Hsc 08 Minutes

HARBOR SAFETY COMMITTEE CONFERENCE MEETING MINUTES May 12-14, 2008 Seattle, Washington Day One: Monday, May 12th, 2008

WELCOMING REMARKS Bruce Reed Chairman, Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee Bruce Reed welcomed attendees to the tenth annual Harbor Safety Conference in Puget Sound, Seattle. He said he was pleased and honored to be hosting this convention, and to have Seattle‘s mayor, Greg Nickels, on hand to offer his personal welcome. He said he was also honored to have the Vice Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Vice Admiral Vivien Crea, as one of the keynote speakers, along with Steve Scalzo, CEO of Marine Resources Group. Mr. Reed then provided some information about the Puget Sound region. Geographically, Puget Sound is larger than Los Angeles/Long Beach and San Francisco Bay combined. It is the southern terminus for all the cargo that moves between Alaska and the Lower 48, including most of the oil that moves down the TransAlaska Pipeline. It is home to a number of critical military installations, including Sub Base Bangor, the Bremerton Naval Shipyard, Naval Air Station Whidbey, Air Base Everett, McCord Air Force Base, and Coast Guard stations Seattle, Port Angeles, Neah Bay and Bellingham, among others. Puget Sound is also home to many major ports, including Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Olympia, Bellingham, and Port Angeles. The Sound is home to the nation‘s largest ferry system, the Washington State Ferries, which carries 20% of U.S. ferry riders. Bellingham, at the north end of the Sound, is the southern terminus for the Alaska Marine Highway ferry system, which boasts the longest ferry trip routes in the nation. The region is also home to the largest fishing fleet on the United States. Area-based fishing vessels bring in over two billion dollars‘ worth of fish per year. In addition, the Seattle area has a small but growing cruise ship industry. Mr. Reed thanked everyone for coming to this conference, including sponsors, exhibitors, and individuals who regularly attend HSC conferences across the country. He pointed out that the HSC is a model for what good can be accomplished when people with a common interest pull together. He added that HSC is a true partnership between members of the marine stakeholder community who are dedicated to improving personal and maritime safety, efficient and responsible waterborne commerce, and environmental stewardship. Mr. Reed then introduced Greg Nickels, mayor of Seattle since 2002.

1

Introductory Remarks, Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle Mayor Nickels welcomed everyone to Seattle. He noted that he had taken office just eight weeks after September 11, 2001. Because of this, he said, an ongoing key issue for his administration has been ―making sure that Seattle is prepared,‖ and expressed confidence that the city can deal with disasters, whether man-made or natural. Mr. Nickels went on to say that Seattle has had a great impact on the country and the world because of the creativity of its citizens. He cited Bill Boeing, whose innovations led to the jet age; Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who helped pioneer the information age; and finally, ―The great folks at Starbucks, who figured out how to charge $3.50 for a cup of coffee.‖ Mr. Reed finished by asking the visitors to note how Seattle keeps its waters and ports safe. He hoped that Seattle would instill everyone with some of its creative energy. Mr. John Ventjer introduced Admiral John Currier, a Coast Guard aviator. Admiral Currier welcomed the attendees on behalf of the men and women of the 13th Coast Guard district. He noted that Seattle is an appropriate setting for the HSC conference, not only because it has a vibrant maritime-based economy and a strong maritime heritage, but it is also a gateway to the Pacific Rim. He added that Seattle is a growing hub of maritime commerce. He said that the HSC conference represents a terrific opportunity to share information, because everyone‘s common goal is safety and security in our ports and waterways. Admiral Currier then introduced Vice Admiral Vivien Crea.

Keynote Address Vice Admiral Vivien S. Crea, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral Crea thanked Admiral Currier and Mayor Nickels. She expressed her respect for the Harbor Safety Committee, and thanked the Puget Sound HSC and its chairman Bruce Reed for hosting this year‘s conference, and Capt. John Veentjer of the Puget Sound Marine Exchange for his tireless contributions to the nation‘s maritime community. She also thanked the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Science and its staff. Vice Admiral Crea noted that the Coast Guard has always appreciated the importance of local Harbor Safety Committees because they provide a local venue for NTS stakeholders to address and resolve issues that affect individual port operations, including navigation safety, port congestion, and dredging. She said that the HSC has contributed much to the nation‘s national security, providing a template for the Coast Guard and other national agencies to solve common problems. Vice Admiral Crea stated that the Coast Guard‘s top three missions remain safety, security, and environmental stewardship. She emphasized the annual HSC conference‘s contribution to the success of these missions. She said that this year‘s conference would have participants from industry, government, and private interest. She noted that the agenda would be fast-paced. She welcomed all the panelists.

2

Admiral Crea then discussed the Coast Guard‘s renewed emphasis on marine safety. She is aware of the perception that the Coast Guard has been too focused on maritime security and not enough on marine safety. She said that the Coast Guard has heard these concerns and is taking aggressive action on them. Stating that the marine safety mission is fundamental to the entire existence of the Coast Guard, Vice Admiral Crea commended the services of mariners who must operate in today‘s hazardous environment. She said that Vice Admiral Jim Card was appointed to address the perceived imbalance between maritime security and marine safety. He has conducted a not-for-attribution survey of maritime industry leaders‘ perceptions, which is available on the Coast Guard‘s Home Port Web site. Based on the information in that report, the Coast Guard has reaffirmed its commitment to marine safety missions in the following areas: process improvement, increasing Coast Guard expertise and capacity, and reaffirming outreach and communication with industry and stakeholders. The Coast Guard has almost finished a marine safety performance plan. When complete, this plan will be posted on the Coast Guard‘s Home Port Web site. Admiral Crea went on to give examples of current Coast Guard missions, one of which is to hire experienced merchant mariners and civilian billets to consolidate licensing processing and inspection credentialing. She said that the Coast Guard will treat all professional mariners with the utmost respect, pointing out that she and the Commandant frequently communicate with marine industry executives, and have told field commanders to do the same. They have also directed their sector commanders to formally reach out to their maritime stakeholders and to report the results of these discussions to Headquarters by June. Vice Admiral Crea added that the Coast Guard would consolidate its merchant mariner licenses and documentation in Martinsburg, West Virginia, by the end of the year. She then discussed the Coast Guard‘s plan to increase civilian workforce capacity, particularly in the fields of marine inspection and safety. The Coast Guard will be hiring civilians with maritime experience as marine inspectors. Its goal is to hire several hundred new marine inspectors over the next few years, with almost 300 billets in the FY 09 budget now being considered on Capitol Hill. She reiterated her earlier point that the Coast Guard‘s most important missions are safety, security, and environmental stewardship, and added that these can only be accomplished through positive working relationships with industry and the public. Admiral Crea then addressed the issue of TWIC. She said that, though TWIC presents a challenge, it is an important measure that has been mandated by Congress, and that it is essential to the security of the United States. She noted that the Coast Guard plans to implement TWIC as smoothly as possible. TSA and Lockheed have made several enrollment improvements to increase efficiency and shorten card issuance time. Although the TWIC enrollment deadline has been extended to April 15, 2009, she stressed the importance of early enrollment to avoid last-minute logjams. She encouraged the group to make TWIC a success, pointed out specific ways the Coast Guard has made this goal easier to accomplish, and thanked the individual stakeholders for their contributions.

3

She then talked about small vessel security. She said that the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security are working with the public to address safety problems created by small vessels—for example the USS Cole, the tank vessel Lundberg, and ongoing piracy events. She observed that, though the nation‘s waterways are becoming more and more congested, small vessels can be managed with proper planning. She talked about a recent security summit held by DHS, the results of which are available on its Web site. She said the Coast Guard is making progress on several fronts, including international efforts. She mentioned several recent small vessel security summits, adding that more are planned for the future. She emphasized the importance of education, noting that the Coast Guard is working on a legislative proposal to mandate a national minimum education requirement for small vessel operators. Admiral Crea went on to discuss America‘s Waterways Watch, which provides an 800 number so that people who live and work on U.S. waterways can promptly report suspicious activities. AWW disseminates these reports throughout law enforcement services, thereby thwarting national security threats. She urged everyone to continue to participate in this effort. She assured attendees that the Coast Guard would continue to serve the public at the level of the sector commander. She said there would now be ―one-stop shopping on a regional basis,‖ explaining that the Coast Guard has now fused the execution of all activities under one command—the operations command. She explained that this would standardize doctrines, techniques, and standards, and that more consistency would mean overall better service. She added that the Coast Guard has now established an Assistant Commandant, Rear Admiral Brian Solerno, for marine safety, security and stewardship. In conclusion, Vice Admiral Crea stressed the importance of the HSC to the safety of the nation‘s waterways and ports. She commended the participants for their contributions and for working together to improve maritime safety.

PANEL 1 COMMUNICATING THROUGH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Moderator: Peter Lauridsen, Passenger Vessel Association Peter Lauridsen welcomed the group. He began by saying that effective communication through public and private partnerships leads to safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally sound maritime operations. He explained that the panelists would be talking about their perception of, and role in, public-private partnerships. Mr. Lauridsen expanded on the nature of partnerships, pointing out that partnerships are cyclical. He spoke about 9/11, stating that the marine industry was the first responder and provided continuous support in the days and weeks following that event. This, he added, was the result of many informal partnerships forged over the years. Mr. Lauridsen then talked about ―8-02.‖ i.e., August 2nd 2007, when Congress called a public hearing ―to 4

move marine safety back to the Department of Transportation.‖ While admitting that ―802‖ is not remembered as a great day, it did mark the beginning of a rejuvenation of the marine transportation system, heralding an era of more open communication. Mr. Lauridsen remarked that the Harbor Safety Committee was a good place to discuss partnerships. He then introduced the first presenter, Captain Steve Metruck.

Captain Steve Metruck, Captain of the Port Puget Sound PowerPoint presentation: Enhancing Maritime Outreach Captain Steve Metruck said he was pleased to be on the panel to discuss the enhancement of maritime outreach. He explained that his presentation would be about communicating with maritime stakeholders, both now and in the future. Captain Metruck opened with a slide showing a map of the United States, illustrating divisions for Coast Guard areas, districts, and sectors. He talked about ―sectorized‖ legacy units, each with their own stakeholders, using Puget Sound as an example. He pointed out that one of a sector commander‘s challenges is to work effectively with stakeholders. He said that the area of responsibility in Puget Sound presents a challenge because it is so large. Because of this, the Coast Guard must work with many more stakeholders than other sectors. He presented statistics showing the many challenges facing the Coast Guard at Puget Sound—including the fact that it contains the largest ferry system and is the third largest commercial port in the United States. He explained that this attracts many stakeholders. He then presented a slide showing the Puget Sound sector mission portfolio, which includes maritime safety and security, the protection of natural resources, maritime mobility, and national defense. He quoted Admiral Thad Allen about the need for public-private partnerships: “The need for maritime industrygovernment cooperation and partnership has never been more important. The Coast Guard’s obligation to the safety and security of America is shared by the maritime industry and enhanced by working cooperatively with the industry at all levels. Openness and transparency will be the hallmarks of our maritime interaction.” Captain Metruck‘s next slide outlined the Commandant‘s plan for the Coast Guard to enhance its marine safety program. He showed a slide of Dale Carnegie‘s book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. He said that the book is a great inspiration to sector commanders to this day, because it demonstrates how to reach out to partners and work together with customers. He elaborated on different ways to meet these goals. He explained how sectors are organized, using a slide to illustrate that they are divided into two areas, prevention and response. He pointed out that the challenge to each side is how to work effectively with stakeholders. He showed slides to demonstrate how many interlocutors, both foreign and domestic, are involved in this process. Captain Metruck talked about Puget Sound‘s Sector Seattle Outreach Strategy. He described how this enables all programs to interact by catching discrepancies, learning

5

from one another, developing plans and strategies to enhance communication, and providing feedback to maritime stakeholders. He discussed regular forums. He said that the Harbor Safety Committee is critical in this regard, and that, in Puget Sound, an organization of subcommittees and work groups is very effective in bringing stakeholders together. He commended Puget Sound‘s Harbor Safety Committee in responding to security and environmental protection issues. He stressed the importance of outreach initiatives to enhance work with regional response teams, and enumerated examples of these programs in action. He said that information dissemination at Homeport is an important tool in the alert warning system, and spoke of the Coast Guard‘s national programs for industry training, which have met with widespread interest and support. He then elaborated on the Coast Guard‘s use of service delivery feedback forms, industry leader focus groups, supervisor follow-up for control actions, annual industry day forums, increased site visits by senior staff, and the Maritime Transportation System Recovery Unit (MTSRU). Captain Metruck concluded his presentation, pointing out that partnerships can be fun. Mr. Lauridsen introduced the next speaker, Mr. John Waggoner. An Operator’s View of Working with the U.S. Coast Guard John Waggoner, President & CEO, Hornblower Marine Services, Inc. PowerPoint presentation: Communicating Through Public-Private Partnerships Mr. John Waggoner thanked everyone. He began by saying that Hornblower Marine Services has always enjoyed a great relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard. He discussed what his company does: operating conventional ferries, slow-speed car passenger ferries, excursion vessels, and casino boats. He shared an anecdote about Hornblower‘s early days of operating casino boats to illustrate the company‘s past and ongoing successful partnership with the Coast Guard. He said that his company also operates high-speed car passenger ferries. He stated that he would be focusing on four new projects: Lake Express, Spirit of Ontario, WestPac Express, and the Hawaii Superferry. Referring to a slide, Mr. Waggoner talked about the challenges of operating each of these vessels within the regulatory environment of the U.S. Coast Guard. He started with statistics about Lake Express, a passenger/car ferry that operates on Lake Michigan on a route from Milwaukee to Muskegon. He said the initial test was to ―get the right vessel for the right route,‖ adding that Coast Guard regulations would determine the type of vessel they built. He referred to Subchapter H and the IMO High Speed Craft Code, and provided details about how they planned to build the boat to fit these safety regulations, which included both structural design and manning requirements. He spoke of designing and testing the fire systems in the car deck, pointing out that his company worked with the Coast Guard to create a deck with a drenching system where ―you could have almost

6

all the cars onboard catch on fire . . . and you would still have survivability of the craft.‖ He concluded by stating that the Lake Express project is a great success. Mr. Waggoner then spoke about Spirit of Ontario, a ferry that once operated on Lake Ontario, traveling between Rochester and Toronto. It was the first boat to make a border crossing after 9/11. Using a slide, he listed the boat‘s statistics. The fact that it was built by Austal Australia posed some challenges. At this point, Mr. Waggoner noted that most important factor in creating a successful ferry service is the selection of the correct vessel for the intended route. Using another slide, Mr. Waggoner described the reasons why this project failed after only 90 days. (He mentioned that Hornblower Marine Services was not involved until just before the project opened.) One problem was that, because the vessel was built in Australia, the project management team did not fully understand U.S. Coast Guard regulations. There were other impediments: the management team was inexperienced and overestimated the demand for trucks and cargo, and the ferry was very expensive to pilot and operate. Mr. Waggoner commented that, before the project went under, his company was working with the Coast Guard on getting the vessel re-flagged. Mr. Waggoner reflected on what his company would have done differently in hindsight. They would have had the vessel built in the United States, with a U.S. flag and crew, so that pilotage would not have been required. This alone would have saved an estimated $1 million annually. They would also have constructed a smaller and more efficient vessel. If these factors been taken into account before the vessel was built, he said, ―It would have saved about $7 million per year, just on crewing and fuel.‖ Mr. Waggoner then moved on to another project, WestPac Express, a ferry that was also built by Austal under the IMO high-speed craft code. He used a slide to show the vessel‘s statistics, adding that its homeport is in Naha, Japan, and that it is used to transport U.S. Marines. With this project, established technology was used for military applications. The Marine Corps chartered this existing commercial vessel and tested it for 90 days. The vessel proved a successful alternative to airlifts, saving time and money—it provided a better, cheaper, faster way to transport Marines. This is an American flagged vessel, under the management of Hornblower Marine Services, representing Australian owners, and classed by a German classing society. It operates under IMO High Speed Code, carries a U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection, and is a one-off HSC hybrid ship that operates under Coast Guard regulations. The boat services Southeast Asia, is chartered by the U.S. Navy, and has a 100% Merchant Marine crew. Mr. Waggoner pointed out that working with the Coast Guard has greatly contributed to the success of this demanding, complex project. Mr. Waggoner then discussed the complex challenges of managing WestPac because of all the different parties involved. He said the solution was the Joint Operating Agreement, which exemplified a successful partnership. He then showed slides of WestPac passengers (U.S. Marines) and examples of the cargo it carries, including humvees, helicopters, and tanks. He said that WestPac just had its fifth anniversary, and he showed some slides illustrating what it has accomplished in five years.

7

He then talked about the Hawaii Superferry, presenting statistics on the vessel. An Austal USA ship, it was built in Mobile, AL; it is 107 meters long; it carries 900 passengers and 280 automobiles; and it has a 35-knot service speed. It operates between the four Hawaiian Islands. He said that Hornblower Marine Services began managing the vessel in 2004. Showing a slide listing all the entities involved, he pointed out that the public private partnership was working very well in this case. He talked about the Marine Regulatory Group, which was key in bringing everyone together, including Sector Mobile, Sector Honolulu, the United States Coast Guard Headquarters, Austal USA, and Hornblower Marine Services. He then showed a few slides of the ferry, remarking on its impressive size. In conclusion, he reiterated the importance of the public-private partnership with the Coast Guard. Mr. Lauridsen then introduced the next speaker, Mr. Louis Effa, chief information officer and program manager of MarView, United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration.

Managing Information Critical to the MTS Louis Effa, MarView Project Manager, Maritime Administration PowerPoint presentation: An Overview Presentation of the MarView System

Mr. Louis Effa mentioned the fact that he has only recently taken over Marine View, before which he was ―all IT,‖ and that he is still learning about the marine transportation system. He spoke about Maritime Administrator Shawn Connaughton and his vision for the MTS in the 21st century. He stressed the importance of the public private partnership in disseminating marine transportation data. His first slide showed talking points from the Maritime Administrator, which he briefly explained. He defined MarView as an integrated, data-driven environment that provides essential information to support the strategic requirements of the United States marine transportation system, which contributes to the nation‘s economic viability. He described MarView as a ―data fusion center that allows you to really look at the condition and performance of the marine transportation system.‖ He said MarView has a very strong connection with the U.S. Coast Guard, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and Maritime Domain Awareness. Mr. Effa talked about how important it is for the government to have access to emergency response, disaster relief information, and economic and business data. In this context, he touched on hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Los Angeles/Long Beach port lockout. He mentioned the government‘s need for transportation efficiency, and talked about multi-domain information sharing and collaboration. He said that the Department of Navy is interested in the data sharing capability that MarView offers, and will probably be collaborating with them soon.

8

Mr. Effa discussed commercial industry‘s need to consolidate its reporting to the federal government, and said that MarView can help by automating information transfer, thereby eliminating paperwork. Mr. Effa‘s next few slides illustrated some of the ways MarView can provide support to the government via online access to points of contact, resources, and plans; supply data to access to transportation models for MTS investments; and enable disparate groups to collaborate electronically—both domestically and internationally. He emphasized that MarView respects both government and industry parameters with regard to sharing data. Referring to his slides, Mr. Effa went on to detail MarView‘s authority and functional areas, such as ports, waterways, mariners, vessels, and intermodal transportation. He addressed MarView‘s system technical capabilities, pointing out that MarView is a rolebased system, relying on individual entity authorization; and that its data is strictly regulated. Mr. Effa then showed slides of the MarView portal, and screen captures of its data sources. He detailed MarView‘s experience and capabilities, reiterating relationships with the U.S. Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, the Department of Transportation, federal agencies, and commercial and public entities. He noted that the MarView system has a very strong GIS presence, and that one of its strongest features is its ability to provide analysis and business intelligence. MarView also has modeling and simulation capabilities. Mr. Effa restated MarView‘s associations with various government agencies, especially the Army Corps of Engineers. Contact information: [email protected] (202)-366-9727 Mr. Lauridsen introduced the next speaker, Gary Frommelt.

Gary Frommelt, Vice President of Marine Operations, Entertainment Cruises PowerPoint presentation: Industry-Coast Guard Partnership: Managing the Relationship in Multiple Ports Mr. Frommelt said he was honored to be a part of this year‘s Harbor Safety Committee conference. He began by providing some background on Entertainment Dinner Cruises, which is a combination of two dinner fleet cruises, the Spirit Fleet and the Odyssey Fleet. He said that they have a strong relationship with the local Coast Guard office. Their fleet consists of vessels between eight and twenty years old. He said they build their partnerships by being involved on the local level. They tell their crew to be involved in port activities, area maritime security committees—to reach out and participate. He stressed the importance of honesty in partnerships. He said that communication must be regular and frequent, and that if the team is doing a great job, let them know—it helps

9

morale. He pointed out that Entertainment Cruises (EC) and the Coast Guard have the same goals: to keep passengers, crew and vessels safe; to protect and develop the marine transportation system; and to safeguard the environment. He stressed that mariners‘ careers depend on the safety and security of the marine transportation system. He remarked that, because the Coast Guard regulates industry, it is in the interest of industry to get along with them. Mr. Frommelt acknowledged that at times, relations between industry and the Coast Guard have been strained because of the unique personalities involved. He observed that this is a part of life, noting that the Coast Guard personnel rotate every 3 years so that, ―by the time you get to know the port and the players, it‘s time for them to move on.‖ Since 9/11, he added, the role of the Coast Guard has changed: ―We went from industry partners to part of the domain that needed to be watched.‖ Mr. Frommelt talked about building positive relationships in every harbor, not only with the Coast Guard, but also with safety support teams such as marine police and harbor patrol, and underway medical transport and vessel escort services. He also referred to good relationships forged with other vessels in the harbor, and with other industry partners and competitors. He then discussed room for growth in partnerships. He pointed out that, under the Commandant‘s new directive, there is new dialogue with the Coast Guard, heralding more mutual understanding and trust. He noted that it is harder to be involved in the Maritime Safety Committees in some ports than others, and that they are working on improving communications across the board. He described his fleet, consisting primarily of dinner cruises and some thrill rides. He provided statistics and numbers on his fleet, and described some cruise routes. He touched on some of the challenges of his industry, such as fuel costs, crowded docks and parking areas, and competition from land-based venues. He said that the business is seasonal, and that they increase their crews during the summer. He said that their downtime is very costly and that summertime is ―crunch time.‖ Mr. Frommelt moved on to EC‘s 2008 marine strategies, which include regulatory compliance, a fleet-wide maintenance plan, and improved safety and loss control. One of their biggest goals, he stressed, is to enhance relationships with the Coast Guard. He outlined several initiatives, including town hall meetings and pre- and post-season lunches. Mr. Frommelt outlined EC‘s partnerships and communication issues for each city in which they operate. He mentioned that the Coast Guard Maritime Force Protection Team had conducted a pilot training program for a biochemical terrorist attack in Boston. He said that New York/New Jersey is a very busy port, with excellent communication with the Coast Guard. He talked about Trojan Horse exercises in 2007 that simulated a

10

terrorist attack; another exercise is planned for August 2008, which will test the response to mining of the harbor and other underwater terrorist events. At this point, Mr. Frommelt talked about his company‘s response during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, exemplifying ―why we are such an important part of the Marine Transportation System in any city.‖ He went through the chronology of what happened that day and the weeks to follow, noting that his company‘s vessels transported people when bridges and tunnels were closed, provided services until Red Cross land-based facilities could take over, and served 40,000 meals to rescue workers. He went on to describe his company‘s partnership activities in Philadelphia, including training with the NJ State Police and SWAT Team, helping the Penn‘s Landing security team, and participating in the city‘s mass evacuation plan. Mr. Frommelt said that EC‘s operation in Baltimore was new, and that he was surprised by the high amount of recreational traffic in the Inner Harbor. He remarked on his company‘s great relationship with Sector Baltimore, adding that he had recently received a letter of commendation from a Coast Guard team member. He noted that Washington D.C. also has a lot of recreational traffic. He said that that EC is part of the Reagan National Rescue Plan and the DHS mass evacuation plan for city; and that they conduct regular exercises with the D.C. police and Secret Service bomb squad, the D.C. Harbor Patrol, and the D.C. Fire Department. He added that his company has a great partnership with both the local Coast Guard sector and the D.C. Marine Police. Moving on to Norfolk, VA, Mr. Frommelt observed that this area has a large volume of commercial traffic, with moderate to high levels of recreational traffic. He said that EC has conducted drills with local emergency response services there, including Norfolk and Portsmouth fire and police boats. Mr. Frommelt discussed EC‘s Chicago operation, which is the company‘s home office. He presented statistics about the fleet and talked about their relationship with the local Coast Guard. Historically, he said they have had a great relationship, made comfortable by outgoing personalities, but that a change in personnel brought with it a sense of ―us and them‖ that strained the rapport. Because of this, industry players became distant and kept communication to a minimum. Then a ―small incident‖ occurred, where ―there was a failure to follow procedure and there was a failure to report.‖ This led to a major problem. In hindsight, Mr. Frommelt said, this happened because their damaged relationship with the Coast Guard had created an atmosphere in which there was no place for review, discussion, and understanding. He observed, ―That was a wake-up call for everyone.‖ Since then, their partnership and relationship with the Coast Guard has become excellent on all levels. They now have regular town hall meetings with the marine team, the Coast Guard participates in crew training, and there is constant dialogue regarding everything that goes on with their vessels and crew. Mr. Frommelt then talked about Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics, and the Dime Pier project. The city will renovate the pier with the Coast Guard‘s help to coördinate the marine safety aspects of the project.

11

Mr. Frommelt closed by underscoring the importance of Entertainment Cruise‘s partnership with the Coast Guard, adding that Industry Days are a great way to exchange information and nurture this relationship. He thanked the group and concluded. Mr. Lauridsen introduced the next speaker, Commander Paul Mehler, U. S. Coast Guard Commander of Sector Chicago, United States Coast Guard.

A U.S. Coast Guard View of Coast Guard-Industry Relations in the Chicago Area Commander Paul Mehler III, Commanding Officer, United States Coast Guard Sector Chicago, PowerPoint presentation: What Does It Mean To Be Partners? Commander Mehler thanked the panel. He talked about the meaning of partnership, which ―comes down to a lot of trust and a lot of communication.‖ Commander Mehler stated that the law in 46 U.S. Code 3703 requires the Coast Guard to ensure the safety and security of passenger vessels through regulatory action. 46 U.S. Code 3301/3313 requires owners, charterers, managing operators, agents, masters, and individuals in charge of small passenger vessels to ensure safe and secure operations. He stressed that the two key terms here are safety and security. He said that by law, the Coast Guard has a shared responsibility with industry, and that these two entities meet this challenge together. He said that mutual respect is key, and that the common goals are to keep the nation‘s waterways safe and secure, and to allow people to enjoy their time on the water. Commander Mehler then talked about how public-private partnerships can be developed. He admitted that, in the old days, the Coast Guard‘s attitude was that industry had to communicate with them, not the other way around. He noted that the approach is different now, with the Coast Guard exploring ways to foster communications between the users and the regulators. He used slides to illustrate two case studies—both incidents that occurred in Chicago—the first, illustrating ―what could have gone better,‖ the second, ―what went right.‖ The first case involved a high profile vessel whose crew failed to report a marine casualty. He speculated that this probably happened because communication with the Coast Guard had broken down. Commander Mehler felt that the Coast Guard had failed in this situation because industry viewed them as regulators, not as partners. After the casualty, the Coast Guard held a town hall meeting to open up conversation with the vessel‘s crew. This resulted in mutual respect and improved communication. Commander Mehler‘s second case study involved the Electronic Fish Barrier in Chicago that was put in place to keep Asian carp out of Lake Michigan. He said that the Army Corps of Engineers was tasked to keep the fish out, and the Coast Guard was tasked to do this safely. A Navy dive team tested the safety of the device. The Coast Guard formed a safety work group with industry members, teaming with waterway users to understand their operations and needs in the situation, with the goal of making the fish barrier safe for the public. They identified hazards and developed measures to ensure safe operations, including prominent hazard warnings for all approaching vessels,

12

an aggressive public affairs campaign involving recreational/commercial boating communities and marinas, and the creation of a restricted navigation area. Ultimately, this project became a cooperative effort between the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, the towing industry, marina owners/operators, the Water Reclamation District, the sport fishing community, and the Department of Natural Resources—a perfect example of public-private partnerships in action. Commander Mehler then talked about moving ahead. He stressed the importance of ―making it personal.‖ Although Coast Guard personnel can‘t change their rotation dates and military transfers, he pointed out that they can make themselves more available to industry and the public. He mentioned some ways he has worked to promote his team‘s relationship with the public. Some examples include creating a block of time each week when industry members can call or meet and talk about issues of concern; holding ‗morning briefs,‘ where commanding officers are briefed every day on what has happened in the past 24 hours in the public sector; and holding an ‗open house‘ to encourage the public to visit the Coast Guard offices to see who they are and what they do. Commander Mehler emphasized the importance of mutual respect and partnerships in today‘s sensitive marine environment. He thanked the group and concluded.

Mr. Lauridsen asked the audience if they had any questions. QUESTON – Ms. Helen Brohl, CMTS: My question is for the Commander. You did a great job of explaining the charter and the type of feedback you get. Are you working regularly with a lot of other federal agencies on a local level? Do you get together and learn from industry how to change policies? How do you relay these policies back to Coast Guard Headquarters? ANSWER – Captain Metruck: I think that‘s an easy question to answer (laughter). I‘ll answer the one question about federal partners. When I talk about outreach, I‘m not just referring to commercial industry. I mean to include our other partners at the federal, state, and local levels. Those are very important to us. Guidance has come down from Headquarters before, about reaching out and making sure that we are connected to all our DHS partners, including TSA. I think there will be more details coming out, but sometimes in the Coast Guard we know where the director is going, so we want to make sure we have some of those ideas distributed into the field so that we can be engaging. We have been working on connecting with American Waterway Operators and others, and in fact we are supposed to coördinate with those partners through the Harbor Safety Committee. So there is guidance on who your partners are and how to engage with them—that includes all federal, state, and local partners. I hope that answers your question. ANSWER – Commander Mehler: Just as a follow-up—for communication back to Headquarters, I‘m really a low man on the totem pole; I don‘t reach out to Headquarters.

13

But we do go through a sector and the districts are very involved in all our public outreach and our meetings in tracking who‘s a member of what committee and how we‘re moving forward. I think we have a lot of growth that way, and I know there‘s a lot of interest in how successfully things are going. ANSWER – Captain Metruck: I think if I can add one thing regarding feedback: we do provide annual reports on the work of area maritime security committees. So we are providing feedback in that way, and I think forums like this help pass information on, also. ANSWER – Mr. Lauridsen: The communication loop is very important. When I go back to ―8-02,‖ and various interactions with sector commanders, industry was sending a message of being ignored, and failure to deliver services. The sector commanders were somewhat mystified by this; they‘d never heard it before. So I think the procedures being put in place now will make sure that the sector commander is involved, and make industry responsible for carrying their problems all the way up to the point of correction. These procedures should avoid the environment we had last year, where industry was complaining that the sector commanders weren‘t in the loop. An unidentified woman asked a question about TWIC. ANSWER – Mr. Frommelt: We view TWIC as an expense that we are going to absorb as a company. For the typical crew, other than the licensed captains, we don‘t get professional mariners to come to work for us as deckhands and mates. We would lose that resource for employees coming in the door, if we told them they had to pay this amount to get a card. So we are ‗TWICing‘ our marine crew and our restaurant management team, but not the rest of the crew. Mr. Lauridsen said that Captain Metruck wished to make one more observation. STATEMENT – Captain Metruck: I want to mention something important about communication. The word ‗appeal‘ seems to have negative connotations to many industry members. Through discussions with our group, we‘ve found that this is really an important part of the dialogue process, and that ‗appeal‘ is not a four-letter word when you‘re dealing with the Coast Guard. Mr. Lauridsen thanked the panelists and adjourned.

PANEL 2 SMALL VESSEL OPERATION AND SAFETY Moderator: Margot Brown, National Boating Federation Margot Brown welcomed back the group. Ms. Brown said that this panel would focus on small vessel operations and safety. She gave the audience some background on her

14

extensive experience in the recreation boating field, and about the National Boating Federation. Ms. Brown pointed out that it has been almost seven years since 9/11, and said that, regrettably, recreational boaters have been almost totally uninvolved in homeland security nationwide. She pointed out that this was not true, however, of every district, Seattle being a major exception. She noted that the 13th Coast Guard District Citizens‘ Action Network has been nominated for the Nobilis Innovation Award in Homeland Security. She observed that the Coast Guard has not adequately publicized the Waterway Watch, and that Coast Guard relations with the public boating community leave much to be desired. She stressed the importance of improved communication, and said that volunteers must be recruited. She observed that the Coast Guard‘s attitude has improved over the past year, and she expressed hope for the future in this regard, adding that the recreational boating community is a great resource that should be used. She then called on the Coast Guard to clarify some confusing waterway rules in the Seattle area. She then commended Mr. Frommelt and Commander Mehler for their emphasis on mutual respect, an issue she feels strongly about. Ms. Brown then introduced Timothy Vincent of Vincent Maritime.

Timothy Vincent, Vincent Maritime Commercial Fishing Sector PowerPoint Presentation: Commerce in Conflict, Safety in the Shipping Lanes Tim Vincent told the audience that he would be talking about the safe and harmonious transit between large vessels and small fishing vessels through effective communication. He introduced himself as president of the North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association (NPFVOA), a vessel safety awareness association and nonprofit organization that offers safety education and training for commercial mariners. He went over some statistics about his organization, and said that they have been working with the Coast Guard to improve vessel safety for over 25 years. He then took a moment to acknowledge Leslie Hughes, the executive director of NPFVOA. He mentioned that both Ms. Hughes and he have been awarded a Coast Guard Public Service Award. Mr. Vincent talked about large vessels and commercial driftnet vessels. He discussed the Seattle Vessel Traffic System (VTS), which monitors over 250,000 large vessels annually. Using slides, he presented various statistics on large vessels. He pointed out that VTS/AIS allows these large ships to navigate with confidence alongside other vessels. He touched on some of the problems small vessels encounter. Although they are usually manned with experienced mariners who have extensive local knowledge, they often have small crews. Furthermore, though they are encouraged to listen in on VTS, they are not required to participate in VTS or use AIS.

15

Mr. Vincent discussed the challenges facing large vessels, including operational stress arising from the collision threat of unknown entities, fast-moving ships that must operate in restricted spaces within the lanes and geography of Puget Sound, blind sectors, and language interpretation issues with foreign vessels. He then talked about the challenges facing small commercial vessels. He pointed out that commercial drift gillnet vessels become restricted in their ability to maneuver when their nets are deployed. Because these vessels often have limited manpower, their bridges are left unattended at times. Another challenge is compliance with Rule 10 and the 15-minute rule under the duress of net retrieval. Mr. Vincent then showed slides of the vessel Emma Maersk, the world‘s largest container ship, and the F/V Lucky Buck, pointing out the vast differences between the two in terms of horsepower and manning. He talked briefly about the challenges and stresses that gillnetters face. Mr. Vincent then proposed some options for consideration. He suggested that small commercial vessels participate in VTS and AIS; employ improved navigation lighting similar to tugs and tows; and use cellular telephones to communicate with each other. He outlined the advantages and disadvantages of VTS and AIS communication. On the plus side, he said these technologies reduce guesswork, give both sides a greater picture of developments as they unfold, and promote safety while reducing speculation. On the minus side, these systems can create a loss of proprietary information about hot fishing spots, embolden fishermen to stay in the shipping lanes too long, and prove too expensive for small operations to afford. Mr. Vincent concluded by stressing that safety starts with positive, effective, two-way communication. He stated that knowledge is power, and that trying to see a situation from the other navigator‘s point of view is essential. He mentioned a show on the History Channel, Tougher in Alaska, about salmon fishing, relevant to his presentation. He thanked the Coast Guard for a fantastic job of promoting safety and concluded. Ms. Brown introduced the next speaker, Steven Greaves of the Recreational Boating Association of Washington.

Steven Greaves, Recreational Boating Association of Washington (RBAW) Recreational Boating Sector PowerPoint presentation: Recreation Boaters Working Together to Improve Safety Steven Greaves said that, though his talk would be about Washington State, it applies to all the others. He remarked that he had been hearing the word partnership throughout the conference, and said he wanted to show that partnership could work between citizens and activists—people who represent recreational boaters. He said his message would be about

16

how grassroots recreational boaters can make progress toward boating safety and that, ―it doesn‘t always have to come from the top down; it can come from the bottom up.‖ He began his presentation by sharing some statistics on the Recreational Boating Association of Washington. He said that the Association is the voice of Washington State recreational boaters in Olympia and in Washington D.C. He said that the common thread that runs throughout all they do is safety. He pointed out that boating is popular in Washington State, and showed a slide with statistics on this. He said that Washington State offers a wide variety of boating opportunities, including Puget Sound, rivers, lakes, and the San Juan Islands. Mr. Greaves showed a slide with boating legislation highlights for the state of Washington between 2000 and 2008. These have included mandatory boater education, a teak surfing ban that reduces pollution and casualties, funding for local marine law enforcement to promote safety, and the creation of a boating grant program. In the context of partnership, Mr. Greaves addressed the importance of building consensus. This involves bringing together boating interest groups, industry and trade associations, and government, state and local organizations. He stressed the importance of an open environment, where everyone can talk about issues until they reach an agreement. Mr. Greaves then discussed mandatory boater operator education in Washington State. He emphasized that this legislation came about through coöperation between citizens and industry. Signed by the Governor in May 2005, it went into effect on January 1st, 2008. He described the goals of mandatory boater education: to improve boater safety and enjoyment, lower insurance rates, and decrease boater accidents and near misses. He talked about how to obtain a Boater Education Card, and shared some statistics about cardholders. He pointed out that the law ties the curriculum to the current NASBLA standard, and that the curriculum constantly evolves to stay current, keeping up with important issues such as emergency preparedness. Mr. Greaves then touched on other legislation in Washington, including a $2M fund to remove derelict vessels; funding for marine law enforcement grants and for a boater needs study; and the establishment of a boating grant program. He talked about future goals for recreational boating in Washington State, such as removing the cap on the gas tax, dedicating the Watercraft Excise Tax to boating programs; and expanding funding for boating grants. Next he showed a chart with statistics on taxes and fees paid to the state by boaters and anglers. He remarked that some of this $99M should come back to taxpayers to support boating interests. Referencing his earlier point about consolidation, Mr. Greaves remarked that Washington State currently has seven agencies that handle recreational boating. He observed that there is room for improvement here, to avoid redundancy caused by overlap.

17

Mr. Greaves finished his presentation with a slide listing some ideas for the future of recreational boating in Washington State. This include better coördination, more boating programs, increased funding from federal programs, and the possible creation of a Department of Boating for the state. He thanked the group and concluded. Margot Brown complimented Mr. Greaves on his presentation. She then introduced Mr. Scott Craig of the Crowley Maritime Corporation.

Towing and Tugboat Sector Scott Craig, Crowley Maritime Corporation PowerPoint presentation: Navigation Safety: Towing Vessel Operations Mr. Scott Craig said he would be talking about some of the factors that affect navigation safety. He talked about some of the unique aspects of towing vessels. They have small wheelhouses that put a limit on the size of equipment (e.g., radar screens). Crew sizes are also small, generally consisting of 5 to 8 people with only two on the watch, restricting the number of lookouts that can be posted. Another characteristic, he noted, is that these vessels have a very large imprint on the water. He illustrated this point with some numbers. He said they have a moderate speed—the advantage being that ―the land doesn‘t come at you very fast;‖ the disadvantage being that they are not able to accelerate to avoid trouble or adjust their situation. Mr. Craig emphasized that the consistent factor in towing vessels is the human factor. He talked about human error, and how his organization mitigates this problem through comprehensive training. He discussed the fact that the marine industry‘s bridge resource management takes its lead from the aviation industry‘s cockpit resource management. Bridge resource management is required by STCW 95. It consists of a one-time three-day course developed in the early 2000s. Mr. Craig said that Crowley Maritime has taken this further by conducting an initial bridge resource management assessment of all its new deck officers. Further, they have a program to advance able-bodied seamen; they recruit heavily from the academies, especially California Maritime; they hire deck officers from the non-towing industry, especially the trawling industry; and they try to acquire experienced towing industry deck officers whenever possible. He pointed out that these recruits present both strengths and weaknesses. For example, newly hired people from the academy do not have deck officer experience; and, while those from the non-towing sector have good wheelhouse experience, they are not used to the towing boats‘ large imprint on the water. Mr. Craig then expanded on Crowley Maritime‘s bridge resource management program. He showed a video of the small simulator at Pacific Maritime, pointing out its cuttingedge features. He said that all their newly hired deck officers must have a one-hour assessment on this simulator, learning how to deal simultaneously with charts, radar, traffic recognition, and communication. He stressed the importance of this type of

18

training in preparing for active watches. He observed that most who take this test pass it and learn a lot about the multi-tasking that is so much a part of operating a vessel in the busy Seattle area. In addition, Crowley Maritime has formal bridge resource management skill training every five years, in which they review such topics as communication, situational awareness, efficient use of bridge equipment, and efficient bridge watch organization. They also hold master/mate seminars at least every two years, during which they have accident reviews, and look at case studies from other organizations. He presented a slide showing Crowley Maritime‘s excellent injury record; they were able to drop the OSHA recordable rate from double digits in the 1980s and 1990s to 1.3 in 2007. He pointed out that this trend applies to the entire towing industry. Mr. Craig then discussed bridge resource management with regard to what he thinks is the most important decision: the selection of a new master. Situational awareness, voyage and contingency planning skills, and bridge watch expertise are all areas to be considered when filling this position. Mr. Craig thanked the group and concluded. Ms. Brown then introduced Mr. Don Wicklund of Argosy Cruises.

Passenger/Tour Boat Sector Don Wicklund, Argosy Cruises PowerPoint presentation: Facility and Vessel Safety Captain Don Wicklund thanked the group. He began by saying that Argosy‘s fleet is divided into two types of passenger vessels—T boats and K boats. T boats carry up to 149 passengers; K boats carry 150 passengers or more. With K boats, there is a lot less prior loading, but you need to have non-combustible ceiling tiles, more fire pumps, AIS, and follow the MARSEC rules. He showed a slide with statistics on the largest small passenger vessel in the Argosy fleet. Captain Wicklund said that the Argosy fleet carries about 600,000 passengers a year and have about 220 employees. He discussed their vigorous and thorough crew training program. He listed a wide range of skills the crew must have to work for Argosy, and showed slides with more details. He moved on to the stability of the Argosy vessels. He expressed confidence that their vessels are safe. They have undergone ‗inclining tests.‘ He talked about vessel stability as it relates to people‘s body weight. The average weight of an American has increased from 160lb in 1950 to 185lb today. He speculated that the Coast Guard would probably use this statistic when issuing the new rule to determine stability on vessels. He went on to talk about deck capacity on various Argosy vessels, and said that, for them, the new rule would simply mean fewer passengers on the outside deck.

19

Captain Wicklund talked about Argosy‘s tour boats with regard to safe cruising. His crew and captains are directed to stay away from tough crossing situations, and in most cases they are able to cruise without impacting ship traffic. He mentioned one incident, however, when one of their vessels got too close to a Washington State ferry as it was coming out of the dock. By riding one of the ferries, they learned that these vessels must be given a wider berth. He said this experience helped them ―get involved by getting to know our neighbors.‖ He said that Argosy‘s pilothouses are very small and packed with equipment. He went on to provide some specifics about that equipment, observing that they are running out of space in which to fit it. He said their crew is required to wear life jackets at all times, and that they have good communication when they dock. With regard to maintenance, he said they use a daily check-off sheet to safeguard each vessel. He moved on to security, noting that their pilothouses and engine rooms are restricted areas, and that their passengers are checked three or four times before they board. The company is required to perform one security exercise each quarter and a tabletop every 18 months. Captain Wicklund talked about TWIC cards, pointing out that Argosy will need TWIC cards for all captains, senior deck hands, managers, and maintenance staff. At this point, he said, they would not be obtaining these cards for wait staff, part timers, and new deck hands, citing prohibitive costs. His concern is that the new rules could ironically make the boats less safe by limiting which crew can go into engine rooms and do safety checks. He said that his company currently pays for drug testing, health cards, Class 12 alcohol cards (an 8 hour class required by the state liquor board), and crew training. He briefly touched on the measures Argosy takes to prevent passengers from having slip-and-fall type accidents while on board. He listed who ―keeps them safe:‖ the Coast Guard, the liquor board, OSHA, SEC, the fire department, the police force, and ―all the other agencies that rule our world.‖ But he acknowledged that it is the company that stands to lose most if it does not meet legal requirements. Captain Wicklund talked about some of the rescues that Argosy has been involved in. They picked up a person who had attempted suicide by jumping off one of the Washington State ferries; rescued a person who had been on a tugboat that sank off Elliot Bay; rescued many wind surfers; and put out a fire that started on a local pier. In the last case, the vessel backed up to the pier, extinguished the fire, and continued on its tour. He observed that saving lives makes all the training worth the effort. He talked about the Rail Jumpers Rule, which he explained the Coast Guard adopted in 1998. To illustrate, he shared an anecdote about some high school students who jumped off one of their vessels on a dare. They survived the incident, but the principal of their school kept them from graduating and expelled them. The next day, the principal called Argosy to say that the parents were threatening to sue the school. Argosy management told them about the Rail Jumpers Rule with a fine of up to $25,000 for such pranks, and

20

―that made his problem go away.‖ He pointed out that Argosy uses a pre-trip safety announcement to advise passengers of the consequences of such actions. Lastly, Captain Wicklund talked about documentation. He admitted that, while it is a lot of work, the payoffs are awareness and accountability. He added that, of all local agencies, his company finds the Coast Guard the easiest to work with, and thanked them for their good work. He concluded. Ms. Brown thanked the panelists and adjourned.

Day Two: Tuesday, May 13th, 2008

PANEL 3 NAVIGATION—VESSEL TRAFFIC RISK ASSESSMENT Moderator: John Ventjeer, Executive Director, Marine Exchange of Puget Sound Bruce Reed congratulated the HOGANSAC Harbor Safety Committee. He stressed the importance of feedback from the attendees. He then yielded the podium to Mr. Ventjeer. Mr. Ventjeer welcomed the group, adding that he represented the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee. He then introduced Jason Merrick of Virginia Commonwealth University, and René Van Dorp of George Washington University. Mr. Ventjeer provided details on both men‘s extensive background and experience.

Development of a Comprehensive Vessel Traffic Risk Management Tool Jason Merrick, Virginia Commonwealth University René Van Dorp, George Washington University Mr. Merrick thanked the group. He said that he and Mr. Van Dorp were enlisted in 1996 to start developing the methodology he would describe today—Prince William Sound Risk Assessment. He said they have done a follow-up study for Washington State Ferries, looking at ferry risk and passenger risk, and have also done a study for San Francisco ferry boats. He explained that the key to their approach is in building simulations. These simulations re-create the existing system and allow desired changes to be made. He noted that because a simulation doesn‘t tell the whole story, they count, within the simulation, interactions between the vessels, potential situations where an adrift or powered grounding could occur, and overlay an accident risk model. This model is based on both data and expert judgment.

21

Mr. Merrick showed the model they are currently using in Cherry Point, WA. He explained that they take situations in which an accident could potentially occur; then they overlay the chances of some kind of triggering incident, such as mechanical failure, propulsion failure, steering failure, or human error. The next overlay shows the chance of the actual accident, such as a collision, an allision, or grounding. The next overlay shows the chance of an oil spill or people in peril in the water. He said that this shows the structure of the model they have created. He noted that maritime simulation is really the beginning of the whole process of counting the situations in which things could begin to go wrong. They model the cascading effect of those situations as they build toward a dangerous event like an oil spill. The incidents they look at are mostly based on proprietary mechanical failure data, Coast Guard mechanical failure data, and data from the Seattle Department of Ecology, and actual recorded incidents. He observed that, in the maritime community, human error data isn‘t collected at the same level as the aviation industry. They look at accidents and analyze the error chain behind them, so they can get an idea of what caused them— mechanical failure or human error. At the accident level, they use expert judgment to add to the model, and they use oil outflow models to determine the impact to a vessel, i.e., the penetration and damage to the vessel from the event. Mr. Merrick outlined what these models can extrapolate from these data—for example, looking at the double-hull requirement. A double hull on tankers means that, if you have an impact, there is less chance of a puncture and an oil spill. The concept of an escort tug is to stop a grounding if you have propulsion or steering failure. Traffic rules control the flow of vessels, avoiding dangerous situations. Their goal is to answer risk management questions. Showing a satellite map of Puget Sound, he talked about their current project, which is a risk assessment study of the BP Cherry Point refinery. This study focuses on whether BP should have a north wing to their dock. BP has allowed them to look at a number of risk management options in the area, and has provided funds for them to build a system that can be used by others in the future to answer risk management questions. He showed the north wing, used for product tankers, and the south wing, used for crude tankers. He showed their maritime simulation to study the impact of the north wing. This simulation must take into account all the factors that contribute to the risk equation, i.e., the arrival of traffic, tankers, container ships, bulk carriers, deep-draft traffic, and recreational traffic. It must also consider wind, current, and visibility. Another factor is regional traffic rules. Sources for these data include the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard‘s VTS database, and NOAA sources for information on wind, current, and visibility. He described the complex sequence of events that take place when an oil tanker passes through BP Cherry Point, including picking up a pilot and an escort tug. They will then call in for a specified time of arrival, all the while communicating with the refinery and the dock manager. Other tankers are coming in to BP Cherry Point. These requirements must be programmed into the simulation because of congestion and risk factors in this area. All the while, they are using the simulation to count interface with the shoreline,

22

time factors if the vessel either drifts ashore or misses a turn, if there is a powered grounding, and interactions with other vessels. So they build up an overall picture of the risk and of situations where things could go wrong. This tool allows them to change traffic levels and rules, and to assess what will happen if changes are made to the system without having to do it in the real world. Mr. Merrick presented a traffic density profile that counts all the vessels on the water at any given time, thereby giving an idea of the congestion level in an area. He demonstrated that ferries and tugs make up about 40% of the overall picture, with recreational vessels comprising another 40%. Oil product and crude carrying tankers make up 3% (but about 99% of the political backlash). The part they are studying—BP Cherry Point traffic—is 1.4% of total traffic. He noted that BP has had been the focus of a great deal of attention for their safety levels. Their actual record has, however, been excellent. Eleven years of studies of the Cherry Point area have revealed one collision with no oil spill; one grounding with no oil spill; and two allisions of BP chartered vessels. He noted there wasn‘t much to be extrapolated from four events. This was where they started overlaying on the model. He then turned over the presentation to Mr. René Van Dorp, who would discuss how they build on that information, using their expert judgment and the rest of the model. Mr. Van Dorp said that while traffic densities tell one story, different things must be counted when looking at collisions. What they are counting here is interacting vessels. Take for example a cruise vessel going in a certain direction, and a tanker going in another direction—at some point they start interacting. If you look at this situation intuitively and over time, you see that the risk of an incident increases as they move closer to one another, but decreases as they pass one another. One goal of the simulation is to capture that behavior over time and break it down, in one- to five-minute segments. The simulation is then stopped and the number of interactions is counted which is then entered into a database to be analyzed later. This information is then linked to existing accident data. He stressed that all locations are not the same from a collision perspective. What you must have is some differentiation across the area in terms of a collision risk per interaction basis. As in the case of BP, if you have only four accident data points, you will not be able to do this statistically, so expert judgment must be used. They have developed a method, using a series of questionnaires in which they break down the situation in a number of ways. Tanker description, interacting vessel description, and waterway conditions all factor into the equation. They have interviewed tanker experts to help with their risk analysis studies, including VTS operators, tanker captains and first mates, and tug captains and first mates. Using a slide to illustrate, Mr. Van Dorp talked about a study they conducted. In it they presented two theoretical scenarios involving an inbound tanker, with one escort vessel, unfettered, in good weather and visibility conditions. A shallow draft passenger vessel is crossing its bow at less than one mile. There is only one difference between the two

23

scenarios—the visibility is slightly less in one than the other. The challenge for the experts was to find the risk discrepancy between the two cases. He said that different experts had strikingly different answers to this question—some experts said the risk was twice as much, while others said ten times as much. They put out questionnaires to integrate all this information and used the responses to evaluate the effect that varying attributes had on different actions and probabilities. Using all the responses, they developed a distribution of the responses and calculated the average of the distribution. From this, they developed an analysis model. He posed the following three questions: When there is an interaction, what is the probability of outflow? If it occurs, what is the extent of damage? How much oil will you lose? He noted that here, they benefited from a 2001 National Research Council study that looked at the IMO model that they had before. They developed 80,000 different scenarios, involving four tanker designs (single hulls and double hulls). They studied this data carefully—a kinetically based full outflow model that splits energy into perpendicular parts and a tangential part, and takes into account the structure of the striking ship and the dimensions of the vessels and their velocity. He presented a slide showing an example of the type of result they are obtaining. The conclusion was that the probability of oil outflow from a double hull tanker is much smaller than that from a single hull tanker. He then presented a series of slides with calculations showing such factors as tanker configuration, traffic congestion, vessel interaction, damage extent, and oil outflow. These demonstrate the entire causal chain, and show the modeling from the beginning to end. He noted that the challenge now was to answer all these risk management questions. He said they were now at the point of starting to produce final analysis results. Mr. Van Dorp thanked U.S. Coast Guard Sector Seattle, the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee and the Seattle maritime community, who provided their time and shared data in order to improve the safety of their maritime environment. He concluded. Mr. Ventjeer introduced Captain Ed Page, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Alaska.

Vessel Tracking Historical Analysis Captain Ed Page, United States Coast Guard (Retired); Executive Director, Marine Exchange of Alaska PowerPoint presentation: Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment Captain Ed Page said that his talk today was inspired by some real incidents he had been involved in during his Coast Guard career, which made him appreciate the value of prevention. He went on to talk about a couple of search and rescue, and search and recovery operations that he had participated in. He mentioned that he worked on the Exxon-Valdez spill for three years.

24

He said that he had spent some time stationed in Los Angeles/Long Beach while in the Coast Guard, and was impressed by their focus on prevention: it is a shared commitment by the pilots, the ports, and the Marine Exchange. When he left the Coast Guard, he took that model of collaborative spirit and moved it up to Alaska‘s Marine Exchange. Captain Page showed a slide of Los Angeles/Long Beach to illustrate how busy it is. He gave a brief background on the Marine Exchange of Alaska, a non-profit maritime organization established to provide the Alaska maritime community with information, and services to ensure safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible maritime operations. He observed that their mission statement matches well with that of the Coast Guard, and of this conference: plan, prevent, protect, recover. He said that the Marine Exchanges provide information to help facilitate this process. He gave a brief history on Marine Exchanges, which date back to the 1800s. The Marine Exchange is part of the Maritime Information Services of North America (MISNA), which has many locations around the United States. He said that the two organizations had accomplished a great deal by sharing information and pooling their resources. Captain Page showed a slide illustrating the wide range of vessels the Marine Exchange tracks. He said that, though the organization is involved in other things, vessel tracking is a major component. He talked about the Automated Secure Vessel Tracking System (ASVTS), a vessel tracking system developed by the Marine Exchange of Alaska, which uses satellite communications, and the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to track the locations of vessels, to ensure safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible maritime operations. He elaborated on the need to track vessels, and the objectives of ASVTS. He showed a slide illustrating worldwide satellite vessel tracking, and explained why this technology promotes safety. Captain Page went on to discuss emerging Alaska maritime safety and environmental issues, including oil exploration in the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean, and global warming. He talked about managing the risks of polar shipping routes, citing an example of a disaster that could have been prevented with proper risk management. Later he presented a slide with the results of a National Academy of Sciences study, showing risk mitigation options for vessels operating in the Aleutian Islands. He discussed the technology of satellite tracking to promote safety and aid in emergency response, and discussed how combining it with AIS can enhance it. Captain Page said that MISNA has 110 sites in the United States, with 30 sites pending. His next slides showed statistics and details about the vessels their technology enables them to track worldwide. He also touched on ATBA monitoring, which automatically generates alerts to threats and identifies trends. He stated that the Marine Exchange of Alaska was established to provide information and offer communications and services to ensure that maritime operations are safe, secure,

25

efficient and environmentally sound. He concluded that states, the Coast Guard, and the marine industry have a shared commitment to safety and risk management. Mr. Ventjeer introduced Michael Sollosi, of the United States Coast Guard.

Waterways Analysis Management System Michael Sollosi, United States Coast Guard, Navigational Systems Division PowerPoint presentation: Coast Guard Risk Assessment Tools Michael Sollosi thanked the group and congratulated the HOGANSAC Harbor Safety Committee on being selected the Harbor Safety Committee of the year. Mr. Sollosi began by outlining the Coast Guard‘s approaches to the risk assessment process: accident analysis, examining an accident in detail to discover what went wrong—a process that usually results in legislation; and creating probabilistic models, with a focus on traffic patterns. He mentioned SOLAS Chapter 5, and stressed the importance of analyzing the volume of traffic and the degree of risk in providing aids to navigation. Mr. Sollosi listed the tools the Coast Guard uses in risk assessment: the Waterways Management and Analysis System (WAMS), the Port Access Route Studies (PARS), the IALA Waterways Risk Analysis Project (IWRAP), and the Port and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA). He said that the Waterways Management and Analysis System focuses on visual aids to navigation. He noted that this system relies heavily on user input, collected from interviews with waterway users. It is a standardized process that the Coast Guard takes from one waterway to the next. WAMS helps the Coast Guard judge response time to discrepancies by dividing the waterways into four areas of concern: military, environmental, navigational, and non-critical. Next, Mr. Sollosi talked about the Port Access Route Studies, which Congress has deemed mandatory. These studies examine potential traffic density and safe access routes. In addition, they involve the marine community and resolve conflicts between users. The Coast Guard‘s process for PARS is to determine a need in a specific area, do the study, make a report, and issue a recommendation that goes to the International Maritime Organization Safety Navigation Subcommittee. He showed a slide with study considerations, mentioning tribal activities as an interesting issue. Mr. Sollosi moved on to the IALA Waterway Risk Analysis Project (IWRAP). He said it is still being developed. He listed the six components of IWRAP: a Collision Model, a Grounding Model; an AtoN (Aids to Navigation) Mitigating Model; validation; documentation; and training. He pointed out that the only element that has been completed is the Collision Model, and that the Grounding Model is still being worked on. He pointed out that the AtoN model focuses strongly on visual aids to navigation.

26

He went into more detail about the different components of IWRAP, starting with the Collision Model. He showed a diagram illustrating the distribution of traffic, and the greatest collision risk area when two vessels are attempting to keep their tracks within a channel. He pointed out that this model recognizes three aspects of navigation in a marked channel: track keeping, turning, and recovering from the turn. He said that the Grounding Model does the same thing, but also considers the probability of vessels not making a turn or not attempting to recover, and running aground or striking a fixed object. Mr. Sollosi moved on to the AtoN Mitigating Model, a network that describes the effectiveness of visual aids to navigation, so that the vessel is better able to keep its track, or determine the proper time to turn when necessary. He showed a diagram to illustrate this model. Mr. Sollosi said that there are two validation workshops planned for 2008— one in the Strait of Hormuz; the other in the Shanghai area, both of which are high traffic areas. One validation study has been completed in the Äaland Sea, off Finland. Mr. Sollosi discussed the Port and Waterway Safety Assessments (PAWSA) process. He outlined the features of this process, pointing out that it relies on local expert opinion; it is flexible and easy to use; it is a systematic evaluation; it provides broad risk driver coverage; and it produces defensible results. He stressed the value of relying on input from expert waterway users because they have a stake in the decisions and outcomes. He added that the input from these users generally correlates with known quantitative values. He observed that it is ―not a data-hungry system,‖ so it doesn‘t need a lot of traffic data to make it work. Mr. Sollosi said that PAWSA is a systematic process, with steps that build on one another. The process determines risk categories and factors in various waterways. User input has shown that the three most important considerations are: visibility impediments, configuration of the channel, and the location of small craft in the area. Mr. Sollosi said that the Coast Guard has completed more than 40 PAWSA assessments, both in the United States and abroad, which have resulted in many improvements in aids to navigation. Two new vessel traffic services have been established in the United States, and communications have been improved in an existing VTS. In addition, the Coast Guard has set up new partnerships between government and industry through the PAWSA process. He said that the Coast Guard plans to continue refining the process by adding a security module. He noted that the system currently lacks a simulation test, and that if you wish to apply a mitigation measure, its effectiveness should be tested before it is implemented. Mr. Sollosi mentioned that the Coast Guard has conducted a mitigation study in the Aleutians, and has asked the Transportation Research Board to develop a risk assessment model for that highly congested area. He showed a few slides to show details about this topic. He thanked the panelists and concluded. Mr. Ventjeer introduced Darren Wright, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

27

Risk Management Darren Wright, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) PowerPoint presentation: Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS) Mr. Darren Wright thanked the group. He said that PORTS is a network of sensors that are installed in port areas, based on user requirements, that provides accurate, real-time information (updated every 6 minutes) to mariners so that they can make accurate decisions. The PORTS program was created by NOAA. Mr. Wright went on to describe why PORTS is essential, using an example to illustrate. In May of 1980, a ship allided with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa. This accident, caused by currents, could have been avoided if a real-time information system like PORTS had been in place. He discussed the nation‘s dependence on an uninterrupted flow of goods and energy products, adding that a recent oil spill in Lake Charles alone had caused gas prices to rise 20¢. He remarked that ships are becoming larger, illustrating with a slide showing the dimensions and tonnage of mega ships. Mr. Wright cited a 1999 MTS report that concluded, ―The greatest safety concern . . . is the availability of timely, accurate, and reliable navigation information.‖ As these vessels increase in size and must navigate through existing channels, the tolerance for error decreases. Because of this, the customer needs real-time, accurate, and reliable information about waterway conditions. He said that PORTS provides accurate, real-time information to avoid groundings and decrease recreational distress calls. It also makes maritime commerce more efficient by facilitating increased cargo movement, reducing delays, and improving search and rescue performance. With regard to environmental protection, it provides better hazardous material response and helps in environmental restoration. PORTS assists recreational boaters by showing what conditions will be like before they venture out. It offers improved marine weather and storm surge forecasts, as well as data for scientific research and secondary education. Mr. Wright pointed out that PORTS is the result of a partnership between NOAA and the local maritime community. NOAA provides project management, data collection infrastructure, data dissemination (Web and voice), 24/7 quality control, national standards, and development of future products. In turn, the maritime community selects sites for new sensors, and funds equipment and its installation, as well as its operation and maintenance. He showed a slide with the current PORTS locations in the United States. He talked about the Cherry Point PORTS, which should be in service by late summer of this year. Mr. Wright moved on to what a typical PORTS site provides, such as predictions on water levels, meteorological information, and information on currents and water density

28

and salinity. He showed a graphic to illustrate a sample project in the Chesapeake Bay, demonstrating how information is presented. His next slide showed how the PORTS phone system works, with port locations and contact numbers. Using graphics and photographs to illustrate, Mr. Wright catalogued some of the PORTS instrumentation methods, including gauges for water levels, water density, currents, and wind. He talked about some of the PORTS meter systems, showing slides with details of several operations, and followed up with a flowchart showing NOAA‘s data collection infrastructure. He pointed out that two ports, Bolivar Bay in Houston/Galveston and Tampa Bay in Florida, have shown a 50 percent-plus decrease in groundings after the installation of PORTS. Mr. Wright discussed the LOADMAX operation on the Columbia River, explaining its safety advantages. He showed some graphics to illustrate this. He showed some statistics to point out the economic benefits of PORTS, pointing out that system has saved millions of dollars per year in avoided accidents, increased efficiency, and improved marine response. He followed this up with a graphic of how the information from PORTS is used in hurricane and storm surge forecasting. Mr. Wright talked about how NOAA transmits data over the Coast Guard‘s Automatic Identification System (AIS), which he described as ―the air traffic control system of the waterways.‖ He said that NOAA plans to expand PORTS to VTS sites around the country. He next discussed new projects in the works, including PDA PORTS® text screens, Automated Real-time Narrative Summaries (ARNS), and integrating wave data from wave buoys into PORTS. The latter is a joint venture with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and SCRIPPS. Lastly, Mr. Wright mentioned that all three Harbor Safety Committees nominated for this year‘s prize have a PORTS system. Houston/Galveston was the winner. He thanked the group and concluded. Mr. Ventjeer introduced John Nyberg of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

John Nyberg, Deputy Chief of Navigation Systems, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) PowerPoint presentation: Risk: Modern Ships, Aging Data Mr. John Nyberg thanked the group. He first outlined NOAA‘s charting responsibility, which covers 3.4 million Square Nautical Miles (SNM), extending 200 nautical miles from the nation‘s coastlines. He added that NOAA works with the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard to collect data.

29

He asked how do you keep 3.4 million square nautical miles of charts up to date? Data must be prioritized and broken down: 500,000 SNM are considered navigationally significant and 43,000 SNM are considered critical areas. Last year, NOAA surveyed over 3,500 SNM. Mr. Nyberg presented a slide showing some of NOAA‘s vessels, which, he said, travel around the country and try to visit major ports every two years. In the context of ships becoming ―longer, wider, deeper, taller,‖ Mr. Nyberg showed examples—his photos included a ship taller than a 20-storey building, one longer than four football fields, and one that, when fully loaded, is ―an underwater 7-storey building.‖ He pointed out that even the most modern equipment is only as good as the data it is using. All the new equipment comes with huge amount of data that must be processed, and processor speeds often aren‘t caught up. Improving this situation is a NOAA priority. NOAA is always looking at new and better ways to collect data. In this regard, he showed a slide of some new technology to collect sounding data. Mr. Nyberg thanked the group and concluded. [email protected] http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov Mr. Ventjeer announced that there was some time left in this session for questions, and opened the floor. QUESTION – Sean Kelley, Vessel Traffic Services, San Francisco: The PAWSA process has kind of evolved over the years. It‘s more process-focused now than one vessel traffic service, isn‘t that correct? ANSWER – Mike Sollosi, U.S. COAST GUARD: Yes, Sean, that is correct. It now looks at a whole list of mitigation measures, designed and tailored to individual risks. QUESTION – John Strong, Jacobsen Pilot Services, Los Angeles/Long Beach: This is a question for the whole panel. Have any of you gentlemen done any pitch and roll studies, especially these new ones for double-hulled tankers that are coming out now? We are getting reports that they react differently—dynamically—in the water than the singlehulled tankers; and we‘re rethinking what our minimum under-keel clearance would be, depending on swell direction and other factors. Do any of you know of any studies that address this? ANSWER – Mike Sollosi: There is a gentleman in Australia, Dr. Terry O‘Brien, who is studying the dynamic under-keel clearance evaluations, and I know he does consider the pitch and roll of the vessel. I don‘t think his study addresses double hulls, though. QUESTION – CAPT Suzanne Englebert, U.S. Coast Guard: For our PhD level evaluation members—Mr. Wright tells us that we can game our transit based on a bubble, and René talks about risk management from macro and strategic models. So has anybody overlaid the bubble risk analysis with the strategic risk analysis from a traffic position? In

30

other words, you say that 140 vessels went up the Columbia River with larger than . . . well, basically, under keel clearance that makes any Captain of a Port squirm uncomfortably, and so now 80% more vessels are transiting on a bubble, with traffic density and congestion issues going on—so, where are we de-conflicting that in our risk model? Or have we thought about that, and where is the PhD who‘s working on it? (Laughter.) ANSWER – Mr. René Van Dorp, George Washington University: Any model that you develop is basically an abstraction of reality that serves certain needs and analyses, so I can‘t really address the bubble analysis—but I can say that one of the things we are trying to do with our methodology is to look at risk as something dynamic, that changes over time, as opposed to something static. When you are making changes to your traffic transportation system, that you capture the changes in congestion, so you try to capture the unintended consequences of focusing on the localized risk problem; but when you focus on and address that, you are not getting an increase elsewhere within your system as the result of additional traffic congestion. I think this is primarily where our methodology differs from others, in being able to capture that. Mr. Ventjeer adjourned for a brief break.

PANEL 4 WEST COAST OIL SPILL PREVENTION Moderator: Jean Cameron, Pacific States / British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force (POSPET) PowerPoint presentation: West Coast Oil Spill Prevention Initiatives Jean Cameron welcomed back the group. She briefly talked about her background and thanked the Harbor Safety Committee. She then introduced the panel: Gary Folley of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; Ted Mar of the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response; Chip Boothe of the Washington Department of Ecology; and Maia Bellon of Washington Office of the Attorney General. She said the panelists represent three of the six Task Force agencies that are members of the Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force. She went on to list the six: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Washington Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Spill Prevention and Response, California Department of Fish and Game, and Hawaii Department of Health. Ms. Cameron explained that this Task Force was formed after the west coast governors and the premier of British Columbia signed a Memorandum of Coöperation (MOC). The catalyst for this Task Force was a barge spill off the coast of Washington State, and the Exxon-Valdez spill. The MOC charged the agencies to work together; in 2001, that was expanded to include Hawaii. She said the mission of the Task Force is to strengthen State and Provincial abilities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil spills. It does this by creating a forum for information exchange, which promotes policy consistency, expedites 31

policy evolution, and ―avoids reinventing the wheel‖ in each jurisdiction. It also provides a forum for collaborative action on regional issues of common concern. She said that the 1990 Task Force produced a comprehensive report that advised on ways to prevent oil spills. Its goal was to improve awareness, preparedness, and response time. The report made recommendations to both individual and joint jurisdictions. Many of these proposals were subsequently implemented in state and federal statutes and regulations. The report also recommended that the Task Force continue this coöperation in the future. Ms. Cameron talked about the Task Force‘s five-year strategic work plans that outline five-year long-term goals. The annual work plans are available on the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force Web site (www.oilspilltaskforce.org). These work plans lay out tasks according to 3 objectives: prevention, preparedness/response, and improved communication. Ms. Cameron discussed the accomplishments of the Pacific States / British Columbia Oil Spill Prevention Task Force. In 1995, they compiled a set of recommendations for training and standards to reduce spills caused by human error—with a focus on both vessels and facilities. In 1997, they completed a review of West Coast pilotage, and provided recommendations to improve its safety. The Task Force is now involved in an ongoing effort to prevent small spills along the Pacific coastline through the Pacific Oil Spill Prevention Education Team (POSPET). They do this via signage, brochures, and decals. She talked about the Task Force‘s report on TAPS tankers. These are double-hulled vessels that carry oil from Valdez, AK to Puget Sound and California, and represent spill risks. She said that current information about this is available on their Web site. She mentioned a stakeholder work group, sponsored by the Task Force, which assessed the oil spill risks associated with offshore vessel traffic. In 2002, the group recommended steps to reduce this risk, including voluntary minimum distances from shore for any coastwise traffic. Ms. Cameron said that, in 2003, the Task Force worked with the Coast Guard and vessel operators to review spill prevention efforts not covered by state or federal regulations. These efforts were ranked in order of their effectiveness, and the Task Force has been promoting the top-ranked ones ever since. In an effort to target their spill prevention efforts, the Task Force has created a regional database and a common data dictionary. She noted that this year, the Task Force is focusing on this data project, tracking TAPS tanker conversions, and sharing information on spill prevention topics. She said that POSPET sponsored a roundtable on ‗green‘ ports in April; that they continue to promote the best industry practices for vessels, tugs, and barges; and they have just completed a 5year status review of how well the West Coast offshore vessel risk traffic management projects are working, with recommendations for navigation safety.

32

Mrs. Cameron thanked the group and concluded. She then introduced Gary Folley of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

A SAMPLER OF WEST COAST STATE SPILL PREVENTION INITIATIVES Gary Folley, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation PowerPoint presentation: Alaska Spill Prevention Initiatives Gary Folley thanked the group. He began by saying that, for the past several years, the efforts of the Alaska Department of Conservation have focused on the nation‘s crude oil infrastructure, its cruise ships and fishing vessels, the Great Circle Route to the far east, and bringing the Clean Harbors and Marinas Program to Alaska. Mr. Folley talked about a series of pipeline and corrosion related spills on the North Slope, which shut down production there for a long while. He said that 31 ships pass through the Aleutians per day via the Great Circle Route, 39% of which are container ships, and 41% bulk carriers. Both present potential spill problems that threaten the vast fisheries of the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands, which provide an invaluable food resource to the United States. He pointed out that, unfortunately, some of Alaska‘s best response equipment was not located in the Aleutians, so the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation knew it had help improve the situation. The initial step was risk assessment, which the Transportation Research Board was tasked to design. The first phase of this long-term risk assessment and mitigation strategy was a project called ‗Risk of Vessel Accidents and Spills in the Aleutian Islands – A Study to Design a Comprehensive Risk Assessment.‘ This project began early in 2008, and will examine the risk of oil spills from vessels passing through the Aleutian Islands; determine the information needed to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment; and recommend a framework for that assessment. Mr. Folley discussed another project, the Aleutians Emergency Towing System (ETS). Following the near grounding of the Salica Frigo on March 9, 2007 the mayor of Unalaska convened a disabled vessel workgroup to address possible future groundings, and to discuss local emergency response solutions. He said that this initial meeting prompted the ETS workgroup, whose goal was to develop emergency towing capabilities for disabled vessels in the Aleutian Subarea, using locally available tugboats with ETS equipment. The workgroup implemented two ETS systems, to serve a wider range of vessels. The City of Unalaska purchased a system suitable for vessels up to 50,000 deadweight tons, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation bought a system capable of towing vessels weighing more than 50,000 deadweight tons. Both systems are stored in Unalaska. The ETS consists of a lightweight towline; a messenger line to assist in deploying the towline; a line-launcher; a lighted buoy; and chaffing gear. These components may be configured to deploy to a disabled ship from the stern of a tugboat or airdropped to the ship‘s deck via helicopter.

33

Mr. Folley spoke about the Cruise Ship Ocean Ranger program, remarking that Alaska‘s cruise ship passengers actually outnumber the state‘s population. He pointed out that Alaska is the first and only state to require U.S. Coast Guard licensed marine engineers on board vessels to act as independent observers, monitoring State environmental and marine discharge requirements. He said that Ocean Rangers also check that passengers and crew are protected from improper sanitation, health, and safety practices. Next he talked about fishing vessel spills, the causes of which are usually lack of stability, inadequate watch standing, and crew fatigue. He said that the Coast Guard has tried to raise safety standards many times in the past, but that there has been opposition by industry due to cost concerns. He observed that most commercial fishing vessels in the area are ―uninspected vessels,‖ and that the Coast Guard does not have the authority to require operators to license fishing vessels of less than 200 gross tons. In fact, he said, for many ―the only prerequisite is a willingness to step on board.‖ This situation spawned the Clean Harbors and Marinas Program in Alaska, a program with ―legs‖ that reaches recreational boaters too. Mr. Folley discussed Alaska‘s diverse harbors and marinas, some of which are large (Juneau and Valdez); many of which are smaller and picturesque. He talked about the Pilot Program in Homer, one of Alaska‘s ‗greenest‘ communities. The objectives of the Pilot Program have been to design and implement a Clean Harbors project for the Port of Homer; to create a clean harbors template for Alaska; and to develop harbor specific Geographic Response Strategies (GRS). He talked about taking this program statewide, using slides to illustrate. Ms. Cameron reminded members that contact information for all jurisdictions is available on the HSC Task Force Web site. She then introduced Ted Mar.

Ted Mar, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) PowerPoint presentation: California Oil Spill Prevention Initiatives Ted Mar introduced himself as the Chief of the Marine Safety Branch of California‘s Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), adding that he was honored to be at the HSC conference. He gave some background on OSPR, which was created by the Lempert Keane Seastrand‘s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act. He remarked that people often seem to forget about the prevention part and concentrate on the response issues. He said that his focus, however, has been on prevention since day one on the job. He noted that one of the mandates of OSPR is to ensure the best possible protection of California‘s natural resources from oil pollution. He stressed that the best possible protection is prevention, because once oil has spilled, there will be a negative impact on the state‘s environment and natural resources.

34

He pointed out that his organization has had many successes over the years, and showed a chart to illustrate. Unfortunately, he said, these prevention gains were forgotten when the Cosco Busan hit the Oakland Bay Bridge, resulting in an oil spill. Though it was assumed that ―prevention‖ processes were in place and working, it was clear that some of these processes needed to be fixed. Shortly after the Cosco Busan incident, the T/B Cascades, with two tugs attending, hit the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge. Mr. Mar pointed out that two bridge allisions, happening so close together, showed that not all prevention efforts were working. However, there was no oil spill in the second incident. He pointed out that this was because engineering design prevention, and process prevention, was working. He observed that his old boss, Vice Admiral James Card, was on the right track with his Prevention through People initiatives. There were many chances to avoid these two incidents well before they happened. Mr. Mar stressed the importance of people taking the initiative and making decisions as a key to preventing accidents. Mr. Mar said that OSPR alone is not able to prevent oil spills. He stressed that they need partners in this endeavor, and that they have them—federal, state, and local partners, and partners within the maritime industry. He remarked that their major federal partner for prevention is the Coast Guard. He said that their state partners, the State Lands Commission (SLC) Marine Facilities Division, has taken the lead on preventing oil spills from marine terminals and petroleum cargo transfers with tankers. Every other year they sponsor a Prevention First conference; this year‘s will be held on September 9th–10 th at the Westin Hotel, Long Beach. He said that the State Lands Commission Marine Facilities Division has taken the initiative in engineering regulations for the design, construction and maintenance of marine oil terminals—including terminals that can survive moderate earthquakes. He added that the SLC has also studied human and organizational factors with respect to the cause of oil spills. He gave contact information for the SLC (www.SLC.CA.gov). Mr. Mar noted that, while the State Lands Commission has been looking at marine terminals and cargo transfers (i.e., sites for high consequence events), the probability of spills has been reduced. California‘s last few significant marine spills have been from non-tank vessels and pipelines. He went on to talk about their local partners within the maritime industry. He said that the Office of Spill Prevention and Response sponsors and funds California‘s five Harbor Safety Committees in California. He listed these: Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay Area, Port Hueneme, Los Angeles/Long Beach, and San Diego Harbor Safety Committees. All are tasked with preventing oil spills in their areas by making recommendations to the OSPR Administrator in their annual Harbor Safety Plan revisions. These recommendations include improving navigational safety; requiring tug escorts; improving PORTS; promulgating safe work practices; and advocating excellent maritime practices. If necessary, the OSPR administrator puts these recommendations through the state regulatory process, where they become state regulations.

35

Mr. Mar remarked that OSPR was created as a result of Lempert Keane Seastrand‘s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act. He said that OSPR had been directed to look at the Coast Guard vessel inspection program, and found it satisfactory. OSPR was also tasked to look at vessel transportation information systems in California and establish them where needed. He pointed out that the vessel transportation system (VTS) in Los Angeles/Long Beach was established thanks to coöperation between OSPR, the Coast Guard, and the Marine Exchange of Southern California. Lempert Keane Seastrand also tasked OSPR to look at tug escorts for tank vessels. He said that local Harbor Safety Committees helped OSPR to write regulations for escorting tank vessels in their harbors. He added that tug escort regulations were revisited in 2007, with traffic schemes redrawn for tank ship and non-tank ship transits. He mentioned that OSPR also oversees the pilotage in California state waters. Mr. Mar talked about the Marine Safety Branch of OSPR, which has three ongoing oil spill prevention initiatives, and one planned for the future. The first two are studying the causes of oil spills and marine casualties in California waters. The third will look at vessels entering California waters and calculate their casualty risks, which will include an enhanced oversight of California pilotage areas. He showed a bar graph with 2006 California vessel casualties, which he said would serve as their baseline. He said that 2007 data is still being gathered and analyzed. Using the trend in bilge pumping as an example, he noted the long and short-term effects of new prevention efforts. Mr. Mar noted that the California risk analysis is based on the European Union model. This initiative is still in a developmental stage—they have the formulas; they are now building their database. In closing, Mr. Mar pointed out that his organization‘s prevention work in California is a continuing process, and that prevention efforts must always be monitored to determine if they are working, and modified if they are not. He said that prevention initiatives must always be evaluated for both short and long term effectiveness, with all stakeholders providing input. He thanked the group and concluded. Contact Information: Ted Mar (916) 323-6281 [email protected] Ms. Cameron introduced Chip Boothe.

36

Chip Boothe, Washington Department of Ecology PowerPoint presentation: Prevention Program: Safe and Effective Oil Transfer Operations Chip Boothe said he would focus on a recent rulemaking imposed on shippers in Washington State, particularly pre-booming requirements. He remarked that most of his career has been about prevention, noting that prevention is about more than avoiding accidents—it is also about mitigating the impact of accidents. Referring to a slide, he discussed Washington State‘s prevention philosophy. He talked about the state‘s extensive spill prevention program for vessels and oil handling facilities. Mr. Boothe said that large commercial vessels must comply with Washington‘s rules for safe bunkering (refueling), and added that Department of Ecology vessel inspectors examine vessels to ensure that they are fueling safely. He talked about the emergency response tugboat at Neah Bay, which has assisted 40 ships and barges in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and off the Washington coast since 1999. He observed that this tugboat is vital to the state‘s efforts to prevent major and catastrophic vessel oil spills. He said that the Washington Department of Ecology has distributed 99 trailers of response equipment to marinas and industrial marine areas, so they can respond to spills more quickly. He pointed out that the drill and exercise program in Washington State is one of the most rigorous in the nation. Mr. Boothe noted that the Washington State inspection program augments the federal and international standard, and that it acknowledges Coast Guard primacy. The organization collaborates with the Coast Guard and the Washington Department of Ecology. He said that Washington State programs are built upon a principle of ―best achievable protection‖ of state resources. He stressed the importance of education and outreach to the state‘s prevention efforts. Next, he showed a graph illustrating the inverse relationship between the incident rate and vessel inspections between 1998 and 2006 in Washington State. He attributed this excellent trend to both an aggressive Coast Guard Port State Control, and several Washington State prevention programs. With regard to the latter, he provided details about the state‘s voluntary tanker and oil barge standards; new rules for refueling deep draft commercial ships; and new or revised standards for major oil handling facilities. Mr. Boothe said that the 2004 Washington State legislature set a zero-spill goal. This was the result of an event—a 4800-gallon fuel spill from a barge during a transfer operation. Because of this, the Department of Ecology was required to write new rules to establish minimum prevention and response standards for safe oil transfers in Washington State. His next slide was a detailed diagram, illustrating the oil transfer and contingency plan rules published in 2006. He focused on vessel and facility oil handling standards. These rules state that vessels must give the Department of Ecology advance notice of their transfers; vessels must conduct transfers to comply with a plan that has been approved by

37

both the Coast Guard and the Department of Ecology; vessels must be pre-boomed, with safe and effective thresholds; larger facilities must have a formal certification and training program, approved by the Department of Ecology; and facilities must have prevention plans to deal with oil risks. Mr. Boothe said that these rules apply to all classes of oil handling facilities that deliver oil in bulk to non- recreational vessels (Class 1–4), and to all vessels that deliver oil in bulk to any non-recreational vessel (including tank, cargo, passenger vessels) and Class 1, 2 or 3 facilities. To clarify, he showed a slide defining Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 classifications for vessels. Mr. Boothe discussed the rules for notification of a transfer, showing another slide to illustrate the details. He moved on to facility and vessel prevention/preparedness requirements. He pointed out that, though similar to the Coast Guard oil transfer requirements, the Department of Ecology rule has stricter standards for pre-transfer, including a written pre-load plan. Mr. Boothe presented a series of slides showing details of all of the Department of Ecology‘s oil spill transfer requirements, noting that high-rate transfers must be preboomed when feasible. He discussed numerous specific requirements, pointing out that his organization has greatly enhanced the overall oil spill response capability in Washington State. He said that all vessels would be assumed to be pre-boomed. He said that the Department of Ecology approves the selection of pre-booming equipment to meet prevailing environmental conditions. He noted that that even poor pre-booming proved to be better than none. For spills occurring at operations that are pre-boomed, preliminary findings show that over 80% of the spilled oil is recovered compared to between 0–15% for operations that are not pre-boomed. In this context, he showed a slide detailing prebooming requirements. Mr. Boothe detailed his organization‘s implementation status. He noted that their focus has shifted from plan review and approval to vessel inspections. He said that they have monitored approximately 12% of reported transfer operations, and that 84% of transfer operations are now being boomed. He said that their training and certification program reviews are now in progress.

State Spill Prevention Initiatives and Federal Preëmption Issues Maia Bellon, Assistant Attorney General, Ecology Division, Washington State Office of the Attorney General PowerPoint presentation: Federal Preëmption: A Brief Overview Ms. Maia Bellon introduced herself, and said that she would be talking about federal preëmption of state laws in the realm of oil spill prevention issues. She emphasized that the views she was about to express would be hers, not those of the Attorney General.

38

She posed the question: What does preëmption mean? Using a slide to illustrate, she began by stating that the notion of preëmption derives from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the key language being that federal law ―shall be the supreme law of the land.‖ She said that ―federal preëmption‖ generally refers to the balance of federal/state authority in a particular area of the law. By operation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law may prevent a state from enacting a law or administrative rule that conflicts with the operation of a federal law or a federal rule. Ms. Bellon discussed key Court considerations when determining federal preëmption claims. The first question is, what did the Court intend? She explained express and implied preemption. Express preëmption exists when Congress enacts legislation on a subject matter and expressly says the federal law shall be controlling over state laws and/or preclude the state from enacting laws on the same subject. Implied preëmption exists if a court finds from various circumstances that federal law still preëmpts state law, even if Congress did not say so expressly in the United States Code. She moved on to a legal analysis of preëmption. She reiterated that the main emphasis is to determine Congressional intent. In the case of express preëmption, the only analysis is whether the state law or regulation is one that Congress intended to preëmpt. If so, state law is preëmpted. In the case of implied preëmption, she said, courts consider several factors when determining Congress‘s intent, such as the comprehensiveness of the federal regulatory scheme; the federal interests at stake and the need for consistency; the history and nature of state regulation in the area of law; and legislative history—i.e., what Congress meant when it adopted a particular law. Ms. Bellon pointed out there are two analytical categories for implied preëmption—field preëmption and conflict preëmption. In the case of field preëmption, the court finds Congress intended to ‗occupy a field‘ of law, implying an intent to preëmpt all state regulations of that field. Conflict preëmption applies to all other implied preëmption cases. Here, courts inquire whether federal and state laws ‗actually conflict;‘ i.e., is compliance with both State and federal laws is impossible, or if compliance with the state law would stand as an obstacle to accomplishing the full objectives of Congress. If so, there is a conflict, resulting in preëmption of the state law. She noted that field preëmption is a very strict test, the result of which is similar to express preëmption. Ms. Bellon then discussed specific Supreme Court decisions to illustrate her previous analyses. In Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Corporation, (1978), there was a split decision. Four justices wrote a majority opinion, three wrote a concurring/dissenting opinion, and two wrote a separate concurring/dissenting opinion. The case sorted the Port and Waterways Safety Act‘s (PWSA) two titles for legal analysis: state laws in areas covered by Title I that cover the peculiarities of local water are governed by conflict preëmption analysis; however, state laws in areas covered by Title II are governed by field preëmption analysis. The Court let state requirements stand regarding the use of tug escorts under Title I of PWSA, as long as they did not conflict with United States Coast Guard rules. The Court struck down state tanker design requirements (double hull, twin screws, shaft horsepower, twin radars, etc.), and a 125,000 dead weight ton limit, stating that those were field preëmpted under Title II of PWSA.

39

Next, she talked about United States v. Locke (a.k.a. ‗Intertanko‘), (2000). Here there was a unanimous Supreme Court decision (9-0). She said that this case began after the Exxon-Valdez spill, after which Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act (1990), and the Coast Guard and Washington Legislature followed suit. She observed that, in this case, the Court followed the analytical framework of the aforementioned Ray, but restated the tests. The Court also set forth an analysis for matters that could fall under either PWSA Title I or Title II, to determine whether conflict or field preëmption analysis applied. The Court determined that all of the state‘s laws discussed in the opinion were field preëmpted under PWSA Title II: “The State of Washington has enacted legislation in an area where the federal interest has been manifest since the beginning of our Republic and is now well-established.” She said that only the federal government (i.e., the U.S. Coast Guard) may regulate the design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipment, personnel qualifications, and manning of tanker vessels. Specific subjects preëmpted by state rules were training and drill requirements for tanker crews (operations and personnel qualifications); English language proficiency requirements (personnel qualifications); navigation watch requirements (operations); and requirements to report marine casualties (emphasizing a vessel‘s out-of-state obligations and conduct). Ms. Bellon moved to the most recent case, United States v. Massachusetts, 2007. The U.S. and various industry groups filed a challenge to Massachusetts‘ 2004 Oil Spill Act. The District Court struck down all 7 challenged aspects of the Massachusetts law: the pilotage measures for coastwise vessels; personnel and manning requirements; tank vessel design or equipment requirements (ships not meeting federal requirements could not dock, load, or unload in MA); drug and alcohol testing requirements; tug escorts; vessel routing; and the exceptions to MA‘s financial assurance requirements. She said that this District Court decision was appealed to the First Circuit. At this point, the state of Washington filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit, and was joined by Maine, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Oregon, and California. The amicus brief stated what the states thought was the appropriate conflict preëmption test, and addressed the financial assurance/indirect regulation claim. She said that the First Circuit reversed the District Court on all three appealed issues regarding personnel and manning requirements, tug escorts, and exceptions to Massachusetts financial assurance requirements. Ms. Bellon said they are now in Round 2: the case is back in District Court on a remand order from the First District. The United States is now trying an express preëmption theory, based on the District Court‘s ruling of the Massachusetts‘ 2004 Oil Spill Act. She explained that a new round of motions has been briefed and argued before the District Court, and that a decision is expected soon. Ms. Bellon summed up her presentation by reviewing Federal preëmption issues. She then listed their ultimate implications for states in terms of bill drafting, rule writing, and policy formation. The bottom line, she said, is that state oil spill prevention initiatives can be affected by federal preëmption. She thanked the group and concluded. Ms. Cameron opened up the floor for questions and answers.

40

QUESTION – (Questioner unidentified): This is to Maia. Do I understand right, if that Massachusetts appeal is upheld, does that mean that states cannot regulate tug escorts? ANSWER – Maia Bellon: No. It meant that the district court struck down the tug escort as being preëmpted. The First Circuit said, no, we don‘t agree with that, but we‘re remanding it for some further analysis, because technically the case wasn‘t a trial—it was written on briefing and on paper—and sometimes judges get nervous if they don‘t have more information and facts. Bottom line, the First Circuit said they think that the tug escort is appropriately within the state‘s jurisdiction, but the court remanded it to look at the details. The ruling does not say that tug escorts cannot occur in states by virtue of state law. QUESTION – (Same questioner as above): But they are looking at it now, right? ANSWER – Maia Bellon: It‘s still being looked at. QUESTION – (Same questioner as above): So is there is a possibility that that ruling would affect all the states that have mandatory regulations? ANSWER – Maia Bellon: Not necessarily. I think it will be considered case by case, based on the language of the Massachusetts rule. QUESTION – Richard Berkowitz, Transportation Institute: First, there has been a decline in the number of spills in Washington State. I was wondering if that was the case in other states? Second, given that the PC States‘ Task Force is an oil spill task force, are you now seeing a greater focus on how other, non-marine and non-vessel operating spills are occurring? ANSWER – Jean Cameron: I can‘t cite specific statistics, but you can find them on our Web site. Generally, we have found that facilities and pipelines have been the primary source of reported spills over the past few years. The numbers have gone up in our regional data this past two years, because California has begun to report inland spills that weren‘t being reported before. So it‘s a little hard to compare, but I think it‘s safe to say that pipelines and facilities, more than vessels, are a primary source. We have shifted some of our activities accordingly—we‘ve focused on some pipeline issues. We did a roundtable on pipelines in 2007, and have an ongoing project to compare regulations on pipelines. We‘re also taking a look at gaps in federal and state regulations on pipelines— that‘s a big one, that‘s aging infrastructure—the same issue that Gary talked about for Alaska is certainly true for California. That‘s a good question. We are shifting, but one of the main reasons that the Task Force was formed was to deal with the fact that oil spills do not stop at borders, and we need to be prepared to deal with that. The fact is that vessel spills get a lot of public attention, so I think you‘ll always find that we focus on marine oil spills. Does anyone want to add anything? ANSWER – Gary Folley: Just that vessels transiting spills are often much greater in volume.

41

QUESTION – Jean Cameron: I‘d like to ask the state representatives—how do you measure your effectiveness? If your number of spills goes down, do you judge your prevention measures as successful? ANSWER – Ted Mar: Obviously, it relates to the number of spills that do occur—but what you can look at is, if you stopped that prevention measure, or if you modified that prevention measure, what would happen to your spills? Would they increase, decrease, or stay the same? And that‘s one of the reasons we have this study program in California— to determine if what we‘re doing is working or not. ANSWER – Gary Folley: I don‘t think you could do it over a short period of time; I think that the more data you have and the longer you study it—perhaps, over a 5- or 10-year period, you might be able to use the data to say this has had an effect. It would take a substantial amount of data and time. QUESTION – Jean Cameron: Any comments, Chip? ANSWER – Chip Boothe: I think I would concur with both of those statements. However, I think that everyone in the room wearing a blue uniform would tell you how difficult it is to quantify the success or failure of a prevention program. It is an amorphous entity that you try to capture, and frequently you can only measure indicators. Prevention professionals would argue that their programs are based on data that suggest they need to prevent accidents; others may use expert judgment to establish programs, and when they have positive trends, they accept credit. You may refute these data, but if so, come with your own so we can address them. That‘s how we stand for now. One task that I have taken on, within the Department of Ecology, is to start a detailed measurement program that attempts to get at these outcome measures. Maybe you end up with a whole bunch of indicating measures that build to give you that potential outcome measure a little better than we have in the past. That‘s my hope, anyway. In closing, Ms. Cameron emphasized the value of partnerships. She said that the Harbor Safety Committees illustrate that at the local level. She stressed the value of teamwork in prevention. She thanked the group and concluded.

BEST PRACTICES Keynote Speaker: Steve Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group Bruce Reed introduced Steve Scalzo noting that he has just been named the Puget Sound Maritime Person of the Year. Steve Scalzo thanked Mr. Reed and welcomed the group. He pointed out that the Seattle area is a major critical gateway for trade to and from Alaska, Asia, and the Far East. He said that the Seattle area is fortunate to have an energetic maritime community. He mentioned the recent World‘s Largest Tug races on Puget Sound. He thanked the Puget

42

Sound Harbor Safety Committee, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Transportation Resource Board for sponsoring this event. Mr. Scalzo said that his focus today would be from the perspective of vessel operators— primarily, people who operate tugs, barges, and small ships. He said that the Marine Resources Group is committed to promoting marine transportation safety in the areas where these people operate. He stated that safety makes good sense. He stressed ―our affirmative obligation to be the best on this nation‘s inland waterways, harbors, coastal regions, and oceans.‖ He added that the citizens, whose trade they conduct, demand no less. With the growth in the global marketplace, he observed, MRG needs to lead this effort through continued improvement. Mr. Scalzo said that the marine industry has had a long history of successfully working with other stakeholders to resolve issues of common interest—from oil spill and hazardous material prevention to the challenges of individual harbors, like fishing nets off Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and crab pots off Cordova, Alaska. He emphasized the importance of coöperation in the maritime industry, saying that it is the only successful way to resolve conflicting issues. He stressed that everyone‘s goal should be safety on the waterways. He cited some historic examples of how the Pacific Northwest has successfully dealt with other stakeholders in the area of prevention, and talked about their first mandatory VTS system. He said that with the growth in technology, communication, and coöperation between all the users, the safe transit of vessels has vastly improved. He said that the first Harbor Safety Committees were established by the state—they were groups of industry representatives, regulators, environmental advocates, and private citizens who worked together to establish working rules for oil transportation in Puget Sound in the early 1990s. After the Exxon-Valdez spill, the industry helped establish an education program aimed at keeping ships from carrying petroleum products and hazardous substances in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Today, the Marine Resources Group is still represented on that council, along with a wide variety of stakeholders. More recently, the large ports in the Pacific Northwest showed how coöperation could help reduce air pollution. Last year these ports—Seattle, Tacoma, and British Columbia—announced joint plans to reduce particulate matter from berthing ships and from cargo handling equipment carried on those vessels. Along with ship operators, they resolved to burn cleaner fuel. He added that, earlier this year, their companies committed to convert all their vessel operations to ultra low sulfur diesels or low-sulfur fuels. Mr. Scalzo said that, beyond the Pacific Northwest, the barge industry has successfully worked with regulators over the past few years to establish an inspection program for towing vessels. Through their trade association, the AWO, they worked closely with the U.S. Coast Guard and other stakeholders on legislation to develop a program, based on a safety management system, to leverage the private sector resources—recognizing that inspecting over 4,000 towing vessels in the United States would be impossible for the Coast Guard without an innovative approach. The Coast Guard, the Towing Advisory

43

Safety Committee, and other stakeholders are now working together on the final rules to implement the legislation, which will be passed within the next year. He pointed out that almost all that the major ports in the Pacific Northwest have Harbor Safety Committees, some of which are established by federal statute, others entirely voluntary. Most have representation by a broad range of participants, including the Coast Guard, state regulators, deep-sea shipping owners, the tug and barge industry, environmental advocates, and scientists. These committees work to tackle issues early, before they become real problems. Mr. Scalzo talked about the Puget Sound‘s Voluntary Safety Committee‘s latest project, the soon-to-be-published rewrite of the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Plan. This will address many issues, such as bridge team management, the use of pilots, anchoring, and heavy weather operating conditions. He mentioned that one of the group‘s biggest challenges has been that it is voluntary; and, while well represented by the industry side, it doesn‘t have full representation by environmental groups. He referred to an incident a few years ago in the San Francisco Bay area, in which a couple of their management employees were on a bunkering job off one of their tank barges next to a container ship, and noticed some pieces of steel on the deck of the barge. These turned out to be twist locks, used to stack containers on cargo ships. These, the tanker man said, often fell onto barges. Soon after this, a container was dropped onto a barge in another California port during a cargo handling operation. Marine Resources Group took the position that they would not bunker ships when cargo operations were underway above the barge. As a result, with the help of the San Francisco Bay HSC, they implemented—without regulation—new guidelines on bunkering container ships, which were approved in 2006. The new guidelines dictated that ships could only be worked if they are not handling containers in the outer two cells. The success of this resolution was due to coöperation by many groups, including industry, the Pacific Maritime Association, and various stakeholders. He said, ―It was done because it was right to get done.‖ Mr. Scalzo then talked about new challenges in the Bay area, especially after the Cosco Busan incident. He said he was sure that that new legislation would be controversial. He stated that air quality is a big concern in the port of Los Angeles/Long Beach. The HSC there recently worked out an arrangement to enable tugs to lie at various cargo terminals after ship assist or escort jobs, instead of returning to their home docks before their next assignment. This arrangement, he pointed out, will reduce emissions, save time and fuel, and help national security. Mr. Scalzo mentioned a 2006 accident in which a container crane toppled over a ship as the ship was getting underway in Mobile, Alabama. In this context he discussed various safety committees around the country. In California, he said that the Southern California HSC is working on a plan to prevent similar accidents in its harbors. In Galveston Bay, the Houston/Galveston Advisory Committee functions as a Harbor Safety Committee; its hurricane and dredging plan is an important focus for safe marine transportation in that area. Its hurricane plan and communication systems are now used nationwide as a

44

template for handling other emergencies on the water. This committee works closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and dredge contractors to keep commerce moving while dredging in those channels is underway. In Hawaii, the Hawaii Ocean Safety Team, a voluntary safety committee, operates in an area where there is heavy recreational boating. This can create conflicts with commercial shipping, but the group has worked hard to educate boaters to reduce problems. Another ongoing issue for this group is that of the cruise ship business, and dealing with requests for tugs to support these ships. Mr. Scalzo then touched on the Pacific States and British Columbia Oil Task Force, calling it a cross-section, cross-border working group that was formed after the ExxonValdez oil spill in 1989. He spoke about one of this group‘s successes, a routing project in which coastal tugs and barges, and dry cargo ships, are kept 25 miles offshore, and tank ships are kept 50 miles offshore. This is the result of a voluntary agreement, with coöperation from government agencies and industry, ensuring that vessels be far enough offshore to have time to respond and assist when problems arise. Soon this Task Force will encourage Harbor Safety Committees in the entire Pacific area to have a more uniform standard, and to share information—recognizing that some ports have unique traits, and need unique guidance. He added that, while this task force focuses mainly on spills, it plans to make all HSC standards uniform. Though tug and barge operators call on ports with different regulations, he pointed out that these ports should have plans that cater to vessels‘ specific needs. He noted that prevention and response plans could be more uniform; and that other operations, policies, and procedures could be streamlined. Mr. Scalzo concluded by saying that there have been accomplishments and controversies, opportunities and challenges. He observed that Harbor Safety Committees and forums like this conference are important because they create real opportunities for change. He stressed that coöperation and leadership are essential, and that leadership takes vision, passion, and commitment. He urged the group to learn from experience, acknowledge opportunities for improvement, and move ahead in the spirit of coöperation—as stewards of the Nation‘s waterways. He thanked the group and opened the floor for some questions before the break. QUESTION – Richard Berkowitz: Before we had a Harbor Safety Committee, there were elements in the maritime industry that worked together with the folks up in British Columbia to create an international VTS opportunity. I was wondering if that was just an oversight, or whether it was intentional? ANSWER – Mr. Scalzo: It is, and that‘s a great example—one that I should probably have mentioned because it was a coöperative effort. Not only that, but it was a good example of taking the best technology we had at the time, and making it work. Then it evolved, with new technology (AIS), into a much better system to track vessels‘ activities. Mr. Scalzo then said he was recently at a breakfast where Scott Oakley spoke of young people who were learning about environmental issues and building character. He remarked that it was an outstanding effort. He said he was surprised to find out that the

45

most ‗Googled‘ word in 2007 was ―integrity.‖ He said this was a hopeful sign that we are evolving, particularly in the area of marine transportation. He thanked the group and concluded. The meeting adjourned for lunch.

PANEL 5 BEST PRACTICES Moderator: Andrew McGovern, Sandy Hook Pilots – Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Mr. Andrew McGovern welcomed back the group and introduced Tava Foret, who would speak on behalf of the Houston-Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (HOGANSAC), winners of the 2007 Harbor Safety Committee of the Year Award.

HOGANSAC Navigation Safety Committee Tava Foret, Foret Enterprises, Inc. PowerPoint presentation: HOGANSAC Ms. Tava Foret gave some background on HOGANSAC, which is responsible for the ports of Houston, Galveston, and Texas City. She said this is a very dynamic area, often referred to as the energy capital of the world. She provided some details and statistics on the area‘s vessel traffic. She gave some background on the make-up of HOGANSAC, and summed up the success of HOGANSAC in one word: relationships. She stated that the committee is a partnership between the Coast Guard personnel and industry stakeholders. The committee looks at safety concerns in and around the ports of Galveston, Houston and Texas City, and develops safety recommendations for this area. Committee members provide local expertise on matters such as communications, surveillance, traffic management, and anchorages. The committee‘s mission statement is resolution through coöperation. Ms. Foret provided background on a HOGANSAC subcommittee, the Navigational Operations/Maritime Incident Review (NAVOPS). She said that six subcommittees within NAVOPS are responsible for most of its work: the Incident Review Workgroup, the Facility Visit Team, the Safe Mooring Workgroup, the ATON Workgroup, the Safe Access Workgroup, and the Bayport Workgroup. She detailed some of their projects and successes. She said that, as a result of their work, groundings were down 47% in 2007. She stressed the importance of better communication between diverse groups. She described Brownwater University, which studies inland towing transportation. It came about because Raymond Butler of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association was

46

concerned about the deteriorating relationship between industries, stakeholders, and the Coast Guard. She said that Brownwater University has enhanced understanding and communication between the Coast Guard, industry professionals, and Congressional members. She underscored the navigational challenges that the ports of Houston, Galveston, and Texas City are facing, including narrow channels, recreational boating development, locks, bridges, and adverse weather conditions. She noted that, because many Coast Guard personnel rotate every two to three years, they must quickly absorb the nuances of the industry and blend into established partnerships, while at the same time acting as industry regulators. She said both industry and the Coast Guard must be effective working partners—so that each can understand the mission and function of the other. She said that HOGANSAC‘s mission is to provide a platform that fosters relationships and provides information, because ―relationships and dialogue make for safe, efficient waterways.‖ She talked about the Harbor of Safe Refuge Subcommittee, and listed its accomplishments. It conducted risk assessments to concur with IMO resolutions; developed recommendations to help decide what to do about vessels in distress or in need of refuge; developed chemical and gas dispersion models; identified offshore Harbor of Safe Refuge locations; created a ‗decision tree‘ for oil, chemical, and other cargo vessels, which was incorporated into the South Texas area Coastal Plan; and carried out outreach and training for key decisions makers and stakeholders. Ms. Foret discussed the projects of the Dredging Committee, a forum that discusses safe dredging and makes recommendations. She said this group has created a publication, ‗Best Practices Guidelines,‘ which is posted on the HOMEPORT Web site; they helped the Coast Guard publish a Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) before the 2007 hurricane season; they produced the Waterfront Depth Survey Guidelines Letter; they are working to obtain funding for emergency dredging; they distribute information about terminal depth; they urge facilities to conduct pre-storm surveys; they document facility restrictions; and they educate port authorities and terminals on depth alongside docks. She talked about the eight subcommittees of HOGANSAC. In addition to the aforementioned NAVOPS and Dredging, she mentioned Deep Draft Entry Facilitation (DDEF), which monitors the impact of LNG Operations and plans to look at optimizing waterways. Ms. Foret provided some background on the fourth subcommittee, Technology, which was created in the wake of two back-to-back incidents involving allisions with the I-610 Bridge. HOGANSAC tasked the Technology subcommittee to create an alert system. The subcommittee is working with North American Controls to develop and eventually build a bridge allision sensor. The Maritime Awareness Subcommittee works with both the recreational boating and commercial fishing industries. They have hired several translators to help solve language barrier problems with these communities. She then touched on the Outreach Subcommittee, which recently hosted the 1st Annual Ship Channel Tour and Orientation meeting. Next, she talked about the Commercial Recovery Contingency (CRC), which will focus on response and recovery in the event of a critical closure of the waterway in the Houston-Galveston area. This group will look beyond local boundaries to encourage a regional approach. Further,

47

it will reach out beyond the maritime community to ensure the continuity of regional port operations. Ms. Foret mentioned TWIC. She pointed out that, while HOGANSAC does not yet have a specific committee to deal with TWIC, it is certainly on their radar. She said that they are monitoring the progress of TWIC, and will be working with the Coast Guard on TWIC-related issues in the near future. Lastly, Ms. Foret said that HOGANSAC understands that building and maintaining relationships between the Coast Guard and industry stakeholders is the key to planning, prevention, protection, and recovery for the ports of Houston, Galveston, and Texas City. She thanked the group and concluded. Contact Information: CDR Hal Pitts Chief, Waterways Management Sector Houston-Galveston (713) 671-5164 Hal.R.Pitts@usCoast Guard.mil Tava S. Foret Chairman, HOGANSAC Foret Enterprises, Inc. (281) 452-9940 [email protected] Mr. McGovern introduced Clayton Henderson.

Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council (SETWAC) Clayton Henderson, Sabine-Neches Navigation District PowerPoint presentation: SETWAC: Partnerships for a Better Waterway Mr. Clayton Henderson thanked the group and introduced himself. He said that the Sabine-Neches Waterway is on the border of Texas and Louisiana—a 65-mile long waterway that extends 20 miles offshore and inland to Beaumont, Texas. Using a slide, he showed a chart with various shipping routes in the area. He noted that the geographical features of the waterway make it perfect for the petroleum industry. He illustrated this with a map showing the many major refineries and terminals in the area. He showed three existing or planned liquefied natural gas facilities: Sempra LNG, Golden Pass LNG, and Chenier LNG. He said that Sabine-Neches is also a multi-port waterway, encompassing the ports of Beaumont, Orange, and Port Arthur. He listed government facilities in the area, including the U.S. Army Mobility Command, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, two Coast Guard units, plus the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur.

48

Mr. Henderson talked about ―what drives the Sabine-Neches Waterway.‖ He noted it is the number one importer of crude oil in the U.S.; the number one LNG terminal in the U.S., expecting to host over 40% of the nation‘s LNG import regasification capacity by 2010; it supports 55% of the U.S. strategic oil reserves; it is home to the number one U.S. commercial military outload port; its refineries produce 60% of the nation‘s commercial jet fuel (and the majority of military jet fuel); and its refineries produce 11% of U.S. gasoline. He said that they are truly ―America‘s energy gateway.‖ He said that, though SETWAC was formed in 1997, Hurricane Rita was the catalyst that pulled the waterway together in 2005. He showed a slide illustrating the composition of SETWAC, with a list of over 20 waterway stakeholder groups, ranging from the U.S. Coast Guard, to local law enforcement, to waterway labor groups. The committee holds meetings every quarter, which are very well attended. He said that SETWAC created the Port Information Working Group to coördinate these various entities. He used a slide to illustrate various Port Information Group solutions, including a direct access to bridge security cameras via the Jefferson County Sheriff‘s Department. Mr. Henderson showed a slide with port expansion plans and projects for 2007, with cost figures exceeding $15 billion. He discussed the security efforts of SETWAC. Under the guidance of the Coast Guard, the Captain of the Port, and the VTS, it formed the Area Maritime Security Committee. This is made up of representatives from federal, state, and local law enforcement emergency management coördinating agencies. The group has developed an area-wide security and escort plan, which involved local agencies stepping up and taking the lead— chiefly, the Jefferson County Sheriff Department. He noted that the Sabine-Neches Waterway is largely independent of federal funding. With regard to environmental stewardship, Mr. Henderson talked about the Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Committee and the Port Welfare Committee. He showed a series of slides to showcase their first LNG arrival, the LNGC Celestine River, which arrived at Sabine Pass on April 11th, 2008. Federal, state, and local assets worked as a team to escort the vessel. Mr. Henderson remarked that the future of SETWAC is ―looking pretty bright.‖ Future plans include a deepening and widening project, increased LNG capacity, and expansion of VTS and the Coast Guard. He pointed out that, regarding Best Practices, SETWAC has built a firm foundation of communication and coördination, creating a secure waterway while keeping pace with expansion, environmental stewardship, and seaman welfare. He summed up by saying that Sabine-Neches is ―truly the waterway model of tomorrow.‖ He thanked the group and concluded. Mr. McGovern introduced Terry Fluke.

49

Tampa Bay Harbor and Security Committee (TBHSC) Terry Fluke, CITGO PowerPoint presentation: Tampa Bay Harbor and Security Committee Mr. Terry Fluke introduced himself and thanked the group, reminding them that Tampa would be hosting next year‘s HSC. Mr. Fluke said that the Tampa Bay Harbor Safety and Security Committee was created in 1999. He described Tampa Bay as a large and relatively shallow bay, with a narrow channel leading into the bay. He stated that the committee is ―a unique body conceived as a place where safety, security, and environmental protection can be addressed for the collective good of the Tampa maritime community.‖ He showed a slide listing the committee‘s board of directors, a diverse group that includes a wide range of government and industry groups. With regard to working with the Coast Guard, he stated that TBHSC functions as an ―advisory body to the Captain of the Port.‖ He reminded the group that the mission of all Harbor Safety Committees is to serve the maritime community by providing communication and focusing on missions. He said that, as chairman of TBHSC, his job was to keep the lines of communication open between the Coast Guard, the port authorities, and industry. He stressed the importance of open and honest dialogue between these groups—―being able to talk about difficult issues and still walk away as friends, mentors, and colleagues.‖ Mr. Fluke discussed ongoing projects that will provide advanced warning of severe weather patterns developing over the northern Gulf of Mexico. He mentioned that NOAA is involved with the pilot project on AIS transmission capability. He talked about another NOAA project, the Automated Met-Ocean Observing System (Seakeeper 1000), a fully automated, modular, scientific data acquisition system designed to continuously monitor weather and surface ocean parameters, and transmit the data by satellite from ships of opportunity. He said that this system is a coöperative effort between TBHSC and the University of South Florida‘s College of Marine Science, created after a December 2005 nor‘easter left vessels unprepared. It will tie into the National Weather Service to warn vessels of approaching storms. He presented a slide showing hardware from the automated ocean observing system, which, placed on a vessel, monitors weather data on the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Fluke then talked about the success of vessel traffic working groups. One of these, the Port Sutton Channel, is ―Hazmat Central‖—a narrow channel with ammonia, liquefied petroleum gas, and petroleum vessels on both sides. It has traffic issues with blocking vessels. He said this working group has been effective because it is small, casual, and non-threatening—united to solve a common problem. He discussed the Collaborative Grant Submittal Subcommittee, explaining the process of submitting grants. He then spoke about the Hurricane Reconstitution Plan. This was begun last year—a post-hurricane plan that had its genesis after hurricanes Rita and Katrina—whose mission is to quickly bring ports back into operation after storms. This effort has established communication between all maritime stakeholders, county

50

emergency operation centers, law enforcement agencies, and power companies surrounding Tampa. Mr. Fluke touched on maintenance dredging and channel widening projects in the Tampa area. He noted that TBHSC has been sensitive to environmental concerns in this area, and has worked with the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society to come up with acceptable solutions. He thanked the group and concluded. Mr. McGovern introduced Ginnie Broadhurst.

Northwest Straits Initiative Ginnie Broadhurst, Northwest Straits Commission PowerPoint presentation: Northwest Straits Commission: Derelict Fishing Gear Project Ms. Ginnie Broadhurst thanked the group. She noted that she is the only person on the panel who is not a member of a Harbor Safety Committee. She said that she has learned a lot from the discussions. She told the group that, though her subject is an issue of national concern, she was going to be sharing the story from a local perspective. She said she would be talking about how her group is dealing with the problem of derelict fishing gear in Puget Sound. She briefly outlined how her organization came about. In the late 1980s, a Marine Sanctuary was proposed for northern Puget Sound. That proposal was voted down, but Senator Murray and the late Representative Metcalf suggested forming something along the same lines, only locally based. This laid the foundation for the Northwest Straits Commission. She said NSC receives both federal and local funding. The group‘s focus is marine conservation and restoration projects. Ms. Broadhurst presented a map of Puget Sound, reminding the audience that the United States shares this large waterway with Canada. She noted that there is fishing gear left behind wherever people have fished, across both state and national boundaries. She discussed various physical features of Puget Sound, observing that the Inland Waterway is a unique body of water, with a long history of commercial fishing. She pointed out that there are many rocky areas where fishing gear tends to get snagged, particularly gillnets; and the fjord-like nature of the estuary means that debris can easily become stuck. She noted that the area has a biologically rich ecosystem, and that there is still plenty of marine life there worth protecting. Lastly, she observed, there is a legacy of derelict fishing gear in the Sound. Ms. Broadhurst discussed some major derelict fishing concerns. She spoke of the danger of gillnets to scuba divers, and the risk of property damage (especially to vessel propellers), leading to economic impact. She then stressed the danger of derelict gear to

51

marine life and marine habitats. In Puget Sound, she said, the derelict fishing issues are predominantly gillnets and crab pots. Of the two, gillnets cause the most damage. She said that NSI uses side-scan sonar and recording mechanisms when looking for crab pots and gillnets. She showed a map with areas where derelict gear was found in 2007, showing days spent, and numbers of nets and pots found. Where there is a lot of fishing activity, the group first surveys and area and then works on removing derelict gear. She noted that they are recording amounts as they go, and that they haven‘t yet covered all of Puget Sound. Based on what they know about marine habitats and human safety issues, the group is mapping and creating overlays to existing information, in order to prioritize where they spend their time and money. To illustrate her point, she showed a map with priority areas in Puget Sound. She pointed out that the process is evolving as derelict fishing gear, with its resulting damage to wildlife, is found. Ms. Broadhurst presented a chart of Lopez Island that showed areas where NSI has done side-scan sonar survey discovering a heavy density of derelict gear. She remarked that people illegally set pots in ferry lanes, which are clearly defined on charts. Her next slide was a map of Cherry Point, where there is a fair amount of industry—for example, BP, Conoco-Phillips, and Intel. She said that, while vessel traffic here is not constant, large vessels regularly pass through. She talked about the Lummi Indian Nation, noting that fishing is a huge part of their culture and economic industry. The Lummi Nation has reported to NSC that they lose about half their fishing gear per year. In this context, she talked about the success of a one-day workshop, sponsored by BP, which brought together the Lumis, various industries, and vessel owners to discuss possible solutions to this problem. She said that this meeting was impressive because everyone was willing to work together toward a common goal. The different groups sketched out an informal agreement regarding what path the Lummis would follow when fishing around the docks in question. They also talked about making it easier for fishing vessels to be anchored while waiting to get to those docks. Ms. Broadhurst talked about impacts from gillnets. Nets that are left behind catch marine life indiscriminately—and they can go on catching for decades. They damage marine habitats through scouring and smothering; even nets left horizontally on the seabed kill a huge variety of marine life. To illustrate her point, she showed a slide with statistics from what was found in one abandoned gillnet during one week in August 2006. It listed a wide variety of captured marine life, most of which was dead. She observed that, ironically, the target species—salmon—were among the fewest caught. Harbor Seals are particularly vulnerable to these nets. She then showed a slide with statistics on derelict crab pot impacts. She observed that these crabs are good to eat, so ―we‘d much rather see them on your plate than . . . down there rotting.‖ She talked about some of NSI‘s accomplishments since 2002. They have removed 730 derelict nets, covering about 173 acres of marine habitat, and 1,293 crab pots. Her next few slides were photographs of recovered gill nets that contained dead animals and

52

bones. She talked about the San Juan area, a major bird habitat, where sanctuaries have gillnets shrouded around them. She talked about the irony of setting aside a place specifically for birds, which is actually ―an underwater killing field for diving birds.‖ Ms. Broadhurst ended by stating the goal of Northwest Straits Initiative: to remove 90% of derelict fishing gear from Puget Sound by 2012. The group needs to raise about $4.5 million to realize their goal. She said they have excellent support—mostly through federal grants, also through private and state funds. She added that the group is always interested in additional funding. She said the NSI has helped several other coastal states to get similar programs going. She thanked the group and concluded. Contact Information: www.nwstraits.org Mr. McGovern introduced LTJG Christopher Svencer.

Port Everglades Harbor Safety Committee Christopher Svencer, United States Coast Guard PowerPoint presentation: Port Everglades Anchorage Relocation

LTJG Christopher Svencer thanked the group and said that he had learned a great deal during the past couple of days. He said he was here to talk about a unique project, Port Everglades Anchorage Relocation, describing it as the first time the Coast Guard has been actively involved in relocating an anchorage to improve environmental conditions by reducing the risk of ship groundings. In the mid-1990s, the Coast Guard established two separate anchorage areas in the Fort Lauderdale region. Before this, vessels could anchor wherever they wanted, with no constraint. In addition, there were no surveys to identify where reefs where located, or what species lived on the reefs—they just understood that they needed to put these vessels in a controlled area to monitor them. LTJG Svencer listed the challenges that the Port Everglades HSC faced with the anchorage relocation project. There were a large number of vessels—mostly cruise ships—traveling through these waterways; they had to work within a small area to control negative environmental impact; and funding for research was limited. He said that, ever since the original anchorages were put in place, environmentalists had been looking for a better solution because of damage to coral reefs. He noted that 84% of coral reefs in the United States are in Florida, and that Elkhorn and Staghorn coral were added to the Endangered Species list in May 2006. He showed a chart illustrating how both species were right in the middle of these anchorages. There were 17 groundings and anchorage errors in over 14 years, which damaged the reef. This raised public awareness and put federal pressure to protect the coral reefs from further vessel destruction.

53

He then talked about Port Everglades, noting that it is one of the largest cruise ship ports in the world. It supplies a great deal of fuel to Miami and Fort Lauderdale International Airports, and to Florida‘s southeast corridor. Pier space is limited, especially in the winter months. He said the committee brought in experts to study the problem—pilots, agents from shipping companies, and port administrators. The group asked questions of all these entities to find out the exact needs of the port community, and conducted an Anchorage Use Study. With this information, they realized they had to balance industry and financial concerns with those of the environment, so ―we couldn‘t just move the anchorages.‖ The challenge was to find a place for anchoring that was acceptable to everyone. He listed the space constraints: they couldn‘t go too shallow because that would put them on top of the reef; they couldn‘t go north because of a fish haven; they couldn‘t go south because of a Naval Restricted Area; and they couldn‘t go too far offshore because it was too deep for anchoring. The question was: If we don‘t have the space, how can we create the space? LTJG Christopher Svencer said they decided that the fish haven option was the most viable, and teamed with the Army Corps of Engineers to remove it. He noted that the Harbor Safety Committees were instrumental in putting this issue at the top of NOAA‘s priority list. NOAA provided a bottom survey of the area. When the NOAA survey came back, it exposed many obstructions that would present a problem for establishing an anchorage. The state funded the purchase of a video camera to record exactly what was on the seabed. The results revealed minimal anchoring hazards, so the new anchorage went ahead. LTJG Christopher Svencer listed the lessons learned from this challenge: to identify stakeholders early; to identify all the environmental concerns; to create several problem solving options; to reach out to the public for input; and to compromise. Regarding compromise, he noted that the final decision about the anchorage location was not perfect for the environmentalists or the port operators, but they were able to work together and come up with a viable solution to solve a difficult problem. He thanked the group and concluded. Contact Information: LTJG Chris Svencer U.S. Coast Guard Sector Miami 305-535-4550

54

Breakaway Moorings Alexander Landsburg, Computer Sciences Corporation Larry Daggett, Waterway Simulation Technology PowerPoint presentation: Traffic Interactions with Moored Vessels—Best Practices for Safe Operations Mr. McGovern spoke briefly about the steadily increasing size of ships, and noted that there are many channels being deepened, but few channels are being widened. He observed, ―Eventually, something‘s got to give, and it‘s usually the mooring lines.‖ He then introduced Larry Daggett and Alexander Landsburg. Mr. Alexander Landsburg introduced himself and explained that he and Larry Daggett were there from Panel H-10, a group of volunteers from different organizations, whose purpose is to set the standards for designing ships to be maneuverable, a task they are still working on. He said he would be talking today about some of the risk concerns of mooring, how mooring is done nowadays, mooring problem trends and the technology used to analyze them, operational practices, developing Best Practices guidelines, and research to close the gaps. He said that the Risk Assessment Subcommittee of the Harbor Safety Committee in New York/New Jersey approached the panel, and explained that it had been studying harbor safety in the context of mooring, but that it wanted to gain more technical knowledge from their diverse group. At the same time, the California Lands Association was conducting model tests at the Annapolis Model Basin to study the same issues, and the Houston Harbor Safety Committee was developing studies on problem docks. He stressed the importance of looking at what is happening under the water when considering ship controllability and hydrodynamics. Using models, the panel worked with the Houston area and did research, sponsored by the Army Corps of Engineers, to instrument about 35 ships coming through the channel, and about 5 oncoming situations were looked at. The goal of this research project was to discover how things worked in shallow water. They concluded that they needed to do more to understand what happens, because there is so much going on. Mr. Landsburg said that the panel was also studying a number of terminals at this time, including the Vopak Terminal in Houston. Before this, most studies had addressed the physical risks of ships passing one another in the harbor. He pointed out that, in more modern ports—for example, LNG terminals—there are new designs where the ships are positioned at angles to the channel. He illustrated this with a slide. He stressed the importance of prevention. He talked about mooring considerations—wind forces, craft forces, tidal forces, and passing vessels. He said that what wasn‘t known earlier was that high-speed, smaller vessels can have significant effects on mooring. He described an incident involving several Maritime Administration ships tied up in the James River. A smaller, high-speed ferry passed by, and the waves it created broke thirteen of the nineteen steel cables that were permanently holding these ships together.

55

Mr. Landsburg defined mooring as the securing of a vessel to shore with lines and anchors to restrain its fore, aft, and rotational movement. He said that ship owners usually determine the size of lines to be used. They base this decision on wind, current, and tidal forces; also on forces from the passing of large ships and smaller, high-speed vessels. He showed a diagram to illustrate this. He noted that different terminals have their own mooring rules. The mariner monitors the moorings, and adjusts them to prevent slack. Loose lines are a very important safety issue. He said he would turn over the discussion to his colleague, Mr. Daggett, who would describe scientific advances in this area, and present some studies that have been performed. He concluded by noting that their group would like to set up a stronger link with the Harbor Safety Committee. He yielded the floor to Mr. Daggett. Mr. Larry Daggett talked about techniques for mooring analysis. He touched on studies concerning hydrodynamic forces created by passing vessels, which involve measuring line forces and ship motions. A new methodology, computational fluid dynamics, is used to calculate dynamic fluid movement. He said that new technology enables them to make field measurements, including high-accuracy measurements of GPS, ship motion, and line forces. This leads to more real-world, full-scale data. Mr. Daggett then discussed the hydrodynamics of passing ships in relation to moored ships, showing diagrams and graphs to illustrate. He talked about the factors that influence forces from passing ships, including currents, vessel speed, and distance. He noted that water depth—especially the under keel clearance at the mooring—is also an important factor. Increasing depth by dredging makes vessels less subject to motion generated by passing ships. He stressed the importance of keeping lines taut, and showed a slide illustrating ‗dynamic passing vessel impacts on berthed vessels.‘ He explained that when a large mass vessel starts making small motions, it creates large forces in the line. He then showed slides to illustrate static versus dynamic ship forces, and static versus dynamic load lines. He spoke about mooring analysis models that are currently available from both government and the commercial sector. Using slides, he went into detail about the need for improved models on passing effects. Mr. Daggett proposed conducting a research effort in which information on Best Practices would be gathered from all the harbor safety groups to ensure mooring safety. This would include working with pilots and ship operators, gathering existing guidelines and practices, noting guideline shortcomings, identifying responsibilities, developing empirical guidelines, and publishing a Best Practices report. He pointed out that additional research would be needed, including prototype measurements and a systematic test program. He appealed to the Harbor Safety Committee to find a way to work together to address mooring safety. He added that a big issue is the new, larger ships, particularly LNG vessels. He concluded. Mr. McGovern thanked Mr. Daggett, observing that the problem with dredging is that ―they always want a little bit more.‖ He opened the floor to questions about any Best Practices the panel might have missed.

56

QUESTION – (Questioner unidentified): I just have some observations. We have three berths and a line; two berths have a natural shoreline behind them, one berth has a bulkhead about 50 feet inside. That bulkhead has a higher breakaway rate because, I believe, the hydraulics make the water rise with no way to release. Also, we always have to address the condition of the lines. ANSWER – Andrew McGovern: Yes. BEST PRACTICES STATEMENT – Joan Lundstrom, San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee: After the Cosco-Busan incident, our Governor directed the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response to take a look at some of the issues involved, and our Harbor Safety Committee determined that one of the issues is fog. We have fog and several bridges, and we asked the Coast Guard to come up with statistics about the average number of hits per year by large vessels. For the past 15 years, the average number has been three. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port worked with the bar pilots to study vessels‘ movements in fog. Our Harbor Safety Plan concluded that no large vessels should move if the visibility is under half a mile. That statistic was quoted in the National Transportation Safety Board proceedings. Our navigation work group came up with the idea to look at Best Practices for moving in fog, since we might have dense fog in one area, and two miles away it might be clear. The San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee came up with a recommendation, which was then voted on by the Harbor Safety Committee, about when to move in foggy conditions. It also designated areas of critical concern, and mapped them out. This was presented at the hearings of the National Transportation Safety Board. These were recommendations for Best Practices in foggy conditions for vessels over 1600 gross tons. The San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee will also be taking a look at passenger ferries, since about 60% of our transits are passenger ferries, carrying about 5 million passengers per year. They will also be studying tugs, tows, and barges because two months after the Cosco-Busan, a barge hit a bridge. Separately, we got a briefing from the California Department of Transportation to talk about fendering of bridges next to shipping lanes, to see what engineering criteria they use to protect the bridge dynamic itself, since this container ship was 70 feet from hitting the bridge dead-on. We also wanted the California Department of Transportation to look at the criteria for fendering to perhaps protect against holing of the ship itself. They agreed that they would take a look at this on a national basis, but we are urging them to look at it on a California basis. STATEMENT – Mr. McGovern: I‘ll bring up an issue that we started in New York. As most of you know, most of the players are the same in area Harbor Safety Committees, Maritime Security Committees, and Area Committees. This leads to a lot of overlap in meetings. The Harbor Safety Committee and Harbor Security Committee used to be one, until the rulemaking came out on the AMSC, then it was kind of torn away from Harbor Ops, as we call it. In New York, the chairs of the three committees have just signed an MLA agreeing to work together, and possibly eventually combine as one committee. As a start, we have agreed to have the chairs meet regularly to look at what‘s on everybody‘s mind, and work on common issues together. Possibly, the recombined group could be called the Safety and Security Committee. This would cut down on the number of

57

meetings, while members of these committees could still get the work done—which would be a good thing. STATEMENT – Ms. Margot Brown, San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee: I have a request. It‘s partly inspired by the Cosco-Busan incident, and it concerns communication. The skipper‘s lack of knowledge of the English language contributed to this allision. I have heard from other pilots in other areas that the ability to speak English on the part of the mariners on the bridge, approaching harbors, is an ongoing and increasing problem. I would like to request that this be a subject that all the Harbor Safety Committees take a look at. I would be extremely happy if anyone would communicate on this subject to see what we can do to request—or demand—that the bridge team speak sufficient English to be well understood by the pilot, and vice-versa. I realize this is not a popular subject, but it is one that will affect more and more transits, as the ships get bigger and we have more and more people manning them who have no grasp of English whatever. COMMENT – Andrew McGovern: Thanks, Margot. That is an issue, obviously all over the world. It is a requirement under STCW that all crewmembers speak a certain amount of English. Right now that is undergoing a comprehensive review; one of the things on the table is to expand that knowledge base of the English language on the international side. Maybe that will help, but anyone who would like to communicate with Margot on this subject, please feel free. BEST PRACTICES STATEMENT – John Strong, Chairman, Los Angeles/Long Beach HSC: In answer to Margot, I have to share an experience we had with a tanker coming into the port of Long Beach. Somehow, the charterer got word that the captain and bridge team didn‘t have a good handle on English because they hadn‘t communicated well at the last port. I got a call from the oil company, offering to send an interpreter along with the pilot, and put him on the bridge. So I think the companies are sensitive to the issue, after Cosco-Busan. It‘s kind of an internal issue within the shipping companies to ensure that, at least when they come to the United States, they have an English speaker on the bridge. As it turned out, the captain spoke great English and we didn‘t have a problem, but I thought it was very sensitive of the oil company to make that offer. COMMENT – Andrew McGovern: Communication between crewmembers is also an issue because of the multi-national crews that you see nowadays—hired through management companies as opposed to the shipping company itself. We once had a regular caller in New York that had a 12-man crew from 11 different countries. It is definitely a problem that needs to be looked at. Mr. McGovern thanked the panel and adjourned for the day.

58

Day 3: Wednesday, May 14

PANEL 6 MARITIME SECURITY AND RECOVERY Moderator: John Dwyer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Seattle Mr. Bruce Reed welcomed the group to day three of the 10th annual Harbor Safety Committee meeting. He said that there would be two panels today, then closing remarks by Rear Admiral James Watson. He said that feedback is very important, and reminded everyone to fill out the feedback forms that had been provided. He went on to thank the contribution from ―the people who really helped put this together:‖ the United States Coast Guard, the Puget Sound Safety Committee, and the Transportation Research Board. He acknowledged various panel members—Margot Brown, Jean Cameron, Deirdre McGowan, John Ventjeer, Peter Lauridsen, Andrew McGovern, and John Dwyer—and thanked them for spending extra time to convince panelists to attend and put together such interesting presentations. He added that he was looking forward to seeing everyone next year in Tampa, and then yielded the podium to John Dwyer. Mr. John Dwyer welcomed the group, and introduced himself as the head of the inspection division for Coast Guard Sector Seattle. He explained that one of his jobs is to manage the Marine Transportation Recovery Unit (MTRU), a planning concept throughout the Coast Guard that addresses port recovery and resiliency. He said that is a growing topic within the Coast Guard and the response community, as well as the maritime industry. All these groups are focusing on how to get trade back up and running to support transportation and necessary services in the wake of either a natural disaster or a heightened security condition. He told the group that this panel would consist of a good cross-section of agency representatives who will talk about their experiences and priorities. A follow-on panel will then talk about the industry side. He then touched on the work that is being done in Seattle in the area of Washington State ferries, as to how they will operate in a heightened security condition. The Maritime Safety Committee in Puget Sound has conducted some exercises and tabletop drills that focus on maritime security. He said they are developing more plans, but there is much work to be done. He said that he expected this panel would be thought provoking. Mr. Dwyer then introduced Stephen Danscuk.

59

PART 1: PUBLIC SECTOR ROLE Maritime Security and Recovery: U.S. Coast Guard Perspective Stephen Danscuk, United States Coast Guard Pacific Area PowerPoint presentation: MTS Recovery for the Resumption of Trade Mr. Stephen Danscuk thanked the group. He said he was going to talk about Coast Guard efforts to improve the rapid recovery of maritime commerce following a significant disruption to the Maritime Transportation System (MTS). He observed that there are quite a few strategy documents that the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies have distributed to focus on MTS recovery. He stressed the importance of agencies working together. He then listed the guiding principles of MTS recovery. These are: each agency will exercise its unique authority to fulfill its responsibilities; each agency will find the best balance between the nation‘s security and the free flow of trade; each agency will minimize disruptions to the U.S. economy from unnecessarily constrained cargo flow; and each agency will avoid needless interference with normal commercial processes. He acknowledged that, while Federal agencies might organize and lead recovery efforts, it is those in the commercial sector who ―really know what is going on in the ports.‖ Mr. Danscuk discussed strategic guidance documents from various government agencies that focus on MTS recovery. He said all these documents acknowledge that the Coast Guard, along with existing authorities and stakeholders, is best suited to lead a recovery at the port level after an emergency. The common goal of all these strategies, he stressed, is to get cargo quickly flowing again after a disruption—whether a natural disaster, a man-made disaster, or a terrorist incident. He presented the Coast Guard‘s guidance documents for MTS recovery. These include COMDTINST 16000.28, NVIC 09-02 Revision 3 (just finalized), and USCOAST GUARD/CBP Protocols (also recently signed). He mentioned some other MTS recovery efforts, including the CPB/USCOAST GUARD Joint Protocols, Port Security Grant Program resiliency projects, and Continuity of Operations Plans for industry. Regarding new challenges, Mr. Danscuk admitted that the Maritime Transportation Security Recovery Unit (MTSRU) is a relatively new area for the Coast Guard, and that there are is still work to be done. He pointed out that more guidance is needed at the local level. He noted that Congressional and DHS leadership expectations are growing, and admitted that recovery information demands have often outpaced the Coast Guard‘s capability to respond effectively. In this context, he said that the Pacific Coast area is playing ―catch-up‖—they are in the process of issuing their own Coast Guard instruction for MTS recovery. Mr. Danscuk presented a slide showing extracts from GAO reports, which not only expressed specific interests and concerns about MTS recovery, but also pointed out some

60

of the Coast Guard‘s shortcomings in efforts to address them. He admitted that many of these efforts were hurriedly outlined in 2004-2005, after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. He used a flowchart to illustrate Coast Guard protocol after an MTS incident, which he described as ―a script for the first conference call,‖ outlining which government agencies and commercial advisory councils would need to be contacted. His next few slides went into more detail about groups to contact and procedures to follow. He talked about MIRP protocols that have recently been finalized with federal and industry partners, to guide national decision makers. These protocols specify communication guidelines and set national priorities. In February 2008, the Coast Guard Commandant issued an instruction prioritizing actions that must occur at area, district and sector levels after a crisis. He then itemized MTS recovery unit tasks, which include understanding critical pathways and identifying long-term restoration issues. He stressed that the MTS recovery unit must consist of port partners who are familiar with port operations, cargo flows, port infrastructure, and critical recovery needs. He said that this unit would include many members of Harbor Safety Committees or Area Maritime Safety committees who could recommend port recovery actions to the Unified Command. Mr. Danscuk presented two organizational diagrams to illustrate the MTSRU chain of communication. He showed a detailed slide illustrating the suggested composition of an MTSRU, to include Federal and local government agencies and local industry representatives. He said that, in the event of an incident, Coast Guard Headquarters would require daily status reports containing Essential Elements of Information (EEIs), to provide situational awareness for senior leadership, and to keep national decision makers informed. He said an effort is underway to get Captains of the Port to reach out to the maritime industry, in order to start forming MTSRUs. This will ensure that baseline data can be gathered before an incident occurs. Mr. Danscuk itemized MTSRU navigational system recovery tasks and cargo/vessel priorities after a maritime emergency. He talked about organizing recovery communications, stressing that these should be in place in advance, so they are not being developed on the fly. In this context he mentioned alert warning systems, back-up communication systems, and emergency operation center and law enforcement coördination. He noted that some ports are already starting to develop resiliency and continuity plans. Mr. Danscuk reiterated his earlier point that the civilian/commercial community must play a crucial advisory role in any port recovery scenario. He talked about the need to create a consistent MTS reporting system. He said that a standardized template is needed to integrate all the diverse data elements generated by each port. He discussed developing a system that captures essential baseline information in advance, storing it electronically for easier updating. He said this would help in generating required daily reports for Coast Guard Headquarters. He noted that he was encouraged to see some reporting systems already in use, such as the MarView Program. With regard to MTS information exchange, he showed a series of slides illustrating what

61

is needed for the future, versus the old system currently in place. He concluded by saying that there is a lot of work ahead, and that Harbor Safety Committees are going to be prime players in helping MTS recovery systems move forward. He concluded. Mr. Dwyer introduced Michael Kidby.

Corps of Engineers Core Competencies Michael Kidby, United States Army Corps of Engineers PowerPoint presentation: Corps (Core) Competencies for Port Resiliency and Recovery Mr. Michael Kidby introduced himself and thanked the group. He began by stating the mission of the Army Corps of Engineers: To provide safe, reliable, efficient, effective and environmentally sustainable waterborne transportation systems for movement of commerce, national security needs, and recreation. He noted that the ACOE is primarily concerned with deep draft navigation, inland waterway navigation, and dredging—the latter being the common thread that ties the first two together. Mr. Kidby showed a map of the United States to illustrate inland waterway systems that feed the major ports across the nation, either to bring commerce to the ports, or to take what comes in to the ports to the heartland. He said that there are nearly 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 14 feet or shallower; and 13,000 miles of deep draft waterways. The ACOE has stewardship over the latter, which have 195 lock sites with 241 lock chambers. He stressed the importance of regional offices: ―They are where the action happens, and those are the groups that interface with Harbor Safety Committees around the country.‖ Mr. Kidby provided some ACOE statistics. He said that there are 8 divisions around the country and 38 districts—21 of which are in coastal areas, including the Great Lakes. Their navigation program consists of nearly 1100 congressionally authorized and constructed navigation projects. They have stewardship over 25,000 miles of navigable waterways. He referred to some challenges the ACOE is currently facing. One is an aging infrastructure in the United States: over 50% of locks and dams are over 50 years old. Another is with incidents such as equipment failures, allisions, collisions, and groundings. Limited funding is another problem, which affects both routine operation and maintenance activities, and non-routine emergency repairs. He talked about what it takes to ensure a reliable and efficient Marine Transportation System (MTS). He said it starts with coöperation with other Federal agencies through the Committee on the MTS (CMTS), and with national, regional, and local navigation and environmental stakeholders. A dependable MTS also needs reliable inland and intracoastal waterways; available locks with reduced unscheduled closures; available

62

channels, both shallow and deep draft; and efficient intermodal transfer points, accessible to all forms of transportation. Regarding the latter he noted that, after the 2005 hurricanes, it was critical to get the waterways back in operation because the highways and railways were not operating. Mr. Kidby reviewed some of the ACOE‘s past disaster response and recovery efforts, which he broke down into three categories: natural disasters with prior warning such as droughts, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes; no notice events such as earthquakes, volcano eruptions, vessel groundings and spills, and bridge failures; and man-made disasters such as 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. He talked about individual project authorizations, which allow the Corps to act if there is a disaster, so that they can quickly restore navigation. They conduct such projects as surveying channels, dredging, and repairing locks and dams. The funding for these tasks comes from either local or national sources. When a wreck must be removed from Federal channels, funding generally comes from the owners/operators of the vessel. He then mentioned Public Law 84-00, which authorizes ACOE to deal with floods and coastal emergencies (FC&CE). Mr. Kidby discussed the authority that is usually applied in the event of a regional disaster, such as the hurricanes in 2005. In such situations, states will request federal assistance under the Stafford Act, and the president makes a Declaration of an Incident of National Significance. At this point, FEMA is authorized to oversee support by federal agencies, primarily the DOD/ACOE. They provide technical assistance, engineering, construction management resources under Emergency Support Function (ESF) #3 – Public Works and Engineering. He explained that ESF #3 is an all-hazards plan, not just for natural disasters. He described Corps mission assignments under ESF #3, which include water and ice, temporary power outages, and debris management—the latter including both upland and in-water debris outside the Federal navigation channel. He then talked about other ESFs that the Corps supports, including ESF #1 – Transportation (DOT); ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services (DHS/FEMA); ESF #9 – Urban Search & Rescue (DHS/FEMA); and ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Material Response (EPA, DHS/USCOAST GUARD). He addressed specific examples of where the Corps used these ESFs—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, the San Francisco earthquake, and various oil spills. Mr. Kidby noted that the Corps relies heavily on coördination with other agencies and the private sector when responding to emergencies. These include the U. S. Coast Guard, NOAA, the Navy Supervisor of Salvage, the Maritime Administration, and navigation industry contractors. He stressed that federal, state, and local entities must work together to ensure quick response and recovery efforts. He said that, in the event of a disaster, the Corps ―stands ready to assist.‖ He encouraged the group to be in touch with the ACOE, and provided detailed contact information. He thanked the group and concluded.

63

Contact information: Navigation Business Line Manager James E. Walker - James.e.walker @usace.army.mil Navigation Budget POC Jeffrey A. McKee - [email protected] Inland Navigation POC Michael F. Kidby – [email protected] Navigation Floating Plant POC Robert B. Leitch – [email protected] Navigation Environmental POC Joseph R. Wilson – [email protected] Navigation Data Center http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/ Navigation Program Webpage http://operations.usace.army.mil/navigation.cfm

Mr. Dwyer introduced Owen Doherty.

Keep America Moving: A Priority Owen Doherty, Maritime Administration PowerPoint presentation: Keep Commerce Moving: A Priority Mr. Owen Doherty thanked the group. He noted that this was the first time he had attended a Harbor Safety Committee conference. He said he has learned a great deal, and will definitely be attending next year‘s conference in Tampa. Mr. Doherty talked about the diverse activities of the Maritime Administration (MARAD). These include shipbuilding, work ports development, and national security. He added that MARAD has recently re-organized to establish 10 gateway offices nationwide. He said he worked in the MARAD Office of Security, which examines how security issues impact transportation. This division focuses on how to improve transportation while at the same time increasing security. He addressed the importance of linking these two elements. He talked about the challenge of keeping up with the demands of an evergrowing transportation system, and about MARAD‘s work with other transportation modes in this effort. Mr. Doherty explained that MARAD is involved in port development and shipping operations. He said that they focus on analyzing the supply chain across the United States. He presented a slide to illustrate the components and direction of the supply chain: producers > distributors > retailers > customers.

64

He said that MARAD operates the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, and works with the Coast Guard to develop training courses that focus on security. He said they have a number of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that can be used for training. In the context of the nation‘s supply chain, he said that MARAD produced a national strategy for maritime security in 2005, which laid out a Maritime Infrastructure Recovery Plan (MIRP). He stressed the importance of maritime domain awareness—i.e., keeping on top of the ever-changing status of the transportation system—during a national emergency. He showed a slide with statistics about the growing Jones Act Fleet, which has increased rapidly in the past ten years, and has 36,156 vessels to date. He stressed the importance of the private sector in recovery efforts, and of different agencies working together. He talked about the Ready Reserve Force vessels (RRF), which provided aid after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They provided lodging, a power source, and assistance to other vessels during these crises. He talked about the Marine Information Service of North America‘s role in communication during recovery efforts. He emphasized the importance of quickly stabilizing the nation‘s economic security after a disaster, and noted how a national crisis can escalate into a far worse catastrophe if commerce collapses. In this regard, he talked about the amount of time it takes to clear a harbor after a terrorist incident, and that it is better to close a couple of terminals than the whole port. He highlighted MARAD‘s role in analyzing the performance of the MTS and sharing information with government agencies and industry. He talked about the challenge of dealing with waterway congestion, and reiterated the importance of industry‘s role in keeping the nation‘s infrastructure stable. Mr. Dwyer introduced Captain Richard Hooper.

The Need For A New National Maritime Salvage Policy in View Of The Terrorist Threat And Hurricanes: Lessons Learned Captain Richard Hooper, Supervisor of Salvage and Diving, Naval Sea Systems Command PowerPoint presentation: The Need For A New National Maritime Salvage Policy In View Of The Terrorist Threat And Hurricanes: Lessons Learned Captain Richard Hooper thanked the group and introduced himself. He started off by talking about Title 10, U.S. Code, which designates the Secretary of the Navy as being responsible to provide facilities for the salvage of public and private vessels. He noted that the ‗private‘ part might be of more interest to the group today—both those in the Coast Guard and those in private industry—because the assets of the Navy are available to them to assist in salvage, by an act of Congress. This manifests itself in three separate ways. First, when a Coast Guard Captain of the Port federalizes a response to an incident where ―a responsible party is not being very responsible,‖ and he needs to take action to prevent deterioration of a port or waterway, he can call on the Navy. Second, other

65

federal agencies may request the Navy, under the Economy Act, to provide salvage assistance. In this context, he shared a recent incident where the DOT requested assistance in recovery efforts for the Minneapolis I-35W bridge collapse—a request that originated from the Hennepin County Sheriff. The third area, through the Stafford Act, is in disaster response; examples have included the Exxon-Valdez oil spill and hurricanes Katrina and Rita, where there was a national effort, designated by the president, to assist in recovery operations, of which salvage is but one. Captain Hooper posed the question: What does the Navy bring to bear in recovery efforts? He answered by pointing out that hardhat diving capability is a hallmark of the Navy that complements the marine industry. The Navy has salvage ships that are part of the Military Sealift Command, and a pool of salvage material that can be used for either Navy or national events. Part of that pool includes an extensive inventory of pollution response equipment, most notably used during the Exxon-Valdez disaster. Captain Hooper then mentioned other significant Navy salvage efforts, including the clearance of the Suez Canal after the Yom Kippur war; the salvage of a Japanese fishing vessel that was sunk when the U.S.S. Greenville collided with it off the coast of Hawaii, which involved the recovery of a 700 ton vessel from over 2,000 feet; the recovery of the space shuttle Challenger; and a host of aircraft salvage operations, e.g. TWA 100 and SwissAir 111. He noted the change in maritime salvage policy regarding the terrorist threat. He said that events since 2000 have caused a seminal change in the country. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole highlighted the fact that all our maritime assets, military or not, are vulnerable to a terrorist act. He stressed that, if it‘s possible to successfully attack a warship in an alert posture overseas, all U.S. maritime assets are vulnerable to attack around the world, including in our own ports. Captain Hooper then talked about the 9/11 attacks. He pointed out that they showed the enemy‘s willingness, financial capacity, and human resources, to take the fight to U.S. shores. He observed that those attacks were largely symbolic, though they had a major economic impact. He stated his main message to the group today is that our ports are our economic lifelines. Our ports are becoming increasingly stressed—they are operating at capacity and there is no relief valve to absorb an incident in any of our ports. A strike on our ports would have a major effect on the nation‘s economy—which, he stated, is ―likely the next thrust of an attack.‖ He emphasized that the enemy recognizes the economic connection. In 2002, they attacked the motor vessel Lundberg, explicitly recognizing the economic effects. He referred to national alerts that reveal the enemy has identified maritime assets as their next focus. Captain Hooper‘s conclusion: the enemy will persist, and will be with us for a long time. The enemy‘s aim is not only to incite terror in the population, but also to cause economic chaos. That will be his next target, because that is what can hurt us most.

66

Captain Hooper stated that our vulnerable targets are our ports. He highlighted the importance of ports as our economic lifeline, alluding to many of the Harbor Safety Committee presentations in this conference. He said that 90% of the weight of U.S. import / export comes via our ports, and speculated about what would happen if there were a 9/11-type attack on two of these ports. He drew a parallel with the effects on the aviation industry after the 9/11 attacks, adding, ―You can let your mind make the connection on your own.‖ To illustrate, he cited an incident in 2004, the capsizing of the small motor vessel Lee. This was a 500-ton vessel that was lost in the Mississippi River. The river was closed on February 21st and re-opened on the 28th. Showing a slide to illustrate, he stated that the estimated economic loss from this event was $240 million. He stressed that this was a very small vessel and the recovery was quick, but the economic impact was significant. He speculated about what would have happened if this had been a larger ship, and noted that terrorists could target chemical tankers, crude oil ships, large container ships, or cruise ships. In 2004 the Navy and other marine consultants conducted a study on how an attack on our ports might be carried out. Their conclusion was similar to the equation that was used in the 9/11 attacks. It revealed how few terrorists it would take to attack a cruise ship— seven or eight people, and how many to commandeer a tanker—ten to twelve. He said this begs the question: Can an attack like this be prevented? He noted that many dynamics are in play, including the balancing acts between gathering intelligence and maintaining civil liberties, and talked about the political acceptability of counter-terrorist measures. Captain Hooper said that, though there is no way to completely avoid a future attack, we must be prepared for an attack—we must have salvage responses in place. He said the national salvage capacity of the United States has been in decline for many years. He attributed this partly to the after-effects of the Exxon-Valdez incident, observing that, ―It is not economically viable for vessels to spill product.‖ As a consequence, safety rates have increased while incidents have decreased. The Marine Board has concluded that, with marine casualties in US waters at a historically low rate, there has not been enough traditional salvage work available to make it a paying proposition for companies dedicated solely to salvage. As a result, salvage has become a secondary business for marine contractors. The Coast Guard has also formally acknowledged the shortage of US national salvage capacity. Captain Hooper described some examples of major incidents in which foreign flag vessels had to be used for salvage: the 1999 crash of Egypt Air Flight 999 off Long Island, NY; the 2000 grounding of the M/V Sergo Zakariadze outside San Juan Harbor in Puget Sound; the 2001 Ehime Maru salvage off HI; and the 2001 attack on the USS Cole off Yemen. He pointed out that now, if we were to have a similar type of incident in the in the United States, the Jones Act to would have to be waived to allow foreign vessels to undertake salvage efforts He looked at all the organizations that would have to respond to such an incident in the future. These include the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard,

67

FEMA, NORTHCOM, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Navy. He then posed the question: How will we organize ourselves to do this? He observed that, two years ago when he took on his job at SUPSALV, the national response plan was silent; DOD operational plans did not exist; and there seemed to be no lessons learned after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With the latter, he noted, the public perceived the coördination efforts as makeshift. He said that his goal since taking on his job has been to ―give a little more structure‖ to the area of salvage. Captain Hooper recapped the three types of incidents on which we need to focus our attention: maritime terrorism threats (e.g., the USS Cole); natural maritime disasters (e.g., hurricanes Katrina and Rita); and maritime accidents (e.g., the Exxon-Valdez spill). He detailed his recommendations. Regarding organization, he proposed the following: that DHS request all DOD salvage assets be made available for national response; that DHS designate SUPSALV to draft salvage elements for incorporation into the National Response Framework (NRF); that DHS designate SUPSALV as the maritime salvage NRF executive agent; and that DOD (NORTHCOM) establish maritime salvage PreScripted Mission Assignments. Regarding readiness, he suggested that National Response Team primary agencies be permitted to use Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) to promptly subtask marine salvage/wreck removal; and that DHS integrate salvage response into field exercises, not just tabletop drills. Regarding assessment, he said he has advised the Transportation Research Board and the Marine Board to create an inter-agency team to: identify shortfalls in marine salvage resources for U.S. ports and waterways; propose national policy changes to improve salvage infrastructure; and compare salvage capabilities overseas to those of the United States. He stressed that these actions must be taken quickly to restore the United States economy after a potential terrorist attack in our vulnerable ports and waterways. He admitted his recommendations are very ―government centric,‖ and welcomed feedback and suggestions from the audience—particularly those from the private sector—on ways to improve on them. He thanked the audience and concluded. Mr. Dwyer introduced Roland Suliveras.

Customs and Border Protection Role in Recovery Roland Suliveras, Customs and Border Protection PowerPoint presentation: CBP Business Resumption Coördination Mr. Suliveras thanked the group and introduced himself. He began by giving an overview of how Customs and Border Protection plans for business resumption after a crisis or threat to national security. He explained that the organization‘s three business resumption plans are: the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a joint communication plan between the Canadian Border Service Agency (CBSA) and CPB; the Safe Port act of 2006, in which CBP and the U.S. Coast Guard create protocols for the quick recovery of trade after an incident; and the United States and Mexico Bilateral Strategic Plan, a security working group.

68

He said that CPB would take the following steps to resume the flow of legitimate travel and trade after a national threat: provide situational awareness through public communication; develop an enforcement response; facilitate the movement of people and goods through partnerships with trade communities; and communicate with all stakeholders by using the Unified Business Resumption Message (UBRM) and the Business Resumption ListServ. He noted that his agency is ready to respond in the event of a maritime incident. Mr. Suliveras remarked that the communication between CBP and the Seattle Coast Guard office is outstanding, and provided several examples. He talked about Northern Border Business Resumption, stating that CBP and CBSA have developed the wideranging CBP and CBSA Planning Protocols, as well as the more detailed Joint CBP/CBSA Business Resumption Communication and Coördination Plan. He explained that the plan facilitates communication between CBP and CBSA, from the field level up to headquarters and the CBP Commissioner and CBSA President. He said that both plans have been tested at joint tabletop exercises made up of CBP, CBSA, state and local governments, and members of the trade community. He said that CBP is working with Mexico on business resumption coördination issues. He noted that progress has been somewhat slow in this area, but that they are working hard to move it forward. He said that this effort focuses on communication and coördination, whereas the one with Canada has progressed to the ―nuts and bolts‖ phase, involving the two governments. He showed a slide illustrating CBP‘s current messaging system, explaining that this is divided into major transportation areas—northern and southern borders, maritime, and air. He said that CBP has well-established mainframe applications, including the Automated Manifest System and the ABI System, tools they have been using to establish rapid communication with the maritime trade, with the focus on cargo. Mr. Suliveras moved on to the accomplishments of the CBP. These include the CBP Business Resumption Coordination Directive; the joint CBP/CBSA Communication Protocol; and the CBP/ U.S. Coast Guard Joint Protocols for the expeditious recovery of trade. He explained that the purpose of the latter is to create a forum for dialogues between the U.S. Coast Guard, CBP and other federal agencies, to ease rapid maritime transportation system (MTS) recovery and resume commerce at our borders. He also mentioned the Joint CBP/MXC Business Resumption Communication and Coördination Plan (still in the draft stage), and the Unified Business Resumption Message, which is posted on CBP‘s Web site. He thanked the group and concluded. Mr. Dwyer opened the floor for questions. QUESTION – Ms. Helen Brohl, Committee on the Marine Transportation System: My first question is for Steve Danscuk. You said that you hoped there might be a central portal by which the status of a domain, in whatever sector, could be made a little easier to understand. I‘m aware that Homeland Security Information Netwoirk is very simple, and not a pretty picture for the politicians to look at. My question to you is: have you done an

69

inventory of what different agencies do to provide that information for their own respective secretaries and supervisors? For example, I have seen the Department of Energy‘s presentation that they can pump up in about 20 minutes to an hour for the secretary, and they talk about the status of every one of their types of facilities—it could be a refinery, a tank farm, or even a power plant. They use NOAA maps to show the weather situation. I‘ve found out that agriculture and their transportation office does something very similar—they can find out the status of every grain elevator on every waterway, the status of facilities where the hospitals are. I presume that happens with some of the other agencies too. It would seem to me that they are very similar, and not based on very sophisticated programs, and yet they are more than a pretty picture; they clearly demonstrate every single type of facility, and you can erase or plug in what you want to see. I‘m not a ‗techie,‘ but it seems like those things could be combined if they were received in a central place. Have you thought about that? (And I will have another question.) ANSWER – Mr. Danscuk: I should probably defer to our Coast Guard Lantarea because they‘ve had two years‘ experience in this arena. We made a presentation to our area commanders on this initiative a couple of months ago, and they asked us to go back and take a look at what exists out there already that could possibly be used—how we could meld some stuff together, instead of reinventing the wheel. Brian Falk from Atlantic Area has done some research into that. Like you say, different agencies have their own systems with some good information, but the issue is how to tie it all together into a single system. There may be some capability to do it with the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN). We don‘t know all those other systems, and I guess we‘re just trying to come up with something that we can use to pull information from them. I think maybe they are looking at a short term or an interim solution, to use our own database to gather some of this information. But it would be great in the big picture if we could use something like HSIN. The Coast Guard doesn‘t track the pipeline data or the agricultural data, but if we could tie it all together, that would be perfect. As I said, Brian Falk has been looking into that, and there are functionalities out there that are great, but how do we tie it together? It may take a year or two or more to figure out. I‘m not a ‗techie‘ either, but we are looking at some kind of an interim solution that answers the immediate needs of our bosses to provide information up the food chain. To date, there is nothing out there that provides everything we need in one single system. QUESTION – Ms. Helen Brohl: My second question refers to the domino effect—it‘s one thing to talk to the ship owners and operators and trade associations for recovery, that‘s a good thing, but I recall something I took away from the Coast Guard‘s Maritime Recovery workshop in July 2006. One gentleman indicated that he felt the majority of shippers did not really have good contingency plans. You could see after Katrina that some of the companies with good contingency plans recovered quite well because they knew what to do. It wasn‘t just a matter of taking all your ships from LA/Long Beach and moving them to Seattle/Tacoma; it was that they had backup and they knew how to do it. I know you‘re working with industry when it comes to response and recovery, but have any of you reached out to shippers to try and understand the status of their contingency plans?

70

ANSWER – Owen Doherty: We‘re working with the shippers and America‘s Marine Highway. That helps provide resiliency for the shippers, and provides them with more options for moving goods. We‘ve been talking a lot more to the carriers at the ports to see what they can share. I think the other problem is that everybody‘s so competitive in this environment. They don‘t necessarily want to share some of that stuff, so you have to get beyond that, too. CONSIDERATION – Michael Kidby: This concerns the inland and Intracoastal Waterway systems. After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association (Raymond Butler), the Coast Guard, the Corps, and some of the national navigation organizations developed a Memorandum of Understanding to help us deal with future hurricanes in the Gulf. We also established a protocol on how organizations would react and interplay with each other in the agreement, so that in the future we would be in a position to know not only where the navigation industry resources are, but also what our Coast Guard, Corps, and other federal needs are, so that we can maximize use of the resources out there. The navigation industry established a logistics center where they have equipment that they could loan to the Coast Guard or the Corps, to help get the waterways back in operation. This could be an example for the deep draft portion. I don‘t know whether or not they have anything like this in place. QUESTION – Richard Berkowitz, Transportation Institute: First, I wanted to make sure the subject of U.S. cargo to the non-contiguous trades was brought up in this session. From conversations I‘ve had with Congressman Young and his staff, and the offices of Hawaii and Alaska delegations, I‘ve learned that there is a great concern because there really isn‘t warehousing in either state; and they would really need to be equipped and provided with supplies in an emergency. I was wondering if you could address that, and whether that comes up in your conversations internally. Second, to the extent that some military facilities are closed and that they may be on a waterway—have you given any thought to using or prioritizing those facilities for shipping or emergency transport? Having roll-on/roll-off accessibility to them would be a great thing a regional emergency. ANSWER – John Dwyer: To answer your first question, I can tell you that here in Sector Seattle, we have paid quite a bit of attention to that because, although we do supply some trade via Matson Lines over to Hawaii, Tacoma is the jumping-off point for most of the trade that goes up to Alaska from the Lower Forty-Eight. So we have been trying to link in those folks there to understand what their concerns are, and to get them figured into the mix as regards trade resumption. We‘ve had a number of active exercises with them, but there‘s still quite a bit left to do. We haven‘t seen a lot of play from the suppliers and the infrastructure representatives concerning the specifics of what they need. You can go through the initial aspects—oil and gas deliveries or critical supplies—but in terms of getting into some of the more necessary but innocuous things like toilet paper, medicines, fertilizers, and other goods that don‘t immediately hit our critical cargo list, we still have a ways to go. ANSWER – Owen Doherty: Regarding Hawaii, there is a new energy bill that addresses maritime surface transportation. I think that since fuel is so critical for Hawaii, and it is

71

all imported, this bill is a step in the right direction. As far as using military bases, I think that came up when we had the lockout on the West Coast. I believe the Cochran Naval Weapon Station was considered as an option. I can‘t remember whether or not that was actually done. It‘s important to get the ports open quickly, but sure, if you have those assets available, they should be considered. But it‘s complicated. QUESTION – (Questioner unidentified): I don‘t know how the government decides whether or not something will remain a commercial venture, such as condominiums. ANSWER – Owen Doherty: We have the Port Conveyance Program, which has been implemented in St. Louis. There‘s a pecking order when things are shut down, and some properties have been turned over for port operations. I‘m not the point person for that, but I can get a point of contact for anyone who is interested. John Dwyer thanked the panelists and concluded the session.

PART 2: PRIVATE SECTOR ROLE Maritime Security and Recovery Moderator: Deirdre McGowan, Inland Rivers, Ports & Terminals, Inc. Ms. Deirdre McGowan welcomed the group. She noted that the membership of her organization stretches from Vancouver to London; and in the United States, from New Hampshire to Brownsville to California, and all up and down the Mississippi River. She pointed out that she might be here because of the new rule of the fiduciary agent, which has caused some people a lot of grief and others, a lot of joy. Ms. McGowan summarized the role of the fiduciary agent: to administer and manage port security grants with the concurrence and direction of area maritime security committees. Ms. McGowan said there would be three speakers in this part of the panel. She noted that, once again, their focus would be on trade resumption after a critical incident. She welcomed the first speaker, Greg Eatmon.

Recovery and Resiliency in the Maritime Transportation System Gregory Eatmon, TetraTech PowerPoint presentation: Recovery and Resiliency in the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) Mr. Greg Eatmon welcomed the group. He began by saying that, over the past five years, he has been heavily engaged with the industry, the Coast Guard, and the Department of Homeland Security on a number of risk management, mitigation, and preparedness projects. These efforts have focused on ports, waterways, and rivers across the country. This year, he noted, a great deal more time has been devoted to preparedness

72

and planning in the event of a critical incident—in particular, a catastrophic event that may affect an entire waterway system or port. He said that recovery and resiliency planning for waterways and ports originated with the NSPD-41/HSPD-13 Maritime Security Policy (December 2004), which mandated the development of a national maritime security strategy. This was the beginning of the merging of security and safety into a ―two-sided coin.‖ It became clear that a waterway could be threatened from both a safety and security perspective, because attackers would probably focus on any safety incident or risk in the United States as a potential weak spot in security. Mr. Eatmon then showed a graphic illustrating the National Strategy for Maritime Security‘s eight support plans. Of these, he said that the three most important are Maritime Infrastructure Recovery, Maritime Commerce Security, and Maritime Transportation System Security. He noted that the prime objective of all these plans is to provide guidance for decision makers in restoring maritime transportation capabilities if they are compromised. He said that he had heard a lot of ―R‖ words throughout this Harbor Safety Committee conference—recovery, resiliency, resumption, and restoration. He said he had learned in the past few years that, when you‘re dealing with security risk management, whether in the area of safety or recovery or planning and preparedness, much of this terminology gets shaded in gray, and that people tend to use terms interchangeably. He stressed the importance of understanding exact definitions. He noted that recovery refers to the restoration of the maritime transportation system, whereas resiliency refers to the ability to quickly recover vital services with minimum disruption. To illustrate his point he used a metaphor: if recovery is a vehicle, resiliency is what makes that vehicle run. Mr. Eatmon then talked about the guiding principles of a maritime resiliency and recovery strategy. He noted that an industry entity‘s plan must merge with government maritime security and the area contingency plans. He explained that maritime industry must become familiar with the national response framework, so that things will run more smoothly—―from the top down, and from the bottom up.‖ He said he had reviewed many plans in the past two to three years, and had noticed that 50%–60% of them conflicted with each other. He stressed how these conflicts would be magnified in an actual crisis. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita illustrated this, but even simple tabletop exercises he had seen conducted came to a dead stop when plans conflicted. He said he has been heavily involved in the grant process for the past six years. From that experience, he noted that money has historically gone to facilities, but that henceforth, grant money would be allocated instead to risk management. Future grant applications must show that the money will enhance the value of the waterway or port, not just be facility-centric. He said that all recovery and resiliency plans should be consistent with federal, state, and local response strategies as outlined under the national response and NIMS frameworks. He reiterated that industry must understand the NRF and the NIMS

73

process, and have people trained in the ICS standards and procedures, and expressed confidence that this would benefit the maritime industry. Mr. Eatmon defined future MTS recovery and resiliency planning as a post-incident tool, whose focus would be on how to ―get the system back up and running.‖ He talked about how recovery management procedures must give decision makers viable courses of action. He said there is a port-wide strategy to diminish the effects of a maritime transportation system crisis, whether natural or intentional. He said that though risk based management has been a topic of discussion for years, its value is just beginning to set in. He stressed that decision makers must have a viable course of action as a guide to restoring maritime transportation capabilities, based on risk based management. Mr. Eatmon said that recovery/resiliency planning is not merely a plan that focuses on individual facilities or infrastructures, nor is it just another business continuity plan. It must demonstrate industry‘s responsibility to back its own infrastructure after a critical incident. In this context, he noted that the government‘s main focus falls within the ESFs. Using a slide to illustrate, he listed these as transportation; public utilities (electricity and natural gas); emergency services (fire, police and EMS); health care delivery; temporary housing; and water and food services. He went on to describe the role of the private sector. Industry must safeguard its own employees, infrastructure, and facilities; protect its flow of information and business operations; establish good communication with emergency management personnel before an emergency; and provide assistance (including volunteers) to support local emergency management. Mr. Eatmon reiterated the importance of planning and being prepared, and stressed that local stakeholders must work with state and local governments to make preparedness plans work. He thanked the group and concluded. Ms. McGowan introduced Edward (Ned) Peak.

Trade Resumption for a Regional Port Consortium Edward Peak, Port-Wide Strategic Security Council PowerPoint presentation: Protecting AMERICA’S SHIP CHANNEL—Lower Mississippi River: Baton Rouge to the Gulf Mr. Ned Peak thanked the group. He remarked on how informative this HSC conference had been. He began by saying that Louisiana has 31 commercial ports. He said he would be focusing on ―America‘s Ship Channel‖—i.e., the lower Mississippi River, from Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico. This area includes five ports: Port of South Louisiana (the largest tonnage port in the western hemisphere), the Port of New Orleans, St. Bernard Port Harbor and Terminal District, Plaquemines Port Harbor and Terminal District, and

74

the Port of Greater Baton Rouge. He then showed a map to illustrate the railroads that converge in the New Orleans region, demonstrating that this area is not only a focal point for waterways, but also for railways. He pointed out that ―it‘s a pretty important piece of real estate, down there at the mouth of the river.‖ At the confluence of the brown water and the blue water, there are 33 states that drain through the Mississippi system, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Intracoastal Waterway. Using a map, he showed how much water there is around this crucial location. He observed that, whereas the river itself is stable, everything around the river is ―rotting away‖—for example, the eroding coastal wetlands. He documented some statistics about this port region, starting with the fact that 60,000–70,000 towboats pass through and 6,000 ships arrive annually (10% of all ship arrivals in the United States). He discussed the area‘s national economic impact. He said the region handles one-half of all U.S. exports, and one-quarter of energy imports. His next slides showed the wide variety of products that pass through this waterway each year, with the total tonnages/revenues involved (440 million tons/$64 million). Mr. Peak then moved on to the issue of trade resumption and resiliency in this region. Their goal is to develop a five-year investment strategy to reduce the risk of disruption to the supply chain in the lower Mississippi River, by improving the resiliency of the maritime-related transportation network. He said that a great deal of coal and ammonium nitrate passes through this region, referring to it as both a valuable commodity and a security risk. He said area state and federal governments are trying to assess how disruptions in the lower Mississippi River would affect the economic and geographical supply chain, how to protect the flow of critical goods, and how to identify prioritized investments. Mr. Peak described some of the networking problems of the area. There is a lack of flexibility in trade routing, with few intermodal transfer points; and there is a limited number of bridges across the Mississippi. The region‘s trucking industry is at near capacity, and its road and rail-carrying ability is inadequate. He observed that hurricanes Katrina and Rita spotlighted these problems; then he talked about the region‘s limited maritime response and recovery resources. He discussed the ongoing problem of convincing these five ports to work together on a day-to-day basis in moving cargo and tracking people and sequencing trucks. He stressed that communication is crucial to tracking ship movements and available commodities. He discussed coördinating operational security after a critical incident. He underlined the port authorities‘ need to interface more with the terminal operators and share responsibilities. He said that various tiers of law enforcement agencies—federal, state, parish, and city—must stop being territorial and coöperate with one another. He talked about the complex political picture in the region, again stressing the need for greater communication and teamwork. He presented figures showing cost share, manpower, and tonnage issues across the five ports, in the context of a future crisis. He noted that

75

industries with more revenue would have to come forward with more money to match local funds in such a situation. He talked about the importance of the ―long term care and feeding of the [lower Mississippi River] system.‖ Mr. Peak showed a slide showing how unique the Lower Mississippi waterway is, with its many different maritime systems and facilities, including locks, levees, bridges, wharves, docks, deltas, and regulated navigational areas. This adds to the region‘s complexity, because there are so many people in charge of each of these systems. He said he was extremely concerned that organizations in the region—government, political, and private industry—are at present unprepared and disconnected. They consciously force a regional approach when they need to work together. This continues to be a real challenge—the issue of who is going to pass on which information to whom when a crisis occurs. He cited an example of the entitlement attitude so prevalent in the region. One port acquired some port security grant money: $1 million to put into a response boat. The local port authorities said, ―Our lawyers tell us we really shouldn‘t get that boat, because this security stuff is inherently federal, so let‘s just let the Coast Guard handle it.‖ Their stated reasoning was that any boat they purchased would probably be in the wrong location when an incident occurred, so they would be sued because the boat wasn‘t in the right place at the right time. He noted that this kind of convoluted, selfserving logic is hurting the entire region‘s ability to handle a disaster. Mr. Peak said that there is now more communication between the five ports, that there is some money, and that some command and control protocols have been agreed upon. He noted that, if hurricanes Katrina and Rita had not devastated the area, they would not have come this far; for 200 years, everyone had been self-satisfied, isolated, and resistant to change. When, after the hurricanes, they were thrown into the spotlight as being a dysfunctional community, they began to work together. This, however, remains very much a work in progress. He said that it would be interesting to see how it all plays out from here, and that he hoped that someday the region would be ready to handle any threat. He thanked the group and concluded. Ms. McGowan introduced Gary Supnick.

Application of Technology to Create an Integrated, Multidisciplinary Approach to Safe and Secure Ports Gary Supnick, SRI International PowerPoint presentation: Application of Technology to Create an Integrated, Multidisciplinary Approach to Safe and Secure Ports Mr. Supnick introduced himself. He said that his talk today would be about maritime domain awareness, providing a port security system that complements stakeholder needs, and port recovery. He said he would be discussing the four themes of this conference: Plan, Prevent, Protect, and Recover.

76

He defined maritime awareness as ―the sum of maritime intelligence—intelligence received and fused at a national level, consisting of signal interception and human intelligence—and maritime situational awareness.‖ He added that maritime situational awareness consists of understanding of local port or harbor activity during normal day-today operations, and recognizing anomalies that should be investigated. He presented an equation to illustrate the theme of his talk: Maritime Intelligence + Maritime Situational Awareness = Maritime Domain Awareness. Mr. Supnick described maritime intelligence as ―fused and analyzed information‖ received from a high level (e.g., Coast Guard headquarters) for the public sector. He said that the private sector receives this information through a joint terrorism or regional task force. This information, usually classified, is passed on quickly to ensure a rapid response. He stated that the goal of situational awareness is to create a comprehensive information system for local maritime stakeholders through sensor and non-sensor data. He said that such a system, installed in the port authority‘s operation center, should assist daily decision-making, allowing port pilots and terminal operators to receive information if an incident occurs. Mr. Supnick stressed that service-oriented architecture must be in place when developing such a system—it must address the big picture instead of solving one problem at a time. He said it is important to develop a flexible system that can change as new information becomes available, and said that this technology has been moving ahead rapidly for the past few years. He stressed the importance of inter-agency communication when coördinating a response to an emergency. Mr. Supnick noted that several state and federal laws have imposed unfunded security requirements on ports. To meet these requirements, ports have had to apply for federal grant money, and meet it with matching funds—something that has not been feasible for many ports and harbors. As a consequence, ports have had to focus on security shortfalls one at a time, often resulting in separate, proprietary systems that do not complement each other. He stressed that security for our ports should be comprehensive: that it must address air, land, water surface and subsurface requirements. It should also be integrated to include legacy systems, new sensors, non-sensor data, and intelligence/law enforcement information. He emphasized the importance of federal, state and local directives to guide us so we are coördinated in the case of an emergency. Using a slide, Mr. Supnick showed an overview of some of the documents that influence the security process. He noted that an understanding of the maritime security strategy—from the national to the local level, with government and private sector requirements—is essential to a successful program. He observed that everyone‘s resources are limited. Because of this, when developing the long-range security plan it is important to consider all the stakeholders in your maritime domain, thereby identifying common threats and vulnerabilities and possibly, a common solution. He said it was important to prioritize risk when deciding what to do in an emergency, and added that the purpose of needs analysis is to identify risks and

77

vulnerabilities that are common to all the stakeholders. When you pool these elements together, you can develop a better system and ultimately more resources for your dollar. Mr. Supnick touched on threats to be considered, illustrating them with a slide. These threats include small craft, chemical attacks, underwater explosive devices, cruise ships, and shipping containers that could be used as a WMD platform. He said that effective maritime domain awareness/port security should identify threats and security gaps in your system, so that you can act well in advance of an incident. He reviewed some tools to do this, such as sonar devices to provide bottom mapping. He praised the committee‘s themes of partnership and shared information, but remarked that there are some hurdles to overcome in this regard. He noted that there are many information blocks between ports, which are expensive and cause delays. In this context, he talked about the Real-time Information Marine System (RIMS), which has been developed to improve information sharing among stakeholders. He described it as a comprehensive web-based local system with 24/7 access, COP visual display, real time anomaly alerting, secure levels of system entry, and downloadable custom reports. RIMS will eliminate redundant systems, allowing stakeholders to increase their security and the efficiency of their personnel. He reiterated the importance of information sharing, noting that there are a number of other tools being developed to accomplish this goal. Mr. Supnick presented a graphic to show how maritime domain awareness system architecture can allow key government and commercial stakeholders to receive shared information, enhance their daily operations, and respond to a crisis more quickly. He said that the common goal is to a secure the country‘s maritime domain while allowing commerce to prosper. He thanked the group and concluded. Captain Wayne Muilenberg introduced the conference‘s final keynote speaker, Rear Admiral James A. Watson, Director of Prevention Policy, U.S. Coast Guard.

Rear Admiral Watson welcomed the group. He said that a Marine Safety Performance Plan would soon be posted on the Coast Guard Web site. He defined this as ―our forwardlooking plan for the next five years.‖ As always, capacity and competency will be front and center in this marine safety plan. Another upcoming item is a service plan that will focus on the marine transportation system and mariners. This will include three major areas: boating safety, towing vessel safety, and fishing vessel safety. He welcomed feedback on these plans. There will also be an interagency plan, the National Strategy for the Maritime Transportation System. He noted that this plan has been a long time coming, ever since the formation of the Interagency Committee for the Maritime Transportation System. This consists of a Cabinet level committee whose workhorses are the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, MARAD, and NOAA. Admiral Watson said that he had been involved in developing a strategy that will soon come out, connecting the goals and future plans of those different agencies.

78

He went on to describe features of the interagency plan, which will include initiatives for capacity and efficiency in the marine transportation system; safety and security; environmental stewardship; recovery and restoration; and financing and investment. He noted that the latter would probably be the most challenging but one of the most important issues to America‘s waterway users. He stressed the need for coördinated federal financing and investments in the MTS. Reviewing this week‘s conference, Admiral Watson observed that there had been some great speakers and topics, and that it was important to reflect on lessons learned. He then provided a brief recap of all the panels. He commended the speakers and their topics, saying that he had personally learned a great deal. He thanked those who had put the conference together. He said he would like to touch on past, present, and future issues. He said it is important to remember U.S. history of the relationship between government, industry, and private citizens in the maritime context. He noted that the U.S. has a unique maritime heritage, going back to the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. He quoted something Alexander Hamilton said to the first cutter service officers (now the Coast Guard): ―Your countrymen are free men, and as such, they are impatient of anything resembling a domineering spirit . . . Mismanagement will result in clamor, disgust, and alarm.‖ Admiral Watson noted the wisdom of these words to this day, in the context of government entities like the Coast Guard working with the general public. In this spirit, he urged members to keep the dialogue going, and remarked that venues like this committee are a very important means to that end. He said that another characteristic of U.S. history is its constant moving forward, constant progress. A major theme that emerged from the conference was understanding—between the public and private sectors, and between one part of the maritime community and another. Other themes were the importance of communication and shared responsibility; new technologies in the maritime field; human factors—―prevention through people,‖ which he described as one of the most important initiatives discussed this week; and collaboration—to jointly identify risks and develop solutions. He posed the question: What do we need to look at in the future? In answer, he stressed the need for good leadership and a shared vision. He talked about the next generation, noting that he and others in the Coast Guard are concerned that there is a gap in filling leadership roles for the future. He said they needed to work on this—to encourage young people to have maritime careers. In this context, he touched on some of the educational programs that the Coast Guard offers. Admiral Watson then talked about the future of regulatory systems. He said there are two clear choices when setting rules—to set up an adversarial system, or one that is coöperative. He said that he supports the coöperative spirit, and noted that the HSC is all about that. He stressed the importance of finding solutions to future environmental, security, and safety challenges in the maritime domain—all in the spirit of collaboration.

79

He closed saying that future efforts demand commitment. He expressed the hope that attendees would come away from the conference with a renewed sense of commitment, leadership, and a focus on the next generation of mariners. He thanked the panelists and exhibitors, the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee, the committee‘s co-sponsors from the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and everyone from the Coast Guard who helped put the conference together. He thanked the group and said that he would see them next year in Tampa. The 10th Annual Harbor Safety Conference concluded and was adjourned.

80