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 ―8-
02‖ 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 industry-
government 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 role-
based 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:
Louis.Effa@dot.gov
(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 gill-
netters 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 cutting-
edge 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.

John.Nyberg@noaa.gov
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 single-
hulled 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 5-
year 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
tmar@ospr.dfg.ca.gov

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 pre-
boomed 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 pre-
booming 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 Exxon-
Valdez 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
tavaf@foretinc.com

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 - Jeffrey.a.mckee@usace.army.mil
Inland Navigation POC
Michael F. Kidby – Michael.f.kidby@usace.army.mil
Navigation Floating Plant POC
Robert B. Leitch – Robert.b.leitch@usace.army.mil
Navigation Environmental POC
Joseph R. Wilson – Joseph.r.wilson@usace.army.mil
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 ever-
growing 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 Pre-
Scripted 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 wide-
ranging 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, self-
serving 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-to-
day 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 forward-
looking 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