“Our small ATON fleet of river tenders, inland buoy tenders, and construction tenders work on federal inland waterways and western rivers throughout the country, working hard to keep the flow of traffic on rivers going,” Kennedy added. “But as they get older they become more expensive to maintain, even as they keep meeting our mission requirements. We have talked about replacing them in the future, but there are no current plans.

“One vessel, of course, is not enough to cover the entire Arctic at one time … There are electronic ATON in every district and we’re looking at the best service those can provide and how best to integrate them. We’ve seen successes in the ice-prone areas, but I think it also will be helpful in any storm-prone area, allowing us to quickly provide signals to mariners when buoys are moved. …

“There are lots of interesting things being done for future navigation systems, which may look different, leveraging technology advances. But there will always be some type of physical ATON for the mariner – floating buoys and fixed aids have been part of the marine transportation system from the beginning. And we will always need some cutter or boat to maintain those, both the coastal and inland fleets.”

All types of ships pass into the Coast Guard’s area of responsibility – ships that are becoming more numerous and, in some cases, much larger than before. That will increase the strain on legacy ATON systems, while tight federal budgets may slow the development and deployment of replacement technologies.

“We’re leveraging the technology we have to hopefully allow us to be more effective with our current resources. The expansion in size of the Panama Canal and work being done in various ports to handle larger vessels speaks to the increased use and the needs of our stakeholders. We’re trying to maximize the use of technology to assist them in safely transiting those areas,” Smith said.

“From an ATON perspective, there have been very few instances of accidents, despite our waterways becoming more congested. We’re taking deeper, wider vessels into the same ports that have always received much smaller vessels, and the flow of petroleum products in the U.S. also has increased. All of which require us to respond to improve mariners’ ability and the tools they have at their disposal to manage their transit risks.”

As shipping routes through the Arctic increase, there is a safety need for more information on ATON systems, but that challenge is made more difficult because Arctic passageways change on an annual basis as the shape and location of ice sheets change. And the Coast Guard doesn’t have the means to provide needed information on those from a terrestrial perspective.

“This summer [2015] we ran a test on providing electronic ATON, whale routes and tracks through the ice, broadcasting through AIS. We have a nationwide AIS and towers throughout CONUS [continental United States], Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, as well as a couple in lower Alaska. Those not only can receive messages from all vessels out there, but we can transmit messages from shore to particular locations and ships. So as the ship gets within range of the tower, a symbol goes on an integrated ATON chart and, provided they are integrated, on their ship radar. That allows us to provide ATON to places where we can’t readily get a cutter or where markers are pushed under the ice,” Stone said.

“We don’t have towers in the Arctic nor even places to put them, but if we can electronically broadcast ATON, we can establish messages using an icebreaker or cutter. The summer test used the Healy as a transmission site, broadcasting to a specific location on the water with ATON or messages to the mariner or routes as well as ice flow locations. That technology, if the Arctic routes expand as projected, will enable us to provide those services in that region.”

The test was rated a success, proving current technology can provide the needed capability, he added. However, it is limited by the broadcast range of the transmitter, which means having a Coast Guard asset in the area to handle broadcasts.

“One vessel, of course, is not enough to cover the entire Arctic at one time,” Stone noted. “There are electronic ATON in every district and we’re looking at the best service those can provide and how best to integrate them. We’ve seen successes in the ice-prone areas, but I think it also will be helpful in any storm-prone area, allowing us to quickly provide signals to mariners when buoys are moved.

“We also should not forget our physical ATON system, which we have not replaced with electronic ATON because a harmonization of the two gives the best service to mariners. But the physical ATON system is 1930s technology – large steel buoy hulls, for example. I believe there are other non-ferrous hull materials we could use to provide the same service with a better life cycle cost. So maritime safety advances are not just electronic.”

This article was first published in Coast Guard Outlook 2015-2016 Edition.