!
"


#$$%
	&$



'	

#$()
$$


							*	
	%+
	

,%+
*


-
%$)

%	$

./012345677
3%534567443#5

"$$	8

$(



/

9'*674

9$	1:;674

#$834567767


#
%
	8

$8<<2222%<<$
	



	






	






$8

 $(

 $%	$	=$

	



	


 

			 

 !"

#	!$%&&! !

#'(	 !$%&&! %"

#)		
	 %*

#'	(	 (

(	 "!

#( ""

+,(	

		





	



	


		



	
	
 
!



"#$%





!
!&

		

'

!(
	
)&




		

%'

!(
	
 

*



		



	
	
!&+


,

		

-

	
	
	

.!






'



		

/!(

!&%


		

0
!
!&%
1
	
 	

		

'2""/!
	3
3

4
2""3(

'




!
!&

5


6!
-!

		

6- 


	(
	

(
	



-)!./
)	( !&

-)%.
		( !!

-)".!- 		 %*

-)0.!$%&&&- 		 %

'	 !.		 (	
 
























 !

'	 %.-'  






































































 %&

'	 ".- (	1	$! %2

'	 0. 	 %2

'	 *.- (
3	(( %4

'	 2.- (
56	  %4

'	 .- (
3
6	  %

'	 4.- (	1	$!$%&&&"&




 



#
2 !
"


%

#%


$%
#$


%$$%



$$>



=&%

%
	::

?
$

 !
"
35-
	?
$$$

@4;

'


%$%A$

-$%$
$$(3(5

"./$%
#
		

%' $	
*$


2	
.	
#

/B

$

$$

%$2

#$

$%

2%%$%$
%

+
2 #



$$%2$$



	


	$-

0%	$%%$$$

$
A
	
%$

=

%'



22#
%


%	2%%#


%
6*#$%

%

%2

.0#%'%$%

$

&".+

		

"
$$




'9$$
$$

2
%*$%$$%
0


2%#

2
%$

$
2$
$


$)
$




%$C
D
#$


%$$
	$



 !
"
3 /$---5

#

$$


$%


8

 !!!!"


"#$	

""	


%!!	&##

		

#'	



	#"	

(

)'%!!!

#'	

"	



''	"


	


&	"##
#

	

(

	
#"'

	
					

			"'#


(	

	#

		"

&			&&##

"	


					(*

#::?


8

+'

		

		'""

,#
	

		#,

--%(*	



	



 







 #E /B
&%%$

2C202D1/B



$A0A$2%*
;

F2%	/B
)

$$


0%%2
	$	






 
!
!&!	

(


("#


$$%

	%

$	


$



%-*$


$$



 -	
 
9 $=0.


%
2



C%$D+$$2

/$

6 #%
$%
0




$2$8  #%	"	
		


9$. 
	9$

0	2
G

 #%	#	
#
		"#

	###
#(#$

2
A$G

 #%$
	

".
#	


G

 
$$#


 
$



#""#'#
	/			G

 # !
"

&	'
"

#

"'.
"
'	/22G

 
 
'$+

%	2$0A$G

 #"	/0#


A
$
22

	



(
$%



'2
$

 $	(


$%@$$


'
$%

$$*


-
%	2


%$$2
0#
0$2


2%2 

!
"

%

$$

%


$




 

 !

#
)%22$

$		

(2

.!



.A$$2$	$

%2$





	)
1$
$

%
%	)
$

$

)
2

>0

- !
"
$$

0A$
%%
-

:::	2789:;<

3





>	;4$%	760

031$%%

25-
	$$*7#"7

&

2%

 
#0$22%*


;
%&%	


$$%
$
$






,2 !
"


%0$$%
$2

1#
$


0'
$	$


$%
%
2 

-::	?
8C1$

 !
"
!
	::
D

3=/6451

%




	
$$%




	
%
%%

1
$




$(	2%	
+$

	2

			


@
;$1%	$2



2$%
$

$$*@$	

@6@4
$%





	

#E /B
+(%-$0B
$,$

 



C2
$%$+



2%$$D

	'
	

#	
	
"


&				#
#	



#



"

	

(

	&"

'	1
#

##"
''


&				


(

#

/	

/	

	#

/&			

2#&

	3
	#

#(&

#	



&#
	


#	/#

&

#	
#			(

4
-56!	

/7#

	
#

	
""(



##


4
	(


#"		
#

$		
		
%
%

	
	
	

8

'"

9
'	#
	


		#'
(






# 





/9$/. 


::6	$
%

%


+$2%


%1A

$
$
$
$2
%

$	

	


	

			)


	
	%

)
&#
A

)
%2	22
0
$

$
%



 ::;	(	
$

%#

$%$
$$%

E /B
'
$	

2




 
1

#%%

+$$ !
"



*$$$
	$


%
$
:::	:4%



 
*$CD0

$

#8
-	24:$%


2
$2$$


2%22
#

0

0$%

Type of Incident Number

Total incident since 1995 163

Incidents occurring without prior warning

(Immediate incidents)

113

(69 percent of Total Incidents)

Incidents of higher severity occurring within Straits 73

(65 percent of Immediate Incidents)

• Incident means collision, grounding, loss of propulsion or steering

• Higher severity means higher risk of an oil spill, i.e. actual collision, allision (impact with a

fixed structure, such as a pier), grounding, or complete loss of steering


7!'



"
	#
8 %-	24;$

CD2C%D#	

20%%$$$


0
$$
#

+-::6#

8.
0&

	
#/



	


	$
"	

#"


&

	
0	


/	".+
	


	
1	&#'


&		(

	;	#3

'#&#

&'

#'
#/	

	#(

)'-::6


9 %;	!	

""	




#"


"""


<	

=(

##

/
/



/(


&

"		
#'

		

%

%	
	
	


1	&&'

#'
	"	

>
&?	#;	

.
"
'

.8(




 ##

%$

$$2

$ 	2%
$$%

$2

Incidents of

Higher Severity

Incidents of

Lower Severity

Washington seacoast

(approaches to Strait)

9 0

Western portion of Strait 12 2


8
3

('



 
!"
#$

9
2	E %

$.0#-#



$
$$%





$%A

$

#*$


%
2
$	
9$

. 
	9$0	2


#%%$


1$



 
9 $=0.
)


A$
 
2
@;@	<

3 1$$*"5

"$$%	


$%$
/

=$%$

2$0


#%$%E  
$/



+
$2$

"
	

$
	
$$

2/


9


&3




&


	


(!

(
!
!&"

+-:-68

(**$ 	

"!#/	%""

'""

,#
/#

"%@'
	"

+	8
#

(+

#

81'"&

	#/#

.+
	(

'-:-6

8(** 

"
	
"!

/#

",#
(

&		#

.+
	/

"
#(
# 








 #

	"


#2
		$%

'







+
 
2

?
:7;$0$210

 $


 
+

C?D0
 
2


?3A
152)
%


#2)
C0 $2

%
 
A2D-:77	$

)
2*%$

11
;	22$


0$1

%&''(%&'&

)	7==7>
&

3



#2$




'8

 :		

$

 .::	A11>#9$

 ::	A11
	
A11.#



%&&%

!
?
&>
&



-:: +$$$%3F
'


75$2%$
$$#

C$D !


"
 $	8

+'

				'"",#
	

		#,--%(?		
'

				'

#'	B"C""
"4"D	
	#

''#	"
'	"
''	(

#'			
	/&
"	0'


#
	
'

				'(*3 


'/
%+$25

,--60	

8
#
F##

	#0#

0	<##


''
""	(

	$

"	




,	"	


		
( !

/	"(

#.
/	


"#''#

	8(
/

/"
#

/E
/''

/	&"#(C&

('

		
%
	

/	3#&		

#
	#1	&

&'#'



		
	(

,--568


,/	

#"'>
&

0/	
"!%( 

'	"'	

",#
(

+"	

		"

'/

	'
	#



/	

#	
#(!	

""	&	

"/
(


'#3*
#

	

		"
'#

/.+
	

/			
"


	(
#( 






	"
''		''#""
BC""
"

4"D#"#	
##	
"'



				'"",#
#.
"

	(*3 

::68=. /=$5

%&&)


&
 


(




-::=. / !


"
<
 
BF</	
$


		0	
$


$$$

$

$-$	 9

. 39. 5

(#2 #0"

1

::

%&&*


&
 


(



	

-!
::6	 !
"
<
 
=

. /
$A
29. -

%2)

0	$
	

$	/8

		
''#	''#
	
	/	".+
	

"#2'

		/

		#

.+
	#	"#/
#	&

'

''#&		(*3($5

!(
&
(4
&
3

54



-!
::6	*$=1$$#"A'



/
&
	#/#9. #$


%

10	%(
$	

!$


&
(4
&(
)-


9. (#2 #0"

::
*$2%

2 !
"
##0"
E /

B
	/$$	'/
%

#$

2
1

::62$%8

F##
#	
&		
&#

''#'

			
#	#&			F+##
#	



		&
	
	#&

)'-- 6

83
	?

%/	

"	

"	"

$




%(% '	"">
&

?	#
"



(	#

#"#

		

/#8


	'#(

4--683


	.


 %

/	"	&

	"$



""	/

	
B

!'	/	".

+
	D(	;	$


/	



"(

,--6

" B

%"""

"	(

	#	""#

		

$
%

	

/

#	/

#'
"
)(

/

/	
##	

/	&8

#/>


	0'(

&		/		



&!!!!!
	"

"(+
&

&#	
#

/#&		

>
&"	(




 #*

'	"#

	8"	&	(*

#


2$
$

2;$2C%DC*D




(	

 

!(



-!
::6	/&
)
%$

%+
9$/

. 
- 


$	%
%1#'1%2$%


%%


%&&+


!&'


3


-1$::;	//
.(%


0$%%20		$	


	
%
#$



 !
"
2$$9

$27$
$


',	'/
	


<%


F/

#"

	
	##'		&F*

#
$



!
!&!(

1 $::;$.(%
$

$

2$(
$

-
$$



%&&,

'

!&		!
((


-::7
-#


9$$
 3-#9 5	$




 
.(*$
2)
$$

2$	2

$
0.(*E /

B
+
 
,# %

$
%	2$

2


%

&'--6


	BF

%
"/

	"0

	
"

	""



'2#

+!%
"(


			
/		'#

"	/(

&'--:6




	

1 %"

	"

)&

!

'	""0

(	#"#

"8	

/#	>
&

?	#%



,,
-

%%
%
$


!+(	

"

/'	"'	(

---6

FA(& 	

"!
""0=8

>
&?	#/

		8

	"'		/


	'#/			#


'

	%
%
.

		
%!'	

	"
?	#

	0'(+


#	
#			

"
#	

##&		;	#

	
/


#'8(


/	#


#&#

	
/	#

////


	
	(
#. 





	
&
)

@*	
!(A

#/B
$ $=013,$ 
5


%%221
	

2$%$)
3

05A$8

 /$$%
>
0

$>)


 #0
2

%

 $$
%

 '
2	$$


%

 

%


 /$91$

139115(%-$0B
$

,$ 
/$
20
$+

C2
$%$+



2%$$D

%&&&

!
,
	
1'

!&-!
&

-"
:::	
0/0		
9

/	
6	$#2



'-"
:::	/0




E $


E %1
2$.
1$

:::3 /$-,5

'3!


11

:::	%2-#9 E /B




(+
	-#9 $%%

C$%*DE


$2$$


%	$
C0

-#9 DC22D32 !
"
!


"
5$#
2)


%2$
-#9 $
$

%0
#3/5
 
,#

 %$2
$2


/$"

---6B

	''FA

(&/	#"
D




	

/;	

%	

#	


%
G
'	

"'8	.	

/#	#

">
&?	#(

&	'


3"
/#	

#		&#

(C
3


	

"'7#	

#0#/

#	
#

0#0	<#;	

	
0#

0>
(

/ %
(#
$	



# +
"(?


'/!


'	">
&

?	##
?	#	

"//	

	#0#


(?8
	&

	&"'

			0'

1':!


'	/(

	&	
#	

'##""
	

/E	88

&"&	(	#

#"/

/		

"	
#

&
##(




 #

/!
&!(



-%:::	$
+				'7	"
	

.+
	C	.
#+2$$

E /B
$
$
$

%$

$	
8

 , !
"
2;$



;

 #)
 $$2

46;7

;

 #$$%	


%2
%%


%4

;0


$
$

 #$$02
%

$	

0*$

$%

-	$
2-#9 2*$%

%%2
$	2%

$-$	

2


*$%2
%)
$

-...

-4B!	
2""/!,
&!(



-"

	(
$$$

+
"
0		.			(*	3 1$$*(5#

$	@6@4$



	@4:@;;$





@
6@4$

;3


5#$

	2%	


$
$2@
;@$

	$$


!
!&'

-!
&


2:::
		
B%+


	%$%




'	#49 $


=
#
$%
*



%'
$


-$
	 ?
$%@4;

$

' $
.


2

+
	%!!!68


	.

(*$##

>
&	

0'#"


#	##/


(+%/	

#	
&#



$#'


/		#/

/	/	

/	(%

!

"


('

"#"
/


'(


'

&"	'#

#&##"	(

	;	
/3

#
'

/&


	
"'

"
'##(

"/	"

1
	#/	

/	


"'&(		

H	/#(

	%"

/#3"	(
# 





!&
!
) &




-!

	
 
?#9 $=0

.3 5
#

''#	# 	
$

0	

 $:::!

#2


.
E2E  

#$B%E 

/B
(3%5

# $
6$%

2/	 
 
 *


2	
$9

2C
	
	



 !
"
D3 

1$$*'5#

$$$$

F2%	+

)



	22%	$

#

$$%
CD%

$

'%!!!6

8
	

 H#

 G3"		

1B		


%
/	


"

,#
(


		#

	
"
H	

1B
#

		#'
	

/	(

1B/

		###

		#'


//#

	#(&		

/		
#
8


'

	
(




 # 

# !
$%%%&'(($



/
%&&&

92/2. %
	>92

'
2


DESCRIPTION SEA BREEZE SEA VALIANT

Dimensions

Length 126’ 128.5’

Breadth 34’ 38’

Depth 16.5’ 19.9’

Tonnage 198 GT 199 GT

Main Engines 2 Cat Incline 6 Cyl 3606 2 EMD 20-645-E5

Horse Power 4962 max HP 5750 max HP

Bollard Pull Ahead 102,580 lbs 175,000 lbs

Bollard Pull Astern 70,000 lbs 103,000 lbs

Expected Speed* 11.5 Kts 12.0 Kts

Dates on Station 1 Mar - 7 Mar 8 Mar - 30 Apr

* Speed based on performance in light to moderate weather


0
	
	"
	 '&# ,	#

"
'			(B'7((0	<#;	---

'	

I+#1?JD(

#

$2%2.	

:::	1$	:::8


	(

9%.
	:::0
#(%@!2

$
A(
#22$

#2	



#$2
7;	2?


	#22	22

02%0
%.


.
:	$$
	


#(%@!
:
0'68;

	2
;2/$1%	

#

>2$:8;$

.
%8;.
:	

#A(
#2%
#(

%@!8;.
:21	


>#>

A(
#%022

"2/$A(


#$0%
$$%

F(

%$%
&


$$20 1$$*/


 





	
			(

91$;	:::	7%+0


$$
42#-





#

	>	$	
/$

+0


+


2%
#	$

%	

2
221E /B


'2%'2

$$
+0
2

	>	%


E /B
	2+0
2	

'

	

#
'

2

			6	$222
%#



4	;2	*
42


2
-2%2

%$$6
	4$
$
1


%
2&&

223$$5#
+
$$$*


;0-
$%		2

*2"$%


2

0	

202%$

%


%		
'"(




 #

#

		$%

24	:::	!

	
8

	

	(

9"


	
	$	0+	

$$
$$*2/$"

23=
#
=$=$.$I


	

1$$*F5#

		2
2


20%0
7$2

%#%22$$$


A
		%	



2#0+
$

;	



		(

9.	
			2/%	

K	'%



 3=
#
=$=$.$I;	

1$$*F5	2%222	22
%

$
K2,
%-#

		%;

2



	K

2
%

0%%



	(

9!
4	
	
0$	>
,
%	

'/
	$$
$$*2/$

"3=
#
=$=$

.$I47	1$$*F5#E /B


>

$$$



$#>+2



		#		$ !
"


	$$$

	2$()
	

'/
$#$/. 

#$0%
:
$#>


$
64	3 1$$*

5

 


#

$$



:::
-$&			2


%2%+


#

				$2%

2 $	
	9	
8
 





 !
 	(

#		$

%94	
#;$A&

<&
2
*/	


4
2 !
"
#

$	2
$
6	2

$$
#E /B
/$


/$A&<&)



1	#		2$

$1

"#

	(

#		$9
4	
:6


0)/#)/	2
$



	2%

2 !
"
#E /B





2+(


#/B
)
$+.
0


/'0	'/
#

		
0

$



99
7	
	$	4#
	$

%2$$ !
"
	


 	2

-$	E 

/B

)
$835

$'
C!D3 5	35


'
C!D$10


(9
			2

%%
$%

'
C!D$
 
 


$2
#		

$$%'
C!D



3?0
-:::	(

20
 
$2
)
5




 

#


$%%%&'(($

"$





2
F2%	


2$	
$



%8

 1
2%2$%



$G

 #%+
$3
??

CJ-D/
52

+2)


%$G

 #/B
$9 $?#
"


39 ?#"5$G

 # +9 $=$1


$

#%$%

	!" 

#E %	
 
$ %&	



'.1$:::#2

$$
$
"
20/0		

9/"
2
"
:::


/0

	

":::!

	%3E 

%/B
52

". %#%
%

2 !
"
	

	

$#49 $
=
#


$%
*

%'


$


"
 K @		

 
 K 	

#.

 K 6	

 C D79#;;9;;;

>
&3
&
 C 7E<(

 


#?
$%@	4;	2





'	#

"
		2#
2$

 $	

.	
(2%



%
$%$
( 








 *

#	!


1$
$
'$



2$2
/2. %+

>7;$
;	7;$2 ".+

		7$
6	$2

"$	1$::;$/.

(%$=1
7

$
 !
"
,
%-



+1

::6(#2 #0"


2;$
	$

22
2*$$

 
	10	22%
%

%
 
	

%-

	1/2
3
152	


$2;$
	2%

 

#
$$



$



0


	!" 


2	




$2%#E %

#E /B
$$$



31$$*-5


:7===
!
!&



Value Measured (units) Minimum Maximum Average

Time to get underway (minutes) 0 45 10

Time to arrival at ship (minutes) 13 210 80

Distance traveled to ship

(nautical miles)

Not Available Not Available Not Available

Underway Speed (knots) Not Available Not Available 11.3

Effective Speed

(from tug notification) (knots)

Not Available Not Available 9.6

Wind Speed (knots) 0 40 13.3

Wave Height (feet) 0 22 3.3
. 





#

$624	:::	!



	
8

 #2%3
75
+$


%%
23=


#
=$.$	1$$*F5"
%%%%

	

Tug Speed as a function of Response Distance

7.52

9.87 9.78 10.06 10.32

11.34 11.24 11.82

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 to 7.49 7.5 to 14.9 15 to 22.49 22.5 +

Response Distance (Nautical Miles)

Modified Speed Made Good Speed Made Good


@+##"'7((0	<#;	---'	



(

0106-1

0201-1 0228-1

0312-1

0115-1

0208-1 0209-1

0302-1 0403-1

0211-1 0316-1 0205-1 0215-1

0225-1 0414-1

0221-1

0324-1 0204-1

0416-1 0421-1 0212-1

0410-1

0222-1

0309-1

0214-1 0331-1 0126-1

0424-1 0508-1

0607-1

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Rescue Tug Drill/Response Navigation Tracks

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

Navigation Buoy - J

Tug Navigation Track

with Event Id number

0 6 12

Nautical Miles


50	/
	


8	"#	#			

"')' ---,-%!!!(3 1$$*F5




 


%
$$
$

 #2C0D%

2 $
&
=0	

%
/$"31$$*B5

 %$C9%F0D%


	
%$

31$$*B5

 #2$$
*

31$$*B5

 9$
$




%'31$$*B5

 "

/$%%%%

$31$$*B5

1	
%E /B
%

$2	2
:::



$	
%22$$

/B

2%92%$

%%$%%$0
$$3

=
#
=$=$.$I

	1$$*F5

"

#22%
7$

$3$5'"

$


F7===B8;;;
!
!&



Value Measured (units) Minimum Maximum Average

Time to get underway (minutes) 0 15 7

Time to arrival at ship (minutes) 33 419 95

Distance traveled to ship (nautical miles) 6.4 62 17.6

Underway Speed (knots) 8.0 13.7 11.3

Effective Speed (from tug notification) (knots) 6.9 13.7 10.2

Wind Speed (knots) 0 25 13.2

Wave Height (feet) 0 5 1.5

Swell Height (feet) 0 14 5.4
 





=$2$	2%22*

$
+
2

$
$$-2


2$	2%220


$
$	2%22&

$
$%%

%
+%3$
	

5#$
$	2

	2
20#2$2


$%
%%

/$		

Tug Speed v. Wind Speed

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Speed to Ship from

Underway

Tug Obs. Wind Spd

(knots)

Tug Speed v. Swell Height

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Speed to Ship from

Underway

Tug Obs. Swell Ht.

(feet)


 







  

Tug Speed v. Wave Height

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Knots

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Feet

Speed to Ship from

Underway

Tug Obs. Sea Ht.(feet)


G

#2
2
+%
2$2


203
4	;	66	

6
	1$$*F5

 -345		*

34
5$$*7

2
2	
$
:0

 -3;5	
$2
0


'22	)

%2$

0$'
;





 -3665	
$2:0	



2$2

 -36
5	
$2:60	
2


;0
$$
2%

$

70

#		%

	$


2	2%	2
2


2$%




-	
%2

%#	$

1$$*F$
$%


 !
"


1

+
2%$2

$

E /B
+:::-=
#
=$31$$*

-51	2
*$	
2

%$2%
+

$
$2$

$%3"
75
 





#!$	%$

"./$$%2


'





)
	#		4'0'2&


#'	#	1

"'
#

	


8'"(+##
	
	"

"#3	#'H'	/			"
(

48

''		#	
&#	#.'
	

#	&
#"			
#
&##


	(*

1
"+$	1$$*!

Tug Speeds as a function of Response Distance

7.95

9.60 10.52

11.96

9.77

11.17 11.27

12.24

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 to 7.4 7.5 to 14.9 15.0 to 22.4 22.5 +

Response Distance (Nautical Miles)

Effective Speed (knots) Underway Speed (knots)


:




 #

#


)






			

#0$*$1/B




$$%	


 
%#024



;	%%
%

- 7		
	

-2	
2%%

	$

%$


10	%
(
$	 
1

!$$%*%



	8

$((- 

1A0$$
 
?

#9 $=0.%%
	

%
	

0


'

+%$
	
$

# !
"
<
 


=. /	$%	


$$

$	(#2 

#0"

'(	)		'(- 

#%
$%
0




$2$8

 #%	"	
		


9$. 
	9$

0	2
G

 #%	#	
#
		"#

	###
#(#$

2
A$G

 #%$
	

".
#	


G

 
$$#


 
$



#""#'#
	/			G

 # !
"

&	'
"

#

"'.
"
'	/22G
 





 
 
'$+

%	2$0A$G

 #"	/0#


A
$
22

,95	
(

#@4;$%?
2





'

2

'*$	
%


@
;-2$2



2
	(%

$$*@

$	$
*$

#+
"
0		.			*=


1
@6@4

;	;	$2
		$2


(#2 #0"3;

$
$25	
$2$$

$/.(%37$


$25

- 5)	


1
*$
8

 1

$$$#
2


22;
%$

0"
2	%$

2
0

 '%$".2

$
$$.0#

 

$(%


$



:::


	



(
$%



'2
$

 $	(


$%@$$


'
$%

$$*


-
%	2


%$$2
0#
0$2


2%2 

!
"

%

$$

%


$




 

#






	

	

	
		 		


		
	





!"#$%&'((%



(%%&)	*+,	-
	)
	*+,	



./
	
		0
		1(%%&	

 
		)
2	')

'*)



 	


	

	
	




		 1(%%$

 !"			
	!#


$		

	





!%




	

		&
$	'$
(

		)
	

	

 ,	(%%$

 !"'	&
	


"
$	'

*


)
 * 
	

,3	,040+,	3	,
(%%5

 !
	+	

	"
	"*,
	
$		

		"*-../	
-... ,	67'(%%%

	

!
 
	


	*
	8%%6%977(4 

(:'#777


"


		*9;
2	 7(6

67	

	<

*9;
2

777#5	7$%'	2
<

*!!

*

+"	,
-

	



	






*!!

.

/,,!!0

+ "	


/12

3

-







*!!

	




!
"








The Bouchard Barge No. 230 broken tow wire of March 28, 1999

March 19, 1999

0905: Barge B. NO. 230, paired with the tug RALPH E. BOUCHARD, completed

discharge of 138,739 bbls of black oil product at Equilon Martinez, California. No cargo

was left on board. Closing drafts were 3 feet forward and 6 feet aft.

March 25, 1999

0615: The barge hove anchor in San Francisco anchorage 5, bound for Anacortes,

Washington. The tug RALPH E. BOUCHARD and barge B. NO. 230 had been weather

bound at anchorage for 6 days. Barge service oil was onboard including: lubrication oil

for the engines, hydraulic oil for the pumps, mooring winches and anchor winches and

diesel oil in an integral tank and diesel fuel in the service tanks. Barge B. NO. 230 was

on the RALPH E. BOUCHARDís port tow wire. There were six persons aboard the

RALPH E. BOUCHARD (Captain, Mate, 2 Deckhands, a Chief Engineer, and an

Assistant Engineer). There were two tankermen aboard B. NO. 230.

0815: The vessels cleared the main bar channel buoys number 1 and 2. The tugís log

indicated the weather was westerly with an 8 to 11 foot swell

1250: The tug was abeam Point Reyes, California.

1500: The tugís log indicated northwest winds 15 to 20 knots with a combined sea and

swell of 17 to 20 feet, also from the northwest. Tug & tow speed was logged as 4.5

knots.

1715: The tug and tow were clear of the Northwest radius of the vessel traffic service

(VTS) for San Francisco.

1800 to 2400: The tug and tow proceeded North. The tugís log indicates the weather was

northwest with a 14 to 20 foot swell and wind 20 to 30 knots, also from the northwest.

Tug & tow speed was logged as between 4.6 and 6.3 knots.

March 26, 1999

0230: The tug and tow made way point 24 as per the voyage plan, abeam Point Arena,

California.

0300 to 2400: The tug and tow proceeded North at speeds between 7.7 and 9.2 knots.

The tugís log indicated the weather was from the Northwest with a 11 to 15 foot swell

and wind 10 to 20 knots, also from the Northwest.

March 27, 1999

0710: The tug and tow made way point 26 as per the voyage plan, abeam Point Blanco,

Oregon.
0900: The tug and tow proceeded northbound at a speed of 9.2 knots. The tugís log

indicated the wind from the northwest at 10-15 knots with combined seas of 15 feet.

1200: The vesselsí speed had dropped to 7.8 knots. The wind had shifted and was now

from the southwest at 10 knots. The sea was from the west at 14 to 20 feet.

2100: The tug and tow were making 8.2 knots. The tugís log indicated the wind was

now southwest at 25 knots with combined seas of 15 to 17 feet.

March 28, 1999

0300: The tugís log indicated wind was from the west at 20 to 25 knots with combined

seas of 20 feet. The vesselsí speed is logged as 8.5 knots.

1500: Southerly winds had increased to 35 to 45 knots. Seas were 5 to 8 feet with a 20-

foot southwesterly swell. Vesselsí speed 8.8 knots.

1630 to 1800: Southerly winds had increased to 40 to 45 knots with 55-knot gusts.

Southerly combined seas were logged as 28 feet.

1955: At position Lat. 47-58.7N, Long. 125-10.2W the port towing cable parted at the

connection to the ìDî (socket on the tugís end of the towing cable). The wind was from

the south at 35 to 45 knots with southerly combined seas of 14 to 30 feet. When the tow

wire broke, 180 feet of ocean towing bridle chain and an additional 50 feet of 2 1⁄2 inch

wire pennant hung down into the ocean from the bow of the barge. When interviewed,

the master characterized the conditions as hazardous. The tug was subjected to increase

pitching, and the barge laid in the trough of the 30 foot Southerly swell. He reported that

the seas were on the deck of the barge and tug. The tug maneuvered to recover barge.

Notifications were made to Tofino Traffic and the USCG.
0415 Drift Position

About 13.5 n.m.

1955 Drift Start

About 19 n.m.

About 020 degrees.

About 2.3 knots.

Chartlet showing position at start of incident (1955, 03/28/1999) and the position where

the 8-inch hawser parted (0415, 03/29/1999).

2015: The Master of the RALPH E. BOUCHARD notified the New York office of

Bouchard Coastwise Management.

2050: New York office reviewed reconnect procedure with Master of the RALPH E.

BOUCHARD and the barge crew.

2120: The USCG was notified of the incident.

At the New York office of Bouchard Coastwise Management, they contacted Foss

Maritime, their nearest resource was reported to be 60 miles away, so Crowley was

contacted about their nearest rescource.
2115: Crowley Maritime Service dispatched the SEA VALIANT after consultation with

Bouchard management. The tug was about 20 miles and 2 to 3 hours away. The SEA

VALIANT started her engines and got authorization from Crowley dispatch to proceed to

aid the RALPH E. BOUCHARD and B. NO. 230.

2155: Master of RALPH E. BOUCHARD notified Bouchard office in New York that tug

and barge would be ready to attempt emergency tow wire retrieval in 30 minutes.

2240: Crowley contract for the services of the SEA VALIANT reached Bouchard offices

(New York).

2315: Bouchard office was notified by RALPH E. BOUCHARD that the retrieval buoy

was trailing under the bottom of barge and the tug will have to try the line throwing gun.

Arrangements were made for the two tankermen to go on deck. They attached an 8-inch

barge mooring line to the ìDî on the end of the emergency towing wire. The mooring

line was lead overboard and floated astern of the drifting barge. The tug maneuvered to

retrieve the floating 8-inch mooring line in heavy seas while attempting to avoid striking

the barge or fouling the line in the tugís propeller. The tug was taking water over the

bulwarks causing the crew members on deck to hang on or move to avoid going

overboard when the decks were awash.

March 29, 1999

0030: The tug had picked up the 8-inch mooring line and pulled the emergency towing

cable from the retaining clips securing the wire along the port side. About 450 feet of the

cable came free before a problem arose. The emergency tow wire fouled when it got

wrapped around the inside of a closed steel chock located on the port side about 30 feet

from the bow. The tug and barge hove to until daylight. The barge could not be turned

into the sea because the towline lead was not from the centerline of the barge.

0115: The tug SEA VALIANT arrived on scene to assist as necessary. Master of

RALPH E. BOUCHARD notified New York office that the 8-inch hawser and half of the

emergency tow wire was off the barge deck. Says he had too much hawser on the barge

deck and has to straighten it out before proceeding.

0200: Master of RALPH E. BOUCHARD notified Bouchard that the tug was connected

to tow wire, but only by the 8-inch messenger hawser and he was waiting for first light.

0245: The mooring line connecting the emergency towing cable to the tug broke under

excessive tension. The barge began drifting north-northeast. Southerly winds were 30 to

35 knots with combined southerly seas of 25 to 30 feet.

The tugís Master made the decision to let the barge drift until daylight to allow the crew

time to rest and warm-up. He said at one point during the first pick-up attempt he saw

the mate, up to his neck in waves washing over the deck, hanging on to the winch.
The SEA VALIANT offered to attempt to retrieve the barge using an Orville hook,

Bouchard declined, planning on another attempt.

0415: Bouchard was notified that hawser broke and that barge was drifting north (Lat.

48-17N, Long. 125-00.9W).

0600: The operation to recover the barge continued. A safety meeting was held where

the operation to recover the barge was described. All crew wore rain gear, rubber boots,

flotation work vests and hard hats. One deck hand wore a safety line to prevent him from

washing overboard.

0645: Master of RALPH E. BOUCHARD called Bouchard. He told them that he was

leery of attempting to connect to the emergency tow wire since it had an 8-inch hawser

attached that could foul his propellers. He said he would try to pull up the emergency

line using a shackle and a mooring winchóif it could be pulled up, another attempt

would be made to reconnect.

Time Unknown: A 45-caliber line gun with brass projectile was used to connect a

messenger to the barge. The gun was fired in a looping arch over the top of the barge

while the two crew members aboard took cover. It was reported that the wind carried

away the light line causing it to fall clear of the barge. After adjustments for windage and

trajectory the third shot succeeded in getting a small line to the barge. Initially the barge

personnel thought the line had missed; however, from the tug crewís vantage, they could

see the messenger and called the barge on the radio to say the line had hung in the

rigging.

With water coming on deck, the barge crew climbed the mast and retrieved the

messenger. A two-inch line was tied to the messenger and pulled to the barge. Attached

to the 2-inch line was 200 feet of 8-inch Spectra fiber line. The barge crew pulled the

spectra line to the bow and dropped the spliced eye with chaffing protection over the bow

centerline bit of B. NO. 230. The Spectra line was shackled into the starboard tow wire.

0815: Barge B. NO. 230 was recovered by the tug RALPH E. BOUCHARD while the

tug SEA VALIANT stood-by to assist as requested.

0910: Bouchard was notified that tug and barge were underway using secondary towing

gear, and dragging about 450 feet of emergency tow wire below from the barge.

0945: Tug and barge were about 7 miles from Buoy ìJî.

1000: Bouchard was looking at information on submerged cable and other items that can

be damaged by the trailing emergency tow wire.

1115: The tug SEA VALIANT was released by Bouchard; however, the tug log book

indicated that the USCG required the SEA VALIANT to remain in escort of the

recovered tow.
1200: The RALPH E. BOUCHARD was abeam buoy J.

1450: The RALPH E. BOUCHARD and barge B. No. 230 stopped in the sheltered

waters offered by the Straight of Juan de Fuca. With the tug alongside, the bargeís

mooring winches were used to hoist about 450 feet of 2 1⁄2 inch emergency towing cable

and placed it on the deck of the barge along the port side gunwale. After the emergency

tow cable was picked up, the RALPH E. BOUCHARD made up in push mode at the stern

notch of the barge.

1650: The barge was underway towards Port Angeles with the tug SEA VALIANT

standing by.

2115: The RALPH E. BOUCHARD was abeam Port Angeles.

2145: The SEA VALIANT assisted barge B. No. 230 to retrieve about 450 feet of

towing gear by hauling the bridle, pig tail, surge gear and 50 foot wire pennant aboard the

stern deck with her deck crane and capstans. A mooring wire from the barge was

shackled into the end of the pendant to haul the gear up to the barge. The tug RALPH E.

BOUCHARD held the barge made up in push gear.

March 30, 1999

0005: Port Angeles pilot boarded the RALPH E. BOUCHARD. The SEA VALIANT

was reported to have headed west in the Strait of Juan de Fuca at this time.

0020: Barge B. NO. 230 was underway for Equilon, Anacortes.

0130: The RALPH E. BOUCHARD shifted from a pushing to a towing configuration.

0440 to 0630: Barge B. NO. 230 was assisted to the Equilon dock 2 by the tug

BARBARA FOSS.

0610: Pilot off the RALPH E. BOUCHARD

0630: Barge was secure at the dock with the RALPH E. BOUCHARD in pushing

configuration.

When interviewed, the Master was asked what happened. He said they waited in San

Francisco for a week waiting for the weather to break. When they got outside the

weather changed from the northwest to out of the south. The weather from the south was

15 foot swells with bigger swells from time to time up to 30 feet. He said he saw a set of

the big swells coming on radar and then visually. He pulled the engines back to 125

r.p.m. then, when the swells got to the tug, one made the tug go one direction while the

barge was trying to go up the back side of another one. The Master spoke very

supportively of the rescue tug. He said it provided a comfort factor to the hazardous

conditions his people worked in.
Between 1955, when the port tow wire broke, and 0415, when the 8-inch hawser broke,

barge B. NO. 230 drifted about 19 n.m. at 020 degrees (True) (speed of drift about 2.3

knots).

*!!

3




!
"


#

The M/V VIRTUE loss of propulsion incident of June 7, 2000

The dedicated rescue tug, BARBARA FOSS, stationed at Neah Bay under contract with

Washington State, was called upon to assist the VIRTUE which was adrift about 25 miles

off the northern Washington coast. The VIRTUE was a grain ship bound for Vancouver,

British Columbia.

The incident began on Monday, June 5th, when the VIRTUE lost propulsion due to

exhaust valve problems and began a slow drift north. Propulsion problems were first

noted at 1600 with the onset of engine knocking and turbocharger surging. This

necessitated an engine shutdown and an opening of the cylinders at 1700. The No. 3

cylinder was found to have fuel oil accumulation on the piston crown. The piston was

overhauled and the rings renewed.

The engine was restarted at 1400 on June 6th, but had to be stopped again due to severe

knocking and turbocharger surging. Knocking was noted in cylinders Nos. 1,2, 3 and 6.

The ship continued its journey at reduced speed (60 r.p.m. ñ full sea speed is 83 r.p.m.).

The U.S. Coast Guard was notified at 0200 on June 7th of the problem and required that

the VIRTUE to obtain ìÖa tug of a size suitable to achieve and maintain controlÖî after

determining that the ship posed ìÖa substantial threat of dischargeÖî

At 0600 on June 7th the main engine stopped on its own. The scavenging spaces on the

main engine were opened again and fuel oil accumulation was found on piston crowns of

cylinder Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6. The No. 2 piston also had a broken ring. The ring on No. 2

and the fuel injectors for 1, 2, 3, and 6 were replaced. The BARBARA FOSS got under

way from Neah bay to assist the VIRTUE at 0647, Wednesday, June 7th, and arrived on

scene at 0948.

At 1400 the engine was restarted and the turbocharger made a lot of noise and smoked.

Engine r.p.m.ís fluctuated badly.

The BARBARA FOSS stood by while the VIRTUEís crew continued to work on repairs

near Latitude 48-11.15N, Longitude 125-19.38W. Weather conditions on scene were

relatively good.

Intermittent failures of the main engine continued as the VIRTUE, escorted by the

BARBARA FOSS, made its way to the Strait of Juan de Fuca at reduced speed. The

escort began at Lat. 48-15.7N, Lo. 125-18.4W.

At 2135, just inside the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the U.S. Coast Guard (in

consultation with the Canadian Coast Guard and the shipís operator) ordered the master

of the VIRTUE to accept towing assistance. The Captain of the Port Order (00-019)

stated ìWhile you report that your engines are now operating properly, we have received

reports that your vessel continues to intermittently loose (sic) and regain propulsion

capabilities. Repairs have not been made to my satisfactionÖî The VIRTUE was under
tow by the BARBARA FOSS at 2210. The VIRTUE dropped anchor at Royal Roads,

Victoria, British Columbia at 0705 on Thursday, June 8th with the assistance of an

additional tug, the SEASPAN CAVALIER.

The ship underwent repairs at Victoria attended by the shipís superintendent and a Sulzer

Engineer (actually a Wartsilla N.A., Inc. engineer on behalf of Sulzer), conducted sea

trials. The turbocharger was still malfunctioning, but was required to be repaired at

Vancouver.

The VIRTUE got underway for Vancouver at 1924 on June 11th. Within 30 minutes of

getting underway the turbocharger began surging again. Engine r.p.m.ís were reduced,

but problems persisted. The engine was again shut down while adjustments were made.

The ship was able to continue to anchorage at Vancouver at reduced speed.

Repairs were made to the turbocharger on June 13th at a repair berth. All the

turbocharger blades were found to be badly damaged. Repairs were completed at 2330

on June 15th. The main engine was tested satisfactorily on June 16th and the VIRTUE

departed the berth at 1300 bound for Portland, Oregon. The only residual issue noted by

shipís personnel was the No. 5 cylinder, which was running with a low exhaust

temperature.

The VIRTUE, a 593-foot bulk cargo ship registered in Singapore, was reportedly

carrying about 138,000 gallons of diesel oil as fuel.
*!!



/,,!!0

+*
	


4,.5-









*!!



/,,!!0

+ !
6
0

	



-









*!!

7

*


3

*


3

*!!

8

3)!
!

0.5

10

1

7

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0106-1

Ship - ICHI MARU

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

1/6/00

11:16

11:23

18:22

18:35

23:40

62

885

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

bucked sly after duntz rock buoy for trip av. 8.9k

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.4

25

3

4

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0115-1

Ship - I LIKE FISH

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

1/15/00

16:21

16:30

17:23

17:23

18:20

7.1

902

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

went well. time to dept. neah bay takes approx 15-20 min. due to

having to idle out of marina thru pinnacles.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.3

15

1

5

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0126-1

Ship - BEHEMOTH

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

1/26/00

8:50

8:55

10:20

10:23

11:45

15

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

exercise went well. no problems. all systems running well.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.9

12

1.5

5

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0201-1

Ship - USS SACRAMENTO

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/1/00

14:40

14:50

17:23

17:45

20:30

30.5

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

run 30.5 n.m. in 2.7 hours. 11.1 knots. slowed once for deep draft

traffic approx. 4 minutes. heaving line from ship. pick up three

passengers from stern. turned with swell crew wet on back deck.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.8

20

3

10

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0204-1

Ship - PELAGIC

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/4/00

9:50

9:55

11:13

11:15

12:40

15.9

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

tanker pelagic lost steering and power

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.5

13

1

6

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0205-1

Ship - BOXER

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/5/00

21:21

21:27

23:00

23:00

0:30

17.5

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

dist travel approx 17.2 n.m. - avg. 10.5 kts from dock to p.a.

all went well

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.3

15

1.5

1

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0208-1

Ship - CRAB ONE

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/8/00

15:45

16:00

17:02

17:34

19:25

13

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

run 13 miles in 1 hr 2 min = 12.6 kts. set & drift 113 t 2.4k

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.3

15

2

4

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0209-1

Ship - USS RODNEY M DAVIS

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/9/00

8:25

8:35

10:10

10:22

11:45

17.4

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

uss rodney m davis adrift in p.a. 48-18.8n, 124-08.6w. has engine room

casualties as per seattle vts. no problem. dist trvl frm dept

17.4 nm time run frm dept 1 hr 35 m - avg spd 11.2 kts

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.5

5

0.5

3

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0211-1

Ship - USS DAVID R RAY

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/11/00

4:40

4:49

5:22

5:22

6:15

7.5

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

tug comments: rendezvous with uss david r. rey. 7.5 nm dist run @

32 min from dk dept. avg spd 14.1 kts. all went well.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1

0

0

5

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0212-1

Ship - BARGE 2000

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/12/00

15:24

15:36

16:14

16:15

17:15

6.4

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

all went well. dist run 6.4 nm 1 hr 39 min. avg spd 10.2 kts.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.4

20

2

3

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0214-1

Ship - CANOPUS

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/14/00

13:41

13:46

15:47

15:47

18:20

26

Unk

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

variable engine rpm. running time 121 min and run of 26 nm for a

avg trip spd of 13 kts. fin going. no problems.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
2

10

0

10

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0215-1

Ship - SWIFT OCEAN

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/15/00

15:37

15:47

17:04

17:04

18:40

15

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

all went fine. 15 nm run from neah bay - running time @ dept 1 hr

17 m - avg spd - 11.7 kts

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.2

12

1

5

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0221-1

Ship - STURGEON

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/21/00

12:36

12:36

13:25

13:25

14:05

10.2

800

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

when called we were at tatoosh i. on warm up cruise.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 11/01/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.4

25

5

12

Rescue Tug Response Report #0222-1

Ship - CLIPPER ARITA

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

02/22/00

13:06

13:17

14:37

14:37

16:02

13.6

905

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

vessel adrift making repairs 8 nm west of buoy j. drifting westerly

@ 0.5 kn. tofino traffic released tug 1.3 nm east of ship.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/13/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.5

22

2

3

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0225-1

Ship - NEPTUNE

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/25/00

10:29

10:37

11:10

11:11

11:39

7.1

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

mv neptune lost steerin in inbound traffic lane. mild weather.

all went well.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.6

0

0

0

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0228-1

Ship - USS CAMDEN

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

2/28/00

1:05

1:05

4:00

4:00

8:50

40

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

uss camden loss of power & drifting nw towards constance bank.

uss camden finished drills when we were about 1.5 miles from him.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1

12

1

4

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0302-1

Ship - GALAXY

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

3/2/00

14:09

14:24

15:27

15:27

16:36

11

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

galaxy lost steering and drift 115 t at 1 k. we were loading grub at

the time. joe was at the store, still u/w in 15 minutes.

called on channel 16 by tofino traffic.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.2

10

1

6

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0309-1

Ship - OMEGA

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

3/9/00

18:25

18:36

19:55

20:47

22:30

15.5

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

set 270 t, drift 0.3 k drifted for 41 min. for 0.25 miles.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.8

20

3

0

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0312-1

Ship - CORNUCOPIA

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

3/12/00

20:20

20:30

21:35

21:36

Unk

11

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

1 hr and 05 min run for a dist of 11 m for avg spd of 10.3 kts. all went well.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.4

25

0

7

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0316-1

Ship - DATSUN

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

03/16/00

12:18

12:26

13:25

13:25

14:55

10.4

903

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

mv datsun adrift w/o steering and power. drifting 085 @1.5 kts

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.2

8

0.3

8

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0324-1

Ship - OLYMPIC QUEST

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

3/24/00

14:20

14:25

15:55

16:00

17:45

17

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

container ship olympic quest lost propulsion

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.6

6

1

8

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0331-1

Ship - SWIFT SURE

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

3/31/00

8:30

8:34

10:20

10:20

12:15

19.8

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

vessel swift sure lost power & adrift. had approx. 15 delay until

pos. confirmation made. given wrong position by dispatch.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0

22

2

3

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0403-1

Ship - SAN JUAN

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

4/3/00

15:50

15:56

17:10

17:15

18:30

14

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

d.i.w at 48-22’, 124-15.6 w. run lit to d.i.w.; all went well

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.3

0

2

2

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0410-1

Ship - AJAX

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

4/10/00

7:08

7:15

8:48

8:48

10:24

17.8

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

ajax lost propulsion drifting 090 t, 1.2 kts. all went well.

good weather.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0

12

0.5

3

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0414-1

Ship - COMMODORE

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

4/14/00

12:33

12:40

13:33

13:35

15:45

8

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

container ship commodore lost propulsion & adrift.

drill went fine - tl spd make good frm dept 1200 frm emt @ 1335 start set &

drift w/ barbara for 4 hr. 1435 fin w/ drift 169 @0.3 kt spd.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.3

5

1

8

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0416-1

Ship - CAPE DECISION

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

4/16/00

10:41

10:41

12:06

12:08

14:00

18

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

cape decision adrift w/ steering problem. drifting @ 1 kt - 070 t.

we were already u/w so had a good response time to scene -

avg 12 kts then out transit - no problems.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.7

25

3

3

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0421-1

Ship - ORION

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

4/21/00

15:10

15:17

17:00

17:00

18:35

16.2

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

containership "orion’ lost propulsion. position 48-26n, 124-59w.

drifting 045 t @ 1.1 kt. all went fine contacted sven ecklof and secured

frm drill. 1700 u/w back for neah bay. avg 9.2 kts frm dept.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.4

15

2

14

Rescue Tug Drill Report #0424-1

Ship - BLUE FIN

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

04/24/00

07:25

07:30

09:16

09:16

11:15

18.6

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

f/v blue fin adrift. @ 060 t @ 1.2 kts. received call frm s. eklof

@ 0725. m/e already up running u/w @0730. ran 18.6 nm for a spd of 10.2 avg -

all went fine

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
1.2

12

1

4

Rescue Tug Response Report #0508-1

Ship - SHARLENE K

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

5/8/00

18:15

18:30

19:20

21:45

21:45

9.3

900

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

sharlene k. 96’, 10’ draft lost fuel on m/e & request assistance.

sharlene k. set & drift 097 t - 1.7 k. 1800-1920 - original pos. to dock

arrival time. a/s at salmon fuel pier 21:45.

vessel towed back to fuel pier at neah bay by barbara foss

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
0.6

5

2

8

Rescue Tug Response Report #0607-1

Ship - VIRTUE

Tug - BARBARA FOSS

6/7/00

6:43

6:47

9:48

22:10

12:10

37

Unk

Neah Bay

Port Angeles

Tug Notes:

bulk carrier "virtue" adrift making repairs. escort began 1425.

taken under tow at 2210 just inside buoy j.

Ship distress call location

Tug/Ship Intercept location

Wind speed(knots) and direction

Current speed(knots) and direction

Sea height(feet) and direction

Swell height(feet) and direction

Navigation Buoy - J

Time notified

Depart time

Intercept time

Release time

Return time

Distance to intercept

Tug RPM

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 10/12/00

0 6 12

Nautical Miles
*!!



9	7
!0

+*
 :"9/	"




";


<
-

1

An Overview of the U.S. Navy Chartered

Interim Rescue Tug

In the Western Strait of Juan de Fuca

(March 1, 1999 to April 30, 1999)

Prepared by:

Thirteenth U.S. Coast Guard District
2

U.S. Navy-Chartered Interim Rescue Tug

In the Western Strait of Juan de Fuca

I. Overview

The primary purpose of the U.S. Navy chartered rescue tug was to provide an interim

safety measure against the risk of an oil spill in the western most section of the Strait of

Juan de Fuca. This purpose was met through the placement of a Crowley tug in the

Strait, near Neah Bay, during the two-month period commencing March 1, 1999.

Secondarily, a concerted effort was made to seize the opportunity presented by a publicly

funded tug being placed in the western Strait by collecting supporting information for the

planned, Coast Guard-funded, cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, this information could

be considered by the anticipated North Puget Sound risk management panel to be cochaired by the U.S. Coast Guard and Washington State Department of Ecology. The

purpose of this report is to summarize this data collection effort. The report is not

intended to be all-inclusive and data shortfalls are highlighted as appropriate.

II. Background

In early February 1999, U.S. Representative Norm Dicks announced that the U. S. Navy

would be conducting an ìoperational evaluationî of oil spill response capability by

stationing a standby response tugboat near the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Between March 1 and April 30, 1999, a commercial tug operated by Crowley Marine

Services, Inc. (Crowley) was placed on station near the Western entrance of the Strait of

Juan de Fuca. This 60-day placement of a dedicated tug was an interim measure

designed primarily to reduce the risk of a drift grounding by public or commercial vessels

transiting the Western Strait. Subsequent to assignment on station, the tug also provided

some level of protection to military vessels conducting drift analysis studies (discussed in

more detail later) in the same area.1

 

1

 The area of operation encompassed the waters contained within a somewhat arbitrarily drawn arc centered

roughly at the ìJî buoy. This test area necessarily included the adjacent Canadian waters within the Strait,

since the outbound traffic lanes are exclusively on the Canadian side of the international boundary line.
3

The U.S. Navy provided a ceiling amount of $800,000 in funding to hire the Crowley tug

under an existing contract with the U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving

(SUPSALV).2

 Crowley utilized two separate tugs during the 60-day operational

evaluation: the SEA VALIANT and the SEA BREEZE. Each of these tugs met the

capability standards imposed by the Navy under their contract. Originally, the tug SEA

VICTORY was planned for this duty, but ultimately two other tugs proved to be

necessary because of the emergent need for a commercial tug of unique capabilities to

respond during the M/V NEW CARISSA oil spill on the Oregon Coast. A summary of

the tugs utilized, and the capability of each tug is provided in Table 1.

DESCRIPTION SEA BREEZE SEA VALIANT

Dimensions

Length 126' 128.5'

Breadth 34' 38'

Depth 16.5' 19.9'

Tonnage 198 GT 199 GT

Main Engines 2 Cat Incline 6 Cyl 3606 2 EMD 20-645-E5

Horse Power 4962 max HP 5750 max HP

Bollard Pull Ahead 102,580 lbs 175,000 lbs

Bollard Pull Astern 70,000 lbs 103,000 lbs

Expected Speed* 11.5 Kts 12.0 Kts

Dates on Station 1 Mar - 7 Mar 8 Mar - 30 Apr

* Speed based on performance in light to moderate weather

Table (1): Utilization and Characteristics of Crowley Tugs

To take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Navyís placement of a tug on

station in the Western Strait, Crowley, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Navy designed

a series of data collection efforts or operational drills. The goal of these drills was to

gather information in support of an ongoing evaluation of the feasibility, cost and benefit

of a permanently placed rescue tug in the Western Strait as an oil spill risk reduction

measure. This effort was undertaken without any additional personnel or funding support.

III. Operational Capability Drills

The operational capability drills conducted by the Crowley tug are summarized below:

 

2

 The total billing to the U.S. Navy was $502,628.76. This total includes fuel and port charges and is

reflective of the varying rates associated with the two tugs used.
4

1. Response Time Drill (Type I): The rescue tug proceeds to a given geographic point

in the area of operations to measure response time given existing wind, tide, and

current conditions. The primary measures for this drill are tug speed made good and

modified speed made good.3

2. Response Time to a Drifting Vessel Drill (Type II): The rescue tug proceeds to a

location in the area of operation where a U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard vessel is

simulating distress by drifting. The goal of this drill is to measure tug response time,

and the distressed vesselís drift rate given existing wind, tide, and current conditions.

The primary measures for this drill are tug speed made good and modified speed

made good, plus the drifting vessel measures its own drift rate.

3. Response Time to, and Emergency Tow Hook Up to a Drifting Vessel Drill (Type

III): This drill is identical to the Type II drill, except that the rescue tug passes a

towline to the ìdriftingî vessel and tows the vessel a short distance. The primary

measures for this drill are to capture the same information as Type I and II drills plus

measure how quickly a tow can be established once the tug arrives on scene.

IV. Drill Results

During the 60-day evaluation period, there were 100 total drills conducted, plus two

instances where the tug responded to vessels potentially needing assistance. Of these, a

total of only 80 drills possessed sufficient documentation to be considered. A breakdown

of drill types is represented in Table (2).

Type I Drills Type II Drills Type III Drills Responses

Total Exercises 78 21 1 2

Exercises w/ Data 63 16 1 1

Table (2): Crowley Rescue Tug Drill Composition

For each of these 80 total drill-types, various data was collected and relatively

straightforward analyses were performed. For the two instances where the Crowley tug

responded to unusual vessel situations, which were outside the scope of their standby

 

3

 Speed made good (SMG) is defined as the tug speed considering elapsed time between when the tug

actually gets underway for the drill and when it arrives on scene. Modified speed made good is calculated

tug speed based on the total elapsed time from when the tug was notified of the drill until the tug gets on

scene. Accordingly, modified speed made good is always less than or equal to speed made good.
5

contract with the U.S. Navy, only one was documented sufficiently to determine response

times. These two situations involved commercial vessels that may have necessitated the

rendering of assistance.4

 A summary of these non-drill responses is provided at the end

of this section.

Response Time Drills: Response time drills were widely conducted within the area of

operations and represent the vast majority (77%) of the total drills conducted.

Attachment (1) is a digitized NOAA chart that illustrates the geographic distribution of

these drills.5

 Several of the drills were conducted using the same physical location as the

response point.

• Data Collected: Crew from the response tug recorded data for all drills conducted.

An example data collection form is provided as Attachment (2). Information

collected includes latitudes and longitudes for the tug location at the initiation and

completion of each drill, time notified, time underway, and time on scene. Also

recorded was the on scene wind speed / direction, tidal current, and sea state

conditions at the time the drill commenced. Attachment (3) summarizes, in

spreadsheet format, all of the physical data collected.

• Analysis Conducted: Data from the Type I drill was used to measure rescue tug

response times, distance traveled, speed made good, modified speed made good, and

impacts of weather and sea conditions on response time. A straight analysis of tug

speeds showed a relatively consistent average speed made good of approximately

11.3 knots over the range of response distances conducted. The modified speed made

good over the entire range was 9.6 knots. A small variation of increased speed with

increased response distance is observed as would be expected, given necessary ramp

up time. A summary of this analysis is provided in Figure (1) on the following page.

 

4

 Contingencies for assisting an actual vessel in distress and in danger of drifting aground had been planned

for during the development of the response tug operation. Essentially, this involved a release from Navy

contractual obligation upon U.S. Coast Guard direction authority being exercised because of a substantial

threat of oil pollution.

5

 Each icon represents one or more drills to a given geographic location. Multiple ìrescuesî were often

made to one geographic location.
6

Figure (1): Rescue Tug Response Time Speed

The tugís course and distance traveled to each casualty were derived from recorded

originating and culminating LAT/LONG positions. Using recorded true wind and

tidal conditions plus the tugís course, the effects of wind and current were analyzed.

The three cases specifically considered were head, following and cross wind and

current conditions. The wind and current effects were considered for each individual

case by plotting the tugís speed made good as a function of the speed of the wind and

current. A linear regression was then done on each set of data points. This analysis

showed a poor relationship between wind and/or current and the speed of the tug.

This would indicate, at least for these test cases, that neither wind nor current had a

significant impact on the tug when treated independently. The diagrams, Figures (2)

through (7), shown on the following two pages summarize graphically the results of

this analysis.

7.52

9.87 9.78 10.06 10.32

11.34 11.24

11.82

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 to 7.49 7.5 to 14.9 15 to 22.49 22.5 +

Response Distance (Nautical Miles)

Knots per Hour

Modified Speed Made Good Speed Made Good
7

Figure (2):

Figure (3):

Figure (4):

Speed Made Good as a Function of 

Head Wind Speed

R2 = 0.0063

0

5

10

15

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Head Wind Speed (kts)

Series2

Linear (Series2)

Speed Made Good as a Function of 

Following Wind Speed

R2 = 0.0788

0

5

10

15

20

0 10 20 30 40

Following Wind Speed (kts)

SMG (kts)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Speed Made Good as a Function of 

Cross Wind Speed

R2 = 0.022

0

5

10

15

20

0 10 20 30 40

 Cross Wind Speed (kts)

SMG (kts)

Series1

Linear (Series1)
8

Figure (5):

Figure (6):

Figure (7):

Speed Made Good as a Function of 

Head Current

R2 = 0.2264

0

5

10

15

20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Head Current (kts)

SMG (kts)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Speed Made Good as a Funciton of

 Following Current

R2 = 0.0485

0

5

10

15

20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Following Current (kts)

SMG (kts)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Speed Made Good as a Function of 

Cross Current

R2 = 0.0054

0

5

10

15

20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cross Current (kts)

SMG (kts)

Series1

Linear (Series1)
9

• Limitations of Data and Analysis: The weather and tidal current data collected was

not always consistently recorded.6 Several drills were conducted where a complete

set of weather data was not captured. While this was particularly true of early drills,

the shortfalls occurred on an occasional basis throughout the 60-day period.7 Another

limitation of the data is that the data captured did not include a measure of the tidal

current velocity. Accordingly, there was not enough information available to analyze

the combined effects of wind and current, and no definitive conclusions could be

drawn in this regard. Sea state was also envisioned to have a large impact on the

tugís speed of advance; however comparisons of speed made good and wave height

are not conclusive. This may be due, at least in part, to the highly subjective

evaluation of wave and swell height. One additional aspect of the exercises that

relates to the weatherís impact on the tug was the relatively short transit times. The

average time to respond was approximately 2.5 hours and encompassed the range of

0.5 to 3.0 hours. The relatively short distances covered by the tug may have lessened

the overall effect of the weather on the tugs transit time.

Response Time to a Drifting Vessel Drills: In addition to the same information

captured in Type I drills, Type II drills also captured data from U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast

Guard ships conducting drift tests. During the drill period, three Coast Guard vessels,

seven Navy vessels, and one Canadian Naval vessel participated in 20 drift analyses.

• Data Collected: U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and Canadian Naval vessels submitted

drift data via message traffic. Data captured included the drifting shipís dimensions

(length over all [LOA], beam, draft, and displacement tonnage), on-scene weather

(wind speed/direction, wave height), a time line with drill start and stop locations, and

 

6

 For example, the wind speeds may have been described as ì073 degrees at 18 knotsî and in another drill

the same wind conditions would be described as ìENE 15-20 knots.î These inconsistencies are not the

fault of the rescue tug crew, rather the result of a lack of standardized data recording format and protocol.

7

 Where weather data was not recorded, weather data available online (website location) from NOAA

weather buoy 46206 was utilized. The buoy location is 48.5 N, 126.0W and is approximately 55 miles

away from the primary drill location.
10

calculations of drift rate. Attachment (4) summarizes the vessel drift data collected.

• Analysis Conducted: The drift tests conducted were intended, to the extent possible,

to provide some real measure of vessel drift characteristics in the Western Strait of

Juan de Fuca. The results could then be used to supplement the work done previously

on this subject by NOAA and the Coast Guard. Although a concerted effort to

quantify various aspects of vessel drift rates was made, as delineated in more detail

below, ultimately the results of these tests were inconclusive.

A cursory review of the data indicates a lack of adequate current (direction/speed)

information, which in turn thwarts any attempt to perform an analysis that would

isolate the effect of wind or current on vessel drift. Further review of the recorded

drift rates, however, indicates a poor relationship between wind speed and vessel

drift. Indeed, scrutiny of this data appears to indicate that the current (not the wind)

was the dominant factor in the drift rate of the studied vessels. Accordingly, a

simplistic evaluation of the time available prior to vessel grounding was performed.

Specifically, there was sufficient data captured for sixteen of the twenty trials

conducted to perform an analysis. Each recorded drift position was plotted and the

respective drift directions were drawn. From these plots, assuming steady state

conditions, the course could be extrapolated to determine the distance to where the

vessel would be expected to go aground and how long it would take. For each of

these cases, the estimated grounding times were compared to the response time goals8

determined for that geographic region (either 2.5 or 6 hours depending on location).

Results of this comparison indicate that the calculated grounding times when

compared to the corresponding response times gave factors ranging from 0.95 to 8.6

times. Actually 15 of the 16 tests had grounding times more than twice the response

times, with the 16th being nearly equal. Of the 16 tests considered, 5 were initiated

with the vessel on the side of the Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) to which the

 

8

 Response time goals in this context refer to those times established in the Addendum Report to Congress

on International, Private-Sector Tug-of-Opportunity System (ITOS) for the Waters of the Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, dated December 1997.
11

vessel eventually drifted, 5 were started on the opposite side, and the remaining 6

were located within the TSS when the test commenced. Therefore, some of the

vessels were positioned in closer proximity to shore than would normally be the case

for a vessel participating in the vessel traffic system (conservative comparison) and

some were located further away than would normally be expected (not conservative).

These results are displayed below in Figure (8).

Ratio of Time To Ground to Response Time as a Function of Drift Starting Location

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

Conservative Neutral Non-Conservative

Drift Starting Location

(Time to Ground/Response Time)*100%

Figure (8):

In addition, the possibility of using the vessel drift data to evaluate the assumption of

a maximum vessel drift rate of 6% of the wind speed used to generate the response

time goals was investigated. However, the lack of sufficiently detailed data would

not allow the effects of the current to be screened out to isolate the effect of the wind

only on vessel drift rates.

• Limitations of Data and Analysis: As mentioned previously, the lack of detailed tidal

current speeds and directions limited the analysis. Furthermore, despite having a

published format, vessels participating did not consistently submit drift reports, plus

when submitted, key data was occasionally absent. This, in turn, limited the ability to

comprehensively compare drift rates with actual on-scene weather. The relatively
12

large variance in extrapolated grounding times can primarily be attributed to the

combination of relatively slow drift rates with drift directions that were nearly parallel

to the Straitís banks (consistent with the ebb and flood tidal currents). This

combination was noted in all trials, despite varying wind directions and speeds.

Additionally, there are several related considerations worth mentioning. The vessels

in these trials started drifting with little or no headway, which may not be the case in

an actual scenario. The vesselís momentum could potentially increase the drift rate,

or it could also enable the initial use of the rudder to steer a greater distance from

shore. As such, it is unclear whether actual time to grounding would be longer or

shorter than the results of these trials. Furthermore, the lack of information related to

the vesselís sail area and underwater profile makes the drift analysis of limited utility

knowing that these factors will directly influence drift rates. Specifically, the drift

rates associated with military vessels have potentially limited correlation with

commercial vessels of dramatically different design. Finally, the extrapolated

grounding times were calculated using a steady state drift rate, which evidence would

clearly indicate is at least influenced, if not dominated, by the currents. This steady

state assumption introduces some unknown, non-quantifiable (but likely

considerable) errors into the analysis. Tidal conditions will change, ultimately

resulting in a complete swing in currents which may hasten a vessel grounding or

potentially prevent it altogether.

Response Time to, and Emergency Tow Hook Up to, a Drifting Vessel Drills: The

purpose of these drills was to simulate a fully disabled vessel response scenario.

Specifically, the goal was to determine how long it would take for a rescue tug to

successfully respond to, then connect with, a vessel simulating distress. Because of the

difficulty in conducting this kind of drill due to variables of weather, availability of ships,

and the overriding safety concerns for drill participants, only one such drill was

conducted. On April 30th, the Crowley Tug Sea Valiant passed a tow wire to the USS

DECATUR after the USS DECATUR reported a simulated main engine casualty.
13

The specific data collected from this drill are as follows:

Response Time Sea State Wind Speed Hook Up Time

40 minutes 3-4 feet 15-20 Knots 8 Minutes9

Table (3): Type III Drill Data

Non-drill Responses: On two separate occasions, the Crowley rescue tug responded to

vessels in distress. The first response was on March 26, 1999. The Crowley rescue tug

responded to the drifting barge B. NO. 230, which had separated its tow wire from the

tug RALPH BOUCHARD in 30í seas about 21 nautical miles west of Cape Johnson on

the northwest Washington Coast. The B. NO. 230 was a manned double-hulled 467í X

80í tank barge that was not laden with oil at the time it broke away. The barge was

equipped with an emergency towline. Although the Crowley tug responded and remained

on scene, the Crowley rescue tug did not actively engage in the rescue of the barge. The

Crowley tugís response was limited to standing by while the RALPH BOUCHARD

reestablished its own tow.

The second response was to the commercial fishing vessel (F/V) ALEUTIAN

CHALLENGER on April 5, 1999, when it lost its main propulsion near Tatoosh Island.

The (F/V) ALEUTIAN CHALLENGER is a 78 foot, 137 gross ton trawl vessel. While

the Crowley rescue tug responded on scene, the F/V ALEUTIAN CHALLENGER

Master refused assistance because the rescue tug could not tow the stricken vessel into

Neah Bay. This was due to draft to water depth limitations of the rescue tug and because

of the high costs associated with towing the fishing vessel to Port Angeles or Seattle. A

Coast Guard motor lifeboat stationed at Neah Bay had also responded to the scene and

eventually towed the fishing vessel into Neah Bay when it drifted into the traffic lanes.

 

9

 The USS DECATUR is considerably smaller and designed differently than most commercial vessels that

conduct trade in the Puget Sound region. Any comparison between this vesselís hook up time and that of

other commercial vessels should be limited.
14

V. Other Drill Evaluations

In addition to the data captured with the previous three rescue tug drill-types, another

element considered for evaluation was a review of the availability of potential response

tugs participating in the International Tug of Opportunity System (ITOS) coincident with

the random Crowley tug drills. While this evaluation was originally planned for

inclusion in the rescue tug review, the lack of valid, substantive documentation of ITOS

participating tugs associated with the timing of Crowley tug drills, made accurate

meaningful comparison difficult, if not impossible. Furthermore, the existence of an

ongoing, in depth study of ITOS being conducted at Coast Guard Headquarters is

considered a much more appropriate and comprehensive review of ITOS tug availability

throughout the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Consequently, an additional evaluation of the

ITOS system was not completed in conjunction with the rescue tug evaluation.

VI. Conclusion

The U.S. Navy-contracted tug, which remained on station in the Western Strait of Juan de

Fuca during the months of March and April, provided a temporary incremental

improvement to the marine transportation system safety regime. The tug was used to

collect information and responded to two incidents, neither of which resulted in an action

that prevented a vessel from drifting aground, during this period. This ìoperational

evaluationî provided an indication of the potential cost (approximately $250,000 per

month) of stationing an asset of this type at, or near, the entrance to the Strait. The data

collected, analyzed and summarized in this report will be made available as input to the

Coast Guard sponsored cost benefit analysis, which will consider among other things, the

feasibility of a dedicated rescue tug for the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
*!!

<

	!!0

+"/".!-

The Neah Bay Report

Observations and Evaluations on the Use of Neah Bay, Washington

As a Mooring and Staging Site For a Multi-mission Vessel

Prepared by:

Foss Maritime Company

June 30, 2000
2

Overview

The primary purpose of the U. S. Navy chartered rescue tug was to provide an

interim safety measure against the risk of an oil spill in the western most section of the Strait

of Juan de Fuca. The purpose was served by placing the tug Barbara Foss in Neah Bay for a

six-month period commencing on December 16, 1999. A secondary purpose was to

demonstrate the feasibility of using Neah Bay as a mooring and staging site for a multipurpose salvage, response and emergency towing vessel and evaluate the use of Neah Bay

ìwith regard to adequacy and logisticsî. The subject of this report is to summarize

information and provide recommendations on the use of Neah Bay as a ìhomeportî for a

multi-purpose emergency response vessel. The information and comments made in this

report are limited to the Foss Maritime Company towing vessel ìBarbara Fossî experience

while stationed in Neah Bay between December 16, 1999 and June 20, 2000.

Background

Foss Maritime Company vessels have routinely called at Neah Bay for the past sixty

years towing log rafts and barges in and out of Neah Bay. Many of the tows have required

tugs of the size and class of the Barbara Foss. Our corporate and crew familiarity with Neah

Bay and adjacent waters allowed Foss Maritime Company a high comfort level in the task of

demonstrating the feasibility of using Neah Bay as our homeport for this operation.

Location

Marina - The mooring area in Neah Bay is well protected from all points

except the Northeast. Prolonged weather from the East creates a 3í-5í swell in the harbor

area, that on occasion required the tug to depart the berth. The marina in Neah Bay is very

modern (built in 1997) and of first class construction. The marina was designed and

constructed for pleasure craft and small to medium size fishing vessels.

 While on station in Neah Bay the Barbara Foss berthed at the outer

end of dock B, starboard side to the dock. Two steel pipe piles at the end of last boat slip

acted as the primary mooring fixture. Secondary mooring lines were run to smaller cleats

installed on the float (see Ideas below). The distance from the berth to parking lot was

approximately 500í. The use of marina-provided wheelbarrows allowed easy transport of

routine stores and supplies to the tug. Water depth at our berthing area was satisfactory on

all occasions. At 0.0 tide the tugís fathometer registered 12í of water under the keel.

A full range of utilities can be provided by the marina on request.

Fresh water was provided via æ ë hose. Foss decided not to install either telephone lines or

shore power connections to the Barbara during our stay, although both were available at

incremental cost.

Staging

All major marine operations require upland staging areas. The area

surrounding the marina offers a wide variety of open grassy and gravel lots. The largest in

the immediate vicinity is 300í x 300í. The USCG station, at the entrance to Neah Bay offers
3

additional staging areas. During the summer months most of the staging areas fill up with

recreational boats, empty boat trailers, recreational vehicles and travel trailers making quick

use impossible.

Access

Port Access The buoyed entrance to the bay is between Waadah Island

and Baada Point. Immediately inside the entrance to the harbor there are six rocky

outcroppings commonly know as the ìpinnaclesî (see Ideas below). They range from a

depth of 14 to 16 feet below the surface at zero tide. The initial operating plan required the

Barbara to depart the marina dock prior to minus tides, anchor outside the harbor and return

at above zero tide. The operating plan was later altered allowing the Barbara Foss to transit

the approach both inbound and outbound at a ñ1.5 tide with fair sea conditions.

Road Access Considering its remote location, Neah Bay is served by fair to

good ground access. Various routes connect Neah Bay with the major state and federal

highway system with the most common route being I-5 to highway 101 to either State route

112 or 113. The last 32 miles into Neah Bay has no alternative route. Winter access to

Neah Bay can be difficult depending on ice and snow conditions. On two occasions we

elected to change crews in Port Angeles instead of Neah Bay (coupled with fuel re-supply)

for safety concerns.

Support

Supplies

Commissary The majority of the commissary supplies while on

station in Neah Bay were purchased locally from Washburn's grocery. Food quality was

good to excellent. Owners were very easy to work with and their staff provided excellent

service to the crew.

Deck Supplies The bulk of our deck supplies (paint, paint supplies,

rigging and tools) were either resident on the tug at the time of deployment or re-supplied

from our inventory in Seattle. However, supplemental deck supplies were purchased from

the local hardware store (adjacent to and part of Washburnís grocery) as needed.

Engine Supplies Most mechanical systems and components resident

on the Barbara Foss require specialized tools, equipment and parts. While the local marine

stores in the Neah Bay area inventory common items for the fishing and recreational vessel

fleets few parts were available for our equipment. While on station spare parts were either

placed on the tug at the time of deployment or shipped from Seattle.

Services

Fuel Fueling facilities located in Neah Bay did not have

sufficient water depth for the safe fueling of a vessel with the draft of the Barbara. All

fueling was conducted at the TESORO dock located in Port Angeles, Washington, fifty

miles East of Neah Bay.
4

Maintenance and Repair The Barbara Foss is self sufficient for most small to

medium sized M and R tasks. The combination of physical (welder, burning torch, hand

tools) and employee (U.S. Coast Guard licensed Chief Engineer) assets coupled with

onboard inventory of commonly used parts allows most repairs to be completed on the tug.

Major repairs require repositioning to either Port Angeles or our Shipyard in Seattle.

Potential problem

Loading heavy items to the vessel on short notice Loading or unloading to a vessel, with

the size and draft of the Barbara, any load of significant weight on short notice may be

problematic. Two docks in Neah Bay are available. The Tribal dock, located at the eastern

end of the bay is fairly exposed to weather from the Northwest. Water depths along side the

dock restrict use to high water. The dock is of typical piling and cross beam construction

and in fair condition. We were not able to ascertain load limits on the dock. The Cannery

dock is the other facility in Neah bay. This dock is just to the West-Southwest of the

Marina. As with the Tribal dock, use of the facility is limited to high water and load limits

are unknown.

Ideas:

Many mariners without local knowledge consider the entrance to Neah Bay treacherous.

Because of our historical and current experience transiting the entrance we know the safest

route. One idea is to install ìrange boardsî for the entrance. Range boards are used as a

navigational aid on river systems where either boards or lights (or in combination) are placed

at appropriate horizontal and vertical distances apart to indicate a line of direction for

guidance in a narrow waterway. A range system could be established for Neah Bay giving

the uninitiated mariner an additional navigational tool for safe passage.

The Barbara Foss moored over 100 times during the six months on station without

damage to the two steel mooring piles. However, the vessel crew was extremely cautious of

exerting strain on the two piles. A cost benefit analysis should be conducted on filling the

outermost steel piles with concrete for a stronger tie up for a large vessel.

Conclusion

The Barbara Foss, which remained on station from December 16, 1999 to June 20, 2000,

was tasked with demonstrating the ìfeasibility of using Neah Bay as a mooring and staging

siteî and ìevaluate the use of Neah Bay with regard to adequacy and logistics supportî.

The ideas offered above should be considered enhancements and are not required for

safe navigation or moorage.

During the test period, Foss Maritime Company, unequivocally demonstrated that Neah

Bay is an excellent location for mooring and staging a tug like the Barbara Foss.

Additionally, logistical support for all but fuel and lube re-supply and major marine repairs
5

was satisfactory. The Makah Tribal council members, residents, local vendors and Port

managers deserve credit for their assistance and cooperative attitude during our stay.


(
!
!&

"


/

0
	

	
	


6
9 &


	

3

9
	

9
	
&

""FEG;;

(	
95=<#;FBEG;;

@:G;AF;EBEF##



 
)
>(

6



	





6)




	



 
)
4