to the Final Report

APPENDIX 5

INVENTORY OF U.S. OCEAN

AND COASTAL FACILITIES
You may electronically download this document from:

http://www.oceancommission.gov

This document may be cited as follows:

Inventory of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Facilities 

Appendix 5 to An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century

Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Washington, D.C., 2004

ISBN#0–9759462–6–9
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities i

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION to the INVENTORY

1.1 Purpose of the Inventory

1.2 Methodology

1.3 Using This Appendix

CHAPTER 2. MARITIME COMMERCE and TRANSPORTATION

2.1 Marine Transportation System

2.1.1 Overview of U.S. Waterborne Commerce

2.1.2 Shipping Vessels

2.1.3 Trends in Shipping and Cargo Movement

2.1.4 U.S. Coastal Ports System

2.1.4.1 Deep-Draft Ports

2.1.4.2 Shallow Ports

2.1.5 Marine Terminals and Intermodal Connections

2.1.6 U.S. Merchant Marine

2.1.6.1 Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force

2.1.6.2 Special Missions Program

2.1.6.3 Pre-positioning Program

2.1.6.4 Sealift Program

2.1.6.5 Ship Introduction Program

2.1.6.6 Ready Reserve Force

2.1.6.7 National Defense Reserve Fleet

2.1.7 U.S. Passenger Ferry System

2.1.8 U.S. Cruise Industry

2.1.9 U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industries

2.1.9.1 Private Shipyards

2.1.9.1.1 Major Shipyards

2.1.9.1.2 Small and Mid-sized Shipyards

2.1.9.2 Employment and Economic Impacts

2.1.9.3 Public Shipyards

2.1.9.3.1 U.S. Coast Guard Shipyards

2.1.9.3.2 U.S. Navy Shipyards

2.1.10 U.S. Marine Salvage and Dredging Industries

2.1.10.1 Marine Dredging

2.1.10.2 Marine Salvage

2.1.11 Aids-to-Navigation

2.2 Marine Industries

2.2.1 U.S. Offshore Natural Gas and Oil Production

2.2.2 Transoceanic Cables

2.2.2.1 Current U.S. Submarine Cable Capabilities

2.2.2.2 Future Outlook for Transoceanic Cables

2.2.3 U.S. Commercial Fishing Industry

1

2

2

4

5

7

7

8

10

11

12

14

14

16

18

18

19

19

19

19

20

20

22

25

25

25

29

30

32

32

32

33

33

33

34

35

35

41

41

42

42
i i Contents

2.2.3.1 Fish Landings

2.2.3.2 Fish Production

2.2.3.3 Fish Imports and Exports

2.2.3.4 Fish Consumption

2.2.3.5 Fish Products

2.2.3.6 Aquaculture

2.2.4 Marine Recreational Industries

2.2.4.1 Recreational Fishing

2.2.4.2 Recreational Boating and Watercraft

References

CHAPTER 3. OCEAN and COASTAL SAFETY and PROTECTION

3.1 Natural Resource Management

3.1.1 Living Marine Resources

3.1.1.1 Fish, Marine Wildlife, and Habitats

3.1.1.1.1 Federal Resources

3.1.1.1.2 State Facilities

3.1.1.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Program

3.1.1.2 Endangered Species

3.1.2 Non-living Marine Resources

3.1.2.1 Marine Water and Air Quality

3.1.2.1.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

3.1.2.1.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3.1.2.1.3 U.S. Navy

3.1.2.1.4 U.S. Geological Survey

3.1.2.1.5 State Facilities

3.1.2.2 Offshore Oil, Gas, and Minerals

3.1.2.3 Historic and Cultural Resources

3.2 Navigation and Marine Safety

3.2.1 Dredging and Waterways Maintenance

3.2.1.1 Dredging

3.2.1.2 Icebreaking

3.2.1.2.1 U.S. Coast Guard Icebreaking

3.2.1.2.2 U.S. Navy Icebreaking

3.2.2 Aids-to-Navigation and Navigation Systems

3.2.2.1 Short-Range Aids-to-Navigation

3.2.2.2 Radio Aids-to-Navigation

3.2.2.2.1 LORAN-C Transmitting Stations

3.2.2.2.2 Global Positioning Systems

3.2.2.3 Aids-to-Navigation Teams

3.2.2.4 Aids-to-Navigation Vessels

3.2.2.4.1 180-Foot and 225-Foot WLBs

3.2.2.4.2 175-Foot WLMs

3.2.2.5 Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System

3.2.2.6 Vessel Traffic Services

3.2.2.7 Global Positioning System Capabilities

3.2.3 Nautical Charting and Surveying

3.2.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

3.2.3.2 U.S. Navy

42

43

43

44

44

44

45

45

46

47

53

55

55

55

56

58

58

60

61

61

61

62

63

63

64

64

64

65

65

65

65

65

67

68

68

69

69

70

71

71

71

72

72

72

73

73

73

74
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities iii

3.2.4 Marine Forecasting

3.2.4.1 Marine Observation Network

3.2.4.1.1 Moored Buoys

3.2.4.1.2 Coastal Marine Automated Network

3.2.4.1.3 Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis

3.2.4.1.4 Voluntary Observing Ship Program

3.2.4.2 National Water-Level Observation Network

3.2.4.3 Tropical Atmospheric Ocean Buoy Array

3.2.4.4 Drifting Buoy Program

3.2.5 Vessel Inspection and Registration

3.2.5.1 Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team

3.2.5.2 National Documentation Centers

3.2.6 Search-and-Rescue

3.2.6.1 U.S. Coast Guard Groups and Bases

3.2.6.2 Multi-Mission Stations

3.2.6.3 U.S. Coast Guard Marine Vessels

3.2.6.3.1 U.S. Coast Guard Boats

3.2.6.3.2 U.S. Coast Guard Tugboats

3.2.6.4 U.S. Coast Guard Aircraft

3.2.6.5 U.S. Coast Guard Search-and-Rescue Systems

3.2.6.5.1 Atlantic Merchant Vessel Emergency Reporting System

3.2.6.5.2 National Distress Response System

3.2.6.5.3 Rescue 21

3.2.6.6 Communications Stations

3.3 Maritime Security and Enforcement

3.3.1 Coastal Patrol and Defense

3.3.1.1 U.S. Navy Coastal Patrol

3.3.1.2 U.S. Coast Guard Coastal Patrol

3.3.1.3 State Patrols

3.3.2 Port and Harbor Patrols

3.3.2.1 U.S. Coast Guard Port and Harbor Patrols

3.3.2.1.1 Marine Safety Offices

3.3.2.1.2 Port Security Units

3.3.2.1.3 Maritime Safety and Security Teams

3.3.2.1.4 Universal Automatic Identification System

3.3.2.2 State Port and Harbor Patrols

3.3.3 U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater Program

3.3.4 U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence Coordination Center

3.4 Environmental Protection and Response

3.4.1 Marine Pollution Assessment and Response

3.4.1.1 Federal Facilities

3.4.1.1.1 U.S. Coast Guard Response Capability

3.4.1.1.2 U.S. Navy Response Capability

3.4.1.1.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Capability

3.4.1.1.4 Minerals Management Service Capability

3.4.1.1.5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Response

Capability

3.4.1.2 State Environmental Response

3.4.2 Marine Salvage Capabilities

75

76

76

76

77

77

78

78

79

79

79

80

80

80

81

81

81

81

82

83

83

83

85

85

86

87

87

87

87

88

88

89

89

89

90

90

90

91

91

91

92

92

93

93

94

94

95

95
i v Contents

3.4.2.1 U.S. Navy Salvage

3.4.2.2 U.S. Coast Guard Salvage

References

CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH, EXPLORATION, and MONITORING

4.1 U.S. Marine Laboratory Infrastructure

4.1.1 Academic Laboratories

4.1.2 Independent, Nonprofit Marine Research Laboratories

4.1.3 Federal Agency Laboratories

4.1.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Laboratories

4.1.3.2 U.S. Department of Defense Laboratories

4.1.3.3 U.S. Coast Guard Laboratories

4.1.3.4 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Laboratories

4.1.3.5 U.S. Department of the Interior Laboratories

4.1.3.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories

4.1.3.7 National Science Foundation Laboratories

4.1.3.8 U.S. Department of Energy Laboratories

4.1.3.9 Smithsonian Institution Laboratories

4.1.3.10 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Laboratories

4.1.4 State Marine Laboratories

4.2 Research, Exploration, and Monitoring Vessels

4.2.1 UNOLS Vessels

4.2.2 Academic Vessels

4.2.3 Federal Vessels

4.2.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Vessels

4.2.3.2 U.S. Navy Vessels

4.2.3.3 U.S. Coast Guard Vessels

4.2.3.4 National Science Foundation Vessels

4.2.3.5 U.S. Department of the Interior Vessels

4.2.3.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Vessels

4.2.4 State Vessels

4.2.5 Commercial Vessels

4.3 Underwater Vehicles

4.3.1 Manned Submersibles

4.3.1.1 Shallow-Water Manned Submersibles

4.3.1.2 Mid-Water Manned Submersibles

4.3.1.3 Deep-Water Manned Submersibles

4.3.2 Remotely Operated Vehicles

4.3.2.1 Shallow-Water Remotely Operated Vehicles

4.3.2.2 Mid-Water Remotely Operated Vehicles

4.3.2.3 Deep-Water Remotely Operated Vehicles

4.3.3 Towed Vehicles

4.3.4 Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

4.3.4.1 Shallow-Water Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

4.3.4.2 Mid-Water Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

4.3.4.3 Deep-Water Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

4.4 Research, Exploration, and Monitoring Aircraft

96

97

98

103

105

105

107

110

110

116

118

118

118

120

121

121

122

123

123

126

126

129

131

132

133

134

134

135

137

138

139

139

139

140

140

143

144

146

146

147

148

149

151

151

152

153
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities v

4.4.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Aircraft

4.4.2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Aircraft

4.4.3 U.S. Department of Defense Aircraft

4.4.4 National Science Foundation Aircraft

4.4.5 U.S. Department of Energy Aircraft

4.5 Satellites and Space-Based Sensors

4.5.1 Research Satellites

4.5.2 Operational Satellites

4.5.2.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites

4.5.2.2 U.S. Department of Defense Satellites

4.5.2.3 U.S. Geological Survey Satellites

4.6 Ocean-Observing Systems

4.6.1 Coastal Observing Systems

4.6.2 Global Observing Systems

4.7 Computer and Data Storage Facilities

4.7.1 High-Performance Computer Centers

4.7.2 Data Archiving and Distribution Centers

4.7.2.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Data

Distribution Centers

4.7.2.2 U.S. Department of Defense Data Distribution Centers

4.7.2.3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Data

Distribution Centers

4.7.2.4 U.S. Geological Survey Data Distribution Centers

4.7.2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Data Distribution

Centers

4.7.2.6 U.S. Department of Energy Data Distribution Centers

4.7.3 Modeling and Prediction Centers

4.7.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Modeling Centers

4.7.3.2 U.S. Department of Defense Modeling Centers

4.7.3.3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Modeling

Centers

4.7.3.4 National Science Foundation Modeling Centers

4.7.3.5 U.S. Department of Energy Modeling Centers

References

CHAPTER 5. MARINE EDUCATION and OUTREACH

5.1 Ocean-Related Higher Education Facilities

5.1.1 National Academic Ocean Sciences Programs

Student Population

5.1.1.1 Student Enrollment

5.1.1.1.1 Application and Enrollment in Graduate Programs

5.1.1.1.2 Types of Student Financial Support

5.1.1.2 Graduate and Undergraduate Degrees Awarded and

Employment Trends

5.1.1.2.1 Graduate and Undergraduate Degrees Awarded

5.1.1.2.2 Post-Graduation Employment Trends

5.1.1.3 Associate Degrees Awarded and Employment Trends

5.1.2 National Academic Faculty and Staff

153

156

158

160

161

161

161

164

164

166

166

167

167

170

173

173

174

175

177

177

178

178

179

179

179

180

181

181

182

183

191

193

195

195

195

197

197

197

199

200

201
v i Contents

5.1.2.1 Faculty for Graduate and Undergraduate Programs

5.1.2.2 Faculty and Staff for Two-Year Programs

5.1.2.3 Postdoctorates

5.1.3 National Academic Infrastructure

5.1.4 National Academic Funding

5.1.4.1 Funding at Selected Ocean Sciences Programs

5.1.4.2 Funding Allocation: Comparison of JOI Programs to

Other Programs

5.1.5 Maritime Education and Professional Training

5.1.5.1 Trends in Maritime Education and Workforce

5.1.5.2 Federal and State Maritime Academies

5.1.5.3 Maritime Graduate and Continuing Education

5.2 Federal Outreach and Education Programs — Virtual Facilities

5.2.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Outreach

5.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Outreach

5.2.3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Outreach

5.2.5 U.S. Department of the Interior Outreach

5.2.6 National Science Foundation Outreach

5.2.7 U.S. Navy Outreach

5.3 U.S. Informal Education and Outreach Facilities

5.3.1 Marine Protected Areas

5.3.2 MPAs as an Educational Resource

5.3.3 Public and Private Zoos, Aquariums, and Museums

5.3.3.1 Aquariums and Zoos

5.3.3.2 Museums

5.4 Marine Education Summary

References

ACRONYMS

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

2-1 U.S. Ports Handling Over One Million Tons of Cargo

2-2 Selected U.S. Ports Information

No Supplemental Materials for Chapter 3

4-1 National Marine Fisheries Service Facilities

4-2 UNOLS Research Vessels

4-3 Academic Research Vessels

4-4 Federal Research Vessels

4-5 State Research Vessels

4-6 Commercial Research Vessels

4-7 Coastal Observing Systems

4-8 Ocean Observing Systems

4-9 Ocean Observing System Sensors

5-1 Academic Marine Facilities

5-2 Original Members of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions

202

203

204

204

204

206

208

209

210

211

211

212

212

213

213

214

214

215

215

216

218

219

220

221

222

223

227

235

236

239

252

253

256

257

263

265

267

271

275

277

278

288
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities vii

5-3 Federal and State Maritime Academies

5-4 Maritime Graduate and Continuing Education Institutions

5-5 National Marine Sanctuaries, By Region

5-6 National Estuarine Reserves, By Region

5-7 Federal Seashore/Lakeshore/Coral Reef Parks

290

291

293

295

298
viii Contents
Introduction to the Inventory 1

The oceans and coastlines bordering the United States are critical to

our culture, our economic well-being, and our environmental health.

As important as they are, it is difficult to accurately characterize and

assess such large and diverse resources. To provide a foundation for

building a cohesive national ocean policy, Congress created the U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy, an independent group of qualified

citizens impaneled to review the state of marine-related issues and the

effects of federal ocean-related laws and programs. Members were

drawn from federal, state, and local government; private industry;

academic institutions; and public interest groups involved in marine

issues.

The Commission, created by the Oceans Act of 2000a

 and appointed

by the President in June 2001, is specifically mandated to make

recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national

ocean policy. One of the key requirements of the Oceans Act is for the

Commission to conduct “an assessment of existing and planned

facilities associated with ocean and coastal activities including human

resources, vessels, computers, satellites, and other appropriate

Purpose of the

Inventory

Methodology

Using This Appendix

Chapter 1

a Public Law 106-256.
2 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

platforms and technologies.” The Commission grappled with defining

the extent of what this effort should entail, and decided that it would

cast a wide net to cover federal and state government, academia, and

private-sector facilities. To the best of our knowledge this is the first

attempt to capture all this information in a single assessment report to

present the full national capability.

1.1 Purpose of the Inventory

This Appendix to the Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy is

an inventory of current national coastal and ocean facilities. It supports the

Final Report by providing an assessment of existing and planned facilities

associated with ocean and coastal activities, including human resources,

vessels, computers, satellites, and other appropriate platforms and

technologies, as required by Congress. An accounting of facilities and

resources provides a foundation for adequately assessing our capacity to

conduct coastal and ocean activities. The status and condition of these

facilities must be assessed to proactively plan for appropriations that ensure

uninterrupted and robust implementation of ocean policy.

For the purposes of this Appendix, an “ocean and coastal facility” is defined

as the infrastructure and associated human resources that directly support

maritime operations, and ocean and coastal research, monitoring, and

education or outreach activities. “Facilities” is a purposefully broad term, used

with the intention of capturing as much valuable information as possible for

the purposes of informing sound policymaking and investment of resources.

1.2 Methodology

To collect information for this inventory, the Commission drew data from a

wide variety of resources and reached out to a broad range of interested

parties. The primary sources of information for this report are:

• Materials the Commission requested from federal agencies

• Materials the Commission requested from coastal states, including the

Great Lakes states and the U.S. territories and freely associated nations

• Materials the Commission requested from the ocean industry sectors

• Testimony to the Commission during its public hearings

• Internet searches of pertinent web sites and data bases

• Consultation with various technical publications.

For Chapter 5, which addresses education, the primary source of information

is a report from a survey of academic institutions prepared by the Consortium

for Oceanographic Research and Education.

The Commissioners—

Admiral James D. Watkins,

 USN (Ret.), Chairman

Robert Ballard, Ph.D.

Mr. Ted A. Beattie

Mrs. Lillian Borrone

Dr. James M. Coleman

Ms. Ann D’Amato

Mr. Lawrence Dickerson

Vice Admiral

Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)

Professor

Marc J. Hershman

Mr. Paul L. Kelly

Mr. Christopher Koch

Dr. Frank Muller-Karger

Mr. Edward B. Rasmuson

Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg

Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus

Dr. Paul A. Sandifer

Dr. Thomas R. Kitsos,

 Executive Director
Introduction to the Inventory 3

Two other important sources of information are the May 2003 Naval Review

issue of the journal U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,b and the Sea Technology

Buyers Guide Directory.c The Naval Review provides an excellent review of

the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Merchant Marine and maritime industry,

including descriptions of current assets and plans. The Sea Technology

Buyers Guide Directory provides an inventory of oceanographic research and

geophysical survey vessels and a description of the institutions that own or

operate these vessels.

As expected for this first-time effort, there is great variability in the quality and

quantity of available data. The depth and scope of the information the

Commission received were not uniform, resulting in an uneven level of detail.

The inventory is a snapshot in time, and readers should bear in mind that the

data compiled here were reported and collected over 18 months in 2002 and

2003. A snapshot has limited value unless it is used as a baseline to improve

our understanding and assessment of national capacities for coastal and

ocean-based activities. This inventory establishes a baseline of available

resources, assets, and facilities that support coastal and ocean activities, and

provides a benchmark for shaping and measuring future efforts. Some type

of inventory assessment should be conducted regularly to ensure that national

ocean policy decisions are based on a current, solid understanding of

capabilities.

To facilitate the facilities inventory, the coastline was divided into eight regions,

using the framework of the Fisheries Management Councils as a model. The

eight regions are the Great Lakes; Northeast (Maine to Connecticut); MidAtlantic (New York to Virginia); South Atlantic (North Carolina to Key West,

Florida); Gulf of Mexico; West Coast (California, Oregon, and Washington);

Alaska; and Western Pacific (Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern

Marianas).

The Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities is segmented into

four chapters:

• Maritime commerce and transportation

• Ocean and coastal safety and protection

• Research, exploration and monitoring

• Marine education and outreach.

The maritime commerce and transportation chapter addresses facilities that

rely on the coastal and ocean environments to support marine-related

commerce and transportation, and covers both the marine transportation

system and marine-related activities and operations. The marine

transportation system examines domestic and international trade, coastal

ports, shipbuilding, the U.S. Merchant Marine, and aids-to-navigation.

b U.S. Naval Institute. 2002. Naval Review. U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland. Proceedings. Vol.

126(5), May 2002.

c Sea Technology. 2003. Sea Technology Buyers Guide Directory 2003. Compass Publications, Arlington,

Virginia. January 2003.
4 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Marine-related activities and operations include passenger ferry systems,

cruise lines, commercial fisheries, recreational activities, transoceanic cables,

and marine dredging and salvage.

The chapter on ocean and coastal safety and protection addresses federal

facilities that preserve and protect people and natural resources found in or

near the coasts and oceans. There are four sections in the chapter: natural

resource management, navigation and marine safety, maritime security and

enforcement, and environmental protection and response.

Research, exploration and monitoring addresses facilities used by the scientific

community to detect and describe the processes occurring in the coastal and

ocean environment, and to observe the natural and human-induced changes

occurring in the marine environment. This section presents information on

seven types of facilities: laboratories, vessels, underwater vehicles, aircraft,

satellites, ocean-observing systems, and computers for data storage, data

dissemination, and modeling.

The final chapter of this Appendix, marine education and outreach, describes

the existing facilities used to educate, train, and transmit knowledge. It

encompasses three major topics: formal education, virtual education facilities,

and informal education. The formal education discussion addresses the

academic institutions of higher learning that train the nation’s future marinerelated workforce. Virtual education facilities include the dissemination of

information through the Internet, and materials and programs provided by

federal agencies. Informal education includes the dissemination of

information to the public and schoolchildren at marine protected areas, zoos,

aquariums, museums, and other similar institutions.

1.3 Using This Appendix

Following this introduction, there are four technical chapters as described

above. References are numbered and compiled at the end of each chapter.

Lowercase letters denote footnotes, found at the bottom of the page. Some

information too lengthy to include in the chapters is provided as supplemental

material at the end of the document. A list of acronyms is also found at the

end of the Appendix.
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 5

Maritime commerce and transportation are important sectors of the

U.S. economy –– they include international import and export of ––

goods, domestic supplies of oil and natural gas to meet energy needs,

and international broad-band communications. This chapter addresses

the waterborne movement of people, cargo, and information for

commercial, recreational, and governmental purposes. Unlike the

other chapters in this Appendix, which focus on all aspects of U.S.

facilities, this chapter discusses facilities pertaining to maritime

commerce and transportation specifically in an economic context, with

the intent of capturing their financial impact on the United States. This

chapter divides maritime commerce and transportation into two major

sections: the Marine Transportation System (MTS) and Marine Industries.

The MTS is a collection of waterways, ports and their intermodal

connections, vessels, and vehicles that are used to transport cargo and

people. For this inventory the MTS is divided into three general

branches: the transportation of cargo, the transportation of passengers,

and the industries that support the MTS. These branches are further

broken into 11 segments that are discussed in this chapter:

Marine

Transportation

System

Marine Industries

Chapter 2
6 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

• Overview of U.S. Waterborne Commerce –– addresses the current

status of international trade

• Shipping Vessels –– describes vessels used in the MTS for cargo

transportation

• Trends in Shipping and Cargo Movement –– examines possible

future trends in shipping and the movement of cargo

• U.S. Coastal Ports System –– discusses the regional differences

associated with handling waterborne cargo

• Marine Terminals and Intermodal Connections ––addresses the

movement of cargo after it has been offloaded by other means

(e.g., truck, rail)

• U.S. Merchant Marine ––examines the capabilities of the U.S. fleet

and associated federal maritime defense programs

• U.S. Passenger Ferry System ––addresses the transportation of

passengers and vehicles over short distances for commuting and

recreational purposes

• U.S. Cruise Industry ––discusses the transportation of passengers

for vacation and recreational purposes

• U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industries ––describes the ship

construction process and provides a snapshot of the national

shipbuilding and repair capabilities

• U.S. Marine Salvage and Dredging Industries ––describes the U.S.

capabilities for recovering damaged vessels and maintaining safe

waterways

• Aids-to-Navigation ––describes private-sector methods of

indicating areas that are safe for vessel movement.

While the facilities of the Marine Transportation System are connected

through the movement of cargo and people, the activities described

under Marine Industries are not related. Because this sector is so broad

and encompasses numerous potential facilities, the U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy (the Commission) selected four facilities it considers

economically important. For the purposes of this Appendix, the Marine

Industries sector covers U.S. offshore natural gas and oil production,

transoceanic communications, U.S. commercial fishing, and marine

recreational industries.
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 7

2.1 Marine Transportion System

The Marine Transportation System is an informal system comprising both

physical infrastructure (e.g., ports, vessels) and associated human

components (e.g., shipbuilders, merchant marines) that has evolved to handle

the movement of waterborne commerce and passengers. Nearly every

federal, state, local, and private marine resource that assists with the

movement of cargo and passengers falls under this system, from the

construction of a vessel to the delivery of its cargo. The MTS does not include

activities that support the individual segments, such as the construction of the

diesel engine that is used in a ship. This section describes the MTS and the

associated economic impact of its components.

The movement of cargo can be measured in two ways: by the volume

shipped, or by the value of the cargo. These different measurements provide

disparate views on the economic impacts of cargo imported and exported

through the U.S. coastal ports system. For example, if measured by volume,

ports along the Gulf of Mexico import and export the majority of the cargo.

Ports in California, however, typically handle higher-value cargo. The

differences among the volume and value of cargo handled lead to significant

regional concentrations in terms of the types of vessel calls at a port and the

conditions of intermodal connectors. This section examines these aspects in

order to provide greater insight into the financial impacts on U.S. commerce

and transportation.

2.1.1 Overview of U.S. Waterborne Commerce

Waterborne commerce is cargo that is moved between countries and states

using surface ships. Between 1991 and 2000, total U.S. international trade

in cargo (exports and imports) more than doubled, from $910.2 billion

dollars to almost $2 trillion.1 In 2001, ships carried 78 percent of U.S.

international merchandise trade by volume and more than 38 percent by

value, as compared to other modes of transport (e.g., truck, rail).2 The MTS

supported the domestic transport of 362 million tons of U.S. products.3

Another 1.2 billion tons of U.S. products valued at approximately $719.4

billion were exported to foreign markets through U.S. coastal and Great Lakes

ports.2 Overall, there has been a gradual increase in the U.S.-foreign (i.e.,

produced in the United States for export) tonnage moved between 1999 and

2001. The value of this cargo decreased by $18 billion between 2000 and

2001, following a $64.8 billion increase between 1999 and 2000.a

The 1.2 billion tons of U.S-foreign cargo handled in U.S. ports in 1999 directly

and indirectly helped to employ approximately 1.1 million Americans. The

cumulative wages for those individuals was $43.8 billion, an average of

$40,220 per person, which is considerably above the national average of

$29,386.4 WEFA, a private economic analysis firm, reports that

a One limitation in assessing the international shipping industry is that foreign ships frequently are owned

in one country, registered in a second country, managed from a third, and manned by an array of

international seafarers. Of the 855 vessels that list the United States as their country of domicile, 620

vessels are foreign flagged.

The Marine

Transportation System

is an informal system

comprising both

physical infrastructure

and associated human

components that has

evolved to handle the

movement of

waterborne commerce

and passengers.

The 1.2 billion tons

of U.S.-foreign cargo

handled in U.S. ports

employed more than

a million Americans

in 1999.
8 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

approximately 4.9 million Americans are employed as a result of producing

goods for waterborne export, including nearly 840,000 in farming and food

processing, 757,000 in electronics and electronics equipment, and about

620,000 in the industry sector encompassing automobile, farm equipment,

and transportation equipment manufacturing.5 Between 1993 and 1999,

direct employment for transportation grew by approximately 5.5 percent.6

Employment is estimated to continue to increase by 0.5 percent annually

through 2004, at which time 176,000 people are expected to be employed

in the industry. By 2020, U.S.-foreign maritime trade is expected to be more

than double 1996 tonnage levels, with total tons exported projected to grow

3.5 percent annually.7 This could increase employment rates in the

United States.

2.1.2 Shipping Vessels

The MTS is served by a variety of vessels designed to facilitate movement of

cargo of all types. These vessels can be classified into two major categories:

general cargo and bulk (Figure 2-1).8 General cargo refers to vessels that

carry cargo that has been containerized, palletized, or is otherwise too large

to be handled by conventional bulk-type techniques. General cargo vessels

encompass a wide variety of vessel types, including container ships and

roll-on/roll-off vessels (RO/ROs). The term general cargo vessel, however,

is more commonly applied to smaller vessels with diverse cargohandling capabilities.

Bulk vessels are ships that carry homogeneous cargo, either in particle or

liquid form, which can be transferred by pumps, blowers, conveyers, or grab

buckets. Bulk vessels typically carry the largest quantity of cargo by weight

and volume, yet the cargo generally is relatively low-value as compared to

general cargo. Table 2-1 describes the most common types of vessels and

their capabilities.8

RO/ROs General Cargo/

Breakbulk

Dry

Bulkers

Liquid Gas 

Carriers

Tankers

Others

Comb

Carriers

Bulk General

Cargo

Merchant Cargo Vessels

Container Ships

Automotive

Carriers

Oil Bulk Ore

Grain

Coal

Ore

Crude Oil

Product

Chemical

Liquified

Natural Gas

Liquified

Petroleum Gas

Liners

Tramps

Merchant cargo vessels are characterized as general cargo or bulk: general cargo vessels typically handle high-value

cargo while bulk cargo vessels typically handle high-volume cargo.

Figure 2-1: Merchant Cargo Vessel Categories
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 9

Table 2-2: Value and Weight of Cargo Carried by Common Maritime Vessels

Liners typically move high-value cargo, while tankers and tramps typically carry high-volume cargo.

Typically, liners carry high-value cargo, and tankers and tramps carry higher

volumes of cargo (Table 2-2). The different cargo capacities of the vessels

result in regional differences in the type of cargo handled, as the typical type

of vessel calling at a port determines the equipment at that facility.9 For

example, a port with primarily tanker calls will have the equipment necessary

to unload bulk products, while a port with primarily liner calls will have cranes

and other equipment necessary to unload the unitized cargo.

Type of Ship 1999 2000 2001 

Value 

(billions) 

Weight 

(million metric tons) Value Weight Value Weight 

Liner $471.3 142.3 $484.9 148.7 $488.9 150.4 

Tanker $78.4 586.7 $126.6 601.1 $112.8 628.1 

Tramp $122.8 400.6 $125.8 408.0 $117.8 382.9 

Total $672.6 1,129.6 $737.4 1,157.8 $719.4 1,161.4 

Table 2-1: Description of Common Maritime Vessels

Vessel Type Capabilities 

Container ship Carry cargo that has been unitized by packing it into standard-size 

containers 

Liner 

A vessel that operates along definite routes on the basis of fixed 

schedules; generally involves hauling general cargo as distinct from 

bulk cargo 

RO/RO Cargo is wheeled onto the vessel; have faster cargo-handling rates and 

shorter port time than most other types of ships 

GENERAL CARGO 

General Cargo/ 

Breakbulk 

Flexible and adaptable to handle most kinds of cargo, typically have 

some provisions for cargoes other than packaged dry cargo 

Bulk Carrier 

A single-decked carrier designed to carry dry cargo, such as grain, 

contained in holds without packaging; usually loaded and discharged 

by shore-side cargo-handling gear 

Tanker 

A single-decked carrier designed to transport liquid cargo, such as 

petroleum products, through an arrangement of connected or 

independent tanks 

Liquified Gas 

Carrier 

Transport liquid petroleum gas or liquid natural gas; differences in the 

substances’ physical properties mandate different vessel designs 

Tramp A vessel that does not operate along a definite route on a fixed 

schedule, but calls at any port where cargo is available 

BULK 

Other Includes product carriers, parcel tankers, and chemical tankers 
10 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

2.1.3 Trends in Shipping and Cargo Movement

Over the next 25 years, world population is projected to grow from 6.1 billion

to 7.9 billion people.11 The population growth will result in an increased

demand for goods. Although tonnage shipped has become relatively

stagnant since 1998 and actually decreased slightly between 2000 and

2001, the amount of cargo carried by waterborne vessels has more than

doubled since 1970b

 (Figure 2-2).12 The projected increases in the

population and foreign waterborne commerce, coupled with the decreasing

capabilities of the U.S. port and intermodal system, indicate a need for future

development of the MTS.

During the 1999 to 2004 period, U.S. liner trade (imports and exports) is

expected to grow 5.3 percent per year, compared with 2.0 percent for the

nonliner trade and 2.2 percent for the tanker trade. Overall, the Department

of Commerce expects U.S.-foreign waterborne trade to grow 2.1 percent

between 1999 and 2004, down from the 4.2 percent growth during the

previous 5 years. Inland waterways and Great Lakes trading activity is

predicted to slightly increase during that period.6

According to the Department of Commerce, the growth of world waterborne

trade generally will exceed fleet growth over the next five years. Many ships in

the U.S. commercial fleet, however, are nearing 25 years of service and will

need to be upgraded or replaced.6 Increased waterborne trade coupled with

the diminishing and aging capabilities of the U.S. commercial fleet could

result in a smaller role for it, if the U.S. fleet is not capable of handling

additional cargo.

b Includes international cargoes loaded at ports of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence systems for

unloading at ports of the same system.

Figure 2-2: Trend in International Waterborne Cargo Tonnage

(selected years)

International waterborne trade has increased steadily, from 2,566 million tons in 1970 to 5,832 million tons in 2001.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1970 1980 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Million Tons

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1970 1980 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Million Tons
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 11

The total number of calls at U.S. ports is also expected to increase between

2000 and 2020, particularly on the Atlantic Coast (Figure 2-3). Container

vessels are expected to experience the greatest growth, increasing by almost

80,000 port calls over the 20-year period. The projected increases in

waterborne trade and the number of calls at ports will likely result in an

increased value of goods traded along the Atlantic Coast.8

2.1.4 U.S. Coastal Ports System

Ports are the focal points of the MTS. The majority of cargo imported into and

exported from the United States moves through a widely distributed network of

326 coastal, Great Lakes, and shallow-draftc ports with the capacity for

loading and unloading cargo and passengers. This system is supporting an

increasing volume of cargo. For example, in 2000, the U.S. port system

handled more than 2 billion metric tons of foreign and domestic waterborne

cargo.8 While state and local authorities often govern these ports, many

facilities are privately owned. Eighty-seven percent of inland waterway

facilities and 66 percent of coastal and Great Lakes facilities are

privately held.7

Two major types of port facilities support the movement of cargo: (1) deepdraft seaport and Great Lakes port facilities, and (2) inland river and

intracoastal waterways, and shallow-draft port facilities. The main activities at

these facilities include cargo handling and storing, piloting, stevedoring (the

loading and unloading of cargo and passengers), and docking of vessels.

c A ship’s draft indicates how deep the ship sits in the water.

Most imported and

exported cargo in the

United States moves

through a widely

distributed network of

326 coastal, Great

Lakes, and shallowdraft ports, which

handled more than

2 billion metric tons

of foreign and

domestic waterborne

cargo in 2000.

Figure 2-3: Projected Total Increase in Annual Number of Port Calls

Container ships, which typically carry high-value cargo, are projected to have the greatest increase in annual

number of port calls over the next 20 years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Container General Cargo Dry Bulk Tanker

Great Lakes

Pacific Coast

Gulf Coast

Atlantic Coast

Type of Vessel

Thousands of Calls

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Container General Cargo Dry Bulk Tanker

Great Lakes

Pacific Coast

Gulf Coast

Atlantic Coast

Type of Vessel

Thousands of Calls
12 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

2.1.4.1 Deep-Draft Ports

The majority of waterborne cargo is handled in deep-water ports, which are

typically at least 25 feet deep. Water depth is important because deep water

allows for larger vessels to enter the port. Generally, the deeper the water, the

greater tonnage the vessel can handle, although it is not the only element in

determining the type of cargo a port typically receives. The U.S. deep-draft

port system includes 50 major ports and 300 federal harbor channel

projects.d Federal channel projects are those where the federal government

is involved in some capacity with channel maintenance. Although some ports

naturally have deep water, most harbor channels have been deepened.

Deepening projects may include breakwaters, seawalls, channel-control

structures, dredged material disposal sites, drift removal components, and

other related features (marine dredging is discussed later). There is no one-toone relationship between ports and federal channels; some U.S. ports contain

several federal harbor channel projects, while others have none.

In 2000, the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions accounted for

almost 90 percent of the waterborne commerce by volume, led by the ports of

South Louisiana and Houston along the Gulf of Mexico.10 Foreign imports

provided the largest volume of cargo at U.S. ports on the Gulf of Mexico. The

Mid-Atlantic ports handled the second greatest volume (20 percent) and the

Great Lakes region was third (17 percent).e

In 2000, only three ports, South Louisiana, Houston, and New York, handled

over 100 million tons of cargo. Additionally, the ports of Long Beach and Los

Angeles also handled over 100 million tons combined (data on the ports of

Long Beach and Los Angeles are often reported together as the Long Beach/

Los Angeles Port Complex). Several ports handle specific types of cargo. For

example, the ports of Huntington, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis only handle

domestic commerce. Other ports primarily handle foreign cargo. Houston,

Los Angeles, and Philadelphia handled at least twice as much foreign cargo

as domestic cargo. All six of these ports are in the top 25 ports when ranked

by the total volume of cargo handled. Generally, ports located inland tend to

handle more domestic cargo, although the differences in the amount of

foreign and domestic cargo handled are not typically as vast as those

described above.8 Supplement 2-1 lists all U.S. ports that handled more than

one million tons of cargo in 2000.

There are some differences between the principal commodity groups typically

carried for foreign and domestic waterborne commerce. Foreign commerce

includes exports and imports moved between the United States and foreign

countries, while domestic commerce includes goods shipped between states.

By volume, petroleum and petroleum-related products is the largest principal

commodity group handled by ports in the United States, for both foreign and

domestic commerce. Merchant vessels entering U.S. ports carried over one

d A harbor channel is the entry to a port.

e These calculations are based on the total tonnage of cargo shipped and do not take into account

duplication in reporting.
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 13

Figure 2-4: Value of Cargo Handled by Region

In terms of dollar value of cargo, ports in California handled the greatest amount in 2000.

Note: California is presented separately because the quantity of commerce handled far exceeds the rest of the Pacific Region.

The North Pacific Region includes Alaska, Washington, and Oregon.

New

England

South

Atlantic

California Great

Lakes

MidAtlanticGulf of

Mexico

North

Pacific Caribbean

Region

Western

Pacific

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Millions of Dollars

New

England

South

Atlantic

California Great

Lakes

MidAtlanticGulf of

Mexico

North

Pacific Caribbean

Region

Western

Pacific

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Millions of Dollars

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Millions of Dollars billion short-tons of petroleum products, which represents over 38 percent of

the total cargo handled by volume (approximately 35 percent of domestic

commerce and nearly 50 percent of foreign commerce). The differences

between foreign and domestic commerce are in other commodity groups. For

example, over three times as much coal and almost twice the amount of

crude materials were moved domestically compared to foreign commerce.8

Figure 2-4 illustrates the value of the commerce handled by ports on a

regional basis.13 West Coast ports, specifically California (through trading

with the Asian market), tend to handle cargo with higher dollar values than

Gulf ports, even though a substantially greater amount of tonnage moves

through the Gulf ports. This differential is primarily due to the type of cargo

handled. California ports handle many high-value electronic goods, while the

Gulf of Mexico ports primarily handle greater volumes of dry bulk cargo.

Ports differ in the types of trade they support and geographic factors (e.g., size

of the local import market and the transit time from a U.S. port to key inland

points); intermodal transportation capabilities (e.g., on-dock rail facilities and

access to interstate highway systems); and cargo throughput factors (e.g.,

specialized technologies and terminals for different types of commodities,

space available for port expansion). The capabilities and location of the port

affects whether it handles large amounts of cargo by tonnage or value. In

2001, Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Japan were the United

States' top waterborne trading partners.2

While Figure 2-4 and Supplement 2-1 show the regional differences when

measuring cargo by volume or by value, they do not show that trading tends

to be heavily concentrated at large ports and is not evenly dispersed,

nationally or regionally. For example, 45 percent of the total foreign tonnage
14 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

is handled at ports along the Gulf of Mexico. Individually, 7 of the top 10

ports for handling cargo by tonnage are located in the Gulf of Mexico region.

In 2000, the top 50 ports — coastal and inland — handled 70 percent of

the total waterborne trade. Even with this high degree of concentration, 148

ports handled more than 1 million metric tons of cargo in 1997.10 This

concentration is not limited to tonnage alone. In 2000, the top 5 ports by

value were responsible for a combined $356 million in trade. The next 45

ports handled a combined $358 million in cargo. Summaries of 51 ports are

provided in Supplement 2-2, identifying each port’s geographical location,

how the port is administratively organized, major commodities moved by the

port, major foreign and domestic markets, the current state of the port’s

infrastructure, and planned improvements.

Even within particular coastal regions, cargo tends to be concentrated among

a few ports. For example, the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex handles

approximately 80 percent of all waterborne trade by both value and tonnage

in California, and the Port of New York and New Jersey handles roughly

50 percent of Mid-Atlantic traffic by value. Along the Gulf Coast, the Port of

Houston manages almost 30 percent of the cargo value in that region,

although less than 17 percent of the cargo tonnage. The Pacific Northwest is

similar; Seattle and Tacoma, both on the Puget Sound, account for almost

75 percent of the total value of cargo handled within the Northern

Pacific region.

These differences reflect the types of vessels calling at U.S. ports. For example,

in 2000, approximately 43 percent of all container ship calls on the Pacific

Coast were made at the Los Angeles-Long Beach Port complex, representing

almost 20 percent of all container ship calls nationwide. As container ships

tend to transport high-value items, this heavy concentration of calls at Los

Angeles-Long Beach accounts for the port's 80 percent market share of

waterborne trade by value in that region. The Port of New Orleans handles

over 50 percent of the bulk vessels calls within the region and 23 percent of

the nationwide total of bulk vessel calls.14

2.1.4.2 Shallow Ports

In 1999 there were 1,812 river terminals located in 21 states.7 The majority

of inland facilities (59 percent) are designed for dry bulk transport by barges.

The shallow depth of these ports prevents their use by large ocean-going

container ships. The advantage of shallow ports is that they have almost

limitless access points to the waterways; however, they are unable to handle

heavy cargo loads. Data for shallow ports were not readily available for

discussion in this Appendix.

2.1.5 Marine Terminals and Intermodal Connections

Marine terminals are areas at a port designed for loading and unloading

cargo or passengers from a vessel. Marine terminals are generally funded by

private-sector investment, although some are funded publicly through state

and local agencies, such as port authorities. In 1998, for example, deepdraft public port authorities invested $1.4 billion in capital expenditures (such
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 15

as terminal improvements, dredging, and intermodal projects) and estimated

that they would spend $9.1 billion on capital investments over the next

5 years (1999-2003).15

Table 2-3 shows the distribution pattern of the major U.S. seaport terminals by

coastal region.16 There are 1,914 terminals comprising 3,158 berths (the

space along a dock where a vessle is moored), including both privately and

publicly owned facilities. General cargo berths are the predominant type of

berth in all regions except the Great Lakes. Dry bulk facilities account for the

majority of berths in the Great Lakes region.

Marine terminals are highly dependent on efficient access to other modes of

transportation (e.g., trains, trucks, airplanes). These linkages, known as

intermodal connections, are situated at land-water boundaries and allow the

transfer of cargo and passengers between different modes of transportation.

There are three major types of intermodal connections to marine terminals:

rail, pipeline, and highway. Private-sector investments typically fund rail and

pipeline development projects, while highway connections receive primarily

public funding with some private funding.

Importers, exporters, and domestic suppliers depend on the U.S. port system

as one component of the intermodal transportation system. With its

connections to inland delivery systems (rail and highways), the coastal ports

system conveys raw materials and manufactured goods between producer

and consumer. In 2001, ships carried 78 percent of U.S. international

merchandise trade by volume and more than 38 percent by value (Table 2-4).2

Excluding trade with Canada and Mexico, waterborne international trade

accounted for over 99 percent of all U.S. international trade by tonnage and

60 percent by value.

Shipments of intermodal freight are increasing at a faster rate than freight

moved by single modes, although single freight shipments still account for

Coastal Region Number of 

Terminals 

Percent of 

Total 

Number of 

Berths 

Percent of 

Total 

North Atlantic 421 22.0 761 24.1 

South Atlantic* 197 10.3 349 11.0 

Gulf of Mexico 484 25.3 786 24.9 

South Pacific** 223 11.6 414 13.1 

North Pacific*** 249 13.0 365 11.6 

Great Lakes 340 17.8 483 15.3 

Total 1,914 100.0 3,158 100.0 

The Gulf of Mexico, the North Atlantic, and the Great Lakes regions have the greatest number of terminals

and berths, and handle the highest volumes of cargo.

* Includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

** Includes Hawaii.

*** Includes Alaska.

Table 2-3: U.S. Seaport Terminals and Berths, by Coastal Region (1997)
16 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

approximately 80 percent of the value and 98 percent of the tonnage moved.

These statistics represent all intermodal transportation, not simply cargo

originating at a port; however, they do highlight the role of intermodal

transportation in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) reports diminished conditions at

intermodal connectors and port access locations. It concluded that these

diminished access capabilities could adversely affect future cargo movement,

especially if containerized cargo trade, which tends to be of higher value and

more time-sensitive than bulk cargo, increases as predicted.14,17 Problems

frequently cited by DOT include poor local road and rail access, inadequate

channel depth, and lack of available traffic information.

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 2002 identified a need for all

levels of government to recognize the interrelatedness of the entire surface and

maritime transportation system, and to address transportation with a unified

approach rather than focusing on specific modes or types of travel.18

2.1.6 U.S. Merchant Marine

The U.S. Merchant Marine is a fleet of nongovernmental ships that handles

waterborne commerce during peacetime and becomes a naval auxiliary during

wartime to deliver troops and equipment. Prior to World War II, international

water commerce relied on a huge fleet of relatively small ships; however, since

then, the U.S.-flag merchant fleet has been steadily declining. In 2002,

the United States ranked eighteenth in the world in the number of ocean-going

merchant vessels and fourth in the deadweight tonnage capacity of those

vessels (Figure 2-5). This represents approximately five percent of the world's

tonnage capacity.17

One reason for the decrease in the number of vessels in the U.S. fleet is that

many nations have built an international maritime presence. These registries

do not have the same requirements regarding protection of seafarer health,

welfare and safety as U.S.-flag vessels. Consequently, companies have a

financial incentive to register under non-U.S. flags. In addition, foreign-flag

vessel owners do not pay any corporate income taxes on the revenue earned in

Shipping is the dominant mode of transport for U.S.-foreign cargo, handling 78 percent of cargo volume and

38 percent of cargo value.

Table 2-4: U.S.-Foreign Trade, by Mode (2001)

Mode 

Weight 

(millions of 

short tons) 

Percentage 

(by volume) 

Value 

(billion U.S. 

dollars) 

Percentage 

(by value) 

Water 1,276 77.7 718 38.4 

Air 6 0.4 519 27.7 

Truck 180 11.0 395 21.1 

Rail 97 5.9 93 4.9 

Pipeline 79 4.8 26 1.4 

Other 4 0.2 121 6.5 

Total 1,643 100.0 1,837 100.0 
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 17

U.S. foreign commerce. By comparison, vessels operating under the U.S. flag

are subject to all the taxes and regulations applicable in the United States,

resulting in higher costs for ownership and operation.

Changes in maritime technology and reduction in crew sizes have also

contributed to a decrease in the U.S.-flag industry's supply of vessels and

manpower. Vessels are larger but require a smaller operating crew. The

average capacity of cargo vessels in the U.S.-flag fleet is nearly 28,000

deadweight tons (DWT), compared to 12,000 DWT in 1970. The size of the

U.S.-flag fleet has declined in recent years, but the productivity has improved

substantially. The U.S.-flag foreign trade liner fleet handles 42 percent more

cargo than in 1970, but in fewer, larger vessels.

While the U.S. Merchant Marine operates primarily within the MTS to move

cargo, the U.S. military can also use the vessels to move personnel and

equipment. DOT’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the U.S.

Department of Defense (DoD) operate several programs that use commercial

vessels for military purposes, discussed below. Non-military crews operate

both government and private vessels under these programs. Some of the

vessels operate continuously for DoD, and some operate only when needed.

The Maritime Security Act of 1996 established the Maritime Security Program

to support a fleet of U.S.-flag commercial vessels and American-citizen crews

necessary for military purposes. Funding for the program has permitted

47 ocean-going vessels (through 12 total operators) to participate in the

program. Eligible vessels are subject to one-year renewable contracts, and

funding for the program is subject to annual appropriations from Congress.

During peacetime, participating vessels are typically involved with deep-sea

Figure 2-5: Deadweight Tonnage Capacity of Major Maritime Countries (2002)

In 2002, the U.S. Merchant Marine ranked fourth in the world for deadweight tonnage capacity.

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

160,000,000

Greece Japan Norway U.S. China Germany Hong

Kong

Korea Taiwain U.K.

Deadweight Tonnage

Country

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

160,000,000

Greece Japan Norway U.S. China Germany Hong

Kong

Korea Taiwain U.K.

Deadweight Tonnage

Country
18 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

international trades; however, participating vessel operators are required to

make their ships and other commercial transportation resources available to

DoD. As of 2000, 50 vessels participated in this program (Table 2-5).7

Designed to augment the Maritime Security Program, the Voluntary

Intermodal Sealift Agreement is a standby agreement to make commercial,

intermodal, dry cargo capacity, and supporting global infrastructure available

to meet DoD’s "contingency deployment" requirements. The Sealift

Agreement calls for comprehensive and integrated peacetime planning and

exercises among commercial entities and the U.S. military. The intent is to

bring commercial best practices into military logistics, and to coordinate

military and nonmilitary activities for improved asset utilization.

There are several programs in the MTS that fall under the U.S. Merchant

Marine. These seven programs are discussed below. While not always

interrelated, these programs support a naval auxiliary role during wartime.

2.1.6.1 Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force

The Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force is a fleet of over 35 ships, manned by civil

service crews, that provides direct support to Navy combat vessels. The Naval

Fleet Auxiliary Force is responsible for a variety of support services, including

the delivery of food, fuel, parts, ammunition and underway replenishment.

Some of the Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force ships are capable of providing ocean

towing and salvage services. A unique component of the Naval Fleet is the

two hospital ships, the U.S. Naval Ships USS COMFORT and MERCY. These

ships, normally maintained in 5-day readiness status, carry 1,200 Navy

medical personnel and a crew complement of 70 civil-service mariners when

fully activated.19

2.1.6.2 Special Missions Program

The Special Missions Program involves 27 civilian-manned, governmentowned vessels designed to meet specific mission objectives, including

oceanographic surveys, cable laying, missile research and range

instrumentation, and ocean surveillance. In addition to these governmentowned, civilian-crewed vessels, the Military Sealift Command charters six

vessels to perform assignments such as deep-water search and rescue and

navy submarine test support escorts.19 The Military Sealift Command is the

Table 2-5: Types of Vessels in the Maritime Security Program (2000)

* LASH stands for Lighter Aboard Ship.

Vessel Type Number 

Container/RO-RO Vessels 3 

RO-RO Vessels 4 

Container ships 39 

LASH* Vessels 4 

Total 50 
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 19

transportation provider for DoD with responsibility for providing strategic

sealift and ocean transportation for all U.S. military overseas.19

2.1.6.3 Pre-positioning Program

The Pre-positioning Program consists of 33 civilian-manned vessels placed at

strategic locations throughout the world to be on-call for rapid deployment.

These vessels store military supplies to sustain forward-deployed Army, Air

Force, Navy and Marine units. There are three divisions: Combat Prepositioning Force, which supports Army operations; Maritime Pre-positioning

Force, which supports a Marine Corps Air/Ground Task Force; and the

Logistic Pre-positioning Force, which supports the Air Force, Navy, and the

Defense Logistics Agency.19

2.1.6.4 Sealift Program

The Sealift Program is composed of ships that transport military cargo. This

program has three project offices: the Tanker Project Office, the Dry Cargo

Project Office, and the Surge Project Office. The Military Sealift Command

maintains long-term charters for a fleet of approximately 10 tankers to meet

DoD fuel transport demands. These tankers carry fuel to U.S. military facilities

worldwide, make deliveries to military vessels at sea, and service remote

federal government installations. The Military Sealift Command executes

short-term charters for tankers on an as-needed basis. The Dry Cargo Project

Office maintains contracts with private commercial liner operators to

transport approximately 80 percent of peacetime transport needs. Twelve

chartered cargo ships carry the remaining 20 percent of the military’s dry

cargo. The fast sealift ships, surge large-medium-speed RO/ROs (LMSRs),

and the MARAD Ready Reserve Force (discussed below) comprise the Surge

Office Project. These vessels are government-owned and civilian-operated.

The 8 fast sealift ships are the fastest cargo ships in the world, and travel at

speeds of up to 30 knots, enabling rapid delivery of defense materials. The

LMSRs are not as fast as the sealift ships, but can carry up to 380,000

square feet of cargo at speeds of up to 24 knots.

2.1.6.5 Ship Introduction Program

The Ship Introduction Program manages vessel acquisition activities of the

Military Sealift Command, including new vessel construction, vessel transfers,

and conversions, and ensures that all vessel designs are compatible with

operational requirements. For example, the program oversees the acquisition

of 19 additional LMSRs: 14 vessels through new construction, and 5 through

the conversion of existing ships. When completed, the LMSRs will become

elements of the Prepositioning Program and the Sealift Program.

2.1.6.6 Ready Reserve Force

MARAD maintains 76 vessels in the Ready Reserve Force fleet: 17 breakbulk

ships, 31 RO/RO vessels, 7 heavy-lift or barge-carrying ships, 10 auxiliary

crane ships, 9 tanker ships, and 2 troopships. The force was created in 1976

following an agreement between DoD and MARAD. For strategic purposes,

MARAD maintains the Reserve Force vessels at three sites (Fort Eustis, Virginia;
20 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Neches Rives, Texas; and Suisun Bay, California) in 4- to 30-day readiness

status.f

 A civilian crew of 9 to 10 mariners maintains vessels in reduced

operating status in the highest state of readiness (4- and 5-day activation).

When activated to supply DoD with logistics support, these vessels are fully

crewed with civilians, and fall under the operating authority of the Surge

Office Project of the Military Sealift Command.20

2.1.6.7 National Defense Reserve Fleet

The Ready Reserve Force has a larger fleet of inactive vessels controlled by

MARAD, known as the National Defense Reserve Fleet. Other than climate

control, these vessels are not maintained in any way. As of February 2001,

257 vessels (including the 76 Ready Reserve Force ships) were in the National

Defense Reserve Fleet. Another 60 vessels are either owned by the

government or secured through various programs, and are afforded basic

maintenance services on a cost-reimbursable basis. In total, 317 vessels

participate to some extent in the National Defense Reserve Fleet program.21

2.1.7 U.S. Passenger Ferry System

Each year, passenger ferry vessels transport nearly 90 million passengers on

134 million trips in the United States.16, 22 Of the 168 U.S. passenger ferry

vessel operating systems in the United States, 72 are publicly supported and

96 are privately funded systems. Although ferry systems operate in 35 states,

nearly 60 percent are concentrated in 10 states (Table 2-6).16 As of 1999,

the 168 systems encompassed 578 ferry terminals supporting 487 travel

routes. Of the 487 routes, however, approximately 71 percent are located in

10 states. In 1999, New York had the most ferry terminals and passengers

carried in the United States, more than double the patronage of ferries in

Washington, the state with the second highest number of terminals.22

Table 2-7 shows the regional distribution of ferry system passenger use as of

1999. The high number of passengers carried in the Mid-Atlantic is driven by

passenger traffic in New York. Most ferry service is conducted using

passenger ferries, as shown by the large disparity between the total numbers

and passengers and vehicles. Almost all of the New York ferry operators who

responded to DOT's survey operate passenger-only ferries. Both North Pacific

(specifically Washington) and Gulf Coast regional ferry operators tend to use

roll-on/roll-off ferries, which permit vehicular transport.23

Public ferry systems are typically run by state agencies, although there is some

collaboration between neighboring states, such as the Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey, which provides ferry service for the New York-New Jersey

metropolitan area.g

f Readiness status refers to the number of days until a vessel is available for service.

g The New York-New Jersey metropolitan region consists of the five New York City boroughs of Manhattan,

Brooklyn, Queens, Richmond (Staten Island), and the Bronx; the four suburban New York counties of

Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and Westchester; and the eight northern New Jersey counties of Bergen, Essex,

Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union.
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 21

Table 2-6: U.S. Ferry Terminals (1999)

Table 2-7: Regional Distribution of U.S. Passenger Ferry Use

Although in 1999 the greatest number of passengers were transported in the Mid-Atlantic

region, the greatest number of vehicles were transported in the North Pacific region.

* The regional breakdown, based on departure location, is as follows:

• Mid-Atlantic region is New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky

• South Atlantic region is North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia

• Gulf region is Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee

• Pacific region is California

• North Pacific region is Oregon, Washington, and Alaska

• Great Lakes region is Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri

• New England region is New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine

• Western Pacific region is Hawaii

• Caribbean region is Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

• Other region is all other states

• Canada region consists of ferries originating from ports in Canada with final destinations in the United States.

This table includes the 10 states with the greatest number of ferry terminals in the United States, almost 60 percent of the national total.

* Although not among the 10 states with the greatest number of ferry terminals, Texas and New Jersey are among the states with the greatest

numbers of passengers, carrying 11 million and 7.5 million passengers respectively.

** The number of passengers was obtained from DOT’s National Ferry Database. Of a total universe of 224 ferry operators identified, only

198 (88.4 percent) responded to the survey. In addition to missing data points, the patronage data are calculated based on the reported

starting location of the route.

State* Number of Ferry 

Terminals 

Number of Ferry 

Routes 

Number of Passengers 

Carried (in millions)**

New York 51 56 33.88 

Washington 46 55 16.59 

Alaska 41 65 0.73 

California 38 39 9.53 

Maine 33 25 1.58 

Michigan 31 25 3.19 

Louisiana 30 15 4.10 

Massachusetts 27 37 6.26 

North Carolina 27 16 2.61 

Virginia 20 14 2.66 

Total top 10 344 347 

Top 10% of total 59.50% 71.30% 

Overall Total 578 487 113.33 

Region* Number of Passengers 

Transported 

Number of Vehicles 

Transported 

Mid-Atlantic 47,067,247 3,842,233 

North Pacific 17,399,395 12,130,806 

Gulf 15,541,810 8,405,262 

New England 11,166,401 2,628,852 

Pacific 9,529,694 309,452 

Great Lakes 4,568,629 2,507,616 

South Atlantic 3,358,158 1,421,878 

Other 1,037,753 500,205 

Caribbean 2,093,372 51,220 

Western Pacific 369,133 0 

Canada 1,200,424 362,210 

Total 113,332,016 32,159,734 
22 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

2.1.8 U.S. Cruise Industry

As opposed to the ferry system, the overnight cruise industry relies on deepdraft ports to operate its cruise liners. Cruise ships have become a popular

form of vacationing, growing steadily since 1980 (Figure 2-6). According to

MARAD, two factors have fueled this growth. First, cruise lines are introducing

new ships that offer new technologies and a wide range of options. For

example, of the 122 cruise ships serving North American ports in 1998,

33 were less than 3 years old. Second, consolidation, through acquisitions

and mergers, has created a core of companies with more financial strength to

promote their ships and control costs, contributing to the stability of the

industry in the late 1990s. For instance, in 1998 the top 4 North American

cruise lines controlled 82 percent of the North American cruise capacity

(many of the vessels, however, are under foreign flags, and are not U.S.-

owned or -operated).7 In 2001, approximately 6.9 million passengers

vacationed by cruise ship — more than 4 times the passenger traffic in

1980. The increase represents an average annual growth rate of

8.4 percent (Figure 2-6).24

Unlike cargo traffic at ports, cruise ship traffic is heavily concentrated within

certain states. Florida's proximity to Caribbean destinations makes it the most

popular departure point in the United States for cruise vacations. In 2001,

over 1.2 million Floridians booked cruises, nearly 400,000 more than the

second highest state, California.24 Additionally, about 60 percent (4.1 million)

of U.S. cruise embarkations occurred from a Florida port, with approximately

50 percent (3.4 million) of passengers embarking from the Port of Miami.13, 25

Ten states provide approximately 62 percent of the total North American

Figure 2-6: Number of Cruise Line Passengers

(1980-2001)

Cruise ship traffic has steadily increased and is approximately seven times greater than in 1980.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Number of Passengers

(Thousands)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Number of Passengers

(Thousands)
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 23

cruise line passenger traffic, and 2 states provide almost one-third of the

traffic (Table 2-8).24 North American passenger traffic includes the United

States and Canada.

The Caribbean continues to be the top cruise destination, with a 46.6 percent

market share in 2002 (includes the Caribbean and the Bahamas). Other

leading markets are Europe at 21.1 percent (divided into Mediterranean ports

with 10.2 percent and non-Mediterranean ports such as Norway with

10.9 percent) and Alaska with a 7.9 percent share.24

Increased U.S. demand for cruises has dictated the industry’s growth. As of

2000, 87 of the 205 deep-draft cruise line vessels and 17 of the 41 shallowdraft vessels in the world fleet were operating in U.S. waters. All cruise ships

are less than 47 years old and have draft designs of less than 30 feet (the

maximum depth reached by the hull of a ship, which minimizes the number of

ports too shallow to enter), including the mega-cruise ships under

construction for the U.S. market (Tables 2-9 and 2-10).26 The Cruise Line

International Association predicts the cruise industry will add 42 cruise ships

to the North American fleet between 2002 and 2007.24 Approximately 90

percent of the cruise ships in the orderbookh are deep-draft vessels.i

 In

general, the cruise ships calling on U.S. ports are larger, newer, and have

greater capacity than cruise ships sailing into non-U.S. ports.

Table 2-8: North American Cruise Line Passenger States of Residence (2001)

In 2001, approximately 30 percent of the total number of passengers lived in Florida or California.

State Total 

Passengers

Florida 1,256,745 

California 860,187 

New York 416,073 

Texas 294,196 

Massachusetts 279,463 

New Jersey 251,562 

Pennsylvania 249,130 

Illinois 197,294 

Ohio 186,696 

Georgia 176,974 

Total Top Ten 4,168,320 

Total North America 6,637,054 

h The orderbook represents the number of ships currently on order at a shipyard.

i Information on the cruise ships that serve the United States could not be easily obtained. Cruise

Industry News (CIN), a trade publication, tracks ships that are marketed primarily in North America.

Nearly all of CIN’s North American fleet call at U.S. ports. Using CIN’s North American fleet and

information for each ship on scheduled routes and ports-of-call, a U.S. fleet was determined.
24 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Table 2-9: International Cruise Ship Fleet

Nearly 42 percent of the existing world cruise ship fleet calls at U.S. ports.

Table 2-10: International Cruise Ship Characteristics

While the average age of cruise ships calling at U.S. ports is 14, the data are somewhat skewed, with the greatest number really being

built in the last decade.

Nearly all new cruise ships are built abroad, but most dry-docking and repairs

are performed in North American ports.j

 Based on the average cruise ship's

characteristics (Table 2-10),27 the major U.S. shipbuilding yards have the

capabilities to construct and repair most cruise ships. The operative factor in

the selection of a repair facility, aside from overall cost, is its proximity to a

vessel's sailing area. U.S. shipyards that have completed major cruise ship

servicing include Atlantic Marine and Bender Shipbuilding in Alabama,

Cascade General - Portland Shipyard in Oregon, Newport News and Norfolk

Shipbuilding in Virginia, and Todd Pacific in Washington.26

According to a study done for the International Council of Cruise Lines, the

cruise industry generated $20 billion in industrial output and 267,700 jobs in

the United States in 2001. The cruise industry directly employs 101,000

people. Indirectly, the industry helps create 166,000 jobs in advertising, ship

maintenance and repair, and health services, among other industries. These

jobs generate $9.7 billion per year in wages.25

j New construction of cruise ships is concentrated in four major yards: Kvaerner Masa-Yards in

Finland, Chantiers de l’Atlantique in France, Meyer Werft in Germany, and Fincantieri in Italy.

Shallow 

 Draft 

Deep 

Draft Total 

Existing 17 87 104 

On Order 0 24 24 Ships calling 

at U.S. ports Total 17 111 128 

Existing 24 118 142 

On Order 5 13 18 

Ships not 

calling at U.S. 

ports Total 29 131 160 

Existing 41 205 246 

World Fleet On Order 5 37 42 

Total 46 242 288 

Vessel U.S. Port-Calling Ships Non-U.S. Port-Calling Ships 

Characteristics Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 

Gross Tons 1,800 142,000 56,023 1,189 85,000 18,638 

Age (years) 0 47 14 0 66 27 

Passengers 116 3,360 1,664 67 2,112 720 

Length (ft) 344 1,036 741 236 879 505 

Beam (ft) 49 157 98 39 108 69 

Draft (ft) 13 35 26 13 33 20 
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 25

2.1.9 U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industries

The U.S. shipbuilding and repair industries are declining, and many

companies are consolidating as a result. Shipyards are fixed facilities with dry

docks and fabrication equipment capable of building a ship. Other activities

at shipyards include the repair, conversion, and alteration of ships; the

production of prefabricated ship and barge sections; and specialized services,

such as ship scaling.28

The U.S. shipbuilding industry has two markets: commercial and military. As

of December 31, 1997, the U.S. ranked fourteenth in merchant shipbuilding

among all nations, with approximately one percent of the world's gross

tonnage on order. Japan and South Korea together accounted for more than

65 percent of the gross tonnage on order.7 As with other marine-related

industries, shipbuilding and repair is concentrated in only a few coastal states.

This can be attributed to geographical limitations and the decreased number

of major shipyards in the United States.

2.1.9.1 Private Shipyards

Private shipyards are grouped based on the potential for construction by

vessel length. The majority of the available data address major shipbuilding

yards. MARAD has only recently begun collecting data on small and midsized shipyards.

2.1.9.1.1 Major Shipyards

MARAD classifies major shipyards into four categories:

• Active Shipbuilding Yards — privately owned U.S. shipyards and facilities

that are open with at least one building position capable of

accommodating a vessel 122 meters (400 feet) in length and over, and

are currently engaged in the construction of naval ships or major

oceangoing merchant vessels.

• Shipyards with Build Positions — privately owned shipyards and facilities

that are open with at least one building position capable of

accommodating a vessel 122 meters in length and over, and that have

not constructed a naval ship or major oceangoing merchant vessel in the

past two years. The shipyards may not be capable of ship construction

without significant capital investments. These shipyards could, however,

be used in module ship construction.

• Repair (with dry docking) — shipyards that have graving docks, floating

dry docks or marine rails capable of handling naval ships or major

oceangoing merchant vessels 122 meters in length and over. These

shipyards may also be capable of constructing vessels less than

122 meters in length.

• Topside Repair — shipyards that have sufficient berth or pier space,

including dolphins,k

 to accommodate a naval ship or major ocean-going

k A dolphin is a structure placed near piers or wharves to guide vessels into their moorings; keep vessels

away from structures, shoals, or the shore; support navigation aids; or moor a vessel.
26 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

merchant vessel ships of 122 meters in length or over. These shipyards

may also be capable of constructing or dry docking vessels less than 122

meters in length.29

As shown in Figure 2-7, the majority of the major shipyards in the United

States are located on the East and Gulf Coasts.t, 29 The U.S. Navy and

MARAD identify the active shipbuilding base as active shipbuilding yards. As

of 2001, there were eight active shipbuilding yards in the United States. Six of

those shipyards, referred to as the Big Six, are the primary builders of large

U.S. Navy and commercial vessels. Those shipyards are Avondale Industries

in New Orleans, Louisiana; Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine; Electric Boat in

Groton, Connecticut; Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi;

National Steel & Shipbuilding Company in San Diego, California; and

Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia. In 1998, the Big Six

accounted for two-thirds of the industry's total revenue (over $6.7 billion), and

performed nearly 90 percent of all military work. Ninety-five percent of the

revenues of these shipyards were defense-related.

The Big Six also accounted for about 11 percent of the industry's commercial

revenues from 1996 to 2000.30 Two companies own the Big Six shipyards.

In 2001, Northrop Grumman purchased Newport News Shipbuilding and

Litton Industries, which included the Avondale and Ingalls shipbuilding yards.

General Dynamics owns Electric Boat, Bath Iron Works, and National Steel &

Shipbuilding Company. Figure 2-8 shows the locations of the eight active

shipbuilding yards in the United States.29

The East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico have the largest concentration of shipbuilding and repair facilities.

There are no active shipbuilders located in the Great Lakes or Non-contiguous regions.

Figure 2-7: Regional Breakdown of Major U.S. Shipyards (2001)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

East Coast Gulf Coast West Coast Great Lakes Noncontiguous

Active Shipbuilders

Shipyards with Build Positions

Repair with Drydocking

Topside Repair

Region

Number of Shipyards

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

East Coast Gulf Coast West Coast Great Lakes Noncontiguous

Active Shipbuilders

Shipyards with Build Positions

Repair with Drydocking

Topside Repair

Region

Number of Shipyards
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 27

Since 1977, the number of privately owned major shipbuilding yards in the

United States has fluctuated between 17 and 32 (Figure 2-9). This includes

combined statistics for active shipbuilders and shipyards with build positions.31

As previously stated, there were only 8 active shipbuilding yards in 2001;

17 of the shipyards reported on had not constructed a major ocean-going

vessel in the previous 2 years.32

As of October 1, 2001, the U.S. commercial shipbuilding orderbook

consisted of 18 ships, with a total estimated value of over $3.2 billion.15 This

figure represents an increase in the number of ships in the orderbook

compared to 2000 and is an increasing trend since 1998 (Figure 2-10).

The 18 ships in the orderbook, however, represent less than 25 percent of the

number of ships in the 1975 orderbook. The recent increase corresponds

to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year

1995 (FY1995), which contained the National Shipbuilding and Shipyard

Conversion Act of 1993. This law created the National Shipbuilding Initiative

to assist in reestablishing the U.S. shipbuilding industry as self-sufficient and

Figure 2-8: Location of Active U.S. Shipbuilding Yards (2001)

8

3

1. Bath Iron Works Corp.

2. Electric Boat Corp.

3. Kvaerner Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc.

4. Newport News Shipbuilding

5. Halter Pascagoula

6. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems - Ingalls Operations

7. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems - Avondale Operations

8. National Steel and Shipbuilding Co.

1

2

4

6

7

5

With the exception of National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, all active U.S. shipbuilding facilities are located in the

eastern half of the United States.

Note: A Note: ctive shipbuilding yards are privately owned U.S. shipyards and facilities that are open with at least one building

position capable of accommodating a vessel 122 meters (400 feet) in length and over, and are currently engaged in the

construction of naval ships or major oceangoing merchant vessels.
28 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

internationally competitive.33 Among its provisions, it established a financial

incentives program to provide loan guarantees to initiate commercial

ship construction, encourage shipyard modernization, and support

increased productivity.

Figure 2-10: Trends in U.S. Commercial Shipbuilding (1975-2001)

The number of major ocean-going vessels in the 2001 commercial orderbook was at the highest level since 1982.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Year

Number of Ships

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Year

Number of Ships

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 2-9: Number of Major U.S. Shipyards

The number of major U.S. shipyards has gradually increased since 1996, but almost three-quarters of those shipyards

have not constructed a major ocean-going vessel within the past two years.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Year

Number of Shipyards

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Year

Number of Shipyards

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 29

U.S. shipbuilders also construct federal vessels. The U.S. Navy shipbuilding

program is the principal customer of the U.S. shipbuilding industry.7 At the end

of 1999, there were 46 military ships under construction.

The U.S. Navy's shipbuilding plans for FY1999-FY2004 include the

construction or conversion of 66 ships at a cost of about $46 billion. Overall,

the U.S. Naval fleet decreased by 208 ships between FY1985 and FY1992,

from 541 to 333 ships. This decrease was a contributing factor to the

decrease in shipyard employment, since major shipyards depend on Navy

shipbuilding and repair.30 In 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) announced

its Deepwater Acquisition Program, which will replace or retool much of the

Coast Guard's fleet (the Deepwater Acquisition Program is discussed in

Section 3.3).

2.1.9.1.2 Small and Mid-sized Shipyards

MARAD classifies mid- and small-sized U.S. shipyards into three categories:

• Boatbuilding and Repair Companies — privately owned shipyards capable

of building or repairing commercial and military vessels less than 122

meters (400 feet) in length.

• Vessel Repair Companies — facilities that only provide repair services, either

repair with dry docking or topside repair, to vessels less than 122 meters

(400 feet). These companies must have their own waterfront facilities.

• Fabricators and Manufacturers of Maritime Vessels — companies that build

small commercial craft less than 76 meters (250 feet).29

As shown in Figure 2-11, the majority of small and mid-sized shipyards are

located in the Gulf Coast region.19

Because MARAD began reporting on small and mid-sized shipyards in 2001,

data are not available to support a trend analysis.

Figure 2-11: Number of Small and Mid-sized U.S. Shipyards, by Region

In 2001, 101 medium and small U.S. shipyards were located in the Gulf Coast region, approximately 62 percent of the nation's total.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

East Coast Gulf Coast West Coast Great Lakes NonContiguousInland

Boat Building and Repair

Vessel Repair Companies

Fabricators/Manufacturers

Region

Number of Shipyards

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

East Coast Gulf Coast West Coast Great Lakes NonContiguousInland

Boat Building and Repair

Vessel Repair Companies

Fabricators/Manufacturers

Region

Number of Shipyards
30 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

2.1.9.2 Employment and Economic Impacts

The shipbuilding and repair industries employed approximately 967,000

people in 2002. Of those, 662,000 were production workersl and 112,000

were women.m The total employment rate within the industry has declined

steadily since 1981, largely due to a decrease in military-related vessel

construction (Figure 2-12).34

Employment is concentrated in states with active shipyards. Virginia alone

accounts for over 25 percent of those employed at major shipyards (Figure 2-

13). Of the 75,000 people employed by major shipyards, three-quarters

work at active shipyards. The regional differences found in maritime cargo

movement do not occur within the shipbuilding and repair industries,

although the eastern United States, specifically the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf

regions, has a much higher concentration of major shipyards.15

As of October 2001, major shipbuilding yards employed approximately

46,600 production workers. Active shipyards employ over 60 percent of the

major shipyard production workers, representing approximately 45 percent of

the total production workforce (Table 2-11).29

According to a study by the Shipbuilders Council of America, the U.S.

commercial shipbuilding industry yielded $3.9 billion dollars in estimated

revenue in 2001; the majority of which was generated in the Gulf Coast

region (Table 2-12).35

l The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines production workers as assemblers and fabricators working in

plants that manufacture durable goods; in this case, ships.

m Peak employment occurred in 1943 with over 1.3 million individuals employed. Data were first

collected on production workers in 1947 and on female workers in 1959.

Figure 2-12: U.S. Shipbuilding Employment History (1975-2002)

Total shipyard employment has decreased since 1975 at approximately the same rate as the number of

major ships in the commercial orderbook.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 Total Employees

Female Employees

Production Workers

Year

Employees (in Thousands)

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 Total Employees

Female Employees

Production Workers

Year

Employees (in Thousands)

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 31

Table 2-11: Number of Shipyard Production Workers, by Shipyard Type

Table 2-12: Regional Distribution of the Estimated Ship Sales in 2001

In 2002, active shipyards employed approximately 60 percent of the shipyard production workers in the United States.

In 2001, the Gulf Coast region received the greatest amount of the sales revenue from ship construction.

* The Gulf Coast region is Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The Inland Waterway region is Minnesota,

Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa,

Arkansas, and Missouri. The Atlantic region is Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island,

Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The

Pacific region is California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. The Western Inland region is North Dakota, South

Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Figure 2-13: 2002 Major Shipyard Employment Rates, by State

Active shipbuilding yards are the drivers behind shipyard employment.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Alabama

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Topside Repair

Repair (with Drydocking)

Shipyards with Build Positions

Active Shipbuilding Yards

State

Number of Employees

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Alabama

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Topside Repair

Repair (with Drydocking)

Shipyards with Build Positions

Active Shipbuilding Yards

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Alabama

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Topside Repair

Repair (with Drydocking)

Shipyards with Build Positions

Active Shipbuilding Yards

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Alabama

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Alabama

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Topside Repair

Repair (with Drydocking)

Shipyards with Build Positions

Active Shipbuilding Yards

State

Number of Employees

Classification Number of Production Workers 

(thousands) 

Active Shipyards 28.1 

Shipyards with Build Positions 7.8 

Repair with Dry Docking 6.5 

Topside Repair 4.2 

Total 46.6 

Region* Billion Dollars Percent 

Gulf Coast 2.2 55.6 

Inland Waterway 0.4 9.3 

Atlantic 0.7 15.6 

Pacific 0.8 19.5 

Western Inland 0.0 0.0 

Total $3.9 100.0 
32 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

2.1.9.3 Public Shipyards

In addition to the private, commercial shipyards discussed above, the federal

government, specifically the U.S. Navy and USCG, maintains public shipyards.

Combined, the U.S. Navy and USCG maintain five shipyards. These shipyards

service the existing fleet, as well as assist with the design and construction of

new ships.

2.1.9.3.1 U.S. Coast Guard Shipyards

USCG maintains the Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, Maryland, to support its

fleet. As a full-service shipyard, the yard’s capabilities include the facilities to

construct, repair, retrofit, and renovate cutters, boats, and various aids to

navigation, as well as manufacture unique Coast Guard items. Other

support activities, such as casualty response support and design and

production engineering, are also conducted at the yard.36

2.1.9.3.2 U.S. Navy Shipyards

The U.S. Navy maintains four public shipyards: Norfolk, Virginia; Portsmouth,

New Hampshire; Puget Sound, Washington; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The

overall mission of the naval shipyards is to provide maintenance,

modernization, inactivation, disposal and emergency repair services to Navy

ships and submarines.37

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, located near Richmond, Virginia, provides logistic

support for assigned ships and service craft, including constructing,

overhauling, repairing and outfitting ships and other marine vessels. The

Navy maintains seven dry docks on the Norfolk waterfront. Norfolk also

operates the Shipyard Instructional Design Center, a training development and

media production facility; the Naval Shipyard Development and Integration

Test Site, which tests and implements business process improvements in

maintenance depots; and several other laboratories and repair facilities.38

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, near Boston, Massachusetts, overhauls, repairs,

modernizes, and refuels Los Angeles Class submarines. The facility maintains

three dry docks capable of docking all active classes of submarines. It is also

operates the Ship Availability Planning and Engineering Center for the Los

Angeles Class and the planning yard for the Navy's deep-diving submarine

and submersible vessels, as well as other scientific research, defense prototype

testing, and submerged rescue platforms. As of October 2002,

approximately 4,200 civilian personnel and 104 military personnel worked

at Portsmouth. Combined, Portsmouth contributed over $300 million to

the local economy in 2001 through wages, local purchases, and

contracted services.39

Pearl Harbor Navel Shipyard in Hawaii performs periodic vessel inspection and

repairs; repairs reported deficiencies; completes modernizations using

innovative designs tested on prototypes; performs required maintenance; and

serves as a calibration center for the entire Pacific Fleet.40
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 33

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in Bremerton, Washington, maintains naval

ships, systems, and ordnance throughout their lifecycle. In 1990 the U.S.

Navy authorized a program to recycle nuclear-powered ships at Puget Sound.

Approximately 16 percent of the shipyard's workload involves inactivation,

reactor compartment disposal, and recycling of ships. In 2001 the Puget

Sound Naval Shipyard contributed almost $500 million to the local economy

through payroll and local purchases.41

2.1.10 U.S. Marine Salvage and Dredging Industries

The capabilities of the U.S. marine dredging and salvage industries have

declined over the past few years.42, 43 Marine dredging involves the planning,

design, construction, operation, and maintenance of waterway projects to

meet navigational needs. The goal of marine salvage operations is to provide

assistance to a damaged or stressed vessel, which can include towing a vessel

or jettisoning cargo to prevent spills.

2.1.10.1 Marine Dredging

The marine construction and dredging industry is a specialty construction

trade characterized by equipment that is housed on floating platforms.

Dredging is generally required to achieve one of the following outcomes:

• Unimpeded navigation through an existing channel (maintenance

dredging)

• Improved navigation channels that provide access for larger vessels

(new-work dredging)

• Protecting U.S. shores through beach nourishment

• Environmental restoration of dredged waters or wetlands.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the largest purchaser of marine

dredging services. Approximately 75 percent of the 400 million cubic yards

of material dredged every year is through USACE direction.42 USACE's

maintenance-dredging budget ranges from $220 to $260 million per year,

and its new-work dredging budget ranges from $50 million to $180 million

annually. Since the 1990s, the budget for shore protection has grown from

about $25 million to approximately $90 million annually. The number of

dredging contracts awarded by USACE has gradually decreased since 1999,

while the total dollar amount of the bids has increased since 2000

(Figure 2-14).44

USACE maintains a vessel fleet of 12 dredges consisting of 7 pipeline dredges

and 5 hopper dredges (USACE dredging capabilities are discussed in

Section 3.3).

2.1.10.2 Marine Salvage

In 1994, the National Research Council found that the international marine

salvage industry had experienced a decline in the previous two decades, in

both dedicated resources and the number of trained salvors, and that the level

USACE is responsible

for approximately 75

percent of the 400

million cubic yards

of material dredged

every year.
34 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

of salvage activity in the United States continued to be insufficient to support

traditional salvage practices.n The Council also concluded that marine

firefighting capabilities, which fell under the scope of the study, were deficient

in port areas.43

According to the National Research Council report, several reasons

contributed to this decline, including changes in technology, decreased

demand for long-range tows, and increased response by both government

and industry to vessel casualties. As a result, U.S. salvage capabilities are

instilled in small companies that only deal with specialized and limited aspects

of salvage. The National Research Council recommended that the federal

government should work to maintain or develop salvage capabilities in the

United States.43

2.1.11 Aids-to-Navigation

Navigation is defined as safe movement from one point to another. Aids-tonavigation (AtoN) serve as the marine equivalent of road signs, providing

location and safe passage information for vessels.16 Explicitly, an AtoN is

defined as a man-made structure or device designed to assist in determining a

vessel's position or a safe course or to warn of dangers or obstruction.o

Depending on the method of delivery, AtoN can be further classified as visual,

audible, radio, or electronic, although there is some overlap between the

categories.45 For example, a device using radio waves can be considered a

radio and an electronic AtoN.

Figure 2-14: USACE Dredging Contracts

As the number of USACE contract awards decreases, the national dredging industry is becoming more

competitive.

n A salvor is an individual working in the salvage industry.

o An aid-to-navigation is not the same as a navigational aid. A navigational aid is a more general

term that covers any instrument, device, chart, method, and so forth, intended to assist in the

navigation of a vessel.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Contracts Dollars

Year

Contracts Awarded/

Tens of Millions of Dollars

0

50

100

150

200

250

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Contracts Dollars

Year

Contracts Awarded/

Tens of Millions of Dollars
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 35

Although some AtoN are privately operated, most are publicly owned and

maintained by USCG (public AtoN are discussed in Section 3.2). Private AtoN

include all marine aids operated in the navigable waters of the United States,

other than those operated by the federal government or those operated in

state waters for private use.46 Both USCG and USACE must approve private

aids-to-navigation.

2.2 Marine Industries

This section addresses commercial and recreational uses of ocean and

coastal waters that are not covered by the movement of cargo and

passengers. The facilities described in this sector are not comprehensive; they

provide a general overview of the broad realm of major marine facilities

outside of the MTS. Both individual and commercial facilities and activities are

addressed. Individual facilities refer to recreational activities, such as fishing

or boating. Commercial facilities include offshore oil and natural gas

production, long-distance information distribution over transoceanic cables,

and commercial fishing.

Billions of dollars are spent annually on commercial and recreational vessels

and activities. Unlike many sectors of the MTS, however, the economic

impacts of those activities are felt primarily at the state level. This focused

impact occurs primarily because the resources needed for some activities,

such as oil and gas production, are prevalent only in specific areas. This

section examines each of the selected independent sectors and the economic

impact on both the national and state economies.

2.2.1 U.S. Offshore Natural Gas and Oil Production

A large portion of domestic oil and natural gas is produced on federal marine

lands known as the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The OCS extends from

the seaward boundary of state coastal waters, nominally 3 miles offshore out

to 200 miles, and comprises over 1.5 billion acres (Table 2-13).47 Within the

OCS there are approximately 4,000 oil and gas production facilities and over

32,000 miles of pipeline operated by over 45,000 industry personnel.48

These production facilities contribute about 28 percent of U.S. domestic oil

and 25 percent of U.S. domestic natural gas production.

Table 2-13: Extent of State and Federal Submerged Lands in U.S. Offshore Areas

The Minerals Management Service controls approximately 98 percent of the leases in the Outer Continental Shelf.

U.S. Offshore/Planning Area State Offshore 

(Acres) 

Federal OCS 

(Acres) Total (Acres) 

Alaska 14,656,000 945,569,883 960,225,883 

Atlantic Coast States 4,544,000 255,356,910 259,900,910 

Gulf Coast States 8,640,000 159,276,572 167,916,572 

Pacific Coast States 2,880,000 121,939,940 124,819,940 

 Total 30,720,000 1,482,143,305 1,512,863,305 
36 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The Minerals Management Service (MMS), under the U.S. Department of the

Interior, supervises almost 7,500 leases over approximately 38.5 million acres

of the OCS (Table 2-14). The majority of these sites are located in waters less

than 200 meters deep in the Gulf of Mexico.49 In 1998, 1,631 sites under

federal supervision produced oil or natural gas. All but 43 of those sites were

located in the Gulf of Mexico.47

As shown in Table 2-15, the majority of active platforms in the Gulf of Mexico

are located in shallow waters.50 There is not a one-to-one relationship

between leases and platforms, as the decision to construct a platform is often

made by companies following research and exploratory drilling. While deepwater operations are currently the focus of much of the exploration, ultradeep-water development (exploration and development activity in water

deeper than 5,000 feet) is expected to become more common. Seventy-one

wells were drilled in water depths of 5,000 feet or more in 2001.50

Between 1991 and 2000, the number of exploratory wells and development

wells drilled in the OCS increased, from 287 to 396 and 373 to 852,

respectively. During the same period, the number of OCS platforms increased

from 153 to 175, while platform installations decreased from 153 to 89.53

Offshore drilling methods can be separated into shallow water and deepwater. Deep-water is drilling in water depths greater than 1,000 feet

Water Depth 

(in meters) 

Active 

Leases 

Approved Drilling 

Applications 

Active 

Platforms 

0 to 200 3,417 39,390 3,432 

201 to 400 215 1,155 20 

401 to 800 389 735 10 

801 to 1000 316 354 4 

1000 and Above 3,286 839 9 

Although there are only 9 active platforms in water over 1,000 meters deep, the high number of active

leases at that depth indicates high commercial interest in deep-water oil fields.

Table 2-15: Gulf of Mexico Offshore Leases and Drilling Platforms

 by Water Depth

Table 2-14: Federal OCS Lease Offerings by Region (1954-1998)

The majority of oil and natural gas produced in the Outer Continental Shelf comes from the Gulf of Mexico.

* “Under supervision” indicates all producing and nonproducing offshore mineral leases under MMS as of December 31, 1993.

Offerings Leases Issued Under Supervision* Region Lease 

Offerings Tracts Acres Tracts Acres Tracts Acres 

Alaska 17 25,858 141,487,873 1,592 8,693,378 78 310,000 

Atlantic 8 9,160 51,520,603 410 2,334,205 51 290,353 

Gulf of 

Mexico 77 191,289 1,041,664,409 15,739 80,928,906 7,278 37,560,000 

Pacific 11 1,903 9,823,421 470 2,540,012 83 419,411 

Total 113 228,210 1,244,496,306 18,211 94,496,501 7,490 38,579,764 
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 37

(305 meters). Deep-water operations require more sophisticated technologies

and additional technical expertise than conventional operations in shallow

waters. There are two basic deep-water development systems currently used

in the OCS: bottom-supported and vertically moored structures; and floating

production and subsea systems (Table 2-16).

Table 2-16: Development Systems Used in Deep-water Drilling

Deep-water 

Development Systems Description 

Fixed Platform • Consists of a tall vertical section made of tubular steel members supported by 

piles driven into the seabed (jacket) with a deck on top 

• Economically feasible for installation in water depths up to 1,500 feet 

Compliant Tower • Consists of a narrow, flexible tower and a piled foundation that can support a 

conventional deck for drilling and production operations 

• Can withstand large lateral forces 

• Usually used in water depths between 1,000 and 2,000 feet 

Tension-Leg 

Platform 

• Consists of a floating structure held in place by vertical, tensioned tendons 

connected to the sea floor by pile-secured templates 

• Larger platforms have been deployed in water depths approaching 4,000 feet 

BOTTOM-SUPPORTED AND VERTICALLY MOORED STRUCTURES

Mini TensionLeg Platform 

• Is a floating mini tension-leg platform of relatively low cost developed for 

production of smaller deepwater reserves 

• Can also be used as a utility, satellite, or early production platform for larger 

deepwater discoveries 

SPAR Platform • Consists of a large diameter single vertical cylinder supporting a deck 

• Typically has a fixed platform topside with drilling and production equipment, 

three types of risers (production, drilling, and export), and a hull which is 

moored using six to twenty lines anchored into the seafloor 

• SPAR's are presently used in water depths up to 3,000 feet, although existing 

technology can extend its use to water depths as great as 7,500 feet 

Floating 

Production 

System 

• Consists of a semi-submersible unit which is equipped with drilling and 

production equipment, and is anchored in place with wire rope and chain, or 

positioned using rotating thrusters 

• Can be used in a range of water depths from 600 to 7,500 feet 

Subsea System • Includes single subsea wells producing to a nearby platform (fixed or tensionleg) to multiple wells producing through a manifold and pipeline system to a 

distant production facility 

• Typically used in water depths up to 3,000 feet, but may be used in water 

depths up to 7,000 feet 

FLOATING PRODUCTION AND SUBSEA SYSTEMS

Floating 

Production, 

Storage and 

Offloading 

System 

• Consists of a large tanker type vessel moored to the seafloor designed to 

process and stow production from nearby subsea wells and to periodically 

offload the stored oil to a smaller shuttle tanker 

• May be suited for marginally economic fields located in remote deep-water 

areas where a pipeline infrastructure does not exist 
38 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The majority of the platform installations are located in the Gulf of Mexico

(Figure 2-15). There is only one platform in Alaskan OCS waters, which

straddles federal-state waters in the Beaufort Sea. The first production from

the Alaska OCS began in 2001. There are 24 platforms off the coast of

California, and most of those are located in the Santa Barbara Channel.

Twenty-two of the facilities in California were installed to produce oil and gas,

and the other two were installed as processing facilities.

As of July 2002, over 35,000 miles of pipeline was in place to serve the OCS

in the Gulf of Mexico, the majority of that being offshore and operated by the

federal government (Table 2-17). Over 60 percent of the pipelines in the Gulf

of Mexico are actively moving oil from offshore platforms and vessels to onshore production facilities. Some OCS pipelines in development are for

transport only. For example, in 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission and MMS met with industrial representatives to discuss

preliminary plans for a 750-mile gas offshore pipeline from Sable Island,

Canada, to New York City.

At the end of 1998, OCS federal oil production stood at about 1.5 million

barrels of oil per day, primarily from the Gulf of Mexico (Table 2-18). Federal

sites off the California shore produced approximately 107,000 barrels per

day.48 Sites under MMS’s supervision produced over 5 trillion cubic feet of

natural gas.47

Gulf Of Mexico Oil Platforms 

Existing

Removed

Figure 2-15:

 Oil Platform Installations in the Gulf of Mexico's Outer Continental Shelf

In 2002, over 99 percent of the active offshore oil platforms were located in the Gulf of Mexico.
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 39

OCS oil production has increased by over 50 percent since 1995 (Figure 2-16).

The estimated 2002 federal OCS oil production rate was 627,687 million

barrels. The estimated 2001 federal OCS natural gas production was 5,104

billion cubic feet.50 Complete 2002 natural gas production data are not

available. Federal OCS oil and natural gas production represented

approximately 30 percent of total oil production in 2002 and 23 percent of

the total natural gas production.50, 51

Table 2-17:

Count and Mileage of OCS and State Pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico (2002 Status)

Approximately 62 percent of the pipelines are currently in operation.

* A/C are abandoned and combined pipelines. ABN are abandoned pipelines. ACT are active pipelines. CNCL are

cancelled permits. COMB are combined segments. O/C are out-of-service and combined segments. OUT are out-of service

pipelines. PABN pipelines have been approved for abandonment in place but not yet done. PREM pipelines have been

approved for abandonment by removal but not yet done. PROP pipelines are those that have been approved but not yet

installed and REM pipelines have been abandoned by removal.

Table 2-18: Federal and State Offshore Oil and Gas Production Rates, 1998

Approximately 90 percent of the offshore oil from federal leases is produced in the OCS off the coast of Louisiana.

* Data are for 1999 unless otherwise noted and reported in barrels (bbls).

** Natural gas production is typically reported in thousand cubic feet (Mcf).

Mileage 

Status*

Segments Total Offshore Federal Total 

State 

State 

Offshore 

State 

Onshore 

A/C 276 226 226 214 11 11 0 

ABN 2739 3856 3856 3722 133 133 0 

ACT 6421 22250 22205 21527 723 678 44 

CNCL 898 1923 1923 1889 33 33 0 

COMB 515 9 9 9 0 0 0 

O/C 24 118 118 115 2 2 0 

OUT 1844 2008 2008 1959 49 49 0 

PABN 738 869 869 853 16 16 0 

PREM 8 6 6 6 0 0 0 

PROP 707 3987 3978 3963 23 15 8 

REM 414 208 208 208 0 0 0 

TOTAL 14584 35464 35411 34469 994 941 52 

Crude Oil Production* Natural Gas Production**

State Federal 

(Millions of barrels) 

State 

(Millions of barrels) 

Federal 

(Millions of Mcf) 

State 

(Millions of Mcf) 

Alabama 0.0 0.0 1.8 213.8 

Alaska 0.0 28.3 0.0 239.1 

California 39.3 21.1 80.2 6.9 

Louisiana 490.5 10.1 5,116.2 (1998) 159.1 (1998) 

Texas 18.9 0.6 1,307.3 (1994) 49.0 

State Total 60.3 544.4 

Federal Total 535.6 5,136.4 
40 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that offshore natural gas production

will increase gradually from 5.3 trillion cubic feet to 5.7 trillion cubic feet

between 2001 and 2025. The market share for offshore natural gas,

however, is predicted to decline from 27 percent in 2001 to 21 percent in

2025.52 Offshore oil production (including the Gulf of Mexico and California)

is expected to increase to 2.6 million barrels a day in 2007 and then decline

to 2.2 million barrels a day by 2025. As shown in Table 2-19, one of the

reasons for the growth is the predicted increase in deep crude oil production

from 0.9 million barrels a day in 2001 to 1.9 million barrels a day in 2025

from sites in the Gulf of Mexico.52

Figure 2-16: Federal Offshore Production as a Percentage of U.S. Total

 (1954-1999)

Offshore oil and natural gas production rates as a percentage of total U.S. production have steadily

increased over the past 40 years and are expected to continue to rise.

Table 2-19: Predicted Crude Oil Production from the Gulf of Mexico

(millions of barrels per day)

Shallow-water oil well production is expected to decrease as resources diminish, while deep-water well

production is projected to increase as new deep-water technologies are developed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

Year

Percentage of U.S. Total

Natural Gas

Oil

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

Year

Percentage of U.S. Total

Natural Gas

Oil

Production 2001 2010 2020 2025 

Shallow 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 

Deep 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.9 

Total 1.6 2.4 2.1 2.1 
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 41

2.2.2 Transoceanic Cables

Submarine cables carry voice calls, data transfers, and Internet traffic across

large bodies of water, which account for roughly 90 percent of the

telecommunications traffic between the United States and points outside

North America.54 In addition to carrying data, submarine cables are also

used for scientific research, such as connecting an acoustic transmitter to the

shore. Cables can carry multiple data streams, and many cables are used for

both traditional data transfers and research purposes.

2.2.2.1 Current U.S. Submarine Cable Capabilities

As of 2002, the United States has 68 active submarine cable landings, as

illustrated in Table 2-20. The cable system is relatively young, with

approximately 50 cable networks serving the United States going into service

since 1990. These do not include cables used for research purposes, which

typically are retired from active service. Total investment in submarine cable

networks between 1986 and 1998 was $17 billion over an area of 400,000

route kilometers. Investment in undersea optical-cable networks rose from

less than $2 billion in 1998 to $6 billion in 2000.

The submarine cables are spread equally across the country's different

regions, with landings primarily in New Jersey, Florida, California, and

Hawaii.p

 As of 2002, there were four major cable ships registered in the

United States and another cable ship homeported in the United States. These

vessels are capable of both laying and repairing submarine cables, and have

a combined capacity of more than 25,000 tons.

p While most of the cables are international, some have multiple domestic landings.

* The data were submitted by companies to the North American Submarine Cable Association and may

not be comprehensive.

** Regions were pre-determined by the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC), a trade

organization representing owners/operators of submarine cables. Some overlap may exist within each

region. The information in the table was collected by ICPC and may not include cables that are owned/

operated by non-ICPC members.

Table 2-20: Submarine Cables by Region and Status*

In Service Planned Out-of-Service 

Region** Total 

Number 

Research 

Cables 

Distance 

(km) Number Distance (km) Number Distance (km) 

Atlantic 16 0 125,829 3 26,815 7 40,077 

Caribbean 15 2 49,548 0 0 11 19,378 

Eastern 

Pacific 

22 7 214,035 2 4,564 4 22,682 

Western 

Pacific 

15 5 163,344 1 2,064 1 4,567 

Total 68 14 552,756 6 33,443 23 86,704 

Many of the submarine cables have multiple landings. For example, one cable goes from California to Hawaii

to Guam to Japan to Oregon before returning to California.
42 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

2.2.2.2 Future Outlook for Transoceanic Cables

While the cable-building industry experienced a boom in cable construction in

the late 1990s, construction of new cables has essentially stopped. One

reason for this is that cable operators have a great deal of upgradeable

capability available to them at a relatively low cost.58 The current carrying

capacity is enough to handle the anticipated continued increase in the usage

of submarine cables until approximately 2006, when additional cables will

need to be constructed. Figure 2-17 illustrates the estimated increase of

submarine cable usage from 1999 to 2005 in the United States.

2.2.3 U.S. Commercial Fishing Industry

In 2000, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet consisted of approximately 20,000

commercial fishing vesselsq documented with the federal government, and

over 47,000 smaller fishing boats. Combined, there was a slight increase in

federally registered crafts when compared to 1999.59 In 2000 approximately

82,000 U.S. workers were employed with fish processors and wholesalers.60

The U.S. commercial fishing industry has been relatively stable over the last

decade. Since 1990, the peak fish landing was 4.7 million tons in 1994,

while the lowest total landing was 4.1 million tons of fish in 2000.60 Fish

landings refer to the number of fish commercially caught and brought

to shore.

2.2.3.1 Fish Landings

In 2001, 4.3 million metric tons of fish valued at $3.2 billion were

commercially landed in the United States. The 2001 amount represents an

q Commercial fishing vessels are defined as crafts greater than five net tons.

Figure 2-17: Submarine Cables Capacity Trends by Use

Submarine cable use between North America and Europe is expected to increase steadily over the next

few years, primarily as a result of increased information transfers.

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Pacific

Intra-Asia

U.S.-Latin America

Europe-Africa-Asia 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

3.0

3.5

2.0

2.5

Tera-bits per second

1.0

1.5

0.5
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 43

increase of 422.9 million pounds (5 percent) and a decrease in value of

$321.2 million (9 percent) compared with 2000 figures. Specifically:

• Finfish accounted for 87 percent of the total landings, but only 46 percent

of the value.r

• Pollock was the most prolific U.S. domestic species landed in 2001 at 3.2

million pounds, and the most valuable finfish landed at $237 million

(fourth overall among domestic fish).

• Shrimp was the most prolific U.S. domestic shellfish landed in 2001 at

324 thousand pounds (seventh overall among domestic fish), and the

most valuable fish landed overall at $568 million.59

Edible fish and shellfish landings in the 50 states totaled 6.9 billion pounds

(3.1 million metric tons) in 2000 — an increase of 80.0 million pounds (36.3

metric tons) compared with 1999. Landings for reduction and other

industrial purposes were 2.2 billion pounds (978,400 metric tons) in 2000

— a decrease of 14 percent compared with 1999.59 In 2001, commercial

fishermen brought 834.5 million pounds of fish into the port of Dutch HarborUnalaska in Alaska, almost double the catch of any other commercial fishery.

Between 2000 and 2001, Dutch Harbor-Unalaska's landings increased by

134.7 million pounds. New Bedford, Massachusetts, was the port that

landed the greatest value of commercial fish at $150.5 million, an increase of

$4 million from the 2000 landings. Dutch Harbor-Unalaska had the secondmost valuable commercial landings in 2001 at $129.4 million; this amount,

however, is primarily due to the large volume of fish landed at the port. In

contrast, New Bedford only landed 106.9 million pounds of fish (ninth among

U.S. ports in 2001), while landing $20 million more than Dutch-Unalaska

and double the value of the third port, Kodiak, Alaska.59

2.2.3.2 Fish Production

The estimated value of the 2000 domestic production of edible and nonedible fishery products was 7.2 billion, $95.2 million less than in 1999. The

value of edible products was 6.7 billion — an increase of $2.5 million

compared with 1999. The value of industrial products was 510.1 million in

2000; a decrease of $97.6 million compared with 1999.

2.2.3.3 Fish Imports and Exports

The total import value of commercial fish was $10.5 billion in 2000, an

increase over 1999 (Figure 2-18). The United States exported $3.1 billion in

fish in 2000, also an increase compared to 1999. The National Marine

Fisheries Service attributes the difference between imports and exports to the

fact that shipping expenses are included in the import value, but not the

export value.59

r Finfish include baitfish, catfish, salmon, striped bass, tilapia, and trout. Of those, catfish accounts for

approximately 80 percent of the total finfish aquaculture production. Shellfish category is composed of

clams, crawfish, mussels, oysters, and saltwater shrimp.
44 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Figure 2-18: U.S. Imports and Exports of Fish (1996-2000)

The United States imports more than twice the amount of fish it exports. This includes fish for

consumption and for industrial purposes.

2.2.3.4 Fish Consumption

U.S. consumption of fish and shellfish was 14.8 pounds of edible meat per

person in 2001, down 0.4 pound from 2000. Fresh and frozen finfish

accounted for 5.7 pounds, fresh and frozen shellfish accounted for 4.6

pounds, and canned fishery products consumption was 4.2 pounds per

capita in 2001. The United States ranked as the third largest consumer of

seafood in the world, based on the three-year average from 1997 to 1999.59

2.2.3.5 Fish Products

The value of processed fishery products, including canned fish products and

fish oil, was $7.3 billion in 2001, a decrease of $700 million compared to

2000. Of the 2001 total value, $6.8 billion, or 93 percent, was edible

processed fishery products, such as fish sticks and canned tuna. The

remaining $0.5 billion (7 percent) consists of industrial fishery products,

including bait and animal food.59

2.2.3.6 Aquaculture

The Department of Commerce defines aquaculture as the propagation and

rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or selected aquatic environments

for any commercial, recreational, or public purpose.61 There has been a slight

increase in aquaculture each year since 1995, although catfish farming

comprises approximately 80 percent of aquaculture production (Figure 2-

19).59 The U.S. Department of Agriculture anticipates increased domestic

aquaculture production in 2003.62 This is based on several factors, including

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

In Thousands of Dollars

Year

Imports Exports

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

In Thousands of Dollars

Year

Imports Exports
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 45

an anticipated higher demand for seafood products and little-to-no growth in

wild harvest seafood landings. According to the department, however, these

factors could increase the demand for imported seafood if domestic supply

cannot meet U.S. needs.

2.2.4 Marine Recreational Industries

The nation's coasts and Great Lakes offer many recreational activities,

including fishing, boating, and swimming. This section addresses some

recreational activities undertaken as a pastime. Unlike the other marine

commerce and transportation sectors addressed in this chapter, there are no

well-defined data sources for most recreational activities. The limited

information presented here is intended to provide a brief illustration and does

not encompass the realm of marine recreational activities.

2.2.4.1 Recreational Fishing

The National Marine Fisheries Service defines recreational fishing as any

fishing in marine waters that does not result in the sale or barter of all or part

of the fish harvested.63 Participation in recreational fishing has grown over the

past decade, reaching its highest level in 1999 (Figure 2-20).64 The National

Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of estimating the economic impact

of recreational fishing activity in the United States. Two rounds of surveys

measuring valuation and expenditure are being conducted to meet

these goals.65

Figure 2-19: Trends in U.S. Aquaculture Production

Finfish, specifically catfish, dominate U.S. aquaculture production.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Aquaculture Production 

(thousand pounds)

Year

Finfish Shellfish Miscellaneous

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Aquaculture Production 

(thousand pounds)

Year

Finfish Shellfish Miscellaneous
46 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Figure 2-20: Participation in Recreational Fishing in the United States

U.S. participation in recreational fishing activities has almost doubled since 1990.

2.2.4.2 Recreational Boating and Watercraft

The National Marine Manufacturers Association, a trade association that

represents producers of recreational boating products, provides data on

recreational boats, including usage and purchases.66 According to the

association, over 68 million people participated in recreational boating

activities in 2002, including sailing and water skiing, which resulted in

$29.2 billion in retail sales, including new and used boats, and

associated equipment.

The Association also reported that 79,300 personal watercraft were sold in

the United States in 2002, with an average price of $8,798, and estimates

that in 2002, 1,353,700 watercraft owned in the United States. Those

watercraft are generally defined as vessels that use inboard motors powering

water jet pumps as their primary source of power, and are designed to be

operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than

the conventional manner of sitting or standing in the vessel.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Participation Rate/Fish Landed

Year

Participation (in thousands)

Fish (in hundred thousands)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Participation Rate/Fish Landed

Year

Participation (in thousands)

Fish (in hundred thousands)
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 47

1. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2003. International Trade Administration Web

Page. U.S. Aggregate Foreign Trade Data. <http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/

otea/usfth/tabcon.html>. Accessed 22 March 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. 2003. Maritime

Administration Web Page. <http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics>.

Accessed 28 February 2003.

3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Navigational Data Center Publications and

U.S. Waterway Data CD. (Alexandria, Virginia).

4. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1999. Based on the National

Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, 1998. U.S.

Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

5. National Advisory Council - Marine Transport System. 2000. U.S. Economic Growth

and the Marine Transportation System. U.S. Government Printing Office

(Washington, D.C.).

6. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook 2000. U.S.

Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

7. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1999. An Assessment of the U.S. Marine

Transportation System — A Report to Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office

(Washington, D.C.).

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Waterborne Commerce of the United States.

U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. 1999. U.S. Foreign

Waterborne Transportation Statistics. U.S. Government Printing Office

 (Washington, D.C.).

10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Shipping Trends Analysis. U.S. Government

Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

11. United Nations. 2002. United Nations Population Division Web Page. World

Population Prospects 2002-Tables. <http://www.un.org/esa/population/

publications/wpp2002>. Accessed 27 February 2002.

12. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2002. Review of

Maritime Transport. (New York, New York).

13. American Association of Port Authorities. 2002. Seaports of the Americas 2002.

Compass North America Inc. (Coral Gables, Florida).

14. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2000. NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors: A

Report to Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. 2001. MARAD 2001.

U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

References
48 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

16. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1999. Maritime Trade & Transportation 1999.

U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.)

17. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2002. Intermodal Access to U.S. Ports: Report

on Survey Findings. U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.)

18. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002. Surface and Maritime Transportation:

Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge. U.S.

Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.)

19. U.S. Navy. 2003. Naval Vessel Register Web Page. <http://www.nvr.navy.mil>.

Accessed 7 March 2003.

20. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2003. Maritime Administration Web Page.

Ready Reserve Force Press Kit. <http://www.marad.dot.gov/offices/ship/PRESSGM2.htm>. Accessed 17 March 2003.

21. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2003. Maritime Administration Web Page.

National Defense Reserve Force Press Kit. <http://www.marad.dot.gov/offices/

ship/press-gm.htm>. Accessed 17 March 2003.

22. U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2001.

Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000. U.S. Government Printing Office

(Washington, D.C.).

23. U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

2000. National Ferry Database. (Cambridge, Massachusetts).

24. Cruise Line International Association. 2003. Cruise Line International Association

Web Page. <http://www.cruising.org>. Accessed 17 March 2003.

25. International Council of Cruise Lines. 2002. The Contribution of the North

American Cruise Industry to the U.S. Economy in 2001. Prepared by Business

Research & Economic Advisors. (Exton, Pennsylvania).

26. U.S. Army of Engineers, Institute of Water Research. 1999. The U.S. Cruise

Industry — Evaluation of National Economic Development Benefits. U.S.

Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

27. Fleet characteristics were derived from the following: Fairplay PC Ships Register.

April 1997. Fairplay. Fairplay Newbuildings. 21 August 1997. Fairplay;

International Guide to the Cruise Industry - 1998 Annual. 1998. Cruise Industry

News. (New York, New York).

28. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. U.S. Census Bureau

Web Page. <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def>. Accessed 28 March

2003.

29. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. 2001. Report on

Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities. U.S. Government Printing

Office (Washington, D.C.).

30. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. National Security Assessment of the U.S.

Shipbuilding and Repair Industry. U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington,

D.C.)
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 49

31. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. Communication

between R. Brill, Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, VA, and Maritime Administration,

Washington, DC. 15 April 2003.

32. Colton Company. 2003. Maritime Business Strategies Web Page. Shipbuilding

Statistics. <http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/statistics/yards.htm>.

Accessed 17 March 2003.

33. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. Public Law 103-160.

34. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Bureau of Labor

Statistics Web Page. <http://www.bls.gov>. Accessed 14 March 2003.

35. Shipbuilders Association of America. Prepared by LECG, LLC. 2002. The

Economic Contribution of the U.S. Commercial Shipping Industry. April 2002.

(Washington, D.C.).

36. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard Web Page. <http://www.uscg.mil>. Accessed 21 May 2003.

37. U.S. Navy. 2003. United States Naval Shipyards Web Page. <http://

www.shipyards.navy.mil>. Accessed 25 March 2003.

38. U.S. Navy. 2003. Norfolk Naval Shipyard Web Page. <http://

www.nnsy1.navy.mil>. Accessed 25 March 2003.

39. U.S. Navy. 2003. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Web Page. <http://

www.ports.navy.mil>. Accessed 25 March 2003.

40. U.S. Navy. 2003. Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance

Facility Web Page. <http://www.phnsy.navy.mil>. Accessed 25 March 2003.

41. U.S. Navy. 2003. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Web Page. <http://

www.psns.navy.mil>. Accessed 25 March 2003.

42. National Academy of Public Administration. 1999. Dredged Material

Management and State Coastal Management Programs: Lessons from a Workshop

in New Orleans, Louisiana. January 1999. NAPA Publications (Washington, D.C).

43. National Research Council, Committee on Marine Salvage Issues. 1994.

Reassessment of the Marine Salvage Posture of the United States. National

Academy Press. (Washington, D.C.).

44. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Web Page.

<http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/dredge.htm>. Accessed 17 March

2003.

45. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1997. Nautical Chart User's Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office

(Washington, D.C.).

46. Private Aids to Navigation. 2002 ed. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 33,

Part 66.01.
50 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

47. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Offshore Statistics.

<http://www.mms.gov/stats/FederalOffStats.htm>. Accessed 21 April 2003.

48. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2002. Offshore

Oil and Gas Facts. U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

49. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 1999. Fiscal Year

1996 and Fiscal Year 1997 Annual Report to Congress. U.S. Government Printing

Office (Washington, D.C.).

50. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2003. Minerals

Management Service Web Page. <http://www.mms.gov/stats/

OCSproduction.htm>. Accessed 17 March 2003.

51. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2003. Minerals

Management Service Web Page. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production. <http:/

/www.mms.gov/stats/FederalOffStats.htm>. Accessed 17 March 2003.

52. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2002. Annual

Energy Outlook 2003. U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.)

53. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2001. Offshore

Stats — Year End 2001. U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.)

54. Shorb, Paul. North American Submarine Cable Association. 2003. Testimony

before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 24 July 2003.

55. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. Final Report: Fair

Market Value Analysis for a Fiber Optic Cable Permit in National Marine

Sanctuaries. U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.)

56. International Gatekeepers Group. 2003. International Gatekeepers Group Web

Page. < http://www.igigroup.com/>. Accessed 27 May 2003.

57. International Cable Protection Committee. 2003. International Cable Protection

Committee Web Page. <http://www.iscpc.org>. Accessed 27 March 2003.

58. TeleGeography, Inc. 2003. TeleGeography, Inc. Web Page. <http://

www.telegeography.com/resources/statistics/bandwidth/sb02_atlant_pacif.html>.

Accessed 27 March 2003.

59. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service. 2002. Fisheries of the United States, 2001. U.S. Government Printing

Office (Washington, D.C.).

60. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service. 2000. Fisheries of the United States, 1999. U.S. Government Printing

Office (Washington, D.C.).

61. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2003. Aquaculture Policy Web Page. <http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade.DPCAQpolicy.htm>. Assessed 24 April 2003.

62. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Aquaculture Outlook. U.S. Government

Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).
Maritime Commerce and Transportation 51

63. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service. 1996. Economic Status of U.S. Fisheries, 1996. U.S. Government

Printing Office (Washington, D.C.).

64. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service. 2003. Communication between R. Brill, Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean,

VA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics

Division, 15 April 2003.

65. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service. 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service Web Page. <http://

www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/econ/survey_r.html>. Accessed 17 March 2003.

66. National Marine Manufacturers Association. 2003. National Marine

Manufacturers Association Web Page. <http://www.nmma.org/facts/>. Accessed

17 March 2003.
52 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 5 3

Ocean and coastal safety and protection encompass a wide range of

activities involving the use and preservation of natural resources,

responses to marine emergencies, and the protection of ocean and

coastal waters. These activities are both proactive, such as the

protection of living marine resources by enforcing endangered species

laws, and reactive, such as marine search and rescue. This chapter

presents four dimensions of ocean and coastal safety and protection:

• Natural Resource Management describes facilities that protect,

preserve, and enhance marine resources

• Navigation and Marine Safety describes facilities that ensure the

safe movement of vessels

• Maritime Security and Enforcement describes facilities used for

coastal defense and law enforcement

• Environmental Protection and Response describes facilities used to

respond to marine emergencies.

This chapter provides an inventory of the federal facilities and activities

involved in ocean and coastal safety and protection. The inventory

includes federal facilities that perform an active role in maintaining

and protecting ocean and coastal resources, and generally does not

attempt to describe federal oversight responsibilities. Some examples

Chapter 3

Natural Resource

Management

Navigation and

Marine Safety

Maritime Security

and Enforcement

Environmental

Protection and

Response
5 4 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

of state resources and facilities are included to illustrate typical state

capabilities.a This inventory is not intended to encompass the realm of

state or commercial marine facilities (selected commercial activities

are discussed in Chapter 2).

Several federal entities perform related tasks within each dimension of

ocean and coastal safety and protection. While the U.S. Coast Guard,

the U.S. Navy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) lead efforts, other federal organizations

address specific issues, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With many

government agencies involved and the wide range of activities under

ocean and coastal policies, interaction and cooperation among the

government entities are crucial. For example, while the U.S. Coast

Guard (USCG) is the lead agency for ocean environmental disasters, it

often receives direct support for cleanup activities from the U.S. Navy

and EPA, and indirect help through information assistance (e.g.,

weather patterns) from NOAA or other federal agencies. Some tasks,

such as dredging, are the sole purview of one federal entity, in this

case, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). An examination of

the federal role in ocean and coastal safety and protection provides

insight into how collaborative efforts among agencies can enhance

federal capabilities.

To capture and characterize federal capabilities regarding ocean and

coastal protection and safety, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

(the Commission) collected information from federal and state agencies

involved in related tasks. The information presented in this inventory is

a compilation of submissions to the Commission from primary federal

entities, supplemented by Internet research and testimony given before

the Commission. The inventory is not comprehensive; it serves as a

snapshot of the involvement of federal agencies in ocean policies and

provides a starting point for further discussion of their capabilities.

Several federal entities, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service,

did not provide the requested information. As a result, some parts of

this chapter are not comprehensive.

a Thirteen of the 35 coastal states contacted by the Commission submitted responses to a survey on ocean

and coastal facilities.
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 5 5

3.1 Natural Resource Management

Several federal agencies are charged with the protection and enhancement of

marine natural resources, including NOAA, EPA, and FWS. Natural

resources are characterized as living and non-living resources. Living marine

resources are fish, marine mammals, and their habitats. Non-living marine

resources, which may or may not be man-made, include coastal water and

air; oil, gas, and minerals located offshore; and historical and cultural

artifacts. These resources are typically naturally occurring, but include manmade items, such as sunken vessels. For example, certain man-made objects

are considered integral to resource management because they have been

incorporated into the ecosystem by living resources, such as coral and fish.

Natural resource management, particularly the management and protection of

living resources, lends itself to collaborative efforts, as federal laws have

established jurisdictional overlap. For example, some species of salmon live in

both coastal and inland waters, which fall under the jurisdiction of separate

agencies. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and FWS

frequently collaborate on issues involving the protection of marine life. EPA

also works collaboratively with other federal and state agencies to protect

sensitive coastal ecosystems, such as the Chesapeake Bay. Non-living

resources, however, are generally static; therefore, this segment of marine

resource management does not prompt the same collaborative efforts as

living resources, and federal agencies tend to work independently.

3.1.1 Living Marine Resources

Federal and state agencies preserve, protect, and enhance living marine

resources using a variety of facilities, including fish hatcheries and monitoring

vessels. Living marine resources include organisms that live directly in ocean

water (including estuaries) or the Great Lakes. This definition can include fish,

marine mammals, other forms of wildlife, and their habitats (e.g., coral reefs).

Federally protected species (i.e., endangered and threatened species) are

discussed separately because of the unique legal protections afforded them.

The following subsections summarize facilities that preserve and protect living

marine resources.

3.1.1.1 Fish, Marine Wildlife, and Habitats

NOAA is primarily responsible for federal activities to protect marine wildlife

and habitats, and many states have separate programs designed to preserve

and protect local marine environments. Almost all coastal states are involved

in collaborative efforts with the federal government under the national Coastal

Zone Management (CZM) program to design and implement local programs

to enhance marine environments.

Living marine

resources are fish,

marine mammals,

and their habitats.

Non-living marine

resources, which

may or may not be

man-made, include

coastal water and

air; oil, gas, and

minerals located

offshore; and

historical and

cultural artifacts.
5 6 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.1.1.1.1 Federal Resources

NOAA is primarily responsible for protecting all pinnipeds (e.g., seals and sea

lions, excluding walruses) and cetaceans (e.g., whales and dolphins) under

the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, and operates programs and

facilities for that purpose. This protection occurs regardless of population

status, including those marine species listed as threatened or endangered

under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS, also called NOAA Fisheries, has

management responsibility for over 1,050 stocks of invertebrates, fish, and

marine mammals. This includes 959 fish stocks, of which 295 have annual

landings greater than 200,000 pounds. Landings represent the amount of

fish caught over a specified time period. Of those 959 fish stocks, over 40

percent have no index of abundance, and for almost 60 percent of the fish

stocks, the level of available information is insufficient to determine whether

the stock is overfished. According to NOAA, there is also an information gap

regarding the status of over 200 marine mammal stocks, and the

identification and assessment of fish habitats.

NMFS maintains six regional offices (Table 3-1), six science centers, and

several laboratories and research facilities (research facilities are discussed in

Section 4.1). These facilities are engaged in monitoring programs addressing

every aspect of the marine ecosystem. NOAA Fisheries employs over

1,000 scientists, including biologists and engineers, to address fish and

wildlife concerns.

The conservation strategies for federally managed stocks of fish are contained

in 40 Fishery Management Plans created by 8 Regional Fishery Management

Councils (Table 3-2), 2 Fishery Management Plans created and managed by

NMFS, and numerous inter-jurisdictional Fishery Management Plans and

international agreements. Under the Endangered Species Act, NMFS is

responsible for more than 56 species listed as threatened or endangered.

Recovery plans have been prepared for 11 populations of sea turtles, 5

species of marine mammals, and 2 species of fish, for a total of 18 of 25

non-Pacific salmon species listed as endangered or threatened under the

Endangered Species Act. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, three

take-reduction plans have been prepared for 11 stocks of marine mammals

in 12 fisheries. Of the six depleted stocks of marine mammals, one

conservation plan has been developed for northern fur seals, and one is under

development for bottlenose dolphins.1
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 5 7

Table 3-1: National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Offices

* The formation of the Pacific Islands Regional Office was announced April 2003. Central and Western Pacific

were formerly under the jurisdiction of the Southwest Regional Office.

Table 3-2: Fishery Management Councils

* NMFS does not have a specific Great Lakes Regional Fishery Management Council. The Council of Great Lakes Fisheries Agencies is a

joint effort between the United States and Canada to coordinate fisheries research, control the invasive sea lamprey, and facilitate cooperative fishery management among the state, provincial, tribal, and federal management agencies. NOAA is a member of the council.

Regional Office Location Jurisdiction 

Alaska Alaska Alaska 

Northeast Massachusetts Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia 

Northwest Washington Oregon and Washington, and the inland states of Idaho 

and Montana 

Southeast Florida North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, 

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas; the inland 

states of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Tennessee; the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

Southwest California California 

Pacific Islands* Hawaii Central and Western Pacific, including Hawaii and 

American Samoa 

Fishery Council Location Jurisdiction 

New England Massachusetts Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut 

Mid-Atlantic Delaware New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and 

North Carolina (North Carolina is 

on both the Mid-Atlantic and 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils) 

South Atlantic South Carolina North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and 

East coast of Florida 

Gulf of Mexico Florida West coast of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, Texas 

North Pacific Alaska Alaska 

Pacific Fishery Oregon Washington, Oregon and California 

Western Pacific Hawaii U.S. Pacific Islands 

Caribbean Puerto Rico Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands 

Council of Great 

Lakes Fisheries 

Agencies*

Michigan Great Lakes 
5 8 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.1.1.1.2 State Facilities

Many coastal states operate fish hatcheries or maintain vessels used to

protect and preserve fish and other marine wildlife. The fish hatcheries are

used to stock coastal waters, the Great Lakes, local lakes, and rivers. This

inventory does not include a comprehensive survey of state facilities involved

with living marine resources. An example of state facilities and capabilities

used in the protection of marine wildlife, specifically facilities that result in

greater marine stocks, is presented below to illustrate this category.

The State of Michigan, through the Michigan Department of Natural

Resources, operates six fish hatcheries with a production capability of nearly

one million pounds annually (Table 3-3). The goal of Michigan’s fish

production program is to hatch, rear, and transport fish required for the

management of both Great Lakes and inland fisheries.2

3.1.1.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Program

The Coastal Zone Management Act, enacted in 1972 and reauthorized most

recently in 1996, created the CZM program. The program encourages

voluntary partnerships between federal and state agencies in the development

of land- and water-use programs for coastal areas, and is administered by

NOAA. Currently 34 of the 35 coastal states and territories have approved

CZM programs. Indiana’s CZM program was the most recent to be

approved. Illinois is the only coastal state not participating in the CZM

program (Figure 3-1).3

The Coastal Zone

Management Act

encourages

partnerships

between federal

and state agencies

in the development

of land- and wateruse programs for

coastal areas.

Hatchery Year Opened Production Staff* 

Harrietta 1901 Brown and rainbow trout 6-14 

Marquette 1922 Lake and brook trout, splake 8-10 

Oden 1921 (original) 

2002 (new) 

Brown and rainbow trout 8-10 

Thompson 1922 Atlantic salmon, brown and 

rainbow trout, steelhead trout, 

Chinook salmon 

5-8 

Platte River 1928 Chinook and coho salmon 10 

Wolf Lake 1927 Steelhead trout, Chinook 

salmon, lake sturgeon, walleye, 

northern pike, channel catfish, 

northern muskellunge 

11-13 

* Some personnel staff multiple facilities, which is not reflected in the staffing quantities. There is also

some seasonal variation.

An examination of Michigan’s fish hatcheries provides an example of the aging capabilities of state facilities.

Table 3-3: Michigan Fish Hatcheries
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 5 9

Figure 3-1: States Involved in the National Coastal Zone Management Program

Almost every coastal state participates in the federal government’s Coastal Zone Management program.

Alaska Hawaii Samoa

State/Territorial CZM Programs 

Approved

Not Participating

Guam Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico and

US Virgin Islands

Also under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Coastal Zone

Enhancement program provides incentives for states to make improvements in

any of nine areas of national significance. State and local agencies can apply

for grants from NOAA for projects to support approved enhancements in the

nine areas:

• Wetlands protection and restoration

• Coastal hazards and protection from coastal hazards

• Control of cumulative and secondary impacts of development

• Public access to the coast

• Special-area management planning

• Management of coastal resources

• Reduction in marine debris

• Federal government and energy facility siting

• Facilitating siting and permitting of aquaculture facilities.

NOAA’s Coastal Programs Division in the Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management administers the coastal programs at the federal level.
6 0 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Tampa

Miami

Blaine

Laredo

Newark

Boston

Seattle

Houston

El Paso

Buffalo

Chicago

Atlanta

Nogales

Dunsieth

Portland

New York

St. Paul 

Baltimore

San Diego 

Brownsville

Great Falls

New Orleans 

Los Angeles

San Fransisco 

Denver (Golden)

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Detroit (Ann Arbor) 

Anchorage

Honolulu

Agana Border, Special, and Other Staffed Ports

Designated Ports 

Alaska Hawaii Guam

3.1.1.2 Endangered Species

FWS and NMFS have shared jurisdiction over endangered species. NMFS

has jurisdiction over most marine wildlife, while FWS has jurisdiction over the

remaining plants and animals, as well as walruses, polar bears, sea otters,

and manatees. There is often overlap between marine and freshwater wildlife,

which requires NMFS and FWS to work closely together. For example, the two

agencies have collaborated to protect Atlantic salmon populations.

FWS operates an Office of Law Enforcement that works to prevent illegal

shipment of wildlife. When fully staffed, the office includes 252 special agents

and 93 wildlife inspectors. The Office of Law Enforcement’s fiscal year 2001

(FY2001) caseload included 4,291 endangered species and 146 marine

mammal protection investigations. This force staffed 13 designated ports of

entry and 17 border, nondesignated, and special ports (Figure 3-2), and

reviewed 116,535 declared shipments of wildlife and wildlife products worth

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains enforcement offices near most of the major coastal ports of entry.

Figure 3-2: Office of Law Enforcement-Staffed Ports of Entry and Other Locations
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 6 1

$1.488 billion.b The 3 busiest ports of entryc for the wildlife trade were New

York/Newark (28,662 shipments entered or left the country), Los Angeles

(18,960 shipments), and Miami (8,159 shipments).4

Under NMFS’s jurisdiction, there are currently 19 domestic endangered

species, 12 domestic threatened species (including 1 plant species), and

8 international species listed as endangered or threatened under the

Endangered Species Act. As required under the Endangered Species Act,

NMFS has released recovery plans for most of the species that have been

added to the threatened and endangered species list. NMFS also maintains

an Office of Law Enforcement to enforce the Endangered Species Act, Marine

Mammal Protection Act, and other laws and regulations within its jurisdiction.

NMFS’s Office of Law Enforcement has over 200 personnel, including 150

special agents and 7 enforcement officers. There are currently five Office of

Law Enforcement divisions, located in five of the NMFS regional offices (the

Pacific Island Islands Regional Office, which NOAA recently created, does not

currently have an Office of Law Enforcement).1

3.1.2 Non-living Marine Resources

Non-living marine resources include any ecological or man-made resources

or objects located in coastal waters or the Great Lakes. This section describes

facilities for monitoring water and air quality; managing offshore oil, gas, and

minerals; and protecting historical or cultural artifacts that are located in

coastal waters.

3.1.2.1 Marine Water and Air Quality

Several federal networks are currently in place to monitor water and air quality

in the oceans and Great Lakes. The data are used for several purposes,

including marine weather forecasting, research, and disaster prediction. Some

states are also engaged in marine water and air quality monitoring, although

these efforts are on a much smaller scale.

3.1.2.1.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA collects, monitors, and analyzes scientific data to provide information

about coastal resource conditions, issues and problems. NOAA operates

several ocean-observing arrays that collect data on climate, weather, air

quality, and ocean areas. Various NOAA regional offices administer these

observing systems (ocean-observing systems are discussed in Section 4.6).

NOAA is also responsible for operating the U.S. polar-orbiting operational

and geostationary environmental satellites that support NOAA missions (Table

3-4).5 Polar-orbiting operational environmental satellites (POES) collect and

disseminate data on Earth’s weather, atmosphere, oceans, land, and nearspace environment. The POES system is supported by NOAA, the U.S.

b While FWS enforcement does include work in coastal areas, the figures presented are nationwide and

not coastal-specific.

c A port of entry is any location (e.g., shipping port, airport) where an individual or cargo can enter the

United States.
6 2 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA). Geostationary operational environmental satellites

(GOES) operate in a geosynchronous orbit, which means that they remain

stationary over the same point on the Earth’s surface.6

NOAA has begun updating its satellite system. In 1998, NOAA and NASA

awarded a contract for up to four weather-monitoring GOES satellites. A

joint program between NOAA, NASA, and DoD, designed to merge the

nation’s military and civil operational meteorological satellite systems into a

single, national system, is developing the National Polar-orbiting Operational

Environmental Satellite System. The first of these satellites is expected to be

available for launch in approximately 2008, depending on when the

remaining POES and Defense Meteorological Satellite program satellite assets

are exhausted.

3.1.2.1.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA maintains numerous facilities designed to monitor and protect water

quality. While many of these facilities focus on noncoastal waters, EPA

maintains three program offices that encourage collaboration with states and

other stakeholders on marine water projects through grants or direct

partnerships. These program offices are located near the Great Lakes, the

Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico.

The Great Lakes National Program Office in Chicago monitors Great Lakes

ecosystem indicators and manages associated data. The office provides

grants to local organizations to support habitat protection and restoration

programs. In FY2002, the office received approximately $15.5 million and

had a staff of 46 federal employees.

NOAA’s 2 primary ocean observing satellite systems are less than 20 years old.

Table 3-4: POES and GOES Systems Information

EPA maintains three

program offices

that encourage

collaboration with

states and other

stakeholders on

marine water

projects through

grants or direct

partnerships.

Satellite Status Year Launched 

POES 

NOAA-11 Stand-by 1988 

NOAA-12 Stand-by 1991 

NOAA-14 Stand-by 1994 

NOAA-15 Stand-by 1998 

NOAA-16 Primary 2000 

NOAA-17 Primary 2002 

GOES 

GOES-8 Stand-by Not Available 

GOES-9 Partially operational 

(provided to Japan) 

Not Available 

GOES-10 Primary 1997 

GOES-11 Storage Not Available 

GOES-12 Primary Not Available 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 6 3

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a regional partnership among Maryland,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay

Commission, EPA, and participating advisory groups. EPA’s Chesapeake Bay

Program Office in Annapolis, Maryland, coordinates, staffs and provides

technical assistance to the partnership’s efforts. The 68-person office consists

of 18 EPA staff, 14 representatives from five other federal agencies, and

36 grantees providing various types of technical and staffing support to the

restoration effort. The Chesapeake office also has 7 full- and part-time staff

in EPA’s Region 3 Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In FY2002, the

Chesapeake office received approximately $21 million in funding.

The Gulf of Mexico Program Office comprises a consortium of organizations

and is located at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The office works

with the five Gulf states, Gulf coastal communities, and others to provide

direct technical and financial assistance to implement projects. In FY2002,

the Gulf office received approximately $4 million in funding and had a staff of

13 federal employees.

3.1.2.1.3 U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy’s Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) is the U.S.

Navy’s center for ocean observation and prediction, including the analysis

and distribution of real-time oceanographic and riverine data. The Navy’s

Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center, NAVOCEANO’s

sister command, provides DoD with atmospheric forecasting.

NAVOCEANO also maintains ocean current measurement systems, consisting

of single-point and acoustic profiling instruments. These instruments can be

deployed to full ocean depth in either taut-line or bottom-mounted

configurations. The Environmental Acoustic Recording System is an

autonomous, battery-powered, full-ocean-depth capable, acoustic buoy

system for recording omni-directional ocean acoustic ambient noise. Both

shallow-water and deep-water configurations are supported. The buoys are

also used for marine-mammal monitoring in cooperation with Minerals

Management Service and NMFS studies. The buoys are designed to have an

operating life of two years.

3.1.2.1.4 U.S. Geological Survey

USGS, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior, maintains more than

335,000 water quality monitoring sites, many of which are in estuarine

waters. USGS also operates three coastal and marine geology program field

centers that conduct scientific research along U.S. coastlines by collecting

data and monitoring conditions about geologic hazards, environmental

conditions, habitats, geologic processes, and energy and mineral resources.

Over 300 people are employed in the geology program field centers. Limited

information was available concerning USGS and its facilities.
6 4 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.1.2.1.5 State Facilities

Several states operate water quality monitoring systems in coastal waters. The

State of Washington, for example, has maintained four SBE-16 temperature

and conductivity meters in Willapa Bay, Washington, since 1997. These

moorings were installed under an EPA grant, and are presently operated

under a NOAA grant. Non-moored monitoring instrumentation used

routinely off platforms (ships/seaplane) include two SBE-25 CTD (conductivity,

temperature, depth) recorders that monitor such parameters as temperature,

salinity, and pH (ocean-observing systems are discussed in Section 4.6).5

3.1.2.2 Offshore Oil, Gas and Minerals

The Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) is the lead

authority for offshore oil, gas, and mineral exploration. MMS oversees more

than 4,000 leases for private facilities located on the Outer Continental Shelf.

MMS has almost 900 staff, including over 350 scientists and engineers.

Approximately 535 of the 900 personnel are located in the Gulf of Mexico

region, which produces the greatest amount of offshore oil and gas in the

United States (commercial offshore activity is discussed in Section 2.4).

To support exploration, MMS is constructing a permanent observation station

to study gas hydrate mounds and active gaseous hydrocarbon vents in the

Gulf of Mexico, through the Center for Marine Resources and Environmental

Technology at the University of Mississippi. The purpose of the station is to

study the relationships between these features and episodes of sediment

instability that pose a threat to the petroleum industry’s infrastructure and

safety of operations. The monitoring station is expected to become

operational by late 2004. To date, approximately $1.7 million has been spent

on the project, including $30,000 from the Naval Research Lab. The

Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Lab is also providing

funds for the work. An additional $800,000 for the center was included in the

MMS appropriations for FY2002.

3.1.2.3 Historic and Cultural Resources

The U. S. National Park Service, under the Department of the Interior,

investigates shipwrecks and documents their locations and condition. This

includes assessing underwater cultural resources in the park system;

developing plans for management, preservation, and recreational use of

submerged cultural resources; and developing GIS-based,d

 integrated cultural

and natural resource data to be used for survey, inventory and evaluation.

Limited information was available concerning the National Park

Service’s facilities.6

The U.S. Navy maintains an Underwater Archaeology Branch under the Naval

Historical Center that advises on matters related to historic preservation of

Navy ship and aircraft wrecks.

d Geographic Information System.
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 6 5

3.2 Navigation and Marine Safety

Navigation and marine safety addresses the facilities and tools the federal

government uses to enable vessels to travel safely and easily. This includes

aids-to-navigation, and information and distress response systems.

Navigation and marine safety can be segmented into two types of activities:

preventative actions and active response. Preventative actions are those

undertaken to ensure the safe movement of marine traffic and incident

avoidance. This includes installation and maintenance of aids-to-navigation,

nautical charting and surveying, vessel inspection, and marine forecasting.

Active responses are taken after an event has occurred, such as search-andrescue efforts. This distinction is made to aid analysis and is not intended to

be a clear-cut delineation of tasks.

3.2.1 Dredging and Waterways Maintenance

Several federal and state government agencies are involved in dredging and

waterways maintenance of ports, coastal waters, rivers, and other bodies of

water to enable vessel traffic and prevent environmental degradation.

Dredging uses scooping or suction devices to deepen harbors and waterways

(commercial marine dredging is discussed in Section 3.2.3). USACE is the

only federal entity that is frequently and directly involved in dredging.

Waterways maintenance is defined as actions that enable water traffic to

move normally (e.g., icebreaking).

3.2.1.1 Dredging

Dredging to deepen water bodies is necessary to allow large cargo vessels to

enter ports and harbors. Private companies under contract to USACE

undertake most dredging operations. USACE does maintain a small fleet of

12 major dredging vessels that undertake some of the dredging operations

each year (Table 3-5).8 The USACE vessel with the largest capacity is the

WHEELER, which can move almost 11.5 million cubic meters.

3.2.1.2 Icebreaking

Icebreaking is the destruction and movement of ice away from frequently

traveled routes to permit marine vessels to move safely and efficiently. Both

USCG and the U.S. Navy maintain icebreaking programs. USCG is engaged

in icebreaking for commercial and research purposes, while the U.S. Navy

performs the task for military reasons.

3.2.1.2.1 U.S. Coast Guard Icebreaking

In addition to conducting domestic and commercial icebreaking operations,

USCG is responsible for some international icebreaking missions in the Arctic

and Antarctic. To meet operational needs, USCG owns and operates

13 icebreaking vessels: 4 icebreaking cutters (class WAGB) and 9 icebreaking

tugs (class WTGB) (Table 3-6). USCG classifies any vessel under 65 feet in

length as a boat and any vessel 65 feet or over as a cutter. Three of the

cutters are used for icebreaking and supporting logistic and research needs in

the Arctic and Antarctic. The fourth icebreaking cutter operates exclusively in

USACE is the only

federal entity that is

frequently

and directly

involved in dredging.
6 6 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

the Great Lakes. The cutters are specifically designed for open-water

icebreaking and have reinforced hulls, special icebreaking bows, and a system

that allows rapid shifting of ballast to increase the effectiveness of their

icebreaking.9 The smaller icebreaking tugs are used exclusively for domestic

icebreaking operations and use a low-pressure-air hull lubrication or bubbler

system that forces air and water between the hull and ice. USCG, as a

member of the International Ice Patrol, also monitors icebergs that enter

international shipping lanes. In addition, 175-foot (14 vessels) and 225-foot

(16 vessels) buoy tenders can support icebreaking missions.

Table 3-6: USCG Icebreaking Vessel Characteristics

The U.S. Coast Guard’s large icebreaking vessels also conduct large research operations in Arctic and Antarctic waters.

* Visual Landings Only.

Table 3-5: USACE Major Dredging Vessels

Even though USACE maintains a fleet of dredging vessels, much of the work is contracted to private companies.

* WHEELER was placed in ready reserve on January 10, 1997, and MCFARLAND was scheduled to be overhauled between

2001 to 2003 and then placed in reserve.

Flight Deck 

Equipped* Cruising Range 

Class Length 

(feet) 

Max. Crew 

Size 

# in 

Class 

HH60 HH65 

Max 

Speed 

(knots) Distance 

(nautical miles) 

Speed 

(knots) 

WAGB 290 

MACKINAW 290 107 1 No No 18.7 41,000 11.5 

WAGB 399 

POLAR class 399 154 USCG 30 Science 2 Yes Yes 18 28,000 13.0 

WAGB 420 

HEALY 420 75 USCG 50 Science 1 Yes Yes 17 Not Available 12.5 

WTGB 140 140 17 9 No No 14.7 4,000 12.0 

Annual 

Capacity (m3) Homeport Operating Area 

Hopper dredges:* 

ESSAYONS 5,390,430 Portland, Oregon Pacific Coast 

HURLEY 6,116,800 Memphis, Tennessee Inland rivers 

JADWIN 1,433,625 Vicksburg, Mississippi Inland rivers 

MCFARLAND 3,173,090 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania In reserve 

POTTER 5,398,993 St. Louis, Missouri Inland rivers 

WHEELER 11,469,000 New Orleans, Louisiana In reserve 

YAQUINA 715,665 Portland, Oregon Pacific Coast 

Sidecaster dredges: 

FRY 188,856 Wilmington, North Carolina Atlantic Coast inlets 

MERRITT 304,310 Wilmington, North Carolina Atlantic Coast inlets 

SCHWEIZER 473,287 Wilmington, North Carolina Atlantic Coast inlets 

Pipeline dredge: 

THOMPSON 755,316 Saint Paul, Minnesota Inland rivers 

Special-purpose dredge: 

CURRITUCK 584,537 Wilmington, North Carolina Atlantic Coast inlets 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 6 7

USCG operates two 399-foot POLAR-class icebreakers (POLAR Star and

POLAR Sea) and the 420-foot USCG cutter HEALY for use in the Arctic and

Antarctica. The POLAR-class cutters were commissioned in the 1970s. The

USCG cutter HEALY, commissioned in 1999, is USCG’s longest icebreaking

vessel. The HEALY is capable of operating with 50 percent of the crew

capacity of the older POLAR-class icebreakers and can accommodate

60 percent more research personnel. All three international cutters are

homeported in Seattle, Washington (the research capabilities of icebreakers

are discussed in Section 4.2).10

The USCG cutter MACKINAW, a 290-foot vessel commissioned in 1944 and

based in the Great Lakes, was designed and configured to keep shipping

lanes open through as much of the winter as possible. In FY1999, Congress

funded the construction of a replacement for the MACKINAW (WAGB 30).

The new vessel will be able to operate 185 days a year, break 32-inch layered

ice, and will be configured for use as an aids-to-navigation tender when not

needed for icebreaking. The new vessel will operate with a crew of 50.11

USCG maintains eight 140-foot BAY-class cutters that are used for domestic

icebreaking duties.4 The BAY-class vessels are stationed mainly in the

northeastern United States and Great Lakes. Two of the BAY-class vessels, the

cutters BRISTOL BAY and MOBILE BAY, are augmented by 120-foot aid-tonavigation barges that are specifically designed for maintaining buoys. Both

are homeported on the Great Lakes (Table 3-6).11

The United States, through USCG, and 18 other contributing governments

participate in the International Ice Patrol, which monitors iceberg danger in

the Atlantic Ocean. The International Ice Patrol usually focuses on the

shipping lanes between Europe and North America. Reconnaissance flights

are used to collect information concerning ice conditions and are augmented

by information provided by ships in the area. Ships are requested to report

the position and time of all ice sightings and make sea surface temperature

and weather reports to the International Ice Patrol Operations Center in

Groton, Connecticut.12

Fixed-wing USCG aircraft, primarily the Hercules HC-130, conduct Ice Patrol

reconnaissance flights. The usual patrol time for these long-range, multiengine planes is between 5 and 7 hours, with each flight covering

approximately 30,000 square miles of water. Ice reconnaissance flights are

made on the average of five days every other week during the ice season. The

Ice Patrol began using HU-25B Falcons for reconnaissance flights in 1987.

The Falcons, which have a shorter patrol range than the HC-130, are

periodically used at the beginning and end of the ice season when much of

the ice has melted and the reconnaissance flights are shorter.

3.2.1.2.2 U.S. Navy Icebreaking

The U.S. Navy, through the Naval Ice Center, processes available remote

sensing data in support of its ice analysis and forecast mission. The Naval Ice

Center, the defense contingent of the joint NOAA and U.S. Navy’s National
6 8 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Ice Center, uses a specialized sea ice mapping system with geographic

information system (GIS) capabilities.

The National Ice Center also manages the U.S. Inter-Agency Arctic Buoy

Program (USIABP), which coordinates the efforts of several U.S. government

agencies to support the International Arctic Buoy Programme. International

partners include Russia, Canada, Norway, Germany, and Japan. The

program’s goal is to maintain an adequate array of buoys across the Arctic to

provide a basis for research. The National Ice Center employs 68 people

(including contractors) from the U.S. Navy, NOAA, and other federal

agencies, including 27 physical and research scientists.

Thirty-six operational buoys, 13 of which were provided by the USIABP,

populate the array, which collects data on air temperature, surface pressure,

and ice drift. Buoys transmit data over the ARGOS satellite communication

system to be collected and quality controlled by the Polar Science Center for

use by the research community. USIABP data are also available in near-real

time over the Global Telecommunication System for use in operational

modeling and forecasting. The USIABP is supported by NASA, the

International Arctic Research Center, the National Science Foundation,

USCG, the U.S. Navy, and NOAA. The annual operating costs for the USIABP

are approximately $230,000, exclusive of buoy deployment costs.

3.2.2 Aids-to-Navigation and Navigation Systems

USCG is designated as the lead federal agency for lights and buoys, which

are termed aids-to-navigation (AtoN). There are two general types of AtoN:

short-range aids-to-navigation and radio aids-to-navigation. Short-range

AtoN can be buoys; beacons; lights; lighthouses; ranges; sound signals, such

as foghorns or bells; or radar-reflecting devices that mark navigable channels

and hazards. Radio AtoN consist of three operating radio-navigation

systems: LORAN-C, Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS), and

radiobeacons. USCG operates AtoN teams and vessels that are trained and

designed specifically for AtoN maintenance. DoD operates and maintains

Global Positioning System (GPS) facilities, which provide navigational and

timing assistance for civil, commercial, scientific, and military users.

3.2.2.1 Short-Range Aids-to-Navigation

USCG maintains approximately 50,000 AtoN serving the United States and

its territories, including 35,000 aids along the coastline. This does not

include the approximately 50,000 private AtoN. USCG has 215 operating

facilities engaged in supporting the short-range AtoN mission. Beacons and

buoys are the most common AtoN. Beacons are any permanent AtoN

structures, including lighthouses and small, single-pile structures, and are

located on land or in the water. Lighted beacons are called lights and

unlighted beacons are called daybeacons. Buoys are floating aids that are

moored to the seabed. The shape, color, and other characteristics of the buoy

provide nautical information to vessels, such as potential obstructions.
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 6 9

A private AtoN is a buoy, light or daybeacon owned and maintained by any

non-USCG entity. These aids allow individuals or organizations to mark

privately owned marine obstructions or other hazards to navigation. USACE is

also responsible for regulating private AtoN (discussed in Section 2.1).

3.2.2.2 Radio Aids-to-Navigation

USCG operates the Navigation Center (NAVCEN) in Alexandria, Virginia, and

two other stations in Petaluma, California, and Kodiak, Alaska. NAVCEN is

responsible for providing Long-Range Radio Navigation (LORAN), DGPS, and

Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS) services, mainly within the continental United

States and portions of Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S territories. NAVCEN manages

the NDGPS program in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration

and other agencies to provide accurate navigation signals.

LORAN-C is a network of 24 manned stations that allow users equipped with

appropriate receivers to determine their geographic position to within 0.25

nautical miles and to return to a previously recorded LORAN-C position with a

repeatable accuracy between 60 and 300 feet. The maritime DGPS assists

maritime vessels, including commercial traffic, by providing navigational

accuracy. NDGPS is a planned nationwide expansion of the maritime DGPS

capabilities that will be used to assist other modes of transportation, such as

trains, by providing location information.

NAVCEN controls and manages USCG’s LORAN and DGPS radio-navigation

systems from its three stations. NAVCEN also operates the 24-hour

Navigation Information System, which provides information for LORAN-C,

GPS, DGPS, and NDGPS in the form of Maritime Safety Broadcasts and

Local Notices to Mariners. NAVCEN coordinates and manages the Civil GPS

Service Interface Committee, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s

efforts to meet the needs of civil GPS users and integrate into

civil-sector applications.

3.2.2.2.1 LORAN-C Transmitting Stations

USCG’s 24 manned LORAN-C stations are part of the nation’s LORAN-C

radio-navigation system. The stations are linked together to create

11 chains (Figure 3-3). The system is supported by the USCG LORAN

Support Unit in Wildwood, New Jersey, and the USCG Engineering Logistics

Center in Baltimore, Maryland. The LORAN-C radio-navigation system

provides navigation, location, and timing services for air, land, and marine

users. The system serves the 48 contiguous states and coasts, and portions

of Alaska.

In 1999, USCG announced a $110 million recapitalization and

modernization plan for the LORAN-C system for continued operation from

2000 to 2008 (an additional $12.5 million was slated for project staffing).

That plan provides for the replacement of numerous aging components of the

LORAN-C system, including transmitters, timing and control equipment, and

several antenna towers. It also funds improvements to the physical plants at a

number of the transmitting stations.
7 0 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.2.2.2.2 Global Positioning Systems

USCG operates and maintains 55 DGPS and 25 NDGPS sites at locations

throughout the United States, including some noncoastal areas.13 The U.S.

Department of Transportation is sponsoring the NDGPS, which will expand

coverage throughout the continental United States to meet the positioning and

navigation needs of the other types of surface transportation. USCG plans to

bring five additional NDGPS sites on-line by December 2003. The mission of

the Maritime DGPS Service and NDGPS is to provide mariners with a reliable

and accurate positioning and navigation augmentation to the GPS. The

Maritime DGPS Service provides navigational accuracy within 10 meters

(95 percent), with availability for coastal regions of the United States out to

20 nautical miles.

LORAN-C Site

LORAN-C Chain 

Alaska, Russia and Japan

Master

Other Site

Canadian East Coast - GRI 5930

Great Lakes - GRI 8970

Gulf of Alaska - GRI 7960

Newfoundland East Coast - GRI 7270

North Central U.S. - GRI 8290

North Pacific - GRI 9990

Northeast U.S. - GRI 9960

Russian American - GRI 5980

South Central U.S. - GRI 9610

Southeast U.S. - GRI 7980

U.S. West - GRI 9940

Figure 3-3: LORAN-C Chains

Most of the LORAN-C sites are parts of multiple chains. For example, the site in northern Maine is part of the Canadian East Coast and

the Northeast U.S. chains.
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 7 1

Eleven of the Maritime DGPS sites incorporate NOAA’s GPS Surface

Observing Systems (GSOS) for measuring weather data and precipitable

water vapor measurements for forecasting. In addition, all sites have

integrated NOAA’s Continuously Operated Reference Station equipment for

precise positioning and surveys. The full GPS signal is archived and made

publicly available via the Internet for post-processing GPS applications.

3.2.2.3 Aids-to-Navigation Teams

USCG operates 59 Aids-to-Navigation Teams. These teams have primary

responsibility for approximately 60 percent of all coastal aids-to-navigation,

and discrepancy response for nearly 80 percent of coastal aids. They operate

boats and provide personnel to place, service, and remove AtoN in protected

and semi-protected waterways. The teams also contribute to the maintenance

of a 99.7 percent overall aid availability throughout the entire short-range

AtoN system to assist with waterway navigation.

3.2.2.4 Aids-to-Navigation Vessels

USCG maintains and operates several cutters in coastal and deep waters to

maintain aids-to-navigation (Table 3-7). Currently there are 30 such vessels

in USCG’s fleet.14

3.2.2.4.1 180-Foot and 225-Foot WLBs

Buoy tenders maintain, maneuver, and position AtoN. These vessels typically

have a crane and a buoy deck lower than the main deck of the vessel

designed to accommodate AtoN. Additional missions may include maritime

law enforcement, search and rescue, and military readiness. The WLB-class

vessels have good towing capabilities, can lift up to 20 tons, and have been

used to recover small aircraft and capsized vessels. The next-generation WLB,

the 225-foot WLB, is being phased in to replace the 180-foot WLB and has

similar search-and-rescue capabilities. Both WLBs are ice-capable to

approximately 18 inches for search-and-rescue in ice-covered waters.

The U.S. Department

of Transportation is

sponsoring the

Nationwide Differential

Global Positioning

System, which will

expand coverage

throughout the

continental United

States to meet the

positioning and

navigation needs of

other types of surface

transportation.

Class Vessel Size 

(feet) 

Crew 

Size 

Number 

In Service 

Commissioned 

WLB 

225 

Seagoing Buoy Tender 

JUNIPER Class 

225 40 11 

(16 total planned) 

1997-Present 

WLB 

180 

Seagoing Buoy Tender 

BALSAM Class 

180 53 5 1942-1944 

WLM 

175 

Coastal Buoy Tender 

KEEPER Class 

175 14 1996-2000 

Table 3-7: U.S. Coast Guard Buoy Tenders

The U.S. Coast Guard is replacing the 180-foot WLBs with the 225-foot WLB. The U.S. buoy tender fleet will then be less than seven

years old.
7 2 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.2.2.4.2 175-Foot WLMs

The 175-foot WLM-class of cutter has a 3-day unreplenished endurance, a

maximum transit speed of 12 knots, and exceptional station-keeping abilities.

WLMs are equipped with firefighting and dewatering equipment, have a

10-ton lift capacity, and are able to transport additional fuel, water and

cargo. The 175-foot WLM can operate at 3 knots in 9 inches of frozen ice or

3 feet of brash ice (floating ice made up of ice fragments from other forms).

3.2.2.5 Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System

The Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS) is a navigation system

program under NOAA’s National Ocean Service. This system integrates realtime environmental observations, forecasts and other geospatial information

to improve maritime safety. PORTS measures and disseminates observations

and predictions of water levels, currents, salinity, and many meteorological

parameters (e.g., winds, atmospheric pressure, visibility).15

The objectives of the PORTS program are to promote navigation safety,

improve the efficiency of U.S. ports and harbors, and ensure the protection of

coastal marine resources. PORTS real-time monitoring also provides an

understanding of ecosystem processes by measuring the effects of

oceanographic changes, coastal habitats, productivity, and coastal ecosystem

health. PORTS operates in 10 locations in the United States (Table 3-8).

3.2.2.6 Vessel Traffic Services

USCG operates vessel traffic services in 10 key ports, including New York/

New Jersey, New Orleans, and Los Angeles/Long Beach. The service system 

at each port consists of a Vessel Traffic Center that receives vessel movement

data from the Automatic Identification System, surveillance sensors, directly

from vessels, and other sources. The compiled information is then provided to

other operators through relevant advisories and notifications to prevent

collisions, groundings, maritime casualties, and environmental damage.

Table 3-8: PORTS System Stations

PORTS system stations are generally located in high-activity areas, including both commercial and

recreational traffic.

Location Number of Sites 

San Francisco Bay 8 

Tampa Bay 5 

Soo Locks 2 

New York/New Jersey Harbor 7 

Chesapeake Bay 12 

Los Angeles/Long Beach 9 

Port of Anchorage 2 

Houston/Galveston 6 

Narragansett Bay 6 

Delaware River and Bay 11 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 7 3

3.2.2.7 Global Positioning System Capabilities

The GPS was designed primarily to support military navigational needs. The

system, however, is now used to support land, sea, and airborne navigation,

surveying, geophysical exploration, mapping and geodesy, vehicle location

systems, and a wide variety of additional applications for the civil, commercial,

scientific, and military sectors. GPS is managed by the Interagency GPS

Executive Board, which is a policy-making body chaired jointly by the

departments of Defense and Transportation. Its membership includes the

departments of State, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, and Justice, as well as

NASA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.16

The basic GPS is a constellation of satellites, navigation payloads that produce

the GPS signals, ground stations, data links, and associated command-andcontrol facilities. Operated and maintained by DoD, the current GPS

constellation consists of 29 Block II/IIA/IIR satellites, which were launched in

1989. There are two basic services: the Standard Positioning Service and the

Precise Positioning Service. The standard service is a free positioning and

timing service available to all GPS users, while the precise service is used for

more accurate military positioning, velocity and timing services.

3.2.3 Nautical Charting and Surveying

Nautical charting and surveying are necessary for marine vessels to operate

safely and efficiently. They involve data collection, primarily through research

vessels that gather physical data concerning the marine environment. The

study of physical features of bodies of water for the purpose of developing

nautical charts is called hydrography.

Two federal agencies develop nautical charts. NOAA is the lead agency for

the development of nautical charts for public use, while the U.S. Navy

develops nautical charts for military purposes. The development of nautical

charts includes surveying the ocean floor.

3.2.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA, through the Office of Coast Survey, is responsible for compiling and

maintaining the national suite of nautical charts.17 This office collects and

evaluates marine hydrographic data, such as depth soundings, for the

construction and maintenance of over 1,000 nautical charts and other

related marine products to satisfy the nautical charting requirements for both

commercial and recreational users. NOAA conducts hydrographic surveys

and operates data centers that manage nautical information.

NOAA, through the National Geodetic Survey, is developing the National

Spatial Reference System to provide a reference base for position, height,

distance, direction, and gravity values, and how these values change with

time. According to NOAA, this information is essential in ensuring the

reliability of multiple systems and programs, including transportation,

communication, and defense systems; land records; mapping and charting;

NOAA is the lead

agency for the

development of

nautical charts for

public use, while the

U.S. Navy develops

nautical charts for

military purposes.
7 4 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

public utilities; coastal zone management; and natural resource mapping.

The National Geodetic Survey also conducts a coastal mapping program that

includes surveying the U.S. coastline and determining precise positions of the

shoreline and other features in order to produce navigational charts.17

NOAA maintains a fleet of vessels to conduct hydrographic surveys. The

hydrographic data are generated from soundings and are used to develop

nautical charts. NOAA’s fleet includes five vessels that support this mission

(Table 3-9).18, 19

NOAA also maintains a fleet of 13 aircraft (11 fixed-wing and 2 rotary

planes) based in Tampa, Florida, which are often used for shoreline surveys

(NOAA’s aircraft fleet is discussed in Section 4.4).

3.2.3.2 U.S. Navy

NAVOCEANO conducts hydrographic surveys to measure and describe the

physical features of the ocean.20 The data are provided to DoD’s National

Imagery and Mapping Agency for producing nautical charts. Military surveys

are not the same as marine scientific research surveys. The United States

considers military surveys to be activities undertaken in the ocean and coastal

waters, involving unclassified and classified marine data collection for military

purposes. While equipment used for data collection during military surveys is

similar to that used in marine scientific research, information from military

surveys, regardless of security classification, is not available for general

use by the scientific community. The data are only used to support

military operations.

NAVOCEANO maintains a fleet of eight survey ships that collect

oceanographic, geophysical and hydrographic data in, on, and above all of

the oceans. Two classes of survey ships, T-AGS 51 and T-AGS 60, collect

military survey data. The two 208-foot T-AGS 51 Coastal Hydrographic

Survey ships collect deep-water hydrographic data using hull-mounted and

towed sonars. Each ship carries two 34-foot hydrographic survey launches

that collect bottom soundings in shallow water. The mission of the T-AGS 51

class ships is to survey the ocean floor and collect hydrographic data

necessary to chart coastlines that are not adequately charted for support of

wartime missions.

Table 3-9: NOAA Fleet Nautical Charting Vessel Characteristics

The LITTLEHALES, which was transferred in 2003 from the Navy’s Military Sealift Command, replaced the

WHITING, which was decommissioned.

Ship Hull 

No. 

Length 

in Feet 

Beam in 

Feet 

Draft in 

Feet 

Displacement 

Tons 

FAIRWEATHER S220 231 42 14.3 1,800 

RAINIER S221 231 42 14.3 1,800 

LITTLEHALES S3xx 208 42 14.0 2,238 

WHITING S329 163 33 12.2 907 

RUDE S590 90 22 7.2 220 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 7 5

The 329-foot T-AGS 60 class ships provide multipurpose military survey

capabilities in coastal and deep-ocean areas, including physical, chemical,

and biological oceanography; ocean engineering and marine acoustics;

marine geology and geophysics; and bathymetric surveying. T-AGS 60 class

ships may also have hydrographic survey launches.

U.S. Navy aircraft are also used to collect oceanographic and acoustic data

during exercises and airborne military surveys. The U.S. Navy maintains

airborne laser instrumentation that allows for hydrographic mapping via laser

profiling. The laser instrumentation is a joint capability with the U.S. Army and

NOAA as part of a center of expertise in airborne laser identification detection

and ranging hydrography. NAVOCEANO also maintains several unmanned

vessels that are used in ocean surveying (NAVOCEANO research capabilities

are discussed in Section 4.7).

Navigation systems aboard NAVOCEANO survey platforms use sensors and

receivers to provide precise position, velocity, time, and attitude data. Position

information is used to georeference environmental data sets and to merge

multiple data sets. Timing and attitude data are used to correct for the effects

of vessel motion on multi-beam and single-beam sonar systems during

survey operations.

These systems rely on the use of the satellite-based GPS. Wide-area

differential, geodetic, and kinematic corrections are applied to provide

mission-specific position accuracy that range from less than 10 centimeters to

10 meters. These position systems are integrated with ring laser

gyrocompasses, inertial measurement units, vertical displacement sensors,

time code generators, and various communication data links. The

combination of the positioning systems and these devices form complete

integrated navigation systems that support ship operations. The annual

operating cost for NAVOCEANO’s navigation systems and aids is estimated

to be $180,000, which includes satellite coverage area fees and

equipment maintenance.

There are almost 900 personnel, including 588 scientist and engineers,

employed at NAVOCEANO. NAVOCEANO expects that the workforce will

remain stable for the next few years and then increase.

3.2.4 Marine Forecasting

Marine forecasting is the collection and analysis of data for the purpose of

predicting weather. The data collected can include water temperature and

depth, salinity, or current (a complete inventory is discussed in Section 4.10).

NOAA’s National Weather Service alone employs over 200 oceanographers,

meteorologists, and physical scientists to support ocean and coastal

programs for marine forecasting. NOAA maintains several offices and major

marine observing systems to support marine forecasting activities. The major

observing systems are:
7 6 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

• National Weather Service’s Marine Observation Network, which

comprises moored buoys and Coastal Marine Automated Network

(C-MAN) stations, the Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of

Tsunamis (DART) Project buoy array, and the Voluntary Observing

Ship program

• National Ocean Service’s National Water-Level Observation Network

(NWLON) and PORTS

• Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research’s Tropical Atmospheric

Ocean (TAO) buoy array

• Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research’s drifting buoy program.

3.2.4.1 Marine Observation Network

The Marine Observation Network is a collection of several networks of buoys,

data stations, and vessels that gather information to assist in predicting

weather patterns. The systems, operated by the National Weather Service,

include moored buoys, Coastal Marine Automated Network stations, DeepOcean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis buoy array, and the Voluntary

Observing Ship program.

3.2.4.1.1 Moored Buoys

The National Data Buoy Center operates moored buoys that are deployed in

the coastal and offshore waters from the western Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean

around Hawaii, and from the Bering Sea to the South Pacific. They are

designed to measure and transmit ecological and oceanographic data, such

as barometric pressure, wind direction, air and sea temperature, and wave

energy. The Buoy Center’s fleet of moored buoys includes 3-meter, 10-meter,

and 12-meter discus hulls; and 6-meter boat-shaped (NOMAD) hulls

(Table 3-10). The choice of hull type used usually depends on the deployment

location and measurement requirements. As of September 2001, 80 moored

buoys were operating in coastal waters with depths from 13 to over

5,000 meters.21

3.2.4.1.2 Coastal Marine Automated Network

The Coastal Marine Automated Network, or C-MAN, is a series of data

recording stations that monitor baseline measurements, such as wind speed,

direction, and air temperature. At various stations within the network, the

configuration is augmented to satisfy other specific requirements, such as

enhanced meteorological and oceanographic capabilities.

There are 56 operational C-MAN stations  49 of which are sponsored by

the National Weather Service. Seven C-MAN stations are either fully or

partially supported by organizations other than the National Weather Service,

such as NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric and Oceanic Research and the U.S.

Department of Transportation. C-MAN stations have been installed on

lighthouses, at capes and beaches, on near-shore islands, and on offshore

platforms. All 56 C-MAN stations are displayed in Figure 3-4.22
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 7 7

3.2.4.1.3 Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis

The Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis Project is an

ongoing effort to maintain and improve capabilities for the early detection and

real-time reporting of tsunamis in the open ocean in the Pacific. The program

maintains a six-buoy operational array completed in 2001. The standard

Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis surface buoy provides

real-time data to the National Data Buoy Center and has a current design life

of one year. Each buoy has a corresponding anchored seafloor bottom

pressure recorder that has a life of two years. 23

3.2.4.1.4 Voluntary Observing Ship Program

The U.S. Voluntary Observing Ship program’s mission is to obtain weather and

oceanographic observations from moving commercial ships. As of 1994, the

Voluntary Observing Ship program had 49 countries participating, with the

United States contributing over 1,600 of the approximately 7,200

participating vessels. At its peak, 7,700 vessels were participating in the

program (1984-1985). Observations are taken by deck officers and

transmitted in real time to the National Weather Service. These observations

assist with marine weather forecasts in both coastal and high seas areas. As

might be expected, real-time reports from the Voluntary Observing Ship

Program are heavily concentrated along the major shipping routes, primarily

in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans.24

Table 3-10: NOAA Moored Buoys

The type of buoy used is based on anticipated ocean conditions.

Buoy Number Description/Capabilities

Discus 59 (total) • Circular hulls 

• Designed in three sizes: 12-meter, 10-meter, and 3-meter 

12-meter 1 • Steel-hulled 

• Sturdier than 10-meter discus buoy 

• More costly to maintain 

• Generally must be towed to appropriate location 

10-meter 6 • Steel-hulled 

• Has been known to capsize in certain environmental conditions 

• Overall motion of the buoy is more dynamic than that of the 12-meter buoy 

• Generally must be towed to location 

3-meter 48 • Aluminum-hulled 

• More cost-effective than 12- and 10-meter buoys 

• Does not offer long-term survivability that larger discus hulls provide 

• Can be easily carried on a flat-bed trailer 

• Less likely to corrode than 12- and 10-meter buoys 

NOMAD 25 • Aluminum-hulled, boat-shaped buoy 

• Relatively cost-effective 

• High long-term survivability in severe seas 

• Highly directional with a quick rotational response 

• Size allows for transport via flat-bed trailer, rail, or ship 

• Less likely to corrode than 12- and 10-meter buoys 
7 8 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.2.4.2 National Water-Level Observation Network

The National Water-Level Observation Network consists of approximately

175 water-level measurement stations distributed along U.S. coasts, the Great

Lakes and connecting channels, and U.S. territories and possessions. There

are 140 stations that have been in operation for at least 19 years that are still

in continuous operation and transmit data in near-real time. The National

Water-Level Observation Network is currently being upgraded to a fully

integrated, state-of-the-art electronic data collection, processing, and

dissemination system called the Next Generation Water-Level Measurement

System. More than 75 percent of the National Water-Level Observation

Network stations have been upgraded to Next Generation Water-Level

Measurement System.25

3.2.4.3 Tropical Atmospheric Ocean Buoy Array

The TAO buoy array (renamed the TAO/TRITON array in 2000) consists of

approximately 70 moorings in the tropical Pacific Ocean. NOAA and the

Japan Marine Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC) jointly operate and

maintain the moorings of the array. The data are managed and distributed as

a unified data set. NOAA manages the Autonomous Temperature Line

Acquisition System (ATLAS) moorings in the array (located between the U.S.

coast and 165 degrees East), and JAMSTEC maintains the Triangle

The majority of the C-MAN stations are located in the eastern half of the United States.

South Pacific and Micronesia

Alaska

C-MAN Stations

The National WaterLevel Observation

Network is currently

being upgraded

to be called the

Next Generation

Water-Level

Measurement System.

Figure 3-4: C-MAN Stations
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 7 9

Trans-Ocean buoy network (TRITON) moorings (located between the coast of

Japan and 165 degrees East). France, through the Institut de Recherche

pour le Developpement, also participates in the project.26

The array sends oceanographic and meteorological data in real time via

satellite. The NOAA ship KA’IMIMOANA (Ocean Seeker), a 224-foot former

U.S. Navy ship commissioned into the NOAA fleet in 1996, is specifically

designed for and dedicated to maintaining the TAO buoy array in the tropical

Pacific Ocean.

TRITON is a series of buoys that measure surface meteorology and gather

upper ocean characteristics, such as salinity. The buoys are deployed in

collaboration with other countries in and around the Pacific Ocean as part of

international climate research programs, specifically to study how warm water

in the equatorial part of the ocean impacts world climate change. JAMSTEC

is scheduled to deploy 18 buoys in the tropical Pacific and 2 buoys in the

north Pacific.

3.2.4.4 Drifting Buoy Program

The National Data Buoy Center deploys drifting buoys to measure

atmospheric pressure, air and sea temperature, wind speed, and wind

direction. The buoys are expendable systems launched from ships or aircraft

into specific ocean areas. As the buoy relays information to NOAA through

various satellites, the buoy’s position is identified to determine drift. Since the

mid-1980s, over 330 drifting buoys have been deployed in support of the

Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere Research Program, and most have

operated for 12 to 18 months. Drifting buoys have been used by both

domestic and international organizations for a variety of scientific programs,

including the departments of Commerce, Interior, and Defense.27

3.2.5 Vessel Inspection and Registration

USCG administers navigation and vessel inspection laws, rules, and

regulations governing marine safety. By law, vessel inspections are required

periodically for certification and can occur between required inspections. The

purpose of the vessel inspection is to examine the vessel’s equipment and

operating practices.28 Additionally, vessels are required to be registered for

licensing, enforcement, and financial reasons.

3.2.5.1 Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team

USCG maintains the nine-person Container Inspection Training and

Assistance Team (CITAT), located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to provide

container inspection assistance to USCG units implementing the national

container inspection program. This inspection program was created to

prevent the improper shipping of hazardous materials in intermodal

transportation, since intermodal freight containers can be used by several

modes of transportation from shipment origin to destination. Inspections

conducted under the program are intended to be dedicated hazardous
8 0 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

materials inspections that target cargoes and not facilities. CITAT promotes

the standardization of inspection procedures by providing deployable on-site

training packages to USCG units involved in container inspection, assisting

Marine Safety Offices, and coordinating joint inspections with federal, state

and local agencies.

3.2.5.2 National Documentation Centers

USCG also maintains two centers for vessel documentation. The National

Vessel Documentation Center in Falling Waters, West Virginia, provides a

registry of vessels that are available in time of national emergencies or war.

The National Maritime Center in Arlington, Virginia, is responsible for the

coordination and oversight of mariner licensing and document activities and

services. The National Maritime Center maintains central records for nearly

200,000 active merchant mariners and administers merchant mariner

personnel programs for documentation, examination administration, course

approvals, licensing, and compliance with international standards.

3.2.6 Search-and-Rescue

Under the National Search and Rescue Plan, USCG is the lead agency for

maintaining and operating search-and-rescue facilities to respond in

international waters and waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Other federal

agencies are also involved in marine search-and-rescue. For example, DoD

maintains facilities and resources to support defense-related operations,

NOAA provides nautical charts and marine forecasts, and NASA maintains

aircraft and communication networks that can assist in search-andrescue operations.

USCG facilities, vessels, and aircraft serve a multitude of missions, but searchand-rescue capabilities are consistently a priority. Any operational vessel or

aircraft in the USCG fleet can be used for search-and-rescue, including

icebreaking and AtoN vessels. The information provided here is limited to

those facilities and vessels that are primarily designated for search-andrescue missions.

3.2.6.1 U. S. Coast Guard Groups and Bases

USCG maintains 39 Groups and Bases under 9 District offices that provide

command, control, communications, and other support to stations, aids-tonavigation teams, patrol boats, and tenant commands.e Areas of emphasis

for each group vary, depending on local threats, environment (e.g., coastline,

weather, water temperature), type of commercial waterways users, and other

factors. Groups and Bases have equipment unique to the mission and area

of emphasis, including unique piers, boat ramps, docks, seawalls, boat lifts,

and aircraft maintenance equipment, such as washdown racks, hangars, and

ramps (for Groups with co-located air stations).

e A tenant command is a command located on a installation or facility with a different mission.

For example, a U.S. Coast Guard station located on an Air Force base.
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 8 1

3.2.6.2 Multi-Mission Stations

USCG maintains 186 multi-mission stations that operate boats and provide

personnel to conduct a variety of operations, including search-and-rescue,

law enforcement, and marine environmental protection missions. These

stations are primarily located in coastal towns and, like the USCG Groups,

each station’s areas of emphasis vary depending on local conditions. Stations

usually possess equipment and facilities that support the areas of emphasis

for the station, such as including piers, boat ramps, docks, seawalls, and boat

lifts to support operations. Multi-mission stations also house 52-foot and

47-foot motor lifeboats and 41-foot utility boats.

3.2.6.3 U.S. Coast Guard Marine Vessels

As previously stated, USCG classifies its vessels by hull length into two

categories: boats and cutters. Any vessel under 65 feet is classified as a boat,

while any vessel 65 feet or longer is a cutter. Boats are typically multi-mission

vessels that operate in coastal and inland waters, and are not intended to

operate independently for long periods of time. Cutters are typically deepwater vessels with a large range of mission capabilities (cutters are discussed

in Section 3.3.1).

3.2.6.3.1 U.S. Coast Guard Boats

There are two types of USCG boats: standard and nonstandard. Standard

boats are designed for search-and-rescue missions, although each has

different characteristics reflecting its area of operation (e.g., surf waters,

coastal waters). Nonstandard boats are often designed primarily for other

missions, such as cable boats, although they have search-and-rescue

capabilities.

USCG’s standard multi-mission boats are designed to perform search-andrescue missions in adverse weather and sea conditions (Table 3-11). Each

boat has different design capabilities; some are designed for search-andrescue operations in adverse conditions, while others are designed for speed.

There are 410 nonstandard boats in 11 different categories in service

throughout the United States, although not all categories are represented

USCG-wide. These platforms represent 42 percent of the entire USCG boat

inventory. Some perform a variety of missions, while others are used

exclusively in specialized missions (e.g., cable servicing boats, ferries, ice

rescue skiffs). Nonstandard boats are capable of carrying out search-andrescue missions.

3.2.6.3.2 U.S. Coast Guard Tugboats

USCG tugboats are often used for search-and-rescue, particularly for towing

or firefighting. They also serve as primary assets for assistance to vessels in

distress due to ice conditions. Because they are slow and have poor seakeeping ability in adverse weather, they operate primarily in protected waters.
8 2 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Table 3-11: Operational Characteristics of Select USCG Boats

The 65-foot harbor tugs normally operate only in protected waters in seas less

than 6 feet. They can tow vessels up to 300 tons, break ice up to 12 inches,

and have either a 3- or 4-meter rigid-hull inflatable boat. The tug’s

endurance is 2 days without replenishment and maximum speed is

10 knots.14

3.2.6.4 U.S. Coast Guard Aircraft

USCG operates 25 air stations of various sizes, depending on the geographic

location and the size of the station’s coverage area. Air stations provide

mission-capable aircraft and aircrews to USCG and other government

agencies in support of search-and-rescue, maritime law enforcement,

maritime homeland security, marine environmental protection, logistics,

military readiness, and enforcement of U.S. laws and treaties. Typically, both

large and small air stations perform search-and-rescue and law enforcement

missions. Larger air stations may receive heavy tasking across all

USCG missions.

* Maximum operational range is adversely affected by long tows.

Class 

Maximum 

Operational 

Range 

Surf / Bar 

Conditions 

Towing 

Capabilities 

Max. 

Wind 

(knots) 

Additional Information 

30-Foot Surf 

Rescue Boat 

Less than 10 

nautical miles 

offshore 

Up to 10 ft 

Up to 40 ft 

(towing not 

recommended) 

40 

• Designed for surf and bar operations 

• Fast response boats 

• Alternative, not a primary resource 

• Used to arrive on scene quickly and 

stabilize situation 

41-Foot 

Utility Boat 

Less than 10 

nautical miles 

offshore or 30 

nautical miles 

with 

operational 

LORAN-C or 

GPS, 

moderate 

conditions 

No surf 

Up to 8 ft seas 

Up to 100 

gross tons 30 

• Considered to be the general workhorse of 

multi-mission unit 

• Designed to operate under moderate weather 

and sea conditions 

• Operation is not permitted in breaking surf or 

bar conditions 

• 168 boats in service 

• Vessels will be replaced beginning 

in FY2004 

44-Foot 

Motor Life 

Boat (MLB) 

Up to 50 

nautical miles 

offshore 

Up to 20 ft Up to 125 

gross tons 50 

• Designed to perform in adverse sea and 

weather conditions 

• Considered standard heavy weather and surf 

rescue response platform. 

• Capable of self-righting and 

self-bailing within 30 seconds 

of capsizing 

• Nearing the end of useful service life 

• Being replaced by the 47-foot MLB 

47-Foot MLB 

Up to 50 

nautical miles 

offshore 

Up to 20 ft Up to 150 

gross tons 50 

• Replacing the 44-foot MLB 

• Can withstand maximum seas of 30 feet, 20 

feet of surf, 50-knot winds 

• Self-righting capabilities 

• USCG also operates four 52-foot MLBs in the 

Pacific Northwest 

*
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 8 3

USCG’s fleet of aircraft is designed to provide support for all missions,

including search-and-rescue operations. Aircraft extend USCG’s range of

presence, detection, and interdiction capabilities. The fleet is divided into

fixed-wing aircraft (Table 3-12) and helicopters (Table 3-13). USCG

maintains approximately 70 fixed-wing aircraft, and all but 2 are multimission aircraft that are used for a variety of USCG missions. The

remaining two are logistical aircraft that do not have the capabilities of the

larger aircraft.14

Currently, USCG maintains 146 helicopters. Most of these helicopters are

multi-mission, and can be used for search-and-rescue, marine enforcement,

or other USCG tasks. A few of the helicopters are designed explicitly for

marine enforcement tasks.

3.2.6.5 U.S. Coast Guard Search-and-Rescue Systems

USCG maintains two systems to assist with search-and-rescue operations: the

Atlantic Merchant Vessel Emergency Reporting (AMVER) System and the

National Distress Response System. AMVER allows the USCG to identify and

divert merchant ships near an area of distress. The National Distress

Response System is a communications system used primarily by recreational

and commercial vessels that USCG monitors.

3.2.6.5.1 Atlantic Merchant Vessel Emergency Reporting System

The AMVER system is a voluntary, computer-based global ship-reporting

system used to arrange for assistance during search-and-rescue missions.

With AMVER, rescue coordinators can identify participating merchant ships in

the area of distress and divert the best-suited ship or ships to respond.

Approximately 12,000 ships from over 140 nations participate in AMVER. In

2002, an average of 2,760 vessels actively participated in the AMVER system

each day, and the AMVER Center computer tracked over 100,000

voyages annually.13

3.2.6.5.2 National Distress Response System

The National Distress Response System is a communications system that

provides very high frequency-frequency modulation (VHF-FM) coverage in

coastal areas and navigable waterways where there is commercial or

recreational vessel traffic. The system was built to provide USCG with a

means to monitor the international VHF-FM distress frequency (channel 16),

coordinate search-and-rescue response operations, and communicate with

commercial and recreational vessels.14

USCG maintains two

systems to assist with

search-and-rescue

operations: the

Atlantic Merchant

Vessel Emergency

Reporting System and

the National Distress

Response System.
8 4 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Table 3-12: USCG Fixed-Wing Aircraft Characteristics

The HC-130H is the primary aircraft used by the U.S. Coast Guard in International Ice Patrol missions.

* Only 17 of the 41 HU-25s are operational.

Table 3-13: USCG Helicopter Characteristics

All U.S. Coast Guard helicopters can be used for search-and-rescue missions.

Speed (knots) Class # in 

Class Max. Cruise 

Range 

(NM) Additional Information 

HH-60J 

Jayhawk 42 180 125 700 

• Twin-engine, all-weather medium-range recovery, 

multi-mission helicopter 

• Operates up to 300 NM offshore 

• Can fly at 120 knots for 5 1/2 hours 

• Can be carried aboard 270-foot medium endurance cutters 

• Can be fitted for night vision 

• Equipped with a rescue hoist rated for 600 pounds and a 

heavy lift external cargo hook capable of lifting 6000 lbs 

HH-65B 

Dolphin 96 165 130 300 

• Twin-engine turboshaft, short-range recovery, multi-mission 

capable helicopter 

• Can operate up to 120 NM offshore 

• Can fly at 120 knots for 2 1/2 hours 

• Can be deployed aboard polar, medium- and highendurance cutters 

• Certified for operation in all weather nighttime operations, 

with the exception of icing 

• Only USCG aircraft routinely deployed aboard cutters and ships 

MH-68A 8 168 137 363 

• Twin-engine, short-range interdiction, single-mission leased helicopter 

• Supports counter-drug operations 

• Primarily a shipboard deployed asset operating within 70-90 NM 

of the vessel 

• Can fly at 120 knots for two hours 

• Can be carried on board 210 and 270-foot medium-endurance 

cutters, and 378-foot high-endurance cutters 

• All-weather helicopter 

• Can be fitted for night vision 

• Equipped with a rescue hoist rated for 600 pounds 

Speed (knots) Class # in 

Class Max. Cruise 

Range (NM) Additional Information 

HC-130H 

Hercules 27 310 250 4,000 

• USCG’s Long Range Search (LRS), 4-engine turboprop, multi-mission 

maritime patrol aircraft 

• Two series of “H” model C-130s; 1500s and 1700s 

• Equipped with APS-137 sea-search radar 

• 1500 series are also equipped with Side-Looking 

Airborne Radar (SLAR) 

• Has the longest range and endurance capabilities of all USCG aircraft 

• Certified for all-weather operations 

• Going through extensive sensor upgrades 

HU-25 

Guardian 

or Falcon* 41 350-380 250 1000-1500 

• Medium-range search (MRS) fixed-wing, twin turbofan jet, multi-mission 

maritime patrol aircraft 

• Conducts maritime patrols, air intercepts, and in-flight delivery of 

emergency rescue equipment to vessels and personnel 

• Enlarged search window on both sides of the aircraft and a drop hatch 

in the forward floor 

• Fastest operational air asset in the USCG inventory 

• Certified for flight under all weather conditions, except for severe air 

turbulence and icing conditions 

• Has standard complement of deployable SAR equipment: gas-powered 

de-watering pump, a self-inflating life raft, a radio, a data marker buoy, 

smoke flares, and small message blocks 

VC-4A 1 250 1500 • Serves primarily as a logistics aircraft supporting Seventh USCG 

District operations 

VC-20A 1 450 3500 

• Only dedicated command-and-control support aircraft in the 

USCG inventory 

• Certified for flight under all weather conditions, with the exception of 

severe air turbulence and severe icing conditions 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 8 5

The system is a network of approximately 300 antenna high-sitesf with VHFFM analog transceivers that are remotely controlled by regional

communication centers and selected stations. The network provides coverage

extending out to approximately 20 nautical miles from shore in most areas.

The system provides continuous monitoring of channel 16 and the use of

additional maritime channels for USCG-to-public communications and

USCG-to-USCG command-and-control communications.

3.2.6.5.3 Rescue 21

USCG is currently implementing Rescue 21, a modernization program for the

National Distress Response System. Rescue 21 will update the existing

communications system, add new equipment, and eliminate coverage

gaps. The project, which began in the mid-1990s, will increase USCG’s

ability to:

• Coordinate search-and-rescue response operations

• Communicate with commercial and recreational vessels 

• Provide command and control for Coast Guard units (active, auxiliary,

and reserve) that perform maritime missions.

Deployment is scheduled to begin in FY2003 and conclude in FY2006. The

system will provide coverage out to 20 nautical miles seaward off the U.S.

coastline, and the Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and Gulf of

Alaska coastal zones. Coverage will also include the Great Lakes, navigable

waters of the U.S. Intracoastal Waterway System, and the western rivers.

3.2.6.6 Communications Stations

USCG provides internal and external communications through a pair of

Communications Area Master Stations in Chesapeake, Virginia, and Point

Reyes, California (Table 3-14). These Master Stations support operations at

five Communications Stations that provide communications support and

services to USCG Operational Commanders, other government agencies,

and the maritime community.

f High-sites are towers located at higher elevations, such as hills and mountains.
8 6 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Table 3-14: USCG Communications Station Assets

The U.S. Coast Guard maintains seven communications stations, each with transmitters and antennas, to

manage both internal and external communications.

* Point Reyes is currently in the third year of a five-year project to replace the majority of antennas at the

transmitter site. Upon completion, the site will have 10 physical (20 electrical) omni-directional antennas and

one Rotatable Log Periodic antenna.

3.3 Maritime Security and Enforcement

Maritime security and enforcement denote defense and law enforcement

activities that occur in coastal and marine waters. This includes drug activity,

illegal immigration, and hostile actions. Maritime security and enforcement

are separated into two segments in this inventory: coastal patrol and defense,

and ports and harbor patrol. This separation is used because different

conditions in each area require different equipment.

While USCG has command responsibilities for the U.S. Maritime Defense

Zone, which includes U.S. coasts, ports, and inland waterways, several

agencies conduct operations in coastal waters or have a role in maritime

security. These agencies include the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The

involvement of federal entities whose primary missions are not marine-related

often results in collaboration among federal agencies. The security and

Communications Station Key Assets 

Master Station Chesapeake 32 transmitters in total 

• 24 Collins AN/URT-41(V)2 HF 10KW transmitters 

• 6 Harris RF-755 HF 10KW transmitters 

• 2 Nautel Medium Frequency (MF) transmitters 

56 High Frequency (HF) receivers 

Master Station Point Reyes* • 20 Collins AN/URT-41(V)2 HF 10KW transmitters 

Boston 14 transmitters in total 

• 12 Collins AN/URT-41(V)2 HF 10KW high power transmitters 

• 2 Nautel MF Transmitters 

15 HF receivers 

Miami 10 transmitters in total 

• 3 Collins AN/URT-41(V)2 HF 10KW 

• 5 Collins AN/URT-41(V)1 HF 1KW 

• 2 Nautel MF transmitters 

18 HF receivers 

New Orleans 17 transmitters in total 

• 12 Harris RF-755 transmitters 

• 3 Collins AN/URT-41(V)1 HF 1KW 

• 2 Nautel MF transmitters 

19 HF receivers 

Honolulu 15 transmitters in total 

• 8 Collins AN/URT-41(V)2 HF 10KW transmitters 

• 7 Harris RF-755 transmitters for a total of 15 transmitters 

COMMSTA Honolulu Transmitter Site has 10 physical (14 electrical) antennas 

including one Rotatable Log Periodic antenna 

Kodiak • 23 Collins AN/URT-41(V)2 HF 10KW transmitters 

• 29 HF antennas for these transmitters 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 8 7

enforcement discussion is largely based on information from agency

submissions to the Commission and is supplemented through Internet

research. The smaller federal entities whose primary mission is not marinerelated are not included in the inventory.

3.3.1 Coastal Patrol and Defense

Coastal patrol vessels are designed to operate in deep, coastal waters and in

aggressive conditions for enforcement and defense missions. The U.S. Navy

and USCG are the two federal agencies most heavily involved with patrolling

the more than 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline.29 In addition, several states

maintain more general marine patrols that are used for a variety of tasks,

included coastal patrols and law enforcement.

3.3.1.1 U.S. Navy Coastal Patrol

The U.S. Navy maintains 13 vessels that are used for coastal patrol and

interdiction surveillance. The CYCLONE PC-1 class’s mission is maritime

homeland security and has been employed jointly with USCG to help protect

U.S. coastlines, ports, and waterways from hostile actions. Nine ships operate

out of the Naval Amphibious Base in Little Creek, Virginia, and four operate

from the Naval Amphibious Base in Coronado, California. These ships

provide the U.S. Navy with a platform that can respond in a shallow-water

environment. The lead ship of the class, CYCLONE (PC-1), was

decommissioned and given to the Philippine government.30

3.3.1.2 U.S. Coast Guard Coastal Patrol

USCG’s cutters, other than the previously mentioned POLAR-class

icebreakers, are classified as either deep-water or coastal assets. Deep-water

assets are currently being renovated or replaced as part of a 23-year strategy

to modernize USCG’s deep-water fleet of cutters and aircraft (USCG’s

Deepwater Program is discussed in Section 3.3.3). As part of this project,

USCG’s communications system is also being modernized to allow full

interoperability of all assets: surface, air, and ashore. Table 3-15 shows the

deep-water cutters by classification.

3.3.1.3 State Patrols

Several states maintain marine patrols to monitor, enforce, and protect coastal

areas. These patrols protect fisheries and other environmental areas, perform

search-and-rescue missions, and augment ongoing police activities. For

example, the Massachusetts Department of Law Enforcement operates two

48-foot offshore patrol vessels that conduct investigations of illegal fishing

practices and marine theft cases, and enforce boat registration and titling

requirements. In addition, coastal officers closely monitor fish markets and

processing facilities for operating irregularities, shellfish digging, and allterrain vehicle use on beaches. The department also patrols in numerous

smaller craft and aircraft.31
8 8 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.3.2 Port and Harbor Patrols

In addition to coastal patrols, USCG and states maintain port and harbor

facilities to preserve port security and enable vessel traffic to move safely. The

units and vessels that operate in these conditions are typically smaller and

faster, because the conditions within the port are harbor are generally less

aggressive than in open water.

3.3.2.1 U.S. Coast Guard Port and Harbor Patrols

USCG operates several facilities and systems to ensure port and harbor

security. These include Marine Safety Offices, Port Security Units, Maritime

Safety And Security Teams, and the Universal Automatic Identification System.

Many of these facilities have additional roles, since they are often located in

remote areas. In addition to enforcing port and harbor security, these

facilities assist with navigational and marine safety and enforcement, including

search-and-rescue operations and vessel registrations.

Table 3-15: USCG Deep-Water Cutters

Much of the U.S. Coast Guard’s deep-water cutter fleet will be replaced or refitted over the next 20 years.

* Every cutter also carries at least one rigid inflatable boat, commonly called a cutter boat. There are over 450 cutter boats in service that

are designed to increase the ship’s effectiveness, contributing to search-and-rescue, enforcement, and AtoN missions.

Flight Deck 

Equipped Cruising Range 

Class Length 

(feet) 

Crew 

Size 

# in 

Class 

HH60 HH65 

Max. 

Speed 

(knots) Distance 

(NM) 

Speed 

(knots) 

Additional Information*

WHEC 378 

HAMILTON 378 161 12 Y Y 29 11,000 11 

• Commissioned between 1967 

and 1972 

• Tasked to operate offensively 

in a low-to-medium intensity, 

multi-threat environment as 

a surveillance and 

interdiction platform 

WMEC 282 

ALEX 

HALEY 

282 99 1 Y Y 16 10,000 13 

• Commissioned in 1971 

• Used primarily for fisheries 

enforcement and SAR off the 

Alaska coast 

WMEC 270 

FAMOUS 270 98 13 Y Y 19 9,900 12 • Commissioned between 1983 

and 1991 

WMEC 230 230 78 1 N N 14 22,000 8 No information available 

WMEC 213 213 75 1 N N 15.5 9,000 15 No information available 

WMEC 210 

RELIANCE 210 75 14 N Y 18 6,100 13 • Commissioned between 1964 

and 1969 

WPB 

ISLAND 110 13 49 N N 29.5 3,000 12 

• Commissioned between 1986 

and 1992 in three classes 

• Tasked to operate in a low-tomedium intensity, multi-threat 

environment as a surveillance 

and interdiction platform 

• Primary difference between the 

classes is configuration of 

interior spaces 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 8 9

3.3.2.1.1 Marine Safety Offices

USCG maintains 42 Marine Safety Offices that combine the functions of the

Captain of the Port, the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection, and the OnScene Coordinator. These offices respond to and investigate oil spills and

hazardous material releases; ensure the safety and security of waterfront

facilities and navigable waters; investigate marine casualties; inspect U.S.

commercial vessels for certification; perform state port oversight and

examination of foreign vessels; and plan and prepare for emergencies,

contingencies and marine-related disasters.

USCG operates 4 Marine Safety Units and 20 Marine Safety Detachments

under the command of the Marine Safety Offices. They perform the same

tasks as the offices, but are typically located in a remote location where the

mix of anticipated operations is complex. USCG has also established one

Marine Safety Satellite Office under a safety office. The operational satellite

office is small and located in a remote area where the operational tempo and

complexity are expected to be relatively limited.

USCG operates two international Marine Inspection Offices: one in

Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and the other in Yokota, Japan. USCG has also

established a Marine Inspection Detachment at PSA Sembawang Terminal,

Singapore. Inspection offices examine U.S. commercial vessels undergoing

new construction or major repair work in foreign shipyards, and conduct

routine periodic inspection of U.S. commercial vessels operating

predominantly out of foreign ports. Due to their overseas location, they also

perform limited international affairs functions, including the development of

informal contacts with various foreign government agencies, and the provision

of teaching assistance to the International Maritime Organization’s World

Maritime University.29

3.3.2.1.2 Port Security Units

A Port Security Unit is a deployable unit organized for sustained operations

and capable of deploying within 96 hours to establish port operations. The

units are tasked with providing waterborne and limited land-based port

security and force protection of shipping and critical port facilities. To carry

out this mission, each unit has six heavily armed and maneuverable port

security boats. USCG operates six Port Security Units.29

3.3.2.1.3 Maritime Safety and Security Teams

USCG Maritime Safety and Security Teams are deployable units organized for

homeland security operations within a port and capable of deploying to other

ports for threat deterrence or response. Patterned after Port Security Units,

Maritime Safety and Security Teams are tasked with providing waterborne and

limited land-based port security and force protection of shipping and critical

port facilities within the U.S. Sea Lanes of Communications, not including

open water. Each team is outfitted with six armed and agile boats that can be

transported to other ports. USCG operates four Maritime Safety and

Security Teams.
9 0 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.3.2.1.4 Universal Automatic Identification System

The Universal Automatic Identification System is a shipboard broadcast system

that acts like a transponder and operates in the VHF maritime band

(156-162 megahertz). The system is capable of handling over 4,500 reports

per minute and provides automatic updates as often as every two seconds.

Automatic Identification System updates provide information about the ship,

including its identity, position, course and speed. The International Maritime

Organization, to which the United States is a signatory, recently adopted

amendments that require the installation of Automatic Identification Systems

on ships.

3.3.2.2 State Port and Harbor Patrols

Several states maintain port and harbor patrols that are responsible for law

enforcement, firefighting, and rescue operations, among other tasks. For

example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey maintains a police

force of over 1,400 officers to patrol the area within a 25-mile radius of the

Statue of Liberty, including the ports, airports, bus terminals, tunnels, and

bridges. Specific information addressing the number of vessels in the Port

Authority’s fleet was not available. The police force has full law enforcement

powers in both New York and New Jersey, and often works collaboratively with

federal, state, and local agencies. Over 14.5 million tons of cargo and

thousands of ships are handled by Port Authority marine terminal facilities

each year.32

3.3.3 U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater Program

In 2002, USCG announced a 20-year program entitled the Integrated

Deepwater System Program (commonly called the Deepwater Acquisition

Program) to replace or retool the majority of the Coast Guard’s cutters,

offshore patrol boats, fixed-wing aircraft, multi-mission helicopters,

communications equipment, sensors (e.g., radars, thermal imaging devices),

and the logistics required to maintain the equipment in an immediately

available status.

Among the surface ships, the first National Security Cutter, a newly designed

vessel, will be delivered during the first five years of the program; 42 existing

major cutters will receive upgrades; and 49 110-foot patrol boats will receive

15-year service life extensions and be converted to 123-foot patrol boats to

increase their capabilities. Later in the program, the 123-foot cutters will be

replaced near the end of the Deepwater project by a new cutter yet to be

developed (U.S. shipbuilding capabilities are discussed in Section 2.1).33
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 9 1

3.3.4 U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence

Coordination Center

USCG maintains the Intelligence Coordination Center, which produces and

disseminates information from national sources that is relevant to USCG

missions. The Intelligence Center, located in Suitland, Maryland, supports

USCG’s major mission functions, including drug and migrant interdiction,

homeland security, fisheries enforcement, maritime environmental issues, port

safety, and military readiness by providing strategic intelligence and

indications and warnings intelligence for decision makers.

3.4 Environmental Protection

and Response

Marine environmental protection and response address federal facilities that

respond to environmental disasters, such as chemical and oil spills, and

damaged or destroyed vessels. This section examines the federal facilities that

are used for response and cleanup  specifically, those used for

environmental cleanup, primarily of oil spills, and marine salvage operations.

Marine response is under the jurisdiction of USCG, which is assisted by

several other federal agencies, including the U.S. Navy, EPA, and NOAA.

Several state agencies are also involved in marine pollution response,

although the state facilities are typically not dedicated solely to environmental

protection and response. An example of state capabilities is provided.

Similar to the management of living marine resources, environmental

protection lends itself to collaborative efforts. Even though USCG has lead

agency status on marine environmental response actions, many other federal

agencies, including EPA, the U.S. Navy, MMS, and NOAA, provide expertise

and equipment to clean up environmental disasters. The capabilities of

federal agencies involved in salvage missions are included in this discussion

and a discussion on private marine salvage capabilities can be found in

Section 2.1.10. The United States does not have a national salvage

infrastructure, public or private. This can limit response efforts.

3.4.1 Marine Pollution Assessment and Response

Pollution prevention and response can include cleaning up releases, primarily

oil or other hazardous substances; natural disasters; or marine accidents.

Federal entities that maintain facilities for environmental response include

USCG, the U.S. Navy, and EPA. Many states also maintain facilities for

marine pollution assessment and response (marine environmental research is

discussed in Section 4.1).
9 2 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.4.1.1 Federal Facilities

Emergency response to oil and chemical spills is handled through the

National Response System under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan. The contingency plan outlines the federal

government’s response procedures for both oil spills and hazardous

substance releases. Under the response system, USCG is designated as the

Federal On-Scene Coordinator for any discharge of oil or release of

chemicals into coastal or major navigable waterways (EPA is the coordinator

for inland areas). The National Response Team, a group of 16 federal

agencies that provides expertise on pollution response, assists the On-Scene

Coordinator. The Response Team is a planning and policy body, and does not

respond directly to an incident. While much of the equipment described in

this inventory pertains to oil spills, some of it can also be used for hazardous

substance releases. Information concerning equipment specific to hazardous

substance cleanup was not available.

To assist with emergency response, there are 27 major federal pre-positioned

equipment sites  5 Navy and 22 USCG sites  and 1,218 individual

resource sites owned by 120 oil spill removal organizations.34 Even with the

federal pre-positioned sites, the majority of oil spill response equipment is

privately owned (Table 3-16). Equipment from USCG Marine Safety Offices

and smaller pre-positioned Navy sites was not included in the total.34

3.4.1.1.1 U.S. Coast Guard Response Capability

As the On-Scene Coordinator, USCG maintains a National Strike Force to

respond to marine environmental emergencies. The Strike Force comprises

the National Strike Force Coordination Center and three Strike Teams

The National

Contigency Plan

outlines the federal

government’s

response

procedures for

both oil spills

and hazardous

substance releases.

Table 3-16: Federal and Private-Sector Oil Spill Response Equipment

The federal government does not maintain the majority of the nation’s oil spill response equipment.

* EDRC equals Effective Daily Recovery Capacity. It indicates the amount of oil that could be recovered in a 24-hour

period solely on the pumping capacity of the device in barrels per day. One barrel equals 42 gallons.

** There are 1,384 total skimmers in the United States.

Equipment Category Federal Resources 

(in thousands) 

Private Resources 

(in thousands) 

Total Resources 

(in thousands) 

Booms 

(reported in total feet) 

6-18 inches in height 0 3,456 3,456 

19”-41” 0 1,660 1,660 

>41” 160 483 643 

Skimmers (EDRC)* 69 2,700 2,768**

Temporary Storage 

(barrels) 

135 2,111 2,246 

Vessels with Storage 

(barrels) 

0 4,686 4,686 

Vacuum Storage 

(EDRC/barrels) 

0/0 1,712/114 1,712/114 
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 9 3

(Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf). The Coordination Center maintains

22 pre-positioned sites to respond to an emergency. The pre-positioned site

equipment packages include a Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System (VOSS)

and 5,000 feet of foam-filled boom. VOSSs are portable side-skimming

oil-recovery systems that can be deployed from most work vessels over

65 feet in length.

In addition to the pre-positioned equipment, each Strike Team has a variety of

equipment, including 10 reels (6,560 feet) of inflatable boom, pump/dracone

off-loading systems, command trailers, temporary storage devices, dry storage

shelters, and V-sweep type booms. All equipment is packaged, containerized,

and stored on trailers as “ready loads” for quick transport by truck or air. 

USCG also maintains the National Pollution Funds Center, located in

Arlington, Virginia, to act as the fiduciary agent for the Oil Spill Liability Trust

Fund and any other funds that are accessible to USCG. The Funds Center,

which is staffed by 114 employees, provides funding for removal actions and

the initiation of natural resource damage assessments (oil only), compensates

claimants who demonstrate that certain damages were caused by oil

pollution, recovers pollution costs and damages from responsible parties, and

certifies the financial responsibility of vessel owners and operators.

3.4.1.1.2 U.S. Navy Response Capability

The U.S. Navy’s Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of

Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV) has the capability to respond to pollution

incidents anywhere in the world. SUPSALV maintains a system of equipment,

personnel, planning and training designed to provide support to all Navy

activities and vessels for emergency oil and hazardous substance spill

response. SUPSALV also works with other federal agencies to develop plans,

conduct training, and respond to emergencies.35

An inventory of equipment is maintained at four response bases in

Williamsburg, Virginia; Port Hueneme, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Equipment includes booms, skimmers, support craft,

portable storage, logistics support systems, cleaning systems, and various

systems to support this specialized mission (Table 3-17). SUPSALV is also the

DoD representative on the National Response Team.

3.4.1.1.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Capability

EPA maintains several vessels that support coastal and marine protection

programs. The Ocean Survey Vessel PETER W. ANDERSON (OSV

ANDERSON) primarily sails along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and in the

Caribbean. OSV ANDERSON collects information from harbors, ports, and

offshore waters to identify and monitor potential environmental concerns.

The 165-foot ship is equipped to support physical, chemical and biological

investigations. A wet lab is available for processing biological samples, as

well as a sonar system for seafloor mapping and over-the-side

sampling equipment.36
9 4 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

EPA also operates the 180-foot Research Vessel (R/V) LAKE GUARDIAN,

which is the only self-contained, nonpolluting research ship on the

Great Lakes. As part of its long-term trends program, EPA conducts

biannual monitoring surveys of the Great Lakes from the R/V LAKE

GUARDIAN. A third EPA vessel is the R/V LEAR, a 35-foot Bertram with twin

350 gas engines. EPA maintains the R/V MUDPUPPY, a flat-bottom boat

specifically designed for sediment sampling in shallow rivers and harbors in

and around the Great Lakes, and the R/V LAKE EXPLORER (EPA research

capabilities are discussed in Chapter 4).37

3.4.1.1.4 Minerals Management Service Capability

MMS manages the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental

Test Tank (Ohmsett), which is the national oil spill response test facility.

Ohmsett, located in New Jersey, has a large outdoor, aboveground concrete

test tank that measures 203 meters long, 20 meters wide, and 3.3 meters

deep. Filled, the tank holds 9.84 million liters of salt water. Ohmsett provides

a simulated marine environment, with reproducible test conditions for oil spill

response equipment testing and evaluation, and is used to test and evaluate

oil spill response equipment, conduct research and development projects on

new, or refined, oil spill response equipment, and for training of oil spill

response personnel with real equipment and oil in the tank. In addition to a

facility manager, there are 12 staff members, including a mechanical

engineer, a chemical engineer, and several technicians, that operate and

maintain the facility.

3.4.1.1.5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Response Capability

NOAA operates programs to respond to oil and chemical spills. NOAA’s

Office of Response and Restoration maintains a Hazardous Materials

Table 3-17: SUPSALV Equipment List

Spilled Oil Recovery Casualty Off-Loading Ancillary Support Equipment 

• Containment Booms 

• Open-ocean Skimmers 

• Small Skimmers 

• In-situ Burning Equipment 

• Sorbent Materials 

• Vacuum Recovery Systems 

• Floating Storage Bladders 

• Oil Transfer Pumps and Hoses 

• Floating Hose Systems 

• Hot Tap Systems 

• Portable Generators 

• Portable Firefighting 

• Hydraulic Power Packs 

• Salvage Equipment 

• Personnel Support Vans 

• Maintenance Vans 

• Support Vessels 

• Cleaning Equipment 

• Pumps Command Vans 

• Communications Systems 

• Small Boats 

• All-terrain Vehicles 

• Material Handling Equipment
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 9 5

Response Division that consists of an interdisciplinary scientific team that

responds to oil and chemical spills and other emergencies in coastal and

navigable waters.38 It also operates a Coastal Protection and Restoration

Division that works with EPA by placing scientists in EPA’s regional offices to

provide technical advice on ecological risk, contaminated sediments, and

remedial issues at over 350 coastal waste sites. The Damage Assessment

Center employs scientists and economists to develop natural resource

damage assessment for releases of oil and hazardous substances.

NOAA’s Damage Assessment and Restoration Program conducts natural

resource damage assessments and restoration of coastal and marine

resources injured as a result of oil spills, releases of hazardous materials and

ship groundings.39 Within the Restoration Program NOAA has a Rapid

Assessment Program  an on-call team of NOAA scientists and contractors

responsible for evaluating oil and hazardous substance spills. The Rapid

Assessment Program is coordinated from Seattle, Washington, and other

regional responders are located in Anchorage, Alaska; Sandy Hook, New

Jersey; St. Petersburg, Florida; Long Beach, California; and Silver Spring,

Maryland. Additionally, NOAA maintains contracts for rapid assessment

response in Seattle, Washington; Boston, Massachusetts; Narragansett,

Rhode Island; and Columbia, South Carolina.

3.4.1.2 State Environmental Response

Several states maintain vessels for environmental response and monitoring,

among other tasks. The Washington State fleet discussed here provides an

example of state capabilities and resources.

Washington State agencies operate several fleets of vessels. The Washington

Department of Ecology operates a 26-foot Almar; a 20-foot Boston Whaler

with small davit; two17-foot Boston Whalers used for environmental sampling

in both marine and coastal freshwater areas, servicing moorings, waterquality sampling, sediment sampling, and fish trawls; and a Smith-Root

17-foot electrofishing boat. The Washington Department of Ecology also

contracts several other vessels owned by other state agencies and private

contractors for servicing moorings, conducting marine sediment monitoring,

or quick trips when this is advantageous. The Washington Department of

Natural Resources uses 16-, 17-, 27-, 34-, and 42-foot vessels for fishery

enforcement and beach surveys. These vessels are also used on an incidental

basis in support of other activities, such as removal of derelict vessels and

gear, underwater investigations, aquatic lands management and

maintenance, and direct fishery surveying efforts. The state’s Department of

Fish and Wildlife uses several small vessels for a variety of research,

monitoring, and regulatory activities.

3.4.2 Marine Salvage Capabilities

Marine salvage operations provide assistance to damaged or stressed vessels.

Assistance can include towing a vessel or jettisoning cargo to prevent spills.

Although the United States does not have a national salvage strategy, both the

U.S. Navy and USCG maintain some salvage capabilities (see Section 2.1.10).
9 6 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

3.4.2.1 U.S. Navy Salvage

SUPSALV, located in the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., is under

the Naval Sea Systems Command. SUPSALV is responsible for all aspects of

ocean engineering, including salvage, in-water ship repair, contracting,

towing, diving safety, and equipment maintenance and procurement for the

U.S. Navy.40 

The U.S. Navy maintains four manned rescue and salvage ships designed to

render assistance to disabled vessels and to provide towing, salvaging, diving,

firefighting and heavy-lifting capabilities. The mission of the rescue and

salvage ships is to:

• Fill stranded vessels on the beach

• Provide heavy-lift capability from ocean depths

• Tow vessels

• Support manned diving operations.

For rescue missions, these ships are equipped with fire monitors that can

deliver either firefighting foam or sea water. The salvage ships’ holds are

outfitted with portable equipment to provide assistance to other vessels in

dewatering, patching, supplying electrical power, and other essential services

required to return a disabled ship to an operating condition. The U.S. Navy

has responsibility for salvaging U.S. government-owned ships and, when it is

in the best interests of the United States, privately owned vessels as well.41 Two

of the rescue and salvage ships are based in Virginia and two are based

in Hawaii.

The U.S. Navy also operates several unmanned vehicles used in salvage

operations. The Deep Drone 7200 remotely operated vehicle (ROV) is

designed for deep-ocean recovery at depths of up to 7,200 feet. The system

is transportable on military cargo aircraft and is designed to operate from

various ships. The operator can control the ROV in all six degrees of freedom.

The vehicle carries a target-locating sonar and has two manipulators capable

of working with tools and attaching rigging. For photographic documentation,

the vehicle has a 35-millimeter still camera and both black-and-white and

color television cameras that produce quality videotape. A diesel generator or

the power system of the supporting ship, if compatible, provides electrical

power for the system. For special operations, the ROV can accommodate

custom, skid-mounted tool packages. These packages could include

trenchers, specialized salvage tools, and instrument packages or other

mission-oriented equipment.42

CURV III is a 20,000-foot depth-rated ROV designed for deep-water recovery.

CURV III consists of a 13,000-pound vehicle, a fiber-optical umbilical cable, a

motion-compensated crane handling unit, a dampened latch/launch

assembly, a umbilical traction winch, a umbilical storage reel, a deck system

hydraulic power unit, a generator, an operations van, and a spares van. The

ROV has a lift capacity of 2,500 pounds and a payload of 300 pounds.

CURV equipment modules are designed for ground or air shipment, and can

operate from any capable ship of opportunity.43
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 9 7

The Magnum ROV is a 8,200-foot depth-rated work vehicle designed for use

in high currents. The ROV is deployed on a high-strength armored cable from

any suitable vessel of opportunity. The side-entry cage provides protection

and weight to assist in passing through surface currents. The ROV is deployed

from the cage on a 600-foot tether. Magnum system components include a

3,500-pound (air) ROV, armored umbilical cable on a hydraulic-powered

cable reel, a frame launching assembly, and three deck vans. The ROV is

equipped with two seven-function manipulators, high-efficiency thrusters,

telemetry/control computers, three video cameras, lights and an onboard

navigation system. The sonar equipment can detect acoustic pingers and

identify small targets at a distance of 2,000 feet. The ROV has a lift capacity

of 8,000 pounds and a payload of 300 pounds.44

The U.S. Navy’s two mini-ROVs are standard commercial, 1,000-foot depthrated ROVs used for the U.S. Navy’s shallow-water surveys, photographic

documentation, and light salvage/recovery. They are transportable on cargo

aircraft and operate with minimum support from select vessels of opportunity,

piers or shorelines. They carry a high-resolution target locating sonar and

have a manipulator capable of working with simple tools. Additionally, the

mini-ROVs have a 35-millimeter still camera and a color television camera

that produces quality videotape. For special operations, the ROVs can

accommodate some small tools or instrument packages.45

The U.S. Navy’s Shallow Water Intermediate Search System (SWISS) is a dualfrequency towed side-scan sonar system mounted inside a torpedo-shaped

tow body. The sonar is towed behind a vessel at slow speeds, generally from

one to five knots. Sonar signals are processed producing both an analog and

a digital display of features on the ocean bottom. Trained operators interpret

these displays to identify potential targets. The lower frequency is generally

used for primary searching, and the higher frequency can give an extremely

fine-grain trace of bottom features and contacts, which allows for

detailed analysis.46

The Orion Search System (Orion) is a side-scan sonar system that has longrange detection and high-resolution capabilities. The system has floodlights

that provide illumination for a video camera. Orion can be towed by any

vessel of opportunity by a 36,000-foot fiber-optic cable. A deck control van

incorporates high-resolution color graphic digital recorders and navigation

controls for ship and Orion position. The system has a depth rating of

20,000 feet.47

3.4.2.2 U.S. Coast Guard Salvage

USCG’s Salvage Engineering Response Team comprises 8 to 10 staff

engineers who assist and support USCG Captains-of-the-Port during

emergencies. Team members are naval architects trained to conduct

technical analysis in the areas of vessel stability and structural integrity. When

activated, the salvage team provides technical support during marine

casualties, such as groundings, collisions, explosions, and fires. The team has

mobile computing capability for on-scene deployment.
9 8 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

References

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA Fisheries Endangered Species Web Page.

<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/endangered.htm>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

2. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Michigan Department of

Natural Resources Web Page. <http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-

10364_10949—,00.html>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

3. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. Coastal Zone Management Program. < http://

www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

4. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. FY 2001

Division of Law Enforcement Annual Report. U.S. Government Printing Office

(Washington, D.C.).

5. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA’s Office of Systems Development Web Page.

<http://www.osd.noaa.gov/>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

6. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA’s Office of Satellite Operations Web Page.

<http://www.oso.noaa.gov/>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

7. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. National Park Service. 2003. National Park

Service Submerged Resources Center. <http://www.nps.gov/scru/home.htm>.

Accessed 5 June 2003.

8. Baker III, A.D. 2002. Combat Fleets of the World 2002-2003. Naval Institute

Press. (Annapolis, Maryland).

9. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard Polar Class Icebreakers Web Page. <http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/

icepolr.htm>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

10. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard Healy Web Page. <http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/>. Accessed 5

June 2003.

11. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard Ice Operations Web Page. <http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/

factfile/Factcards/IceOps.html>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

12. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard International Ice Patrol Web Page. <http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/iip/

home.html>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

13. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard Navigation Center Web Page. <http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/ndgps/

default.htm>. Accessed 5 June 2003.
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 9 9

14. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard Fact File Web Page. <http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/

index.htm>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

15. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System Web

Page. <http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/d_ports.html>. Accessed 5

June 2003.

16. Interagency GPS Executive Board. 2003. Interagency GPS Executive Board

Web Page. <http://www.igeb.gov>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

17. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA Office of Coast Survey Web Page. <http://

chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

18. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2000. National Survey Plan for the Office of Coast Survey. U.S.

Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.)

19. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA Marine Operations Fleet Characteristics Web

Page. <http://www.moc.noaa.gov/flt_char.htm>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

20. U.S. Navy. 2003. Military Survey Capabilities of the Naval Oceanographic

Office Web Page. <http://www.navo.navy.mil/survey/survey_cap.htm>. <

Accessed 5 June 2003.

21. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA National Data Buoy Center Moored Buoy Web

Page. <http://seaboard.ndbc.noaa.gov/hull.shtml>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

22. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA National Data Buoy Center C-MAN Program Web

Page. <http://seaboard.ndbc.noaa.gov/cman.phtml>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

23. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA National Data Buoy Center Deep-ocean

Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis Web Page. <http://

seaboard.ndbc.noaa.gov/Dart/dart.shtml>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

24. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA Voluntary Observing Ship Program Web Page.

<http://www.vos.noaa.gov/>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

25. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products

and Services Web Page. <http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/d_nwlop.html>.

Accessed 5 June 2003.

26. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Tropical

Atmosphere Ocean Project Web Page. <http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/

index.shtml>. Accessed 5 June 2003.
100 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

27. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. National Data Buoy Center Drifting Buoy Program Web

Page. <http://seaboard.ndbc.noaa.gov/drift.shtml>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

28. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2000. USCG

Marine Safety Manual Volume II: Materiel Inspection. U.S. Government Printing

Office (Washington, D.C.)

29. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. U.S. Coast

Guard Homeland Security Fact Sheet Web Page. <http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gcp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/Homeland.htm>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

30. U.S. Navy. 2003. U.S. Navy Fact File Web Page. <http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/

navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-pc.html>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

31. Massachusetts Environmental Police. 2003. Massachusetts Environmental Police

Web Page. <http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dle/Dle_toc.htm>. Accessed 5

June 2003.

32. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2003. Port Authority Web Page

<http://www.panynj.gov/>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

33. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. <http://

www.uscg.mil>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

34. National Strike Force Coordination Center. 1997. U.S. Oil Spill Response

Equipment at a Glance. Elizabeth City, NC. 14 November 1997

35. U.S. Navy. 2003. NAVSEA Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering,

Supervisor of Salvage and Diving Web Page. <http://www.supsalv.org/>.

Accessed 5 June 2003.

36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA Assessment and Monitoring

Ocean Survey Vessel PETER W. ANDERSON Web Page. <http://www.epa.gov/

owow/coastal/Anderson/Anderson.html>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA Mid-Atlantic Coastal

Environment Research Vessel LEAR Web Page. <http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/

coast/lear.htm>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

38. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. National Ocean Service Office of Response and

Restoration Web Page. <http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/index.html>.

Accessed 5 June 2003.

39. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. 2003. NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program

Web Page. <http://www.darp.noaa.gov>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

40. U.S. Navy. 2003. NAVSEA Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering,

Supervisor of Salvage and Diving Web Page. <http://www.supsalv.org/>.

Accessed 5 June 2003.
Ocean and Coastal Safety and Protection 101

41. U.S. Navy. 2003. U.S. Navy Fact File Rescue-and-Salvage Ships Web Page.

<http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ars.html>. Accessed 5

June 2003.

42. U.S. Navy. 2003. U.S. Navy Fact File Deep-Drone 7200 Remotely Operated

Vehicle Web Page. http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/oceansar/sarddrone.html. Accessed 5 June 2003.

43. U.S. Navy. 2003. NAVSEA Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering,

Supervisor of Salvage and Diving CURV III Web Page. <http://www.supsalv.org/

00c2_curvIIIRov.asp?destPage=00c2&pageId=2.5.3>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

44. U.S. Navy. 2003. NAVSEA Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering,

Supervisor of Salvage and Diving Magnum ROV Web Page. <http://

www.supsalv.org/00c2_magnumRov.asp?destPage=00c2&pageId=2.5.5>.

Accessed 5 June 2003.

45. U.S. Navy. 2003. U.S. Navy Fact File Mini Remotely Operated Vehicles Web

Page. <http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/oceansar/sarminirov.html>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

46. U.S. Navy. 2003. U.S. Navy Fact File Shallow-Water Intermediate Search System

Web Page. <http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/oceansar/sarswiss.html>. Accessed 5 June 2003.

47. U.S. Navy. 2003. NAVSEA Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering,

Supervisor of Salvage and Diving Web Page. <http://www.supsalv.org/>.

Accessed 5 June 2003.
102 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 103

The United States has an array of institutions dedicated to research,

exploration, and monitoring of the ocean and coastal environment.

These institutions range from major, complex organizations with

multiple science and engineering programs, such as the Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), to small, unique organizations with

very specialized missions such as the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration’s (FDA’s) Seafood Safety Laboratory. A variety of

facilities support the missions of these institutions, including

laboratories, vessels, underwater vehicles, aircraft, remote-sensing

satellites, ocean-observing systems, and computers for data storage

and dissemination, modeling, and numeric analysis. Information from

federal and state agencies, academic institutions and technical sources

was gathered to describe the facilities used to conduct coastal and

ocean research, exploration, and monitoring. A brief summary of

these facility categories follows.

This inventory encompasses laboratories dedicated primarily to coastal

and ocean research, exploration, or monitoring. During recent years,

joint institutions and partnerships have been developed to promote

synergistic opportunities among scientists and engineers and to help

defray the capital investment and maintenance cost of marine

U.S. Marine

Laboratory

Infrastructure

Research,

Exploration, and

Monitoring Vessels

Underwater Vehicles

Research,

Exploration, and

Monitoring Aircrafts

Satellites and SpaceBased Sensors

Ocean Observing

Systems

Computer and Data

Storage Facilities

Chapter 4
104 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

laboratories. This inventory does not include commercial facilities that

have research and development laboratories for ocean technologies.

The inventory identified over 400 large vessels used in ocean research,

exploration, or monitoring activities. Most of the vessels are more than

20 years old, and very few are scheduled for replacement. Academic

and commercial vessels comprise close to 69 percent of the vessels

identified.

A review of underwater vehicles indicated a significant change over the

last 20 years. The number of manned submersibles has slightly

declined, but more importantly, the United States lost its capability to

conduct deep-water (20,000 feet) manned submersible missions. In

contrast, the use of remotely operated vehicles and autonomous

vehicles has increased significantly as their cost has been reduced, and

some are capable of operating in deep waters. Technological

advances in computer hardware and software, fiber optics, and robotics

have also helped fuel the use of remotely operated vehicles.

The use of aircraft for coastal and ocean research now includes the use

of unmanned aerial vehicles. New and better unmanned aerial

vehicles are being developed. During the last two decades, the use of

satellites for remote sensing has proven to be one of the most

significant advances in coastal and ocean sciences. The amount of

information gathered by satellite sensors in a few days is more than

what can be collected in the field through decades of observation. The

nation now has research and operational satellites that provide

information for scientific investigations and are used every day to

support recreation, safety and commercial activities.

The use of ocean-observing systems has also increased dramatically in

the last few years. Now more than 40 independent ocean-observing

systems are deployed along our coastlines. These systems are the first

step in the development of a coordinated, nationwide ocean-observing

network that could provide the public with a service similar to that

provided by the National Weather Service.

Technological developments that support coastal and ocean science

activities depend heavily on computers to help store, process, analyze

and disseminate data. During the last 20 years, advances in computer

storage and processing capacity have exceeded the expectations of

most people. For many ocean scientists, however, currently there are

not adequate computer facilities that can handle the computational

requirements for some ocean models.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 105

4.1 U.S. Marine Laboratory Infrastructure

The national marine laboratory infrastructure consists of more than

100 academic, independent nonprofit, federal, state and private institutions

that actively conduct research, exploration or monitoring activities anywhere

from coastal regions (e.g., estuarine wetlands) to the ocean’s deep-water

environments. Most of the institutions are located along the coastline,

including the Great Lakes region and U.S. territories (e.g., Puerto Rico,

Guam). Some institutions, such as the National Center for Atmospheric

Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, conduct numerical analysis and

modeling of coupled atmospheric-ocean processes and are located away

from the coastline. A few institutions have unique missions that require their

facilities to be located outside of the United States: for example, the

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, the Bermuda Biological

Station for Research, and the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Palmer

and McMurdo Antarctic Stations.

Small institutions tend to focus their research, exploration and monitoring

activities on local and regional coastal and ocean processes. For example,

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Health and

Environmental Effects Research Gulf Ecology Division Laboratory in Gulf

Breeze, Florida, focuses on researching the Gulf of Mexico coastal ecosystem.

In contrast, large academic institutions, such as the University of California’s

Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), have multiple laboratory facilities

that support both local and global coastal and ocean research, exploration

and monitoring projects.

The number of people conducting coastal and ocean research, education,

and monitoring activities at these institutions is unknown. At a minimum, the

National Association of Marine Laboratories estimates that over 10,000

professionals are employed by its more than 120 members institutions.1

The inventory of marine laboratories’ capabilities in this chapter is organized

by academic institutions; independent, nonprofit marine research institutions;

and federal and state laboratories. Examples are provided for major or

unique facilities within each category. The information presented in this

chapter is not comprehensive, as not all government agencies reported on the

capabilities of their facilities.

4.1.1 Academic Laboratories

Academic laboratories are research facilities that belong to an academic

institution. A list of 64 academic laboratory facilities compiled primarily from

a survey conducted for the Commission by the Consortium of Oceanographic

Research and Education (CORE) is provided in Supplement 5-1. This list does

not include all existing academic laboratories.
106 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Some academic institutions have multiple laboratory facilities, including

remotely located field stations (e.g., University of Washington’s Friday Harbor

Laboratories) to support their work. Other academic institutions cannot

afford to own dedicated laboratory facilities to conduct research. To

overcome this, academic institutions frequently develop partnerships with

other institutions to establish and share facilities. These partnerships increase

academic interactions, promote multidisciplinary collaboration and help

promote the cost-effective use of facilities. Examples of partnerships are the

Shoals Marine Lab, operated by Cornell University in cooperation with the

University of New Hampshire, and the Marine Science Consortium at Wallops

Island, Virginia, which serves 16 member universities and colleges from

4 Mid-Atlantic states.

Some state governments establish state-owned laboratory facilities to be used

by state academic institutions. These facilities not only promote academic

research but also provide the states with facilities that develop the knowledge

required to adequately manage ocean and coastal resources. An example of

such a facility is the Dauphin Island Sea Lab (DISL) which Alabama founded in

1971 as a marine and educational research center.2 The DISL serves an

academic community of 22 member university programs, including

9 universities with graduate programs. Over 40 graduate students use the

DISL each year as the base for their graduate education and research. DISL

has a faculty of 14 principal investigators that conduct research on

oceanography and ecology of estuaries and near-coastal waters.

Academic laboratories range from major research institutions, such as SIO at

the University of California, to smaller facilities, such as the Bowdoin Coastal

Studies Center in Orr Island, Maine. For example, SIO, established in 1903,

is one of the oldest and largest marine science research institutions in the

world. SIO has a staff of approximately 1,300, including approximately

 90 general faculty, 300 scientists, and 200 graduate students. The

institution’s annual expenditures total more than $140 million. Research at

SIO encompasses physical, chemical, biological, geological, and geophysical

studies of the ocean, with more than 300 programs underway at any time.

The institute operates a fleet of four University-National Oceanographic

Laboratory System (UNOLS) research vessels (two Global Class, one

Intermediate Class, and one Regional Class). The Bowdoin Coastal Studies

Center is a five-year-old program at a liberal arts university that offers courses

on and supports student and faculty research in coastal issues. The center

also supports multidisciplinary studies, including humanities, arts, social,

natural and behavioral sciences, and mathematics.

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) at the College of William and

Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, represents a cross-section of existing

academic laboratory facilities. VIMS was established in 1940 and serves as

the Graduate School of Marine Science for the College of William & Mary.3

The institute has two major facilities: Gloucester Point, Virginia, located at the

mouth of the York River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, and the Eastern

Partnerships

increase academic

interactions,

promote

multidisciplinary

collaboration and

help promote the

cost-effective use

of facilities.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 107

Shore Laboratory in Wachapreague, Virginia. A third facility,

the Kauffman Aquaculture Center on the Rappahannock River, has

been proposed.

VIMS has more than 50 faculty members who teach more than

100 graduate students. Approximately half of the students are enrolled

in a doctoral program, while the other half are pursuing master’s degrees.

International students comprise approximately 12 percent of the

student body.

The Gloucester Point facilities include Chesapeake Bay Hall, Nunnaly Hall,

Aquaculture Genetics and Breeding Technology Center, and a finfish

aquaculture facility. Chesapeake Bay Hall includes laboratories dedicated

to advanced research in genetics, immunology, toxicology, environmental

chemistry, geology, and aquatic-disease studies. Nunnaly Hall includes a

necropsy laboratory, teaching laboratory, and a sample-processing facility.

The Aquaculture Genetics and Breeding Technology Center, established in

1997 by the Virginia General Assembly, is dedicated to the breeding and

genetic research of declining populations of ecologically and commercially

important marine species. The center is currently focused on the

Chesapeake Bay native oyster Crassostrea virginica.

The Eastern Shore Laboratory, a 10-acre field station, has wet and dry

laboratories, a shellfish hatchery, and a seawater flume. The lab has a

large, flexible seawater system for husbandry of live marine and estuarine

organisms. Approximately 50 flowing seawater tables, both indoor and

outdoor, are located at the facility. Tanks of various sizes are available for

use in either flow-through or recirculating modes. A seawater quarantine

system provides the capability to conduct research on nonindigenous

species. The Eastern Shore Laboratory has dormitory space for 40 people.

4.1.2 Independent, Nonprofit Marine Research

Institution Laboratories

Independent, nonprofit marine research institutions have unique laboratory

facilities that support coastal and ocean research. The research conducted

at these facilities advances knowledge of coastal and ocean systems, and

frequently compliments the research, exploration and monitoring activities

conducted by government and academic institutions. Most of these

institutions, in addition to their research missions, have active educational

and training programs that include internships, graduate research

assistantship positions, postdoctoral research appointments, and summer

courses. In many instances, the classes offered are university-approved

undergraduate and graduate courses. Ten independent, nonprofit marine

research institutions (not including aquariums) were selected from the

members of the National Association of Marine Laboratories. These

institutions have very specific missions which require dedicated facilities.
108 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Three nonprofit institutions are located in the Northeast, and two of them are

the nation’s oldest. The Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), established in

1888 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, hosts year-round research programs in

cell and developmental biology, ecosystem studies, molecular evolution,

neurobiology, and sensory physiology. MBL is also host to the Boston

University Marine Program and the University of Pennsylvania’s Laboratory for

Aquatic Animal Medicine and Pathology. MBL currently supports a yearround staff of more than 275 scientists and support staff. In addition, every

summer over 1,400 investigators and advanced students from the United

States and abroad use the MBL facilities for research.

The Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, established in 1898 in

Salisbury Cove, Maine, supports the following areas of research: marine

biomedicine and physiology, marine molecular biology and functional

genomics, bioinformatics, environmental toxicology and toxicogenomics,

transgenic species, and neuroscience. The laboratory has 10 buildings with a

total of 32 laboratory units, and employs 26 principal investigators. During

the summer the number of people, including visiting researchers and students

using the facilities, can exceed 200.

The third independent research institution in the Northeast is the Bigelow

Laboratory, established in 1971 in West Boothbay, Maine. This laboratory

focuses on research related to primary productivity of the oceans. The

laboratory has diverse facilities, including a dedicated-flow cytometry facility.

The laboratory’s Provasoli-Guillard National Center for Culture of Marine

Phytoplankton, supported by the NSF and by revenues derived from the sale

of cultures, holds the largest collection of marine phytoplankton in the world

(over 1,450 strains). The laboratory maintains formal affiliation with the

University of New England and provides university-accredited marine science

summer courses. The Bigelow Laboratory employs 16 principal investigators.

The Bermuda Biological Station for Research, located in St. George, Bermuda,

was established in 1926 and incorporated in New York. The station supports

tropical marine ecology, open ocean, and climate research. The station has

three research initiatives: the Center for Integrated Ocean Observations, the

International Center for Ocean and Human Health, and the Risk Prediction

Initiative. The station provides university-accredited marine science graduate

and undergraduate courses. The station also operates a UNOLS vessel,

and manages the Hydrostation S, which is the longest oceanographic timeseries station.

The South Atlantic region has two nonprofit institutions. The Harbor Branch

Oceanographic Institution (HBOI) in Fort Pierce, Florida, has six major

divisions: aquaculture, biomedical marine research, engineering, marine

mammal research and conservation, marine operation, and marine sciences.

HBOI operates three manned submersibles and two UNOLS vessels. This

institution is considered an integral leader in the use of manned submersible

technology. HBOI has a staff of approximately 250 employees.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 109

The Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) in Sarasota, Florida, is on the state’s Gulf

of Mexico coast. MML, established in 1955, focuses its investigation on the

marine ecology and ocean process of the southwest Florida coastal region.

MML has 100,000 square feet of laboratory and public aquarium facilities.

Experimental facilities include environmentally controlled rooms with

recirculating seawater systems for maintaining marine organisms ranging

from phytoplankton and invertebrates to fish. MML has a staff of

approximately 55 employees.

One institution, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), was

identified for the West Coast. MBARI, established in 1987 by the Lucille and

David Packard Foundation in Moss Landing, California, is dedicated to the

development and transfer of technology that supports ocean sciences,

exploration of the marine environment, and dissemination of information to

the marine science and educational community worldwide. MBARI is one of

the nation’s leaders in the use of remotely operated vehicle technology for

research and exploration. The institute maintains close collaboration with

other oceanographic institutions of Monterey Bay, including the University of

California-Santa Cruz, Moss Landing Marine Lab, Hopkins Marine Station,

and the Naval Postgraduate School. MBARI has a staff of approximately

225 employees, including engineers, ocean scientists, and support personnel.

The Prince William Sound Science Center, established in 1989 in Cordova,

Alaska, is dedicated to promoting and maintaining the study of Alaska’s

biodiverse ecology and educating the public. The center’s programs take an

ecosystem approach to research, monitoring and management of natural

resources. Major areas of research include physical oceanography;

hydroacoustic studies of plankton, fish and marine mammals; food web

analysis; and nearshore ecology. The center has a staff of 16 employees.

Two of these nonprofit institutions are located in the Western Pacific region:

the Oceanic Institute (OI) and the Coral Reef Research Foundation. OI,

established in 1960 in Oahu, Hawaii, is dedicated to the development and

transfer of practical oceanographic and aquaculture technologies. OI

coordinates the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Consortium, which

administers the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program. OI also co-manages

the Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, one of five regional

aquaculture centers established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. OI

also has a five-acre remote facility located in Kona, Hawaii, dedicated to

training, education and shrimp research, with a staff of 75 employees.

The Coral Reef Research Foundation (CRRF), established in 1991 in the

Republic of Palau and incorporated in California, conducts research and

education on coral reefs and other tropical marine environments. A new

laboratory building in Palau was completed in early 1996. Currently, CRRF’s

major activity is the collection and identification of marine organisms for anticancer and anti-AIDS screening tests by the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Information was not available on the number of employees.
110 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

4.1.3 Federal Agency Laboratories

Various federal agencies have laboratory facilities dedicated to coastal and

ocean research. The extent of their laboratory facilities is related to the

agencies’ missions. Some agencies, such as the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE), have missions that require direct coastal or ocean

activities and tend to have large laboratory facilities that support marine

activities. Other agencies with missions not directly related to the coastal or

ocean environment, such as the U.S. Department of Energy, do not have

extensive facilities, but may provide unique and important capabilities.

4.1.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Laboratories

NOAA’s mission is to describe and predict changes in the environment and to

conserve and wisely manage the nation’s coastal and marine resources. To

support this mission, NOAA has extensive laboratories that support coastal

and ocean research, exploration and monitoring.

NOAA conducts ocean and coastal research activities mainly through the

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. In addition, NOAA’s National

Ocean Service (NOS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have

laboratories used for coastal and ocean research.

The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research conducts research in NOAA

laboratories and through extramural programs. In addition, it sponsors

extramural research at 30 Sea Grant universities and research programs,

6 undersea research centers, and through the Office of Ocean Exploration.

The National Sea Grant Program is further described later in this chapter.

There are five NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

laboratories that conduct coastal and ocean research: the Great Lakes

Environmental Research Laboratory, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics

Laboratory, the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, the

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, and the Environmental Technology

Laboratory. Each is described in brief below.

The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, in Ann Arbor, Michigan,

supports field, analytical, and laboratory investigations to improve

understanding and prediction of biological and physical processes in estuaries

and coastal areas. The laboratory also studies the interdependencies of the

aquatic systems with the atmosphere and sediments. Investigations emphasize

the Great Lakes ecosystem and the development of environmental service

tools that support resource management and environmental services. The

laboratory operates a field facility in Muskegon, Michigan. In 2002, the

laboratory obtained a 15-year lease on the research vessel LAURENTIAN

from the University of Michigan. The Great Lakes Environmental Research

Laboratory has a staff of 53 federal employees and 20 non-federal

employees.

NOAA’s extensive

laboratories

support coastal

and ocean

research,

exploration and

monitoring.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 111

The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, supports

research on weather and hurricane forecasts, El Niño prediction, stratospheric

ozone depletion, and global warming. The research goal is to understand and

predict trends in the earth’s climate and weather patterns, including the impact

of human activities. The laboratory has 84 federal employees and 50 nonfederal employees.

The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, Florida,

supports basic and applied research in oceanography, tropical meteorology,

atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, and acoustics (e.g., hurricanes, ocean

current and temperature structures, ocean and atmosphere chemical

exchanges, coral reefs, and coastal ocean) with emphasis on the Atlantic

Ocean. Investigations seek to understand physical and biological

characteristics and processes of the ocean and the atmosphere. This laboratory

has 96 federal employees and 59 non-federal employees.

The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington, supports

interdisciplinary research in oceanography and marine meteorology, with a

focus on coastal and open ocean observations and modeling. Research is

focused on the ocean’s physical, biological, and geochemical processes and

supporting services for marine commerce and fisheries (e.g., environmental

forecasting capabilities), with emphasis on the Pacific Ocean. The laboratory

supports an undersea observation and research program in Newport, Oregon,

and has a staff of 92 federal employees and 85 non-federal employees.

The Environmental Technology Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, supports

NOAA’s environmental monitoring and stewardship charter by performing

oceanic and atmospheric research and developing new remote-sensing

systems. Atmospheric and oceanic processes are studied to probe regions that

are not readily accessible by direct measurement. Research ranges from basic

physics of electromagnetic and acoustic wave interactions in air and water, to

development and transfer of oceans and atmosphere monitoring technologies,

including remote-sensing systems. The laboratory has 62 federal employees

and 64 non-federal employees.

In addition to these laboratories, NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Research maintains eight joint cooperative institutes with significant oceanrelated activities that provide opportunities for collaboration with academic

investigators:

• In the Great Lakes, the Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems

Research in Ann Arbor supports research on climate and large lake

dynamics, coastal and nearshore processes, large lake ecosystem structure

and function, remote sensing of large lake and coastal ocean dynamics,

and marine environmental engineering. The institute supports

approximately 35 university researchers, postdoctoral investigators, and

students at the University of Michigan and 14 other Great

Lakes universities.
112 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

• The Cooperative Institute of Climate and Ocean Research in Woods Hole,

Massachusetts, is a joint partnership between WHOI and NOAA that

supports research on coastal ocean and nearshore processes, the ocean’s

roles in climate and climate variability, and marine ecosystem processes

analysis.

• The Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies in Miami,

Florida, is a joint partnership with the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel

School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences that supports research on

climate variability, fisheries dynamics, and coastal ocean ecosystem

processes. The institute collaborates with NOAA’s Environmental

Research Laboratory and NMFS. It supports 45 university researchers,

postdoctoral investigators, graduate students, and staff.

• Two joint programs are located in the West Coast region — the Joint

Institute for Marine Observations in La Jolla, California, and the Joint

Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean in Seattle,

Washington. The joint program in La Jolla is a partnership with SIO. The

program supports research on coupled ocean-atmosphere climate, blue

water and littoral oceanography, marine biology and biological

oceanography, marine geology and geophysics, and ocean technology.

The institute is co-located with the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Center.

• The program in Seattle is a partnership with the University of Washington.

The program supports research on climate variability, environmental

chemistry, estuarine processes and interannual variability of fisheries

recruitment (complementing the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory’s

research). It supports 35 university researchers, postdoctoral

investigators, and students.

• The Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research in Fairbanks, Alaska, is a

partnership with the University of Alaska. The institute supports Arctic

research with a focus on fisheries oceanography, hydrographic studies

and sea ice dynamics, atmospheric research, climate dynamics and

variability, tsunami research and prediction, environmental assessment,

monitoring, and numerical modeling. Currently, this institute supports

15 researchers and staff.

• The Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research in Honolulu,

Hawaii, is a partnership with the University of Hawaii. It supports research

on equatorial oceanography, climate and tropical meteorology, tsunamis,

and fisheries oceanography (complimenting research conducted by the

Environmental Research Laboratory). It supports 40 university

researchers, postdoctoral investigators, students and staff.

NOAA also closely collaborates with the academic community’s research

through the National Sea Grant Program (Sea Grant). Sea Grant consists of

30 programs (Figure 4-1) that serve a national network of more than

300 participating institutions, involving more than 3,000 scientists, engineers,

outreach experts, educators and students. Sea Grant addresses key issues

and opportunities in areas such as aquaculture, aquatic nuisance species,

coastal community development, estuarine research, fisheries management,

coastal hazards, marine biotechnology, marine engineering, seafood safety,

and water quality.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 113

Sea Grant is a national program that sponsors research that addresses the

ocean policy and management needs identified by coastal residents and

businesses, and local, regional, state and federal agencies. The program

conveys scientific research results to user groups such as natural resource

managers and coastal business people. The program also conducts and

sponsors marine education and outreach activities.

Another NOAA research program is the National Undersea Research Program

(NURP). This program has six regional National Undersea Research Centers

(NURCs) (Table 4-1) and provides funds annually for more than 200 research

projects that support NOAA’s mission. Examples of areas of research include

causes behind depletion of fisheries, impacts of commercial fishing activity on

critical habitats, effects of climate change on the health of coral reefs, and

undersea volcanism and its role in coastal hazards. The program also

supports research at a long-term ecosystem observatory off the coast of New

Jersey. The program’s NURCs support many of the nation’s underwater

vehicle operations.

Sea Grant has program offices in each of the nation’s nine coastal regions. Most of the offices are located in the Northeast.

Figure 4-1: Distribution of Sea Grant Program Offices

Univ. Florida

Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institute

Univ. Washington

Texas A&M Univ.

Massachusetts Institute

of Technology

Univ. Wisconsin

Univ. Georgia

Oregon State Univ.

State Univ. of New York

Univ. Maryland

Univ. of California San Diego 

Louisiana State Univ. 

Univ. of Southern California

Univ. Michigan 

Univ. Alaska

Univ. Hawaii

Mississippi-Alabama

Sea Grant Consortium

South Carolina

Sea Grant Consortium

Univ. Puerto Rico

Univ. Minnesota

Univ. Illinois Ohio State Univ.

Virginia Graduate Marine Consortium

Univ. Delaware

New Jersey Marine

Science Consortium

Univ. Connecticut

Univ. Rhode Island

Univ. New Hampshire

Univ. Maine

North Carolina State Univ.
114 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

NOAA’s most unique laboratory is the Aquarius, an underwater laboratory

60 feet down and adjacent to a coral reef off Key Largo, Florida, within the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The laboratory is used as a platform

for the study of coral reef processes. It can accommodate 4 scientists and

2 technicians during missions that average 10 days. Owned by NOAA, the

facility is administered by the NURC at the University of North Carolina

at Wilmington.

The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, a program within NOAA’s

Ocean Service Office, has five laboratories dedicated to ocean and coastal

science. These five centers conduct research, monitoring, and assessments

on ocean and coastal environments, including the influences of human

activities. Information on the staff employed at these centers was not

available. The five centers in brief:

• The Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research in Silver Spring,

Maryland, hosts the Coastal Ocean Program, which gives scientific

information to coastal managers to support policy decisions.

The Coastal Ocean Program supports research on coastal ecosystem

oceanography, cumulative coastal impacts, and harmful algal blooms

and eutrophication.

• The Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment in Silver Spring,

Maryland, provides long-term measurements at a network of core index

sites (including NOAA’s Marine Protected Areas). A network of marine

laboratories and universities augment the information. The Center’s

Biogeography Program collects, synthesizes and analyzes data on marine

biota distribution and life history. This program maintains local, national

Table 4-1: NOAA Undersea Research Centers

NOAA’s NURCs are a collaboration of the federal government and academic and research

institutions that foster the exploration of the underwater regions of the nation’s coasts.

NOAA Region NURP Center 

North Atlantic and Great Lakes NOAA’s Undersea Research Center, 

University of Connecticut, Avery Point 

Mid-Atlantic Bight NOAA’s Undersea Research Center, 

Rutgers University 

Southeast and Gulf of Mexico NOAA’s Undersea Research Center, 

University of North Carolina, 

Wilmington 

Caribbean National Undersea Research Center, 

Perry Institute of Marine Science, 

Caribbean Marine Research Center 

West Coast and Polar Regions NOAA’s Undersea Research Center, 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks 

Hawaii and the Pacific NOAA’s Undersea Research Center, 

University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii 

Undersea Research Laboratory 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 115

and regional databases on the distribution of species and habitats. It is

developing thematic, regional, watershed, and national assessments.

• The Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research

in Charleston, South Carolina, provides scientific information related to

the health of coastal ecosystems. Major research activities include

development of marine toxin and harmful algal bloom detection methods;

development of techniques for field assessment of environmental quality

and coastal ecosystem health; examining the relationship between land

use and presence of chemical contaminants in the marine environment;

and molecular genetics characterization of fish and shellfish to improve

species and stock differentiation.

• The Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research in Beaufort, North

Carolina, supports research on the biological productivity of estuaries and

ocean ecosystems for the purpose of enhancing recreational and

commercial fishery resources. Major research activities include habitat

restoration, analyses of Atlantic and Gulf fisheries’ responses to fishing

efforts, and characterization of Southeast and Gulf biological productivity

and contaminants cycling.

• The Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina, is a multiinstitutional, multidisciplinary laboratory that provides science and

biotechnology applications to sustain, protect, and restore coastal

ecosystems, emphasizing linkages between the environment and human

health. Major research areas include environmental and analytical

chemistry, marine genomics, contemporary use of pesticides,

ecotoxicology, and aquaculture production and disease.

NOAA’s NMFS maintains more than 20 facilities that conduct fisheries

research, including laboratories, science centers, and field stations (NMFS

facilities are listed in Supplement 4-1). To support these facilities, NMFS

employs 875 fisheries biologists, 188 general biologists, 109 biological

scientific technicians, 43 oceanographers, and 39 chemists. Some of the

NMFS facilities maintain close coordination with academic institutions, such

as the Narragansett Laboratory, which is located on the Bay Campus of the

University of Rhode Island. Of these NMFS facilities, two — the National

Marine Mammal Lab and the National Systematic Laboratory — are

described here in some detail because of their unique nature.

The National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle, Washington, conducts

research on marine mammals worldwide, with emphasis on the species native

to coastal California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The laboratory

conducts censuses of marine mammals to evaluate the health and size of the

populations. It relies on vessels, aircraft, and telemetry (including satellite

tracking) to conduct its research.

The National Systematics Laboratory, administered by the Northeast Fisheries

Science Center and co-located with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington,

D.C., serves as the taxonomic research arm of the NOAA fisheries. The

laboratory’s mission is to describe and name new species, and to revise

existing descriptions and names based on new information about the fishes,

squids, crustaceans, and corals of economic or ecological importance.
116 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Because some important species are highly migratory and many exotic species

are introduced into U.S. waters or markets, the laboratory’s research is

worldwide. Major products of this research are worldwide and regional

taxonomic publications and identification guides.

4.1.3.2 U.S. Department of Defense Laboratories

Within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), only the U.S. Navy and USACE

have laboratory facilities that support coastal and ocean research.

The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has a number of major laboratory

facilities that have some application to oceanography or involve ocean or

shipboard research. The largest laboratory facility is located in Washington,

D.C. The other facilities are located at the Patuxent River and Chesapeake

Bay detachments in Maryland; at the Marine Corrosion Facility in Key West,

Florida; at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi; and at the Naval

Postgraduate School complex in California. In terms of staffing, the NRL has

approximately 430 full-time equivalents (FTEs) who conduct and support

oceanographic research. Details on the six NRL facilities follow:

• NRL — Washington, D.C., conducts most of NRL’s research and serves as

the operational and administrative focal point for all research efforts.

NRL’s Acoustic and Remote Sensing Division offices and primary research

facilities are located here.

• NRL — Flight Support Detachment (NRL FSD) is located at the Patuxent

River Naval Air Station in Lexington Park, Maryland. NRL FSD operates

and maintains five uniquely modified P-3 Orion turboprop aircraft that are

used as airborne research platforms (see Section 4.4). NRL FSD’s aircraft

operate worldwide on extended deployment and annually log more than

2,500 flight hours. These aircraft are the sole airborne platforms for

numerous projects, such as bathymetry, electronic countermeasures,

gravity mapping, and radar development research.

• NRL — Chesapeake Bay Detachment (CBD) occupies a 168-acre site

near Chesapeake Beach, Maryland, and provides facilities and support

services for research in radar, electronic warfare, optical devices,

materials, communications, and fire research. Because of its location

high above the Chesapeake Bay on the western shore, unique

experiments can be performed in conjunction with the Tilghman Island site

16 kilometers across the bay from CBD. Some of these experiments

include low clutter and generally low background radar measurements.

By using CBD’s support vessels, experiments are performed that involve

dispensing chaff over water and radar target characterizations of aircraft

and ships. Basic research is also conducted in radar antenna properties,

testing radar remote sensing concepts, use of radar to sensor ocean

waves, and laser propagation.

• NRL — Marine Corrosion Test Facility in Key West, Florida, offers a flowing

clean ocean-air environment suitable for studies of environmental effects

on materials. Equipment is available for experiments involving weathering,
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 117

general corrosion, fouling, and electrochemical phenomena, as well as

coatings, cathodic protection devices, and other means to combat

environmental degradation.

• NRL — Stennis Space Center is a tenant at the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Mississippi.

Other Navy tenants include the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography

Command and the Naval Oceanographic Office, which are major

operational users of the oceanographic and atmospheric research and

development performed by NRL. This unique concentration of operational

and research oceanographers makes SSC the center of naval

oceanography and the largest grouping of oceanographers in the world.

The Oceanography Division, the Marine Geosciences Division, and one

branch of the Acoustics Division are also located at NRL-SSC.

• NRL — Marine Meteorology Division (NRL-MRY) in Monterey, California,

is a tenant at the Naval Postgraduate School. This facility is co-located

with the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center

(FNMOC) to support development and upgrades of numerical

atmospheric forecast systems and related user products. NRL-MRY’s

mission has broadened considerably to include basic research and

support to other customers. Proximity to FNMOC allows NRL-MRY access

to the Navy’s largest vector supercomputer mainframe and workstation

resources. This access provides real-time as well as archived global

atmospheric and oceanographic databases for research on-site and at

other NRL locations. There are interfaces to the Defense Research and

Engineering Network at FNMOC and Defense Simulation Internet at NPS.

USACE conducts coastal research at the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

(CHL) of the Engineer Research and Development Center located at the

Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Research conducted

at CHL focuses on coastal and nearshore physical processes, including but

not limited to waves, currents, tides, tsunamis, morphological response, and

sediment transport. This research is applied to a variety of coastal and ocean

engineering areas, including breakwaters, beach fills, navigation channels,

vessel response, tidal inlets, and dredged material disposal.

CHL has a permanent staff of 250 people (approximately half are engineers

and scientists). At any given time, approximately half of the permanent staff is

engaged in activities directly related to coastal and nearshore physical

processes. (The CHL research mission also includes non-ocean water

environments such as rivers, estuaries, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwater.)

Computational facilities available to the CHL staff include the Major Shared

Resource Center. The major types of CHL facilities used for coastal research

are various large-sized basins (some more than 300 feet long) used to

simulate waves and current.

USACE also has the Field Research Facility in Duck, North Carolina, on the

Outer Banks. It operates as a branch of the CHL. The Field Research Facility

has a concrete and steel research pier. The research facility also operates the

Coastal Research Amphibious Buggy, a motorized tripod equipped with a

centimeter-level global positioning system (GPS) surveying system. It is used
118 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

for precision mapping, and also serves as a stable work platform for

instrument deployments and other activities. A 12-person staff of technicians,

oceanographers and computer specialists operates the facility. This site also

supports a coastal observing system (see Section 4.6).

4.1.3.3 U.S. Coast Guard Laboratories

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) operates the Marine Safety Laboratory in

Groton, Connecticut. This laboratory provides forensic oil analysis and expert

testimony in support of oil pollution law enforcement efforts for field

investigators, districts, hearing officers, the National Pollution Funds Center,

the U.S. Department of Justice, and other federal agencies. The Marine Safety

Laboratory also investigates ways to enhance sampling oil spills and improve

the forensic process. The Marine Safety Laboratory is at the Research and

Development Center, which USCG leases from the University of Connecticut.

The laboratory employs 10 people.

4.1.3.4 National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Laboratories

NASA has only one land-based laboratory, located on Virginia’s Eastern

Shore. The air-sea interaction research facility at the Wallops Flight Facility

has two wave tanks and engineering laboratories to study air-sea interaction

and to test and design sensors. The annual cost of the air-sea interaction

laboratory is between $50,000 and $80,000, funded through peer-reviewed

research projects.

4.1.3.5 U.S. Department of the Interior Laboratories

An accurate inventory of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s)

laboratories was not possible because, with the exception of the Minerals

Management Service (MMS), DOI’s agencies did not provide a report of their

facilities. Through Internet searches, some laboratories were identified for the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

MMS operates the Ohmsett (Oil and Hazardous Material Simulated Test Tank)

test facility in Leonard, New Jersey. This facility is the largest oil spill response

test facility in the world.4 The main facility at Ohmsett is a large, outdoor,

aboveground, 230-meter long concrete test tank filled with salt water. Water

clarity is maintained by filtration and chlorinating systems to enhance

underwater video of equipment being tested. This unique facility provides a

simulated marine environment with reproducible test conditions for oil spill

response equipment testing and evaluation. Ohmsett serves as a test bed

facility that bridges the gap between laboratory scale and open-ocean testing.

The facility is available for use year-round by both government agencies and

the private sector.

Movable tow bridges at the facility are capable of towing full-scale oil spill

cleanup equipment at speeds up to 6.5 knots. The tow tank also has a wave

maker that is able to produce a variety of wave forms up to one meter in

height. The on-site storage tanks hold up to 60,000 gallons of test oils that
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 119

can be distributed on the surface of the tank water in varying amounts and

thicknesses. A wide variety of crude and refined petroleum products have

been used in tests at Ohmsett. Including the facility manager, there are a total

of 13 staff positions at Ohmsett.

USCG’s Coastal and Marine Geology Program conducts scientific research

along U.S. coastlines, in adjoining ocean waters, and in other waterways. The

broad goals of this program are to collect information, monitor conditions,

and distribute findings about geologic hazards, environmental conditions,

habitats, geologic processes, and energy and mineral resources. Its activities

help DOI and other government managers to make informed decisions about

the use and protection of our coastal and marine resources. The program

includes three field centers: Menlo Park/Santa Cruz, California; Woods Hole,

Massachusetts; and St. Petersburg, Florida.5

A staff of about 150 people, most of them located in Menlo Park, conducts the

work of the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program on the West Coast.

The Menlo Park office is expanding to include an office near the University of

California, Santa Cruz campus, to facilitate collaboration with several dozen

marine research institutions in the Monterey Bay area.

The St. Petersburg center investigates scientific processes related to societal

problems arising in coastal and marine environments, including natural

hazards, resources, and environmental change. The scientific staff has grown

from a core group of geologists to include biologists, hydrologists, remote

sensing specialists, biogeochemists, microbiologists, coral reef experts, and

fish ecologists. In 1996, the center had about 60 employees; current

employment numbers are unknown.

The Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Geology team is located on WHOI’s

Quissett Campus. The team has a staff of about 100, including 24 research

scientists and 75 scientific and administrative support staff. USGS scientists

explore and study many aspects of the underwater areas between shorelines

and the deep ocean off the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and in parts of the

Caribbean and Great Lakes.

The USGS’s Great Lakes Science Center is located on the North Campus of

the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.6 The Center has five field stations,

one vessel base, and three field station/vessel base combinations dispersed

throughout the Great Lakes Basin. Strategic placement of the center’s field

operations facilitates research conducted over this large geographic area.

Field stations are located at Cortland, New York (Tunison Laboratory of

Aquatic Sciences); Millersburg, Michigan (Hammond Bay Biological Station);

Munising, Michigan; and Porter, Indiana (Lake Michigan Ecological Station).

A mid-lake vessel base is located in Cheboygan, Michigan. Combined field

stations and vessel bases are located in Ashland, Wisconsin (Lake Superior

Biological Station); Oswego, New York (Lake Ontario Biological Station); and

Sandusky, Ohio (Lake Erie Biological Station). Approximately half of the

center’s 107 staff is in Ann Arbor and the other half is distributed across the

center’s field stations. The center operates four research vessels.
120 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The National Wetlands Research Center (NWRC) is a USGS facility that serves

as a clearinghouse for scientific information about the nation’s wetlands.5

NWRC, located in Lafayette, Louisiana, has three scientific branches (Forest

Ecology, Spatial Analysis, and Wetlands Ecology) and a technology branch

(Technology and Informatics). It operates two field stations and three project

offices. The scientific branches employ 41 scientists (13 at Forest Ecology,

15 at Spatial Analysis, and 13 at Wetland Ecology), while Technology and

Informatics has 5 technical staff employees.6 NWRC’s wetland information

products include peer-reviewed journal articles, databases, synthesis reports,

workshops, conferences, technical assistance, training, and information and

library services. Examples of NWRC’s coastal research topics include

accretion, subsidence, sea-level rise, aquatic ecosystem stressors, submerged

aquatic vegetation, and assessment of hurricanes’ environmental effects.

Users of the products include federal and state government agencies, private

entities, academia, and the public.

4.1.3.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories

EPA’s Office of Research and Development has four laboratories that target

ocean, estuarine, and coastal research, including the Great Lakes. To help

support the agency’s mission, these four laboratories maintain close

collaboration with academic institutions and other government agencies. The

Mid-Continent Ecology Division at Duluth, Minnesota, identifies impaired

watersheds, diagnoses causes of degradation, and establishes risk-based

assessments to support restoration and remediation decisions. It also

develops approaches for monitoring trends in ecological conditions within the

Great Lakes. The division has 145 federal employees. This division operates

the research vessel LAKE EXPLORER.

The Atlantic Ecology Division in Narragansett, Rhode Island, operates a

laboratory that develops and evaluates theory, methods, and data to better

understand and quantify the environmental effects of anthropogenic stressors

on the coastal waters and watersheds of the Atlantic seaboard. EPA’s

Narragansett laboratory is located adjacent to the University of Rhode Island

Graduate School of Oceanography and a NMFS laboratory. This facility,

with a fiscal year 2002 (FY2002) operating budget of approximately

$13.5 million, employs 81 federal employees, including 65 scientists.

The Gulf Ecology Division in Gulf Breeze, Florida, operates a laboratory that

focuses on Gulf of Mexico ecosystems, including assessing the ecological

condition of estuaries, coastal wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and

coral reefs. Located within this facility is the Gulf Breeze Project Office of the

USGS NWRC. The EPA Gulf Breeze laboratory, with a FY2002 operating

budget of approximately $15.3 million, employs 70 federal employees,

including 64 scientists.

The Western Ecology Division has facilities in Corvallis, Oregon, and Newport,

Oregon. It is responsible for developing an understanding of the structure

and function of ecological systems, and conducting holistic analysis of

ecological phenomena at the ecosystem, landscape, and regional scales.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 121

These facilities, with an FY2002 operating budget of approximately

$17.0 million, employ 83 federal employees, including 71 scientists.

4.1.3.7 National Science Foundation Laboratories

NSF is in charge of the nation’s Antarctic Program. In support of the

program, they own and operate the McMurdo and Palmer Antarctic Research

Stations. McMurdo is the largest Antarctic station, which provides for

Antarctic marine organism and climate studies. During the summer about

1,100 people occupy the station, and during the winter the number is

reduced to approximately 250.

Palmer Station, located on a protected harbor on the southwestern coast of

Anvers Island off the Antarctica Peninsula, is well situated for biological and

marine ecosystem research. It has a large and extensively equipped

laboratory and seawater aquaria. In 1990, NSF designated the station as

a long-term ecological site. The station operates in conjunction with the

research ship LAURENCE M. GOULD. During the summer about

40 scientists occupy the station, while in winter only about 10 occupy

the facility.

In addition to the Antarctic stations, NSF owns the National Ocean Sciences

Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Facility at WHOI. This facility is used for

radiocarbon analysis of environmental samples, mainly oceanographic. The

cost of the facility or plans for its replacement are unknown.

4.1.3.8 U.S. Department of Energy Laboratories

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has seven laboratories that conduct

ocean-related research. Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory in California are developing ocean models with the goal of

producing high-quality simulations and predictions of ocean circulation and

bio-geochemistry. Of special interest is modeling sequestration of carbon in

the oceans by direct injection of carbon dioxide or by iron fertilization.

The Earth Sciences Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in

California supports research on bio-geochemical cycles in the ocean; in

particular, the vertical transport and sequestration of carbon. The laboratory

evaluates the feasibility, effectiveness and environmental consequences of

purposeful ocean carbon sequestration as a strategy for managing

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The research is multidisciplinary and

includes mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and

engineering.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Utah has a Seafloor Process Simulator.

The Simulator is a 72-liter, high-pressure, temperature- and pressurecontrolled chamber. It is being used to study the formation of carbon dioxide

hydrates in the deep sea. Understanding of hydrates dynamics is important for

climate change research.

The Climate, Ocean and Sea-Ice Modeling Group at Los Alamos National
122 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Laboratory in New Mexico develops and applies state-of-the-science global

ocean general circulation models and sea-ice models as part of the DOE

Climate Change Prediction Program. These models are a component of the

multi-institutional Community Climate System Model program supported by

DOE and NSF. The Earth and Environmental Sciences group uses advanced

ocean-circulation models to investigate the interactions of oceans circulation

and the ecology of the ocean’s surface layers, including the distribution of

phytoplankton and zooplankton.

The Pacific Northwest National Marine Sciences Laboratory is located in

Sequim, Washington. Scientists at this laboratory perform both basic and

applied research in support of the management of marine and estuarine

ecosystems, the impacts of human activity on ecosystems, and the

development of marine resources and biotechnology. Expertise includes

marine chemistry, ocean modeling, measurement technology, ecological

system processes and restoration research, fisheries research, and

marine ecotoxicology.

The DOE Joint Genome Institute is a state-of-the-art genomics laboratory in

Walnut Creek, California. Recent projects include a number of marine

organisms such as the tunicate Ciona intestinalis, the zebrafish, and

numerous marine bacteria and phytoplankton (e.g., cyanobacteria

Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus). Data from these projects offer the

potential to provide a whole new level of understanding of marine systems and

to greatly enhance our ability to develop fundamental, mechanistically based

models of ocean bio-geochemical cycles.

4.1.3.9 Smithsonian Institution Laboratories

The Smithsonian Institution has a tropical research institute, an environmental

research center, and a marine field station that conduct coastal and ocean

research. In addition, the Smithsonian is the repository for multiple collections

of marine organisms used regularly by the scientific community for research.

In the Republic of Panama, The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI)

maintains a series of facilities dedicated to tropical research and education.7

STRI has a marine field station on the Caribbean coast of Panama in the

Bocas del Toro province. In addition, STRI is also constructing a new

educational research center in the same region. The new center will host a

comprehensive education and research program, which is focused on both

marine and terrestrial environments. Also on the Caribbean coast is the

Galeta Marine Laboratory, where the long-term effects of an oil spill are

studied. On the Pacific coast, near the entrance of the Panama Canal, STRI

has the Naos Island Laboratories. The laboratory facilities include modern

molecular biology labs, tanks with running seawater for experimentation, and

research diving facilities. STRI was bequeathed a 242-hectacre island on the

Pacific Coast of Panama in an area with the highest density of coral reefs in

the eastern Pacific Ocean. STRI is considering establishing an Eastern Pacific

Marine Research and Educational Center on this donated island. STRI also

operates the research vessel URRACA, a UNOLS vessel (Section 4.2).
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 123

The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, on the western shore of the

Chesapeake Bay, provides facilities for interdisciplinary research and

educational outreach. An important feature of the center is its relatively large

size.8 With 2,600 acres of land and 12 miles of undeveloped shoreline, the

center serves as a natural laboratory for long-term ecological research. The

center is a leading national and international institution for research in the

area of non-native species invasion, and hosts the National Ballast Water

Information Clearinghouse.

The Smithsonian Marine Station is a field station facility of the Smithsonian

National Museum of Natural History. The Marine Station, located in Ft.

Pierce, Florida, specializes in the study of marine biodiversity and ecosystems

of Florida. In 1999, the station was moved from a small floating facility to a

new eight-acre campus equipped with general-use laboratories that include

electron microscopy capabilities. The station has various small boats,

including the 39-foot research vessel SUNBURST, which is equipped for

coastal research and benthic sampling.

An example of the Smithsonian’s repository role is the National Collection of

Foraminifera (and other microfossils), which is the largest collection of

foraminifera in the world. The study of foraminifera provides relevant

information for multiple areas of research including the elucidation of longterm climatic fluctuations.

4.1.3.10 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Laboratories

FDA’s Seafood Safety Laboratory has an ongoing research program in marine

biotoxins, in particular those produced by harmful algal blooms. This

program provides guidance to FDA’s regulatory program. An important

component of the program is to improve the characterization of the various

seafood toxins, the development of detection methods, and the culture of the

organisms that produce biotoxins. FDA also routinely supplies reference

standards for two types of biotoxins to other laboratories for regulatory and

research purposes. The Administration’s research program also provides

technical support to state and other regulatory agencies when there are

management questions. Information about FDA’s laboratory facilities or the

number of staff was not available.

4.1.4 State Marine Laboratories

State marine laboratory facilities fall into two general categories: state-owned

laboratory facilities designed to support universities, and state-owned

laboratory facilities that support the state’s resource management or

environmental monitoring and assessment activities. State laboratory facilities

that support academic institutions were discussed earlier in this chapter. This

section discusses state laboratory facilities that support state resource

management or environmental monitoring and assessment activities.

The protection and conservation of the coastal zone of any state requires

programs that adequately monitor the environmental characteristics of each

particular system. Each state has a different governmental organization, so
124 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

the monitoring programs fall under different agencies depending on the state.

For example, some states may have an agency with a laboratory used for

fisheries and water quality, while other states may have the same

responsibilities distributed among separate agencies with independent

facilities. This variability in state facilities, combined with the relatively low

response to the request for information received from the states (about a third

of the states responded), limits discussion about these facilities.

Two example state laboratory facilities are described here to illustrate the

existing degree of capabilities and diversity of programs the states have to

conduct coastal and ocean research, monitoring, and exploration activities.

The state facilities selected are the Marine Resources Division of South Carolina’s

Department of Natural Resources, and the Florida Marine Research Institute of

Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Commission.

The South Carolina Marine Resources Division has multiple responsibilities for

the protection and sustainable use of fisheries resources.9 For example, the

division conducts studies on marine resources and aquaculture research, sets

the seasons for saltwater fishing and shell fishing, manages the shellfish

grounds artificial reefs, and conducts outreach and education activities.

The division’s facilities conducting research are the Marine Resources

Research Institute and the South Carolina Algal Ecology Laboratory.

The Marine Resources Research Institute, established in 1973 in James Island

across the harbor from the City of Charleston, is South Carolina’s only seaside

research facility not directly administered by an academic institution. The

institute provides scientific expertise and technical capabilities needed to

develop and conduct the research programs required to protect, restore, and

enhance estuarine and marine resources. In addition, the institute identifies

suitable species, develops culture methods, and provides advisory services for

the growing shrimp, mollusk, and fish aquaculture industries.

The institute also provides a research facility for the academic community. It

occupies a modern cooperative research facility with wet and dry laboratories,

and in association with the College of Charleston, houses a research library

with more than 14,400 monographic titles, 7,800 bound journals,

25,600 reprints and 400 current serial subscriptions. Other features of the

facility include culture systems supplied with flow-through and recirculating

seawater, a graphics center, photographic darkrooms, and a geographic

information processing laboratory. The institute operates 4 research vessels

ranging from 51 to 110 feet in length and 18 outboard motor boats ranging

from 13 to 23 feet in length.

The institute also operates the James M. Waddell Research and Development

Center, one of the country’s largest facilities for aquaculture research. The

Waddell Center maintains a system of 35 ponds that range in size from 0.5 to

1.25 acres, hatcheries, spawning facilities, and support laboratories. The

aquaculture facilities at the Waddell Center are used by institute staff as well

as researchers and students associated with the state’s academic institutions.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 125

The South Carolina Algal Ecology Laboratory is a partnership between the

University of South Carolina’s Baruch Institute, and the Marine Resources

Division of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. The

laboratory personnel work at three facilities. Most of the personnel work at the

Marine Resources Research Institute. Additional personnel work at the nearby

Hollings Marine Laboratory and at the Baruch Marine Field Laboratory,

located approximately 80 miles northeast of Charleston. The Baruch Marine

Field Laboratory is a facility of the University of South Carolina Belle Baruch

Institute for Marine Ecology and Coastal Science.

The Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) conducts applied research

that supports the management of Florida’s marine resources.10 It has

12 laboratories distributed along the Florida coastline. Some of the

laboratories, like the Marine Mammal Pathological Laboratory, have very

specialized missions. The Institute has four main technical areas of work:

fisheries assessment, ecosystem assessment and restoration, endangered and

threatened species, and information science and management.

FMRI’s Fisheries Assessment Section conducts monitoring of commercial and

recreational marine fisheries. Typical areas of studies include life histories,

genetic characteristics, population structure and dynamics, ecology, and stock

enhancement potential of important recreational and commercial fish and

invertebrate species. Information collected helps to assess and predict

fisheries harvest trends. This section employs approximately 103 FTEs.

The Ecosystem Assessment and Restoration Section addresses many different

issues, including assessment of marine habitats; plant and animal

communities associated with Florida’s coastal fisheries; studies of fish kills and

seagrass die-off; and monitoring of red tides. This section employs 27 FTEs.

The Endangered and Threatened Species Section’s priority is conservation

research designed to provide managers with timely information for protecting

the North Atlantic right whale, sea turtles, and Florida manatees. Frequent

techniques use for research and monitoring include aerial surveys, radio

and satellite telemetry, photo identification of manatees, and geographic

information systems. This section employs 21 FTEs.

The Information Science and Management Section ensures the timely delivery

of marine-related information collected by FMRI staff. This section includes a

program in coastal and marine resources assessment, information access,

and computer management. This section employs 29 FTEs and more than

18 other personnel. FMRI also employs another 35 FTEs and 18 other

personnel in support of operation tasks. FMRI’s annual operating budget is

approximately $33 million.
126 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

4.2 Research, Exploration, and

Monitoring Vessels

This section addresses surface vessels (i.e., any boat, craft, or ship) that

support ocean and coastal research, exploration, and monitoring activities.

It does not include underwater vehicles, which are covered in Section 4.3;

commercial vessels (e.g., cruise or cargo ships); and military ships that,

outside of their normal operations, may deploy oceanographic

instrumentation or collect samples as part of a volunteer program. This

inventory does not include boats under 25 feet in length, as these assets are

too dynamic to be accurately evaluated.

The U.S. research, exploration, and monitoring fleet consists of more than

400 vessels ranging in size from the 470-foot JOIDES RESOLUTION ocean

drilling ship, to small boats that support coastal and inshore water activities.

Vessels in this inventory have an average length of 92 feet and are 23 years

old. Approximately 21 percent of the vessels are large ocean-going vessels

(over 130 feet).

The inventory of vessels is sorted into five organizational categories: UNOLS,

academic, federal, state, and commercial (Table 4-2). UNOLS vessels include

U.S. Navy and NSF-owned vessels in operation with various universities.

Academic vessels are non-UNOLS vessels operated by academic institutions

and nonprofit, private oceanographic research institutions such as Harbor

Branch Oceanographic Institutions and Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute. Federal vessels are those owned and operated by federal agencies,

including the Navy and USCG. Commercial vessels are vessels owned by forprofit organizations, including vessels chartered or leased by federal, state or

academic institutions. In addition, vessels are also sorted by their homeport,

according to the nine regions defined in Chapter 1. For smaller vessels with a

limited operational range, the homeport region approximates the vessel’s

operational region. For some large oceangoing vessels, the operational

region surpasses their homeport region. These larger vessels have a global

reach, and occasionally operate for significant periods of time conducting

missions through multiple regions.

The missions supported by these vessels range from water-quality monitoring

in the Great Lakes to deep-ocean drilling for geophysical research. The type

of deployment mission dictates the vessel’s characteristics. Some vessels have

a unique role that cannot be replicated by any other vessel in the fleet. For

example, the 360-foot FLIP is designed to be towed to a station and “flipped”

into a vertical position to act as a research platform. Other vessels frequently

support multidisciplinary investigations and cannot be classified within a

defined mission (e.g., fisheries, geophysics survey).

4.2.1 UNOLS Vessels

UNOLS was created in 1972 with the objective of coordinating and reviewing

access to and use of facilities for academic oceanographic research.

The U.S. research,

exploration, and

monitoring fleet

has more than

400 vessels.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 127

The UNOLS vessels compose the National Academic Research Fleet, made up

of federal, state, and privately owned vessels. In December 2001, the Federal

Oceanographic Facilities Committee of the National Oceanographic

Partnership prepared a report to the National Ocean Research Leadership

Council titled Charting the Future of the National Academic Research Fleet:

A Long-Range Plan for Renewal.

11 The information in this section relies

largely on that report, as it is the most current document about the status and

future plans for the National Academic Research Fleet.

The UNOLS fleet consists of 27 vessels with an average length of 163 feet,

and ranging in size from 66 to 279 feet (Supplement 4-2 lists the UNOLS

vessels). NSF is the primary supporter of the UNOLS’s National Academic

Research Fleet, owning eight of the vessels. The U.S. Navy owns 6 vessels,

and various academic and research institutions own the other 13 vessels. As

of 2003, the average age of the fleet is 17 years. The oldest vessel is the

CLIFFORD BARNES, built in 1966, and the newest addition is the SWATH

(Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) design vessel KILO MOANA, built in 2002.

With the exception of the Caribbean, there is at least one UNOLS vessel with a

homeport in each coastal region, with the largest number in the West Coast

region. UNOLS currently groups the vessels into five classes based on vessel

length (Table 4-3).

A few of the UNOLS vessels have very specific missions. For example, the

ATLANTIS, a 274-foot Global Class vessel owned by the U.S. Navy and

operated by WHOI, provides support to the manned submersible ALVIN.

Another vessel with a unique role is the 239-foot MAURICE EWING, operated

Region UNOLS Academic Federal State Commercial Total 

Great Lakes (GL) 1 12 9 31 2 55 

Northeast 

Atlantic (NE) 4 26 3 2 49 84 

Mid Atlantic (MA) 3 34 10 7 5 59 

Southeast 

Atlantic (SE) 5 16 6 5 10 42 

Caribbean (C) 1* 4 0 0 0 4 

Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM) 3 16 7 0 56 82 

West Coast (WC) 8 27 8 3 12 58 

Alaska (AK) 1 1 7 2 7 18 

Western Pacific 

(WP) 1 3 3 0 0 7 

TOTAL 27 139 53** 50 141 410 

Table 4-2: Vessel Distribution by Region

Summary table of the number of research vessel sorted by type of organization and homeport region.

* The URRACA, a vessel of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, operates mostly on the Pacific coast of Panama, although it

occasionally operates in the Caribbean.

** Total does not include eight Navy survey vessels that are forwardly deployed, and two NSF operated vessel that support Antarctic missions.
128 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which has extensive geophysical

capabilities. Other UNOLS vessels such as the POINT SUR or the CAPE

HATTERAS, both 135 feet long, are general oceanographic vessels.

UNOLS plans to reorganize the five categories of vessels into four new classes

based roughly on length and capabilities: Global, Ocean, Regional, and Local

(Figure 4-2). The Global Class will include vessels longer than 230 feet that

are able to work worldwide in ice-free waters. These vessels carry more than

30 scientists and can conduct missions longer than 50 days. The Ocean

Class is a new class of vessels for interdisciplinary research, similar in design

to the Global Class, but without the global range. These vessels are expected

to be from 180 to 230 feet in length and will have greater capabilities than

the currently existing Intermediate Class vessels. Regional Class is the

smallest class, which is expected to depend primarily on federal funding for

their construction. These vessels are expected to range from

130 to 150 feet. Regional Class vessels will carry about 20 scientists for up

to a month and have laboratory space for multidisciplinary research. Local

vessels are vessels under 130 feet, and their characteristics and number will

reflect the research priorities of the sponsoring institutions with input from the

UNOLS community. The main factor for the new vessel classification will be

the operational capabilities of the vessels and not the length.

Five of the UNOLS vessels are expected to be decommissioned within five

years. Plans for the replacement of one of those vessels, the CAPE

HENLOPEN (a 120-foot Local Class vessel), are being developed by the

University of Delaware.12 The plans call for a 138-foot vessel that may fit the

description of a UNOLS Regional Class vessel. This new vessel, to be built

with state funds, is expected to be in service by early 2006.

The NSF Division of Ocean Sciences expects to provide funds to construct

three Regional Class ships over a six-year period, beginning in FY2006.

Another vessel that will be retired within the next six years is the ALPHA HELIX,

Number of Vessels Per Region Class Class 

Name 

Length 

(ft) GL NE MA SE C GM WC AK WP Total 

I and II Global Class 230 – 280 — 4 1 — — — 3 — — 6 

III Intermediate 168 – 204 — — — 1 — 1 2 — — 7 

IV Regional 105 – 135 — — 2 2 1* 2 2 1 1 9 

V Local < 100 1 — — 2 — — 1 — — 5 

TOTAL 1 4 3 5 1 3 8 1 1 27 

Table 4-3: UNOLS Vessel Classes

Summary table of the number of UNOLS research vessel sorted by class designation and homeport region.

* The URRACA, a vessel of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, operates mostly on the Pacific coast of Panama, although it

occasionally operates in the Caribbean.

Regions: GL - Great Lakes; NE - Northeast; MA - Mid-Atlantic; SE - Southeast; C - Caribbean; GM - Gulf of Mexico; WC - West

Coast; AK - Alaska; WP - Western Pacific
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 129

a 133-foot ice-strengthened vessel that operates in Alaska. The design for a

high-latitude Ocean Class ship, the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV), is

near completion. The ARRV is a potential candidate for funding from NSF’s

Major Research Equipment-Facilities Construction account. The U.S. Navy is

in the process of identifying a single-hull form for Ocean Class vessels and is

contemplating construction of four vessels starting in FY2006, depending on

overall Navy program priorities and hull selection. Estimated replacement cost

per vessel ranges from $70 million for a Global Class vessel to $25 million for

a Regional Class vessel.

4.2.2 Academic Vessels

Academic vessels are not included in the UNOLS National Academic Fleet,

even though many belong to institutions that are members of UNOLS.

Academic institutions and nonprofit, private oceanographic research

institutions, such as Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and Monterey

Bay Aquarium Research Institute, own and operate the academic vessels. A

total of 139 vessels over 25 feet in length were identified using the CORE

Report, Internet searches, professional contacts, and technical references.

(Supplement 4-3 provides a list of academic vessels.)

Figure 4-2: Proposed Schedule for Construction of New UNOLS Vessels

Schedule proposed for the construction of new UNOLS vessels during the next two decades. Figure from Charting the

Future of the National Academic Research Fleet: A Long Range Plan for Renewal by the National Oceanographic

Partnership Program.

Kilo Moana ARRV

Seismic

NE Atlantic

NW Pacific SW Pacific

Pacific

= Launched on 11/17/01 = Funds Not Yet Identified = Potential Additional Ships (UNOLS Recommended)

NEW SHIPS 2000-2020

Pacific

Atlantic

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic

SE Atlantic

Atlantic/Gulf

Global Ships ($70M)

Ocean Ships ($50M)

Regional Ships ($25M)

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

$50M $75M $120M

$150M

or

$315M
130 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

With 34 vessels, the Mid-Atlantic region has the highest inventory of academic

vessels, which reflects the high number of academic institutions in the area

(Supplement 5-1 provides a list of academic institutions). The Western Pacific

and the Caribbean regions have three and four vessels respectively, the lowest

numbers. The Western Pacific is a region of oceanic islands characterized by

extensive open ocean environments close to shore that require larger-size

ships as compared to the mainland, which has both an extensive coastline

and a continental shelf. Even though the Western Pacific has the lowest

number of vessels, it has the 186-foot KILO MOANA, the newest UNOLS

vessel. In contrast, the four academic vessels in the Caribbean belong to

the University of Puerto Rico, with the largest vessel being the 127-foot

CHAPMAN, a former NOAA fisheries vessel. This vessel supports the monthly

sampling at the Caribbean Time Series ocean-observing system (see Section

4.6.1) and is well suited to support oceanography activities in the Caribbean

basin; however, funding for its full utilization and maintenance has not

been secured.

The type of vessels used by academic institutions varies from multipurpose

coastal research and education vessels to geophysical survey and research

vessels. The type of vessel used reflects the mission of each academic

institution, which in turn is linked to the economy and surrounding

environment of the institution location. For example, academic vessels

operating in the Great Lakes region tend to be equipped for fisheries, water

quality, and benthic chemistry studies as these are the typical research

priorities for the area. In contrast, many vessels in the Gulf of Mexico support

geophysical research work, which relates to the region’s oil and gas

exploration industry.

The average vessel used by academic institutions is 60 feet long and 22 years

old. Only 16 vessels (less than 12 percent of the inventory) exceed 100 feet

in length, with the largest vessel being the 470-foot ocean drilling JOIDES

RESOLUTION (see Section 4.2.3.4). Most of the academic vessels

(approximately 66 percent) do not exceed 60 feet. These numbers indicate

that relatively small-sized vessels comprise a significant portion of the

academic vessels used for research and education purposes.

The ACADIANA, operated by the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, is

a typical example of an academic vessel and serves as a representative

academic vessel to illustrate the capabilities of this category.13 The aluminumhulled ACADIANA is a 58-foot, shallow-draft research vessel built in 1985.

When it is used only for research purposes, the vessel carries a crew of two

and about four scientists. For educational purposes, it can carry up to

25 people for day trips.

Twin Caterpillar 3406 engines provide 650 total horsepower for the

ACADIANA. The vessel has a moderate cruise speed of 10 knots and an

endurance of 5 days, and is equipped with a generator. For communication,

the vessel relies on one SSB and two VHF radios, and one inshore and one

offshore cellular phone. Navigation equipment includes a magnetic compass,
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 131

two GPS Chartplotter/sounders, and autopilot. The vessel has a small

144 square-foot laboratory equipped with running seawater, 12 volts direct

current, and 110/220 volts alternating current. To support the collection of

hydrographic, biological, and benthic samples, the ACADIANA has on-deck a

trawl winch with 500 feet of quarter-inch cable, one hydro winch with 500 feet

of three sixteenth-inch cable, and one electromechanical winch with 500 feet

of three sixteenth-inch single conductor cable. Vessels like the ACADIANA,

even though not suitable for long oceanographic cruises or deep-water

operations, are versatile enough that they can be customized to support many

different coastal research projects.

Exact figures were not available, but many vessels in the academic fleet were

not acquired as new vessels designed for ocean and coastal research. In

many instances, institutions receive, as a donation or at a minimal cost,

decommissioned USGS or Navy vessels (e.g., the MATTHEW F. MAURY, a

1960s former Navy patrol craft transferred in 1996 to Virginia’s Tidewater

Community College). Former fishing vessels are also sometimes acquired and

modified for coastal and ocean research. On occasion, private individuals or

foundations donate private vessels to academic institutions. This process

ameliorates the high cost of acquiring a new research vessel. For example,

WHOI is replacing its 46-foot coastal research vessel ASTERIAS with a new

60-foot vessel that will be delivered in 2004 at a cost of $1.6 million.14 Few

institutions can afford or justify such expenditure. The transfer of vessels

between organizations also occurs between federal agencies.

Some institutions have been forced to retire aging, but still useful vessels due

to a lack of funding to ensure the vessel’s overhaul and safe operation. An

example of this situation is the recent retirement of the 53-foot RV ORION by

the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.15

Some academic institutions have devised partnerships with other organizations, such as federal or state agencies, to allow them to retain vessels when

they can no longer afford their operating and maintenance costs. An

example of this situation is the 80-foot LAURENTIAN at the University of

Michigan. In 2002, through a partnership agreement, NOAA’s Great Lakes

Environmental Research Laboratories leased the LAURENTIAN for 15 years

and assumed responsibilities for its operation maintenance and

scheduling.16,17 This agreement augmented the facilities available at the

NOAA lab, and still provides the university’s research and educational

community with access to the vessel.

4.2.3 Federal Vessels

Six federal agencies own vessels used for coastal and ocean activities. The

respective mission of each agency helps determine the size of fleet they

operate and the design and characteristics of their vessels. The vessels range

in size from 420-foot icebreakers to small vessels used to conduct work in

coastal and estuarine waters. NOAA has the largest number of vessels, with

more than 25 vessels over 50 feet.
132 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

4.2.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Vessels

The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) maintains and

operates NOAA’s fleet of ships and aircraft and manages the NOAA Corps.

NOAA’s vessels collect hydrographic, fisheries and coastal data for NOAA

programs and have capabilities largely unavailable in commercial vessels.

The types of missions and annual average operating days per vessel for

FY2002 are listed in Table 4-4. “Operating days” are defined as days when a

ship is not at its homeport and is available for service.

The cost for operation, maintenance, shoreside facilities and support, and

management of all NOAA vessels in FY2002 was $63 million. The NOAA

fleet consists of 18 vessels (15 of them active) longer than 90 feet, with an

average vessel age close to 25 years (Supplement 4-4 provides a list of federal

vessels). NOAA’s vessels currently operate well beyond the normal service life

of comparable research vessels.

A noticeable exception to these statistics in the NOAA fleet is the RONALD H.

BROWN, the newest vessel in NOAA’s fleet. This vessel was built in 1996 and

was designed as a sister ship of the Navy AGOR 23-class vessels that include

the THOMAS G. THOMPSON, ATLANTIS, and ROGER REVELLE. It is

considered to be a state-of-the-art vessel with deep-water and atmospheric

research capabilities. Equipment that supports these capabilities includes a

c-band Doppler radar, dynamic positioning system, wind profiler, radiosondes,

Seabeam 2112 (12 Khz) swath bathymetric sonar system, Acoustic Doppler

Current Profiler (ADCP) (150 kHz NB), and attitude sensor. The vessel has

approximately 4,000 square feet of lab space, and space on deck for four

additional labs or accommodation vans.18 This vessel operates worldwide,

has an at-sea endurance of 60 days, and can carry a maximum of

34 scientists in addition to the crew. This vessel has an expected service life of

30 years.

A recent report by the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

addresses NOAA vessel requirements for the period of 2003 to 2012.19 The

following discussion on NOAA vessel requirements is based on this report.

Mission Supported 

Annual Average 

Operating Days 

Per Vessel 

Fisheries Stock Management and 

Marine Mammal Protection 236 

Nautical Charting 233 

Oceanography 242 

Coastal Research and Assessment 304 

Table 4-4: NOAA Ships Operating Days

 NOAA vessels are heavily used, spending more than 60 percent of the year in operation.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 133

For FY2003, NOAA projects it will require more than 12,000 operating days

for all missions, but only about 30 percent of the operating days can be

completed with the NOAA fleet. Outsourcing will provide 38 percent of the

requirements, and the other 32 percent probably will go unmet.

The report identifies nine active NOAA ships to be retired during the next

decade, with NOAA recommending nine vessels as replacements. NOAA

recommends that four of the replacements be new construction vessels (three

fisheries survey vessels, one SWATH hydrographic survey vessel), and three

replacements be met by the acquisition and conversion of decommissioned

Navy survey ships. Two additional fisheries survey ships are also

recommended for construction. Even if NOAA can reach the goal of having

a fleet of 19 active vessels by 2012, it will still require outsourcing of

approximately 56 percent of the required operating days to fulfill its mission.

An example of a NOAA fisheries vessel expected to remain as an operational

asset for more than a decade is the 224-foot GORDON GUNTER. This vessel

normally operates in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea in support of

NOAA’s NMFS Pascagoula Laboratory, Mississippi. The ship uses trawls and

benthic longlines to collects fish and crustaceans. It also collects fish larvae,

fish eggs, and plankton using plankton nets and surface- and mid-water

larval nets. The GUNTER is a former Navy AGOS 1-Class ship, constructed

in 1989 for quiet operations with a low acoustic signature. The Navy

transferred the vessel to NOAA in 1993. NOAA commissioned it in 1998

after converting it for fisheries research. A stern trawl ramp and handling

gear and nine deck and oceanographic winches were added during

conversion.18 The vessel has equipment capable of supporting all of the

NOAA line offices. It has a wet lab, dry lab, chemistry/hydrology lab,

computer lab, and an electronics lab. The vessel has an endurance of

30 days, carries a crew of 22, and can support up to 15 scientists.

In addition, NOAA operates nearly 150 small boats. The majority of NOAA’s

small boats are less than 50 feet in length, but detailed information on their

size and capabilities was not available. NOAA Line Offices own and are

responsible for the maintenance and operation of NOAA’s small boats.

These boats provide an important service. For example, during a period of

12 months, boats that support the 13 National Marine Sanctuaries

undertook approximately 3,200 trips. Of these trips, approximately

40 percent were in support of research and monitoring activities.19

4.2.3.2 U.S. Navy Vessels

The U.S. Navy provides six oceanographic vessels to the UNOLS fleet to

support civilian research and exploration activities. In addition, the Navy

maintains a fleet of eight T-AGS 60-Class ocean-surveying vessels to support

military operations. These vessels, operated by the Navy Military Sealift

Command, collect oceanographic information that is not for public use (see

Section 3.2.3.2). The commercial vessel CAROLYN CHOUEST, in addition to

supporting the Navy’s nuclear submersible craft NR-1, often supports

oceanographic and ocean engineering activities for the Navy.
134 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

4.2.3.3 U.S. Coast Guard Vessels

USCG has three multimission icebreakers that support polar research

activities in addition to its icebreaking duties (Section 3.3.1.2 provides more

information on these vessels). Two of the vessels are 399-foot POLAR-Class

vessels built in 1976. These POLAR-Class vessels can carry up to

30 scientists in addition to the vessel crew. The third is the HEALY, a 420-foot

vessel built in 1998 and assigned to support operations in the Arctic. The

HEALY has five laboratories totaling close to 4,000 square feet. The vessel

has diesel-electric power with the main engines located in the main deck,

which provide very low acoustic signature for a vessel of its size.18 The

HEALY can carry 50 scientists in addition to its crew, and has an endurance

of 180 days.

4.2.3.4 National Science Foundation Vessels

NSF owns or supports some of the most important research vessels, including

8 of the 27 UNOLS vessels. In addition, NSF charters the operation of the

Polar vessels NATHANIEL B. PALMER and LAWRENCE M. GOULD, and

provides support for the research activities of the USCG icebreakers

HEALY, POLAR STAR, and POLAR SEA and for the ocean drilling ship

JOIDES RESOLUTION.

Both the 308-foot NATHANIEL B. PALMER and 230-foot LAWRENCE M.

GOULD, built in Louisiana by Edison Chouest Offshore, support the nation’s

Antarctic mission. The NATHANIEL B. PALMER, built in 1992, can break up

to three feet of ice at three knots. It accommodates 37 scientists and has a

crew of 22. The LAWRENCE M. GOULD is an ice-strengthened vessel built in

1997 that replaced the research vessel POLAR DUKE. The LAWRENCE M.

GOULD conducts year-round polar operations and can accommodate

26 research scientists. Both, the PALMER and the GOULD have endurance of

75 days.

NSF has the unique role of supporting the U.S. component of the International

Ocean Drilling Program. The 470-foot JOIDES RESOLUTION ocean drilling

ship, a chartered vessel homeported at Texas A&M University, is the main

facility of the Ocean Drilling Program. The ship, built in 1978 as a

conventional ocean drilling ship, was refitted for research in 1984. The ship is

capable of drilling in water deeper than 26,000 feet. The ship

accommodates approximately 30 scientists, 20 engineers and technicians,

and a crew (including drilling personnel) of 52 during each 2-month cruise.20

The three repositories for cores collected by the Ocean Drilling Program are

the East Coast Repository at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, the Gulf

Coast Repository at Texas A&M University, and the West Coast Repository

at SIO.

NSF released a request for proposal in March 2003 to provide support for

the U.S. facility contribution to the new international drilling program (i.e.,

Integrated Ocean Drilling Program). Funds will be provided to convert a

commercial drill-ship into a state-of-the-art scientific facility, possibly as early
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 135

as FY2005. The plans for the replacement of the JOIDES RESOLUTION call

for a similar class non-riser drilling vessel, but with significantly enhanced

coring and drilling capabilities at an estimated cost of $100 million.

The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, which is scheduled to begin in

October 2003, is a 10-year program that will be co-led by NSF and Japan’s

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology, with significant

scientific and financial participation from European and other Asian nations.21

In support of this program, Japan is completing construction of a heavy drill

ship. The Japanese vessel, the CHIKYU, will undergo outfitting and testing

from 2003 to 2006, and will be available for operations in 2007.

4.2.3.5 U.S. Department of the Interior Vessels

An accurate inventory of DOI vessels was not possible because, with the

exception of MMS, DOI agencies did not provide a report for this inventory.

With that in mind, the inventory of DOI vessels over 25 feet consists of at least

11 vessels: one with FWS, two with MMS and eight with USGS. Five of the

vessels operate in the Great Lakes, two in Alaska, two in the Gulf of Mexico,

one in the Northeast, and one in the West Coast. USGS may have two other

vessels, the STURGEON and the SISCOWET, but information about these

vessels was conflicting and their status could not be ascertained.

The 85-foot TOGUE, operated by the Jordan River National Fish Hatcheries,

Michigan, is the FWS Great Lakes fish stocking vessel and is the only vessel in

the Great Lakes specially modified for lake trout stocking.22 The TOGUE

transports lake trout in tanks located in the aft of the vessel to designated

stocking locations, which occurs from April to June. During this period, the

vessel is not available for any other use. The TOGUE carries a crew of two,

and one or more biologists while conducting stocking activities.23 The 2004

FWS budget includes $4.3 million for the replacement of the TOGUE.

MMS owns the 42-foot THE NINA and the 37-foot LAUNCH 1273. THE

NINA is a former fishing vessel built in 1962 for NOAA, and transferred to

MMS in 2001. The Center for Marine Resources and Environmental

Technology of the University of Mississippi use THE NINA as a support vessel

for its Marine Minerals Research program. The vessel is moored in Biloxi,

Mississippi.

The LAUNCH 1273 is a research vessel constructed in 1983 along the design

of a Bristol Bay gill-netter. The vessel, designed to operate in northern,

nearshore waters, has operated in Alaska’s southeast Bering Sea, Cook Inlet,

Glacier Bay and most recently the Beaufort Sea. MMS Alaska OCS Region,

Environmental Studies Section manages the LAUNCH 1273. Depending on

priority commitments to MMS-sponsored studies and related cruise plans, the

vessel is used cooperatively with other agencies and academic institutions in

Alaska. Currently the vessel is in drydock undergoing renovations, to be

returned to the central Alaska Beaufort Sea to support additional MMSsponsored research efforts. The LAUNCH 1273 is expected to continue in

service at least through 2008.
136 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

MMS also owns the RELENTLESS II, a less than 25-foot boat, but with a

unique role that deserves mention. This boat is a deep-V aluminum hull

surrounded by a modular closed-cell foam sponson designed and built for

whale research. The RELENTLESS II, launched from the NOAA RV GUNTER,

is used in the Gulf of Mexico for close approaches to whales for tag

attachment, biopsy samples, and identification.

The USGS Great Lakes Science Center operates four research vessels: KIYI,

GRAYLING, KAHO, and MUSKY II. The 107-foot KIYI, acquired in 1999 at a

cost of $3.3 million to replace the SICOWET, is the newest vessel in the

Center’s fleet.23-25 The vessel conducts fish research primarily in Lake

Superior, including trawling, gill netting, and plankton collections. The vessel

carries a crew of four and one biologist or technician. The vessel also

collaborates with Canada’s Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to conduct

fish assessments in Ontario waters of Lake Superior.23,25

The 77-foot GRAYLING, built in 1977, conducts fish population and habitat

assessment primarily at Lake Huron using bottom and midwater trawls, gill

nets and acoustics. The vessel is also used in Lake Michigan for similar

purposes. The vessel carries a crew of two and one biologist or a technician.

There are no plans for the replacement of the GRAYLING, and it is expected to

have 20 to 25 years of service life remaining.23

The 65-foot KAHO, built in 1961, conducts fish population research on Lake

Ontario in close coordination with the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation.25 The vessel frequently operates in eastern Lake

Ontario, but also collaborates with Canadian authorities in research

conducted in Canadian waters of Lakes Ontario, Huron, and Superior.

Currently there are no plans for replacing or refitting the KAHO.

The 45-foot MUSKY II, built in 1960 and overhauled in 1986, is the smallest

of the larger than 25-foot vessels operated by the USGS Great Lakes Science

Center. The vessel conducts fish habitat surveys in the western basin of

Lake Erie.25

The USGS Coastal Marine Geology Program at the Woods Hole Center

operates the 25-foot research vessel RAFAEL.26 The RAFAEL has nearshore

geophysical surveys capabilities, including high-resolution sub-bottom

profiling, sidescan sonar, and multibeam echo-sounding. A commercialgrade trailer permits the transport of the RAFAEL to remote locations.

The 50-foot G.K. GILBERT, built in 1993, is a shallow-draft vessel equipped

with Hamilton jets capable of conducting seismic surveys in shallow water with

little noise interference.27 The vessel is kept at the waterfront facilities of

Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The oldest vessel in the USGS inventory, and probably one of the oldest

research vessels in operation in the nation, is the 96-foot POLARIS. USGS

acquired this 1927-built former yacht in 1966 and uses it primarily for water

quality studies.28 The POLARIS completes several water and sediment
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 137

sampling cruises per month on San Francisco Bay. The samples collected are

analyzed at USGS labs in Menlo Park, California.

The 42-foot KARLUK, an ice-strengthened vessel, provides USGS with

light Arctic-survey capabilities.29 The vessel has an endurance of 14 days

to a month and an operating range of about 900 nautical miles. The

USGS Western Region Coastal and Marine Geology program operates

the KARLUK.30

4.2.3.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Vessels

EPA’s fleet consists of five research vessels that range in length from 32 to

180 feet. Three of the vessels (LAKE GUARDIAN, LAKE EXPLORER, and

MUDPUPPY) operate in the Great Lakes. The other two vessels (PETER W.

ANDERSON and LEAR) are based in the Mid-Atlantic region. This small fleet

provides the agency with platforms from which to conduct monitoring and

investigation in support of the agency’s mission in the Great Lakes and

Atlantic region. EPA does not have similar facilities on the West Coast.

The 180-foot LAKE GUARDIAN is the largest EPA vessel, and is the only selfcontained, nonpolluting research ship on the Great Lakes. EPA’s Great Lakes

National Program Office operates this vessel. The vessel spends

approximately 120 days per year away from its homeport of Bay City,

Michigan. The LAKE GUARDIAN has an operating range of 8,650 nautical

miles, is capable of staying at sea up to 30 days, and can accommodate up

to 27 scientists. The vessel is 20 years old, and its replacement is not

anticipated for 30 years. There is no replacement plan, but the cost to

replace the vessel would be approximately $35 million.

The second largest EPA vessel in the Great Lakes is the LAKE EXPLORER.31

This 82-foot vessel is a former USCG POINT-Class Cutter built in 1963 and

operated by the EPA Mid-Continent Ecology Division. The vessel complements

the mission of the LAKE GUARDIAN, and has been used in Lake Superior to

support EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP).

The vessel can accommodate 10 crew and scientists. With a cruise speed of

18 knots, and capability of 24 knots during short periods, the LAKE

EXPLORER is one of the fastest research vessels in the Great Lakes.

The third EPA vessel in the Great Lakes is the MUDPUPPY, a 32-foot flatbottom boat built in 1985 specifically designed for sediment sampling in

shallow rivers and harbors in and around the Great Lakes. It is equipped with

a vibro coring unit for the collection of cores up to 15 feet. Each year the

 MUDPUPPY is deployed an average of 50 days from mid-April until earlyNovember. The vessel has an expected remaining service life of more

than 10 years, and its current replacement cost is approximately $200,000.

The 165-foot PETER W. ANDERSON is an ocean survey vessel owned by EPA

headquarters, and used by several EPA region offices. The vessel is a former

Navy ASHEVILLE-Class patrol combatant built during the 1960s. Its

homeport is Baltimore, Maryland, and it operates approximately 120 days a
138 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

year along the Atlantic coast, although on occasion it conducts missions in

the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. The vessel has an endurance of 6 to

10 days depending on speed, and can carry 15 crew members and

17 scientists. Replacement plans for the vessel are under development. The

cost of replacement is estimated to be $10 to 15 million.

The second EPA vessel in the Mid-Atlantic region, and smallest, is the 35-foot

LEAR.32 This vessel is a twin-engine Bertram boat owned and maintained by

the EPA Region 3. The vessel is used for water and benthic sampling, fish

studies, and diving along the Atlantic coast from New Jersey to Virginia.

4.2.4 State Vessels

State government agencies own and operate at least 50 vessels (Supplement

4-5 provides a list of state vessels). More vessels likely exist, but only about a

third of the states provided data. The Great Lakes has the highest number of

vessels (31 vessels), including 13 Canadian vessels that frequently participate

in joint U.S.-Canada research and monitoring programs. Even without the

Canadian vessels, the Great Lakes region has about twice as many vessels as

the Mid-Atlantic region, which has seven vessels. No vessels were identified

for the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, or Western Pacific regions, but this is

expected to be an undercount. Some state-owned vessels operate under the

jurisdiction of state universities and are tabulated as academic vessels.

The average vessel used by state government agencies is 51 feet long and

29 years old. Not including a 147-foot Canadian vessel, only two state

vessels were greater than 100 feet. These vessels were the 110-foot MEDEIA,

operated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the 110-foot

PALMETTO, operated by the Marine Resources Research Institute, South

Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

The usual role of state vessels is protection and monitoring of the state’s

natural resources. They are typically equipped with water quality and sediment

sampling instrumentation, and also conduct fisheries studies including, but not

limited to, plankton sampling and bottom and midwater trawling.

The newest known state agency vessel is the 62-foot FIRST STATE, built in

2002, and operated by the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. This

aluminum vessel accommodates a crew of five fisheries scientists, and

operates in shallow waters at relative high speeds (more than 20 knots).

A typical state vessel is the 51-foot KERHIM operated by the Maryland

Department of Natural Resources. The vessel, built in 1980, collects water

and sediment samples in the Chesapeake Bay, supports fisheries

investigations, and conducts geological mapping of estuaries and the

continental shelf outside of Ocean City, Maryland. The vessel has a range of

220 nautical miles and is equipped to deploy instrumentation. The vessel has

two diesel generators: a 15 KW with 220/100 VAC single phase and a

21.5 KW 110 VAC three-phase. USGS and U.S. Navy NRL researchers
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 139

frequently charter the KERHIM for investigations in the Chesapeake

Bay region.

4.2.5 Commercial Vessels

A total of 141 commercial vessels were identified that support ocean and

coastal research monitoring and exploration activities (see Supplement 4-6 for

a list of commercial vessels). This group of vessels range from those based in

the Gulf of Mexico region that conduct geophysical survey activities in support

of offshore oil and gas industry, to fishing vessels available for lease or charter

that have been modified to support oceanographic investigations. The Gulf

region has almost 40 percent of the commercial vessels identified, with all of

them supporting oil and gas industry. Another third of the vessels are located

in the Northeast region. In the Northeast, the vessels are mostly former

fishing vessels. The value provided by the commercial vessel fleet is that they

provide an opportunity for institutions that cannot afford the capital

investment and maintenance cost of a research vessel to access a facility for

the purpose of conducting research work.

Some commercial vessels have unique capabilities. For example, the 86-foot

MARITIME MAID, built in 1971 as a fishing vessel, has a helicopter deck and

has been used by federal and state agencies in the Alaska region to support

monitoring activities.33

The 52-foot SHANA RAE is a typical example of a fishing vessel converted for

use as a commercial coastal research vessel. This vessel was a former salmon

tender built in 1980 that has been used as a commercial research vessel since

1986.34 The vessel operates along the central California coast and is

frequently chartered by academic and federal agencies. The vessel navigation

equipment includes aircraft VHF, Weatherfax, 48-mile radar, and differential

GPS plotter. The SHANA RAE has a mini-dry lab to help process samples.

The vessel has a 1,500 nautical mile range and an endurance of 10 days.

4.3 Underwater Vehicles

During the last two decades, the nation’s inventory of underwater vehicles

used for research, exploration, and monitoring has changed considerably in

composition and capabilities. For the purpose of this Appendix, underwater

vehicles include manned submersibles, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs),

towed vehicles (TOVs), and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).

Underwater vehicles do not include atmospheric diving suits used to conduct

deep-water dives, nor do they include U.S. Navy deep submergence rescue

vehicles and submersibles used for tourism.

4.3.1 Manned Submersibles

Since the early 1980s, the number of manned submersibles that operates in

U.S. waters has slightly decreased. In 1981, in a report titled Technology and

Oceanography: An Assessment of Federal Technologies for Oceanographic

Research and Monitoring, the former U.S. Office of Technology Assessment
140 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

identified 23 manned submersibles in operation in the nation’s waters.35 The

federal government owned 5 of these submersibles, academic institutions

owned 4, and the commercial sector owned the other 14.

Today, approximately 20 manned submersibles are available for operation in

the nation’s waters. Two are owned by the federal government, six are owned

by academic institutions, and the commercial sector owns the rest (Table 4-5).

The commercial inventory includes seven submersibles owned and operated

by NuytcoTM Research Ltd., a company based in Vancouver, Canada. These

Canadian manned submersibles regularly operate in the nation’s water under

contract with the federal government, local jurisdictions, commercial firms,

and academic institutions.36

To facilitate the discussion of the submersible capability, the inventory was

sorted by operation depth as shallow waters (less than 500 feet), mid-waters

(up to 10,000 feet), and deep waters (greater than 10,000 feet). When the

U.S. Navy decommissioned the deep submergence vehicle 4 (DSV 4)

SEACLIFF submersible in the late 1990s, the nation lost its capability to reach

a 20,000-foot depth with manned submersibles, which represents access to

98 percent of the ocean floor. In contrast, Japan, Russia, and France have

manned submersibles with 20,000-foot depth operational capabilities.

4.3.1.1 Shallow-Water Manned Submersibles

The two shallow-water manned submersibles identified in Table 4-5 are the

Carolyn and the Dual Deep Worker. The Texas A&M Institute of Nautical

Archaeology (INA) owns and operates the Carolyn. The Carolyn is a

Seamobileä model submersible built by SEAmagine Hydrospace Corporation,

a California-based company. INA acquired the two-person Carolyn in 2000

to conduct surveys of archaeological sites. The submersible has been

successfully used during various expeditions in the Mediterranean Sea. The

Dual DeepWorker is a recently developed manned submersible by NuytcoTM.

The submersible was built by joining, with a center collar, two sections of

single-manned DeepWorker submersibles. The Dual DeepWorker has four

penetration plates to interface electrical or hydraulic components and an

external digital camera housing controlled by the pilot.37

4.3.1.2 Mid-Water Manned Submersibles

Most of the manned submersibles identified in this inventory are capable of

working at mid-water depths, with 4 of them rated for depths up to 3,000

feet and 2 rated for depths up to 6,580 feet. The commercial sector owns

more than half of the mid-water submersibles.

HBOI owns and operates three mid-water depth capable submersibles: Clelia,

Johnson-Sea-Link I (JSL I) and Johnson-Sea-Link II (JSL II).38 The Clelia is a

PC 1204 submersible built by Perry Oceanographics in 1976 and refitted in

1992. It is equipped with a hydraulic manipulator, video and still cameras,

and various sampling devices, and has logged over 1,800 dive hours.39 The

JSL I was acquired in 1971 and the JSL II in 1975. Both JSL submersibles are

equipped with a forward five-inch-thick acrylic sphere that accommodates a
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 141

pilot and a scientist. Another scientist and a crew occupy the aft observation

chamber, which is equipped with observation ports and a video monitor. Both

submersibles are equipped with xenon arc lights developed by HBOI that

simulate the sunlight spectrum and near daylight conditions.38 The JSL I has

logged over 11,000 dive hours and the JSL II over 8,500 dive hours.39 The

three submersibles are typically used for mid-water and benthic surveys,

sampling, search-and-recovery, and environmental impact studies.

Delta Oceanographics, a Ventura, California-based company, owns and

operates the Delta, a mid-water depth submersible. This submersible has

logged over 5,900 dives and 7,300 dive hours during the approximately

17 years it has been in service.39,40 The Delta has 19 view-ports, which

facilitate its use as a survey platform. The Delta has been used in multiple

government-sponsored projects, including NOAA’s National Underwater

Research Center North Atlantic and Great Lakes mission.41

Nuytco,TM Ltd. owns and operates six manned submersibles capable of

operating at mid-water depths: four DeepWorkers, one Deep Rover, and one

Aquarius.36 The DeepWorker and Deep Rover are single-manned

submersibles that have been used in multiple projects, including the NOAA/

Most of the manned submersibles are capable of operating at mid-water depths. The only deep-water submersible, the ALVIN, cannot

operate at depths of 20,000 feet, which limits its range to about 50 percent of the ocean’s bottom.

Table 4-5: Manned Submersibles

Operation 

Depth 

Region

Submersible Owner Number of 

Submersibles

Depth 

Rating (ft) Crew Scientist Payload 

 (lb)

Shallow 

Waters Carolyn Texas A&M INA 1 150 1 1 1,000 

Dual DeepWorker Nuytco 1 

300 1 — 250 

Mid-Water Clelia HBOI 1 1,000 1 2 750 

RS Kokes Marine 

Technology 2 1,000 2 4 NA 

Aquarius Nuytco 1 1,200 1 3 100 

Delta Delta 

Ocenographics 1 1,200 1 1 550 

DeepWorker Nuytco 4 2,000 1 — 250 

DeepWorker DMT 2 2,000 1 — 250 

Deep Rover Nuytco 1 3,000 1 — 250 

Johnson-Sea-Link HBOI 2 3,000 2 2 1,000 

NR-1 Navy 1 3,000 11 2 NA 

Pisces University of 

Hawaii SOEST 2 6,580 1 2 600 

Deep 

Water ALVIN 

Navy Owned; 

WHOI 

Operated 

1 14,764 1 2 1,500 
142 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

National Geographic five-year Sustainable Sea Expedition. The Aquarius is a

1971 submersible with multiple capabilities, including a five-function,

jettisonable manipulator, articulated grapple, hydraulic cutters/tools, sampling

equipment, and jetting/dredging pumps. The Aquarius has conducted

multiple missions, participating in a USCG survey of the JACOB

LUCKENBACH wreck, which is one of the historic shipwrecks managed and

protected by NOAA’s Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. 36

Deep Marine Technology (DMT), a Houston-based company founded in

2000, owns and operates two DeepWorker manned submersibles, one of

them acquired in May 2003. The company recently used a DeepWorker, in

conjunction with an ROV, to support archaeological investigations conducted

in the Gulf of Mexico by Texas A&M researchers. In addition, DMT uses

the DeepWorker to conduct inspections and surveys of offshore oil and

gas facilities.

The only manned submersibles capable of operating independently of surface

support for a relatively extended period are the privately owned U.S. Corsair

RS-1 and U.S. Constellation RS-2, and the U.S. Navy-owned NR-1. KokesTM

Marine Technology, LLC, a company based in Lakewood, New Jersey, owns

and operates the U.S. Corsair RS-1 and the U.S. Constellation RS-2 manned

submersibles.42 These are the nation’s only two diesel electric submersibles

used for research and survey work. Both 48-foot submersibles have an

operational range of 400 nautical miles. They navigate at eight knots and

can remain submerged for up to five days. They are made of zinc galvanized

high-tensile strength steel and are equipped with two manipulator arms, two

high-resolution digital video cameras, and a forward hemispherical

panoramic view-port.41

The Navy’s NR-1 craft is a one-of-a-kind, 150-foot nuclear-powered

submersible.43 Submarine Squadron TWO (Submarine Force Atlantic, U.S.

Atlantic Fleet) in Groton, Connecticut, operates the NR-1. The NR-1 came

into service in 1969 and is expected to be in service until 2012. In 2001, a

RAND study tried to define the missions and the capabilities needed for NR-2,

a putative replacement of NR-1; however, no replacement plans are known at

this time.44 The NR-1 provides a platform to conduct deep-ocean

exploration, survey, and ocean engineering activities primarily in support of

military operations. It also conducts special scientific missions in cooperation

with academic research institutions.

The NR-1 is capable of up to 30 days of continuous submerged operations

and speeds of up to 4 knots. Forty U.S. Navy personnel support the direct

operations and maintenance of NR-1. At sea, the Navy Military Sealift

Command-leased vessel CAROLYN CHOUEST provides towing and logistic

support, in addition to laboratory facilities. The CAROLYN CHOUEST can

tow the NR-1 at speeds of up to 11 knots, for operations throughout the

Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea. In conjunction with the

CAROLYN CHOUEST, the NR-1 is capable of up to 6-month extended

deployments away from homeport.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 143

In addition to its ability to maneuver precisely in the water column, the NR-1

has the unique capability of landing on the ocean bottom and rolling along the

bottom using two tires mounted fore and aft. The submersible is equipped with

advanced sonar systems for forward search-and-survey and side-looking

bottom mapping. An extensive array of lights and cameras (still, digital, and

video) provide full near-bottom electro-optical investigation capabilities. The

NR-1 can recover objects using various installed systems, including a heavy

capacity manipulator arm. Full recording and data storage capabilities of all

camera, sonar system outputs, continuous conductivity, temperature, and

sound velocity measurements allow for post mission analysis and

dissemination. The NR-1 is capable of through-hull water sampling, and can

install mission-specific sensors using existing through-hull penetrators for

power and data, including fiber optics. Navigation capabilities are supported

by fore and aft depth sounders for accurate altitude reference; GPS while on

surface, and Doppler velocity log while operating near the bottom. Additional

navigation reference is provided by a short baseline navigation transponder

system between Submarine NR-1 and the CAROLYN CHOUEST.42

Examples of ocean research activities supported by the NR-1 include mapping

deep-water coral reefs and archeological sites using video and sonar surveys.

In addition, the NR-1 played a key role in recovery activities for the Space

Shuttle Challenger and Egypt Air Flight 990 accidents.

The University of Hawaii School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology

owns and operates the 25-year-old manned submersibles Pisces IV and Pisces

V.39 Pisces V has logged over 3,150 dive hours and Pisces IV over 450 dive

hours during dives that last 7 to 10 hours each. Both manned submersibles,

made by International Hydrodynamics of Vancouver, Canada, are equipped

with three view-ports and hull penetrators for electrical, hydraulic air, and

oxygen supplies. The main difference between them is related to some of the

equipment carried (e.g., type of cameras). The R/V KA‘IMIKAI-O-KANALOA

supports the operation of both submersibles.

4.3.1.3 Deep-Water Manned Submersibles

The nation’s only manned submersible capable of operating in deep-water

regions is the U.S. Navy-owned ALVIN. The WHOI National Deep

Submergence Facility (NDSF) operates the ALVIN with support from NSF-OCE.

The ALVIN submersible has a maximum operational depth of

14,764 feet with a maximum range of 5 kilometers. It has logged close to

26,000 dive hours during more than 3,700 dives that normally last between 6

to 10 hours. Its operational capabilities provide access to approximately

50 percent of the ocean floor (compared to the retired DSV 4 SEACLIFF which

provided access to 98 percent of the ocean floor). The ALVIN’s maximum

operational depth limits research and exploration of much of the ocean’s

abyssal plains.
144 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The ALVIN is equipped with a titanium pressure hull and has two hydraulic

robotic arms that provide sampling and experimental gear manipulation

capabilities. A sample basket mounted on the front of the submersible can

carry a variety of instruments. Scientists can load up to 1,000 pounds of

gear that may include sediment corers, temperature probes, water samplers

and biological sample pumps. The U.S. Navy-owned UNOLS R/V ATLANTIS

supports the operation of ALVIN.

At the request of NSF, the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academy of

Sciences is conducting a study of the feasibility of replacing the ALVIN with a

new, deeper-diving, manned submersible. Initial replacement cost for the

ALVIN is estimated at about $25 million.

4.3.2 Remotely Operated Vehicles

In contrast to the manned submersibles, the number of ROVs has significantly

increased since the early 1980s. The Office of Technology Assessment’s

1981 report described ROVs as a “burgeoning technology... used primarily

by the industrial sector... their utilization in ocean projects as practical,

economic, work stations has only recently been accepted.”

Today, the ROV is a well-established technology for ocean research activities.

In 2002, more than 100 “work class” ROVs were in operation just within the

Gulf of Mexico, not including ROVs used for research.39 The offshore oil and

gas industry and DoD led the development of ROVs in the 1960s and

1970s.39 In 1980 a scientific investigation employed a commercially

operated ROV for the first time to study fish in the Gulf of Mexico.40 Now,

ROVs routinely support tasks such as surveys and inspections of offshore oil

and gas platforms and public treatment outflows, and enumeration of pelagic

planktonic communities. ROVs are used frequently to complement manned

submersible operations. For example, some small ROVs can be deployed

from a manned submersible, allowing the close exploration of confined sites

outside of the maneuverability envelope of a larger manned submersible.

ROVs provide a cost-effective research platform for many different types of

ocean tasks with minimal risk to personnel. In contrast, manned

submersibles, even though they have an excellent safety record, have an

inherent risk from placing a person inside an extreme environment.

A limitation of ROV technology is that the operator does not easily acquire all

the information associated with the three-dimensional perception experienced

by an observer inside a manned submersible. Equipment such as sonar and

specialized lasers can provide depth and size information that can partially

overcome the loss associated with the two-dimensional video signal. Another

limitation of ROV technology is that with an increase in operational depth,

technical problems arise, such as increase in weight and drag of the ROV

tether line, that pose significant operational challenges and augment systems

cost. For example, of the 476 work-class ROVs identified, only 7 vehicles

were rated for depth greater than 10,000 feet.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 145

ROVs range from very small units with a few cubic feet of volume, to large

units the size of an automobile. ROV technology has benefited from recent

advances in many different fields, including increased computational

capabilities, fiber optics, robotic miniaturization, and video. ROVs are

designed for gathering detailed information within a relatively small area

during missions that last a few hours. ROVs can be acquired as ready-to-use

commercial off-the-shelf units (COTS); customized by vendors according to

clients needs. In many instances they are developed in-house without major

engineering capital investment. A measure of the maturity of the field is that

for the last two years, private industry, professional societies, government, and

academia have sponsored a very successful national ROV design-and-build

competition for high school and college students.45

The main types of instruments in ROVs are video cameras supported by light

systems that provide real-time images to operators in the support vessel. In

addition to video cameras, ROVs frequently carry other instruments, such as

still cameras; sonar; devices for collection of biological, chemical, and

geological samples; and manipulators to conduct underwater work. Most of

the new ROVs have modular designs that permit the interchange of

instruments according to mission requirements and the payload capabilities of

each system. In general, smaller systems are designed for shallow-water

operations and are more limited in the size and number of instruments they

can carry. Deep-water systems tend to be larger because they require larger

motors to enable them to overcome the increase in tether drag and weight.

Larger systems have greater payload capacity and can accommodate diverse

sets of instrumentation.

NOAA’s NURCs are an example of a major operator of ROV technology for

research and exploration. For example, the North Atlantic and Great Lakes

NURC started using a leased ROV in 1985 to conduct biological surveys in

the Gulf of Maine.41 The surveys’ success led to the acquisition of its first ROV

unit in 1988. During the last two decades, the center has leased or procured

about eight different systems, including MiniRovers (Eastern Oceanics),

various Phantom models (Deep Ocean Engineering) and the Kraken (Deep

Sea Systems International). These ROVs have proven to be very useful for

benthic and mid-water surveys. The demand for ROV use required the hiring

of a full-time pilot. The center has successfully used these ROVs for research

off the coast of New England and Alaska, the Great Lakes, and multiple

missions abroad.

Due to their pervasive use, it is difficult to provide a detailed account of all the

ROVs in operation. Instead, a few examples of ROV systems used by some

major research institutions are described to provide a picture of existing

capabilities. Table 4-6 provides a partial list of ROVs currently in use.
146 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

4.3.2.1 Shallow-Water Remotely Operated Vehicles

Shallow-water ROVs are mostly low-cost, lightweight ROVs of about

100 pounds with operational capabilities limited to depths of a few hundred

feet. These shallow-water ROVs can be acquired as COTS items, and

frequently they can be customized by the vendor according to user

requirements. The small size and power capabilities of these ROVs limit the

number and type of instruments they can carry, but facilitate their deployment

from small vessels with minimal equipment and personnel support. An

example of a shallow-water ROV is the Phantom 300. This ROV, the smallest

available at the North Atlantic and Great Lakes NURC, provides an ideal

platform for relatively shallow water (under 300 feet).46

4.3.2.2 Mid-Water Remotely Operated Vehicles

Three other ROVs used at the North Atlantic and Great Lakes NURC are the

MiniRover MKII, Phantom III S2+2 (P3S2), and the Kraken.47 The MiniRover

MKII has custom skid and framework around the vehicle that can

accommodate a variety of sampling systems. This ROV can operate in

Table 4-6: Examples of Existing ROV Systems

The nation has a robust ROV fleet that is capable of operating anywhere from shallow- to deep-water environments.

Operation 

Depth Region ROV Model Owner Depth 

Rating (ft) Weight (lbs) Payload 

(lb) 

Shallow-Water Phantom 300 North Atlantic & 

Great Lakes NURC 

300 70 20 

MiniRover Mk-II North Atlantic & 

Great Lakes NURC 1,000 77 12 

Phantom III S2+2 North Atlantic & 

Great Lakes NURC 1,000 319 30 

RCV-150 University of Hawaii 

SOEST 

3,000 NA 

NA 

Kraken (MaxRover MK-I) North Atlantic & 

Great Lakes NURC 

3,300 1,750 50 

Ventana MBARI 5,250 5,150 700 

Deep Drone (Navy) Navy SUPSALV 7,200 NA 300 

Mid-Water 

Magnum (Navy) Navy SUPSALV 8,200 3,500 300 

Tiburon MBARI 13,123 7,400 1,100 

ROPOS Canadian Scientific 

Submersible Facility 

16,400 17,000 NA 

CURV III (Navy) Navy SUPSALV 20,000 13,000 300 

Deep-Water 

Jason II/Medea WHOI 21,325 7,260 NA 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 147

currents up to one knot. The P3S2 is a larger ROV that is very adaptable due

to its open frame design and high output thrusters. The P3S2 has similar

operational depth as the MiniRover MK II, but can operate in currents up to

two knots. The Kraken is a commercial Max ROVER Mk-I ROV. The Kraken

has an open-frame design, which facilitates the installation of additional

science equipment, and can conduct multiple types of sampling on a mission.

This vehicle can maneuver in currents up to two knots. This combination

of ROVs provide the North Atlantic and Great Lakes NURC with

research flexibility.

The University of Hawaii School of Ocean Science and Technology operates

the RCV-150. This ROV is approximately 20 years old, making it one of the

oldest ROVs in service. Color video and a single manipulator is standard

equipment on the RCV-150. This ROV is frequently used in joint missions with

the Pisces manned submersibles.

On the West Coast, MBARI probably has the most sustained research ROV

operations in the nation. The institute operates two ROVs: the Ventana and

the Tiburon. The Ventana ROV logged over 1,500 dives by 1998, 10 years

after it arrived in MBARI, at a rate of about 3 dives per week.48 By June

2001, the Ventana reached the 2,000-dive mark, accumulating 8,920 hours

of exploration.49 The Ventana has been used for many purposes, including

mid-water and benthic water surveys; collection of biological, chemical, and

geological samples; and deployment and retrieval of scientific

instrumentation.

The U.S. Navy operates various ROVs under the Office of the Director of

Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV).50 These

ROVs support Navy’s salvage operations. The U.S. Navy’s standard mission

does not include research, exploration or monitoring activities. Some of the

SUPSALV ROVs are standard COTS units; however, the Deep Drone, Magnum

and CURV III provide some important capabilities. The Deep Drone is

designed for deep-ocean recovery. It has a 3,200-pound lift capacity and

can carry 300 pounds of payload. The Deep Drone is equipped with two

manipulators and multiple still and video cameras. The Magnum is an ROV

designed to operate in high current systems and capable of a depth of 8,200

feet. It is deployed within a protective cage. Once the ROV reaches the target

area, the Magnum is released from the cage and stays connected with a tether

line. The Magnum has 8,000-pound lift capacity and can carry a 300-pound

payload.

4.3.2.3 Deep-Water Remotely Operated Vehicles

Deep-water ROVs are larger and heavier than shallow-water and mid-water

ROVs, sometimes exceeding 10,000 pounds. Their larger size requires more

complex and heavier support operations, but provide greater flexibility for

instrumentation integration. Only four systems were identified: Tiburon,

ROPOS, CURV III, and Jason II/Medea.
148 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

In 1996, MBARI built the Tiburon, a 13,123-foot depth-capable ROV as a

complete in-house project. The ROV operates from the swath RV WESTERN

FLYER. Tiburon is a mission-flexible platform with a variable buoyancy system

capable of conducting deep-water surveys; deploying, servicing and

retrieving instruments and tools; and collecting biological, chemical and

geological samples.51

ROPOS (Remotely Operated Platform for Ocean Science) is a Canadian

deep-water-capable ROV, built by International Submarine Engineering and

operated by the Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility that has supported

multiple NOAA and academic missions.52 For deep-water operations, the

vehicle is lowered as a caged ROV system. Once it reaches target depth, the

ROV is released from the cage using a 1,000-foot tether. For deep-water

missions, the ROV’s large size requires a support vessel with on-deck

equipment capable of lifting 14 tons or more.

The CURV (Cable-controlled Undersea Recovery Vehicle) III provides deepwater ROV capabilities to the U.S. Navy SUPSALV office. The CURV III is rated

for 20,000-foot depths and weighs 13,000 pounds. This ROV has a

2,500-pound lift capacity, can carry 300 pounds of payload, and is equipped

with multiple video and still cameras and two manipulators.

The WHOI Deep Submerge Laboratory, a leading center for the development

of underwater vehicle technology, developed the Jason II/Medea system in

2002.53 NSF has provided support for Medea and for the development of

Jason II, a replacement of Jason I. The Jason II/Medea is a 21,325-foot

depth, dual ROV system that is lowered as a single unit to target depth, where

Jason II is decoupled from Medea. The system has multiple optical sensors,

sonars, and manipulators, and can support additional scientific

instrumentation.

In addition to the institutions mentioned above, other institutions known to

have well-established ROV systems include Harbor Branch Oceanographic

Institute, the University of Southern Mississippi, and the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (MIT).

4.3.3 Towed Vehicles

TOVs include any submerged or surface vehicle that can be towed from a

moving vessel and that is used to acquire data. TOVs cover large areas,

sometimes hundreds of nautical miles, during missions that can last days.

Some TOV vehicles, like many COTS, tow side-scan sonar systems and have

very specific missions. Others have a modular design and allow customization

with different instruments according to mission needs. Some TOVs are

equipped with video cameras and optical sensors used to collect information

on plankton communities and ocean colors. Others can collect water

samples or record information on the ocean’s chemical (e.g., dissolved

oxygen) and physical parameters (e.g., temperature and salinity). TOVs’

depth of operation can range from near surface waters to 20,000 feet.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 149

As with ROVs, it would be impractical to try to list all TOV systems in place.

Instead, examples of TOVs used by the U.S. Navy and at two major academic

institutions (WHOI and University of Hawaii’s School of Ocean and Earth

Science and Technology, or SOEST) are described to provide a picture of

existing capabilities. Because information was not available on the depth

capabilities of all TOV systems discussed, this information is not presented.

The U.S. Navy’s Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) tows

specialized sampling equipment from its eight deep-draft, ocean-going survey

ships. This equipment includes the TOWed Defined EXcitation (TOWDEX)

bioluminescence system; the Towed Ocean Survey System (TOSS); and various

COTS towed side-scan sonar (i.e., Seamap, Klein 5500, Klein 2000, Klein

3000, and Benthos 1502). The TOWDEX is a shallow-water towed

photometer sensor that continuously measures bioluminescence at speeds up

to 10 knots, while computer-operated movable wings control operational

depth.54 Auxiliary instruments include an in-situ fluorometer, transmissometer,

a spectral absorption attenuation meter, and sensors for temperature,

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH. TOSS is a submersible for general

ocean exploration and bottom mapping used for high-resolution optical and

acoustic surveys at multiple depths.55 This TOV, developed by WHOI

Oceanographic Systems Laboratory, can be towed very close to the bottom.

The Argos II and the DSL-120A are both deep-water-capable TOVs operated

by WHOI NDSF with financial support from NSF OCE. Argos II is a 9-yearold, near-bottom towed imaging and mapping vehicle. It carries cameras and

several acoustic sensors. The DSL-120A is a two-year-old TOV equipped with

two side-scan sonars used to measure ocean bathymetry.

The Hawaii Mapping Research group of the University of Hawaii SOEST

operates the MR1, a shallow-towed side-scan sonar system that collects

bathymetry and imaging data.56 The system is capable of producing up to a

25-kilometer-wide swath at 9 knots. An improved version, the IM12, is in the

final stages of development. The IM12 has a modular design, new

electronics, and a new tow-body. In 2002, NSF provided funds to build and

operate the IMI-30, a deep-towed 30 kHz phase-difference bathymetric sidescan sonar. The system will acquire side-scan sonar images, phase difference

bathymetry, and multibeam sub-bottom data. The system is designed to be

portable, with the capacity to operate from UNOLS Class I or II vessels.

4.3.4 Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

AUVs include unmanned vehicles designed to operate without being tethered

to a support vessel. AUVs can be navigated by pre-programmed instruction

or by remote telemetry (e.g., radio signals). In 1981, Office of Technology

Assessment identified only five untethered vehicles: two of them with the U.S.

Navy and the other three (in development stages) with two academic

institutions. By 1999, at least 12 AUVs were operational and 21 more were

in various stages of research and development.57 Today, the exact number of

AUV units is unknown, but it is expected to have significantly increased since
150 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

1999, since COTS units are available from commercial enterprises dedicated

to AUV technology. Table 4-7 lists some examples of AUVs currently in use.

Examples of academic institutions with well-established AUV research and

development programs are MIT, Florida Atlantic University, the University of

Washington, and WHOI. Work at some academic institutions has fostered

the development of AUV private-sector enterprises, including Bluefin Robotics,

Hydroid Inc., and the Autonomous Undersea System Institute (AUSI).a

Bluefin Robotics, established in 1997 by a core team from the MIT AUV Lab,

manufactures AUVs for shallow- to deep-water environments.58 Bluefin AUVs

are modular and can range in size from 3 to 16 feet in length and 12 to

21 inches in diameter, depending on the payload configuration. Hydroid Inc.

builds AUVs developed by WHOI under a license agreement, while AUSI is a

nonprofit AUV research institute established in 1996 that originated from the

Marine Systems Engineering Lab at the University of New Hampshire.59 AUSI

developed a new solar-powered AUV design that recharges its batteries during

the day while afloat. A private contractor is building two of these solar AUVs

for the U.S. Navy.

a Wernli (2002) provides a more detailed review of the commercialization of AUV technology.

Table 4-7: Examples of Existing AUV Systems

The number and type of AUV systems has increase dramatically in the last several decades. The current

inventory is capable of operating anywhere from shallow- to deep-water environments.

Operation 

Depth Region AUV Model Owner Depth 

Rating (ft) Weight (lbs) 

AutoCat MIT Surface NA 

REMUS Hydroid Inc 330 < 80 

ShallowWater 

Fetch2 Sias Patterson 500 160 

Seahorse Navy 1,000 9,858 

Ocean Voyager II Florida Atlantic 

University 

1,968 NA 

Ocean Explorer Florida Atlantic 

University 

1,968 NA 

Seaglider University of 

Washington 

3,300 115 

Solar AUV AUSI 3,300 880 

Slocum Rutgers 

University 

5,000 NA 

Mid-Water 

Hugin 300 C&C 

Technologies 

10,000 NA 

Caribou (Odyssey III) Bluefin Robotics 14,760 881 Deep-Water 

ABE WHOI 20,000 NA 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 151

4.3.4.1 Shallow-Water Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

Shallow-water AUVs tend to be light-weight vehicles designed to operate near

coastal systems. Their light weight and smaller size place some constraints on

the instrumentation they can carry and the length of their missions. Of the

three AUVs identified in this section, one is the product of an academic

institution, and two are currently available as COTS units.

The MIT AUV Lab, in collaboration with Sea Grant, developed the

Autonomous Surface Craft line of AUVs. The MIT Sea Grant started its AUV

collaboration during the early 1990s.60 The latest Autonomous Surface Craft

is the AutoCat, a catamaran craft designed to perform shallow hydrographic

surveys. In late 1997 this AUV completed a survey of Boston Harbor.

Two commercially available shallow-water AUVs are REMUS and Fetch2.

REMUS is a low-cost, small AUV developed by the WHOI Oceanographic

Systems Laboratory for coastal monitoring.61 Hydroid Inc. is producing the

REMUS AUV through a licensing agreement with WHOI, building more than a

dozen units to support WHOI’s Very Shallow Water Mine Counter Measures

activities. Because of its small size, a two-person team operating from a small

boat can hand-deploy a REMUS AUV.

Fetch2 is a patented AUV built by Sias Patterson Inc. In 2002 Sias Patterson

delivered its first AUV to be used on a U.S. Navy NLR research cruise in the

Gulf of Mexico.62 This AUV has an endurance of 8 to 12 hours, depending on

speed, and an approximate range of 50 nautical miles.

4.3.4.2 Mid-Water Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

Midwater AUVs typically are larger and have a longer endurance and range

than shallow-water AUVs. Some systems have operating ranges in the

thousands of miles and can conduct missions that last months. These AUVs

are especially well suited for investigations of ocean areas outside of the

operational range of most surface vessels or manned submersibles, such as

the polar regions.

The U.S. Navy leads the federal government in the use of AUV technology.

Currently the U.S. Navy is using the mid-water-capable Seahorse AUVs, which

are fully autonomous, for the collection of high-quality data in the littoral

regions of the world. These AUVs are intended to operate primarily from the

U.S. Navy’s T-AGS 60-class ships, but can operate from shore or other

platforms. The Seahorse AUVs have 72 hours of endurance and a range of

300 nautical miles.

The Department of Ocean Engineering at Florida Atlantic University has two

lines of midwater AUVs: Ocean Voyager II and Ocean Explorer.63 The Ocean

Voyager II is an AUV that started as a 1992 project by a group of senior

students and became operational in 1994. The Ocean Explorer is a line of

AUVs with modular construction to facilitate interchange of instruments

according to mission.
152 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) began its AUV

research during the 1950s.64 In collaboration with its School of

Oceanography, it developed the Seaglider line of AUVs. The Seaglider collects

ocean profile information (e.g., CTD and oxygen concentration) during dives

and transmits it to shore in near-real-time using satellite communication from

the surface. On the surface, the Seaglider also can receive new operational

instructions via satellite communications. At slightly over 100 pounds, the

Seaglider is a relatively light AUV that can be deployed from small vessels with

minimal support equipment. The Seaglider can operate for up to 6 months,

conduct about 500 vertical profiles to depths of more than 3,000 feet, and

cover over 6,000 kilometers.

Three other examples of mid-water commercial AUVs are the Solar AUSI,

Slocum, and Hugin 3000. Falmouth Scientific Inc., a subcontractor of AUSI, is

currently building two Solar AUSI AUVs for the U.S. Navy Office of Naval

Research. These solar-powered AUVs are expected to be operational by the

end of the summer of 2003.65 The Rutgers Coastal Ocean Observatory Lab

(COOL) operates a Slocum Glider AUV, built by Webb Research

Corporation.66 The Slocum has an estimated operational range of

1,500 kilometers. Rutgers University and Webb Research have plans for an

operating fleet of four Slocum Glider AUVs supporting COOL. In late

1999, C&C Technologies acquired a Hugin 3000 AUV to support worldwide surveys.67

4.3.4.3 Deep-Water Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

The MIT lab developed the Odyssey line of AUVs that included the Caribou

model, or Odyssey III (built by Bluefin Technologies). The Caribou, the latest

Odyssey AUV, is a modular AUV that has an operational depth of 10,000 feet

and 20 hours of endurance at 3 knots. Other previous models in the

Odyssey line include the Xanthos (Odyssey IId), which has over 500

successful dives.

The Autonomous Benthic Explorer (ABE), developed in 1993 by WHOI, is

considered a true robot capable of moving at predetermined depths,

performing specific maneuvers, taking photographs and collecting various

samples.68 Collected data are downloaded at the end of each mission after

the AUV is recovered. There are plans for the development of sleep modes

that will allow ABE to dock to a submerged station to download information

and stay in standby mode between missions. The ABE AUV can conduct dives

that last from 6 hours up to a year with 4 to 100 active hours.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 153

4.4 Research, Exploration, and

Monitoring Aircraft

NOAA, NASA, DoD, NSF and DOE own and operate most of the aircraft

used for ocean and coastal research, exploration, and monitoring activities.

The DOI Office of Aircraft Services manages aircraft use and contracting to

support its natural resources mission, including research and monitoring of

coastal assets.69 Data from DOI’s MMS indicate that MMS leases 1 fixedwing aircraft for 59 days a year to conduct bowhead whale surveys,

and leases16 helicopters for 365 days a year to conduct oil and gas

platform inspections.

Some states own or operate aircraft for assessment, management, and

protection of natural resources including coastal and ocean areas, but

information on these assets was not available. The private sector provides

aircraft contracting services to federal and state agencies in support of ocean

and coastal activities. Most of these commercial aircraft are not included in

this report because they are not considered facilities dedicated to the direct

support of ocean and coastal activities. An exception is the US LTA 138S

airship owned by US-LTA Corporation. This aircraft is included because of its

unique design. This non-rigid, 160-foot airship provides a slow-moving

platform that has been used to conduct detailed vertical and horizontal

profiling of the marine boundary layer.70

Aircraft that support ocean and coastal activities frequently serve as platforms

for atmospheric research and monitoring purposes. The multidisciplinary use

of aircraft tends to ameliorate their relatively high acquisition and

maintenance costs. Recent advances in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles

(UAV) may, in the near future, reduce the cost and expand the use of aircraft

as platforms for research and monitoring activities.71 A significant advantage

provided by UAV over piloted aircraft is the extended mission time, which in

some current systems can exceed 24 hours of continuous flying.

The sensors installed in aircraft depend on the aircraft payload capabilities,

operational limitation, and mission requirements. Missions can range from a

visual survey for marine biota to high-altitude remote-sensing measurements.

A partial list of sensors used on aircraft is provided in Table 4-8.

4.4.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Aircraft

NOAA’s Aircraft Operation Center of the Office of Marine and Aviation

Operation maintains and operates the NOAA aircraft fleet (11 fixed-wing and

2 rotary-wing aircraft) (Table 4-9). The fleet, based at MacDill Air Force Base

in Tampa, Florida, conducts missions in support of NOAA’s research and

monitoring activities and other federal and academic programs.
154 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The NOAA aircraft fleet is relatively old, with an average age of 21 years

(Figure 4-3), and some of the aircraft reaching the end of their service life.72

Currently NOAA is developing a report to address its airborne platform

requirements for the 10-year period of FY2003 to FY2012.

Multiple sensors can be used in aircraft for remote sensing purposes. Some of the sensors are used for research, while others support

operational tasks such as bathymetry mapping.

Table 4-8: Examples of Sensors Installed in Aircraft

Sensors Type Aircraft Mission 

AOCI 

Airborne Ocean 

Color Imager 

High altitude 

multispectral scanner 

NASA ER-2 Mapping of chlorophyll, suspended sediments and 

sea surface temperature 

AOL3 

Airborne Ocean 

LIDAR 

Visible and infrared 

imaging spectrometer 

(Primary sensor) 

NOAA Twin Otter 

NASA P-3B 

Ocean and coastal color studies 

ATM 

Airborne Topographic 

Mapper 

Combined airborne 

laser altimeter and GPS 

NASA P3 

NASA Twin Otters 

Topography measurements (10 to 20 cm); recent 

investigations include measurement of sea-ice 

thickness, sea-surface elevations, coastal beach 

dynamics 

AVIRIS 

Airborne Visible and 

Infrared Imaging 

Spectrometer 

Visible and infrared 

imaging spectrometer 

NASA ER-2 

NASA Twin Otter 

Identify, measure, and monitor constituents of the 

Earth’s surface and atmosphere based on molecular 

absorption and particle scattering signatures 

FLOE 

Fish LIDAR 

Oceanic, Experimental 

LIDAR NOAA Twin Otter Experimental sensor for measurements of epipelagic 

fish 

EAARL 

Experimental 

Airborne Advanced 

Research LIDAR 

LIDAR NASA Cessna 310 New airborne LIDAR that provides capabilities to 

survey coral reefs, nearshore benthic habitats, 

coastal vegetation, and sandy beaches 

MAS 

MODIS Airborne 

Airborne scanning 

spectrometer 

NASA ER-2 Acquires digital imagery to help refine, develop and 

test algorithms for the Moderate Resolution Imaging 

Spectroradiometer (MODIS) 

ROWS 

Radar Ocean Wave 

Spectrometer 

High-range-resolution 

radar 

NASA P3 Airborne remote sensor used to support the 

development and refinement of satellite radars that 

measure the ocean surface 

SHOAL 

Scanning 

Hydrographic 

Operational Airborne 

LIDAR Survey 

LIDAR JALBTCX Twin Otter Coastal bathymetric mapping 

SRA 

Scanning Radar 

Altimeter 

Raster scanning pulsed 

narrow-beam radar 

altimeter 

NASA P3 Remote measurements of hurricane driven ocean 

directional wave spectra and hurricane storm surge 

TMS 

Thematic Mapper 

Simulator 

Digital multispectral 

scanner 

NASA ER-2 Simulates performance of Thematic Mappers on 

Landsat 4 and 5 satellites 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 155

Table 4-9: NOAA Aircraft

NOAA operates nine different aircraft models including two helicopters. These aircraft support a variety of missions that range from marine

mammal surveys to atmospheric research.

More than half of NOAA’s aircraft are over two decades old, with many of them reaching the end of their service life.

Figure 4-3: Age Distribution of NOAA Aircraft

Aircraft 

Model 

Number 

of 

Aircraft 

Type Age Ceiling 

(ft) 

Maximum 

Endurance 

(hrs) 

Mission

BELL 212 1 Twin engine 

helicopter 

23 12,500 3.5 Costal research and assessment; homeland security 

Cessna 

Citation 

CE-550 

1 Twin engine 

jet 

24 43,000 5 Mapping and charting 

Gulfstream 

IV-SP (G-IV) 

1 Twin engine 

turbo fan jet 

6 45,000 9 Weather and climate research 

Rockwell 

Turbo 

Commander 

AC-690 

1 28 31,000 6.8 Weather and climate research; mapping and 

charting; coastal research and assessment; snow 

surveys 

Lake 

Renegade 

Seawolf LA27 

2 Single engine 

amphibious 

aircraft 

11 20,000 12 Coastal research and assessment 

MD500 1 Single engine 

helicopter 

23 16,000 2.8 Coastal research and assessment; marine mammal 

survey, marine sanctuary overflights; ship grounding 

and oil spill investigations; hurricane and flood 

damage assessments 

Rockwell 

Aero 

Commander 

AC-500S 

2 Twin engine 

(piston) 

26 18,000 6 Weather and climate research; mapping and 

charting research; coastal research and assessment 

Twin Otter 

DHC-6 

2 Twin engine 

turboprop 

22 25,000 7 Coastal research and assessment; weather and 

climate research; marine mammal protection 

WP-3D 

Orion 

2 Four-engine 

turboprop 

27 27,000 11 Weather and climate research; coastal research, 

ocean remote-sensing; fisheries studies 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

< 5 5 -10 10 -15 15 -20 20 -25 25 -30

Age in Years

Number of Aircraft
156 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

During FY2002, marine mammal protection activities accounted for

278 operating days and 687 flight hours, which represent about 45 percent

of NOAA’s aircraft flight time (Figure 4-4). Mapping and charting, weather

climate, and coastal and ocean research activities accounted for 21 percent,

18 percent, and 12 percent of the flight time, respectively. Homeland security

activities required only about 3 percent of NOAA flight time. The cost of

operation, maintenance (including ground facilities support) and

management of all NOAA aircraft in FY2002 was $16.9 million, or

approximately $11,000 per flight hour.

4.4.2 National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Aircraft

NASA’s fleet consists of more than 100 aircraft used primarily for aeronautical

research. 73 Of these aircraft, about a dozen, including UAV, were identified

through Internet searches as used to support ocean and coastal-related

activities (Table 4-10). The exact number, conditions or plans for upgrades or

new acquisition of NASA aircraft is unknown.

NASA operates aircraft dedicated to supporting ocean and coastal activities

primarily from three centers. On the West Coast, Dryden Flight Research

Center in Edwards, California, operates two ER-2, a DC 8, and various

UAVs.74 Johnson Space Center in Texas operates two WB-57 high-altitude

research aircraft.75 In the Mid-Atlantic region, Goddard Space Flight Center

Wallops Flight Facility operates a P-3 Orion.76 Wallops Flight Facility also has

the AeroScience Lab, which is a facility dedicated to developing new

technology in the area of UAV instrumentation and platforms, particularly

within the area of atmospheric research.71 Technology developed at this

facility may be easily transferred to support ocean and coastal activities.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Marine

Mammal

Protection

Mapping and

Charting

Weather and

Climate

Coastal

Reasearch and

Assessment

Homeland

Security

Flight Hours

Operating Days

Figure 4-4: FY 2002 NOAA Aircraft Allocation

Marine mammal protection activities account for almost half of NOAA’s annual aircraft flight hours. These

missions are frequently conducted from smaller aircraft, including helicopters, which fly at relative low speeds

and altitudes.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 157

Of NASA’s assets, the ER-2 aircraft provide unique capabilities, as they are

civilian versions of the Air Force U2-S reconnaissance platform. The aircraft

has a cruise altitude of 65,000 feet, which allows the sensors aboard to

simulate sensors carried by orbiting satellites.77 Other aircraft like the Lear jet

based at Glenn Research Center in Ohio, or the OV-10 that operates from

Langley, Virginia, have been used to support ocean and coastal research, but

their predominant use is as a platform for aeronautical research. In addition,

under the Earth Science Project Office, NASA maintains cooperative

agreements with other federal agencies for the use of its aircraft.78

Table 4-10: NASA Aircraft

NASA uses a combination of manned and unmanned aircraft to support its research mission. These aircraft are owned or operated

by NASA, under partnerships with the government or private sector.

NA: Information not available

Aircraft 

Model 

Number of 

Aircraft Type Age Ceiling (ft) 

Maximum 

Endurance 

(hrs) 

Mission

DC-8 1 Four-engine 

turbo fan jet 

NA 41,000 10 Atmospheric research; remote sensing data 

collection; technology development 

P-3 Orion 1 Four-engine 

turboprop 

25 27,000 11 Ocean and coastal remote sensing 

WB-57 2 Twin engine 

high altitude jet 

NA 60, 000 6.5 Atmospheric and climate research 

ER-2 2 Twin engine 

high altitude 

Jet 

NA 70,000 6.5 Atmospheric, oceanographic, and earth 

sciences research 

Cessna 310 1 Twin engine NA NA NA Coastal remote sensing 

Bronco OV-10 1 Multipurpose 

twin engine 

NA NA NA Coastal remote sensing; technology 

development, Earth energy budget research 

Lear Jet 1 Turbo fan jet NA 45,000 NA Atmospheric research 

Aerosonde UAV NA 20,000 40 Monitoring of coastal systems, atmospheric 

research 

Proteus NA Twin engine Jet NA 60,000 18 Earth sciences studies, weather and climate 

research; telecommunications relay 

platforms 

Pathfinder NA UAV NA 71,500 16 Earth sciences studies, habitat mapping 

(e.g., coastline and reefs), agriculture 

assessment; mammal movement studies 

Pathfinder 

Plus 

NA UAV 

(under 

development) 

NA NA NA Earth sciences studies; weather and climate 

research, ocean wind vector imaging, 

habitat assessment 

Altus II NA UAV Predator 

(civilian 

variation) 

NA 45,000 24 Weather and climate research, including 

monitoring and forecasting 

ALTAIR NA UAV Predator B 

(under 

development) 

NA 52,000 32 Disaster-management; remote sensing 
158 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

4.4.3 U.S. Department of Defense Aircraft

The U.S. Navy, USACE, U.S. Air Force, and New York Air National Guard use

aircraft to support ocean and coastal research and monitoring activities.

Frequently, activities conducted by these aircraft support ocean and coastal

missions of other institutions, including federal agencies and academic

research centers. The mechanism of collaboration varies, and can range

from formal partnerships among institutions to providing access to

instruments aboard the aircraft in support of specific research projects and

sharing and exchanging data.

The U.S. Navy operates 11 aircraft (3 UAV and 8 piloted aircraft) to support

ocean and coastal research activities (Table 4-11). These aircraft operate

from two facilities: The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Flight Support

Detachment at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, and the Center

for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Aircraft Studies (CIRPAS) at the Naval

Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. In addition, the U.S. Navy and

USACE established the Joint Airborne LIDAR Bathymetry Technical Center of

Expertise (JALBTCX). This center uses a contractor-supplied Twin Otter aircraft

as an airborne platform for an advanced LIDAR system.

The NRL Flight Support Detachment operates five highly modified P-3 Orion

turboprop airplanes. These aircraft are used for multiple research projects

including mapping magnetic variation and conducting hydroacoustic

measurements. These aircraft operate worldwide and annually log more than

The Navy uses a combination of manned and unmanned aircraft to support its research mission.

NA: Information not available

Aircraft Model 

Number 

of 

Aircraft 

Type Age Ceiling 

(ft) 

Maximum 

Endurance 

(hrs) 

Mission

WP-3D Orion 5 Four-engine 

turboprop 

25 27,000 11 Atmospheric, oceanographic, and 

Earth science research; technology 

development 

Pelican I 

Cessna 337/O-2A 

Skymaster 

1 Twin engine NA NA NA Long endurance, low altitude 

atmospheric and oceanographic 

research; technology development 

Pelican II Cessna 

337/O-2A 

Skymaster 

1 Twin engine 

optionallypiloted 

NA NA NA Long endurance, low altitude 

atmospheric and oceanographic 

research; technology development 

UV-18A 

Twin Otter 

1 Twin engine 

turboprop 

NA 25,000 7 Coastal and marine research; weather 

and climate research 

Altus ST UAV 

General Atomic ASI 

1 UAV NA 45,000 24+ Atmospheric research; support a 

variety of payloads including 

expendable sensors 

Predator 2 UAV NA 25,000 36 Research and technology development 

platform 

Table 4-11: Navy Aircraft
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 159

2,500 hours of flight time supporting research conducted by the U.S. Navy

and other federal and academic institutions.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) established CIRPAS in 1996.79 The

CIRPAS facilities, located at the Marina Municipal Airport (formerly Fort Ord

Frizsche Field) provide UAV flight services to the research and development

community. CIRPAS operates one UAV, two manned twin-engine aircraft, and

one optionally manned twin-engine aircraft (Table 4-10). CIRPAS is a unique

institution because it provides a centralized repository of diverse UAV and

support equipment to the ocean and coastal research community on a lease

basis. CIRPAS’s strategic location within the Monterey Bay area, a major

center for oceanographic research, facilitates the logistic access to UAV by the

research community. On September 27, 2002, UNOLS designated CIRPAS

as a National Oceanographic Aircraft Facility under Annex II of the UNOLS

charter.80 This designation should further promote the use of this facility by

the ocean and atmospheric research community.

JALBTCX is a partnership between USACE, the Naval Meteorology and

Oceanography Command, and the NOAA National Ocean Service. The

center’s mission is to advance and exploit airborne LIDAR technology and to

coordinate work and exchange information and expertise in this area.

JALBTCX owns and operates the Scanning Hydrographic Operational

Airborne LIDAR Survey (SHOALS) system. This is the most advanced airborne

LIDAR bathymetric mapping system. The SHOALS system, installed on a

DHC/300 Twin Otter contracted with Kenn Borek Air, Ltd., has completed

over 400 project surveys worldwide. The system is planned to be replaced in

FY2003 by CHART, an advanced topographic and bathymetric LIDAR system

under development that will produce a high-resolution, seamless survey of the

coastal zone. JALBTCX employs over 35 personnel from USACE, the U.S.

Navy, NOAA, and contractors with expertise in physics, engineering,

remote sensing, marine sciences, electronics, and other related

professional disciplines.

The 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, a component of the 403rd

Wing, located at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi, operates 10 WC130s. The WC-130s are military transport aircraft modified for storm

penetration. The squadron provides tropical disturbance and hurricane

surveillance in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico for the National

Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.81 On occasion, the squadron conducts

missions in the Pacific in support of the Central Pacific Hurricane Center in

Honolulu, Hawaii. During winter, the squadron flies storm missions in both the

Atlantic and Pacific in support of NOAA’s National Center for Environmental

Prediction. In addition to the weather reconnaissance missions, the squadron

occasionally participates in ocean and atmospheric research missions, and

has expertise with the deployment of drifting buoys.

The New York Air National Guard 109th Airlift Wing provides airlift support for

U.S. science efforts in Antarctica under a 1998 DoD and NSF Memorandum

of Agreement. The unit operates 10 ski-equipped LC-130 Hercules, and is

the only unit with this capability in the world. In addition, the Air Force
160 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Reserve Command’s 4th Air Force is managing the strategic airlift missions to

Antarctica for Operation Deep Freeze of the U.S. Antarctic Program until

2005. This unit currently operates C-141C aircrafts. By 2005, a new C-17

will replace the C-141C.

4.4.4 National Science Foundation Aircraft

NSF owns two aircraft operated by the Atmospheric Technology Division of

the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): a former Air Force

C-130, and a new Gulfstream V turbofan airframe currently undergoing

modifications and expected to be in service by June 2005. The new

Gulfstream is designated as the High-Performance Instrumented Airborne

Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER). The HIAPER will be equipped

with multiple oceanographic remote sensing instruments. NSF recently

removed from service a LC-188 research aircraft that was in operation with

NCAR. This aircraft had an ELDORA radar, an airborne, dual beam,

meteorological research radar developed jointly by the United States and

France. NSF recently transferred and installed the radar on a NRL P-3 Orion

under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Navy.

NSF supports two other smaller aircraft in operation with two academic

institutions. The Donald L. Veal Research Flight Center of the University of

Wyoming’s Department of Atmospheric Science operates a King Air twinengine aircraft to conduct in-situ atmospheric measurements.82 The Institute

of Atmospheric Sciences at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

operates a T-28 under a cooperative agreement with NSF.83 The T-28 is a

single-engine, armored storm-penetrating aircraft equipped with optical

sensors mounted on the wings. The T-28 is used for studies of hail formation,

precipitation and storm forecasting. This unique aircraft has been used in

many different national and international projects. Table 4-12 describes

NSF’s aircraft.

Aircraft owned or operated by NSF under partnership with academic institutions and used to support ocean and coastal activities.

NA: Information not available

Aircraft 

Model 

Number of 

Aircraft Type Age Ceiling (ft) 

Maximum 

Endurance 

(hrs) 

Mission 

HIAPER 

Gulfstream V 

1 Twin engine 

turbo fan jet 

NA 51,000 NA Atmospheric, oceanographic, and Earth 

science research; technology development 

EC-130Q 1 Modified 

C-130 

NA 27,000 10 Atmospheric and oceanographic research; 

supports oceanographic droposonde 

dispensing 

KA B2000T 1 Twin Engine 

turboprop 

NA 30,000 5 Atmospheric research 

T-28 1 Single engine 

armored 

> 30 23,000 2 Atmospheric research 

Table 4-12: NSF Aircraft
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 161

4.4.5 U.S. Department of Energy Aircraft

DOE operates one Gulfstream (G1) twin-engine turboprop owned by Batelle.

The aircraft, based at the DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, has

been used as an atmospheric research airborne platform during national and

international multidisciplinary projects since 1988.84 The aircraft has an

operational ceiling of 45,000 feet and a maximum endurance of 9 hours.

This aircraft recently participated in a New England air quality study

conducted in coordination with NOAA RV RON BROWN.

4.5 Satellites and Space-Based Sensors

The use of satellites for ocean research, exploration, and monitoring is a

relatively young discipline. Seasat-A, launched on June 26, 1978, was the

first satellite dedicated to ocean research. The purpose of the mission was to

demonstrate techniques for global monitoring of the oceans, to collect

oceanographic data, and to determine needed features of an operational

ocean-dynamics monitoring system.85

Today, the United States has satellites that support both ocean and coastal

research and operational activities. NASA has responsibility for research

satellites (e.g., measurements of ocean color as a proxy of biological activity)

while NOAA, DoD, and USGS are in charge of operational satellites (e.g.,

weather prediction). The National Academy of Science is conducting a study

of the opportunities to expedite the transition of remote-sensing technological

advances to operational status.86

4.5.1 Research Satellites

Even though remote sensing has proven to be a powerful tool, NASA has just

10 satellite missions in operation dedicated to ocean research (Table 4-13).

At least two of these missions may not continue beyond FY2003. Two new

research satellites are expected to be launched by 2006. Some ocean

remote-sensing research activities are actually conducted using data from

sensors aboard operational satellites, including recent advances in the use of

GPS signals to infer sea state and wind speed.87 A few research missions rely

on international partnerships either for instrumentation or spacecraft

platform. In addition, the United States relies on European satellites

(ERS-1 and ERS-2); a Japanese satellite (JERS-1), and a Canadian satellite

(RADARSAT-1) for Synthetic Aperture Radar data.

TOPEX/Poseidon, the oldest satellite in operation used for ocean research, is a

joint mission between NASA and the French Centre National d’Etudes

Spatiales (CNES). The mission, launched in August 1992 with a planned

service life of three years, continues to provide high-quality altimetry

observations of the sea surface. The accurate measurement of ocean

altimetry is fundamental to the study and understanding of ocean circulation.

Each orbit repeats within 1 kilometer approximately every 10 days. The

accuracy of TOPEX/Poseidon sea surface topography observations (7 by
162 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

7-kilometer resolution) is 2 to 3 centimeters. In August 2002 the TOPEX/

Poseidon spacecraft was moved to a slightly different orbit to create, in

association with the Jason spacecraft, the first wide-swath altimeter.

The Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS), launched on the

SeaStar/OrbView-2 satellite, is the first ocean color-measuring satellite in

operation since the end of the Coastal Zone Color Scanner Mission in 1986.

SeaWiFS provides estimates of oceanic chlorophyll-a concentrations and other

bio-optical parameters used to quantify phytoplankton abundance and ocean

productivity. SeaWiFS has a minimum horizontal resolution of 1 by

1-kilometer, with an accuracy for chlorophyll-a data of 30 percent. Clouds

and rain can, however, degrade SeaWiFS measurements. SeaWIFS data are

available at 1-kilometer local and 4-kilometer global resolution. The mission

is to continue until 2003; continuation of the mission beyond then depends

on funding.

The QuikSCAT mission was launched in June 1999 as a quick-recovery

mission to fill the gap created by the 1997 loss of the NASA Scatterometer

(NSCAT), a sensor designed to measure near-surface wind speed. The

QuikSCAT satellite carries the SeaWinds, a specialized microwave radar that

measures near-surface wind speed and direction over the ocean under all

weather and cloud conditions, although its measurements can be degraded

by rain. The SeaWinds instrument on QuikSCAT is the first conically scanning

spaceborne scatterometer. The accuracies of SeaWinds speed and direction

measurements are about 1 meter per second and 20 degrees, respectively.

Mission Launch 

Date EOL Date Instruments Ocean Color SST Ocean Circulation 

Wave 

Hieghts 

Surface 

Winds 

Sea 

Ice 

Land 

Cover 

Wetlands

Topex/ POSEIDON 1 • PoseidonAug 92 Depends on 

Funding TOPEX • •

SeaStar Aug 97 Depends on 

Funding 

SeaWiFS •

QuikSCAT Jun 99 Depends on 

Funding 

Sea Winds •

TRMM Nov 97 Dec 04 TMI •

Terra Dec 99 Dec 05 MODIS • • •

Jason 1 Dec 01 Dec 04 POSEIDON 2 •

GRACE Mar 02 Mar 07 GRACE •

Aqua May 02 May 07 MODIS • • •

AMSR E • • •

ADEOS-2 Dec 02 Dec 05 SeaWinds •

ICESa Jan 03 Dec 06 GLAS •

Table 4-13: NASA Research Satellites in Service

In addition to these 10 research missions, 2 other missions are expected to launch within the next 5 years.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 163

Each day the SeaWinds instrument records 25 by 25-kilometer ocean vector

winds over 96 percent of the ice-free oceans, repeating the ground tracks in

an approximate 4-day cycle. NOAA uses real-time QuikSCAT observations to

prepare the daily weather forecast.

The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) was launched in November

1997. In addition to measuring the diurnal cycle of tropical rainfall, the

TRMM Microwave Imager sensor provides the first estimate (since SeaSat in

1978) of sea surface temperature in the presence of clouds. This sensor

design is based on the highly successful Special Sensor Microwave Imagers

used on the Defense Meteorological Satellites. TRMM rainfall data are 

combined with data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer

sensor in the Aqua (discussed below) and the Special Sensor Microwave

Imager sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellites to yield daily estimates

of 100 by 100-kilometer global precipitation, which is a useful parameter for

studying ocean salinity and density.

Terra, launched in December 1999, is the first Earth Observing System (EOS)

spacecraft. The satellite carries the Moderate-resolution Imaging

Spectroradiometer (MODIS), which measures 44 parameters including nearsurface ocean chlorophyll-a and sea-surface temperature with a horizontal

resolution of 1 kilometer. MODIS has a 2,330 kilometer-wide viewing swath,

and covers every point of the world every 1 to 2 days. The accuracy of

chlorophyll measurements made by MODIS is comparable to SeaWiFS.

MODIS also measures chlorophyll fluorescence to provide a better estimate of

phytoplankton abundance and productivity. MODIS sea-surface temperature

uncertainties are lower than those of the Advance Very High Resolution

Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor on the NOAA weather satellites.

Jason 1 is a joint NASA and CNES spacecraft launched in the TOPEX/

Poseidon orbit in December 2001 to continue the high-precision ocean

altimetry observations made by TOPEX/Poseidon. The combined Jason and

TOPEX/Poseidon observations represent the minimum attribute of a wideswath altimeter.

The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), launched in March

2002, is an international collaboration of the United States and Germany.

The instrument consists of two satellites flying in formation with GPS and

microwave ranging systems onboard. The GRACE satellites measure the

altitude, acceleration and distance between the two, which are influenced by

the Earth’s gravity field. The gravity variations can be used to infer changes in

the surface and deep ocean currents. The complete gravity field can be

mapped every 30 days for the expected 5-year lifetime of the mission, with a

resolution of 250 to 300 kilometers. The amount of data GRACE collected in

30 days exceeded the amount of information collected during the 30 years

before the mission.88 Combining GRACE and Jason data yields subsurface

heat content.

The second EOS spacecraft, Aqua, was launched in May 2002. A MODIS

instrument (an improved version of the one on Terra), Aqua provides various
164 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

oceanic measurements. The advanced microwave scanning radiometer

sensor measures sea ice extent and rainfall, in addition to providing seasurface temperature through most cloud cover.

Advanced Earth Observation Satellite-2 (ADEOS-2), launched in December

2002, is a joint mission between NASA and the National Space Development

Agency of Japan. The first ADEOS spacecraft carried the NSCAT sensor lost

in 1997. ADEOS-2 carries an advanced SeaWinds instrument, which is the

only all-weather microwave radar that measures near-surface wind velocity

(both speed and direction) over Earth’s ice-free oceans.

The Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), launched in January

2003, is the latest in a series of EOS spacecraft, following the Terra satellite

launched in December 1999 and the Aqua satellite launched in May 2002.

The primary role of ICESat is to quantify ice-sheet growth or retreat, and to

improve understanding of global climate change and changes in sea level.

The laser can measure the distance from the spacecraft to the ice with a

precision better than 10 centimeters and a spot resolution of 66 meters.

Two new ocean research missions are planned for the near future: Aquarius

and Ocean Surface Topographic Mission (OSTM). Aquarius, scheduled to fly

in 2006, will measure sea-surface salinity averaged over a spatial scale of

200 by 200 kilometers during a one-week period.

OSTM, formerly called Jason 2, is a joint mission of NASA and CNES

scheduled to fly in 2005. OSTM will measure ocean-surface elevation over a

200 kilometer-wide swath to enable the mapping of mesoscale surface

currents. The mission will support physical oceanography, geodesy, gravity,

climate monitoring, and marine meteorology research, and will transition the

measurements into an operational mode to support science and industrial

applications.

4.5.2 Operational Satellites

The National Academy of Science defined operational satellites as those that

routinely and reliably generate services and products with specific accuracy,

periodicity, and format, and that make their product available to a variety of

users including public, private, and academic sectors.77 In the United States,

NOAA has primary responsibility for operational satellites for ocean and

coastal activities. DoD and USGS also have some ocean and coastal

operational satellite capabilities.

4.5.2.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Satellites

NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

(NESDIS) operates geostationary and polar-orbiting operational environmental

satellites. These satellite systems are Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellites (GOES) for short-range warning and forecasting, and

the Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES) for long-term weather

forecasting. Together, both sets of satellites provide a complete global
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 165

monitoring system. NESDIS also manages the largest collection of

atmospheric, geophysical, and oceanographic data in the world through the

NOAA National Data Centers. In addition to the GOES and POES satellites,

NOAA, NASA and DoD are engaged in a multi-billion dollar, 24-year

program (1995-2018) to develop the National Polar-Orbiting Operational

Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). NPOESS satellites will replace

POES and DoD’s Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Nearly a third of

the NPOESS data products will support ocean-observing activities, including

surface vector winds, ocean color, sea-ice edge motion and sea-ice age, seasurface stress, sea-surface heights and topography, and wave heights at a

higher resolution and decreased data latency than are currently available.

The United States is in partnership with the European Organization for the

Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) and the National Space

Development Agency of Japan to complement the NPOESS mission of

providing long-term continuity of observations from polar-orbiting satellites.

GOES satellites circle the Earth in a geosynchronous orbit, which allows them

to hover continuously over one position on the surface and have a full-disc

view of the planet. Their position above a fixed spot on the surface permits the

ability to monitor the development of severe weather conditions, such as

hurricanes. The primary instruments are the Imager and the Sounder. The

Imager is a multi-channel instrument that detects radiant energy and reflected

solar energy from the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The Sounder provides

data to determine the vertical temperature and moisture profile of the

atmosphere, surface and cloud-top temperatures, and ozone distribution.

The satellite sensors also detect ice fields and can be used to map the

movements of ice on the sea and on lakes.

GOES satellites transmit high-resolution Imager and Sounder data signals via

the GOES I-M variable data transmission format, which requires complex

receiving hardware. GOES satellites also transmit low-resolution satellite

images using the Weather Facsimile system, which requires low-cost hardware,

and is available for users who want to establish their own direct readout

receiving station. The first GOES was launched in 1975. Currently, NOAA is

operating GOES-8 and GOES-10. GOES-11, launched on May 3, 2000,

and GOES-12, launched on July 23, 2001, are being stored in orbit as fully

functioning replacements for GOES-8 or GOES-10.

Currently, NOAA has five POES satellites: NOAA-12, and NOAA-14 through

NOAA-17. NOAA-12, launched May 14, 1991, continues transmitting high

resolution picture transmission data as a standby satellite. NOAA-14,

launched in December 1994, is in standby mode. With the launch of NOAA15 in May 1998 and NOAA-16 on September 21, 2000, a new series of

polar orbiters with improved sensors were put in service. NOAA-15 and

NOAA-16 are in operational status. The newest satellite, NOAA-17, was

launched June 24, 2002.

The two POES in operational status are Advance TIROS-N satellites constantly

circling the Earth in an almost north-south orbit, passing close to both poles.

Operating as a pair, these satellites ensure that data for any region of the
166 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Earth are no more than six hours old. The orbits are circular, with one satellite

crossing the equator at 7:30 a.m. local time, the other at 1:40 p.m. local

time. The circular orbit permits uniform data acquisition and efficient control

of the satellite by the NOAA Command and Data Acquisition stations located

near Fairbanks, Alaska, and Wallops Island, Virginia. Instruments onboard

are able to measure many atmospheric and surface parameters. The primary

instrument aboard the satellite is the Advanced Very High Resolution

Radiometer (AVHRR), which is used to measure sea-surface temperature.

The POES satellite sensors transmit data to the ground via high-resolution

picture transmission. A second data transmission, called automatic

picture transmission, allows users who want to establish their own direct

readout receiving station to receive low-resolution imagery data. It can be

received with inexpensive equipment, while the high-resolution data utilizes a

more complex receiver. These satellites send more than 16,000 global

measurements daily via NOAA’s Command and Data Acquisition station to

NOAA computers, adding valuable information for forecasting models,

especially for remote ocean areas, where conventional data are lacking.

4.5.2.2 U.S. Department of Defense Satellites

The Navy Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC)

uses data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) in order

to run its atmospheric forecast models. The DMSP satellites support DoD’s

long-term meteorological program to collect and disseminate worldwide

atmospheric, oceanographic, solar geophysical, and cloud cover data on a

daily basis. The Special Sensor Microwave Imager sensor carried in these

satellites is useful for investigation of sea-surface winds, rain rates, cloud

vapor, precipitation, soil moisture, and ice edge and age.

4.5.2.3 U.S. Geological Survey Satellites

USGS and NASA operate the Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 satellites.89 The

primary sensor in both satellites is the Thematic Mapper, although Landsat 7

has an improved version called the Enhanced Thematic Mapper. The

Thematic Mapper, is a multispectral scanning radiometer used for

environmental monitoring, including land surface, agriculture and forestry, ice

and snow cover, and disaster monitoring and assessment. Landsat 5,

launched in 1984, and Landsat 7, launched in June 1999, should remain in

operation at least until 2004. The Landsat series satellites, even though

designed for remote sensing of land surfaces, provide valuable information on

coastal systems such as estuarine wetlands. Information from these satellites

help elucidate the hydrology processes occurring in estuarine systems. NASA

and USGS are collaborating on a new mission called the Landsat Data

Continuity Mission. This mission is expected to be launched by 2006 and will

extend the 35-year Landsat data record available that started with the launch

of Landsat 1 in 1972.89
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 167

4.6 Ocean-Observing Systems

The United States does not have an integrated ocean-observing system

comparable to the other systems that monitor, study, and forecast weather.

The infrastructure and standardized methods required for the continuous

collection, analysis, and timely dissemination of ocean and coastal

information to the public, policy decision makers, and research community

does not exist. Independent programs, most of them still in research and

development stages, provide the existing ocean-observing systems inventory.

Some ocean-observing systems (e.g. Chesapeake Bay Mouth Survey Monthly)

are limited to collecting periodic oceanographic samples at a few selected

stations. Other systems, such as the MBARI Ocean Observing System

(MOOS), encompass a combination of diverse facilities, including moorings

and drifters with real-time data telemetry, satellite images, and periodic

oceanographic sampling, which are supplemented with data from ROV and

AUV technologies.

The federal government recognizes the need for an Integrated Ocean

Observing System (IOOS) and has expressed support for establishing such a

system (Senate Committee on Appropriations Report 107-218, S. 2778 and

the House Armed Services Committed Report 107-436).90 To address this

need, the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) created

Ocean.US in late 2000 to coordinate the efforts for the development of

IOOS.91 IOOS has three components: global ocean systems, coastal

systems, and nested regional systems. The global ocean component is part of

an international effort to develop the Global Ocean Observing System

(GOOS). In support of IOOS, NSF recently approved an Ocean

Observatories Initiative to be funded through the Major Research Equipment

and Facilities Construction (MRE-FC) account. NSF’s Ocean Observatories

Initiative will support the development of a network of ocean observatories.

To support the IOOS effort, in January 2003 the UNOLS council formed a

working group to address ocean observatory facility needs, composed of

experts in the development and use of ocean-observing systems.92

IOOS includes both coastal and global observing systems, and defines the

coastal observing systems as those systems designed to acquire data from

inside the 200 nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, Great Lakes, and

estuaries.90 Global observing systems are those systems designed to collect

data outside the exclusive economic zone.

4.6.1 Coastal Observing Systems

A total of 41 coastal observing systems were identified, primarily through the

Coastal Observation Technology program web site, part of NOAA’s National

Ocean Service Office (Table 4-14 and Supplement 4-7).93 This program

provides grants for the development of coastal observing systems. Table 4-14

does not include all existing systems, as many new, independent systems are

in various stages of research and development or implementation. For

example, the development of a coastal observing system for the Great Lakes

has been suggested as a fundamental need for monitoring the region.94
168 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Table 4-14: Coastal Observing Systems by Region

This table depicts the distribution of coastal observing systems in the nation’s nine coastal regions. Some observing systems are

located in more than one coastal region.

Coastal Observing System 

Great Lakes Northeast Mid Atlantic South Atlantic Gulf of Mexico West Coast Alaska Western Pacific Caribbean 

Alliance Citizen Monitoring Program (ACMP) 9 

Gulf of Alaska Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics Monitoring Program 

 Alaska (GLOBEC) 9 

Acoustic Monitoring Hydrophones (AMH) 9 9 

California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) 9 

Caribbean Time Series (CaTS) 9 

Chesapeake Bay Mouth Survey Monthly CBMSM 9 

Chesapeake Bay Observing System (CBOS) 9 

Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) 9 9 9 9 9 

West Florida Coastal Ocean Monitoring and Prediction System (COMPS) 9 9 

Coastal Ocean Observation Laboratory/Long term Ecosystem Observatory 

 (COOL/LEO-15) 9 

Columbia River Estuary Real-time Observation and Forecasting System 

 (CORIE) 9 

Deep Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) 9 9 

Fisheries Oceanography Coordination Investigations (FOCI) 9 

Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and Research (GEM) 9 

Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GOMOOS) 9 

Hawaii Ocean Time series Program (HOT) 9 

Innovative Coastal Ocean Observing Network (ICON) 9 

Indiana Coastal Information System (ICIS) 9 

Indiana Shoreline Erosion Observation System (ISEOS) 9 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium Environmental Monitoring 

 (LUMCON) 9 

MBARI Observing System (MOOS) 9 

Martha’s Vineyard Coastal Observatory (MVCO) 9 

National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Neuse Estuary Monitoring Project (NEMP) 9 

National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Littoral Initiative (NGLI) 9 

New Jersey Coastal Monitoring Network (NJ CMN) 9 

National Water Level Observing Network (NWLON) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Physical Oceanographic Real-time System (PORTS) 9 9 9 9 9 9 

South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore Observational Network (SABSOON) 9 

Sea-Air-Land Modeling and observation Network (SALMON) 9 

Santa Barbara Channel- Santa Maria Basin Circulation Study (SBCSMB) 9 

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority (SCCWRP) 9 

Sustainable Ecological Research Related to Management of the Florida 

 Keys Seascape (SEAKEYS) 9 9 

South Florida Ocean Measurement Center (SFOMC) 9 

Texas Automated Buoy System (TABS) 9 

Texas Coastal Ocean Observation Network (TCOON) 9 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility (USACE FRF) 9 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wave Gauges (USACE Waves) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Stage Data (USGS Stream) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Wave Current Surge Information System (WAVCIS) 9 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 169

The coastal observing systems identified in this Appendix, vary in size, design,

and complexity. The systems range from those where trained volunteers

collect samples manually to large-scale multidisciplinary partnership

programs, with multiple mooring arrays and real-time data telemetry,

integrated with remote sensing technology. Some programs have deployed

coastal observing systems in multiple regions. For example, USACE’s Waves

program has coastal observing systems in seven of the nine coastal regions.

Collecting measurements of the same parameter with a standardized method

in many different regions allows for the development of large-scale spatial

and trend analyses.

Many coastal observing systems rely on existing facilities to serve as platforms

for oceanographic instrumentation (e.g., NDBC buoys and the onshore/

nearshore platforms offered by the C-MAN stations of the National Weather

Service). This approach reduces the cost of the observing system by

decreasing the number of new mooring installations required and

maintenance costs. In addition, it links information about climate and ocean

features by allowing atmospheric and oceanographic data collection at

similar spatial and temporal scales.

Abandoned or under-utilized submarine cables also can serve as facilities of

opportunity for coastal observing systems. Submarine cables can provide

power for instruments and transmit a large amount of data across multiple

spatial scales.95 Examples of systems in development that rely on submarine

cables include the NSF-funded projects ALOHA Observatory and Monterey

Accelerated Research System (MARS). The ALOHA observatory involves the

re-commission of a cable near Hawaii. This project provides funding for one

employee and instrumentation to be attached to the junction box in addition

to a mooring for water-column investigations. MARS is a MBARI project

under development for Monterey Bay. MARS will serve as a proof-of-concept

for the NEPTUNE underwater observatory project.96 The NEPTUNE

observatory will include 30 seafloor nodes over a 500 by 1,000-kilometer

area in the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate on the Pacific Northwest coast.97

Coastal observing systems are highly variable in design (including equipment)

and data collection, analysis, and distribution methods used. This variability

has resulted in a need for integration and coordination that has fostered the

development of regional “umbrella” organizations that bring together

independent coastal observing systems into a more cohesive functional

network. Examples of some of these organizations include NEOS (NorthEast

Observing System), SEA-COOP (Southeast Atlantic Coastal Observing

System), and SCOOP (SURA Coastal Ocean Observing). NEOS focuses on

the Northeast and encompasses observing systems from Maine to North

Carolina. SEA-COOP focuses on the Southeast, and includes systems from

North Carolina to Florida. SCOOP is a program of the Southeastern

Universities Research Association, and focuses on coastal observing systems

from the Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Coastal Ocean

Observing System was recently proposed as another regional organization for

the Gulf of Mexico.
170 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

These organizations have various degrees of geographic overlap. To assist

with the development of these umbrella organizations, a national federation

with regional associations for observing systems is under development in

accordance with guidelines promulgated by Ocean.US. The goal of the

federation is to develop a national observing network that will facilitate the

communication and sharing of information among all users. In addition, the

NOAA Coastal Observation Technology System program has funded seven

new programs for the development of coastal observing systems on a regional

basis (Table 4-15). These programs have agreed to form a federation that

may serve as a model for the larger IOOS efforts.93

4.6.2 Global Observing Systems

The United States operates or is a significant partner in at least 19 global

observing systems (Table 4-16 and Supplement 4-8). An accurate account of

all systems is difficult because some are only pilot projects that may transition

to long-term programs if they prove viable and funding is available.

Global observing systems are by nature supported by international

oceanographic and atmospheric programs. In the United States, NOAA has

the lead for the operation component of the global observatories. The U.S.

Table 4-15:

 NOAA Coastal Observation Technology System-Funded Programs

These seven programs will form a federation of coastal observing systems that will provide the basis

for a nationwide network of ocean observatories.

Program Region Institution 

ACT 

Alliance for 

Coastal Technologies 

MA Center for Environmental Science 

University of Maryland 

CI-CORE 

California Center for Integrative 

Coastal Ocean Research 

WC Moss Landing Marine Laboratory 

California State University 

Caro-COOPS 

Carolinas Coastal Ocean 

Observing and Prediction System 

SA Baruch Institute 

University of South Carolina 

CIMT 

Center for Integrated 

Marine Technologies 

WC Institute of Marine Sciences 

University of California Santa Cruz 

COOA 

Coastal Ocean 

Observing and Analysis 

NE University of New Hampshire 

CORMP 

Coastal Ocean 

Research and Monitoring Program 

SE University of North Carolina 

Wilmington 

WAVCIS 

Wave Current 

Information System 

GM Coastal Studies Institute 

Louisiana State University 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 171

Navy and NSF support NOAA’s efforts by providing funding and equipment.

The National Ocean Partnership Program, through Ocean.US, is coordinating

activities to facilitate broad user-access to ocean knowledge, data, tools

and products.

Within NOAA, the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research maintains a

network of global observing systems. Some of the systems, even though

designed primarily for climate research, such as the Tropical Atmospheric

Ocean/Triangle Trans-Ocean Buoy Network (TAO/TRITON), are core facilities

of ocean observatories. The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological

Laboratory (AOML), in Miami, Florida, and the Pacific Marine Environmental

Laboratory (PMEL) in Seattle, Washington, oversee most of NOAA’s global

ocean-observing activities. Global observing facilities managed by these labs

include, but are not limited to, mooring arrays across the Pacific and Atlantic

Table 4-16: Global Observing Systems

This table depicts the distribution of global observing systems. Some systems are deployed in more than one ocean basin.

Global Observing Systems Atlantic 

Ocean 

Pacific 

Ocean 

Indian 

Ocean 

Southern 

Ocean 

Arctic 

Ocean

Acoustic monitoring hydrophones (AMH) 9 9 

Argo Floats 9 9 9 9 

Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study (BATS) 9

Bermuda Hydrostation S 9 

Bermuda Test-bed Mooring (BTM) 9

Carbon Retention in a Colored Ocean (CARIACO) 9

Carbon Dioxide Measuring Systems (CO2) 9

Expendable Bathy Thermograph Global Array (XBT) 9 9 9

Global Drifter Array (GDA) 9 9 9

Hawaiian-2 Observatory (H2O) 9

High-Density Expendable Bathy Thermograph Global Array 

 (HD XBT) 9 9

Oceanic Flux Program (OFP) 9 

Ocean Reference Stations (ORS) 9 

Pilot Research Moored Array in the Tropical Atlantic (PIRATA) 9 

Tropical Atmosphere-Ocean/Triangle Trans-Ocean Buoy 

 Network (TAO/TRITON) 9 

The Oleander Section (TOS) 9 

Trans-Pacific Profiler Network (TTPN) 9 

U.S. Inter-Agency Arctic Buoy Program (USIABP) 9

Voluntary Observing System (VOS) 9 9 9
172 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

oceans, drifters, submarine cables, and voluntary observing ship programs

(Table 4-16 and Supplement 4-8).

Academic research institutions also operate global observing systems (e.g.,

H20 at the University of Hawaii). These systems, because of their relatively high

capital and maintenance costs, rely on federal funds and close partnership

with government laboratories. An example is the Argo floats program, which

operates as a consortium consisting of SIO, WHOI, University of Washington,

and NOAA AOML and PMEL.

Global observing systems, even though they measure similar parameters as

coastal observing systems, cover greater surface areas and deeper waters. As

a result, they require the use of larger oceanographic ships, extended cruise

time, and a greater use of drifters than coastal observatories. Frequently

the information gathered is transmitted to shore using the Argos satellite

communication network. The sensors installed on global observing systems

vary depending on the mission of each system. As an example, Table 4-17 lists

the types of sensors used on TAO/TRITON moorings.98

As with coastal observing systems, umbrella organizations that group global

observing systems are emerging. An example is the Sargasso Sea Ocean

Observatory (S2O2).99 This organization is coordinating the activities, data use,

and information dissemination of various observation and modeling programs

in the western North Atlantic.

Table 4-17: Sensors Used on the TAO/TRITON Array

The sensors used in the TAO/TRITON array are depicted here as example of sensors frequently installed on ocean

observing moorings. See Supplement 4-9 for more information on these sensors.

Measurement Sensor Type 

Wind speed Propeller 

Wind direction Vane 

Wind direction Fluxgate compass 

Air temperature Pt-100 RTD 

Relative humidity Capacitance 

Rainfall Capacitance 

Downwelling shortwave radiation (Next Generation 

ATLAS Moorings) 

Pyranometer 

Downwelling longwave radiation Pyrgeometer 

Barometric pressure Pressure transducer 

Sea surface and subsurface temperature Next Generation ATLAS sensor 

Sea surface and subsurface temperature Thermistor 

Salinity Internal field conductivity cell 

Water pressure Transducer 

Ocean current (profile) ADCP 

Ocean current (single point) Dopper Current Meter 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 173

4.7 Computer and Data Storage Facilities

During the last 20 years, advances in the information technology sector have

dramatically increased the capacity to collect, store, process, analyze, and

distribute data. For example, it has been projected that between 1990 and

2010, supercomputer speed will outpace by one hundred times the Moore’s

law that predicts a doubling of microprocessor speed every 18 months.100

Desktop computers are now ubiquitous in the workplace, many with

computational capacity comparable to the supercomputers of two decades

ago. Still, the computation capabilities are not adequate for existing and

projected ocean science needs. The currently available information

technology infrastructure limits many ocean science activities.101 According to

DOE and NASA, one of the principal impediments to the development of

better models is the limited computational capacity of present-day

supercomputers.74, 102

Concurrent with the non-linear increase in computational capacity, the field of

ocean science is experiencing major technological advances in the use of

instruments and facilities (e.g., ocean-observing systems, remote-sensing

satellites) capable of collecting and transmitting massive amounts of data. A

recent estimate indicates that for institutions with well-known oceanographic

research programs, the monthly computers needs are expected to increase

over the next five years from 1 gigabyteb

 to 100 gigabytes for memory,

1 gigabyte to 1 terabyte for archiving, and 1 gigabyte to 10 gigabytes for

transfer.101

The increase in instrumentation and computer capacity, tied to the fast-paced

evolution of the Internet and broadband transmission capacity, has resulted in

the proliferation of data distribution centers. Data centers can range from

sites administered by local jurisdictions or small academic research programs

that store and distribute local or regional environmental or weather data (e.g.,

water temperature, solar irradiation), to large, joint federal and academic

centers with supercomputers that collect, process, and distribute data, and

develop and run simulation models of global-scale processes.

The following section focuses on major computer and data storage facilities,

as these are the facilities at the forefront of technology development. A short

discussion on the ocean science community’s use of high-performance

computer centers is followed by brief descriptions and examples of two main

type of facilities: data archiving and distribution centers, and modeling and

prediction centers.

4.7.1 High-Performance Computer Centers

In 2002, Office of Naval Research and NSF established a steering committee

to assess the immediate and future information technology infrastructure

needs of the ocean science community.101 As part of its assessment, the

b Gigabyte and terabyte are units of measurement of computer memory. A gigabyte is approximately

109 bytes; a terabyte is approximately 1012 bytes.
174 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

steering committee conducted a survey of the ocean sciences community’s

use of high-performance computer centers. The 11 centers that responded to

the survey comprise 2 federal operational environmental prediction centers,

4 government laboratories, 4 shared academic science centers, and 1 multicampus university (Supplement 4-10). The number of staff supporting the

operation of a center ranged from about 30 to more than 100. The surveyed

centers served a community of 15,099 users that ranged from 100 to

2,500 users per center. Oceanographers comprise 584 of the reported

users, or about 4 percent of the community.

All centers agreed that a centralized oceanography facility at an existing large

computer center could result in significant cost savings. The survey suggested

that the option of establishing a new, stand-alone center dedicated to ocean

science might take several years. Several respondents indicated that a

centralized facility is the best option to address the most demanding

computational problems. The survey also suggested that using distributed

computer facilities provides the advantage of greater flexibility and leveraging

of resources, but requires greater coordination efforts to ensure quality

of service.

In terms of growth and future needs, 6 of the surveyed centers expect their

capabilities to increase by 8 to 15 times during the next 5 years. The other

5 centers estimate a 20- to 50-fold increase in capabilities during the same

period. Most of the centers estimated that increasing the number of users by

200 would require 3 or less new support staff.

To address the ocean community’s information technology needs into the

future, the steering committee recommended the establishment of a new

organization called Ocean.IT. The role envisioned for this proposed

organization is to improve access to high-performance computational

resources; provide technical support for information technology resources;

help with the curatorship of data, models, and software; and facilitate

advanced application programming. The steering committee proposed that

Ocean.IT will have a high-level information technology advisory role for the

ocean science community, while serving individual projects and scientists by

providing better access to advances in computational resources.

4.7.2 Data Archiving and Distribution Centers

In the United States there are 10 National Data Centers and 8 Distributed

Active Archive Centers (DAACs).c,102 Of these 18 centers, 11 are facilities that

directly support ocean and coastal activities. These centers acquire, process,

archive, and distribute information to multiple user groups, including

researchers, the public, and policy decision makers. The type and format of

data distributed depends on each center’s mission and the end user. Data

can range from raw field data to processed remote-sensing images. The

DAACs focus on the scientific aspect of a mission or experiment, while the

c The NAS report does not include NOAA’s National Coastal Data Development Center established in April 2002.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 175

data centers address the long-term stewardship of data.102

In addition to the National Data Centers and the DAACs, other major data

centers support the mission of several federal agencies. Federal agencies with

data centers that directly support ocean and coastal activities are NOAA,

DoD, NASA, USGS, EPA, and DOE.103

Two programs that maintain important ocean data centers are the World

Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), a component of the World Climate

Research Program, and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS).104,105

From 1990 to 1998, representatives from 30 nations collected in-situ

physical and chemical data, and remote-sensing observations from 4 oceans

in support of the WOCE. Data collected are freely available over the Internet.

Lessons learned during the WOCE program are helping to guide CLIVAR, a

global study of ocean climate variability and predictability; GODAE, the

Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment; and ARGO, a global array of

temperature/salinity profiling floats. In turn, these programs will also become

major repositories and distributors of ocean data.

JGOFS, launched in the 1980s, has the goal of studying the ocean carbon

cycle, with particular interest in understanding the dynamics of the

concentrations and fluxes of carbon and associated nutrients in the ocean.105

JGOFS has been supported primarily by NSF, with additional funding provided

by NOAA, NASA, DOE and the U.S. Navy. JGOFS maintains data available

on-line solely for scholarly use by the academic and scientific community.

JGOFS is currently moving into its final phase of data synthesis and modeling.

4.7.2.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Data

Distribution Centers

NOAA’s NESDIS, through its National Data Centers (Table 4-18), receives,

collects, distributes, and archives data about global oceans, the U.S. coast,

geophysics, and climate. The archives include data from NOAA; other

federal, state, and local agencies; academia; the private sector; and foreign

governments and institutions. NESDIS archives are the largest collection of

oceanographic, geophysical, and atmospheric data in the world. During the

1990s, the Center’s holdings increased in size four times, and by 2000, the

NESDIS archives exceeded one petabyted in size. For comparison, this volume

of information would require the equivalent of 10,000 top-of-the-line (as of

May 2003) desktop computers with 100 gigabytes each. By 2005, the

holdings probably will be eight times larger. By the year 2017, current and

planned remote-sensing observing systems will produce volumes of

environmental data expected to exceed 140 petabytes.106

The NOAA National Data Centers respond to tens of thousands of requests

annually through on-line Internet-based retrievals and off-line orders for

publications and data sets. In addition, the centers are contributing to the

development of a national strategy for the data management component of

d Petabyte is a unit of measurement of computer memory. A petabyte is approximately 1015 bytes.
176 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

the Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System. Furthermore, the

National Data Centers support the international exchange of oceanographic

data through its cooperation with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission and Working Group on Marine Data Management of the

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

Affiliated with NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center is the National

Snow and Ice Data Center.107 It manages data on snow, land ice, sea ice,

atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere. The center is part of the University

of Colorado Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.107

The National Snow and Ice Data Center, funded by NASA, serves as one of

eight DAAC facilities that archive and distribute data from NASA’s satellites

and field measurement programs. It also supports the NSF through the Arctic

System Science Data Coordination Center and the Antarctic Glaciological

Data Center.

NOAA’s CoastWatch is another data distribution program managed by

NESDIS. This program facilitates the distribution and access to NOAA

satellite products relevant to the coastal environment. Through an annual

grant process, NOAA obtains ocean remote-sensing research relevant to the

NOAA operational satellite oceanography mission. Eight regional

CoastWatch nodes distributed along the coasts, including the Great Lakes,

received or developed satellite and in-situ data and products. The products

are distributed via the Internet to federal, state, and local agencies and

academic institutions to support environmental monitoring, management,

and research.

NOAA’s NESDIS is responsible for the storage and dissemination of NOAA’s data.

Table 4-18: NOAA NESDIS National Data Centers

Center Location Type of data 

NODC 

National 

Oceanographic 

Data Center 

Silver Spring, 

Maryland 

Physical, chemical, and biological 

oceanographic data 

NCDDC 

National Coastal 

Data Development 

Center 

Stennis Space 

Center, 

Mississippi 

Coastal data held by state, local 

and private organizations, as well 

as the data already held by NOAA 

and other federal agencies 

NGDC 

National 

Geophysical Data 

Center 

Boulder, 

Colorado 

Bathymetry, topography, 

geomagnetism, habitat, hazards, 

marine geophysics 

NCDC 

National Climatic 

Data Center 

Asheville, 

North Carolina 

Climate, meteorology, alpine 

environment, ocean atmosphere 

interaction, vegetation 
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 177

4.7.2.2 U.S. Department of Defense Data Distribution Centers

NAVOCEANO’s data warehouse is DoD’s main repository of ocean and

coastal data. The warehouse is a terabyte-scale digital storage facility that

houses bathymetric, hydrographic, and oceanographic data holdings from

both NAVOCEANO and other survey operations dating back over a century.

4.7.2.3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Data

Distribution Centers

The NASA DAACs are the operational data management and user services

arm of NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System

(EOSDIS).107 Each DAAC addresses a specific science discipline (Table 4-19).

A science advisory group helps guide the DAACs in identifying and generating

needed data products.

By way of example, the Goddard Space Flight Center DAAC facility stores and

distributes biological oceanographic (e.g., SeaWiFS, MODIS) and hydrological

data. It processes approximately 530 gigabytes per day from each MODIS

instrument, and archives about 180 gigabytes per day of level-2 and level-3

data. Goddard Space Flight Center DAAC archives 2 gigabytes per day of

SeaWIFS processed data (levels 1 to 3). The center’s total ocean data

holdings are 8.7 terabytes of SeaWiFS and 191.5 terabytes of MODIS/Terra

data. In FY2001, it delivered 17 terabytes of SeaWiFS data to 531 distinct

users. Since the beginning of the MODIS/Terra mission in February 2000, the

DAAC has distributed 10.5 terabytes of data to at least 350 users.

Oceanographers comprise approximately a third of the users.

Table 4-19: NASA Distributed Active Data Centers

NASA DAAC centers archive and distribute data collected by NASA research satellites.

Center Location Type of Data 

National Snow and Ice 

Data Center DAAC 

University of Colorado Sea Ice, snow cover, ice sheet 

data, brightness, temperature, 

polar atmosphere 

Goddard Space Flight 

Center DAAC 

GSFC 

Maryland 

Ocean color, hydrology and 

precipitation, land biosphere, 

atmospheric dynamics, and 

chemistry 

Physical 

Oceanography DAAC 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

California 

Atmospheric moisture, climatology, 

heat flux, ice, ocean wind, sea 

surface height, temperature 

Alaska Synthetic 

Aperture Radar Facility 

DAAC 

Alaska 

Geophysical Institute 

University of Alaska 

Sea Ice, polar processes 
178 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The JPL DAAC facility distributes and stores physical oceanographic data

collected with satellites (e.g., TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason, SeaWinds). In addition,

JPL DAAC receives a copy of the MODIS SST data. The JPL DAAC holdings

approximate 14.4 terabytes of data. In FY2001, JPL DAAC delivered

33.3 terabytes of data to more than 23,000 users.

The Alaska Synthetic Aperture Radar Facility, located in the Geophysical

Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, downlinks, processes, archives,

and distributes data.108 Data are from the European Space Agency’s ERS-1

and ERS-2 satellites, Japan’s NASDA JERS-1 satellite, and the Canadian

Space Agency’s RADARSAT-1 satellite. Data products include seven

unrestricted data sets in CD-ROM format and various on-line processed

products.

4.7.2.4 U.S. Geological Survey Data Distribution Centers

The USGS Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center, located

in South Dakota, archives, manages, and distributes land remote-sensing

data.109 The core of the EROS data consists of images from Landsat 1

through 5, and Landsat 7 satellites, including images from the Thematic

Mapper and Multispectral Scanner sensor. The center also has more than

28 terabytes of AVHRR images and more than 880,000 declassified

intelligence satellite photographs. Even though the center’s focus is on land

remote-sensing data, many of the images in the center provide vital

information about the coastal zone, including sensitive ecosystems such as

estuarine wetlands.

4.7.2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Data

Distribution Centers

EPA’s Office of Water maintains two data management systems that archive

and disseminate water-quality information: the Legacy Data Center, and

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET).110 Both systems contain raw biological,

chemical, and physical data on surfacewater and groundwater collected by

federal, state and local agencies, Indian tribes, volunteer groups, academics,

and others.

The Legacy Data Center contains historical water-quality data collected from

the early part of the Twentieth century until the end of 1998. STORET

contains data collected beginning in 1999, along with older and properly

documented data migrated from the Legacy Data Center. STORET is EPA’s

largest computerized environmental data system and serves as a repository for

water quality, biological, and physical data for the use of state environmental

agencies, federal agencies, academia, private citizens, and many others. The

Legacy Data Center and STORET are available to the public through standard

web browsers and allow on-line data review and download. The Legacy Data

Center and STORET include information from all 50 states, U.S. territories,

and other U.S. jurisdictions.

Every sampling result in the Legacy Data Center and STORET has associated

information on sample location (i.e., latitude, longitude, state, county,
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 179

hydrologic unit code and a brief site identification), when the sample was

gathered, the medium sampled (e.g., water, sediment, fish tissue), and the

name of the organization that sponsored the monitoring. In addition, STORET

contains information on why the data were gathered; sampling and analytical

methods used; the laboratory used to analyze the samples; the quality control

checks used when sampling, handling the samples, and analyzing the data;

and the personnel responsible for the data.

4.7.2.6 U.S. Department of Energy Data Distribution Centers

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is a national data

center located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. It is DOE’s

primary global-change data and information analysis center. CDIAC

responds to data and information requests from users from all over the world

who are concerned about the greenhouse effect and global climate change.

CDIAC’s data holdings include information on atmospheric trace gases,

global carbon cycle, solar and atmospheric radiation, and records of the

concentrations of carbon dioxide in the oceans. CDIAC provides data

management support for the Global Ocean Data Analysis Project (GLODAP).

GLODAP is a cooperative effort of investigators funded to conduct synthesis

and modeling projects through NOAA, DOE, and NSF. Cruises conducted as

part of the WOCE, JGOFS, and the NOAA Ocean-Atmosphere Carbon

Exchange Study have generated oceanographic data of unparalleled quality

and quantity.111 CDIAC, through its Ocean Data web site, has carbon and

hydrographic data in various formats available to the public.

4.7.3 Modeling and Prediction Centers

This section focuses on federal facilities with supercomputers capable of

developing and running simulation models used for prediction of large-scale

temporal and spatial ocean processes (e.g., basin-wide circulation, climate

change). Because of the strong dynamic feedbacks between the ocean and

the atmosphere, many of the large-scale modeling and prediction efforts

involve coupled ocean-atmosphere models. These models are frequently

developed and run at interdisciplinary facilities that support both atmospheric

and ocean scientists.

Federal agencies with supercomputer facilities used for ocean and coastal

research include NOAA, DoD, NASA, NSF, and DOE. Some academic

institutions have supercomputers used for ocean and coastal research (e.g.,

Oregon State University and University of Alaska-Fairbanks); however, they are

not included in this discussion as no detailed information was available.

4.7.3.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Modeling Centers

NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, in Princeton, New Jersey is

one of the premier ocean modeling centers. Researchers at the laboratory

conduct investigations on many topics, including weather and hurricane

forecasts, El Niño prediction, stratospheric ozone depletion, and global
180 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

warming. The goal is to understand and predict the climate and weather,

including the impact of human activities. At least three mainframe Origin

3800 systems support the mission.

NOAA’s National Weather Service National Center for Environmental

Prediction (NCEP) supercomputer provides support to the National Weather

Service programs focusing on ocean and coastal research and monitoring.

This supercomputer is located at a commercial facility in Gaithersburg,

Maryland, and is available for use only by NCEP collaborators. Its

computational capacity and throughput is 3.7 teraflops.e The facility is less

than 15 years old, and the system is less than a year old. Planned upgrades

will occur every 18 to 24 months, and the annual operating cost is

$15 million.

4.7.3.2 U.S. Department of Defense Modeling Centers

DoD’s High-Performance Computing Program manages four Major Shared

Resource Centers (MSRC). Two of the centers support ocean and coastal

activities: USACE’s Engineering Research and Development Center’s (ERDC)

MSRC and the NAVOCEANO MSRC.

ERDC MSRC computing hardware capability includes a 512 processor SGI

Origin 3800; a 1,904 processor Cray T3E; a 512 processor Compaq SC40

Origin 2000TM; a 512 processor Compaq SC45 Origin 2000TM; and more

than 500 terabytes of robotic storage. International access to the MSRC

systems is provided through the Defense Research and Engineering Network

and the Internet. This system provides access to scientists and engineers

across the nation, which shortens the design cycle and reduces reliance on

expensive and destructive live experiments and prototype demonstrations.

With the aid of High Performance Computing Program capabilities, virtual

environments help researchers visualize and interpret their study results. ERDC

MSRC facilities also support complex simulation models of ocean, coastal,

riverine, and hydrologic dynamic processes.

NAVOCEANO is the U.S. Navy’s center for ocean observation and prediction,

providing critical ocean information for military purposes. Its computing

requirements are served by the NAVOCEANO MSRC. This facility is currently

the largest and most capable DoD technical computing facility, and one of the

most capable High-Performance Computing Program centers in the world. It

serves thousands of nationwide users engaged in research, development,

testing, and evaluation activities throughout DoD military services and

agencies, and provides one of the world’s most capable operational High

Performance Computing Program environments for global-scale

oceanography and meteorology.

FNMOC mainframe computing facilities, based on SGI Origin architectures,

are dedicated operational facilities that primarily focus on global and

e Teraflops is a unit of measurement of performance of computers used for numerical work, and is

equivalent to 1015 floating-point operations per second.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 181

mesoscale atmospheric predictions. FNMOC acquires and processes over six

million observations per day, creating one of the world’s most comprehensive

real-time databases of meteorological and oceanographic observations for

assimilation into its models. FNMOC employs three primary models, the

Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (NOGAPS), the

Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPSTM), and

the WaveWatch III model (WW3), along with a number of specialized models

and related applications. NOGAPS is a global weather model, driving nearly

all other FNMOC models and applications. COAMPSTM is a high-resolution

regional model that has proven to be particularly valuable for forecasting

weather conditions in highly complex coastal areas. WW3 is a state-of-theart ocean wave model employed globally in support of a wide variety of

Naval operations.

4.7.3.3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Modeling Centers

To support the investigations of their ocean researchers, NASA has

supercomputing facilities located at the Ames Research Center, GSFC, and

JPL. At the Ames Research Center, the computer hardware includes a Cray

SV1TM (32 CPU), a SGI Origin 2000TM cluster, and a SGI Origin 3000TM

cluster. At GSFC, the equipment includes a Cray T3ETM (1360 CPU), a SGI

Origin 2000TM (64 CPU), SGI Origin 3800TM (512 CPU), a Compaq SC45TM

(1392 CPU), a IBM RS/6000 SPTM (32 CPU), and UniTreeTM storage system

with 1900 terabyte capacity. At JPL, the equipment includes a SGI Origin

2000TM (128 CPU). The resources available are not sufficient to meet the

requirements for ocean science and technology research because of the high

demand on the supercomputing resources.

4.7.3.4 National Science Foundation Modeling Centers

NSF supports the National Center for Atmospheric Research Scientific

Computing Division, which is one of the nation’s major computer facilities for

atmospheric and ocean modeling and prediction. This facility provides

computing support for National Center for Atmospheric Research researchers

and academic scientists beyond the scope and capabilities of many university

facilities.112 In addition, the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Scientific Computing Division houses, operates, and maintains the Climate

Simulation Laboratory, a facility administered by NSF, which supports the U.S.

Global Change Research Program.

The Climate Simulation Laboratory provides high-performance computing and

data storage systems to support large-scale, long-running simulations of the

earth’s climate system (i.e., coupled atmosphere, oceans, land and

cryosphere, and associated biogeochemistry and ecology, on time scales of

seasons to centuries). It also supports appropriate model components of

large-scale simulations that need completion in a short period. Large

simulations typically require thousands of processor hours for their completion

and usually produce many gigabytes of model outputs that require archiving
182 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

and analysis, including validation, with other simulation model results and field

observations. Climate Simulation Laboratory users also have access to the

National Center for Atmospheric Research Mass Storage System, which is one

of the most voluminous and efficient storage systems in the world, and the

National Center for Atmospheric Research Visualization Laboratory.

4.7.3.5 U.S. Department of Energy Modeling Centers

The DOE laboratories with high computational capacity to conduct ocean

and coastal models are Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory.

Two groups of ocean researchers use Los Alamos’ supercomputer facilities:

the Climate, Ocean and Sea-Ice Modeling Group (COSIMG) and the Earth

and Environmental Sciences group. COSMIG develops and applies global

coupled atmosphere-ocean-sea-ice general circulation models as part of the

DOE Climate Change Prediction Program. The DOE Climate Change

Prediction Program is a joint lab-university effort to develop computational

methods and capabilities for simulating and predicting future changes in

climate. Models developed by COSIMG are the basis for the ocean and seaice component of the multi-institutional Community Climate System Model

program supported by DOE and NSF. An Origin 3000TM 512 processor

system with 0.5 teraflops capability supports these efforts; however, the system

is not available to general users.

The Earth and Environmental Sciences group uses the Los Alamos National

Laboratory’s advanced ocean-circulation models to investigate the

interactions of the oceans’ circulation and the ecological systems of the

surface layers of the ocean. Of particular interest are the distribution and

population dynamics of phytoplankton and zooplankton communities.

The National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory is one of the nation’s most powerful unclassified

computing resources and is a world leader in accelerating scientific discovery

through computation. Computer hardware capability at the National Energy

Research Scientific Computing Center includes an IBM RS/6000 SPTM, a Cray

T3ETM and a PVP cluster with a peak performance of 5 teraflops. Currently,

ocean modeling uses about 5 to10 percent of the system’s time.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 183

1. NAML. 2003. The National Association of Marine Laboratories Web Page.

<http://hermes.mbl.edu/labs/NAML/>. Accessed March 2003.

2. DISL. 2003. The Dauphin Island Sea Lab Web Page. <http://www.disl.org/

aboutus.html>. Accessed 10 March 2003.

3. VIMS. 2003. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Web Page. <http://

www.vims.edu/>. Accessed 21 May 2003.

4. Mullin J.V. and J. Lane. 2003. Ohmsett: the National Oil Spill Response Test

facility: A World-Class Center for Oil Spill Response Research, Testing and

Training. Sea Technology Vol 44(2): 17-23. Compass Publications.

(Arlington, Virginia).

5. USGS. 2003. Great Lakes Science Center Facilities and Research Support

Web Page. <http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/information/faciliti.htm>. Accessed 25

February 2003.

6. USGC. 2003. National Wetlands Research Center Web Page <http://

www.nwrc.usgs.gov/about/history.htm>. Accessed 22 May 2003.

7. STRI. 2003. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Web Page. <http://

www.stri.org>. Accessed 27 March 2003.

8. SERC. 2003. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Web Page. <http://

www.serc.si.edu/>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

9. SCDNR-MRD. 2003. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine

Research Division. <http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/marine/index.html>. Accessed

23 May 2003.

10. FMRI. 2003. Programs of the Florida Marine Research Institute 2002-2003.

Florida Fish and Game Conservation Commission. October 2002.

11. NOPP. 2001. Charting the Future of the National Academic Research Fleet: A

Long Range Plan for Renewal. A Report to the National Ocean Research

Leadership Council by the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.

12. University of Delaware. 2002. University of Delaware Announces Plans to Build

New State-of-the-Art Research Vessel. University of Delaware Marine Public

Education Office. 14 May 2002.

13. LUMCON. 2003. RV ACADIANA Web Page. Louisiana University Marine

Consortium. <http://www.lumcon.edu/vessels/rvacadiana.html>. Accessed

18 May 2003.

14. WHOI. 2002. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Massachusetts Firm

Sign Contract to Build New Coastal Vessel. Media Relations – WHOI News

Release. 22 March 2002.

References
184 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

15. UMCES. 2003. University Research Vessel to be Retired After Long Service: RV

ORION to be Decommissioned in 2003. University of Maryland Center for

Environmental Science. <http://www.umces.edu/orion.htm>. Accessed 29

March 2003.

16. NOAA. 2003. Vessels: The LAURENTIAN – Research Vessel. NOAA Great

Lakes Research Laboratories. <http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/products/

vessels.html>. Accessed 29 March 2003.

17. University of Michigan. 2002. Agreement Saves Research Vessel. The

University Record. 15 April 2002.

18. Baker III, A.D. 2002. Combat Fleets of the World 2002-2003. Naval Institute

Press. (Annapolis, Maryland).

19. NOAA. 2003. Report of NOAA’s Ship Platform Requirements for the Ten-Year

Period from FY2003-2012. Report submitted by Rear Admiral Evelyn J. Fields,

Director NOAA Marine and Aviation Operations to Vice Admiral Conrad C.

Lautenbacher, Jr. U.S. Navy (Ret.) Undersecretary of Commerce for Ocean and

Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator. March 2003.

20. ODP. 2003. Ocean Drilling Program Facilities and Lab Web Page. <http://

www.oceandrilling.org/Facilites/Fac.html>. Accessed 17 March 2003.

21. U.S. Department of State. 2003. U.S. and Japan Sign Agreement on Ocean

Drilling Research Program. U.S. Department of State, International Information

Program. 23 April 2003.

22. USFWS. 2003. RV TOGUE Web Page. <http://midwest.fws.gov/Fisheries/picpublicuse2.htm>. Accessed 1 May 2003.

23. Schneider C.P. and J. Peck. 2001. Great Lakes Fisheries Vessels: Status of the

Fleet and Evaluation of the Assessment and Research Needs. Report prepared

for the Council of Lakes Committees Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.

24. USGS. 1998. USGS Awards Contract for a New Lake Superior Fisheries

Research Vessel. News release, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological

Survey, Great Lakes Science Center. 10 June 1998.

25. USGS. 2003. Great Lakes Science Center Research Vessels Web Page.

<http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/information/vessels.htm>. Accessed 25 February

2003.

26. USGS. 2003. The USGS Research Vessel “R/V Rafael” Web Page. <http://

woodshole.er.usgs.gov/operations/rafael/>. Accessed 25 February 2003.

27. Eckerd College. 2003. Marine Research Vessels Web Page. Marine Science

Program Eckerd College. <http://www.eckerd.edu/academics/nas/msn/

vesselinfo.html>. Accessed 26 February 2003.

28. USGS. 2003. Water Quality of San Francisco Bay: A Short History of the

Research Vessel POLARIS. <http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/access/wqdata/overview/

measure/polaris.html>. Accessed 27 March 2003.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 185

29. USGS. 2003. RV KARLUK Web Page. <http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/

bear/programs/html/karluk/karluk.html>. Accessed 25 February 2003.

30. USGS. 2003f. Coastal and Marine Geology Program Web Page.

<http://marine.er.usgs.gov>. Accessed 25 February 2003.

31. EPA. 2003. U.S. EPA : MED – RV LAKE EXPLORER Web Page. U.S. EPA MidContinent Ecology Division. <http://www.epa.gov/med/facilities/

lake_explorer.htm>. Accessed 22 April 2003.

32. EPA. 2003. RV LEAR Web Page. U.S. EPA Mid-Atlantic Coastal Environment.

<http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/coast/lear.htm>. Accessed 29 March 2003.

33. Maritime Helicopters. 2003. The MARITIME MAID Web Page. <http://

maritimehelicopters.com>. Accessed 27 March 2003.

34. SHANA RAE. 2003. SHANA RAE Web Page. <http://www.shanarae.com/

RV_Shana/body_rv_shana.html>. Accessed 18 May 2003.

35. OTA. 1981. Technology and Oceanography: An Assessment of Federal

Technologies for Oceanographic Research and Monitoring. Science,

Information and Natural Resources Division, Office of Technology Assessment.

June 1981.

36. Heaton, J. 2003. Faxed communication from Jeff Heaton, Operations

Supervisor, Nuytco Research LTD to Rafael Olivieri, Booz Allen Hamilton on

1 May 2003.

37. Nuytco. 2003. Nuytco Research Ltd. Web Page. <http://www.nuytco.com>.

Accessed 4 April 2003.

38. HBOI. 2003. CLELIA Web Page. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution.

<http://www.hboi.edu/marineops/marineops_home.html>. Accessed 27 March

2003.

39. MTS. 2002. Current Status, Future Projections and Inventory: Manned

Undersea Vehicles, Remotely Operated Vehicles, Autonomous Undersea

Vehicles, Sustained Ocean Observatories, Cruise Ships. Report prepared for

the U.S. Ocean Commission on Ocean Policy by the Marine Technology Society.

25 October 2002.

40. Delta Oceanographics. 2003. Delta Oceanographics Web Page. <http://

deltaOceanographics.com>. Accessed 4 April 2003.

41. NURC NA&GL. 2003. Human Occupied Vehicles. Underwater Technologies of

the National Undersea Research Center, North Atlantic and Great Lakes Web

Page. <http://www.nurc.ucom.edu/technologies/hov.htm>. Accessed

 4 April 2003.

42. Kokes. 2003. Kokes Marine Technology Web Page.

<http://www.researchsubmarine.com>. Accessed 1 May 2003.
186 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

43. Navy. 2003. NR-1 Deep Submergence Craft Web Page. United States Navy

Fact File. <http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-nr1.html>.

Accessed 3 April 2003.

44. Lacroix, F.W., Button R.W., Wise, J.R., and Johnson, S.E. 2001. A Concept of

Operation for a New Deep-Diving Submarine. RAND.

45. MATE. 2003. ROV Competition Web Page. Marine Advance Technology

Education Center. <http://www.marinetech.org/rov_competition/

national_rov_comp_2003.php>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

46. NURC NA&GL. 2003. Remotely Operated Vehicles. Underwater technologies

of the National Undersea Research Center, North Atlantic and Great Lakes Web

Page. <http://www.nurc.ucom.edu/technologies/ROV.htm>. Accessed 4 April

2003.

47. Worobey, N. 2002. Remotely Operated Vehicle Facilities: Technical

Specifications and Cruise Planning Manual. National Undersea Research

Center North Atlantic and Great Lakes Region, University of Connecticut.

48. MBARI. 1998. MBARI ROV VENTANA Completes 1,500 Dives. Monterey Bay

Aquarium Research Institute Press Release. 23 October 1998.

49. MBARI. 2001. MBARI ROV VENTANA Completes 2,000 Dives. Monterey Bay

Aquarium Research Institute Press Release. 8 June 2001.

50. Navy. 2003. The Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of

Salvage and Diving Web Page. <http://www.supsalv.org/>. Accessed 24

April 2003.

51. MBARI. 2003. ROV Tiburon Specifications Web Page. <http://mbari.org/dmo/

tiburon/specifications.html>. Accessed 28 April 2003.

52. NOAA. 2003. Ocean Explorer/Technology/submersibles/ROPOS Web Page.

<http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov:80/technology/subs/ropos/ropos.html>.

Accessed 30 April 2003.

53. WHOI. 2003. National Deep Submergence Facility Web Page. Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution. <http://www.whoi.edu/marops/vehicles/

index.html>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

54. Navy. 2003. TOWDEX Photometer system. Naval Oceanographic Office Web

Page. <http://www.navo.navy.mil/biolum/bl_tow.html>. Accessed 30 April

2003.

55. Carroll, J. 2001. Latest Technology Used for Support by the Naval Meteorology

and Oceanography Command. Naval Meteorology and Oceanography

Command. 24th meeting of the Marine Facilities Panel of the United States

Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources.

56. HMRG. 2003. Hawaii Mapping Research Group Web Page. University of

Hawaii. <http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HMRG/>. Accessed 5 May 2003.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 187

57. Wernli, R.L. 1999. AUV’S – The Maturity of the Technology. Ocean 99

Conference. Seattle, Washington.

58. Bluefin. 2003. Bluefin Robotics Web Page.

<http://www.bluefinrobotics.com>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

59. AUSI. 2003. Autonomous Undersea System Institute Web Page. <http://

www.ausi.org>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

60. MIT. 2003. AUV Laboratory at MIT Sea Grant Web Page. <http://

auvlab.mit.edu/vehicles/>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

61. Hydroid. 2003. Hydroid Inc. Web Page. <http://www.hydroidinc.com>.

Accessed 30 April 2003.

62. Sias Patterson. 2003. Sias Patterson Web Page. <http://www.spiauv.com>.

Accessed 30 April 2003.

63. Florida Atlantic University. 2003. AUV Web Page. Department of Ocean

Engineering, Florida Atlantic University. <http://www.oe/fau.edu/AMS/auv/

html>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

64. APL. 2003. Seaglider Web Page. Applied Physics Lab, University of

Washington. <http://www/apl.washington.edu/projects/seaglider/

summary.html>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

65. Sea Technology. 2003. FSI: Setting a New and Innovative Course for the

Future. Sea Technology Vol. 44(3): 17-22. Compass Publications.

(Arlington, Virginia).

66. Rutgers. 2003. Autonomous Underwater Vehicles Web Page. Rutgers

University. <http://marine.rutgers.edu/cool/projects/oceanrobots.htm>.

Accessed 20 April 2003.

67. C&C Technology. 2003. History of the Hugin 3000 AUV Web Page. <http://

www.cctechnol.com/suv.php>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

68. WHOI. 2003. WHOI at Sea. <http://www.whoi.edu/home/marine/

abe_main.html>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

69. DOI. 2003. Office of Aircraft Service Web Page. U.S. Department of Interior.

<http://www.oas.gov>. Accessed 4 April 2003.

70. US LTA. 2002. US LTA 138S Airship as an Airborne Research Platform. US LTA

Airship Web Page. <http://www/us-lta.com/platform.html>. Accessed 28

March 2003.

71. NASA. 2000. AeroScience Lab. National Aeronautical Space Administration,

Wallops Flight Facility. <http://www.wff.nasa.gov/~coastal/aeroscience.htm>.

Accessed 16 March 2003.

72. NOAA. 2001. How Will NOAA’s Heavy Aircraft Adapt to Programmatic and

Technological Changes in the Next 5-10 Years? Proceedings from the NOAA
188 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Heavy Aircraft Conference. Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Aircraft

Operations Center.

73. ICAP. 2003. The Federal Aviation Story. The Interagency Committee for Aviation

Policy Web Page. <http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/comms/mta/agencies/

htm>. Accessed 12 April 2003.

74. NASA. 2003. Airborne Science Program Web Page. National Aeronautical

Space Administration. <http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/airsci/>. Accessed 27

March 2003.

75. NASA. 2003. WB-57 High Altitude Research Web Page. National Aeronautical

Space Administration. <http://www.jsc-aircraft-ops.jsc.nasa.gov/wb57/

missions.html>. Accessed 28 March 2003.

76. NASA. 2003. Observational Science Branch Wallops Flight Facility. National

Aeronautical Space Administration. <http://osb.wff.nasa.gov>. Accessed 16

March 2003.

77. NASA. 2002. ER-2 High Altitude Airborne Science Program. NASA Facts.

National Aeronautical Space Administration, Dryden Flight Research Center. FS2002-04-046 DFRC.

78. NASA. 2003. Earth Science Platform Aircraft. National Aeronautical Space

Administration, Earth Science Project Office. <http://www.espo.nasa.gov/

project/aircraft2.html>. Accessed 27 March 2003.

79. Navy. 2003. Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies Web

Page. Navy Naval Postgraduate School. <http://web.nps.navy.mil/~cirpas/

about1.htm>. Accessed 28 March 2003.

80. UNOLS. 2002. Designation as a National Oceanographic Aircraft Facility

Under UNOLS Charter Annex II. Scientific Committee for Oceanographic Aircraft

Research, Terms of Reference, Appendix I. <http://www.unols.org/scoar/

app1.html>. Accessed 28 March 2003.

81. USAFR. 2003. 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron Fact Sheet Web Page.

U.S. Air Force Reserve. <http://www.hurricanehunters.com/fact.htm>.

Accessed 17 April 2003.

82. University of Wyoming. 2003. Donald L. Veal Research Flight Center Web

Page. University of Wyoming, Department of Atmospheric Sciences. <http://

flights.uwyo.edu/>. Accessed 24 March 2003.

83. IAS. 2003. T-28 Instrumented Research Aircraft Web Page. Institute of

Atmospheric Sciences, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. <http://

www.ias.sdsmt.edu/institute/t28/>. Accessed 24 March 2003.

84. Barchet, W.R. 2002. Atmospheric Science Program: DOE Research Aircraft

Facility Gulfstream 159 Aircraft for Airborne Atmospheric Research.

Atmospheric Science Program, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Presentation downloaded. <http://www.atmos.anl.gov/GCEP/2002posters/

GCEPG1FY02.pdf>.
Research, Exploration, and Monitoring 189

85. NASA. 2003. Seasat-A. NASA Space Link. <http://spacelink.nasa.gov/

NASA.Projects/Earth.Science/Water/Seasat/Seasat-A>. Accessed 11 May 2003.

86. NAS. 2003. Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment-Accelerating the

Transition of Research to Operations (pre-publication). National Academy of

Science.

87. Armatys, M., D. Masters, A. Komjathy, P. Axelrad, and J.L. Garrison. 2000.

Exploiting GPS as a New Oceanographic Remote Sensing Tool. Proceedings of

The Institute of Navigation 2000 National Technical Meeting. Anaheim,

California. 26-28 January 2000.

88. NASA. 2002. NASA’s First Gravity Mission Image Depicts a Bumpy Ride.

SPACEFLIGHT NOW. NASA News Release. <http://www.spaceflightnow.com/

news/n0212/09grace/>. 9 December 2002.

89. NASA. 2003. Earth Observing System Mission Profiles Web Page. <http://

eospso.gsfc.nasa/eos_homepage/mission_profiles/index.php>. Accessed 25

March 2003.

90. Ocean.US. 2003. Implementation of the Initial U.S. Integrated Ocean

Observing System: Part 1, Purpose and Governance. Prepared by Ocean.US

under the auspices of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council.

91. DEOS. 2003. Ocean Observatories Initiative FAQ, Dynamic of Earth and

Ocean System Web Page. <http://www.coreocean.org/scots/>. Accessed 20

April 2003.

92. UNOLS. 2003. UNOLS Working Group on Ocean Observatory Facilities

Needs. <http://www.unols.org/fic/observatory/work_group.html>. Accessed

23 April 2003.

93. NOAA. 2003. Coastal Observation Technology System Web Page. NOAA

Coastal Service Center, National Ocean Service. <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/

cots/>. Accessed 27 March 2003.

94. NOAA. 2003. Development of an Integrated Coastal Observing System for the

Great Lakes. <http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Task_rpts/cmbrandt13-3.html>.

Accessed 27 March 2003.

95. SCOTS. 2003. Scientific Cabled Observatories for Time Series (SCOTS) Report

(Draft). Compiled by the SCOTS Steering Committee, based on a community

workshop at the Portsmouth Renaissance Conference Center. Portsmouth,

Virginia. 6-28 August 2002.

96. MBARI. 2003. Monterey Accelerated Research System (MARS). <http://

www.mbari.org/rd/projects/2002/moos/702244_mars.html>. Accessed 23

April 2003.

97. University of Washington. 2003. NEPTUNE Web Page. <http://

www.neptune.washington.edu/>. Accessed 23 April 2003.
190 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

99. NOAA. 2003. Sensor Specifications. Tropical Atmospheric Ocean Project Web

Page. NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Accessed 29

April 2003.

99. BBSR. 2003. Sargasso Sea Ocean Observatory Web Page. Bermuda Biological

Station for Research. <http://www.bbsr.edu/Labs/hanselllab/s2o2/

s2o2mainpage.html>. Accessed 18 April 2003.

100. Cray Inc. 2003. En Route to Petaflop Computer Speed: Introducing the Cray XI

Supercomputer. Cray Inc. 23 January 2003.

101. ONR-NSF. 2002. An Information Technology Infrastructure Plan to Advance

Ocean Science. U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research and National Science

Foundation Division of Ocean Sciences. January 2002.

102. NAS. 2003. Government Data Centers: Meeting Increasing Demands.

National Academy of Science, National Research Council. Washington, DC.

103. DOE. 2002. DOE Input to Ocean Commission Assessment of Existing and

Planned Facilities Associated with Ocean and Coastal Activities.

104. WOCE. 2003. The World Ocean Circulation Experiment 1990-2002 Web

Page. <http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/OTHERS/woceipo/index.html>. Accessed

11 May 2003.

105. JGOFS. 2003. Joint Global Ocean Flux Study Web Page. <http://

www1.whoi.edu/>. Accessed 11 May 2003.

106. NOAA. 2003. NOAA Environmental Data: Information for Decision Makers.

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. Washington, D.C.

107. NSIDC. 2003. National Snow and Ice Data Center Web Page. <http://

nsidc.org>. Accessed 9 May 2003.

108. ASF. 2003. Alaska SAR Facility Web Page. <http://www.asf.alaska.edu>.

Accessed 11 May 2003.

109. USGS. 2003. National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive Web Page.

USGS EROS Data Center. <http://edc.usgs.gov/archive/nslrsda/

overview.html>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

110. EPA. 2003. STORET Web Page. U.S. EPA Office of Water. <http://

www.epa.gov/storet/>. Accessed 9 May 2003.

111. DOE. 2003. CDIAC’s Ocean CO2 Data Program. Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Web Page. <http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/oceans/introduc.html>.

Accessed 15 May 2003.

112. NCAR, 2003. Scientific Computing Division Web Page. National Center for

Atmospheric Research, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

<http://www.scd.ucar.edu/>. Accessed 5 May 2003.
Marine Education and Outreach 191

The facilities across the United States that support marine-related

education and research activities range from major institutions that

provide graduate education to small organizations that offer unique

learning experiences to the general public. This chapter reviews:

• Formal academic resources and facilities for the ocean science

field, focusing on student enrollment in academic programs,

the faculty who train the students, physical infrastructure,

and funding

• Education and outreach materials and programs sponsored by

federal agencies

• Informal education and outreach programs available at marine

protected areas as well as zoos, aquariums, and museums.

While there is a wide range of nontraditional educational opportunities

offered by private entities, they are beyond the purview of this

Appendix. Facilities dedicated to research are discussed in Chapter 4.

The ocean sciences are interdisciplinary, encompassing marine policy,

ocean and coastal engineering, and the natural science fields of

biology, chemistry, physics and geology. Academic facilities

supporting students pursuing formal education comprise graduate and

Chapter 5

Ocean-Related

Higher Education

Facilities

Federal Outreach

and Education

Programs —

Virtual Facilities

U.S. Informal

Education and

Outreach Facilities

Marine Education

Summary
192 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

undergraduate universities, maritime academies, military academies,

and technical and two-year colleges. This inventory identified 489

ocean-related programs at 139 academic institutions, most of which

are located in coastal states or have satellite facilities or partnerships

with facilities in coastal areas. A limited number of inland institutions

have ocean science programs that focus more on theoretical study and

less hands-on experience. Characterizing students of the ocean

sciences and the infrastructure that supports them is critical to

understanding the current capabilities of the nation’s ocean sciences

community and identifying areas where additional resources may be

required. Although limited historical data were available, this

inventory provides a baseline for future inventories, assesses observed

trends, and identifies data gaps.

Federal agencies, programs, and funding play critical roles in the

entire realm of ocean sciences education, affecting students and

teachers at all education levels, as well as the public. Substantial

federal funding for the ocean sciences is dispersed through these

agencies, which provide formal educational materials for educators

and students, as well as numerous informal outreach programs

dedicated to ocean science education. Although not a facility per se,

the impact of federal resources on ocean-related education merits

inclusion in this Appendix.

Informal education and outreach facilities offer programs and activities

that inform the public about the nation’s ocean and coastal resources.

Informal in this context does not infer unstructured or disorganized, but

is used to distinguish these facilities from the academic programs

described in this chapter. These facilities comprise locations in the

natural environment, such as federal and state marine protected areas,

as well as zoos, aquariums, and museums. The former offer visitors

learning experiences in a natural setting, and the latter provide the

public with new experiences at easily accessible locations. The impact

of informal facilities on the ocean sciences is more difficult to quantify

than the impact of formal education facilities, as information is less

centralized. Informal facilities are discussed at the end of this chapter.
Marine Education and Outreach 193

5.1 Ocean-Related Higher Education

Facilities

Developing an inventory of ocean-related educational facilities is essential to

evaluating the national workforce capability. For this inventory, student

enrollment in the various ocean-related academic programs, the faculty who

educate these students, the infrastructure (e.g., laboratories, vessels, and

equipment) that facilitates research and training, and the funding that

supports ocean-related academic programs were examined. All of these

resources factor into the national capability, as illustrated in Figure 5-1.

Although various organizations have collected data on the ocean science

academic community, the focus of this Appendix warranted more extensive

data collection than previous efforts. To provide a more thorough and current

picture of the ocean sciences academic community, the Commission

contracted with the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education

(CORE) to inventory the higher education resources supporting and

promoting the ocean sciences. This effort is the primary source of data for the

academic section of the education facilities inventory.a

These seven interrelated elements represent the major resources that influence the nation’s ocean science

workforce capability.

Figure 5-1:

Components of the U.S. Ocean Science Workforce Capability

a The full CORE report is included as a separate appendix to the main Ocean Commission report, and

includes a listing of the schools that participated in the study.
194 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

This inventory is based on a survey of administrators at U.S. academic

institutions and the maritime academies that examines ocean-related

academic resources at the graduate, undergraduate, and associate levels.

Of the 489 programs at 139 academic institutions surveyed, 69 percent

provided data.

While data from some of the major educational institutions engaged in the

ocean sciences were not available for the inventory, a robust cross-section of

ocean science academic resources is represented in this Appendix.

Discussion of trends has been supplemented by information from the National

Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators–2002; however, this

information addresses all science and engineering fields of study and is not

specific to the ocean sciences.1

As a result of this inventory, several notable findings, trends, and gaps in

formal academics were identified:

• Student resources showed that graduate students studying the ocean

sciences rely heavily on research-based financial support, more so than

those in other fields. Upon graduation, there is an inadequate tracking by

universities of where graduates gain employment.

• Faculty demographics are improving; while still under-represented, the

workforce continues to become more diversified with women and, to a

lesser extent, minorities.

• Infrastructure maintenance is an issue; replacement plans for aging

facilities and equipment are insufficient.

• Funding for ocean science study comes from a range of sources,

although the majority comes from a decreasing federal pool. Forty-seven

percent of total academic funding is granted to 10 institutions.

Some information necessary to build a comprehensive data set was not

available for this inventory. Identified data gaps include:

Primary areas of study defined as ocean sciences:

· Marine Policy

· Ocean Engineering

· Marine Biology and

Biological Oceanography

· Marine Chemistry

· Physical Oceanography

· Marine Geology

and Geophysics

· Coastal and Estuarine Studies

· Aquaculture and

 Fisheries Science

· Marine Technology

· Commercial Diving

· Marine Transportation

and Safety

· Marine Mechanics

· Marine Science

· Shipbuilding
Marine Education and Outreach 195

• Limited information on replacement plans for vessels and equipment

• Distinction between education and research funds, particularly by

institutions with substantial funding from internal sources

• Limited data from two-year and vocational colleges. Consequently, these

institutions were not included in the academic year 2002 (AY2002)

analyses on research funding.

5.1.1 National Academic Ocean Sciences Programs

Student Population

Enrollment of students in ocean sciences programs is a key indicator of the

future workforce. This inventory presents information on enrollment in the

various programs, types and numbers of degrees awarded in AY2001, and

the post-graduation employment of these graduates. Key aspects called out

in the inventory are the greater concentration of students studying the

biological disciplines compared to other subjects, the increasing number of

women and minorities enrolled in these programs, and the degree to which

students in ocean sciences rely on research-based financial support.

5.1.1.1 Student Enrollment

Graduate-level education offers more ocean-specific programs and is

supported by substantially more data than the undergraduate level. With the

exception of maritime academies, undergraduate and two-year programs

generally are less specialized, tending to focus more broadly on biology,

chemistry, engineering, or geology. Therefore, the inventory focuses on

graduate-level enrollment in ocean-related programs. For the purpose of this

Appendix, graduate programs refer to both doctorate and master’s

programs. This inventory examines data from 63 graduate programs and

covers the number of applications and offers, enrollments, and types of

financial support available to students.

5.1.1.1.1 Application and Enrollment in Graduate Programs

Applications to ocean-related graduate programsb remained relatively

constant between 2001 and 2002 at approximately 4,000 per year, with one

third of applicants admitted each year. Distribution of fall 2001 enrollments

by area of study is summarized in Figure 5-2. The greatest concentration

(one-third) of students admitted to a marine graduate program was in marine

biology and biological oceanography. Students focusing on other areas were

almost equally distributed among other marine-related fields.

Women were greatly concentrated in the biological, chemical and geological

fields, while men predominantly chose the fields of engineering and physical

oceanography. Figure 5-3 illustrates the distribution of women and men in

each area of study. Long-term trends show the proportion of women enrolled

in all graduate science and engineering fields to be increasing.1

b 58 responses from 63 programs queried.

The percentage

of minorities

enrolled in science

and engineering

graduate programs

has increased over

the past decade,

while enrollment of

white students

has declined.
196 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Marine 

Policy

Marine 

Chemistry

Marine 

Geology & 

Geophysics

Ocean 

Engineering

Physical 

Oceanography

Aquaculture 

& Fisheries 

Science

Marine 

Biology/

Biological 

Oceanography

Other

Women Men

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Marine 

Policy

Marine 

Chemistry

Marine 

Geology & 

Geophysics

Ocean 

Engineering

Physical 

Oceanography

Aquaculture 

& Fisheries 

Science

Marine 

Biology/

Biological 

Oceanography

Other

Women Men

Of the 671 graduates for whom citizenship data were available, 21 percent

claimed foreign citizenship. Foreign citizen enrollment in science and

engineering graduate programs overall continues to increase.1 Of the U.S.

citizens enrolled in ocean-related programs during AY2001, racial distribution

was reported for 96 percent of students. These reports indicate that

approximately 90 percent of the students were white. The percent of white

students enrolled in science and engineering graduate programs overall has

decreased in the past decade, while the percent of minorities has continued to

increase; however, this increase slowed to 4.1 percent during 1992-1999.1

The majority of first-year graduate students were enrolled in marine biology and

biological oceanography, a trend throughout the field of ocean science.

Note: Of Note: the students in the category

entitled “other,” 30 percent were

enrolled in a hydrographics program at

the University of Southern Mississippi.

Figure 5-2: First-Year Enrollments in Graduate Programs, ear Enrollments in Graduate Programs,

by Field, by Field, Data from Fall 2001

Figure 5-3: First-Year Enrollments in Graduate Programs, ear Enrollments in Graduate Programs,

by Gender and Field, by Gender and Field, Data from Fall 2001

Women are strongly represented in marine biology and biological oceanography, while men are strongly represented in ocean

engineering and physical oceanography.

Note: Of the Note: students in the

category entitled “other,” 30

percent were enrolled in a

hydrographics program at the

University of Southern Mississippi.

33%

8%

9%

9%

8%

11%

12%

10%

Marine Policy

Marine Chemistry

Marine Geology & Geophysics

Ocean Engineering

Physical Oceanography

Aquaculture & Fisheries Science

Marine Biology &

Biological Oceonography

Other

A

B

C

D

E

H

F

G

F E

D G

H A

B

C
Marine Education and Outreach 197

5.1.1.1.2 Types of Student Financial Support

Forty-six graduate programs of the 63 queried reported on the type of

financial support their students received during AY2001. These results are

presented in Figure 5-4, which illustrates how the study of ocean science relies

on research assistantships as the primary source of financial support.

Graduate students in ocean sciences tend to be more reliant on research

assistantships than their counterparts in physical and life science fields, who

also rely heavily on teaching assistantships and traineeships. The relatively

large number of students in the “other” category can be attributed to students

supporting themselves through means apart from their graduate programs,

often a result of attending policy or management programs that do not offer

research assistantships, fellowships, or traineeships.c

5.1.1.2 Graduate and Undergraduate Degrees Awarded and

Employment Trends

Information on degrees awarded and post-graduation employment for

doctorate, master’s, and bachelor’s degree recipients are presented in this

section. Awarded degrees and post-graduation employment for graduates of

two-year programs are discussed separately in the following section due to

their vocational and specialized nature.

5.1.1.2.1 Graduate and Undergraduate Degrees Awarded

The academic programs that make up this inventory awarded 798 graduate

degrees and 1,238 undergraduate degrees in AY2001 in fields of study

pertaining to the ocean sciences. Of the graduate degrees awarded, 33

percent were doctorate degrees and 67 percent were master’s degrees.

Degrees awarded by graduate programs tend to reflect greater diversity in

c This assumption was based directly on the CORE report.

Figure 5-4: Graduate Student Support by Area of Study,

Data from Fall 2001

The single-most important source of student financial support in ocean sciences is research assistantships.

Other

Fellowship

Traineeship

Teaching Assistant

Research Assistant

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

Fellowship

Traineeship

Teaching Assistant

Research Assistant

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
198 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

terms of race and nationality than undergraduate programs, although the

number of master’s degrees awarded to minorities is still disproportionately

low. The number of women earning doctorate degrees remains relatively low,

but as the number of master’s and bachelor’s degrees awarded to women in

the ocean sciences increases, enrollment in doctoral programs is expected

to rise.

Table 5-1 summarizes degrees awarded in AY2001 by education level, field of

study, and gender. Table 5-1 also shows the top three fields of study in

graduate programs to be marine biology and biological oceanography, ocean

engineering, and aquaculture and fisheries science. The table shows that as

students move through the graduate levels of study, they continue to narrow

their focus of study and become increasingly specialized.

Table 5-1: Degrees Awarded in AY2001

Students become more specialized across fields of study as they advance their education. The overall number of women

graduates across all degree levels was around 58 percent, with the greatest number of these graduates in biological fields.

Degrees awarded are shown with total recipients, then by gender (men, women).

* “Other” includes atmospheric and ocean sciences, general oceanography, fisheries oceanography, interdisciplinary

oceanography. Bachelor’s degrees awarded is the largest category and includes 15 subcategories

** Doctorate degrees are from a total of 42 programs, master’s degrees are from a total of 53 programs, and bachelor’s degrees

are from a total of 42 programs.

*** Grice Laboratory, College of Charleston did not delineate between men and women bachelor’s recipients for marine biology.

Doctorate Master's Total Graduate

Degrees Bachelor's

Total Degrees by

Field of Study

Marine Technology - - - 5 (4/1) 5 (4/1)

Marine Geology and 

Geophysics 18 (10/8) 28 (14/14) 46 (24/22) - 46 (24/22)

Coastal and Estuarine 

Studies/Coastal Zone 

Management 11 (7/4) 18 (11/7) 29 (18/11) 27 (18/9) 56 (36/20)

Marine Policy 4 (0/4) 60 (29/31) 64 (29/35) - 64 (29/35)

Marine Chemistry 36 (22/14) 27 (14/13) 63 (36/27) - 63 (36/27)

Physical Oceanography 40 (31/9) 52 (32/20) 92 (63/29) - 92 (63/29)

Marine Transportation 

and Safety - - - 134 (113/21) 134 (113/21)

Aquaculture and 

Fisheries Science 26 (14/12) 74 (48/26) 100 (62/38) 77 (58, 19) 177 (120/57)

Marine Science - - - 230 (113, 117) 230 (113, 117)

Ocean Engineering 29 (24/5) 82 (65/17) 111 (89/22) 173 (146, 27) 284 (235/49)

Other Degrees* 12 (7/5) 26 (16/9) 38 (23/14) 332 (180, 152) 370 (203/166)

Marine Biology and 

Biological Oceanography 89 (52/37) 166 (73/93) 255 (125/130) 260***(79, 154) 515 (204/284)

Total by Level 265 533 798 1,238 2,036 (1180, 828)

Level of Degree**

Doctorate Master's Total Graduate

Degrees Bachelor's

Total Degrees by

Field of Study

Marine Technology - - - 5 (4/1) 5 (4/1)

Marine Geology and 

Geophysics 18 (10/8) 28 (14/14) 46 (24/22) - 46 (24/22)

Coastal and Estuarine 

Studies/Coastal Zone 

Management 11 (7/4) 18 (11/7) 29 (18/11) 27 (18/9) 56 (36/20)

Marine Policy 4 (0/4) 60 (29/31) 64 (29/35) - 64 (29/35)

Marine Chemistry 36 (22/14) 27 (14/13) 63 (36/27) - 63 (36/27)

Physical Oceanography 40 (31/9) 52 (32/20) 92 (63/29) - 92 (63/29)

Marine Transportation 

and Safety - - - 134 (113/21) 134 (113/21)

Aquaculture and 

Fisheries Science 26 (14/12) 74 (48/26) 100 (62/38) 77 (58, 19) 177 (120/57)

Marine Science - - - 230 (113, 117) 230 (113, 117)

Ocean Engineering 29 (24/5) 82 (65/17) 111 (89/22) 173 (146, 27) 284 (235/49)

Other Degrees* 12 (7/5) 26 (16/9) 38 (23/14) 332 (180, 152) 370 (203/166)

Marine Biology and 

Biological Oceanography 89 (52/37) 166 (73/93) 255 (125/130) 260***(79, 154) 515 (204/284)

Total by Level 265 533 798 1,238 2,036 (1180, 828)

Level of Degree**
Marine Education and Outreach 199

For undergraduate degrees, the “other” category, marine biology and

biological oceanography, and marine science are the top three fields of study.

The large number of graduates in the “other” category can be attributed to

the broad nature of undergraduate study in marine-related fields. Marine

transportation and marine science are programs that are more prevalent at

maritime academies, explaining the large number of undergraduate degree

recipients in these two fields.

The number of women receiving degrees was relatively even across the

academic levels in AY2001 (57 to 63 percent). At the doctoral level the

proportion of science and engineering degrees earned by women has

increased considerably in the past three decades.1

More doctoral degrees were awarded to foreign students and minorities than

master’s and bachelor’s degrees. One-third of doctoral degree recipients

were non-U.S. citizens. This figure is based on AY2001 citizenship data

reported by 40 programs for 245 of 265 students. Approximately

80 percent of students receiving postgraduate degrees were white. Of the

master’s degree recipients for AY2001, 16 percent reported foreign

citizenship. Forty-five of the 50 programs that provided citizenship data also

reported racial information for 91 percent of the U.S. citizens who received

their master’s degree. This group was again predominately white, with small

numbers of Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and

Native Americans.

A total of 140 minors in marine-related fields were awarded by 16 of the

24 bachelor’s programs included in the CORE report. Compared to some

other disciplines, this is a large number of minors awarded for a relatively

small field. This may be attributed to the largely multidisciplinary nature of the

ocean sciences, which makes it well suited to being offered as a

complementary focus of a larger core discipline such as physics, biology,

or chemistry.

5.1.1.2.2 Post-Graduation Employment Trends

In general, tracking post-graduate employment is difficult, most notably at the

bachelor’s degree level. In terms of post-graduation employment, doctoral

degree recipients tend to work at academic institutions while master’s degree

recipients find employment in nonacademic positions. With respect to the

737 graduate-degree recipients for whom postgraduate employment data

were reported, 25 percent were employed at a 4-year college, a university, or

a university-affiliated research center. The majority of this 25 percent were

doctorate recipients. Approximately 26 percent of the graduate programs

surveyed could not report post-graduation employment information.

The 42 bachelor’s programs that were part of this inventory awarded degrees

to 1,238 students; the post-graduation employment of almost half is

unknown. This data gap limits assessment of bachelor’s degree recipients’

impact on the ocean sciences workforce or enrollment in advanced

education. Table 5-2 summarizes postgraduate employment for doctorate,
200 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

master’s and bachelor’s degree recipients. Lack of information regarding

post-graduation employment across the different levels of education is a

substantial data gap in assessing the marine-related workforce.

5.1.1.3 Associate Degrees Awarded and Employment Trends

Data available for two-year and vocational programs were limited in

comparison to higher academic levels. Survey respondents reported a total

of 595 associate degrees awarded in AY2001. The majority of degrees

earned were in marine technology and commercial diving by graduates who

moved directly into the workforce.

Ninety-five percent of the associate degrees and certificates were awarded to

men and five percent were awarded to women. These data are consistent

with those collected through the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for AY2000. Ninety-four

percent of the 568 degree recipients for whom data were available in

Table 5-2: Postgraduate Employment

Data from AY2001

The data in this table represent 252 doctorate recipients, 485 master’s recipients, and 1,238 bachelor’s recipients.

* “Other” was not specified for this inventory.

While it appears that a majority of doctorate degree recipients gain employment at academic institutions, and master’s recipients gain

employment at federal agencies, the deficiency in graduate tracking presents a difficulty in assessing future workforce capabilities.

Post-Graduate Employment

Employed at a 4-year

college or university

Employed at universityaffiliated research center

Employed at a 

federal agency

Employed at a state

or local agency

Employed by civilian 

government agency: 

unspecified

Employed at a nonprofit organization

Employed by private,

for-profit sector

Employed–other*

Employment unknown

Enrolled at another university

Employed as a K-12 teacher

Active military

Foreign Students no longer

is the U.S.

29

21

13

2

-

2

11

4

10

-

-

-

8

5

7

17

3

-

4

11

7

34

7

-

-

5

-

-

2

1

2

-

18

5

46

12

1

13

-

Doctorate 

Recipients

(40 Programs) (%)

Master’s Recipients

(48 Programs) (%)

Bachelor’s Recipients

Post-Graduate Employment (65 Programs) (%)

Employed at a 4-year

college or university

Employed at universityaffiliated research center

Employed at a 

federal agency

Employed at a state

or local agency

Employed by civilian 

government agency: 

unspecified

Employed at a nonprofit organization

Employed by private,

for-profit sector

Employed–other*

Employment unknown

Enrolled at another university

Employed as a K-12 teacher

Active military

Foreign Students no longer

is the U.S.

29

21

13

2

-

2

11

4

10

-

-

-

8

5

7

17

3

-

4

11

7

34

7

-

-

5

-

-

2

1

2

-

18

5

46

12

1

13

-

Doctorate 

Recipients

(40 Programs) (%)

Master’s Recipients

(48 Programs) (%)

Bachelor’s Recipients

(65 Programs) (%)
Marine Education and Outreach 201

AY2001 claimed U.S. citizenship. Too few data were available for a robust

racial analysis of associate degree recipients. Data from IPEDS for AY2000

revealed that 84 percent of all associate degree recipients were white, with

smaller percentages of African American, Native American, and Hispanic

American graduates.

Nine of the 13 two-year programs that participated in this inventory provided

information regarding post-graduation employment for a total of 429 degree

or certificate recipients. The responses are summarized in Table 5-3. It

appears that two-year colleges tend to track post-graduation plans better

than four-year institutions. The high percentage of graduates going into the

general workforce may be explained by the respondents not interpreting

“ocean sciences-related” as broadly as the inventory intended. Additionally,

the respondents may have been unsure of where their graduates went, but

had a general feeling they went into the workforce.d

5.1.2 National Academic Faculty and Staff

Characterizing faculty and staff demographics at U.S. academic institutions

provides insight into future as well as current capabilities of the nation’s ocean

sciences workforce, and includes studying the nation’s faculty and staff by

position (e.g., full professor, researcher), area of study, race, and gender.

Based on responses by 75 programs to this inventory, available research

funding in AY2002 supported an academic workforce of 8,361. Figure 5-5

depicts the distribution of the academic workforce supported specifically by

research funding broken out by occupation (e.g., professor, technician). It

shows that graduate students are the largest contingency of the academic

workforce supported by research funding. As previously stated, this is their

greatest means of financial support during their tenure at academic

institutions.

d The assumptions in the preceding paragraphs are based on the CORE report.

Post-Graduation Employment of

Community College Students

Transferred to a four-year college

Went into general workforce

Went into an ocean sciences-related job

Other (not specified)

Unknown

% of Total

(Total =429)

4

67

9

17

3

Table 5-3: Post-associate Degree and Certificate Employment

Data from AY2001

Tracking of post-graduation employment at two-year colleges is more complete than for four-year institutions;

however, an unexpected high percentage of graduates in the general workforce category was likely due to survey

respondent misinterpretation.
202 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

5.1.2.1 Faculty for Graduate and Undergraduate Programs

Respondents from 86 institutions of the 90 queried for this inventory reported

2,562 faculty involved in undergraduate and graduate programs. Figure 5-6

classifies these faculty members by occupation and gender. The low number

of women in senior faculty positions can be attributed to the relatively low

number of women receiving advanced degrees in the past. This has changed

with the increased percentage of doctorates being received by women in the

Figure 5-5: Academic Faculty and Staff, Figure 5-5: Academic Faculty and Staff, Data from AY2002

In terms of faculty supported strictly by research funding, graduate students comprise the greatest percentage (30).

Research funding specifically supported these faculty members.

Low percentages of women in senior faculty positions is most likely due to past trends of low numbers of women

graduating with doctorates. This is expected to shift with the increasing number of women in graduate studies.

Figure 5-6: Faculty and Staff in Graduate and Undergraduate Programs by Gender

Data from AY2002

0

10

20

30

40

Full

Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

Instructor/

Adjunct

Other

Faculty

Women Men

0

10

20

30

40

Full

Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

Instructor/

Adjunct

Other

Faculty

Women Men

0 10 20 30 40

Professors

Postdoctoral

Graduate Students

Researchers

Technicians

Non-technical Staff

0 10 20 30 40

Professors

Postdoctoral

Graduate Students

Researchers

Technicians

Non-technical Staff
Marine Education and Outreach 203

past 5 to 8 years (approximately 25 to 30 percent). Based on the current

enrollment in ocean sciences academic programs, the number of women in

senior faculty positions is expected to increase. A National Research

Council panel reported that women represent a growing percentage of the

overall scientific workforce, increasing from 7 percent in 1973 to 22 percent

in 1999.2

Racial distribution was reported for 91 percent of the faculty. Of this

percentage, 88 percent were white, while African-Americans, Hispanic

Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans were each under 7

percent. African Americans and Hispanic Americans fill just eight percent of

all science and engineering positions in the U.S. each—a third of their

representation in the general population.3 The face of the ocean sciences

community is evolving, however, and is expected to continue to evolve, as

women and minorities increase their representation in the previously discussed

academic programs.

5.1.2.2 Faculty and Staff for Two-Year Programs

Faculty categories are defined differently for two-year programs than for

graduate and undergraduate programs because they have a different

structure. Of the programs included in this inventory, tenure was available at

few two-year institutions, and tenured faculty comprise less than 10 percent of

the permanent positions (Figure 5-7). Many faculty members were classified

as part-time temporary, although the full-time permanent positions that were

not tenured comprised the majority. In terms of gender, this two-year faculty

breaks down to 20 percent women and 80 percent men.

Based on the

current enrollment

in ocean sciences

academic programs,

the number of

women in senior

faculty positions is

expected to increase.

Figure 5-7: Faculty in Graduate & Undergraduate Programs by Gender

Data from AY2002

While only a limited number of faculty positions offer tenure, a large percent of faculty are in permanent positions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Permanent Tenure Track Part-Time Temporary

Women Men
204 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

5.1.2.3 Postdoctorates

Respondents from 59 programs reported 561 postdoctoral researchers as of

May 2002, yielding the following data:

• The 59 programs reported 67 percent of their postdoctoral research staff

were men and 33 percent were women. Recently released data from the

National Science Foundation (NSF) on doctorates earned during AY2001

show a similar figure (33 percent) for women earning science and

engineering degrees.1

• Of the 59 programs, 58 provided citizenship data on their postdoctoral

researchers, showing almost an equal number of foreign and U.S. citizens.

Thirty-one programs provided data on the racial distribution of

postdoctoral staff who were U.S. citizens. Of those positions, all but nine

postdoctoral researchers were white.

5.1.3 National Academic Infrastructure

The infrastructure that supports ocean-related academic programs includes

vessels, laboratories, and specialized equipment. For the purpose of this

Appendix, discussion focuses on non-University-National Oceanographic

Laboratory System (UNOLS) vessels. Of the 131 academic programs from

which data were requested, 66 percent provided data as to infrastructure

type, number, ownership, age, and plans for replacement.

Of the vessels for which data were provided, approximately 60 percent of the

vessels greater than 25 feet are less than 20 years old, with 25 percent being

10 years old or less. Many of these vessels are reaching the end of their

functional life span, and very few institutions have replacement plans for their

facilities (approximately 23 percent to 36 percent). A number of programs

surveyed noted that the primary factor preventing preparation of replacement

plans is a lack of available funding.

Supplement 5-1 provides a list of 64 academic institutions and their nonUNOLS vessels, laboratories, and specialized equipment, by region. While this

is not an exhaustive compilation of universities and their resources, it is a

substantial cross-section of facilities nationwide. In addition to highlighting

the unique aspects at each institution, data on students and faculty are

included where possible. The institutions themselves own a majority of the

resources they utilize. The federal government is the second most frequently

listed owner, primarily for special instrumentation, underwater vehicles and

large research vessels. States own a small number of research vessels of

various sizes and a larger number of buildings and laboratories at the

academic institutions. Additional data regarding academic facilities used for

research, academic vessels and laboratories, and UNOLS are provided in

Chapter 4 of this Appendix.

5.1.4 National Academic Funding

Adequate funding is the primary resource that drives the capability of all of the

previously discussed resources. For this inventory, funding was examined to
Marine Education and Outreach 205

determine the primary sources, any increases or decreases over time, and

how it is divided among the academic institutions. The Commission received

79 responses from the 131 programs surveyed.

Total ocean-related research support in AY2002 was $932 million for the

survey respondents. The federal government was the greatest source of

funding, with $598 million, or about 64 percent of the total. The remaining

funding sources were each less than 10 percent of the total. The breakout for

these funding sources is presented in Figure 5-8.

Figure 5-9 delineates federal funding for the ocean sciences by agency. NSF

provided the largest amount of federal funding during AY2002, contributing

more than a third of the total federal funding for the ocean sciences. This

amount equals the combined investment of the next two largest federal

funding sources, the U.S. Navy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Federal funding is by far the greatest source of financial support to the nation’s academic institutions, contributing

approximately 64 percent of the total funding in AY2002.

Figure 5-8: Sources of Academic Funding Overall Figure 5-8: Sources of Academic Funding Overall

Data from AY2002 ($ Millions)

$77.6

$90.8

$76.8

$26.1

$62.6

$598

Federal

State

Internal Funding

Other Non-Federal

Private Corporation

Private Foundations

7%

3%

8%

10%

8% 64%

7%

3%

8%

10%

8%

64%

Figure 5-9: Sources of Funding for Academic Research Federal Figure 5-9: Sources of Funding for Academic Research Federal

Data from AY2002 ($ Millions)

Of the eight federal funding categories studied, the National Science Foundation was the predominant source,

contributing nearly 36 percent of the total in AY2002.

18%

$107

18%

$107

$49

$28

$13

$14

8%

5%

2%

2%

$65

11%

$214

36%

NSF

Navy

NOAA

NASA

DOI

DOE

EPA

Other

Federal

36%

18%

18%

8%

5%

2%

2%

11%
206 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Administration (NOAA), who each contributed approximately 18 percent to

the total federal funding. The remaining federal agencies provided a

combined total of approximately 28 percent toward the total federal funding

in AY2002.

5.1.4.1 Funding at Selected Ocean Sciences Programs

Because the 10 original members of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions

(JOI)e have the largest and most comprehensive ocean sciences research

programs, they were selected to compare funding trends between AY1997

and AY2002. Supplement 5-2 of this Appendix contains a brief overview of

each institution. These schools receive 47 percent ($439.5 million) of all

research dollars in the ocean sciences — almost 53 percent ($314.4 million)

of the federal source funds — and employed about 43 percent of the related

workforce in AY2002.

The total amount of funding spent on research at the JOI programs increased

marginally from $398.8 million in AY1997 to $439.5 million in AY2002

(10.2 percent). These numbers were not adjusted for inflation; therefore, the

actual increase is likely smaller. Table 5-5 illustrates the overall funding

comparisons for the selected programs, comparing AY1997 and AY2002.

The federal government remains the largest source of funding for the ocean

sciences at the JOI programs, but federal funding is decreasing in terms of

percentage of the selected programs’ total funding. In AY2002, the federal

government provided 71.6 percent ($314.5 million) of the total funding for

the selected programs. This is a decrease of 5.6 percent from AY1997 when

federal funds comprised 85 percent ($337.4 million) of the research dollars.

Table 5-5: Funding Comparisons at JOI Program Institutions

Data from AY1997 and AY2002 ($ Millions, rounded)

While the total funding amount increased slightly from AY1997 to AY2002 at the selected JOI programs,

federal funding decreased. This decrease has resulted in institutions using partnerships and innovative

means for securing adequate funding for their programs.

e The 10 original members of the JOI are Columbia University (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory),

Oregon State University (College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences), Texas A&M University (College

of Geosciences), University of California at San Diego (Scripps Institution of Oceanography), University

of Hawaii (School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology), University of Miami (Rosentiel School of

Marine & Atmospheric Sciences), University of Rhode Island (Graduate School of Oceanography),

University of Texas at Austin (Institute for Geophysics), University of Washington (School of

Oceanography), and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Funding Source

Federal

State & Local

Private

Other Non-Federal

$337.4 (85%)

$37.7 (9%)

$23.1 (6%)

$0.5% (0%)

$314.5 (72%)

$21.2 (5%)

$15.2 (4%)

$88.8 (22%)

Funding Source AY1997 AY2002

Federal

State & Local

Private

Other Non-Federal

$337.4 (85%)

$37.7 (9%)

$23.1 (6%)

$0.5% (0%)

$314.5 (72%)

$21.2 (5%)

$15.2 (4%)

$88.8 (22%)

AY1997 AY2002
Marine Education and Outreach 207

Table 5-6 illustrates the breakout, by school, of the federal funding in AY1997

compared with AY2002.

From AY1997 to AY2002, only three federal agencies — NSF, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) — increased their support for ocean science study at the selected

programs. NSF increased its research support by approximately $13.6

million from AY1997 to AY2002, and now provides 42.6 percent ($134.1

million) of the federal funds supporting the

selected programs.

Among the federal agencies, funding from the U.S. Navy has seen the biggest

decline during this five-year period, from 24.8 percent ($83.8 million) of total

federal funding in AY1997 to 19.6 percent ($61.6 million) in AY2002. State

and local support of ocean research at the selected programs also has

decreased substantially, from 9.6 percent ($37.7 million) in AY1997 to

4.8 percent ($21.2 million) in AY2002.

Despite the overall declines in total federal, state, and private research

funding, the research budgets of the 10 selected programs have increased by

10.2 percent since AY1997. The only funding category to show substantial

increases is the catchall “other non-federal research,” which grew from less

Table 5-6: Sources of Federal Funding for Academic Research at JOI Program Institutions

Data for AY1997 and AY2002 ($ Million)

Of the federal agencies studied, only NSF, NASA, and USGS increased their funding at the selected programs from AY1997 to AY2002.

Despite this, nearly all of these schools increased their overall funding largely through unique funding initiatives.

OSU - Oregon State University, URI - University of Rhode Island, TAMU - Texas A&M University , UTIG - University of Texas at Austin, UW -

University of Washington

The U.S. Navy has

seen the biggest

decline during this

five-year period,

from 24.8 percent

($83.8 million) of

total federal funding

in AY1997 to 19.6

percent ($61.6

million) in AY2002.

University

Academic 

Year NSF U.S. Navy Other DoD NOAA NASA DOI EPA DOE Other Federal

Total 

Federal

AY97 26.2 17.9 4.3 8.8 4.0 1.0 - 1.8 14.0 78.9

AY02 36.0 6.8 1.4 11.9 6.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 30.4 95.4

AY97 15.0 2.0 0.0 10.3 2.0 0.5 - 0.8 10.6 41.2

AY02 18.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.2 34.9

AY97 10.6 4.0 4.0 13.0 3.0 - - - 2.6 38.1

AY02 11.0 4.2 2.0 16.8 4.2 9.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 47.9

AY97 7.5 4.9 0.0 4.2 4.0 - 0.6 0.4 2.8 24.4

AY02 0.2 0.4 - 0.2 0.1 - - - - 0.9

AY97 7.5 5.9 - 0.3 3.5 0.4 - 0.2 2.3 20.1

AY02 12.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 24.2

AY97 7.7 3.0 - 5.9 1.1 - 0.4 - 4.6 22.7

AY02 4.6 5.5 - 3.0 9.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 6.4 29.7

AY97 1.4 0.1 - 0.2 - 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.1

AY02 1.6 0.7 - 0.5 0.2 1.5 0.0 - 0.4 4.9

AY97 2.6 0.5 - 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 3.1

AY02 1.9 0.5 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.6

AY97 8.9 25.4 0.0 3.3 0.3 - - 1.0 6.1 45.0

AY02 7.8 4.6 - 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 15.8

AY97 33.2 20.1 1.7 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.4 60.4

AY02 32.3 16.3 - 5.1 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.2 7.5 63.1

UTIG

UW

WHOI

U. Miami

OSU

URI

TAMU

Federal Agency

USCD-SIO

Columbia

U. Hawaii

University

Academic 

Year NSF U.S. Navy Other DoD NOAA NASA DOI EPA DOE Other Federal

Total 

Federal

AY97 26.2 17.9 4.3 8.8 4.0 1.0 - 1.8 14.0 78.9

AY02 36.0 6.8 1.4 11.9 6.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 30.4 95.4

AY97 15.0 2.0 0.0 10.3 2.0 0.5 - 0.8 10.6 41.2

AY02 18.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.2 34.9

AY97 10.6 4.0 4.0 13.0 3.0 - - - 2.6 38.1

AY02 11.0 4.2 2.0 16.8 4.2 9.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 47.9

AY97 7.5 4.9 0.0 4.2 4.0 - 0.6 0.4 2.8 24.4

AY02 0.2 0.4 - 0.2 0.1 - - - - 0.9

AY97 7.5 5.9 - 0.3 3.5 0.4 - 0.2 2.3 20.1

AY02 12.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 24.2

AY97 7.7 3.0 - 5.9 1.1 - 0.4 - 4.6 22.7

AY02 4.6 5.5 - 3.0 9.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 6.4 29.7

AY97 1.4 0.1 - 0.2 - 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.1

AY02 1.6 0.7 - 0.5 0.2 1.5 0.0 - 0.4 4.9

AY97 2.6 0.5 - 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 3.1

AY02 1.9 0.5 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.6

AY97 8.9 25.4 0.0 3.3 0.3 - - 1.0 6.1 45.0

AY02 7.8 4.6 - 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 15.8

AY97 33.2 20.1 1.7 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.4 60.4

AY02 32.3 16.3 - 5.1 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.2 7.5 63.1

UTIG

UW

WHOI

U. Miami

OSU

URI

TAMU

Federal Agency

USCD-SIO

Columbia

U. Hawaii
208 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

than $1 million in AY1997 to over $88 million in AY2002. This increase may

be attributed to several factors:

• Programs did not provide sufficient information to classify funding

under a more appropriate category

• Programs are receiving greater support from nontraditional

funding sources

• There has been a growth in partnerships and matching arrangements

for funding purposes (examples include The National Oceanographic

Partnership Program and the National Sea Grant College Program).

5.1.4.2 Funding Allocation: Comparison of JOI Programs to

Other Programs

Although the 10 JOI programs are among the nation’s largest, they are only

an indicative subset of the ocean sciences academic community. For this

reason, the JOI programs were compared to the remaining 76 programs that

were part of this inventory, using the AY2002 data.

Federal agencies provide the greatest source of funding. Federal support

comprised roughly 72 percent of all research funding at the JOI programs

compared with 58 percent for the non-JOI programs. The non-JOI

programs appear to make up this difference through a greater reliance

on funding from state governments, private corporations, and

private foundations.

For JOI programs, the primary federal funding sources were NSF

(42.6 percent), the U.S. Navy (24.8 percent) and NOAA (14.3 percent).

These agencies also provided a significant portion of the research budgets of

National Sea Grant College Program

The National Sea Grant College Program is committed to enhancing the

practical use and conservation of coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources

to create a sustainable economy and environment. Efforts include

educational programs for students and professional development

opportunities for teachers. Faculty and students at over 300 universities have

participated in the Sea Grant Program during the last five years.4 Since its

inception in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program has supported

more than 12,000 undergraduate and graduate students in disciplines

ranging from oceanography to engineering to economics. Additionally, 479

graduate students have completed the yearlong Knauss Marine Policy

Fellowship in Washington, D.C. As of 2000, the 2-week Operation Pathfinder

courses in marine sciences trained over 700 teachers who in turn trained

14,000 other professionals who have the potential to educate 5.5 million

K-12 students.5
Marine Education and Outreach 209

non-JOI programs as follows: NSF (28.3 percent), NOAA (21.0 percent),

and the U.S. Navy (16.1 percent). Table 5-7 illustrates federal funding for all

programs, and funding for the selected programs versus all other programs.

NOAA funding offers the greatest parity between the JOI programs and nonJOI programs. NOAA provided a total of $107.4 million, with the 10 JOI

programs receiving 44 percent of this total. In contrast, the U.S. Navy, NASA,

and NSF invested more heavily in the JOI programs. For example, U.S. Navy

funding totaled $107.3 million, of which 57 percent went to JOI programs;

54 percent of NASA’s $49.0 million was awarded to JOI programs.

Additionally, NSF invested $214.4 million, or 63 percent of its funding, in JOI

programs, while $80.3 million, or 37 percent, of NSF support went to nonJOI programs. By contrast, the ocean science research funds from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USGS, the Minerals Management

Service, and the U.S. Department of Energy generally support coastal and

applied research and go predominantly to non-JOI institutions in the study.

5.1.5 Maritime Education and Professional Training

Approximately 1.25 million seafarers are employed worldwide in the shipping

industry, which relies heavily on the expertise of U.S. maritime officers.6 These

officers receive their training from one of the seven U.S. maritime academies.

While the previous discussions on academic institutions included data from

the maritime academies, this section focuses on the unique aspects of the

maritime academies and professional maritime institutions. The maritime

academies focus on educating future marine officers, while the professional

marine institutions focus more on providing post-graduate and

professional training.

Table 5-7: JOI Programs versus Non-JOI Programs, JOI Programs,

Major Federal Funding Sources. Major Federal Funding Sources. Data from AY2002 ($ Million)

While JOI programs typically receive a greater percentage of the available funding from NSF, Navy, NOAA,

and NASA, non-JOI programs typically receive a greater percentage of the available funding from DOI, DOE,

and other federal agencies.

Federal Funding Agency

NSF

U.S. Navy

NOAA

NASA

DOI

USEPA

DOE

Other Federal

Total Federal

All Programs JOI Programs

80.3 (37.5%)

45.7 (42.6%)

59.6 (55.5%)

22.6 (46.0%)

20.0 (71.9%)

12.6 (89.4%)

8.8 (69.8%)

33.9 (51.9%)

283.5 *** 

All Other Programs

134.5 (62.7%)

61.6 (57.4%)

47.7 (44.4%)

26.5 (54.0%)

7.8 (28.1%)

1.4 (10%)

3.8 (30.2%)

31.4 (48.1%)

214.4 

107.3 

107.4 

49.1 

27.8 

14.1 

12.6 

65.3 

598.0* 314.6**

Federal Funding Agency

NSF

U.S. Navy

NOAA

NASA

DOI

USEPA

DOE

Other Federal

Total Federal

All Programs JOI Programs

80.3 (37.5%)

45.7 (42.6%)

59.6 (55.5%)

22.6 (46.0%)

20.0 (71.9%)

12.6 (89.4%)

8.8 (69.8%)

33.9 (51.9%)

283.5 *** 

All Other Programs

134.5 (62.7%)

61.6 (57.4%)

47.7 (44.4%)

26.5 (54.0%)

7.8 (28.1%)

1.4 (10%)

3.8 (30.2%)

31.4 (48.1%)

214.4 

107.3 

107.4 

49.1 

27.8 

14.1 

12.6 

65.3 

598.0* 314.6**
210 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

Ships’ officers must be qualified in the competence standards required by the

Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW)

Convention. Officers are only permitted to work on internationally trading

ships if they hold STCW certificates in either the deck or the engine

departments. These certificates are typically awarded after a year or more of

on-board training at sea, in addition to shore-based education and training in

college. Depending on the national system, most newly qualified officers

typically have between three and four years of total training. Domestically,

merchant mariners are subject to national licensing requirements, as

promulgated by the U.S. Coast Guard. This section examines trends affecting

maritime education and vocational training, as well as the potential sources

for obtaining this education and training.

5.1.5.1 Trends in Maritime Education anhd Workforce

Trends in maritime education at the nation’s seven maritime academies have a

significant impact on workforce capabilities. This discussion focuses on

some of the barriers to the workforce and their impact on the recruitment

of mariners.

The 1995 STCW amendments (STCW-95) impose strict training requirements

on the mariner, maritime education and training institutions, and the industry

as a whole. The system makes it nearly impossible for an unlicensed mariner

to become a licensed officer independently. The time and cost involved in

maintaining unlicensed and licensed qualifications are a significant deterrent

to the recruitment and retention of mariners. The proliferation of state and

local safety and environmental statutory and regulatory regimes that overlap

across the international and U.S. systems create an additional concern. Many

professionals in the maritime trade cite STCW-95 as a significant deterrent to

young people entering the profession. 6

The U.S. Merchant Marine, as in other Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development countries, has been impacted by a critical loss

of professional mariners in recent years. According to the Baltic and

International Maritime Council/International Shipping Federation (BIMCO/

ISF) 2000 Manpower Update,

 7 the current shortfall of 16,000 officers

worldwide could reach 46,000 within 10 years, unless there is a significant

increase in new recruits. Speaking at a conference organized by the Danish

Maritime Authority held in July 2002, Mr. Bjarne Tvilde, vice president of

BIMCO, stated that the industry could no longer hide shortfalls through

reductions in crew size per ship. He added that, while the replacement of

older, more labor-intensive ships will bring some economy in manpower, the

ships of 5 to 10 years from now “will probably have a crew much the same

size as that of a new ship today.”8

According to proceedings of the Maritime Careers Conference held in May

2002, the shortfall in the U.S. Merchant Marine crewing force can be

attributed to a lack of general public awareness of the value and critical need

for the U.S. Marine Transportation System as a component of the U.S.

intermodal national transportation system. Current national security issues
Marine Education and Outreach 211

have heightened this value and critical need. Another more recent barrier to

recruitment and retention, as identified in the conference proceedings, is

criminal liability for pollution incidents.9

The Maritime Careers Conference proceedings noted the lifestyle of mariners

is characterized by significant time away from home and family. Living aboard

vessels involves close accommodations, lack of socialization opportunities with

small crews, and quick-turnaround times in port with little or no opportunity

for shore leave. Crew reductions due to the replacement of human labor with

technological resources leave more administrative and maintenance work for

fewer crew members.9

Finally, there is no central source of information where potential mariners can

determine how to enter the industry or obtain career path information. Many

marine industry positions leave little opportunity for or lack a planned career

path compared to many other occupations. STCW-95 has also impacted this

issue. Tough requirements paired with a lack of information on recruiting and

clear upward mobility opportunities are deterrents and lead to short careers

for existing mariners. 

5.1.5.2 Federal and State Maritime Academies

The United States has several institutions where future mariners acquire the

requisite education and training to become professionals in the maritime

community and pursue specialized advanced education. Maritime institutions

are located in most coastal regions of the nation. In addition to the U.S.

Merchant Marine Academy, the nation’s only federal academy, six state

academies graduate qualified mariners:

• U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York

• California Maritime Academy, Vallejo, California

• Great Lakes Maritime Academy, Traverse City, Michigan

• Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, Maine

• Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Cape Cod, Massachusetts

• State University of New York Maritime College, Throggs Neck, New York

• Texas Maritime Academy, Galveston, Texas.

Additional information regarding the location, degrees and certifications, and

unique attributes for these academies is provided in Supplement 5-3. Degree

programs range from marine transportation and engineering to business

administration. Most of these academies blend classroom education with atsea programs and offer graduates the opportunity to become commissioned

maritime officers.

5.1.5.3 Maritime Graduate and Continuing Education

In addition to the seven academies listed above, there are several graduate

and continuing education institutions in the United States for maritime studies.

These institutions tend to provide more specialized maritime training for

seafarers than undergraduate maritime academies. The graduate and

continuing education institutions include:
212 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

• Seattle Maritime College, Seattle, Washington

• Calhoon Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association Engineering School,

Easton, Maryland

• Marine Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies, Linthicum Heights,

Maryland

• Simulation, Training, Assessment, and Research Center, Toledo, Ohio, and

Dania Beach, Florida

• Elkins Marine Training International, Petaluma, California

• Pacific Marine Institute, Seattle, Washington

• Port Canaveral Maritime Academy, Port Canaveral, Florida

• Resolve Fire and Hazard Response, Everglades, Florida.

Programs range from vocational education to technical training and licensure.

A majority of these institutions provide STCW-95 certification and combine

classroom education with hands-on training. These institutions also provide a

range of specialized courses in safety, firefighting, and U.S. Coast Guardcertified programs. Additional information regarding the location, programs

offered, and unique attributes for each institution can be found in

Supplement 5-4.

5.2 Federal Outreach and Education

Programs — Virtual Facilities

As discussed in Section 5.1.3, federal agencies are a significant source of

funding for academic institutions. In addition, they also offer marine-related

educational programs and materials for students of all academic levels,

educators, and the public. While these programs and materials are not

“facilities” as defined in this Appendix, they are important educational

resources. These resources include on-line tutorials, lesson plans, information

packets, fact sheets, educator workshops, and other educational programs.

In addition to formal educational materials for educators and students, these

agencies offer numerous informal outreach programs dedicated to ocean

sciences education. The resources each agency provides are typically in line

with its mission. The discussion below highlights some of these facilities, but is

not comprehensive. This information is primarily based on each agency’s

submittal to the Commission and supplemented as necessary through Internet

research on agency web sites.

5.2.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Outreach

NOAA’s educational resources reflect the agency’s mission to describe and

predict changes in the Earth’s environment, and conserve and wisely manage

the nation’s coastal and marine resources. The National Ocean Service

provides educational materials about oceans, coasts, and charting and

navigation through online tutorials and educational Roadmap to Resources

guides for teachers and students. The Ocean Explorer web site offers lesson

plans and opportunities for teachers to participate in expeditions. In addition,
Marine Education and Outreach 213

the Ocean Explorer web site provides a platform for students to follow ocean

explorations in near real-time, learn about ocean exploration technologies,

observe remote marine flora and fauna in the multimedia gallery, review

NOAA’s history, and discover additional resources in a virtual library.10

NOAA also provides educational resources through its main education web

site. The site is designed to help students, teachers, librarians, and the

general public access many educational activities and publications.11

NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program provides educational

opportunities and resources. A partnership between NOAA and universities,

the program offers teaching curriculum, training, and other learning

opportunities.

5.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Outreach

The mission of EPA’s Office of Environmental Education is to advance and

support education efforts that develop an environmentally conscious and

responsible public. To accomplish this, EPA offers a wide variety of education

and outreach resources. The agency’s collection of fact sheets, brochures,

and web sites for teachers to explain environmental issues provides basic and

clear information to facilitate teaching students about the environment.

Similar resources are available to educate the general public. The

Environmental Education and Training Partnership is the national training

program established through the National Environmental Education Act of

1990, and is implemented by a consortium of national partner organizations

under the leadership of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. The

program’s mission is to deliver training and support services to education

professionals to advance education and environmental literacy in the

United States.11

5.2.3 National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Outreach

NASA’s mission includes the advancement of human exploration, use, and

development of space as well as the advancement and communication of

scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth (including its oceans),

the solar system, and the universe. NASA provides numerous educational

opportunities that reflect its commitment to this mission. NASA’s Spacelink is

a virtual library in which local files and hundreds of NASA web sites are

arranged in a manner familiar to educators. Teacher preparation and

enhancement activities include workshops, courses, and internships that serve

to update skills and enrich and strengthen the theoretical and practical basis

for classroom and laboratory instruction. Student support includes

enrichment activities such as brief courses, summer workshops, and handson science education experiences that expose students to Earth system

science subjects and processes.13 The Educator Resource Network Center

provides educators with in-service and pre-service training, demonstrations,
214 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

and access to NASA instructional products. NASA has established a standard

that requires all of NASA’s printed educational materials to be available via the

Internet.14 Informal education and outreach programs include The Dynamic

Earth, Earth and Sky Broadcast Fellowship, and Forces of Change.

5.2.5 U.S. Department of the Interior Outreach

The Department of the Interior (DOI) has many organizations, each with its own

unique mission. One division of DOI, The Minerals Management Service, has

the primary mission of managing the mineral resources on the Outer

Continental Shelf in an environmentally sound and safe manner. DOI provides

books and activities about energy, several hands-on activity guides, and teacher

and student educational workshops. In addition, the Minerals Management

Service’s regional web sites contain educational and outreach materials specific

to each region.15

Part of DOI’s National Park Service mission is to conserve national parks for

future generations through a variety of resources. LearnNPS is an online

resource for teachers searching for classroom materials, students doing

research, and the general public. The different zones direct users through a

multitude of resources and programs The GoZONE is an area of the National

Park Service web site that provides outreach information and activities for the

general public.16

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service helps promote its mission of conserving fish,

wildlife, plants, and their habitats primarily through its National Conservation

Training Center. The Center has diverse course offerings and the ability to

provide remote training. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has

numerous online educational materials such as videos, maps, and publications

that cater to students, educators, and the general public.17

USGS’s mission of managing water resources and describing and

understanding the Earth is reflected in its various educational web sites,

including:

• The Learning Web – dedicated to K-12 education with online resources for

students and teachers (lesson plans, research projects, and so forth)

• The Kids Corner – games, activities, projects, and quizzes (preschool

and up)

• The Learning Room – online access to publications, homework help, and

interesting links (mid-elementary and older).

Additionally, USGS has educational fact sheets, posters, and interactive maps

intended for use by educators.18

5.2.6 National Science Foundation Outreach

NSF’s primary mission is to promote the progress of science; advance national

health, prosperity, and welfare; and secure national defense. In addition to the

education-related grants and awards in all areas of science, mathematics, and
Marine Education and Outreach 215

engineering education, NSF supports several education and outreach

initiatives. Among its resources, the What’s Cool web pages offer hands-on

learning activities and games for kids and parents; teaching materials for

educators and students; and lectures by distinguished scientists, engineers,

and educators. A relatively new program, Centers for Ocean Sciences

Education Excellence, is building a nationally coordinated effort in ocean

science education designed to integrate ocean science research into delivery

of high-quality education programs in the ocean sciences.19

5.2.7 U.S. Navy Outreach

The U.S. Navy, through the Office of Naval Research, the Oceanographer of

the Navy, and the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command,

provides numerous opportunities for the public to learn about the marine

environment. Through interactive web sites, videos, science fairs and other

outreach efforts, the Navy supports a variety of mechanisms for capturing and

nurturing public interest in the ocean. Special programs include:

• The International Hydrographic Science Applications Program (partnership

with University of Southern Mississippi)

• The International Hydrographic Management and Engineering Program

• The OCEANS ALIVE outreach program for students and teachers (focus

on naval oceanography)

• The Sea Scholars program – designed for K-12 teachers

• The Ocean Science Mentoring Program

• The Naval High School Science Awards Program

• The Naval Research Enterprise Intern Program.20

5.3 U.S. Informal Education and

Outreach Facilities

Supplementing the formal education resources discussed in the first part of

this chapter, numerous informal education and outreach facilities provide

learning opportunities about ocean and coastal resources. For the purpose of

the inventory, this section focuses on two key areas:

• Facilities in the natural environment, such as marine protected

areas (MPAs)

• Zoos, aquariums, and museums that allow the public to learn

about ocean and coastal environments even when they are not

locally accessible.

MPAs, established to preserve the nation’s diverse marine ecosystems, serve to

educate the public about the ocean and coastal sciences and unique marine

environments through site-specific, interactive, and educational programs.

These facilities also educate decision makers who can influence coastal and

ocean resource conservation. MPAs include national marine sanctuaries,

national seashores, national parks, national monuments, critical habitats,
216 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

national wildlife refuges, national estuarine research reserves, state

conservation areas, and state reserves. Discussion of MPAs is primarily based

on Internet research.

Zoos, aquariums, and museums are located across the country and, unlike

many marine facilities, are not limited to coastal areas. The nation’s zoos,

aquariums, and museums form a network of educational institutions that

target the public with an array of educational opportunities about oceans,

coasts, and the Great Lakes in addition to initiatives in environmental

conservation and research. These facilities continue to expand and increase

in number in order to keep pace with current educational and conservation

needs. A 1996 poll by the Mellman Group named aquariums as the third

most trusted messenger concerning conservation and the environment.21

Discussion regarding zoos, aquariums, and museums is largely based on

information provided to the Commission and supplemented through

Internet research.

5.3.1 Marine Protected Areas

MPAs have different characteristics, and have been established for different

purposes, but share a common goal of providing educational opportunities

for the public in a natural environment. As required by Executive Order

13158, which established MPAs, an effort to inventory these sites is

underway.22 To date, 328 MPAs have been identified, with the majority falling

under federal jurisdiction. The agencies under DOI and NOAA are the

principal managers of MPAs. Additional information regarding the inventory

is available on the MPA Web site (www.mpa.gov).22

Table 5-7 illustrates some of the types, numbers, general missions, and

legislation that established the nation’s federal MPAs. Additional federal sites

include the extensive number of national parks, national wildlife refuges,

federal threatened and endangered critical habitat sites, and federal

threatened and endangered species protected areas.

The 14 National Marine Sanctuaries described in Table 5-8 are located in

nearly every region of the United States, with the largest concentration in the

Pacific and Western Pacific regions.23 Additional information regarding the

size, designation year, unique characteristics, and educational opportunities

for each of these sanctuaries is included in Supplement 5-5.

NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) contains

reserves in nearly every region of the United States, with a greater

concentration on the East Coast.24 Additional information regarding the

size, designation year, unique characteristics, and educational opportunities

for each of these reserves is included in Supplement 5-6.

Like NOAA’s NERRS program, EPA’s National Estuary Program is an example

of a joint venture among federal, state, and local entities. There are 28

estuaries included in this program, dedicated to maintaining the integrity of

the sites as well as educating and involving the general public in their natural

environments.25
Marine Education and Outreach 217

* Estuarine research reserves are federal/state partnerships.

Table 5-8: Marine Protected Areas

National Marine 

Sanctuaries

National Estuarine 

Research Reserves*

National Estuary 

Program

Federal Seashore, 

Lakeshore, and 

Coral Reef Parks

National Wildlife 

Refuges

14

25

28

24

162

in marine

coastal 

areas

• Protect nearly 18,000 square miles of 

ocean waters and habitats. 

• While some activities are regulated or 

prohibited in sanctuaries to protect 

resources, multiple uses such as 

recreation, commercial fishing, and 

shipping, are encouraged. 

• Research, educational, and outreach 

activities are other major components 

in each sanctuary's program of 

resource protection.

• The National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System’s primary goal is to 

sustain healthy coasts by improving the 

nation’s understanding of estuaries. 

• These “living laboratories” are the 

subject of extensive research and 

education programs.

• Under the jurisdiction of NOAA.

• Voluntary program brings communities 

together to improve their estuaries with 

EPA serving as the overall facilitator.

• The goal is to develop and implement 

a comprehensive conservation and 

management plan tailored to meet 

the specific needs of each estuary, 

while meeting national program 

requirements.

• The National Park Service preserves 

unimpaired the natural and cultural 

resources and values of the national 

park system for the enjoyment, 

education, and inspiration of this and 

future generations.

• The National Park Service cooperates 

with partners to extend the benefits of 

natural and cultural resource 

conservation and outdoor recreation 

throughout this country and the world.

• The National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

mission is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, plant resources, and their 

habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of future generations 

of Americans.

National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act

of 1972

Coastal Zone 

Management Act

of 1972

Water Quality Act 

of 1987

The National Park Service 

Organic Act of 1916; 

National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980

National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997 

formalized mission 

established in 1903

Primary Goal Governing Legislation Total 

Number Type of MPA

National Marine 

Sanctuaries

National Estuarine 

Research Reserves*

National Estuary 

Program

Federal Seashore, 

Lakeshore, and 

Coral Reef Parks

National Wildlife 

Refuges

14

25

28

24

162

in marine

coastal 

areas

• Protect nearly 18,000 square miles of 

ocean waters and habitats. 

• While some activities are regulated or 

prohibited in sanctuaries to protect 

resources, multiple uses such as 

recreation, commercial fishing, and 

shipping, are encouraged. 

• Research, educational, and outreach 

activities are other major components 

in each sanctuary's program of 

resource protection.

• The National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System’s primary goal is to 

sustain healthy coasts by improving the 

nation’s understanding of estuaries. 

• These “living laboratories” are the 

subject of extensive research and 

education programs.

• Under the jurisdiction of NOAA.

• Voluntary program brings communities 

together to improve their estuaries with 

EPA serving as the overall facilitator.

• The goal is to develop and implement 

a comprehensive conservation and 

management plan tailored to meet 

the specific needs of each estuary, 

while meeting national program 

requirements.

• The National Park Service preserves 

unimpaired the natural and cultural 

resources and values of the national 

park system for the enjoyment, 

education, and inspiration of this and 

future generations.

• The National Park Service cooperates 

with partners to extend the benefits of 

natural and cultural resource 

conservation and outdoor recreation 

throughout this country and the world.

• The National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

mission is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, plant resources, and their 

habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of future generations 

of Americans.

National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act

of 1972

Coastal Zone 

Management Act

of 1972

Water Quality Act 

of 1987

The National Park Service 

Organic Act of 1916; 

National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980

National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997 

formalized mission 

established in 1903

Primary Goal Governing Legislation Total 

Number Type of MPA
218 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

There are 24 national seashore, lakeshore, and coral reef parks. Under the

National Park Service’s jurisdiction, these parks are located in nearly every

region of the United States, with aspects unique to their regions. Supplement

5-7 contains additional information regarding the designation year, size,

2001-2002 attendance, and educational opportunities for each of these

parks. Collectively, these parks received a total of more than 23 million

visitors in 2001-2002.26

States also administer numerous seashore and lakeshore parks. For example,

California has over 260 state parks, with 150 of those being in coastal

areas.27 Alaska has more than 3.2 million acres of state park lands.

Although a centralized list of these parks is not available to date, several

efforts are underway to quantify them. These parks provide a range of

educational opportunities to the many visitors they host each year.

5.3.2 MPAs as an Educational Resource

Interpretive exhibits and programs provided at MPAs offer recreational and

educational experiences to the general public and assist the MPAs in carrying

out their missions. Educational programs at these facilities are diverse, and

focus on the local and regional ecosystems they support. This section offers

examples of such programs at different types of MPAs.

National Marine Sanctuaries offer a wide range of unique educational

opportunities to the public. For example, Monterey Bay National Marine

Sanctuary in California, the largest sanctuary at 5,300 acres, provides public

outreach through exhibits, publications, programs, events, and services. The

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is known worldwide for its extensive

offshore coral reefs, and a number of the educational programs focus on the

importance of this resource. Supplement 5-5 of this Appendix contains more

detailed information on the available educational programs at the National

Marine Sanctuaries.23

Decision makers in the position to affect coastal resources are the primary

targets of the NERRS Coastal Decision-Maker Workshop series. These

workshops focus on local and regional coastal resource issues important to

citizens, landowners, interest groups, and government officials.25 Since 1994,

through workshops and seminars, estuarine reserves efforts have reached

over 13,000 coastal decision makers. These programs have enhanced

decision-making related to coastal issues, as well as increased coastal

stewardship at the local and regional levels. In addition, most of the estuarine

reserves, such as Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, have interpretive hikes,

tours, and hands-on exhibits available to the general public. Additional

educational opportunities are included for all 25 reserves in Supplement 5-6.24

The Massachusetts Bays Program, one of EPA’s six National Estuary Programs

situated along the East Coast, recently completed a wide range of research,

planning, and education efforts that culminated in the Comprehensive

Conservation and Management Plan. The Lower Columbia River Estuary in
Marine Education and Outreach 219

Oregon conducts hundreds of class visits, field trips, and on-river education

programs. This estuary has also established a Kids for the Columbia Club

and special Kids Club web site and newsletter.28

Assateague Island National Seashore along the Virginia and Maryland coasts

is an example of one of the national seashore, lakeshore, and coral reef parks

managed by the National Park Service. The park has programs that focus on

beach conservation and marine species education. Buck Island Reef National

Monument in the Virgin Islands has a famous underwater trail, which has

been incorporated into an interpretive exhibit for visitors to the park.

Supplement 5-7 provides additional detailed information regarding the

educational opportunities at the 24 national seashore, lakeshore, and coastal

reef parks.26

About 37 million people visit the National Wildlife Refuges every year for many

reasons, including environmental education. Many visitors are children whose

schools arrange day trips or long-term outdoor programs. Refuges provide

outdoor classrooms for teaching children about art, science, and other

disciplines, using nature as a context for learning.29 Due to the large number

of National Wildlife Refuges (162 marine and coastal), this Appendix does not

include specific data on their educational resources.

The educational value of state seashore and lakeshore parks, which are

located in every region of the nation, is similar to that of federal parks. For

example, Indiana Dunes State Park spans over three miles of Lake Michigan

shoreline and 2,182 acres. Educational facilities include a nature center and

education staff that develops materials and conducts workshops focusing on

Lake Michigan and the coastal environment. South Cape Beach State Park,

Massachusetts, is a component of the Sauquoit Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve, and has over a mile of beach as well as interpretive

programs during the summer.30 In Washington, the Joseph Whidbey State

Park located on Puget Sound provides hiking, biking, water activities and

opportunities for observing wildlife within its 112-acre boundaries.31 Due to

the large number of state seashore and lakeshore parks, this Appendix does

not include specific data on their educational resources.

While formal studies on the success of these educational programs are

lacking, most of these facilities conduct some form of evaluation to measure

the success of their educational resources. For example, the 2002 National

Wildlife Refuge System Visitor Satisfaction Survey showed that 90 percent of

the respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with their educational

and recreational experiences at refuges.29

5.3.3 Public and Private Zoos, Aquariums,

and Museums

One of the primary missions of zoos, aquariums, and museums is to engage

and enlighten the public about the Earth’s different environments and the

species that inhabit them. Aquariums focus their efforts specifically on ocean
220 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

and coastal environments, while zoos and museums dedicate variable

proportions of their exhibits to oceans and coasts. Additionally, most of these

facilities conduct scientific research aimed at resource conservation. This

section describes:

• Zoos and aquariums, which offer exposure to marine mammals and other

sea creatures

• Museums, which offer a science-based educational perspective on marine

animals, plants, and ecosystems.

The most inherent message that comes through in assessing these facilities is

dedication to public interest and trust. The high volume of visitors from the

general public paired with the numbers of students and teachers who benefit

from these facilities illustrate this message. They continue to expand and grow

in number to meet the demands of the viewing public. Another key factor to

their success is they are not limited to coastal areas. One can find zoos,

aquariums, and museums across the nation, including inland areas.

5.3.3.1 Aquariums and Zoos

America’s zoos and aquariums form a network of educational institutions that

offer an array of effective educational initiatives. The primary focus of

aquariums is on oceans and the Great Lakes; however, zoos also dedicate a

portion of their exhibits to these environments. Currently there are 212

accredited members of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA).

Of these, the federal government and private nonprofit foundations are the

two greatest operators (42.0 percent and 42.6 percent, respectively). The

remaining facilities are operated by for-profit foundations or other entities.32

Figure 5-10 shows the various types and numbers of this expansive

association.

Collectively, these institutions have demonstrated the ability to reach a wide

variety of audiences throughout the nation, claiming nearly 135 million

visitors annually. An AZA aquarium typically serves 100,000 students and

20,000 teachers annually with both on- and offsite programs. Public

programs enroll an additional 114,000 people onsite and 22,000 offsite.

AZA member zoos and aquariums as a whole dedicate $52 million annually

to their education programs. The total number of specimens across all

American Zoo and Aquarium Association members in 2000 was over

750,000. Additional information regarding AZA members and direct links to

these members can be found on the AZA Web site (www.aza.org).32

A unique aspect about zoos and aquariums is their presence across the

country; they are not limited to the oceans or coastlines. Inland zoos and

aquariums educate people who may never see the coast. The Denver Zoo,

for example, is the most popular cultural attraction in Colorado, with over

1.7 million visitors annually. As reported to the Commission, the Denver Zoo

is consistently ranked as one of the most popular zoos in the United States.33
Marine Education and Outreach 221

As with formal education, zoos and aquariums provide unique opportunities

for educating women and minorities. For example, the Young Women in

Science at Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California, has been active

since 1998. This week-long program encourages middle- and high-school

girls to continue with their science education at a time in their lives when

young women typically tend to abandon their interest in science. Students are

paired with female aquarists and other scientists to build relationships with

strong female role models. In addition, the Splash Zone Discovery Program

partners with local counties to provide educational opportunities to a largely

Hispanic community that has never visited the aquarium.34

5.3.3.2 Museums

While zoos and aquariums focus their exhibits on living creatures, museums

provide educational opportunities through their non-living collections.

Museums, like zoos and aquariums, educate a large number of visitors

annually. For example, the National Museum of Natural History in

Washington, D.C., had 8.4 million visitors in 2001 alone.35 As with zoos and

aquariums, museums provide an opportunity for the public to learn about

marine resources without having to live near a coastline. There are more

than 111 natural history museums across the nation, many of which devote

segments of their facilities to marine-related exhibits.36 Depending on their

location, museums may focus on the specific region they are located in or the

world’s oceans as a whole.

Figure 5-10:

American Zoo and Aquarium Association Members

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association institutions span across the nation, and are not limited to coastal

regions. The 137 zoos, the largest component of the Association, devote various portions of their facilities to

marine-related resources.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Zoo Aquarium Zoo &

Aquarium

Wildlife Park Other
222 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

The American Museum of Natural History in New York has the Irma and Paul

Milstein Family Hall of Ocean Life. Home to a 94-foot-long model of a blue

whale, this facility has extensive interactive exhibits that span the oceans. There

are numerous hands-on models, interactive computer stations, and other

educational activities. The Hall has been newly restored and renovated to keep

pace with the needs of the public.37 The Natural Museum of Los Angeles,

California, has on display the Megamouth — the world’s rarest shark — as

well as the Marine Hall, focusing its exhibits on the sea life in California. The

Ralph M. Parsons Discovery Center is the educational center within the

museum, with numerous activities for all ages.38

The Smithsonian Institution is a large organization focusing on diverse subject

areas, with 16 museums and 98 affiliate museums. One of the Smithsonian’s

primary missions is to provide experiences to the science community as well as

the general public that promote innovation, research, and discovery in

science.35 More specifically, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural

History serves this role in relation to ocean sciences. Currently, there are three

exhibits with a marine focus on display: Life in the Ancient Seas is divided into

three time periods to show the evolution of the seas from 570 million years ago

to today; The Mighty Marlin is a series of multiple exhibits that display the

various attributes and characteristics of marlin; and Squid: The Inside Story,

which primarily focuses on the comparison between the giant squid and

Taningia, another large, deep-sea squid known for its light-producing organs.

The Smithsonian offers a wide array of innovative, hands-on educational

facilities supported by more than 200 trained volunteer docents.39

Another example, the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, has plans to

increase the number of its marine exhibits. One recent example of a marine

exhibit was a fossil of a 16-foot-long fish that lived in Ohio during prehistoric

times. The museum’s Science Resource Center offers teachers information,

skills, and materials to educate their students in an accurate and exciting way.40

5.4 Marine Education Summary

The facilities that support ocean and coastal sciences education range from

large academic institutions to small state and local organizations that provide

informal education opportunities. This inventory illustrates the capacity and

diversity of these facilities.

Formal education is offered through almost 500 programs at more than

100 academic institutions. Most students concentrate on marine biology and

biological oceanography. While still under-represented, women and minorities

continue to increase their presence in the field.

The informal education examples provided are a small sample of the

opportunities available at the nation’s MPAs, zoos, aquariums, and museums.

These facilities serve a vital role in increasing knowledge about ocean and

coastal resources for both schoolchildren and the general public.
Marine Education and Outreach 223

1. National Science Board. 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators–2002.

National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA (NSB-02-01).

2. Mervis, J. 2001. Women in Science: Men Still Have Edge in U.S. Science

Careers. Science Magazine, p. 2067. 7 December 2001.

3. Mervis, J. 2000. Call to Arms: Diversity: Easier Said Than Done. Science

Magazine, p. 378-379. 21 July 2000.

4. National Sea Grant. 2003. National Sea Grant Web Page. <http://

www.nsgo.seagrant.org.WhatisSeaGrant.html>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

5. Sea Grant Association. 2003. Sea Grant Association Web Page. 9 October

2002. National Sea Grant College Program Science Serving America’s Coasts.

<http://www.sga.seagrant.org/pdf/sga_impacts_fs.pdf>. Accessed 24 April

2003.

6. International Labor Organization. 2003. International Labor Organization Labor

Standards Update Web Page. <http://www.us.ilo.org/news/focus/0103/FOCUS9.html>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

7. Maritime International Secretariat Services Limited. 2003. BIMCO/ISF 2000

Manpower Update Web Page. <http://www.marisec.org/2000Update/

2000update.htm>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

8. Maritime Today. 2003. Maritime Today Web Page. BIMCO VP Speaks at

Quality Shipping Conference. 16 July 02. <http://www.maritimetoday.com>.

Assessed 20 May 2003.

9. Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies and Pacific Maritime

Institute Conference. 2002. Maritime Careers: Implementing the Action Plans

for Recruiting and Retaining Mariners. Linthicum Heights, Maryland.

May 1-2, 2002.

10. NOAA. 2003. National Ocean Service Education Web Page. <http://

www.nos.noaa.gov/education>. Accessed 24 April 2003.

11. NOAA. 2003. NOAA Education Resources Web Page. <http://

www.education.noaa.gov>. Accessed 27 May 2003.

12. EPA. 2003. Office of Environmental Education Strategic Framework Web Page.

<http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/neeact.html>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

13. NASA. 2003. SpaceLink Web Page. <http://www.spacelink.nasa.gov/

products/>. Accessed 23 April 2003.

14. NASA. 2003. Education Web Page. <http://www.education.nasa.gov/>.

Accessed 20 May 2003.

15. Minerals Management Service. 2003. Education and Outreach Web Page.

<http://www.www.mms.gov/mmskids>. Accessed 28 April 2003.

References
224 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities

16. National Park Service. 2003. Education Web Page. <http://www.nps.gov/

learn/>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

17. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Education Web Page. <http://

training.fws.gov/deo/education.html>. Accessed 24 April 2003.

18. U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Education Web Page. <http://www.usgs.gov/

education.html>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

19. National Science Foundation. 2003. Education Web Page. <http://

www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/about.cfm>. Accessed 24 April 2003.

20. U.S. Navy. 2003. Naval Oceanographic Office Web Page. <http://

www.navo.navy.mil/edu>. Accessed 28 April 2003.

21. Carr, B.L. 2002. A Statement for the Oceans Commission Meeting, B.L.Carr,

AZA, Chicago, Illinois. 25 September 2002.

22. Marine Protected Areas. 2003. Marine Protected Areas of the United States

Web Page. <http://www.mpa.gov>. Accessed 30 April 2003.

23. NOAA. 2003. National Marine Sanctuaries Web Page. <http://

www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov>. Accessed 21 February 2003.

24. NOAA. 2003. National Estuarine Research Reserve System Web Page. <http:/

/www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr/>. Accessed 18 March 2003.

25. EPA. 2003. National Estuary Program Web Page. 19 April 1998. The National

Estuary Program: A Ten-Year Perspective. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/

coastlines/winter98/january.html>. Accessed 20

May 2003.

26. National Park Service. 2003. Park Search Web Page. <http://www.nps.gov/

parks.htm>. Accessed 24 March 2003.

27. California State Parks. 2003. California State Parks Web Page. <http://

www.calparks.org>. Accessed 24 March 2003.

28. EPA. 2003. National Estuary Program Web Page. <http://www.epa.gov/

owow/estuaries>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

29. Refugenet. 2003. National Wildlife Refuge Association Web Page. <http://

www.refugenet.org>. Accessed 21 April 2003.

30. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. 2003.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. <http://

www.state.ma.us/dem/parks/mass.htm>. Accessed 15 May 2003.

31. Washington State Parks. 2003. Washington State Parks and Recreation

Commission Web Page. <http://www.parks.wa.gov>. Accessed 15

May 2003.

32. American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 2003. American Zoo and Aquarium

Association Web Page. <http://www.aza.org>. Accessed 30 April 2003.
Marine Education and Outreach 225

33. Denver Zoo. 2003. Denver ZooWeb Page. <http://www.denverzoo.org>.

Accessed 20 May 2003.

34. Monterey Bay Aquarium. 2001. Annual Review 2000. Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Monterey, California.

35. Smithsonian Institution. 2003. Smithsonian Institution Web Page. <http://

www.si.edu>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

36. University of California, Berkley Museum of Paleontology. UCMP Natural History

Museums Web Page. <http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/subway/

nathistmus.html>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

37. American Museum of Natural History. 2003. American Museum of Natural

History Web Page. <http://www.amnh.org>. Accessed 14 May 2003.

38. National History Museum. 2003. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles

County Web Page. <http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions>. Accessed 14 May

2003.

39. Smithsonian Institution. 2003. Smithsonian Institution Web Page. <http://

www.mnh.si.edu/imax/marine.html>. Accessed 20 May 2003.

40. Cleveland Museum of Natural History. 2003. Cleveland Museum of Natural

History Web Page. <http://www.cmnh.org>. Accessed 14 May 2003.
226 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities 227

ABE Autonomous Benthic Explorer 

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

ADEOS Advanced Earth Observation Satellite 

ADV Atmospheric Diving Suit 

AFS Aquaculture and Fisheries Science 

AIS Automatic Identification System 

AMSR-E Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 

AMVER Atlantic Merchant Vessel Emergency Reporting 

ANT Aids-to-Navigation Team 

AOML Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory 

APL Applied Physics Laboratory 

APT Automatic Picture Transmission 

ARC Ames Research Center AND Applied Research Center 

ARI Arctic Research Initiative 

ARL Air Resources Laboratory 

ARRV Alaska Region Research Vessel 

ASC Autonomous Surface Craft 

AtoN Aids-to-Navigation 

ATLAS Autonomous Temperature Line Acquisition System 

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 

AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer 

AY Academic Year 

AZA American Zoo and Aquarium Association 

BIMCO/ISF Baltic and International Maritime Council/International Shipping Federation 

C2 Command-and-control 

CCPP Climate Change Prediction Program 

CCSM Community Climate System Model 

CDA Command and Data Acquisition 

CDEP Climate Dynamics and Experimental Prediction 

CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center 

CHL Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory 

CICOR Cooperative Institute of Climate and Ocean Research 

CIFAR Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research 

CILER Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research 

CIMAS Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies 

CIRPAS Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Aircraft Studies 

CITAT Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team 

CLIVAR Climate Variability and Predictability Experiment 

C-MAN Coastal Marine Automated Network 
228 Acronyms

CNES Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (French Space Agency) 

COAMPS Coupled Ocean Atmospheric Mesoscale Prediction System 

CODAR Coastal Ocean Dynamic Application Radar 

COP Coastal Ocean Program 

CORE Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education 

CORS Continually Operated Reference Station 

COSEE Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence 

COSIMG Climate, Ocean, and Sea-Ice Modeling Group 

COTP Captain of the Port 

COTS Commercial off-the-shelf 

CPC Climate Prediction Center 

CPD Coastal Programs Division 

CRRF Coral Reef Research Foundation 

CSL Climate Simulation Laboratory 

CTD Conductivity-Temperature-Depth 

CURV Cable-controlled Undersea Recovery Vehicle 

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DAAC Distributed Active Archive Center 

DART Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis 

DGPS Differential Global Positioning System 

DISL Dauphin Island Sea Lab 

DMSP Defense Meteorological Satellite Program 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DREN Defense Research and Engineering Network 

DSV Deep Submergence Vehicle 

DWT Deadweight Tons 

EETAP Environmental Education and Training Partnership 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

ELC Engineering Logistics Center 

EÑSO El Niño-Southern Oscillation 

EO Executive Order 

EOS Earth Observing System 

EOSDIS Earth Observing System Data and Information System 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERDC Engineering Research and Development Center 

ERL Environmental Research Laboratory 

EROS Earth Resources Observation System 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ETL Environmental Technology Laboratory 

EUMETSAT European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities 229

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute 

FNMOC Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center 

FOCI Fisheries Oceanography Coordination Investigations 

FOSC Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

FRF Field Research Facility 

FSS Fast Sealift Ship 

FTE Full-Time Equivalent 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

GB Gigabyte 

GCOOS Gulf Coastal Ocean Observing System 

GCOS Global Climate Observing System 

GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GLAS Geoscience Laser Altimetry Sensor 

GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 

GLODAP Global Ocean Data Analysis Project 

GODAE Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment 

GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 

GOOS Global Ocean Observing System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

GSOS GPS Surface Observing System 

HBOI Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution 

HIAPER High-Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research 

HPC High Performance Computing 

HPCC High Performance Computing and Communications 

HRPT High Resolution Picture Transmission 

HURL Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory 

ICESat Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite 

IGC Information Gatekeepers Consulting 

IGEB Interagency GPS Executive Board 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

INA Institute of Nautical Archaeology 

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System 

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education and Data System 

IPO International Program Office 

IRICP International Research Institute for Climate Prediction 

IT Information Technology 

JALBTCX Joint Airborne LIDAR Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise 

JAMSTEC Japan Marine Science and Technology Center 

JGOFS Joint Global Ocean Flux Study 
230 Acronyms

JIMAR Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research 

JIMO Joint Institute for Marine Observations 

JISAO Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean 

JOI Joint Oceanographic Institutions 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JSL Johnson Sea Link 

K-12 Kindergarten through 12th grade 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LASH Lighter Aboard Ship 

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

LDC Legacy Data Center 

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

LMSR Large-Medium-Speed RO/ROs 

LORAN Long-Range Radio Navigation 

LRS Long-Range Search 

LSU Loran Support Unit 

LTPY Long-Term Potential Yield 

LUMCON Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium 

MARAD Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation 

MARS Monterey Accelerated Research System 

MBARI Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 

MBL Marine Biological Laboratory 

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

MML Mote Marine Laboratory 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MODIS Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer 

MON Marine Operation Network 

MOOS MBARI Ocean Observing System 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

MRE-FC Major Research Equipment-Facilities Construction 

MRS Medium-Range Search 

MSC Military Sealift Command 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSO Marine Safety Offices 

MSP Maritime Security Program 

MSRC Major Shared Resource Center 

MSS Multi-spectral Scanner 

MSST Maritime Safety and Security Team 

MTS Marine Transportation System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASDA National Space Development Agency of Japan 

NAVCEN U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center 

NAVOCEANO U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office 
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities 231

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research 

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

NCEP National Center for Environmental Prediction 

NDBC National Data Buoy Center 

NDGPS Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System 

NDRS National Distress Response System 

NDSF National Deep Submergence Facility 

NEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

NEOS Northeastern Observing System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service 

NGS National Geodetic Survey 

NGWLMS Next Generation Water-Level Measurement System 

NIC Naval Ice Center 

NIS Navigation Information System 

NISA National Invasive Species Act 

NM Nautical Miles 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMSP National Marine Sanctuary Program 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOMAD Navy Oceanographic Meteorological Automatic Device 

NOPP National Ocean Partnership Program 

NOS National Ocean Service 

NPS National Park Service 

NPOESS National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

NRC National Research Council 

NRL Naval Research Laboratory 

NRL-CBD Naval Research Laboratory - Chesapeake Bay Detachment 

NRL-FSD Naval Research Laboratory - Flight Support Detachment 

NRL-MRY Naval Research Laboratory - Marine Meteorology Division 

NSB Non-standard Boats AND National Science Board 

NSCAT NASA Scatterometer 

NSF National Science Foundation 

NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center 

NSRS National Spatial Reference System 

NURC National Undersea Research Center 

NURP National Undersea Research Program 

NWLON National Water Level Observation Network 

NWRC National Wetland Research Center 

NWS National Weather Service 

OACES Ocean Atmospheric Exchange Study 

OAR Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 
232 Acronyms

OFA Office of Finance and Administration 

Ohmsett Oil and Hazardous Material Simulated Environmental Test Tank 

OI Oceanic Institute 

OLE Office of Law Enforcement 

OMAO Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

ONR Office of Naval Research 

OOI Ocean Observatories Initiative 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

ORR Office of Response and Restoration 

OSTM Ocean Surface Topographic Mission 

OSU Oregon State University 

OSV Ocean Survey Vessel 

OTA Office of Technical Assessment 

PB Petabyte 

PIRATA Pilot Research Moored Array in the Tropical Atlantic 

PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

POES Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

PORTS Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System 

PPS Precise Positioning System 

PSU Port Security Unit 

R&D Research and Development 

ROPOS Remotely Operated Platform for Ocean Science 

RO/RO Roll-On/Roll-Off 

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle 

RRF Ready Reserve Force 

RSMAS Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science 

R/V Research Vessel 

S&E Science and Engineering 

S202 Sargasso Sea Ocean Observatory 

SAR Search-and-rescue 

SCD Scientific Computing Division 

SCOOP SURA Costal Ocean Observing Program 

SEA-COOP South Eastern Atlantic Coastal Observing System 

SeaWiFS Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor 

SHOALS Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne LIDAR Survey 

SIO Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

SLAR Side-Looking Airborne Radar 

SOEST School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology 

SPS Standard Positioning System 

SRA Short-Range Aids to Navigation 

SRU Search-and-Rescue Unit 

SSC Stennis Space Center 

SST Sea Surface Temperature 

STCW Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping 

STORET Storage and Retrieval 
Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities 233

STRI Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 

SUNY State University of New York 

SURA Southeastern University Research Association 

SUPSALV U.S. Navy Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of Salvage and 

Diving 

SWATH Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull 

SWISS Shallow Water Intermediate Search System 

TAMU Texas A&M University 

TAO/TRITON Tropical Atmospheric Ocean/Triangle Trans-Ocean Buoy Network 

TB Terabyte 

TM Thematic Mapper 

TMI TRMM Microwave Imager 

TOSS Towed Ocean Survey System 

TOV Towed Vehicles 

TOWDEX Towed Defined Excitation 

T/P TOPEX/Poseidon 

TPPN Trans-Pacific Profiler Network 

TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission 

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

UMCES University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 

UNOLS University–National Oceanographic Laboratory System 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USCGC U.S. Coast Guard Cutter 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USIABP U.S. Inter-Agency Arctic Buoy Program 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

VOS Voluntary Observing Ship 

VOSS Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System 

VHF Very High Frequency 

VHF-FM Very High Frequency-Frequency Modulation 

VTS Vessel Traffic Services 

WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

WOCE World Ocean Circulation Experiment 

XBT Expendable BathyThermograph 
234 Acronyms
Supplemental Materials 235
 

SUPPLEMENT 2-1: U.S. Ports Handling Over

One Million Tons of Cargo (2000)

Port Name Cargo Handled 

(Tons) 

South Louisiana 217,756,734 

Houston 191,419,265 

New York 138,669,879 

New Orleans 90,768,449 

Corpus Christi 83,124,950 

Beaumont 82,652,554 

Huntington 76,867,987 

Long Beach 70,149,684 

Baton Rouge 65,631,084 

Texas City 61,585,891 

Plaquemine 59,910,084 

Lake Charles 55,517,891 

Mobile Harbor 54,156,967 

Pittsburgh 53,922,676 

Los Angeles 48,192,271 

Valdez 48,080,894 

Tampa Bay 46,460,327 

Philadelphia 43,854,766 

Norfolk Harbor 42,376,778 

Duluth-Superior 41,677,699 

Baltimore 40,831,802 

Portland 34,333,784 

Saint Louis 33,337,815 

Freeport 30,984,736 

Portland 29,330,407 

Pascagoula 28,710,087 

Paulsboro 26,874,417 

Seattle 24,158,942 

Chicago 23,929,489 

Marcus Hook 22,583,985 

Port Everglades 22,500,201 

Tacoma 22,286,610 

Port Arthur 21,387,322 

Charleston 21,081,838 

Boston 20,750,789 

Jacksonville 19,701,277 

Savannah 19,670,923 

Richmond 19,463,609 

Memphis 18,269,265 

Anacortes 18,034,543 

Detroit 17,294,541 

Indiana Harbor 16,187,079 

Honolulu 15,796,807 

Cleveland 14,390,802 

Cincinnati 14,337,043 

Lorain 14,180,191 

San Juan Harbor 13,904,237 

Newport News 13,803,114 

Toledo 13,321,657 

Two Harbors 13,060,019 

Ashtabula 12,322,430 

Oakland 12,176,045 

236 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 2-1: U.S. Ports Handling Over

One Million Tons of Cargo (2000)

Port Name Cargo Handled 

(Tons) 

Presque Isle 10,741,845 

Galveston 10,643,215 

New Haven 10,603,972 

Conneaut 10,603,367 

Matagorda Ship Channel 10,551,726 

Gary 9,712,109 

Burns Waterway Harbor 9,346,320 

Louisville 9,167,326 

Providence 8,869,974 

New Castle 8,745,200 

Escanaba 8,646,811 

Miami 8,609,996 

Taconite Harbor 8,504,541 

Calcite 8,474,781 

Stoneport 7,841,997 

Vancouver 7,652,631 

Barbers Point 7,141,165 

Wilmington 6,716,503 

Albany 6,127,096 

Kalama 5,790,677 

Saint Clair 5,553,477 

Port Inland 5,483,044 

Silver Bay 5,390,009 

Saint Paul 5,254,012 

Wilmington 5,183,513 

Camden-Gloucester 5,170,588 

Nikishka 5,109,341 

Victoria 5,104,245 

Vicksburg 4,972,751 

Nashville 4,523,011 

Portsmouth 4,462,133 

Morehead City 4,365,470 

Port Manatee 4,279,750 

Bridgeport 4,254,965 

Port Canaveral 4,247,027 

Longview 4,113,111 

Marine City 3,987,317 

Kansas City 3,819,732 

Marblehead 3,717,018 

San Diego 3,652,734 

Sandusky 3,644,571 

San Francisco Bay 3,626,462 

Milwaukee 3,538,522 

Penn Manor 3,531,474 

Kahului, Maui 3,476,672 

Everett 3,457,140 

Alpena 3,404,858 

Fall River 3,402,023 

Brownsville 3,267,513 

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 237
SUPPLEMENT 2-1: U.S. Ports Handling Over

One Million Tons of Cargo (2000)

Port Name Cargo Handled 

(Tons) 

Port Dolomite 3,205,181 

Anchorage 3,157,247 

Greenville 3,069,359 

Mount Vernon 3,067,268 

Palm Beach 2,950,183 

Chattanooga 2,854,579 

Port Jefferson Harbor 2,840,432 

Brunswick 2,580,647 

Panama City 2,573,045 

Kivilina 2,572,670 

Fairport Harbor 2,538,850 

Biloxi 2,508,367 

Muskegon 2,434,620 

Ponce 2,264,619 

Chester 2,235,557 

Gulfport Commercial Harbor 2,228,741 

Coos Bay 2,210,140 

Buffalo 2,168,557 

Stockton 2,051,086 

Georgetown 2,009,273 

Minneapolis 1,936,945 

Tulsa 1,926,638 

Port Angeles 1,886,064 

Guntersville 1,862,593 

Helena 1,797,390 

Charlevoix 1,748,111 

Fajardo 1,716,839 

Hilo 1,651,075 

Pensacola 1,617,201 

Nawiliwili, Kauai 1,580,962 

Trenton 1,574,107 

Grand Haven 1,554,784 

Green Bay 1,551,130 

Buffington 1,544,762 

Erie 1,501,167 

Richmond 1,488,505 

Searsport 1,440,897 

Olympia 1,433,663 

Drummond Island 1,357,645 

Charlotte Harbor 1,356,295 

Kawaihae Harbor 1,310,139 

Huron 1,275,242 

Grays Harbor 1,250,636 

Marysville 1,227,099 

Salem 1,205,158 

Port Hueneme 1,193,742 

Hempstead 1,192,719 

Humboldt Bay 1,062,672 

Stamford 1,037,224 

238 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Port of South Louisiana (

Plaquemines) Houston New York/New Jersey 

Harbor Size The Port of South Louisiana has 156 barge terminals, a 

pilot station, headquarters for channel maintenanceengineers, and a lighthouse. 

The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities.

The NY/NJ port complex has a depth of 35 feet, a width of 400 feet, and 7 cargo terminals.

Web Site www.portsl.com www.portofhouston.com www.panynj.gov Channel Depth 45 feet 36-40 feet 40-45 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 215930915 186567246 137170810 Total Value (in millions) 11124 43365 80941 Number of Calls 

Not Available 

In 2000, a total of 6,613 vessel calls, 2,988 Tanker Calls, 748 Dry Bulk Calls, 614 Containership Calls,779 Other General Calls 

In 2000, 1,271 Tanker Calls, 301 Dry Bulk Calls,2,172 Containership Calls, and 861 Other General Calls 

Imports 

steel, crude oil, iron ore 

petroleum products and related chemicals, cement, lime, concrete, minerals, potassium, selenium, sodium, acid chemicals, ores, metals, steel, rail equipment,steel/iron copper 

furniture, paper, beer and ale 

Exports 

coal, coke, soybean, corn, wheat, crude oil, phosphate 

petroleum products and related chemicals, potassium, selenium, sodium, acid chemicals, grain products, rice, potato, starch, benzene, naphthalene chemicals, stones, clay, crude minerals 

paper/paperboard, logs and lumber, auto parts 

Major Trade Partners Served Not Available Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Algeria, Germany, and Brazil United Kingdom, Singapore, Belgium, Korea, Japan, China, and Hong Kong Futur

e Improvements 

Planned Expansion in Plaquemines Parish has been heavily oriented to oil and gas exploration and production as

well as the push toward diversification into other industries including coal and fuel storage, primary metals, manufacturing and aquaculture. A proposal touse the Port Eads area for a "topping off" basin for over-draft vessels were studied hard in the early 1980's and several tries for a steamboat cruise were tried inthe late 1970's-early 1980's to the Jetties, the return overnight. 

The Port Authority has developed a master plan ofseveral phases for the Bayport area, which includes 7 container terminals and a cruise complex. In the first phase, the Port Authority Commission plans to develop a new container terminal in southeast Harris County to assist the Bayport Terminal Complex meet the needs ofexpanding growth patterns in the container industry. Cruise development, which will take place only as the market dictates, will allow for the building of several cruise berths, an east-end turning basin and a codevelopment area. 

Scheduled maintenance dredging of the East River seeks to maintain a depth of 35 feet and width of400 feet in the South Brother Island Channel.

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 239
240 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port New Orleans Corpus Christi Beaumont Harbor Size 

The Port’s facilities include 22 million square feet of cargo handling area and more than 6 million square feet of covered storage area. 

The Port of Corpus Chrisit is more than 125 acres, with 11 public oil docks with berths between 246 feet to 1,000 feet and depths up to 45 feet. 

The Port of Beaumont has a total of 6,088 linearfeet of harbor front, with 8 ship berths, afford wide concrete aprons and a constant minimum water depth of 36-40 feet at mean low tide at theface of all docks. 

Web Site www.portno.com www.portofcorpuschristi.com www.portofbmt.co

m

Channel Depth 36-45 feet 45 feet 40 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 89998825 81315333 76894358 Total Value (in millions) 18768 10305 10606 Number of Calls In 2000, 1,371 Tanker Calls, 2,676 Dry Bulk Calls,

388 Containership Calls, 655 

Other General Calls 

In 2000, 974 Tanker Calls, 230 Dry Bulk Calls, 2 Containership Calls, 142 Other General Calls 

In 2000, 1,053 Tanker Calls, 99 Dry Bulk Calls,Zero Containership Calls, 67 OtherGeneral Calls 

Imports steel, rubber, plywood, coffee Not Available forest products, steel, project, military cargo Exports forest products, steel, foodstuff, che

micals crude oil, fuel oil, gasoline, feed stock, gas oil, bauxite ore, slop and slurry, naphtha, diesel, toluene forest products, project, agricultural commodities, iron and steel, military cargoes, bulk grain 

Major Trade Partners Served Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and Malaysia Venezuela, Nigeria, 

Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, 

Columbia, Jamaica,

Algeria, Kuwait, and the U.K. Not Available 

Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

A new container terminal is under construction atNapoleon

Avenue. The state-of-the-art complex will 

operate with four multi-purpose gantry cranes and rubber tire gantry cranes in the marshalling yard.Projected annual capacity is 366,000 TEUs. The 57-acre terminal is scheduled to open in the mid-2002.

A two-year study recommended the proposed $190m improvements: 1) 

Widening the Corpus Christi Ship 

Channel to 530 feet 2) Deepening the Corpus ChristiShip Channel from 45 to 52 feet 3) Adding 200 feet wide barge shelves along both sides of the channel across Corpus Christi Bay, and 4) Extending La QuintaChannel approximately 7400 feet at a depth of 39 feet.The Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor encompasses an 11.5-mile road and 7-mile rail project for Port of Corpus Christi that will improve access to over 2,000 acres of land along the north side of the channel for development. The corridor will make approximately 1,000 acres of land (which has no access) available for use as marine terminals andindustrial sites. 

Construction of the BEAU’s new, state-of-the-arttransit shed is right on schedule. The 100,000 square foot shed is adjacent to the port's new Harbor Island Wharf Extension, which opened inthe summer of 2001. The new shed, to be designated Harbor Island Shed C, is expected tobe completed in October of this year. The $4.7million shed will increase the port's covered cargo capacity by 20%. 
SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Huntington-Tristate Long Beach Baton Rouge Harbor Size The Huntington Tri-state port stretches along 100 miles 

of the Ohio River, 90 miles of the Kanawha River and 9 miles of the Big Sandy River.

LB/LA Port has a 7500-acre harbor with 6 modern container facilities.

Port of Baton Rouge has 3,000 linear feet ofcontinuous berthing space for ships and bargeson the harbor front with a 40- to 60-foot apron. 

Web Site Not Available www.polb.com www.portgbr.comChannel Depth Not Available 76 feet 45 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 76867987 69850483 65207276 Total Value (in millions) Not Available 101819 4357 Number of Calls Not Available Not Available Not Available Imports Not Available petroleum, electric machinery, plastic products, clothing, furniture petroleum, molasses, rail, steel coils, chemicals Exports Not Available petroleum, petroleum coke, chemicals, wastepaper, foods grain, forest products, che

micals, coal, coke, 

petroleum products, pipe, sugar 

Major Trade Partners Served Not Available China/Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Ecuador Not Available Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

Open channel work on the Ohio River within the limits of the Huntington District consists of widening, deepening and maintaining the navigation channel in the pools of dams to provide and maintain full project depth of 9 feet at minimum pool conditions. Openchannel work also includes construction and maintenance of back-channel dams and dikes and the removal of snags and wrecks. The Port District has provided the West Virginia Public Port Authority (WVPPA) with the appropriate supporting documents to fulfill the request for start-up funding for development of the Buffalo/Putnam area. The Weirton Port projectto explore the possibilities of a joint, two-state compact to coordinate regional port develop

ment is developing. 

LB Port: plans to create 5 container terminals of more than 300 acres each and to build 2 other large terminals within 10-15 years; consolidate and redevelop several piers to 

meet additional needs. LB: 

Plans to invest $1.9b in capital projects. 

Land for develop

ment includes an additional 55 

acres at the Inland Rivers Marine Terminal on the Intracoastal Canal and also t

wo parcels of land in 

Ascension Parish which include a 20 acre site on the east bank of the river and 300 acres on the west bank of the river. 

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 241
242 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information 

Port Texas City Pittsburgh Mobile Harbor Size 

The Port of Texas City includes 43 docks. 

The Pittsburgh Port District encompasses an 11-county area, essentially all 200 miles of commercially navigable waterways in southwestern Pennsylvania.

The Port of Mobile has 3,487 acres available, with facilities for handling all types of ocean-going vessels with up to45-foot drafts. 

Web Site www.railporttc.com www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us www.asdd.comChannel Depth 50 feet at least 9 feet 45 feetTotal Volume (Tonnage) 58108858 53922676 53658350 Total Value (in millions) 4871 8000 3793 Number of Calls In 2000, 1,105 Tanker Calls, 64 Dry Bulk Calls,

2 Containership Calls, 26 Other General Calls

In 2000, 140 Tanker Calls, 408 Dry BulkCalls, 5 Containership Calls, 204 Other General Calls 

Imports Not Available coal, lignite, coke petroleum, coal, iron ore Exports coke, potash, fertilizers petroleum products, soil, sand and gravel coal, petroleum, forest productsMajor Trade Partners Served Not Available Not Available Not Available Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

It has been estimated that between 4 and 11 new containerized cargo terminals will be needed inthe Texas Central Gulf region, particularly at the Port of Houston and Texas City, between the years of approximately 1998-2028. A $20 million bond issue will finance street, sewer anddrainage work throughout the city. The city also has taken steps to develop a proposed Megaport at Shoal Point as a possible deep water container terminal (or 'Mega Port') in south Texas. 

A $705 million project is under way to make theMonongahela the most efficient river in the nation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hasstarted construction of a project to replace the fixed-crest dam at Locks and Dam 2 with a gateddam; remove Locks and Dam 3; and constructtwo new 84-foot by 720-foot locks at Locks andDam 4. The dam at Locks and Dam 2 is nearly 100 years old and has deteriorated beyond repair. The new dam will control the water level along the river. 

The port is beginning a 5-year improvement and expansion plan of $300 million through the issuance of general obligation bonds. The port’s first phase investment of $45 million will include the new warehouse and a second roll on-roll off ramp at North A; container operating equipment; a 60,000 square foot warehouse expansion at Pier South C, and the paving of a 10-acre site for lay down of metals. Docks’ operational costs are funded through port revenues. About $7.5 million of Phase One funding will be used for permit approvals and design preparation for Choctaw Point Terminals, where a new intermodal center will be built.
SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Lake Charles Los Angeles Valdez Harbor Size 

The Lake Charles District (LCD) encompasses 203 square miles in Calcasieu Parish.

The port complex occupies 7500 acres of land andwater along 43 miles of waterfront. 

The Port of Valdez has three main docks, including the 600-foot City dock, the 700-foot concrete floating Valdez Container Terminal Dockand the Container Dock, which is tied to a 21-acre marshalling yard by two 200-foot ramps. Agrain terminal consisting of 9 concrete silos 112 feet tall and 33 feet in diameter with a total capacity of 522,000 bushels is also located on the Container Terminal grounds. 

Web Site 

w

w

w.portlc.com www.portoflosangeles.org Not Available 

Channel Depth 36-40 feet 45 feet 25-56 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 53007284 48127534 48080894 Total Value (in millions) 4964 98202 292 Number of Calls In 2000, 518 Tanker Calls, 115 Dry Bulk Calls, 3 

Containership Calls, 79 Other General Calls Not Available Not Available 

Imports petrochemical, barite, rutile furniture, apparel, computer equipment, toys, electrical products Not Available Exports petrochemical, rice, bagged goods wastepaper, resins and plastic, pet and animal feeds, cotton, fruit oil Major Trade Partners Served Not Available Not Available Not Available Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

The Lake Charles Deepwater Channel project originally provided for Federal maintenance of the 30-foot-deepby 125-foot-wide channel constructed by local interests between the Calcasieu and Sabine rivers, a distance of approximately 25 miles. However, the project is nowinactive, because direct access fro

m Lake Charles to 

the Gulf was provided by the "

Calcasieu River and Pass

Project," described previously. 

Conducting project to dredge main channel to a depth of 53-foot MLLW and planning a 20-acre expansion of the facility.

The Port Commission, in conjunction with the Valdez City Council, has recently formed the Waterfront Task Force. Their first 

meeting was in

February 2002. The City Council approved an econo

mic benefit analysis research project for the 

Task Force. They will research facts on the economics of moving the cruise ships to town. The Com

mission is also working with the Corps of 

Engineers regarding the harbor expansion.

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 243
244 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Tampa DuluthSuperior Baltimore Harbor Size 

The Tampa port has over 1500 acres of heavy industrial land with deep water access. 

The waterfront area of the Port of Duluth-Superior is 49miles long, with 17 miles of dredged channels, 19 square miles of land, and a naturally protected harbor602 feet above sea level. There are 30 acres ofproperty within the complex. 

The Port of Baltimore is located on a 32-squaremile area. Zone space is presently contained over 1,400 acres at 11 sites.

Web Site www.tampaport.com www.duluthport.com www.mpa.state.md.usChannel Depth 43 feet 27 feet 50 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 46460327 41677699 40831802 Total Value (in millions) 2304 786 20606 Number of Calls In 2000, 228 Tanker Calls, 367 Dry Bulk Calls, 6 

Containership Calls, 178 Other General Calls Not Available 

In 2000, 151 Tanker Calls, 426 Dry Bulk Calls,409 Containership Calls, 650 

Other 

General Calls 

Imports coal and petroleum imports limestone, cement, eastern coal, salt forest products, automobiles, machinery, rolling stock, ores and metals, manufactured goods Exports phosphate and related products, cement, limestone, 

citrus pellets, and aggregate, citrus and melons, new and used cars, frozen poultry and steel coils, limestoneand lumber, pulp and paper 

iron ore (taconite), coal, grain, coke coal, autos, machinery, project cargo, manufactured goods 

Major Trade Partners Served Not Available Not Available Not Available Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

Port Manatee is in the midst of investing about $40 million for expansion. The port’s plans include dredging to a depth of 40 feet at its berths to accommodate larger ships and it also plans a new 60,000-squarefoot cruise ter

minal. In addition, the projects include

more warehouse space for both dry and chilled products. The proposed work on the Hillsborough River involves expanding the channel to 3700 feet long,290 feet wide, and 42 feet deep. The length of project is 10.0 miles. Planned improve

ments to the Alafia

River consists of a channel 30 feet deep and 200 feet wide from the ship channel in Hillsborough Bay to and including a turning basin 700 feet wide and 1,200 feet long. The length of project is about 3.6 miles.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is looking toresearch the effects of enlarging the 2,300-mile waterway syste

m, stretching from the St. Lawrence River 

to Duluth-Superior. Canada has been asked to pick uphalf the study's tab.

Not Available 
SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Philadelphia Portland and the Columbia River St. Louis Harbor Size 

Port of Philadelphia comprises 5 piers and 2 marineterminals, covering approximately 390 acres and23 berths.

The Port of Portland comprises 5 marine facilities over approximately 1800 acres. 

The Port of St. Louis extends 70 miles along bothbanks of the Mississippi River.

A total of 134 

piers, wharves and docks are located within the Port of St. Louis (76 on the Missouri side and 58 on the Illinois side).

Web Site www.philaport.co

m www.portofportlandor.com Not Available 

Channel Depth 40 feet 55 feet Not Available Total Volume (Tonnage) 40824498 34313663 33337815 Total Value (in millions) 9986 10533 Not Available Number of Calls In 2000, 954 Tanker Calls, 492 Dry Bulk Calls, 468 

Containership Calls, 825 Other General Calls 

In 2000, 277 Tanker Calls, 1,279 Dry Bulk Calls, 262 Containership Calls, 345 Other General Calls Not Available 

Imports steel, fruit, cocoa beans, paper/pulp, motor vehicles, 

over-dimension/heavy-lift, liquid bulk, project 

automobiles, steel products, footwear, clothing, toys, canned foods Not Available 

Exports Not Available wheat, lumber, hay, barley, machinery, paperboard, linerboard, frozen vegetables, soda ash, potash, urea Petroleum, chemicals, grain and coal Major Trade Partners Served 

Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, Germany, theNetherlands, France, and South Korea Not Available Not Available 

Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

PRPA and its 11-member Board of regional business leaders are now pursuing the next phase of the Port of Philadelphia's evolution: Project 21. The aim of this project is the total modernization of the Delaware River's industrial waterfront. As part of an EPA Superfund agreement, a 1,200-foot pier along the Delaware River is planned to support warehouses, special port facilities, a container cargo dock, and the city’s first dedicated passenger ship terminal. Plans also include refrigerated warehouses and container shipberths with on-dock rail service and special facilities for handling automobiles, dry bulk materials, andrefrigerated liquid bulk commodities. The Port ofPhiladelphia is in the process of deepening from 40’ to45’ the main channel of the Delaware River from the ocean to the marine ter

minals in Philadelphia 

and Camden. 

The Columbia River Channel improvement project aims to deepen the Columbia River navigation channel from40 to 43 feet, at a cost of $156 million

The City of St. Louis is also exa

mining ways to

make needed repairs and upgrade its port facilities. A recent study recommended that the city improve port access, navigationand technology. 

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 245
246 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Freeport, Tex

as Seattle Port Everglades 

Harbor Size The Port of Freeport land and operations currently 

include 186 acres of developed land and 7,723 acres of undeveloped land, and 5 operating berths. 

The Port of Seattle is composed of three harbors with the North Harbor located in Puget Sound and the Central and South Harbors are located withinElliot Bay.

Port Everglades's jurisdiction encompasses 2,190 total acres, which includes 1,742 acres of upland and 448 acres of submerged land.

Web Site www.portfreeport.com www.portseattle.org www.broward.org/portChannel Depth 45 feet 50 feet 47 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 28966389 24155552 22500201 Total Value (in millions) 4944 32306 10540 Number of Calls In 2000, 516 Tanker Calls, 18 Dry Bulk Calls, 46 

Containership Calls, 61 Other General Calls

In 2000, 49 Tanker Calls, 229 Dry Bulk Calls, 794 Containership Calls, 78 Other General Calls

In 2000, 345 Tanker Calls, 123 Dry Bulk Calls,211 Containership Calls, 135 

Other 

General Calls 

Imports 

bananas, miscellaneous fruit, project cargo, aggregate 

wearing apparel, office and data processing machines, motor vehicle parts, electrical/electronic equipment,and telecommunications, sound and recording equipment 

gasoline and aviation fuel, cement and clinkers, petroleum/crude and fuel oil, apparels, fruits, residues, steel bars, asphalt and calcined alumina, bypsu

m, beer and ale, coal and 

coke, coffee 

Exports 

rice, chemicals, general cargo 

paper, meats, industrial equipment, hides, grains, cereals, motor vehicle parts, inorganic chemicals, frozen vegetables, animal feeds 

general cargo, grocery products, fabrics, building/construction material, paper, poultry, automobile parts, logs and lumber, automobiles, gasoline and aviation fuel, trucks, lifts and parts, non-alcoholic beverages, fruits 

Major Trade Partners Served 

Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Mexico, Africa, and the Dominican Republic

China, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines 

Brazil, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Costa Rica and Colombia 

Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

Future expansion includes building a 1,300-acre multimodal facility, cruise terminal and containers terminal.

A $7.1 million electrical upgrade will accommodate additional large vessels and seiners or long-liners. ThePort also plans to reconfigure the docks at Fishermen's Terminal. At the Bell Street Pier Cruise Terminal, a$16.9 million capital upgrade is scheduled. The Port isconducting a joint dredging project for the first 3,000 feet (914 meters) of the East 

Water

way of the 

Duwamish River. The Port is investing more than $1 billion over 10 years in capital improvements aimed at upgrading and expanding its waterfront facilities.

The Port Everglades 20-year Master Plan envisionsfour complex projects: Project 1 – PetroleumFacilities; Projects 2 and 3 – Cruise Facilities; and Project 4 – Container Facilities.
SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Tacoma Charleston Boston Harbor Size The Port of Tacoma has 2,400 acres that are used for

shipping ter

minal activity and warehouse, distributing, 

and manufacturing 

The Port of Charleston has 4 marine terminals with over 12,00 total feet of berthing space on over 400 acres. Not Available 

Web Site www.portoftacoma.com www.port-of-charleston.com www.massport.co

m

Channel Depth 45-55 feet 45 feet 40 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 22286610 21081838 20750789 Total Value (in millions) 19843 31516 5780 Number of Calls In 2000, 68 Tanker Calls, 218 Dry Bulk Calls, 568 

Containership Calls, 342 Other General Calls 

In 2000, 149 Tanker Calls, 139 Dry Bulk Calls, 1,547Containership Calls, 332 Other General Calls 120 Calls in 2001 

Imports machinery, vehicles, electronics, toys and sports 

equipment, footwear and apparel 

consumer goods, iron and steel, chemicals, foodstuffs,textiles, machinery

automobiles, beer and wine, games and sport equipment, ceramic tiles, fish and shellfish,footwear, furniture, paper 

Exports forest products, cereals, grain, machinery, meat, 

vehicles, fruit and vegetables 

chemicals, paper products, wood pulp, foodstuffs, machinery, vehicles, clay 

fish and products, hides and skins, household goods, logs and lumber, metal waste and scrap, paper and waste paper resin 

Major Trade Partners Served Japan and China North Europe and Asia Halifax, the Suez Canal, China, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

PT is participating in the FAST Corridor program – aregional effort to increase the efficiency of movingfreight and people in and around Puget Sound. The$33 million PT Road Overpass project was the first FAST Corridor project to be completed. Vision 2020: Over the next 20 years, the study recommends that the Port undertake more than $250 million in capital projects to: 1) Accommodate larger ships 2) Stimulate business gro

wth, and 3) Meet the Port's 

public responsibilities.

The SPA's near-term capital expansion program calls for $300 million to improve productivity and utilization.The $150 million Charleston harbor deepening project began in 1999 and will deepen channels to 45 feet at low tide by 2004. Over the coming seven years, the Ports Authority plans to invest $300 million, from internal funds and revenue bonds, in its facilities to handle growth by existing customers and to continue improving service levels. The SP

A has 3 major projects

underway to serve its customers and the state's businesscommunity. Long-term needs require the development of new capacity, and the SPA is preparing to permit a new marine terminal on the Cooper River side ofDaniel Island. 

Funds for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improve

ment Project have been appropriated to

proceed with maintenance and improvement dredging. The project will increase the depth inthe Reserved Channel and Mystic River to 40 feet, matching the depth of the main ship channel.The Massachusetts Seaport Bond Bill, approved in 1996, authorizes funding for doublestack clearances in Massachusetts.

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 247
248 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Jacksonville Savannah Honolulu Harbor Size 

The Port of Jacksonville’s three public seaport terminals cover a combined 1,600 acres of land.

The Port of Savannah has over 1400 acres of ter

minal

area (total) and over 14,000 linear feet for berthing.

Essentially all of the of Hawaii’s overseas waterborne traffic enters and leaves Honolulu Harbor. It is comprised of over 30 berths and isalmost 30,000 feet long.

Web Site www.jaxport.com www.gaports.com www.ha

waii.gov/dot

Channel Depth 38 feet 42 feet 45 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 19701277 19516589 15501001 Total Value (in millions) 10264 16324 1920 Number of Calls In 2000, 204 Tanker Calls, 190 Dry Bulk Calls, 305 

Containership Calls, 592 Other General Calls 

In 2000, 253 Tanker Calls, 330 Dry Bulk Calls, 739 Containership Calls, 447 Other General Calls 

In 2000, 141 Tanker Calls, 84 Dry Bulk Calls,339 Containership Calls, 112 

Other 

General Calls 

Imports petroleum, coal and coke, gypsum, gasoline/aviation 

fuel, automobiles, cement, limestone chips, granite,crude minerals, steel wire rods 

Not Available 

petroleum products, crude material, primary manufactured goods, food and far

m products, 

manufacture equipment, machinery and products 

Exports containers, phosphoric/sulfuric acids, bulk potassic 

fertilizer, paper/paperboard, automobiles, beer and ale, grocery products, honey and syrup 

Not Available food and farm products, manufactured equipment, machinery and products

Major Trade Partners Served 

Puerto Rico, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Virgin Islands, Japan, Italy, andthe U.K. 

Canada, Japan, Mexico, the U.K., and Ger

many Not Available 

Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

In 1999 President Clinton signed into law the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which authorized the deepening of Jacksonville's harbor to a depth of 40feet to meet the needs of new, even larger cargo ships which will seek to call Jacksonville in the future. To better serve existing and future port users, J

AXPORT has 

committed more than $200 million in capital projects over the past several years to improve its three marineterminals and Jacksonville's harbor. 

Container Berth Eight will commence development during 2001. Upon completion, CB-8 will offer more than 70 acres for marshalling of containerized cargo. 1700 feet of berthing space and four high-speed super post-Panamax container cranes. The deepening of the Savannah Channel up to 48 feet (14.6 m) or more at mean low water. Additional land to increase capacity now (200+/80.9+hectares).

Efforts to further deepen the harbor and improve the entrance channel will be coordinated with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Recommendations

for Barbers Point Deep Draft Harbor under the 2020 Master Plan include the expansion of the harbor with additional piers and yards to accommodate expanded cargo capabilities. Federal funds will be used toward the installationof new technology that utilizes Global Positioning Satellites to facilitate the identification, delivery,and transfer of cargo. Additionally, KewaloBasin's plans reflect a gradual transition to oceanbased tourist activities with com

mercial fishing 

being relocated to Honolulu Harbor and Keehi Lagoon. 
SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port San Juan (PR) Oakland Miami Harbor Size The San Juan Seaport Project includes the pier district 

and the San Antonio Channel district, an area thatcovers approximately 87 acres. 

Port of Oakland has 10 container terminals and 2 intermodal rail facilities serve the Oakland waterfront, with 17 deepwater berths and 32 container cranes. 

The Port of Miami is situated on 640 acres with 19,687 linear feet of berthing space.

Web Site Not Available www.portofoakland.com 

w

w

w.co.miami-dade.fl.us/portof

miami 

Channel Depth 40 feet 42 feet 42 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 13839937 12161363 8609996 Total Value (in millions) 4402 25063 17546 Number of Calls In 2000, 80 Tanker Calls, 101 Dry Bulk Calls, 610 

Containership Calls, 553 Other General Calls In 2001, the Port had 1,856 vessel arrivals. In 2000, 11 Tanker Calls, 65 Dry Bulk Calls, 766 Containership Calls, 370 Other General Calls 

Imports 

petroleum derivative, miscellaneous food products, apparel, molasses, basic che

micals, paper products 

auto parts, computer equipment, apparel, manufactured metal items, beverages, prepared foods, frozen meat, newsprint, paper and paperboard, monument or building stone, electrical machinery and appliances 

stone, clay, cement and cement tiles, fruits and vegetables, apparel, alcoholic beverages, lumber and wood 

Exports fish, shellfish, electrical machinery, gasoline,

and apparel 

fruits and vegetables, waste paper, red meat and poultry, resins, chemicals, ani

mal feed, raw cotton, 

wood and lumber, beverages and scrap metal 

textiles, paper, food products, spare parts, iron, steel and other materials

Major Trade Partners Served Cargo to PR is nearly all one way Japan, mainland China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and South Korea Honduras, Italy, Spain, Guatemala, Brazil, Venezuela, Dominican Republic and Jamaica Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

A mitigation plan will create 1.8 acres of shallow water habitat to mitigate for the loss of 1.2 acres of algal beds. An additional 3.2 acres of low emergentislands/mudflats will be created through the beneficial use of dredged material. Authorization was also given for San Antonio Channel to be extended 1,500 feet east with a depth increase to 36 feet along the varyingchannel width; Cruise Ship Basin to a depth of 36 feetat an irregular width bet

ween San Antonio Channel 

and the cruise ship piers on the south side of Old San Juan; and Ancorage Area E to a depth of 38 feet andmooring dolphins added for vessels using the area. 

The $700 million Vision 2000 program includes deepening channels and berths from -42' to -50'. A central feature of the Vision 2000 project is an increasein facilities and storage needed for efficient cargo movement. The new Berths 55-58 will provide 5400 feet of berthing area where four ships may be loadedor unloaded and will include 250 acres of new marine terminals and container yards. The alignment and size of the new marine and rail terminals provide the storage necessary for efficient throughput of containersfrom ship to rail or truck and on to their destinations. 

Phase II of the port's dredging project continues the deepening of the South Channel and theCentral Turning Basin. The forecast schedule calls for the physical completion of the project construction by the summer of 2003.

A GRR 

study is also underway to examine the feasibility ofwidening and lowering the depth of the channels. New construction projects, which total $170 million, include: the construction of new cruise terminals; remodeling of two existing terminals;two additional multi-level parking garages; reconfiguration for access roads; a cruise, cargo and security gateway complex; storage sheds; additional wharf construction; mooring improvements; security improvements; and, newwarehouse space.

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 249
250 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information

Port Anchorage San Francisco Hampton Roads Harbor Size 

A 128.96 acre Industrial Park adjoins the Port to the east. Approximately 80.87 acres of the Park are under long-term lease to various Port users. Additionally,there are 31.0 acres for the staging and storage of marine cargo in transit. 

The Port of San Francisco is 7-1/2 miles of San Francisco Bay shoreline with more than 1,000 acres under its jurisdiction.

The Port of Virginia boasts 16 Foreign Trade Zone Sites covering more than 3,500 acres with 3marine ter

minals. 

Web Site www.muni.org/port/index.cfm www.sfport.com www.vaports.comChannel Depth 30 to 70 feet 55 feet 50 feet Total Volume (Tonnage) 3827886 3588324 Total Value (in millions) 1909 6830 28386 Number of Calls 

Not Available Not Available 

In 2000, 155 Tanker Calls, 436 Dry Bulk Calls,1,557 Containership Calls, 348 

Other 

General Calls 

Imports 

containerized, liquid bulk, dry bulk coffee, steel, wine, frozen meat, lumber 

tobacco, auto engines and parts, natural rubber,paper and paperboard, construction and building equipment, alcoholic beverages, metal manufactures, cocoa beans, machinery parts, manufactured or processed food 

Exports 

containerized, liquid bulk wastepaper, cotton, animal feed, foodstuffs 

logs and lumber, paper and paperboard, wood pulp, tobacco, auto parts, alcoholic beverages, poultry, pet and animal feeds, staple fibers andfabrics, alcohol and alcoholic derivatives 

Major Trade Partners Served Japan, Korea Mexico, Japan, Canada, Taiwan, the U.K., South 

Korea, China, and Germany Canada, Japan, Germany, Mexico, and the U.K. 

Futur

e Improvements 

Planned The Port is currently participating in regional efforts to

develop of natural resource industries. To facilitate movement of these cargoes and provide for the requirements of existing customers, the Port is concentrating its efforts in three areas: 1) developingand improving land managed by the Port; 2) improving and expanding the intermodal network serving the Port; 3) replacing an aging under-capacity petroleum valveyard needed to service fuel distributions. A 2-yearmaintenance-dredging contract was awarded. Also underway is the resurfacing, rehabilitation and reconstruction project of Ocean Dock Road. 

With the demolition of the double-decked Embarcadero Freeway, the Port has the opportunity toreunite the City with its waterfront. Throughout the waterfront, the Port provides plazas, walks, parks, and public access on piers, which afford City residents and visitors alike the opportunity to enjoy the spectacular waterfront setting. Projects include the Pier 43 Ferry Terminal, the Pier 27-31 Mixed Use Recreation Project,the Bryant Street Pier and Cruise Terminal Project, andthe Pier 70 Opportunity Area. 

The Port has identified more than $334.8 millionin significant improvements to existing facilities and construction of new facilities in order to accommodate the potential cargo growth, including plans for each of the VPA terminals, with a focus on the expansion of NIT and the need for expanded on–terminal intermodal rail access, are included. The navigation system will get an upgrade as part of several safety and security enhancements that the VPA plans to fund with a portion of $135 million in revenue bonds. The bulk of proceeds from the bonds will cover the costs to replace the aging wharf, dredge the river, improve equipment and modernize cranes at theNorfolk International Terminals South.
SUPPLE

M

E

NT 2-2: Selected U.S. Ports Information 

Port Morgan City Harbor Size The Port of Morgan City has a 500-foot dock 

with 300-foot extension can easily accom

modate 

large vessels. There is also a 20,000 sq. feetwarehouse with security and sprinkler systems. 

Web Site www.portofmc.comChannel Depth 20 feetTotal Volume (Tonnage) Not Available Total Value (in millions) 9387 Number of Calls Not Available Imports steel, wire rod, galvanized coils, produce, 

fertilizers, and alcoholic beverages. 

Exports newsprint, forest products, steel, cotton, pipe, 

and pharmaceuticals. 

Major Trade Partners Served Not Available Futur

e Improvements 

Planned 

There are two pri

mary objectives for this 

M

ARITECH project. Project Task 1 seeks to 

improve the existing product lines and develop anew product line, the "Swift Express" family of cre

w/supply vessels, utilizing multiple diesel

engines combined with waterjet propulsors.Project Task 2 has as its objective the improvement of the existing Swiftships, Inc. physical plant and the design and development of an entirely new "Shipyard 2000" to build the Swift Express vessels for world markets. 

Chapter 2 Supplemental Materials 251
NO SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR CHAPTER 3:

OCEAN AND COASTAL SAFETY AND PROTECTION 

252 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-1: National Marine Fisheries Service Facilities

Facility Location of Facility Description of Facility 

Alaska Regional Office Juneau, AK Primarily focuses on management and regulations

for the Alaskan region. 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

(AFSC) 

Seattle, WA Conducts resource assessment and conservation 

engineering and resource ecology and fisheries 

management. Also contains the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory for ecosystem studies. 

Auke Bay Laboratory (ABL) Juneau, AK Primarily used for salmonid research. Plans to 

relocate to a new NOAA Consolidated Facility 

in Juneau. 

Kodiak Laboratory Kodiak, AK Primary facility for Alaska’s Shellfish Assessment 

Program. Also houses an extensive museum 

collection of marine species.

Little Port Walter Field Station (LPW) Sitka, AK LPW is the oldest year-round biological research 

station in Alaska, accessible only by boat or 

seaplane. Projects primarily focus on salmonid 

experimentation and research. 

Dutch Harbor Facility Dutch Harbor, AK A field office for the North Pacific Groundfish 

Observer Program. 

Anchorage Observer Office Anchorage, AK Coordinates support for observers involved in the

North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program, 

provides assistance to the North Pacific Observer

Training Center, and coordinates Community

Development Quota activities with the NMFS

Regional Office. 

Hatfield Marine Science Center Newport, OR Conducts laboratory research on the behavioral 

responses of commercially important marine fishes 

to environmental factors. 

Lena Point Research Facility Project Juneau, AK Under construction. Will allow NMFS to increase 

its capability to conduct critical and scientific 

research programs in Alaska. 

Juneau Subport Gastineau Channel, Juneau, 

AK 

Part of ABL. Supports ABL research by providing 

construction, maintenance, and warehouse space,

in addition to moorage and support services for 

NOAA vessels. 

NMFS Office of Exxon Valdez Oil 

Spill Damage Assessment and 

Restoration (EVOS) 

Juneau, AK Research focuses on the impact of the remaining

oil on the environment, and new research is 

developing long-term strategies for understanding 

the relative roles of human and natural factors as 

sources of change in the ecosystem. 

Northeast Regional Office Gloucester, MA Administers NOAA's programs in the Northeastern 

United States to manage living marine resources 

for optimum use. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, MA The Center plans, develops, and manages a

multidisciplinary program of basic and applied

research to better understand living marine 

resources of the Northeast Continental 

Shelf Ecosystem.

Woods Hole Laboratory Woods Hole, MA Conducts fisheries and ecosystem monitoring

research. Homeport for two research vessels, the

R/V Albatross IV and R/V Delaware II. 

Milford Laboratory Milford, CT Present research emphasizes aquaculture and 

habitat-related work. A 49-foot vessel, the R/V

Victor Loosanoff, is also docked at the Laboratory 

for nearshore research. 

James J. Howard Laboratory Sandy Hook, NJ The primary mission of the Howard Laboratory is 

to conduct research in ecology, leading to a better 

understanding of both coastal and estuarine 

organisms and the effects of human activities on 

nearshore marine populations. 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 253
SUPPLEMENT 4-1: National Marine Fisheries Service Facilities

Facility Location of Facility Description of Facility 

Narragansett Laboratory Narragansett, RI Supports research on the effects of changing

environmental conditions on the growth and 

survival of fish stocks from an 

ecosystem perspective. 

National Systematics Laboratory Washington, DC Serves as the taxonomic research arm of NOAA 

Fisheries as a whole. The Laboratory describes 

and names new species, and revises existing 

descriptions and names based on new 

information, of fishes, squids, crustaceans, and

corals of economic or ecological importance to

the United States.

Orono Field Station Orono, ME NA 

Northwest Regional Office Seattle, WA Conserve, protect, and manage Pacific salmon, 

groundfish, halibut and marine mammals and

their habitats under the Endangered Species Act 

and other laws. 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

(NFSC) 

Seattle, WA Conducts research in conservation biology,

environmental conservation, fish ecology, fishery 

resource analysis and monitoring, and resource 

enhancement and utilization technology.

Manchester Field Station Manchester, WA Not Available 

Mukilteo Field Station Mukilteo, WA Not Available 

Pasco Field station Pasco, WA Not Available 

Hammond Field Station Hammond, OR Not Available 

Newport Field Station Newport, OR Not Available 

Southeast Regional Office (SERO) St. Petersburg, FL Responsible for the conservation, management, 

and protection of marine fishery resources 

inhabiting waters off the southeastern United 

States, the management and protection of marine 

mammals and endangered species, and habitat

protection and restoration. 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

(SEFSC) 

Miami, FL The Center provides supervisory 

and administrative support to large marine 

ecosystems programs performing fishery research, 

collecting and reporting on statistical data and 

controlling and operating Center data 

management support systems. 

Panama City Laboratory Panama City, FL The current research program encompasses a 

spectrum of research projects ranging from basic 

research on fishery ecology and oceanography to

routine monitoring and data collection. The 

fisheries of primary interest are for reef fish and

coastal pelagic species. 

Galveston Laboratory Galveston, TX The only Federal fisheries laboratory west of the 

Mississippi River on the Gulf of Mexico. Contains 

the largest and most extensive federally operated 

sea water system in the southeastern United States. 

In addition, is the only federal facility in the United 

States dedicated to captive rearing of sea turtles.

This laboratory provides scientific information on 

the management of commercial and recreational 

shellfish and finfish, conservation of coastal 

habitats, and protection of threatened and 

endangered marine species of the Gulf of Mexico. 

254 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-1: National Marine Fisheries Service Facilities

Facility Location of Facility Description of Facility 

Mississippi Laboratory Pascagoula, MS Conducts vessel, submersible, and aircraft surveys

of fish, endangered species, and marine 

mammals; gear research to achieve conservation 

objectives, improve operating efficiencies and

develop new fisheries; and research to improve 

effectiveness of sampling systems and to apply 

satellite technology to fisheries. This branch

includes staff at the Stennis Space Center facility.

Beaufort Laboratory Beaufort, NC Conducts research in habitat utilization, fish

ecology, chemical and physiological processes, 

reef resources, population dynamics, and 

technology and spatial analysis. 

Southwest Regional Office Long Beach, CA Its programs assess, manage, and promote the 

conservation of living marine resources.

La Jolla Laboratory La Jolla, CA Conducts research on Pacific and Antarctic fish, 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and 

marine habitats. 

Santa Cruz Laboratory Santa Cruz, CA A state-of-the art facility for Pacific salmon and 

groundfish research and home of the new

National Science Center for Marine

Protected Areas. 

Pacific Fisheries Environmental 

Laboratory 

Pacific Grove, CA Emphasizes the study of environmental influences

on marine resources and provides environmental 

information to fishery researchers and managers. 

Work closely with FNMOC, which is the primary 

U.S. government facility concerned with marine 

weather and ocean conditions. 

Honolulu Laboratory Honolulu, HI Conducts research on tunas and billfishes, bottom 

fishes, lobster, deep-sea shrimp, sea turtles, and

the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal. 

Kewalo Research Facility Honolulu, HI This facility includes laboratories tailored for

various research activities, including saltwater 

tanks for fisheries and protected marine 

animal research. 

Pacific Islands Area Office Honolulu, HI Provides assistance and support with the 

sustainable fisheries program, protected resources 

program, habitat conservation program, and 

Hawaii long line observer program in the Pacific 

Islands geographical area. 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 255
SUPPLEMENT 4-2: UNOLS Research Vessels

Name Year Length 

(ft) Institution Mission Region* 

KNORR 1991 279 Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution 

Oceanography 

(Global) NE 

MELVILLE 1991 279 Scripps Institution of

Oceanography 

Oceanography 

(Global) WC 

ATLANTIS 1997 274 Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution 

Oceanography 

(Global) submersible 

support 

NE 

ROGER REVELLE 1996 274 Scripps Institution of

Oceanography 

Oceanography 

(Global) WC 

THOMAS G. 

THOMPSON 1991 274 University of Washington Oceanography 

(Global) WC 

MAURICE EWING 1983 239 Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory

Oceanography and 

geophysical survey

(Global) 

MA 

SEWARD JOHNSON 1984 204 Harbor Branch

Oceanographic Institution 

Oceanography 

(intermediate) 

submersible support 

SE 

WECOMA 1975 185 Oregon State University Oceanography 

(intermediate) WC 

ENDEAVOR 1993 184 University of Rhode Island Oceanography 

(intermediate) NE 

GYRE 1980 182 Texas A&M University Oceanography 

(intermediate) GM 

OCEANUS 1975 177 Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution 

Oceanography 

(intermediate) NE 

NEW HORIZON 1978 170 Scripps Institution of

Oceanography 

Oceanography 

(intermediate) WC 

SEWARD JOHNSON 

II 1988 168 Harbor Branch

Oceanographic Institution 

Oceanography 

(intermediate) SE 

CAPE HATTERAS 1981 135 Duke University Oceanography 

(Regional) SE 

POINT SUR 1981 135 Moss Landing Marine 

Laboratories 

Oceanography 

(Regional) WC 

ALPHA HELIX 1965 133 University of Alaska Oceanography 

(Regional) AK 

ROBERT GORDON 

SPROUL 1981 125 Scripps Institution of

Oceanography 

Oceanography 

(Regional) WC 

CAPE HENLOPEN 1976 120 University of Delaware Oceanography 

(Regional) MA 

WEATHERBIRD II 1993 115 Bermuda Biological Station 

for Research

Oceanography 

(Regional) MA 

KILO MOANA 2002 113 University of 

Hawaii/SOEST 

Oceanography 

(Regional) WP

PELICAN 1985 105 Louisiana Universities of 

Marine Consortium

Oceanography 

(Regional) GM 

LONGHORN 1986 103 University of Texas Marine

Science Institute Oceanography (Local) GM 

URRACA 1986 96 Smithsonian Tropical 

Research Institute Oceanography (Local) C 

F. G. WALTON

SMITH 2000 96 University of Miami Oceanography (Local) SE 

SAVANNAH 2001 92 Skidaway Institute of 

Oceanography Oceanography (Local) SE 

BLUE HERON 1985 87 Large Lakes Observatory 

University of Minnesota Oceanography (Local) GL 

CLIFFORD A. 

BARNES 1966 66 University of Washington Oceanography (Local) WC 

*Regions: GL – Great Lakes; NE – Northeast; MA – Mid Atlantic; SA – South Atlantic; C – Caribbean; GM – Gulf of Mexico; 

WC – West Coast; AK – Alaska; WP – Western Pacific

256 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
 SUPPLEMENT 4-3: Academic Research Vessels

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

LITTLE DIPPER 2002 26 University of Alaska

Fairbanks 

Coastal research and 

marine education AK 

GAVIOTA 1957 34 

Department of Marine 

Sciences, University of

Puerto Rico 

Coastal research and 

marine education C 

SULTANA NA 54 

Department of Marine 

Sciences, University of

Puerto Rico 

Coastal research and 

marine education C 

PEZMAR 1975 58 

Department of Marine 

Sciences, University of

Puerto Rico 

Coastal research and 

marine education C 

CHAPMAN 1980 127 

Department of Marine 

Sciences, University of

Puerto Rico Oceanography C 

D. J. ANGUS 1985 45 Grand Valley State 

University 

Coastal research and 

marine education GL 

W. G. JACKSON 1995 65 Grand Valley State 

University 

Coastal research and 

marine education GL 

INLAND SEAS 1994 62 Inland Seas Education

Association 

Coastal research and 

marine education GL 

NOODIN NA 25 Large Lakes Observatory 

University of Minnesota 

Coastal research and 

marine education GL 

NAVICULA 1961 30 Michigan Technological 

University 

Coastal research and 

marine education GL 

GIBRALTAR III 1981 42 

Ohio State University Ohio 

State Franz Theodore 

Stone Laboratory 

Coastal and fisheries 

research, and marine 

education GL 

BIOLAB 1947 37 Ohio State University 

Coastal research and 

marine education GL 

STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 1985 224 U.S. Merchant Marine

Academy Great Lakes Maritime education GL 

LAURENTIAN 1974 80 University of Michigan 

Oceanography and 

marine education GL 

MELOSIRA NA 45 University of Vermont 

Coastal research and 

marine education GL 

NEESKAY 1970 71 University of Wisconsin 

Oceanography and 

marine education GL 

BOAT 1982 32 Auburn University

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

VERRILL 1965 65 Dauphin Island Sea Lab 

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

LONE STAR NA 70 

Department of Geology 

and Geophysics, Rice 

University 

Geophysical research, 

oceanography , and 

marine education GM 

BELLOWS 1969 72 Florida Institute of

Oceanography 

Oceanography and 

marine education GM 

SUNCOASTER 1962 107 Florida Institute of

Oceanography Oceanography GM 

SEMINOLE NA 41 Florida State University 

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

HERMES 1968 38 

Gulf Coast Research 

Laboratory, University of 

Southern Mississippi 

Coastal and fisheries 

research, and marine 

education GM 

TOM MCILWAIN 1978 55 

Gulf Coast Research 

Laboratory, University of 

Southern Mississippi 

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

TOMMY MUNRO 1981 87 

Gulf Coast Research 

Laboratory, University of 

Southern Mississippi Oceanography GM 

ACADIANA 1985 58 Louisiana Universities 

Marine Consortium

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 257
 SUPPLEMENT 4-3: Academic Research Vessels

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

EUGENIE CLARK 1999 46 Mote Marine Laboratory 

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

JOIDES 

RESOLUTION 1984 470 

Texas A&M University Geophysical survey GM 

IX508 1959 125 University of Southern

Mississippi Oceanography GM 

T. GUY BRAGG 1990 38 University of Texas at 

Austin

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

KATY TRAWLER 1981 57 University of Texas at 

Austin

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

MARIE HALL 1996 60 University of Texas Medical 

Branch

Coastal research and 

marine education GM 

HENRY M. 

STOMMEL NA 41 Bermuda Biological 

Station for Research, Inc. 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

AQUARIUS 1970 40 Buffalo State College 

Great Lakes Center 

Coastal and fisheries 

research, and marine 

education MA 

SENECA 1961 46 Buffalo State College 

Great Lakes Center 

Coastal and fisheries 

research, and marine 

education MA 

H.W.S. EXPLORER 1954 61 Hobart and William Smith 

Colleges 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

PHILIP N PARKER NA 50 Marine Science 

Consortium 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

DONALD W. 

PRITCHARD 1989 28 Marine Sciences Research 

Center, SUNY 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

SEAWOLF 1982 80 Marine Sciences Research 

Center, SUNY 

Oceanography and 

marine education MA 

FAY SLOVER 2002 55 Old Dominion University

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

LINWOOD 

HOLTON 1953 66 Old Dominion University

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

CALETA NA 30 Rutgers State University of 

New Jersey and IMCS 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

ARABELLA 1996 48 Rutgers State University of 

New Jersey and IMCS 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

SAXATILIS NA 42 Satellite Education 

Resources Consortium 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

JOHN M. 

KINGSBURY 1984 47 Shoals Marine Laboratory 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

SHINNECOCK 1984 34 Southampton College of 

Long Island Univ.

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

PAUMANOK 1986 44 Southampton College of 

Long Island Univ. 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

FOOT PARKER

OUTBOARD 

COASTAL 

RESEARCH VESSEL 

1991 26 

Stevens Institute of

Technology 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

FOOT CUSTOM

DIESEL COASTAL 

RESEARCH VESSEL 

1992 36 Stevens Institute of

Technology 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

JOSEPH LEIDY NA 42 

The Academy of Natural 

Sciences Estuarine 

Research Center 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

MATTHEW F. 

MAURY NA 51 Tidewater Community 

College 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

KING'S POINTER 1985 224 U.S. Merchant Marine

Academy Kings Point Maritime education MA 

258 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
 SUPPLEMENT 4-3: Academic Research Vessels

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

YARD PATROL 

CRAFT YPS86 1986 108 U.S. Naval Academy Maritime education MA 

AQUARIUS 1972 65 University of Maryland 

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

HERON NA 26 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

MARSH HAWK NA 26 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

OSPREY NA 26 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

WOODEN SCOW NA 26 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

CAROLINA SKIFF NA 27 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

STURE OLSSON NA 29 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

FISH HAWK 1990 30 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal and fisheries 

research, and marine 

education MA 

WOODEN BOAT NA 30 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

EAGLE’S NEST NA 36 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

LANGLEY 1972 44 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

BAY EAGLE 1981 65 

Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of

William and Mary

Coastal research and 

marine education MA 

VIRAZON NA 65 Institute Nautical 

Archaeology, Texas A&M Marine archaeology Med 

ARGO MAINE 1968 80 Maine Maritime Academy Maritime education NE 

GEMMA NA 50 Marine Biological 

Laboratory 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

MYSIS 1963 50 Northeastern University 

Marine Science Center 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

NERITIC NA 25 

School of Marine Science 

and Technology University 

of Massachusetts 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

HURRICANE NA 48 

School of Marine Science 

and Technology University 

of Massachusetts 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

LUCKY LADY Na 50 

School of Marine Science 

and Technology, University 

of Massachusetts 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

SOUNDER 1974 42 Schooner Sound Learning 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

ROBERT C. 

SEAMANS 2001 135 Sea Education Association Marine education NE 

WESTWARD 1961 125 Sea Education Association Marine education NE 

CORWITH CRAMER 1988 135 Sea Education Association Marine education NE 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 259
 SUPPLEMENT 4-3: Academic Research Vessels

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

CORSAIR 1966 65 Southeastern

Massachusetts University 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

C.M. HALL 1988 26.7 Southern Maine Technical

College 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

MARINE SCIENCE 1979 30 U.S. Coast Guard

Academy Maritime education NE 

CONNECTICUT 1998 77 University of Connecticut 

Oceanography and 

marine education NE 

NUCELLA NA 27 University of Maine 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

LEE 1975 34 University of Maine 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

IRA C NA 42 University of Maine 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

RESEARCH VESSEL 1984 50 University of Massachusetts 

System 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

BLUE FIN NA 26 University of New 

Hampshire 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

GALEN J. NA 26 University of New 

Hampshire 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

COASTAL 

SURVEYOR NA 40 University of New 

Hampshire 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

ROCK ‘N ROLL NA 40 University of New 

Hampshire 

Coastal and fisheries 

research, and marine 

education NE 

GULF CHALLENGER 1993 51 University of New 

Hampshire 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

CAPTAIN BERT 1987 54 University of Rhode Island 

Coastal and fisheries 

research, and marine 

education NE 

CT-1 1979 80 University of Rhode Island 

Oceanography and 

marine education NE 

ASTERIAS 1979 46 Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution 

Coastal research and 

marine education NE 

MARTECH I 1981 53 Cape Fear Community 

College 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

DAN MOORE 1967 85 Cape Fear Community 

College 

Oceanography and 

maritime education SE 

SUSAN HUDSON 1991 57 Duke University Marine 

Laboratory 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

PARKER 1992 25 East Carolina University 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

SANDRINE 1990 25 East Carolina University 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

NITRO 1964 33 East Carolina University 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

PERKINS 1953 65 East Carolina University 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

OCEANEER IV 1978 34 Florida Atlantic University 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

STEPHAN 1991 65 Florida Atlantic University Ocean engineering SE 

DELPHINUS 1991 60 Florida Institute of

Technology 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

CORAL REEF II 1984 80 John G. Shedd Aquarium 

Oceanography and 

marine education SE 

HUMPHRIES 2003 48 North Carolina State 

University 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

GEORGIA 

BULLDOG 1977 73 University of Georgia 

Marine Extension Service 

Oceanography and 

marine education SE 

260 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
 SUPPLEMENT 4-3: Academic Research Vessels

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

DRUM NA 25 University of Miami 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

SEAHAWK 1999 41 University of North 

Carolina 

Coastal research and 

marine education SE 

CAPE FEAR 1998 70 University of North 

Carolina 

Oceanography and 

marine education SE 

MACGINITIE 1999 28 California State University 

at Monterey Bay 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

FORERUNNER 1969 50 Clatsop Community 

College 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

CORAL SEA 1974 90 Humboldt State University Oceanography WC 

ZEPHYR 1972 87 Monterey Bay Aquarium 

Research Institute Oceanography WC 

POINT LOBOS 1989 110 Monterey Bay Aquarium 

Research Institute Oceanography WC 

WESTERN FLYER 1996 117 Monterey Bay Aquarium 

Research Institute Oceanography (Ocean) WC 

SHEILA B. 2001 30 

Moss Landing Marine 

Laboratories, California

State University 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

ED RICKETTS 1978 35 

Moss Landing Marine 

Laboratories, California

State University 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

JOHN H. MARTIN 1985 56 

Moss Landing Marine 

Laboratories, California

State University 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

ELAKHA 2000 54 Oregon State University 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

QUESTUARY 1975 38 

Romberg Tiburon Center

for Environmental Studies, 

San Francisco State 

University 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

FLIP 1962 355 Scripps Institution of

Oceanography Oceanography WC 

CHARLES A. KANE 1993 101 Seattle Maritime Academy Maritime education WC 

ANOVA NA 31 

Shannon Point Marine 

Center Western

Washington University 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

SEAWATCH 1977 65 Southern California 

Marine Institution 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

YELLOWFIN 1987 76 Southern California 

Marine Institution 

Oceanography and 

marine education WC 

VANTUNA 1969 85 Southern California 

Marine Institution 

Oceanography and 

marine education WC 

NAIA 1984 25 University of California 

Santa Cruz 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

ESTES RADON 26 University of California 

Santa Cruz 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

PARAGON 2002 32 University of California 

Santa Cruz 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

DAVID JOHNSTON 1980 43 University of California 

Santa Cruz 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

CUSTOM 2001 37 University of California,

Davis 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

PLUTEUS 1970 42 University of Oregon 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

SEA WATCH 1957 NA University of Southern

California 

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

C.E. MILLER 1962 50 University of Washington

Coastal research and 

marine education WC 

2000 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 261
 SUPPLEMENT 4-3: Academic Research Vessels

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

J.E. HENDERSON 1959 70 University of Washington

Applied Physics Lab 

Oceanography and 

marine education WC 

KAHOLO 42 Hawaii Pacific University 

Coastal research and 

marine education WP

KILA 1977 104 University of 

Hawaii/SOEST Oceanography WP

KA’IMIKAI-OKANALOA 1978 222 University of 

Hawaii/SOEST 

Oceanography 

submersible support WP

*Regions: GL – Great Lakes; NE – Northeast; MA – Mid Atlantic; SA – South Atlantic; C – Caribbean; GM – Gulf of Mexico; 

WC – West Coast; AK – Alaska; WP – Western Pacific

NA - Information was not available

262 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
 SUPPLEMENT 4-4: Federal Research Vessels 

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

RELENTLESS II NA 21 MMS Marine mammal 

survey 

GM 

NINA 1962 42 MMS Ocean Engineering GM 

LAUNCH 1273 1983 37 MMS Coastal research AK 

USNS JOHN MCDONNELL NA 208 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

USNS KANE NA 285 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

USNS SILAS BENT NA 285 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

USNS BOWDITCH NA 329 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

USNS BRUCE C. HEEZEN NA 329 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

USNS HENSON NA 329 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

USNS PATHFINDER NA 329 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

USNS SUMNER NA 329 Navy Oceanography 

Survey NA 

KA’IMIMOANA 1996 224 NOAA Oceanography 

research WP

OSCAR ELTON SETTE 1987 224 NOAA Fisheries research WP

VINDICATOR/HI’IALAKAI 1984 224 NOAA Fisheries research 

coral reef mapping 

WP

XANTU NA 28 NOAA Marine sanctuary

support WC 

SEA OTTER NA 57 NOAA Fisheries Research WC 

SHEARWATER NA 62 NOAA Marine sanctuary

support WC 

DAVID STARR JORDAN 1965 171 NOAA Fisheries research WC 

MILLER FREEMAN 1967 215 NOAA Fisheries research WC 

INDOMITABLE/MCARTHUR 1985 224 NOAA 

Oceanography and 

atmospheric 

research 

WC 

RAINIER 1968 231 NOAA Nautical charting WC 

JANE YARN NA 65 NOAA Marine sanctuary

support SE 

POINT LOBOS NA 82 NOAA Marine sanctuary

support SE 

POINT MONROER NA 82 NOAA Marine sanctuary

support SE 

NANCY FOSTER 1990 186 NOAA Coastal research SE 

RONALD H. BROWN 1996 274 NOAA 

Oceanography and 

atmospheric 

research 

SE 

DELAWARE II 1968 155 NOAA Fisheries Research NE 

ALBATROSS IV 1962 187 NOAA Fisheries research NE 

LAIDLEY NA 54 NOAA Coastal research MA 

BAY HYDROGRAPHER NA 55 NOAA Nautical Charting MA 

GLORIA MICHELE NA 72 NOAA Fisheries surveys. MA 

RUDE 1966 90 NOAA Nautical charting MA 

JOHN N. COBB 1950 93 NOAA Fisheries research MA 

WHITING 1963 163 NOAA Fisheries research MA 

LITTLEHALES 1991 208 NOAA Nautical charting MA 

CARETTA NA 58 NOAA Fisheries Research GM 

OREGON II 1967 170 NOAA Fisheries research GM 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 263
 SUPPLEMENT 4-4: Federal Research Vessels 

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

GORDON GUNTER 1989 224 NOAA Fisheries research GM 

FAIRWEATHER 1967 231 NOAA Nautical charting GM 

SHENEHON 1952 66 NOAA Coastal research GL 

ARCTIC WHALER 1981 25 NOAA Coastal research AK 

OSCAR DYSON 2004 209 NOAA Fisheries research AK 

NATHANIEL B. PALMER 1991 309 NSF Polar research, 

icebreaker SO 

LAWRENCE M. GOULD 1997 250 NSF Polar research, 

icebreaker SO 

SAXATIUS NA NA 

Smithsonian

Environmental

Research Center 

Coastal research MA 

SUNBURST NA NA 

Smithsonian

Marine Station Fort 

Pierce 

Coastal research SE 

USCGC POLAR SEA 1976 399 USCG Polar research, 

icebreaker AK 

USCGC POLAR STAR 1976 399 USCG Polar research, 

icebreaker AK 

USCGC HEALY 1998 420 USCG Polar research, 

icebreaker AK 

LEAR NA 35 EPA Environmental

research and survey 

MA 

PETER W. ANDERSON 1978 165 EPA Environmental

research and survey 

MA 

MUDPUPPY 1988 32 EPA Environmental

research and survey 

GL 

LAKE EXPLORER 1963 82 EPA Environmental

research and survey 

GL 

LAKE GUARDIAN 1980 180 EPA Environmental

research and survey 

GL 

TOGUE 1975 73 USFWS Fisheries research GL 

POLARIS 1927 96 USGS Environmental

research and survey 

WC 

RAFAEL NA 25 USGS Coastal geophysical 

survey 

NE 

G.K. GILBERT 1993 50 USGS Coastal geophysical 

survey 

GM 

MUSKY II 1960 45 USGS Coastal and fisheries 

research GL 

KAHO 1961 65 USGS Coastal and fisheries 

research GL 

GRAYLING 1977 75 USGS Coastal and fisheries 

research GL 

KIYI 1999 107 USGS Coastal and fisheries 

research GL 

KARLUK 1975 42 USGS Coastal geophysical 

survey 

AK 

*Regions: GL – Great Lakes; NE – Northeast; MA – Mid Atlantic; SA – South Atlantic; C – Caribbean; GM – Gulf of Mexico; 

WC – West Coast; AK – Alaska; WP – Western Pacific

NA – Information was not available

264 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-5: State Research Vessels 

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

MEDEIA NA 110 Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game Fisheries research AK 

MONTAGUE NA 58 Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game Fisheries research AK 

GULF COAST 

TRAWLER NA 87 California Dept Fish and 

Game Fisheries research WC 

GUMAR NA 45 California Dept Fish and 

Game Fisheries research WC 

MUNSEN NA 32 California Dept Fish and 

Game Fisheries research WC 

C.C.G.S. LIMNOS 1968 147 Dept Fisheries and Ocean 

Canadian Coast Guard Fisheries research GL 

C.C.G.S. SHARK 1971 51 Dept Fisheries and Ocean 

Canadian Coast Guard 

Water quality 

monitoring GL 

SCULPIN NA 32 Illinois Natural History 

Survey Fisheries research GL 

O. MYKISS 1988 34 

Indiana Department 

Natural Resources Lake 

Michigan Research

Fisheries research 

GL 

QUEEN OF

BAYFIELD 1941 40 

Lake Superior ChippewaRed Cliff Fisheries

Department 

Fisheries research 

GL 

CHANNEL CAT 1968 46 Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research GL 

CHINOOK 1947 50 Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research GL 

FIN AND 

FEATHER 1967 38 Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research 

GL 

JUDY 1950 40 Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research GL 

STEELHEAD 1967 63 Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research GL 

ARGO 1986 42 

N.Y. Department 

Environmental

Conservation Lake Erie 

Fisheries Unit 

Fisheries research 

GL 

OSPREY 1991 51 NYC Dept. of

Environmental Protection 

Water quality 

monitoring GL 

GS-1 1953 48 Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research GL 

GS-3 1994 25 Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Coastal research GL 

EXPLORER 1999 53 Ohio Division of Wildlife Fisheries research GL 

GRANDON 1990 47 Ohio Division of Wildlife Fisheries research GL 

ATIGAMAYG 1954 57 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

CENTENIAL 92 1992 30 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources 

Natural resouces 

enforcement 

protection GL 

ERIE EXPLORER 1982 62 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

GUARDIAN II 1983 66 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

JAMES AULD 1983 45 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

K.H. LOFTUS 1990 42 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

KEENOSAY 1989 58 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 265
SUPPLEMENT 4-5: State Research Vessels 

Name Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

NAMAYCUSH 1954 49 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

STEELCRAFT 1945 45 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources 

Water quality 

monitoring GL 

WANDA GOLDIE 1950 50 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

WHISKEY JACK 1975 27 Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Fisheries research GL 

MONITOR VI 1989 28 Ontario MOE Water quality 

monitoring GL 

AQUALAB 1990 30 

Toronto Metropolitan and 

region Conservation 

Authority

Water quality 

monitoring GL 

BARNEY DEVINE 1937 50 Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research GL 

HACK NOYES 1946 56 Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources Fisheries research GL 

FIRST STATE 2002 62 Delaware Division of Fish 

and Wildlife Fisheries research MA 

NATALE COLOSI 1988 25 lnterstate Environmental 

Commission (NY, NJ, CT0 NA MA 

KERHIN 1980 51 Maryland Dept Natural 

Resources Coastal research MA 

LIONEL A. 

WALFORD 1986 55 New Jersey Marine

Sciences Consortium Coastal research MA 

SETH GREEN 1984 47 

New York Department of 

Environmental

Conservation 

Fisheries research 

MA 

HARBOR 

SURVEY 1960 53 NYC Dept. of

Environmental Protection 

Water quality 

monitoring MA 

PERCA 1959 50 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat

Commission Fisheries research MA 

JOHN DEMPSEY 1990 50 Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection Fisheries research NE 

PATRICIA LYNN NA 27 Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection Fisheries research NE 

TORTUGAS 1979 30 Florida Marine Research 

Institute 

Fish and wildlife 

conservation and 

coral reef monitoring SE 

ANITA NA 51 

Marine Resources 

Research Institute, South 

Carolina Dept. Natural 

Resources 

Coastal and fisheries 

research 

SE 

CAROLINA 

PRIDE NA 51 

Marine Resources 

Research Institute, South 

Carolina Dept. Natural 

Resources 

Coastal and fisheries 

research 

SE 

LADY LISA NA 75 

Marine Resources 

Research Institute, South 

Carolina Dept. Natural 

Resources 

Coastal and fisheries 

research 

SE 

PALMETTO 1982 110 

Marine Resources 

Research Institute, South 

Carolina Dept. Natural 

Resources 

Fisheries research 

SE 

*Regions: GL – Great Lakes; NE – Northeast; MA – Mid Atlantic; SA – South Atlantic; C – Caribbean; GM – Gulf of Mexico; 

WC – West Coast; AK – Alaska; WP – Western Pacific 

NA – Information was not available

266 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-6: Commercial Research Vessels 

NAME Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

HERON 1962 NA Alaska Research Vessel 

Charters Coastal research AK 

MARITIME MAID 1971 66 Maritime Helicopters Coastal research AK 

ORION 1979 54 Orion Inc. Coastal research AK 

MORNING STAR NA NA United Catcher Boats Fisheries research AK 

MISTRAL 1998 30 Zephyr Marine Coastal research AK 

ZEPHYR 1987 44 Zephyr Marine Coastal research AK 

GREAT PACIFIC NA NA NA Coastal research AK 

ARCTIC 

DISCOVERER 1988 180 EZRA Inc. Coastal research GL 

NEPTUNE 1970 69 Hydrographic Survey Co. Coastal research GL 

CAPT. W.A. BISSO 

JR. 1965 150 Bisso Marine Co. Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

BULL'S EYE 1996 28 Bisso Marine Co. Inc. Coastal research GM 

EAGLE EYE II 1980 36 Bisso Marine Co. Inc. Coastal research GM 

DAVID MCCALL II 1979 110 Gulf Ocean Services, Inc Geophysical survey GM 

L’ARPENTEUR 1981 30 John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

GEODETIC 

SURVEYOR 1981 122 John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. Coastal research GM 

SEIS SURVEYOR 1985 150 John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

UNIVERSAL 

SURVEYOR NA NA John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

REFLECTION 1972 105 KC Offshore Geophysical survey GM 

ALBUQUERQUE 1982 132 KC Offshore LLC Coastal research GM 

HECK 1967 90 Marex Oceanographic Services Coastal research GM 

BEACON 1996 120 Marex Oceanographic Services Geophysical survey GM 

PLUS ULTRA 1998 190 Marex Oceanographic Services Coastal research GM 

ATLANTIC 

EXPLORER 1980 203 Marex Oceanographic Services Survey and sampling GM 

BESSIE CHOUEST 1992 213 PGS Exploration (U.S.) Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

ELDA CHOUEST 1992 213 PGS Exploration (U.S.) Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

EDISON 

CHOUEST 1993 221 PGS Exploration (U.S.) Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

GARY CHOUEST 1994 225 PGS Exploration (U.S.) Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

NEW VENTURE 1992 250 PGS Exploration (U.S.) Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

OCEAN 

EXPLORER 1993 266 PGS Exploration (U.S.) Inc. Geophysical survey GM 

FLING 1974 97 Rinn Boats Inc. Coastal research GM 

SPREE 1976 97 Spree Ventures Inc. Coastal research GM 

J.W. POWELL 1964 142 TDI-Brooks International, Inc Coastal research GM 

ROSS SEAL 1989 176 Veritas Geophysical Services Geophysical survey GM 

ACADIAN 

SEARCHER 1996 217 Veritas Geophysical Services Geophysical survey GM 

POLAR PRINCESS 1996 225 Veritas Geophysical Services Geophysical survey GM 

POLAR SEARCH 1993 250 Veritas Geophysical Services Geophysical survey GM 

VERITAS VIKING 1998 306 Veritas Geophysical Services Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

VOYAGER 1973 83 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

ARCTIC STAR 1944 99 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

ALEUTIAN 1982 136 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

POLARIS 1982 136 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 267
SUPPLEMENT 4-6: Commercial Research Vessels 

NAME Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

WESTERN SHORE 1982 144 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN ORIENT 1981 146 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN WAVE 1983 151 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

PACIFIC 1979 185 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

ANCHORAGE 1977 190 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

HORIZON 1982 200 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN INLET 1981 200 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

KENDA 1985 220 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

PATRIOT 1993 222 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

LEGEND 1991 235 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN PRIDE 1991 235 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN ATLAS 1988 266 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

MONARCH 1991 303 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

REGENT 1992 303 Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

OGS EXPLORA 1973 NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

SABERTOOTH NA NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

TUCANO 1985 NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

ENDEAVOR NA NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

FRONTIER NA NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

MAGELLAN NA NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

METEOR 1995 NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

NEPTUNE 1999 NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN SPIRIT 1993 NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

WESTERN 

TRIDENT 1999 NA Western Geophysical Co. Geophysical survey GM 

ATLANTIC TWIN 1965 90 Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey Geophysical survey MA 

ATLANTIC 

SURVEYOR 1978 96 Divemasters Inc. Coastal research MA 

ALOHA NA 143 IUC International Ltd. Coastal research MA 

NORTHSTAR 4 NA 50 Northstar Marine Inc. Coastal research MA 

AQUAMONITOR NA 45 Batelle Coastal research NE 

BOSTON PILOT NA 70 Boston Pilot Coastal research NE 

CYPRINODON 1992 32 C.R. Environmental Inc. Coastal research NE 

CHRISTOPHER 

ANDREW 1976 62 C.R. Environmental Inc. Coastal research NE 

ISABEL S 1988 91 C.R. Environmental Inc. Fisheries research NE 

COBIA NA 20 C.R. Environmental, Inc Coastal research NE 

C-HAWK NA 22 C.R. Environmental, Inc Coastal research NE 

JEANZO NA 14 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

JONZO NA 16 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

DRAGON NA 34 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

268 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-6: Commercial Research Vessels 

NAME Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

SAKONNET NA 36 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Geophysical survey NE 

LADY JANE NA 40 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

FAST TRACK NA 42 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

COURIER NA 43 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

LADY IRENE NA 45 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

SUSAN & 

CAITLYN 

NA 54 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

GLENA & JACOB NA 62 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

ANDREA J. NA 70 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

INHERITANCE NA 70 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

AMERICAN 

HERITAGE 

NA 

72 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

TRIPOLINA NA 80 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

RESOLUTE NA 90 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

MARY K. NA 96 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

MORA K. NA 99 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Fisheries research NE 

CELTIC NA 100 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

MARY ANNE NA 100 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

WARRIOR NA 100 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

NORDIC PRIDE NA 105 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Fisheries research NE 

ARAHO NA 120 C.R. Environmental, Inc. Coastal research NE 

AMELIA MARY NA 64 Coady Marine Coastal research NE 

ROLLING 

THUNDER 

NA 

39 Downeast Marine Resources,

Inc. Coastal research NE 

CAROLYN 

CHOUEST 

NA NA Edison Chouset Submerisble support NE 

NAVAHO NA 53 International Wildlife Coalition Coastal research NE 

AZORIAN 2002 42 Marine Research Services Coastal research NE 

LEE NA 35 NA Coastal research NE 

MAGIC NA 35 NA Coastal research NE 

PAUL DEROCHER NA 40 NA Coastal research NE 

OCEAN 

REPORTER 

NA 43 NA Coastal research NE 

PROVIDENCE NA 50 NA Coastal research NE 

ALBATROSS NA 52 NA Coastal research NE 

CAP’N BERT NA 53 NA Coastal research NE 

WEATHERBIRD NA 65 NA Coastal research NE 

EDGERTON NA 68 NA Coastal research NE 

DIANE G. NA 103 NA Coastal research NE 

ENVIRO-LAB II NA 55 Project Oceanology Coastal research NE 

ENVIRO-LAB III NA 65 Project Oceanology Coastal research NE 

QUEST NA 43 Quest Marine Services Coastal research NE 

SUB SIG II 1976 118 Raytheon Co. Coastal research NE 

ARTEMIS NA 30 Athena Technologies, Inc. Geophysical survey SE 

LADY ATHENA NA 46 Athena Technologies, Inc. Geophysical survey SE 

BARB-N-T 1992 34 Barb Marine Consulting Coastal research SE 

CORDELL 

EXPLORER 1975 42 Cordell Expeditions Coastal research SE 

THUNDERFORCE 1980 85 M&S Enterprises Inc. Coastal research SE 

THUNDERSTAR 1968 65 M&S Enterprises Inc. Coastal research SE 

BONNIE 

MARIETTA 1981 38 Mark M. Tognazzini Fisheries research SE 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 269
SUPPLEMENT 4-6: Commercial Research Vessels 

NAME Year Length (ft) Institution Mission Region* 

SEAHAWK 

NA Seahawk Deep Ocean 

Technology Inc. Coastal research SE 

BLUE RUNNER NA SSR Inc. Coastal research SE 

ECHO NA SSR Inc. Coastal research SE 

SCOTSMAN 1989 Cameron Ocean Research Coastal research WC 

JOHN B. 

PRESTON 1990 David Evans & Associates Inc. Geophysical survey WC 

SAMSON 1942 Divecon Services LP Geophysical survey WC 

AMERICAN 

PATRIOT 1962 Divecon Services LP Coastal research WC 

GLORITA 1968 GEO 3 Inc. Geophysical survey WC 

SHANA RAE 1986 Monterey Canyon Research

Vessels Inc. Geophysical survey WC 

WM. A. MCGAW 1984 Ocean Enterprises Ltd. Coastal research WC 

NOR'WESTER 1982 Orion Inc. Coastal research WC 

TRANSQUEST 1967 R/V Transquest Inc. Coastal research WC 

BRENDAN D II 1974 Sound Vessels Inc. Coastal research WC 

MUIR MILACH NA United Catcher Boats Fisheries research WC 

WHITE 

LIGHTNING 1981 West Coast Seaworks, Inc. Coastal research WC 

WHITE SQUALL 1964 West Coast Seaworks, Inc. Coastal research WC 

*Regions: GL – Great Lakes; NE – Northeast; MA – Mid Atlantic; SA – South Atlantic; C – Caribbean; GM – Gulf of Mexico; 

NA – Information was not available

83 

35 

41 

57 

30 

121 

165 

147 

51 

106 

45 

108 

36 

NA 

75 

45 

WC – West Coast; AK – Alaska; WP – Western Pacific

270 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-7: Coastal Observing Systems

Observing System Region* Description 

ACMP 

Alliance Citizen 

Monitoring Program 

MA An Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay program that conducts weekly 

monitoring sampling using over 145 trained volunteers to support the 

protection and restoration of the bay. 

Alaska GLOBEC 

Gulf of Alaska Global 

Ocean Ecosystem 

Dynamics 

Monitoring Program 

NA A University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

program that monitors the effects of climate variability and climate 

change on the Gulf of Alaska shelf ecosystem, and incorporates results 

into diagnostic and prognostic models. Samples are collected at a

station at the mouth of Resurrection Bay and along the Seaward Line. 

AMH 

Acoustic Monitoring 

Hydrophones 

AK, WC A NOAA PMEL project that has two arrays inside of the Nation’s EEZ 

(three other arrays are discussed in the global system). The first array,

deployed in the Gulf of Alaska, has six hydrophones to monitors the

movement of large cetaceans. The second array consist of an 

abandoned cabled installation at the Pioneer Seamount (off the central 

California coast) retrofitted with a hydrophone system to passively monitor 

the ocean for natural and man-made sounds. 

CalCOFI 

California Cooperative

Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations

WC > 60 

CaTS 

Caribbean Time Series 

C 1 A University of Puerto Rico Department of Marine Sciences monitoring

program, sponsored by NASA, and established in 1994. The program

collects monthly oceanographic samples at a station 26 miles south of 

Puerto Rico. 

CBMSM 

Chesapeake Bay Mouth 

Survey Monthly 

MA 20 An Old Dominion University’s Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography 

program that conducts monthly CTD casts during spring high tide cruises 

at stations at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. The program was initiated 

in 1992 with the goal of developing climatology of the ocean processes 

at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. 

CBOS 

Chesapeake Bay 

Observing System 

MA 7 A federal (NOAA, EPA, Navy), state (Virginia; Maryland) and academic 

(University of Maryland) joint program with permanent weather and 

oceanographic data monitoring sensors in the Chesapeake Bay. Periodic

aircraft remote sensing images supplement the field information. 

CDIP 

Coastal Data 

Information Program 

GL, MA, SA, 

WC, WP

> 100 A joint program of the Integrative Oceanography Division of Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography, US Army Corps of Engineers, and California 

Department of Boating and Waterways that primarily focuses on wave 

data measurements. It analyzes, archives, and disseminates coastal 

environmental data for use by coastal engineers, planners, managers, 

scientist, and mariners.

COMPS 

West Florida Coastal 

Ocean Monitoring and 

Prediction System 

SA, GM > 50 This system, coordinated by the University of South Florida, encompasses 

numerous observation stations from various federal and state agencies, 

academia, and local jurisdictions. Buoys deployed mostly off West 

Florida for monitoring and modeling in support of multiple management

and research programs. Remote sensing images supplement the 

field information. 

Coastal Ocean 

Observation 

Laboratory/Long term 

Ecosystem Observatory 

MA NA This is a network of coastal observing systems coordinated by Rutgers 

University Institute of Marine Science with the goal to develop real-time 

capability for environmental assessment and forecasting. The network

includes the Long-term Ecosystem Observatory at 15 meters depth (LEO15) off the coast at Tuckerton, New Jersey. Partners in the program 

include multiple federal, state, academic, and nongovernment organizations. 

Number of 

Stations 

NA 

AK 

7 

A program of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Integrative 

Oceanography Division, California Department of Fish and Game, and

NMFS SWFSC, established in 1949 that conducts quarterly cruises to 

monitor physics, chemistry, biology, and meteorology of the California 

Current ecosystem.

COOL/LEO 15 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 271
SUPPLEMENT 4-7: Coastal Observing Systems

Observing System Region* Description 

CORIE WC 19 Pilot environmental observation and forecasting system for the Columbia

River, Oregon by the Center for Coastal and Land Margin Research of 

the Oregon Graduate Institute. The project integrates a real-time sensor

network, a data management system and advanced numerical models. 

DART 

Deep Ocean 

Assessment and 

Reporting of Tsunamis 

6 A NOAA PMEL project that has the goal of early detection and real-time 

reporting of tsunamis in the open ocean. There are three stations located 

near Alaska-Aleutian Seismic Zone; two stations off the WashingtonOregon coast near the Cascadian Subduction Zone; and a sixth station 

in the eastern equatorial region to measure tsunamis that may be

generated in the Peru-Chile Seismic Zone and propagate into the 

north Pacific. 

FOCI 

Fisheries Oceanography 

Coordination

Investigations

AK A NOAA PMEL project that has the goal to understand the role of the 

environment on the abundance of various commercially valuable fish and 

shellfish stocks in Alaskan waters and the role of these species in the 

ecosystem. In collaboration with the Stellar Sea Lion programs, 

Lagrangian drifters are deployed to determine the annual circulation 

variability in the North Pacific and Eastern Bering Sea regions.

GEM 

Gulf of Alaska 

Ecosystem Monitoring 

and Research

AK NA 

GOMOOS 

Gulf of Maine 

Ocean Observing 

System 

NE 15 

HOT 

Hawaii Ocean 

Time series Program 

WP 5 

ICON 

Monterey Bay 

Innovative Coastal 

Ocean Observing 

Network 

WC 6 

ICIS 

Indiana Coastal 

Information System 

GL 1 

ISEOS 

Indiana Shoreline 

Erosion Observation 

System 

GL NA This is a system of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The

system relies on biannual aerial photography of Lake Michigan shoreline 

to assess coastal erosion and its potential impacts along the coast. The

program has been in operation since 1987. In addition, the system 

records the impacts of unique events, such as severe storm. 

LUMCON 

Louisiana Universities 

Marine Consortium 

Environmental 

Monitoring 

GM 4 

Number of 

Stations 

Columbia River Estuary 

Real-time Observation 

and Forecasting System 

WC, AK

> 50 

The GEM program, established by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

Council, is in the early stages of implementation. Pilot monitoring

programs begin in 2003 with full implementation expected by 2007. 

National pilot program to provide hourly oceanographic data from the 

Gulf of Maine to the public, resource managers, education, and scientific

community. In addition to buoy data, the systems expect to incorporate a 

CODAR system in 2003. The program is a collaboration of the 

University of Maine, WHOI, Bigelow Lab, NOAA, and Navy. 

This program is coordinated by the University of Hawaii and is supported 

by NSF. The program collects oceanographic data to better understand

the heat, freshwater, and chemical fluxes at a North Pacific 

oligotrophic site 

Component of NOPP to provide a real-time ocean observation of

Monterey Bay. System relies on new ocean measurement technologies,

along with data collected from moorings, tomographic arrays, high

frequency radars, ship cruises, and satellites. Major partners include 

Navy NPS and NRL, University of Michigan, University of Southern

Mississippi, California State University-Monterey Bay, MBARI, HOBI Labs,

and Codar Ocean Sensors, Ltd.

System developed for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources that

uses real-time data from a NOAA buoy (45007) in a model. The system 

allows a web user to analyze water circulation patterns, water velocities, 

and other data around the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal using the 

Army Corps of Engineers TABS-MD numerical modeling system.

The LUMCON array collects real-time weather and aquatic parameters to 

support research on ocean/river interactions, human and industrial

environmental impacts, processes influencing coastal change, living 

resources, and biological systems. 

272 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-7: Coastal Observing Systems

Observing System Region* Description 

MOOS 

MBARI Observing 

System 

WC 5 MOOS is an observing system that collects oceanographic data in realtime from moorings, drifters, and ship cruises from one of the deepest

underwater canyons in the U.S. The system is supplemented with 

information from ROV, AUV, and remote sensing technology. 

MVCO 

Martha’s Vineyard 

Coastal Observatory 

NE 1 The underwater coastal observatory is a WHOI project funded by NSF 

and ONR. The observatory is located one mile offshore of Martha’s 

Vineyard and provides coastal oceanographic and weather data (realtime and archived) to educators and public. The system relies on

underwater cables for power and data transmission. 

National Data Buoy 

Center 

GL, NE, MA, 

SA, C, GM, 

WC, AK, WP

> 130 This is a NOAA National Weather Service International program. Most 

the stations are located in the coastal and offshore waters of the U.S.

The program relies on moored buoys, onshore/nearshore platforms (CMAN stations) and drifting buoys for oceanographic and meteorological 

observations. In the Caribbean, the system relies on French buoys. 

NEMP 

Monitoring Project 

SA 10 NEMP is a project of the North Carolina State University Center for

Applied Aquatic Ecology that established a system of weather and water 

data collection platforms deployed along the Neuse River. This system

supports, among various projects, the study of Pfisteria events in the

Neuse River. 

NERR 

Research Reserve 

GL, NE, MA, 

SA, C, GM, 

WC, AK

> 50 This monitoring program measures changes in estuarine water quality, 

habitat and land in 25 estuarine reserves. The reserves are located along 

the Nation’s coastline, including the Great Lakes. Water quality samples 

are collected continuously at 30-minute intervals using an YSITM 

datalogger in at least two stations in every reserve. 

NGLI 

Littoral Initiative 

GM > 20 This is a multi-agency program established through a partnership

between the Navy and the EPA. The goal of the program is devising 

model forecasts and observational data for military training and coastal 

resource management. In situ observing system consists of shipboard 

surveys, subsurface moorings, moored buoys, fixed piling platforms, and 

drifting buoys. 

NJ CMN 

Coastal Monitoring 

Network 

MA 3 This is a coastal observation system operated by Davidson Laboratory of

Stevens Institute of Technology. It provides digital images of the beach 

and nearshore ocean and oceanographic and meteorological data (realtime and archived), including shallow water (5m) wave characteristics. 

NWLON 

Observing Network 

GL, NE, MA, 

SA, C, GM, 

WC, AK, WP

175 A NOAA NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and 

Services program that provides a network of water level measurement

stations along the Nation’s coastline, including the Great Lakes and

territories. Some stations have been in operation for more than 20 years. 

PORTS 

Real-time System 

GL, NE, MA, 

GM, WC, AK 

68 A NOAA NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and 

Services program that consists of a monitoring network to improve safety

and efficiency of maritime commerce and coastal resource management. 

The program provides shipmasters and pilots with accurate real-time 

information required for preventing groundings and collisions. 

SABSOON 

Synoptic Offshore 

Observational Network 

SA 8 Real-time observational network of offshore platforms coordinated by

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography and maintained by the Navy. The 

network provides data from large-scale oceanographic processes on the 

U.S. southeastern continental shelf and supports the development of a 

database of ocean-atmosphere interactions. Partners include various

federal and state agencies and academic institutions. 

Sea-Air-Land Modeling 

and observation 

Network 

AK 2 University of Alaska maintains two moored instrument platforms located 

30 miles south of Seward. Project collaborates with Alaska GLOBEC

program to develop an understanding of the relationship between 

physical forcing and ecosystem trophic levels. 

Number of 

Stations 

NDBC 

Neuse Estuary 

National Estuarine 

Northern Gulf of Mexico 

New Jersey 

National Water Level 

Physical Oceanographic 

South Atlantic Bight 

SALMON 

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 273
SUPPLEMENT 4-7: Coastal Observing Systems

Observing System Region* Description 

SBCSMB 

Circulation Study 

WC 4 Research program of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and MMS

to study the circulation in the Santa Barbara Channel- Santa Maria Basin 

offshore area. Four long-term moorings have been deployed since1992. 

System also uses ADCP installed on NDBC buoys. 

SCCWRP 

Coastal Water Research 

Project Authority 

WC > 300 The SCCWRP is a joint program of public agencies and regulators that

conducts marine environmental monitoring and research of the effects of

wastewater and other discharges on the health of the Southern California 

coastal environment. 

Sustainable Ecological 

Research Related to 

Management of the 

Florida Keys Seascape 

SA GM 7 This is a Florida Institute of Oceanography project in coordination with

NOAA to collect additional oceanographic measurements beyond the 

normal data collected at 6 C-MAN stations from the Florida Keys area 

and a station in northwest Florida Bay. The project provides long-term

ecosystem monitoring and supports coral reefs research. 

SFOMC SA NA This is a partnership program among Navy and academic institutions to

deploy physical oceanographic instrument from mid Florida to the

Bahamas and Florida Keys. 

TABS 

Texas Automated 

GM 16 This is a program operated for the Texas General Land Office by the

Geochemical and Environmental Research Group at Texas A&M 

University. The system consists of ten TABS buoys, four NDBC buoys, and 

two C-MAN stations. This is the only program in the Nation designed to

provide real-time surface current data to support oil spill prevention 

and response. 

TCOON 

Texas Coastal Ocean 

Observation Network 

> 50 This is a network of water level gauges operated by the Conrad Blucher 

Institute for Surveying and Science at Texas A&M-Corpus Christi. Goal of 

network is to establish water level datums and to provide various

oceanographic measurements. Partners include various federal and state 

agencies and academic institutions. 

USACE FRF 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Field 

Research Facility 

SA Sampling program of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Field Research 

Facility of the Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory at Duck, NC that collects 

physical oceanographic measurements on a daily basis. 

USACE Waves 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Wave 

Gauges 

GL, MA, SA, 

C, GM, WC, 

WP

34 

USGS Stream 

U.S. Geological Survey

Streamflow and Stage 

Data 

GL, NE, MA, 

SA, C, GM, 

WC, AK, WP

NA The USGS streamflow gauging system has been in operation since 1887. 

It provides real-time hydrologic data from thousands of stations across 

the Nation. The system operates in partnership with more than 700 

federal, state, and local agencies. Most of the stations are inland, but

many are located near estuaries and provide valuable information for

coastal hydrodynamic models. 

WAVCIS 

Wave Current 

Surge Information 

System 

GM 6 A Louisiana State University monitoring program that provides real-time

wave and meteorological data for the Louisiana coast. 

*Regions: GL – Great Lakes; NE – Northeast; MA – Mid Atlantic; SA – South Atlantic; C – Caribbean; GM – Gulf of Mexico; 

WC – West Coast; AK – Alaska; WP – Western Pacific 

NA – Information was not available

Number of 

Stations 

Santa Barbara 

Channel- Santa Maria 

Basin 

Southern California 

SEAKEYS/C MAN 

South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Center 

Buoy System 

GM 

1 

This is a system of the US Army Corps of Engineers Prototype 

Measurement and Analysis Branch of the Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory 

that collects, processes, analyzes, and reports on wave data nationwide. 

274 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-8: Ocean Observing Systems

Region* Number of 

Station Description 

AMH 

Acoustic monitoring 

hydrophones

AO, PO 18 hydrophones This NOAA PMEL project has three six-hydrophones arrays located outside of

the Nation’s EEZ to monitor earthquake activity (2 other arrays are discussed in 

the coastal observatories system). An array was deployed in the east Pacific 

Rise. The two other arrays were deployed in 1999 near the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

Argo Floats AO, PO, 

IO, SO

ARGO is an international program (14 Nation’s plus the European Union) to

deploy a global array of 3,000 profiling floats at a resolution of 3° x 3° using 

ships of opportunity. The floats provide profiles of temperature and salinity for 

the upper 2 km of the ocean. The Argo array is component of Global Climate 

Observing System (GCOS), Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), Climate 

Variability and Predictability Experiment (CLIVAR), and Global Ocean Data 

Assimilation Experiment (GODAE). The U.S. plans call for supporting one-half 

of the global array. Implementation of the program is through a consortium 

consisting of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, WHOI, University of

Washington, and NOAA AOML 

and PMEL. 

BATS 

Bermuda Atlantic 

Time-series Study 

AO BATS is a project of the Bermuda Biological Station for Research that conducts 

monthly sampling (biweekly during bloom season) at a station 85 km southeast

of Bermuda. The program investigates the seasonal and interannual variability 

in ocean biogeochemistry. 

BTM 

Bermuda Test-bed 

Mooring 

AO 1 

CARIACO 

Carbon Retention in 

a Colored Ocean 

AO NA 

CO2 

Carbon Dioxide 

Measuring Systemsii

PO CO2 is a program of NOAA PMEL that conducts research on the sources and

sinks of carbon dioxide in the oceans. Data are collected on cruises onboard 

NOAA vessels and from selected TAO moorings.

GDA 

Global Drifter Array 

AO, PO, IO > 400-500 

annually

H2O PO 1 H2O is an observatory located halfway from Hawaii to California between the 

Murray and Molokai Fracture Zones. The observatory, installed on a retired 

AT&T submarine telephone cable, consists of a sea floor junction box and 

scientific sensors located at 5000 m depth. Initial instrumentation set at the site 

included a broadband three-component seismometer, a short period geophone, 

a standard hydrophone, and a pressure sensor. In the future the system may be 

enhanced with the addition of biological sensors and a magnetic observatory. 

NSF provides support to H2O including funds 

for 1 FTE. 

HD XBT 

High density 

Expendable Bathy 

Thermograph Global 

Array 

AO, PO 9 lines HD XBT is a program of NOAA AOML GOOS Center with nine high-density

XBT lines (3 lines in the Atlantic and 6 lines in the Pacific). These lines require 

the aid of VOS willing to have a scientist aboard to deploy XBTs. The system 

provides temperature profiles down to a depth of about 760 m every 50 km in 

the open ocean and between 10-30 km near boundary currents. Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography manages the high-density XBT lines in the Pacific 

ocean, while AOML manages the Atlantic lines.

Observing System 

i

720 operational 

floats as of

March 2003 

2 

BTM is a project of the Bermuda Biological Station for Research, funded by NSF 

in 1994, that established a mooring station southeast of Bermuda. The 

mooring provides a platform for developing, testing, calibrating and

intercomparing instruments for time series analysis. Several physical, chemical 

and biological measuring instruments from various institutions are currently 

deployed. 

CARIACO is a project of University of South Florida initiated in 1995 that 

studies primary productivity, physical forcing and vertical particle flux in the 

Cariaco Basin. 

NA 

This is a program of NOAA AOML GOOS Center that maintains an accurate 

and globally dense set of Argos-tracked Lagrangian drifters. The drifters provide 

in-situ observations of SST and surface circulation. The GDA is part of an

international program designed to improve climate prediction. The U.S. deploys 

the drifters using the VOS Program, research vessels and U.S Navy aircraft. The 

AOML tracks these drifters daily 

via satellite.

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 275
SUPPLEMENT 4-8: Ocean Observing Systems

Region* Number of 

Station Description 

Hydrostation S AO 1 This is a program of the Bermuda Biological Station for Research that conduct 

biweekly samples at Hydrostation S, an oceanographic station located 26 km 

southeast of Bermuda. Hydrostation S, established in 1954, is the longest 

oceanographic time series sampling program. 

OFP AO 1 OFP is project of the Bermuda Biological Station for Research initiated in 1978 

that has sediment traps located at 3500 m depth. In 1984, the station was 

moved 75 km southeast of Bermuda and traps were added at 500 and 1500 m 

depth. Bimonthly collections were conducted from 1978 to 1989. Since 1989 

the collections are made on a bi-weekly basis. 

ORS 

Ocean Reference 

Stations 

NA This is a joint program of NOAA AOML and WHOI that includes five different 

oceanic stations. AOML manages the Florida Straits cable program that 

monitors the Florida Current transport via a submarine telephone cable. AOML 

also manages the Abaco 26.5°N line, a yearly repeated ConductivityTemperature-Depth/Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler high-density flux 

resolving line. WHOI manages two surface flux moorings collecting air-sea 

data in the western Atlantic and the southeastern Atlantic, and the Denmark 

Straits observations. 

PIRATA 

Pilot Research

Moored Array in the 

Tropical Atlantic 

AO This is an international program (U.S., France, and Brazil) consisting of an array 

of Atlas mooring in the tropical Atlantic. The moorings collect oceanographic 

and meteorological data and transmit to shore in real-time via the Argos 

satellite system. NOAA PMEL manages the U.S. component of the array.

TAO/TRITON

Tropical 

AtmosphereOcean/Triangle 

Trans Ocean Buoy 

Network 

PO 68 

o

o o o

TOS AO 1 line This is a project of the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of

Oceanography that started in 1992 and is using the commercial freighter CMV 

OLEANDER to measure upper ocean currents (top 100 to 300 m) between New 

Jersey and Bermuda using an ADCP. 

TTPN 

Trans-Pacific Profiler 

Network 

6 The NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory operates the TPPN in collaboration with the 

NOAA Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. The 

system is an equatorial network of Doppler radars spanning the data-sparse 

region of the tropical Pacific Ocean, from Peru to Indonesia. The instruments 

measure wind profile of both horizontal and vertical motions at heights from the 

surface to 5-15 kilometers. In addition to the wind profile, information about 

precipitation and atmospheric turbulence is also obtained. The TPPN

observations contribute to the understanding and predictability of El Nino events 

and to the understanding of interannual climate fluctuations that have their 

origin in the tropics. 

USIABP 

U.S. Inter-Agency 

Artic Buoy Program 

AR This is a program managed by the NOAA/Navy National Ice Center (NIC) that 

support the International Artic Buoy Program. International partners include 

Russia, Canada, Norway, Germany, and Japan. Data are transmitted over 

ARGOS satellites. Nominal sensors include air temperature, surface pressure,

and ice drift. 

VOS 

Voluntary Observing

System 

AO, PO, IO NA 

XBT 

Expendable Bathy 

Thermograph Global 

Array 

AO, PO, IO 26 lines, 15,000 

XBT 

This is a program of NOAA AOML GOOS Center that utilizes approximately 70 

VOS vessels to deploy XBT to monitor three ocean basins on a monthly basis. 

The XBT program collects, quality controls, and transmits in real-time subsurface 

oceanographic observations. The estimated 2002 budget was $1.7 million.

*Regions: AO – Atlantic; PA – Pacific Ocean; IO – Indic Ocean; SO – Southern Ocean; AR – Arctic Ocean 

NA – Information was not available

Observing System 

Oceanic Flux

Program 

AO 

10 

This is an International program (U.S. and Japan) consisting of temperature and 

current meter Atlas moorings in the Tropical Pacific. TAO array is also used as 

a platform for biological and chemical measurements. The U.S. maintains the

array from the west coast of the Americas to 165 E. In 1999, the moorings 

along 156 E, 147 E, and 137 E became part of the TRITON array maintained 

by the JAMSTEC (See Figure 4-6). 

The Oleander

Section 

PO

36 

VOS, a program of NOAA AOML GOOS Center, relies on a global fleet of

about 400 domestic and foreign commercial vessels that collect sea surface 

meteorological, sub-surface XBT, and shipboard temperature and salinity 

observations. The VOS vessels also deploy drifting buoys and profiling floats,

and sometimes tow continuous plankton recorders.

276 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 4-9: Ocean Observing System Sensors

Measurement Sensor Manufacturer: 

Model # Resolution Range Accuracy 

Propeller R. M. Young: 05103 0.2 m s-1 1-20 m s -1 ±0.3 m s or 3% -1

Wind direction Vane R. M. Young: 05103 0-355° 5° - 7.8° 

Fluxgate 

compass 

E.G.and G. or KVH: 

63764 or LP101-5 

0-359° 

Air temperature Pt-100 RTD 14-32°C 

(0-40°C) 

±0.2°C 

Relative humidity Capacitance 

Rotronic Instrument 

Corp.: MP-100 

0.4 %RH realtime 

0.02 %RH delay mode 

55-95 %RH 

(0-100 %RH) 

±2 %RH 

for 6 mo. 

Rainfall Capacitance R. M. Young: 

50203-34 

0.2 mm hr 0-50 mm ±0.4 mm hr-1 

on 10 min filtered

data 

Downwelling 

shortwave 

radiation 

Pyranometer Eppley Laboratory: PSPTAO, Delrin case 0.4 W m-2 200-1000 W m -2 ±1% 

Downwelling 

longwave 

radiation 

Pyrgeometer Eppley Laboratory: PIRTAO, Delrin case, 3-

output (1) 

0.1 W m 0.03° C 200 W m -2

@ 20°C 

(thermopile only)

±1% 

Pressure 

transducer 

Paroscientific: MET1-2 0.1 hPa 800-1100 hPa ±0.01% of reading 

Next

Generation 

ATLAS sensor 

Yellow Springs

Instruments: Thermistor 

46006 

0.001°C 6-32°C (0-40°C) ±0.01°C 

Thermistor Sea Bird Electronics: 

SBE16, SBE37 

0.001°C 1-31°C (-5-35°C) ±0.003°C 

Sea Bird Electronics: 

SBE16 (Seacat)

0.0001 S m-1

SBE37 (Microcat) 0.00001 S m

Internal field

conductivity 

cell 

Sea Bird cell with ATLAS 

module 

-1

3-6 S m -1 ±0.02 psu 

Water pressure Transducer 0.03 psi 400-800 psi 

(0-1000 psi) 

±0.25% full scale 

(1000psi)

Ocean current

(profile) 

RD Instruments: Narrow 

band, 150 kHz 

0.1 cm s 0.006 -1 (0-256 cm s ) -1 ±5 cm s , 

± 2.5° 

Ocean current

(single point) 

Dopper 

Current Meter 

SonTek: Argonaut 0.1 cm s 0.1° (0-600 cm s ) -1 ±1 percent of 

measured velocity, 

±0.5 cm s-1

Type 

Wind speed 

(0.4 - 36 m s-1) 

1.4° 

1.4° 

0.04°C Std 0.01° C NX

±4 %RH for 1 yr. 

-1

(Next Generation 

ATLAS Moorings) 

(0-1600 W m-2) 

-2

Barometric 

pressure 

Sea surface and 

subsurface 

temperature

Sea surface and 

subsurface 

temperature

-1

Salinity 

(0-6 S m-1) 

0.002 S m

Paine: 211-30-660-01 

ADCP -1

-1

Chapter 4 Supplemental Materials 277
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Great Lakes Region

Great Lakes Center 

SUNY College at 

Buffalo, NY 

3 research vessels ranging in size 

from 26’-46’ 

Over 180 tanks from 5 to 900 

gallons for fish and 

plankton culturing

1966 N/A 

Frantz Theodore 

Stone Laboratory 

Ohio State

University, OH

5 boats ranging from 22’-42’

Several small motor and 

row boats 

1 ROV 

1895 N/A 

Large Lakes 

Observatory 

University of 

Minnesota, MN

1 86’ R/V Blue Heron 1938 N/A 

The Ocean 

Engineering 

Laboratory 

University of 

Michigan, MI

1 22’ survey vessel 

1 15’ Motomar inflatable raft N/A N/A 

Great Lakes Water 

Institute 

University of 

WisconsinMilwaukee, WI 

1 22’ boat – 0 years old 

1 71’ research vessel – 

50 years old* 

1 ROV 

Gamma and alpha counters 

Monitoring buoys – 7 years old 

Authomous profiling & thermister 

Mass spectrometer – 5 years old 

1973 N/A 

Northeast Region

UNH Marine 

Program, 

University of New 

Hampshire, NH & 

College of 

Agriculture and Life 

Sciences Cornell 

University, NY

Shoals Marine Laboratory 

• Numerous inflatables 

and whalers 

• 1 19’ sailboat 

• 1 36’ research vessel 

• 1 47’ research vessel 

1973 N/A 

Marine Sciences 

Institute 

University of 

Connecticut, CT 

1 76’ research vessel 

1 25’ research vessel 

3 small boats (16’-22’) 

John S. Rankin Laboratory

• 2,400 ft

2 facility can

process up to 600GPM 

of seawater 

1957 N/A 

278 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Marine Science 

Center, 

Northeastern

University, MA

The Edwards Laboratory 

• 3 small boats 

• 3 boats ranging in 

size from 12’ to 20’ 

• 1 50’ research vessel 

(built 1963, 

refurbished 2003) 

1968 N/A 

Graduate School of 

Marine Sciences and 

Technology, 

University of 

Massachusetts

System, Dartmouth 

MA 

1 AUV 

1 50’ research vessel – 

18 years old 

Mass spectrometer – 

15 years old 

4 off-campus research 

facilities/field stations

1991 N/A 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 

Biology 

Department,

Salem State College, 

MA 

1 16’ boat – 3 years old 

Northeastern Massachusetts 

Aquaculture Center 

• Includes the 510 m2

Cat Cove Marine

Laboratory and 3.25-

hectare Smith Pool

1854 31 N/A N/

A 4 4 7 1 0 

Woods Hole

Oceanographic 

Institution, MA

1 submersible – 20 years old 

1 AUV – 10 years old 

1 ROV – 10 years old*

1 46’ boat – 20 years old*

1930 N/A 10 14 55 54 31 0 0 

Massachusetts

Institute of

Technology, MA 

Ocean Engineering Department 

• 2 AUVs (ages 1 

and 8**) 

• 1 ROV – 1 year old 

1885 N/A 26 8 12 2 1 2 7 

Marine Program 

University of New 

Hampshire, NH 

1 50’ research vehicle – 

9 years old 

Several laboratories 

20,000-25,000ft

2 research 

facility planned 

1976 N/A 

Graduate School of 

Oceanography 

University of Rhode

Island, RI 

1 research vessel – 15 years old 

Mass spectrometer – 5 years old 1930s N/A 10 8 21 6 3 3 0 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 279
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Mid Atlantic Region 

Columbia 

University, 

NY 

Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory

• 1 239’ research 

• Seismology & 

geoscience databases 

1949 N/A 2 8 17 2 12 25 4 

Institute for Marine 

and Coastal 

Sciences 

Rutgers University, 

NJ 

Meadowlands Environmental 

Research Institute 

3 field stations 

Seawater & Flume Facility 

National Undersea

Research Program

Rutgers Ocean Data 

Access Network 

Clean Ocean & Shore Trust 

1 30’ research vessel – 

12 years old 

1 48’ research vessel – 

7 years old 

1 AUV – 0.25 years old 

1993*** 5 2 3 16 9 12 4 1 

Ocean Engineering, 

Stevens Institute of

Technology, NJ 

1 26’ research vessel – 

10 years old 

1 26’ research vessel – 

11 years old 

1935 4 4 3 3 1 4 0 7 

Graduate College of 

Marine Studies 

University of 

Delaware, DE

Multiple mass spectrometers – 

various ages 1970 N/A 10 8 21 8 7 0 0 

Marine Sciences 

Research Center 

State University of

New York, Stony 

Brook, NY 

1 28’ boat – 13 years old 

1 80” boat – 16 years old 

AA Spectrophotometer – 

15 years old 

ICPM Spectrophotometer 

1957 N/A 19 12 20 15 5 2 0 

U.S. Merchant

Marine Academy 

Kings Point, NY 

2 boats – ages 17 and 35 1938 199 N/A 32 20 14 5 7 

University of 

Maryland Center for 

Environmental 

Science, MD 

1 50’ and 1 65’ boat – both 

35 years old** 1925 N/A 114 12 20 6 4 0 8 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Academy, CT 

1 30’ R/V 

State of the art laboratories 1876 25 N/A 0 2 2 2 0 

280 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Department of 

Oceanography & 

Department of 

Ocean Engineering 

U.S. Naval 

Academy, MD 

1 108’ research vessel – 10 

years old** 1845 0 6 3 16 4 3 0 0 

Dept of Ocean, 

Earth and 

Atmospheric Science 

Old Dominion

University, VA

1 55’ research vessel 

Various small vessels 

Virtual Environments Lab –

internationally known 

simulation lab 

1969 0 6 3 16 4 3 0 0 

Virginia Institute of 

Marine Science 

The College of

William & Mary, VA 

29 boats ranging in size from

14’ to 24’ and ages 1 to 20 

years old 

11 boats ranging in size from

25’ to 65’ and from 0.25 to 30 

years old 

1961 N/A 18 11 25 25 11 0 16 

South Atlantic Region 

Department of 

Ocean Engineering, 

Florida Atlantic 

University, FL

3 AUVs (ranging in age from 

2-5)* 

1 34’ boat – 24 years old 

1 65’ boat – 11 years old 

1965 12 26 0 8 4 2 3 2 

Marine Laboratory 

at Seahorse Key 

University of 

Florida, FL 

1 42’ R/V 

5 boats ranging from 16’-21’ 

Numerous small boats & canoes 

1951 N/A 

Rosenstiel School, 

Marine and 

Atmospheric 

Science, 

University of Miami, 

FL 

1 96’ R/V catamaran 

On-campus research museum 

Mass spectrometers, X-ray 

spectrographs, gas 

chromatographs, & a scanning

electron microscope 

1926 N/A 16 13 54 24 15 2 2 

Florida Institute of

Technology, FL 

1 60’ R/V 

Several 14’-29’ boats for 

nearshore research 

Several laboratories for marinerelated studies 

Vero Beach coastal facility for 

marine-related studies 

1981 56 25 2 8 8 6 1 0 

College of Marine 

Science 

University of South 

Florida, FL 

4 Centers of specialized study 

14 laboratories, including 

Ocean Modeling & Prediction

Laboratory 

4 Ocean Modeling, Ocean 

Sensors, & Real Time 

Data vehicles 

1 71’ R/V 

1 110’ R/V 

1960 N/A 16 8 16 6 6 0 43 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 281
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Skidaway Institute 

of Oceanography, 

GA 

1 96’ R/V 

1 72’ R/V 

Several small research vessels 

Flume facility 

Saltmarsh Ecosystem 

Research Facility 

Seawater culture/

experiment facilities 

1903 N/A 

Department of 

Marine, Earth & 

Atmospheric, 

Science 

North Carolina State 

University, NC

Satellite coastal research facility 1887 6 2 4 7 4 1 0 4 

Institute of Marine 

Sciences, 

University of North 

Carolina - Chapel 

Hill, NC 

Satellite coastal research facility 1891 N/A 3 2 4 2 4 6 15 

Duke University 

Marine Laboratory, 

Duke University, NC 

Satellite coastal research facility 

1 135’ R/V 

1 50’ R/V 

Numerous small boats/canoes 

1938 N/A 

Diving and Water 

Safety 

East Carolina 

University, NC

1 24’ boat – 9 years old** 

4 boats ranging from 25’-65’ 

and 10-49 years old 

N/A N/A 

Grice Marine 

Laboratory 

College of 

Charleston, SC

4 boats ranging in size from 16’

to 17’ and 5 to 22 years old 

1 22’ boat – 20 years old 

DNA sequencer – 0.25 years old 

1955 27 10 0 5 9 9 65 2 

UNCW Center for 

Marine Science, 

University of North 

Carolina at 

Wilmington 

1 41’ research vessel – 3 years 

old 

1 70’ research vessel – 15 years 

old 

2 ROVs – 15 years old 

NMR Spectroscopy – 18 years 

old** 

1947 5 1 2 4 2 4 6 15 

Marine Biomedicine 

and Environmental 

Sciences, 

Medical University 

of South Carolina, 

SC 

Graduate studies in marine &

estuary biosciences in relation to

human health 

Hollings Marine Laboratory 

(under construction) 

N/A N/A 

Baruch Institute for 

Marine Biology & 

Coastal Research, 

University of South 

Carolina, SC 

15 boats ranging from small 

aluminum and 13’ to 21’

whalers and ages 9 to 25 years

old 

1969 59 6 1 16 11 9 8 5 

282 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Caribbean Region 

Department of 

Marine Sciences, 

University of Puerto

Rico, PR 

R/Vs ranging from 35’-127’

Numerous small boats 1954 N/A 15 6 1

7 2 1 0 1 

University of the 

Virgin Islands, VI 

Center for Marine & 

Environmental Studies -

cooperative educational 

arrangement 

Two campuses (St. Croix, St.

Thomas) 

Recently installed internet 

capabilities 

1962 N/A 

Gulf of Mexico Region 

Fisheries & Allied 

Aquaculture Center 

Auburn University, 

AL 

117’ and 1 24 ‘ boat – 0-3 

years old 

1 32’ boat – 20 years old 

1930s 6 22 10 10 6 3 6 1 

Department of 

Oceanography & 

Coastal Studies, 

Louisiana State 

University, LA

Remote sensing receiver – 10 

years old* 1991 N/A 5 8 17 7 5 18 4 

College of Marine 

Sciences 

The University of

Southern 

Mississippi, MS 

4 research vessels ranging in size 

from 38 to 125 feet and 20 to 

53 years old 

1 ROV – 7 years old 

1996 N/A 22 4 12 5 6 0 0 

Center for Coastal 

Studies, 

Texas A&M 

University - Corpus 

Christi, TX 

5 laboratories 

Off-campus field station 1984 N/A 1 0 0 5 0 

Department of 

Oceanography 

Texas A&M 

University, Corpus 

Christi, TX

1 ROV – 25 years old 

Flow Cytometer – 5 years old 

Mass Spectrometer – 7 years old 

1949 N/A 9 6 16 5 2 0 0 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 283
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Texas A&M 

University Graduate 

School, College 

Station, TX 

• Waterways Experiment 

Station in Vicksburg, MS part 

of curriculum 

• Hydromechanics 

laboratory (contains wave

tanks) 

• Civil engineering

laboratory (contains wave

tanks) 

• Offshore Technology 

Research Center 

• Center for Dredging 

Studies 

• Center for Texas

Shores 

and Beaches 

• New coastal 

engineering laboratory under 

construction 

1876 0 9 6 1

6 5 2 0 0 

Texas A&M 

University, 

Galveston, TX

• 1 393’ R/V – USTS 

Texas Clipper II 

• New engineering

facility 

under construction

• Multiple laboratories 

for the different marinerelated departments 

• Full Bridge mission

simulator 

1876 30 N/A N/

A 0 0 0 11 0 

Marine Biomedical 

Institute, Galveston, 

University of Texas 

Medical Branch, TX 

1 65’ trawler 

2 aluminum boats (15’ & 21’)

Leading neuroscience research 

facility 

1969 N/A 

Marine Science 

Institute 

University of Texas – 

Austin, TX 

1 38’ boat – 12 years old 

1 57’ boat – 21 years old 1946 N/A 6 2 6 2 5 0 0 

Institute of

Geophysics

University of TexasAustin, TX 

Ocean-Bottom Seismometer 

Program 

1 103’ R/V (32 years old – 

renovated in 1997)

1 57’ R/V 

1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

West Coast Region

Marine Science 

Institute, Marine 

Biotechnology 

Center, 

University of 

California-Santa 

Barbara, CA 

4 research centers

Flow injection analyzer, isotope 

ratio mass spectrometer, CHN

analyzer, & Atomic 

Adsorption Spectrometer 

1969 N/A 

284 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

Scripps Institute of

Oceanography, 

University California, 

CA 

1 boat >25’ – 40 years old** 

1 ATV – 11 years old 

Marine genomics equipment 

1903 N/A 6 26 65 15 9 7 0 

Institute of Marine 

Sciences 

University California 

Santa Cruz, CA 

2 22’ boats ages 0 and 4 

3 boats range from 25’-32’ and

ages 0-18 

1965 104 10 8 20 5 3 0 

Bodega Marine 

Laboratory, 

University of 

California-Davis, CA 

1 37’ boat – 0.25 years old 1984 N/A 3 2 0 0 0 0 

Hancock Institute of

Marine Studies 

Wrigley Institute for 

Environmental 

Studies 

University of 

Southern California, 

CA 

1 boat – 45 years old** 

Gene sequencing facility (1 

year old) 

Mass spectrometer – 3 years old 

1965 23 0 3 12 3 1 8 0 

Earth Systems & 

Science Policy 1 28’ research vessel – 2.5 

years old 1994 42 N/A 2 6 1 10 0 

Moss Landing 

Marine Laboratories, 

California State 

University, CA

3 boats ranging in age from 

1-30**

1966 N/A 11 10 8 0 1 5 0 

Hopkins Marine 

Station, 

Stanford University, 

CA 

1 25’ R/V 1892 0 0 4 5 1 1 1 0 

Romberg Tiburon 

Center for 

Environmental 

Studies 

San Francisco State 

University, CA

1 12’ boat – 20 years old**

1 39’ boat – 15 years old 1978 0 6 0 3 1 1 7 1 

Fisheries

Biology/Oceanograp

hy 

Humboldt State 

University, CA

3 boats ranging in size from 12’

to 18’ and 2 to 15 years 

1 90’ R/V 

1940 26 2 0 6 0 0 13 0 

10 

California State 

University, 

Monterey, CA

Numerous small boats 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 285
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

College of Oceanic & 

Atmospheric 

Sciences 

Oregon State 

University, OR

1 57’ boat – 2 years old 

1 AUV 

Supercomputer (8years old**) and

gigabit networking infrastructure 

(1 year old) 

Satellite direct broadcast receiving 

system – 1 year old 

Inductively-coupled 

mass spectrometer 

Organic gas chromatography – 5 

years old 

1924 N/A 15 3 37 18 9 0 

Oregon Institute of

Marine Biology 

University of 

Oregon, OR 

1 14’ boat – 0 years old 

1 20’ boat – 6 years old 

1 42’ boat – 32 years old 

1924 N/A 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 

Schools of Aquatic & 

Fisheries Science & 

Oceanography, 

University of 

Washington, WA 

Ion coupled plasma mass 

spectrometer – 11 years old** 

Stable isotope mass spectrometer 

– 6 years old 

1981 31 35 15 21 16 10 11 1 

Applied Physics 

Laboratory 

University of 

Washington, WA 

2 AUVs (ages 1 and 40) 

2 50’ research vessels – ages 25 

and 35 

1943 N/A 

Friday Harbor 

Laboratories 

University of 

Washington, WA 

1 58’ R/V 

Numerous small boats 

Lab equipment includes: 

1904 N/A 

Alaska Region 

School of Fisheries & 

Ocean Sciences 

University of AlaskaFairbanks, AK

1 26’ boat (age – N/A) 

Arctic Region Supercomputing

Center (age – N/A) 

Mass Spectrometers (age – N/A)

1917 2 19 4 24 10 11 13 

Western Pacific Region 

University of Guam 

Marine Laboratory 

University of Guam, 

Guam 

4 R/V ranging in size from 14’ – 

21’ (age – N/A) 1970 N/A 

0 

• High performance

liquid chromatograph 

• Spectrophotometers 

• Electrophysical 

equipment 

0 

286 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-1: Academic Marine Facilities

Institution/Laboratory Unique Aspects* # Degrees 

Awarded # Faculty Members

- 

Year Established 

A/BS/BA 

MS MA 

PhD 

Full 

Professors 

Associate 

Professors 

Assistant 

Professor 

Instructors/ 

Adjunct 

Other Staff 

School of Ocean & 

Earth Science 

Technology 

University of Hawaii, 

HI 

Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology 

1 research vessel – 23 years old 

1 submersible – 29 years old 

1 ROV – 18 years old 

High resolution alpha 

spectrometer system – 6 years old 

Stable isotope mass 

spectrometers – 10 years old 

1988 14 16 3 90 40 54 51 8 

N/A – Data were not available.

Data for this supplement are based on (1) CORE report data for AY2001 and (2) web research to supplement unique aspects. 

Sixty-nine schools were selected for this table to illustrate the diversity of ocean science educational facilities in the United States. This list is 

only a sampling of the opportunities available for ocean science education. 

* Non-UNOLS vessels only 

** Denotes a replacement plan is in place 

***Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers is 10 years old, however, laboratory facilities at the University date back to 1972.

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 287
SUPPLEMENT 5-2:

Original Members of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions

Name of Institution Overview

Columbia University, LamontDoherty Earth Observatory 

Affiliated with Columbia University, the Observatory operates the 239-foot research 

vessel, Maurice Ewing, which travels the world.

The Observatory actively participates in the JOIDES Ocean Drilling Program and 

houses the world’s largest collections of deep and sediment cores. 

Some of the most comprehensive and accessible databases in seismology and 

geosciences are on-site. 

The Observatory has fully equipped laboratories for rock mechanics, paleomagnetics,

high-pressure experiments, and a wide range of isotope geochemistry, as well as its 

own library, electronics shop, and instrument laboratory. 

Oregon State University, College of 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 

(OSU) 

One of the leading oceanic and atmospheric science institutions in the Nation. 

A research institution with a number of state-of-the-art facilities. Some of these facilities 

provide services to the oceanographic and scientific community beyond Oregon State 

University. All are available for graduate student research of the College. 

Texas A&M University, College of 

Geosciences (TAMU) 

This institution is one of the largest and most comprehensive academic concentrations

of geosciences students, faculty, and research activity in the world, and is a key element 

of TAMU’s Land Grant, Sea Grant, and Space Grant missions. 

The College of Geosciences is home to the Center for Tectonophyshics, the 

Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, and the Texas Center for Climate 

Studies, and is the science operator for the Ocean Drilling Program.

University of California at San 

Diego, Scripps Institution of

Oceanography (UCSD-SIO) 

Scripps is one of the oldest and largest centers for global science research and

graduate training in the world. More than 300 research programs are now conducted 

at Scripps, aimed at gaining comprehensive understanding of the oceans, atmosphere

and structure of the Earth. 

In 1995, the National Research Council ranked Scripps first in faculty quality among

oceanography programs nationwide. 

University of Hawaii, School of 

Ocean & Earth Science & 

Technology (U. Hawaii) 

This division of the University of Hawaii was established to realign strengthen the 

education and research resources within the University. 

The school offers formal and informal graduate and undergraduate programs in 

several disciplines, all enhanced by research programs and resources. 

The institution has several specialized laboratories and equipment that make it state of

the art for education and research. 

Rosentiel School is the only subtropical applied and basic marine and atmospheric 

research institute of its kind in the continental United States.

The school specializes in satellite oceanography, experimental fish hatchery,

sedimentary geology, marine geophysics, ocean acoustics, and marine and 

atmospheric chemistry. 

The school is also known as one of the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences sites for the Marine and Freshwater Biomedical Sciences Center. 

University of Rhode Island, 

Graduate School of Oceanography 

(URI) 

One of the largest and most widely known graduate schools of oceanography in the

Nation, and one of the original group of National Sea Grant Colleges. 

As a center for marine studies, the school is located ideally on the shore of the West 

Passage of Narragansett Bay. 

The school has an extensive outreach program that focuses in the areas of marine and 

environmental education and science communications. 

University of Miami, Rosentiel 

School of Marine & Atmospheric 

Sciences (U. Miami) 

288 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-2:

Original Members of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions

Name of Institution Overview

University of Texas at Austin, 

Institute for Geophysics (UTIG) 

Known internationally as a leading academic institution in geology and geophysics. Its 

location along the Gulf of Mexico facilitates the study of these disciplines.

The school has an extensive outreach program that focuses on geophysical issues. 

University of Washington, School of

Oceanography (UW) 

A national leader in oceanographic research and graduate and 

undergraduate instruction. 

The school incorporates extensive study aboard research vessels into all levels 

of academics. 

Many staff and students participate in formal and informal outreach activities that 

include the award-winning REVEL program. 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution (WHOI) 

The largest independent, not-for-profit oceanographic research institution in the 

Nation. Woods Hole also provides graduate educational opportunities for the 

ocean sciences. 

The premier facilities at the institution are the research vessels, which are 

floating laboratories. 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 289
SUPPLEMENT 5-3: Federal and State Maritime Academies

Name and Location 

of Academy 

Degrees/Certifications Degree Programs Offered Unique Attributes of

Institution 

4-year B.S., Licensed Merchant

Marine Officer, and Appointment 

as officer in a reserve U.S. 

Armed Force 

Marine Transportation, Maritime 

Operations and Technology, Logistics 

and Intermodal Transportation, Marine 

Engineering, Marine Engineering 

Systems, Marine Engineering and 

Shipyard Management, or Dual License 

Only Federal maritime 

academy; home to the 

Global Maritime and 

Transportation School 

California Maritime 

Academy, 

Vallejo, CA 

Affiliated with California State 

University; 4-year, Licensed as a 

Third Mate, Third Assistant 

Engineer, Certified Plant Engineer 

Nautical Industrial Technology; Marine 

Engineering Technology; Mechanical 

Engineering; Business Administration 

Well known for direct,

hands-on approach; first 

maritime academy to admit

females; expanded 

curriculum in 1996 to offer 

a facilities technology 

engineering degree; 

Business degree program 

expanding; Home to the

Institute for Maritime 

Technology Research 

Great Lakes

Maritime Academy, 

Traverse City, MI 

Affiliated with Northwestern

Michigan College; Bachelors in

Business; A.A.S. in 

Maritime Technology 

Deck Program; Engineering Program; 

Business Administration 

Designed as a regional 

maritime academy; the only 

one affiliated with a 

community college

Maine Maritime 

Academy, 

Castine, ME 

Several A.S. and B.S. degrees

offered in Major Programs 

Marine Engineering Operations; 

Marine Engineering Technology;

Marine Systems Engineering; Power

Engineering Technology; Marine

Transportation Operations Small Vessel 

Operations; Marine Biology; Marine

Science; Interdisciplinary Studies 

Academy has the most 

vessels of any U.S. 

maritime college 

Massachusetts

Maritime Academy, 

Cape Cod, MA 

B.S.; Licensed Merchant Marine; 

Naval Officer’s Commission 

International Maritime Business; Marine 

Engineering; Marine Transportation;

Facilities and Environmental 

Engineering; Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection 

Nation’s oldest co-ed 

maritime college; students 

required to spend portion of 

academic program at sea 

or in cooperatives 

or internships 

State University of

New York Maritime 

College, 

Throggs Neck, NY 

Bachelor of Science; Bachelor of

Engineering; Licensure as a Third 

Officer (mate or engineer) for 

Merchant Marine

Marine Transportation/Business 

Administration; International 

Transportation and Trade; Engineering; 

Humanities; Naval Architecture; Marine 

Environmental Science 

Blend of classroom 

instruction as well as three 

summers of international 

travel aboard college’s 

training vessel, the EMPIRE

STATE VI

Texas Maritime 

Academy, 

Galveston, TX

Affiliated with Texas A&M; Bachelor

of Science; Bachelor of Arts; 

Licensed Merchant Marine Officer 

(Third Mate’s License or Third 

Assistant Engineers Licensedepending on major) 

Marine Biology; Marine Sciences;

Marine Transportation; Marine

Engineering Technology 

Blend of classroom 

instruction as well as three 

summers aboard the TEXAS 

CLIPPER II, the Academy 

training vessel

U.S. Merchant

Marine Academy, 

Kings Point, NY 

290 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-4: Maritime Graduate and Continuing Education Institutions

Name and Location of 

Academy 

Degrees/Certifications and

Programs Offered 

Unique Attributes of Institution 

Seattle Maritime 

Academy, 

Seattle, WA 

Affiliated with Seattle Community 

College; Coast Guard-Approved

Certification Programs in Marine

Deck Technology and Marine

Engineering Technology;

Training in a variety of marine

subjects and topics; Provides 

training under contract to private 

companies, government agencies, 

military units, and unions; 

Offer about 45 courses annually 

Mission is to serve the maritime community and the 

industry of the Pacific Northwest through vocational 

education, technical training and licensure; 

Courses directed towards commercial fishing, the 

Merchant Marine, and the workboat industry 

Calhoon Marine

Engineers’ Beneficial

Association 

Engineering School, 

Easton, MD 

STCW-95 courses and certification;

focus on core business of maritime 

education, service to the MEBA

members, and advancement of

excellence to the MEBA contracted 

companies for over 30 years; 

Over 25 courses to the USCG 

licensed deck and 

engineering officers; 

Take high school graduates through 

three years of intense study,

including one full year at sea 

Quality Management System, as certified by Det

Norske Veritas (DNV) and recognized by the 

American Council on Education, ensures faculty and 

students maintain high standards; 

U.S.'s first joint maritime industry-labor training 

institution;

Provides state-of-the-art training to an average of 

1,600 sailing members annually 

Marine Institute of

Technology and 

Graduate Studies, 

Linthicum Heights, MD 

Home to International 

Longshoremens’

Association/Carrier’s Container 

Council Crane Training Center; 

Applicable programs meet USCG, 

STCW-95, American Pilots’

Association, and DNV standards; 

Provides training to military and 

civilian mariners from around 

the world 

Non-profit continuing education center for 

professional mariners; 

Two full-mission ship bridge simulators; eight ship 

interactive blind pilotage simulators equipped with 

ARPA, radars, ECDIS, bridge control, and DSC-VHF 

communications; etc. 

Simulation, Training, 

Assessment, and 

Research Center, 

Toledo, Ohio and 

Dania Beach, FL 

More USCG and other approved 

courses than any other simulation 

training center; 

Basic safety training courses; 

Medical courses; STCW-95 courses;

Bridge simulator courses; Waterfront

courses; Engineering courses 

World’s first 360 degree field of view Full Mission 

bridge simulator, as well as a 247 degree field of

view bridge simulator; 

Slow speed and medium speed diesel engine 

room simulators; 

Full mission diesel electric simulator;

Liquid cargo, radar/ARPA, and GMDSS simulators; 

Courses tailored to individual needs and fully 

integrated into ISM and company policies 

Elkins Marine Training 

International,

Petaluma, CA 

Training for STCW-95 compliance;

Training and certifications in Global

Maritime Distress and Safety 

(GMDSS), STCW-95 General

Operators Certificate for GMDSS,

Restricted Operators Certificate for 

GMDSS, Basic Safety Training, 

Personal Survival, Basic Marine 

Firefighting, Elementary First Aid, 

Tanker Familiarization, Tankership 

Dangerous Liquids and 

Advanced Firefighting 

Training facility is a joint venture between FBT 

Training Unlimited (U.S. company) and Marineworks,

LTD, (London, U.K. company); 

Training mariners and aviation specialists for over 

50 years 

Pacific Marine Institute, 

Seattle, WA 

Wide array of marine safety and 

watchstanding oriented courses;

Entry-Level Career Program; Able

Seaman to Mate Program; Mate to

Master Program 

Nonprofit continuing education center for 

professional civilian and military mariners 

Extensive simulation and in-house 

modeling capabilities; 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 291
SUPPLEMENT 5-4: Maritime Graduate and Continuing Education Institutions

Name and Location of 

Academy 

Degrees/Certifications and

Programs Offered 

Unique Attributes of Institution 

Port Canaveral 

Maritime Academy, 

Port Canaveral, FL 

USCG-approved STCW-95 Basic

and Combined Basic and Advanced

Fire Fighting courses, Basic Safety 

Training; Personal Safety and Social 

Responsibilities; Individual courses 

include Personal Survival Techniques

and Basic First Aid/CPR 

State-of-the-art maritime fire training facility with

simulation capabilities; environmentally safe 

machines as part of simulators 

Resolve Fire and 

Hazard Response, Port 

Everglades, FL 

Fire training in a realistic yet safe 

environment; Wide variety of safety 

training programs to meet training

needs of all mariners with a 

concentration on firefighting 

Vessel training simulator “Gray Manatee”; 

Facility uses environmentally friendly propane gas 

Widely recognized as one of the finest training 

centers of its type in the world; 

292 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-5: National Marine Sanctuaries, By Region

Sanctuary Area (square 

miles) Designation Unique Characteristics Education 

South Atlantic 

Florida Keys,

Florida 2,800 1990 Known worldwide for extensive 

offshore coral reefs 

Several educational programs

include Coral Reef Classroom

(middle school), Community 

Connection, and Coral Shore

High School Mentor Program 

Gerry E. Studds 

Stellwagen 

Bank, 

Massachusetts

842 1992 

Over 1 million visitors a year,

many for whale watching; 

challenging to manage sanctuary 

due to numerous 

competing resources 

Educational programs include 

whale watching programs,

exhibits on site and at aquariums, 

and interactive Web sites 

448 2000 

Most recently designated sanctuary 

and only one for the Great Lakes;

approximately 160 shipwrecks are 

contained in the sanctuary

Educational programs focus on

bringing video links of shipwrecks 

to the visitors center, classrooms, 

and beyond; ongoing 

shipwreck exploration 

Gray’s Reef, 

Georgia 17 1981 

One of the most popular 

recreation areas in Georgia; 

largest sandstone reef in

southeastern U.S. 

Sanctuary sponsors community

outreach marine programs,

presentations, and exhibits; 

several educational publications,

teacher programs, and distant 

learning programs bring the reef 

to the classroom 

Monitor, North 

Carolina 1 1975 

First designated sanctuary; purpose

is to preserve this Civil War 

wreckage; recovery efforts of

important artifacts continues; 

Located 16 miles off the coast in

240 feet of water

The major goal of the education 

program is developing programs 

and products that bring the 

Monitor to the public since it is 

not possible for the public to visit. 

Brochures, posters, publications, 

slide and video programs, public 

presentations, professional 

papers, and the internet are all 

educational tools

Gulf of Mexico 

Flower Garden 

Banks, Texas

and Louisiana 

1992 

Northernmost coral reefs in the 

U.S.; premier diving destination 

and scientist research area for 

people worldwide

Education opportunities include 

exhibits and hands-on activities at 

trade shows and conferences,

presentations in conjunction with

workshops offered by other 

entities, brochures, videos, 

posters, newsletters, trained

Naturalists on Board, Ocean

Discovery Days and 

formal workshops

West Pacific 

Fagatele Bay,

American Samoa 0.25 1986 

Smallest and most remote

sanctuary; only tropical coral 

reef sanctuary 

Educational programs include the

Enviro Discoveries Marine Science 

Summer Camp, and Le Tausagi 

(village outreach) 

Hawaiian 

Islands 

Humpback 

Whale, Hawaii 

N/A 1992 

Scientists estimate two-thirds of the

North Pacific Humpback Whales 

migrate to Hawaii for breed, calve,

and nurse young 

Extensive programs to educate the

public about this species 

North Pacific 

5,300 1992 

The sanctuary is managed to

balance recreational and

commercial uses with protection of

resources; varies between 

undeveloped and settlements of

small towns 

Provide public outreach through

exhibits, publications, programs, 

events and services; provide

sanctuary education for students 

and teachers 

Thunder Bay,

Michigan 

~ 42 

Monterey Bay, 

California 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 293
SUPPLEMENT 5-5: National Marine Sanctuaries, By Region

Sanctuary Area (square 

miles) Designation Unique Characteristics Education 

Olympic Coast, 

Washington

1994 

Sanctuary provides habitat for one 

of the most diverse marine

mammal faunas in North America 

and is a critical link to the 

Pacific flyway; largely 

undeveloped shoreline 

Help develop education programs 

for schools, with emphasis on

teacher training and student field 

investigations; provides teacher

and student training in field 

research methods and hands-on 

field investigations, and assists 

teachers conducting field trips; 

on-site interpretive programs are

carried out with area parks 

Gulf of the 

Farallones, 

California 

1,255 1981 

Serves as a wildlife refuge; visitors 

enjoy easy access to 

shoreline areas 

Coastal Ecosystem Education 

Program (K-12), Intertidal Trash 

Bash (3-5), Sanctuary Explorers 

Summer Camp (8-13 yrs.),

Resource Library (educators), 

School Program (K-8) 

Channel Islands, 

California 1,252 1980 

Over 27 species of whales and 

dolphins visit or inhabit the 

sanctuary; combination of warm

and cool currents create an

exceptional breeding ground for 

numerous plants and animals 

Los Marineros educational

program includes lectures, 

presentations, and student field

trips to local marine sites 

Cordell Bank, 

California 526 1989 

One of the most biologically 

productive areas of the West 

Coast; over most of it the water is 

about 200 feet deep 

> 3,300 

Educational programs at the 

Sanctuary range from displays, 

brochures, classroom visits, 

student summits, outreach events,

lecture series, outings, teacher

trainings, and guided boat tours 

294 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-6: National Estuarine Reserves, By Region 

Designation 

Year Acreage Unique Characteristics Education 

Great Lakes

Old Woman 

Creek, Ohio 1980 571 

Smallest reserve in NERRS; only 

Great Lakes-type freshwater 

estuary in NERRS 

 Educational efforts focus on using audiovisual presentations, field trips and tours, 

lectures, workshops and training seminars to 

increase awareness of coastal wetlands 

and watersheds 

New England 

Great Bay, New 

Hampshire 1989 5,280 

The University of New 

Hampshire’s Jackson Estuarine

Lab is within the reserve 

Educational activities focus on slide shows, 

tours, lecture series, and outreach programs 

for school children and general public; 

several hands on activities and programs 

Narragansett

Bay, Rhode 

Island 

1980 3,845 Home to the densest herd of white 

tailed deer in the northeast 

Educational programs include interpretive 

hikes, tours, and a learning center; a touch 

tank and education building are available 

on a seasonal basis 

Waquoit Bay,

Massachusetts

1988 2,500 

Washburn Island, in the western 

part of Waquoit Bay, is one of the

last undeveloped coastal 

properties on Cape Cod, 

Bordering Waquoit Bay on the 

south is South Cape Beach,

Waquoit Bay is the dominant

feature of the Reserve and 

includes 825 acres 

Reserve staff hold workshops for coastal 

decision makers; community courses offers 

on a variety of topics; staff work with local 

schools through teacher training to develop 

curriculum with a coastal focus 

Wells, Maine 1,600 

The Wells Reserve is dominated 

by salt marsh, but also 

encompasses fields, forests, and

beaches, a variety of habitats

supporting diverse plant and 

animal communities 

The reserve educates the general public 

through lectures, guided tours, workshops,

and field trips focusing on the reserves 

natural history and current research; Estuary 

participates in the Estuary-Net Project 

South Atlantic 

Apalachicola 

Reserve, Florida 1979 246,000 

One of the most productive 

estuarine systems in the 

Northern Hemisphere 

Outreach education includes Estuarine 

Habitats (K-5) and Project Estuary (6-12); 

field activities; educational exhibits; and the 

coastal management workshop series 

ACE Basin, South 

Carolina 1992 134,710 One of the largest undeveloped

estuaries on the East Coast 

A variety of educational programs for 

educators, coastal decision makers, 

lawmakers, students, and the general public; 

programs include a touch tank program for 

children, educational cruises, and a marsh

classroom adventure program 

Jacques 

Cousteau, New 

Jersey 

1998 114,665 

The only reserve in the system

named after an individual; only 

reserve to expand its boundaries 

into the Atlantic Ocean

Staff conduct a variety of workshops for local 

government officials and decision makers; 

staff also provide professional training, 

educational tours, teacher training, and K12 curriculums specific to New Jersey 

coastal issues 

Rookery Bay, 

Florida 1978 110,000 

Education efforts include boat-based field 

study programs for students, adult education 

programs, training workshops for 

professionals, and outreach programs for

the local community 

Guana Tolomato 

Matanzas, 

Florida 

1999 55,000 Newest reserve in NERRS As a new reserve, the educational program 

is under development 

Sapelo Island

Reserve, Georgia 

1976 17,950 

A typical barrier island natural 

community, from the diversified 

wildlife of the forested uplands to 

the vast expanses of Spartina salt 

marsh and the complex beach 

and dunes system. 

Educational programs for schoolchildren 

and the public focus on the facets of 

Georgia’s coastal and estuarine ecology; 

interactive and narrative programs; and 

curriculums designed for teachers 

Estuarine 

Reserve 

1986 

One of the largest mangroveforested regions in the new world. 

Rookery Bay represents one of the 

few remaining undisturbed 

mangrove estuaries in 

North America 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 295
SUPPLEMENT 5-6: National Estuarine Reserves, By Region 

Estuarine 

Reserve 

Designation 

Year Acreage Unique Characteristics Education 

North InletWinyah Bay,

South Carolina 

1992 12,237 

As the estuary with the third 

largest watershed on the east 

coast, Winyah Bay has been 

greatly influenced by agriculture, 

industry and other 

human activities 

Reserve educational opportunities serve 

audiences of all ages; short courses,

seminars, tours, and open houses are held

year round; evening lectures, forums, and

seminars directed towards adult audiences 

complement the numerous family oriented 

ecology programs

North Carolina 1985, 1991 10,000 

Currituck Banks, Rachel Carson,

Zeke’s Island, and Masonboro 

Island make up reserve 

Educational activities include workshops and 

outreach programs for school groups; 

Estuary Live, an internet field trip program, is 

used worldwide 

Delaware 8,600 

The Blackbird Creek component 

is dominated by freshwater 

wetlands, ponds, and forested 

habitats. The St. Jones 

component is dominated by salt 

marshes and open water habitats 

of the Delaware Bay 

Reserve offers a wide variety of educational 

programs to the general public, school 

groups, organizations, and educators; 

examples include a guided wetland walk, St. 

Jones River boat tours, and coastal decisionmaker workshops

Hudson River, 

New York 1982 4,838 

Piedmont Marsh is the largest 

brackish wetland on the 

Hudson River 

Educational programs draw on research 

conducted at the reserve; 16 seasonal field 

programs offered targeting adult audiences 

with focus on regional ecology 

Chesapeake Bay, 

Maryland 1985, 1990 4,820 Multi-component reserve reflects 

the diversity 

Reserve serves as living classroom for 

audiences of all ages; a wide variety of 

educational programs; annual celebration of 

Estuaries Day

Chesapeake Bay, 

Virginia 1991 4,435 

The range of habitats in the 

reserve are famous worldwide for 

their commercial, recreational, 

and aesthetic resources 

Technical training and education programs;

general education programs for students 

(grades 6-college), educator, and public 

audiences enhance awareness and

understanding of estuary 

Gulf of Mexico 

Grand Bay, 

Mississippi 1998 18,400 

Grand Bay represents the north central Gulf 

of Mexico as a center for estuarine 

conservation, research, education and 

public interpretation 

Weeks Bay, 

Alabama 1986 6,000 

Much of the land surrounding 

Weeks Bay is composed of

forested wetlands and swamps, as 

well as some areas of upland

pine-oak forest 

Numerous education programs include 

“Touch Lab” (targets K-6), guided trail 

walks, and an estuary tour on the

Reserve’s boat 

North Pacific 

Kachemak Bay, 

Alaska 1999 385,000 Largest reserve in NERRS Reserve is in the process of constructing a 

visitor facility with educational exhibits 

South Pacific 

Padilla Bay, 

Washington

1980 11,000 

The bay is filled with sediment

from the Skagit River, making the

bottom very shallow, flat, and

muddy. Almost the whole bay is 

intertidal. This condition allows 

unusually large eelgrass meadows 

to grow. There are nearly 8,000 

acres of eelgrass in Padilla Bay 

The education program supports K-12 and 

adult audiences with four curricula, 

classroom and field studies; the staff holds 

coastal decision maker workshops; “Fish 

Feeding” program is an interpretive tour of

the Reserve’s saltwater aquarium 

South Slough 

Reserve, Oregon 1974 4,700 

Educational programs focus on a wide 

range of audiences; coastal decision maker 

workshops have been developed 

Tijuana River,

California 

1982 2,500 

One of the few salt marshes 

remaining in Southern California,

where over 90 percent of wetland

habitat has been lost 

to development 

Education programs are bilingual and 

include K-12 programs, interpretive walks,

beach clean-ups, coastal decision maker 

workshops, and teacher training courses 

1993 

One of the most biologically 

productive estuarine reserves in

the Gulf Coast region 

Connecting to the ocean through 

the Coos estuary mouth, near 

Charleston, Ore., South Slough 

provides an outstanding 

natural laboratory

296 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-6: National Estuarine Reserves, By Region 

Estuarine 

Reserve 

Designation 

Year Acreage Unique Characteristics Education 

Elkhorn Slough, 

California 1979 1,400 One of the few undisturbed 

coastal wetlands in California 

Extensive research carried out at reserve 

involving university students; education

program designed to help teachers become

proficient environmental educators; the 

coastal training program is in place to 

educate the public about coastal resources 

Caribbean 

Jobos Bay, 

Puerto Rico 1981 2,883 

Second largest estuarine reserve 

area in Puerto Rico; plays a

leading role in the International 

Coral Reef Initiative 

Reserve engaged in cooperative programs 

with University of Puerto Rico, Sea Grant 

Program, and other educational institutions

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 297
SUPPLEMENT 5-7: Federal Seashore/Lakeshore/Coral Reef Parks

Park Name Designation Acreage 2001/2002 

Attendance Education 

National Seashore/Lakeshore Parks 

South Pacific 

Point Reyes 

National 

Seashore, 

California 

1962 71,068 2,294,544 

Provides extensive education opportunities that 

include teacher workshops, ranger-led curriculum, 

high school summer internships, interactive Web

site, and overnight 

educational opportunities 

Gulf of Mexico 

Padre Island 

National 

Seashore, Texas 

1962 663,890 130,434 

Sea turtle education and release program; and an 

adopt-abeach program 

Gulf Islands 

National 

Seashore, Florida 

and Mississippi 

1971 137,458 4,428,944 Several educational programs for general public; 

19th century forts; and nature trails 

Mid Atlantic 

Assateague Island 

National 

Seashore, North 

Carolina 

1965 39,733 1,874,661 

Wild horses roam the seashore freely; numerous

educational programs targeting ages 4 and up –

focus is beach conservation and marine species

education 

Cape Hatteras 

National 

Seashore, North 

Carolina 

1937 31,263 3,331,952 

Wealth of history related to shipwrecks, lighthouses 

and the U.S. Lifesaving Service; seasonal education 

programs given by rangers 

Cape Lookout 

National 

Seashore, North 

Carolina 

1966 28,243 561,976 

Three barrier islands that are part of seashore 

contain significant historical and natural features;

On-site programs include: Lighthouse Keepers/Life

Savers, Barrier Island Visitors, Barrier Island

Ecology, and Salt Marsh Critters 

Fire Island 

National 

Seashore, New 

York 

1980 19,579 646,812 

Numerous visitor centers on site have a variety of 

educational and 

interactive programs 

South Atlantic 

Canaveral 

National 

Seashore, Florida 

1975 57,662 1,141,654 

Seashore has a junior ranger program for ages 6-

12; numerous educational programs include Beach

Discovery Hunt, Seaside Discovery, and high school 

magnet programs

Cumberland 

Island National 

Seashore, Georgia 

1972 36,415 43,816 

Seashore is well known for its sea turtles, shore 

birds, dune fields, maritime forest, salt marshes, and 

historic structures; various educational programs for

school children are given year round 

298 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities
SUPPLEMENT 5-7: Federal Seashore/Lakeshore/Coral Reef Parks

Park Name Designation Acreage 2001/2002 

Attendance Education 

New England 

Cape Cod 

National 

Seashore, 

Massachusetts

1961 43,605 4,495,452 

Seashore contains a variety of historical structures; 

several oneday and overnight 

educational opportunities 

Great Lakes

Apostle Islands 

National 

Lakeshore, 

Wisconsin 

1970 69,372 186,232 

The Apostle Islands archipelago includes 22 islands 

and is located in far northwestern Wisconsin, off the 

Bayfield Peninsula; educational programs include 

service learning and wilderness study 

Pictured Rocks 

National 

Lakeshore, 

Michigan 

1966 73,228 420,320 

The first national lakeshore designated; the park 

has two information centers as well as two 

interpretive centers; seasonal education programs 

offered 

Sleeping Bear

Dunes National 

Lakeshore, 

Michigan 

1970 71,176 1,126,176 Many cultural and natural resources; Seashore has 

a junior ranger program for ages 6-12 

Indiana Dunes, 

National 

Lakeshore, 

Indiana 

1966 15,063 1,175,043 

Partnership between the National Lakeshore and the 

Indiana Dunes Environmental Education 

Consortium to enhance educational programs;

overnight programs for grades 4–6 students; 

various year round educational programs 

National Coral Reef Parks

South Atlantic 

Biscayne National 

Park, Florida 1980 172,924 486,402 

Educational camping program in place; a

“Discovery Room” is in development for hands-on 

interaction

Dry Tortugas 

National Park, 

Florida 

1992 64,701 73,469 

Seven islands along with the coral reef make up the 

park; ranger-guided programs; visitor center at 

Fort Jefferson 

Caribbean 

Virgin Islands 

National Park, 

Virgin Islands 

1956 14,689 713,462 

Virgin Islands Environmental Resource Station

educates through snorkeling expeditions, guided 

tours, exhibitions, and presentations

Salt River Bay 

National Park and 

Ecological 

Preserve, Virgin 

Islands 

1992 948 N/A Park contains numerous monuments of historical

significance 

Chapter 5 Supplemental Materials 299
SUPPLEMENT 5-7: Federal Seashore/Lakeshore/Coral Reef Parks

Park Name Designation Acreage 2001/2002 

Attendance Education 

Buck Island Reef 

National 

Monument, Virgin 

Islands 

N/A N/A N/A 

Famous underwater trail; park is open to visitors for 

walking, snorkeling, and diving; much-acclaimed 

underwater interpretive trails 

Gulf of Mexico 

Guadalupe 

Mountains 

National Park, 

Texas 

1966 86,416 208,098 

Park contains some of the most extensive Permian 

limestone fossil reef; several educational and 

interpretive programs 

Western Pacific 

Kalaupapa 

National Historic 

Park, Hawaii 

1980 10,779 96,143 

Visitor center with interactive exhibits; no regular 

interpretive programs due to the restricted nature of

visitation to 

the park 

National Park of 

American Samoa 1993 9,000 N/A 

One of the most remote national parks in the U.S.; 

park preserves the only mixed-species paleotropic 

rainforest in the U.S.; Home Stay program allows 

visitors to live with native Samoans 

KalokoHonokohau 

National Historic 

Park, Hawaii 

1978 1,161 50,003 

Established to preserve Hawaiian culture; relatively 

undeveloped; education programs focus on native 

plant and animal life, habitat & ecosystems within

the park, and cultural history; programs focus on 3rd

and 4th grade students, but can be modified for

other age groups if notified 

War in the Pacific 

National 

Historical Park, 

Asan, Guam 

N/A 2,037 147,273 

Park suffered major damage from Super Typhoon 

Pongsona in December 2002; most of the park is 

closed until further notice 

300 Inventory of U.S. Coastal and Ocean Facilities