operation and maintenance of
shore facility projects scheduled for completion by FY
2016;
Response Boat-Medium--Funds operation, maintenance and
support of 4 RB-Ms;
FRC--Funds operation and maintenance of FRCs #18-21
and provides funding for personnel to operate and maintain
hulls #19-22, including the shore-side support personnel;
NSC--Funds personnel for NSC #6, and costs for shore
side support personnel for NSCs #4-5 (to be homeported in
Charleston, SC);
C-27JA Aircraft--Funds operations, maintenance, and
personnel funding for the first four C-27J aircraft that
will be assigned to Air Station Sacramento, CA.
Pay & Allowances +$80.8 (0 FTE)
Maintains parity with DOD for military pay, allowances, and health
care, and for civilian pay raise and retirement contributions.
As a branch of the Armed Forces of the United States, the Coast
Guard is subject to the provisions of the National Defense
Authorization Act, which include pay and personnel benefits for
the military workforce.
Conclusion
In closing, I will stress that you will not find a better return on
investment than the United States Coast Guard. As the service
approaches its 225th year, history has proven us responsive, capable,
and agile. The Service provides tremendous operational results for
every dollar provided to the extraordinary men and women of the United
States Coast Guard. We have been and will remain Semper Paratus--Always
Ready.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Admiral. And, again, I would,
please, from this committee, pass on our compliments to all the
members of the Coast Guard, who are doing such great work for
our country.
I wanted to start by drilling down into an issue that is
very Alaska-specific, but I think it is a broader issue with
regard to how individual agency decisions in one part of the
Federal Government can dramatically impact another agency's
resources.
So, over a year ago, the people of King Cove were denied a
reliable lifesaving road that would provide medical emergency
access because of the decision by Secretary Jewell at the
Department of Interior not to allow for that road.
During that time, the Secretary, in her decision, stated
she understood the need for reliable methods of medical
transport for lives and safety for the residents of King Cove,
Alaska, but have concluded that other methods of transport
remain and could be improved to meet the community's needs.
She never identified any other methods and alternatives,
and so what has happened is that the brave men and women of the
Coast Guard have been asked and have admirably functioned their
mission, to fly dangerous evacuation missions in very poor
weather conditions.
Since Secretary Jewell denied the road in King Cove, there
have been seven Coast Guard medevacs, most recently on February
22, 2015. How much do each of these evacuations from King Cove
to Cold Bay cost the Coast Guard? Do you know?
Admiral Zukunft. Mr. Chairman, those cost approximately
$42,000 per medevac. That is the financial cost, but there is
also a cost of risk. As you know, this is not a benign
operating environment.
Senator Sullivan. No.
So there is also the real risk that comes with the
expenditure of those flights.
Senator Sullivan. A real risk to the brave men and women
flying those flights.
Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. So, as you probably know and we certainly
believe in Alaska, the Secretary of the Interior could fix this
issue with the stroke of a pen. Have there been any discussions
at all for the Department of the Interior reimbursing the Coast
Guard for these expenses, which, again, in a year and a half,
have grown quite significantly?
Admiral Zukunft. There have been no such discussions.
Senator Sullivan. OK.
I would like to next turn to an issue that I think is on
everybody's list here. You talked about it. I would like you to
drill down a little bit more in your testimony with regard to
the need for an offshore patrol cutter and the new icebreaker,
with regard to the priorities at the top of your list.
How will you manage the acquisition, construction,
improvement funding needed for these priorities as the funding
for these types of requirements continues to decline?
I am going to submit for my written testimony how much the
decline in your budget has been over the last few years.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senator from Alaska
Good morning, everyone. I'd like to start by thanking the
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, for
taking time out of his busy schedule to testify before this
Subcommittee today.
As we all know, the Coast Guard's mission is to ensure the safety,
security, and stewardship of our Nation's waters--a daunting task that
covers the largest system of ports, waterways, and coastal seas in the
world.
The Coast Guard admirably performs this mission on a daily basis
with a team of less than 90,000 members comprised of active duty,
reserve, civilian, and volunteer forces, an annual budget of less than
$10 billion, and a fleet of aging vessels and aircraft.
I have often said, prior to the events of September 11, 2001, the
Coast Guard was the only uniformed service whose members risked their
lives for this Nation on a daily basis.
Last year, the Coast Guard executed more than 17,500 search and
rescue missions and saved over 3,400 lives. And let me add a local item
of interest: According to the Alaska Dispatch News, six of those
rescues were conducted out of King Cove, in Alaska's Aleutian Chain,
because the Department of Interior has blocked a potentially life-
saving road that would allow residents to drive to an all-weather
airport.
More about the heroic Coast Guard efforts in my home state: Just
last week, an MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter crew out of Kodiak, Alaska
rescued three mariners after a fire started on board their fishing
vessel. The three men couldn't put out the fire, and were forced to don
survival suits and abandon their vessel, floating in the choppy Gulf of
Alaska in a small lifeboat. The MH-60 crew responded within a half hour
and saved their lives.
In addition, last year Coast Guard law enforcement crews
interdicted 140 metric tons of narcotics, detained over 300 smugglers,
and interdicted more than 3,500 migrants.
Those successes have continued this year. The crew of the Cutter
BOUTWELL seized over 14 tons of cocaine during its recent patrol. So
far this year the Coast Guard has seized nearly 30 tons of cocaine and
apprehended over 100 smugglers.
Meanwhile, the Coast Guard's maritime prevention mission was
responsible for the inspection of over 12,000 U.S. commercial vessels
and 3,600 marine facilities, and the screening of more than 25,000
cargo containers. This crucial mission ensures compliance with safety
and environmental protection regulations.
Admiral Zukunft recently stated that the Coast Guard's mission
demands were on the rise.
Increasing human activity in the Arctic; violence, corruption,
terrorism, and drug trafficking in the Caribbean Basin, Central
America, and Mexico; and overseas contingency operations demand an
increased Coast Guard presence around the globe.
Amazingly, the Coast Guard continues to respond to these demands
with a fleet of cutters that are operating beyond their planned service
life. These vessels are expensive to maintain, and due to their
increasing age, are not necessarily optimal for the performance of
their evolving set of missions.
The average age of the service's medium endurance cutters is almost
50 years.
The Coast Guard's high endurance cutters have been in service since
the 1960s. Mechanical malfunctions have forced four cutters headed to
sea in support of counter-narcotics missions to return to port for
emergency dry-docking.
In fact, a 2014 DHS Inspector General report found that the
declining readiness of the Coast Guard's high endurance cutters
continues to pose significant challenges to mission performance. This
decline in fleet readiness certainly contributes to the service's
ability to stop just 20 percent of the illegal drug shipments that it
knows about.
So it's hard to believe that the Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2016
budget request does not fully fund design activities related to the
acquisition of the offshore patrol cutter. I look forward to hearing
what impact this will have on the acquisition of the offshore patrol
cutter--a priority for the Coast Guard.
Another of the service's priorities should be a new polar
icebreaker. The ongoing recession of the Arctic sea ice coverage and
simultaneous opening of Arctic waters is driving increased human
activity in the region. These developments have heightened interest in,
and concerns about, the region's future, with consequences for
increased demands for search and rescue, environmental response, vessel
traffic safety and security, law enforcement, and fisheries resource
management.
For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is currently
reviewing one company's plan to drill exploratory wells off the coast
of Alaska. This alone highlights the need for greater Coast Guard
presence in the Arctic in support of the agency's response and
prevention missions.
Coast Guard icebreakers are multi-mission platforms that are
capable of supporting national interests in the Polar Regions. Its
fleet of three, of which two are operational, pales in comparison to
that of Russia's fleet of 40.
The Coast Guard's fleet is actually one third the size recommended
by a High Latitude Mission Analysis Report published in 2010.
That report indicated a service need of at least three heavy
icebreakers and three medium icebreakers.
Currently, the Coast Guard operates just one heavy icebreaker that
was brought into service in 1976, exceeding its 30-year service life.
An overhaul of the vessel completed in 2012 may continue her service to
between 2019 and 2022.
A new heavy icebreaker could cost more than $1 billion, and would
have a tremendous impact on the Coast Guard's budget. For perspective,
the President's Fiscal Year 2016 budget request includes approximately
$1 billion to support all of the service's acquisition, construction,
and improvement projects.
This is almost 17 percent below what was enacted last year, but
more importantly, provides the service with 35 percent less funding for
vessel acquisitions and highlights a continuing trend of decreased
funding for Coast Guard acquisitions.
This Subcommittee has a great deal of work to do to ensure that the
Coast Guard is properly resourced to fund its priorities, modernize its
assets, and successfully execute its missions. I look forward to
hearing from the Commandant and this Subcommittee's members on these
important issues.
Senator Sullivan. But how are you trying to manage that as
the decline is occurring?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes. Several key elements of our
acquisition portfolio, right now the largest being our national
security cutter. And we just awarded the final contract for the
eighth national security cutter, which is the program of record
for that platform.
And I cannot say enough great things about what this
platform is doing not just for our Coast Guard but for our
nation overall on a global scale. So the national security
cutter, I am quite pleased with its performance.
We have used a commercial-off-the-shelf design to
recapitalize our patrol boat fleet with our fast-response
cutters using fixed-price contracts. And we will recompete
those. The first phase of that will build 32, after that the
next 26, with emphasis on affordability through open and fair
competition, as we look at building that out.
And, similarly, we have done a lot of homework on the
offshore patrol craft, with an emphasis on meeting our mission
demands. One is operating globally, which means in a sea state
5, which is really 8- to 13-foot seas, where it can still
launch boats, helicopters, perform missions, but do so in an
affordable way and, again, using fixed-price contracting. We
have solicited out to three bids.
We have had great support from this committee in bringing
on 14 C-27J aircraft at no cost to the Coast Guard, which
avoided a $500 million expenditure, which I would be woeful to
find those funds to recapitalize my fixed-wing squadron within
the Coast Guard, as well.
And so, at the same time, we are extending the service life
of the 140-foot icebreakers, our 225-foot buoy tenders, to
extend their service life out as we get at these most critical
priorities within the budget constraints that we have right
now.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
We might have a second round of questions here, but my time
is up, so, Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. I am going to defer so our other members
can go.
Senator Sullivan. OK.
Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair Sullivan; thank you,
Ranking Member Nelson.
Thank you, Admiral.
I want to just start by complimenting the leadership that
you have had in the Pacific. I have gotten to know many of your
leaders. They live in a very nice house on Diamond Head, and
they deserve it. They have been doing great work for many, many
years.
I want to start with this offshore patrol cutter question.
You are planning for 25 at $421 million apiece. Am I getting
those numbers correct?
Admiral Zukunft. That would be the lead ship design, and
then, as you go into full-rate production, with economies of
scale, that price would come down considerably.
Senator Schatz. OK. And, of the 25, how do they get
deployed across the globe? And what percentage of those, if you
can give me rough estimates, are going to be assigned to the
drug interdiction priority?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes. These will be ships, Senator, that
will be around for 50-plus years. And so, as I look into my
crystal ball, what are the threats going to be? We see
continuing competition for fisheries, especially out in the
Asia-Pacific region, where our remote economic exclusive zones
are. Our nation seems to have an insatiable appetite for
contraband, and so that will be with us.
Illegal migration, when I look at the push-pull factors of
illegal migration, the disparity of economies between third-
world nations and ours, that is going to be with us for some
time, as well.
Senator Schatz. So, excuse me, but your recapitalization
plan does not--this is not to get at this 20-percent-of-90-
percent problem. I guess that is what I am worried about, is
that if we are able to interdict 20 percent of the 90 percent
that we can see, that is troubling. I am not sure that we can
throw a sufficient number of vessels at this problem to
actually significantly make an impact. And, therefore, we would
be doubling down on a plan that, in the end, cannot work.
And so I guess my question is, what do we get for our 10
billion odd dollars spent in this recapitalization program in
terms of drug interdiction? Does that number creep up from 20
percent to double that? Or is it a marginal increase? Are we
just treading water? What do we get for that?
Because I think, if we don't get much of an increase in the
percentage of penetration, then we have to reconsider our
strategy, which I understand is sort of a national policy
question.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes. So I look at, near term, certainly,
the offshore patrol cutter would be applied to that 90 percent
intel.
The other part of it is, no matter how we are resourced,
the United States can't do this alone. I use a term, ``it takes
a network to defeat a network.'' We get great support from the
Royal Navy from Canada, from the Dutch, and the French. We are
working very closely right now with Colombia to put Coast Guard
and law enforcement teams on those platforms to leverage some
of that 90-percent information.
But it is not just about removing the drugs; it is what is
happening in Central America. Eight out of 10 of the most
violent nations right now are in this hemisphere, and they have
gotten that way because drug trafficking organizations have
found a safe haven. And they will continue to persist.
And I feel it is incumbent upon the Coast Guard to
demonstrate its authorities--we have 41 counter-drug bilateral
agreements with many of these nations--a leadership role in
this Nation that we are not going to allow this to proliferate
into the 21st century.
Senator Schatz. Right. I am in absolute agreement about not
allowing these organizations to operate with impunity. My
question, though, is efficacy. And I am trying to figure out,
what do we get for taxpayers dollars in that region and how
much of an increase in the Coast Guard's presence? So why don't
we continue that conversation.
I have one other question I wanted to raise for you, and it
has to do with unmanned systems, both in the maritime space and
the aerial space. I am wondering what the Coast Guard is doing
in this area, especially when it comes to disaster response,
and whether there are technical challenges that are in the
process of being overcome.
But it seems to me that both in the intel gathering, in the
environmental monitoring space, and then in the actual delivery
of supplies in the case that they are needed that there is
great potential, and I am wondering what the Coast Guard is
doing in that space.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir, Senator. Let me just talk
efficacy first.
And so, in our sequestration year of 2013, we cut our
counter-drug activity by over 30 percent, and we saw a
commensurate drop in our interdictions. I have nearly increased
by 50 percent our presence this last year alone. In the first 2
months of this Fiscal Year, we removed more drugs in the
Pacific than we did in all of 2013. And, in fact, we have
already exceeded what we have done in 2014.
So numbers do matter. And so it shifts the threat of where
it goes from there.
When it comes to unmanned aerial systems, what we need is a
sea-based system which is fairly light which allows us to have
a manned system and an unmanned system. And we have worked with
some of those prototypes.
The Coast Guard also has 10 pilots that work with our
Customs and Border Protection, operating their Predator drones,
which could also be used during a disaster response to provide
some degree of surveillance and domain awareness using that.
So we are invested. Going forward, we are looking at light
but sea-based platforms that we could use into the future.
Senator Schatz. And you have the authorities you need to
continue to pursue this technology?
Admiral Zukunft. We have a set-aside to begin that, and so
we are in the scoping phase right now. And then we are moving
ahead, though, with unmanned aerial systems.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Nelson, for being here.
And, Admiral, it is a pleasure, too, to have you here
before our Subcommittee here.
I am particularly pleased to have you here because the
Coast Guard plays a very critical mission in the Great Lakes.
And, representing the state of Michigan, being surrounded by
the Great Lakes is a big deal for us, and I can say firsthand
that we are very proud of all the work the Coast Guard has done
over the years along those shores.
In fact, I had the opportunity to go aboard your Coast
Guard icebreaking tug, the Bristol Bay, which is a 140-foot
vessel, recently. Got to see firsthand some of the operations
along the St. Clair River and was impressed by the
professionalism and the seamanship of your crew there.
And we talked a great deal about how their icebreaking
operations in the Great Lakes have expanded considerably,
especially the last couple years, with the significant ice
cover that we had--in fact, near total both years, which, as
you know, is an unusual event, but with the melting of the
polar ice cap, some of our folks--in fact, I met with folks
from NOAA who thought that might be more of the norm in the
Great Lakes than the aberration. So we are going to continue to
see the need for those operations.
But that vessel, of course, as you know, also does search
and rescue, marine environmental protection, law enforcement,
port security, safety duties--a long list of operations.
So, again, thank you for allowing me that opportunity. I
also wanted to thank Admiral Midgette and District Nine for
arranging that. And I look forward to seeing other operations
around the Lakes that you are engaged in.
But I wanted to switch gears a little bit here and talk
about another one of the very critical missions that you have,
which is to protect the marine environment from oil and
chemical spills.
According to a 2013 report by the Coast Guard, by your
organization, the service and other responders--in that report,
it was stated that the service and other responders are not
adequately equipped or prepared to deal for a heavy oil spill
in the Great Lakes.
And it goes without saying a major spill in the Great Lakes
would be a disaster of epic proportions, given the fact that we
are one of the largest bodies of freshwater in the world and
millions of people drink the water and the fishing/recreational
assets there.
And I think we are particularly vulnerable--the one that I
am focused on is an oil pipeline that we have across the
Straits of Mackinac that is over 60 years old. And, as we know,
with pipelines, usually it is just a matter of time before they
leak. And a 60-year-old pipe going across 5 miles of Great
Lakes is a frightening prospect for me, particularly coming
from Michigan, where we had the largest oil spill, pipeline
spill, in history just a few years ago in the Kalamazoo River
that--I think the price tag now is over a billion dollars, and
still working on the cleanup there, that we have to be
concerned about these pipelines that are going across the Great
Lakes.
So the question to you, Admiral, is, given the warnings
that you had a couple years ago of the disastrous implications
of a spill in the Great Lakes, what do you think is needed to
build a better spill response plan for the Great Lakes region?
What can we do to assist you in working with other stakeholders
that are also involved in this?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, the real work began, Senator, with
the regional response team. As we look at, you know, the whole
of science, but what are the response protocols that we would
use in a major oil spill? Probably one of the more
controversial ones are the use of either dispersants or burning
the oil off, or what we call an ``in situ burn.''
We learned a lot of valuable lessons from the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. One, it is imperative that you have a
responsible party and that we fully leverage the full extent of
the authorities of the Clean Water Act to bring every national
asset to bear when it comes to oil spill response. And if that
is not adequate, then you reach out globally.
So when you look at a pipeline, obviously the first thing
you want to do is be able to secure the source so you don't
have a continuous flow like we did with Deepwater Horizon. But
that is a very pristine environment, and so you don't have some
of the microbes that you do in the Gulf of Mexico that will
normally decay, you know, what oil remains. And so a lot of
work needs to be done on that, because the tolerance for any
oil spill, quite honestly, is going to be very low, which means
the removal threshold needs to be set very high.
So we worked through that with the regional response team,
and then how do you mitigate a major oil spill. So those are
some of the challenges that I see going forward.
Senator Peters. And, from the report, it seems as if you
are concerned about some of those plans in the Great Lakes. And
I know there have been some issues related to the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, and we are
going to have their reauthorization coming up in this
committee, as well. And there have been some significant gaps
that have been identified in their ability to respond or to put
the plans forward.
How comfortable are you with the plans in the Great Lakes,
particularly--not just with the Straits of Mackinac pipeline,
but we have others. So I guess a couple questions: Do you have
enough information regarding those pipelines that cross this
pristine environment? And do you feel comfortable that the
partners that you work with are in a position to respond as
quickly as necessary?
Admiral Zukunft. And until I have actually seen the plans,
Senator, I would have to say, no, I am not comfortable.
And the reason I say that is that information is then
factored into what we call an area contingency plan, when you
look at what a worst-case discharge might be and then what
equipment do you have to have pre-staged to enable a response
to a spill of that magnitude. And we found out, again, during
Deepwater Horizon, that those area contingency plans were
inadequate for a spill of that volume.
So I need to do a deeper read on that, and we owe you a
response after we review that material, our area contingency
plans, to say how ready are we for a major spill in the Great
Lakes.
Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that and look forward to
working closely with your office on that. Because, obviously,
we can't make a mistake here, because there is no going back
once that happens.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The memories still linger, 5 years ago, Deepwater Horizon.
What are some of the lessons, as you look back, that were
learned, that we are not going to repeat?
Admiral Zukunft. Number one, you know, this is a Federal
response. And whether it is BP or a pipeline company or Taylor
Energy, they are the responsible party. They are accountable
for removing that oil.
And so, then, going beyond that, what did we learn from the
BP oil spill? The capping stack that shut in that well wasn't
even designed when that well blew on April 20th of 2010, had to
be designed on the fly. And every day an undetermined amount of
oil was being released, and it was very difficult to quantify
how much oil was being released, as we are trying to remove
every last drop of it.
We also recognize that this affects local communities. And
so how do you integrate local communities into this response
organization? Fishermen, people working the oil and gas
industry that are now put out of work but be more than willing
to work supporting this response activity, how do you marshal
that to a good cause?
And so we learned valuable lessons when it comes to how do
you build unity of command when I can't issue orders,
necessarily, to a fisherman, to an offshore oil worker, but
they are fully incentivized to restore this environment, to
restore their way of life. And so how do you build unity of
command?
And so we learned much of this. It took us several months,
quite honestly, Senator, as you watched very closely, to
develop those relationships with the mayors, the parish
presidents, the Governors, and the like, to build their trust
and confidence. In a spill like that, we have to get this
right, right from the get-go.
Senator Nelson. How do you build that unity of command
when, in fact, of necessity, you are dependent upon the
culpable party, in this case BP, to assist?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes. So, as the Federal on-scene
coordinator--so I was down there for 7 months. And when we
realized we needed the world's best technology to be brought to
bear to support an oil spill response, the dialogue that would
take place is: We are going to need this much equipment, and on
any given day it is going to cost about $70 million to $80
million in response activity.
I hand the contract to BP. I said, ``You can either sign
the contract, or the Federal Government will sign the contract
and then we will resolve this through litigation.'' When you
are in the middle of a crisis, it is not the time to be
litigating. And so we were able to have those open and frank
discussions of, ``This is in direct response of an oil spill,
and I need you to write the check to pay for this equipment.''
So that was the backdoor piece that was taking place at the
Federal level. ``If you don't pay it, I will, and then I will
litigate.'' But that is how we would hold BP accountable.
Senator Nelson. I remember, when I visited one of the
response centers, the folks were telling me that the Coast
Guard was in control--now, what I am getting to is the chain of
command. They said the Coast Guard was in control 51 percent
and BP was in control 49 percent. That doesn't sound like a
very effective chain of command. What is your experience with
that?
Admiral Zukunft. Part of this is public imaging. And BP was
incentivized to restore its public confidence, and so there was
an extensive marketing campaign taking place in the middle of
an oil spill. And so that was one of the challenges that we
saw, is how do you manage perceptions and expectations.
And so, instead, you start focusing on results and what are
the results offshore, in terms of the ability to shut in that
well. And it was two commandants ago, Admiral Thad Allen, as
the national incident commander. And there was not unanimity of
whether that capping stack should stay in place as the
pressures rose, and eventually Admiral Allen says, ``The
capping stack stays put.'' And that was probably about an 80,
85 percent decision on the part of the Coast Guard. Others
would say, well, you know, the pressure is building; you know,
let it continue to flow oil.
And the same piece is when we decide how clean is clean. BP
may disagree with that, but when we say there is more work--and
when you look at the amenity beaches in Pensacola, Orange
Beach, Gulf Shores, that oil had penetrated down 5 feet. In
every storm, that was going to resurface again, and it would
ruin tourism in that area. We told BP, ``You need to go down 5
feet and find that oil, sift it out, and return this to its
original condition.''
So, at the end of the day, it is a marketing campaign, but
the requirements that we imposed on BP to establish standards
of cleanliness in restoring the Gulf of Mexico to what it was,
to the best of its ability, pre-April 20, that was where the
Coast Guard weighed in.
Perception was probably 51-49. In reality, it was
probably--the separation was much greater than that.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Admiral, I want to go back to some, kind
of, mission analysis that the Coast Guard has been undertaking,
particularly in the Gulf of Alaska.
You know, there are now seven 110-foot Island-class cutters
in the Gulf, as you know, in several communities--Ketchikan,
Seward, Auke Bay, Valdez, Petersburg, Homer. Each has a primary
mission area, but my understanding is that the Island-class
fleet is going to be phased out by 2023, to be replaced by six
154-foot fast-response cutters.
So, as you can imagine, there is some concern in Alaska
that the mission coverage, as the Coast Guard looks to move
into this transition phase, that there might be some gaps. So
let me ask a few questions with regard to this.
First, what is the rationale for dropping from seven
Island-class cutters to six FRCs? In particular, I think it is
very clear that the coverage and the needs, whether it is
Arctic, whether it is fishing, in Alaska are actually going to
increase. We were hoping to maintain at least seven FRCs and
perhaps more. There is a lot of disappointment and concern in
Alaska that that number has now dropped from seven to six.
Can you explain the rationale there? And is that an issue
that has been set in stone, or is that something that the Coast
Guard is still evaluating?
Admiral Zukunft. Hard to say where we will be 10, 15 years
from now. But the 110-foot Island-class patrol boat, Chairman,
they operate at 1,800 hours per year. And they are also limited
in the sea state that they can operate in. The fast-response
cutters are programmed for 2,500 hours per year and can operate
in a more severe operating environment than the 110-foot
Island-class patrol boat can.
So if you run those numbers out, 1,800 times seven versus
six times 2,500, you actually end up with one and a half extra
patrol boats than you have with the existing fleet of seven
that can operate further from its homeport and in more
inhospitable environments, as well.
Senator Sullivan. And do you think that that increased
mission capacity meets up with the increased mission demand
that we are clearly seeing off the coast of Alaska?
Admiral Zukunft. And we will continue to evaluate that,
Senator. We don't know what is going to happen in the far
north. Is there a deepwater port in the Arctic right now that
can support a fast-response cutter? The answer right now is
``no''----
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Admiral Zukunft.--but that may come to bear fruit here at
some point in time in the future. It might be Nome; it might be
Port Clarence. And if we see increased activity in the Arctic,
then obviously the Coast Guard is going to have to reallocate
its resources to address that threat.
So, once we homeport a cutter, does that mean, you know,
that is going to be its permanent resting ground and being
agnostic to what the world demands for resources and
requirements? The answer to that is ``no.'' We will shift as
necessary, as we have done throughout the Coast Guard for the
life of some of these 110-foot Island-class patrol boats.
Senator Sullivan. And is there any operational risk, as the
mission coverage moves from the Island-class cutters to the
FRCs, to have gaps in the mission coverage?
Admiral Zukunft. The biggest gap that I see going forward,
Chairman, is going to be further away from the ports where
these FRCs would operate from. And, for me, it is going to be
in the Arctic domain in the ice-free season where we are going
to see a surge in human activity. At least, that is what we are
looking strategically at.
If we have drilling in the Arctic, you are going to have
increased human activity, increased risk. And so the Coast
Guard is going to be at least seasonally present during those
ice-free seasons. And the offshore patrol cutter would provide
us that middleware to sustain presence in that part of the
world.
Senator Sullivan. OK. Thank you for that.
Again, we will continue to monitor that. That is a very
important issue for a number of Alaska coastal communities,
where the relationship between the fleet and the homebasing of
the Island-class cutters has been very positive. And, to be
quite frank, I think people are concerned that they might be
the community that loses that capacity, and it has raised a lot
of concerns.
So we will continue to monitor that, and your continual
updating on that issue for us would be very helpful.
You know, you mentioned that ``if'' there is going to be
increased human activity in the Arctic. I actually think that
it is not ``if.'' It is not even ``when.'' It is happening,
right? And I think that most members of the Coast Guard would
agree with that.
I have a number of questions related to that increased
activity. And, again, from my perspective, this is not just an
Alaska issue; this is an American issue. You talk about
resource development. It is estimated that 30 percent of the
undiscovered oil and gas resources in the world are in the
Arctic, which is why there are so many countries--even
countries that are not Arctic nations are now taking
significant increased interest in the Arctic.
And, as you know, we just, a couple days ago--Admiral Papp,
I think, was out there--assumed the chairmanship of the Arctic
Council. So I think it highlights the opportunities but also
the challenges in the Arctic.
Can you discuss, from your perspective, from the Coast
Guard's perspective, what the most pressing issue you see with
regard to the Arctic and how you are trying to prioritize those
given the declining resources that you have seen?
Admiral Zukunft. Chairman, I would put, you know, four key
priorities, and I would weigh all of them probably equally. The
first is safety of life at sea--search and rescue.
Another one is environmental compliance, and that comes in
two forms. One is the drilling and the response protocols that
we need to have in place. And the other is, you know, is there
going to be a migration of fishery stocks into the Arctic
region. Which, right now, we have a decree that there would be
no commercial activity, but that is a paper line.
And then another is domain awareness of what other activity
is taking place in the Arctic.
And then, finally, another area of concern is--it falls in
line with domain awareness--is we have mapped, the Coast Guard
and working in conjunction with the National Science Foundation
and NOAA and others, an area equivalent to almost twice the
size of the state of California that resides beyond our
traditional economic exclusive zone, what is known as our
extended continental shelf. But we have not ratified the Law of
the Sea Convention.
And so that is now part of the global commons. And we do
see other nations, namely China, doing scientific research----
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Admiral Zukunft.--in what would otherwise, if we had
ratified the Law of the Sea Convention, that would be sovereign
U.S. waters, where we are seeing that activity, with that 30
percent natural gas, 13 percent oil, taking place as I speak.
So I would put all of these ranked number one for the Coast
Guard. And a key part to addressing each and every one of those
is having persistent presence, which we don't have with our
capital assets today.
Senator Sullivan. So right now you don't believe that,
despite those priorities and the importance to the country, you
are resourced in any way to try to address those priorities.
Admiral Zukunft. That is correct, Senator. And the high sea
latitude study does bear that out, as you mentioned in your
opening statement, you know, the requirement for three heavy
and three medium icebreakers to provide that degree of
presence--not just for the Arctic, but we also have a mission
in Antarctica, as well.
Senator Sullivan. Right. OK. Thank you, Admiral.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Admiral.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing. I just left our colleague Senator Murkowski. We are
having an Energy hearing this morning on a quadrennial energy
package. She said I had her permission to come over here and
talk about icebreakers. So, as the chairman knows, it is of
great importance to our region.
So what about, first of all, getting OMB to recognize that
this is a governmentwide need, it is not just the Coast Guard.
We had a hearing in the Energy Committee about the Arctic and
what we need to do to be prepared in the Arctic. And there are
many aspects of our government that need to take responsibility
there, not just the Coast Guard responding.
And what about the concept of having it, as I think Senator
Stevens proposed at one time, you know, being part of the Navy
budget to actually get it done and then actually backed to the
Coast Guard, given the size and scope of the Navy's budget?
What about that proposal?
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, that would not be--and, again, it
is good to see you, Senator. That would not be unprecedented.
And, as you look at the number of stakeholders that have
equities in a heavy icebreaker--the National Science
Foundation, Arctic Research Council, Department of Defense,
Homeland Security, Transportation, Interior--there may be
another one in there, but, you know, there is probably a
committee of at least six or seven that have equities in the
Arctic.
But the point you make, an icebreaker, it may say ``Coast
Guard,'' but it is a U.S., it is an instrument of U.S.
sovereignty, it is a national asset. You know, I would put this
right in the same realm as a carrier strike group. We have got
more than two of those at last count, but our nation has a
fleet of two ocean-going icebreakers. And, quite honestly, it
is probably not adequate enough, especially for a nation of
this size.
Eight times the GDP of Russia, we have two icebreakers. The
chairman mentioned Russia has approximately 40. And we are
looking at what is happening on the Northern Sea Route----
Senator Sullivan. Forty, and beefing up to, I think, 15
more.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. Nuclear-powered icebreakers.
Admiral Zukunft. So, clearly, there is a need going
forward. And we are looking at all options, as you know. Do we
reactivate--but eventually we will have to recapitalize this
capability. We are going to be in this for the long haul.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I thank you for that, because I
think 4 years ago or 5 years ago, we probably wouldn't even
have gotten the Coast Guard to be that up front. And so the
fact that you say that we are not adequately supplying this and
it is just as important as a Navy carrier, that is a very good
statement. Thank you for that.
And so I think our colleagues--I certainly want to work
with the chair here, certainly want to work with my colleague
Senator Murkowski, as she looks at the Arctic, and figure out a
way how we can get this funded now. At least get one going, but
we are obviously talking about several in need.
Can I ask you about combat-related compensation. A key part
of how we care for the financial well-being of disabled retired
servicemembers is the combat-related special compensation
payment. And, originally, this program was created for Purple
Heart recipients, and the payments are extended to offset pay
loss.
So this is not something that the Coast Guard has chosen to
do, but yet I think we have an example of someone who is
actually performing a mission, training with a Navy pilot, who
is required to go through this same training. And my
understanding is that this person later was injured in a
related service injury.
So what about having Coast Guard actually do the same kind
of combat-related compensation as the rest of our branches?
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, we have looked at approximately
280 of these cases, and we have made a determination in favor
of the claimant in over 170 of those. Thirty-five are pending;
66, I believe, or so were denied.
What you are looking at, as you depict there, is a
hazardous operation. So a Purple Heart recipient is combat-
related. Is it hazardous? And is it hazardous in terms of
readiness for a combat mission?
Now, I know my staff will be briefing yours, actually, a
week from today, where we can provide you much more detail in
terms of our combat-related special compensation for our Coast
Guard members. But they are eligible. A number of them are
recipients. But it would probably be helpful as we go case by
case to share with you how those determinations are made.
Senator Cantwell. But how, if both of these men are injured
in that kind of exercise, which is about preparing for combat,
why would one be compensated and not the other?
And so, is this something within the Coast Guard? Is it
something within DOD? I mean, I have stories that the Navy and
other branches actually support this kind of compensation.
Admiral Zukunft. And, Senator, the Coast Guard would, as
well. Without knowing the particulars of that particular given
case, the Coast Guard has its review protocols, as does the
Navy have theirs, but I would find it obviously inconsistent if
the Navy made a determination in one case and the Coast Guard
did not in another.
Senator Cantwell. So you are open to looking at the same
combat-related compensation plan.
Admiral Zukunft. I am.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Sullivan, for conducting this hearing.
And thanks, Admiral, for your service to our Nation and for
being a citizen of Connecticut, not a resident necessarily
right now, but proud to have you as being from Connecticut, and
your family, as well.
Senator Sullivan. I thought the Admiral was from Alaska.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Zukunft. The Lady Huskies won me over.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blumenthal. And speaking of Connecticut, I want to
ask a question about the Coast Guard museum, the national Coast
Guard museum, which is very important to Connecticut, to New
London, but even more so to our Nation. The Coast Guard is the
only service in our country that has no such museum.
And I wonder if you would join me in believing that we
remove the impediment to the location of that museum in
Connecticut, which is the result of a 2004 law that prohibits
the use of DHS funds for the construction of a national Coast
Guard museum--prohibits the Coast Guard from spending its own
money to help build a museum that honors two-centuries-plus of
service.
So I assume that you join me in the belief that that
impediment, the legal impediment, should be removed.
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, I will have to demur on that
particular piece, only because my budget has been under
considerable strain. As I shared earlier in the opening, our
acquisition budget alone, you know, we have seen a $1.5-billion
acquisition budget that now hovers around about a billion, as I
am trying to reconstitute aircraft, my fleet, and other areas.
So I would need some help in that regard to be able to
leverage our Coast Guard account to be able to support that in
the budget environment that we find ourselves in right now.
Now, that does not diminish the value that I place on this
national museum, because, quite honestly, most people that I
talk to don't realize what the Coast Guard does today or what
we did yesterday, because we don't have this hallmark where we
can tell our Coast Guard story. And this is where that story
needs to be told.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, the impediment is not only as to
Coast Guard funds but as to Federal funds generally. So,
assuming for the purposes of your testimony today that it
wouldn't come out of your budget, it wouldn't detract from the
ships and the helicopters and personnel funds that you need,
would you support removing that impediment?
Admiral Zukunft. Certainly, if it is not coming from our
Coast Guard account, absolutely.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me turn to another topic that I
think is very important to your budget, which is the role that
the Coast Guard plays in assisting cruise lines in safety,
which you do, as the Coast Guard does also for folks who are
out on Long Island Sound and run into trouble, folks who may
not prepare adequately for the challenges and dangers of the
sound or sea. The Coast Guard is out there for them. We think
of the Coast Guard as interdicting criminals who are drug-
running and so forth, but they also perform these basic safety
measures.
And specifically as to the man-overboard technology that
exists now, a lot of cruise lines haven't installed it, and yet
they call on you, at expense to the Coast Guard, to come rescue
or save someone who has fallen or jumped overboard.
Search and rescue operations are an enormous expense for
the Coast Guard. And so my question is, what more can the Coast
Guard do to increase the success rate in its search and rescue
operations? And what should be our expectations of the cruise
lines in installing this man-overboard technology that many of
them have failed to adopt?
Admiral Zukunft. We are seeing more of these closed-circuit
cameras on the open decks being installed, and we do spot
checks. And so the cruise-line industry has taken it upon
themselves to do that, to build public trust with its customer
base, quite honestly.
It is still a challenge for us. I don't have the exact
numbers of people that fall off of cruise ships in a given
year, but when they fall in the open ocean, oftentimes from the
equivalent of 8 to 10 stories high, that makes for a very
difficult search and rescue case, one being it is very
difficult to find a person in the water without a beacon or any
type of a locating device. And if they are unconscious, then it
becomes even more difficult. And if it is at night, it
approaches, quite honestly, almost impossible. So those are
just some of the challenges.
But we are seeing more and more cruise ships employ closed-
circuit cameras. It would probably be helpful if we provide
you, you know, what is the status of the fleet in terms of its
man-overboard technology, if it is being self-imposed by the
industry itself, who we engage with quite frequently.
Senator Blumenthal. I would appreciate that information,
because I do think that the industry perhaps has lagged, many
of the lines have lagged, in using the technology that is
available, and thereby avoiding the cost to the Coast Guard and
to others who would be involved in search and rescue efforts.
So I appreciate it. My time has expired. I thank you very
much----
Admiral Zukunft. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal.--for your service. Thanks, Admiral.
Admiral Zukunft. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Admiral, I had just a few additional
questions. I wanted to follow up on Senator Cantwell's comments
about the need for additional icebreaking capabilities.
And, you know, one of the things that I have seen in the
last few months is this kind of dichotomy of the recognition of
the need, how important it is. And you see senators from both
sides of the aisle, different regions of the country--you saw
Senator Peters here talking about the importance in the Great
Lakes.
Also, what is happening with regard to the Russians, their
fleet, and other fleets. We don't have the second-largest
fleet. I think it is number three or four or five, but it is
way down there. And, you know, clearly, the Russians in this
area are eating our lunch, despite what you mentioned, as a
country whose size in terms of the economy is well below that
of the United States.
So it is this frustration where everybody seems to
recognize the issue but that there is almost a political
football of responsibility on who or what or how we are going
to pay for this. So Senator Cantwell talked about OMB or the
Navy or the Coast Guard or, you know, where this responsibility
lies.
And, as you mention, there is a precedent with regard to
the Navy. I think it was in the 1970s where, I believe--and
correct me if I am wrong--the cutters that were being used by
the Coast Guard were actually initially funded in the Navy's
budget.
What do you think the solution to this is? Because it is a
problem that seems to persist. People recognize it; they
recognize the national implications, that this is a national
security issue, but, as you mention, it is a sovereign asset
that could be used for many different important activities for
our country. And yet there is this kind of political football
with regard to how you actually make it happen, in terms of
funding.
Do you have any suggestions in that regard?
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, there are a number of mechanisms.
When I look back at TARP funding or other initiatives that have
been, you know--whether it is any aspect of our infrastructure.
But this is part of our national infrastructure, if you will,
in terms of our ability to exert influence and sovereignty in
the Arctic domain.
And so I would approach this as we would any other
infrastructure requirement for our nation, to provide the
funding and the means to be able to bring this infrastructure
up to 21st-century standards, because we are just not there
right now.
Senator Sullivan. And are there areas that we are not, you
know--I know there are a lot of smart men and women serving in
the Coast Guard. Are there things that we are not thinking
about, from the congressional perspective, of how to make this
happen?
Is there a more creative solution than a billion-dollar
piece of the Coast Guard's budget, which would be, you know, as
I mentioned in my opening statement, eating up essentially the
entire budget that you have proposed with regard to maintenance
and construction issues?
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, first it begins with, you know,
what are the requirements for an icebreaker in the 21st
century. And so, rather than just a Coast Guard-generated
aspect of requirements, who else has equity? And, as you
mentioned earlier, National Science Foundation----
Senator Sullivan. Oh, I think a lot of people have
equities.
Admiral Zukunft.--and to support scientific missions.
Department of Commerce, NOAA--can it do offshore mapping?
Arctic Research Council, Department of Interior,
Transportation, and then, obviously, DHS and DOD.
And so you need an icebreaker that, one, it probably needs
to be environmentally compliant. If we are going to have rigid
environmental standards under MARPOL regs that will probably
come into effect in 2017, the United States better be a role
model in the Arctic.
But if the initial threat is the science, then we need to
be able to support scientific research. If it is an oil spill,
then you probably don't have the shore infrastructure. You need
that ship to support a command and control response
organization.
And if there is a law enforcement threat or a military
threat, perhaps a module that then would allow that icebreaker
to be somewhat of a warship or at least a law enforcement
platform, as well. Because our platforms in the past have been
somewhat one-trick ponies.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Admiral Zukunft. But this is going to have to be able to
meet a multitude of requirements for several agencies, as we
look at what the challenges are going to be in the Arctic well
into the 21st century. This is going to be a 50-year
investment.
Senator Sullivan. Right. Thank you for that.
Let me--kind of, longer-term vision. Again, we are talking
a lot about the Arctic, as we have assumed the chairmanship of
the Arctic Council. I know, again, that the Coast Guard is
focused on its immediate missions and its immediate budget
requirements, but I also know that you have a very proud
tradition of kind of thinking about the future.
And with regard to the Arctic, as we are seeing dramatic
increase in shipping activities through the Northwest Passage,
where some believe that this could be a very, very critically
important waterway for the nation, for the world, you know, in
the decades to come, have you been laying out any kind of ideas
in terms of what we envision the future might look like up
there in terms of, as you mentioned, deepwater ports?
You know, there was an article recently that came out by
the former Chair of the Arctic Research Commission, Mead
Treadwell, who talked about kind of a model on the Saint
Lawrence Seaway, looking at that kind of commercial activity
and how to move shipping through.
And, again, this could be for a longer discussion, but is
the Coast Guard trying to think through these things? You have
particular expertise on some of these issues, and it is helpful
when there is a vision laid out so Americans can understand,
Alaskans can understand what the vision is and how we, if we
agree with it, need to start spending and investing the proper
resources to achieve it.
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, first, we are starting with how
do we do this globally, multilaterally, when we address the
Arctic, and not just from a United States perspective but all
members of the Arctic Council. So we have chartered an Arctic
Coast Guard forum; in fact, we met in Washington, DC, for an
inaugural meeting of all eight Arctic Council nations, but
their coast guards, which means, yes, we had Russia at the
table. Because if I didn't have Russia at the table, it would
be the United States and Canada alone.
So, as we look at what are the real threats as we see in
the Arctic, think beyond Vladimir Putin. And the real threats
continue to be safety of life at sea, environmental, the well-
being of the indigenous tribes that have lived up in the Arctic
region for the millennium.
And then how can we collectively work together among the
Arctic Council nations, recognizing that we may not all have
the resources, but can we at least come up with protocols where
we can work with one another, know who is out in the Arctic
domain on any given day so if the vector, an asset to a search
and rescue case--maybe I am vectoring a Russian icebreaker, or
maybe it is coming from Iceland via Denmark perhaps.
But we need to think a little bit more globally and not
just, you know, within the United States, because the United
States alone will not be able to address all of the emerging
contingencies that I foresee in the Arctic.
Senator Sullivan. Right. Thank you for that.
Let me ask a final question. This relates to the issue of
sometimes unintended consequences. And perhaps they are
unintended, perhaps they are not. But I have heard a number of
concerns from the fishing community in Alaska that in 2010
there was a Coast Guard bill that required survey and
classification of fishing vessels greater than 50 feet in
length, for those vessels to remain in class.
And this requirement has, I think in many people's view,
significantly increased the cost of vessel construction and
has, in terms of the unintended consequences, caused some
vessel owners to postpone vessel replacements or, in some
cases, to build smaller, less robust vessels--the perfectly
opposite example of what I believe the 2010 law and regulations
were meant to do.
So can you respond to that? Have you seen that? Because I
certainly am hearing about it. And it is an area where, if this
was an enactment of Congress in conjunction with the Coast
Guard bill 6 years ago that we now think is undermining safety
and increasing costs, is that something that we need to be
taking another look at? Obviously, if it was in the law, that
is something we would have to fix.
But I am wondering about what you are hearing, because
certainly there have been concerns raised.
And it is particularly troubling for me when--I think, a
lot of times, people say, well, we need to do a cost-benefit.
The costs, the regulations, the construction is going to go up,
but it is going to have a corresponding benefit in terms of
safety for the fleet, which of course is a huge focus of the
Coast Guard and all of us. But if the costs go up and the
safety and the survivability and strength of the vessels
actually decreases, well, that is a lose-lose, not a win-win.
What are your thoughts on that?
Admiral Zukunft. Probably, first, for the regulation
itself, there was extensive outreach with the Commercial
Fishing Vessel Safety Advisory Committee as they worked with
us. And, yes, there was some----
Senator Sullivan. I think they were not supportive of this
requirement, though, that committee.
Admiral Zukunft. From a cost perspective. We were looking
at from a mishap perspective and from the investigations that
we have done in the past where vessels would be retrofitted and
adjustments would be made to the vessel where it does alter its
capability, culminating in loss of life.
And so our objective in all of this was to minimize loss of
life for vessels that may have been reconfigured and sometimes
reconfigured vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico not
operating in the Gulf of Alaska or in the Bering Sea.
This is an unintended consequence. And how far that has
gone, I will have to back-brief you on that, because I was not
aware that, as now moving people out of that industry, smaller
vessels, but still operating in the same harsh environment.
Obviously, that is a concern for me, as well, Senator. Thank
you for bringing that up.
Senator Sullivan. OK. It would be good to hear, because,
again, I have heard concerns about that. And your views on how
we address that problem, if it indeed is a significant problem,
is something that I think is important.
And you know this, but I think a lot of Americans don't: It
is also very important to recognize that our fishing fleet,
whether they are in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico, they are
the epitome of the small American businessman or businesswoman.
They take risks. They work hard. They produce a world-class
product. They oftentimes pass their family business down from
one generation to another. And they are being crushed in many
ways by Federal regulations.
We all want safety, certainly, for the fleet, but we also
want to make sure the fleet is viable. And one of the things
that I hear in Alaska that I think the Coast Guard needs to
keep an eye on is: The regulatory burden can be so significant,
all well-intended, but it can be so significant that it can
really undermine the operational ability for a family business,
which is what many fishing vessels represent, to operate and to
continue to go.
So we want to work with you on those kind of things to make
sure there is a good cost-benefit, a balance between
regulations that are mandated by the Congress that help our
fishing community keep safe, but also are not so burdensome
that they undermine their ability to actually make a living.
And I think that is something that we are all focused on, and I
want to make sure the Coast Guard continues to be focused on
that.
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, I will just--and I respect those
comments, having boarded many of these fishing vessels, and I
fully appreciate their livelihoods. The Coast Guard is fully
integrated with our regional fishery councils, and that is
where these issues would, you know, region by region, where
some of these, if they are anomalies or concerns would also be
borne out as well. Or are we seeing, you know, a removal of the
fleet, where now there are just fewer vessels.
But we have other ways of reaching into this industry
besides being on the water, but probably the best place is
through our regional fishery councils.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Well, Admiral, I want to thank you again, you and all the
members of your staff and all the men and women in the Coast
Guard, for your testimony today, for what they do. Your
testimony and forthright answers, I think, are very refreshing
and very informative for this committee.
I ask unanimous consent that Chairman Rubio's statement be
included for the record.
[The prepared statement of the Chairman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida
I thank the Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Zukunft for
appearing before this Subcommittee today to discuss the resources and
priorities for the United States Coast Guard, and commend his service
to our country.
The Coast Guard is quite unique in that it is the only U.S.
military service not within the Department of Defense. Its 40,000
active-duty members, 7,500 reservists, 8,000 civilian employees and
30,000 volunteer Auxiliarists are responsible for the world's largest
system of seas, ports and waterways. The Coast Guard's mission is one
of upmost importance, with maritime security, law enforcement and
prevention and response activities at its core. With a peninsular state
like Florida, this is no small task. Miami is home to the Seventh
District and with its location near many Caribbean countries, the Coast
Guard is an integral piece to the Homeland Security puzzle. Human
smuggling, mass migration and trafficking of narcotics and arms are
just a few high-risk but integral missions carried out by the men and
women of the Coast Guard.
In order to achieve its mission, the Coast Guard faces fiscal
challenges. An aging fleet with some ships approaching 50 years old
plagues the service and demands continue to increase and evolve. For
this reason, I, along with fifteen of my colleagues, sent a letter to
the Senate Appropriations Committee voicing support for funding the
much needed tools requested by the Coast Guard. An already stretched
agency, which has seen a declining budget over the last five years,
faces increased demands around the Nation including in the Gulf of
Mexico and Caribbean. We need to ensure that the Commandant's
shipbuilding plan is funded and well executed to deliver newer assets
to the fleet as more demands are placed on the service. We also need to
take care of our facilities ashore including sites like Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, which serves as a logistical hub for interdicted
narcotics, human smuggling, and is also a likely site for a potential
mass migration crisis from Cuba or Hispaniola. An American presence in
the Caribbean advances our interests in the region, and assures our
neighbors we are willing and able to help in times of natural disasters
and instability. In January, I wrote to Admiral Zukunft on the
significant role of Naval Station Guantanamo's support of Coast Guard
operations in the Caribbean. I was pleased to receive the Admiral's
response stating, ``[t]he Coast Guard will continue to use Naval
Station GTMO as a vital forward operating base and logistical hub . . .
Naval Station GTMO facilitates a persistent, necessary Coast Guard
presence in the region that is essential for executing our many
missions and enhancing regional security and cooperation now and in the
future.''
For Floridians who enjoy a day on the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico or
near my hometown on Biscayne Bay, the Coast Guard is a lifeline when
things go awry. Just this past Sunday, two people were rescued in the
Gulf of Mexico after their boat capsized. We also send our prayers to
the friends and families of those affected by the powerful storm this
past weekend, which capsized several sailboats competing in a regatta
near Mobile Bay, Alabama. Indeed the Coast Guard crews were on scene,
performing vital search and rescue operations in the aftermath of this
sudden storm. This is a testament to the dangers of weather, and the
importance of this vital agency.
As this Subcommittee moves forward with a Coast Guard
reauthorization, I look forward to continuing this important dialogue
to ensure we provide the proper oversight of the Coast Guard's budget
but also the appropriate funding authorization which will allow the
Coast Guard to better safeguard our Nation and its people. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. And I want to now conclude that this
hearing is now adjourned. Appreciate the outstanding testimony
of the main witness.
Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Zukunft. Thank you, Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Given the reality of flat or declining budgets for
acquisitions, what is the Coast Guard's most important acquisition
project and how does it align with your mission priorities?
Answer. The Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) is the Coast Guard's
highest acquisition priority. Our OPC acquisition strategy will deliver
capable and affordable cutters to the fleet. The OPC program will
facilitate recapitalization of up to 28 existing in-service legacy
Medium-Endurance cutters intended for 30-years of service to the Nation
but which currently range in age from 24 to 51 years. The planned OPC
will provide capabilities critical to maintaining presence in the
offshore zones and establishing an effective layered security posture
to ensure national preparedness and resilience in the maritime domain.
The OPC will perform missions directly impacting the DHS Southern
Border & Approaches campaign and enhance the effectiveness of efforts
to combat Transnational Organized Crime networks. The planned OPC will
perform Coast Guard missions in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska,
supporting United States interests and ensuring persistent presence in
these regions. Finally, the OPC will be a work-horse of the Coast Guard
fleet, filling the capability gap between the National Security Cutters
and Fast Response Cutters and establishing the interoperable system of
assets.
Question 2. The Coast Guard's program of record calls for eight
National Security Cutters (NSC), but there has been some discussion of
a ninth NSC. What impact would a ninth NSC have on the Coast Guard's
other high priority projects like the Offshore Patrol Cutter or a Polar
icebreaker?
Answer. An additional National Security Cutter (NSC) will exceed
the program of record and consume resources needed to fill the
capability gap between the NSC and Fast Response Cutter (FRC). The
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) requirements were developed to fill this
gap and the OPC acquisition remains the Coast Guard's top
recapitalization priority.
Question 3. As we look ahead to the next Coast Guard authorization,
are there new authorities or clarifications of existing authorities
that may be needed by the service to successfully execute its Western
Hemisphere Strategy?
Answer. The Coast Guard is in the process of determining whether
any new authority or clarifications are needed. In March, the Coast
Guard submitted an extensive authorization proposal to the Committee,
and looks forward to working with the Committee as the Coast Guard
Authorization Act for 2015 moves through Congress.
Question 4. Given persistent challenges with the issuance of a true
Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) Reader Rule, would the
Coast Guard prefer to allow card holders to further extend the $60
Extended Expiration Date TWIC card until the reader rule can be
feasibly implemented?
Answer. No, the Coast Guard does not prefer to extend the $60
Extended Expiration Date (EED) TWIC program. The EED Program has no
impact or advantage related to completion or issuance of the TWIC
Reader.
Question 5. The 2014 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation (CGMT)
Act contained a one-year provision that prohibited the Coast Guard from
closing an air facility that was in operation on November 30, 2014, or
retiring, transferring, relocating, or deploying an aviation asset from
such a facility. What impact, if any, has this prohibition had on
existing Coast Guard mission priorities?
Answer. The prohibition on closing AIRFACs contained within the
2014 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act has caused immediate
impacts to Coast Guard operations. If the prohibition continues with
the Air Facilities remaining unfunded, there will also be additional
long-term detrimental impacts to the logistics support system for the
entire MH-65 fleet of aircraft. This provision required the Coast Guard
to continue to operate the same fleet of aircraft as allocated on
November 30, 2014, but with 4.5 percent fewer program flight hours and
funding across the entire fleet. Excluding Search and Rescue, every
mission set has been reduced in order to compensate for this decrement.
Further, the funding gap created by this prohibition reduced the MH-65
maintenance, sustainment, and logistics support system. Simply put,
there are fewer funds to purchase the requisite consumables and spare
parts inventory required to sustain MH-65 operations.
By not closing the AIRFACs, Air Station Traverse City will continue
to be gapped over 240 annual cutter deployment days. Additionally, the
inability to move the AIRFAC helicopters means that the Coast Guard
will be short of airframes for the pending MH-65D to MH-65E transition;
negatively impacting both student through-put at the Aviation Training
Center and the MH-65 product line at the Aviation Logistics Center. To
mitigate these impacts and carry-out the D-E transition, the Coast
Guard will have to pull airframes from other operational Air Stations.
Currently, Air Station Barbers Point has been identified as one of the
donor units and is scheduled to be gapped an airframe for 48 months to
support the transition. This will result in lower mission hours and
deployment days, including reduced flexibility to meet Rotary Wing Air
Intercept support missions. The Coast Guard is in the process of
evaluating where to find the remaining airframes needed to support the
transition, while mitigating operational impacts.
Question 6. I am aware of the role the Coast Guard plays in helping
to defend the air space that surrounds the National Capital Region.
What, if any changes does the Coast Guard intend to make to its
procedures following the recent landing of a gyrocopter on the grounds
of the U.S. Capitol complex?
Answer. If detected by the Integrated Air Defense surveillance
network, the Coast Guard's current procedures are appropriate for
intercepting a gyrocopter-type track of interest. The Coast Guard
utilizes its Title 10 authorities while conducting Operation Noble
Eagle air defense operations in the National Capitol Region, under the
tactical control of NORAD Eastern Air Defense Sector.
Question 7. With the finalization of USCG Policy Letters 01-15[1]
and 02-15[2] the Coast Guard has provided much needed regulatory
guidance for liquefied natural gas (LNG) fueling/bunkering procedures.
Given the recent launch of the Harvey Energy, an LNG-powered offshore
supply vessel, and TOTE's LNG powered container ship, which will soon
be in operation, interest in using LNG as fuel is growing in the
maritime space. However, simultaneous operations (SIMOPs) and vessel
design, primarily LNG fuel tank placement, have not yet been addressed
by the Coast Guard. The maritime industry is looking to USCG for
guidance on SIMOPS and vessel design/specifications. Is the Coast Guard
examining these issues, and will the agency be publishing policy
letters on these issues to address LNG's future as a propulsion fuel in
the maritime industry?
Answer. The Coast Guard is actively examining issues concerning
SIMOPS and vessel design/specifications. Initial guidance concerning
SIMOPS was published on February 19, 2015 after receiving public input
through a public comment period. CG-OES Policy Letter 01-15, enclosure
(1), paragraph e, under the discussion of transfer operations addresses
SIMOPS. As discussed in that section, we recommend that a formal
operational risk assessment be conducted to address the added hazards
and evaluate the potential risks involved in conducting SIMOPS. The
Coast Guard pointed to the best industry guidance available for
conducting risk assessments involving SIMOPS and is currently working
internally and with industry through Federal advisory committees to
further develop guidance related to evaluating SIMOPS risk. Once that
work is complete, the Coast Guard will work to make the information
publicly available to the industry as quickly as possible. Vessel
design/specifications, primarily LNG fuel tank placement is addressed
in CG-ENG Policy Letter Equivalency Determination--Design Criteria for
Natural Gas Fuel Systems 01-12, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.3.
Question 8. Is anything preventing or complicating the Coast
Guard's efforts to move forward on regulatory guidance that would
enable U.S. flagged vessels to operate on cleaner burning alternative
fuels such as LNG? Can or should Congress help to alleviate these
burdens so that the U.S. Flag Fleet can take advantage of clean burning
natural gas fuel?
Answer. The boom in the U.S. Oil and Gas industry, particularly
LNG, has resulted in a complex, dynamic, and rapidly evolving
environment and the complexity of this issue has presented challenges
to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has begun the initial steps toward
developing a framework for vessels using LNG as fuel in order to
establish the minimum industry safety requirements. Uninspected vessels
using LNG as fuel presents unique challenges. Also, the continued
growth in LNG and other energy sectors continues to challenge the Coast
Guard's ability to efficiently meet statutory requirements and respond
to industry requests.
References related to QFR:
[1] United States Coast Guard, Guidelines for Liquefied Natural
Gas Fuel Transfer Operations and Training of Personnel on
Vessels Using Natural Gas as Fuel, CG-OES Policy Letter No. 01-
15, February 19, 2015.
[2] United States Coast Guard, Guidance Related to Vessels and
Waterfront Facilities Conducting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Marine Fuel Transfer (Bunkering) Operations, CG-OES Policy
Letter No. 02-15, February 19, 2015.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Tugboats and barges are the lifeblood of many remote
Alaskan communities. I understand that the International Maritime
Organization's Polar Code could impose additional regulations on this
industry. What is the Coast Guard doing at an international level to
ensure that these tugboat and barge operations can continue to provide
safe and reliable freight service to these communities without undue or
unnecessary regulatory constraints from the IMO Polar Code?
Answer. The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Polar Code
contains two parts, safety-related provisions and environment related
provisions. The safety provisions of the Polar Code are an
international standard intended to regulate international shipping. As
such this part applies to vessels on domestic routes only if they also
engage in international trade. Additionally, these safety-related
provisions are part of a risk-based code; vessel operations with a
higher risk profile are subject to more stringent standards. This
methodology is intended to apply maritime safety standards appropriate
for the unique and broad spectrum of vessel operations in Polar
Regions.
The environment-related provisions of the Polar Code apply to a
broader range of vessels including some domestic vessels that operate
on coastal voyages. These provisions are in addition to the current
standards set by the international convention for maritime pollution.
These provisions are operational in nature and are intended to reduce
intentional pollution by further restricting the overboard discharge of
oil, chemical and garbage wastes, something that both tug operators and
coastal communities serviced by those tugs generally see as a valuable
benefit to minimize impact to the environment and food supply in Arctic
waters.
USCG hosted multiple public meetings and interactive public
workshops to solicit input from stakeholders and consulted with experts
from the Alaskan legislature's Arctic Policy Commission and American
Waterways Operators who served on the U.S. Delegation negotiating the
IMO Polar Code. These experts provided key insight toward stakeholder
needs and helped identify requirements which balanced increasing
protection with associated costs.
Question 2. In Alaska, we rely on tugboats and barge vessels to
supply our state, but we also need them to operate in the safest manner
possible. I understand that over 10 years ago the Coast Guard was
required to bring towing vessels under inspection by the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The Coast Guard issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2011, and my understanding is that the
rule is currently under review at DHS. What steps is the Coast Guard
taking to ensure that this rule is finalized as expediently as
possible?
Answer. The Coast Guard undertook a thorough review of the public
comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and is working
diligently to publish the final rule as quickly as possible. The
Department also understands the importance of publishing the final rule
as quickly as possible.
Question 3. Last year, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
testified before Congress, ``As the Coast Guard's heavy icebreakers--
POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA--approached the end of their design lifetimes,
NSF found it necessary to contract for icebreaker support from other
countries.'' Instead of being used to construct new U.S. icebreakers,
U.S. taxpayer dollars are apparently being used to lease Russian,
German, Canadian, and Swedish icebreakers. To the Coast Guard's
knowledge, how prolific are these foreign leasing practices, and beyond
NSF, do you know of other Federal agencies that are leasing foreign
icebreakers?
Answer. Beyond NSF, the Coast Guard does not know of any other U.S.
Federal agencies which lease foreign icebreakers. NSF has not leased a
foreign icebreaker since the POLAR STAR was reactivated in 2013.
Question 4. What will be the Coast Guard's process and selection
criteria for determining where to homeport the new Fast Response
Cutters?
Answer. The process for determining a cutter's homeport typically
begins with the completion of a homeport feasibility study to identify
and analyze locations that can accommodate a cutter's operational,
logistical, maintenance, and personnel requirements. The Coast Guard
evaluates viable site locations based on several factors, including
proximity to cutter's primary operating area, availability of
appropriate pier space, shore infrastructure considerations,
environmental impacts, availability of local services, and cost
analysis. The Coast Guard uses the study data, along with operational,
maintenance/support, quality of life, environmental, and cost factors,
to make a final homeporting decision.
Question 5. Does the Coast Guard have plans to engage in outreach
with the communities currently homeporting the Island Class cutters?
Answer. The Coast Guard continues to evaluate potential FRC
homeports including Island Class Cutter locations which meet the
Integrated Logistics Support Plan and operational requirements.
Communities which cannot support the FRC requirements and may lose
their Island Class Cutter without a similar replacement will be
engaged.
Question 6. In 2011, Admiral Papp told the Senate Commerce
Committee that the Coast Guard needs to establish a series of air
stations and deploy small boats across the Alaskan Arctic.
Specifically, he said, ``If an accident happens, how do we respond?
And, right now, we've got zero capability to respond in the Arctic
right now. And we've got to do better than that. That--when people ask
me what keeps me awake at night--an oil spill, a collision, a ship
sinking in the Arctic keeps me awake at night because we have nothing
to respond or, if we respond, it's going to take us weeks to get
there.'' Does the Coast Guard still maintain this concern, and what
steps has the Coast Guard taken since this time to increase its Arctic
infrastructure?
Answer. The Coast Guard surges assets into the Arctic region using
a mobile and seasonal approach to operations. When the human activity
increases in the open water season (summer months), the Coast Guard
forward deploys air and surface assets in the region. To support these
activities, the Coast Guard leases hangar space and establishes a
seasonal Forward Operating Location on the North Slope to ensure air
response capabilities. This strategy is generally sufficient for the
current level of human activity in the Arctic. As part of the annual
operations, the Coast Guard evaluates requirements and drivers for
potential permanent infrastructure in the Arctic. Much of the Coast
Guard footprint is dependent on where future human activity and volume
will be. Future development of infrastructure in the Arctic must
incorporate the needs of all federal, local, state, and tribal
stakeholders. The National Strategy for the Arctic Region and its
Implementation Plan provides a roadmap on the Federal Government's
approach to the region.
To continue to meet its missions in the Arctic, the Coast Guard
needs both icebreaking and mobile command and control capabilities. The
Coast Guard's National Security Cutters-and the future Offshore Patrol
Cutter-are critical to maintaining sovereign presence in the region
during the summer months; ensuring American interests are protected
during the height of human activity, shipping, and drilling in the
region, and providing extended presence in the Gulf of Alaska and
Bering Sea. Likewise, icebreaking capability is critical to providing
needed icebreaker support in the high latitudes. Currently, the Coast
Guard utilizes U.S. Coast Guard Cutters HEALY and POLAR STAR (one
medium and one heavy icebreaker) for icebreaking needs in the Antarctic
and Arctic, respectively. The Coast Guard is also actively engaged in
pre-acquisition activities for a new Polar Icebreaker, and is
collaborating with stakeholders to study operational requirements and
the feasibility of alternatives for this National asset.
Question 7. What is the Coast Guard doing to increase search and
rescue capabilities in the Arctic?
Answer. As outlined in the Coast Guard's Arctic Strategy, improving
Search and Rescue capabilities will require leveraging international,
state, local, and industry partnerships. Commander, Coast Guard
District 17, is the SAR Coordinator for the Juneau Search and Rescue
Region (SRR), which includes the Arctic Ocean. Coast Guard District 17
coordinates these SAR operations with support from other countries, as
well as with other Federal, State, local, and Tribal SAR and emergency
response authorities. To enhance capabilities, D17 has led regional
mass rescue exercises and workshops focused on local capabilities, and
conducted training with state and international partners. The Coast
Guard also deploys assets to the Arctic region in the summer months,
when human activity peaks.
In October 2015, the U.S. Government will host a Search and Rescue
Table Top Exercise in Anchorage, Alaska. Led by the Coast Guard,
Department of State, and Northern Command, this whole-of-government
exercise will support both the U.S. Chairmanship of the Arctic Council
and the National Strategy for the Arctic Region Implementation.
Question 8. What does the Coast Guard envision the Arctic Coast
Guard Forum accomplishing over the next two years of the United States'
chairmanship of the Arctic Council?
Answer. The Coast Guard looks to complete the process of formally
establishing the Arctic Coast Guard Forum (ACGF) during the ACGF Summit
meeting in October 2015. This will include the signing of a Joint
Statement and agreement on the Terms of Reference as the foundational
documents of the forum. Over the next two years, the Coast Guard plans
to ensure the forum remains operationally focused, and looks to advance
cooperation and information sharing among the arctic nations through
the development of common operating protocols.
Question 9. How many exercises will be conducted in the Arctic,
where will these exercises take place, and how can local governments be
active participants?
Answer. There are several Coast Guard Arctic related exercises
being planned for 2015 and 2016. These include:
Kotzebue Oil Spill Response Exercise, June 2015
2013 Agreement on Cooperation of Marine Oil Pollution
Preparedness Response in the Arctic Operational Guidelines
Workshop, Washington, DC, September 2015
Search and Rescue TTX, Anchorage, AK, October 2015
Search and Rescue FTX, North Slope, AK August 2016
2013 Agreement on Cooperation of Marine Oil Pollution
Preparedness Response in the Arctic Operational Guidelines TTX,
Anchorage and Washington, D.C., 2016
Arctic Security (MTSA-AMSC) exercise, Anchorage, AK 2016
Sector Anchorage Northwest Arctic SCP Workshop--Nome, AK,
2016
It is Coast Guard policy to invite all relevant stakeholders to
participate in the planning and execution of Coast Guard-sponsored
exercises, including local level governments.
Question 10. What sort of technology could be employed to enhance
monitoring activities in the Arctic region regarding increased vessel
and shipping activity and offshore development in all weather
conditions?
Answer. There are several types of technologies that can be used to
enhance awareness of vessel and offshore activities including unmanned
aircraft systems and use of satellites. Development of these
technologies would benefit both public and private users of the Arctic
waterways and are being pursued by both sectors. The Coast Guard is
working with NORAD/NORTHCOM, Department of Defense, and Canada in order
to study better satellite support for communications and weather
observation. The Coast Guard is continuing to look for opportunities to
partner with commercial providers offering both terrestrial and
satellite Automated Identification Systems (AIS), Synthetic Aperture
Radar (SAR), and Electro Optical Infrared (EO/IR) Systems. In addition,
the Coast Guard is involved in international discussions to study and
evaluate potential special Arctic requirements for carriage of tracking
systems. Expanding Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) system
carriage requirements for non-commercial class ships and small vessels
operating in the Arctic is also being considered.
Question 11. Development of and further commercialization of the
Arctic is coming. Indigenous peoples stand to benefit. Along with that,
thousands of miles of coast and U.S. Arctic waters must be protected.
What capabilities does the Coast Guard need to facilitate safe
commercial operations in Alaska's Arctic?
Answer. The National Strategy for the Arctic Region and its
Implementation Plan provide a roadmap on the Federal Government's
approach to assessing required capabilities in the region.
The Coast Guard is committed to ensuring safe, secure, and
environmentally responsible maritime activity in the Arctic, and Coast
Guard response capabilities alone will not eliminate the risks
associated with commercial operations in the region. As such, the Coast
Guard is pursuing three major initiatives to increase safety and
stewardship of the Arctic maritime domain: Polar Code, Port Access
Route Study (PARS), and Arctic Waterways Safety Committee (AWSC).
Collectively, they will better affect the manner in which vessels are
constructed, operate, and how their crews are trained; the routes they
will take; and finally, creation of a venue to better gain partner
consensus on best management of the Arctic's ``transportation system''.
Question 12. The 2010 Coast Guard bill required survey and
classification of new fishing vessels greater than 50 feet in length,
and for these vessels to remain ``in class.'' The Coast Guard is
developing guidelines for Alternative Compliance Programs for some
vessels currently on the water. Does the Coast Guard have the budget
and manpower to have this Program in place by 2017 and fully
implemented by 2020?
Answer. Section 604 (f) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2010 states that ``No later than January 1, 2017, the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall prescribe an
alternative safety compliance program referred to in section 4503(d)(1)
of the title 46, United States Code, as amended by this section.'' The
Coast Guard does not anticipate a need for additional budget or
manpower to finish developing alternative safety compliance programs by
2017. An analysis is being conducted to determine the number of
currently active vessels that will have to comply with an alternate
safety compliance program, and how many separate programs may be needed
based on region and/or fishery. This will be used to determine future
budget and manpower needs related to the alternate safety compliance
programs.
Question 13. Further, this requirement has been law for five years,
why is the Coast Guard only now conducting industry outreach?
Answer. The Coast Guard has been conducting outreach and education
efforts with industry since 2011. The first such effort was with the
Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee at their public meeting in
Seattle in November of 2011. And, in conjunction with that meeting, the
Coast Guard presented an overview of the 2010 Act requirements, which
included alternate safety compliance programs, at the Pacific Marine
Exposition in Seattle. During meetings in August 2013 (Washington,
D.C.) and September 2014 (Providence, RI), the Advisory Committee
helped the Coast Guard develop the requirements for alternate
compliance programs. These meetings are always open to the public and
held in fishing port areas, but generally result in limited industry
attendance. Information on alternate compliance programs was again
provided at the Marine Exposition in 2013, and a special presentation
and question and answer session was dedicated to the requirements being
considered for the programs; attendance by the industry was very
limited. Also, presentations have been made at conferences such as the
ComFish in Kodiak, Alaska; Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association;
Maine Fisherman's Forum; Bering Sea Conference, Seattle; and with
industry groups such as Alaska Tenderman's Association; Alaska Trollers
Association; and Southern Shrimp Alliance. Over the past year, the
Coast Guard has reached out to certain specific industry fleets and
fisheries in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and Gulf of Mexico to field
test/validate reasonableness of draft requirements with volunteer
owners and operators who are modifying or undergoing yard periods with
their vessels. This has been extremely helpful in validating the
criteria the Coast Guard believes should be in the programs. The Coast
Guard is currently determining the best method to get the alternate
compliance proposed requirements out to the public for comment before
finalizing them in 2017.
Question 14. The Coast Guard has published a Port Access Route
Study for the Bering Sea, which is currently out for public comment.
How does the Coast Guard plan to incorporate concerns over congestion
in the fishing grounds in its decision making process?
Answer. The Coast Guard has sought input through multiple public
comment periods in order to maintain transparency and learn if there
are any concerns with a proposed action. The Coast Guard has heard some
concerns from the fishing community and is determining if the proposed
recommended route can be altered to address those concerns.
Question 15. Major cutter days and HC-130 flight hours for
fisheries monitoring and law enforcement are on a downward trend,
particularly in the Bering Sea. In 2004, there were 788 major cutter
days, but last year there was only 316-the lowest level in a decade.
Please provide comments on asset deployment in the Aleutian Islands and
Gulf of Alaska and to what extent coverage in these areas will be
reduced, and will the Coast Guard's expanding role in the Arctic cause
more resources to be diverted from the Bering Sea?
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to maintain the same level of major
cutter coverage in the Bering Sea as it has over the last several
years. In FY13, there were 416 days of major cutter coverage for the
Bering Sea and 30 for the Arctic. In FY14, there were 401 days of major
cutter coverage for the Bering Sea and 41 for the Arctic. For FY15,
there are 397 days scheduled for the Bering and 67 for the Arctic. It
is anticipated that these levels will remain consistent in the near
future. USCG operations in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea (north of
the Bering Strait) are not expected to impact major cutter coverage of
the Bering Sea.
Question 16. Successful fisheries management relies on Coast Guard
enforcement. Will you consider increasing major cutter days and HC-130
resources hours in the Bering Sea?
Answer. There is no plan to increase the allocation of major cutter
days and HC-130 resources hours in the Bering Sea. Coast Guard will
continue its standard protocol to deploy its resources and alter
allocations as needed to address the greatest maritime risks.
Question 17. How does the Coast Guard plan to monitor the large
commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea and Arctic region to guard
against illegal fishing and protect our national economic interest?
Answer. In 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
issued the Arctic Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) which includes a ban
on commercial fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the
coast of Alaska in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. The FMP will
continue the ban until there is enough information available to
determine the effects of increasing human activity on the newly exposed
and fragile maritime ecosystem. This is a precautionary plan created by
NOAA/NMFS and enforced by USCG. The Coast Guard will monitor the large
commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea and Arctic region to guard
against illegal fishing and protect our national economic interest
through execution of Ocean Guardian, the U.S. Coast Guard's Fisheries
Enforcement Strategic Plan.
Question 18. How does the Government plan to address and monitor
territorial disputes?
Answer. The Department of State is the lead agency for monitoring
territorial disputes between the United States and a foreign country.
The Coast Guard will coordinate with the State Department on any
maritime boundary disputes.
Question 19. How does the Government propose to monitor the
security of our national borders in the Arctic region, an emerging
security issue?
Answer. Monitoring the security of our national borders in the
Arctic is a whole-of-government issue. The President's strategy and
objectives are outlined in the National Strategy for the Arctic Region
and its Implementation Plan. The Coast Guard has undertaken efforts to
ensure safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity
in U.S. Arctic waters. The Coast Guard monitors and assesses risks
posed by increasing maritime activity, and allocates an adaptable mix
of cutters, boats, aircraft and shore infrastructure to enable
effective seasonal operations commensurate with prevailing activity
levels and risk.
Question 20. I note that the Coast Guard has been working with
Greenpeace to ensure their waterborne first amendment activities at the
Port of Seattle do not cause themselves danger or interfere with ship
traffic. What operational challenges for the Coast Guard are posed by
the activities of Greenpeace, whose members recently conducted an
unauthorized boarding of a ship? Are these activities a distraction
from your core missions?
Answer. The Coast Guard's primary (core) missions include ensuring
the safety of the maritime transportation system and the people that
operate within it. As such, Coast Guard members are poised to protect
commerce without interfering with Greenpeace's legitimate First
Amendment activities. The Coast Guard has policy as well as tactics,
techniques, and procedures (TTP) to guide operations involving maritime
protest activities. With this, Operational Commanders work with protest
groups, like Greenpeace, to identify a safe area where they can freely
exercise their First Amendment activities while maintaining the
integrity of safety and security zones as part of normal ports,
waterways, and coastal security operations. Finally, Coast Guard TTP
provides situation-dependent measured responses for protestors who
choose to place themselves in danger or interfere with maritime
traffic. In regard to the Port of Seattle First Amendment activities,
Greenpeace has been cooperative and transparent in their plans,
respecting the established safety zones, and communicating their
intentions to the Coast Guard.
Question 21. The Coast Guard recently proposed regulations to
implement the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 and the
public comment period is now closed. What is the timeline for the Coast
Guard to complete a review of the NPRM comments, hold any public
hearings if necessary, and ultimately issue a final rule?
Answer. The Coast Guard is considering all the comments from the
NPRM and will respond to them in any Final Rule when it is issued. The
Coast Guard does not have a timeline for when a Final Rule will be
issued.
Question 22. Given the current reductions in operational
capabilities, what is the Coast Guard doing to engage with industry to
aid the Coast Guard with maritime domain awareness?
Answer. The Coast Guard has aggressively pursued partnerships with
other U.S. agencies, allied nations, and industry to keep a current
picture of maritime activity. Industry plays a vital role because of
their cutting edge hardware, software, and sensors, as well as their
interest in maintaining an efficient flow of goods and services.
Initiatives such as sharing commercial satellite vessel locating data
such as Automated Information System (AIS) reports are a good example
of how Coast Guard capitalizes on commercial capabilities.
Specifically, the Coast Guard has used AIS data from ORBCOMM, synthetic
aperture radar data from RADARSAT and Terra SAR X and other vendors to
assist in remote sensing of the maritime domain. The Coast Guard also
uses other commercial services to access maritime data on cargo and
vessel movement, port arrivals/departures, and to maintain awareness of
current trends in trade on the world oceans.
Question 23. To what extent does the Coast Guard rely on satellite
surveillance for monitoring activities for Maritime Domain Awareness?
Answer. Satellite surveillance capabilities are a key part of Coast
Guard's multi-faceted maritime activity monitoring. The Coast Guard
uses a wide variety of data to monitor the maritime domain and the
maritime approaches to the United States. Together with other agencies
in the United States, allied partners, and commercial providers of
data, Coast Guard operations and intelligence personnel analyze vessel
locations and activity. Satellite and terrestrial source data are fused
to create a comprehensive picture of maritime events such as vessel
movements, presence in sensitive or closed areas, and compliance with
fisheries and pollution regulations. Satellite derived information,
such as data from vessel Automatic Identification System (AIS), Long
Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) reports, Electro-optical and
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery, and intelligence community
reporting from national technical means are a major source of
information used to enhance maritime domain awareness. This is
complemented by a host of source information from terrestrial sensors
and observations of the maritime domain from partner agencies, allies,
and the maritime industry.
Question 24. The Coast Guard is only able to stop about 20 percent
of the drug shipments that it knows about. What will it take to improve
the Coast Guard's success against the illegal drug shipments?
Answer. Continued recapitalization of the Coast Guard's aging Major
Cutter fleet and 110 Patrol Boats with the National Security Cutter/
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) and Fast Response Cutter (FRC),
respectively, will significantly improve Coast Guard's capabilities to
perform its Drug Interdiction mission. Like the major cutters before
them, the NSC and OPC will provide the off-shore presence in the
transit zone vital to combating Transnational Organized Crime (TOC)
networks. Coast Guard presence in the Transit Zone, targeting the
primary flow of illicit drugs in pure and bulk quantities, has the most
direct and damaging impact on TOC drug smuggling networks.
Question 25. How does satellite surveillance compare to aircraft
patrols used in the International Ice Patrol mission for accuracy,
reliability, environmental constraints, and cost?
Answer. Satellite surveillance provides a capability similar to
that of fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) in most cases. Unlike
aircraft, satellites can provide near continuous coverage of ice fields
over a wider area than aircraft surveillance can provide, thus
obviating the need to utilize aircraft to search for and report on
iceberg locations. Additionally, satellites are generally immune to
situations where unfavorable flight conditions are present. However, in
cases where there is persistent cloud cover or significant ocean
currents that affect iceberg movements, depending on the sensor, it may
be more difficult to rely on information provided by satellites.
Currently it takes over two weeks for satellites to make enough passes
over the North Atlantic to frame together enough satellite imagery to
completely saturate the iceberg limit area. While the comparative
analysis is still in its early phases, timeliness and reliability of
satellite data compared to flight patrols is the primary observed gap
at this time. Costs of satellite use and aircraft activity vary and are
dependent upon the amount of satellite imagery requested and collected
during an ice season versus the number of reconnaissance missions. It
is known, however, that multiple dedicated satellites would be cost
prohibitive.
The Coast Guard is continuously pursuing ways to improve maritime
domain awareness to make operations more efficient, however, at this
time it's too early to say whether satellite imagery can take the place
of International Ice Patrol aircraft.
Question 26. If satellite surveillance is used for the
International Ice Patrol, are there other mission needs that the
aircraft now used for those patrols could be freed up to be used for?
Answer. Historically, the Coast Guard allocates approximately 500
Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) flight hours for International Ice
Patrol operations each year. There is no plan at present to curtail or
eliminate MPA flights that support the International Ice Patrol.
However, if satellite surveillance were to become a reliable
alternative to MPA flights, a portion of the aforementioned MPA hours
could potentially be used for other priority Coast Guard activities.
Question 27. With current international guidelines for ships
operating in Arctic waters being updated, has the Coast Guard
considered the use of satellite-based technology to monitor the
increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes-the
Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage?
Answer. The Coast Guard already uses the National Technical Means
(NTM) for MDA monitoring in the Arctic region.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Admiral Zukunft, a few weeks ago we were underway on
the Coast Guard Cutter Vigorous as it patrolled off the coast of Key
West, Florida. A lot has changed since that ship was built in 1967. I
am concerned about the reliability of these older ships. How much time
is spent maintaining and repairing these cutters?
Answer. The Coast Guard's maintenance policy is to dedicate 143
days of depot maintenance per year for 210-ft medium endurance cutters,
which supports the execution of one dry-dock availability every four
years (8-10 weeks in duration), two dockside availabilities every four
years (8 weeks in duration), and other routine maintenance during
normal in-port periods. In the past two years, the Coast Guard has
performed emergency dry-docks for four of the fourteen 210-ft medium
endurance cutters due to deteriorating steel structure.
The Coast Guard can report that significant strides in efforts to
recapitalize the fleet have recently been made. In FY 2014 the Coast
Guard awarded contracts for preliminary and contract design of the
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). Preliminary Design Review has been
conducted and the program remains on schedule. The OPC will serve as
the backbone of the Coast Guard's strategy to project and maintain
offshore presence in concert with the extended range and capability of
the National Security Cutter (NSC) and the enhanced coastal patrol
capability of the Fast Response Cutter (FRC). In addition to the recent
production award for the eighth NSC, the Coast Guard commissioned the
fourth NSC into service last year, christened the fifth, began
fabrication of the sixth and initiated pre-fabrication activities for
the seventh NSC. NSCs are proving very successful at providing the
Coast Guard the requisite capabilities to perform the full range of
missions in the offshore environment. The twelfth FRC has been
commissioned in Key West, completing the fleet of six cutters there and
in Miami, where FRCs are already proving invaluable to counter-drug and
counter-migration efforts in the Straits of Florida and maritime
approaches to the southeastern United States.
Question 2. Admiral Zukunft, the Associated Press released a report
a few weeks ago stating that a drilling platform that had been toppled
due to Hurricane Ivan is leaking oil at a higher rate than previously
estimated. Based on a report submitted by a Taylor Energy contractor in
March of 2013, Federal officials estimated the site to be discharging
approximately 12 gallons per day. One year later, in March of 2014,
those estimates were lowered to about 4 gallons of oil a day leaking
from the site. Again, the estimates were revised just a few months
later in August of 2014 and these estimates were significantly larger,
roughly 84 gallons per day of oil leaking. The Coast Guard said in 2008
that the Taylor Energy leak posed a ``significant threat'' to the
environment. In the 7 years since this statement and having the
responsibility of Federal On Scene Coordinator, what tangible or
physical action has been directed by the Coast Guard to Taylor Energy
to either reduce or stop the leak flow or identify and quantify the
severity of the leak at the subsurface level?
Answer. In 2008, the Coast Guard, as the Federal-On-Scene
Coordinator (FOSC), issued Taylor Energy an Administrative Order that
required Taylor Energy to, among other things, install a subsea
containment dome system to recover product released from the wells and
to conduct daily overflights of the MC-20A well site to visually
monitor the oil discharges.
Since then, Taylor has contracted daily overflights of the area
that, include Coast Guard and BSEE observers, to monitor the discharge
and report findings regarding the presence and estimated volume of oil
on the ocean surface to the National Response Center. In the event that
recoverable product is identified, Taylor Energy is responsible for
performing the recovery and has responded, at the direction of the
FOSC, to recover product on four occasions.
In 2009, a subsea containment system (domes placed over projected
leaking well sites) was installed on the seafloor at the MC-20A site.
In March 2012, an incident action plan (IAP) was approved by the
Unified Command (UC) that established standard procedures for
monitoring the site and responding to discharges. In 2012, due to
problems with the original containment system, the FOSC issued an
Administrative Order requiring the design, construction, and
installation of a new containment dome that will more effectively
capture the ongoing discharge from the site. Along with the design
specifications, the Administrative Order directed Taylor Energy to
submit a written plan including a projected timeline for fabrication
and installation (as of May 1, 2015, the final engineering design of
the new dome is not complete, and the dome has not been installed). In
2013, the last remaining operational containment dome was
decommissioned due to damaged components and lack of efficiency/
recovery of oil. In August 2014, the UC led a joint aerial observation
workshop that included the Coast Guard, BSEE, NOAA, and Taylor Energy's
representatives and contractors. At that workshop, the aerial
observation methodology used to estimate quantity and rate of discharge
was reviewed and revised.
The Coast Guard and NOAA have placed observers on the Taylor
Energy-contracted flights to verify the new approach is being followed.
The Coast Guard believes that the consistency of sheen size and rate of
discharge estimates from reporting parties has improved since this
workshop. Since 2008, the Coast Guard FOSC has led monthly UC meetings
with representatives from BSEE, NOAA, and Taylor Energy.
Question 3. Based on this direction, has Taylor Energy satisfied
the expectations of the Federal On Scene Coordinator?
Answer. The Coast Guard, working with the UC members, is committed
to exploring all options to control and contain the oil that is
discharging from the well site and to ensure Taylor Energy works to
permanently stop the ongoing oil spill. The Coast Guard remains
committed to Responsible Party oversight and coordination to contain
and recover as much discharge product as possible, mitigate
environmental impacts, and pursue all available response options.
Taylor Energy will only have met its obligations under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 and as directed by the Federal-On-Scene
Coordinator when the source of the discharge has been secured.
Question 4. Admiral Zukunft, the Offshore Patrol Cutter is the
Coast Guard's top priority in the continuance of the Coast Guard fleet
recapitalization efforts. The Fiscal Year 2016 budget allots $18.5
million for the program. You have testified that the OPC program needs
actually much more than that to move into the next phase. Tell me about
consequences if the Coast Guard does not receive the funding needed to
advance the OPC?
Answer. The 2016 request is consistent with the support required
for the planned activities in 2016. The Coast Guard's 5-year Capital
Investment Plan (CIP) shows the estimated level of funding (e.g.,
$100M in 2017) that would be needed to keep the OPC acquisition on its
planned schedule. Significant deviation from the CIP that delays the
planned schedule could adversely affect the OPC acquisition strategy
resulting in higher costs. Additionally, OPC schedule delays exacerbate
Medium Endurance Cutter reliability issues described in Q1.
Question 5. Admiral Zukunft, I'm concerned about drug interdiction
in the drug transit zones of the Eastern Pacific and Western Caribbean.
Will the Navy's focus on the Pacific impact the drug interdiction
mission, ``other law enforcement' missions, and other statutory
missions of the Coast Guard?
Answer. The Navy's focus in the Asia-Pacific region, and the
decommissioning of the Perry-class frigates, has impacted the Coast
Guard's drug interdiction and other law enforcement (protection of the
U.S. EEZ from foreign fishing vessel incursions) missions, as fewer
Navy assets in the drug transit zone are available. We continue to
conduct and witness significant interdictions in the region. This is
primarily as a result of increased intelligence sharing and mission
coordination with our international partners resulting in over 91,497
kilos of cocaine interdicted in FY 2014. As part of the U.S. Strategy
for Engagement with Central America, we envision even more successes as
we focus on aiding partner nations in disrupting transnational criminal
organizations in the maritime domain. The most effective detection and
monitoring (D&M) and interdiction and apprehension (I&A) package in the
drug transit zone is a combination of maritime patrol aircraft, a ship
with an embarked helicopter, and multiple over-the-horizon pursuit
boats with USCG law enforcement boarding teams, guided by a command
cadre with mission-specific knowledge and experience. The Navy's
rebalance can still assist the Coast Guard's law enforcement mission
through initiatives such as the Oceania Maritime Security Initiative
(OMSI), embarking LEDETs and shipriders for maritime surveillance and
boardings within the EEZs of Pacific Island Nations, and monitoring
activities during transits through remote National Marine Sanctuaries
and Monuments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Admiral Zukunft, I'm aware that the Coast Guard is
constructing a new pier in Cape May. What is the status of the project?
Answer. The project is expected to be complete in the summer of
2016. In-water work will begin on 1 July 2015 in accordance with
approved environmental permits.
Question 2. Admiral Zukunft, destabilization in Central America,
particularly in the countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala,
is readily apparent through the influx of unaccompanied children from
those countries we've seen across our borders recently. Please discuss
the Coast Guard's strategy in the Western Hemisphere to support
stability in the region?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Western Hemisphere Strategy identifies
three strategic priorities to help achieve regional stability:
combating networks, securing borders, and safeguarding commerce. This
three-pronged strategy aims to improve Western Hemisphere stability by
addressing major regional issues, such as the rise of Transnational
Organized Crime (TOC) networks, the impacts of climate change, and the
challenges of globalization and technological advances. The strategy
emphasizes the importance of offshore vessel and aircraft presence.
Specific priorities in this strategy also link to broader strategic
concepts including capable governance, unity of effort, as well as
effective international engagement and contingency response.
Question 3. How does the Coast Guard's acquisition of the Offshore
Patrol Cutter and the National Security Cutter nest inside this
strategy?
Answer. Coast Guard offshore capability provides persistent
presence across the high-risk areas of the Western Hemisphere.
Sustaining this presence is essential to meeting our performance goals.
Major cutters and patrol boats provide this capability by engaging TOC
networks at sea, where they are most vulnerable. Successful at-sea drug
interdictions and subsequent prosecutions lead to actionable
intelligence on future events, which produce follow-on seizures and
additional intelligence, thus feeding a cycle of success. Targeting the
primary flow of illicit drugs, in pure and bulk quantities has a direct
and damaging impact on TOC networks.
Question 4. Admiral Zukunft, the Coast Guard is often referred to
as ``the nation's first responders'' because it is typically the first
on the scene in a crisis. Your rapid response to disasters like
Hurricane Sandy and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are no coincidence-
it's the product of training. Coast Guard members are trained to
carefully assess the risks and benefits when there's an emergency, so
they know whether and how to react without having to wait for orders.
With proposed cuts in the Coast Guard's budget and growing operational
demands, what steps will you take to guarantee that we preserve this
critical capability?
Answer. The Coast Guard's commitment to maintaining the Nation's
preparedness to confront myriad crises remains undiminished. Using
updated and new crisis response doctrine and policy, we emphasize the
importance of contingency exercises and training to position our
responders to continue to be ready in an all hazards, all threat
environment. The recent release of our new Incident Management Handbook
(IMH), as well as the publication of our Incident Management and Crisis
Response doctrine, is indicative of our commitment to serve and
respond.
In 2013, the Coast Guard created the Coast Guard Incident
Management Assistance Team (CG-IMAT) to provide advanced Incident
Command System (ICS) surge support to our Operational Commanders in the
field during nationally and regionally significant incidents. This 33-
person deployable team has advanced ICS training and deploys
experienced personnel to augment our Sectors. The National Strike Force
also provides highly trained professionals for oil spill and hazardous
material responses. In addition, both Coast Guard Atlantic Area and
Pacific Area Commands maintain collateral duty IMATs which provide
further additional surge capacity.
The Coast Guard continues recapitalization of its surface, air and
shore assets to ensure that we remain ready to confront all threats and
hazards in the maritime domain. The Coast Guard is delivering National
Security Cutters, Fast Response Cutters, Response Boats-Medium,
Response Boats-Small Generation II, cutter boats, HC-144A Ocean Sentry
Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA), HC-130J Long Range Surveillance
Aircraft, and command and control systems--equipping our men and women
with the appropriate tools to execute the Coast Guard's many missions,
including response to contingency operations. The Coast Guard is also
in the preliminary and contract design phase for the Offshore Patrol
Cutter (OPC), which will replace the legacy medium endurance cutter
fleet.
Question 5. Admiral Zukunft, the melting polar ice is leading to a
significant increase in commercial and noncommercial activity in Arctic
waters. The United States is at risk of being unable to support
national interests in the region and our sovereignty weakened. The
Coast Guard only has two operational ice breakers in its fleet. And of
those two icebreakers, one is over 30 years old and one has limited
icebreaking capabilities. A new heavy duty icebreaker is estimated to
cost $1 billion and may take up to a decade to enter service. Do you
have enough assets to support the polar operations mission?
Answer. With the recent reactivation of CGC POLAR STAR in 2012, the
Coast Guard has one heavy and one medium icebreaker. Coast Guard
Cutters HEALY and POLAR STAR provide the capacity necessary to address
the service's near-term icebreaking needs. The Coast Guard expects to
complete the requirements for the new polar icebreaker in 2015 so that
preliminary design studies may be initiated in 2016.
Question 6. How many icebreakers do we need to have adequate
presence in the Arctic?
Answer. The Coast Guard maintains presence in the Arctic through
deployment of surface and air assets (including icebreakers).
Icebreakers also provide presence through continued support of the
science community as part of the Federal research fleet. The Coast
Guard has successfully met user demand through a mobile and seasonal
Arctic presence with CGC HEALY's annual summer deployments and
distribution of other surface, air and ashore assets to the Arctic
region under the auspices of Coast Guard District Seventeen's Operation
Arctic Shield. In the future, the number of U.S.-owned icebreakers
needed in the Arctic will depend on the requirements to perform
inherently governmental missions in and around ice-covered waters.
Question 7. How important is it to recapitalize the icebreaking
fleet?
Answer. The Coast Guard's heavy icebreaker capability is outdated,
and the only active ship (POLAR STAR) is operating with unreliable
systems. CGC HEALY is a medium icebreaker that will reach the end of
its planned service life in 2030. Given the long lead time required to
build a polar icebreaker, it is critical to maintain planned progress
on Coast Guard's new icebreaker acquisition if we are to maintain an
organic icebreaking capability.
Question 8. At what point do you take action and recapitalize,
rather than wait for a `whole of government' funding stream?
Answer. The Coast Guard is proceeding on schedule with acquisition
of a new polar icebreaker that was initiated in 2013. In the short-
term, the Coast Guard also has requested $6 million in the FY16 budget
to conduct a Material Condition Assessment and Alternatives Analysis on
the potential reactivation of POLAR SEA. Following these assessments,
the Coast Guard will have a better understanding of the feasibility and
associated cost of reactivating POLAR SEA.
Question 9. How much Coast Guard presence should be in the Arctic?
Answer. The Coast Guard is committed to ensuring safe, secure, and
environmentally responsible activity in the Arctic. As outlined in the
Coast Guard's Arctic Strategy, the Coast Guard plans to utilize a
``mobile and seasonal'' approach to operations over the coming decade.
The Coast Guard will closely monitor evolving Arctic activities,
reallocate assets, and make new investments, as resources allow,
addressing emerging operational requirements.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Admiral Zukunft, Arctic countries signed an Arctic
Search and Rescue Agreement in 2011. The Arctic Council conducted its
first Search and Rescue exercise in 2012. SAR capabilities are becoming
more important as tourism, transportation and oil and gas development
increase in the Arctic. Please outline what steps the Coast Guard has
taken to prepare and respond to a maritime casualty incident in the
Arctic.
Answer. As outlined in the Coast Guard's Arctic Strategy,
increasing Search and Rescue (SAR) capability requires leveraging
partnerships, including international, state, local and industry. The
Commander, Coast Guard District 17, is the SAR Coordinator for the
Juneau Search and Rescue Region (SRR), which includes the Arctic Ocean.
Coast Guard District 17 coordinates SAR operations with support from
other countries, as well as with other Federal, State, local, and
Tribal SAR and emergency response authorities. To enhance capabilities,
the district has led regional mass rescue exercises and workshops
focusing on local capabilities and conducted training with state and
international partners. The Coast Guard also deploys assets to the
Arctic in the summer months, when human activity in the region peaks.
In October 2015, the U.S. Government will host a Search and Rescue
Tabletop Exercise in Anchorage, Alaska. Led by the Coast Guard,
Department of State, and NORTHCOM, this whole-of-government exercise
will support both the U.S. Chairmanship of the Arctic Council and the
National Strategy for the Arctic Region Implementation Plan, and it is
designed to test elements of the 2011 Arctic SAR Agreement.
To prepare for potential future operations, the Coast Guard also
tests the multi-mission capabilities of technologies and assets during
the annual operation Arctic Shield.
Question 2. What are the Coast Guard's limitations to responding to
a Search and Rescue incident in the Arctic?
Answer. Search and rescue by the Coast Guard is conducted by
deployable assets in the region which, like all SAR assets, are limited
by prescribed range and endurance parameters. Lack of permanent
infrastructure also reduces the Coast Guard's ability to obtain fuel
and provisions or conduct repairs and maintenance on assets in theater,
if required.
Question 3. How does the U.S. contribute to the international
Search and Rescue Agreement?
Answer. As detailed in the International Maritime Organization's
(IMO) International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979
(``SAR Convention''), nations establish national SAR systems to provide
SAR services to meet national and international humanitarian and legal
obligations. Under the SAR Convention, the world is divided into Search
and Rescue Regions (SRRs); these SRRs are formally established by
agreement between nations. The United States is an integral component
of the global SAR system; the Coast Guard, as the designated SAR
Coordinator for the U.S. maritime SAR regions, is responsible for
coordinating SAR operations within these SRRs.
To fulfill the SAR Convention's requirements, in 2011 the eight
Arctic Council nations negotiated and concluded the Arctic SAR
Agreement. This agreement serves at the basis for international
cooperation and coordination of Arctic SAR operations. The Commander,
Coast Guard District 17, is the SAR Coordinator for the Juneau SRR,
which includes the Arctic Ocean. Coast Guard District 17 coordinates
SAR operations with support from other countries, as well as with other
Federal, State, local, and Tribal SAR and emergency response
authorities.
Question 4. In what ways does the U.S. rely on other countries for
search and rescue capabilities and assistance?
Answer. The international SAR system is based on the premise that
all available resources should be utilized to conduct lifesaving
operations. The United States coordinates with other countries' Rescue
Coordination Centers (RCCs) to determine what resources are available
and can be employed to conduct a SAR mission. In the Arctic, for
example, the U.S. Coast Guard works with other countries, primarily
Canada and the Russian Federation, to respond to persons in distress
within the U.S. maritime SAR Region (SRR) in the Arctic Ocean. The
U.S., in turn, supports Canadian and Russian Federation SAR operations
within their respective SRRs, as applicable.
Question 5. In addition to investments in vessels and aircraft,
what other tools does the United States need to improve safe maritime
transportation in the Arctic?
Answer. Industry and other maritime transportation stakeholders
play a significant role in both demand and allocation of resources for
safeguarding maritime transportation. The National Strategy for the
Arctic Region provides a roadmap on the Federal Government's approach
to the region.
Question 6. Admiral Zukunft, the Coast Guard is in need of
recapitalizing its legacy cutter fleets. There are 1 Coast Guard
cutters that are nearly 35 years old and some cutters that are nearly
50 years old. I am very pleased to see four of the eight approved and
funded National Security Cutters in service, and twelve of the 58 Fast
Response Cutters listed in the Coast Guard's program of record, also in
service. With so many vessels required in the Coast Guard's program of
record-91 total--I would like to better understand the Coast Guard's
procurement authority with respect to the Offshore Patrol Cutter. Has
the Coast Guard considered multiyear procurement for the Offshore
Patrol Cutter, or any other vessel class or aircraft? Why or why not?
Answer. The OPC acquisition strategy could support a multi-year
procurement (MYP) strategy if it meets the statutory criteria (e.g.,
substantial savings over annual buys, stable funding and stable
design).
Question 7. What, if any, are the risks to the Coast Guard by
utilizing multiyear procurement if approved by Congress?
Answer. If multi-year procurement (MYP) is used, and if subsequent
years funding were not available, the Coast Guard would be required to
renegotiate or cancel the contract. Cancelling the contract could
require the Government to pay a cancellation fee to the contractor.
Renegotiating the contract would also have a financial impact.
Question 8. What are the potential cost savings to the Coast Guard
if multiyear procurement was employed for the Offshore Patrol cutter?
Answer. Multi-year procurement (MYP) can be beneficial for shipyard
material and labor cost management. Optimally-phased and stable
production schedules establish the best scenario for shipyard learning,
leading to reduced labor costs. In addition, multiple ship sets of
supplies and materials may be procured at reduced cost due to
purchasing in quantity.
Question 9. What type of Coast Guard infrastructure and response
planning efforts are being done to address the risks of transporting
crude by rail in, on, or adjacent to a navigable waterway?
Answer. For the last three fiscal years, the Coast Guard has
provided strategic planning direction to field units to assess new oil
sources, including rail, and to incorporate these risks in Area
Contingency Plans. Through our sustained engagements in Harbor Safety
Committees, Area Maritime Security Committees, and Area Committee
meetings, we have conducted several Bakken and shale oil awareness
training seminars, a national crude by rail webinar and have
coordinated outreach efforts with interagency partners like the
Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to establish and disseminate vital first response training
programs, including an online orientation for On-Scene Coordinators
assembled by the National Response Team.
The Coast Guard is conducting the first Consensus Ecological Risk
Assessment involving rail as a source this summer, a tool previously
used to compare tradeoff impacts of offshore response countermeasures.
Moreover, our National Strike Force has responded to several Bakken and
shale oil related rail incidents, and working with NOAA's Scientific
Support Coordinators, has recorded critical information on the
characteristics and fate of Bakken and shale oil discharges in the
inland and coastal environments.
The Coast Guard is supporting the Department of Transportation, in
coordination with the EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the U.S. Fire Association, the Association of American
Railroads, and the American Petroleum Institute to create an in-depth
training program with videos and scenario animations for local, state,
and Federal response personnel. This training program covers the
relationship between local and state emergency response plans and the
National Oil and Hazardous Material Contingency Plan. The training
program further addresses the types of response infrastructure
available to first responders and crisis management resources provided
by the railroad industry and applicable Federal special teams from the
National Response Team.
Based partially on the emergence of this issue relative to new oil-
by-rail corridors, the Coast Guard initiated and is leading an
interagency subcommittee of the National Response Team to improve the
process of meeting environmental consultation and compliance
requirements of Federal statues, such as the Endangered Species Act, as
they apply to oil and hazardous substance response and preparedness
activities.
Question 10. What is being done at the Federal level to address
spill risks and calculations by region?
Answer. Coordinated by the National Security Council staff, an
interagency team identified threats within each EPA and FEMA Region,
Federal resources available to help the whole community prepare for
crude by rail transportation incidents, and classification of states
based on the volume of crude-by-rail as identified under a Department
of Transportation Emergency Order. The interagency team conducted
conference calls with the 48 states in the lower continental United
States and the District of Columbia. State participants included
directors and deputies from state emergency management and homeland
security agencies, environmental agencies, transportation agencies,
state fusion centers, and local police and fire departments. Upon
conclusion of their analysis, the interagency team developed a
coordinated communications strategy for the multiple Federal agencies
involved with public outreach related to the shipment of shale crude
oil by rail tank car. The strategy included significant rollout
activity schedules, key messages, talking points, and frequently asked
questions.
The material from this effort included summary information on shale
oil spill risks and calculations by region, including identifications
of railroads carrying high volumes that are proximal to navigable
waterways. These documents were disseminated to Coast Guard operational
field units, briefed during a special national webinar, and posted on a
secure portal site for Coast Guard prevention and response personnel to
incorporate into their Area Contingency Plans.
Question 11. What type of oil spill response and coordination
exercises are taking place to address marine oil spills by rail?
Answer. The Coast Guard is working with the EPA in the development
of a series of discussion-based exercises involving an Inland Spill of
National Significance (SONS) due to a rail incident. The current
scenario involves the derailment of a train carrying Bakken crude oil
in the Columbia River Gorge area; the ensuing oil spill will begin in
EPA jurisdiction and flow into USCG jurisdiction. There are currently
three seminars planned using this scenario as the basis of discussion:
Regional Response Team 10s regional-level seminar (September 2015), a
National Response Team seminar (October 2015), and an Executive Seminar
with agency Principals (January 2016). There are also plans to
incorporate national issues arising from the FEMA 2015 Operation Safe
Delivery exercise series into the Executive Seminar. The Coast Guard
was a participant in the Jersey City pilot of the FEMA Operation Safe
Delivery exercise, and presented on our involvement in the
environmental response to the West Virginia oil train derailment.
Coast Guard has conducted or been a participant in a number of
exercises and responses involving tank car derailment and a subsequent
release of oil or hazardous materials. Each of these events provides an
opportunity to enhance the Coast Guard's preparedness to respond to
these situations. Recent examples include:
(1) June 4, 2014, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Toledo: workshop to
gather information regarding the transportation of Bakken Crude
Oil through the MSU Toledo Area of Responsibility (AOR).
(2) January 21, 2014, Sector Delaware Bay: real-world event, actual
derailment of tank cars, none leaked, but provided opportunity
to learn more on rail transport of Bakken crude through the
Sector Delaware Bay AOR.
(3) August 23, 2014, Sector Delaware Bay: full scale exercise with
New Castle County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
simulating a fire from a leaking tank car containing Bakken
crude.
(4) November 12, 2014, Sector Buffalo: Spill Management Team (SMT)
table top exercise to discuss additional boom deployment
locations along Cattaraugus Creek in the vicinity of Irving, NY
to improve the ability to respond to a potential Bakken crude
oil discharge from a rail car accident.
(5) August 26, 2014, Sector Buffalo: boom deployment drill along
Cattaraugus Creek in the vicinity of Irving, NY to improve the
ability to respond to a potential Bakken crude oil discharge
from a rail car accident.
(6) June 11, 2014, MSU Duluth: table top exercise to improve
preparedness by simulating a major oil spill of approximately
30,000 gallons of Bakken Light Crude Oil from a derailed
train's tank car on the Grassy Point Swing Bridge.
(7) April 11, 2014, Sector Buffalo: quarterly notification drill,
to ensure proper notifications are accomplished in the event of
a derailment and spill of Bakken crude into a waterway of the
Sector Buffalo AOR.
(8) July 10, 2013, MSU Toledo: table top exercise, provided a venue
to learn how a major U.S. railroad responds to a derailment,
how their contractors/equipment are mobilized, timelines for
mobilization, how they use ICS to coordinate on-scene
operations, how their ICS is set up, how they would blend into
a Unified Command, and how they would work with local/Federal
first responders (USCG, USEPA, OH EPA, various fire & rescue
departments, police and sheriff departments, county emergency
management agencies, etc.).
(9) August 12, 2014, Sector Delaware Bay: table top exercise at
Gloucester County (NJ) Fire Academy, simulated crude oil train
derailment to validate procedures and develop a planning guide
that municipalities can use to promote successful mitigation of
a bulk flammable liquid event.
(10) March 15, 2015, Sector Buffalo: quarterly notification drill,
to ensure proper notifications are accomplished in the event of
a derailment and spill of Bakken crude into a waterway of the
Sector Buffalo AOR.
(11) August 25, 2014, Sector Lake Michigan: full scale exercise, oil
spill response exercise involving a simulated derailment and
release of diluted bitumen (DILBIT), a heavy oil, into Sauk
Creek, Port Washington, WI.
(12) March 27, 2014, Sector New York: table top exercise, exploring
response to derailment and spill of tank cars into the Hudson
River near West Point, NY.
(13) September 6, 2013, Sector Tampa-St Petersburg: real world
event, derailment and spill of tank cars leaking ethanol.
(14) November 30, 2012, Sector Delaware Bay: real-world event,
derailment and hazardous substance release at Paulsboro, NJ.
Question 12. Admiral Zukunft, NOAA installed specialized high
frequency radar stations along much of the United States coastline.
Unlike Doppler radar which measures weather in the atmosphere, high
frequency radar or ``H.F.R.'' measures fine scale sea surface currents.
Sea surface current data has important applications for Coast Guard
search and rescue, harmful algal bloom mapping and oil spill response.
There is only one high frequency radar station installed in Washington
State-at the southernmost corner-leaving much of Washington State
without coverage. How has H.F.R. data improved search and rescue
modeling in the mid-Atlantic?
Answer. The surface current fields, measured by High Frequency
Radar (HFR) and derived by the associated Short-Term Prediction System
(STPS), are used directly by the Coast Guard's Search and Rescue
Optimal Planning System (SAROPS) for search object drift predictions.
These drift predictions result in more accurate search object
probability distributions. Search efforts based on these distributions
lead to more efficient and effective searching.
Question 13. How is Washington State at a disadvantage without this
system?
Answer. In maritime regions with no High Frequency Radar (HFR)
data, SAROPS utilizes currents from regional and global models in its
search object drift predictions. These models are highly sophisticated
and provide the best water current information available when actual
data, such as that provided by HFR, are not available. Search object
probability distributions under these circumstances may be less
accurate than those that utilize HFR data.
Question 14. Admiral Zukunft, The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) adopted the Polar Code amendments into the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. These
amendments created mandatory safety requirements for ships operating in
the Arctic and Antarctic waters on shipboard training, mariner
certification, navigation and operational assessments. Without seasonal
ports (operating bases) to conduct inspections and evaluations of
vessels transiting the Arctic, how will the United States hold the
vessels traveling to the Arctic accountable?
Answer.
The Polar Code is expected to come into force on January 1,
2017. It will apply to new vessels after that date. Vessels
built before that date will be required to meet the relevant
requirements by the first intermediate or renewal survey after
January 1, 2018. The Coast Guard is currently evaluating its
compliance programs to incorporate Polar Code compliance
requirements.
Domestic inspected vessels must undergo periodic inspection
for certification and mid-period inspections. The Coast Guard
verifies compliance of these vessels with the applicable
domestic and international standards during these inspections.
Most inspections are expected to occur outside of the Arctic
region, in homeports or ports of call. The vast majority of
inspections are not expected at remote Arctic locations.
Foreign vessels subject to the Polar Code will be subject to
oversight from their Flag State. These vessels may also be
subject to Port State Control examinations by the Coast Guard
should they call in a U.S. port.
Enforcement of the Polar Code will consist of both periodic
inspections and employment of Maritime Domain Awareness
information such as Notice of Arrival and Automatic
Identification System (AIS) information. The seasonal
deployment of personnel, aircraft, and surface vessels as part
of Operation Arctic Shield provides law enforcement capability
during months where decreased ice coverage permits vessel
traffic.
Question 15. Furthermore, there are new international environmental
regulations for operating vessels in the Arctic; including restrictions
for waste disposal and discharge of other toxic vessel waste. With no
ports for vessels to discharge waste in the United States high Arctic,
how will vessels be able to comply with these requirements?
Answer. The International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships MARPOL requires port states to ensure that
facilities provide the disposal of garbage and other environmental
wastes such as oily water, noxious substances and sewage. The United
States has implemented regulations requiring reception facilities for
wastes in Title 33, CFR Part 158. For U.S. Arctic ports and
destinations, there simply is no port infrastructure to support
reception facilities for these wastes, so vessels must take responsible
action to minimize such wastes and retain onboard such wastes until
they return to a port where such reception facilities exist.
Question 16. Admiral Zukunft, the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization
Act directed the Coast Guard to develop Alternate Safety Compliance
Plans (ASCP) by 2017 with the intent to implement those ASCPs by 2020.
Feedback from the fishing industry across the board is that there is a
concerning lack of information and understanding for what fishing
vessel owners should be doing to prepare their vessels and crews to be
in compliance with ASCP by 2020. In my region there has been little, if
any, outreach. Admiral Zukunft, Arctic countries signed an Arctic
Search and Rescue Agreement in 2011. The Arctic Council conducted its
first Search and Rescue exercise in 2012. SAR capabilities are becoming
more important as tourism, transportation and oil and gas development
increase in the Arctic. How is the Coast Guard soliciting and
implementing feedback from the industry (fishing, shipbuilding, etc) as
the Coast Guard develops the ASCP program?
Answer. The Coast Guard has been presenting information about the
ASCP development process since 2011 at: industry conferences and
expositions; industry association meetings and forums; and informally
with individual owner/operators who have a vessel undergoing repairs or
modifications in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and Gulf of Mexico.
Question 17. How can the Coast Guard increase their outreach to the
fishing and shipbuilding industries to increase stakeholder involvement
in the development of the ASCP program criteria?
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to formally announce and publish
for public comment a draft ASCP requirements matrix that will enhance
the seaworthiness of older vessels and the safety of their crews. The
Coast Guard is determining the best means to accomplish making this
information available to the industry and the public. Subsequent to the
public availability of the draft ASCP requirements, the Coast Guard
will continue to provide presentations on the ASCP to industry groups
and associations and individual owner/operators as may be requested,
and may also conduct public meetings to solicit feedback, both oral and
written. After announcement of the draft ASCP requirements, the
document will be posted on the Coast Guard's www.fishsafe.info and
other websites. The Coast Guard will encourage industry groups to re-
post the ASCP information on their websites to facilitate further
awareness for their members.
Question 18. Please provide a list of the high or medium risk
fisheries that the Coast Guard is using to model the ASCP program.
Answer. The Coast Guard has been working with the Pacific Regional
Office (Anchorage, AK) of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) in sharing casualty data and developing
interventions to improve safety in the commercial fishing industry.
Joint efforts have helped reduce the number of fatalities and vessel
losses in the industry. NIOSH has identified fleets and fisheries with
high casualty rates that are considered high risk based on operations
and geographic areas. Coast Guard Districts may identify other local
fleets or fisheries that should be included. Groups may be added or
deleted based on feedback from industry and public comment. The high
risk groups identified with NIOSH that may have to meet additional
safety requirements in an ASCP include the following:
Pacific Purse Seine--Distant Water Tuna Fleet
Pacific Long Line Tuna Fleet
Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Crab Fleet
Alaska Groundfish Trawlers
Alaska Salmon Seiners and Trollers
Alaska Pot Cod
West Coast Crabbers
West Coast Groundfish Trawlers
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Shrimpers
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Menhaden
Atlantic Scallopers
Atlantic Clam and Quahog
Northeast Multi-species Groundfish
Northeast Lobster, Herring, and Pelagic fisheries
Question 19. What formal role will the Commercial Fishing Safety
Advisory Committee play in the development of the ASCP program? What
has the Committee accomplished to date? How will they continue to play
a role in the development, implementation and oversight of the ASCP
program?
Answer. The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee has been
engaged with the Coast Guard on ASCP development since 2011. During
that year's meeting, the Committee was briefed on the 2010 Act's
mandate and discussion ensued regarding what requirements should be
included in such a program. During the Committee's meetings in August
2013 (Washington, D.C.) and September 2014 (Providence, RI), the
Committee was tasked to help the Coast Guard develop requirements for
ASCPs. As a direct result of their efforts and recommendations, the
Coast Guard has a draft requirements matrix which may be applicable to
all vessels and those vessels identified as high risk based on fishery
or operating area. The Committee will continue to be engaged in making
recommendations to refine the ASCP requirements and how best to
implement and manage the program(s).
Question 20. On what date will the Coast Guard publish ASCP draft
for public comment?
Answer. No date has been established for publishing a draft of the
ASCP requirements for public comment. The Coast Guard is currently
determining the best method to get the proposed ASCP requirements out
to the public for comment, but intends to publish it by the end of
2015.
Question 21. How many vessels does the Coast Guard anticipate will
be impacted by ASCP?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement database shows the current number of fishing vessels that
are 50 feet or greater in length and 25 years of age or older to be
approximately 3,500. If all of those vessels also operate beyond three
nautical miles of the Baseline, this number would represent how many
vessels potentially would have to comply with an ASCP if in effect
today. By the year 2020, when ASCP compliance is to be implemented,
over 1,000 additional vessels will be over 25 years of age.
Question 22. Explain what additional resources the Coast Guard will
need to develop and implement the new ASCP program.
Answer. The Coast Guard does not anticipate a need for additional
budget or manpower to finish developing ASCPs by 2017. An analysis is
being conducted to determine the number of currently active vessels
that will have to comply with an ASCP, and how many separate programs
may be needed based on region and/or fishery. This will be used to
inform future budget and manpower needs related to the alternate safety
compliance programs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Admiral Zukunft, as you know, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-383) spells out how the Coast Guard
may convey 29.4 acres of Coast Guard property in Nantucket,
Massachusetts to the Town of Nantucket. Specifically, section 417 of
the legislation authorizes the Coast Guard to convey Coast Guard Long
Range Navigation (LORAN) Station Nantucket to the town ``unless'' the
Coast Guard ``determines that the conveyance would not provide a public
benefit.'' While it has been years since Congress passed this measure
and the president signed it into law, it appears a determination has
not yet been finalized. As a member of the panel with jurisdiction over
the Coast Guard, I am committed to ensuring that Federal agencies like
the Coast Guard move swiftly to implement directives laid out by
Congress. This is one such example. I understand the LORAN station was
decommissioned in 2010 and the LORAN technology was removed in 2013, as
the Coast Guard has begun relying on more modern, up-to-date equipment
to carry out the navigational aid functions the LORAN once provided. It
is critical that assets like these not be allowed to languish,
especially if they can be put to better use serving the public good.
Does the Coast Guard deem the conveyance of the land to be a public
benefit?
Answer. The Loran Station Nantucket property identified at section
417 (a) (1) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, consisting of
29.4 acres of land, is not the same LORAN-C property that was
decommissioned in 2010. Yes, the Coast Guard deemed the conveyance of
this land to the Town of Nantucket as a qualifying public benefit use
to meet law enforcement requirements.
Question 2. If so, can you provide a timetable for when the
conveyance will be finalized?
Answer. The Coast Guard is in the process of reviewing the survey
map and re-drafting the deed. Upon a Coast Guard legal review and
approval, the deed will be forwarded to the Town for acceptance and
execution. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the Coast Guard
anticipates the conveyance to occur in 2015.
Question 3. If, on the other hand, the Coast Guard concludes that
the conveyance will not provide a public benefit, can you provide the
information the Coast Guard relies on to make that determination?
Answer. As previously stated, the Coast Guard deemed the conveyance
of this land to the Town of Nantucket as a qualifying public benefit
use to meet law enforcement requirements.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Admiral Zukunft, I understand you are looking at
unmanned air and maritime systems as a way to build capacity at low
cost to help you meet your eleven statutory missions. What is the
potential for using unmanned systems not only to support Coast Guard
intelligence gathering needs, but also other missions such as first
response and disaster relief?
Answer. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are expected to augment
manned Coast Guard assets in all maritime security and law enforcement
missions as technology and policy develop to allow for those types of
operations.
Question 2. How far along are we in developing that technology for
that specific use?
Answer. The Coast Guard is not engaged in the active development of
UAS technologies to meet mission requirements. However, the Service is
messaging to industry the nature of our requirements (all-weather,
anti-ice capability, sense and avoid for example), and is working with
government agency working groups to advance UAS policy and facilitate
UAS inclusion in the national airspace.
Question 3. Are you coordinating with DOD and others in the
interagency to take advantage of their lessons learned about unmanned
platform and payload capacity so that you are not reinventing the
wheel?
Answer. Yes. The Coast Guard is actively engaged with Department of
Defense and other U.S. Government agencies to employ their lessons
learned in the advancement of our own UAS programs. As directed by the
Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Decision Memorandum of
2009, the Coast Guard seeks to leverage the developments and
capabilities of other government agencies wherever possible.
Question 4. Admiral Zukunft, in January, at a forum hosted by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, you said that, ``As the
Navy repositions to the Pacific, I'm repositioning to the Western
Hemisphere.'' I know that you have to make hard choices in this budget
environment. The Pentagon's Oceania Maritime Security Initiative is
supposed to help bridge Coast Guard gaps by using transiting naval
assets to bolster the Coast Guard's maritime domain awareness and
accomplish other missions in the region. But there is only so much the
Navy can help with because it does not have the expertise to do things
like fisheries enforcement, environmental stewardship, and some of the
other core Coast Guard missions that our partners and allies are really
looking to the United States to support. The expansion of the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument alone is enough to keep
District Fourteen's hands full. The Monument will now be nearly 490,000
square miles, about three times the size of California and six times
larger than its previous size. What new assets can the Coast Guard
commit to the Pacific Area so that we can provide a Coast Guard
presence to protect those living marine resources, manage the
fisheries, and ensure environmental stewardship of the Monument?
Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, the Coast Guard will begin homeporting
Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) in Honolulu, Hawaii. The FRC will provide
2,500 operational hours versus 1,800 hours per Island Class cutter.
Additionally, in Fiscal Year 2018, the Coast Guard will homeport the
first of two National Security Cutters (NSCs) in Honolulu. The NSC
combines advanced technology for communications, intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance equipment with modern aviation support
facilities (including unmanned aerial systems capability), stern launch
cutter boat operations and long-endurance station keeping. These new
cutters will provide key capabilities to meet growing demand for Coast
Guard presence in the region.
Question 5. Admiral Zukunft, one region where capacity constrains
the Coast Guard is the Arctic, where we are seeing increasing activity
as a result of climate change. Currently, we have two heavy
icebreakers, Coast Guard Cutters POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA, and one
medium icebreaker, Coast Guard Cutter HEALY, in our entire fleet. The
Coast Guard's FY 2016 budget includes a request for $4 million to
continue initial work towards acquisition of a new polar icebreaker.
But even when we finally have that new polar icebreaker, I worry we are
not going to be adequately resourced to support our needs in the Arctic
because that icebreaker is intended to replace the POLAR STAR. In my
view, when you look at our resources and the pace of change in the
region, we are not, as an Arctic nation, investing wisely and will be
assuming risk in this part of the world. I know you know this and I
know the Coast Guard is continuing to assess the operational demands of
the region through its mobile and seasonal operations, including the
summer deployment of assets during Operation Arctic Shield. In your
view, are we under-investing in the Arctic, and if so, how much risk
are we assuming as a Nation?
Answer. Private investments play a significant role in informing
where and how the government should invest their resources. The
National Strategy for the Arctic Region and its implementation plan
provide a roadmap on the Federal Government's approach to identifying
and mitigating risks in the region.
Question 6. Admiral Zukunft, I would like to discuss the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Today, 166 nations and the European
Union have ratified the convention, with the United States remaining
one of the few holdouts, despite our key role in the negotiations. I
know our maritime services operate based on customary international
law. But in my view, the Coast Guard's legitimacy in the areas of
counter-piracy, counter narcotics and other law enforcement would be
strengthened if we were party to the treaty. It would improve our
ability to protect our global maritime interests by providing a
stronger legal foundation for our own maritime activities and allow us
to shape and enforce international norms and legal authorities. I
wonder if you could please comment on how ratifying the Law of the Sea
Convention would add legitimacy to what the Coast Guard does every day,
particularly in areas like the Western Pacific?
Answer. The Coast Guard needs a comprehensive legal framework that
addresses activities on, over, and under the world's oceans to further
its statutory maritime missions. Customary international law is
uncertain, and the Law of the Sea Convention (LOS Convention) provides
the solid legal framework the Coast Guard needs.
For the Coast Guard's military and law enforcement efforts, the LOS
Convention locks in important freedoms of navigation, including high
seas freedoms, innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic sea
lanes passage, which allow the Coast Guard to project at-sea presence
and arrive on-scene quickly.
The LOS Convention's stabilization of territorial sea claims
to 12 nautical miles helps the Coast Guard's counterdrug and
migrant interdiction missions. Locking in these freedoms of
navigation and certainty in coastal state maritime territorial
claims would bolster U.S. maritime military activities in the
Western Pacific.
The LOS Convention also secures mission critical rights of
boarding, approach, and visit, which the Coast Guard needs for
law enforcement activities.
The United States acceding to the LOS Convention would also
help with the Coast Guard's negotiation of bilateral and
multilateral agreements covering drug trafficking, migrant
smuggling, safety of life at sea, pollution, and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially at
international venues, such as the International Maritime
Organization, by providing a firm legal basis to interpret and
seek adherence to LOS Convention provisions.
The LOS Convention is also important for the Coast Guard's maritime
safety, security, and environmental protection missions by providing
the internationally-agreed framework under which international
conventions on vessel standards are negotiated and enforced.
The Western Pacific region is home to approximately 1.8 billion
people, more than one-fourth of the world's population. It stretches
over a vast area, from China in the north and west, to New Zealand in
the south, and French Polynesia in the east. One of the world's most
diverse regions, the Western Pacific includes some of the world's least
developed countries as well as the most rapidly emerging economies. It
includes highly developed countries such as Australia, Japan, New
Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Singapore; and fast growing
economies such as China and Vietnam. The entire region is dependent on
maritime resources and the ability to transport goods and people by
vessel. Becoming party to the LOS Convention would improve the Coast
Guard's standing and credibility in this maritime international
community.
The Coast Guard, through the tenure of the past seven Commandants,
is firmly convinced that U.S. accession to the LOS Convention would
strengthen our mission execution.
Question 7. As the Arctic continues to open, to what extent does
not being party to the treaty leave us hamstrung when it comes to
securing our claim to maritime resources and to cooperating with other
countries in the region?
Answer. The Arctic maritime region is governed by the legal
framework contained in the LOS Convention, as are all maritime
activities conducted in the Arctic. As the Arctic opens to further
navigation and the technology for seabed activities on the extended
continental shelf continues to develop, the certainty provided by the
LOS Convention's legal framework is becoming more important.
The United States is the only Arctic nation not party to the LOS
Convention. By joining the LOS Convention, the United States is
guaranteed the use of the process set up in the Convention to obtain
legal certainty and international recognition over the extended
continental shelf and its vast resources beyond 200 nautical miles from
the U.S. coastline in the Arctic. Because non-accession to the LOS
Convention inhibits the ability of the United States to most
effectively assert its claims to the U.S. extended continental shelf in
the Arctic, commercial demand and prospects for investment in the area
remain uncertain.
Additionally, the LOS Convention provides the legal framework for
Arctic bilateral and regional agreements, such as those concerning
maritime search and rescue and marine environmental response. Accession
to the LOS Convention would strengthen our negotiation position in
these discussions.
Without the LOS Convention, we are operating without a tool that
every other Arctic nation has. Beginning in April 2015 and for the next
two years, the United States will chair the Arctic Council. Our
leadership is weakened by our failure to ratify the LOS Convention.
Question 8. Admiral Zukunft, I would like to ask you about
credentialing of our Coast Guard sailors. I have been looking at this
issue for some time and I think there are ways that we can improve how
we help our sailors prepare for when they eventually separate so that
they can put the strongest foot forward, particularly those sailors who
have the option of a second career in the domestic maritime trade as a
merchant marine. This includes ensuring that Coast Guard courses and
sea-going members of the Coast Guard meet the licensing, credentialing,
and assessment requirements set by the National Maritime Center and
Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping. Would you
support an effort to ensure that the Coast Guard's courses and Boot
Camp meet STCW Basic Standards and that all sea-going members meet STCW
Basic standards as well?
Answer. The Coast Guard is actively engaged both internally and
externally in an effort to support military members as they transition
from active duty to potential employment with the merchant marine. The
Coast Guard participated in a number of meetings with industry, DOD and
MARAD in an effort to align the duties and qualifications of active
duty personnel with potential counterparts in the merchant marine. The
Coast Guard is currently revising sections of the Marine Safety Manual
to incorporate much of this data. We have recently approved several
Navy and Coast Guard training courses and competencies that fulfill the
standards of qualification for various merchant mariner credential
requirements. Of note, cadets in the 2016 graduating class of the Coast
Guard Academy will receive a 100-ton Master credential and are eligible
to sit for higher level credentials after gaining a certain level of
experience. Currently the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard have approved
training courses which can be used to demonstrate qualification or
partial qualification for certain merchant mariner credentials. The
Coast Guard's National Maritime Center routinely evaluates the
experience and training of military members applying for merchant
mariner credentials. We will continue to explore opportunities, such as
Coast Guard Basic Training, to determine where the training and
qualifications received meet the qualifications and experience required
for merchant mariner credentials.
[all]