Congressional Hearings
COAST GUARD READINESS: HOW FAR CAN WE STRETCH OUR NATION'S ONLY MULTI-MISSION, MILITARY FORCE?
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.C 73/7
Congress: Senate
CHRG-115shrg37229
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| sscm00 | S | S | Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation |
[Senate Hearing 115-646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-646
COAST GUARD READINESS:
HOW FAR CAN WE STRETCH OUR NATION'S ONLY MULTI-MISSION, MILITARY FORCE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 16, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-229 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, po@custhelp.com.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
MIKE LEE, Utah EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 16, 2017................................ 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 14
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 17
Statement of Senator Inhofe...................................... 19
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 20
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 21
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 25
Witnesses
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard............ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Etta Kuzakin, President, Agdaguux Tribe of King Cove, Lifelong
Resident....................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Dr. Guy A. Meadows, Director, Great Lakes Research Center,
Michigan Technological University.............................. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Lee W. Smithson, Director, Mississippi Emergency Management
Agency......................................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Admiral Paul F.
Zukunft by:
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 51
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 51
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 52
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 53
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 55
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 61
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 67
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
Etta Kuzakin................................................. 67
Dr. Guy Meadows.............................................. 68
Response to written questions submitted to Lee W. Smithson by:
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 76
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 77
COAST GUARD READINESS:
HOW FAR CAN WE STRETCH OUR NATION'S ONLY MULTI-MISSION, MILITARY FORCE?
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2017
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 10:06 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Peters, Nelson,
Wicker, Fischer, Inhofe, Young, Cantwell, Blumenthal, Schatz,
and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and the Coast Guard will now come to order.
Today's hearing will focus on the readiness of the U.S.
Coast Guard, specifically, how a string of recent natural
disasters have affected our Nation's only multi-mission
military force's ability to continue operations at such a high
tempo. Although the Coast Guard is the Nation's smallest
military branch, and as I'm sure the Commandant can attest, it
is definitely a military branch of the U.S. military, it's an
organization that clearly punches above its weight class. As we
sit here today, the women and men of the U.S. Coast Guard are
deployed across the globe, throughout our country, from the
Arctic to the Persian Gulf, and everywhere in between.
The recent hurricanes that have made landfall this year
have significantly stretched the Coast Guard's service
capabilities. In these three disasters alone, the Coast Guard
has rescued over 11,000 Americans, utilizing 95 aircraft, 55
cutters, 129 rescue craft, and mobilized almost 3,000
additional personnel. This tremendous effort comes at a cost
measured in dollars, maintenance hours, and personnel. Coast
Guard rotary-wing aircraft alone flew almost 1,600 hours, over
double the total program annual hours for a Jayhawk helicopter,
and almost four times the annual program hours for a single DoD
equivalent Black Hawk series aircraft.
The initial cost estimate to the Coast Guard for storm
preparation, search and rescue, and infrastructure
reconstruction is approximately $1 billion. That is another
reason why we need to move the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act
that the Commerce Committee favorably voted out of the
Committee in a bipartisan way several months ago. The Coast
Guard's assets are spread thin, but likely nowhere more so than
in the vast areas of my home state of Alaska. There are places
where the Coast Guard often has the only available assets
capable of providing lifesaving medical transportation and
service that the majority of the lower 48 states often taken
for granted, and even these assets of the Coast Guard are often
hours and hundreds of miles away from constituents of mine in
Alaska.
I had the privilege of accompanying Admiral Zukunft earlier
this summer on a trip throughout Alaska, in particular, a trip
to King Cove, a community on the western tip of the Alaskan
Peninsula. King Cove is a robust fishing community and, like
much else of Alaska, is accessible only by air and sea.
Emergency medical transportation is very challenging, and this
is especially true during severe weather, which restricts
accessibility of King Cove's local airstrip over 100 days a
year.
Nearby the community, though, is Cold Bay, which has one of
the longest runways in Alaska, one of the longest runways in
the country, which is rarely closed and is capable of handling
large jet aircraft. As a matter of fact, the Commandant and I
actually saw a diverted FedEx aircraft land at King Cove when
we were out at Cold Bay.
Despite being only a few miles apart, there is no road
access to Cold Bay from King Cove, leaving the U.S. Coast Guard
as the only alternative to evacuate patients during inclement
weather, which, as I said, is often. These Coast Guard assets
are normally dispatched from Kodiak, over 500 miles away, the
closest air station, and costs the Coast Guard and the taxpayer
as much as $210,000 per trip. As a result, the City of King
Cove, Aleutians East Borough, the local tribal entities, and
others have long sought a simple 11-mile, one-lane, gravel
emergency use road that would connect these communities.
In 2009, Congress and former President Obama signed into
law legislation that authored a land exchange and construction
of the road. This legislation would have seen the State of
Alaska and various Alaska Native entities add 56,000 acres of
land to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in exchange for
just 206 acres and the ability to construct this road. However,
on December 23, 2013, former Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell
callously denied this exchange and blocked the road, what we
call in Alaska the ``lump of coal on Christmas Eve'' from Sally
Jewell.
I strongly opposed Secretary Jewell's decision, as I
believe the safety of the inhabitants of King Cove is paramount
to other interests. No community, no community, in America
should be deprived access to necessary emergency care, and
Senators from the lower 48 would have howled at something this
outrageous.
In the 5 years since that proposal was blocked, almost 70
medevacs have taken place out of King Cove, a significant
portion of which were conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard. And as
the Commandant mentioned in this hearing room almost 3 years
ago, this is more than a financial cost, these rescue missions,
there is a very real cost of risk that this is not a benign
operating environment at all, some of the most dangerous
weather in the world.
As it stands, we are allocating the Coast Guard very finite
resources and risking the lives of the brave men and women in
the Coast Guard on a problem that could easily be mitigated by
a simple 11-mile road that would solve this problem and provide
the peace of mind and basic access to emergency medical
treatment for the residents of King Cove. One of the residents
whose life was saved by the Coast Guard medevac is here with us
today. We look forward to her testimony.
And I want to thank all our witnesses for being here, many
of whom traveled thousands of miles from Alaska. And, of
course, it's always great to have the Commandant of the Coast
Guard here as well to testify on our first panel.
I now recognize my friend and colleague Senator Peters for
his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, Admiral Zukunft. It's great to see you
here. And I want to take this opportunity to thank all of team
Coast Guard for your endless, hard work responsibilities to
numerous different incidents and natural disasters.
As we all saw the past few months, the Coast Guard's
response to the hurricanes that ravaged the Gulf Coast, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands was nothing less and I think
continues to be outstanding. And certainly our thanks go out to
all of the men and women of the Coast Guard for those
outstanding efforts.
I'm looking forward to learning more today about the Coast
Guard's response capabilities and how we can help you maintain
your readiness standards. The Coast Guard, made up of just
88,000 personnel, is multi-mission. There are 11 different
missions with the Coast Guard in every region of our Nation and
give them presence all around the world.
Even after an unusually active hurricane season, the Coast
Guard's duties do not let up. Yes, winter is coming, as we
talked about before the hearing, and I want to emphasize that
the Coast Guard's missions will not stop because the weather is
getting colder. While we don't have hurricanes in the State of
Michigan, we do have a lot of bad weather as well, and many
times some of the worst storms hit during the winter and the
challenge of ice becomes great.
In recent years, the Great Lakes have seen record levels of
ice cover threatening to interrupt commercial shipping that is
vital to the Michigan economy. We need continuous icebreaking
support in the winter months provided by the Coast Guard to
keep our ports, cities, and towns open for business. Keeping
commerce moving is vital to our Nation's economy.
The Coast Guard also has a vital role in keeping the Great
Lakes pristine. The Coast Guard's mission includes Marine
Environmental Protection. MEP is essential to the Great Lakes
and most critical at the Straits of Mackinac, where a 64-year-
old oil pipeline runs along the bottom across a 5-mile stretch
of water connecting Lake Huron with Lake Michigan. According to
a University of Michigan study, the Straits are the worst
possible location across the Great Lakes for an oil pipeline
and the potential for a spill or leak under them.
Despite the challenge, the Coast Guard works hard to be
prepared just in case the worst happens there, and I look
forward to working with you, Commandant, to further increase
our readiness.
We ask a lot of our Coast Guard. Their 11 missions protect
our people, our waters, and our nation, but if we are not
careful, we could end up hurting, not helping, the men and
women who make up the Coast Guard. If we do not ensure that
service members have the right equipment, if we do not ensure
that they are being taken care of in terms of retirement and
medical benefits, then we are not doing our job.
Back in March, I was part of a bipartisan group of Senators
that prevented the administration from cutting the Coast
Guard's budget by $1.3 billion. And I'm proud of that
accomplishment, but it is not enough. The Coast Guard needs to
recapitalize its assets and improve its shore facilities and
military housing in order to continue to do the hard job that
we ask them to do.
We cannot expect the Coast Guard to be always ready if the
service is not able to repair its infrastructure or give its
members the best equipment that they need to carry out their
missions safely and successfully.
Admiral, as we close in on 2018, which will bring your last
few months to lead the Coast Guard, I hope that today's hearing
will allow for a very direct and frank conversation about the
Coast Guard's response capabilities and your needs and how we
can help you meet those needs.
Thank you, Admiral.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Peters.
And we have the Ranking Member of the full Commerce
Committee here, Senator Nelson, who I know is a big fan of the
Coast Guard.
And, Senator Nelson, sir, if you would like to say a few
words at the outset, you're more than welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Peters,
and thank you both for leading this important Subcommittee. I'm
here in my capacity as a cheerleader for the Coast Guard
because it's the nightly news every night, as you two have
already pointed out, what we hear on the nightly local news,
that the Coast Guard has done another heroic act.
And let me tell you what they did yesterday. Officials
seized $300 million worth of heroin and cocaine, from Mexico
and Central America. And they brought this into Port
Everglades. It is 10 tons of cocaine, and more than 50 pounds
of heroin, and the Coast Guard cutters seized these vessels in
the waters off of Mexico and Central America.
I've been with the Commandant in a Coast Guard go-fast, and
you can't believe how fast they go following the bad guy in a
go-fast. I've been in the helicopter as they're showing me how
the Coastie is perched in the side of the open door of the
helicopter, and with his high-powered rifle, he is shooting out
the engine of the go-fast who's trying to get away. Of course,
they can't get away, and they stop them dead in the water and
then seize all of the illegal drugs. And you can imagine that
this is just one of the many seizures of drugs.
By the way, the Navy, in Alaska, as you know Senator
Sullivan, has pretty well ceded the water of Alaska for the
Coast Guard to protect, in addition to it doing all of its
civilian role of protection of the fishing fleet. Well, that's
the case down in the Caribbean, too, although when we have
military vessels down there, they're in coordinating, but they
don't have the law enforcement capability that the Coast Guard
has, so they call the Coast Guard to go in and seize the bad
guy and get the drugs. And, of course, here's a big one that
happened just yesterday.
And I would just finish by saying, Admiral, I'm so proud of
you and all the Coasties. And now here's another one, you've
been doing all the repair work and the rescues after the
hurricanes in Puerto Rico, and all of the critical response
work that the Coast Guard has done in and around Florida, but
especially down in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. They
saved over 11,000 lives and 1,500 pets while responding to
these hurricanes. Helicopters deployed to the one hurricane and
flew over 1,500 hours, more than double the annual program
flight hours for one aircraft. They stepped it up when we
needed them most.
The Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron, which
celebrated its 500th go-fast interdiction this year, the crews
prevented over $3 billion worth of drugs from entering the U.S.
So you can see the Coast Guard is doing its duty every day, and
it's not just in these waters represented here--Alaska, the
Great Lakes, and the Caribbean, and Florida--but it's all over
the world that the Coast Guard is doing the job.
I know what you need is resources, and we're going to try
to provide it for you, Admiral.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, we have a little thing
called a tax bill that are being marked up in the Finance
Committee. It's now become a health care bill. With your
permission, I'm going to go back to that markup.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. Well, Admiral, welcome. And the floor is
yours for a 5-minute opening statement. And we will, of course,
include a longer written statement in the record if you so
desire.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL PAUL F. ZUKUNFT, COMMANDANT,
U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Zukunft. OK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Members, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I thank you for
supporting your United States Coast Guard, and I ask that my
written statement be entered into the record.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
Admiral Zukunft. The Coast Guard offers a unique and
enduring value to the Nation. We are first and foremost, as you
mentioned, Chairman, an armed service, with broad law
enforcement authorities that span the globe and a service that
is called upon time and again during natural and manmade
disasters.
We are a flat organization with a bias for action that
enables us to surge the entire Coast Guard when our nation is
threatened with disaster. This agility was applied during
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and culminated in the
rescue of over 11,000 people and, yes, 1,500 pets while
restoring our ports and waterways and correcting over 1,200
damaged aids to navigation and directing the removal of over
3,600 damaged or sunken vessels from the marine environment.
This was truly an all-hands-on-deck campaign that drew Coast
Guard personnel and assets from across the Nation, but it came
with several costs.
The first cost was readiness, and the Coast Guard used
resources well above planned rates, canceled depot-level
maintenance on cutters and aircraft, and terminated training
investments, and our most important resource, our people.
The second cost is opportunity costs. Cutters and aircraft
were taken away from search and rescue, counter-drug, and
security operations in order to save lives, restore affected
waterways, and deliver critical disaster relief supplies and
equipment to impacted areas. Nowhere was this more profound
than in the eastern Pacific. And the transnational criminal
organizations were benefactors of our diminished presence at a
time when over 60,000 Americans perish each year from drug
overdoses.
And the third cost is a real cost. And based on Harvey,
Irma, and Maria alone, we need nearly a billion dollars to
rebuild damaged infrastructure and restore eroded readiness. Of
the three categories, this is my greatest concern. It is
compounded by outstanding bills from previous events.
In particular, the Coast Guard incurred over $90 million in
damages from Hurricane Matthew, yet supplemental relief was
diminished to $15 million. And we have units operating out of
make-shift piers that have not been hardened to withstand any
kind of significant weather.
So given the many competing demands in our country today
and the propensity to fix only what is broken, I am concerned
the Coast Guard will continue to be known solely for our
success, and not what we need to be made whole.
As a military service, only 4 percent of my budget is
funded through what is called defense discretionary
appropriations. The other 96 percent are non-defense, and I
must compete with every other Federal discretionary account to
fund a broad array of missions that span the globe and have not
diminished over time. Ironically, 40 percent of the Coast
Guard's major cutter fleet acquired, maintained, and operated
with non-defense discretionary dollars are serving today under
the operational command of a Department of Defense geographic
combatant commander around the globe.
For the past 5 years, we have been funded below the Budget
Control Act floor as the other armed services lament the
prospect of even being funded at the BCA base. The Coast Guard,
an armed service, is contending with identical readiness
challenges, yet is funded below the BCA floor, in the basement,
if you will.
So going forward, we require 5 percent annualized growth in
our operations and maintenance account and a floor of $2
billion minimum to our acquisition account. This would allow me
to dig out of the Budget Control Act basement, sustain
operations, grow our workforce. We're also building out our
modernized fleet and reduce our $1.6 billion shore
infrastructure backlog.
I am truly honored to lead the world's best Coast Guard,
but without a stable and predictable increase in our annual
funding, I will have to continue to defer such critical
initiatives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I welcome 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. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and thank you
for your enduring support of the United States Coast Guard.
As the world's premier, multi-mission, maritime service, the Coast
Guard offers a unique and enduring value to the Nation. The only branch
of the U.S. Armed Forces within the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), a Federal law enforcement agency, a regulatory body, a first
responder, and a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community--the Coast
Guard is uniquely positioned to help secure the maritime border, combat
transnational criminal organizations (TCO), and safeguard commerce on
America's waterways.
The Coast Guard's combination of broad authorities and
complementary capabilities squarely align with the President's national
security and economic prosperity priorities and offer an agile toolset
to address the Nation's most pressing challenges. Appropriately
positioned in DHS, the Coast Guard is a military service and a branch
of the Armed Forces of the United States at all times.\1\ We are also
an important part of the modern Joint Force \2\ and currently have
forces assigned to each of the five Geographic Combatant Commanders as
well as Cyber Command.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 14 U.S.C. Sec. 1; 10 U.S.C. Sec. 101
\2\ In addition to the Coast Guard's status as an Armed Force (10
U.S.C. Sec. 101), see also Memorandum of Agreement Between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security on the
Use of Coast Guard Capabilities and Resources in Support of the
National Military Strategy, 02 May 2008, as amended 18 May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As demonstrated in the 2017 record hurricane activity, the Coast
Guard is the Nation's ``maritime first responder'' and plays a leading
role in executing the National Response Framework (NRF) for disaster
situations. Our bias for action and ability to rapidly surge resources
in response to emerging threats or contingencies distinguishes the
Coast Guard and are critical to success across the spectrum of missions
we prosecute.
Agile Force
The Coast Guard's 88,000 active duty, reserve, civil service and
auxiliary members offer a unique mix of authorities and extensive
experience operating with both military and interagency response
organizations. Beyond our statutory search and rescue requirements,
which traditionally result in an average of 3,600 lives saved each
year, the Coast Guard supports the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and states during nationally declared disasters by:
(1) Saving lives in distress, and ensuring the survivability of our
own forces and assets for immediate post-disaster response
operations;
(2) Securing and reconstituting ports, waterways, and critical
maritime infrastructure;
(3) Conducting environmental response operations (oil, chemical and
hazardous material); and
(4) Supporting other agencies and the whole-of-government response
effort.
Coast Guard personnel are well trained and experienced in response
operations, which make them a sound choice to serve in visible
positions in the NRF structure. This ability to operate concurrently in
both military Joint Task Force and civilian NRF frameworks enhances
unity of effort and dramatically improves effectiveness.
As an armed force, the Coast Guard can be a supported or supporting
commander, and our forces are frequently integrated with Department of
Defense (DoD) services in Joint Task Force organizations. We regularly
provide forces in support of DoD exercises, Combatant Commander
contingency plans, and theater security cooperation activities, all of
which enable Coast Guard and DoD forces to integrate seamlessly during
response operations.
Saving lives in distress is our first priority, and Coast Guard
crews are typically the first Federal responders on-scene. As a storm
approaches, Coast Guard personnel make risk-based decisions to
reposition assets and people to safe locations just outside of the
storm's path, ultimately facilitating rapid response as soon as it is
safe to do so. Brave men and women on the front lines make it happen,
invoking a deeply ingrained bias for action to repeatedly go into
harm's way and serve others.
In addition to conducting SAR operations, the Coast Guard surges
forces and assets into the impacted regions to restore the $4.6
trillion maritime transportation system, respond to pollution, provide
security and additional law enforcement capability, and protect
offshore petrochemical platforms.
Critical Success Factors
The Coast Guard employs a decentralized command and control
structure and distributed decision-making to provide operational
commanders with the authority to move forces quickly to respond to
large contingencies.
Our two Area Commanders, and their nine subordinate District
Commanders, shift and reallocate forces from one region to another
based on risk and the anticipated demand for operational capabilities.
Well-reasoned and regularly exercised Continuity of Operations Plans
preserve operational effectiveness while offering safe refuge for
displaced operational commanders.
Coast Guard cutters, aircraft, and boats are built to respond to a
variety of missions without the need for any reconfiguration or the
addition of special equipment. During the recent hurricanes, cutters
conducting counter-drug patrols in the Transit Zone quickly diverted to
disaster areas to provide command and control, deliver rotary wing air
capability from the sea, provide forward staging facilities, and
deliver critical relief commodities--particularly in the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Coast Guard aircraft that normally perform law enforcement
surveillance to thwart transnational maritime criminal activities were
dynamically repositioned and re-tasked to deliver disaster relief
supplies, additional responders, and equipment to affected areas.
Additionally, Coast Guard forces were and are on station at key
locations around the nation, most of them on short-notice recall, so
they can respond quickly to emergent events. When a major catastrophe
occurs, or is anticipated, we can reposition forces quickly to that
area to optimize the response.
Over a five week period, Hurricanes HARVEY, IRMA, MARIA, and NATE
impacted over 2,540 miles of shoreline \3\, and Coast Guard women and
men in helicopters, boats, cutters, vehicles and on foot rescued over
11,300 people and over 1,500 pets. Mere hours before Hurricane HARVEY
made landfall, Coast Guard helicopter crews rescued mariners in peril
\4\ off the coast of Corpus Christi, Texas before repositioning to
Alice, Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Using CRS method of Shoreline Measurement: Texas: 367 mi,
Louisiana: 397 mi, Florida: 1,350 mi, Puerto Rico: 311 mi, USVI: 117 mi
\4\ Two MH-65's from Sector/Air Station Corpus Christi saved 12
lives off a vessel taking on water in 45 knot sustained/60 knot gusting
winds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard resolved over 1,269 aids to navigation
discrepancies, handled 290 pollution cases, located and assessed more
than 3,623 grounded vessels, with more than 1,585 removed to date.
Within hours after each storm's passage, Coast Guard Damage and
Recovery Assessment Teams were on-scene determining the status of ports
and waterways, leveraging electronic aids to navigation when feasible
to facilitate the rapid reopening of the maritime transportation system
and energy sectors vital to recovery, and assessing impacts to Coast
Guard facilities and capabilities.
Enduring Challenges
Operational successes introduced real costs. Damage to Coast Guard
facilities, IT, aids to navigation, and the cost of deferred
maintenance are significant. Similar to any prolonged natural disaster
or security event, responding to consecutive major hurricanes severely
strained capacity and required us to assume additional risk in other
geographic regions and mission areas. Across the recent disaster
response operations, more than 3,000 Coast Guard women and men, and 200
assets or platforms deployed from places as far away as Alaska, Hawaii
and Maine.
As a result, the rest of the Coast Guard assumed additional risk,
and units were significantly challenged to sustain maintenance and
training standards while diminishing future readiness. The Medium
Endurance Cutter MOHAWK, already aged and well beyond its designed
service life, deferred major maintenance in order to get underway and
avoid Irma. Cutter FORWARD diverted from a counter-drug patrol to
provide supplies and critical command and control services after all
three major hurricanes.
Given the heavy demand for aviation services following each storm,
training at Aviation Training Center Mobile was suspended, creating a
backlog in the pilot training pipeline at a time when we are facing a
critical aviator shortage. Maintaining a full-time SAR response posture
at our air stations requires at least three aircraft, yet many of our
units that contributed assets to hurricane operations were forced to
get by with just one. Forces available for counter-drug, fisheries
enforcement, and migrant interdiction operations in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Florida Straits were significantly reduced as
well. In total, risk-based choices to maximize hurricane response
operations stretched our existing resources to their limits.
The size of the Service also limits our capacity to respond to
prolonged and sequential events. While the Coast Guard is well-
positioned for immediate and effective first response, our ``bench
strength'' makes it impossible to sustain these operations for an
extended period of time. In addition, many of our heroic first
responders suffered life-changing personal loss as well. Approximately
700 Coast Guard families' homes were damaged to the point where they
will need to be relocated.
Conclusion
The Coast Guard's unique blend of authorities, capabilities,
capacities, and partnerships position us well for success during
maritime SAR events and natural disasters. Flexible, multi-mission
forces and agile command and control systems provide the solid
foundation from which we base these critical response operations.
When the Coast Guard has the opportunity to recapitalize our
facilities, we need to make them more storm-resilient and survivable.
In fact, several of our shore facilities that were rebuilt following
Hurricane IKE suffered minimal damage along the paths of HARVEY and
IRMA, a testament to modern building codes and standards.
Modern assets bring exceptional capability, but our greatest
strength will always be our people. Coast Guard operations require a
capable, proficient, and resilient workforce that draws upon the broad
range of skills, talents, and experiences found in the American
population. Together, modern platforms and a strong, resilient
workforce will maximize the Coast Guard's capacity to meet future
challenges.
History has proven that a responsive, capable, and agile Coast
Guard is an indispensable instrument of national security. With the
continued support of the Administration and Congress, the Coast Guard
will continue to live up to our motto. We will be Semper Paratus--
Always Ready. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
and for all you do for the men and women of the Coast Guard. I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Admiral. And thank you and the
men and women of the Coast Guard for your exceptional service
to our country. I agree 100 percent, it is the world's best
Coast Guard by far. There is no doubt about that.
Let me just ask a quick question off the top. As I
mentioned in my opening statement, we have passed, in a very
strong bipartisan manner out of this Committee several months
ago, the Coast Guard Authorization Act. How important is it for
us to take action here in the Senate and get that passed so we
can get it signed by the President?
Admiral Zukunft. Absolutely critical. And, again, I support
the work of this Committee to make that a reality. And so you
have my ardent support to press on. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Good. We will continue to press that. You
know, I mentioned, and we have pictures here from King Cove and
Cold Bay. You and I were out there this summer. Thank you again
for visiting our great state. It was actually ironically a
beautiful crystal clear day, which, as you know, normally
that's not the case out there, some of the most severe weather
literally in the world.
And as you noted when we discussed this previously, the
real costs, beyond finances, which are quite significant for
the rescue missions that you conduct out there, are the costs
associated with the risks to the men and women in the Coast
Guard who fly in that weather to save lives. Can you talk about
that a little bit more, given your experience, and would a road
between King Cove and Cold Bay, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, help you and your service better respond to these
emergency rescue missions that you're--again, the men and women
you lead, undertake these--as a matter of fact, when you and I
were out there, they were conducting a rescue mission off a
fishing vessel--just how much that would help in terms of
costs, but also risks to the lives of the men and women, the
brave men and women, who you lead?
Admiral Zukunft. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your
leadership on this very critical issue that is not widely known
in the 48 contiguous states. This is not a benign operating
environment. As you well know, and as the residents of King
Cove only know too well, it has been over 5 years since I have
had to make a phone call to the family members of an aircrew
whose loved one was killed in the conduct of doing Coast Guard
operations.
We lost one of these very same helicopters during the
rescue of Selendang Ayu. Our aircrew all survived, but the
rescuers--the folks we rescued did not. We owe it first and
foremost to the residents of King Cove.
And, secondarily, this is a high-risk evolution. It is not
benign. You and I saw this 11-mile stretch. This is very
attainable at a very moderate cost, but you can't put a dollar
sign on a life. To a community that this is not a highly
trafficked area to begin with, so I cannot foot stomp loud
enough the criticality of building out this 11-mile stretch of
road and provide the lifeline that this community needs to
higher level health care.
Senator Sullivan. I think that's a great point, you can't
point a dollar sign on a life, whether it's a life of an
Alaskan resident in King Cove, and we're going to hear about
that more in the second panel, or a life of a brave young man
or woman serving in the Coast Guard. So I take it you fully
support finalizing this road, making it happen once and for
all, and saving lives, and saving money.
Admiral Zukunft. I do.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. One other issue I wanted to
mention, and it's something that you and I, Senator Peters, a
number of us have been talking about is with regard to
icebreakers. And it's good to see my colleague Senator Wicker
here. But one disappointment--a number of us serve on the Armed
Services Committee as well--and one disappointment in the NDAA
conference report is that it authorizes the procurement of one
new icebreaker, but then caps the availability of DoD funds for
icebreaker acquisition.
Senator Wicker and I are going to be soon having a joint
hearing relatively soon of this Committee, the Subcommittee,
and the Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, which Senator
Wicker chairs, on this broader issue of icebreakers and how
important they are to the national security of our nation, but
how there has been, to be perfectly honest, a bureaucratic--I
don't know how you want to describe it--fight between the Coast
Guard, the Navy, the different committees in the Congress on
how to actually procure, pay for, these critical assets.
I had the opportunity to go out on the two current heavy
icebreakers, homeported in Seattle. And the men and women do a
great job there, but those ships were commissioned in the early
1970s, and to be honest, I don't think the men and women who
wear the uniform of the United States should be deploying on
such old and decrepit icebreakers. The Russians have 40,
they're building 13 more, several of which are nuclear-powered.
We have 2 heavies, one is broken. I think it's a disgrace.
Can you talk more to the national security need of
icebreakers and recommendations to this body of what we need to
do to jump-start the procurement and building of these
icebreakers?
Admiral Zukunft. Absolutely, Chairman. And let me just
provide the strategic context for this. Russia has claimed the
Northern Sea Route as their internal waters. They've laid a
claim for a good portion of the Arctic Ocean through the
procedures under the Law of the Sea Convention. And this is a
part of the world where we know that there are rich resources--
oil, gas, minerals--on the sea floor.
And don't take your eye off of China either. China is
delivering a second icebreaker. China is very active in
Antarctica. The treaty in Antarctica, as it expires, I would
not be surprised if China looks to extract resources from
Antarctica.
And now you've got a land-grab going on in some of these
locations. And if you are virtually there, you're absolutely
absent. And so having presence to exert our national security
interest is critical, and you need to do it from the surface of
the ocean. You cannot do it under the sea, which is why we need
to make these investments.
As sea ice retreats, we're seeing more and more human
activity. We're seeing northern migration of fish at a point in
time where fish stocks are under strain.
And then there's a military component. Russia will deliver
two icebreaking corvettes on or about 2020 that will have
cruise missiles on them, and we have no surface capability to
even monitor that activity or to counter it if that were to be
necessary.
So we're talking about $1 billion. And I'm confident we can
build an icebreaker. We have a great working relationship with
Navy shipbuilding. We have an integrative program office. We've
awarded five shipyards to go out and do industry studies, and
they are well along their way to submit bids on a proposal this
next year so we can get the first heavy icebreaker in the water
by 2023. We need to look at block buys beyond that first one.
There will be costs with a lead ship because we have not
built a heavy icebreaker in 40 years. The technology
investments a shipyard will have to make up front, but they
will want some certainty that we're going to build more than
one icebreaker.
We look at carrier strike groups as strategic assets. We
need to look at icebreakers in the very same realm, that these
are strategic assets, and, quite honestly, we're about out of
them, and we have abdicated this strategic game of Chess to
other potential adversaries in the high latitudes.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you for that very powerful
testimony.
Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again, Admiral, for your service and for all
the men and women of the Coast Guard who do an outstanding job
each and every day.
I want to expand on this discussion on icebreakers. I share
Chairman Sullivan's concern about heavy icebreakers in the
polar region, and Senator Wicker as well. I serve on the Armed
Services Committee with both of these gentlemen as well, and
we're going to do everything we can to make sure you have the
resources that you need in the Arctic region. There's no
question that's of strategic importance to our country.
But we also have icebreaking needs in the Great Lakes as
well that you and I have talked about, and you stated back in
March in your testimony then that the 140-foot icebreaking tugs
have been extended for a few years, but there's a finite life
on those. The Great Lakes in some recent years have experienced
unprecedented ice cover, and, as you're well aware, that is
about economic security for our country to make sure that we're
moving material to the plants and the heavy materials necessary
for manufacturing to occur here in North America, in addition
to your statutory requirement to keep those lanes open as well
during ice cover.
Could you expand on your comments regarding icebreakers to
include the Great Lakes and how important it is that we
recapitalize that fleet as well, which is also extremely old
and needs some immediate attention?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir, Senator. We're making strides in
extending the service life on those 140-foot icebreaking tugs
that are doing great work up in the Great Lakes. We had a bit
of a reprieve these last two ice seasons, so we're not putting
additional wear and tear. So we're coming back on step, but
that only buys us about 10 years. We're going to have to
recapitalize that 140-foot fleet and look at parent craft
designs.
I was out in Helsinki a week ago to see what Finland is
building; very capable, using azipods instead of propellers,
and looking at what the state-of-the-art is in terms of
icebreaking. So as we look at those ships timing out, there is
better capability. And those ships do one thing and they do one
thing only, they break ice. And the same thing in Finland, they
do one thing, and they break ice. There are some great parent
craft designs. And so as we build out our 20-year capital
investment plan, we need to look at those 140-foot icebreaking
tugs having much more capability than the ships that we have in
our inventory right now.
The good news is for a very modest cost, you know, this can
deliver up to the same capability of our Great Lake icebreaker,
the Mackinaw. So that's what we're looking in the outyears as
we have bought ourselves some time with our service life
extension program.
Senator Peters. Although it has bought us some time, what
is the critical timeline? When do we need to make these
decisions?
Admiral Zukunft. We're probably talking 2030 and beyond.
We're----
Senator Peters. When they come into service; 2030?
Admiral Zukunft. When we'll have to--again, that will be
condition based on--you know, it will vary one ice season to
the next, but conservatively speaking, 2030 we need to start
looking at design work and looking at a modernization program.
Senator Peters. Also, Admiral, back in March, we discussed
the concerns about oil in fresh water, and given the fact that
the Coast Guard has primary responsibility to oversee cleanup,
and the concern that I have and many folks in my state have
regarding an oil spill particularly in the Straits of Mackinac
and the devastating impact that would have on the lakes and
also the fact that we don't have a whole lot of research into
how we clean up fresh water. We have a great body of work in
terms of salt water, we have a lot of proven techniques to
clean it up in salt water, and salt water has the advantage of
having microorganisms that actually break down oil that do not
exist in fresh water. So it creates a tremendous challenge for
cleanup.
Since we talked in March, could you give me an update on
the research being done at the Coast Guard to deal with
freshwater spills? And what do we need? What additional
resources do you need? Because in March, you mentioned you were
not comfortable that we could clean up a major spill in the
Great Lakes now given the current state of resources. What do
you need and how concerned are you?
Admiral Zukunft. I can't put a dollar figure on it, but we
do need to make further investments in our research and
development. We did receive a significant plus up this last
year, but that was to address unmanned aerial systems, or
remotely piloted systems, if you will. We are paying very close
attention to two anomalies when it comes to oil spill recovery:
oil in an iced environment and then tar sand that has the
specific gravity of water, and it sinks, and then how do you
recover that?
We're using a facility in Leonardo, New Jersey. It's a
several-hundred-yard-long tank that you can actually spill
water--oil in. You can use different water. You can use fresh,
salt. You can freeze it. So we've been using that facility to
do proof-of-concept work.
We recognize that there are research labs and subject
matter experts in the Great Lakes, and so if we're going to do
research and development as we look at our area contingency
plans, in an oil spill, all things are local. And so we need to
make sure that we have full inclusiveness with subject matter
experts who are very familiar with this. You've got water
intakes, drinking water for communities and the like. What is--
you know, do you use a dispersant or not? And what are the
harmful effects of doing that?
So there's still a lot of science that needs to be done.
And meanwhile, we have pipelines crossing the lakes. And, you
know, I will go on the record to say that the Coast Guard is
not semper paratus for a major pipeline oil spill in the
Greater Lakes. More science needs to be done in that regard,
and I know you understand that quite well.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. All right. Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand
you'd like for me first to mention how delighted we are that
Mr. Smithson, of Mississippi, is going to be with us for the
second panel, and so I'll take a moment to do that at your
suggestion.
Senator Sullivan. And we will not--we will not take that
from your precious 5 minutes of questioning the Commandant.
Senator Wicker. Thank you. I do appreciate it.
Well, in the second panel, we are delighted to have Mr. Lee
Smithson. He possesses a wealth of experience and expertise in
hurricane preparedness, disaster response, and community
resilience efforts. He has served more than 3 decades of public
service in the U.S. Army, the Mississippi National Guard, and
particularly as Mississippi's National Guard Director of
Military Support.
During his time in the National Guard, Mr. Smithson
supported operations for Hurricanes Isidore, Lili, Katrina,
Gustav, Ike, and Isaac. So he knows what he's talking about
when it comes to hurricane response, in addition to our
recovery efforts for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
He is currently Executive Director of the Mississippi
Emergency Management Agency. As Director of MEMA, Mr. Smithson
coordinates all activities within our local communities to save
lives, protect property, and reduce suffering for those
citizens impacted by disasters.
So we're delighted that he's here and that he'll be part of
the expertise for our second panel. And I appreciate you
indulging me on that because, as the Chair knows, we are back
and forth between two hearings at the present time.
Now, let me just follow up, Admiral, on icebreakers. I'm
learning there are icebreakers and then there are icebreakers.
Now, there's sort of a notion going around that some of our
allies can build a pretty good icebreaker for $200 million, and
why aren't we doing that? I think you were explaining to me
earlier in a private conversation that the kind of icebreaker
that we've authorized in the NDAA is far more complicated than
that and gives us a lot more capabilities.
So if you would tell us what this almost billion dollar
icebreaker is capable of doing, and how many of those we need,
and how many of these less capable vessels we need?
Admiral Zukunft. Thank you, Senator. So I was, again, in
Finland, and they're one of the offerors, if you will, for
icebreakers. I'm of the mind that our U.S. shipyards can build
this, and we can build this with U.S. steel and with U.S. prime
movers as well. So, yes, I would consider this as an investment
in our military industrial complex in our shipyards. And we
have five U.S. shipyards that have now weighed in to compete to
build the first heavy icebreaker. But they will look at other
commercial designs. Rather than----
Senator Wicker. So that's a heavy icebreaker?
Admiral Zukunft. Right.
Senator Wicker. What capabilities does it give us?
Admiral Zukunft. It gives you the ability to break ice up
to 21 feet thick. And you might say, ``Well, does that ever
happen?'' Last year, the Polar Star broke through over 80 miles
of ice 14 feet thick. A medium icebreaker would never even make
2 or 3 miles of headway in those icing conditions.
So we're still seeing heavy icing. And this was to be able
to sustain our mission in Antarctica. In the U.S., if there's
an area where the United States leads, it is in the mission in
Antarctica. We have a significant vote, but we're seeing China
in particular stepping up its presence in Antarctica with less
than transparent initiatives going forward of why so much China
moving to Antarctica.
Senator Wicker. What could these less expensive Finnish
icebreakers not do for us that this heavy icebreaker will be
able to do?
Admiral Zukunft. So when we look at our icebreakers, they
do more----
Senator Wicker. They help on the Great Lakes?
Admiral Zukunft. They wouldn't fit through the Soo Locks.
Senator Wicker. OK.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, they're----
Senator Wicker. So we need lighter tugs on the Great Lakes.
Admiral Zukunft. So you're limited by the Soo Locks and the
width of the ship.
Senator Wicker. We've got at least three kinds we're
talking about now.
Admiral Zukunft. The main one we're talking right now is
the heavy icebreaker. We have a medium----
Senator Wicker. I'm talking about all three, sir.
Admiral Zukunft. OK. Let me take it from the top.
Senator Wicker. Good.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, the most critical one is our heavy
icebreaker, the Polar Star. She's going to leave in a few weeks
for Antarctica. If she is beset in ice, the United States has
no way to recover that ship. There's nothing in our inventory
that can break it loose. We would probably have to ask Russia,
``Can you break us out of the ice, please?'' I don't want to be
put in that position. I don't think our Nation wants to find
ourselves in that vulnerable situation. We have no self-rescue
capability. Our other icebreakers, we have self-rescue
capability. But operating in heavy ice, we have one. We are a
one-trick pony, and that is it.
An icebreaker does more than break ice. It gathers
information. It can do law enforcement if necessary and exert
sovereign presence.
The icebreakers in the Baltic do one thing only, and that's
to open up a shipping channel to resupply the ports in the
Baltic. A medium icebreaker, less capable, it can break ice up
to 8 feet thick. It supports a scientific mission. A lot of the
work the Healy did this year, it was a classified program, but
working for the Office of Naval Research. So these are multi-
mission platforms that can operate in an ice environment.
Senator Wicker. OK. Well, let's say you and the experts in
your field decide we need X number of heavy icebreakers, and we
need Y number of smaller, less expensive icebreakers. We can
certainly build those at our American shipyards, can we not?
Admiral Zukunft. We can.
Senator Wicker. OK. But we don't have plans to do so at
this point.
Admiral Zukunft. We do. So there's $150 million in the 2017
appropriation. We have five shipyards doing industry studies.
We'll put a request for proposal----
Senator Wicker. What type of icebreaker?
Admiral Zukunft. A heavy icebreaker.
Senator Wicker. No, I'm asking about plans for the smaller
icebreakers?
Admiral Zukunft. We won't look at the smaller ones. I'm
talking the Great Lake icebreakers, we're over a decade out.
Senator Wicker. In the Arctic, our plans are to have one
kind of icebreaker and one only, is that what you're saying? A
heavy icebreaker. And we have plans to make one.
Admiral Zukunft. We have a high-latitude study. It was
commissioned over 5 years ago that said we need six
icebreakers--three heavy, three medium--and that's----
Senator Wicker. OK. We could build those three mediums in
the United States, couldn't we?
Admiral Zukunft. Absolutely.
Senator Wicker. But we don't have plans to do so, do we?
Admiral Zukunft. We do.
Senator Wicker. OK. And what are those plans?
Admiral Zukunft. Well, we need to build our first heavy
first. You know, I am scraping money to get----
Senator Wicker. But what are those plans, though, even if
they're long-range?
Admiral Zukunft. Build the first heavy icebreaker in the
water by 2023. Do a block buy to buy two more. There's a
National Academy of Sciences----
Senator Wicker. And then and only then we would look at
buying the medium icebreakers. So we really don't have plans to
buy three smaller, less expensive icebreakers, do we?
Admiral Zukunft. Let's make sure we're talking heavy,
medium, and then we have great--we have three different
icebreakers----
Senator Wicker. OK. Well, let's not talk about Great Lakes
right now.
Admiral Zukunft. OK. So----
Senator Wicker. I think I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, about
whether we have any plans to build beyond the three heavy
icebreakers that you've talked about. Do we have any plans to
use our American shipyards to build medium icebreakers?
Admiral Zukunft. We do.
Senator Wicker. Or is that just a notion down----
Admiral Zukunft. No.
Senator Wicker. OK. What are those specific plans? I ask
again.
Admiral Zukunft. Three heavy and three medium icebreakers.
And we've been in a 10--a decade-long battle to get $150
million that doesn't even build one icebreaker. So I can't tell
you when I'm going to get the funding to build out this fleet.
But we need a fleet of six icebreakers, and I need an
appropriation to do that. If I have a floor of $2 billion in my
acquisition budget, I can move on with this, but I don't have
the money.
Senator Wicker. OK. Well, we want to be teammates with you
on this. And I think we're just--Mr. Chairman, I think we're
just scratching the surface this morning. We'll get into this
more in detail at the specific hearing.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. But I appreciate the Chair and the Ranking
Member bringing this to the attention of the public and the
Coast Guard.
Senator Sullivan. Well, I think this exchange underscores
the need for a joint hearing between this Committee and the
Seapower Subcommittee, that you chair, Senator Wicker, on the
Armed Services Committee, and we look forward to doing that
sooner rather than later because this is an important issue.
Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, thank you for being here. Thank you for everything
you do, especially in the Pacific. I will not ask about
icebreakers, as you might imagine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Schatz. I understand there are sort of two aspects
of being resource-constrained. One is what we've talked about,
the need for real appropriations, not just for your national
security cutters, but for icebreaking and other things. But the
other is that even if you got all the money that was needed,
you still have to make resource allocation issues--decisions.
And I want to ask you about one specific resource
allocation that troubles me, and it's very simple. It's that
we've got our heavy endurance cutters in the State of Hawaii,
and a lot of them actually move east, not west, even though we
have IUU, we have territorial issues, and other challenges
throughout the Pacific all the way to the western Pacific. And
we are now using a lot of Coast Guard resources in 2014 for
drug interdiction.
And the basic question I have for you is, if you kind of
look at this from the standpoint of stopping drug supply, I
think you're getting about 20 percent of the drugs coming over
the water. So that's not bad, but that's not enough. Also, most
of the drugs that come into the United States are actually not
coming over the water.
So it's not that what you're doing is not important, it's
just that we're deciding to move Coast Guard resources into
this drug fight, and it's at the expense of something else. You
know, you have a number of statutory missions, but fighting
this drug fight, it seems to me, you know--I guess the question
for you is, who makes the decision on resource allocation? When
was it made?
Because I worry, frankly, that there's institutional
inertia, there's a desire to fight that fight, but if we're
only getting 20 percent of the stuff that comes over water, and
that's 20 percent of less than 50 percent of the total drugs
coming into the United States, we're still fighting a 1980s
drug war, and in the meantime, everybody across all service
branches, is worried about presence in the Pacific. You say
virtual presence is actual absence, as Harry Harris says.
So how do you sort of square this? And what's your thought
process? And is there any consideration sort of reevaluating
whether this is even the smart thing to do?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, let me approach that on two different
points. Those decisions rest with me. So in 2014, we had
unprecedented unaccompanied minors arrive at our border. And
the Department of Homeland Security was looking for beds and,
where do we put these young kids? I looked at, why are they
leaving? The reason they were leaving is those drugs, they
don't come directly to the--they land in the tri-border region
of El Salvador-Guatemala-Honduras.
I've met with the Presidents of all three countries.
They're awash in cocaine right now that's destined for the
United States. Violent crime has taken off. And so families are
putting their kids in the hands of a human smuggler to get out
of Dodge, to get to the United States, because of this drug
problem. In 2014, we knew where 85 percent of these drug
shipments were across the entire ocean, but I only had enough
resources to go after 8 percent. So it became a resource
imbalance.
We're using that same level of intelligence to look at our
2.2 million square miles of remote EEZs to look at, Is there
illegal fishing? We partnered with China, with Russia, Japan,
Canada, the United States lead an effort, and for 12 years
we've been doing extended patrols in the western Pacific,
central Pacific, to target IUU fishing. One of our buoy tenders
we should probably paint white that is stationed in Hawaii,
they are going out and doing these patrols. It has been 6
years, with all the intelligence, with the overflies, but we
are not seeing the risk of IUU activity.
If the risk warranted the resources, we would reallocate
resources. But, again, as we look at intelligence driving
operations, we also have to look at, where can we afford to go
at risk? And that is one area where we have gone at some degree
of risk, but we have not seen the activity to warrant further
resources.
I will just add we also work with Admiral Harris, and they
do provide naval platforms with Coast Guard law enforcement
detachments. We call it the Oceania Maritime Security
Initiative, and we're doing quarterly patrols off of Navy
platforms instead of Coast Guard ships because there are no
heavy Navy ships in the eastern Pacific today.
Senator Schatz. Right. Well, listen, I think you make the
case persuasively, but I'll just offer this: it is not at all
clear to me that we're winning the drug war, you know, 1980s
style. And we have more and more needs. And I think the Chair
and the Ranker of the Subcommittee, as well as the Seapower
Subcommittee, really have to make maybe some tough decisions
about what we're doing with all these resources. You know, I
think we're on deck for at least another couple of national
security cutters, and we could throw another--I mean, we could
throw lots of person-hours at this, and we could throw
another--a few cutters from Hawaii at this. I personally would
rather see those forward in the Pacific, I'd rather see them do
what we think of the Coast Guard to be best at.
And I'll just insert for the record a question for you
about the status of the C-130Js coming to Hawaii.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be
back and visiting with you. I remember when we met in March. I
meant to tell you, and I forgot to do it, so I'll mention it
now, that I had occasion just a short while ago to fly an
airplane around the world emulating the flight of Wiley Post,
and one of the best times I had was in your shop in Alaska. And
in terms of the missions, the search and rescue, the drug
addiction--all of that stuff, I really encourage members of
this Committee and Members of the House and Senate, you don't
really know what you guys are doing till you go there and see
it. So we're going to encourage that to share those
experiences.
Well, I know that Wicker has been concerned about
icebreakers, and let me be the voice of concern about another
vehicle that we talked about when you were here in March. Now,
one of the best kept secrets in America is that we in Oklahoma
are navigable. We have an inland waterway that goes all the way
to the Port of Catoosa.
And we're concerned about the tenders, the river tenders,
and the condition of these things. The vessels, we talked about
this in March, maintain the navigation age of the buoys and the
marking of the water channels. And the channels must be marked
for river barges to safely move, again, the fertilizer, all
this stuff that we move around.
So at that time--and I know you're working with us because
we've been with the Coast Guard talking about it. Give us a
status right now in terms of the acquisition strategy of river
tenders.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir, Senator. We're standing up an
acquisition office right now. We have a million dollars set
aside right now to start looking at design work. These are not
high-tech designs. We're working with the Army Corps of
Engineers to look at parent craft, very affordable platforms.
But the average age of our fleet of inland tenders is 56 years
old.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Admiral Zukunft. These tenders maintain a waterway highway
that moves $4.6 trillion of commodities each and every year.
You take that out of inventory, you know, you have now just
deprived our true economic potential. And in many of these
ports, you know, these are export commodities that are helping
our trade imbalance for a very modest investment. So we are
moving out to start recapitalizing this fleet. This will be
very appropriation-dependent, but we have made the argument,
and we are ready to move out to recapitalize these old ships.
Senator Inhofe. Because they're not all that expensive
there, and then the decision still has to be made. Has it been
made in terms of new versus renovated?
Admiral Zukunft. These are beyond renovation.
Senator Inhofe. Are they?
Admiral Zukunft. We've done mitigation work on asbestos,
lead abatement. And what really disturbs me is these ships were
designed in an era where we did not have mixed genders in the
United States Coast Guard.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Admiral Zukunft. So most of this fleet cannot accommodate
women.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Admiral, I also serve on the Senate
Armed Services Committee. And I think it was the NDAA 2014, as
I recall, that I got some language into the bill to transfer
from DoD to the Coast Guard 14 of the C-27J, that's the Spartan
aircraft, the smaller one than the C-130. And I thank you for
your work to facilitate this transfer, which saves a lot of
money. I think we approximated around $500 million was saved as
opposed to the alternative.
You've made it real clear that these aircraft are
instrumental for the Coast Guard to perform its mission,
providing maritime surveillance among the maritime borders and
enforcing our laws. And I look forward to see these aircraft
fully operational. But I understand that you are having issues
with parts in getting the aircraft missionized, I guess you'd
say. What kind of problems are you having?
Admiral Zukunft. Just the lack of spare parts. And as we
mature this program, we'll be able to ramp up the spare parts.
Our immediate problem right now is with the simulator. We end
up having to send our pilots to Italy to get simulator
training. So as a result, most of their training is actually in
an airplane.
Senator Inhofe. Now, we're the simulation capital of the
world in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Are you aware of that?
Admiral Zukunft. We are, and, in fact, that's where we're
looking at----
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Admiral Zukunft.--to source a Coast Guard-owned simulator.
Senator Inhofe. Hmm. I'd like to have you come and visit
sometime.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thanks for the great work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Admiral, it's great to see you. Thank you
for being here.
The 2016 Association for Rescue at Sea Gold Medal recipient
was someone from Long Beach. They had used one of the 52-foot
motor lifeboats for that rescue mission. We only have four 52-
foot motor lifeboats in the entire Coast Guard. Two are in
Washington. So what's the replacement plan here?
Admiral Zukunft. We've been using our 47-foot motor
lifeboats, which don't have quite the same capability of these
old 52 legacy motor lifeboats that have served----
Senator Cantwell. Like what? Like what don't they have?
Admiral Zukunft. They don't have the towing capability, and
they're not quite as seaworthy as the 52-footers. So I've been
on several of those lifeboats, and great credit to those crews.
We've been able to maintain these boats that are probably over
50 years old now, but they continue to have a fairly lengthy
service life. But it's the 47 motor lifeboat that has been
their replacement that we have sourced.
But as you well know, your--the Pacific Northwest, the
Graveyard of the Pacific, is probably where we see the most
extreme weather conditions. But for the near term, we are still
able to maintain and operate those vessels.
Senator Cantwell. What can we do to maintain that fleet
given, as you just said, the 47s don't have that towing
capacity, and this is a very prime fishing fleet location for
the Pacific Northwest? What can we do? Are you committed to
making sure we keep these 52-foot vessels?
Admiral Zukunft. Committed that we continue to maintain and
operate, but if we reach a point where they're no longer
sustainable, parts obsolescence, we need to re-engine, there's
a whole range of options, but we will need something more
capable than a 47-foot motor lifeboat for some of the extreme
conditions that we have up in the State of Washington.
Senator Cantwell. I agree. That's what I wanted to hear you
say. So the 47s aren't getting the whole job done, and when we
look at both the conditions and the flow of traffic and who
we're talking about, we want to make sure our fishermen are
safe. So thank you so much, Admiral.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Admiral, for your very impressive and dedicated
work, and all of the men and women who work in the Coast Guard
under you and serve our Nation with such immense excellence and
devotion to duty.
You and I have talked about the Coast Guard Museum. The
Coast Guard is the only service that has no such museum. It has
an awe-inspiring story that should be told. And the proposal,
indeed, the plan, to put that museum in New London is one that
will be a great destination for Connecticut and the Nation. It
will be an extraordinary tribute to the Coast Guard with that
story that will move generations and will inspire them to join
the Coast Guard.
You and I have talked about the funding, and I am gratified
that our private conversations have indicated your very strong
commitment to the building of the Coast Guard Museum. That's
correct I hope.
Admiral Zukunft. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. And on our watch, so to speak, that is,
the Committee's, I hope that we can lead the effort to frame
language that makes it clear that none of the Federal funding
that may be invested, it's an investment, in the museum would
come from otherwise necessary operational or capital funding,
and very, very clear that that kind of commitment is necessary
for the Coast Guard's well-being, because that has to be our
priority, and its effective service to our Nation.
Admiral Zukunft. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. I want to ask you, if I may, about the
issue of sexual assault. And one reason I ask it is that I will
leave here within minutes and go to an announcement of the
introduction of the bill that would reform the efforts to
discipline sexual assault and deter and prevent it in all of
our military services. And I know there have been some
instances at the Coast Guard Academy and perhaps elsewhere in
the Coast Guard. Can you give us your assessment of how the
Coast Guard is doing? And I know that the Coast Guard in no way
condones or tolerates sexual assault within its ranks.
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, we're making progress. So from
the RAND survey that was done back in 2014 to the latest
surveys to present, the prevalence is down nearly 40 percent.
We are seeing more and more victims submitting unrestricted
reports that conveys confidence that there will be standards of
accountability, that they will not be revictimized, but it
still disturbs me that we still have sexual assault, this
behavior, occurring in a service that lives by the creed,
``Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty.''
Senator Blumenthal. And I know that at the Coast Guard
Academy you've taken steps to provide counselors and victims'
advocates and so forth, and I think that kind of service would
be helpful to better reporting as well as better discipline.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir, Senator. And part of this is,
you know, to be an all-inclusive service, you know, women have
filled every capacity in the Coast Guard for over 40 years
running now. We have nearly 40 percent women that comprise the
Corps of Cadets at the Coast Guard Academy. These will be our
future leaders.
At the same time, we want to grow a more diverse workforce.
And so any intimation of racial bias is equally concerning to
me as well as we look at growing a more diverse cadre of senior
leaders in the future of the Coast Guard as well. And we want
to lead the way at the Coast Guard Academy, but as you are well
aware, we've had several setbacks there.
Senator Blumenthal. I want to shift in the small remaining
time I have to Puerto Rico. And you and I have talked about the
situation on a number of occasions. And I know the Coast Guard
has performed extraordinary service in delivering food, water,
and medicine to parts of the island that have been isolated, as
well as in the Virgin Islands, also struck very heavily by
Maria and the hurricanes that preceded Maria during this
hurricane season. And I understand from you the situation is
improving, but the Coast Guard is committed to stay there. You
have, I believe you told me--I'm going from memory--about 2,000
men and women on the various bases that are there doing
interdiction of drugs and other missions, but have provided
invaluable service to the Americans who live in Puerto Rico.
And I wonder if you could just give us your assessment of how
Puerto Rico is doing?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes. Unfortunately, Puerto Rico probably
was not resilient before Hurricane Maria struck, and I've
never, having been to multiple natural disasters, see a
hurricane take out an entire commonwealth. It approached the
southeast corner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it exited
the northwest, and it literally devastated the entire
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, immediately taking out the power
grid, communications. Very rugged interior, bridges washed out
that are now isolated, which is why we're using helicopters to
provide medical, water, food, and commodities to those isolated
committees, but--communities.
But at the end of the day, this is our home, too. Our Coast
Guard men, women, and families that come up to nearly 2,000
people, this is their home. We've been active in these
communities with elected leaders. And, similarly, the Coast
Guard is not going to leave there as well. As we've been doing
restoration work, we've seen an increase of illegal migration
activity trying to come across the Mona Pass, and we've had
several significant drug seizures just to the south of Puerto
Rico, perhaps mindful that maybe the Coast Guard is distracted
and they might be able to sneak in a shipment of drugs or
illegal migrants. So we're still trying to balance all of that,
but right now we're keeping our head above water.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Commandant. My
time is expired. I look forward to continuing our conversation
about these issues and others. Thank you.
And thank you to--again, thank you to the men and women of
the Coast Guard for their extraordinary service and sacrifice
for our Nation.
Admiral Zukunft. And let me just go on record, Senator.
Thank you, and I also want to thank Senator Murphy, for your
ardent support of our national museum in New London,
Connecticut.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Admiral, I wanted to follow up on the line of questioning
that Senator Schatz had started with regard to--it's actually a
broader topic--the deployment of and home-basing of new assets.
We're nearing the end of the Coast Guard's recapitalization
process on the national security cutter. And having been there
with you and former Homeland Security Secretary Kelly at the
commissioning of the MONRO, got a good sense of just how
capable those are, the fast response cutters that you're
looking to deploy.
I know that there has been a lot of focus on this. I just
ask that you involve Congress a little bit more on the
deployment of these assets. There are things that we're hearing
in Alaska, and I don't want to go into specifics, but, you
know, maybe three new FRCs in one place to help on maintenance,
but it might not help with regard to the scope and scale, and
the same with the national security cutters, particularly if
there are a couple more online.
So can I get your commitment that you would work with this
Committee in particular on, you know, the plan, the ops, the
kind of strategic thinking that is going into the home-basing
and deployment of these assets? As you know, whether it's IUU
fishing, as Senator Schatz mentioned, or, you know, extremely
increased activity in the Arctic and the migration of fish
there, I think we have an important role to play.
Admiral Zukunft. You have my commitment on that, Senator.
I've spent a lot of time patrolling those waters. The fast
response cutter, much more capable than the 110-foot patrol
boat it replaces, but it is the tyranny of distance as well.
And our concern driving some of these decisions are the outyear
expenses.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Admiral Zukunft. And so we're dealing with negative growth
in our operating expense account, which is why I'm looking for
a 5 percent increase. So we're not making budget-driven
decisions, we're making operational decisions to provide the
optimal force lay-down for the State of Alaska.
Senator Sullivan. No, and, look, I'm certainly focused on
Alaska, but other places, Hawaii, and other parts; Senator
Cantwell is here, Washington State. But I think that's where we
can play a really important role because if some of your
decisionmaking that is going on internally within the Coast
Guard is operational or maintenance, or a combination of both,
and you need to have certainty on accounts, we can help with
that in terms of overall making the strategic decisions more
viable for the long term, but it's important for all of us to
work together to understand your thinking and to know what you
need to maximize kind of the reach.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir, Chairman. And we will provide
full transparency. I will not sign any final document until it
has been briefed to you personally.
Senator Sullivan. Excellent.
Senator Peters, do you have another follow up----
Senator Peters. Just a follow up before we get to Senator
Markey.
Admiral, you mentioned and I wanted to just get back to the
Great Lakes and the oil cleanup and your statement of how
concerned you are about a major oil spill in the Great Lakes
and our ability to clean that up, to understand the dynamics of
cleanup in fresh water in particular, where there's a dearth of
research as to how to do that.
As you're well aware, the 2017 Coast Guard authorization,
which we'll hopefully be moving quickly, does include the
creation of a center of expertise, something you and I have
spoken about, work with the Coast Guard, but also realizing
resource constraints, although there are innovative ways that
we can involve our universities, some private contractors,
others that have an interest in it.
But if you could talk briefly as to why a center of
excellence is important to better understand freshwater cleanup
and the dynamics of cleaning up in fresh water, and how it
would be important to locate that center near a place that
could potentially suffer from a catastrophic oil spill, and
having prepositioned equipment there with people who are
trained to use that equipment, as well as how to train in ice
cover? You mentioned that in your previous comments.
And I know there has been some testing at your research
center, which does outstanding work, but some of the skimming
techniques and others were not particularly effective in ice.
And given ice is a problem not just in Michigan, but in Alaska
and all across pipelines all across Northern America, if you
could speak briefly of why a center of expertise to evaluate
freshwater cleanup would be a great aid to our abilities to
keep the environment clean and something as important as the
Great Lakes, which provides drinking water for 40 million
people.
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir, Senator. So let me just go back
briefly in time. And the reason I said, you know, we would not
be semper paratus is probably recall a pipeline spill in
Kalamazoo. It was really in EPA's area of responsibility. We
helped in that response as well, a land-based, and it's
difficult in a very expensive oil spill because of the unique
aspects of that oil as well. Now you put it in a lake, and now
you put ice over a lake, and we do not have the technology to
bear. So, yes, we need to move out on this.
The infrastructure piece, that obviously comes with a bill,
so I want to make sure that we don't let that stand in the way
of progress. We do have a great R&D center. Part of that is
funded by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And I think we do
need to make this a high priority as we look at more pipelines
crossing navigable waterways, and those waters have multiple
uses besides just for navigation.
I'd be happy to work with your staff, with your
constituents as well, to make sure that we have a strategic way
forward of what are we doing to address this? The Finns have
some unique capability in removing oil from ice. You know, what
is the state-of-the-world technology in addressing some of
these very same challenges? And then we can address the
infrastructure component of that as we go forward as well. But
we can't let, you know, brick and mortar stand in the way of
good science because right now some of that is lacking.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and
Senator Peters for having this very important hearing.
Commandant, thank you for being here. Good to see you
again. And I just want to say for the record that the fishermen
of the State of Massachusetts would like to thank the Commander
of District 1, Admiral Steven Poulin, for his great work and
everyone in his division for the work and safety that they
provide on a daily basis.
On December 20, 2004, the Northern Edge, a New Bedford-
based scallop vessel, sank, and six fishermen were lost at sea.
The Coast Guard conducted a 43-hour search, but only one
fisherman unfortunately survived. This tragic loss was the
worst accident since the tragedy depicted in the famous movie
The Perfect Storm where the Andrea Gail of Gloucester sank in
1991.
The sinking of the Northern Edge prompted the Massachusetts
Bay Fishing Partnership Support Services to create a safety and
survival training program to train fishermen on man overboard
procedures, emergency communications, flooding and pump
operation, and other skills to be able to act quickly in
emergency situations so that these tragedies do not reoccur.
These trainings are heavily valued by fishermen and have spread
from coast to coast. The safety and survival trainings are
lifesaving and also save the Coast Guard millions in resources.
However, these programs do not have stable funding. They have
been appropriated funds, but only on a year-by-year basis, and
fishermen need to have the assurance that these programs will
be funded every year.
The 2-day search for the Northern Edge cost over of $1.5
million. While we all agree that the Coast Guard search and
rescue missions are essential, we should work to stop these
tragic events before they happen, and that's what these
training programs are designed to do.
Commandant, can you speak to the importance of having
safety programs in place and how having consistent training
supported by constant funding would help the Coast Guard's
budget?
Admiral Zukunft. Senator, you're a strong advocate of
prevention and so we don't have to respond. And so anything
that takes us out of the business of having to respond and
preventing, providing these mariners with the wherewithal to
operate, and again, up in--up off the Grand Banks in the
wintertime, it's a hazardous operating environment. So it's
absolutely critical. It used to be called the ``Deadliest
Catch'' in Alaska, but I would say, you know, we've seen more
fatalities of late off the Pacific Northwest, but no different:
cold water, extreme weather. And this training, if it saves one
life--I said earlier in this hearing you can't put a dollar
value on a life. And I think consistent funding, if it saves
lives, is money well spent.
Senator Markey. So just moving on, in response to our
hearing last March, you stated that only Class 2 Coast Guard
vessels are equipped with naloxone, Narcan, and that Coast
Guard commanders are assessing the opioid threat in the local
area to identify any high-risk areas, populations, and risk of
exposure. Have you identified any high-risk areas? And what are
you doing to encourage other classes of Coast Guard vessels to
be equipped with Narcan?
Admiral Zukunft. Thank you for that question, Senator. We
have since moved on, and we are putting this out to all field
units in the Coast Guard. Yes, we have an epidemic on our hands
right now, so this is Coast Guard-wide, not one tier of ships.
It could be on a fishing fleet or recreational boater. There is
no community that exempt--is exempt to this epidemic.
Senator Markey. So since March, you have created a program
that covers all of those classes?
Admiral Zukunft. Yes, sir.
Senator Markey. Yes. Excellent. And, of course, the Coast
Guard can't perform their lifesaving work if they can't
navigate our Nation's rivers and channels and harbors. For some
communities in Massachusetts: Essex, Plymouth, Gloucester,
Newburyport, the waterways are filling up with so much sand
that Coast Guard vessels cannot safely pass. Many of these
waterways are federally owned, and it's the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' responsibility to dredge these waterways to ensure
the swift and safe passage of ships. Has the backlog of Corps
dredging projects harmed the Coast Guard's ability to perform
its critical functions?
Admiral Zukunft. The Army Corps was a key partner when we
reopened numerous ports following this year's hurricane season.
And in the interim, we would reset aids to navigation where
there was survey work. We knew there was shallow water, but it
still allowed ships, boats, to safely pass as we remarked
waters, as they addressed some of those shoaling activities. I
can't address what the backlog is in the Army Corps of
Engineers, but what I can say is they have been a reliable
partner as we look to reconstitute ports.
Senator Markey. But from your perspective, it would be
better if there were dredging pots of funding in order to
ensure that sand was cleared out so that you could do your job
even better?
Admiral Zukunft. Certainly, if there is shoaling,
absolutely critical for us to be able to carry out our
missions.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Thank you for your good work and
all the people who work for you. Thank you, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Markey.
And, Admiral, thanks again for your great service. Please
pass on from this Committee and the rest of the Senate the
appreciation that we all have for the great job that the men
and women of the Coast Guard are doing for our country.
Admiral Zukunft. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking
Member.
Senator Markey, thank you as well.
Senator Sullivan. Great. I would now like to invite the
second panel forward. We have a distinguished panel of citizens
who have come from all across our country. The first is a
constituent of mine, Ms. Etta Kuzakin, who is the President of
the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove. She is a leader in Alaska. She
has a compelling story, I believe brought a family member with
her. And literally came from thousands of miles for this
hearing.
So, Etta, thank you for being here.
We have Mr. Lee Smithson, the Executive Director of the
Mississippi Emergency Management Agency. And I know that
Senator Wicker already spoke of his strong background.
And Dr. Guy Meadows, from the Michigan Technological
University. And Senator Peters is going to say a few words
about Dr. Meadows before we begin testimony from each of our
witnesses.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to
introduce Dr. Guy Meadows, who is the Director of the Great
Lakes Research Center and a research professor for mechanical
engineering and engineering mechanics at Michigan Tech.
Dr. Meadows has a long history of working in and around the
Great Lakes with research interests in geophysical fluid
dynamics and with an emphasis on environmental forecasting and
experimental hydrodynamics.
In September, Dr. Meadows was selected by the Michigan
Pipeline Safety Advisory Board to lead a panel of academic
experts from around Michigan to develop a risk analysis for the
dual pipeline that crosses underneath the Straits of Mackinac.
Thank you for being here today, Dr. Meadows. And we all
look forward to your testimony. Thank you again.
Senator Sullivan. So each of our witnesses will have 5
minutes for their opening statement. If you wish to submit a
longer statement for the record, we will, of course, accept
that. We will begin with Ms. Kuzakin.
STATEMENT OF ETTA KUZAKIN, PRESIDENT, AGDAGUUX TRIBE OF KING
COVE, LIFELONG RESIDENT
Ms. Kuzakin. Good morning, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking
Member Peters, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Etta
Kuzakin. I'm an Aleut and President of the Agdaagux Tribal
Council of King Cove, Alaska. I was born and raised and
continue to live in King Cove, an isolated community surrounded
by spectacular beauty. It is the land of my ancestors. The
Aleut people have inhabited the area for more than 4,000 years.
King Cove is a tight-knit community and a wonderful place to
raise a family. My husband and I have three beautiful children
ranging from 4 to 20 years old.
Today I am speaking to you not only as the President of the
Agdaagux Tribe, but as a mother who nearly lost her youngest
child, and possibly my own life, were it not for the courageous
men and women of the Coast Guard who came to the rescue, my
rescue, more than four and a half years ago. Sorry.
Because our community has no hospital or doctor, we must
travel 600 miles to Anchorage for most medical procedures. Our
local clinic is staffed with wonderful dedicated employees, but
there is only so much the health aides can do with the limited
resources. The clinic is unable to handle trauma, heart, and
respiratory complications, and childbirth. I am unable to give
birth naturally and must have a cesarean section, another
complicated beyond the capability of our small clinics.
In March 2013, I went into early labor. Despite my careful
plans to travel to Anchorage well ahead of my due date, my baby
had plans of her own. Gale-force winds were howling that day,
and I knew as I waited in the clinic that no flights were going
to make it into King Cove. My fears were later confirmed, I was
in no condition to attempt to cross the choppy water by boat.
My only hope was that the Coast Guard would send a helicopter
from Kodiak for me. Without them, I wouldn't have been able to
get out, and neither my daughter nor I would be here to tell
the story.
Thankfully, after waiting several hours, they came. The
winds were so strong that the Coast Guard pilots had to
maneuver the helicopter carefully so the doors wouldn't blow
in. They were able to land safely in Cold Bay so I could get
transported to a medevac plane and flown to Anchorage.
I know it's not the job of the Coast Guard to medevac
pregnant women, but I thank God every day for their courageous,
selfless devotion to the people of Alaska and their willingness
to put themselves in harm way to ensure our safety. It's
because of the men and women of the Coast Guard stationed in
Kodiak that my beautiful daughter, Sunnie Rae, is alive. Today
she's an energetic 4-year-old, and I cannot imagine life
without her. Every time my daughter smiles, I am reminded of
how easily things could have turned out differently.
Not every story has a happy ending in King Cove. From 1980
to 2003, 18 people have died because of plane crashes during
the severe weather or the inability to get timely medical care.
Since former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell denied our road on
December 2013, there have since been 68 medevacs from King
Cove. Seventeen of those patients were seriously ill or injured
and were medevaced by the Coast Guard. I am grateful that all
of them, including the Coast Guard personnel, made it out of
King Cove safely.
Our notorious harsh and unpredictable weather on the Alaska
Peninsula means that some Coast Guard medevacs are not only
dangerous for the patients, but also for the Coast Guard. At
least 30 percent of the time, flights are delayed or canceled
because of gale-force winds, snow squalls, or dense fog. Yet,
time and time again the Coast Guard has come to our rescue when
no one else would.
We are hopeful that in the near future, we'll have a
single-lane gravel road connecting our isolated community to
the nearby all-weather airport, providing a safe and reliable
transportation alternative. We have been fighting to have this
small road link through the Izembek National Refuge for more
than 35 years for health, safety, and quality of life reasons.
For us, having the peace of mind and knowing that our loved
ones will be safe when traveling to and from King Cove means
everything to us.
Until then, I would like to once again express my profound
gratitude to the men and the women of the U.S. Coast Guard who
put their lives on the line day in and day out.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kuzakin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Etta Kuzakin, President of Agdaguux Tribe of King
Cove, Lifelong resident
Good morning, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Etta Kuzakin. I am an Aleut and
President of the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove, Alaska. I was born and
raised, and continue to live in King Cove, an isolated community
surrounded by spectacular beauty. It is the land of my ancestors. The
Aleut People have inhabited the area for more than 4,000 years. King
Cove is a tight-knit community, and a wonderful place to raise a
family. My husband and I have three beautiful daughters ranging in age
from 4 to 20 years.
Today, I am speaking to you not only as President of the Agdaguux
Tribe, but as a mother who nearly lost my youngest child and possibly
my own life, were it not for the courageous men and women of the Coast
Guard who came to my rescue more than four and a half years ago.
Because our community has no hospital or doctor, we must travel 600
miles to Anchorage for most medical procedures. Our local clinic is
staffed with wonderful, dedicated employees, but there is only so much
the health aides can do with limited resources. The clinic is unable to
handle trauma, heart and respiratory complications and childbirth. I am
unable to give birth naturally and must have cesarean sections, another
complication beyond the capability of our small clinic.
In March 2013, I went into early labor. Despite my careful plans to
travel to Anchorage well ahead of my due date, my baby had plans of her
own. Gale-force winds were howling that day. I knew, as I waited at our
clinic, that no flights were going to make it into King Cove. My fears
were later confirmed. I was in no condition to attempt crossing the
choppy bay by boat. My only hope was for the Coast Guard to send a
helicopter from Kodiak for me. Without them, I wouldn't have been able
to get out, and neither I nor my daughter would be here today to tell
our story. Thankfully, after waiting for several hours, they came. The
winds were so strong, that the Coast Guard pilots had to maneuver the
helicopter carefully so the doors wouldn't get blown in. They were able
to land safely in Cold Bay so I could be transferred to a medevac plane
and flown to Anchorage.
I know it's not the job of the Coast Guard to medevac pregnant
women, but I thank God every day for their courageous, selfless
devotion to the people of Alaska and their willingness to put
themselves in harm's way to ensure our safety. It's because of the men
and women of the Coast Guard station Kodiak that my beautiful daughter,
Sunnie Rae, is alive.
Today, she is a joyful, energetic, wonderful four-year-old, and I
cannot imagine my life without my precious little girl. Every time my
daughter smiles, I am reminded of how easily things could have turned
out differently. Not every story has ended as happily as mine. From
1980 to 2003, 18 people have died because of plane crashes during
severe weather or an inability to get timely medical care.
Since former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell denied our road in
December 2013, there have been 68 medevacs from King Cove. Seventeen of
those patients were seriously ill or injured and were medevaced by the
Coast Guard. I am grateful that all of them, including our Coast Guard
personnel, made it out safely.
Our notoriously harsh and unpredictable weather on the Alaska
Peninsula means that some Coast Guard medevacs are not only dangerous
for patients, but also for the Coast Guard. At least 30 percent of the
time, flights are delayed or cancelled because of gale-force winds,
snow squalls or dense fog. Yet, time and time again, the Coast Guard
has come to our rescue when no one else could.
We're hopeful that in the near future, we'll have a single-lane
gravel road connecting our isolated community to the nearby all-weather
Cold Bay Airport, providing a safe and reliable transportation
alternative. We have been fighting to have this small road link,
through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, for more than 35 years
for health, safety and quality of life reasons. For us, having the
peace of mind of knowing that our loved ones will be safe when
traveling to and from King Cove means everything to us.
Until then, I'd like to once again express my profound gratitude to
the men and women of the Coast Guard who put their lives on the line
day in and day out.
Thank you.
______
2014 King Cove Medevacs
(Updated 1/8/15. Confirmed with the King Cove Clinic.)
Coast Guard Medevacs:
1. Feb. 7, 2014: Peter Pan Seafoods (PPSF) employee, male, in his
60s. Gastro-intestinal (GI) bleed.
Feb. 14, 2014: 63-year-old Irene Newman was medevaced because of
heart problems.
March 11, 2014: Wyatt Wilson, Walter's infant son, struggled to
breathe. Was later diagnosed with RSV. He and his father were
medevaced separately via the Coast Guard.
March 11, 2014: Fisherman Walter Wilson, Jr., 33, dislocated both
hips and fractured his pelvis after a 600-lb. cod pot fell on
him.
March 31, 2014: 58-year old fisherman aboard the M/V Golden
Alaska, a Seattle-based processor, came into clinic with a
severely injured eye.
Oct. 16, 2014: An 84-year old male from King Cove was transported
by ambulance to the King Cove Clinic at 10:30 p.m. He was very
ill and was treated for sepsis. About three hours later, he was
loaded onto a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter (at approximately
1:30 a.m.) and was taken to Cold Bay. (Guardian can only land
in King Cove during daylight hours, according to FAA
regulations.) Guardian then flew the patient from Cold Bay to
Anchorage for medical care. Fortunately, the weather was clear.
Total Coast Guard medevacs = 6
Other Medevacs:
1. Jan. 3, 2014: Local resident. Male, GI bleed. In his 50s.
Physician's Assistant Katie Eby monitored him throughout the
night. He was medevaced the next day, via Guardian.
2. March 16, 2014: PPSF employee, male, in his late 40s, head
trauma. Guardian medevac.
3. March 21, 2014: 19 year old, male. Infection. His leg was cut
working on a boat. Infection started setting in later. Guardian
medevac.
4. April 11, 2014: Alaska man suffering from apparent heart attack
was medevaced aboard a Coastal freight boat from King Cove to
Cold Bay. No other planes or boats were traveling because of
high winds and seas.
5. April 15, 2014: Elderly King Cove resident suffering from
possible internal bleeding. Was medevaced via a local charter
airline service to Cold Bay and then to an Anchorage hospital.
Weather was decent for flying.
6. April 18, 2014: King Cove female resident in her 50s with severe
breathing difficulties due to an anaphylactic type reaction to
an allergen. Unable to get any other airline service to come in
because winds were very high. Due to patient's condition, boat
travel was out of the question. Coast Guard didn't come. Had to
wait until morning for Guardian to medevac patient out of King
Cove.
7. June 19, 2014: A male in his mid-20s (works for Peter Pan
Seafoods, but not a King Cove resident) was in acute
respiratory distress when he arrived at the King Cove Clinic.
The patient has a history of asthma and was seen for
respiratory problems over the past few months. All medication
and treatment options had been exhausted. He was medevaced by
Guardian to Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage at
7:30 p.m. The weather was clear.
8. July 7, 2014: A 49 year-old male (not a resident of King Cove)
suffering from internal bleeding was treated at the King Cove
Clinic. He was medevaced out on Guardian on a clear day.
9. Aug. 23, 2014: A King Cove man in his late 40s suffered from a
severe abdominal infection. Guardian arrived in Cold Bay but
was unable to fly into King Cove due to deteriorating weather
conditions (fog and low visibility). High wind and waves
prevented travel by boat. The patient was stabilized and waited
for a medevac for about 14 hours. The medevac pilot was able to
fly into King Cove after the weather improved and daylight
arrived.
10. Sept. 9, 2014: An 84 year-old King Cove woman with chest pains
arrived at the clinic because of concerns about a possible
heart attack. Patient was monitored overnight at the King Cove
Clinic until Guardian could safely land at the King Cove
airstrip during daylight hours. The patient was stable while
waiting about nine hours for the medevac team to arrive. (The
weather was clear.
Total non-Coast Guard medevacs: 10
Total King Cove medevacs = 16
______
2015 King Cove Medevacs
(Updated 12/22/15. Confirmed with Eastern Aleutian Tribes and the Coast
Guard)
Coast Guard Medevacs:
1. February 22, 2015: A female in her 80s was seen at the King Cove
Community Health Center for an infection at about 6:30 p.m. It
was determined by the emergency department in Anchorage that
the patient needed to be medevaced out of King Cove as soon as
possible. The Coast Guard arrived about 3 hours later (9:30
p.m.) and transported the patient from King Cove to Cold Bay
where the patient was then transferred to Guardian to come into
Anchorage. No weather delays. The Coast Guard plane was used
from King Cove to Cold Bay due to the fact that the patient
needed to be transported to Anchorage immediately and planes do
not fly in and out of King Cove when it is dark.
2. July 20, 2015: a female in her 20s (resident of Nevada) was
treated at the King Cove Clinic at 9 a.m. for an immediate
life-threatening condition, according to Eastern Aleutian
Tribes. EAT did not specify the condition. However, according
to the Coast Guard, she was treated for a severely obstructed
airway. Clinicians consulted with Providence Hospital and ANMC.
It was recommended that the patient be brought into ANMC for
evaluation. EAT said it was unsafe for Guardian to land in King
Cove due to weather. The Coast Guard was called at 2 p.m. A
helicopter from a cutter in the Bering Sea was dispatched and
arrived at about 4:40 p.m. The Coast Guard was unable to land
at the King Cove airstrip because of fog and low visibility, so
the helicopter landed in the old high school parking lot
instead. The patient was transported to Cold Bay and
transferred to Guardian Flight. Guardian then transported the
patient to Anchorage.
3. July 20, 2015: a King Cove male resident in his 40s was treated
at the King Cove Clinic at 9:45 a.m. According to Eastern
Aleutian Tribe, he was '' very ill.'' EAT did not specify the
condition. The Coast Guard said it was breathing difficulties.
EAT said a Providence emergency room doctor recommended that
the patient be medevaced to Anchorage. Due to weather, it was
not safe for Guardian to land in King Cove. The Coast Guard was
called. After transporting another patient to Cold Bay earlier
that afternoon, the Coast Guard refueled and returned to King
Cove, landing in the old high school parking lot due to low
visibility and fog at the airstrip. The Coast Guard arrived at
about 5:30 p.m. and transported the patient to the Cold Bay
Airport. Guardian then transported the patient to an Anchorage
Hospital.
4. July 27, 2015: A King Cove male resident in his 70s arrived at
the King Cove Clinic at 4:45 p.m. on July 26, 2015 after
feeling extremely ill. After clinicians consulted with ANMC's
ER doctor, they decided to medevac him out of King Cove.
Guardian Flight was called, but was on weather hold (fog and
limited visibility). The patient was stabilized overnight. The
following morning (July 27, 2015), the elderly man's condition
began to deteriorate. Because of his previous medical
conditions, the Coast Guard said there was cause for concern.
In the interest of time, the Coast Guard launched a MH 60
Jayhawk helicopter. It arrived in King Cove at noon to medevac
the patient to the Cold Bay Airport. From there, the patient
was transferred to a Coast Guard C-130and transported to an
Anchorage hospital. The patient waited 19\1/2\ hours to be
medevaced from the time he arrived at the clinic to the time he
was medevaced.
5. Oct. 16, 2015: A male resident of King Cove in his 50s was
treated at the King Cove clinic for internal bleeding. After
clinicians consulted with an ER doctor in Anchorage, it was
determined that the patient needed to be medevaced due to the
severity of his condition. Guardian was unable to fly into King
Cove because it was dark, so the Coast Guard was called. The
Coast Guard transported the patient after 10 p.m. to Cold Bay.
The patient was then transferred to a Guardian plane and
brought into Anchorage for treatment.
6. Oct. 24, 2015: A male in his late 50s from Deer Park, Washington
was treated at the King Cove Clinic for a possible life-
threatening medical condition (ketoacidosis). Clinicians
consulted with an E.R. physician in Anchorage and it was
determined that he needed to be medevaced out. Due to poor
visibility, Guardian was unable to fly into King Cove so the
Coast Guard was called at 12:15 p.m. The Coast Guard arrived at
1:30 p.m. The Coast Guard's MH-65 Jayhawk helicopter
transported the patient to Cold Bay. Once there, the patient
was transferred to a Guardian Flight plane and transported to
an Anchorage hospital for treatment.
7. Nov. 5, 2015: A King Cove female in her 50s was treated at the
King Cove Clinic early in the morning. Clinicians consulted
with an E.R. physician in Anchorage and it was determined that
she needed to be medevaced out due to a severe medical
condition that required a higher level of care. Due to low
visibility and high winds, Guardian Flight was not able to fly
into King Cove. The Coast Guard was called at 1:45 a.m. Coast
Guard personnel arrived at the King Cove airport at 9:45 a.m.
in a MH-60 Jayhawk. The patient was transferred to the Coast
Guard's C-130 and transported to an Anchorage hospital.
8. Nov. 12, 2015: A male in his 20s (city of origin not documented)
was treated at the King Cove Clinic at 1 a.m. for trauma. After
clinicians consulted with ER doctors in Anchorage, it was
recommended that the patient be medevaced to Anchorage.
Guardian was unable to come in because of excessively high
winds. The patient's vitals were becoming more irregular over
time. The Coast Guard was called and arrived in King Cove at
2:45 p.m. to medevac the patient to Anchorage.
Total Coast Guard medevacs = 8
Other Medevacs:
1. Jan. 15, 2015: A male in his 20s working in the community (not a
resident) was transported to the clinic by ambulance for a head
trauma injury at about 1:15pm. The weather was up and down at
the time (wind, snow/rain squalls). Because the clinic lacks
access to CT scan equipment needed to evaluate the extent of
the injury, it was determined by the emergency department in
Anchorage that the patient needed to be medevaced out of King
Cove. Life-Med was called, but would not send a plane into King
Cove because of the weather. The Coast Guard was considered,
however, the weather broke long enough for Guardian (based in
Unalaska) to come in before nightfall. Guardian arrived at
about 5:00p.m. to transport the patient.
2. Feb. 3, 2015: A female King Cove resident in her 40s was seen in
the clinic for abdominal pain. The providers were concerned and
contacted the emergency department in Anchorage who determined
that she needed to be medevaced out of King Cove. Weather was
not an issue. There were no significant delays. (airline not
specified)
3. Feb. 4, 2015: A female in her 50s (residency not specified) was
seen in the clinic for an altered mental status. Provider(s)
were concerned and contacted the emergency department in
Anchorage who determined that the patient needed to be
medevaced out of King Cove. Guardian picked her up. No
challenges were noted. No weather delays were noted.
4. February 14, 2015: A female in her 50s was seen at the King Cove
Community Health Center for a displaced wrist fracture at about
2:30 a.m. After unsuccessful attempts to reduce the fracture,
the providers consulted with the emergency department and
orthopedics in Anchorage. They requested that the patient be
medevaced. The King Cove runway was closed due to mud from
excessive rain, and it was too dark for planes to fly in, so
the patient was put on a fishing boat that transported her to
Cold Bay, arriving at about noon the following day to meet the
Guardian plane which then transported her to Anchorage. There
were no weather issues or problems with the boat getting to the
Cold Bay dock.
5. Feb. 25, 2015: A male in his 50s (California resident) was seen
at the King Cove Community Health Center on Feb. 24, 2015 at
approximately 7:30 p.m. for a cardiac emergency. The Anchorage
emergency department highly recommended that the patient be
medevaced out of King Cove. Guardian Flight was contacted but
unable to land that evening due to darkness. The Coast Guard
was contacted but unable to transport the patient to Cold Bay.
The next morning, Guardian was able to land directly at the
King Cove airfield and transported the patient to Anchorage at
around 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 25, 2015.
6. Feb. 25, 2015: A King Cove male resident in his 50s was seen at
the King Cove Community Health Clinic at approximately 4:00
a.m. on Feb. 25, 2015 for gastrointestinal bleeding. The
Anchorage emergency department determined that the patient
needed to be medevaced to Anchorage for further medical
evaluation and monitoring. Guardian was contacted and scheduled
to pick up this patient and the other patient (#5 on this list)
once daylight arrived. The patients left at approximately 9:30
a.m.
7. May 21, 2015: A King Cove female resident in her 80s was treated
at the King Cove clinic for internal organ issues at about 3
p.m. on May 20, 2015. Because of fog and poor visibility, she
could not be medevaced out until the following day. She was
monitored overnight and medevaced to Anchorage on May 21, 2015
at 10:30 a.m. via Guardian Flight during calm weather
conditions.
8. May 29, 2015: A King Cove resident (gender and age unknown at
this time) was treated at the King Cove Clinic for unusual pain
at about 4:20 p.m. on May 29, 2015. After clinicians consulted
with the Alaska Native Medical Center emergency department, it
was determined the patient should be medevaced out. Guardian
Flight's pilot determined that the extreme low cloud ceiling
would prevent him from safely landing in King Cove. The patient
remained at the King Cove Clinic for about 2 hours and 40
minutes before being transported on a local airline to Cold
Bay. From Cold Bay, the patient was transported to the local
clinic at about 8:40 p.m. Guardian Flight arrived shortly
afterward and transported the patient to an Anchorage hospital.
9. July 14, 2015: A male in his 60s from California was treated at
the King Cove Clinic at 8:15 a.m. After routine lab work was
conducted, clinicians consulted with an emergency room doctor
who determined the patient was suffering from a possible
malfunctioning internal organ. Guardian was called to medevac
the patient. The weather was calm and was not an issue.
10. July 22, 2015: a male in his 50s arrived at the clinic at 12:40
a.m. and was treated for an abnormal EKG. After clinicians
consulted with an Anchorage emergency room doctor, it was
determined the patient needed to be medevaced out of King Cove
and to an Anchorage hospital. Unclear from Eastern Aleutian
Tribes how patient was medevaced out.
11. July 28, 2015: An elderly King Cove male in his 90s was treated
at the King Cove Clinic for breathing difficulties. He arrived
at 8:30 p.m. An ER doctor with ANMC was called and determined
the man needed to be medevaced to Anchorage. The King Cove
Clinic called Guardian Flight that evening for the medevac, but
Guardian was on weather hold. So the clinic called the Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard's flight surgeon determined that the
nature of the patient's medical situation was such that he
could be stabilized and they could wait 12 hours until it was
safer to fly in. By that time, the weather improved and
Guardian was able to fly in to King Cove at about 8:40 a.m. on
July 28th to medevac the patient.
12. Aug. 30, 2015: A female under the age of 18 arrived at the King
Cove Clinic at 8:30 p.m. and was treated for seizures. After
clinicians consulted with an Anchorage emergency room doctor,
it was determined the patient needed to be medevaced. Guardian
Flight transported the patient to an Anchorage hospital.
13. Oct. 13, 2015: A female resident of King Cove in her 20s arrived
at the King Cove Clinic at 12:20 p.m. According to Eastern
Aleutian Tribes, she was treated for a worsening medical
condition. After the clinic consulted with an ER doctor in
Anchorage, it was determined that the patient should be
medevaced. Guardian arrived at 4 p.m. The weather conditions
did not cause any delays.
14. Dec. 5, 2015: A female King Cove resident in her 20s was treated
at the King Cove Clinic at 10 a.m. for anaphylaxis. Guardian
was called and came from Unalaska. Health clinicians were able
to stabilize the patient until Guardian arrived at 3:30 p.m. to
transport the patient to a hospital in Anchorage. The weather
conditions did not cause any delays.
Total non-Coast Guard medevacs: 14
2015 total# King Cove medevacs = 22
8 Coast Guard
14 non-Coast Guard
______
2016 King Cove Medevacs
Coast Guard Medevacs:
1. March 6, 2016: A King Cove female in her 20s arrived in the King
Cove Clinic at 7:55pm with severe internal pain. The clinic
consulted with the hospital's emergency room physician who
decided to request an immediate medevac. A Coast Guard
helicopter arrived at 11:00 p.m. and took the patient over to
Cold Bay where they were met by Life Med, who transported the
patient to an Anchorage hospital.
2. March 20, 2016: A King Cove female in her 50s was found
unconscious. The King Cove Clinic consulted with the hospital's
emergency room physician who decided to request a medevac. Due
to high winds, Guardian was unable to fly into King Cove. The
Coast Guard flew in from Cold Bay with a MH-60 Jayhawk
helicopter, arriving in King Cove at 6:30 p.m. At 7:56 p.m.,
the Coast Guard helicopter departed King Cove and flew to Cold
Bay where the patient was transferred to Guardian Flight. The
patient was then taken to an Anchorage hospital.
3. June 16, 2016: A King Cove female in her 70s was treated at the
King Cove health clinic at 12:47 for heart issues. The clinic
consulted with an Anchorage hospital's emergency room physician
who decided to request a medevac. Due to high winds, Guardian
Flight was unable to fly into King Cove. The Coast Guard flew
in from Cold Bay with a MH-65 Dolphin helicopter, arriving in
King Cove at 5:30 p.m. The patient was transported to Cold Bay
where she was stabilized until a Guardian Flight plane arrived.
At 8:02 p.m., the patient was transferred to Guardian and
transported to an Anchorage hospital.
Total Coast Guard medevacs = 3
Other Medevacs:
1. Feb. 4, 2016: A King Cove female in her 60s arrived at the
clinic in the afternoon of Feb. 4th after experiencing a
fracture from a fall. Because of the fracture, it was
recommended that she be medevaced out. Guardian Flight was
called, but was delayed due to unavailability of flights.
(Their planes were being used in other communities.) When a
Guardian airplane became available, it was delayed due to fog,
rain and low visibility. The Coast Guard was called, but
because the patient was stable, it was determined that it was
unnecessary at that point. The patient waited at the clinic for
4\1/2\ hours. After the weather improved, Guardian made it into
King Cove at 7:10 p.m. and transported the patient to an
Anchorage hospital.
2. March 26, 2016: A non-resident male in his 60s arrived in the
King Cove clinic at 5:25pm with internal pain. The King Cove
Clinic consulted with the hospital's emergency room physician
who decided to immediately request a medevac. Guardian made it
to King Cove at 8:15 p.m. and transported the patient to an
Anchorage hospital.
3. April 11, 2016: An Anchorage female in her 40s was treated at
the King Cove Clinic at 1:40 p.m. following a seizure. After a
consultation, an emergency room doctor in Anchorage advised
clinicians to immediately medevac the patient. Guardian Flight
flew into King Cove and medevaced the patient at 5:30 p.m. The
patient was taken to Alaska Regional Hospital in Anchorage for
treatment.
4. April 23, 2016: A King Cove female in her 80s arrived at the
King Cove Clinic at 12:45 p.m. following an open fracture of
the arm. Following a consultation, an emergency room doctor in
Anchorage advised clinicians to immediately medevac the
patient. Guardian flew in and medevaced the patient at 6 p.m.
She was transported to the Alaska Native Medical Center for
treatment.
5. June 28, 2016: A King Cove female in her 70s arrived at the
clinic at 1 p.m. seeking treatment for chest pains. Following a
consultation, an emergency room doctor in Anchorage advised
clinicians to medevac the patient. There was a delay due to a
change of shift at Guardian and an additional delay due to
weather. Guardian medevaced the patient at 9:45 p.m. The
patient was transported to the Alaska Native Medical Center for
treatment.
6. July 13, 2016: A woman in her 70s from Anchorage went to the
King Cove clinic at 3:29 p.m. because of breathing
difficulties. After health clinicians consulted with an
emergency room doctor in Anchorage, they were advised to
immediately medevac the patient. There was a delay of at least
one hour because of a shift delay with the air ambulance
carrier. Guardian arrived in King Cove to transport the patient
at 7:45 p.m.
7. Aug. 13, 2016: A female King Cove resident in her 70s arrived at
the King Cove clinic at 11 p.m. on Aug. 13, 2016 to be treated
for a hip fracture. After health clinicians consulted with an
emergency room doctor, they were advised to medevac the
patient. Because of the weather, Guardian was delayed 40-plus
hours so the patient was stabilized until then. The Coast Guard
was called, however, because the patient was stable, the agency
did not respond, but told the clinic it would reevaluate if the
patient's condition worsened. The patient was medevaced by
Guardian at 4:30 p.m. on August 15, 2016.
8. Aug. 15, 2016: A male in his 50s from Anchorage went to the King
Cove clinic at 2:09 p.m. because of abdominal pain. Health
clinicians consulted with an emergency room doctor in Anchorage
who advised medevacing the patient. Guardian medevaced the
patient at 5:30 p.m. from King Cove and transported the patient
to Anchorage.
9. Aug. 22, 2016: A King Cove woman in her 50s went to the King
Cove clinic at 9:30 a.m. due to abdominal pain. Clinicians
consulted with an Anchorage emergency room doctor who
recommended she be medevaced to an Anchorage hospital. The
Coast Guard was called, but the clinic was told the agency did
not have resources available to come to King Cove. Guardian was
unable to come in due to fog and low visibility. About 90
minutes later, a local charter service was able to come into
King Cove and transport the patient to Cold Bay. The patient
was stabilized at the Cold Bay clinic for two hours before
being medevaced by Guardian at 1:30 p.m. and then transported
to an Anchorage hospital.
10. Aug. 24, 2016: A King Cove woman in her 50s went to the King
Cove clinic at 3:15 p.m. due to chest pain. Clinicians
consulted with an Anchorage emergency room doctor who
recommended she be medevaced to an Anchorage hospital. At the
time, fog and low visibility prevented Guardian from landing in
King Cove. At about 5:15 p.m. a local airline was able to
transport the patient to Cold Bay. The patient was transferred
to a Guardian plane and transported to Anchorage.
11. Sept. 16, 2016: A King Cove woman in her 20s arrived at the King
Cove clinic at 12:30 p.m. She was treated for an obstetrics
gynecology complication. Clinicians consulted with an Anchorage
emergency room doctor who recommended that she be medevaced to
an Anchorage hospital. She was stabilized until an air
ambulance was available. LifeMed arrived in King Cove at 9 p.m.
and transported the patient to Anchorage.
12. Nov. 15, 2016: A King Cove male in his 50s arrived at the clinic
at 1:40 a.m. with multiple injuries, including a fracture. The
patient was medevaced to Anchorage's Alaska Native Medical
Center via Guardian Flight. There were no weather challenges.
13. Dec. 7, 2016: A male in his 40s from California arrived at the
clinic at 10 a.m. and was treated for pneumonia as well as
other complications. A local airline transported him to Cold
Bay. He was then transferred to a Guardian Flight plane and
medevaced to an Anchorage hospital for treatment.
14. Dec. 10, 2016: A King Cove male in his 80s was treated at the
clinic at 12:40 p.m. for abdominal pain. The patient required a
CT scan, so he was medevaced to an Anchorage hospital via
Guardian Flight.
Total non-Coast Guard medevacs = 14
2016 total# King Cove medevacs = 17
3 Coast Guard
14 non-Coast Guard
2015 total # King Cove medevacs = 22
8 Coast Guard
14 non-Coast Guard
2014 total# of King Cove medevacs = 16
6 Coast Guard
10 non-Coast Guard
______
2017 King Cove Medevacs
Coast Guard Medevacs:
Total Coast Guard medevacs: 0
Other Medevacs:
1. Feb. 4, 2017: A young man in his 20s (info on residence
unavailable) was treated at the King Cove Clinic for an
infection in his airway. The local airline, Grant Aviation, was
unable to land in King Cove because the runway was too soft
(muddy). Therefore, the physician's assistant accompanied the
patient on a fishing tender with the patient, due to concerns
about the patient's airway. The plan was to send the patient on
PenAir as an urgent patient. However, when they arrived in Cold
Bay and went to the clinic, health providers were concerned
about the airway and contacted emergency room doctors in
Anchorage. Emergency room doctors agreed that due to concerns
with the patient's airway, the patient should not be sent on a
commercial plane. Instead, a medevac airplane was authorized to
come to Cold Bay to pick up the patient and transport him to an
Anchorage hospital.
2. March 12, 2017: an Alaska male in his 30s was treated at the
King Cove Clinic for large lacerations. An Anchorage emergency
room doctor recommended that the patient be medevaced. The
weather was calm and there were no weather delays. The patient
was medevaced by LifeMed from King Cove to an Anchorage
hospital.
3. March 23, 2017: A female King Cove resident (age unknown) was
treated at the King Cove Clinic. The reason for treatment is
not available (from Eastern Aleutian Tribes). An Anchorage
emergency room doctor recommended that the patient be
medevaced. The patient was medevaced from King Cove to
Anchorage via LifeMed.
4. April 12, 2017: a female King Cove resident in her 50s to 60s
was treated at the King Cove Clinic for head trauma. The
visiting physician consulted with an Anchorage hospital
emergency room physician, and it was recommended that the
patient be medevaced. No other details are available from
Eastern Aleutian Tribes.
5. April 26, 2017: A King Cove male in his 30s to 40s was treated
at the King Cove Clinic for head trauma and loss of
consciousness. The visiting physician consulted with an
Anchorage hospital emergency room physician, and it was
recommended that the patient be medevaced. No other details are
available from Eastern Aleutian Tribes.
6. April 26, 2017: A King Cove girl was treated at the King Cove
Clinic at 10 p.m. for suspected appendicitis. The visiting
physician consulted with an Anchorage hospital emergency room
physician, and it was recommended that the patient be medevaced
out due to worsening symptoms. Because it was getting dark
outside, a local airline transported the patient, accompanied
by a health care provider, to Cold Bay. A medevac airline
company medevaced the patient from Cold Bay to Anchorage.
7. May 4, 2017: A King Cove female in her 30s to 40s was treated at
the King Cove Clinic at midnight for a leg injury that occurred
after falling. The visiting physician consulted with an
Anchorage hospital emergency room physician, and it was
recommended that the patient be medevaced. No other details are
available from Eastern Aleutian Tribes.
8. July 3, 2017: A King Cove patient (gender unknown) in their 60s
arrived at the clinic at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Aleutian Tribes
reported that the patient had an internal concern that needed
immediate surgery. After consulting with an emergency room
doctor at ANMC, it was determined that the patient should be
medevaced to Anchorage. The patient was transported on a local
airline and was then transferred to a Guardian plane and
transported to Anchorage.
9. July 24, 2017: A King Cove woman in her 60s arrived at the
community's clinic at 11:45 a.m. and was treated for a possible
drug overdose. Because her condition was deteriorating,
clinicians made arrangements for her to be medevaced. Guardian
Flight departed with the patient from King Cove at 6 p.m. and
transported her to an Anchorage hospital.
10. July 25, 2017: A King Cove male in his 60s was treated at the
King Cove Clinic for respiratory problems. After consulting
with an Anchorage hospital emergency room physician, clinicians
decided to medevac him to Anchorage via Guardian Flight.
11. Sept. 11, 2017: A King Cove male in his 40s was treated at the
King Cove Clinic for an infection. After consulting with an
Anchorage hospital emergency room physician, clinicians decided
to medevac him to Anchorage. He was transported on a local
airline to Cold Bay and then transferred to a Guardian Flight
plane, which then transported the patient to Anchorage.
12. Sept. 15, 2017: A male (non-resident) in his 60s was treated at
the King Cove Clinic for stroke. After consulting with an
Anchorage hospital emergency room physician, clinicians decided
to medevac him to Anchorage. He was transported on a local
airline to Cold Bay and then transferred to a Guardian Flight
plane, which then transported the patient to Anchorage.
13. Oct. 22, 2017: A King Cove male infant was treated at the King
Cove Clinic for respiratory problems. After consulting with an
Anchorage hospital emergency room physician, clinicians decided
to medevac the baby to Anchorage via Guardian Flight.
Total non-Coast Guard medevacs = 9
2017 total# King Cove medevacs--13
0 Coast Guard
13 non-Coast Guard
2016 total# King Cove medevacs = 17
3 Coast Guard
14 non-Coast Guard
2015 total# King Cove medevacs = 22
8 Coast Guard
14 non-Coast Guard
2014 total# of King Cove medevacs = 16
6 Coast Guard
10 non-Coast Guard
Since former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell denied the road in Dec.
2013:
68 total medevacs
17 Coast Guard
51 non-Coast Guard
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Etta, for that very powerful
testimony and for your willingness to come all the way from
Alaska to testify here today. It's very important, and I think
your story, which is indicative of so many other stories, and
what the Coast Guard does, needs to be known in this body,
needs to be known, that an 11-mile gravel road is denied time
and time again, most callously by Sally Jewell the latest time,
where they put the lives of birds above the lives of people,
whether it's you and your daughter or the brave men and women
in the Coast Guard, and it's got to stop. It's outrageous.
Nobody in the lower 48, nobody, would put up with this. But
somehow for 30 years we've had to deal with it, and it's
ridiculous. And you saw the Commandant agrees 100 percent with
you and me. So thank you.
Dr. Meadows.
STATEMENT OF DR. GUY A. MEADOWS, DIRECTOR,
GREAT LAKES RESEARCH CENTER,
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
I am Dr. Guy Meadows, and I am Director of the Great Lakes
Research Center at Michigan Technological University in
Houghton, Michigan.
Our nation's northern coastlines present unique and
demanding challenges in marine operations, and therefore to the
U.S. Coast Guard. Much of the navigable water of Alaska and the
Northeast Atlantic States and the Great Lakes can be classified
as ``icebound seas'' for some part of the year.
For the Upper Great Lakes, access through the Federal locks
at Sault Ste. Marie closes annually from January to March, when
ice shuts down the commercial shipping of the Great Lakes.
During the remainder of the icebound season, it is the
responsibility of the, and I quote, ``U.S. Coast Guard to
assist in keeping open to navigation by means of ice-breaking
operations . . . channels and harbors in accordance with the
reasonable demands of commerce.'' That's from Executive Order
7521 of 1936.
The Guardians of the Great Lakes, the 6,000 men and women
of the Ninth District of the Coast Guard, are responsible for
the five Great Lakes, the Saint Lawrence Seaway, and parts of
the surrounding states, including 6,700 miles of shoreline and
1,500 miles of the international border with Canada.
The Inland Seas of the Great Lakes are massive natural
resources for the United States and Canada. Consider the Great
Lakes as inland seas. Strung end-to-end, the Great Lakes would
cover most of the U.S. East Coast and continental shelf from
Maine to mid-Florida.
The Great Lakes forms the largest group of freshwater lakes
on Earth by total area, and second largest by total volume,
containing 21 percent of the world's surface freshwater supply
by volume. The United States are 84 percent of the surface
water supply in North America. And more than 35 million people
rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, jobs, and
their way of life. This number includes 8 percent of the U.S.
population and 32 percent of the Canadian population. Much of
the world's fresh water is threatened by contamination and
desertification. The Great Lakes also face toxic and nutrient
pollution, invasive species introduction, and habitat and
fisheries degradation.
Last month, October 24 through 26, during the Lake Superior
storm, the waves along the southern shore reached a height of
28.8 feet, the largest waves ever recorded in the Great Lakes.
The federally operated wave and meteorological buoys along the
center of the Great Lakes and Michigan Tech's coastal
monitoring buoys near shore are registering increases in both
the number of storms and their severity. This wave phenomena is
not unique to the Great Lakes, but presents--but is present
along most of the Nation's coastline. And throughout these
storms, it is the U.S. Coast Guard that responds.
Oil has spilled in the seas of all four of our coastlines:
the Atlantic, the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and to a much lesser
extent, in the Great Lakes. Perhaps fortunately, due to the
lack of exposure and incidents, the science of oil and oil
cleanup in fresh water lags far behind that of our ocean
counterparts. This fact, coupled with the complexities of
icebound coasts, provide challenges in disaster preparedness
along our Alaskan and Great Lakes coastlines. As ice begins to
appear along our icebound coasts, research and supply ships,
tugs, and barges all become frozen in the harbors and channels.
This is true also for the environmental monitoring buoys that,
at the present level of technology, cannot survive a major ice
season at sea.
When these disasters occur, natural or manmade, it is the
Coast Guard that is first to be called and first on the scene
while being ``scientifically blind'' to actual environmental
conditions of wind, waves, and currents.
The U.S. Coast Guard, in partnership with the Nation's
research universities and Federal partners, is capable of
developing advanced technologies to reduce the risk and to
decrease response times. Surface environmental monitoring buoys
can be replaced by underwater sensing platforms that are
capable of remaining and providing valuable information through
icebound seasons. Unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles can
provide valuable onsite information. Full unmanned and
autonomous surface vessels are currently being used in
conjunction with geophysical survey ships in the Gulf of Mexico
and offshore of the Alaska coastline. These new technologies
hold great promise for advancing the Coast Guard's mission and
providing safety for its personnel.
If we expect when needed the Coast Guard will save lives,
enforce the law, operate ports and waterways, we should first
invest in the science and technology necessary for the Coast
Guard to successfully execute their missions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Meadows follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Guy A. Meadows, Director, Great Lakes
Research Center, Michigan Technological University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee--I am Dr. Guy Meadows
and I am the Director of the Great Lakes Research Center at Michigan
Technology University in Houghton, Michigan.
Our nation's northern coastlines present unique and demanding
challenges in marine operations and therefore to the U.S. Coast Guard.
Much of the navigable waters of the Alaskan, Northeast Atlantic States
and the Great Lakes can be classified as ``Ice Bound Coasts,'' for some
part of the year. For the Upper Great Lakes, access through the Federal
Locks at Sault Ste. Marie closes annually from January through March
when ice shuts down commercial shipping on the Great Lakes. During the
remainder of the ice bound season it is the responsibility of the
``U.S. Coast Guard to assist in keeping open to navigation by means of
ice breaking operations . . . channels and harbors in accordance with
the reasonable demands of commerce.'' (Executive Order 7521, 1936). The
Guardians of the Great Lakes, the 6,000 men and women of the Ninth
District of the Coast Guard are responsible for the five Great Lakes,
the Saint Lawrence Seaway and parts of the surrounding states including
6,700 miles of shoreline and 1,500 miles of the international border
with Canada.
The Inland Seas of the Great Lakes are a massive natural resource
for the United States and Canada. Consider the Great Lakes as inland
seas. Strung end-to-end, the Great Lakes would cover most of the U.S.
East Coast and Continental Shelf from Maine to mid-Florida.
The Great Lakes form the largest group of freshwater lakes
on Earth by total area, and second largest by total volume
containing 21 percent of the world's surface fresh water by
volume;
The Great Lakes are 84 percent of the surface water supply
in North America;
More than 35 million people rely on the Great Lakes for
their drinking water, jobs, and their way of life. That number
includes 8 percent of the U.S. population and 32 percent of the
Canadian population; and
Much of the world's freshwater is threatened by
contamination and desertification. The Great Lakes also face
toxic and nutrient pollution, invasive species introductions,
and habitat and fisheries degradation.
Last month, October 24-26, during the Lake Superior storm, the
waves along the southern shore reached a height of 28.8 feet--the
largest waves ever recorded in the Great Lakes. The federally operated
wave and meteorological measuring buoys along the center of the Great
Lakes and Michigan Tech's coast monitoring buoys near shore, are
registering increases in both the number of major storms and their
severity. This wave phenomenon is not unique to the Great Lakes, but
present along most of our Nation's coastlines. And throughout these
storms, it is the U.S. Coast Guard that responds.
Oil has spilled in the seas of all four of our coastlines; the
Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and to a much lesser extent, in the
Great Lakes. Perhaps fortunately, due to lack of exposure and incident,
the science of oil and oil cleanup in freshwater lags far behind that
of our ocean counterparts. This fact, coupled with the complexities of
ice bound coasts provide challenges in disaster preparedness along our
Alaskan and Great Lakes shorelines. As the ice begins to appear along
our ice bound coasts, research, supply ships, tugs and barges all
become frozen at shore in harbors and channels. This is true also for
our environmental monitoring buoys, that, at the present level of
technology, cannot survive a major ice season at sea.
When these disasters occur, natural or manmade, it is the Coast
Guard that is first to be called and first on the scene, while being
``scientifically blind'' to actual environmental conditions of winds,
waves and currents.
The U.S. Coast Guard, in partnership with the Nation's research
universities and other Federal partners, is capable of deploying
advanced technologies to reduce their risk and to decrease response
times. Surface environmental monitoring buoys can be replaced by
underwater sensor platforms that are capable of remaining and providing
valuable information through ice bound seasons. Unmanned surface and
sub-surface vehicles can provide valuable, ``on site'' information.
Full unmanned and autonomous surface vessels are currently being used
in conjunction with geophysical survey ships in the Gulf of Mexico and
offshore of the Alaska coastline. These new technologies hold great
promise for advancing the Coast Guard mission and providing safety for
its personnel.
If we expect that when needed the Coast Guard will save lives,
enforce the law, and operate ports and waterways, we should first
invest in the science and technology necessary for the Coast Guard to
successfully execute their missions.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Dr. Meadows.
Mr. Smithson.
STATEMENT OF LEE W. SMITHSON, DIRECTOR,
MISSISSIPPI EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Smithson. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan and Ranking
Member Peters, for allowing me the opportunity to provide you a
statement for the record on our nation's Coast Guard.
As Senator Wicker said, I'm Lee Smithson, the Director of
the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency. I was appointed to
this emergency management position after retiring from the
Mississippi National Guard, where I served as a Colonel and the
Director of Military Support. In both of these roles, I have
worked with the U.S. Coast Guard on numerous events along the
Mississippi Gulf Coast and the Mississippi River. The longest
and most notable was from April until late summer 2010 during
the BP-Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill
that devastated the Gulf of Mexico.
I was sent by then Governor Haley Barbour to the
Mississippi Gulf Coast to assist with the establishment of a
Unified Command Post for Deepwater Horizon. From the beginning,
Mississippi's relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard, the
mandated lead Federal agency, had significant challenges.
Mississippi responders were well versed in emergency
response operations and the need for an integrated local,
state, and Federal partnership. This was because of our
experiences during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Katrina taught us
that the only way to ensure the needs of citizens are served is
by close collaboration and a unified approach to all actions.
While the Coast Guard was instrumental in Katrina response,
especially in New Orleans, they were not the lead Federal
agency. Deepwater Horizon was different, and the Coast Guard
was designated as the Federal on-scene coordinator. The lessons
we learned during Katrina were the same lessons that the Coast
Guard learned during Deepwater Horizon, but it took until the
middle of June for the Coast Guard to fully obtain a firm grasp
on the need for a unified approach.
Now, gentlemen, in the years since the oil spill, it is
very apparent that the Coast Guard has worked diligently in
establishing a positive rapport with its local, state, and
other Federal partners. In fact, gentlemen, it is my opinion
that no other Federal agency has done more to learn the nuances
of a unified approach to disaster response and consequence
management than the United States Coast Guard. My agency
frequently meets with the Coast Guard, and we have conducted
numerous joint training exercises, ranging from search and
rescue operations to a weapon of mass destruction response
exercise.
In recent years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
has championed the ``Whole of Community'' concept. This concept
brings together residents, emergency management officials,
organizations, and community leaders, along with government
officials to collectively assess the needs of each community.
It is also vital in determining the best ways to organize and
strengthen assets, capabilities, capacities, and interests. In
Mississippi, we lead the way in our ``Whole of Community''
approach with the adage that no one gets left behind. We work
hard every day to foster partnerships with our local, state,
and Federal agencies and organizations to facilitate effective
response to and recovery from disasters.
When Hurricane Nate struck my state last month, the
preparedness and mitigation efforts undertaken since Hurricane
Katrina produced no injuries and minimal damage to our coastal
communities. Our comprehensive emergency planning with entities
like the Coast Guard exemplified our ability to prepare not
only the public and their property, but local governments, more
than 48 hours prior to landfall. There were only two rescues
that needed to be made during Hurricane Nate, but the
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and our operations along
with U.S. Coast Guard Sector Mobile and U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Lower Mississippi River had us prepared to do many, many more
rescues.
In addition, the Federal investments in mitigation made
since 2005 in Mississippi showed a tremendous return on
investment as we saw very little damage to our homes, property,
or infrastructure. Gentlemen, I guarantee you, had we not
received the Federal dollars in mitigation funding post-
Katrina, we would have seen tens of millions of dollars in
damage caused by Nate.
While I'm not here today to discuss budgets, I would like
to leave you with this thought: If the Coast Guard had
additional resources, my counterparts and I across the Nation
would be able to have more direct access to Coast Guard
personnel, especially if they were stationed inside our State
Emergency Operation Centers, and this is on a daily basis, not
just when we have a disaster looming.
In the 16 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks on
our nation, all too often our leaders have forgotten how
important it is to maintain a constant state of readiness.
Readiness translates to resources. Our Coast Guard must have
highly qualified, motivated, and dedicated service members.
Their equipment must be modern and fully functional. As our
Nation's only multi-role, military force, we must have a Coast
Guard that can perform each of its missions in a superlative
manner.
I am proud of my agency's relationship with the U.S. Coast
Guard, and I'm committed to maintaining this rapport.
Thank you, gentlemen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smithson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lee W. Smithson, Director,
Mississippi Emergency Management Agency
Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and
distinguished members of the Committee, for allowing me the opportunity
to provide you with a statement for the record on our Nation's Coast
Guard. I am Lee Smithson, the Director of the Mississippi Emergency
Management Agency. I was appointed to this emergency management
position after retiring from the Mississippi National Guard where I
served as a Colonel and the Director of Military Support. In both
roles, I have worked with the U.S. Coast Guard on numerous events along
the Mississippi Gulf Coast and Mississippi River. The longest and most
notable was in April 2010 during the BP-Deepwater Horizon explosion and
subsequent oil spill that devastated the Gulf of Mexico.
I was sent, by then Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, to the
Mississippi Gulf Coast to assist with the establishment of a Unified
Command Post for Deepwater Horizon. From the beginning, Mississippi's
relationship with the Coast Guard, the mandated lead response agency to
the spill, had significant challenges.
Mississippi responders were well-versed in emergency response
operations and the need for an integrated local, state and Federal
partnership because of our experiences during Hurricane Katrina in
2005. Katrina taught us that the only way to ensure the needs of
citizens are served is by close collaboration and a unified approach to
all actions. While the Coast Guard was instrumental in the Katrina
response, especially in New Orleans, they were not the lead Federal
agency. Deepwater Horizon was different and the Coast Guard was
designated as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator. The lessons we learned
during Katrina were the same lessons the Coast Guard had to learn
during Deepwater Horizon. It took until middle of June for the Coast
Guard to obtain a firm grasp on the need for a unified approach.
In the years since the Oil Spill, it is very apparent that the
Coast Guard has worked diligently in establishing a positive rapport
with its local, state and Federal partners. In fact, it is my opinion
that no other Federal agency has done more to learn the nuances of a
unified approach to disaster response and consequence management than
the U.S. Coast Guard. My agency frequently meets with the Coast Guard
and we have conducted numerous joint training exercises ranging from
search and rescue to a weapon of mass destruction response.
In recent years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has
championed the ``Whole of Community'' concept. This concept brings
together residents, emergency management officials, organizations and
community leaders, along with government officials to collectively
assess the needs of each community communities. It also vital in
determining the best ways to organize and strengthen assets,
capacities, and interests. In Mississippi, we lead the way in our whole
community approach with the adage that no one gets left out. We work
hard every day to foster partnerships with all our local, state and
Federal agencies and organizations to facilitate effective response and
recover to disasters.
When Hurricane Nate struck my state last month, the preparedness
and mitigation efforts undertaken since Hurricane Katrina produced no
injuries and minimal damage to our coastal communities. Our
comprehensive emergency planning, with entities like the U.S. Coast
Guard, exemplified our ability to prepare not only the public and their
property, but local governments as well more than 48 hours before
landfall. There were only two rescues that needed to be made during
Hurricane Nate, but the coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard in our
operations center along with the USCG Sector Mobile and USCG Sector
Lower Mississippi River had us prepared to do many more. In addition,
the Federal investments to mitigation made since 2005 in Mississippi,
showed a tremendous return on investment as we saw very little serious
damage to homes, public property or infrastructure. I guarantee you,
had we not received the Federal support in mitigation funding post
Katrina, we would have seen tens of millions of dollars in damage
caused by Nate, a category one hurricane.
While I'm not here today to discuss budgets, I would like to leave
you with this thought: If the Coast Guard had additional resources, I
and my counterparts across the Nation would be able to have more direct
contact with Coast Guard personnel if they were stationed inside our
emergency operations centers on a daily basis, not just during large
scale emergencies. In the sixteen years since the September 11
terrorist attacks on our nation, all too often our leaders have
forgotten how important it is to maintain a constant state of
readiness. Readiness translates to resources. Our Coast Guard must have
highly qualified, motivated and dedicated service members. Their
equipment must be modern and fully functional. As our Nation's only
multi-role military force, we must have a coast guard that can perform
each of its missions in a superlative manner. I'm proud of my agency's
relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard and I am committed to
maintaining that rapport.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today.
Senator Sullivan. All right. Well, I want to thank all
three of the witnesses here for your compelling testimony.
Ms. Kuzakin, I want to begin with you. You know, the
Commandant mentioned, and I think your testimony underscored
the whole idea of ``You can't put a dollar figure on a life,''
whether it's the life of your daughter or the life of a Coast
Guardsman who's doing the rescues.
But you also talked about this issue of peace of mind. And
can you focus on that a little bit more? I think that to be
perfectly honestly, and, again, I know I keep emphasizing it,
but if you live in a city in the lower 48, you don't have to
worry about, you know, getting to the hospital on time for the
most part to deliver your baby. But in King Cove, that's a
worry. The peace of mind element I think is really important
for this committee to hear about that. Can you expound upon
that a little bit, please?
Ms. Kuzakin. Peace of mind, for an example, right now in
King Cove, we're having a great windstorm. When we have
windstorms, when we get up in the morning, the first thing we
think about is the safety of everybody in town because we know
that if somebody gets hurt, they're not getting out.
Senator Sullivan. So you have a--so there's a big
windstorm, and we get a lot of windstorms in King Cove.
Ms. Kuzakin. Right now it's gusting to 75. I talked to my
husband last night, and it was--and that's a normal day. And it
is where we choose to live, but----
Senator Sullivan. It's a beautiful place.
Ms. Kuzakin. But when we get up in the morning and the wind
is blowing like that, we don't have any peace of mind. If we
see the ambulance out, it is--it's heartbreaking to our entire
community because we are very tight-knit and we know that that
person isn't getting out unless we can get them out on a boat
blowing 70, and I don't know if anybody has ever seen seas like
that, but it's horrendous and it's scary. Or if the Coast Guard
can make it in. And there's no peace of mind when it comes to
that.
And I raise my--you know, I have three beautiful children,
and I--you know, if they break an arm--for people here, it's
just as easy as going to the hospital and getting that taken
care of. It's not that easy at home. When they break an arm and
it's severe, that means that we've got to find a way to get
out.
Senator Sullivan. And can you explain again, because I
think in Alaska we understand this issue intuitively, but
there's an alterative that can provide a lot more peace of
mind, and it's the road, correct?
Ms. Kuzakin. Yes. It's--right now we have--the only stretch
that we are needing to finish is 11 miles.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. And by the way, you know, previous
testimony of the people who oppose this say, ``Oh, it's this
area that there are no roads, there's no--,'' you know, I was
out there this summer, I flew over it, there's a whole network
of roads that already exist within the refuge, right?
Ms. Kuzakin. Right. And those roads were made by the Army
way back when, and they're all over in there.
Senator Sullivan. Well, the notion that there are no roads
in the refuge is completely false.
Ms. Kuzakin. That is completely incorrect.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. And that gets spun by a lot of
people who don't want you guys to have--or us to have the road.
Ms. Kuzakin. No, that is completely incorrect. The Izembek
is full of roads, and we're just asking to connect a small
portion so that we can have help and safety to get our people
out if needed.
Senator Sullivan. A gravel road?
Ms. Kuzakin. Yes. A gravel--a one-lane, non-commercial
gravel road.
Senator Sullivan. That can bring literally hundreds of
American citizens peace of mind that most Americans wake up,
and when they see 70-mile-an-hour winds, don't have--their
first thought doesn't--being, ``Oh, my goodness, I hope my son
doesn't break his arm today.''
Ms. Kuzakin. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. I think it's just outrageous that
we've spent 30 years trying to deal with this. I'm so glad
you're here, and I really, really appreciate your compelling
testimony.
Mr. Smithson, I want to ask you about--you raise a really
good point about kind of interoperability and integration with
what you're doing and what the Coast Guard does. Can you talk
about where--you've already mentioned in your testimony where
you think that that's working well, but where are areas that we
can improve and that the Coast Guard can improve? And how can
Congress, if at all, help in that kind of interoperability,
seamless operations that you seem to have led and done such a
good job at in your community?
Mr. Smithson. Well, Senator Sullivan, it all begins with
relationships, and I think that that is absolutely key. You
know, the first time that I dealt with at that time Captain
Poulin, who was the captain of the Coast Guard Sector Mobile,
was after the oil started flowing from the Deepwater Horizon.
So one of the biggest issues that we can improve on with
regards to interagency operations is to establish those
relationships, conduct the joint training exercises, and do
those more and more frequently as budgets will allow, so--and,
again, to get rid of the stovepipes. We've done a very, very
good job of doing training exercises with the Coast Guard. And
then we'll do an exercise with the National Guard. Then we'll
do an exercise with the Department of Homeland Security.
But it's absolutely imperative that we pool those resources
and conduct joint training assignment--or, I'm sorry, joint
exercises across the entire spectrum. We've got to tear those
stovepipes down, and that saves on resources as well.
Senator Sullivan. So you're very focused on training
realistically so when there's a real-world contingency, you're
not learning this for the first time, and you're able to kind
of get a sense of what those stovepipes are, break them down
during training exercises so you don't have to deal with them
in real-world contingencies, correct?
Mr. Smithson. Yes, sir. At the end of the day, it all--it
all revolves around preparedness.
Senator Sullivan. Great. That's an excellent example. Thank
you.
Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, thank you to the three witnesses, really
outstanding testimony from all three of you. And it's certainly
clear, from each of the statements that you've made, how
important the Coast Guard is to our country, to the citizens of
this nation, whether it's rescuing folks in very tough weather
in Alaska or in 28-foot seas in Lake Superior or disasters on
an oil rig, the Coast Guard always responds.
When I think about lifesaving missions in particular, by
definition, that's really bad weather when they go out there.
It's when no one else wants to go out, and, in fact, when folks
are out there, they've gotten into serious trouble; and, yet,
the men and the women of the Coast Guard saddle up basically
and go out and take on some pretty, pretty difficult jobs.
But in addition to that, I want to ask you questions
related to this, Dr. Meadows. In addition to the lifesaving
operations of the Coast Guard, protecting our environment and
protecting our resources is a critical part of the Coast Guard
mission as well. And we are particularly--both you and I share
our concern with the Great Lakes, given the fact that it does
provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people, not to
mention recreational resources and all of the other great
benefits of the Great Lakes, but we have to make sure that
we're protecting it for future generations going forward.
And I am particularly concerned about an oil spill there.
We heard from the Commandant as to the state of preparedness
when it comes to handling freshwater spills, which is not where
it should be. We need to do a whole lot more, both from a
technological standpoint as well as from basic research as to
how oil mixes with freshwater and the challenges associated
with that.
But before I get to some broader questions, I want to drill
down a little bit to an issue related to Line 5, which I
mentioned in my opening comments, which is the oil pipeline
between the Upper and Lower Peninsula.
In June, the State of Michigan was owed an analysis on the
risk posed by Line 5, but due to conflicts of interest, the
original risk analysis had to be discarded, as you're well
aware. The Michigan Pipeline Advisory Board has recommended you
to lead this new review team that will conduct a thorough
analysis of the risk that Line 5 poses to the Great Lakes and
to the entire Great Lakes region.
So my question to you is, What will go into this risk
analysis? And what do we need to do to fully understand the
threat that this pipeline poses to the Great Lakes?
Dr. Meadows. Thank you, Senator Peters. As you indicated,
the state has asked me to organize state universities to
respond to the scope of work that was failed in the first
attempt. I'm very happy and proud to report that we have formed
our teams. That has been ongoing now for the last couple of
months. There are nine Michigan universities and two
universities external to the State of Michigan that have
contributed highly qualified experts in this area.
We have divided ourselves--I'm a seagoing oceanographer, so
I spend a lot of time on ships--just as the way a research ship
is organized. There will be a chief scientist in each of the
nine areas. There will be a lead person from Michigan Tech in
each of those areas to coordinate amongst the areas. It's a
total of 41 researchers that will address the issues specified
by the state in the scope of work. And the ultimate objective
then is to assess the worst-case scenario, to use advanced
computing capabilities that we have at Michigan Tech to
determine the fate and transport of that worst-case spill and
then to assess all impacts of that financially as well as on
the people of the Great Lakes.
I'm proud also to report that the Ann Arbor NOAA
Laboratory, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
is contributing two people from their hydrodynamic team to
assist with that numerical computations, and the university has
set aside, Michigan Tech University has set aside, a
significant portion of their supercomputer cluster so that we
can do those calculations at great resolution and with great
fidelity.
Senator Peters. Well, Dr. Meadows, as you know, I mentioned
this to the Commandant. In the Coast Guard authorization bill,
we have language to create a national center of expertise that
will focus on improving freshwater oil response, which the
concept is to bring academic resources, to bring the resources
of the Coast Guard, resources from private industry as well,
together for a center that will look beyond just Line 5, as
important as that is, but look at the broader issue of how we
deal with freshwater response and all sorts of bodies of fresh
water, particularly with this web of pipelines that we have all
across the country.
Could you speak to the importance of having a national
center of expertise and what you think could come out of that?
Dr. Meadows. In my view, that is extremely critical. As I
indicated, we are far behind our ocean coasts in this critical
area. There are some unique capabilities that exist throughout
the Great Lakes, and working with the Coast Guard would be an
honor and a privilege to bring this to the Great Lakes.
And one of the things about the Great Lakes, they respond
exactly the way the oceans do, but we like to say that there is
one important difference, and it's that 30-some million people
that drink the water. So in many ways, our ability to predict
the fate and transport of all types of pollutants in the Great
Lakes is advanced more so than on our ocean coasts, and some of
the reason is they're enclosed seas, they're bounded, so the
boundary conditions are a little bit better, but the other
reason is there has been tremendous work in the Great Lakes to
be able to accurately predict where nasty things go so
Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit can close down their municipal
water intakes. So it is a very important thing for the Great
Lakes. And the oil piece has been sorely missed.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Great. I just have two more follow-up
questions.
Dr. Meadows, there has been a lot of talk about
icebreakers. I think you see Senator Peters and I were highly
motivated to get the Coast Guard authorization bill voted on,
on the Senator floor and moved. So this hearing I think
provides additional motivation for us.
A lot of discussion you saw earlier on icebreakers and some
discussion in Senator Peters' testimony about recovering oil
from fresh water versus salt water in terms of spills. Can you
also talk about how ice complicates the cleanup process or may
complicate it either in fresh or salt water?
Dr. Meadows. As the Commandant indicated, the presence of
ice makes it almost an impossible situation. And we share with
our Alaskan colleagues very, very strong winds, particularly in
this time of year. Again, 77 miles an hour is tremendous, and
we experienced similar things a few weeks ago. So the
difficulty of an icebound coastline with large chunks of ice
being tossed around by enormous waves in these very strong
winds makes it almost impossible.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask one other follow-up question
for Ms. Kuzakin.
I know you followed very closely, and I mentioned it, and
it's notorious in Alaska, the ``Christmas Eve lump of coal''
that we received from Secretary--former Secretary Jewell. And
in that, she mentioned that there were alternative methods,
alternative avenues, instead of constructing a road to
providing the residents of King Cove safety and peace of mind.
Are there? Do you believe there are?
Ms. Kuzakin. No.
Senator Sullivan. I think it's very unconvincing that there
are, from your testimony. What do you believe on that?
Ms. Kuzakin. The answer is no. And we have looked at them
all. Again, this--we've been doing this for 35 years, so this
isn't something new. We have looked at everything. We have
looked--I mean, any suggestion that was made that made some
sense, we tried. We have tried everything. And now we're at the
only thing that's left, which is the road, which is what we
asked for in the beginning.
Senator Sullivan. So her notion in 2013 that there was an
alternative is not accurate?
Ms. Kuzakin. It is not.
Senator Sullivan. And one that they've talked about a lot,
``Well, just get in a boat and hop on over from King Cove to
Cold Bay.'' What's it like to get in a boat when the wind is
gusting at 70 miles an hour? Like what would it be like to get
in a boat to do that boat ride today?
Ms. Kuzakin. It's horrific. For people--you just don't
understand when you're--when the boat is going straight up and
all you see is the sky because that's how high the boat is
flipping up. And when it smacks down, and you've got to think
if you're sick or injured or you have your children onboard, to
be--and then that's not even the fun part. The fun part is
getting up the 30-foot ladder in Cold Bay that is made of
metal, and when it's icy and windy and you're holding on, it's
absolutely terrifying.
Senator Sullivan. So when you were rescued by the Coast
Guard, heroically by the members of the Coast Guard, during
your pregnancy and delivery, would a boat have been an
alternative, like Secretary Jewell implied in her decision? Was
that an alternative for you that day?
Ms. Kuzakin. No, it was not. There would have been--there
would have been no boat big enough to, first of all, have all
the doctors on the boat, or anybody that--you know, the mid-
levels with me to get up to Cold Bay, and then to try to get me
up the ladder would be--I just wouldn't have been able to do
it. I was in labor. There was no way a boat could have--could
have brought me over there. No.
Senator Sullivan. Well, listen, I want to thank all the
witnesses again for your testimony, for flying here to
Washington to present on really, as Senator Peters mentioned,
just--these are important anecdotes, more broadly speaking, of
the daily heroism that we see in our Coast Guard. And I think
you've all witnessed it, we've all witnessed it, but to hear it
directly from people who have experienced it, understand it,
it's very important and powerful for this Committee, and
hopefully it's going to bring about an emphasis not only to fix
things like the road, but also to make sure we're fully funding
and moving forward with our Coast Guard authorization bill
that, again, passed this Committee with strong bipartisan
support. So thank you for doing that.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. During
this time, Senators may submit additional questions for the
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are respectfully requested
to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as
possible.
And, again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing
today. All three of you did an outstanding job.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. The Coast Guard is nearing the end of the
recapitalization process for National Security Cutters. These vessels
have been hugely successful from a capability and mission success
standpoint. Have final homeporting decisions been made, and is Kodiak
going to receive a replacement for its current High Endurance Cutter
MUNRO?
Answer. The Coast Guard has made final homeporting decisions for
all planned National Security Cutters (NSCs) (Hulls 1 through 9) as
well as the first four Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs). Kodiak, AK is
scheduled to receive two Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs), (Hulls 3 and
4) in FY 2023 and FY 2024 to replace the USCGC DOUGLAS MUNRO and the
USCGC ALEX HALEY.
Question 2. The Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program,
housed in NOAA, is an interagency program that leverages ocean
observing assets across multiple Federal agencies, state and local
agencies and the private sector. We understand the Coast Guard relies
on assets and data products provided by the IOOS Program, including
wave buoys, high frequency radars measuring surface currents used in
search and rescue and oil spill response preparations, and in Alaska,
AIS transmitters that disseminate weather and safety information to
mariners. As maritime activity in the Arctic increases, does the Coast
Guard see these capabilities as aiding in managing the risk of maritime
accidents and the agency's effective response to marine casualties?
Does the Coast Guard see other ways the tools provided by IOOS can be
an asset in fulfilling the Service's missions in the Arctic?
Answer. As maritime activity in the Arctic region increases, IOOS
and other NOAA capabilities will likely aid the Service's ability to
manage risk and to effectively respond to marine casualties.
IOOS information specific to the Alaskan region, https://
ioos.noaa.gov/regions/aoos/, may assist the Coast Guard in gaining
background information about the Arctic Ocean; oceanographic data,
e.g., surface current data tracked by high frequency radar;
meteorological data; and sea ice concentration.
Question 3. Does the Coast Guard have a sundown date for supporting
CENTCOM FIFTH Fleet operations in the Arabian Gulf? And if not, are
there plans to replace those aging Island Class Patrol Boats with FRCs?
Answer. In 2003, the Coast Guard assigned six Coast Guard 110-foot
Island Class Patrol Boats and a shore support detachment in Bahrain and
Kuwait to support vital CENTCOM mission requirements. An analysis of
the Island Class Patrol Boat hulls completed in 2017 estimates that
they will reach their End of Service Life in Fiscal Year 2022, due to
material condition and lack of any available remaining weight and
stability margins to update weapons and communication systems needed in
the current threat environment.
Replacing the six Island Class Patrol Boats with Coast Guard 154-
foot Sentinel Class Fast Response Cutters would deliver a superior
asset with additional capability that meets CENTCOM's requirements.
However, the Coast Guard's current 58-ship Fast Response Cutter program
of record only includes hulls required to support domestic Coast Guard
missions.
CENTCOM leadership continues to express the need to sustain the
mission conducted by Coast Guard cutters, and is aware the Coast Guard
is not currently resourced for FRCs above the current program of
record.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question. Over the past many weeks, my staff has worked closely
with the Coast Guard and the National Response Center regarding
reporting requirements for agricultural operations under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act--
more commonly referred to as CERCLA. Earlier this year, the U.S.
District Court for the DC Circuit ruled that animal operations would
need to submit reports to the NRC under CERCLA. I am very appreciative
of the NRC's willingness to meet with agriculture stakeholders while
also working with the EPA to explore solutions that provide livestock
and poultry producers' relief from these unnecessary reporting
requirements. On November 2, 2017, the NRC communicated to my office
that ``At the current NRC resource levels, an influx of calls will
cause tremendous wait times for all callers. This may result in extreme
delays in incident notifications, or even failure altogether in
receiving reports and disseminating time critical incident
information.''
Does the Coast Guard agree with this statement from the National
Response Center to Senator Fischer's office? And can the Coast Guard
please outline the impacts an additional 100,000 reports will have on
the purpose of the National Response Center to process real
emergencies?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard agrees with the statement from the
National Response Center to Senator Fischer's office.
Receiving 100,000 additional agricultural reports under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) would impact the National Response Center (NRC) operations.
The NRC is the single point of contact in the United States and its
territories for fielding reports of all oil/hazmat, railroad, and
maritime security incidents. The increased volume of reports associated
with the new CERCLA reporting requirement would negatively affect the
NRC's ability to serve the National Response Team's 15 member agencies
and associated stakeholder agencies, and could divert existing
resources away from immediate time critical release reporting as the
NRC processes these non-time critical release reports. Such action has
the potential to limit the effectiveness of the National Response
System.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question. The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
required all branches of the Armed Forces to implement a Blended
Retirement System by January 1, 2018. A component of this system is
``Continuation Pay,'' an incentive bonus to improve personnel
retention. While the other Services have the benefit of funding
Continuation Pay through a trust fund, the Coast Guard has no similar
funding mechanism. As you know, I worked with Members of this Committee
and the Armed Services Committee with the hope of achieving a one-time,
permanent fix to the Coast Guard's funding predicament. We were
successful in getting a short-term resolution in the 2018 NDAA;
however, I know there are longer-term impacts. Could you explain, in
operational terms, what the impacts are in the near-term and long-term
if Congress doesn't legislate a permanent solution?
Answer. The Coast Guard is extremely thankful for the assistance
that you and your staff provided with respect to implementation of the
Blended Retirement System (BRS). Your commitment to providing the Coast
Guard a legislative remedy to resource this new retirement system
garnered widespread Congressional support and served as the impetus to
bring numerous committees, staffs, and Members together on the issue.
Unfortunately, the short-term remedy delivered in the 2018 NDAA did
not provide the Coast Guard relief to the challenges of implementing
BRS Continuation Pay (CP) as it did not specifically authorize CP
payment from the Service's Retired Pay mandatory appropriation. While
we are very thankful for the legislative language that you drafted for
the NDAA with respect to CP--a version that did authorize CP
specifically from the Coast Guard's Retired Pay appropriation--the
final NDAA language did not include such an authorization.
That being said, it was, without a doubt, your legislative efforts
that served as the essential building block for the short-term remedy
that was delivered in the FY18 Continuing Resolution (CR)--specific
authorization to fund BRS CP from the Coast Guard's Retired Pay
mandatory appropriation. Unfortunately, that authorization only lasts
for the duration of the CR, so the Coast Guard still requires a
permanent fix to the BRS funding predicament.
Absent such legislative reform, the Service will be forced to
compete its CP retirement entitlement against operational funding
levels--competition that will degrade our steady-state force profile
and reduce our operational capabilities. In order to fund CP the
Service may face one of the following trade-offs: a 2 percent reduction
in operational fuel funding, a 9 percent reduction in military
accession and training programs, or a 0.1 percent reduction of the
military force.
On 1 January 2018, the Coast Guard began implementing the new
retirement system that may serve over 30,000 of our members. Thanks to
your attention to this issue and the legislative remedy in the CR we
have begun that implementation without flaw. To continue that success,
we request your continued support to providing a permanent fix.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Budget: The Coast Guard, one of the five armed
services, continues to support combatant commanders and national
defense missions, but the vast majority of your budget is categorized
as non-defense discretionary spending. What must happen to properly
categorize the Coast Guard's funding and align the Coast Guard's
funding level with the Service's needs?
Answer. Since 2001, Congress has annually appropriated $340 million
to the Coast Guard's Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation for non-
emergency, defense-related activities (i.e., Function 050). In 2001,
$340 million accounted for approximately 9 percent of the Coast Guard's
budget.
Despite our Service's enduring and increasing support to DOD
Combatant Commanders and defense operations, the Coast Guard continues
to receive only $340 million today, which now accounts for 4 percent of
the Coast Guard's budget.
According to the Coast Guard's Mission Cost Model, the Coast Guard
expended $842 million (not including personnel costs) in FY 2016
operating expenses (OE) on defense-related activities. This figure
includes Coast Guard support to drug interdiction detection and
monitoring in the transit zone. When the cost of personnel is included,
this figure increases to $1,828 million in FY 2016 operating expenses
(OE).
Appropriations other than OE, including Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements (AC&I), Reserve Training (RT), and Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) do not directly contribute to
defense-related activities, but support these missions indirectly by
contributing mission-ready assets and personnel. The estimate for these
appropriations' indirect support to defense-related activities was $845
million in FY 2016.
In total, the Coast Guard's annual support (including both direct
and indirect) to defense-related activities is more than $2.7 billion
(including personnel costs), while our function 050 funding
appropriation continues to be $340 million.
Question 2. Maritime Industry Innovation: Natural and human-caused
disruptions to ports and waterways can have cascading negative effects
on national and economic security. How does the Coast Guard plan to
keep pace with the maritime industry's push for innovation and the
incorporation of emerging technologies without impeding the free flow
of commerce?
Answer. The Coast Guard meets these challenges through the
establishment of National Centers of Expertise, implementation of
robust marine inspector qualification and training programs, improved
management and oversight of key marine safety processes, and continued
strong engagement with key industry segments.
In addition, the Coast Guard is developing a strategy to address a
growing number of factors that threaten the uninterrupted flow of
maritime commerce, such as the increasing complexity and accelerated
pace of innovation by the maritime industry. The strategy will provide
a framework that outlines the Coast Guard's vision over the next decade
for sustaining America's maritime economic security.
Question 3. Infrastructure Damage: In the 2000s, the Coast Guard
facility in Great Inagua, Bahamas suffered significant damage as a
result of a hurricane. Subsequently, this facility was rebuilt to be
more resilient to extreme weather. In this year's hurricane season,
this facility only suffered minimal damage. In October, Rear Admirals
Kelly and Bouboulis testified that the Coast Guard has over one billion
dollars in shore infrastructure backlog comprised of nearly one hundred
projects. Would this backlog figure (one billion dollars) rebuild and
repair the Coast Guard's infrastructure to make it more resilient to
extreme weather in the future?
Answer. The Coast Guard constructs shore infrastructure by
incorporating the appropriate building ``risk category'' as part of the
design process required by the American Society of Civil Engineers-
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-
series). Additionally, Coast Guard shore infrastructure is constructed
in accordance with International building codes and local building
codes when there are more stringent codes due to localized
vulnerabilities to natural disasters.
Question 4. Hurricane Response: In response to the hurricanes,
Coast Guard helicopters flew almost sixteen hundred hours, more than
twice the number they would ordinarily fly. Coast Guard planes flew
over fourteen hundred hours, almost double the number of hours any one
plane would normally fly in a year. Similarly, Coast Guard inland river
vessels have operated over six hundred hours beyond what they otherwise
would have. How do these additional hours on Coast Guard aircraft and
vessels impact the Service's operational capabilities going forward?
Answer. While the Coast Guard was able to respond to all of these
disasters, this response has a cost. Operational missions, patrols, and
training were canceled, additional unplanned hours and fatigue were
incurred, and increased maintenance and repair was required. These
operations have eroded our future readiness.
In response to this summer's hurricanes, the Coast Guard
reprioritized its missions and minimized coverage in some areas of
responsibility in order to surge operations and provide the appropriate
response to affected regions of the Nation. To meet the hurricane
response needs, the Coast Guard relocated aircraft from outside the
impacted areas, resulting in reduced coverage in regions of the country
not affected by the hurricanes. The surge operations and accelerated
rate of hours flown during these extended operations stressed the
aviation maintenance model, resulting in a higher than normal usage of
sparing. This high operational tempo created a ripple effect throughout
the aviation maintenance enterprise, potentially leading to a decrease
in the operational availability of Coast Guard air assets in the near
future, should spare parts levels not be returned to normal levels.
All classes of Coast Guard cutters, from our newest National
Security Cutters and Fast Response Cutters, to our 50 year old inland
river tenders responded to the 2017 hurricane season. These cutters and
their crews evacuated citizens, delivered humanitarian supplies,
conducted port and waterway surveys to reconstitute ports, maintained
port and waterway infrastructure controls, and served as command and
control in damaged areas. In particular, the post hurricane response of
River Tenders and Construction Tenders highlight the need to
recapitalize the capabilities essential for quick restoration of ports
and waterways vital to maritime commerce. In order to quickly reopen
ports and waterways following the hurricanes, the Coast Guard surged
its Aids to Navigation cutters to the impacted areas, enabling the
Marine Transportation System to resume economic activity and the safe
navigation of mariners. Due to the hurricanes, unplanned maintenance
and repairs required to restore and maintain vessels impacts our
current year operating and repair budget and requires necessary and
critical maintenance to be deferred.
Question 5. National Security Cutter: In December, the Coast Guard
will christen its eighth national security cutter, the CGC MIDGETT.
These ships are designed to be highly capable, multi-purpose successors
to the Coast Guard's aging fleet of high endurance cutters, which are
now over fifty years old. How would the Coast Guard characterize the
performance of the NSCs so far and the Nation's return on investment as
these vessels have begun performing their duties, particularly
regarding drug enforcement, our national security concerns in the
Western Hemisphere, and during hurricane response?
Answer. The NSC's advanced capabilities over WHECs and WMECs make
the Coast Guard more able to accomplish its statutory missions related
to drug enforcement and national security.
During Fiscal Year 2017, the NSC's return on investment included
the seizure of more than 71 metric tons of cocaine and the detention of
228 suspected smugglers. Of those individuals detained, 197 were
referred to the U.S. justice system for prosecution. Separately, NSCs
directly contributed to more than 33 percent of all Coast Guard related
cocaine removals and 33 percent of all smugglers referred to the United
States for prosecution.
The NSC's capabilities are significantly better than the WHECs and
WMECs that have previously accomplished Coast Guard statutory missions
related to drug enforcement and national security.
For example, NSCs have more aircraft and cutter boat capability
than a WHEC or a WMEC. The NSC has hangar space for two aircraft
(versus one for the WHEC), and it embarks three cutter boats (versus
two on the WHEC). The NSC also has increased surveillance and surface
prosecution capabilities, contributing to extended reconnaissance range
without compromising detection, improved interdiction capability, and
enhanced ability to deploy boarding teams from the cutter. The
increased stability and larger flight deck on the NSC allow for
successful launching and recovery of aircraft during worse weather
conditions than on the WHECs and WMECs.
The NSC's expanded capabilities also include a more sophisticated
combat information system and a multi-mode radar, capable of tracking
multiple surface and air targets simultaneously while minimizing sea
clutter interference. These capabilities significantly improve the
NSC's Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). The NSC is also the only Coast
Guard cutter to maintain and operate an onboard Sensitive
Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) which allows the Coast
Guard to exploit critical and timely information on-scene and exchange
secure data with the national intelligence network, increasing the
NSC's ability to interdict drug and human smuggling networks and
investigate potential terrorist threats. These additional capabilities,
as well as the weapons and decoy systems, improve interoperability with
DoD and allied partners, and make the NSCs a vital part of Combatant
Command planning and contingency operations efforts.
The NSC's expanded capabilities also allow the Coast Guard to get
to an operational area faster (due to its more efficient propulsion
plant) and to remain on station longer (up to 60 days versus 45 days
with the WHEC). The NSCs expanded capabilities reduce the need for
logistics stops to refuel, restock supplies, and offload waste, and
they provide the Coast Guard more time to patrol in the high threat
areas. Finally, the NSC is the first cutter equipped with a
``Collective Protection System'' for sustained operations (up to 36
hours) in a contaminated environment. This means that a NSC crew is
better protected from an adversary's use of chemical or biological
weapons.
During Hurricane Irma, Joint Inter-Agency Task Force South (JIATF-
S) was forced to evacuate from Key West, FL. The Coast Guard Cutter
JAMES (WMSL-754), a NSC, coordinated all aviation and surface assets in
the Eastern Pacific for a week. CGC JAMES facilitated 61 drug
interdiction cases while working with 11 partner nations, five
interagency entities, 12 surface assets, and over 24 flight missions.
This resulted in the interdiction of 10,881 kg of cocaine and 747 kg of
marijuana. Later, CGC JAMES was directed to assume Commander Task Unit
(CTU) Maria, serving as a floating command center to execute local
hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico. As CTU Maria, JAMES
established tactical control for 11 Coast Guard cutters leading a
coordinated multi-agency response between DHS, DOD, and other partner
agencies. As CTU Maria, CGC JAMES managed maritime-related disaster
recovery efforts to include search and rescue coordination, critical
port assessments, and humanitarian relief. The ability to support, and
to a degree, replicate the daily operations of major land-based units
like JIATF-S and Coast Guard Sector San Juan, while simultaneously
conducting normal cutter operations showcases the exceptional command
and control capabilities of the National Security Cutter.
Question 6. Coast Guard Aircraft: It seems as though the Coast
Guard is continuously changing the type and quantity of aircraft
assigned to its air stations and air facilities, leading me to wonder
if there is an aircraft need that we (Congress) aren't hearing about.
Does the Coast Guard have all the type and quantity of aviation
resources that the Service needs to conduct its diverse missions and
surge for incidents of national significance? And is the Coast Guard's
aviation need higher now than it was five years ago?
Answer. The Coast Guard has seen an increased demand for Airborne
Use of Force Counter Drug, Short Notice Maritime Response, deployable
Rotary Wing Air Intercept, and Arctic aviation capability needed to
protect the homeland, combat terrorism and transnational criminal
organizations and provide search and rescue coverage for the Arctic.
The Coast Guard's aviation resources are in very high demand for
all of our homeland security missions, but particularly during surge
events and incidents of national significance. We continually seek to
balance operational risk and achieve the greatest return from our
finite resources, and will surge our resources and personnel from
around the country to support our Nation in times of need.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. Great Lakes Icebreaking Tugs: In an answer to my
question at the hearing about what is being done to ensure the 140-
icebreaking tug fleet is on track for recapitalization, the Commandant,
Admiral Zukunft, stated that the Coast Guard wouldn't begin looking at
recapitalization until 2030. That is twelve years away. It was
previously stated that we only have approximately 5-6 years left for
this fleet. This timeline does not line up. If the 140-foot fleet needs
to be replaced in less than 10 years that would mean designs and
appropriations need to be started as soon as possible. Please elaborate
on the plan for ensuring that the Coast Guard will be able to support
the Great Lakes icebreaking needs if the 140-foot fleet is not
recapitalized until after 2030.
Answer. The Coast Guard WTGB 140, icebreakers are currently
undergoing a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). The SLEP began in
2014 and all cutters will have completed the extension by 2020. After
SLEP, each cutter will have approximately 15 years of increased service
life and is expected to provide service until the 2030s.
Question 2. R&D Dilbit Study: During the hearing Admiral Zukunft
mentioned that the Coast Guard's R&D Center uses Ohmsett lab in
Leonard, New Jersey, to test oil spill recovery equipment. According to
Ohmsett's website, the Coast Guard used the lab last winter to conduct
a diluted bitumen study to evaluate the performance capabilities and
limitations using two different type skimmers while recovering diluted
bitumen (dilbit) off of fresh water. Please provide the report from the
Coast Guard's study conducted at Ohmsett lab in Leonard, NJ.
Answer. This report has not been finalized and is currently
unavailable.
Question 3. R&D Dilbit Study: Skimmers typically remove oil most
effectively from the water surface, but as we learned in the Kalamazoo
Oil Spill in 2010, dilbit sinks in freshwater posing an additional
challenge to clean-up. How did the study address this complication
posed by dilbit and are technologies being developed to address clean-
up of dilbit in freshwater systems?
Answer. The Ohmsett study focused on skimmer performance in
recovering floating diluted bitumen in various weathered states. The
diluted bitumen in the Kalamazoo spill sunk because it mixed with
sediment. The Coast Guard is planning to perform additional research in
2018 on mitigation technology for that type of sunken diluted bitumen
along lake and river bottoms.
Question 4. Great Lakes NCOE for Freshwater Oil Spill Response: The
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017 includes the creation of a Center
of Expertise to evaluate freshwater oil spill response. How would the
Coast Guard satisfy the requirements and implement the National Center
of Expertise for Fresh Water Oil Spill Response?
Answer. The Coast Guard Research and Development Center
collaborates with other agencies and academia to identify the best
methods for preventing, tracking, and removing oil from on, in, and
under the ice in both salt and fresh water. The Research and
Development Center is currently leading extensive research into fresh
water oil spill response, including work through the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research to evaluate research
options in the Great Lakes.
Question 5. Great Lakes NCOE for Freshwater Oil Spill Response: My
understanding is that Coast Guard Centers of Expertise have minimal
collaborations with other agencies and outside research institutions
and primarily serve to bring together resources and expertise within
the Coast Guard. Title 14 of the U.S. Code section 58 subsection c
provides for ``Joint Operation with Educational Institution
Authorized'' by allowing the Commandant to ``enter into an agreement
with an appropriate official of an institution of higher education to--
(1) provide for joint operation of a center; and (2) provide necessary
administrative services for a center, including administration and
allocation of funds.'' How would the Coast Guard implement and develop
collaborations with research institutions and other agencies in
developing a Center of Expertise for freshwater oil spill response?
Answer. The Coast Guard continues to research the best methods for
oil spill prevention, detection, and clean-up in both salt and fresh
water under a wide range of conditions. The Coast Guard partners with
DHS S&T on a number of projects directed at detecting and mapping oil
on, in, and under ice. Additionally, the Coast Guard coordinates
interagency and academia efforts in this area through the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research.
Question 6. MH-60 Benefits: Air Station Traverse City recently
transitioned from MH-65s (Dolphins) to MH-60s (Jayhawks), marking the
first time since the early 1990s that a MH-60 was stationed in the
Great Lakes region. I understand that this transition allows for a
longer-range, ice-capable aircraft for search and rescue operations on
the Great Lakes and the aircraft has an increased payload in order to
assist in other missions. Has the Coast Guard considered transitioning
the entire rotary wing fleet to MH-60s since they may be the better
asset for the majority of Coast Guard missions?
Answer. The Coast Guard conducts rotary wing operations across a
diverse environmental and mission spectrum. Cold weather and longer
range offshore operations are well suited for MH-60 aircraft while
near-shore coastal and shipboard operations can be conducted with MH-65
aircraft. Transitioning to a homogenous fleet of MH-60 aircraft would
offer gains in maintenance, spare parts inventories and standardization
for aircrews, but would carry up front acquisition and higher overall
lifecycle costs. Since the early 1990s, the Coast Guard has operated a
mixed fleet of H-65/H-60 helicopters and have been able to fully
integrate nationwide operations to save thousands of lives during daily
operations as well as natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and
Harvey. Increased transit zone operations and special missions such as
Rotary Wing Air Intercept (RWAI) has required the Coast Guard to make
adjustments in force laydown such as the conversion of Air Station
Traverse City from MH-65s to MH-60s.
Question 7. Electronic Health Records: I understand that currently
the Coast Guard's 41,700 active duty members still use paper health
records, while the Department of Defense is already implementing
electronic health records. Why does DoD have this benefit available to
its members, but Coast Guard does not?
Answer. The Coast Guard is currently pursuing an electronic health
record for its active duty members through the required acquisition
process.
Question 8. Electronic Health Records: What are the inefficiencies
associated with not having electronic records?
Answer. The inefficiencies associated with not having electronic
health records include: increased time to manage paper records,
difficulty searching within paper records for information, increased
time of patient encounters, increased time to schedule appointments;
and difficulty understanding population health trends.
Question 9. Electronic Health Records: What is the Coast Guard
doing to move forward with electronic health records?
Answer. The Coast Guard is following established processes in its
pursuit of an electronic health record. Currently, we are in the
Analyze & Select Phase of the Coast Guard Non-Major Acquisition
Process.
Question 10. Personnel Well-Being: In support of all three
hurricanes, the Coast Guard mobilized over 2,900 personnel, including
over 2,000 active duty, almost 800 reservists, and 150 civilians. I
understand Coast Guard aircraft flew almost double the total programmed
annual hours, and the Inland River Tender Fleet operated well over
their programmed hours as well. What is the Coast Guard doing to ensure
that its members are getting the proper rest and the training time that
they need--especially during a situation like we have had recently with
three major hurricanes back-to-back?
Answer. The Coast Guard constructs shore infrastructure by
incorporating the appropriate building ``risk category'' as part of the
design process required by the American Society of Civil Engineers-
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-
series). Additionally, Coast Guard shore infrastructure is constructed
in accordance with International building codes and local building
codes when there are more stringent codes due to localized
vulnerabilities to natural disasters.
Question 11. Bench Strength: In your written testimony, you
mentioned your bench strength is not what it needs to be in order to
sustain operations, like the hurricane response, for an extended period
of time. What are you doing to increase that bench strength?
Answer. The Coast Guard continues to hone its manpower requirements
and analysis processes to build and maintain a more proficient,
diverse, and adaptable workforce--one ready to respond to changing
technology, an increasingly complex operating environment, and dynamic
partnerships.
First, leveraging the Commandant's strategic guidance, statutory
authorities and mission objectives, the Service is building a Force
Planning Construct (FPC) as the foundation for resourcing and
allocation decisions at both the strategic and operational levels. The
FPC will inform and justify the size and shape of the force needed to
execute all Coast Guard missions and strategies.
Preliminary, FPC analysis has focused on steady-state operations
across the Coast Guard and indicates that the Service is challenged to
meet daily mission demands. In fact, preliminary results support the
need for at least 6,100 additional personnel to tackle assigned
missions ( 5,000 active duty and 1,100 reservists). As we refine the
FPC through additional testing and validation and incorporate the needs
of major contingency operations and heightened maritime security
requirements, our ``bench strength'' estimate may change.
Second, our Manpower Requirements Determination (MRD) Division
builds upon the mission demands identified by the Force Planning
Construct and ultimately defines the manpower needed for Coast Guard
units to effectively execute their assigned missions. This process
transforms mission requirements into manpower requirements using a
repeatable, defendable, process built on industrial engineering
principles to define both the number of personnel and the necessary mix
of skills for the positions required.
Finally, the Coast Guard has focused its human resource efforts
towards attracting, training, and retaining the workforce of tomorrow.
Through increased recruiting, improved retention policies, and member
incentives, the Coast Guard has seen active duty military ``bench
strength'' grow.
Question 12. Reserve Force: The Coast Guard Reserve has been a
force multiplier tool in the past and reservists have played a critical
role in significant events, like the recent hurricanes, Superstorm
Sandy, and Deepwater Horizon. As a former Navy reservist, I am a firm
believer that the reserve component is critical to any service. How
does the Coast Guard's reserve force compare to other reserve forces?
Answer. Unlike DoD reserve forces, the Coast Guard Reserve performs
both national defense missions under Title 10 authorities and domestic
contingency operations under Title 14 authorities. Approximately one
fourth of the Reserve force is assigned to CG Port Security Units--
which primarily support our defense readiness mission requirements--and
the remaining three fourths of the Reserve force are comprised of
individuals more closely aligned with the active component. This
augmentation provides the Coast Guard flexibility and increased
capacity for domestic contingency and operational surges.
Question 13. Reserve Force: Is the Coast Guard's reserve force
where it should be with regards to membership and training to be able
to support in the areas needed, specifically for emergency management
for events like hurricanes, oil spills, or terrorists' attacks?
Answer. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing all its personnel
requirements through an integrated Force Planning construct--a multi-
faceted approach that codifies manpower requirements for the entire
workforce. This analysis is on-going; however, preliminary results show
we have a workforce deficit of at least 1,100 beyond our authorized
strength (7,000).
Question 14. Reserve Force: If the Coast Guard's reserve force is
not where it should be as far as numbers and training, please describe
the plan for meeting this need.
Answer. While we maximize every opportunity that we have, the Coast
Guard faces several distinct challenges in growing the Reserve
Component. First, all military components compete for a limited pool of
qualified candidates and this competition has only increased over time.
We make every attempt to entice members departing the active service
into the Reserve component. Second, providing competitive financial
incentives to members interested in the Reserve force is always
difficult in constrained budget environments. Finally, we continue to
seek the proper alignment of our recruiting centers, training
facilities, and Reserve unit locations to align our force with
available populations of candidates.
Question 15. Cyber-Security: Cyber-attacks unfortunately are on the
rise, but knowing this should give organizations the ability to
prepare. Managing cyber risks will continue to be an ongoing effort
requiring time and attention for all Federal agencies. I understand the
Coast Guard has implemented a new cyber protection team. Please provide
a summary overview of the Coast Guard's Cyber Protection Team--what is
its role and how will it reinforce the Coast Guard's readiness posture?
Answer. The mission of the Coast Guard's Cyber Protection Team
(CPT) is to survey, defend, secure and protect networks supporting DOD
and Coast Guard critical infrastructure. The CPT will be organized,
trained, equipped and assessed to joint standards of the DoD Cyber
Mission Force. The planned CPT consists of a command element and six
squads (totaling 39 members) trained in Defensive Cyber Operations
(DCO). The Coast Guard CPT currently consists of one initial squad
which is embedded with the DHS National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center's (NCCIC) Hunt and Incident Response
Team. Once fully manned, the CPT will reinforce the defense posture of
the Coast Guard's Cybersecurity Service Provider and may deploy in
support of regional Sector Commanders in the event of a Cyber incident
to the Marine Transportation System.
Question 16. Cyber-Security: I understand that funds dedicated to
improving your cyber security program had to be diverted to hurricane
response efforts. Can you elaborate to the extent that this will impact
your cyber security program?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Cybersecurity program continued to be
funded during hurricane response efforts. However, the Coast Guard was
forced to make numerous other tradeoffs in order to fund hurricane
response operations. For example:
Cutter maintenance was either cancelled or curtailed: CGC
MOHAWK was pulled from a dockside maintenance, patches were
welded over holes and she sailed without her anchors; CGC
HAMILTON's Tailored Shipboard Training Availability and CGC
OAK's maintenance periods were cancelled.
To pay for the cost of our response, the Coast Guard was
forced to defer multiple contracts. For example, we did not
award a $7 million contract to procure 19 Response Boat Small,
with potential future readiness implications.
Question 17. Resiliency: You have identified over $650 million in
needs to restore infrastructure readiness from the impact of Harvey and
Irma, and are still assessing and evaluating the units impacted by
Maria. I understand that in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike in 2008,
Station Sabine, Texas and the OPBAT Great Inagua, Bahamas hangar were
rebuilt to withstand a Category 3 hurricane and as a result suffered no
damage from Harvey or Irma. What is the Coast Guard doing to ensure
that other infrastructure being rebuilt or built new will also be
resilient?
Answer. The Coast Guard constructs shore infrastructure by
incorporating the appropriate building ``risk category'' as part of the
design process required by the American Society of Civil Engineers-
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-
series). Additionally, Coast Guard shore infrastructure is constructed
in accordance with International building codes and local building
codes when there are more stringent codes due to localized
vulnerabilities to natural disasters.
Question 18. Impacts from Hurricanes on Coast Guard: We heard that
there is great need for repairs to Coast Guard infrastructure that was
hit by the hurricanes, and also for the backlog of previously deferred
maintenance. These back-to-back hurricane responses changed things up
quite a bit for the Coast Guard for several months, and still continues
to. I imagine this has strained units. What were/are the costs
associated with operational missions, patrols, and training courses
that were cancelled? (not just quantitative data, but the qualitative
data as well).
Answer. The Coast Guard's surge of assets and personnel in response
to these hurricanes impacted operations and eroded future readiness. In
order to respond, the Coast Guard reduced maritime security operations,
including: reduced port security patrols and escorts, reduced
counterdrug operations, temporary closure of Operations Bahamas and
Turks and Caicos, and a thirty day suspension of Atlantic Area cutter
deployments to the Eastern Pacific Ocean Area. The Coast Guard also
reduced maritime safety operations, including: temporary closure of
Coast Guard Air Facilities Charleston and Waukegan, temporary closure
of Coast Guard Stations Two Rivers and Washington Island, postponed
maintenance for aids to navigation, canceled or curtailed cutter
maintenance, and canceled all flight training at Aviation Training
Center Mobile for two weeks.
The Coast Guard typically provides coverage to support Joint
Interagency Task Force South missions. During the response to these
hurricanes, coverage for these missions was reduced. A dockside
availability for CGC MOHAWK was interrupted, and she sailed with
patches welded over holes and without her anchors. CGC HAMILTON's
Tailored Shipboard Training Availability and CGC OAK's maintenance
period were canceled.
Question 19. Readiness: If $30M is to come from the Depot
Maintenance account, but Coast Guard assets require more depot
maintenance due to increased operations from the hurricanes, how will
this impact the Coast Guard's depot level maintenance?
Answer. The loss of $30 million in the Depot Maintenance account
will place strain on maintenance accounts that are already experiencing
funding shortfalls. The loss of funding will directly impact the supply
inventory for both aircraft and surface assets. Additionally, the
increased funding shortfall will delay equipment overhauls, repair of
inventory parts, and large maintenance projects for surface assets such
as dry-dock availabilities.
Question 20. Readiness: How does this impact Coast Guard readiness?
Answer. Coast Guard readiness will be impacted by creating high
risk that casualties will render assets not mission ready for future
operations. A reduction in parts/supply inventory, delaying large
maintenance projects, and running equipment longer than planned
intervals increases the risk of unplanned maintenance and equipment
failures.
Question 21. Readiness: Are there any equipment needs or equipment
that needs replacement due to the hurricanes?
Answer. The Coast Guard expended parts, equipment, and assets
during the 2017 hurricane season that require replacement and repair.
Some examples include: replacement of a capsized 26, Trailerable Aids
to Navigation Boat (TANB), replacement of damaged MH-60T tail rotor
blades, repair of damaged mobile boat hoists, repairs to damaged 55,
Aids to Navigation boat and a Special Purpose Craft-Airboat (SPC-AIR),
and replacement of punt boats.
Question 22. Readiness: Are there any equipment needs that would
have improved the hurricane response efforts?
Answer. Like the other Armed Forces, the Coast Guard has
experienced a significant deterioration in readiness, and our aging
assets are in dire need of restoration and recapitalization. While the
Coast Guard was able to respond to all of these disasters, this
response had a cost and has eroded future readiness. Operational
missions, patrols, and training were cancelled, additional unplanned
hours and fatigue was incurred and increased maintenance and repair was
required.
Question 23. E-ATON: To date, the Coast Guard has deployed 336
synthetic ATON and 51 Virtual ATON across all nine districts. Prior to
Hurricane Irma's landfall, the Coast Guard established over 300
electronic Aids to Navigation (eATON) around critical U.S. waterways
including Key West, Tampa and up the eastern shore to Charleston, South
Carolina. I understand these navigation aids augmented Coast Guard Buoy
Tenders and Aids to Navigations Teams post landfall as the teams worked
to reconstitute buoys and beacons. Then mariners equipped with an
Automatic Identification System (AIS) or electronic charting system
were able to capture information from the Coast Guard's Nationwide AIS
to acquire the information on the eATONs. This helped get ports back up
and running. What percentage of the ATON in the Great Lakes are e-ATON
or virtual buoys?
Answer. 69 of 2,481 AtoN, or approximately three percent, in the
Great Lakes are e-AtoN.
Question 24. E-ATON: Are there plans for using e-ATON or virtual
buoys for the entire Coast Guard ATON mission, and specifically for the
Great Lakes where ice can have a significant impact on ATON? What is
the plan?
Answer. There are no plans to use E-AtoN for the entire Coast Guard
AtoN mission. In the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard is examining and has
plans to use E-AtoN where ice poses significant impact to a physical
buoy. For example, during the 2017-2018 winter season, the Coast Guard
plans to l use e-AtoN to augment 30 buoys that historically have been
seasonally replaced by less conspicuous winter buoys, and it plans to
use E-AtoN to augment 29 buoys that historically have been seasonally
withdrawn.
Question 25. E-ATON: If not, why not?
Answer. E-AtoN is intended to augment the physical AtoN
constellation, similar to how land-based navigators use GPS in their
cell phones to augment the physical constellation of road and highways
signs. Additionally, unlike E-AtoN, physical AtoN has no cyber risk.
Question 26. Communications: The Coast Guard responded to thousands
of citizens in distress during the recent hurricanes. During Hurricane
Harvey, 911 centers had such a large volume of calls, many individuals
could not get through. Even when the Coast Guard posted multiple
numbers on their social media accounts for the public to use, that did
not stop individuals from using social media to report ``mayday''
notifications to the Coast Guard. I understand that is not the typical
procedure for Coast Guard's social media platforms. But seeing the
need, you set up an impromptu center in Washington, D.C. with over 65
members assigned to field search and rescue calls from social media.
What is being done to ensure that in the future, the public has a
better way to contact and communicate with the Coast Guard when phone
lines are not available?
Answer. The Coast Guard's ability to adapt and respond to phone
calls and social media pleas for assistance was critical to the success
of the response to the 2017 hurricanes. During hurricane response
operations, the Coast Guard rapidly developed interim policy guidance
and a technical solution for operational commands to utilize social
media websites from certain Coast Guard computers to support search and
rescue operations. The Coast Guard is currently developing a permanent
policy, along with tactics, techniques, and procedures, for the use of
social media during the prosecution of search and rescue cases. The
Coast Guard is currently examining lessons learned from the 2017
hurricane season operational requirements.
Question 27. Autonomous Vessels: Autonomous vessels might not be
something that the U.S. is ready for, but it is a technology that is
starting to be explored around the world, and even here in the U.S. How
will the Coast Guard ensure the safety and security of our waters and
ports if, and more likely, when autonomous boats begin to conduct
research, collect data, clean up oil, and eventually transport goods
and personnel?
Answer. The Coast Guard has broad statutory authorities to inspect
commercial vessels, credential mariners, manage navigable waterways,
and protect maritime security. This breadth of authority, used in
concert with ample regulatory discretion, provides the Coast Guard with
the flexibility to mitigate risks associated with emerging technologies
integral to autonomous vessel operations. Coast Guard Sector Commanders
are uniquely positioned to coordinate with all stakeholders to ensure
the continued safety, security, and resiliency of the marine
transportation system while supporting the industry's expanding use of
autonomous technologies. The Coast Guard is currently working with
international and domestic stakeholders to develop standards that
address these technologies, to protect economic prosperity without
compromising safety, security, or environmental protection.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. 52, Motor Lifeboats: The Coast Guard operates 52-foot
Special Purpose Heavy Weather boats on the large coastal bars of
Washington and Oregon. These boats were purpose built for the Pacific
Northwest, and are rapidly approaching the end of their service life.
Even at 60 years old, 52,s fill an essential role ensuring the safety
of Pacific Northwest mariners, as well as the Coast Guard members
operating in the heavy surf environment. What specific steps is the
Coast Guard taking to ensure we do not lose the unique 52-foot motor
lifeboat capability in the Pacific Northwest?
Answer. The Coast Guard is currently focused on executing a Service
Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the 47 foot Motor Lifeboat (47 MLB)
fleet. The 47 MLBs conduct the vast majority of SAR in surf and heavy
weather conditions throughout the nation, and are approaching the end
of their projected service lives. The SLEP will replace the engines and
other major components, and is expected to extend the MLB's service
life by an additional 20 years.
Question 2. 52, Motor Lifeboats: I am concerned that without a
viable replacement vessel for the 52,s, Coast Guard surf stations will
not be able to meet a number of missions, including search and rescue
of distal fishing fleets off of Washington and Oregon. For example,
could the Coast Guard respond to an albacore vessel in distress 150
miles offshore with a surface asset? If so, does that capability
include the ability to bring back the vessel, as well as the mariners
in a safe and timely manner? Specifically, could the Coast Guard still
effect a tow, on a breaking bar, of a 250 gross ton trawler without the
52-footers?
Answer. The Coast Guard maintains capability to respond to persons
in distress offshore via both aviation and surface assets. The primary
focus of Search and Rescue (SAR) is saving the lives of mariners in
distress, with a secondary focus on saving property. Any decision to
tow a vessel back to port would be made in accordance with the Coast
Guard Maritime SAR Assistance Policy and would be based on a careful
balance of risk versus return. Currently only the 52' Motor Lifeboat is
capable of towing vessels displacing 250 tons across a breaking bar.
Question 3. 52, Motor Lifeboats: Maintaining the four 60 year old
52,s is becoming a serious engineering and financial challenge. How can
the Congress work with the Coast Guard to accelerate the acquisition
timeline for replacement vessels for the 52-foot motor lifeboats?
Answer. The Coast Guard is currently focused on executing a Service
Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the 47 foot Motor Lifeboat (47 MLB)
fleet. The 47 MLBs conduct the vast majority of SAR in surf and heavy
weather conditions throughout the nation, and are approaching the end
of their projected service lives. The SLEP will replace the engines and
other major components, and is expected to extend the MLB's service
life by an additional 20 years.
Question 4. 52, Motor Lifeboats: Should the four 52-footers be
replaced in-kind, or are there efficiencies to be realized by building
additional boats with the 52,s capability?
Answer. A fleet mix analysis of the current and potential future
assets would need to be conducted to determine how many boats would be
required at any given location.
Question 5. 52, Motor Lifeboats: Due to the superior performance of
the 52,s, should the Coast Guard consider replacing the 47-foot Motor
Lifeboats at Stations Grays Harbor, Cape Disappointment, Yaquina Bay,
Coos Bay and the National Motor Lifeboat School with a more capable 52-
foot replacement?
Answer. The 47 foot MLB meets all operational requirements for
these stations. If a determination is made that a replacement boat is
required for the 52 foot MLB, the Coast Guard would ensure the asset
all of the mission requirements for those units.
Question 6. 52, Motor Lifeboats: Would this reduce the training
burden on the stations by eliminating the need to learn two different
boats?
Answer. Yes, the training required to attain and maintain
proficiency in multiple boat types is greater than for a single boat
type.
Question 7. 52, Motor Lifeboats: There are approximately only 200
surfmen in the entire Coast Guard and only an estimated 50 of those
members are certified to operate the 52-foot motor lifeboat. The Coast
Guard Motor Lifeboat School at Cape Disappointment, Washington does not
have a 52-foot motor lifeboat to use as a training platform. What is
the Coast Guard doing to ensure enough surfmen are trained and
proficient to safely operate and handle the 52-foot motor lifeboat?
Answer. The Coast Guard Motor Lifeboat School provides instruction
pertaining to the skills and knowledge needed to operate a heavy
weather and/or surf capable boat in those conditions. The Coast Guard
Motor Lifeboat School does not qualify or certify students on the 47
MLB. Specific boat type training, qualification, and certification on
the Coast Guard's surf-capable boats occur at the individual stations.
The Coast Guard is in the process of reviewing its Prospective Surfman
Program to ensure that it adequately supports the needs of the service.
Question 8. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): I secured
an amendment to the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (Public Law
No: 114-120) to require the Coast Guard to implement the Combat Related
Special Compensation benefits in the same manner as the Department of
Defense branches. In February 2017, I began discussions with the Coast
Guard due to concerns that the Combat Related Special Compensation pay
benefit was being improperly calculated. In July of 2017, at my
request, the Coast Guard conducted an internal audit of the Combat
Related Special Compensation program. The audit found that 69 retired
Coast Guard members were being underpaid their Combat Related benefits
due to an accounting error. More than 4 months have lapsed since this
error was detected and I understand from Coast Guard veterans that this
error has not been fully addressed. What is the Coast Guard's timeline
correcting this error? Please answer this question in terms of
notification of members, audits required versus completed, correcting
the benefit for future payments, and delivering back pay to which these
members rightfully earned and deserve.
Answer. The Coast Guard has positively identified 61 retirees being
impacted by the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) law change.
The Coast Guard (CG) is currently auditing these cases and expects to
have all cases completed by April 2018. Each retiree will be notified
as we complete their case by memo that addresses the underpayment and
the amount they are due.
The CG is working on multiple updates to Direct Access one of which
is an update to Global Payroll which calculates retiree pay. The memo
that each affected retiree receives will inform them that until this
system change is tested and implemented (expected by summer 2018) the
CG will be manually crediting them the amount they are owed each month.
After the system change is in place the payroll system will
automatically calculate their retired pay and no further crediting will
be needed.
Question 9. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): How will
the Coast Guard ensure this error in calculating Combat Related Special
Compensation benefit payments will not reoccur?
Answer. The Coast Guard will thoroughly test the system change when
it is put in place to validate that CRSC is being properly calculated.
Question 10. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): It is
important that Coast Guard members are well versed at the beginning of
their careers on Combat Related Special Compensation benefits. I am
concerned that the Coast Guard is not doing enough to educate young
Coast Guardsmen and women who are just entering the service. How will
the Coast Guard improve its outreach and education to members who are
beginning their careers?
Answer. The Coast Guard has utilized multiple venues as
opportunities to educate members on CRSC.
On the CG Disability Evaluations Branch and Pay Center
websites information and resource links have been imbedded.
The Disability Evaluations Branch Ombudsman has been
instructed to discuss CRSC with every members going through the
disability process.
A dedicated CRSC trifold has been developed and distributed
throughout the medical and operational communities that
provided awareness by highlighting the clarifying criteria of
CGAA 2015, how to apply for CRSC, and providing pertinent
resources and points of contact.
A training module was developed to be included in Transition
Assistance Program (TAP) classes that are conducted in
coordination with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It
discusses eligibility requirements and exceptions, elections
when a member is entitled to both CRSC and Concurrent
Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP) and refers members to
their branch of service for more information, etc.
Force Readiness Command provides a monthly training news
letter to all units in the Coast Guard. Preparations are
underway for an upcoming issue that will highlight CRSC, when
it may apply, and the importance of documenting injuries
properly when they occur.
Question 11. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): Has the
Coast Guard considered integrating training on Combat Related Special
Compensation pay during Coast Guard accession points such as enlisted
basic training, Officer Candidate School, or the Coast Guard Academy?
Why or why not? What tools, resources, and funding would the Coast
Guard need to execute this integration?
Answer. Consideration is being given on how to best implement the
addition of a standardized training module on Combat Related Special
Compensation into indoctrination programs at all accession points
(Enlisted Basic Training, Officer Candidate School, Direct Commission
Officer and the Coast Guard Academy). Due to the rigid structure of the
boot camp curriculum changes must be carefully considered for impact
and efficacy. Officer accession sources may provide more flexibility
and a better venue for this information in regards to accession
sources.
This information is being included in the CG Command Cadre course
materials for unit Commanders and Executive Officers (who are typically
the designated unit medical officers). Command awareness of CRSC will
promote reporting and proper documentation for injuries that occur
during all operational events.
The need for additional resources to complete this task are not
known at this time, but is expected to be minimal.
Question 12. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): Has the
Coast Guard considered conducting an analysis to best target specific
rates and career fields where additional emphasis and training on
Combat Related Special Compensation is appropriate? Additionally, have
focal point trainings such as flight school, surf school, dive school,
or rescue swimmer school been considered as opportunities to conduct
refresher training on Combat Related Special Compensation? Why or Why
not? What tools, resources, and funding would the Coast Guard need to
execute the analysis and integration of Combat Related Special
Compensation in the programs mentioned above?
Answer. An addition to A-school curriculum is likely the best venue
for our junior enlisted workforce. The historical breakdown of CRSC
benefits by specialty indicate a relatively even rate of 1 percent
across all ratings and specialties. There is a common leadership module
in the curriculum of all A-schools where CRSC could logically be
included. The Coast Guard will work on a standardized information
module for Combat Related Special Compensation to include in all A-
Schools. The need for additional resources to complete this task are
not known at this time, but is expected to be minimal.
Question 13. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): Has the
Coast Guard considered developing a web-based training for Combat
Related Special Compensation? Why or why not? What tools, resources,
and funding would the Coast Guard need to develop and implement a web
based training program?
Answer. Like most of the Coast Guard's training, the curriculum
development and fielding of web based training undergoes a standard
analysis, evaluation, development, and approval process. The Coast
Guard will add CRSC to the list of proposed web based training courses
for evaluation. Additional funding may be required for development and
implementation of this proposal.
Question 14. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): What
outreach has the Coast Guard conducted to Coast Guard medical providers
and clinic administrators regarding Combat Related Special Compensation
benefits? If the Coast Guard is conducting outreach to these members
and staff, does that include charting, communication strategies with
patients, and the importance of charting incidents? If the Coast Guard
is not conducing outreach or training to these members and staff, when
will the Coast Guard develop a training and outreach program for
medical professionals?
Answer. The Coast Guard provides annual training to medical
providers and clinic administrators on Combat Related Special
Compensation benefits. The training involves the importance of charting
the nexus and history of injuries or illnesses to include the missions
that could qualify for CRSC.
Question 15. Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC): The Coast
Guard has increased outreach to its retiree population with regard to
Combat Related Special Compensation pay, however more can be done. What
other steps will the Coast Guard take to ensure Coast Guard members
eligible for Combat Related Special Compensation will have the
information they need to secure this benefit? How is the Coast Guard
partnering with the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve member
education, outreach and training on this issue?
Answer. The Coast Guard will continue to publish Combat Related
Special Compensation articles in each Retiree Newsletter. The Coast
Guard partners with the Department of Veterans Affairs in presenting
TAP. During TAP, a training module on Combat Related Special
Compensation is presented.
Question 16. Oil Spill Prevention in Puget Sound: During the March
2017 Ocean, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee hearing
on the ``State of the Coast Guard: Ensuring Military, National
Security, and Enforcement Capability and Readiness,'' you stated that
the Coast Guard had ``modest'' funding in its Research and Development
budget for oil spill response and that it is one of your highest
priorities to remove spilled tar sands oil once spilled. What resources
and funding does the Coast Guard need to support research and
technology development to be better prepared to prevent and more
effectively respond to a tar sands oil spill?
Answer. The Coast Guard chairs the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR). ICCOPR coordinates oil
spill research and is comprised of multiple partners, including Federal
agency, industry, international, state, and academic institutions.
Together, these components advance the body of knowledge to increase
marine environmental response capabilities and address known research
gaps. Additionally, the Coast Guard Research and Development Center
(R&DC) is examining innovations in prevention and response capabilities
for spills involving oil sands. This project began in 2014 and is
expected to continue through July 2019. It is funded through an
allocation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Question 17. Oil Spill Prevention in Puget Sound: What can the
Coast Guard do now with its current resources and funding to better
boost its oil spill response capabilities?
Answer. As the vast majority of spill response is conducted by Oil
Spill Response Organizations (OSROs), the Coast Guard's best mechanism
for improving oil spill response capabilities is through policy
development and coordination with international and domestic
stakeholders. The Coast Guard is committed to ensuring that adequate
response capabilities exist to respond to oil spills in the coastal
zone. A longstanding model of international spill planning and
cooperation, the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan
(JCP) marks its 43rd anniversary in 2017. The JCP has guided the
Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) in an
ongoing collaborative approach to spill response and preparedness.
Additionally, the Coast Guard directs Area Committees, comprised of
Federal, state, local, and Tribal organizations. The Area Committees
develop and exercise Area Contingency Plans which address the removal
of a worst case discharge and mitigate or prevent substantial threats
of discharges in U.S. coastal zones.
Question 18. Oil Spill Prevention in Puget Sound: In October, Coast
Guard Sector Puget hosted the first Ports and Waterways Safety
Assessment workshop in Washington state since 2002. This workshop was
comprised of more than 80 maritime and waterway community users,
stakeholders and representatives from Canada, the State of Washington,
Coast Salish Tribe and indigenous peoples. What is the timeline for the
final report to be produced and made available to the public?
Answer. The Coast Guard expects to release the Puget Sound Ports
and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) workshop report in early-2018.
Question 19. Oil Spill Prevention in Puget Sound: What are the core
recommendations identified by the Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment
workshop?
Answer. The Puget Sound PAWSA workshop did not result in any
actionable recommendations other than to reconvene in another forum to
continue the discussion on ways to enhance navigation safety in the
Salish Sea.
Question 20. Oil Spill Prevention in Puget Sound: What resources
and funding does the Coast Guard need move forward and implement the
recommendations from the Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment?
Answer. The Coast Guard has not identified a need for additional
resources or funding for this assessment.
Question 21. E-Medical Records: As you know I have been a vocal
advocate in ensuring Coast Guard members receive equivalent benefits,
healthcare, and services as the other military branches. When the Coast
Guard terminated its contract with Epic citing significant risks and
irregularities our office immediately engaged on the issue, requested
to be briefed on the best pathway forward, and offered the Coast Guard
legislative assistance. The Coast Guard has administrative tools and
authorities at its disposal to move forward with awarding a contract
for development of an electronic health record system that is seamless
integrated with the Department of Defense's system. What is the Coast
Guard's plan and status for moving through an administrative process to
award a contract for development of an electronic health record system?
Answer. The Coast Guard is following established processes in its
pursuit of an electronic health record. Currently, we are in the
Analyze & Select Phase of the Coast Guard Non-Major Acquisition
Process.
Question 22. E-Medical Records: As the Coast Guard moves through
the administrative process to award a contract for the development of
an electronic health record system, what is the Coast Guard's
forecasted timeline from award of a contract to full transition to an
electronic health record system?
Answer. The Coast Guard's forecasted timeline from contract award
to full transition to an electronic health record system is
approximately three years.
Question 23. E-Medical Records: I understand that in 2019 U.S.
Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM) will fully transition
to a 100 percent electronic health records based system. Does the Coast
Guard have a plan to ensure that new service members entering the Coast
Guard will have seamless coverage and integration of the medical
records?
Answer. Yes. Recruits will be responsible for hand carrying paper
copies of their health records to boot camp. These paper health records
will be integrated into their Coast Guard paper health records at the
training center.
Question 24. E-Medical Records: Does the Coast Guard expect to have
an electronic health record system in place by USMEPCOM's transition
date?
Answer. No. The Coast Guard is following established processes in
its pursuit of an electronic health record. Currently, we are in the
Analyze & Select Phase of the Coast Guard Non-Major Acquisition
Process.
Question 25. E-Medical Records: What is the Coast Guard's
contingency plan in the event the service will not have an electronic
health record system in place by the transition date?
Answer. The Coast Guard will continue to use paper records until an
electronic health record system is in place.
Question 26. Childcare: Access to childcare in remote locations
places an unnecessary burden on Coast Guard families living and serving
in these communities. What specific steps can be taken to address
access to childcare challenges for members stationed at remote Coast
Guard stations, such as Coast Guard Station Neah Bay? Has the Coast
Guard conducted a nationwide assessment of childcare needs for members?
Why or why not? What would the Coast Guard need from Congress to
conduct such an assessment?
Answer. Ensuring the Coast Guard workforce has adequate access to
programs to provide family support is a high priority for me.
Since not all locations offer the same childcare options, Coast
Guard families are encouraged to explore all available childcare
options prior to finalizing a decision.
The last national assessment of childcare was conducted in Fiscal
Year 2004.
The President has recently signed the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus
Appropriations Act which directs the Coast Guard to conduct and report
on the results of a survey regarding cost and availability of child
care. Approximately $500K would enable the survey execution to be
expedited.
Upon completion of the directed survey, the Coast Guard will be
better suited to determine what level of additional funding may be
needed to increase access to childcare services.
Question 27. Access to Medical Care: Coast Guard members and
families serving in remote locations often face additional burdens when
accessing healthcare providers. For example, many families at Station
Grays Harbor must drive hours to receive care as far away as Olympia,
Washington, which is about an hour and a half away. Families in Neah
Bay often travel to Port Angeles (1 hour and 40 minutes), or to
Bremerton (3 hours 10 minutes) to receive care. This often includes
members and dependents seeking OB/GYN care, which is a particular need
in the region. What is the Coast Guard doing to assess healthcare
access for members and dependents in remote locations?
Answer. Access to healthcare for all members and dependents is a
high priority for the Coast Guard. Healthcare access for members and
families assigned to remote location units is discussed during
quarterly patient advisory committee meetings. Additionally, the Coast
Guard has increased education on TRICARE accessibility via public
affairs communication action plans such as blogs, message traffic, flag
notes, etc.
Question 28. Access to Medical Care: What can the Coast Guard do to
improve healthcare access for members and families stationed at remote
locations?
Answer. The Coast Guard works with the Defense Health Agency (DHA)
in identifying remote locations where TRICARE Prime Remote is the
appropriate designation for members and their families. The Coast Guard
also works with the TRICARE Contractor to improve the network where
problems are identified.
Question 29. Access to Medical Care: There is an urgent care clinic
in Neah Bay that currently doesn't accept TRICARE. Has the Coast Guard
engaged with TRICARE to attempt to secure TRICARE coverage for families
stationed in Neah Bay at a local facility? Why or why not?
Answer. The Coast Guard is unaware of any access to care issues in
Neah Bay at this time. We will investigate further.
Question 30. Access to Medical Care: Access to behavioral health
providers is also particularly challenging in remote locations. What is
the Coast Guard doing to improve access to behavioral healthcare for
members and dependents in remote locations?
Answer. The Coast Guard interacts with the TRICARE contractor to
ensure mental health services are available to all beneficiaries. When
services are not available, the Coast Guard engages with TRICARE to
strengthen that provider network.
Question 31. Access to Medical Care: Has the Coast Guard increased
the availability for family members to access telemedicine for
behavioral health needs?
Answer. Family members receive care via DoD or TRICARE providers.
DOD has a robust telemedicine program for beneficiaries.
Question 32. Access to Medical Care: Has the Coast Guard considered
staffing models for Coast Guard clinics where behavioral health
professionals could work part time, or rotate between facilities to
ensure access to care?
Answer. Mental health professionals, both uniform and contracted,
are assigned to Coast Guard units based on expressed need. As need is
discovered, mental health professionals are sent to other units on
occasion. Coast Guard mental health professionals see only active duty
members. Dependents receive their care via DoD or TRICARE providers.
Question 33. Access to Medical Care: I am concerned that Coast
Guard Sector Astoria only has a part-time flight surgeon, because the
surgeon is split between Astoria and Coos Bay. How long has this
staffing model been in effect?
Answer. The Coast Guard unit in Astoria has been receiving full
coverage from Coast Guard physicians travelling to that unit. No Coast
Guard units in Coos Bay or nearby have been negatively impacted.
Question 34. Access to Medical Care: What is the Coast Guard doing
to ensure consistent access to care for members stationed at either
facility, instead of interrupted care?
Answer. The Coast Guard is continuing to work directly with DHA and
TRICARE to strengthen the provider network in those areas.
Question 35. Natural Disaster Preparedness for Tsunamis: In Grays
Harbor, the Coast Guard Station and Coast Guard family housing, is
located in the inundation zone for a Cascadia Subduction Zone
earthquake-generated tsunami. In the event of a tsunami, there is a
vertical evacuation structure located at an elementary school in the
area, but it is too far for Coast Guard members and dependents to
access in the event of an emergency. Has the Coast Guard considered
additional tsunami resilience planning and infrastructure for Station
Grays Harbor?
Answer. The Coast Guard acknowledges that tsunami inundation is a
recognized vulnerability for Station Grays Harbor and the Coast Guard
family housing in Grays Harbor and will incorporate tsunami resiliency
planning into any future infrastructure projects located there.
Question 36. What can the Congress do to support vertical
evacuation infrastructure access for Coast Guard members and families
in the region?
Answer. As Coast Guard infrastructure is planned for
recapitalization, resiliency to withstand natural disasters is a
planning consideration which is factored into the facility design.
Continued Congressional support for Coast Guard shore infrastructure
projects will promote resiliency to withstand damage from natural
disasters and ensure response operations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Admiral Paul F. Zukunft
Question 1. What is the timeline for replacing the C-130 Hercules
at Barbers Point with the newer, more capable C-130Js?
Answer. The Coast Guard anticipates replacing the HC-130H aircraft
at Air Station Barbers Point with HC-130J's in 2022.
Question 2. Is there a plan to invest in new facilities at Barbers
Point so that we can do the daily maintenance on those aircraft and
protect them from the salt water environment?
Answer. The Coast Guard is currently assessing the need to
construct a new hangar facility at Barbers Point. To assist with
corrosion prevention, the Coast Guard recently installed an aircraft
rinse rack.
Question 3. And what plans do you have to improve the installation
power at Barbers Point, since assured power is critical to all of the
air station's operations?
Answer. The Coast Guard received a FY 2016 appropriation that
includes funding for a new electrical distribution system to supply Air
Station Barbers Point with a dependable electrical power supply. The
project will replace the deteriorated Navy-owned distribution system
and ensure compliance with national electrical distribution and utility
systems.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Etta Kuzakin
Question 1. What is the longest amount of time someone has waited
for a medevac out of King Cove?
Answer. There have been a number of times when medevacs, either by
air or water, could not happen for days. I believe the longest time has
been four days. In that situation the person needing to be medevaced
died. I have attached our list of deaths that have occurred as a result
of our notorious bad weather and access problems in reaching the Cold
Bay Airport. In particular, note deaths 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11.
Question 2. How do you think your experience would have been
different if the road had been there?
Answer. A road to the Cold Bay Airport from my home in King Cove
would have eliminated the incredible STRESS and CONFUSION that I, my
husband/family, clinic providers and staff had to endure for the many
hours while a safe means of getting me to the Cold Bay Airport for my
medevac flight from there to Anchorage. It was an experience that I
hope nobody else in my community ever has to go through again, but
until we get this road connection we are always going to be susceptible
to these situations.
Question 3. Where is the Coast Guard Air Station located that sends
its crews to your community for medical evacuations?
Answer. It depends on the time of the year and some luck. During
the winter fishing season in the Bering Sea (primarily crab), the USCG
station in Kodiak (about 300 miles east of King Cove) has a temporary/
seasonal base of operation in Cold Bay (about 25 miles north of King
Cove). In my particular situation, the USCG crew and helicopter that
day were about 200 miles north of Cold Bay in the Bering Sea. Once it
was determined that my only option was going to be a USCG rescue, the
helicopter and crew up in the Bering Sea on that day came into King
Cove in some very nasty weather. Some of the USCG medevacs have even
come from its District 17 headquarters in Juneau, which is 600 miles
east of King Cove across the Gulf of Alaska.
Question 4. How long does it take them to arrive?
Answer. From Cold Bay it takes about 15-20 minutes, from Kodiak 3
hours, and Juneau 5-6 hours. The daily weather and visibility also have
an impact on these times.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Dr. Guy Meadows
Question 1. Line 5 Risk Analysis: During the hearing, you mentioned
that nine Michigan universities are participating in the team that will
conduct the risk analysis for Line 5. What universities are part of the
team? Can you outline the timeline for the risk analysis study?
Answer. Michigan Technological University has been working
diligently since September 18, 2017, when the Michigan Pipeline Safety
Advisory Board (PSAB) unanimously recommended that Michigan Tech lead
state universities in a risk analysis of the Line 5 Straits pipelines.
At this time, a formal contract between Michigan Tech and the State of
Michigan has not yet been executed. Barring any unforeseen changes, the
risk analysis team will comprise 41 researchers, 21 from Michigan Tech
and 20 from external organizations. Nine universities are contributing
experts to the analysis, and seven of those nine are within the state
of Michigan. They include Michigan Tech, the University of Michigan,
Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Western Michigan
University, Grand Valley State University, and Oakland University. The
two out-of-state universities are North Dakota State University and
Loyola University Chicago. Three researchers on the project are from
consulting organizations, and two are independent contractors. Two
other contributors, both from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
will donate their time and services. Meadows will serve as project
lead, with the team organized into nine sections based on the State's
published scope of work: https://mipetroleumpipelines.com/document/
risk-analysis-final-rfp. Each section will have a section leader, a
chief scientist and at least two section authors. In addition to the
nine sections, a ``broader impacts'' team will provide a comprehensive
overview of risks that various affected communities perceive in
connection with the Straits pipelines. Affected groups include
indigenous communities; local, state, Federal and Canadian government
officials; environmental and historic preservation groups; and tourism,
fishing and recreation industries. The risk analysis team will use
Michigan Tech's high-performance computing cluster to run high-
resolution hydrodynamic models for Lakes Michigan and Huron to predict
the fate and transport of worse-case spills. Researchers will also
develop a multi-layer, web-based geographic information system GIS
portal to accumulate output from each team. This portal will be made
available to the State upon completion of the risk analysis to serve as
a rapid response resource inventory.
The proposed timeline for the risk analysis is the following:
Dec. 1--Full pre-proposal for an Independent Risk Analysis
was submitted to State of Michigan for review and feedback
Dec. 11--Meadows presentation to PSAB (Lansing, MI)
Dec. 15--Feedback expected from PSAB and State Technical
Team to be incorporated into final proposal to SOM
December--State and Michigan Tech enter into contract
Jan. 2--Project start
May--Delivery of Draft Risk Analysis
June--Public presentation of Draft Report
June/July--Public comment period 30 days
July/August--Respond to public and State input
Aug. 30--Delivery of Final Report
Question 2. Pipeline inspections: The recent reports of coating
damage at 42 of 48 locations inspected with divers along Line 5 deeply
concerns me. Clearly, conducting inspections with remote operating
vehicles is not sufficient to ensure the integrity of the pipeline and
its protective coatings.
What can be done to improve the technology for pipeline inspection
capabilities?
Do the conditions at the Straits of Mackinac--at over 100 feet deep
with potentially strong currents--affect the effectiveness of current
technologies?
And are divers--in-person observations--the only way we can ensure
the integrity of the coatings protecting underwater pipelines such as
Line 5?
Answer. There are currently two technologies that have been
employed to complete external inspections of the Line 5 pipelines
beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)
inspections have been conducted by Enbridge and others, and Autonomous
Underwater Vehicle (AUV) inspections of the pipeline and the
surrounding underwater terrain have been conducted by Michigan
Technological University, under a research contract to develop this
technology supported by Enbridge.
ROV inspections allow detailed video camera views (and recordings)
of the pipeline to be made as the remotely operated vehicle is
navigated along the pipeline. With a skilled operator, almost any view
obtainable by a human diver, can be obtained and recorded remotely,
including observation of coating integrity. Although time consuming,
this is a very productive method by which to obtained detailed video of
the condition of the exterior of the pipeline. Several Michigan
commercial firms have both the expertise and equipment to perform this
type of detailed pipeline inspection in the Straits. Michigan Tech,
operates two such ROVs capable of operations to 1,000 feet of water
depth, equipped with multiple video cameras, articulated arm, lights,
and sonar. See adjacent photo.
AUV methodologies to inspect the pipeline and the surrounding
underwater terrain have been developed and conducted by Michigan
Technological University. These consist of ``flying'' the AUV under
fully autonomous control, at a prescribed elevation above the bottom
(typically five meters, following the terrain) and at a prescribed
horizontal offset from the pipeline (typically 15 meters) to place the
pipeline in the field of view of the imaging, side-scan sonar system.
This configuration allows large regions of the pipeline and surrounding
underwater landscape (sea-scape) to be viewed. This technique does not
provide an ``inspection'' of the pipeline and its associated coating,
but does provide details of regions of the bottom that are either
eroding or depositing sediment, and hence, details on the pipeline span
lengths being supported. Attached below is an example of a high-
resolution, side-scan sonar image of a section of the Line 5 pipeline
beneath the Straits of Mackinac, acquired by Michigan Tech's IVER3 AUV.
The pipeline is the long linear feature on the left side of the image
(at 18 meters from the dark center directly beneath the AUV), passing
under a mound of bottom sediment.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The technology to acquire such images and to produce precise
measurements of the unsupported span lengths, developed by Michigan
Tech, has been transferred to Enbridge and their commercial contractors
for ongoing implementation.
In addition, with these advanced, high resolution, acoustic images
it is also possible to detect underwater plumes. The following pair of
images was acquired in shallow water of a ground water plume seeping
out from the bottom. Give the acoustic contrast between oil and water,
there is no doubt that a seep of oil would also be detectable with
these systems.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Future improvement of these technologies is always possible. The
Straits offer a challenging environment within which to make such
detailed observations/measurements due to the strength and constant
changes of near bottom currents. Direct measurements of currents from
either Michigan Tech's surface buoy or from our proposed bottom
mounted, underwater cabled observatories, has and will continue to
greatly improve the forecasting of bottom current conditions. We are
seeking research funds to continue development of these new
technologies for implementation in the Straits of Mackinac. Under
present conditions, the strength of currents on the bottom of the
Straits do at times exceed the capabilities of AUV sensing and
navigation systems.
Michigan Tech, originally at the request of Enbridge and more
recently at the request of the State of Michigan, has developed a plan
for bottom-mounted, underwater cabled observatories to provide 24/7,
all season monitoring of waves, currents and ice keel depth from the
bottom looking upward. This plan involves placement so three such
installations across the Straits of Mackinac, either in the vicinity of
the Line 5 pipelines or supported by the pylons of the Mackinac Bridge,
or both. With such a system, power to the instrumentation is supplied
by underwater cables from shore and real-time data is transmitted back,
providing instantaneous and continuous monitoring of the flows, waves,
and ice depth. Underwater cables will be selected to have the
capability to support a wide array of other, additional instrumentation
such as live video, hydrocarbon sensors, water quality sensors, etc. A
schematic of this proposed installation is provided below. Michigan
Tech has previously developed and deployed an underwater/under-ice
cabled observatory and operated it beneath the ice continuously for
four months during the harsh winter of 2014-15 (see: http://
www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2015/january/michigan-tech-deploys-under-ice-
research-instruments-frozen-portage-waterway.html). The ``Tech
Observatory'' is pictured to the right, along with a view from the
live-to-the-internet, underwater, video camera from the observatory
(left).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Estimated costs for the above system are approximately $500,000 for
instrumentation and cables and approximately $100,000/year for
Operation and Maintenance. These estimates do not include the costs of
cable laying, but do include the cost of armored, underwater, high-
capacity data and power cables, capable of supporting the additional
instrumentation outlined above (including live video).
Question 3. New pipeline agreement: The Governor of Michigan and
Enbridge signed an agreement to explore alternative options for Line 5
at the Straits of Mackinac, halt pipeline operations if severe weather
hits the current-churned stretch of water that separates Lakes Michigan
and Huron, and improve monitoring and reporting on Line 5.
How will this agreement influence the conditions considered in the
risk analysis?
Will the alternatives proposed by the agreement between the state
of Michigan and Enbridge and the potential risks they pose be
considered in the risk analysis that you are leading?
Is shutting down the lines if waves reach 8 feet or more for more
than 60 minutes adequate to reducing the risk of a spill incident?
Are there other severe conditions, such as significant ice cover,
that also would merit a shut down due to restricted response
capabilities that such conditions pose?
Answer. To adequately answer these questions, I would like to
provide some relevant background information.
In 2010, Michigan experienced the largest inland oil spill in U.S.
history when a pipeline known as Line 6B burst and spilled heavy crude
into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. To prevent future accidents of
this nature, the State formed a multi-agency task force called the
Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force. The task force issued a report
in 2015 that made 13 recommendations, including the commissioning of an
independent risk analysis for the Straits Pipelines portion of Line 5,
two parallel 20-inch pipelines that run for 4.5 miles beneath the
Straits of Mackinac. Line 5 is owned by Enbridge.
In recommending the commission of an independent risk analysis, the
task force said the State of Michigan should 1) require Enbridge to pay
for (but not control) an expert analysis of the potential liability
from a worst-case scenario spill, and 2) require Enbridge to then
maintain an adequate financial assurance mechanism to cover liability
for all damages or losses to public and private property. The State has
the authority to do this under a 1953 easement that granted permission
for the pipelines' construction.
If the State engages Michigan Tech to lead the independent risk
analysis, the underlying premise of our work is that the ``worst case''
has already occurred. The task is to define the magnitude and extent of
this spill and to assemble the total costs of that disaster. At this
point in time, it is difficult to say what influence, if any, the
recently signed agreement between the State of Michigan and Enbridge
will have in making those determinations.
While it is difficult at this time in the process to evaluate the
adequacy of the November 27 agreement between the State and Enbridge, I
do believe the agreement is a positive step forward. The line can now
be shut down quickly when necessary. In fact, just recently--on
December 5--Line 5 was shut down temporarily when waves reached the
limit of eight feet. The waves ultimately exceeded nine feet that day.
Not long after, further action was taken by the PSAB to recommend to
further reduce the wave-height criteria.
I do want to point out here that the eight-foot wave criteria is
based on the ability of clean-up equipment to skim oil. It is not based
on reducing the risk of damage to the pipeline.
Regarding other severe conditions that might merit a shutdown of
the pipeline, I prefer to leave those determinations to the PSAB, from
which I resigned earlier this year in order to undertake the
independent risk analysis.
Question 4. Collaboration with the Coast Guard: As you know, the
worst inland oil spill in U.S. history occurred in Michigan in 2010.
The Kalamazoo River was devastated by this event with clean-up costs
exceeding $1 billion. The Coast Guard Research and Development Center
has done a great deal to improve technologies to respond to oil spill
response. Some of these transfer well from the oceans to the Great
Lakes, but not all, and the Coast Guard Commandant has stated that the
Coast Guard does not have the resources or research in the Great Lakes
to respond to a freshwater oil spill.
How much have you worked and collaborated with the Coast Guard R&D
center?
Answer. Prior to joining Michigan Tech in 2012, I have had
extensive collaborations with the USCG while at the University of
Michigan, both in graduate education of USCG offices at the MSE level
and with the Marine Safety and R&D branches of the USCG. Since arrive
at Tech, our operations in the Straits, including AUV operations above
the pipelines and environmental monitoring buoy operations, are all
closely coordinated through and with USCG Sector Soo. Initially at the
request of Enbridge and later at the request the State of Michigan and
Senator Peters' office, I have developed plans for a Center of
Excellence on Oil in Freshwater. A summary is provided in the two
slides below:
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 5. Oil spill response in ice: There were many challenges
associated with cleaning up oil from a spill under ice in the
Yellowstone River, including not only finding the oil, but the lack of
stability of the ice. In your testimony, you highlight the potential
for advanced technologies to improve oil spill response in ice.
What can be done to improve our ability to respond to oil when ice
is present?
So far, technologies to skim oil in ice conditions have not proved
as effective as hoped.
What can improve our technology to recover oil in ice?
What research are you currently conducting that could improve
response?
Answer. Oil with Ice is a very tough problem both in salt and to an
even greater extent in water. Fresh water produces ice at a higher
temperature and in some conditions to a greater extent than does
seawater. To my knowledge there are no present, large scale,
operational technologies to extract oil from within ice, on ice, or
under ice. More and very recent information is available from the
Arctic Response Technology website at: arcticresponsetechnology.org,
and from their recent final report entitled ``Detection of Oil On-In-
and-Under Ice--Final Report 5.3,'' at: http://
www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Remote-
Sensing-Report-Final.pdf.
Remote sensing, however, of oil and ice is possible. We have
proposed to NOAA on several occasions (all without funding success) to
install oil sensing radars at the Straits of Mackinac. The Norwegians
in the North Sea have taken the detection, tracking and clean-up of oil
from petroleum exploration and production platforms very seriously.
With work that has been led by Michigan Technological University's,
Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI) in Ann Arbor, they have
equipped oil platforms with oil detection and tracking radar units. The
towers of the Mackinac Bridge are ideal for such a similar
installation. It is important to note that this remote sensing
technology, also directly measures, in real-time, surface water
currents important for fate and transport estimates of spills,
directing cleanup operations and for detection with ice present.
MTRI has also teamed with AKELA Inc., to utilize a highly portable,
wide-band, bistatic radar, operating from 300-3,000 MHz, to detect oil
in or under sea ice, freshwater ice, and snow. The primary hypothesis
is that a wide-band, bistatic data collection at penetrating radar
frequencies provides sufficient measurement diversity to produce radar
imagery with sufficient spatial resolution to reliably detect oil
pockets/layers in an inhomogeneous ice/snow background. Practical field
collection of wide-band bistatic data is feasible due to the recently
development of a field-portable AKELA radar system to support
Department of Defense (DoD) efforts to detect buried explosive hazards.
The prototype system is lightweight, very portable, and can operate on
the ice or snow surface, from a sled, ship, or other vehicle, or even
potentially an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The system is relatively
low cost; thus, many units could be constructed and deployed at oil
spill recovery sites throughout the globe.
Question 6. Unmanned surface vessels: You mention that unmanned
surface vessels are currently being used in conjunction with
geophysical survey ships in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore of the
Alaska coastline.
How do these unmanned surface vessels work?
What are the capabilities and benefits of these unmanned surface
vessels?
Answer. Michigan Tech, through a collaboration with MTRI, and I
were early developers of Autonomous Surface Vessels (ASVs) for use in
surveying lakes of the Alaskan North Slope, used by the oil exploration
industry. These ASVs were purposefully designed to be small (fit on
your lap in a helicopter) for easy deployment on very remote bodies of
water. Based on this experience, NOAA asked us to organize and conduct
a recent national level workshop on new advances of ASVs to meet NOAA's
needs. This workshop was held in November 2015 at Solomons, Maryland,
and was attended by approximately 40 representatives from government,
natural resources managers, academics, and manufacturers of ASVs. The
workshop report is available at: http://www.act-us.info/Download/
Workshops/2015/CBL_Autonomous
_Surface/files/assets/basic-html/page-1.html#
The current ``state of the art'' in ASV technology is quite
advanced. These vessels can work either totally unattended or under
``supervised autonomy,'' under the watchful eye of an operator on an
adjacent vessel. In either case, the ASV knows and understands the
``rules of the road,'' can sense other vessel approaching and alter its
course accordingly, conduct a wide variety of missions without human
intervention (including placing oil booms and monitoring the location
and spread of spilled oil). Michigan Tech currently has a pending
proposal before the National Science Foundation (NSF) to be the first
university to operate an ASV as a fully autonomous research vessel. We
have chosen the ASV Global, Co-Worker 5 to be a shared use asset across
Great Lakes universities. This vessel, pictured below working off the
cost of Alaska for the oil industry, is 5.5 meters in length (18 feet),
can be transported down the road on a trailer behind a pick-up truck,
can work up to five days, 24 hours a day. As indicated by our ASV
Workshop report, these unmanned vessels are best utilized to perform
duties that are dull, dirty and/or dangerous to human crews. The cost
of such an advanced ASV is approximately $1million.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Lee W. Smithson
Question 1. Post Katrina, can you talk about the measures
Mississippi has put in place to improve communication between state and
local officials to ensure that the resources available are effectively
utilized?
Answer. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Mississippi has developed
the Mississippi Wireless Integrated Network (MSWIN) that is truly the
best in the Nation. This system is fully interoperable and has coverage
of over 97 percent of the state. The system is reliable, redundant and
hardened to withstand windspeeds of more than 160 mph. Thanks to the
concerted efforts of our congressional delegation, more than $400
million was invested by the Federal Government to build this system.
The system was first tested in the summer of 2010 during the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. It proved capable of linking responders at the local
level to state and even Federal responders. It is used daily by more
than 35,000 responders.
In addition to building a state of the art system, Mississippi has
also improved its procedures for exchanging information during a
crisis. We have implemented a process that defines critical information
and when and to whom that information is sent. We have implemented a
virtual situation room that allows local leaders as well as state
leadership to access critical information via computer anywhere at any
time. This ``one stop shop'' consolidates information and makes it
readily available to all responders and stakeholders.
Question 2. FEMA administers the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,
the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and the Disaster Mitigation
Program to provide state and local governments with funding mechanisms
to build resiliency against disasters. Given the numerous recent
hurricanes experienced along the Gulf Coast, can you comment on the
importance of these programs and the benefits they have had for local
communities?
Answer. Without the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, it is doubtful
Mississippi would have recovered as well as we have from Hurricane
Katrina's devastation. Since 2006, MEMA has managed more than $340
million in mitigation projects ranging from safe rooms to flood
mitigation projects to public awareness campaigns. In October 2017,
Hurricane Nate made landfall as a Category One storm. While there was
widespread damage, the gulf coast returned to normal operations with
schools, businesses and government offices open less than 48 hours
after landfall. The were no injuries or loss of life. This resiliency
is due exclusively to the investment in mitigation efforts made by the
local, state and Federal governments in the decade since Katrina.
Question 3. Through your extensive experience on disaster response
during incidents such as Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater Horizon,
Hurricane Nate and numerous others, you have personally witnessed
response efforts that were both effective and ineffective. From a
Federal perspective, the U.S. Coast Guard's ability to provide adequate
resources is critical in any major disaster relief effort. As you
mentioned in your testimony, Hurricane Nate is one example of a well
coordinated preparedness and response effort across multiple entities.
As the Coast Guard's resources are strained with competing demands
from different mission sets and simultaneous operations, what would be
the effects on a community undergoing a major natural disaster if the
Coast Guard were not able to provide a surge in manpower and resources?
Answer. The U.S. Coast Guard has become an integral partner in
preparedness and response. From the Gulf Coast to the Mississippi
River, the Coast Guard provides outstanding support to Mississippi
every day. As evidenced during the search and rescue in Houston, TX
after Hurricane Harvey, the capabilities brought to a response by the
Coast Guard cannot be replicated by other agencies. No agency has the
ability to do aerial search and rescue like the Coast Guard. Without
the ability to surge manpower and resources after a disaster, the
simple truth is that people will die. It is imperative that the U.S.
Coast Guard be fully funded and continue its close partnership with the
states it serves.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Lee W. Smithson
Question 1. Coast Guard and EOCs: You mention in your written
statement that it would be ideal for Coast Guard members to be assigned
to state emergency operations centers on a daily basis, not just during
large scale emergencies.
During emergencies they have a very clear role, can you elaborate
on what their regular role would be if they were assigned to the
centers as a tour of assignment?
Answer. One of the many missions given the U.S. Coast Guard is to
maintain our Nation's navigable waterways. The Mississippi River is a
crucial part of the U.S. economy and makes up Mississippi's entire
western border. There are navigation incidents almost daily on the
Mississippi River that require local and state responses. The daily
presence of a U.S. Coast Guard member in the State Emergency Operations
Center would allow for instantaneous communication and collaboration
with our Federal partners to ensure the waterways stay open and to
respond to incidents that could require a large-scale response, such as
a hazardous material release. Further, having a U.S. Coast Guard member
in the operations center would be very beneficial in the exchange of
intelligence pertaining to the security of the ports throughout the
state. The Mississippi Intelligence and Analysis Center (Fusion Center)
is located within the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency and has
intelligence analysts from numerous state and local agencies including
the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, Mississippi Bureau of
Narcotics, and the Hinds County Sheriff's Office. Additionally, the
Center has a Department of Homeland Security intelligence analyst. The
addition of a Coast Guard member would greatly benefit the intelligence
gathering, analysis and dissemination statewide and with our Federal
partners.
Question 2. Would they mostly be standing by in case of emergency
or do you envision a larger role for them within the emergency
operation centers?
Answer. A larger role. The Coast Guard member would be sending and
receiving reports daily from the numerous Coast Guard Sectors that
cover Mississippi. The presence of a Coast Guard member would also
provide in-depth collaboration in operations management activities. A
Coast Guard member would bring skill sets to the operations center that
are not ordinarily present. The diverse training and real-world
experiences of a typical mid-grade Coast Guard officer would greatly
benefit the operations center. The interagency collaboration that a
Coast Guard member would participate in would also greatly benefit the
Coast Guard and would enhance the servicemember's career.
Question 3. In 2010, as my home state of Michigan was facing the
Kalamazoo River oil spill, you were facing the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill that devastated the Gulf of Mexico. Can you expand on the unified
approach and how that was realized as the way forward for Deepwater
Horizon?
Answer. Since the terrorist attacks in 2001, federal, state and
local responders are required to follow the National Incident
Management System (NIMS), as defined by the National Response
Framework. NIMS is a comprehensive, national approach to incident
management that is applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across
functional disciplines. It is intended to be applicable across a full
spectrum of potential incidents, hazards, and impacts, regardless of
size, location or complexity. Additionally, it is designed to improve
coordination and cooperation between public and private entities in a
variety of incident management activities. Lastly, it provides a common
standard for overall incident management. In the first 20 days of
response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Coast Guard's mindset
was that they were in charge and the assets, experience and dedication
of state and local responders were ignored. This led to a disorganized
response and created significant issues in deploying assets to detect
and clean up oil in the Mississippi Sound. The utilization of boom
material was critical. Yet the Coast Guard initially did not consider
the requests for deployment of boom material by the local officials.
However, it was the locals who were familiar with the coast's
marshlands, oyster reefs and other sensitive environmental areas.
Further, when National Guard helicopter flights detected degraded
booms, the Coast Guard would take the reports and wait until the day
after the reports were provided to develop a response. This led to
further boom degradation. Also, the Mississippi Air National Guard had
a fixed wing plane that had Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) that was
capable of detecting oil both during daylight and night time hours. The
aircraft's sensors could also detect submerged oil. The Mississippi
National Guard submitted numerous requests to have the Coast Guard
approve the use of this aircraft. However, approval was not granted
until the 20th of May, a full month after the well exploded. Once the
aircraft was fully deployed, Admiral Zunkunft called it ``a game
changer'' and ``worth its weight in gold''.
It was only after then Governor Haley Barbour met with senior Coast
Guard officials did the Coast Guard admit that response efforts were
slowed due to poor communication with state and local officials. The
Coast Guard agreed to establish an operations center in Gulfport, MS
and collaborate with Mississippi's lead agencies including, the
Department of Marine Resources, Department of Environmental Quality and
the National Guard. When a unified approach was utilized, the responses
to oil found in the Mississippi Sound were streamlined and expedited.
The Coast Guard began operating on Mississippi's statewide
interoperable radio system which was instrumental in getting manpower
and equipment where it was needed. The Coast Guard members in the
Mississippi operations center were exceptionally professional and
dedicated to the mission. By the end of May 2010, the interagency
collaboration and cooperation was exceptional and the partnership with
both the Coast Guard and BP was exemplary. Mississippi formed the
Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) taskforce, which was charged with locating
and cleaning up oil. The Coast Guard was responsible for deploying the
VOO taskforce. Once the interagency collaboration began, the success of
the VOO taskforce grew exponentially. The reason is that National Guard
helicopters would locate oil and immediately radio the VOO taskforce
commanders using the statewide radio system. This allowed for
instantaneous response to oil in the Sound and allowed for the oil to
be skimmed. Prior to the collaboration between VOO and NG helicopters,
the amount of oil cleaned up in the sound was negligible. Former U.S.
Representative Gene Taylor referred to the VOO taskforce as ``a bunch
of boats patrolling the Gulf with absolutely no clue''. Once the
vessels integrated with the National Guard, literally tons of oil
product were skimmed.
When the Deepwater Horizon oil well exploded in April 2010, the
U.S. Coast Guard had never been required to operate in an interagency
environment of this magnitude. Four states were involved in responding
to the oil leak 100 miles off the Mississippi coast and in water more
than a mile deep. The complexity of this event was unprecedented and
the only way the overall response would be successful was to leverage
all available resources, both from the private sector and from
government. While the Coast Guard's initial unwillingness to integrate
other agencies into its response, it was obvious by the time the leak
was stopped and all oil was cleaned up that the Coast Guard fully
embraced NIMS and the need to form interagency alliances. As I stated
in my initial testimony, I believe the U.S. Coast Guard fully applied
the lessons learned from the largest man-made disaster in our Nation's
history and it is indeed a better organization as a result of the
Deepwater Horizon incident.
[all]
This page intentionally left blank.
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wicker, Roger F. | W000437 | 8263 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 115 | 1226 |
| Blunt, Roy | B000575 | 8313 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MO | 115 | 1464 |
| Moran, Jerry | M000934 | 8307 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | KS | 115 | 1507 |
| Thune, John | T000250 | 8257 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | SD | 115 | 1534 |
| Baldwin, Tammy | B001230 | 8215 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | WI | 115 | 1558 |
| Udall, Tom | U000039 | 8260 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NM | 115 | 1567 |
| Capito, Shelley Moore | C001047 | 8223 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WV | 115 | 1676 |
| Cantwell, Maria | C000127 | 8288 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | WA | 115 | 172 |
| Klobuchar, Amy | K000367 | 8249 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MN | 115 | 1826 |
| Heller, Dean | H001041 | 8060 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | NV | 115 | 1863 |
| Peters, Gary C. | P000595 | 7994 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 1929 |
| Gardner, Cory | G000562 | 7862 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | CO | 115 | 1998 |
| Young, Todd | Y000064 | 7948 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 115 | 2019 |
| Blumenthal, Richard | B001277 | 8332 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | CT | 115 | 2076 |
| Lee, Mike | L000577 | 8303 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | UT | 115 | 2080 |
| Johnson, Ron | J000293 | 8355 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WI | 115 | 2086 |
| Duckworth, Tammy | D000622 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 2123 | |
| Schatz, Brian | S001194 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | HI | 115 | 2173 | |
| Cruz, Ted | C001098 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 2175 | |
| Fischer, Deb | F000463 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | NE | 115 | 2179 | |
| Booker, Cory A. | B001288 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 115 | 2194 | |
| Sullivan, Dan | S001198 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | AK | 115 | 2290 | |
| Cortez Masto, Catherine | C001113 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NV | 115 | 2299 | |
| Hassan, Margaret Wood | H001076 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NH | 115 | 2302 | |
| Inhofe, James M. | I000024 | 8322 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | OK | 115 | 583 |
| Markey, Edward J. | M000133 | 7972 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 115 | 735 |
| Nelson, Bill | N000032 | 8236 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 859 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.